Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	body_n	resurrection_n	sin_n	7,555	5	4.9414	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13773	Positions lately held by the L. Du Perron, Bishop of Eureux, against the sufficiency and perfection of the scriptures maintaning the necessitie and authoritie of vnwritten traditions. Verie learnedly answered and confuted by D. Daniell Tillenus, Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Sedan. VVith a defence of the sufficiency and perfection of the holy scriptures by the same author. Faithfully translated.	Tilenus, Daniel, 1563-1633.; Du Perron, Jacques Davy, 1556-1618. Discours sur l'autorité.; Tilenus, Daniel, 1563-1633. Defence of the sufficiency and perfection of the holy scripture. aut	1606 (1606)	STC 24071; ESTC S101997	143,995	256

made of this Indiuiduall to wit Isaacke This consequence is drawne from the text it selfe and the Apostle who alledgeth it neither addeth therunto nor presupposeth therein any tradition But such a spirit as our Bishop is of Heb 11 19 findeth more taste in the tradition of S. Siluester that raised vp a dead Bull Or in that of S. Germaine that raised vp an asse a calfe which they of his house had eaten From the words that God saith to Abraham Gen. 15. Gen. 15. I reason thus He which hath God for his reward hath immortality and life eternall But Abraham hath God for his reward Therefore he hath immortalitie and life eternal Du Perron saith That some of ours vnderstand this reward of earthly and temporall things true but they exclude not heauenly and eternall vnlesse he forge himselfe a God without immortalitie and without eternitie His answeres and ordinarie manners of arguing are to snatch one part thereby to exclude the other as if hee should say God framed Adam a bodie therefore hee gaue him not a soule Let vs set him downe the argument in this sort Whosoeuer hath God for reward hath more than an earthly and temporall thing But Abraham hath God for reward therefore hee hath more than an earthly and temporall thing But since the Bishoppe of Eureux receiueth the exposition of Oecolampadius vpon this place who vnderstandeth as if God said vnto Abraham If I bee for thee who shall be against thee If I be thy buckler and thy protection who shall hurt thee Let him receiue also this argument Hee whom nothing can hurt is immortall otherwise death should hurt him yea breake this buckler which is God and vanquish this protector which is the same God Now nothing may hurt Abraham therefore he is immortall and all the calamities that hee suffered did not hurt him to speake properly But if death had abolished his bodie his soule both together without hope of restitution resurrection then should the promise of God haue beene found vaine and frustrate From the exclamation that Iacob maketh at the point of death I drawe this argument Gen 49. ● Whosoeuer waiteth for the saluation of God at the houre of his death when he is going out of this life thinketh not to die wholly and altogether but Iacob at the point of his death waiteth for the Saluation of God therefore he thought not to die wholly and altogether for it behooueth that some thing of him should remaine for to receiue this saluation And though it should be vnderstood of some succours for his posteritie yet it behooueth that hee which waiteth and hopeth for that be not wholly extinguished brought to nothing So in the vulgar translation which is authentick in the Church of Rome there is in the future tense I will waite for thy saluation O Lord. If Du Perron reply that his Sadducie holdeth not that translation for authenticall No more doe we that of his pretended Rabbi that he alledgeth vnto vs. 〈◊〉 14 〈◊〉 49 29. 〈◊〉 15.55 〈◊〉 8 17 From this speach to be gathered to his fathers or people many times repeated in this first booke of Moses I conclude that if those to whom Abraham Isaack Iacob be gathered be not at all Moses speaketh vnaptly and falsely But this consequent is false therefore also the antecedent is so too Out of the second booke of Moses called Exodus ●●d 3 6 This book furnisheth vs in the first place with the argumēt wherewith our Sauiour Christ stopped the mouthes of the Saduces proouing vnto them the resurrection of the dead the forme of it is this They of whom God calleth himselfe the God are liuing Now God calleth himselfe the God of Abraham the God of Isaacke and the God of Iacob Therefore they are liuing And seeing that according to the body they are not yet raised vp from the dead that must needes bee one day though in respect of God to whom all things are present they bee already raised vp and therefore he calleth himselfe their God speaking of a thing which shall infallibly be done as if it were alreadie done The Bishop of Eureux cryeth as lowde as hee can that Iesus Christ cited this place onely for to prooue the immortalitie of the soule and that it belongeth not to the Resurrection of the bodie I say though hee presuppose the immortalitie of the soule yet hee meaneth it necessarily of the Resurrection of the dead because it is the question that the Sadduces proposed to our Sauiour which of the seuen brethren in the resurrection should haue the woman to wife who had beene maried to thē all one after another is there any tradition that maketh mariages between soules without their bodies such a mariage would be another māner of mysterie than that is which the Romish tradition hath made a Sacrament Bellarmine himselfe saith our Lord being about to prooue the Resurrection to the Saduces alleadged this testimony of Scripture I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaak and the God of Iacob and addeth God is not the God of the dead but of the liuing whence his intention is to inferre The dead therefore rise againe Now although the Saduces denyed also the Immortality of the soule yet the Resurrection of the body seemed vnto them much more absurde And vpon this pointe was grounded the most formall dissention betweene them and the Pharises as appeareth by that which Saint Luke saith of thē Act. 23.6.7 Also the three Euangelists qualifie the Saduces by this marke as the most notable that they beleeued not the Resurrectiō And if our Sauiour Christ by the Resurrection of the dead meant only of the cōtinuāce of souls not of the Resurrectiō of the flesh besides that he had done nothing by his argumēt takē out of Moses that a Heathen Philosopher by naturall reasons might not haue done It would follow that he had then graunted that the soule dyeth or at the least sleepeth till the day of Iudgment for this tearme resurrection or rising againe can not agree but to that which before is fallen as it fareth in the body by death And when it is attributed to the soule it is but by figure like as sinne is called the death of the soule in as much as it depriueth it of the spirituall life which is in God yet without abolishing her substance But our Bishopp attributeth this opinion to Christ for to conforme it with that of one of his pretēded vicars Pope Iohn the 22. who was constrayned by a King of France to retract it and to vnsay himselfe by sound of Trumpet as Gerson witnesseth Now let vs see the Spirit of astoniednesse which possesseth him in saying Though Saint Mathew should say in expresse tearmes that Christ alledgeth this Text against the Sadduces vpon the question of the Resurrection of the bodie what can hee necessarily inferre thereupon I answere if Iesus Christ alledged this text for the

De morib● Eccl. Cath● c. 24. Hee confesseth that there are many Superstitious persons in the true Religion worshippers of Sepulchers and pictures But in another place he vnfoldeth his opinion vpon this matter saying that if wee pray well as we ought to doe we should say nothing else Ep. 121. ● Prob. but what is set downe in the Lords prayer And that whosoeuer saith that which cannot be referred to this Euāgelicall praier though his praier be not vnlawfull yet is it carnall which cannot choose but bee vnlawfull seeing that they who are regenerate by the Spirit ought onely to pray Spiritually To the place that the Bishop of Eureux produceth out of Theodoret what can be more fitly opposed Theodor. Ep ad col than that which the same Theodoret writeth on the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Colossians where hee calleth worshipping of Angels heresie But if Angels which are ordeined of God for our guard which are the noblest creatures of all which alwayes stand before the Throne of God cannot be adored without heresie after the doctrine of Theodoret and the determination of the Councell of Laodicia shall we say he thought that the bones of dead men should bee worshipped what distinction so euer they make which the people vnderstand as little as the dead bones doe And if Baronius durst heere condemne Theodoret 〈◊〉 Eccl. ● ad an ●4 for that hee condemned as Heresie this superstitious worshipping of Angelles How much more shall it bee lawfull to condemne of Idolatrie and impietie them that so seeke and prease after this abhominable worshipping of bones and dead bodies For Saint Augustine in the place aboue alledged will not haue men serue nor adore the heauenly bodies for this onely reason that though they bee rightly preferred before all other bodies yet life is much better These heauenly bodies are not without miracles which God hath wrought in them and they doe bring more profit to men and do better declare the glorie of God than doth the dust and ashes of the dead what miracles soeuer be done there 〈◊〉 9.1 of which the true had none other end but to yeeld testimonie to the truth which the Martyrs had confessed for to conuert the Heathen therevnto and not turne away Christians from him that is the liuing God for to make them worship dead men for to withdraw the people from the visible Elements to the knowledge of saluation manifested in the Scriptures and not for to draw them to idolatries more then Hethenish which the Spirit of lies hath the cunning so well to nourish and set forward by an infinite number of false miracles and such as those were wherewith in times past he so well maintained the Heathen vnder his obedience Dialog Gazaei ● 5. Pa●●om 1 Here I summon him againe to tell vs on what Apostolike Tradition were and are grounded the Pirgrimages adorations and all those Ceremonies instituted a long time after the death of the Apostles What certaintie there is concerning the reliques which the people worship By what Registers shewed the succession of them that haue continued the keeping of them from father to sonne How by the warres and other publike calamities which haue lost abolished so many things there hath not beene lost so much as a comb of the virgin Marie a clout of the childhood of our Sauiour Christ ten thousand other such peeces No not vnder that horrible spoile and hauocke in the time of Dioclesian when al the Oratories and holy places of christians were burned and ruinate which serueth Baronius for an excuse and for an ordinary refuge when he would fain proue a thing by antiquity and can not And to come again to the historie in question there is found the verie dagger wherwith St. Michael fought with the Diuell from which Tradition the people learneth that it is not by faith nor by spirituall weapons Ephes 6. ● wherewith the Scripture armeth vs that wee must combat the Diuell but that one must haue a good sword and dagger for to resist him according to the Tradition of the Cibille who commanded Aeneas going into hell Virg. 6. E● to hold his sword in his hand Tuque inuade viam vaginaque eripe ferrum That it is not in the worde and in the Sacraments that wee must seeke Christ with his spirituall graces but in some peece of wood which is said to be a peece of his crosse in some naile napkin towell or other relique Though Saint Paul say that he knoweth not Iesus according to the flesh 2. Cor. 5● so farre is he off from making reckoning of these pretended Reliques The Scripture teacheth vs that God ordayned Death as a curse as the wages of sinne that deade bodyes bones and graues were polluted and did pollute euen the liuing by their touchings because they were as so many myrrors of this curse and of the corruption of humane nature in which the Image of God is so fowly disfigured Moreouer this same legall pollution taught the Israelites by figure that which the Apostles vnder the Gospell taught cleerely namely that wee should carefully keepe our selues from dead workes which are also called workes of the flesh and to maintaine our selues pure and holy the pretended tradition on the contrarie teacheth that there is no other puritie nor holines but in stirring kissing gilding adoring of dead bodies and wheras the lawe particularly forbad Priests to touch dead bodies 〈◊〉 22. there is no sort of people now adayes that so busie themselues in funerals and in handling of bones and reliques then the Priestes who feed vpon dead bodies like Rauens Vultures and in the meane while brag they were figured by the Leuitical Priests whom they care for as litle as for Iesus Christ when he saith Let the dead bury the dead vnlesse it bee that they obey him in this that being more dead than liuing they will haue no other affaires but with the dead hauing no hope of the true life and this is the reason why in their altars whereupon they sacrifice and crucifie as much as in them is Iesus Christ who is that life they must haue the bones and ashes of the dead to the end that as well they as their altars with which they liue might liuely represent vnto vs the possessed with vncleane spirites 〈◊〉 8. ●5 of whom the Gospel speaketh with the graues in which they dwelt Now we learne well ynough by the Scripture without the helpe of any tradition that the legall pollution that came by touching dead bodies is abolished by the Incarnation of our Sauiour Christ but that they should bee worshipped and adored with so much superstition and Idolatrie after this incarnation there is in it neither precept of it nor example though wee read in it the death and buriall of Saint Iohn Baptist of Saint Steuen and others on the contrary this distinction of reliques before and after the Incarnation is

repugnant to the Scripture and destroyeth it selfe First of all the holy persons which dyed in the faith of the Messias were freed as well from the curse of the law as they that are dead since the preaching of the Gospell and therefore God vouchsafed himselfe to burie the bodie of Moyses and the death of the saints were precious in his sight Deut. 3● Psal 11● Psal 34● he kept all their bones not so much as one of them perished as Dauid sung of his time Moreouer the bones of Helizeus raysing vp a dead bodie 2. King● wrought one of the greatest mjracles that is and therefore his bodie wee should well beleeue to bee freed from the slauerie of Sathan whose slaue as then all humane nature was if we beleeue the Bishop of Eureux not knowing or fayning not to know that Iesus Christ is the same yesterday Heb 13● Reuel 1● 1. Pet. 2● and to day That the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the worlde did alwayes wash and sanctifie the faithfull by his blood And the Ceremoniall pollusion might well be done away by this extraordinarie testimonie that God rendered to his Prophet after his death notwithstanding the inclination that this people had then to Idolatrie yet did they neuer abandon themselues to such brutishnesse as to worship bones and ashes onely the Egyptians were capable of this madnesse who for to heale themselues of the bytings of Serpents worshipped the Sepulchre of Ieremiah that was stoned to death in that Countrey an adoration worthie of them that worshipped all sortes of hearbes beastes fishes and monsters Secondly whereas according to the Doctours of the Romish Church the soules of the Fathers of the olde Testament went into Limbo which they say to be a place without paine They send the soules of the faythfull after the incarnation of Christ into Purgatorie there to suffer the verie same torments as are in Hell saue that they last not whence may bee inferred that the humane nature is more polluted now at this day then it was in olde time and that since the time that the blood of Iesus Christ was really shedde on the Crosse and all the mysterie of our redemption actually accomplished there is found therein lesse vertue and efficacie to purifie them than was before Thirdly I demaund why the Patriarkes since they were freed from that seruitude of Sathan are not called vppon in the Romish Church Or if all those that dyed before the incarnation of Christ haue remained the slaues of Sathan why did the Emperour Arcadius giue the same honour to the bones of Samuell Lector Niceph. ● 10. ●ont making them be transported from Iudea into Thrace as to an Apostle Why did no Bishop no not the Bishop of Rome oppose himself against that pollution ●p 2. Wherefore was there euen Bishops to beare the Shrine Why doth Saint Ambrose in the place cited by our Bishop alleadge sentences out of the olde Testament which speake of the care which God had of them that deceased in that time for to proue the worshipping of the Reliques of the Saints deceased vnder the new testament if the difference be so great between the one and the other Why doth S. Hierom confounde the Reliques of Saint Peter and Saint Paul with the bodie of Moyses ●ig 〈◊〉 Sanct. 3. To conclude why doth Bellarmine conclude by the myracle wrought by Helizeus that God would haue them bee worshipped What becommeth heere of the difference betweene the abhominable and polluted carions vessels of filthinesse and vncleanesse organs instruments of Sathan so du Perron calleth the bodies of the antient Saints 〈◊〉 20 p. 2. and betweene the darlings of Christ sweet smelling sacrifices seats vessels and future temples of the Godhead as he calleth them of the new testament which might suffice 〈◊〉 2. without adding Victorious ouer the diuel and hel by their martyrdom But Iesus Christ to whō alone belongeth this glorie to haue vanquished the Diuell and Hell by his martyrdome must as well with him be spoyled of his title for to inuest therewith the bones of the dead as the Scripture of his perfection for to inuest therewith Tradition which in stead of a worde or two that the Scripture teacheth concerning the combate of the Angell against the diuel for the body of Moyses reciteth vnto vs very amply the combate of S. Denis Annal. Franc. 〈◊〉 of S. D● and of some other Saints against the diuell for the soule of King Dagobert which they plucked from him for that this king had beene greatly deuoted to the said saint robbing others to enrich him Also it telleth vs the good turne Saint Laurence did to the Emperour Henrie how that after his death Alb●r 〈◊〉 histor S. ● 1. c. 36● the Angell Michael ballanced his merits against his sinnes the Diuell being readie to seaze on the soule as his owne because it was found too light by a graine of merrite the good Saint subtilly cast into the Scale where the merits were a golde Chalice note that our Bishops graines were not grained in those dayes for to make it weigh downe Yea it assureth vs by the mouth of a Pope that can not lie Greg. d● l. 3. c. 12. nor erre That sillie Priestes haue done as much or more wonders then the Scripture reciteth of the Archangel causing the soules of them that were alreadie dead and carryed away of Diuels to come againe yea employing in this Commission the Angels themselues as Sergeants to bring them backe againe and represent them And with such foppish tales of their Tradition as well absolute as subsidiarie one might make great volumes It sufficeth to note herein a word that all that which both the Traditions tell vs of Saint Michael is borrowed from the Fables which the heathen Poets haue fayned of their Mercurie whose wings sworde ballance for after Diodorus Mercurie is the inuenter of weights and measures and almost all his office it seemeth that the Priests Saint Michael hath inherited I said That the Popes gaue licence to themselues to tread vnder feete the greatest dignities of the earth of kings emperors which those against whō S. Iude speaketh in his Epist neuer did to which he answeth that the Greekes interprete this word Dignities in this place not of secular dignities but of Ecclesiasticall and conferre this place with that of the thrid Epistle of S. Iohn where he complayneth of the insolencie of Diotrephes And therupon he addeth that it is for me to bethinke my selfe how to acquite me of this Article c. Oecumenius from whom he taketh his conjecture vnderstandeth by this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dignities the old and new Testament 〈◊〉 3. ●5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which interpretation hee confirmeth by the place of Saint Paule where he saith If that which is abolished was full of glorie or dignitie how much more glorious or worthy is that which is permanent By this

can not bring them and put them into his armes visiblye and corporally Gal 3 ● Rom. 6 and the scripture teacheth that they which are baptized doo put on christ and are ingrafted into his body it followeth therefore that it is by this meanes that we shold bring them present them vnto him And Iesus christ sanctifieth and cleanseth by water in his word all those for whome he gaue himselfe to death Eph. 5 Now he dyed as well for children as for others seeing that the kingdome of heauen belongeth vnto them It followeth therfore that he sanctifieth and cleanseth them by the washing of water in his word 8 39 And saint Peter hauing sayd that euery one should be baptized for remission of sins and they should receiue the holy Ghost addeth This promise is made to you and to your children The similitude of the ceremonies of the Paschall Lambe whereupon hee groundeth his correspondency of Analogy perswadeth vs as litle as his reasons inforce vs. For all the ceremonies commaunded in the first institution of the Passeouer 2 were not literally fulfilled among the Iews especially in their yearly Passeouer As to eate it their loyns girt theyr shoos on their feet and a staffe in their hand which ceremony Du Perron should not ioyne with that of the sowr hearbs seing it was not of the number of the ordinary and belonged onely to the Passeouer celebrated in Egypt As also the ceremony of not going foorth of doors till morning And therefore our sauiour Christ celebrating the Passeouer transgressed not the law written in sitting at table and going foorth into the garden Besides the Paschall Lamb as J sayd aboue was rather a figure of the onely Sacrifice of Iesus Christ ● 7 0 4 ● 0. 2 17 who is the accomplishment of the Law and the body of all the shadows and ceremonies If there were question made of finding some correspondency betweene the ceremonies of Circumcision and the ceremonies that the Church of Rome hath added to Baptisme the B. of Eureux would be able to find therein as little Analogy as Identity The B. of Eureux The third argument is taken from the Actes where Saint Peter saith that hauing seene the holy Ghost come down on them that heard the word in the house of Cornelius he could not deny them Baptisme seeing they had receiued the same grace Wherof they conclude those that are capable of the same grace are capable of the same signe Now little children are capable of the same grace they are therefore capable of the same sign To which without standing to reply that in the olld Testament weomen are capable of the same grace and not of the same signe We may answer for the Anabaptists that those which are capable of the same grace and in the same manner or fashion are capable of the same signe But those that are capable of the same grace in diuers manners are not therefore for all that capable of the same signe Now little children will the Anabaptists say are capable indeed of the same grace as those that bee of age but not in the same manner for those of age are capable of grace by theyr owne personall faith and little children by their parents faith which is imputed vnto them And therfore to the former is requisite a Baptism proper and personall and to the others sufficeth the imputatiue Baptisme of their parents it being a thing reasonable that Baptisme do follow the quality of faith whereof it is a Sacrament And this answer serueth for all argumentes of like nature namely that little children are parte of the Church are capable of the kingdome of heauen whereof baptisme is the gate and entrance For after the same manner as they are capable of it that is to say no otherwise then by an imputed faith and not personall Baptisme would they say is communicated vnto them So that as they beleeue in the faith of their parents vntill they bee capable of a personall faith so are they Baptized in the Baptisme of their parentes till they bee baptized with a personall Baptisme namely when they are come to yeares of discretion and knowledge To these three reasons they adde a little light coniecture of that which Saint Paul said that he baptized the houshoulde of Stephan out of which they conclude that little children may he baptized Which argument is lame on both sides For first they must proue that there were little children in the houshold of Stephan which the scripture dooth not shew and secondly that those litle children were particularly baptized For although there had bin little children in that hous yet this witnes of S. Paul of hauing baptized the houshold of Stephan could for al that conclude nothing for them vnles there had bin expresse mention made that they were particularly baptized For one may always answer that in that he baptized the house of Steph is as much to say as he baptised all those that wer capable of Baptisme in that house As when it is sayd in Saint Iohn of the Ruler 53 Credidit ipse domus eius tota It can not be sayd that the little children in the cradle if there were any did beleeue but those who for their yeares were capable of beleefe Contrarywise to shew that this obiection of the house of Stephan in which is no testimony that there was any little children is far from making anything for them the Anabaptists replie that in the conuersion of Samaria by S. Phillip in which it cannot be doubted but that the conuerted parents had little children in the cradle the scripture euidently specifieth that Baptisabantur viri ac mulieres without making mention of little children D. Tillenus his answer Our third argument which he alledgeth is taken from the 10. of the Acts where saint Peter ordaineth Baptism to them that had receiued the Holy Ghost whence we conclude that they which are capable of the same grace are capable of the same signe And seeing that children are capable of the same grace of regeneration they cannot be vncapable of baptism which is the sign therof The same speculation which his answers conteineth if they were of any weight might haue had place as well against the Circumcision of little children and seeing that the different measure of grace did not depriue them of the signe in like manner ours ought not to be depriued of it The Scripture saith 11.12 that the Gentiles because they were not receiued into the couenant of Circumcision were without Christ without hope without God and strangers from the Couenants of promise The same Scripture sheweth vs that Baptism hath succeeded Circumcision Shall we then repute our children for straungers from the couenaunts of promise Shall we holld them only for children of the first Adam that is for children of wrath subiect to the curse for flesh and blood which cannot possesse the kingdom of heauen without bringing them to the second

of Mediate and Immediate sufficiencie so industriously set downe at the beginning of his Booke In the ●●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. 14● 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. d● c. 17. Hier. d● 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 vnsufficiēt 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 ● that only by the scripture of the old Testamēt wherin they found sufficiēcie 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 Pyrrhoniā 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 on● Fol. 14● 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 Panto●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 ●●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 cōmon reason to speak of a signe