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
dependeth of the knowledge of a skilfull lapidary and yet the knowledge of the lapidary dependeth of the excellent nature and quallity of the stone So we answer that the Church doth formally depend on the word of God that showes she is taught in all truth and yet the word of God doth depend of the determination â— definition of the church And therfore S. Augustin said that he would not beleeve the scripture to be scripture without the authority of the church And at this answer in effect you wonder that any one would have the faith of God to be tried by any other then by the written word of God therfore eyther give me leave to be of S. Augustins mind or leave to mervaile onely at me since that great Doctor and holy father doth give the lilie occasion to you of wonder Now unto your Corolarium that bad rhetorick and not solid reason gathered out from hence that my faith and hope is grounded on the Spiders vveb I answer that it is not seated on a webb but on a rock against which all heretical persecutions perswasions blasphemies which is as hell gates shal never prevaile For my resolution account of faith that I told you I was one day to give before the tribunal of God was no other theÌ„ this which S. Augustin gives where he sayes In ecclesia catholica etc. In the catholick church doth keep me the consent and agreement of so many people and nations the authoritie of the same church began by miracles nourished with hope increased with charitie confirmâ—d and established by antiquitie In the same catholick church doth also hold mâ— the succession of Bishops froÌ„ the sea of the Apostle S. Peter to whom Christ our Lord after his resurrection commended the feâ—ding of his flock continued vnto him who at this present occupieth this place And lastly doth keep me the very name catholik which not without cause amongst so many hereticks this onely church doth so obteyn as although all herâ—ticks doe pretend vamly to be termed Catholicks yet if any stranger doe chaunce to demand which is the church of the catholicks there is no heretick so impudent as dareth showe eyther his house or synagogue And thus far S. Augustin himself taught me what answer of my faith I shall make before the eternall tribunall of God But when you shall come there to give account of your faith the best that you can allege for your self is that you thought judged it so that your private spirit interpreted it so though against the hight of nature in very many points against al antiquitie of time consent and vnitie of doctrine against the whole streame of holy fathers learned Doctors and most true expesiters Who now I pray you putts trust in man and makes flesh his arm Who are taught novv by the precepts of men Who but you are led by their ovvn inventioÌ„s spirits and illusions Who but you commits idolatrie in worshipping the golden calfe the idol of your own invention Therfore I wil coÌ„clude with your saying took out of the Psalm 73 26. The rocâ— oâ— my hart who is my portion for ever preserve me and deliver you frâ—m that sâ—ylla of Calvnustical profession and from that devoâ—â—ing charibdis those syrtes and quicksands of Brownisme and Puâ—itanical brotherhood where men make shipwrack of their faith and soules The secoÌ„d arg you examin of mine to prove that the bâ—â—e â— naked word cannot be an infallible rule or square of faith you prâ—pound it out of my writings thus That which is difficult includeth many senses at least to the ignorant can not bee a certaine rule of faith But the scriptures are thus My antecedent you admit proved by Tertullian S. Hierome and S. Peter himselfe whose place you onely examin the others you turne over as you are woont deeming theÌ„ vnworthy of your consideration You examine that of S. Peter now where he sayes that in S. Pauls epistles are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and the unstable deprave as also the rest of the scriptures to their owne perdition Here you except against me that I say many things in sted of certaine where in deed I cited onely the sense of that place propouÌ„ding it as the ProtestaÌ„ts vse for yours and their advantage meaning so tacitè to prevent an objection For they answer here that S. Paules epistles are not hard but that many things in theÌ„ are hard For the Greek copies have en hois that is in which things and some read en hais in which epistles And wheras you object that I say all the rest of the scripture in stead of also the rest of scripture I answer the holy Ghost may very well speak generally since the very plainest places of scripture have bene wrested to bolster up heresies Thirdly you say that this testimony proves scarse the first part of my antecedent that scriptures are onely difficult but you say it doth not prove that scriptures cannot be an indeficient rule of faith I answer that it proves both For in what doth S. Peter say that S. Paul is hard but concerning many points of our faith and religion as concerning predestination reprobation vocation of the gentiles justification by faith Of which high mysteries S. Paul is the cheif and principall Maister And as for the example of the artizeÌ„ you bring makes much against you For if an unstâ—â—lfull Mathematician or sea man knoweth not the right vse of the Astrolabe or crosse staffe the missing of a hayres breadth in the right using thereof makes him judge wrong of the object infinitely almost although the instrument in it self be most true And if the Physitian misse the right Dose though he gives the right ingredients he is liklier to kill then to minister help So if a man misse of the right judgement sense of those places of scripture touching predestination reprobation c. the corruption of that place is able to turne all the other places of scripture that leaues that way into his owne nature But now here to your reply that not all but onely some places of scripture are difficult and hard though we see the contrary by experience since Luther Zuinglius Calvin Berengar have stumbled at the plainest places of scripture viz. This is my body yea they stumbled there at though S. John explicates also most plainely that place when he sayes Caro mea verè est cibus et sanguis mens verè est potus My flesh is truely meat and my blood is truely drinck For Luther will have them one way to be understood â—uinglius another Berâ—garius an other and Calvâ— another Neyther can the paralleling comparing of one place of scripture with another râ—n dy this or satisfy the infinite difficults that arise out of holy scripture As that of the 2. Regum 23. 11. The feild is sayd to be full of lentills But the 1 Parall 11. 13.
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
the Martyrs of the primitive church yoâ— will allow of for your Martyrs whether of S. Laurence or â—o 7. Whether you allow of Constantius the first Christian Emperour to be of your religion 8. Whether you will allow of any of our three conversions of England to have been to this religion which you now professe 9 Whether you hold that those that have died or shall die resolved Romane Catholicks have bene or shal be saved 10. Whether you will graunt the Church of Christ or the synagogue of the Jewes to be more visible or less subject to ruin and subversion 11. Whether you allow of the last edition of the protestants Bible or else what edition you propound to your flock â—â—â—etest to be folowed 12 Whether sufficiencie onely since I take you hold ordering or imposition of hands not to be vsed is to be required to make one of your teaching Elders or if onely that sufficeth not to assigne what more is required To these questions I intreat you Mr Henry Aynsworth that earnestly to give an orderly breife and distinct answer to ech one of these questions for on the resolution of these many fruitfull consequences may be gathered to make easie any poinct hereafter to be controverted betweene vs. But now breifly to set downe my arguments which I maintain stil you have not satisfied in no one poinct I will therfore breifly set them downe in forme desiring an answer as breif yet as solid and as substancial as you can affoard onely graunting denying or distinguishing which in deed is to answer in forme like a scholler Your conclusion as I take was this The written word of God contained in the Bible is the onely sufficient rule of our faith My reasons were these in substance to prove the contrary though the same in word I can not affirme not having one line of yours or my conference That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the onely rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for scriptures go the bare scriptures which is the written word of God can not be the onely rule of faith My Major is most certaine and evident My Minor I proved out of Dr. Whitaker Hooker Zanchius Brentius all holding traditioÌ„ necessarily to distinguish scriptures froÌ„ no scriptures Also I take I proved this out of the holy Councells out of S. Augustin contra epistolam fundamenti Manichaeic 9. Ego Euangelio non crederem c. I would not beleeve the Gospel except the authoritie of the church should move thervnto Neyther did you answer my Minor when you said scriptures â—r knowen by themselves For first you slight and let slip the authority of those that in common reason I should beleive assoâ—ne as your self 2. You doe not answer to the authoritie of S. Aug 3. your answer is against common sense Since if scriptures were as prime a principle as that the sun shines or that honie is sweet no man could beâ— ignorant thereof that had all his naturall faculties and if more then the natural faculties and the object disposed be required you eats your owne words For then it is not so knowen a truth And how shall I know I have this spirituall eye of discerning truth more theÌ„ my adversarie that accepts of some things for no scripture that I do allow of as scripture c. Why had not S. Aug this â—ie that with whole Councel of Carthage accpted of the bookes of Machabees as divine and Canoricall scripture why had not S. Hierom that translated the holy scriptures Another reason that I urged was thus Many things were beleeved before the written word of God many things are now beleeved that are not expressely taught in the written word of God go the written word of God is not onely the rule of faith The first part of my Antecedent is easily proved For the church of God till Moses tyme was well governed and yet had no written word My second part was proved I giving instance that the Sacrament in the old law for expâ—ating of original syâ— in women The mysterie of the B. Trinity that God the holy ghost did proceed froÌ„ God the father and God the sonne as from one beginning That Easter day should be celebrated on Sunday and not on Saturday That the Creede of the Apostles is to be beleeved and yet no one of these is expressely taught in holy scriptures you sayd yes but you cited no place of scripture for probation thereof Moreover you have not satisfyed the places of holy scripture I cited to prove traditions especially you have not answered to that place of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. v. 15. nor to the authoritie of S. Chrysost. homilie 4. iâ—â— Thes. 2. wherin Dr. Whitaker sayes he speaks unworthy of so holy a father nor to the place off Basil or S. Hierom or S. Aug. De Genesi ad literam lib. 10. c. 23. where he tearheth many fasts feasts solemnities to be kept and beleeved onely through tradition and he testifieth there that in no wise we could beleeve the baptising of childreÌ„ without vnwritten tradition Another which I vsed was this That which is most difficult hard and almost for occurring difficults inexplicable can not be to the unlearned at least a certaine and unfallible truth But the scriptures are thus as well witnesseth your own conscience and divers places I set downe that seem to contradist one another go Moreover how should an artificer know whether this Bible be well translated or no since he can neyther conferr it with the original or the vulgar Latin And I showed how these difficults are not trivial Amongst other places I cited that place of S. Peter the â— chapter v. 16. In which are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the unlearned and vnstable deprave as also the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition No doubt S Peter meanes of those things S. Paul delivered touching vocation grace justification and predestination In which I showed how parvus error in principio magnus est in sine to which the words of S. Peter alludes to as also the rest of the scriptures meaning that an error in some one transcendall poinct of these doe cause error in many other places that depend hereupon But is these and more plainly examplified I had nothing but quotations imâ—ertinently alleged and no determinate answer to the difficult That whose onely the hath been defective and erroneous yea to the greatest Elercks to every one howsoever unfâ—ilfull and unlearned can not be a certaine and unfallible rule of faith But that the bare scripture is so I showed by diverse seming plaine piares cited by the Arrians Pelagians Semipelagians Donatists EutheraÌ„s Anabaptists â—t All which vie scripture for scripture If you give an interpretation of their place of scripture that they bring to confirme their hereste they will give also an interpretation
Apostles or from Apostolicall men 23. And not without great reasoÌ„ doth God use that means both to ad estimatioÌ„ to his holy mysteries to preserve these pretious stones for the Jewellers that did know how to prise theÌ„ that even natural reason hath taught and that the very Heathen Philosophers have used therby to adde prise and to distinguish the fitness of the auditor Pythagoras therfore taught his schollars rather by word of mouth relation of others then by Dictats or writing Gallen also lib. 2. de Anatomicis Adminiculis declares how the auncient Physitians did preserve and teach their medicines and receipts onely by verball relation froÌ„ one from another Cicero 1. De legibus affirms that it is a great error in a well governed coÌ„mon wealth to have all governed by written lawes And therfore the most ancientest and famous Rabbines and not onely they but our Hyllarius and Origen doe teach that Moses had not onely delivered him the tables of the law in the mountaigne but also most secret and hidden mysteries and explication of the law which truth the author of the first book of Esdras doth not obscurely testifie c. 14 5. I have declared to Moises many miracles and I sayd vnto him saying these wordes thow shalt speake openly and these wordes thow shalt hide and of such secret mysteries that of the Psal. 43. psal 77. Deutr 32. is to bee understood And in regard of these hidden mysteries Dyonis Areopag lib. de caelest Hierarchia â— 1. most diligently warnes Timothie That he should not disclose these things to the rude people So that we see God writ in Moyses heart many thinges that he did not write in the tables of stone This made St. Paul to speake the bidden mysteries in secrett and to give the little ones milk in that their weake stomackes could not brooke other meate And yet by pour rule Mr. H. Ainsw new borne babes like Ostreches should devour proÌ„ in freclie reading applying and epplicating the difficult places of scripture 24. Now since the second and third question are so neerely confined that the ending of the one is the begining of the other the ending of my reasons the begining of your answers and so requiring a resutation of them I thought good having in generall proved the necessitie of tradition besâ—des the written word to end my second part and with my particular proofes to begin the third poinct in interlacing the reasons answers replications together in order but both as breifly as I can 25. My first Reason to prove that the written word of God without the vâ—written word of God Tradition and the definition of the â—h is not the rule of faith in summe is this 26. That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for Gods word go scriptures by themâ—â—lves are not the rule of faith 27 My Major is most certaine since nothing can be the indeficient rulâ— of all truth revealed and to bee revealed but the word of the first veritie God which is eyther the writteÌ„ word of God conteyned in the Prophets and the Apostlâ—s or the unwritten word of God coÌ„tained in Apostolical traditions definitions of the church and the uniforme consent of holie Councels and Fathers For still it is Gods or a Kings word whether it be immediately spoke by himself or by the mouth of another whom he authoriseth to speak or whither it be in writing And nothing else caÌ„ be unto us the rule to direct our faith except it first be knowen to be the word of God 28 My Minor is also true proved out of S. Augustine contra epistolam fundament Manich c. 5 Ego Euangelio non crederem nisi me ad haee commoveret Ecclesiae authoritas I should not beleeve the gospel except the authoritie of the church should move me thervnto Lanchius in his confess c. 1. and Brentius in his Prologo Kemnitij in examine CoÌ„cil Trident. Whitak contra Stapl. lib. 2. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policie lib. 1 pag. 84. et lib. pag. 200. et 142. doe all affirme that tradition of the church is necessarie to distinguish what bookes of scripture be scripture and what not And reason it self teacheth us since we doe not heare or see God or his knowen Prophets to write or speak this that is proposed unto us for the word of God most coÌ„venient it is least we wander in infinituÌ„ in proving the word of God by the private spirit and the private spirit by the word of God that there must be one certaine rule or depositum fidei and therfore St. Paul to Timothie â— 6. ch 20. Oh Timothee keep the depositum avoiding the prophane noveltie of voices and avoiding the opposition of falsly called knowledge which certain promising have eâ—red about faith and what that depositum is S Paul in his 2. to Tim 1. v. 13 â— 14 showes Have thou a forme oâ— sound of words which thou hast hâ—aâ—d of me in faith and in the love in Iesus Christ. Keep the good depositum by the holy ghost which dwelleth in us showing that Timothie and Christians ought to keep a certain platform of words delivered to them over and above his epistles which rule of words appropriated to high mysteries and matters of our religion as Trinitie Person Essence Consubstantial TransubstantiatioÌ„ froÌ„ one beginning Sacrament which the Apostle calls soâ—â—â—d words verba sana â— 29 You in 〈…〉 this my first a gâ—â—neÌ„t say that things may be belâ—â—ved though not gathred out of â—he written word understaâ—â—â—ng thâ—rby a humane and a common beleefe I know not what you mean by this except you would have Gods written word onely to be bâ—leâ—ved by a humane faith And therfore when I took you at your word and â—athered thâ—nce that some tradition or as you will terme it traditum is necessarily beleeved besides the written word For whâ— wee speak absolutely of beleefe in divinitie it is to be understood of a divine and not of a humane beleefe and when you speak of the cheef rule you say it may be bâ—leeved without the written word I might inferr that necessarilie it was to bâ— beleeved since you hold that the word of God is the word of God and that necessarily and so to be beleeved So that you may see that your water hath rather wet your shoes thâ—n that myne was spilt on the ground 30. 2. Wheras you say I doe vnjâ—stly condemn your assertioÌ„ that nothing to be beleeved is necessarie for salvatioÌ„ that is not taught by the written word I say most justly and I convinced you of falshood sufficiently when I sayd nothing is so necessarie to salvation by you as the written word which word is not proved by another written word of God To infirme which proofe of mine you produce two texts of scripture John 20 30 31. That
the signes which Iesus did which signes are written that we may beleeve And the 1. of Timothie â— 16. 17 Where all scripture is inspired of God etc. is said to be profitable for doctrine for reprehension for correction for instruction c. These places prove nothing for your purpose The first proves not that all things or sayings of our Saviour that he did or said are written though those signes were for all the signes the whole world could not contayn see a little after S. John 21. v. 25. 31. And the second place proves no more but that the scripture is good for these ends but it proves not that scripture is sufficient without tradition etc. and ecclesiastical lawes to all these ends And one might deduce out of these wordes to better reason then you each parcel of scripture in the old and new testament were sufficient for al this without any other So that you see I doe not fight with the holie ghost but with the perverter of the holy ghost 32. 3. You desire me to deale distinctly and plainly with your words I answer I hope I doe Then you beginne to answere distinctly to my wordes vidz the written word is not proved by another written word You answer first that the scriptures of God doe approve and confirme one another and his spirit that is in them and in all people doth seale that they are true For proof wherof you cite the first of S. John 5 9. The witness of God is greater and John 8 13. 14 I answer that Christ needed no testimonie for himself John 5 33. But I receive no testimonie of man meaning that he is greater then man that his divinitie doth not depend of mans witness yet for the benefit of others S. John is sayd to give testimonie of him 1. John through the whole chapter almost Acts 1 8. Christ say unto his Apostles that they shall be witness unto him in Jerusalem and in all Jewrie and in Samaria also Martyrs are sayd to be witnesses But now we doe not say that scriptures in themselves needs any witness for in actu 1. and in regard of themselves they are scripture by themselves proceeding from God but as they be in act 1 secundo and to be beleeved of others so they need testimonie of others 33. After he sees this dâ—fective he flies unto the privat spirit though he sayes it is in all people to unseale the authoritie of his word For if he understand by that spirit in all people that is of all ages times persons then must he accept of those bookes of holie scripture and of that sense and explication that by consent of holie Councills Fathers Doctors and expositors haith bene received 34. If he vnderstand this spirit in all people virtuallie and actuallie if they doe applie themselves to the right vnderstanding thereof This spirit by just reason they can not vnderstand since then wee must rather beleive St. Hierome that spent all his tyme and labor retyring himself to the desert for the vnderstaÌ„ding of the scriptures 35. What must Mr. H. A. understand else then that this spirit is in all the illuminated brethren of the church of Amsterdamâ— and yet this can not bee well understood since I heare Mr. H. A. stiffly maintains by the word of God with his coÌ„panie against Mr. Johnson there and his that this present church of England is not a scismaticall but an haeretical church What is then one of these cleare Eagle sight teachers blinded so in spirit that he can not discerne by the word of God what makes a church or a man haereticall 36. But now to prove that the comparing of one place with another which is your other refuge is not sufficient to distinguish what is true scripture or the true sence therof For if it bee so to bee vnderstood that after the collation of one place to another that by the nature of the scripture compared so the true sence shall bee vnderstood I inferr no but rather by this comparison the difficultie is often increased by a seeming contradiction If it bee vnderstood that by comparing of one that by a little and a little If it bee vnderstood that vy comparing one place with another by a little discourse the true sence and the scripture will be discerned I saie mens discourses are verie erroneous without the especiall assistance of gods holie grace which the church of God hath promised in her defining yea the verie selfe same man in divers times out of the self same confereÌ„ces of places of scripture hath inferred divers conclusions If you say the spirit to distinguish this is to be had by prayer I demand where these infallible promises are to be had for these infallible illuminations and what more certaine whether wee praie as wee ought And since Novatus Donatus Sabellius Arrius Cunomius Macedo Jovinianus Pelag Caelest Nestorius have had for their heresies diverse texts and coÌ„ferences with others to grownde heresies how should one vnfallibly to their judgments overthrow them in this For if you obiect to the Arian I and my Father am one he will object out of the selfe same St. John My father is greater then I If you saiâ— this by â—â—llation of scripture is to be vnderstood in regard of his humanâ—â—â—â— and not of his divinitâ—e He will 〈◊〉 likewise that vnitie signified in the other place is to bee vnderstood by references of other places of scripture in regard of consent and vniâ—y of wilâ— and not of nature 37. 2 And that the seale of your spirit can not distinguish this truth 〈◊〉 yea not so much as probablie I move For frist I aske what this seale of the spirit is Doth iâ— coâ—â—â—st onely of Gods perticular illumination that yee should have this touchstone to discerne scripture If so you contradict your selfe Mr. H A for so you grant that a man hath a divine faith and the spirit of discerning all before he readâ—s the scriptures for this spirit must distinguish them and so you have built without your grounde and guided your faith without your ruler the written word of God 38. If you answer this spirit consists in the evidence of the thing reaveled as you seeme to graâ—nt When you bidd me aske your proof that ther is a light in the same seeming so with Calvin to graunt that the scriptures are distinguished by themselves as light from darkness sweetness from sowrness this is most false for then everie one that had but natural perfection of the organ and free proposing of the object should distinguish this light and sweetness 39. If yee answer this spirit consists in the authoritie of God how will you prove this in particular to bee revealed of God and not the other part of scripture If you replie you can prove it by the Majestie of the writing How will you answer and show to everie particular mans cie
Now to folow your waÌ„dringes What dooth Gal 1. 8. say against that I set down The word besides meaneth as you think contrary to and not more then they had receaved because he forbidds not any explication or true gloss c. I answer you weary your selfe and others to prove that which none denyeth Explications of Gods law by the mouth of his ministers are allowed of God Nehem. 8. 8. these are not additions such as God forbiddes Galat. 3. 15. Our question is of other or moe lawes or doctrines then God hath taught And vnto those which the Prophets had writteÌ„ and Paul with the other Apostles taught none might be added For he kept back nothing that was profitable but taught the whole counsel of God Act. 20. 20. 27. so then whatsoever men could add more or besides was not profitable neyther any of Gods counsel therefore it was contrary and so may be put among Popes traditions For their doctrines and traditions are as evidently contrary to Gods word as darknes is to light Such be your image worship contrary to Exo. 20. 4. your praying to creatures contrary to Mat 4. 10. Rom. 1. 25. service in a barbarous vnknowen tongue contrary to 1 Cor. 14. 11 16. 28. robbing the people of the chalice in the sacrament contrary to Mat. 26. 27. justification by mens works contrary to Rom. 3. 20. 22. 24. and 4. 2 3 c. and many other idolatrous observations as plainly contrary to Gods law ever vvere the abominations of the heathen Finally Chrysostome a Doctor whome you rely vpon sayth that Paul preferreth the scriptures before Angels from heaven Here then if you wil beleeve him is no place at al for vnwritteÌ„ traditions Whereas you bring Rom. 16. 17. to shew that para meaneth contrary no man denyeth it but that it signifieth no more then contrary in your sense you prove not In Rom. 1. 25. you may see parâ— ton ktisantâ— meaneth any thing â—â—sides the creator onely But our strife was not about para or Gal. â— You 〈◊〉 as the Prophets additions to Moses law were Gods so the churches definitions are Gods not mans I deny your 〈◊〉 the churches additionâ— which you call definitions are not Gods as the Prophets writings 〈◊〉 were added to Moses books you are not farr froÌ„ blasphemie in making such a comparison If that were true you might read and expound as authentick scriptures your churches additions and Popes traditions as Christ read Esaias the Prophet and expounded hiâ— in the synagogue Luk. 4. 1â— 21. The proofs you would bring are Luk. 10. 16. he that heareth you heareth me c. Mat. 18. 1â— 18. tel the church c. Deut. â—9 15. or 〈◊〉 they shall stand before the Lord before the Preists c. I answer these scriptures shewe not that they might add any thing to the word of God but they prove the coÌ„trary For they were sent to preach the Gospel Mark 16. 15. that was Gods word not any creatures Thes 2 2. 4. 13. So they were not additions not definitions of their own such as your church makes Also the Preists were bound to teach Gods lawes not their owne Ezek. 44. 24. And so the hearing of them that teach Gods word is the hearing of God himself in his ministers But the contrary to hear the churches traditions is not to hear God for they were many against God as you may see Mark â— 3. 4. 9. 10. c. For els behold what strange doctrine you wil bring in viz. that everie church yea every preist and minister may make additions to Gods law and the people must be bound so to receive them as Gods word Here to helpe your selfe you retire to your old skonce saying it is true of particular churches but so farr as their doctrine accordeth with the Somane catholick church A meer fiction of your own head what one title of Gods word doo you or can you bring for this stuft did Christin Luk. 10. 16. speak to the church of Rome more then to the Church of Corinch Ephesus or any other you make your Roman Church an idol by putting her in Gods place to give lawes you make her a monster whiles being a particular Church you proclaym her for the catholik that is vniversal Church And her doctrine if it accord not with Christs as it dooth not is with her to be abhorred and accursed Gal. 1. 8. By this which hath bene sayd let the prudent judge how soundly you haue proved that any other word or doctrine then Gods may be brought into the Church for a ground of our faith which was the first thing in controversie The 2. part that you are to prove as you say is that the rule of our faith is not onely the written word but jointly the unwritten word of God tradition and the authority of the Church councils fathers is the ultimate decider of all matters of controversie In this assertion you confasedly shuffle togither for your advantage the church councels fathers By the Church you mean your Romish Church which is none of Christs and therefore can judge no Christian controversie Councils and fathers are named but for a show For â—oâ— regard nothing that Councils or Fathers say vnless your Pope approve it On the contrary I hold that Gods written word is to be the rule of our faith and by it all churches Councils Fathers are to be tried whether they be of God or no. But let us heaâ— your proofe That which was say youâ— the total rule of our faith before the written word of God man be wel the partial rule of our faith after where the written word of God dooth not sufficiently cruâ—â—ss diverse mysteries of us to ve beleeved But tradition was a sufficient and total rule of our faith till Moyses time the first 〈◊〉 of the holy Ghost Therfore traditioÌ„ now together with the written word is a sufficient rule of our faith The firâ— prop. you say 〈◊〉 proved the second you â—aâ— is graunted by me I answer If the writings of God were as dark and deceitfull as is this your writing it were woe with vs all In the first proposition you say it may well be the partiall rule of our faith in the conclusion you say it to so If I should say It may wâ—ll be your argument is deceytfull and conclude therefore it is deceâ—tfull would you graunt the conclusion yet is it truer then yours For that which was a rule before may be a rule still if it please God so to continue it this you need not labour to prove But that which was a râ—â—â— before neyther may nor can be a rule still when God hath taken it away put another in the sted And this is the very truth if you would receive it For before Gods law was written it was spoken and by speech from the mouth of holy persons it was to be learned But now it is written oâ—
Gods commandment Exod. 34. 27. so sufficiently written as Paâ—…th it is able to make us wise vnto salvation even perfect and perfectly furnished vnto every good work 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. away therfore with your partiall rule oâ— vnwritten traditions they may not be neyther are they any rule for our faith for noâ—e must prefume above that which is written 1 Cor. 4. 6. But you ad a clawse to your proposition thâ—s where the written word dooth not sufficiently erpress divers mysteries of vs to be beleeved And where is that trow we I your assumption this clawse dares not shew his face for there it would conâ—â—nce you of falseshood If you affirme it not how frivolous deceytfull is your argumet If you intend to assume it though you express it not for so elsewhere you blame me for not vnderstanding your reasoning then say â— by your assumption you intend a lye against the truth and a stander against me It is a ly against the truth to say that the holy bible which we have written dooth not sufficiently express diverse mysteries of â—s to be beleeveâ— If have before disproved this by evident testimonies from heaven which you cannot withstand Ioh. 20. 31 2 Tim. 3. 1â— 17. Rom. 1â— 25. 26. 1 Cor. 15 3. 4. Aâ—â— 26. 22 Ioh. 5. 39. It is aslander against me when you say I grant your Minor for if this clause be there intended I did and doo disâ—â—aym it Your conclusion can be no better then your premisses even false and fraudulent Which that you or others at least may the better espye I wil shew how you wrap vp things in confusion and darknes First Tradition which title you claym for your vnwritten mysteries is as well the word of God written as vnwritten 2. Thes. 2. 15. but you doo oppose it to the written word Secondly holy Tradition or Doctrine by word of mouth was delivered alwayes by holy persons even as holy Tradition or doctrine by writing was delivered alwayes by holy scriptures The holy persons that spake were eyther God himselfe as to Moses in the Mount to Iob in the whirlwind or some Angel as to Abraham Iaakob c. or some holy man of God as Peter sayth spake being moved by the holy Ghost So Abraham is called a Prophet and so vvas Iaakob and all the holy patriarches from Adam to Moses The manner of speaking the vvord vvas also diverse as by visions or by dreames or by playn speech mouth to mouth or by secret motion of the holy Ghost Novv you shevv not vvhich of these vvayes your traditions come onely you give vs a generall paralogisme vvhich vvill serve as vvel to maynteyn H. N. or Mahomet vvith their nevv Gospel and Alkoran as the Pope vvith his nevv Canon lavv For thus may Mahomet or the Familist reason that vvhich vvas a rule heretofore may be a rule stil but the vvord of God given by visions revelations and instinct of the spirit vvas a rule heretofore therefore it is so still at least in part Here is as good and true an argument as yours that your Logik vvill persvvade as soone to Mahometisme or Familisine as vnto Popery Novv as for the persons there vvil be no disparagement For Mahomet himselfe or H. N. vvill as easily be proved to be holy men of God as Pope Iohn the 23. vvho vvas judged by the Council of Constance to be a divil incarnate and as other your reprobate Popes that vvere monsters among men for their beastly life til their dying day as your ovvn vvriters doo record and your selfe in this your vvriting deny it not nor defend them herein And novv I pray you tel me vvhy men may not be induced by your manner of reasoning as vvel to receive the Turks Alkoran and H. N. his Evangelium regni as your Popish decretals I find no more mention in Gods book that the Pope of Rome in the vvest churches should be a divine person to give heavenly traditions then that Mahomet in the East should be the man of God You find not so much as the Popes name much less his provvd office spoken of for good in the Bible You tel us of the promise to Peter Mat. 16. and Mahomet telleth us of the promise of the comforter Ioh. 16 7. That the Pope is head of the church is as vnpossible for you to prove by Gods lavv as it is for the Turks to prove that Mahomet is that Comforter You vvould have vs take the Popes ovvn vvord for a vvarrant the Turks vvould have us take Mahomets vvord for a vvarrant The truth is these both vvith their new doctrines and traditions are the curse and scourge of God vpon the world because they received not the love of the truth therefore God hath sent them strong delusion to beleeve lyes as th' Apostle prophesied 2 Thes. 2. 10. 11. You proceed for vnwritten tradition cite some scriptures Deu. 32 â— Ps. 43. 1. Ps. 77. Pro. 1. 8. Esa. 38. 19. Ier. 6. 16. Ecclus. 8. 11. 4. Esd. 14. â— 2. Thes. 2. 15. 1. Tim. 6. 20 2. Tim. 2. 1 from all which you inferr that Israelites and Christians were to be directed by the help of traditios I answer your reasons from most of these and the like places I have taken away in my former writings Here you repete the same scriptures againe but ansvver not vvhat I sayd you may thus doo a 100. times and vveary men vvith your tautologies Vnto the things vvhich heretofore I vvrote and vvhereto I referr you I novv add All parents vvere bound to teach Gods lavv to their children and children to heare obey their parents in the Lord. Deut. 6. 7. Eph. 6. 1. 4. If this serves for traditions then vnvvritten verities from all parents mouths vvere to be received as oracles of God If you hold thus I pray you tel it plainly If not then shevv vvhich parents had the facultie to teach traditions and vvhich had not 2. The traditions vvhich those scriptures speak of being novv vvritten are a part of the canonicall bible to be read and expounded in the church as being inspired of God profitable to teach c. if such be the traditions of your fathers Councils Popes which the vvorld seeth now vvritten then are they to be acknowledged also scripture inspired of God as Paul speaketh and so to be read and expounded in churches as other books of the Prophets and Apostles For all Gods divine oracles and traditions are of equall authority If you esteem your decretals of this vvorth I pray you tel me in your next If not then the scriptures by you cited vvill justify your Popes traditions no more then the Pharisees Mar. 7 3 6. 7. 8 9. 13. That the Doctrines taught by the fathers in Psal. 44. and 78. vvere vvritteÌ„ traditions the particulars in the Psalms doo evince against your too bold asseveratioÌ„s For the casting out
compared vvith Tob. 15. 18. 1. Maccab. 6. 16. vvith 2. Mac. 1. 16. 2. Macc. 1. 19. vvith 2. King 25. Iudith 9. 2. 3. vvith Gen. 49. 5. 6. Esth. apopcryph 12. 5. 6. vvith Esth. can 6. 3. and 3. 2. Esth. apoc 11. 2. vvith Esth. can 2. 16. besides their Popes determinations for making and vvorshiping of similitudes or images of silver and gold wood and stone hethenlike for having the vvorship of God and scriptures in a barbarous tongue vvhich the people understand not and many the like are expressly contrary to the commandements of God as any man of common judgment may evidently preceive yea some of their Popes have repeled the decrees one of another as before hath been manifested Eightly The summ of our faith learned from holy scriptures is to trust on God and Christ alone for mercy and salvation not on creatures as Angels and souls of men nor on our selves or humane merits vvhereby vve resting on God have and doo profess to have ful assurance of our salvation and so have peace of conscience in life and death But Popish faith learned by tradition teacheth men not to trust on God and Christ alone but on the intercession of creatures and Pardons of Popes and on their own merits also for salvatioÌ„ vvhereby their coÌ„sciences accusing them they neyther have nor profess to have such peace by full assurance that they are heyres of God unto salvation as vve nay they rage against this truth as against an heresie Ninthly The holy scriptures vvhich vve rest vpon are of such power and authority that many thowsands in their ages have given their lives for the defense of them and of the things taught onely in them yea even hereticks have dyed for things vvhich they have erroneously thought to be in the scriptures reveled But for Papists they cannot shew many if any that have vvillingly given their lives for such doctrines as have onely bene taught by men by unwritten popish tradition and not in their judgment by the prophetical and Apostolical scriptures Tenthly the Holy scriptures vvhich are the rule of our faith have prophesies of things to come and due accomplishments of the prophesies as they vvere foretold vvhereby vve are confirmed of the truth and infallibility of those vvritings But the vvritings of Doctors Councils Popes on vvhich Papists rely are destitute of this confirmation Neyther dooth the Pope use to prophesie though it vvere necessary if he vvould as Christs vicar obtrude his ovvn decrees for divine oracles seing the testimony of Iesus is the spirit of prophesie as the Angel sayd Rev. 19. 10. Nay rather the prophesies of scripture plainly foreshew the Church of Rome to be the whore of Babylon and her Lord the Pope to be Antichrist Which he fearing it wil come to light forbiddeth therfore his subjects the reading of Gods book Eleventhly Papists themselves are forced in disputing against Iewes which were once Gods church and from which they themselves with us received the books of Moses and the Prophets to use onely the holy scriptures and prophesies to convince them for their Romish church traditions the Iewes doo not regard With these scriptures the Papists doo rightly think the Iewes are sufficiently convicted Even so doo we much more having the scriptures of the new Testament added to the old rightly hold it sufficient to convince the Papists by the written vvord vvhich they acknowledge to be of God and they have no more reason to refuse this and draw us to their Popes decretals then the Iewes have to refuse the Bible and draw men to their high preists Rabbies and Thalmuds or the Turkes to their Alkoran 12. Finally grace vvisdom and divine majesty appeareth in the holy scriptures to all that read them except they have a reprobate sense even by the confession of our adversaries But no such vvisdom grace or majesty appeareth in Popes decrétals more then in other humane vvritings yea they are full of ignorance grossnes barbarisme error favouring of the Popes private spirit as any of understanding unless they be the Popes bondmen vvil confess and no singular grace appeareth in them more then in the books of H. N. or Alkoran of Mahomet For all vvhich and sundry other like reasons vvhich might be alleged every reasonable infidel vvhom God vvill save vvill rather incline to our grounds of ancient Christianity then to the other of late Iesuitisme or Popery Let him that readeth consider and give sentence By this vvhich hath bene vvritten you may see M. I. A. that we fly not for proof to our privat spirit as you often slander us but we say a Papist may be couvinced by the wisdome and majesty of God shining in the scriptures and other arguments forementioned more easily then an Atheist can be convinced by the wisdom and majesty of God shining in the creatures And if this later were sufficient by th'Apostles testimony to condemn the hethens the former must needs be more sufficient to condemn you especially seing you confess the scriptures to be of GOD vvhereas the Atheist will not confess the world to be of God and yet you dare not abide the trial of your religion by this book of God without your own traditions and decrees also Whereas if you graunt a Turk to be tried by the Bible and his Alkoran or a Iew to be tried by the Prophets and his Thalmud you will betray all Christianity And when one ask you a reason vvhy you beleeve the scriptures or any doctrine to be of God you answer that extrinsiâ—ally that is outwardly and in respect of your selves it is because your church that is the Pope vvho is head of your church telleth you so and not by your own private spirit Which is as if one should ask vvhy you beleeve the sun to be the light of the vvorld and you should answer extrinsecally because the Pope tells you so and not because of any private sight or discerning in your own eyes Ask you agayn vvhither you know the Pope to be a man of God furnished vvith his grace and spirit that he cannot deceive you You answer we hold not that the Pope is necessarily indued with Gods holy grace for in matter of faâ—t he may syn as wel as any other Ask you agayn how then you trust such vile ungracious Popes as many have been by your own mens testimony you answer you hold the Pope hath a necessary assistance of the holy Ghost as he defines ex cathedra out of his chayr as the head of the church Ask you a proof of this paradox and you cannot bring any one line of Gods holy scriptures to confirme it you can neythâ—r find the Pope nor his chayr there mentioned any more then Mahomâ—t or the Alkoran Then you flee to late humane testimonies of Doctors Fathers Councils vvhich also you vvrest Yet ask you vvhither those Doctors vvere necessarily indued vvith the spirit of God could not
besides prohibits onely that which is contrarie S. Iohn himself otherwise by M. H. A. should sin The like showed My doctrin warranted by Gods own word The desinatioÌ„s of the church are Gods Mat. 18 17. et 1â— Deâ— 19 15. In opere imperfecto c. 7. Math. D. Ambrose lib. de Paâ—adiso c. 12. Nihil igitur l. quod bonum videtur Mark vvel Deut. 32. vers 7. Psal. 43 1. Prov. 1 8. Esa. 38. 19. Ier. 6 16. Eccle. 8 11. 4. Esdr. 14. 3. 2. Thes. 2 15. 1. Tim. 6 20. 2 Tim 2 1. and see whether unvvritten traditions are not to be observed seen 〈◊〉 S. Chrys. plaine vvords for tradition See 〈◊〉 lib. 3. c. 4. Clemens Alexand lib. 5. Streat c. 2. Orig. lib. 5. super numeros Athanas. epistolâ ad Epictetum D. Ambrosius lib. de â—ide 3. c. 7. epistola 83. D. Aug lib. contra Cresco Grammat c. 33 lib contra epistolam Manich quaÌ„ vocant fundamentum c. 5. et epistola â—6 ad Casul vide n. â—1 THE II. PART The rule of our faith the writteÌ„ vnwritteÌ„ word jointly Traâ—it was once the total rule therfore it may be thâ— partial The â—h of God taught onely by tradition 2470 yeres Tradition directed men after writteÌ„ law vide n. 16. Many places of the old testamâ— for tradit 2â— S Dyon Arâ—opag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clâ—meas Alex. Thâ—ancâ—â—â— fathers most plain for the allowing of tradition Origen S. Athanasius S. Basil. The 2. coâ—cel of Nice S. Hierom â— S. August 22. yea our â—aâ— adversarâ—oâ— confirm this M. Luther Iohn Calv. Ph MeliÌ„c Diverse reasons whiâ— God vseth traditions D. Hyll supra 2. Psal. Orig. homil 5. Num lib. 4. Esdras c. 14. v. 5 Dyonis Areopag 1. Cor. 3. 2 Hebr 5. 1â— The secoÌ„d third parts conâ—ined THE 3. PART 1. Ratio Major Minor Conclusio My Major proved 27. Stil it is Gods word whether it be mediat or immediat spokeÌ„ or written My Miner proved S. August saying Pâ—oved also by Protestants What S. Pa meanâ— by his â—epositum Platform of words phrase over above the scripture to be observed D. Aug l. 10. de â—iv Dâ—i c â—3 His ans to my â—â—st aâ—â— I did rightly infer out of his wordes The writte word not proved by another written word go by traditioÌ„ A place of script produced ans Another answered Mr H A. his first answ how the word of God is known so to be How Christ both hath no need hath need of mans testimoniâ— Scriptures in actu 2. not in 1. needs witness His 2. answer What he means by the 〈…〉 in all people That this spirit is not in the church of Amsterda His third Answer What is to be understood by comparing one place with another Collatione in diverse times in the self maÌ„ often causeth divers judgments Hereticks have had stil this coÌ„parison oâ— places Your grouÌ„d not able to coÌ„fute an Arâ—an What the seale of your pâ—it is His ground tâ—achâ—th â— mâ—â— beleâ—ves before he reades the scripture Another aâ—s of his Calv. â— inst c. 7. S. â— 2. 4 〈◊〉 â— Al heretiks doe bâ—ag of their private spirit How I distinguish hereticks The Iewes cannot object against us the law and the Prophets Generall motives to conâ—â—nce a Iew. How the high preist hood did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many places oâ—â—olâ— scripture to prove the visibilitie of the church That the church of God hath never erred AdaÌ„ did not err in doctrine if he did against our adversaries owne grounds Moses al the Levites free froÌ„â—dolatrie Iudg. 2. How the word all is to be understood In what sense Elias was said to be left alone A breif râ—â— so that the ch of God is and hath been stilâ— visible The resolution of my religioÌ„ the same with S. Cypr. How the word of God the Church may depâ—â— I doe not deny for my witness the spirit of God The difficultie and hardness of thâ— scriptures in principal matters Parvus error in principio magnus est in fine His answer refuted Not onely the matter but the manner of proving is difficult The brasen serpent before an image became an idol a. Cor. 6 16 Our adversaries ignorance like that of the Moabites 〈◊〉 Latria Dulia All the Apostles alike in power of order but not in jurisdictioÌ„ The Popes confirmation of the CouÌ„cel of Châ—lc required contra hereticum Eutich This was a judicial coÌ„firmation Diverse Councelâ—s confirmed by Popes Act. 15. against M. H A. Note The 19 v. examined S. Hieron Also v. 15. 16. Act. 15. The reason why S. Iames did speak S. Peter did not speak risen but rising Why Gamaliel rose up Gamaliel spoke rather as a â—â—â—ind then as a judge Gamaliel did use rather a favorable perswasion then a definitive sentence Act. 17 16. makes against him His similitude against him self The First of Pope Stephen examined Pope Formosus witnessed for a holy man Decret 40 examined Boniface no flattâ—â—er of the Pope ad â— 6. distinct 〈◊〉 How the P. dispenseth against the law of nature in som sense â—â— My third Argumenâ— M. H. A. contented to be drie beaten The uniform consent of the church may easilie distinguish whether scriptures 〈◊〉 â—acked Many thinges beleeved not expressed in the 〈…〉 Thatâ—… Intriâ—secal he the word of God is so of it self but to bee knowen of us it depends of the tradition of the Church THE FOVRTH PART Mr. M. A. walkes in a circle Ioh. 15 16. Ioh. 16. 14. Ioh. 3. 9. 11 Here it is proved that he doth petere principium Mr H. A. walkes in a circle Jo. 10. 27. His discourse is unprofitable Mr H. A. to solution circular fruitless endlesse He cannot tell what this inward testificatioÌ„ is Mr H. A. resolution uncertain Many absurdities sequeles of his doctrin No parcel of scripture affirms the whole scripture to be scripture What should authorise that scripture that should give autheÌ„tickness to all the rest By his opinion Gods providâ—ce is weakned Whether the holie fathers had this spirit or not makes against him That the auncient fathers had this spirit Mr H. A. places of scripture retorted on himself His spirit not Apostolical His answ pretended General groundes reselling the privat spirits proofe A threefold difference between the old and new testament The Catholicke opinion defended from such a idle proofe A general doctrine first to be presupposed The motives of our religioÌ„ of evident credibility The author of our religion the first motive This argument S. Chrysost orat 2 et 3. contra Iâ—â— a os et D. Augustin lib. decaâ—â—chisandis rudibus The second motive The third motive antiquitie Our Antiquitie in cluded in the name Catholick Beza in praefatione novi testa printed 1565. calls the name catholick a vaine word Humfrei in vita Iuelli a vaine terme pag 113. Sutlcif in his chalenge pag 1. fruictless name the like did Gaudentius as appeareth out of S. Aug. lib. 2 contra Gaud. c. 25. Muscul in
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
as the holy fathers interpret is made by a private Spirit interpretation Thirdly I argue and by my argument I break the force of a pretended answer thus Not onely scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to prove what is Canonicall and what is not but also that scriptures helped by private mens interpretation are not sufficient to prove the same For they doe not onely allow of private learned mens interpretation but the poorest handycrafts man or the sillpest huswife that is they doc allow to interpret the hardest places of scripture to shoulder the vniforme consent of all the fathers Doctors and schoolemen with some fond toyes of their owne braine and invention yea to give their glosse of those places of S. Paul where he speakes of justification and predestination whereas they should â—â—y Oh altit ido sapientiae et scientiae Dei quaÌ„ incoÌ„prehensibilia sunt judicia ejus â— When as they should rather rely on the auncient Fathers exposition S. Hierome in his old yeares went as farre as Alâ—randria to heare Didimus S. Hier. ad Paul Epist 103. c. 5. 67. vsed such hard discipline retirement into the desert abstineÌ„ce for obteyâ—ing the tâ—ue interpretation of the holy scripture How should we beleeve each private handycrafts manns censure and his silly interpretation against the vniforme consent of the holy Fathers against the streâ—me of the learned of all ages But admit they should have iâ— warâ—ly that speaking spirit to satisfy themselves how should a man be perswaded they it to be a lanterne unto others stepps Nay how will they prove against their adversaries that they also have not that motion of the spirit and though we should graunt they be illuminated in the truth of oneâ—â—ysterie how shall we know with like certainty all other different mysteries But you will answer out of the 1. Cor. 2. Spiritualis autem homo judicat omnia ipse autem a neminejudicatur a spirituall man judgeth all things and he is judged of none To which I answer admit that a spirituall man knoweth something yet it doth not follow that his supernaturall insâ—â—â—â—ts extendeth it self to all things but onely to the knowledge of those for the obteyning of which that illumination was inspired For Deliseus that had a redoubled spirit of Elias sayth Domiâ—â— celavit hoc a me et non indicavit mihi Our Lord did hide this from me and did not shew it why then may not these simple soules rather feare that their private spirits defect in the declaration of some mysteries rather then the redoubled Prophet confesse â—â—s ignorance in some things Yet let us graunt that some few men should fully comprehend and penetrate the mysteries of our beleefe yet for a twofold reason we denâ— to give unto them a definitive sentence and censure of matters of faith First in that we are not so certified who these particular men be that have these especiall illuminations and illustrations and therefore we are to preferr the definitive assertion of the Popes holynesse and his counsell before uncertainty of mens inventions 2. Since that the effects of this particular illumination and assistance of the Holy Ghost is not manifested and warranted by any extraordinary workes or miracles or the like in the it were to make a desperate tender of Gods truth to point this or that man whole vinpâ—ore of any controversy in that many other men in the pretence of some few mens illuminatioÌ„s might challenge unto theÌ„selves the like prerogatives of interpretation Fourthly I argue that which by the â—ights and lanterns of your 〈◊〉 have ben wroÌ„ged in the highest degree to bolster vp heresies cannot be a true and indeficient rule of faith For what more frequeÌ„t with â—eretickes then at their fingers ends to â—ite places of scripture to back their heresies as the Arians Pelagians Luther aÌ„s and Sacramentaries The Lutherans and Calvinists both disagreeing in a maine point of the real presence the one holding Christs pretious havy and blood to be really and corporall in the Sacrament though with a certayn companation and the other holding Christ to be present with a signification onely and yet both cite scripture both of theÌ„ yet â—â—â—ing scripture for scripture John Knell of Kent led with this private spirit denyed Christ to have tooken flesh of our B. Lady William Cowbridge sayes Bishops have no more authority then Priests pag. â—70 and yet by and by ledâ— vp the selfe same spirit sayd that Christs name was a filthy name Alanus Copus Dialog 6 c. 17. John Mesel denyed the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father pag. 1151. Frith the excellent Martyr of John For pag. 942 943 944 affirmeth the reall presence to be no Article of beleefe affirmative or negative John of Teurbury that the Iewes of good zeale did put Christ to death pag. 9â—5 Fiftly and lastly Iargue many mysteries of our faith are beleeved that are not 〈◊〉 declared in the word of God nor so infalliblie prescinding from all traditions of the catholike church deduced thence so that they are sufficient to make one beleeve that witâ— so firme an act as our faith requireth therefore that which makes those mysteries worthy of constaÌ„t beleefe is a rule of faith as wel as the written word whither they be traditions Divine or Apostolicall My antecedent may castly without all just contradiction be proued in that till Moses the virtuous steps and perfect acts of Noe Abraham Melchisedech was guided without the helpe of any written word by the hand of tradition derived from mouth to mouth from man to man yea after the witteÌ„ word it appeares by Erod 14. Narrabis filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus c Deut. 32. Interroga patrem tuum et annuntiabit tibi majores et dicent tibi Iob. 8. Interroga generationem pristinam et diligenter investiga memoriam patrum And not onely they of the old law but also they of the newe even after the coÌ„ming of our Saviour were without a written word the Apostles and disciples being busied in preaching and instructing viva voce Besides many things we beleeve though we have not the warrant of a written word for it viz. that there was a remedie for women children as well as for men to purge them of originall sin and something to be used to men children if they were ready to â—y before the 8. day which was the prefixt time of circumcision and that such a parcell of writing was scripture and such not Moreover wee beleeve constantly against the condemned heresy of Delvidius yea and against as it were the seeming letter of the scripture where it is sayd that Joseph knew not our blessed Lady til she brought forth her first sonne Now every one knowes the phrase of the Hebrue word know as Abraham knew Sara and yet we fâ—â—â—nly beleeve according to the prescript of the church that she was a perpetual Oirgin ante partum in
the Israelites discerned canonical scriptures from others so doo we for we Gentiles are coheyrs with them and of the same body for there is one body and one spirit as there is one Lord and one faith But they relyed not on the Church or on the Highpreist his council for had they so doon their church must haue had privilege not to err as you think of yours which if you grant a Iew he wil overthrow your beleef in Christ seing their Preists Elders people condemned Christ his Apostles and their writings As you would answer a Pharisee for this point so mind the like answer to your self Finally your plea is overthrown confounded by your own practise for you will have us receive the scriptures for canonical because your Church of Rome sayth so they are we must beleeve upon her word Tobie and Iudith to be canonical but the third and fourth of Esdras not the first and second of the Machabees to be canonical but not the third or fourth If any make question of this for conscience sake you seek to resolve him by the definitive sentence of the Pope who cannot err But if he ask why the Pope of Rome may not err aswel as the Patriarch of Constantinople you then allege as after to me in this your letter Christs promise to Peter Mat. 16 and there you scan every word and presse every circumstance of the text to make him beleeve that Peter was the Rock and head of the Church and consequently the Popes his successors Ask he you againe how he shall know that Matthewes gospel wherin this promise is written is canonical rather then Nicodemus gospel you will answer because the Pope hath so determined Thus the very entrance and ground of your religion bringeth men into a maze and Labyrinth for we must beleeve the Pope cannot err because Christ sayth such words to Peter which the Pope expoundeth and applyeth to himself we must beleeve that Christ sayd them words because the Pope hath determined that he sayd them Thus the foundation of our faith must rely wholly upon man a clod of clay whatsoever he telleth us is scripture that must we so esteme how ever he expound scripture so must we take it what he sayth is tradition or Gods unwritten word we must so regard and keep it be it never so absurd against the light of nature against reason against the grounds of faith against the evident testimonies of the prophets and Apostles we must captivate all our understanding faith and conscience under the Popes wisdome and all because he telleth us we must so doo Otherweise if we may trie this principle of yours by the scripture through the light of Gods spirit in us then may we doe the like of other which be of lesser moment Consider I pray you this first point seriously and the Lord give you understanding in all things And let me here put you in mind though I be not yet come to the end of the last motive in your letter where you tell me how wheÌ„ you shal be demanded at the tribunal of almighty God why you beleeve in the Roman catholik church you can answer by reason Christ himself teacheth you so saying He that heareth you heareth me c. But deceive not your own soul for when Christ shall ask you at that day why you have worshiped images sung masse and Dirige prayed to Saints and soules departed and transgressed many other of his fathers coÌ„mandements by your traditions you will answer because the head of your church the Pope did teach you so when he shall ask you how you knew the Pope to be head of the church and to haue such authoritie over your conscience you will answer because Christ himself spake such words to Peter as are written Mat. 16. When he ask you agayn how you knew that he spake those words or that they extended to the Pope of Rome above all other your answer vvil be according to the grounds of your religion because the Pope himself vvith his senate of Cardinals did tel you so Then vvil your hope be the vveb of a spider and your house novv seeming upon the Rock vvil be found upon the sand you shall hear the Curse pronounced upon the man that trusted in man and made flesh his arm and vvithdreâ—v his hart from the Lord and that all such vvorshiped him in vain as had their fear tovvard him taught by the precept of men The Rock of my hart vvho is my portion for ever preserve me and deliver you from those syrtes and quicksands vvhere men make ship-vvrack of faith Your second argument to prove that the bare naked vvord of God cannot be an infallible rule or square of truth is this That which is difficult and includeth many fenses at least to the ignorant cannot be a certaine rule of faith But the scriptures are thus Your antecedent you seek to confirm by Luther Teâ—tullian and S. Peter also vvho as you vvrite sayth that in S. Pauls epistles ther be many things hard to be understood which the vnlearned and unstable deprave as all the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition To this of the Apostle I answer first you set the holy text on the centers to stretch it out for your usâ— The Apostle sayth some things are hard to be understood you vvould haue him say many things he sayth they deprave these as the rest of the scriptures you say as all the rest Secondly this testimonie though it vvere as large as you extend it proves not your antecedent but onely the first part of it and scarce that too For to gather because part is difficult therfore the vvhole is is more then eyther his vvords or good reason vvil bear The later part that the scripture caÌ„not be a certayn rule of faith follovveth not upon the former it may be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though some part of it be difficult though many men doo deprave it Our ignorance or perversnes cannot make crooked that vvhich is most streight no more then our unfaithfulnes can make the faith of God of none effect The artizen that vvorketh by rule and squire maâ— through vvant of skil or heed vvork amysse but himself is to blame and not his rule Againe though some scriptures be difficult yet many be plaine and easy and God hath so tempered them togither that the vvisest should haue vvherin to exercise their vvit and admire Gods mysterios and the simplest should haue playne documents vvherby to grouÌ„d their faith It is our fathers vvil also that to some his vvord should be in parables that hearing men may hear and not understand vvhen to others it is given to knovv the secrets of the kingdom of God vvho hath vvritten his vvord to give unto the simple sharpnes of vvitt to the child knovvledge and discretion Again you allege the Eunuch Act. 8. vvho confesseth that he could
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
not fleth your arm seâ—k wisdom as silver serch for her as for treasures so God may be intreated to shew you the way of life that you may escape from hâ—l beneath Which grace I wish and shall doo my andevour to procure unto you So rest I your freind for all Christian help to my power Henry Ainsworth Your letter I received the beginning of this moneth December 1609. and I write this the 23. of the same stilo veteri From Amsterdam Iohn Aynsworths reply To Mr Henry Ainsworth in Amsterdam Site audierit lucratus eris fratrem tuum S. Math. 18. I Perceive now by your second writing Mr Ainsworth your readynes to write but your vnreadynes to answer all the groundes of my discourse For where as still I pressed you with the authority vniform consent of those that lived in the Apostles times and were their schollers When I vrge you with the authoritie and most ancient record of hystories When we bring against you the whole body of councells and holy fathers the whole schoole of Doctors When we vrge you with the assertions of Luther Câ—lvin Beza I well Whitaker Hooker pillars nay first founders of the protestant religion out of whose neare withered stock the Brâ—wâ—â—sts are newly budded and even in the bud remaine as blasted by the breath of their own parents You think this answer sufficient that they were all men all dust and ashes and so erred saying lâ—t the fathers sleep As though the whole world had bene in a dead stâ—ep of error vntill this present age As though the Apostles own disciples that sucked knowledge froÌ„ their mouths had need to be discipled of you for their dangerous errors As though the Apostles themselves Dionisius Areopagita Egesippus Polycarpus Irenaeus Gregor Nazianz. Chrys. Tertul. S. Cypr S. Ambrose S. Hiâ—r S. Augustin were all deceived all hoodwincut so long in â—rror yea that the whole church that was promised to be the pillar of tâ—… that was seated on a roch should be swallowed up of hell gatâ—s for a thowsand five hundred yeares contrarn to the firm promise of our Saviour yea that Luther Calvin Bâ—za Iâ—wel Whitaker Humfrey c. these tymes grand Iurie men and Doctors were all d. câ—â—ved in giving up their verdicts And so decrived that they are of you implicitly condemned as hereticks Surely such a verdict can never win credit before any bar or tribunall in the world where so many eye and eare witnesses cannot be heard evidences and records of above a thowsand yeares of age are not admitted as currant where infinite Doctors and professors are refused in their own sciences to be beleeved When our adversaries own fathers freindes and adherents are held as partial and all testimonies of what condition soever braved with this that they were all but men that thâ—y have all erred What doe you Mr Ainsworth but teach me a way to answer whatsoever you can bring For I can say you are onely dust and ashes onely a man and lichlier sure to err then all they that have lived before you and then all men that live in this age with you Pardâ—n me in dealing so roundly with you for it proceeds through no aversion towards your person but onely to demonstrate the truth of my cause and the insufficiencie of your answer Now to descend down more particularly vnto your answer you â—arp first at my proceeding which I thought by a distinction direct enough at which you except as though direct and distinct are not in the sense I take them all one and so then to answer by a distinction is to give a direct or a distinct answer But you are like one that is even wearied ere ever he sets forth foot in journey therfore to make your journey the shorter you would conceive it onely in a continued and dead way deluding therby your self with imagination that your journey is shorter And therefore I think you in a confuse dealing seeme more fearful of the way to run then I that consider the questioÌ„ we are to handle by distinct points dividing my answer by the eye of judgement into distinct portions And therfore I answer you againe when you demaund of me what shall decide al controversies in religion whether the word of God or of man I answer you directly enough that by Gods written and unwritten word as by a formal motive we are to be tried and by the catholick church as by a propounding manner by way of circumstance necessarily required to show what is authentick and what is not canonica And so I hope this answer is direct and plaine ynough Aske a Philosopher what burneth and he wil tell you the fire and his qualitie but demaund how approximation of the subject concurreth without which the fire never naturally burneth and he wil tell you it is condicio sine qua non most necessarily required Ask a Philosopher who gives power to some hidden herb vnknowen to have his operation he will answer the nature of the herbe principally but what doth determine it hic et nunc to work he will answer the art knowledge of the herbalist that findeth out the secret nature of the herbe showes how it is to be applied and vsed to have his due operation So here I answer that Gods written and vnwritten word formally and principally causeth vs to beleeve but the church that propoundeth it as Gods word concurreth as an applying circumstaÌ„ce the church being the treasury of all truth the mediâ—â—â—e against all maladies the â—howse of truth showeth vs vnfalliblie what is to be beleeved and what is not And therfore you wonder without cause that I should answer by a distinction definition and distinction being the two eyes or guides of reason But now to proceed to the matter I intend briefly to show how my reasons that I gave to prove my assertion viz That onely the scripture is not a sufficient rule and an infallible guide of faith remaine yet for all your pretended answer in firme force unshaken 2. I intend to show how your reasons deduced out of the holy scriptures are not reasons in that they are wrested from that sense in which the holy Ghost spake them or meant them 3. As occasion shall offer I will touch your answer to the other questions leaving the exact and direct handling therof vntill this controversie in hand be ended First then you set down the first argumeÌ„t which I brought thus Nothing is to be beleeved that is not taught or manifestly gathered out of the written word But that the Bible is canonical is not taught or gathered out of the written word therfore it is not to be beleeved that the Bible is canonicall Mark then how Mr Ainsworth smooths up the matter that he hath giveÌ„ a sufficient answer when he answers that the pillars of our propositions are earth ashes and therfore the whole frame of my Argument lieth in the dust
Then descending more particularly he answereth that my Major is too generall For he sayes many things may be beleeved though they be not gathered out of the written word so that we see he holds some tradition necessary besides the written word for he sayes to be beleeved that is with an act of faith now that which is to be beleeved must be certaine and must have also infallible most certaine motives proportionable to so firm an act and must be beleeved of those at least that are schollars who are more precisely to examine the articles of beleef then laiemen so that wee have drawen water out of the rock since you graunt that tradition is necessary to your own beleef which afterwards you deny when you say there is nothing necessarie to salvation but is taught by the written word For now I ask those many things that may be beleeved without the written word eyther have their motives infallible and sufficiently propounded so they shal be faultie if those schollers to whom they are sufficiently proposed beleeve not or else the motives that are propounded are not certaine infallible and constant and so they shall onely cause an opinion or at most a humane beleefe and not a most firme constant supernaturall art of faith that is ever most certaine and infallible caused by the written and the vnwritten word of God and the church propounding Moreover your answer is found halting when you say that there is nothing necessary unto salvation but is delivered by the writteÌ„ word which is most false since nothing with you is more necessarie unto salvation then the written word which word is not proved by an other written word for so that also by an other and so we should never have an end so that hence you must coÌ„fesse though against your position that something most necessary vnto salvation is to be belâ—eved and that without the written word now if that which is most necessary and the rule of all the rest be beleeved in that it is delivered by tradition surely things of lesse consequence though necessary to salvation may also be beleeved though ther is no written word of God to affirme it having tradition which is Gods vnwritten word tyme out of mynd to deliver it As for the proof of my Minor proposition you put down these words I cited though not learned out of Mr Hooker For if any book gives testimonie to the rest yet the scripture that gives credit to the rest would require another scripture to be credited neither could we come to any pause wheron to rest or assurance that way and if you answer that all scriptures are theopneustoi that is in pired of God I will graunt you that but I wil demaund how you prove that this book or this parcel of scripture without tradition is inspired of God For to say it is inspired of God by reason it is scripture and scripture by reason it is inspired of God is to prove idem per idem and petere principium to suppose that provâ—d which is given you to prove And besides I would know of you how you know that your interpretation is onely true But you have your answer ready ceyned you say the things of God no man knoweth but the spirit of God But how doe you prove you have the spirit of God How doe you prove you have the effect thereof in your conscience piercing more sharply then a two edged swoâ—d For the Mamchei Montanist Arian â—estorian Pelagian Semipeâ—agian Lutheran Calvinist Familist will â—ll boâ—st of this private spirit will all say they are illuminated of God that they have the spirit that discerneth all things they are able as wâ—l as you to uphold their religion with wrested peeces of the scripture Now whereas you object that the Turk câ—n urge against us their Allcoâ—ans antiquitie I answer no siâ—ce the Romane catholicke church can shewe their beginner beginning increase and their declining estate And wheras you object againe that Iulian the Apostaâ—a may offer plea with us for antiquitie I answer no since he went out of the catholick church to whose faith he was Apostata and therfore supposeth the catholik church to be more ancient then he as he particularly opposed himself against her And if it be here objected that the heatheâ—â—sme he â—â—lo is anciâ—â—ter then our Christianitie I grant all but not ancienter then Judai me For God is more ancient then the Divil truth then falshood and so those Christians that are most ancient have the most true religion Your second Objection made against this point I answer that the high Preisthood that was judge did not err in that Moses was never â—viltie of Idolatrie Moses was joint Priest with AaroÌ„ as it is recorded in the Psalmes Moses et Aaron in sacerdotibus ejus et Samuel inter eos qui invocant nomen ejus All which appeares and is most manifestly showen also in that he ordered Aaron Exod. 29 And in that there Moses is coÌ„manded to sacrificâ— Applicabis et vitulum etc. maâ— abis euÌ„ in conspect Dei etc. offeres incensum super altare And that Moses did execute al this it appeares out of Levit. 8. Likewise I answer that when our Saviour Iesus Christ was condemned the high preisthood did not err in that the high preisthood remayned in our Saviour for he was then cheif judge and decider or â—he the high preist was our Saviours superiour which ye wil not grant For that prâ—â—sthood was infallible onely till Christs coming being also clearly foretold that at his coÌ„ming the highpreist should concurr vnto his death and condemnation and so not to be directed by the holy ghost Finally wheras you would confute me by my own practise in that I râ—solve all things by the definitive sentence of the Church grounded on Christs promise to S. Peter Math. 16. that his faith should not faile and that he being converted he should confirme his brethreÌ„ all the other Apostles I answer that as our Saviour was of infinite grace and mercy to promise so he was of infinite power and fidelitie to perform Now wheras you object that I know onely this promise by Mat. 16. that by the Popes churches sâ—ntence I knovv onely S. Matthevves gospell to be canonicall and that the gospell of Nicodemus is not authenticke I grant all but I deny that here there is any maze or circle that you would fayne from hence inferr since this mutuall reference and reciprocall dependence is in diverse kindes and then Aristotle will tell you that it is no circle or vitious argumentation to demonstrate a causa ad effectum et ab effectu ad causam and a younge Philosopher wil tell you that the materia and the form doe mutually depend and reciprocally cause one an other but the one in genere subjecti and the other in genere causae formalis And as a Iewel in his prize
institutions c. Why did they in the printed Bible 1â—62 thrust in Rom. 11. Baals image which now Bible â—595 to corrected And if every image be an idoll as they translate it why Genesis the first can we not say God created AdaÌ„ according to his own idol And that all images in the old law were idols Exod. 25. 3. Regum 6. Why doe they make the Hebrew and Greek word that signifies hell when they list onely to signify the grave Though it be against scripture it self Gen. 37. I will goe down to the grave to 〈…〉 mourning which cannot signifie though racked in sense the grave since he thought his sonne to be devoured of wild beasts and so vnburied without a grave But when the self same word Prov. 15. speakes of the danâ—ied they translate onely hell how then can the parallising and coÌ„paring of one place with an other settle all doubts of the ignorant stop the mouth of the contrarie part who shall affirm that it is not the true sense Nay if scripture be a most manifest interpreter of it self Why did Luther that affirmed before this assertion of yours in assertione articulorum 10. damnatorum retraetate and recall that opinion of his before his death in colloq conviviali titulo de verbo Dei No man can vnderstand sayes he the Bucolica of Uirgil except hâ— be first five yeares a shepheard No man can vnderstand his Gâ—oâ—â—icks except he be five yeares a husbandman so let every man know that he hath not tasted sufficiently the scriptures except he hath governed in it a hundred yeares Nay if holy scriptures be so easy of themselves to be understood why doth Luther cal the epistle of S James stramineam and vnworthy of an Apostolicall spirit Why doth Beza writing on the eight chapter call into question the whole book of S. John when he averrs that it was not probable that our Saviour was left alone in the temple with a woman or that he did write in the dust with his finger My fourth argument you being forth thus That which by the lights lanterns of your opinion hath been wronged in the highest degree to bolster up heresie can not be a true and indeficient rule of faith You geaunt my assumption and you instance it in Luther Calvin Beza Onely to answer this you think it sufficient to say it is a rhetorical flourish No flourish that by your own confession hath flonge down your strongest pillars But you say it is the fault in them which willingly I graunt but with this addition that there is the like in you And I pray you tell me if all that have gone over such a bridge being in their right senses perfect judgmeÌ„ts have bene drowned would you think that bridge remayning thus unrepaired as it is a sure safe way So if all or most that have trusted to the naked and bare word of the scripture onely and to their own witts and spirits have grossely and dangerously erred wil you hold it so remayning an vndeficient rule Nay if the bare word so coÌ„firmes them in their errors that without some one common and visible judge they stil remain stiff in their errours can the bare word be the indeficient onely and the infallible rule But that it is so dispute against the Lutheran Calvinist Zuiâ—glian Anabaptist Protestant Faâ—â—list and they wil ell â—ite place of scripture interpretation for interpretation spirit for spirit â—ieng and reâ—ying you with places and spirits dictamâ—ns telling you long stories of the communication of the holy Ghost Wherefore I will conclude breifly this argument that the naked and bare word of the scripture cannot be an infallible rule and judge sâ—…t doth not make the partie overthrowen certaine that the sentence as much as lieth in the judge is passed against him which is the propertie of the sentence of every supreme judge that his decree be plainly seen and that without all contradiction the partie overthrowen in law may yeeld unto it For else there is no end of sentence no end of judgement if the partie overthrowen may with the like probability as before recomâ—nence his suite and offer plea without any â—â—d My fift argument which you put downe thus Many misteries of our faith are beleeved which explicitely are not declared in the word of God nor so infalliblie prescinding from all traditions of the church deduted thence so as they are sufficient to make a man beleeve with so firm an act of â—aith as is required Therefore that which makes that worthy of constant beleefe is a rule of faith aswel as the written word whether they be traditious divine or Apostolicall Now to all the places I bring to prove traditions How the world was onely governed and taught by traditions till Moses tyme who was the first pen-man of the holy Ghost and to that Ero. 14. Deu. 32. 37. c. you graunt that traditions were before necessary but you deny that they are now a rule of faith But you assigne no reason but onely this in disputing as if it were the total rule of faith where I would inferr onely that it was a partial togither with the word of God And whereas you object that these traditions spoken of in Deut. might for the Jewish Cabalists which are rejected by S. Peter 1. Pet. â— Tit. 1. 14 as vain conversation and Jewish fables Is plaine against the holy scriptures Deu. 32. interroga patrem tuum et anuntiabit tibi majores tuos et dicent tibi Ask thy father c. Ero. 14. Narrabis filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus Et Iob. 8. Iud. 6. Psal 43. Psal. 47. Eccles. 8 where it is plaine that the holy Ghost speakes of such traditions that are good to be followed not to be estemed vain idle fabulous To that of S. Pa to the Thes. is plaine that the Apostle speakes of that which was taught by word of his mouth yea of such traditions as you call humane in vs. For when S. Chrysost. comes to explicate the 2 Thess. 2. he explicates it so plainely for such traditions as wee have in controversie that D. Whitaker de sacra scriptura pag. 678. sayes that S. Chrisost. spoke in this point inconsiderately vnworthy of so great a father Therfore S. Paul and S. Chrysost vnderstood more here by traditions then you would willingly vnderstand And that not onely things of little consequence but of greatest moment are beleeved onely by tradition I prove manifestly since the Bible can not be canonicall without it were delivered by the hand of traditioÌ„ froÌ„ tyme to tyme as authenticke And besides how can you prove the procession of God the son and God the holy Ghost from God the Father as from one beginning or the consubstantilitie of the blessed Trinitie How are you able onely by bare scripture to prove the remedie in the old law vsed to women children for original sinne and
to man children when in danger of death before the eight day they necessarily were to receive remedie of their sinne How prove you that our blessed virgin Marie was a perpetuall virgin ante partum in partu et post partum how ar you able to prove this by the bare letter against Helvidius the heretick for he vrgeth you with the plaine text and with originall phrase viz. That he knew her not till the brought forth her first sonne and the word know you know what it imports in the Hebrew phrase As Abraham knew Sara So that you see we beleeve this perfection of the blessed and perpetuall Uirgin Mary by tradition though the bare text seems to make against it How doe you prove that our sunday should be celebrated on sunday and not on saterday by the bare letter without tradition How doe you prove the celebration of Easter as it is now without tradition How doe you prove the Creede of the Apostles out of the naked word How doe you prove without tradition that you should receive the blessed sacrament kneeling the receiving of it fasting the eating of blood and straÌ„gled meates prohibited in the Acts of the Apostles How are you able to prove all these or any one of these by convincing reasons out of the holy scriptures alone All these you say you can prove not alleaging one place of scripture for any of them though you have bene most copious to prove idem per idem in other pointes to little purpose Now you say onely it would goe hard with you if you could not prove these without tradition and me thinks it goes hard with you since you prove not one particular of them all Therfore I desire you that you would not confound your trace so like the Fore or hare in doubling and turning but that you would answer distinctly to each poinct as it lies if you answer Wherfore to shut up this point I will conclude with S. August Genes ad litt â— 10. â— 23. that as he sayes that the not rebaptising of infants were not to be beleeved if it were not taught by tradition So I say these forealleaged mysteries were not to be beleeved without the direction of tradition Now since we are come to the answering of your arguments which are nothing but allegations of scripture falsly applied me thinks I cannot better compare them then as to so many orient pearles and rich Jewels hung and placed out of order in an Judian or â—thiopians lippes nose armes and legges so these places of scripture in that they are racked and wrested from their right sence and meaning their lustre and beautie is rather a disgrace theÌ„ ornament to the wearer For when you bring the place of Deut. 5 32. to take heed that wee should doe as our Lord commaunded us not turning to the right hand nor the left and of that of Deut. 12. 32. not putting any thing therevnto or taking any thing therfrom I answer first granting that God commaundeth this but I deny that hence can be gathered that in that we should doe as our Lord commaundeth us and that we should not turne vnto the right hand or to the left that the holy scripture should be the onely rule and vâ—ptor of faith Fâ—r as it doth not follow nothing is to be added to the fourth coÌ„maundement and the fourth commandement is to be observed therfore there is onely the fourth commaundement and it is therfore the rule of all the rest 2. I answer that all additions whatsoever are not here prohibited but onely such as are contrary to the word of God For many other Prophets as the penn men of the holy Ghost did adde diverse yea most part of the holy scriptures But now it is plaine that the definitions and traditions of the Catholick church by whose mouth the holy Ghost doth dictat are most consonant to the text of scripture For the holy Ghost speaketh by them though not tanquam calamus velociter scribentis For Luke 10. it is sayd he that heareth you heareth me and he that contemneth you contemneth me Math. 18. If he doe not hear the church let him be to thee as an Ethnicke and a Publican and S. Ambrose expounding the last of S. John 18 v. where S. John saith If any man shall adde unto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues written in this book S. Ambrose saith he makes not a protestation against the expositors of his prophesie but against heretichs For the expositor doth adde nor diminish nothing but onely openeth the obscuritie of the place and sheweth the moral and spirituall sense Now to answer your second argument I wonder how you being a man of vnderstanding should be so much deceived as to think that these places make for you against vs. For wee holding firm our assertion can cite all the self same places Rom. 3. 10. 11 19. that man naturally understands not the things of God that mans wisdome is foolishnes Coloss. 2. 22. For we affirm it the gift of the holy ghost by an infused habit of faith that we beleeve and that by the directioÌ„ of the holy Ghost promised that the Church cannot â—â—r neyther doe we when we allow of tradition make at our pleasure voluntary religion for we acknowledge tradition also to be the word of God the voice of his spouse that is taught in al truth guided up the holy ghost vnto the end of the world Wherfore your argument proves nothing since you presuppose that proved that rests yet to you to prove The like answer I give vnto your third argument viz. that men are dead in trespasses Ephe. 2. 5. Math 15 9. that faith to by hearing and hearing by the word Rom. 10 17. But I deny that the word is the totall or onely rule of faith since we finde many thinges to be beleeved that are not expresslie found in the written word nor thence deduced And to answer breifly vnto your 4 Argument I graunt that the Preists and Prophets were bound to heare the word and that of Ezek. 13. 2 3. that they should not prophesie according to their own heart or follow their own spirit but I deny that they should follow onely the written word or that folowing the voice of the Church the interpretaton of holy Fathers and Doctors they follow their own harts and their own inventions So that you see how weake your arguments be so that they might with more reason bee returned on your self The second thing which you say I take vpon me to prove but more rightly to say onely to propound till the decision of this mayne question be ended which was whether the definitive sentence of the Church and Pope be an infallible rule and guide of our faith Thus questioÌ„ I say I onely inteÌ„ded rather to propound theÌ„ prove that we have not at one tyme diverse proâ—s togither in the fyre But now to handle it by way of vellitation and not of purpose
should blush but lyes hid in silence First you gather a consequence which here I strowed not I spake of God and of his verdict and authoritie not of the scriptures as yet For whither it be by writing or by speaking or any other way that God manifesteth his will unto us it is to me all one and the authority of the scripture is a second point Thus your answer is not here to the purpose Your reason annexed is a fallacie concluding from a part against the whole unequally The scriptures cited speak of Gods commands in generall you take one in particular and because one is not all therfore all must not be all but more then all must be observed which what they wil be I cannot tel unlesse the commandements of men Mat. 15. 9. 2. You answer that all additions whatsoever are not here prohibited but onely such as ar contrary to the word of God for many other prophets as the penmen of the holy Ghost did add divers pea most part of the holy scriptures c. In deed this answer is your own none of Gods you shew no tittle of his word for that you speak But I will shew you the contrary Prov. 30 ◠Adde not unto his words least he reprehend thee and thou be a lyar Lo here all additions and not onely things contrary are forbidden Againe though it be but a mans testament sayth our Apostle when it is confirmed no man dooth abrogate it or addeth therto If you add to your naturall fathers testament civill lawes would count you an unnaturall son your distinction would not help yow much lesse can it help yow for doing such wrong to the will of our father which is in heaven Your reason is direct against yow for the Prophets being penmen of the holy ghost added nothing of their own the additions were Gods own If the Prophets Apostles mought add nothing of themselves much lesse may we Thus God yet reigneth alone And if yow vvould have mans oil to lighten your lamp hear what Chrisostom sayth for this point Every Doctor is a servāt of the law for neyther may he add unto the law any thing of his own sense neyther may he withdraw any thing according to his own understanding but preach that onely which is found in the law Whereas yow add that your traditions are also from the holy ghost for Luk. 10. it is sayd he that heareth yow heareth me and Mat. 18. If he hear not the church let him be to thee as an ethnik and a publican First these are spoken to all Christs ministers of al his churches and therefore make no more for Rome then for Corinth or Ephesus But yow stil keep from the point yeild the cause unawares For be it tradition definition or whatsoever by whomsoever if it be Gods not mans it is yenough al that I would prove in this first particular After it shal be scanned whither your traditions be of God or no. Wheras therfore in answering my secōd agrument yow wonder how I should be so deceived as to think the places that I cite make for me and against yow yow may wonder rather at your own mistakeing that I say no more who when I plead for God onely his alsufficiency by opposing as the scripture teacheth mans corruption folly yow will not yeild though yow have nothing to contradict And even thus yow turn over the 3. 4. reason by denying them to prove that thing which I there did not cite them for Such oversight hereafter I hope yow will amend that yow weary not both me your reader Now to your former ansvver which was with a distinctiō in this plain point whither God onely or some other should be judge lawgiver to his people for their religion controversies therabout the same distinction yow urge here agayn which whither it be a meet distinct answer or argues not rather fear let the prudent judge For yow yeild not plainly to the thing by me propounded which neyther religion nor reason vvould stick at onely atheisme vvil deny For if ther be a God he of man to be served man knovves not the things of God til by himself they be reveled neyther may doe more or lesse then by the Lord is cōmaunded as I have before proved hereupon it vvil folovv undenyably that in al doubts controversies of religion Gods voice verdict must decide vvhat is truth and vvhat pleaseth him Whither he show it by himself from heaven by Angels or by churches or by particular men by writing or by speaking it is ought to be all one to us But the more to convince yovv yovv shal have humane testimonie as of Ambrose vvho sayth The mysterie of heaven let God himself teach me which made heaven not man which knew not himself Whom should I rather beleev concerning God then God himself Or if yow be not moved by this Fathers judgment the hethen shal rise up and condemn yow vvho esteemed true lavv apt to command and to forbid to be the right reason of the great God that the divine mind to be the cheiflavv Cicero de Legib. lib. 2. The second point novv is Wher this verdict of God is to be found whither in the scriptures of the old and new Testamēt as I beleev or in the writings and mouthes of other men To this I had not before neyther yet have your dir 〈◊〉 answer What makes yow shun the light herein is easy to discern To confirm my faith that the verdict and wil of God is to be foūd in holy writt I alledged divine testimonies many to them yow answer not one word neyther yet doo yow yeild to the truth Beware yow wink not vvith your eyes that yow may not see But seeing the holy scriptures move yow not yow shal have candle light to see the sun shine C. Bellarmine to whom yow referr me twise in your last writing to whose learning yow acknowledge yourself a scholar ingeniously cōfesseth saying Neq n distputari potest c. Ther can be no disputing sayth he except we and our adversaries first doo agree in some cōmune principle now we al hereticks agree in this that the word of God is the rule of faith wherby men are to judge of points of doctrine is a commune principle granted of al men from whence arguments may be drawen is the spiritual sword which in this battel may not be refused Behold here the first point plainly yeilded by your champion vvhich you vvithout dark distinction could not be drawn unto The second concerning the scriptures is in effect also yeilded when he sayth That the Prophetical and Apostolical book◠according to the catholik churches mind explaned both by the 3. council of Carthage c. 47. and late council of Trent sess 4. is the true word of God and the certayn and stable rule of faith
speak playn to simple mens understanding but al the holy Prophets and Apostles could not or would not speak to the capacitie of the simple so you make them the greatest deceivers of soules in the world a pagan mought justly scorn our heavenly law if it be a leaden rule a nos◠of wax◠as some have blasphemed it But hogs esteme draffe better then pearls though the wisdom of God powreth out her minde unto them yet in them is fulfilled the true proverb wherfore is ther a price in the hand of the fool to get wisdom he hath none hart Prov 17. 16. But where may we think to find the place of wisdom if it be not in the Prophets Apostles writings For touching these points you speak of if a man read the late Fathers Augustine Ambrose the rest he shall find them often dark difficult intricate contradicting themselves sometimes and one another And if he compare your Popes determinations with the holy scriptures he shall find as good agreement as between harp and harrow For example Gods plain law sayth Thou shalt not make to thy self a graven thing or any similitude of things that are in heaven above or in earth beneath c. thou shalt not bow down to them neyther serv them and agayn Cursed be the man that shal make a graven or a molten thing the abomination of the Lord the work of the hands of the artificer and shal set it in a secret place al the people shal answer and say Amen These evident scriptures may perswade every simple hart that it is a fearful syn to make worship similitudes of God of Christ and of Saincts departed or any the like Now let him come to your catholik churches interpretation and read your Cardinals glosse that such scriptures reprechend idolatrie that is to say the worshiping of images which are esteemed for Gods or by which they are worshiped for Gods which indeed are not but as for the Images of Christ of saincts they are to be worshiped and not onely by accident unproperly but also by themselves and properly so as they doe terminate or end the worship as in themselves they are considered and not onely as they bear the part of the exemplar or person represented and let him read your learned distinctions of the worship latria the worship dulia and hyperdulia and other like schole points digged out of the abisme of the rock of Rome the man wil be amazed to find such comments upō such a text and make him ween his witts be not his own But I make no doubt ther be thowsands and ten thowsands upon earth that if they read Moses law and your churches comments upō this point they wil say Moses is surer and playner easier to understand then your Cardinal a great deal And as of this so of other things many that to leav the scriptures and rely upon your church determinations were to blow out the candle that men may see by the snuff Moreover if that cannot be an indeficient rule of faith wherin some things ar hard to be understood then doubtlesse your ◠assertion is overthrown which sayth that the scriptures expounded by the catholik church is a true indeficient rule of our faith For by the catholik church you mean the Roman Ch◠and in the Roman church you restreyn al to the Pope now his expositiō dooth often times as wel clear the truth as a cloud before the sun Yea even the playnest places which in holy writ are as bright as noon day your church hath enveloped with AEgyptian darknes as Mariage honorable among al and the bed undefiled sayth the text Heb. 13. 4. If among all sayth * your glosse comprehendeth al men wholly then mariage shal be honorable also between father and daughter betweē mother and son between brother and sister c. Drink ye al of this sayth our saviour Let a man examine himself sayth the Apostle and so let him eat of this bread drink of this cup. We yet see not sayth your quick eyed Cardinal that place of the gospel wher we be taught that both parts of the sacrament of our Lords supper are to be ministred to al Christians For our Lord sayth not Drink ye al Christians of this but drink ye al of this c. Such catholik expositiōs doe illustrate the scriptures as the smoke of the pit did the sun aier Apoc. 9. 2. But me thinks you deney that the Pope hath dominion over your faith neyther can make what he wil as a matter of faith or tradition He dooth not make a matter of faith you say but beelareth onely that such and such a thing is to be beleeved It is wel if you can keep you here for if he be but a declarer of the faith he is by office but as al other Bishops and ministers of the Gospel and Peters primacie wil be no more then Pauls who sayd Let a man so think of us as of the ministers of Christ disposers or stewards of the mysteries of God But if the Pope have not indeed dominion over your faith then I trow men may trie his declarations by Christs word who hath dominion over our faith and sowles Then are not the Popes declarations authentik canonical of necessitie to be beleeved unlesse he prove them by the scriptures which himself acknowledgeth to be divine and canonical And thus the scriptures wil be found a sufficient rule of the Churches faith men must by the word and spirit trye the spirits of the Popes as wel as of other Bishops Otherweise when Pope Stephen the 6. repealed the decrees of P. Formosus and condemned his acts and contrariweise P. Romanus and other his successors justified Formosus and condemned Stephen and yet after that agayn P. Sergius the 3. allowed Stephen and cōdemned Formosus as your own records doo report how should men know what Popes decrees to follow if they may not examine them by the book of God nor have better stay for their faith then the wethercock of the Vatican And wheras you speak of all humane helps that the Pope useth of counsel and consultation with the learned they be fayr shewes but your Cardinal tels us that the catholik church hath alwayes beleeved that he is a true ecclesiastical Prince in the whol church who can of his own auctoritie vvithout consent of the people or counsel of Preists make lavves vvhich bind the conscience can judge in causes ecclesiastical c. and that vvhen he teacheth the vvhol church in things perteyning to faith he can not err by any hap or chance and not onely in matters of faith but in preceps of manners also prescribed to the vvhol church he cannot err What marvel is it then though your Lavvyers say His bare vvill must be holden as a lavv and that whatsoever he dooth no man
it my child my childes child that it mought never be forgotten But yet for a ground of faith unto life I would vvarn my children to hold to the scriptures as the instrument of God able to make them vvise unto salvation through the faith vvhich is in Christ Iesus as Paul sayd to his son Timothee You say it is playn that the Apostle 2. Thes. 2. speaks of such traditions as I cal humane in you I deney it have plainly disproved it in my former vvriting by the same Apostles ovvn testimonie Act. 26. 22 1. Co. 14. 37. and you have not a vvord to say against it but shun those ancient Apostolik records and betake you to later humane writers as Chrysostome But remember your ovvn vvords God is more ancient then the Divil truth then falshood The Apostle shevved his ovvn meaning long before Chrysostome had a mouth to speak But if you can better see by Chrysostoms candle then by Pauls bright sun behold vvhat the Doctor sayth Whatsoever is sought unto salvatioÌ„ all novv is fulfilled in the scriptures He that is ignorant may find there vvhat to learn he that is stubborn synful may find the scourges of the judgmeÌ„t to come vvhereof he may be afrayd he that laboureth may there find glorie and promises of eternal life This speech dooth farr better become his golden mouth then your plea for humane traditions The 2. thing vvhich you took upon you to prove or as novv you faintly say intended rather to propound then prove vvas That the scripture expounded by the catholik church is a true and indeficient rule of our faith I vvil ease you if I may of this labour if you understaÌ„d the position vvell I grant it to be true By the catholik church I trovv yovv mean not the multitude al beleevers but the head of the church So I vvillingly yield that the scriptures expounded by Christ the head of the catholik church are a true and indeficient rule of our faith But when you came to make proof of your positioÌ„ you set it dovvn thus that the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith Where all men may see your lode starr You pretend the scriptures and word of God but if a man deale vvith you by them as I novv have experience you flee to later humane vvriters If you be followed in them you retire to your Catholik church ask your meaning by the catholik church and it is the Pope with his definitive sentence as your self have expounded it to me He virtualiter as one of your side sayth is the whole church Al the other are but stales he alone is the man that must strike the stroke And if he give sentence against you I shal never trust him so you deal on the surest side for your selves You intended rather to propound then to prove this point as you say that we haue not at one time diverse proâ—s togither in the fyre and now agayn you handle it by way of velitation you say not of purpose to prove Wheras it is the mayn ground of al controversie between us For question being whither Gods written word or the Popes definitive sentence must judge rule our faith I cleav to the scriptures you to the Pope Now my ground is in part granted by your selves for the scriptures which I build upon your council of Trent hath allowed for canonical and come from God and whither you granted it or not I have given you reasons that are unanswered But your ground I utter ly deney and grant not your Popes definitive sentences to be canonical but haeretical and would have proof of that you say You lyst not yet to have this yron in the fyre belike least it burn your fingers Yet in this your velitation you bring most of your valiant men into the feild leaving out some few casshierd soldjers and brave me with a great many of S. Peters prerogatives which are indeed but a cold yron for the Pope For though al you say for Peter were granted yet nothing at al is sayd for the Bishop of Rome more then for the Bishop of Babylon You would hav men think that if you have so many men in a skirmish or velitation you have many moe against a day of battel But if these your velitaries be discomfited as some of them are already I suppose your armado wil never enter this feild Let us therfore try their strength 1. S. Peter you say is named first among the Apostles True he is so usually except in 3. or 4. places This may argue a primacie of order but of no auctoritie over his brethren The first foundation of the wall of the heavenly Ierusalem was a Iasper the stone of Benjamin th' Apostle Pauls tribe wil you grant me hence to conclude that S. Paul was head of the catholik church 2. S. Peter alone walked you say with our Saviour on the water True and there he shewed his weaknes more then others was reproved by our Saviour for his little faith Doth this deserve the headship of the church Elias and Eliseus walked through the water and Shadrach Meshach and Abednego-walked in the mids of the fyre and herein shewed their great faith yet vvere they not therfore heads of the catholik church 3. Our Saviour promised you say that hell gates should not prevail against him Our Saviour dooth say not against it that is the church of vvhich Peter vvas a principall member Hell gates shall not prevail against any true Christian are they all therfore headeâ— But hell gates if horrible synns be part of their strength have prevayled against sundry of your Popes by testimonie of your own records such I trow were not heads unlesse of the beast Apoc. 14. 17. 3. 4. He was to confirm his brethren So were all the other Apostles and Ministers as I proved at large in my former writing and marvel you bring this argumeÌ„t now again bleeding into the skirmish before you had cured any of his vvounds If you cannot heal him you should let him rest 5. Our Saviour you say washed S. Peters feet first It may be so though some Doctors doubt of it It is sure some was first for they could not all be at once It is sure also that Peter shewed then more weaknes then his brethren for which he mought well have need to be washed but not deserve to wear a triple crown as your Pope 6. S. Peter onely received a reveled promise of his particular martyrdom of the crosse Performance is more then promise Iames and Stephen suffred martyrdom before Peter And if the crosse be that vvhich must prove the headship the penitent theef may lay claim to the crown 7. He after infusion of the holy ghost first you say premulgates the gospel I would the Pope were his successor in
a view how you mainteyn your proofs First you say I fayn would challenge the name catholik unto my self I answer this is not so The catholik church is the mother of al Christians of which I am an unworthy child but were not worthy to be named her child if I would challenge her title which belongs not to me nor to any her daughters the particular churches on earth Secondly you say that after I seem to refuse it because it is not warranted by the written word asking why I doo not as wel reject the name Trinitie aâ— I answer agayn the contrary to that you say is true for I proved and that by the written word which it seems you could not doo that ther is a catholik or vniversal church and if need were could bring many moe proofs Why then doe you injurie me so openly before the sun and then run on to dilate upon your own wilfull mistaking such dealing dooth not become any true member of the catholik church But you can shew us you say the prophesie of Isaiah fulfilled that the gospel is preached to all nations But we need not be shewed that by you for it is shewed us by the Ap ostle almost 16. hundred yeres agoe Rom. 10. 18. 16 26. The whole world you say is replenished with the fruit of your doctrine The more is the pitty if it pleased God for your doctrine is not the gospel but the Popes definitive sentences But this also we have been taught many yeres agoe As al the world wondred and folowed the first beast so the second did all that the first beast could doe before him and made all both small and great rich and poor free and bond to receive the mark The waters where the whore fitteth are people and multitudes nations tongues All nations have drunk of the vvine of the vvrath of her fornication Papisme is large Mahometisme larger Paganisme largest dispred in these our last and most dangerous days But our invisible churches you think are excelled farr by the Jewes visible meetings in sundry places But the woman that fled into the vvildernes vvas seen of God and dear unto him though she vvere hid from the visible Dragon and his persecuting Angels Esau had much more visible glorie then his poor brother Iaakob vvhen so many kings reigned in AEdom before any King reigned over Israel Fevv soules vvere saved in the Ark vvhen many perished in the syn-floud And this maketh many George Davids to deney the verity of the Bible beleeve the traditions of Babel because the promised visible destruction of the church of Antichrist is not yet performed But you Roman catholiks have all motives as you say of evident credibilitie as 1. all antiquitie Nay stay there the most antique records of the holy Prophets and Apostles you dare not stand to be tried by but shun them and flee to your late traditions and Popes definitive sentences So your church vvil be her ovvn judge vvhether she be a vvhore or no vvheras neyther Aholah nor Aholibah vvould give that sentence against themselves though men vvent unto them as to a common harlot but the righteous men judged them after the manner of harlots 2. Unitie not in the truth but in haeresie for your church hath by degrees from age to age so declined from the lavves of God that she is one vvith her self but become an alien from Christ. For proof vvheof let the ancient faith of the church in Rome vvheÌ„ Paul vvrot therto the nevv faith of the church of Rome decreed in the Council of TreÌ„t be compared togither and vve shall find as good unity betvveen them in many things as betvveen light darknes Besides vvhat unitie is in your religion the late broiles in England betvveen the Iesuites and the seculars to omit all former schismes that have been in Rome it sâ—lf may shevv Though by the Popes povvrfull hand they are novv tyed togither at least by thâ— tayles like the foxes in Palestina 3. Universalitie even as it vvas in the dayes of Noe vvhen the â—â—ood came and destroyd them all for so shall it be in the day vvhen the son of man shal be reveled Vniversalitie of abomination shal procure from God univorsal desolation for with her inchantments vvere deceived all nations 4. Disibilitie Even notorious to all that have eyes to see For if a citie can not be hid that is situate upon a mountayn hovv should not that citie be seen vvhich is set upon 7. mountayns on vvhose top your vvoman sayleth 5. Confirmed by the consent of Doctors for her merchants are the great men of the earth 6. By the institution of most holy religious orders for the vvomaÌ„ is arrayed in purple and scarlet and guilded vvith gold and precious stones and pearles in her house are peace offrings and the payeth her vovves and perfumeth her bed vvith myrrh aâ—oes and cinamon because Christs institutions and most holy orders are too mean and base for her royaltie 7. The conversion of nations for the inhabitants of the earth are drunken vvith th vvine of her fornication she hath caused many to fall dovvn vvounded and great is the number of all that are slayn by her 8. The power of miracles shewing great signes and vvonders that if it vvere possible the very elect mought be deceived but that all they may be damned vvhich beleeve not the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousnes 9. Infinite number almost of martyrs that have sealed her doctrine with their bloods c. for among her other merchandise are also the soules or lives of men vvhom she exposeth by sending into the nations to sovv her darnel and to sel her vvares till the kingdomes of the earth revvarding her as she hath revvarded them doo cut off these chapmen from land of the living Hovv be it she her self hath made many moe martyrs by killing Christs vvitnesses that have spoken against her as England France Germanie and many other nations testify for in her must be found the blood of the prophets and of the saincts Thus have I confirmed your notes by the scriptures vvhich you did set dovvn barely without proof that all men may see your markes may be shewed by the vvord of God Other apples there are vvhich your soules lust after all vvhich shall depart from you as God raiseth vp the vvitnesses of his truth against you But you proceed and say 2. You have a certaine visible and infallible way to decide all controversies which is the catholik church that propoundeth what is to be beleeved and what is not A sure vvay in deed vvherein you may vvalk safely till God rise up to judgement against you You boast to be the onely catholik church and to have the onely true beleef vve except against you by the vvord of God your church vvhich
writing yea you might better have scaÌ„ned first and answered that place cited by me out of hâ—lâ— S. Chrysost on the 2. of the Thess. oratione 4. Stand and keep your traditions where the holy Father sayes it is plain the holie Fathers did not deliver all things vp â—â—istle but many things without writing and those things also are worthâ— of faith and S. Chrysost sayes Est traditio nihil quâ—ras ampâ—ius which wordes are so playn that they made Or Iâ—wâ—l to say they were words unworthy so hâ—lp a father And that S. Ambrose did approve of tradition is plain out of his 34 sermon on Lent where he reproving those that would keep certaine dayes after Lent when this after fâ—st was neither as the feast of Lent neither delivered by the authoritie of our antestors So that we see if wee should but give Mr. H. A. the Sâ—â—cons place but to put oile into our lampes he would adde his dust and askes to quench it rather 〈◊〉 contemning still as he doth the authoritie of the holy Fathers in terming their authoritie produceâ— against him dust and ashes 17. Mr. Henry Aynsworth objects against me that I have turned over his third and fourth Arguments oâ— reasons denying them to prove that which they were cited for I answer I possed them over But see here Mr â— A. hath turned them off the ladder to their last dâ—steniâ— not showing that they proved ought what he intended by them we may suppose his reasons were wounded to death in the answerâ—â— the former oâ— like runaâ—ates have forsaken their armes that of â—â—â—ted barely before but one appeareth in his likeness I hope ouâ— adversarie will acknowledge or amend his slight dealing herein 18. The second part that Iam to prove is that the rule of our faith is not onely the written word but joyntly the unwritteÌ„ word of God tradition and the authoritie of the church councells and Fathers is the ultimate decyder of all matters of controveâ—ste This I prove first thus That which was the totall rule of our faith before the written word of God may be well the partiall rule of our faith after where the written word of God doth not sufficiently eâ—â—ressâ— divers mysteries of us to be beleeved But traditioÌ„ was a sufficient yea and the total rule of our faith til Moses tyme the first 〈◊〉 in of the holy ghost go tradition now togither with the written word is a sufficieÌ„t rule of our faith My major through out this whole tract shal be proved My minor is graunted by Mr H. A. 20. Secondly Not onely before the law of Moses men weâ—â— wholly directed by the month of tradition but after also as it appeares in Deut. 3â— verse 7. Ask thy fatners and they shall annantiate unto thee ask thy auncestors and they shall tell thee showing that of many thinges that were to be beleeved wee should depend of the instruction of our auncestors for in the wordes young 〈◊〉 diatâ—â—y before that is implied coâ—â—ra generationes singulas and Psal. 43 1. Oh Lord we have heard with our eares our fathers have 〈◊〉 unto us that which thou hast wrought in their dayes and in the ancients dayes Prov 8 1. Heare oh sonne the discipline of thy father and doe not leave the law of thy mother Isa. 38 19. The father shall make knowen to his sonne this truth where truth discipline showes rather matters of discipline and doctrine then matters of fact as Mr H. A. would interpret and Jere. 6 16. Stand upon the wayes and see ask of the ancient pathes what is the right way and walk in it and ye shall find rest unto your souls which is playne there that the Prophet doth not onely speak of matter of faith but to prevent error and 〈◊〉 of doctrine also see Eccles 8 11. 4 Esdr. 14 3. 2 Tim. 2 15. 1 Tim. 6 20 2. Tim. 2 1. what can be hence inferrâ—d but that the Israâ—lites and Christians were to be directed by the help of traditions See the holy fathers so firme and so frequent for this great truth that falshood it self of our adversaries cannot tell how to oppose see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cited before number 16. 〈◊〉 in the â—ere of our Lord 80 lib. 3. â— 4. calles tradition dives deposicoâ—um a rich treasurie or â—usrodie Eâ—emens 〈◊〉 lib. â— Strema â— 4 in the yeare 200 say is that the knowledge of traditisÌ„ by succession is come from the Apostles et lib. 7 Stromat â— 9. he calls unwritten tradition the 〈◊〉 of truth Origenes in the yeare 240 in his 5. 〈◊〉 in Numeros et trâ—â—t 29 in Math teacheth that wee beleeve and doe many things by tradition S. Athanasius in his epistle ad Epiâ—tâ—te tuâ— sayes That it is sufficient to answer to his adversaries that it is not the doctrine of the Catholick church that the holy fathers have not thought so S. Basil also sayes he can beleeve many things by the unwritten witness of the Apostles the 2. Councel of 〈◊〉 in actione 7. approves the authoritie of unwritten traditions D. â—ier in the yeare 390 in his dialogue contra Lucifer affirmes that for his part if ther were no scripture yet the consent of the whole church were sufficient And S. August De baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 7. c. 53 affirmes that which the universal church holdes neyther is it instituted but was ever reteyned we may judge most rightly to be delivered by the Apostles idem epist. 86. ad â—asul Yea if our adversaries testimonie is availeable in confirming a truth against themselves for us See how Martin Luther in his Lypsick disp submits himself to the judgment and determination of the holy church and in his epist. ad Marchionâ—â— Brandeburg which is to be found in his second in Germane language folio 2 3. He is not ashamed to say it is an horrible thing to heare or say that which is contrarie to the uniforme testimonie of faith and the doctrine of the holy Catholick church that from above a thowsand with uniform consent she had kept John Calvin in his book against Pigâ—â—ius bragâ—ingly but with dissimulation affirms that he would not refuse the triall of the universall Church and warrant of tradition Phil. Melancthon in his epist. ad Frâ—der Myream De locis veteris Theol de caena Domini affirmes that it is not safe to depart from the consent of the ancient church and in his epistle ad Iohannem Cratonem vâ—â—tatista he confesseth that doubt in a mans conscience is a tortuâ—er and that the vniversall consent of doctrine must prevaile for confirming of a truth and he graunts that the best Masters are Irenae us Tertullian and S. Augustin that have left many monuments of truth for us to whom they did adjoyne the rule of faith the suffrages of the learned the consent of the Apostolicall churches and this is that which he affirms they deduced from the
For first and formost you doe not distinguish what are scriptures and what are not by the authoritie of the church For so you should admit of all that she dooth receive and if ye reject any thing that she hath doubted of you should as well as yow refuse those bookes called Deutrocanonici of the old Testament you should as well reject those Deutrocanonici of the new testament as the epistle to the Hebrewes Judas epistle and the Apocalyps but the touch of your triall is the private spirit and the unction not of the holy Ghost but of an addle head and a self conceipted phancie 100. And that you like a blind baiard walk in this round though you may apprehend you have gone many a mile and to show that you have confined your selfe in the selfe same circle I prove 101. For first I aske how you know the scripture of the Prophets and Apostles is Gods word you answer the spirit of God the testification and witness of the spirit the annointing of the spirit doe testifie to you that they are written by God But then againe I demaund how you prove that you have that spirit of God this spirituall annointing You answ what maÌ„ knoweth what is in him but the spirit of God that is in him 1. Cor. 2. He answers again that he can make no proof of that to another that is onely knowen to himself againe no man knoweth how the wind bloweth or knowes how the bones do grow in the wombe of a woman Eccles. 11 5. it is the spirit that testifies 1. Joh. 5 6. So that we see you prove the scripture by your private spirit and your spirituall annointing and you prove you have this spirit by the scripture As if a child should prove he were no bastard in that his mother sayes so and she likewise prove that she her selfe were honest in that he saies so Or prove the Church of Amsterdam to be a true church in that the Amsterdamian spirit interpreting the scripture saies so And that the Amsterdamian spirit is a true spirit in that the AmsterdamiaÌ„ spirit sayes so So I demand of you how you doe know the scripture to be Gods word you answer out of the testificatioÌ„ of the holy ghost And how you know the internal testificatioÌ„ is froÌ„ God you answer likewise out of the scripture interpreted by the Spirit My sheep heares my voice and how doe you know how it is the scripture You answer by the testification of the inward spirit so that we see your discourses like puppets have their motioÌ„ froÌ„ one string speak by the mouth of the same interpreter 102. But now to show the falshood and unprofitablenes of your circular discourse I demand what you hold the testification of the inward spirit to be For you must hold that it proceeds from God as wel as your inward habit or act of faith and then againe I aske whether you be certaine by the certaintie of faith that you have this inward act of faith that you have the testification of the spirit Then I argue this certitude must proceed from an other testification and that from another and the other from another so wee shall runne headless in infinitum 103. Besides I ask whether that testification of the spirit since it can not have his residence in the will being a certaine perswasion or speech of God belonging to the understanding and so it must be a certain notice or cognitioÌ„ If it be obscure I aske how it is distinguished froÌ„ faith if it be clear evident how is it to be distinguished froÌ„ the knowledg or vision of a thing so that wee see you affirme a thing that indeed you doe not understand what it is 104. But before I gathered your mind when you said the scriptures of themselves are so cleare that by themselves they appeare for scriptures so that you seeme to resolve that which you beleeve in to the holie scriptures and the formal reason why you beleeve it into the testification or perswasion of the spirit yet this also you doe not hold to alwayes For other times you resolve both the one and the other into the testification of the inward spirit with you most often which showes your great inconstancie grounded on seare 105. But admitting that you had onely sayd the things to bee beleeved or fides externa were to be resolved into the holy scripture onely Yet so you should admit of as great an absurditie For so you should say the gospel of S. Mathew or the whole scripture taken totally togither are not canonical and authentick nor that Mr. H. Aynsw is predestinated or that his sinns are remitted All which Aprove For nothing he is to beleeve for which he hath not the expresse word of God But none of these are expressed in the word of God If he will say he will gather these by necessarie consequence his adversaries may oppose him and he can show no certaintie If he flie unto the inward testification of the spirit theÌ„ I inferr that the things to be beleeved ar not to be resolved into the scriptures alone So Mr H. A. eates his own word though without one graine of salt or pretence of reason Yet to show this a little more plaine I reason thus Is the scripture the word of God you answer it is and that without all question But I demaund how you know it is the word of God if you answer by the testification of your inward spirit you ride your first circuit If you say it appeares by it self this is not so plaine since most parts and parcels of scripture have bene doubted of and that by schollers Yet admit scripture were so cleare a light by it self yet you cannot avoid as great a difficultie For I aske whether you will prove the whole scripture by the whole and then every one will see you â—â—ie for refuge thether which you ought to defend If you say that the whole scripture is proved by some particular parcell of scripture you are bound to show me that which you can never performe viz. that any part of scripture dooth affirme the whole scripture and every part and parcel thereof to be scripture 106. And if I should graunt you this yet another absurditie at the suit of reason hath arrested you For by what will you trie that particular parcel of scripture that so authoriseth al the rest to be scripture Thus you see in defending your private spirit you have undergone the labours of Hercules the difficulties arising as Hydraes heades two for one as one is dissolved 107. Besides this opinion of theirs doth not onely lead a man into these endlesse windings but it makes against coÌ„mon sense that God should leave his holte scriptures so carelesse at six and sevens unsettled that every hereticli might challenge to himself to be taught from God so that he might reject the
faith if it be as it ought that is if it be accomodated proportioned vnto the object end of our faith as it is necessary vnto salvation deth eyther require a particular motion of the Holy Ghost or an infused habit of faith as it appeareth out of the 7. chapter of the Aransicanum Conc. and out of the Trident Sess 6. c. 5. et canone Where it is affirmed that without Gods preventing grace and the illuminatioÌ„ of the holy Ghost no man can beleeve things reveled as he ought that is that Gods justifying grace be given him 141. Fourthly I affirme that this certaine and inevident iudgment of the truth of our faith into these humain reasoÌ„s and motives as into the moving applying and impulsive cause but not as into the formal motive of beleeving And the selfe same judgment is resolved into the supernatural light as into the true efficieÌ„t cause of that certitude and proportioÌ„ which it hath with his adequate object and end both being supernatural 142 If I be demaunded therefore whie I beleeve â— persoÌ„s and one God or any other thing I answer if you aske of me the formal reason whie I assent I answer I beleeve because God hath revealed it If I be thenasâ—ed how I know God hath revealed it I answer I doe not evidently know this though certainly I know it for the same revelation and infalible authoritie which the church of God as an intrinsecal condition or application applies to me to be beleeved 143. But if I be further questioned since the revelation of God and the proposing are both obscure and inevident how cames it theÌ„ that I certainly and evidently doe beleeve 144. I answer then I returne vnto the motives of evident credibilitie that maie induce any prudent man to beleeve that saith and that church warranted by so many motives 145. Neither is here coÌ„mitted any vitious circle between the authoritie of God the church as I have before convinced you in your grounds to commit For first the authoritie of God revealing in vertue of which the infailibilitie of the proposition is beleeved and the selfe same infallible proposition in vertue of which we beleeve that God â—â—ies and reveales hath two diverse objects For the object of the infailible proposition is that God reveales And the object that God reveales or of the revelation of God is the veritie beleeves 146. â— I saie in that when out of the authoritie of God revealing is given the formal reason of our beleeving the motive is given by the formal cause But when out of the infallible proposing of the church a reason to given whie we beleeve the divine revelation If it be vnderstood aright it is not to be given by a formal cause or motive but by an intrinsecall and requisite application of the motives whie we beleeve which is doone by the proposing of it by the church so that ther is no circle ab eodem in idem secundum idem which Aristotle only coÌ„demns 1. Post. text 5. as I have shewed before 147. Yet to goe one degree further in shewing how we are free in another regard from this mere circular and fruictless resolution of theirs I presuppose that then is coÌ„mitted a circle when the selfe same is proved by the selfe same to him that graunteth neither or doth aequallie deny both or doubteth of both For proofe of which we learne out of Aristotle that we ought to proceed from that which to knowen to that which is not knowen or at least from that which is graunted to that which is not graunted for so we shall proceed from that which is knowen after a manner to that which is not knowen 148. Whence I inferr that he should coÌ„mit this circuler discourse that to an Ethnick that equally should denie both scripture and the infallibilitie of the church should prove that the scripture were of divine authoritie in that the church teacheth vs it and the church of infallible authoritie in that the scripture teacheth vs it But to a protestant that admits of most of the scripture it is no circle to prove the infallibilitie of the church which he denies from the scripture which he admits of but first you do not give a resolutioÌ„ of your faith as I doe that is powerful against Ethnick or heretick 2. though wee admit of scripture yet wee cannot be vrged therevnto by you that receiving from the church the scripture will not beleeve all that she proposeth alike to be beleeved 149. The foresaid manner of proof is vsuall both in the scriptured and in ancient Fathers The Pharisees did admit of Moses and denie Christ. Therfore our Saviour convinced them with these words Joh. 5. 46. If you did beleeve Moses you would beleeve me for he gave testimonie of me Againe contrariwise the Manicheies did admit of Christ and the gospel did deny Moses and the Prophets therfore S. Aug. contra FaustuÌ„ ManichaeuÌ„ in his book lib. 1. de moribus Ecclesiae Catholicaec 1. et seq did convince the Manichees The like manner of proceeding wee take to instruct a Catholick that should denie any parcel of scripture wee convince him by the judgment of the church to whom he submits himselfe And Hereticks that denie tradition the church and the Popes authorâ—tie wee convince them out of scripture out of the writings vniform consent of the holy Fathers thowsands of whom M. â— A. saies he preferres for wisdom truth and holiness before himself whose vniversall consent of them living in all times being most expert in tongues neare our Saviours times many of them being the Apostles schollers not partiall to eyther of our causes writing so long before many delivering matters of facts that doth prove or coÌ„firme many poiâ—â—â— of our doctrine I cannot see how you can denie them especially since you saie you admit so farr of them as they agree with scripture For S. Hierom translated it S. Ambrose S. Aug. S. Greg. S. Barnard interpreted it and they all cite many places of scripture to prove fundamentall points of doctrine of our religion But I shewed how the holie Fathers agreed with scripture to which you are silent 150. But that you doe not proceed after the self same manner is plaine For though you abound with wrested places of scripture which we admit of all in their true sence Yet you denie the interpretation of the Fathers interpreting the scripture that by common consent and your owne graunt should better vnderstand them then you And wee doe not admit of scriptures as a sufficient proofe by themselves but togither with the interpretation of the holy Fathers of whom by your own words you should admit of since you prefer their wisdome truth and holynes before your selfe 151. Wherfore then M. H. A. would you have me beleeve you alleaging onely scripture for your self iâ— sense depraved before the holy Fathers that cite scriptures both for them and
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
Iam. 2. 14. 17. 20. from that men fall and there is the faith of Gods elect Tit. 1. 1. and this faith justifieth Rom. 4. 3. 5. 5. 1. and from it men never fall finally They may fall into syn by infirmity but shall not be cast off for the Lord putteth under his hand Psal. 37. 24. yea though they fall seven times yet they rise agayn but the vvicked fall into mischief Prov. 24. 16. This is my faith and your contrary Popish heresies I abhorr You deny not but your Popes may be reprobates and damned in hel I trow then hel gates doo prevayl against them and so the promise in Mat. 16. 18. perteyns not vnto them You except the Divil prevayls not against the Pope as he is head of the church as he defines e◠cathedra Yes doubtless therein he most prevayls against him because he allures him into Christs place and so makes him Antichrist And if you had the mind of Christ you would no more regard vvhat Apolluon the P. of Rome defineth ex cathedra unless he could prove it by the holy scriptures then what Apollo the D. of Delphos divined ex tripode 4. Your fourth shew from Peters confirming his brethren being confuted by scriptures Act. 14. 22. and 15. 41. 32. c. you now say the other Apostles confirmed not as the supreme pastor not as the head of the church by office I answer neyther did Peter so if you add that to your wrested text God will reprove you Prov. 30. 6. and your humane testimonies vvhich you abuse also shall not save you You digress to entwite me with gross corruption of the text for Englishing presbyteros an Elder I am loth to folow your outroades onely let me tel you that you check herein your authentik Latin translation which turneth it Senior and Major nat◠and in your divinitie Englishing both Cohen Hiereus a Preist and Zaken Presbuteros a Preist as if these were one you deceiv the simple with a sophistical aequivocatiō And you may as wel say the Apostles were idiots because they are caled idiotai Act. 4. 13. as say Christs ministers are Preists vnderstanding sacrificing Preists because they are caled Presbyteri 5. You daily agayn about Peters feet first washed as some suppose I let you alone vvith your fansie let the reader judge whither it be a fit proof for his headship 6. So for Peters martyrdome vvhence you conclude it was promised to Peter to be head of the church It is a bold untruth the text sayth no such words proveth no such thing 7. Your 7. show was gathered also from a false translation restrayning they began Act. 2. 4. to Peter as if he began which being but a guess you now shrink from that to the next passage in v. 14 c. where from Peters sermon you would prove him head of the church It is a vvorld to see vvhat shifts you are driven to the very naming of them is to all wise men ridiculous But if Peter for first preaching was head of the church that Pope vvhich first left preaching was the head of the Beast and so all your unpreaching Popes at least are Antichrists You graunt agayn that the first miracle which you uncertainly supposed S. Peter vvrought Act. 2. 11. dooth not solely convince what you would herein I beleeve you But I marvel at your discretion that think a number of futilous and vvorthless arguments being heaped togither would perswade any vnto popery unless they be such as are spoken of Prov. 9. 16. who so is simple let him come hither And here you are too lavish of your tongue in saying I cannot deny but our Saviour caleth Peter the rock first washeth his feet that Peter booth the first miracles c. I denyed the first and you cannot prove the latter Though were they al granted for Peter yet your applying them to your Pope is altogither groundless The first excommunication by Peter inferrs you think that he was head Before you urged the act which being proved insufficient now yee flee to the first doing of the act At the most this sheweth but primacie in order which I graunted seing Paul and others did the like But by your manner of reasoning vvhosoever dooth any thing first shall be head of the church And why I pray you by like reason should not those Popes that first practised Simony sorcerie and hypocrisie be heads of the man of syn You leav it for the reader to judge whither all these reasons togither shew not that Peter was rock and head of the church I also referr it to judgment And if your vayn shewes for Peter be not sound proofs for your Pope then he is left naked as the heath in the wildernes Ier. 17. 6. I proved by the scriptures Mat. 28. 18. 19. 20. Ioh. 20. 21. 22. 23. Act. 2. 4. that the other Apostles had equal office charge and power vvith Peter himself you answer the places prove nothing and if ought it is equality of order not of jurisdiction Thus you resist the truth vvithout reason it vvere vvell if you would add doctrine to your lips When all the Apostles are sent by the power of Christ vvith like vvords and authority vvhen the rest as Paul doo whatsoever Peter himself did in word prayer Sacraments censures miracles c. you barely say they vvere not equall in jurisdiction You vveary me vvith your own words and repetitions without proof Seing Gods vvord moves you not let me trie vvhat man 's will doo The rest of the Apostles sayth one of your Doctors vvere verily the same that Peter vvas indued vvith equal participation of honor and of power Being blamed for your making Peter head and rock of the church vvhich are Christs peculiar titles You answer he is the ministerial subordinat head to Christ as Christ is the foundation 1 Cor. 3. 11. yet the Apostles are foundations Eph 2. 20. I answer first Gods word no where caleth Peter the head and vvhy will you be vviser then God Secondly the Apostles because they layd the foundation vvhich vvas Christ as Paul sheweth 1. Cor. 3 10. 11. therfore the Church is sayd to be built upon their foundation Eph. 2. 20. And in this they vvere equal if any excelled it vvas Paul who laboured in laying the foundation more then the rest 2 Cor. 12. 11. 1 Cor. 15. 10. In this sense if you speak of ministerial head that by the ministery of the word Peter preached the head Christ the thing is true but the phrase is not good it vvas true in Paul also as much as Peter yea in all the Apostles and thus all Christs ministers at this day minister and preach him the head vvhich the Pope dooth not But you feign a thing which never vvas that Christ should substitute Peter for head in his place absence no scripture tells
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
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
Peter the office of an vniversall Pastor saying pasce ovâ—s meas feed my flock which sounds as much as have care of my sold. But in S. John the 10. it is sayd that there is but one flock and one shepheard and therefore since he bids him thrise feed his flock he honors him thrise with the stile of an universall pastor And therefore all the fathers joyntly interpret this place of an especiall charge and dominion assigned unto S. Peter investing him thereby in the supreame seat and government of his church and by him he is installed that had all power given him in heaven above and in earth beneath Now lastly and breifly to showe that our Romane Church is the true and onely Catholike Church of God that it is that holy citie Apocal 21. v. 20. that fruitful vine Psa. 79. v. 9. that high mountayne that direct path Isâ— 35. vers 8. that onely Dove Cant 6. v. 8. that kingdome of heaven Mat. 13. v. 24. that onely spouse Cant. 4. v. 8. that mysticall body of Christ Jesu Ephes. 5. v. 23. 1 Cor. 12 v 12. that foundation and rock of the truth 1 Tim. 3. v. 15 that holy multitude to whom such speciall directions of the Holy Ghost is promised Ioh. 14. 26. that Church against which hell gates shall not prevayle Mat 16. v. 18. the which Church was prefigured by the Arlie of Noe out of which none were saved from the all drowning deluge that is that tabernacle posuit tabernaculum suum in sole a tabernacle placed in the sunne conspicuous of all to be seene It is that citie that cannot be hidd S. Math. 8. All which properties belong onely unto our Romaine Catholike Church First our church is Catholik For in my memorie first we onely are catholiks in so much that the name Catholick was hatefull to a Puritaine or a Protestant And therefore Beza in his preface novi testamenti 1565. calls the name Catholicke a vaine word D. Humfrey in vita Iuelli pag. 113. calls it a vain term Sutliff in his challenge a fruitlesse name not unlike GaudeÌ„tius the hereticke who termed the word catholick a humane fiction Vt D. Aug contra Gaudentium lib 2 c. 25 though it be against the article of our beleefe whereas S. Hier Apol. 1. adversus Ruff sayth if we agree with the Bishop of Rome go Catholici sumus â— where S. Hier makes an vnfallible note of a catholicke man to agree with the sea of Rome 2. Our Church is an auncient church and God is more auncient then the Divill truth then falshood the good seed theÌ„ the bad cockle Christs seamless coate then his rent peeces that is Christs Church concording then the division into schismes And if you graunt that once our Church was the true Church but since it hath swarved from her auncient purity and incorruption shewe I praye you which Pope first gave place to the defects by what doctrine first in what age of our Lord on what motive and occasion who openly repugned it how that defect increased But all these points we can prove on your religions and sects Wee can shewe that there was neyther Wicliff Nuss Zuther Calvin of your religion Zuther and Calvin seeme first to have broached it though with in this hundred yeares we can trace theÌ„ forth the yeares motives places increase of their religion as you may read in hystories Wee are not ignorant of the motives that made King Henry the 8. first oppose himself to the Romane church though notwithstanding in his â—ir articles he held and ratified seven sacraments of the Church and conformed himself to al points of the Romane Catholick church onely excepting the point of supremacie Wee can show so that lawful in his dayes and sworne to which of some was held blasyliemy in the latter end of King Edward the 6 dayes That also which was allowed of in his dayes in his coÌ„munion book was defâ—ed in Queen Elizabeths dayes And that in her daies that is rejected in K. James And that in his Majesties dayes now whose Highness offers his religion to be tried by the united consent of the Fathers and the 4. or 5. generall Councells whose triall both his Bishops and you we are assured dare not stand to That which the Protestants now held to be a true lanterne and touchstone of the truth you repute oâ—â—iy as a stumblinâ— block and a stincking snuffâ— We can show that interrupted duration of the Romane catholick church according to that in Daniel the 9. Regnum quod in aeternum non dissipabitur and 5. of the Arts si ex hominibus consilium hoc aut opus dissolvetur si vero ex Dâ—o non potest dissolvi Wee can show the propheâ—y of the psalmist fulfilled Dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam et possessionâ—m tuam tâ—minos terrae Psal 2. Et dominabitur a mariusque ad mare Wee can show multitudes of people converted to our religion in the East and west Indies in Iaponia and China by men of our religion and sent by an Apostolicall mission Wee can show how that S. Peter about the 63 year of Christ came hither into EnglaÌ„d Camden in sua descriptione Brâ—tanniae pag. 52. et Nicephorus ut pse refert We read how Pope Eleutherius sent hither anno 156. S Fugatium et Damianum who baptized King Lucius and lastly S. Augustin and his companions Moncks were sent into England and wrought the conversion thereof and that S. Gregorie whom D. HuÌ„frey so farre extolleth p. 2. â—eâ—uitis rat 5. pag. 624. Gregorius nomine quidem magnus revera magnus vir magnus et multis divinae gratiae dotibus exornatus was with his followers of our religion shall moninifestly be proved by D. Humfreys owne assertion p. 2. ratione 5. p. 626. In ecclesiam vero quid induxerunt Gregorius et Augustinus nisi onus caeremoniarum Missarum solennia et Purgatorium so that we see they held those opinions of Masse and Purgatory that of ProtestaÌ„ts is so extreamly condemned Now if we should urge you to showe the succession of your interpreters and teachers from S. Peter you will be mute but we can shewe who succeeded each Pope how long he lived what doctrines he established Lastly we can â—now all sanctity vnitie and conformity of doctrine Out of all which notes we caÌ„ gather our church to be Vnam Sanctam et Apostolicam But you can prove no one of these notes in your church And when you shal be demanded at the tribunall of Almighty God why you hold this faith you now profess you can onely answer the holy and your privat spirit told you it was so though against all antiguitie of â—yme just interpretation of scripture consent of Fathers Greek and Latin But when we shal be demanded why we beleeve in the Romane catholick church we shall answer by reason Christ himselfe teacheth vs so He that heareth you heareth me and he that contemneth you contâ—netâ— me the
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
was no private but the most publik spirit of God without which no scripture can be vvel interpreted And vvhere you say S. Peter was head of that council you passe the boundes of the text vvhich shevves no such thing Christ vvas the head and he guided them by his holy spirit Peter after much disputation shevved his mind grounded upon the vvorks and lavv of the Lord Barnabas and Paul confirmed the same by their ovvn experience then Iames confirmed Symon Peters speech by the vvords of the Prophets thereupon gave sentence or judgment vvhat should be doon vvherto the Apostles and Elders vvith the vvhole church agreed Wherefore if any man vvere head reason vvould lead us to think lames rather then Simeon vvas the man Thus the decree had povver and force from Gods vvord vvhich by the holy Ghost vvas serched scanned manifested of the Apostles and Elders vvas approved and consented to of the vvhole Church there the Apostles Elders and brethren all vvhich and not Simon alone sayd It seemed good to the Holy ghost and to us And that all care and diligence should be used to decide controversies by the vvord of God I acknovvledgâ— but to deney Gods vvord vvhich you call bare and naked though it be gloriously arayed vvith al ornaments of the spirit to be an infalâ—ible rule of truth is farr from my hart and farr from being proved by these your allegations But you shut up your argument thus Therfore let S. Peter himself conclude that no prophesie of scripture that is no interpretation as the holy Fathers interprâ—t to made by a private spirits interpretation But the Apostle concludes not your purpose that Gods word or scrâ—pâ—ure is not an infallible rule of truth therfore you are nothing hâ—lpenâ—â— this text though you constreyn it to spâ—aâ— otherwâ—isâ— then the auctor 〈◊〉 it downe which was not is you say by a private spirit 〈…〉 but of ones own interpretation or of it own explication or 〈◊〉 This speech dooth no whit disprove the auctoritie sufficiencie or iâ—â—â—llibilitie of the prophesies of scripture which the Apostle before did approve vâ—râ— 19. Therfore this standeth still firm against you thâ—t Gods bare word meaning without the raggs of mens inventions is aâ— infallible rule of truth but how this infallible rule is to be used interpreted applyed c. is a second consideration And though I would not swery from the question yet to help you what I may I will speak a litle of that which you allege If by 〈◊〉 spirit you mean an humane spirit or the spirit natural in man I grant it no prophesie of scripture is of private or of a mâ—â—s own interpretation he can not by all his wâ—t learning or industrie explane it without the spirit of God If you mean a private mans interpretation as that no privat man can interprete any prophesie I deney it For the publick man with you is the Pop he interprets all having his supposed soveraigntie from Peter But if all other be private men save Peter and his successors the Popes then doe you injurie to all the other Apostles Prophets Evang lists Pastors and Teachers at that time and in ages since as if they without Peter or the Pope could not interpret any prophâ—sie of scripture It is also against your own Bishops Preists Iesuits and against your self for none of you but the publick spirit of the Pope onely can interpret any scripture which if it be so why medle you now with controversies about the scriptures against me seing you can give but a private spirits interpretation which the Apostle in your own judgment condemneth If all Church officers be exempted from the private number and are amongâ—th publick and may all interpret then will your Pope have â—â—le privilege from this place above other Bishops Or if you think that no private that is as you speak no 〈◊〉 man can interpret any prophesie of scripture you doo injurie to Gods people or lâ—itie For were not all the laie oâ— people of the church in Corâ—â—th willed to covet spiritual gifâ—s and rather that they might prophesie which all of them might perform in the church Doth not the wind blow where it lysteth Gods spirit breath on whoÌ„ he pleaseth Prophesies of scripture never were of propre or private interpretation yet Christ a carpenters son brought up unlettered nâ—yther Preist nor Levite but a laie man in Israel was permitted to interprete the prophesies of scripture publikly and Câ—iaphas himself cavillâ—d not against him as being a private spirit The Apostles also were unlettered and private men yet were they not for that forbidden to interpret scriptures but if they lived in your church it seemes they should Consider I pray you of these things and the Lord give you understanding But you procede with this matter and thirdly you argue and by your argument as you say break the force of a pretended answer thus Not onely scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to prove what is canonical and what is not but also that scriptures helped by private mens interpretation are not sufficient to prove the same I see this your proposition but I see no proof in sted of that you digresse to complayn that the poorest handycrafts man c is allowed to interpret the hardest places of scripture But all this proveth not the point in hand namely that the scripture is not a sufficieÌ„t rule of our faith For this it may be and is how ever men err in expounding it Of this point I have spoken before your assertion is not an argument and if ther were but a pretended answer yet your bare position would not break the force of it the yron is blunt and you have not whet the edge therfore you must put to more strength Fourthly you argue thus That which by the lights and lanterns of your opinions hath been wronged in the highest degree to bolster vp heresies cannot be a true and indeficient rule of faith The assumption is a rhetorical flourish for what more 〈…〉 quent say you with hereâ—iâ—s then at their fingers ends to 〈◊〉 places of scripture c. And here you mention divers points and persons and then without conclusion passe on to an other argument The assumption which is personal touching Luther Calvin c and unjustly bâ—nt against us I leave to strive about and could requite you with the like of your Popes and Prelates who have wronged the scripture not in the least degree Your proposition I deney for though men wrong the word of God never so much eyther ignorantly or wilfully yet is the word never the worse not lesse sufficient rule of faith The Preists in Israel wrested the law by which they should haue taught the people yet was the law in it self a true and indeficient rule of faith to which the Prophets referred the people and blamed those that
therfore unlesse you vvil renounce Christ and make Peter your Rock your God your Saviour that layd down his life for you to give you eternal life you cannot make him that one Pastor over the one fold of Iewes and Gentiles Wherfore neyther thrise nor yet once is Peter honoured with the stile of universal Pastor but onely is charged to feed Christs sheep as other Pastors also are required our Lord Iesus the great Pastor of the sheep hath given not one but many Pastors for this work Ephe. 4. 11. Having heard your reasons for Peters headship I exspected somewhat for your Popes pretended primacie but for this you shew no evidence froÌ„ Gods book you have none I trow so ancient Wherfore your position That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith is farr as yet froÌ„ being proved And though this preeminence were yeilded for Cephas yet would I not grant the like for Caiaphas though Peter vvere the Rock on which Christs Church is builded yet your house may be situate on the sands for ought you have sayd to perswade the contrarie But let us see what the 3. point in your letter wil afford which now next foloweth Lastly and breifly you take upon you to shew that your Romane church is the true and onely catholik church of God that holy citie Apoc. 21. c. And first your church you say is catholik for in your memory you onely are catholiks in so much that the name catholik was hateful to a puritan or a protestant citing Beza D. Humfrie Sutcliff c. Your reason hath no weight What if others should say your church is the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. because in their memory you only are lovers of that whore in so much that the name whore is hateful to a puritan or protestant Would you approve of this argumeÌ„t Yea but it is you say against the article of our beleef to deney the catholik church I answer we beleeve ther is a catholik that is an universal church no puritan or protestant I think denyes it But that your church of Rome or any other particular church in the world should be the universal or catholik church neyther faith nor reason dooth perswade Wherfore the auctors whom you cite mought vvel blame you for taking to your selves that ambitious title which never was given you of God If therfore you speak let it be as the words of God and if by his word you can say any thing to help you shâ—w it and by his grace I will hear Otherwise your assumed name Catholik moves me no more then the name Apostolik Prâ—â—tegiani corruptly called Prester John among the Ethâ—â—pians I know the Apostle Paul gave the church in Rome no such swelling title when he wrote therunto and if you would have your church called by a new name you should let the mouth of the Lord name it as sayth the Prophet Isa 62 2. except you would have it noted to be none of his Secondly you say your church is an ancient church and God is more ancient then the Divil truth then falshood c I grant your church is ancient but I deney it to be the most ancient Seing then the most ancient by your own grant is the most true bring â—orth the testimonies of your antiquitie and if in the particulars I shew more ancient testimonie then yow I will yeild But you procedâ— say If yow grant that once our church was the true church but stâ—ce it hath swarved from her ancient purity shew which Pope first gave place to the dâ—fects c. I grant there was a true church in Rome in tâ— Apostles dayes so was there in Ierusalem in Ephesus Corinth Colosse other cities many What their faith estate vvas I see in the most ancient records the Apostles aâ—s letters unto them What yowr faith estate is I see also by your late council of Trident other bâ—oks of yours maynteyning a religion unheard of in â—h Apostles dayes as in the particulars vvhen they come to be scanned after vve have ended these general grounds in hand I doubt not but to manifest Hovv Rome is come to be Lady mistresse of al churches I knovv not by any ancient record of the Apostles save by that mysterie opened unto Iohn in the vvildernes Apoc. 17. And if your Popes lives vvere in Gods record as were the Kings of Israel I could easily thevv which Pope first gave place to the defects c. but seing they are not recorded by him I vvil not preâ—ume above that vvhich is vvritten If upon mens report I should centure them I mought doo many good men vvrong They that are dead are gone to thâ—ir judgmeÌ„t have stood or fallen unto the Lord you that are livâ—ng must ansvvâ—r for your selves and your present state vvhich if you can not vvarrant by the vvord of God vvho liveth indu â—eth for ever your dead mens bones vvil be but slender pillars co underprop your church This I am sure of and testify unto you Our Saviour and his Apostles forecold of false prophets and of greivous vvolves that should come soon after and not spare the flock Who vvas the first vvolf in Ephesus vvho the first in Rome c I can not tel out if our Lord have given vs a true rule ye shall knovv them by their fruits vve may knovv your Pope not to be head of the Church unlesse of Antichrists your church it self to be Cos bi-bath tsur Falsitie daughter of a rock but not of Christ. Be not offended at my plain dealing vvith you it is a case of conscience and concerneth your salvation and my ovvn and I vvish your vvelfare as my ovvn Your conclusion neaping many praises upon your church many dispraises upon oâ—ns others that have forsaken her remayns hereafter unto due trial vvhen having finished these first questions begun you shall set dovvn arguments from Gods vvord eyther for your selves or against us In the mean time I obsâ—rve your dispute against us to have no more vveight or colour then as if the AEdomites or Ismaelites elder brethren to tâ—â— Israelites should have alleged their outvvard carnal privileges possessions against their poor brother Iaakob in AEgyptian bondage and after a pilgrim in the vvildernes or as if the Scribes and Pharisees should have pleaded for Annas and Caiaphas and their proceedings from Deut. 33 8 11. and other scriptures many against Iesus of Nazareth and his disciples I knovv he magnificence and pomp of the false church dazeleth the eyes of many her sorceries bevvitch many her fornications destroy many but her cup is ful of the vvine of vvrath and her lovers shal be cormented vvith her but those vvhom God loveth shal be delivered from her Wherefore serch in the book of God and read let his law be your light and make
may say to him vvhy doe you this and that whosoever obeyes not his precepts incures the syn of idolatrie paganisme You may tell me that the Pope hath not dominion over your faith but your Canonist tel me that he can dispense against the law of God that he can dispense against the law of nature that he can dispense against an Apostle that he can dispense against the new testament yea that he can dispense concerning all the precepts of the old and nevv testament And may vve novv think that he hath not dominion over your saith or may wee think that vvhen he is come which should sit as God in the Temple of God that he wil doe greater things then these But of your Popes preeminence wee are to speak in another place To return therfore to the scripture which you deney to be an indeficient rule of our faith you objected that it had many senses and stil you stand to it as proved well I am content to leave it unto judgement But though it were so yet this is not proved that therfore it is no sure rule of our faith save by your churches exposition For why might not the church in Corinth which were made rich by Christ in all kind of speech and in all knowledge so that they were not destitute of any gift why might not that church I say declare the many senses of scripture as well as the church of Rome Or rather why may not the holy ghost shew any church or any member or Christs church the meanings of the scripture and so it remayn as a firm rule of faith and the Spirit of God the sole authentik expositor of the same But here you urge agayn your bastard phrase falsly fathered upon S. Peter that no prophesie of scripture is made by a private spirits interpretatioÌ„ though I blamed you before for speaking in such sort If you can not perceive heavenly things consider earthly Your one body hath but one spirit which gives life to the vvhole and to every member of the body The same spirit dooth quicken the hand and foot that quickneth the head and hart although a greater measure is in the principal members then in the inferiour Even so by the scriptures we learn that the catholik church is one bodie and hath one spirite and though the many members of this bodie have not one work but have received diversities of giftes yet it is the same spirit To one by the spirit is given the word of vvisdom to an other the word of knowledge by the same spirit and to an other faith by the same spirit and so all the gifts to all the members This is the most publick spirit that the church hath and every member of the church hath the same so there is no privat spirit which Christians have as you by tradition it seemes have learned Now seeing all Christians have the same spirit that the Pope himself unlesse he have the spirit of Satan how is it that he onely must be the publik spirit and interpreter of the word Because say you he is the head of the church and hath the promise of our Saviour that his faith should not fayl him This I deney Now you beleeve it because the Pope himself tells it you for your ovvn privat spirit may assure you of nothing I wil disprove it by your next words and knowen experience For you say he may err in matter of fact and syn aswell as an other man then say I he may goe to the Divil for his facts and synns as vvell as an other man then is he the successor of Iudas Iscariot not of Simon Peter then the gates of hel prevaile against him And thus your Rock is rent in peeces and your building is on the sands You rely upoÌ„ one whom you know not but he may be a reprobate a child of the Divil yea a divil incarnate as Pope Iohn the 23. was found and judged to be by the Council of Constance and then he may lye as well as his father the Divil and then if you take not heed he may murder your soul as well as his father the Divil And how then dare you make him your rock your hope your confidence to beleeve all that he sayth not to beleeve Gods word unlesse he tell you it is Gods word not to beleeve any meaning of the scriptures but as he tell you the meaning is If men were bruite beasts without understanding they could not be more overruled then thus but the Lord sayth be not as the horse and as the mule And if the inhabitants of the earth had not been druncken with the wine of her fornication the great whore could never thus have benummed their senses and bereft them of heavenly light If you deney that your Popes may be reprobates and Heariots though they may syn your own popish records will teach you by as undoubted marks upon them as ever had Cain the dearest lovers of your catholik chaire branding their holy fathers with titles of prodigious wonders monsters for their beastly lives so some of them are knowen to have dyed without repentaÌ„ce or faith in God that eyther they never had faith or els their faith failed and then Christ prayed not for them as he did for Peter so their pretended priviledge lieth in the dust The 15. of the Acts alledged for Peters primacie I have before answered and leav it unto judgment yow urge now againe vers 7. that Pâ—â—er rose up shewing therby that he was head c. a strange collection that if a man rise up to speak in an assembly he must need therfore be head you mought better have gathered so if he had sitten stil spoken for sitting of the two rather argues auctoritie then standing up But tel me I pray you in earnest when Gamaliel is sayd to rise up in the council of the Iewes in Ierusalem would you gather from this that he was the head of them all Or when Paul rose up in the synagogue of Antiochia was he therefore the head If not why dally you thus with the holy scriptures to gather such conclusions as common sense wil not bear But if you would plead for no other headship then this that your Pope may rise up and speak in councils it wil easily be granted but then if others should judge and give sentence froÌ„ the scripture as Iames there did your chair of Rome would soon be overthrown Like weight is in your next words that the first gentils were chosen by his mouth for that you should say God chose that the gentils by his mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and beleev What primacie of power you can build hereon I cannot tell order I am sure ther must be in al things so ther was with them and is with us we grant unto you
having fayled in his fidelitie is in special excited unto duty diligence al the other should be excluded Doe you not see hovv after this Paul shevveth Eph. 4. not Peter onely but Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers to be given of Christ for the building up of his church Your conclusion to be inferred hereupon if you conclude the question wil be much more unreasonable The point you undertook to prove vvas that not Gods vvord in the Bible but the catholik churches yea the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith To confirm this haeresie you produce here Christs charge to Peter Freed my sheep Behold Novv the strength of your argument If Peter vvas to feed Christs sheep then not Gods vvord in the scriptures but Peters definitive sentence and consequently the Popes is an indeficient rule of faith But Peter vvas to feed Christs sheep Iohn 21. Frgo c. The unreasonablenes of vvhich consequence if the bare rehearsal of it doo not convince may be shewed by the like thus If the Bishops of Ephesus vvere to feed the church of God then not Gods vvord in the scripture but their definitive sentences vvere indeficient rules in matters of faith But the Bishops of Ephesus vvere to feed the church of God Act. 20. 28. Ergo. If the Elders of the churches of Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia were to feed the flocks of God then not Gods word in the Bible but their definitive sentences were indeficient rules in matters of faith But the Elders of those churches were to feed the flock of God 1 Pet. 5 â— 2. Ergo. Behold what deep waters you have digged out from the Rock of Rome their spring I trow comes from the bottomlesse pitt If you say those Elders were under Peter as a head therfore they were to feed with his definitive sentence not their own First I deny that so they were under him and you shal never prove it whiles Rome gates doo stand though I grant their office was inferiour to the Apostles Secondly if you could prove it yet would it make against you for if because Peter was their head therfore they must feed with his doctrine onely then because Christ was Peters head Peter was to feed with Christs doctrine onely But Christ was Peters head acknowledged by Peter himself to be Arch pastor so taught by Christ himself Iohn 10. Therfore Christ definitive sentence onely not Peters much lesse the Popes is the indeficient rule of our faith And thus my cause is confirmed and yours overturned by your own weapon Yet you procede and say besides Christ speaks to S. Peter that he should feed his general flock though he may speak unto the other Apostles that they should feed their particular charges I would we might once have an end of words of wind You say al things but prove nothing unlesse your definitive sentence also must be taken for a law But then I am sure it is against Christs law for as he neyther used the word general to Peter nor the word particular to the other Apostles so wheÌ„ he sent them with their charge al indifferently it was unto al nations yea into al the world to preach the gospel to every creature and as the Father sent him so sent he them And where now I pray you were their particular charges But let it be as you say let the Apostles and al Christian Bishops their successors have these precincts in al nations in al the world and what place is over and beside let your Peter the Pope have there to menage his supremacie But here you bring your S. Leo to speak for S. Peter and I know he was his freind for I shewed before how he placed Peter in the fellowship of the indivisible unitie so making him a God I know also have shewed that in the same 3. anniversarie sermon which you cite he speaketh more for S. Peter then you bring here how be it though the Lion roreth he hath got no prey For the headship hath been proved to be Christs not Peters the Apostleship to be Peters with the other Apoltles And though you again and again doe barely affirm S. Peter was head of al the rest of the Apostles yet I must tel you again again that I hold not your definitive sentence nor the Popes neyther to be a right rule of faith but if you can bring the word of God for you that thrâ—ugh his grace I wil gladly receive In the end of this your velitation you leav me to impuâ—ne â— B. â—armines doctrine as it heth c. But your captayn comes not into this feild he lyes intrenched within the walls of Rome and triumphes in the Vatican It is you that have bid me battel and as you entred not these lists without an alarme so you wil not depart I trow without an io triumphe Yet to say the truth in answering you I have answered your Cardinal for your reasons be his you have taken them out of his skoncâ— Onely you have culled them out here and there in other order have taken the most pregnant arguments that he hath Which being by him and by you propounded by me now answered you are to look whither the propugning of them shallye upon him or on you against this my impugnation Or if you wil let them dye you may sound the retrait The 3. and last thing which you promised to prove was that this rule the indeficient rule of faith is onely found in the Roman Catholik church sentence and not in privat mens illuminations or motions of a priâ—â—t and unseen spirit Both parts of this your divided proposition I disallow and mainteyn a third viz that this rule is to be found in the writings Prophetical and Apostolical because as your Cardinal hath wel sayd nothing is more known nothing more certeyn then the holy scriptures which are conteyned in them and this is a most certayn and a most safe rule of beleeving Before vvhen you came to shew your proof it was that your Roman church is the true and onely catholik church of God Which though I doo deney yet if I did grant it it would not prove your assertion For it is the voice of the bridegroom not of the bride which is the ground of mens faith the catholik church is to receiv lawes and rules from her head Christ not to prescribe lawes or rules to her members There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy But because your church must first be proved true catholik before her sentence can be approved therefore I was content to look into this first branch requiring proof that your Roman church is the true then the onely catholik for I deney both What proofs you brought before how I answered them I leav to indifferent consideration and wil now again take
novv stands charged to be a harlot vvilbe her ovvn judge and decide the controversie her self If you grant Mahomet but this one ground for himself I vvarrant you he vvil vvin the feild And if you can prove unto me but this one ground vvhich being the question is here begged by you I vvill soon receive alâ— doctrines traditions ceremonies that your mother church propoun â—eth But I have shevved you a more certaine playn and infallible vvay the old and good vvay vvherein our Fathers* vvalked to decide all controversies by vvhich is the holy oracles of God vvritten by his Prophets and Apostles vvhich if you vvil not yeeld to vvalk in but continue in your catholik aberrations you and your church shall perish in the hovvr appointed and then shal be sayd O heaven rejoyce of her and ye holy Apostles and Prophets for God hath given your judgement not her ovvn upon her 3. You have as you say Gods divine veracitâ—e speaking by the mouth of the church which formally makes you beleeve But vve say I to you have Gods divine veracitie speaking by the mouth of his holy Prophets vvhich have been since the vvorld began and also the comandements of the Apostles of our Lord and saviour vvhich effectually make us beleeve through the spirit God vvhich is given unto us That God speaks in them is pâ—ayn and your selves grant that undoubted veracitie is in his vvords is evident and your selves dare not deney by this divine veracitie vve submitt our selves our churches our faith our actions to be tried of all But your church lifteth up her self to be her ovvn judge and lavvgiver and vvil not suffer her self to be tried by the holy scriptures Thus glorifieth thâ— her self and liveth in pleasure and sayth in her hart I sit a Queen but strong is the Lord God vvhich vvill condemn her 4. You have as you say a supernatural judgement to beleeve in common at least in that all people all nations have so beleeved You need no supernaturall judgement for this for it is a popular carnal reasoÌ„ which the natural man easily receiveth But the spiritual man by supernatural light from the law of God beleeveth in particular though all people all nations should depart from Christ because he hath the sure word of God in the scriptures and the spirit of God by a covenant froÌ„ the Lord. Isa. 59 21. And by this means he discrieth in the wildernes that woman and her mysterie how she sitteth upon many waters or peoples of whose wine the nations having drunk therfore they rage Lastly through all these you have as you say a pious affection through the working of Gods holy grace to beleeve hir et 〈◊〉 hoc et illud and that without any difficultie since you first beleeve there to but one true church and that church cannot err c. I confesse in deed you have the broad and easy vvay wherin yow run on with great facilitie if God of his grace stay you not unto your perdition For by these false grounds your minds are so bewitched that with her great craft she hath caused you to yeild with her flattering lipps hath entised you and ye folow her straightway as oxen that goe to the slaughter and as fools to the stocks for correction til a dart strike through your liveâ— as birds hastâ—â—â— to the snare not knowing that it is for their lives For by beleeving this and that as your catholik mother dooth propound and not trying nor daring to trie her propositions by the book of God you have quite lost the ancient catholik and Apostolik faith vvhich was in the Churches of God in Rome Corinth Galatia throughout all nations as whensoever you bring your opinions to the trial by Gods authentik writings will appear And though you glorie of S. Peter for your Rock as your ancestors gloried of their Father Abraham yet wil you not folow his holy playn Apostolical counsels when he referrs you to the sure word of the Prophets and to the commandements of them the Apostles of the Lord giving you warning of false teachers to come after which privily should bring in heresies of perdition whose damnable wayes many should follow by whom the way of truth should be evil spoken of What remayneth then if you proceed in this evil course but as yow cleave to your late fathers synns so you be partaker of their plagues And if you will not hearken to that voice from heaven Goe out of her my people you shall hear and feel the effect of that voice which the Angel standing in the sun crieth so lowd to al fowles of the heaven to come unto the supper of the great God wher they shall eat the fleshes of Kings and high captayns and of mighty men and of horses and horsmen of freemen and bondmen of small and great when the beast and the false prophet which deceived with miracles them that received his mark shal be cast alive into the lake of fyre burning in brimstone To save you from this perdition loe how large a letter I have written unto you this second time testifying unto you the word of God and against the erroneous grounds or quicksands rather wheron you build your faith God offring me this occasion by your self I have out of the love of my hart endevoured to save your soule froÌ„ death by shewing you the way of life choose life therfore that you may live Look into the book of God wherin you seem to me to be a stranger and pray unto him for understanding in the same so shall you find more light to your eyes more coÌ„fort to your hart then the caâ—t lodes of later Doctors Fathers Councils c. can give unto you And if you will not be warned I shal lament your estate yet whiles I may I will doo you good and as for all reproches taunts vituperies which you hav already uttered or may yet further utter against me I shal willingly bear and bury them and use all good means I can to save you from the damnation of hel God open you eyes and perswade your hart unto the sight obedience of his most holy faith â— once given unto the saincts Amen From Amsterdam this 16. of April 1610. Yours if you wil be Christs Henr Ainsworth If you have sayd what you can against the scriptures of God their alsufficiencie for mans faith you may if you please shew your strongest argumets for your Roman catholik church as you cal her and her definitive sentences Or procede if you think good to some other grounds and mayn controversies between us Onely be advertised to folow the good counsel of him whom you count the Rock of your faith If any man speak let him speak as the words of God 1. Pet. 4. 11. There being no reply
of any place of scripture that you shall bring to refute them if your interpretation be a correspondencie to scripture theirs also shall be so The fift Argument of mine I framed thus God is as provideÌ„t for necessarie meanes to direct his church as he is provident to Empires kingdomes common wealthes and families But all these besides the written law have ever some one decyder vnweere or tribunall to â—hoke controversies or diffentions in the seed to mowe them downe in the flower to eâ—tirpate them in the verie roote go the word of God is not sufficient in it self to settle all controversies Thus as I remember ran the sum of my reasons which you has not answered in your last or in any other replie of yours Now since my reasons remaine in their ful force I can not see any reason why I should be bound to spend much tyme in answering fruitless and impertinent allegations But here as I remember transcending the boundes of this question now controverted though I confess the matter you proposed is in the confines of this present you brought a place out of S. Augustin that on S. Mathewes wordes c 16. sayes that Christ did build his church on the faith of Peter not of his person on Christ Jesus not on S. Peter First to this place I answer that in one sense S. Augustin sayes the first yet I denie that ever S. Augustine dooth deney that the church of Christ is built on the persoÌ„ of S. Peter And well map the Church be sayd to be built on the faith of S. Peter and yet also on his person because the person of S. Peter touching his faith is no fraile mortal creature but is a stroÌ„g unshaliable rock as the faith it self In that Luk. 22. It is sand I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith may not faile Since we beleeve that this prayer is obteyned we must beleev that by the warraÌ„t of Christs prayer the person of Peter his faith shal never be severed so S. Aug calling sometimes S. Peter the roch of the church and somtimes his faith doth mean one thing The which S. August himself testifieth for remembring that he had taught that in the person of Peter the Church was fouÌ„ded quod in eo tanquam in Petra â—â—â—data sit Ecclesia in which sense it was fong by many in the hymâ—â—s of S. Ambrose Hoc â—â—sa Petra Ecclesiae canente culpam dâ—â—uit At the crowing of the cock the rock of the churâ— Peter lamented his fault he concludeth the whole matter of these two expositions Harum duarum sententiarum quae sit probabâ—â—â—or eligat lector Of which two expositions which to the probabler I leave to the readers choice What have you not by this allegation of S. Augustine Nay what will you loose if you should come to answer the holy fathers that affirm the church to be founded on S. Peter That you write you are sorie for my error I wonder you should bee so carefull for my soules good that are so negligent of your own For as I take in the last of myne I showed how ful of feare the last resolution of your faith would be when you should give account at that eternal tribunal In that all you can answer for your self is that your owne phancie apprehended so your private spirit interpreted so Where my faith is warranted by Gods word driivered by the holy catholick church confirmed by General and Provinstall Councels sealed by thowsand of Martyrs blood authorisâ—d by antiguitie of Historie ratified by holy Fathers Doctors and instructors of holie orders in all ages having the profession of our religion inferted in our naturall â— language churches crosses buildings mony â— most ancient monuments al which motives warrant me that I shal render an answer without all feare or dread All these and 〈…〉 motives you may have to yeeld to us but you could never nâ—t â—â—â—we me the least semblance of reason why I should yeeld to you God send you make right use of them for the good of your soule that you man at length be reduced to the true church of Christ for which I shall heartily pray Iohn Aynsworth I received yours dated the 12. of April the 20. of the same and I end this the 29. of Aprill stylo veteri Justice Hall in Newgate H. A. his answer to the former letter To his loving frâ—ind Mr. Iohn Aynsworth prisoner in Justice hall in Newgate be these in London GRace and mercy from God the father of our Lord Iesus Christ â—e vouch safed unto you 1. Wheras you gâ—ve me to vnderâ—tand Mr. Aynsworth that my writings among others were taken from you so that you could not answer them as you promised and that if yow had my last papers in a few lines you could answer any thing that urgeth you therin c. I have out of my love towards you and in compassion of your estate sent you a copie of my last writing not urging you to answer unless you think the goodness of your cause will bear you out but desiring you to yeild unto the truth there shewed you You brought for your defense C. Bellarmines reasons I have manifested the weaknes of them If you can fortifie them or your cause by any other I am willing as I have begunn to take notice thereof eyther to refute them or yeeld you the Victory If you leave off I also will rest and let the prudent judge what we both have sayd 2. You as if you would beginn a new combate propound 12. questions for me to answer I told you before I would not digresse to by matters for so we might run into confusion fruitlesse and endless Also your questions most of them are of Fathers Doctors c. since th'Apostles times by whom I shewed you that I neyther might nor would trye any religion til the Divine scriptures be proved insufficient which will never be 3. You then propound the controversie a new as if we were now again to beginn when we are almost at an yssue so might both of us weary our selves in vayn Your first long writing to me hath made my answers the longer for I desired and stil doo brevity with perspicuitie Least through want of your papers you should swarve from the questions in hand I wil set them down in the words that they have passed My assertions were question weise when I should enter into dispute vvith you to see if you vvould grant 1. That our differences in religion should be tryed and composed by the verdict or vvord of God not of men 2. That Gods vvord is to be found in the scriptures of the Prophets Apostles vvho vvrote originally in Hebrevv and Greek By these I offred my faith to be tryed and to make trial of other faith proposed Yours were vvhich you sayd you vvould prove and so indevoured 1. That onely the bare text of the scripture is not a
sufficient rule of our faith 2. That the scriptures expounded by the catholik church is a true and indeficient rule of our faith or as you set it dovvn vvhen you come to make proofe That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith 3. That this rule is onely found in the Romane Catholik church sentence and not in private mens illuminations and motions of a private unseen spirit Or as after you expresse it vvhen you labour to prove it That your Romane Church is the true onely catholik church of God Your arguments for these vvere long discourses I could not therfore ansvver but by refelling your treatises In these I folovv your footing still in my last vvriting novv againe sent unto you Hold I pray you to the points in hand and be as breif as you can I vvil labour to satisfy you in fevv vvords But if you make outrodes to long narrations blame not the length of my ansvvers vvhich are but according to your ovvn size eeke your arguments no more with humane testimonies til you have disproved the certainty and sufficiencie of the Divine oracles which if it were possible for you to doo you might colourably perswade fools unto Atheisme but no wife man would ever suffer affliction for your traditional and humane religion Be you warned yea intreated to save your sowl from eternal flames God hath offred more meanes of mercy unto yow then to many others if yow shut your eyes against the light which shineth in darknes though the darknes comprehends it not yow wil but heap up unto your self wrath against the day wrath but my prayer unto God is for your salvation in Christ to whose grace I coÌ„mend yow From Amsterdam this 28. of May 1613. Henr Ainsworth I. A. his answer to the former letter To his loving freind Mr Henry Aynsworth at Amsterdam deliver this SOme week agoe Mr Henry Aynsworth I received your letter and your last reply coppied out againe as you say to give me satisfaction An answer whereof some three yeres agoe I had returned if the papers then and I had not been severed And long ere this since the intended deliverie therof I had fully satisfied each point thereof if some three weekes after the notified aryvall thereof the deliverie had not been delayed For your paynes and good will I thank you But I wonder that through private affectation so much payns and good wil should be so far from being secundam scientiam that a man might doubt rather whether you writ not contra conscientiam since to any indiffereÌ„t judgement the motives for our catholik religion and for her doctrinal assertions are so cleare and therfore doubt not but that I shall answer you although her well grounded truth would defend it selfe though I were silent But God willing I wil shortly send you the answer to your large biscourse and to give you taâ—t of that which I wil prove in fully answering your replication though to write so large a coppie forth is more tedious theÌ„ difficult I wil prove these seven points at least First I will show the weaknes of your reasons 2. I will prove that not onely the written word of God but the unwritten word of God tradition and the authoritie of the Church is the rule of our faith 3. I wil show how my five Arguments for all your pretended answers remaine in ful force 4. I will prove how you walk in a circle proving the word of God by your private spirit and your privat spirit by the word of Gods 5. I wil defend our catholick opinion to be free from any circular or ridiculous proofe 6. I wil show the Popes definitive Sentence togither with a generall Councell at least to be an assured groundwork of faith 7. I will show to you or any indifferent judgment that your building is on sand and the resolution of your faith at the last day of judgement groundless and full of feare But now to show that you have in nothing answered my last letter I propounded certaine necessary questions breifly for the more clearing of this or any other disputation to be had between us of which though there were twelve in number yet you have not answered one word to any which eyther showes you glosed before wheÌ„ you sayd you writ all before for my good or else rather that you could not answer one which you might have doone in foure or 5. lines denying or granting So that I must needes inferr that you cannot show which of the Apostles did teach your doctrine that you now hold 2. that you can not show which are the essentiall poincts of your religion 3. that no ancient Doctor did maintayn the doctrine you now held 4. that you can not show who in what tyme and on what occasion did suppress that doctrine 5. that you can not show your church to have begun to be invisible in the time of persecution or in the time of peace 6 that S. Laurence nor any of the primitive martyrs were of your religion 7. that you approve of no ancient historie and that you must graunt Constantine our first Christian Emperour not to be of your religion 8 that no one of the 3. conversions of England was to your religion 9. that you must graunt the church of Christ to be more subject to invisibilitie ruin subversion then the synagogue of the Jewes 10. that you have no Bible or writen word of God that you allow of in all and so that you have no rule of faith for all To all these you answer with silence in your hart calling them carnall motives no doubt 3. I answer you that in putting downe breifly my 5. argumeÌ„ts in forme I show you have not answered But you in your silence to them showes that your answers consists onely in multiplicity of words that admitts no abbreviation 4. You then set downe your 2 conclusions and my 3. contrary assertions â—ou blame my tediousnes but I answer my outroades are to trace onely your wildgoose chase that is bounded in no circuit of a Methedicall discourse I shall be the longer in this present discourse to come so to avoide proliritie hereafter still referring my selfe to this to come how long so ever you shall dispute Desist then Mr Henry Ainsworth to follow your private spirits phancie hold your self by that three fold chaine â—inâ—â—ntius Lyrinensis prescribes that is antiquitie vniversalitie and consent so should you save your self froÌ„ that headlong precipitium that the authour of evil the Divil tempts you to when by the privat interpretation of scriptures he instâ—uates to a man Mitte deorsum S. Math â— for it is written Psal. 90. cast thy self from the rock of the church scriptum est froÌ„ the trabition and authoritie of the church from the consent of holy Councels and fathers for scriptum est your private spirit must be your tower God send you
may recover your self from your imnâ—nent precipitium that dying out of the church of God you doe not eternally burne in the quenchless flames from Justice hall Julie 24 1613. Iohn Aynsworth To this letter H. A. gave no answer but exspected the promised large reply from I. A. which now followeth as the third in defense of the Church of Rome To Mr Henry Aynsworth at Amsterdam 6. 16. Ierem. State super vias et videte et interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona et ambulate in eâ et invenietis refrigerium animabus vestris ALthough your replie was slight and wilie rather seeking to transfer the questioÌ„ then to examin it to the true ground bespangling the rough rugge of your doctrine with multiplicitie of wrested places of holy scripture which makes me fitly resemble you to some AEthiopian behanged all over eares â—yes nose lippes and armes with Jewels and pearles that by their lustre beautie and misplacing makes the Nigroes fowllness the uglier Yet of such importance is the decision of this question being the keye and Master-spring to all the other doctrinall and controversall questions of religioÌ„ That howsoever your exploded doctrine and shuffling replication needes no answer being like a Comet that consumeth it self yet to complie with the worth of the question and to satisfy your followers desires I have once agayne returned you an answer In which I will showe that your reasons being rather seming reflections then true beames as you say of the word of God doe vanish of themselves 2. I wil prove that the true indeficient rule of our faith is not onely the written word of God but also the unwritten word of God traditioÌ„ the authoritie of the church of God in Councels â— Fathers is the ultimate decyder of all matters of controversie 3. I will show how my reasons for all your pretended answers remaine in full force 4 I wil prove that in your opinion you walk in a virious circle proâ—â— iâ— the self same by the 〈◊〉 the word of God by the privat spirit and the private spirit by the word of God 5 I wilâ— defend our Catholick opinion to be free from any such circular and râ—diculous proof 6 I 〈◊〉 show the Popes definitive sentence togither with a generall Court 〈◊〉 atleast to be a firme and an assured groundwork rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7 And lastly I wil demonstrate to you or to any indifferent judgment that your building is on sands or spâ—ders â—â—ks your arcâ—uÌ„â—â— and resâ—â—uâ—â—oÌ„ of your faith at the last day of judgment to be groundless and fuâ—l of feare 8 First then to begin with your reasons which 〈◊〉 I maintâ—yne to be nothing els but aâ—â—er aâ—â—ous of scripture fâ—â—sty applyed I do think it 〈◊〉 before I answere your reasons grounded on the bareterts of scripture to signifie what a worthy most reverend esâ—eme we have of the scriptures and of each part of them We reverence them as Gods holy word derived from the fulness of truth â—â—e hold this volume worâ—â—â— to be meditated on day and night Jos. 1 8 Psalm 1 2 〈◊〉 hold it as seven times refined sâ—â—ver Psal. 11 7. A most cleare light illuminating our eyes Psal. 8 8 that it is a light 〈◊〉 our steppes Psal. 1. 8. â—2 v 105 130. 140. Wee hold all the holy scriptures to be most just 8. 8. Prov. to be a frerie speech and buckler of defense We also defend that the holy scriptures are diligently to be searched unto Joh. 5 39. â—â—om 1. 1. â—â—om 15 4. that whatsoever is writt in them is writ to our edificatioÌ„ that all the scriptures are profitable unto us 2 â—un 3 16 2. Pet. 1 21. that men delivered this scripture inspired by the holy Ghost Yet wee hold also though we worthâ—ly esteeme of them yet wee can not â—â—clude the eâ—plications of the holy church in the holy Fathers and Councels guided and directed by the self same truth And S. Augustin did oppose by the authoritie of the holy fathers his predecessors against Pe lagius and other â—ereticks saying â—ragâ—lis â—t arguta eorum novitas eâ—c The weake and wâ—â—â— noveltiâ— of hereticks is to be coâ—fâ—nÌ„ded by the authoritie of holy Fathers and a little after this great Doctor and holy Fatherâ— acknowledged by Calvin himself to be the faithful wriness of antiquitiâ— 4. 〈◊〉 stitut â— 14 sess 25 and Bâ—za calls him the Prince of aâ— Divines concerning dogmaticall poâ—â—cis in c. 3. â—â—om v. 12 as if on purpose he did answer your barbarous contempt of them calling them dust and athes â—et onely in regard of their mortaliâ—e as the scriptures calles them but when the vniforme consent of the Fathers Greek and Latin was objected against â—â—u What saâ—es D. Augustin shall light be darkness and darkness light that 〈◊〉 aclestius Julia should on ly see and that Hyllarie Greg. Ambâ—â—se â—ier August should bâ— blyndâ— So wee see how two worthy champions of yours hath raised S. August a Samnâ—l 〈◊〉 confound a 〈◊〉 not at Endor but at Amsterdam â— But wheras by your submission you would seemâ— to 〈◊〉 amâ—nd 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 that you 〈◊〉 thâ—re be a thoâ—â—aâ—d of theÌ„ that I sa◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you preâ—â—â— for 〈◊〉 trutâ— and holyness before 〈◊〉 For if you understand this of the 〈◊〉 fathers before 〈◊〉 I proâ—â— that you cannot 〈◊〉 that without â— visard to 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 since I wil prove that in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dogmatical 〈◊〉 they differ from you and so by your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—inpeere except you will be wilfully blind they 〈…〉 before you If you understand Jewel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the Protestant Doctors these in truth by your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neyther doe or can prefer before your self since by your 〈…〉 have no true church as I heare you teach against Mr. 〈◊〉 and so there difference must rather be hereticall then 〈◊〉 and if it be a true church why make you a schâ—mâ— in dâ—parting from them Now to come to the solution of your arguments if there were any There be 4 â—n number cited as you saye grounded on the holy scriptures but not one appearing in substance or in the true sense of the scriptures First you object out of Deut. â— 32. Keep and doe that 〈…〉 God commanded you â—e shall neyther 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 but by that our Lord God commaunded you 〈◊〉 you 〈…〉 What can you inferr hence but that the lawe ought strictly to be kept and that we â—ught neyther to adde or to take from the 10 commandements that is to make the 10. commandements 〈◊〉 oâ— superaâ—undant what is this to your purpose to prove that the written word alone is sufficient to decyde all controversâ—es For as here 〈◊〉 testification of the law or â—rpâ—icatiâ—n of the law was 〈◊〉 And that it was the office of the Preists to explicate the 〈◊〉 of the law appâ—ares Deut. 1â— v. 8 2 Paral. 19 1â— 2
though we should graunt that Elias did think himself left alone in Israel yet Almightie God did answer him I wil leave 7. thowsand men in Israel that have not bowed their knees to Bâ—al 50. I answer that Esay the Prophet in his first chapter dooth use the self same fiâ—ure of Synâ—â—hdâ—che also the self same manner of speech is vsed the 4. â—eg 21. For Manasses himself did râ—pent and redeeme mâ—nn and many were never seduced so understand that also of the Prophet here 51. That of which Azarias dooth prophetise 2 Paral. 15. is to be understood of the Israelites that were dificient and not of the Jewes that were constant I graunt also that at the coÌ„ming of our Saviour the church was but a little one yet I say it was preserved in Marie Joseph Zacharie Elizabeth and Anna the Prophetess In just Simeon and the Pastors 52. That of Daniel the 9. the host and sacrifice shall faile is to be understood of the destruction of Hierusalâ—m and the câ—â—â—ing of the Jewish sacrifice Luk. 18. Our Saviour doth not absolutely speak of faith but of an external faith and of an excellent faith 2 Thes. 2. Is to be vnderstood the particular departing of Antichrist and his â—rew from the church And so by these grounds to the usual objections against the perpetuall visibilitie of Gods church wee may answer any thing that hath bene or may be produced 53. Yet to confirm this truth with one short reason I argue thus This church of God if it must be invisible Eyther it must begin to be invisible in the time of peace or in the time of persecution in the time of peace there was no opposition to make her invisible in the tyme of persecution no bodie could persecute an invisible thing 54. Now wheras you sayd you show how the labyrinth of my religion leadeth to the Pope the center of our circle True it is I sayd the vltimate resolution of our religion is to be resolved into the veracitie of God revealing as into the formal causâ— and into the authoritie of the church as into the applying â—ause And I am glad you have traâ—ed me not to your heretical quicksands but to S. Peters rock 55. And that you may see the resolution of my religion is no other but that of S. Cyprian lib de unitate Eccles. where he compares â—ou in regard of the church of Rome as Beames in regard of the sun as boughes in regard of the tree as a river in regard of the fountayn So that he concludes he that separates himself from the church of God he must needs vanish fade and drie up in that they lack their origen by which all unitie is preserved 55. I gave you 2 or three instances to show how the word of God might in a divers kind depend of the Church and the church of the word of God as we prove the self same a priori et a posteriori the operation of the stone or herb depends of the skil and knowledge of the herbalist and lapidarie and their skil and knowledge depends of the innated and inward proprietie of the stone and herbe For neyther can have his effect without mutual help of both except chance which is no regular action be the applier and so I take you have thalked your self a way to a ridiculous building without foundatioÌ„ as I shall shew anone 56. You answer nothing to this but that I prove out of natural philosophie as though divinitie though it excels is not concordant to natural reason whereas we can beleeve nothing that we see implies by the light of naturall reason 57. To the places that you object of the 1. of Timoth. 1 3. rather proves against you then makes for you For it showes all the while that she did not reach otherwise to the church she remained sound And that which you cite 1. Tim 3 15. would make you trest salue if you did daily consider it For there he warnes her that she might conforme her conversation to the house of God the pillar of truth And though the text sayes in the house of God yet it must be understood in the particular church that must have reference to that place as wee shall prove hereafter where S. Peter did establish his chaire Ioh. 14 16. Mat. 16. Math. 28 Ephes. 4 Ioh. 17. Luc. 22. Psal. 2. Ephâ—s 2. 58. When you seeme to drawe out of my speech that I denie for my witness the spirit of God is your error and fraude For I hold that which is taught out of these places 1 Cor 2. 10 11. Iob. 28 2 13 22. c. to signifie nothing else but that the holy Ghost teacheth the church in all truth and her members with reference to her and my private spirit I ought not to follow so that if I might be your Pilote I would save you from that bottomlesse gulphe that ghaspes to receive your erroneous soule 59. St. Augustines authoritie you let slip denying him a fit Maister to follow you say he might retractate this but neither you doe nor can show that he did retractate it 60. As for S. Augustines opposition to S. Hierome it was in some smal matter and not in a matter defined vp the consent of the church 61. My second Argument was this in substance Major That which is hard and for occurring places almost inexplicable cannot be to the rud ignorant at least a certain ground of faith Mmor But the scriptures of themselves are thus Conclusion go the scriptures by themselves can not bee a certaine and infallible rule of saith to the ignorant and rude at least 62. My major propositioÌ„ is most certain For a rule must be known and certaine and more fit to our capacitie to bee conceived then that which is to be ruled and certefied therby 63. My Mmor also I prove both in regard of many seeming contradictions of the Hebraimes nature of things therin contained being high misteries 64. In answering of this Argument you say some thinges are hard in the scriptures I proved this difficultie and hardnes was in principal matters which I proved out of the second of S. Peter 3. 16. Our most deare brother Paul according to his wisdome given hâ—m hath written to you as also in all his epistles speaking of them in these things in which are certain thiâ—gs hard which the unlearned unstable deprave as also the rest of thâ— scrâ—pâ—ures to their own destructio Hence is gathered that not on ly the places of S. Pâ—ul touchiâ—g vocation justification sanctification predestination and â—â—prâ—bation inâ—â—pâ—icating which pointes S. Paul is most frequent but also any other place is subject to be depraved as the word implies as also the rest of the scriptures And S. August in his book de fide et operibus c. 14 showes that one of the cheife matters they did deprave was about justifying by faith And I showed you here as erring a little
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
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
weakness of faith Whereas indeed S. Peters words if thou be the sonn of God are an argument of confidence and beleeving manifested by the word following commaund me to come vpon the waters And that our Saviour argued S. Peter of little faith was when he feared the strong winde and began to sinck not for his walking vpon the waters before others no other having with that firmnes of faith asked or atteÌ„pted to come to our Saâ— though they saw him Those places cited 2 King 2. Dan. 3. 25. Heb. 11. 34. proves that ever such myracles doe not prove superioritie or of dignitie before others which wee intend not to prove but onely that this together with many other circumstances doe prove superiority of S. Peter 162. 3. Our Saviour calls S. Peter the rocke and saies on this rocke I will build my church and that hell gates shall not prevaile against him First you saie John the 10. 27. 28. 29. that hell gates shal not prevaile against the just which if you vnderstand in the Calvinistical sence that one once justified can not be againe the child of wrath which is a most horrible falsehood and against the holy scriptures Roma 11. 20. but thow by faith dooth stand be not highly wise but feare et 21 Revel 2. 5. But if not I come to the and will move thy candlestick out of his place 163. It is against the principles of faith since so all Christians being truely baptised and so regenerated in grace could not sinne to death and so all should bee saved 164. You take it for a great matter that I graunt the Pope maie sinne in matter of fact be reprovated if he die in mortal sinne It is our Catholick doctrine and the Pope goes to confession coÌ„monly oftener then any ordinarie Preist yet this proves nothing that the Divill prevailes against him as he is head of the church as he defines ex cathedra As for your blasphemous speeches torne out of the Apocalyps in his place I shall returne them on your owne head and of the hereticall sonnes your father 165. 4. You object against that which I cite out of S. Luk. 22 31. And our Lord said Simon Simon Behold Sathan hath required to have you to sift as wheat But I have praied for thee that thy faith maie not faile thee and thou once converted confirme thy brethreÌ„ you answer that the other Apostles were to coÌ„firm their brethreÌ„ I answer as particular pastors Act. 14. 22. et 15. 41. 32. 1 Thes. 3. 2. Apoc. 3. 2. but not as the supreame pastor by special assistance of Gods grace dissigned here to confirme his brethren S. Aug. lib. q. novi testamenti q. 75. to 4. teacheth that Christ praying for Peter praied for the rest because in the pastor and prelate the people are corrected or amended And S. Cyprian Epist 55. n 6. saies that hence infidelitie or a false faith cannot fasten on S. Peter and in the selfe same chap. he affirmes though there were 12. Apostles yet for keeping vnitie he would have one head of all You saie you will consent with the holie Fathers so farr forth as they agree with scripture 〈◊〉 bie will not you consent then vnto them when they alleage thus scripture for the Popes primacie But I proved that you admitted theÌ„ so farr as they agree to scripture that is to your owne phancie to which as guiltie you are altogither silent As for the places cited by you Act. 14. v. 22. I finde therein nothing to your purpose but a grosse corruption of the holie text in your opinioÌ„ translating presbyter Elder which soundes as well as if you would translate the Major of London the Elder against the common vnderstanding and vse of the word But in the old testament you translate sacerdos a Priest and yet here you translate Elder 166. That which you prove the 16. of the Act. 41. proves that S. Paul did coÌ„firme particular churches but not the whole church as head by office and in that he commanded them to keep the Apostles precepts and the ancients proves tradition against you And that particular pastors precepts are to bee kept not onely things expressed in the writteÌ„ word That the 32. ver affirmes that particular may particularly comfort others the 1 of the Thess. 3. 2. proves onely that Timothie was sent particularly onely to confirme them and the like can onely be inferred out of the third of the Apoc. 2. which is so farr from proving the speciall confirmation promised to S. Peter that the confirmation is by the vigilencie of one that had the name onely to live c. Thus wee though you object my objections bleede I am assured your wrested places as poore same souldiers are to retreate on crutchess 167. 5. I gathered by a congruencie that S. Peter was head in that his feet were first washed by our Saviour Ioh 13. 6. 7. where presently after he had spoke of washing the text saies He coÌ„meth therefore to Peter by therefore hath reference to washing and to S. Peters first washing you stand not much herevpon but according to the opinion of most of the ancient fathers you admitt S. Peter was first washed Onely you except that he shewed greater weakness then his brethren I answer that his refusing to wash was out of a respective love that he had to our Saviour but vnderstanding presently that of our Saviour If I wash the not v. S. S. Peter to show he had a perfect resignation not expressed by any of the rest he presently peâ—ldes Lord not onely my feet but also my hands and head 168. 6. I inferr that S. Peter onely received a revealed promise of his Martyrdome but here you that slights any thing objects that performaÌ„ce is more theÌ„ promise And S. StepheÌ„â— James Act. 12. 2. 7. 59. suffred Martyrdome before I answer that an assured promise absolutly to come is not worse but rather better then an accelerated performance if the performance of the other be differred for greater good as S. Peters was And the theife on the crosse for dying repentant maie challenge a crowne of glorie as Christ Jesus promised him and not to bee the head of the church as it was promised to S. Peter 169. 7. I gathered S Peters preheminence above others in that Act. 2. v. 14. S. Peter as the head of the rest made the first sermon when the Jewes objected they were ful of winâ— But Peter standing with the eleven lifted vp his voice and spake to them yee men Jewes and all that dwell at Hierusalem etc. v. 15. he answers for the rest For these are not drunck as you suppose and that he was not onely superior in age or order only I have showeÌ„ Therfore Mr. H. A. doth as it were graunt this and with that the Pope were as forward as S. Peter in these and such good offices I wiâ—â— alâ—o that wee had also that abundance of Gods
confutation of your wordes when I reasoned thus If S. Peter could not have prerogative of place in that he represented the church no more could the sonnes of Abraham bee two sonnes in that they represented two nations Here you inferr for me but they were two soÌ„ns etc. go S. Peter was S. Peter still etc. I thancke you for your paines but you doe not marke that I doe of purpose omitt to inferr the sequele which everie one may see to follow but you have forgot to have compassioÌ„ of pour selfe that vnarmed admitts of the Argument in that you satisfie me nothing therein but here like some railing minister out of his text beginnes to talke of Antichrist whose forerunner himselfe is 182. To that where you saie all the Apostles were equall though there was order as first second and third Apoc. 21. 19 Whence is that order fetched and derived but since not in the first ordering or age as I have proved therefore in the free election of Christ Jesus that chose and made worthie S. Peter the first That of S. John 21. 21. Ephes. 2. 20 proves that they were all equall in the execution of the power of order which was equal to al not in powr of jurisdictioÌ„ that they were equall as they were Apostles but not as they were â—ys And if al the Apostles had the like power of jurisdictioÌ„ with S Peter yet it dooth not follow that all Byshopps should have like jurisdiction with the Pope For Byshopps are sayd to succeede the Apostles as Preists are said to succeede the 72. disciples who did not succeed properly as appeareth out of Anacletus epist et ex Beda in c. 10. Luc. And the reasoÌ„ is given in that the 72. were not Preists neither did they erercise any jurisdictioÌ„ which appeareth in that Philip James the 5. other Deacons were ordred Aâ—t 6 by the Apostles that they were of the 72. appeareth out of EpiphaÌ„ heresi 20. 184. That admonition Rom. â— 11. 20. 22. and that of the Apoc. 8. 10. is to bee vnderstood that if God should forsake her shee should perish that is in sensu diviâ—o 〈◊〉 in sensu composito as the Sea of Rome is guided by the holy Ghost and is there fired is â—he cannâ—â— finally fall yet it is a farr different question of the infallible decree of the Pope of the infallible residence of the Pope at Rome though both bee truthes in a diverse degree and both firme howsoever â—â—pugned 185. Wee doe not hold that the Pope is necessarily indued with Gods holy grace For in matter of fact wee hold that he may synne as well as any other but wee hold a necessary assistance of the holy Ghost as he defines ex cathedra as the head of the church 186. Here you cite two places out of S. Leo. that writ in the yeare of sur Lord 454. accusing him that he said too much for the Sea Apostollick in saying that he the head infuseth grace to the whole church And that God takes vp S. Peter into the fellowship of the individuall vnitie he would have him named that which himselfe was et sermone 3. and what he gives Princes he gives by S. Peter Where here first you see our religion is no vpstart religion that so many years agoe was maintained by so holie a Father and whom Theodoretus in his epistle so much commendes 2. wee seâ— this holie Pope Leo to doe no otherwise but that which S. Peter did in his second epistle 1. c. v. 4. where he saies that by the pretious promises yee may be made partakers of the divine nature so by the assistaÌ„ce of the holie Ghost S. Peter is by participatioÌ„ said to bee so directed by the â— Trinitie that his definitioÌ„s shall be the definitioÌ„s of the holy Ghost according to that He that heareth you heareth me And not vnlike is that of S Paul I will fulfill that which is wanting of passions of Christ. And by the participation of Gods grace wee are said to bee heires of God coheires of Christ Rom. 8. 187. And for this participation â— Greg. the 7. saies incline thie â—ares oh S. Peter prince of the Apostles Not meaning therby to aske any thing of our B. Lady or of S. Peter but onely that they would bee intercessors for vs. And since you conclude with this scoffing Epiphonema Thus roares the Lion of Rome contemning so the holie Father of the church I will end this point thus with you Thus in a lower keie braies our A. of Amsterdame against the victorious Lyon of Juda and against B. Leo his vicegerent on earth 187. But now your Artesmaster hath taught you a further â—etch For having these words of s. Leo he thinks he may prevail to deceiv the ignorant reader if to a point of truth he makes an addition of vntruth and so with a colour he goeth further on and affirmes that the Canonists calles him our Lord God the Pope cum inter glossa extravag Ioh. 22. Here the first vntruth is that the Canonists saie as though it were a generall rule or suppositum or an ordinarie style of the Canon lawe when as yet there was never found any adversarie of ours so bold faced that durst taxe any author but one and that but in one place 188. 2. It is but Dominum nostrum Papaâ— our Lord the Pope in many auntient copies in which God is wanting which soundes no otherwise then this our Lord the King that it is an intrudeâ— corruption of the text maie manifestly appeare by the manuscript of Zuiâ—…s the author of that gâ—eâ—â—e yet extant in the Paâ—iâ—â—â— library and maie bee seene there 189. 3. Admitting it were so in the ramâ—on lawe and in the Canonists which is false yet it would not follow in this style though in sound to 〈◊〉 insolent that wee should make him or account hiâ— our Lord God For the scripture dooth often honor men with the title of God to signifie therby onely the participation of his grace or authoritie so Psa. 8â— 6. I said you are Gods and children of the highest al where those to whom the word is reveled be called Gods as Christ himselfe doth declare Joh. 10 35. Exod. 21. 6. Judges also are called Gods The cause of both shall bee brought before the Gods Exo. 2. â— and â— thou shallt not detract from the Gods Moyses Exo. 7. â— who is called the God of Pharao 190. As for that of deposition you seeme to bee ignorant of our opinion For wee doe not hold that the Pope hath at his free libertie this power to depose but when all other meanes have been vsed and for the vniversall good of the church and when there is a hopefull success And this doctrine that the Pope hath indirect authoritie over Princes as s. Greg. Nazianz. teacheth the foule maie chasten the bodie when it is rebellious to her end so maie the spirituall power vse the
best meanes for the obtaining conserving her ende to which the end of the temporall is subordinate And this indirect authoritie of the spirituall power over the temporall is grounded on scripture Exod. 22. v. 18. Deut. 2â— 1. Deut. 17. 12 3. Reg. 18. 40 4. Reg. 10. 11. 1. Esdr. 6. 10 1. Esdr. 7 26. Psal. 105. 34. Dan. 3. â—6 Act. 5. et 13. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 6 Tit. 3. 10. 2. Joh. v. 10. Which places wee doe not interpret so rigorously that it is lawfull for the comminaltie as you doe to depose him or that it is lawful to kil an anointed King which doctrine we abhorr as bloodie A declaration of which we may give that of so many Antipaâ—es though they are ever the greatest enimies to the Sea Apostollicke that ever any one was privately or publickly made away But how barbarous your procedings have beene in that time to which you have not answered 191. Though I have proved before that S. Peter had preheminence of authoritie above the other of the Apostles yet I thought good to set downe certaine proofes out of the holie scriptures to prove S. Peters primacie so also the Popes so then to confirme them by the authoritie of the holie fathers so that their authoritie citing scripture cannot â—ee refuseh Math. 10. v. 2. Simon is called first Mat. 15. 6. he chaungeth his name that it now signifies a head or superior and the channging of a name I proved commonly to be mysterious Mark 16. 7. The Angell directeth Peter to goe before their as there captaine Luc. 22. â—1 He praied particularly for S. Peter that his faith should not faile him and viddes him coÌ„firme his brethren Joh. 1. 42. He calles him Cephas that is a great stone a foundation stone Joh. 1â— 5. Christ washed S. Peters feete first John 20 4. S. Peter came first to the monument Joh. 21. 15. he bidds him 3. tymes feede his sheeâ— Act. 2. 14. Peter speakes for the rest Act. 5. 4. Peter exerciseth first the power of excommunitation Act. â—5 7. S. Peter in the councell of Hierusalem first gives his definitive sentence Gal. 1. 8. S. Paul came to HierusaleÌ„ to see S. Peter 192 For the confirming of which primarie of S. Peter so established by holie scriptures the holie Doctors are sâ—â—laiâ—e that falsehood it self cannot denie it For s. Clemens Romanus in the year of our Lord 80. saies that S. Peter by the merrit of his faith was assigned to bee the foundation of the church and he is the first of the Apostles etc. wheâ—e you see that to bee the first is to bee the foundation of the church Dyonysius Areopagita in the yeare of our Lord 100. lib. de divinis nominibus c. 3â— teacheth that St. Peter was supreme honor the ancientest head of divines Hyâ—â—olytus in the yeare 220. in his oratione de consummatione â—â—ndi calls S. Peter prince and rocke of faith And Origenes in the yeare 230. in his 5. homilie on Exâ—â—â—s he calles S. Peter the rock and sollid foundation of the church et ad Psal. 1. as you maie read in Eusebius lib 6. â— â—â— he calles Peter the rocke against whome hell gates shall not prevaile et 17. homil in Lucam he calles him Prince of the Apostles and on the 6 to the Roma he expounds that of S. John 20. of the threefold charge of feeding his sheep to bee made the foundation of the church 193. And Eusebius Alexandrinus in the 260. in his homilie of the resurrection expounding those wordes Saie vnto the Disciples vnto Peter he there declares how onely to Peter he gave the keis Petrus Alex in the year 280. in his sermoÌ„ de Poenitentia calles Peter the Prince of the Apostles And Constantyne the Emperor in the yeare 280. in his donation calles Peter the vicar of God on earth And the first Councell of Nice in the yeare 325. canone 39. Arabicâ— calls the Byshop of Rome the prince of all the Patriarchs S. Aâ—ha in the yeare 340. in his epistle ad Felicem calles S. Peter the piller on whom of the foundatioÌ„ and Apostles of the church And S. Basil the great in the yeare 370 in c. 2. Esaiae et in prohaemio de judicio dei 〈◊〉 in orat 3. de peccatis et lib. 2. contra EunomiuÌ„ he calls Peter the prince of the Apostles and foundation of the church Cyrillus Hierosol in the yeare 370 calls Peter the prince of the Apostles â—â—â—echs â— 11. he gives the reason in that Math 17. whâ—â— the â—â—her Apostles were silent Peter confessed Thou aâ—t Christ the sonne of the living God S. Chrys inferreth from thence whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound in heaven that he is the foundation of the church and in his 83. homil in Math. he inferrs the like ouâ— of these words I will build my church and in the Psal. â—0 he inferrs asmuch out of these words Simon Simon Sâ—â—â—aâ— hath sought 194. And for the same primacie of Peter the â—â—â—in Fathers are as plaine Tertull in the yeare 200. â— 21. de pudiciâ—ia on those words on thee I will build my church and to thee I wil give my keies he inferres in that it is said whatsoever thou loosest and not whatsoever yee loose that S. Peter was head And s. Cyprian in the yeare 25â— lib. 1. epist. 8. He saies there is one God one Christ one church one ehaire seated on S. Peter by our saviours voice And s. Cyprian lib. de vnitate Ecclesiae Cathol out of the words of S. Math. 16. Vpon this roche etc. and of S. John the 21. Feede my flocke and of S Joh. the 20. As my father sends me so I send you He showes there that S. Peter is the onely foundation and though the Apostles were sent yet with a mission subordinate to S. Peter and to the virtue of his chaire s. Ambrose in the yeare 370. out of these words Mat 16. Vpon this rocke I will build my church he gathers that S. Peter is the rock s. Hier. in the yeare 380 ad Ps 13 calls S. Peter the head of the church et in â— 16. Mat. coÌ„cording the rebuke of our Saviour the authoritie of S. Peter given to him he saies that preheminence was onely promised then and after his infirmitie it was performed et in his epist. 89. ad Aug. c 2. he saies S. Peter was of such authoritie that S. Paul writes he came to â—ome to see S. Peter And S. Aug. in the yere 400. in his book quaestionuÌ„ veteris et novi testam q. 75. he inferrs that all the Apostles were contained in S. Peters firmness that before you brought as an inference of great absurditie against me et in tract 124. in Joh. he inferrs out of these words Vnto thee I give the keies c. et in sermone 5. in festo Petri et Pauli he inferrs froÌ„ those words Vnto thee I give the keies
is against S. Joh. the 17. 11. Vt sint vâ—um St. et nos 213. I prove this in that the Romaine church is the onely true and Catholicke church this you sate if you should admit of yet it proves nothing in that the voice of the bridegroome and not of the bride is that you say wee must beleeve Joh. 3. 29. 36. Ephes. 2. 24. 4. 5 16. As though that were false of Christ he that heared you heares me Luc. 10. 16. 18. Mat. 17. S. Joh. 14. 16. 26. Joh. 16. 19. 1 Tun. 3. 15 The church of the living God is said to bee the pillar and sir â—amâ—t of truth 214. I am gladd to heare you dente your selfe as in truth you are knowen to bee no Catholicke That you will not challenge your Mothers name showes your degenerating spirit For well might you bee a Catholicke member of a Catholike church but as others have been ashamed of that name so also you but the truth is your church is not Catholicke in that it hath neyther vniversallitie of time place or person 215. That the whole world is replenished with our doctrine you slight over with most impertinent places of scripture to inferr the Pope to bee Antichrist and you graunt that the synagogue of the Jewes in her flourishing â— visibilitie hath excelled Christs church which is contrarie to the predictions of the Prophets and Apostles 216. To the motives of evident credibilitie that maie induce any man to beleeve as the Romaine church teacheth I proposed many motives as her antiquitie vnitie vniversallitie visibilitie that her doctrine was confirmed by the doctors by the institution and institutors of most holie orders by the conversion of nations by the power of myracles infinit number of Martyrs All which notes and motives the ancient Doctors have taken out of scripture to distinguish the true church most of which you graunt we have Onely with your wrested places paralleld herevnto you seâ—k to coÌ„fute theÌ„ but so lamely that any maÌ„ may see your answers are suddaine snatches then true bitings or wounds according to the nature of a madd dogge that runne headlonge and immediately snatcheth at any thing that opposeth him 217. That which you bring else where is to small purpose or abundantly satisfied elsewhere 218. Now to conclude I prove by a common Argument in refuting your answer in calling our motives carnall that wee maie bringe to prove the Catholicke church the true church 219. If our faith bee so ancient as you confess and allowed so long of all sorts and conditions if it bee not from God it must bee grounded on carnall motives viz. the profitt of the spiritual or temporall But it smoothes neither And that it is not grounded on the inventioÌ„ of the clergie for there profitt or pleasure is plaine since they so strictly binde themselves to chastitie vowes fasting praying so longe everie daie and all these vnder mortall sinne with all which burdeÌ„s they would not have loaden themselves if onely pollicie had beene their loadstone Neither is it governed by the pollicie of temporall Princes For it cannot bee immagined howe â—o many Empeperors Kings Queenes Princes would have teddered themselves vnder mortal sinne as to confesse their sinns to fast to restore etc. go the religion warranted by all the foresaid notes and so against the haire of humane affection must needes bee true that hath 〈…〉 inviolable so long against so many assaultes of enimies and heresies For according to that before cited of Gamaliel if it bee not of God it will bee dissolved 220. Thus having proved and confirmed my doctrine and refuted your grounds and sacked the castel builded and raised by your owne phancie and having destroied the golden caife of your selfe liking conceipt to which you sacrifize I am to conclude admiring any one can bee so fonde as to follow you against the course of all tymes the recordes of Historie consent of Fathers etc. And I bewaile the fearfull resolution you shal make to Christ Jesus when he shal aske you whie you beleeve against the holie scriptures explicated and warranted by all the motives and onely because you perswade your selfe so 221 Whereas our resolution at the eternall tribunall shall bee full of comfort since wee beleeve Gods word allowed by all those notes and warrants â— by the interpretation of the holie Fathers Your plea shall not bee like the plea of that sonne that pretendes to bee heire of all saving of one pennie In that his father made his brother haeredem ex asse heire of one penie as he interpretts When as the grave tribunal judge learned Doctors lawes showes against him that to bee made haeredem ex asse is to bee possessed and invested in all and not to have one penie and no more 222. So you saie the sense of this or that parcell of scripture is as you conceive though against the letter as Hoc est corpus meum etc. and against all Doctors and expositors and records of tyme shâ—wing the practise of the church As that Clients cause shall bee full of feare his plea ridiculous the sentence sure to passe against him with a hisse and contempt of the whole bench So shall that irrevocable sentence of God passe against you in following your owne phancie against his word the holie Catholicke church the expounder thereof I praie God to averte his judgment and to wipe of the scailes of your eies that you maie see and imbrace the true church that with the blasphemous breath of your nostrilles you have persecuted From Justice hall in Newgate the 13. of September siple veteri 1613. 3 Esdrae 4. Magna est veritas et praevalet Great is truth and prevaileth Iohn Aynsworth Ad post script What I have said before or heare have delivered I have brought out of the scriptures and their interpretation and not against the scriptures as you object except you would have that onely to bee scriptures that in sense fittes the last of your owne phancie To conunence new disputes you know would be endless If you have nothing more to object against this maine truth begin what you will and I shal answer but onely be advertised here that I make a great impression of those wordes of S. John 2. x. 10. Si quis venit ad vos et hanc doctrinam non affert nolite recipere eum in domum nec Ave dixeritis Quie dixerit illi Ave communicat operibus ejus malignis ercuse me then if in salutation or freindly complement of grace mercie 〈◊〉 I doe not comply with you it proceeds not froÌ„ the hatred of your person whose conversion and salvation I desire but of your heresies and error but to answer your grounds and Argumâ—â—â—â— I shall ever be readie The answer to I. A. his third large writing To Mr Iohn Aynsworth prisoner in Iustice hall in Newgate grace mercie from God to find repentance unto salvation TWo things
vvord spirit Your own hand writing therefore convinceth you of vntruth not me of bad conscience as you charge me I did and doo cal it a bastard phrase as being of your own or of the Popes begetting for th'Apostle Peter neyther spake nor meant so You add to his vvords and therfore are reproved of God Prov. 30. 6. you swary from your authentik Latin translation and therefore are reproved by your own canon law I proved by the scriptures Ephe. 4. 4. Rom. 12. 4. c. 1 Cor. 12. 4. 8. 9. c. that there is but one spirit which al Gods people have though in divers mesures as mans body hath but one soul or spirit to quicken it This you not being able to deny doo vvind away and except though it be the same fowl yet it worketh otherwise in the head then in the foot etc I answer it is very true You inferr then that so it belongs to the head of the church and not to every craftsman to interpret scriptures Why are ther no members in a mans body between the head and the heels that you make such a leap Is there no mean between the head and every craftsman What place then is there for your Cardinals Bishops Preists Doctors Iesuits c. they are not the head of the church yet you think them higher then the feet But if this your answer be good then though Peter were head as you erroneously think I hope the spirit wrought otherwise in him then it did in that divil incarnate Pope Iohn the 22. and in other your monstrous vvicked Popes as your own friends doo vvitnes against them Then had those beasts a private spirit vvorse then any an honest craftsman then it belonged not to them to interpret scriptures No nor to your Preists and Iesuits unless you vvill make them heads A little after touching Pope Stephen vvho repeled the decrees of his predecessor Pope Formosus you vvould have him to doo this not as the head of the church but out of the violencie of his private spirit I like vvell of your answer and think the very same of all the Popes traditions and therefore the privat spirit vvhich so oft you entwite me vvith I return into your own hands to be kept as the Popes Depositum You pretend that for all the vvickednes of some Popes God hath stil preserved the unity of faith in your church And that never any Pope by his definitive sentence did define heresie I answer if the Pope may be judge as vvith you he is I vvarrant you he vvill never condemn himself of heresie But if Gods word be judge many heresies are easy to be found in your late council of Trent and in many Popes decrees Which vvill come to be scanned in particular doctrines after these generall grounds are ended Your digression to another vvriter I omitt you may seek answer if you please of himself And your author â—o vvhom you send me for satisfaction about your Popes power of dispensations I shall read vvhen I have leysure therto Your 3. Argument you set down now upon your memorie otherweise then ever before thus That which hath still been a rule to theÌ„ that have erred cannot be a certayn rule to direct all in faith But the scripture interpreted by the private spirit as every one pretends given from God hath led many into dangerous and horrible errors go the scriptures though directed by the private spirits interpretation cannot be a rule of faith I answer your conclusion I grant though your argument be naught for the private spirit wee found whileare to be the violent spirit of the Pope or his like And scripture directed or rather perverted by such a spirit cannot in deed be a rule of faith Against your 2. Proposition I except it implieth a fallacie putting that for the cause which is not the cause The scriptures never led any into errour but vnlearned and unstable persons pervert all scriptures as the Apostle sayth unto their own destructioÌ„ the cause hereof is not the scriptures but mens corruption The Pharisees perverted the doctrines spoken by our Saviour Christ himselfe yet I hope you will not deny but his heavenly words was a certayn rule to direct all in faith So the proof of your minor faileth you Against your first proposition which you say is most certayn I except as not playn and so deceitfull That which is a rule to them that err understanding of it own nature and properly cannot be a certayn rule to direct all in faith But now to assume that the scripture is such were blasphemie Agayn That which is a rule to them that err to weet a rule by accident through their ignorance or malice abusing it cannot be a certayn rule to direct al Gods people in faith now I deny the proposition and leave you to give proof of these things in your next And whither before or now you have drie-beaten mee as you boast let the lookers on give verdict Your 4. argument you omit through oversight I suppose onely whâ—r I shewed by 1. Cor. 11. 19. Act. 15. c. that contentions were in the Apostles times and composed by the scriptures not by setting up a supremejudge or Pope Yow answer barely they prove rather theâ— must be one visible supreme judge to decide controversies Wee are thâ—n at a point Let him that readeth the scriptures and reasons which I there alleged judge whither of the two they doo rather prove Your 5. which yow call your 4. argument is that we beleeve many things which are not reveled in holy scripture c. I told yow and tell yow agayne that I doo not howsoever yow may beleeve any thing needful for my salvation which is not reveled in the Holy scriptures neyther wil I use other weapons against Arians Anabaptists or any heretiks that acknowledge the scriptures to be of God This therfore is no argument to convince me at all You insult for that I will not shewe my particular proofs against those heresies I told you this were to digress from our present controversie Propose yow arguments and I will answer you for the cause in hand els multiplie not words in vaine You now plainly answer that Gods vvord as it is extrinsecal the vvord of God and to be knovvn of us depends of tradition and the authoritie of the church This I reject as an heresie For vvhen vve read or hear the books of Moses or the Prophets vve read that vvhich is spoken to us of God Mark. 1â— 26. compared vvith Math. 22 31. that vvhich the Spirit of God speaketh to the churches Rev. 2 â— 11. novv not to beleeve or rest upon this ground but to rely upon mans record is to make the testimony or man greater extrinsecally to us then the testimonie of God contrarie to 1. Ioh. 5 9. and maketh men lyable to the curse Ier. 17. 5. You
you this but the contrary for Christ being present and vvalking vvith his churches needeth no vicar And this title head God in his vvord giveth onely to Christ Col. 1. 18. Yet you leaving Gods vvord fly to your S. Basil for succor that all men may see your church and prelacy is built on the sands of mens traditions not on the Rock of divine oracles You vvill not from it but Peter signifies a rock vvhich I have disproved and shewed that Petros of Petra the Rock and Cephas of Ceph is no more then to be a Christian of Christ. Peter vvas a principal stone yea the first if you vvill layd upon Christ the chief corner stone the Rock all Christians are living stones layd on him also Your racked allegations from Augustine and other Doctors I vvil not spend time to confute for I build my religion vpon the Rock Christ not upon men Your reason vvhy the gender vvas not changed in Christs name as in Peters is for that all vvhich admitted of his doctrine vvould not deny him to be head of the church I see you love to say somwhat unto every thing I also may say all vvhich admitt of the Popes doctrine vvill not deny Peter to be head of the church so by your argument there was no need to change the gender for him neyther And so the scripture hath doon somthing needless or els your answer is fruitless How you save Optatus credit and your self from blame for falsely interpreting Cephas a head contrary to the holy Ghost Ioh. 1. 43. vvho interpreteth it a stone I leave it for the learned to judge Your exception that Peter vvas not elected to be the mouth of the rest vvas refelled in my former vvriting if you vvould rest for Thomas Philip Iude vvere not elected any more then Peter to speak for the other disciples Ioh. 14. 5. 8. 22. yet you vvill not have them heads So your distination of the Apostles equallity in power of order not of jurisdiction is a bare repetition of a thing never proved but before refuted And where you add equall as they were Apostles but not as they were Bishops it is mere trifling you might as vvell say equal as they were men but not as they vvere living creatures For they vvere no otherweise Bishops then as they were Apostles And in Act. 1. you may see that Iudas his Episcopee or Bishops office vvas no other then his Apostolee or Apostles office Act. 1. v. 20. compared vvith v. 17. 25. 26. Besides by 1. Cor. 12. 28. and Ephe. 4. 11. you may see the Apostles were by office the first in the church that if the other were equal vvith Peter in the Apostleship as you graunt they vvere equal also in al power that if you resist any longer you vvill be condemned of your self Your succession grounded but vpon mens report I allow not of for you build on boggs Your understanding of that admonition Rom. 11. 20. 22. c. is partly true and against your self in that you vvrote before S. 162. partly it is frivolous vvhiles you dream of more previlege to the See of Roome and Bishop there then to others churches and Bishops You have no colour for this in the testament of Christ yet is it the mayn thing that yow should prove if it were possible No citie in the world remayneth so execrable by Gods word as Rome for killing Christ of old by her power and pollicie and for being Antichrists throne Rev. 17. and 18. It is worth the noting that you doo not hold the Pope is necessarily indued with Gods holy grace And that in matters of fact he maysyn you say as well as any other Your Popes facts I am sure prove this if any shoud have the face to deny it Hereupon I inferr that your Popes are not members and so not possibly heads of the catholik church of God It is high blasphemy to say the head of that church may want Gods holy grace Colos. 1 18. c. 2 19. How now doo you know that the traditions and definitions of your graceless Popes are of God If you trie them not by the scriptures which you dare not because of the private spirit they may deceive and damne your soul as well as any other men You say you hold a necessary assistance which the Pope hath of the holy Ghost as he defines ex cathedra And upon what ground hold you this You find in Gods book no mention eyther of your Pope or of his Chayr for good The Apostle Peter directeth us to that vvhich holy men of God spake not to that vvith Satans slaves doo teach such as vvas P. Silvester the 2. of vvhom Cardinal Benno vvriteth that he came up out of the abyss or bottomless deep o◠divine permission And by the same answers of the Divils vvherby he had deceived many he vvas also deceived himself vvas intercepted vvith suddayn death by the judgment of God And yet vvil you trust such a miscreant that out of his chayr he vvill tel you none but divine oracles Never vvas there such a thing known since the beginning of the vvorld that a graceless reprobate should have necessarily the assistance of the holy Ghost so often as he sits him down on his chayr to define or determine the matters of God No religion on earth to my knowledge ever admitted such an unreasonable doctrine for vvhich you have no proof unless from the Popes own ungracious spirit vvhereby he exalteth himself against all that is caled God 2. Thes. 2 4. Notvvithstanding you labour to justify your S. Leo that sayd the head meaning I trow your ministeriall head at Rome infuseth grace to the whole church that God took S. Peter into the fellowship of the individual vnity And doe you in earnest beleev these things of your reprobate Popes as of S. Silvester the 2. of that Divil incarnate S. Iohn the 22. their like I perceive it is not vvithout cause that the scarlet coloured beast is sayd to be full of the names of blasphemie And here you say I see your religiō is no upstart religiō that so many yeres agoe was mainteyned Yes upstart it is but many yeres agoe I grant for the mysterie of iniquity did vvork evē vvhiles Paul lived 2 Thes. 2. 7. he told how after his departure greivous wolves should enter not sparing the flock under the name of wolves comprehending it may be Lions also and all other salvage beasts Wherefore Antichrist is an old man though you mistake as if he were yet scarse in his cradle 2. You helpe S. Leo as meaning that vvhich S. Peter sayd of such as should be partakers of the godly nature I answer first this is a very friendly interpretation that the fellowship of the individual unity should be but participation of the godly nature which al Christiās are partakers of A man may
1. S. Paul was caled to his office not by S. Peter but by Iesus Christ Gal. 1. 1. 2. S. Paul received the doctrine vvhich he preached not from S. Peter but by revelation froÌ„ Iesus Christ Gal. 1. 12. 3. S. Paul laboured in preaching the gospell more then S. Peter did 1. Cor. 15. 10. 4. S. Paul went and preached vvithout so much as conferring vvith S. Peter or the rest Gal. 1. 16. 17. 5. The gospel over the vncircumcision that is the Gentils among vvhom Rome vvas cheif was committed to S. Paul Gal. 2. 7. 6. S. Paul had upon him the care of all churches 2 Cor. 11. 28. 7. S. Paul hath vvritten and opened clearly the great mysteries of Christ in his Epistles more then S. Peter or any Apostle 8. S. Pauls vvritings are by S. Peter himself reckned among the holy scriptures 2 Pet. 3. 15. 16. 9. S. Paul rather then any other Apostle vvas caled of God to preach at Rome Act. 23. 11. 10. In his voyage to Rome he vvas marvelously saved from shipwrack and very memorable accidents fel out besides in that journey Act. 27. and 28. 11. S. Paul preached the gospel and suffered persecution in Rome and stood for the truth vvhen no man there assisted him Act. 28. 30. 31. 2 Tim. 4. 16. 12. S. Paul preached at Antioch where the name Christians vvas first given Act. 11. 26. 13. S. Paul vvithstood S. Peter to his face and blamed him vvhen he did amyss Gal 2. 11. c. 14. S. Paul first casteth out the Divil of divination Act. 16. 16. 15. He striketh Elymas the forcerer vvith blindnes Act. 13. 8. 11. 16. S. Paul in visions vvas taken up into the third heaven into paradise 2. Cor. 12. 2. 4. 17. S. Paul in nothing vvas inferior to the very cheif Apostles 2 Cor. 12. 11. 18. He vvas of that tribe vvhose precious stone is the first foundation of the heavenly Ierusalem Rom. 11. 1. Rev. 21. 19. Exod. 2â— 10. 20. 21. Therefore for all those reasons S. Paul vvas head of the Catholick Roman Church Here I appele unto any unpartial reader vvhither my proofs for S. Paul be not stronger then yours for S. Peter and vvhither the Pope vvas not overseen to choose S. Peter for his patron vvhom he cannot prove by any one title of Gods vvord that ever he set foot in Rome gates to leave S. Paul vvho vvas caled of God to preach there and did so a long time as the scriptures doo confirm Yet for all this you vvil not graunt that S. Paul vvas head of the church therefore say I neyther S. Peter and as for your Pope he hath no more â—ight to shew for the same then Mahomet We have seen your proofs from scripture you add unto them Doctors And here as before you bring in your forgeries of Clemens and Dioâ—ysius c vvith other vvrested testimonies of the Fathers Who al of them if they sayd as much as you vvould have them had no authority to make an head for the church Secondly vvhatsoever they sayd for Peter it proveth nothing for your Pope He must therefore shew better evidence for his usurped prelacy or els he must stil be reputed the adversary that exalteth himself 2 Thes. 2. 4. You proceed and say that S. Peters authority must be derived to his successors lawfully elected and governing at Rome This is the mayn point vvhich I vvould fayn see proved You could prove it by expresse authority of all the fathers cited but let reason you say suffice me Behold here and let all that have eyes behold the desperatenes of your cause vvho for the mayn ground of your religion church vvhereof you so boast cannot allege any one word or title of holy scripture but leave those true and ancient infallible records and betake you to the latter forged erroneous humane testimonies traditions of men I deny that Peter left any such successor in his office as you dream of and for the Pope to chaleng it is to folow the violencie of his private spirit as you sayd of Pope Stephen Now let us hear your reasoÌ„ Christ gave the power of preaching c. you say for the good of others to the worlds end This I graunt So Christ nstituting S. Peter the head you say would have that prehemineÌ„ce derived to his lawful successors All this I deny 1. He made not Peter head much less his successors â— He appointed no such successors after Peter in his office 3. If Peter vvere to have successors the Bishop of Rome hath no more to say for it by vvarrant from Christ then all other Bishops in the vvorld vvho for preaching ministring sacraments and governing their flocks have and ever had equal power with the Bishop of Rome vvhen he was at the best Thus after your long and tedious dispute you coÌ„clude vvith a fayr begging of the question not being able to produce one line of the bible which speaketh for your Pope nor any sufficient ground of reason How soundly now you have proved your sixth part viz. That the Popes definitive sentence at least with a general council â—t is a sufficient groundwork of fayth let any indifferent reasonable man give sentence Here I did not dare you as you say to bring in the arrowes of the fathers c in an other place it vvas that I gave you leave to use their reasons if you pleased but not to press me vvith their bare names as your manner is to doo And in all your long discourse let the reader mind vvhat any one scripture or reason you have had by the help of Doctor Father Council or Pope to prove your assertion that the Popes definitive sentence is to be a ground of our faith You object and that often that unless I wil eat my word you must preferr the uniform consent of the Fathers before me I answer to your often repetitions this First I spake of moe and others then you account holy Fathers yea I included such as I doubt not but you vvould burne for hereticks Secondly I spake and agayn speak it unfeighnedly as is in my hart being privy to my own manifold ignorances and infirmities and esteming of others better then of my self Thirdly therefore I say beleeve not me but beleeve the word of God which I shew vnto you If I speak of my selfe tread it vnder your foot but if I speak the words of God in despising theÌ„ you despise the Lord sinning against your sowl And if you depend on the sentences of Fathers Councils Popes not confirmed by the scriptures you make idols of them and heap up wrath upon your head Leave therefore your disdayning of me and leave your extolling of other men for all flesh is grass and all the glory of man is as the flower of grass which withereth away but the word of the Lord endureth for ever and that is the word which the Apostles preached to the churches 1.
he is the eight and is one of the seaven meaning the Popes vvho by an Ecclesiasticall goverment differ from the civil Emperors and so are an eight yet because they reign togither vvith the Emperours they make as it were one regiment and so the eight is one of the seven as the scripture sayth And that the word King dooth signify a kingdome or regiment appeareth by Dan. 7. 17. where the 4. beasts are sayd to be 4. kings meaning kingdomes as is explayned in v. 23. the fourth beast is the fourth kingdome So this exposition is playn and according to truth And thus notwithstanding all that you have brought the Pope remayneth Antichrist And think it not much that Antichrist is so ancient The Iewes look for Christ and he is come 1600. yeres agoe but they know him not You looke for Antichrist and he hath been wel nigh so many yeres in the vvorld and you are not aware If you read the book of the Revelation judicially God opening your hart you may discern that mysterie of Babylon which yet is hidden from your eyes And for preeminence forbidden to Christs ministers see Mat. 20. 25. 26. Luk. 22. 25. 26. That which you allege of Tit. 2. 15. showes the power authoritie of the word duly preached and applyed to mens consciences and is not peculiar to the head of the church the Pope for you see Titus there had it but it is common to all Christs ministers You turne back to your general argument vvhich I had confuted How good a defense you have brought I am content to let the prudent reader judge Onely where you charge me vvith falshood for saying the Pope with you is above the law which you deny in my sense I answer my sense is according to your own explication that extrinsecally and as it is to be knowen of us Gods word depends on the churches that is the Popes authority He putteth Apocryphal lying books in to the holy canon his interpretation though absurd and hereticall must stand for authentick and a definition of his ex cathedra you reverence as an oracle And he dispenseth against Gods law Is not he now above yea he sitteth as God in the Temple of God as Paul prophesied 2 Thes. 2. 4. The third thing which heretofore the seventh thing which now you should prove is that the indeficieÌ„t rule of our fayth is onely to be found in the â—â—man catholick church sentence and not in private mens illuminatioÌ„s c. I hold neyther of these as I told you before You labour agayn to mainteyn the former First you prove this in that the RomaÌ„ church you say is the onely true catholick church I answer You fayrly beg the question and would prove it is so because it is so You speak vntruely in calling her the true church proudly in caling her the onely true church absurdly in caling her the catholick that is the vniversal church None of all these can you make any proof of you referr in the margin to S. 123. and let men look what proof they can find there I for the present referr you and all to your own Cardinal Baronius testimonie of your holy church as he found it in his ancient records and put it in his Chronicles thus What was then the face of the holy Roman church how filthy was it when most mighty and eke most filthy whores ruled at Rome at whose pleasure seats were changed Bishops were given which is horrible and vile to heare false-Popes their paramours were intruded into Peters seat c. Loe here the bewty of that Catholick church whose sentence you say is the indeficient rule of your faith You are glad that I refuse the name Catholik and I am glad of and content me with that ancient name of a Christian given of God Act. 11 26 keep you your new fangled name of your own divising to be called a catholik that is an Universal I envie you not You are very angrie that I proved unto you the marks of your Roman church by the word of God which you had set down without proof You had cause rather to be thankfull But now the reader may see how having nothing soundly to reply you wilfully persist in your error for which I am sory Your reproches I bear with patience Leaving your former reasons helpless you conclude with a coÌ„mon argumeÌ„t for your church religioÌ„ That seing your faith is coÌ„fessed to be so ancient if it be not froÌ„ God it must be grounded on carnal motives viz the profit of the spiritual or the temporall But it is not you say for the profit or pleasure of the clergie as appeares by their cha â—â—ity vowes fasting praying c. Nor of temporal Princes for how should so many Emperors Kings c. be brought to confess their syns fast c. I answer first your religioÌ„ in som points of it is ancient I coÌ„fess eveÌ„ as ancienâ— as the Apostles daies vvhen the mystery of iniquity begaÌ„ to work 2. Thes. 2. 7. men loved preeminence 3. Iohn 9. many Antichrists vvent abroad 1 Ioh. 2. 18. vvhich vvere foretunners of the great Antichrist folowing Who vvas to be reveled vvhen he that theÌ„ letted viz. the heathen Empire vvas taken out of the vvay 2. Thes. 2. 7. 8. But yet the truth of the Gospel preached by the Apostles vvas more ancient 1 Ioh. 2. 24. which therefore is to be our rule and stay not humane doctrines that came up after Secondly I answer the ambition profit and pleasure of the Bishops and Preists vvere the motives unto this height of evil For histories record the contentions that vvere in churches and among Bishops especially of Rome and of Constantinople vvho should be greatest This made P. Gregory to say the King of pride is at haud and quod dici quoque nefas est an arwie of Preists is ready for him I wish you vvould beleeve this Popes tradition here As for Profits and pleasures vvho seeth not that Christ and his Apostles being poor and Peter himself having neyther silver nor gold to give a needy man Act. 3. 6. Your clergy have gotten such patrimonies falsly purloyned in S. Peters name as they are of the richest in the vvorld their treasures infinite their palaces like Kings their apparel prince like their Kitchins ful of the finest fare the plesantest fertilest lands in all countries being ingrossed for the clergie for church livings Their doctrines of Purgatory and pardons being onely to pick mens purfes Their vowes of chastitie being to desile themselves in filthy Sodonne adulterie and fornication vvitness the 6000. childrens heads that vvere found murdered in P. Gregories fishpond which moved him to reverse his own wicked decree that restreyned the Clergie froÌ„ their wives besides infinite other testimonies of these evils in other places Their fasting being a mere mockery to absteyn superstitiously