to blame to alledge it barely and nakedly with out this breastplate of Tradition when he representeth the contrarietie and opposition â—â—m 10 that there is between the righteousnesse of the Law the righteousnesse of faith From .19.20 .21 chapters where God particularly calleth himselfe the God of the Israelites I reason thus If God did promise and giue onely earthly things to the Israelites he were not more particularly their God than the God of other peoples and nations yea he should rather haue beene more specially the God of some Heathen nations to whome he gaue kingdomes and Empires farre greater and more flourishing than a litle countrey of Canaan giuen to the Israelites after so many paynes and with so many euills as they had euer there Now God calleth himselfe particularly the God of the Israelites hauing discerned and seperated them of purpose from all other nations for to doe them good Therefore it must needs follow that these blessings were not onely earthly and transitorie From the .26.42 verse where God promiseth to remember the Couenant he made with Abraham Isaak and Iacob I gather the same Argument that hath beene aboue produced and treated of at large from diuers places of Genesis From the same Chapter 44. verse where God promiseth not to consume them that be his because he is their god c. one may draw this proofe for the Immortality of the soule If the soule dyeth with the body man is wholy coÌ„sumed but the Israelites are promised of God that they shall not be wholy consumed Therefore the soule at least remaineth after the body is consumed The B. of Eureux will reply that this must be vnderstood of the totall extermination of the people as if GOD promised euer to leaue a remnant of some still amongst them I answere that if vniuersall promises directed to a people in generall may not be applyed to euery faithfull in particular they are vaine and none at all For if all the particulars be consumed one after another the generall which is coÌ„posed which consisteth but of particulars will be consumed like wise and so will but shadowes remaine to serue for subiect to the fullfilling of Gods promises And what ioy or comfort could they take that heard Moses pronounce them or did reade them in his writings if none could apply any of them to themselues in particular Out of the forth booke of Moses called Numbers From the blessing of the Priest that assured the Israelits of the keeping peace of God I reason thus They whom God keepeth cannot perish God keepeth them that be his therefore they cannot perish Or else in this forme They that perish are not kept of God the people of God are kept of God therefore they cannot perish Now it is certaine that they should perish if death destroyed them and wholly brought them to nothing The Bishop of Eureux restraineth this keeping to the time the people were in the wildernesse where God preserued them from hunger from thirst from Serpents and from their enemies because some Interpreters expound so the place Deut. 32. which saith that god kept his people as the apple of his ey But the question is not whether god kept his people in the wildernes which none denyeth but whether Moses or any of his expositours confine the keeping of God onely in the wildernes and whether euer any Saducie shewed himselfe so impertinent as to say that God kept not his people elswhere This forme of the Priests blessing is it not generall and vniuersall Let vs see his goodly Episcopall Enthymema God kept his people in the wildernes therefore he neuer kept them nor will keepe them elswhere yet would it follow that at least they that he kept in the wildernes are not wholly perished and brought to nothing or else that he kept them no better in the wildernes than he did elswhere and indeed many of them dyed there by fire by pestilence by serpents and by their enimies yea all that came out of Egypt except two dyed there euen Aaron and Moses whence is manifest that this keeping in the wildernes was not so singular and only that none other is worthy consideratioÌ„ in respect of it From the same place also I reason thus If the anger of God against sinne hath ordained miserie and death for to punish it as appeareth Gen 2. 3. It followeth that the peace and mercie of God taketh away this punishment consequenly causeth that death cannot hurt at leastwise them that are partakers of this peace and mercie of God according as is conteyned in the blessing Otherwise the effectes of the wrath and mercie of God should bee both alike and his fauour and peace should not restore the felicitie lost by the transgression of Adam Now the Sadducie seeth well that this is not effected alwaies nor yet ordinarily in this life which is fuller of calamities to the children of God than to others Therefore there must bee another life wherein this accomplishment is found From the fourteenth chapter and eighteenth verse which setteth forth vnto vs the mercie and benignitie of GOD is drawne an argument wholly like vnto the former And another also like to that which aboue is produced out of Exodus 34.7 where are reade the same words From the same Chapter the twentieth verse is gathered a proofe for eternall life where God declareth that hee pardoned his people that had prouoked him and yet neuerthelesse hee sayeth that they should all die in the wildernesse and that none of them shoulde see the land of promise which was accomplished And therefore if there were no other life for them whereto serued the pardon that God gaue them If those whose sinnes God pardoneth are destroyed in bodie and in soule what could hee more doe to them that obtained not pardon But since the Sadducie with his Aduocate will not see Paradise in Moses let vs shewe them Hell there The sixteenth Chapter of this booke recyteth vnto vs an Historie of some that descended thither aliue and hell is there named twice which should suffice him that maketh no reckoning of consequences how euident necessarie so euer they be but demaÌ„deth euer the litterall and formall text If he reply that the Hebrew word signifieth also a Sepulcher or ordinarie graue let him know that it cannot be so in this place for when Corah Dathan and Abiram were sunke downe and swallowed vp it was not an ordinarie buriall nor a graue made of purpose And the Latine Bible which is Authenticke to Du Perron translateth it Hellâ— Numb 23 10 In the 23. chapter is read this memorable sentence of Balaam so cleare and manifest as well for the felicitie as for the shame to come Fol. 20 that our Balaamite is ashamed to reply thereto himselfe choosing rather to bring in a contentious spirit as if his owne were other saying That Balaam by a figure common to Enigmaes and obscuritie of Oracles required
length of daies which God promiseth to the iust that his posteritie or his memorial or his seede might florish that he might not die of a sodaine violeÌ„t nor hastie death c. confirmng the exposition of the place of Moses by the authority of Horace a most worthy warraÌ„t for such as with this Poet may well be called Epicuri de grege porâ—â— swinish Epicures Now whilst he maketh his coÌ„parisons of the text of holy scripture that is of the word of god with the heatheÌ„ oracles that is the word of the diuel goeth to seek smoke in Horace for to choake the light of Moses let vs see the argument conteined in the said place There where there is a total abolishmeÌ„t there is no place for wishes of any felicity Balaam in his death wisheth the felicity that is in the death of the righteous therfore he beleeued that death is not a totall abolishment Againe whosoeuer wisheth to die like vnto theÌ„ that are singularly beloued kept of God beleeueth that there is a singular felicity happines reserued for them especially after their death wherof the vnrighteous shal not be partakers but Balaam maketh this wish knowing that God singularly loued the people of Israel therfore he beleeued that there was a felicity Happynes reserued for them euen after death To that which Du Perron saith that this felicity may be meant of a quiet death in a good age c. I answere that one may shew to a Saducie not onely by texts of the bookes of holy Scripture that he receiueth not Iob. 21. Psal e. 73 Ierem. 12. Habac. 1. but also by a great number of histories that he receiueth and by his owne experience that the life and death of the righteous is very often more miserable than that of the wicked and therefore the Iustice of God requireth that there be made an other iudgment after this life and the very heathen themselues were able by naturall discourse onely to make this conclusion which the Saduces that sometimes held the sterne of the Iewish Church and their aduocate they haue met withall in the Romish Church cannot draw from the whole body of the Law of Moses So Balaams asse without any spectacles of Tradition perceiued sooner and did more honour to the Angell than that great Doctor that false prophet that was vpon him that none might find strange if in times past many simple Israelites and at this day many simple lay men see more clearely and honour more deuoutly the holy scripture which is the true Angell or messenger by which God maketh knowne vnto vs his will than did the Sadduces in times past at this day the Bishops Popes who change the sheepe of Christ into asses in lading them with their traditions wherewith they more cruelly torment them than Balaam did his Asse striking it with his staffe and that for none other reason but because they giue place and honour to the Angell Du Perron alleadgeth Luther in fauour of his Sadducie who wisheth euen for temporall respects to die the death of Abraham therefore why might not Balaam who was not saith he more spirituall neither hee nor his Asse than your great Prophet Luther haue the like wish I answer that although the conformity with BalaaÌ„ is found much greater on our Bishops side than on Luthers whether we consider it in the manner of setting forth his owne praises as Balaam did or in the profession of being hired for to slaunder and curse the children of God and for to bewitch againe those whome Luther according to the grace receiued of God â—umb 24.19 hath vnbewitched or in giuing of pernicious counsells for all sorte of fornication there being no difference but that Balaam though against his will pronounced that which God had commaunded him and our Bishop saith and writeth quite contrarie to that which God hath commaunded him in the Scripture yea contrary to the feeling of his owne conscience yet notwithstanding the argument that he draweth from this comparison holdeth not For if Balaam desired the same that Luther desired and if Luther desired to dy like Abraham not for regarde only of temporall conditions but also in the faith of Abraham that he might be receiued into his bosome as a childe of the Father of beleeuers then it is plaine that Balaam desired expressly the immortality and saluation of his soule that is to say Paradise And it is to be feared that the Saducie here will say that his aduocate sauoreth of the asse esspecially seeing his miter which looketh so like a case for long eares And that if one day when he shall haue changed his miter into a hat and his crosier staffe into a Cardinall mule he can meete with an asse as wise and well spoken as Balaams was it would speak farre otherwise to his Cardinalls habite Out of Deuteronomie From the .5 Chapter .29 verse I reason thus that which death abolisheth wholy can not be a subiect capable of a permanent and perpetuall happynes but they that keep the commaundements of God do possesse a perpetuall happynes Therfore death doth not wholy abolish theÌ„ The Bishop of Eureux replyeth that it is not said that they shall haue theÌ„ selues this happynesse for euer but them and their posterity successiuely Now that is false the word Them is formaly expressed but the word Successiuely is not expressed For as hath beene aboue already said the same happines that is promised in general is applicable to euery particular accoÌ„plishing the coÌ„ditioÌ„ required now all obseruers of the commauÌ„demeÌ„ts of god haue promise of the perpetuall happines therfore euerie one of theÌ„ shall haue it also in particuler Would not our Bishop forge heere some such monster as that of the Libertines or of Auerrhois Of the vnderstanding vniuersall and perpetuall in it selfe but corruptible in the indiuiduals It may bee that in the conclusion hee maketh an allusion to Transubstantiation For if the accidentes subsist without their subiect Mans felicitie may also subsist for euer though the subiects of the same bee not for euer From the sixth Chapter 24. verse I conclude thus If they that feare the Lord haue promise to be euer preserued aliue It must follow that there is an Eternall life Now the Antecedent is conteined in these words of Moses The Lord hath commaunded to doe all these ordinances and to feare the Lord our God that it may goe euer well with vs and that hee may preserue vs aliue as at this present Therefore c. From the ninth Chapter 27. verse of the forme of praier vsed by Moses making intercession for the people and praying God that hee would remember his seruants Abraham Isaacke and Iacob wee may reason thus That which is not at al cannot haue any efficacie the Patriarches Abraham Isaacke and Iacob long time after their death haue some efficacie namely to appease God by the remembrance of his couenant contracted with them Therefore death
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
good number of places of Moses alleadged in my former aunswere which the Bishoppe of Eureux calleth a Rhapsodie of coniectures a name more fit for the matter in question than hee imagineth or intendeth if wee take it in the sense that Eustathius Homers interpreter teacheth vs that is to say for a Lawrell Rod where triumphant Trueth abateth the impudencie of a blasphemer who maketh the couenant grounded on the seede of Abraham that is to say on Iesus Christ common to brute beastes vnder colour that GOD promised to Noah not to drowne the earth any more by a Deluge Fol. 11 so that euen beasts tast of this fauour not perishing any more all at once as they did in the Deluge To an Hebrewe Sadducie one may shew him by his own tongue that the word Berith commonly translated couenant is taken sometimes generally for euerie declaration whether of counsaile of commaundement or of promise As wee see by the examples Leui. 24.8 Nomb. 18.19 25.12 In which places this word signifyeth nothing else but Ordinance like as it is taken in this place in question Genes 9.11 Sometimes it is particularly vnderstood for a contract and couenant made betweene parties which doe reciprocally or mutually condition and accept Now that the couenant made betweene GOD and Abraham is such a one is shewed by the seuenteeth Chapter of Genesis where wee see GOD on the one side conditioning and on the other side Abraham accepting If Du Perron will make his instance of any force hee must shew the like conditioning and acceptation betweene God and beastes Or else let him confesse that this word couenant agreeth not in the same sense or vniuocally to men and to beastes In the same Chapter 7. verse God hauing said that this couenant betweene him and Abraham is perpetuall sheweth in what it consisteth to wit in that hee is the God of Abraham Whence it followeth eyther that Abraham is permanent for euer or that the couenant is not perpetuall or permanent For how could God bee the God of one which is not And this consequence was found so necessarie in the argument of Iesus Christ against the Sadducies that they knewe not what to replie thereunto though they knewe the place of Genesis 9.11 as well as their Aduocate Du Perron â—enes 12.13 â— .17.26 â—8 From the inheritance of the land of Canaan promised to the Patriarckes Abraham Isaacke and Iaacob I frame this argument If the promises of God made to the Patriarches bee vnderstood onely of the earthly inheritance and not of the heauenly God is not true of his word the consequent is blasphemous Therefore the Antecedent is false The consequence is shewed in this â—en 13.15 â— 15.7 17 â—8 18 13 that the promises of the inheritance of Canaan were directed as well to the Patriarches themselues as to their successours yea they were the principals with whom the Couenant was treated which did beare their name and in all prayers chiefely in that of Moses making intercession for the people it was still alleadged GOD was euer prayed to Remember his Couenant made with Abraham Isaacke and Iacob Yea Gen. 15.7 god speaketh but of Abraham saying I am the Lord that brought thee out of Vr of the Chaldees to giue thee this Land to inherit it Now god gaue him neuer any inheritance in this Land of Canaan Act. 7 5. no not so much as to set his foote vpon as S. Stephen saith and as the Sadduces may see in the hystorie set downe by Moses It followeth therfore either that God hath failed of his promise or that this land was but a figure whereof Abraham hath obtained the substance and thing Gen. 17 Heb 11 9 1â— 13 This consequence is drawne from the bare text of Moses without imploying the place of the Epistle to the Hebrewes which I had alledged for to shew a Christian not a Saduce that I wrest not Moses text from which alone without other tradition the Apostle draweth his conclusion Du Perron saith that this argument of the Apostle was not good but for those that were brought vp in the tradition of the Synagogue Fol. 17 which tendeth to none other end but to banish the writings of the Apostles from the Christian Church and to confirme them in the Iewish Synagogues for to mixe and steepe them there in Cabalisticall gloses To the places in which the promises of the Land of Canaan are directed to the Patriarches themselues and not only to their posteritie he answereth that it must be vnderstoode of their children who should represent them Which is a manifest mockery For to what purpose should the Scripture conioyne these two termes To thee and to thy seed What part should they haue in the Couenant if in that land they were strangers depending on the mercie of those which then actually possessed it and being exposed to their outrages and violences Wherein should be found the accomplishment of the promises of God the truth of the heauenly Oracles What comfort would it bee for Abraham that at the end of foure hundreth yeares his posteritie should possesse a certaine countrey yet after infinite miseries of a long and cruell bondage and in the meane while himselfe with whome GOD had principally contracted the couenant to be subiect to so manie euils plucked out of his owne contrey driuen out of the Land of Canaan by famine almost constrained to prostitute as it were his wife for to saue his life in Egypt hauing sometimes want euen of water Therefore not onely hee knewe but those that read his Storie in Moses may see that this land was but a signe vnto him of a more excellent and heauenly thing and that hee was not to complaine for hauing beene depriued of the one seeing hee was assured of the other hauing God for his reward as the expresse Text saith Gen. 15.1 From Abrahams intercession vnto God for the cities of Sodome and Gomorah Gen. 18 25. I draw this argument for to proue the vniuersall Iudgement If there be a Iudge which iudgeeth all the earth there is an vniuersall iudgement But Abraham acknowledgeth God for such a iudge and calleth him by this name verse 25. Therefore there is an vniuersall iudgement Gen 22 By the historie of Abrahams Sacrifizing Isaack I prooue the Resurrection shewing to a Sadducie that Abraham beleeued it that thus He which beleeueth God to be true beleeueth that he wil fulfil his promises But Abraham beleeued God to be true therfore he beleeued the fulfilling of his promises Now this promise was that in Isaack shold his seed be called Therfore of necessity one of these two things must follow either that he beleeued that god would raise vp Isaack again whoÌ„ he was about to kil or that he beleeued not the promise that God had made him for to beleeue that he would giue him another son Gen 21 12 it were still to faile of the promise which was
or spirituall From the same chapter 39. verse one may produce a formall text to a Sadducie for the resurrection For God saith expresly that he killeth and restoreth to life Whence I conclude If God maketh the dead to liue againe they are then raised vp And to him that would alwaies haue expresse words may be alledged Chapter 33. verse 6. where it is said of Ruben let him liue and not dye whence one may conclude He that dyeth not is immortall or raised vp againe Ruben that is that whole tribe dyeth not therefore it is immortall or raised vp againe From the same chapter 29. verse where Israell is called blessed because he is saued by the Lord who is his buckler is framed this argument Whosoeuer is saued by the Lord cannot perish Israell is saued by the lord therefore he cannot perish Our Bishop replyeth to this place that God saueth as well beasts as it is written in 36. Psalme I answer that Moses declareth Israell blessed for that he is saued after a singular and not a common fashion Who is like vnto thee saith hee O people saued by the Lord Du Perron answereth these are beasts 1. Tim. 4 1â— One might shew him the diuerse significations of this word saue in the New Testament where God is called Sauiour that is to say preseruer of all men but especially of the faithfull But since he refuseth the authoritie of this booke in manner of a Sadducie hee shall better vnderstand it by a more familiar example When a murderer is escaped the hands of earthly Iustice men say he is saued but if a Sadducie will change this proposition from it owne proper natue to inferre that hee is therefore wholly saued it shall bee shewed him to the contrary in Moses in the chapter going before where the soueraigne Iudge saith Vengeance is mine I will repay it Also Deu. 32 3 39 vers There is none that can deliuer out of my hand Thereupon may be said to a Saducie that which experience constraineth him to confesse that God doth not alwaies execute vengeance in this life and therefore he must conclude that it is executed after this life else should this text of Moses be false And indeed this reason without any text of Scripture mooued the very heathen to beleeue a Iudgement to come â—om 12. Also the former of these two places seemed to Saint Paule so cleare and manifest that he chose not any other to proue the iudgement of God which this Bishop would faine not find at all neither in Moses nor else where I said in my writings that these fiue points are linked vnseparably together He maintaineth that of the foure last I durst not so much as open my mouth The reader shall iudge if there be not particular and distinct proofes for euery one of them And then he addeth that the question is not of the connexion that they haue in themselues but of that they haue in the minde knowledge of vulgar and ordinary men â—ohn 6.45 I answere that they haue the same connexion in the mindes of them that are taught of God as all the faithfull are as they haue in themselues For true knowledge is that which apprehendeth the true being also the true order of things Now God giueth true knowledge of saluation to them that be his therfore he giueth it vnto them conformably to the true being and order of things that is of the articles necessarie to saluation Yea he giueth it more ordinarily to vulgar and ordinarie men Mat 11 25. than to these high and extraordinarie Gnostickes as the Scripture witnesseth where Iesus Christ giueth thankes to God his father that hee had hid these things from the wise men of vnderstanding and reuealed them to babes The ordinarie meanes hee vseth for to reuele them is the scripture â— Tim. 3 16 â—7 which instructeth a maÌ„ to the making him absolut perfect yea euen the man of god that is to say the Pastor who consequently is to teach nothing else but this doctrin of perfectioÌ„ coÌ„tained in the scripture in which he may shew the connexion of the articles in question as for example in the place of Daniell aboue alledged the resurrection of the body which is there formally presupposeth the immortality of the soule The euerlasting life perpetual ignominie of which there is also there expresse meÌ„tion made are Paradise Hell the property of them both being therein briefly declared and that in forme of a sentence which presupposeth a Iudge to pronounce it a iudgment that he shall execute Now although there hath beene found euen among the heathen that haue perceiued in their minde the connexion of some of these things that this Bishoppe distructeth and diuideth as much as in him lyeth witnesse Plutarch who findeth the coherence betweene the Immortality of the soule and the IudgmeÌ„t of God yet I neither said nor thought that the connexion of all is found in euery Spirit as he would conclude by my discourse for to make himselfe way to surprise me For that were to make faith which is the gift of God a naturall thing Ephe. 2.8 as a certaine ancient hereticke named Basilides did who also denyed the Resurrection and since the Pelagians Clem. Aleâ—â— Strom. l. 4. Tert. de prâ—â— c. 46. from whome the Bishopp of Eureux differeth not much demaunding euer such demonstrations as no contentious Spirit should be able to gainsay and opening by this meanes a liberty to beleeue what one listeth yea to beleeue nothing at all of the things controuerted and gainsayed I said also that Abraham referred the rich mans brethren for to preserue them out of Hell not only to the prophets but also to Moses He answereth very pleasantly Luk. 16.19 21. Fol. 53. That he referred them not onely to Moses but also to the Prophets the knowledge they might haue from Moses not being sufficient to giue them any perfect assurance of it without the helpe light of the Prophets Let vs obserue here againe the vncertaintie and Pirrhonian perplexity of our Bishopp He dare not deny but that there is something of these articles in Moses for otherwise Abraham should haue mocked the brethren of the damned rich man referring them to a booke where there was nothing that was necessary for them and notwithstanding he is not ashamed to reiect as impertineÌ„t all the places produced out of it without quoting any other that is fitt and proper at least in his iudgment Moreouer seeing that the writings of the Prophets themselues without excepting that excellent place of Daniell which conteyneth in formall tearmes the Resurrection euerlasting life 〈◊〉 32. 〈◊〉 54. and perpetuall ignominie as aboue hath beene shewed are so obscure and improper to conuince a gainsayer as he affirmeth what shamefull contradiction is this to call them here a helpe and light to vnderstand the bookes of Moses He addeth further That Abraham
him in attributing vnto him this opinion This new Gnostick hath hee forgot that first principle viz. Of euery thing either the affirmatiue is true or the Negatiue the one being immediatly opposed to the other as it must be in matter of disputation Againe if these points be not conteined in Moses can his writings bee other than vnsufficient imperfect especially after his own definition wherby he defineth an imperfect vnsufficient thing to be when it is not sufficient to the end for which it is destinated and according to the maner wherby it is ordained therunto Tim 3 16 â— The end office of the Scripture is to teach the man of God that he may be perfect absolutely instructed vnto euery good worke Now if the first principles fundamentall points of this instruction be wanting therin if we must deriue them from some other way as he saith besids the Scripture It followeth either that the maÌ„ of God may be perfectly instructed without beleeuing the imortality of the soule the resurrectioÌ„ of the body Paradise hel c. which is the perfection not of a Christian faith but of a Pirrhonian beleefe Or els that the bookes that should teach theÌ„ yet coÌ„teine theÌ„ not wholy are as imperfect as a humane body would be without a head without a hart yea without a soule or as a tutour or scool Mr for so S. Paul caleth the law Gal. 3.24 which sheweth not to his disciple so much as the .1 rudimeÌ„ts or principles without which notwithstaÌ„ding he should neuer be capable to learne or vnderstaÌ„d any thing Also if none of the foresaid points be contayned in Moses it followeth that S. Augustine did wrongfuly shew by so many reasons Cont. Cresâ— Gram. l. 1. c. 17. 18. that Iesus Christ was a good Logician it would follow also that he that put him in the rank of deceiuers with Moses Mahomet did him no wrong for euery Sophister is a deceiuer and he which alledgeth for a demonstratiue proofe that which is but a vaine cold coniecture is a Sophister now if the place of Moses that Christ alledged to the Saduces for to proue the resurrection of the dead Exod. 3 6. Matth. 22.32 be not a demonstratiue proofe it is the trick of a Sophister to haue alledged it for such Also it would follow that Christ in approouing the opinion of the Iewes who thought to haue life eternall in the scripture if it were erroneous did not the office of a faithful teacher for that by this scripture is vnderstood the bookes of Moses it is manifest by the 45 46. and 47. verses of the same chapter where our Sauiour saith Iohn 5.39 that the Iewes trusted in Moses that Moses accused theÌ„ that Moses wrote of him That they could not beleeue his wordes because they beleeued not Moses writings Of necessity then whosoeuer will not openly blaspheeme Iesus Christ declare himselfe an vnmasked Atheist must acknowledge that the foresaid points are conteyned in the bookes of Moses It remaineth now to shew how they be there whether they do apeare to be there or no. I say they do so appeare to be there as maÌ„ is able to se theÌ„ there but to discerne theÌ„ he must haue the eye of his soule opeÌ„ clensed like as for to see the Sun which is the clerest thing in the world the eye of the body must be open seeing Now the vnderstanding of the natural vnregenerate maÌ„ is obscured with darknes is but darknes ye is dead that is to say depriued aswel of life as of spiritual sight 1 Cor. 2.1 which is the cause he caÌ„not see the things that are of the Spirit of God finding but folly in them And so not onely the Lawe of Moses but also the Gospell of Iesus Christ notwithstanding the brightnesse of it is hid to them that perish Cot. 4.3 of whom the God of this world hath blinded the vnderstandings that the light of the Gospell of the glory of Christ should not shine in them Both the Lawe and the Gospell become cleare vnto men when the Spirit of God by the light of his grace expelleth inwardly the darkenesses of their nature and the darnesses that the Prince of darknesse hath added therunto Pet. 119. Cor 13.12 when hee outwardly sheweth the light of the Scripture shining in darke places vntil such time as we see face to face the things which in this world cannot be seene but in a glasse darkely Here he will reply Whence commeth then this diuersitie of interpretations Whence commeth it that whosoeuer is truely inlightned by the Spirit of God findeth not streight waies the true meaning of the Scripture I answer that it is one thing to be truely inlightned another thing to be perfectly inlightned in al things It is one thing to vnderstand all the points necessarie to saluation and another thing to be able rightly to expound all the places of the Scripture one by one It is one thing to erre in the exposition of a particular place another thing to erre in a generall point of Doctrine yea though all the points be not of like importance It is one thing to say that the Scripture is perfect in it selfe conteining perfectly al that is necessary to saluation and another thing to say that men comprehend perfectly this perfection The Apostle saith that In this life we knowe but in part Cor. 13.9 we prophecie but in part It belongeth vnto God alone to know all things and in all perfection Now as there be childreÌ„ of light which see but by glymse as it were because they receiue this light by little little by degrees as the blinde maÌ„ whose eyes Christ opened to whom at first men seemed like trees â—ark 8.24 these acknowledge their ImperfectioÌ„ weaknes of sight Also there are childreÌ„ of darknesse which presume to know al to see all which neuer feele their blindnes â—â—hn 9.41 whose sin as saith our Sauiour remaineth that is to say is incurable For he giueth sight to them that feele their want by his iust iudgemeÌ„t blindeth more more those that thinke they see most clearely which intitle themselues Leaders of the blinde a light to them which are in darknesse Rom. 2 which disdainfully reiect the light of the Scriptures which boast themselues of a greater wisedome than that which God hath in them reuealed which seeing themselues condemned by the Scripture refuse it for Iudge take it for an aduersarie and accuse it as guiltie of the errours of those which follow it It is the speach of the Bishop of Eureux that he said vnto me in the verball conference vpon the errour of saint Cyprian touching the rebaptizing of hereticks And heere he saith That the scripture is so farre from being instituted to serue onely for particuler instruction in all the contentious points of Religion that on the
power of God if wee follow not the testimonies of them darknesse will oppresse vs and will passe vpon our doctrine After Du Perron our Sauiour Christes reply must be corrected by these words Yee erre because ye know not the tradition neither the power of the Synagogue or of the High Priest Caiphas addresse your selues to this same and yee shall know all the secrets of God From the second commaundement of the Decalogue I frame this argument they that experiment the mercie of God euen to the thousanth generation cannot be abolished by death now they that loue GOD experiment his mercy euen to the thousanth generation therefore they cannot be abolished by death The Bishopp of Eureux opposeth vnto me Brentius who expoundeth this promise of God not of eternall life but of the multitude of posterity He so often alleadgeth vnto me this expositour as if his authority were as irrefragable and authenticall amongst vs as the authority of an Apostle If I should aleadge vnto him Eutyches Nestorius or some other holdeÌ„ for an heretike both of him and me all the Ellebore of Anticyra would not suffice to purge such an Impertinencie But because it is himself that vseth it it must be admired as a wisedome extrauagante Now let vs take this place according to the exposition be it of Brentius or of the Saduces and then let their aduocate Du Perron tell vs how a promise can be directed to them which are not how mercie can be exercised vpon them which are wholly destroyed and brought to nothing Vpon their children will he say but Moses saith formally vpon Them which pronoune can not be vnderstood but of the Fathers the abolishment of whome abolisheth the subiect of Gods mercie Ethic. l. 1. c 11 This consequence is no lesse necessary and euident then that is which the Interpreters of Aristotle gather for the Immortality of the soule from a place where he propoundeth this question whether it importeth to our felicity that our friends be happy and whether the dead also are touched with the prosperity of their friends he which speaketh thus intendeth that the dead are not wholly extinct and this is manifest by the onely vse of reason common sense without begging the helpe of any Tradition And if Aristotle who affected obscurity may notwithstanding be vnderstood â—xod 32 32 â—3 at least in some places how much more Moses who aimed onely at the instruction and edification of the people of God â—ol 23. From Gods booke spoken of in the same booke one may thus reason against a Saducee that by his Aduocate expoundeth it of a rolle or catalogue of the liuing or of a Register wherein God writeth all things that he hath giuen Beeing vnto Moses was not blotted out of this booke of life and yet hath not enioyed that happy life promised to the people of god in the land of Chanaan but dyed before he sett foote into it as well as they that rebelled against god It followeth therefore either that the happie life is not properly to be vnderstood of the fruition of the land of Canaan or that God made no distinction between his most faithful seruant and greatest obseruer of his Lawe and the most disloyall transgressors of the same betweene him that was wont to appease him them that were wont to prouoke him This consequence is necessarie not onely in the Germane Logick which Du Perron mocketh at but also in that of all the Synagogue that admitteth the Text of Moses Act. 6. Lib. 1. de Caiâ— Aâ— c. 2. were it of Libertines and of Sadduces the principall of which who at this present is Bishop of Eureux can reply nothing else thereunto but that wherewith the ancient Libertines accused S. Stephen to wit blasphemies against Moses and against God If that which S. Ambrose saith of Moses that he is not dead be of the Iewish tradition Deut. 21. 34 5. I 1.2 which after Du Perron was the true depositarie and Gardian of the sense of the Scripture and of the trueth of God than see heere a faire piece of it which blotteth out and wholly destroyeth the expresse text of the Scripture which speaketh of the death of Moses Let the Reader note by the way that the secret that our Bishoppe insinuateth touching the mysticall interpretation that is drawne from the helpe of Tradition It is to change the affirmations of the Scripture into Negations and the Negations into Affirmations From the 34. chapter verse 7. I drawe this proofe for the vniuersal Iudgement He that absolueth none that is guiltie iudgeth al men but God saith Moses absolueth not him that is guiltie therefore he iudgeth all men Out of Leuiticus From these words The man that shall doe these things shall liue in them may bee made this argument Leuit. 18. â— If the life that God promiseth to the obseruers of his Law bee but temporall they haue nothing more excellent aboue others but the consequent is false Therefore the antecedent likewise The consequence is manifest for many contemners of God and transgressors of his coÌ„maundements aswell among the Israelites as among the Heathen haue liued a longer and happier life in this world then many of the children of God haue done â— Cor. 15. 19 who might as well say then as S. Paul said since If in this life onely we hoped in Christ or in God wee are of all men the most miserable Therefore here either the Sadducie must deny the iustice of God or renounce his obstinate opinion â—â—uit 18.5 From these same words also is prooued the sufficiencie of the Scripture of Moses in this manner that which maketh to liue eternally is sufficient to saluation but the things that Moses writeth in his Law make to liue eternally therefore they are sufficient to saluation The minor is prooued by the argument going before which sheweth that this life can not be temporall and that is the part which the Saducie denyeth His Aduocate Du Perron will deny this part which affirmeth that Moses wrote all the things that make to liue eternally To alledge vnto him S. Paule who saith that Moses â—â—m 10.5 describeth the righteousnesse that is by the Lawe of which righteousnesse perfectly obserued proceedeth life He would mock at it and would attribute this vnderstanding to the institution of the Synagogue but it shall not be lawfull for him after his owne principles to mock at Moses so â—â—ut 13.10 who in another place restraineth all this obseruation of the commaundements and ordinances of God to those things that are written in the booke of the Law without directing the promise of eternall felicitie to the obseruers of any other more secret commaundements conteyned in the Tradition of the 70. â—â—l 31. Elders of the Synagogue as Du Perron would haue it Considering also that if this place cannot bee vnderstoode of eternall life without the helpe of Tradition S. Paule was greatly
hath not wholly abolished them But this argument taken from Gods couenant with the fathers hath beene alreadie aboue discoursed of at large From the 14. chapter first verse is framed this demonstration children haue part in their fathers inheritance Moses calleth the Israelites the children of the Lord therfore they haue part in his inheritance Now this father is heauenly and eternall his true inheritance therefore is not onely earthly and temporall For if it were none other than the land of Canaan the Lords children should haue no aduantage aboue others yea they should be worse prouided for than the most detestable Idolaters and sworne enemies of the Lord who haue possessed so great and mightie Empires Againe they that haue God who is the author of life and life it selfe for their father cannot be destroyed nor alwaies detayned by death but Moses in this place teacheth the Israelites that they haue God for their father Therfore he teacheth them withal that they cannot be destroied nor their dead alwaies deteined by death Herupon it is that he groundeth the forbidding touching the vnmeasurable sorrow that the Heathen vsed for their dead not hauing the same hope â—â—rs 2 because they had not the same doctrine From the 30. chapter 15. and 16 verses where Moses setteth before the Israelites life and death blessing and cursing I reason thus if the life and blessing whereof Moses speaketh bee but temporall and not eternall God himselfe is not Eternall The consequent is horrible blasphemie Therefore the antecedent is necessarily false The consequence is prooued by the twentieth verse following of the same Chapter in which God is called the life and length of daies of that people whence I conclude he that hath the Lord for life and for length of his daies shall liue for euer but the faithfull saith Moses haue the Lord for their life therefore they shall liue for euer And by consequent the instance of the Bishop of Eureux is foolish and blasphemous when hee saith That since God blesseth the fishes of the sea Gennes 1. one might conclude that fishes are capable of life eternall Moses saith not that God is the life length of daies of fishes nor that fishes are children of the Lord to possesse him as their inheritance as he saith of the Israelites in tearmes as cleare and manifest as Saint Paule saith it of the faithfull â—ol 3.4 when hee calleth Christ our life See how the equiuocate or double signification of the word blesse may be distinguished by the onely Text of Moses without the helpe of Tradition But it was not for nothing that the Bishop of Eureux maketh heere fishes capable at least by Moses text of life eternall it is without doubt ouerthwartly to insinuate because they make more capable of it such as make of them their principall food as doe the Charterhouse Monks and some others For he hath learned from the Iewish Tradition that God hauing created two whales and fearing least if they engendred others the sea would be no more nauigable Lyr. in Psâ— Relation 7. c. ad finâ—â— he killed the female and salted the flesh of it which he keepeth to giue the righteous to eate in the world to come Also for to teach vs or to put vs in minde why the Romish Tradition suffereth the vse of fish in Lent forbidding the vse of flesh Namely because God hath blessed the fishes of the sea but he hath cursed the earth in the workes of man as saith Durand that great rehearser of Tradition adding that those creatures that haue partly the forme of a beast and partly the forme of a fish as the Oâ—ter one may eate the fish part that is to say of a creature halfe blessed halfe cursed Such mysteries indeed would neuer be drawne from the onely litterall text of Moses if Tradition did not leÌ„d helpe thereunto But the consequence that it draweth from the curse of the earth for to forbid flesh meates is so glittering and sparkling bright that it dazelleth the eyes that are vsed but to the light of the Scripture For if it be not lawfull to eat flesh because the earth is cursed in the workes of man we must by necessarie and euident consequence conclude either that in like sorte bread should not be eaten or that in the time when this prohibition was made men plowed and sowed in the sea and corne grew there that they might eate of it as partaker of the blessing giuen to fishes which is a Tradition that hath neede of another subsidiarie Tradition to helpe to vnderstand it From the .31 chapter 16. verse where God saith to Moses that he shall sleepe with his fathers is gathered the same argument that aboue is produced out of diuerse places of Genesis yea there may two be gathered whereof this word Sleepe doth furnish vs the first for to sleepe presupposeth some Being And that which is abolished is not capable of sleepe One cannot say that he which is not yet borne sleepeth No more can one say therefore with Plynie and the Sadduces that after man is deade it is the same thing as before he was borne or conceiued The other argument is taken from this whole speach to sleepe with his Fathers Those Fathers therefore must haue some Beeing or else let the Bishoppe of Eureux teach vs what difference there is betweene sleeping all alone and sleeping with some that haue no being at all From the 32. Chapter 9. verse I conclude thus The possession of the Lord is vncorruptible Israell saith Moses is the Lords possession therefore it is vncorruptible From the same Chapter 10 verse He that is kept of God as the apple of his eye cannot be wholly destroyed Israell was so kept Therefore c. The Bishops cauillation vpon this argument is aboue refuted From the same Chapter 22. verse Hee which threatneth to destroy consume the earth by fire euen to the foundation of the mountains denounceth a general vniuersall iudgement but so God threatneth in this verse therefore he denounceth an vniuersall iudgement For that which is said to the Israelites is applied by a iust and euident analogy to all transgressors The bishop of Eureux replieth that these be metaphoricall comparisons wherby God compareth his anger vnto fire I grant it for there are certaine matters that cannot be declared to mans vnderstanding but by metaphoricall and allegoricall locutions And therefore euen in the new TestameÌ„t â—el 13 the torments of hell are represented vnto vs by a lake burning with fire and brimstone And so far are these figures froÌ„ engendring obscuritie that on the contrary they giue light to our minds vnderstanding to our harts more than if they were proposed without figures And such is S. Augustines iudgement of them 〈◊〉 119 Moreouer if the Tradition be so cleare on this question of Hell fire whence coÌ„meth it that the Fathers and Schoolemen are so busied to determine whether it be materiall
in the beginning so that there was nothing made nor created before For if any creature had beene before this point then it is that that should haue beene made in the beginning by this meanes the creation of Angels is drawne out of Moses by a necessarie and ineuitable consequence And thus doth Thomas Aquinas vnderstand it That which the same Father saith in the same booke P. 1. q. 6â— art 1. â—â— ninth Chapter vpon which the Bishoppe of Eureux groundeth his replie doth not contradict it Hee saith their creation and their order is not euidently described in the constitution or creation of the world Let our Gnosticke learne that a consequence may bee euident though the Text bee not euident And the euidence of this consequence vpon this point is shewed as well in the place aboue said 〈◊〉 ciuit Dei 〈◊〉 1. C 9 as in the place of the 9 Chapter which our Sophister malitiously geldeth suppressing these words Now they were not omitted to wit Angels I Iudge it by this for that it is written that God rested the seuenth day from all his woorkes that hee had made seeing the booke it selfe heginneth thus In the beginning God created Heauen and Earth so that it is manifest that before the Heauen and the Earth there was not any other thing created And a little after Seeing all thinges were disposed by the creation which are said to haue beene finished in six daies how could the Angells haue beene omitted as if they were not of the workes of God from which he rested the seuenth day These consequences seeme necessarie and euident to Saint Augustine though the literall text of Moses seemed vnto him not euident Hee repeateth the verie same also in another place And euer his ground is It is written saith hee tradition teacheth so The last Doctour of the Rome Church which is Saint Gregorie â—ob li 33 â—4 speaking of the creation of Angels chooseth rather to drawe it from the consequence of some place of Scripture than from the pretended Tradition True it is that the Bishoppe of Eureux would haue mocked at it in good earnest if it were other than a Pope that had drawne it from that text But it sufficeth vs to obserue heere by the way 〈◊〉 33. the effect of subsidiarie Tradition without the weapons whereof our Bishoppe holdeth that the Text of the Scripture is laid open and naked to the malitious interpretation of particular Spirits for these publick and vniuersall Spirits though couered from top to toe with the armour of Tradition behaue themselues sometimes farre worse than simple particular men who finde themselues better armed with foure or fiue little stones taken out of the Scripture than with all the sumptuous armour of Saule that cumbred Dauid so 1. Sam. 17. that he could not goe much lesse fight Now to these foure principall Doctours of the Church I could adde many others which in this point of the Creation of Angels deriue nothing from Tradition but content themselues with the consequences drawne from the Scripture But I will content my selfe with one place of Epiphanius Haeres 65. cont P. Samos because hee is commonly alledged as a great defender of Tradition If the Angels saith hee had not beene created with the Heauen and the Earth the word had not said to Iob VVhen the Starres were made all my Angels praised mee with their voice Then hee bringeth in one asking this question Thou hast shewed that Angels were before the Starres hast said that they were made with the Heauen the earth tell vs whence hast thou made the demonstration of it were they made altogether before Heauen and Earth For the Scripture declareth no where clearely the time of the Creation of Angels In gr contextu corruâ—te legitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thou hast shewed that they were before the Starres for if they had not beene how could they haue praised GOD for the creation of the Starres Thereupon he answereth VVee cannot say by our owne discourse the solution of euery question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But by CONSEQVENCE OF THE SCRIPTVRES For the word of God note that he maketh no distinction betwene the word of God the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but take the one for the other sheweth clearely that the Angels were not made after the Starres nor before the Heauen and the earth that which is said beeing a thing manifestly vnchangeable that before the Heauen and the earth there was nothing created For in the beginning God created Heauen and Earth so that there was the beginning of the Creation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there was nothing created afore then By this is manifest on which side is greatest surety and more certainty of the trueth in this point whether in following Tradition with Saint Ambrose Hierome and many Greekes who vnawares let themselues slide into the opinion of Aristotle in steade of the Apostolick Tradition Or in relying on the Scripture by the necessarie euident consequences drawne from it with Saint Augustine Epiphanius and some others Genebrarde notwithstanding the authoritie of the Scripture â—hro Aetat the exposition of these Doctours and the determination of the Church of Rome had rather follow the Greekes and others which hold that Angels are not of the number of the workes of the six daies yet he is not so desperate as Du Perron who denyeth that their creation can be shewed in Moses For hee affirmeth that Moses sheweth plaine enough that they were created of God when he calleth them Angels of the Lord when hee maketh them his ministers and seruants c. And it is by this onely consequence of Scripture Cyril ado â—ul that Saint Cyrill Alex. confuted the impudencie of Iulian the Apostata of whom our Bishoppe hath taken this instance And thus much be spoken concerning their Creation Now for their distinction The Bishop of Eureux saith that the Iewes knewe it by Tradition either absolute or subsidiarie as he calleth it Fol. 70 And Ignatius attributeth to himselfe the knowledge of the Orders of Angels Epist ad Tra. the differences of Archangels vertues Dominions Thrones Powers the Magnificences of principalities the excellencies of the Cherubins and Seraphins the sublimitie of the spirit the raigne of the Lord and the vncomparable Diuinitie of God the father almightie But S. Augustine confesseth here freely his ignoraÌ„ce Euch. ad Lau. c. 85. mocking at those that presume to knowe it without beeing able to proue it And in the Chapter following he sath that there is no need to affirme or deny the things with danger since they may be denied without crime Whence may bee concluded either that the Christian Church hath not beene so faithfull a keeper of the Tradition of the Apostles Fol 106. as Du Perron saith the Synagogue was of the tradition of the Patriarches Prophets which let not
particularly The sprinkling of the booke may be compreheÌ„ded vnder the sprinkling of the altar siâ—h both the one and the other represented God in this ratification of the Couenant for the booke conteined the Lawe and the conditions that God required in this Contract wherefore as S. Paule omitteth the sprinkling of the altar so Moses omitteth the expresse mention of the booke both of them vsing a Synecdoche The inconuenience that the B. of Eureux alledgeth is that if the booke had beene sprinkled with the Altar Moses had blotted out the writing of the Couenant before hee had read it to the people A great matter sure that one cannot sprinkle a thing without blotting and spoyling it as though he who in consecrating Aaron sprinkled those parts of him that God had commaunded him to sprinkle without plunging or drowning him in bloud though in other places he sprinkled a great quantitie could not as well sprinkle the booke without marring it shedding the great quantitie of bloud vpon the altar There is as much cunning in this consideration as there is reason in his reproofe of our translation of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which S. Paule vseth verse 19. to speake which Du Perron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordaineth by the tradition of his new Lexicon that heÌ„ceforth it signifie to read He perswadeth himself that the opinion of Caluin who saith that in Saint Pauls time there was perhaps some CoÌ„mentaries of the Prophets which recounted more amply that which Moses had touched onely by forme of abridgement maketh greatly for his purpose as if it did follow that those commentaries conteined infallibly the traditions at this day in controuersie Or because they be lost that hee doth the Scripture no wrong to defame it as imperfect unsufficieÌ„t Let him learne of S. Augustine that it is no wise necessarie that all the writings of the Prophets should bee indifferently Canonicall â—â—g de Ciu. â—â—i li. 18 38 saith hee I esteeme that they to vvhom the Holy Ghost reuealed that vvhich should bee authenticall for Religion might write certaine things as men with an Historicall diligence and other things as Prophets by diuine inspiration and that these same vvere so distinguished that the one vvere attributed as to them but the others as to God speaking by them So that the former perteined to a more ample knovvledge the latter to the authoritie of Religion in vvhich authoritie the Canon is maintained and kept Besides which if there bee yet any writings bearing the name of true Prophets they serue not for to haue a more abundance of knowledge by them because it is not certaine that they be theirs to whom they be attributed and therefore wee beleeue them not especially those in which we finde things contrarie to the Canonicall faith And thus is Caluin cleered It is most certaine that the Prophets and Apostles ceased not to be men after that God had chosen them to be Prophets and Apostles and the gift of prophesying and reuealing the mysteries of God to men whether it were by word of mouth or by writing Vide Thomâ— Aqui. par 2 q. 171. ar 1. was not in them as the habitude of a science gotten by studie neither as the light is in an heauenly bodie but rather as that which is in the ayre from which it may bee easily seperated so that as they could not heale al diseases at al times and so often as they listed so could they not prophesie wheÌ„ they would 2. Kin. 4.27 neither knew they any thing but what it pleased the Lord to reueale vnto them witnes Heliseus who knew not the subiect of the sadnes and bitternes that the Sunamite had in her heart because the Lord had hid it from him And Samuel thought that Eliab had been him that the Lord had chosen to be King in Saules stead Nathan also said to Dauid when he purposed to build the Temple 1. Sam. 16 7. 2. Sam. 7. c. 1. Chro. 17 c. do all that is in thine heart for the Lord is with thee wherein both of theÌ„ were abused by the instinct of his owne minde therefore Saint Gregorie cited by Thomas Aquinas saith that it hapned sometimes that the Prophets being asked counsaile of by reason of their great vse or custome of prophesiing vttered things of their owne minde hauing opinion that they were of the holy Ghost It is not therefore sufficient that a thing be pronounced or written by a Prophet or an Apostle for to haue a Canonicall authority attributed vnto it but it behooueth also that there come betweene the motion and inspiration of god assuring those holy men not only of the truth of the matter which they treate for all that conteineth trueth hath not Canonicall authoritie but also of the end and vse thereof namely that it was for to be authenticall for to serue for an infallible rule to the faith and life of the faithfull To goe about to coÌ„clude a Canonicall authority of some book by the allâ—gation of some place that an Apostle citeth from it is a thing that deserueth rather to be laughed at than to be answered for by that meanes it would follow as hath bin abouesaid that Menander Aratus and Epimenides or Callimachus Heathen Poets should haue the like authoritie as the diuine Prophets because S. Paule alleadgeth and approueth some of their verses .. And therefore though wee shall say with Caluin that the particulars and circumstances expressed in this 9. chapter might be taken forth of the commentarie of some Prophet which we haue not Yet it would not follow either that it was part of the Canon or though it were which we say only by concession or graunt that the Canon which we haue is imperfect God of his goodnesse hauing preserued so much of it as he knew to be necessarie for his Church that is to say the parts essentiall though there wanted some of the parts called integrall And though we should not follow the opinion of Caluin yet would it not followe that the Apostles had the knowledge of these particulars by the tradition or Cabale of the Iewes seing they might haue taken them from some other bookes not written by any Prophet neuerthelesse receiued among the Iewes though not with Propheticall authority as some Historiographers are amongst vs. And therfore the cardinall Caietan who should euery way better know what is deriued from tradition than the B. of Eureux who is inferiour vnto him in dignitie in knowledge and in place of resideÌ„ce the cardinal hauing bin ordinarily neer the oracle of Rome drunk of the fouÌ„taine of tradition saith in his CoÌ„mentary vpon this chapter namely of the particular of the golden Censoure which after the opinion of many was in the most holy place from which our Bishop maketh his strongest instance It is not knovvne vvhence the Author of this Epistle hath taken this namely that the golden Censer was in the