De verbo 〈◊〉 l. 8. c. 18. that this allegation of Saint Iude was taken from an Apocrypha booke which moued many of the Ancients to reiect this Epistle out of the Canon as also doth Cardinall Caitan than alone to maintaine that it commeth from some other principle of faith and word of God for to retaine this wretched pretext to calumniate the Scripture of Imperfection and vnsufficiencie He reprocheth me that I vnderstand not this maxime Singularium non est scientia saying that it is not true but in respect of humane sciences 〈◊〉 40. not of Diuinitie wherein particular things may come in as the obiect of the same seeing that the most part of the Articles it teacheth are particular points as the Natiuitie death and whatsoeuer we beleeue els of the humanitie of Christ c. But doth it follow therfore that we ought or that we can know euery particular thing said or done coÌ„cerning euery one of these particular points seeing the world it self were not able to containe them as Saint Iohn saith 〈◊〉 21. Now he vnderstood well enough in what sense I alleadged this Schoole Maxime but hee could not loose occasioÌ„ of cauilling vpon the differeÌ„ce of Singularium SinguloruÌ„ not considering the ierk he giueth his Master Thomas Aquinas who in the beginning of his Summa taketh these two tearmes indiffereÌ„tly 〈◊〉 1. â— And one that hath as much leasure as he might shew him that he vnderstaÌ„deth not so much cunning in Phylosophy as he maketh shew of wheÌ„ he saith that natural discourse caÌ„not appreheÌ„d necessarily infallably any particular or singular propositioÌ„ For if that be true the vnderstanding knoweth not it own action wheÌ„ it reasoneth or discourseth which is euer of a particular thing and cannot compare the vniuersall with the singular neither make abstraction of the one from the other if it know not both the one and the other nor discerne the time past from the time to come nor things past from things to come which are particulars nor judge of the one by the knowledge of the other To the place of Saint Iohn which wee are wonte to alleadge for the sufficiencie of the Scripture He answereth 〈◊〉 20 31. â—142 1. That it is not in any sort spoken there of the doctrine but of the signes neither of the sufficiencie of instruction but of the efficacy of perswasion 2. That though they pronounce haec should comprehend all that Saint Iohn wrote the argument would be much worse for then should not be spoken in any sort of the sufficiencie of the things written but onely of the ende wherfore they are written To this I say that we denie not that this Pronoune haec is vnderstoode of the miracles of which Saint Iohn speaketh in the verse going afore But we maintaine that it cannot bee with such a restriction to myracles as inferreth an exclusion of doctrine for as much as this worde Miracle being a Relatiue cannot be vnderstoode but by his Correlatiue which is doctrine For myracles are the signes and seales of Doctrine Therefore Analogie or proportion requireth that though Saint Iohn had sayde at length haec signa yet neuerthelesse therin is iointly also ment doctrine of which they were signes by reason of the perpetuall and necessarie relation of the one to the other and therefore if the miracles or signes whereof he speaketh be suffâ—cient the doctrine is so also which is sealed and confirmed by those miracles And therefore these meanes are not of so different kindes as our Bishop saith And seeing he graunteth that the Scripture conteyneth suffâ—ciently the signes or miracles for to perswade vs with efficacie all that is needefull to life eternall he must needes grant also that it conteyneth suffâ—ciently also the doctrine which is the thing signified seeing that Corralatiues concurre in the definition of their Relatiues and cannot be vnderstoode the one without the other Furthermore we beleeue that whosoeuer is effectually perswaded is sufficiently instructed in the knowledge of saluation which consisteth not in euident demonstration which the vnderstanding of the naturall man comprehendeth for there be some that are sufficiently instructed that vnderstand all pointes of doctrine and are able to discourse of it with admiratioÌ„ to the hearers who notwithstanding are not effectually perswaded but remaine Epicures and Atheists within In a worde the difference he putteth betweene Sufficiencie and Efficacie can be none other but that which the Philosophers put betweene that they call Actum primum Actum secundum habitude and operation or actuall exercise What fonde subtiltie is this then to grant that which is greater namely effectuall perswasion that is to say to saluation otherwise it were no efficacie and to denie the sufficient instruction which is lesser euerie way To end this controuersie I offer him an Arbitrer which he cannot honestly refuse though it were in qualitie of a Iudge I meane Cardinall Baronius whose wordes are these Saint Iohn hauing recited these things 〈◊〉 tom 1 â—â—r 34. â—10 finisheth his Gospel omitting as himselfe testifieth many things For that which he wrote seemed vnto him to suffice as well for to establish the TRVTH OF THE GOSPELL as for to REPROVE HERESIES for which causes Saint Hierome and others do witnesse that he tooke in hand to write this Gospell Doth the Euangelicall truth containe miracles onely The Sermons of Christ his expositions of the Law and confutations of the opinions of the Pharisies which the Euangelists recite of him and in a worde all his doctrine which they set downe are they things contrarie or not belonging to the truth of the Gospel Hence is apparent that our Bishops modification wherewith hee endeuoureth still to cloake his blasphemie of insufficiencie in restrayning it to the confutation of Heresies first is vaine and fraudulent for as much as hee is constrayned to confesse that manie poynts necessarie for the simplest lay-man are not conteyned in the Scripture and notwithstanding a simple lay-man is not bound to be able to confute all Heresies Secondly it is disprooued manifestly by the decision of Cardinall Baronius who declareth the Scripture to bee sufficient euen for to confute Heresies and putteth in our handes this Argument for to ouerthrowe his two first Episcopall answeres that which seemed sufficient to Saint Iohn for to establish the truth of the Gospell and to confute Heretickes conteyneth a simple and absolute sufficiencie for the matters of our saluation But the Writinges of the Gospell seemed such vnto Saint Iohn therefore they contayned a simple and absolute sufficiencie for the matters of our saluation His third answere is That though Saint Iohn should speake of the sufficiencie of that which he wrote yet should that bee referred to one Article onely which is to make vs beleeue that Iesus is that Christ And whereas it is replyed vnto him that it is the Epitome and substance of the Articles necessarie to saluation he hath recourse to his distinction
The Bishop of Eureux opposeth to the veryficatioÌ„ by scripture the attestation of witnesses as if they were thinges incompatible that cannot stand together as if a thing witnessed by them that heard S. Paul speake could not be verified by them that read his wrightings As for the Patterne of wholesome words if he oppose it also to the scripture What wil follow of it but that the wordes of the scripture are not wholesome words and I willingly confesse that they be deadly the sauour of death to all Blasphemers We neede but represeÌ„t his enthimenia in forme for to shew the deformitie of it Saint Paul referred Timothie to the wholesome wordes he had heard of him Ergo he referred him not to them he had written Notwithstanding that in another place hee exhorteth him to reading 1. Tim. â— 2. T m. â— 16.17 assuring him that the holy letters that is the written words are able to make him wise to Saluation perfectly instructed vnto euery good worke He answereth to this last place That they may instruct him to saluation not immediatly and by them selues but by meanes of the faith and beleefe they gâ—ue him in Jesus Christ not by the internall fulnesse of their doctrine but by the direction and sending to an outward supplie namely to Christ and by Christ to his Disciples Or else that they may instruct him in this speciall poinâ— that saluation is by fayth in Christ Iesus For Saint Paul speaketh but of the Scriptures of the olde Testament c. This is euer the burden of his song That the Scripture hath no other sufficiencie than a Letter of credite To confute these impertinencies as often as he bringeth them were to goe about to make them be founde lesse impertinent We neede but looke into the sixteenth verse following to knowe what sufficiencie the Apostle attributeth vnto it which he doth so particularly so exactly and so clearely that there is no braine so credulous or so blockish that can beleeue the bearer of this fonde distinction seeing how the internall fulnesse of the Scripture is represented therein with the right vse thereof which consisteth in teaching the true doctrine â—â—m 3.16 in confuting the false in instructing vs in good workes and in reprouing and correcting the euil That the man of God may be absolute being made perfect vnto all good works Let vs conferre this Text with the Perronian glose The Scripture is giuen onely to serue vs for a memoriall a Letter of credence a direction to outwarde supplies namely to Iesus Christ and by him to his Disciples That is to say euerie one to his Curate And it is but for this onely reason that he maketh mention of Iesus Christ For howe else should it direct men vnto Christ seeing he teacheth no more with his owne mouth as he did when he was conuersant vpoÌ„ earth And though he should stil immediatly teach on earth should we receiue sufficient instruction from him No truly if we beleeue this Bishop 〈◊〉 48. who boldly maintaineth that the things alone which he did or declared with his owne mouth to his disciples are not sufficient for the instruction of the Church Adde nor free from Error and by consequent of correction as the Councell of Constance could well shew him Con Const Sess 13. tearming it rashnesse and presumption to teach that ChristiaÌ„ people should obserue that which Iesus Christ hath instituted namely to communicate the Lordes Supper in both kindes Now I summon him to shewe how it can be that the Scripture serueth vs for a Letter of credence for a memoriall or direction to direct vs to the pretended Church since that he and all our aduersaries maintaine that it is for that Church to shew vs and to authorise the Scripture which without this testimonie should haue no more authoritie nor credite than Aesops Fables What preposterous Methode is this that giueth the Letter of credence to the bearer that should receyue it of him What can be more ridiculous Can wee haue a more manifest proofe for to shewe that his principall purpose is to make the Scripture vnprofitable and to bring it wholy to nothing Distrusting himselfe to be able to sustaine this same impertinencie hee hath recourse to another shift and sayth That Saint Paul meaneth Fol. 172. that the holie Letters are able to instruct Timothie to this speciall point that saluation is by fayth in Christ Iesus This glose as alreadie hath bin obserued is ouerthrown by the two verses following which represent the inward amplitude and fulnesse of the scripture as well for doctrine as for maners True it is that this point is the substance of the whole gospel seeing that whosoeuer beleeueth hath faith in Iesus Christ hath life eternal shal not come into iudgmeÌ„t but hath passed froÌ„ death vnto life And if the scripture did but barely propouÌ„d this sentence only Iohn 3.24 without expouÌ„ding it without declaring the causes conditions proprieties effects of this faith they would be some apparance to put forth this distinction of Mediate and Immediate which in this case is as receiuable as it is fond and blasphemous in that ample description of the end vse and whole office of the Scripture which this place setteth forth vnto vs. And who will be so senselesse to maintaine that the Scripture is not fit to doe the office nor to attaine to the ende whereunto God who inspired it hath ordained it Is it because it speaketh not of blessed graines and such like trinkets But Saint Paul saith he speaketh here of the Scriptures of the old Testament for it was them that Timothie had learned from his childhoode at which time there was nothing of the new Testament written And these Scriptures of the old Testament could not instruct Timothie immediately and by themselues I answere that the Apostle speaking of the childhood of Timothie excludeth not the rest of his age but sheweth that he speaketh of the whole time of his life vntill then So speaking of the Scriptures of the olde Testament he excludeth not them of the new for this tearme Holy Scriptures is generall And to go about to exclude necessarily a Species after the position of the Genus is but bad arguing To goe about to take away the name of holy Scriptures from these two Epistles which Saint Paul had then written to Timothie and which at the least Timothie had read besides the other writings of the new Testament which perhaps he had also seene is to commit blasphemie But there needeth none other confutation of such Arguments but the representation of their forme Saint Paul maketh mention of the studie that Timothie made in his youth Ergo he speaketh nothing at all of his studies made since Item Saint Paul saith that Timothie learned the holie Sciptures Ergo he meaneth only the writings of the old Testament And by consequent he meaneth not that he should learne any thing of the writings
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
Reuelation where the soules of them that were killed for the word of God cried vnder the Altar How long ô Lord which art holy and true doest thou not iudge and auenge our blood on them that dwell one the earth Behold almost the same light the same stile in the first and last booke of the holy Scripture 〈◊〉 9.5 c When god saith in the same booke of Moses that he will require againe the blood of soules Resur c. 28. he sheweth vs the same thing and furnisheth vs matter of a like argument Notwithstanding Tertullian draweth thence a consequeÌ„ce not onely for the Immortality of the soule but also for the Resurrection of the body reasoning thus That which God requireth againe must be restored but God requireth againe the blood shed as well by the hand of beasts as by the hand of men therefore it must be restored for that which is not at all can not be auenged And then he concludeth that what is spoken of the blood is spoken of the flesh â—â—p 32 without which the blood can not bee and that the flesh shall be raysed vp that the blood may be auenged and in the same booke he saith that Moses in this place maketh mention of beasts at whose handes the blood shall be required the better to expresse the resurrection euen of bodies deuoured by them The Bishopp of Eureux findeth that this is but an hyperbolicall threatning for to terrifie men from manslaughter But they which take the prohibitions of Murder for hyperboles they are the very same that hyperbolically giue licence to themselues to commit it following the Tradition not of the Apostles vnlesse it be of Iudas but of certaine Robbers among the Donatists which they called Circumcelliones Now sith this place cannot be well vnderstood in his iudgment without Tradition he secretly insinuateh that euen the ciuill Magistrate cannot punish murder by vertue of this law of the Scripture that so he might put into this false scabbard of his tradition both the two swords togither the spirituall and the Temporall From the taking vp of Henoch I make this argument he which is taken out of this life gathered vnto god enioyeth an eternall felicity But Henoch being no more seene among men was gathered or taken away vnto GOD therefore Henoch enioyeth eternall felicitie This argument proueth not only the immortalitie of the soule But also Paradise that is to say an eternall felicitie The Sadduces reply by the mouth of his aduocate Du Perron is That it may bee graunted that this translation was a withdrawing from the conuersation of men and a delay and staying of death till a certaine time vnknowne to men of the first ages but that it followeth not that the soule after the extinction of the bodie subsisteth and remaineth for euer I answere that if it be permitted to the Saducie and his Aduocate to adde to the text of Moses what they please they may conclude from thence what they list and one day shall finde that which they will like but little But this Sadducean or Perronian glosse is contrarie to the Text of Moses which setteth downe vnto vs the temporall life of Henoch much shorter than was the ordinarie of that time So that this taking vp cannot be vnderstood of a delay or staying of death Moreouer this text representeth vnto vs Henoch as the most excellent man in pietie and loue of GOD which liued in his age and setteth forth vnto vs also without the helpe of any glosse his taking vp as a manifest testimonie of the fauour of God towards him On the other side all the Law of Moses teacheth vs that it was rather the testimonie of a curse than of a blessing to be soone depriued of this temporall life seeing that long life vpon earth is promised propounded as a speciall blessing Iâ— followeth therefore by necessarie and ineuitable consequence that there is another and more happy life then this earthly life Into which Henoch was translated Reuel 21. which we call Paradise that is to say a place extempt from all euill and abounding in all good This consequence is drawne from the text it selfe not from the word of Tertullian who calleth Henoch Candidatum aeternitatis which I had inserted by the way But take away this floorish that hee maketh vpon occasion of this word as if I would prooue the immortality of the soule by Tertullian hee remaineth lame and benummed and not able to passe any further For the rest that he saith is as much to purpose as if one would ground the originall of the Esseians or of the Monks oâ— Popery on this withdrawing of Enoch from the conuersation of men And if our Bishop had not taken in hand to plead the cause of the Saduces he might find heere a good proofe for the Esseians or for the Monkes From the historie of the Deluge may be drawne proofe for the Vniuersall iudgement which Du Perron holdeth not to haue beene beleeued among the Iewes â—â—n 7 but by Tradition of the Prophesie of Henoch cited in the Epistle of saint Iude For that which we see foretold in the same prophecie we finde it accomplished in the seuenth chapter of Genesis The argument may be formed thus He which executeth iudgement against all and condemneth all the wicked for the works of their impiety executeth an vniuersall Iudgment But God executed such a Iudgment in the flood against all the wicked Therefore he executed an vniuersall Iudgment The Bishoppe of Eureux cannot deny the Maior for it is taken from the foresaide tradition nor the Minor without denying the historie of Moses who teacheth vs that this Iudgment was vniuersall And if the Saducie alleadge the promise that GOD made Genes 9.11 and .15 Verses not to destroy the whole earth any more we can shew him the restriction that is there added namely that he will not destroy the earth any more by the waters of the Flood his iudgments not being subiect to one onely forme And seeing that the same Iustice is alwaies in God which the Saducie is constrained to confesse and the same vnrighteousnes and impietie reigneth amongst men It followeth that he will execute also the same iudgment to wit vniuersall though we can not know the day nor the houre Tradition beeing no lesse silent heere than the Scripture From the Couenant that God made with Abraham and the Hebrewes I argue thus Genes 15.17 2 4.7 A couenant that dureth for euer requireth that the parties betweene whom it is contracted doe abide for euer But the couenaunt that GOD contracteth with his dureth for euer Therefore they must also abide for euer The onely light of nature sheweth as well to the Iewes and to the Heathen as to Christians the truth of the Maior For it is most certein that when one of the Correlatiues is extinct the relation which is betweene them is extinct also The Minor is prooued to a Sadducie by a
hath not wholly abolished them But this argument taken from Gods couenant with the fathers hath beene alreadie aboue discoursed of at large From the 14. chapter first verse is framed this demonstration children haue part in their fathers inheritance Moses calleth the Israelites the children of the Lord therfore they haue part in his inheritance Now this father is heauenly and eternall his true inheritance therefore is not onely earthly and temporall For if it were none other than the land of Canaan the Lords children should haue no aduantage aboue others yea they should be worse prouided for than the most detestable Idolaters and sworne enemies of the Lord who haue possessed so great and mightie Empires Againe they that haue God who is the author of life and life it selfe for their father cannot be destroyed nor alwaies detayned by death but Moses in this place teacheth the Israelites that they haue God for their father Therfore he teacheth them withal that they cannot be destroied nor their dead alwaies deteined by death Herupon it is that he groundeth the forbidding touching the vnmeasurable sorrow that the Heathen vsed for their dead not hauing the same hope â—â—rs 2 because they had not the same doctrine From the 30. chapter 15. and 16 verses where Moses setteth before the Israelites life and death blessing and cursing I reason thus if the life and blessing whereof Moses speaketh bee but temporall and not eternall God himselfe is not Eternall The consequent is horrible blasphemie Therefore the antecedent is necessarily false The consequence is prooued by the twentieth verse following of the same Chapter in which God is called the life and length of daies of that people whence I conclude he that hath the Lord for life and for length of his daies shall liue for euer but the faithfull saith Moses haue the Lord for their life therefore they shall liue for euer And by consequent the instance of the Bishop of Eureux is foolish and blasphemous when hee saith That since God blesseth the fishes of the sea Gennes 1. one might conclude that fishes are capable of life eternall Moses saith not that God is the life length of daies of fishes nor that fishes are children of the Lord to possesse him as their inheritance as he saith of the Israelites in tearmes as cleare and manifest as Saint Paule saith it of the faithfull â—ol 3.4 when hee calleth Christ our life See how the equiuocate or double signification of the word blesse may be distinguished by the onely Text of Moses without the helpe of Tradition But it was not for nothing that the Bishop of Eureux maketh heere fishes capable at least by Moses text of life eternall it is without doubt ouerthwartly to insinuate because they make more capable of it such as make of them their principall food as doe the Charterhouse Monks and some others For he hath learned from the Iewish Tradition that God hauing created two whales and fearing least if they engendred others the sea would be no more nauigable Lyr. in Psâ— Relation 7. c. ad finâ—â— he killed the female and salted the flesh of it which he keepeth to giue the righteous to eate in the world to come Also for to teach vs or to put vs in minde why the Romish Tradition suffereth the vse of fish in Lent forbidding the vse of flesh Namely because God hath blessed the fishes of the sea but he hath cursed the earth in the workes of man as saith Durand that great rehearser of Tradition adding that those creatures that haue partly the forme of a beast and partly the forme of a fish as the Oâ—ter one may eate the fish part that is to say of a creature halfe blessed halfe cursed Such mysteries indeed would neuer be drawne from the onely litterall text of Moses if Tradition did not leÌ„d helpe thereunto But the consequence that it draweth from the curse of the earth for to forbid flesh meates is so glittering and sparkling bright that it dazelleth the eyes that are vsed but to the light of the Scripture For if it be not lawfull to eat flesh because the earth is cursed in the workes of man we must by necessarie and euident consequence conclude either that in like sorte bread should not be eaten or that in the time when this prohibition was made men plowed and sowed in the sea and corne grew there that they might eate of it as partaker of the blessing giuen to fishes which is a Tradition that hath neede of another subsidiarie Tradition to helpe to vnderstand it From the .31 chapter 16. verse where God saith to Moses that he shall sleepe with his fathers is gathered the same argument that aboue is produced out of diuerse places of Genesis yea there may two be gathered whereof this word Sleepe doth furnish vs the first for to sleepe presupposeth some Being And that which is abolished is not capable of sleepe One cannot say that he which is not yet borne sleepeth No more can one say therefore with Plynie and the Sadduces that after man is deade it is the same thing as before he was borne or conceiued The other argument is taken from this whole speach to sleepe with his Fathers Those Fathers therefore must haue some Beeing or else let the Bishoppe of Eureux teach vs what difference there is betweene sleeping all alone and sleeping with some that haue no being at all From the 32. Chapter 9. verse I conclude thus The possession of the Lord is vncorruptible Israell saith Moses is the Lords possession therefore it is vncorruptible From the same Chapter 10 verse He that is kept of God as the apple of his eye cannot be wholly destroyed Israell was so kept Therefore c. The Bishops cauillation vpon this argument is aboue refuted From the same Chapter 22. verse Hee which threatneth to destroy consume the earth by fire euen to the foundation of the mountains denounceth a general vniuersall iudgement but so God threatneth in this verse therefore he denounceth an vniuersall iudgement For that which is said to the Israelites is applied by a iust and euident analogy to all transgressors The bishop of Eureux replieth that these be metaphoricall comparisons wherby God compareth his anger vnto fire I grant it for there are certaine matters that cannot be declared to mans vnderstanding but by metaphoricall and allegoricall locutions And therefore euen in the new TestameÌ„t â—el 13 the torments of hell are represented vnto vs by a lake burning with fire and brimstone And so far are these figures froÌ„ engendring obscuritie that on the contrary they giue light to our minds vnderstanding to our harts more than if they were proposed without figures And such is S. Augustines iudgement of them 〈◊〉 119 Moreouer if the Tradition be so cleare on this question of Hell fire whence coÌ„meth it that the Fathers and Schoolemen are so busied to determine whether it be materiall
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
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
him in attributing vnto him this opinion This new Gnostick hath hee forgot that first principle viz. Of euery thing either the affirmatiue is true or the Negatiue the one being immediatly opposed to the other as it must be in matter of disputation Againe if these points be not conteined in Moses can his writings bee other than vnsufficient imperfect especially after his own definition wherby he defineth an imperfect vnsufficient thing to be when it is not sufficient to the end for which it is destinated and according to the maner wherby it is ordained therunto Tim 3 16 â— The end office of the Scripture is to teach the man of God that he may be perfect absolutely instructed vnto euery good worke Now if the first principles fundamentall points of this instruction be wanting therin if we must deriue them from some other way as he saith besids the Scripture It followeth either that the maÌ„ of God may be perfectly instructed without beleeuing the imortality of the soule the resurrectioÌ„ of the body Paradise hel c. which is the perfection not of a Christian faith but of a Pirrhonian beleefe Or els that the bookes that should teach theÌ„ yet coÌ„teine theÌ„ not wholy are as imperfect as a humane body would be without a head without a hart yea without a soule or as a tutour or scool Mr for so S. Paul caleth the law Gal. 3.24 which sheweth not to his disciple so much as the .1 rudimeÌ„ts or principles without which notwithstaÌ„ding he should neuer be capable to learne or vnderstaÌ„d any thing Also if none of the foresaid points be contayned in Moses it followeth that S. Augustine did wrongfuly shew by so many reasons Cont. Cresâ— Gram. l. 1. c. 17. 18. that Iesus Christ was a good Logician it would follow also that he that put him in the rank of deceiuers with Moses Mahomet did him no wrong for euery Sophister is a deceiuer and he which alledgeth for a demonstratiue proofe that which is but a vaine cold coniecture is a Sophister now if the place of Moses that Christ alledged to the Saduces for to proue the resurrection of the dead Exod. 3 6. Matth. 22.32 be not a demonstratiue proofe it is the trick of a Sophister to haue alledged it for such Also it would follow that Christ in approouing the opinion of the Iewes who thought to haue life eternall in the scripture if it were erroneous did not the office of a faithful teacher for that by this scripture is vnderstood the bookes of Moses it is manifest by the 45 46. and 47. verses of the same chapter where our Sauiour saith Iohn 5.39 that the Iewes trusted in Moses that Moses accused theÌ„ that Moses wrote of him That they could not beleeue his wordes because they beleeued not Moses writings Of necessity then whosoeuer will not openly blaspheeme Iesus Christ declare himselfe an vnmasked Atheist must acknowledge that the foresaid points are conteyned in the bookes of Moses It remaineth now to shew how they be there whether they do apeare to be there or no. I say they do so appeare to be there as maÌ„ is able to se theÌ„ there but to discerne theÌ„ he must haue the eye of his soule opeÌ„ clensed like as for to see the Sun which is the clerest thing in the world the eye of the body must be open seeing Now the vnderstanding of the natural vnregenerate maÌ„ is obscured with darknes is but darknes ye is dead that is to say depriued aswel of life as of spiritual sight 1 Cor. 2.1 which is the cause he caÌ„not see the things that are of the Spirit of God finding but folly in them And so not onely the Lawe of Moses but also the Gospell of Iesus Christ notwithstanding the brightnesse of it is hid to them that perish Cot. 4.3 of whom the God of this world hath blinded the vnderstandings that the light of the Gospell of the glory of Christ should not shine in them Both the Lawe and the Gospell become cleare vnto men when the Spirit of God by the light of his grace expelleth inwardly the darkenesses of their nature and the darnesses that the Prince of darknesse hath added therunto Pet. 119. Cor 13.12 when hee outwardly sheweth the light of the Scripture shining in darke places vntil such time as we see face to face the things which in this world cannot be seene but in a glasse darkely Here he will reply Whence commeth then this diuersitie of interpretations Whence commeth it that whosoeuer is truely inlightned by the Spirit of God findeth not streight waies the true meaning of the Scripture I answer that it is one thing to be truely inlightned another thing to be perfectly inlightned in al things It is one thing to vnderstand all the points necessarie to saluation and another thing to be able rightly to expound all the places of the Scripture one by one It is one thing to erre in the exposition of a particular place another thing to erre in a generall point of Doctrine yea though all the points be not of like importance It is one thing to say that the Scripture is perfect in it selfe conteining perfectly al that is necessary to saluation and another thing to say that men comprehend perfectly this perfection The Apostle saith that In this life we knowe but in part Cor. 13.9 we prophecie but in part It belongeth vnto God alone to know all things and in all perfection Now as there be childreÌ„ of light which see but by glymse as it were because they receiue this light by little little by degrees as the blinde maÌ„ whose eyes Christ opened to whom at first men seemed like trees â—ark 8.24 these acknowledge their ImperfectioÌ„ weaknes of sight Also there are childreÌ„ of darknesse which presume to know al to see all which neuer feele their blindnes â—â—hn 9.41 whose sin as saith our Sauiour remaineth that is to say is incurable For he giueth sight to them that feele their want by his iust iudgemeÌ„t blindeth more more those that thinke they see most clearely which intitle themselues Leaders of the blinde a light to them which are in darknesse Rom. 2 which disdainfully reiect the light of the Scriptures which boast themselues of a greater wisedome than that which God hath in them reuealed which seeing themselues condemned by the Scripture refuse it for Iudge take it for an aduersarie and accuse it as guiltie of the errours of those which follow it It is the speach of the Bishop of Eureux that he said vnto me in the verball conference vpon the errour of saint Cyprian touching the rebaptizing of hereticks And heere he saith That the scripture is so farre from being instituted to serue onely for particuler instruction in all the contentious points of Religion that on the
good number of places of Moses alleadged in my former aunswere which the Bishoppe of Eureux calleth a Rhapsodie of coniectures a name more fit for the matter in question than hee imagineth or intendeth if wee take it in the sense that Eustathius Homers interpreter teacheth vs that is to say for a Lawrell Rod where triumphant Trueth abateth the impudencie of a blasphemer who maketh the couenant grounded on the seede of Abraham that is to say on Iesus Christ common to brute beastes vnder colour that GOD promised to Noah not to drowne the earth any more by a Deluge Fol. 11 so that euen beasts tast of this fauour not perishing any more all at once as they did in the Deluge To an Hebrewe Sadducie one may shew him by his own tongue that the word Berith commonly translated couenant is taken sometimes generally for euerie declaration whether of counsaile of commaundement or of promise As wee see by the examples Leui. 24.8 Nomb. 18.19 25.12 In which places this word signifyeth nothing else but Ordinance like as it is taken in this place in question Genes 9.11 Sometimes it is particularly vnderstood for a contract and couenant made betweene parties which doe reciprocally or mutually condition and accept Now that the couenant made betweene GOD and Abraham is such a one is shewed by the seuenteeth Chapter of Genesis where wee see GOD on the one side conditioning and on the other side Abraham accepting If Du Perron will make his instance of any force hee must shew the like conditioning and acceptation betweene God and beastes Or else let him confesse that this word couenant agreeth not in the same sense or vniuocally to men and to beastes In the same Chapter 7. verse God hauing said that this couenant betweene him and Abraham is perpetuall sheweth in what it consisteth to wit in that hee is the God of Abraham Whence it followeth eyther that Abraham is permanent for euer or that the couenant is not perpetuall or permanent For how could God bee the God of one which is not And this consequence was found so necessarie in the argument of Iesus Christ against the Sadducies that they knewe not what to replie thereunto though they knewe the place of Genesis 9.11 as well as their Aduocate Du Perron â—enes 12.13 â— .17.26 â—8 From the inheritance of the land of Canaan promised to the Patriarckes Abraham Isaacke and Iaacob I frame this argument If the promises of God made to the Patriarches bee vnderstood onely of the earthly inheritance and not of the heauenly God is not true of his word the consequent is blasphemous Therefore the Antecedent is false The consequence is shewed in this â—en 13.15 â— 15.7 17 â—8 18 13 that the promises of the inheritance of Canaan were directed as well to the Patriarches themselues as to their successours yea they were the principals with whom the Couenant was treated which did beare their name and in all prayers chiefely in that of Moses making intercession for the people it was still alleadged GOD was euer prayed to Remember his Couenant made with Abraham Isaacke and Iacob Yea Gen. 15.7 god speaketh but of Abraham saying I am the Lord that brought thee out of Vr of the Chaldees to giue thee this Land to inherit it Now god gaue him neuer any inheritance in this Land of Canaan Act. 7 5. no not so much as to set his foote vpon as S. Stephen saith and as the Sadduces may see in the hystorie set downe by Moses It followeth therfore either that God hath failed of his promise or that this land was but a figure whereof Abraham hath obtained the substance and thing Gen. 17 Heb 11 9 1â— 13 This consequence is drawne from the bare text of Moses without imploying the place of the Epistle to the Hebrewes which I had alledged for to shew a Christian not a Saduce that I wrest not Moses text from which alone without other tradition the Apostle draweth his conclusion Du Perron saith that this argument of the Apostle was not good but for those that were brought vp in the tradition of the Synagogue Fol. 17 which tendeth to none other end but to banish the writings of the Apostles from the Christian Church and to confirme them in the Iewish Synagogues for to mixe and steepe them there in Cabalisticall gloses To the places in which the promises of the Land of Canaan are directed to the Patriarches themselues and not only to their posteritie he answereth that it must be vnderstoode of their children who should represent them Which is a manifest mockery For to what purpose should the Scripture conioyne these two termes To thee and to thy seed What part should they haue in the Couenant if in that land they were strangers depending on the mercie of those which then actually possessed it and being exposed to their outrages and violences Wherein should be found the accomplishment of the promises of God the truth of the heauenly Oracles What comfort would it bee for Abraham that at the end of foure hundreth yeares his posteritie should possesse a certaine countrey yet after infinite miseries of a long and cruell bondage and in the meane while himselfe with whome GOD had principally contracted the couenant to be subiect to so manie euils plucked out of his owne contrey driuen out of the Land of Canaan by famine almost constrained to prostitute as it were his wife for to saue his life in Egypt hauing sometimes want euen of water Therefore not onely hee knewe but those that read his Storie in Moses may see that this land was but a signe vnto him of a more excellent and heauenly thing and that hee was not to complaine for hauing beene depriued of the one seeing hee was assured of the other hauing God for his reward as the expresse Text saith Gen. 15.1 From Abrahams intercession vnto God for the cities of Sodome and Gomorah Gen. 18 25. I draw this argument for to proue the vniuersall Iudgement If there be a Iudge which iudgeeth all the earth there is an vniuersall iudgement But Abraham acknowledgeth God for such a iudge and calleth him by this name verse 25. Therefore there is an vniuersall iudgement Gen 22 By the historie of Abrahams Sacrifizing Isaack I prooue the Resurrection shewing to a Sadducie that Abraham beleeued it that thus He which beleeueth God to be true beleeueth that he wil fulfil his promises But Abraham beleeued God to be true therfore he beleeued the fulfilling of his promises Now this promise was that in Isaack shold his seed be called Therfore of necessity one of these two things must follow either that he beleeued that god would raise vp Isaack again whoÌ„ he was about to kil or that he beleeued not the promise that God had made him for to beleeue that he would giue him another son Gen 21 12 it were still to faile of the promise which was
Resurrection of the body it must necessarily inferre that it is therefore proper for to prooue it or that Christ was not fit for to reason Certainly when the resurrection of the body is proued the immortalitie of the soule is prooued also But he which prooueth but the immortalitie of the soule prooueth not for that the Resurrection of the bodie which was notwithstanding the question wherwith the Sadduces had assailed our lord who had by no meanes stopped their mouth if he had proued but the first point that is to say satisfied but the one halfe and the easiest part But this argument saith our Bishop was till then vnknowne to the Iewes who for that cause admired the wisdome of our Sauiour And therfore they must needs haue receiued the beleefe of it by another meanes than by the bookes of Moses namely by the tradition of Abraham Isaack and Iacob and other Fathers What vse hath then heere subsidiarie tradition which after our Bishop 〈◊〉 71. is the Gardian and keeper of the mysticall interpretation of the text of the scripture 〈◊〉 45. Or if there were none vpon this place as Du Perron seemeth to grant reckoning it among them that the sonne of God who hath the key of Dauid opened to his Disciples since he himselfe expounded the scriptures It will follow that the place was altogether vnprofitable before which is the bishops mysticall exposition that he might couertly giue Saint Paule the lye who maintaineth that The whole scripture is giuen by inspiration from God â—â—m 3 and is profitable c or as they of the Church of Rome translate it Euerie Scripture that is euery place of scripture meaning it euen of the olde Testament Now it is true that Saint Mathew saith that the multitude were astonied at the doctrine of Iesus Christ citing this place For the confusion and ignorance was so great vnder the Reigne of the Pharisaicall Traditions that it seemed to the auditours a thing miraculous to be able to alleadge the Lawe so pertinently and to purpose Euen like as in this last Reformation of the Church many of those that had beene all their life time brought vp in the superstitious Traditions of the Church of Rome haue beene astonied when they haue seene them so pertinently confuted by the holy scripture In the meane while the thing hath not beene so obscure as the bishoppe will haue it otherwise some euen among the Scribes would not haue approoued this allegation saying Maister thou hast well said Luke 20.39 Marke 12 2â— For they were so great enemies to Iesus Christ that they espied all occasions euen to the least of his words for to entrappe him And must Du Perron shew himselfe heere worse than were the Scribes and Pharises accusing our Sauiour Christes argument of obscuritie or impertinencie which was approoued by his greatest enemies Math. 22.3 who confessed that hee had stopped the mouthes of the Sadducies Which sheweth that the thing was so cleare manifest that there could bee no reply But what reason or testimonie can bee cleare to him who findeth not cleare enough the place of Daniel vnder colour that a Rabbi and one Polychroneus had some particuler doting vpon it yet more than sufficiently confuted by some of ours without any helpe of Tradition which our bishoppe holdeth so necessarie therein The wordes of Daniell are Oecolamp Dan. 12.2 Manie of them that sleepe in the dust of the Earth shall awake some to euerlasting life and some to confusion and eternall shame And they that bee wise shall shine as the brightnesse of the firmament and they that turne many to righteousnesse shall shine as the starres for euer and euer Beholde the place wherewith Du Perron saith a contentious spirit cannot be forced without the helpe of tradition that wee no more doubt of his intent which is not to content himselfe to make the scripture vnsufficient and imperfect but also wholly vnprofitable superfluous and vnapt seeing the clearest and most formall places haue no force nor vertue without Tradition which if wee will beleeue him forceth all euen the most contentious spirits to whom the scripture coÌ„tenteth it self to say 1. Cor 11.16 If any man lust to be contentious we haue no such custom neither the Churches of God What remaineth for him but to say that Tradition is God himselfe who alone is able to change the hearts to tame the rebellious and to make light shine out of darkenes Indeed there was a Bishopp in the counsell of Trent who without blushing or changing colour attributed to the Pope who is the principal spring and fountaine of the Traditions at this day in controuersie those words that Saint Iohn had said of the Eternall sonne of God calling him the light come into the world Orat. Corn. Epis Bitont in Conci Trid Iohn 1. Now if Iesus Christ had had the same opinion of the scripture as Du Perron would he not also haue said the like to the Sadducies as their Aduocate holdeth vnto vs Namely that they deceiued themselues to thinke to finde in the writinges of Moses all that was necessarie for them And that the fiue bookes of the Lawe were but a letter of credite referrring the rest to the sufficiencie of the bearer of the Tradition Hee dare denie that our Sauiour Christ attributed the cause of the Errour of the Sadducies to their ignorance of the Scripture though two vnreprooueable witnesses depose it and that in so cleare and euident tearmes that all the smoke of the bottomlesse pit Math. 22.29 Marke 12.24 25. cannot darken the light of it especially that of Saint Marke in these wordes Are yee not therefore deceiued because yee knowe not the Scriptures neyther the power of God To one that hath the boldnesse to denie such Textes I confesse I cannot shewe any thing neyther in the Olde nor in the Newe Testament In the meane while Du Perron may bee iudged heere by his owne mouth as that euill seruant in the Gospell being constrained to confesse that one of the causes of the errour of the Sadducies was the ignorance of the sense of the Scripture Luke 19 22 Fol. 52. though hee meane it but of the place cyted by themselues which commeth all to one reckoning for to bee ignorant of the sense of the scripture is to bee ignorant of the scripture But the true sense of the same is discerned and seene when the Father of Lightes maketh it be seene not when the Synagogue onely or the Church sheweth it which hath not any Tradition whatsoeuer for to open the eyes of the mind and to force the most contentious otherwise shee should manifest this force vppon the Turckes Iewes and Paganes if Tradition conteyned the true Efficient and Instrumentall cause both together Saint Hierome expoundeth the place of saint Marke in these wordes They erre saith hee because they know not the Scriptures and because they are ignorant of them they know not the
to blame to alledge it barely and nakedly with out this breastplate of Tradition when he representeth the contrarietie and opposition â—â—m 10 that there is between the righteousnesse of the Law the righteousnesse of faith From .19.20 .21 chapters where God particularly calleth himselfe the God of the Israelites I reason thus If God did promise and giue onely earthly things to the Israelites he were not more particularly their God than the God of other peoples and nations yea he should rather haue beene more specially the God of some Heathen nations to whome he gaue kingdomes and Empires farre greater and more flourishing than a litle countrey of Canaan giuen to the Israelites after so many paynes and with so many euills as they had euer there Now God calleth himselfe particularly the God of the Israelites hauing discerned and seperated them of purpose from all other nations for to doe them good Therefore it must needs follow that these blessings were not onely earthly and transitorie From the .26.42 verse where God promiseth to remember the Couenant he made with Abraham Isaak and Iacob I gather the same Argument that hath beene aboue produced and treated of at large from diuers places of Genesis From the same Chapter 44. verse where God promiseth not to consume them that be his because he is their god c. one may draw this proofe for the Immortality of the soule If the soule dyeth with the body man is wholy coÌ„sumed but the Israelites are promised of God that they shall not be wholy consumed Therefore the soule at least remaineth after the body is consumed The B. of Eureux will reply that this must be vnderstood of the totall extermination of the people as if GOD promised euer to leaue a remnant of some still amongst them I answere that if vniuersall promises directed to a people in generall may not be applyed to euery faithfull in particular they are vaine and none at all For if all the particulars be consumed one after another the generall which is coÌ„posed which consisteth but of particulars will be consumed like wise and so will but shadowes remaine to serue for subiect to the fullfilling of Gods promises And what ioy or comfort could they take that heard Moses pronounce them or did reade them in his writings if none could apply any of them to themselues in particular Out of the forth booke of Moses called Numbers From the blessing of the Priest that assured the Israelits of the keeping peace of God I reason thus They whom God keepeth cannot perish God keepeth them that be his therefore they cannot perish Or else in this forme They that perish are not kept of God the people of God are kept of God therefore they cannot perish Now it is certaine that they should perish if death destroyed them and wholly brought them to nothing The Bishop of Eureux restraineth this keeping to the time the people were in the wildernesse where God preserued them from hunger from thirst from Serpents and from their enemies because some Interpreters expound so the place Deut. 32. which saith that god kept his people as the apple of his ey But the question is not whether god kept his people in the wildernes which none denyeth but whether Moses or any of his expositours confine the keeping of God onely in the wildernes and whether euer any Saducie shewed himselfe so impertinent as to say that God kept not his people elswhere This forme of the Priests blessing is it not generall and vniuersall Let vs see his goodly Episcopall Enthymema God kept his people in the wildernes therefore he neuer kept them nor will keepe them elswhere yet would it follow that at least they that he kept in the wildernes are not wholly perished and brought to nothing or else that he kept them no better in the wildernes than he did elswhere and indeed many of them dyed there by fire by pestilence by serpents and by their enimies yea all that came out of Egypt except two dyed there euen Aaron and Moses whence is manifest that this keeping in the wildernes was not so singular and only that none other is worthy consideratioÌ„ in respect of it From the same place also I reason thus If the anger of God against sinne hath ordained miserie and death for to punish it as appeareth Gen 2. 3. It followeth that the peace and mercie of God taketh away this punishment consequenly causeth that death cannot hurt at leastwise them that are partakers of this peace and mercie of God according as is conteyned in the blessing Otherwise the effectes of the wrath and mercie of God should bee both alike and his fauour and peace should not restore the felicitie lost by the transgression of Adam Now the Sadducie seeth well that this is not effected alwaies nor yet ordinarily in this life which is fuller of calamities to the children of God than to others Therefore there must bee another life wherein this accomplishment is found From the fourteenth chapter and eighteenth verse which setteth forth vnto vs the mercie and benignitie of GOD is drawne an argument wholly like vnto the former And another also like to that which aboue is produced out of Exodus 34.7 where are reade the same words From the same Chapter the twentieth verse is gathered a proofe for eternall life where God declareth that hee pardoned his people that had prouoked him and yet neuerthelesse hee sayeth that they should all die in the wildernesse and that none of them shoulde see the land of promise which was accomplished And therefore if there were no other life for them whereto serued the pardon that God gaue them If those whose sinnes God pardoneth are destroyed in bodie and in soule what could hee more doe to them that obtained not pardon But since the Sadducie with his Aduocate will not see Paradise in Moses let vs shewe them Hell there The sixteenth Chapter of this booke recyteth vnto vs an Historie of some that descended thither aliue and hell is there named twice which should suffice him that maketh no reckoning of consequences how euident necessarie so euer they be but demaÌ„deth euer the litterall and formall text If he reply that the Hebrew word signifieth also a Sepulcher or ordinarie graue let him know that it cannot be so in this place for when Corah Dathan and Abiram were sunke downe and swallowed vp it was not an ordinarie buriall nor a graue made of purpose And the Latine Bible which is Authenticke to Du Perron translateth it Hellâ— Numb 23 10 In the 23. chapter is read this memorable sentence of Balaam so cleare and manifest as well for the felicitie as for the shame to come Fol. 20 that our Balaamite is ashamed to reply thereto himselfe choosing rather to bring in a contentious spirit as if his owne were other saying That Balaam by a figure common to Enigmaes and obscuritie of Oracles required
first of all it setteth forth all the reliques of Saints departed and suborneth false ones too for to make the people to commit Idolatrie instead of resisting the deuill whē he broacheth such inuentions as the Archangel did c. Secondly instead of honoring reuerencing the magistrate the Pope who calling himselfe the vniuersall Shepheard of Christian people should be vniuersall patterne to his flocke causeth his feet to be kissed by Kings Emperors yea trāpleth vnder his feete the greatest dignities of the earth What saith our Byshop to this hee cryeth ignorance against mee 〈◊〉 16. to impute to the Church of Rome that which frō all times hath bin practised by the whole Catholike Church throughout all the world Item to make no difference betweene the reliques of Saints before and after the Incarnation of the Saint of Saints Wee thanke him for confessing that the Romish Church maketh the people cōmit idolatrie after reliques true or false For to inwrap in the same impietie all the auncient Church hee quoteth a long list of places of the Fathers gathering together all their Hyperboles on this matter all the reliques of Paganisme all the indiscreet deuotions of the people with the conniuences of the Byshops brought in with the streame or tyde of custome all the Prosopopoeiacs Apostrophes Epiphonema's and other figures of which their Panegyricks are full are vnto him groūds of christian religiō Apostolicke traditions ineuitable demonstrations and indemonstrable principles for his maner is to handle the Fathers so as that he bringeth away frō them but the sweeping as it were far from the industry and wisdom of an heathen who gathered gold forth of anothers drosse Now if I do not verifie this by some cōtrary places takē forth of the same Fathers that he alleageth he will cry against me as he did against the Lorde of Plessis that I could not doe it and that if I went about but to quote one onely example the paper would blush an hundred yeares after Let vs therefore oppose to the place of Gregorie of Nysse which hee setteth in the head of his squadron some places of that excellent Epistle which this holy Father wrote of purpose against them that goe on Pilgrimage to Ierusalem let vs see from which of them we shall draw most instruction and resolution They saith he which once haue dedicated themselues to a more excellent manner of life it shall goe well with them if they take heed alwayes to the words of the Gospel and as they that guide their work by a Rule redresse by the streightnes of the same that which before was crooked so I thinke it meet that wee addresse and referre these things to God applying heerein the ordinance of the Gospel as a Rule streight vnchangeable Seeing then there be some that choose a priuate solitary life who thinke that it is godlines religion to haue visited the places of Ierusalem wherein are seene the markes of the cōming of the Lord in the flesh the thing goeth well if we take heede to the Rule it self to the end that if the commandements cary vs thether we may do this work as an ordinance of the Lord. But if it appeare that it hath been brought in besides the commandements of the Lord I know not what this can bee that hee which proposeth to himself for a law of good commandeth another to do When the Lord calleth the Blessed for to receiue the kingdom of heauen he reckoneth not among the good works Math. 2 5 which bring a man thither going on pilgrimage to Ierusalem When he declareth the true blessednesse Math. ◠he comprehendeth not therin such an imployment Now to what purpose shall a man imploy himselfe in that which neither maketh happy nor serueth for the kingdome of heauer He which hath vnderstanding let him consider it After he representeth at large the inconueniences dangers whereinto Pilgrimes put themselues the wickednesses that are commited in the places esteemed more holy then others And because himselfe had trauelled thither he yeildeth a reasō of it namely that his charge had bound him to visite the Church of Arabia for to reforme it and that he had promised to conferre with the Pastours of the Churches of Ierusalem who were troubled and had need of a mediatour Let no man then saith he be offended for our example but let our iudgement of it be the more receiueable seeing we giue it of the things that we our selues haue seene For we confessed Christ to be the true God euen before we went thither and afterwards likewise our faith being hereby neither diminished nor increased We knew that he was borne man of a Virgin before we saw Bethleem and wee beleeued his Resurrection before we saw his Sepulchre and we cōfessed his Ascension without seeing the mount of Oliues Neither haue we reaped any other fruites of our voyage saue only this that by the comparison of the places we haue learned that ours are much more holy than forraine parts Wherefore you that feare the Lord praise him in the places where you are For change of places maketh not the Lord neerer but God wil come to thee so that the house of thy soule be found such that he may dwell in thee If thy inward man be full of peruerse thoughts though thou beest at Golgotha at the mount of Oliues or vnder the sepulchre of the resurrection yet thou shalt receiue Iesus Christ as little into thee as they that neuer made profession of Religion Therefore my wel-beloued exhort the brethren to trauell from the body to the Lorde not from Cappadocia into Palestine c. Let this whole Epistle bee compared with the place cited forth of a Panegyricke of the same Father by the Byshop of Euerux and there is not so blinde an Idolatrer that seeth not that in this same he speaketh according to the word of God which he layeth for the ground of euerie good action and according to his iudgement and beleefe in the other according to the abuse of the time and according to the testimonie which he suffred not being able to withstand it August a◠Lannar a◠ciuit l. 10 no more then Saint Augustine who so earnestly complaineth against it And who in another place speaking in good earnest dogmatically not historically nor popularly that is to say abusiuely saith thus De vera lig cap. 55 Let not our Religion be after our owne fantasies for whatsoeuer truth may be in them yet our Religion is better farre then any thing we can fain of our own heads And a little after Let not our Religion bee the worshipping of dead men for if they haue liued religiously they be not such as that they would desire any such honour but would haue vs honour him by whom being illuminate they reioyce in that we are seruants with them of that which they haue obtained They should therefore be honoured for imitation not worshipped by religion
so far forth as it is a signe without referring it to the thing signified of a relatiue without considering his correlatiue that is to say to speake of the nature Essence of a thing without considering the nature and Essence of the same Therefore without vsing many words as he doth doe but obserue these words of S. Cyril hee declareth the intentioÌ„ of the Gospel as if he would rehearse In Ioh. lib. C. 61. that which he wrote For I haue published these thinges saith hee that you might beleeue and that in beleeuing you might haue life eternal c. And a little after If the power of the Gospel and the greatnes of the miracles be sufficient to perswade that the Sonne of the Virgin who was called Iesus by the voice of the Angel is the same which the Scripture calleth Christ and who is the Sonne of God not as others but properlye and after a singular manner euen after he was vnited to the humaine nature it is certaine that they doe erre which dare deny their Lord. Whence it manifestly appeareth that after his opinion Saint Iohn spake not of myracles onelye but also of the Doctrine and force of the Gospell which is the power of God vnto saluation to all that beleeue Rom. 1. â— from which force and power if any seperate and exclude Doctrine he hath more neede of Hellebore then hee is capable of Doctrin And therfore it were our Bishops part to shew how miracles only without Doctrine can be sufficient as wel for manners as for Doctrine which is the sufficyencie that Saint Cyrill attributeth vnto them in the place which himselfe citeth but with cutting off this that followeth To the end that shining in a right faith Fol. 157. workes and vertue we may attaine to the Kingdome of heauen through our Lord Iesus Christ Effects which no miracles can euer bring foorth alone without Doctrine But here is the moste important point of the question Hee saith Though S. Augustin and S. Cyril should speake not of myracles onely but shold say in expresse words Fol. 158. that the Euangelists haue written sufficiently whatsoeuer is necessary for vs to know of the deedes and sayinges of our Sauiour Christ for our Saluation Neuerthelesse it would not followe that the things onelye that Christ eyther did or taught with his owne mouth to his Disciples are sufficient for the instruction of the Church c. And for proofe of this his resolution hee alleadgeth this saying of Christ I haue yet many things to tell you which you cannot beare now 〈…〉 97 A place which as S. Augustine saith the grossest Heretikes were woont to abuse for to collour all their most abhominable inuentions But see here the impudencie of our Byshop who not content to blame the Scripture of vnsufficiencie and imperfection spitteth his filthy blasphemies in the face of Jesus Christ himselfe blasoning him to haue no more taught sufficiently by word of mouth his Apostles thaÌ„ his Apostles haue taught Posteritie by their writings At least if the lye he giueth the Sonne of God be somewhat couered in court-phrase which hee braggeth he can speake so well yet is it without curtesie and without figure of Rhethoricke that hee giueth the lye to this affirmation of the truth it selfe I haue declared vnto you al things that I haue heard of my Father 〈◊〉 15.15 Whence it would follow that the heauenly Father himselfe hath not perfectly nor sufficiently instructed his sonne the Eternall wisedome Now to agree these two propositions Iohn 15.15 and 16.12 we need not haue recourse to that enallage of the time 〈◊〉 Ioan. 〈◊〉 â—6 as some of the Fathers haue vnder collour that the Scripture speaketh some-time of thinges not yet done as if they were already done which the circumstance of the place the sequence of the Text permitteth not in this place But in the 16. chapter wheÌ„ our Sauiour saith that his Disciples could not beare that which he had to tell them he hath respect to the sadnes sorrow which they were full of as appeareth by the 22. verse they remembred not what had beene already tolde theÌ„ were little disposed to make their profite of what they then preseÌ„tly heard for to prepare theÌ„selues to their charge And what If Jesus Christ had hid from the Apostles themselues some necessary pointes how much more should he haue hid them from the other Disciples and Auditours of the common people of which consequently none could haue been saued if he had died before the day of the Pentecost before they had heard the new Articles of faith which the holy Ghost began then to reueile to the Apostles of which Iesus Christ had neuer spokeÌ„ vnto them And this sentence of our Lord concerning the Office of the holy Ghost He shall teach you all things and shall bring to your remeÌ„brance al things that I haue said vnto you shall be of no more weight with our Bishop than the other for to make him confesse that the holy Ghost taught no other doctrine theÌ„ that which the Disciples had alreadie heard of their master though they had not well remembred nor vnderstood all for he had rather that the blame should remain on our Lord Christ to haue taught but by halfes then on the disciples for not learning all well though with all that he should get nothing for his Cabbala vnwritten or written in fabulous Bookes at least-wise if hee receyue this sentence of Saint Augustine cited and approoued by his master Thomas Aquinas Whatsoeuer Iesus Christ would that we should reade of his deedes and sayings he commanded his Disciples to write as with his owne handes To what purpose then is it to seeke that which is written else-where by others though it were a true thing seeing that Christ will not haue vs to reade it And how much lesse that which is written in the golden Legend in the Bookes de vita Christi or other such fables He saith that Saint Augustine will haue vs acknowledge manie things in the writings of the Apostles which our Sauiour Christ neuer told them whilest he corporally conuersed with them as among others this excellent doctrine That there is in God a worde Escentiall and subsisting by which all things were created Beholde a notable vntruth The wordes of Saint Augustine are these In Ioh. â— 96. Who is so vaine and rash that though he should speake true things as he listeth and to whom he will dare affirme without anie diuine testimonie that they are the things which the Lord would not tell Who among vs shall doe it without incurring a most great fault of rashnesse hee excelling neither in Propheticall nor Apostolicall authoritie For in verie truth if we had read something in the Bookes confirmed by Canonicall authouritie which were written after Christs ascension it were to little purpose to haue read it vnlesse one reade therwithall that it was of the number of the things