Baptisme do sinne against the same article Whence I thus conclude The doctrine of the Donatists which was hereticall could not be confuted by the scripture alone and without the helpe of the Apostolicke tradition for to confute all heresies And by consequent it conteyneth not alone sufficiently all the principles of doctrine necessarye to diuinity and Christian Religion D Tillenus his answere Let vs see if Sainte Augustine in those tenne yeares that he handled his question against the Donatists could not finde any actuall proof in the scripture vpon this poynte as Du Perron saith lib. 1. â— coÌ„t 7. I thinke he promiseth very certayn proofes when he saith Ne videar humanis argumentis agere ex Euangelio profero certa documenta c Least I should seem to discourse with humaine reasons Lib. 2. de bap cont Don. c. 1 J will alleadge sure proofes out of the Gospell c. And in an other place Quid sit perniciosius vtrum non Baptizari an rebaptizari iudicare difficile est verumtamen recurrens ad illam stateram Dominicam vbi non ex humano sensu sed ex authoritate diuina rerum momenta pensantur inveniode vtraque re Domini sententiam Qui lotus est non habet necessitatem iterum lauandi c Jt is an hard thing to iudge whether is more dangerous not to be Baptised or to be baptized againe yet hauing recourse vnto that ballance of the Lord where not of humain sence but of diuine authority the vallews of things are weighed I finde of both matters the lords sentence He that is washed hath no neede to bee washed agayne c. And in another place hauing said that this custome came of the Tradition of the Apostles not meaning that it wanteth his proofes in Scripture he addeth Lic 5 de cont Don c. 2 Contra mandatum dei esse quod venientes ab hereticis si iam illi Baptismum christi acceperunt baptizantur quia scripturarum sanctarum testimoniis non solum ostenditur sed PLANE ostenditur That it is against the coÌ„mandement of God that such as come froÌ„ hereticks shold be baptised if they haue already receued ther the Baptism of Christ becaus by the testimonies of holy Scriptures it is not only shewed but plainly shewed These places others of this father do shew the audaciousnes of du Perron in his affirmations and his sincerity in his allegations As for the places he bringeth out of the same father to proue that he acknowledged the imperfectioÌ„ of the scriptu e coÌ„cerning this poynt he confouÌ„deth the question of act exaÌ„ple or practise with the questioÌ„ of law or ordinaÌ„ce S Augustine saith in this matter there caÌ„ be none exaÌ„ples of scripture alledged that is it caÌ„not be fouÌ„d there that it was so practised therfore he referrd the custoÌ„ or practis hereof to apostolike traditioÌ„ but that it ought so to be practised he affirmeth that not only the scripture sheweth it but that it sheweth it manyfestly Whence I conclude against the Bishops conclusioÌ„ on this second poynt The doctrine that euidently sheweth what is to be done in all matters coÌ„cerning fayth which confuteth the heresies that repugne the same is perfect but the scripture conteyneth this doctrine Therfore it is perfect The assumption is proued not only by the scripture but also by the testimonies of the fathers by whome he pretendeth to proue the doctrine of the church of Rome I wold earnestly desire of him cleare direct answere to that place of Augustine aboue alleadged out of his secoÌ„d book 9 chapter de doctrina Christiana for in the verball conference he woulde giue no answer theruÌ„to but on condition that I would protest to forsake the scripture and not to reason any more but by the authority of the fathers The bishop of Eureux The third heresy which we haue propounded among those that cannot by the scripture alone bee confuted is that of the Greekes touching the proceeding of the holy ghost which our aduersaries hold as well as we to proceed from the father and from the sonne a thing notwithstanding which the scripture doth no where expresse On the contrary it seemeth to restrayne the originall of the same proceeding from the father alone saying â—5 26 16. The spirit of truth which proceedeth from the father For when this sentence of Christ is obiected to the Greekes He shall take of mine They answerr that this worde of mine hath relation not to the Essence nor to the person but to the doctrine so that the intention of Christ in saying he shall take of mine that is of the same treasure of doctrine and wisdome of which the sonne hath taken And they alleadg for proofe of their exposition that which followeth in the Text which sayth And he shal declare it vnto you replying that the word declare hath relation not to the essence nor to the person but to the doctrine In like sort when these places are alleadged vnto them if any one haue not haue not the spirit of Christ 8.15 â— 5.6 he is none of his And agayne the spirit of Christ crying Abba Father they answer that concludeth not that the spirit proceedeth from Christ and that he is called the spirit of Christ not by proceeding but by possessioÌ„ for asmuch as Christ according to his humanity hath receiued the guift the ful whol possession of the same spirit according to the words of Esay The Spirit of the Lord is vpoÌ„ me becaus the Lord hath anoynted me And S. Peeter saith The lord hath anoynted him with the holy ghost and with power And that in this maner it is said that Elizeus receiued the spirit of Elias Not that the holy Ghost did proceed from Helias but because in a certayne measure he was possessed of Heliah When that is obiected vnto them which Christ saith vnto his Father That which is thine is myne They answer that may be expounded of the possession and outward domination ouer the creatures ouer whom the Father hath giuen all power to the sonne in heaven and in earth neither can the seÌ„ce of the words in that place be restrayned to the Essence no more then when the father of the prodigall Childe saitb to his eldest sonne the same words Omnia mea tua sunt But besides this though it should be vnderstood of the essence yet the argument concludeth nothing For if becaus the essence of the father is one the same it shoold therfore follow that the holy ghost proceedeth as well from the one as froÌ„ the other you must in like sorte conclude The essence of the father and the holy ghost is one and the same the sonn is therfore begotten of the holy ghost as well as of the Father And when it is added to those other arguments He will send the comforter They answer that he expoundeth himselfe shewing his meaning by this word Send namely that he will pray his
father that he will send him I will pray saith he vnto the Father and he shall send you another coÌ„forter And in the same place where he saith he will send him he preuenteth say they the opinion might be conceyued of his proceeding from him in that he sayth he wil send froÌ„ the Father the spirit of truth which proceeds froÌ„ the father c To which they further adde that there is a great difference betweene the teÌ„poral sending of the holy ghost at our Lords request on the Apostles and the eternall proceeding of the said Spirit which is the poynt in question D. Tillenus his answere The proceeding of the Holy-Ghost which is the thirde poynte which he maynteineth to haue no ground in scripture hath his proofe in the scripture by the schoolmen themselues against the Greeks who receiued this article without any greate difficulty in the Councell of Florence in which was present Iohn Paleologus Emperour of Constantinople but they receiued but fainedly and by constraynte of theire Emperour who stood in neede of the Westerne Churches the Articles of the Popes Supremacy of TraÌ„substantiation of Purgatory and other like which are without and against the scripture Yet ther were some Bishops there that would neuer consent vnto them but afterwards caused all to be reuoked imputing the losse of the Easte Empire which hapned shortly after this councell to that vnluckie vnion that there was made with the Pope Now as the principall questions touching the holy ghost of his nature and of his office haue alwayes been determined by the scripture against the ArriaÌ„s Eunomians Macedonians so also may therein be shewed his proceeding from the father and from the Sonne The place in saint Paule cannot be shifted of by his distinction of possession and proceeding 〈◊〉 8.9 〈◊〉 .6 as if he spake onely of the gifte possession of the spirit that Iesus Christ receued according to his humaÌ„ity For the same spirit is there called both the spirit of Christ the spirit of him that raysed vp Christ And when saint Peter saieth that it was the spirit of christ by which the Prophets haue prophecied 〈◊〉 1.11 he quite cutteth of the bishops answere For seeing that the prophets haue prophesied before the incarnatioÌ„ of christ they cannot haue prophesied by the spirit in as much as it was giuen to the humanity of christ and on the other side the Scripture witnesseth in infinite places that this spirit of the Prophets was the spirit of God the father which sheweth as cleerely that the holy ghost proceedeth from the father the sonne as the consubstaÌ„tiality of the son with the Father by confereÌ„ce of the places in the Prophets that speak of Iehoua with the places in the Euangelists and Apostles which appropriate them vnto Christ The exaÌ„ple of Heliseus that receiued the Spirit of Helias is as little to purpose as the former distinctioÌ„ Iohn 15 Iesus Christ saith that it is he that well send this spirit shewing his diuine power Helias answereth to Helizeus when hee asked him double portion of his spirit Thou askest a hard thing meaning that it is not giuen by the power of man Christ saith not that it is an hard thing for him to send the Comforter contrariwise he saith all that his father hath is his also He gaue it indeed and in effecte to the Apostles breathing on them and saying Receaue the Holy ghost Iohn 20 And whereas du Perron sayth that this may bee expounded of the possession domination of the creatures ouer which the Father hath giuen him all power As wheÌ„ the father of the prodigal child saith to his eldest son the like words All that is mine is thine J answer as aboue is alredy sayd that the spirit is in the son as in the Father And as is shewed that the Spirit proceedeth from the father by the places which say That the Father seÌ„deth him froÌ„ the Father so also may be shewd his proceeding froÌ„ the soÌ„ by the places Gal 4.6 Iohn 5.1 god seÌ„deth the spirit of his soÌ„ the soÌ„ doth al things that the Father doth c. Jt is obiected that it is said That the Spirit proceedeth froÌ„ the father That Christ sayth he wil pray the father to seÌ„d him to which J answer that Christ in those places speketh as Mediator in which he is lesse that the father so hee sayth that the father is greater than hee And yet he saith the father wil send him in his name Iohn 14 Iohn 15 which couÌ„teruayleth that other saying that he will send him from the father As for the difference betwixt the temporall mission of the holy Ghost and his eternall proceeding J say that this eternall proceeding is nothing else but the communication of the Diuine esseÌ„ce by which the third person of the Trinity receiues all the same Essence from the Father and from the sonne as being the spirit of them both And seeing that the Greekes beleeue with vs that the holy Ghost is God that he is equall to the father and to the Sonne against the Arrians and Macedonians and that he is a distinct person from the father and from the sonne againste the Sabellians we are not to hould them for heretickes in this poynt though they had certaine particulare manners of speaking for as much as heresy is not in the words but in the sense as Saint Hierome saith Many among the auncient fathers are not held for hereticks though they speake often improperly of the misteryes of the trinity of which number is S. Hillary 2 de Triâ—c who in many places putteth three substances in God against the sownd maner of speaking whereof hee excuseth himselfe saying that these things surpasse al signification of wordes all intention of sence all conceptioÌ„ of sence all conception of vnderstanding But the Church of Rome is rightly holden for heretical which in many things doth attribute vnto it self the office of the holy ghost As wheÌ„ it sayth that one caÌ„not be assured of the truth and diuinity of the Scripture but onely by the testimony that that Church giueth of it The Bishop of Eureux The fourth poynte which we haue propounded is the translation of the Saboath to Sunday Euery one knoweth how rigorous the commandement of the Sabaoth was in the old law and how the gretest both thretnings promises of god were made to those that violated or obserued his Sabbaths And notwithstanding this commandement of God that god had vouchsafed to write with his own hand in the 10 precepts of the decalogue to sequester it as by speciall priuiledge froÌ„ all precepts of the ceremoniall law for to insert it in the Epitome of the morall law Yet the church hath changed it with out any written ordinance both as touching the end the forme â—â—d the matter First as concerning the end Saturday was ordayned to commemorate the Creation of the world gods rest after
the scripture Acts â—7 2 1. Cor. 15 Titus 1 12 â—oâ—o 10 which verses got no authority amongst vs til since the time as they were sanctified by the Apostle as Tertullian speaketh though before they conteyned truth The Bishop of Eureux verie vnfitly confoundeth these two tearmes Truth and Authoritie as if euerie sentence and historie conteyning Truth had as much authoritie as a place of holy scripture And if the Apostles alleadge somtimes things not written it must be noted that hauing receiued the spirit in such abundance they discerned better the true traditions from the false than their pretended successours could any waies doe Also ordinarily it is but vpon some circumstance of historie and not for the substance as the names of the Magitians of Pharaoh Iacobs worshipping of God 2 Tim 3 8 Hebr. 11.2 Hebr. 12.2 as he leaned on his staffe certaine words of Moses propounded at the publishing of the Law The fastening of Iosephes feete in the stocks in prison The prophesie of Henoch alledged by S. Iude though it be taken from Tradition as touching the words 〈◊〉 105 18 yet the ground of it appeareth in Scripture which teacheth vs that the Patriarches were ordained for to teach those of their ages and to declare vnto them the iudgements of God And since we finde in Scripture that Henoch continually walked wirh God we gather from thence that he spared not to exhort the men of his time 〈◊〉 5 22.24 to repentance and to threaten them with the wrath of God Considering that the same Scripture teacheth vs that God doth nothing afore he hath reuealed his secrets to his seruants the Prophets â—â—us 2. It is also to be noted that this prophecie of Henoch may be more fitly vnderstood of the vniuersall Iudgement that God executed vpon the world by the flood than of the last Iudgement of the world And forasmuch as they of whom S. Iude speaketh were contemners of God It is to be beleeued that they made as little reckoning of the Scripture as of the authoritie of Iesus Christ â—â—se 4. whom they denyed And therfore the Apostle chooseth rather to alledge vnto them a historie witnessed not only by the Scripture but also by profane Authors who make mention of the Deluge as we learne by Iosephus Eusebius and S. Cyrill But this instance shall be examined more particularly in his place The second fraud whereof he accuseth me is That in stead of shewing the points in question by expresse Texts of Moses or by necessarie consequences and true analogie I shew them by some probable and coniecturall apparances or shewes The Reader which hath eyes to see shall iudge whether there be apparance or substance whether probability or necessity mean while I wil aduertise him of the methode that Du Perron keepeth in answering it 1. He opposeth some maimed exposition of one of our Doctours as if wee did attribute like authoritie to them as the Church of Rome doth to their popes or the like as to the ancieÌ„t fathers of whome the Glosse of the ciuill Canon saith Glos in dist Can Nolim that all their writings are to be held for authenticall euen to the least Iota or title Although sometimes he produce some out of the Rabbines yea euen from some Doctours of the Romish Church 2 He inuenteth one of his owne braine if he finde none in some Interpreter that repugneth mine 3 He reduceth the places of Moses in forme of a cornuted syllogisme in fashion of his miter to make himselfe be laughed at 4 He wresteth my conclusions for what pointe he listeth though I alleadge the places for proofe of another and this he doth that he might make my arguments be found the more absurd and giue himselfe subiect of exclayming that I speake not of all the pointes proposed 5 He saith in the end that the places are not so cleare but a conteÌ„tious spirite may finde some defect And if I confirme my exposition by the testimonie of the Fathers for to shew that others haue vnderstood as I doe the place in question and that I wrest it not to serue myne owne turne His ordinary answere is That the question is not whether some Father hath vnderstood it so or no but whether that can be verified by the onely text of Moses which is the heape of all peruersnes and Impudencie for if I bring but the bare text he saith I am alone of my opinion and that it may be taken otherwise at least by a contentious spirit In a word not onely the places of Moses but also those of Iob Daniel and Dauid most expresse for the Immortality of the soule the resurrection of the body the last iudgment and life Eternall are so feeble vnto him that he sheweth well that he beleeueth those pointes no better than the Saduces for whome he pleadeth And whereas Cicero said to a certaine Aduocate pleading faintly if thou didst not couÌ„terfeit thou wouldest not plead so coldly So contrariwise one may say vnto him that if he feyned he would not plead so eagerly for to imagine that he beleeueth these points by benefite of the inuentarie of Tradition is absurd sith that throughout his whole booke he coÌ„tinually demauÌ„deth insoluble ineuitable demonstrations which none in the world no not the most contentious spirit that is can be able to gainesay protesting that he will not admitt any proofe of Scripture vnlesse it be such Can he finde of this stampe in the treasorie of Tradition Is not his speach the speach of a heathen Atheist â—â—len de â—ll differ l c 4 most execrable which saith That in the Schoole of Moses and of Christ there be harde lawes which are not grounded on any demonstration Felix Gouernour of Iudea a heathen and a wicked maÌ„ when he heard S. Paul speake of the last Iudgment â—â—t 24.25 he trembled for feare and yet the Apostles discourse was onely taken from Moses â—â—t 26.22 and the Prophets if we beleeue him in that which he saith afterwards before Festus and King Agrippa But our Pyrrhonian Bishop findeth â—â—l 11. 22 25 that all that can be alleadged is but matter of mockery and that by Moses saying beasts and fishes are altogither as immortall in their soules as wel coÌ„prised in Gods couenaÌ„te capable of euerlasting life as the creatures which beare the Image of God The Saduces for whome he pleadeth found not the Resurrection of the bodie clearely enough expressed in the writings of Moses for to beleeue them but after that our Sauiour Christ had prooued it by the miraculous raysing vp of Lazarus did they beleeue it for that The Pharises which made profession to beleeue it beleeued they for that that Iesus Christ was the ResurrectioÌ„ the life No more truly theÌ„ an Epicure would haue beleeued the Imortality of the soule seeing Calanus ioccuÌ„dly cast himselfe into the fire although this act seemed to othersome a more pertinent proof for
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
the most auÌ„cient amoÌ„g the Latins distinguisheth in expres terms the teÌ„porall Sabbath froÌ„ the eternall sabbath 〈◊〉 lib. 4. shewing by the History of the ruine of Iericho where all the people the Priests theÌ„selues laboured 7 dayes one after another and therfore the Sabbath was ther in coÌ„prised that this commaundement was ceremonial teÌ„porall â—tat de â—tem Rab â—n tractat â—â—b c. 1. â—ractat de â—umcis c. 1 Yea the Iewes themselues as superstitious obseruers as they be of the outward ceremony of the Sabbath neuertheles do hold that in daÌ„ger of life the law of the sabbath may be brokeÌ„ And these words ar fouÌ„d in their Thalmud DaÌ„ger of life breaketh the Sabbath But euery one knoweth and confesseth that there is no danger can excuse the transgression of the morall law for the obseruation whereof the true faythfull hold their life very well bestowed Seeing theÌ„ the sabbath is takeÌ„ two wayes eyther for interior which is a rest from our euill workes an exercise meditation of the works of God or for the exteriour which consisteth in rest cessation froÌ„ the labors busines which coÌ„cern this life in which it was a figure of interior sabboth the promises or thretnings which god made to such as kept or violated his sabbaths which is our Bishops grownd are meÌ„t more of the first 〈◊〉 5.8 theÌ„ of the 2 to which notwithstaÌ„ding the Jews wer bouÌ„d as to all the other Leuiticall ceremonies froÌ„ which yoke ChristiaÌ„s are wholly freed their sabbath being interiour spiritual perpetual as the feast of passeouer or Easter which neither ought nor can euer be abolished in respect of the matter being a cessatioÌ„ froÌ„ sins a meditatioÌ„ on 〈◊〉 Gods works nor in respect of the form which is to perform this meditation with true repeÌ„taÌ„ce of all our euil works with true faith towardes God and vnfained charity towardes our neighboures nor in respect of the end which is the glorifiing of the name of God and the saluation of our soules in that greate and euerlasting sabbath which his sonnne Iesus Christ hath prepared for vs in his Kingdome Beholde the principall matter forme and end of the sabbath to the which are to be referred all the other ends touching the determining of dayes for the asseÌ„blies of the church which is in the liberty of the Church which the Scripture giueth it in expresse tearms And though the places in the Reuelation Col. 2. Reuel 1.10 1. Cor. 16. and in the first to the Corinthians wer not cleer euident ynough to shew that the Apostles haue instituted the Lords day on sunday yet cannot that preiudice vs any thing at all seeing there are other formall places that proue the liberty of the church in such things and it sufficeth that we are able to decide by the scripture the question of law or ordinance Notwithstanding so that our Bishop doe not draw him selfe backe from his own interpretation 1. Cor. 16.2 the very act or exaÌ„ple of practise wil be fownd therein He sayth if the apostle had sayd Euery maÌ„ bringeth to the church that day what he would giue that then there had beene some apparance for to conclude that the first day of the weeke was particularly appoynted to the meetings of the church in the very tyme of the Apostles Now we find in that the disciples were assembled the first day of the weeke which is as himselfe denyeth not Act 20.7 Sunday for to breake breade that is to celebrate the lords supper and that in this assembly Saint Paule made a sermon which lasted till midnight See heere then the question fouÌ„d prooued in the scripture aswell by example of practise as otherwise A speciall commaundement touching this obseruation of sunday neither the scripture giueth any seeing it testifieth that it is a thing indifferent neither can du Perron shew it by Apostolike Tradition for all his brags The Ecclesiasticall history is directly against him when it sayth Socr. lib 5. Cap 22. That the intention of the Apostles was not to make lawes or coÌ„mandements touching feast dayes or holy dayes but to be authorrs of good life true godlines Our aduersaries on the coÌ„trary do constitute their principall godlinesse and vertue in obseruation of the holy dayes by theÌ„ instituted and make a morall commaundement of the Iewish obseruation of the sabbath reiecting into the number of the ceremonialls that 〈◊〉 commaundement which forbiddeth Images though it be one of the cheefest among the morall But commaunding thus what god forbiddeth forbidding what god coÌ„mandeth they shew in what schole they haue studied Surely their maÌ„ner of reasoning is altogether conformable to the Tropick of that ould Sophister from whose instruction ensued the destruction of mankind when our first parents suffered theÌ„selues to be perswaded by this goodly argument Though god hath forbidden you to eate of this tree yet neuerthelesse you shoulde eate of it 〈◊〉 2.8 â— 3 vers The Father of lights who in these last times hath begun to chase away the darknes of Errour and superstition by the brightnes of his word vouchsafe to enlighten our harts by the light of his truth that we be not diuerted froÌ„ his ways through vayn deceyt after the TraditioÌ„s of meÌ„ but that keeping faithfully the sacred truth which he hath of trust coÌ„mitted vnto vs wee may wayte with ioy for the moste brighte and glorious comming of the sunne of righteosnnes to whom be all honor glory and praise for euermore A DEFENCE OF the Sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scripture Against the Cauillations of the Lord Du Perron Bishop of Eureux By the which hee endeuoureth to maintaine his Treatise of the vnsufficiencie and imperfection of the holy Scripture By D. Daniell Tillenus Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Sedan PROV 16.25 There is a way that seemeth right vnto a man but the issues thereof are the waies of death August de vnit Eccles cap. 3. Whatsoeuer is alledged of eyther side against the other should be remoued sauing that which commeth out of the Canonicall Scriptures Printed at London by L. S. for Nathanaell Butter 1606. THE PREFACE of the Author THe Iewes who since the blindnesse wherewith God hath iustly punished their ingratitude and rebellion haue alwaies shewed themselues greedie of Traditions and out of taste with the simplicitie of the Scripture vsing it but for a basis or foundation whereon to plant their fables as the Poets doe historie recount that God being about to giue his law to their ancestors shewed vnto Moses a Masse of Saphir Lyr. in Exoâ— c. 34. made of purpose by his diuine power whereof he commanded him to hew and square out the tables in which he vouchsafed to write his law with his owne finger and because the text hath Hew thee out Tables They gather of it Exod. 34.1 that God permitted him to retaine and appropriate to himselfe
meant not that the rich mans brethren should rely themselues on that which they might gather thence by their owne particuler reading but that they should heare it from the mouth of the Pastours of the Iewish Church â—atth 23. who knew by Tradition the mysticall and spirituall interpretation thereof of whome it is said they sit in Moses chaire do whatsoeuer they say vnto you We answere that by Moses chaire is meant the doctrine written by Moses so S. Paul vnderstood it when he saith cursed is euery man that abideth not in all the things â—al 3.10 which are written in the Booke of the Law If our Sauiour Christ had meant that men should obey the Priests Scribes Doctors of the Synagogue in all things because they knew the mysteries of Tradition it would follow that they should also beleeue the Saduces who were of the number of these Doctours of the Synagogue and had sometimes the first places in it and by consequeÌ„t not to beleeue any of the abouesaid points Also it would follow that they which betrayed and crucified Iesus Christ executed this commaundement of Christ doe whatsoeuer they say For the Scribes and Priests said that he should be crucified so excellent was their knowledge of mysticall Tradition by vertue whereof the Priests of the Romish Church offer him really that is to say crucifie him yet to this day as much as in them lyeth for to shew what goodly Analogie and correspondencie the Romish tradition hath with that of the Synagogue Now let vs dispatch the point of the Creation of Angels and diuels an instance that the bishop of Eureux hath borrowed from Iulian the Apostata And that hee might multiplie with him the number of the defects of the scripture he cuteth it into three Cyril Aleâ— adu Iul. â— will needes haue it three distinct questions crying ignorance impudencie against me because I said that by this his distinction that he maketh betwene the Creation of Angells and the Creation of Diuills one might thinke that Diuells were not Angels in the beginning or that God created them thus wicked as they are now For to maintaine that these three pointes are three distinct questions he forgetteth or ouerthroweth the point and state of the principall question which is Whether it can be shewed by the writings of Moyses that there be Angells In stead of the Saducie he opposeth Aristotle who holdeth that the inferiour Intelligences which moue the heauens are coeternall with the soueraine Intelligence I answere that if he can obtaine so much of Aristotle as to admit and submit himselfe to the writings of Moyses as the Saducie professeth to doe it shall be verie easily shewed him in Deuteronomie that there is but one Eternall And if he grant me this little word of Moyses he will verie willinglie grant me Deut. 6.4 that there can not be then any other eternall substances with him and that by vertue of his owne Maximes or rather by vertue of the immutable Law of Truthe and of Nature it selfe which cannot suffer that twoe contradictorie propositions be both true together So as this Eternall of Moyses being alone will not suffer for companions the coeternalls of Aristotle But if any yet doubt whether our Bishopp is a Sophister or no let him obserue heere I pray his notable cunning He seeth that this Instance of the Angels cannot be linked with the former instances afore going Act. 23.8 and that the Impudencie of the Saduces who denyed not onely their creation or distinction but also their being is so opeÌ„ly conuinced by the Writings of Moyses when he speaketh of the Angell that forbad Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaacke 〈◊〉 22 〈◊〉 19 â—â— of the Angells that Abraham entertained into his house that tooke Lot out of Sodome that appeared to Iacob c. That no aduocate no not himselfe though all causes be alike vnto him can be able to sustaine it see therefore how he hath bethought himselfe to fit me by giuing me Aristotle for a partie with the Manichees 〈◊〉 64 whereof the one knew not and the others refused the Old TestameÌ„t Let vs make the Analysis or resolution of this shamefull and more than ridiculous Sophistrie Aristotle beleeued that the inferiour Intelligences that mooued the heaueÌ„s are coeternall with the soueraine Intelligence the Manichees hold that there is a Beginning of euill coeternall with God and an euill God Neither they nor he receiued the writings of Moses Therefore it can not be shewed by the writings of Moses that there are Angells and and Diuills created If our Bishoppe had done as Carneades who before he wrote against Zeno purged himselfe with white Ellebore 〈◊〉 l 17 â—â— he had better distinguished and discerned the Manichees and the Saduces than he doth yet he should doe well to take a dramme of blacke Ellebore since he will treate of Angells and Diuells that is to say of white and blacke Spirits The Christian Reader will conclude quite contrary to the Bishopps intention Namely seeing the Saduces denyed as well Angells as the Immortality of the soule and the other pointes abouesaid though there be made as expresse formall mention of Angells in Moses as of men of beasts of trees and of stones they would haue beleeued no more the other points than this how clearely plainly soeuer Moses had opened theÌ„ And therefore the true cause of their Incredulitie and misbeleefe is to be sought in the default of their owne malicious eyes and not in the defect that is pretended in the Writing of Moyses Now since the creation of Angels in the iudgement of our Bishoppe cannot bee found in this scripture let vs see a little what Tradition saith of it The generall Threasorers of the same should bee in my opinion those that are called by a speciall prerogatiue the foure Doctors of the Church which are Saint Ambrose Saint Ierome Saint Augustine and Saint Gregorie Let vs heare them vpon this point The first saith Ambr. hâ— l. 1. c. 5. Though Angels bee created yet were they alreadie before the world was created Which is a tradition rather of Origen than of the Apostles holden also by the Hereticke Nouatian Lib. de Tâ—â— Hier. in 〈◊〉 ad Tit. 〈◊〉 and the most part of the Greekes The seconde writeth thus Before the world was created howe many Eternities there were in which the Angels serued God without any vicissitude or measure of time c. Heere you see them coeternall with the Soueraigne intelligence as well after Saint Ierome as after Aristotle But the third namely Saint Augustine whom I alleadged for witnesse and warrant of my opinion which is that the creation of Angels may bee prooued by Moses contradicteth both the former and reiecting their opinion as most absurde to say that there was any creature before the world hee addeth That the holy scripture which is most true saith that God made heauen and earth
Inuocation on saintes departed By the Cherubins of the mercie feate worshipping of Images By the commandent made to the Leuites that they should be holy the single life of Priesstes c. These are doctrines of the father of lyes to perswade the world that no truth at lest wise no light euidence of truth touching the fundamentall point of our saluation can be found in the scripture And that all the errors all the horrors that Diuert vs from saluation may be very well proued by the scripture Let vs see our Bishoppes reasons why the points necessarie to saluation are not found so openly set downe in the scrpture that manifest and necessarie consequences may bee drawne from it without the helpe of Tradition They are two the first is For to conteine our mindes within the bounds of humilitie the second to bind the sheepe to the pastours with a straiter bond of Charitie by the necessitie of instruction The booke of the holy Ghost attributed to saint Basile yet falsely at least wise that part of it whence our aduersaries take their most fauourable testimonies conteyneth another reason which our Bishoppe whether for shame or because he will haue his Tradition by himselfe found not fit to adde It hath thus That the Apostles and fathers would by these secrets of silence preserue in mysteries their authoritie For what is diuulged to the eares of the people is not mysterie for this cause certaine thinges were deliuered by Tradition without writing least the knowledge of the Doctrines or opinions should come in cotenmpt among the people by reason of custome So that the doctrines of the Trinitie the incarnation of Iesus Christ of our Election Vocation Iustification Sanctification Glorification and many other Articles shall be no more mysteries because they are conteyned in the scripture preached to the people and committed to the eares of euerie one but by this reckoning must be no more preached to the people praying to saints departed worshipping of images the Popes supremacie the sacrifice of the Masse Purgatorie Indulgences or Pardons many other things not conteined in the scripture and yet notwithstanding almost nothing else preached yea more recoÌ„mended beaten into the eares of the people than the things that are written Would to God this reason were perswasiue inough for to make to be hid and buried in the depth of an euerlasting silence or to set ouer and confine to the eares onely of the Popes clergy all these goodly mysteries true markes of the Louers of the woman in whose forehead is written Mysteries â—eue 17.5 that they spoyle not the true clergie that is the inheritance of Iesus Christ The Bishop of Eureux his reasons seem better in shew but the sustaÌ„ce of them is much worse For our part wee beleeue that the reading of the Scripture maketh euery true Christian humble as wel by the things cleerly set down as by theÌ„ he cannot so wel vnderstand that hee might bee stirred vp to begge vnderstanding and light of the Father of lights as Dauid did though hee were a great Prophet â—â—al 119 o◠〈◊〉 vvhere Now if God would not that all that is necessarie for vs should be written or that it should not bee clearely written for to conteine as saith Du Perron Mens mindes within the bounds of humilitie what followeth els but that they that content not themselues with this measure of reuelation cannot also conteine themselues within the bounds of humilitie and therfore become proud invent whatsoeuer they list for to establish their Lordshippe and rule ouer the Lords flock employing their ordinances and Traditions for to binde and torture the consciences as Tyrants vse prisons gybets to torment the bodies of men And if any Chistian thinke to imitate that praise-worthy example of the men of Berea who durst euen examine the preachings of S. Paule by the Scripture Act. 17.11 they cry out straight both against him and the Scripture the one is called a giddie headed foole and a heretick the other vnsufficient and imperfect and that for no other reason but because it is most sufficient and perfect to conuince and rebuke their imperfections 2. Tim. 3 16 17. and to make vs perfectly instructed vnto euery good worke I said in my former answer that though the aboue-saide points should not be found so cleare in the writings of Moses yet that would conclude nothing against the sufficiency of the Scripture which we haue in the Christian Church for that God speaking familiarly to Moses instructed him alwaies on euery occurrence without euer giuing him libertie or authoritie to ordaine of matters of Religion Fol. 57. Our Bishop mocketh at it adding that Iesus Christ spake as familiarly to God And the Apostles in like sort of whome Christ saith I call you no more seruants I call you from hence forth my friends c. Let vs see what reason he hath to mock at mine which is this When the Church hath teachers and guiders that cannot erre in their doctrine immediately receiued from God and that can familiarly inquire of him on euery occurrence and occasion for to instruct themselues and their flockes then it may more easily bee without Doctrine written But in the times of the Patriarches of Moses and the Prophets immediately sent of GOD the condition of the Church was such Therefore it might the more easily be without Doctrine written c. What hurt doth his Instance taken from the Apostles to this argument what good doth it doe him vnlesse it be for to shew either his fondnesse in as much as it confirmeth my argument for there is the same reason of the Apostles as of the Prophets Or his impudencie if he meane that the Christian Church after the death of the Apostles is euer furnished with as excellent men as they were speaking as familiarly vnto God as they did taking counsell immediatly from him on all occasions and occurrences as they did And without doubt thus he would haue his meaning to be taken though shame hinder him froÌ„ expressing it more openly It is also the stile of the Church or Court of Rome namely That the Pope as S. Peters successor representeth his person yea the person of Iesus Christ himself possesseth his Spirit distributeth it as it pleaseth him yea hee is called God himselfe witnesse the Canon Satis euidenter And these goodly verses set on the forefront of the portal or gate of Sixtus the forth â—ist 96. Oraculo vocis mundi moderaris habenas Et merito in terris crederis esse Deus And seeing our Bishoppe hath spoken as familiarly to this God on earth as in old time Moses did to the God of heauen and the Apostles of Iesus Christ who would not receiue the graines gold and siluer pictures which were giuen him on mount Vatican giuen with greater efficacie than the tables of the Law giuen to Moses on Mount Sina I said also Fol. 57. that Moses
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