POSITIONS LATELY HELD BY the L. DV PERRON Bishop of Eureux against the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures maintaining the necessitie and authoritie of vnwritten Traditions Verie learnedly answered and confuted by D. Daniell Tillenus Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Sedan VVith a defence of the sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scriptures by the same Author Faithfully translated PROV 30.5.6 Euerie word of God is pure he is a shield to those that trust in him put nothing to his word least be reproue thee and thou be found a lyer Aust de vnit Eccles cap. 3 sIn the Scriptures we are to seeke the Church by them to discusse our controuersies Chrysost in 2. Thes 2. Hom. 3. All is cleare and plaine in holy Scripture whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs is manifest Printed at London by L. S. for Nathaniell Butter 1606. TO THE READER WHen our aduersaries perceiue them selues conuinced by the Scripture they doe as they of whom Irenaeus and Tertullian speake they set vpon the Scripture it selfe accusing it of obscuritie ambiguitie and imperfection maintaining that the truth cannot therein be found by such as bee ignorant of Tradition and that the great mysteries of Faith were not by the Apostles committed to his disciples but by word of mouth and not by writing In a word all that the ancient Fathers recite of their gainsayers we see now a daies practised by ours who not content with those olde reproaches doe defame the scripture with many contumelies calling it the booke of heretikes the blacke Gospell Incke-Diuinitie leaden ruler nose of waxe Theramenes his buskin the apple of discord Sphynxes riddle a sword in a mad-mans hand and other like tearmes full of iniuries and blaspemies wherewith they defame the booke of the couenant and testament of the Sonne of God which the auncients called the mirrour of diuine grace and mans miserie the touchstone of truth the displayer of vanitie the Squire Rule and most exact ballance of all things the treasure of all vertue a Shop of remedies for all euils the sacred Anker in time of tempest a strong Armie against heretickes a safe retrait against all dangers a happie rest after all trauailes the sure and only stay in time of tryall the Pillar and foundation of our faith the most parte of which titles and the efficacie of them all is attributed by our aduersaries to their Traditions vvhich some of them dare euen preferre and oppose vnto the scripture Lind. lib. 2 panopl. c. 5 Witnesse he vvho calleth it the true Moly conseruing the Christian faith against the Enchauntments of Heretickes because Catholikes saith he vvould be soone poysoned vvith these Enchauntments he meaneth the Scriptures if they did not vse the Moly or antidote of Traditions Pigh de Eccl. Hic lib. 1. c. 4 Another hauing affirmed that the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall tradition hath more force and efficacie to assure our faith in euerie controuersie than the Scripture addeth further that if those of his side would remember that Heretickes ought not to be conuinced by the Scripture their matters vvould goe a great deale better vvith them but hauing endeuored to ouercome Luther by the Scripture for to make ostentation of their good vvitt and great knovvledge all is come to naught c. Truly it is an horrible combustion in Christendome to see the Scriptures vvhich make vs knovv Christ and become christians vsed so vnvvorthily No nation euer tooke this liberty vnto themselues to defame the bookes containing the lawes either of their beliefe or policie The bookes of the Sybills the lawes of the tvvelue Tables and other like vvritings vvere held sacred among the Romanes The Greeks and Pagans did beare all honour to the lawes of their Legislators and to their Rituall bookes as to this day the Ievves doe to their Thalmud and the Turkes to their Alcoran But among those that would be called Christians he that can cast most reproaches against the holy Scripture he that can obserue or imagine therin most imperfections vvill be esteemed more fine witted and more zealous in the faith then others yea there hath beene found one vvho of late hath dared by vvriting to maintaine publish that inuocation or calling on the name of Christ Iesus is no more commaunded in the Scripture then the calling on the Saints departed that thereby he might make the Innoâ—â—â—tion on the Author of life to depend as vvell on the Romish tradition as on the authority of the booke of life It being my chance of late to meet with the L. of Perroâ— Bishop of Eureux and to fall into some dispute vvith him concerning this matter he confesseth vnto me that the most parte of the articles in controuersie betvveene the Romish Church and ours haue no demonstratiue proofe in the Scripture As the Sacrifice of the Masse Inuocation on Saintes Prayer for the dead vvorshipping of Images Auricular confession vnction vvith the Crisme the necessitie of satisfactions the Popes Indulgences c. But he alleadged that from the time of the old Testament the Ievves did beleeue also manie things as necessarie to saluation vvhich notvvithstaÌ„ding in their times vvere not contained in the Scripture In vvhich point I found him not to agree vvith manie great Doctors of his side vvho confesse that the Scripture of the old Testament containeth all the God knevv to be expedient and sufficient for the saluation of the Israelites but that it is not so in the doctrine of the nevv testament vvhich say they should not be vvritteÌ„ on paper but preached by word of mouth engrauen in the hearts of the hearers so comitâ—â—ed vnto posteritie without writing alledging to this 〈◊〉 that which Ieremie saith cap. 31. S. Paul 2. Cor. 3. The saâ—â— L. of Perron dissenteth also from his other Doctors of vvhom some haue vvritten euen in the Councill of Trent touching some points which he maintained might be prooued by the scriâ—â—tures though they deny it namely transubstantiatioÌ„ the merâ—â—â— of workes the Popes supreamacie Purgatorie c. And being certaine that these articles haue no more ground in Scripture than the rest we may well say of them which beleeue theÌ„ that which TertulliaÌ„ said of some in his time they beleeue without the scriptures that they might beleeue against the scripture Nowe the conference hauing dured certaine daies and finding more illusion on his part than instruction I prayed him to continue it by writing that the obiections of the one and the solutions of the other appearing on paper euerie man might at leasure consider the knot of the one and the keene cutting of the other shewing him that more fruite would come forth of a permanent writing than from dazelling and vanishing words that the one remayned subiect to the touch and ballance and that in the other a subborned flatterer gaue and the ignorant hearer tooke oftentimes false Alarmes But I could neuer obtayne it at his handes who well considered that if hee should
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
the most part taken out of Origen that is out of the original of the most part of his errours mooued me to put this opinioÌ„ of saint Hilarie in the ranke of others wholy erroÌ„eous which are fouÌ„d in his writings as when he attributeth to our Lord Iesus Christ a bodie vncapable of wearinesse of hunger of thirst of al dolour condemning of errours Lib. 10. de Trin. in Psal â—8 those which by his sufferings conclude the dolour When he speaketh in such sorte of the IncarnatioÌ„ of Christ as if the holy Virgine had but borne brought him forth without contributing any thing of her substaÌ„ce to his flesh Lib. 8. de Trin. When he saith that we are one with the father by nature and not onely by similitude or adoption When he thinketh that Moses is yet aliue atleast by the iudgmeÌ„t of Bellarmine notwithstanding that the holy Scripture saith the contrary in expresse tearmes Matth. inc 17 de Purgat l 2 c. 8. Deu 34.5 c Learne heere Bishop that it is better to skip ouer such places impure and dangerous than to defile a mans selfe and run headlong into danger by abiding vpon them Epiphanius reciteth that certaine monstrous heretikes gathered the spettle other ordures which issued from the bodies of certaine women desceÌ„ded of their arch-hereticke â—osh 1.1.2 Haeres 53. for to keep them in manner of relicks and to apply them to sick persons In like sorte do they who cherish their spirituall maladies by the vncleannesses which they gather from the writings of the auncient Fathers And it is good reason that such to whom the scripture is vnsauorie should haue no better than stinking puddles for their best refreshing He accuseth me of two frauds 1. In that I summon the aduersaries to proue by the scripture all the points in controuersie betweene vs and them not onely such as be of the Essence of our saluation but others also lesse important and in the meane while restraine the disputation of things necessarie when it is shewed that the Apostles left certaine things to their disciples without writing theÌ„ 2. That in stead of prouing the points in question by such cleare and infallible texts of Moses that euerie simple Israelite might haue framed of it a necessarie indubitable consequence I produce onely some probable and coniecturall apparances or shewes To the first obiection I answere that wee neuer change our Thesis Wee proue by the scripture the points that we beleeue necessarie to saluation and wee demaund of our aduersaries the like proofe for the points that they pretend to be such whether of necessitie absolute or conditionall Wee reiect many things of the Romish Church which at first sight seeme not to oppugne saluation but their consequences dash against it For example the forbidding to eate flesh on certaine daies is in it selfe a light thing and may be practised for certaine politicke respectes Rom. 14 which concerne not our saluation sith that the kingdome of God is neither meat nor drinke But to make of it a law for to binde the conscience to declare the transgression thereof a sinne against the holy Ghost to constitute therein merite towards God to attribute vnto it an expiatorie power to doe away sinnes C. violatoâ— to make of it workes of supererogation c. These are consequences which shake the foundation of Christian libertie the doctrine of grace and the assurance of our saluation grounded vpon grace Thus acknowledging but one Law-giuer who can saue and destroy 〈◊〉 4 12. and desiring to persist in the liberty which Iesus Christ hath purchased vs we will not receiue the yoak of bondage 5.1 8.20 â— 11.28 â—0 And they that wold subiect vs vnder their laws make vs fall vnder their insupportable burdens we bring them to the law of God to the yoake of Iesus Christ which is easie and to his burden which is light Wherefore it is false that we conclude so as the Bishop of Eureux saith we doe That is not in the Scripture it is therefore an impietie and superstition Our conclusions are thus That is not in the scripture and notwithstanding is commaunded vs to be kept as necessarie vnto saluation by him who hath no authoritie to make lawes to the conscience Therefore it is an impietie or superstition Wee grant also that some things touching the order outward policy of the Church things not vnmooueable and vnchangeable as is the doctrine of faith haue not beene written neither all the particuler deeds and sayings of our Sauiour and his Apostles But it is one thing to say All the heades of doctrine are not written and another thing to say All the particularities comprised vnder euerie head or kinde are not written We say that the Apostles haue written all the heads of doctrine genera singuloruÌ„ though not all the particularities of euerie head Non singula generum For as it is impossible to comprehend them all so is it not possible to write them all And for this cause we neuer denied but that there were things vnwritten vnder both Testaments as we doe not meerely and flatly reiect them so we receiue them not all without discretion or difference Neither hold we them that we receiue in the same degree of authoritie with the scripture because the Apostles themselues inasmuch as they haue not inregistred them with the rest haue weakened their authoritie and manifested that they were not things absolutely necessarie that the doctrine that may be drawne from them is sufficiently declared in the things which are written which are neuer so particuler but that wee may draw thence instruction for the generall Rule of fayth And the number of these same is so ample in their writings that to Christians they suffice whether it be to learne the truth or to reprooue errour This is that which is principally regarded in matter of Testaments namely what is written and not what the Testator said by word of mouth to any one who may varie or forget which is not to bee feared in â—he Scripture And how should the right be knowne How should the processe be ended which ariseth of matters of Testament if the InstrumeÌ„t be not produced visited especially when it is a long time after the decease of the Testator And when the Apostles make mention in their writings of some particular thing holdeÌ„ receiued among the Iews though not expressed in the writings of the Old Testament it followeth not either that they would authorise all the traditions of the Pharises or that they esteemed the Scripture imperfect or that they set those vnwritten particularities that they alledge in the same degree of necessitie or authoritie as they doe the things written For if of such allegations one would inferre equall authoritie with the scripture it would follow that the poems of Aratus Menander and Epimenides out of whom saint Paule citeth some verses should be equall to
and Prophets extraordinarily sent of God by which meanes now ceased since God hath spoken vnto vs by his Sonne it might be more fully instructed in all things Yet notwithstanding the holy Scripture is alwayes recommended vnto them aboue all Hebr. 1. God himselfe though he spake to Ioshuah by word of mouth confirming him in his charge notwithstanding he commended vnto him onely the booke of the Law Iosh 1.7 not promising him his assistance and blessing but on condition that he should do and obserue all that is conteined therein After that so often as the reformation of the Church was intended there was neuer any other patterne taken than the scripture 2. Chro. â— 2 Chro. â— 2. Chro. â— 2. King â— 2 King 2 Nehe 8. as appeareth by the examples of Iosaphat Ioas Ezechias Iosias Ezra Nehemias c. Contrariwise when Amon and Manasses would diuert the people from the seruice of god to idolatry they hid the book of the Law that it might no more be read publickly as god by Moyses had ordained As touching the creation of Angels the being creation of deuils which du Perron very improperly distinguisheth as if diuels were not angels at the beginning or as if god had created them by themselues so wicked as they are ther is reuealed in the books of Moyses as much of it as god hath iudged to be expedient for the simplicity of that people To tell what day or in what order they were created we know it no more by TraditioÌ„ thaÌ„ by the scripture though it be augmeÌ„ted since Moses from whom we gather their Creation when he saith that the heaueÌ„s the earth were finished and all their host Gen. 2 â— Gen. 28 Deut. 3â— Gal 3.1 In the vision of Iacobs ladder and elsewhere we read their apparitions and mynistery which the Jewes in the time of Moyses knewe rather by theyr experience than by Tradition sith the Lawe was published by them As for the supposed distinction of theyr orders Areopagita speaketh with such assuraunce as if he had beene present at it all though even he that was rapt vp into the third heauen not onely forbeareth to speake of it 〈◊〉 12.4 but also witnesseth that it is not lawfull to reueale these secrets We say with S. Augustine that when disputation is had of a thing very obscure without certaine and cleare proofe of the diuine scriptures the supposition of man is to be kept in not leaning more on the one side â—â—st cont â— it than the other He sendeth vs not in this case to vnwritten Tradition Irenaeus who should know more of Apostolike tradition that any of our time defied certaine Gnosticks in his dayes swolne with I know not what knowledge taken out of the scripture in reckoning vp and describing the distinctions orders and preheminences of Angells Archangells Powers Thrones Dominations and in a word all those things which the Church of Rome braggeth she knoweth and which this holy Father propounded to his aduersaries as impossible to comprehend Touching the diuell Moyses teacheth the Iewes in the scripture 〈◊〉 s 3. that he was a lyar a tempter and seducer from the beginning That the seede of the woman should bruise his head c. If there had been neede of knowing more he could haue giuen them the knowledge of it by a more authenticall and true Oracle than that of Rome is I know not whether du Perron would maintaine that the nine orders or degrees which the Schoolemen haue made among diuells in imitation of the Angelicall Hierarchie are from Apostolicke tradition The B. of Eureux They had besides this many other things whereof the institution is not found neither in the books of Moses nor in any other booke of the olld Testament As the institution of the order of Exorcists who by a certaine authenticall prescript form from God did coniure wicked spirits as our Lord beareth them witnes saying 〈◊〉 12.27 If I cast out deuills in the name of Beelzebub in whose name do your children cast them out And for this reason they shall be your iudges Which children Caluin prooueth that they were the Exorcists of the Iewes such as those which are spoken of in the 19. chapter of the Acts. D. Tillenus his answer The knowledge of these things eyther is not necessary to Saluation or is found in the Scripture by analogy or by consequence If the Exorcists of whom Saint Matthew speaketh be such as those of whom speaketh saint Luke Math. â— Acts 19 as Du Perron hath it from Caluine there was no diuine institution For they in the Acts were certayne vagabonds that abused the name of Jesus for which they sped very ill We know that in the beginning of the Christian Church this miraculous guift of casting out deuills was vsuall there but we find not that they which had it in the exercising thereof did vse any mysticall prescript forme but that they did simply coniure the * Enerâ—â— Possessed in the name of God whence we gather that such as in the Iewish Church had this guift and did vse it lawfully brought thereunto none other mysterie than the calling on the name of the God of Abraham Isaack and Iacob which forme is found euidently enough in the Scripture The B. of Eureux They had the miracle of the Poole the water whereof the Angell troubled which was a figure of Baptisme that shoulde heale vs of our infirmities after that the Angell of the greate counsaile which is our Lord Iesus Christ was gone down into the water Now that this was not any illusions of the deuill and superstition for those that haue recourse thereunto but a true miracle instituted of god wherunto credit might be giuen it could not be knowne but by tradition D. Tillenus his answer The miracle of the Poole was visible as the miracles of Iesus Christ the Apostles and the Prophets afore them were Iohn 5. â— It tended not to establish or confirme any false doctrine in which case the caution that Du Perron requireth had been necessary Nehem â— Nehemias sayth that the gate of this Poole was hallowed when he City was reedified after the returne from captiuity Whence we may coniecture that God then adorned it with this miracle in token of his approuing the restoring of the City And the word Beth-chesda which was the name of the Poole in the Syriack tongue signifieth the house of benignity because God there did visibly shew his goodnesse in healing all the diseases of his people The B. of Eureux The custome also which they had to deliuer a man at Easter which was a figure of the deliuerance of mankind by the Passeouer of our Sauiour was a Tradition D. Tillenus his answer The custome to deliuer a man at Ester was rather a corruption of Iustice brought in by infidell Gouernors than any necessary point to saluation reuealed and commanded of god to the faithfull The B. of
Eureux The Apostles also euer anon alledge Tradition be it by way of History or by way of Argument Saint Paul saith that Moses in the act of the solemnity of the couenant mingled water in the blood of the Testament wherewith he sprinckled the people which was a figure that we should be sprinkled with the bloud of Christ which is the bloud of our couenant Neuerthelesse this mixture of water with blood not set downe by Moses nor by any other author of the olld Testament D. Tillenus his answer Moyses made not expresse mention of some ceremonies which the Apostle reciteth 〈◊〉 19 21 but we learne them better by analogie and consequence of Scripture than by vnwritten Tradition It was commaunded to vse water in all sacrifices And if that was requisite in particular mens sacrifices how much more in the ratification of the publick couenant wherof Moises speaketh 〈◊〉 â—4 He nameth not likewise in expresse words the hee goats purple wooll and hysope but he saith that the children of Israell offered burnt offerings and then peace offerings or offerings of thanksgiuing Now the whole burnt offerings which were expiatory for sinne could not be but of goats Leuit 16 8â— as the scripture teacheth elsewhere So we see that god commandeth they should offer vnto him purple wooll Hysope was commaunded before they came out of Egypt Leuit â— Numb and after was ordayned to serue alwayes for an Jnstrument to the sprinklings whereunto Dauid alludeth Psal 5 when he prayeth that god would purge him with hysope that he might be clean Now seeing god would that these things should be ordinary vnder the Law it appeareth by Analogy that he had caused them to be as an example of the other that should com after The B. of Eureux He sprinckled also the booke of the Couenant with the same blood saith saint Paul which was a figure that the booke of the Law should take his force from the bloud Iesus Christ And yet neuerthelesse of this sprinckling of the booke there is not any mention made in the olld Testament D. Tillenus his answer Touching the sprinckling of the book Exod. 2â— we gather by that which is sayd in the same place that Moyses hauing sprinkled the Altar tooke the book which as appeareth was vpon the Altar with which it was in like manner sprinckled The B. of Eureux He saith that the golden pot of Manna and the rod of Aaron were put into the Arke which we know was the place of adoratioÌ„ And notwithstanding not one book of the olld testament maketh any mention of it D. Tillenus his answer As for the pot of Manna Moyses saith Exod. 1 Numbâ— 1. King â— 2 Chroâ— that it was put before the face of the Lord that is before the Arke and not with in it the same is said of Aarons rod. And elsewhere the scripture saith in expresse vvords that there vvas nothing in the Ark 〈◊〉 4. but the two tables of stone That which is sayd in the Epistle to the Hebrewes is not against it For the relatiue En hi is not to be referred to the word Kibotou Arke though it be neerest to it but to the word Scéné Tabernacle And of such like constructions there are found many other examples in Scripture otherwise there should be a manifest contradiction which is that du Perron would fain find if he could in the Scripture The B. of Eureux Saint Iude declareth the Angells combate with the Deuill about the buriall of Moses as a thing euidentlye knowne among the Iewes and thereof frameth an argument against those that blasphemed dignities reciting the very words of the Angell Now this was a tradition which could not haue taken his originall of any humane doctrine but from the pure reuelation and word of God D. Tillenus his answer The knowledge of the combat of the Angell with the diuell about the body of the Moyses is not so come by Tradition but that we learne some thing of it euen from the Scripture 〈◊〉 3 2 for there is no doubt but that saint Iude aymed at the place of Zacharie where we read the same words The Lord rebuke thee ô Satan The Prophet calleth him the Angell of the Lord whom the Apostle calleth Michael the Archangell both of them doo meane the Prince of angells that is to say Jesus Christ who hath combatted and ouercome Sathan and wonne the body of Moyses that is hath accomplished the mystery of our redemption figured by the shadowes of Moyses 〈◊〉 â—2 17 whereof Christ is the true body as the Scriptur saith And in that he durst not denounce the sentence of curse it derogateth nothing from his deity and Maiesty For we must consider him in this place as Mediatour in which quality he is subiect and obedient to his Father not exercising his Allmightines If the L. of Perron wil not admit this exposition let him know then that the reason the apostle draweth from this vnwritten history is found very well grounded on the Scripture Exod 22. â— which in expresse words forbiddeth to curse or speake euill of Princes But the Church of Rome doth profit very ill by this Tradition of saint Iude For first it exposeth and prostituteth all the bodies and reliques of Saints departed and suborneth false ones too in their roome to cause the people to commit Jdolatry in steade of resisting the diuell when he bringeth foorth such inuentions as the Archangell did who according to the common exposition of this place fought with him when he woulde haue discouered the sepulcher of Moyses which God had of purpose hid that he might take away from his people all occasion of idolatry and secondly Deut 3 4â— it taketh liberty to it selfe to blaspheme and tread vnder feete the greatest dignities of the earth as the Popes haue impiously and arrogantly shewed it euen to Kings and Emperors The B. of Eureux In like manner he maketh mention of the prophesie of Enoch touching the last comming of god in the day of iudgement And this was a word of god which was profitable yea necessary to bee beleeued of all those to whom the notification thereof should com and notwithstanding that Enoch had euer written any thing it is no way manifest by the scripture D. Tillenus his answer The prophecy of Enoch which the same Apostle alledgeth touching the last iudgement is not onely not repugned by the scripture but is also therein more clearly expressed than the prophane contemners of God would haue it We receiue most willingly all Traditions which haue like conformity and approbation in scripture as this prophecy We confesse that all particular deeds and sayings are not conteyned therin For Singularium nulla est scientia but the reason grouÌ„d of all these things are found therein and the sentence of saint Iohn remayneth true though all that our Lord hath doon be not written yet that which is written Iohn 20â—30
to shew the Immortality of the soule then al the demonstratiue Syllogismes of the Philosophers Now that it may the better be seene whether it is I or Moses that Du Perron mocketh at I choose rather to produce my arguments in their forme after the maner of a simple Israelite thaÌ„ expose the simple places of Moses to the laughter of a double Sophister who though there could be found no place of Moses fit to reason from yea though Moses had not writteÌ„ at all should not for all that in any fashion whatsoeuer aduance his desperate cause as hereafter I shal make most manifest to the eye and sense of euery indiffereÌ„t reader In the mean while I wil bring forth the places according to the order of the fiue books of Moses Out of Genesis The first argument for the Immortalitie of the Soule is taken from the creation of man after the Image and similitude of God and is thus framed Gen. 1.26 That which is made after the Image of a thing resembleth it after a singular or peculiar manner But man is made after the Image similitude of God Therefore he resembleth him after a singular maner or fashion Thereupon shall bee shewed to a Saducie thoroughout all the fiue bookes of the Law but specially by the Text of Deut. 4. from the 15. verse to the 25. verse that this likenesse cannot be in man as touching his bodie sith that this God whose Image he is hath noe bodie considering also that it would follow thar euery body might bee said to be the image of god which Moses saith only of man Therfore of necessitie it must be in the reasonable and intellectuall soule otherwise beasts should be also made after the Image of God This soule if it be mortall corruptible it caÌ„not resemble after a singular fashion or maner the immortal incorruptible God The B. of Eureux replyeth that Luther Caluin say That the Image of God is defaced or put out by sin and that the interpreters themselues of both sides haue vpon this word almost as many opinions as heads I answere that neither Luther nor Caluin do at any time coÌ„found the qualitie of this Image with the substance of the same The quality which is in the right and pure vnderstanding and will of the soule is defaced or blotted out but the substaÌ„ce is no more abolished than man of whom it is the essential forme But hee defaceth and abolisheth here without thinking of it all that goodly Image of his Tradition casteth it to the ground more rudely than euer the Asse did the Image of Isis For if euen rhe Interpreters of his side cannot agree among themselues and are not able to expound the Image of God what serueth their Tradition for then which as he saith hath a double profit yea necessity the one to supply that which is not written the other to expound that which is not clearely written Anchor â—em haer 70 â—em in Epist â—â—l Io. Hieros â—â—b Hier. versa which he calleth subsidiarie or helping tradition and Epiphanius whome he so often alleadgeth as one of the principall depositaries of Apostolick Tradition freely confesseth That it cannot be knowne aâ—â— that this knowledge is reserued to God who alone knoweth in what parte of man he hath placed his Image He perceiueth theÌ„ heere a Tradition which saith not a word which furnisheth neither supply nor explication vpon this point so important much more defectuous than the Scripture which at least declareth vnto vs that man is made after the Image of God whence is drawne the argument aboue propounded And therefore the exposition of these Fathers which place this Image of God in the immortality of the soule cannot be taken from Tradition so barren in this behalfe the which also none of them alleadgeth when they treate of it Neither Tertullian coÌ„tr Mar. l 2. c. 9. Nor Athanasius de in carn Christ Nor S. Ambros. Hexa l. 6. c. 7. Nor S. Augustine de Genes coÌ„tr Manich l. 1. Nor Philastrius Bishop of Bâ—â—sse haer 49. Nor the Abbot Dorotheus Doctr. 12. Nor Albicus Flaccus quaesti in genes Interr 39. c. All which draw it out of the bare text of Moses as I doe But of what sincerity and authority is the Romish tradition in this pointe â—say 40 18 â—5 which when God demaundeth in the Scripture To whome will ye liken me or what similitude will ye set vp vnto me answereth by the subsidiarie or helping mouth of his Interpreters the Bishops We will make thee like to a piece of wood or stone painted or grauen bearing a triple Crowne like a Pope olde and decrepit and which for a neede will serue for a signe or bush at a tauerne The disciples of the Tradition learne of it that God is made after the image of a man in stead of beleeuing with the Disciples of the Scripture that man is made after the Image of God The Iewish Tradition vpon this point is not so insupportable as the Romish neither is it cleare that one may gather more properly from it the Immortality of the soule Vile Gl. Ord. than we do from the Text it selfe the Rabbins say that the Image of God is to be sought in these properties of the soule Ier 23 24 viz. as the soule filleth the whole body so God filleth heauen earth Also as the soule is one onely in her body Exod. 33. so God is onely one in the whole vniuersall world Also Psal 121 as God seeth all and can not be seene so the soule seeth the exteriour things without being seene Also as God sleepeth not so the soule euer waketh All these resemblances and conformities are found as well in a beast as in a man so that by the Iewish Tradition we should be true Saduces that is to say such as Du Perron their Aduocate would faine make vs be Gen 4 1â— From the place where the blood of Abel shed by Caine is said to cry vnto the Lord I frame this argument That which cryeth and demaundeth vengeance is not wholly extinguished and brought to nothing Abel after he was murdered cryeth to the Lord asketh vengeance therefore he was not wholly extinguished and brought to nothing The Bishop of Eureux perhaps will reply that this is a figuratiue speach to attribute a cry to blood that one cannot draw a proper conclusioÌ„ from it Let vs frame the argument therfore in this forme They of whome God hath care are not adnihilated or brought to nothing but God hath care of Abel after his death therefore he was not abolished by that death If our Carneades demand me here who hath taught me to argue thus I answere Matth 22. that it was not a Doctour of Sorbonne but the Eternal wisedome of God who concludeth that God is not the God of the dead but of the liuing And this example of Abel is no lesse euideÌ„t than that in the
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
most holy place And the same may be said of the golden Pot wherein was the Manna Aarons rod sith the solution of the Iesuite Ribera doth not satisfy him who no more than this Cardinall hath not recourse to Tradition Gen. â—0 12 2. Sam. 21 c. choosing rather to employ therein Grammer there being the like examples of Scripture in which the pronoune is referred to the antecedent farthest of than to apply thereto this plaister for all sores or to borrow the inuention of Caluin for to take away the contradiction which the same Cardinall saith to be most manifest betweene the place 1. King 8.9 which hath these expresse wordes Nothing was in the Arke saue the two tables of the law And this is taken in the sense that our Bishop will haue it And Bellarmine himselfe doth he not receiue the opinion of them that holde that the golden Pot and the rod were in some outward part of the Arke and not within the arke it selfe de verb. Deâ— Lib. 1. c â—7 The two last Instances taken out of the Epistle of S. Iude haue beene touched aboue let vs confirme here our opinion by the testimony of the same Cardinall Caietan who saith It can not bee knowne whence Saint Iude had the knowledge of this combat Comm. in epist Iud. that is to say betweene the Angell and the Diuell yet there be some that hold that it is taken out of the apocryphall bookes of the Hebrews who hath then reuealed it to our B. that the Apostle the Iewes held it vnwritten Tradition the apocrypha books of the Iewes the tradition which he pretendeth to be the true pure word of God is it all one To coÌ„clude from whence so euer this historie be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 3. c. 2 In câ—talog whether from the booke which Origen calleth the ascentioÌ„ of Moses of which S. Hierome also maketh mention or whether it be from the pretended Tradition what auaileth it against the perfection and sufficiencie of the doctrine conteyned in the Scripture How often haue we told him that we are at accord that all particular deeds and sayings â—â—hn 21.25 are not contayned in it neither can be â—â—l 1â—3 But from this historie saith he are drawne many excellent doctrines the beginning of this knowledge could not be humane and naturall but of necessity must take originall froÌ„ an expresse reuelation c. Say it be so to what purpose all this Is not our question whether there is any point of doctrine that should be deriued from any other beginning than from the Scripture Is it not whether the points of doctrine conteyned in the Scripture may be confirmed by some other proofes besides the Scriptures The Greekes reciting this historie say that the Archangell was employed in the Buriall of Moses â—ecum in â—ist Iud. that the Diuell opposed himselfe thereunto alleadging that Moses was his because of the manslaughter committed in the person of the Egyptian and that therefore he deserued not so honourable a buriall The doctrines which they draw from it are that the Apostle would teach by it 1. that men haue to render an accompt after this life 2 That there is one the same God both of the old and new Testament 3. That the Diuell riseth vp against the soules departed from the body and striueth to hinder their way to heauen but the good Angells assist them and resist the wicked Spirits 4 That we ought not to Iudge nor curse rashly 5. That honour should be yeelded to Superiours Now it were for our B. to deny that these doctrines are conteyned in the scripture and that the Iewes could not deriue them from any other beginning but from vnwritten Tradition and for to doe this he must race out an infinite number of places of the law and of the Prophets and by this meanes not onely he should iustify his blasphemies against the scripture but also the heresie of the Anabaptists in the point which concerneth the obedience due to Magistrates as elswhere he endeuoreth to do touching the point of baptisme of little children Now as these doctrines are more thaÌ„ sufficiently proued by the Scripture so the historie in question repugneth not any thing thereuÌ„to whether we take it as Oecumenius reciteth it or after the vulgar vnderstaÌ„ding namely that the deuill 2. Cor. â— whose enterprises wee are not ignorant of endeuoured to discouer the Sepulchre of Moses which God had expresly hid laying therein onely this body that it might be vnknowne to all and might not giue occasion to Idolatrie as it hapned among Christians when they began to vnbury to transport and to worship the reliques of Martyrs and sometimes the reliques of theeues and robbers It is therefore false that they which receiued this Historie as Saint Iude reciteth it Could not as he saith after our Maximus fol. 11â— excuse theÌ„selues of superstition in their beleife to giue credite to such â—arâ—â—ations which had been wholly fabulous full of deceits if they had come from any other then from the pure reuelation and word of God I say it is a meere deceite to say that wee condemne of superstition or deceit all that is not conteined in the holy Scripture as he saith we doe for we abase not the price and estimation of humane writings thogh we make theÌ„ not equal to the diuine we acknowledge the gifts of the authour of Truth eueÌ„ in them that haue alwayes remained vnder the tyranny of the father of lyes though more in them that haue been translated out of the power of darknes into the kingdom of light We consider both and examine them by the rule of the Scripture which is for this cause called Canon that which agreeth thereunto wee receiue with praise that which repugneth it wee reiect with leaue and accuse of superstition the beleefe that is giuen to such narrations which cannot haue place in the recitall of Saint Iude in as much as he is an Apostle hauing the spirit of the Lord in such a measure that hee neither deceiued himselfe nor any other in that which the said or wrote for to be inserted into the Canon of faith And if we receiue now some verses of certaine heathen Poets as the word of God since they were sanctified by the Apostle what reason were there to reiect this narration though it were taken foorth of an Apocrypha booke as the Fathers thought seeing that no newe doctrine can be drawn from it but that of the Scripture by it is confirmed It is a necessarie point to know that the Magistrate is ordained of God that we owe him honor and reuerence but know all the particular places reasons and testimonies that may serue to proue this point is not a thing necessary to know I shewed by the way what proffit the Church of Rome maketh of this tradition of S. Iude namely quite coÌ„trarie to that it containeth for
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
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
contrarie the first intention of the Apostles was to deliuer the doctrines to the Church by tradition of liuely voice word vnwritten Also he saith that the Apostles wrote but by incident or chance Fol. 35. and vpon secondary occasions Let vs see this Enthymeme or imperfect argument of the PirrhoniaÌ„ Logicke The Apostles first taught by liuely voyce Ergo they pretended not to teach by their writings which succeeded their preaching The consequence is as good as who should say One eateth first for to nourish himselfe therfore drink serueth nothing to nourishment A non distributo ad distributum c. If he make an opposition between the coÌ„mandement of the spirit of God the incideÌ„t or the occasioÌ„s which moued the Apostles to write he blasphemeth in diuinitie denying the places of scripture 2. Tim. 3.1 2. Pet. 1.20 21. where it is called inspired of God and doteth in Logick excluding the efficient and principal cause because of the instruments and means that it vseth Also the Apostle saint Iude saith Iude. 3. that there was a necessitie of writing imposed vpon him And in the Reuelation we read that saint Iohn is more than ten times commaunded to write We know that to preach and to write are things verie accordant and which were comprehended in one and the same commaundement giuen to the Apostles â—ath 28 to teach all nations which yet to this day they teach by their writings He which commaunded them the thing which is to teach commaunded also the manners of teaching which are to preach with liuely voice and to set forth the doctrine in writing both of them being fit for teaching and this latter most fit for to continue and to transferre doctrines or instructions vnto posteritie â—enaeus li 3 p 1 So Irenaeus vnderstandeth it saying The Apostles after they had preached with liuely voice the Gospell afterwards gaue it vs in the scriptures by the will of God for to be the foundation and pillar of our faith So the booke intituled Manuale CuratoruÌ„ sheweth it saying there are three sorts of preachings One is by writing as saint Paule did writing to the Romanes Corinthians c. Another is by actions so euery action of Iesus Christ is our instruction the third is by word liuely voyce The Bishop of Eureux for to shew that hee is not alone in his opinion produceth foure places of foure ancient Fathers â—hat is by â—â—ose of our â—â—de often propounded and expounded namely that they shuld be vnderstood not of matters of faith but of the order gouernance of the Church which things being of their owne nature ambulatory subiect to change according to the diuersity of the circumstances of times places persons could not or should not be written Or if they speak of some doctrine not coÌ„teined in the scripture they meane it of the formal tearms which are not there as the words trinity coessentiall sacrameÌ„t the sense matter of which notwithstanding is therin found is drawen from thence either by analogy of faith or by necessary consequence Otherwise it would follow that they had gainsaid contradicted themselues a confess fid sum mor. 72 1. sum 80 22. ere 's to wit S. Basil wheÌ„ he saith that it is a most manifest marke of infidelity a most certain signe of pride to reiect any thing of that which is writteÌ„ or to bring in any thing which is not written S. Epiphanius All things are cleare in the scripture to those which by a holy vse of reasoÌ„ wil draw nere the word of god which haue not coÌ„ceiued an operation of the diuel such as they conceiue 〈◊〉 1. Timoth. â—om that accuse the scripture of imperfection endeuoring to cast themselues into the gulfe of death S. Chrysostome maketh saint Paule speake to Timothie in this manner In stead of mee thou hast the scriptures if thou desirest to learne any thing thou maist doe it from thence Then he addeth De doctrin Christ l. 2. c. If he wrote so to Timothie who was full of the holy Ghost how much more ought wee to thinke that it is spoken of vs. It is manifest that this Father thought that the intention of the Apostles was to leaue to the Churches their writings in stead of instructions by word of mouth which they could not continue after their death Saint Augustine saith In Psal 132 Among the things which are Openly declared in the scripture are All those which containe faith and manners that is Hope and Charitie There is to quitte his foure places and in pieces of the same coyne If hee will agree them let him bestirre himselfe better than he did in the answere he giueth to the place of saint Hilarie that hath these words That which is not conteined in the booke of the law we ought not so much as to know it Hee saith that this should be vnderstood of the Apocrypha books alledged in quality of Canonical What a mockery is this Is not the sentence of S. Hilarie generall or if it be not general is it not vnapt friuolous But the reply was ready That there be many other things to be knowne besides them which are coÌ„teined in the law which conteineth not so much as the principal points viz. the immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body c. What Apocrypha Logick is this to draw an vniuersall conclusion from particular premises And when the same father saith in another place It is good that we content our selues with the things which are written can that plaister cure or so much as couer the wound that this place maketh in his vnwritten Traditions And here let the reader be aduertised once for all That al the sentences of the Fathers how generall soeuer they be what vniuersall marke soeuer be set vpon them are euer shifted off by a restraining them to some particular deed As if the Hypothesis were not decided by the Thesis a particular case by a generall Law which is to make a laughing stocke of the Fathers and to depriue them euen of common sense in making them reason so vnaptly and in occasioning their aduersaries to make vnto them so easie and iust replies To returne to Hilarie the Bishop of Eureux opposeth to the aboue said place another of the same Father taken out of his Commentarie on the second Psalme where he saith That Moses after hee had written the words of the olde Testament consigned certaine more secret mysteries to the seuentie Elders c. which place he saith I haue not read and calleth me a bad scholler in skipping ouer the beginning of the booke for to studie at the end I answere hee sheweth that he himselfe hath not read the note set vpon the margeÌ„t of this place non credo which Hilar. Paris ex â—ffici Carol. Guillar anno 1544. with the authoritie of saint Hierome thinking that these commentaries vpon the Psalmes are for
the scripture Acts â—7 2 1. Cor. 15 Titus 1 12 â—oâ—o 10 which verses got no authority amongst vs til since the time as they were sanctified by the Apostle as Tertullian speaketh though before they conteyned truth The Bishop of Eureux verie vnfitly confoundeth these two tearmes Truth and Authoritie as if euerie sentence and historie conteyning Truth had as much authoritie as a place of holy scripture And if the Apostles alleadge somtimes things not written it must be noted that hauing receiued the spirit in such abundance they discerned better the true traditions from the false than their pretended successours could any waies doe Also ordinarily it is but vpon some circumstance of historie and not for the substance as the names of the Magitians of Pharaoh Iacobs worshipping of God 2 Tim 3 8 Hebr. 11.2 Hebr. 12.2 as he leaned on his staffe certaine words of Moses propounded at the publishing of the Law The fastening of Iosephes feete in the stocks in prison The prophesie of Henoch alledged by S. Iude though it be taken from Tradition as touching the words 〈◊〉 105 18 yet the ground of it appeareth in Scripture which teacheth vs that the Patriarches were ordained for to teach those of their ages and to declare vnto them the iudgements of God And since we finde in Scripture that Henoch continually walked wirh God we gather from thence that he spared not to exhort the men of his time 〈◊〉 5 22.24 to repentance and to threaten them with the wrath of God Considering that the same Scripture teacheth vs that God doth nothing afore he hath reuealed his secrets to his seruants the Prophets â—â—us 2. It is also to be noted that this prophecie of Henoch may be more fitly vnderstood of the vniuersall Iudgement that God executed vpon the world by the flood than of the last Iudgement of the world And forasmuch as they of whom S. Iude speaketh were contemners of God It is to be beleeued that they made as little reckoning of the Scripture as of the authoritie of Iesus Christ â—â—se 4. whom they denyed And therfore the Apostle chooseth rather to alledge vnto them a historie witnessed not only by the Scripture but also by profane Authors who make mention of the Deluge as we learne by Iosephus Eusebius and S. Cyrill But this instance shall be examined more particularly in his place The second fraud whereof he accuseth me is That in stead of shewing the points in question by expresse Texts of Moses or by necessarie consequences and true analogie I shew them by some probable and coniecturall apparances or shewes The Reader which hath eyes to see shall iudge whether there be apparance or substance whether probability or necessity mean while I wil aduertise him of the methode that Du Perron keepeth in answering it 1. He opposeth some maimed exposition of one of our Doctours as if wee did attribute like authoritie to them as the Church of Rome doth to their popes or the like as to the ancieÌ„t fathers of whome the Glosse of the ciuill Canon saith Glos in dist Can Nolim that all their writings are to be held for authenticall euen to the least Iota or title Although sometimes he produce some out of the Rabbines yea euen from some Doctours of the Romish Church 2 He inuenteth one of his owne braine if he finde none in some Interpreter that repugneth mine 3 He reduceth the places of Moses in forme of a cornuted syllogisme in fashion of his miter to make himselfe be laughed at 4 He wresteth my conclusions for what pointe he listeth though I alleadge the places for proofe of another and this he doth that he might make my arguments be found the more absurd and giue himselfe subiect of exclayming that I speake not of all the pointes proposed 5 He saith in the end that the places are not so cleare but a conteÌ„tious spirite may finde some defect And if I confirme my exposition by the testimonie of the Fathers for to shew that others haue vnderstood as I doe the place in question and that I wrest it not to serue myne owne turne His ordinary answere is That the question is not whether some Father hath vnderstood it so or no but whether that can be verified by the onely text of Moses which is the heape of all peruersnes and Impudencie for if I bring but the bare text he saith I am alone of my opinion and that it may be taken otherwise at least by a contentious spirit In a word not onely the places of Moses but also those of Iob Daniel and Dauid most expresse for the Immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body the last iudgment and life Eternall are so feeble vnto him that he sheweth well that he beleeueth those pointes no better than the Saduces for whome he pleadeth And whereas Cicero said to a certaine Aduocate pleading faintly if thou didst not couÌ„terfeit thou wouldest not plead so coldly So contrariwise one may say vnto him that if he feyned he would not plead so eagerly for to imagine that he beleeueth these points by benefite of the inuentarie of Tradition is absurd sith that throughout his whole booke he coÌ„tinually demauÌ„deth insoluble ineuitable demonstrations which none in the world no not the most contentious spirit that is can be able to gainesay protesting that he will not admitt any proofe of Scripture vnlesse it be such Can he finde of this stampe in the treasorie of Tradition Is not his speach the speach of a heathen Atheist â—â—len de â—ll differ l c 4 most execrable which saith That in the Schoole of Moses and of Christ there be harde lawes which are not grounded on any demonstration Felix Gouernour of Iudea a heathen and a wicked maÌ„ when he heard S. Paul speake of the last Iudgment â—â—t 24.25 he trembled for feare and yet the Apostles discourse was onely taken from Moses â—â—t 26.22 and the Prophets if we beleeue him in that which he saith afterwards before Festus and King Agrippa But our Pyrrhonian Bishop findeth â—â—l 11. 22 25 that all that can be alleadged is but matter of mockery and that by Moses saying beasts and fishes are altogither as immortall in their soules as wel coÌ„prised in Gods couenaÌ„te capable of euerlasting life as the creatures which beare the Image of God The Saduces for whome he pleadeth found not the Resurrection of the bodie clearely enough expressed in the writings of Moses for to beleeue them but after that our Sauiour Christ had prooued it by the miraculous raysing vp of Lazarus did they beleeue it for that The Pharises which made profession to beleeue it beleeued they for that that Iesus Christ was the ResurrectioÌ„ the life No more truly theÌ„ an Epicure would haue beleeued the Imortality of the soule seeing Calanus ioccuÌ„dly cast himselfe into the fire although this act seemed to othersome a more pertinent proof for
length of daies which God promiseth to the iust that his posteritie or his memorial or his seede might florish that he might not die of a sodaine violeÌ„t nor hastie death c. confirmng the exposition of the place of Moses by the authority of Horace a most worthy warraÌ„t for such as with this Poet may well be called Epicuri de grege porâ—â— swinish Epicures Now whilst he maketh his coÌ„parisons of the text of holy scripture that is of the word of god with the heatheÌ„ oracles that is the word of the diuel goeth to seek smoke in Horace for to choake the light of Moses let vs see the argument conteined in the said place There where there is a total abolishmeÌ„t there is no place for wishes of any felicity Balaam in his death wisheth the felicity that is in the death of the righteous therfore he beleeued that death is not a totall abolishment Againe whosoeuer wisheth to die like vnto theÌ„ that are singularly beloued kept of God beleeueth that there is a singular felicity happines reserued for them especially after their death wherof the vnrighteous shal not be partakers but Balaam maketh this wish knowing that God singularly loued the people of Israel therfore he beleeued that there was a felicity Happynes reserued for them euen after death To that which Du Perron saith that this felicity may be meant of a quiet death in a good age c. I answere that one may shew to a Saducie not onely by texts of the bookes of holy Scripture that he receiueth not Iob. 21. Psal e. 73 Ierem. 12. Habac. 1. but also by a great number of histories that he receiueth and by his owne experience that the life and death of the righteous is very often more miserable than that of the wicked and therefore the Iustice of God requireth that there be made an other iudgment after this life and the very heathen themselues were able by naturall discourse onely to make this conclusion which the Saduces that sometimes held the sterne of the Iewish Church and their aduocate they haue met withall in the Romish Church cannot draw from the whole body of the Law of Moses So Balaams asse without any spectacles of Tradition perceiued sooner and did more honour to the Angell than that great Doctor that false prophet that was vpon him that none might find strange if in times past many simple Israelites and at this day many simple lay men see more clearely and honour more deuoutly the holy scripture which is the true Angell or messenger by which God maketh knowne vnto vs his will than did the Sadduces in times past at this day the Bishops Popes who change the sheepe of Christ into asses in lading them with their traditions wherewith they more cruelly torment them than Balaam did his Asse striking it with his staffe and that for none other reason but because they giue place and honour to the Angell Du Perron alleadgeth Luther in fauour of his Sadducie who wisheth euen for temporall respects to die the death of Abraham therefore why might not Balaam who was not saith he more spirituall neither hee nor his Asse than your great Prophet Luther haue the like wish I answer that although the conformity with BalaaÌ„ is found much greater on our Bishops side than on Luthers whether we consider it in the manner of setting forth his owne praises as Balaam did or in the profession of being hired for to slaunder and curse the children of God and for to bewitch againe those whome Luther according to the grace receiued of God â—umb 24.19 hath vnbewitched or in giuing of pernicious counsells for all sorte of fornication there being no difference but that Balaam though against his will pronounced that which God had commaunded him and our Bishop saith and writeth quite contrarie to that which God hath commaunded him in the Scripture yea contrary to the feeling of his owne conscience yet notwithstanding the argument that he draweth from this comparison holdeth not For if Balaam desired the same that Luther desired and if Luther desired to dy like Abraham not for regarde only of temporall conditions but also in the faith of Abraham that he might be receiued into his bosome as a childe of the Father of beleeuers then it is plaine that Balaam desired expressly the immortality and saluation of his soule that is to say Paradise And it is to be feared that the Saducie here will say that his aduocate sauoreth of the asse esspecially seeing his miter which looketh so like a case for long eares And that if one day when he shall haue changed his miter into a hat and his crosier staffe into a Cardinall mule he can meete with an asse as wise and well spoken as Balaams was it would speak farre otherwise to his Cardinalls habite Out of Deuteronomie From the .5 Chapter .29 verse I reason thus that which death abolisheth wholy can not be a subiect capable of a permanent and perpetuall happynes but they that keep the commaundements of God do possesse a perpetuall happynes Therfore death doth not wholy abolish theÌ„ The Bishop of Eureux replyeth that it is not said that they shall haue theÌ„ selues this happynesse for euer but them and their posterity successiuely Now that is false the word Them is formaly expressed but the word Successiuely is not expressed For as hath beene aboue already said the same happines that is promised in general is applicable to euery particular accoÌ„plishing the coÌ„ditioÌ„ required now all obseruers of the commauÌ„demeÌ„ts of god haue promise of the perpetuall happines therfore euerie one of theÌ„ shall haue it also in particuler Would not our Bishop forge heere some such monster as that of the Libertines or of Auerrhois Of the vnderstanding vniuersall and perpetuall in it selfe but corruptible in the indiuiduals It may bee that in the conclusion hee maketh an allusion to Transubstantiation For if the accidentes subsist without their subiect Mans felicitie may also subsist for euer though the subiects of the same bee not for euer From the sixth Chapter 24. verse I conclude thus If they that feare the Lord haue promise to be euer preserued aliue It must follow that there is an Eternall life Now the Antecedent is conteined in these words of Moses The Lord hath commaunded to doe all these ordinances and to feare the Lord our God that it may goe euer well with vs and that hee may preserue vs aliue as at this present Therefore c. From the ninth Chapter 27. verse of the forme of praier vsed by Moses making intercession for the people and praying God that hee would remember his seruants Abraham Isaacke and Iacob wee may reason thus That which is not at al cannot haue any efficacie the Patriarches Abraham Isaacke and Iacob long time after their death haue some efficacie namely to appease God by the remembrance of his couenant contracted with them Therefore death
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
reckoning and by the testimony of the same warrant the Bishop bringeth all the curses and execrations which the Apostle S. Iude pronounceth are to fall vpon their heads that blaspheme the Scripture of vnsufficiencie and imperfection that is which blaspheme the old and new Testament Let him see if his Mytre be of proofe against these Apostolical fulminatioÌ„s which are of another manner of temper than those of his Iupiter Vatican For to diuert himself from these yrksome thoughts he gathereth certaine flowers out of Luthers booke against king Henry the eight and thinketh to couer therwith al the indignitie out-rage that euer the most impudent Pope or Monke did to Prince or Emperour either to tread them vnder-feet as was the Emperour Frederick the first Or to poison them as was the Emperour Henry the seuenth Or to chaine them and tye them like Dogges vnder their tables as a Duke of Venice was vsed Or to cannonize for saints the Parricides or murtherers of them 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 and â—â—â—le treâ—â—â—ose helâ—â—custs â—ere â—o exeâ— as of late were the murtherers of Henry the third king of France and William of Nassaw Prince of Orange Or to stirre vp dayly against them newe Parricides and murtherers as they often did against the late Queene of blessed memorie Elizabeth which the most shameles calumniator cannot reproach Luther so much as to haue thought of Or to raise and inuent new leagues and seditions for to ouer-flow all Christendome with blood c. Of all these goodly practises of the Apostolike tradition not of Saint Iude the seruant of Christ but of Iudas the betrayer of Christ the Byshop of Eureux esteemeth that the Church of Rome is not tyed to yeelde an accompt For saith he it is not to you fol. 132. that shee is to answere for her actions in this regard O insoluble Argument and ineuitable demonstration worthy the expected hatte which such an Aduocate hath reason to demaund that it may blush for him There remaineth the last Instance taken out of the same Epistle touching the Prophecie of Henoch wherof mentioÌ„ hath been made aboue the reason declared why the Apostle proueth not by scripture the point in question namely because they whom he discribeth in this Epistle as manifest contemners of Iesus Christ would haue made as little accompt of the Scripture so that it was more to purpose to alleadge a judgement described witnessed eueÌ„ by the heatheÌ„ for these profane persons hauing some remnant of shame left in them could not haue denied and reiected that which was confessed and acknowledged as well by strangers as by them of the Church Now it hath been often sayde vnto him that none of his Instances is receiuable for to shew the imperfection of the Scripture vnles he bring forth Instances vpon some points necessarie to saluation whereof is not found any proofe in the Scripture It hath beene shewed him aboue that this Article of the vniuersall judgement is found in Moses and by measure as the light of the world approched and drew neere the doctrine as well of this Article as of all others hath beene more cleerely expressed though the contentious neuer see this light A blind-man seeth as little the light and brightnes of the Sunne at noone-day as that of the morning star It is not for the coÌ„tentious but against theÌ„ that the Scripture is writteÌ„ those spirits that seeke issue of all the proofes of the same shall in the end finde entrance into hell To such Spirits we say that which the Scripture teacheth If any lust to be contentions we haue no such custom 〈◊〉 11.16 â—39 neither the churches of God But at least saith he though there shold be nothing like to it expressed in the Scripture or that the books that contained somthing of it were lost as diuers other writings of the Prophets yet this Oracle would not haue lost her authoritie nor ceased to be the word of God and Doctrine worthy of faith In very truth if all the Scripture were lost it were that which such as he would wish more then any thing in the world For then they would make vs beleeue goodly matters seeing that notwithstanding this light of the Scripture more resplendent now then it hath beene these many ages before they wold without blushing perswade vs that their graines Pictures and other like fopperies are meanes for to attaine to saluation are helps of the blood of Iesus Christ as wel as their Traditions are supplies of the Scripture But if Bellarmine speaking of what was to be doone â—oncil lib. 〈◊〉 for the election of a Pope if in case all the Cardinalls should perish at once affirmeth that it is vnlikely euer to happen Truely wee haue more reason to hope and firmely to beleeue that Iesus Christ who as the Bridegroome hath ioyned to himselfe the Church with an indessoluble band will preserue for her also the contract of mariage the Indenture of the Couenant more necessarie to the Church than the Cardinals to the conclaue And so as that Antichrist with all his wiles endeuours shall neuer be able to abolish it no more than could in times past his predecessor or his figure King Antiochus The Byshoppe of Eureux by this hypothesis doth hee not confesse that if the Church which ought to bee the gardian of the Scriptures should loose them it should erre greatly And if Saint Iohn pronounceth so fearefull a curse against those that adde thereunto or dimish there-from what should become of them who hauing charge to keepe it should let it wholy be lost and should imagine neuertherlesse that they cannot erre But when all the rest should bee lost by what speciall priuiledge should this Epistle of Saint Iude be saued which by reason of the shortnesse of it might bee lost with the first As for the writings of the Prophets that haue beene lost when hee hath answered the place of Saint Augustine aboue alleadged we shall see what shall bee meet to reply thereto Aug. de ciâ— Dei l. 18. In the meane while hee persisteth in his trifling impertinences to alleadge vnto vs still the authoritie of our Doctors who doe not alwayes agree in the exposition of all places though they alwayes agree in the doctrine of all the pointes of Saluation That were good if wee held them in the same degree as they of his Church doe their Popes all whose Expositions notwithstanding they doe not alwayes receiue without exception but are constrained to shift them off by this distinction That they speake sometimes as Popes and sometimes as Doctours and that in the latter qualitie they may be deceiued in doctrine That is to say it is then they deceiue themselues most when they assay to performe some part of their Office that is to teach yea were they Apostles Nowe I demaund of our Byshop whether hee had rather condemne Cardinall Bellarmine who holdeth with Saint Hierome Saint Augustine and all Antiquitie
of Mediate and Immediate sufficiencie so industriously set downe at the beginning of his Booke In the â—â—cation 〈◊〉 title and by vs examined and confuted in a Treatise by it selfe yet distrusting the force of this distinction hee addeth another distinguishing sufficiencie into Authoritatiue and doctrinall and depriuing the Scripture of the latter fol. 14â— of fauour granteth it the first Let vs note herein two fraudes the first in that hee presupposeth that St. Iohn spake but of that which he himself only had written in stead of referring his words to all the Euangelicall historie written before by the other three Euangelists St. Iohns scope in his writings as all the fathers doe witnesse being onely to make a supplie for a more expresse declaration of the Godhead of the sonne of God because of the Heretikes that then denied it and to confirme and seale by his testimonie Tert. dâ— c. 17. Hier. dâ— Ecl in and Apostolike authoritie the Canonicall bookes of the new Testament because of certaine writings supposed and attributed to Saint Paul by some of his Disciples and followers themselues Wherevnto hath relation that horrible threatning which he set as a heauenly seale to his booke of the Reuelation for a shutting vp of the new Testament The other fraud is to dispute in what sense this proposition is sufficient or not as if neither Saint Iohn nor all the other Writers of the newe Testament had written any thing else but these words only Iesus is that Christ that Sonne of God without adding any other proofe or explication without any other Hystorie or doctrine whatsoeuer a fraude most necessarie for his desperate Cause giuing him occasion in appearance to heape vp a great number of wordes to fill vp paper or rather dust to cast into mens eyes If so many things as the Euangelists doe write conteine not the meanes for to proue this proposition and for to shewe plainly what Christ is to wit his two natures and his three Offices to what vse serue they then how can a thing so vnsufficieÌ„t in it selfe make vs haue eternal life If they containe but a part of the meanes and necessarie proofes what reason was there to set downe onely that part and to omit the principall What reason was there to make so many bookes and to fill them with matters which to set foorth our Bishops opinion in one word serueth to no vse at all seeing that euen that which is written cannot be vnderstood without his subsidiarie Tradition could any more shamefully defame the apostles and Euangelists these Notaries and Secretaries of the holy Ghost than in accusing them so manifestly of disloyaltie in their charge of hauing suppressed and eclipsed essentiall and principall clauses in this instrument which they haue framed and left for to serue for the perpetual canon or rule to the christian Church An accusation that cannot redound but vpon the holy-Ghost himselfe by whose instinct and inspiration they wrote that which they wrote for to serue to that ende and vse Let vs conclude then that this distinction Authoritatiue not Doctrinall is false and blasphemous leauing to the sacred Scripture no other title but of a Letter of credite but of a memoriall or direction as hee himselfe saith without containing the doctrine in it selfe but in another which is in effect to dispoyle it as well of authoritie as of doctrine for to inuest the Pope with both in attributing vnto him authoritie to teach whatsoeuer doctrine he listeth seeing they leaue Christians neither balance nor touch-stone to proue it after they haue defamed the Scripture whereby the men of Beroea examined euen the doctrine of an Apostle yea Act. 17 â— that only by the scripture of the old TestameÌ„t wherin they found sufficieÌ„cie of doctrine as wel as of authority for to judge thereof Indeed the law is called by the Hebrewes Thora that is to say doctrine the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth the same thing But after the Doctrine of du Perro it is a doctrin not doctrinal as the blood of the Masse is a blood not bloody that is to say a PyrrhoniaÌ„ doctrine Yet at the worst though we shold euen admit this fond false and outragious distinction that al the Scripture were nothing else but a letter or credit or as he saith A memoriall conteyning directions and tokens for to finde a Physitian which is able to declare to euery onâ— Fol. 14â— all the necessarie remedies to cure his maladie Yet he should get nothing for his Pope nor for all his representatiue Church For if a man looke well into this memoriall if he take all the directions obserue well the tokens that it conteyneth he shal not find therin one only iota that directeth him to that magnificall Romane Hierarchie for which onely our Aduocate pleadeth If the Scripture did direct sicke persons to the Pope as to the Soueraine Physitian onely healing all diseases then should these be the markes or tokens that it should giue of him An Idoll beset with gold and precious stones set vpon a high Throne with three crownes vpon his head a guilded Pantoâ—le on his foote which hee giueth Kings and Emperours to kisse being prostrate before him Cardinalls round about him with red hattes and scarlet roabes representing the Senate of the auncient Rome Many Byshops and Arch-byshops mytred in coapes and robes and betrapped as the subiect of the Comedie requireth Innumerable legions of Priestes Curates Monkes Fryars and Chanons diuersified with sundry liueries and dispersed as in Garrison through all the prouinces of the Empire of that Beast Indeede we finde â—â—al 17. that the Scripture liuely prescribeth a certaine woman cloathed in purple and scarlet bedecked with gold and precious stones which it calleth great Babylon the mother of the whoredomes and abominations of the earth drunken with the blood of the Saintes and Martyrs of Iesus Christ And this is the Physitian to whom du Perrón as one of his Apothecaries directeth vs for the healing of all our diseases 〈◊〉 13. because it is written Who-Whosoeuer doth not worship this Beast it shall put him to death True it is that those she putteth to death are better cured of their diseases forsaking this body of sin resting from their laboures 〈◊〉 14.13 than those that drinke in the cup wherewith this Physitian or rather Magitian drencheth such as direct themselues vnto him Now that which hath been said touching the text of S. Iohn sufficeth also for to vnderstand the expositions of S. Augustine S. Cyrill the Bishop of Eureux bestirreth himselfe heapeth vp many words without matter for to make them to be vnderstood of miracles which is a thing not denyed the knot of the question beeing whether it bee with a restriction to miracles onely and a totall exclusion of Doctrine This is it that we deny him this is it that repugneth euen coÌ„mon reason to speak of a signe
which the Lord would not tel then to his Disciples because they could not beare it as for example if I sayd that this which we reade in the beginning of this Gospell In the beginning was the word and the worde was God c. Because this was written afterwardes and is not recorded that our Lord said iâ— whilest he was here in the flâ—sh but one of his Apostles wrote it Christ and his Spirit reuealing it vnto hâ—m is of the number of those things which the Lord would not say then because that the Disciples could not beare them who would heare me saying that so rashly Thus you see Saint Augustine protesteth that hee should incurre the fault of rashnesse if he affirmed the thing which the Bishop of Eureux mainteyneth that he affirmeth Which is made manifest by these wordes which this holy Father addeth in the same place a little after Wherefore my welbeloued thinke not to heare of me the things which the Lord would not then tell his Disciples And in the Treatise following hee vnfoldeth at large this worde beare shewing how one and the same thing pronounced before one and the same auditorie at one same time is well vnderstoode of some and ill of others yea is vnderstood of some and of others not because he that vnderstandeth amisse vnderstandeth not at all and of them that vnderstand it some vnderstand it lesse some more and no man so well as the Angels 〈◊〉 13.9 because all men vnderstand but in part Besides this vntruth it is to be noted that the Bishop of Eureux committeth the same Sophisme he imputeth to me in taking our Sauiour Christes wordes simplie and absolutely which are sayd Secâ—â—â—undum quid as we say that is for a certaine respect namely of the present sadnesse and indisposition of the Disciples Also for regard of the administration of their charge full of dangers and not for the substance of the doctrine He would faine in wrap me in contradiction because I said in a place That the old Testament conteyned the Gospell or Christian doctrine And in another Fol. 16â— I say that the two Epistles to the Thessalonians contayned all the Christian doctrine and that for this cause Saint Paul exhorteth them to obserue not onely that which he wrote vnto them but also that which he taught by word of mouth whence the Bishop of Eureux concludeth that if the old Testament contained all it was then superfluous to bind them to the obseruation of the Tradition not written I answere that neyther dooth the sufficiencie of the olde Testament nor that of the newe abolish or hinder the Ministerie of preaching neither doe generall lawes and ordinances take away particular Expositions and applications neither doth the substance of the Gospell conteyned in the olde Testament Rom. 1â— as Saint Paul witnesseth hinder a more ample reuelation in the new Nor doth the sufficient declaration of all the Alticles of faith exclude the ordinances which concerne pollicie and the exterior order of the Church Considering that one may say that though there had beene alreadie some other writings of the new Testament besides these two Epistles directed to the Church of Thessalonica yet it might so be that they were not yet knowne nor come into euerie place And to confound the state of Churches springing with the state of Churches founded and established by tract of time is to reason as men doe in an euill cause by euill Logicke in an euill conscience which he here discouereth as through all the rest of his Booke To conclude the question is whether from this place obserue the Traditions which you haue receiued of vs whether it be by word or by our Epistle One may conclude 1. That the written word is not sufficient to Saluation 2. That the Traditions the Apostle speaketh of are of the substance of faith 3 That they were not written since this Epistle To the first I answere no because though the Doctrine that Saint Paul deliuered by word of mouth to each particular Church were more ample then that which is contained in each Epistle directed to these particuler Churches yet doth it not followe but that all is written For that which is not found in one Epistle is found in another Which importeth not neither to them who had heard the Surplus from the Apostles mouth nor to vs who may see in other partes of the Scripture that which is not contained in one To the second I say the Bishop of Eureux againe confoundeth the prediction of a thing to come with Articles of faith that is to say Historie with Doctrine To the third I say that this same Historie touching Antichrist is found written though not in this same Epistle nor by this same Author but by S. Iohn in the Reuelation These three wordes doe vnmix the Cahos of words hee had heaped together Let the Reader note by the way that in this Bishops iudgement To yeelde thankes vnto God for that he hath chosen vs to Saluation 〈◊〉 68. in sanctification of the spirit and in the faith of truth c. is not a Doctrine propounded to obserue Let vs see his last argumeÌ„t taken from the place wher Saint Paul recommendeth to Timothie â—â—m 1.13 〈◊〉 2. to keepe the true patterne of wholesome wordes which he had heard of him And to commit the things he had heard of him in the presence of many witnesses to faithful men which are able to teach others He concludeth thence that all these consignements transmissions and atestations had beene superfluous 〈◊〉 170. and vnprofitable if Timothie had heard nothing of Saint Paule which could not be veryfied by the Scripture alone I alleadged the exposition of Tertullian who obserueth that the Apostle saith expresly these things Tert. de pâ—â—script that none imagine him to speak of any vnwritten Doctrine but that they should refer it to the same Doctrine which he had set downe in writing He replyeth that this place of Tertullian is wrested without shewing by the least sillable how or wherein Neither can he with all his sophistrie For it is the proper exposition of the same place of the Apostle whereof he treateth and the proper refutation of this glose of our Bishop before inuented by the Hereticks that were in Tertullians time But seeing this father is not to his relish let vs present him Saint Ambrose who expoundeth it thus The Apostle willeth that hee commit the secrets to faithfull men and worthy which were able to teach others Ambr. â— Tim. 2. not indifferently to common negligent persons For there must be a great care had in the choosing of a Doctor or Teacher This is all S. Ambrose findeth in it which is in summe That Timothie as hauing the charge of an Euangelist should take heede whome hee chose for the teaching of the Gospell Rom. 1â— 1. Cor. 1â— Eph. 1 9â— 3.4 which the Apostle in diuers places calleth mysterie or secret
The Bishop of Eureux opposeth to the veryficatioÌ„ by scripture the attestation of witnesses as if they were thinges incompatible that cannot stand together as if a thing witnessed by them that heard S. Paul speake could not be verified by them that read his wrightings As for the Patterne of wholesome words if he oppose it also to the scripture What wil follow of it but that the wordes of the scripture are not wholesome words and I willingly confesse that they be deadly the sauour of death to all Blasphemers We neede but represeÌ„t his enthimenia in forme for to shew the deformitie of it Saint Paul referred Timothie to the wholesome wordes he had heard of him Ergo he referred him not to them he had written Notwithstanding that in another place hee exhorteth him to reading 1. Tim. â— 2. T m. â— 16.17 assuring him that the holy letters that is the written words are able to make him wise to Saluation perfectly instructed vnto euery good worke He answereth to this last place That they may instruct him to saluation not immediatly and by them selues but by meanes of the faith and beleefe they gâ—ue him in Jesus Christ not by the internall fulnesse of their doctrine but by the direction and sending to an outward supplie namely to Christ and by Christ to his Disciples Or else that they may instruct him in this speciall poinâ— that saluation is by fayth in Christ Iesus For Saint Paul speaketh but of the Scriptures of the olde Testament c. This is euer the burden of his song That the Scripture hath no other sufficiencie than a Letter of credite To confute these impertinencies as often as he bringeth them were to goe about to make them be founde lesse impertinent We neede but looke into the sixteenth verse following to knowe what sufficiencie the Apostle attributeth vnto it which he doth so particularly so exactly and so clearely that there is no braine so credulous or so blockish that can beleeue the bearer of this fonde distinction seeing how the internall fulnesse of the Scripture is represented therein with the right vse thereof which consisteth in teaching the true doctrine â—â—m 3.16 in confuting the false in instructing vs in good workes and in reprouing and correcting the euil That the man of God may be absolute being made perfect vnto all good works Let vs conferre this Text with the Perronian glose The Scripture is giuen onely to serue vs for a memoriall a Letter of credence a direction to outwarde supplies namely to Iesus Christ and by him to his Disciples That is to say euerie one to his Curate And it is but for this onely reason that he maketh mention of Iesus Christ For howe else should it direct men vnto Christ seeing he teacheth no more with his owne mouth as he did when he was conuersant vpoÌ„ earth And though he should stil immediatly teach on earth should we receiue sufficient instruction from him No truly if we beleeue this Bishop 〈◊〉 48. who boldly maintaineth that the things alone which he did or declared with his owne mouth to his disciples are not sufficient for the instruction of the Church Adde nor free from Error and by consequent of correction as the Councell of Constance could well shew him Con Const Sess 13. tearming it rashnesse and presumption to teach that ChristiaÌ„ people should obserue that which Iesus Christ hath instituted namely to communicate the Lordes Supper in both kindes Now I summon him to shewe how it can be that the Scripture serueth vs for a Letter of credence for a memoriall or direction to direct vs to the pretended Church since that he and all our aduersaries maintaine that it is for that Church to shew vs and to authorise the Scripture which without this testimonie should haue no more authoritie nor credite than Aesops Fables What preposterous Methode is this that giueth the Letter of credence to the bearer that should receyue it of him What can be more ridiculous Can wee haue a more manifest proofe for to shewe that his principall purpose is to make the Scripture vnprofitable and to bring it wholy to nothing Distrusting himselfe to be able to sustaine this same impertinencie hee hath recourse to another shift and sayth That Saint Paul meaneth Fol. 172. that the holie Letters are able to instruct Timothie to this speciall point that saluation is by fayth in Christ Iesus This glose as alreadie hath bin obserued is ouerthrown by the two verses following which represent the inward amplitude and fulnesse of the scripture as well for doctrine as for maners True it is that this point is the substance of the whole gospel seeing that whosoeuer beleeueth hath faith in Iesus Christ hath life eternal shal not come into iudgmeÌ„t but hath passed froÌ„ death vnto life And if the scripture did but barely propouÌ„d this sentence only Iohn 3.24 without expouÌ„ding it without declaring the causes conditions proprieties effects of this faith they would be some apparance to put forth this distinction of Mediate and Immediate which in this case is as receiuable as it is fond and blasphemous in that ample description of the end vse and whole office of the Scripture which this place setteth forth vnto vs. And who will be so senselesse to maintaine that the Scripture is not fit to doe the office nor to attaine to the ende whereunto God who inspired it hath ordained it Is it because it speaketh not of blessed graines and such like trinkets But Saint Paul saith he speaketh here of the Scriptures of the old Testament for it was them that Timothie had learned from his childhoode at which time there was nothing of the new Testament written And these Scriptures of the old Testament could not instruct Timothie immediately and by themselues I answere that the Apostle speaking of the childhood of Timothie excludeth not the rest of his age but sheweth that he speaketh of the whole time of his life vntill then So speaking of the Scriptures of the olde Testament he excludeth not them of the new for this tearme Holy Scriptures is generall And to go about to exclude necessarily a Species after the position of the Genus is but bad arguing To goe about to take away the name of holy Scriptures from these two Epistles which Saint Paul had then written to Timothie and which at the least Timothie had read besides the other writings of the new Testament which perhaps he had also seene is to commit blasphemie But there needeth none other confutation of such Arguments but the representation of their forme Saint Paul maketh mention of the studie that Timothie made in his youth Ergo he speaketh nothing at all of his studies made since Item Saint Paul saith that Timothie learned the holie Sciptures Ergo he meaneth only the writings of the old Testament And by consequent he meaneth not that he should learne any thing of the writings
the Pope and euerie other Bishop vnattainted or conuinced of notorious crime He was forced to graunt it mee But when I requested further that he would giue me this proposition in wrighting signed by him hee would not heare of it no more then he found it fitte to insert this question in the number of the seauen that he treateth There was also spoken of the institution of Monkes of their rules and ceremonies specially of the Charter-house Monkes which instance importuned him much finding neither canall pipe nor deuise whatsoeuer that could make to flowe forme apostolick traditioÌ„ that Angelicall perfection whereof the Charterous and other Monks do boast In this altercatioÌ„ he said diuers things so enormous and contrary euen to the Doctrine of the Romish Church that if they had been set downe in writing as I moste instantly required wee should haue a goodly mirror of Theology or rather Pyrronian Technologie And seeing hee then rather chose to breake off the conference then graunt mee this iust request Hee shall permitte mee also to finish rather heere this answere to his reply then to wander with him from our principall question for to extrauagte vppon the new Instances that hee propoundeth besides the purpose Considering also that before the treating of them after the methode that hee obserueth and requireth namely by the onely authoritie of the Fathers without any testimonie consequence or analagie of Scripture these questions were to be handled I. Whether controuersies ought to be decided by the writinges of Fathers II. Who gaue them that authoritie seeing themselues neuer haue acknowledged nor demaunded it III. Whether if it were true that the visible Church cannot erre this same priuiledge appertaine to euerie Doctor or particular Bishop of the Church IV. If it belong onely vnto some by what workes we shall discerne these infallible ones from others V. Vpon what ground is builded our Bishops distinction that the fathers may erre in quality of doctors and Bishops but not in qualitie of Witnesses seeing that by this meanes one part of their writings is manifestly made equall to the writings of the Prophets and Apostles to whome onely by speciall prerogatiue belongeth this qualitie or title of Witnesses irreprochable and without exception Luk. 24 4â— Act. 18. â— 15. â— in that which concerneth the points of our Saluation For though Antipas and other Christians are called faithfull witnesses of Christ Reu. 2.1 This testimonie hath onely reference to their constant confession of the Truth in the midst of torments not for to make authenticall vnto vs any point of doctrine Otherwise all the Martyrs should be made equall to the Apostles who were chosen instructed and sent immediatly by our Lord Christ and all that the Fathers haue written as Witnesses should be incerted into the Canon of the scripture for to make it an entire Rule seeing that after Bellarmine the Scripture is but a Rule partiall De verbo L. 4. c. 12 not totall Yea the very Treatise of the vnsufficiencie of the Scripture if our Bishop haue not written it as a false Witnesse and if all that which containeth Truth is as he maintaineth armed with Canonicall authoritie should be added to the Scripture as an excellent peece of worke and singular ornament of the same VI. Wherefore the Romish Church hath chaunged reformed censured and abolished so many things which the Father 's reported as Witnesses concerning the ceremonies and pollicie of the ancient Church and which they teach as Bishops and Doctors in expounding the holy Scripture which expositions are nothing else according to the saying of the Bishop of Eureux but the Subsidiarie Tradition without which the bare text of the Scripture is vnprofitable not being able to be vnderstoode or dangerous not being well vnderstood And of such reformations censures and abolishments we will produce when neede shall be innumerable Instances Meane-while the deposition of Cardinall Baronius shall suffice a witnesse yet liuing and who is worth many others both for his learning and for his dignitie â—l Eccl. â—1 ad aen â—4 impres â—nt These are his wordes All the Bishops that haue succeeded the Apostles haue not attained the meaning and vnderstanding of the Scriptures neither hath it beene necessarie they should alwayes haue excelled in this grace For the Catholike Church followeth not alwayes nor in all things euen the MOST HOLY FATHERS whom we rightly call the Doctors of the Church because of their excellent doctrine though it be manifest that they be induced with this grace of the holy Ghost aboue others See here the Subsidiarie Tradition planted by our Bishop supplanted and cut downe to the verie rootes by the Axe of this Cardinall the Popes Librarie keeper But dooth hee leaue at leastwise to the ancient Fathers this dignitie of vnfallible and irrefragable Witnesses As little truly contrariwise hee exceedingly reiecteth this outragious flatterie 〈◊〉 1. ad an â—39 â—22 when he saith The Actes of the Apostles written by Saint Luke deserueth more credit then any authoritie of the Ancients Yea he confesseth not onely that many things haue bene falsly attributed to the Apostles but also that those things which true and sincere Writers haue reported â—n chr 44 â—2 haue not remained intire without being corrupted VII Why wee may not beleeue of many Fathers that which this same Cardinall affirmeth of Saint Cyprian â—al tom 1 â—n 258. namely that he abode not in his errour but renouÌ„ced it before his death though that do not appeare neither by his writings nor by any other testimonie of the Fathers If Charitie was the only cause of this affirmation touching one ancient Fathers acknowledgement why may not we vse the like charitie giue the same iudgement conclude in like sort of others considering the Retractions that one of the most excellent amongst them â—ugustine hath left vnto vs who happily added many others before his death either by writing or at least wise in his mind Himselfe also doth authorise as to say of him that which he said of S. Cyprian De Bapâ— contr Dâ— L. 1. c. 4. It may be this holy soule consented to the Truth as though we know it not For all that was then done among the Bishops could not be written or preserued Neither know we all that was written And in another place Epist 48 We find not that he corected this opinion but it is not without reason that we are to iudge of such a person that he corrected it and perhaps that was suppressed by those that tooke too great pleasure in this error and would not be depriued of the defence of such an Aduocate These are my seuen questions which must first bee cleared before we come vnto his seuen the most important of which which is the sacrifice of the Masse is elsewhere dispatched and as yet by him vnanswered And as for the lies he giues to Caluin Viret and Chemnicius touching the institution of the other six points they fall backe not onely vpon Polidorus Virgilius Platina Sigebert Bergomas and such other Historians minorum gentium or vpon Gratian the compiler of the Decretals which serueth for Text in the Schooles of the Romish Church as the holy Scripture doth in ours Vide to â— Biblio S. trum P 1345. But also vpon the head of a Pope himselfe namly Damasus who reporteth the institution of certaine points euen as the others that follow him Also vpon Pope Eugenius 2. attributing soueraigne authoritie to Gratians Decretals and in generall on all the Popes that haue approoued it since But what would he get by it if we should take the originall of these things higher and of an elder date seeing that no authoritie of the ancients commeth neer the authoritie of an Euangelist since that which the truest writers haue reported since hath not remained entire by Baronius his owne confession To conclude De verbâ— L. 4. c 11 seeing that Bellarmine confesseth on the other side That the Apostles haue wtitten ALL the thinges that are necessarie for all and the things which they had publikely preached to all It shall be lawfull for me to crown the former questions with this CoÌ„clusion which floweth from the Confession of that Arch-Rabbi namely That the seuen Articles which the Bishop of Eureux propoundeth are not necessarie to all men seeing they haue not beene publikely preached by the Apostles Or if they be necessarie to all he must shew by their writings that they haue preached them publikely This is it that I summon him to do If he cannot do it I counsell him to be silent and to acknowledge his owne imperfection and vnsufficiencie rather than to attribute it to the Scripture which is most perfect and most sufficient as well to saue them that follow it as to confound those that blaspheme it FINIS
him in attributing vnto him this opinion This new Gnostick hath hee forgot that first principle viz. Of euery thing either the affirmatiue is true or the Negatiue the one being immediatly opposed to the other as it must be in matter of disputation Againe if these points be not conteined in Moses can his writings bee other than vnsufficient imperfect especially after his own definition wherby he defineth an imperfect vnsufficient thing to be when it is not sufficient to the end for which it is destinated and according to the maner wherby it is ordained therunto Tim 3 16 â— The end office of the Scripture is to teach the man of God that he may be perfect absolutely instructed vnto euery good worke Now if the first principles fundamentall points of this instruction be wanting therin if we must deriue them from some other way as he saith besids the Scripture It followeth either that the maÌ„ of God may be perfectly instructed without beleeuing the imortality of the soule the resurrectioÌ„ of the body Paradise hel c. which is the perfection not of a Christian faith but of a Pirrhonian beleefe Or els that the bookes that should teach theÌ„ yet coÌ„teine theÌ„ not wholy are as imperfect as a humane body would be without a head without a hart yea without a soule or as a tutour or scool Mr for so S. Paul caleth the law Gal. 3.24 which sheweth not to his disciple so much as the .1 rudimeÌ„ts or principles without which notwithstaÌ„ding he should neuer be capable to learne or vnderstaÌ„d any thing Also if none of the foresaid points be contayned in Moses it followeth that S. Augustine did wrongfuly shew by so many reasons Cont. Cresâ— Gram. l. 1. c. 17. 18. that Iesus Christ was a good Logician it would follow also that he that put him in the rank of deceiuers with Moses Mahomet did him no wrong for euery Sophister is a deceiuer and he which alledgeth for a demonstratiue proofe that which is but a vaine cold coniecture is a Sophister now if the place of Moses that Christ alledged to the Saduces for to proue the resurrection of the dead Exod. 3 6. Matth. 22.32 be not a demonstratiue proofe it is the trick of a Sophister to haue alledged it for such Also it would follow that Christ in approouing the opinion of the Iewes who thought to haue life eternall in the scripture if it were erroneous did not the office of a faithful teacher for that by this scripture is vnderstood the bookes of Moses it is manifest by the 45 46. and 47. verses of the same chapter where our Sauiour saith Iohn 5.39 that the Iewes trusted in Moses that Moses accused theÌ„ that Moses wrote of him That they could not beleeue his wordes because they beleeued not Moses writings Of necessity then whosoeuer will not openly blaspheeme Iesus Christ declare himselfe an vnmasked Atheist must acknowledge that the foresaid points are conteyned in the bookes of Moses It remaineth now to shew how they be there whether they do apeare to be there or no. I say they do so appeare to be there as maÌ„ is able to se theÌ„ there but to discerne theÌ„ he must haue the eye of his soule opeÌ„ clensed like as for to see the Sun which is the clerest thing in the world the eye of the body must be open seeing Now the vnderstanding of the natural vnregenerate maÌ„ is obscured with darknes is but darknes ye is dead that is to say depriued aswel of life as of spiritual sight 1 Cor. 2.1 which is the cause he caÌ„not see the things that are of the Spirit of God finding but folly in them And so not onely the Lawe of Moses but also the Gospell of Iesus Christ notwithstanding the brightnesse of it is hid to them that perish Cot. 4.3 of whom the God of this world hath blinded the vnderstandings that the light of the Gospell of the glory of Christ should not shine in them Both the Lawe and the Gospell become cleare vnto men when the Spirit of God by the light of his grace expelleth inwardly the darkenesses of their nature and the darnesses that the Prince of darknesse hath added therunto Pet. 119. Cor 13.12 when hee outwardly sheweth the light of the Scripture shining in darke places vntil such time as we see face to face the things which in this world cannot be seene but in a glasse darkely Here he will reply Whence commeth then this diuersitie of interpretations Whence commeth it that whosoeuer is truely inlightned by the Spirit of God findeth not streight waies the true meaning of the Scripture I answer that it is one thing to be truely inlightned another thing to be perfectly inlightned in al things It is one thing to vnderstand all the points necessarie to saluation and another thing to be able rightly to expound all the places of the Scripture one by one It is one thing to erre in the exposition of a particular place another thing to erre in a generall point of Doctrine yea though all the points be not of like importance It is one thing to say that the Scripture is perfect in it selfe conteining perfectly al that is necessary to saluation and another thing to say that men comprehend perfectly this perfection The Apostle saith that In this life we knowe but in part Cor. 13.9 we prophecie but in part It belongeth vnto God alone to know all things and in all perfection Now as there be childreÌ„ of light which see but by glymse as it were because they receiue this light by little little by degrees as the blinde maÌ„ whose eyes Christ opened to whom at first men seemed like trees â—ark 8.24 these acknowledge their ImperfectioÌ„ weaknes of sight Also there are childreÌ„ of darknesse which presume to know al to see all which neuer feele their blindnes â—â—hn 9.41 whose sin as saith our Sauiour remaineth that is to say is incurable For he giueth sight to them that feele their want by his iust iudgemeÌ„t blindeth more more those that thinke they see most clearely which intitle themselues Leaders of the blinde a light to them which are in darknesse Rom. 2 which disdainfully reiect the light of the Scriptures which boast themselues of a greater wisedome than that which God hath in them reuealed which seeing themselues condemned by the Scripture refuse it for Iudge take it for an aduersarie and accuse it as guiltie of the errours of those which follow it It is the speach of the Bishop of Eureux that he said vnto me in the verball conference vpon the errour of saint Cyprian touching the rebaptizing of hereticks And heere he saith That the scripture is so farre from being instituted to serue onely for particuler instruction in all the contentious points of Religion that on the