31 is sufficient for vs to beleeue that Iesus is that Christ and that in beleeuinge we might haue life in his name I remember that in the verball conference the B. of Eureux accused those of our side of a most wicked falsifying of this place for hauing translated the word tavta these things in stead of referring it onely to miracles of which alone he maintained that S. Iohn meant And because I could not get from him any cleare answer as then on expositioÌ„s of S. Augustin and saint Cyrill that I alledged wholly agreeable vnto ours I will in this place rehearse them â—t Tract 〈◊〉 45. The first saith though Iesus had doon very many things yet all were not written but that which seemed sufficient for the saluation of beleeuers was chosen to be written The other speaketh yet more clearely 〈◊〉 lib. 2. in 〈◊〉 cap. vlt. All the things saith he that Iesus did are not written but only those things that the writers thought sufficient as well for doctrin as for manners c. The B. of Eureux The apostles do not onelie giue vs examples of the vse of traditions â—s 2 15. but also commaundement Obserue saith Saint Paul the traditions that you haue receiued of vs be it by worde or by our Epistle In which place those of Geneua haue takeÌ„ out of their Frenche Bible the word Tradition which is in the Greeke and in the Latine and haue put insteade thereof Instruction To which it cannot be answered that saint Paul restraineth the generality of this proposition to the traditions onely which haue since beene written For it is in consequence of a tradition that he had giuen them concerning the cause that hindred the comming of Antichrist which was neuer written that he frameth this generall law And in this sence also do saint Basill S. Epiphanius and saint Chrysostome interprete it D. Tillenus his answer When saint Paul wrote this Epistle there was scarce any scripture of the new Testament For after our aduersaries own account no Euangelists yet had written and saint Paule had than written but his former Epistle to the Thesâ—â—â—nians Seing then these two Epistles did not conteine al the doctrin of Christ necessary to be known the Apostle fitly exhorteth the Thessalonians to obserue not only what he had afore written vnto them but also what he had taught them by word of mouth But doth it follow therefore that none of that should afterward be written Du Perron saith it doth because it is in consequence of a Tradition that he had giuen them touching the cause that hindred the comming of Antichrist which was neuer written that he frameth this generall Law But that is altogether false 2. Thes 2. â— we need but looke into the text to know of what Traditions the Apostle speaketh We ought alwayes saith he giue thanks vnto God for you because he hath chosen you to saluation through the sanctification of the spirit and the faith of truth whereunto he hath called you by our Gospell to obtaine the glory of our Lord Iesus Christ VVhereupon he addeth Wherefore keepe the Traditions that is to say these instructions of truth which you haue learned and which I haue giuen you either by word of mouth or by our Epistle By the consequence Du Perron draweth it should folow that part of this tradition touching the hindring of Antichrists comming should be written which vvas doon and therefore he ouerthroweth his own exposition Furthermore though all he saith were of force as it is of none yet could he but prooue thereby the traditions of the Apostles and not an infinite number of others which the Church of Rome causeth to be obserued as the Lawes of god vvhich vve know by their histories vvere instituted many ages after the Apostles times If because Moyses had giuen som instructions by vvord of mouth to the Israelites the Cabalists and Ievvish Rabins vvould make vs receiue the Traditions of their Thalmud who would admit them And if du Perron beleeue the Fathers let him beleeue then Tertullian Chrysostome and saint Hierome who say that after the ruine of the Romane Empire the throne of Antichrist should be established 〈◊〉 â—ome Which therefore is fulfilled seeing that the ruine o◠〈◊〉 Empire is notorious to all the world The B. of Eureux 〈◊〉 â— 2 1 He saith also to Timothie Tu ergo fili confortare in gratia quae est in Christo Iesu quae audisti à me per multos testes haec commenda fidelibus qui idonei crunt alios docere Of which deposite there had bene no neede if all the word of god as our aduersaries pretend to proue by this same Chapter had beene sufficiently written or should haue been from the very time of the Apostles D. Tillenus his answer 〈◊〉 1 13 The apostle himselfe declareth what he meaneth by this deposite which he exhorteth Timothie to keepe namely the patterne of wholsom words he had heard of him which consisteth in faith and loue and it followeth in this very verse that he shoulde communicate it vnto faithfull men which should bee able to teache others But in the third chapter he sayth most plainly 〈◊〉 3 15 â— that by the Scripture not onely Laymen as they call them but also the man of God that is to say the Pastour or Doctor of the Church should and may bee taught and made wise vnto saluation and absolutely instructed and made perfect vnto euery good work VVhence it followeth that this deposite or matter committed of trust vnto Timothie is nothing else but the scripture which is sufficiente euen for the saluation of a Bishop and not of a Lay man onely which later du Perron in our conference was forced to confesse finding no other distinction to escape The B. of Eureux Moreouer there are fowr points which our aduersarie shoulde with vs and condemne as we doe of heresie those that repugne the same at least wise touching the three former namelye the trueth of Baptisme of little children that of the Baptisme of heretickes the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne and the translation of the feast from Saturday to Sondaye which can not bee concluded by any demonstraâ—â—â— proofe from any place of Scripture D. Tillenus his answer In al these articles if we beleue him the Scripture is no fouÌ„datioÌ„ pillar of our faith as Irenaeus sayd Irenaeuâ— c 1 Tertul. â— Hermoâ— And they that added them to Scripture need not fear the woe by Tertullian who reuereÌ„ced the fulnesse of the scriptures threatned after S. Iohn to those which cannot shew that that which they say is written nor the anthema of S. Augustin against those August Ecclesicâ— cont lit lib 3 cap Chrysosâ— Homil â— 20 cap â— that cannot reade in Scriptures the doctrine they teache nor the reproaches of Chrysostome who calleth them theeues that go vp by any other way into the fold than by the
power of God if wee follow not the testimonies of them darknesse will oppresse vs and will passe vpon our doctrine After Du Perron our Sauiour Christes reply must be corrected by these words Yee erre because ye know not the tradition neither the power of the Synagogue or of the High Priest Caiphas addresse your selues to this same and yee shall know all the secrets of God From the second commaundement of the Decalogue I frame this argument they that experiment the mercie of God euen to the thousanth generation cannot be abolished by death now they that loue GOD experiment his mercy euen to the thousanth generation therefore they cannot be abolished by death The Bishopp of Eureux opposeth vnto me Brentius who expoundeth this promise of God not of eternall life but of the multitude of posterity He so often alleadgeth vnto me this expositour as if his authority were as irrefragable and authenticall amongst vs as the authority of an Apostle If I should aleadge vnto him Eutyches Nestorius or some other holdeÌ„ for an heretike both of him and me all the Ellebore of Anticyra would not suffice to purge such an Impertinencie But because it is himself that vseth it it must be admired as a wisedome extrauagante Now let vs take this place according to the exposition be it of Brentius or of the Saduces and then let their aduocate Du Perron tell vs how a promise can be directed to them which are not how mercie can be exercised vpon them which are wholly destroyed and brought to nothing Vpon their children will he say but Moses saith formally vpon Them which pronoune can not be vnderstood but of the Fathers the abolishment of whome abolisheth the subiect of Gods mercie Ethic. l. 1. c 11 This consequence is no lesse necessary and euident then that is which the Interpreters of Aristotle gather for the Immortality of the soule from a place where he propoundeth this question whether it importeth to our felicity that our friends be happy and whether the dead also are touched with the prosperity of their friends he which speaketh thus intendeth that the dead are not wholly extinct and this is manifest by the onely vse of reason common sense without begging the helpe of any Tradition And if Aristotle who affected obscurity may notwithstanding be vnderstood â—xod 32 32 â—3 at least in some places how much more Moses who aimed onely at the instruction and edification of the people of God â—ol 23. From Gods booke spoken of in the same booke one may thus reason against a Saducee that by his Aduocate expoundeth it of a rolle or catalogue of the liuing or of a Register wherein God writeth all things that he hath giuen Beeing vnto Moses was not blotted out of this booke of life and yet hath not enioyed that happy life promised to the people of god in the land of Chanaan but dyed before he sett foote into it as well as they that rebelled against god It followeth therefore either that the happie life is not properly to be vnderstood of the fruition of the land of Canaan or that God made no distinction between his most faithful seruant and greatest obseruer of his Lawe and the most disloyall transgressors of the same betweene him that was wont to appease him them that were wont to prouoke him This consequence is necessarie not onely in the Germane Logick which Du Perron mocketh at but also in that of all the Synagogue that admitteth the Text of Moses Act. 6. Lib. 1. de Caiâ— Aâ— c. 2. were it of Libertines and of Sadduces the principall of which who at this present is Bishop of Eureux can reply nothing else thereunto but that wherewith the ancient Libertines accused S. Stephen to wit blasphemies against Moses and against God If that which S. Ambrose saith of Moses that he is not dead be of the Iewish tradition Deut. 21. 34 5. I 1.2 which after Du Perron was the true depositarie and Gardian of the sense of the Scripture and of the trueth of God than see heere a faire piece of it which blotteth out and wholly destroyeth the expresse text of the Scripture which speaketh of the death of Moses Let the Reader note by the way that the secret that our Bishoppe insinuateth touching the mysticall interpretation that is drawne from the helpe of Tradition It is to change the affirmations of the Scripture into Negations and the Negations into Affirmations From the 34. chapter verse 7. I drawe this proofe for the vniuersal Iudgement He that absolueth none that is guiltie iudgeth al men but God saith Moses absolueth not him that is guiltie therefore he iudgeth all men Out of Leuiticus From these words The man that shall doe these things shall liue in them may bee made this argument Leuit. 18. â— If the life that God promiseth to the obseruers of his Law bee but temporall they haue nothing more excellent aboue others but the consequent is false Therefore the antecedent likewise The consequence is manifest for many contemners of God and transgressors of his coÌ„maundements aswell among the Israelites as among the Heathen haue liued a longer and happier life in this world then many of the children of God haue done â— Cor. 15. 19 who might as well say then as S. Paul said since If in this life onely we hoped in Christ or in God wee are of all men the most miserable Therefore here either the Sadducie must deny the iustice of God or renounce his obstinate opinion â—â—uit 18.5 From these same words also is prooued the sufficiencie of the Scripture of Moses in this manner that which maketh to liue eternally is sufficient to saluation but the things that Moses writeth in his Law make to liue eternally therefore they are sufficient to saluation The minor is prooued by the argument going before which sheweth that this life can not be temporall and that is the part which the Saducie denyeth His Aduocate Du Perron will deny this part which affirmeth that Moses wrote all the things that make to liue eternally To alledge vnto him S. Paule who saith that Moses â—â—m 10.5 describeth the righteousnesse that is by the Lawe of which righteousnesse perfectly obserued proceedeth life He would mock at it and would attribute this vnderstanding to the institution of the Synagogue but it shall not be lawfull for him after his owne principles to mock at Moses so â—â—ut 13.10 who in another place restraineth all this obseruation of the commaundements and ordinances of God to those things that are written in the booke of the Law without directing the promise of eternall felicitie to the obseruers of any other more secret commaundements conteyned in the Tradition of the 70. â—â—l 31. Elders of the Synagogue as Du Perron would haue it Considering also that if this place cannot bee vnderstoode of eternall life without the helpe of Tradition S. Paule was greatly
gather together in paper what hee had scattered in the ayre his distinctions would appeare to bee more prestigious in the one than they seeme to bee specious in the other and that it would bee as harde a thing for him to vnwrappe himselfe from selfe-contradictions by the pen as it is easie for him to dazell and entangle the ignorant by his tongue Hee made account also perhaps that his cause being grounded on the Word vnwritten it could not well be defended by the word written Notwithstanding hauing intelligence since that hee had compiled a little writing on this subiect in fauour of some whom hee was desirous to subuert I haue taken paynes to get a Copie of it to which I haue made this aunswere which may serue in stâ—ade of a Resultate or repetition of our Verball Conference at vvhich vvere present fevve others than his greatest friendes vvho then made such acclamations and since haue sovved such reportes thereof as pleased them But heere not beeing required the applause of men nor any tickeling conceipt of vanitie I entreate the Readeer to ayme vvith mee in this vvriting at the glorie of God onely and the manifestation of his truth for the teaching vvhereof Saint Athanasius vvitnesseth that the Scripture is sufficient Let vs acknovvledge it then for Iudge Athanas 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 vs reuerence it as Mistres vvhilest our aduersaries take it for partie and pursue it as an enemie The answer of D. Daniell Tillenus to the Bishop of Eureux his treatice wherby he endeauoreth to proue the insufficiency and imperfection of the holy Scripture and the necessity authority of vnwritten traditions The bishop of Eureux THE vnwritten word of God The B. â— on which we call Apostolicke tradition is of the same force and authority as the written word is and without it the Scripture alone is not suffieient to confute all heresies The Iewes did beleeue when the body of the law of Moyses was giuen vnto them many things which either were not conteyned in the fiue bookes of Moyses or did not appeare vnto them to be therein conteined As the immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body the last iudgement Paradise Hell the Creation and distinction of the orders of Angells the being and creation of deuills and many other points which they could not know by humane science but it must needs be that they receiued them by reuelation from God and therefore that they had another way for to deriue and conserue the word of god besides that of the Scripture D. Tillenus his answer To him that would heare none but Fathers speake it may be answered in a word as one of the number saith Hillar iâ— Psalm 1â— Whatsoeuer is not conteined in the booke of the Law we ought not to know it He that speaketh so would not haue vs seeke that elsewhere which is not found in the Scripture We say that all that is necessary to saluation touching those and all other points is conteyned in the scripture either in expresse tearmes or in necessary consequence and true analogue Gen. 17â— Exod 6. â— Exod. 20â— In the writings of Moyses we find that God maketh a couenant with the Hebrews that he promiseth to be their God and the God of their seed to exercise mercy vpon them vnto thousand generations that is to say for euer to dwell in the middest of them 〈◊〉 10. 〈◊〉 29. to keepe them as the apple of his eie In them is Israell called happie for that it was saâ—ed by the lord God 7.9 Iacob being ready to depart out of this life comforted himselfe in the expectation of the saluation of the lorde to shew that he went to take possession of a bâ—tter countrey He and his Father called themselues straungers in the land of Canaan which notwithstanding was promised them for inheritance Therefore they beleeued the true country that is to say Paradise This consequent is not onely necessary but also manifest by the testimony of the Apostle who draweth it from this place of Scripture not from any vnwritten Tradition 〈◊〉 1.9.13 when he saith that they which so speake shew playnly that they seek a Country which is the thing that Du Perron can not find in the bookes of Moyses although we find in them that the wicked and vnfaithfull that defended lyes against the trueth 〈◊〉 â— 11 did wish it For what else meaneth that false prophet Balaam when he sayth O that my soule might dye the death of the righteous or that my end might bee like theirs This wish expresseth clearly enough the appreheÌ„sioÌ„ he had of the last iudgment 〈◊〉 â— 1 When Moyses calleth the Israelites the children of the Lord their God forbidding them to sorrow for the dead as infidells he speaketh no lesse manifestly of the resurrection 〈◊〉 4.13 than S. Paul when he exhorteth the Thessalonians not to lament for the dead as they do that haue no hope 〈◊〉 3.2 VVhen Moyses saith that God holdeth all his saints in his hands he saith the same thing that is sayd by other that haue written after him That the soules of the righteous are in the hands of the Lord and that they commit their soules vnto him 〈◊〉 â— 1 19. 2.32 24. â— Iud. â— 29 â—0 19 as vnto a faithfull creator So when he speaketh of the book of life of the taking vp of Henoch which Tertullian calleth Candidatum aeternitatis when he saith that those that feare God and keepe his commaundements shall be happy for euer when he setteth before the Iewes life and death blessing and cursing when he threatneth them with the fire of the Lords wrath Deut. â— which shall burne euen to the bottome of hell shall consume the earth with her encrease and set on fire the foundations of the mountaines VVhen I say he writeth all these things he sheweth clearly enough the immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body the last iudgement Paradise and Heâ—l which points are vnseparably linked together Jf these testimonies seeme not cleare enough to the Bishop of Eureux who confesseth neuerthelesse that in Daniell and the other Prophets that haue written since Moyses there is some found Let him consider that they which among the Corinthians denied the resurrection 1. Corâ—â— shifted off the one as well as the other VVhich sheweth that if those that doo erre in some point will not suffer themselues to be vanquished by the scripture that commeth not through any obscurity and imperfection of which they falsely accuse it but from their owne malice and blindnes Moreouer it is to be noted that it hath pleased God orderly to distribute the reuelation of his will of his promises and of his couenant by certayne degrees increasing alwaies the measure of this reuelation as the age of the world increased This oeconomy is clearely obserued in the Scripture if we mark therein the degrees from Adam to Abraham from Abraham to
and Prophets extraordinarily sent of God by which meanes now ceased since God hath spoken vnto vs by his Sonne it might be more fully instructed in all things Yet notwithstanding the holy Scripture is alwayes recommended vnto them aboue all Hebr. 1. God himselfe though he spake to Ioshuah by word of mouth confirming him in his charge notwithstanding he commended vnto him onely the booke of the Law Iosh 1.7 not promising him his assistance and blessing but on condition that he should do and obserue all that is conteined therein After that so often as the reformation of the Church was intended there was neuer any other patterne taken than the scripture 2. Chro. â— 2 Chro. â— 2. Chro. â— 2. King â— 2 King 2 Nehe 8. as appeareth by the examples of Iosaphat Ioas Ezechias Iosias Ezra Nehemias c. Contrariwise when Amon and Manasses would diuert the people from the seruice of god to idolatry they hid the book of the Law that it might no more be read publickly as god by Moyses had ordained As touching the creation of Angels the being creation of deuils which du Perron very improperly distinguisheth as if diuels were not angels at the beginning or as if god had created them by themselues so wicked as they are ther is reuealed in the books of Moyses as much of it as god hath iudged to be expedient for the simplicity of that people To tell what day or in what order they were created we know it no more by TraditioÌ„ thaÌ„ by the scripture though it be augmeÌ„ted since Moses from whom we gather their Creation when he saith that the heaueÌ„s the earth were finished and all their host Gen. 2 â— Gen. 28 Deut. 3â— Gal 3.1 In the vision of Iacobs ladder and elsewhere we read their apparitions and mynistery which the Jewes in the time of Moyses knewe rather by theyr experience than by Tradition sith the Lawe was published by them As for the supposed distinction of theyr orders Areopagita speaketh with such assuraunce as if he had beene present at it all though even he that was rapt vp into the third heauen not onely forbeareth to speake of it 〈◊〉 12.4 but also witnesseth that it is not lawfull to reueale these secrets We say with S. Augustine that when disputation is had of a thing very obscure without certaine and cleare proofe of the diuine scriptures the supposition of man is to be kept in not leaning more on the one side â—â—st cont â— it than the other He sendeth vs not in this case to vnwritten Tradition Irenaeus who should know more of Apostolike tradition that any of our time defied certaine Gnosticks in his dayes swolne with I know not what knowledge taken out of the scripture in reckoning vp and describing the distinctions orders and preheminences of Angells Archangells Powers Thrones Dominations and in a word all those things which the Church of Rome braggeth she knoweth and which this holy Father propounded to his aduersaries as impossible to comprehend Touching the diuell Moyses teacheth the Iewes in the scripture 〈◊〉 s 3. that he was a lyar a tempter and seducer from the beginning That the seede of the woman should bruise his head c. If there had been neede of knowing more he could haue giuen them the knowledge of it by a more authenticall and true Oracle than that of Rome is I know not whether du Perron would maintaine that the nine orders or degrees which the Schoolemen haue made among diuells in imitation of the Angelicall Hierarchie are from Apostolicke tradition The B. of Eureux They had besides this many other things whereof the institution is not found neither in the books of Moses nor in any other booke of the olld Testament As the institution of the order of Exorcists who by a certaine authenticall prescript form from God did coniure wicked spirits as our Lord beareth them witnes saying 〈◊〉 12.27 If I cast out deuills in the name of Beelzebub in whose name do your children cast them out And for this reason they shall be your iudges Which children Caluin prooueth that they were the Exorcists of the Iewes such as those which are spoken of in the 19. chapter of the Acts. D. Tillenus his answer The knowledge of these things eyther is not necessary to Saluation or is found in the Scripture by analogy or by consequence If the Exorcists of whom Saint Matthew speaketh be such as those of whom speaketh saint Luke Math. â— Acts 19 as Du Perron hath it from Caluine there was no diuine institution For they in the Acts were certayne vagabonds that abused the name of Jesus for which they sped very ill We know that in the beginning of the Christian Church this miraculous guift of casting out deuills was vsuall there but we find not that they which had it in the exercising thereof did vse any mysticall prescript forme but that they did simply coniure the * Enerâ—â— Possessed in the name of God whence we gather that such as in the Iewish Church had this guift and did vse it lawfully brought thereunto none other mysterie than the calling on the name of the God of Abraham Isaack and Iacob which forme is found euidently enough in the Scripture The B. of Eureux They had the miracle of the Poole the water whereof the Angell troubled which was a figure of Baptisme that shoulde heale vs of our infirmities after that the Angell of the greate counsaile which is our Lord Iesus Christ was gone down into the water Now that this was not any illusions of the deuill and superstition for those that haue recourse thereunto but a true miracle instituted of god wherunto credit might be giuen it could not be knowne but by tradition D. Tillenus his answer The miracle of the Poole was visible as the miracles of Iesus Christ the Apostles and the Prophets afore them were Iohn 5. â— It tended not to establish or confirme any false doctrine in which case the caution that Du Perron requireth had been necessary Nehem â— Nehemias sayth that the gate of this Poole was hallowed when he City was reedified after the returne from captiuity Whence we may coniecture that God then adorned it with this miracle in token of his approuing the restoring of the City And the word Beth-chesda which was the name of the Poole in the Syriack tongue signifieth the house of benignity because God there did visibly shew his goodnesse in healing all the diseases of his people The B. of Eureux The custome also which they had to deliuer a man at Easter which was a figure of the deliuerance of mankind by the Passeouer of our Sauiour was a Tradition D. Tillenus his answer The custome to deliuer a man at Ester was rather a corruption of Iustice brought in by infidell Gouernors than any necessary point to saluation reuealed and commanded of god to the faithfull The B. of
the finishing of his works whereas we doe not celebrate Sunday for this purpose but for to honour the memoriall of our lords Resurrection which was the day of accomplishment of rest from his labors he tooke in this worlde for the restoring and reforming of mankinde As touching the forme we obserue not Sundayes the seauenth day of the weeke but as the first so that though it bee still an obseruation of one day of the seauen yet neuerthelesse it is no more an obseruation of the seuenth but of the first of the seauen contrary to that which was obserued in the ould law And therfore the Fathers of the Primitiue Church reckoned as well as we doe now Wednesday and Friday for the fourth sixt feriae or daies of Cessation beginning at Sonday for the beginning of their supputatioÌ„ So that instituting Sunday it is not a changing of Saturday into Sunday but the bringing in of a new solemne feast which hath no conformity with feast of the Sabbaoth Also we see that in the primitiue Church wherein they would yet bury the Synagogue with some honour for to shew that they would not substitute Sonday in saturdays roome but institute sunday a new as the particuler feast of Christians they obserued them both at once saturday in commemoration of the precepte of Moses sunday for to celebrate the particular feast of Christs resurrectioÌ„ As for the matter it is certain that whosoeuer wil obserue the day coÌ„maÌ„ded by Moses to the children of Israel must take not a day at pleasure by septenary reuolutioÌ„ deriued indiffereÌ„tly froÌ„ some beginning that we think good of but that which shold be fownd the seauenth by reuolutioÌ„ and beginning at the originall of the supputation that God himself had established as the Jewes did For God marked and poynted them out a day at which be would haue them begin to reckon and account their septenary reuolution which was that same as is most probable which represented by the order of the reuolution thereof the day of Gods rest after the Creation of the world for a commemoration where of it was ordayned And for this cause he that propounded vnto them for to beginne the solemnization of the sabbath sent them twice so much Manna as the dayes before commaunded them to gather of it double as much that so the next day which should be the sabbath they might be free and vacant from all corporall labour And notwithstanding this absolute suppression of the sabbath in which the end the forme and the matter of the commaundement are abolished and this new bringing in of sunday is not grounded vpon any written ordinance neither of Christ nor his Apostles Contrariwise it seeemeth that our Lord exhorting them to pray that there flight might not be on the sabbath day when the desolation foretold of by Daniell should come to passe It is thought his intent was that the sabbath should still be obserued of Christians after the suppression of the other legall ceremonyes For as for that which is written in the Apocalyps that S. Iohn was rauished in spirit on the Lords day To omitte that this worde maye bee taken for the manner of speaking of Saint Paule The day of the lord shall reueale That is the iudgement of the Lord. And againe I passe very little to bee iudged of mans daye that is of mans iudgement If men woulde not play the sophisters too much on this worde Day What other lighte the lighte of the perpetuall tradition of the Church excepted can teach vs that sunday and not saturday is this Lords day seeing saturday was stil in the law and among the Iews acknowledged for the Lords day As also from the other place that Saint Paule commaundeth that the first day of the weeke euery man should laye apart what he would giue for the Collects there cannot any thing begathered For if the text had sayd Euery one carryeth to the Church that day what he would giue there were some apparance to conclude that the first day in the weeke was apppoynted for the meetings of the Church from the Apostles tymesâ— But saying onely that on the first day of the weeke euery man laide apart what he would giue a week that when he came he might finde it ready there can of necessity no other sence be gathered but that saint Paule in the beginning of the weeke would haue euery one lay apart by it selfe of that which was for his expence the weeke following what he was willing to reserue for the poore least he spend it with the rest D Tillenus his answere There remayneth to shew that the translation of the Sabbath day to sunday hath not been done without the written ordinance of God du Perron doth very much exaggerate the rigour of the commaundement touching the obseruation of the Sabbath going about to perswade that it was meerely and simply morall whereof hee concludeth that the Church which hath abolished it hath power to change and establish the expresse law of god which the scripture witnesseth shal abide for euer Now not to exasperate this blasphemy I will briefly shew that this commaundement was partly Morall and partly ceremoniall that the ceremonial part concerneth not ChristiaÌ„s wee learn froÌ„ the Scriptures that ceremonyes are abolished by the coÌ„ming of Christ that there is expres ordinaÌ„ce in scripture tuching the particuler abolishmeÌ„t of this ceremony which coÌ„preheÌ„deth not the morall part of that commandement For the first If the obseruation of the Sabboth were altogether morall God would neuer haue detested it For he taketh pleasure in all that is morall Isay 1.11 14. Now the Scripture teacheth vs that hee sometimes doth detest it and that he reckoneth it with the sacrifices and other feasts which none will deny to be ceremoniall Jt followeth therefore that this obseruation was not wholly morall And Iesus Christ who hath perfectly fulfilled the Law Math. 12. excused and defeÌ„ded his disciples againste the Iewes when they had transgressed the ceremony of the Sabbath And in another place he sayth Mark 2.2 That the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the sabbath Osc 6.6 Also when hee alledgeth the scripture to this purpose which saith I will haue mercy and not sacrifice hee plainely placeth the sabbath among the ceremonies After Iesus Christ the Apostles haue left this ordinance written in so expresse words that I am abashed at the boldnes of du Perron to deny a thing so manyfest Saint Paule sayth Let no maÌ„ condeÌ„n you in meat drink or in respect of an holyday or of the new moon or of the sabbath Adding which ar but shadows of things to come but the body is Christ Will he coÌ„tend whether shadows be ceremonies Wil he maintain that the forbiddings of meats of the hollidayes new Moons of the Jews were morall commandements If he wil not beleeue the Apostles let him then hearken to the Fathers â—ul aduers 〈◊〉 adâ— of whom
the most auÌ„cient amoÌ„g the Latins distinguisheth in expres terms the teÌ„porall Sabbath froÌ„ the eternall sabbath 〈◊〉 lib. 4. shewing by the History of the ruine of Iericho where all the people the Priests theÌ„selues laboured 7 dayes one after another and therfore the Sabbath was ther in coÌ„prised that this commaundement was ceremonial teÌ„porall â—tat de â—tem Rab â—n tractat â—â—b c. 1. â—ractat de â—umcis c. 1 Yea the Iewes themselues as superstitious obseruers as they be of the outward ceremony of the Sabbath neuertheles do hold that in daÌ„ger of life the law of the sabbath may be brokeÌ„ And these words ar fouÌ„d in their Thalmud DaÌ„ger of life breaketh the Sabbath But euery one knoweth and confesseth that there is no danger can excuse the transgression of the morall law for the obseruation whereof the true faythfull hold their life very well bestowed Seeing theÌ„ the sabbath is takeÌ„ two wayes eyther for interior which is a rest from our euill workes an exercise meditation of the works of God or for the exteriour which consisteth in rest cessation froÌ„ the labors busines which coÌ„cern this life in which it was a figure of interior sabboth the promises or thretnings which god made to such as kept or violated his sabbaths which is our Bishops grownd are meÌ„t more of the first 〈◊〉 5.8 theÌ„ of the 2 to which notwithstaÌ„ding the Jews wer bouÌ„d as to all the other Leuiticall ceremonies froÌ„ which yoke ChristiaÌ„s are wholly freed their sabbath being interiour spiritual perpetual as the feast of passeouer or Easter which neither ought nor can euer be abolished in respect of the matter being a cessatioÌ„ froÌ„ sins a meditatioÌ„ on 〈◊〉 Gods works nor in respect of the form which is to perform this meditation with true repeÌ„taÌ„ce of all our euil works with true faith towardes God and vnfained charity towardes our neighboures nor in respect of the end which is the glorifiing of the name of God and the saluation of our soules in that greate and euerlasting sabbath which his sonnne Iesus Christ hath prepared for vs in his Kingdome Beholde the principall matter forme and end of the sabbath to the which are to be referred all the other ends touching the determining of dayes for the asseÌ„blies of the church which is in the liberty of the Church which the Scripture giueth it in expresse tearms And though the places in the Reuelation Col. 2. Reuel 1.10 1. Cor. 16. and in the first to the Corinthians wer not cleer euident ynough to shew that the Apostles haue instituted the Lords day on sunday yet cannot that preiudice vs any thing at all seeing there are other formall places that proue the liberty of the church in such things and it sufficeth that we are able to decide by the scripture the question of law or ordinance Notwithstanding so that our Bishop doe not draw him selfe backe from his own interpretation 1. Cor. 16.2 the very act or exaÌ„ple of practise wil be fownd therein He sayth if the apostle had sayd Euery maÌ„ bringeth to the church that day what he would giue that then there had beene some apparance for to conclude that the first day of the weeke was particularly appoynted to the meetings of the church in the very tyme of the Apostles Now we find in that the disciples were assembled the first day of the weeke which is as himselfe denyeth not Act 20.7 Sunday for to breake breade that is to celebrate the lords supper and that in this assembly Saint Paule made a sermon which lasted till midnight See heere then the question fouÌ„d prooued in the scripture aswell by example of practise as otherwise A speciall commaundement touching this obseruation of sunday neither the scripture giueth any seeing it testifieth that it is a thing indifferent neither can du Perron shew it by Apostolike Tradition for all his brags The Ecclesiasticall history is directly against him when it sayth Socr. lib 5. Cap 22. That the intention of the Apostles was not to make lawes or coÌ„mandements touching feast dayes or holy dayes but to be authorrs of good life true godlines Our aduersaries on the coÌ„trary do constitute their principall godlinesse and vertue in obseruation of the holy dayes by theÌ„ instituted and make a morall commaundement of the Iewish obseruation of the sabbath reiecting into the number of the ceremonialls that 〈◊〉 commaundement which forbiddeth Images though it be one of the cheefest among the morall But commaunding thus what god forbiddeth forbidding what god coÌ„mandeth they shew in what schole they haue studied Surely their maÌ„ner of reasoning is altogether conformable to the Tropick of that ould Sophister from whose instruction ensued the destruction of mankind when our first parents suffered theÌ„selues to be perswaded by this goodly argument Though god hath forbidden you to eate of this tree yet neuerthelesse you shoulde eate of it 〈◊〉 2.8 â— 3 vers The Father of lights who in these last times hath begun to chase away the darknes of Errour and superstition by the brightnes of his word vouchsafe to enlighten our harts by the light of his truth that we be not diuerted froÌ„ his ways through vayn deceyt after the TraditioÌ„s of meÌ„ but that keeping faithfully the sacred truth which he hath of trust coÌ„mitted vnto vs wee may wayte with ioy for the moste brighte and glorious comming of the sunne of righteosnnes to whom be all honor glory and praise for euermore A DEFENCE OF the Sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scripture Against the Cauillations of the Lord Du Perron Bishop of Eureux By the which hee endeuoureth to maintaine his Treatise of the vnsufficiencie and imperfection of the holy Scripture By D. Daniell Tillenus Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Sedan PROV 16.25 There is a way that seemeth right vnto a man but the issues thereof are the waies of death August de vnit Eccles cap. 3. Whatsoeuer is alledged of eyther side against the other should be remoued sauing that which commeth out of the Canonicall Scriptures Printed at London by L. S. for Nathanaell Butter 1606. THE PREFACE of the Author THe Iewes who since the blindnesse wherewith God hath iustly punished their ingratitude and rebellion haue alwaies shewed themselues greedie of Traditions and out of taste with the simplicitie of the Scripture vsing it but for a basis or foundation whereon to plant their fables as the Poets doe historie recount that God being about to giue his law to their ancestors shewed vnto Moses a Masse of Saphir Lyr. in Exoâ— c. 34. made of purpose by his diuine power whereof he commanded him to hew and square out the tables in which he vouchsafed to write his law with his owne finger and because the text hath Hew thee out Tables They gather of it Exod. 34.1 that God permitted him to retaine and appropriate to himselfe
contrarie the first intention of the Apostles was to deliuer the doctrines to the Church by tradition of liuely voice word vnwritten Also he saith that the Apostles wrote but by incident or chance Fol. 35. and vpon secondary occasions Let vs see this Enthymeme or imperfect argument of the PirrhoniaÌ„ Logicke The Apostles first taught by liuely voyce Ergo they pretended not to teach by their writings which succeeded their preaching The consequence is as good as who should say One eateth first for to nourish himselfe therfore drink serueth nothing to nourishment A non distributo ad distributum c. If he make an opposition between the coÌ„mandement of the spirit of God the incideÌ„t or the occasioÌ„s which moued the Apostles to write he blasphemeth in diuinitie denying the places of scripture 2. Tim. 3.1 2. Pet. 1.20 21. where it is called inspired of God and doteth in Logick excluding the efficient and principal cause because of the instruments and means that it vseth Also the Apostle saint Iude saith Iude. 3. that there was a necessitie of writing imposed vpon him And in the Reuelation we read that saint Iohn is more than ten times commaunded to write We know that to preach and to write are things verie accordant and which were comprehended in one and the same commaundement giuen to the Apostles â—ath 28 to teach all nations which yet to this day they teach by their writings He which commaunded them the thing which is to teach commaunded also the manners of teaching which are to preach with liuely voice and to set forth the doctrine in writing both of them being fit for teaching and this latter most fit for to continue and to transferre doctrines or instructions vnto posteritie â—enaeus li 3 p 1 So Irenaeus vnderstandeth it saying The Apostles after they had preached with liuely voice the Gospell afterwards gaue it vs in the scriptures by the will of God for to be the foundation and pillar of our faith So the booke intituled Manuale CuratoruÌ„ sheweth it saying there are three sorts of preachings One is by writing as saint Paule did writing to the Romanes Corinthians c. Another is by actions so euery action of Iesus Christ is our instruction the third is by word liuely voyce The Bishop of Eureux for to shew that hee is not alone in his opinion produceth foure places of foure ancient Fathers â—hat is by â—â—ose of our â—â—de often propounded and expounded namely that they shuld be vnderstood not of matters of faith but of the order gouernance of the Church which things being of their owne nature ambulatory subiect to change according to the diuersity of the circumstances of times places persons could not or should not be written Or if they speak of some doctrine not coÌ„teined in the scripture they meane it of the formal tearms which are not there as the words trinity coessentiall sacrameÌ„t the sense matter of which notwithstanding is therin found is drawen from thence either by analogy of faith or by necessary consequence Otherwise it would follow that they had gainsaid contradicted themselues a confess fid sum mor. 72 1. sum 80 22. ere 's to wit S. Basil wheÌ„ he saith that it is a most manifest marke of infidelity a most certain signe of pride to reiect any thing of that which is writteÌ„ or to bring in any thing which is not written S. Epiphanius All things are cleare in the scripture to those which by a holy vse of reasoÌ„ wil draw nere the word of god which haue not coÌ„ceiued an operation of the diuel such as they conceiue 〈◊〉 1. Timoth. â—om that accuse the scripture of imperfection endeuoring to cast themselues into the gulfe of death S. Chrysostome maketh saint Paule speake to Timothie in this manner In stead of mee thou hast the scriptures if thou desirest to learne any thing thou maist doe it from thence Then he addeth De doctrin Christ l. 2. c. If he wrote so to Timothie who was full of the holy Ghost how much more ought wee to thinke that it is spoken of vs. It is manifest that this Father thought that the intention of the Apostles was to leaue to the Churches their writings in stead of instructions by word of mouth which they could not continue after their death Saint Augustine saith In Psal 132 Among the things which are Openly declared in the scripture are All those which containe faith and manners that is Hope and Charitie There is to quitte his foure places and in pieces of the same coyne If hee will agree them let him bestirre himselfe better than he did in the answere he giueth to the place of saint Hilarie that hath these words That which is not conteined in the booke of the law we ought not so much as to know it Hee saith that this should be vnderstood of the Apocrypha books alledged in quality of Canonical What a mockery is this Is not the sentence of S. Hilarie generall or if it be not general is it not vnapt friuolous But the reply was ready That there be many other things to be knowne besides them which are coÌ„teined in the law which conteineth not so much as the principal points viz. the immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body c. What Apocrypha Logick is this to draw an vniuersall conclusion from particular premises And when the same father saith in another place It is good that we content our selues with the things which are written can that plaister cure or so much as couer the wound that this place maketh in his vnwritten Traditions And here let the reader be aduertised once for all That al the sentences of the Fathers how generall soeuer they be what vniuersall marke soeuer be set vpon them are euer shifted off by a restraining them to some particular deed As if the Hypothesis were not decided by the Thesis a particular case by a generall Law which is to make a laughing stocke of the Fathers and to depriue them euen of common sense in making them reason so vnaptly and in occasioning their aduersaries to make vnto them so easie and iust replies To returne to Hilarie the Bishop of Eureux opposeth to the aboue said place another of the same Father taken out of his Commentarie on the second Psalme where he saith That Moses after hee had written the words of the olde Testament consigned certaine more secret mysteries to the seuentie Elders c. which place he saith I haue not read and calleth me a bad scholler in skipping ouer the beginning of the booke for to studie at the end I answere hee sheweth that he himselfe hath not read the note set vpon the margeÌ„t of this place non credo which Hilar. Paris ex â—ffici Carol. Guillar anno 1544. with the authoritie of saint Hierome thinking that these commentaries vpon the Psalmes are for
the scripture Acts â—7 2 1. Cor. 15 Titus 1 12 â—oâ—o 10 which verses got no authority amongst vs til since the time as they were sanctified by the Apostle as Tertullian speaketh though before they conteyned truth The Bishop of Eureux verie vnfitly confoundeth these two tearmes Truth and Authoritie as if euerie sentence and historie conteyning Truth had as much authoritie as a place of holy scripture And if the Apostles alleadge somtimes things not written it must be noted that hauing receiued the spirit in such abundance they discerned better the true traditions from the false than their pretended successours could any waies doe Also ordinarily it is but vpon some circumstance of historie and not for the substance as the names of the Magitians of Pharaoh Iacobs worshipping of God 2 Tim 3 8 Hebr. 11.2 Hebr. 12.2 as he leaned on his staffe certaine words of Moses propounded at the publishing of the Law The fastening of Iosephes feete in the stocks in prison The prophesie of Henoch alledged by S. Iude though it be taken from Tradition as touching the words 〈◊〉 105 18 yet the ground of it appeareth in Scripture which teacheth vs that the Patriarches were ordained for to teach those of their ages and to declare vnto them the iudgements of God And since we finde in Scripture that Henoch continually walked wirh God we gather from thence that he spared not to exhort the men of his time 〈◊〉 5 22.24 to repentance and to threaten them with the wrath of God Considering that the same Scripture teacheth vs that God doth nothing afore he hath reuealed his secrets to his seruants the Prophets â—â—us 2. It is also to be noted that this prophecie of Henoch may be more fitly vnderstood of the vniuersall Iudgement that God executed vpon the world by the flood than of the last Iudgement of the world And forasmuch as they of whom S. Iude speaketh were contemners of God It is to be beleeued that they made as little reckoning of the Scripture as of the authoritie of Iesus Christ â—â—se 4. whom they denyed And therfore the Apostle chooseth rather to alledge vnto them a historie witnessed not only by the Scripture but also by profane Authors who make mention of the Deluge as we learne by Iosephus Eusebius and S. Cyrill But this instance shall be examined more particularly in his place The second fraud whereof he accuseth me is That in stead of shewing the points in question by expresse Texts of Moses or by necessarie consequences and true analogie I shew them by some probable and coniecturall apparances or shewes The Reader which hath eyes to see shall iudge whether there be apparance or substance whether probability or necessity mean while I wil aduertise him of the methode that Du Perron keepeth in answering it 1. He opposeth some maimed exposition of one of our Doctours as if wee did attribute like authoritie to them as the Church of Rome doth to their popes or the like as to the ancieÌ„t fathers of whome the Glosse of the ciuill Canon saith Glos in dist Can Nolim that all their writings are to be held for authenticall euen to the least Iota or title Although sometimes he produce some out of the Rabbines yea euen from some Doctours of the Romish Church 2 He inuenteth one of his owne braine if he finde none in some Interpreter that repugneth mine 3 He reduceth the places of Moses in forme of a cornuted syllogisme in fashion of his miter to make himselfe be laughed at 4 He wresteth my conclusions for what pointe he listeth though I alleadge the places for proofe of another and this he doth that he might make my arguments be found the more absurd and giue himselfe subiect of exclayming that I speake not of all the pointes proposed 5 He saith in the end that the places are not so cleare but a conteÌ„tious spirite may finde some defect And if I confirme my exposition by the testimonie of the Fathers for to shew that others haue vnderstood as I doe the place in question and that I wrest it not to serue myne owne turne His ordinary answere is That the question is not whether some Father hath vnderstood it so or no but whether that can be verified by the onely text of Moses which is the heape of all peruersnes and Impudencie for if I bring but the bare text he saith I am alone of my opinion and that it may be taken otherwise at least by a contentious spirit In a word not onely the places of Moses but also those of Iob Daniel and Dauid most expresse for the Immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body the last iudgment and life Eternall are so feeble vnto him that he sheweth well that he beleeueth those pointes no better than the Saduces for whome he pleadeth And whereas Cicero said to a certaine Aduocate pleading faintly if thou didst not couÌ„terfeit thou wouldest not plead so coldly So contrariwise one may say vnto him that if he feyned he would not plead so eagerly for to imagine that he beleeueth these points by benefite of the inuentarie of Tradition is absurd sith that throughout his whole booke he coÌ„tinually demauÌ„deth insoluble ineuitable demonstrations which none in the world no not the most contentious spirit that is can be able to gainesay protesting that he will not admitt any proofe of Scripture vnlesse it be such Can he finde of this stampe in the treasorie of Tradition Is not his speach the speach of a heathen Atheist â—â—len de â—ll differ l c 4 most execrable which saith That in the Schoole of Moses and of Christ there be harde lawes which are not grounded on any demonstration Felix Gouernour of Iudea a heathen and a wicked maÌ„ when he heard S. Paul speake of the last Iudgment â—â—t 24.25 he trembled for feare and yet the Apostles discourse was onely taken from Moses â—â—t 26.22 and the Prophets if we beleeue him in that which he saith afterwards before Festus and King Agrippa But our Pyrrhonian Bishop findeth â—â—l 11. 22 25 that all that can be alleadged is but matter of mockery and that by Moses saying beasts and fishes are altogither as immortall in their soules as wel coÌ„prised in Gods couenaÌ„te capable of euerlasting life as the creatures which beare the Image of God The Saduces for whome he pleadeth found not the Resurrection of the bodie clearely enough expressed in the writings of Moses for to beleeue them but after that our Sauiour Christ had prooued it by the miraculous raysing vp of Lazarus did they beleeue it for that The Pharises which made profession to beleeue it beleeued they for that that Iesus Christ was the ResurrectioÌ„ the life No more truly theÌ„ an Epicure would haue beleeued the Imortality of the soule seeing Calanus ioccuÌ„dly cast himselfe into the fire although this act seemed to othersome a more pertinent proof for
meant not that the rich mans brethren should rely themselues on that which they might gather thence by their owne particuler reading but that they should heare it from the mouth of the Pastours of the Iewish Church â—atth 23. who knew by Tradition the mysticall and spirituall interpretation thereof of whome it is said they sit in Moses chaire do whatsoeuer they say vnto you We answere that by Moses chaire is meant the doctrine written by Moses so S. Paul vnderstood it when he saith cursed is euery man that abideth not in all the things â—al 3.10 which are written in the Booke of the Law If our Sauiour Christ had meant that men should obey the Priests Scribes Doctors of the Synagogue in all things because they knew the mysteries of Tradition it would follow that they should also beleeue the Saduces who were of the number of these Doctours of the Synagogue and had sometimes the first places in it and by consequeÌ„t not to beleeue any of the abouesaid points Also it would follow that they which betrayed and crucified Iesus Christ executed this commaundement of Christ doe whatsoeuer they say For the Scribes and Priests said that he should be crucified so excellent was their knowledge of mysticall Tradition by vertue whereof the Priests of the Romish Church offer him really that is to say crucifie him yet to this day as much as in them lyeth for to shew what goodly Analogie and correspondencie the Romish tradition hath with that of the Synagogue Now let vs dispatch the point of the Creation of Angels and diuels an instance that the bishop of Eureux hath borrowed from Iulian the Apostata And that hee might multiplie with him the number of the defects of the scripture he cuteth it into three Cyril Aleâ— adu Iul. â— will needes haue it three distinct questions crying ignorance impudencie against me because I said that by this his distinction that he maketh betwene the Creation of Angells and the Creation of Diuills one might thinke that Diuells were not Angels in the beginning or that God created them thus wicked as they are now For to maintaine that these three pointes are three distinct questions he forgetteth or ouerthroweth the point and state of the principall question which is Whether it can be shewed by the writings of Moyses that there be Angells In stead of the Saducie he opposeth Aristotle who holdeth that the inferiour Intelligences which moue the heauens are coeternall with the soueraine Intelligence I answere that if he can obtaine so much of Aristotle as to admit and submit himselfe to the writings of Moyses as the Saducie professeth to doe it shall be verie easily shewed him in Deuteronomie that there is but one Eternall And if he grant me this little word of Moyses he will verie willinglie grant me Deut. 6.4 that there can not be then any other eternall substances with him and that by vertue of his owne Maximes or rather by vertue of the immutable Law of Truthe and of Nature it selfe which cannot suffer that twoe contradictorie propositions be both true together So as this Eternall of Moyses being alone will not suffer for companions the coeternalls of Aristotle But if any yet doubt whether our Bishopp is a Sophister or no let him obserue heere I pray his notable cunning He seeth that this Instance of the Angels cannot be linked with the former instances afore going Act. 23.8 and that the Impudencie of the Saduces who denyed not onely their creation or distinction but also their being is so opeÌ„ly conuinced by the Writings of Moyses when he speaketh of the Angell that forbad Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaacke 〈◊〉 22 〈◊〉 19 â—â— of the Angells that Abraham entertained into his house that tooke Lot out of Sodome that appeared to Iacob c. That no aduocate no not himselfe though all causes be alike vnto him can be able to sustaine it see therefore how he hath bethought himselfe to fit me by giuing me Aristotle for a partie with the Manichees 〈◊〉 64 whereof the one knew not and the others refused the Old TestameÌ„t Let vs make the Analysis or resolution of this shamefull and more than ridiculous Sophistrie Aristotle beleeued that the inferiour Intelligences that mooued the heaueÌ„s are coeternall with the soueraine Intelligence the Manichees hold that there is a Beginning of euill coeternall with God and an euill God Neither they nor he receiued the writings of Moses Therefore it can not be shewed by the writings of Moses that there are Angells and and Diuills created If our Bishoppe had done as Carneades who before he wrote against Zeno purged himselfe with white Ellebore 〈◊〉 l 17 â—â— he had better distinguished and discerned the Manichees and the Saduces than he doth yet he should doe well to take a dramme of blacke Ellebore since he will treate of Angells and Diuells that is to say of white and blacke Spirits The Christian Reader will conclude quite contrary to the Bishopps intention Namely seeing the Saduces denyed as well Angells as the Immortality of the soule and the other pointes abouesaid though there be made as expresse formall mention of Angells in Moses as of men of beasts of trees and of stones they would haue beleeued no more the other points than this how clearely plainly soeuer Moses had opened theÌ„ And therefore the true cause of their Incredulitie and misbeleefe is to be sought in the default of their owne malicious eyes and not in the defect that is pretended in the Writing of Moyses Now since the creation of Angels in the iudgement of our Bishoppe cannot bee found in this scripture let vs see a little what Tradition saith of it The generall Threasorers of the same should bee in my opinion those that are called by a speciall prerogatiue the foure Doctors of the Church which are Saint Ambrose Saint Ierome Saint Augustine and Saint Gregorie Let vs heare them vpon this point The first saith Ambr. hâ— l. 1. c. 5. Though Angels bee created yet were they alreadie before the world was created Which is a tradition rather of Origen than of the Apostles holden also by the Hereticke Nouatian Lib. de Tâ—â— Hier. in 〈◊〉 ad Tit. 〈◊〉 and the most part of the Greekes The seconde writeth thus Before the world was created howe many Eternities there were in which the Angels serued God without any vicissitude or measure of time c. Heere you see them coeternall with the Soueraigne intelligence as well after Saint Ierome as after Aristotle But the third namely Saint Augustine whom I alleadged for witnesse and warrant of my opinion which is that the creation of Angels may bee prooued by Moses contradicteth both the former and reiecting their opinion as most absurde to say that there was any creature before the world hee addeth That the holy scripture which is most true saith that God made heauen and earth
the pillar and ground of truth not for the reason Du Perron alleadgeth because euery one resting on the iudgment of it can not be deceiued in faith nor hazard his Saluation he might say more briefly and more popularly In beleeuing in the faith of his Curate But for as much as the word of God contayned in the holy Scripture is set forth in the true Church as in old time the lawes were fastned to pillars that they might not be troden vnder feete and that they might be exposed to the view of euery man the Church which is the Pallace of our lord Iesus Christ is as Salamon was all of pillars euery particular Orthodoxall or right-beleuing Church is a pillar of that Palace whereon hangeth the table contayning the diuine trueth But as much resemblance is betweene this palace of our spirituall Salomon and the Popes on his Vatican as is betweene the crowne of Thornes and his triple Crowne of Gold betweene the Bible and his decretalls Now let the Bishop of Eureux tell me how these two propositions doe agree the church neuer erreth and that of the Schoolmen and Canonists In the day when our Lord suffered Faith remained onely in the virgin Marie which proposition â—ean de la â—urbruslèe Iohn Turbrusley maintayneth to be so necessarie that to hold the contrary is to goe against the faith of the vniuersall Church where was then this Church that cannot erre then I say when all the Apostles were aliue whom Christ our Lord reproacheth of incredulitie could the person onely of the blessed virgine make the Church â—ark 16.14 â—â—llar de Ecâ—â—es mil. l. 3. â—7 Bellarmine denieth it because saith hee The Church is the people and kingdome of God Now haue wee hitherto shewed the sufficiencie and perfection of the scripture in regard of the instances proposed by the Bishoppe of Eureux as things absolutely necessarie As for the others that he afterwards alleadgeth it is to bee noted First that they concerne rather historie than doctrine whereof is question and which hee of purpose confoundeth with historie for to bleaze the eies of the simple For hee knoweth verie well that wee willingly confesse that there is historicall Traditions and himselfe confesseth that the ordinance of these thing is not absolutely vnexcusable â—ol 80 That is to say it is not necessarie for all to knowe them Secondly it is to bee remembred that heere againe as is aboue saide he confoundeth with like malice these two tearmes truth and Authority dissembling that euery trueth is not of like Authority Otherwise it would follow that al prophane histories truly written are as authenticall and canonicall as the histories of the Bible And therefore that which the Apostles alleadged without the Scripture is most true but obtayned not Canonicall authority till after it was written by them and as touching that from which they draw arguments I answere that they doe it because it was agreed of the trueth of those particulars wheÌ„ce they draw them as at this day we reason oftentimes by things which not onely the Fathers but also prophane and heathen authors haue left in writing when it is agreed that they containe trueth yet can not any inferre from thence that they haue equall authority to the word of God Thirdly I say that among the instances he produceth there be some false and inuented and of this number is all the first namely the Institution of Exorcists that no text of the new Testament sheweth that it was an order instituted of God vnder the old Testament yea though it were graunted him that there were Exorcists at the time that Iesus Christ came into the world for our Sauiour Christs wordes conteine nothing else but a confutation of the opinion of the Pharises not a declaration of his owne touching Exorcists whether they were ordayned of God or of theÌ„selues as were those of whome S. Luke maketh meÌ„tion If the B. of Eureux graÌ„teth not that both of theÌ„ were of the same order Act 19 to what purpose doth he alleagde Caluin for to make me confesse it And if he graunt that they were how can he deny but that the one were deceiuers as well as the others Whence will he shew that the sonns of Sceua were rather of the order of the ancient pretended Exorcists than of the Apes that would counterfeit the miracles of the Apostles Let vs se the Logicke of our Carneades The sonnes of Sceua after the death of Christ were not true Exorcists Ergo before Christs death there was an order of the true Exorcists grounded on diuine right See how from a negation he draweth an affirmation But if we receiue the exposition of Saint Chrysostome which he should accept of as a subsidiary Tradition This Instance taken from the order of Exorcists shall be yet more ridiculous for he presupposeth as a thing confessed of all that our Sauiour Christ speaking of Exorcists meaneth onely his Apostles and disciples Fol. 81. which saith he had already driuen out Diuells by the power they had receiued of their Maister the Pharises not hauing blamed them for it For their malice was but to the person not to the thing Therefore that he might shew that what they said or thought against him proceeded but of meere enuie he told them of the Apostles Now it is for our Bishoppe to conclude that the Apostles were already in the world in quality of ordinary Exorcists when Christ came from whome consequently they receiued not extraordinarily this power to cast out vncleane Spirits He saith the hand of the Synagogue vvas become vvithered and impotent in vvorking miracles â—ol 85. after our Sauiour Christs death and that for this cause the sonns of Sceua had no successe But wherefore then had that Eleazer of whome Iosephus speaketh such good successe who long after Christs death in the presence of Vespasian his childreÌ„ all the Romane Army â—â—seph Anâ—â—g lib. 8. c. 2. dispossessed so sufficiently one that had a Diuell the roote to which Iosephus attributeth this vertue and which he saith was taught by Salomon was it become withered as well as the hand of the Synagogue of purpose that it might budd againe like Aarons rodd in the hands of that infidell did the name Tetragrammaton by which Epiphanius saith 〈◊〉 30. one Ioseph not beleeuing yet in Christ cast out a diuell loose then it vertue or did the sons of Sceua eclipse some letter of it Now it is manifest by this place of Iosephus and by that which is written in another place what was the foundation and institution of this order of Exorcists â—oh de bel 〈◊〉 l. 7. c. 25 among the Iewes namely Magicke and enchantments which our Bishop would make vs receiue for the pure word of God secretly reuealed to the Patriarches and Prophets I said that it is not found that they which in the beginning of the Christian Church had the gift of casting out diuels vsed certaine
mysticall formes but that they simplie coÌ„iured the Energumeni or possessed in the name of god c. whence we might gather that they which among the Iewes had this gift brought thereunto no other mystery than the calling on the name of the God of AbrahaÌ„ of Isaacke and of Iacob Hereupon he termeth me a Demoniak possessed with the euil spirit of ignorance and presumption Fol 89 for not hauing read the 7. Canon of the 4. Council of Carthage which maketh mention of a booke wherin Exorcismes were written Let vs leaue to him the euill spirit of knowledge which so swelleth him that it is to be feared it will burst him in the end And let vs see his argument The Councill of Carthage holden about the yeare of grace 400. maketh mention of a booke conteyning Exorcismes Ergo Annal. Eccle. Tom. 5. ad an Chr. 398. in the beginning of the Christian Church there were certaine prescript formes for to exorcise Therefore the beginning of the Christian Church should be put 400. yeares after the beginning of the Christian Church or at the least 398. years according to the computation of Baronius himselfe For although mention be made of exorcists before that yet the forme which they vsed in their Exorcismes is no where declared no Annot in Tert lib de Bapt. not in the acts of the said Councill of Carthage and Pamelius can alledge for it nothing more auncient than the booke called Ordo Romanus and the Sacramentarie of Saint Gregorie Iustin Mar. in Tryph. My affirmation was grounded on the testimonie of Iustine Martyr 230. yeares auncienter than that councill his words are these By the name of this same Sonne of God the first borne of euerie creature c. all diuels are adiured and subiected And if yee Iewes adiure them by whatsoeuer name of your Kings or Patriarches or Prophets no spirit will obey you But if any man among you adiure By the God of Abraham the God of Isaacke and the God of Iacob for that same is Christ it may bee they would bee subiected But now your exorcists vse in their adiurations a certaine art as the Pagans and doe vse perfumes and ligatures c. Beholde Iustine who knew no other forme which was in vse among the Iewes than the calling on the GOD of Abraham of Isaacke and of Iacob and no wise restrayneth this gift to a certaine order among the Iewes teaching vs also in what estimation we should haue those that vse magicall and heathenish enchauntments to wit not of order nor ordinance diuine but diuelish Also wee know that Iesus Christ in the beginning of the Christian Church restrained not this gift to a certaine order but promised and gaue it indifferently to the faithfull and euen a long time after Tertullian maketh mention of certaine soldiers Mar. 16.17 Do Coro mil. c. 11 vide Apolog ca 32. In Mat hom 35 that had it The Bishoppe of Eureux who maintaineth that the sonnes of Sceua were of the Iewish order of exorcistes hath found this fantasie in Origen who affirming that it is not lawfull for Christians according to the Gospell to sweare thence concludeth that therefore it is no more lawfull to adiure any and by consequence holdeth that these Exorcistes were Iewes But his ground being false the conclusion that he buildeth vpon it namely that this was an order among the Iewes Annal. Eccle. Tom 1 ad an Chr. 56 is false also and condemned as such by Cardinall Baronius But our Bishop maketh vse of euerie thing so that he thinke it fit to demolish any part of the Lords worke that is of the scripture indited by his spirit His second instance is taken from the miracle of the poole set downe by Saint Iohn Hee saith That it was a needfull thing to know Iohn 5 whether it was not a sleight of Sathan for to inuite men to superstition for to intice them to make Pilgrimages for to perswade them to put their confidence therein and to seeke remedies at Creatures of their infirmities I answere that the Scripture warranted from all these inconueniences them that followed it as the light vnto their feete For it teacheth how superstition is auoyded namely in putting confidence in one onely GOD and in transferring nothing to the creature of that which belongeth to the Creator who by his law written had ordained to the Iewes three voyages yearely for to appeare before him at Ierusalem with offerings See heere their pilgrimages grounded on scripture Exod. 34 23. Deut. 16. â— If the Angell who by the troubling of the water therein manifested this power of healing euerie infirmitie had demaunded sacrifices for to be honoured with them in Gods stead no faithful being instructed in the law wold haue had recourse to this remedy how excelleÌ„t soeuer it were or how great need soeuer he had had As at this day they Deut. 13 that haue learned by the scripture that onely God is to be inuoked or called vpon doe make no voyages or pilgrimages to the places where the Saintes departed are called vpon what maracle so euer be done there true or false seeing an other besides God is there inuoked which was not done at the Poole For to make this instance of force for his purpose it behooued him to shew that such as went downe into it called vpon the Angell or on some Patriarch or Prophet that they confessed themselues first after the Romish manner made the vow of nine dayes saide a certaine number of Aue Maries that they did weare beads told their blessed graines that they beheld their Agnus Dei kissed crosses and crucifixes and caried candles to the Image of the Angell as our ignorant superstitious people doe to Saint Michaell and by the same meanes to the diuell that is at his feete Saint Augustine expounding this miracle hath not recourse In Iohan tract 17. neyther sendeth any to Tradition but vnto the Lord who giueth vnderstanding protesting that he would speake of it as he could and assuring himselfe that he by whose aide he did what he could would supply in his auditors that which he could not herevpon he handleth all this historie allegorically prouing his expositions by texts and consequences of scripture and not deriuing any thing at all from the pretended Tradition Saint Cyrill saith Iohan. 1.2 5. that the Angels went downe inâ—o it onely on the day of the Pentecost for to trouble the water which hee likewise draweth from the scripture without mention of any Tradition his words are these The power of this healing was limited onely to one man which signified that the profit of the law was bounded only to the people of the Iewes without passing any further For the commaundements of the Lawe shewed by Angels on mount Sinai and afterward exhibited on the day of Penetcost ordained for that ende were not extended but from Dan to Beer-sheba If this circumstance of time to wit of the day
oppugne directly the holy Scripture which testifieth clearely inough that He that absolueth the wicked is an abhomination to the Lord Pro 17.15 And in another place commaundeth in expresse termes to pluck murtherers from the alter of God Exod 21.14 that they may die And whether it be referred to infidel gouernours Math. 27.5 â— Mar. 15.6 as S. Mathew S. Marke do or to the Synagogue corrupted as the Bishop of Eureux thinketh to shew it by S. Iohn yet the corruption transgression of the Law therein is euident Therfore Saint Cyrill for to excuse the ancient Synagogue groundeth this custome on the Law written touching maÌ„slaughter committed vnawares Cyr. in Iul â— 2. c. 14. Num. 35. and thinketh that the Synagogue that was in Christs time of hatred rage wherwith it burned against him transgressed that Lawe asking the deliuerance of a detestable robber and murtherer in steade of one that had killed a man by mischance and vnawares See then the Bishop of Eureux his tradition rased and condemned by the sentence of a Patriarch of Alexandria Theophylact speaketh of it these words Wee may say that the Iewes â—heoph in 〈◊〉 c. 18. teaching the doctrines which are the commaundements of men haue inuented many things of their owne heads and haue not vsed the lawes of God so that this point also became a custome without reason as many other things without commaundement of the Lawe See here againe Tradition the pretended word of God after our Bishop called a custome without reason by a Bishoppe much ancienter and of better authoritie than ours And whereas I sayd that they which deliuer Barrabasses do crucifie Iesus Christ in his members he accuseth me of inuectiues and of ignorance of the mysteries and iudgements of God forgetting the place of S. Ambrose whence I drew that coÌ„clusion the words are these The Lawes of iniquitie are such that it hateth innocencie loueth wickednes VVherin notwithstanding the interpretation of the name giueth apparance of a figure For this word Barrabas Amb. in Luc. â—ib 10. signifieth some of the Fathers those then to whome it is said Your Father is the Diuell are declared that they perfer Anti-christ the sonne of their Father before the true sonne of God The sentence of S. Augustine who saith that the Iewes are not to be reprehended for that they deliuered a guiltie person at Easter but for that they put to death an innocent should be vnderstood not simply and absolutely but by coÌ„parison as if he had said to put to death him that brought life and righteousnesse into the world is a crime so horrible and to deliuer a person guilty is nothing in comparison For this holy Doctour was too much conuersant in the Scripture and too good an interpreter of the places aboue alleadged for to declare absolutely vnreproueable those whome the spirit of God declareth to be an abhomination before the Lord. But it is not without mysticall reason that our Bishoppe would make murtherers bee found irreprehensible â—xod 21.14 â—o 17.15 â— Tim. 3.2 â—it 1.6 that is to say capable to bee Bishoppes it is without reason and not without ignorance to call mee ignorant of his mysteries which we are no more ignorant of theÌ„ of the traditioÌ„ of Boniface the fift who was the first Pope that ordained That altars and Churches should serue for places of fredome to Malefactors Platin. in Bonif. 5. wherein the good Prelate re-established the Tradition of Pilate to deliuer Robbers As for the instances he taketh out of the Epistle to the Hebrues where Saint Paul reciteth certaine legall ceremonies of which Moses maketh not expresse mention though we should graunt him all of them yet could they not helpe his desperate cause For they are things Chap. 9. which concerne historie and not doctrine the onely act of the sacrifice made for the ratification of the couenante and not the ordinary vse and custome of daily and yearly sacrifices therefore might be vnknowne without danger of saluatioÌ„ not onely of the people but euen of the Priests themselues seeing they were not preceps touching the maÌ„ners of their ordinary seruice but onely certaine circumstances of a singular and extraordinary sacrifice the substance whereof is described by Moses In a word they be Traditions of such a nature of which we haue ofteÌ„ said there be many but which derogate in nothing from the perfection sufficiency of the Scripture which consisteth in doctrine Now because this chapter with a good part of the rest of this Epistle giueth a deadly blow to the masse he laboureth to comfort the wound with these Instances taken from the same place because he can not make vse of it as of Achilles dart or as of a Scorpion for to draw a remedy from the same from whence the hurte came He supplyeth with his braine as much as he can and maketh S. Paul say that Moses in the solemnity of the said sacrifice mixed water with the blood of the TestameÌ„t which S. Paul saith not no more thaÌ„ Moses though he say that he tooke water with blood wool as if one could not take two things one with another without mixing theÌ„ one within another the priests of the Romish church wheÌ„ they baptize take water oyle other drugs Ergo they mixe them all together in the Sacramental water A goodly argument What is there in the text of Saint Paule that forceth vs to conclude that Moses mixed the water within the bloud for to sprinkle therewith the people by one onely sprinkling rather than to say that he sprinkled them first with water for to purifie and wash them as they did the sacrifices before they offered them which is the ground of the analogy by which I said that this ceremonie might be gathered out of Moses He reprooueth me of vanitie for affirming that the sacrifices for sinne And that such sacrifices were of hee goates The first is manifest for that Moses in the first place speaketh of whole burnt offerings which were expiatorie propitiatory after which he maketh mention of sacrifices of thanksgiuing The other appeareth by analogie or proportion of the Law which saith If the Prince of the people that is one of them that haue publick charge as the seauenty Elders and the heads of the tribes had commit sin let his offering be of an hee goate Now in this Sacrifice whereof is question the 70. elders are commanded to goe vp with Moses Aaron Nadab and Abihu Leui. 4.22.23 whose sacrifices were of bullockes according to the Law It is gathered therefore by analogie that the offrings of the 70. elders were of hee goats To say that the institution of all these particulars was after the Sacrifice of the Couenant were not to consider that sacrifices notwithstanding this were in vse before the Lawe giuen by God to Moses Leu. 4.3 and that not according to each mans fantasie but according as God reuealed and
commaunded it to the Patriarches And the Bishop of Eureux cannot shew vs by his tradition wherein the particulars and formes of the Sacrifices vsed before the Law and writing of Moses and them which we see therein set downe did differ or agree no more than we can beleeue that the knowledge of the former was as necessarie to the Israelites that liued vnder the Law as was the knowledge of the latter I would know of him froÌ„ what tradition he learned that this sprinkling of the people by the bloud of beasts was rather execratory thaÌ„ expiatory as he saith not for to purifie the Israelites but for to bind bequeath to cursing c. S. Paul Heb. 9.22 after he had recited this sprinkling with the sprinkling of the tabernacle of the holy vessels addeth that almost al things by the law are purified with bloud referring this purification in general to all the legall aspersions or sprinklings but especially to that which he had more particularly specified than any other namely which our Bishop by I know not what cursed and execrable Tradition calleth cursing and execration And if that be true then these words which Moses pronounced in performing this sprinkling This is the bloud of the Couenant which the Lord hath contracted with you shall not signifie vnto vs the purifying of our soules by the bloud of Iesus Christ as the Apostle expouÌ„deth it coÌ„paring the figuratiue bloud of beasts with the bloud of Christ our Lord which spiritually washeth purifieth our soules as the other bloud did ceremonially purifie the corporal things But shal signifie our curse execration the reall accomplishment execution wherof should be found for vs in the death in the bloud of him whom we call our Sauiour and Redeemer as hauing deliuered redeemed vs from the curse execration of the law vnder which we were without the shedding sprinkling of his bloud wheÌ„ he himself was made a curse for vs. He yeeldeth a reason worthy himselfe why this bloud signified rather execration than purification Gal. 3.13 Because the children of Israel were alreadie purified by the former washings True but if the washing with water sufficed to purifie them to what purpose so much bloud as was shed in the ordinary expiatory sacrifices to what purpose are said so many masses preteÌ„ded expiatory sacrifices if holy water sufficeth to purify those that are sprinkled with it Why behoued it that after baptisme Iesus Ch. shuld shed his bloud why was not remissioÌ„ of sins without shedding of bloud if the washing by water purifieth that is taketh away sins to conclude what mad Enthymema is this same The children of Israel were purified by the former washings Ergo the bloud wherwith Moses sprinckled them afterward signified vnto them cursing and execration But it agreeth not euill that he that beleeueth or maketh shew to beleeue that the masse is a sacrifice expiatorie and propitiatorie which indeed is execrable and execratorie call execration the sacrifice of the couenant that God contracteth with his for to put away their sins therwith wherof the sacrifice described by Moses was the figure that of the crosse the Truth At least wise he should consider that this sprinkling with bloud was not only done on the people but also on the altar vpoÌ„ which Moses sprinkled halfe on the booke which Altar represented nothing else but God who in this couenant was one of the parties conditioning promising of his side shall we say that Moses in sprinckling the Altar with halfe of the bloud bound bequeathed God also to cursing The booke that conteined the law and which was sprinkled with it likewise was it cuâ—sed also There remained no more but this heape of blasphemie for him who ceaseth not to calumniate of imperfection and vnsufficiency the sacred booke to say that it was bequeathed to cursing and execration Indeede we read in profane histories of the couenants and leagues which the Pagans made ratifying them by Sacrifices with oathes and horrible execrations yea sometimes tasting of the bloud of the sacrifices offered or of their owne as it is said of Catilina and some others Which is not farre from the Cyclopian barbaritie of those Capernaites or rather Canibals which think they cannot partake in the bloud of the spiritual couenant we haue with Iesus Christ vnlesse they carnally drink it 〈◊〉 cons Dist 〈◊〉 Can. Ego â—â—ieng vnlesse they breake his body with their teeth sensibly as their Pope Nicholas saith As for the sprinckling of the tabernacle of the holy vessels also the purple coloured wooll hysop wherof Moses speaketh in the 24. chapter of Exod. It should be our bishops part to shew that S. Paul in his 9. chap. to the Hebrews protesteth bindeth himselfe to touch nothing of the writings of Moses but only what he saith in expresse tearmes in that place Exo. 24. Which shal not be so easie for him to do as it is for vs to shew for euery one to see the coÌ„trary For the scope drift of the Apostle is to confront to compare together the two Testaments the Priests the sacrifices all the other ceremonies of the old with the onely Priests sacrifice of the new The Leuiticall Tabernacle corruptible and transitory wherinto the Iewish Priests entred with the humane nature of Iesus Christ in which dwelleth all the fulnes of the godhead as in a Temple permanent the bloud of the hee goat which the hie priest offered euery yeare once when he entred into the most holy place with our sauiour Christs own bloud by which he opened vnto vs heauen for euer Now it is certain that Moses speaketh of these figures in diuers places of his writings by what Logick theÌ„ should wee conclude that that which is not fouÌ„d in the 24. chap. of Ex. cannot be found elsewhere he speaketh not there of the purple wool nor the hysop but Num. 19. he speaketh of theÌ„ Neither of the sprinkling of the Tabernacle and of the holy vessels but he speaketh of it Leuit. 8.16 30. 9.9 16.14 and so following And that S. Paule meaneth not to speake onely of the Act of the dedication as our Bishoppe would make vs beleeue it is manifest as well by that wee haue said of the Apostles intention as by the conclusion which is Heb. 9.22 And almost all things are by the Lawe purged with bloud By which euery one may see that he no wise meaneth to stay on the acte onely of the consecration of the Couenant but that he mixeth together diuerse ceremonies of expiations in which there was but one and the same end referring all those shadowes to their bodies the figures to the Trueth without staÌ„ding to reckon the syllables of Moses or to quote the places he alledgeth or to obserue the order of the times wherin consisted not the force of his arguments therefore he protesteth Ch. 9.5 not to speake of those things
most holy place And the same may be said of the golden Pot wherein was the Manna Aarons rod sith the solution of the Iesuite Ribera doth not satisfy him who no more than this Cardinall hath not recourse to Tradition Gen. â—0 12 2. Sam. 21 c. choosing rather to employ therein Grammer there being the like examples of Scripture in which the pronoune is referred to the antecedent farthest of than to apply thereto this plaister for all sores or to borrow the inuention of Caluin for to take away the contradiction which the same Cardinall saith to be most manifest betweene the place 1. King 8.9 which hath these expresse wordes Nothing was in the Arke saue the two tables of the law And this is taken in the sense that our Bishop will haue it And Bellarmine himselfe doth he not receiue the opinion of them that holde that the golden Pot and the rod were in some outward part of the Arke and not within the arke it selfe de verb. Deâ— Lib. 1. c â—7 The two last Instances taken out of the Epistle of S. Iude haue beene touched aboue let vs confirme here our opinion by the testimony of the same Cardinall Caietan who saith It can not bee knowne whence Saint Iude had the knowledge of this combat Comm. in epist Iud. that is to say betweene the Angell and the Diuell yet there be some that hold that it is taken out of the apocryphall bookes of the Hebrews who hath then reuealed it to our B. that the Apostle the Iewes held it vnwritten Tradition the apocrypha books of the Iewes the tradition which he pretendeth to be the true pure word of God is it all one To coÌ„clude from whence so euer this historie be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 3. c. 2 In câ—talog whether from the booke which Origen calleth the ascentioÌ„ of Moses of which S. Hierome also maketh mention or whether it be from the pretended Tradition what auaileth it against the perfection and sufficiencie of the doctrine conteyned in the Scripture How often haue we told him that we are at accord that all particular deeds and sayings â—â—hn 21.25 are not contayned in it neither can be â—â—l 1â—3 But from this historie saith he are drawne many excellent doctrines the beginning of this knowledge could not be humane and naturall but of necessity must take originall froÌ„ an expresse reuelation c. Say it be so to what purpose all this Is not our question whether there is any point of doctrine that should be deriued from any other beginning than from the Scripture Is it not whether the points of doctrine conteyned in the Scripture may be confirmed by some other proofes besides the Scriptures The Greekes reciting this historie say that the Archangell was employed in the Buriall of Moses â—ecum in â—ist Iud. that the Diuell opposed himselfe thereunto alleadging that Moses was his because of the manslaughter committed in the person of the Egyptian and that therefore he deserued not so honourable a buriall The doctrines which they draw from it are that the Apostle would teach by it 1. that men haue to render an accompt after this life 2 That there is one the same God both of the old and new Testament 3. That the Diuell riseth vp against the soules departed from the body and striueth to hinder their way to heauen but the good Angells assist them and resist the wicked Spirits 4 That we ought not to Iudge nor curse rashly 5. That honour should be yeelded to Superiours Now it were for our B. to deny that these doctrines are conteyned in the scripture and that the Iewes could not deriue them from any other beginning but from vnwritten Tradition and for to doe this he must race out an infinite number of places of the law and of the Prophets and by this meanes not onely he should iustify his blasphemies against the scripture but also the heresie of the Anabaptists in the point which concerneth the obedience due to Magistrates as elswhere he endeuoreth to do touching the point of baptisme of little children Now as these doctrines are more thaÌ„ sufficiently proued by the Scripture so the historie in question repugneth not any thing thereuÌ„to whether we take it as Oecumenius reciteth it or after the vulgar vnderstaÌ„ding namely that the deuill 2. Cor. â— whose enterprises wee are not ignorant of endeuoured to discouer the Sepulchre of Moses which God had expresly hid laying therein onely this body that it might be vnknowne to all and might not giue occasion to Idolatrie as it hapned among Christians when they began to vnbury to transport and to worship the reliques of Martyrs and sometimes the reliques of theeues and robbers It is therefore false that they which receiued this Historie as Saint Iude reciteth it Could not as he saith after our Maximus fol. 11â— excuse theÌ„selues of superstition in their beleife to giue credite to such â—arâ—â—ations which had been wholly fabulous full of deceits if they had come from any other then from the pure reuelation and word of God I say it is a meere deceite to say that wee condemne of superstition or deceit all that is not conteined in the holy Scripture as he saith we doe for we abase not the price and estimation of humane writings thogh we make theÌ„ not equal to the diuine we acknowledge the gifts of the authour of Truth eueÌ„ in them that haue alwayes remained vnder the tyranny of the father of lyes though more in them that haue been translated out of the power of darknes into the kingdom of light We consider both and examine them by the rule of the Scripture which is for this cause called Canon that which agreeth thereunto wee receiue with praise that which repugneth it wee reiect with leaue and accuse of superstition the beleefe that is giuen to such narrations which cannot haue place in the recitall of Saint Iude in as much as he is an Apostle hauing the spirit of the Lord in such a measure that hee neither deceiued himselfe nor any other in that which the said or wrote for to be inserted into the Canon of faith And if we receiue now some verses of certaine heathen Poets as the word of God since they were sanctified by the Apostle what reason were there to reiect this narration though it were taken foorth of an Apocrypha booke as the Fathers thought seeing that no newe doctrine can be drawn from it but that of the Scripture by it is confirmed It is a necessarie point to know that the Magistrate is ordained of God that we owe him honor and reuerence but know all the particular places reasons and testimonies that may serue to proue this point is not a thing necessary to know I shewed by the way what proffit the Church of Rome maketh of this tradition of S. Iude namely quite coÌ„trarie to that it containeth for