contrarie the first intention of the Apostles was to deliuer the doctrines to the Church by tradition of liuely voice word vnwritten Also he saith that the Apostles wrote but by incident or chance Fol. 35. and vpon secondary occasions Let vs see this Enthymeme or imperfect argument of the PirrhoniaÌ„ Logicke The Apostles first taught by liuely voyce Ergo they pretended not to teach by their writings which succeeded their preaching The consequence is as good as who should say One eateth first for to nourish himselfe therfore drink serueth nothing to nourishment A non distributo ad distributum c. If he make an opposition between the coÌ„mandement of the spirit of God the incideÌ„t or the occasioÌ„s which moued the Apostles to write he blasphemeth in diuinitie denying the places of scripture 2. Tim. 3.1 2. Pet. 1.20 21. where it is called inspired of God and doteth in Logick excluding the efficient and principal cause because of the instruments and means that it vseth Also the Apostle saint Iude saith Iude. 3. that there was a necessitie of writing imposed vpon him And in the Reuelation we read that saint Iohn is more than ten times commaunded to write We know that to preach and to write are things verie accordant and which were comprehended in one and the same commaundement giuen to the Apostles â—ath 28 to teach all nations which yet to this day they teach by their writings He which commaunded them the thing which is to teach commaunded also the manners of teaching which are to preach with liuely voice and to set forth the doctrine in writing both of them being fit for teaching and this latter most fit for to continue and to transferre doctrines or instructions vnto posteritie â—enaeus li 3 p 1 So Irenaeus vnderstandeth it saying The Apostles after they had preached with liuely voice the Gospell afterwards gaue it vs in the scriptures by the will of God for to be the foundation and pillar of our faith So the booke intituled Manuale CuratoruÌ„ sheweth it saying there are three sorts of preachings One is by writing as saint Paule did writing to the Romanes Corinthians c. Another is by actions so euery action of Iesus Christ is our instruction the third is by word liuely voyce The Bishop of Eureux for to shew that hee is not alone in his opinion produceth foure places of foure ancient Fathers â—hat is by â—â—ose of our â—â—de often propounded and expounded namely that they shuld be vnderstood not of matters of faith but of the order gouernance of the Church which things being of their owne nature ambulatory subiect to change according to the diuersity of the circumstances of times places persons could not or should not be written Or if they speak of some doctrine not coÌ„teined in the scripture they meane it of the formal tearms which are not there as the words trinity coessentiall sacrameÌ„t the sense matter of which notwithstanding is therin found is drawen from thence either by analogy of faith or by necessary consequence Otherwise it would follow that they had gainsaid contradicted themselues a confess fid sum mor. 72 1. sum 80 22. ere 's to wit S. Basil wheÌ„ he saith that it is a most manifest marke of infidelity a most certain signe of pride to reiect any thing of that which is writteÌ„ or to bring in any thing which is not written S. Epiphanius All things are cleare in the scripture to those which by a holy vse of reasoÌ„ wil draw nere the word of god which haue not coÌ„ceiued an operation of the diuel such as they conceiue 〈◊〉 1. Timoth. â—om that accuse the scripture of imperfection endeuoring to cast themselues into the gulfe of death S. Chrysostome maketh saint Paule speake to Timothie in this manner In stead of mee thou hast the scriptures if thou desirest to learne any thing thou maist doe it from thence Then he addeth De doctrin Christ l. 2. c. If he wrote so to Timothie who was full of the holy Ghost how much more ought wee to thinke that it is spoken of vs. It is manifest that this Father thought that the intention of the Apostles was to leaue to the Churches their writings in stead of instructions by word of mouth which they could not continue after their death Saint Augustine saith In Psal 132 Among the things which are Openly declared in the scripture are All those which containe faith and manners that is Hope and Charitie There is to quitte his foure places and in pieces of the same coyne If hee will agree them let him bestirre himselfe better than he did in the answere he giueth to the place of saint Hilarie that hath these words That which is not conteined in the booke of the law we ought not so much as to know it Hee saith that this should be vnderstood of the Apocrypha books alledged in quality of Canonical What a mockery is this Is not the sentence of S. Hilarie generall or if it be not general is it not vnapt friuolous But the reply was ready That there be many other things to be knowne besides them which are coÌ„teined in the law which conteineth not so much as the principal points viz. the immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body c. What Apocrypha Logick is this to draw an vniuersall conclusion from particular premises And when the same father saith in another place It is good that we content our selues with the things which are written can that plaister cure or so much as couer the wound that this place maketh in his vnwritten Traditions And here let the reader be aduertised once for all That al the sentences of the Fathers how generall soeuer they be what vniuersall marke soeuer be set vpon them are euer shifted off by a restraining them to some particular deed As if the Hypothesis were not decided by the Thesis a particular case by a generall Law which is to make a laughing stocke of the Fathers and to depriue them euen of common sense in making them reason so vnaptly and in occasioning their aduersaries to make vnto them so easie and iust replies To returne to Hilarie the Bishop of Eureux opposeth to the aboue said place another of the same Father taken out of his Commentarie on the second Psalme where he saith That Moses after hee had written the words of the olde Testament consigned certaine more secret mysteries to the seuentie Elders c. which place he saith I haue not read and calleth me a bad scholler in skipping ouer the beginning of the booke for to studie at the end I answere hee sheweth that he himselfe hath not read the note set vpon the margeÌ„t of this place non credo which Hilar. Paris ex â—ffici Carol. Guillar anno 1544. with the authoritie of saint Hierome thinking that these commentaries vpon the Psalmes are for
Inuocation on saintes departed By the Cherubins of the mercie feate worshipping of Images By the commandent made to the Leuites that they should be holy the single life of Priesstes c. These are doctrines of the father of lyes to perswade the world that no truth at lest wise no light euidence of truth touching the fundamentall point of our saluation can be found in the scripture And that all the errors all the horrors that Diuert vs from saluation may be very well proued by the scripture Let vs see our Bishoppes reasons why the points necessarie to saluation are not found so openly set downe in the scrpture that manifest and necessarie consequences may bee drawne from it without the helpe of Tradition They are two the first is For to conteine our mindes within the bounds of humilitie the second to bind the sheepe to the pastours with a straiter bond of Charitie by the necessitie of instruction The booke of the holy Ghost attributed to saint Basile yet falsely at least wise that part of it whence our aduersaries take their most fauourable testimonies conteyneth another reason which our Bishoppe whether for shame or because he will haue his Tradition by himselfe found not fit to adde It hath thus That the Apostles and fathers would by these secrets of silence preserue in mysteries their authoritie For what is diuulged to the eares of the people is not mysterie for this cause certaine thinges were deliuered by Tradition without writing least the knowledge of the Doctrines or opinions should come in cotenmpt among the people by reason of custome So that the doctrines of the Trinitie the incarnation of Iesus Christ of our Election Vocation Iustification Sanctification Glorification and many other Articles shall be no more mysteries because they are conteyned in the scripture preached to the people and committed to the eares of euerie one but by this reckoning must be no more preached to the people praying to saints departed worshipping of images the Popes supremacie the sacrifice of the Masse Purgatorie Indulgences or Pardons many other things not conteined in the scripture and yet notwithstanding almost nothing else preached yea more recoÌ„mended beaten into the eares of the people than the things that are written Would to God this reason were perswasiue inough for to make to be hid and buried in the depth of an euerlasting silence or to set ouer and confine to the eares onely of the Popes clergy all these goodly mysteries true markes of the Louers of the woman in whose forehead is written Mysteries â—eue 17.5 that they spoyle not the true clergie that is the inheritance of Iesus Christ The Bishop of Eureux his reasons seem better in shew but the sustaÌ„ce of them is much worse For our part wee beleeue that the reading of the Scripture maketh euery true Christian humble as wel by the things cleerly set down as by theÌ„ he cannot so wel vnderstand that hee might bee stirred vp to begge vnderstanding and light of the Father of lights as Dauid did though hee were a great Prophet â—â—al 119 o◠〈◊〉 vvhere Now if God would not that all that is necessarie for vs should be written or that it should not bee clearely written for to conteine as saith Du Perron Mens mindes within the bounds of humilitie what followeth els but that they that content not themselues with this measure of reuelation cannot also conteine themselues within the bounds of humilitie and therfore become proud invent whatsoeuer they list for to establish their Lordshippe and rule ouer the Lords flock employing their ordinances and Traditions for to binde and torture the consciences as Tyrants vse prisons gybets to torment the bodies of men And if any Chistian thinke to imitate that praise-worthy example of the men of Berea who durst euen examine the preachings of S. Paule by the Scripture Act. 17.11 they cry out straight both against him and the Scripture the one is called a giddie headed foole and a heretick the other vnsufficient and imperfect and that for no other reason but because it is most sufficient and perfect to conuince and rebuke their imperfections 2. Tim. 3 16 17. and to make vs perfectly instructed vnto euery good worke I said in my former answer that though the aboue-saide points should not be found so cleare in the writings of Moses yet that would conclude nothing against the sufficiency of the Scripture which we haue in the Christian Church for that God speaking familiarly to Moses instructed him alwaies on euery occurrence without euer giuing him libertie or authoritie to ordaine of matters of Religion Fol. 57. Our Bishop mocketh at it adding that Iesus Christ spake as familiarly to God And the Apostles in like sort of whome Christ saith I call you no more seruants I call you from hence forth my friends c. Let vs see what reason he hath to mock at mine which is this When the Church hath teachers and guiders that cannot erre in their doctrine immediately receiued from God and that can familiarly inquire of him on euery occurrence and occasion for to instruct themselues and their flockes then it may more easily bee without Doctrine written But in the times of the Patriarches of Moses and the Prophets immediately sent of GOD the condition of the Church was such Therefore it might the more easily be without Doctrine written c. What hurt doth his Instance taken from the Apostles to this argument what good doth it doe him vnlesse it be for to shew either his fondnesse in as much as it confirmeth my argument for there is the same reason of the Apostles as of the Prophets Or his impudencie if he meane that the Christian Church after the death of the Apostles is euer furnished with as excellent men as they were speaking as familiarly vnto God as they did taking counsell immediatly from him on all occasions and occurrences as they did And without doubt thus he would haue his meaning to be taken though shame hinder him froÌ„ expressing it more openly It is also the stile of the Church or Court of Rome namely That the Pope as S. Peters successor representeth his person yea the person of Iesus Christ himself possesseth his Spirit distributeth it as it pleaseth him yea hee is called God himselfe witnesse the Canon Satis euidenter And these goodly verses set on the forefront of the portal or gate of Sixtus the forth â—ist 96. Oraculo vocis mundi moderaris habenas Et merito in terris crederis esse Deus And seeing our Bishoppe hath spoken as familiarly to this God on earth as in old time Moses did to the God of heauen and the Apostles of Iesus Christ who would not receiue the graines gold and siluer pictures which were giuen him on mount Vatican giuen with greater efficacie than the tables of the Law giuen to Moses on Mount Sina I said also Fol. 57. that Moses
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
most holy place And the same may be said of the golden Pot wherein was the Manna Aarons rod sith the solution of the Iesuite Ribera doth not satisfy him who no more than this Cardinall hath not recourse to Tradition Gen. â—0 12 2. Sam. 21 c. choosing rather to employ therein Grammer there being the like examples of Scripture in which the pronoune is referred to the antecedent farthest of than to apply thereto this plaister for all sores or to borrow the inuention of Caluin for to take away the contradiction which the same Cardinall saith to be most manifest betweene the place 1. King 8.9 which hath these expresse wordes Nothing was in the Arke saue the two tables of the law And this is taken in the sense that our Bishop will haue it And Bellarmine himselfe doth he not receiue the opinion of them that holde that the golden Pot and the rod were in some outward part of the Arke and not within the arke it selfe de verb. Deâ— Lib. 1. c â—7 The two last Instances taken out of the Epistle of S. Iude haue beene touched aboue let vs confirme here our opinion by the testimony of the same Cardinall Caietan who saith It can not bee knowne whence Saint Iude had the knowledge of this combat Comm. in epist Iud. that is to say betweene the Angell and the Diuell yet there be some that hold that it is taken out of the apocryphall bookes of the Hebrews who hath then reuealed it to our B. that the Apostle the Iewes held it vnwritten Tradition the apocrypha books of the Iewes the tradition which he pretendeth to be the true pure word of God is it all one To coÌ„clude from whence so euer this historie be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 3. c. 2 In câ—talog whether from the booke which Origen calleth the ascentioÌ„ of Moses of which S. Hierome also maketh mention or whether it be from the pretended Tradition what auaileth it against the perfection and sufficiencie of the doctrine conteyned in the Scripture How often haue we told him that we are at accord that all particular deeds and sayings â—â—hn 21.25 are not contayned in it neither can be â—â—l 1â—3 But from this historie saith he are drawne many excellent doctrines the beginning of this knowledge could not be humane and naturall but of necessity must take originall froÌ„ an expresse reuelation c. Say it be so to what purpose all this Is not our question whether there is any point of doctrine that should be deriued from any other beginning than from the Scripture Is it not whether the points of doctrine conteyned in the Scripture may be confirmed by some other proofes besides the Scriptures The Greekes reciting this historie say that the Archangell was employed in the Buriall of Moses â—ecum in â—ist Iud. that the Diuell opposed himselfe thereunto alleadging that Moses was his because of the manslaughter committed in the person of the Egyptian and that therefore he deserued not so honourable a buriall The doctrines which they draw from it are that the Apostle would teach by it 1. that men haue to render an accompt after this life 2 That there is one the same God both of the old and new Testament 3. That the Diuell riseth vp against the soules departed from the body and striueth to hinder their way to heauen but the good Angells assist them and resist the wicked Spirits 4 That we ought not to Iudge nor curse rashly 5. That honour should be yeelded to Superiours Now it were for our B. to deny that these doctrines are conteyned in the scripture and that the Iewes could not deriue them from any other beginning but from vnwritten Tradition and for to doe this he must race out an infinite number of places of the law and of the Prophets and by this meanes not onely he should iustify his blasphemies against the scripture but also the heresie of the Anabaptists in the point which concerneth the obedience due to Magistrates as elswhere he endeuoreth to do touching the point of baptisme of little children Now as these doctrines are more thaÌ„ sufficiently proued by the Scripture so the historie in question repugneth not any thing thereuÌ„to whether we take it as Oecumenius reciteth it or after the vulgar vnderstaÌ„ding namely that the deuill 2. Cor. â— whose enterprises wee are not ignorant of endeuoured to discouer the Sepulchre of Moses which God had expresly hid laying therein onely this body that it might be vnknowne to all and might not giue occasion to Idolatrie as it hapned among Christians when they began to vnbury to transport and to worship the reliques of Martyrs and sometimes the reliques of theeues and robbers It is therefore false that they which receiued this Historie as Saint Iude reciteth it Could not as he saith after our Maximus fol. 11â— excuse theÌ„selues of superstition in their beleife to giue credite to such â—arâ—â—ations which had been wholly fabulous full of deceits if they had come from any other then from the pure reuelation and word of God I say it is a meere deceite to say that wee condemne of superstition or deceit all that is not conteined in the holy Scripture as he saith we doe for we abase not the price and estimation of humane writings thogh we make theÌ„ not equal to the diuine we acknowledge the gifts of the authour of Truth eueÌ„ in them that haue alwayes remained vnder the tyranny of the father of lyes though more in them that haue been translated out of the power of darknes into the kingdom of light We consider both and examine them by the rule of the Scripture which is for this cause called Canon that which agreeth thereunto wee receiue with praise that which repugneth it wee reiect with leaue and accuse of superstition the beleefe that is giuen to such narrations which cannot haue place in the recitall of Saint Iude in as much as he is an Apostle hauing the spirit of the Lord in such a measure that hee neither deceiued himselfe nor any other in that which the said or wrote for to be inserted into the Canon of faith And if we receiue now some verses of certaine heathen Poets as the word of God since they were sanctified by the Apostle what reason were there to reiect this narration though it were taken foorth of an Apocrypha booke as the Fathers thought seeing that no newe doctrine can be drawn from it but that of the Scripture by it is confirmed It is a necessarie point to know that the Magistrate is ordained of God that we owe him honor and reuerence but know all the particular places reasons and testimonies that may serue to proue this point is not a thing necessary to know I shewed by the way what proffit the Church of Rome maketh of this tradition of S. Iude namely quite coÌ„trarie to that it containeth for
and Prophets extraordinarily sent of God by which meanes now ceased since God hath spoken vnto vs by his Sonne it might be more fully instructed in all things Yet notwithstanding the holy Scripture is alwayes recommended vnto them aboue all Hebr. 1. God himselfe though he spake to Ioshuah by word of mouth confirming him in his charge notwithstanding he commended vnto him onely the booke of the Law Iosh 1.7 not promising him his assistance and blessing but on condition that he should do and obserue all that is conteined therein After that so often as the reformation of the Church was intended there was neuer any other patterne taken than the scripture 2. Chro. â— 2 Chro. â— 2. Chro. â— 2. King â— 2 King 2 Nehe 8. as appeareth by the examples of Iosaphat Ioas Ezechias Iosias Ezra Nehemias c. Contrariwise when Amon and Manasses would diuert the people from the seruice of god to idolatry they hid the book of the Law that it might no more be read publickly as god by Moyses had ordained As touching the creation of Angels the being creation of deuils which du Perron very improperly distinguisheth as if diuels were not angels at the beginning or as if god had created them by themselues so wicked as they are ther is reuealed in the books of Moyses as much of it as god hath iudged to be expedient for the simplicity of that people To tell what day or in what order they were created we know it no more by TraditioÌ„ thaÌ„ by the scripture though it be augmeÌ„ted since Moses from whom we gather their Creation when he saith that the heaueÌ„s the earth were finished and all their host Gen. 2 â— Gen. 28 Deut. 3â— Gal 3.1 In the vision of Iacobs ladder and elsewhere we read their apparitions and mynistery which the Jewes in the time of Moyses knewe rather by theyr experience than by Tradition sith the Lawe was published by them As for the supposed distinction of theyr orders Areopagita speaketh with such assuraunce as if he had beene present at it all though even he that was rapt vp into the third heauen not onely forbeareth to speake of it 〈◊〉 12.4 but also witnesseth that it is not lawfull to reueale these secrets We say with S. Augustine that when disputation is had of a thing very obscure without certaine and cleare proofe of the diuine scriptures the supposition of man is to be kept in not leaning more on the one side â—â—st cont â— it than the other He sendeth vs not in this case to vnwritten Tradition Irenaeus who should know more of Apostolike tradition that any of our time defied certaine Gnosticks in his dayes swolne with I know not what knowledge taken out of the scripture in reckoning vp and describing the distinctions orders and preheminences of Angells Archangells Powers Thrones Dominations and in a word all those things which the Church of Rome braggeth she knoweth and which this holy Father propounded to his aduersaries as impossible to comprehend Touching the diuell Moyses teacheth the Iewes in the scripture 〈◊〉 s 3. that he was a lyar a tempter and seducer from the beginning That the seede of the woman should bruise his head c. If there had been neede of knowing more he could haue giuen them the knowledge of it by a more authenticall and true Oracle than that of Rome is I know not whether du Perron would maintaine that the nine orders or degrees which the Schoolemen haue made among diuells in imitation of the Angelicall Hierarchie are from Apostolicke tradition The B. of Eureux They had besides this many other things whereof the institution is not found neither in the books of Moses nor in any other booke of the olld Testament As the institution of the order of Exorcists who by a certaine authenticall prescript form from God did coniure wicked spirits as our Lord beareth them witnes saying 〈◊〉 12.27 If I cast out deuills in the name of Beelzebub in whose name do your children cast them out And for this reason they shall be your iudges Which children Caluin prooueth that they were the Exorcists of the Iewes such as those which are spoken of in the 19. chapter of the Acts. D. Tillenus his answer The knowledge of these things eyther is not necessary to Saluation or is found in the Scripture by analogy or by consequence If the Exorcists of whom Saint Matthew speaketh be such as those of whom speaketh saint Luke Math. â— Acts 19 as Du Perron hath it from Caluine there was no diuine institution For they in the Acts were certayne vagabonds that abused the name of Jesus for which they sped very ill We know that in the beginning of the Christian Church this miraculous guift of casting out deuills was vsuall there but we find not that they which had it in the exercising thereof did vse any mysticall prescript forme but that they did simply coniure the * Enerâ—â— Possessed in the name of God whence we gather that such as in the Iewish Church had this guift and did vse it lawfully brought thereunto none other mysterie than the calling on the name of the God of Abraham Isaack and Iacob which forme is found euidently enough in the Scripture The B. of Eureux They had the miracle of the Poole the water whereof the Angell troubled which was a figure of Baptisme that shoulde heale vs of our infirmities after that the Angell of the greate counsaile which is our Lord Iesus Christ was gone down into the water Now that this was not any illusions of the deuill and superstition for those that haue recourse thereunto but a true miracle instituted of god wherunto credit might be giuen it could not be knowne but by tradition D. Tillenus his answer The miracle of the Poole was visible as the miracles of Iesus Christ the Apostles and the Prophets afore them were Iohn 5. â— It tended not to establish or confirme any false doctrine in which case the caution that Du Perron requireth had been necessary Nehem â— Nehemias sayth that the gate of this Poole was hallowed when he City was reedified after the returne from captiuity Whence we may coniecture that God then adorned it with this miracle in token of his approuing the restoring of the City And the word Beth-chesda which was the name of the Poole in the Syriack tongue signifieth the house of benignity because God there did visibly shew his goodnesse in healing all the diseases of his people The B. of Eureux The custome also which they had to deliuer a man at Easter which was a figure of the deliuerance of mankind by the Passeouer of our Sauiour was a Tradition D. Tillenus his answer The custome to deliuer a man at Ester was rather a corruption of Iustice brought in by infidell Gouernors than any necessary point to saluation reuealed and commanded of god to the faithfull The B. of
Eureux The Apostles also euer anon alledge Tradition be it by way of History or by way of Argument Saint Paul saith that Moses in the act of the solemnity of the couenant mingled water in the blood of the Testament wherewith he sprinckled the people which was a figure that we should be sprinkled with the bloud of Christ which is the bloud of our couenant Neuerthelesse this mixture of water with blood not set downe by Moses nor by any other author of the olld Testament D. Tillenus his answer Moyses made not expresse mention of some ceremonies which the Apostle reciteth 〈◊〉 19 21 but we learne them better by analogie and consequence of Scripture than by vnwritten Tradition It was commaunded to vse water in all sacrifices And if that was requisite in particular mens sacrifices how much more in the ratification of the publick couenant wherof Moises speaketh 〈◊〉 â—4 He nameth not likewise in expresse words the hee goats purple wooll and hysope but he saith that the children of Israell offered burnt offerings and then peace offerings or offerings of thanksgiuing Now the whole burnt offerings which were expiatory for sinne could not be but of goats Leuit 16 8â— as the scripture teacheth elsewhere So we see that god commandeth they should offer vnto him purple wooll Hysope was commaunded before they came out of Egypt Leuit â— Numb and after was ordayned to serue alwayes for an Jnstrument to the sprinklings whereunto Dauid alludeth Psal 5 when he prayeth that god would purge him with hysope that he might be clean Now seeing god would that these things should be ordinary vnder the Law it appeareth by Analogy that he had caused them to be as an example of the other that should com after The B. of Eureux He sprinckled also the booke of the Couenant with the same blood saith saint Paul which was a figure that the booke of the Law should take his force from the bloud Iesus Christ And yet neuerthelesse of this sprinckling of the booke there is not any mention made in the olld Testament D. Tillenus his answer Touching the sprinckling of the book Exod. 2â— we gather by that which is sayd in the same place that Moyses hauing sprinkled the Altar tooke the book which as appeareth was vpon the Altar with which it was in like manner sprinckled The B. of Eureux He saith that the golden pot of Manna and the rod of Aaron were put into the Arke which we know was the place of adoratioÌ„ And notwithstanding not one book of the olld testament maketh any mention of it D. Tillenus his answer As for the pot of Manna Moyses saith Exod. 1 Numbâ— 1. King â— 2 Chroâ— that it was put before the face of the Lord that is before the Arke and not with in it the same is said of Aarons rod. And elsewhere the scripture saith in expresse vvords that there vvas nothing in the Ark 〈◊〉 4. but the two tables of stone That which is sayd in the Epistle to the Hebrewes is not against it For the relatiue En hi is not to be referred to the word Kibotou Arke though it be neerest to it but to the word Scéné Tabernacle And of such like constructions there are found many other examples in Scripture otherwise there should be a manifest contradiction which is that du Perron would fain find if he could in the Scripture The B. of Eureux Saint Iude declareth the Angells combate with the Deuill about the buriall of Moses as a thing euidentlye knowne among the Iewes and thereof frameth an argument against those that blasphemed dignities reciting the very words of the Angell Now this was a tradition which could not haue taken his originall of any humane doctrine but from the pure reuelation and word of God D. Tillenus his answer The knowledge of the combat of the Angell with the diuell about the body of the Moyses is not so come by Tradition but that we learne some thing of it euen from the Scripture 〈◊〉 3 2 for there is no doubt but that saint Iude aymed at the place of Zacharie where we read the same words The Lord rebuke thee ô Satan The Prophet calleth him the Angell of the Lord whom the Apostle calleth Michael the Archangell both of them doo meane the Prince of angells that is to say Jesus Christ who hath combatted and ouercome Sathan and wonne the body of Moyses that is hath accomplished the mystery of our redemption figured by the shadowes of Moyses 〈◊〉 â—2 17 whereof Christ is the true body as the Scriptur saith And in that he durst not denounce the sentence of curse it derogateth nothing from his deity and Maiesty For we must consider him in this place as Mediatour in which quality he is subiect and obedient to his Father not exercising his Allmightines If the L. of Perron wil not admit this exposition let him know then that the reason the apostle draweth from this vnwritten history is found very well grounded on the Scripture Exod 22. â— which in expresse words forbiddeth to curse or speake euill of Princes But the Church of Rome doth profit very ill by this Tradition of saint Iude For first it exposeth and prostituteth all the bodies and reliques of Saints departed and suborneth false ones too in their roome to cause the people to commit Jdolatry in steade of resisting the diuell when he bringeth foorth such inuentions as the Archangell did who according to the common exposition of this place fought with him when he woulde haue discouered the sepulcher of Moyses which God had of purpose hid that he might take away from his people all occasion of idolatry and secondly Deut 3 4â— it taketh liberty to it selfe to blaspheme and tread vnder feete the greatest dignities of the earth as the Popes haue impiously and arrogantly shewed it euen to Kings and Emperors The B. of Eureux In like manner he maketh mention of the prophesie of Enoch touching the last comming of god in the day of iudgement And this was a word of god which was profitable yea necessary to bee beleeued of all those to whom the notification thereof should com and notwithstanding that Enoch had euer written any thing it is no way manifest by the scripture D. Tillenus his answer The prophecy of Enoch which the same Apostle alledgeth touching the last iudgement is not onely not repugned by the scripture but is also therein more clearly expressed than the prophane contemners of God would haue it We receiue most willingly all Traditions which haue like conformity and approbation in scripture as this prophecy We confesse that all particular deeds and sayings are not conteyned therin For Singularium nulla est scientia but the reason grouÌ„d of all these things are found therein and the sentence of saint Iohn remayneth true though all that our Lord hath doon be not written yet that which is written Iohn 20â—30
31 is sufficient for vs to beleeue that Iesus is that Christ and that in beleeuinge we might haue life in his name I remember that in the verball conference the B. of Eureux accused those of our side of a most wicked falsifying of this place for hauing translated the word tavta these things in stead of referring it onely to miracles of which alone he maintained that S. Iohn meant And because I could not get from him any cleare answer as then on expositioÌ„s of S. Augustin and saint Cyrill that I alledged wholly agreeable vnto ours I will in this place rehearse them â—t Tract 〈◊〉 45. The first saith though Iesus had doon very many things yet all were not written but that which seemed sufficient for the saluation of beleeuers was chosen to be written The other speaketh yet more clearely 〈◊〉 lib. 2. in 〈◊〉 cap. vlt. All the things saith he that Iesus did are not written but only those things that the writers thought sufficient as well for doctrin as for manners c. The B. of Eureux The apostles do not onelie giue vs examples of the vse of traditions â—s 2 15. but also commaundement Obserue saith Saint Paul the traditions that you haue receiued of vs be it by worde or by our Epistle In which place those of Geneua haue takeÌ„ out of their Frenche Bible the word Tradition which is in the Greeke and in the Latine and haue put insteade thereof Instruction To which it cannot be answered that saint Paul restraineth the generality of this proposition to the traditions onely which haue since beene written For it is in consequence of a tradition that he had giuen them concerning the cause that hindred the comming of Antichrist which was neuer written that he frameth this generall law And in this sence also do saint Basill S. Epiphanius and saint Chrysostome interprete it D. Tillenus his answer When saint Paul wrote this Epistle there was scarce any scripture of the new Testament For after our aduersaries own account no Euangelists yet had written and saint Paule had than written but his former Epistle to the Thesâ—â—â—nians Seing then these two Epistles did not conteine al the doctrin of Christ necessary to be known the Apostle fitly exhorteth the Thessalonians to obserue not only what he had afore written vnto them but also what he had taught them by word of mouth But doth it follow therefore that none of that should afterward be written Du Perron saith it doth because it is in consequence of a Tradition that he had giuen them touching the cause that hindred the comming of Antichrist which was neuer written that he frameth this generall Law But that is altogether false 2. Thes 2. â— we need but looke into the text to know of what Traditions the Apostle speaketh We ought alwayes saith he giue thanks vnto God for you because he hath chosen you to saluation through the sanctification of the spirit and the faith of truth whereunto he hath called you by our Gospell to obtaine the glory of our Lord Iesus Christ VVhereupon he addeth Wherefore keepe the Traditions that is to say these instructions of truth which you haue learned and which I haue giuen you either by word of mouth or by our Epistle By the consequence Du Perron draweth it should folow that part of this tradition touching the hindring of Antichrists comming should be written which vvas doon and therefore he ouerthroweth his own exposition Furthermore though all he saith were of force as it is of none yet could he but prooue thereby the traditions of the Apostles and not an infinite number of others which the Church of Rome causeth to be obserued as the Lawes of god vvhich vve know by their histories vvere instituted many ages after the Apostles times If because Moyses had giuen som instructions by vvord of mouth to the Israelites the Cabalists and Ievvish Rabins vvould make vs receiue the Traditions of their Thalmud who would admit them And if du Perron beleeue the Fathers let him beleeue then Tertullian Chrysostome and saint Hierome who say that after the ruine of the Romane Empire the throne of Antichrist should be established 〈◊〉 â—ome Which therefore is fulfilled seeing that the ruine o◠〈◊〉 Empire is notorious to all the world The B. of Eureux 〈◊〉 â— 2 1 He saith also to Timothie Tu ergo fili confortare in gratia quae est in Christo Iesu quae audisti à me per multos testes haec commenda fidelibus qui idonei crunt alios docere Of which deposite there had bene no neede if all the word of god as our aduersaries pretend to proue by this same Chapter had beene sufficiently written or should haue been from the very time of the Apostles D. Tillenus his answer 〈◊〉 1 13 The apostle himselfe declareth what he meaneth by this deposite which he exhorteth Timothie to keepe namely the patterne of wholsom words he had heard of him which consisteth in faith and loue and it followeth in this very verse that he shoulde communicate it vnto faithfull men which should bee able to teache others But in the third chapter he sayth most plainly 〈◊〉 3 15 â— that by the Scripture not onely Laymen as they call them but also the man of God that is to say the Pastour or Doctor of the Church should and may bee taught and made wise vnto saluation and absolutely instructed and made perfect vnto euery good work VVhence it followeth that this deposite or matter committed of trust vnto Timothie is nothing else but the scripture which is sufficiente euen for the saluation of a Bishop and not of a Lay man onely which later du Perron in our conference was forced to confesse finding no other distinction to escape The B. of Eureux Moreouer there are fowr points which our aduersarie shoulde with vs and condemne as we doe of heresie those that repugne the same at least wise touching the three former namelye the trueth of Baptisme of little children that of the Baptisme of heretickes the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne and the translation of the feast from Saturday to Sondaye which can not bee concluded by any demonstraâ—â—â— proofe from any place of Scripture D. Tillenus his answer In al these articles if we beleue him the Scripture is no fouÌ„datioÌ„ pillar of our faith as Irenaeus sayd Irenaeuâ— c 1 Tertul. â— Hermoâ— And they that added them to Scripture need not fear the woe by Tertullian who reuereÌ„ced the fulnesse of the scriptures threatned after S. Iohn to those which cannot shew that that which they say is written nor the anthema of S. Augustin against those August Ecclesicâ— cont lit lib 3 cap Chrysosâ— Homil â— 20 cap â— that cannot reade in Scriptures the doctrine they teache nor the reproaches of Chrysostome who calleth them theeues that go vp by any other way into the fold than by the
Adam by whom they are sanctified and quickned If by faith imputed the B. of Eureux meaneth a quality without and foorth of children and if he say that they please God the Holy Ghost not making any reall change in them He destroyeth these principles of Scripture which say Reuel That none vncleane thing entreth into heauen Rom. 1 That the iust shall liue by his own faith That none hath accesse to the kingdom of heauen vnles he be regenerate That without faith it is vnpossible to please God Now faith and vnbeliefe are things immediatly contrary not that we would say that children do beleeue after the same manner as they that be of years with an actuall knowledge but that the Holy Ghost worketh in them an inclination and power to belieue taking away from their hart that which naturally repugneth VVhen saint Augustin saith that children are baptized in the faith of others as either of their parents or of them that present them or of the whole Church he excludeth not all operation of the Holy Ghost in the person of children which in another place he plainly confesseth to be in them As when he saith Aug. Ep ad Dar We say that the holy ghost dwelleth in litle children which are baptized though they know him not For in that they doo not know him it is no otherwise thē as they knovv not their reasonable soule yea their life Whereof notvvithstanding it doth not folow that they haue neither reasonable soule nor life This operation is as easy to god as to vs incomprehensible And the hart of an ould man before he be chaunged by regeneration is no lesse deaffe and vnable than the hart of a child the chaunge whereof is not none because it is vnknown likewise the disobedience and rebellion which is in them that be of years is a disposition contrary to faith which is not in litle ones who receiue oftentimes greater measure of grace than they that be of years vvho notwithstanding after our Aduersaries themselues are not vncapable of the externall sign though they ask it but of hypoctisy For he that administreth it vnto them can not knovv theyr fayth and capacity of grace seeing the Apostles themselues were therein deceiued Acts 8.1 as appeareth by the example of Simon Magus Seing then that the grace conferred to children by Baptism is a thing reall in their owne persons and not imputed only witnesse the examples of Ieremy and S. Iohn Baptist sanctified from their mothers womb an imputed signe is not sufficient no more than an imputatiue Paradise would suffice the possession wherof Iesus Christ promiseth vnto them so reall 8.3 as he affirmeth that none shall enter therinto vnles he receiue him as a little child Whereas he saith reason would that Baptisme should follow faith 〈◊〉 1 wherof it is a Sacrament that is altogether friuolous For Circumcision is also called the seale of the righteousnesse of faith and in another place the sign of repentance Let him therfore ask the reason of God why he did not defer Circumcision from children till such time as they were capable of such a faith and repentance as the Anabaptists require To that which he addeth that in the conuersion of Samaria men women ar only spoken of who were there baptized without any mention of litle ones though it cannot be doubted but that there wer som The answer hath bin made aboue namely that those were not born in the couenant therfore before they could be admitted thereunto by the sign of Baptism it behoued them to be instructed in the doctrine There needed not any speciall commandement touching the Baptism of little children to those that knew the foūdation of the new couenant by the correspondency of circumcision Children notwithstanding are comprehēded in the generall commandement of baptising all that shall be saued The B. of Eureux There is yet one reason that is very rife in the mouth of Catholicks being vnderpropped by the tradition of the church and by the interpretation which hath alwais run currant among catholicks namely Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua Spiritu sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei But this in the mouth of Caluin those of this sect is of no force For hee interpreteth there Aqua not for the elementary water but for the holy ghost And when it is replyed that that were a repetition of the same thing vnder two diuerse words he opposeth Baptisabit vos Spiritusancto igne wher he will haue Ignis Spiritus sanctus to be one and the same thing which he doth for to exclude the necessity of Baptism But in a word to all that will haue this place serue their turn the Anabaptists who reiect the tradition interpretation of the church do answer that this propositiō is to be vnderstood of them that are capable of Baptism As when it is said in the same chapter He that beleueth not is already iudged It is vnderstood say they of them which are of years to beleeue D. Tillenus his answer He would bereaue vs of the argument taken out of Saint Iohn Except a man be borne againe of water c. Ioh. 3.5 because we take this word Water for the spirit as in another place the word Fire and spirit signifie one and the same thing Math. 3 But although from this place canot bee concluded the absolute necessity of Baptism yet neuertheles we ought to conclude frō thence the absolute necessity of regeneration The Anabaptists vnderstāding this word water of outward Baptism as the Church of Rome doth do reasō thus seing Baptism is expresly called regeneration seing that children are not capable of regeneration which is doon by faith Baptisme is not to be communicated vnto them To which we answer For as much as regeneration is absolutely necessary to saluation children vnles they will damn them all are partakers therof therfore the seale of this grace of regeneration is rightly applyed vnto them The reply that du Perron maketh for them that this sentence of S. Iohn is to be vnderstood only of them that are capable of baptisme through yeares of knowledge is nothing currāt against vs but against the church of Rome which interpreteth this place of the absolute necessity of externall baptism of which it cannot otherwise choose but that many children are depriued and therefore excluded from saluation after their doctrine The B. of Eureux Now against these arguments which they so easily by their solutions vndoe when they are not constrained with the authoritie of Tradition and the interpretation of the Church they haue many other for it in apparance stronger as that Baptism is a dependaunce and a seale of faith and therefore that those that are not capable of faith are not capable of Baptisme That baptisme is called the washing of Regeneration That Regeneration is made by the worde of God you are all the children of
chance some water is cast seeing they want the chiefe and principall condition which maketh a man be a matter and subiect capable of Baptisme namely Fayth That they that are Baptized as saith Saint Paule haue put on Christ That Christ cannot bee put on out of the Church which is called the fullnes of Christ that therfore Baptisme cannot be among hereticks That euery one of you sayth Saint Peter be Baptized for remission of sinnes And the Creed of Constantinople I beleeue one Baptisme for remission of sinnes Now among the haereticks there is no remission of sinnes For the Keyes were giuen to the Church and by consequent no Baptisme that when it was tolde Iohn Baptist that Christ Baptized he answered none can doe it vnles it be giuen him from heauen that no authority is giuen from heauen to the assemblies of hereticks and therefore that they cannot Baptize That Baptisme is done by the power of the holy Ghost that the holy Ghost is not resident out of the Church neither consequently Baptisme D. Tillenus his answer First I answere that the hearers of the Scripture learne that whosoeuer is Baptised in the name of the father of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost is well Baptised But the followers of the Romish tradition can neuer know whether they be well baptized or no For besides this instituti of Christ the Church of Rome requireth the intent of the Priest without which the Sacrament with theÌ„ is none Now there is no man that can be fully assured of another mans intent Secondly the scripture teacheth vs the difference betweene the outward sacrament the inward grace which is not inclosed within the other as a salue in a box as the Romish Tradition teacheth They that receiue the first receiue not alwaies the latter in what place soeuer it be as we see by the example of Iudas SymoÌ„ Magus For as saith S. Augustine 〈◊〉 5. de â—ont 〈◊〉 24 meÌ„ do put on Christ soÌ„times in participatioÌ„ of the sacrameÌ„t somtimes in sanctification of life the first is common to good and bad the other is peculiar onely to the good Neither hereticks nor orthodoxall can minister any thing but the outward sacrament the holy ghost onely giueth the internall grace that is fayth possessioÌ„ of Christ remissioÌ„ of sinnes All which is manifest in scripture But the Holy-ghost saith he is resident onely in the true Church and not among hereticks 2. J answere the scripture teacheth vs that the spirit blowes where it listeth if it were allwaies tyed to a visible church as the Pope to his seate of Rome â— 8 without distributing his graces elsewhere which is du Perrons meaning No infidell nor heretick borne out of the true church could euer enter thereinto by regeneration by which grace the holy ghost bringeth men thereunto 〈◊〉 17 Saint Paul persecuted the true Church so farre was hee from being a member of the same receiued notwithstanding the holy ghost out of the visible church Therfore it is not to speake properly the minister that giueth Baptisme but as the Scripture sayeth the heauenly father saueth vs by the washing of Regeneration through the renewing of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 5. 5 26 â— 1 16. Iesus Christ cleanseth sanctifieth his Church through the washing of water in his word And as the word of the Gospell when it is published according to the reuelation of God to saluation to all that beleeue though he that preacheth it do it of euill will without sincerity without zeale of enuy coÌ„tentioÌ„ as saith the Apostle that is though he haue no good intent So is it in the Sacrament which is a visible word so that the minister confer it according to the Lords institutioÌ„ his heresy or hypocrisy cannot hurt him that receiueth it For the question is not what is required in a pastour to approue his Ministery before God but what is requisit to the efficacy of the sacrameÌ„t according to the truth of god which the scripture teacheth vs caÌ„not be made voyde by the wickednes of men To which S Augustine agreeth saying that not only the good but also the wicked haue the ministery to Baptise but neither of theÌ„ both haue the power of baptism that Christ hath committed the ministery thereof to seruants but reserueth the power thereof to himselfe Thirdly J say that the scripture sheweth vs the correspondency of circumcision with Baptisme Ezech 1 23. Therfore as the circuÌ„cision giuen by the Apostataes of Samaria was availeable to the children that God acknowledged for his there being no need of reiterating it so as the Samaritans did reiterate that which had ben administred by the Iews as Epiphanius witnesseth So by like reason should not Baptism administred by a heretick be reiterate prouided that he keep the substaÌ„ce of the institution The Prophets indeed do exhort the Samaritanes to repeÌ„tance but neuer cal theÌ„ to a secoÌ„d circumcisioÌ„ though the first wer polluted by many abuses superstitioÌ„s The Bishop of Eureux Against these Arguments with greate apparaÌ„ce of scripture S. Augustine who 10 whole years haÌ„dled this question against the Donatists could not find any actuall and demonstratine proof in the scripture for the doctrine of the Church in this poynt and could oppose vnto them no other thing that would hold the place of an infallible proofe but the tradition authority of the Church Hoc saith he obseruandum est in rebus quod obseruat Ecclesia Dei Questio autem inter vos nos est vera sit Ecclesia Dei ergo à capite sumendum exordiuÌ„ cur schisma feceritis And in another place 〈◊〉 Proinde quamvis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat autoritas vt quando S. Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli metuit huius obscuritate quaestionis eandem ecclesiam de illa consulat quam sine vlla ambiguitate S. Scriptura demonstrat And in another place Bap. â—on Sed illa consuetudo quam etiam tunc hominem sursum versum respicientes non videbant â posterioribus restitutam recte ab Apostolis tradita creditur Et talia multa sunt quae longum esset repetere Now saint Augustine declareth that the opinion of the Donatists was hereticall and the whole Church with him holdeth the Donatists for hereticks and our aduersaries themselues As also it must needs bee that either the Catholikes or the Donatists be hereticks For if Baptisme administred by hereticks bee not true Baptisme the Catholickes which receiue them without Baptizing theÌ„ doe violate this article One Fayth one Baptisme Also I beleeue one Baptisme for remission of sinnes If on the contrary it be true Baptisme the Donatists in rebaptizing them and reiterating and multiplying
Baptisme do sinne against the same article Whence I thus conclude The doctrine of the Donatists which was hereticall could not be confuted by the scripture alone and without the helpe of the Apostolicke tradition for to confute all heresies And by consequent it conteyneth not alone sufficiently all the principles of doctrine necessarye to diuinity and Christian Religion D Tillenus his answere Let vs see if Sainte Augustine in those tenne yeares that he handled his question against the Donatists could not finde any actuall proof in the scripture vpon this poynte as Du Perron saith lib. 1. â— coÌ„t 7. I thinke he promiseth very certayn proofes when he saith Ne videar humanis argumentis agere ex Euangelio profero certa documenta c Least I should seem to discourse with humaine reasons Lib. 2. de bap cont Don. c. 1 J will alleadge sure proofes out of the Gospell c. And in an other place Quid sit perniciosius vtrum non Baptizari an rebaptizari iudicare difficile est verumtamen recurrens ad illam stateram Dominicam vbi non ex humano sensu sed ex authoritate diuina rerum momenta pensantur inveniode vtraque re Domini sententiam Qui lotus est non habet necessitatem iterum lauandi c Jt is an hard thing to iudge whether is more dangerous not to be Baptised or to be baptized againe yet hauing recourse vnto that ballance of the Lord where not of humain sence but of diuine authority the vallews of things are weighed I finde of both matters the lords sentence He that is washed hath no neede to bee washed agayne c. And in another place hauing said that this custome came of the Tradition of the Apostles not meaning that it wanteth his proofes in Scripture he addeth Lic 5 de cont Don c. 2 Contra mandatum dei esse quod venientes ab hereticis si iam illi Baptismum christi acceperunt baptizantur quia scripturarum sanctarum testimoniis non solum ostenditur sed PLANE ostenditur That it is against the coÌ„mandement of God that such as come froÌ„ hereticks shold be baptised if they haue already receued ther the Baptism of Christ becaus by the testimonies of holy Scriptures it is not only shewed but plainly shewed These places others of this father do shew the audaciousnes of du Perron in his affirmations and his sincerity in his allegations As for the places he bringeth out of the same father to proue that he acknowledged the imperfectioÌ„ of the scriptu e coÌ„cerning this poynt he confouÌ„deth the question of act exaÌ„ple or practise with the questioÌ„ of law or ordinaÌ„ce S Augustine saith in this matter there caÌ„ be none exaÌ„ples of scripture alledged that is it caÌ„not be fouÌ„d there that it was so practised therfore he referrd the custoÌ„ or practis hereof to apostolike traditioÌ„ but that it ought so to be practised he affirmeth that not only the scripture sheweth it but that it sheweth it manyfestly Whence I conclude against the Bishops conclusioÌ„ on this second poynt The doctrine that euidently sheweth what is to be done in all matters coÌ„cerning fayth which confuteth the heresies that repugne the same is perfect but the scripture conteyneth this doctrine Therfore it is perfect The assumption is proued not only by the scripture but also by the testimonies of the fathers by whome he pretendeth to proue the doctrine of the church of Rome I wold earnestly desire of him cleare direct answere to that place of Augustine aboue alleadged out of his secoÌ„d book 9 chapter de doctrina Christiana for in the verball conference he woulde giue no answer theruÌ„to but on condition that I would protest to forsake the scripture and not to reason any more but by the authority of the fathers The bishop of Eureux The third heresy which we haue propounded among those that cannot by the scripture alone bee confuted is that of the Greekes touching the proceeding of the holy ghost which our aduersaries hold as well as we to proceed from the father and from the sonne a thing notwithstanding which the scripture doth no where expresse On the contrary it seemeth to restrayne the originall of the same proceeding from the father alone saying â—5 26 16. The spirit of truth which proceedeth from the father For when this sentence of Christ is obiected to the Greekes He shall take of mine They answerr that this worde of mine hath relation not to the Essence nor to the person but to the doctrine so that the intention of Christ in saying he shall take of mine that is of the same treasure of doctrine and wisdome of which the sonne hath taken And they alleadg for proofe of their exposition that which followeth in the Text which sayth And he shal declare it vnto you replying that the word declare hath relation not to the essence nor to the person but to the doctrine In like sort when these places are alleadged vnto them if any one haue not haue not the spirit of Christ 8.15 â— 5.6 he is none of his And agayne the spirit of Christ crying Abba Father they answer that concludeth not that the spirit proceedeth from Christ and that he is called the spirit of Christ not by proceeding but by possessioÌ„ for asmuch as Christ according to his humanity hath receiued the guift the ful whol possession of the same spirit according to the words of Esay The Spirit of the Lord is vpoÌ„ me becaus the Lord hath anoynted me And S. Peeter saith The lord hath anoynted him with the holy ghost and with power And that in this maner it is said that Elizeus receiued the spirit of Elias Not that the holy Ghost did proceed from Helias but because in a certayne measure he was possessed of Heliah When that is obiected vnto them which Christ saith vnto his Father That which is thine is myne They answer that may be expounded of the possession and outward domination ouer the creatures ouer whom the Father hath giuen all power to the sonne in heaven and in earth neither can the seÌ„ce of the words in that place be restrayned to the Essence no more then when the father of the prodigall Childe saitb to his eldest sonne the same words Omnia mea tua sunt But besides this though it should be vnderstood of the essence yet the argument concludeth nothing For if becaus the essence of the father is one the same it shoold therfore follow that the holy ghost proceedeth as well from the one as froÌ„ the other you must in like sorte conclude The essence of the father and the holy ghost is one and the same the sonn is therfore begotten of the holy ghost as well as of the Father And when it is added to those other arguments He will send the comforter They answer that he expoundeth himselfe shewing his meaning by this word Send namely that he will pray his
all the cuttings and pieces that came of this precious stone in hewing the tables and that Moses therewith made himselfe wonderfull rich c. This fabulous Tradition how vnworthie soeuer it be of the Maiestie of God of the grauitie of the Scripture of the ministerie of Moses of the beleefe of the Church yet is it nothing neere so detestable as that wicked exercise of those which ayme at and busie themselues now a daies in nothing but in clipping and scraping out the sufficiencie and perfection of the scripture by the same meanes taking away their owne saluation in the bloud of Iesus Christ since that by it wee are redeemed from our vaine conuersation â—at 1. â—8 receiued by Tradition from our Fathers Amongst other workmen which in these times employ themselues in this mysterie or ministery of iniquitie the Lord of Perron Bishop of Eureux wil make known vnto vs that before him none had sufficieÌ„tly manured tilled the ground of this TraditioÌ„ which conuerted Moses from a Prophet into a Lapidarie from a Lawgiuer into a Goldsmith and that like as this Minister of God enriched himselfe in hewing the Tables of the Lawe So the ministers of the Popes Gospell according to the true Anagogicall meaning of this Iewish Tradition cannot better inrich themselues and of Christians become Croesians or Crassians than in conuerting Diuinitie into such a Technologie in cutting of and clipping the Gospell of Iesus Christ â—ue 21 â—â—uel 17.3 c. That the more they take away from the luster of the precious stones wherewith the heauenly Ierusalem is builded the more splendour they giue to the countefeite stones of that woman cloathed in purple and scarlet which ruleth ouer the great Babylon For to couer the cunning that they vse they make no difficulty to doe some honour in shewe to the scripture euen to guild and adore outwardly the bookes which contain it euen theÌ„ when the mine it clip and pare it inwardly Like as at one time Iesus Christ was kissed and betrayed cloathed in purple as a king and buffeted as a foole crucified as a malefactor Or like as yet to this day the Iewes honour the scripture in shew and by gestures forbidding to sit in a place of equall height to that whereon the Bible is laid though in effect they set it infinitely vnder their Thalmud of which they dare with an execrable impudencie say That God himselfe studieth therein the three first houres of the day Lyr. in Luke cap 4. Lib. Benedict c. 1. 3. Vide Hieron a Sancta fide cont Iud. l. 1. in Biblioth S. Patrum tom 4. Also that hee which shall speake any thing of it sinisterly or in euill part shall bee damned in hell whereas hee that transgresseth the Law of God shall receiue none other punishment but to bee called a transgressour of the Lawe Now that none hath so deepely sounded the mysticall meaning of the Iewish Tradition aboue recited as the Bishop of Eureux hath done it is manifest because that not any of the new Besaleels which of later times haue laboured to plaister and to painte the Popes Tabernacle neyther Hosius nor Peresius nor Soto nor Lindanus nor Canus nor Canisius nor yet that Arch-Rabby Bellarmine not any I say had as yet so mightily clipped this spirituall coyne as Gerson calleth the Scripture nor obserued so much drosse nor so many defects in the pure Alley of the lawe of God written by Moses as the Lord of Perron doth who hauing learned this secret of Seruetus and some Anabaptists that the honour of this inuention be not taken from the true authors of it clippeth cutteth of from it not some smal things but the immortalitie of the soule the resurrection of the bodie the last iudgement Paradise and hell c. that he might discredit in like sort thereby and by Analogie â—ohn 15.15 the doctrine of the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ who though he protesteth in expresse tearmes to haue declared to his Apostles All things that he had heard of his father Yet notwithstanding this Bishop feareth not to say â—ol 15.8 That the things alone which he hath eyther done or declared with his owne mouth to his disciples are not sufficient to the institution of the Church VVhich is not to make the little mouth but liuely to couÌ„terfait that mouth â—euel 13.5.6 which as Saint Iohn saith vttereth great things Neyther is it to be a dumbe dogge but to barke boldly not against the Moone but euen against the Sunne of righteousnesse A certaine Sophister at Athens writing of the gods â—â—og Laert. â—ot g. declared in the beginning of his booke the doubtes that he had of their essence and the difficulties that he found in this matter of which the Athenians had such horrour that they burnt the booke and banished the Author The like irresolution and perplexitie witnessed a Heathen Philosopher to Saint Augustine â—â—gust Epi. 21. who had enquired of him what opinion he had of Iesus Christ But our Bishop who without difficultie doubt or scruple whatsoeuer peremptorily concludeth That wee are no more to hold Christ for the perfect and sufficient doctor of the Apostles than the Scripture for perfect and sufficient doctrine of all the faithful triumpheth amongst Christians yet against Christians and the Christian faith and findeth no matter fitter for his glorie nor more richer for his purse than such reproaches of the Scripture such blasphemies against Christ Cumanus gouernour of Iudea a heathen and a wicked man caused a souldier to be bee beheaded for tearing a copie of the Booke of the lawe of Moses which he had found at the sacke of a towne The Bishop of Eureux Ioseph Antiq lib. 20. c. which teareth and destroyeth not some copy only but the very original it selfe of this law from which he plucketh away as much as in him lieth the leaues which containe the principles and grounds of our saluation leauing therein nothing whole nothing perfect nothing wholesome nor so much as profitable without his subsidiarie as hee tearmeth it or helping tradition expecteth a Cardinals hat is heaped with spirituall honours and temporall goods so that one may say of him as Apuleius bearing the Idoll on the one side and many bribes on the other said of himselfe that he went as a Temple and a Barne both together But if a Sinon with his treason a Simon with his magicke Horreum â—imuâ— templum iâ—câ—die doe a hundred times more mischiefe the one within Troy the other within the Citie of God than ten thousand enemies than all the infidels could doe together without by open force shall we yet doubt that they which vnder sheepes cloathing yea with a shepheards hooke Ephes 2.20 and Bishopps Crosier staffe vndermining the foundations of the Church Aduer â—tul lib. 3. builded vpon the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles are not more pernicious and daungerous vnto Christendome than
the most part taken out of Origen that is out of the original of the most part of his errours mooued me to put this opinioÌ„ of saint Hilarie in the ranke of others wholy erroÌ„eous which are fouÌ„d in his writings as when he attributeth to our Lord Iesus Christ a bodie vncapable of wearinesse of hunger of thirst of al dolour condemning of errours Lib. 10. de Trin. in Psal â—8 those which by his sufferings conclude the dolour When he speaketh in such sorte of the IncarnatioÌ„ of Christ as if the holy Virgine had but borne brought him forth without contributing any thing of her substaÌ„ce to his flesh Lib. 8. de Trin. When he saith that we are one with the father by nature and not onely by similitude or adoption When he thinketh that Moses is yet aliue atleast by the iudgmeÌ„t of Bellarmine notwithstanding that the holy Scripture saith the contrary in expresse tearmes Matth. inc 17 de Purgat l 2 c. 8. Deu 34.5 c Learne heere Bishop that it is better to skip ouer such places impure and dangerous than to defile a mans selfe and run headlong into danger by abiding vpon them Epiphanius reciteth that certaine monstrous heretikes gathered the spettle other ordures which issued from the bodies of certaine women desceÌ„ded of their arch-hereticke â—osh 1.1.2 Haeres 53. for to keep them in manner of relicks and to apply them to sick persons In like sorte do they who cherish their spirituall maladies by the vncleannesses which they gather from the writings of the auncient Fathers And it is good reason that such to whom the scripture is vnsauorie should haue no better than stinking puddles for their best refreshing He accuseth me of two frauds 1. In that I summon the aduersaries to proue by the scripture all the points in controuersie betweene vs and them not onely such as be of the Essence of our saluation but others also lesse important and in the meane while restraine the disputation of things necessarie when it is shewed that the Apostles left certaine things to their disciples without writing theÌ„ 2. That in stead of prouing the points in question by such cleare and infallible texts of Moses that euerie simple Israelite might haue framed of it a necessarie indubitable consequence I produce onely some probable and coniecturall apparances or shewes To the first obiection I answere that wee neuer change our Thesis Wee proue by the scripture the points that we beleeue necessarie to saluation and wee demaund of our aduersaries the like proofe for the points that they pretend to be such whether of necessitie absolute or conditionall Wee reiect many things of the Romish Church which at first sight seeme not to oppugne saluation but their consequences dash against it For example the forbidding to eate flesh on certaine daies is in it selfe a light thing and may be practised for certaine politicke respectes Rom. 14 which concerne not our saluation sith that the kingdome of God is neither meat nor drinke But to make of it a law for to binde the conscience to declare the transgression thereof a sinne against the holy Ghost to constitute therein merite towards God to attribute vnto it an expiatorie power to doe away sinnes C. violatoâ— to make of it workes of supererogation c. These are consequences which shake the foundation of Christian libertie the doctrine of grace and the assurance of our saluation grounded vpon grace Thus acknowledging but one Law-giuer who can saue and destroy 〈◊〉 4 12. and desiring to persist in the liberty which Iesus Christ hath purchased vs we will not receiue the yoak of bondage 5.1 8.20 â— 11.28 â—0 And they that wold subiect vs vnder their laws make vs fall vnder their insupportable burdens we bring them to the law of God to the yoake of Iesus Christ which is easie and to his burden which is light Wherefore it is false that we conclude so as the Bishop of Eureux saith we doe That is not in the Scripture it is therefore an impietie and superstition Our conclusions are thus That is not in the scripture and notwithstanding is commaunded vs to be kept as necessarie vnto saluation by him who hath no authoritie to make lawes to the conscience Therefore it is an impietie or superstition Wee grant also that some things touching the order outward policy of the Church things not vnmooueable and vnchangeable as is the doctrine of faith haue not beene written neither all the particuler deeds and sayings of our Sauiour and his Apostles But it is one thing to say All the heades of doctrine are not written and another thing to say All the particularities comprised vnder euerie head or kinde are not written We say that the Apostles haue written all the heads of doctrine genera singuloruÌ„ though not all the particularities of euerie head Non singula generum For as it is impossible to comprehend them all so is it not possible to write them all And for this cause we neuer denied but that there were things vnwritten vnder both Testaments as we doe not meerely and flatly reiect them so we receiue them not all without discretion or difference Neither hold we them that we receiue in the same degree of authoritie with the scripture because the Apostles themselues inasmuch as they haue not inregistred them with the rest haue weakened their authoritie and manifested that they were not things absolutely necessarie that the doctrine that may be drawne from them is sufficiently declared in the things which are written which are neuer so particuler but that wee may draw thence instruction for the generall Rule of fayth And the number of these same is so ample in their writings that to Christians they suffice whether it be to learne the truth or to reprooue errour This is that which is principally regarded in matter of Testaments namely what is written and not what the Testator said by word of mouth to any one who may varie or forget which is not to bee feared in â—he Scripture And how should the right be knowne How should the processe be ended which ariseth of matters of Testament if the InstrumeÌ„t be not produced visited especially when it is a long time after the decease of the Testator And when the Apostles make mention in their writings of some particular thing holdeÌ„ receiued among the Iews though not expressed in the writings of the Old Testament it followeth not either that they would authorise all the traditions of the Pharises or that they esteemed the Scripture imperfect or that they set those vnwritten particularities that they alledge in the same degree of necessitie or authoritie as they doe the things written For if of such allegations one would inferre equall authoritie with the scripture it would follow that the poems of Aratus Menander and Epimenides out of whom saint Paule citeth some verses should be equall to
Resurrection of the body it must necessarily inferre that it is therefore proper for to prooue it or that Christ was not fit for to reason Certainly when the resurrection of the body is proued the immortalitie of the soule is prooued also But he which prooueth but the immortalitie of the soule prooueth not for that the Resurrection of the bodie which was notwithstanding the question wherwith the Sadduces had assailed our lord who had by no meanes stopped their mouth if he had proued but the first point that is to say satisfied but the one halfe and the easiest part But this argument saith our Bishop was till then vnknowne to the Iewes who for that cause admired the wisdome of our Sauiour And therfore they must needs haue receiued the beleefe of it by another meanes than by the bookes of Moses namely by the tradition of Abraham Isaack and Iacob and other Fathers What vse hath then heere subsidiarie tradition which after our Bishop 〈◊〉 71. is the Gardian and keeper of the mysticall interpretation of the text of the scripture 〈◊〉 45. Or if there were none vpon this place as Du Perron seemeth to grant reckoning it among them that the sonne of God who hath the key of Dauid opened to his Disciples since he himselfe expounded the scriptures It will follow that the place was altogether vnprofitable before which is the bishops mysticall exposition that he might couertly giue Saint Paule the lye who maintaineth that The whole scripture is giuen by inspiration from God â—â—m 3 and is profitable c or as they of the Church of Rome translate it Euerie Scripture that is euery place of scripture meaning it euen of the olde Testament Now it is true that Saint Mathew saith that the multitude were astonied at the doctrine of Iesus Christ citing this place For the confusion and ignorance was so great vnder the Reigne of the Pharisaicall Traditions that it seemed to the auditours a thing miraculous to be able to alleadge the Lawe so pertinently and to purpose Euen like as in this last Reformation of the Church many of those that had beene all their life time brought vp in the superstitious Traditions of the Church of Rome haue beene astonied when they haue seene them so pertinently confuted by the holy scripture In the meane while the thing hath not beene so obscure as the bishoppe will haue it otherwise some euen among the Scribes would not haue approoued this allegation saying Maister thou hast well said Luke 20.39 Marke 12 2â— For they were so great enemies to Iesus Christ that they espied all occasions euen to the least of his words for to entrappe him And must Du Perron shew himselfe heere worse than were the Scribes and Pharises accusing our Sauiour Christes argument of obscuritie or impertinencie which was approoued by his greatest enemies Math. 22.3 who confessed that hee had stopped the mouthes of the Sadducies Which sheweth that the thing was so cleare manifest that there could bee no reply But what reason or testimonie can bee cleare to him who findeth not cleare enough the place of Daniel vnder colour that a Rabbi and one Polychroneus had some particuler doting vpon it yet more than sufficiently confuted by some of ours without any helpe of Tradition which our bishoppe holdeth so necessarie therein The wordes of Daniell are Oecolamp Dan. 12.2 Manie of them that sleepe in the dust of the Earth shall awake some to euerlasting life and some to confusion and eternall shame And they that bee wise shall shine as the brightnesse of the firmament and they that turne many to righteousnesse shall shine as the starres for euer and euer Beholde the place wherewith Du Perron saith a contentious spirit cannot be forced without the helpe of tradition that wee no more doubt of his intent which is not to content himselfe to make the scripture vnsufficient and imperfect but also wholly vnprofitable superfluous and vnapt seeing the clearest and most formall places haue no force nor vertue without Tradition which if wee will beleeue him forceth all euen the most contentious spirits to whom the scripture coÌ„tenteth it self to say 1. Cor 11.16 If any man lust to be contentious we haue no such custom neither the Churches of God What remaineth for him but to say that Tradition is God himselfe who alone is able to change the hearts to tame the rebellious and to make light shine out of darkenes Indeed there was a Bishopp in the counsell of Trent who without blushing or changing colour attributed to the Pope who is the principal spring and fountaine of the Traditions at this day in controuersie those words that Saint Iohn had said of the Eternall sonne of God calling him the light come into the world Orat. Corn. Epis Bitont in Conci Trid Iohn 1. Now if Iesus Christ had had the same opinion of the scripture as Du Perron would he not also haue said the like to the Sadducies as their Aduocate holdeth vnto vs Namely that they deceiued themselues to thinke to finde in the writinges of Moses all that was necessarie for them And that the fiue bookes of the Lawe were but a letter of credite referrring the rest to the sufficiencie of the bearer of the Tradition Hee dare denie that our Sauiour Christ attributed the cause of the Errour of the Sadducies to their ignorance of the Scripture though two vnreprooueable witnesses depose it and that in so cleare and euident tearmes that all the smoke of the bottomlesse pit Math. 22.29 Marke 12.24 25. cannot darken the light of it especially that of Saint Marke in these wordes Are yee not therefore deceiued because yee knowe not the Scriptures neyther the power of God To one that hath the boldnesse to denie such Textes I confesse I cannot shewe any thing neyther in the Olde nor in the Newe Testament In the meane while Du Perron may bee iudged heere by his owne mouth as that euill seruant in the Gospell being constrained to confesse that one of the causes of the errour of the Sadducies was the ignorance of the sense of the Scripture Luke 19 22 Fol. 52. though hee meane it but of the place cyted by themselues which commeth all to one reckoning for to bee ignorant of the sense of the scripture is to bee ignorant of the scripture But the true sense of the same is discerned and seene when the Father of Lightes maketh it be seene not when the Synagogue onely or the Church sheweth it which hath not any Tradition whatsoeuer for to open the eyes of the mind and to force the most contentious otherwise shee should manifest this force vppon the Turckes Iewes and Paganes if Tradition conteyned the true Efficient and Instrumentall cause both together Saint Hierome expoundeth the place of saint Marke in these wordes They erre saith hee because they know not the Scriptures and because they are ignorant of them they know not the
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
so much as one word of Moses fall to ground Or that the knowledge of these distinctions and differences was not a thing so necessarie as the Bishoppe of Eureux would haue it If account is to bee made of this Epistle of Ignatius which wee holde supposed how commeth it to passe that so many high mysteries are so soone fallen to the ground and buried in the graue of forgetfulnesse as appeareth by the diuersity of opinions that the Greek and Latine Doctours haue vpon this question so that some of them deny flatly that the knowledge thereof can be attained to as being a thing exceeding both speech and vnderstanding Isid Pelus l. 2. ep 99. And what new reuelation hath beene shewed to Thomas Aquinas for to make these sharings and diuisions among the Angels when he disposeth angels for to gouerne particular men Archangels for the Prouinces Principalities for whole mankinde the Vertues for the celestiall bodies the Powers for to commaund wicked Spirits the Dominations for to haue care of the good Spirits Is it because he is called the Angelicall Doctour that hee was endowed with this Angelicall knowledge But why was the vniuersall Church depriued of it in the time of Saint Augustine and of so many other good Fathers What new Paracletus or comforter had reserued the manifestation of these secrets to the Schoolmen Now let vs see a little our Bishopps angelicall Logicke Saint Paul speaking of Angells nameth Principalities Powers Vertues Dominations Thrones therfore he setteth downe these distinctions by the orders degrees as did the Doctors of the Romish Church which doctrine the Iewes knew not before but by the tradition of the Sinagogue Eph 2.11.12 Col. 1.21 Againe S. Paul writing to the Ephesians Colossians who a little before had beene Heathen strangers from the coÌ„mon wealth of Israell and from the promises of the Testament being without Hope and without God in the world maketh mention of these names Therefore it was a doctrine vvhich was manifestly knowne vnto them and by consequent they knew it either by an absolute or subsidiarie Tradition Is it not happily from one of these twoe Traditions that Plato and Aristotle held also their Doctrine of the Genii and Intelligences â—ol 6 5. Gen. 2.1 He mocketh that I gather the creation of Angells from the place of Moses where he saith That the heauens and the earth were finished and all their hoste For that this hoste saith he signifieth nothing else in Moses but the Sun and the Moone with the Starres at least wise it can not be gathered by the litterall text of Moses his ArgumeÌ„t is this Deut. 4. Moses in a certaine place vnderstandeth by the army or hoste of heauen nothing else but the Sun and Moone with the starres Therfore he neuer meaneth any thing else by it throughout all his writings To omit that place of Genesis where the Angells that met Iacob at his returne from Mesopotamia Gen 32.2 are called the camp that is to say the Armie of God though Moses vse another tearme I will onely demauÌ„d him If this interpretatioÌ„ of the word hoste or army can not be had but by Tradition why the Cardinall Baronius â—nnal Eccles â—om 1. an Christ 60. who is farre nearer that spring than the Bishop of Eureux chooseth rather to take it out of the Scripture wheÌ„ speaking of the Idolatrie of the Iewes that worshiped the Angells and the starres which they thought to haue life note their goodly Platonicall not Propheticall Tradition he saith that Properly the scripture calleth Angells the Hoste of Heauen citing three places for this purpose whereof one is taken out of Moses himselfe Deut 17. I alleadged a place of Irenaeus that represseth the vaine curiositie of the Gnosticks who without any light of the Scripture rashly intrude theÌ„selues into matters that they haue not seene as the Apostle saith handling this pointe of Angells and condemning the superstition at this day crept into Tradition of seruing them religiously our Bishop exclaymeth thereupon what euening visions what dreames what imaginations and fantasies are these shewing that he hath his head so full of them that as Irenaeus saith of his Gnosticks all the Ellebore in the world would not suffice to purge him from it â—ib 2. c. 54. And it is no wonder if so many smoaky darke and subtill imaginations hinder him from seeing my conclusion which tendeth not in any fashion whatsoeuer to abolish the names and distinctions of Angells as he conceiteth but to shew first of all that Irenaeus prooued the creation of Angells by the scripture when he saith We will shew them by the scriptures that all these things as well visible as inuisible were created of God Also We forsake not Moses and the other Prophets Lib. 2. c 5 who preached the truth for to beleeue such as say nothing soundly but dote c. Whence is euident that he comprehendeth the writings of Moses vnder the Scriptures by which is shewed the creation of Angells Secondly to coÌ„demne the audacious boldnes of this pretended Dionysius Areopagita and the Schoolemen who presume to know all these mysteries vndertake to vnfold them and by vertue not of an Apostolicke Tradition but of a Maxime of naturall Philosophie determine that it is impossible that there be two Angells onely of one kinde and such is the Tradition of that prince of the Schoolemen Thomas Aquinas 1. P. qu. 5â— Ar. 4. So that we must haue many more names for them than the Tradition of the Synagogue or Saint Paul euer knew for to furnish specificall differences to so many Millions of these blessed Spirits which staÌ„d before the throne of the Lord for to execute his coÌ„maundements And wheÌ„ Irenaeus saith to the Gnosticks Let them declare vnto vs the nuÌ„ber of the Angells the order of the Archangells let them shew vnto vs the Sacraments of the thrones let them teach vs the diuersities of the Dominations Principalities powers and vertues But they can not so much as tell it There is no man that hath common sense L. 2. c. 47. but will conclude thence that Irenaeus propounded these things as most difficulte and secret since that in another place he proposeth the ouerflowing of Nilus Birds changing of countreys in springtime and in haruest the ebbing and flowing of the sea rayne snow thunder and other meteors as things hid from vs and of which saith he we may well babble but God onely who made them is true Let vs add a word or two of euill Spirits That the Serpent that spake to Eua was but an Instrument of a wicked spirit may be shewed a Sadducie by the effects which cannot proceede from a creeping thing nor from any other beast though it should go vpright like a rocke as the Serpent did before the seducing of Eue according to the ordinarie glose which conteyneth as well the literall expositions as the mysticall Traditions neyther needed Du Perron to
the pillar and ground of truth not for the reason Du Perron alleadgeth because euery one resting on the iudgment of it can not be deceiued in faith nor hazard his Saluation he might say more briefly and more popularly In beleeuing in the faith of his Curate But for as much as the word of God contayned in the holy Scripture is set forth in the true Church as in old time the lawes were fastned to pillars that they might not be troden vnder feete and that they might be exposed to the view of euery man the Church which is the Pallace of our lord Iesus Christ is as Salamon was all of pillars euery particular Orthodoxall or right-beleuing Church is a pillar of that Palace whereon hangeth the table contayning the diuine trueth But as much resemblance is betweene this palace of our spirituall Salomon and the Popes on his Vatican as is betweene the crowne of Thornes and his triple Crowne of Gold betweene the Bible and his decretalls Now let the Bishop of Eureux tell me how these two propositions doe agree the church neuer erreth and that of the Schoolmen and Canonists In the day when our Lord suffered Faith remained onely in the virgin Marie which proposition â—ean de la â—urbruslèe Iohn Turbrusley maintayneth to be so necessarie that to hold the contrary is to goe against the faith of the vniuersall Church where was then this Church that cannot erre then I say when all the Apostles were aliue whom Christ our Lord reproacheth of incredulitie could the person onely of the blessed virgine make the Church â—ark 16.14 â—â—llar de Ecâ—â—es mil. l. 3. â—7 Bellarmine denieth it because saith hee The Church is the people and kingdome of God Now haue wee hitherto shewed the sufficiencie and perfection of the scripture in regard of the instances proposed by the Bishoppe of Eureux as things absolutely necessarie As for the others that he afterwards alleadgeth it is to bee noted First that they concerne rather historie than doctrine whereof is question and which hee of purpose confoundeth with historie for to bleaze the eies of the simple For hee knoweth verie well that wee willingly confesse that there is historicall Traditions and himselfe confesseth that the ordinance of these thing is not absolutely vnexcusable â—ol 80 That is to say it is not necessarie for all to knowe them Secondly it is to bee remembred that heere againe as is aboue saide he confoundeth with like malice these two tearmes truth and Authority dissembling that euery trueth is not of like Authority Otherwise it would follow that al prophane histories truly written are as authenticall and canonicall as the histories of the Bible And therefore that which the Apostles alleadged without the Scripture is most true but obtayned not Canonicall authority till after it was written by them and as touching that from which they draw arguments I answere that they doe it because it was agreed of the trueth of those particulars wheÌ„ce they draw them as at this day we reason oftentimes by things which not onely the Fathers but also prophane and heathen authors haue left in writing when it is agreed that they containe trueth yet can not any inferre from thence that they haue equall authority to the word of God Thirdly I say that among the instances he produceth there be some false and inuented and of this number is all the first namely the Institution of Exorcists that no text of the new Testament sheweth that it was an order instituted of God vnder the old Testament yea though it were graunted him that there were Exorcists at the time that Iesus Christ came into the world for our Sauiour Christs wordes conteine nothing else but a confutation of the opinion of the Pharises not a declaration of his owne touching Exorcists whether they were ordayned of God or of theÌ„selues as were those of whome S. Luke maketh meÌ„tion If the B. of Eureux graÌ„teth not that both of theÌ„ were of the same order Act 19 to what purpose doth he alleagde Caluin for to make me confesse it And if he graunt that they were how can he deny but that the one were deceiuers as well as the others Whence will he shew that the sonns of Sceua were rather of the order of the ancient pretended Exorcists than of the Apes that would counterfeit the miracles of the Apostles Let vs se the Logicke of our Carneades The sonnes of Sceua after the death of Christ were not true Exorcists Ergo before Christs death there was an order of the true Exorcists grounded on diuine right See how from a negation he draweth an affirmation But if we receiue the exposition of Saint Chrysostome which he should accept of as a subsidiary Tradition This Instance taken from the order of Exorcists shall be yet more ridiculous for he presupposeth as a thing confessed of all that our Sauiour Christ speaking of Exorcists meaneth onely his Apostles and disciples Fol. 81. which saith he had already driuen out Diuells by the power they had receiued of their Maister the Pharises not hauing blamed them for it For their malice was but to the person not to the thing Therefore that he might shew that what they said or thought against him proceeded but of meere enuie he told them of the Apostles Now it is for our Bishoppe to conclude that the Apostles were already in the world in quality of ordinary Exorcists when Christ came from whome consequently they receiued not extraordinarily this power to cast out vncleane Spirits He saith the hand of the Synagogue vvas become vvithered and impotent in vvorking miracles â—ol 85. after our Sauiour Christs death and that for this cause the sonns of Sceua had no successe But wherefore then had that Eleazer of whome Iosephus speaketh such good successe who long after Christs death in the presence of Vespasian his childreÌ„ all the Romane Army â—â—seph Anâ—â—g lib. 8. c. 2. dispossessed so sufficiently one that had a Diuell the roote to which Iosephus attributeth this vertue and which he saith was taught by Salomon was it become withered as well as the hand of the Synagogue of purpose that it might budd againe like Aarons rodd in the hands of that infidell did the name Tetragrammaton by which Epiphanius saith 〈◊〉 30. one Ioseph not beleeuing yet in Christ cast out a diuell loose then it vertue or did the sons of Sceua eclipse some letter of it Now it is manifest by this place of Iosephus and by that which is written in another place what was the foundation and institution of this order of Exorcists â—oh de bel 〈◊〉 l. 7. c. 25 among the Iewes namely Magicke and enchantments which our Bishop would make vs receiue for the pure word of God secretly reuealed to the Patriarches and Prophets I said that it is not found that they which in the beginning of the Christian Church had the gift of casting out diuels vsed certaine
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
of Mediate and Immediate sufficiencie so industriously set downe at the beginning of his Booke In the â—â—cation 〈◊〉 title and by vs examined and confuted in a Treatise by it selfe yet distrusting the force of this distinction hee addeth another distinguishing sufficiencie into Authoritatiue and doctrinall and depriuing the Scripture of the latter fol. 14â— of fauour granteth it the first Let vs note herein two fraudes the first in that hee presupposeth that St. Iohn spake but of that which he himself only had written in stead of referring his words to all the Euangelicall historie written before by the other three Euangelists St. Iohns scope in his writings as all the fathers doe witnesse being onely to make a supplie for a more expresse declaration of the Godhead of the sonne of God because of the Heretikes that then denied it and to confirme and seale by his testimonie Tert. dâ— c. 17. Hier. dâ— Ecl in and Apostolike authoritie the Canonicall bookes of the new Testament because of certaine writings supposed and attributed to Saint Paul by some of his Disciples and followers themselues Wherevnto hath relation that horrible threatning which he set as a heauenly seale to his booke of the Reuelation for a shutting vp of the new Testament The other fraud is to dispute in what sense this proposition is sufficient or not as if neither Saint Iohn nor all the other Writers of the newe Testament had written any thing else but these words only Iesus is that Christ that Sonne of God without adding any other proofe or explication without any other Hystorie or doctrine whatsoeuer a fraude most necessarie for his desperate Cause giuing him occasion in appearance to heape vp a great number of wordes to fill vp paper or rather dust to cast into mens eyes If so many things as the Euangelists doe write conteine not the meanes for to proue this proposition and for to shewe plainly what Christ is to wit his two natures and his three Offices to what vse serue they then how can a thing so vnsufficieÌ„t in it selfe make vs haue eternal life If they containe but a part of the meanes and necessarie proofes what reason was there to set downe onely that part and to omit the principall What reason was there to make so many bookes and to fill them with matters which to set foorth our Bishops opinion in one word serueth to no vse at all seeing that euen that which is written cannot be vnderstood without his subsidiarie Tradition could any more shamefully defame the apostles and Euangelists these Notaries and Secretaries of the holy Ghost than in accusing them so manifestly of disloyaltie in their charge of hauing suppressed and eclipsed essentiall and principall clauses in this instrument which they haue framed and left for to serue for the perpetual canon or rule to the christian Church An accusation that cannot redound but vpon the holy-Ghost himselfe by whose instinct and inspiration they wrote that which they wrote for to serue to that ende and vse Let vs conclude then that this distinction Authoritatiue not Doctrinall is false and blasphemous leauing to the sacred Scripture no other title but of a Letter of credite but of a memoriall or direction as hee himselfe saith without containing the doctrine in it selfe but in another which is in effect to dispoyle it as well of authoritie as of doctrine for to inuest the Pope with both in attributing vnto him authoritie to teach whatsoeuer doctrine he listeth seeing they leaue Christians neither balance nor touch-stone to proue it after they haue defamed the Scripture whereby the men of Beroea examined euen the doctrine of an Apostle yea Act. 17 â— that only by the scripture of the old TestameÌ„t wherin they found sufficieÌ„cie of doctrine as wel as of authority for to judge thereof Indeed the law is called by the Hebrewes Thora that is to say doctrine the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth the same thing But after the Doctrine of du Perro it is a doctrin not doctrinal as the blood of the Masse is a blood not bloody that is to say a PyrrhoniaÌ„ doctrine Yet at the worst though we shold euen admit this fond false and outragious distinction that al the Scripture were nothing else but a letter or credit or as he saith A memoriall conteyning directions and tokens for to finde a Physitian which is able to declare to euery onâ— Fol. 14â— all the necessarie remedies to cure his maladie Yet he should get nothing for his Pope nor for all his representatiue Church For if a man looke well into this memoriall if he take all the directions obserue well the tokens that it conteyneth he shal not find therin one only iota that directeth him to that magnificall Romane Hierarchie for which onely our Aduocate pleadeth If the Scripture did direct sicke persons to the Pope as to the Soueraine Physitian onely healing all diseases then should these be the markes or tokens that it should giue of him An Idoll beset with gold and precious stones set vpon a high Throne with three crownes vpon his head a guilded Pantoâ—le on his foote which hee giueth Kings and Emperours to kisse being prostrate before him Cardinalls round about him with red hattes and scarlet roabes representing the Senate of the auncient Rome Many Byshops and Arch-byshops mytred in coapes and robes and betrapped as the subiect of the Comedie requireth Innumerable legions of Priestes Curates Monkes Fryars and Chanons diuersified with sundry liueries and dispersed as in Garrison through all the prouinces of the Empire of that Beast Indeede we finde â—â—al 17. that the Scripture liuely prescribeth a certaine woman cloathed in purple and scarlet bedecked with gold and precious stones which it calleth great Babylon the mother of the whoredomes and abominations of the earth drunken with the blood of the Saintes and Martyrs of Iesus Christ And this is the Physitian to whom du Perrón as one of his Apothecaries directeth vs for the healing of all our diseases 〈◊〉 13. because it is written Who-Whosoeuer doth not worship this Beast it shall put him to death True it is that those she putteth to death are better cured of their diseases forsaking this body of sin resting from their laboures 〈◊〉 14.13 than those that drinke in the cup wherewith this Physitian or rather Magitian drencheth such as direct themselues vnto him Now that which hath been said touching the text of S. Iohn sufficeth also for to vnderstand the expositions of S. Augustine S. Cyrill the Bishop of Eureux bestirreth himselfe heapeth vp many words without matter for to make them to be vnderstood of miracles which is a thing not denyed the knot of the question beeing whether it bee with a restriction to miracles onely and a totall exclusion of Doctrine This is it that we deny him this is it that repugneth euen coÌ„mon reason to speak of a signe
so far forth as it is a signe without referring it to the thing signified of a relatiue without considering his correlatiue that is to say to speake of the nature Essence of a thing without considering the nature and Essence of the same Therefore without vsing many words as he doth doe but obserue these words of S. Cyril hee declareth the intentioÌ„ of the Gospel as if he would rehearse In Ioh. lib. C. 61. that which he wrote For I haue published these thinges saith hee that you might beleeue and that in beleeuing you might haue life eternal c. And a little after If the power of the Gospel and the greatnes of the miracles be sufficient to perswade that the Sonne of the Virgin who was called Iesus by the voice of the Angel is the same which the Scripture calleth Christ and who is the Sonne of God not as others but properlye and after a singular manner euen after he was vnited to the humaine nature it is certaine that they doe erre which dare deny their Lord. Whence it manifestly appeareth that after his opinion Saint Iohn spake not of myracles onelye but also of the Doctrine and force of the Gospell which is the power of God vnto saluation to all that beleeue Rom. 1. â— from which force and power if any seperate and exclude Doctrine he hath more neede of Hellebore then hee is capable of Doctrin And therfore it were our Bishops part to shew how miracles only without Doctrine can be sufficient as wel for manners as for Doctrine which is the sufficyencie that Saint Cyrill attributeth vnto them in the place which himselfe citeth but with cutting off this that followeth To the end that shining in a right faith Fol. 157. workes and vertue we may attaine to the Kingdome of heauen through our Lord Iesus Christ Effects which no miracles can euer bring foorth alone without Doctrine But here is the moste important point of the question Hee saith Though S. Augustin and S. Cyril should speake not of myracles onely but shold say in expresse words Fol. 158. that the Euangelists haue written sufficiently whatsoeuer is necessary for vs to know of the deedes and sayinges of our Sauiour Christ for our Saluation Neuerthelesse it would not followe that the things onelye that Christ eyther did or taught with his owne mouth to his Disciples are sufficient for the instruction of the Church c. And for proofe of this his resolution hee alleadgeth this saying of Christ I haue yet many things to tell you which you cannot beare now 〈…〉 97 A place which as S. Augustine saith the grossest Heretikes were woont to abuse for to collour all their most abhominable inuentions But see here the impudencie of our Byshop who not content to blame the Scripture of vnsufficiencie and imperfection spitteth his filthy blasphemies in the face of Jesus Christ himselfe blasoning him to haue no more taught sufficiently by word of mouth his Apostles thaÌ„ his Apostles haue taught Posteritie by their writings At least if the lye he giueth the Sonne of God be somewhat couered in court-phrase which hee braggeth he can speake so well yet is it without curtesie and without figure of Rhethoricke that hee giueth the lye to this affirmation of the truth it selfe I haue declared vnto you al things that I haue heard of my Father 〈◊〉 15.15 Whence it would follow that the heauenly Father himselfe hath not perfectly nor sufficiently instructed his sonne the Eternall wisedome Now to agree these two propositions Iohn 15.15 and 16.12 we need not haue recourse to that enallage of the time 〈◊〉 Ioan. 〈◊〉 â—6 as some of the Fathers haue vnder collour that the Scripture speaketh some-time of thinges not yet done as if they were already done which the circumstance of the place the sequence of the Text permitteth not in this place But in the 16. chapter wheÌ„ our Sauiour saith that his Disciples could not beare that which he had to tell them he hath respect to the sadnes sorrow which they were full of as appeareth by the 22. verse they remembred not what had beene already tolde theÌ„ were little disposed to make their profite of what they then preseÌ„tly heard for to prepare theÌ„selues to their charge And what If Jesus Christ had hid from the Apostles themselues some necessary pointes how much more should he haue hid them from the other Disciples and Auditours of the common people of which consequently none could haue been saued if he had died before the day of the Pentecost before they had heard the new Articles of faith which the holy Ghost began then to reueile to the Apostles of which Iesus Christ had neuer spokeÌ„ vnto them And this sentence of our Lord concerning the Office of the holy Ghost He shall teach you all things and shall bring to your remeÌ„brance al things that I haue said vnto you shall be of no more weight with our Bishop than the other for to make him confesse that the holy Ghost taught no other doctrine theÌ„ that which the Disciples had alreadie heard of their master though they had not well remembred nor vnderstood all for he had rather that the blame should remain on our Lord Christ to haue taught but by halfes then on the disciples for not learning all well though with all that he should get nothing for his Cabbala vnwritten or written in fabulous Bookes at least-wise if hee receyue this sentence of Saint Augustine cited and approoued by his master Thomas Aquinas Whatsoeuer Iesus Christ would that we should reade of his deedes and sayings he commanded his Disciples to write as with his owne handes To what purpose then is it to seeke that which is written else-where by others though it were a true thing seeing that Christ will not haue vs to reade it And how much lesse that which is written in the golden Legend in the Bookes de vita Christi or other such fables He saith that Saint Augustine will haue vs acknowledge manie things in the writings of the Apostles which our Sauiour Christ neuer told them whilest he corporally conuersed with them as among others this excellent doctrine That there is in God a worde Escentiall and subsisting by which all things were created Beholde a notable vntruth The wordes of Saint Augustine are these In Ioh. â— 96. Who is so vaine and rash that though he should speake true things as he listeth and to whom he will dare affirme without anie diuine testimonie that they are the things which the Lord would not tell Who among vs shall doe it without incurring a most great fault of rashnesse hee excelling neither in Propheticall nor Apostolicall authoritie For in verie truth if we had read something in the Bookes confirmed by Canonicall authouritie which were written after Christs ascension it were to little purpose to haue read it vnlesse one reade therwithall that it was of the number of the things
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
the Pope and euerie other Bishop vnattainted or conuinced of notorious crime He was forced to graunt it mee But when I requested further that he would giue me this proposition in wrighting signed by him hee would not heare of it no more then he found it fitte to insert this question in the number of the seauen that he treateth There was also spoken of the institution of Monkes of their rules and ceremonies specially of the Charter-house Monkes which instance importuned him much finding neither canall pipe nor deuise whatsoeuer that could make to flowe forme apostolick traditioÌ„ that Angelicall perfection whereof the Charterous and other Monks do boast In this altercatioÌ„ he said diuers things so enormous and contrary euen to the Doctrine of the Romish Church that if they had been set downe in writing as I moste instantly required wee should haue a goodly mirror of Theology or rather Pyrronian Technologie And seeing hee then rather chose to breake off the conference then graunt mee this iust request Hee shall permitte mee also to finish rather heere this answere to his reply then to wander with him from our principall question for to extrauagte vppon the new Instances that hee propoundeth besides the purpose Considering also that before the treating of them after the methode that hee obserueth and requireth namely by the onely authoritie of the Fathers without any testimonie consequence or analagie of Scripture these questions were to be handled I. Whether controuersies ought to be decided by the writinges of Fathers II. Who gaue them that authoritie seeing themselues neuer haue acknowledged nor demaunded it III. Whether if it were true that the visible Church cannot erre this same priuiledge appertaine to euerie Doctor or particular Bishop of the Church IV. If it belong onely vnto some by what workes we shall discerne these infallible ones from others V. Vpon what ground is builded our Bishops distinction that the fathers may erre in quality of doctors and Bishops but not in qualitie of Witnesses seeing that by this meanes one part of their writings is manifestly made equall to the writings of the Prophets and Apostles to whome onely by speciall prerogatiue belongeth this qualitie or title of Witnesses irreprochable and without exception Luk. 24 4â— Act. 18. â— 15. â— in that which concerneth the points of our Saluation For though Antipas and other Christians are called faithfull witnesses of Christ Reu. 2.1 This testimonie hath onely reference to their constant confession of the Truth in the midst of torments not for to make authenticall vnto vs any point of doctrine Otherwise all the Martyrs should be made equall to the Apostles who were chosen instructed and sent immediatly by our Lord Christ and all that the Fathers haue written as Witnesses should be incerted into the Canon of the scripture for to make it an entire Rule seeing that after Bellarmine the Scripture is but a Rule partiall De verbo L. 4. c. 12 not totall Yea the very Treatise of the vnsufficiencie of the Scripture if our Bishop haue not written it as a false Witnesse and if all that which containeth Truth is as he maintaineth armed with Canonicall authoritie should be added to the Scripture as an excellent peece of worke and singular ornament of the same VI. Wherefore the Romish Church hath chaunged reformed censured and abolished so many things which the Father 's reported as Witnesses concerning the ceremonies and pollicie of the ancient Church and which they teach as Bishops and Doctors in expounding the holy Scripture which expositions are nothing else according to the saying of the Bishop of Eureux but the Subsidiarie Tradition without which the bare text of the Scripture is vnprofitable not being able to be vnderstoode or dangerous not being well vnderstood And of such reformations censures and abolishments we will produce when neede shall be innumerable Instances Meane-while the deposition of Cardinall Baronius shall suffice a witnesse yet liuing and who is worth many others both for his learning and for his dignitie â—l Eccl. â—1 ad aen â—4 impres â—nt These are his wordes All the Bishops that haue succeeded the Apostles haue not attained the meaning and vnderstanding of the Scriptures neither hath it beene necessarie they should alwayes haue excelled in this grace For the Catholike Church followeth not alwayes nor in all things euen the MOST HOLY FATHERS whom we rightly call the Doctors of the Church because of their excellent doctrine though it be manifest that they be induced with this grace of the holy Ghost aboue others See here the Subsidiarie Tradition planted by our Bishop supplanted and cut downe to the verie rootes by the Axe of this Cardinall the Popes Librarie keeper But dooth hee leaue at leastwise to the ancient Fathers this dignitie of vnfallible and irrefragable Witnesses As little truly contrariwise hee exceedingly reiecteth this outragious flatterie 〈◊〉 1. ad an â—39 â—22 when he saith The Actes of the Apostles written by Saint Luke deserueth more credit then any authoritie of the Ancients Yea he confesseth not onely that many things haue bene falsly attributed to the Apostles but also that those things which true and sincere Writers haue reported â—n chr 44 â—2 haue not remained intire without being corrupted VII Why wee may not beleeue of many Fathers that which this same Cardinall affirmeth of Saint Cyprian â—al tom 1 â—n 258. namely that he abode not in his errour but renouÌ„ced it before his death though that do not appeare neither by his writings nor by any other testimonie of the Fathers If Charitie was the only cause of this affirmation touching one ancient Fathers acknowledgement why may not we vse the like charitie giue the same iudgement conclude in like sort of others considering the Retractions that one of the most excellent amongst them â—ugustine hath left vnto vs who happily added many others before his death either by writing or at least wise in his mind Himselfe also doth authorise as to say of him that which he said of S. Cyprian De Bapâ— contr Dâ— L. 1. c. 4. It may be this holy soule consented to the Truth as though we know it not For all that was then done among the Bishops could not be written or preserued Neither know we all that was written And in another place Epist 48 We find not that he corected this opinion but it is not without reason that we are to iudge of such a person that he corrected it and perhaps that was suppressed by those that tooke too great pleasure in this error and would not be depriued of the defence of such an Aduocate These are my seuen questions which must first bee cleared before we come vnto his seuen the most important of which which is the sacrifice of the Masse is elsewhere dispatched and as yet by him vnanswered And as for the lies he giues to Caluin Viret and Chemnicius touching the institution of the other six points they fall backe not onely vpon Polidorus Virgilius Platina Sigebert Bergomas and such other Historians minorum gentium or vpon Gratian the compiler of the Decretals which serueth for Text in the Schooles of the Romish Church as the holy Scripture doth in ours Vide to â— Biblio S. trum P 1345. But also vpon the head of a Pope himselfe namly Damasus who reporteth the institution of certaine points euen as the others that follow him Also vpon Pope Eugenius 2. attributing soueraigne authoritie to Gratians Decretals and in generall on all the Popes that haue approoued it since But what would he get by it if we should take the originall of these things higher and of an elder date seeing that no authoritie of the ancients commeth neer the authoritie of an Euangelist since that which the truest writers haue reported since hath not remained entire by Baronius his owne confession To conclude De verbâ— L. 4. c 11 seeing that Bellarmine confesseth on the other side That the Apostles haue wtitten ALL the thinges that are necessarie for all and the things which they had publikely preached to all It shall be lawfull for me to crown the former questions with this CoÌ„clusion which floweth from the Confession of that Arch-Rabbi namely That the seuen Articles which the Bishop of Eureux propoundeth are not necessarie to all men seeing they haue not beene publikely preached by the Apostles Or if they be necessarie to all he must shew by their writings that they haue preached them publikely This is it that I summon him to do If he cannot do it I counsell him to be silent and to acknowledge his owne imperfection and vnsufficiencie rather than to attribute it to the Scripture which is most perfect and most sufficient as well to saue them that follow it as to confound those that blaspheme it FINIS