the finishing of his works whereas we doe not celebrate Sunday for this purpose but for to honour the memoriall of our lords Resurrection which was the day of accomplishment of rest from his labors he tooke in this worlde for the restoring and reforming of mankinde As touching the forme we obserue not Sundayes the seauenth day of the weeke but as the first so that though it bee still an obseruation of one day of the seauen yet neuerthelesse it is no more an obseruation of the seuenth but of the first of the seauen contrary to that which was obserued in the ould law And therfore the Fathers of the Primitiue Church reckoned as well as we doe now Wednesday and Friday for the fourth sixt feriae or daies of Cessation beginning at Sonday for the beginning of their supputatioÌ„ So that instituting Sunday it is not a changing of Saturday into Sunday but the bringing in of a new solemne feast which hath no conformity with feast of the Sabbaoth Also we see that in the primitiue Church wherein they would yet bury the Synagogue with some honour for to shew that they would not substitute Sonday in saturdays roome but institute sunday a new as the particuler feast of Christians they obserued them both at once saturday in commemoration of the precepte of Moses sunday for to celebrate the particular feast of Christs resurrectioÌ„ As for the matter it is certain that whosoeuer wil obserue the day coÌ„maÌ„ded by Moses to the children of Israel must take not a day at pleasure by septenary reuolutioÌ„ deriued indiffereÌ„tly froÌ„ some beginning that we think good of but that which shold be fownd the seauenth by reuolutioÌ„ and beginning at the originall of the supputation that God himself had established as the Jewes did For God marked and poynted them out a day at which be would haue them begin to reckon and account their septenary reuolution which was that same as is most probable which represented by the order of the reuolution thereof the day of Gods rest after the Creation of the world for a commemoration where of it was ordayned And for this cause he that propounded vnto them for to beginne the solemnization of the sabbath sent them twice so much Manna as the dayes before commaunded them to gather of it double as much that so the next day which should be the sabbath they might be free and vacant from all corporall labour And notwithstanding this absolute suppression of the sabbath in which the end the forme and the matter of the commaundement are abolished and this new bringing in of sunday is not grounded vpon any written ordinance neither of Christ nor his Apostles Contrariwise it seeemeth that our Lord exhorting them to pray that there flight might not be on the sabbath day when the desolation foretold of by Daniell should come to passe It is thought his intent was that the sabbath should still be obserued of Christians after the suppression of the other legall ceremonyes For as for that which is written in the Apocalyps that S. Iohn was rauished in spirit on the Lords day To omitte that this worde maye bee taken for the manner of speaking of Saint Paule The day of the lord shall reueale That is the iudgement of the Lord. And againe I passe very little to bee iudged of mans daye that is of mans iudgement If men woulde not play the sophisters too much on this worde Day What other lighte the lighte of the perpetuall tradition of the Church excepted can teach vs that sunday and not saturday is this Lords day seeing saturday was stil in the law and among the Iews acknowledged for the Lords day As also from the other place that Saint Paule commaundeth that the first day of the weeke euery man should laye apart what he would giue for the Collects there cannot any thing begathered For if the text had sayd Euery one carryeth to the Church that day what he would giue there were some apparance to conclude that the first day in the weeke was apppoynted for the meetings of the Church from the Apostles tymesâ— But saying onely that on the first day of the weeke euery man laide apart what he would giue a week that when he came he might finde it ready there can of necessity no other sence be gathered but that saint Paule in the beginning of the weeke would haue euery one lay apart by it selfe of that which was for his expence the weeke following what he was willing to reserue for the poore least he spend it with the rest D Tillenus his answere There remayneth to shew that the translation of the Sabbath day to sunday hath not been done without the written ordinance of God du Perron doth very much exaggerate the rigour of the commaundement touching the obseruation of the Sabbath going about to perswade that it was meerely and simply morall whereof hee concludeth that the Church which hath abolished it hath power to change and establish the expresse law of god which the scripture witnesseth shal abide for euer Now not to exasperate this blasphemy I will briefly shew that this commaundement was partly Morall and partly ceremoniall that the ceremonial part concerneth not ChristiaÌ„s wee learn froÌ„ the Scriptures that ceremonyes are abolished by the coÌ„ming of Christ that there is expres ordinaÌ„ce in scripture tuching the particuler abolishmeÌ„t of this ceremony which coÌ„preheÌ„deth not the morall part of that commandement For the first If the obseruation of the Sabboth were altogether morall God would neuer haue detested it For he taketh pleasure in all that is morall Isay 1.11 14. Now the Scripture teacheth vs that hee sometimes doth detest it and that he reckoneth it with the sacrifices and other feasts which none will deny to be ceremoniall Jt followeth therefore that this obseruation was not wholly morall And Iesus Christ who hath perfectly fulfilled the Law Math. 12. excused and defeÌ„ded his disciples againste the Iewes when they had transgressed the ceremony of the Sabbath And in another place he sayth Mark 2.2 That the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the sabbath Osc 6.6 Also when hee alledgeth the scripture to this purpose which saith I will haue mercy and not sacrifice hee plainely placeth the sabbath among the ceremonies After Iesus Christ the Apostles haue left this ordinance written in so expresse words that I am abashed at the boldnes of du Perron to deny a thing so manyfest Saint Paule sayth Let no maÌ„ condeÌ„n you in meat drink or in respect of an holyday or of the new moon or of the sabbath Adding which ar but shadows of things to come but the body is Christ Will he coÌ„tend whether shadows be ceremonies Wil he maintain that the forbiddings of meats of the hollidayes new Moons of the Jews were morall commandements If he wil not beleeue the Apostles let him then hearken to the Fathers â—ul aduers 〈◊〉 adâ— of whom
hath not wholly abolished them But this argument taken from Gods couenant with the fathers hath beene alreadie aboue discoursed of at large From the 14. chapter first verse is framed this demonstration children haue part in their fathers inheritance Moses calleth the Israelites the children of the Lord therfore they haue part in his inheritance Now this father is heauenly and eternall his true inheritance therefore is not onely earthly and temporall For if it were none other than the land of Canaan the Lords children should haue no aduantage aboue others yea they should be worse prouided for than the most detestable Idolaters and sworne enemies of the Lord who haue possessed so great and mightie Empires Againe they that haue God who is the author of life and life it selfe for their father cannot be destroyed nor alwaies detayned by death but Moses in this place teacheth the Israelites that they haue God for their father Therfore he teacheth them withal that they cannot be destroied nor their dead alwaies deteined by death Herupon it is that he groundeth the forbidding touching the vnmeasurable sorrow that the Heathen vsed for their dead not hauing the same hope â—â—rs 2 because they had not the same doctrine From the 30. chapter 15. and 16 verses where Moses setteth before the Israelites life and death blessing and cursing I reason thus if the life and blessing whereof Moses speaketh bee but temporall and not eternall God himselfe is not Eternall The consequent is horrible blasphemie Therefore the antecedent is necessarily false The consequence is prooued by the twentieth verse following of the same Chapter in which God is called the life and length of daies of that people whence I conclude he that hath the Lord for life and for length of his daies shall liue for euer but the faithfull saith Moses haue the Lord for their life therefore they shall liue for euer And by consequent the instance of the Bishop of Eureux is foolish and blasphemous when hee saith That since God blesseth the fishes of the sea Gennes 1. one might conclude that fishes are capable of life eternall Moses saith not that God is the life length of daies of fishes nor that fishes are children of the Lord to possesse him as their inheritance as he saith of the Israelites in tearmes as cleare and manifest as Saint Paule saith it of the faithfull â—ol 3.4 when hee calleth Christ our life See how the equiuocate or double signification of the word blesse may be distinguished by the onely Text of Moses without the helpe of Tradition But it was not for nothing that the Bishop of Eureux maketh heere fishes capable at least by Moses text of life eternall it is without doubt ouerthwartly to insinuate because they make more capable of it such as make of them their principall food as doe the Charterhouse Monks and some others For he hath learned from the Iewish Tradition that God hauing created two whales and fearing least if they engendred others the sea would be no more nauigable Lyr. in Psâ— Relation 7. c. ad finâ—â— he killed the female and salted the flesh of it which he keepeth to giue the righteous to eate in the world to come Also for to teach vs or to put vs in minde why the Romish Tradition suffereth the vse of fish in Lent forbidding the vse of flesh Namely because God hath blessed the fishes of the sea but he hath cursed the earth in the workes of man as saith Durand that great rehearser of Tradition adding that those creatures that haue partly the forme of a beast and partly the forme of a fish as the Oâ—ter one may eate the fish part that is to say of a creature halfe blessed halfe cursed Such mysteries indeed would neuer be drawne from the onely litterall text of Moses if Tradition did not leÌ„d helpe thereunto But the consequence that it draweth from the curse of the earth for to forbid flesh meates is so glittering and sparkling bright that it dazelleth the eyes that are vsed but to the light of the Scripture For if it be not lawfull to eat flesh because the earth is cursed in the workes of man we must by necessarie and euident consequence conclude either that in like sorte bread should not be eaten or that in the time when this prohibition was made men plowed and sowed in the sea and corne grew there that they might eate of it as partaker of the blessing giuen to fishes which is a Tradition that hath neede of another subsidiarie Tradition to helpe to vnderstand it From the .31 chapter 16. verse where God saith to Moses that he shall sleepe with his fathers is gathered the same argument that aboue is produced out of diuerse places of Genesis yea there may two be gathered whereof this word Sleepe doth furnish vs the first for to sleepe presupposeth some Being And that which is abolished is not capable of sleepe One cannot say that he which is not yet borne sleepeth No more can one say therefore with Plynie and the Sadduces that after man is deade it is the same thing as before he was borne or conceiued The other argument is taken from this whole speach to sleepe with his Fathers Those Fathers therefore must haue some Beeing or else let the Bishoppe of Eureux teach vs what difference there is betweene sleeping all alone and sleeping with some that haue no being at all From the 32. Chapter 9. verse I conclude thus The possession of the Lord is vncorruptible Israell saith Moses is the Lords possession therefore it is vncorruptible From the same Chapter 10 verse He that is kept of God as the apple of his eye cannot be wholly destroyed Israell was so kept Therefore c. The Bishops cauillation vpon this argument is aboue refuted From the same Chapter 22. verse Hee which threatneth to destroy consume the earth by fire euen to the foundation of the mountains denounceth a general vniuersall iudgement but so God threatneth in this verse therefore he denounceth an vniuersall iudgement For that which is said to the Israelites is applied by a iust and euident analogy to all transgressors The bishop of Eureux replieth that these be metaphoricall comparisons wherby God compareth his anger vnto fire I grant it for there are certaine matters that cannot be declared to mans vnderstanding but by metaphoricall and allegoricall locutions And therefore euen in the new TestameÌ„t â—el 13 the torments of hell are represented vnto vs by a lake burning with fire and brimstone And so far are these figures froÌ„ engendring obscuritie that on the contrary they giue light to our minds vnderstanding to our harts more than if they were proposed without figures And such is S. Augustines iudgement of them 〈◊〉 119 Moreouer if the Tradition be so cleare on this question of Hell fire whence coÌ„meth it that the Fathers and Schoolemen are so busied to determine whether it be materiall
in the beginning so that there was nothing made nor created before For if any creature had beene before this point then it is that that should haue beene made in the beginning by this meanes the creation of Angels is drawne out of Moses by a necessarie and ineuitable consequence And thus doth Thomas Aquinas vnderstand it That which the same Father saith in the same booke P. 1. q. 6â— art 1. â—â— ninth Chapter vpon which the Bishoppe of Eureux groundeth his replie doth not contradict it Hee saith their creation and their order is not euidently described in the constitution or creation of the world Let our Gnosticke learne that a consequence may bee euident though the Text bee not euident And the euidence of this consequence vpon this point is shewed as well in the place aboue said 〈◊〉 ciuit Dei 〈◊〉 1. C 9 as in the place of the 9 Chapter which our Sophister malitiously geldeth suppressing these words Now they were not omitted to wit Angels I Iudge it by this for that it is written that God rested the seuenth day from all his woorkes that hee had made seeing the booke it selfe heginneth thus In the beginning God created Heauen and Earth so that it is manifest that before the Heauen and the Earth there was not any other thing created And a little after Seeing all thinges were disposed by the creation which are said to haue beene finished in six daies how could the Angells haue beene omitted as if they were not of the workes of God from which he rested the seuenth day These consequences seeme necessarie and euident to Saint Augustine though the literall text of Moses seemed vnto him not euident Hee repeateth the verie same also in another place And euer his ground is It is written saith hee tradition teacheth so The last Doctour of the Rome Church which is Saint Gregorie â—ob li 33 â—4 speaking of the creation of Angels chooseth rather to drawe it from the consequence of some place of Scripture than from the pretended Tradition True it is that the Bishoppe of Eureux would haue mocked at it in good earnest if it were other than a Pope that had drawne it from that text But it sufficeth vs to obserue heere by the way 〈◊〉 33. the effect of subsidiarie Tradition without the weapons whereof our Bishoppe holdeth that the Text of the Scripture is laid open and naked to the malitious interpretation of particular Spirits for these publick and vniuersall Spirits though couered from top to toe with the armour of Tradition behaue themselues sometimes farre worse than simple particular men who finde themselues better armed with foure or fiue little stones taken out of the Scripture than with all the sumptuous armour of Saule that cumbred Dauid so 1. Sam. 17. that he could not goe much lesse fight Now to these foure principall Doctours of the Church I could adde many others which in this point of the Creation of Angels deriue nothing from Tradition but content themselues with the consequences drawne from the Scripture But I will content my selfe with one place of Epiphanius Haeres 65. cont P. Samos because hee is commonly alledged as a great defender of Tradition If the Angels saith hee had not beene created with the Heauen and the Earth the word had not said to Iob VVhen the Starres were made all my Angels praised mee with their voice Then hee bringeth in one asking this question Thou hast shewed that Angels were before the Starres hast said that they were made with the Heauen the earth tell vs whence hast thou made the demonstration of it were they made altogether before Heauen and Earth For the Scripture declareth no where clearely the time of the Creation of Angels In gr contextu corruâ—te legitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thou hast shewed that they were before the Starres for if they had not beene how could they haue praised GOD for the creation of the Starres Thereupon he answereth VVee cannot say by our owne discourse the solution of euery question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But by CONSEQVENCE OF THE SCRIPTVRES For the word of God note that he maketh no distinction betwene the word of God the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but take the one for the other sheweth clearely that the Angels were not made after the Starres nor before the Heauen and the earth that which is said beeing a thing manifestly vnchangeable that before the Heauen and the earth there was nothing created For in the beginning God created Heauen and Earth so that there was the beginning of the Creation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there was nothing created afore then By this is manifest on which side is greatest surety and more certainty of the trueth in this point whether in following Tradition with Saint Ambrose Hierome and many Greekes who vnawares let themselues slide into the opinion of Aristotle in steade of the Apostolick Tradition Or in relying on the Scripture by the necessarie euident consequences drawne from it with Saint Augustine Epiphanius and some others Genebrarde notwithstanding the authoritie of the Scripture â—hro Aetat the exposition of these Doctours and the determination of the Church of Rome had rather follow the Greekes and others which hold that Angels are not of the number of the workes of the six daies yet he is not so desperate as Du Perron who denyeth that their creation can be shewed in Moses For hee affirmeth that Moses sheweth plaine enough that they were created of God when he calleth them Angels of the Lord when hee maketh them his ministers and seruants c. And it is by this onely consequence of Scripture Cyril ado â—ul that Saint Cyrill Alex. confuted the impudencie of Iulian the Apostata of whom our Bishoppe hath taken this instance And thus much be spoken concerning their Creation Now for their distinction The Bishop of Eureux saith that the Iewes knewe it by Tradition either absolute or subsidiarie as he calleth it Fol. 70 And Ignatius attributeth to himselfe the knowledge of the Orders of Angels Epist ad Tra. the differences of Archangels vertues Dominions Thrones Powers the Magnificences of principalities the excellencies of the Cherubins and Seraphins the sublimitie of the spirit the raigne of the Lord and the vncomparable Diuinitie of God the father almightie But S. Augustine confesseth here freely his ignoraÌ„ce Euch. ad Lau. c. 85. mocking at those that presume to knowe it without beeing able to proue it And in the Chapter following he sath that there is no need to affirme or deny the things with danger since they may be denied without crime Whence may bee concluded either that the Christian Church hath not beene so faithfull a keeper of the Tradition of the Apostles Fol 106. as Du Perron saith the Synagogue was of the tradition of the Patriarches Prophets which let not
gather together in paper what hee had scattered in the ayre his distinctions would appeare to bee more prestigious in the one than they seeme to bee specious in the other and that it would bee as harde a thing for him to vnwrappe himselfe from selfe-contradictions by the pen as it is easie for him to dazell and entangle the ignorant by his tongue Hee made account also perhaps that his cause being grounded on the Word vnwritten it could not well be defended by the word written Notwithstanding hauing intelligence since that hee had compiled a little writing on this subiect in fauour of some whom hee was desirous to subuert I haue taken paynes to get a Copie of it to which I haue made this aunswere which may serue in stâ—ade of a Resultate or repetition of our Verball Conference at vvhich vvere present fevve others than his greatest friendes vvho then made such acclamations and since haue sovved such reportes thereof as pleased them But heere not beeing required the applause of men nor any tickeling conceipt of vanitie I entreate the Readeer to ayme vvith mee in this vvriting at the glorie of God onely and the manifestation of his truth for the teaching vvhereof Saint Athanasius vvitnesseth that the Scripture is sufficient Let vs acknovvledge it then for Iudge Athanas 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 vs reuerence it as Mistres vvhilest our aduersaries take it for partie and pursue it as an enemie The answer of D. Daniell Tillenus to the Bishop of Eureux his treatice wherby he endeauoreth to proue the insufficiency and imperfection of the holy Scripture and the necessity authority of vnwritten traditions The bishop of Eureux THE vnwritten word of God The B. â— on which we call Apostolicke tradition is of the same force and authority as the written word is and without it the Scripture alone is not suffieient to confute all heresies The Iewes did beleeue when the body of the law of Moyses was giuen vnto them many things which either were not conteyned in the fiue bookes of Moyses or did not appeare vnto them to be therein conteined As the immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body the last iudgement Paradise Hell the Creation and distinction of the orders of Angells the being and creation of deuills and many other points which they could not know by humane science but it must needs be that they receiued them by reuelation from God and therefore that they had another way for to deriue and conserue the word of god besides that of the Scripture D. Tillenus his answer To him that would heare none but Fathers speake it may be answered in a word as one of the number saith Hillar iâ— Psalm 1â— Whatsoeuer is not conteined in the booke of the Law we ought not to know it He that speaketh so would not haue vs seeke that elsewhere which is not found in the Scripture We say that all that is necessary to saluation touching those and all other points is conteyned in the scripture either in expresse tearmes or in necessary consequence and true analogue Gen. 17â— Exod 6. â— Exod. 20â— In the writings of Moyses we find that God maketh a couenant with the Hebrews that he promiseth to be their God and the God of their seed to exercise mercy vpon them vnto thousand generations that is to say for euer to dwell in the middest of them 〈◊〉 10. 〈◊〉 29. to keepe them as the apple of his eie In them is Israell called happie for that it was saâ—ed by the lord God 7.9 Iacob being ready to depart out of this life comforted himselfe in the expectation of the saluation of the lorde to shew that he went to take possession of a bâ—tter countrey He and his Father called themselues straungers in the land of Canaan which notwithstanding was promised them for inheritance Therefore they beleeued the true country that is to say Paradise This consequent is not onely necessary but also manifest by the testimony of the Apostle who draweth it from this place of Scripture not from any vnwritten Tradition 〈◊〉 1.9.13 when he saith that they which so speake shew playnly that they seek a Country which is the thing that Du Perron can not find in the bookes of Moyses although we find in them that the wicked and vnfaithfull that defended lyes against the trueth 〈◊〉 â— 11 did wish it For what else meaneth that false prophet Balaam when he sayth O that my soule might dye the death of the righteous or that my end might bee like theirs This wish expresseth clearly enough the appreheÌ„sioÌ„ he had of the last iudgment 〈◊〉 â— 1 When Moyses calleth the Israelites the children of the Lord their God forbidding them to sorrow for the dead as infidells he speaketh no lesse manifestly of the resurrection 〈◊〉 4.13 than S. Paul when he exhorteth the Thessalonians not to lament for the dead as they do that haue no hope 〈◊〉 3.2 VVhen Moyses saith that God holdeth all his saints in his hands he saith the same thing that is sayd by other that haue written after him That the soules of the righteous are in the hands of the Lord and that they commit their soules vnto him 〈◊〉 â— 1 19. 2.32 24. â— Iud. â— 29 â—0 19 as vnto a faithfull creator So when he speaketh of the book of life of the taking vp of Henoch which Tertullian calleth Candidatum aeternitatis when he saith that those that feare God and keepe his commaundements shall be happy for euer when he setteth before the Iewes life and death blessing and cursing when he threatneth them with the fire of the Lords wrath Deut. â— which shall burne euen to the bottome of hell shall consume the earth with her encrease and set on fire the foundations of the mountaines VVhen I say he writeth all these things he sheweth clearly enough the immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body the last iudgement Paradise and Heâ—l which points are vnseparably linked together Jf these testimonies seeme not cleare enough to the Bishop of Eureux who confesseth neuerthelesse that in Daniell and the other Prophets that haue written since Moyses there is some found Let him consider that they which among the Corinthians denied the resurrection 1. Corâ—â— shifted off the one as well as the other VVhich sheweth that if those that doo erre in some point will not suffer themselues to be vanquished by the scripture that commeth not through any obscurity and imperfection of which they falsely accuse it but from their owne malice and blindnes Moreouer it is to be noted that it hath pleased God orderly to distribute the reuelation of his will of his promises and of his couenant by certayne degrees increasing alwaies the measure of this reuelation as the age of the world increased This oeconomy is clearely obserued in the Scripture if we mark therein the degrees from Adam to Abraham from Abraham to
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
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
or spirituall From the same chapter 39. verse one may produce a formall text to a Sadducie for the resurrection For God saith expresly that he killeth and restoreth to life Whence I conclude If God maketh the dead to liue againe they are then raised vp And to him that would alwaies haue expresse words may be alledged Chapter 33. verse 6. where it is said of Ruben let him liue and not dye whence one may conclude He that dyeth not is immortall or raised vp againe Ruben that is that whole tribe dyeth not therefore it is immortall or raised vp againe From the same chapter 29. verse where Israell is called blessed because he is saued by the Lord who is his buckler is framed this argument Whosoeuer is saued by the Lord cannot perish Israell is saued by the lord therefore he cannot perish Our Bishop replyeth to this place that God saueth as well beasts as it is written in 36. Psalme I answer that Moses declareth Israell blessed for that he is saued after a singular and not a common fashion Who is like vnto thee saith hee O people saued by the Lord Du Perron answereth these are beasts 1. Tim. 4 1â— One might shew him the diuerse significations of this word saue in the New Testament where God is called Sauiour that is to say preseruer of all men but especially of the faithfull But since he refuseth the authoritie of this booke in manner of a Sadducie hee shall better vnderstand it by a more familiar example When a murderer is escaped the hands of earthly Iustice men say he is saued but if a Sadducie will change this proposition from it owne proper natue to inferre that hee is therefore wholly saued it shall bee shewed him to the contrary in Moses in the chapter going before where the soueraigne Iudge saith Vengeance is mine I will repay it Also Deu. 32 3 39 vers There is none that can deliuer out of my hand Thereupon may be said to a Saducie that which experience constraineth him to confesse that God doth not alwaies execute vengeance in this life and therefore he must conclude that it is executed after this life else should this text of Moses be false And indeed this reason without any text of Scripture mooued the very heathen to beleeue a Iudgement to come â—om 12. Also the former of these two places seemed to Saint Paule so cleare and manifest that he chose not any other to proue the iudgement of God which this Bishop would faine not find at all neither in Moses nor else where I said in my writings that these fiue points are linked vnseparably together He maintaineth that of the foure last I durst not so much as open my mouth The reader shall iudge if there be not particular and distinct proofes for euery one of them And then he addeth that the question is not of the connexion that they haue in themselues but of that they haue in the minde knowledge of vulgar and ordinary men â—ohn 6.45 I answere that they haue the same connexion in the mindes of them that are taught of God as all the faithfull are as they haue in themselues For true knowledge is that which apprehendeth the true being also the true order of things Now God giueth true knowledge of saluation to them that be his therfore he giueth it vnto them conformably to the true being and order of things that is of the articles necessarie to saluation Yea he giueth it more ordinarily to vulgar and ordinarie men Mat 11 25. than to these high and extraordinarie Gnostickes as the Scripture witnesseth where Iesus Christ giueth thankes to God his father that hee had hid these things from the wise men of vnderstanding and reuealed them to babes The ordinarie meanes hee vseth for to reuele them is the scripture â— Tim. 3 16 â—7 which instructeth a maÌ„ to the making him absolut perfect yea euen the man of god that is to say the Pastor who consequently is to teach nothing else but this doctrin of perfectioÌ„ coÌ„tained in the scripture in which he may shew the connexion of the articles in question as for example in the place of Daniell aboue alledged the resurrection of the body which is there formally presupposeth the immortality of the soule The euerlasting life perpetual ignominie of which there is also there expresse meÌ„tion made are Paradise Hell the property of them both being therein briefly declared and that in forme of a sentence which presupposeth a Iudge to pronounce it a iudgment that he shall execute Now although there hath beene found euen among the heathen that haue perceiued in their minde the connexion of some of these things that this Bishoppe distructeth and diuideth as much as in him lyeth witnesse Plutarch who findeth the coherence betweene the Immortality of the soule and the IudgmeÌ„t of God yet I neither said nor thought that the connexion of all is found in euery Spirit as he would conclude by my discourse for to make himselfe way to surprise me For that were to make faith which is the gift of God a naturall thing Ephe. 2.8 as a certaine ancient hereticke named Basilides did who also denyed the Resurrection and since the Pelagians Clem. Aleâ—â— Strom. l. 4. Tert. de prâ—â— c. 46. from whome the Bishopp of Eureux differeth not much demaunding euer such demonstrations as no contentious Spirit should be able to gainsay and opening by this meanes a liberty to beleeue what one listeth yea to beleeue nothing at all of the things controuerted and gainsayed I said also that Abraham referred the rich mans brethren for to preserue them out of Hell not only to the prophets but also to Moses He answereth very pleasantly Luk. 16.19 21. Fol. 53. That he referred them not onely to Moses but also to the Prophets the knowledge they might haue from Moses not being sufficient to giue them any perfect assurance of it without the helpe light of the Prophets Let vs obserue here againe the vncertaintie and Pirrhonian perplexity of our Bishopp He dare not deny but that there is something of these articles in Moses for otherwise Abraham should haue mocked the brethren of the damned rich man referring them to a booke where there was nothing that was necessary for them and notwithstanding he is not ashamed to reiect as impertineÌ„t all the places produced out of it without quoting any other that is fitt and proper at least in his iudgment Moreouer seeing that the writings of the Prophets themselues without excepting that excellent place of Daniell which conteyneth in formall tearmes the Resurrection euerlasting life 〈◊〉 32. 〈◊〉 54. and perpetuall ignominie as aboue hath beene shewed are so obscure and improper to conuince a gainsayer as he affirmeth what shamefull contradiction is this to call them here a helpe and light to vnderstand the bookes of Moses He addeth further That Abraham
commaunded it to the Patriarches And the Bishop of Eureux cannot shew vs by his tradition wherein the particulars and formes of the Sacrifices vsed before the Law and writing of Moses and them which we see therein set downe did differ or agree no more than we can beleeue that the knowledge of the former was as necessarie to the Israelites that liued vnder the Law as was the knowledge of the latter I would know of him froÌ„ what tradition he learned that this sprinkling of the people by the bloud of beasts was rather execratory thaÌ„ expiatory as he saith not for to purifie the Israelites but for to bind bequeath to cursing c. S. Paul Heb. 9.22 after he had recited this sprinkling with the sprinkling of the tabernacle of the holy vessels addeth that almost al things by the law are purified with bloud referring this purification in general to all the legall aspersions or sprinklings but especially to that which he had more particularly specified than any other namely which our Bishop by I know not what cursed and execrable Tradition calleth cursing and execration And if that be true then these words which Moses pronounced in performing this sprinkling This is the bloud of the Couenant which the Lord hath contracted with you shall not signifie vnto vs the purifying of our soules by the bloud of Iesus Christ as the Apostle expouÌ„deth it coÌ„paring the figuratiue bloud of beasts with the bloud of Christ our Lord which spiritually washeth purifieth our soules as the other bloud did ceremonially purifie the corporal things But shal signifie our curse execration the reall accomplishment execution wherof should be found for vs in the death in the bloud of him whom we call our Sauiour and Redeemer as hauing deliuered redeemed vs from the curse execration of the law vnder which we were without the shedding sprinkling of his bloud wheÌ„ he himself was made a curse for vs. He yeeldeth a reason worthy himselfe why this bloud signified rather execration than purification Gal. 3.13 Because the children of Israel were alreadie purified by the former washings True but if the washing with water sufficed to purifie them to what purpose so much bloud as was shed in the ordinary expiatory sacrifices to what purpose are said so many masses preteÌ„ded expiatory sacrifices if holy water sufficeth to purify those that are sprinkled with it Why behoued it that after baptisme Iesus Ch. shuld shed his bloud why was not remissioÌ„ of sins without shedding of bloud if the washing by water purifieth that is taketh away sins to conclude what mad Enthymema is this same The children of Israel were purified by the former washings Ergo the bloud wherwith Moses sprinckled them afterward signified vnto them cursing and execration But it agreeth not euill that he that beleeueth or maketh shew to beleeue that the masse is a sacrifice expiatorie and propitiatorie which indeed is execrable and execratorie call execration the sacrifice of the couenant that God contracteth with his for to put away their sins therwith wherof the sacrifice described by Moses was the figure that of the crosse the Truth At least wise he should consider that this sprinkling with bloud was not only done on the people but also on the altar vpoÌ„ which Moses sprinkled halfe on the booke which Altar represented nothing else but God who in this couenant was one of the parties conditioning promising of his side shall we say that Moses in sprinckling the Altar with halfe of the bloud bound bequeathed God also to cursing The booke that conteined the law and which was sprinkled with it likewise was it cuâ—sed also There remained no more but this heape of blasphemie for him who ceaseth not to calumniate of imperfection and vnsufficiency the sacred booke to say that it was bequeathed to cursing and execration Indeede we read in profane histories of the couenants and leagues which the Pagans made ratifying them by Sacrifices with oathes and horrible execrations yea sometimes tasting of the bloud of the sacrifices offered or of their owne as it is said of Catilina and some others Which is not farre from the Cyclopian barbaritie of those Capernaites or rather Canibals which think they cannot partake in the bloud of the spiritual couenant we haue with Iesus Christ vnlesse they carnally drink it 〈◊〉 cons Dist 〈◊〉 Can. Ego â—â—ieng vnlesse they breake his body with their teeth sensibly as their Pope Nicholas saith As for the sprinckling of the tabernacle of the holy vessels also the purple coloured wooll hysop wherof Moses speaketh in the 24. chapter of Exod. It should be our bishops part to shew that S. Paul in his 9. chap. to the Hebrews protesteth bindeth himselfe to touch nothing of the writings of Moses but only what he saith in expresse tearmes in that place Exo. 24. Which shal not be so easie for him to do as it is for vs to shew for euery one to see the coÌ„trary For the scope drift of the Apostle is to confront to compare together the two Testaments the Priests the sacrifices all the other ceremonies of the old with the onely Priests sacrifice of the new The Leuiticall Tabernacle corruptible and transitory wherinto the Iewish Priests entred with the humane nature of Iesus Christ in which dwelleth all the fulnes of the godhead as in a Temple permanent the bloud of the hee goat which the hie priest offered euery yeare once when he entred into the most holy place with our sauiour Christs own bloud by which he opened vnto vs heauen for euer Now it is certain that Moses speaketh of these figures in diuers places of his writings by what Logick theÌ„ should wee conclude that that which is not fouÌ„d in the 24. chap. of Ex. cannot be found elsewhere he speaketh not there of the purple wool nor the hysop but Num. 19. he speaketh of theÌ„ Neither of the sprinkling of the Tabernacle and of the holy vessels but he speaketh of it Leuit. 8.16 30. 9.9 16.14 and so following And that S. Paule meaneth not to speake onely of the Act of the dedication as our Bishoppe would make vs beleeue it is manifest as well by that wee haue said of the Apostles intention as by the conclusion which is Heb. 9.22 And almost all things are by the Lawe purged with bloud By which euery one may see that he no wise meaneth to stay on the acte onely of the consecration of the Couenant but that he mixeth together diuerse ceremonies of expiations in which there was but one and the same end referring all those shadowes to their bodies the figures to the Trueth without staÌ„ding to reckon the syllables of Moses or to quote the places he alledgeth or to obserue the order of the times wherin consisted not the force of his arguments therefore he protesteth Ch. 9.5 not to speake of those things
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
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
god through faith saith saint Paul And saint Peter you are horne againe not of a corruptible seede but of an incorruptible by the word of god that our Lord saith he that shal beleeue and be baptized c. Saint Paul One faith one Baptisme saint Phillip to the Eunuch that asked him if he might be baptized If thou beleeue thou maist That the Sacraments are sensible signes to those to whome they are Sacraments that they are sacramentes to those to whome they are conferred that therefore they are to be sensible in the quality of signes otherwise they are not sacraments That Baptisme is not sensible to little children in this quality neither can afterward become so so that they must of necessity relie on the faith of others that they haue beene baptized and therefore it is not a sacrament vnto them That Iesus Christ did neuer baptize them neither himselfe nor his Apostles according to the recitall of Scriptures On the contrary that the scripture seemeth to haue excepted them expressing viros mulieres That if the Baptisme of little children be not true and lawfull besides that those that conferre it vnto them prophane the seale of the Couenant and pollute the blood of the Testament applying it to a matter vncapable they commit an other sacriledge in not reiterating it to them which afterwards are capable of it and to whome it is necessary if not by necessity of meanes at least after our aduersaries themselues by necessity of precept And therefore Seruet said that it were an impiety more then Turkish and diuelish And in a word if the Baptisme of little children be not true and lawfull our aduersaries Church who haue all in their infancy beene baptized hath no true Baptisme And therefore is not the true Church For saint Paul saith that Christ hath purified his Church by the washing of water in his word and themselues say that the true Church is that which hath the pure preaching of the word and the sincere administration of the sacraments And to conclude in a word this point either they or the Anabaptists are heretickes For it is an article of faith that there is one Baptisme one Faith as saith saint Paul and the symbole of the Church saith I beleeue one baptism for remission of sins Now if Baptisme of little children be not true Baptisme those which baptize them haue no Baptisme and therefore are heretickes violating this article of saith I beleeue one Baptisme And if it bee true Baptism the Anabaptists are hereticks who rebaptize them For they redouble Baptisme against that article of faith I beleeue one Baptisme It being then necessary that one of the two sides be hereticall and it not being possible by the scripture alone to verifie which of the two it is it followeth that all heresie cannot be confuted by the Scripture alone Out of which I frame this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer conteineth sufficientlie the principles of a science should also be able to prooue all the propositions pertaining to the said science and to confute all that repugn the same Now euery heresie repugneth the science of diuinitie and religion And the scripture alone cannot confute all heresies Therfore the scripture containeth not sufficiently all the principles of doctrine necessary to the science of diuinity and religion And therefore we must employ therein other principles conioyntly with the scriptures which cannot haue authority in this case if they bee not reuealed by the word of God It must therefore bee graunted that besides the word of god written ther is yet another part of the same word not written among which also saint Augustin against this heresie concerning the Baptisme of little children saith Cōsuetudo matris ecclesiae in baptisandis paruulis non est spernenda neque omnino recipienda nisi Apostolica esset Traditio D. Tillenus his answer Thus are easily confuted all the other reasons of the Anabaptists that he bringeth foorth after ours For they be but repetitions of the solutions he giueth to ours That Baptism is a seale of fath That it is called the washing of Regeneration That Regeneration is made by faith and by the incorruptible seed of Gods word That saint Phillip sayd to the Eunuch If thou beleeue thou maist be saued c. For it hath bin shewed that the children which enter into the kingdome of heauen are regenerate That this Regeneration is don otherwise in them that in such as be of years of knowledge That the sentences of Saint Peter and S. Phillip and other like are necessarily vnderstood of them that were capable of the hearing of the word as were all those with whom the Apostles had to do when they began to gather the Christian Church To apply to children that which is spoken only to such as be of years the consequence is as foolish as if a man should depriue children of corporall nourishment because the Scripture saith 〈◊〉 3.10 he that doth not worke should not eate which is necessarily meant of such as are of years to work How will his Syllogisme now stand which he frameth thus Whatsoeuer conteineth sufficiently the principles of a science should prooue all the propositions belonging to the sayd science and to confute all that repugne the same But euery heresie repugneth the science of Diuinity and the scripture alone can not confute all heresies Therefore it conteyneth not sufficiently all the principles necessary c. The assumption of this syllogisme is already aboue confuted by the testimonies euen of those very same from whom he pretendeth that the most part yea all the principles not conteyned in the Scripture must be taken I could heer adde a greate number of other proofes and testimonies but that J shunne prolixity I will therfore only oppose two other syllogisms I. In the diuine wisedom there is perfect knowledge of diuinity 〈◊〉 19.7.8 The holy holy scripture giueth this wisedom therfore it giueth the perfect knowledge of diuinity II. The principles of a science are not contrary one vnto another But the most part of the vnwritten principles of the Romish diuinity repugn and destroy those that are written in the ould and new Testament therefore they can not be true principles of true Diuinity The Bishop of Eureux The second heresy which cannot be refuted by the Scripture is that of the Rebaptizing of hereticks For there is no one place in the writings of the Prophets or Apostles that witnesseth that the Baptisme which is among hereticks is true Baptisme Contrariwise there are infinite places which seeme to repugne the same As the words of our Lord hee which shall beleeue and bee baptized c And that of sainte Paule one faith one Baptisme whereof is concluded that seeing there is no fayth among hereticks and that this vnity of fayth of which Saint Paule speaketh is not found among them there is no Baptisme So that they which haue beene Baptised by them are no more baptised then those on whose head by