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
mysticall formes but that they simplie coÌ„iured the Energumeni or possessed in the name of god c. whence we might gather that they which among the Iewes had this gift brought thereunto no other mystery than the calling on the name of the God of AbrahaÌ„ of Isaacke and of Iacob Hereupon he termeth me a Demoniak possessed with the euil spirit of ignorance and presumption Fol 89 for not hauing read the 7. Canon of the 4. Council of Carthage which maketh mention of a booke wherin Exorcismes were written Let vs leaue to him the euill spirit of knowledge which so swelleth him that it is to be feared it will burst him in the end And let vs see his argument The Councill of Carthage holden about the yeare of grace 400. maketh mention of a booke conteyning Exorcismes Ergo Annal. Eccle. Tom. 5. ad an Chr. 398. in the beginning of the Christian Church there were certaine prescript formes for to exorcise Therefore the beginning of the Christian Church should be put 400. yeares after the beginning of the Christian Church or at the least 398. years according to the computation of Baronius himselfe For although mention be made of exorcists before that yet the forme which they vsed in their Exorcismes is no where declared no Annot in Tert lib de Bapt. not in the acts of the said Councill of Carthage and Pamelius can alledge for it nothing more auncient than the booke called Ordo Romanus and the Sacramentarie of Saint Gregorie Iustin Mar. in Tryph. My affirmation was grounded on the testimonie of Iustine Martyr 230. yeares auncienter than that councill his words are these By the name of this same Sonne of God the first borne of euerie creature c. all diuels are adiured and subiected And if yee Iewes adiure them by whatsoeuer name of your Kings or Patriarches or Prophets no spirit will obey you But if any man among you adiure By the God of Abraham the God of Isaacke and the God of Iacob for that same is Christ it may bee they would bee subiected But now your exorcists vse in their adiurations a certaine art as the Pagans and doe vse perfumes and ligatures c. Beholde Iustine who knew no other forme which was in vse among the Iewes than the calling on the GOD of Abraham of Isaacke and of Iacob and no wise restrayneth this gift to a certaine order among the Iewes teaching vs also in what estimation we should haue those that vse magicall and heathenish enchauntments to wit not of order nor ordinance diuine but diuelish Also wee know that Iesus Christ in the beginning of the Christian Church restrained not this gift to a certaine order but promised and gaue it indifferently to the faithfull and euen a long time after Tertullian maketh mention of certaine soldiers Mar. 16.17 Do Coro mil. c. 11 vide Apolog ca 32. In Mat hom 35 that had it The Bishoppe of Eureux who maintaineth that the sonnes of Sceua were of the Iewish order of exorcistes hath found this fantasie in Origen who affirming that it is not lawfull for Christians according to the Gospell to sweare thence concludeth that therefore it is no more lawfull to adiure any and by consequence holdeth that these Exorcistes were Iewes But his ground being false the conclusion that he buildeth vpon it namely that this was an order among the Iewes Annal. Eccle. Tom 1 ad an Chr. 56 is false also and condemned as such by Cardinall Baronius But our Bishop maketh vse of euerie thing so that he thinke it fit to demolish any part of the Lords worke that is of the scripture indited by his spirit His second instance is taken from the miracle of the poole set downe by Saint Iohn Hee saith That it was a needfull thing to know Iohn 5 whether it was not a sleight of Sathan for to inuite men to superstition for to intice them to make Pilgrimages for to perswade them to put their confidence therein and to seeke remedies at Creatures of their infirmities I answere that the Scripture warranted from all these inconueniences them that followed it as the light vnto their feete For it teacheth how superstition is auoyded namely in putting confidence in one onely GOD and in transferring nothing to the creature of that which belongeth to the Creator who by his law written had ordained to the Iewes three voyages yearely for to appeare before him at Ierusalem with offerings See heere their pilgrimages grounded on scripture Exod. 34 23. Deut. 16. â— If the Angell who by the troubling of the water therein manifested this power of healing euerie infirmitie had demaunded sacrifices for to be honoured with them in Gods stead no faithful being instructed in the law wold haue had recourse to this remedy how excelleÌ„t soeuer it were or how great need soeuer he had had As at this day they Deut. 13 that haue learned by the scripture that onely God is to be inuoked or called vpon doe make no voyages or pilgrimages to the places where the Saintes departed are called vpon what maracle so euer be done there true or false seeing an other besides God is there inuoked which was not done at the Poole For to make this instance of force for his purpose it behooued him to shew that such as went downe into it called vpon the Angell or on some Patriarch or Prophet that they confessed themselues first after the Romish manner made the vow of nine dayes saide a certaine number of Aue Maries that they did weare beads told their blessed graines that they beheld their Agnus Dei kissed crosses and crucifixes and caried candles to the Image of the Angell as our ignorant superstitious people doe to Saint Michaell and by the same meanes to the diuell that is at his feete Saint Augustine expounding this miracle hath not recourse In Iohan tract 17. neyther sendeth any to Tradition but vnto the Lord who giueth vnderstanding protesting that he would speake of it as he could and assuring himselfe that he by whose aide he did what he could would supply in his auditors that which he could not herevpon he handleth all this historie allegorically prouing his expositions by texts and consequences of scripture and not deriuing any thing at all from the pretended Tradition Saint Cyrill saith Iohan. 1.2 5. that the Angels went downe inâ—o it onely on the day of the Pentecost for to trouble the water which hee likewise draweth from the scripture without mention of any Tradition his words are these The power of this healing was limited onely to one man which signified that the profit of the law was bounded only to the people of the Iewes without passing any further For the commaundements of the Lawe shewed by Angels on mount Sinai and afterward exhibited on the day of Penetcost ordained for that ende were not extended but from Dan to Beer-sheba If this circumstance of time to wit of the day
De moribâ— Eccl. Cathâ— c. 24. Hee confesseth that there are many Superstitious persons in the true Religion worshippers of Sepulchers and pictures But in another place he vnfoldeth his opinion vpon this matter saying that if wee pray well as we ought to doe we should say nothing else Ep. 121. â— Prob. but what is set downe in the Lords prayer And that whosoeuer saith that which cannot be referred to this EuaÌ„gelicall praier though his praier be not vnlawfull yet is it carnall which cannot choose but bee vnlawfull seeing that they who are regenerate by the Spirit ought onely to pray Spiritually To the place that the Bishop of Eureux produceth out of Theodoret what can be more fitly opposed Theodor. Ep ad col than that which the same Theodoret writeth on the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Colossians where hee calleth worshipping of Angels heresie But if Angels which are ordeined of God for our guard which are the noblest creatures of all which alwayes stand before the Throne of God cannot be adored without heresie after the doctrine of Theodoret and the determination of the Councell of Laodicia shall we say he thought that the bones of dead men should bee worshipped what distinction so euer they make which the people vnderstand as little as the dead bones doe And if Baronius durst heere condemne Theodoret 〈◊〉 Eccl. â— ad an â—4 for that hee condemned as Heresie this superstitious worshipping of Angelles How much more shall it bee lawfull to condemne of Idolatrie and impietie them that so seeke and prease after this abhominable worshipping of bones and dead bodies For Saint Augustine in the place aboue alledged will not haue men serue nor adore the heauenly bodies for this onely reason that though they bee rightly preferred before all other bodies yet life is much better These heauenly bodies are not without miracles which God hath wrought in them and they doe bring more profit to men and do better declare the glorie of God than doth the dust and ashes of the dead what miracles soeuer be done there 〈◊〉 9.1 of which the true had none other end but to yeeld testimonie to the truth which the Martyrs had confessed for to conuert the Heathen therevnto and not turne away Christians from him that is the liuing God for to make them worship dead men for to withdraw the people from the visible Elements to the knowledge of saluation manifested in the Scriptures and not for to draw them to idolatries more then Hethenish which the Spirit of lies hath the cunning so well to nourish and set forward by an infinite number of false miracles and such as those were wherewith in times past he so well maintained the Heathen vnder his obedience Dialog Gazaei â— 5. Paâ—â—om 1 Here I summon him againe to tell vs on what Apostolike Tradition were and are grounded the Pirgrimages adorations and all those Ceremonies instituted a long time after the death of the Apostles What certaintie there is concerning the reliques which the people worship By what Registers shewed the succession of them that haue continued the keeping of them from father to sonne How by the warres and other publike calamities which haue lost abolished so many things there hath not beene lost so much as a comb of the virgin Marie a clout of the childhood of our Sauiour Christ ten thousand other such peeces No not vnder that horrible spoile and hauocke in the time of Dioclesian when al the Oratories and holy places of christians were burned and ruinate which serueth Baronius for an excuse and for an ordinary refuge when he would fain proue a thing by antiquity and can not And to come again to the historie in question there is found the verie dagger wherwith St. Michael fought with the Diuell from which Tradition the people learneth that it is not by faith nor by spirituall weapons Ephes 6. â— wherewith the Scripture armeth vs that wee must combat the Diuell but that one must haue a good sword and dagger for to resist him according to the Tradition of the Cibille who commanded Aeneas going into hell Virg. 6. Eâ— to hold his sword in his hand Tuque inuade viam vaginaque eripe ferrum That it is not in the worde and in the Sacraments that wee must seeke Christ with his spirituall graces but in some peece of wood which is said to be a peece of his crosse in some naile napkin towell or other relique Though Saint Paul say that he knoweth not Iesus according to the flesh 2. Cor. 5â— so farre is he off from making reckoning of these pretended Reliques The Scripture teacheth vs that God ordayned Death as a curse as the wages of sinne that deade bodyes bones and graues were polluted and did pollute euen the liuing by their touchings because they were as so many myrrors of this curse and of the corruption of humane nature in which the Image of God is so fowly disfigured Moreouer this same legall pollution taught the Israelites by figure that which the Apostles vnder the Gospell taught cleerely namely that wee should carefully keepe our selues from dead workes which are also called workes of the flesh and to maintaine our selues pure and holy the pretended tradition on the contrarie teacheth that there is no other puritie nor holines but in stirring kissing gilding adoring of dead bodies and wheras the lawe particularly forbad Priests to touch dead bodies 〈◊〉 22. there is no sort of people now adayes that so busie themselues in funerals and in handling of bones and reliques then the Priestes who feed vpon dead bodies like Rauens Vultures and in the meane while brag they were figured by the Leuitical Priests whom they care for as litle as for Iesus Christ when he saith Let the dead bury the dead vnlesse it bee that they obey him in this that being more dead than liuing they will haue no other affaires but with the dead hauing no hope of the true life and this is the reason why in their altars whereupon they sacrifice and crucifie as much as in them is Iesus Christ who is that life they must haue the bones and ashes of the dead to the end that as well they as their altars with which they liue might liuely represent vnto vs the possessed with vncleane spirites 〈◊〉 8. â—5 of whom the Gospel speaketh with the graues in which they dwelt Now we learne well ynough by the Scripture without the helpe of any tradition that the legall pollution that came by touching dead bodies is abolished by the Incarnation of our Sauiour Christ but that they should bee worshipped and adored with so much superstition and Idolatrie after this incarnation there is in it neither precept of it nor example though wee read in it the death and buriall of Saint Iohn Baptist of Saint Steuen and others on the contrary this distinction of reliques before and after the Incarnation is
chance some water is cast seeing they want the chiefe and principall condition which maketh a man be a matter and subiect capable of Baptisme namely Fayth That they that are Baptized as saith Saint Paule haue put on Christ That Christ cannot bee put on out of the Church which is called the fullnes of Christ that therfore Baptisme cannot be among hereticks That euery one of you sayth Saint Peter be Baptized for remission of sinnes And the Creed of Constantinople I beleeue one Baptisme for remission of sinnes Now among the haereticks there is no remission of sinnes For the Keyes were giuen to the Church and by consequent no Baptisme that when it was tolde Iohn Baptist that Christ Baptized he answered none can doe it vnles it be giuen him from heauen that no authority is giuen from heauen to the assemblies of hereticks and therefore that they cannot Baptize That Baptisme is done by the power of the holy Ghost that the holy Ghost is not resident out of the Church neither consequently Baptisme D. Tillenus his answer First I answere that the hearers of the Scripture learne that whosoeuer is Baptised in the name of the father of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost is well Baptised But the followers of the Romish tradition can neuer know whether they be well baptized or no For besides this instituti of Christ the Church of Rome requireth the intent of the Priest without which the Sacrament with theÌ„ is none Now there is no man that can be fully assured of another mans intent Secondly the scripture teacheth vs the difference betweene the outward sacrament the inward grace which is not inclosed within the other as a salue in a box as the Romish Tradition teacheth They that receiue the first receiue not alwaies the latter in what place soeuer it be as we see by the example of Iudas SymoÌ„ Magus For as saith S. Augustine 〈◊〉 5. de â—ont 〈◊〉 24 meÌ„ do put on Christ soÌ„times in participatioÌ„ of the sacrameÌ„t somtimes in sanctification of life the first is common to good and bad the other is peculiar onely to the good Neither hereticks nor orthodoxall can minister any thing but the outward sacrament the holy ghost onely giueth the internall grace that is fayth possessioÌ„ of Christ remissioÌ„ of sinnes All which is manifest in scripture But the Holy-ghost saith he is resident onely in the true Church and not among hereticks 2. J answere the scripture teacheth vs that the spirit blowes where it listeth if it were allwaies tyed to a visible church as the Pope to his seate of Rome â— 8 without distributing his graces elsewhere which is du Perrons meaning No infidell nor heretick borne out of the true church could euer enter thereinto by regeneration by which grace the holy ghost bringeth men thereunto 〈◊〉 17 Saint Paul persecuted the true Church so farre was hee from being a member of the same receiued notwithstanding the holy ghost out of the visible church Therfore it is not to speake properly the minister that giueth Baptisme but as the Scripture sayeth the heauenly father saueth vs by the washing of Regeneration through the renewing of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 5. 5 26 â— 1 16. Iesus Christ cleanseth sanctifieth his Church through the washing of water in his word And as the word of the Gospell when it is published according to the reuelation of God to saluation to all that beleeue though he that preacheth it do it of euill will without sincerity without zeale of enuy coÌ„tentioÌ„ as saith the Apostle that is though he haue no good intent So is it in the Sacrament which is a visible word so that the minister confer it according to the Lords institutioÌ„ his heresy or hypocrisy cannot hurt him that receiueth it For the question is not what is required in a pastour to approue his Ministery before God but what is requisit to the efficacy of the sacrameÌ„t according to the truth of god which the scripture teacheth vs caÌ„not be made voyde by the wickednes of men To which S Augustine agreeth saying that not only the good but also the wicked haue the ministery to Baptise but neither of theÌ„ both haue the power of baptism that Christ hath committed the ministery thereof to seruants but reserueth the power thereof to himselfe Thirdly J say that the scripture sheweth vs the correspondency of circumcision with Baptisme Ezech 1 23. Therfore as the circuÌ„cision giuen by the Apostataes of Samaria was availeable to the children that God acknowledged for his there being no need of reiterating it so as the Samaritans did reiterate that which had ben administred by the Iews as Epiphanius witnesseth So by like reason should not Baptism administred by a heretick be reiterate prouided that he keep the substaÌ„ce of the institution The Prophets indeed do exhort the Samaritanes to repeÌ„tance but neuer cal theÌ„ to a secoÌ„d circumcisioÌ„ though the first wer polluted by many abuses superstitioÌ„s The Bishop of Eureux Against these Arguments with greate apparaÌ„ce of scripture S. Augustine who 10 whole years haÌ„dled this question against the Donatists could not find any actuall and demonstratine proof in the scripture for the doctrine of the Church in this poynt and could oppose vnto them no other thing that would hold the place of an infallible proofe but the tradition authority of the Church Hoc saith he obseruandum est in rebus quod obseruat Ecclesia Dei Questio autem inter vos nos est vera sit Ecclesia Dei ergo à capite sumendum exordiuÌ„ cur schisma feceritis And in another place 〈◊〉 Proinde quamvis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat autoritas vt quando S. Scriptura fallere non potest quisquis falli metuit huius obscuritate quaestionis eandem ecclesiam de illa consulat quam sine vlla ambiguitate S. Scriptura demonstrat And in another place Bap. â—on Sed illa consuetudo quam etiam tunc hominem sursum versum respicientes non videbant â posterioribus restitutam recte ab Apostolis tradita creditur Et talia multa sunt quae longum esset repetere Now saint Augustine declareth that the opinion of the Donatists was hereticall and the whole Church with him holdeth the Donatists for hereticks and our aduersaries themselues As also it must needs bee that either the Catholikes or the Donatists be hereticks For if Baptisme administred by hereticks bee not true Baptisme the Catholickes which receiue them without Baptizing theÌ„ doe violate this article One Fayth one Baptisme Also I beleeue one Baptisme for remission of sinnes If on the contrary it be true Baptisme the Donatists in rebaptizing them and reiterating and multiplying
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
father that he will send him I will pray saith he vnto the Father and he shall send you another coÌ„forter 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 froÌ„ the Father the spirit of truth which proceeds froÌ„ the father c To which they further adde that there is a great difference betweene the teÌ„poral 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 TraÌ„substantiation 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 ArriaÌ„s 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 humaÌ„ity 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 incarnatioÌ„ 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 consubstaÌ„tiality of the son with the Father by confereÌ„ce of the places in the Prophets that speak of Iehoua with the places in the Euangelists and Apostles which appropriate them vnto Christ The exaÌ„ple of Heliseus that receiued the Spirit of Helias is as little to purpose as the former distinctioÌ„ 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 wheÌ„ 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 seÌ„deth him froÌ„ the Father so also may be shewd his proceeding froÌ„ the soÌ„ by the places Gal 4.6 Iohn 5.1 god seÌ„deth the spirit of his soÌ„ the soÌ„ doth al things that the Father doth c. Jt is obiected that it is said That the Spirit proceedeth froÌ„ the father That Christ sayth he wil pray the father to seÌ„d 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 couÌ„teruayleth 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 esseÌ„ce 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 Triâ—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 conceptioÌ„ 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 wheÌ„ it sayth that one caÌ„not 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 froÌ„ 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 â—â—d the matter First as concerning the end Saturday was ordayned to commemorate the Creation of the world gods rest after
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
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
Resurrection of the body it must necessarily inferre that it is therefore proper for to prooue it or that Christ was not fit for to reason Certainly when the resurrection of the body is proued the immortalitie of the soule is prooued also But he which prooueth but the immortalitie of the soule prooueth not for that the Resurrection of the bodie which was notwithstanding the question wherwith the Sadduces had assailed our lord who had by no meanes stopped their mouth if he had proued but the first point that is to say satisfied but the one halfe and the easiest part But this argument saith our Bishop was till then vnknowne to the Iewes who for that cause admired the wisdome of our Sauiour And therfore they must needs haue receiued the beleefe of it by another meanes than by the bookes of Moses namely by the tradition of Abraham Isaack and Iacob and other Fathers What vse hath then heere subsidiarie tradition which after our Bishop 〈◊〉 71. is the Gardian and keeper of the mysticall interpretation of the text of the scripture 〈◊〉 45. Or if there were none vpon this place as Du Perron seemeth to grant reckoning it among them that the sonne of God who hath the key of Dauid opened to his Disciples since he himselfe expounded the scriptures It will follow that the place was altogether vnprofitable before which is the bishops mysticall exposition that he might couertly giue Saint Paule the lye who maintaineth that The whole scripture is giuen by inspiration from God â—â—m 3 and is profitable c or as they of the Church of Rome translate it Euerie Scripture that is euery place of scripture meaning it euen of the olde Testament Now it is true that Saint Mathew saith that the multitude were astonied at the doctrine of Iesus Christ citing this place For the confusion and ignorance was so great vnder the Reigne of the Pharisaicall Traditions that it seemed to the auditours a thing miraculous to be able to alleadge the Lawe so pertinently and to purpose Euen like as in this last Reformation of the Church many of those that had beene all their life time brought vp in the superstitious Traditions of the Church of Rome haue beene astonied when they haue seene them so pertinently confuted by the holy scripture In the meane while the thing hath not beene so obscure as the bishoppe will haue it otherwise some euen among the Scribes would not haue approoued this allegation saying Maister thou hast well said Luke 20.39 Marke 12 2â— For they were so great enemies to Iesus Christ that they espied all occasions euen to the least of his words for to entrappe him And must Du Perron shew himselfe heere worse than were the Scribes and Pharises accusing our Sauiour Christes argument of obscuritie or impertinencie which was approoued by his greatest enemies Math. 22.3 who confessed that hee had stopped the mouthes of the Sadducies Which sheweth that the thing was so cleare manifest that there could bee no reply But what reason or testimonie can bee cleare to him who findeth not cleare enough the place of Daniel vnder colour that a Rabbi and one Polychroneus had some particuler doting vpon it yet more than sufficiently confuted by some of ours without any helpe of Tradition which our bishoppe holdeth so necessarie therein The wordes of Daniell are Oecolamp Dan. 12.2 Manie of them that sleepe in the dust of the Earth shall awake some to euerlasting life and some to confusion and eternall shame And they that bee wise shall shine as the brightnesse of the firmament and they that turne many to righteousnesse shall shine as the starres for euer and euer Beholde the place wherewith Du Perron saith a contentious spirit cannot be forced without the helpe of tradition that wee no more doubt of his intent which is not to content himselfe to make the scripture vnsufficient and imperfect but also wholly vnprofitable superfluous and vnapt seeing the clearest and most formall places haue no force nor vertue without Tradition which if wee will beleeue him forceth all euen the most contentious spirits to whom the scripture coÌ„tenteth it self to say 1. Cor 11.16 If any man lust to be contentious we haue no such custom neither the Churches of God What remaineth for him but to say that Tradition is God himselfe who alone is able to change the hearts to tame the rebellious and to make light shine out of darkenes Indeed there was a Bishopp in the counsell of Trent who without blushing or changing colour attributed to the Pope who is the principal spring and fountaine of the Traditions at this day in controuersie those words that Saint Iohn had said of the Eternall sonne of God calling him the light come into the world Orat. Corn. Epis Bitont in Conci Trid Iohn 1. Now if Iesus Christ had had the same opinion of the scripture as Du Perron would he not also haue said the like to the Sadducies as their Aduocate holdeth vnto vs Namely that they deceiued themselues to thinke to finde in the writinges of Moses all that was necessarie for them And that the fiue bookes of the Lawe were but a letter of credite referrring the rest to the sufficiencie of the bearer of the Tradition Hee dare denie that our Sauiour Christ attributed the cause of the Errour of the Sadducies to their ignorance of the Scripture though two vnreprooueable witnesses depose it and that in so cleare and euident tearmes that all the smoke of the bottomlesse pit Math. 22.29 Marke 12.24 25. cannot darken the light of it especially that of Saint Marke in these wordes Are yee not therefore deceiued because yee knowe not the Scriptures neyther the power of God To one that hath the boldnesse to denie such Textes I confesse I cannot shewe any thing neyther in the Olde nor in the Newe Testament In the meane while Du Perron may bee iudged heere by his owne mouth as that euill seruant in the Gospell being constrained to confesse that one of the causes of the errour of the Sadducies was the ignorance of the sense of the Scripture Luke 19 22 Fol. 52. though hee meane it but of the place cyted by themselues which commeth all to one reckoning for to bee ignorant of the sense of the scripture is to bee ignorant of the scripture But the true sense of the same is discerned and seene when the Father of Lightes maketh it be seene not when the Synagogue onely or the Church sheweth it which hath not any Tradition whatsoeuer for to open the eyes of the mind and to force the most contentious otherwise shee should manifest this force vppon the Turckes Iewes and Paganes if Tradition conteyned the true Efficient and Instrumentall cause both together Saint Hierome expoundeth the place of saint Marke in these wordes They erre saith hee because they know not the Scriptures and because they are ignorant of them they know not 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
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 wheÌ„ the spirit speaketh inwardly 1. Ioh. 2.20 27. wheÌ„ the VnctioÌ„ 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. dâ— Ido ca 9. dâ— habitu muâ— 2. alibi Cypr. de Diâ— hab Virgâ— Lactant. deâ— rig err l. 2. Iust. Mart. Apol. 1. 2â— Athenag in â—pol Cl. Alexâ— 3. 5. Strâ— alii Now if the Doctors of the Romish church deriue the creation of Diuells from the same tradition wheÌ„ce 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 froÌ„ 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 â—ib Sanhe â— Iudicia â—un 〈◊〉 in 2. 〈◊〉 7. â—r a Sancta 〈◊〉 con Iud 〈◊〉 C. 1â— Bib â—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 â—â—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 reuelatioÌ„ 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 Exâ— de maioritâ— oâ— ed. C 9.6 Can. Eccles By the Sodomites rebuke to Lot the exemption of the Clergie from all politicke Iurisdiction By Iacobs Testament
oppugne directly the holy Scripture which testifieth clearely inough that He that absolueth the wicked is an abhomination to the Lord Pro 17.15 And in another place commaundeth in expresse termes to pluck murtherers from the alter of God Exod 21.14 that they may die And whether it be referred to infidel gouernours Math. 27.5 â— Mar. 15.6 as S. Mathew S. Marke do or to the Synagogue corrupted as the Bishop of Eureux thinketh to shew it by S. Iohn yet the corruption transgression of the Law therein is euident Therfore Saint Cyrill for to excuse the ancient Synagogue groundeth this custome on the Law written touching maÌ„slaughter committed vnawares Cyr. in Iul â— 2. c. 14. Num. 35. and thinketh that the Synagogue that was in Christs time of hatred rage wherwith it burned against him transgressed that Lawe asking the deliuerance of a detestable robber and murtherer in steade of one that had killed a man by mischance and vnawares See then the Bishop of Eureux his tradition rased and condemned by the sentence of a Patriarch of Alexandria Theophylact speaketh of it these words Wee may say that the Iewes â—heoph in 〈◊〉 c. 18. teaching the doctrines which are the commaundements of men haue inuented many things of their owne heads and haue not vsed the lawes of God so that this point also became a custome without reason as many other things without commaundement of the Lawe See here againe Tradition the pretended word of God after our Bishop called a custome without reason by a Bishoppe much ancienter and of better authoritie than ours And whereas I sayd that they which deliuer Barrabasses do crucifie Iesus Christ in his members he accuseth me of inuectiues and of ignorance of the mysteries and iudgements of God forgetting the place of S. Ambrose whence I drew that coÌ„clusion the words are these The Lawes of iniquitie are such that it hateth innocencie loueth wickednes VVherin notwithstanding the interpretation of the name giueth apparance of a figure For this word Barrabas Amb. in Luc. â—ib 10. signifieth some of the Fathers those then to whome it is said Your Father is the Diuell are declared that they perfer Anti-christ the sonne of their Father before the true sonne of God The sentence of S. Augustine who saith that the Iewes are not to be reprehended for that they deliuered a guiltie person at Easter but for that they put to death an innocent should be vnderstood not simply and absolutely but by coÌ„parison as if he had said to put to death him that brought life and righteousnesse into the world is a crime so horrible and to deliuer a person guilty is nothing in comparison For this holy Doctour was too much conuersant in the Scripture and too good an interpreter of the places aboue alleadged for to declare absolutely vnreproueable those whome the spirit of God declareth to be an abhomination before the Lord. But it is not without mysticall reason that our Bishoppe would make murtherers bee found irreprehensible â—xod 21.14 â—o 17.15 â— Tim. 3.2 â—it 1.6 that is to say capable to bee Bishoppes it is without reason and not without ignorance to call mee ignorant of his mysteries which we are no more ignorant of theÌ„ of the traditioÌ„ of Boniface the fift who was the first Pope that ordained That altars and Churches should serue for places of fredome to Malefactors Platin. in Bonif. 5. wherein the good Prelate re-established the Tradition of Pilate to deliuer Robbers As for the instances he taketh out of the Epistle to the Hebrues where Saint Paul reciteth certaine legall ceremonies of which Moses maketh not expresse mention though we should graunt him all of them yet could they not helpe his desperate cause For they are things Chap. 9. which concerne historie and not doctrine the onely act of the sacrifice made for the ratification of the couenante and not the ordinary vse and custome of daily and yearly sacrifices therefore might be vnknowne without danger of saluatioÌ„ not onely of the people but euen of the Priests themselues seeing they were not preceps touching the maÌ„ners of their ordinary seruice but onely certaine circumstances of a singular and extraordinary sacrifice the substance whereof is described by Moses In a word they be Traditions of such a nature of which we haue ofteÌ„ said there be many but which derogate in nothing from the perfection sufficiency of the Scripture which consisteth in doctrine Now because this chapter with a good part of the rest of this Epistle giueth a deadly blow to the masse he laboureth to comfort the wound with these Instances taken from the same place because he can not make vse of it as of Achilles dart or as of a Scorpion for to draw a remedy from the same from whence the hurte came He supplyeth with his braine as much as he can and maketh S. Paul say that Moses in the solemnity of the said sacrifice mixed water with the blood of the TestameÌ„t which S. Paul saith not no more thaÌ„ Moses though he say that he tooke water with blood wool as if one could not take two things one with another without mixing theÌ„ one within another the priests of the Romish church wheÌ„ they baptize take water oyle other drugs Ergo they mixe them all together in the Sacramental water A goodly argument What is there in the text of Saint Paule that forceth vs to conclude that Moses mixed the water within the bloud for to sprinkle therewith the people by one onely sprinkling rather than to say that he sprinkled them first with water for to purifie and wash them as they did the sacrifices before they offered them which is the ground of the analogy by which I said that this ceremonie might be gathered out of Moses He reprooueth me of vanitie for affirming that the sacrifices for sinne And that such sacrifices were of hee goates The first is manifest for that Moses in the first place speaketh of whole burnt offerings which were expiatorie propitiatory after which he maketh mention of sacrifices of thanksgiuing The other appeareth by analogie or proportion of the Law which saith If the Prince of the people that is one of them that haue publick charge as the seauenty Elders and the heads of the tribes had commit sin let his offering be of an hee goate Now in this Sacrifice whereof is question the 70. elders are commanded to goe vp with Moses Aaron Nadab and Abihu Leui. 4.22.23 whose sacrifices were of bullockes according to the Law It is gathered therefore by analogie that the offrings of the 70. elders were of hee goats To say that the institution of all these particulars was after the Sacrifice of the Couenant were not to consider that sacrifices notwithstanding this were in vse before the Lawe giuen by God to Moses Leu. 4.3 and that not according to each mans fantasie but according as God reuealed and
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