length of daies which God promiseth to the iust that his posteritie or his memorial or his seede might florish that he might not die of a sodaine violeÌ„t nor hastie death c. confirmng the exposition of the place of Moses by the authority of Horace a most worthy warraÌ„t for such as with this Poet may well be called Epicuri de grege porâ—â— swinish Epicures Now whilst he maketh his coÌ„parisons of the text of holy scripture that is of the word of god with the heatheÌ„ oracles that is the word of the diuel goeth to seek smoke in Horace for to choake the light of Moses let vs see the argument conteined in the said place There where there is a total abolishmeÌ„t there is no place for wishes of any felicity Balaam in his death wisheth the felicity that is in the death of the righteous therfore he beleeued that death is not a totall abolishment Againe whosoeuer wisheth to die like vnto theÌ„ that are singularly beloued kept of God beleeueth that there is a singular felicity happines reserued for them especially after their death wherof the vnrighteous shal not be partakers but Balaam maketh this wish knowing that God singularly loued the people of Israel therfore he beleeued that there was a felicity Happynes reserued for them euen after death To that which Du Perron saith that this felicity may be meant of a quiet death in a good age c. I answere that one may shew to a Saducie not onely by texts of the bookes of holy Scripture that he receiueth not Iob. 21. Psal e. 73 Ierem. 12. Habac. 1. but also by a great number of histories that he receiueth and by his owne experience that the life and death of the righteous is very often more miserable than that of the wicked and therefore the Iustice of God requireth that there be made an other iudgment after this life and the very heathen themselues were able by naturall discourse onely to make this conclusion which the Saduces that sometimes held the sterne of the Iewish Church and their aduocate they haue met withall in the Romish Church cannot draw from the whole body of the Law of Moses So Balaams asse without any spectacles of Tradition perceiued sooner and did more honour to the Angell than that great Doctor that false prophet that was vpon him that none might find strange if in times past many simple Israelites and at this day many simple lay men see more clearely and honour more deuoutly the holy scripture which is the true Angell or messenger by which God maketh knowne vnto vs his will than did the Sadduces in times past at this day the Bishops Popes who change the sheepe of Christ into asses in lading them with their traditions wherewith they more cruelly torment them than Balaam did his Asse striking it with his staffe and that for none other reason but because they giue place and honour to the Angell Du Perron alleadgeth Luther in fauour of his Sadducie who wisheth euen for temporall respects to die the death of Abraham therefore why might not Balaam who was not saith he more spirituall neither hee nor his Asse than your great Prophet Luther haue the like wish I answer that although the conformity with BalaaÌ„ is found much greater on our Bishops side than on Luthers whether we consider it in the manner of setting forth his owne praises as Balaam did or in the profession of being hired for to slaunder and curse the children of God and for to bewitch againe those whome Luther according to the grace receiued of God â—umb 24.19 hath vnbewitched or in giuing of pernicious counsells for all sorte of fornication there being no difference but that Balaam though against his will pronounced that which God had commaunded him and our Bishop saith and writeth quite contrarie to that which God hath commaunded him in the Scripture yea contrary to the feeling of his owne conscience yet notwithstanding the argument that he draweth from this comparison holdeth not For if Balaam desired the same that Luther desired and if Luther desired to dy like Abraham not for regarde only of temporall conditions but also in the faith of Abraham that he might be receiued into his bosome as a childe of the Father of beleeuers then it is plaine that Balaam desired expressly the immortality and saluation of his soule that is to say Paradise And it is to be feared that the Saducie here will say that his aduocate sauoreth of the asse esspecially seeing his miter which looketh so like a case for long eares And that if one day when he shall haue changed his miter into a hat and his crosier staffe into a Cardinall mule he can meete with an asse as wise and well spoken as Balaams was it would speak farre otherwise to his Cardinalls habite Out of Deuteronomie From the .5 Chapter .29 verse I reason thus that which death abolisheth wholy can not be a subiect capable of a permanent and perpetuall happynes but they that keep the commaundements of God do possesse a perpetuall happynes Therfore death doth not wholy abolish theÌ„ The Bishop of Eureux replyeth that it is not said that they shall haue theÌ„ selues this happynesse for euer but them and their posterity successiuely Now that is false the word Them is formaly expressed but the word Successiuely is not expressed For as hath beene aboue already said the same happines that is promised in general is applicable to euery particular accoÌ„plishing the coÌ„ditioÌ„ required now all obseruers of the commauÌ„demeÌ„ts of god haue promise of the perpetuall happines therfore euerie one of theÌ„ shall haue it also in particuler Would not our Bishop forge heere some such monster as that of the Libertines or of Auerrhois Of the vnderstanding vniuersall and perpetuall in it selfe but corruptible in the indiuiduals It may bee that in the conclusion hee maketh an allusion to Transubstantiation For if the accidentes subsist without their subiect Mans felicitie may also subsist for euer though the subiects of the same bee not for euer From the sixth Chapter 24. verse I conclude thus If they that feare the Lord haue promise to be euer preserued aliue It must follow that there is an Eternall life Now the Antecedent is conteined in these words of Moses The Lord hath commaunded to doe all these ordinances and to feare the Lord our God that it may goe euer well with vs and that hee may preserue vs aliue as at this present Therefore c. From the ninth Chapter 27. verse of the forme of praier vsed by Moses making intercession for the people and praying God that hee would remember his seruants Abraham Isaacke and Iacob wee may reason thus That which is not at al cannot haue any efficacie the Patriarches Abraham Isaacke and Iacob long time after their death haue some efficacie namely to appease God by the remembrance of his couenant contracted with them Therefore death
POSITIONS LATELY HELD BY the L. DV PERRON Bishop of Eureux against the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures maintaining the necessitie and authoritie of vnwritten Traditions Verie learnedly answered and confuted by D. Daniell Tillenus Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Sedan VVith a defence of the sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scriptures by the same Author Faithfully translated PROV 30.5.6 Euerie word of God is pure he is a shield to those that trust in him put nothing to his word least be reproue thee and thou be found a lyer Aust de vnit Eccles cap. 3 sIn the Scriptures we are to seeke the Church by them to discusse our controuersies Chrysost in 2. Thes 2. Hom. 3. All is cleare and plaine in holy Scripture whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs is manifest Printed at London by L. S. for Nathaniell Butter 1606. TO THE READER WHen our aduersaries perceiue them selues conuinced by the Scripture they doe as they of whom Irenaeus and Tertullian speake they set vpon the Scripture it selfe accusing it of obscuritie ambiguitie and imperfection maintaining that the truth cannot therein be found by such as bee ignorant of Tradition and that the great mysteries of Faith were not by the Apostles committed to his disciples but by word of mouth and not by writing In a word all that the ancient Fathers recite of their gainsayers we see now a daies practised by ours who not content with those olde reproaches doe defame the scripture with many contumelies calling it the booke of heretikes the blacke Gospell Incke-Diuinitie leaden ruler nose of waxe Theramenes his buskin the apple of discord Sphynxes riddle a sword in a mad-mans hand and other like tearmes full of iniuries and blaspemies wherewith they defame the booke of the couenant and testament of the Sonne of God which the auncients called the mirrour of diuine grace and mans miserie the touchstone of truth the displayer of vanitie the Squire Rule and most exact ballance of all things the treasure of all vertue a Shop of remedies for all euils the sacred Anker in time of tempest a strong Armie against heretickes a safe retrait against all dangers a happie rest after all trauailes the sure and only stay in time of tryall the Pillar and foundation of our faith the most parte of which titles and the efficacie of them all is attributed by our aduersaries to their Traditions vvhich some of them dare euen preferre and oppose vnto the scripture Lind. lib. 2 panopl. c. 5 Witnesse he vvho calleth it the true Moly conseruing the Christian faith against the Enchauntments of Heretickes because Catholikes saith he vvould be soone poysoned vvith these Enchauntments he meaneth the Scriptures if they did not vse the Moly or antidote of Traditions Pigh de Eccl. Hic lib. 1. c. 4 Another hauing affirmed that the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall tradition hath more force and efficacie to assure our faith in euerie controuersie than the Scripture addeth further that if those of his side would remember that Heretickes ought not to be conuinced by the Scripture their matters vvould goe a great deale better vvith them but hauing endeuored to ouercome Luther by the Scripture for to make ostentation of their good vvitt and great knovvledge all is come to naught c. Truly it is an horrible combustion in Christendome to see the Scriptures vvhich make vs knovv Christ and become christians vsed so vnvvorthily No nation euer tooke this liberty vnto themselues to defame the bookes containing the lawes either of their beliefe or policie The bookes of the Sybills the lawes of the tvvelue Tables and other like vvritings vvere held sacred among the Romanes The Greeks and Pagans did beare all honour to the lawes of their Legislators and to their Rituall bookes as to this day the Ievves doe to their Thalmud and the Turkes to their Alcoran But among those that would be called Christians he that can cast most reproaches against the holy Scripture he that can obserue or imagine therin most imperfections vvill be esteemed more fine witted and more zealous in the faith then others yea there hath beene found one vvho of late hath dared by vvriting to maintaine publish that inuocation or calling on the name of Christ Iesus is no more commaunded in the Scripture then the calling on the Saints departed that thereby he might make the Innoâ—â—â—tion on the Author of life to depend as vvell on the Romish tradition as on the authority of the booke of life It being my chance of late to meet with the L. of Perroâ— Bishop of Eureux and to fall into some dispute vvith him concerning this matter he confesseth vnto me that the most parte of the articles in controuersie betvveene the Romish Church and ours haue no demonstratiue proofe in the Scripture As the Sacrifice of the Masse Inuocation on Saintes Prayer for the dead vvorshipping of Images Auricular confession vnction vvith the Crisme the necessitie of satisfactions the Popes Indulgences c. But he alleadged that from the time of the old Testament the Ievves did beleeue also manie things as necessarie to saluation vvhich notvvithstaÌ„ding in their times vvere not contained in the Scripture In vvhich point I found him not to agree vvith manie great Doctors of his side vvho confesse that the Scripture of the old Testament containeth all the God knevv to be expedient and sufficient for the saluation of the Israelites but that it is not so in the doctrine of the nevv testament vvhich say they should not be vvritteÌ„ on paper but preached by word of mouth engrauen in the hearts of the hearers so comitâ—â—ed vnto posteritie without writing alledging to this 〈◊〉 that which Ieremie saith cap. 31. S. Paul 2. Cor. 3. The saâ—â— L. of Perron dissenteth also from his other Doctors of vvhom some haue vvritten euen in the Councill of Trent touching some points which he maintained might be prooued by the scriâ—â—tures though they deny it namely transubstantiatioÌ„ the merâ—â—â— of workes the Popes supreamacie Purgatorie c. And being certaine that these articles haue no more ground in Scripture than the rest we may well say of them which beleeue theÌ„ that which TertulliaÌ„ said of some in his time they beleeue without the scriptures that they might beleeue against the scripture Nowe the conference hauing dured certaine daies and finding more illusion on his part than instruction I prayed him to continue it by writing that the obiections of the one and the solutions of the other appearing on paper euerie man might at leasure consider the knot of the one and the keene cutting of the other shewing him that more fruite would come forth of a permanent writing than from dazelling and vanishing words that the one remayned subiect to the touch and ballance and that in the other a subborned flatterer gaue and the ignorant hearer tooke oftentimes false Alarmes But I could neuer obtayne it at his handes who well considered that if hee should
god through faith saith saint Paul And saint Peter you are horne againe not of a corruptible seede but of an incorruptible by the word of god that our Lord saith he that shal beleeue and be baptized c. Saint Paul One faith one Baptisme saint Phillip to the Eunuch that asked him if he might be baptized If thou beleeue thou maist That the Sacraments are sensible signes to those to whome they are Sacraments that they are sacramentes to those to whome they are conferred that therefore they are to be sensible in the quality of signes otherwise they are not sacraments That Baptisme is not sensible to little children in this quality neither can afterward become so so that they must of necessity relie on the faith of others that they haue beene baptized and therefore it is not a sacrament vnto them That Iesus Christ did neuer baptize them neither himselfe nor his Apostles according to the recitall of Scriptures On the contrary that the scripture seemeth to haue excepted them expressing viros mulieres That if the Baptisme of little children be not true and lawfull besides that those that conferre it vnto them prophane the seale of the Couenant and pollute the blood of the Testament applying it to a matter vncapable they commit an other sacriledge in not reiterating it to them which afterwards are capable of it and to whome it is necessary if not by necessity of meanes at least after our aduersaries themselues by necessity of precept And therefore Seruet said that it were an impiety more then Turkish and diuelish And in a word if the Baptisme of little children be not true and lawfull our aduersaries Church who haue all in their infancy beene baptized hath no true Baptisme And therefore is not the true Church For saint Paul saith that Christ hath purified his Church by the washing of water in his word and themselues say that the true Church is that which hath the pure preaching of the word and the sincere administration of the sacraments And to conclude in a word this point either they or the Anabaptists are heretickes For it is an article of faith that there is one Baptisme one Faith as saith saint Paul and the symbole of the Church saith I beleeue one baptism for remission of sins Now if Baptisme of little children be not true Baptisme those which baptize them haue no Baptisme and therefore are heretickes violating this article of saith I beleeue one Baptisme And if it bee true Baptism the Anabaptists are hereticks who rebaptize them For they redouble Baptisme against that article of faith I beleeue one Baptisme It being then necessary that one of the two sides be hereticall and it not being possible by the scripture alone to verifie which of the two it is it followeth that all heresie cannot be confuted by the Scripture alone Out of which I frame this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer conteineth sufficientlie the principles of a science should also be able to prooue all the propositions pertaining to the said science and to confute all that repugn the same Now euery heresie repugneth the science of diuinitie and religion And the scripture alone cannot confute all heresies Therfore the scripture containeth not sufficiently all the principles of doctrine necessary to the science of diuinity and religion And therefore we must employ therein other principles conioyntly with the scriptures which cannot haue authority in this case if they bee not reuealed by the word of God It must therefore bee graunted that besides the word of god written ther is yet another part of the same word not written among which also saint Augustin against this heresie concerning the Baptisme of little children saith Cōsuetudo matris ecclesiae in baptisandis paruulis non est spernenda neque omnino recipienda nisi Apostolica esset Traditio D. Tillenus his answer Thus are easily confuted all the other reasons of the Anabaptists that he bringeth foorth after ours For they be but repetitions of the solutions he giueth to ours That Baptism is a seale of fath That it is called the washing of Regeneration That Regeneration is made by faith and by the incorruptible seed of Gods word That saint Phillip sayd to the Eunuch If thou beleeue thou maist be saued c. For it hath bin shewed that the children which enter into the kingdome of heauen are regenerate That this Regeneration is don otherwise in them that in such as be of years of knowledge That the sentences of Saint Peter and S. Phillip and other like are necessarily vnderstood of them that were capable of the hearing of the word as were all those with whom the Apostles had to do when they began to gather the Christian Church To apply to children that which is spoken only to such as be of years the consequence is as foolish as if a man should depriue children of corporall nourishment because the Scripture saith 〈◊〉 3.10 he that doth not worke should not eate which is necessarily meant of such as are of years to work How will his Syllogisme now stand which he frameth thus Whatsoeuer conteineth sufficiently the principles of a science should prooue all the propositions belonging to the sayd science and to confute all that repugne the same But euery heresie repugneth the science of Diuinity and the scripture alone can not confute all heresies Therefore it conteyneth not sufficiently all the principles necessary c. The assumption of this syllogisme is already aboue confuted by the testimonies euen of those very same from whom he pretendeth that the most part yea all the principles not conteyned in the Scripture must be taken I could heer adde a greate number of other proofes and testimonies but that J shunne prolixity I will therfore only oppose two other syllogisms I. In the diuine wisedom there is perfect knowledge of diuinity 〈◊〉 19.7.8 The holy holy scripture giueth this wisedom therfore it giueth the perfect knowledge of diuinity II. The principles of a science are not contrary one vnto another But the most part of the vnwritten principles of the Romish diuinity repugn and destroy those that are written in the ould and new Testament therefore they can not be true principles of true Diuinity The Bishop of Eureux The second heresy which cannot be refuted by the Scripture is that of the Rebaptizing of hereticks For there is no one place in the writings of the Prophets or Apostles that witnesseth that the Baptisme which is among hereticks is true Baptisme Contrariwise there are infinite places which seeme to repugne the same As the words of our Lord hee which shall beleeue and bee baptized c And that of sainte Paule one faith one Baptisme whereof is concluded that seeing there is no fayth among hereticks and that this vnity of fayth of which Saint Paule speaketh is not found among them there is no Baptisme So that they which haue beene Baptised by them are no more baptised then those on whose head by
chance some water is cast seeing they want the chiefe and principall condition which maketh a man be a matter and subiect capable of Baptisme namely Fayth That they that are Baptized as saith Saint Paule haue put on Christ That Christ cannot bee put on out of the Church which is called the fullnes of Christ that therfore Baptisme cannot be among hereticks That euery one of you sayth Saint Peter be Baptized for remission of sinnes And the Creed of Constantinople I beleeue one Baptisme for remission of sinnes Now among the haereticks there is no remission of sinnes For the Keyes were giuen to the Church and by consequent no Baptisme that when it was tolde Iohn Baptist that Christ Baptized he answered none can doe it vnles it be giuen him from heauen that no authority is giuen from heauen to the assemblies of hereticks and therefore that they cannot Baptize That Baptisme is done by the power of the holy Ghost that the holy Ghost is not resident out of the Church neither consequently Baptisme D. Tillenus his answer First I answere that the hearers of the Scripture learne that whosoeuer is Baptised in the name of the father of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost is well Baptised But the followers of the Romish tradition can neuer know whether they be well baptized or no For besides this instituti of Christ the Church of Rome requireth the intent of the Priest without which the Sacrament with theÌ„ is none Now there is no man that can be fully assured of another mans intent Secondly the scripture teacheth vs the difference betweene the outward sacrament the inward grace which is not inclosed within the other as a salue in a box as the Romish Tradition teacheth They that receiue the first receiue not alwaies the latter in what place soeuer it be as we see by the example of Iudas SymoÌ„ Magus For as saith S. Augustine 〈◊〉 5. de â—ont 〈◊〉 24 meÌ„ do put on Christ soÌ„times in participatioÌ„ of the sacrameÌ„t somtimes in sanctification of life the first is common to good and bad the other is peculiar onely to the good Neither hereticks nor orthodoxall can minister any thing but the outward sacrament the holy ghost onely giueth the internall grace that is fayth possessioÌ„ of Christ remissioÌ„ of sinnes All which is manifest in scripture But the Holy-ghost saith he is resident onely in the true Church and not among hereticks 2. J answere the scripture teacheth vs that the spirit blowes where it listeth if it were allwaies tyed to a visible church as the Pope to his seate of Rome â— 8 without distributing his graces elsewhere which is du Perrons meaning No infidell nor heretick borne out of the true church could euer enter thereinto by regeneration by which grace the holy ghost bringeth men thereunto 〈◊〉 17 Saint Paul persecuted the true Church so farre was hee from being a member of the same receiued notwithstanding the holy ghost out of the visible church Therfore it is not to speake properly the minister that giueth Baptisme but as the Scripture sayeth the heauenly father saueth vs by the washing of Regeneration through the renewing of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 5. 5 26 â— 1 16. Iesus Christ cleanseth sanctifieth his Church through the washing of water in his word And as the word of the Gospell when it is published according to the reuelation of God to saluation to all that beleeue though he that preacheth it do it of euill will without sincerity without zeale of enuy coÌ„tentioÌ„ as saith the Apostle that is though he haue no good intent So is it in the Sacrament which is a visible word so that the minister confer it according to the Lords institutioÌ„ his heresy or hypocrisy cannot hurt him that receiueth it For the question is not what is required in a pastour to approue his Ministery before God but what is requisit to the efficacy of the sacrameÌ„t according to the truth of god which the scripture teacheth vs caÌ„not be made voyde by the wickednes of men To which S Augustine agreeth saying that not only the good but also the wicked haue the ministery to Baptise but neither of theÌ„ both haue the power of baptism that Christ hath committed the ministery thereof to seruants but reserueth the power thereof to himselfe Thirdly J say that the scripture sheweth vs the correspondency of circumcision with Baptisme Ezech 1 23. Therfore as the circuÌ„cision giuen by the Apostataes of Samaria was availeable to the children that God acknowledged for his there being no need of reiterating it so as the Samaritans did reiterate that which had ben administred by the Iews as Epiphanius witnesseth So by like reason should not Baptism administred by a heretick be reiterate prouided that he keep the substaÌ„ce of the institution The Prophets indeed do exhort the Samaritanes to repeÌ„tance but neuer cal theÌ„ to a secoÌ„d circumcisioÌ„ though the first wer polluted by many abuses superstitioÌ„s The Bishop of Eureux Against these Arguments with greate apparaÌ„ce of scripture S. Augustine who 10 whole years haÌ„dled this question against the Donatists could not find any actuall and demonstratine proof in the scripture for the doctrine of the Church in this poynt and could oppose vnto them no other thing that would hold the place of an infallible proofe but the tradition authority of the Church Hoc saith he obseruandum est in rebus quod obseruat Ecclesia Dei Questio autem inter vos nos est vera sit Ecclesia Dei ergo à capite sumendum exordiuÌ„ cur schisma feceritis And in another place 〈◊〉 Proinde quamvis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat autoritas vt quando S. Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli metuit huius obscuritate quaestionis eandem ecclesiam de illa consulat quam sine vlla ambiguitate S. Scriptura demonstrat And in another place Bap. â—on Sed illa consuetudo quam etiam tunc hominem sursum versum respicientes non videbant â posterioribus restitutam recte ab Apostolis tradita creditur Et talia multa sunt quae longum esset repetere Now saint Augustine declareth that the opinion of the Donatists was hereticall and the whole Church with him holdeth the Donatists for hereticks and our aduersaries themselues As also it must needs bee that either the Catholikes or the Donatists be hereticks For if Baptisme administred by hereticks bee not true Baptisme the Catholickes which receiue them without Baptizing theÌ„ doe violate this article One Fayth one Baptisme Also I beleeue one Baptisme for remission of sinnes If on the contrary it be true Baptisme the Donatists in rebaptizing them and reiterating and multiplying
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
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
Moyses from Moyses to Dauid from Dauid to the captiuity of Babylon and from the captiuity of Babylon to Iesus Christ who was the light it selfe For this cause the time of the Iewish Church is called the time of Infancy ours on the contrary the fulnes of time If then the Scripture of the old Testament were a sufficient light to the Iewes though it was not so cleare as ours how much more ought we to content our selues with that light which we haue by the addition of the new Testament The B. of Eureux For as touching the booke of Iob to omitte that the most part of the Iewes and Mercerus with them and the principall Caluinists doe denie that the place that is there is to bee vnderstood of the Resurrection there is no assured testimonie that the booke of Iob was extant then when the Law of Moyses was giuen contrarywise most men thinke it was written since the Transmigration of Babylon which Ezechiell seemeth to confirme saying Noah Daniell Iob. As for Daniell and the other Prophets it is well enough knowne that they were more then seauen or eight hundred yeares since D. Tillenus his answer As for the booke of Iob in which the resurrection of the body and by consequent the immortality of the soule are found in expresse tearmes whatsoeuer Du Perron saith who wrongfully attributeth vnto vs the false exposition of some Anabaptists We learne indeed of the Iewes that Moyses hauing found this booke in the countrye of Madian where his father Law was brought into Egypt to propound it vnto the Iewes as an example of patience in their seruitude But when we say that this history hapned before Moyses wrote the Law wee are grounded on good consequence drawne from the scripture which teacheth vs that after the publishing of the law it was not lawfull to offer sacrifice else where than before the Arke or Tabernacle without speciall commaundement So that if Iob had liued after the law of Moyses neither woulde he haue transgressed the Law in offering sacrifice nor God haue approoued his sacrifice The age also that the scripture giueth to Iob maketh vs beleeue that he was before Moyses â— 10. who witnesseth that those of his time liued not so long Du Perrons coniecture who will haue him to haue liued before the captiuity of Babylon is friuolous he groundeth it on this that Ezechiell nameth together Daniell and Iob â— 14. whence it would follow also that Noah should haue liued in those times for the Prophet nameth him with the other The B. of Eureux And as for our sauiour Christes argument against the Saduces it prooueth indeede the immortality of the soule and not the other points But that argument till his time was vnknowne to the Iewes who for this cause did admire the infinitenesse of his wisedome And therefore it must needs follow that they had receiued the beleefe of it for to holde it for an article of faith by another meanes than by the reading of the bookes of Moyses to wit by Tradition from Abraham Isaack Iacob and other Fathers D. Tillenus his answer He sheweth heere that hee hath as little insight into the bookes of the Euangelists as in those of Moyses he saith that this argument prooueth indeed the immortality of the soule but not the other points that is to say the Resurrection of the body And notwithstanding Saint Matthew saith in expresse tearmes that our Lord cited that place of Moyses Math. 22 Exod. 3. â— for to prooue the Resurrection of the dead and that by this onely argument he stopped his enemies mouthes who chose rather to be silent than to continue to blaspheme Jf vntill then it had beene vnknowne to the Iewes as Du Perron saith Yet that sheweth not any vnsufficiency in the scripture rather indeede the ignoraunce of the Church till those times and the negligence of those that would not vouchsafe to trie and sound the depth of the scriptures Ioh. 5 3â— as our Lord Iesus Christ did therein exhort them I know not why he findeth so great obscuritie in this argument of our Sauior For so great a Philosopher as he shold haue better perceiued therein the light of that Philosophicall maxime which saith When the whole is propounded the parts of the same are also propounded Put then that God is the god of Abraham of Isaack and of Iacob as saith Moyses Exod. 3 â— Jt followeth therefore that hee is their god both in soule and Body which are the principall parts of euery man But seeing the Saduces could not find or would not searche the Resurrection of the dead in the bookes of Moyses wherefore then did they beleeue it as little by Tradition VVhy did not our Lord and Sauiour send them thereunto VVherefore did he draw so obscure an argument as Du Perron will haue it from the Scripture if there had bene any manifest reasons in Tradition â— 22.9.29 6.29 to â—d VVherefore doth he attribute the cause of their errour to their ignoraunce of the Scripture And truely Abraham referred the brethren of the wicked rich man to keepe them out of hell not onely to the Prophets but euen to Moyses also 15.1 â—s 12.3 where they might see how God had sayde to Abraham that he would be his buckler and his exceeding great reward that in his seede should all Nations be blessed Which doctrine conteyneth the foundation of the substance of the doctrine of saluation Now put case that the aboue named points could not be found so manifest in the bookes of Moyses yet could not that conclude any thing against the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures which we haue in the Christian church For as god reuealed his will to the first Patriarches by word of mouth for to instruct them in his knowledge before there was any Scripture so did he continue the same manner of reuelation in Moyses time speaking to him as familiarly as a man speaketh to his friend instructing him of all maters yet neuer giuing him this liberty to ordayne any thing concerning religion of his owne authority Also Moyses very religiously conteyned himselfe within the limits of obedience not onely in the least Ceremonies but also in the publicke administration or gouernement wherein notwithstanding it seems he might haue vsurped a little more power but we see he wold determine nothing against him that had brokeÌ„ the Sabbath but caused him to be put in prison till God had declared vnto him 15.34 with what manner of punishment the Transgressor should be punished Contrariwise the Romish Church presumeth to ordayne an infinite number of things as well in Religion as in Policy which they are not onely vnable to prooue by any Scripture but which also euen theyr pretended Apostolike Traditions cannot shew in defence whereof theyr mayntainers set foorth the aucthority of the Church which they say cannot erre Now although the Church of the Iewes had Oracles visions diuine dreams Vrim and Thummim
Eureux The Apostles also euer anon alledge Tradition be it by way of History or by way of Argument Saint Paul saith that Moses in the act of the solemnity of the couenant mingled water in the blood of the Testament wherewith he sprinckled the people which was a figure that we should be sprinkled with the bloud of Christ which is the bloud of our couenant Neuerthelesse this mixture of water with blood not set downe by Moses nor by any other author of the olld Testament D. Tillenus his answer Moyses made not expresse mention of some ceremonies which the Apostle reciteth 〈◊〉 19 21 but we learne them better by analogie and consequence of Scripture than by vnwritten Tradition It was commaunded to vse water in all sacrifices And if that was requisite in particular mens sacrifices how much more in the ratification of the publick couenant wherof Moises speaketh 〈◊〉 â—4 He nameth not likewise in expresse words the hee goats purple wooll and hysope but he saith that the children of Israell offered burnt offerings and then peace offerings or offerings of thanksgiuing Now the whole burnt offerings which were expiatory for sinne could not be but of goats Leuit 16 8â— as the scripture teacheth elsewhere So we see that god commandeth they should offer vnto him purple wooll Hysope was commaunded before they came out of Egypt Leuit â— Numb and after was ordayned to serue alwayes for an Jnstrument to the sprinklings whereunto Dauid alludeth Psal 5 when he prayeth that god would purge him with hysope that he might be clean Now seeing god would that these things should be ordinary vnder the Law it appeareth by Analogy that he had caused them to be as an example of the other that should com after The B. of Eureux He sprinckled also the booke of the Couenant with the same blood saith saint Paul which was a figure that the booke of the Law should take his force from the bloud Iesus Christ And yet neuerthelesse of this sprinckling of the booke there is not any mention made in the olld Testament D. Tillenus his answer Touching the sprinckling of the book Exod. 2â— we gather by that which is sayd in the same place that Moyses hauing sprinkled the Altar tooke the book which as appeareth was vpon the Altar with which it was in like manner sprinckled The B. of Eureux He saith that the golden pot of Manna and the rod of Aaron were put into the Arke which we know was the place of adoratioÌ„ And notwithstanding not one book of the olld testament maketh any mention of it D. Tillenus his answer As for the pot of Manna Moyses saith Exod. 1 Numbâ— 1. King â— 2 Chroâ— that it was put before the face of the Lord that is before the Arke and not with in it the same is said of Aarons rod. And elsewhere the scripture saith in expresse vvords that there vvas nothing in the Ark 〈◊〉 4. but the two tables of stone That which is sayd in the Epistle to the Hebrewes is not against it For the relatiue En hi is not to be referred to the word Kibotou Arke though it be neerest to it but to the word Scéné Tabernacle And of such like constructions there are found many other examples in Scripture otherwise there should be a manifest contradiction which is that du Perron would fain find if he could in the Scripture The B. of Eureux Saint Iude declareth the Angells combate with the Deuill about the buriall of Moses as a thing euidentlye knowne among the Iewes and thereof frameth an argument against those that blasphemed dignities reciting the very words of the Angell Now this was a tradition which could not haue taken his originall of any humane doctrine but from the pure reuelation and word of God D. Tillenus his answer The knowledge of the combat of the Angell with the diuell about the body of the Moyses is not so come by Tradition but that we learne some thing of it euen from the Scripture 〈◊〉 3 2 for there is no doubt but that saint Iude aymed at the place of Zacharie where we read the same words The Lord rebuke thee ô Satan The Prophet calleth him the Angell of the Lord whom the Apostle calleth Michael the Archangell both of them doo meane the Prince of angells that is to say Jesus Christ who hath combatted and ouercome Sathan and wonne the body of Moyses that is hath accomplished the mystery of our redemption figured by the shadowes of Moyses 〈◊〉 â—2 17 whereof Christ is the true body as the Scriptur saith And in that he durst not denounce the sentence of curse it derogateth nothing from his deity and Maiesty For we must consider him in this place as Mediatour in which quality he is subiect and obedient to his Father not exercising his Allmightines If the L. of Perron wil not admit this exposition let him know then that the reason the apostle draweth from this vnwritten history is found very well grounded on the Scripture Exod 22. â— which in expresse words forbiddeth to curse or speake euill of Princes But the Church of Rome doth profit very ill by this Tradition of saint Iude For first it exposeth and prostituteth all the bodies and reliques of Saints departed and suborneth false ones too in their roome to cause the people to commit Jdolatry in steade of resisting the diuell when he bringeth foorth such inuentions as the Archangell did who according to the common exposition of this place fought with him when he woulde haue discouered the sepulcher of Moyses which God had of purpose hid that he might take away from his people all occasion of idolatry and secondly Deut 3 4â— it taketh liberty to it selfe to blaspheme and tread vnder feete the greatest dignities of the earth as the Popes haue impiously and arrogantly shewed it euen to Kings and Emperors The B. of Eureux In like manner he maketh mention of the prophesie of Enoch touching the last comming of god in the day of iudgement And this was a word of god which was profitable yea necessary to bee beleeued of all those to whom the notification thereof should com and notwithstanding that Enoch had euer written any thing it is no way manifest by the scripture D. Tillenus his answer The prophecy of Enoch which the same Apostle alledgeth touching the last iudgement is not onely not repugned by the scripture but is also therein more clearly expressed than the prophane contemners of God would haue it We receiue most willingly all Traditions which haue like conformity and approbation in scripture as this prophecy We confesse that all particular deeds and sayings are not conteyned therin For Singularium nulla est scientia but the reason grouÌ„d of all these things are found therein and the sentence of saint Iohn remayneth true though all that our Lord hath doon be not written yet that which is written Iohn 20â—30
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
scripture which is called the gate saith he because it leades vs to god it maketh sheep it hunteth away wolues suffereth vs not to go astray Also they of our side hold not the abouesaid points for articles of faith no otherwise but because they do find them in that gate which alone hath serued thē for a buckler sword against the Anabaptists which notwithstāding du Perron maketh dāgerous as if it wer som rock or quicksād against which shipwrack of faith wer to be feared In like maner in the verball conference he told me roundly that S. Cyprian fel into he resy by no other occasiō than for hauing folowd the scripture which made him go astray quite contrary to that which S. Chrysostom saith who calleth it also in another place Homil◠1◠Epist ad Corinth a most certain ballāce squire rule exhorting eury mā to leue what this mā or that mā thinketh to search al things in the scripture To which agreeth also S. Augustin when he saith Aug. Lib cap. 9 de Christ amōg the things which are Opēly declared in the scriptures ar foūd AL those that contein faith maners to wit hope charity By the testimonies of these fathers by infinit others which for breuity sake I omit it is euident that either they esteemed these points in question to be conteined in the Scripture yea openly or els that they thought them not necessary to faith charity But they did hold them necessary aswell as we Therfore they did beleeue thee thē to be cōprehended in the scripture aswell as we The B. of Eureux First touching the Baptism of litle children that it is true lawful they haue but three arguments that they can with any apparance alledge to this effect The first is taken frō litle children that were brought to Iesus Christ that he might pray and lay his hands on them 〈◊〉 19.13 But sith he did not baptise them and also that they were not brought to him to that end but onelye he layde his hands on them and then departed So farre are the Anabaptists from acknowledging that from thence may be concluded that children are to be baptized that on the contrary they infer therfrom that seeing he did baptize them they ought not to bee baptized D. Tillenus his answer He might be like reason conclude from the same place that seeing Iesus Christ did not accept the title of Good he must not be called Good The Scripture saith that Iesus commaunded 〈◊〉 19 17. little children should be brought vnto him affirming that to such belongeth the kingdome of heauen The same scripture saith 〈◊〉 3.3 that none entreth into this kingdome vnles he be regenerate or born againe It saith also that Baptisme is the washing of this regeneration And that those that are baptised 〈◊〉 3 5 〈◊〉 ◠27 do put on Christ Whence we conclude that seing they are not depriued of the thing signified they ought not be depriued of the signe The B. of Eureux Their second argument is of circumcision which was giuen to little children and was a figure of Baptisme To which is answered first that arguments drawen from figures do not alwaies conclude alike for the trueth of the things figured if there bee not a commaundement thereof reiterated The Paschall Lambe was a figure of the Eucharist as Circumcision of Baptisme Now in the celebration of the Paschall lamb there was no sacramentall drinke therefore there shoulde bee no neede of any in the Eucharist they woulde not admitte of this argument Circumcision was giuen on the eight day the same therefore must be obserued in Baptisme The reason holdeth not Circumcision was not giuen to weomen among the Iewes but onelye among the Egyptians and other prophane people imitators of Circumcision baptism therefore ought not to be conferred vnto them which is as reasonlesse as the former D. Tillenus his answer The Scripture teacheth vs how we must reason of Circumcision in Baptisme when saint Paule speaketh in the same tearms both of the one and the other Sacrament Colos 2◠appropriating the vey name of Circumcision to Baptisme the better to shew that bothe of them figured but one and the same thing and that Baptisme is to Christians the same that Circumcision was to the Iews The Paschall Lamb was properly a figure of Iesus christ so the Scripture meaneth it when it saith Our Passeouer 1 Cor. ◠that is our Paschall Lamb is Christ sacrificed for vs. In this scripture Jesus Christ commaundeth vs to vse a sacramentall drink in the Eucharist which the pretended Apostolick Tradition forbiddeth to shew what goodly agreement ther is betwixt the Word of God written and theirs not written As in like sort the Scripture teacheth vs that we are no more bound to the obseruation of days and that the Gospell giueth vs liberty in all these things The B. of Eureux may remember that in the verball conference he denied vnto me that it was commanded in Scripture not to minister Circumcision but on the eight day which here he confesseth He alledged in fauour of the Iewish Traditions that Iesus Christ himselfe did approoue them finding good that the Iewes should administer Circumcision on the Sabbath day which by the scripture they might not do which commandeth that no work should be doon in the same so that it must needs be that this exception or dispensation was giuen them by Tradition To which I answered seeing the commandement was expresse in scripture to circumcise euery male child the eight day which might as well fall on the Sabbath day as on any other they were therefore grounded on the scripture Considering also that God in the commaundement forbade onely our works not his amongst which is the administration of the Sacraments He replied vnto me that these words octauo die the eight day did not precisely signifie the eight day but within the eight day and would neuer let go this glose though I alledged vnto him the expresse text wher the reason why circumcision was deferred till the eight day 2 is added for that the mother is vnclean the first 7. dayes after hir childbirth The consequence that he draweth that women should not be baptized if the correspondency of circumcision and Baptism were such as we wold haue it is a meer cauill For seeing that Circumcision did shew forth the sanctification of the Jsraelits seed the females that were borne of this seed were as well sanctified as the males who alone were capable of the external sign of this Sacramēt al the analogy of faith the necessary consequence of Scripture teacheth vs that we must admit women to the communion of the Eucharist so doth it teach vs also that they must be baptized seing they are as capable of this Sacrament as the males The B. of Eureux Secondly cirtumcision had two vses the one temporal which did properly cleaue to the bark of the
Baptisme do sinne against the same article Whence I thus conclude The doctrine of the Donatists which was hereticall could not be confuted by the scripture alone and without the helpe of the Apostolicke tradition for to confute all heresies And by consequent it conteyneth not alone sufficiently all the principles of doctrine necessarye to diuinity and Christian Religion D Tillenus his answere Let vs see if Sainte Augustine in those tenne yeares that he handled his question against the Donatists could not finde any actuall proof in the scripture vpon this poynte as Du Perron saith lib. 1. â— coÌ„t 7. I thinke he promiseth very certayn proofes when he saith Ne videar humanis argumentis agere ex Euangelio profero certa documenta c Least I should seem to discourse with humaine reasons Lib. 2. de bap cont Don. c. 1 J will alleadge sure proofes out of the Gospell c. And in an other place Quid sit perniciosius vtrum non Baptizari an rebaptizari iudicare difficile est verumtamen recurrens ad illam stateram Dominicam vbi non ex humano sensu sed ex authoritate diuina rerum momenta pensantur inveniode vtraque re Domini sententiam Qui lotus est non habet necessitatem iterum lauandi c Jt is an hard thing to iudge whether is more dangerous not to be Baptised or to be baptized againe yet hauing recourse vnto that ballance of the Lord where not of humain sence but of diuine authority the vallews of things are weighed I finde of both matters the lords sentence He that is washed hath no neede to bee washed agayne c. And in another place hauing said that this custome came of the Tradition of the Apostles not meaning that it wanteth his proofes in Scripture he addeth Lic 5 de cont Don c. 2 Contra mandatum dei esse quod venientes ab hereticis si iam illi Baptismum christi acceperunt baptizantur quia scripturarum sanctarum testimoniis non solum ostenditur sed PLANE ostenditur That it is against the coÌ„mandement of God that such as come froÌ„ hereticks shold be baptised if they haue already receued ther the Baptism of Christ becaus by the testimonies of holy Scriptures it is not only shewed but plainly shewed These places others of this father do shew the audaciousnes of du Perron in his affirmations and his sincerity in his allegations As for the places he bringeth out of the same father to proue that he acknowledged the imperfectioÌ„ of the scriptu e coÌ„cerning this poynt he confouÌ„deth the question of act exaÌ„ple or practise with the questioÌ„ of law or ordinaÌ„ce S Augustine saith in this matter there caÌ„ be none exaÌ„ples of scripture alledged that is it caÌ„not be fouÌ„d there that it was so practised therfore he referrd the custoÌ„ or practis hereof to apostolike traditioÌ„ but that it ought so to be practised he affirmeth that not only the scripture sheweth it but that it sheweth it manyfestly Whence I conclude against the Bishops conclusioÌ„ on this second poynt The doctrine that euidently sheweth what is to be done in all matters coÌ„cerning fayth which confuteth the heresies that repugne the same is perfect but the scripture conteyneth this doctrine Therfore it is perfect The assumption is proued not only by the scripture but also by the testimonies of the fathers by whome he pretendeth to proue the doctrine of the church of Rome I wold earnestly desire of him cleare direct answere to that place of Augustine aboue alleadged out of his secoÌ„d book 9 chapter de doctrina Christiana for in the verball conference he woulde giue no answer theruÌ„to but on condition that I would protest to forsake the scripture and not to reason any more but by the authority of the fathers The bishop of Eureux The third heresy which we haue propounded among those that cannot by the scripture alone bee confuted is that of the Greekes touching the proceeding of the holy ghost which our aduersaries hold as well as we to proceed from the father and from the sonne a thing notwithstanding which the scripture doth no where expresse On the contrary it seemeth to restrayne the originall of the same proceeding from the father alone saying â—5 26 16. The spirit of truth which proceedeth from the father For when this sentence of Christ is obiected to the Greekes He shall take of mine They answerr that this worde of mine hath relation not to the Essence nor to the person but to the doctrine so that the intention of Christ in saying he shall take of mine that is of the same treasure of doctrine and wisdome of which the sonne hath taken And they alleadg for proofe of their exposition that which followeth in the Text which sayth And he shal declare it vnto you replying that the word declare hath relation not to the essence nor to the person but to the doctrine In like sort when these places are alleadged vnto them if any one haue not haue not the spirit of Christ 8.15 â— 5.6 he is none of his And agayne the spirit of Christ crying Abba Father they answer that concludeth not that the spirit proceedeth from Christ and that he is called the spirit of Christ not by proceeding but by possessioÌ„ for asmuch as Christ according to his humanity hath receiued the guift the ful whol possession of the same spirit according to the words of Esay The Spirit of the Lord is vpoÌ„ me becaus the Lord hath anoynted me And S. Peeter saith The lord hath anoynted him with the holy ghost and with power And that in this maner it is said that Elizeus receiued the spirit of Elias Not that the holy Ghost did proceed from Helias but because in a certayne measure he was possessed of Heliah When that is obiected vnto them which Christ saith vnto his Father That which is thine is myne They answer that may be expounded of the possession and outward domination ouer the creatures ouer whom the Father hath giuen all power to the sonne in heaven and in earth neither can the seÌ„ce of the words in that place be restrayned to the Essence no more then when the father of the prodigall Childe saitb to his eldest sonne the same words Omnia mea tua sunt But besides this though it should be vnderstood of the essence yet the argument concludeth nothing For if becaus the essence of the father is one the same it shoold therfore follow that the holy ghost proceedeth as well from the one as froÌ„ the other you must in like sorte conclude The essence of the father and the holy ghost is one and the same the sonn is therfore begotten of the holy ghost as well as of the Father And when it is added to those other arguments He will send the comforter They answer that he expoundeth himselfe shewing his meaning by this word Send namely that he will pray his
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
all the cuttings and pieces that came of this precious stone in hewing the tables and that Moses therewith made himselfe wonderfull rich c. This fabulous Tradition how vnworthie soeuer it be of the Maiestie of God of the grauitie of the Scripture of the ministerie of Moses of the beleefe of the Church yet is it nothing neere so detestable as that wicked exercise of those which ayme at and busie themselues now a daies in nothing but in clipping and scraping out the sufficiencie and perfection of the scripture by the same meanes taking away their owne saluation in the bloud of Iesus Christ since that by it wee are redeemed from our vaine conuersation â—at 1. â—8 receiued by Tradition from our Fathers Amongst other workmen which in these times employ themselues in this mysterie or ministery of iniquitie the Lord of Perron Bishop of Eureux wil make known vnto vs that before him none had sufficieÌ„tly manured tilled the ground of this TraditioÌ„ which conuerted Moses from a Prophet into a Lapidarie from a Lawgiuer into a Goldsmith and that like as this Minister of God enriched himselfe in hewing the Tables of the Lawe So the ministers of the Popes Gospell according to the true Anagogicall meaning of this Iewish Tradition cannot better inrich themselues and of Christians become Croesians or Crassians than in conuerting Diuinitie into such a Technologie in cutting of and clipping the Gospell of Iesus Christ â—ue 21 â—â—uel 17.3 c. That the more they take away from the luster of the precious stones wherewith the heauenly Ierusalem is builded the more splendour they giue to the countefeite stones of that woman cloathed in purple and scarlet which ruleth ouer the great Babylon For to couer the cunning that they vse they make no difficulty to doe some honour in shewe to the scripture euen to guild and adore outwardly the bookes which contain it euen theÌ„ when the mine it clip and pare it inwardly Like as at one time Iesus Christ was kissed and betrayed cloathed in purple as a king and buffeted as a foole crucified as a malefactor Or like as yet to this day the Iewes honour the scripture in shew and by gestures forbidding to sit in a place of equall height to that whereon the Bible is laid though in effect they set it infinitely vnder their Thalmud of which they dare with an execrable impudencie say That God himselfe studieth therein the three first houres of the day Lyr. in Luke cap 4. Lib. Benedict c. 1. 3. Vide Hieron a Sancta fide cont Iud. l. 1. in Biblioth S. Patrum tom 4. Also that hee which shall speake any thing of it sinisterly or in euill part shall bee damned in hell whereas hee that transgresseth the Law of God shall receiue none other punishment but to bee called a transgressour of the Lawe Now that none hath so deepely sounded the mysticall meaning of the Iewish Tradition aboue recited as the Bishop of Eureux hath done it is manifest because that not any of the new Besaleels which of later times haue laboured to plaister and to painte the Popes Tabernacle neyther Hosius nor Peresius nor Soto nor Lindanus nor Canus nor Canisius nor yet that Arch-Rabby Bellarmine not any I say had as yet so mightily clipped this spirituall coyne as Gerson calleth the Scripture nor obserued so much drosse nor so many defects in the pure Alley of the lawe of God written by Moses as the Lord of Perron doth who hauing learned this secret of Seruetus and some Anabaptists that the honour of this inuention be not taken from the true authors of it clippeth cutteth of from it not some smal things but the immortalitie of the soule the resurrection of the bodie the last iudgement Paradise and hell c. that he might discredit in like sort thereby and by Analogie â—ohn 15.15 the doctrine of the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ who though he protesteth in expresse tearmes to haue declared to his Apostles All things that he had heard of his father Yet notwithstanding this Bishop feareth not to say â—ol 15.8 That the things alone which he hath eyther done or declared with his owne mouth to his disciples are not sufficient to the institution of the Church VVhich is not to make the little mouth but liuely to couÌ„terfait that mouth â—euel 13.5.6 which as Saint Iohn saith vttereth great things Neyther is it to be a dumbe dogge but to barke boldly not against the Moone but euen against the Sunne of righteousnesse A certaine Sophister at Athens writing of the gods â—â—og Laert. â—ot g. declared in the beginning of his booke the doubtes that he had of their essence and the difficulties that he found in this matter of which the Athenians had such horrour that they burnt the booke and banished the Author The like irresolution and perplexitie witnessed a Heathen Philosopher to Saint Augustine â—â—gust Epi. 21. who had enquired of him what opinion he had of Iesus Christ But our Bishop who without difficultie doubt or scruple whatsoeuer peremptorily concludeth That wee are no more to hold Christ for the perfect and sufficient doctor of the Apostles than the Scripture for perfect and sufficient doctrine of all the faithful triumpheth amongst Christians yet against Christians and the Christian faith and findeth no matter fitter for his glorie nor more richer for his purse than such reproaches of the Scripture such blasphemies against Christ Cumanus gouernour of Iudea a heathen and a wicked man caused a souldier to be bee beheaded for tearing a copie of the Booke of the lawe of Moses which he had found at the sacke of a towne The Bishop of Eureux Ioseph Antiq lib. 20. c. which teareth and destroyeth not some copy only but the very original it selfe of this law from which he plucketh away as much as in him lieth the leaues which containe the principles and grounds of our saluation leauing therein nothing whole nothing perfect nothing wholesome nor so much as profitable without his subsidiarie as hee tearmeth it or helping tradition expecteth a Cardinals hat is heaped with spirituall honours and temporall goods so that one may say of him as Apuleius bearing the Idoll on the one side and many bribes on the other said of himselfe that he went as a Temple and a Barne both together But if a Sinon with his treason a Simon with his magicke Horreum â—imuâ— templum iâ—câ—die doe a hundred times more mischiefe the one within Troy the other within the Citie of God than ten thousand enemies than all the infidels could doe together without by open force shall we yet doubt that they which vnder sheepes cloathing yea with a shepheards hooke Ephes 2.20 and Bishopps Crosier staffe vndermining the foundations of the Church Aduer â—tul lib. 3. builded vpon the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles are not more pernicious and daungerous vnto Christendome than
euer was a Celsus Lact. lib. 5. c. 3. a Lucian a Iulian a Porphyrius which Saint Cyrill calleth the Father of Calumnie and others which openly opposed Plato to Moses Aristotle to S. Paul Apollonius Tyanaeus to Christ at least wise if as the camell he can drinke none but muddie water because the cleare maketh him haue gripes in his bellie De mirabil Scrip. libri 3 apud August tom 3. Annales Tem pli secundi if the B. of Eureux cannot relish the pure and sincere word of God because it sendeth Ecebolian vapours into his head I wish him to content himselfe to trouble it for himselfe onely without spreading abroad this mudde of his Traditions on the brinke of the fountaine which watereth the sheep of our Lord without driuing them from it by this his impious cry proclamation of the Insufficiencie of the Scripture when contrariwise the Ancient fathers made Collections and descriptions of the wonders of the scripture he maketh collections and descriptions of the defects and imperfections of the same making it seeme fauorable to the most monstrous Hereticks euen to the Saduces whose doctrine wholy ouerthroweth and abolisheth all Religion And that they haue heard of the secret Academie which was instituted some few yeares agoe in a certain place of Normandie in imitation of that which Sadoc and Baithos erected in the mountain Garizim where was planted the first stocke of that damnable doctrine of the Saduces which since is so welspread and increased they that know the contents of the new Alcoran that was there expounded to their auditors which were already there to the number of fortie wil easily iudge by the Emblemes scattered throughout this booke of the insufficiencie of the Scripture what Mahomet was the author of the other knowing the Lyon by his long nailes Now as it was not without terrour and daunger of the new Musilmans when Feuardent Doctor of Sorbone preaching then in the said place dissolued that Synagogue being a true colony of the Synagogue of the Saduces and Libertines so could I not publish the treatise of the insufficiency of the scripture without doing displeasure to the author who chafeth that I found meanes to get or as he saith to filch a copy of it for he nowaies desired that his mysteries should be discouered in publicke and exposed to the common view of all his intention being not to shew it but in secret to his yong beginners hauing first stipulated or conditionally required of them a religious silence as in times past the Priests and Maisters of the Isiac Mithriac Cleusinian and Orgian ceremonies vsed in the exhibition of their Phalles and Ithyphalles Tertul. adâ— valentin Clem. Alex in Protrep Arnob. Euseb Thâ— alii Plat. in Ser wherefore seeing the Proper name of his booke to bee hideous and feareful he giueth it another name lesse monstrous in imitation of that Pope who hauing to name Swines-snout was the first deuised to change that filthie name on the other side he letteth loose out of his mouth all the windes of his slaunder to see if he can ouerwhelme swallow me vp into the chaos of his iniurious speeches â—â—ing nips â—iting â—â—u by force of exclaming against me deceiuer Sycophant Parasite beast druÌ„kard seÌ„celes falsifyer impudent blinde desperate c. to omitt here his mockeries and Saâ—casmes which he applyeth vnto me as leuitiues after he had so stoned and rent me â—his treatise 10. As for the fir t vnles he race out the blasphemies out of his booke it is to no purpose to scrape out the title from the forefront seting vp a new bush to his Tauerne for they which read this conclusion in his discourse the Scripture therefore containeth not sufficiently all the Princ ples of doctrine necessary to Diuinitie if they let their eyes be still dazelled by his prestigious delusions if they can not beleeue of him that he accuseth the Scripture of vnsufficiency â—ril Hieron â—â—roch 6. one may well beleeue of them that they are like to Idols which haue eyes and see not As for the other I verily beleeue that the Christian reader will rather hast to passe ouer his inuectiues stopping his nose than stay to sente such filthines Now the qâ—estion is not on whether side is the subtiltie but the truth not where the Eloquence but the edification not the science but the conscience He is not enuied the quality he attributeth to himselfe to be the greatest disputer of the world whether herein he would imitate Manes who taking this name of purpose for to tearme himselfe such in the Persian tongue made himselfe a mad man in the Greek or whether he imitate that Doctour of Paris of whome Lodouic viues speaketh who made himselfe be called the Horrible Sophister De caus câ— art lib. 3. esteeming this title no lesse honorable than the surname of Affricanus or Asiaticus Neither can he hinder whosoeuer seeth a firebrand in the Cittie the Gaules on the Capitoll Sacriledge in the Temple from crying against him were he a childe yea a goose Herodo l. 1 And if in times past a childe dumb by nature seeing a soldier come for to murder his father found suddainly his tongue vnloosed for to crie out and vtter wordes which stayed the murtherer from passing further If the same happened to a wrastler Aul. Gel. l 5 c 9 when one would haue deceiued him why should we not hope that he that will haue the mouth of little ones to sound forth his praise giueth sometimes to the dumb the facultie of speach to children strengh to crie to the ignoraÌ„t efficacie to perswade Psalm 8.2 Math 21.17 at least one that is not altogether out of his witts that he cease to deceaue and to murther the soules that Iesus Christ hath redeemed from discrediting or calling in the coyne wherewith he payed our ransome and from clipping the letters which teach vs the value of it And sith that cannot be done without manifestly accusing iniuring the heauenly Father who hauing caused this money to be made and stamped with these letters as true Soueraigne ordeyneth it for all subiects and giueth it to his Children If this caller in or descrediter of it wil be thought to be of the number of these let him reuerence the almightie and the Christian people at least so farre forth as did that wicked sonne who accusing his father before Tiberius â—â—cit an â—â—l l. 4. was so terrified at the noyse of people which detested that fact that he gaue ouer his accusation and fled Now my purpose in this writing is to treat of and to examine all the points instances from whence he forgeth this calumnious accusation of the scripture without refuting more amply his falshoodes which hee mingleth in the recitall of our verball conference considering how little reason he hath to beleeue he hath well done in disguising so the matters â—â—stic l. 1. for on the one
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
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
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
in the beginning so that there was nothing made nor created before For if any creature had beene before this point then it is that that should haue beene made in the beginning by this meanes the creation of Angels is drawne out of Moses by a necessarie and ineuitable consequence And thus doth Thomas Aquinas vnderstand it That which the same Father saith in the same booke P. 1. q. 6â— art 1. â—â— ninth Chapter vpon which the Bishoppe of Eureux groundeth his replie doth not contradict it Hee saith their creation and their order is not euidently described in the constitution or creation of the world Let our Gnosticke learne that a consequence may bee euident though the Text bee not euident And the euidence of this consequence vpon this point is shewed as well in the place aboue said 〈◊〉 ciuit Dei 〈◊〉 1. C 9 as in the place of the 9 Chapter which our Sophister malitiously geldeth suppressing these words Now they were not omitted to wit Angels I Iudge it by this for that it is written that God rested the seuenth day from all his woorkes that hee had made seeing the booke it selfe heginneth thus In the beginning God created Heauen and Earth so that it is manifest that before the Heauen and the Earth there was not any other thing created And a little after Seeing all thinges were disposed by the creation which are said to haue beene finished in six daies how could the Angells haue beene omitted as if they were not of the workes of God from which he rested the seuenth day These consequences seeme necessarie and euident to Saint Augustine though the literall text of Moses seemed vnto him not euident Hee repeateth the verie same also in another place And euer his ground is It is written saith hee tradition teacheth so The last Doctour of the Rome Church which is Saint Gregorie â—ob li 33 â—4 speaking of the creation of Angels chooseth rather to drawe it from the consequence of some place of Scripture than from the pretended Tradition True it is that the Bishoppe of Eureux would haue mocked at it in good earnest if it were other than a Pope that had drawne it from that text But it sufficeth vs to obserue heere by the way 〈◊〉 33. the effect of subsidiarie Tradition without the weapons whereof our Bishoppe holdeth that the Text of the Scripture is laid open and naked to the malitious interpretation of particular Spirits for these publick and vniuersall Spirits though couered from top to toe with the armour of Tradition behaue themselues sometimes farre worse than simple particular men who finde themselues better armed with foure or fiue little stones taken out of the Scripture than with all the sumptuous armour of Saule that cumbred Dauid so 1. Sam. 17. that he could not goe much lesse fight Now to these foure principall Doctours of the Church I could adde many others which in this point of the Creation of Angels deriue nothing from Tradition but content themselues with the consequences drawne from the Scripture But I will content my selfe with one place of Epiphanius Haeres 65. cont P. Samos because hee is commonly alledged as a great defender of Tradition If the Angels saith hee had not beene created with the Heauen and the Earth the word had not said to Iob VVhen the Starres were made all my Angels praised mee with their voice Then hee bringeth in one asking this question Thou hast shewed that Angels were before the Starres hast said that they were made with the Heauen the earth tell vs whence hast thou made the demonstration of it were they made altogether before Heauen and Earth For the Scripture declareth no where clearely the time of the Creation of Angels In gr contextu corruâ—te legitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thou hast shewed that they were before the Starres for if they had not beene how could they haue praised GOD for the creation of the Starres Thereupon he answereth VVee cannot say by our owne discourse the solution of euery question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But by CONSEQVENCE OF THE SCRIPTVRES For the word of God note that he maketh no distinction betwene the word of God the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but take the one for the other sheweth clearely that the Angels were not made after the Starres nor before the Heauen and the earth that which is said beeing a thing manifestly vnchangeable that before the Heauen and the earth there was nothing created For in the beginning God created Heauen and Earth so that there was the beginning of the Creation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there was nothing created afore then By this is manifest on which side is greatest surety and more certainty of the trueth in this point whether in following Tradition with Saint Ambrose Hierome and many Greekes who vnawares let themselues slide into the opinion of Aristotle in steade of the Apostolick Tradition Or in relying on the Scripture by the necessarie euident consequences drawne from it with Saint Augustine Epiphanius and some others Genebrarde notwithstanding the authoritie of the Scripture â—hro Aetat the exposition of these Doctours and the determination of the Church of Rome had rather follow the Greekes and others which hold that Angels are not of the number of the workes of the six daies yet he is not so desperate as Du Perron who denyeth that their creation can be shewed in Moses For hee affirmeth that Moses sheweth plaine enough that they were created of God when he calleth them Angels of the Lord when hee maketh them his ministers and seruants c. And it is by this onely consequence of Scripture Cyril ado â—ul that Saint Cyrill Alex. confuted the impudencie of Iulian the Apostata of whom our Bishoppe hath taken this instance And thus much be spoken concerning their Creation Now for their distinction The Bishop of Eureux saith that the Iewes knewe it by Tradition either absolute or subsidiarie as he calleth it Fol. 70 And Ignatius attributeth to himselfe the knowledge of the Orders of Angels Epist ad Tra. the differences of Archangels vertues Dominions Thrones Powers the Magnificences of principalities the excellencies of the Cherubins and Seraphins the sublimitie of the spirit the raigne of the Lord and the vncomparable Diuinitie of God the father almightie But S. Augustine confesseth here freely his ignoraÌ„ce Euch. ad Lau. c. 85. mocking at those that presume to knowe it without beeing able to proue it And in the Chapter following he sath that there is no need to affirme or deny the things with danger since they may be denied without crime Whence may bee concluded either that the Christian Church hath not beene so faithfull a keeper of the Tradition of the Apostles Fol 106. as Du Perron saith the Synagogue was of the tradition of the Patriarches Prophets which let not
so much as one word of Moses fall to ground Or that the knowledge of these distinctions and differences was not a thing so necessarie as the Bishoppe of Eureux would haue it If account is to bee made of this Epistle of Ignatius which wee holde supposed how commeth it to passe that so many high mysteries are so soone fallen to the ground and buried in the graue of forgetfulnesse as appeareth by the diuersity of opinions that the Greek and Latine Doctours haue vpon this question so that some of them deny flatly that the knowledge thereof can be attained to as being a thing exceeding both speech and vnderstanding Isid Pelus l. 2. ep 99. And what new reuelation hath beene shewed to Thomas Aquinas for to make these sharings and diuisions among the Angels when he disposeth angels for to gouerne particular men Archangels for the Prouinces Principalities for whole mankinde the Vertues for the celestiall bodies the Powers for to commaund wicked Spirits the Dominations for to haue care of the good Spirits Is it because he is called the Angelicall Doctour that hee was endowed with this Angelicall knowledge But why was the vniuersall Church depriued of it in the time of Saint Augustine and of so many other good Fathers What new Paracletus or comforter had reserued the manifestation of these secrets to the Schoolmen Now let vs see a little our Bishopps angelicall Logicke Saint Paul speaking of Angells nameth Principalities Powers Vertues Dominations Thrones therfore he setteth downe these distinctions by the orders degrees as did the Doctors of the Romish Church which doctrine the Iewes knew not before but by the tradition of the Sinagogue Eph 2.11.12 Col. 1.21 Againe S. Paul writing to the Ephesians Colossians who a little before had beene Heathen strangers from the coÌ„mon wealth of Israell and from the promises of the Testament being without Hope and without God in the world maketh mention of these names Therefore it was a doctrine vvhich was manifestly knowne vnto them and by consequent they knew it either by an absolute or subsidiarie Tradition Is it not happily from one of these twoe Traditions that Plato and Aristotle held also their Doctrine of the Genii and Intelligences â—ol 6 5. Gen. 2.1 He mocketh that I gather the creation of Angells from the place of Moses where he saith That the heauens and the earth were finished and all their hoste For that this hoste saith he signifieth nothing else in Moses but the Sun and the Moone with the Starres at least wise it can not be gathered by the litterall text of Moses his ArgumeÌ„t is this Deut. 4. Moses in a certaine place vnderstandeth by the army or hoste of heauen nothing else but the Sun and Moone with the starres Therfore he neuer meaneth any thing else by it throughout all his writings To omit that place of Genesis where the Angells that met Iacob at his returne from Mesopotamia Gen 32.2 are called the camp that is to say the Armie of God though Moses vse another tearme I will onely demauÌ„d him If this interpretatioÌ„ of the word hoste or army can not be had but by Tradition why the Cardinall Baronius â—nnal Eccles â—om 1. an Christ 60. who is farre nearer that spring than the Bishop of Eureux chooseth rather to take it out of the Scripture wheÌ„ speaking of the Idolatrie of the Iewes that worshiped the Angells and the starres which they thought to haue life note their goodly Platonicall not Propheticall Tradition he saith that Properly the scripture calleth Angells the Hoste of Heauen citing three places for this purpose whereof one is taken out of Moses himselfe Deut 17. I alleadged a place of Irenaeus that represseth the vaine curiositie of the Gnosticks who without any light of the Scripture rashly intrude theÌ„selues into matters that they haue not seene as the Apostle saith handling this pointe of Angells and condemning the superstition at this day crept into Tradition of seruing them religiously our Bishop exclaymeth thereupon what euening visions what dreames what imaginations and fantasies are these shewing that he hath his head so full of them that as Irenaeus saith of his Gnosticks all the Ellebore in the world would not suffice to purge him from it â—ib 2. c. 54. And it is no wonder if so many smoaky darke and subtill imaginations hinder him from seeing my conclusion which tendeth not in any fashion whatsoeuer to abolish the names and distinctions of Angells as he conceiteth but to shew first of all that Irenaeus prooued the creation of Angells by the scripture when he saith We will shew them by the scriptures that all these things as well visible as inuisible were created of God Also We forsake not Moses and the other Prophets Lib. 2. c 5 who preached the truth for to beleeue such as say nothing soundly but dote c. Whence is euident that he comprehendeth the writings of Moses vnder the Scriptures by which is shewed the creation of Angells Secondly to coÌ„demne the audacious boldnes of this pretended Dionysius Areopagita and the Schoolemen who presume to know all these mysteries vndertake to vnfold them and by vertue not of an Apostolicke Tradition but of a Maxime of naturall Philosophie determine that it is impossible that there be two Angells onely of one kinde and such is the Tradition of that prince of the Schoolemen Thomas Aquinas 1. P. qu. 5â— Ar. 4. So that we must haue many more names for them than the Tradition of the Synagogue or Saint Paul euer knew for to furnish specificall differences to so many Millions of these blessed Spirits which staÌ„d before the throne of the Lord for to execute his coÌ„maundements And wheÌ„ Irenaeus saith to the Gnosticks Let them declare vnto vs the nuÌ„ber of the Angells the order of the Archangells let them shew vnto vs the Sacraments of the thrones let them teach vs the diuersities of the Dominations Principalities powers and vertues But they can not so much as tell it There is no man that hath common sense L. 2. c. 47. but will conclude thence that Irenaeus propounded these things as most difficulte and secret since that in another place he proposeth the ouerflowing of Nilus Birds changing of countreys in springtime and in haruest the ebbing and flowing of the sea rayne snow thunder and other meteors as things hid from vs and of which saith he we may well babble but God onely who made them is true Let vs add a word or two of euill Spirits That the Serpent that spake to Eua was but an Instrument of a wicked spirit may be shewed a Sadducie by the effects which cannot proceede from a creeping thing nor from any other beast though it should go vpright like a rocke as the Serpent did before the seducing of Eue according to the ordinarie glose which conteyneth as well the literall expositions as the mysticall Traditions neyther needed Du Perron to
Inuocation on saintes departed By the Cherubins of the mercie feate worshipping of Images By the commandent made to the Leuites that they should be holy the single life of Priesstes c. These are doctrines of the father of lyes to perswade the world that no truth at lest wise no light euidence of truth touching the fundamentall point of our saluation can be found in the scripture And that all the errors all the horrors that Diuert vs from saluation may be very well proued by the scripture Let vs see our Bishoppes reasons why the points necessarie to saluation are not found so openly set downe in the scrpture that manifest and necessarie consequences may bee drawne from it without the helpe of Tradition They are two the first is For to conteine our mindes within the bounds of humilitie the second to bind the sheepe to the pastours with a straiter bond of Charitie by the necessitie of instruction The booke of the holy Ghost attributed to saint Basile yet falsely at least wise that part of it whence our aduersaries take their most fauourable testimonies conteyneth another reason which our Bishoppe whether for shame or because he will haue his Tradition by himselfe found not fit to adde It hath thus That the Apostles and fathers would by these secrets of silence preserue in mysteries their authoritie For what is diuulged to the eares of the people is not mysterie for this cause certaine thinges were deliuered by Tradition without writing least the knowledge of the Doctrines or opinions should come in cotenmpt among the people by reason of custome So that the doctrines of the Trinitie the incarnation of Iesus Christ of our Election Vocation Iustification Sanctification Glorification and many other Articles shall be no more mysteries because they are conteyned in the scripture preached to the people and committed to the eares of euerie one but by this reckoning must be no more preached to the people praying to saints departed worshipping of images the Popes supremacie the sacrifice of the Masse Purgatorie Indulgences or Pardons many other things not conteined in the scripture and yet notwithstanding almost nothing else preached yea more recoÌ„mended beaten into the eares of the people than the things that are written Would to God this reason were perswasiue inough for to make to be hid and buried in the depth of an euerlasting silence or to set ouer and confine to the eares onely of the Popes clergy all these goodly mysteries true markes of the Louers of the woman in whose forehead is written Mysteries â—eue 17.5 that they spoyle not the true clergie that is the inheritance of Iesus Christ The Bishop of Eureux his reasons seem better in shew but the sustaÌ„ce of them is much worse For our part wee beleeue that the reading of the Scripture maketh euery true Christian humble as wel by the things cleerly set down as by theÌ„ he cannot so wel vnderstand that hee might bee stirred vp to begge vnderstanding and light of the Father of lights as Dauid did though hee were a great Prophet â—â—al 119 o◠〈◊〉 vvhere Now if God would not that all that is necessarie for vs should be written or that it should not bee clearely written for to conteine as saith Du Perron Mens mindes within the bounds of humilitie what followeth els but that they that content not themselues with this measure of reuelation cannot also conteine themselues within the bounds of humilitie and therfore become proud invent whatsoeuer they list for to establish their Lordshippe and rule ouer the Lords flock employing their ordinances and Traditions for to binde and torture the consciences as Tyrants vse prisons gybets to torment the bodies of men And if any Chistian thinke to imitate that praise-worthy example of the men of Berea who durst euen examine the preachings of S. Paule by the Scripture Act. 17.11 they cry out straight both against him and the Scripture the one is called a giddie headed foole and a heretick the other vnsufficient and imperfect and that for no other reason but because it is most sufficient and perfect to conuince and rebuke their imperfections 2. Tim. 3 16 17. and to make vs perfectly instructed vnto euery good worke I said in my former answer that though the aboue-saide points should not be found so cleare in the writings of Moses yet that would conclude nothing against the sufficiency of the Scripture which we haue in the Christian Church for that God speaking familiarly to Moses instructed him alwaies on euery occurrence without euer giuing him libertie or authoritie to ordaine of matters of Religion Fol. 57. Our Bishop mocketh at it adding that Iesus Christ spake as familiarly to God And the Apostles in like sort of whome Christ saith I call you no more seruants I call you from hence forth my friends c. Let vs see what reason he hath to mock at mine which is this When the Church hath teachers and guiders that cannot erre in their doctrine immediately receiued from God and that can familiarly inquire of him on euery occurrence and occasion for to instruct themselues and their flockes then it may more easily bee without Doctrine written But in the times of the Patriarches of Moses and the Prophets immediately sent of GOD the condition of the Church was such Therefore it might the more easily be without Doctrine written c. What hurt doth his Instance taken from the Apostles to this argument what good doth it doe him vnlesse it be for to shew either his fondnesse in as much as it confirmeth my argument for there is the same reason of the Apostles as of the Prophets Or his impudencie if he meane that the Christian Church after the death of the Apostles is euer furnished with as excellent men as they were speaking as familiarly vnto God as they did taking counsell immediatly from him on all occasions and occurrences as they did And without doubt thus he would haue his meaning to be taken though shame hinder him froÌ„ expressing it more openly It is also the stile of the Church or Court of Rome namely That the Pope as S. Peters successor representeth his person yea the person of Iesus Christ himself possesseth his Spirit distributeth it as it pleaseth him yea hee is called God himselfe witnesse the Canon Satis euidenter And these goodly verses set on the forefront of the portal or gate of Sixtus the forth â—ist 96. Oraculo vocis mundi moderaris habenas Et merito in terris crederis esse Deus And seeing our Bishoppe hath spoken as familiarly to this God on earth as in old time Moses did to the God of heauen and the Apostles of Iesus Christ who would not receiue the graines gold and siluer pictures which were giuen him on mount Vatican giuen with greater efficacie than the tables of the Law giuen to Moses on Mount Sina I said also Fol. 57. that Moses
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
reckoning and by the testimony of the same warrant the Bishop bringeth all the curses and execrations which the Apostle S. Iude pronounceth are to fall vpon their heads that blaspheme the Scripture of vnsufficiencie and imperfection that is which blaspheme the old and new Testament Let him see if his Mytre be of proofe against these Apostolical fulminatioÌ„s which are of another manner of temper than those of his Iupiter Vatican For to diuert himself from these yrksome thoughts he gathereth certaine flowers out of Luthers booke against king Henry the eight and thinketh to couer therwith al the indignitie out-rage that euer the most impudent Pope or Monke did to Prince or Emperour either to tread them vnder-feet as was the Emperour Frederick the first Or to poison them as was the Emperour Henry the seuenth Or to chaine them and tye them like Dogges vnder their tables as a Duke of Venice was vsed Or to cannonize for saints the Parricides or murtherers of them 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 and â—â—â—le treâ—â—â—ose helâ—â—custs â—ere â—o exeâ— as of late were the murtherers of Henry the third king of France and William of Nassaw Prince of Orange Or to stirre vp dayly against them newe Parricides and murtherers as they often did against the late Queene of blessed memorie Elizabeth which the most shameles calumniator cannot reproach Luther so much as to haue thought of Or to raise and inuent new leagues and seditions for to ouer-flow all Christendome with blood c. Of all these goodly practises of the Apostolike tradition not of Saint Iude the seruant of Christ but of Iudas the betrayer of Christ the Byshop of Eureux esteemeth that the Church of Rome is not tyed to yeelde an accompt For saith he it is not to you fol. 132. that shee is to answere for her actions in this regard O insoluble Argument and ineuitable demonstration worthy the expected hatte which such an Aduocate hath reason to demaund that it may blush for him There remaineth the last Instance taken out of the same Epistle touching the Prophecie of Henoch wherof mentioÌ„ hath been made aboue the reason declared why the Apostle proueth not by scripture the point in question namely because they whom he discribeth in this Epistle as manifest contemners of Iesus Christ would haue made as little accompt of the Scripture so that it was more to purpose to alleadge a judgement described witnessed eueÌ„ by the heatheÌ„ for these profane persons hauing some remnant of shame left in them could not haue denied and reiected that which was confessed and acknowledged as well by strangers as by them of the Church Now it hath been often sayde vnto him that none of his Instances is receiuable for to shew the imperfection of the Scripture vnles he bring forth Instances vpon some points necessarie to saluation whereof is not found any proofe in the Scripture It hath beene shewed him aboue that this Article of the vniuersall judgement is found in Moses and by measure as the light of the world approched and drew neere the doctrine as well of this Article as of all others hath beene more cleerely expressed though the contentious neuer see this light A blind-man seeth as little the light and brightnes of the Sunne at noone-day as that of the morning star It is not for the coÌ„tentious but against theÌ„ that the Scripture is writteÌ„ those spirits that seeke issue of all the proofes of the same shall in the end finde entrance into hell To such Spirits we say that which the Scripture teacheth If any lust to be contentions we haue no such custom 〈◊〉 11.16 â—39 neither the churches of God But at least saith he though there shold be nothing like to it expressed in the Scripture or that the books that contained somthing of it were lost as diuers other writings of the Prophets yet this Oracle would not haue lost her authoritie nor ceased to be the word of God and Doctrine worthy of faith In very truth if all the Scripture were lost it were that which such as he would wish more then any thing in the world For then they would make vs beleeue goodly matters seeing that notwithstanding this light of the Scripture more resplendent now then it hath beene these many ages before they wold without blushing perswade vs that their graines Pictures and other like fopperies are meanes for to attaine to saluation are helps of the blood of Iesus Christ as wel as their Traditions are supplies of the Scripture But if Bellarmine speaking of what was to be doone â—oncil lib. 〈◊〉 for the election of a Pope if in case all the Cardinalls should perish at once affirmeth that it is vnlikely euer to happen Truely wee haue more reason to hope and firmely to beleeue that Iesus Christ who as the Bridegroome hath ioyned to himselfe the Church with an indessoluble band will preserue for her also the contract of mariage the Indenture of the Couenant more necessarie to the Church than the Cardinals to the conclaue And so as that Antichrist with all his wiles endeuours shall neuer be able to abolish it no more than could in times past his predecessor or his figure King Antiochus The Byshoppe of Eureux by this hypothesis doth hee not confesse that if the Church which ought to bee the gardian of the Scriptures should loose them it should erre greatly And if Saint Iohn pronounceth so fearefull a curse against those that adde thereunto or dimish there-from what should become of them who hauing charge to keepe it should let it wholy be lost and should imagine neuertherlesse that they cannot erre But when all the rest should bee lost by what speciall priuiledge should this Epistle of Saint Iude be saued which by reason of the shortnesse of it might bee lost with the first As for the writings of the Prophets that haue beene lost when hee hath answered the place of Saint Augustine aboue alleadged we shall see what shall bee meet to reply thereto Aug. de ciâ— Dei l. 18. In the meane while hee persisteth in his trifling impertinences to alleadge vnto vs still the authoritie of our Doctors who doe not alwayes agree in the exposition of all places though they alwayes agree in the doctrine of all the pointes of Saluation That were good if wee held them in the same degree as they of his Church doe their Popes all whose Expositions notwithstanding they doe not alwayes receiue without exception but are constrained to shift them off by this distinction That they speake sometimes as Popes and sometimes as Doctours and that in the latter qualitie they may be deceiued in doctrine That is to say it is then they deceiue themselues most when they assay to performe some part of their Office that is to teach yea were they Apostles Nowe I demaund of our Byshop whether hee had rather condemne Cardinall Bellarmine who holdeth with Saint Hierome Saint Augustine and all Antiquitie
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 Pope and euerie other Bishop vnattainted or conuinced of notorious crime He was forced to graunt it mee But when I requested further that he would giue me this proposition in wrighting signed by him hee would not heare of it no more then he found it fitte to insert this question in the number of the seauen that he treateth There was also spoken of the institution of Monkes of their rules and ceremonies specially of the Charter-house Monkes which instance importuned him much finding neither canall pipe nor deuise whatsoeuer that could make to flowe forme apostolick traditioÌ„ that Angelicall perfection whereof the Charterous and other Monks do boast In this altercatioÌ„ he said diuers things so enormous and contrary euen to the Doctrine of the Romish Church that if they had been set downe in writing as I moste instantly required wee should haue a goodly mirror of Theology or rather Pyrronian Technologie And seeing hee then rather chose to breake off the conference then graunt mee this iust request Hee shall permitte mee also to finish rather heere this answere to his reply then to wander with him from our principall question for to extrauagte vppon the new Instances that hee propoundeth besides the purpose Considering also that before the treating of them after the methode that hee obserueth and requireth namely by the onely authoritie of the Fathers without any testimonie consequence or analagie of Scripture these questions were to be handled I. Whether controuersies ought to be decided by the writinges of Fathers II. Who gaue them that authoritie seeing themselues neuer haue acknowledged nor demaunded it III. Whether if it were true that the visible Church cannot erre this same priuiledge appertaine to euerie Doctor or particular Bishop of the Church IV. If it belong onely vnto some by what workes we shall discerne these infallible ones from others V. Vpon what ground is builded our Bishops distinction that the fathers may erre in quality of doctors and Bishops but not in qualitie of Witnesses seeing that by this meanes one part of their writings is manifestly made equall to the writings of the Prophets and Apostles to whome onely by speciall prerogatiue belongeth this qualitie or title of Witnesses irreprochable and without exception Luk. 24 4â— Act. 18. â— 15. â— in that which concerneth the points of our Saluation For though Antipas and other Christians are called faithfull witnesses of Christ Reu. 2.1 This testimonie hath onely reference to their constant confession of the Truth in the midst of torments not for to make authenticall vnto vs any point of doctrine Otherwise all the Martyrs should be made equall to the Apostles who were chosen instructed and sent immediatly by our Lord Christ and all that the Fathers haue written as Witnesses should be incerted into the Canon of the scripture for to make it an entire Rule seeing that after Bellarmine the Scripture is but a Rule partiall De verbo L. 4. c. 12 not totall Yea the very Treatise of the vnsufficiencie of the Scripture if our Bishop haue not written it as a false Witnesse and if all that which containeth Truth is as he maintaineth armed with Canonicall authoritie should be added to the Scripture as an excellent peece of worke and singular ornament of the same VI. Wherefore the Romish Church hath chaunged reformed censured and abolished so many things which the Father 's reported as Witnesses concerning the ceremonies and pollicie of the ancient Church and which they teach as Bishops and Doctors in expounding the holy Scripture which expositions are nothing else according to the saying of the Bishop of Eureux but the Subsidiarie Tradition without which the bare text of the Scripture is vnprofitable not being able to be vnderstoode or dangerous not being well vnderstood And of such reformations censures and abolishments we will produce when neede shall be innumerable Instances Meane-while the deposition of Cardinall Baronius shall suffice a witnesse yet liuing and who is worth many others both for his learning and for his dignitie â—l Eccl. â—1 ad aen â—4 impres â—nt These are his wordes All the Bishops that haue succeeded the Apostles haue not attained the meaning and vnderstanding of the Scriptures neither hath it beene necessarie they should alwayes haue excelled in this grace For the Catholike Church followeth not alwayes nor in all things euen the MOST HOLY FATHERS whom we rightly call the Doctors of the Church because of their excellent doctrine though it be manifest that they be induced with this grace of the holy Ghost aboue others See here the Subsidiarie Tradition planted by our Bishop supplanted and cut downe to the verie rootes by the Axe of this Cardinall the Popes Librarie keeper But dooth hee leaue at leastwise to the ancient Fathers this dignitie of vnfallible and irrefragable Witnesses As little truly contrariwise hee exceedingly reiecteth this outragious flatterie 〈◊〉 1. ad an â—39 â—22 when he saith The Actes of the Apostles written by Saint Luke deserueth more credit then any authoritie of the Ancients Yea he confesseth not onely that many things haue bene falsly attributed to the Apostles but also that those things which true and sincere Writers haue reported â—n chr 44 â—2 haue not remained intire without being corrupted VII Why wee may not beleeue of many Fathers that which this same Cardinall affirmeth of Saint Cyprian â—al tom 1 â—n 258. namely that he abode not in his errour but renouÌ„ced it before his death though that do not appeare neither by his writings nor by any other testimonie of the Fathers If Charitie was the only cause of this affirmation touching one ancient Fathers acknowledgement why may not we vse the like charitie giue the same iudgement conclude in like sort of others considering the Retractions that one of the most excellent amongst them â—ugustine hath left vnto vs who happily added many others before his death either by writing or at least wise in his mind Himselfe also doth authorise as to say of him that which he said of S. Cyprian De Bapâ— contr Dâ— L. 1. c. 4. It may be this holy soule consented to the Truth as though we know it not For all that was then done among the Bishops could not be written or preserued Neither know we all that was written And in another place Epist 48 We find not that he corected this opinion but it is not without reason that we are to iudge of such a person that he corrected it and perhaps that was suppressed by those that tooke too great pleasure in this error and would not be depriued of the defence of such an Aduocate These are my seuen questions which must first bee cleared before we come vnto his seuen the most important of which which is the sacrifice of the Masse is elsewhere dispatched and as yet by him vnanswered And as for the lies he giues to Caluin Viret and Chemnicius touching the institution of the other six points they fall backe not onely vpon Polidorus Virgilius Platina Sigebert Bergomas and such other Historians minorum gentium or vpon Gratian the compiler of the Decretals which serueth for Text in the Schooles of the Romish Church as the holy Scripture doth in ours Vide to â— Biblio S. trum P 1345. But also vpon the head of a Pope himselfe namly Damasus who reporteth the institution of certaine points euen as the others that follow him Also vpon Pope Eugenius 2. attributing soueraigne authoritie to Gratians Decretals and in generall on all the Popes that haue approoued it since But what would he get by it if we should take the originall of these things higher and of an elder date seeing that no authoritie of the ancients commeth neer the authoritie of an Euangelist since that which the truest writers haue reported since hath not remained entire by Baronius his owne confession To conclude De verbâ— L. 4. c 11 seeing that Bellarmine confesseth on the other side That the Apostles haue wtitten ALL the thinges that are necessarie for all and the things which they had publikely preached to all It shall be lawfull for me to crown the former questions with this CoÌ„clusion which floweth from the Confession of that Arch-Rabbi namely That the seuen Articles which the Bishop of Eureux propoundeth are not necessarie to all men seeing they haue not beene publikely preached by the Apostles Or if they be necessarie to all he must shew by their writings that they haue preached them publikely This is it that I summon him to do If he cannot do it I counsell him to be silent and to acknowledge his owne imperfection and vnsufficiencie rather than to attribute it to the Scripture which is most perfect and most sufficient as well to saue them that follow it as to confound those that blaspheme it FINIS
of Pentecost according to Saint Cyrill and some other bee taken from Tradition â—â—al tom 1. Christ 32 Cardinal Baronius reproouing this opinion of the fathers reprehendeth also by the same meanes Tradition that is to say the word of God after our Bishop for Baronius saith that this affimatioÌ„ of the fathers is without reason And must needs be said that the Tradition which Saint Chrysostom followed was directly contrarie to that of S. Cyrill â—oan hom For he denieth that the mouing of the water was done in certaine time I told the Bishop of Eureux the occasion and institution of this miraculous healing according to the recitall of Lyranus and other Doctors of the Romish Church for to shew with what fables fed are such as are out of taste with the scripture but he called that a blind impudency and said that he sendeth vs to no other tradition than to the words of Saint Iohn which were a tradition before his Gospell was set forth But if he were not more impotent of braine than he whom Christ healed was of his armes legs he would iudge that the question that himselfe propoundeth is 〈◊〉 88 by what proofe it appeared that this miracle of the Poole was not a deceit of the diuell but a true miracle instituted of God Where is it that the beginning or institution of it appeareth in S. Iohn Is it not for this cause that Petrus Comestor hath recourse to the Tradition of them that said That the Queene of Saba hauing seene by the spirit the wood of the crosse of Christ in the house of Libanus aduertised Salomon Histor Euâ— cap. 81 that on it should one die after whose death the country and people of the Iewes should perish Which Salomon fearing buried it in the ground in that place where afterwards was made the Poole And as the time drew neere that Christ our Lord should suffer death and passion this wood floted or swomme aloft on the top of the water c. Lyran. in Iohan. c. 5 But if this tale bee no lesse fabulous than that of Lyranus why then doth not our bishop who is ignorant of othing teach vs the true historie of this true Tradition that we may know whereon was grounded the faith of the Iewes that had recourse to this Poole that we condemne not of superstition and idolatry as well such as vsed it as them that suffered it to wit the Priests Pastors of Ierusalem In the meane while we content our selues to know that almost alwaies so long as the temple stood there was some miracle or other whereby God testified to this people that he had a particular care of them as hauing chosen and adopted theÌ„ from among all other nations of the earth that by this meanes he might inuite theÌ„ to honour serue him as they ought not to haue any other Gods before him And that if some did put their confidence in this water or in the Angell that troubled it without lifting vp their hartes to him that gaue this charge to the Angell and this vertue to the water they must be put in the ranke of those who abusing the miracles which God for a certaine space of time wrought to the christiaÌ„ church for to giue testimonie to the doctrine that his Martyrs had coÌ„fessed sealed by their death for to moue the heatheÌ„ to embrace it haue reestablished a kinde of paganisme and brought in as many new succeeding Gods as there be Saints and places where any miracle is wrought to whome the people being instructed and exhorted by their Bishops and Curates without any warrant of the word of God either written or pronounced direct their vowes bring their offerings and make their prayers for to obtaine that which they should not aske of any but of the Saint of Saints or Holy of Holies I speake not of the frauds and filthie trumperies wherewith the Priests abuse the world and which stinke so abhominably that such among themselues as haue any shame left or any nose to smell are constrayned to stop it To these men belongeth fitly the mysticall Interpretation that Saint Hierome reciteth â—â—â—rom in 〈◊〉 c. 22 vpon the place of Isayah where is spoken of two pooles of Ierusalem and of a lake that he expoundeth from the Traditions of the Pharises which Du Perron and other such euill Angells troubling the water to fish the better endeauour to mende and make vp againe as a cesterne that cannot hold any more that stinking water wherewith they haue watered and bathed those whome the poyson of the Babilonian cuppe had made so lame withered deafe and blinde that they could not finde the issue or way forth of the porches of the Romish Church Now if it were behooufull to haue an expresse word of God conserue alwaies by meanes of Tradition for to vse with a good conscience this remedy of the Poole Behooued it not also to haue the like warraÌ„t for the bringing of sick folke to some Saint that hath the fame of working miracles Againe if the word of God after the doctrine of the Romish church be but of two sortes to wit that which is coÌ„tayned in the holy scripture that which the Apostles haue deliuered by word of mouth to their successors which is called Apostolick Tradition I would earnestly desire that the B. of Eureux to whome no thing is impossible would declare what Apostolick TraditioÌ„ can be alleadged for ground of the miracles done fiue hundred yea a thousand and twelue hundred yeares and more after the death of the last Apostle and if the Apostles did foretell of them before their death in what place are these predictions found namely That at such a time in such a place such a Saint should worke such miracles and that thereunto without daunger of superstition to offer and to pay vowes and to bring their sicke For thus farre wee both agree that for to doe these things with a good conscience it behooueth to be grounded on the word of God we agree also in this which the aduersaries themselues confesse with vs That the Church is no more gouerned by newe reuelations De verbo Dei l 4. c 9 these are the verie wordes of Bellarmine our difference is onely in regard of the meanes whereby this word of God hath beene conserued and in what place it is to be sought Whether it be onely in the olde and new Testament as wee maintaine or else as the Bishop of Eureux affirmeth in the Apostolike Tradition which he maketh double the one absolute the other he calleth subsidiarie If he vouchsafe to enlighten vs in this obscuritie I will confesse that he deserueth himselfe to be put in the number of the Saints and lightned with candles as great as his Croser staffe The instance of the custome the Iewes had to deliuer a malefactor at Easter is yet more impertinent than the former For it is to make tradition to