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
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
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
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
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
side he hath learned of Cicero that faith is a truth constancie of that which one saith or doth on the other side the Councill of Constance forbiddeth him to keepe faith with heretickes VVhence he ingeniously concludeth â—els 19. that if he had not kept the truth of that was said and done in our conference he had not kept the Decree of the councill but had burst and let out the winde of that holy and sacred Canon considering withall that such frauds cannot be tearmed wicked but godly according to the doctrine of the same Church because they are done for a good intent As for me sith such Canons are not forged in our Church nor such distinctions in our schooles I am not permitted to vse the same liberty wherefore I will adde nothing to the bare recitall of that historie where I haue imitated neither his disguisements nor his inuectiues But if there be found any word somewhat free let him attribute that eyther to the necessitie of my defence or to the delicatenesse of the dayes and let him call to minde that he which saith whatsoeuer hee listeth shall in the end heare what he liketh not when the sharpenes of the truth beginneth to alter the sweetnesse of the delight And since he taketh a verie great pleasure when he reproacheth me that I would not continue the conference vnlesse it were written and signed on both parts so farre am I from repenting me of it or denying it that heere againe I confesse that I insisted vpon it with all endeuour that hee may see that when the truth permitteth me I oppose not my selfe any whit to his delight For it sufficeth me for my contentation to beleeue that the courteous Reader will make none other iudgement of this my iust and necessarie instance Epist 74. than that which S. Augustine hoped when Pascentius the Arrian hauing refused to write and to signe in a disputation that hee had with him neuerthelesse vaunted that hee had ouercome him knowing well that his falsehood could not be conuinced by any act For in that are the lurking holes saith S. Augustine which they seeke that are more desirous of contention than of the truth And as touching the vanities and lies of Pascentius he answereth It is easie to ouercome Augustine but heed is to bee taken whether it be by the truth or by exclamations If it hath not beene easie for the Bishop of Eureux to vanqâ—ish mee in the one sort yet hath it beene most easie for him to doe it in the other being in the middest of his Satellites or parasites who by their acclamations did reenforce his his cries and did like the birds of Psaphon sing his praises But this Psaphon proclamed great god by the chirping of birds Cool Rhod. antiqu Lact. l. 3. c. 5 was soone after declared great deceiuer by the iudgement of meÌ„ For conclusion I giue him the same aduertisement that S. Augustine gaue to Pascentius that he busie not himselfe in seeking how he may ouercome Tillenus which is but a man and the least of men but that he take heed how he may ouercome the truth Vbi sup the perfection of the scripture how with his hammer of winde he can spoyle breake or clippe the tables of the law of God more pure more hard than any Gold than any Diamond the least piece or shiuer of which is more than sufficient to pierce and breake in pieces the forehead of this Goliah though it be of brasse and shamefully to ouerthrow to the earth al this great Colossus which so proudly lifteth vp himselfe against heauen against the voyce which breaketh Cedars Psal 29. and which maketh the mountaines to quake ⧠An Aduertisement to the Reader THou shalt vnderstand Christian Reader that the Bishop wrote since a reply câ—ncerning onely some of the first pointâ— heerein touched priuily passing it into the hands of some of his frienâ—s and fauorites and some whom he laboured to peruert Wherein though his principall intent was secretly to disgrace both the sacred Scripture and this defender of it yet hath it turned wholy to his own disgrace by occasioning this learned man largely to answere it and so more fully to cleare the truth concerning the points touched in his reply VVhich aunswere of D. Tillenus I haue heere also for thy benefit added onely the Bishops reply I haue purposely omitted partly because the ground or as much as is needfull for the vnderstâ—nding of the matter is alreadie aboue at large set downe and partly because it being not meete to trouble thee with needlesse superfluities each word and matter of any moment or worth the answering is in the answere euerie where verbatim for the most part expressed A DEFENCE OF THE SVFFICIENCIE and perfection of the Holy Scripture Against the Cauillations of the Bishop of EVREVX by which he endeauoureth to maintaine his Treatise of the Vnsufficiencie and Imperfection of the holy Scripture THE first question betweene the Bishop of Eureux and I is general namely whether the holy Scripture be perfect and sufficient for to instruct vs in the knowledge of saluation or whether it be not sufficient for that effect The other is speciall namely whether these articles the Immortalitie of the soule the Resurrection of the bodie the last Iudgement Paradise Hell the Creation and distinction of the orders of Angels the Beeing and Creation of Diuels are contained in the bookes of Moses or no In these questions I had attributed the Negatiue to the Bishoppe of Eureux taking the Affirmatiue for my selfe He calleth that Deceiptes because he saith not that the Scripture is vnperfect or vnsufficient but that without Tradition it is not sufficient to refute all heresies And for that hee saith not that these things are not contained in the writings of Moses but either that they were not or did not appeare to the Iewes to bee therein conteined Let vs treate sincerely and leaue deceipts to those who beleeuing none of the foresaide points haue termed Moses a Deceiuer perhaps because he spake too euidently for their liking To the first deceipt he casteth on me is sufficiently answered by a discourse of purpose vpon the Iustification of the Title of his Treatise As touching the other we will first see whether these things be in Moses or no. Secondly we will dispute whether they doe appeare to be there or no. If they be there to what purpose doth hee frame InstaÌ„ce from it to shew the imperfection of the Scripture which is the only scope of his booke Why reiecteth he the places quoted to this purpose out of the fiue bookes of Moses Why are all the reasons brought for the affirmatiue but vaine cold coniectures with him Why sheweth hee not the proper formal places whence I should take them in which alone they are conteined But if they be not contained in the books of Moses wherefore is hee ashamed to confesse it Why am I a Deceiuer with
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