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
to blame to alledge it barely and nakedly with out this breastplate of Tradition when he representeth the contrarietie and opposition â—â—m 10 that there is between the righteousnesse of the Law the righteousnesse of faith From .19.20 .21 chapters where God particularly calleth himselfe the God of the Israelites I reason thus If God did promise and giue onely earthly things to the Israelites he were not more particularly their God than the God of other peoples and nations yea he should rather haue beene more specially the God of some Heathen nations to whome he gaue kingdomes and Empires farre greater and more flourishing than a litle countrey of Canaan giuen to the Israelites after so many paynes and with so many euills as they had euer there Now God calleth himselfe particularly the God of the Israelites hauing discerned and seperated them of purpose from all other nations for to doe them good Therefore it must needs follow that these blessings were not onely earthly and transitorie From the .26.42 verse where God promiseth to remember the Couenant he made with Abraham Isaak and Iacob I gather the same Argument that hath beene aboue produced and treated of at large from diuers places of Genesis From the same Chapter 44. verse where God promiseth not to consume them that be his because he is their god c. one may draw this proofe for the Immortality of the soule If the soule dyeth with the body man is wholy coÌ„sumed but the Israelites are promised of God that they shall not be wholy consumed Therefore the soule at least remaineth after the body is consumed The B. of Eureux will reply that this must be vnderstood of the totall extermination of the people as if GOD promised euer to leaue a remnant of some still amongst them I answere that if vniuersall promises directed to a people in generall may not be applyed to euery faithfull in particular they are vaine and none at all For if all the particulars be consumed one after another the generall which is coÌ„posed which consisteth but of particulars will be consumed like wise and so will but shadowes remaine to serue for subiect to the fullfilling of Gods promises And what ioy or comfort could they take that heard Moses pronounce them or did reade them in his writings if none could apply any of them to themselues in particular Out of the forth booke of Moses called Numbers From the blessing of the Priest that assured the Israelits of the keeping peace of God I reason thus They whom God keepeth cannot perish God keepeth them that be his therefore they cannot perish Or else in this forme They that perish are not kept of God the people of God are kept of God therefore they cannot perish Now it is certaine that they should perish if death destroyed them and wholly brought them to nothing The Bishop of Eureux restraineth this keeping to the time the people were in the wildernesse where God preserued them from hunger from thirst from Serpents and from their enemies because some Interpreters expound so the place Deut. 32. which saith that god kept his people as the apple of his ey But the question is not whether god kept his people in the wildernes which none denyeth but whether Moses or any of his expositours confine the keeping of God onely in the wildernes and whether euer any Saducie shewed himselfe so impertinent as to say that God kept not his people elswhere This forme of the Priests blessing is it not generall and vniuersall Let vs see his goodly Episcopall Enthymema God kept his people in the wildernes therefore he neuer kept them nor will keepe them elswhere yet would it follow that at least they that he kept in the wildernes are not wholly perished and brought to nothing or else that he kept them no better in the wildernes than he did elswhere and indeed many of them dyed there by fire by pestilence by serpents and by their enimies yea all that came out of Egypt except two dyed there euen Aaron and Moses whence is manifest that this keeping in the wildernes was not so singular and only that none other is worthy consideratioÌ„ in respect of it From the same place also I reason thus If the anger of God against sinne hath ordained miserie and death for to punish it as appeareth Gen 2. 3. It followeth that the peace and mercie of God taketh away this punishment consequenly causeth that death cannot hurt at leastwise them that are partakers of this peace and mercie of God according as is conteyned in the blessing Otherwise the effectes of the wrath and mercie of God should bee both alike and his fauour and peace should not restore the felicitie lost by the transgression of Adam Now the Sadducie seeth well that this is not effected alwaies nor yet ordinarily in this life which is fuller of calamities to the children of God than to others Therefore there must bee another life wherein this accomplishment is found From the fourteenth chapter and eighteenth verse which setteth forth vnto vs the mercie and benignitie of GOD is drawne an argument wholly like vnto the former And another also like to that which aboue is produced out of Exodus 34.7 where are reade the same words From the same Chapter the twentieth verse is gathered a proofe for eternall life where God declareth that hee pardoned his people that had prouoked him and yet neuerthelesse hee sayeth that they should all die in the wildernesse and that none of them shoulde see the land of promise which was accomplished And therefore if there were no other life for them whereto serued the pardon that God gaue them If those whose sinnes God pardoneth are destroyed in bodie and in soule what could hee more doe to them that obtained not pardon But since the Sadducie with his Aduocate will not see Paradise in Moses let vs shewe them Hell there The sixteenth Chapter of this booke recyteth vnto vs an Historie of some that descended thither aliue and hell is there named twice which should suffice him that maketh no reckoning of consequences how euident necessarie so euer they be but demaÌ„deth euer the litterall and formall text If he reply that the Hebrew word signifieth also a Sepulcher or ordinarie graue let him know that it cannot be so in this place for when Corah Dathan and Abiram were sunke downe and swallowed vp it was not an ordinarie buriall nor a graue made of purpose And the Latine Bible which is Authenticke to Du Perron translateth it Hellâ— Numb 23 10 In the 23. chapter is read this memorable sentence of Balaam so cleare and manifest as well for the felicitie as for the shame to come Fol. 20 that our Balaamite is ashamed to reply thereto himselfe choosing rather to bring in a contentious spirit as if his owne were other saying That Balaam by a figure common to Enigmaes and obscuritie of Oracles required
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 Mediate and Immediate sufficiencie so industriously set downe at the beginning of his Booke In the â—â—cation 〈◊〉 title and by vs examined and confuted in a Treatise by it selfe yet distrusting the force of this distinction hee addeth another distinguishing sufficiencie into Authoritatiue and doctrinall and depriuing the Scripture of the latter fol. 14â— of fauour granteth it the first Let vs note herein two fraudes the first in that hee presupposeth that St. Iohn spake but of that which he himself only had written in stead of referring his words to all the Euangelicall historie written before by the other three Euangelists St. Iohns scope in his writings as all the fathers doe witnesse being onely to make a supplie for a more expresse declaration of the Godhead of the sonne of God because of the Heretikes that then denied it and to confirme and seale by his testimonie Tert. dâ— c. 17. Hier. dâ— Ecl in and Apostolike authoritie the Canonicall bookes of the new Testament because of certaine writings supposed and attributed to Saint Paul by some of his Disciples and followers themselues Wherevnto hath relation that horrible threatning which he set as a heauenly seale to his booke of the Reuelation for a shutting vp of the new Testament The other fraud is to dispute in what sense this proposition is sufficient or not as if neither Saint Iohn nor all the other Writers of the newe Testament had written any thing else but these words only Iesus is that Christ that Sonne of God without adding any other proofe or explication without any other Hystorie or doctrine whatsoeuer a fraude most necessarie for his desperate Cause giuing him occasion in appearance to heape vp a great number of wordes to fill vp paper or rather dust to cast into mens eyes If so many things as the Euangelists doe write conteine not the meanes for to proue this proposition and for to shewe plainly what Christ is to wit his two natures and his three Offices to what vse serue they then how can a thing so vnsufficieÌ„t in it selfe make vs haue eternal life If they containe but a part of the meanes and necessarie proofes what reason was there to set downe onely that part and to omit the principall What reason was there to make so many bookes and to fill them with matters which to set foorth our Bishops opinion in one word serueth to no vse at all seeing that euen that which is written cannot be vnderstood without his subsidiarie Tradition could any more shamefully defame the apostles and Euangelists these Notaries and Secretaries of the holy Ghost than in accusing them so manifestly of disloyaltie in their charge of hauing suppressed and eclipsed essentiall and principall clauses in this instrument which they haue framed and left for to serue for the perpetual canon or rule to the christian Church An accusation that cannot redound but vpon the holy-Ghost himselfe by whose instinct and inspiration they wrote that which they wrote for to serue to that ende and vse Let vs conclude then that this distinction Authoritatiue not Doctrinall is false and blasphemous leauing to the sacred Scripture no other title but of a Letter of credite but of a memoriall or direction as hee himselfe saith without containing the doctrine in it selfe but in another which is in effect to dispoyle it as well of authoritie as of doctrine for to inuest the Pope with both in attributing vnto him authoritie to teach whatsoeuer doctrine he listeth seeing they leaue Christians neither balance nor touch-stone to proue it after they haue defamed the Scripture whereby the men of Beroea examined euen the doctrine of an Apostle yea Act. 17 â— that only by the scripture of the old TestameÌ„t wherin they found sufficieÌ„cie of doctrine as wel as of authority for to judge thereof Indeed the law is called by the Hebrewes Thora that is to say doctrine the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth the same thing But after the Doctrine of du Perro it is a doctrin not doctrinal as the blood of the Masse is a blood not bloody that is to say a PyrrhoniaÌ„ doctrine Yet at the worst though we shold euen admit this fond false and outragious distinction that al the Scripture were nothing else but a letter or credit or as he saith A memoriall conteyning directions and tokens for to finde a Physitian which is able to declare to euery onâ— Fol. 14â— all the necessarie remedies to cure his maladie Yet he should get nothing for his Pope nor for all his representatiue Church For if a man looke well into this memoriall if he take all the directions obserue well the tokens that it conteyneth he shal not find therin one only iota that directeth him to that magnificall Romane Hierarchie for which onely our Aduocate pleadeth If the Scripture did direct sicke persons to the Pope as to the Soueraine Physitian onely healing all diseases then should these be the markes or tokens that it should giue of him An Idoll beset with gold and precious stones set vpon a high Throne with three crownes vpon his head a guilded Pantoâ—le on his foote which hee giueth Kings and Emperours to kisse being prostrate before him Cardinalls round about him with red hattes and scarlet roabes representing the Senate of the auncient Rome Many Byshops and Arch-byshops mytred in coapes and robes and betrapped as the subiect of the Comedie requireth Innumerable legions of Priestes Curates Monkes Fryars and Chanons diuersified with sundry liueries and dispersed as in Garrison through all the prouinces of the Empire of that Beast Indeede we finde â—â—al 17. that the Scripture liuely prescribeth a certaine woman cloathed in purple and scarlet bedecked with gold and precious stones which it calleth great Babylon the mother of the whoredomes and abominations of the earth drunken with the blood of the Saintes and Martyrs of Iesus Christ And this is the Physitian to whom du Perrón as one of his Apothecaries directeth vs for the healing of all our diseases 〈◊〉 13. because it is written Who-Whosoeuer doth not worship this Beast it shall put him to death True it is that those she putteth to death are better cured of their diseases forsaking this body of sin resting from their laboures 〈◊〉 14.13 than those that drinke in the cup wherewith this Physitian or rather Magitian drencheth such as direct themselues vnto him Now that which hath been said touching the text of S. Iohn sufficeth also for to vnderstand the expositions of S. Augustine S. Cyrill the Bishop of Eureux bestirreth himselfe heapeth vp many words without matter for to make them to be vnderstood of miracles which is a thing not denyed the knot of the question beeing whether it bee with a restriction to miracles onely and a totall exclusion of Doctrine This is it that we deny him this is it that repugneth euen coÌ„mon reason to speak of a signe
Moyses from Moyses to Dauid from Dauid to the captiuity of Babylon and from the captiuity of Babylon to Iesus Christ who was the light it selfe For this cause the time of the Iewish Church is called the time of Infancy ours on the contrary the fulnes of time If then the Scripture of the old Testament were a sufficient light to the Iewes though it was not so cleare as ours how much more ought we to content our selues with that light which we haue by the addition of the new Testament The B. of Eureux For as touching the booke of Iob to omitte that the most part of the Iewes and Mercerus with them and the principall Caluinists doe denie that the place that is there is to bee vnderstood of the Resurrection there is no assured testimonie that the booke of Iob was extant then when the Law of Moyses was giuen contrarywise most men thinke it was written since the Transmigration of Babylon which Ezechiell seemeth to confirme saying Noah Daniell Iob. As for Daniell and the other Prophets it is well enough knowne that they were more then seauen or eight hundred yeares since D. Tillenus his answer As for the booke of Iob in which the resurrection of the body and by consequent the immortality of the soule are found in expresse tearmes whatsoeuer Du Perron saith who wrongfully attributeth vnto vs the false exposition of some Anabaptists We learne indeed of the Iewes that Moyses hauing found this booke in the countrye of Madian where his father Law was brought into Egypt to propound it vnto the Iewes as an example of patience in their seruitude But when we say that this history hapned before Moyses wrote the Law wee are grounded on good consequence drawne from the scripture which teacheth vs that after the publishing of the law it was not lawfull to offer sacrifice else where than before the Arke or Tabernacle without speciall commaundement So that if Iob had liued after the law of Moyses neither woulde he haue transgressed the Law in offering sacrifice nor God haue approoued his sacrifice The age also that the scripture giueth to Iob maketh vs beleeue that he was before Moyses â— 10. who witnesseth that those of his time liued not so long Du Perrons coniecture who will haue him to haue liued before the captiuity of Babylon is friuolous he groundeth it on this that Ezechiell nameth together Daniell and Iob â— 14. whence it would follow also that Noah should haue liued in those times for the Prophet nameth him with the other The B. of Eureux And as for our sauiour Christes argument against the Saduces it prooueth indeede the immortality of the soule and not the other points But that argument till his time was vnknowne to the Iewes who for this cause did admire the infinitenesse of his wisedome And therefore it must needs follow that they had receiued the beleefe of it for to holde it for an article of faith by another meanes than by the reading of the bookes of Moyses to wit by Tradition from Abraham Isaack Iacob and other Fathers D. Tillenus his answer He sheweth heere that hee hath as little insight into the bookes of the Euangelists as in those of Moyses he saith that this argument prooueth indeed the immortality of the soule but not the other points that is to say the Resurrection of the body And notwithstanding Saint Matthew saith in expresse tearmes that our Lord cited that place of Moyses Math. 22 Exod. 3. â— for to prooue the Resurrection of the dead and that by this onely argument he stopped his enemies mouthes who chose rather to be silent than to continue to blaspheme Jf vntill then it had beene vnknowne to the Iewes as Du Perron saith Yet that sheweth not any vnsufficiency in the scripture rather indeede the ignoraunce of the Church till those times and the negligence of those that would not vouchsafe to trie and sound the depth of the scriptures Ioh. 5 3â— as our Lord Iesus Christ did therein exhort them I know not why he findeth so great obscuritie in this argument of our Sauior For so great a Philosopher as he shold haue better perceiued therein the light of that Philosophicall maxime which saith When the whole is propounded the parts of the same are also propounded Put then that God is the god of Abraham of Isaack and of Iacob as saith Moyses Exod. 3 â— Jt followeth therefore that hee is their god both in soule and Body which are the principall parts of euery man But seeing the Saduces could not find or would not searche the Resurrection of the dead in the bookes of Moyses wherefore then did they beleeue it as little by Tradition VVhy did not our Lord and Sauiour send them thereunto VVherefore did he draw so obscure an argument as Du Perron will haue it from the Scripture if there had bene any manifest reasons in Tradition â— 22.9.29 6.29 to â—d VVherefore doth he attribute the cause of their errour to their ignoraunce of the Scripture And truely Abraham referred the brethren of the wicked rich man to keepe them out of hell not onely to the Prophets but euen to Moyses also 15.1 â—s 12.3 where they might see how God had sayde to Abraham that he would be his buckler and his exceeding great reward that in his seede should all Nations be blessed Which doctrine conteyneth the foundation of the substance of the doctrine of saluation Now put case that the aboue named points could not be found so manifest in the bookes of Moyses yet could not that conclude any thing against the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures which we haue in the Christian church For as god reuealed his will to the first Patriarches by word of mouth for to instruct them in his knowledge before there was any Scripture so did he continue the same manner of reuelation in Moyses time speaking to him as familiarly as a man speaketh to his friend instructing him of all maters yet neuer giuing him this liberty to ordayne any thing concerning religion of his owne authority Also Moyses very religiously conteyned himselfe within the limits of obedience not onely in the least Ceremonies but also in the publicke administration or gouernement wherein notwithstanding it seems he might haue vsurped a little more power but we see he wold determine nothing against him that had brokeÌ„ the Sabbath but caused him to be put in prison till God had declared vnto him 15.34 with what manner of punishment the Transgressor should be punished Contrariwise the Romish Church presumeth to ordayne an infinite number of things as well in Religion as in Policy which they are not onely vnable to prooue by any Scripture but which also euen theyr pretended Apostolike Traditions cannot shew in defence whereof theyr mayntainers set foorth the aucthority of the Church which they say cannot erre Now although the Church of the Iewes had Oracles visions diuine dreams Vrim and Thummim
him in attributing vnto him this opinion This new Gnostick hath hee forgot that first principle viz. Of euery thing either the affirmatiue is true or the Negatiue the one being immediatly opposed to the other as it must be in matter of disputation Againe if these points be not conteined in Moses can his writings bee other than vnsufficient imperfect especially after his own definition wherby he defineth an imperfect vnsufficient thing to be when it is not sufficient to the end for which it is destinated and according to the maner wherby it is ordained therunto Tim 3 16 â— The end office of the Scripture is to teach the man of God that he may be perfect absolutely instructed vnto euery good worke Now if the first principles fundamentall points of this instruction be wanting therin if we must deriue them from some other way as he saith besids the Scripture It followeth either that the maÌ„ of God may be perfectly instructed without beleeuing the imortality of the soule the resurrectioÌ„ of the body Paradise hel c. which is the perfection not of a Christian faith but of a Pirrhonian beleefe Or els that the bookes that should teach theÌ„ yet coÌ„teine theÌ„ not wholy are as imperfect as a humane body would be without a head without a hart yea without a soule or as a tutour or scool Mr for so S. Paul caleth the law Gal. 3.24 which sheweth not to his disciple so much as the .1 rudimeÌ„ts or principles without which notwithstaÌ„ding he should neuer be capable to learne or vnderstaÌ„d any thing Also if none of the foresaid points be contayned in Moses it followeth that S. Augustine did wrongfuly shew by so many reasons Cont. Cresâ— Gram. l. 1. c. 17. 18. that Iesus Christ was a good Logician it would follow also that he that put him in the rank of deceiuers with Moses Mahomet did him no wrong for euery Sophister is a deceiuer and he which alledgeth for a demonstratiue proofe that which is but a vaine cold coniecture is a Sophister now if the place of Moses that Christ alledged to the Saduces for to proue the resurrection of the dead Exod. 3 6. Matth. 22.32 be not a demonstratiue proofe it is the trick of a Sophister to haue alledged it for such Also it would follow that Christ in approouing the opinion of the Iewes who thought to haue life eternall in the scripture if it were erroneous did not the office of a faithful teacher for that by this scripture is vnderstood the bookes of Moses it is manifest by the 45 46. and 47. verses of the same chapter where our Sauiour saith Iohn 5.39 that the Iewes trusted in Moses that Moses accused theÌ„ that Moses wrote of him That they could not beleeue his wordes because they beleeued not Moses writings Of necessity then whosoeuer will not openly blaspheeme Iesus Christ declare himselfe an vnmasked Atheist must acknowledge that the foresaid points are conteyned in the bookes of Moses It remaineth now to shew how they be there whether they do apeare to be there or no. I say they do so appeare to be there as maÌ„ is able to se theÌ„ there but to discerne theÌ„ he must haue the eye of his soule opeÌ„ clensed like as for to see the Sun which is the clerest thing in the world the eye of the body must be open seeing Now the vnderstanding of the natural vnregenerate maÌ„ is obscured with darknes is but darknes ye is dead that is to say depriued aswel of life as of spiritual sight 1 Cor. 2.1 which is the cause he caÌ„not see the things that are of the Spirit of God finding but folly in them And so not onely the Lawe of Moses but also the Gospell of Iesus Christ notwithstanding the brightnesse of it is hid to them that perish Cot. 4.3 of whom the God of this world hath blinded the vnderstandings that the light of the Gospell of the glory of Christ should not shine in them Both the Lawe and the Gospell become cleare vnto men when the Spirit of God by the light of his grace expelleth inwardly the darkenesses of their nature and the darnesses that the Prince of darknesse hath added therunto Pet. 119. Cor 13.12 when hee outwardly sheweth the light of the Scripture shining in darke places vntil such time as we see face to face the things which in this world cannot be seene but in a glasse darkely Here he will reply Whence commeth then this diuersitie of interpretations Whence commeth it that whosoeuer is truely inlightned by the Spirit of God findeth not streight waies the true meaning of the Scripture I answer that it is one thing to be truely inlightned another thing to be perfectly inlightned in al things It is one thing to vnderstand all the points necessarie to saluation and another thing to be able rightly to expound all the places of the Scripture one by one It is one thing to erre in the exposition of a particular place another thing to erre in a generall point of Doctrine yea though all the points be not of like importance It is one thing to say that the Scripture is perfect in it selfe conteining perfectly al that is necessary to saluation and another thing to say that men comprehend perfectly this perfection The Apostle saith that In this life we knowe but in part Cor. 13.9 we prophecie but in part It belongeth vnto God alone to know all things and in all perfection Now as there be childreÌ„ of light which see but by glymse as it were because they receiue this light by little little by degrees as the blinde maÌ„ whose eyes Christ opened to whom at first men seemed like trees â—ark 8.24 these acknowledge their ImperfectioÌ„ weaknes of sight Also there are childreÌ„ of darknesse which presume to know al to see all which neuer feele their blindnes â—â—hn 9.41 whose sin as saith our Sauiour remaineth that is to say is incurable For he giueth sight to them that feele their want by his iust iudgemeÌ„t blindeth more more those that thinke they see most clearely which intitle themselues Leaders of the blinde a light to them which are in darknesse Rom. 2 which disdainfully reiect the light of the Scriptures which boast themselues of a greater wisedome than that which God hath in them reuealed which seeing themselues condemned by the Scripture refuse it for Iudge take it for an aduersarie and accuse it as guiltie of the errours of those which follow it It is the speach of the Bishop of Eureux that he said vnto me in the verball conference vpon the errour of saint Cyprian touching the rebaptizing of hereticks And heere he saith That the scripture is so farre from being instituted to serue onely for particuler instruction in all the contentious points of Religion that on the
contrarie the first intention of the Apostles was to deliuer the doctrines to the Church by tradition of liuely voice word vnwritten Also he saith that the Apostles wrote but by incident or chance Fol. 35. and vpon secondary occasions Let vs see this Enthymeme or imperfect argument of the PirrhoniaÌ„ Logicke The Apostles first taught by liuely voyce Ergo they pretended not to teach by their writings which succeeded their preaching The consequence is as good as who should say One eateth first for to nourish himselfe therfore drink serueth nothing to nourishment A non distributo ad distributum c. If he make an opposition between the coÌ„mandement of the spirit of God the incideÌ„t or the occasioÌ„s which moued the Apostles to write he blasphemeth in diuinitie denying the places of scripture 2. Tim. 3.1 2. Pet. 1.20 21. where it is called inspired of God and doteth in Logick excluding the efficient and principal cause because of the instruments and means that it vseth Also the Apostle saint Iude saith Iude. 3. that there was a necessitie of writing imposed vpon him And in the Reuelation we read that saint Iohn is more than ten times commaunded to write We know that to preach and to write are things verie accordant and which were comprehended in one and the same commaundement giuen to the Apostles â—ath 28 to teach all nations which yet to this day they teach by their writings He which commaunded them the thing which is to teach commaunded also the manners of teaching which are to preach with liuely voice and to set forth the doctrine in writing both of them being fit for teaching and this latter most fit for to continue and to transferre doctrines or instructions vnto posteritie â—enaeus li 3 p 1 So Irenaeus vnderstandeth it saying The Apostles after they had preached with liuely voice the Gospell afterwards gaue it vs in the scriptures by the will of God for to be the foundation and pillar of our faith So the booke intituled Manuale CuratoruÌ„ sheweth it saying there are three sorts of preachings One is by writing as saint Paule did writing to the Romanes Corinthians c. Another is by actions so euery action of Iesus Christ is our instruction the third is by word liuely voyce The Bishop of Eureux for to shew that hee is not alone in his opinion produceth foure places of foure ancient Fathers â—hat is by â—â—ose of our â—â—de often propounded and expounded namely that they shuld be vnderstood not of matters of faith but of the order gouernance of the Church which things being of their owne nature ambulatory subiect to change according to the diuersity of the circumstances of times places persons could not or should not be written Or if they speak of some doctrine not coÌ„teined in the scripture they meane it of the formal tearms which are not there as the words trinity coessentiall sacrameÌ„t the sense matter of which notwithstanding is therin found is drawen from thence either by analogy of faith or by necessary consequence Otherwise it would follow that they had gainsaid contradicted themselues a confess fid sum mor. 72 1. sum 80 22. ere 's to wit S. Basil wheÌ„ he saith that it is a most manifest marke of infidelity a most certain signe of pride to reiect any thing of that which is writteÌ„ or to bring in any thing which is not written S. Epiphanius All things are cleare in the scripture to those which by a holy vse of reasoÌ„ wil draw nere the word of god which haue not coÌ„ceiued an operation of the diuel such as they conceiue 〈◊〉 1. Timoth. â—om that accuse the scripture of imperfection endeuoring to cast themselues into the gulfe of death S. Chrysostome maketh saint Paule speake to Timothie in this manner In stead of mee thou hast the scriptures if thou desirest to learne any thing thou maist doe it from thence Then he addeth De doctrin Christ l. 2. c. If he wrote so to Timothie who was full of the holy Ghost how much more ought wee to thinke that it is spoken of vs. It is manifest that this Father thought that the intention of the Apostles was to leaue to the Churches their writings in stead of instructions by word of mouth which they could not continue after their death Saint Augustine saith In Psal 132 Among the things which are Openly declared in the scripture are All those which containe faith and manners that is Hope and Charitie There is to quitte his foure places and in pieces of the same coyne If hee will agree them let him bestirre himselfe better than he did in the answere he giueth to the place of saint Hilarie that hath these words That which is not conteined in the booke of the law we ought not so much as to know it Hee saith that this should be vnderstood of the Apocrypha books alledged in quality of Canonical What a mockery is this Is not the sentence of S. Hilarie generall or if it be not general is it not vnapt friuolous But the reply was ready That there be many other things to be knowne besides them which are coÌ„teined in the law which conteineth not so much as the principal points viz. the immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body c. What Apocrypha Logick is this to draw an vniuersall conclusion from particular premises And when the same father saith in another place It is good that we content our selues with the things which are written can that plaister cure or so much as couer the wound that this place maketh in his vnwritten Traditions And here let the reader be aduertised once for all That al the sentences of the Fathers how generall soeuer they be what vniuersall marke soeuer be set vpon them are euer shifted off by a restraining them to some particular deed As if the Hypothesis were not decided by the Thesis a particular case by a generall Law which is to make a laughing stocke of the Fathers and to depriue them euen of common sense in making them reason so vnaptly and in occasioning their aduersaries to make vnto them so easie and iust replies To returne to Hilarie the Bishop of Eureux opposeth to the aboue said place another of the same Father taken out of his Commentarie on the second Psalme where he saith That Moses after hee had written the words of the olde Testament consigned certaine more secret mysteries to the seuentie Elders c. which place he saith I haue not read and calleth me a bad scholler in skipping ouer the beginning of the booke for to studie at the end I answere hee sheweth that he himselfe hath not read the note set vpon the margeÌ„t of this place non credo which Hilar. Paris ex â—ffici Carol. Guillar anno 1544. with the authoritie of saint Hierome thinking that these commentaries vpon the Psalmes are for
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
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
so far forth as it is a signe without referring it to the thing signified of a relatiue without considering his correlatiue that is to say to speake of the nature Essence of a thing without considering the nature and Essence of the same Therefore without vsing many words as he doth doe but obserue these words of S. Cyril hee declareth the intentioÌ„ of the Gospel as if he would rehearse In Ioh. lib. C. 61. that which he wrote For I haue published these thinges saith hee that you might beleeue and that in beleeuing you might haue life eternal c. And a little after If the power of the Gospel and the greatnes of the miracles be sufficient to perswade that the Sonne of the Virgin who was called Iesus by the voice of the Angel is the same which the Scripture calleth Christ and who is the Sonne of God not as others but properlye and after a singular manner euen after he was vnited to the humaine nature it is certaine that they doe erre which dare deny their Lord. Whence it manifestly appeareth that after his opinion Saint Iohn spake not of myracles onelye but also of the Doctrine and force of the Gospell which is the power of God vnto saluation to all that beleeue Rom. 1. â— from which force and power if any seperate and exclude Doctrine he hath more neede of Hellebore then hee is capable of Doctrin And therfore it were our Bishops part to shew how miracles only without Doctrine can be sufficient as wel for manners as for Doctrine which is the sufficyencie that Saint Cyrill attributeth vnto them in the place which himselfe citeth but with cutting off this that followeth To the end that shining in a right faith Fol. 157. workes and vertue we may attaine to the Kingdome of heauen through our Lord Iesus Christ Effects which no miracles can euer bring foorth alone without Doctrine But here is the moste important point of the question Hee saith Though S. Augustin and S. Cyril should speake not of myracles onely but shold say in expresse words Fol. 158. that the Euangelists haue written sufficiently whatsoeuer is necessary for vs to know of the deedes and sayinges of our Sauiour Christ for our Saluation Neuerthelesse it would not followe that the things onelye that Christ eyther did or taught with his owne mouth to his Disciples are sufficient for the instruction of the Church c. And for proofe of this his resolution hee alleadgeth this saying of Christ I haue yet many things to tell you which you cannot beare now 〈…〉 97 A place which as S. Augustine saith the grossest Heretikes were woont to abuse for to collour all their most abhominable inuentions But see here the impudencie of our Byshop who not content to blame the Scripture of vnsufficiencie and imperfection spitteth his filthy blasphemies in the face of Jesus Christ himselfe blasoning him to haue no more taught sufficiently by word of mouth his Apostles thaÌ„ his Apostles haue taught Posteritie by their writings At least if the lye he giueth the Sonne of God be somewhat couered in court-phrase which hee braggeth he can speake so well yet is it without curtesie and without figure of Rhethoricke that hee giueth the lye to this affirmation of the truth it selfe I haue declared vnto you al things that I haue heard of my Father 〈◊〉 15.15 Whence it would follow that the heauenly Father himselfe hath not perfectly nor sufficiently instructed his sonne the Eternall wisedome Now to agree these two propositions Iohn 15.15 and 16.12 we need not haue recourse to that enallage of the time 〈◊〉 Ioan. 〈◊〉 â—6 as some of the Fathers haue vnder collour that the Scripture speaketh some-time of thinges not yet done as if they were already done which the circumstance of the place the sequence of the Text permitteth not in this place But in the 16. chapter wheÌ„ our Sauiour saith that his Disciples could not beare that which he had to tell them he hath respect to the sadnes sorrow which they were full of as appeareth by the 22. verse they remembred not what had beene already tolde theÌ„ were little disposed to make their profite of what they then preseÌ„tly heard for to prepare theÌ„selues to their charge And what If Jesus Christ had hid from the Apostles themselues some necessary pointes how much more should he haue hid them from the other Disciples and Auditours of the common people of which consequently none could haue been saued if he had died before the day of the Pentecost before they had heard the new Articles of faith which the holy Ghost began then to reueile to the Apostles of which Iesus Christ had neuer spokeÌ„ vnto them And this sentence of our Lord concerning the Office of the holy Ghost He shall teach you all things and shall bring to your remeÌ„brance al things that I haue said vnto you shall be of no more weight with our Bishop than the other for to make him confesse that the holy Ghost taught no other doctrine theÌ„ that which the Disciples had alreadie heard of their master though they had not well remembred nor vnderstood all for he had rather that the blame should remain on our Lord Christ to haue taught but by halfes then on the disciples for not learning all well though with all that he should get nothing for his Cabbala vnwritten or written in fabulous Bookes at least-wise if hee receyue this sentence of Saint Augustine cited and approoued by his master Thomas Aquinas Whatsoeuer Iesus Christ would that we should reade of his deedes and sayings he commanded his Disciples to write as with his owne handes To what purpose then is it to seeke that which is written else-where by others though it were a true thing seeing that Christ will not haue vs to reade it And how much lesse that which is written in the golden Legend in the Bookes de vita Christi or other such fables He saith that Saint Augustine will haue vs acknowledge manie things in the writings of the Apostles which our Sauiour Christ neuer told them whilest he corporally conuersed with them as among others this excellent doctrine That there is in God a worde Escentiall and subsisting by which all things were created Beholde a notable vntruth The wordes of Saint Augustine are these In Ioh. â— 96. Who is so vaine and rash that though he should speake true things as he listeth and to whom he will dare affirme without anie diuine testimonie that they are the things which the Lord would not tell Who among vs shall doe it without incurring a most great fault of rashnesse hee excelling neither in Propheticall nor Apostolicall authoritie For in verie truth if we had read something in the Bookes confirmed by Canonicall authouritie which were written after Christs ascension it were to little purpose to haue read it vnlesse one reade therwithall that it was of the number of the things
the first Author thereof vnlesse the Bishop of Eureux being a Courtier had rather giue the glorie of it to a Lady to that Nunne of Leige who had first this reuelation that the Church that the pretended head of the church who let himselfe be gouerned by a new reuelation or by an olde Nunne hath erred and caused all them to erre that haue receiued of him this new Ceremonie this new Diuine worship this new meanes yea ground of Saluation and of blessednes 〈◊〉 1.2 which consisteth in the remission of sinnes Or else that the Church afore that time that had doone nothing of it beleeued nothing nor heard of it for the space of twelue hundred yeares after Christ hath erred as well in that which it did as in that which it beleeued at least wise touching this point of the Eucharist which it honoured not after the manner set downe in the third booke of the ceremonies of the Romish Church of which maÌ„ner he that will confer it with the ceremonies sometimes obserued by the heathen in honour of Isis of the Syrian Goddesse of Diana of the Persians fire c. shall finde out the true originall of it and an antiquitie more auncient than any Apostolke Tradition is These are the ragges wherwith our Gaboanites doe ordinarily decke their Antiquitie which their owne writers freely confesse witnesse Cardinall Baronius who saith That it was to good purpose ordained that the ceremonies or seruices which belonged to the Pagan superstition Annal. tom 2. adâ— chr 200. shold be sanctified by the worship of the true God for to bee employed in the worship of the true 〈◊〉 Religion Now the Bishop of Eureux insteed of continuing his reply to my answere touching the foure pointes that we holde with them of the Romish Church which are the truth of the Baptisme of little Children that of the Baptisme of Heretickes the proceeding of the holye Ghost from the Father from the Sonne and the translation of the feast of the Sabaoth day to Sunday which Articles hee had alleadged as not hauing anye ground in Scripture instead I say of answering to my reasons by which I shewed the contrarie hee goeth no further and after hee had consumed wel nigh foure yeares in seeking replyes to the three or foure first leaues of my booke hee leaueth the matter in question and taketh another course finding it an easier worke to cause to bee written out by one of his Acolythes or Parasites many places of the Fathers all alreadie gathered and aranged in Bellarmine Baronius and others vppon the seauen pointes aboue quoted which it pleased him to choose then to seeke in his owne braine new cauilations that hee might ridde himselfe of so many sound proofes drawne foorth of the Scripture which shewe the perfection and sufficiency of the same in that which is necessarie for vs to beleeue touching these foure pointes alleadged by him rather for to prooue his own imperfection and vnsufficiencie then that of the Scripture And although it were no more difficult for me then for him to choose out of the same fathers to oppose as long a list of places wholy incompatible and vnreconcileable with them he produceth as aboue I haue done on like occasions and to shewe besides that the diâ—similiâ—tude that there is between some things which particular persons in the time of the auncieÌ„t church obserued in all liberty as indifferent and with the Church of Rome commauÌ„deth exacteth at this day with an extream cruelty Between those things that the one did by forme of remeÌ„brance acknowledgement with the other doth for merit and for works of supererogation I could shew the B. of Eureux his mallice in disguising the intention of the Fathers in mixing and confounding their Historicall recitalles with their Doctrines Customes with Lawes vndiscreete deuotions and manifest superstitions whereof they complained with diuine institutions The sufferance and conuenience of the Church with the approbation of the same Though it were I say easie for me to shewe all these thinges Notwithstanding seeing it were out of the center of my subiect I will not imitate that my selfe which I blame in my aduersarie who as well heere as else where sheweth that hee hath no other drift nor recourse then to obscure the principall by a thicke darke cloud of incidents in the gathering whereof he very well practiseth that which Iraeneus saith of the Gnostickes of his time 〈◊〉 c. 2. who taking the places of Scripture heere and there and wresting them for to giue colour to their blasphemies his holy Father compareth them to those that after they had vndone and dissolued the figure of a King made all of Precious Stones would make of the same Stones the figure of a Dogge or a Fox for to make men beleeue that it was the same figure of the King made by the first workeman Or to those who making Centons or mingle mangle of many matters culled out of Homers verses vppon a Subject that the Poet neuer dreamed of would perswade the jgnorant that Homer himselfe treated of that Subiect Whereas he saith that the instances whereupon wee contended the first day wee saw each other were the same whereof he frameth these seauen common places wherwith he filleth his Book I answer that it is false for of all the pointes that hee treateh there was spoken onely of Prayer for the dead and that by occasion of the Lady who had newly lost her husband was fully disposed to receiue his impressions Whereupon as I said after some other reasons that this custome of praying for the dead had neither example nor commaundement nor promise in Scripture we were straightwaies carried on general different of the sufficiencie or vnsufficiencie of the scripture as himself confesseth The Instance whereupon wee moste contended the first and second day of our conference was the Popes supremacie which I maintained to bee recent and new and by no meanes could bee deriued from the Apostles nor prooued by the Fathers in the forme and manner as at this day we see it during which disputation it hapned that the Bishoppe of Eureux for to shew the contrary alleadged S. Gregorie who saith Epist â— Epist 6 I knowe not what Bishoppe is not subiect to the Apostolicall seate Thereupon I required him to proceed with that which followed for he had the book open before him read therin this senteÌ„ce so well that not being able to excuse himselfe from finishing out the place which he would haue cut off he was coÌ„strained to ad these words which immediately follow WheÌ„ there is no fault that requireth it to wit this subiectioÌ„ to the censures all Bishops are equall according to the reason of humilitie As I noted to the standers by this ingenious Eclypse He replyed that there was no fraud seeing that none of that made against him I answered that thereby it would follow that hee who was a Bishop was equal to