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
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
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
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
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
which the Lord would not tel then to his Disciples because they could not beare it as for example if I sayd that this which we reade in the beginning of this Gospell In the beginning was the word and the worde was God c. Because this was written afterwardes and is not recorded that our Lord said iâ— whilest he was here in the flâ—sh but one of his Apostles wrote it Christ and his Spirit reuealing it vnto hâ—m is of the number of those things which the Lord would not say then because that the Disciples could not beare them who would heare me saying that so rashly Thus you see Saint Augustine protesteth that hee should incurre the fault of rashnesse if he affirmed the thing which the Bishop of Eureux mainteyneth that he affirmeth Which is made manifest by these wordes which this holy Father addeth in the same place a little after Wherefore my welbeloued thinke not to heare of me the things which the Lord would not then tell his Disciples And in the Treatise following hee vnfoldeth at large this worde beare shewing how one and the same thing pronounced before one and the same auditorie at one same time is well vnderstoode of some and ill of others yea is vnderstood of some and of others not because he that vnderstandeth amisse vnderstandeth not at all and of them that vnderstand it some vnderstand it lesse some more and no man so well as the Angels 〈◊〉 13.9 because all men vnderstand but in part Besides this vntruth it is to be noted that the Bishop of Eureux committeth the same Sophisme he imputeth to me in taking our Sauiour Christes wordes simplie and absolutely which are sayd Secâ—â—â—undum quid as we say that is for a certaine respect namely of the present sadnesse and indisposition of the Disciples Also for regard of the administration of their charge full of dangers and not for the substance of the doctrine He would faine in wrap me in contradiction because I said in a place That the old Testament conteyned the Gospell or Christian doctrine And in another Fol. 16â— I say that the two Epistles to the Thessalonians contayned all the Christian doctrine and that for this cause Saint Paul exhorteth them to obserue not onely that which he wrote vnto them but also that which he taught by word of mouth whence the Bishop of Eureux concludeth that if the old Testament contained all it was then superfluous to bind them to the obseruation of the Tradition not written I answere that neyther dooth the sufficiencie of the olde Testament nor that of the newe abolish or hinder the Ministerie of preaching neither doe generall lawes and ordinances take away particular Expositions and applications neither doth the substance of the Gospell conteyned in the olde Testament Rom. 1â— as Saint Paul witnesseth hinder a more ample reuelation in the new Nor doth the sufficient declaration of all the Alticles of faith exclude the ordinances which concerne pollicie and the exterior order of the Church Considering that one may say that though there had beene alreadie some other writings of the new Testament besides these two Epistles directed to the Church of Thessalonica yet it might so be that they were not yet knowne nor come into euerie place And to confound the state of Churches springing with the state of Churches founded and established by tract of time is to reason as men doe in an euill cause by euill Logicke in an euill conscience which he here discouereth as through all the rest of his Booke To conclude the question is whether from this place obserue the Traditions which you haue receiued of vs whether it be by word or by our Epistle One may conclude 1. That the written word is not sufficient to Saluation 2. That the Traditions the Apostle speaketh of are of the substance of faith 3 That they were not written since this Epistle To the first I answere no because though the Doctrine that Saint Paul deliuered by word of mouth to each particular Church were more ample then that which is contained in each Epistle directed to these particuler Churches yet doth it not followe but that all is written For that which is not found in one Epistle is found in another Which importeth not neither to them who had heard the Surplus from the Apostles mouth nor to vs who may see in other partes of the Scripture that which is not contained in one To the second I say the Bishop of Eureux againe confoundeth the prediction of a thing to come with Articles of faith that is to say Historie with Doctrine To the third I say that this same Historie touching Antichrist is found written though not in this same Epistle nor by this same Author but by S. Iohn in the Reuelation These three wordes doe vnmix the Cahos of words hee had heaped together Let the Reader note by the way that in this Bishops iudgement To yeelde thankes vnto God for that he hath chosen vs to Saluation 〈◊〉 68. in sanctification of the spirit and in the faith of truth c. is not a Doctrine propounded to obserue Let vs see his last argumeÌ„t taken from the place wher Saint Paul recommendeth to Timothie â—â—m 1.13 〈◊〉 2. to keepe the true patterne of wholesome wordes which he had heard of him And to commit the things he had heard of him in the presence of many witnesses to faithful men which are able to teach others He concludeth thence that all these consignements transmissions and atestations had beene superfluous 〈◊〉 170. and vnprofitable if Timothie had heard nothing of Saint Paule which could not be veryfied by the Scripture alone I alleadged the exposition of Tertullian who obserueth that the Apostle saith expresly these things Tert. de pâ—â—script that none imagine him to speak of any vnwritten Doctrine but that they should refer it to the same Doctrine which he had set downe in writing He replyeth that this place of Tertullian is wrested without shewing by the least sillable how or wherein Neither can he with all his sophistrie For it is the proper exposition of the same place of the Apostle whereof he treateth and the proper refutation of this glose of our Bishop before inuented by the Hereticks that were in Tertullians time But seeing this father is not to his relish let vs present him Saint Ambrose who expoundeth it thus The Apostle willeth that hee commit the secrets to faithfull men and worthy which were able to teach others Ambr. â— Tim. 2. not indifferently to common negligent persons For there must be a great care had in the choosing of a Doctor or Teacher This is all S. Ambrose findeth in it which is in summe That Timothie as hauing the charge of an Euangelist should take heede whome hee chose for the teaching of the Gospell Rom. 1â— 1. Cor. 1â— Eph. 1 9â— 3.4 which the Apostle in diuers places calleth mysterie or secret