POSITIONS LATELY HELD BY the L. DV PERRON Bishop of Eureux against the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures maintaining the necessitie and authoritie of vnwritten Traditions Verie learnedly answered and confuted by D. Daniell Tillenus Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Sedan VVith a defence of the sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scriptures by the same Author Faithfully translated PROV 30.5.6 Euerie word of God is pure he is a shield to those that trust in him put nothing to his word least be reproue thee and thou be found a lyer Aust de vnit Eccles cap. 3 sIn the Scriptures we are to seeke the Church by them to discusse our controuersies Chrysost in 2. Thes 2. Hom. 3. All is cleare and plaine in holy Scripture whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs is manifest Printed at London by L. S. for Nathaniell Butter 1606. TO THE READER WHen our aduersaries perceiue them selues conuinced by the Scripture they doe as they of whom Irenaeus and Tertullian speake they set vpon the Scripture it selfe accusing it of obscuritie ambiguitie and imperfection maintaining that the truth cannot therein be found by such as bee ignorant of Tradition and that the great mysteries of Faith were not by the Apostles committed to his disciples but by word of mouth and not by writing In a word all that the ancient Fathers recite of their gainsayers we see now a daies practised by ours who not content with those olde reproaches doe defame the scripture with many contumelies calling it the booke of heretikes the blacke Gospell Incke-Diuinitie leaden ruler nose of waxe Theramenes his buskin the apple of discord Sphynxes riddle a sword in a mad-mans hand and other like tearmes full of iniuries and blaspemies wherewith they defame the booke of the couenant and testament of the Sonne of God which the auncients called the mirrour of diuine grace and mans miserie the touchstone of truth the displayer of vanitie the Squire Rule and most exact ballance of all things the treasure of all vertue a Shop of remedies for all euils the sacred Anker in time of tempest a strong Armie against heretickes a safe retrait against all dangers a happie rest after all trauailes the sure and only stay in time of tryall the Pillar and foundation of our faith the most parte of which titles and the efficacie of them all is attributed by our aduersaries to their Traditions vvhich some of them dare euen preferre and oppose vnto the scripture Lind. lib. 2 panopl. c. 5 Witnesse he vvho calleth it the true Moly conseruing the Christian faith against the Enchauntments of Heretickes because Catholikes saith he vvould be soone poysoned vvith these Enchauntments he meaneth the Scriptures if they did not vse the Moly or antidote of Traditions Pigh de Eccl. Hic lib. 1. c. 4 Another hauing affirmed that the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall tradition hath more force and efficacie to assure our faith in euerie controuersie than the Scripture addeth further that if those of his side would remember that Heretickes ought not to be conuinced by the Scripture their matters vvould goe a great deale better vvith them but hauing endeuored to ouercome Luther by the Scripture for to make ostentation of their good vvitt and great knovvledge all is come to naught c. Truly it is an horrible combustion in Christendome to see the Scriptures vvhich make vs knovv Christ and become christians vsed so vnvvorthily No nation euer tooke this liberty vnto themselues to defame the bookes containing the lawes either of their beliefe or policie The bookes of the Sybills the lawes of the tvvelue Tables and other like vvritings vvere held sacred among the Romanes The Greeks and Pagans did beare all honour to the lawes of their Legislators and to their Rituall bookes as to this day the Ievves doe to their Thalmud and the Turkes to their Alcoran But among those that would be called Christians he that can cast most reproaches against the holy Scripture he that can obserue or imagine therin most imperfections vvill be esteemed more fine witted and more zealous in the faith then others yea there hath beene found one vvho of late hath dared by vvriting to maintaine publish that inuocation or calling on the name of Christ Iesus is no more commaunded in the Scripture then the calling on the Saints departed that thereby he might make the Innoâ—â—â—tion on the Author of life to depend as vvell on the Romish tradition as on the authority of the booke of life It being my chance of late to meet with the L. of Perroâ— Bishop of Eureux and to fall into some dispute vvith him concerning this matter he confesseth vnto me that the most parte of the articles in controuersie betvveene the Romish Church and ours haue no demonstratiue proofe in the Scripture As the Sacrifice of the Masse Inuocation on Saintes Prayer for the dead vvorshipping of Images Auricular confession vnction vvith the Crisme the necessitie of satisfactions the Popes Indulgences c. But he alleadged that from the time of the old Testament the Ievves did beleeue also manie things as necessarie to saluation vvhich notvvithstaÌ„ding in their times vvere not contained in the Scripture In vvhich point I found him not to agree vvith manie great Doctors of his side vvho confesse that the Scripture of the old Testament containeth all the God knevv to be expedient and sufficient for the saluation of the Israelites but that it is not so in the doctrine of the nevv testament vvhich say they should not be vvritteÌ„ on paper but preached by word of mouth engrauen in the hearts of the hearers so comitâ—â—ed vnto posteritie without writing alledging to this 〈◊〉 that which Ieremie saith cap. 31. S. Paul 2. Cor. 3. The saâ—â— L. of Perron dissenteth also from his other Doctors of vvhom some haue vvritten euen in the Councill of Trent touching some points which he maintained might be prooued by the scriâ—â—tures though they deny it namely transubstantiatioÌ„ the merâ—â—â— of workes the Popes supreamacie Purgatorie c. And being certaine that these articles haue no more ground in Scripture than the rest we may well say of them which beleeue theÌ„ that which TertulliaÌ„ said of some in his time they beleeue without the scriptures that they might beleeue against the scripture Nowe the conference hauing dured certaine daies and finding more illusion on his part than instruction I prayed him to continue it by writing that the obiections of the one and the solutions of the other appearing on paper euerie man might at leasure consider the knot of the one and the keene cutting of the other shewing him that more fruite would come forth of a permanent writing than from dazelling and vanishing words that the one remayned subiect to the touch and ballance and that in the other a subborned flatterer gaue and the ignorant hearer tooke oftentimes false Alarmes But I could neuer obtayne it at his handes who well considered that if hee should
scripture which is called the gate saith he because it leades vs to god it maketh sheep it hunteth away wolues suffereth vs not to go astray Also they of our side hold not the abouesaid points for articles of faith no otherwise but because they do find them in that gate which alone hath serued thē for a buckler sword against the Anabaptists which notwithstāding du Perron maketh dāgerous as if it wer som rock or quicksād against which shipwrack of faith wer to be feared In like maner in the verball conference he told me roundly that S. Cyprian fel into he resy by no other occasiō than for hauing folowd the scripture which made him go astray quite contrary to that which S. Chrysostom saith who calleth it also in another place Homil◠1◠Epist ad Corinth a most certain ballāce squire rule exhorting eury mā to leue what this mā or that mā thinketh to search al things in the scripture To which agreeth also S. Augustin when he saith Aug. Lib cap. 9 de Christ amōg the things which are Opēly declared in the scriptures ar foūd AL those that contein faith maners to wit hope charity By the testimonies of these fathers by infinit others which for breuity sake I omit it is euident that either they esteemed these points in question to be conteined in the Scripture yea openly or els that they thought them not necessary to faith charity But they did hold them necessary aswell as we Therfore they did beleeue thee thē to be cōprehended in the scripture aswell as we The B. of Eureux First touching the Baptism of litle children that it is true lawful they haue but three arguments that they can with any apparance alledge to this effect The first is taken frō litle children that were brought to Iesus Christ that he might pray and lay his hands on them 〈◊〉 19.13 But sith he did not baptise them and also that they were not brought to him to that end but onelye he layde his hands on them and then departed So farre are the Anabaptists from acknowledging that from thence may be concluded that children are to be baptized that on the contrary they infer therfrom that seeing he did baptize them they ought not to bee baptized D. Tillenus his answer He might be like reason conclude from the same place that seeing Iesus Christ did not accept the title of Good he must not be called Good The Scripture saith that Iesus commaunded 〈◊〉 19 17. little children should be brought vnto him affirming that to such belongeth the kingdome of heauen The same scripture saith 〈◊〉 3.3 that none entreth into this kingdome vnles he be regenerate or born againe It saith also that Baptisme is the washing of this regeneration And that those that are baptised 〈◊〉 3 5 〈◊〉 ◠27 do put on Christ Whence we conclude that seing they are not depriued of the thing signified they ought not be depriued of the signe The B. of Eureux Their second argument is of circumcision which was giuen to little children and was a figure of Baptisme To which is answered first that arguments drawen from figures do not alwaies conclude alike for the trueth of the things figured if there bee not a commaundement thereof reiterated The Paschall Lambe was a figure of the Eucharist as Circumcision of Baptisme Now in the celebration of the Paschall lamb there was no sacramentall drinke therefore there shoulde bee no neede of any in the Eucharist they woulde not admitte of this argument Circumcision was giuen on the eight day the same therefore must be obserued in Baptisme The reason holdeth not Circumcision was not giuen to weomen among the Iewes but onelye among the Egyptians and other prophane people imitators of Circumcision baptism therefore ought not to be conferred vnto them which is as reasonlesse as the former D. Tillenus his answer The Scripture teacheth vs how we must reason of Circumcision in Baptisme when saint Paule speaketh in the same tearms both of the one and the other Sacrament Colos 2◠appropriating the vey name of Circumcision to Baptisme the better to shew that bothe of them figured but one and the same thing and that Baptisme is to Christians the same that Circumcision was to the Iews The Paschall Lamb was properly a figure of Iesus christ so the Scripture meaneth it when it saith Our Passeouer 1 Cor. ◠that is our Paschall Lamb is Christ sacrificed for vs. In this scripture Jesus Christ commaundeth vs to vse a sacramentall drink in the Eucharist which the pretended Apostolick Tradition forbiddeth to shew what goodly agreement ther is betwixt the Word of God written and theirs not written As in like sort the Scripture teacheth vs that we are no more bound to the obseruation of days and that the Gospell giueth vs liberty in all these things The B. of Eureux may remember that in the verball conference he denied vnto me that it was commanded in Scripture not to minister Circumcision but on the eight day which here he confesseth He alledged in fauour of the Iewish Traditions that Iesus Christ himselfe did approoue them finding good that the Iewes should administer Circumcision on the Sabbath day which by the scripture they might not do which commandeth that no work should be doon in the same so that it must needs be that this exception or dispensation was giuen them by Tradition To which I answered seeing the commandement was expresse in scripture to circumcise euery male child the eight day which might as well fall on the Sabbath day as on any other they were therefore grounded on the scripture Considering also that God in the commaundement forbade onely our works not his amongst which is the administration of the Sacraments He replied vnto me that these words octauo die the eight day did not precisely signifie the eight day but within the eight day and would neuer let go this glose though I alledged vnto him the expresse text wher the reason why circumcision was deferred till the eight day 2 is added for that the mother is vnclean the first 7. dayes after hir childbirth The consequence that he draweth that women should not be baptized if the correspondency of circumcision and Baptism were such as we wold haue it is a meer cauill For seeing that Circumcision did shew forth the sanctification of the Jsraelits seed the females that were borne of this seed were as well sanctified as the males who alone were capable of the external sign of this Sacramēt al the analogy of faith the necessary consequence of Scripture teacheth vs that we must admit women to the communion of the Eucharist so doth it teach vs also that they must be baptized seing they are as capable of this Sacrament as the males The B. of Eureux Secondly cirtumcision had two vses the one temporal which did properly cleaue to the bark of the
De moribâ— Eccl. Cathâ— c. 24. Hee confesseth that there are many Superstitious persons in the true Religion worshippers of Sepulchers and pictures But in another place he vnfoldeth his opinion vpon this matter saying that if wee pray well as we ought to doe we should say nothing else Ep. 121. â— Prob. but what is set downe in the Lords prayer And that whosoeuer saith that which cannot be referred to this EuaÌ„gelicall praier though his praier be not vnlawfull yet is it carnall which cannot choose but bee vnlawfull seeing that they who are regenerate by the Spirit ought onely to pray Spiritually To the place that the Bishop of Eureux produceth out of Theodoret what can be more fitly opposed Theodor. Ep ad col than that which the same Theodoret writeth on the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Colossians where hee calleth worshipping of Angels heresie But if Angels which are ordeined of God for our guard which are the noblest creatures of all which alwayes stand before the Throne of God cannot be adored without heresie after the doctrine of Theodoret and the determination of the Councell of Laodicia shall we say he thought that the bones of dead men should bee worshipped what distinction so euer they make which the people vnderstand as little as the dead bones doe And if Baronius durst heere condemne Theodoret 〈◊〉 Eccl. â— ad an â—4 for that hee condemned as Heresie this superstitious worshipping of Angelles How much more shall it bee lawfull to condemne of Idolatrie and impietie them that so seeke and prease after this abhominable worshipping of bones and dead bodies For Saint Augustine in the place aboue alledged will not haue men serue nor adore the heauenly bodies for this onely reason that though they bee rightly preferred before all other bodies yet life is much better These heauenly bodies are not without miracles which God hath wrought in them and they doe bring more profit to men and do better declare the glorie of God than doth the dust and ashes of the dead what miracles soeuer be done there 〈◊〉 9.1 of which the true had none other end but to yeeld testimonie to the truth which the Martyrs had confessed for to conuert the Heathen therevnto and not turne away Christians from him that is the liuing God for to make them worship dead men for to withdraw the people from the visible Elements to the knowledge of saluation manifested in the Scriptures and not for to draw them to idolatries more then Hethenish which the Spirit of lies hath the cunning so well to nourish and set forward by an infinite number of false miracles and such as those were wherewith in times past he so well maintained the Heathen vnder his obedience Dialog Gazaei â— 5. Paâ—â—om 1 Here I summon him againe to tell vs on what Apostolike Tradition were and are grounded the Pirgrimages adorations and all those Ceremonies instituted a long time after the death of the Apostles What certaintie there is concerning the reliques which the people worship By what Registers shewed the succession of them that haue continued the keeping of them from father to sonne How by the warres and other publike calamities which haue lost abolished so many things there hath not beene lost so much as a comb of the virgin Marie a clout of the childhood of our Sauiour Christ ten thousand other such peeces No not vnder that horrible spoile and hauocke in the time of Dioclesian when al the Oratories and holy places of christians were burned and ruinate which serueth Baronius for an excuse and for an ordinary refuge when he would fain proue a thing by antiquity and can not And to come again to the historie in question there is found the verie dagger wherwith St. Michael fought with the Diuell from which Tradition the people learneth that it is not by faith nor by spirituall weapons Ephes 6. â— wherewith the Scripture armeth vs that wee must combat the Diuell but that one must haue a good sword and dagger for to resist him according to the Tradition of the Cibille who commanded Aeneas going into hell Virg. 6. Eâ— to hold his sword in his hand Tuque inuade viam vaginaque eripe ferrum That it is not in the worde and in the Sacraments that wee must seeke Christ with his spirituall graces but in some peece of wood which is said to be a peece of his crosse in some naile napkin towell or other relique Though Saint Paul say that he knoweth not Iesus according to the flesh 2. Cor. 5â— so farre is he off from making reckoning of these pretended Reliques The Scripture teacheth vs that God ordayned Death as a curse as the wages of sinne that deade bodyes bones and graues were polluted and did pollute euen the liuing by their touchings because they were as so many myrrors of this curse and of the corruption of humane nature in which the Image of God is so fowly disfigured Moreouer this same legall pollution taught the Israelites by figure that which the Apostles vnder the Gospell taught cleerely namely that wee should carefully keepe our selues from dead workes which are also called workes of the flesh and to maintaine our selues pure and holy the pretended tradition on the contrarie teacheth that there is no other puritie nor holines but in stirring kissing gilding adoring of dead bodies and wheras the lawe particularly forbad Priests to touch dead bodies 〈◊〉 22. there is no sort of people now adayes that so busie themselues in funerals and in handling of bones and reliques then the Priestes who feed vpon dead bodies like Rauens Vultures and in the meane while brag they were figured by the Leuitical Priests whom they care for as litle as for Iesus Christ when he saith Let the dead bury the dead vnlesse it bee that they obey him in this that being more dead than liuing they will haue no other affaires but with the dead hauing no hope of the true life and this is the reason why in their altars whereupon they sacrifice and crucifie as much as in them is Iesus Christ who is that life they must haue the bones and ashes of the dead to the end that as well they as their altars with which they liue might liuely represent vnto vs the possessed with vncleane spirites 〈◊〉 8. â—5 of whom the Gospel speaketh with the graues in which they dwelt Now we learne well ynough by the Scripture without the helpe of any tradition that the legall pollution that came by touching dead bodies is abolished by the Incarnation of our Sauiour Christ but that they should bee worshipped and adored with so much superstition and Idolatrie after this incarnation there is in it neither precept of it nor example though wee read in it the death and buriall of Saint Iohn Baptist of Saint Steuen and others on the contrary this distinction of reliques before and after the Incarnation is
Moyses from Moyses to Dauid from Dauid to the captiuity of Babylon and from the captiuity of Babylon to Iesus Christ who was the light it selfe For this cause the time of the Iewish Church is called the time of Infancy ours on the contrary the fulnes of time If then the Scripture of the old Testament were a sufficient light to the Iewes though it was not so cleare as ours how much more ought we to content our selues with that light which we haue by the addition of the new Testament The B. of Eureux For as touching the booke of Iob to omitte that the most part of the Iewes and Mercerus with them and the principall Caluinists doe denie that the place that is there is to bee vnderstood of the Resurrection there is no assured testimonie that the booke of Iob was extant then when the Law of Moyses was giuen contrarywise most men thinke it was written since the Transmigration of Babylon which Ezechiell seemeth to confirme saying Noah Daniell Iob. As for Daniell and the other Prophets it is well enough knowne that they were more then seauen or eight hundred yeares since D. Tillenus his answer As for the booke of Iob in which the resurrection of the body and by consequent the immortality of the soule are found in expresse tearmes whatsoeuer Du Perron saith who wrongfully attributeth vnto vs the false exposition of some Anabaptists We learne indeed of the Iewes that Moyses hauing found this booke in the countrye of Madian where his father Law was brought into Egypt to propound it vnto the Iewes as an example of patience in their seruitude But when we say that this history hapned before Moyses wrote the Law wee are grounded on good consequence drawne from the scripture which teacheth vs that after the publishing of the law it was not lawfull to offer sacrifice else where than before the Arke or Tabernacle without speciall commaundement So that if Iob had liued after the law of Moyses neither woulde he haue transgressed the Law in offering sacrifice nor God haue approoued his sacrifice The age also that the scripture giueth to Iob maketh vs beleeue that he was before Moyses â— 10. who witnesseth that those of his time liued not so long Du Perrons coniecture who will haue him to haue liued before the captiuity of Babylon is friuolous he groundeth it on this that Ezechiell nameth together Daniell and Iob â— 14. whence it would follow also that Noah should haue liued in those times for the Prophet nameth him with the other The B. of Eureux And as for our sauiour Christes argument against the Saduces it prooueth indeede the immortality of the soule and not the other points But that argument till his time was vnknowne to the Iewes who for this cause did admire the infinitenesse of his wisedome And therefore it must needs follow that they had receiued the beleefe of it for to holde it for an article of faith by another meanes than by the reading of the bookes of Moyses to wit by Tradition from Abraham Isaack Iacob and other Fathers D. Tillenus his answer He sheweth heere that hee hath as little insight into the bookes of the Euangelists as in those of Moyses he saith that this argument prooueth indeed the immortality of the soule but not the other points that is to say the Resurrection of the body And notwithstanding Saint Matthew saith in expresse tearmes that our Lord cited that place of Moyses Math. 22 Exod. 3. â— for to prooue the Resurrection of the dead and that by this onely argument he stopped his enemies mouthes who chose rather to be silent than to continue to blaspheme Jf vntill then it had beene vnknowne to the Iewes as Du Perron saith Yet that sheweth not any vnsufficiency in the scripture rather indeede the ignoraunce of the Church till those times and the negligence of those that would not vouchsafe to trie and sound the depth of the scriptures Ioh. 5 3â— as our Lord Iesus Christ did therein exhort them I know not why he findeth so great obscuritie in this argument of our Sauior For so great a Philosopher as he shold haue better perceiued therein the light of that Philosophicall maxime which saith When the whole is propounded the parts of the same are also propounded Put then that God is the god of Abraham of Isaack and of Iacob as saith Moyses Exod. 3 â— Jt followeth therefore that hee is their god both in soule and Body which are the principall parts of euery man But seeing the Saduces could not find or would not searche the Resurrection of the dead in the bookes of Moyses wherefore then did they beleeue it as little by Tradition VVhy did not our Lord and Sauiour send them thereunto VVherefore did he draw so obscure an argument as Du Perron will haue it from the Scripture if there had bene any manifest reasons in Tradition â— 22.9.29 6.29 to â—d VVherefore doth he attribute the cause of their errour to their ignoraunce of the Scripture And truely Abraham referred the brethren of the wicked rich man to keepe them out of hell not onely to the Prophets but euen to Moyses also 15.1 â—s 12.3 where they might see how God had sayde to Abraham that he would be his buckler and his exceeding great reward that in his seede should all Nations be blessed Which doctrine conteyneth the foundation of the substance of the doctrine of saluation Now put case that the aboue named points could not be found so manifest in the bookes of Moyses yet could not that conclude any thing against the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures which we haue in the Christian church For as god reuealed his will to the first Patriarches by word of mouth for to instruct them in his knowledge before there was any Scripture so did he continue the same manner of reuelation in Moyses time speaking to him as familiarly as a man speaketh to his friend instructing him of all maters yet neuer giuing him this liberty to ordayne any thing concerning religion of his owne authority Also Moyses very religiously conteyned himselfe within the limits of obedience not onely in the least Ceremonies but also in the publicke administration or gouernement wherein notwithstanding it seems he might haue vsurped a little more power but we see he wold determine nothing against him that had brokeÌ„ the Sabbath but caused him to be put in prison till God had declared vnto him 15.34 with what manner of punishment the Transgressor should be punished Contrariwise the Romish Church presumeth to ordayne an infinite number of things as well in Religion as in Policy which they are not onely vnable to prooue by any Scripture but which also euen theyr pretended Apostolike Traditions cannot shew in defence whereof theyr mayntainers set foorth the aucthority of the Church which they say cannot erre Now although the Church of the Iewes had Oracles visions diuine dreams Vrim and Thummim
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
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
particularly The sprinkling of the booke may be compreheÌ„ded vnder the sprinkling of the altar siâ—h both the one and the other represented God in this ratification of the Couenant for the booke conteined the Lawe and the conditions that God required in this Contract wherefore as S. Paule omitteth the sprinkling of the altar so Moses omitteth the expresse mention of the booke both of them vsing a Synecdoche The inconuenience that the B. of Eureux alledgeth is that if the booke had beene sprinkled with the Altar Moses had blotted out the writing of the Couenant before hee had read it to the people A great matter sure that one cannot sprinkle a thing without blotting and spoyling it as though he who in consecrating Aaron sprinkled those parts of him that God had commaunded him to sprinkle without plunging or drowning him in bloud though in other places he sprinkled a great quantitie could not as well sprinkle the booke without marring it shedding the great quantitie of bloud vpon the altar There is as much cunning in this consideration as there is reason in his reproofe of our translation of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which S. Paule vseth verse 19. to speake which Du Perron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordaineth by the tradition of his new Lexicon that heÌ„ceforth it signifie to read He perswadeth himself that the opinion of Caluin who saith that in Saint Pauls time there was perhaps some CoÌ„mentaries of the Prophets which recounted more amply that which Moses had touched onely by forme of abridgement maketh greatly for his purpose as if it did follow that those commentaries conteined infallibly the traditions at this day in controuersie Or because they be lost that hee doth the Scripture no wrong to defame it as imperfect unsufficieÌ„t Let him learne of S. Augustine that it is no wise necessarie that all the writings of the Prophets should bee indifferently Canonicall â—â—g de Ciu. â—â—i li. 18 38 saith hee I esteeme that they to vvhom the Holy Ghost reuealed that vvhich should bee authenticall for Religion might write certaine things as men with an Historicall diligence and other things as Prophets by diuine inspiration and that these same vvere so distinguished that the one vvere attributed as to them but the others as to God speaking by them So that the former perteined to a more ample knovvledge the latter to the authoritie of Religion in vvhich authoritie the Canon is maintained and kept Besides which if there bee yet any writings bearing the name of true Prophets they serue not for to haue a more abundance of knowledge by them because it is not certaine that they be theirs to whom they be attributed and therefore wee beleeue them not especially those in which we finde things contrarie to the Canonicall faith And thus is Caluin cleered It is most certaine that the Prophets and Apostles ceased not to be men after that God had chosen them to be Prophets and Apostles and the gift of prophesying and reuealing the mysteries of God to men whether it were by word of mouth or by writing Vide Thomâ— Aqui. par 2 q. 171. ar 1. was not in them as the habitude of a science gotten by studie neither as the light is in an heauenly bodie but rather as that which is in the ayre from which it may bee easily seperated so that as they could not heale al diseases at al times and so often as they listed so could they not prophesie wheÌ„ they would 2. Kin. 4.27 neither knew they any thing but what it pleased the Lord to reueale vnto them witnes Heliseus who knew not the subiect of the sadnes and bitternes that the Sunamite had in her heart because the Lord had hid it from him And Samuel thought that Eliab had been him that the Lord had chosen to be King in Saules stead Nathan also said to Dauid when he purposed to build the Temple 1. Sam. 16 7. 2. Sam. 7. c. 1. Chro. 17 c. do all that is in thine heart for the Lord is with thee wherein both of theÌ„ were abused by the instinct of his owne minde therefore Saint Gregorie cited by Thomas Aquinas saith that it hapned sometimes that the Prophets being asked counsaile of by reason of their great vse or custome of prophesiing vttered things of their owne minde hauing opinion that they were of the holy Ghost It is not therefore sufficient that a thing be pronounced or written by a Prophet or an Apostle for to haue a Canonicall authority attributed vnto it but it behooueth also that there come betweene the motion and inspiration of god assuring those holy men not only of the truth of the matter which they treate for all that conteineth trueth hath not Canonicall authoritie but also of the end and vse thereof namely that it was for to be authenticall for to serue for an infallible rule to the faith and life of the faithfull To goe about to coÌ„clude a Canonicall authority of some book by the allâ—gation of some place that an Apostle citeth from it is a thing that deserueth rather to be laughed at than to be answered for by that meanes it would follow as hath bin abouesaid that Menander Aratus and Epimenides or Callimachus Heathen Poets should haue the like authoritie as the diuine Prophets because S. Paule alleadgeth and approueth some of their verses .. And therefore though wee shall say with Caluin that the particulars and circumstances expressed in this 9. chapter might be taken forth of the commentarie of some Prophet which we haue not Yet it would not follow either that it was part of the Canon or though it were which we say only by concession or graunt that the Canon which we haue is imperfect God of his goodnesse hauing preserued so much of it as he knew to be necessarie for his Church that is to say the parts essentiall though there wanted some of the parts called integrall And though we should not follow the opinion of Caluin yet would it not followe that the Apostles had the knowledge of these particulars by the tradition or Cabale of the Iewes seing they might haue taken them from some other bookes not written by any Prophet neuerthelesse receiued among the Iewes though not with Propheticall authority as some Historiographers are amongst vs. And therfore the cardinall Caietan who should euery way better know what is deriued from tradition than the B. of Eureux who is inferiour vnto him in dignitie in knowledge and in place of resideÌ„ce the cardinal hauing bin ordinarily neer the oracle of Rome drunk of the fouÌ„taine of tradition saith in his CoÌ„mentary vpon this chapter namely of the particular of the golden Censoure which after the opinion of many was in the most holy place from which our Bishop maketh his strongest instance It is not knovvne vvhence the Author of this Epistle hath taken this namely that the golden Censer was in the
of the new nor yet of these two Epistles which he had written to him of purpose for to instruct him how he should walke in the house of God which is the Church of the liuing God 1. Tâ—m 3 the pillar and foundation of truth Whereas I said that the Romish Church causeth an infinite number of thinges to be obserued as the lawes of God which we know by their owne histories to haue been instituted many ages after the Apostles he answereth two things 1 That the practise of certaine poynts is found haue beene in the Church a long time before them which we imagine to be the inuentors of it wherof he coteth afterwards seuen examples namely Prayer for the dead Lent Single life Confirmation the Mixture of water and wine Consecrations of Altars and the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Masse 2 That they confound not vnder the name of Apostolike Traditions all the Customes obserued in the Church but that they distinguish betweene the vniuersall and the particular And that euen among the vniuersall some onely are Apostolike to wit such as haue alwayes since the Apostles times beene vsed in the Church but the other that haue beene ordained in latter ages are Ecclesiasticall But the question is not howe they of the Romish Church distinstuish their Traditions But by what authoritie and power they cause men obserue as the lawes of God and as necessarie to saluation things that were not instituted by Christ nor his Apostles For those which they call Ecclesiasticall and which by their owne confession came not in vse nor yet into knowledge till many ages after the death of the Apostles are not lesse but much more rigorously commanded then those which they call Apostolicall It shall suffice to verifie and manifest this by one example It is generally knowne that the most solemne and most religious deuotion at this day in the Romish Church is that which they call Gods feast or Corpus Christi day to the obseruation wherof Pope Vrban the 4. attributeth remission of sins â—â—lla â—uck which is the knowledge of saluation according to the Gospel And the number of pardons granted onely to the beholders of the same is almost infinite And whether wee consider the seueritie of Prelates in commanding it and the magnificence in celebrating it or the deuotion of the people in preparing themselues thereunto and the efficacie they imagine of it We shall find that it is a thing that they pretend to be much more necessarie and more diuine than to say Requiescant in pace than to abstain from flesh and egges in Lent or any other points of the pretended Apostolike Tradition In the meane while our Bishop himselfe though he denie all cannot denie that this deuotion was instituted neer 12. huÌ„dred years after the death of the Apostles if he denie it Bellarmine wil reproue him â—acr Euch. 〈◊〉 30. who confesseth that Pope Vrban 4. is the first authour of it And no writer of the Romish Church denieth it though they agree not all touching the motiue of this institution For some wil haue that the cause of it was a certaine miracle happened in Italie of a Wafer cake that bled as a certaine Priest doubting of Transubstantiation helde it in his handes Others attribute it to a woman of the country of Liege whom the said Pope had familiarly knowne before his Popedome and who hauing giueÌ„ the Pope to vnderstande a Vision or Reuelation that she had touching the institutioÌ„ of this Feast he streight ordayned it and celebrated it first at Rome And afterwards Clement the fift made a most rigorous law concerning it confirmed euen by the Councill of Vienna Hereupon I demaund our Bishop to what vse is his distinction that he maketh betweene Apostolike and Ecclesiasticke Traditions seeing that these latter are commaunded for as much or more necessarie meritorious and diuine as the former Againe I demaund to what purpose hee taketh so much paines for to shewe that certaine things are verie auncient seeing there bee newer and latter things which haue more authoritie necessitie and efficacie than the olde And seeing it is sufficient that some Pope hath ordained a thing without enquiring of the antiquitie or noueltie of the same For the Pope now a daies attributeth as much yea much more power and authoritie to himselfe than they did that were seauen or eight hundred yeares agoe and requireth no lesse but much more obedience in that which at this day he commaundeth than in that which his predecessours commaunded a thousand yeares ago For as before the God of heauen a thousand yeares are as one day so before this God on earth one day is as a thousand years when there is question to make himself be obeyed Yea the time hath been when Popes thought they could not well establish their owne lawes vnlesse they did abolish the lawes of their predecessors that is vnlesse they displanted Antiquitie to plant in noueltie Moreouer if euerie thing that concerneth saluation as those doe that bring remission of sinnes ought to bee grounded on the worde of God either written or vnwritten as he graunteth and presupposeth throughout his Booke By what conscience could the Popes institute this newe meanes of saluation with manie other in which number are our Bishops graines If the worde of God be onelie found either in the Canonicall Scripture or in the pretended Apostolike Tradition conteyned in the writings of the ancient fathers doth it not follow that that which is found in neither of both these two Registers is by his owne confession the worde and inuention of man And therefore a vaine thing and displeasing to God by Iesus Christ his owne sentence Math. 15. But let vs heare Bellarmine on this poynt De Verb. â— l. 4. c. 9. Nothing is of the faith but onely that which God hath reuealed by the Apostles or by the Prophets or that which is euidently deduced from it For the Church is no more gouerned by newe Reuelations but persisteth in them which those men that haue beene Ministers of the word haue giuen by Tradition For therefore it is said Ephe. 2. Builded vpon the foâ—ndation of the Prophets and Apostles Wherefore all the thinges which the Church holdeth to be matters of faith haue been giuen by the Apostles and Prophets eyther by writing or by word of mouth After he addeth When the whole Church obserueth something that none could institute but onely God and which notwithstaÌ„ding is fouÌ„d no where writteÌ„ We must say it was giuen by the TraditioÌ„ of Iesus Christ himself and of his Apostles The reason is for that the vniuersall Church cannot erre not onely in that which it beleeueth but as little in that which it dooth and principally in CEREMONIE or Diuine worship Let vs conclude then by the confession of this great Rabbi who acknowledged that this ceremonie of Corpus Christi day was instituted well neere 1200. yeres after the Apostles by Pope Vrbane 4.