Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	father_n	place_n	son_n	5,610	5	5.5818	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13773	Positions lately held by the L. Du Perron, Bishop of Eureux, against the sufficiency and perfection of the scriptures maintaning 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.	Tilenus, Daniel, 1563-1633.; Du Perron, Jacques Davy, 1556-1618. Discours sur l'autorité.; Tilenus, Daniel, 1563-1633. Defence of the sufficiency and perfection of the holy scripture. aut	1606 (1606)	STC 24071; ESTC S101997	143,995	256

father that he will send him I will pray saith he vnto the Father and he shall send you another cōforter And in the same place where he saith he will send him he preuenteth say they the opinion might be conceyued of his proceeding from him in that he sayth he wil send frō the Father the spirit of truth which proceeds frō the father c To which they further adde that there is a great difference betweene the tēporal sending of the holy ghost at our Lords request on the Apostles and the eternall proceeding of the said Spirit which is the poynt in question D. Tillenus his answere The proceeding of the Holy-Ghost which is the thirde poynte which he maynteineth to haue no ground in scripture hath his proofe in the scripture by the schoolmen themselues against the Greeks who receiued this article without any greate difficulty in the Councell of Florence in which was present Iohn Paleologus Emperour of Constantinople but they receiued but fainedly and by constraynte of theire Emperour who stood in neede of the Westerne Churches the Articles of the Popes Supremacy of Trāsubstantiation of Purgatory and other like which are without and against the scripture Yet ther were some Bishops there that would neuer consent vnto them but afterwards caused all to be reuoked imputing the losse of the Easte Empire which hapned shortly after this councell to that vnluckie vnion that there was made with the Pope Now as the principall questions touching the holy ghost of his nature and of his office haue alwayes been determined by the scripture against the Arriās Eunomians Macedonians so also may therein be shewed his proceeding from the father and from the Sonne The place in saint Paule cannot be shifted of by his distinction of possession and proceeding 〈◊〉 8.9 〈◊〉 .6 as if he spake onely of the gifte possession of the spirit that Iesus Christ receued according to his humāity For the same spirit is there called both the spirit of Christ the spirit of him that raysed vp Christ And when saint Peter saieth that it was the spirit of christ by which the Prophets haue prophecied 〈◊〉 1.11 he quite cutteth of the bishops answere For seeing that the prophets haue prophesied before the incarnatiō of christ they cannot haue prophesied by the spirit in as much as it was giuen to the humanity of christ and on the other side the Scripture witnesseth in infinite places that this spirit of the Prophets was the spirit of God the father which sheweth as cleerely that the holy ghost proceedeth from the father the sonne as the consubstātiality of the son with the Father by conferēce of the places in the Prophets that speak of Iehoua with the places in the Euangelists and Apostles which appropriate them vnto Christ The exāple of Heliseus that receiued the Spirit of Helias is as little to purpose as the former distinctiō Iohn 15 Iesus Christ saith that it is he that well send this spirit shewing his diuine power Helias answereth to Helizeus when hee asked him double portion of his spirit Thou askest a hard thing meaning that it is not giuen by the power of man Christ saith not that it is an hard thing for him to send the Comforter contrariwise he saith all that his father hath is his also He gaue it indeed and in effecte to the Apostles breathing on them and saying Receaue the Holy ghost Iohn 20 And whereas du Perron sayth that this may bee expounded of the possession domination of the creatures ouer which the Father hath giuen him all power As whē the father of the prodigal child saith to his eldest son the like words All that is mine is thine J answer as aboue is alredy sayd that the spirit is in the son as in the Father And as is shewed that the Spirit proceedeth from the father by the places which say That the Father sēdeth him frō the Father so also may be shewd his proceeding frō the sō by the places Gal 4.6 Iohn 5.1 god sēdeth the spirit of his sō the sō doth al things that the Father doth c. Jt is obiected that it is said That the Spirit proceedeth frō the father That Christ sayth he wil pray the father to sēd him to which J answer that Christ in those places speketh as Mediator in which he is lesse that the father so hee sayth that the father is greater than hee And yet he saith the father wil send him in his name Iohn 14 Iohn 15 which coūteruayleth that other saying that he will send him from the father As for the difference betwixt the temporall mission of the holy Ghost and his eternall proceeding J say that this eternall proceeding is nothing else but the communication of the Diuine essēce by which the third person of the Trinity receiues all the same Essence from the Father and from the sonne as being the spirit of them both And seeing that the Greekes beleeue with vs that the holy Ghost is God that he is equall to the father and to the Sonne against the Arrians and Macedonians and that he is a distinct person from the father and from the sonne againste the Sabellians we are not to hould them for heretickes in this poynt though they had certaine particulare manners of speaking for as much as heresy is not in the words but in the sense as Saint Hierome saith Many among the auncient fathers are not held for hereticks though they speake often improperly of the misteryes of the trinity of which number is S. Hillary 2 de Tri●c who in many places putteth three substances in God against the sownd maner of speaking whereof hee excuseth himselfe saying that these things surpasse al signification of wordes all intention of sence all conceptiō of sence all conception of vnderstanding But the Church of Rome is rightly holden for heretical which in many things doth attribute vnto it self the office of the holy ghost As whē it sayth that one cānot be assured of the truth and diuinity of the Scripture but onely by the testimony that that Church giueth of it The Bishop of Eureux The fourth poynte which we haue propounded is the translation of the Saboath to Sunday Euery one knoweth how rigorous the commandement of the Sabaoth was in the old law and how the gretest both thretnings promises of god were made to those that violated or obserued his Sabbaths And notwithstanding this commandement of God that god had vouchsafed to write with his own hand in the 10 precepts of the decalogue to sequester it as by speciall priuiledge frō all precepts of the ceremoniall law for to insert it in the Epitome of the morall law Yet the church hath changed it with out any written ordinance both as touching the end the forme ●●d the matter First as concerning the end Saturday was ordayned to commemorate the Creation of the world gods rest after

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. ● cōt 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 cōmandement of God that such as come frō 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 imperfectiō of the scriptu e cōcerning this poynt he confoūdeth the question of act exāple or practise with the questiō of law or ordināce S Augustine saith in this matter there cā be none exāples of scripture alledged that is it cānot be foūd there that it was so practised therfore he referrd the custō or practis hereof to apostolike traditiō 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 conclusiō on this second poynt The doctrine that euidently sheweth what is to be done in all matters cōcerning 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 secōd book 9 chapter de doctrina Christiana for in the verball conference he woulde giue no answer therūto 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 ●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 ● 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 possessiō 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 vpō 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 sēce 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 frō 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

the scripture Acts ●7 2 1. Cor. 15 Titus 1 12 ●o●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 ●●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 ●●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 anciēt 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 contētious 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 coūterfeit 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 cōtinually demaūdeth 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 ●●len de ●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 mā when he heard S. Paul speake of the last Iudgment ●●t 24.25 he trembled for feare and yet the Apostles discourse was onely taken from Moses ●●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 ●●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 cōprised in Gods couenāte 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 Resurrectiō the life No more truly thē an Epicure would haue beleeued the Imortality of the soule seeing Calanus ioccūdly cast himselfe into the fire although this act seemed to othersome a more pertinent proof for

haue attributed this opinion to Luther alone The same glose reporteth the opinion of some others which held that this serpent tooke the pleasant countenance of a mayden and condemneth it for no other reason but because the scripture doth not authorise it Now that these effectes namely speech and perswasiue discourse soliciting the woman to disobedience did exceede the naturall facultie of a naturall Serpent there is no Sadducee can denie therefore this facultie came to it eyther of man or of God or from some other spirit that hath it in it selfe This cannot bee of man for man cannot giue speach reason and discourse to a beast besides there was then but two humane creatures who had not any knowledge at all of it Neyther was it GOD that speake to the woman by the Serpents mouth for that were to accuse him of too detestable a fraude and malice as did the wretched Ophites Finally it was not a good Angell For Moses declareth vnto vs in many places that Angels doe keepe and preserue men from euill And this fact heere as Moses describeth it sheweth that it was an enemie of men not a faithfull seruant of GOD that vndertooke it and whose calumnie or false accusation wee see in the literall Text verie clearely whence hee is called deuill that is to say calumniator or false accuser hauing accused God falsely vnto men as enuious of their good and absolute felicitie and this historie cannot seeme absurde no not to a Heathen who readeth in prophane histories that horses bulles trees statues or images and riuers haue spoken which wee reiect not as simply and meerely fabulous though it be contayned in fables knowing that wicked spirits haue as well beene able to speake by one Instrument as by another Se how one may very easily ridd himselfe from diuerse expositions that haue beene giuen vpon this text as for that of Phalo which the B. of Eureux bringeth he should iudge by it for what vse Tradition was to this Iew namely for to depraue the Text to abolish the truth of the historie Moses maketh expresse mention of Daemons or diuills in Leuiticus and in Deuteronomie which sufficeth for to shew a Saducie that there is some A Manichee or other that holdeth that they are substances coeternall with God may be conuinced by the same reasons and consequences from Moses text that haue beene aboue alleadged in speaking of the Creation The words of Caluin which the Bishop of Eureux bringeth for my purpose would serue his better then mine if he were capable of it They importe that the Lord by the secret reuelation of his Spirit supplyeth that which is wanting in the outwarde euidence of the wordes of Moses which is most true For where this light of the Spirit shineth not there is nothing but darknes what outward euidence so euer there be in the wordes on the contrary what obscurity soeuer be found in the words whē the spirit speaketh inwardly 1. Ioh. 2.20 27. whē the Vnctiō of that holy one teacheth the children of light they heare see as much as is necessarie for them to saluation Cas Rhod. Cap. 7. Iliad 19. Tertul l. d● Ido ca 9. d● habitu mu● 2. alibi Cypr. de Di● hab Virg● Lactant. de● rig err l. 2. Iust. Mart. Apol. 1. 2● Athenag in ●pol Cl. Alex● 3. 5. Str● alii Now if the Doctors of the Romish church deriue the creation of Diuells from the same tradition whēce they deriue their fall It is needles to haue recourse for that purpose to the Tradition of the Synagogue or to that of the Apostles for it is from Homer that Cardinall Bessario deriueth it frō the fable of Ate which is no lesse receiuable than that which some of the Fathers recite by forme of Tradition of Angells sent from heauen for the guard and keeping of mankinde that corrupted themselues by frequenting of woemen Yet the Iewish Tradition touching the creation and originall of diuels must not be omitted since that after our Bishop it is from it onely that the Iewes learned this point of doctrine that which the Doctors of their Thalmud say is ●ib Sanhe ● Iudicia ●un 〈◊〉 in 2. 〈◊〉 7. ●r a Sancta 〈◊〉 con Iud 〈◊〉 C. 1● Bib ●atr C. 4 That during this space of an hundred thirty yeares which is betweene the birth of Cain Abel the birth of Seth Adam ceased not to engender in Eue wicked Spirits and Diuills which she brought forth that those are called the sonnes of Adam that stirred vp Salomon to sinne If we beleeue Du Perron such deuilish traditions should be vnto vs authentical necessarie mystical cleare sufficient and perfect after that we haue declared with him the Holy Scripture vnprofitable superfluous obscure vnsufficient imperfect And whereas he directeth me to Luther for to learne of him the orders and degrees that are among diuels In my opinion his Thomas Aquinas whom hee calleth the Prince of schoolemen instructeth farre more particularly his disciples vpon this matter than Luther doth For he specifieth the first sinne of the deuill the first moment of time in which it was committed what ranke or degree that rebellious Spirit to GOD was of the manner how he induced his complices to reuolte with him the number of the good and the bad namely whether is the greater the punishment of these and the feeling of their paines c. The other Schoolmen recounte yet greater particulars though Du Perron say they traffick not in those deuillish countreys yea Bellarmine after some others representeth vnto vs the Buildings of hell ●●urg l. 2. with all their stages or stories chambers and clossets not forgetting the vsage and entertainment that is there all so exactly set downe that one would say that these people content not themselues onely to traffick into those quarters but that they pretend therein the right of burgesie or free denizens as if they meant to dwell there indeed being assured by the reuelatiō of S. Brigit that there are there many Popes and Cardinalls faire matter for to re-establish there Hierarchie there Now let the Reader iudge whether I haue beene shamelesse as hee saith in alleadging these places of Moses for to prooue the pointes aboue examined and whether the arguments I haue drawne from them be not as cleare and sound as those that the Romish Doctours inlightned with the double Tradition absolute and subsidiarie yea and the Popes themselues who hold all the fulnesse of this mystical Treasure locked in the coffer casket of their breast do draw from the writings of Moses when by the creation of the world they proue the Popes supremacie By the creation of the Sunne and the Moone the Popes preheminencie ouer and aboue the Emperour Boni 8 Ex● de maiorit● o● ed. C 9.6 Can. Eccles By the Sodomites rebuke to Lot the exemption of the Clergie from all politicke Iurisdiction By Iacobs Testament

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 ●ean de la ●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 ●ark 16.14 ●●llar de Ec●●es mil. l. 3. ●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 ●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 whēce 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 thēselues as were those of whome S. Luke maketh mētion If the B. of Eureux grāteth not that both of thē 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 ●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 childrē all the Romane Army ●●seph An●●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 ●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