gather together in paper what hee had scattered in the ayre his distinctions would appeare to bee more prestigious in the one than they seeme to bee specious in the other and that it would bee as harde a thing for him to vnwrappe himselfe from selfe-contradictions by the pen as it is easie for him to dazell and entangle the ignorant by his tongue Hee made account also perhaps that his cause being grounded on the Word vnwritten it could not well be defended by the word written Notwithstanding hauing intelligence since that hee had compiled a little writing on this subiect in fauour of some whom hee was desirous to subuert I haue taken paynes to get a Copie of it to which I haue made this aunswere which may serue in stâ—ade of a Resultate or repetition of our Verball Conference at vvhich vvere present fevve others than his greatest friendes vvho then made such acclamations and since haue sovved such reportes thereof as pleased them But heere not beeing required the applause of men nor any tickeling conceipt of vanitie I entreate the Readeer to ayme vvith mee in this vvriting at the glorie of God onely and the manifestation of his truth for the teaching vvhereof Saint Athanasius vvitnesseth that the Scripture is sufficient Let vs acknovvledge it then for Iudge Athanas 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 vs reuerence it as Mistres vvhilest our aduersaries take it for partie and pursue it as an enemie The answer of D. Daniell Tillenus to the Bishop of Eureux his treatice wherby he endeauoreth to proue the insufficiency and imperfection of the holy Scripture and the necessity authority of vnwritten traditions The bishop of Eureux THE vnwritten word of God The B. â— on which we call Apostolicke tradition is of the same force and authority as the written word is and without it the Scripture alone is not suffieient to confute all heresies The Iewes did beleeue when the body of the law of Moyses was giuen vnto them many things which either were not conteyned in the fiue bookes of Moyses or did not appeare vnto them to be therein conteined As the immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body the last iudgement Paradise Hell the Creation and distinction of the orders of Angells the being and creation of deuills and many other points which they could not know by humane science but it must needs be that they receiued them by reuelation from God and therefore that they had another way for to deriue and conserue the word of god besides that of the Scripture D. Tillenus his answer To him that would heare none but Fathers speake it may be answered in a word as one of the number saith Hillar iâ— Psalm 1â— Whatsoeuer is not conteined in the booke of the Law we ought not to know it He that speaketh so would not haue vs seeke that elsewhere which is not found in the Scripture We say that all that is necessary to saluation touching those and all other points is conteyned in the scripture either in expresse tearmes or in necessary consequence and true analogue Gen. 17â— Exod 6. â— Exod. 20â— In the writings of Moyses we find that God maketh a couenant with the Hebrews that he promiseth to be their God and the God of their seed to exercise mercy vpon them vnto thousand generations that is to say for euer to dwell in the middest of them 〈◊〉 10. 〈◊〉 29. to keepe them as the apple of his eie In them is Israell called happie for that it was saâ—ed by the lord God 7.9 Iacob being ready to depart out of this life comforted himselfe in the expectation of the saluation of the lorde to shew that he went to take possession of a bâ—tter countrey He and his Father called themselues straungers in the land of Canaan which notwithstanding was promised them for inheritance Therefore they beleeued the true country that is to say Paradise This consequent is not onely necessary but also manifest by the testimony of the Apostle who draweth it from this place of Scripture not from any vnwritten Tradition 〈◊〉 1.9.13 when he saith that they which so speake shew playnly that they seek a Country which is the thing that Du Perron can not find in the bookes of Moyses although we find in them that the wicked and vnfaithfull that defended lyes against the trueth 〈◊〉 â— 11 did wish it For what else meaneth that false prophet Balaam when he sayth O that my soule might dye the death of the righteous or that my end might bee like theirs This wish expresseth clearly enough the appreheÌ„sioÌ„ he had of the last iudgment 〈◊〉 â— 1 When Moyses calleth the Israelites the children of the Lord their God forbidding them to sorrow for the dead as infidells he speaketh no lesse manifestly of the resurrection 〈◊〉 4.13 than S. Paul when he exhorteth the Thessalonians not to lament for the dead as they do that haue no hope 〈◊〉 3.2 VVhen Moyses saith that God holdeth all his saints in his hands he saith the same thing that is sayd by other that haue written after him That the soules of the righteous are in the hands of the Lord and that they commit their soules vnto him 〈◊〉 â— 1 19. 2.32 24. â— Iud. â— 29 â—0 19 as vnto a faithfull creator So when he speaketh of the book of life of the taking vp of Henoch which Tertullian calleth Candidatum aeternitatis when he saith that those that feare God and keepe his commaundements shall be happy for euer when he setteth before the Iewes life and death blessing and cursing when he threatneth them with the fire of the Lords wrath Deut. â— which shall burne euen to the bottome of hell shall consume the earth with her encrease and set on fire the foundations of the mountaines VVhen I say he writeth all these things he sheweth clearly enough the immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body the last iudgement Paradise and Heâ—l which points are vnseparably linked together Jf these testimonies seeme not cleare enough to the Bishop of Eureux who confesseth neuerthelesse that in Daniell and the other Prophets that haue written since Moyses there is some found Let him consider that they which among the Corinthians denied the resurrection 1. Corâ—â— shifted off the one as well as the other VVhich sheweth that if those that doo erre in some point will not suffer themselues to be vanquished by the scripture that commeth not through any obscurity and imperfection of which they falsely accuse it but from their owne malice and blindnes Moreouer it is to be noted that it hath pleased God orderly to distribute the reuelation of his will of his promises and of his couenant by certayne degrees increasing alwaies the measure of this reuelation as the age of the world increased This oeconomy is clearely obserued in the Scripture if we mark therein the degrees from Adam to Abraham from Abraham to
made of this Indiuiduall to wit Isaacke This consequence is drawne from the text it selfe and the Apostle who alledgeth it neither addeth therunto nor presupposeth therein any tradition But such a spirit as our Bishop is of Heb 11 19 findeth more taste in the tradition of S. Siluester that raised vp a dead Bull Or in that of S. Germaine that raised vp an asse a calfe which they of his house had eaten From the words that God saith to Abraham Gen. 15. Gen. 15. I reason thus He which hath God for his reward hath immortality and life eternall But Abraham hath God for his reward Therefore he hath immortalitie and life eternal Du Perron saith That some of ours vnderstand this reward of earthly and temporall things true but they exclude not heauenly and eternall vnlesse he forge himselfe a God without immortalitie and without eternitie His answeres and ordinarie manners of arguing are to snatch one part thereby to exclude the other as if hee should say God framed Adam a bodie therefore hee gaue him not a soule Let vs set him downe the argument in this sort Whosoeuer hath God for reward hath more than an earthly and temporall thing But Abraham hath God for reward therefore hee hath more than an earthly and temporall thing But since the Bishoppe of Eureux receiueth the exposition of Oecolampadius vpon this place who vnderstandeth as if God said vnto Abraham If I bee for thee who shall be against thee If I be thy buckler and thy protection who shall hurt thee Let him receiue also this argument Hee whom nothing can hurt is immortall otherwise death should hurt him yea breake this buckler which is God and vanquish this protector which is the same God Now nothing may hurt Abraham therefore he is immortall and all the calamities that hee suffered did not hurt him to speake properly But if death had abolished his bodie his soule both together without hope of restitution resurrection then should the promise of God haue beene found vaine and frustrate From the exclamation that Iacob maketh at the point of death I drawe this argument Gen 49. â— Whosoeuer waiteth for the saluation of God at the houre of his death when he is going out of this life thinketh not to die wholly and altogether but Iacob at the point of his death waiteth for the Saluation of God therefore he thought not to die wholly and altogether for it behooueth that some thing of him should remaine for to receiue this saluation And though it should be vnderstood of some succours for his posteritie yet it behooueth that hee which waiteth and hopeth for that be not wholly extinguished brought to nothing So in the vulgar translation which is authentick in the Church of Rome there is in the future tense I will waite for thy saluation O Lord. If Du Perron reply that his Sadducie holdeth not that translation for authenticall No more doe we that of his pretended Rabbi that he alledgeth vnto vs. 〈◊〉 14 〈◊〉 49 29. 〈◊〉 15.55 〈◊〉 8 17 From this speach to be gathered to his fathers or people many times repeated in this first booke of Moses I conclude that if those to whom Abraham Isaack Iacob be gathered be not at all Moses speaketh vnaptly and falsely But this consequent is false therefore also the antecedent is so too Out of the second booke of Moses called Exodus â—â—d 3 6 This book furnisheth vs in the first place with the argumeÌ„t wherewith our Sauiour Christ stopped the mouthes of the Saduces proouing vnto them the resurrection of the dead the forme of it is this They of whom God calleth himselfe the God are liuing Now God calleth himselfe the God of Abraham the God of Isaacke and the God of Iacob Therefore they are liuing And seeing that according to the body they are not yet raised vp from the dead that must needes bee one day though in respect of God to whom all things are present they bee already raised vp and therefore he calleth himselfe their God speaking of a thing which shall infallibly be done as if it were alreadie done The Bishop of Eureux cryeth as lowde as hee can that Iesus Christ cited this place onely for to prooue the immortalitie of the soule and that it belongeth not to the Resurrection of the bodie I say though hee presuppose the immortalitie of the soule yet hee meaneth it necessarily of the Resurrection of the dead because it is the question that the Sadduces proposed to our Sauiour which of the seuen brethren in the resurrection should haue the woman to wife who had beene maried to theÌ„ all one after another is there any tradition that maketh mariages between soules without their bodies such a mariage would be another maÌ„ner of mysterie than that is which the Romish tradition hath made a Sacrament Bellarmine himselfe saith our Lord being about to prooue the Resurrection to the Saduces alleadged this testimony of Scripture I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaak and the God of Iacob and addeth God is not the God of the dead but of the liuing whence his intention is to inferre The dead therefore rise againe Now although the Saduces denyed also the Immortality of the soule yet the Resurrection of the body seemed vnto them much more absurde And vpon this pointe was grounded the most formall dissention betweene them and the Pharises as appeareth by that which Saint Luke saith of theÌ„ Act. 23.6.7 Also the three Euangelists qualifie the Saduces by this marke as the most notable that they beleeued not the ResurrectioÌ„ And if our Sauiour Christ by the Resurrection of the dead meant only of the coÌ„tinuaÌ„ce of souls not of the ResurrectioÌ„ of the flesh besides that he had done nothing by his argumeÌ„t takeÌ„ out of Moses that a Heathen Philosopher by naturall reasons might not haue done It would follow that he had then graunted that the soule dyeth or at the least sleepeth till the day of Iudgment for this tearme resurrection or rising againe can not agree but to that which before is fallen as it fareth in the body by death And when it is attributed to the soule it is but by figure like as sinne is called the death of the soule in as much as it depriueth it of the spirituall life which is in God yet without abolishing her substance But our Bishopp attributeth this opinion to Christ for to conforme it with that of one of his preteÌ„ded vicars Pope Iohn the 22. who was constrayned by a King of France to retract it and to vnsay himselfe by sound of Trumpet as Gerson witnesseth Now let vs see the Spirit of astoniednesse which possesseth him in saying Though Saint Mathew should say in expresse tearmes that Christ alledgeth this Text against the Sadduces vpon the question of the Resurrection of the bodie what can hee necessarily inferre thereupon I answere if Iesus Christ alledged this text for the
commaunded it to the Patriarches And the Bishop of Eureux cannot shew vs by his tradition wherein the particulars and formes of the Sacrifices vsed before the Law and writing of Moses and them which we see therein set downe did differ or agree no more than we can beleeue that the knowledge of the former was as necessarie to the Israelites that liued vnder the Law as was the knowledge of the latter I would know of him froÌ„ what tradition he learned that this sprinkling of the people by the bloud of beasts was rather execratory thaÌ„ expiatory as he saith not for to purifie the Israelites but for to bind bequeath to cursing c. S. Paul Heb. 9.22 after he had recited this sprinkling with the sprinkling of the tabernacle of the holy vessels addeth that almost al things by the law are purified with bloud referring this purification in general to all the legall aspersions or sprinklings but especially to that which he had more particularly specified than any other namely which our Bishop by I know not what cursed and execrable Tradition calleth cursing and execration And if that be true then these words which Moses pronounced in performing this sprinkling This is the bloud of the Couenant which the Lord hath contracted with you shall not signifie vnto vs the purifying of our soules by the bloud of Iesus Christ as the Apostle expouÌ„deth it coÌ„paring the figuratiue bloud of beasts with the bloud of Christ our Lord which spiritually washeth purifieth our soules as the other bloud did ceremonially purifie the corporal things But shal signifie our curse execration the reall accomplishment execution wherof should be found for vs in the death in the bloud of him whom we call our Sauiour and Redeemer as hauing deliuered redeemed vs from the curse execration of the law vnder which we were without the shedding sprinkling of his bloud wheÌ„ he himself was made a curse for vs. He yeeldeth a reason worthy himselfe why this bloud signified rather execration than purification Gal. 3.13 Because the children of Israel were alreadie purified by the former washings True but if the washing with water sufficed to purifie them to what purpose so much bloud as was shed in the ordinary expiatory sacrifices to what purpose are said so many masses preteÌ„ded expiatory sacrifices if holy water sufficeth to purify those that are sprinkled with it Why behoued it that after baptisme Iesus Ch. shuld shed his bloud why was not remissioÌ„ of sins without shedding of bloud if the washing by water purifieth that is taketh away sins to conclude what mad Enthymema is this same The children of Israel were purified by the former washings Ergo the bloud wherwith Moses sprinckled them afterward signified vnto them cursing and execration But it agreeth not euill that he that beleeueth or maketh shew to beleeue that the masse is a sacrifice expiatorie and propitiatorie which indeed is execrable and execratorie call execration the sacrifice of the couenant that God contracteth with his for to put away their sins therwith wherof the sacrifice described by Moses was the figure that of the crosse the Truth At least wise he should consider that this sprinkling with bloud was not only done on the people but also on the altar vpoÌ„ which Moses sprinkled halfe on the booke which Altar represented nothing else but God who in this couenant was one of the parties conditioning promising of his side shall we say that Moses in sprinckling the Altar with halfe of the bloud bound bequeathed God also to cursing The booke that conteined the law and which was sprinkled with it likewise was it cuâ—sed also There remained no more but this heape of blasphemie for him who ceaseth not to calumniate of imperfection and vnsufficiency the sacred booke to say that it was bequeathed to cursing and execration Indeede we read in profane histories of the couenants and leagues which the Pagans made ratifying them by Sacrifices with oathes and horrible execrations yea sometimes tasting of the bloud of the sacrifices offered or of their owne as it is said of Catilina and some others Which is not farre from the Cyclopian barbaritie of those Capernaites or rather Canibals which think they cannot partake in the bloud of the spiritual couenant we haue with Iesus Christ vnlesse they carnally drink it 〈◊〉 cons Dist 〈◊〉 Can. Ego â—â—ieng vnlesse they breake his body with their teeth sensibly as their Pope Nicholas saith As for the sprinckling of the tabernacle of the holy vessels also the purple coloured wooll hysop wherof Moses speaketh in the 24. chapter of Exod. It should be our bishops part to shew that S. Paul in his 9. chap. to the Hebrews protesteth bindeth himselfe to touch nothing of the writings of Moses but only what he saith in expresse tearmes in that place Exo. 24. Which shal not be so easie for him to do as it is for vs to shew for euery one to see the coÌ„trary For the scope drift of the Apostle is to confront to compare together the two Testaments the Priests the sacrifices all the other ceremonies of the old with the onely Priests sacrifice of the new The Leuiticall Tabernacle corruptible and transitory wherinto the Iewish Priests entred with the humane nature of Iesus Christ in which dwelleth all the fulnes of the godhead as in a Temple permanent the bloud of the hee goat which the hie priest offered euery yeare once when he entred into the most holy place with our sauiour Christs own bloud by which he opened vnto vs heauen for euer Now it is certain that Moses speaketh of these figures in diuers places of his writings by what Logick theÌ„ should wee conclude that that which is not fouÌ„d in the 24. chap. of Ex. cannot be found elsewhere he speaketh not there of the purple wool nor the hysop but Num. 19. he speaketh of theÌ„ Neither of the sprinkling of the Tabernacle and of the holy vessels but he speaketh of it Leuit. 8.16 30. 9.9 16.14 and so following And that S. Paule meaneth not to speake onely of the Act of the dedication as our Bishoppe would make vs beleeue it is manifest as well by that wee haue said of the Apostles intention as by the conclusion which is Heb. 9.22 And almost all things are by the Lawe purged with bloud By which euery one may see that he no wise meaneth to stay on the acte onely of the consecration of the Couenant but that he mixeth together diuerse ceremonies of expiations in which there was but one and the same end referring all those shadowes to their bodies the figures to the Trueth without staÌ„ding to reckon the syllables of Moses or to quote the places he alledgeth or to obserue the order of the times wherin consisted not the force of his arguments therefore he protesteth Ch. 9.5 not to speake of those things
repugnant to the Scripture and destroyeth it selfe First of all the holy persons which dyed in the faith of the Messias were freed as well from the curse of the law as they that are dead since the preaching of the Gospell and therefore God vouchsafed himselfe to burie the bodie of Moyses and the death of the saints were precious in his sight Deut. 3â— Psal 11â— Psal 34â— he kept all their bones not so much as one of them perished as Dauid sung of his time Moreouer the bones of Helizeus raysing vp a dead bodie 2. Kingâ— wrought one of the greatest mjracles that is and therefore his bodie wee should well beleeue to bee freed from the slauerie of Sathan whose slaue as then all humane nature was if we beleeue the Bishop of Eureux not knowing or fayning not to know that Iesus Christ is the same yesterday Heb 13â— Reuel 1â— 1. Pet. 2â— and to day That the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the worlde did alwayes wash and sanctifie the faithfull by his blood And the Ceremoniall pollusion might well be done away by this extraordinarie testimonie that God rendered to his Prophet after his death notwithstanding the inclination that this people had then to Idolatrie yet did they neuer abandon themselues to such brutishnesse as to worship bones and ashes onely the Egyptians were capable of this madnesse who for to heale themselues of the bytings of Serpents worshipped the Sepulchre of Ieremiah that was stoned to death in that Countrey an adoration worthie of them that worshipped all sortes of hearbes beastes fishes and monsters Secondly whereas according to the Doctours of the Romish Church the soules of the Fathers of the olde Testament went into Limbo which they say to be a place without paine They send the soules of the faythfull after the incarnation of Christ into Purgatorie there to suffer the verie same torments as are in Hell saue that they last not whence may bee inferred that the humane nature is more polluted now at this day then it was in olde time and that since the time that the blood of Iesus Christ was really shedde on the Crosse and all the mysterie of our redemption actually accomplished there is found therein lesse vertue and efficacie to purifie them than was before Thirdly I demaund why the Patriarkes since they were freed from that seruitude of Sathan are not called vppon in the Romish Church Or if all those that dyed before the incarnation of Christ haue remained the slaues of Sathan why did the Emperour Arcadius giue the same honour to the bones of Samuell Lector Niceph. â— 10. â—ont making them be transported from Iudea into Thrace as to an Apostle Why did no Bishop no not the Bishop of Rome oppose himself against that pollution â—p 2. Wherefore was there euen Bishops to beare the Shrine Why doth Saint Ambrose in the place cited by our Bishop alleadge sentences out of the olde Testament which speake of the care which God had of them that deceased in that time for to proue the worshipping of the Reliques of the Saints deceased vnder the new testament if the difference be so great between the one and the other Why doth S. Hierom confounde the Reliques of Saint Peter and Saint Paul with the bodie of Moyses â—ig 〈◊〉 Sanct. 3. To conclude why doth Bellarmine conclude by the myracle wrought by Helizeus that God would haue them bee worshipped What becommeth heere of the difference betweene the abhominable and polluted carions vessels of filthinesse and vncleanesse organs instruments of Sathan so du Perron calleth the bodies of the antient Saints 〈◊〉 20 p. 2. and betweene the darlings of Christ sweet smelling sacrifices seats vessels and future temples of the Godhead as he calleth them of the new testament which might suffice 〈◊〉 2. without adding Victorious ouer the diuel and hel by their martyrdom But Iesus Christ to whoÌ„ alone belongeth this glorie to haue vanquished the Diuell and Hell by his martyrdome must as well with him be spoyled of his title for to inuest therewith the bones of the dead as the Scripture of his perfection for to inuest therewith Tradition which in stead of a worde or two that the Scripture teacheth concerning the combate of the Angell against the diuel for the body of Moyses reciteth vnto vs very amply the combate of S. Denis Annal. Franc. 〈◊〉 of S. Dâ— and of some other Saints against the diuell for the soule of King Dagobert which they plucked from him for that this king had beene greatly deuoted to the said saint robbing others to enrich him Also it telleth vs the good turne Saint Laurence did to the Emperour Henrie how that after his death Albâ—r 〈◊〉 histor S. â— 1. c. 36â— the Angell Michael ballanced his merits against his sinnes the Diuell being readie to seaze on the soule as his owne because it was found too light by a graine of merrite the good Saint subtilly cast into the Scale where the merits were a golde Chalice note that our Bishops graines were not grained in those dayes for to make it weigh downe Yea it assureth vs by the mouth of a Pope that can not lie Greg. dâ— l. 3. c. 12. nor erre That sillie Priestes haue done as much or more wonders then the Scripture reciteth of the Archangel causing the soules of them that were alreadie dead and carryed away of Diuels to come againe yea employing in this Commission the Angels themselues as Sergeants to bring them backe againe and represent them And with such foppish tales of their Tradition as well absolute as subsidiarie one might make great volumes It sufficeth to note herein a word that all that which both the Traditions tell vs of Saint Michael is borrowed from the Fables which the heathen Poets haue fayned of their Mercurie whose wings sworde ballance for after Diodorus Mercurie is the inuenter of weights and measures and almost all his office it seemeth that the Priests Saint Michael hath inherited I said That the Popes gaue licence to themselues to tread vnder feete the greatest dignities of the earth of kings emperors which those against whoÌ„ S. Iude speaketh in his Epist neuer did to which he answeth that the Greekes interprete this word Dignities in this place not of secular dignities but of Ecclesiasticall and conferre this place with that of the thrid Epistle of S. Iohn where he complayneth of the insolencie of Diotrephes And therupon he addeth that it is for me to bethinke my selfe how to acquite me of this Article c. Oecumenius from whom he taketh his conjecture vnderstandeth by this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dignities the old and new Testament 〈◊〉 3. â—5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which interpretation hee confirmeth by the place of Saint Paule where he saith If that which is abolished was full of glorie or dignitie how much more glorious or worthy is that which is permanent By this
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
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
to shew the Immortality of the soule then al the demonstratiue Syllogismes of the Philosophers Now that it may the better be seene whether it is I or Moses that Du Perron mocketh at I choose rather to produce my arguments in their forme after the maner of a simple Israelite thaÌ„ expose the simple places of Moses to the laughter of a double Sophister who though there could be found no place of Moses fit to reason from yea though Moses had not writteÌ„ at all should not for all that in any fashion whatsoeuer aduance his desperate cause as hereafter I shal make most manifest to the eye and sense of euery indiffereÌ„t reader In the mean while I wil bring forth the places according to the order of the fiue books of Moses Out of Genesis The first argument for the Immortalitie of the Soule is taken from the creation of man after the Image and similitude of God and is thus framed Gen. 1.26 That which is made after the Image of a thing resembleth it after a singular or peculiar manner But man is made after the Image similitude of God Therefore he resembleth him after a singular maner or fashion Thereupon shall bee shewed to a Saducie thoroughout all the fiue bookes of the Law but specially by the Text of Deut. 4. from the 15. verse to the 25. verse that this likenesse cannot be in man as touching his bodie sith that this God whose Image he is hath noe bodie considering also that it would follow thar euery body might bee said to be the image of god which Moses saith only of man Therfore of necessitie it must be in the reasonable and intellectuall soule otherwise beasts should be also made after the Image of God This soule if it be mortall corruptible it caÌ„not resemble after a singular fashion or maner the immortal incorruptible God The B. of Eureux replyeth that Luther Caluin say That the Image of God is defaced or put out by sin and that the interpreters themselues of both sides haue vpon this word almost as many opinions as heads I answere that neither Luther nor Caluin do at any time coÌ„found the qualitie of this Image with the substance of the same The quality which is in the right and pure vnderstanding and will of the soule is defaced or blotted out but the substaÌ„ce is no more abolished than man of whom it is the essential forme But hee defaceth and abolisheth here without thinking of it all that goodly Image of his Tradition casteth it to the ground more rudely than euer the Asse did the Image of Isis For if euen rhe Interpreters of his side cannot agree among themselues and are not able to expound the Image of God what serueth their Tradition for then which as he saith hath a double profit yea necessity the one to supply that which is not written the other to expound that which is not clearely written Anchor â—em haer 70 â—em in Epist â—â—l Io. Hieros â—â—b Hier. versa which he calleth subsidiarie or helping tradition and Epiphanius whome he so often alleadgeth as one of the principall depositaries of Apostolick Tradition freely confesseth That it cannot be knowne aâ—â— that this knowledge is reserued to God who alone knoweth in what parte of man he hath placed his Image He perceiueth theÌ„ heere a Tradition which saith not a word which furnisheth neither supply nor explication vpon this point so important much more defectuous than the Scripture which at least declareth vnto vs that man is made after the Image of God whence is drawne the argument aboue propounded And therefore the exposition of these Fathers which place this Image of God in the immortality of the soule cannot be taken from Tradition so barren in this behalfe the which also none of them alleadgeth when they treate of it Neither Tertullian coÌ„tr Mar. l 2. c. 9. Nor Athanasius de in carn Christ Nor S. Ambros. Hexa l. 6. c. 7. Nor S. Augustine de Genes coÌ„tr Manich l. 1. Nor Philastrius Bishop of Bâ—â—sse haer 49. Nor the Abbot Dorotheus Doctr. 12. Nor Albicus Flaccus quaesti in genes Interr 39. c. All which draw it out of the bare text of Moses as I doe But of what sincerity and authority is the Romish tradition in this pointe â—say 40 18 â—5 which when God demaundeth in the Scripture To whome will ye liken me or what similitude will ye set vp vnto me answereth by the subsidiarie or helping mouth of his Interpreters the Bishops We will make thee like to a piece of wood or stone painted or grauen bearing a triple Crowne like a Pope olde and decrepit and which for a neede will serue for a signe or bush at a tauerne The disciples of the Tradition learne of it that God is made after the image of a man in stead of beleeuing with the Disciples of the Scripture that man is made after the Image of God The Iewish Tradition vpon this point is not so insupportable as the Romish neither is it cleare that one may gather more properly from it the Immortality of the soule Vile Gl. Ord. than we do from the Text it selfe the Rabbins say that the Image of God is to be sought in these properties of the soule Ier 23 24 viz. as the soule filleth the whole body so God filleth heauen earth Also as the soule is one onely in her body Exod. 33. so God is onely one in the whole vniuersall world Also Psal 121 as God seeth all and can not be seene so the soule seeth the exteriour things without being seene Also as God sleepeth not so the soule euer waketh All these resemblances and conformities are found as well in a beast as in a man so that by the Iewish Tradition we should be true Saduces that is to say such as Du Perron their Aduocate would faine make vs be Gen 4 1â— From the place where the blood of Abel shed by Caine is said to cry vnto the Lord I frame this argument That which cryeth and demaundeth vengeance is not wholly extinguished and brought to nothing Abel after he was murdered cryeth to the Lord asketh vengeance therefore he was not wholly extinguished and brought to nothing The Bishop of Eureux perhaps will reply that this is a figuratiue speach to attribute a cry to blood that one cannot draw a proper conclusioÌ„ from it Let vs frame the argument therfore in this forme They of whome God hath care are not adnihilated or brought to nothing but God hath care of Abel after his death therefore he was not abolished by that death If our Carneades demand me here who hath taught me to argue thus I answere Matth 22. that it was not a Doctour of Sorbonne but the Eternal wisedome of God who concludeth that God is not the God of the dead but of the liuing And this example of Abel is no lesse euideÌ„t than that in the
Reuelation where the soules of them that were killed for the word of God cried vnder the Altar How long ô Lord which art holy and true doest thou not iudge and auenge our blood on them that dwell one the earth Behold almost the same light the same stile in the first and last booke of the holy Scripture 〈◊〉 9.5 c When god saith in the same booke of Moses that he will require againe the blood of soules Resur c. 28. he sheweth vs the same thing and furnisheth vs matter of a like argument Notwithstanding Tertullian draweth thence a consequeÌ„ce not onely for the Immortality of the soule but also for the Resurrection of the body reasoning thus That which God requireth againe must be restored but God requireth againe the blood shed as well by the hand of beasts as by the hand of men therefore it must be restored for that which is not at all can not be auenged And then he concludeth that what is spoken of the blood is spoken of the flesh â—â—p 32 without which the blood can not bee and that the flesh shall be raysed vp that the blood may be auenged and in the same booke he saith that Moses in this place maketh mention of beasts at whose handes the blood shall be required the better to expresse the resurrection euen of bodies deuoured by them The Bishopp of Eureux findeth that this is but an hyperbolicall threatning for to terrifie men from manslaughter But they which take the prohibitions of Murder for hyperboles they are the very same that hyperbolically giue licence to themselues to commit it following the Tradition not of the Apostles vnlesse it be of Iudas but of certaine Robbers among the Donatists which they called Circumcelliones Now sith this place cannot be well vnderstood in his iudgment without Tradition he secretly insinuateh that euen the ciuill Magistrate cannot punish murder by vertue of this law of the Scripture that so he might put into this false scabbard of his tradition both the two swords togither the spirituall and the Temporall From the taking vp of Henoch I make this argument he which is taken out of this life gathered vnto god enioyeth an eternall felicity But Henoch being no more seene among men was gathered or taken away vnto GOD therefore Henoch enioyeth eternall felicitie This argument proueth not only the immortalitie of the soule But also Paradise that is to say an eternall felicitie The Sadduces reply by the mouth of his aduocate Du Perron is That it may bee graunted that this translation was a withdrawing from the conuersation of men and a delay and staying of death till a certaine time vnknowne to men of the first ages but that it followeth not that the soule after the extinction of the bodie subsisteth and remaineth for euer I answere that if it be permitted to the Saducie and his Aduocate to adde to the text of Moses what they please they may conclude from thence what they list and one day shall finde that which they will like but little But this Sadducean or Perronian glosse is contrarie to the Text of Moses which setteth downe vnto vs the temporall life of Henoch much shorter than was the ordinarie of that time So that this taking vp cannot be vnderstood of a delay or staying of death Moreouer this text representeth vnto vs Henoch as the most excellent man in pietie and loue of GOD which liued in his age and setteth forth vnto vs also without the helpe of any glosse his taking vp as a manifest testimonie of the fauour of God towards him On the other side all the Law of Moses teacheth vs that it was rather the testimonie of a curse than of a blessing to be soone depriued of this temporall life seeing that long life vpon earth is promised propounded as a speciall blessing Iâ— followeth therefore by necessarie and ineuitable consequence that there is another and more happy life then this earthly life Into which Henoch was translated Reuel 21. which we call Paradise that is to say a place extempt from all euill and abounding in all good This consequence is drawne from the text it selfe not from the word of Tertullian who calleth Henoch Candidatum aeternitatis which I had inserted by the way But take away this floorish that hee maketh vpon occasion of this word as if I would prooue the immortality of the soule by Tertullian hee remaineth lame and benummed and not able to passe any further For the rest that he saith is as much to purpose as if one would ground the originall of the Esseians or of the Monks oâ— Popery on this withdrawing of Enoch from the conuersation of men And if our Bishop had not taken in hand to plead the cause of the Saduces he might find heere a good proofe for the Esseians or for the Monkes From the historie of the Deluge may be drawne proofe for the Vniuersall iudgement which Du Perron holdeth not to haue beene beleeued among the Iewes â—â—n 7 but by Tradition of the Prophesie of Henoch cited in the Epistle of saint Iude For that which we see foretold in the same prophecie we finde it accomplished in the seuenth chapter of Genesis The argument may be formed thus He which executeth iudgement against all and condemneth all the wicked for the works of their impiety executeth an vniuersall Iudgment But God executed such a Iudgment in the flood against all the wicked Therefore he executed an vniuersall Iudgment The Bishoppe of Eureux cannot deny the Maior for it is taken from the foresaide tradition nor the Minor without denying the historie of Moses who teacheth vs that this Iudgment was vniuersall And if the Saducie alleadge the promise that GOD made Genes 9.11 and .15 Verses not to destroy the whole earth any more we can shew him the restriction that is there added namely that he will not destroy the earth any more by the waters of the Flood his iudgments not being subiect to one onely forme And seeing that the same Iustice is alwaies in God which the Saducie is constrained to confesse and the same vnrighteousnes and impietie reigneth amongst men It followeth that he will execute also the same iudgment to wit vniuersall though we can not know the day nor the houre Tradition beeing no lesse silent heere than the Scripture From the Couenant that God made with Abraham and the Hebrewes I argue thus Genes 15.17 2 4.7 A couenant that dureth for euer requireth that the parties betweene whom it is contracted doe abide for euer But the couenaunt that GOD contracteth with his dureth for euer Therefore they must also abide for euer The onely light of nature sheweth as well to the Iewes and to the Heathen as to Christians the truth of the Maior For it is most certein that when one of the Correlatiues is extinct the relation which is betweene them is extinct also The Minor is prooued to a Sadducie by a
Resurrection of the body it must necessarily inferre that it is therefore proper for to prooue it or that Christ was not fit for to reason Certainly when the resurrection of the body is proued the immortalitie of the soule is prooued also But he which prooueth but the immortalitie of the soule prooueth not for that the Resurrection of the bodie which was notwithstanding the question wherwith the Sadduces had assailed our lord who had by no meanes stopped their mouth if he had proued but the first point that is to say satisfied but the one halfe and the easiest part But this argument saith our Bishop was till then vnknowne to the Iewes who for that cause admired the wisdome of our Sauiour And therfore they must needs haue receiued the beleefe of it by another meanes than by the bookes of Moses namely by the tradition of Abraham Isaack and Iacob and other Fathers What vse hath then heere subsidiarie tradition which after our Bishop 〈◊〉 71. is the Gardian and keeper of the mysticall interpretation of the text of the scripture 〈◊〉 45. Or if there were none vpon this place as Du Perron seemeth to grant reckoning it among them that the sonne of God who hath the key of Dauid opened to his Disciples since he himselfe expounded the scriptures It will follow that the place was altogether vnprofitable before which is the bishops mysticall exposition that he might couertly giue Saint Paule the lye who maintaineth that The whole scripture is giuen by inspiration from God â—â—m 3 and is profitable c or as they of the Church of Rome translate it Euerie Scripture that is euery place of scripture meaning it euen of the olde Testament Now it is true that Saint Mathew saith that the multitude were astonied at the doctrine of Iesus Christ citing this place For the confusion and ignorance was so great vnder the Reigne of the Pharisaicall Traditions that it seemed to the auditours a thing miraculous to be able to alleadge the Lawe so pertinently and to purpose Euen like as in this last Reformation of the Church many of those that had beene all their life time brought vp in the superstitious Traditions of the Church of Rome haue beene astonied when they haue seene them so pertinently confuted by the holy scripture In the meane while the thing hath not beene so obscure as the bishoppe will haue it otherwise some euen among the Scribes would not haue approoued this allegation saying Maister thou hast well said Luke 20.39 Marke 12 2â— For they were so great enemies to Iesus Christ that they espied all occasions euen to the least of his words for to entrappe him And must Du Perron shew himselfe heere worse than were the Scribes and Pharises accusing our Sauiour Christes argument of obscuritie or impertinencie which was approoued by his greatest enemies Math. 22.3 who confessed that hee had stopped the mouthes of the Sadducies Which sheweth that the thing was so cleare manifest that there could bee no reply But what reason or testimonie can bee cleare to him who findeth not cleare enough the place of Daniel vnder colour that a Rabbi and one Polychroneus had some particuler doting vpon it yet more than sufficiently confuted by some of ours without any helpe of Tradition which our bishoppe holdeth so necessarie therein The wordes of Daniell are Oecolamp Dan. 12.2 Manie of them that sleepe in the dust of the Earth shall awake some to euerlasting life and some to confusion and eternall shame And they that bee wise shall shine as the brightnesse of the firmament and they that turne many to righteousnesse shall shine as the starres for euer and euer Beholde the place wherewith Du Perron saith a contentious spirit cannot be forced without the helpe of tradition that wee no more doubt of his intent which is not to content himselfe to make the scripture vnsufficient and imperfect but also wholly vnprofitable superfluous and vnapt seeing the clearest and most formall places haue no force nor vertue without Tradition which if wee will beleeue him forceth all euen the most contentious spirits to whom the scripture coÌ„tenteth it self to say 1. Cor 11.16 If any man lust to be contentious we haue no such custom neither the Churches of God What remaineth for him but to say that Tradition is God himselfe who alone is able to change the hearts to tame the rebellious and to make light shine out of darkenes Indeed there was a Bishopp in the counsell of Trent who without blushing or changing colour attributed to the Pope who is the principal spring and fountaine of the Traditions at this day in controuersie those words that Saint Iohn had said of the Eternall sonne of God calling him the light come into the world Orat. Corn. Epis Bitont in Conci Trid Iohn 1. Now if Iesus Christ had had the same opinion of the scripture as Du Perron would he not also haue said the like to the Sadducies as their Aduocate holdeth vnto vs Namely that they deceiued themselues to thinke to finde in the writinges of Moses all that was necessarie for them And that the fiue bookes of the Lawe were but a letter of credite referrring the rest to the sufficiencie of the bearer of the Tradition Hee dare denie that our Sauiour Christ attributed the cause of the Errour of the Sadducies to their ignorance of the Scripture though two vnreprooueable witnesses depose it and that in so cleare and euident tearmes that all the smoke of the bottomlesse pit Math. 22.29 Marke 12.24 25. cannot darken the light of it especially that of Saint Marke in these wordes Are yee not therefore deceiued because yee knowe not the Scriptures neyther the power of God To one that hath the boldnesse to denie such Textes I confesse I cannot shewe any thing neyther in the Olde nor in the Newe Testament In the meane while Du Perron may bee iudged heere by his owne mouth as that euill seruant in the Gospell being constrained to confesse that one of the causes of the errour of the Sadducies was the ignorance of the sense of the Scripture Luke 19 22 Fol. 52. though hee meane it but of the place cyted by themselues which commeth all to one reckoning for to bee ignorant of the sense of the scripture is to bee ignorant of the scripture But the true sense of the same is discerned and seene when the Father of Lightes maketh it be seene not when the Synagogue onely or the Church sheweth it which hath not any Tradition whatsoeuer for to open the eyes of the mind and to force the most contentious otherwise shee should manifest this force vppon the Turckes Iewes and Paganes if Tradition conteyned the true Efficient and Instrumentall cause both together Saint Hierome expoundeth the place of saint Marke in these wordes They erre saith hee because they know not the Scriptures and because they are ignorant of them they know not the
to blame to alledge it barely and nakedly with out this breastplate of Tradition when he representeth the contrarietie and opposition â—â—m 10 that there is between the righteousnesse of the Law the righteousnesse of faith From .19.20 .21 chapters where God particularly calleth himselfe the God of the Israelites I reason thus If God did promise and giue onely earthly things to the Israelites he were not more particularly their God than the God of other peoples and nations yea he should rather haue beene more specially the God of some Heathen nations to whome he gaue kingdomes and Empires farre greater and more flourishing than a litle countrey of Canaan giuen to the Israelites after so many paynes and with so many euills as they had euer there Now God calleth himselfe particularly the God of the Israelites hauing discerned and seperated them of purpose from all other nations for to doe them good Therefore it must needs follow that these blessings were not onely earthly and transitorie From the .26.42 verse where God promiseth to remember the Couenant he made with Abraham Isaak and Iacob I gather the same Argument that hath beene aboue produced and treated of at large from diuers places of Genesis From the same Chapter 44. verse where God promiseth not to consume them that be his because he is their god c. one may draw this proofe for the Immortality of the soule If the soule dyeth with the body man is wholy coÌ„sumed but the Israelites are promised of God that they shall not be wholy consumed Therefore the soule at least remaineth after the body is consumed The B. of Eureux will reply that this must be vnderstood of the totall extermination of the people as if GOD promised euer to leaue a remnant of some still amongst them I answere that if vniuersall promises directed to a people in generall may not be applyed to euery faithfull in particular they are vaine and none at all For if all the particulars be consumed one after another the generall which is coÌ„posed which consisteth but of particulars will be consumed like wise and so will but shadowes remaine to serue for subiect to the fullfilling of Gods promises And what ioy or comfort could they take that heard Moses pronounce them or did reade them in his writings if none could apply any of them to themselues in particular Out of the forth booke of Moses called Numbers From the blessing of the Priest that assured the Israelits of the keeping peace of God I reason thus They whom God keepeth cannot perish God keepeth them that be his therefore they cannot perish Or else in this forme They that perish are not kept of God the people of God are kept of God therefore they cannot perish Now it is certaine that they should perish if death destroyed them and wholly brought them to nothing The Bishop of Eureux restraineth this keeping to the time the people were in the wildernesse where God preserued them from hunger from thirst from Serpents and from their enemies because some Interpreters expound so the place Deut. 32. which saith that god kept his people as the apple of his ey But the question is not whether god kept his people in the wildernes which none denyeth but whether Moses or any of his expositours confine the keeping of God onely in the wildernes and whether euer any Saducie shewed himselfe so impertinent as to say that God kept not his people elswhere This forme of the Priests blessing is it not generall and vniuersall Let vs see his goodly Episcopall Enthymema God kept his people in the wildernes therefore he neuer kept them nor will keepe them elswhere yet would it follow that at least they that he kept in the wildernes are not wholly perished and brought to nothing or else that he kept them no better in the wildernes than he did elswhere and indeed many of them dyed there by fire by pestilence by serpents and by their enimies yea all that came out of Egypt except two dyed there euen Aaron and Moses whence is manifest that this keeping in the wildernes was not so singular and only that none other is worthy consideratioÌ„ in respect of it From the same place also I reason thus If the anger of God against sinne hath ordained miserie and death for to punish it as appeareth Gen 2. 3. It followeth that the peace and mercie of God taketh away this punishment consequenly causeth that death cannot hurt at leastwise them that are partakers of this peace and mercie of God according as is conteyned in the blessing Otherwise the effectes of the wrath and mercie of God should bee both alike and his fauour and peace should not restore the felicitie lost by the transgression of Adam Now the Sadducie seeth well that this is not effected alwaies nor yet ordinarily in this life which is fuller of calamities to the children of God than to others Therefore there must bee another life wherein this accomplishment is found From the fourteenth chapter and eighteenth verse which setteth forth vnto vs the mercie and benignitie of GOD is drawne an argument wholly like vnto the former And another also like to that which aboue is produced out of Exodus 34.7 where are reade the same words From the same Chapter the twentieth verse is gathered a proofe for eternall life where God declareth that hee pardoned his people that had prouoked him and yet neuerthelesse hee sayeth that they should all die in the wildernesse and that none of them shoulde see the land of promise which was accomplished And therefore if there were no other life for them whereto serued the pardon that God gaue them If those whose sinnes God pardoneth are destroyed in bodie and in soule what could hee more doe to them that obtained not pardon But since the Sadducie with his Aduocate will not see Paradise in Moses let vs shewe them Hell there The sixteenth Chapter of this booke recyteth vnto vs an Historie of some that descended thither aliue and hell is there named twice which should suffice him that maketh no reckoning of consequences how euident necessarie so euer they be but demaÌ„deth euer the litterall and formall text If he reply that the Hebrew word signifieth also a Sepulcher or ordinarie graue let him know that it cannot be so in this place for when Corah Dathan and Abiram were sunke downe and swallowed vp it was not an ordinarie buriall nor a graue made of purpose And the Latine Bible which is Authenticke to Du Perron translateth it Hellâ— Numb 23 10 In the 23. chapter is read this memorable sentence of Balaam so cleare and manifest as well for the felicitie as for the shame to come Fol. 20 that our Balaamite is ashamed to reply thereto himselfe choosing rather to bring in a contentious spirit as if his owne were other saying That Balaam by a figure common to Enigmaes and obscuritie of Oracles required
or spirituall From the same chapter 39. verse one may produce a formall text to a Sadducie for the resurrection For God saith expresly that he killeth and restoreth to life Whence I conclude If God maketh the dead to liue againe they are then raised vp And to him that would alwaies haue expresse words may be alledged Chapter 33. verse 6. where it is said of Ruben let him liue and not dye whence one may conclude He that dyeth not is immortall or raised vp againe Ruben that is that whole tribe dyeth not therefore it is immortall or raised vp againe From the same chapter 29. verse where Israell is called blessed because he is saued by the Lord who is his buckler is framed this argument Whosoeuer is saued by the Lord cannot perish Israell is saued by the lord therefore he cannot perish Our Bishop replyeth to this place that God saueth as well beasts as it is written in 36. Psalme I answer that Moses declareth Israell blessed for that he is saued after a singular and not a common fashion Who is like vnto thee saith hee O people saued by the Lord Du Perron answereth these are beasts 1. Tim. 4 1â— One might shew him the diuerse significations of this word saue in the New Testament where God is called Sauiour that is to say preseruer of all men but especially of the faithfull But since he refuseth the authoritie of this booke in manner of a Sadducie hee shall better vnderstand it by a more familiar example When a murderer is escaped the hands of earthly Iustice men say he is saued but if a Sadducie will change this proposition from it owne proper natue to inferre that hee is therefore wholly saued it shall bee shewed him to the contrary in Moses in the chapter going before where the soueraigne Iudge saith Vengeance is mine I will repay it Also Deu. 32 3 39 vers There is none that can deliuer out of my hand Thereupon may be said to a Saducie that which experience constraineth him to confesse that God doth not alwaies execute vengeance in this life and therefore he must conclude that it is executed after this life else should this text of Moses be false And indeed this reason without any text of Scripture mooued the very heathen to beleeue a Iudgement to come â—om 12. Also the former of these two places seemed to Saint Paule so cleare and manifest that he chose not any other to proue the iudgement of God which this Bishop would faine not find at all neither in Moses nor else where I said in my writings that these fiue points are linked vnseparably together He maintaineth that of the foure last I durst not so much as open my mouth The reader shall iudge if there be not particular and distinct proofes for euery one of them And then he addeth that the question is not of the connexion that they haue in themselues but of that they haue in the minde knowledge of vulgar and ordinary men â—ohn 6.45 I answere that they haue the same connexion in the mindes of them that are taught of God as all the faithfull are as they haue in themselues For true knowledge is that which apprehendeth the true being also the true order of things Now God giueth true knowledge of saluation to them that be his therfore he giueth it vnto them conformably to the true being and order of things that is of the articles necessarie to saluation Yea he giueth it more ordinarily to vulgar and ordinarie men Mat 11 25. than to these high and extraordinarie Gnostickes as the Scripture witnesseth where Iesus Christ giueth thankes to God his father that hee had hid these things from the wise men of vnderstanding and reuealed them to babes The ordinarie meanes hee vseth for to reuele them is the scripture â— Tim. 3 16 â—7 which instructeth a maÌ„ to the making him absolut perfect yea euen the man of god that is to say the Pastor who consequently is to teach nothing else but this doctrin of perfectioÌ„ coÌ„tained in the scripture in which he may shew the connexion of the articles in question as for example in the place of Daniell aboue alledged the resurrection of the body which is there formally presupposeth the immortality of the soule The euerlasting life perpetual ignominie of which there is also there expresse meÌ„tion made are Paradise Hell the property of them both being therein briefly declared and that in forme of a sentence which presupposeth a Iudge to pronounce it a iudgment that he shall execute Now although there hath beene found euen among the heathen that haue perceiued in their minde the connexion of some of these things that this Bishoppe distructeth and diuideth as much as in him lyeth witnesse Plutarch who findeth the coherence betweene the Immortality of the soule and the IudgmeÌ„t of God yet I neither said nor thought that the connexion of all is found in euery Spirit as he would conclude by my discourse for to make himselfe way to surprise me For that were to make faith which is the gift of God a naturall thing Ephe. 2.8 as a certaine ancient hereticke named Basilides did who also denyed the Resurrection and since the Pelagians Clem. Aleâ—â— Strom. l. 4. Tert. de prâ—â— c. 46. from whome the Bishopp of Eureux differeth not much demaunding euer such demonstrations as no contentious Spirit should be able to gainsay and opening by this meanes a liberty to beleeue what one listeth yea to beleeue nothing at all of the things controuerted and gainsayed I said also that Abraham referred the rich mans brethren for to preserue them out of Hell not only to the prophets but also to Moses He answereth very pleasantly Luk. 16.19 21. Fol. 53. That he referred them not onely to Moses but also to the Prophets the knowledge they might haue from Moses not being sufficient to giue them any perfect assurance of it without the helpe light of the Prophets Let vs obserue here againe the vncertaintie and Pirrhonian perplexity of our Bishopp He dare not deny but that there is something of these articles in Moses for otherwise Abraham should haue mocked the brethren of the damned rich man referring them to a booke where there was nothing that was necessary for them and notwithstanding he is not ashamed to reiect as impertineÌ„t all the places produced out of it without quoting any other that is fitt and proper at least in his iudgment Moreouer seeing that the writings of the Prophets themselues without excepting that excellent place of Daniell which conteyneth in formall tearmes the Resurrection euerlasting life 〈◊〉 32. 〈◊〉 54. and perpetuall ignominie as aboue hath beene shewed are so obscure and improper to conuince a gainsayer as he affirmeth what shamefull contradiction is this to call them here a helpe and light to vnderstand the bookes of Moses He addeth further That Abraham