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
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
gather together in paper what hee had scattered in the ayre his distinctions would appeare to bee more prestigious in the one than they seeme to bee specious in the other and that it would bee as harde a thing for him to vnwrappe himselfe from selfe-contradictions by the pen as it is easie for him to dazell and entangle the ignorant by his tongue Hee made account also perhaps that his cause being grounded on the Word vnwritten it could not well be defended by the word written Notwithstanding hauing intelligence since that hee had compiled a little writing on this subiect in fauour of some whom hee was desirous to subuert I haue taken paynes to get a Copie of it to which I haue made this aunswere which may serue in stâ—ade of a Resultate or repetition of our Verball Conference at vvhich vvere present fevve others than his greatest friendes vvho then made such acclamations and since haue sovved such reportes thereof as pleased them But heere not beeing required the applause of men nor any tickeling conceipt of vanitie I entreate the Readeer to ayme vvith mee in this vvriting at the glorie of God onely and the manifestation of his truth for the teaching vvhereof Saint Athanasius vvitnesseth that the Scripture is sufficient Let vs acknovvledge it then for Iudge Athanas 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 vs reuerence it as Mistres vvhilest our aduersaries take it for partie and pursue it as an enemie The answer of D. Daniell Tillenus to the Bishop of Eureux his treatice wherby he endeauoreth to proue the insufficiency and imperfection of the holy Scripture and the necessity authority of vnwritten traditions The bishop of Eureux THE vnwritten word of God The B. â— on which we call Apostolicke tradition is of the same force and authority as the written word is and without it the Scripture alone is not suffieient to confute all heresies The Iewes did beleeue when the body of the law of Moyses was giuen vnto them many things which either were not conteyned in the fiue bookes of Moyses or did not appeare vnto them to be therein conteined As the immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body the last iudgement Paradise Hell the Creation and distinction of the orders of Angells the being and creation of deuills and many other points which they could not know by humane science but it must needs be that they receiued them by reuelation from God and therefore that they had another way for to deriue and conserue the word of god besides that of the Scripture D. Tillenus his answer To him that would heare none but Fathers speake it may be answered in a word as one of the number saith Hillar iâ— Psalm 1â— Whatsoeuer is not conteined in the booke of the Law we ought not to know it He that speaketh so would not haue vs seeke that elsewhere which is not found in the Scripture We say that all that is necessary to saluation touching those and all other points is conteyned in the scripture either in expresse tearmes or in necessary consequence and true analogue Gen. 17â— Exod 6. â— Exod. 20â— In the writings of Moyses we find that God maketh a couenant with the Hebrews that he promiseth to be their God and the God of their seed to exercise mercy vpon them vnto thousand generations that is to say for euer to dwell in the middest of them 〈◊〉 10. 〈◊〉 29. to keepe them as the apple of his eie In them is Israell called happie for that it was saâ—ed by the lord God 7.9 Iacob being ready to depart out of this life comforted himselfe in the expectation of the saluation of the lorde to shew that he went to take possession of a bâ—tter countrey He and his Father called themselues straungers in the land of Canaan which notwithstanding was promised them for inheritance Therefore they beleeued the true country that is to say Paradise This consequent is not onely necessary but also manifest by the testimony of the Apostle who draweth it from this place of Scripture not from any vnwritten Tradition 〈◊〉 1.9.13 when he saith that they which so speake shew playnly that they seek a Country which is the thing that Du Perron can not find in the bookes of Moyses although we find in them that the wicked and vnfaithfull that defended lyes against the trueth 〈◊〉 â— 11 did wish it For what else meaneth that false prophet Balaam when he sayth O that my soule might dye the death of the righteous or that my end might bee like theirs This wish expresseth clearly enough the appreheÌ„sioÌ„ he had of the last iudgment 〈◊〉 â— 1 When Moyses calleth the Israelites the children of the Lord their God forbidding them to sorrow for the dead as infidells he speaketh no lesse manifestly of the resurrection 〈◊〉 4.13 than S. Paul when he exhorteth the Thessalonians not to lament for the dead as they do that haue no hope 〈◊〉 3.2 VVhen Moyses saith that God holdeth all his saints in his hands he saith the same thing that is sayd by other that haue written after him That the soules of the righteous are in the hands of the Lord and that they commit their soules vnto him 〈◊〉 â— 1 19. 2.32 24. â— Iud. â— 29 â—0 19 as vnto a faithfull creator So when he speaketh of the book of life of the taking vp of Henoch which Tertullian calleth Candidatum aeternitatis when he saith that those that feare God and keepe his commaundements shall be happy for euer when he setteth before the Iewes life and death blessing and cursing when he threatneth them with the fire of the Lords wrath Deut. â— which shall burne euen to the bottome of hell shall consume the earth with her encrease and set on fire the foundations of the mountaines VVhen I say he writeth all these things he sheweth clearly enough the immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body the last iudgement Paradise and Heâ—l which points are vnseparably linked together Jf these testimonies seeme not cleare enough to the Bishop of Eureux who confesseth neuerthelesse that in Daniell and the other Prophets that haue written since Moyses there is some found Let him consider that they which among the Corinthians denied the resurrection 1. Corâ—â— shifted off the one as well as the other VVhich sheweth that if those that doo erre in some point will not suffer themselues to be vanquished by the scripture that commeth not through any obscurity and imperfection of which they falsely accuse it but from their owne malice and blindnes Moreouer it is to be noted that it hath pleased God orderly to distribute the reuelation of his will of his promises and of his couenant by certayne degrees increasing alwaies the measure of this reuelation as the age of the world increased This oeconomy is clearely obserued in the Scripture if we mark therein the degrees from Adam to Abraham from Abraham to
and Prophets extraordinarily sent of God by which meanes now ceased since God hath spoken vnto vs by his Sonne it might be more fully instructed in all things Yet notwithstanding the holy Scripture is alwayes recommended vnto them aboue all Hebr. 1. God himselfe though he spake to Ioshuah by word of mouth confirming him in his charge notwithstanding he commended vnto him onely the booke of the Law Iosh 1.7 not promising him his assistance and blessing but on condition that he should do and obserue all that is conteined therein After that so often as the reformation of the Church was intended there was neuer any other patterne taken than the scripture 2. Chro. â— 2 Chro. â— 2. Chro. â— 2. King â— 2 King 2 Nehe 8. as appeareth by the examples of Iosaphat Ioas Ezechias Iosias Ezra Nehemias c. Contrariwise when Amon and Manasses would diuert the people from the seruice of god to idolatry they hid the book of the Law that it might no more be read publickly as god by Moyses had ordained As touching the creation of Angels the being creation of deuils which du Perron very improperly distinguisheth as if diuels were not angels at the beginning or as if god had created them by themselues so wicked as they are ther is reuealed in the books of Moyses as much of it as god hath iudged to be expedient for the simplicity of that people To tell what day or in what order they were created we know it no more by TraditioÌ„ thaÌ„ by the scripture though it be augmeÌ„ted since Moses from whom we gather their Creation when he saith that the heaueÌ„s the earth were finished and all their host Gen. 2 â— Gen. 28 Deut. 3â— Gal 3.1 In the vision of Iacobs ladder and elsewhere we read their apparitions and mynistery which the Jewes in the time of Moyses knewe rather by theyr experience than by Tradition sith the Lawe was published by them As for the supposed distinction of theyr orders Areopagita speaketh with such assuraunce as if he had beene present at it all though even he that was rapt vp into the third heauen not onely forbeareth to speake of it 〈◊〉 12.4 but also witnesseth that it is not lawfull to reueale these secrets We say with S. Augustine that when disputation is had of a thing very obscure without certaine and cleare proofe of the diuine scriptures the supposition of man is to be kept in not leaning more on the one side â—â—st cont â— it than the other He sendeth vs not in this case to vnwritten Tradition Irenaeus who should know more of Apostolike tradition that any of our time defied certaine Gnosticks in his dayes swolne with I know not what knowledge taken out of the scripture in reckoning vp and describing the distinctions orders and preheminences of Angells Archangells Powers Thrones Dominations and in a word all those things which the Church of Rome braggeth she knoweth and which this holy Father propounded to his aduersaries as impossible to comprehend Touching the diuell Moyses teacheth the Iewes in the scripture 〈◊〉 s 3. that he was a lyar a tempter and seducer from the beginning That the seede of the woman should bruise his head c. If there had been neede of knowing more he could haue giuen them the knowledge of it by a more authenticall and true Oracle than that of Rome is I know not whether du Perron would maintaine that the nine orders or degrees which the Schoolemen haue made among diuells in imitation of the Angelicall Hierarchie are from Apostolicke tradition The B. of Eureux They had besides this many other things whereof the institution is not found neither in the books of Moses nor in any other booke of the olld Testament As the institution of the order of Exorcists who by a certaine authenticall prescript form from God did coniure wicked spirits as our Lord beareth them witnes saying 〈◊〉 12.27 If I cast out deuills in the name of Beelzebub in whose name do your children cast them out And for this reason they shall be your iudges Which children Caluin prooueth that they were the Exorcists of the Iewes such as those which are spoken of in the 19. chapter of the Acts. D. Tillenus his answer The knowledge of these things eyther is not necessary to Saluation or is found in the Scripture by analogy or by consequence If the Exorcists of whom Saint Matthew speaketh be such as those of whom speaketh saint Luke Math. â— Acts 19 as Du Perron hath it from Caluine there was no diuine institution For they in the Acts were certayne vagabonds that abused the name of Jesus for which they sped very ill We know that in the beginning of the Christian Church this miraculous guift of casting out deuills was vsuall there but we find not that they which had it in the exercising thereof did vse any mysticall prescript forme but that they did simply coniure the * Enerâ—â— Possessed in the name of God whence we gather that such as in the Iewish Church had this guift and did vse it lawfully brought thereunto none other mysterie than the calling on the name of the God of Abraham Isaack and Iacob which forme is found euidently enough in the Scripture The B. of Eureux They had the miracle of the Poole the water whereof the Angell troubled which was a figure of Baptisme that shoulde heale vs of our infirmities after that the Angell of the greate counsaile which is our Lord Iesus Christ was gone down into the water Now that this was not any illusions of the deuill and superstition for those that haue recourse thereunto but a true miracle instituted of god wherunto credit might be giuen it could not be knowne but by tradition D. Tillenus his answer The miracle of the Poole was visible as the miracles of Iesus Christ the Apostles and the Prophets afore them were Iohn 5. â— It tended not to establish or confirme any false doctrine in which case the caution that Du Perron requireth had been necessary Nehem â— Nehemias sayth that the gate of this Poole was hallowed when he City was reedified after the returne from captiuity Whence we may coniecture that God then adorned it with this miracle in token of his approuing the restoring of the City And the word Beth-chesda which was the name of the Poole in the Syriack tongue signifieth the house of benignity because God there did visibly shew his goodnesse in healing all the diseases of his people The B. of Eureux The custome also which they had to deliuer a man at Easter which was a figure of the deliuerance of mankind by the Passeouer of our Sauiour was a Tradition D. Tillenus his answer The custome to deliuer a man at Ester was rather a corruption of Iustice brought in by infidell Gouernors than any necessary point to saluation reuealed and commanded of god to the faithfull The B. of
the scripture Acts â—7 2 1. Cor. 15 Titus 1 12 â—oâ—o 10 which verses got no authority amongst vs til since the time as they were sanctified by the Apostle as Tertullian speaketh though before they conteyned truth The Bishop of Eureux verie vnfitly confoundeth these two tearmes Truth and Authoritie as if euerie sentence and historie conteyning Truth had as much authoritie as a place of holy scripture And if the Apostles alleadge somtimes things not written it must be noted that hauing receiued the spirit in such abundance they discerned better the true traditions from the false than their pretended successours could any waies doe Also ordinarily it is but vpon some circumstance of historie and not for the substance as the names of the Magitians of Pharaoh Iacobs worshipping of God 2 Tim 3 8 Hebr. 11.2 Hebr. 12.2 as he leaned on his staffe certaine words of Moses propounded at the publishing of the Law The fastening of Iosephes feete in the stocks in prison The prophesie of Henoch alledged by S. Iude though it be taken from Tradition as touching the words 〈◊〉 105 18 yet the ground of it appeareth in Scripture which teacheth vs that the Patriarches were ordained for to teach those of their ages and to declare vnto them the iudgements of God And since we finde in Scripture that Henoch continually walked wirh God we gather from thence that he spared not to exhort the men of his time 〈◊〉 5 22.24 to repentance and to threaten them with the wrath of God Considering that the same Scripture teacheth vs that God doth nothing afore he hath reuealed his secrets to his seruants the Prophets â—â—us 2. It is also to be noted that this prophecie of Henoch may be more fitly vnderstood of the vniuersall Iudgement that God executed vpon the world by the flood than of the last Iudgement of the world And forasmuch as they of whom S. Iude speaketh were contemners of God It is to be beleeued that they made as little reckoning of the Scripture as of the authoritie of Iesus Christ â—â—se 4. whom they denyed And therfore the Apostle chooseth rather to alledge vnto them a historie witnessed not only by the Scripture but also by profane Authors who make mention of the Deluge as we learne by Iosephus Eusebius and S. Cyrill But this instance shall be examined more particularly in his place The second fraud whereof he accuseth me is That in stead of shewing the points in question by expresse Texts of Moses or by necessarie consequences and true analogie I shew them by some probable and coniecturall apparances or shewes The Reader which hath eyes to see shall iudge whether there be apparance or substance whether probability or necessity mean while I wil aduertise him of the methode that Du Perron keepeth in answering it 1. He opposeth some maimed exposition of one of our Doctours as if wee did attribute like authoritie to them as the Church of Rome doth to their popes or the like as to the ancieÌ„t fathers of whome the Glosse of the ciuill Canon saith Glos in dist Can Nolim that all their writings are to be held for authenticall euen to the least Iota or title Although sometimes he produce some out of the Rabbines yea euen from some Doctours of the Romish Church 2 He inuenteth one of his owne braine if he finde none in some Interpreter that repugneth mine 3 He reduceth the places of Moses in forme of a cornuted syllogisme in fashion of his miter to make himselfe be laughed at 4 He wresteth my conclusions for what pointe he listeth though I alleadge the places for proofe of another and this he doth that he might make my arguments be found the more absurd and giue himselfe subiect of exclayming that I speake not of all the pointes proposed 5 He saith in the end that the places are not so cleare but a conteÌ„tious spirite may finde some defect And if I confirme my exposition by the testimonie of the Fathers for to shew that others haue vnderstood as I doe the place in question and that I wrest it not to serue myne owne turne His ordinary answere is That the question is not whether some Father hath vnderstood it so or no but whether that can be verified by the onely text of Moses which is the heape of all peruersnes and Impudencie for if I bring but the bare text he saith I am alone of my opinion and that it may be taken otherwise at least by a contentious spirit In a word not onely the places of Moses but also those of Iob Daniel and Dauid most expresse for the Immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body the last iudgment and life Eternall are so feeble vnto him that he sheweth well that he beleeueth those pointes no better than the Saduces for whome he pleadeth And whereas Cicero said to a certaine Aduocate pleading faintly if thou didst not couÌ„terfeit thou wouldest not plead so coldly So contrariwise one may say vnto him that if he feyned he would not plead so eagerly for to imagine that he beleeueth these points by benefite of the inuentarie of Tradition is absurd sith that throughout his whole booke he coÌ„tinually demauÌ„deth insoluble ineuitable demonstrations which none in the world no not the most contentious spirit that is can be able to gainesay protesting that he will not admitt any proofe of Scripture vnlesse it be such Can he finde of this stampe in the treasorie of Tradition Is not his speach the speach of a heathen Atheist â—â—len de â—ll differ l c 4 most execrable which saith That in the Schoole of Moses and of Christ there be harde lawes which are not grounded on any demonstration Felix Gouernour of Iudea a heathen and a wicked maÌ„ when he heard S. Paul speake of the last Iudgment â—â—t 24.25 he trembled for feare and yet the Apostles discourse was onely taken from Moses â—â—t 26.22 and the Prophets if we beleeue him in that which he saith afterwards before Festus and King Agrippa But our Pyrrhonian Bishop findeth â—â—l 11. 22 25 that all that can be alleadged is but matter of mockery and that by Moses saying beasts and fishes are altogither as immortall in their soules as wel coÌ„prised in Gods couenaÌ„te capable of euerlasting life as the creatures which beare the Image of God The Saduces for whome he pleadeth found not the Resurrection of the bodie clearely enough expressed in the writings of Moses for to beleeue them but after that our Sauiour Christ had prooued it by the miraculous raysing vp of Lazarus did they beleeue it for that The Pharises which made profession to beleeue it beleeued they for that that Iesus Christ was the ResurrectioÌ„ the life No more truly theÌ„ an Epicure would haue beleeued the Imortality of the soule seeing Calanus ioccuÌ„dly cast himselfe into the fire although this act seemed to othersome a more pertinent proof for
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
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
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
particularly The sprinkling of the booke may be compreheÌ„ded vnder the sprinkling of the altar siâ—h both the one and the other represented God in this ratification of the Couenant for the booke conteined the Lawe and the conditions that God required in this Contract wherefore as S. Paule omitteth the sprinkling of the altar so Moses omitteth the expresse mention of the booke both of them vsing a Synecdoche The inconuenience that the B. of Eureux alledgeth is that if the booke had beene sprinkled with the Altar Moses had blotted out the writing of the Couenant before hee had read it to the people A great matter sure that one cannot sprinkle a thing without blotting and spoyling it as though he who in consecrating Aaron sprinkled those parts of him that God had commaunded him to sprinkle without plunging or drowning him in bloud though in other places he sprinkled a great quantitie could not as well sprinkle the booke without marring it shedding the great quantitie of bloud vpon the altar There is as much cunning in this consideration as there is reason in his reproofe of our translation of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which S. Paule vseth verse 19. to speake which Du Perron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordaineth by the tradition of his new Lexicon that heÌ„ceforth it signifie to read He perswadeth himself that the opinion of Caluin who saith that in Saint Pauls time there was perhaps some CoÌ„mentaries of the Prophets which recounted more amply that which Moses had touched onely by forme of abridgement maketh greatly for his purpose as if it did follow that those commentaries conteined infallibly the traditions at this day in controuersie Or because they be lost that hee doth the Scripture no wrong to defame it as imperfect unsufficieÌ„t Let him learne of S. Augustine that it is no wise necessarie that all the writings of the Prophets should bee indifferently Canonicall â—â—g de Ciu. â—â—i li. 18 38 saith hee I esteeme that they to vvhom the Holy Ghost reuealed that vvhich should bee authenticall for Religion might write certaine things as men with an Historicall diligence and other things as Prophets by diuine inspiration and that these same vvere so distinguished that the one vvere attributed as to them but the others as to God speaking by them So that the former perteined to a more ample knovvledge the latter to the authoritie of Religion in vvhich authoritie the Canon is maintained and kept Besides which if there bee yet any writings bearing the name of true Prophets they serue not for to haue a more abundance of knowledge by them because it is not certaine that they be theirs to whom they be attributed and therefore wee beleeue them not especially those in which we finde things contrarie to the Canonicall faith And thus is Caluin cleered It is most certaine that the Prophets and Apostles ceased not to be men after that God had chosen them to be Prophets and Apostles and the gift of prophesying and reuealing the mysteries of God to men whether it were by word of mouth or by writing Vide Thomâ— Aqui. par 2 q. 171. ar 1. was not in them as the habitude of a science gotten by studie neither as the light is in an heauenly bodie but rather as that which is in the ayre from which it may bee easily seperated so that as they could not heale al diseases at al times and so often as they listed so could they not prophesie wheÌ„ they would 2. Kin. 4.27 neither knew they any thing but what it pleased the Lord to reueale vnto them witnes Heliseus who knew not the subiect of the sadnes and bitternes that the Sunamite had in her heart because the Lord had hid it from him And Samuel thought that Eliab had been him that the Lord had chosen to be King in Saules stead Nathan also said to Dauid when he purposed to build the Temple 1. Sam. 16 7. 2. Sam. 7. c. 1. Chro. 17 c. do all that is in thine heart for the Lord is with thee wherein both of theÌ„ were abused by the instinct of his owne minde therefore Saint Gregorie cited by Thomas Aquinas saith that it hapned sometimes that the Prophets being asked counsaile of by reason of their great vse or custome of prophesiing vttered things of their owne minde hauing opinion that they were of the holy Ghost It is not therefore sufficient that a thing be pronounced or written by a Prophet or an Apostle for to haue a Canonicall authority attributed vnto it but it behooueth also that there come betweene the motion and inspiration of god assuring those holy men not only of the truth of the matter which they treate for all that conteineth trueth hath not Canonicall authoritie but also of the end and vse thereof namely that it was for to be authenticall for to serue for an infallible rule to the faith and life of the faithfull To goe about to coÌ„clude a Canonicall authority of some book by the allâ—gation of some place that an Apostle citeth from it is a thing that deserueth rather to be laughed at than to be answered for by that meanes it would follow as hath bin abouesaid that Menander Aratus and Epimenides or Callimachus Heathen Poets should haue the like authoritie as the diuine Prophets because S. Paule alleadgeth and approueth some of their verses .. And therefore though wee shall say with Caluin that the particulars and circumstances expressed in this 9. chapter might be taken forth of the commentarie of some Prophet which we haue not Yet it would not follow either that it was part of the Canon or though it were which we say only by concession or graunt that the Canon which we haue is imperfect God of his goodnesse hauing preserued so much of it as he knew to be necessarie for his Church that is to say the parts essentiall though there wanted some of the parts called integrall And though we should not follow the opinion of Caluin yet would it not followe that the Apostles had the knowledge of these particulars by the tradition or Cabale of the Iewes seing they might haue taken them from some other bookes not written by any Prophet neuerthelesse receiued among the Iewes though not with Propheticall authority as some Historiographers are amongst vs. And therfore the cardinall Caietan who should euery way better know what is deriued from tradition than the B. of Eureux who is inferiour vnto him in dignitie in knowledge and in place of resideÌ„ce the cardinal hauing bin ordinarily neer the oracle of Rome drunk of the fouÌ„taine of tradition saith in his CoÌ„mentary vpon this chapter namely of the particular of the golden Censoure which after the opinion of many was in the most holy place from which our Bishop maketh his strongest instance It is not knovvne vvhence the Author of this Epistle hath taken this namely that the golden Censer was in the
most holy place And the same may be said of the golden Pot wherein was the Manna Aarons rod sith the solution of the Iesuite Ribera doth not satisfy him who no more than this Cardinall hath not recourse to Tradition Gen. â—0 12 2. Sam. 21 c. choosing rather to employ therein Grammer there being the like examples of Scripture in which the pronoune is referred to the antecedent farthest of than to apply thereto this plaister for all sores or to borrow the inuention of Caluin for to take away the contradiction which the same Cardinall saith to be most manifest betweene the place 1. King 8.9 which hath these expresse wordes Nothing was in the Arke saue the two tables of the law And this is taken in the sense that our Bishop will haue it And Bellarmine himselfe doth he not receiue the opinion of them that holde that the golden Pot and the rod were in some outward part of the Arke and not within the arke it selfe de verb. Deâ— Lib. 1. c â—7 The two last Instances taken out of the Epistle of S. Iude haue beene touched aboue let vs confirme here our opinion by the testimony of the same Cardinall Caietan who saith It can not bee knowne whence Saint Iude had the knowledge of this combat Comm. in epist Iud. that is to say betweene the Angell and the Diuell yet there be some that hold that it is taken out of the apocryphall bookes of the Hebrews who hath then reuealed it to our B. that the Apostle the Iewes held it vnwritten Tradition the apocrypha books of the Iewes the tradition which he pretendeth to be the true pure word of God is it all one To coÌ„clude from whence so euer this historie be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 3. c. 2 In câ—talog whether from the booke which Origen calleth the ascentioÌ„ of Moses of which S. Hierome also maketh mention or whether it be from the pretended Tradition what auaileth it against the perfection and sufficiencie of the doctrine conteyned in the Scripture How often haue we told him that we are at accord that all particular deeds and sayings â—â—hn 21.25 are not contayned in it neither can be â—â—l 1â—3 But from this historie saith he are drawne many excellent doctrines the beginning of this knowledge could not be humane and naturall but of necessity must take originall froÌ„ an expresse reuelation c. Say it be so to what purpose all this Is not our question whether there is any point of doctrine that should be deriued from any other beginning than from the Scripture Is it not whether the points of doctrine conteyned in the Scripture may be confirmed by some other proofes besides the Scriptures The Greekes reciting this historie say that the Archangell was employed in the Buriall of Moses â—ecum in â—ist Iud. that the Diuell opposed himselfe thereunto alleadging that Moses was his because of the manslaughter committed in the person of the Egyptian and that therefore he deserued not so honourable a buriall The doctrines which they draw from it are that the Apostle would teach by it 1. that men haue to render an accompt after this life 2 That there is one the same God both of the old and new Testament 3. That the Diuell riseth vp against the soules departed from the body and striueth to hinder their way to heauen but the good Angells assist them and resist the wicked Spirits 4 That we ought not to Iudge nor curse rashly 5. That honour should be yeelded to Superiours Now it were for our B. to deny that these doctrines are conteyned in the scripture and that the Iewes could not deriue them from any other beginning but from vnwritten Tradition and for to doe this he must race out an infinite number of places of the law and of the Prophets and by this meanes not onely he should iustify his blasphemies against the scripture but also the heresie of the Anabaptists in the point which concerneth the obedience due to Magistrates as elswhere he endeuoreth to do touching the point of baptisme of little children Now as these doctrines are more thaÌ„ sufficiently proued by the Scripture so the historie in question repugneth not any thing thereuÌ„to whether we take it as Oecumenius reciteth it or after the vulgar vnderstaÌ„ding namely that the deuill 2. Cor. â— whose enterprises wee are not ignorant of endeuoured to discouer the Sepulchre of Moses which God had expresly hid laying therein onely this body that it might be vnknowne to all and might not giue occasion to Idolatrie as it hapned among Christians when they began to vnbury to transport and to worship the reliques of Martyrs and sometimes the reliques of theeues and robbers It is therefore false that they which receiued this Historie as Saint Iude reciteth it Could not as he saith after our Maximus fol. 11â— excuse theÌ„selues of superstition in their beleife to giue credite to such â—arâ—â—ations which had been wholly fabulous full of deceits if they had come from any other then from the pure reuelation and word of God I say it is a meere deceite to say that wee condemne of superstition or deceit all that is not conteined in the holy Scripture as he saith we doe for we abase not the price and estimation of humane writings thogh we make theÌ„ not equal to the diuine we acknowledge the gifts of the authour of Truth eueÌ„ in them that haue alwayes remained vnder the tyranny of the father of lyes though more in them that haue been translated out of the power of darknes into the kingdom of light We consider both and examine them by the rule of the Scripture which is for this cause called Canon that which agreeth thereunto wee receiue with praise that which repugneth it wee reiect with leaue and accuse of superstition the beleefe that is giuen to such narrations which cannot haue place in the recitall of Saint Iude in as much as he is an Apostle hauing the spirit of the Lord in such a measure that hee neither deceiued himselfe nor any other in that which the said or wrote for to be inserted into the Canon of faith And if we receiue now some verses of certaine heathen Poets as the word of God since they were sanctified by the Apostle what reason were there to reiect this narration though it were taken foorth of an Apocrypha booke as the Fathers thought seeing that no newe doctrine can be drawn from it but that of the Scripture by it is confirmed It is a necessarie point to know that the Magistrate is ordained of God that we owe him honor and reuerence but know all the particular places reasons and testimonies that may serue to proue this point is not a thing necessary to know I shewed by the way what proffit the Church of Rome maketh of this tradition of S. Iude namely quite coÌ„trarie to that it containeth for
De moribâ— Eccl. Cathâ— c. 24. Hee confesseth that there are many Superstitious persons in the true Religion worshippers of Sepulchers and pictures But in another place he vnfoldeth his opinion vpon this matter saying that if wee pray well as we ought to doe we should say nothing else Ep. 121. â— Prob. but what is set downe in the Lords prayer And that whosoeuer saith that which cannot be referred to this EuaÌ„gelicall praier though his praier be not vnlawfull yet is it carnall which cannot choose but bee vnlawfull seeing that they who are regenerate by the Spirit ought onely to pray Spiritually To the place that the Bishop of Eureux produceth out of Theodoret what can be more fitly opposed Theodor. Ep ad col than that which the same Theodoret writeth on the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Colossians where hee calleth worshipping of Angels heresie But if Angels which are ordeined of God for our guard which are the noblest creatures of all which alwayes stand before the Throne of God cannot be adored without heresie after the doctrine of Theodoret and the determination of the Councell of Laodicia shall we say he thought that the bones of dead men should bee worshipped what distinction so euer they make which the people vnderstand as little as the dead bones doe And if Baronius durst heere condemne Theodoret 〈◊〉 Eccl. â— ad an â—4 for that hee condemned as Heresie this superstitious worshipping of Angelles How much more shall it bee lawfull to condemne of Idolatrie and impietie them that so seeke and prease after this abhominable worshipping of bones and dead bodies For Saint Augustine in the place aboue alledged will not haue men serue nor adore the heauenly bodies for this onely reason that though they bee rightly preferred before all other bodies yet life is much better These heauenly bodies are not without miracles which God hath wrought in them and they doe bring more profit to men and do better declare the glorie of God than doth the dust and ashes of the dead what miracles soeuer be done there 〈◊〉 9.1 of which the true had none other end but to yeeld testimonie to the truth which the Martyrs had confessed for to conuert the Heathen therevnto and not turne away Christians from him that is the liuing God for to make them worship dead men for to withdraw the people from the visible Elements to the knowledge of saluation manifested in the Scriptures and not for to draw them to idolatries more then Hethenish which the Spirit of lies hath the cunning so well to nourish and set forward by an infinite number of false miracles and such as those were wherewith in times past he so well maintained the Heathen vnder his obedience Dialog Gazaei â— 5. Paâ—â—om 1 Here I summon him againe to tell vs on what Apostolike Tradition were and are grounded the Pirgrimages adorations and all those Ceremonies instituted a long time after the death of the Apostles What certaintie there is concerning the reliques which the people worship By what Registers shewed the succession of them that haue continued the keeping of them from father to sonne How by the warres and other publike calamities which haue lost abolished so many things there hath not beene lost so much as a comb of the virgin Marie a clout of the childhood of our Sauiour Christ ten thousand other such peeces No not vnder that horrible spoile and hauocke in the time of Dioclesian when al the Oratories and holy places of christians were burned and ruinate which serueth Baronius for an excuse and for an ordinary refuge when he would fain proue a thing by antiquity and can not And to come again to the historie in question there is found the verie dagger wherwith St. Michael fought with the Diuell from which Tradition the people learneth that it is not by faith nor by spirituall weapons Ephes 6. â— wherewith the Scripture armeth vs that wee must combat the Diuell but that one must haue a good sword and dagger for to resist him according to the Tradition of the Cibille who commanded Aeneas going into hell Virg. 6. Eâ— to hold his sword in his hand Tuque inuade viam vaginaque eripe ferrum That it is not in the worde and in the Sacraments that wee must seeke Christ with his spirituall graces but in some peece of wood which is said to be a peece of his crosse in some naile napkin towell or other relique Though Saint Paul say that he knoweth not Iesus according to the flesh 2. Cor. 5â— so farre is he off from making reckoning of these pretended Reliques The Scripture teacheth vs that God ordayned Death as a curse as the wages of sinne that deade bodyes bones and graues were polluted and did pollute euen the liuing by their touchings because they were as so many myrrors of this curse and of the corruption of humane nature in which the Image of God is so fowly disfigured Moreouer this same legall pollution taught the Israelites by figure that which the Apostles vnder the Gospell taught cleerely namely that wee should carefully keepe our selues from dead workes which are also called workes of the flesh and to maintaine our selues pure and holy the pretended tradition on the contrarie teacheth that there is no other puritie nor holines but in stirring kissing gilding adoring of dead bodies and wheras the lawe particularly forbad Priests to touch dead bodies 〈◊〉 22. there is no sort of people now adayes that so busie themselues in funerals and in handling of bones and reliques then the Priestes who feed vpon dead bodies like Rauens Vultures and in the meane while brag they were figured by the Leuitical Priests whom they care for as litle as for Iesus Christ when he saith Let the dead bury the dead vnlesse it bee that they obey him in this that being more dead than liuing they will haue no other affaires but with the dead hauing no hope of the true life and this is the reason why in their altars whereupon they sacrifice and crucifie as much as in them is Iesus Christ who is that life they must haue the bones and ashes of the dead to the end that as well they as their altars with which they liue might liuely represent vnto vs the possessed with vncleane spirites 〈◊〉 8. â—5 of whom the Gospel speaketh with the graues in which they dwelt Now we learne well ynough by the Scripture without the helpe of any tradition that the legall pollution that came by touching dead bodies is abolished by the Incarnation of our Sauiour Christ but that they should bee worshipped and adored with so much superstition and Idolatrie after this incarnation there is in it neither precept of it nor example though wee read in it the death and buriall of Saint Iohn Baptist of Saint Steuen and others on the contrary this distinction of reliques before and after the Incarnation is
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
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
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
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
the most part taken out of Origen that is out of the original of the most part of his errours mooued me to put this opinioÌ„ of saint Hilarie in the ranke of others wholy erroÌ„eous which are fouÌ„d in his writings as when he attributeth to our Lord Iesus Christ a bodie vncapable of wearinesse of hunger of thirst of al dolour condemning of errours Lib. 10. de Trin. in Psal â—8 those which by his sufferings conclude the dolour When he speaketh in such sorte of the IncarnatioÌ„ of Christ as if the holy Virgine had but borne brought him forth without contributing any thing of her substaÌ„ce to his flesh Lib. 8. de Trin. When he saith that we are one with the father by nature and not onely by similitude or adoption When he thinketh that Moses is yet aliue atleast by the iudgmeÌ„t of Bellarmine notwithstanding that the holy Scripture saith the contrary in expresse tearmes Matth. inc 17 de Purgat l 2 c. 8. Deu 34.5 c Learne heere Bishop that it is better to skip ouer such places impure and dangerous than to defile a mans selfe and run headlong into danger by abiding vpon them Epiphanius reciteth that certaine monstrous heretikes gathered the spettle other ordures which issued from the bodies of certaine women desceÌ„ded of their arch-hereticke â—osh 1.1.2 Haeres 53. for to keep them in manner of relicks and to apply them to sick persons In like sorte do they who cherish their spirituall maladies by the vncleannesses which they gather from the writings of the auncient Fathers And it is good reason that such to whom the scripture is vnsauorie should haue no better than stinking puddles for their best refreshing He accuseth me of two frauds 1. In that I summon the aduersaries to proue by the scripture all the points in controuersie betweene vs and them not onely such as be of the Essence of our saluation but others also lesse important and in the meane while restraine the disputation of things necessarie when it is shewed that the Apostles left certaine things to their disciples without writing theÌ„ 2. That in stead of prouing the points in question by such cleare and infallible texts of Moses that euerie simple Israelite might haue framed of it a necessarie indubitable consequence I produce onely some probable and coniecturall apparances or shewes To the first obiection I answere that wee neuer change our Thesis Wee proue by the scripture the points that we beleeue necessarie to saluation and wee demaund of our aduersaries the like proofe for the points that they pretend to be such whether of necessitie absolute or conditionall Wee reiect many things of the Romish Church which at first sight seeme not to oppugne saluation but their consequences dash against it For example the forbidding to eate flesh on certaine daies is in it selfe a light thing and may be practised for certaine politicke respectes Rom. 14 which concerne not our saluation sith that the kingdome of God is neither meat nor drinke But to make of it a law for to binde the conscience to declare the transgression thereof a sinne against the holy Ghost to constitute therein merite towards God to attribute vnto it an expiatorie power to doe away sinnes C. violatoâ— to make of it workes of supererogation c. These are consequences which shake the foundation of Christian libertie the doctrine of grace and the assurance of our saluation grounded vpon grace Thus acknowledging but one Law-giuer who can saue and destroy 〈◊〉 4 12. and desiring to persist in the liberty which Iesus Christ hath purchased vs we will not receiue the yoak of bondage 5.1 8.20 â— 11.28 â—0 And they that wold subiect vs vnder their laws make vs fall vnder their insupportable burdens we bring them to the law of God to the yoake of Iesus Christ which is easie and to his burden which is light Wherefore it is false that we conclude so as the Bishop of Eureux saith we doe That is not in the Scripture it is therefore an impietie and superstition Our conclusions are thus That is not in the scripture and notwithstanding is commaunded vs to be kept as necessarie vnto saluation by him who hath no authoritie to make lawes to the conscience Therefore it is an impietie or superstition Wee grant also that some things touching the order outward policy of the Church things not vnmooueable and vnchangeable as is the doctrine of faith haue not beene written neither all the particuler deeds and sayings of our Sauiour and his Apostles But it is one thing to say All the heades of doctrine are not written and another thing to say All the particularities comprised vnder euerie head or kinde are not written We say that the Apostles haue written all the heads of doctrine genera singuloruÌ„ though not all the particularities of euerie head Non singula generum For as it is impossible to comprehend them all so is it not possible to write them all And for this cause we neuer denied but that there were things vnwritten vnder both Testaments as we doe not meerely and flatly reiect them so we receiue them not all without discretion or difference Neither hold we them that we receiue in the same degree of authoritie with the scripture because the Apostles themselues inasmuch as they haue not inregistred them with the rest haue weakened their authoritie and manifested that they were not things absolutely necessarie that the doctrine that may be drawne from them is sufficiently declared in the things which are written which are neuer so particuler but that wee may draw thence instruction for the generall Rule of fayth And the number of these same is so ample in their writings that to Christians they suffice whether it be to learne the truth or to reprooue errour This is that which is principally regarded in matter of Testaments namely what is written and not what the Testator said by word of mouth to any one who may varie or forget which is not to bee feared in â—he Scripture And how should the right be knowne How should the processe be ended which ariseth of matters of Testament if the InstrumeÌ„t be not produced visited especially when it is a long time after the decease of the Testator And when the Apostles make mention in their writings of some particular thing holdeÌ„ receiued among the Iews though not expressed in the writings of the Old Testament it followeth not either that they would authorise all the traditions of the Pharises or that they esteemed the Scripture imperfect or that they set those vnwritten particularities that they alledge in the same degree of necessitie or authoritie as they doe the things written For if of such allegations one would inferre equall authoritie with the scripture it would follow that the poems of Aratus Menander and Epimenides out of whom saint Paule citeth some verses should be equall to
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
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
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
hath not wholly abolished them But this argument taken from Gods couenant with the fathers hath beene alreadie aboue discoursed of at large From the 14. chapter first verse is framed this demonstration children haue part in their fathers inheritance Moses calleth the Israelites the children of the Lord therfore they haue part in his inheritance Now this father is heauenly and eternall his true inheritance therefore is not onely earthly and temporall For if it were none other than the land of Canaan the Lords children should haue no aduantage aboue others yea they should be worse prouided for than the most detestable Idolaters and sworne enemies of the Lord who haue possessed so great and mightie Empires Againe they that haue God who is the author of life and life it selfe for their father cannot be destroyed nor alwaies detayned by death but Moses in this place teacheth the Israelites that they haue God for their father Therfore he teacheth them withal that they cannot be destroied nor their dead alwaies deteined by death Herupon it is that he groundeth the forbidding touching the vnmeasurable sorrow that the Heathen vsed for their dead not hauing the same hope â—â—rs 2 because they had not the same doctrine From the 30. chapter 15. and 16 verses where Moses setteth before the Israelites life and death blessing and cursing I reason thus if the life and blessing whereof Moses speaketh bee but temporall and not eternall God himselfe is not Eternall The consequent is horrible blasphemie Therefore the antecedent is necessarily false The consequence is prooued by the twentieth verse following of the same Chapter in which God is called the life and length of daies of that people whence I conclude he that hath the Lord for life and for length of his daies shall liue for euer but the faithfull saith Moses haue the Lord for their life therefore they shall liue for euer And by consequent the instance of the Bishop of Eureux is foolish and blasphemous when hee saith That since God blesseth the fishes of the sea Gennes 1. one might conclude that fishes are capable of life eternall Moses saith not that God is the life length of daies of fishes nor that fishes are children of the Lord to possesse him as their inheritance as he saith of the Israelites in tearmes as cleare and manifest as Saint Paule saith it of the faithfull â—ol 3.4 when hee calleth Christ our life See how the equiuocate or double signification of the word blesse may be distinguished by the onely Text of Moses without the helpe of Tradition But it was not for nothing that the Bishop of Eureux maketh heere fishes capable at least by Moses text of life eternall it is without doubt ouerthwartly to insinuate because they make more capable of it such as make of them their principall food as doe the Charterhouse Monks and some others For he hath learned from the Iewish Tradition that God hauing created two whales and fearing least if they engendred others the sea would be no more nauigable Lyr. in Psâ— Relation 7. c. ad finâ—â— he killed the female and salted the flesh of it which he keepeth to giue the righteous to eate in the world to come Also for to teach vs or to put vs in minde why the Romish Tradition suffereth the vse of fish in Lent forbidding the vse of flesh Namely because God hath blessed the fishes of the sea but he hath cursed the earth in the workes of man as saith Durand that great rehearser of Tradition adding that those creatures that haue partly the forme of a beast and partly the forme of a fish as the Oâ—ter one may eate the fish part that is to say of a creature halfe blessed halfe cursed Such mysteries indeed would neuer be drawne from the onely litterall text of Moses if Tradition did not leÌ„d helpe thereunto But the consequence that it draweth from the curse of the earth for to forbid flesh meates is so glittering and sparkling bright that it dazelleth the eyes that are vsed but to the light of the Scripture For if it be not lawfull to eat flesh because the earth is cursed in the workes of man we must by necessarie and euident consequence conclude either that in like sorte bread should not be eaten or that in the time when this prohibition was made men plowed and sowed in the sea and corne grew there that they might eate of it as partaker of the blessing giuen to fishes which is a Tradition that hath neede of another subsidiarie Tradition to helpe to vnderstand it From the .31 chapter 16. verse where God saith to Moses that he shall sleepe with his fathers is gathered the same argument that aboue is produced out of diuerse places of Genesis yea there may two be gathered whereof this word Sleepe doth furnish vs the first for to sleepe presupposeth some Being And that which is abolished is not capable of sleepe One cannot say that he which is not yet borne sleepeth No more can one say therefore with Plynie and the Sadduces that after man is deade it is the same thing as before he was borne or conceiued The other argument is taken from this whole speach to sleepe with his Fathers Those Fathers therefore must haue some Beeing or else let the Bishoppe of Eureux teach vs what difference there is betweene sleeping all alone and sleeping with some that haue no being at all From the 32. Chapter 9. verse I conclude thus The possession of the Lord is vncorruptible Israell saith Moses is the Lords possession therefore it is vncorruptible From the same Chapter 10 verse He that is kept of God as the apple of his eye cannot be wholly destroyed Israell was so kept Therefore c. The Bishops cauillation vpon this argument is aboue refuted From the same Chapter 22. verse Hee which threatneth to destroy consume the earth by fire euen to the foundation of the mountains denounceth a general vniuersall iudgement but so God threatneth in this verse therefore he denounceth an vniuersall iudgement For that which is said to the Israelites is applied by a iust and euident analogy to all transgressors The bishop of Eureux replieth that these be metaphoricall comparisons wherby God compareth his anger vnto fire I grant it for there are certaine matters that cannot be declared to mans vnderstanding but by metaphoricall and allegoricall locutions And therefore euen in the new TestameÌ„t â—el 13 the torments of hell are represented vnto vs by a lake burning with fire and brimstone And so far are these figures froÌ„ engendring obscuritie that on the contrary they giue light to our minds vnderstanding to our harts more than if they were proposed without figures And such is S. Augustines iudgement of them 〈◊〉 119 Moreouer if the Tradition be so cleare on this question of Hell fire whence coÌ„meth it that the Fathers and Schoolemen are so busied to determine whether it be materiall
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
haue attributed this opinion to Luther alone The same glose reporteth the opinion of some others which held that this serpent tooke the pleasant countenance of a mayden and condemneth it for no other reason but because the scripture doth not authorise it Now that these effectes namely speech and perswasiue discourse soliciting the woman to disobedience did exceede the naturall facultie of a naturall Serpent there is no Sadducee can denie therefore this facultie came to it eyther of man or of God or from some other spirit that hath it in it selfe This cannot bee of man for man cannot giue speach reason and discourse to a beast besides there was then but two humane creatures who had not any knowledge at all of it Neyther was it GOD that speake to the woman by the Serpents mouth for that were to accuse him of too detestable a fraude and malice as did the wretched Ophites Finally it was not a good Angell For Moses declareth vnto vs in many places that Angels doe keepe and preserue men from euill And this fact heere as Moses describeth it sheweth that it was an enemie of men not a faithfull seruant of GOD that vndertooke it and whose calumnie or false accusation wee see in the literall Text verie clearely whence hee is called deuill that is to say calumniator or false accuser hauing accused God falsely vnto men as enuious of their good and absolute felicitie and this historie cannot seeme absurde no not to a Heathen who readeth in prophane histories that horses bulles trees statues or images and riuers haue spoken which wee reiect not as simply and meerely fabulous though it be contayned in fables knowing that wicked spirits haue as well beene able to speake by one Instrument as by another Se how one may very easily ridd himselfe from diuerse expositions that haue beene giuen vpon this text as for that of Phalo which the B. of Eureux bringeth he should iudge by it for what vse Tradition was to this Iew namely for to depraue the Text to abolish the truth of the historie Moses maketh expresse mention of Daemons or diuills in Leuiticus and in Deuteronomie which sufficeth for to shew a Saducie that there is some A Manichee or other that holdeth that they are substances coeternall with God may be conuinced by the same reasons and consequences from Moses text that haue beene aboue alleadged in speaking of the Creation The words of Caluin which the Bishop of Eureux bringeth for my purpose would serue his better then mine if he were capable of it They importe that the Lord by the secret reuelation of his Spirit supplyeth that which is wanting in the outwarde euidence of the wordes of Moses which is most true For where this light of the Spirit shineth not there is nothing but darknes what outward euidence so euer there be in the wordes on the contrary what obscurity soeuer be found in the words wheÌ„ the spirit speaketh inwardly 1. Ioh. 2.20 27. wheÌ„ the VnctioÌ„ of that holy one teacheth the children of light they heare see as much as is necessarie for them to saluation Cas Rhod. Cap. 7. Iliad 19. Tertul l. dâ— Ido ca 9. dâ— habitu muâ— 2. alibi Cypr. de Diâ— hab Virgâ— Lactant. deâ— rig err l. 2. Iust. Mart. Apol. 1. 2â— Athenag in â—pol Cl. Alexâ— 3. 5. Strâ— alii Now if the Doctors of the Romish church deriue the creation of Diuells from the same tradition wheÌ„ce they deriue their fall It is needles to haue recourse for that purpose to the Tradition of the Synagogue or to that of the Apostles for it is from Homer that Cardinall Bessario deriueth it froÌ„ the fable of Ate which is no lesse receiuable than that which some of the Fathers recite by forme of Tradition of Angells sent from heauen for the guard and keeping of mankinde that corrupted themselues by frequenting of woemen Yet the Iewish Tradition touching the creation and originall of diuels must not be omitted since that after our Bishop it is from it onely that the Iewes learned this point of doctrine that which the Doctors of their Thalmud say is â—ib Sanhe â— Iudicia â—un 〈◊〉 in 2. 〈◊〉 7. â—r a Sancta 〈◊〉 con Iud 〈◊〉 C. 1â— Bib â—atr C. 4 That during this space of an hundred thirty yeares which is betweene the birth of Cain Abel the birth of Seth Adam ceased not to engender in Eue wicked Spirits and Diuills which she brought forth that those are called the sonnes of Adam that stirred vp Salomon to sinne If we beleeue Du Perron such deuilish traditions should be vnto vs authentical necessarie mystical cleare sufficient and perfect after that we haue declared with him the Holy Scripture vnprofitable superfluous obscure vnsufficient imperfect And whereas he directeth me to Luther for to learne of him the orders and degrees that are among diuels In my opinion his Thomas Aquinas whom hee calleth the Prince of schoolemen instructeth farre more particularly his disciples vpon this matter than Luther doth For he specifieth the first sinne of the deuill the first moment of time in which it was committed what ranke or degree that rebellious Spirit to GOD was of the manner how he induced his complices to reuolte with him the number of the good and the bad namely whether is the greater the punishment of these and the feeling of their paines c. The other Schoolmen recounte yet greater particulars though Du Perron say they traffick not in those deuillish countreys yea Bellarmine after some others representeth vnto vs the Buildings of hell â—â—urg l. 2. with all their stages or stories chambers and clossets not forgetting the vsage and entertainment that is there all so exactly set downe that one would say that these people content not themselues onely to traffick into those quarters but that they pretend therein the right of burgesie or free denizens as if they meant to dwell there indeed being assured by the reuelatioÌ„ of S. Brigit that there are there many Popes and Cardinalls faire matter for to re-establish there Hierarchie there Now let the Reader iudge whether I haue beene shamelesse as hee saith in alleadging these places of Moses for to prooue the pointes aboue examined and whether the arguments I haue drawne from them be not as cleare and sound as those that the Romish Doctours inlightned with the double Tradition absolute and subsidiarie yea and the Popes themselues who hold all the fulnesse of this mystical Treasure locked in the coffer casket of their breast do draw from the writings of Moses when by the creation of the world they proue the Popes supremacie By the creation of the Sunne and the Moone the Popes preheminencie ouer and aboue the Emperour Boni 8 Exâ— de maioritâ— oâ— ed. C 9.6 Can. Eccles By the Sodomites rebuke to Lot the exemption of the Clergie from all politicke Iurisdiction By Iacobs Testament
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
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
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
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
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