the most auÌ„cient amoÌ„g the Latins distinguisheth in expres terms the teÌ„porall Sabbath froÌ„ the eternall sabbath 〈◊〉 lib. 4. shewing by the History of the ruine of Iericho where all the people the Priests theÌ„selues laboured 7 dayes one after another and therfore the Sabbath was ther in coÌ„prised that this commaundement was ceremonial teÌ„porall â—tat de â—tem Rab â—n tractat â—â—b c. 1. â—ractat de â—umcis c. 1 Yea the Iewes themselues as superstitious obseruers as they be of the outward ceremony of the Sabbath neuertheles do hold that in daÌ„ger of life the law of the sabbath may be brokeÌ„ And these words ar fouÌ„d in their Thalmud DaÌ„ger of life breaketh the Sabbath But euery one knoweth and confesseth that there is no danger can excuse the transgression of the morall law for the obseruation whereof the true faythfull hold their life very well bestowed Seeing theÌ„ the sabbath is takeÌ„ two wayes eyther for interior which is a rest from our euill workes an exercise meditation of the works of God or for the exteriour which consisteth in rest cessation froÌ„ the labors busines which coÌ„cern this life in which it was a figure of interior sabboth the promises or thretnings which god made to such as kept or violated his sabbaths which is our Bishops grownd are meÌ„t more of the first 〈◊〉 5.8 theÌ„ of the 2 to which notwithstaÌ„ding the Jews wer bouÌ„d as to all the other Leuiticall ceremonies froÌ„ which yoke ChristiaÌ„s are wholly freed their sabbath being interiour spiritual perpetual as the feast of passeouer or Easter which neither ought nor can euer be abolished in respect of the matter being a cessatioÌ„ froÌ„ sins a meditatioÌ„ on 〈◊〉 Gods works nor in respect of the form which is to perform this meditation with true repeÌ„taÌ„ce of all our euil works with true faith towardes God and vnfained charity towardes our neighboures nor in respect of the end which is the glorifiing of the name of God and the saluation of our soules in that greate and euerlasting sabbath which his sonnne Iesus Christ hath prepared for vs in his Kingdome Beholde the principall matter forme and end of the sabbath to the which are to be referred all the other ends touching the determining of dayes for the asseÌ„blies of the church which is in the liberty of the Church which the Scripture giueth it in expresse tearms And though the places in the Reuelation Col. 2. Reuel 1.10 1. Cor. 16. and in the first to the Corinthians wer not cleer euident ynough to shew that the Apostles haue instituted the Lords day on sunday yet cannot that preiudice vs any thing at all seeing there are other formall places that proue the liberty of the church in such things and it sufficeth that we are able to decide by the scripture the question of law or ordinance Notwithstanding so that our Bishop doe not draw him selfe backe from his own interpretation 1. Cor. 16.2 the very act or exaÌ„ple of practise wil be fownd therein He sayth if the apostle had sayd Euery maÌ„ bringeth to the church that day what he would giue that then there had beene some apparance for to conclude that the first day of the weeke was particularly appoynted to the meetings of the church in the very tyme of the Apostles Now we find in that the disciples were assembled the first day of the weeke which is as himselfe denyeth not Act 20.7 Sunday for to breake breade that is to celebrate the lords supper and that in this assembly Saint Paule made a sermon which lasted till midnight See heere then the question fouÌ„d prooued in the scripture aswell by example of practise as otherwise A speciall commaundement touching this obseruation of sunday neither the scripture giueth any seeing it testifieth that it is a thing indifferent neither can du Perron shew it by Apostolike Tradition for all his brags The Ecclesiasticall history is directly against him when it sayth Socr. lib 5. Cap 22. That the intention of the Apostles was not to make lawes or coÌ„mandements touching feast dayes or holy dayes but to be authorrs of good life true godlines Our aduersaries on the coÌ„trary do constitute their principall godlinesse and vertue in obseruation of the holy dayes by theÌ„ instituted and make a morall commaundement of the Iewish obseruation of the sabbath reiecting into the number of the ceremonialls that 〈◊〉 commaundement which forbiddeth Images though it be one of the cheefest among the morall But commaunding thus what god forbiddeth forbidding what god coÌ„mandeth they shew in what schole they haue studied Surely their maÌ„ner of reasoning is altogether conformable to the Tropick of that ould Sophister from whose instruction ensued the destruction of mankind when our first parents suffered theÌ„selues to be perswaded by this goodly argument Though god hath forbidden you to eate of this tree yet neuerthelesse you shoulde eate of it 〈◊〉 2.8 â— 3 vers The Father of lights who in these last times hath begun to chase away the darknes of Errour and superstition by the brightnes of his word vouchsafe to enlighten our harts by the light of his truth that we be not diuerted froÌ„ his ways through vayn deceyt after the TraditioÌ„s of meÌ„ but that keeping faithfully the sacred truth which he hath of trust coÌ„mitted vnto vs wee may wayte with ioy for the moste brighte and glorious comming of the sunne of righteosnnes to whom be all honor glory and praise for euermore A DEFENCE OF the Sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scripture Against the Cauillations of the Lord Du Perron Bishop of Eureux By the which hee endeuoureth to maintaine his Treatise of the vnsufficiencie and imperfection of the holy Scripture By D. Daniell Tillenus Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Sedan PROV 16.25 There is a way that seemeth right vnto a man but the issues thereof are the waies of death August de vnit Eccles cap. 3. Whatsoeuer is alledged of eyther side against the other should be remoued sauing that which commeth out of the Canonicall Scriptures Printed at London by L. S. for Nathanaell Butter 1606. THE PREFACE of the Author THe Iewes who since the blindnesse wherewith God hath iustly punished their ingratitude and rebellion haue alwaies shewed themselues greedie of Traditions and out of taste with the simplicitie of the Scripture vsing it but for a basis or foundation whereon to plant their fables as the Poets doe historie recount that God being about to giue his law to their ancestors shewed vnto Moses a Masse of Saphir Lyr. in Exoâ— c. 34. made of purpose by his diuine power whereof he commanded him to hew and square out the tables in which he vouchsafed to write his law with his owne finger and because the text hath Hew thee out Tables They gather of it Exod. 34.1 that God permitted him to retaine and appropriate to himselfe
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
the pillar and ground of truth not for the reason Du Perron alleadgeth because euery one resting on the iudgment of it can not be deceiued in faith nor hazard his Saluation he might say more briefly and more popularly In beleeuing in the faith of his Curate But for as much as the word of God contayned in the holy Scripture is set forth in the true Church as in old time the lawes were fastned to pillars that they might not be troden vnder feete and that they might be exposed to the view of euery man the Church which is the Pallace of our lord Iesus Christ is as Salamon was all of pillars euery particular Orthodoxall or right-beleuing Church is a pillar of that Palace whereon hangeth the table contayning the diuine trueth But as much resemblance is betweene this palace of our spirituall Salomon and the Popes on his Vatican as is betweene the crowne of Thornes and his triple Crowne of Gold betweene the Bible and his decretalls Now let the Bishop of Eureux tell me how these two propositions doe agree the church neuer erreth and that of the Schoolmen and Canonists In the day when our Lord suffered Faith remained onely in the virgin Marie which proposition â—ean de la â—urbruslèe Iohn Turbrusley maintayneth to be so necessarie that to hold the contrary is to goe against the faith of the vniuersall Church where was then this Church that cannot erre then I say when all the Apostles were aliue whom Christ our Lord reproacheth of incredulitie could the person onely of the blessed virgine make the Church â—ark 16.14 â—â—llar de Ecâ—â—es mil. l. 3. â—7 Bellarmine denieth it because saith hee The Church is the people and kingdome of God Now haue wee hitherto shewed the sufficiencie and perfection of the scripture in regard of the instances proposed by the Bishoppe of Eureux as things absolutely necessarie As for the others that he afterwards alleadgeth it is to bee noted First that they concerne rather historie than doctrine whereof is question and which hee of purpose confoundeth with historie for to bleaze the eies of the simple For hee knoweth verie well that wee willingly confesse that there is historicall Traditions and himselfe confesseth that the ordinance of these thing is not absolutely vnexcusable â—ol 80 That is to say it is not necessarie for all to knowe them Secondly it is to bee remembred that heere againe as is aboue saide he confoundeth with like malice these two tearmes truth and Authority dissembling that euery trueth is not of like Authority Otherwise it would follow that al prophane histories truly written are as authenticall and canonicall as the histories of the Bible And therefore that which the Apostles alleadged without the Scripture is most true but obtayned not Canonicall authority till after it was written by them and as touching that from which they draw arguments I answere that they doe it because it was agreed of the trueth of those particulars wheÌ„ce they draw them as at this day we reason oftentimes by things which not onely the Fathers but also prophane and heathen authors haue left in writing when it is agreed that they containe trueth yet can not any inferre from thence that they haue equall authority to the word of God Thirdly I say that among the instances he produceth there be some false and inuented and of this number is all the first namely the Institution of Exorcists that no text of the new Testament sheweth that it was an order instituted of God vnder the old Testament yea though it were graunted him that there were Exorcists at the time that Iesus Christ came into the world for our Sauiour Christs wordes conteine nothing else but a confutation of the opinion of the Pharises not a declaration of his owne touching Exorcists whether they were ordayned of God or of theÌ„selues as were those of whome S. Luke maketh meÌ„tion If the B. of Eureux graÌ„teth not that both of theÌ„ were of the same order Act 19 to what purpose doth he alleagde Caluin for to make me confesse it And if he graunt that they were how can he deny but that the one were deceiuers as well as the others Whence will he shew that the sonns of Sceua were rather of the order of the ancient pretended Exorcists than of the Apes that would counterfeit the miracles of the Apostles Let vs se the Logicke of our Carneades The sonnes of Sceua after the death of Christ were not true Exorcists Ergo before Christs death there was an order of the true Exorcists grounded on diuine right See how from a negation he draweth an affirmation But if we receiue the exposition of Saint Chrysostome which he should accept of as a subsidiary Tradition This Instance taken from the order of Exorcists shall be yet more ridiculous for he presupposeth as a thing confessed of all that our Sauiour Christ speaking of Exorcists meaneth onely his Apostles and disciples Fol. 81. which saith he had already driuen out Diuells by the power they had receiued of their Maister the Pharises not hauing blamed them for it For their malice was but to the person not to the thing Therefore that he might shew that what they said or thought against him proceeded but of meere enuie he told them of the Apostles Now it is for our Bishoppe to conclude that the Apostles were already in the world in quality of ordinary Exorcists when Christ came from whome consequently they receiued not extraordinarily this power to cast out vncleane Spirits He saith the hand of the Synagogue vvas become vvithered and impotent in vvorking miracles â—ol 85. after our Sauiour Christs death and that for this cause the sonns of Sceua had no successe But wherefore then had that Eleazer of whome Iosephus speaketh such good successe who long after Christs death in the presence of Vespasian his childreÌ„ all the Romane Army â—â—seph Anâ—â—g lib. 8. c. 2. dispossessed so sufficiently one that had a Diuell the roote to which Iosephus attributeth this vertue and which he saith was taught by Salomon was it become withered as well as the hand of the Synagogue of purpose that it might budd againe like Aarons rodd in the hands of that infidell did the name Tetragrammaton by which Epiphanius saith 〈◊〉 30. one Ioseph not beleeuing yet in Christ cast out a diuell loose then it vertue or did the sons of Sceua eclipse some letter of it Now it is manifest by this place of Iosephus and by that which is written in another place what was the foundation and institution of this order of Exorcists â—oh de bel 〈◊〉 l. 7. c. 25 among the Iewes namely Magicke and enchantments which our Bishop would make vs receiue for the pure word of God secretly reuealed to the Patriarches and Prophets I said that it is not found that they which in the beginning of the Christian Church had the gift of casting out diuels vsed certaine
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