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
31 is sufficient for vs to beleeue that Iesus is that Christ and that in beleeuinge we might haue life in his name I remember that in the verball conference the B. of Eureux accused those of our side of a most wicked falsifying of this place for hauing translated the word tavta these things in stead of referring it onely to miracles of which alone he maintained that S. Iohn meant And because I could not get from him any cleare answer as then on expositioÌ„s of S. Augustin and saint Cyrill that I alledged wholly agreeable vnto ours I will in this place rehearse them â—t Tract 〈◊〉 45. The first saith though Iesus had doon very many things yet all were not written but that which seemed sufficient for the saluation of beleeuers was chosen to be written The other speaketh yet more clearely 〈◊〉 lib. 2. in 〈◊〉 cap. vlt. All the things saith he that Iesus did are not written but only those things that the writers thought sufficient as well for doctrin as for manners c. The B. of Eureux The apostles do not onelie giue vs examples of the vse of traditions â—s 2 15. but also commaundement Obserue saith Saint Paul the traditions that you haue receiued of vs be it by worde or by our Epistle In which place those of Geneua haue takeÌ„ out of their Frenche Bible the word Tradition which is in the Greeke and in the Latine and haue put insteade thereof Instruction To which it cannot be answered that saint Paul restraineth the generality of this proposition to the traditions onely which haue since beene written For it is in consequence of a tradition that he had giuen them concerning the cause that hindred the comming of Antichrist which was neuer written that he frameth this generall law And in this sence also do saint Basill S. Epiphanius and saint Chrysostome interprete it D. Tillenus his answer When saint Paul wrote this Epistle there was scarce any scripture of the new Testament For after our aduersaries own account no Euangelists yet had written and saint Paule had than written but his former Epistle to the Thesâ—â—â—nians Seing then these two Epistles did not conteine al the doctrin of Christ necessary to be known the Apostle fitly exhorteth the Thessalonians to obserue not only what he had afore written vnto them but also what he had taught them by word of mouth But doth it follow therefore that none of that should afterward be written Du Perron saith it doth because it is in consequence of a Tradition that he had giuen them touching the cause that hindred the comming of Antichrist which was neuer written that he frameth this generall Law But that is altogether false 2. Thes 2. â— we need but looke into the text to know of what Traditions the Apostle speaketh We ought alwayes saith he giue thanks vnto God for you because he hath chosen you to saluation through the sanctification of the spirit and the faith of truth whereunto he hath called you by our Gospell to obtaine the glory of our Lord Iesus Christ VVhereupon he addeth Wherefore keepe the Traditions that is to say these instructions of truth which you haue learned and which I haue giuen you either by word of mouth or by our Epistle By the consequence Du Perron draweth it should folow that part of this tradition touching the hindring of Antichrists comming should be written which vvas doon and therefore he ouerthroweth his own exposition Furthermore though all he saith were of force as it is of none yet could he but prooue thereby the traditions of the Apostles and not an infinite number of others which the Church of Rome causeth to be obserued as the Lawes of god vvhich vve know by their histories vvere instituted many ages after the Apostles times If because Moyses had giuen som instructions by vvord of mouth to the Israelites the Cabalists and Ievvish Rabins vvould make vs receiue the Traditions of their Thalmud who would admit them And if du Perron beleeue the Fathers let him beleeue then Tertullian Chrysostome and saint Hierome who say that after the ruine of the Romane Empire the throne of Antichrist should be established 〈◊〉 â—ome Which therefore is fulfilled seeing that the ruine o◠〈◊〉 Empire is notorious to all the world The B. of Eureux 〈◊〉 â— 2 1 He saith also to Timothie Tu ergo fili confortare in gratia quae est in Christo Iesu quae audisti à me per multos testes haec commenda fidelibus qui idonei crunt alios docere Of which deposite there had bene no neede if all the word of god as our aduersaries pretend to proue by this same Chapter had beene sufficiently written or should haue been from the very time of the Apostles D. Tillenus his answer 〈◊〉 1 13 The apostle himselfe declareth what he meaneth by this deposite which he exhorteth Timothie to keepe namely the patterne of wholsom words he had heard of him which consisteth in faith and loue and it followeth in this very verse that he shoulde communicate it vnto faithfull men which should bee able to teache others But in the third chapter he sayth most plainly 〈◊〉 3 15 â— that by the Scripture not onely Laymen as they call them but also the man of God that is to say the Pastour or Doctor of the Church should and may bee taught and made wise vnto saluation and absolutely instructed and made perfect vnto euery good work VVhence it followeth that this deposite or matter committed of trust vnto Timothie is nothing else but the scripture which is sufficiente euen for the saluation of a Bishop and not of a Lay man onely which later du Perron in our conference was forced to confesse finding no other distinction to escape The B. of Eureux Moreouer there are fowr points which our aduersarie shoulde with vs and condemne as we doe of heresie those that repugne the same at least wise touching the three former namelye the trueth of Baptisme of little children that of the Baptisme of heretickes the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne and the translation of the feast from Saturday to Sondaye which can not bee concluded by any demonstraâ—â—â— proofe from any place of Scripture D. Tillenus his answer In al these articles if we beleue him the Scripture is no fouÌ„datioÌ„ pillar of our faith as Irenaeus sayd Irenaeuâ— c 1 Tertul. â— Hermoâ— And they that added them to Scripture need not fear the woe by Tertullian who reuereÌ„ced the fulnesse of the scriptures threatned after S. Iohn to those which cannot shew that that which they say is written nor the anthema of S. Augustin against those August Ecclesicâ— cont lit lib 3 cap Chrysosâ— Homil â— 20 cap â— that cannot reade in Scriptures the doctrine they teache nor the reproaches of Chrysostome who calleth them theeues that go vp by any other way into the fold than by the
POSITIONS LATELY HELD BY the L. DV PERRON Bishop of Eureux against the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures maintaining the necessitie and authoritie of vnwritten Traditions Verie learnedly answered and confuted by D. Daniell Tillenus Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Sedan VVith a defence of the sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scriptures by the same Author Faithfully translated PROV 30.5.6 Euerie word of God is pure he is a shield to those that trust in him put nothing to his word least be reproue thee and thou be found a lyer Aust de vnit Eccles cap. 3 sIn the Scriptures we are to seeke the Church by them to discusse our controuersies Chrysost in 2. Thes 2. Hom. 3. All is cleare and plaine in holy Scripture whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs is manifest Printed at London by L. S. for Nathaniell Butter 1606. TO THE READER WHen our aduersaries perceiue them selues conuinced by the Scripture they doe as they of whom Irenaeus and Tertullian speake they set vpon the Scripture it selfe accusing it of obscuritie ambiguitie and imperfection maintaining that the truth cannot therein be found by such as bee ignorant of Tradition and that the great mysteries of Faith were not by the Apostles committed to his disciples but by word of mouth and not by writing In a word all that the ancient Fathers recite of their gainsayers we see now a daies practised by ours who not content with those olde reproaches doe defame the scripture with many contumelies calling it the booke of heretikes the blacke Gospell Incke-Diuinitie leaden ruler nose of waxe Theramenes his buskin the apple of discord Sphynxes riddle a sword in a mad-mans hand and other like tearmes full of iniuries and blaspemies wherewith they defame the booke of the couenant and testament of the Sonne of God which the auncients called the mirrour of diuine grace and mans miserie the touchstone of truth the displayer of vanitie the Squire Rule and most exact ballance of all things the treasure of all vertue a Shop of remedies for all euils the sacred Anker in time of tempest a strong Armie against heretickes a safe retrait against all dangers a happie rest after all trauailes the sure and only stay in time of tryall the Pillar and foundation of our faith the most parte of which titles and the efficacie of them all is attributed by our aduersaries to their Traditions vvhich some of them dare euen preferre and oppose vnto the scripture Lind. lib. 2 panopl. c. 5 Witnesse he vvho calleth it the true Moly conseruing the Christian faith against the Enchauntments of Heretickes because Catholikes saith he vvould be soone poysoned vvith these Enchauntments he meaneth the Scriptures if they did not vse the Moly or antidote of Traditions Pigh de Eccl. Hic lib. 1. c. 4 Another hauing affirmed that the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall tradition hath more force and efficacie to assure our faith in euerie controuersie than the Scripture addeth further that if those of his side would remember that Heretickes ought not to be conuinced by the Scripture their matters vvould goe a great deale better vvith them but hauing endeuored to ouercome Luther by the Scripture for to make ostentation of their good vvitt and great knovvledge all is come to naught c. Truly it is an horrible combustion in Christendome to see the Scriptures vvhich make vs knovv Christ and become christians vsed so vnvvorthily No nation euer tooke this liberty vnto themselues to defame the bookes containing the lawes either of their beliefe or policie The bookes of the Sybills the lawes of the tvvelue Tables and other like vvritings vvere held sacred among the Romanes The Greeks and Pagans did beare all honour to the lawes of their Legislators and to their Rituall bookes as to this day the Ievves doe to their Thalmud and the Turkes to their Alcoran But among those that would be called Christians he that can cast most reproaches against the holy Scripture he that can obserue or imagine therin most imperfections vvill be esteemed more fine witted and more zealous in the faith then others yea there hath beene found one vvho of late hath dared by vvriting to maintaine publish that inuocation or calling on the name of Christ Iesus is no more commaunded in the Scripture then the calling on the Saints departed that thereby he might make the Innoâ—â—â—tion on the Author of life to depend as vvell on the Romish tradition as on the authority of the booke of life It being my chance of late to meet with the L. of Perroâ— Bishop of Eureux and to fall into some dispute vvith him concerning this matter he confesseth vnto me that the most parte of the articles in controuersie betvveene the Romish Church and ours haue no demonstratiue proofe in the Scripture As the Sacrifice of the Masse Inuocation on Saintes Prayer for the dead vvorshipping of Images Auricular confession vnction vvith the Crisme the necessitie of satisfactions the Popes Indulgences c. But he alleadged that from the time of the old Testament the Ievves did beleeue also manie things as necessarie to saluation vvhich notvvithstaÌ„ding in their times vvere not contained in the Scripture In vvhich point I found him not to agree vvith manie great Doctors of his side vvho confesse that the Scripture of the old Testament containeth all the God knevv to be expedient and sufficient for the saluation of the Israelites but that it is not so in the doctrine of the nevv testament vvhich say they should not be vvritteÌ„ on paper but preached by word of mouth engrauen in the hearts of the hearers so comitâ—â—ed vnto posteritie without writing alledging to this 〈◊〉 that which Ieremie saith cap. 31. S. Paul 2. Cor. 3. The saâ—â— L. of Perron dissenteth also from his other Doctors of vvhom some haue vvritten euen in the Councill of Trent touching some points which he maintained might be prooued by the scriâ—â—tures though they deny it namely transubstantiatioÌ„ the merâ—â—â— of workes the Popes supreamacie Purgatorie c. And being certaine that these articles haue no more ground in Scripture than the rest we may well say of them which beleeue theÌ„ that which TertulliaÌ„ said of some in his time they beleeue without the scriptures that they might beleeue against the scripture Nowe the conference hauing dured certaine daies and finding more illusion on his part than instruction I prayed him to continue it by writing that the obiections of the one and the solutions of the other appearing on paper euerie man might at leasure consider the knot of the one and the keene cutting of the other shewing him that more fruite would come forth of a permanent writing than from dazelling and vanishing words that the one remayned subiect to the touch and ballance and that in the other a subborned flatterer gaue and the ignorant hearer tooke oftentimes false Alarmes But I could neuer obtayne it at his handes who well considered that if hee should
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
the most part taken out of Origen that is out of the original of the most part of his errours mooued me to put this opinioÌ„ of saint Hilarie in the ranke of others wholy erroÌ„eous which are fouÌ„d in his writings as when he attributeth to our Lord Iesus Christ a bodie vncapable of wearinesse of hunger of thirst of al dolour condemning of errours Lib. 10. de Trin. in Psal â—8 those which by his sufferings conclude the dolour When he speaketh in such sorte of the IncarnatioÌ„ of Christ as if the holy Virgine had but borne brought him forth without contributing any thing of her substaÌ„ce to his flesh Lib. 8. de Trin. When he saith that we are one with the father by nature and not onely by similitude or adoption When he thinketh that Moses is yet aliue atleast by the iudgmeÌ„t of Bellarmine notwithstanding that the holy Scripture saith the contrary in expresse tearmes Matth. inc 17 de Purgat l 2 c. 8. Deu 34.5 c Learne heere Bishop that it is better to skip ouer such places impure and dangerous than to defile a mans selfe and run headlong into danger by abiding vpon them Epiphanius reciteth that certaine monstrous heretikes gathered the spettle other ordures which issued from the bodies of certaine women desceÌ„ded of their arch-hereticke â—osh 1.1.2 Haeres 53. for to keep them in manner of relicks and to apply them to sick persons In like sorte do they who cherish their spirituall maladies by the vncleannesses which they gather from the writings of the auncient Fathers And it is good reason that such to whom the scripture is vnsauorie should haue no better than stinking puddles for their best refreshing He accuseth me of two frauds 1. In that I summon the aduersaries to proue by the scripture all the points in controuersie betweene vs and them not onely such as be of the Essence of our saluation but others also lesse important and in the meane while restraine the disputation of things necessarie when it is shewed that the Apostles left certaine things to their disciples without writing theÌ„ 2. That in stead of prouing the points in question by such cleare and infallible texts of Moses that euerie simple Israelite might haue framed of it a necessarie indubitable consequence I produce onely some probable and coniecturall apparances or shewes To the first obiection I answere that wee neuer change our Thesis Wee proue by the scripture the points that we beleeue necessarie to saluation and wee demaund of our aduersaries the like proofe for the points that they pretend to be such whether of necessitie absolute or conditionall Wee reiect many things of the Romish Church which at first sight seeme not to oppugne saluation but their consequences dash against it For example the forbidding to eate flesh on certaine daies is in it selfe a light thing and may be practised for certaine politicke respectes Rom. 14 which concerne not our saluation sith that the kingdome of God is neither meat nor drinke But to make of it a law for to binde the conscience to declare the transgression thereof a sinne against the holy Ghost to constitute therein merite towards God to attribute vnto it an expiatorie power to doe away sinnes C. violatoâ— to make of it workes of supererogation c. These are consequences which shake the foundation of Christian libertie the doctrine of grace and the assurance of our saluation grounded vpon grace Thus acknowledging but one Law-giuer who can saue and destroy 〈◊〉 4 12. and desiring to persist in the liberty which Iesus Christ hath purchased vs we will not receiue the yoak of bondage 5.1 8.20 â— 11.28 â—0 And they that wold subiect vs vnder their laws make vs fall vnder their insupportable burdens we bring them to the law of God to the yoake of Iesus Christ which is easie and to his burden which is light Wherefore it is false that we conclude so as the Bishop of Eureux saith we doe That is not in the Scripture it is therefore an impietie and superstition Our conclusions are thus That is not in the scripture and notwithstanding is commaunded vs to be kept as necessarie vnto saluation by him who hath no authoritie to make lawes to the conscience Therefore it is an impietie or superstition Wee grant also that some things touching the order outward policy of the Church things not vnmooueable and vnchangeable as is the doctrine of faith haue not beene written neither all the particuler deeds and sayings of our Sauiour and his Apostles But it is one thing to say All the heades of doctrine are not written and another thing to say All the particularities comprised vnder euerie head or kinde are not written We say that the Apostles haue written all the heads of doctrine genera singuloruÌ„ though not all the particularities of euerie head Non singula generum For as it is impossible to comprehend them all so is it not possible to write them all And for this cause we neuer denied but that there were things vnwritten vnder both Testaments as we doe not meerely and flatly reiect them so we receiue them not all without discretion or difference Neither hold we them that we receiue in the same degree of authoritie with the scripture because the Apostles themselues inasmuch as they haue not inregistred them with the rest haue weakened their authoritie and manifested that they were not things absolutely necessarie that the doctrine that may be drawne from them is sufficiently declared in the things which are written which are neuer so particuler but that wee may draw thence instruction for the generall Rule of fayth And the number of these same is so ample in their writings that to Christians they suffice whether it be to learne the truth or to reprooue errour This is that which is principally regarded in matter of Testaments namely what is written and not what the Testator said by word of mouth to any one who may varie or forget which is not to bee feared in â—he Scripture And how should the right be knowne How should the processe be ended which ariseth of matters of Testament if the InstrumeÌ„t be not produced visited especially when it is a long time after the decease of the Testator And when the Apostles make mention in their writings of some particular thing holdeÌ„ receiued among the Iews though not expressed in the writings of the Old Testament it followeth not either that they would authorise all the traditions of the Pharises or that they esteemed the Scripture imperfect or that they set those vnwritten particularities that they alledge in the same degree of necessitie or authoritie as they doe the things written For if of such allegations one would inferre equall authoritie with the scripture it would follow that the poems of Aratus Menander and Epimenides out of whom saint Paule citeth some verses should be equall to
the pillar and ground of truth not for the reason Du Perron alleadgeth because euery one resting on the iudgment of it can not be deceiued in faith nor hazard his Saluation he might say more briefly and more popularly In beleeuing in the faith of his Curate But for as much as the word of God contayned in the holy Scripture is set forth in the true Church as in old time the lawes were fastned to pillars that they might not be troden vnder feete and that they might be exposed to the view of euery man the Church which is the Pallace of our lord Iesus Christ is as Salamon was all of pillars euery particular Orthodoxall or right-beleuing Church is a pillar of that Palace whereon hangeth the table contayning the diuine trueth But as much resemblance is betweene this palace of our spirituall Salomon and the Popes on his Vatican as is betweene the crowne of Thornes and his triple Crowne of Gold betweene the Bible and his decretalls Now let the Bishop of Eureux tell me how these two propositions doe agree the church neuer erreth and that of the Schoolmen and Canonists In the day when our Lord suffered Faith remained onely in the virgin Marie which proposition â—ean de la â—urbruslèe Iohn Turbrusley maintayneth to be so necessarie that to hold the contrary is to goe against the faith of the vniuersall Church where was then this Church that cannot erre then I say when all the Apostles were aliue whom Christ our Lord reproacheth of incredulitie could the person onely of the blessed virgine make the Church â—ark 16.14 â—â—llar de Ecâ—â—es mil. l. 3. â—7 Bellarmine denieth it because saith hee The Church is the people and kingdome of God Now haue wee hitherto shewed the sufficiencie and perfection of the scripture in regard of the instances proposed by the Bishoppe of Eureux as things absolutely necessarie As for the others that he afterwards alleadgeth it is to bee noted First that they concerne rather historie than doctrine whereof is question and which hee of purpose confoundeth with historie for to bleaze the eies of the simple For hee knoweth verie well that wee willingly confesse that there is historicall Traditions and himselfe confesseth that the ordinance of these thing is not absolutely vnexcusable â—ol 80 That is to say it is not necessarie for all to knowe them Secondly it is to bee remembred that heere againe as is aboue saide he confoundeth with like malice these two tearmes truth and Authority dissembling that euery trueth is not of like Authority Otherwise it would follow that al prophane histories truly written are as authenticall and canonicall as the histories of the Bible And therefore that which the Apostles alleadged without the Scripture is most true but obtayned not Canonicall authority till after it was written by them and as touching that from which they draw arguments I answere that they doe it because it was agreed of the trueth of those particulars wheÌ„ce they draw them as at this day we reason oftentimes by things which not onely the Fathers but also prophane and heathen authors haue left in writing when it is agreed that they containe trueth yet can not any inferre from thence that they haue equall authority to the word of God Thirdly I say that among the instances he produceth there be some false and inuented and of this number is all the first namely the Institution of Exorcists that no text of the new Testament sheweth that it was an order instituted of God vnder the old Testament yea though it were graunted him that there were Exorcists at the time that Iesus Christ came into the world for our Sauiour Christs wordes conteine nothing else but a confutation of the opinion of the Pharises not a declaration of his owne touching Exorcists whether they were ordayned of God or of theÌ„selues as were those of whome S. Luke maketh meÌ„tion If the B. of Eureux graÌ„teth not that both of theÌ„ were of the same order Act 19 to what purpose doth he alleagde Caluin for to make me confesse it And if he graunt that they were how can he deny but that the one were deceiuers as well as the others Whence will he shew that the sonns of Sceua were rather of the order of the ancient pretended Exorcists than of the Apes that would counterfeit the miracles of the Apostles Let vs se the Logicke of our Carneades The sonnes of Sceua after the death of Christ were not true Exorcists Ergo before Christs death there was an order of the true Exorcists grounded on diuine right See how from a negation he draweth an affirmation But if we receiue the exposition of Saint Chrysostome which he should accept of as a subsidiary Tradition This Instance taken from the order of Exorcists shall be yet more ridiculous for he presupposeth as a thing confessed of all that our Sauiour Christ speaking of Exorcists meaneth onely his Apostles and disciples Fol. 81. which saith he had already driuen out Diuells by the power they had receiued of their Maister the Pharises not hauing blamed them for it For their malice was but to the person not to the thing Therefore that he might shew that what they said or thought against him proceeded but of meere enuie he told them of the Apostles Now it is for our Bishoppe to conclude that the Apostles were already in the world in quality of ordinary Exorcists when Christ came from whome consequently they receiued not extraordinarily this power to cast out vncleane Spirits He saith the hand of the Synagogue vvas become vvithered and impotent in vvorking miracles â—ol 85. after our Sauiour Christs death and that for this cause the sonns of Sceua had no successe But wherefore then had that Eleazer of whome Iosephus speaketh such good successe who long after Christs death in the presence of Vespasian his childreÌ„ all the Romane Army â—â—seph Anâ—â—g lib. 8. c. 2. dispossessed so sufficiently one that had a Diuell the roote to which Iosephus attributeth this vertue and which he saith was taught by Salomon was it become withered as well as the hand of the Synagogue of purpose that it might budd againe like Aarons rodd in the hands of that infidell did the name Tetragrammaton by which Epiphanius saith 〈◊〉 30. one Ioseph not beleeuing yet in Christ cast out a diuell loose then it vertue or did the sons of Sceua eclipse some letter of it Now it is manifest by this place of Iosephus and by that which is written in another place what was the foundation and institution of this order of Exorcists â—oh de bel 〈◊〉 l. 7. c. 25 among the Iewes namely Magicke and enchantments which our Bishop would make vs receiue for the pure word of God secretly reuealed to the Patriarches and Prophets I said that it is not found that they which in the beginning of the Christian Church had the gift of casting out diuels vsed certaine
De verbo 〈◊〉 l. 8. c. 18. that this allegation of Saint Iude was taken from an Apocrypha booke which moued many of the Ancients to reiect this Epistle out of the Canon as also doth Cardinall Caitan than alone to maintaine that it commeth from some other principle of faith and word of God for to retaine this wretched pretext to calumniate the Scripture of Imperfection and vnsufficiencie He reprocheth me that I vnderstand not this maxime Singularium non est scientia saying that it is not true but in respect of humane sciences 〈◊〉 40. not of Diuinitie wherein particular things may come in as the obiect of the same seeing that the most part of the Articles it teacheth are particular points as the Natiuitie death and whatsoeuer we beleeue els of the humanitie of Christ c. But doth it follow therfore that we ought or that we can know euery particular thing said or done coÌ„cerning euery one of these particular points seeing the world it self were not able to containe them as Saint Iohn saith 〈◊〉 21. Now he vnderstood well enough in what sense I alleadged this Schoole Maxime but hee could not loose occasioÌ„ of cauilling vpon the differeÌ„ce of Singularium SinguloruÌ„ not considering the ierk he giueth his Master Thomas Aquinas who in the beginning of his Summa taketh these two tearmes indiffereÌ„tly 〈◊〉 1. â— And one that hath as much leasure as he might shew him that he vnderstaÌ„deth not so much cunning in Phylosophy as he maketh shew of wheÌ„ he saith that natural discourse caÌ„not appreheÌ„d necessarily infallably any particular or singular propositioÌ„ For if that be true the vnderstanding knoweth not it own action wheÌ„ it reasoneth or discourseth which is euer of a particular thing and cannot compare the vniuersall with the singular neither make abstraction of the one from the other if it know not both the one and the other nor discerne the time past from the time to come nor things past from things to come which are particulars nor judge of the one by the knowledge of the other To the place of Saint Iohn which wee are wonte to alleadge for the sufficiencie of the Scripture He answereth 〈◊〉 20 31. â—142 1. That it is not in any sort spoken there of the doctrine but of the signes neither of the sufficiencie of instruction but of the efficacy of perswasion 2. That though they pronounce haec should comprehend all that Saint Iohn wrote the argument would be much worse for then should not be spoken in any sort of the sufficiencie of the things written but onely of the ende wherfore they are written To this I say that we denie not that this Pronoune haec is vnderstoode of the miracles of which Saint Iohn speaketh in the verse going afore But we maintaine that it cannot bee with such a restriction to myracles as inferreth an exclusion of doctrine for as much as this worde Miracle being a Relatiue cannot be vnderstoode but by his Correlatiue which is doctrine For myracles are the signes and seales of Doctrine Therefore Analogie or proportion requireth that though Saint Iohn had sayde at length haec signa yet neuerthelesse therin is iointly also ment doctrine of which they were signes by reason of the perpetuall and necessarie relation of the one to the other and therefore if the miracles or signes whereof he speaketh be suffâ—cient the doctrine is so also which is sealed and confirmed by those miracles And therefore these meanes are not of so different kindes as our Bishop saith And seeing he graunteth that the Scripture conteyneth suffâ—ciently the signes or miracles for to perswade vs with efficacie all that is needefull to life eternall he must needes grant also that it conteyneth suffâ—ciently also the doctrine which is the thing signified seeing that Corralatiues concurre in the definition of their Relatiues and cannot be vnderstoode the one without the other Furthermore we beleeue that whosoeuer is effectually perswaded is sufficiently instructed in the knowledge of saluation which consisteth not in euident demonstration which the vnderstanding of the naturall man comprehendeth for there be some that are sufficiently instructed that vnderstand all pointes of doctrine and are able to discourse of it with admiratioÌ„ to the hearers who notwithstanding are not effectually perswaded but remaine Epicures and Atheists within In a worde the difference he putteth betweene Sufficiencie and Efficacie can be none other but that which the Philosophers put betweene that they call Actum primum Actum secundum habitude and operation or actuall exercise What fonde subtiltie is this then to grant that which is greater namely effectuall perswasion that is to say to saluation otherwise it were no efficacie and to denie the sufficient instruction which is lesser euerie way To end this controuersie I offer him an Arbitrer which he cannot honestly refuse though it were in qualitie of a Iudge I meane Cardinall Baronius whose wordes are these Saint Iohn hauing recited these things 〈◊〉 tom 1 â—â—r 34. â—10 finisheth his Gospel omitting as himselfe testifieth many things For that which he wrote seemed vnto him to suffice as well for to establish the TRVTH OF THE GOSPELL as for to REPROVE HERESIES for which causes Saint Hierome and others do witnesse that he tooke in hand to write this Gospell Doth the Euangelicall truth containe miracles onely The Sermons of Christ his expositions of the Law and confutations of the opinions of the Pharisies which the Euangelists recite of him and in a worde all his doctrine which they set downe are they things contrarie or not belonging to the truth of the Gospel Hence is apparent that our Bishops modification wherewith hee endeuoureth still to cloake his blasphemie of insufficiencie in restrayning it to the confutation of Heresies first is vaine and fraudulent for as much as hee is constrayned to confesse that manie poynts necessarie for the simplest lay-man are not conteyned in the Scripture and notwithstanding a simple lay-man is not bound to be able to confute all Heresies Secondly it is disprooued manifestly by the decision of Cardinall Baronius who declareth the Scripture to bee sufficient euen for to confute Heresies and putteth in our handes this Argument for to ouerthrowe his two first Episcopall answeres that which seemed sufficient to Saint Iohn for to establish the truth of the Gospell and to confute Heretickes conteyneth a simple and absolute sufficiencie for the matters of our saluation But the Writinges of the Gospell seemed such vnto Saint Iohn therefore they contayned a simple and absolute sufficiencie for the matters of our saluation His third answere is That though Saint Iohn should speake of the sufficiencie of that which he wrote yet should that bee referred to one Article onely which is to make vs beleeue that Iesus is that Christ And whereas it is replyed vnto him that it is the Epitome and substance of the Articles necessarie to saluation he hath recourse to his distinction
which the Lord would not tel then to his Disciples because they could not beare it as for example if I sayd that this which we reade in the beginning of this Gospell In the beginning was the word and the worde was God c. Because this was written afterwardes and is not recorded that our Lord said iâ— whilest he was here in the flâ—sh but one of his Apostles wrote it Christ and his Spirit reuealing it vnto hâ—m is of the number of those things which the Lord would not say then because that the Disciples could not beare them who would heare me saying that so rashly Thus you see Saint Augustine protesteth that hee should incurre the fault of rashnesse if he affirmed the thing which the Bishop of Eureux mainteyneth that he affirmeth Which is made manifest by these wordes which this holy Father addeth in the same place a little after Wherefore my welbeloued thinke not to heare of me the things which the Lord would not then tell his Disciples And in the Treatise following hee vnfoldeth at large this worde beare shewing how one and the same thing pronounced before one and the same auditorie at one same time is well vnderstoode of some and ill of others yea is vnderstood of some and of others not because he that vnderstandeth amisse vnderstandeth not at all and of them that vnderstand it some vnderstand it lesse some more and no man so well as the Angels 〈◊〉 13.9 because all men vnderstand but in part Besides this vntruth it is to be noted that the Bishop of Eureux committeth the same Sophisme he imputeth to me in taking our Sauiour Christes wordes simplie and absolutely which are sayd Secâ—â—â—undum quid as we say that is for a certaine respect namely of the present sadnesse and indisposition of the Disciples Also for regard of the administration of their charge full of dangers and not for the substance of the doctrine He would faine in wrap me in contradiction because I said in a place That the old Testament conteyned the Gospell or Christian doctrine And in another Fol. 16â— I say that the two Epistles to the Thessalonians contayned all the Christian doctrine and that for this cause Saint Paul exhorteth them to obserue not onely that which he wrote vnto them but also that which he taught by word of mouth whence the Bishop of Eureux concludeth that if the old Testament contained all it was then superfluous to bind them to the obseruation of the Tradition not written I answere that neyther dooth the sufficiencie of the olde Testament nor that of the newe abolish or hinder the Ministerie of preaching neither doe generall lawes and ordinances take away particular Expositions and applications neither doth the substance of the Gospell conteyned in the olde Testament Rom. 1â— as Saint Paul witnesseth hinder a more ample reuelation in the new Nor doth the sufficient declaration of all the Alticles of faith exclude the ordinances which concerne pollicie and the exterior order of the Church Considering that one may say that though there had beene alreadie some other writings of the new Testament besides these two Epistles directed to the Church of Thessalonica yet it might so be that they were not yet knowne nor come into euerie place And to confound the state of Churches springing with the state of Churches founded and established by tract of time is to reason as men doe in an euill cause by euill Logicke in an euill conscience which he here discouereth as through all the rest of his Booke To conclude the question is whether from this place obserue the Traditions which you haue receiued of vs whether it be by word or by our Epistle One may conclude 1. That the written word is not sufficient to Saluation 2. That the Traditions the Apostle speaketh of are of the substance of faith 3 That they were not written since this Epistle To the first I answere no because though the Doctrine that Saint Paul deliuered by word of mouth to each particular Church were more ample then that which is contained in each Epistle directed to these particuler Churches yet doth it not followe but that all is written For that which is not found in one Epistle is found in another Which importeth not neither to them who had heard the Surplus from the Apostles mouth nor to vs who may see in other partes of the Scripture that which is not contained in one To the second I say the Bishop of Eureux againe confoundeth the prediction of a thing to come with Articles of faith that is to say Historie with Doctrine To the third I say that this same Historie touching Antichrist is found written though not in this same Epistle nor by this same Author but by S. Iohn in the Reuelation These three wordes doe vnmix the Cahos of words hee had heaped together Let the Reader note by the way that in this Bishops iudgement To yeelde thankes vnto God for that he hath chosen vs to Saluation 〈◊〉 68. in sanctification of the spirit and in the faith of truth c. is not a Doctrine propounded to obserue Let vs see his last argumeÌ„t taken from the place wher Saint Paul recommendeth to Timothie â—â—m 1.13 〈◊〉 2. to keepe the true patterne of wholesome wordes which he had heard of him And to commit the things he had heard of him in the presence of many witnesses to faithful men which are able to teach others He concludeth thence that all these consignements transmissions and atestations had beene superfluous 〈◊〉 170. and vnprofitable if Timothie had heard nothing of Saint Paule which could not be veryfied by the Scripture alone I alleadged the exposition of Tertullian who obserueth that the Apostle saith expresly these things Tert. de pâ—â—script that none imagine him to speak of any vnwritten Doctrine but that they should refer it to the same Doctrine which he had set downe in writing He replyeth that this place of Tertullian is wrested without shewing by the least sillable how or wherein Neither can he with all his sophistrie For it is the proper exposition of the same place of the Apostle whereof he treateth and the proper refutation of this glose of our Bishop before inuented by the Hereticks that were in Tertullians time But seeing this father is not to his relish let vs present him Saint Ambrose who expoundeth it thus The Apostle willeth that hee commit the secrets to faithfull men and worthy which were able to teach others Ambr. â— Tim. 2. not indifferently to common negligent persons For there must be a great care had in the choosing of a Doctor or Teacher This is all S. Ambrose findeth in it which is in summe That Timothie as hauing the charge of an Euangelist should take heede whome hee chose for the teaching of the Gospell Rom. 1â— 1. Cor. 1â— Eph. 1 9â— 3.4 which the Apostle in diuers places calleth mysterie or secret