POSITIONS LATELY HELD BY the L. DV PERRON, Bishop of Eureux, against the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures, maintaining the necessitie and authoritie of vnwritten Traditions.
Ʋerie learnedly answered and confuted by D. Daniell Tillenus, Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Sedan.
VVith a defence of the sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scriptures by the same Author.
Faithfully translated.
Printed at London by L. S. for Nathaniell Butter. 1606.
TO THE READER
WHen our aduersaries perceiue them selues conuinced by the Scripture, they doe as they of whom Irenaeus and Tertullian speake: they set vpon the Scripture it selfe: accusing it of obscuritie, ambiguitie and imperfection, & maintaining that the truth cannot therein be found, by such as bee ignorant of Tradition, and that the great mysteries of Faith were not by the Apostles committed to his disciples, but by word of mouth, and not by writing: In a word all that the ancient Fathers recite of their gainsayers, we see now a daies practised by ours, who not content, with those olde reproaches, doe defame the scripture with many contumelies, calling it the booke of heretikes, the blacke Gospell, Incke-Diuinitie, leaden ruler, nose of waxe, Theramenes his buskin, the apple of discord, Sphynxes riddle, a sword in a mad-mans hand, and other like tearmes, full of iniuries and blaspemies, wherewith they defame the booke of the couenant and testament of the Sonne of God, which the auncients called the mirrour of diuine grace and mans miserie, the touchstone of truth, the displayer of vanitie, the Squire, Rule, and most exact ballance of all things, the treasure of all vertue, a Shop of remedies for all euils, the sacred Anker in time of tempest, a strong Armie against heretickes, a safe retrait against [Page] all dangers, a happie rest after all trauailes, the sure and only stay in time of tryall, the Pillar and foundation of our faith: the most parte of which titles, and the efficacie of them all, is attributed by our aduersaries to their Traditions, vvhich some of them dare euen preferre and oppose vnto the scripture. Lind. lib. 2 panopl. c. 5 Witnesse he vvho calleth it the true Moly conseruing the Christian faith, against the Enchauntments of Heretickes, because Catholikes (saith he) vvould be soone, poysoned vvith these Enchauntments (he meaneth the Scriptures) if they did not vse the Moly or antidote of Traditions.
Pigh. de Eccl. Hic. lib. 1. c. 4Another hauing affirmed that the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall tradition hath more force and efficacie to assure our faith in euerie controuersie, than the Scripture; addeth further, that if those of his side would remember, that Heretickes ought not to be conuinced by the Scripture, their matters vvould goe a great deale better vvith them: but hauing endeuored to ouercome Luther by the Scripture, for to make ostentation of their good vvitt and great knovvledge, all is come to naught &c.
Truly it is an horrible combustion in Christendome, to see the Scriptures, vvhich make vs knovv Christ and become christians, vsed so vnvvorthily. No nation euer tooke this liberty vnto themselues, to defame the bookes containing the lawes either of their beliefe or policie. The bookes of the Sybills, the lawes of the tvvelue Tables, and other like vvritings vvere held sacred among the Romanes. The Greeks, and Pagans did beare all honour, to the lawes of their Legislators, and to their Rituall bookes, as to this day the Ievves doe to their Thalmud, and the Turkes to their Alcoran. But among those that would be called Christians, he that can cast most reproaches against the holy Scripture, he that can obserue or imagine therin most imperfections, vvill be esteemed more fine witted, and more zealous in the faith then others: yea, there hath beene found one, vvho of late hath dared by vvriting to maintaine & [Page] publish, that inuocation or calling on the name of Christ Iesus, is no more commaunded in the Scripture, then the calling on the Saints departed, that thereby he might make the Inno [...]tion on the Author of life, to depend as vvell on the Romish tradition, as on the authority of the booke of life.
It being my chance of late to meet with the L. of Perro [...] Bishop of Eureux, and to fall into some dispute vvith him, concerning this matter, he confesseth vnto me, that the most parte of the articles in controuersie betvveene the Romish Church and ours, haue no demonstratiue proofe in the Scripture: As the Sacrifice of the Masse, Inuocation on Saintes, Prayer for the dead, vvorshipping of Images, Auricular confession, vnction vvith the Crisme, the necessitie of satisfactions, the Popes Indulgences, &c. But he alleadged, that from the time of the old Testament, the Ievves did beleeue also manie things, as necessarie to saluation, vvhich notvvithstāding in their times vvere not contained in the Scripture: In vvhich point I found him not to agree vvith manie great Doctors of his side, vvho confesse that the Scripture of the old Testament containeth all the God knevv to be expedient and sufficient for the saluation of the Israelites: but that it is not so in the doctrine of the nevv testament, vvhich (say they) should not be vvrittē on paper, but preached by word of mouth, engrauen in the hearts of the hearers, & so comit [...]ed vnto posteritie without writing, alledging to this [...] that which Ieremie saith cap. 31. & S. Paul. 2. Cor. 3. The sa [...] L. of Perron dissenteth also from his other Doctors of vvhom some haue vvritten euen in the Councill of Trent, touching some points, which he maintained might be prooued by the scri [...]tures, though they deny it, namely transubstantiatiō, the mer [...] of workes, the Popes supreamacie, Purgatorie, &c. And being certaine, that these articles haue no more ground in Scripture than the rest, we may well say of them which beleeue thē, that which Tertulliā said of some in his time, they beleeue without the scriptures, that they might beleeue against the scripture.
Nowe the conference hauing dured certaine daies, and finding more illusion on his part than instruction, I prayed him to continue it by writing, that the obiections of the one, and the solutions of the other appearing on paper, euerie man might at leasure consider, the knot of the one and the keene cutting of the other, shewing him that more fruite would come forth of a permanent writing, than from dazelling and vanishing words, that the one remayned subiect to the touch and ballance, and that in the other, a subborned flatterer gaue, and the ignorant hearer tooke oftentimes false Alarmes: But I could neuer obtayne it at his handes, who well considered that if hee should gather together in paper, what hee had scattered in the ayre, his distinctions would appeare to bee more prestigious in the one, than they seeme to bee specious in the other, and that it would bee as harde a thing for him to vnwrappe himselfe, from selfe-contradictions by the pen, as it is easie for him to dazell and entangle the ignorant by his tongue. Hee made account also, perhaps, that his cause being grounded on the Word vnwritten, it could not well be defended by the word written.
Notwithstanding hauing intelligence since, that hee had compiled a little writing on this subiect, in fauour of some whom hee was desirous to subuert: I haue taken paynes to get a Copie of it, to which I haue made this aunswere, which may serue in st [...]ade of a Resultate or repetition of our Verball Conference: at vvhich vvere present fevve others than his greatest friendes, vvho then made such acclamations, and since haue sovved such reportes thereof as pleased them.
But heere, not beeing required the applause of men, nor any tickeling conceipt of vanitie, I entreate the Readeer to ayme vvith mee in this vvriting at the glorie of God onely, and the manifestation of his truth, for the teaching vvhereof [Page] Saint Athanasius vvitnesseth that the Scripture is sufficient. Let vs acknovvledge it then for Iudge, Athanas. [...] and [...] vs reuerence it as Mistres, vvhilest our aduersaries take it for partie, and pursue it as an enemie.
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.
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 Exo [...] 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 all the cuttings and pieces that came of this precious stone in hewing the tables, and that Moses therewith made himselfe wonderfull rich. &c. [Page] This fabulous Tradition, how vnworthie soeuer it be of the Maiestie of God, of the grauitie of the Scripture, of the ministerie of Moses, & of the beleefe of the Church; yet is it nothing neere so detestable, as that wicked exercise of those, which ayme at, and busie themselues now a daies in nothing, but in clipping and scraping out the sufficiencie and perfection of the scripture, by the same meanes taking away their owne saluation, in the bloud of Iesus Christ; since that by it wee are redeemed from our vaine conuersation, [...]at. 1. [...]8 receiued by Tradition from our Fathers.
Amongst other workmen, which in these times employ themselues in this mysterie or ministery of iniquitie, the Lord of Perron, Bishop of Eureux wil make known vnto vs, that before him none had sufficiētly manured & tilled the ground of this Traditiō, which conuerted Moses from a Prophet, into a Lapidarie; from a Lawgiuer, into a Goldsmith: and that like as this Minister of God enriched himselfe, in hewing the Tables of the Lawe: So the ministers of the Popes Gospell, according to the true Anagogicall meaning of this Iewish Tradition, cannot better inrich themselues, and of Christians become Croesians, or Crassians, than in conuerting Diuinitie into such a Technologie, in cutting of and clipping the Gospell of Iesus Christ: [...]ue. 21 [...]uel. 17.3. &c. That the more they take away from the luster of the precious stones, wherewith the heauenly Ierusalem is builded, the more splendour they giue to the countefeite stones of that woman [Page] cloathed in purple and scarlet, which ruleth ouer the great Babylon.
For, to couer the cunning that they vse, they make no difficulty to doe some honour in shewe to the scripture, euen to guild and adore outwardly the bookes which contain it, euen thē when the mine it, clip and pare it inwardly: Like as at one time Iesus Christ was kissed, and betrayed, cloathed in purple as a king, and buffeted as a foole, crucified as a malefactor: Or like as yet to this day the Iewes honour the scripture in shew, and by gestures, forbidding to sit in a place of equall height, to that whereon the Bible is laid: though in effect, they set it infinitely vnder their Thalmud, of which they dare with an execrable impudencie say: That God himselfe studieth therein the three first houres of the day: Lyr. in Luke. cap 4. Lib. Benedict. c. 1. & 3. Vide Hieron. a Sancta fide cont. Iud. l. 1. in Biblioth. S. Patrum. tom. 4. Also that hee which shall speake any thing of it sinisterly or in euill part, shall bee damned in hell, whereas hee that transgresseth the Law of God, shall receiue none other punishment, but to bee called a transgressour of the Lawe.
Now, that none hath so deepely sounded the mysticall meaning of the Iewish Tradition aboue recited, as the Bishop of Eureux hath done, it is manifest, because that not any of the new Besaleels, which of later times haue laboured to plaister and to painte the Popes Tabernacle, neyther Hosius, nor Peresius, nor Soto, nor Lindanus, nor Canus, nor Canisius, nor yet that Arch-Rabby Bellarmine, not any I say, had as yet so mightily clipped this spirituall coyne (as [Page] Gerson calleth the Scripture) nor obserued so much drosse, nor so many defects in the pure Alley of the lawe of God, written by Moses, as the Lord of Perron doth: who, hauing learned this secret of Seruetus, and some Anabaptists (that the honour of this inuention be not taken from the true authors of it:) clippeth & cutteth of from it, not some smal things, but the immortalitie of the soule, the resurrection of the bodie, the last iudgement, Paradise, and hell &c. that he might discredit in like sort thereby, and by Analogie, [...]ohn. 15.15. the doctrine of the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ, who though he protesteth in expresse tearmes, to haue declared to his Apostles, All things that he had heard of his father: Yet notwithstanding this Bishop feareth not to say: [...]ol. 15.8 That the things alone, which he hath eyther done, or declared with his owne mouth to his disciples, are not sufficient to the institution of the Church. VVhich is not to make the little mouth, but liuely to coūterfait that mouth, [...]euel. 13.5.6 which (as Saint Iohn saith) vttereth great things. Neyther is it to be a dumbe dogge, but to barke boldly, not against the Moone, but euen against the Sunne of righteousnesse. A certaine Sophister at Athens, writing of the gods, [...]og. Laert. [...]ot g. declared in the beginning of his booke, the doubtes that he had of their essence, and the difficulties that he found in this matter: of which the Athenians had such horrour, that they burnt the booke, and banished the Author. The like irresolution and perplexitie witnessed a Heathen Philosopher to Saint Augustine, [...]gust Epi. & 21. who had enquired of him what opinion he had of Iesus Christ: But our Bishop [Page] who without difficultie, doubt, or scruple whatsoeuer, peremptorily concludeth: That wee are no more to hold Christ for the perfect and sufficient doctor of the Apostles, than the Scripture for perfect and sufficient doctrine of all the faithful: triumpheth amongst Christians, yet against Christians and the Christian faith: and findeth no matter fitter for his glorie, nor more richer for his purse, than such reproaches of the Scripture, such blasphemies against Christ.
Cumanus gouernour of Iudea, a heathen and a wicked man caused a souldier to be bee beheaded for tearing a copie of the Booke of the lawe of Moses, which he had found at the sacke of a towne: The Bishop of Eureux, Ioseph. Antiq lib. 20. c. which teareth and destroyeth not some copy only, but the very original it selfe of this law, from which he plucketh away as much as in him lieth, the leaues which containe the principles and grounds of our saluation, leauing therein nothing whole, nothing perfect, nothing wholesome nor so much as profitable, without his subsidiarie (as hee tearmeth it) or helping tradition, expecteth a Cardinals hat, is heaped with spirituall honours and temporall goods: so that one may say of him, as Apuleius bearing the Idoll on the one side, and many bribes on the other, said of himselfe: that he went as a Temple, and a Barne both together. But if a Sinon with his treason, a Simon with his magicke, Horreum [...]imu [...] & templum i [...]c [...]die doe a hundred times more mischiefe, the one within Troy, the other within the Citie of God, than ten thousand enemies, than all the infidels could doe [Page] together without, by open force; shall we yet doubt that they, which vnder sheepes cloathing, yea with a shepheards hooke, Ephes. 2.20. and Bishopps Crosier staffe vndermining the foundations of the Church, Aduer. [...]tul. lib. 3. builded vpon the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles are not more pernicious and daungerous vnto Christendome, than euer was a Celsus, Lact. lib. 5. c. 3. a Lucian, a Iulian, a Porphyrius, which Saint Cyrill calleth the Father of Calumnie, and others which openly opposed Plato to Moses, Aristotle to S. Paul; Apollonius Tyanaeus to Christ? at least wise, if as the camell, he can drinke none but muddie water, because the cleare maketh him haue gripes in his bellie; De mirabil. Scrip. libri. 3 apud August. tom. 3. Annales Tem pli secundi. if the B. of Eureux cannot relish the pure and sincere word of God, because it sendeth Ecebolian vapours into his head, I wish him to content himselfe to trouble it for himselfe onely, without spreading abroad this mudde of his Traditions, on the brinke of the fountaine, which watereth the sheep of our Lord, without driuing them from it, by this his impious cry & proclamation of the Insufficiencie of the Scripture; when contrariwise the Ancient fathers made Collections and descriptions of the wonders of the scripture; he maketh collections and descriptions of the defects and imperfections of the same; making it seeme fauorable to the most monstrous Hereticks, euen to the Saduces, whose doctrine wholy ouerthroweth and abolisheth all Religion. And that they haue heard of the secret Academie, which was instituted, some few yeares, agoe in a certain place [Page] of Normandie, in imitation of that, which Sadoc and Baithos erected in the mountain Garizim, where was planted the first stocke of that damnable doctrine of the Saduces, which since is so welspread and increased, they that know the contents of the new Alcoran that was there expounded to their auditors, which were already there to the number of fortie: wil easily iudge by the Emblemes, scattered throughout this booke of the insufficiencie of the Scripture, what Mahomet was the author of the other, knowing the Lyon by his long nailes. Now as it was not without terrour and daunger of the new Musilmans, when Feuardent Doctor of Sorbone, preaching then in the said place, dissolued that Synagogue, being a true colony of the Synagogue of the Saduces and Libertines: so could I not publish the treatise of the insufficiency of the scripture without doing displeasure to the author, who chafeth that I found meanes to get, or as he saith, to filch a copy of it; for he nowaies desired that his mysteries should be discouered in publicke, and exposed to the common view of all, his intention being not to shew it but in secret to his yong beginners, hauing first stipulated or conditionally required of them a religious silence, as in times past the Priests and Maisters of the Isiac Mithriac, Cleusinian, and Orgian ceremonies vsed in the exhibition of their Phalles and Ithyphalles: Tertul. ad [...] valentin. Clem. Alex in Protrep Arnob. Euseb. Th [...] & alii. Plat. in Ser wherefore seeing the Proper name of his booke to bee hideous and feareful, he giueth it another name lesse monstrous, in imitation of that Pope, who hauing to name Swines-snout, was the first deuised to change that filthie [Page] name on the other side, he letteth loose out of his mouth all the windes of his slaunder, to see if he can ouerwhelme & swallow me vp into the chaos of his iniurious speeches, [...]ing nips, [...]iting [...]u. by force of exclaming against me deceiuer, Sycophant, Parasite, beast, drūkard, sēceles falsifyer, impudent, blinde, desperate &c. to omitt here his mockeries, and Sa [...]casmes, which he applyeth vnto me as leuitiues after he had so stoned and rent me. [...]his treatise 10. As for the fir t, vnles he race out the blasphemies out of his booke, it is to no purpose to scrape out the title from the forefront, seting vp a new bush to his Tauerne; for they which read this conclusion in his discourse: the Scripture therefore containeth not sufficiently all the Princ ples of doctrine necessary to Diuinitie: if they let their eyes be still dazelled by his prestigious delusions, if they can not beleeue of him, that he accuseth the Scripture of vnsufficiency, [...]ril. Hieron [...]roch. 6. one may well beleeue of them that they are like to Idols, which haue eyes and see not.
As for the other, I verily beleeue, that the Christian reader will rather hast to passe ouer his inuectiues, stopping his nose: than stay to sente such filthines. Now the q [...]estion is not, on whether side is the subtiltie but the truth; not where the Eloquence, but the edification; not the science, but the conscience: He is not enuied the quality he attributeth to himselfe, to be the greatest disputer of the world, whether herein he would imitate Manes, who taking this name of purpose for to tearme himselfe such in the Persian tongue, made himselfe a mad man in the [Page] Greek: or whether he imitate that Doctour of Paris, of whome Lodouic. viues speaketh, who made himselfe be called the Horrible Sophister, De caus. c [...] art. lib. 3. esteeming this title no lesse honorable, than the surname of Affricanus, or Asiaticus. Neither can he hinder, whosoeuer seeth a firebrand in the Cittie, the Gaules on the Capitoll, Sacriledge in the Temple from crying against him, were he a childe, yea a goose. Herodo. l. 1 And if in times past a childe, dumb by nature, seeing a soldier come for to murder his father, found suddainly his tongue vnloosed for to crie out and vtter wordes, which stayed the murtherer from passing further: If the same happened to a wrastler, Aul. Gel. l 5, c, 9 when one would haue deceiued him: why should we not hope, that he, that will haue the mouth of little ones to sound forth his praise, giueth sometimes to the dumb, the facultie of speach, to children strengh to crie, to the ignorāt efficacie to perswade, Psalm. 8.2 Math, 21.17 at least one that is not altogether out of his witts: that he cease to deceaue and to murther the soules that Iesus Christ hath redeemed: from discrediting or calling in the coyne wherewith he payed our ransome: and from clipping the letters, which teach vs the value of it.
And sith that cannot be done without manifestly accusing & iniuring the heauenly Father, who hauing caused this money to be made, and stamped with these letters, as true Soueraigne, ordeyneth it for all subiects, and giueth it to his Children.
If this caller in, or descrediter of it, wil be thought [Page] to be of the number of these, let him reuerence the almightie, and the Christian people, at least so farre forth as did that wicked sonne, who accusing his father before Tiberius, [...]cit. an. [...]l l. 4. was so terrified at the noyse of people, which detested that fact, that he gaue ouer his accusation and fled.
Now my purpose in this writing is, to treat of, and to examine all the points & instances from whence he forgeth this calumnious accusation of the scripture, without refuting more amply his falshoodes, which hee mingleth in the recitall of our verball conference, considering how little reason he hath, to beleeue he hath well done, in disguising so the matters: [...]stic. l. 1. for on the one side he hath learned of Cicero, that faith is a truth & constancie, of that which one saith or doth: on the other side the Councill of Constance forbiddeth him to keepe faith with heretickes. VVhence he ingeniously concludeth, [...]els. 19. that if he had not kept the truth of that was said and done in our conference; he had not kept the Decree of the councill, but had burst and let out the winde of that holy and sacred Canon: considering withall that such frauds cannot be tearmed wicked, but godly, according to the doctrine of the same Church, because they are done for a good intent. As for me, sith such Canons are not forged in our Church, nor such distinctions in our schooles; I am not permitted to vse the same liberty: wherefore I will adde nothing to the bare recitall of that historie, where I haue imitated neither his disguisements, nor his inuectiues. But if there be found any word somewhat free: let him attribute [Page] that, eyther to the necessitie of my defence, or to the delicatenesse of the dayes; and let him call to minde, that he which saith whatsoeuer hee listeth, shall in the end heare what he liketh not, when the sharpenes of the truth beginneth to alter the sweetnesse of the delight. And since he taketh a verie great pleasure, when he reproacheth me that I would not continue the conference, vnlesse it were written and signed on both parts; so farre am I from repenting me of it, or denying it, that heere againe I confesse, that I insisted vpon it with all endeuour; that hee may see, that when the truth permitteth me, I oppose not my selfe any whit to his delight: For it sufficeth me for my contentation to beleeue, that the courteous Reader will make none other iudgement of this my iust and necessarie instance, Epist. 74. than that which S. Augustine hoped, when Pascentius the Arrian, hauing refused to write, and to signe in a disputation that hee had with him, neuerthelesse vaunted that hee had ouercome him, knowing well that his falsehood could not be conuinced by any act: For in that are the lurking holes, saith S. Augustine, which they seeke, that are more desirous of contention, than of the truth. And as touching the vanities and lies of Pascentius, he answereth: It is easie to ouercome Augustine; but heed is to bee taken, whether it be by the truth or by exclamations. If it hath not beene easie for the Bishop of Eureux to vanq [...]ish mee in the one sort, yet hath it beene most easie for him to doe it in the other, being in the middest of his Satellites, or parasites, who by their acclamations did reenforce his [Page] his cries, and did like the birds of Psaphon sing his praises. But this Psaphon, proclamed great god by the chirping of birds, Cool. Rhod. antiqu. Lact. l. 3. c. 5 was soone after declared great deceiuer by the iudgement of mē. For conclusion I giue him the same aduertisement that S. Augustine gaue to Pascentius, that he busie not himselfe in seeking how he may ouercome Tillenus, which is but a man, and the least of men: but that he take heed how he may ouercome the truth, Vbi. sup. the perfection of the scripture how with his hammer of winde he can spoyle, breake, or clippe the tables of the law of God, more pure, more hard, than any Gold, than any Diamond, the least piece or shiuer of which, is more than sufficient to pierce and breake in pieces the forehead of this Goliah, though it be of brasse, and shamefully to ouerthrow to the earth al this great Colossus, which so proudly lifteth vp himselfe against heauen, against the voyce which breaketh Cedars, Psal. 29. and which maketh the mountaines to quake.
❧ An Aduertisement to the Reader.
THou shalt vnderstand (Christian Reader) that the Bishop wrote since a reply c [...]ncerning onely some of the first point [...] heerein touched, priuily passing it into the hands of some of his frien [...]s and fauorites, and some whom he laboured to peruert: Wherein, though his principall intent was, secretly to disgrace both the sacred Scripture and this defender of it, yet hath it turned wholy to his own disgrace, by occasioning this learned man largely to answere it, and so more fully to cleare the truth concerning the points touched in his reply. VVhich aunswere of D. Tillenus, I haue heere also for thy benefit added: onely the Bishops reply I haue purposely omitted, partly because the ground, or as much as is needfull for the vnderst [...]nding of the matter, is alreadie aboue at large set downe: and partly because (it being not meete to trouble thee with needlesse superfluities) each word and matter of any moment, or worth the answering, is in the answere euerie where verbatim (for the most part) expressed.
A DEFENCE OF THE SVFFICIENCIE and perfection of the Holy Scripture: Against the Cauillations of the Bishop of EVREVX: by which he endeauoureth to maintaine his Treatise of the Ʋnsufficiencie and Imperfection of the holy Scripture.
THE first question betweene the Bishop of Eureux and I, is general; namely, whether the holy Scripture be perfect, and sufficient, for to instruct vs in the knowledge of saluation; or whether it be not sufficient for that effect. The other is speciall; namely, whether these articles, the Immortalitie of the soule, the Resurrection of the bodie, the last Iudgement, Paradise, Hell, the Creation and distinction of the orders of Angels; the Beeing and Creation of Diuels, are contained in the bookes of Moses, or no: In these questions I had attributed the Negatiue to the Bishoppe of Eureux, taking the Affirmatiue for my selfe. He calleth that Deceiptes, because he saith not, that the Scripture is vnperfect or vnsufficient; but that without Tradition it is not sufficient to refute all heresies. And for that hee saith not, that these things are not contained in the writings of Moses; but either that they were not, or did not appeare to the Iewes to bee therein conteined. Let vs treate sincerely, and leaue deceipts to [Page 2] those, who beleeuing none of the foresaide points, haue termed Moses a Deceiuer; perhaps because he spake too euidently for their liking. To the first deceipt he casteth on me, is sufficiently answered by a discourse of purpose vpon the Iustification of the Title of his Treatise. As touching the other we will first see, whether these things be in Moses, or no. Secondly, we will dispute, whether they doe appeare to be there or no. If they be there, to what purpose doth hee frame Instāce from it, to shew the imperfection of the Scripture, which is the only scope of his booke? Why reiecteth he the places quoted to this purpose, out of the fiue bookes of Moses? Why are all the reasons brought for the affirmatiue, but vaine & cold coniectures with him? Why sheweth hee not the proper & formal places, whence I should take them, & in which alone they are conteined. But if they be not contained in the books of Moses, wherefore is hee ashamed to confesse it? Why am I a Deceiuer with 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 [...]. 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 mā of God, may be perfectly instructed, without beleeuing the imortality of the soule, the resurrectiō 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 [Page 3] teach thē & yet cōteine thē 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 M r, (for so S. Paul caleth the law; Gal. 3.24.) which sheweth not to his disciple so much as the .1. rudimēts or principles, without which notwithstāding he should neuer be capable to learne or vnderstād 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. Cres [...] 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 thē, 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 mā is able to se thē there; but to discerne thē, he must haue the eye of his soule opē & 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 mā 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 cānot see the things that are [Page 4] 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 childrē of light, which see but by glymse, as it were, because they receiue this light by little & little, & by degrees, as the blinde mā whose eyes Christ opened, to whom at first men seemed like trees; [...]ark. 8.24. & these acknowledge their Imperfectiō & weaknes of sight: Also there are childrē of darknesse, which presume to know al, to see all, which neuer feele their blindnes, [...]hn. 9.41. whose sin, as saith our Sauiour, remaineth, that is to [Page 5] say, is incurable: For he giueth sight to them that feele their want, & by his iust iudgemēt 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 contrarie, the first intention of the Apostles, was to deliuer the doctrines to the Church by tradition of liuely voice, & word vnwritten. Also he saith, that the Apostles wrote but by incident or chance, Fol. 35. and vpon secondary occasions. Let vs see this Enthymeme or imperfect argument of the Pirrhoniā Logicke: The Apostles first taught by liuely voyce, Ergo, they pretended not to teach by their writings, which succeeded their preaching: The consequence is as good as who should say; One eateth first for to nourish himselfe; therfore drink serueth nothing to nourishment. A non distributo ad distributum, &c. If he make an opposition between the cōmandement of the spirit of God, & the incidēt, or the occasiōs which moued the Apostles to write, he blasphemeth in diuinitie, denying the places of scripture, 2. Tim. 3.1 2. Pet. 1.20, 21. where it is called, inspired of God: and doteth in Logick, excluding the efficient and principal cause, because of the instruments and means that it vseth. Also the Apostle saint Iude saith, Iude. 3. that there was a necessitie of writing imposed vpon him: And in the Reuelation we read, that saint Iohn is more than ten times commaunded to write. We know, that to preach and to write are things verie accordant, and which were comprehended in one and the same commaundement giuen to the [Page 6] Apostles, [...]ath, 28 to teach all nations, which yet to this day they teach by their writings. He which commaunded them the thing, which is, to teach, commaunded also the manners of teaching, which are to preach with liuely voice, and to set forth the doctrine in writing, both of them being fit for teaching, and this latter most fit for to continue and to transferre doctrines or instructions vnto posteritie. [...]enaeus li, 3 p, 1, So Irenaeus vnderstandeth it, saying: The Apostles after they had preached with liuely voice the Gospell, afterwards gaue it vs in the scriptures, by the will of God, for to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. So the booke intituled Manuale Curatorū, sheweth it, saying, there are three sorts of preachings: One is by writing, as saint Paule did, writing to the Romanes, Corinthians, &c. Another is by actions: so euery action of Iesus Christ is our instruction: the third is by word & liuely voyce.
The Bishop of Eureux, for to shew that hee is not alone in his opinion, produceth foure places of foure ancient Fathers, [...]hat is, by [...]ose of our [...]de. often propounded and expounded, namely, that they shuld be vnderstood not of matters of faith, but of the order & gouernance of the Church; which things, being of their owne nature ambulatory, & subiect to change according to the diuersity of the circumstances, of times, places & persons, could not, or should not be written. Or if they speak of some doctrine, not cōteined in the scripture, they meane it of the formal tearms, which are not there; as the words trinity, coessentiall, sacramēt; the sense & matter of which, notwithstanding, is therin found, & is drawen from thence, either by analogy of faith, or by necessary consequence. Otherwise it would follow that they had gainsaid & contradicted themselues; a confess. fid. sum. mor. 72 1. & sum. 80 22. eres. to wit, S. Basil, whē he saith: that it is a most manifest marke of infidelity, & a most certain signe of pride, to reiect any thing of that which is writtē, or to bring in any thing which is not written: S. Epiphanius, All things are cleare in the scripture, to those which by a holy vse of reasō, wil draw nere the word of god & which haue not cōceiued an operation of the diuel (such as they conceiue, [...] 1. Timoth. [...]om. that accuse the scripture of imperfection:) endeuoring [Page 7] to cast themselues into the gulfe of death. S. Chrysostome maketh saint Paule speake to Timothie in this manner: In stead of mee, thou hast the scriptures, if thou desirest to learne any thing, thou maist doe it from thence. Then he addeth: De doctrin. Christ. l. 2. c. If he wrote so to Timothie, who was full of the holy Ghost; how much more ought wee to thinke, that it is spoken of vs. It is manifest that this Father thought that the intention of the Apostles was, to leaue to the Churches their writings, in stead of instructions by word of mouth, which they could not continue after their death. Saint Augustine saith: In Psal, 132 Among the things which are Openly declared in the scripture, are All those which containe faith and manners, that is, Hope and Charitie. There is to quitte his foure places, and in pieces of the same coyne. If hee will agree them, let him bestirre himselfe better than he did in the answere he giueth to the place of saint Hilarie, that hath these words: That which is not conteined in the booke of the law, we ought not so much as to know it. Hee saith, that this should be vnderstood, of the Apocrypha books, alledged in quality of Canonical. What a mockery is this? Is not the sentence of S. Hilarie generall? or if it be not general, is it not vnapt & friuolous? But the reply was ready. That there be many other things to be knowne, besides them which are cōteined in the law, which conteineth not so much as the principal points, viz. the immortality of the soule, the resurrection of the body, &c. What Apocrypha Logick is this, to draw an vniuersall conclusion, from particular premises? And when the same father saith in another place; It is good that we content our selues with the things which are written: can that plaister cure, or so much as couer the wound, that this place maketh in his vnwritten Traditions? And here let the reader be aduertised once for all; That al the sentences of the Fathers, how generall soeuer they be, what vniuersall marke soeuer be set vpon them; are euer shifted off, by a restraining them to some particular deed: As if the Hypothesis were not decided by the Thesis; a particular case by a generall Law: which is to make a laughing stocke of [Page 8] the Fathers, and to depriue them euen of common sense, in making them reason so vnaptly, and in occasioning their aduersaries to make vnto them so easie and iust replies. To returne to Hilarie, the Bishop of Eureux, opposeth to the aboue said place, another of the same Father, taken out of his Commentarie on the second Psalme, where he saith, That Moses after hee had written the words of the olde Testament, consigned certaine more secret mysteries, to the seuentie Elders, &c. which place he saith, I haue not read; and calleth me a bad scholler, in skipping ouer the beginning of the booke, for to studie at the end: I answere, hee sheweth that he himselfe hath not read the note set vpon the margēt of this place (non credo) which, Hilar. Paris. ex [...]ffici. Carol. Guillar. anno. 1544. with the authoritie of saint Hierome, thinking that these commentaries vpon the Psalmes are for the most part taken out of Origen, that is, out of the original of the most part of his errours, mooued me to put this opiniō of saint Hilarie in the ranke of others wholy errōeous, which are foūd in his writings, as when he attributeth to our Lord Iesus Christ a bodie vncapable of wearinesse, of hunger, of thirst & of al dolour; condemning of errours, Lib. 10. de Trin. in Psal. [...]8. those which by his sufferings, conclude the dolour. When he speaketh in such sorte of the Incarnatiō of Christ, as if the holy Virgine had but borne & brought him forth, without contributing any thing of her substāce, to his flesh. Lib. 8. de Trin. When he saith that we are one with the father by nature, and not onely by similitude or adoption. When he thinketh that Moses is yet aliue, atleast by the iudgmēt of Bellarmine, notwithstanding that the holy Scripture saith the contrary in expresse tearmes. Matth. inc. 17 de Purgat l 2 c. 8. Deu 34.5. &c Learne heere, Bishop, that it is better to skip ouer such places, impure and dangerous, than to defile a mans selfe, and run headlong into danger by abiding vpon them. Epiphanius reciteth that certaine monstrous heretikes gathered the spettle, & other ordures which issued from the bodies of certaine women descēded of their arch-hereticke, [...]osh. 1.1.2 Haeres. 53. for to keep them in manner of relicks, and to apply them to sick persons. In like sorte do [Page 9] they, who cherish their spirituall maladies, by the vncleannesses, which they gather from the writings of the auncient Fathers. And it is good reason, that such to whom the scripture is vnsauorie, should haue no better than stinking puddles for their best refreshing.
He accuseth me of two frauds. 1. In that I summon the aduersaries to proue by the scripture all the points in controuersie betweene vs and them, not onely such as be of the Essence of our saluation, but others also lesse important: and in the meane while restraine the disputation of things necessarie, when it is shewed that the Apostles left certaine things to their disciples, without writing thē. 2. That in stead of prouing the points in question, by such cleare and infallible texts of Moses, that euerie simple Israelite, might haue framed of it a necessarie & indubitable consequence, I produce onely some probable and coniecturall apparances or shewes. To the first obiection I answere: that wee neuer change our Thesis. Wee proue by the scripture the points, that we beleeue necessarie to saluation: and wee demaund of our aduersaries, the like proofe for the points, that they pretend to be such, whether of necessitie absolute or conditionall. Wee reiect many things of the Romish Church, which at first sight seeme not to oppugne saluation, but their consequences dash against it. For example: the forbidding to eate flesh on certaine daies, is in it selfe a light thing, and may be practised for certaine politicke respectes, Rom. 14 which concerne not our saluation, sith that the kingdome of God is neither meat nor drinke. But to make of it a law for to binde the conscience, to declare the transgression thereof, a sinne against the holy Ghost: to constitute therein merite towards God, to attribute vnto it an expiatorie power to doe away sinnes, C. violato [...] to make of it workes of supererogation, &c. These are consequences which shake the foundation of Christian libertie, the doctrine of grace, and the assurance of our saluation, grounded vpon grace. Thus acknowledging but one Law-giuer, who can [Page 10] saue and destroy, [...]. 4 12. and desiring to persist in the liberty which Iesus Christ hath purchased vs, we will not receiue the yoak of bondage. 5.1 8.20. [...].11.28, [...]0, And they that wold subiect vs vnder their laws, & make vs fall vnder their insupportable burdens, we bring them to the law of God, to the yoake of Iesus Christ which is easie, and to his burden which is light. Wherefore, it is false, that we conclude so, as the Bishop of Eureux saith we doe: That is not in the Scripture, it is therefore an impietie and superstition. Our conclusions are thus: That is not in the scripture, and notwithstanding is commaunded vs to be kept, as necessarie vnto saluation, by him who hath no authoritie to make lawes to the conscience: Therefore it is an impietie, or superstition. Wee grant also, that some things touching the order & outward policy of the Church, things not vnmooueable and vnchangeable, as is the doctrine of faith; haue not beene written: neither all the particuler deeds and sayings of our Sauiour, and his Apostles: But it is one thing to say, All the heades of doctrine are not written; and another thing to say, All the particularities comprised vnder euerie head or kinde are not written: We say that the Apostles haue written all the heads of doctrine: genera singulorū; though not all the particularities of euerie head; Non singula generum. For as it is impossible to comprehend them all, so is it not possible to write them all. And for this cause we neuer denied, but that there were things vnwritten vnder both Testaments; & as we doe not meerely and flatly reiect them, so we receiue them not all without discretion or difference; Neither hold we them that we receiue, in the same degree of authoritie with the scripture: because the Apostles themselues, inasmuch as they haue not inregistred them with the rest, haue weakened their authoritie, and manifested, that they were not things absolutely necessarie, & that the doctrine that may be drawne from them, is sufficiently declared in the things which are written, which are neuer so particuler, but that wee may draw thence instruction, for the generall Rule of fayth; [Page 11] And the number of these same, is so ample in their writings, that to Christians they suffice, whether it be to learne the truth, or to reprooue errour. This is that which is principally regarded in matter of Testaments, namely what is written, and not what the Testator said by word of mouth to any one, who may varie or forget; which is not to bee feared in [...]he Scripture. And how should the right be knowne? How should the processe be ended, which ariseth of matters of Testament, if the Instrumēt be not produced & visited, especially when it is a long time after the decease of the Testator? And when the Apostles make mention in their writings of some particular thing, holdē & receiued among the Iews, though not expressed in the writings of the Old Testament: it followeth not, either that they would authorise all the traditions of the Pharises, or that they esteemed the Scripture imperfect, or that they set those vnwritten particularities that they alledge, in the same degree of necessitie or authoritie, as they doe the things written; For if of such allegations one would inferre equall authoritie with the scripture, it would follow that the poems of Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides, out of whom saint Paule citeth some verses, should be equall to the scripture, Acts, [...]7.2. 1. Cor. 15, Titus, 1, 12 [...]o [...]o, 10 which verses got no authority amongst vs, til since the time as they were sanctified by the Apostle, as Tertullian speaketh, though before they conteyned truth. The Bishop of Eureux verie vnfitly confoundeth these two tearmes, Truth and Authoritie, as if euerie sentence and historie, conteyning Truth, had as much authoritie as a place of holy scripture. And if the Apostles alleadge somtimes things not written: it must be noted, that hauing receiued the spirit in such abundance, they discerned better the true traditions from the false, than their pretended successours could any waies doe. Also ordinarily, it is but vpon some circumstance of historie, and not for the substance: as the names of the Magitians of Pharaoh: Iacobs worshipping of God, 2, Tim, 3, 8 Hebr. 11.2 Hebr. 12.2 as he leaned on his staffe: certaine words of Moses propounded [Page 12] at the publishing of the Law. The fastening of Iosephes feete in the stocks, in prison. The prophesie of Henoch alledged by S. Iude, though it be taken from Tradition, as touching the words, [...]. 105, 18, yet the ground of it appeareth in Scripture, which teacheth vs, that the Patriarches, were ordained for to teach those of their ages, and to declare vnto them the iudgements of God. And since we finde in Scripture that Henoch continually walked wirh God, we gather from thence, that he spared not to exhort the men of his time, [...]. 5, 22.24 to repentance, and to threaten them with the wrath of God: Considering that the same Scripture teacheth vs, that God doth nothing afore he hath reuealed his secrets to his seruants the Prophets. [...]us. 2. It is also to be noted, that this prophecie of Henoch, may be more fitly vnderstood of the vniuersall Iudgement that God executed vpon the world by the flood, than of the last Iudgement of the world.
And forasmuch as they of whom S. Iude speaketh, were contemners of God; It is to be beleeued, that they made as little reckoning of the Scripture as of the authoritie of Iesus Christ, [...]se, 4. whom they denyed. And therfore the Apostle chooseth rather to alledge vnto them a historie, witnessed, not only by the Scripture, but also by profane Authors, who make mention of the Deluge, as we learne by Iosephus, Eusebius, and S. Cyrill. But this instance shall be examined more particularly in his place.
The second fraud, whereof he accuseth me, is; That in stead of shewing the points in question by expresse Texts of Moses, or by necessarie consequences and true analogie; I shew them by some probable and coniecturall apparances or shewes. The Reader which hath eyes to see, shall iudge whether there be apparance, or substance, whether probability or necessity: mean while I wil aduertise him of the methode that Du Perron keepeth in answering it. 1. He opposeth some maimed exposition of one of our Doctours, as if wee did attribute like authoritie to them, as the Church of Rome doth to their popes; or the like, as to the anciēt fathers; [Page 13] of whome the Glosse of the ciuill Canon saith: Glos. in dist Can Nolim that all their writings are to be held for authenticall, euen to the least Iota or title. Although sometimes he produce some out of the Rabbines, yea euen from some Doctours of the Romish Church.
2 He inuenteth one of his owne braine, if he finde none in some Interpreter, that repugneth mine.
3 He reduceth the places of Moses, in forme of a cornuted syllogisme, in fashion of his miter, to make himselfe be laughed at.
4 He wresteth my conclusions, for what pointe he listeth; though I alleadge the places for proofe of another: and this he doth that he might make my arguments be found the more absurd, and giue himselfe subiect of exclayming, that I speake not of all the pointes proposed.
5 He saith in the end, that the places are not so cleare, but a contētious spirite may finde some defect: And if I confirme my exposition by the testimonie of the Fathers, for to shew that others haue vnderstood, as I doe, the place in question; and that I wrest it not, to serue myne owne turne; His ordinary answere is; That the question is not whether some Father hath vnderstood it so, or no; but whether that can be verified by the onely text of Moses; which is the heape of all peruersnes and Impudencie; for if I bring but the bare text, he saith I am alone of my opinion, and that it may be taken otherwise, at least by a contentious spirit. In a word, not onely the places of Moses, but also those of Iob, Daniel, and Dauid, most expresse, for the Immortality of the soule, the resurrection of the body, the last iudgment, and life Eternall; are so feeble vnto him, that he sheweth well, that he beleeueth those pointes no better than the Saduces, for whome he pleadeth; And whereas Cicero said to a certaine Aduocate pleading faintly; if thou didst not coūterfeit, thou wouldest not plead so coldly: So, contrariwise, one may say vnto him, that if he feyned, he would not plead so eagerly: for to imagine, that he beleeueth these points by benefite of the inuentarie of [Page 14] Tradition, is absurd; sith that throughout his whole booke, he cōtinually demaūdeth insoluble & ineuitable demonstrations, which none in the world, no not the most contentious spirit that is, can be able to gainesay, protesting that he will not admitt any proofe of Scripture, vnlesse it be such. Can he finde of this stampe in the treasorie of Tradition? Is not his speach the speach of a heathen Atheist, [...]len. de [...]ll. differ, l, c, 4, most execrable? which saith: That in the Schoole of Moses and of Christ, there be harde lawes, which are not grounded on any demonstration. Felix Gouernour of Iudea, a heathen, and a wicked mā, when he heard S. Paul speake of the last Iudgment, [...]t. 24.25. he trembled for feare; and yet the Apostles discourse, was onely taken from Moses, [...]t. 26.22. and the Prophets, if we beleeue him, in that which he saith afterwards, before Festus and King Agrippa. But our Pyrrhonian Bishop findeth, [...]l 11. & 22 25 that all that can be alleadged is but matter of mockery; and that by Moses saying, beasts and fishes are altogither as immortall in their soules, as wel cōprised in Gods couenāte, & capable of euerlasting life; as the creatures, which beare the Image of God.
The Saduces, for whome he pleadeth, found not the Resurrection of the bodie, clearely enough expressed in the writings of Moses, for to beleeue them: but after that our Sauiour Christ had prooued it by the miraculous raysing vp of Lazarus, did they beleeue it for that? The Pharises which made profession to beleeue it, beleeued they for that, that Iesus Christ was the Resurrectiō, & the life? No more truly thē an Epicure would haue beleeued the Imortality of the soule, seeing Calanus ioccūdly cast himselfe into the fire: although this act seemed to othersome, a more pertinent proof, for to shew the Immortality of the soule, then al the demonstratiue Syllogismes of the Philosophers. Now that it may the better be seene, whether it is I or Moses that Du Perron mocketh at; I choose rather to produce my arguments, in their forme, after the maner of a simple Israelite, thā expose the simple places of Moses to the laughter of a double Sophister, who though there could be found no place of Moses fit to reason from; yea though Moses had not writtē at all; should not [Page 15] for all that in any fashion whatsoeuer, aduance his desperate cause; as hereafter I shal make most manifest to the eye and sense of euery indifferēt reader: In the mean while I wil bring forth the places, according to the order of the fiue books of Moses.
Out of Genesis.
The first argument for the Immortalitie of the Soule, is taken from the creation of man after the Image and similitude of God; and is thus framed: Gen. 1.26. That which is made after the Image of a thing, resembleth it after a singular or peculiar manner; But man is made after the Image & similitude of God; Therefore he resembleth him after a singular maner or fashion. Thereupon shall bee shewed to a Saducie, thoroughout all the fiue bookes of the Law, but specially by the Text of Deut. 4. from the 15. verse to the 25. verse, that this likenesse cannot be in man, as touching his bodie, sith that this God, whose Image he is, hath noe bodie; considering also that it would follow thar euery body might bee said to be the image of god, which Moses saith only of man; Therfore of necessitie it must be in the reasonable and intellectuall soule; otherwise beasts should be also made after the Image of God; This soule, if it be mortall & corruptible, it cānot resemble after a singular fashion or maner, the immortal & incorruptible God. The B. of Eureux replyeth, that Luther & Caluin say; That the Image of God is defaced or put out by sin, and that the interpreters themselues of both sides haue vpon this word almost as many opinions as heads. I answere that neither Luther, nor Caluin, do at any time cōfound the qualitie of this Image, with the substance of the same. The quality, which is, in the right and pure vnderstanding and will of the soule, is defaced or blotted out, but the substāce is no more abolished, than man of whom it is the essential forme. But hee defaceth and abolisheth here, without thinking of it, all that goodly Image of his Tradition, & casteth it to the ground, more rudely, than euer the Asse did the Image of Isis: For if euen rhe Interpreters of his side cannot agree among themselues, and are not able to expound the [Page 16] Image of God, what serueth their Tradition for then? which, as he saith, hath a double profit, yea necessity; the one to supply that which is not written; the other to expound that which is not clearely written, Anchor. [...]em. haer. 70. [...]em. in Epist. [...]l Io. Hieros. [...]b Hier. versa which he calleth subsidiarie or helping tradition: and Epiphanius, whome he so often alleadgeth, as one of the principall depositaries of Apostolick Tradition, freely confesseth; That it cannot be knowne, a [...] that this knowledge is reserued to God, who alone knoweth, in what parte of man, he hath placed his Image. He perceiueth thē heere a Tradition, which saith not a word, which furnisheth neither supply nor explication, vpon this point so important; much more defectuous than the Scripture; which at least declareth vnto vs, that man is made after the Image of God, whence is drawne the argument aboue propounded. And therefore, the exposition of these Fathers, which place this Image of God in the immortality of the soule, cannot be taken from Tradition, so barren in this behalfe; the which also none of them alleadgeth, when they treate of it: Neither Tertullian, (cōtr. Mar. l 2. c. 9.) Nor Athanasius, (de in carn. Christ.) Nor S. Ambros. Hexa. l. 6. c. 7.) Nor S. Augustine. de Genes. cōtr. Manich, l. 1.) Nor Philastrius, Bishop of B [...]sse, ( haer. 49.) Nor the Abbot Dorotheus. (Doctr. 12.) Nor Albicus Flaccus (quaesti. in genes. Interr. 39. &c.) All which draw it out of the bare text of Moses, as I doe. But of what sincerity and authority is the Romish tradition in this pointe? [...]say. 40, 18, [...]5. which when God demaundeth in the Scripture; To whome will ye liken me, or what similitude will ye set vp vnto me? answereth by the subsidiarie or helping mouth of his Interpreters the Bishops: We will make thee like to a piece of wood or stone, painted or grauen, bearing a triple Crowne like a Pope, olde and decrepit, and which for a neede, will serue for a signe or bush at a tauerne. The disciples of the Tradition, learne of it, that God is made after the image of a man; in stead of beleeuing with the Disciples of the Scripture, that man is made after the Image of God.
The Iewish Tradition vpon this point, is not so insupportable [Page 17] as the Romish, neither is it cleare, that one may gather more properly from it, the Immortality of the soule, Vile. Gl. Ord. than we do from the Text it selfe: the Rabbins say: that the Image of God is to be sought in these properties of the soule, Ier, 23, 24 viz. as the soule filleth the whole body; so God filleth heauen & earth. Also, as the soule is one onely in her body; Exod. 33. so God is onely one in the whole vniuersall world. Also, Psal, 121 as God seeth all, and can not be seene, so the soule seeth the exteriour things, without being seene. Also, as God sleepeth not; so the soule euer waketh. All these resemblances, and conformities are found as well in a beast, as in a man: so that by the Iewish Tradition, we should be true Saduces, that is to say, such, as Du Perron their Aduocate would faine make vs be. Gen, 4:1 [...]
From the place, where the blood of Abel, shed by Caine, is said to cry vnto the Lord; I frame this argument: That which cryeth and demaundeth vengeance, is not wholly extinguished and brought to nothing: Abel after he was murdered, cryeth to the Lord & asketh vengeance: therefore he was not wholly extinguished and brought to nothing. The Bishop of Eureux perhaps will reply that this is a figuratiue speach, to attribute a cry to blood, & that one cannot draw a proper conclusiō from it. Let vs frame the argument therfore in this forme. They of whome God hath care, are not adnihilated or brought to nothing: but God hath care of Abel, after his death: therefore he was not abolished by that death. If our Carneades demand me here, who hath taught me to argue thus; I answere, Matth 22. that it was not a Doctour of Sorbonne, but the Eternal wisedome of God; who concludeth, that God is not the God of the dead, but of the liuing. And this example of Abel, is no lesse euidēt, than that in the Reuelation, where the soules of them that were killed for the word of God, cried vnder the Altar; How long ô Lord which art holy and true, doest thou not iudge and auenge our blood on them that dwell one the earth: Behold almost the same light, the same stile, in the first and last booke of the holy [Page 32] [...] [Page 33] [...] [Page 34] [...] [Page 35] [...] [Page 36] [...] [Page 37] [...] [Page 38] [...] [Page 39] [...] [Page 40] [...] [Page 41] [...] [Page 42] [...] [Page 43] [...] [Page 44] [...] [Page 45] [...] [Page 46] [...] [Page 47] [...] [Page 48] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 1] [...] [Page 2] [...] [Page 3] [...] [Page 4] [...] [Page 5] [...] [Page 6] [...] [Page 7] [...] [Page 8] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 10] [...] [Page 11] [...] [Page 12] [...] [Page 13] [...] [Page 14] [...] [Page 15] [...] [Page 16] [...] [Page 17] [...] [Page 18] Scripture.
[...] 9.5. &c,When god saith in the same booke of Moses; that he will require againe the blood of soules, Resur. c. 28. he sheweth vs the same thing, and furnisheth vs matter of a like argument. Notwithstanding, Tertullian draweth thence a consequēce, not onely for the Immortality of the soule, but also for the Resurrection of the body; reasoning thus: That which God requireth againe, must be restored: but God requireth againe the blood shed, as well by the hand of beasts, as by the hand of men: therefore, it must be restored: for that which is not at all, can not be auenged. And then he concludeth, that what is spoken of the blood, is spoken of the flesh; [...]p 32, without which the blood can not bee: and that the flesh shall be raysed vp, that the blood may be auenged: and in the same booke, he saith; that Moses in this place, maketh mention of beasts, at whose handes the blood shall be required; the better to expresse the resurrection, euen of bodies deuoured by them.
The Bishopp of Eureux findeth, that this is but an hyperbolicall threatning, for to terrifie men from manslaughter. But they which take the prohibitions of Murder for hyperboles; they are the very same that hyperbolically giue licence to themselues to commit it, following the Tradition, not of the Apostles, (vnlesse it be of Iudas;) but of certaine Robbers among the Donatists, which they called Circumcelliones.
Now sith this place cannot be well vnderstood, in his iudgment, without Tradition; he secretly insinuateh, that euen the ciuill Magistrate cannot punish murder, by vertue of this law of the Scripture; that so he might put into this false scabbard of his tradition, both the two swords togither; the spirituall, and the Temporall.
From the taking vp of Henoch, I make this argument: he which is taken out of this life, & gathered vnto god enioyeth an eternall felicity: But Henoch being no more seene among men, was gathered or taken away vnto GOD: therefore, [Page 19] Henoch enioyeth eternall felicitie. This argument proueth not only the immortalitie of the soule; But also Paradise, that is to say, an eternall felicitie. The Sadduces reply, by the mouth of his aduocate Du Perron, is: That it may bee graunted that this translation was a withdrawing from the conuersation of men, and a delay and staying of death, till a certaine time, vnknowne to men of the first ages, but that it followeth not that the soule, after the extinction of the bodie subsisteth and remaineth for euer.
I answere, that if it be permitted to the Saducie, and his Aduocate, to adde to the text of Moses, what they please, they may conclude from thence what they list, and one day shall finde, that which they will like but little. But this Sadducean or Perronian glosse, is contrarie to the Text of Moses, which setteth downe vnto vs the temporall life of Henoch, much shorter than was the ordinarie of that time: So that this taking vp, cannot be vnderstood of a delay, or staying of death. Moreouer, this text representeth vnto vs Henoch, as the most excellent man in pietie and loue of GOD, which liued in his age; and setteth forth vnto vs also, without the helpe of any glosse, his taking vp, as a manifest testimonie of the fauour of God towards him.
On the other side, all the Law of Moses teacheth vs; that it was rather the testimonie of a curse, than of a blessing to be soone depriued of this temporall life, seeing that long life vpon earth is promised & propounded as a speciall blessing: I [...] followeth therefore, by necessarie and ineuitable consequence, that there is another and more happy life then this earthly life, Into which Henoch was translated, Reuel. 21. which we call Paradise; that is to say, a place extempt from all euill, and abounding in all good.
This consequence is drawne from the text it selfe, not from the word of Tertullian, who calleth Henoch, Candidatum aeternitatis; which I had inserted by the way. [Page 20] But take away this floorish that hee maketh vpon occasion of this word, as if I would prooue the immortality of the soule, by Tertullian, hee remaineth lame and benummed and not able to passe any further: For the rest that he saith is as much to purpose, as if one would ground the originall of the Esseians, or of the Monks o [...] Popery, on this withdrawing of Enoch from the conuersation of men: And if our Bishop had not taken in hand to plead the cause of the Saduces, he might find heere a good proofe for the Esseians, or for the Monkes.
From the historie of the Deluge may be drawne proofe for the Vniuersall iudgement, which Du Perron holdeth not to haue beene beleeued among the Iewes, [...]n. 7 but by Tradition of the Prophesie of Henoch, cited in the Epistle of saint Iude: For that which we see foretold in the same prophecie, we finde it accomplished in the seuenth chapter of Genesis. The argument may be formed thus: He which executeth iudgement against all, and condemneth all the wicked, for the works of their impiety, executeth an vniuersall Iudgment: But God executed such a Iudgment in the flood, against all the wicked: Therefore, he executed an vniuersall Iudgment. The Bishoppe of Eureux cannot deny the Maior, for it is taken from the foresaide tradition; nor the Minor, without denying the historie of Moses, who teacheth vs that this Iudgment was vniuersall. And if the Saducie alleadge the promise that GOD made ( Genes. 9.11. and .15, Ʋerses.) not to destroy the whole earth any more: we can shew him the restriction, that is there added, namely, that he will not destroy the earth any more by the waters of the Flood, his iudgments not being subiect to one onely forme. And seeing that the same Iustice is alwaies in God; which the Saducie is constrained to confesse; and the same vnrighteousnes and impietie reigneth amongst men: It followeth, that he will execute also the same iudgment, to wit vniuersall, though we can not know the day nor the houre: [Page 21] Tradition beeing no lesse silent heere, than the Scripture.
From the Couenant, that God made with Abraham, and the Hebrewes; I argue thus: Genes, 15.17, 2, 4.7. A couenant that dureth for euer, requireth that the parties betweene whom it is contracted, doe abide for euer: But the couenaunt that GOD contracteth with his, dureth for euer: Therefore they must also abide for euer. The onely light of nature sheweth, as well to the Iewes, and to the Heathen; as to Christians, the truth of the Maior: For it is most certein, that when one of the Correlatiues is extinct, the relation which is betweene them is extinct also: The Minor is prooued to a Sadducie by a 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 [Page 22] 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.
[...]enes. 12.13 [...] .17.26. [...]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, [...]en. 13.15 [...] 15.7. & 17 [...]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. [Page 23] Yea Gen. 15.7. god speaketh but of Abraham, saying, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ʋr 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, 9.1 [...] 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 [Page 24] 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, whō 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 made of this Indiuiduall: to wit, Isaacke. This consequence is drawne from the text it selfe, and the Apostle who alledgeth it, neither addeth therunto, nor presupposeth therein any tradition. But such a spirit as our Bishop is of, Heb, 11, 19, findeth more taste in the tradition of S. Siluester, that raised vp a dead Bull, Or in that of S. Germaine, that raised vp an asse, & a calfe which they of his house had eaten.
From the words that God saith to Abraham (Gen. 15. Gen. 15.) I reason thus: He which hath God for his reward, hath immortality and life eternall: But Abraham hath God for his reward: Therefore he hath immortalitie and life eternal. Du Perron saith: That some of ours vnderstand this reward of earthly and temporall things: true, but they exclude not heauenly and eternall, vnlesse he forge himselfe a God without immortalitie and without eternitie. His answeres and ordinarie manners of arguing are, to snatch one part, thereby to exclude the other, as if hee should say: God framed Adam a bodie, therefore hee gaue him not a soule. Let vs set him downe the argument in this sort: Whosoeuer hath God for reward, hath more than an earthly and temporall thing: But Abraham hath God for reward, therefore hee hath more than an earthly and temporall thing. But since the Bishoppe of Eureux receiueth the exposition of Oecolampadius vpon this place, who vnderstandeth, as if God said vnto Abraham: If I bee for thee, who shall be against thee? If I be thy buckler and thy protection, who shall hurt thee? Let him receiue also this argument: Hee whom nothing can hurt, is immortall; otherwise death should hurt him, yea breake this buckler which is God, and vanquish this protector, which is the same God. Now nothing may hurt Abraham, therefore he is immortall, and all the calamities that hee suffered, did not hurt him, to speake properly: But if death had abolished his bodie & his soule both together, without hope of restitution, & resurrection, then should the promise of God haue beene found vaine and frustrate.
From the exclamation that Iacob maketh at the point of death, I drawe this argument: Gen 49. [...] Whosoeuer waiteth for the saluation of God at the houre of his death, when he is going out of this life, thinketh not to die wholly and altogether: but Iacob at the point of his death waiteth for the Saluation of God: therefore he thought not to die wholly and altogether, for it behooueth, that some thing of him should remaine for to receiue this saluation.
And though it should be vnderstood of some succours for his posteritie, yet it behooueth, that hee which waiteth and hopeth for that, be not wholly extinguished & brought to nothing. So in the vulgar translation which is authentick in the Church of Rome, there is in the future tense: I will waite for thy saluation O Lord. If Du Perron reply, that his Sadducie holdeth not that translation for authenticall: No more doe we that of his pretended Rabbi, that he alledgeth vnto vs.
[...] 14, [...] 49, 29. [...] 15.55. [...], 8, 17,From this speach, to be gathered to his fathers, or people, many times repeated in this first booke of Moses, I conclude, that if those to whom Abraham, Isaack, & Iacob be gathered, be not at all; Moses speaketh vnaptly and falsely: But this consequent is false, therefore also the antecedent is so too.
Out of the second booke of Moses, called Exodus.
[...]d, 3, 6,This book furnisheth vs in the first place, with the argumēt wherewith our Sauiour Christ, stopped the mouthes of the Saduces, proouing vnto them the resurrection of the dead, the forme of it is this: They of whom God calleth himselfe the God, are liuing: Now God calleth himselfe the God of Abraham, the God of Isaacke, and the God of Iacob: Therefore they are liuing: And seeing that according to the body they are not yet raised vp from the dead, that must needes bee one day, though in respect of God, to whom all things are present, they bee already raised vp, and therefore he calleth himselfe their God, speaking of a thing which shall infallibly be done, as if it were alreadie done.
The Bishop of Eureux cryeth as lowde as hee can, that Iesus Christ cited this place onely for to prooue the immortalitie of the soule, and that it belongeth not to the Resurrection of the bodie. I say, though hee presuppose the immortalitie of the soule, yet hee meaneth it necessarily of the Resurrection of the dead, because it is the question that the Sadduces proposed to our Sauiour, which of the [Page 27] seuen brethren in the resurrection should haue the woman to wife, who had beene maried to thē all, one after another: is there any tradition, that maketh mariages between soules without their bodies? such a mariage would be another mā ner of mysterie, than that is, which the Romish tradition hath made a Sacrament.
Bellarmine himselfe saith: our Lord being about to prooue the Resurrection to the Saduces, alleadged this testimony of Scripture, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaak and the God of Iacob: and addeth, God is not the God of the dead, but of the liuing; whence his intention is to inferre: The dead therefore rise againe. Now although the Saduces denyed also the Immortality of the soule; yet the Resurrection of the body, seemed vnto them much more absurde; And vpon this pointe was grounded the most formall dissention, betweene them and the Pharises, as appeareth, by that which Saint Luke saith of thē. ( Act. 23.6.7.) Also the three Euangelists qualifie the Saduces by this marke, as the most notable, that they beleeued not the Resurrectiō. And if our Sauiour Christ, by the Resurrection of the dead, meant only of the cōtinuāce of souls not of the Resurrectiō of the flesh: besides, that he had done nothing by his argumēt takē out of Moses, that a Heathen Philosopher by naturall reasons might not haue done; It would follow, that he had then graunted, that the soule dyeth, or at the least sleepeth, till the day of Iudgment; for this tearme, resurrection or rising againe, can not agree but to that which before is fallen, as it fareth in the body by death: And when it is attributed to the soule it is but by figure, like as sinne is called the death of the soule, in as much as it depriueth it of the spirituall life, which is in God, yet without abolishing her substance.
But our Bishopp attributeth this opinion to Christ, for to conforme it with that of one of his pretēded vicars, Pope Iohn the 22. who was constrayned by a King of France, to retract it, and to vnsay himselfe by sound of Trumpet, as [Page 28] Gerson witnesseth. Now let vs see the Spirit of astoniednesse which possesseth him in saying: Though Saint Mathew should say in expresse tearmes, that Christ alledgeth this Text against the Sadduces, vpon the question of the Resurrection of the bodie, what can hee necessarily inferre thereupon? I answere, if Iesus Christ alledged this text for the 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, [...]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, [Page 29] 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, 2 [...] 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 [Page 30] 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 cōtenteth 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 [Page 31] 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 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 holdē 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, [...]xod. 32 32 [...]3. at least in some places; how much more Moses, who aimed onely at the instruction and edification of the people of God.
[...]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: [Page 33] 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 Cai [...] & A [...] 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. [...] 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 [Page 34] and transgressors of his cōmaundements, 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; [...] 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.
[...]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, [...]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, [...]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. [...]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 to blame, to alledge it barely and nakedly with out this breastplate of Tradition, when he representeth the contrarietie and opposition, [...]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 cōsumed; 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 cōposed, & which consisteth but of particulars, will be consumed like wise, and so will but shadowes remaine, to serue for subiect to the fullfilling [Page 36] 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 consideratiō 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, [Page 38] and hell is there named twice; which should suffice him, that maketh no reckoning of consequences, how euident & necessarie so euer they be, but demādeth 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 (Hell [...].)
Numb. 23, 10In 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, violēt, nor hastie death &c. confirmng the exposition of the place of Moses, by the authority of Horace, a most worthy warrāt for such as with this Poet, may well be called Epicuri de grege por [...], swinish Epicures: Now whilst he maketh his cōparisons of the text of holy scripture, that is, of the word of god, with the heathē 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 abolishmēt, 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 thē 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 [Page 39] 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 Balaā, is found much greater on our Bishops side, than on Luthers, whether we consider it in the manner of setting forth his owne [Page 40] 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, [...]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 thē. The Bishop of Eureux replyeth; that, it is not said, that they shall haue thē 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 [Page 41] in general, is applicable to euery particular, accōplishing the cōditiō required: now all obseruers of the commaūdemēts of god, haue promise of the perpetuall happines: therfore euerie one of thē 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 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 [Page 42] 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, [...]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, [...]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. [Page 43] 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 Ps [...] Relation. 7. c. ad fin [...] 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 O [...]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 lēd 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 [Page 44] 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 Testamēt, [...]el. 13 the torments of hell are represented vnto vs by a lake burning with fire and brimstone. And so far are these figures frō 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 [Page 45] be so cleare on this question of Hell fire, whence cō meth it that the Fathers and Schoolemen are so busied to determine, whether it be materiall, 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. 4.1 [...] 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: Ʋengeance 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 [Page 46] 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: [...]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. [...]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, [...]. Tim. 3, 16, [...]7. which instructeth a mā, 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 perfectiō, cōtained 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 [Page 47] body, which is there formally; presupposeth the immortality of the soule. The euerlasting life, & perpetual ignominie of which there is also there expresse mētion 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 Iudgmēt 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. Ale [...] Strom. l. 4. Tert. de. pr [...] 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 impertinēt, [Page 48] 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 meant not, that the rich mans brethren should rely themselues, on that which they might gather thence by their owne particuler reading, but that they should heare it from the mouth of the Pastours of the Iewish Church, [...]atth, 23. who knew by Tradition the mysticall and spirituall interpretation thereof, of whome it is said: they sit in Moses chaire; do whatsoeuer they say vnto you: We answere that by Moses chaire is meant the doctrine written by Moses; so S. Paul vnderstood it, when he saith: cursed is euery man, that abideth not in all the things, [...]al. 3.10. which are written in the Booke of the Law. If our Sauiour Christ had meant, that men should obey the Priests, Scribes, & Doctors of the Synagogue, in all things, because they knew the mysteries of Tradition; it would follow that they should also beleeue the Saduces, who were of the number of these Doctours of the Synagogue, and had sometimes the first places in it; and by consequēt not to beleeue any of the abouesaid points. Also it would follow, that they which betrayed and crucified Iesus Christ, executed this commaundement of Christ, doe whatsoeuer they say. For the Scribes and Priests said, that he should be crucified, so excellent was their knowledge of mysticall Tradition, by vertue whereof the Priests of the Romish Church, offer him really, that is to say, crucifie him yet to this day, as much as in them lyeth; for to shew what goodly Analogie and correspondencie the Romish tradition, hath with that of the Synagogue.
Now let vs dispatch the point of the Creation of Angels [Page 49] and diuels: an instance, that the bishop of Eureux hath borrowed from Iulian the Apostata: And that hee might multiplie, with him, the number of the defects of the scripture; he cuteth it into three, Cyril. Ale [...] adu. Iul. [...] & will needes haue it three distinct questions, crying ignorance & impudencie against me, because I said, that by this his distinction, that he maketh betwene the Creation of Angells, and the Creation of Diuills, one might thinke, that Diuells were not Angels in the beginning, or that God created them thus wicked as they are now. For to maintaine that these three pointes are three distinct questions, he forgetteth, or ouerthroweth the point and state of the principall question, which is; Whether it can be shewed by the writings of Moyses, that there be Angells: In stead of the Saducie, he opposeth Aristotle, who holdeth, that the inferiour Intelligences which moue the heauens are coeternall with the soueraine Intelligence I answere, that if he can obtaine so much of Aristotle, as to admit and submit himselfe to the writings of Moyses as the Saducie professeth to doe; it shall be verie easily shewed him, in Deuteronomie, that there is but one Eternall, And if he grant me this little word of Moyses; he will verie willinglie grant me, Deut. 6.4 that there can not be then any other eternall substances with him, and that by vertue of his owne Maximes, or rather by vertue of the immutable Law of Truthe, and of Nature it selfe, which cannot suffer that twoe contradictorie propositions be both true together: So as this Eternall of Moyses, being alone, will not suffer for companions, the coeternalls of Aristotle.
But if any yet doubt, whether our Bishopp is a Sophister, or no; let him obserue heere, (I pray) his notable cunning: He seeth that this Instance of the Angels, cannot be linked with the former instances afore going, Act. 23.8. and that the Impudencie of the Saduces, who denyed not onely their creation or distinction: but also their being; is so opēly conuinced by the Writings of Moyses, (when he speaketh [Page 50] of the Angell that forbad Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaacke; [...] 22, &. [...] 19, & [...] of the Angells, that Abraham entertained into his house, that tooke Lot out of Sodome, that appeared to Iacob. &c.)
That no aduocate, no not himselfe, (though all causes be alike vnto him) can be able to sustaine it: see therefore how he hath bethought himselfe to fit me; by giuing me Aristotle for a partie, with the Manichees [...] 64,, whereof the one knew not, and the others refused the Old Testamēt. Let vs make the Analysis or resolution of this shamefull, and more than ridiculous Sophistrie: Aristotle beleeued, that the inferiour Intelligences, that mooued the heauēs, are coeternall with the soueraine Intelligence: the Manichees hold, that there is a Beginning of euill, coeternall with God, and an euill God: Neither they nor he receiued the writings of Moses: Therefore it can not be shewed by the writings of Moses, that there are Angells and and Diuills created.
If our Bishoppe had done as Carneades, who before he wrote against Zeno, purged himselfe with white Ellebore; [...] l, 17, [...], he had better distinguished and discerned the Manichees, and the Saduces, than he doth: yet he should doe well to take a dramme of blacke Ellebore, since he will treate of Angells and Diuells, that is to say of white and blacke Spirits.
The Christian Reader will conclude quite contrary to the Bishopps intention; Namely, seeing the Saduces denyed as well Angells, as the Immortality of the soule, and the other pointes abouesaid; though there be made as expresse & formall mention of Angells in Moses, as of men, of beasts, of trees and of stones: they would haue beleeued no more the other points, than this, how clearely & plainly soeuer Moses had opened thē: And therefore the true cause of their Incredulitie and misbeleefe, is to be sought in the default of their owne malicious eyes, and not in the defect, that is pretended in the Writing of Moyses.
Now since the creation of Angels, in the iudgement of our Bishoppe cannot bee found in this scripture; let vs see a little, what Tradition saith of it: The generall Threasorers of the same, should bee, in my opinion, those that are called by a speciall prerogatiue, the foure Doctors of the Church; which are Saint Ambrose, Saint Ierome, Saint Augustine, and Saint Gregorie. Let vs heare them vpon this point: The first saith; Ambr. h [...] l. 1. c. 5. Though Angels bee created, yet were they alreadie before the world was created. Which is a tradition rather of Origen, than of the Apostles, holden also by the Hereticke Nouatian, Lib. de T [...] Hier. in [...] ad Tit. [...] and the most part of the Greekes. The seconde writeth thus: Before the world was created, howe many Eternities there were, in which the Angels serued God, without any vicissitude or measure of time. &c.
Heere you see them coeternall with the Soueraigne intelligence, as well after Saint Ierome, as after Aristotle. But the third, namely, Saint Augustine, whom I alleadged for witnesse, and warrant of my opinion, (which is, that the creation of Angels may bee prooued by Moses;) contradicteth both the former; and reiecting their opinion, as most absurde, to say that there was any creature before the world, hee addeth: That the holy scripture, which is most true, saith, that God made heauen and earth 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. 6 [...] art. 1. & [...] 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 [Page 52] 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, [...]ob. li, 33 [...]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 [Page 53] 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: Ʋ Ʋhen 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 corru [...] te legitur [...] pro [...] [...]. 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 CONSEQƲENCE OF THE SCRIPTƲRES. 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 [Page 54] 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, [...]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. [...]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 ignorāce, 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 so much as one word of Moses fall to ground: Or that the knowledge of these distinctions and differences, was not a thing so necessarie as the Bishoppe of Eureux would haue it.
If account is to bee made of this Epistle of Ignatius, which wee holde supposed, how commeth it to passe, that so many high mysteries are so soone fallen to the ground, and buried in the graue of forgetfulnesse, as appeareth by the diuersity of opinions that the Greek and Latine Doctours haue vpon this question, so that some of them deny flatly, that the knowledge thereof can be attained to, as being a thing exceeding both speech and vnderstanding. Isid. Pelus. l. 2. ep. 99.
And what new reuelation hath beene shewed to Thomas Aquinas for to make these sharings and diuisions among the Angels: when he disposeth angels for to gouerne particular men; Archangels for the Prouinces; Principalities, for whole mankinde; the Vertues for the celestiall bodies; the Powers, for to commaund wicked Spirits; the Dominations, for to haue care of the good Spirits? Is it because he is called the Angelicall Doctour, that hee was endowed with this Angelicall knowledge? But why was the vniuersall Church depriued of it in the time of Saint Augustine, and of so many other good Fathers? What new Paracletus or comforter had reserued the manifestation of these secrets to the Schoolmen? Now let vs see a little our Bishopps angelicall Logicke: Saint Paul, speaking of Angells, nameth Principalities, Powers, Ʋertues, Dominations, Thrones: therfore he setteth downe these distinctions by the orders & degrees as did the Doctors of the Romish Church, which doctrine the Iewes knew not before, but by the tradition of the Sinagogue. Eph, 2.11.12 Col. 1.21 Againe, S. Paul, writing to the Ephesians, & Colossians, who a little before had beene Heathen, strangers from the cōmon wealth of Israell, and from the promises of the Testament, being without Hope and without God in the world; maketh mention of these names: Therefore it was a doctrine, vvhich was manifestly knowne vnto them, and by consequent, they knew it, either by an absolute, or subsidiarie Tradition. Is it not happily, from one of these twoe Traditions, that Plato and Aristotle held also their Doctrine of the Genii and Intelligences?
[...]ol 6 5. Gen. 2.1.He mocketh, that I gather the creation of Angells, from the place of Moses where he saith; That the heauens and the earth were finished, and all their hoste; For that this hoste, saith he, signifieth nothing else in Moses, but the Sun and the Moone, with the Starres; at least wise it can not be gathered by the litterall text of Moses: his Argumēt is this, Deut. 4. Moses in a certaine place vnderstandeth by the army or hoste of heauen, nothing else but the Sun and Moone with the starres; Therfore he neuer meaneth any thing else by it, throughout all his writings. To omit that place of Genesis, where the Angells that met Iacob, at his returne from Mesopotamia, Gen, 32.2. are called the camp, that is to say, the Armie of God, though Moses vse another tearme; I will onely demaūd him, If this interpretatiō of the word hoste or army, can not be had but by Tradition; why the Cardinall Baronius, [...]nnal. Eccles. [...]om. 1. an Christ 60. who is farre nearer that spring, than the Bishop of Eureux, chooseth rather to take it out of the Scripture, whē speaking of the Idolatrie of the Iewes that worshiped the Angells and the starres which they thought to haue life, (note their goodly Platonicall, not Propheticall, Tradition:) he saith that Properly the scripture calleth Angells the Hoste of Heauen; citing three places for this purpose, whereof one is taken out of Moses himselfe. Deut 17. I alleadged a place of Irenaeus, that represseth the vaine curiositie of the Gnosticks, who without any light of the Scripture, rashly intrude thēselues into matters, that they haue not seene, as the Apostle saith, handling this pointe of Angells, and condemning the superstition, (at this day crept into Tradition) of seruing them religiously: our Bishop exclaymeth thereupon; what euening visions? what dreames? what imaginations and fantasies are these? shewing that he hath his head so full of them, that (as Irenaeus saith of his Gnosticks) all the Ellebore in the world would not suffice to purge him from it: [...]ib. 2. c. 54. And it is no wonder, if so many smoaky, darke and subtill imaginations, hinder him from seeing my conclusion, which tendeth not in any fashion whatsoeuer, to abolish the names and distinctions [Page 57] of Angells, as he conceiteth; but to shew first of all, that Irenaeus prooued the creation of Angells by the scripture, when he saith, We will shew them by the scriptures, that all these things, as well visible as inuisible were created of God: Also, We forsake not Moses, and the other Prophets, Lib. 2. c 5 who preached the truth, for to beleeue such, as say nothing soundly, but dote. &c. Whence is euident that he comprehendeth the writings of Moses, vnder the Scriptures, by which is shewed the creation of Angells. Secondly, to cōdemne the audacious boldnes of this pretended Dionysius Areopagita, and the Schoolemen; who presume to know all these mysteries; vndertake to vnfold them, and by vertue, not of an Apostolicke Tradition, but of a Maxime of naturall Philosophie; determine, that it is impossible, that there be two Angells onely of one kinde, and such is the Tradition of that prince of the Schoolemen Thomas Aquinas. 1. P. qu. 5 [...] Ar. 4. So that we must haue many more names for them, than the Tradition of the Synagogue, or Saint Paul euer knew, for to furnish specificall differences, to so many Millions of these blessed Spirits, which stād before the throne of the Lord, for to execute his cōmaundements. And whē Irenaeus saith to the Gnosticks Let them declare vnto vs the nūber of the Angells, the order of the Archangells, let them shew vnto vs the Sacraments of the thrones, let them teach vs the diuersities of the Dominations, Principalities, powers and vertues. But they can not so much as tell it. There is no man, that hath common sense, L. 2. c. 47. but will conclude thence, that Irenaeus propounded these things, as most difficulte and secret, since that in another place, he proposeth the ouerflowing of Nilus; Birds changing of countreys in springtime, and in haruest; the ebbing and flowing of the sea; rayne, snow, thunder, and other meteors; as things hid from vs, and of which, saith he, we may well babble, but God onely, who made them, is true.
Let vs add a word or two of euill Spirits: That the Serpent that spake to Eua, was but an Instrument of [Page 58] a wicked spirit; may be shewed a Sadducie, by the effects, which cannot proceede from a creeping thing, nor from any other beast, though it should go vpright, like a rocke, as the Serpent did before the seducing of Eue, according to the ordinarie glose, which conteyneth as well the literall expositions, as the mysticall Traditions: neyther needed Du Perron to haue attributed this opinion to Luther alone. The same glose reporteth the opinion of some others, which held, that this serpent tooke the pleasant countenance of a mayden; and condemneth it for no other reason, but because the scripture doth not authorise it, Now that these effectes, namely, speech, and perswasiue discourse, soliciting the woman to disobedience, did exceede the naturall facultie of a naturall Serpent: there is no Sadducee can denie: therefore this facultie came to it, eyther of man, or of God, or from some other spirit, that hath it in it selfe: This cannot bee of man; for man cannot giue speach, reason, and discourse to a beast; besides there was then but two humane creatures, who had not any knowledge at all of it. Neyther was it GOD, that speake to the woman by the Serpents mouth: for that were to accuse him of too detestable a fraude and malice, as did the wretched Ophites: Finally, it was not a good Angell: For Moses declareth vnto vs, in many places, that Angels doe keepe and preserue men from euill: And this fact heere as Moses describeth it, sheweth, that it was an enemie of men: not a faithfull seruant of GOD, that vndertooke it, and whose calumnie or false accusation, wee see in the literall Text, verie clearely, whence hee is called deuill, that is to say, calumniator or false accuser, hauing accused God falsely vnto men as enuious of their good and absolute felicitie: and this historie cannot seeme absurde, no not to a Heathen, who readeth in prophane histories, that horses, bulles, trees, statues, or images, and riuers, haue spoken; which wee reiect not as simply and [Page 59] meerely fabulous, though it be contayned in fables; knowing, that wicked spirits haue as well beene able to speake by one Instrument, as by another. Se how one may very easily ridd himselfe from diuerse expositions, that haue beene giuen vpon this text: as for that of Phalo, which the B. of Eureux bringeth: he should iudge by it, for what vse Tradition was to this Iew; namely, for to depraue the Text, & to abolish the truth of the historie. Moses maketh expresse mention of Daemons or diuills in Leuiticus, and in Deuteronomie, which sufficeth for to shew a Saducie, that there is some. A Manichee, or other, that holdeth that they are substances coeternall with God; may be conuinced, by the same reasons, and consequences from Moses text, that haue beene aboue alleadged, in speaking of the Creation.
The words of Caluin which the Bishop of Eureux bringeth for my purpose, would serue his better then mine, if he were capable of it: They importe, that the Lord, by the secret reuelation of his Spirit, supplyeth, that which is wanting in the outwarde euidence of the wordes of Moses: which is most true: For where this light of the Spirit shineth not, there is nothing but darknes, what outward euidence so euer there be in the wordes: & on the contrary, what obscurity soeuer be found in the words, whē the spirit speaketh inwardly, 1. Ioh. 2.20▪ 27. whē the Vnctiō of that holy one teacheth the children of light; they heare & see as much as is necessarie for them to saluation. Cas. Rhod. Cap. 7. Iliad. 19. Tertul l. d [...] Ido. ca 9. d [...] habitu. mu [...] 2. & alibi, Cypr. de Di [...] & hab. Virg [...] Lactant. de [...] rig. err. l. 2. Iust. Mart. Apol. 1. &. 2 [...] Athenag. in [...] pol Cl. Alex [...] 3. & 5. Str [...] & alii.
Now if the Doctors of the Romish church deriue the creation of Diuells from the same tradition, whēce they deriue their fall; It is needles to haue recourse for that purpose to the Tradition of the Synagogue, or to that of the Apostles: for it is from Homer, that Cardinall Bessario deriueth it frō the fable of Ate: which is no lesse receiuable, than that which some of the Fathers recite, by forme of Tradition, of Angells sent from heauen, for the guard and keeping of mankinde, that corrupted themselues, by frequenting of woemen. Yet the Iewish Tradition, touching the creation [Page 60] and originall of diuels must not be omitted, since that (after our Bishop) it is from it onely that the Iewes learned this point of doctrine: that which the Doctors of their Thalmud say, is [...]ib. Sanhe. [...]. Iudicia [...]un. [...], in. 2. [...]. 7. [...]r. a Sancta [...] con. Iud [...]. C. 1 [...] Bib, [...]atr. C. 4 That during this space of an hundred & thirty yeares, which is betweene the birth of Cain & Abel, & the birth of Seth, Adam ceased not to engender in Eue, wicked Spirits, and Diuills which she brought forth, & that those are called the sonnes of Adam, that stirred vp Salomon to sinne. If we beleeue Du Perron, such deuilish traditions, should be vnto vs authentical, necessarie, mystical, cleare, sufficient and perfect; after that we haue declared with him the Holy Scripture vnprofitable, superfluous, obscure, vnsufficient, & imperfect. And whereas he directeth me to Luther, for to learne of him the orders and degrees, that are among diuels; In my opinion, his Thomas Aquinas, whom hee calleth the Prince of schoolemen, instructeth farre more particularly his disciples, vpon this matter, than, Luther doth: For he specifieth the first sinne of the deuill, the first moment of time in which it was committed; what ranke or degree that rebellious Spirit to GOD was of: the manner how he induced his complices, to reuolte with him; the number of the good and the bad, namely, whether is the greater: the punishment of these, and the feeling of their paines, &c.
The other Schoolmen recounte yet greater particulars, though Du Perron say, they traffick not in those deuillish countreys: yea Bellarmine, after some others, representeth vnto vs the Buildings of hell, [...]urg. l. 2. with all their stages or stories, chambers and clossets; not forgetting the vsage and entertainment that is there: all so exactly set downe, that one would say, that these people content not themselues onely to traffick into those quarters, but that they pretend therein the right of burgesie or free denizens, as if they meant to dwell there indeed, being assured by the reuelatiō of S. Brigit, that there are there many Popes and Cardinalls, & faire matter, for to re-establish there Hierarchie there.
Now let the Reader iudge, whether I haue beene shamelesse (as hee saith) in alleadging these places of Moses, for to prooue the pointes aboue examined, and whether the arguments I haue drawne from them, be not as cleare and sound, as those that the Romish Doctours, inlightned with the double Tradition, absolute and subsidiarie, yea and the Popes themselues, who hold all the fulnesse of this mystical Treasure, locked in the coffer & casket of their breast, do draw from the writings of Moses, when by the creation of the world, they proue the Popes supremacie: By the creation of the Sunne and the Moone, the Popes preheminencie ouer and aboue the Emperour: Boni. 8, Ex [...] de maiorit [...] & o [...] ed. C▪ 9.6, Can. Eccles. By the Sodomites rebuke to Lot, the exemption of the Clergie from all politicke Iurisdiction: By Iacobs Testament, Inuocation on saintes departed: By the Cherubins of the mercie feate worshipping of Images: By the commandent made to the Leuites, that they should be holy; the single life of Priesstes &c. These are doctrines of the father of lyes; to perswade the world, that no truth, at lest wise, no light & euidence of truth, touching the fundamentall point of our saluation can be found in the scripture; And that all the errors, all the horrors, that Diuert vs from saluation; may be very well proued by the scripture.
Let vs see our Bishoppes reasons, why the points necessarie to saluation, are not found so openly set downe in the scrpture, that manifest and necessarie consequences may bee drawne from it, without the helpe of Tradition: They are two, the first is: For to conteine our mindes, within the bounds of humilitie: the second, to bind the sheepe to the pastours, with a straiter bond of Charitie by the necessitie of instruction. The booke of the holy Ghost, attributed to saint Basile, yet falsely, at least wise that part of it, whence our aduersaries take their most fauourable testimonies; conteyneth another reason, which our Bishoppe, whether for shame, or because he will haue his Tradition by himselfe; found not fit to adde. It hath thus: That the Apostles, [Page 62] and fathers, would by these secrets of silence, preserue in mysteries, their authoritie: For what is diuulged to the eares of the people, is not mysterie: for this cause, certaine thinges were deliuered by Tradition, without writing, least the knowledge of the Doctrines or opinions should come in cotenmpt among the people, by reason of custome. So that the doctrines of the Trinitie, the incarnation of Iesus Christ, of our Election, Vocation, Iustification, Sanctification, Glorification, and many other Articles, shall be no more mysteries; because they are conteyned in the scripture, preached to the people, and committed to the eares of euerie one: but by this reckoning must be no more preached to the people, praying to saints departed, worshipping of images, the Popes supremacie, the sacrifice of the Masse, Purgatorie, Indulgences or Pardons, & many other things, not conteined in the scripture, and yet notwithstanding almost nothing else preached, yea more recōmended & beaten into the eares of the people, than the things that are written. Would to God this reason were perswasiue inough, for to make to be hid and buried in the depth of an euerlasting silence, or to set ouer and confine to the eares onely of the Popes clergy, all these goodly mysteries, true markes of the Louers of the woman in whose forehead is written Mysteries; [...]eue. 17.5 that they spoyle not the true clergie, that is, the inheritance of Iesus Christ. The Bishop of Eureux his reasons, seem better in shew, but the sustāce of them is much worse: For our part wee beleeue, that the reading of the Scripture, maketh euery true Christian humble, as wel by the things cleerly set down, as by thē he cannot so wel vnderstand, that hee might bee stirred vp to begge vnderstanding and light, of the Father of lights, as Dauid did, though hee were a great Prophet. [...]al. 119, o [...] [...] vvhere. Now, if God would not, that all that is necessarie for vs should be written, or that it should not bee clearely written, for to conteine (as saith Du Perron) Mens mindes, within the bounds of humilitie, what followeth els, but that they that content not themselues with this measure [Page 63] of reuelation, cannot also conteine themselues within the bounds of humilitie, and therfore become proud, & invent whatsoeuer they list, for to establish their Lordshippe and rule ouer the Lords flock, employing their ordinances and Traditions for to binde and torture the consciences, as Tyrants vse prisons & gybets to torment the bodies of men. And if any Chistian thinke to imitate that praise-worthy example of the men of Berea, who durst euen examine the preachings of S. Paule by the Scripture, Act. 17.11. they cry out straight, both against him and the Scripture: the one is called a giddie headed foole and a heretick; the other vnsufficient and imperfect, and that for no other reason, but because it is most sufficient and perfect, to conuince, and rebuke their imperfections, 2. Tim. 3 16▪ 17. and to make vs perfectly instructed vnto euery good worke.
I said in my former answer, that though the aboue-saide points, should not be found so cleare, in the writings of Moses, yet that would conclude nothing, against the sufficiency of the Scripture, which we haue in the Christian Church: for that God speaking familiarly to Moses, instructed him alwaies on euery occurrence, without euer giuing him libertie or authoritie to ordaine of matters of Religion. Fol. 57.
Our Bishop mocketh at it, adding that Iesus Christ spake, as familiarly to God: And the Apostles in like sort, of whome Christ saith, I call you no more seruants, I call you from hence forth my friends, &c. Let vs see what reason he hath to mock at mine, which is this: When the Church hath teachers and guiders, that cannot erre in their doctrine, immediately receiued from God, and that can familiarly inquire of him, on euery occurrence and occasion, for to instruct themselues, and their flockes, then it may more easily bee without Doctrine written. But in the times of the Patriarches, of Moses and the Prophets, immediately sent of GOD, the condition of the Church was such: Therefore it might the more easily be without Doctrine written, &c.
What hurt doth his Instance, taken from the Apostles, [Page 64] to this argument? what good doth it doe him, vnlesse it be for to shew, either his fondnesse, in as much as it confirmeth my argument, for there is the same reason of the Apostles, as of the Prophets; Or his impudencie, if he meane, that the Christian Church, after the death of the Apostles, is euer furnished with as excellent men, as they were, speaking as familiarly vnto God, as they did, taking counsell immediatly from him on all occasions and occurrences, as they did. And without doubt, thus he would haue his meaning to be taken, though shame hinder him frō expressing it more openly. It is also the stile of the Church or Court of Rome, namely: That the Pope as S. Peters successor, representeth his person, yea the person of Iesus Christ himself, possesseth his Spirit, & distributeth it as it pleaseth him: yea hee is called God himselfe, witnesse the Canon, Satis euidenter. And these goodly verses, set on the forefront of the portal or gate of Sixtus the forth. [...]ist. 96.
And seeing our Bishoppe hath spoken as familiarly to this God on earth, as in old time Moses did to the God of heauen, and the Apostles of Iesus Christ: who would not receiue the graines & gold and siluer pictures, which were giuen him on mount Ʋatican, giuen with greater efficacie, than the tables of the Law, giuen to Moses on Mount Sina? I said also, Fol. 57. that Moses neuer tooke the liberty, to ordaine any thing of his owne head, not so much as in policie or ciuil gouernement? He answereth that this is false, obiecting vnto me the historie of Iethro: & will say that Moses practised the counsell that Iethro gaue him, touching the establishmēt of Iudges ouer the people of Israell, without any approbation from God, which is one of the boldest falshoodes can bee made, and such as hee is wont falsly to obiect vnto others. For to conuince it, do but see the text, where the common latine translation saith: If thou doe this thing, thou shalt fulfil the commaundement of God: Exod. 18, 23, and the Hebrew: If thou dost [Page 65] this thing, and if God so commaund thee, thou maist bee able to endure. Now we grant, that if we had alwaies such persons, as the Apostles were, or as Moses and the Prophets vnder the Lawe, were, for to instruct vs in euery point, and not such, as may leade millions of soules together into hell, Dist. 4 [...] si Papa as the Pope doth, and may doe, by vertue of his owne lawes: We should not haue so much occasion, to keepe our selues so strictly tyed to the Scripture; though notwithstanding, Act. 17▪ the first Christians examined the preaching of the Apostles, by the Scripture of the old Testament, by which themselues also prooued it, though they had an immediate calling, an infallible certainty, and an incomparable authority: but these gifts of God beeing but for a time, for the beginnings and foundation of the Christian Church, and we being aduertised by the Holy Ghost of the comming of wolues, of false Prophets, that shal rise vp in the middest of the Church: We conclude, that it is most necessary to keepe vs to their writings, and that it is more dangerous to say, Act. 20. [...] 30. 1 Pet. 2. that they haue not written whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs, than to say that they haue not taught all by word of mouth to euery particular Church: for returning often to visite them, that which they had not said at one time, they might adde and supply it at another, for which there would be no more any remedie after their death, if wee found not in their writings, that which is necessarie for our saluation. And therefore, though the points aboue prooued by Moses, were not conteined in his writings; yea though Moses had written nothing at all, yet could not that any thing at all helpe the Bishop of Eureux his cause, vnlesse hee shew first, that the traditions of the Romish Church are naturally engrauen in the hearts of men, as the immortalitie of the soule. And secōdly, that in al the Christian Church, spread throughout all the nations of the world, god had established the same form touching the oeconomie and gouernment, and the dispensation of his mysteries, as was established among this people only conducted by Moses, & afterwards taught by the Prophets, [Page 66] extraordinarily raised vp, & immediately sent, during the ordinary ministery of the Leuitical Priesthood. And therfore, since that the curate of euery particular Church, that acknowledgeth the Pope, [...] ver. 3, [...] in the [...]. representeth the catholick Church, as say the Doctours of the Romish Church; it is to be beleeued, that the grossest beast, so that he beare the marke of the beast of Rome, is holden in like estimation, indued with the same gifts, as was Moses, Isaiah, S. Paule: For (saith the B. of Eureux) the Church is so assisted with the spirit of God, according to the promises of Christ her spouse, that whether it bee for grace, or for interpretation of this word, he neuer suffereth it to fal into errour. And therupon he reproacheth me, that I vnderstand not the meaning of this proposition: The Church cannot err in matters of Saluation. Let the Christian Reader iudge how I vnderstand it. If we take this word (Church) for the vniuersall Church, the bodie of Christ, wherof part is tryū phant in heauen, part stil militant on earth; both being vnited to their head, by the power of his spirit; that proposition is most true. If on the contrarie the Church be taken but for that part which is scattered on earth; I say, it is most false: For that which is subiect to infirmitie, to imperfection, to errour and ignorance in euery one of his parts, cannot make a whole which is perfect. But there is not a man that sinneth not, [...] [...]8, 46. [...]2. [...]. 13.9 [...]4, 7. saith Salomon and Saint Iames: all of vs knowe but in part, and Prophesie but in part. Neither is there any one member, which hath not neede to take euery day groweth, according to the measure of the gift of Christ. So that all the promises of the Spouse to the Church, are to bee vnderstoode of that which hee daily worketh and encreaseth in his, not of that which is alreadie perfected and finished. And Du Perrons conclusion, is no lesse false and vnapt than this: GOD (saith hee) hath promised vs the beginning, the progresse and the end: therefore wee haue the end at the same instant, as we haue the beginning.
The titles of perfection, which are some times attributed to the children of GOD, setteth before them rather [Page 67] the marke, whereat they should ayme, than any waies imprinteth in them an opinion of hauing already attained it. So we cal a building, a House, thogh it be not yet finished. If this perfection were wholly attained to, there would remaine no more any thing to be builded, and the power of God should not bee made perfect in our weaknes. Iesus Christ washeth and cleanseth his Church euery day, but it shall not be wholy cleane without spot or wrinkle, till the day of the Lambes mariage, when the Bridegrome shall bring his Spouse into his celestiall chamber. Wee acknowledge the perpetuall assistance of Gods Spirit to his Church, which is the soule of the Church, and giueth spirituall life thereunto: But life is one thing, and perfect health without any infirmity, is another thing. It is one thing to haue a natural operation, which is euer done after a fashion, in which there is some necessitie, an other thing to haue a-voluntarie operation, which is done at discretion & with liberty: the holy Ghost assisteth the Church so far forth as to giue it life; which is a thing wholy necessary, for the accō plishmēt of the promises of her husband Christ: for if the Spirit did in this sort faile the Church; the Church would also faile Iesus Christ, but this life, this light of grace, doth not abolish that of nature, which is in euery mēber of the Church, & which maketh it often to faint, to faile & to fall, though neuer vtterly to fall away. The holy Ghost gouerneth it as well, as reason gouerneth the will in man: But as the will doth often swarue frō reason, yet without loosing it wholy or altogither: 1. Tim. 3.1▪ so the Church swarueth often from the spirit, which notwithstanding doth not wholy forsake it for all that. The Church remaineth also 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 [Page 68] 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 [...]ean. de la [...]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? [...]ark. 16.14. [...]llar. de Ec [...]es. mil. l. 3. [...]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: [...]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) [Page 69] 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, whēce 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 thēselues; as were those of whome S. Luke maketh mētion. If the B. of Eureux grāteth not, that both of thē 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 [Page 70] 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, [...]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 Ʋespasian, his childrē & all the Romane Army; [...]seph. An [...]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, [...]oh. de bel. [...] l. 7. c. 25, among the Iewes: namely, Magicke, [Page 71] 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 mysticall formes: but that they simplie cōiured 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 Abrahā, 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, [Page 72] 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, [Page 73] 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. [...] 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 excellēt 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 [Page 74] 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 in [...]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; [...]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 affimatiō 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: [...]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? [Page 75] 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. Eu [...] 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 thē, from among all other nations of the earth, that by this meanes he might inuite thē 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 christiā church, for to giue testimonie to the doctrine that his Martyrs had cōfessed & sealed by their death, & for to moue the heathē 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 [Page 76] 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, [...]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 warrāt 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 cōtayned 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 Traditiō 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 [Page 77] 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 oppugne directly the holy Scripture, which testifieth clearely inough, that, He that absolueth the wicked, is an abhomination to the Lord: Pro, 17.15. And in another place commaundeth in expresse termes, to pluck murtherers from the alter of God, Exod 21.14▪ that they may die.
And whether it be referred to infidel gouernours, Math. 27.5. [...] Mar. 15.6. as S. Mathew & S. Marke do, or to the Synagogue corrupted, as the Bishop of Eureux thinketh to shew it by S. Iohn; yet the corruption & transgression of the Law therein is euident. Therfore Saint Cyrill, for to excuse the ancient Synagogue, groundeth this custome on the Law written, touching mā slaughter committed vnawares; Cyr. in Iul, [...] 2. c. 14. Num. 35. and thinketh that the Synagogue that was in Christs time, of hatred & rage wherwith it burned against him, transgressed that Lawe, asking the deliuerance of a detestable robber and murtherer, in steade of one that had killed a man by mischance and vnawares: [Page 78] See then the Bishop of Eureux his tradition rased and condemned by the sentence of a Patriarch of Alexandria. Theophylact speaketh of it these words: Wee may say, that the Iewes, [...]heoph. in [...]. c. 18. teaching the doctrines, which are the commaundements of men, haue inuented many things of their owne heads, and haue not vsed the lawes of God: so that this point also became a custome without reason, as many other things, without commaundement of the Lawe: See here againe, Tradition, the pretended word of God, after our Bishop, called, a custome without reason, by a Bishoppe, much ancienter and of better authoritie than ours. And whereas I sayd, that they which deliuer Barrabasses, do crucifie Iesus Christ in his members: he accuseth me of inuectiues, and of ignorance of the mysteries and iudgements of God; forgetting the place of S. Ambrose whence I drew that cōclusion; the words are these; The Lawes of iniquitie are such that it hateth innocencie, & loueth wickednes: Ʋ Ʋherin notwithstanding, the interpretation of the name, giueth apparance of a figure: For this word Barrabas, Amb. in Luc. [...]ib. 10. signifieth some of the Fathers: those then to whome it is said, Your Father is the Diuell, are declared, that they perfer Anti-christ the sonne of their Father, before the true sonne of God.
The sentence of S. Augustine, who saith that the Iewes are not to be reprehended, for that they deliuered a guiltie person at Easter, but for that they put to death an innocent, should be vnderstood not simply and absolutely, but by cōparison: as if he had said, to put to death, him that brought life and righteousnesse into the world, is a crime so horrible, and to deliuer a person guilty is nothing in comparison. For this holy Doctour, was too much conuersant in the Scripture, and too good an interpreter of the places aboue alleadged, for to declare absolutely vnreproueable, those whome the spirit of God declareth to be an abhomination before the Lord. But it is not without mysticall reason that our Bishoppe would make murtherers bee found irreprehensible; [...]xod. 21.14. [...]o. 17.15. [...]. Tim. 3.2. [...]it, 1.6. that is to say, capable to bee Bishoppes: it is without reason and not without ignorance, to call mee ignorant [Page 79] of his mysteries, which we are no more ignorant of, thē of the traditiō of Boniface the fift who was the first Pope that ordained; That altars and Churches, should serue for places of fredome to Malefactors; Platin. in Bonif. 5. wherein the good Prelate re-established the Tradition of Pilate, to deliuer Robbers.
As for the instances he taketh out of the Epistle to the Hebrues, where Saint Paul reciteth certaine legall ceremonies, of which Moses maketh not expresse mention; though we should graunt him all of them, yet could they not helpe his desperate cause: For they are things, Chap. 9. which concerne historie, and not doctrine, the onely act of the sacrifice, made for the ratification of the couenante, and not the ordinary vse and custome of daily and yearly sacrifices: & therefore might be vnknowne, without danger of saluatiō, not onely of the people, but euen of the Priests themselues, seeing they were not preceps, touching the māners of their ordinary seruice, but onely certaine circumstances of a singular and extraordinary sacrifice; the substance whereof is described by Moses. In a word, they be Traditions of such a nature, of which we haue oftē said there be many, but which derogate in nothing from the perfection & sufficiency of the Scripture, which consisteth in doctrine. Now because this chapter with a good part of the rest of this Epistle, giueth a deadly blow to the masse, he laboureth to comfort the wound with these Instances, taken from the same place: because he can not make vse of it, as of Achilles dart, or as of a Scorpion, for to draw a remedy from the same from whence the hurte came; He supplyeth with his braine as much as he can, and maketh S. Paul say, that Moses in the solemnity of the said sacrifice, mixed water with the blood of the Testamēt: which S. Paul saith not, no more thā Moses; though he say, that he tooke water with blood & wool, as if one could not take two things one with another, without mixing thē, one within another; the priests of the Romish church, whē they baptize, take water, oyle & other drugs: Ergo they mixe them all together in the Sacramental [Page 80] water. A goodly argument. What is there in the text of Saint Paule, that forceth vs to conclude, that Moses mixed the water within the bloud, for to sprinkle therewith the people, by one onely sprinkling, rather than to say, that he sprinkled them first with water, for to purifie and wash them, as they did the sacrifices before they offered them, which is the ground of the analogy by which I said, that this ceremonie might be gathered out of Moses?
He reprooueth me of vanitie, for affirming, that the sacrifices for sinne: And that such sacrifices were of hee goates. The first is manifest, for that Moses in the first place speaketh of whole burnt offerings, which were expiatorie, & propitiatory: after which he maketh mention of sacrifices of thanksgiuing.
The other appeareth by analogie or proportion of the Law, which saith. If the Prince of the people (that is, one of them that haue publick charge, as the seauenty Elders and the heads of the tribes had) commit sin, let his offering be of an hee goate. Now in this Sacrifice whereof is question, the 70. elders, are commanded, to goe vp with Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu; Leui. 4.22.23 whose sacrifices were of bullockes, according to the Law: It is gathered therefore by analogie, that the offrings of the 70. elders were of hee goats. To say, that the institution of all these particulars was after the Sacrifice of the Couenant, were not to consider, that sacrifices (notwithstanding this) were in vse before the Lawe giuen by God to Moses, Leu. 4.3. and that not according to each mans fantasie, but according as God reuealed and commaunded it to the Patriarches. And the Bishop of Eureux cannot shew vs by his tradition, wherein the particulars and formes of the Sacrifices vsed before the Law and writing of Moses, and them which we see therein set downe, did differ or agree: no more than we can beleeue, that the knowledge of the former, was as necessarie to the Israelites, that liued vnder the Law, as was the knowledge of the latter. [Page 81] I would know of him, frō what tradition he learned, that this sprinkling of the people, by the bloud of beasts was rather execratory thā expiatory, as he saith: not for to purifie the Israelites but for to bind & bequeath to cursing, &c. S. Paul, Heb. 9.22. after he had recited this sprinkling, with the sprinkling of the tabernacle, & of the holy vessels, addeth: that almost al things by the law are purified with bloud, referring this purification in general to all the legall aspersions or sprinklings, but especially to that, which he had more particularly specified, than any other; namely, which our Bishop, by I know not what cursed and execrable Tradition calleth cursing and execration: And if that be true, then these words, which Moses pronounced, in performing this sprinkling: This is the bloud of the Couenant which the Lord hath contracted with you: shall not signifie vnto vs, the purifying of our soules, by the bloud of Iesus Christ as the Apostle expoūdeth it, cōparing the figuratiue bloud of beasts, with the bloud of Christ our Lord, which spiritually washeth & purifieth our soules, as the other bloud did ceremonially purifie the corporal things: But shal signifie our curse & execration, the reall accomplishment & execution wherof, should be found for vs, in the death & in the bloud of him, whom we call our Sauiour and Redeemer, as hauing deliuered & redeemed vs from the curse & execration of the law, vnder which we were without the shedding & sprinkling of his bloud, whē he himself was made a curse for vs. He yeeldeth a reason worthy himselfe, why this bloud signified rather execration, than purification: Gal. 3.13. Because the children of Israel were alreadie purified by the former washings. True, but if the washing with water sufficed to purifie them, to what purpose so much bloud, as was shed in the ordinary expiatory sacrifices? to what purpose are said so many masses pretēded expiatory sacrifices, if holy water sufficeth to purify those, that are sprinkled with it? Why behoued it, that after baptisme Iesus Ch. shuld shed his bloud? why was not remissiō of sins without shedding of bloud, if the washing by water purifieth, that is, taketh away sins? to conclude, what mad Enthymema is this same: The children of Israel were purified [Page 82] by the former washings: Ergo, the bloud wherwith Moses sprinckled them afterward, signified vnto them cursing and execration. But it agreeth not euill, that he that beleeueth, or maketh shew to beleeue, that the masse is a sacrifice expiatorie and propitiatorie, which indeed is execrable and execratorie; call execration the sacrifice of the couenant, that God contracteth with his, for to put away their sins therwith; wherof the sacrifice described by Moses, was the figure & that of the crosse the Truth. At least wise he should consider, that this sprinkling with bloud, was not only done on the people, but also on the altar, vpō which Moses sprinkled halfe & on the booke, which Altar represented nothing else but God, who in this couenant, was one of the parties, conditioning & promising of his side: shall we say, that Moses, in sprinckling the Altar with halfe of the bloud, bound & bequeathed God also to cursing? The booke that conteined the law, and which was sprinkled with it likewise, was it cu [...]sed also? There remained no more but this heape of blasphemie for him, who ceaseth not to calumniate of imperfection and vnsufficiency the sacred booke, to say, that it was bequeathed to cursing and execration. Indeede we read in profane histories of the couenants and leagues, which the Pagans made, ratifying them by Sacrifices, with oathes and horrible execrations; yea sometimes tasting of the bloud of the sacrifices offered, or of their owne, as it is said of Catilina and some others. Which is not farre from the Cyclopian barbaritie of those Capernaites, or rather Canibals, which think they cannot partake in the bloud of the spiritual couenant we haue with Iesus Christ, vnlesse they carnally drink it, [...] cons. Dist. [...] Can. Ego. [...]ieng. vnlesse they breake his body with their teeth sensibly, as their Pope Nicholas saith.
As for the sprinckling of the tabernacle, & of the holy vessels, also the purple coloured wooll, & hysop, wherof Moses speaketh in the 24. chapter of Exod. It should be our bishops part to shew, that S. Paul in his 9. chap. to the Hebrews protesteth & bindeth himselfe, to touch nothing of the writings [Page 83] of Moses, but only what he saith in expresse tearmes in that place, Exo. 24. Which shal not be so easie for him to do, as it is for vs to shew, & for euery one to see the cōtrary. For the scope & drift of the Apostle is, to confront & to compare together the two Testaments, the Priests & the sacrifices, & all the other ceremonies of the old, with the onely Priests, & sacrifice of the new: The Leuiticall Tabernacle, corruptible and transitory, wherinto the Iewish Priests entred; with the humane nature of Iesus Christ, in which dwelleth all the fulnes of the godhead, as in a Temple permanent: the bloud of the hee goat, which the hie priest offered euery yeare once, when he entred into the most holy place, with our sauiour Christs own bloud, by which he opened vnto vs heauen for euer. Now it is certain, that Moses speaketh of these figures, in diuers places of his writings: by what Logick thē, should wee conclude that, that which is not foūd in the 24. chap. of Ex. cannot be found elsewhere? he speaketh not there of the purple wool, nor the hysop, but Num. 19. he speaketh of thē: Neither of the sprinkling of the Tabernacle and of the holy vessels, but he speaketh of it Leuit. 8.16, 30. & 9.9. & 16.14 and so following. And that S. Paule meaneth not to speake onely of the Act of the dedication, as our Bishoppe would make vs beleeue, it is manifest, as well by that wee haue said of the Apostles intention, as by the conclusion, which is Heb. 9.22. And almost all things are by the Lawe purged with bloud; By which euery one may see, that he no wise meaneth to stay on the acte onely of the consecration of the Couenant, but that he mixeth together diuerse ceremonies of expiations, in which there was but one and the same end, referring all those shadowes to their bodies, the figures to the Trueth, without stāding to reckon the syllables of Moses, or to quote the places he alledgeth, or to obserue the order of the times, wherin consisted not the force of his arguments, & therefore he protesteth (Ch. 9.5.) not to speake of those things particularly. The sprinkling of the booke, may be comprehēded vnder the sprinkling of the altar, si [...]h both [Page 84] 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 hēceforth it signifie to read. He perswadeth himself that the opinion of Caluin, who saith, that in Saint Pauls time, there was perhaps some Cōmentaries 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 & unsufficiēt. Let him learne of S. Augustine, that it is no wise necessarie, that all the writings of the Prophets should bee indifferently Canonicall: [...]g. de Ciu. [...]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 [Page 85] 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 Thom [...] 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 whē 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 thē 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 [Page 86] 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 cō clude a Canonicall authority of some book, by the all [...]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 residēce, the cardinal hauing bin ordinarily neer the oracle of Rome, & drunk of the foūtaine of tradition) saith in his Cōmentary vpon this chapter, & namely of the particular [Page 87] 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 most holy place. And the same may be said of the golden Pot, wherein was the Manna, & Aarons rod, sith the solution of the Iesuite Ribera doth not satisfy him; who (no more than this Cardinall) hath not recourse to Tradition, Gen. [...]0.12▪ 2. Sam. 21 &c. choosing rather to employ therein Grammer, there being the like examples of Scripture, in which the pronoune is referred to the antecedent farthest of, than to apply thereto this plaister for all sores; or to borrow the inuention of Caluin, for to take away the contradiction, which the same Cardinall saith to be most manifest, betweene the place (1. King 8.9.) which hath these expresse wordes, Nothing was in the Arke saue the two tables of the law: And this is taken in the sense, that our Bishop will haue it. And Bellarmine himselfe, doth he not receiue the opinion of them, that holde, that the golden Pot and the rod were in some outward part of the Arke, and not within the arke it selfe? de verb. De [...] Lib. 1. c, [...]7
The two last Instances, taken out of the Epistle of S. Iude, haue beene touched aboue: let vs confirme here our opinion by the testimony of the same Cardinall Caietan, who saith: It can not bee knowne, whence Saint Iude had the knowledge of this combat, Comm. in epist. Iud. that is to say betweene the Angell and the Diuell; yet there be some that hold, that it, is taken out of the apocryphall bookes of the Hebrews: who hath then reuealed it to our B. that the Apostle, & the Iewes held it vnwritten Tradition? the apocrypha books of the Iewes, & the tradition, which he pretendeth to be the true & pure word of God; is it all one? To cōclude, from whence so euer this historie be taken, [...] lib. 3. c. 2 In c [...]talog▪ whether from the booke which Origen calleth the ascentiō of Moses, of which S. Hierome also maketh mention; or whether it be from the pretended Tradition, what auaileth it against the perfection and sufficiencie of the doctrine conteyned in the Scripture? [Page 88] How often haue we told him, that we are at accord, that all particular deeds and sayings, [...]hn. 21.25. are not contayned in it, neither can be? [...]l. 1 [...]3▪ But from this historie, saith he, are drawne many excellent doctrines, & the beginning of this knowledge, could not be humane and naturall; but of necessity must take originall frō an expresse reuelation, &c. Say it be so; to what purpose all this? Is not our question, whether there is any point of doctrine, that should be deriued from any other beginning than from the Scripture? Is it not whether the points of doctrine, conteyned in the Scripture, may be confirmed, by some other proofes besides the Scriptures; The Greekes, reciting this historie, say that the Archangell was employed in the Buriall of Moses, [...]ecum. in [...]ist. Iud. & that the Diuell opposed himselfe thereunto, alleadging that Moses was his, because of the manslaughter committed in the person of the Egyptian, and that therefore he deserued not so honourable a buriall. The doctrines which they draw from it, are that the Apostle would teach by it, 1. that men haue to render an accompt after this life: 2 That there is one & the same God both of the old and new Testament. 3. That the Diuell riseth vp against the soules departed from the body, and striueth to hinder their way to heauen; but the good Angells assist them, and resist the wicked Spirits. 4 That we ought not to Iudge, nor curse rashly. 5. That honour should be yeelded to Superiours. Now it were for our B. to deny, that these doctrines are conteyned in the scripture, and that the Iewes could not deriue them from any other beginning, but from vnwritten Tradition: and for to doe this, he must race out an infinite number of places of the law, and of the Prophets, and by this meanes, not onely he should iustify his blasphemies against the scripture, but also the heresie of the Anabaptists, in the point which concerneth the obedience due to Magistrates; as elswhere he endeuoreth to do, touching the point of baptisme of little children. Now as these doctrines are more thā sufficiently proued by the Scripture, so the historie in question, repugneth not any thing thereūto, whether we take it as [Page 89] Oecumenius reciteth it, or after the vulgar vnderstāding, namely, that the deuill, 2. Cor. [...] whose enterprises wee are not ignorant of, endeuoured to discouer the Sepulchre of Moses, which God had expresly hid, laying therein onely this body, that it might be vnknowne to all, and might not giue occasion to Idolatrie; as it hapned among Christians, when they began to vnbury, to transport, and to worship the reliques of Martyrs, and sometimes the reliques of theeues and robbers. It is therefore false, that they which receiued this Historie as Saint Iude reciteth it; Could not (as he saith) after our Maximus, fol. 11 [...] excuse thēselues of superstition in their beleife, to giue credite to such [...]ar [...]ations, which had been wholly fabulous, & full of deceits, if they had come from any other, then from the pure reuelation and word of God. I say it is a meere deceite, to say, that wee condemne of superstition or deceit▪ all that is not conteined in the holy Scripture, as he saith we doe: for we abase not the price and estimation of humane writings, thogh we make thē not equal to the diuine: we acknowledge the gifts of the authour of Truth, euē in them that haue alwayes remained vnder the tyranny of the father of lyes; though more in them that haue been translated out of the power of darknes, into the kingdom of light: We consider both▪ and examine them by the rule of the Scripture, which is for this cause called Canon; that which agreeth thereunto, wee receiue with praise; that which repugneth it, wee reiect with leaue, and accuse of superstition the beleefe that is giuen to such narrations; which cannot haue place, in the recitall of Saint Iude; in as much as he is an Apostle, hauing the spirit of the Lord in such a measure, that hee neither deceiued himselfe, nor any other in that which the said, or wrote for to be inserted into the Canon of faith. And if we receiue now some verses of certaine heathen Poets, as the word of God, since they were sanctified by the Apostle; what reason were there, to reiect this narration, [Page 90] though it were taken foorth of an Apocrypha booke, as the Fathers thought, seeing that no newe doctrine can be drawn from it but that of the Scripture by it is confirmed? It is a necessarie point to know, that the Magistrate is ordained of God, that we owe him honor and reuerence: but know all the particular places, reasons, and testimonies, that may serue to proue this point; is not a thing necessary to know.
I shewed by the way, what proffit the Church of Rome maketh of this tradition of S. Iude; namely, quite cōtrarie to that it containeth: for first of all, it setteth forth all the reliques of Saints departed, and suborneth false ones too, for to make the people to commit Idolatrie: instead of resisting the deuill whē he broacheth such inuentions as the Archangel did, &c. Secondly, instead of honoring & reuerencing the magistrate; the Pope, who calling himselfe the vniuersall Shepheard of Christian people, should be vniuersall patterne to his flocke, causeth his feet to be kissed by Kings, & Emperors, yea trā pleth vnder his feete the greatest dignities of the earth. What saith our Byshop to this? hee cryeth ignorance against mee, [...] 16. to impute to the Church of Rome, that which frō all times hath bin practised by the whole Catholike Church, throughout all the world; Item, to make no difference betweene the reliques of Saints, before and after the Incarnation of the Saint of Saints. Wee thanke him for confessing that the Romish Church maketh the people cōmit idolatrie after reliques true or false: For to inwrap in the same impietie, all the auncient Church, hee quoteth a long list of places of the Fathers, gathering together all their Hyperboles on this matter: all the reliques of Paganisme, all the indiscreet deuotions of the people, with the conniuences of the Byshops, brought in with the streame or tyde of custome: all the Prosopopoeiacs, Apostrophes, Epiphonema's, and other figures, of which their Panegyricks are full, are vnto him, groūds of christian [Page 91] religiō, Apostolicke traditions, ineuitable demonstrations, and indemonstrable principles: for his maner is to handle the Fathers so, as that he bringeth away frō them, but the sweeping as it were, far from the industry and wisdom of an heathen, who gathered gold forth of anothers drosse. Now if I do not verifie this by some cō trary places takē forth of the same Fathers that he alleageth, he will cry against me, as he did against the Lorde of Plessis: that I could not doe it; and that if I went about but to quote one onely example, the paper would blush an hundred yeares after. Let vs therefore oppose to the place of Gregorie of Nysse, which hee setteth in the head of his squadron, some places of that excellent Epistle, which this holy Father wrote of purpose, against them that goe on Pilgrimage to Ierusalem; let vs see from which of them we shall draw most instruction, and resolution. They, saith he, which once haue dedicated themselues, to a more excellent manner of life; it shall goe well with them if they take heed alwayes to the words of the Gospel; and as they that guide their work by a Rule, redresse by the streightnes of the same, that which before was crooked; so I thinke it meet, that wee addresse and referre these things to God, applying heerein the ordinance of the Gospel, as a Rule streight & vnchangeable. Seeing then there be some, that choose a priuate & solitary life; who thinke that it is godlines & religion, to haue visited the places of Ierusalem, wherein are seene the markes of the cōming of the Lord in the flesh, the thing goeth well, if we take heede to the Rule it self; to the end that if the commandements cary vs thether, we may do this work as an ordinance of the Lord. But if it appeare, that it hath been brought in, besides the commandements of the Lord; I know not what this can bee, that hee which proposeth to himself for a law of good, commandeth another to do. When the Lord calleth the Blessed, for to receiue the kingdom of heauen; he reckoneth not among the good works, Math. 2 5 which bring a man thither, going on pilgrimage to Ierusalem. When he declareth the true blessednesse; Math. [...]. he comprehendeth not therin such an imployment. [Page 92] Now to what purpose shall a man imploy himselfe in that which neither maketh happy, nor serueth for the kingdome of heauer? He which hath vnderstanding let him consider it. After he representeth at large the inconueniences & dangers, whereinto Pilgrimes put themselues; the wickednesses that are commited in the places, esteemed more holy then others: And because himselfe had trauelled thither, he yeildeth a reasō of it, namely that his charge had bound him to visite the Church of Arabia, for to reforme it; and that he had promised to conferre with the Pastours of the Churches of Ierusalem, who were troubled and had need of a mediatour. Let no man then, saith he, be offended for our example; but let our iudgement of it be the more receiueable, seeing we giue it of the things that we our selues haue seene: For we confessed Christ to be the true God, euen before we went thither, and afterwards likewise, our faith being hereby neither diminished nor increased. We knew that he was borne man of a Virgin, before we saw Bethleem; and wee beleeued his Resurrection, before we saw his Sepulchre; and we cōfessed his Ascension, without seeing the mount of Oliues. Neither haue we reaped any other fruites of our voyage, saue only this, that by the comparison of the places, we haue learned that ours are much more holy, than forraine parts. Wherefore you that feare the Lord, praise him in the places where you are: For change of places, maketh not the Lord neerer; but God wil come to thee, so that the house of thy soule be found such, that he may dwell in thee. If thy inward man be full of peruerse thoughts, though thou beest at Golgotha, at the mount of Oliues, or vnder the sepulchre of the resurrection; yet thou shalt receiue Iesus Christ as little into thee, as they that neuer made profession of Religion. Therefore my wel-beloued, exhort the brethren, to trauell from the body to the Lorde, not from Cappadocia into Palestine, &c.
Let this whole Epistle bee compared, with the place cited forth of a Panegyricke of the same Father, by the Byshop of Euerux; and there is not so blinde an Idolatrer, [Page 93] that seeth not, that in this same he speaketh according to the word of God, which he layeth for the ground of euerie good action; and according to his iudgement and beleefe: in the other according to the abuse of the time, and according to the testimonie, which he suffred, not being able to withstand it, August. a [...] Lannar. a [...] ciuit. l. 10▪ no more then Saint Augustine, who so earnestly complaineth against it: And who in another place, speaking in good earnest, dogmatically, not historically nor popularly, (that is to say, abusiuely;) saith thus: De vera lig. cap. 55▪ Let not our Religion be after our owne fantasies; for whatsoeuer truth may be in them, yet our Religion is better farre then any thing we can fain of our own heads. And a little after: Let not our Religion bee the worshipping of dead men; for if they haue liued religiously, they be not such, as that they would desire any such honour; but would haue vs honour him, by whom being illuminate, they reioyce in that we are seruants with them of that which they haue obtained. They should therefore be honoured for imitation, not worshipped by religion. De morib [...] Eccl. Cath [...] c. 24. Hee confesseth that there are many Superstitious persons in the true Religion, worshippers of Sepulchers and pictures. But in another place he vnfoldeth his opinion vpon this matter, saying that if wee pray well, & as we ought to doe, we should say nothing else, Ep. 121. [...] Prob. but what is set downe in the Lords prayer: And that whosoeuer saith, that which cannot be referred to this Euāgelicall praier, though his praier be not vnlawfull, yet is it carnall, which cannot choose but bee vnlawfull, seeing that they who are regenerate by the Spirit, ought onely to pray Spiritually.
To the place that the Bishop of Eureux produceth out of Theodoret, what can be more fitly opposed, Theodor. Ep ad. col▪ than that which the same Theodoret writeth on the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Colossians, where hee calleth, worshipping of Angels, heresie. But if Angels, which are ordeined of God for our guard, which are the noblest creatures of all, which alwayes stand before the Throne of God: cannot be adored without heresie, after the doctrine [Page 94] of Theodoret, and the determination of the Councell of Laodicia: shall we say he thought, that the bones of dead men should bee worshipped, what distinction so euer they make, which the people vnderstand as little as the dead bones doe? And if Baronius durst heere condemne Theodoret, [...] Eccl. [...]. ad an. [...]4. for that hee condemned, as Heresie, this superstitious worshipping of Angelles: How much more shall it bee lawfull, to condemne of Idolatrie and impietie, them that so seeke and prease after this abhominable worshipping of bones and dead bodies? For Saint Augustine in the place aboue alledged, will not haue men serue, nor adore the heauenly bodies, for this onely reason; that though they bee rightly preferred before all other bodies, yet life is much better.
These heauenly bodies, are not without miracles, which God hath wrought in them, and they doe bring more profit to men, and do better declare the glorie of God, than doth the dust and ashes of the dead, what miracles soeuer be done there, [...] 9.1. of which the true had none other end but to yeeld testimonie to the truth, which the Martyrs had confessed, for to conuert the Heathen therevnto, and not turne away Christians from him that is the liuing God, for to make them worship dead men: for to withdraw the people from the visible Elements, to the knowledge of saluation, manifested in the Scriptures, and not for to draw them to idolatries more then Hethenish, which the Spirit of lies, hath the cunning so well to nourish and set forward, by an infinite number of false miracles, and such as those were wherewith in times past he so well maintained the Heathen vnder his obedience. Dialog. Gazaei. [...]. 5. Pa [...] [...]om. 1▪ Here I summon him againe to tell vs, on what Apostolike Tradition were and are grounded, the Pirgrimages, adorations, and all those Ceremonies, instituted a long time after the death of the Apostles? What certaintie there is concerning the reliques [Page 95] which the people worship? By what Registers shewed the succession of them that haue continued the keeping of them, from father to sonne? How by the warres and other publike calamities, which haue lost & abolished so many things, there hath not beene lost so much as a comb of the virgin Marie, a clout of the childhood of our Sauiour Christ, & ten thousand other such peeces? No not vnder that horrible spoile and hauocke, in the time of Dioclesian, when al the Oratories, and holy places of christians were burned and ruinate, which serueth Baronius for an excuse, and for an ordinary refuge, when he would fain proue a thing by antiquity, and can not. And to come again to the historie in question; there is found the verie dagger, wherwith St. Michael fought with the Diuell, from which Tradition the people learneth, that it is not by faith, nor by spirituall weapons, Ephes. 6. [...] wherewith the Scripture armeth vs, that wee must combat the Diuell; but that one must haue a good sword and dagger, for to resist him, according to the Tradition of the Cibille, who commanded Aeneas, going into hell, Virg. 6. E [...] to hold his sword in his hand: Tuque inuade viam, vagina (que) eripe ferrum: That it is not in the worde, and in the Sacraments, that wee must seeke Christ, with his spirituall graces, but in some peece of wood, which is said to be a peece of his crosse; in some naile, napkin, towell, or other relique! Though Saint Paul say, that he knoweth not Iesus according to the flesh, 2. Cor. 5 [...] so farre is he off from making reckoning of these pretended Reliques. The Scripture teacheth vs, that God ordayned Death as a curse; as the wages of sinne; that deade bodyes, bones and graues, were polluted, and did pollute euen the liuing, by their touchings: because they were as so many myrrors of this curse, and of the corruption of humane nature, in which the Image of God is so fowly disfigured. Moreouer, this same legall pollution taught the Israelites, by figure, that which the Apostles [Page 96] vnder the Gospell taught cleerely; namely, that wee should carefully keepe our selues from dead workes, which are also called workes of the flesh, and to maintaine our selues pure and holy: the pretended tradition on the contrarie, teacheth, that there is no other puritie nor holines, but in stirring, kissing, gilding, & adoring of dead bodies: and wheras the lawe particularly forbad Priests to touch dead bodies: [...] 22. there is no sort of people now adayes, that so busie themselues in funerals, and in handling of bones and reliques, then the Priestes, who feed vpon dead bodies, like Rauens & Vultures, and in the meane while brag they were figured by the Leuitical Priests, whom they care for as litle as for Iesus Christ when he saith, Let the dead bury the dead: vnlesse it bee, that they obey him, in this that being more dead, than liuing, they will haue no other affaires but with the dead, hauing no hope of the true life: and this is the reason why in their altars, whereupon they sacrifice and crucifie, as much as in them is, Iesus Christ, who is that life; they must haue the bones and ashes of the dead; to the end that as well they as their altars, with which they liue, might liuely represent vnto vs, the possessed with vncleane spirites, [...]. 8. [...]5. of whom the Gospel speaketh, with the graues, in which they dwelt.
Now we learne well ynough by the Scripture, without the helpe of any tradition, that the legall pollution, that came by touching dead bodies, is abolished by the Incarnation of our Sauiour Christ: but that they should bee worshipped and adored, with so much superstition and Idolatrie, after this incarnation; there is in it neither precept of it, nor example: though wee read in it the death and buriall of Saint Iohn Baptist, of Saint Steuen and others: on the contrary, this distinction of reliques before and after the Incarnation, is repugnant to the Scripture, and destroyeth it selfe: First of all; the holy persons, which dyed in the faith of the Messias, were [Page 97] freed as well from the curse of the law, as they that are dead since the preaching of the Gospell; and therefore God vouchsafed himselfe to burie the bodie of Moyses; and the death of the saints were precious in his sight, Deut. 3 [...] Psal. 11 [...] Psal. 34 [...] he kept all their bones, & not so much as one of them perished, as Dauid sung of his time. Moreouer the bones of Helizeus, raysing vp a dead bodie, 2. King [...] wrought one of the greatest mjracles that is, and therefore his bodie wee should well beleeue to bee freed from the slauerie of Sathan, whose slaue as then, all humane nature was, if we beleeue the Bishop of Eureux; not knowing or fayning not to know, that Iesus Christ is the same, yesterday, Heb 13 [...] Reuel. 1 [...] 1. Pet. 2 [...] and to day; That the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the worlde, did alwayes wash and sanctifie the faithfull by his blood: And the Ceremoniall pollusion might well be done away, by this extraordinarie testimonie, that God rendered to his Prophet after his death, notwithstanding the inclination that this people had then to Idolatrie: yet did they neuer abandon themselues to such brutishnesse, as to worship bones and ashes; onely the Egyptians were capable of this madnesse, who for to heale themselues of the bytings of Serpents, worshipped the Sepulchre of Ieremiah, that was stoned to death in that Countrey; an adoration worthie of them, that worshipped all sortes of hearbes, beastes, fishes, and monsters. Secondly, whereas according to the Doctours of the Romish Church, the soules of the Fathers of the olde Testament went into Limbo, which they say to be a place without paine; They send the soules of the faythfull after the incarnation of Christ, into Purgatorie, there to suffer the verie same torments as are in Hell, saue that they last not; whence may bee inferred, that the humane nature is more polluted now at this day, then it was in olde time; and that since the time that the blood of Iesus Christ was really shedde on the Crosse, [Page 98] and all the mysterie of our redemption actually accomplished, there is found therein lesse vertue and efficacie to purifie them, than was before. Thirdly, I demaund, why the Patriarkes, since they were freed from that seruitude of Sathan, are not called vppon in the Romish Church? Or if all those that dyed before the incarnation of Christ, haue remained the slaues of Sathan; why did the Emperour Arcadius giue the same honour to the bones of Samuell, Lector. Niceph. [...]. 10. [...]ont. making them be transported from Iudea into Thrace, as to an Apostle? Why did no Bishop, no not the Bishop of Rome, oppose himself against that pollution? [...]p. 2. Wherefore was there euen Bishops, to beare the Shrine? Why doth Saint Ambrose, in the place cited by our Bishop, alleadge sentences out of the olde Testament, which speake of the care, which God had of them that deceased in that time, for to proue the worshipping of the Reliques of the Saints, deceased vnder the new testament, if the difference be so great between the one and the other? Why doth S. Hierom confounde the Reliques of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, with the bodie of Moyses? [...]ig. & [...] Sanct. 3. To conclude, why doth Bellarmine conclude, by the myracle wrought by Helizeus, that God would haue them bee worshipped? What becommeth heere of the difference betweene the abhominable and polluted carions, vessels of filthinesse and vncleanesse, organs & instruments of Sathan, so du Perron calleth the bodies of the antient Saints; [...] 20 p. 2. and betweene the darlings of Christ, sweet smelling sacrifices, seats, vessels and future temples of the Godhead, as he calleth them of the new testament? which might suffice, [...] 2. without adding Victorious ouer the diuel and hel, by their martyrdom: But Iesus Christ, to whō alone belongeth this glorie, to haue vanquished the Diuell and Hell, by his martyrdome, must as well (with him) be spoyled of his title, for to inuest therewith the bones of the dead; as the Scripture of his perfection, for to inuest therewith Tradition; which in stead of a worde or two, [Page 99] that the Scripture teacheth, concerning the combate of the Angell against the diuel, for the body of Moyses; reciteth vnto vs very amply the combate of S. Denis, Annal. Franc. [...] of S. D [...] and of some other Saints, against the diuell, for the soule of King Dagobert, which they plucked from him, for that this king had beene greatly deuoted to the said saint, robbing others, to enrich him. Also it telleth vs the good turne Saint Laurence did to the Emperour Henrie; how that after his death, Alb [...]r [...] histor. S. [...]. 1. c. 36 [...] the Angell Michael ballanced his merits against his sinnes; the Diuell being readie to seaze on the soule as his owne, because it was found too light by a graine of merrite: the good Saint, subtilly cast into the Scale where the merits were, a golde Chalice; (note, that our Bishops graines were not grained in those dayes) for to make it weigh downe. Yea, it assureth vs by the mouth of a Pope, that can not lie, Greg. d [...] l. 3. c. 12. nor erre; That sillie Priestes haue done as much or more wonders, then the Scripture reciteth of the Archangel; causing the soules of them that were alreadie dead, and carryed away of Diuels, to come againe; yea, employing in this Commission the Angels themselues, as Sergeants to bring them backe againe, and represent them. And with such foppish tales of their Tradition, as well absolute, as subsidiarie, one might make great volumes. It sufficeth to note herein a word; that all that which both the Traditions tell vs of Saint Michael; is borrowed from the Fables, which the heathen Poets haue fayned of their Mercurie; whose wings, sworde, ballance, (for after Diodorus, Mercurie is the inuenter of weights and measures) and almost all his office, it seemeth, that the Priests Saint Michael hath inherited.
I said, That the Popes gaue licence to themselues to tread vnder feete the greatest dignities of the earth, of kings & emperors, which those against whō S. Iude speaketh in his Epist. neuer did: to which he answeth, that the [Page 100] Greekes interprete this word (Dignities) in this place, not of secular dignities, but of Ecclesiasticall, and conferre this place with that of the thrid Epistle of S. Iohn, where he complayneth of the insolencie of Diotrephes: And therupon he addeth, that it is for me to bethinke my selfe, how to acquite me of this Article, &c.
Oecumenius, from whom he taketh his conjecture, vnderstandeth by this word, [...] (Dignities) the old and new Testament, [...] 3. [...]5, [...] which interpretation, hee confirmeth by the place of Saint Paule, where he saith, If that which is abolished, was full of glorie, or dignitie, how much more glorious, or worthy, is that which is permanent? By this reckoning, and by the testimony of the same warrant the Bishop bringeth all the curses and execrations, which the Apostle S. Iude pronounceth, are to fall vpon their heads, that blaspheme the Scripture of vnsufficiencie and imperfection, that is, which blaspheme the old and new Testament. Let him see if his Mytre be of proofe against these Apostolical fulminatiōs, which are of another manner of temper, than those of his Iupiter Vatican. For to diuert himself from these yrksome thoughts, he gathereth certaine flowers out of Luthers booke against king Henry the eight, and thinketh to couer therwith al the indignitie & out-rage, that euer the most impudent Pope or Monke, did to Prince or Emperour; either to tread them vnder-feet, as was the Emperour Frederick the first. Or to poison them, as was the Emperour Henry the seuenth. Or to chaine them and tye them like Dogges vnder their tables, as a Duke of Venice was vsed; Or to cannonize for saints the Parricides or murtherers of them, [...] the [...] and [...]le tre [...]ose hel [...] [...]custs [...]ere [...]o exe [...] as of late were the murtherers of Henry the third king of France, and William of Nassaw Prince of Orange: Or to stirre vp dayly against them newe Parricides and murtherers, as they often did against the late Queene of blessed memorie, Elizabeth; which the most shameles calumniator cannot reproach Luther, so [Page 101] much as to haue thought of; Or to raise and inuent new leagues and seditions, for to ouer-flow all Christendome with blood, &c.
Of all these goodly practises of the Apostolike tradition, not of Saint Iude the seruant of Christ, but of Iudas, the betrayer of Christ; the Byshop of Eureux esteemeth, that the Church of Rome is not tyed to yeelde an accompt: For, saith he, it is not to you, fol. 132. that shee is to answere for her actions in this regard. O insoluble Argument, and ineuitable demonstration, worthy the expected hatte, which such an Aduocate hath reason to demaund, that it may blush for him.
There remaineth the last Instance, taken out of the same Epistle, touching the Prophecie of Henoch, wherof mentiō hath been made aboue, & the reason, declared why the Apostle proueth not by scripture, the point in question, namely, because they, whom he discribeth in this Epistle, as manifest contemners of Iesus Christ; would haue made as little accompt of the Scripture; so that it was more to purpose, to alleadge a judgement, described & witnessed euē by the heathē; for these profane persons, hauing some remnant of shame left in them, could not haue denied and reiected, that which was confessed and acknowledged, as well by strangers as by them of the Church. Now it hath been often sayde vnto him, that none of his Instances is receiuable, for to shew the imperfection of the Scripture, vnles he bring forth Instances vpon some points necessarie to saluation, whereof is not found any proofe in the Scripture. It hath beene shewed him aboue, that this Article of the vniuersall judgement, is found in Moses, and by measure as the light of the world approched and drew neere, the doctrine, as well of this Article, as of all others, hath beene more cleerely expressed, though the contentious neuer see this light. A blind-man seeth as little the light and brightnes of the Sunne at noone-day, as that of the [Page 102] morning star: It is not for the cōtentious but against thē, that the Scripture is writtē; & those spirits y t seeke issue of all the proofes of the same, shall in the end finde entrance into hell: To such Spirits we say, that which the Scripture teacheth: If any lust to be contentions, we haue no such custom, [...]. 11.16 [...]39. neither the churches of God. But at least saith he, though there shold be nothing like to it expressed in the Scripture, or that the books that contained somthing of it were lost, as diuers other writings of the Prophets; yet this Oracle would not haue lost her authoritie, nor ceased to be the word of God, and Doctrine worthy of faith. In very truth, if all the Scripture were lost, it were that which such as he, would wish more then any thing in the world; For then they would make vs beleeue goodly matters, seeing that notwithstanding this light of the Scripture, more resplendent now, then it hath beene these many ages before; they wold without blushing perswade vs, that their graines, Pictures▪ and other like fopperies, are meanes for to attaine to saluation are helps of the blood of Iesus Christ, as wel as their Traditions are supplies of the Scripture. But if Bellarmine speaking of what was to be doone, [...]oncil. lib. [...]. for the election of a Pope; if in case all the Cardinalls should perish at once; affirmeth, that it is vnlikely euer to happen: Truely wee haue more reason to hope and firmely to beleeue that Iesus Christ, who as the Bridegroome, hath ioyned to himselfe the Church with an indessoluble band, will preserue for her also the contract of mariage, the Indenture of the Couenant, more necessarie to the Church, than the Cardinals to the conclaue: And so, as that Antichrist with all his wiles & endeuours, shall neuer be able to abolish it, no more than could in times past, his predecessor, or his figure King Antiochus. The Byshoppe of Eureux by this hypothesis, doth hee not confesse, that if the Church, which ought to bee the gardian of the Scriptures, should loose them; it should erre greatly? [Page 103] And if Saint Iohn pronounceth so fearefull a curse against those that adde thereunto, or dimish there-from; what should become of them, who hauing charge to keepe it, should let it wholy be lost, and should imagine neuertherlesse. that they cannot erre? But when all the rest should bee lost. by what speciall priuiledge, should this Epistle of Saint Iude be saued, which by reason of the shortnesse of it, might bee lost with the first?
As for the writings of the Prophets, that haue beene lost, when hee hath answered the place of Saint Augustine, aboue alleadged; we shall see what shall bee meet to reply thereto. Aug. de ci [...] Dei. l. 18. In the meane while hee persisteth in his trifling impertinences, to alleadge vnto vs still the authoritie of our Doctors, who doe not alwayes agree in the exposition of all places, though they alwayes agree in the doctrine of all the pointes of Saluation: That were good, if wee held them in the same degree, as they of his Church doe their Popes; all whose Expositions notwithstanding, they doe not alwayes receiue without exception, but are constrained to shift them off by this distinction: That they speake sometimes as Popes, and sometimes as Doctours, and that in the latter qualitie they may be deceiued in doctrine; That is to say, it is then, they deceiue themselues most, when they assay to performe some part of their Office, that is, to teach; yea, were they Apostles. Nowe I demaund of our Byshop, whether hee had rather condemne Cardinall Bellarmine, who holdeth with Saint Hierome, Saint Augustine and all Antiquitie; De verbo [...] l. 8. c. 18. that this allegation of Saint Iude, was taken from an Apocrypha booke, (which moued many of the Ancients, to reiect this Epistle out of the Canon, as also doth Cardinall Caitan: than alone to maintaine, that it commeth from some other principle of faith, and word of God, for to retaine this wretched pretext, to calumniate the [Page 104] Scripture of Imperfection, and vnsufficiencie?
He reprocheth me that I vnderstand not this maxime; Singularium non est scientia; saying, that it is not true, but in respect of humane sciences, [...] 40. not of Diuinitie, wherein particular things may come in as the obiect of the same, seeing that the most part of the Articles it teacheth, are particular points; as the Natiuitie, death, and whatsoeuer we beleeue els of the humanitie of Christ, &c. But doth it follow therfore, that we ought or that we can know euery particular thing, said, or done, cōcerning euery one of these particular points; seeing the world it self were not able to containe them, as Saint Iohn saith? [...]. 21. Now he vnderstood well enough, in what sense I alleadged this Schoole Maxime: but hee could not loose occasiō of cauilling vpon the differēce of Singularium & Singulorū, not considering the ierk he giueth his Master Thomas Aquinas, who in the beginning of his Summa, taketh these two tearmes indifferētly: [...]. 1. [...]. And one that hath as much leasure as he might shew him, that he vnderstādeth not so much cunning in Phylosophy, as he maketh shew of, whē he saith, that natural discourse cānot apprehēd necessarily & infallably, any particular or singular propositiō: For if that be true, the vnderstanding knoweth not it own action, whē it reasoneth or discourseth, which is euer of a particular thing: and cannot compare the vniuersall with the singular, neither make abstraction of the one from the other, if it know not both the one and the other; nor discerne the time past, from the time to come; nor things past, from things to come, which are particulars; nor judge of the one, by the knowledge of the other.
To the place of Saint Iohn, which wee are wonte to alleadge, for the sufficiencie of the Scripture; He answereth. [...]. 20, 31. [...]142. 1. That it is not in any sort spoken there of the doctrine, but of the signes, neither of the sufficiencie of instruction, but of the efficacy of perswasion. 2. That though they pronounce (haec) should comprehend all that Saint Iohn wrote, the argument [Page 105] would be much worse; for then should not be spoken, in any sort, of the sufficiencie of the things written; but onely of the ende wherfore they are written. To this I say, that we denie not, that this Pronoune (haec) is vnderstoode of the miracles, of which Saint Iohn speaketh in the verse going afore. But we maintaine that it cannot bee with such a restriction to myracles, as inferreth an exclusion of doctrine; for as much as this worde (Miracle) being a Relatiue, cannot be vnderstoode, but by his Correlatiue which is doctrine: For myracles are the signes and seales of Doctrine. Therefore Analogie or proportion requireth, that though Saint Iohn had sayde at length, (haec signa) yet neuerthelesse therin is iointly also ment doctrine, of which they were signes; by reason of the perpetuall and necessarie relation of the one to the other: and therefore if the miracles or signes whereof he speaketh be suff [...]cient; the doctrine is so also, which is sealed and confirmed by those miracles. And therefore these meanes are not of so different kindes as our Bishop saith, And seeing he graunteth that the Scripture conteyneth suff [...]ciently the signes or miracles, for to perswade vs with efficacie, all that is needefull to life eternall; he must needes grant also, that it conteyneth suff [...]ciently also the doctrine, which is the thing signified; seeing that Corralatiues concurre in the definition of their Relatiues, and cannot be vnderstoode the one without the other. Furthermore, we beleeue, that whosoeuer is effectually perswaded, is sufficiently instructed, in the knowledge of saluation; which consisteth not in euident demonstration, which the vnderstanding of the naturall man comprehendeth, for there be some that are sufficiently instructed, that vnderstand all pointes of doctrine, and are able to discourse of it with admiratiō to the hearers, who notwithstanding are not effectually perswaded, but remaine Epicures and Atheists within. In a worde, [Page 106] the difference he putteth betweene Sufficiencie, and Efficacie, can be none other, but that which the Philosophers put betweene that they call Actum primum, & Actum secundum: habitude, and operation, or actuall exercise. What fonde subtiltie is this then, to grant that which is greater, namely; effectuall perswasion, (that is to say, to saluation, otherwise it were no efficacie) and to denie the sufficient instruction, which is lesser euerie way? To end this controuersie, I offer him an Arbitrer, which he cannot honestly refuse, though it were in qualitie of a Iudge; I meane Cardinall Baronius, whose wordes are these: Saint Iohn hauing recited these things, [...]. tom. 1. [...]r: 34. [...]10: finisheth his Gospel, omitting, as himselfe testifieth, many things: For that which he wrote, seemed vnto him, to suffice, as well for to establish the TRVTH OF THE GOSPELL, as for to REPROVE HERESIES, for which causes Saint Hierome and others do witnesse, that he tooke in hand to write this Gospell: Doth the Euangelicall truth containe miracles onely? The Sermons of Christ, his expositions of the Law, and confutations of the opinions of the Pharisies, which the Euangelists recite of him; and in a worde, all his doctrine which they set downe, are they things contrarie, or not belonging to the truth of the Gospel? Hence is apparent, that our Bishops modification, wherewith hee endeuoureth still to cloake his blasphemie of insufficiencie, in restrayning it to the confutation of Heresies, first is vaine and fraudulent; for as much as hee is constrayned to confesse, that manie poynts necessarie for the simplest lay-man, are not conteyned in the Scripture, and notwithstanding, a simple lay-man is not bound, to be able to confute all Heresies: Secondly, it is disprooued manifestly by the decision of Cardinall Baronius, who declareth the Scripture to bee sufficient, euen for to confute Heresies, and putteth in our handes this Argument for to ouerthrowe his [Page 107] two first Episcopall answeres: that which seemed sufficient to Saint Iohn, for to establish the truth of the Gospell, and to confute Heretickes; conteyneth a simple and absolute sufficiencie for the matters of our saluation: But the Writinges of the Gospell, seemed such vnto Saint Iohn: therefore they contayned a simple and absolute sufficiencie for the matters of our saluation.
His third answere is; That though Saint Iohn should speake of the sufficiencie of that which he wrote, yet should that bee referred to one Article onely, which is, to make vs beleeue that Iesus is that Christ. And whereas it is replyed vnto him, that it is the Epitome, and substance of the Articles necessarie to saluation: he hath recourse to his distinction of Mediate and Immediate sufficiencie so industriously set downe at the beginning of his Booke, In the [...] cation [...] title. and by vs examined and confuted in a Treatise by it selfe: yet distrusting the force of this distinction, hee addeth another, distinguishing sufficiencie into Authoritatiue and doctrinall, and depriuing the Scripture of the latter, fol. 14 [...] of fauour granteth it the first. Let vs note herein two fraudes; the first in that hee presupposeth, that St. Iohn spake but of that, which he himself only had written; in stead of referring his words to all the Euangelicall historie, written before by the other three Euangelists: St. Iohns scope in his writings, as all the fathers doe witnesse, being onely to make a supplie, for a more expresse declaration of the Godhead of the sonne of God, because of the Heretikes, that then denied it: and to confirme and seale by his testimonie, Tert. d [...] c. 17. Hier. d [...] Ecl in and Apostolike authoritie the Canonicall bookes of the new Testament, because of certaine writings supposed and attributed to Saint Paul, by some of his Disciples and followers themselues. Wherevnto hath relation that horrible threatning, which he set as a heauenly seale, to [Page 108] his booke of the Reuelation, for a shutting vp of the new Testament. The other fraud is to dispute, in what sense this proposition is sufficient, or not: as if neither Saint Iohn, nor all the other Writers of the newe Testament, had written any thing else but these words only: Iesus is that Christ, that Sonne of God, without adding any other proofe or explication, without any other Hystorie, or doctrine whatsoeuer: a fraude most necessarie for his desperate Cause, giuing him occasion in appearance, to heape vp a great number of wordes to fill vp paper, or rather dust to cast into mens eyes. If so many things, as the Euangelists doe write, conteine not the meanes for to proue this proposition, and for to shewe plainly what Christ is; to wit, his two natures, and his three Offices; to what vse serue they then? how can a thing so vnsufficiēt in it selfe, make vs haue eternal life? If they containe but a part of the meanes and necessarie proofes, what reason was there, to set downe onely that part and to omit the principall? What reason was there, to make so many bookes, and to fill them with matters, which (to set foorth our Bishops opinion in one word,) serueth to no vse at all, seeing that euen that which is written cannot be vnderstood, without his subsidiarie Tradition? could any more shamefully defame the apostles and Euangelists? these Notaries and Secretaries of the holy Ghost, than in accusing them so manifestly of disloyaltie in their charge, of hauing suppressed and eclipsed essentiall and principall clauses in this instrument, which they haue framed and left, for to serue for the perpetual canon or rule to the christian Church? An accusation, that cannot redound, but vpon the holy-Ghost himselfe, by whose instinct and inspiration, they wrote, that which they wrote, for to serue to that ende and vse. Let vs conclude then, that this distinction: Authoritatiue not Doctrinall; is false and blasphemous, [Page 109] leauing to the sacred Scripture no other title, but of a Letter of credite, but of a memoriall, or direction, as hee himselfe saith, without containing the doctrine in it selfe, but in another: which is in effect, to dispoyle it as well of authoritie, as of doctrine, for to inuest the Pope with both in attributing vnto him authoritie to teach whatsoeuer doctrine he listeth; seeing they leaue Christians neither balance nor touch-stone to proue it, after they haue defamed the Scripture, whereby the men of Beroea, examined euen the doctrine of an Apostle, yea, Act. 17, [...] & that only by the scripture of the old Testamēt, wherin they found sufficiēcie of doctrine, as wel as of authority, for to judge thereof: Indeed the law is called by the Hebrewes (Thora) that is to say, doctrine: & the Gospel, [...], w c signifieth the same thing: But after the Doctrine of du Perro, it is a doctrin not doctrinal, as the blood of the Masse, is a blood, not bloody; that is to say, a Pyrrhoniā doctrine. Yet at the worst, though we shold euen admit this fond, false and outragious distinction, & that al the Scripture, were nothing else but a letter or credit, or as he saith, A memoriall, conteyning directions and tokens for to finde a Physitian, which is able to declare to euery on [...], Fol. 14 [...] all the necessarie remedies to cure his maladie: Yet he should get nothing for his Pope, nor for all his representatiue Church. For if a man looke well into this memoriall, if he take all the directions & obserue well the tokens, that it conteyneth, he shal not find therin one only iota, that directeth him to that magnificall Romane Hierarchie, for which onely our Aduocate pleadeth. If the Scripture did direct sicke persons to the Pope, as to the Soueraine Physitian, onely healing all diseases; then should these be the markes or tokens, that it should giue of him: An Idoll, beset with gold and precious stones, set vpon a high Throne, with three crownes vpon his head, a guilded Panto [...]le on his foote which hee giueth Kings and Emperours to kisse, being prostrate before [Page 110] him: Cardinalls round about him with red hattes, and scarlet roabes, representing the Senate of the auncient Rome: Many Byshops and Arch-byshops, mytred, in coapes and robes, and betrapped, as the subiect of the Comedie requireth: Innumerable legions of Priestes, Curates, Monkes, Fryars and Chanons, diuersified with sundry liueries, and dispersed as in Garrison, through all the prouinces of the Empire of that Beast. Indeede we finde, [...]al. 17. that the Scripture liuely prescribeth a certaine woman cloathed in purple and scarlet, bedecked with gold and precious stones, which it calleth great Babylon, the mother of the whoredomes and abominations of the earth, drunken with the blood of the Saintes and Martyrs of Iesus Christ. And this is the Physitian, to whom du Perrón, as one of his Apothecaries, directeth vs, for the healing of all our diseases; [...]. 13. because it is written; Who-Whosoeuer doth not worship this Beast, it shall put him to death.
True it is, that those she putteth to death, are better cured of their diseases, forsaking this body of sin, & resting from their laboures; [...]. 14.13. than those that drinke in the cup, wherewith this Physitian or rather Magitian, drencheth such as direct themselues vnto him.
Now that which hath been said, touching the text of S. Iohn, sufficeth also for to vnderstand the expositions of S. Augustine, S. Cyrill: the Bishop of Eureux bestirreth himselfe, & heapeth vp many words without matter, for to make them to be vnderstood of miracles, which is a thing not denyed; the knot of the question beeing, whether it bee with a restriction to miracles onely, and a totall exclusion of Doctrine: This is it, that we deny him, & this is it, that repugneth euen cōmon reason to speak of a signe so far forth as it is a signe, without referring it to the thing signified; of a relatiue without considering his correlatiue: y t is to say, to speake of the nature & Essence of a thing, without considering the nature and Essence [Page 111] of the same. Therefore without vsing many words as he doth; doe but obserue these words of S. Cyril: hee declareth the intentiō of the Gospel, as if he would rehearse, In Ioh. lib. C. 61. that which he wrote; For I haue published these thinges saith hee, that you might beleeue, and that in beleeuing you might haue life eternal. &c. And a little after. If the power of the Gospel, and the greatnes of the miracles, be sufficient to perswade, that the Sonne of the Virgin, who was called Iesus, by the voice of the Angel; is the same which the Scripture calleth Christ, and who is the Sonne of God, not as others, but properlye, and after a singular manner, euen after he was vnited to the humaine nature; it is certaine that they doe erre, which dare deny their Lord. Whence it manifestly appeareth, that after his opinion, Saint Iohn spake not of myracles onelye, but also of the Doctrine and force of the Gospell, which is the power of God vnto saluation to all that beleeue, Rom. 1. [...] from which force and power, if any seperate and exclude Doctrine, he hath more neede of Hellebore, then hee is capable of Doctrin. And therfore it were our Bishops part to shew, how miracles only without Doctrine, can be sufficient, as wel for manners, as for Doctrine, which is the sufficyencie, that Saint Cyrill attributeth vnto them in the place which himselfe citeth, but with cutting off this that followeth; To the end that shining in a right faith, Fol. 157. workes and vertue, we may attaine to the Kingdome of heauen, through our Lord Iesus Christ. Effects, which no miracles can euer bring foorth alone, without Doctrine. But here is the moste important point of the question: Hee saith, Though S. Augustin and S. Cyril should speake not of myracles onely, but shold say in expresse words, Fol. 158. that the Euangelists haue written sufficiently, whatsoeuer is necessary for vs to know of the deedes and sayinges of our Sauiour Christ, for our Saluation; Neuerthelesse it would not followe, that the things onelye, that Christ eyther did, or taught with his owne mouth, to his Disciples, are sufficient for the instruction of the Church. &c. And for proofe of this his resolution, hee alleadgeth [Page 112] this saying of Christ. I haue yet many things to tell you which you cannot beare now. [...] 97 A place, which as S. Augustine saith, the grossest Heretikes were woont to abuse, for to collour all their most abhominable inuentions. But see here the impudencie of our Byshop, who not content to blame the Scripture of vnsufficiencie and imperfection; spitteth his filthy blasphemies in the face of Jesus Christ himselfe, blasoning him to haue no more taught sufficiently by word of mouth his Apostles, thā his Apostles haue taught Posteritie by their writings: At least if the lye he giueth the Sonne of God, be somewhat couered in court-phrase, which hee braggeth he can speake so well; yet is it without curtesie, and without figure of Rhethoricke, that hee giueth the lye to this affirmation of the truth it selfe: I haue declared vnto you al things that I haue heard of my Father: [...] 15.15 Whence it would follow, that the heauenly Father himselfe, hath not perfectly, nor sufficiently instructed his sonne, the Eternall wisedome. Now to agree these two propositions; ( Iohn 15.15. and 16.12.) we need not haue recourse to that enallage of the time, [...] Ioan. [...] [...]6. as some of the Fathers haue, vnder collour that the Scripture speaketh some-time of thinges not yet done, as if they were already done; which the circumstance of the place, & the sequence of the Text, permitteth not in this place: But in the 16. chapter, whē our Sauiour saith, that his Disciples could not beare, that which he had to tell them; he hath respect to the sadnes & sorrow, which they were full of, as appeareth by the 22. verse, they remembred not what had beene already tolde thē, & were little disposed, to make their profite, of what they then presētly heard, for to prepare thēselues to their charge. And what? If Jesus Christ had hid from the Apostles themselues, some necessary pointes; how much more should he haue hid them from the other Disciples, and Auditours of the common people? of which consequently [Page 113] none could haue been saued, if he had died before the day of the Pentecost, before they had heard the new Articles of faith, which the holy Ghost began then, to reueile to the Apostles, of which Iesus Christ had neuer spokē vnto them? And this sentence of our Lord, concerning the Office of the holy Ghost: He shall teach you all things, and shall bring to your remēbrance al things that I haue said vnto you: shall be of no more weight with our Bishop than the other, for to make him confesse, that the holy Ghost taught no other doctrine thē that which the Disciples had alreadie heard of their master, though they had not well remembred, nor vnderstood all; for he had rather that the blame should remain on our Lord Christ, to haue taught but by halfes; then on the disciples, for not learning all well: though with all that he should get nothing for his Cabbala vnwritten, or written in fabulous Bookes, at least-wise if hee receyue this sentence of Saint Augustine, cited and approoued by his master Thomas Aquinas. Whatsoeuer Iesus Christ would that we should reade, of his deedes and sayings; he commanded his Disciples to write, as with his owne handes. To what purpose then is it to seeke that which is written else-where by others, though it were a true thing; seeing that Christ will not haue vs to reade it? And how much lesse that which is written in the golden Legend, in the Bookes de vita Christi, or other such fables?
He saith that Saint Augustine will haue vs acknowledge manie things in the writings of the Apostles, which our Sauiour Christ neuer told them, whilest he corporally conuersed with them, as among others this excellent doctrine; That there is in God a worde Escentiall and subsisting, by which all things were created. Beholde a notable vntruth! The wordes of Saint Augustine are these: In Ioh. [...] 96. Who is so vaine and rash, that though he should speake true things as he listeth, and to whom he will; dare affirme, without anie diuine testimonie, that they are the things which the Lord would [Page 114] not tell? Who among vs shall doe it, without incurring a most great fault of rashnesse, hee excelling neither in Propheticall, nor Apostolicall authoritie? For in verie truth, if we had read something, in the Bookes confirmed by Canonicall authouritie, which were written after Christs ascension, it were to little purpose to haue read it, vnlesse one reade therwithall, that it was of the number of the things, which the Lord would not tel then to his Disciples, because they could not beare it: as for example if I sayd, that this which we reade in the beginning of this Gospell; In the beginning was the word, and the worde was God, &c. Because this was written afterwardes, and is not recorded that our Lord said i [...], whilest he was here in the fl [...]sh, but one of his Apostles wrote it; Christ and his Spirit reuealing it vnto h [...]m: is of the number of those things, which the Lord would not say then, because that the Disciples could not beare them: who would heare me, saying that so rashly?
Thus you see Saint Augustine protesteth, that hee should incurre the fault of rashnesse, if he affirmed the thing which the Bishop of Eureux mainteyneth, that he affirmeth. Which is made manifest by these wordes, which this holy Father addeth in the same place a little after. Wherefore my welbeloued, thinke not to heare of me the things, which the Lord would not then tell his Disciples. And in the Treatise following, hee vnfoldeth at large this worde (beare:) shewing, how one and the same thing, pronounced before one and the same auditorie, at one same time, is well vnderstoode of some, and ill of others; yea is vnderstood of some, and of others not; because he that vnderstandeth amisse, vnderstandeth not at all: and of them that vnderstand it, some vnderstand it lesse, some more; and no man so well as the Angels; [...]. 13.9. because all men vnderstand but in part.
Besides this vntruth, it is to be noted, that the Bishop of Eureux, committeth the same Sophisme he imputeth to me; in taking our Sauiour Christes wordes, simplie and absolutely, which are sayd, Sec [...]undum quid, as [Page 115] we say; that is, for a certaine respect, namely of the present sadnesse and indisposition of the Disciples; Also for regard of the administration of their charge, full of dangers; and not for the substance of the doctrine.
He would faine in wrap me in contradiction, because I said in a place; That the old Testament conteyned the Gospell, or Christian doctrine: And in another, Fol. 16 [...] I say, that the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, contayned all the Christian doctrine; and that for this cause, Saint Paul exhorteth them, to obserue not onely that which he wrote vnto them; but also that which he taught by word of mouth: whence the Bishop of Eureux concludeth; that if the old Testament contained all, it was then superfluous, to bind them to the obseruation of the Tradition not written.
I answere, that neyther dooth the sufficiencie of the olde Testament, nor that of the newe, abolish or hinder the Ministerie of preaching: neither doe generall lawes and ordinances take away particular Expositions and applications: neither doth the substance of the Gospell conteyned in the olde Testament, Rom. 1 [...] as Saint Paul witnesseth, hinder a more ample reuelation in the new: Nor doth the sufficient declaration of all the Alticles of faith, exclude the ordinances which concerne pollicie, and the exterior order of the Church. Considering that one may say, that though there had beene alreadie some other writings of the new Testament, besides these two Epistles, directed to the Church of Thessalonica, yet it might so be, that they were not yet knowne, nor come into euerie place. And to confound the state of Churches springing, with the state of Churches founded and established by tract of time; is to reason, as men doe in an euill cause; by euill Logicke, in an euill conscience, which he here discouereth, as through all the rest of his Booke. To conclude, the question is, whether from this place; obserue the Traditions, which you [Page 116] haue receiued of vs, whether it be by word, or by our Epistle: One may conclude. 1. That the written word is not sufficient to Saluation. 2. That the Traditions the Apostle speaketh of, are of the substance of faith. 3 That they were not written since this Epistle. To the first I answere, no: because though the Doctrine, that Saint Paul deliuered by word of mouth to each particular Church, were more ample then that which is contained in each Epistle directed to these particuler Churches; yet doth it not followe but that all is written; For that which is not found in one Epistle, is found in another; Which importeth not, neither to them who had heard the Surplus from the Apostles mouth, nor to vs, who may see in other partes of the Scripture, that which is not contained in one. To the second I say, the Bishop of Eureux againe confoundeth the prediction of a thing to come, with Articles of faith: that is to say, Historie with Doctrine. To the third I say, that this same Historie, touching Antichrist is found written, though not in this same Epistle, nor by this same Author; but by S. Iohn in the Reuelation. These three wordes doe vnmix the Cahos of words hee had heaped together. Let the Reader note by the way, that in this Bishops iudgement, To yeelde thankes vnto God, for that he hath chosen vs to Saluation, [...] 68. in sanctification of the spirit, and in the faith of truth. &c. is not a Doctrine propounded to obserue.
Let vs see his last argumēt taken from the place wher Saint Paul recommendeth to Timothie, [...]m. 1.13. [...] 2. to keepe the true patterne of wholesome wordes, which he had heard of him: And to commit the things he had heard of him, in the presence of many witnesses, to faithful men, which are able to teach others; He concludeth thence, that all these consignements, transmissions and atestations had beene superfluous, [...] 170. and vnprofitable, if Timothie had heard nothing of Saint Paule, which could not be veryfied by the Scripture alone. I alleadged the exposition of Tertullian, who obserueth that the Apostle saith [Page 117] expresly (these things:) Tert. de p [...] script. that none imagine him to speak of any vnwritten Doctrine; but that they should refer it to the same Doctrine, which he had set downe in writing. He replyeth that this place of Tertullian is wrested without shewing by the least sillable, how, or wherein? Neither can he with all his sophistrie: For it is the proper exposition of the same place of the Apostle whereof he treateth; and the proper refutation of this glose of our Bishop, before inuented by the Hereticks, that were in Tertullians time. But seeing this father is not to his relish, let vs present him Saint Ambrose, who expoundeth it thus: The Apostle willeth, that hee commit the secrets to faithfull men and worthy, which were able to teach others, Ambr. [...] Tim. 2. not indifferently to common & negligent persons, For there must be a great care had in the choosing of a Doctor or Teacher. This is all S. Ambrose findeth in it, which is in summe: That Timothie, as hauing the charge of an Euangelist, should take heede whome hee chose for the teaching of the Gospell, Rom. 1 [...] 1. Cor. 1 [...] Eph. 1.9 [...] 3.4. which the Apostle in diuers places calleth mysterie, or secret. The Bishop of Eureux opposeth to the veryficatiō by scripture, the attestation of witnesses, as if they were thinges incompatible that cannot stand together; as if a thing witnessed by them that heard S. Paul speake, could not be verified by them that read his wrightings. As for the Patterne of wholesome words; if he oppose it also to the scripture; What wil follow of it, but that the wordes of the scripture, are not wholesome words? and I willingly confesse, that they be deadly, & the sauour of death to all Blasphemers. We neede but represēt his enthimenia in forme, for to shew the deformitie of it: Saint Paul referred Timothie to the wholesome wordes he had heard of him: Ergo, he referred him not to them he had written: Notwithstanding that in another place hee exhorteth him to reading; 1. Tim. [...] 2. T m. [...] 16.17 assuring him that the holy letters that is, the written words, are able to make him wise to Saluation, & perfectly instructed vnto euery [Page 118] good worke. He answereth to this last place; That they may instruct him to saluation, not immediatly and by them selues; but by meanes of the faith and beleefe they g [...]ue him in Jesus Christ; not by the internall fulnesse of their doctrine; but by the direction, and sending to an outward supplie, namely to Christ, and by Christ, to his Disciples. Or else; that they may instruct him in this speciall poin [...]; that saluation is by fayth in Christ Iesus: For Saint Paul speaketh but of the Scriptures of the olde Testament, &c. This is euer the burden of his song; That the Scripture hath no other sufficiencie, than a Letter of credite.
To confute these impertinencies as often as he bringeth them; were to goe about to make them be founde lesse impertinent. We neede but looke into the sixteenth verse following, to knowe what sufficiencie the Apostle attributeth vnto it, which he doth so particularly, so exactly, and so clearely; that there is no braine so credulous, or so blockish, that can beleeue the bearer of this fonde distinction; seeing how the internall fulnesse of the Scripture is represented therein, with the right vse thereof, which consisteth in teaching the true doctrine, [...]m. 3.16. in confuting the false; in instructing vs in good workes, and in reprouing and correcting the euil; That the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect vnto all good works. Let vs conferre this Text with the Perronian glose: The Scripture is giuen onely to serue vs for a memoriall, a Letter of credence, a direction to outwarde supplies, namely to Iesus Christ, and by him to his Disciples. That is to say, euerie one to his Curate: And it is but for this onely reason, that he maketh mention of Iesus Christ: For howe else should it direct men vnto Christ, seeing he teacheth no more with his owne mouth as he did when he was conuersant vpō earth? And though he should stil immediatly teach on earth, should we receiue sufficient instruction from him? No truly if we beleeue this Bishop, [...] 48. who boldly maintaineth that the things alone, [Page 119] which he did, or declared with his owne mouth to his disciples, are not sufficient for the instruction of the Church. Adde; nor free from Error, and by consequent of correction, as the Councell of Constance could well shew him, Con, Const. Sess. 13. tearming it rashnesse and presumption, to teach that Christiā people should obserue, that which Iesus Christ hath instituted; namely, to communicate the Lordes Supper in both kindes. Now I summon him to shewe how it can be that the Scripture serueth vs for a Letter of credence, for a memoriall, or direction to direct vs to the pretended Church; since that he and all our aduersaries maintaine, that it is for that Church to shew vs, and to authorise the Scripture, which without this testimonie should haue no more authoritie, nor credite, than Aesops Fables? What preposterous Methode is this, that giueth the Letter of credence to the bearer, that should receyue it of him? What can be more ridiculous? Can wee haue a more manifest proofe for to shewe, that his principall purpose is, to make the Scripture vnprofitable, and to bring it wholy to nothing?
Distrusting himselfe to be able to sustaine this same impertinencie, hee hath recourse to another shift, and sayth, That Saint Paul meaneth, Fol. 172. that the holie Letters, are able to instruct Timothie to this speciall point, that saluation is by fayth in Christ Iesus. This glose, as alreadie hath bin obserued, is ouerthrown by the two verses following, which represent the inward amplitude and fulnesse of the scripture, as well for doctrine as for maners. True it is that this point is the substance of the whole gospel; seeing that whosoeuer beleeueth, & hath faith in Iesus Christ, hath life eternal, & shal not come into iudgmēt, but hath passed frō death vnto life. And if the scripture did but barely propoūd this sentence only, Iohn. 3.24▪ without expoūding it, without declaring the causes, conditions, proprieties & effects of this faith; they would be some [Page 120] apparance to put forth this distinction, of Mediate and Immediate; which in this case is as receiuable as it is fond and blasphemous in that ample description of the end, vse, and whole office of the Scripture, which this place setteth forth vnto vs. And who will be so senselesse to maintaine, that the Scripture is not fit to doe the office, nor to attaine to the ende, whereunto God who inspired it, hath ordained it? Is it because it speaketh not of blessed graines and such like trinkets: But Saint Paul saith he, speaketh here of the Scriptures of the old Testament, for it was them that Timothie had learned from his childhoode, at which time, there was nothing of the new Testament written: And these Scriptures of the old Testament could not instruct Timothie immediately, and by themselues.
I answere, that the Apostle speaking of the childhood of Timothie, excludeth not the rest of his age; but sheweth that he speaketh of the whole time of his life, vntill then: So speaking of the Scriptures of the olde Testament, he excludeth not them of the new; for this tearme, Holy Scriptures, is generall; And to go about to exclude necessarily a Species, after the position of the Genus; is but bad arguing: To goe about to take away the name of holy Scriptures, from these two Epistles, which Saint Paul had then written to Timothie, and which at the least Timothie had read, besides the other writings of the new Testament, which perhaps he had also seene; is to commit blasphemie. But there needeth none other confutation of such Arguments, but the representation of their forme. Saint Paul maketh mention of the studie that Timothie made in his youth: Ergo he speaketh nothing at all of his studies made since. Item, Saint Paul saith, that Timothie learned the holie Sciptures: Ergo, he meaneth only the writings of the old Testament. And by consequent he meaneth not, that he should learne any thing of the writings of the new, nor yet of these two Epistles, which he had written to him of purpose, for to instruct [Page 121] him, how he should walke in the house of God, which is the Church of the liuing God, 1. T [...]m. 3▪ the pillar and foundation of truth.
Whereas I said, that the Romish Church, causeth an infinite number of thinges to be obserued, as the lawes of God, which we know by their owne histories to haue been instituted, many ages after the Apostles: he answereth two things. 1 That the practise of certaine poynts, is found haue beene in the Church a long time before them, which we imagine to be the inuentors of it (wherof he coteth afterwards seuen examples; namely, Prayer for the dead, Lent, Single life, Confirmation; the Mixture of water and wine, Consecrations of Altars, and the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Masse.) 2 That they confound not vnder the name of Apostolike Traditions, all the Customes obserued in the Church, but that they distinguish betweene the vniuersall and the particular; And that euen among the vniuersall, some onely are Apostolike, to wit, such as haue alwayes since the Apostles times beene vsed in the Church, but the other that haue beene ordained in latter ages, are Ecclesiasticall.
But the question is not howe they of the Romish Church distinstuish their Traditions. But by what authoritie, and power, they cause men obserue, as the lawes of God, and as necessarie to saluation, things that were not instituted by Christ, nor his Apostles? For those which they call Ecclesiasticall, and which by their owne confession, came not in vse, nor yet into knowledge, till many ages after the death of the Apostles; are not lesse, but much more rigorously commanded, then those which they call Apostolicall.
It shall suffice to verifie, and manifest this by one example: It is generally knowne, that the most solemne and most religious deuotion at this day in the Romish Church, is that which they call Gods feast or Corpus Christi day; to the obseruation wherof, Pope Vrban [Page 122] the 4. attributeth remission of sins, [...]lla [...]uck. which is the knowledge of saluation; according to the Gospel; And the number of pardons granted onely to the beholders of the same; is almost infinite: And whether wee consider the seueritie of Prelates in commanding it, and the magnificence in celebrating it; or the deuotion of the people, in preparing themselues thereunto; and the efficacie they imagine of it; We shall find, that it is a thing, that they pretend to be much more necessarie, and more diuine, than to say, Requiescant in pace, than to abstain from flesh and egges in Lent; or any other points of the pretended Apostolike Tradition: In the meane while, our Bishop himselfe, though he denie all, cannot denie that this deuotion was instituted, neer 12. hūdred years after the death of the Apostles; & if he denie it, Bellarmine wil reproue him, [...]acr. Euch. [...]. 30. who confesseth, that Pope Vrban 4. is the first authour of it. And no writer of the Romish Church denieth it, though they agree not all, touching the motiue of this institution. For some wil haue, that the cause of it was, a certaine miracle happened in Italie of a Wafer cake that bled, as a certaine Priest doubting of Transubstantiation helde it in his handes: Others attribute it to a woman of the country of Liege, whom the said Pope had familiarly knowne; before his Popedome, and who hauing giuē the Pope to vnderstande, a Vision or Reuelation, that she had, touching the institutiō of this Feast; he streight ordayned it, and celebrated it first at Rome: And afterwards Clement the fift made a most rigorous law concerning it; confirmed euen by the Councill of Ʋienna. Hereupon I demaund our Bishop, to what vse is his distinction that he maketh betweene Apostolike and Ecclesiasticke Traditions, seeing that these latter are commaunded for as much or more necessarie, meritorious and diuine, as the former? Againe, I demaund to what purpose hee taketh so much paines for to shewe that certaine things are verie auncient, seeing there bee [Page 123] newer and latter things, which haue more authoritie, necessitie and efficacie, than the olde; And seeing it is sufficient, that some Pope hath ordained a thing, without enquiring of the antiquitie or noueltie of the same? For the Pope now a daies attributeth as much, yea much more power and authoritie to himselfe, than they, did that were seauen or eight hundred yeares agoe; and requireth no lesse, but much more obedience, in that which at this day he commaundeth, than in that which his predecessours commaunded a thousand yeares ago: For as before the God of heauen, a thousand yeares are as one day; so before this God on earth, one day is as a thousand years, when there is question to make himself be obeyed: Yea, the time hath been, when Popes thought they could not well establish their owne lawes, vnlesse they did abolish the lawes of their predecessors: that is, vnlesse they displanted Antiquitie to plant in noueltie. Moreouer, if euerie thing that concerneth saluation, as those doe that bring remission of sinnes: ought to bee grounded on the worde of God, either written or vnwritten, as he graunteth, and presupposeth throughout his Booke: By what conscience could the Popes institute this newe meanes of saluation, with manie other, in which number are our Bishops graines? If the worde of God be onelie found, either in the Canonicall Scripture, or in the pretended Apostolike Tradition conteyned in the writings of the ancient fathers; doth it not follow, that that which is found in neither of both these two Registers; is by his owne confession the worde and inuention of man? And therefore a vaine thing and displeasing to God, by Iesus Christ his owne sentence. Math. 15.
But let vs heare Bellarmine on this poynt: De Verb. [...] l. 4. c. 9. Nothing is of the faith, but onely that which God hath reuealed by the Apostles, or by the Prophets; or that which is euidently deduced from it: For the Church is no more gouerned by newe Reuelations, but persisteth in them, which those men, that [Page 124] haue beene Ministers of the word, haue giuen by Tradition; For therefore it is said, Ephe. 2. Builded vpon the fo [...]ndation of the Prophets and Apostles. Wherefore all the thinges, which the Church holdeth to be matters of faith, haue been giuen by the Apostles and Prophets, eyther by writing, or by word of mouth. After he addeth: When the whole Church obserueth something, that none could institute but onely God, and which notwithstāding is foūd no where writtē; We must say, it was giuen by the Traditiō of Iesus Christ himself, and of his Apostles; The reason is, for that the vniuersall Church cannot erre, not onely in that which it beleeueth, but as little in that which it dooth, and principally in CEREMONIE, or Diuine worship.
Let vs conclude then by the confession of this great Rabbi, who acknowledged, that this ceremonie of Corpus Christi day, was instituted, well neere 1200. yeres after the Apostles, by Pope Vrbane 4. the first Author thereof; (vnlesse the Bishop of Eureux being a Courtier had rather giue the glorie of it to a Lady, to that Nunne of Leige, who had first this reuelation.) that the Church; that the pretended head of the church, who let himselfe be gouerned by a new reuelation, or by an olde Nunne, hath erred and caused all them to erre, that haue receiued of him this new Ceremonie, this new Diuine worship, this new meanes, yea ground of Saluation, and of blessednes, [...]. 1.2. which consisteth in the remission of sinnes: Or else that the Church afore that time that had doone nothing of it, beleeued nothing nor heard of it, for the space of twelue hundred yeares after Christ; hath erred, as well in that which it did, as in that which it beleeued, at least wise touching this point of the Eucharist, which it honoured not, after the manner set downe in the third booke of the ceremonies of the Romish Church, of which māner he that will confer it with the ceremonies sometimes obserued by the heathen in honour of Isis, of the Syrian Goddesse, of Diana, of the Persians fire &c. shall finde out the true originall of it, and an antiquitie [Page 125] more auncient, than any Apostolke Tradition is.
These are the ragges, wherwith our Gaboanites doe ordinarily decke their Antiquitie, which their owne writers freely confesse; witnesse Cardinall Baronius, who saith, That it was to good purpose ordained; that the ceremonies or seruices, which belonged to the Pagan superstition, Annal. tom. 2. ad [...] chr. 200. shold be sanctified by the worship of the true God, for to bee employed in the worship of the true [...] Religion.
Now the Bishop of Eureux, insteed of continuing his reply to my answere, touching the foure pointes, that we holde with them of the Romish Church; which are the truth of the Baptisme of little Children: that of the Baptisme of Heretickes: the proceeding of the holye Ghost from the Father & from the Sonne; and the translation of the feast of the Sabaoth day to Sunday; which Articles hee had alleadged as not hauing anye ground in Scripture; instead, I say of answering to my reasons by which I shewed the contrarie: hee goeth no further, and after hee had consumed wel nigh, foure yeares, in seeking replyes, to the three or foure first leaues of my booke; hee leaueth the matter in question, and taketh another course, finding it an easier worke, to cause to bee written out by one of his Acolythes, or Parasites, many places of the Fathers, all alreadie gathered and aranged, in Bellarmine, Baronius, and others; vppon the seauen pointes aboue quoted, which it pleased him to choose; then to seeke in his owne braine new cauilations, that hee might ridde himselfe of so many sound proofes drawne foorth of the Scripture, which shewe the perfection and sufficiency of the same, in that which is necessarie for vs to beleeue, touching these foure pointes alleadged by him, rather for to prooue his own imperfection, and vnsufficiencie, then that of the Scripture. And although it were no more difficult for me then for him, to choose out of the same fathers, & to oppose as long a list of places, wholy incompatible, and vnreconcileable [Page 126] with them he produceth, as aboue I haue done on like occasions; and to shewe besides that, the di [...]simili [...]tude that there is between some things which particular persons in the time of the aunciēt church obserued in all liberty, as indifferent; and with the Church of Rome, commaūdeth & exacteth at this day with an extream cruelty: Between those things that the one did by forme of remēbrance, & acknowledgement, & with the other doth for merit, and for works of supererogation. I could shew the B. of Eureux his mallice, in disguising the intention of the Fathers, in mixing and confounding their Historicall recitalles, with their Doctrines; Customes, with Lawes; vndiscreete deuotions, and manifest superstitions, whereof they complained, with diuine institutions, The sufferance and conuenience of the Church, with the approbation of the same. Though it were, I say, easie for me, to shewe all these thinges: Notwithstanding, seeing it were out of the center of my subiect, I will not imitate that my selfe, which I blame in my aduersarie, who as well heere as else where sheweth, that hee hath no other drift nor recourse, then to obscure the principall, by a thicke & darke cloud of incidents, in the gathering whereof he very well practiseth that which Iraeneus saith of the Gnostickes of his time, [...]. c. 2. who taking the places of Scripture heere and there and wresting them for to giue colour to their blasphemies, his holy Father compareth them to those, that after they had vndone and dissolued the figure of a King, made all of Precious Stones, would make of the same Stones the figure of a Dogge, or a Fox, for to make men beleeue, that it was the same figure of the King made by the first workeman: Or to those who making Centons, or mingle mangle of many matters, culled out of Homers verses, vppon a Subject, that the Poet neuer dreamed of, would perswade the jgnorant, that Homer himselfe treated of [Page 127] that Subiect.
Whereas he saith, that the instances whereupon wee contended, the first day wee saw each other, were the same, whereof he frameth these seauen common places wherwith he filleth his Book: I answer, that it is false, for of all the pointes that hee treateh, there was spoken onely of Prayer for the dead, and that by occasion of the Lady, who had newly lost her husband, & was fully disposed to receiue his impressions: Whereupon as I said, after some other reasons, that this custome of praying for the dead, had neither example, nor commaundement, nor promise in Scripture; we were straightwaies carried on general different of the sufficiencie, or vnsufficiencie of the scripture; as himself confesseth. The Instance whereupon wee moste contended, the first and second day of our conference, was the Popes supremacie, which I maintained to bee recent, and new, and by no meanes could bee deriued from the Apostles, nor prooued by the Fathers, in the forme and manner, as at this day we see it: during which disputation, it hapned that the Bishoppe of Eureux for to shew the contrary alleadged S. Gregorie, who saith, Epist, [...] Epist, 6 I knowe not what Bishoppe is not subiect to the Apostolicall seate. Thereupon I required him to proceed with that which followed: for he had the book open before him, & read therin this sentēce, so well, that not being able to excuse himselfe from finishing out the place, which he would haue cut off, he was cōstrained to ad these words which immediately follow; Whē there is no fault that requireth it, to wit this subiectiō to the censures: all Bishops are equall according to the reason of humilitie. As I noted to the standers by, this ingenious Eclypse; He replyed, that there was no fraud, seeing that none of that made against him: I answered that thereby it would follow that hee who was a Bishop, was equal to the Pope and euerie other Bishop vnattainted, or conuinced of notorious [Page 128] crime: He was forced to graunt it mee: But when I requested further, that he would giue me this proposition in wrighting signed by him; hee would not heare of it; no more then he found it fitte to insert this question, in the number of the seauen that he treateth.
There was also spoken of the institution of Monkes, of their rules and ceremonies; specially of the Charter-house Monkes; which instance importuned him much, finding neither canall, pipe, nor deuise whatsoeuer that could make to flowe forme apostolick traditiō, that Angelicall perfection, whereof the Charterous and other Monks do boast. In this altercatiō, he said diuers things so enormous, and contrary euen to the Doctrine of the Romish Church, that if they had been set downe in writing, as I moste instantly required; wee should haue a goodly mirror of Theology, or rather Pyrronian Technologie. And seeing hee then rather chose to breake off the conference, then graunt mee this iust request; Hee shall permitte mee also to finish rather heere this answere to his reply, then to wander with him from our principall question, for to extrauagte vppon the new Instances, that hee propoundeth besides the purpose: Considering also that before the treating of them after the methode that hee obserueth, and requireth; namely, by the onely authoritie of the Fathers, without any testimonie, consequence, or analagie of Scripture; these questions were to be handled.
I. Whether controuersies ought to be decided by the writinges of Fathers?
II. Who gaue them that authoritie, seeing themselues neuer haue acknowledged nor demaunded it?
III. Whether, if it were true that the visible Church cannot erre; this same priuiledge appertaine to euerie Doctor or particular Bishop of the Church?
IV. If it belong onely vnto some, by what workes we shall discerne these infallible ones, from others?
[Page 129]V. Vpon what ground is builded our Bishops distinction, that the fathers may erre in quality of doctors and Bishops; but not in qualitie of Witnesses: seeing that by this meanes, one part of their writings, is manifestly made equall to the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, to whome onely, by speciall prerogatiue, belongeth this qualitie or title of Witnesses irreprochable and without exception, Luk. 24.4 [...] Act. 18. [...] 15. &. [...] in that which concerneth the points of our Saluation? For though Antipas, and other Christians are called faithfull witnesses of Christ; Reu. 2.1. This testimonie hath onely reference to their constant confession of the Truth, in the midst of torments, not for to make authenticall vnto vs any point of doctrine: Otherwise all the Martyrs should be made equall to the Apostles, who were chosen, instructed, and sent immediatly by our Lord Christ, and all that the Fathers haue written, as Witnesses, should be incerted into the Canon of the scripture, for to make it an entire Rule, seeing that after Bellarmine, the Scripture is but a Rule partiall, De verbo L. 4. c. 12 not totall. Yea, the very Treatise of the vnsufficiencie of the Scripture; if our Bishop haue not written it as a false Witnesse, and if all that which containeth Truth, is (as he maintaineth) armed with Canonicall authoritie, should be added to the Scripture, as an excellent peece of worke, and singular ornament of the same.
VI. Wherefore the Romish Church hath chaunged, reformed, censured and abolished so many things, which the Fathers reported as Witnesses, concerning the ceremonies and pollicie of the ancient Church, and which they teach as Bishops and Doctors, in expounding the holy Scripture; which expositions, are nothing else, according to the saying of the Bishop of Eureux, but the Subsidiarie Tradition, without which the bare text of the Scripture is vnprofitable, not being able to be vnderstoode; or dangerous, not being well vnderstood? And of such reformations, censures, and abolishments, [Page 130] we will produce when neede shall be, innumerable Instances: Meane-while the deposition of Cardinall Baronius shall suffice, a witnesse yet liuing, and who is worth many others, both for his learning and for his dignitie. [...]l. Eccl. [...]1. ad aen. [...]4. impres [...]nt. These are his wordes: All the Bishops that haue succeeded the Apostles, haue not attained the meaning and vnderstanding of the Scriptures, neither hath it beene necessarie they should alwayes haue excelled in this grace. For the Catholike Church followeth not alwayes, nor in all things, euen the MOST HOLY FATHERS, whom we rightly call the Doctors of the Church, because of their excellent doctrine, though it be manifest, that they be induced with this grace of the holy Ghost, aboue others. See here the Subsidiarie Tradition, planted by our Bishop, supplanted and cut downe to the verie rootes, by the Axe of this Cardinall, the Popes Librarie keeper. But dooth hee leaue at leastwise to the ancient Fathers this dignitie of vnfallible and irrefragable Witnesses? As little truly, contrariwise hee exceedingly reiecteth this outragious flatterie, [...]. 1. ad an [...]39. [...]22. when he saith, The Actes of the Apostles written by Saint Luke, deserueth more credit, then any authoritie of the Ancients. Yea, he confesseth not onely, that many things haue bene falsly attributed to the Apostles, but also, that those things which true and sincere Writers haue reported, [...]n. chr. 44 [...]2. haue not remained intire, without being corrupted.
VII Why wee may not beleeue of many Fathers, that which this same Cardinall affirmeth of Saint Cyprian, [...]al. tom. 1. [...]n. 258. namely, that he abode not in his errour, but renoūced it before his death, though that do not appeare, neither by his writings, nor by any other testimonie of the Fathers? If Charitie was the only cause of this affirmation touching one ancient Fathers acknowledgement, why may not we vse the like charitie, giue the same iudgement, & conclude in like sort of others; considering the Retractions that one of the most excellent amongst them, [...]ugustine. hath left vnto vs, & who happily added [Page 131] many others before his death, either by writing, or at least wise in his mind? Himselfe also doth authorise as to say of him, that which he said of S. Cyprian: De Bap [...] contr. D [...] L. 1. c. 4. It may be this holy soule consented to the Truth; as though we know it not: For all that was then done among the Bishops could not be written or preserued: Neither know we all that was written. And in another place: Epist. 48 We find not that he corected this opinion; but it is not without reason, that we are to iudge of such a person, that he corrected it, and perhaps that was suppressed by those that tooke too great pleasure in this error, and would not be depriued of the defence of such an Aduocate.
These are my seuen questions which must first bee cleared, before we come vnto his seuen; the most important of which (which is the sacrifice of the Masse) is elsewhere dispatched, and as yet by him vnanswered. And as for the lies he giues to Caluin, Viret, and Chemnicius, touching the institution of the other six points: they fall backe, not onely vpon Polidorus Virgilius, Platina, Sigebert, Bergomas, and such other Historians, minorum gentium; or vpon Gratian the compiler of the Decretals, which serueth for Text in the Schooles of the Romish Church, as the holy Scripture doth in ours: Vide to, [...] Biblio. S. trum. P▪ 1345. But also vpon the head of a Pope himselfe, namly Damasus, who reporteth the institution of certaine points, euen as the others that follow him. Also vpon Pope Eugenius 2. attributing soueraigne authoritie to Gratians Decretals; and in generall on all the Popes that haue approoued it since. But what would he get by it, if we should take the originall of these things higher, and of an elder date, seeing that no authoritie of the ancients commeth neer the authoritie of an Euangelist? since that which the truest writers haue reported since, hath not remained entire, by Baronius his owne confession?
To conclude, De verb [...] L. 4. c, 11 seeing that Bellarmine confesseth on the other side, That the Apostles haue wtitten ALL the thinges that are necessarie for all, and the things which they [Page 132] had publikely preached to all: It shall be lawfull for me to crown the former questions with this Cōclusion, which floweth from the Confession of that Arch-Rabbi: namely, That the seuen Articles, which the Bishop of Eureux propoundeth, are not necessarie to all men, seeing they haue not beene publikely preached by the Apostles: Or if they be necessarie to all, he must shew by their writings that they haue preached them publikely. This is it that I summon him to do: If he cannot do it, I counsell him to be silent, and to acknowledge his owne imperfection and vnsufficiencie, rather than to attribute it to the Scripture, which is most perfect, and most sufficient, as well to saue them that follow it, as to confound those that blaspheme it.
The answer of D. Daniell Tillenus to the Bishop of Eureux his treatice; wherby he endeauoreth to proue the insufficiency and imperfection of the holy Scripture and the necessity & authority of vnwritten traditions.
The bishop of Eureux.
THE vnwritten word of God, The B. [...] on. which we call Apostolicke tradition, is of the same force and authority as the written word is, and without it, the Scripture alone is not suffieient to confute all heresies.
The Iewes did beleeue, when the body of the law of Moyses was giuen vnto them, many things, which either were not conteyned in the fiue bookes of Moyses, or did not appeare vnto them to be therein conteined; As the immortality of the soule, the resurrection of the body, the last iudgement, Paradise, Hell, the Creation and distinction of the orders of Angells, the being and creation of deuills: and many other points, which they could not know by humane science but it must needs be that they receiued them by reuelation from God; and therefore that they had another way for to deriue and conserue the word of god, besides that of the Scripture.
D. Tillenus his answer.
To him that would heare none but Fathers speake, it may be answered in a word, as one of the number saith: Hillar. i [...] Psalm. 1 [...] Whatsoeuer is not conteined in the booke of the Law, we ought not to know it. He that speaketh so, would not haue vs seeke that elsewhere, which is not found in the Scripture. We say that all that is necessary to saluation, touching those and all other points, is conteyned in the scripture, either in expresse tearmes, or in necessary consequence and true analogue. Gen. 17 [...] Exod 6. [...] Exod. 20 [...] In the writings of Moyses we find, that God maketh a couenant with the Hebrews, that he promiseth to be their God, and [Page 2] the God of their seed, to exercise mercy vpon them vnto thousand generations, that is to say for euer: to dwell in the middest of them, [...]. 10. [...]. 29. to keepe them as the apple of his eie. In them is Israell called happie, for that it was sa [...]ed by the lord God. 7.9. Iacob being ready to depart out of this life, comforted himselfe in the expectation of the saluation of the lorde, to shew that he went to take possession of a b [...]tter countrey; He and his Father called themselues straungers in the land of Canaan, which notwithstanding was promised them for inheritance; Therefore they beleeued the true country, that is to say, Paradise. This consequent is not onely necessary, but also manifest, by the testimony of the Apostle, who draweth it from this place of Scripture, not from any vnwritten Tradition, [...] 1.9.13. when he saith, that they which so speake, shew playnly that they seek a Country, which is the thing that Du Perron can not find in the bookes of Moyses: although we find in them that the wicked and vnfaithfull that defended lyes against the trueth, [...] [...].11. did wish it. For what else meaneth that false prophet Balaam, when he sayth: O that my soule might dye the death of the righteous, or that my end might bee like theirs? This wish expresseth clearly enough, the apprehēsiō he had of the last iudgment. [...] [...].1. When Moyses calleth the Israelites the children of the Lord their God, forbidding them to sorrow for the dead as infidells, he speaketh no lesse manifestly of the resurrection, [...] 4.13. than S. Paul, when he exhorteth the Thessalonians not to lament for the dead, as they do that haue no hope. [...] 3.2. VVhen Moyses saith that God holdeth all his saints in his hands, he saith the same thing that is sayd by other that haue written after him, That the soules of the righteous are in the hands of the Lord: and that they commit their soules vnto him, [...] [...].1. 19. 2.32. 24. [...]. Iud. [...].29. [...]0.19. as vnto a faithfull creator. So when he speaketh of the book of life, of the taking vp of Henoch, which Tertullian calleth Candidatum aeternitatis: when he saith, that those that feare God and keepe his commaundements, shall be happy for euer: when he setteth before the Iewes, life and death, blessing and cursing: when he threatneth them [Page 3] with the fire of the Lords wrath, Deut. [...] which shall burne euen to the bottome of hell, shall consume the earth with her encrease, and set on fire the foundations of the mountaines: VVhen (I say) he writeth all these things, he sheweth clearly enough the immortality of the soule, the resurrection of the body, the last iudgement, Paradise and He [...]l, which points are vnseparably linked together.
Jf these testimonies seeme not cleare enough to the Bishop of Eureux, who confesseth neuerthelesse that in Daniell, and the other Prophets that haue written since Moyses, there is some found; Let him consider, that they which among the Corinthians denied the resurrection, 1. Cor [...] [...] shifted off the one as well as the other: VVhich sheweth, that if those that doo erre in some point, will not suffer themselues to be vanquished by the scripture: that commeth not through any obscurity and imperfection of which they falsely accuse it, but from their owne malice and blindnes.
Moreouer, it is to be noted, that it hath pleased God orderly to distribute the reuelation of his will, of his promises, and of his couenant, by certayne degrees, increasing alwaies the measure of this reuelation, as the age of the world increased. This oeconomy is clearely obserued in the Scripture, if we mark therein the degrees from Adam to Abraham, from Abraham to Moyses, from Moyses to Dauid, from Dauid to the captiuity of Babylon, and from the captiuity of Babylon to Iesus Christ, who was the light it selfe. For this cause the time of the Iewish Church is called the time of Infancy, ours on the contrary, the fulnes of time. If then the Scripture of the old Testament were a sufficient light to the Iewes, though it was not so cleare as ours, how much more ought we to content our selues, with that light which we haue by the addition of the new Testament?
The B. of Eureux.
For as touching the booke of Iob, to omitte that the most [Page 4] part of the Iewes and Mercerus with them, and the principall Caluinists doe denie, that the place that is there, is to bee vnderstood of the Resurrection: there is no assured testimonie, that the booke of Iob was extant, then when the Law of Moyses was giuen: contrarywise most men thinke it was written since the Transmigration of Babylon; which Ezechiell seemeth to confirme, saying, Noah, Daniell, Iob. As for Daniell, and the other Prophets it is well enough knowne, that they were more then seauen or eight hundred yeares since.
D. Tillenus his answer.
As for the booke of Iob, in which the resurrection of the body, and by consequent the immortality of the soule are found in expresse tearmes, whatsoeuer Du Perron saith, who wrongfully attributeth vnto vs, the false exposition of some Anabaptists: We learne indeed of the Iewes, that Moyses hauing found this booke in the countrye of Madian, where his father Law was, brought into Egypt, to propound it vnto the Iewes as an example of patience in their seruitude. But when we say, that this history hapned before Moyses wrote the Law, wee are grounded on good consequence drawne from the scripture, which teacheth vs, that after the publishing of the law, it was not lawfull to offer sacrifice else where than before the Arke or Tabernacle, without speciall commaundement: So that if Iob had liued after the law of Moyses neither woulde he haue transgressed the Law in offering sacrifice, nor God haue approoued his sacrifice. The age also that the scripture giueth to Iob, maketh vs beleeue that he was before Moyses, [...] 10. who witnesseth that those of his time liued not so long. Du Perrons coniecture, who will haue him to haue liued before the captiuity of Babylon, is friuolous; he groundeth it on this, that Ezechiell nameth together Daniell and Iob, [...] 14. whence it would follow also, that Noah should haue liued in those times, for the Prophet nameth him with the other.
The B. of Eureux.
And as for our sauiour Christes argument against the Saduces, it prooueth indeede the immortality of the soule, and not the other points: But that argument till his time was vnknowne to the Iewes, who for this cause did admire the infinitenesse of his wisedome: And therefore it must needs follow that they had receiued the beleefe of it, for to holde it for an article of faith, by another meanes than by the reading of the bookes of Moyses: to wit, by Tradition from Abraham, Isaack, Iacob, and other Fathers.
D. Tillenus his answer.
He sheweth heere, that hee hath as little insight into the bookes of the Euangelists, as in those of Moyses: he saith that this argument prooueth indeed the immortality of the soule, but not the other points, that is to say the Resurrection of the body. And notwithstanding Saint Matthew saith in expresse tearmes, that our Lord cited that place of Moyses, Math. 22 Exod. 3. [...] for to prooue the Resurrection of the dead, and that by this onely argument he stopped his enemies mouthes, who chose rather to be silent, than to continue to blaspheme. Jf vntill then it had beene vnknowne to the Iewes, as Du Perron saith, Yet that sheweth not any vnsufficiency in the scripture; rather indeede the ignoraunce of the Church till those times, and the negligence of those, that would not vouchsafe to trie and sound the depth of the scriptures, Ioh. 5.3 [...] as our Lord Iesus Christ did therein exhort them.
I know not why he findeth so great obscuritie in this argument of our Sauior: For so great a Philosopher as he, shold haue better perceiued therein the light of that Philosophicall maxime which saith, When the whole is propounded, the parts of the same are also propounded: Put then, that God is the god of Abraham, of Isaack and of Iacob, as saith Moyses; Exod. 3 [...] Jt followeth therefore that hee is their god both in soule and Body: which are the principall parts of euery man. But seeing the Saduces could not find, or would not searche the Resurrection of the dead in the bookes of Moyses; wherefore then did [Page 6] they beleeue it as little by Tradition? VVhy did not our Lord and Sauiour send them thereunto? VVherefore did he draw so obscure an argument (as Du Perron will haue it) from the Scripture, if there had bene any manifest reasons in Tradition? [...] 22.9.29. 6.29. to [...]d. VVherefore doth he attribute the cause of their errour to their ignoraunce of the Scripture? And truely Abraham referred the brethren of the wicked rich man, to keepe them out of hell, not onely to the Prophets, but euen to Moyses also, 15.1. [...]s. 12.3. where they might see how God had sayde to Abraham, that he would be his buckler, and his exceeding great reward: that in his seede should all Nations be blessed: Which doctrine conteyneth the foundation of the substance of the doctrine of saluation.
Now put case that the aboue named points could not be found so manifest in the bookes of Moyses, yet could not that conclude any thing against the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures, which we haue in the Christian church: For, as god reuealed his will to the first Patriarches by word of mouth, for to instruct them in his knowledge, before there was any Scripture; so did he continue the same manner of reuelation in Moyses time, speaking to him as familiarly as a man speaketh to his friend, instructing him of all maters: yet neuer giuing him this liberty, to ordayne any thing concerning religion of his owne authority: Also Moyses very religiously conteyned himselfe within the limits of obedience, not onely in the least Ceremonies, but also in the publicke administration or gouernement, wherein notwithstanding, it seems he might haue vsurped a little more power: but we see he wold determine nothing against him that had brokē the Sabbath; but caused him to be put in prison, till God had declared vnto him, 15.34. with what manner of punishment the Transgressor should be punished. Contrariwise the Romish Church presumeth, to ordayne an infinite number of things, as well in Religion as in Policy, which they are not onely vnable to prooue by any Scripture, but which also, euen theyr pretended Apostolike Traditions cannot shew; in defence [Page 7] whereof theyr mayntainers set foorth the aucthority of the Church, which they say cannot erre. Now although the Church of the Iewes had Oracles, visions, diuine dreams, Vrim and Thummim, 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. [...] 2 Chro. [...] 2. Chro. [...] 2. King, [...] 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 Traditiō thā by the scripture, though it be augmēted since Moses; from whom we gather their Creation, when he saith, that the heauēs & the earth were finished and all their host. Gen. 2, [...] Gen. 28 Deut. 3 [...] 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, [Page 8] 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, [...]st. cont. [...]. 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 [Page 9] 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. [...] 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 Ener [...] 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. [...] It tended not to establish or confirme any false doctrine, in which case the caution that Du Perron requireth had been necessary. Nehem: [...] Nehemias sayth that the gate of this Poole [Page 10] 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? [...] [...]4:
He nameth not likewise in expresse words the hee goats, [Page 11] 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: & 16:8 [...] 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 [...] 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. 2 [...] 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 adoratiō: 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 Numb [...] 1. King [...] 2: Chro [...] 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 [Page 12] 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, [...] [...]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 [Page 13] history, is found very well grounded on the Scripture, Exod, 22. [...] 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 3.4 [...] 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 & groūd 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: 20 [...]30:31: is sufficient for vs to beleeue that Iesus is that Christ, and that in beleeuinge [Page 14] 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 expositiōs of S. Augustin and saint Cyrill, that I alledged, wholly agreeable vnto ours, I will in this place rehearse them. [...]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, [...]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 takē 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 Thes [...]nians Seing then, these two Epistles did not conteine al the doctrin [Page 15] 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. [...] 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 [...] [...]ome. Which therefore, is fulfilled, seeing that the ruine o [...] [...] Empire, is notorious to all the world.
The B. of Eureux.
[...] [...]: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: [...]. 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 demonstra [...] proofe from any place of Scripture.
D. Tillenus his answer.
In al these articles if we beleue him, the Scripture is no foūdatiō & pillar of our faith, as Irenaeus sayd: Irenaeu [...] c: 1: Tertul. [...] Hermo [...] And they that added them to Scripture, need not fear the woe, by Tertullian (who reuerēced 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. Ecclesic [...] cont: lit. lib: 3 cap Chrysos [...] Homil: [...] 20, cap, [...] 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 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 [Page 18] 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 [Page 20] 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 Iewish law, for to distinguish in like sort those, which were corporally sprung from Abraham, & to discerne them from other nations: the other spirituall. Imperauit, saith Joseph, Ahae, vt genitalia circūcideret: voluit enim Deus, vt genus eius nō permisceretur alijs gentibus. And for this cause all the time they were in the wildernes, those that were born were not circumcised, because they were not mingled with other nations, as S. Hierom & Damascen do obserue. Wheras Baptism hauing but one only vse, which is spirituall, the bare circumstances of circumcision, conclude nothing, that hath any necessary consequence for Baptism.
D. Tillenus his answer.
We do not reason of the bare circumstances of circumcision, but of the substāce. For we leaue to the children of the lewes, that which it tēporally figured vnto them: but seing it had also towards them a spirituall vse, which is the very substance of this Sacrament, wherfore shold we depriue therof, the childrē of christians: seing that Iesus christ came not into the world to diminish the spiritual blessings, but to encrease & fulfil them? If du Perron thinke the intermission of Circumcision in the wildernes, was not a transgression of the Law of God, he is [Page 21] deceiued: Iosh. 5. [...] For after that Ioshuah had circūcised the Israelites in Gilgall, he said he had taken away from them the shame of Egypt; meaning therby, that through contempt of gods couenant they were vnworthy thereof, hauing shewed by this their negligence, that their harts were still in Egypt, whither they would fayne haue returned. Num: 1
The B. of Eureux.
Thirdly Circumcision left a perpetuall marke in the flesh, which was alwaies a sensible token, to him that had receiued it, that he had beene circumcised: whereas Baptisme leaueth not any sensible marke, sauing in the knowledge and memorie of him that was baptized. And therefore Baptisme seemeth to require an age capable of knowledge and memory.
D. Tillenus his answer.
Seing Baptisme bringeth the same spirituall fruit to the children of Christians, that Circumcision brought to the children of the Iews, as hath bene shewed; this consideration of a corporall mark is friuolous. The circumcised child can no more know nor remember, how and wherefore his foreskin was cut off, than the Christian child his baptisme, and therfore both the one & the other, must be instructed, when he is capable thereof. In Abraham, who was adopted into the couenant in a perfect age, knowledge, instruction and faith went before the Sacrament: but in Isack born in the couenāt the Sacrament went before knowledge, because according to the promis, he was reputed the child of God from his mothers womb. So we do not confer Baptism, to the child of a Jew or a Pagā: & we blame the church of Rome, which cōmitteth this abuse, prostituting the sign of the couenant, to those that are not cōprehēded therin, not staying til they may enter into it by knowledge & faith: which is as great a mockery, as to set a seale to a paper, wherin there is nothing written.
The B. of Eureux.
4. In circumcision there was but one materiall sign, without the word: wheras in Baptism, aswell the elemēt as the word, are of the essēce of the sacramēt. Tolle aquā, saith S. Aug: nō est baptismus: tolle verbū, non est baptismus. It seemes that he that is baptized, [Page 22] and to whome the word of Baptisme is directed, must bee capable not onely of the elementary signe, but also of the word: which was not requisite in Circumcision.
D. Tillenus his answer.
His fourth reason is as false, as the former are vaine: For if there be not the word also in Circumcision, then is it not a sacrament. And how should it haue bin instituted of God, without the word? 17.11. The promise that God addeth in the institution of it saying; you shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh, and it shall be a sign of the couenant between me and you: This is a word as expresly written, as that which the institution of Baptisme conteineth; 8.19. Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the sonne, and of the holy ghost. He which sayd, tolle verbum non est Baptismus, take away the word it is no Baptisme; sayd also, Accedat verbum ad Elementum, & fiat Sacramentum; Adde the word to the element, and it becommeth a Sacrament. As in Baptism the pronunciation of the sacramentall words, is grounded on the institution of Iesus Christ: so Circumcision was not to be administred, without speaking of the vse and efficacy of the same, as appeareth by the example of Ioshuah aboue alledged. And doubtlesse Abraham, before he circumcised his family, instructed them in the doctrine thereof: For see the testimony that god giueth of him, 19. I know (saith he) that he will teache his children and his houshold to obserue the way of the Lord. 7. Moyses commandeth carefully to instruct children, and he speaketh euer of the Law of god, of which Circumcision was a part.
The B. of Eureux.
Fiftly, though all things, which had place in Circumcision, should haue their corresponcy to Baptisme, yet would it not bee for all that necessary, that it were a correspondency of Identity, but a correspondency of Analogie would suffice: As the ceremonie of sowr hearbs, and of the staffe they should holde in their handes in eating the Paschall Lamb, is not literally accomplished in the [Page 23] Eucharist, but onely spiritually: inasmuch as we eate it with contrition and bitternesse for our faultes, and as pilgrimes and passengers in this world iourneying into another life. So the temporall infancie, to which Circumcision was applied, may haue his correspondēcy to Baptism, only in the spirituall infancie, by which we must become children, for to bee baptized, according to the saying of our Sauiour, If you become not as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen: And therefore to those that were already hoarie with olld age, they did not sticke in the primitiue Church, to giue, hony and milke to eate, Ad significandum infantiam, saith S. Hierom. By which meanes the argument woulde hold good to conclude thus. Circumcision was giuen to those which were little children of a temporall infancie: therefore Baptisme may be giuen to those that are little children of a spirituall infancy that is to say, that are become little children in maliciousnesse, as saith saint Paul. But to inferre, Circumcision was giuen to little children of temporall infancy, Baptisme therefore is to be conferred to those that are little children after the same manner, the conclusion doth not enforce: And therfore S. Augustin alledging this argument, maketh account onely of it as of a coniecture.
D. Tillenus his answer.
If the temporall infancie of the Iewish children, shoulde be referred onely to the spirituall infancie of Christians, the reason of Iesus Christ would bee of no force, when hee saith, That children of a temporall infancy belong vnto him, and should be brought vnto him: Now, we can not bring them, and put them into his armes visiblye and corporally; Gal: 3: [...] Rom. 6 and the scripture teacheth, that they which are baptized, doo put on christ, and are ingrafted into his body: it followeth therefore that it is by this meanes, that we shold bring them & present them vnto him.
And Iesus christ sanctifieth and cleanseth by water in his word, all those for whome he gaue himselfe to death: Eph. 5 Now he dyed as well for children as for others, seeing that the kingdome of heauen belongeth vnto them: It followeth therfore [Page 24] that he sanctifieth and cleanseth them, by the washing of water in his word. 8:39: And saint Peter hauing sayd, that euery one should be baptized for remission of sins, and they should receiue the holy Ghost, addeth, This promise is made to you and to your children.
The similitude of the ceremonies of the Paschall Lambe, whereupon hee groundeth his correspondency of Analogy, perswadeth vs as litle, as his reasons inforce vs. For all the ceremonies commaunded in the first institution of the Passeouer, 2: were not literally fulfilled among the Iews, especially in their yearly Passeouer, As to eate it their loyns girt, theyr shoos on their feet, and a staffe in their hand; (which ceremony Du Perron should not ioyne with that of the sowr hearbs, seing it was not of the number of the ordinary, and belonged onely to the Passeouer celebrated in Egypt). As also the ceremony of not going foorth of doors till morning. And therefore our sauiour Christ celebrating the Passeouer, transgressed not the law written, in sitting at table, and going foorth into the garden. Besides, the Paschall Lamb, as J sayd aboue, was rather a figure of the onely Sacrifice of Iesus Christ, [...].7. 0:4: [...] 0. 2:17: who is the accomplishment of the Law, and the body of all the shadows and ceremonies. If there were question made of finding some correspondency betweene the ceremonies of Circumcision, and the ceremonies that the Church of Rome hath added to Baptisme, the B. of Eureux would be able to find therein as little Analogy as Identity.
The B. of Eureux.
The third argument is taken from the Actes, where Saint Peter saith, that hauing seene the holy Ghost come down on them that heard the word in the house of Cornelius, he could not deny them Baptisme, seeing they had receiued the same grace: Wherof they conclude, those that are capable of the same grace, are capable of the same signe. Now little children are capable of the same grace: they are therefore capable of the same sign. To which without standing to reply, that in the olld Testament weomen are [Page 25] capable of the same grace, and not of the same signe, We may answer for the Anabaptists, that those which are capable of the same grace, and in the same manner or fashion are capable of the same signe: But those that are capable of the same grace in diuers manners, are not therefore for all that capable of the same signe. Now little children (will the Anabaptists say) are capable indeed of the same grace, as those that bee of age, but not in the same manner▪ for those of age are capable of grace, by theyr owne personall faith, and little children by their parents faith, which is imputed vnto them. And therfore to the former is requisite a Baptism proper and personall, and to the others sufficeth the imputatiue Baptisme of their parents, it being a thing reasonable, that Baptisme do follow the quality of faith, whereof it is a Sacrament. And this answer serueth for all argumentes of like nature, namely, that little children are parte of the Church, are capable of the kingdome of heauen, whereof baptisme is the gate and entrance. For after the same manner as they are capable of it, that is to say, no otherwise then by an imputed faith and not personall, Baptisme (would they say) is communicated vnto them▪ So that as they beleeue in the faith of their parents, vntill they bee capable of a personall faith: so are they Baptized in the Baptisme of their parentes, till they bee baptized with a personall Baptisme; namely, when they are come to yeares of discretion and knowledge▪ To these three reasons they adde a little light coniecture of that which Saint Paul said, that he baptized the houshoulde of Stephan: out of which they conclude, that little children may he baptized. Which argument is lame on both sides: For first they must proue that there were little children in the houshold of Stephan, which the scripture dooth not shew: and secondly, that those litle children were particularly baptized For although there had bin little children in that hous yet this witnes of S. Paul of hauing baptized the houshold of Stephan, could for al that conclude nothing for them, vnles there had bin expresse mention made, that they were particularly baptized. For one may always answer, that in that he baptized the house of Steph: is as much to say, as he baptised all those that wer capable [Page 26] of Baptisme in that house. As when it is sayd, in Saint Iohn of the Ruler, 53▪ Credidit ipse, & domus eius tota: It can not be sayd that the little children in the cradle, if there were any, did beleeue: but those who for their yeares were capable of beleefe. Contrarywise to shew, that this obiection of the house of Stephan in which is no testimony that there was any little children, is far from making anything for them; the Anabaptists replie, that in the conuersion of Samaria by S. Phillip, (in which it cannot be doubted, but that the conuerted parents had little children in the cradle) the scripture euidently specifieth, that Baptisabantur viri ac mulieres, without making mention of little children.
D. Tillenus his answer.
Our third argument which he alledgeth, is taken from the 10. of the Acts, where saint Peter ordaineth Baptism to them that had receiued the Holy Ghost: whence we conclude, that they which are capable of the same grace, are capable of the same signe. And seeing that children are capable of the same grace of regeneration, they cannot be vncapable of baptism, which is the sign therof.
The same speculation which his answers conteineth, if they were of any weight, might haue had place as well against the Circumcision of little children; and seeing that the different measure of grace did not depriue them of the signe, in like manner ours ought not to be depriued of it. The Scripture saith, 11.12 that the Gentiles, because they were not receiued into the couenant of Circumcision, were without Christ, without hope, without God, and strangers from the Couenants of promise. The same Scripture sheweth vs, that Baptism hath succeeded Circumcision: Shall we then repute our children for straungers from the couenaunts of promise? Shall we holld them only for children of the first Adam, that is, for children of wrath, subiect to the curse, for flesh and blood, which cannot possesse the kingdom of heauen, without bringing them to the second Adam, by whom they are sanctified and quickned? If by faith imputed, the B. of Eureux, meaneth a quality [Page 27] without and foorth of children; and if he say, that they please God, the Holy Ghost not making any reall change in them, He destroyeth these principles of Scripture, which say: Reuel. That none vncleane thing entreth into heauen, Rom. 1 That the iust shall liue by his own faith, That none hath accesse to the kingdom of heauen, vnles he be regenerate, That without faith it is vnpossible to please God. Now faith and vnbeliefe are things immediatly contrary: not that we would say, that children do beleeue after the same manner, as they that be of years, with an actuall knowledge: but that the Holy Ghost worketh in them an inclination and power to belieue, taking away from their hart, that which naturally repugneth. VVhen saint Augustin saith, that children are baptized in the faith of others, as either of their parents, or of them that present them, or of the whole Church, he excludeth not all operation of the Holy Ghost in the person of children, which in another place he plainly confesseth to be in them: As when he saith, Aug. Ep ad Dar We say that the holy ghost dwelleth in litle children which are baptized, though they know him not: For in that they doo not know him, it is no otherwise, thē as they knovv not their reasonable soule, yea their life. Whereof notvvithstanding it doth not folow, that they haue neither reasonable soule nor life. This operation is as easy to god, as to vs incomprehensible: And the hart of an ould man, before he be chaunged by regeneration, is no lesse deaffe and vnable, than the hart of a child, the chaunge whereof is not none, because it is vnknown: likewise the disobedience and rebellion, which is in them that be of years, is a disposition contrary to faith, which is not in litle ones, who receiue oftentimes greater measure of grace, than they that be of years, vvho notwithstanding, after our Aduersaries themselues, are not vncapable of the externall sign, though they ask it but of hypoctisy. For he that administreth it vnto them, can not knovv theyr fayth and capacity of grace, seeing the Apostles themselues were therein deceiued, Acts 8.1 as appeareth by the example of Simon Magus. Seing then that the grace conferred to children by Baptism, [Page 28] is a thing reall in their owne persons, and not imputed only; witnesse the examples of Ieremy, and S. Iohn Baptist, sanctified from their mothers womb: an imputed signe is not sufficient, no more than an imputatiue Paradise would suffice the possession wherof Iesus Christ promiseth vnto them so reall, 8.3▪ as he affirmeth, that none shall enter therinto, vnles he receiue him as a little child.
Whereas he saith, reason would that Baptisme should follow faith, [...] 1: wherof it is a Sacrament, that is altogether friuolous: For Circumcision is also called the seale of the righteousnesse of faith: and in another place the sign of repentance. Let him therfore ask the reason of God, why he did not defer Circumcision from children, till such time as they were capable of such a faith and repentance, as the Anabaptists require.
To that which he addeth, that in the conuersion of Samaria men & women ar only spoken of, who were there baptized, without any mention of litle ones, though it cannot be doubted but that there wer som. The answer hath bin made aboue namely, that those were not born in the couenant, & therfore before they could be admitted thereunto, by the sign of Baptism, it behoued them to be instructed in the doctrine. There needed not any speciall commandement, touching the Baptism of little children, to those that knew the foūdation of the new couenant by the correspondency of circumcision. Children notwithstanding are comprehēded in the generall commandement, of baptising all that shall be saued.
The B. of Eureux.
There is yet one reason, that is very rife in the mouth of Catholicks, being vnderpropped by the tradition of the church, and by the interpretation which hath alwais run currant among catholicks, namely, Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua & Spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. But this in the mouth of Caluin & those of this sect is of no force. For hee interpreteth there Aqua, not for the elementary water, but for the holy ghost: And when it is replyed that, that were a repetition of the same thing, [Page 29] vnder two diuerse words: he opposeth, Baptisabit vos Spiritusancto & igne, wher he will haue Ignis & Spiritus sanctus to be one and the same thing: which he doth, for to exclude the necessity of Baptism. But in a word, to all that will haue this place serue their turn, the Anabaptists (who reiect the tradition & interpretation of the church) do answer that this propositiō is to be vnderstood of them, that are capable of Baptism: As when it is said in the same chapter, He that beleueth not, is already iudged: It is vnderstood (say they) of them, which are of years to beleeue.
D. Tillenus his answer.
He would bereaue vs of the argument taken out of Saint Iohn, Except a man be borne againe of water, &c. Ioh. 3.5 because we take this word Water, for the spirit, as in another place the word Fire, and spirit, signifie one and the same thing; Math. 3 But although from this place canot bee concluded the absolute necessity of Baptism, yet neuertheles we ought to conclude frō thence, the absolute necessity of regeneration. The Anabaptists vnderstāding this word water, of outward Baptism, as the Church of Rome doth, do reasō thus, seing Baptism is expresly called regeneration, & seing that children are not capable of regeneration, which is doon by faith, Baptisme is not to be communicated vnto them. To which we answer, For as much as regeneration is absolutely necessary to saluation, children (vnles they will damn them all) are partakers therof, & therfore the seale of this grace of regeneration is rightly applyed vnto them. The reply, that du Perron maketh for them, that this sentence of S. Iohn is to be vnderstood only of them, that are capable of baptisme through yeares of knowledge, is nothing currāt against vs, but against the church of Rome, which interpreteth this place of the absolute necessity of externall baptism, of which it cannot otherwise choose, but that many children are depriued, and therefore excluded from saluation, after their doctrine.
The B. of Eureux.
Now against these arguments, which they so easily by their solutions vndoe, when they are not constrained with the authoritie of [Page 30] Tradition and the interpretation of the Church, they haue many other for it in apparance stronger, as, that Baptism is a dependaunce and a seale of faith, and therefore that those that are not capable of faith, are not capable of Baptisme: That baptisme is called the washing of Regeneration, That Regeneration is made by the worde of God: you are all the children of god through faith, saith saint Paul: And saint Peter, you are horne againe, not of a corruptible seede, but of an incorruptible, by the word of god: that our Lord saith, he that shal beleeue and be baptized, &c. Saint Paul; One faith, one Baptisme: saint Phillip to the Eunuch that asked him if he might be baptized: If thou beleeue, thou maist. That the Sacraments are sensible signes, to those to whome they are Sacraments: that they are sacramentes to those to whome they are conferred, that therefore they are to be sensible in the quality of signes, otherwise they are not sacraments. That Baptisme is not sensible to little children in this quality, neither can afterward become so, so that they must of necessity relie on the faith of others that they haue beene baptized, and therefore it is not a sacrament vnto them. That Iesus Christ did neuer baptize them, neither himselfe nor his Apostles, according to the recitall of Scriptures. On the contrary, that the scripture seemeth to haue excepted them expressing viros & mulieres. That if the Baptisme of little children, be not true and lawfull, besides that those that conferre it vnto them, prophane the seale of the Couenant, and pollute the blood of the Testament applying it to a matter vncapable: they commit an other sacriledge, in not reiterating it to them which afterwards are capable of it, and to whome it is necessary; if not by necessity of meanes, at least (after our aduersaries themselues) by necessity of precept. And therefore Seruet said, that it were an impiety more then Turkish and diuelish. And in a word, if the Baptisme of little children be not true and lawfull, our aduersaries Church, who haue all in their infancy beene baptized, hath no true Baptisme: And therefore is not the true Church. For saint Paul saith, that Christ hath purified his Church by the washing of water in his word, and themselues say that the true Church is that which [Page 31] hath the pure preaching of the word, and the sincere administration of the sacraments.
And to conclude in a word this point, either they▪ or the Anabaptists, are heretickes. For it is an article of faith, that there is one Baptisme, one Faith, as saith saint Paul: and the symbole of the Church saith, I beleeue one baptism for remission of sins. Now if Baptisme of little children be not true Baptisme, those which baptize them, haue no Baptisme, and therefore are heretickes, violating this article of saith, I beleeue one Baptisme. And if it bee true Baptism, the Anabaptists are hereticks, who rebaptize them. For they redouble Baptisme▪ against that article of faith: I beleeue one Baptisme. It being then necessary that one of the two sides be hereticall, and it not being possible by the scripture alone to verifie which of the two it is: it followeth that all heresie cannot be confuted by the Scripture alone. Out of which I frame this Syllogisme. Whatsoeuer conteineth sufficientlie the principles of a science▪ should also be able to prooue all the propositions pertaining to the said science, and to confute all that repugn the same. Now euery heresie repugneth the science of diuinitie and religion: And the scripture alone cannot confute all heresies. Therfore the scripture containeth not sufficiently, all the principles of doctrine necessary to the science of diuinity and religion. And therefore we must employ therein other principles conioyntly with the scriptures, which cannot haue authority in this case, if they bee not reuealed by the word of God. It must therefore bee graunted, that besides the word of god written, ther is yet another part of the same word not written, among which also saint Augustin against this heresie concerning the Baptisme of little children, saith: Cō suetudo matris ecclesiae in baptisandis paruulis non est spernenda, neque omnino recipienda, nisi Apostolica esset Traditio.
D. Tillenus his answer.
Thus are easily confuted all the other reasons of the Anabaptists, that he bringeth foorth after ours. For they be but repetitions of the solutions he giueth to ours; That Baptism is a seale of fath; That it is called the washing of Regeneration; [Page 32] That Regeneration is made by faith and by the incorruptible seed of Gods word: That saint Phillip sayd to the Eunuch, If thou beleeue, thou maist be saued, &c. For it hath bin shewed, that the children which enter into the kingdome of heauen, are regenerate, That this Regeneration is don otherwise in them, that in such as be of years of knowledge; That the sentences of Saint Peter and S. Phillip, and other like, are necessarily vnderstood of them that were capable of the hearing of the word, as were all those with whom the Apostles had to do, when they began to gather the Christian Church. To apply to children, that which is spoken only to such as be of years, the consequence is as foolish, as if a man should depriue children of corporall nourishment, because the Scripture saith, [...]. 3.10. he that doth not worke, should not eate, which is necessarily meant of such as are of years to work.
How will his Syllogisme now stand, which he frameth thus: Whatsoeuer conteineth sufficiently the principles of a science should prooue all the propositions belonging to the sayd science, and to confute all that repugne the same: But euery heresie repugneth the science of Diuinity, and the scripture alone can not confute all heresies: Therefore it conteyneth not sufficiently, all the principles necessary, &c.
The assumption of this syllogisme, is already aboue confuted, by the testimonies euen of those very same, from whom he pretendeth, that the most part, yea all the principles not conteyned in the Scripture, must be taken. I could heer adde a greate number of other proofes, and testimonies, but that J shunne prolixity. I will therfore only oppose two other syllogisms.
I. In the diuine wisedom, there is perfect knowledge of diuinity: [...]. 19.7.8. The holy holy scripture giueth this wisedom: therfore it giueth the perfect knowledge of diuinity.
II. The principles of a science, are not contrary one vnto another: But the most part of the vnwritten principles of the Romish diuinity, repugn and destroy those that are written in the ould and new Testament▪ therefore they can not be true [Page 33] principles of true Diuinity.
The Bishop of Eureux.
The second heresy, which cannot be refuted by the Scripture, is that of the Rebaptizing of hereticks. For there is no one place in the writings of the Prophets or Apostles, that witnesseth, that the Baptisme which is among hereticks, is true Baptisme. Contrariwise there are infinite places which seeme to repugne the same: As the words of our Lord, hee which shall beleeue and bee baptized. &c, And that of sainte Paule, one faith, one Baptisme: whereof is concluded, that seeing there is no fayth among hereticks, and that this vnity of fayth of which Saint Paule speaketh, is not found among them, there is no Baptisme. So that they which haue beene Baptised by them, are no more baptised, then those on whose head by chance some water is cast, seeing they want the chiefe and principall condition, which maketh a man be a matter and subiect capable of Baptisme, namely Fayth: That they that are Baptized, as saith Saint Paule, haue put on Christ, That Christ cannot bee put on out of the Church, which is called the fullnes of Christ & that therfore Baptisme cannot be among hereticks: That euery one of you sayth Saint Peter, be Baptized for remission of sinnes, And the Creed of Constantinople: I beleeue one Baptisme for remission of sinnes. Now among the haereticks there is no remission of sinnes: For the Keyes were giuen to the Church; and by consequent no Baptisme, that when it was tolde Iohn Baptist, that Christ Baptized, he answered, none can doe it vnles it be giuen him from heauen: that no authority is giuen from heauen to the assemblies of hereticks, and therefore that they cannot Baptize. That Baptisme is done by the power of the holy Ghost, that the holy Ghost is not resident out of the Church, neither consequently Baptisme.
D. Tillenus his answer.
First I answere, that the hearers of the Scripture learne, that whosoeuer is Baptised in the name of the father, of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost, is well Baptised. But the [Page 34] followers of the Romish tradition, can neuer know, whether they be well baptized, or no: For besides this instituti- of Christ, the Church of Rome requireth the intent of the Priest, without which the Sacrament with thē is none: Now there is no man that can be fully assured of another mans intent. Secondly the scripture teacheth vs the difference betweene the outward sacrament & the inward grace, which is not inclosed within the other, as a salue in a box, as the Romish Tradition teacheth. They that receiue the first, receiue not alwaies the latter, in what place soeuer it be, as we see by the example of Iudas & Symō Magus. For as saith S. Augustine, [...], 5. de [...]ont. [...], 24▪ mē do put on Christ sōtimes in participatiō of the sacramēt, somtimes in sanctification of life: the first is common to good and bad, the other is peculiar onely to the good. Neither hereticks nor orthodoxall can minister any thing, but the outward sacrament; the holy ghost onely giueth the internall grace, that is fayth, possessiō of Christ, & remissiō of sinnes. All which is manifest in scripture. But the Holy-ghost saith he is resident onely in the true Church, and not among hereticks.
2. J answere, the scripture teacheth vs that the spirit blowes where it listeth: if it were allwaies tyed to a visible church, as the Pope to his seate of Rome, [...], 8, without distributing his graces elsewhere, which is du Perrons meaning; No infidell nor heretick borne out of the true church, could euer enter thereinto by regeneration, by which grace the holy ghost bringeth men thereunto. [...]: 17, Saint Paul persecuted the true Church, so farre was hee from being a member of the same, & receiued notwithstanding the holy ghost out of the visible church. Therfore it is not, to speake properly, the minister that giueth Baptisme, but as the Scripture sayeth, the heauenly father saueth vs by the washing of Regeneration, through the renewing of the Holy Ghost; [...], 5. 5, 26, [...], 1, 16. Iesus Christ cleanseth & sanctifieth his Church through the washing of water in his word: And as the word of the Gospell when it is published according to the reuelation of God, to [Page 35] saluation, to all that beleeue, though he that preacheth it do it of euill will, without sincerity without zeale, of enuy & cōtentiō, as saith the Apostle, that is, though he haue no good intent. So is it in the Sacrament, which is a visible word, so that the minister confer it according to the Lords institutiō, his heresy or hypocrisy cannot hurt him that receiueth it. For the question is not, what is required in a pastour to approue his Ministery before God: but what is requisit to the efficacy of the sacramēt, according to the truth of god, which the scripture teacheth vs cānot be made voyde by the wickednes of men. To which S, Augustine agreeth, saying, that not only the good, but also the wicked haue the ministery to Baptise, but neither of thē both haue the power of baptism that Christ hath committed the ministery thereof to seruants, but reserueth the power thereof to himselfe.
Thirdly J say that the scripture sheweth vs the correspondency of circumcision with Baptisme. Ezech, 1 &, 23. Therfore as the circū cision giuen by the Apostataes of Samaria was availeable to the children that God acknowledged for his, there being no need of reiterating it, so as the Samaritans did reiterate that which had ben administred by the Iews, as Epiphanius witnesseth: So by like reason should not Baptism administred by a heretick be reiterate, prouided that he keep the substāce of the institution. The Prophets indeed do exhort the Samaritanes to repētance, but neuer cal thē to a secōd circumcisiō though the first wer polluted by many abuses & superstitiōs.
The Bishop of Eureux:
Against these Arguments with greate apparāce of scripture. S. Augustine, who 10 whole years hādled this question against the Donatists, could not find any actuall and demonstratine proof in the scripture for the doctrine of the Church in this poynt, and could oppose vnto them no other thing, that would hold the place of an infallible proofe, but the tradition & authority of the Church: Hoc, saith he, obseruandum est in rebus, quod obseruat Ecclesia Dei: Questio autem inter vos & nos est, vera sit Ecclesia Dei: ergo à capite sumendum exordiū, cur schisma feceritis [Page 36] And in another place, [...]: Proinde quamvis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum, earundem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re, a nobis tenetur veritas, cum hoc facimus, quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesiae, quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat autoritas: vt quando S. Scriptura fallere non potest, quisquis falli metuit huius obscuritate quaestionis, eandem ecclesiam de illa consulat quam sine vlla ambiguitate. S. Scriptura demonstrat: And in another place. Bap. [...]on: Sed illa consuetudo, quam etiam tunc hominem sursum versum respicientes, non videbant â posterioribus, restitutam, recte ab Apostolis tradita creditur. Et talia multa sunt, quae longum esset repetere. Now saint Augustine declareth, that the opinion of the Donatists was hereticall, and the whole Church with him, holdeth the Donatists for hereticks: and our aduersaries themselues: As also it must needs bee, that either the Catholikes or the Donatists be hereticks. For if Baptisme, administred by hereticks, bee not true Baptisme the Catholickes which receiue them without Baptizing thē doe violate this article, One Fayth, one Baptisme. Also I beleeue one Baptisme for remission of sinnes. If on the contrary it be true Baptisme, the Donatists in rebaptizing them, and reiterating and multiplying Baptisme do sinne against the same article. Whence I thus conclude: The doctrine of the Donatists which was hereticall could not be confuted by the scripture alone, and without the helpe of the Apostolicke tradition for to confute all heresies: And by consequent, it conteyneth not alone sufficiently all the principles of doctrine necessarye to diuinity and Christian Religion.
D: Tillenus his answere.
Let vs see if Sainte Augustine in those tenne yeares, that he handled his question against the Donatists, could not finde any actuall proof in the scripture vpon this poynte, as Du Perron saith, lib. 1. [...]. cōt. 7. I thinke he promiseth very certayn proofes when he saith, Ne videar humanis argumentis agere, ex Euangelio profero certa documenta &c, Least I should seem [Page 37] to discourse with humaine reasons, Lib. 2. de bap: cont Don. c. 1 J will alleadge sure proofes out of the Gospell, &c. And in an other place, Quid sit perniciosius, vtrum non Baptizari an rebaptizari iudicare difficile est: verumtamen recurrens ad illam stateram Dominicam, vbi non ex humano sensu, sed ex authoritate diuina rerum momenta pensantur, inveniode vtraque re Domini sententiam, Qui lotus est, non habet necessitatem iterum lauandi, &c: Jt is an hard thing to iudge, whether is more dangerous, not to be Baptised, or to be baptized againe yet hauing recourse vnto that ballance of the Lord, where not of humain sence, but of diuine authority the vallews of things are weighed, I finde, of both matters the lords sentence, He that is washed, hath no neede to bee washed agayne. &c. And in another place, hauing said that this custome came of the Tradition of the Apostles, not meaning that it wanteth his proofes in Scripture, he addeth, Lic. 5, de cont. Don c. 2 Contra mandatum dei esse quod venientes ab hereticis, si iam illi Baptismum christi acceperunt, baptizantur, quia scripturarum sanctarum testimoniis non solum ostenditur, sed PLANE ostenditur: That it is against the cōmandement of God, that such as come frō hereticks shold be baptised, if they haue already receued ther the Baptism of Christ, becaus by the testimonies of holy Scriptures, it is not only shewed, but plainly shewed. These places & others of this father, do shew the audaciousnes of du Perron in his affirmations, and his sincerity in his allegations.
As for the places he bringeth out of the same father, to proue that he acknowledged the imperfectiō of the scriptu e cō cerning this poynt, he confoūdeth the question of act, exā ple or practise with the questiō of law or ordināce: S: Augustine saith in this matter, there cā be none exāples of scripture alledged, that is, it cānot be foūd there that it was so practised: & therfore he referrd the custō or practis hereof to apostolike traditiō: but that it ought so to be practised he affirmeth that not only the scripture sheweth it, but that it sheweth it manyfestly. Whence I conclude against the Bishops conclusiō, on this second poynt; The doctrine that euidently sheweth what is to be done in all matters cōcerning fayth & [Page 38] which confuteth the heresies that repugne the same, is perfect: but the scripture conteyneth this doctrine: Therfore it is perfect.
The assumption, is proued not only by the scripture, but also by the testimonies of the fathers, by whome he pretendeth to proue the doctrine of the church of Rome. I wold earnestly desire of him, cleare & direct answere to that place of Augustine aboue alleadged, out of his secōd book 9 chapter de doctrina Christiana▪ for in the verball conference he woulde giue no answer therūto, but on condition, that I would protest to forsake the scripture, and not to reason any more but by the authority of the fathers.
The bishop of Eureux.
The third heresy which we haue propounded among those that cannot by the scripture alone bee confuted, is that of the Greekes, touching the proceeding of the holy ghost which our aduersaries hold as well as we to proceed from the father and from the sonne, a thing notwithstanding which the scripture doth no where expresse. On the contrary it seemeth to restrayne the originall of the same proceeding from the father alone, saying, [...]5.26. 16. The spirit of truth which proceedeth from the father. For when this sentence of Christ is obiected to the Greekes, He shall take of mine, They answerr that this worde of mine hath relation not to the Essence nor to the person, but to the doctrine: so that the intention of Christ in saying, he shall take of mine, that is of the same treasure of doctrine and wisdome, of which the sonne hath taken.
And they alleadg for proofe of their exposition, that which followeth in the Text which sayth; And he shal declare it vnto you replying that the word declare, hath relation not to the essence nor to the person, but to the doctrine. In like sort when these places are alleadged vnto them, if any one haue not haue not the spirit of Christ, 8.15. [...].5.6. he is none of his. And agayne the spirit of Christ crying Abba Father, they answer that concludeth not that the spirit proceedeth from Christ; and that he is called the [Page 39] spirit of Christ, not by proceeding but by possessiō for asmuch as Christ according to his humanity hath receiued the guift & the ful & whol possession of the same spirit, according to the words of Esay. The Spirit of the Lord is vpō me, becaus the Lord hath anoynted me: And S. Peeter saith, The lord hath anoynted him with the holy ghost and with power. And that in this maner it is said that Elizeus receiued the spirit of Elias. Not that the holy Ghost did proceed from Helias but because in a certayne measure he was possessed of Heliah, When that is obiected vnto them which Christ saith vnto his Father, That which is thine is myne. They answer that may be expounded of the possession and outward domination ouer the creatures, ouer whom the Father hath giuen all power to the sonne, in heaven and in earth, neither can the sēce of the words in that place be restrayned to the Essence, no more then when the father of the prodigall Childe saitb to his eldest sonne the same words Omnia mea tua sunt. But besides this though it should be vnderstood of the essence, yet the argument concludeth nothing. For if becaus the essence of the father is one & the same, it shoold therfore follow that the holy ghost proceedeth as well from the one as frō the other: you must in like sorte conclude, The essence of the father and the holy ghost is one and the same: the sonn is therfore begotten of the holy ghost as well as of the Father. And when it is added to those other arguments, He will send the comforter. They answer that he expoundeth himselfe, shewing his meaning by this word Send namely that he will pray his father that he will send him. I will pray (saith he) vnto the Father, and he shall send you another cō forter. And in the same place where he saith he will send him, he preuenteth (say they) the opinion might be conceyued of his proceeding from him, in that he sayth he wil send frō the Father, the spirit of truth, which proceeds frō the father &c: To which they further adde, that there is a great difference betweene the tēporal sending of the holy ghost, at our Lords request, on the Apostles, and the eternall proceeding of the said Spirit, which is the poynt in question.
D. Tillenus his answere.
The proceeding of the Holy-Ghost, which is the thirde poynte, which he maynteineth to haue no ground in scripture, hath his proofe in the scripture, by the schoolmen themselues against the Greeks, who receiued this article without any greate difficulty in the Councell of Florence, in which was present Iohn Paleologus Emperour of Constantinople: but they receiued but fainedly, and by constraynte of theire Emperour (who stood in neede of the Westerne Churches) the Articles of the Popes Supremacy, of Trāsubstantiation, of Purgatory, and other like which are without and against the scripture: Yet ther were some Bishops there that would neuer consent vnto them, but afterwards caused all to be reuoked; imputing the losse of the Easte Empire, which hapned shortly after this councell, to that vnluckie vnion, that there was made with the Pope. Now as the principall questions touching the holy ghost, of his nature, and of his office, haue alwayes been determined by the scripture, against the Arriās, Eunomians & Macedonians: so also may therein be shewed his proceeding from the father and from the Sonne. The place in saint Paule cannot be shifted of by his distinction of possession and proceeding, [...]. 8.9. [...].6, as if he spake onely of the gifte & possession of the spirit that Iesus Christ receued according to his humāity; For the same spirit is there called, both the spirit of Christ, & the spirit of him that raysed vp Christ, And when saint Peter saieth, that it was the spirit of christ by which the Prophets haue prophecied, [...] 1.11. he quite cutteth of the bishops answere: For seeing that the prophets haue prophesied before the incarnatiō of christ, they cannot haue prophesied by the spirit in as much as it was giuen to the humanity of christ: and on the other side the Scripture witnesseth in infinite places, that this spirit of the Prophets was the spirit of God the father, which sheweth as cleerely that the holy ghost proceedeth from the father & the sonne, as the consubstātiality of the son with the Father, by conferēce of the places in the Prophets that speak of Iehoua, with the places in the Euangelists and Apostles, [Page 41] which appropriate them vnto Christ.
The exāple of Heliseus, that receiued the Spirit of Helias, is as little to purpose as the former distinctiō. Iohn. 15 Iesus Christ saith that it is he, that well send this spirit, shewing his diuine power: Helias answereth to Helizeus, when hee asked him double portion of his spirit: Thou askest a hard thing: meaning, that it is not giuen by the power of man, Christ saith not, that it is an hard thing for him to send the Comforter, contrariwise, he saith all that his father hath is his also. He gaue it indeed and in effecte to the Apostles, breathing on them and saying, Receaue the Holy ghost, Iohn. 20 And whereas du Perron sayth, that this may bee expounded of the possession, & domination of the creatures ouer which the Father hath giuen him all power. As whē the father of the prodigal child saith to his eldest son the like words, All that is mine is thine; J answer as aboue is alredy sayd, that the spirit is in the son, as in the Father: And as is shewed that the Spirit proceedeth from the father, by the places which say, That the Father sēdeth him frō the Father, so also may be shewd his proceeding frō the sō by the places, Gal, 4.6 Iohn, 5.1 god sēdeth the spirit of his sō, & the sō doth al things that the Father doth &c. Jt is obiected, that it is said, That the Spirit proceedeth frō the father. That Christ sayth he wil pray the father to sēd him: to which J answer, that Christ in those places speketh as Mediator in which he is lesse that the father, & so hee sayth, that the father is greater than hee. And yet he saith the father wil send him in his name, Iohn. 14 Iohn. 15, which coūteruayleth that other saying, that he will send him from the father. As for the difference betwixt the temporall mission of the holy Ghost and his eternall proceeding: J say that this eternall proceeding is nothing else but the communication of the Diuine essēce by which the third person of the Trinity receiues all the same Essence from the Father and from the sonne, as being the spirit of them both. And seeing that the Greekes beleeue with vs, that the holy Ghost is God, that he is equall to the father and to the Sonne, against the Arrians [Page 42] and Macedonians: and that he is a distinct person from the father and from the sonne againste the Sabellians, we are not to hould them for heretickes in this poynt though they had certaine particulare manners of speaking, for as much as heresy is not in the words, but in the sense, as Saint Hierome saith. Many among the auncient fathers are not held for hereticks, though they speake often improperly of the misteryes of the trinity, of which number is S. Hillary, 2, de. Tri [...]c. who in many places, putteth three substances in God, against the sownd maner of speaking, whereof hee excuseth himselfe saying, that these things surpasse al signification of wordes, all intention of sence, all conceptiō of sence, all conception of vnderstanding. But the Church of Rome is rightly holden for heretical, which in many things doth attribute vnto it self the office of the holy ghost, As whē it sayth that one cānot be assured of the truth and diuinity of the Scripture; but onely by the testimony that that Church giueth of it.
The Bishop of Eureux,
The fourth poynte which we haue propounded is the translation of the Saboath to Sunday: Euery one knoweth, how rigorous the commandement of the Sabaoth was in the old law: and how the gretest both thretnings & promises of god, were made to those that violated or obserued his Sabbaths. And notwithstanding this commandement of God that god had vouchsafed to write with his own hand, in the 10 precepts of the decalogue, & to sequester it as by speciall priuiledge frō all precepts of the ceremoniall law, for to insert it in the Epitome of the morall law: Yet the church hath changed it with out any written ordinance, both as touching the end, the forme [...]d the matter. First as concerning the end: Saturday was ordayned to commemorate, the Creation of the world, & gods rest after 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 [Page 43] 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 supputatiō: 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 resurrectiō. As for the matter, it is certain, that whosoeuer wil obserue the day cōmāded by Moses to the children of Israel, must take not a day at pleasure, by septenary reuolutiō deriued indifferētly frō some beginning that we think good of: but that which shold be fownd the seauenth by reuolutiō, 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 [Page 44] 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 tymes [...]: 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 [Page 45] 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 Christiās, wee learn frō the Scriptures, that ceremonyes are abolished by the cōming of Christ, that there is expres ordināce in scripture, tuching the particuler abolishmēt of this ceremony, which cōprehē 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 defēded 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 mā condēn 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 cōtend, whether shadows be ceremonies? [Page 46] 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, [...]ul. aduers [...]. & ad [...] of whom the most aūcient amōg the Latins distinguisheth in expres terms the tēporall Sabbath frō the eternall sabbath; [...]. lib. 4. shewing by the History of the ruine of Iericho (where all the people, & the Priests thēselues laboured 7 dayes one after another, and therfore the Sabbath was ther in cōprised) that this commaundement was ceremonial & tē porall. [...]tat. de [...]tem Rab [...]n tractat [...]b. c. 1. &, [...]ractat de [...]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 dāger of life the law of the sabbath may be brokē: And these words ar foūd in their Thalmud, Dāger 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 thē the sabbath is takē 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, frō the labors & busines which cō 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 mēt more of the first, [...]. 5.8, thē of the 2, to which notwithstāding the Jews wer boūd, as to all the other Leuiticall ceremonies: frō which yoke Christiās 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 cessatiō frō sins, & a meditatiō on [...] Gods works nor in respect of the form which is to perform this meditation with true repētāce 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 [Page 47] 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 assē 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 exāple of practise wil be fownd therein. He sayth, if the apostle had sayd, Euery mā 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 foūd & 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 cōmandements touching feast dayes or holy dayes, but to be authorrs of good life & true godlines. Our aduersaries on the cōtrary do constitute their principall godlinesse and vertue in obseruation of the holy dayes by thē instituted, and make a morall commaundement of the Iewish obseruation of the sabbath; reiecting into the number of [Page 48] 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 cōmandeth, they shew in what schole they haue studied. Surely their māner 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 thēselues 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. [...].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 frō his ways, through vayn deceyt after the Traditiōs of mē, but that keeping faithfully the sacred truth, which he hath of trust cōmitted 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.