scripture which is called the gate saith he because it leades vs to god it maketh sheep it hunteth away wolues suffereth vs not to go astray Also they of our side hold not the abouesaid points for articles of faith no otherwise but because they do find them in that gate which alone hath serued thē for a buckler sword against the Anabaptists which notwithstāding du Perron maketh dāgerous as if it wer som rock or quicksād against which shipwrack of faith wer to be feared In like maner in the verball conference he told me roundly that S. Cyprian fel into he resy by no other occasiō than for hauing folowd the scripture which made him go astray quite contrary to that which S. Chrysostom saith who calleth it also in another place Homil◠1◠Epist ad Corinth a most certain ballāce squire rule exhorting eury mā to leue what this mā or that mā thinketh to search al things in the scripture To which agreeth also S. Augustin when he saith Aug. Lib cap. 9 de Christ amōg the things which are Opēly declared in the scriptures ar foūd AL those that contein faith maners to wit hope charity By the testimonies of these fathers by infinit others which for breuity sake I omit it is euident that either they esteemed these points in question to be conteined in the Scripture yea openly or els that they thought them not necessary to faith charity But they did hold them necessary aswell as we Therfore they did beleeue thee thē to be cōprehended in the scripture aswell as we The B. of Eureux First touching the Baptism of litle children that it is true lawful they haue but three arguments that they can with any apparance alledge to this effect The first is taken frō litle children that were brought to Iesus Christ that he might pray and lay his hands on them 〈◊〉 19.13 But sith he did not baptise them and also that they were not brought to him to that end but onelye he layde his hands on them and then departed So farre are the Anabaptists from acknowledging that from thence may be concluded that children are to be baptized that on the contrary they infer therfrom that seeing he did baptize them they ought not to bee baptized D. Tillenus his answer He might be like reason conclude from the same place that seeing Iesus Christ did not accept the title of Good he must not be called Good The Scripture saith that Iesus commaunded 〈◊〉 19 17. little children should be brought vnto him affirming that to such belongeth the kingdome of heauen The same scripture saith 〈◊〉 3.3 that none entreth into this kingdome vnles he be regenerate or born againe It saith also that Baptisme is the washing of this regeneration And that those that are baptised 〈◊〉 3 5 〈◊〉 ◠27 do put on Christ Whence we conclude that seing they are not depriued of the thing signified they ought not be depriued of the signe The B. of Eureux Their second argument is of circumcision which was giuen to little children and was a figure of Baptisme To which is answered first that arguments drawen from figures do not alwaies conclude alike for the trueth of the things figured if there bee not a commaundement thereof reiterated The Paschall Lambe was a figure of the Eucharist as Circumcision of Baptisme Now in the celebration of the Paschall lamb there was no sacramentall drinke therefore there shoulde bee no neede of any in the Eucharist they woulde not admitte of this argument Circumcision was giuen on the eight day the same therefore must be obserued in Baptisme The reason holdeth not Circumcision was not giuen to weomen among the Iewes but onelye among the Egyptians and other prophane people imitators of Circumcision baptism therefore ought not to be conferred vnto them which is as reasonlesse as the former D. Tillenus his answer The Scripture teacheth vs how we must reason of Circumcision in Baptisme when saint Paule speaketh in the same tearms both of the one and the other Sacrament Colos 2◠appropriating the vey name of Circumcision to Baptisme the better to shew that bothe of them figured but one and the same thing and that Baptisme is to Christians the same that Circumcision was to the Iews The Paschall Lamb was properly a figure of Iesus christ so the Scripture meaneth it when it saith Our Passeouer 1 Cor. ◠that is our Paschall Lamb is Christ sacrificed for vs. In this scripture Jesus Christ commaundeth vs to vse a sacramentall drink in the Eucharist which the pretended Apostolick Tradition forbiddeth to shew what goodly agreement ther is betwixt the Word of God written and theirs not written As in like sort the Scripture teacheth vs that we are no more bound to the obseruation of days and that the Gospell giueth vs liberty in all these things The B. of Eureux may remember that in the verball conference he denied vnto me that it was commanded in Scripture not to minister Circumcision but on the eight day which here he confesseth He alledged in fauour of the Iewish Traditions that Iesus Christ himselfe did approoue them finding good that the Iewes should administer Circumcision on the Sabbath day which by the scripture they might not do which commandeth that no work should be doon in the same so that it must needs be that this exception or dispensation was giuen them by Tradition To which I answered seeing the commandement was expresse in scripture to circumcise euery male child the eight day which might as well fall on the Sabbath day as on any other they were therefore grounded on the scripture Considering also that God in the commaundement forbade onely our works not his amongst which is the administration of the Sacraments He replied vnto me that these words octauo die the eight day did not precisely signifie the eight day but within the eight day and would neuer let go this glose though I alledged vnto him the expresse text wher the reason why circumcision was deferred till the eight day 2 is added for that the mother is vnclean the first 7. dayes after hir childbirth The consequence that he draweth that women should not be baptized if the correspondency of circumcision and Baptism were such as we wold haue it is a meer cauill For seeing that Circumcision did shew forth the sanctification of the Jsraelits seed the females that were borne of this seed were as well sanctified as the males who alone were capable of the external sign of this Sacramēt al the analogy of faith the necessary consequence of Scripture teacheth vs that we must admit women to the communion of the Eucharist so doth it teach vs also that they must be baptized seing they are as capable of this Sacrament as the males The B. of Eureux Secondly cirtumcision had two vses the one temporal which did properly cleaue to the bark of the
the finishing of his works whereas we doe not celebrate Sunday for this purpose but for to honour the memoriall of our lords Resurrection which was the day of accomplishment of rest from his labors he tooke in this worlde for the restoring and reforming of mankinde As touching the forme we obserue not Sundayes the seauenth day of the weeke but as the first so that though it bee still an obseruation of one day of the seauen yet neuerthelesse it is no more an obseruation of the seuenth but of the first of the seauen contrary to that which was obserued in the ould law And therfore the Fathers of the Primitiue Church reckoned as well as we doe now Wednesday and Friday for the fourth sixt feriae or daies of Cessation beginning at Sonday for the beginning of their supputatioÌ„ So that instituting Sunday it is not a changing of Saturday into Sunday but the bringing in of a new solemne feast which hath no conformity with feast of the Sabbaoth Also we see that in the primitiue Church wherein they would yet bury the Synagogue with some honour for to shew that they would not substitute Sonday in saturdays roome but institute sunday a new as the particuler feast of Christians they obserued them both at once saturday in commemoration of the precepte of Moses sunday for to celebrate the particular feast of Christs resurrectioÌ„ As for the matter it is certain that whosoeuer wil obserue the day coÌ„maÌ„ded by Moses to the children of Israel must take not a day at pleasure by septenary reuolutioÌ„ deriued indiffereÌ„tly froÌ„ some beginning that we think good of but that which shold be fownd the seauenth by reuolutioÌ„ and beginning at the originall of the supputation that God himself had established as the Jewes did For God marked and poynted them out a day at which be would haue them begin to reckon and account their septenary reuolution which was that same as is most probable which represented by the order of the reuolution thereof the day of Gods rest after the Creation of the world for a commemoration where of it was ordayned And for this cause he that propounded vnto them for to beginne the solemnization of the sabbath sent them twice so much Manna as the dayes before commaunded them to gather of it double as much that so the next day which should be the sabbath they might be free and vacant from all corporall labour And notwithstanding this absolute suppression of the sabbath in which the end the forme and the matter of the commaundement are abolished and this new bringing in of sunday is not grounded vpon any written ordinance neither of Christ nor his Apostles Contrariwise it seeemeth that our Lord exhorting them to pray that there flight might not be on the sabbath day when the desolation foretold of by Daniell should come to passe It is thought his intent was that the sabbath should still be obserued of Christians after the suppression of the other legall ceremonyes For as for that which is written in the Apocalyps that S. Iohn was rauished in spirit on the Lords day To omitte that this worde maye bee taken for the manner of speaking of Saint Paule The day of the lord shall reueale That is the iudgement of the Lord. And againe I passe very little to bee iudged of mans daye that is of mans iudgement If men woulde not play the sophisters too much on this worde Day What other lighte the lighte of the perpetuall tradition of the Church excepted can teach vs that sunday and not saturday is this Lords day seeing saturday was stil in the law and among the Iews acknowledged for the Lords day As also from the other place that Saint Paule commaundeth that the first day of the weeke euery man should laye apart what he would giue for the Collects there cannot any thing begathered For if the text had sayd Euery one carryeth to the Church that day what he would giue there were some apparance to conclude that the first day in the weeke was apppoynted for the meetings of the Church from the Apostles tymesâ— But saying onely that on the first day of the weeke euery man laide apart what he would giue a week that when he came he might finde it ready there can of necessity no other sence be gathered but that saint Paule in the beginning of the weeke would haue euery one lay apart by it selfe of that which was for his expence the weeke following what he was willing to reserue for the poore least he spend it with the rest D Tillenus his answere There remayneth to shew that the translation of the Sabbath day to sunday hath not been done without the written ordinance of God du Perron doth very much exaggerate the rigour of the commaundement touching the obseruation of the Sabbath going about to perswade that it was meerely and simply morall whereof hee concludeth that the Church which hath abolished it hath power to change and establish the expresse law of god which the scripture witnesseth shal abide for euer Now not to exasperate this blasphemy I will briefly shew that this commaundement was partly Morall and partly ceremoniall that the ceremonial part concerneth not ChristiaÌ„s wee learn froÌ„ the Scriptures that ceremonyes are abolished by the coÌ„ming of Christ that there is expres ordinaÌ„ce in scripture tuching the particuler abolishmeÌ„t of this ceremony which coÌ„preheÌ„deth not the morall part of that commandement For the first If the obseruation of the Sabboth were altogether morall God would neuer haue detested it For he taketh pleasure in all that is morall Isay 1.11 14. Now the Scripture teacheth vs that hee sometimes doth detest it and that he reckoneth it with the sacrifices and other feasts which none will deny to be ceremoniall Jt followeth therefore that this obseruation was not wholly morall And Iesus Christ who hath perfectly fulfilled the Law Math. 12. excused and defeÌ„ded his disciples againste the Iewes when they had transgressed the ceremony of the Sabbath And in another place he sayth Mark 2.2 That the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the sabbath Osc 6.6 Also when hee alledgeth the scripture to this purpose which saith I will haue mercy and not sacrifice hee plainely placeth the sabbath among the ceremonies After Iesus Christ the Apostles haue left this ordinance written in so expresse words that I am abashed at the boldnes of du Perron to deny a thing so manyfest Saint Paule sayth Let no maÌ„ condeÌ„n you in meat drink or in respect of an holyday or of the new moon or of the sabbath Adding which ar but shadows of things to come but the body is Christ Will he coÌ„tend whether shadows be ceremonies Wil he maintain that the forbiddings of meats of the hollidayes new Moons of the Jews were morall commandements If he wil not beleeue the Apostles let him then hearken to the Fathers â—ul aduers 〈◊〉 adâ— of whom
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
Resurrection of the body it must necessarily inferre that it is therefore proper for to prooue it or that Christ was not fit for to reason Certainly when the resurrection of the body is proued the immortalitie of the soule is prooued also But he which prooueth but the immortalitie of the soule prooueth not for that the Resurrection of the bodie which was notwithstanding the question wherwith the Sadduces had assailed our lord who had by no meanes stopped their mouth if he had proued but the first point that is to say satisfied but the one halfe and the easiest part But this argument saith our Bishop was till then vnknowne to the Iewes who for that cause admired the wisdome of our Sauiour And therfore they must needs haue receiued the beleefe of it by another meanes than by the bookes of Moses namely by the tradition of Abraham Isaack and Iacob and other Fathers What vse hath then heere subsidiarie tradition which after our Bishop 〈◊〉 71. is the Gardian and keeper of the mysticall interpretation of the text of the scripture 〈◊〉 45. Or if there were none vpon this place as Du Perron seemeth to grant reckoning it among them that the sonne of God who hath the key of Dauid opened to his Disciples since he himselfe expounded the scriptures It will follow that the place was altogether vnprofitable before which is the bishops mysticall exposition that he might couertly giue Saint Paule the lye who maintaineth that The whole scripture is giuen by inspiration from God â—â—m 3 and is profitable c or as they of the Church of Rome translate it Euerie Scripture that is euery place of scripture meaning it euen of the olde Testament Now it is true that Saint Mathew saith that the multitude were astonied at the doctrine of Iesus Christ citing this place For the confusion and ignorance was so great vnder the Reigne of the Pharisaicall Traditions that it seemed to the auditours a thing miraculous to be able to alleadge the Lawe so pertinently and to purpose Euen like as in this last Reformation of the Church many of those that had beene all their life time brought vp in the superstitious Traditions of the Church of Rome haue beene astonied when they haue seene them so pertinently confuted by the holy scripture In the meane while the thing hath not beene so obscure as the bishoppe will haue it otherwise some euen among the Scribes would not haue approoued this allegation saying Maister thou hast well said Luke 20.39 Marke 12 2â— For they were so great enemies to Iesus Christ that they espied all occasions euen to the least of his words for to entrappe him And must Du Perron shew himselfe heere worse than were the Scribes and Pharises accusing our Sauiour Christes argument of obscuritie or impertinencie which was approoued by his greatest enemies Math. 22.3 who confessed that hee had stopped the mouthes of the Sadducies Which sheweth that the thing was so cleare manifest that there could bee no reply But what reason or testimonie can bee cleare to him who findeth not cleare enough the place of Daniel vnder colour that a Rabbi and one Polychroneus had some particuler doting vpon it yet more than sufficiently confuted by some of ours without any helpe of Tradition which our bishoppe holdeth so necessarie therein The wordes of Daniell are Oecolamp Dan. 12.2 Manie of them that sleepe in the dust of the Earth shall awake some to euerlasting life and some to confusion and eternall shame And they that bee wise shall shine as the brightnesse of the firmament and they that turne many to righteousnesse shall shine as the starres for euer and euer Beholde the place wherewith Du Perron saith a contentious spirit cannot be forced without the helpe of tradition that wee no more doubt of his intent which is not to content himselfe to make the scripture vnsufficient and imperfect but also wholly vnprofitable superfluous and vnapt seeing the clearest and most formall places haue no force nor vertue without Tradition which if wee will beleeue him forceth all euen the most contentious spirits to whom the scripture coÌ„tenteth it self to say 1. Cor 11.16 If any man lust to be contentious we haue no such custom neither the Churches of God What remaineth for him but to say that Tradition is God himselfe who alone is able to change the hearts to tame the rebellious and to make light shine out of darkenes Indeed there was a Bishopp in the counsell of Trent who without blushing or changing colour attributed to the Pope who is the principal spring and fountaine of the Traditions at this day in controuersie those words that Saint Iohn had said of the Eternall sonne of God calling him the light come into the world Orat. Corn. Epis Bitont in Conci Trid Iohn 1. Now if Iesus Christ had had the same opinion of the scripture as Du Perron would he not also haue said the like to the Sadducies as their Aduocate holdeth vnto vs Namely that they deceiued themselues to thinke to finde in the writinges of Moses all that was necessarie for them And that the fiue bookes of the Lawe were but a letter of credite referrring the rest to the sufficiencie of the bearer of the Tradition Hee dare denie that our Sauiour Christ attributed the cause of the Errour of the Sadducies to their ignorance of the Scripture though two vnreprooueable witnesses depose it and that in so cleare and euident tearmes that all the smoke of the bottomlesse pit Math. 22.29 Marke 12.24 25. cannot darken the light of it especially that of Saint Marke in these wordes Are yee not therefore deceiued because yee knowe not the Scriptures neyther the power of God To one that hath the boldnesse to denie such Textes I confesse I cannot shewe any thing neyther in the Olde nor in the Newe Testament In the meane while Du Perron may bee iudged heere by his owne mouth as that euill seruant in the Gospell being constrained to confesse that one of the causes of the errour of the Sadducies was the ignorance of the sense of the Scripture Luke 19 22 Fol. 52. though hee meane it but of the place cyted by themselues which commeth all to one reckoning for to bee ignorant of the sense of the scripture is to bee ignorant of the scripture But the true sense of the same is discerned and seene when the Father of Lightes maketh it be seene not when the Synagogue onely or the Church sheweth it which hath not any Tradition whatsoeuer for to open the eyes of the mind and to force the most contentious otherwise shee should manifest this force vppon the Turckes Iewes and Paganes if Tradition conteyned the true Efficient and Instrumentall cause both together Saint Hierome expoundeth the place of saint Marke in these wordes They erre saith hee because they know not the Scriptures and because they are ignorant of them they know not the
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
and Prophets extraordinarily sent of God by which meanes now ceased since God hath spoken vnto vs by his Sonne it might be more fully instructed in all things Yet notwithstanding the holy Scripture is alwayes recommended vnto them aboue all Hebr. 1. God himselfe though he spake to Ioshuah by word of mouth confirming him in his charge notwithstanding he commended vnto him onely the booke of the Law Iosh 1.7 not promising him his assistance and blessing but on condition that he should do and obserue all that is conteined therein After that so often as the reformation of the Church was intended there was neuer any other patterne taken than the scripture 2. Chro. â— 2 Chro. â— 2. Chro. â— 2. King â— 2 King 2 Nehe 8. as appeareth by the examples of Iosaphat Ioas Ezechias Iosias Ezra Nehemias c. Contrariwise when Amon and Manasses would diuert the people from the seruice of god to idolatry they hid the book of the Law that it might no more be read publickly as god by Moyses had ordained As touching the creation of Angels the being creation of deuils which du Perron very improperly distinguisheth as if diuels were not angels at the beginning or as if god had created them by themselues so wicked as they are ther is reuealed in the books of Moyses as much of it as god hath iudged to be expedient for the simplicity of that people To tell what day or in what order they were created we know it no more by TraditioÌ„ thaÌ„ by the scripture though it be augmeÌ„ted since Moses from whom we gather their Creation when he saith that the heaueÌ„s the earth were finished and all their host Gen. 2 â— Gen. 28 Deut. 3â— Gal 3.1 In the vision of Iacobs ladder and elsewhere we read their apparitions and mynistery which the Jewes in the time of Moyses knewe rather by theyr experience than by Tradition sith the Lawe was published by them As for the supposed distinction of theyr orders Areopagita speaketh with such assuraunce as if he had beene present at it all though even he that was rapt vp into the third heauen not onely forbeareth to speake of it 〈◊〉 12.4 but also witnesseth that it is not lawfull to reueale these secrets We say with S. Augustine that when disputation is had of a thing very obscure without certaine and cleare proofe of the diuine scriptures the supposition of man is to be kept in not leaning more on the one side â—â—st cont â— it than the other He sendeth vs not in this case to vnwritten Tradition Irenaeus who should know more of Apostolike tradition that any of our time defied certaine Gnosticks in his dayes swolne with I know not what knowledge taken out of the scripture in reckoning vp and describing the distinctions orders and preheminences of Angells Archangells Powers Thrones Dominations and in a word all those things which the Church of Rome braggeth she knoweth and which this holy Father propounded to his aduersaries as impossible to comprehend Touching the diuell Moyses teacheth the Iewes in the scripture 〈◊〉 s 3. that he was a lyar a tempter and seducer from the beginning That the seede of the woman should bruise his head c. If there had been neede of knowing more he could haue giuen them the knowledge of it by a more authenticall and true Oracle than that of Rome is I know not whether du Perron would maintaine that the nine orders or degrees which the Schoolemen haue made among diuells in imitation of the Angelicall Hierarchie are from Apostolicke tradition The B. of Eureux They had besides this many other things whereof the institution is not found neither in the books of Moses nor in any other booke of the olld Testament As the institution of the order of Exorcists who by a certaine authenticall prescript form from God did coniure wicked spirits as our Lord beareth them witnes saying 〈◊〉 12.27 If I cast out deuills in the name of Beelzebub in whose name do your children cast them out And for this reason they shall be your iudges Which children Caluin prooueth that they were the Exorcists of the Iewes such as those which are spoken of in the 19. chapter of the Acts. D. Tillenus his answer The knowledge of these things eyther is not necessary to Saluation or is found in the Scripture by analogy or by consequence If the Exorcists of whom Saint Matthew speaketh be such as those of whom speaketh saint Luke Math. â— Acts 19 as Du Perron hath it from Caluine there was no diuine institution For they in the Acts were certayne vagabonds that abused the name of Jesus for which they sped very ill We know that in the beginning of the Christian Church this miraculous guift of casting out deuills was vsuall there but we find not that they which had it in the exercising thereof did vse any mysticall prescript forme but that they did simply coniure the * Enerâ—â— Possessed in the name of God whence we gather that such as in the Iewish Church had this guift and did vse it lawfully brought thereunto none other mysterie than the calling on the name of the God of Abraham Isaack and Iacob which forme is found euidently enough in the Scripture The B. of Eureux They had the miracle of the Poole the water whereof the Angell troubled which was a figure of Baptisme that shoulde heale vs of our infirmities after that the Angell of the greate counsaile which is our Lord Iesus Christ was gone down into the water Now that this was not any illusions of the deuill and superstition for those that haue recourse thereunto but a true miracle instituted of god wherunto credit might be giuen it could not be knowne but by tradition D. Tillenus his answer The miracle of the Poole was visible as the miracles of Iesus Christ the Apostles and the Prophets afore them were Iohn 5. â— It tended not to establish or confirme any false doctrine in which case the caution that Du Perron requireth had been necessary Nehem â— Nehemias sayth that the gate of this Poole was hallowed when he City was reedified after the returne from captiuity Whence we may coniecture that God then adorned it with this miracle in token of his approuing the restoring of the City And the word Beth-chesda which was the name of the Poole in the Syriack tongue signifieth the house of benignity because God there did visibly shew his goodnesse in healing all the diseases of his people The B. of Eureux The custome also which they had to deliuer a man at Easter which was a figure of the deliuerance of mankind by the Passeouer of our Sauiour was a Tradition D. Tillenus his answer The custome to deliuer a man at Ester was rather a corruption of Iustice brought in by infidell Gouernors than any necessary point to saluation reuealed and commanded of god to the faithfull The B. of
Eureux The Apostles also euer anon alledge Tradition be it by way of History or by way of Argument Saint Paul saith that Moses in the act of the solemnity of the couenant mingled water in the blood of the Testament wherewith he sprinckled the people which was a figure that we should be sprinkled with the bloud of Christ which is the bloud of our couenant Neuerthelesse this mixture of water with blood not set downe by Moses nor by any other author of the olld Testament D. Tillenus his answer Moyses made not expresse mention of some ceremonies which the Apostle reciteth 〈◊〉 19 21 but we learne them better by analogie and consequence of Scripture than by vnwritten Tradition It was commaunded to vse water in all sacrifices And if that was requisite in particular mens sacrifices how much more in the ratification of the publick couenant wherof Moises speaketh 〈◊〉 â—4 He nameth not likewise in expresse words the hee goats purple wooll and hysope but he saith that the children of Israell offered burnt offerings and then peace offerings or offerings of thanksgiuing Now the whole burnt offerings which were expiatory for sinne could not be but of goats Leuit 16 8â— as the scripture teacheth elsewhere So we see that god commandeth they should offer vnto him purple wooll Hysope was commaunded before they came out of Egypt Leuit â— Numb and after was ordayned to serue alwayes for an Jnstrument to the sprinklings whereunto Dauid alludeth Psal 5 when he prayeth that god would purge him with hysope that he might be clean Now seeing god would that these things should be ordinary vnder the Law it appeareth by Analogy that he had caused them to be as an example of the other that should com after The B. of Eureux He sprinckled also the booke of the Couenant with the same blood saith saint Paul which was a figure that the booke of the Law should take his force from the bloud Iesus Christ And yet neuerthelesse of this sprinckling of the booke there is not any mention made in the olld Testament D. Tillenus his answer Touching the sprinckling of the book Exod. 2â— we gather by that which is sayd in the same place that Moyses hauing sprinkled the Altar tooke the book which as appeareth was vpon the Altar with which it was in like manner sprinckled The B. of Eureux He saith that the golden pot of Manna and the rod of Aaron were put into the Arke which we know was the place of adoratioÌ„ And notwithstanding not one book of the olld testament maketh any mention of it D. Tillenus his answer As for the pot of Manna Moyses saith Exod. 1 Numbâ— 1. King â— 2 Chroâ— that it was put before the face of the Lord that is before the Arke and not with in it the same is said of Aarons rod. And elsewhere the scripture saith in expresse vvords that there vvas nothing in the Ark 〈◊〉 4. but the two tables of stone That which is sayd in the Epistle to the Hebrewes is not against it For the relatiue En hi is not to be referred to the word Kibotou Arke though it be neerest to it but to the word Scéné Tabernacle And of such like constructions there are found many other examples in Scripture otherwise there should be a manifest contradiction which is that du Perron would fain find if he could in the Scripture The B. of Eureux Saint Iude declareth the Angells combate with the Deuill about the buriall of Moses as a thing euidentlye knowne among the Iewes and thereof frameth an argument against those that blasphemed dignities reciting the very words of the Angell Now this was a tradition which could not haue taken his originall of any humane doctrine but from the pure reuelation and word of God D. Tillenus his answer The knowledge of the combat of the Angell with the diuell about the body of the Moyses is not so come by Tradition but that we learne some thing of it euen from the Scripture 〈◊〉 3 2 for there is no doubt but that saint Iude aymed at the place of Zacharie where we read the same words The Lord rebuke thee ô Satan The Prophet calleth him the Angell of the Lord whom the Apostle calleth Michael the Archangell both of them doo meane the Prince of angells that is to say Jesus Christ who hath combatted and ouercome Sathan and wonne the body of Moyses that is hath accomplished the mystery of our redemption figured by the shadowes of Moyses 〈◊〉 â—2 17 whereof Christ is the true body as the Scriptur saith And in that he durst not denounce the sentence of curse it derogateth nothing from his deity and Maiesty For we must consider him in this place as Mediatour in which quality he is subiect and obedient to his Father not exercising his Allmightines If the L. of Perron wil not admit this exposition let him know then that the reason the apostle draweth from this vnwritten history is found very well grounded on the Scripture Exod 22. â— which in expresse words forbiddeth to curse or speake euill of Princes But the Church of Rome doth profit very ill by this Tradition of saint Iude For first it exposeth and prostituteth all the bodies and reliques of Saints departed and suborneth false ones too in their roome to cause the people to commit Jdolatry in steade of resisting the diuell when he bringeth foorth such inuentions as the Archangell did who according to the common exposition of this place fought with him when he woulde haue discouered the sepulcher of Moyses which God had of purpose hid that he might take away from his people all occasion of idolatry and secondly Deut 3 4â— it taketh liberty to it selfe to blaspheme and tread vnder feete the greatest dignities of the earth as the Popes haue impiously and arrogantly shewed it euen to Kings and Emperors The B. of Eureux In like manner he maketh mention of the prophesie of Enoch touching the last comming of god in the day of iudgement And this was a word of god which was profitable yea necessary to bee beleeued of all those to whom the notification thereof should com and notwithstanding that Enoch had euer written any thing it is no way manifest by the scripture D. Tillenus his answer The prophecy of Enoch which the same Apostle alledgeth touching the last iudgement is not onely not repugned by the scripture but is also therein more clearly expressed than the prophane contemners of God would haue it We receiue most willingly all Traditions which haue like conformity and approbation in scripture as this prophecy We confesse that all particular deeds and sayings are not conteyned therin For Singularium nulla est scientia but the reason grouÌ„d of all these things are found therein and the sentence of saint Iohn remayneth true though all that our Lord hath doon be not written yet that which is written Iohn 20â—30
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
mysticall formes but that they simplie coÌ„iured the Energumeni or possessed in the name of god c. whence we might gather that they which among the Iewes had this gift brought thereunto no other mystery than the calling on the name of the God of AbrahaÌ„ of Isaacke and of Iacob Hereupon he termeth me a Demoniak possessed with the euil spirit of ignorance and presumption Fol 89 for not hauing read the 7. Canon of the 4. Council of Carthage which maketh mention of a booke wherin Exorcismes were written Let vs leaue to him the euill spirit of knowledge which so swelleth him that it is to be feared it will burst him in the end And let vs see his argument The Councill of Carthage holden about the yeare of grace 400. maketh mention of a booke conteyning Exorcismes Ergo Annal. Eccle. Tom. 5. ad an Chr. 398. in the beginning of the Christian Church there were certaine prescript formes for to exorcise Therefore the beginning of the Christian Church should be put 400. yeares after the beginning of the Christian Church or at the least 398. years according to the computation of Baronius himselfe For although mention be made of exorcists before that yet the forme which they vsed in their Exorcismes is no where declared no Annot in Tert lib de Bapt. not in the acts of the said Councill of Carthage and Pamelius can alledge for it nothing more auncient than the booke called Ordo Romanus and the Sacramentarie of Saint Gregorie Iustin Mar. in Tryph. My affirmation was grounded on the testimonie of Iustine Martyr 230. yeares auncienter than that councill his words are these By the name of this same Sonne of God the first borne of euerie creature c. all diuels are adiured and subiected And if yee Iewes adiure them by whatsoeuer name of your Kings or Patriarches or Prophets no spirit will obey you But if any man among you adiure By the God of Abraham the God of Isaacke and the God of Iacob for that same is Christ it may bee they would bee subiected But now your exorcists vse in their adiurations a certaine art as the Pagans and doe vse perfumes and ligatures c. Beholde Iustine who knew no other forme which was in vse among the Iewes than the calling on the GOD of Abraham of Isaacke and of Iacob and no wise restrayneth this gift to a certaine order among the Iewes teaching vs also in what estimation we should haue those that vse magicall and heathenish enchauntments to wit not of order nor ordinance diuine but diuelish Also wee know that Iesus Christ in the beginning of the Christian Church restrained not this gift to a certaine order but promised and gaue it indifferently to the faithfull and euen a long time after Tertullian maketh mention of certaine soldiers Mar. 16.17 Do Coro mil. c. 11 vide Apolog ca 32. In Mat hom 35 that had it The Bishoppe of Eureux who maintaineth that the sonnes of Sceua were of the Iewish order of exorcistes hath found this fantasie in Origen who affirming that it is not lawfull for Christians according to the Gospell to sweare thence concludeth that therefore it is no more lawfull to adiure any and by consequence holdeth that these Exorcistes were Iewes But his ground being false the conclusion that he buildeth vpon it namely that this was an order among the Iewes Annal. Eccle. Tom 1 ad an Chr. 56 is false also and condemned as such by Cardinall Baronius But our Bishop maketh vse of euerie thing so that he thinke it fit to demolish any part of the Lords worke that is of the scripture indited by his spirit His second instance is taken from the miracle of the poole set downe by Saint Iohn Hee saith That it was a needfull thing to know Iohn 5 whether it was not a sleight of Sathan for to inuite men to superstition for to intice them to make Pilgrimages for to perswade them to put their confidence therein and to seeke remedies at Creatures of their infirmities I answere that the Scripture warranted from all these inconueniences them that followed it as the light vnto their feete For it teacheth how superstition is auoyded namely in putting confidence in one onely GOD and in transferring nothing to the creature of that which belongeth to the Creator who by his law written had ordained to the Iewes three voyages yearely for to appeare before him at Ierusalem with offerings See heere their pilgrimages grounded on scripture Exod. 34 23. Deut. 16. â— If the Angell who by the troubling of the water therein manifested this power of healing euerie infirmitie had demaunded sacrifices for to be honoured with them in Gods stead no faithful being instructed in the law wold haue had recourse to this remedy how excelleÌ„t soeuer it were or how great need soeuer he had had As at this day they Deut. 13 that haue learned by the scripture that onely God is to be inuoked or called vpon doe make no voyages or pilgrimages to the places where the Saintes departed are called vpon what maracle so euer be done there true or false seeing an other besides God is there inuoked which was not done at the Poole For to make this instance of force for his purpose it behooued him to shew that such as went downe into it called vpon the Angell or on some Patriarch or Prophet that they confessed themselues first after the Romish manner made the vow of nine dayes saide a certaine number of Aue Maries that they did weare beads told their blessed graines that they beheld their Agnus Dei kissed crosses and crucifixes and caried candles to the Image of the Angell as our ignorant superstitious people doe to Saint Michaell and by the same meanes to the diuell that is at his feete Saint Augustine expounding this miracle hath not recourse In Iohan tract 17. neyther sendeth any to Tradition but vnto the Lord who giueth vnderstanding protesting that he would speake of it as he could and assuring himselfe that he by whose aide he did what he could would supply in his auditors that which he could not herevpon he handleth all this historie allegorically prouing his expositions by texts and consequences of scripture and not deriuing any thing at all from the pretended Tradition Saint Cyrill saith Iohan. 1.2 5. that the Angels went downe inâ—o it onely on the day of the Pentecost for to trouble the water which hee likewise draweth from the scripture without mention of any Tradition his words are these The power of this healing was limited onely to one man which signified that the profit of the law was bounded only to the people of the Iewes without passing any further For the commaundements of the Lawe shewed by Angels on mount Sinai and afterward exhibited on the day of Penetcost ordained for that ende were not extended but from Dan to Beer-sheba If this circumstance of time to wit of the day
of Pentecost according to Saint Cyrill and some other bee taken from Tradition â—â—al tom 1. Christ 32 Cardinal Baronius reproouing this opinion of the fathers reprehendeth also by the same meanes Tradition that is to say the word of God after our Bishop for Baronius saith that this affimatioÌ„ of the fathers is without reason And must needs be said that the Tradition which Saint Chrysostom followed was directly contrarie to that of S. Cyrill â—oan hom For he denieth that the mouing of the water was done in certaine time I told the Bishop of Eureux the occasion and institution of this miraculous healing according to the recitall of Lyranus and other Doctors of the Romish Church for to shew with what fables fed are such as are out of taste with the scripture but he called that a blind impudency and said that he sendeth vs to no other tradition than to the words of Saint Iohn which were a tradition before his Gospell was set forth But if he were not more impotent of braine than he whom Christ healed was of his armes legs he would iudge that the question that himselfe propoundeth is 〈◊〉 88 by what proofe it appeared that this miracle of the Poole was not a deceit of the diuell but a true miracle instituted of God Where is it that the beginning or institution of it appeareth in S. Iohn Is it not for this cause that Petrus Comestor hath recourse to the Tradition of them that said That the Queene of Saba hauing seene by the spirit the wood of the crosse of Christ in the house of Libanus aduertised Salomon Histor Euâ— cap. 81 that on it should one die after whose death the country and people of the Iewes should perish Which Salomon fearing buried it in the ground in that place where afterwards was made the Poole And as the time drew neere that Christ our Lord should suffer death and passion this wood floted or swomme aloft on the top of the water c. Lyran. in Iohan. c. 5 But if this tale bee no lesse fabulous than that of Lyranus why then doth not our bishop who is ignorant of othing teach vs the true historie of this true Tradition that we may know whereon was grounded the faith of the Iewes that had recourse to this Poole that we condemne not of superstition and idolatry as well such as vsed it as them that suffered it to wit the Priests Pastors of Ierusalem In the meane while we content our selues to know that almost alwaies so long as the temple stood there was some miracle or other whereby God testified to this people that he had a particular care of them as hauing chosen and adopted theÌ„ from among all other nations of the earth that by this meanes he might inuite theÌ„ to honour serue him as they ought not to haue any other Gods before him And that if some did put their confidence in this water or in the Angell that troubled it without lifting vp their hartes to him that gaue this charge to the Angell and this vertue to the water they must be put in the ranke of those who abusing the miracles which God for a certaine space of time wrought to the christiaÌ„ church for to giue testimonie to the doctrine that his Martyrs had coÌ„fessed sealed by their death for to moue the heatheÌ„ to embrace it haue reestablished a kinde of paganisme and brought in as many new succeeding Gods as there be Saints and places where any miracle is wrought to whome the people being instructed and exhorted by their Bishops and Curates without any warrant of the word of God either written or pronounced direct their vowes bring their offerings and make their prayers for to obtaine that which they should not aske of any but of the Saint of Saints or Holy of Holies I speake not of the frauds and filthie trumperies wherewith the Priests abuse the world and which stinke so abhominably that such among themselues as haue any shame left or any nose to smell are constrayned to stop it To these men belongeth fitly the mysticall Interpretation that Saint Hierome reciteth â—â—â—rom in 〈◊〉 c. 22 vpon the place of Isayah where is spoken of two pooles of Ierusalem and of a lake that he expoundeth from the Traditions of the Pharises which Du Perron and other such euill Angells troubling the water to fish the better endeauour to mende and make vp againe as a cesterne that cannot hold any more that stinking water wherewith they haue watered and bathed those whome the poyson of the Babilonian cuppe had made so lame withered deafe and blinde that they could not finde the issue or way forth of the porches of the Romish Church Now if it were behooufull to haue an expresse word of God conserue alwaies by meanes of Tradition for to vse with a good conscience this remedy of the Poole Behooued it not also to haue the like warraÌ„t for the bringing of sick folke to some Saint that hath the fame of working miracles Againe if the word of God after the doctrine of the Romish church be but of two sortes to wit that which is coÌ„tayned in the holy scripture that which the Apostles haue deliuered by word of mouth to their successors which is called Apostolick Tradition I would earnestly desire that the B. of Eureux to whome no thing is impossible would declare what Apostolick TraditioÌ„ can be alleadged for ground of the miracles done fiue hundred yea a thousand and twelue hundred yeares and more after the death of the last Apostle and if the Apostles did foretell of them before their death in what place are these predictions found namely That at such a time in such a place such a Saint should worke such miracles and that thereunto without daunger of superstition to offer and to pay vowes and to bring their sicke For thus farre wee both agree that for to doe these things with a good conscience it behooueth to be grounded on the word of God we agree also in this which the aduersaries themselues confesse with vs That the Church is no more gouerned by newe reuelations De verbo Dei l 4. c 9 these are the verie wordes of Bellarmine our difference is onely in regard of the meanes whereby this word of God hath beene conserued and in what place it is to be sought Whether it be onely in the olde and new Testament as wee maintaine or else as the Bishop of Eureux affirmeth in the Apostolike Tradition which he maketh double the one absolute the other he calleth subsidiarie If he vouchsafe to enlighten vs in this obscuritie I will confesse that he deserueth himselfe to be put in the number of the Saints and lightned with candles as great as his Croser staffe The instance of the custome the Iewes had to deliuer a malefactor at Easter is yet more impertinent than the former For it is to make tradition to