The Bishop of Eureux opposeth to the veryficatioÌ„ by scripture the attestation of witnesses as if they were thinges incompatible that cannot stand together as if a thing witnessed by them that heard S. Paul speake could not be verified by them that read his wrightings As for the Patterne of wholesome words if he oppose it also to the scripture What wil follow of it but that the wordes of the scripture are not wholesome words and I willingly confesse that they be deadly the sauour of death to all Blasphemers We neede but represeÌ„t his enthimenia in forme for to shew the deformitie of it Saint Paul referred Timothie to the wholesome wordes he had heard of him Ergo he referred him not to them he had written Notwithstanding that in another place hee exhorteth him to reading 1. Tim. â— 2. T m. â— 16.17 assuring him that the holy letters that is the written words are able to make him wise to Saluation perfectly instructed vnto euery good worke He answereth to this last place That they may instruct him to saluation not immediatly and by them selues but by meanes of the faith and beleefe they gâ—ue him in Jesus Christ not by the internall fulnesse of their doctrine but by the direction and sending to an outward supplie namely to Christ and by Christ to his Disciples Or else that they may instruct him in this speciall poinâ— that saluation is by fayth in Christ Iesus For Saint Paul speaketh but of the Scriptures of the olde Testament c. This is euer the burden of his song That the Scripture hath no other sufficiencie than a Letter of credite To confute these impertinencies as often as he bringeth them were to goe about to make them be founde lesse impertinent We neede but looke into the sixteenth verse following to knowe what sufficiencie the Apostle attributeth vnto it which he doth so particularly so exactly and so clearely that there is no braine so credulous or so blockish that can beleeue the bearer of this fonde distinction seeing how the internall fulnesse of the Scripture is represented therein with the right vse thereof which consisteth in teaching the true doctrine â—â—m 3.16 in confuting the false in instructing vs in good workes and in reprouing and correcting the euil That the man of God may be absolute being made perfect vnto all good works Let vs conferre this Text with the Perronian glose The Scripture is giuen onely to serue vs for a memoriall a Letter of credence a direction to outwarde supplies namely to Iesus Christ and by him to his Disciples That is to say euerie one to his Curate And it is but for this onely reason that he maketh mention of Iesus Christ For howe else should it direct men vnto Christ seeing he teacheth no more with his owne mouth as he did when he was conuersant vpoÌ„ earth And though he should stil immediatly teach on earth should we receiue sufficient instruction from him No truly if we beleeue this Bishop 〈◊〉 48. who boldly maintaineth that the things alone which he did or declared with his owne mouth to his disciples are not sufficient for the instruction of the Church Adde nor free from Error and by consequent of correction as the Councell of Constance could well shew him Con Const Sess 13. tearming it rashnesse and presumption to teach that ChristiaÌ„ people should obserue that which Iesus Christ hath instituted namely to communicate the Lordes Supper in both kindes Now I summon him to shewe how it can be that the Scripture serueth vs for a Letter of credence for a memoriall or direction to direct vs to the pretended Church since that he and all our aduersaries maintaine that it is for that Church to shew vs and to authorise the Scripture which without this testimonie should haue no more authoritie nor credite than Aesops Fables What preposterous Methode is this that giueth the Letter of credence to the bearer that should receyue it of him What can be more ridiculous Can wee haue a more manifest proofe for to shewe that his principall purpose is to make the Scripture vnprofitable and to bring it wholy to nothing Distrusting himselfe to be able to sustaine this same impertinencie hee hath recourse to another shift and sayth That Saint Paul meaneth Fol. 172. that the holie Letters are able to instruct Timothie to this speciall point that saluation is by fayth in Christ Iesus This glose as alreadie hath bin obserued is ouerthrown by the two verses following which represent the inward amplitude and fulnesse of the scripture as well for doctrine as for maners True it is that this point is the substance of the whole gospel seeing that whosoeuer beleeueth hath faith in Iesus Christ hath life eternal shal not come into iudgmeÌ„t but hath passed froÌ„ death vnto life And if the scripture did but barely propouÌ„d this sentence only Iohn 3.24 without expouÌ„ding it without declaring the causes conditions proprieties effects of this faith they would be some apparance to put forth this distinction of Mediate and Immediate which in this case is as receiuable as it is fond and blasphemous in that ample description of the end vse and whole office of the Scripture which this place setteth forth vnto vs. And who will be so senselesse to maintaine that the Scripture is not fit to doe the office nor to attaine to the ende whereunto God who inspired it hath ordained it Is it because it speaketh not of blessed graines and such like trinkets But Saint Paul saith he speaketh here of the Scriptures of the old Testament for it was them that Timothie had learned from his childhoode at which time there was nothing of the new Testament written And these Scriptures of the old Testament could not instruct Timothie immediately and by themselues I answere that the Apostle speaking of the childhood of Timothie excludeth not the rest of his age but sheweth that he speaketh of the whole time of his life vntill then So speaking of the Scriptures of the olde Testament he excludeth not them of the new for this tearme Holy Scriptures is generall And to go about to exclude necessarily a Species after the position of the Genus is but bad arguing To goe about to take away the name of holy Scriptures from these two Epistles which Saint Paul had then written to Timothie and which at the least Timothie had read besides the other writings of the new Testament which perhaps he had also seene is to commit blasphemie But there needeth none other confutation of such Arguments but the representation of their forme Saint Paul maketh mention of the studie that Timothie made in his youth Ergo he speaketh nothing at all of his studies made since Item Saint Paul saith that Timothie learned the holie Sciptures Ergo he meaneth only the writings of the old Testament And by consequent he meaneth not that he should learne any thing of the writings
Reuelation where the soules of them that were killed for the word of God cried vnder the Altar How long ô Lord which art holy and true doest thou not iudge and auenge our blood on them that dwell one the earth Behold almost the same light the same stile in the first and last booke of the holy Scripture 〈◊〉 9.5 c When god saith in the same booke of Moses that he will require againe the blood of soules Resur c. 28. he sheweth vs the same thing and furnisheth vs matter of a like argument Notwithstanding Tertullian draweth thence a consequeÌ„ce not onely for the Immortality of the soule but also for the Resurrection of the body reasoning thus That which God requireth againe must be restored but God requireth againe the blood shed as well by the hand of beasts as by the hand of men therefore it must be restored for that which is not at all can not be auenged And then he concludeth that what is spoken of the blood is spoken of the flesh â—â—p 32 without which the blood can not bee and that the flesh shall be raysed vp that the blood may be auenged and in the same booke he saith that Moses in this place maketh mention of beasts at whose handes the blood shall be required the better to expresse the resurrection euen of bodies deuoured by them The Bishopp of Eureux findeth that this is but an hyperbolicall threatning for to terrifie men from manslaughter But they which take the prohibitions of Murder for hyperboles they are the very same that hyperbolically giue licence to themselues to commit it following the Tradition not of the Apostles vnlesse it be of Iudas but of certaine Robbers among the Donatists which they called Circumcelliones Now sith this place cannot be well vnderstood in his iudgment without Tradition he secretly insinuateh that euen the ciuill Magistrate cannot punish murder by vertue of this law of the Scripture that so he might put into this false scabbard of his tradition both the two swords togither the spirituall and the Temporall From the taking vp of Henoch I make this argument he which is taken out of this life gathered vnto god enioyeth an eternall felicity But Henoch being no more seene among men was gathered or taken away vnto GOD therefore Henoch enioyeth eternall felicitie This argument proueth not only the immortalitie of the soule But also Paradise that is to say an eternall felicitie The Sadduces reply by the mouth of his aduocate Du Perron is That it may bee graunted that this translation was a withdrawing from the conuersation of men and a delay and staying of death till a certaine time vnknowne to men of the first ages but that it followeth not that the soule after the extinction of the bodie subsisteth and remaineth for euer I answere that if it be permitted to the Saducie and his Aduocate to adde to the text of Moses what they please they may conclude from thence what they list and one day shall finde that which they will like but little But this Sadducean or Perronian glosse is contrarie to the Text of Moses which setteth downe vnto vs the temporall life of Henoch much shorter than was the ordinarie of that time So that this taking vp cannot be vnderstood of a delay or staying of death Moreouer this text representeth vnto vs Henoch as the most excellent man in pietie and loue of GOD which liued in his age and setteth forth vnto vs also without the helpe of any glosse his taking vp as a manifest testimonie of the fauour of God towards him On the other side all the Law of Moses teacheth vs that it was rather the testimonie of a curse than of a blessing to be soone depriued of this temporall life seeing that long life vpon earth is promised propounded as a speciall blessing Iâ— followeth therefore by necessarie and ineuitable consequence that there is another and more happy life then this earthly life Into which Henoch was translated Reuel 21. which we call Paradise that is to say a place extempt from all euill and abounding in all good This consequence is drawne from the text it selfe not from the word of Tertullian who calleth Henoch Candidatum aeternitatis which I had inserted by the way But take away this floorish that hee maketh vpon occasion of this word as if I would prooue the immortality of the soule by Tertullian hee remaineth lame and benummed and not able to passe any further For the rest that he saith is as much to purpose as if one would ground the originall of the Esseians or of the Monks oâ— Popery on this withdrawing of Enoch from the conuersation of men And if our Bishop had not taken in hand to plead the cause of the Saduces he might find heere a good proofe for the Esseians or for the Monkes From the historie of the Deluge may be drawne proofe for the Vniuersall iudgement which Du Perron holdeth not to haue beene beleeued among the Iewes â—â—n 7 but by Tradition of the Prophesie of Henoch cited in the Epistle of saint Iude For that which we see foretold in the same prophecie we finde it accomplished in the seuenth chapter of Genesis The argument may be formed thus He which executeth iudgement against all and condemneth all the wicked for the works of their impiety executeth an vniuersall Iudgment But God executed such a Iudgment in the flood against all the wicked Therefore he executed an vniuersall Iudgment The Bishoppe of Eureux cannot deny the Maior for it is taken from the foresaide tradition nor the Minor without denying the historie of Moses who teacheth vs that this Iudgment was vniuersall And if the Saducie alleadge the promise that GOD made Genes 9.11 and .15 Verses not to destroy the whole earth any more we can shew him the restriction that is there added namely that he will not destroy the earth any more by the waters of the Flood his iudgments not being subiect to one onely forme And seeing that the same Iustice is alwaies in God which the Saducie is constrained to confesse and the same vnrighteousnes and impietie reigneth amongst men It followeth that he will execute also the same iudgment to wit vniuersall though we can not know the day nor the houre Tradition beeing no lesse silent heere than the Scripture From the Couenant that God made with Abraham and the Hebrewes I argue thus Genes 15.17 2 4.7 A couenant that dureth for euer requireth that the parties betweene whom it is contracted doe abide for euer But the couenaunt that GOD contracteth with his dureth for euer Therefore they must also abide for euer The onely light of nature sheweth as well to the Iewes and to the Heathen as to Christians the truth of the Maior For it is most certein that when one of the Correlatiues is extinct the relation which is betweene them is extinct also The Minor is prooued to a Sadducie by a
made of this Indiuiduall to wit Isaacke This consequence is drawne from the text it selfe and the Apostle who alledgeth it neither addeth therunto nor presupposeth therein any tradition But such a spirit as our Bishop is of Heb 11 19 findeth more taste in the tradition of S. Siluester that raised vp a dead Bull Or in that of S. Germaine that raised vp an asse a calfe which they of his house had eaten From the words that God saith to Abraham Gen. 15. Gen. 15. I reason thus He which hath God for his reward hath immortality and life eternall But Abraham hath God for his reward Therefore he hath immortalitie and life eternal Du Perron saith That some of ours vnderstand this reward of earthly and temporall things true but they exclude not heauenly and eternall vnlesse he forge himselfe a God without immortalitie and without eternitie His answeres and ordinarie manners of arguing are to snatch one part thereby to exclude the other as if hee should say God framed Adam a bodie therefore hee gaue him not a soule Let vs set him downe the argument in this sort Whosoeuer hath God for reward hath more than an earthly and temporall thing But Abraham hath God for reward therefore hee hath more than an earthly and temporall thing But since the Bishoppe of Eureux receiueth the exposition of Oecolampadius vpon this place who vnderstandeth as if God said vnto Abraham If I bee for thee who shall be against thee If I be thy buckler and thy protection who shall hurt thee Let him receiue also this argument Hee whom nothing can hurt is immortall otherwise death should hurt him yea breake this buckler which is God and vanquish this protector which is the same God Now nothing may hurt Abraham therefore he is immortall and all the calamities that hee suffered did not hurt him to speake properly But if death had abolished his bodie his soule both together without hope of restitution resurrection then should the promise of God haue beene found vaine and frustrate From the exclamation that Iacob maketh at the point of death I drawe this argument Gen 49. â— Whosoeuer waiteth for the saluation of God at the houre of his death when he is going out of this life thinketh not to die wholly and altogether but Iacob at the point of his death waiteth for the Saluation of God therefore he thought not to die wholly and altogether for it behooueth that some thing of him should remaine for to receiue this saluation And though it should be vnderstood of some succours for his posteritie yet it behooueth that hee which waiteth and hopeth for that be not wholly extinguished brought to nothing So in the vulgar translation which is authentick in the Church of Rome there is in the future tense I will waite for thy saluation O Lord. If Du Perron reply that his Sadducie holdeth not that translation for authenticall No more doe we that of his pretended Rabbi that he alledgeth vnto vs. 〈◊〉 14 〈◊〉 49 29. 〈◊〉 15.55 〈◊〉 8 17 From this speach to be gathered to his fathers or people many times repeated in this first booke of Moses I conclude that if those to whom Abraham Isaack Iacob be gathered be not at all Moses speaketh vnaptly and falsely But this consequent is false therefore also the antecedent is so too Out of the second booke of Moses called Exodus â—â—d 3 6 This book furnisheth vs in the first place with the argumeÌ„t wherewith our Sauiour Christ stopped the mouthes of the Saduces proouing vnto them the resurrection of the dead the forme of it is this They of whom God calleth himselfe the God are liuing Now God calleth himselfe the God of Abraham the God of Isaacke and the God of Iacob Therefore they are liuing And seeing that according to the body they are not yet raised vp from the dead that must needes bee one day though in respect of God to whom all things are present they bee already raised vp and therefore he calleth himselfe their God speaking of a thing which shall infallibly be done as if it were alreadie done The Bishop of Eureux cryeth as lowde as hee can that Iesus Christ cited this place onely for to prooue the immortalitie of the soule and that it belongeth not to the Resurrection of the bodie I say though hee presuppose the immortalitie of the soule yet hee meaneth it necessarily of the Resurrection of the dead because it is the question that the Sadduces proposed to our Sauiour which of the seuen brethren in the resurrection should haue the woman to wife who had beene maried to theÌ„ all one after another is there any tradition that maketh mariages between soules without their bodies such a mariage would be another maÌ„ner of mysterie than that is which the Romish tradition hath made a Sacrament Bellarmine himselfe saith our Lord being about to prooue the Resurrection to the Saduces alleadged this testimony of Scripture I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaak and the God of Iacob and addeth God is not the God of the dead but of the liuing whence his intention is to inferre The dead therefore rise againe Now although the Saduces denyed also the Immortality of the soule yet the Resurrection of the body seemed vnto them much more absurde And vpon this pointe was grounded the most formall dissention betweene them and the Pharises as appeareth by that which Saint Luke saith of theÌ„ Act. 23.6.7 Also the three Euangelists qualifie the Saduces by this marke as the most notable that they beleeued not the ResurrectioÌ„ And if our Sauiour Christ by the Resurrection of the dead meant only of the coÌ„tinuaÌ„ce of souls not of the ResurrectioÌ„ of the flesh besides that he had done nothing by his argumeÌ„t takeÌ„ out of Moses that a Heathen Philosopher by naturall reasons might not haue done It would follow that he had then graunted that the soule dyeth or at the least sleepeth till the day of Iudgment for this tearme resurrection or rising againe can not agree but to that which before is fallen as it fareth in the body by death And when it is attributed to the soule it is but by figure like as sinne is called the death of the soule in as much as it depriueth it of the spirituall life which is in God yet without abolishing her substance But our Bishopp attributeth this opinion to Christ for to conforme it with that of one of his preteÌ„ded vicars Pope Iohn the 22. who was constrayned by a King of France to retract it and to vnsay himselfe by sound of Trumpet as Gerson witnesseth Now let vs see the Spirit of astoniednesse which possesseth him in saying Though Saint Mathew should say in expresse tearmes that Christ alledgeth this Text against the Sadduces vpon the question of the Resurrection of the bodie what can hee necessarily inferre thereupon I answere if Iesus Christ alledged this text for the
power of God if wee follow not the testimonies of them darknesse will oppresse vs and will passe vpon our doctrine After Du Perron our Sauiour Christes reply must be corrected by these words Yee erre because ye know not the tradition neither the power of the Synagogue or of the High Priest Caiphas addresse your selues to this same and yee shall know all the secrets of God From the second commaundement of the Decalogue I frame this argument they that experiment the mercie of God euen to the thousanth generation cannot be abolished by death now they that loue GOD experiment his mercy euen to the thousanth generation therefore they cannot be abolished by death The Bishopp of Eureux opposeth vnto me Brentius who expoundeth this promise of God not of eternall life but of the multitude of posterity He so often alleadgeth vnto me this expositour as if his authority were as irrefragable and authenticall amongst vs as the authority of an Apostle If I should aleadge vnto him Eutyches Nestorius or some other holdeÌ„ for an heretike both of him and me all the Ellebore of Anticyra would not suffice to purge such an Impertinencie But because it is himself that vseth it it must be admired as a wisedome extrauagante Now let vs take this place according to the exposition be it of Brentius or of the Saduces and then let their aduocate Du Perron tell vs how a promise can be directed to them which are not how mercie can be exercised vpon them which are wholly destroyed and brought to nothing Vpon their children will he say but Moses saith formally vpon Them which pronoune can not be vnderstood but of the Fathers the abolishment of whome abolisheth the subiect of Gods mercie Ethic. l. 1. c 11 This consequence is no lesse necessary and euident then that is which the Interpreters of Aristotle gather for the Immortality of the soule from a place where he propoundeth this question whether it importeth to our felicity that our friends be happy and whether the dead also are touched with the prosperity of their friends he which speaketh thus intendeth that the dead are not wholly extinct and this is manifest by the onely vse of reason common sense without begging the helpe of any Tradition And if Aristotle who affected obscurity may notwithstanding be vnderstood â—xod 32 32 â—3 at least in some places how much more Moses who aimed onely at the instruction and edification of the people of God â—ol 23. From Gods booke spoken of in the same booke one may thus reason against a Saducee that by his Aduocate expoundeth it of a rolle or catalogue of the liuing or of a Register wherein God writeth all things that he hath giuen Beeing vnto Moses was not blotted out of this booke of life and yet hath not enioyed that happy life promised to the people of god in the land of Chanaan but dyed before he sett foote into it as well as they that rebelled against god It followeth therefore either that the happie life is not properly to be vnderstood of the fruition of the land of Canaan or that God made no distinction between his most faithful seruant and greatest obseruer of his Lawe and the most disloyall transgressors of the same betweene him that was wont to appease him them that were wont to prouoke him This consequence is necessarie not onely in the Germane Logick which Du Perron mocketh at but also in that of all the Synagogue that admitteth the Text of Moses Act. 6. Lib. 1. de Caiâ— Aâ— c. 2. were it of Libertines and of Sadduces the principall of which who at this present is Bishop of Eureux can reply nothing else thereunto but that wherewith the ancient Libertines accused S. Stephen to wit blasphemies against Moses and against God If that which S. Ambrose saith of Moses that he is not dead be of the Iewish tradition Deut. 21. 34 5. I 1.2 which after Du Perron was the true depositarie and Gardian of the sense of the Scripture and of the trueth of God than see heere a faire piece of it which blotteth out and wholly destroyeth the expresse text of the Scripture which speaketh of the death of Moses Let the Reader note by the way that the secret that our Bishoppe insinuateth touching the mysticall interpretation that is drawne from the helpe of Tradition It is to change the affirmations of the Scripture into Negations and the Negations into Affirmations From the 34. chapter verse 7. I drawe this proofe for the vniuersal Iudgement He that absolueth none that is guiltie iudgeth al men but God saith Moses absolueth not him that is guiltie therefore he iudgeth all men Out of Leuiticus From these words The man that shall doe these things shall liue in them may bee made this argument Leuit. 18. â— If the life that God promiseth to the obseruers of his Law bee but temporall they haue nothing more excellent aboue others but the consequent is false Therefore the antecedent likewise The consequence is manifest for many contemners of God and transgressors of his coÌ„maundements aswell among the Israelites as among the Heathen haue liued a longer and happier life in this world then many of the children of God haue done â— Cor. 15. 19 who might as well say then as S. Paul said since If in this life onely we hoped in Christ or in God wee are of all men the most miserable Therefore here either the Sadducie must deny the iustice of God or renounce his obstinate opinion â—â—uit 18.5 From these same words also is prooued the sufficiencie of the Scripture of Moses in this manner that which maketh to liue eternally is sufficient to saluation but the things that Moses writeth in his Law make to liue eternally therefore they are sufficient to saluation The minor is prooued by the argument going before which sheweth that this life can not be temporall and that is the part which the Saducie denyeth His Aduocate Du Perron will deny this part which affirmeth that Moses wrote all the things that make to liue eternally To alledge vnto him S. Paule who saith that Moses â—â—m 10.5 describeth the righteousnesse that is by the Lawe of which righteousnesse perfectly obserued proceedeth life He would mock at it and would attribute this vnderstanding to the institution of the Synagogue but it shall not be lawfull for him after his owne principles to mock at Moses so â—â—ut 13.10 who in another place restraineth all this obseruation of the commaundements and ordinances of God to those things that are written in the booke of the Law without directing the promise of eternall felicitie to the obseruers of any other more secret commaundements conteyned in the Tradition of the 70. â—â—l 31. Elders of the Synagogue as Du Perron would haue it Considering also that if this place cannot bee vnderstoode of eternall life without the helpe of Tradition S. Paule was greatly
length of daies which God promiseth to the iust that his posteritie or his memorial or his seede might florish that he might not die of a sodaine violeÌ„t nor hastie death c. confirmng the exposition of the place of Moses by the authority of Horace a most worthy warraÌ„t for such as with this Poet may well be called Epicuri de grege porâ—â— swinish Epicures Now whilst he maketh his coÌ„parisons of the text of holy scripture that is of the word of god with the heatheÌ„ oracles that is the word of the diuel goeth to seek smoke in Horace for to choake the light of Moses let vs see the argument conteined in the said place There where there is a total abolishmeÌ„t there is no place for wishes of any felicity Balaam in his death wisheth the felicity that is in the death of the righteous therfore he beleeued that death is not a totall abolishment Againe whosoeuer wisheth to die like vnto theÌ„ that are singularly beloued kept of God beleeueth that there is a singular felicity happines reserued for them especially after their death wherof the vnrighteous shal not be partakers but Balaam maketh this wish knowing that God singularly loued the people of Israel therfore he beleeued that there was a felicity Happynes reserued for them euen after death To that which Du Perron saith that this felicity may be meant of a quiet death in a good age c. I answere that one may shew to a Saducie not onely by texts of the bookes of holy Scripture that he receiueth not Iob. 21. Psal e. 73 Ierem. 12. Habac. 1. but also by a great number of histories that he receiueth and by his owne experience that the life and death of the righteous is very often more miserable than that of the wicked and therefore the Iustice of God requireth that there be made an other iudgment after this life and the very heathen themselues were able by naturall discourse onely to make this conclusion which the Saduces that sometimes held the sterne of the Iewish Church and their aduocate they haue met withall in the Romish Church cannot draw from the whole body of the Law of Moses So Balaams asse without any spectacles of Tradition perceiued sooner and did more honour to the Angell than that great Doctor that false prophet that was vpon him that none might find strange if in times past many simple Israelites and at this day many simple lay men see more clearely and honour more deuoutly the holy scripture which is the true Angell or messenger by which God maketh knowne vnto vs his will than did the Sadduces in times past at this day the Bishops Popes who change the sheepe of Christ into asses in lading them with their traditions wherewith they more cruelly torment them than Balaam did his Asse striking it with his staffe and that for none other reason but because they giue place and honour to the Angell Du Perron alleadgeth Luther in fauour of his Sadducie who wisheth euen for temporall respects to die the death of Abraham therefore why might not Balaam who was not saith he more spirituall neither hee nor his Asse than your great Prophet Luther haue the like wish I answer that although the conformity with BalaaÌ„ is found much greater on our Bishops side than on Luthers whether we consider it in the manner of setting forth his owne praises as Balaam did or in the profession of being hired for to slaunder and curse the children of God and for to bewitch againe those whome Luther according to the grace receiued of God â—umb 24.19 hath vnbewitched or in giuing of pernicious counsells for all sorte of fornication there being no difference but that Balaam though against his will pronounced that which God had commaunded him and our Bishop saith and writeth quite contrarie to that which God hath commaunded him in the Scripture yea contrary to the feeling of his owne conscience yet notwithstanding the argument that he draweth from this comparison holdeth not For if Balaam desired the same that Luther desired and if Luther desired to dy like Abraham not for regarde only of temporall conditions but also in the faith of Abraham that he might be receiued into his bosome as a childe of the Father of beleeuers then it is plaine that Balaam desired expressly the immortality and saluation of his soule that is to say Paradise And it is to be feared that the Saducie here will say that his aduocate sauoreth of the asse esspecially seeing his miter which looketh so like a case for long eares And that if one day when he shall haue changed his miter into a hat and his crosier staffe into a Cardinall mule he can meete with an asse as wise and well spoken as Balaams was it would speak farre otherwise to his Cardinalls habite Out of Deuteronomie From the .5 Chapter .29 verse I reason thus that which death abolisheth wholy can not be a subiect capable of a permanent and perpetuall happynes but they that keep the commaundements of God do possesse a perpetuall happynes Therfore death doth not wholy abolish theÌ„ The Bishop of Eureux replyeth that it is not said that they shall haue theÌ„ selues this happynesse for euer but them and their posterity successiuely Now that is false the word Them is formaly expressed but the word Successiuely is not expressed For as hath beene aboue already said the same happines that is promised in general is applicable to euery particular accoÌ„plishing the coÌ„ditioÌ„ required now all obseruers of the commauÌ„demeÌ„ts of god haue promise of the perpetuall happines therfore euerie one of theÌ„ shall haue it also in particuler Would not our Bishop forge heere some such monster as that of the Libertines or of Auerrhois Of the vnderstanding vniuersall and perpetuall in it selfe but corruptible in the indiuiduals It may bee that in the conclusion hee maketh an allusion to Transubstantiation For if the accidentes subsist without their subiect Mans felicitie may also subsist for euer though the subiects of the same bee not for euer From the sixth Chapter 24. verse I conclude thus If they that feare the Lord haue promise to be euer preserued aliue It must follow that there is an Eternall life Now the Antecedent is conteined in these words of Moses The Lord hath commaunded to doe all these ordinances and to feare the Lord our God that it may goe euer well with vs and that hee may preserue vs aliue as at this present Therefore c. From the ninth Chapter 27. verse of the forme of praier vsed by Moses making intercession for the people and praying God that hee would remember his seruants Abraham Isaacke and Iacob wee may reason thus That which is not at al cannot haue any efficacie the Patriarches Abraham Isaacke and Iacob long time after their death haue some efficacie namely to appease God by the remembrance of his couenant contracted with them Therefore death
hath not wholly abolished them But this argument taken from Gods couenant with the fathers hath beene alreadie aboue discoursed of at large From the 14. chapter first verse is framed this demonstration children haue part in their fathers inheritance Moses calleth the Israelites the children of the Lord therfore they haue part in his inheritance Now this father is heauenly and eternall his true inheritance therefore is not onely earthly and temporall For if it were none other than the land of Canaan the Lords children should haue no aduantage aboue others yea they should be worse prouided for than the most detestable Idolaters and sworne enemies of the Lord who haue possessed so great and mightie Empires Againe they that haue God who is the author of life and life it selfe for their father cannot be destroyed nor alwaies detayned by death but Moses in this place teacheth the Israelites that they haue God for their father Therfore he teacheth them withal that they cannot be destroied nor their dead alwaies deteined by death Herupon it is that he groundeth the forbidding touching the vnmeasurable sorrow that the Heathen vsed for their dead not hauing the same hope â—â—rs 2 because they had not the same doctrine From the 30. chapter 15. and 16 verses where Moses setteth before the Israelites life and death blessing and cursing I reason thus if the life and blessing whereof Moses speaketh bee but temporall and not eternall God himselfe is not Eternall The consequent is horrible blasphemie Therefore the antecedent is necessarily false The consequence is prooued by the twentieth verse following of the same Chapter in which God is called the life and length of daies of that people whence I conclude he that hath the Lord for life and for length of his daies shall liue for euer but the faithfull saith Moses haue the Lord for their life therefore they shall liue for euer And by consequent the instance of the Bishop of Eureux is foolish and blasphemous when hee saith That since God blesseth the fishes of the sea Gennes 1. one might conclude that fishes are capable of life eternall Moses saith not that God is the life length of daies of fishes nor that fishes are children of the Lord to possesse him as their inheritance as he saith of the Israelites in tearmes as cleare and manifest as Saint Paule saith it of the faithfull â—ol 3.4 when hee calleth Christ our life See how the equiuocate or double signification of the word blesse may be distinguished by the onely Text of Moses without the helpe of Tradition But it was not for nothing that the Bishop of Eureux maketh heere fishes capable at least by Moses text of life eternall it is without doubt ouerthwartly to insinuate because they make more capable of it such as make of them their principall food as doe the Charterhouse Monks and some others For he hath learned from the Iewish Tradition that God hauing created two whales and fearing least if they engendred others the sea would be no more nauigable Lyr. in Psâ— Relation 7. c. ad finâ—â— he killed the female and salted the flesh of it which he keepeth to giue the righteous to eate in the world to come Also for to teach vs or to put vs in minde why the Romish Tradition suffereth the vse of fish in Lent forbidding the vse of flesh Namely because God hath blessed the fishes of the sea but he hath cursed the earth in the workes of man as saith Durand that great rehearser of Tradition adding that those creatures that haue partly the forme of a beast and partly the forme of a fish as the Oâ—ter one may eate the fish part that is to say of a creature halfe blessed halfe cursed Such mysteries indeed would neuer be drawne from the onely litterall text of Moses if Tradition did not leÌ„d helpe thereunto But the consequence that it draweth from the curse of the earth for to forbid flesh meates is so glittering and sparkling bright that it dazelleth the eyes that are vsed but to the light of the Scripture For if it be not lawfull to eat flesh because the earth is cursed in the workes of man we must by necessarie and euident consequence conclude either that in like sorte bread should not be eaten or that in the time when this prohibition was made men plowed and sowed in the sea and corne grew there that they might eate of it as partaker of the blessing giuen to fishes which is a Tradition that hath neede of another subsidiarie Tradition to helpe to vnderstand it From the .31 chapter 16. verse where God saith to Moses that he shall sleepe with his fathers is gathered the same argument that aboue is produced out of diuerse places of Genesis yea there may two be gathered whereof this word Sleepe doth furnish vs the first for to sleepe presupposeth some Being And that which is abolished is not capable of sleepe One cannot say that he which is not yet borne sleepeth No more can one say therefore with Plynie and the Sadduces that after man is deade it is the same thing as before he was borne or conceiued The other argument is taken from this whole speach to sleepe with his Fathers Those Fathers therefore must haue some Beeing or else let the Bishoppe of Eureux teach vs what difference there is betweene sleeping all alone and sleeping with some that haue no being at all From the 32. Chapter 9. verse I conclude thus The possession of the Lord is vncorruptible Israell saith Moses is the Lords possession therefore it is vncorruptible From the same Chapter 10 verse He that is kept of God as the apple of his eye cannot be wholly destroyed Israell was so kept Therefore c. The Bishops cauillation vpon this argument is aboue refuted From the same Chapter 22. verse Hee which threatneth to destroy consume the earth by fire euen to the foundation of the mountains denounceth a general vniuersall iudgement but so God threatneth in this verse therefore he denounceth an vniuersall iudgement For that which is said to the Israelites is applied by a iust and euident analogy to all transgressors The bishop of Eureux replieth that these be metaphoricall comparisons wherby God compareth his anger vnto fire I grant it for there are certaine matters that cannot be declared to mans vnderstanding but by metaphoricall and allegoricall locutions And therefore euen in the new TestameÌ„t â—el 13 the torments of hell are represented vnto vs by a lake burning with fire and brimstone And so far are these figures froÌ„ engendring obscuritie that on the contrary they giue light to our minds vnderstanding to our harts more than if they were proposed without figures And such is S. Augustines iudgement of them 〈◊〉 119 Moreouer if the Tradition be so cleare on this question of Hell fire whence coÌ„meth it that the Fathers and Schoolemen are so busied to determine whether it be materiall
oppugne directly the holy Scripture which testifieth clearely inough that He that absolueth the wicked is an abhomination to the Lord Pro 17.15 And in another place commaundeth in expresse termes to pluck murtherers from the alter of God Exod 21.14 that they may die And whether it be referred to infidel gouernours Math. 27.5 â— Mar. 15.6 as S. Mathew S. Marke do or to the Synagogue corrupted as the Bishop of Eureux thinketh to shew it by S. Iohn yet the corruption transgression of the Law therein is euident Therfore Saint Cyrill for to excuse the ancient Synagogue groundeth this custome on the Law written touching maÌ„slaughter committed vnawares Cyr. in Iul â— 2. c. 14. Num. 35. and thinketh that the Synagogue that was in Christs time of hatred rage wherwith it burned against him transgressed that Lawe asking the deliuerance of a detestable robber and murtherer in steade of one that had killed a man by mischance and vnawares See then the Bishop of Eureux his tradition rased and condemned by the sentence of a Patriarch of Alexandria Theophylact speaketh of it these words Wee may say that the Iewes â—heoph in 〈◊〉 c. 18. teaching the doctrines which are the commaundements of men haue inuented many things of their owne heads and haue not vsed the lawes of God so that this point also became a custome without reason as many other things without commaundement of the Lawe See here againe Tradition the pretended word of God after our Bishop called a custome without reason by a Bishoppe much ancienter and of better authoritie than ours And whereas I sayd that they which deliuer Barrabasses do crucifie Iesus Christ in his members he accuseth me of inuectiues and of ignorance of the mysteries and iudgements of God forgetting the place of S. Ambrose whence I drew that coÌ„clusion the words are these The Lawes of iniquitie are such that it hateth innocencie loueth wickednes VVherin notwithstanding the interpretation of the name giueth apparance of a figure For this word Barrabas Amb. in Luc. â—ib 10. signifieth some of the Fathers those then to whome it is said Your Father is the Diuell are declared that they perfer Anti-christ the sonne of their Father before the true sonne of God The sentence of S. Augustine who saith that the Iewes are not to be reprehended for that they deliuered a guiltie person at Easter but for that they put to death an innocent should be vnderstood not simply and absolutely but by coÌ„parison as if he had said to put to death him that brought life and righteousnesse into the world is a crime so horrible and to deliuer a person guilty is nothing in comparison For this holy Doctour was too much conuersant in the Scripture and too good an interpreter of the places aboue alleadged for to declare absolutely vnreproueable those whome the spirit of God declareth to be an abhomination before the Lord. But it is not without mysticall reason that our Bishoppe would make murtherers bee found irreprehensible â—xod 21.14 â—o 17.15 â— Tim. 3.2 â—it 1.6 that is to say capable to bee Bishoppes it is without reason and not without ignorance to call mee ignorant of his mysteries which we are no more ignorant of theÌ„ of the traditioÌ„ of Boniface the fift who was the first Pope that ordained That altars and Churches should serue for places of fredome to Malefactors Platin. in Bonif. 5. wherein the good Prelate re-established the Tradition of Pilate to deliuer Robbers As for the instances he taketh out of the Epistle to the Hebrues where Saint Paul reciteth certaine legall ceremonies of which Moses maketh not expresse mention though we should graunt him all of them yet could they not helpe his desperate cause For they are things Chap. 9. which concerne historie and not doctrine the onely act of the sacrifice made for the ratification of the couenante and not the ordinary vse and custome of daily and yearly sacrifices therefore might be vnknowne without danger of saluatioÌ„ not onely of the people but euen of the Priests themselues seeing they were not preceps touching the maÌ„ners of their ordinary seruice but onely certaine circumstances of a singular and extraordinary sacrifice the substance whereof is described by Moses In a word they be Traditions of such a nature of which we haue ofteÌ„ said there be many but which derogate in nothing from the perfection sufficiency of the Scripture which consisteth in doctrine Now because this chapter with a good part of the rest of this Epistle giueth a deadly blow to the masse he laboureth to comfort the wound with these Instances taken from the same place because he can not make vse of it as of Achilles dart or as of a Scorpion for to draw a remedy from the same from whence the hurte came He supplyeth with his braine as much as he can and maketh S. Paul say that Moses in the solemnity of the said sacrifice mixed water with the blood of the TestameÌ„t which S. Paul saith not no more thaÌ„ Moses though he say that he tooke water with blood wool as if one could not take two things one with another without mixing theÌ„ one within another the priests of the Romish church wheÌ„ they baptize take water oyle other drugs Ergo they mixe them all together in the Sacramental water A goodly argument What is there in the text of Saint Paule that forceth vs to conclude that Moses mixed the water within the bloud for to sprinkle therewith the people by one onely sprinkling rather than to say that he sprinkled them first with water for to purifie and wash them as they did the sacrifices before they offered them which is the ground of the analogy by which I said that this ceremonie might be gathered out of Moses He reprooueth me of vanitie for affirming that the sacrifices for sinne And that such sacrifices were of hee goates The first is manifest for that Moses in the first place speaketh of whole burnt offerings which were expiatorie propitiatory after which he maketh mention of sacrifices of thanksgiuing The other appeareth by analogie or proportion of the Law which saith If the Prince of the people that is one of them that haue publick charge as the seauenty Elders and the heads of the tribes had commit sin let his offering be of an hee goate Now in this Sacrifice whereof is question the 70. elders are commanded to goe vp with Moses Aaron Nadab and Abihu Leui. 4.22.23 whose sacrifices were of bullockes according to the Law It is gathered therefore by analogie that the offrings of the 70. elders were of hee goats To say that the institution of all these particulars was after the Sacrifice of the Couenant were not to consider that sacrifices notwithstanding this were in vse before the Lawe giuen by God to Moses Leu. 4.3 and that not according to each mans fantasie but according as God reuealed and