POSITIONS LATELY HELD BY the L. DV PERRON, Bishop of Eureux, against the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures, maintaining the necessity and authority of unwritten Traditions. Very learnedly answered and confuted by D. Daniel Tillenus, Professor of Divinity in the University of Sedan. With a defence of the sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scriptures by the same Author. Faithfully translated. PROV. 30.5.6. Every word of God is pure, he is a shield to those that trust in him: put nothing to his word, lest be reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Aust. de unit. Eccles. cap. 3 sIn the Scriptures we are to seek the Church, by them to discuss our controversies. Chrysost. in 2. Thes. 2. Hom. 3. All is clear and plain in holy Scripture, whatsoever is necessary for us is manifest. Printed at London by L. S. for Nathaniel Butter. 1606. TO THE READER WHen our adversaries perceive themselves convinced by the Scripture, they do as they of whom Irenaeus and Tertullian speak: they set upon the Scripture itself: accusing it of obscurity, ambiguity and imperfection, & maintaining that the truth cannot therein be found, by such as be 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 days practised by ours, who not content, with those old reproaches, do defame the scripture with many contumelies, calling it the book of heretics, the black Gospel, Incke-divinitie, leaden ruler, nose of wax, Theramenes his buskin, the apple of discord, Sphynxes' riddle, a sword in a madman's hand, and other like terms, full of injuries and blasphemies, wherewith they defame the book of the covenant and testament of the Son of God, which the ancients called the mirror of divine grace and man's misery, the touchstone of truth, the displayer of vanity, the Squire, Rule, and most exact balance of all things, the treasure of all virtue, a Shop of remedies for all evils, the sacred Anchor in time of tempest, a strong Army against heretics, a safe retreat against all dangers, a happy rest after all travails, the sure and only stay in time of trial, the Pillar and foundation of our faith: the most part of which titles, and the efficacy of them all, is attributed by our adversaries to their Traditions, which some of them dare even prefer and oppose unto the scripture. Lind. lib. 2 panopl. c. 5 Witness he who calleth it the true Moly conserving the Christian faith, against the Enchantments of Heretics, because Catholics (saith he) would be soon, poisoned with these Enchantments (he meaneth the Scriptures) if they did not use the Moly or antidote of Traditions. Pigh. de Eccl. Hic. lib. 1. c. 4 Another having affirmed that the authority of Ecclesiastical tradition hath more force and efficacy to assure our faith in every controversy, than the Scripture; addeth further, that if those of his side would remember, that Heretics ought not to be convinced by the Scripture, their matters would go a great deal better with them: but having endeavoured to overcome Luther by the Scripture, for to make ostentation of their good wit and great knowledge, all is come to nought etc. Truly it is an horrible combustion in Christendom, to see the Scriptures, which make us know Christ and become christians, used so unworthily. No nation ever took this liberty unto themselves, to defame the books containing the laws either of their belief or policy. The books of the Sibyls, the laws of the twelve Tables, and other like writings were held sacred among the Romans. The Greeks, and Pagans did bear all honour, to the laws of their Legislators, and to their Ritual books, as to this day the jew do to their Thalmud, and the Turks to their Alcoran. But among those that would be called Christians, he that can cast most reproaches against the holy Scripture, he that can observe or imagine therein most imperfections, will be esteemed more fine witted, and more zealous in the faith then others: yea, there hath been found one, who of late hath dared by writing to maintain & publish, that invocation or calling on the name of Christ jesus, is no more commanded in the Scripture, than the calling on the Saints departed, that thereby he might make the Inundation on the Author of life, to depend as well on the Romish tradition, as on the authority of the book of life. It being my chance of late to meet with the L. of Perro● Bishop of Eureux, and to fall into some dispute with him, concerning this matter, he confesseth unto me, that the most part of the articles in controversy between the Romish Church and ours, have no demonstrative proof in the Scripture: As the Sacrifice of the Mass, Invocation on saints, Prayer for the dead, worshipping of Images, Auricular confession, unction with the Crisme, the necessity of satisfactions, the Pope's Indulgences, etc. But he alleged, that from the time of the old Testament, the jew did believe also many things, as necessary to salvation, which notwithstanding in their times were not contained in the Scripture: In which point I found him not to agree with many great Doctors of his side, who confess that the Scripture of the old Testament containeth all the God knew to be expedient and sufficient for the salvation of the Israelites: but that it is not so in the doctrine of the new testament, which (say they) should not be written on paper, but preached by word of mouth, engraven in the hearts of the hearers, & so comit●●ed unto posterity without writing, alleging to this 〈◊〉 that which jeremy saith cap. 31. & S. Paul. 2. Cor. 3. The sa●● L. of Perron dissenteth also from his other Doctors of whom some have written even in the Council of Trent, touching some points, which he maintained might be proved by the scri●●tures, though they deny it, namely transubstantiation, the mer●●● of works, the Pope's supremacy, Purgatory, etc. And being certain, that these articles have no more ground in Scripture than the rest, we may well say of them which believe them, that which Tertullian said of some in his time, they believe without the scriptures, that they might believe against the scripture. Now the conference having dured certain days, and finding more illusion on his part than instruction, I prayed him to continue it by writing, that the objections of the one, and the solutions of the other appearing on paper, every man might at leisure consider, the knot of the one and the keen cutting of the other, showing him that more fruit would come forth of a permanent writing, than from dazelling and vanishing words, that the one remained subject to the touch and balance, and that in the other, a suborned flatterer gave, and the ignorant hearer took oftentimes false Alarms: But I could never obtain it at his hands, who well considered that if he should gather together in paper, what he had scattered in the air, his distinctions would appear to be more prestigious in the one, than they seem to be specious in the other, and that it would be as hard a thing for him to unwrap himself, from selfe-contradictions by the pen, as it is easy for him to dazzle and entangle the ignorant by his tongue. He made account also, perhaps, that his cause being grounded on the Word unwritten, it could not well be defended by the word written. Notwithstanding having intelligence since, that he had compiled a little writing on this subject, in favour of some whom he was desirous to subvert: I have taken pains to get a Copy of it, to which I have made this answer, which may serve in st●ade of a Resultate or repetition of our Verbal Conference: at which were present few others than his greatest friends, who then made such acclamations, and since have sowed such reports thereof as pleased them. But here, not being required the applause of men, nor any tickling conceit of vanity, I entreat the Readeer to aim with me in this writing at the glory of God only, and the manifestation of his truth, for the teaching whereof Saint Athanasius witnesseth that the Scripture is sufficient. Let us acknowledge it then for judge, Athanas. 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 us reverence it as Mistress, whilst our adversaries take it for party, and pursue it as an enemy. The answer of D. Daniel Tillenus to the Bishop of Eureux his treatise; whereby he endeavoureth to prove the insufficiency and imperfection of the holy Scripture and the necessity & authority of unwritten traditions. The bishop of Eureux. THE unwritten word of God, The B. ● on. which we call Apostolic 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 jews did believe, when the body of the law of Moses was given unto them, many things, which either were not contained in the five books of Moses, or did not appear unto them to be therein contained; As the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the last judgement, Paradise, Hell, the Creation and distinction of the orders of Angels, the being and creation of devils: and many other points, which they could not know by human science but it must needs be that they received them by revelation from God; and therefore that they had another way for to derive and conserve the word of god, besides that of the Scripture. D. Tillenus his answer. To him that would hear none but Fathers speak, it may be answered in a word, as one of the number saith: Hillar. i● Psalm. 1● Whatsoever is not contained in the book of the Law, we ought not to know it. He that speaketh so, would not have us seek that elsewhere, which is not found in the Scripture. We say that all that is necessary to salvation, touching those and all other points, is contained in the scripture, either in express terms, or in necessary consequence and true analogue. Gen. 17● Exod 6. ● Exod. 20● In the writings of Moses we find, that God maketh a covenant with the Hebrews, that he promiseth to be their God, and the God of their seed, to exercise mercy upon them unto thousand generations, that is to say for ever: to dwell in the midst of them, 〈◊〉. 10. 〈◊〉. 29. to keep them as the apple of his eye. In them is Israel called happy, for that it was sa●ed by the lord God. 7.9. jacob being ready to departed out of this life, comforted himself in the expectation of the salvation of the lord, to show that he went to take possession of a better country; He and his Father called themselves strangers in the land of Canaan, which notwithstanding was promised them for inheritance; Therefore they believed the true country, that is to say, Paradise. This consequent is not only necessary, but also manifest, by the testimony of the Apostle, who draweth it from this place of Scripture, not from any unwritten Tradition, 〈◊〉 1.9.13. when he saith, that they which so speak, show plainly that they seek a Country, which is the thing that Du Perron can not find in the books of Moses: although we find in them that the wicked and unfaithful that defended lies against the truth, 〈◊〉 ●. 11. did wish it. For what else meaneth that false prophet Balaam, when he saith: O that my soul might die the death of the righteous, or that my end might be like theirs? This wish expresseth clearly enough, the apprehension he had of the last judgement. 〈◊〉 ●. 1. When Moses calleth the Israelites the children of the Lord their God, forbidding them to sorrow for the dead as infidels, he speaketh no less manifestly of the resurrection, 〈◊〉 4.13. than S. Paul, when he exhorteth the Thessalonians not to lament for the dead, as they do that have no hope. 〈◊〉 3.2. When Moses saith that God holdeth all his saints in his hands, he saith the same thing that is said by other that have written after him, That the souls of the righteous are in the hands of the Lord: and that they commit their souls unto him, 〈◊〉 ●. 1. 19 2.32. 24. ●. jud. ●. 29. ●0. 19. as unto a faithful creator. So when he speaketh of the book of life, of the taking up of Henoch, which Tertullian calleth Candidatum aeternitatis: when he saith, that those that fear God and keep his commandments, shall be happy for ever: when he setteth before the jews, life and death, blessing and cursing: when he threateneth them with the fire of the Lords wrath, Deut. ● which shall burn even to the bottom of hell, shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains: When (I say) he writeth all these things, he showeth clearly enough the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the last judgement, Paradise and He●l, which points are unseparably linked together. If these testimonies seem not clear enough to the Bishop of Eureux, who confesseth nevertheless that in Daniel, and the other Prophets that have written since Moses, 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: Which showeth, that if those that do err in some point, will not suffer themselves to be vanquished by the scripture: that cometh not through any obscurity and imperfection of which they falsely accuse it, but from their own malice and blindness. Moreover, it is to be noted, that it hath pleased God orderly to distribute the revelation of his will, of his promises, and of his covenant, by certain degrees, increasing always the measure of this revelation, as the age of the world increased. This economy is clearly observed in the Scripture, if we mark therein the degrees from Adam to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to David, from David to the captivity of Babylon, and from the captivity of Babylon to jesus Christ, who was the light itself. For this cause the time of the jewish Church is called the time of Infancy, ours on the contrary, the fullness of time. If then the Scripture of the old Testament were a sufficient light to the jews, though it was not so clear as ours, how much more ought we to content ourselves, with that light which we have by the addition of the new Testament? The B. of Eureux. For as touching the book of job, to omit that the most part of the jews and Mercerus with them, and the principal Caluinists do deny, that the place that is there, is to be understood of the Resurrection: there is no assured testimony, that the book of job was extant, then when the Law of Moses was given: contrariwise most men think it was written since the Transmigration of Babylon; which Ezechiell seemeth to confirm, saying, Noah, Daniel, job. As for Daniel, and the other Prophets it is well enough known, that they were more than seven or eight hundred years since. D. Tillenus his answer. As for the book of job, in which the resurrection of the body, and by consequent the immortality of the soul are found in express terms, whatsoever Du Perron saith, who wrongfully attributeth unto us, the false exposition of some Anabaptists: We learn indeed of the jews, that Moses having found this book in the country of Madian, where his father Law was, brought into Egypt, to propound it unto the jews as an example of patience in their servitude. But when we say, that this history happened before Moses wrote the Law, we are grounded on good consequence drawn from the scripture, which teacheth us, that after the publishing of the law, it was not lawful to offer sacrifice else where than before the Ark or Tabernacle, without special commandment: So that if job had lived after the law of Moses neither would he have transgressed the Law in offering sacrifice, nor God have approved his sacrifice. The age also that the scripture giveth to job, maketh us believe that he was before Moses, ● 10. who witnesseth that those of his time lived not so long. Du perron's conjecture, who will have him to have lived before the captivity of Babylon, is frivolous; he groundeth it on this, that Ezechiell nameth together Daniel and job, ● 14. whence it would follow also, that Noah should have lived in those times, for the Prophet nameth him with the other. The B. of Eureux. And as for our saviour Christ's argument against the Saducees, it proveth indeed the immortality of the soul, and not the other points: But that argument till his time was unknown to the jews, who for this cause did admire the infiniteness of his wisdom: And therefore it must needs follow that they had received the belief of it, for to hold it for an article of faith, by another means than by the reading of the books of Moses: to wit, by Tradition from Abraham, Isaac, jacob, and other Fathers. D. Tillenus his answer. He showeth here, that he hath as little insight into the books of the Evangelists, as in those of Moses: he saith that this argument proveth indeed the immortality of the soul, but not the other points, that is to say the Resurrection of the body. And notwithstanding Saint Matthew saith in express terms, that our Lord cited that place of Moses, Math. 22 Exod. 3. ● for to prove the Resurrection of the dead, and that by this only argument he stopped his enemy's mouths, who chose rather to be silent, than to continue to blaspheme. If until then it had been unknown to the jews, as Du Perron saith, Yet that showeth not any unsufficiency in the scripture; rather indeed the ignorance of the Church till those times, and the negligence of those, that would not vouchsafe to try and sound the depth of the scriptures, joh. 5. 3● as our Lord jesus Christ did therein exhort them. I know not why he findeth so great obscurity in this argument of our Saviour: For so great a Philosopher as he, should have better perceived therein the light of that Philosophical maxim 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 Isaac and of jacob, as saith Moses; Exod. 3 ● It followeth therefore that he is their god both in soul and Body: which are the principal parts of every man. But seeing the Saducees could not find, or would not search the Resurrection of the dead in the books of Moses; wherefore then did they believe it as little by Tradition? Why did not our Lord and Saviour send them thereunto? Wherhfore did he draw so obscure an argument (as Du Perron will have it) from the Scripture, if there had been any manifest reasons in Tradition? ● 22.9.29. 6.29. to ●d. Wherhfore doth he attribute the cause of their error to their ignorance of the Scripture? And truly Abraham referred the brethren of the wicked rich man, to keep them out of hell, not only to the Prophets, but even to Moses also, 15.1. ●s. 12.3. where they might see how God had said to Abraham, that he would be his buckler, and his exceeding great reward: that in his seed should all Nations be blessed: Which doctrine containeth the foundation of the substance of the doctrine of salvation. Now put case that the above named points could not be found so manifest in the books of Moses, yet could not that conclude any thing against the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures, which we have in the Christian church: For, as god revealed his will to the first patriarchs by word of mouth, for to instruct them in his knowledge, before there was any Scripture; so did he continue the same manner of revelation in Moses' time, speaking to him as familiarly as a man speaketh to his friend, instructing him of all matters: yet never giving him this liberty, to ordain any thing concerning religion of his own authority: Also Moses very religiously contained himself within the limits of obedience, not only in the least Ceremonies, but also in the public administration or government, wherein notwithstanding, it seems he might have usurped a little more power: but we see he would determine nothing against him that had broken the Sabbath; but caused him to be put in prison, till God had declared unto him, 15.34. with what manner of punishment the Transgressor should be punished. Contrariwise the Romish Church presumeth, to ordain an infinite number of things, as well in Religion as in Policy, which they are not only unable to prove by any Scripture, but which also, even their pretended Apostolic Traditions cannot show; in defence whereof their maintainers set forth the authority of the Church, which they say cannot err. Now although the Church of the jews had Oracles, visions, divine dreams, urim and Thummim, and Prophets extraordinarily sent of God, by which means (now ceased since God hath spoken unto us by his Son) it might be more fully instructed in all things: Yet notwithstanding the holy Scripture is always recommended unto them above all. Hebr. 1. God himself though he spoke to joshuah by word of mouth confirming him in his charge, notwithstanding he commended unto him only the book of the Law, Josh. 1.7 not promising him his assistance and blessing, but on condition that he should do and observe all that is contained therein. After that, so often as the reformation of the Church was intended, there was never any other pattern taken than the scripture, 2. Chro. ● 2 Chro. ● 2. Chro. ● 2. King, ● 2, King. 2 Nehe, 8. as appeareth by the examples of josaphat, joas, Ezechias, josias, Ezra, Nehemias, etc. Contrariwise when Amon and Manasses would divert the people from the service of god to idolatry, they hide the book of the Law, that it might no more be read publicly as god by Moses had ordained. As touching the creation of Angels, the being & creation of devils, which du Perron very improperly distinguisheth, as if devils were not angels at the beginning, or as if god had created them by themselves, so wicked as they are: there is revealed in the books of Moses as much of it, as god hath judged 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 Tradition than by the scripture, though it be augmented since Moses; from whom we gather their Creation, when he saith, that the heavens & the earth were finished and all their host. Gen. 2, ● Gen. 28 Deut. 3● Gal, 3.1 In the vision of jacobs' ladder, and elsewhere, we read their apparitions and ministry; which the Jews, in the time of Moses knew rather by their experience, than by Tradition, sith the Law was published by them. As for the supposed distinction of their orders, Areopagita speaketh with such assurance, as if he had been present at it all, though even he that was rapt up into the third heaven, not only forbeareth to speak of it, 〈◊〉. 12.4. but also witnesseth that it is not lawful to reveal these secrets. We say with S. Augustine that when disputation is had of a thing very obscure, without certain and clear proof of the divine scriptures, the supposition of man is to be kept in, not leaning more on the one side, ●●st. count ●. it. than the other: He sendeth us not in this case to unwritten Tradition. Irenaeus, who should know more of Apostolic tradition, that any of our time, defied certain Gnostics in his days, swollen with I know not what knowledge taken out of the scripture, in reckoning up and describing the distinctions, orders and pre-eminences of Angels, archangels, 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 adversaries as impossible to comprehend. Touching the devil, Moses teacheth the jews in the scripture, 〈◊〉 s. 3. that he was a liar, a tempter and seducer from the beginning. That the seed of the woman should bruise his head, etc. If there had been need of knowing more, he could have given them the knowledge of it, by a more authentical and true Oracle, than that of Rome is. I know not whether du Perron would maintain, that the nine orders or degrees which the Schoolmen have made among devils, in imitation of the Angelical Hierarchy, are from Apostolic tradition. The B. of Eureux. They had beside this many other things, whereof the institution is not found neither in the books of Moses, nor in any other book of the old Testament: As the institution of the order of Exorcists, who by a certain authentical prescript form from God did conjure wicked spirits, as our Lord beareth them witness, saying: 〈◊〉 12.27. If I cast out devils in the name of Beelzebub, in whose name do your children cast them out? And for this reason they shall be your judges: Which children Caluin proveth, that they were the Exorcists of the jews, such as those which are spoken of in the 19 chapter of the Acts. D. Tillenus his answer. The knowledge of these things, either is not necessary to Salvation, 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 divine institution: For they in the Acts, were certain 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 gift of casting out devils was usual there, but we find not that they which had it, in the exercising thereof did use any mystical prescript form: but that they did simply conjure the * Ener●● Possessed in the name of God: whence we gather that such as in the jewish Church had this gift, and did use it lawfully, brought thereunto none other mystery, than the calling on the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and jacob, which form is found evidently enough in the Scripture. The B. of Eureux. They had the miracle of the Pool, the water whereof the Angel troubled, which was a figure of Baptism, that should heal us of our infirmities, after that the Angel of the great counsel, which is our Lord jesus Christ, was gone down into the water. Now that this was not any illusions of the devil, and superstition for those that have recourse thereunto, but a true miracle instituted of god, whereunto credit might be given: it could not be known, but by tradition. D. Tillenus his answer. The miracle of the Pool was visible, as the miracles of jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the Prophets afore them were: john. 5. ● It tended not to establish or confirm any false doctrine, in which case the caution that Du Perron requireth had been necessary. Nehem: ● Nehemias saith that the gate of this Pool was hallowed, when he City was re-edified, after the return from captivity. Whence we may conjecture, that God then adorned it with this miracle, in token of his approving the restoring of the City. And the word Bethchesda, which was the name of the Pool in the Syriack tongue, signifieth the house of benignity, because God there did visibly show his goodness, in healing all the diseases of his people. The B. of Eureux. The custom also which they had to deliver a man at Easter, which was a figure of the deliverance of mankind by the Passeover of our Saviour, was a Tradition. D. Tillenus his answer. The custom to deliver a man at Ester, was rather a corruption of justice, brought in by infidel Governors, than any necessary point to salvation, revealed and commanded of god to the faithful. The B. of Eureux. The Apostles also ever anon allege 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 covenant, mingled water in the blood of the Testament, wherewith he sprinkled the people: which was a figure, that we should be sprinkled with the blood of Christ, which is the blood of our covenant. Nevertheless this mixture of water with blood, not set down by Moses, nor by any other author of the old Testament. D. Tillenus his answer. Moses' made not express mention of some ceremonies, which the Apostle reciteth; 〈◊〉: 19: 21: but we learn them better by analogy and consequence of Scripture, than by unwritten Tradition. It was commanded to use water in all sacrifices: And if that was requisite in particular men's sacrifices, how much more in the ratification of the public covenant whereof Moses speaketh? 〈◊〉 ●4: He nameth not likewise in express words the he goats, purple wool and hyssop: but he saith, that the children of Israel offered burnt offerings, and then peace offerings, or offerings of thanksgiving. Now the whole offerings, which were expiatory for sin, could not be but of goats, levit: & 16: 8● as the scripture teacheth elsewhere. So we see that god commandeth they should offer unto him purple wool: Hyssop was commanded before they came out of Egypt, Levit ● Numb and after was ordained to serve always for an Jnstrument to the sprinklings; whereunto David alludeth, Psal. 5 when he prayeth that god would purge him with hyssop, that he might be clean. Now seeing god would that these things should be ordinary under the Law, it appeareth by Analogy, that he had caused them to be as an example of the other that should come after. The B. of Eureux. He sprinkled also the book of the Covenant with the same blood, saith saint Paul, which was a figure that the book of the Law should take his force from the blood jesus Christ. And yet nevertheless of this sprinkling of the book, there is not any mention made in the old Testament. D. Tillenus his answer. Touching the sprinkling of the book, Exod. 2● we gather by that which is said in the same place, that Moses having sprinkled the Altar, took the book, which (as appeareth) was upon the Altar, with which it was in like manner sprinkled. The B. of Eureux. He saith that the golden pot of Manna, and the rod of Aaron were put into the Ark, which we know was the place of adoration: And notwithstanding, not one book of the old testament maketh any mention of it. D. Tillenus his answer. As for the pot of Manna, Moses saith, Exod. 1 Numbs 1. King ● 2: Chro● that it was put before the face of the Lord, that is, before the Ark and not with in it: the same is said of Aaron's rod. And elsewhere the scripture saith in express words, that there was nothing in the Ark, 〈◊〉 4. but the two tables of stone. That which is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews is not against it: For the relative En high, is not to be referred to the word Kibotou Ark, though it be nearest 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 Jude declareth the angels combat with the Devil, about the burial of Moses, as a thing evidently known among the jews: and thereof frameth an argument against those that blasphemed dignities, reciting the very words of the Angel. Now this was a tradition, which could not have taken his original of any human doctrine, but from the pure revelation and word of God. D. Tillenus his answer. The knowledge of the combat of the Angel with the devil, about the body of the Moses, is not so come by Tradition, but that we learn some thing of it even from the Scripture: 〈◊〉 3: 2: for there is no doubt but that saint Jude aimed at the place of Zacharie, where we read the same words: The Lord rebuke thee o Satan. The Prophet calleth him the Angel of the Lord, whom the Apostle calleth Michael the Archangel: both of them do mean the Prince of angels, that is to say, Jesus Christ, who hath combated and overcome Satan, and won the body of Moses, that is, hath accomplished the mystery of our redemption, figured by the shadows of Moses, 〈◊〉 ●2: 17: whereof Christ is the true body, as the Scripture saith. And in that he durst not denounce the sentence of curse, it derogateth nothing from his deity and Majesty. For we must consider him in this place as Mediator, in which quality, he is subject and obedient to his Father, not exercising his Allmightines. If the L. of Perron will not admit this exposition, let him know then, that the reason, the apostle draweth from this unwritten history, is found very well grounded on the Scripture, Exod, 22. ● which in express words forbiddeth to curse or speak evil of Princes. But the Church of Rome doth profit very ill by this Tradition of saint Jude: For first it exposeth and prostituteth all the bodies and relics of Saints departed, and suborneth false ones too in their room, to cause the people to commit Jdolatry, in stead of resisting the devil when he bringeth forth such inventions, as the Archangel did; who according to the common exposition of this place, fought with him, when he would have discovered the sepulchre of Moses, 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 itself to blaspheme and tread under feet the greatest dignities of the earth, as the Popes have impiously and arrogantly showed it even to Kings and Emperors. The B. of Eureux. In like manner he maketh mention of the prophesy of Enoch touching the last coming of god in the day of judgement. And this was a word of god, which was profitable yea necessary to be believed of all those to whom the notification thereof should come: and notwithstanding that Enoch had ever written any thing, it is no way manifest by the scripture. D. Tillenus his answer. The prophecy of Enoch, which the same Apostle allegeth touching the last judgement, is not only not repugned by the scripture, but is also therein more clearly expressed, than the profane contemners of God would have it. We receive most willingly all Traditions, which have like conformity and approbation in scripture, as this prophecy: We confess that all particular deeds and sayings are not contained therein; For Singularium nulla est scientia: but the reason & ground of all these things are found therein; and the sentence of saint john remaineth true, though all that our Lord hath done be not written, yet that which is written, john: 20●30: 31: is sufficient for us to believe that jesus is that Christ, and that in believing we might have life in his name. I remember that in the verbal conference the B. of Eureux accused those of our side of a most wicked falsifying of this place, for having translated the word, tauta; these things: in stead of referring it only to miracles, of which alone, he maintained that S. john meant. And because I could not get from him any clear answer, as then, on expositions of S. Augustin and saint Cyrill, that I alleged, wholly agreeable unto ours, I will in this place rehearse them. ●t Tract. 〈◊〉. 45. The first saith, though jesus had done very many things, yet all were not written: but that which seemed sufficient for the salvation of believers was chosen to be written, The other speaketh yet more clearly: 〈◊〉 lib. 2. in 〈◊〉 cap. vlt. All the things (saith he) that jesus did are not written; but only those things that the writers thought sufficient, as well for doctrine as for manners, etc. The B. of Eureux. The apostles do not only give us examples of the use of traditions, ●s. 2, 15. but also commandment. Observe, saith Saint Paul, the traditions that you have received of us, be it by word, or by our Epistle. In which place those of Geneva have taken out of their French Bible, the word Tradition, which is in the Greek, and in the Latin, and have put instead thereof Instruction. To which it cannot be answered, that saint Paul restraineth the generality of this proposition, to the traditions only which have since been written: For it is in consequence of a tradition, that he had given them concerning the cause, that hindered the coming of Antichrist, which was never written, that he frameth this general law. And in this sense also do saint Basill, S. Epiphanius and saint Chrysostome interpret it. D. Tillenus his answer. When saint Paul wrote this Epistle, there was scarce any scripture of the new Testament: For after our adversaries own account, no Evangelists yet had written, and saint Paul had than written, but his former Epistle to the Thes●●●nians then, these two Epistles did not contain all the doctrine of Christ, necessary to be known, the Apostle fitly exhorteth the Thessalonians to observe, not only what he had afore written unto 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 given them, touching the cause that hindered the coming of Antichrist, which was never written, that he frameth this general Law. But that is altogether false, 2. Thes. 2. ● we need but look into the text, to know of what Traditions the Apostle speaketh: We ought always, saith he, give thanks unto God for you, because he hath chosen you to salvation, through the sanctification of the spirit, and the faith of truth, whereunto he hath called you, by our Gospel, to obtain the glory of our Lord jesus Christ. Whereupon he addeth; Wherefore keep the Traditions, that is to say, these instructions of truth, which you have learned, and which I have given you, either by word of mouth or by our Epistle. By the consequence Du Perron draweth, it should follow, that, part of this tradition, touching the hindering of antichrist's coming, should be written: which was done, and therefore he overthroweth his own exposition. Furthermore, though all he saith were of force, as it is of none: yet could he but prove thereby the traditions of the Apostles, and not an infinite number of others, which the Church of Rome causeth to be observed, as the Laws of god which we know by their histories, were instituted many ages after the Apostles times. If because Moses had given some instructions, by word of mouth to the Israelites, the Cabalists and jewish rabbins would make us receive the Traditions of their Thalmud, who would admit them? And if du Perron believe the Fathers, let him believe then Tertullian, Chrysostome, and saint Hierome, who say that after the ruin of the Roman Empire, the throne of Antichrist should be established 〈◊〉 ●ome. Which therefore, is fulfilled, seeing that the ruin o● 〈◊〉 Empire, is notorious to all the world. The B. of Eureux. 〈◊〉 ●: 2: 1: He saith also to Timothy: Tu ergo fili confortare in gratia quae est in Christo jesu, & quae audisti à me per multos testes, haec commenda fidelibus, qui idonei crunt & alios docere. Of which deposit there had been no need, if all the word of god, as our adversaries pretend to prove by this same Chapter, had been sufficiently written, or should have been from the very time of the Apostles. D. Tillenus his answer. 〈◊〉: 1: 13: The apostle himself declareth, what he meaneth by this deposit, which he exhorteth Timothy to keep, namely the pattern of wholesome words, he had heard of him, which consisteth in faith and love: and it followeth in this very verse, that he should communicate it unto faithful men, which should be able to teach others. But in the third chapter he saith most plainly, 〈◊〉, 3, 15: ●. that by the Scripture, not only lay-men (as they call them) but also the man of God, that is to say, the Pastor or Doctor of the Church, should and may be taught and made wise unto salvation, and absolutely instructed and made perfect unto every good work. Whence it followeth, that this deposit or matter committed of trust unto Timothy is nothing else but the scripture, which is sufficient even for the salvation of a Bishop, and not of a Lay man only, which later, du Perron in our conference, was forced to confess, finding no other distinction to escape. The B. of Eureux. Moreover there are four points, which our adversary should with us, and condemn (as we do) of heresy, those that repugn the same. (at least wise touching the three former) namely the truth of Baptism of little children, that of the Baptism of heretics, the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, and the translation of the feast from Saturday to Sondaye, which can not be concluded by any demonstra●●● proof from any place of Scripture. D. Tillenus his answer. In all these articles if we believe him, the Scripture is no foundation & pillar of our faith, as Irenaeus said: Irenaeu● c: 1: Tertul. ● Hermo● And they that added them to Scripture, need not fear the woe, by Tertullian (who reverenced the fullness of the scriptures) threatened after S. john to those which cannot show, that, that which they say, is written: nor the anthema of S. Augustin against those, August. Ecclesic● count lit. lib: 3 cap Chrysos● Homil: ● 20, cap, ● that cannot read in Scriptures, the doctrine they teach: nor the reproaches of Chrysostome, who calleth them thieves that go up by any other way into the fold, than by the scripture, which is called the gate, saith he, because it leads us to god, it maketh sheep, it hunteth away wolves, & suffereth us not to go astray: Also they of our side, hold not the abovesaid points for articles of faith, no otherwise, but because they do find them in that gate, which alone hath served them for a buckler & sword against the Anabaptists: which notwithstanding du Perron maketh dangerous, as if it were some rock or quicksand, against which shipwreck of faith were to be feared. In like manner, in the verbal conference, he told me roundly, that S. Cyprian fell into he resy by no other occasion, than for having folowd the scripture which made him go astray: quite contrary to that which S. Chrysostom saith, who calleth it also in another place, Homily 1● Epist. ad Corinth. a most certain balance, squire & rule, exhorting every man, to leave what this man or that man thinketh, & to search all things in the scripture. To which agreeth also S. Augustin, when he saith, Aug. Lib cap. 9 de Christ, among the things which are Openly declared in the scriptures, are found ALL those, that contain faith & manners, to wit hope & charity By the testimonies of these fathers, & by infinite others which for brevity sake I omit, it is evident, that either they esteemed these points in question, to be contained in the Scripture, yea openly; or else that they thought them not necessary to faith & charity: But they did hold them necessary aswell as we: Therefore they did believe thee them to be comprehended in the scripture, aswell as we. The B. of Eureux. First touching the Baptism of little children, that it is true & lawful, they have but three arguments, that they can with any appearance allege to this effect. The first is taken from little children that were brought to jesus Christ, that he might pray and lay his hands on them. 〈◊〉 19.13. But sith he did not baptize them, and also that they were not brought to him to that end, but only he laid his hands on them and then departed: So far are the Anabaptists from acknowledging, that from thence may be concluded, that children are to be baptised, that on the contrary they infer therefrom, that seeing he did baptise them, they ought not to be baptised. D. Tillenus his answer. He might be like reason conclude, from the same place, that seeing jesus Christ did not accept the title of Good, he must not be called Good. The Scripture saith, that jesus commanded, 〈◊〉 19: 17. little children should be brought unto him, affirming that to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven. The same scripture saith, 〈◊〉 3.3. that none entereth into this kingdom, unless he be regenerate or born again: It saith also, that Baptism is the washing of this regeneration: And that those that are baptized, 〈◊〉 3, 5, 〈◊〉 ●. 27. do put on Christ. Whence we conclude, that seeing they are not deprived of the thing signified, they ought not be deprived of the sign. The B. of Eureux. Their second argument is of circumcision which was given to little children, and was a figure of Baptism. To which is answered, first that arguments drawn from figures do not always conclude alike for the truth of the things figured, if there be not a commandment thereof reiterated. The Paschall Lamb was a figure of the Eucharist, as Circumcision of Baptism. Now in the celebration of the Paschall lamb, there was no sacramental drink, therefore there should be no need of any in the Eucharist: they would not admit of this argument. Circumcision was given on the eight day: the same therefore must be observed in Baptism. The reason holdeth not. Circumcision was not given to women among the jews, but only among the Egyptians and other profane people imitators of Circumcision baptism therefore ought not to be conferred unto them: which is as reasonless as the former. D. Tillenus his answer. The Scripture teacheth us how we must reason of Circumcision in Baptism, when saint Paul speaketh in the same terms, both of the one and the other Sacrament, Colos. 2● appropriating the vey name of Circumcision to Baptism: the better to show that both of them figured but one and the same thing, and that Baptism is to Christians, the same that Circumcision was to the jews. The Paschall Lamb, was properly a figure of jesus christ: so the Scripture meaneth it, when it saith. Our Passeover, 1: Cor. ● that is, our Paschall Lamb is Christ, sacrificed for us. In this scripture Jesus Christ commandeth us to use a sacramental drink in the Eucharist, which the pretended Apostolic Tradition forbiddeth: to show, what goodly agreement there is, betwixt the Word of God written, and theirs not written: As in like sort the Scripture teacheth us, that we are no more bound to the observation of days, and that the Gospel giveth us liberty in all these things. The B. of Eureux may remember, that in the verbal conference, he denied unto me, that it was commanded in Scripture, not to minister Circumcision, but on the eight day, which here he confesseth. He alleged in favour of the jewish Traditions, that jesus Christ himself did approve them, finding good that the jews should administer Circumcision on the Sabbath day, which by the scripture they might not do, which commandeth that no work should be done in the same, so that it must needs be, that this exception or dispensation was given them by Tradition. To which I answered, seeing the commandment was express in scripture, to circumcise every 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 commandment, forbade only our works, not his; amongst which, is the administration of the Sacraments. He replied unto me, that these words (octavo die, the eight day) did not precisely signify the eight day: but within the eight day, and would never let go this gloze, though I alleged unto him the express text, where the reason why circumcision was deferred till the eight day, 2: is added; for that the mother is unclean, the first 7. days after her childbirth. The consequence that he draweth, that women should not be baptised, if the correspondency of circumcision and Baptism were such as we would have it, is a mere cavil. For seeing that Circumcision did show 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 Sacrament, & all the analogy of faith & the necessary consequence of Scripture teacheth us, that we must admit women to the communion of the Eucharist: so doth it teach us also, that they must be baptised, seeing they are as capable of this Sacrament as the males. The B. of Eureux. Secondly, cirtumcision had two uses, the one temporal, which did properly cleave to the bark of the jewish law, for to distinguish in like sort those, which were corporally sprung from Abraham, & to discern them from other nations: the other spiritual. Imperavit, saith Joseph, Ahae, ut genitalia circumcideret: voluit enim Deus, ut genus eius non permisceretur alijs gentibus. And for this cause all the time they were in the wilderness, those that were born were not circumcised, because they were not mingled with other nations, as S. Hierom & Damascen do observe. Whereas Baptism having but one only use, which is spiritual, 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 substance. For we leave to the children of the Jews, that which it temporally figured unto them: but seeing it had also towards them a spiritual use, which is the very substance of this Sacrament, wherefore should we deprive thereof, the children of christians: seeing that jesus christ came not into the world to diminish the spiritual blessings, but to increase & fulfil them? If du Perron think the intermission of Circumcision in the wilderness, was not a transgression of the Law of God, he is deceived: Josh. 5. ● For after that joshuah had circumcised the Israelites in Gilgall, he said he had taken away from them the shame of Egypt; meaning thereby, that through contempt of god's covenant they were unworthy thereof, having showed by this their negligence, that their hearts were still in Egypt, whither they would fain have returned. Num: 1 The B. of Eureux. Thirdly Circumcision left a perpetual mark in the flesh, which was always a sensible token, to him that had received it, that he had been circumcised: whereas Baptism leaveth not any sensible mark, saving in the knowledge and memory of him that was baptised. And therefore Baptism seemeth to require an age capable of knowledge and memory. D. Tillenus his answer. Baptism bringeth the same spiritual fruit to the children of Christians, that Circumcision brought to the children of the jews, as hath been showed; this consideration of a corporal mark is frivolous. The circumcised child can no more know nor remember, how and wherefore his foreskin was cut off, than the Christian child his baptism, and therefore both the one & the other, must be instructed, when he is capable thereof. In Abraham, who was adopted into the covenant in a perfect age, knowledge, instruction and faith went before the Sacrament: but in Isaac born in the covenant the Sacrament went before knowledge, because according to the promise, he was reputed the child of God from his mother's womb. So we do not confer Baptism, to the child of a Jew or a Pagan: & we blame the church of Rome, which committeth this abuse, prostituting the sign of the covenant, to those that are not comprehended therein, not staying till they may enter into it by knowledge & faith: which is as great a mockery, as to set a seal to a paper, wherein there is nothing written. The B. of Eureux. 4. In circumcision there was but one material sign, without the word: whereas in Baptism, aswell the element as the word, are of the essence of the sacrament. Tolle aquam, saith S. Aug: non est baptismus: tolle verbum, non est baptismus. It seems that he that is baptised, and to whom the word of Baptism is directed, must be capable not only of the elementary sign, 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 vain: For if there be not the word also in Circumcision, then is it not a sacrament. And how should it have been 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 covenant between me and you: This is a word as expressly written, as that which the institution of Baptism containeth; 8.19. Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the son, and of the holy ghost. He which said, tolle verbum non est Baptismus, take away the word it is no Baptism; said also, Accedat verbum ad Elementum, & fiat Sacramentum; Add the word to the element, and it becometh a Sacrament. As in Baptism the pronunciation of the sacramental words, is grounded on the institution of jesus Christ: so Circumcision was not to be administered, without speaking of the use and efficacy of the same, as appeareth by the example of joshuah above alleged. And doubtless Abraham, before he circumcised his family, instructed them in the doctrine thereof: For see the testimony that god giveth of him, 19 I know (saith he) that he will teach his children and his household to observe the way of the lord 7. Moses commandeth carefully to instruct children, and he speaketh ever 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 have their corresponcy to Baptism, yet would it not be for all that necessary, that it were a correspondency of Identity, but a correspondency of Analogy would suffice: As the ceremony of sour herbs, and of the staff they should hold in their hands in eating the Paschall Lamb, is not literally accomplished in the Eucharist, but only spiritually: inasmuch as we eat it with contrition and bitterness for our faults, and as pilgrims and passengers in this world journeying into another life. So the temporal infancy, to which Circumcision was applied, may have his correspondency to Baptism, only in the spiritual infancy, by which we must become children, for to be baptised, according to the saying of our Saviour, If you become not as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven: And therefore to those that were already hoary with old age, they did not stick in the primitive Church, to give, honey and milk to eat, Ad significandum infantiam, saith S. Hierom. By which means the argument would hold good to conclude thus. Circumcision was given to those which were little children of a temporal infancy: therefore Baptism may be given to those that are little children of a spiritual infancy that is to say, that are become little children in maliciousness, as saith saint Paul. But to infer, Circumcision was given to little children of temporal infancy, Baptism therefore is to be conferred to those that are little children after the same manner, the conclusion doth not enforce: And therefore S. Augustin alleging this argument, maketh account only of it as of a conjecture. D. Tillenus his answer. If the temporal infancy of the jewish children, should be referred only to the spiritual infancy of Christians, the reason of jesus Christ would be of no force, when he saith, That children of a temporal infancy belong unto him, and should be brought unto him: Now, we can not bring them, and put them into his arms visibly and corporally; Gal: 3: ● Rom. 6 and the scripture teacheth, that they which are baptised, do put on christ, and are engrafted into his body: it followeth therefore that it is by this means, that we should bring them & present them unto him. And jesus christ sanctifieth and cleanseth by water in his word, all those for whom he gave himself to death: Eph. 5 Now he died as well for children as for others, seeing that the kingdom of heaven belongeth unto them: It followeth therefore that he sanctifieth and cleanseth them, by the washing of water in his word. 8: 39: And saint Peter having said, that every one should be baptised for remission of sins, and they should receive the holy Ghost, addeth, This promise is made to you and to your children. The similitude of the ceremonies of the Paschall Lamb, whereupon he groundeth his correspondency of Analogy, persuadeth us as little, as his reasons enforce us. For all the ceremonies commanded in the first institution of the Passeover, 2: were not literally fulfilled among the jews, especially in their yearly Passeover, As to eat it their loins girt, their shoes on their feet, and a staff in their hand; (which ceremony Du Perron should not join with that of the sour herbs, seeing it was not of the number of the ordinary, and belonged only to the Passeover celebrated in Egypt). As also the ceremony of not going forth of doors till morning. And therefore our saviour Christ celebrating the Passeover, transgressed not the law written, in sitting at table, and going forth into the garden. Besides, the Paschall Lamb, as I said above, was rather a figure of the only Sacrifice of jesus 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 between the ceremonies of Circumcision, and the ceremonies that the Church of Rome hath added to Baptism, 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 Acts, where Saint Peter saith, that having seen the holy Ghost come down on them that heard the word in the house of Cornelius, he could not deny them Baptism, seeing they had received the same grace: Whereof they conclude, those that are capable of the same grace, are capable of the same sign. 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 old Testament women are capable of the same grace, and not of the same sign, 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 sign: But those that are capable of the same grace in divers manners, are not therefore for all that capable of the same sign. Now little children (will the Anabaptists say) are capable indeed of the same grace, as those that be of age, but not in the same manner▪ for those of age are capable of grace, by their own personal faith, and little children by their parent's faith, which is imputed unto them. And therefore to the former is requisite a Baptism proper and personal, and to the others sufficeth the imputative Baptism of their parents, it being a thing reasonable, that Baptism do follow the quality of faith, whereof it is a Sacrament. And this answer serveth for all arguments of like nature, namely, that little children are part of the Church, are capable of the kingdom of heaven, whereof baptism 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 personal, Baptism (would they say) is communicated unto them▪ So that as they believe in the faith of their parents, until they be capable of a personal faith: so are they baptized in the Baptism of their parents, till they be baptised with a personal Baptism; namely, when they are come to years of discretion and knowledge▪ To these three reasons they add a little light conjecture of that which Saint Paul said, that he baptised the household of Stephan: out of which they conclude, that little children may he baptised. Which argument is lame on both sides: For first they must prove that there were little children in the household of Stephan, which the scripture doth not show: and secondly, that those little children were particularly baptised For although there had been little children in that house yet this witness of S. Paul of having baptised the household of Stephan, could for all that conclude nothing for them, unless there had been express mention made, that they were particularly baptised. For one may always answer, that in that he baptised the house of Steph: is as much to say, as he baptized all those that were capable of Baptism in that house. As when it is said, in Saint john of the Ruler, 53. Credidit ipse, & domus eius tota: It can not be said that the little children in the cradle, if there were any, did believe: but those who for their years were capable of belief. Contrariwise to show, that this objection 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 reply, that in the conversion of Samaria by S. Philip, (in which it cannot be doubted, but that the converted parents had little children in the cradle) the scripture evidently specifieth, that Baptisabantur viri ac mulieres, without making mention of little children. D. Tillenus his answer. Our third argument which he allegeth, is taken from the 10. of the Acts, where saint Peter ordaineth Baptism to them that had received the Holy Ghost: whence we conclude, that they which are capable of the same grace, are capable of the same sign. And seeing that children are capable of the same grace of regeneration, they cannot be uncapable of baptism, which is the sign thereof. The same speculation which his answers containeth, if they were of any weight, might have had place as well against the Circumcision of little children; and seeing that the different measure of grace did not deprive them of the sign, in like manner ours ought not to be deprived of it. The Scripture saith, 11.12 that the Gentiles, because they were not received into the covenant of Circumcision, were without Christ, without hope, without God, and strangers from the Covenants of promise. The same Scripture showeth us, that Baptism hath succeeded Circumcision: Shall we then repute our children for strangers from the covenants of promise? Shall we holld them only for children of the first Adam, that is, for children of wrath, subject to the curse, for flesh and blood, which cannot possess the kingdom of heaven, without bringing them to the second Adam, by whom they are sanctified and quickened? If by faith imputed, the B. of Eureux, meaneth a quality without and forth of children; and if he say, that they please God, the Holy Ghost not making any real change in them, He destroyeth these principles of Scripture, which say: Revel. That none unclean thing entereth into heaven, Rom. 1 That the just shall live by his own faith, That none hath access to the kingdom of heaven, unless he be regenerate, That without faith it is unpossible to please God. Now faith and unbelief are things immediately contrary: not that we would say, that children do believe after the same manner, as they that be of years, with an actual knowledge: but that the Holy Ghost worketh in them an inclination and power to believe, taking away from their heart, that which naturally repugneth. When saint Augustin saith, that children are baptised 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 Dane We say that the holy ghost dwelleth in little children which are baptised, though they know him not: For in that they do not know him, it is no otherwise, them as they know not their reasonable soul, yea their life. Whereof notwithstanding it doth not follow, that they have neither reasonable soul nor life. This operation is as easy to god, as to us incomprehensible: And the heart of an old man, before he be changed by regeneration, is no less deaf and unable, than the heart of a child, the change whereof is not none, because it is unknown: likewise the disobedience and rebellion, which is in them that be of years, is a disposition contrary to faith, which is not in little ones, who receive oftentimes greater measure of grace, than they that be of years, who notwithstanding, after our Adversaries themselves, are not uncapable of the external sign, though they ask it but of hypoctisy. For he that administereth it unto them, can not know their faith and capacity of grace, seeing the Apostles themselves were therein deceived, Acts 8.1 as appeareth by the example of Simon Magus. Seeing then that the grace conferred to children by Baptism, is a thing real in their own persons, and not imputed only; witness the examples of jeremy, and S. john Baptist, sanctified from their mother's womb: an imputed sign is not sufficient, no more than an imputative Paradise would suffice the possession whereof jesus Christ promiseth unto them so real, 8.3. as he affirmeth, that none shall enter thereinto, unless he receive him as a little child. Whereas he saith, reason would that Baptism should follow faith, 〈◊〉 1: whereof it is a Sacrament, that is altogether frivolous: For Circumcision is also called the seal of the righteousness of faith: and in another place the sign of repentance. Let him therefore 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 conversion of Samaria men & women are only spoken of, who were there baptised, without any mention of little ones, though it cannot be doubted but that there were some. The answer hath been made above namely, that those were not born in the covenant, & therefore before they could be admitted thereunto, by the sign of Baptism, it behoved them to be instructed in the doctrine. There needed not any special commandment, touching the Baptism of little children, to those that knew the foundation of the new covenant by the correspondency of circumcision. Children notwithstanding are comprehended in the general commandment, of baptizing all that shall be saved. The B. of Eureux. There is yet one reason, that is very rife in the mouth of Catholics, being underpropped by the tradition of the church, and by the interpretation which hath always run currant among catholics, 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 he interpreteth there Aqua, not for the elementary water, but for the holy ghost: And when it is replied that, that were a repetition of the same thing, under two diverse words: he opposeth, Baptisabit vos Spiritusancto & igne, where he will have 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 have this place serve their turn, the Anabaptists (who reject the tradition & interpretation of the church) do answer that this proposition is to be understood of them, that are capable of Baptism: As when it is said in the same chapter, He that believeth not, is already judged: It is understood (say they) of them, which are of years to believe. D. Tillenus his answer. He would bereave us of the argument taken out of Saint john, Except a man be borne again of water, etc. joh. 3.5 because we take this word Water, for the spirit, as in another place the word Fire, and spirit, signify one and the same thing; Math. 3 But although from this place cannot be concluded the absolute necessity of Baptism, yet nevertheless we ought to conclude from thence, the absolute necessity of regeneration. The Anabaptists understanding this word water, of outward Baptism, as the Church of Rome doth, do reason thus, seeing Baptism is expressly called regeneration, & seeing that children are not capable of regeneration, which is done by faith, Baptism is not to be communicated unto them. To which we answer, For as much as regeneration is absolutely necessary to salvation, children (unless they will damn them all) are partakers thereof, & therefore the seal of this grace of regeneration is rightly applied unto them. The reply, that du Perron maketh for them, that this sentence of S. john is to be understood only of them, that are capable of baptism through years of knowledge, is nothing currant against us, but against the church of Rome, which interpreteth this place of the absolute necessity of external baptism, of which it cannot otherwise choose, but that many children are deprived, and therefore excluded from salvation, after their doctrine. The B. of Eureux. Now against these arguments, which they so easily by their solutions undo, when they are not constrained with the authority of Tradition and the interpretation of the Church, they have many other for it in appearance stronger, as, that Baptism is a dependence and a seal of faith, and therefore that those that are not capable of faith, are not capable of Baptism: That baptism is called the washing of Regeneration, That Regeneration is made by the word of God: you are all the children of god through faith, saith saint Paul: And saint Peter, you are horn again, not of a corruptible seed, but of an incorruptible, by the word of god: that our Lord saith, he that shall believe and be baptised, etc. Saint Paul; One faith, one Baptism: saint Philip to the Eunuch that asked him if he might be baptised: If thou believe, thou mayst. That the Sacraments are sensible signs, to those to whom they are Sacraments: that they are sacraments to those to whom they are conferred, that therefore they are to be sensible in the quality of signs, otherwise they are not sacraments. That Baptism is not sensible to little children in this quality, neither can afterward become so, so that they must of necessity rely on the faith of others that they have been baptised, and therefore it is not a sacrament unto them. That jesus Christ did never baptise them, neither himself nor his Apostles, according to the recital of Scriptures. On the contrary, that the scripture seemeth to have excepted them expressing viros & mulieres. That if the Baptism of little children, be not true and lawful, besides that those that confer it unto them, profane the seal of the Covenant, and pollute the blood of the Testament applying it to a matter uncapable: they commit an other sacrilege, in not reiterating it to them which afterwards are capable of it, and to whom it is necessary; if not by necessity of means, at least (after our adversaries themselves) by necessity of precept. And therefore servet said, that it were an impiety more than Turkish and devilish. And in a word, if the Baptism of little children be not true and lawful, our adversaries Church, who have all in their infancy been baptised, hath no true Baptism: 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 themselves say that the true Church is that which 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 heretics. For it is an article of faith, that there is one Baptism, one Faith, as saith saint Paul: and the symbol of the Church saith, I believe one baptism for remission of sins. Now if Baptism of little children be not true Baptism, those which baptise them, have no Baptism, and therefore are heretics, violating this article of saith, I believe one Baptism. And if it be true Baptism, the Anabaptists are heretics, who rebaptize them. For they redouble Baptism▪ against that article of faith: I believe one Baptism. It being then necessary that one of the two sides be heretical, and it not being possible by the scripture alone to verify which of the two it is: it followeth that all heresy cannot be confuted by the Scripture alone. Out of which I frame this Syllogism. Whatsoever containeth sufficiently the principles of a science▪ should also be able to prove all the propositions pertaining to the said science, and to confute all that repugn the same. Now every heresy repugneth the science of divinity and religion: And the scripture alone cannot confute all heresies. Therefore the scripture containeth not sufficiently, all the principles of doctrine necessary to the science of divinity and religion. And therefore we must employ therein other principles conjointly with the scriptures, which cannot have authority in this case, if they be not revealed by the word of God. It must therefore be granted, that besides the word of god written, there is yet another part of the same word not written, among which also saint Augustin against this heresy concerning the Baptism of little children, saith: Consuetudo 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 forth after ours. For they be but repetitions of the solutions he giveth to ours; That Baptism is a seal of faith; That it is called the washing of Regeneration; That Regeneration is made by faith and by the incorruptible seed of God's word: That saint Philip said to the Eunuch, If thou believe, thou mayst be saved, etc. For it hath been showed, that the children which enter into the kingdom of heaven, are regenerate, That this Regeneration is done otherwise in them, that in such as be of years of knowledge; That the sentences of Saint Peter and S. Philip, and other like, are necessarily understood 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 deprive children of corporal nourishment, because the Scripture saith, 〈◊〉. 3.10. he that doth not work, should not eat, which is necessarily meant of such as are of years to work. How will his Syllogism now stand, which he frameth thus: Whatsoever containeth sufficiently the principles of a science should prove all the propositions belonging to the said science, and to confute all that repugn the same: But every heresy repugneth the science of Divinity, and the scripture alone can not confute all heresies: Therefore it containeth not sufficiently, all the principles necessary, etc. The assumption of this syllogism, is already above confuted, by the testimonies even of those very same, from whom he pretendeth, that the most part, yea all the principles not contained in the Scripture, must be taken. I could here add a great number of other proofs, and testimonies, but that I shun prolixity. I will therefore only oppose two other syllogisms. I. In the divine wisdom, there is perfect knowledge of divinity: 〈◊〉. 19.7.8. The holy holy scripture giveth this wisdom: therefore it giveth the perfect knowledge of divinity. II. The principles of a science, are not contrary one unto another: But the most part of the unwritten principles of the Romish divinity, repugn and destroy those that are written in the old and new Testament▪ therefore they can not be true principles of true Divinity. The Bishop of Eureux. The second heresy, which cannot be refuted by the Scripture, is that of the Rebaptizing of heretics. For there is no one place in the writings of the Prophets or Apostles, that witnesseth, that the Baptism which is among heretics, is true Baptism. Contrariwise there are infinite places which seem to repugn the same: As the words of our Lord, he which shall believe and be baptised. etc., And that of saint Paul, one faith, one Baptism: whereof is concluded, that seeing there is no faith among heretics, and that this unity of faith of which Saint Paul speaketh, is not found among them, there is no Baptism. So that they which have been baptized by them, are no more baptized, than those on whose head by chance some water is cast, seeing they want the chief and principal condition, which maketh a man be a matter and subject capable of Baptism, namely faith: That they that are baptized, as saith Saint Paul, have put on Christ, That Christ cannot be put on out of the Church, which is called the fullness of Christ & that therefore Baptism cannot be among heretics: That every one of you saith Saint Peter, be baptized for remission of sins, And the Creed of Constantinople: I believe one Baptism for remission of sins. Now among the heretics there is no remission of sins: For the Keys were given to the Church; and by consequent no Baptism, that when it was told john Baptist, that Christ baptized, he answered, none can do it unless it be given him from heaven: that no authority is given from heaven to the assemblies of heretics, and therefore that they cannot Baptize. That Baptism is done by the power of the holy Ghost, that the holy Ghost is not resident out of the Church, neither consequently Baptism. D. Tillenus his answer. First I answer, that the hearers of the Scripture learn, that whosoever is baptized in the name of the father, of the Son and of the holy Ghost, is well baptized. But the followers of the Romish tradition, can never know, whether they be well baptised, or no: For besides this instituti- of Christ, the Church of Rome requireth the intent of the Priest, without which the Sacrament with them is none: Now there is no man that can be fully assured of another man's intent. Secondly the scripture teacheth us the difference between the outward sacrament & the inward grace, which is not enclosed within the other, as a salve in a box, as the Romish Tradition teacheth. They that receive the first, receive not always the latter, in what place soever it be, as we see by the example of judas & Simon Magus. For as saith S. Augustine, 〈◊〉, 5. de ●ont. 〈◊〉, 24. men do put on Christ sometimes in participation of the sacrament, sometimes in sanctification of life: the first is common to good and bad, the other is peculiar only to the good. Neither heretics nor orthodoxal can minister any thing, but the outward sacrament; the holy ghost only giveth the internal grace, that is faith, possession of Christ, & remission of sins. All which is manifest in scripture. But the Holy-ghost saith he is resident only in the true Church, and not among heretics. 2. I answer, the scripture teacheth us that the spirit blows where it listeth: if it were always tied to a visible church, as the Pope to his seat of Rome, ●, 8, without distributing his graces elsewhere, which is du perron's meaning; No infidel nor heretic borne out of the true church, could ever enter thereinto by regeneration, by which grace the holy ghost bringeth men thereunto. 〈◊〉: 17, Saint Paul persecuted the true Church, so far was he from being a member of the same, & received notwithstanding the holy ghost out of the visible church. Therefore it is not, to speak properly, the minister that giveth Baptism, but as the Scripture sayeth, the heavenly father saveth us by the washing of Regeneration, through the renewing of the Holy Ghost; 〈◊〉, 5. 5, 26, ●, 1, 16. jesus Christ cleanseth & sanctifieth his Church through the washing of water in his word: And as the word of the Gospel when it is published according to the revelation of God, to salvation, to all that believe, though he that preacheth it do it of evil will, without sincerity without zeal, of envy & contention, as saith the Apostle, that is, though he have no good intent. So is it in the Sacrament, which is a visible word, so that the minister confer it according to the Lords institution, his heresy or hypocrisy cannot hurt him that receiveth it. For the question is not, what is required in a pastor to approve his Ministry before God: but what is requisite to the efficacy of the sacrament, according to the truth of god, which the scripture teacheth us cannot be made void by the wickedness of men. To which S, Augustine agreeth, saying, that not only the good, but also the wicked have the ministry to baptize, but neither of them both have the power of baptism that Christ hath committed the ministry thereof to servants, but reserveth the power thereof to himself. Thirdly I say that the scripture showeth us the correspondency of circumcision with Baptism. Ezech, 1 &, 23. Therefore as the circumcision given by the Apostates of Samaria was available to the children that God acknowledged for his, there being no need of reiterating it, so as the Samaritans did reiterate that which had been administered by the jews, as Epiphanius witnesseth: So by like reason should not Baptism administered by a heretic be reiterate, provided that he keep the substance of the institution. The Prophets indeed do exhort the Samaritans to repentance, but never call them to a second circumcision though the first were polluted by many abuses & superstitions. The Bishop of Eureux: Against these Arguments with great appearance of scripture. S. Augustine, who 10 whole years handled this question against the Donatists, could not find any actual and demonstratine proof in the scripture for the doctrine of the Church in this point, and could oppose unto them no other thing, that would hold the place of an infallible proof, but the tradition & authority of the Church: Hoc, saith he, obseruandum est in rebus, quod observat Ecclesia Dei: Questio autem inter vos & nos est, vera sit Ecclesia Dei: ergo à capite sumendum exordium, cur schisma feceritis 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 universae iam placuit Ecclesiae, quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat autoritas: ut quando S. Scriptura fallere non potest, quisquis falli metuit huius obscuritate quaestionis, eandem ecclesiam de illa consulat quam sine ulla 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 heretical, and the whole Church with him, holdeth the Donatists for heretics: and our adversaries themselves: As also it must needs be, that either the Catholics or the Donatists be heretics. For if Baptism, administered by heretics, be not true Baptism the Catholics which receive them without Baptizing them do violate this article, One Faith, one Baptism. Also I believe one Baptism for remission of sins. If on the contrary it be true Baptism, the Donatists in rebaptizing them, and reiterating and multiplying Baptism do sin against the same article. Whence I thus conclude: The doctrine of the Donatists which was heretical could not be confuted by the scripture alone, and without the help of the Apostolic tradition for to confute all heresies: And by consequent, it containeth not alone sufficiently all the principles of doctrine necessary to divinity and Christian Religion. D: Tillenus his answer. Let us see if saint Augustine in those ten years, that he handled his question against the Donatists, could not find any actual proof in the scripture upon this point, as Du Perron saith, lib. 1. ●. cont. 7. I think he promiseth very certain proofs when he saith, Ne videar humanis argumentis agere, ex evangelio profero certa documenta etc., Lest I should seem to discourse with humane reasons, Lib. 2. de bap: count Don. c. 1 I will allege sure proofs out of the Gospel, etc. And in an other place, Quid sit perniciosius, utrum non Baptizari an rebaptizari judicare difficile est: verumtamen recurrens ad illam stateram Dominicam, ubi non ex humano sensu, sed ex authoritate divina rerum momenta pensantur, inveniode utraque re Domini sententiam, Qui lotus est, non habet necessitatem iterum lavandi, &c: It is an hard thing to judge, whether is more dangerous, not to be baptized, or to be baptised again yet having recourse unto that balance of the Lord, where not of human sense, but of divine authority the vallews of things are weighed, I find, of both matters the lords sentence, He that is washed, hath no need to be washed again. etc. And in another place, having said that this custom came of the Tradition of the Apostles, not meaning that it wanteth his proofs 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 commandment of God, that such as come from heretics should be baptized, if they have already received there the Baptism of Christ, because by the testimonies of holy Scriptures, it is not only showed, but plainly showed. These places & others of this father, do show the audaciousness of du Perron in his affirmations, and his sincerity in his allegations. As for the places he bringeth out of the same father, to prove that he acknowledged the imperfection of the scriptu e concerning this point, he confoundeth the question of act, example or practice with the question of law or ordinance: S: Augustine saith in this matter, there can be none examples of scripture alleged, that is, it cannot be found there that it was so practised: & therefore he referrd the custom or practice hereof to apostolic tradition: but that it ought so to be practised he affirmeth that not only the scripture showeth it, but that it showeth it manifestly. Whence I conclude against the Bishop's conclusion, on this second point; The doctrine that evidently showeth what is to be done in all matters concerning faith & which confuteth the heresies that repugn the same, is perfect: but the scripture containeth this doctrine: Therefore it is perfect. The assumption, is proved not only by the scripture, but also by the testimonies of the fathers, by whom he pretendeth to prove the doctrine of the church of Rome. I would earnestly desire of him, clear & direct answer to that place of Augustine above alleged, out of his second book 9 chapter de doctrina Christiana▪ for in the verbal conference he would give no answer thereunto, 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 have propounded among those that cannot by the scripture alone be confuted, is that of the Greeks', touching the proceeding of the holy ghost which our adversaries hold as well as we to proceed from the father and from the son, a thing notwithstanding which the scripture doth no where express. On the contrary it seemeth to restrain the original 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 objected to the Greeks', He shall take of mine, They answerr that this word 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 wisdom, of which the son hath taken. And they allege for proof of their exposition, that which followeth in the Text which saith; And he shall declare it unto 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 alleged unto them, if any one have not have not the spirit of Christ, 8.15. ●. 5.6. he is none of his. And again the spirit of Christ crying Abba Father, they answer that concludeth not that the spirit proceedeth from Christ; and that he is called the spirit of Christ, not by proceeding but by possession for as much as Christ according to his humanity hath received the gift & the full & whole possession of the same spirit, according to the words of Esay. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me: And S. Peter saith, The lord hath anointed him with the holy ghost and with power. And that in this manner it is said that Elizeus received the spirit of Elias. Not that the holy Ghost did proceed from Helias but because in a certain measure he was possessed of Heliah, When that is objected unto them which Christ saith unto his Father, That which is thine is mine. They answer that may be expounded of the possession and outward domination over the creatures, over whom the Father hath given all power to the son, in heaven and in earth, neither can the sense of the words in that place be restrained to the Essence, no more than when the father of the prodigal Child saitb to his eldest son the same words Omnia mea tua sunt. But besides this though it should be understood of the essence, yet the argument concludeth nothing. For if because the essence of the father is one & the same, it should therefore follow that the holy ghost proceedeth as well from the one as from the other: you must in like sort conclude, The essence of the father and the holy ghost is one and the same: the son is therefore 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 himself, showing his meaning by this word Send namely that he will pray his father that he will send him. I will pray (saith he) unto the Father, and he shall send you another comforter. And in the same place where he saith he will send him, he preventeth (say they) the opinion might be conceived of his proceeding from him, in that he saith he will send from the Father, the spirit of truth, which proceeds from the father &c: To which they further add, that there is a great difference between the temporal sending of the holy ghost, at our Lord's request, on the Apostles, and the eternal proceeding of the said Spirit, which is the point in question. D. Tillenus his answer. The proceeding of the holy-ghost, which is the third point, which he maintaineth to have no ground in scripture, hath his proof in the scripture, by the schoolmen themselves against the Greeks, who received this article without any great difficulty in the Council of Florence, in which was present john Paleologus Emperor of Constantinople: but they received but feignedly, and by constraint of their Emperor (who stood in need of the Western Churches) the Articles of the Pope's Supremacy, of Transubstantiation, of Purgatory, and other like which are without and against the scripture: Yet there were some Bishops there that would never consent unto them, but afterwards caused all to be revoked; imputing the loss of the east Empire, which happened shortly after this council, to that unlucky union, that there was made with the Pope. Now as the principal questions touching the holy ghost, of his nature, and of his office, have always been determined by the scripture, against the Arrians, Eunomians & Macedonians: so also may therein be showed his proceeding from the father and from the Son. The place in saint Paul cannot be shifted of by his distinction of possession and proceeding, 〈◊〉. 8.9. 〈◊〉 .6, as if he spoke only of the gift & possession of the spirit that jesus Christ received according to his humanity; For the same spirit is there called, both the spirit of Christ, & the spirit of him that raised up Christ, And when saint Peter saith, that it was the spirit of christ by which the Prophets have prophesied, 〈◊〉 1.11. he quite cutteth of the bishop's answer: For seeing that the prophets have prophesied before the incarnation of christ, they cannot have prophesied by the spirit in as much as it was given 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 showeth as clearly that the holy ghost proceedeth from the father & the son, as the consubstantiality of the son with the Father, by conference of the places in the Prophets that speak of jehova, with the places in the Evangelists and Apostles, which appropriate them unto Christ. The example of Heliseus, that received the Spirit of Helias, is as little to purpose as the former distinction. john. 15 jesus Christ saith that it is he, that well send this spirit, showing his divine power: Helias answereth to Helizeus, when he asked him double portion of his spirit: Thou askest a hard thing: meaning, that it is not given 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 gave it indeed and in effect to the Apostles, breathing on them and saying, Receive the Holy ghost, john. 20 And whereas du Perron saith, that this may be expounded of the possession, & domination of the creatures over which the Father hath given him all power. As when the father of the prodigal child saith to his eldest son the like words, All that is mine is thine; I answer as above is already said, that the spirit is in the son, as in the Father: And as is showed that the Spirit proceedeth from the father, by the places which say, That the Father sendeth him from the Father, so also may be showed his proceeding from the some by the places, Gal, 4.6 john, 5.1 god sendeth the spirit of his some, & the some doth all things that the Father doth etc. It is objected, that it is said, That the Spirit proceedeth from the father. That Christ saith he will pray the father to sand him: to which I answer, that Christ in those places speaketh as Mediator in which he is less that the father, & so he saith, that the father is greater than he. And yet he saith the father will send him in his name, john. 14 john. 15, which countervaileth that other saying, that he will send him from the father. As for the difference betwixt the temporal mission of the holy Ghost and his eternal proceeding: I say that this eternal proceeding is nothing else but the communication of the Divine essence by which the third person of the Trinity receives all the same Essence from the Father and from the son, as being the spirit of them both. And seeing that the Greeks' believe with us, that the holy Ghost is God, that he is equal to the father and to the Son, against the Arrians and Macedonians: and that he is a distinct person from the father and from the son against the Sabellians, we are not to hold them for heretics in this point though they had certain particular manners of speaking, for as much as heresy is not in the words, but in the sense, as Saint Hierome saith. Many among the ancient fathers are not held for heretics, though they speak often improperly of the mysteries of the trinity, of which number is S. Hillary, 2, de. Tri●c. who in many places, putteth three substances in God, against the sound manner of speaking, whereof he excuseth himself saying, that these things surpass all signification of words, all intention of sense, all conception of sense, all conception of understanding. But the Church of Rome is rightly holden for heretical, which in many things doth attribute unto itself the office of the holy ghost, As when it saith that one cannot be assured of the truth and divinity of the Scripture; but only by the testimony that that Church giveth of it. The Bishop of Eureux, The fourth point which we have propounded is the translation of the Sabbath to Sunday: Every one knoweth, how rigorous the commandment of the Sabaoth was in the old law: and how the greatest both threatenings & promises of god, were made to those that violated or observed his Sabbaths. And notwithstanding this commandment of God that god had vouchsafed to write with his own hand, in the 10 precepts of the decalogue, & to sequester it as by special privilege from all precepts of the ceremonial law, for to insert it in the Epitome of the moral law: Yet the church hath changed it with out any written ordinance, both as touching the end, the form ●●d the matter. First as concerning the end: Saturday was ordained to commemorate, the Creation of the world, & gods rest after the finishing of his works, whereas we do not celebrate Sunday for this purpose but for to honour the memorial of our lords Resurrection, which was the day of accomplishment, & of rest from his labours he took in this world, for the restoring and reforming of mankind. As touching the form, we observe not Sundays the seventh day of the week, but as the first: so that though it be still an observation of one day of the seven, yet nevertheless it is no more an observation of the seventh but of the first of the seven: contrary to that which was observed in the old law, And therefore the Fathers of the Primitive Church reckoned as well, as we do now, Wednesday, and Friday for the fourth & sixth feriae or days of Cessation, beginning at Sunday for the beginning of their supputation: So that instituting Sunday, it is not a changing of Saturday into Sunday, but the bringing in of a new solemn feast, which hath no conformity with feast of the Sabbaoth. Also we see that in the primitive Church, wherein they would yet bury the Synagogue with some honour: for to show that they would not substitute Sunday in saturdays room, but institute sunday a new, as the particular feast of Christians they observed them both at once, saturday in commemoration of the precept of Moses, & sunday for to celebrate the particular feast of Christ's resurrection. As for the matter, it is certain, that whosoever will observe the day commanded by Moses to the children of Israel, must take not a day at pleasure, by septenary revolution derived indifferently from some beginning that we think good of: but that which should be found the seventh by revolution, and beginning at the original of the supputation, that God himself had established, as the Jews did. For God marked and pointed them out a day, at which be would have them begin to reckon and account their septenary revolution, which was that same (as is most probable) which represented by the order of the revolution thereof, the day of God's rest, after the Creation of the world, for a commemoration where of it was ordained: And for this cause he that propounded unto them for to begin the solemnisation of the sabbath, sent them twice so much Manna as the days before, & commanded 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 corporal labour. And notwithstanding this absolute suppression of the sabbath, in which the end, the form and the matter of the commandment are abolished, and this new bringing in of sunday, is not grounded upon any written ordinance, neither of Christ nor his Apostles: Contrariwise it seemeth that our Lord exhorting them to pray that there flight might not be on the sabbath day, when the desolation foretold of by Daniel should come to pass: It is thought his intent was, that the sabbath should still be observed of Christians, after the suppression of the other legal ceremonies For as for that which is written in the Apocalyps that S. john was ravished in spirit on the Lord's day: To omit that this word may be taken for the manner of speaking of Saint. Paul, The day of the lord shall reveal That is the judgement of the Lord. And again, I pass very little to be judged of man's day, that is of man's judgement, If men would not play the sophisters too much on this word Day, What other light, the light of the perpetual tradition of the Church excepted, can teach us that sunday and not saturday is this Lord's day? seeing saturday was still in the law and among the jews acknowledged for the Lords day. As also from the other place that Saint Paul commandeth, that the first day of the week, every man should lay apart, what he would give for the Collects, there cannot any thing begathered; For if the text had said,, Every one carrieth to the Church that day what he would give, there were some appearance to conclude that the first day in the week was apppoynted for the meetings of the Church from the Apostles tymes●: But saying only that on the first day of the week, every man laid apart, what he would give a week, that when he came he might find it ready: there can of necessity no other sense be gathered, but that saint Paul in the beginning of the week would have every one lay apart by itself of that which was for his expense the week following, what he was willing to reserve for the poor, lest he spend it with the rest. D: Tillenus his answer. There remaineth to show, that the translation of the Sabbath day to sunday, hath not been done without the written ordinance of God: du Perron doth very much exaggerate the rigour of the commandment, touching the observation of the Sabbath; going about to persuade, that it was merely and simply moral, whereof he concludeth, that the Church, which hath abolished it, hath power to change and establish the express law of god, which the scripture witnesseth shall abide for ever. Now not to exasperate this blasphemy, I will briefly show, that this commandment was partly Moral, and partly ceremonial: that the ceremonial part concerneth not Christians, we learn from the Scriptures, that ceremonies are abolished by the coming of Christ, that there is express ordinance in scripture, touching the particular abolishment of this ceremony, which comprehendeth not the moral part of that commandment. For the first If the observation of the Sabbath were altogether moral, God would never have detested it. For he taketh pleasure in all that is moral, Isay. 1.11, 14. Now the Scripture teacheth us that he sometimes doth detest it, and that he reckoneth it with the sacrifices and other feasts, which none will deny to be ceremonial: It followeth therefore that this observation was not wholly moral. And jesus Christ, who hath perfectly fulfilled the Law: Math. 12. excused and defended his disciples against the jews, when they had transgressed the ceremony of the Sabbath: And in another place he saith, Mark. 2.2 That the Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Osc. 6.6. Also when he allegeth the scripture to this purpose, which saith I will have mercy and not sacrifice, he plainly placeth the sabbath among the ceremonies. After jesus Christ, the Apostles have left this ordinance written in so express words, that I am abashed at the boldness of du Perron, to deny a thing so manifest. Saint Paul saith, Let no man condenn you in meat & drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath: Adding, which are but shadows of things to come but the body is Christ, Will he contend, whether shadows be ceremonies? Will he maintain that the forbiddings of meats, of the holidays & new Moons of the Jews, were moral commandments? If he will not believe the Apostles, let him then hearken to the Fathers, ●ul. adverse 〈◊〉. & ad● of whom the most ancient among the Latins distinguisheth in express terms the temporal Sabbath from the eternal sabbath; 〈◊〉. lib. 4. showing by the History of the ruin of jericho (where all the people, & the Priests themselves laboured 7 days one after another, and therefore the Sabbath was there in comprised) that this commandment was ceremonial & temporal. ●tat. de ●tem Rab ●n tractat ●●b. c. 1. &, ●ractat de ●umcis. c. 1 Yea the jews themselves, as superstitious observers as they be of the outward ceremony of the Sabbath nevertheless do hold that in danger of life the law of the sabbath may be broken: And these words are found in their Thalmud, Danger of life breaketh the Sabbath. But every one knoweth and confesseth, that there is no danger can excuse the transgression of the moral law: for the observation whereof the true faithful hold their life very well bestowed. Seeing then the sabbath is taken two ways, either for interior which is a rest from our evil works, & an exercise & meditation of the works of God: or for the exterior, which consisteth in rest & cessation, from the labours & business which concern this life, in which it was a figure of interior sabbath, the promises or threatenings which god made to such as kept or violated his sabbaths (which is our Bishop's ground) are meant more of the first, 〈◊〉. 5.8, than of the 2, to which notwithstanding the Jews were bound, as to all the other Levitical ceremonies: from which yoke Christians are wholly freed their sabbath being interior, spiritual, & perpetual (as the feast of passover or Easter) which neither aught nor can ever be abolished in respect of the matter, being a cessation from sins, & a meditation on 〈◊〉 Gods works nor in respect of the form which is to perform this meditation with true repentance of all our evil works with true faith towards God, and unfeigned charity towards our neighbours: nor in respect of the end: which is the glorifying of the name of God, and the salvation of our souls in that great and everlasting sabbath which his son jesus Christ hath prepared for us in his Kingdom: Behold the principal matter, form and end of the sabbath, to the which are to be referred, all the other ends, touching the determining of days for the assemblies of the church; which is in the liberty of the Church, which the Scripture giveth it in express terms. And though the places in the Revelation, Col. 2. Revel. 1.10 1. Cor. 16. and in the first to the Corinthians were not clear & evident enough, to show that the Apostles have instituted (the Lord's day) on sunday: yet cannot that prejudice us any thing at all, seeing there are other formal places, that prove 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 do not draw himself back, from his own interpretation, 1. Cor. 16.2 the very act or example of practice will be found therein. He saith, if the apostle had said, Every man bringeth to the church that day, what he would give, that then there had been some appearance for to conclude, that the first day of the week, was particularly appointed to the meetings of the church in the very time of the Apostles. Now we find in that the disciples were assembled the first day of the week (which is as himself denieth not, Act, 20.7. Sunday) for to break bread, that is; to celebrate the lords supper, and that in this assembly Saint Paul made a sermon which lasted till midnight: See here then the question found & proved in the scripture; aswell by example of practice, as otherwise. A special commandment touching this observation of sunday, neither the scripture giveth any, seeing it testifieth that it is a thing indifferent; neither can du Perron show it by Apostolic Tradition, for all his brags. The Ecclesiastical history is directly against him, when it saith: Socr. lib 5. Cap 22. That the intention of the Apostles was not to make laws or commandments touching feast days or holy days, but to be authorrs of good life & true godliness. Our adversaries on the contrary do constitute their principal godliness and virtue in observation of the holy days by them instituted, and make a moral commandment of the jewish observation of the sabbath; rejecting into the number of the ceremonials, that 〈◊〉 commandment, which forbiddeth Images though it be one of the chiefest among the moral. But commanding thus what god forbiddeth, & forbidding what god commandeth, they show in what school they have studied. Surely their manner of reasoning, is altogether conformable to the Tropic of that old Sophister, from whose instruction, ensued the destruction of mankind, when our first parents suffered themselves to be persuaded by this goodly argument. Though god hath forbidden you to eat of this tree: yet nevertheless you should eat of it. 〈◊〉. 2.8. ●. 3, vers. The Father of lights, who in these last times hath begun to chase away the darkness of Error and superstition, by the brightness of his word, vouchsafe to enlighten our hearts by the light of his truth, that we be not diverted from his ways, through vain deceit after the Traditions of men, but that keeping faithfully the sacred truth, which he hath of trust committed unto us, we may wait with joy, for the most bright and glorious coming of the sun of righteosnnes, to whom be all honour, glory and praise for evermore. A DEFENCE OF the Sufficiency and perfection of the holy Scripture. Against the Cavillations of the Lord Du Perron, Bishop of Eureux: By the which he endeavoureth to maintain his Treatise of the unsufficiency and imperfection of the holy Scripture. By D. Daniel Tillenus Professor of Divinity in the University of Sedan. PROV. 16.25. There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the issues thereof are the ways of death. August. de unit. Eccles. cap. 3. Whatsoever is alleged of either side against the other, should be removed: saving that which cometh out of the Canonical Scriptures. printer's device of Nathaniel Butter Printed at London by L. S. for nathanael Butter. 1606. THE PREFACE of the Author. THe jews, who since the blindness, wherewith God hath justly punished their ingratitude and rebellion, have always showed themselves greedy of Traditions, and out of taste with the simplicity of the Scripture, using it but for a basis or foundation whereon to plant their fables, as the Poets do history: recount, that God being about to give his law to their ancestors, showed unto Moses a Mass of Saphir, Lyr. in Exo● c. 34. made of purpose by his divine power, whereof he commanded him to hue and square out the tables, in which he vouchsafed to write his law with his own finger: and because the text hath (Hue thee out Tables:) They gather of it, Exod. 34.1. that God permitted him to retain and appropriate to himself all the cuttings and pieces that came of this precious stone in hewing the tables, and that Moses therewith made himself wonderful rich. etc. This fabulous Tradition, how unworthy soever it be of the Majesty of God, of the gravity of the Scripture, of the ministery of Moses, & of the belief of the Church; yet is it nothing near so detestable, as that wicked exercise of those, which aim at, and busy themselves now a days in nothing, but in clipping and scraping out the sufficiency and perfection of the scripture, by the same means taking away their own salvation, in the blood of jesus Christ; since that by it we are redeemed from our vain conversation, ●at. 1. ●8 received by Tradition from our Fathers. Amongst other workmen, which in these times employ themselves in this mystery or ministry of iniquity, the Lord of Perron, Bishop of Eureux will make known unto us, that before him none had sufficiently manured & tilled the ground of this Tradition, which converted Moses from a Prophet, into a Lapidary; from a Lawgiver, into a Goldsmith: and that like as this Minister of God enriched himself, in hewing the Tables of the Law: So the ministers of the Pope's Gospel, according to the true Anagogical meaning of this jewish Tradition, cannot better enrich themselves, and of Christians become Croesians, or Crassians, than in converting Divinity into such a Technologie, in cutting of and clipping the Gospel of jesus Christ: ●ue. 21 ●●uel. 17.3. etc. That the more they take away from the lustre of the precious stones, wherewith the heavenly jerusalem is builded, the more splendour they give to the countefeite stones of that woman clothed in purple and scarlet, which ruleth over the great Babylon. For, to cover the cunning that they use, they make no difficulty to do some honour in show to the scripture, even to gild and adore outwardly the books which contain it, even then when the mine it, clip and pair it inwardly: Like as at one time jesus Christ was kissed, and betrayed, clothed in purple as a king, and buffeted as a fool, crucified as a malefactor: Or like as yet to this day the jews honour the scripture in show, and by gestures, forbidding to sit in a place of equal height, to that whereon the Bible is laid: though in effect, they set it infinitely under their Thalmud, of which they dare with an execrable impudency say: That God himself studieth therein the three first hours of the day: Lyr. in Luke. cap 4. Lib. Benedict. c. 1. & 3. Vide Hieron. a Sancta fide cont. jud. l. 1. in Biblioth. S. Patrum. tom. 4. Also that he which shall speak any thing of it sinisterly or in evil part, shall be damned in hell, whereas he that transgresseth the Law of God, shall receive none other punishment, but to be called a transgressor of the Law. Now, that none hath so deeply sounded the mystical meaning of the jewish Tradition above recited, as the Bishop of Eureux hath done, it is manifest, because that not any of the new Besaleels, which of later times have laboured to plaster and to paint the Pope's Tabernacle, neither 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 spiritual coin (as Gerson calleth the Scripture) nor observed so much dross, nor so many defects in the pure Alley of the law of God, written by Moses, as the Lord of Perron doth: who, having learned this secret of servetus, and some Anabaptists (that the honour of this invention be not taken from the true authors of it:) clippeth & cutteth of from it, not some small things, but the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the last judgement, Paradise, and hell etc. that he might discredit in like sort thereby, and by Analogy, ●ohn. 15.15. the doctrine of the Gospel of our Lord jesus Christ, who though he protesteth in express terms, to have 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 either done, or declared with his own mouth to his disciples, are not sufficient to the institution of the Church. Which is not to make the little mouth, but lively to counterfeit that mouth, ●euel. 13.5.6 which (as Saint john saith) uttereth great things. Neither is it to be a dumb dog, but to bark boldly, not against the Moon, but even against the Sun of righteousness. A certain Sophister at Athens, writing of the gods, ●●og. Laert. ●ot g. declared in the beginning of his book, the doubts that he had of their essence, and the difficulties that he found in this matter: of which the Athenians had such horror, that they burned the book, and banished the Author. The like irresolution and perplexity witnessed a Heathen Philosopher to Saint Augustine, ●●gust Epi. & 21. who had inquired of him what opinion he had of jesus Christ: But our Bishop who without difficulty, doubt, or scruple whatsoever, peremptorily concludeth: That we 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 fit for his glory, nor more richer for his purse, than such reproaches of the Scripture, such blasphemies against Christ. Cumanus governor of judea, a heathen and a wicked man caused a soldier to be be beheaded for tearing a copy of the Book of the law of Moses, which he had found at the sack of a town: The Bishop of Eureux, joseph. Antiq lib. 20. c. which teareth and destroyeth not some copy only, but the very original itself of this law, from which he plucketh away as much as in him lieth, the leaves which contain the principles and grounds of our salvation, leaving therein nothing whole, nothing perfect, nothing wholesome nor so much as profitable, without his subsidiary (as he termeth it) or helping tradition, expecteth a Cardinal's hat, is heaped with spiritual honours and temporal goods: so that one may say of him, as Apuleius bearing the Idol on the one side, and many bribes on the other, said of himself: that he went as a Temple, and a Barn both together. But if a Sinon with his treason, a Simon with his magic, Horreum ●imu● & templum i●c●die do a hundred times more mischief, the one within Troy, the other within the City of God, than ten thousand enemies, than all the infidels could do together without, by open force; shall we yet doubt that they, which under sheeps clothing, yea with a shepherds hook, Ephes. 2.20. and bishops Crosier staff undermining the foundations of the Church, Aduer. ●tul. lib. 3. builded upon the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles are not more pernicious and dangerous unto Christendom, than ever was a Celsus, Lact. lib. 5. c. 3. a Lucian, a julian, a Porphyrius, which Saint Cyrill calleth the Father of Calumny, and others which openly opposed Plato to Moses, Aristotle to S. Paul; Apollonius Tyanaeus to Christ? at least wise, if as the camel, he can drink none but muddy water, because the clear maketh him have gripes in his belly; De mirabil. Scrip. libri. 3 apud August. tom. 3. Annals 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 himself to trouble it for himself only, without spreading abroad this mud of his Traditions, on the brink of the fountain, which watereth the sheep of our Lord, without driving them from it, by this his impious cry & proclamation of the Insufficiency 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 seem favourable to the most monstrous Heretics, even to the Saducees, whose doctrine wholly overthroweth and abolisheth all Religion. And that they have heard of the secret Academy, which was instituted, some few years, ago in a certain place of Normandy, in imitation of that, which Sadoc and Baithos erected in the mountain Garizim, where was planted the first stock of that damnable doctrine of the Saducees, 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 forty: will easily judge by the Emblems, scattered throughout this book of the insufficiency of the Scripture, what Mahomet was the author of the other, knowing the Lion by his long nails. Now as it was not without terror and danger of the new Musilmans, when Feuardent Doctor of Sorbone, preaching then in the said place, dissolved that Synagogue, being a true colony of the Synagogue of the Saducees 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 means to get, or as he saith, to filch a copy of it; for he noways desired that his mysteries should be discovered in public, and exposed to the common view of all, his intention being not to show it but in secret to his young beginners, having first stipulated or conditionally required of them a religious silence, as in times past the Priests and Masters of the Isiac Mithriac, Cleusinian, and Orgian ceremonies used 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 book to be hideous and fearful, he giveth it another name less monstrous, in imitation of that Pope, who having to name Swines-snout, was the first devised to change that filthy name on the other side, he letteth lose out of his mouth all the winds of his slander, to see if he can overwhelm & swallow me up into the chaos of his injurious speeches, ●●ing nips, ●iting ●●u. by force of exclaiming against me deceiver, Sycophant, Parasite, beast, drunkard, senseless falsifier, impudent, blind, desperate etc. to omit here his mockeries, and Sa●casmes, which he applieth unto me as levitives after he had so stoned and rend me. ●his treatise 10. As for the fir t, unless he raze out the blasphemies out of his book, it is to no purpose to scrape out the title from the forefront, setting up a new bush to his Tavern; for they which read this conclusion in his discourse: the Scripture therefore containeth not sufficiently all the Princ bless of doctrine necessary to Divinity: if they let their eyes be still dazzled by his prestigious delusions, if they can not believe of him, that he accuseth the Scripture of unsufficiency, ●ril. Hieron ●●roch. 6. one may well believe of them that they are like to Idols, which have eyes and see not. As for the other, I verily believe, that the Christian reader will rather hast to pass over his invectives, stopping his nose: than stay to scent such filthiness. Now the question is not, on whether side is the subtlety but the truth; not where the Eloquence, but the edification; not the science, but the conscience: He is not envied the quality he attributeth to himself, to be the greatest disputer of the world, whether herein he would imitate Manes, who taking this name of purpose for to term himself such in the Persian tongue, made himself a mad man in the Greek: or whether he imitate that Doctor of Paris, of whom Lodovic. vives speaketh, who made himself be called the Horrible Sophister, De cause. c● art. lib. 3. esteeming this title no less honourable, than the surname of Affricanus, or Asiaticus. Neither can he hinder, whosoever seethe a firebrand in the City, the Gauls on the Capitol, Sacrilege in the Temple from crying against him, were he a child, yea a goose. Herodo. l. 1 And if in times past a child, dumb by nature, seeing a soldier come for to murder his father, found suddenly his tongue unloosed for to cry out and utter words, which stayed the murderer from passing further: If the same happened to a wrestler, Aul. Gel. l 5, c, 9 when one would have deceived him: why should we not hope, that he, that will have the mouth of little ones to sound forth his praise, giveth sometimes to the dumb, the faculty of speech, to children strength to cry, to the ignorant efficacy to persuade, Psalm. 8.2 Math, 21.17 at least one that is not altogether out of his wits: that he cease to deceive and to murder the souls that jesus Christ hath redeemed: from discrediting or calling in the coin wherewith he paid our ransom: and from clipping the letters, which teach us the value of it. And sith that cannot be done without manifestly accusing & injuring the heavenly Father, who having caused this money to be made, and stamped with these letters, as true Sovereign, ordaineth it for all subjects, and giveth it to his Children. If this caller in, or descrediter of it, will be thought to be of the number of these, let him reverence the almighty, and the Christian people, at least so far forth as did that wicked son, who accusing his father before Tiberius, ●●cit. an. ●●l l. 4. was so terrified at the noise of people, which detested that fact, that he gave over 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 falsehoods, which he mingleth in the recital of our verbal conference, considering how little reason he hath, to believe 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 & constancy, of that which one saith or doth: on the other side the Council of Constance forbiddeth him to keep faith with heretics. Whence 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 council, but had burst and let out the wind of that holy and sacred Canon: considering withal that such frauds cannot be termed 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 schools; I am not permitted to use the same liberty: wherefore I will add nothing to the bare recital of that history, where I have imitated neither his disguisements, nor his invectives. But if there be found any word somewhat free: let him attribute that, either to the necessity of my defence, or to the delicateness of the days; and let him call to mind, that he which saith whatsoever he listeth, shall in the end hear what he liketh not, when the sharpness of the truth beginneth to alter the sweetness of the delight. And since he taketh a very great pleasure, when he reproacheth me that I would not continue the conference, unless it were written and signed on both parts; so far am I from repenting me of it, or denying it, that here again I confess, that I insisted upon it with all endeavour; that he may see, that when the truth permitteth me, I oppose not myself any whit to his delight: For it sufficeth me for my contentation to believe, that the courteous Reader will make none other judgement of this my just and necessary instance, Epist. 74. than that which S. Augustine hoped, when Pascentius the Arrian, having refused to write, and to sign in a disputation that he had with him, nevertheless vaunted that he had overcome him, knowing well that his falsehood could not be convinced by any act: For in that are the lurking holes, saith S. Augustine, which they seek, that are more desirous of contention, than of the truth. And as touching the vanities and lies of Pascentius, he answereth: It is easy to overcome Augustine; but heed is to be taken, whether it be by the truth or by exclamations. If it hath not been easy for the Bishop of Eureux to vanquish me in the one sort, yet hath it been most easy for him to do it in the other, being in the midst of his Satellites, or parasites, who by their acclamations did reinforce his his cries, and did like the birds of Psaphon sing his praises. But this Psaphon, proclaimed great god by the chirping of birds, Cool. Rhod. antiqu. Lact. l. 3. c. 5 was soon after declared great deceiver by the judgement of men. For conclusion I give him the same advertisement that S. Augustine gave to Pascentius, that he busy not himself in seeking how he may overcome Tillenus, which is but a man, and the least of men: but that he take heed how he may overcome the truth, Vbi. sup. the perfection of the scripture how with his hammer of wind he can spoil, break, or clip the tables of the law of God, more pure, more hard, than any Gold, than any Diamond, the least piece or shiver of which, is more than sufficient to pierce and break in pieces the forehead of this Goliath, though it be of brass, and shamefully to overthrow to the earth all this great Colossus, which so proudly lifteth up himself against heaven, against the voice which breaketh Cedars, Psal. 29. and which maketh the mountains to quake. ❧ An Advertisement to the Reader. THou shalt understand (Christian Reader) that the Bishop wrote since a reply concerning only some of the first point● herein touched, privily passing it into the hands of some of his friend's and favourites, and some whom he laboured to pervert: Wherein, though his principal intent was, secretly to disgrace both the sacred Scripture and this defender of it, yet hath it turned wholly to his own disgrace, by occasioning this learned man largely to answer it, and so more fully to clear the truth concerning the points touched in his reply. Which answer of D. Tillenus, I have here also for thy benefit added: only the Bishop's reply I have purposely omitted, partly because the ground, or as much as is needful for the understanding of the matter, is already above at large set down: and partly because (it being not meet to trouble thee with needless superfluities) each word and matter of any moment, or worth the answering, is in the answer every where verbatim (for the most part) expressed. A DEFENCE OF THE SUFFICIENCY and perfection of the Holy Scripture: Against the Cavillations of the Bishop of EUREUX: by which he endeavoureth to maintain his Treatise of the Vnsufficiencie and Imperfection of the holy Scripture. THE first question between the Bishop of Eureux and I, is general; namely, whether the holy Scripture be perfect, and sufficient, for to instruct us in the knowledge of salvation; or whether it be not sufficient for that effect. The other is special; namely, whether these articles, the Immortality of the soul, the Resurrection of the body, the last judgement, Paradise, Hell, the Creation and distinction of the orders of Angels; the Being and Creation of Devils, are contained in the books of Moses, or no: In these questions I had attributed the Negative to the Bishop of Eureux, taking the Affirmative for myself. He calleth that deceipts, because he saith not, that the Scripture is unperfect or unsufficient; but that without Tradition it is not sufficient to refute all heresies. And for that he saith not, that these things are not contained in the writings of Moses; but either that they were not, or did not appear to the jews to be therein contained. Let us treat sincerely, and leave deceits to those, who believing none of the foresaid points, have termed Moses a Deceiver; perhaps because he spoke too evidently for their liking. To the first deceit he casteth on me, is sufficiently answered by a discourse of purpose upon the justification 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 do appear to be there or no. If they be there, to what purpose doth he frame Instance from it, to show the imperfection of the Scripture, which is the only scope of his book? Why rejecteth he the places quoted to this purpose, out of the five books of Moses? Why are all the reasons brought for the affirmative, but vain & cold conjectures with him? Why showeth he not the proper & formal places, whence I should take them, & in which alone they are contained. But if they be not contained in the books of Moses, wherefore is he ashamed to confess it? Why am I a Deceiver with him, in attributing unto him this opinion? This new gnostic hath he forgot that first principle. viz. Of every thing either the affirmative is true or the Negative, the one being immediately opposed to the other as it must be in matter of disputation? Again, if these points be not contained in Moses, can his writings be other than unsufficient & imperfect, especially after his own definition, whereby he defineth an imperfect & unsufficient thing to be, when it is not sufficient to the end for which it is destinated, and according to the manner whereby it is ordained thereunto. Tim, 3, 16 ●. The end & office of the Scripture is, to teach the man of God, that he may be perfect, & absolutely instructed unto every good work. Now, if the first principles, & fundamental points of this instruction be wanting therein, & if we must derive them from some other way (as he saith) besides the Scripture; It followeth, either that the man of God, may be perfectly instructed, without believing the imortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, Paradise, hell, etc. (which is the perfection not of a Christian faith, but of a Pirrhonian belief:) Or else that the books that should teach them & yet contain them not wholly, are as imperfect, as a human body would be without a head, without a heart, yea without a soul; or as a tutor or scool Mr, (for so S. Paul caleth the law; Gal. 3.24. ) which showeth not to his disciple so much as the .1. rudiments or principles, without which notwithstanding he should never be capable to learn or understand any thing. Also, if none of the foresaid points be contained in Moses, it followeth that S. Augustine did wrongfuly show by so many reasons, Cont. Cres● Gram. l. 1. c. 17. &, 18. that jesus Christ was a good Logician: it would follow also, that he that put him in the rank of deceivers, with Moses & Mahomet did him no wrong: for every Sophister is a deceiver, and he which allegeth for a demonstrative proof, that which is but a vain & cold conjecture, is a Sophister: now if the place of Moses, that Christ alleged to the Saducees, for to prove the resurrection of the dead, Exod. 3 6. Matth. 22.32. be not a demonstrative proof: it is the trick of a Sophister, to have alleged it for such. Also it would follow that Christ in approving the opinion of the jews (who thought to have life eternal in the scripture) if it were erroneous did not the office of a faithful teacher: for, that by this scripture is understood the books of Moses, it is manifest by the 45, 46. and 47. verses of the same chapter where our Saviour saith, john. 5.39. that the jews trusted in Moses, that Moses accused them, that Moses wrote of him; That they could not believe his words, because they believed not Moses writings. Of necessity then whosoever will not openly blaspheeme jesus Christ, & declare himself an unmasked Atheist, must acknowledge that the foresaid points are contained in the books of Moses. It remaineth now to show, how they be there, & whether they do appear to be there or no. I say they do so appear to be there, as man is able to see them there; but to discern them, he must have the eye of his soul open & cleansed; like as for to see the Sun, which is the clearest thing in the world, the eye of the body must be open & seeing. Now the understanding of the natural & unregenerate man is obscured with darkness, is but darkness, ye is dead; that is to say, deprived aswell of life as of spiritual sight, 1 Cor. 2.1. which is the cause he cannot see the things that are of the Spirit of God, finding but folly in them. And so, not only the Law of Moses, but also the Gospel of jesus Christ, notwithstanding the brightness of it, is hid to them that perish; Cot. 4.3. of whom the God of this world hath blinded the understandings, that the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, should not shine in them. Both the Law and the Gospel, become clear unto men, when the Spirit of God, by the light of his grace, expelleth inwardly the darknesses of their nature, and the darnesses that the Prince of darkness hath added thereunto: Pet. 119. Cor, 13.12 & when he outwardly showeth the light of the Scripture, shining in dark places, until such time as we see face to face, the things which in this world cannot be seen but in a glass darkly. Here he will reply; Whence cometh then this diversity of interpretations? Whence cometh it that whosoever is truly enlightened by the Spirit of God findeth not straight ways the true meaning of the Scripture? I answer, that it is one thing to be truly enlightened, & another thing to be perfectly enlightened in all things. It is one thing to understand all the points necessary to salvation, and another thing to be able rightly to expound all the places of the Scripture one by one. It is one thing to err in the exposition of a particular place; & another thing to err in a general 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 itself, containing perfectly all that is necessary to salvation; and another thing to say that men comprehend perfectly this perfection. The Apostle saith that, In this life we know but in part, Cor. 13.9 we prophecy but in part: It belongeth unto God alone to know all things, and in all perfection. Now as there be children of light, which see but by glimpse, as it were, because they receive this light by little & little, & by degrees, as the blind man whose eyes Christ opened, to whom at first men seemed like trees; ●ark. 8.24. & these acknowledge their Imperfection & weakness of sight: Also there are children of darkness, which presume to know all, to see all, which never feel their blindness, ●●hn. 9.41. whose sin, as saith our Saviour, remaineth, that is to say, is incurable: For he giveth sight to them that feel their want, & by his just judgement blindeth more & more those, that think they see most clearly, which entitle themselves, Leaders of the blind, a light to them which are in darkness; Rom. 2 which disdainfully reject the light of the Scriptures, which boast themselves of a greater wisdom, than that which God hath in them revealed; which seeing themselves condemned by the Scripture, refuse it for judge, take it for an adversary, and accuse it as guilty of the errors of those, which follow it. It is the speech of the Bishop of Eureux, that he said unto me in the verbal conference, upon the error of saint Cyprian, touching the rebaptizing of heretics. And here he saith. That the scripture is so far from being instituted to serve only for particular instruction, in all the contentious points of Religion, that on the contrary, the first intention of the Apostles, was to deliver the doctrines to the Church by tradition of lively voice, & word unwritten. Also he saith, that the Apostles wrote but by incident or chance, Fol. 35. and upon secondary occasions. Let us see this Enthymeme or imperfect argument of the Pirrhonian Logic: The Apostles first taught by lively voice, 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 himself; therefore drink serveth nothing to nourishment. A non distributo ad distributum, etc. If he make an opposition between the commandment of the spirit of God, & the incident, or the occasions which moved the Apostles to write, he blasphemeth in divinity, denying the places of scripture, 2. Tim. 3.1 2. Pet. 1.20, 21. where it is called, inspired of God: and doteth in Logic, excluding the efficient and principal cause, because of the instruments and means that it useth. Also the Apostle saint Jude saith, jude. 3. that there was a necessity of writing imposed upon him: And in the Revelation we read, that saint john is more than ten times commanded to write. We know, that to preach and to write are things very accordant, and which were comprehended in one and the same commandment given to the Apostles, ●ath, 28 to teach all nations, which yet to this day they teach by their writings. He which commanded them the thing, which is, to teach, commanded also the manners of teaching, which are to preach with lively 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 transfer doctrines or instructions unto posterity. ●enaeus li, 3 p, 1, So Irenaeus understandeth it, saying: The Apostles after they had preached with lively voice the Gospel, afterwards gave it us in the scriptures, by the will of God, for to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. So the book entitled Manuale Curatorun, showeth it, saying, there are three sorts of preachings: One is by writing, as saint Paul did, writing to the Romans, Corinthians, etc. Another is by actions: so every action of jesus Christ is our instruction: the third is by word & lively voice. The Bishop of Eureux, for to show that he is not alone in his opinion, produceth four places of four ancient Fathers, ●hat is, by ●●ose of our ●●de. often propounded and expounded, namely, that they should be understood not of matters of faith, but of the order & governance of the Church; which things, being of their own nature ambulatory, & subject to change according to the diversity of the circumstances, of times, places & persons, could not, or should not be written. Or if they speak of some doctrine, not contained in the scripture, they mean it of the formal terms, which are not there; as the words trinity, coessential, sacrament; the sense & matter of which, notwithstanding, is therein found, & is drawn from thence, either by analogy of faith, or by necessary consequence. Otherwise it would follow that they had gainsaid & contradicted themselves; a confess. fid. sum. mor. 72 1. & sum. 80 22. eres. to wit, S. Basil, when he saith: that it is a most manifest mark of infidelity, & a most certain sign of pride, to reject any thing of that which is written, or to bring in any thing which is not written: S. Epiphanius, All things are clear in the scripture, to those which by a holy use of reason, will draw near the word of god & which have not conceived an operation of the devil (such as they conceive, 〈◊〉 1. Timoth. ●om. that accuse the scripture of imperfection:) endeavouring to cast themselves into the gulf of death. S. Chrysostome maketh saint Paul speak to Timothy in this manner: In stead of me, thou hast the scriptures, if thou desirest to learn any thing, thou mayst do it from thence. Then he addeth: De doctrine. Christ. l. 2. c. If he wrote so to Timothy, who was full of the holy Ghost; how much more ought we to think, that it is spoken of us. It is manifest that this Father thought that the intention of the Apostles was, to leave 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 contain faith and manners, that is, Hope and Charity. There is to quit his four places, and in pieces of the same coin. If he will agree them, let him bestir himself better than he did in the answer he giveth to the place of saint Hilary, that hath these words: That which is not contained in the book of the law, we ought not so much as to know it. He saith, that this should be understood, of the Apocrypha books, alleged in quality of Canonical. What a mockery is this? Is not the sentence of S. Hilary general? or if it be not general, is it not unapt & frivolous? But the reply was ready. That there be many other things to be known, besides them which are contained in the law, which containeth not so much as the principal points, viz. the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, etc. What Apocrypha Logic is this, to draw an universal conclusion, from particular premises? And when the same father saith in another place; It is good that we content ourselves with the things which are written: can that plaster cure, or so much as cover the wound, that this place maketh in his unwritten Traditions? And here let the reader be advertised once for all; That all the sentences of the Fathers, how general soever they be, what universal mark soever be set upon them; are ever 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 general Law: which is to make a laughing stock of the Fathers, and to deprive them even of common sense, in making them reason so unaptly, and in occasioning their adversaries to make unto them so easy and just replies. To return to Hilary, the Bishop of Eureux, opposeth to the above said place, another of the same Father, taken out of his Commentary on the second Psalm, where he saith, That Moses after he had written the words of the old Testament, consigned certain more secret mysteries, to the seventy Elders, etc. which place he saith, I have not read; and calleth me a bad scholar, in skipping over the beginning of the book, for to study at the end: I answer, he showeth that he himself hath not read the note set upon the margin of this place (non credo) which, Hilar. Paris. ex ●ffici. Carol. Guillar. anno. 1544. with the authority of saint Hierome, thinking that these commentaries upon the Psalms are for the most part taken out of Origen, that is, out of the original of the most part of his errors, moved me to put this opinion of saint Hilary in the rank of others wholly erroneous, which are found in his writings, as when he attributeth to our Lord jesus Christ a body uncapable of weariness, of hunger, of thirst & of all dolour; condemning of errors, Lib. 10. de Trin. in Psal. ●8. those which by his sufferings, conclude the dolour. When he speaketh in such sort of the Incarnation of Christ, as if the holy Virgin had but borne & brought him forth, without contributing any thing of her substance, to his flesh. Lib. 8. de Trin. When he saith that we are one with the father by nature, and not only by similitude or adoption. When he thinketh that Moses is yet alive, at least by the judgement of Bellarmine, notwithstanding that the holy Scripture saith the contrary in express terms. Matth. inc. 17 de Purgat l 2 c. 8. Deu 34.5. etc. Learn here, Bishop, that it is better to skip over such places, impure and dangerous, than to defile a man's self, and run headlong into danger by abiding upon them. Epiphanius reciteth that certain monstrous heretics gathered the spittle, & other ordures which issued from the bodies of certain women descended of their archhereticke, ●osh. 1.1.2 Haeres. 53. for to keep them in manner of relics, and to apply them to sick persons. In like sort do they, who cherish their spiritual maladies, by the uncleannesses, which they gather from the writings of the ancient Fathers. And it is good reason, that such to whom the scripture is unsavoury, should have no better than stinking puddles for their best refreshing. He accuseth me of two frauds. 1. In that I summon the adversaries to prove by the scripture all the points in controversy between us and them, not only such as be of the Essence of our salvation, but others also less important: and in the mean while restrain the disputation of things necessary, when it is showed that the Apostles left certain things to their disciples, without writing them. 2. That in stead of proving the points in question, by such clear and infallible texts of Moses, that every simple Israelite, might have framed of it a necessary & indubitable consequence, I produce only some probable and conjectural appearances or shows. To the first objection I answer: that we never change our Thesis. We prove by the scripture the points, that we believe necessary to salvation: and we demand of our adversaries, the like proof for the points, that they pretend to be such, whether of necessity absolute or conditional. We reject many things of the Romish Church, which at first sight seem not to oppugn salvation, but their consequences dash against it. For example: the forbidding to eat flesh on certain days, is in itself a light thing, and may be practised for certain politic respects, Rom. 14 which concern not our salvation, sith that the kingdom of God is neither meat nor drink. But to make of it a law for to bind the conscience, to declare the transgression thereof, a sin against the holy Ghost: to constitute therein merit towards God, to attribute unto it an expiatory power to do away sins, C. violator to make of it works of supererogation, etc. These are consequences which shake the foundation of Christian liberty, the doctrine of grace, and the assurance of our salvation, grounded upon grace. Thus acknowledging but one Lawgiver, who can save and destroy, 〈◊〉. 4 12. and desiring to persist in the liberty which jesus Christ hath purchased us, we will not receive the yoke of bondage. 5.1 8.20. ●. 11.28, ●0, And they that would subject us under their laws, & make us fall under their insupportable burdens, we bring them to the law of God, to the yoke of jesus Christ which is easy, and to his burden which is light. Wherefore, it is false, that we conclude so, as the Bishop of Eureux saith we do: That is not in the Scripture, it is therefore an impiety and superstition. Our conclusions are thus: That is not in the scripture, and notwithstanding is commanded us to be kept, as necessary unto salvation, by him who hath no authority to make laws to the conscience: Therefore it is an impiety, or superstition. We grant also, that some things touching the order & outward policy of the Church, things not unmovable and unchangeable, as is the doctrine of faith; have not been written: neither all the particular deeds and sayings of our Saviour, and his Apostles: But it is one thing to say, All the heads of doctrine are not written; and another thing to say, All the particularities comprised under every head or kind are not written: We say that the Apostles have written all the heads of doctrine: genera singulorum; though not all the particularities of every 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 never denied, but that there were things unwritten under both Testaments; & as we do not merely and flatly reject them, so we receive them not all without discretion or difference; Neither hold we them that we receive, in the same degree of authority with the scripture: because the Apostles themselves, inasmuch as they have not enregistered them with the rest, have weakened their authority, and manifested, that they were not things absolutely necessary, & that the doctrine that may be drawn from them, is sufficiently declared in the things which are written, which are never so particular, but that we may draw thence instruction, for the general Rule of faith; And the number of these same, is so ample in their writings, that to Christians they suffice, whether it be to learn the truth, or to reprove error. 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 vary or forget; which is not to be feared in ●he Scripture. And how should the right be known? How should the process be ended, which ariseth of matters of Testament, if the Instrument 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, held & received among the jews, though not expressed in the writings of the Old Testament: it followeth not, either that they would authorize all the traditions of the pharisees, or that they esteemed the Scripture imperfect, or that they set those unwritten particularities that they allege, in the same degree of necessity or authority, as they do the things written; For if of such allegations one would infer equal authority with the scripture, it would follow that the poems of Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides, out of whom saint Paul citeth some verses, should be equal to the scripture, Acts, ●7. 2. 1. Cor. 15, Titus, 1, 12 ●o●o, 10 which verses got no authority amongst us, till since the time as they were sanctified by the Apostle, as Tertullian speaketh, though before they contained truth. The Bishop of Eureux very unfitly confoundeth these two terms, Truth and Authority, as if every sentence and history, containing Truth, had as much authority as a place of holy scripture. And if the Apostles allege sometimes things not written: it must be noted, that having received the spirit in such abundance, they discerned better the true traditions from the false, than their pretended successors could any ways do. Also ordinarily, it is but upon some circumstance of history, and not for the substance: as the names of the Magicians of Pharaoh: jacobs worshipping of God, 2, Tim, 3, 8 Hebr. 11.2 Hebr. 12.2 as he leaned on his staff: certain words of Moses propounded at the publishing of the Law. The fastening of josephes' feet in the stocks, in prison. The prophesy of Henoch alleged by S. Jude, though it be taken from Tradition, as touching the words, 〈◊〉. 105, 18, yet the ground of it appeareth in Scripture, which teacheth us, that the patriarchs, were ordained for to teach those of their ages, and to declare unto them the judgements of God. And since we find in Scripture that Henoch continually walked with 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 us, that God doth nothing afore he hath revealed his secrets to his servants the Prophets. ●●us. 2. It is also to be noted, that this prophecy of Henoch, may be more fitly understood of the universal judgement that God executed upon the world by the flood, than of the last judgement of the world. And forasmuch as they of whom S. Jude speaketh, were contemners of God; It is to be believed, that they made as little reckoning of the Scripture as of the authority of jesus Christ, ●●se, 4. whom they denied. And therefore the Apostle chooseth rather to allege unto them a history, witnessed, not only by the Scripture, but also by profane Authors, who make mention of the Deluge, as we learn by josephus, 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 showing the points in question by express Texts of Moses, or by necessary consequences and true analogy; I show them by some probable and conjectural appearances or shows. The Reader which hath eyes to see, shall judge whether there be appearance, or substance, whether probability or necessity: mean while I will advertise him of the method that Du Perron keepeth in answering it. 1. He opposeth some maimed exposition of one of our Doctors, as if we did attribute like authority to them, as the Church of Rome doth to their pope's; or the like, as to the ancient fathers; of whom the Gloss of the civil Canon saith: Glos. in dist Can Nolim that all their writings are to be held for authentical, even to the least jota or title. Although sometimes he produce some out of the Rabbins, yea even from some Doctors of the Romish Church. 2 He inventeth one of his own brain, if he find none in some Interpreter, that repugneth mine. 3 He reduceth the places of Moses, in form of a cornuted syllogism, in fashion of his mitre, to make himself be laughed at. 4 He wresteth my conclusions, for what point he listeth; though I allege the places for proof of another: and this he doth that he might make my arguments be found the more absurd, and give himself subject of exclaiming, that I speak not of all the points proposed. 5 He saith in the end, that the places are not so clear, but a contentious spirit may find some defect: And if I confirm my exposition by the testimony of the Fathers, for to show that others have understood, as I do, the place in question; and that I wrist it not, to serve mine own turn; His ordinary answer is; That the question is not whether some Father hath understood it so, or no; but whether that can be verified by the only text of Moses; which is the heap of all perverseness and Impudency; 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 only the places of Moses, but also those of job, Daniel, and David, most express, for the Immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the last judgement, and life Eternal; are so feeble unto him, that he showeth well, that he believeth those points no better than the Saducees, for whom he pleadeth; And whereas Cicero said to a certain Advocate pleading faintly; if thou didst not sergeant, thou wouldst not plead so coldly: So, contrariwise, one may say unto him, that if he feigned, he would not plead so eagerly: for to imagine, that he believeth these points by benefit of the inventary of Tradition, is absurd; sith that throughout his whole book, he continually demandeth insoluble & inevitable demonstrations, which none in the world, no not the most contentious spirit that is, can be able to gainsay, protesting that he will not admit any proof of Scripture, unless it be such. Can he find of this stamp in the treasury of Tradition? Is not his speech the speech of a heathen Atheist, ●●len. de ●ll. differ, l, c, 4, most execrable? which saith: That in the School of Moses and of Christ, there be hard laws, which are not grounded on any demonstration. Felix Governor of judea, a heathen, and a wicked man, when he heard S. Paul speak of the last judgement, ●●t. 24.25. he trembled for fear; and yet the Apostles discourse, was only taken from Moses, ●●t. 26.22. and the Prophets, if we believe 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 alleged is but matter of mockery; and that by Moses saying, beasts and fishes are altogether as immortal in their souls, as well comprised in God's covenant, & capable of everlasting life; as the creatures, which bear the Image of God. The Saducees, for whom he pleadeth, found not the Resurrection of the body, clearly enough expressed in the writings of Moses, for to believe them: but after that our Saviour Christ had proved it by the miraculous raising up of Lazarus, did they believe it for that? The pharisees which made profession to believe it, believed they for that, that jesus Christ was the Resurrection, & the life? No more truly than an Epicure would have believed the Imortality of the soul, seeing Calanus ioccundly cast himself into the fire: although this act seemed to othersome, a more pertinent proof, for to show the Immortality of the soul, than all the demonstrative Syllogisms of the Philosophers. Now that it may the better be seen, whether it is I or Moses that Du Perron mocketh at; I choose rather to produce my arguments, in their form, after the manner of a simple Israelite, than 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 written at all; should not for all that in any fashion whatsoever, advance his desperate cause; as hereafter I shall make most manifest to the eye and sense of every indifferent reader: In the mean while I will bring forth the places, according to the order of the five books of Moses. Out of Genesis. The first argument for the Immortality of the Soul, 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 manner or fashion. Thereupon shall be showed to a Saducie, throughout all the five books of the Law, but specially by the Text of Deut. 4. from the 15. verse to the 25. verse, that this likeness cannot be in man, as touching his body, sith that this God, whose Image he is, hath no body; considering also that it would follow that every body might be said to be the image of god, which Moses saith only of man; Therefore of necessity it must be in the reasonable and intellectual soul; otherwise beasts should be also made after the Image of God; This soul, if it be mortal & corruptible, it cannot resemble after a singular fashion or manner, the immortal & incorruptible God. The B. of Eureux replieth, that Luther & Caluin say; That the Image of God is defaced or put out by sin, and that the interpreters themselves of both sides have upon this word almost as many opinions as heads. I answer that neither Luther, nor Caluin, do at any time confounded the quality of this Image, with the substance of the same. The quality, which is, in the right and pure understanding and will of the soul, is defaced or blotted out, but the substance is no more abolished, than man of whom it is the essential form. But he defaceth and abolisheth here, without thinking of it, all that goodly Image of his Tradition, & casteth it to the ground, more rudely, than ever the Ass did the Image of Isis: For if even the Interpreters of his side cannot agree among themselves, and are not able to expound the Image of God, what serveth 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 clearly written, Anchor. ●em. haer. 70. ●em. in Epist. ●●l Io. Hieros. ●●b Hier. versa which he calleth subsidiary or helping tradition: and Epiphanius, whom he so often allegeth, as one of the principal depositaries of Apostolic Tradition, freely confesseth; That it cannot be known, a●● that this knowledge is reserved to God, who alone knoweth, in what part of man, he hath placed his Image. He perceiveth them here a Tradition, which saith not a word, which furnisheth neither supply nor explication, upon this point so important; much more defectuous than the Scripture; which at least declareth unto us, that man is made after the Image of God, whence is drawn the argument above propounded. And therefore, the exposition of these Fathers, which place this Image of God in the immortality of the soul, cannot be taken from Tradition, so barren in this behalf; the which also none of them allegeth, when they treat of it: Neither Tertullian, (x Mar. l 2. c. 9) Nor Athanasius, (de in carn. Christ.) Nor S. Ambros. Hexa. l. 6. c. 7.) Nor S. Augustine. de Genes. x 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 etc.) All which draw it out of the bare text of Moses, as I do. But of what sincerity and authority is the Romish tradition in this point? ●say. 40, 18, ●5. which when God demandeth in the Scripture; To whom will ye liken me, or what similitude will ye set up unto me? answereth by the subsidiary or helping mouth of his Interpreters the Bishops: We will make thee like to a piece of wood or stone, painted or graven, bearing a triple Crown like a Pope, old and decrepit, and which for a need, will serve for a sign or bush at a tavern. The disciples of the Tradition, learn of it, that God is made after the image of a man; in stead of believing with the Disciples of the Scripture, that man is made after the Image of God. The jewish Tradition upon this point, is not so insupportable as the Romish, neither is it clear, that one may gather more properly from it, the Immortality of the soul, Vile. Gl. Ord. than we do from the Text itself: the Rabbins say: that the Image of God is to be sought in these properties of the soul, Ier, 23, 24 viz. as the soul filleth the whole body; so God filleth heaven & earth. Also, as the soul is one only in her body; Exod. 33. so God is only one in the whole universal world. Also, Psal, 121 as God seethe all, and can not be seen, so the soul seethe the exterior things, without being seen. Also, as God sleepeth not; so the soul ever waketh. All these resemblances, and conformities are found as well in a beast, as in a man: so that by the jewish Tradition, we should be true Saducees, that is to say, such, as Du Perron their Advocate would feign make us be. Gen, 4: 1● From the place, where the blood of Abel, shed by Cain, is said to cry unto the Lord; I frame this argument: That which crieth and demandeth vengeance, is not wholly extinguished and brought to nothing: Abel after he was murdered, crieth 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 figurative speech, to attribute a cry to blood, & that one cannot draw a proper conclusion from it. Let us frame the argument therefore in this form. They of whom God hath care, are not annihilated 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 answer, Matth 22. that it was not a Doctor of Sorbonne, but the Eternal wisdom of God; who concludeth, that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And this example of Abel, is no less evident, than that in the Revelation, where the souls of them that were killed for the word of God, cried under the Altar; How long o Lord which art holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell one the earth: Behold almost the same light, the same style, in the first and last book of the holy Scripture. 〈◊〉 9.5. etc., When god saith in the same book of Moses; that he will require again the blood of souls, Resur. c. 28. he showeth us the same thing, and furnisheth us matter of a like argument. Notwithstanding, Tertullian draweth thence a consequence, not only for the Immortality of the soul, but also for the Resurrection of the body; reasoning thus: That which God requireth again, must be restored: but God requireth again 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 avenged. And then he concludeth, that what is spoken of the blood, is spoken of the flesh; ●●p 32, without which the blood can not be: and that the flesh shall be raised up, that the blood may be avenged: and in the same book, he saith; that Moses in this place, maketh mention of beasts, at whose hands the blood shall be required; the better to express the resurrection, even of bodies devoured by them. The Bishop of Eureux findeth, that this is but an hyperbolical threatening, for to terrify men from manslaughter. But they which take the prohibitions of Murder for hyperboles; they are the very same that hyperbolically give licence to themselves to commit it, following the Tradition, not of the Apostles, (unless it be of judas;) but of certain Robbers among the Donatists, which they called Circumcelliones. Now sith this place cannot be well understood, in his judgement, without Tradition; he secretly insinuateh, that even the civil Magistrate cannot punish murder, by virtue of this law of the Scripture; that so he might put into this false scabbard of his tradition, both the two swords together; the spiritual, and the Temporal. From the taking up of Henoch, I make this argument: he which is taken out of this life, & gathered unto god enjoyeth an eternal felicity: But Henoch being no more seen among men, was gathered or taken away unto GOD: therefore, Henoch enjoyeth eternal felicity. This argument proveth not only the immortality of the soul; But also Paradise, that is to say, an eternal felicity. The Sadduces reply, by the mouth of his advocate Du Perron, is: That it may be granted that this translation was a withdrawing from the conversation of men, and a delay and staying of death, till a certain time, unknown to men of the first ages, but that it followeth not that the soul, after the extinction of the body subsisteth and remaineth for ever. I answer, that if it be permitted to the Saducie, and his Advocate, to add to the text of Moses, what they please, they may conclude from thence what they list, and one day shall find, that which they will like but little. But this Sadducean or Perronian gloss, is contrary to the Text of Moses, which setteth down unto us the temporal life of Henoch, much shorter than was the ordinary of that time: So that this taking up, cannot be understood of a delay, or staying of death. Moreover, this text representeth unto us Henoch, as the most excellent man in piety and love of GOD, which lived in his age; and setteth forth unto us also, without the help of any gloss, his taking up, as a manifest testimony of the favour of God towards him. On the other side, all the Law of Moses teacheth us; that it was rather the testimony of a curse, than of a blessing to be soon deprived of this temporal life, seeing that long life upon earth is promised & propounded as a special blessing: I● followeth therefore, by necessary and inevitable consequence, that there is another and more happy life then this earthly life, Into which Henoch was translated, Revel. 21. which we call Paradise; that is to say, a place extempt from all evil, and abounding in all good. This consequence is drawn from the text itself, not from the word of Tertullian, who calleth Henoch, Candidatum aeternitatis; which I had inserted by the way. But take away this flourish that he maketh upon occasion of this word, as if I would prove the immortality of the soul, by Tertullian, he remaineth lame and benumbed and not able to pass any further: For the rest that he saith is as much to purpose, as if one would ground the original of the Esseians, or of the Monk's o● Popery, on this withdrawing of Enoch from the conversation of men: And if our Bishop had not taken in hand to plead the cause of the Saducees, he might find here a good proof for the Esseians, or for the Monks. From the history of the Deluge may be drawn proof for the Universal judgement, which Du Perron holdeth not to have been believed among the jews, ●●n. 7 but by Tradition of the prophesy of Henoch, cited in the Epistle of saint Jude: For that which we see foretold in the same prophecy, we find it accomplished in the seventh chapter of Genesis. The argument may be form thus: He which executeth judgement against all, and condemneth all the wicked, for the works of their impiety, executeth an universal judgement: But God executed such a judgement in the flood, against all the wicked: Therefore, he executed an universal judgement. The Bishop of Eureux cannot deny the Mayor, for it is taken from the foresaid tradition; nor the Minor, without denying the history of Moses, who teacheth us that this judgement was universal. And if the Saducie allege the promise that GOD made (Genes. 9.11. and .15, Verses.) not to destroy the whole earth any more: we can show him the restriction, that is there added, namely, that he will not destroy the earth any more by the waters of the Flood, his judgements not being subject to one only form. And seeing that the same justice is always in God; which the Saducie is constrained to confess; and the same unrighteousness and impiety reigneth amongst men: It followeth, that he will execute also the same judgement, to wit universal, though we can not know the day nor the hour: Tradition being no less silent here, than the Scripture. From the Covenant, that God made with Abraham, and the Hebrews; I argue thus: Genes, 15.17, 2, 4.7. A covenant that dureth for ever, requireth that the parties between whom it is contracted, do abide for ever: But the covenant that GOD contracteth with his, dureth for ever: Therefore they must also abide for ever. The only light of nature showeth, as well to the jews, and to the Heathen; as to Christians, the truth of the Mayor: For it is most certain, that when one of the Correlatives is extinct, the relation which is between them is extinct also: The Minor is proved to a Sadducie by a good number of places of Moses, alleged in my former answer, which the Bishop of Eureux calleth a Rhapsody of conjectures; a name more fit for the matter in question than he imagineth, or intendeth, if we take it in the sense, that Eustathius Homer's interpreter teacheth us; that is to say, for a Laurel Rod, where triumphant Truth abateth the impudency of a blasphemer, who maketh the covenant grounded on the seed of Abraham, that is to say, on jesus Christ, common to brute beasts; under colour that GOD promised to Noah, not to drown the earth any more, by a Deluge: Fol. 11 so that even beasts taste of this favour, not perishing any more all at once, as they did in the Deluge. To an Hebrew Sadducie, one may show him by his own tongue, that the word (Berith) commonly translated, covenant, is taken sometimes generally, for every declaration, whether of counsel, of commandment, or of promise: As we see by the examples. Levi. 24.8. Nomb. 18.19. & 25.12: In which places, this word signifieth nothing else but Ordinance, like as it is taken in this place in question, Genes. 9.11. Sometimes it is particularly understood, for a contract and covenant made between parties, which do reciprocally or mutually condition and accept: Now that the covenant made between GOD and Abraham, is such a one; is showed by the seventeenth Chapter of Genesis, where we see GOD on the one side, conditioning; and on the other side, Abraham accepting. If Du Perron will make his instance of any force, he must show the like conditioning and acceptation between God, and beasts; Or else let him confess, that this word (covenant) agreeth not in the same sense, or univocally, to men and to beasts. In the same Chapter 7. verse. God having said, that this covenant between him and Abraham, is perpetual; showeth in what it consisteth, to wit, in that he is the God of Abraham: Whence it followeth, either that Abraham is permanent for ever, or that the covenant is not perpetual or permanent. For how could God be the God of one which is not? And this consequence was found so necessary in the argument of jesus Christ against the Sadducees, that they knew not what to reply thereunto, though they knew the place of Genesis 9.11. as well as their Advocate Du Perron. ●enes. 12.13 ● .17.26. ●8. From the inheritance of the land of Canaan, promised to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and jaacob, I frame this argument: If the promises of God made to the patriarchs, be understood only of the earthly inheritance, and not of the heavenly, God is not true of his word: the consequent is blasphemous: Therefore the Antecedent is false. The consequence is showed, 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 patriarchs themselves, as to their successors; yea they were the principals, with whom the Covenant was treated; which did bear their name, and in all prayers; chiefly in that of Moses making intercession for the people, it was still alleged; GOD was ever prayed, to Remember his Covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and jacob. Yea Gen. 15.7. god speaketh but of Abraham, saying, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Vr of the Chaldees, to give thee this Land, to inherit it: Now god gave him never any inheritance in this Land of Canaan, Act. 7, 5. no not so much as to set his foot upon, as S. Stephen saith, and as the Sadduces may see in the history set down by Moses: It followeth therefore, 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 drawn from the bare text of Moses, without employing the place of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which I had alleged, for to show a Christian, not a Saducee, that I wrist 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 up 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 confirm them in the jewish Synagogues, for to mix and steep them there in Cabalistical gloss. To the places in which the promises of the Land of Canaan are directed to the patriarchs themselves, and not only to their posterity, he answereth, that it must be understood of their children, who should represent them. Which is a manifest mockery: For to what purpose should the Scripture conjoin these two terms; To thee and to thy seed? What part should they have in the Covenant, if in that land they were strangers, depending on the mercy 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 heavenly Oracles? What comfort would it be for Abraham, that at the end of four hundredth years, his posterity should possess a certain country, yet after infinite miseries of a long and cruel bondage, and in the mean while, himself with whom GOD had principally contracted the covenant, to be subject to so many evils, plucked out of his own country, driven out of the Land of Canaan by famine, almost constrained to prostitute (as it were) his wife, for to save his life in Egypt, having sometimes want even of water? Therefore not only he knew, but those that read his Story in Moses may see, that this land was but a sign unto him of a more excellent and heavenly thing; and that he was not to complain for having been deprived of the one, seeing he was assured of the other, having God for his reward, as the express Text saith (Gen. 15.1.) From Abraham's intercession unto God, for the cities of Sodom and Gomorah: Gen. 18, 25. I draw this argument for to prove the universal judgement: If there be a judge, which iudgeeth all the earth; there is an universal judgement: But Abraham acknowledgeth God for such a judge, and calleth him by this name, verse 25. Therefore there is an universal judgement. Gen, 22, By the history of Abraham's Sacrificing Isaac, I prove the Resurrection, showing to a Sadducie that Abraham believed it, & that thus. He which believeth God to be true: believeth that he will fulfil his promises: But Abraham believed God to be true: therefore he believed the fulfilling of his promises. Now this promise was, that in Isaac should his seed be called. Therefore of necessity one of these two things must follow; either that he believed that god would raise up Isaac again, whom he was about to kill, or that he believed not the promise that God had made him; for to believe that he would give him another son, Gen, 21, 12 it were still to fail of the promise, which was made of this Individual: to wit, Isaac. This consequence is drawn from the text itself, and the Apostle who allegeth it, neither addeth thereunto, 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. Silvester, that raised up a dead Bull, Or in that of S. German, that raised up an ass, & a calf 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 eternal: But Abraham hath God for his reward: Therefore he hath immortality and life eternal. Du Perron saith: That some of ours understand this reward of earthly and temporal things: true, but they exclude not heavenly and eternal, unless he forge himself a God without immortality and without eternity. His answers and ordinary manners of arguing are, to snatch one part, thereby to exclude the other, as if he should say: God framed Adam a body, therefore he gave him not a soul. Let us set him down the argument in this sort: Whosoever hath God for reward, hath more than an earthly and temporal thing: But Abraham hath God for reward, therefore he hath more than an earthly and temporal thing. But since the Bishop of Eureux receiveth the exposition of Oecolampadius upon this place, who understandeth, as if God said unto Abraham: If I be for thee, who shall be against thee? If I be thy buckler and thy protection, who shall hurt thee? Let him receive also this argument: He whom nothing can hurt, is immortal; otherwise death should hurt him, yea break this buckler which is God, and vanquish this protector, which is the same God. Now nothing may hurt Abraham, therefore he is immortal, and all the calamities that he suffered, did not hurt him, to speak properly: But if death had abolished his body & his soul both together, without hope of restitution, & resurrection, then should the promise of God have been found vain and frustrate. From the exclamation that jacob maketh at the point of death, I draw this argument: Gen 49. ● Whosoever waiteth for the salvation of God at the hour of his death, when he is going out of this life, thinketh not to die wholly and altogether: but jacob at the point of his death waiteth for the Salvation of God: therefore he thought not to die wholly and altogether, for it behoveth, that some thing of him should remain for to receive this salvation. And though it should be understood of some succours for his posterity, yet it behoveth, that he which waiteth and hopeth for that, be not wholly extinguished & brought to nothing. So in the vulgar translation which is authentic in the Church of Rome, there is in the future tense: I will wait for thy salvation O Lord. If Du Perron reply, that his Sadducie holdeth not that translation for authentical: No more do we that of his pretended Rabbi, that he allegeth unto us. 〈◊〉 14, 〈◊〉 49, 29. 〈◊〉 15.55. 〈◊〉, 8, 17, From this speech, to be gathered to his fathers, or people, many times repeated in this first book of Moses, I conclude, that if those to whom Abraham, Isaac, & jacob be gathered, be not at all; Moses speaketh unaptly and falsely: But this consequent is false, therefore also the antecedent is so too. Out of the second book of Moses, called Exodus. ●●d, 3, 6, This book furnisheth us in the first place, with the argument wherewith our Saviour Christ, stopped the mouths of the Saducees, proving unto them the resurrection of the dead, the form of it is this: They of whom God calleth himself the God, are living: Now God calleth himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of jacob: Therefore they are living: And seeing that according to the body they are not yet raised up from the dead, that must needs be one day, though in respect of God, to whom all things are present, they be already raised up, and therefore he calleth himself their God, speaking of a thing which shall infallibly be done, as if it were already done. The Bishop of Eureux crieth as loud as he can, that jesus Christ cited this place only for to prove the immortality of the soul, and that it belongeth not to the Resurrection of the body. I say, though he presuppose the immortality of the soul, yet he meaneth it necessarily of the Resurrection of the dead, because it is the question that the Sadduces proposed to our Saviour, which of the seven brethren in the resurrection should have the woman to wife, who had been married to them all, one after another: is there any tradition, that maketh marriages between souls without their bodies? such a marriage would be another manner of mystery, than that is, which the Romish tradition hath made a Sacrament. Bellarmine himself saith: our Lord being about to prove the Resurrection to the Saducees, alleged this testimony of Scripture, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaak and the God of jacob: and addeth, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; whence his intention is to infer: The dead therefore rise again. Now although the Saducees denied also the Immortality of the soul; yet the Resurrection of the body, seemed unto them much more absurd; And upon this point was grounded the most formal dissension, between them and the pharisees, as appeareth, by that which Saint Luke saith of them. (Act. 23.6.7.) Also the three Evangelists qualify the Saducees by this mark, as the most notable, that they believed not the Resurrection. And if our Saviour Christ, by the Resurrection of the dead, meant only of the continuance of souls not of the Resurrection of the flesh: beside, that he had done nothing by his argument taken out of Moses, that a Heathen Philosopher by natural reasons might not have done; It would follow, that he had then granted, that the soul dieth, or at the least sleepeth, till the day of judgement; for this term, resurrection or rising again, 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 soul it is but by figure, like as sin is called the death of the soul, in as much as it depriveth it of the spiritual life, which is in God, yet without abolishing her substance. But our Bishop attributeth this opinion to Christ, for to conform it with that of one of his pretended vicar's, Pope john the 22. who was constrained by a King of France, to retract it, and to unsay himself by sound of Trumpet, as Gerson witnesseth. Now let us see the Spirit of astoniednesse which possesseth him in saying: Though Saint Matthew should say in express terms, that Christ allegeth this Text against the Sadduces, upon the question of the Resurrection of the body, what can he necessarily infer thereupon? I answer, if jesus Christ alleged this text for the Resurrection of the body, it must necessarily infer, that it is therefore proper for to prove it, or that Christ was not fit for to reason. Certainly when the resurrection of the body is proved, the immortality of the soul is proved also; But he which proveth but the immortality of the soul, proveth not for that the Resurrection of the body, which was notwithstanding the question, wherewith the Sadduces had assailed our lord; who had by no means stopped their mouth, if he had proved but the first point, that is to say, satisfied but the one half, and, the easiest part. But this argument, saith our Bishop, was till then unknown to the jews, who for that cause admired the wisdom of our Saviour: And therefore they must needs have received the belief of it, by another means than by the books of Moses, namely by the tradition of Abraham, Isaac and jacob, and other Fathers. What use hath then here, subsidiary tradition, which, after our Bishop, 〈◊〉 71. is the Guardian and keeper of the mystical interpretation of the text of the scripture? 〈◊〉 45. Or if there were none upon this place, as Du Perron seemeth to grant, reckoning it among them, that the son of God, who hath the key of David, opened to his Disciples, since he himself expounded the scriptures, It will follow, that the place was altogether unprofitable before: which is the bishops mystical exposition, that he might covertly give Saint Paul the lie, who maintaineth that The whole scripture is given by inspiration from God, ●●m. 3 and is profitable, etc., or as they of the Church of Rome translate it: Every Scripture, that is, every place of scripture, meaning it even of the old Testament, Now it is true that Saint Matthew saith, that the multitude were astonished at the doctrine of jesus Christ, citing this place: For the confusion and ignorance was so great, under the Reign of the Pharisaical Traditions; that it seemed to the auditors a thing miraculous, to be able to allege the Law so pertinently and to purpose: Even like as in this last Reformation of the Church, many of those, that had been all their life time brought up in the superstitious Traditions of the Church of Rome; have been astonished, when they have seen them so pertinently confuted by the holy scripture. In the mean while, the thing hath not been so obscure as the bishop will have it: otherwise some, even among the Scribes, would not have approved this allegation, saying: Master thou hast well said: Luke. 20.39 Mark. 12, 2● For they were so great enemies to jesus Christ, that they espied all occasions, even to the least of his words, for to entrap him. And must Du Perron show himself here worse, than were the Scribes and pharisees; accusing our Saviour Christ's argument of obscurity or impertinency, which was approved by his greatest enemies, Math. 22.3 who confessed that he had stopped the mouths of the Sadducees? Which showeth that the thing was so clear & manifest, that there could be no reply. But what reason or testimony can be clear to him, who findeth not clear enough the place of Daniel, under colour, that a Rabbi, and one Polychroneus, had some particular doting upon it, yet more than sufficiently confuted by some of ours, without any help of Tradition, which our bishop holdeth so necessary therein. The words of Daniel are. Oecolamp. Dan. 12.2 Many of them that sleep in the dust of the Earth, shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to confusion and eternal shame: And they that be wise shall shine, as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness, shall shine as the stars, for ever and ever. Behold the place, wherewith Du Perron saith, a contentious spirit cannot be forced, without the help of tradition that we no more doubt of his intent, which is not to content himself, to make the scripture unsufficient and imperfect; but also wholly unprofitable, superfluous, and unapt, seeing the clearest and most formal places, have no force, nor virtue without Tradition: which if we will believe him, forceth all, even the most contentious spirits, to whom the scripture contenteth itself to say: 1. Cor, 11.16 If any man lust to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God. What remaineth for him, but to say, that Tradition is God himself, who alone is able to change the hearts, to tame the rebellious, and to make light shine out of darkness? Indeed there was a Bishop in the counsel of Trent, who without blushing or changing colour, attributed to the, Pope, (who is the principal spring and fountain of the Traditions, at this day in controversy;) those words, that Saint john had said of the Eternal son of God, calling him the light come into the world. Orat. Corn. Epis. Bitont. in Conci. Tried, john. 1. Now if jesus Christ had had the same opinion of the scripture, as Du Perron, would he not also have said the like to the Sadducees, as their Advocate holdeth unto us? Namely, that they deceived themselves to think, to find in the writings of Moses, all that was necessary for them. And that the five books of the Law, were but a letter of credit, referrring the rest, to the sufficiency of the bearer of the Tradition? He dare deny, that our Saviour Christ attributed the cause of the Error of the Sadducees to their ignorance of the Scripture; though two unreprovable witnesses depose it, and that in so clear and evident terms, that all the smoke of the bottomless pit, Math. 22.29 Mark. 12.24 25. cannot darken the light of it, especially that of Saint Mark, in these words: Are ye not therefore deceived, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God? To one that hath the boldness to deny such Texts: I confess I cannot show any thing, neither in the Old, nor in the New Testament. In the mean while Du Perron may be judged here by his own mouth, as that evil servant in the Gospel, being constrained to confess, that one of the causes of the error of the Sadducees, was the ignorance of the sense of the Scripture, Luke. 19, 22 Fol. 52. though he mean it but of the place cited by themselves; which cometh all to one reckoning: for to be ignorant of the sense of the scripture, is to be ignorant of the scripture: But the true sense of the same, is discerned and seen, when the Father of Lights maketh it be seen, not when the Synagogue only, or the Church showeth it, which hath not any Tradition whatsoever, for to open the eyes of the mind, and to force the most contentious: otherwise she should manifest this force upon the Turckes, jews, and Pagans, if Tradition contained the true Efficient and Instrumental cause, both together. Saint Hierome expoundeth the place of saint Mark in these words: They err (saith he) because they know not the Scriptures: and because they are ignorant of them, they know not the power of God: if we follow not the testimonies of them, darkness will oppress us, and will pass upon our doctrine. After Du Perron our Saviour Christ's reply, must be corrected, by these words: Ye err, because, ye know not the tradition, neither the power of the Synagogue, or of the High Priest Caiphas, address yourselves to this same, and ye shall know all the secrets of God. From the second commandment of the Decalogue, I frame this argument: they that experiment the mercy of God, even to the thousanth generation, cannot be abolished by death: now they that love GOD, experiment his mercy even to the thousanth generation: therefore they cannot be abolished by death. The Bishop of Eureux opposeth unto me Brentius, who expoundeth this promise of God, not of eternal life, but of the multitude of posterity. He so often allegeth unto me this expositor, as if his authority were as irrefragable, and authentical amongst us, as the authority of an Apostle: If I should allege unto him Eutyches, Nestorius, or some other held for an heretic, both of him and me; all the Ellebore of Anticyra would not suffice to purge such an Impertinency. But because it is himself, that useth it, it must be admired, as a wisdom extravagante. Now let us take this place according to the exposition, be it of Brentius or of the Saducees, and then let their advocate Du Perron tell us, how a promise can be directed to them, which are not? how mercy can be exercised upon them, which are wholly destroyed and brought to nothing? Upon their children, will he say; but Moses saith formally, upon Them, which pronoun can not be understood, but of the Fathers, the abolishment of whom, abolisheth the subject of God's mercy. Ethic. l. 1. c, 11 This consequence is no less necessary and evident, then that is which the Interpreters of Aristotle gather for the Immortality of the soul, 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 only use of reason & common sense, without begging the help of any Tradition. And if Aristotle who affected obscurity, may notwithstanding be understood, exod. 32 32 ●3. at least in some places; how much more Moses, who aimed only at the instruction and edification of the people of God. ●ol. 23. From God's book, spoken of in the same book, one may thus reason against a Saducee, that by his Advocate expoundeth it of a roll or catalogue of the living; or of a Register, wherein God writeth all things, that he hath given Being unto: Moses was not blotted out of this book of life, and yet hath not enjoyed that happy life promised to the people of god, in the land of Chanaan; but died, before he set foot into it, as well as they, that rebelled against god: It followeth therefore, either that the happy life, is not properly to be understood of the fruition of the land of Canaan; or that God made no distinction between his most faithful servant, and greatest observer of his Law, and the most disloyal transgressors of the same, between him that was wont to appease him, & them that were wont to provoke him. This consequence is necessary not only in the German Logic, 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 principal 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 jewish tradition, Deut. 21. & 34, 5. I 1.2. which after Du Perron was the true depositary and Guardian of the sense of the Scripture, and of the truth of God: than see here a fair piece of it, which blotteth out and wholly destroyeth the express text of the Scripture, which speaketh of the death of Moses. Let the Reader note by the way, that the secret that our Bishop insinuateth, touching the mystical interpretation, that is drawn from the help 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 draw this proof for the universal judgement. He that absolveth none that is guilty, judgeth all men: but God, saith Moses, absolveth not him that is guilty, therefore he judgeth all men. Out of Leviticus. From these words; The man that shall do these things shall live in them: may be made this argument: Levit. 18. ● If the life that God promiseth to the observers of his Law, be but temporal, they have nothing more excellent above others; but the consequent is false? Therefore the antecedent likewise: The consequence is manifest, for many contemners of God and transgressors of his commandments, aswell among the Israelites as among the Heathen, have lived a longer and happier life in this world, than many of the children of God have done; ● Cor. 15. 19 who might as well say then, as S. Paul said since: If in this life only we hoped in Christ, or in God, we are of all men the most miserable. Therefore here, either the Sadducie must deny the justice of God, or renounce his obstinate opinion. ●●uit. 18.5. From these same words also, is proved the sufficiency of the Scripture of Moses, in this manner; that which maketh to live eternally, is sufficient to salvation: but the things that Moses writeth in his Law, make to live eternally, therefore they are sufficient to salvation. The minor is proved by the argument going before, which showeth that this life can not be temporal, and that is the part which the Saducie denieth. His Advocate Du Perron will deny this part which affirmeth that Moses wrote all the things, that make to live eternally. To allege unto him S. Paul, who saith that Moses, ●●m. 10.5, describeth the righteousness that is by the Law, of which righteousness perfectly observed, proceedeth life; He would mock at it, and would attribute this understanding to the institution of the Synagogue: but it shall not be lawful for him, after his own principles, to mock at Moses so, ●●ut. 13.10. who in another place, restraineth all this observation of the commandments and ordinances of God, to those things that are written in the book of the Law: without directing the promise of eternal felicity, to the observers of any other more secret commandments, contained in the Tradition of the 70. ●●l. 31. Elders of the Synagogue, as Du Perron would have it. Considering also that if this place cannot be understood of eternal life, without the help of Tradition. S. Paul was greatly to blame, to allege it barely and nakedly with out this breastplate of Tradition, when he representeth the contrariety and opposition, ●●m. 10, that there is between the righteousness of the Law, & the righteousness of faith. From .19.20. & .21. chapters, where God particularly calleth himself the God of the Israelites, I reason thus: If God did promise and give only earthly things to the Israelites: he were not more particularly their God, than the God of other peoples and nations: yea he should rather have been more specially the God of some Heathen nations, to whom he gave kingdoms and Empires, far greater and more flourishing, than a little country of Canaan, given to the Israelites, after so many pains and with so many evils as they had ever there. Now God calleth himself particularly the God of the Israelites, having discerned and separated them of purpose, from all other nations, for to do them good: Therefore it must needs follow that these blessings were not only earthly and transitory. From the .26.42. verse. where God promiseth to remember the Covenant he made with Abraham, Isaak and jacob; I gather the same Argument, that hath been above produced and treated of at large, from divers places of Genesis. From the same Chapter 44. verse, where God promiseth not to consume them that be his, because he is their god etc. one may draw this proof for the Immortality of the soul: If the soul dieth with the body, man is wholly consumed; but the Israelites are promised of God, that they shall not be wholly consumed: Therefore the soul (at least) remaineth after the body is consumed. The B. of Eureux will reply that this must be understood of the total extermination of the people, as if GOD promised ever to leave a remnant of some, still amongst them; I answer; that if universal promises, directed to a people in general may not be applied to every faithful in particular; they are vain and none at all: For if all the particulars be consumed one after another; the general, which is composed, & which consisteth but of particulars, will be consumed like wise, and so will but shadows remain, to serve for subject to the fullfilling of God's promises. And what joy or comfort could they take, that heard Moses pronounce them, or did read them in his writings, if none could apply any of them to themselves in particular. Out of the forth book 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 form: They that perish are not kept of God; the people of God are kept of God, therefore they cannot perish. Now it is certain 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 wilderness, where God preserved 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 eye. But the question is not, whether god kept his people in the wilderness, which none denieth, but whether Moses or any of his expositors, confine the keeping of God only in the wilderness? and whether ever any Saducie showed himself so impertinent, as to say, that God kept not his people elsewhere? This form of the Priest's blessing, is it not general and universal? Let us see his goodly Episcopal Enthymema: God kept his people in the wilderness, therefore he never kept them, nor will keep them elsewhere: yet would it follow, that at least they that he kept in the wilderness, are not wholly perished and brought to nothing: or else, that he kept them no better in the wilderness, than he did elsewhere: and indeed, many of them died there by fire, by pestilence, by serpents and by their enemies: yea all that came out of Egypt, except two, died there, even Aaron and Moses: whence is manifest, that this keeping in the wilderness was not so singular and only, that none other is worthy consideration in respect of it. From the same place also I reason thus: If the anger of God against sin, hath ordained misery and death for to punish it, as appeareth, (Gen, 2. & 3.) It followeth that the peace and mercy of God taketh away this punishment, & consequently causeth that death cannot hurt, at leastwise them, that are partakers of this peace and mercy of God, according as is contained in the blessing: Otherwise the effects of the wrath, and mercy of God, should be both alike; and his favour and peace should not restore the felicity lost by the transgression of Adam. Now the Sadducie seethe well, that this is not effected always, nor yet ordinarily in this life, which is fuller of calamities to the children of God, than to others: Therefore there must be another life, wherein this accomplishment is found. From the fourteenth chapter, and eighteenth verse, which setteth forth unto us the mercy and benignity of GOD, is drawn an argument wholly like unto the former: And another also like to that which above is produced out of Exodus. 34.7. where are read the same words. From the same Chapter, the twentieth verse, is gathered a proof for eternal life, where God declareth, that he pardoned his people that had provoked him; and yet nevertheless he sayeth, that they should all die in the wilderness, and that none of them should see the land of promise, which was accomplished: And therefore, if there were no other life for them, whereto served the pardon, that God gave them? If those, whose sins God pardoneth, are destroyed in body and in soul; what could he more do to them, that obtained not pardon? But since the Sadducie with his Advocate, will not see Paradise in Moses, let us show them Hell there: The sixteenth Chapter of this book reciteth unto us an History of some, that descended thither alive, and hell is there named twice; which should suffice him, that maketh no reckoning of consequences, how evident & necessary so ever they be, but demandeth ever the literal and formal text. If he reply that the Hebrew word signifieth also, a Sepulchre, or ordinary grave; let him know that it cannot be so in this place: for when Corah, Dathan and Abiram were sunk down and swallowed up, it was not an ordinary burial, nor a grave made of purpose: And the Latin Bible, which is Authentic to Du Perron, translateth it (Hell●.) Numb. 23, 10 In the 23. chapter, is read this memorable sentence of Balaam, so clear and manifest, as well for the felicity, as for the shame to come; Fol. 20, that our Balaamite is ashamed to reply thereto himself, choosing rather to bring in a contentious spirit (as if his own were other;) saying: That Balaam by a figure, common to Enigmas and obscurity of Oracles, required length of days, which God promiseth to the just, & that his posterity, or his memorial, or his seed might flourish, & that he might not die of a sudden, violent, nor hasty death etc. confirmng the exposition of the place of Moses, by the authority of Horace, a most worthy warrant for such as with this Poet, may well be called Epicuri de grege por●●, swinish Epicures: Now whilst he maketh his comparisons of the text of holy scripture, that is, of the word of god, with the heathen oracles, that is, the word of the devil, & goeth to seek smoke in Horace, for to choke the light of Moses; let us see the argument contained in the said place: There where there is a total abolishment, there is no place for wishes of any felicity: Balaam in his death wisheth the felicity, that is in the death of the righteous: therefore he believed that death is not a total abolishment. Again, whosoever wisheth to die, like unto them that are singularly beloved & kept of God, believeth that there is a singular felicity & happiness reserved for them especially after their death, whereof the unrighteous shall not be partakers: but Balaam maketh this wish, knowing that God singularly loved the people of Israel: therefore he believed that there was a felicity & Happiness reserved for them even after death. To that which Duke Perron saith, that this felicity may be meant of a quiet death, in a good age etc. I answer, that one may show to a Saducie, not only by texts of the books of holy Scripture that he receiveth not, job. 21. Psal, e. 73 jerem. 12. Habac. 1. but also by a great number of histories that he receiveth, and by his own experience; that the life and death of the righteous, is very often more miserable, than that of the wicked; and therefore the justice of God requireth, that there be made an other judgement after this life: and the very heathen themselves, were able, by natural discourse only, to make this conclusion, which the Saducees, that sometimes held the stern of the jewish Church, and their advocate, they have met withal in the Romish Church; cannot draw from the whole body of the Law of Moses. So Balaams' ass, without any spectacles of Tradition perceived sooner and did more honour to the Angel than that great Doctor, that false prophet, that was upon him: that none might find strange, if in times past many simple Israelites, and at this day many simple lay men, see more clearly, and honour more devoutly the holy scripture, which is the true Angel or messenger, by which God maketh known unto us his will, than did the Sadduces in times past, & at this day the Bishops & Popes, who change the sheep of Christ into asses, in lading them with their traditions, wherewith they more cruelly torment them, than Balaam did his Ass, striking it with his staff, and that for none other reason, but because they give place and honour to the Angel. Du Perron allegeth Luther in favour of his Sadducie, who wisheth even for temporal respects, to die the death of Abraham; therefore why might not Balaam, who was not, saith he, more spiritual, neither he nor his Ass, than your great Prophet Luther, have the like wish; I answer, that although the conformity with Balaam, is found much greater on our Bishop's side, than on Luther's, whether we consider it in the manner of setting forth his own praises, as Balaam did: or in the profession of being hired, for to slander and curse the children of God, and for to bewitch again those, whom Luther according to the grace received of God, ●umb. 24.19 hath unbewitched; or in giving of pernicious counsels for all sort of fornication; (there being no difference but that Balaam, though against his will, pronounced that which God had commanded him; and our Bishop, saith, and writeth quite contrary to that which God hath commanded him in the Scripture; yea contrary to the feeling of his own 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 die like Abraham, not for regard only of temporal conditions; but also in the faith of Abraham, that he might be received into his bosom, as a child of the Father of believers: than it is plain, that Balaam desired expressly the immortality and salvation of his soul, that is to say, Paradise: And it is to be feared, that the Saducie here will say, that his advocate savoureth of the ass; esspecially seeing his mitre, which looketh so like a case for long ears. And that if one day, when he shall have changed his mitre into a hat, and his crosier staff into a Cardinal mule, he can meet with an ass as wise and well spoken, as Balaams' was; it would speak far otherwise to his cardinals habit. Out of Deuteronomie. From the .5. Chapter .29. verse, I reason thus: that which death abolisheth wholly; can not be a subject capable of a permanent and perpetual happiness: but they that keep the commandments of God, do possess a perpetual happiness: Therefore death doth not wholly abolish them. The Bishop of Eureux replieth; that, it is not said, that they shall have themselves this happiness for ever; but them and their posterity successively. Now that is false: the word Them is formally expressed; but the word Successively is not expressed: For as hath been above already said; the same happiness that is promised in general, is applicable to every particular, accomplishing the condition required: now all observers of the commandments of god, have promise of the perpetual happiness: therefore every one of them shall have it also in particular. Would not our Bishop forge here some such monster as that of the Libertines, or of Auerrhois, Of the understanding universal and perpetual in itself, but corruptible in the individuals? It may be that in the conclusion, he maketh an allusion to Transubstantiation: For if the accidents subsist without their subject; Man's felicity may also subsist for ever; though the subjects of the same, be not for ever. From the sixth Chapter, 24. verse, I conclude thus: If they that fear the Lord, have promise to be ever preserved alive; It must follow that there is an Eternal life: Now the Antecedent is contained in these words of Moses, The Lord hath commanded to do all these ordinances, and to fear the Lord our God, that it may go ever well with us, and that he may preserve us alive, as at this present. Therefore, etc. From the ninth Chapter, 27. verse, of the form of prayer used by Moses, making intercession for the people, and praying God, that he would remember his servants, Abraham, Isaac, and jacob; we may reason thus: That which is not at all, cannot have any efficacy: the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, long time after their death, have some efficacy, namely to appease God, by the remembrance of his covenant contracted with them: Therefore death hath not wholly abolished them. But this argument taken from God's covenant with the fathers, hath been already above discoursed of at large. From the 14. chapter, first verse, is framed this demonstration: children have part in their father's inheritance: Moses calleth the Israelites the children of the Lord: therefore they have part in his inheritance. Now this father is heavenly and eternal: his true inheritance therefore is not only earthly and temporal. For if it were none other, than the land of Canaan: the Lords children should have no advantage above others; yea they should be worse provided for, than the most detestable Idolaters and sworn enemies of the Lord, who have possessed so great and mighty Empires. Again, they that have God, who is the author of life, and life itself, for their father; cannot be destroyed, nor always detained by death: but Moses in this place teacheth the Israelites, that they have God for their father: Therefore he teacheth them withal that they cannot be destroyed, nor their dead always detained by death. hereupon it is that he groundeth the forbidding touching the unmeasurable sorrow that the Heathen used for their dead, not having 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, be but temporal and not eternal: God himself is not Eternal: The consequent is horrible blasphemy: Therefore the antecedent is necessarily false. The consequence is proved by the twentieth verse following of the same Chapter, in which God is called the life and length of days of that people; whence I conclude: he that hath the Lord for life, and for length of his days; shall live for ever: but the faithful, saith Moses, have the Lord for their life: therefore they shall live for ever. And by consequent the instance of the Bishop of Eureux is foolish and blasphemous, when he, saith; That since God blesseth the fishes of the sea, Gennes. 1. one might conclude, that fishes are capable of life eternal: Moses saith not that God is the life & length of days of fishes, nor that fishes are children of the Lord, to possess him as their inheritance, as he saith of the Israelites, in terms as clear and manifest, as Saint Paul saith it of the faithful, ●ol. 3.4. when he calleth Christ our life. See how the equivocate or double signification of the word (bless) may be distinguished, by the only Text of Moses, without the help of Tradition. But it was not for nothing, that the Bishop of Eureux maketh here fishes capable, at least by Moses text, of life eternal, it is without doubt overthwartly to insinuate, because they make more capable of it, such as make of them their principal food, as do the Charterhouse Monks, and some others: For he hath learned from the jewish Tradition, that God having created two whales, and fearing lest if they engendered others, the sea would be no more navigable, Lyr. in Ps● Relation. 7. c. ad fin●● he killed the female and salted the flesh of it, which he keepeth to give the righteous to eat in the world to come. Also for to teach us, or to put us in mind, why the Romish Tradition suffereth the use of fish in Lent, forbidding the use of flesh: Namely, because God hath blessed the fishes of the sea, but he hath cursed the earth in the works of man, as saith Durand that great rehearser of Tradition, adding that those creatures that have partly the form of a beast, and partly the form of a fish, as the O●ter, one may eat the fish part, that is to say of a creature half blessed & half cursed. Such mysteries indeed would never be drawn from the only literal text of Moses, if Tradition did not lend help thereunto: But the consequence that it draweth from the curse of the earth, for to forbid flesh meats is so glittering and sparkling bright, that it dazelleth the eyes that are used but to the light of the Scripture. For if it be not lawful to eat flesh, because the earth is cursed in the works of man; we must by necessary and evident consequence conclude, either that in like sort bread should not be eaten: or that in the time, when this prohibition was made, men ploughed and sowed in the sea and corn grew there, that they might eat of it, as partaker of the blessing given to fishes, which is a Tradition, that hath need of another subsidiary Tradition, to help to understand it. From the .31. chapter, 16. verse, where God saith to Moses that he shall sleep with his fathers: is gathered the same argument, that above is produced out of diverse places of Genesis: yea there may two be gathered, whereof this word (Sleep) doth furnish us the first: for to sleep presupposeth some Being. And that which is abolished, is not capable of sleep: 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 dead, it is the same thing, as before he was borne or conceived. The other argument is taken from this whole speech, to sleep with his Fathers: Those Fathers therefore must have some Being: or else let the Bishop of Eureux teach us what difference there is between sleeping all alone, and sleeping with some that have no being at all. From the 32. Chapter, 9 verse, I conclude thus: The possession of the Lord is uncorruptible: Israel, saith Moses, is the Lords possession, therefore it is uncorruptible. From the same Chapter, 10, verse; He that is kept of God as the apple of his eye, cannot be wholly destroyed Israel was so kept: Therefore etc. The Bishop's cavillation upon this argument, is above refuted. From the same Chapter, 22. verse. He which threateneth to destroy & consume the earth by fire, even to the foundation of the mountains, denounceth a general & universal judgement: but so God threateneth in this verse: therefore he denounceth an universal judgement. For that which is said to the Israelites, is applied by a just and evident analogy to all transgressors. The bishop of Eureux replieth, that these be metaphorical comparisons, whereby God compareth his anger unto fire. I grant it, for there are certain matters, that cannot be declared to man's understanding, but by metaphorical and allegorical locutions. And therefore, even in the new Testament, ●el. 13 the torments of hell are represented unto us by a lake burning with fire and brimstone. And so far are these figures from engendering obscurity, that on the contrary they give light to our minds & understanding to our hearts, more than if they were proposed without figures. And such is S. Augustine's judgement of them. 〈◊〉 119, Moreover, if the Tradition be so clear on this question of Hell fire, whence cometh it that the Fathers and Schoolmen are so busied to determine, whether it be material, or spiritual? From the same chapter, 39 verse, one may produce a formal text to a Sadducie for the resurrection: For God saith expressly that he killeth, and restoreth to life: Whence I conclude, If God maketh the dead to live again, they are then raised up. And to him that would always have express words; may be alleged Chapter 33. verse 6. where it is said of Reuben, let him live and not die: whence one may conclude; He that dieth not is immortal, or raised up again: Reuben (that is, that whole tribe) dieth not; therefore it is immortal or raised up again. From the same chapter, 29. verse; where Israel is called blessed, because he is saved by the Lord, who is his buckler; is framed this argument: Whosoever is saved by the Lord, cannot perish: Israel is saved by the lord, therefore he cannot perish. Our Bishop replieth to this place, that God saveth as well beasts, as it is written in 36. Psalm. I answer, that Moses declareth Israel blessed, for that he is saved after a singular and not a common fashion; Who is like unto thee, saith he, O people saved by the Lord? Du Perron answereth; these are beasts: 1. Tim. 4. 1● One might show him the diverse significations of this word (save) in the New Testament, where God is called Saviour, that is to say, preserver of all men, but especially of the faithful: But since he refuseth the authority of this book, in manner of a Sadducie; he shall better understand it by a more familiar example. When a murderer is escaped the hands of earthly justice, men say, he is saved, but if a Sadducie will change this proposition from it own proper native, to infer that he is therefore wholly saved: it shall be showed him to the contrary in Moses, in the chapter going before, where the sovereign judge saith: Vengeance is mine & I will repay it. Also, Deu. 32, 3 & 39, verse. There is none that can deliver out of my hand. Thereupon may be said to a Saducie that which experience constraineth him to confess, that God doth not always 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, moved the very heathen to believe a judgement to come: ●om. 12. Also the former of these two places, seemed to Saint Paul so clear and manifest, that he chose not any other, to prove the judgement of God, which this Bishop would feign not find at all neither in Moses nor else where. I said in my writings, that these five points are linked unseparably together: He maintaineth, that of the four last, I durst not so much as open my mouth: The reader shall judge, if there be not particular and distinct proofs, for every one of them. And then he addeth, that the question is not of the connexion that they have in themselves, but of that they have in the mind & knowledge of vulgar and ordinary men. ●ohn. 6.45. I answer; that they have the same connexion in the minds of them, that are taught of God (as all the faithful are) as they have in themselves: For true knowledge, is that which apprehendeth the true being, & also the true order of things. Now God giveth true knowledge of salvation to them that be his; therefore he giveth it unto them conformably to the true being and order of things, that is, of the articles necessary to salvation: Yea he giveth it more ordinarily to vulgar and ordinary men, Mat, 11, 25. than to these high and extraordinary Gnostickes, as the Scripture witnesseth, where jesus Christ giveth thanks to God his father, that he had hid these things from the wise men of understanding, and revealed them to babes. The ordinary means he useth for to reveal them, is the scripture, ●. Tim. 3, 16, ●7. which instructeth a man, to the making him absolute & perfect, yea even the man of god; that is to say the Pastor, who consequently is to teach nothing else but this doctrine of perfection, contained in the scripture, in which he may show the connexion of the articles in question, as for example, in the place of Daniel above alleged, the resurrection of the body, which is there formally; presupposeth the immortality of the soul. The everlasting life, & perpetual ignominy of which there is also there express mention made, are Paradise & Hell, the property of them both being therein briefly declared, and that in form of a sentence, which presupposeth a judge, to pronounce it, & a judgement that he shall execute. Now although there hath been found even among the heathen, that have perceived in their mind, the connexion of some of these things, that this Bishop distructeth and divideth as much as in him lieth; witness Plutarch, who findeth the coherence between the Immortality of the soul, and the judgement of God: yet, I neither said nor thought, that the connexion of all, is found in every Spirit, as he would conclude by my discourse, for to make himself way to surprise me: For that were to make faith, which is the gift of God, a natural thing, Ephe. 2.8. as a certain ancient heretic named Basilides, did, who also denied the Resurrection; and since, the Pelagians, Clem. Ale●● Strom. l. 4. Tert. de. pr●● c. 46. from whom the Bishop of Eureux differeth not much, demanding ever such demonstrations, as no contentious Spirit should be able to gainsay, and opening by this means a liberty, to believe what one listeth, yea to believe nothing at all, of the things controverted and gainsaid. I said also, that Abraham referred the rich man's brethren for to preserve 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 only to Moses, but also to the Prophets, the knowledge they might have from Moses, not being sufficient, to give them any perfect assurance of it, without the help & light of the Prophets. Let us observe here again the uncertainty and Pirrhonian perplexity of our Bishop. He dare not deny but that there is something of these articles in Moses (for otherwise Abraham should have mocked the brethren of the damned rich man, referring them to a book, where there was nothing that was necessary for them:) and notwithstanding he is not ashamed, to reject as impertinent, all the places produced out of it, without quoting any other, that is fit and proper, at least in his judgement. Moreover, seeing that the writings of the Prophets themselves, without excepting that excellent place of Daniel, which containeth in formal terms, the Resurrection, everlasting life, 〈◊〉 32. 〈◊〉 54. and perpetual ignominy; as above hath been showed, are so obscure and improper to convince a gainsayer, as he affirmeth; what shameful contradiction is this, to call them here a help and light, to understand the books of Moses? He addeth further; That Abraham meant not, that the rich man's brethren should rely themselves, on that which they might gather thence by their own particular reading, but that they should hear it from the mouth of the Pastors of the jewish Church, watch, 23. who knew by Tradition the mystical and spiritual interpretation thereof, of whom it is said: they sit in Moses chair; do whatsoever they say unto you: We answer that by Moses chair is meant the doctrine written by Moses; so S. Paul understood it, when he saith: cursed is every man, that abideth not in all the things, ●al. 3.10. which are written in the Book of the Law. If our Saviour 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 believe the Saducees, who were of the number of these Doctors of the Synagogue, and had sometimes the first places in it; and by consequent not to believe any of the abovesaid points. Also it would follow, that they which betrayed and crucified jesus Christ, executed this commandment of Christ, do whatsoever they say. For the Scribes and Priests said, that he should be crucified, so excellent was their knowledge of mystical Tradition, by virtue whereof the Priests of the Romish Church, offer him really, that is to say, crucify him yet to this day, as much as in them lieth; for to show what goodly Analogy and correspondency the Romish tradition, hath with that of the Synagogue. Now let us dispatch the point of the Creation of Angels and devils: an instance, that the bishop of Eureux hath borrowed from julian the Apostata: And that he might multiply, with him, the number of the defects of the scripture; he cuteth it into three, Cyril. Ale● adu. jul. ● & will needs have it three distinct questions, crying ignorance & impudency against me, because I said, that by this his distinction, that he maketh between the Creation of Angels, and the Creation of Devils, one might think, that Devils were not Angels in the beginning, or that God created them thus wicked as they are now. For to maintain that these three points are three distinct questions, he forgetteth, or overthroweth the point and state of the principal question, which is; Whether it can be showed by the writings of Moses, that there be Angels: In stead of the Saducie, he opposeth Aristotle, who holdeth, that the inferior Intelligences which move the heavens are coeternal with the sovereign Intelligence I answer, that if he can obtain so much of Aristotle, as to admit and submit himself to the writings of Moses as the Saducie professeth to do; it shall be very easily showed him, in Deuteronomie, that there is but one Eternal, And if he grant me this little word of Moses; he will very willingly grant me, Deut. 6.4 that there can not be then any other eternal substances with him, and that by virtue of his own Maxims, or rather by virtue of the immutable Law of Truth, and of Nature itself, which cannot suffer that two contradictory propositions be both true together: So as this Eternal of Moses, being alone, will not suffer for companions, the coeternalls of Aristotle. But if any yet doubt, whether our Bishop is a Sophister, or no; let him observe here, (I pray) his notable cunning: He seethe that this Instance of the Angels, cannot be linked with the former instances afore going, Act. 23.8. and that the Impudency of the Saducees, who denied not only their creation or distinction: but also their being; is so openly convinced by the Writings of Moses, (when he speaketh of the Angel that forbade Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac; 〈◊〉 22, &. 〈◊〉 19, & ●● of the Angels, that Abraham entertained into his house, that took Lot out of Sodom, that appeared to jacob. etc.) That no advocate, no not himself, (though all causes be alike unto him) can be able to sustain it: see therefore how he hath bethought himself to fit me; by giving me Aristotle for a party, with the Manichees 〈◊〉 64, , whereof the one knew not, and the others refused the Old Testament. Let us make the Analysis or resolution of this shameful, and more than ridiculous Sophistry: Aristotle believed, that the inferior Intelligences, that moved the heavens, are coeternal with the sovereign Intelligence: the Manichees hold, that there is a Beginning of evil, coeternal with God, and an evil God: Neither they nor he received the writings of Moses: Therefore it can not be showed by the writings of Moses, that there are Angels and and Devils created. If our Bishop had done as Carneades, who before he wrote against Zeno, purged himself with white Ellebore; 〈◊〉 l, 17, ●●, he had better distinguished and discerned the Manichees, and the Saducees, than he doth: yet he should do well to take a dram of black Ellebore, since he will treat of Angels and Devils, that is to say of white and black Spirits. The Christian Reader will conclude quite contrary to the bishops intention; Namely, seeing the Saducees denied as well Angels, as the Immortality of the soul, and the other points abovesaid; though there be made as express & formal mention of Angels in Moses, as of men, of beasts, of trees and of stones: they would have believed no more the other points, than this, how clearly & plainly soever Moses had opened them: And therefore the true cause of their Incredulity and misbelief, is to be sought in the default of their own malicious eyes, and not in the defect, that is pretended in the Writing of Moses. Now since the creation of Angels, in the judgement of our Bishop cannot be found in this scripture; let us see a little, what Tradition saith of it: The general Threasorers of the same, should be, in my opinion, those that are called by a special prerogative, the four Doctors of the Church; which are Saint Ambrose, Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine, and Saint Gregory. Let us hear them upon this point: The first saith; Ambr. h● l. 1. c. 5. Though Angels be created, yet were they already before the world was created. Which is a tradition rather of Origen, than of the Apostles, holden also by the Heretic Novatian, Lib. de T●● Hier. in 〈◊〉 ad Tit. 〈◊〉 and the most part of the Greeks'. The second writeth thus: Before the world was created, how many Eternity's there were, in which the Angels served God, without any vicissitude or measure of time. etc. Hear you see them coeternal with the Sovereign intelligence, as well after Saint Jerome, as after Aristotle. But the third, namely, Saint Augustine, whom I alleged for witness, and warrant of my opinion, (which is, that the creation of Angels may be proved by Moses;) contradicteth both the former; and rejecting their opinion, as most absurd, to say that there was any creature before the world, he addeth: That the holy scripture, which is most true, saith, that God made heaven and earth in the beginning, so that there was nothing made, nor created before: For if any creature had been before this point; than it is that, that should have been made in the beginning: by this means the creation of Angels, is drawn out of Moses, by a necessary and inevitable consequence. And thus doth Thomas Aquinas understand it. That which the same Father saith in the same book, P. 1. q. 6● art. 1. & ●● ninth Chapter, upon which the Bishop of Eureux groundeth his reply, doth not contradict it. He saith, their creation and their order, is not evidently described in the constitution or creation of the world: Let our Gnosticke learn, that a consequence may be evident, though the Text be not evident. And the evidence of this consequence upon this point, is showed as well in the place above said, 〈◊〉 civit Dei 〈◊〉 1. C, 9 as in the place of the 9 Chapter, which our Sophister maliciously geldeth, suppressing these words: Now they were not omitted, (to wit Angels) I judge it by this, for that it is written that God rested the seventh day from all his works, that he had made, seeing the book itself heginneth thus: In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth; so that it is manifest, that before the Heaven and the Earth, there was not any other thing created. And a little after Seeing all things were disposed by the creation, which are said to have been finished in six days, how could the Angels have been omitted, as if they were not of the works of God, from which he rested the seventh day? These consequences seem necessary and evident to Saint Augustine, though the literal text of Moses seemed unto him not evident. He repeateth the very same also in another place. And ever his ground is; It is written, saith he; tradition teacheth so. The last Doctor of the Rome Church, which is Saint Gregory, ●ob. li, 33 ●4, speaking of the creation of Angels, chooseth rather to draw it from the consequence of some place of Scripture, than from the pretended Tradition. True it is, that the Bishop of Eureux would have mocked at it in good earnest, if it were other than a Pope that had drawn it from that text: But it sufficeth us to observe here by the way, 〈◊〉 33. the effect of subsidiary Tradition, without the weapons whereof, our Bishop holdeth, that the Text of the Scripture is laid open and naked to the malicious interpretation of particular Spirits: for these public and universal Spirits, though covered from top to toe with the armour of Tradition; behave themselves sometimes far worse, than simple particular men, who find themselves better armed with four or five little stones taken out of the Scripture, than with all the sumptuous armour of Saul, that cumbered David so, 1. Sam. 17. that he could not go, much less fight. Now to these four principal Doctors of the Church, I could add many others, which in this point of the Creation of Angels, derive nothing from Tradition; but content themselves with the consequences drawn from the Scripture: But I will content myself with one place of Epiphanius, Haeres. 65. cont. P. Samos. because he is commonly alleged, as a great defender of Tradition. If the Angels, saith he, had not been created with the Heaven and the Earth, the word had not said to job: When the Stars were made, all my Angels praised me with their voice. Then he bringeth in one ask this question. Thou hast showed that Angels were before the Stars, & hast said, that they were made with the Heaven & the earth, tell us whence hast thou made the demonstration of it? were they made altogether before Heaven and Earth? For the Scripture declareth no where clearly the time of the Creation of Angels: In gr. contextu corru●te legitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And thou hast showed that they were before the Stars, for if they had not been, how could they have praised GOD for the creation of the Stars? Thereupon he answereth: We cannot say by our own discourse, the solution of every question; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But by CONSEQVENCE OF THE SCRIPTURES. For the word of God (note that he maketh no distinction between the word of God & the Scripture, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but take the one for the other) showeth clearly that the Angels were not made after the Stars, nor before the Heaven and the earth, that which is said being a thing manifestly unchangeable, that before the Heaven and the earth, there was nothing created. For in the beginning God created Heaven 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 truth in this point, whether in following Tradition with Saint Ambrose, Hierome, and many Greeks', who unawares let themselves slide into the opinion of Aristotle, in stead of the Apostolic Tradition; Or in relying on the Scripture, by the necessary & evident consequences drawn from it, with Saint Augustine, Epiphanius and some others? Genebrarde, notwithstanding the authority of the Scripture, ●hro. Aetat. the exposition of these Doctors, and the determination of the Church of Rome, had rather follow the Greeks' and others, which hold that Angels are not of the number of the works, of the six days: yet he is not so desperate as Du Perron, who denieth that their creation can be showed in Moses: For he affirmeth that Moses showeth plain enough, that they were created of God, when he calleth them Angels of the Lord, when he maketh them his ministers and servants etc. And it is by this only consequence of Scripture, Cyril. ado. ●ul, that Saint Cyrill Alex. confuted the impudency of julian the Apostata, of whom our Bishop hath taken this instance. And thus much be spoken concerning their Creation. Now for their distinction. The Bishop of Eureux saith, that the jews knew it by Tradition, either absolute or subsidiary, as he calleth it: Fol. 70, And Ignatius, attributeth to himself the knowledge of the Orders of Angels, Epist, ad Tra. the differences of Archangels, virtues, Dominions, Thrones, Powers, the Magnificences of principalities, the excellencies of the Cherubins and Seraphins, the sublimity of the spirit the reign of the Lord, and the uncomparable Divinity of God the father almighty. But S. Augustine confesseth here freely his ignorance, Euch. ad Lau. c. 85. mocking at those that presume to know it, without being able to prove it. And in the Chapter following he saith, that there is no need to affirm or deny the things with danger, since they may be denied without crime. Whence may be concluded; either that the Christian Church hath not been so faithful a keeper of the Tradition of the Apostles, Folly, 106. as Du Perron saith, the Synagogue was of the tradition of the patriarchs & 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 necessary as the Bishop of Eureux would have it. If account is to be made of this Epistle of Ignatius, which we hold supposed, how cometh it to pass, that so many high mysteries are so soon fallen to the ground, and buried in the grave of forgetfulness, as appeareth by the diversity of opinions that the Greek and Latin Doctors have upon 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 understanding. Isid. Pelus. l. 2. ep. 99 And what new revelation hath been showed to Thomas Aquinas for to make these sharings and divisions among the Angels: when he disposeth angels for to govern particular men; Archangels for the Provinces; Principalities, for whole mankind; the Virtues for the celestial bodies; the Powers, for to command wicked Spirits; the Dominations, for to have care of the good Spirits? Is it because he is called the Angelical Doctor, that he was endowed with this Angelical knowledge? But why was the universal Church deprived of it in the time of Saint Augustine, and of so many other good Fathers? What new Paracletus or comforter had reserved the manifestation of these secrets to the Schoolmen? Now let us see a little our bishops angelical Logic: Saint Paul, speaking of Angels, nameth Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Dominations, Thrones: therefore he setteth down these distinctions by the orders & degrees as did the Doctors of the Romish Church, which doctrine the jews knew not before, but by the tradition of the Synagogue. Eph, 2.11.12 Col. 1.21 Again, S. Paul, writing to the Ephesians, & Colossians, who a little before had been Heathen, strangers from the common wealth of Israel, 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, which was manifestly known unto them, and by consequent, they knew it, either by an absolute, or subsidiary Tradition. Is it not happily, from one of these two 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 Angels, from the place of Moses where he saith; That the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their host; For that this host, saith he, signifieth nothing else in Moses, but the Sun and the Moon, with the Stars; at least wise it can not be gathered by the literal text of Moses: his Argument is this, Deut. 4. Moses in a certain place understandeth by the army or host of heaven, nothing else but the Sun and Moon with the stars; Therefore he never meaneth any thing else by it, throughout all his writings. To omit that place of Genesis, where the Angels that met jacob, at his return from Mesopotamia, Gen, 32.2. are called the camp, that is to say, the Army of God, though Moses use another term; I will only demand him, If this interpretation of the word host or army, can not be had but by Tradition; why the Cardinal Baronius, annal. Eccles. ●om. 1. an Christ 60. who is far nearer that spring, than the Bishop of Eureux, chooseth rather to take it out of the Scripture, when speaking of the Idolatry of the jews that worshipped the Angels and the stars which they thought to have life, (note their goodly Platonical, not Prophetical, Tradition:) he saith that Properly the scripture calleth Angels the Host of Heaven; citing three places for this purpose, whereof one is taken out of Moses himself. Deut 17. I alleged a place of Irenaeus, that represseth the vain curiosity of the Gnostics, who without any light of the Scripture, rashly intrude themselves into matters, that they have not seen, as the Apostle saith, handling this point of Angels, and condemning the superstition, (at this day crept into Tradition) of serving them religiously: our Bishop exclaimeth thereupon; what evening visions? what dreams? what imaginations and fantasies are these? showing that he hath his head so full of them, that (as Irenaeus saith of his Gnostics) 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 smoky, dark and subtle imaginations, hinder him from seeing my conclusion, which tendeth not in any fashion whatsoever, to abolish the names and distinctions of Angels, as he conceiteth; but to show first of all, that Irenaeus proved the creation of Angels by the scripture, when he saith, We will show them by the scriptures, that all these things, as well visible as invisible were created of God: Also, We forsake not Moses, and the other Prophets, Lib. 2. c 5 who preached the truth, for to believe such, as say nothing sound, but dote. etc. Whence is evident that he comprehendeth the writings of Moses, under the Scriptures, by which is showed the creation of Angels. Secondly, to condemn the audacious boldness of this pretended Dionysius Areopagita, and the Schoolmen; who presume to know all these mysteries; undertake to unfold them, and by virtue, not of an Apostolic Tradition, but of a Maxim of natural Philosophy; determine, that it is impossible, that there be two Angels only of one kind, and such is the Tradition of that prince of the Schoolmen Thomas Aquinas. 1. P. qu. 5● Ar. 4. So that we must have many more names for them, than the Tradition of the Synagogue, or Saint Paul ever knew, for to furnish specifical differences, to so many Millions of these blessed Spirits, which stand before the throne of the Lord, for to execute his commandments. And when Irenaeus saith to the Gnostics Let them declare unto us the number of the Angels, the order of the archangels, let them show unto us the Sacraments of the thrones, let them teach us the diversities of the Dominations, Principalities, powers and virtues. 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 difficult and secret, since that in another place, he proposeth the overflowing of Nilus; Birds changing of countries in spring-time, and in harvest; the ebbing and flowing of the sea; rain, snow, thunder, and other meteors; as things hid from us, and of which, saith he, we may well babble, but God only, who made them, is true. Let us add a word or two of evil Spirits: That the Serpent that spoke to Eva, was but an Instrument of a wicked spirit; may be showed a Sadducie, by the effects, which cannot proceed from a creeping thing, nor from any other beast, though it should go upright, like a rock, as the Serpent did before the seducing of Eve, according to the ordinary gloze, which containeth as well the literal expositions, as the mystical Traditions: neither needed Duke Perron to have attributed this opinion to Luther alone. The same gloze reporteth the opinion of some others, which held, that this serpent took the pleasant countenance of a maiden; and condemneth it for no other reason, but because the scripture doth not authorize it, Now that these effects, namely, speech, and persuasive discourse, soliciting the woman to disobedience, did exceed the natural faculty of a natural Serpent: there is no Sadducee can deny: therefore this faculty came to it, either of man, or of God, or from some other spirit, that hath it in itself: This cannot be of man; for man cannot give speech, reason, and discourse to a beast; beside there was then but two human creatures, who had not any knowledge at all of it. Neither was it GOD, that speak to the woman by the Serpent's mouth: for that were to accuse him of too detestable a fraud and malice, as did the wretched Ophites: Finally, it was not a good Angel: For Moses declareth unto us, in many places, that Angels do keep and preserve men from evil: And this fact here as Moses describeth it, showeth, that it was an enemy of men: not a faithful servant of GOD, that undertook it, and whose calumny or false accusation, we see in the literal Text, very clearly, whence he is called devil, that is to say, calumniator or false accuser, having accused God falsely unto men as envious of their good and absolute felicity: and this history cannot seem absurd, no not to a Heathen, who readeth in profane histories, that horses, bulls, trees, statues, or images, and rivers, have spoken; which we reject not as simply and merely fabulous, though it be contained in fables; knowing, that wicked spirits have as well been able to speak by one Instrument, as by another. See how one may very easily rid himself from diverse expositions, that have been given upon this text: as for that of Phalo, which the B. of Eureux bringeth: he should judge by it, for what use Tradition was to this jew; namely, for to deprave the Text, & to abolish the truth of the history. Moses maketh express mention of Daemons or devils in Leviticus, and in Deuteronomie, which sufficeth for to show a Saducie, that there is some. A Manichee, or other, that holdeth that they are substances coeternal with God; may be convinced, by the same reasons, and consequences from Moses text, that have been above alleged, in speaking of the Creation. The words of Caluin which the Bishop of Eureux bringeth for my purpose, would serve his better than mine, if he were capable of it: They import, that the Lord, by the secret revelation of his Spirit, supplieth, that which is wanting in the outward evidence of the words of Moses: which is most true: For where this light of the Spirit shineth not, there is nothing but darkness, what outward evidence so ever there be in the words: & on the contrary, what obscurity soever be found in the words, when the spirit speaketh inwardly, 1. joh. 2.20▪ 27. when the Unction of that holy one teacheth the children of light; they hear & see as much as is necessary for them to salvation. 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. ere. l. 2. just. Mart. Apol. 1. &. 2● Athenag. in ●pol Cl. Alex● 3. & 5. Str● & alii. Now if the Doctors of the Romish church derive the creation of Devils from the same tradition, whence they derive their fall; It is needles to have recourse for that purpose to the Tradition of the Synagogue, or to that of the Apostles: for it is from Homer, that Cardinal Bessario deriveth it from the fable of Ate: which is no less receivable, than that which some of the Fathers recite, by form of Tradition, of Angels sent from heaven, for the guard and keeping of mankind, that corrupted themselves, by frequenting of women. Yet the jewish Tradition, touching the creation and original of devils must not be omitted, since that (after our Bishop) it is from it only that the jews learned this point of doctrine: that which the Doctors of their Thalmud say, is ●ib. Sanhe. ●. judicia ●un. 〈◊〉, in. 2. 〈◊〉. 7. ●r. a Sancta 〈◊〉 con. Iud 〈◊〉. C. 1● Bib, ●atr. C. 4 That during this space of an hundred & thirty years, which is between the birth of Cain & Abel, & the birth of Seth, Adam ceased not to engender in Eve, wicked Spirits, and Devils which she brought forth, & that those are called the sons of Adam, that stirred up Solomon to sin. If we believe Du Perron, such devilish traditions, should be unto us authentical, necessary, mystical, clear, sufficient and perfect; after that we have declared with him the Holy Scripture unprofitable, superfluous, obscure, unsufficient, & imperfect. And whereas he directeth me to Luther, for to learn of him the orders and degrees, that are among devils; In my opinion, his Thomas Aquinas, whom he calleth the Prince of schoolmen, instructeth far more particularly his disciples, upon this matter, than, Luther doth: For he specifieth the first sin of the devil, the first moment of time in which it was committed; what rank or degree that rebellious Spirit to GOD was of: the manner how he induced his complices, to revolt with him; the number of the good and the bad, namely, whether is the greater: the punishment of these, and the feeling of their pains, etc. The other Schoolmen recount yet greater particulars, though Du Perron say, they traffic not in those devilish countries: yea Bellarmine, after some others, representeth unto us the Buildings of hell, ●●urg. l. 2. with all their stages or stories, chambers and closets; not forgetting the usage and entertainment that is there: all so exactly set down, that one would say, that these people content not themselves only to traffic 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 revelation of S. Brigit, that there are there many Popes and Cardinals, & fair matter, for to re-establish there Hierarchy there. Now let the Reader judge, whether I have been shameless (as he saith) in alleging these places of Moses, for to prove the points above examined, and whether the arguments I have drawn from them, be not as clear and sound, as those that the Romish Doctors, enlightened with the double Tradition, absolute and subsidiary, yea and the Popes themselves, who hold all the fullness 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 prove the Pope's supremacy: By the creation of the Sun and the Moon, the Pope's pre-eminency over and above the Emperor: Boni. 8, Ex● de maiorit● & o● ed. C▪ 9.6 Can. Eccles. By the Sodomites rebuke to Lot, the exemption of the Clergy from all politic jurisdiction: By jacobs' Testament, Invocation on saints departed: By the Cherubins of the mercy feat worshipping of Images: By the commandent made to the Levites, that they should be holy; the single life of Priesstes etc. These are doctrines of the father of lies; to persuade the world, that no truth, at lest wise, no light & evidence of truth, touching the fundamental point of our salvation can be found in the scripture; And that all the errors, all the horrors, that Divert us from salvation; may be very well proved by the scripture. Let us see our bishops reasons, why the points necessary to salvation, are not found so openly set down in the scripture, that manifest and necessary consequences may be drawn from it, without the help of Tradition: They are two, the first is: For to contain our minds, within the bounds of humility: the second, to bind the sheep to the pastors, with a straighter bond of Charity by the necessity of instruction. The book of the holy Ghost, attributed to saint Basile, yet falsely, at least wise that part of it, whence our adversaries take their most favourable testimonies; containeth another reason, which our Bishop, whether for shame, or because he will have his Tradition by himself; found not fit to add. It hath thus: That the Apostles, and fathers, would by these secrets of silence, preserve in mysteries, their authority: For what is divulged to the ears of the people, is not mystery: for this cause, certain things were delivered by Tradition, without writing, lest the knowledge of the Doctrines or opinions should come in cotenmpt among the people, by reason of custom. So that the doctrines of the Trinity, the incarnation of jesus Christ, of our Election, Vocation, justification, Sanctification, Glorification, and many other Articles, shall be no more mysteries; because they are contained in the scripture, preached to the people, and committed to the ears of every one: but by this reckoning must be no more preached to the people, praying to saints departed, worshipping of images, the Pope's supremacy, the sacrifice of the Mass, Purgatory, Indulgences or Pardons, & many other things, not contained in the scripture, and yet notwithstanding almost nothing else preached, yea more recommended & beaten into the ears of the people, than the things that are written. Would to God this reason were persuasive enough, for to make to be hid and buried in the depth of an everlasting silence, or to set over and confine to the ears only of the Pope's clergy, all these goodly mysteries, true marks of the Lovers of the woman in whose forehead is written Mysteries; ●eue. 17.5 that they spoil not the true clergy, that is, the inheritance of jesus Christ. The Bishop of Eureux his reasons, seem better in show, but the sustance of them is much worse: For our part we believe, that the reading of the Scripture, maketh every true Christian humble, as well by the things clearly set down, as by them he cannot so well understand, that he might be stirred up to beg understanding and light, of the Father of lights, as David did, though he were a great Prophet. ●●al. 119, o● 〈◊〉 where. Now, if God would not, that all that is necessary for us should be written, or that it should not be clearly written, for to contain (as saith Du Perron) men's minds, within the bounds of humility, what followeth else, but that they that content not themselves with this measure of revelation, cannot also contain themselves within the bounds of humility, and therefore become proud, & invent whatsoever they list, for to establish their Lordship and rule over the Lords flock, employing their ordinances and Traditions for to bind and torture the consciences, as Tyrants use prisons & gybets to torment the bodies of men. And if any Chistian think to imitate that praiseworthy example of the men of Berea, who durst even examine the preachings of S. Paul by the Scripture, Act. 17.11. they cry out strait, both against him and the Scripture: the one is called a giddy headed fool and a heretic; the other unsufficient and imperfect, and that for no other reason, but because it is most sufficient and perfect, to convince, and rebuke their imperfections, 2. Tim. 3 16▪ 17. and to make us perfectly instructed unto every good work. I said in my former answer, that though the abovesaide points, should not be found so clear, in the writings of Moses, yet that would conclude nothing, against the sufficiency of the Scripture, which we have in the Christian Church: for that God speaking familiarly to Moses, instructed him always on every occurrence, without ever giving him liberty or authority to ordain of matters of Religion. Fol. 57 Our Bishop mocketh at it, adding that jesus Christ spoke, as familiarly to God: And the Apostles in like sort, of whom Christ saith, I call you no more servants, I call you from hence forth my friends, etc. Let us see what reason he hath to mock at mine, which is this: When the Church hath teachers and guiders, that cannot err in their doctrine, immediately received from God, and that can familiarly inquire of him, on every occurrence and occasion, for to instruct themselves, and their flocks, than it may more easily be without Doctrine written. But in the times of the patriarchs, 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, etc. What hurt doth his Instance, taken from the Apostles, to this argument? what good doth it do him, unless it be for to show, either his fondness, in as much as it confirmeth my argument, for there is the same reason of the Apostles, as of the Prophets; Or his impudency, if he mean, that the Christian Church, after the death of the Apostles, is ever furnished with as excellent men, as they were, speaking as familiarly unto God, as they did, taking counsel immediately from him on all occasions and occurrences, as they did. And without doubt, thus he would have his meaning to be taken, though shame hinder him from expressing it more openly. It is also the style of the Church or Court of Rome, namely: That the Pope as S. Peter's successor, representeth his person, yea the person of jesus Christ himself, possesseth his Spirit, & distributeth it as it pleaseth him: yea he is called God himself, witness the Canon, Satis evidenter. And these goodly verses, set on the forefront of the portal or gate of Sixtus the forth. ●ist. 96. Oraculo vocis mundi moderaris habenas: Et merito in terris crederis esse Deus. And seeing our Bishop hath spoken as familiarly to this God on earth, as in old time Moses did to the God of heaven, and the Apostles of jesus Christ: who would not receive the grains & gold and silver pictures, which were given him on mount Vatican, given with greater efficacy, than the tables of the Law, given to Moses on Mount Sina? I said also, Fol. 57 that Moses never took the liberty, to ordain any thing of his own head, not so much as in policy or civil government? He answereth that this is false, objecting unto me the history of jethro: & will say that Moses practised the counsel that jethro gave him, touching the establishment of judges over the people of Israel, without any approbation from God, which is one of the boldest falsehoods can be made, and such as he is wont falsely to object unto others. For to convince it, do but see the text, where the common latin translation saith: If thou do this thing, thou shalt fulfil the commandment of God: Exod. 18, 23, and the Hebrew: If thou dost this thing, and if God so command thee, thou mayst be able to endure. Now we grant, that if we had always such persons, as the Apostles were, or as Moses and the Prophets under the Law, were, for to instruct us in every point, and not such, as may lead millions of souls together into hell, Dist. 4● si Papa as the Pope doth, and may do, by virtue of his own laws: We should not have so much occasion, to keep ourselves so strictly tied 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 themselves also proved it, though they had an immediate calling, an infallible certainty, and an incomparable authority: but these gifts of God being but for a time, for the beginnings and foundation of the Christian Church, and we being advertised by the Holy Ghost of the coming of wolves, of false Prophets, that shall rise up in the midst of the Church: We conclude, that it is most necessary to keep us to their writings, and that it is more dangerous to say, Act. 20. ● 30. 1 Pet. 2. that they have not written whatsoever is necessary for us, than to say that they have not taught all by word of mouth to every particular Church: for returning often to visit them, that which they had not said at one time, they might add and supply it at another, for which there would be no more any remedy after their death, if we found not in their writings, that which is necessary for our salvation. And therefore, though the points above proved by Moses, were not contained in his writings; yea though Moses had written nothing at all, yet could not that any thing at all help the Bishop of Eureux his cause, unless he show first, that the traditions of the Romish Church are naturally engraven in the hearts of men, as the immortality of the soul. And secondly, that in all the Christian Church, spread throughout all the nations of the world, god had established the same form touching the economy and government, and the dispensation of his mysteries, as was established among this people only conducted by Moses, & afterwards taught by the Prophets, extraordinarily raised up, & immediately sent, during the ordinary ministry of the Levitical Priesthood. And therefore, since that the curate of every particular Church, that acknowledgeth the Pope, 〈◊〉 ver. 3, ● in the 〈◊〉. representeth the catholic Church, as say the Doctors of the Romish Church; it is to be believed, that the grossest beast, so that he bear the mark of the beast of Rome, is holden in like estimation, endued with the same gifts, as was Moses, Isaiah, S. Paul: 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 be for grace, or for interpretation of this word, he never suffereth it to fall into error. And thereupon he reproacheth me, that I understand not the meaning of this proposition: The Church cannot ere in matters of Salvation. Let the Christian Reader judge how I understand it. If we take this word (Church) for the universal Church, the body of Christ, whereof part is triumphant in heaven, part still militant on earth; both being united to their head, by the power of his spirit; that proposition is most true. If on the contrary the Church be taken but for that part which is scattered on earth; I say, it is most false: For that which is subject to infirmity, to imperfection, to error and ignorance in every 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 Solomon and Saint james: all of us know but in part, and Prophesy but in part. Neither is there any one member, which hath not need to take every day groweth, according to the measure of the gift of Christ. So that all the promises of the Spouse to the Church, are to be understood of that which he daily worketh and increaseth in his, not of that which is already perfected and finished. And Du perron's conclusion, is no less false and unapt than this: GOD (saith he) hath promised us the beginning, the progress and the end: therefore we have the end at the same instant, as we have the beginning. The titles of perfection, which are some times attributed to the children of GOD, setteth before them rather the mark, whereat they should aim, than any ways imprinteth in them an opinion of having already attained it. So we call a building, a House, though it be not yet finished. If this perfection were wholly attained to, there would remain no more any thing to be builded, and the power of God should not be made perfect in our weakness. jesus Christ washeth and cleanseth his Church every day, but it shall not be wholly clean without spot or wrinkle, till the day of the lambs marriage, when the Bridegroom shall bring his Spouse into his celestial chamber. We acknowledge the perpetual assistance of God's Spirit to his Church, which is the soul of the Church, and giveth spiritual life thereunto: But life is one thing, and perfect health without any infirmity, is another thing. It is one thing to have a natural operation, which is ever done after a fashion, in which there is some necessity, an other thing to have a-voluntarie operation, which is done at discretion & with liberty: the holy Ghost assisteth the Church so far forth as to give it life; which is a thing wholly necessary, for the accomplishment of the promises of her husband Christ: for if the Spirit did in this sort fail the Church; the Church would also fail jesus Christ, but this life, this light of grace, doth not abolish that of nature, which is in every member of the Church, & which maketh it often to faint, to fail & to fall, though never utterly to fall away. The holy Ghost governeth it as well, as reason governeth the will in man: But as the will doth often serve from reason, yet without losing it wholly or altogether: 1. Tim. 3.1. so the Church swerveth often from the spirit, which notwithstanding doth not wholly forsake it for all that. The Church remaineth also the pillar and ground of truth, not for the reason Du Perron allegeth: because every one resting on the judgement of it, can not be deceived in faith, nor hazard his Salvation: (he might say more briefly, and more popularly: In believing in the faith of his Curate:) But for as much as the word of God, contained in the holy Scripture is set forth in the true Church, as in old time the laws were fastened to pillars, that they might not be trodden under feet, and that they might be exposed to the view of every man: the Church, which is the Palace of our lord jesus Christ, is as Solomon▪ was, all of pillars; every particular Orthodoxal or rightbeleving Church is a pillar of that Palace, whereon hangeth the table containing the divine truth; But as much resemblance is between this palace of our spiritual Solomon and the Popes on his Vatican; as is between the crown of Thorns, and his triple Crown of Gold; between the Bible and his decretals. Now let the Bishop of Eureux tell me, how these two propositions do agree: the church never erreth: and that of the Schoolmen and Canonists, In the day when our Lord suffered, Faith remained only in the virgin Marie: which proposition ●ean. de la ●urbruslèe. john Turbrusley maintaineth to be so necessary, that to hold the contrary is to go against the faith of the universal Church: where was then this Church that cannot err, than I say when all the Apostles were alive, whom Christ our Lord reproacheth of incredulity? could the person only of the blessed virgin make the Church? ●ark. 16.14. ●●llar. de Ec●●es. mil. l. 3. ●7. Bellarmine denieth it, because, saith he, The Church is the people and kingdom of God. Now have we hitherto showed, the sufficiency and perfection of the scripture, in regard of the instances proposed by the Bishop of Eureux, as things absolutely necessary. As for the others that he afterwards allegeth: it is to be noted: First, that they concern rather history, than doctrine, whereof is question, and which he of purpose confoundeth with history, for to bleaze the eyes of the simple: For he knoweth very well, that we willingly confess, that there is historical Traditions: and himself confesseth that the ordinance of these thing is not absolutely unexcusable: ●ol, 80 That is to say, it is not necessary for all to know them. Secondly, it is to be remembered, that here again, (as is above said) he confoundeth with like malice, these two terms, truth and Authority; dissembling, that every truth is not of like Authority: Otherwise it would follow, that all profane histories, truly written, are as authentical and canonical as the histories of the Bible: And therefore, that which the Apostles alleged, without the Scripture, is most true; but obtained not Canonical authority, till after it was written by them: and as touching that from which they draw arguments; I answer, that they do it, because it was agreed of the truth of those particulars, whence they draw them: as at this day we reason oftentimes by things, which not only the Fathers, but also profane and heathen authors have left in writing, when it is agreed, that they contain truth, yet can not any infer from thence, that they have equal authority to the word of God. Thirdly, I say; that among the instances he produceth, there be some false and invented; and of this number is all the first, namely; the Institution of Exorcists; that no text of the new Testament showeth, that it was an order instituted of God, under the old Testament, yea though it were granted him, that there were. Exorcists, at the time that jesus Christ came into the world: for our Saviour Christ's words, contain nothing else, but a confutation of the opinion of the pharisees, not a declaration of his own, touching Exorcists, whether they were ordained of God, or of themselves; as were those of whom S. Luke maketh mention. If the B. of Eureux granteth not, that both of them were of the same order; Act, 19, to what purpose doth he alleagde Caluin for to make me confess it? And if he grant, that they were; how can he deny, but that the one were deceivers as well as the others? Whence will he show, that the sons of Sceva, were rather of the order of the ancient pretended Exorcists; than of the Apes, that would counterfeit the miracles of the Apostles? Let us see the Logic of our Carneades. The sons of Sceva after the death of Christ, were not true Exorcists: Ergo before Christ's death there was an order of the true Exorcists, grounded on divine right: See how from a negation he draweth an affirmation. But if we receive 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 Saviour Christ speaking of Exorcists meaneth only his Apostles and disciples; Fol. 81. which (saith he) had already driven out Devils, by the power they had received of their Master, the pharisees not having blamed them for it: For their malice was but to the person, not to the thing: Therefore that he might show, that what they said or thought against him, proceeded but of mere envy; he told them of the Apostles. Now it is for our Bishop to conclude, that the Apostles were already in the world, in quality of ordinary Exorcists, when Christ came; from whom consequently, they received not extraordinarily this power to cast out unclean Spirits. He saith; the hand of the Synagogue was become withered and impotent in working miracles, ●ol. 85. after our Saviour Christ's death, and that for this cause the sons of Sceva had no success. But wherefore then had that Eleazar, of whom josephus speaketh, such good success, who long after Christ's death, in the presence of Vespasian, his children & all the Roman Army; ●●seph. An●●g. lib. 8. c. 2. dispossessed so sufficiently one that had a Devil? the root, to which josephus attributeth this virtue, and which he saith was taught by Solomon, was it become withered, as well as the hand of the Synagogue, of purpose, that it might bud again like Aaron's rod, in the hands of that infidel? did the name Tetragrammaton (by which Epiphanius saith, 〈◊〉. 30. one joseph, not believing yet in Christ, cast out a devil;) lose then it virtue, or did the sons of Sceva, eclipse some letter of it? Now it is manifest by this place of josephus, and by that which is written in another place, what was the foundation and institution of this order of Exorcists, ●oh. de bell. 〈◊〉 l. 7. c. 25, among the jews: namely, Magic, and enchantments, which our Bishop would make us receive, for the pure word of God, secretly revealed to the patriarchs 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 devils, used certain mystical forms: but that they simply conjured the Energumeni or possessed in the name of god, etc. whence we might gather, that they which among the jews had this gift, brought thereunto no other mystery, than the calling on the name of the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of jacob. Hereupon he termeth me a Demoniak, possessed with the evil spirit of ignorance and presumption, Folly, 89 for not having read the 7. Canon of the 4. Council of Carthage, which maketh mention of a book, wherein Exorcisms were written. Let us leave to him the evil spirit of knowledge, which so swelleth him, that it is to be feared, it will burst him in the end: And let us see his argument: The Council of Carthage, holden about the year of grace 400. maketh mention of a book containing Exorcisms: Ergo, Annal. Eccle. Tom. 5. ad an. Chr. 398. in the beginning of the Christian Church there were certain prescript forms, for to exorcize: Therefore the beginning of the Christian Church, should be put 400. years after the beginning of the Christian Church, or at the least 398. years, according to the computation of Baronius himself. For although mention be made of exorcists before that, yet the form which they used in their Exorcisms, is no where declared; no, Annot in Tert, lib, de Bapt. not in the acts of the said Council of Carthage; and Pamelius can allege for it nothing more ancient, than the book called Ordo Romanus, and the sacramentary of Saint Gregory. justin Mar. in Tryph. My affirmation was grounded on the testimony of justine Martyr, 230. years ancienter than that council; his words are these; By the name of this same Son of God, the first borne of every creature etc. all devils are adjured and subjecteth: And if ye (jews) adjure them by whatsoever name of your Kings, or patriarchs, or Prophets, no spirit will obey you. But if any man among you adjure, By the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of jacob, for that same is Christ, it may be they would be subjecteth: But now your exorcists use in their adjurations, a certain art as the Pagans, and do use perfumes, and ligatures, etc. Behold justine, who knew no other form, which was in use among the jews, than the calling on the GOD of Abraham, of Isaac, and of jacob; and no wise restraineth this gift, to a certain order, among the jews; teaching us also in what estimation we should have those, that use magical and heathenish enchantments; to wit, not of order, nor ordinance divine, but devilish. Also we know, that jesus Christ in the beginning of the Christian Church, restrained not this gift, to a certain order, but promised and gave it indifferently to the faithful: and even a long time after, Tertullian maketh mention of certain soldiers, Mar. 16.17 Do Coro. mil. c. 11, vide Apolog. ca, 32. In Mat, hom, 35 that had it. The Bishop of Eureux, who maintaineth, that the sons of Sceva were of the jewish order of exorcists, hath found this fantasy in Origen, who affirming that it is not lawful for Christians, according to the Gospel, to swear; thence concludeth; that therefore it is no more lawful to adjure any, and by consequence holdeth that these Exorcists were jews: But his ground being false, the conclusion, that he buildeth upon it, namely, that this was an order among the jews, Annal. Eccle. Tom, 1, ad an. Chr. 56 is false also, and condemned as such, by Cardinal Baronius. But our Bishop maketh use of every thing, so that he think it fit to demolish any part of the Lords work; that is, of the scripture, indicted by his spirit. His second instance is taken from the miracle of the pool, set down by Saint john. He saith, That it was a needful thing to know, john. 5 whether it was not a sleight of Satan, for to invite men to superstition, for to entice them to make Pilgrimages, for to persuade them to put their confidence therein, and to seek remedies at Creatures, of their infirmities. I answer, that the Scripture warranted from all these inconveniences, them that followed it, as the light unto their feet: For it teacheth, how superstition is avoided; namely, in putting confidence in one only GOD, and in transferring nothing to the creature, of that which belongeth to the Creator, who by his law written, had ordained to the jews three voyages yearly, for to appear before him at jerusalem with offerings. See here their pilgrimages grounded on scripture. Exod. 34▪ 23. Deut. 16. ● If the Angel, who by the troubling of the water, therein manifested this power of healing every infirmity, had demanded sacrifices, for to be honoured with them, in God's stead, no faithful being instructed in the law, would have had recourse to this remedy, how excellent soever it were, or how great need soever he had had: As at this day, they, Deut. 13 that have learned by the scripture that only God is to be invoked or called upon, do make no voyages or pilgrimages to the places, where the Saints departed are called upon, what maracle so ever be done there, true or false, seeing an other besides God is there invoked; which was not done at the Pool. For to make this instance of force for his purpose, it behoved him to show, that such as went down into it, called upon the Angel, or on some Patriarch or Prophet; that they confessed themselves first, after the Romish manner, made the vow of nine days, said a certain number of ave Maries, that they did wear beads, told their blessed grains, that they beheld their Agnus Dei, kissed crosses, and crucifixes, and carried candles to the Image of the Angel, as our ignorant superstitious people do to Saint Michael, and by the same means to the devil, that is at his feet. Saint Augustine, expounding this miracle, hath not recourse, In johan tract. 17. neither sendeth any to Tradition, but unto the Lord who giveth understanding, protesting that he would speak of it as he could, and assuring himself, that he by whose aid he did what he could, would supply in his auditors that which he could not: hereupon he handleth all this history allegorically, proving his expositions by texts and consequences of scripture; and not deriving any thing at all, from the pretended Tradition. Saint Cyrill saith, johan. 1.2 5. that the Angels went down in●o it only on the day of the Pentecost, for to trouble the water; which he likewise draweth from the scripture, without mention of any Tradition: his words are these: The power of this healing was limited only to one man, which signified that the profit of the law was bounded only to the people of the jews, without passing any further: For the commandments of the Law, showed by Angels on mount Sinai, and afterward exhibited on the day of Penetcost ordained for that end, were not extended but from Dan to Beersheba. If this circumstance of time, to wit, of the day of Pentecost, according to Saint Cyrill and some other, be taken from Tradition; ●●al. tom. 1. Christ, 32 Cardinal Baronius reproving this opinion of the fathers, reprehendeth also by the same means, Tradition, that is to say the word of God, after our Bishop: for Baronius saith, that this affimation of the fathers, is without reason. And must needs be said, that the Tradition, which Saint Chrysostom followed was directly contrary to that of S. Cyrill: ●oan. hom For he denieth, that the moving of the water was done in certain time. I told the Bishop of Eureux the occasion and institution of this miraculous healing, according to the recital of Lyranus and other Doctors of the Romish Church; for to show with what fables fed are such as are out of taste with the scripture: but he called that a blind impudence, and said, that he sendeth us to no other tradition than to the words of Saint john, which were a tradition before his Gospel was set forth. But if he were not more impotent of brain, than he whom Christ healed, was of his arms & legs; he would judge, that the question that himself propoundeth is, 〈◊〉 88 by what proof it appeared, that this miracle of the Pool, was not a deceit of the devil, but a true miracle instituted of God. Where is it that the beginning or institution of it appeareth in S. john? Is it not for this cause, that Petrus Comestor hath recourse to the Tradition of them that said: That the Queen of Saba, having seen by the spirit, the wood of the cross of Christ, in the house of Libanus, advertised Solomon, Histor. Eu● cap. 81 that on it should one die after whose death, the country and people of the jews should perish. Which Solomon fearing, buried it in the ground, in that place where afterwards was made the Pool: And as the time drew near that Christ our Lord should suffer death and passion, this wood floated or swam aloft on the top of the water, etc. Lyran. in johan. c. 5 But if this tale be no less fabulous than that of Lyranus, why then doth not our bishop, who is ignorant of othing, teach us the true history of this true Tradition; that we may know, whereon was grounded the faith of the jews, that had recourse to this Pool, & that we condemn not of superstition and idolatry, as well such as used it, as them that suffered it, to wit, the Priests & Pastors of jerusalem? In the mean while we content ourselves to know, that almost always, 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 having chosen and adopted them, from among all other nations of the earth, that by this means he might invite them to honour & serve him as they ought, & not to have any other Gods before him. And that if some did put their confidence in this water, or in the Angel, that troubled it, without lifting up their hearts to him, that gave this charge to the Angel and this virtue to the water; they must be put in the rank of those, who abusing the miracles, which God for a certain space of time wrought to the christian church, for to give testimony to the doctrine that his Martyrs had confessed & sealed by their death, & for to move the heathen to embrace it; have re-established a kind of paganism, and brought in as many new succeeding Gods, as there be Saints, and places where any miracle is wrought; to whom the people, being instructed and exhorted by their Bishops and Curates, without any warrant of the word of God either written or pronounced; direct their vows, bring their offerings, and make their prayers, for to obtain, that which they should not ask of any but of the Saint of Saints or Holy of Holies. I speak not of the frauds and filthy trumperies wherewith the Priests abuse the world, and which stink so abominably, that such among themselves, as have any shame left, or any nose to smell; are constrained to stop it. To these men belongeth fitly the mystical Interpretation that Saint Hierome reciteth, ●●●rom. in 〈◊〉. c. 22 upon the place of Isayah, where is spoken of two pools of jerusalem, and of a lake, that he expoundeth from the Traditions of the pharisees, which Du Perron and other such evil Angels, troubling the water to fish the better, endeavour to mend and make up again, as a cistern that cannot hold any more that stinking water, wherewith they have watered and bathed those whom the poison of the Babylonian cup had made so lame, withered, deaf and blind, that they could not find the issue or way forth of the porches of the Romish Church. Now if it were behooufull to have an express word of God, conserve always by means of Tradition, for to use with a good conscience this remedy of the Pool: Behoved it not also to have the like warrant for the bringing of sick folk to some Saint that hath the fame of working miracles? Again if the word of God after the doctrine of the Romish church, be but of two sorts, to wit; that which is contained in the holy scripture, & that which the Apostles have delivered by word of mouth to their successors, which is called Apostolic Tradition: I would earnestly desire, that the B. of Eureux, (to whom no thing is impossible) would declare, what Apostolic Tradition can be alleged for ground of the miracles done five hundred, yea a thousand, and twelve hundred years, 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 work such miracles: and that thereunto without danger of superstition; to offer, and to pay vows, and to bring their sick? For thus far we both agree, that for to do these things with a good conscience, it behoveth to be grounded on the word of God: we agree also in this, which the adversaries themselves confess with us: That the Church is no more governed by new revelations: De verbo Dei. l, 4., c 9 these are the very words of Bellarmine; our difference is only in regard of the means, whereby this word of God hath been conserved, and in what place it is to be sought; Whether it be only in the old and new Testament, as we maintain, or else, as the Bishop of Eureux affirmeth, in the Apostolic Tradition, which he maketh double, the one absolute, the other he calleth subsidiary. If he vouchsafe to enlighten us in this obscurity; I will confess that he deserveth himself to be put in the number of the Saints, and lightened with candles as great as his Croser staff. The instance of the custom the jews had, to deliver a malefactor at Easter, is yet more impertinent than the former. For it is to make tradition to oppugn directly the holy Scripture, which testifieth clearly enough, that, He that absolveth the wicked, is an abomination to the Lord: Pro, 17.15. And in another place commandeth in express terms, to pluck murderers from the altar of God, Exod 21.14. that they may die. And whether it be referred to infidel governors, Math. 27.5. ● Mar. 15.6. as S. Matthew & S. Mark do, or to the Synagogue corrupted, as the Bishop of Eureux thinketh to show it by S. john; yet the corruption & transgression of the Law therein is evident. Therefore Saint Cyrill, for to excuse the ancient Synagogue, groundeth this custom on the Law written, touching manslaughter committed unawares; Cyr. in Iul, ● 2. c. 14. Num. 35. and thinketh that the Synagogue that was in Christ's time, of hatred & rage wherewith it burned against him, transgressed that Law, ask the deliverance of a detestable robber and murderer, in stead of one that had killed a man by mischance and unawares: See then the Bishop of Eureux his tradition razed and condemned by the sentence of a Patriarch of Alexandria. Theophylact speaketh of it these words: We may say, that the jews, ●heoph. in 〈◊〉. c. 18. teaching the doctrines, which are the commandments of men, have invented many things of their own heads, and have not used the laws of God: so that this point also became a custom without reason, as many other things, without commandment of the Law: See here again, Tradition, the pretended word of God, after our Bishop, called, a custom without reason, by a Bishop, much ancienter and of better authority than ours. And whereas I said, that they which deliver Barrabasses, do crucify jesus Christ in his members: he accuseth me of invectives, and of ignorance of the mysteries and judgements of God; forgetting the place of S. Ambrose whence I drew that conclusion; the words are these; The Laws of iniquity are such that it hateth innocency, & loveth wickedness: Wherein notwithstanding, the interpretation of the name, giveth appearance of a figure: For this word Barrabas, Amb. in Luc. ●ib. 10. signifieth some of the Fathers: those then to whom it is said, Your Father is the Devil, are declared, that they perfer Antichrist the son of their Father, before the true son of God. The sentence of S. Augustine, who saith that the jews are not to be reprehended, for that they delivered a guilty person at Easter, but for that they put to death an innocent, should be understood not simply and absolutely, but by comparison: as if he had said, to put to death, him that brought life and righteousness into the world, is a crime so horrible, and to deliver a person guilty is nothing in comparison. For this holy Doctor, was too much conversant in the Scripture, and too good an interpreter of the places above alleged, for to declare absolutely unreprovable, those whom the spirit of God declareth to be an abomination before the Lord. But it is not without mystical reason that our Bishop would make murderers be found irreprehensible; exod. 21.14. ●o. 17.15. ●. Tim. 3.2. ●it, 1.6. that is to say, capable to be Bishops: it is without reason and not without ignorance, to call me ignorant of his mysteries, which we are no more ignorant of, than of the tradition of Boniface the fift who was the first Pope that ordained; That altars and Churches, should serve for places of freedom to Malefactors; Platin. in Bonif. 5. wherein the good Prelate re-established the Tradition of Pilate, to deliver Robbers. As for the instances he taketh out of the Epistle to the Hebrues, where Saint Paul reciteth certain legal ceremonies, of which Moses maketh not express mention; though we should grant him all of them, yet could they not help his desperate cause: For they are things, Chap. 9 which concern history, and not doctrine, the only act of the sacrifice, made for the ratification of the covenant, and not the ordinary use and custom of daily and yearly sacrifices: & therefore might be unknown, without danger of salvation, not only of the people, but even of the Priests themselves, seeing they were not precepts, touching the manners of their ordinary service, but only certain 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 have often 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, giveth a deadly blow to the mass, he laboureth to comfort the wound with these Instances, taken from the same place: because he can not make use of it, as of Achilles' dart, or as of a Scorpion, for to draw a remedy from the same from whence the hurt came; He supplieth with his brain 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 Testament: which S. Paul saith not, no more than Moses; though he say, that he took water with blood & wool, as if one could not take two things one with another, without mixing than, one within another; the priests of the Romish church, when they baptise, take water, oil & other drugs: Ergo they mix them all together in the Sacramental water. A goodly argument. What is there in the text of Saint Paul, that forceth us to conclude, that Moses mixed the water within the blood, for to sprinkle therewith the people, by one only sprinkling, rather than to say, that he sprinkled them first with water, for to purify 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 ceremony might be gathered out of Moses? He reproveth me of vanity, for affirming, that the sacrifices for sin: And that such sacrifices were of he goats. The first is manifest, for that Moses in the first place speaketh of whole offerings, which were expiatory, & propitiatory: after which he maketh mention of sacrifices of thanksgiving. The other appeareth by analogy or proportion of the Law, which saith. If the Prince of the people (that is, one of them that have public charge, as the scutcheon Elders and the heads of the tribes had) commit sin, let his offering be of an he goat. Now in this Sacrifice whereof is question, the 70. elders, are commanded, to go up with Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu; Levi. 4.22.23 whose sacrifices were of bullocks, according to the Law: It is gathered therefore by analogy, that the offerings of the 70. elders were of he goats. To say, that the institution of all these particulars was after the Sacrifice of the Covenant, were not to consider, that sacrifices (notwithstanding this) were in use before the Law given by God to Moses, Leu. 4.3. and that not according to each man's fantasy, but according as God revealed and commanded it to the patriarchs. And the Bishop of Eureux cannot show us by his tradition, wherein the particulars and forms of the Sacrifices used before the Law and writing of Moses, and them which we see therein set down, did differ or agree: no more than we can believe, that the knowledge of the former, was as necessary to the Israelites, that lived under the Law, as was the knowledge of the latter. I would know of him, from what tradition he learned, that this sprinkling of the people, by the blood of beasts was rather execratory than expiatory, as he saith: not for to purify the Israelites but for to bind & bequeath to cursing, etc. S. Paul, Heb. 9.22. after he had recited this sprinkling, with the sprinkling of the tabernacle, & of the holy vessels, addeth: that almost all things by the law are purified with blood, referring this purification in general to all the legal 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, than these words, which Moses pronounced, in performing this sprinkling: This is the blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath contracted with you: shall not signify unto us, the purifying of our souls, by the blood of jesus Christ as the Apostle expoundeth it, comparing the figurative blood of beasts, with the blood of Christ our Lord, which spiritually washeth & purifieth our souls, as the other blood did ceremonially purify the corporal things: But shall signify our curse & execration, the real accomplishment & execution whereof, should be found for us, in the death & in the blood of him, whom we call our Saviour and Redeemer, as having delivered & redeemed us from the curse & execration of the law, under which we were without the shedding & sprinkling of his blood, when he himself was made a curse for us. He yieldeth a reason worthy himself, why this blood signified rather execration, than purification: Gal. 3.13. Because the children of Israel were already purified by the former washings. True, but if the washing with water sufficed to purify them, to what purpose so much blood, as was shed in the ordinary expiatory sacrifices? to what purpose are said so many masses pretended expiatory sacrifices, if holy water sufficeth to purify those, that are sprinkled with it? Why behoved it, that after baptism jesus Ch. should shed his blood? why was not remission of sins without shedding of blood, 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 by the former washings: Ergo, the blood wherewith Moses sprinkled them afterward, signified unto them cursing and execration. But it agreeth not evil, that he that believeth, or maketh show to believe, that the mass is a sacrifice expiatory and propitiatory, which indeed is execrable and execratorie; call execration the sacrifice of the covenant, that God contracteth with his, for to put away their sins therewith; whereof the sacrifice described by Moses, was the figure & that of the cross the Truth. At least wise he should consider, that this sprinkling with blood, was not only done on the people, but also on the altar, upon which Moses sprinkled half & on the book, which Altar represented nothing else but God, who in this covenant, was one of the parties, conditioning & promising of his side: shall we say, that Moses, in sprinkling the Altar with half of the blood, bound & bequeathed God also to cursing? The book that contained the law, and which was sprinkled with it likewise, was it cu●sed also? There remained no more but this heap of blasphemy for him, who ceaseth not to calumniate of imperfection and unsufficiency the sacred book, to say, that it was bequeathed to cursing and execration. Indeed we read in profane histories of the covenants and leagues, which the Pagans made, ratifying them by Sacrifices, with oaths and horrible execrations; yea sometimes tasting of the blood of the sacrifices offered, or of their own, as it is said of Catilina and some others. Which is not far from the Cyclopian barbarity of those Capernaites, or rather Cannibals, which think they cannot partake in the blood of the spiritual covenant we have with jesus Christ, unless they carnally drink it, 〈◊〉 cons. Dist. 〈◊〉 Can. Ego. ●●ieng. unless they break his body with their teeth sensibly, as their Pope Nicholas saith. As for the sprinkling of the tabernacle, & of the holy vessels, also the purple coloured wool, & hyssop, whereof Moses speaketh in the 24. chapter of Exod. It should be our bishop's part to show, that S. Paul in his 9 chap. to the Hebrews protesteth & bindeth himself, to touch nothing of the writings of Moses, but only what he saith in express terms in that place, Exo. 24. Which shall not be so easy for him to do, as it is for us to show, & for every one to see the contrary. 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 only Priests, & sacrifice of the new: The Levitical Tabernacle, corruptible and transitory, wherinto the jewish Priests entered; with the human nature of jesus Christ, in which dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead, as in a Temple permanent: the blood of the he goat, which the high priest offered every year once, when he entered into the most holy place, with our saviour Christ's own blood, by which he opened unto us heaven for ever. Now it is certain, that Moses speaketh of these figures, in divers places of his writings: by what Logic then, should we conclude that, that which is not found in the 24. chap. of Ex. cannot be found elsewhere? he speaketh not there of the purple wool, nor the hyssop, but Num. 19 he speaketh of them: 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. Paul meaneth not to speak only of the Act of the dedication, as our Bishop would make us believe, it is manifest, as well by that we have said of the Apostles intention, as by the conclusion, which is Heb. 9.22. And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood; By which every one may see, that he no wise meaneth to stay on the act only of the consecration of the Covenant, but that he mixeth together diverse ceremonies of expiations, in which there was but one and the same end, referring all those shadows to their bodies, the figures to the Truth, without standing to reckon the syllables of Moses, or to quote the places he allegeth, or to observe the order of the times, wherein consisted not the force of his arguments, & therefore he protesteth (Ch. 9.5.) not to speak of those things particularly. The sprinkling of the book, may be comprehended under the sprinkling of the altar, si●h both the one and the other represented God in this ratification of the Covenant: for the book contained the Law, and the conditions that God required in this Contract: wherefore as S. Paul omitteth the sprinkling of the altar; so Moses omitteth the express mention of the book, both of them using a Synecdoche. The inconvenience that the B. of Eureux allegeth is, that if the book had been sprinkled with the Altar, Moses had blotted out the writing of the Covenant, before he had read it to the people. A great matter sure, that one cannot sprinkle a thing without blotting and spoiling it; as though he, who in consecrating Aaron sprinkled those parts of him that God had commanded him to sprinkle, without plunging or drowning him in blood; though in other places he sprinkled a great quantity; could not as well sprinkle the book without marring it, shedding the great quantity of blood upon the altar. There is as much cunning in this consideration, as there is reason in his reproof of our translation of the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which S. Paul useth, verse 19 to speak: which Du Perron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordaineth by the tradition of his new Lexicon, that henceforth it signify to read. He persuadeth himself that the opinion of Caluin, who saith, that in Saint Paul's time, there was perhaps some Commentaries of the Prophets, which recounted more amply, that which Moses had touched only by form of abridgement: maketh greatly for his purpose: as if it did follow, that those commentaries contained infallibly the traditions at this day in controversy: Or because they be lost, that he doth the Scripture no wrong to defame it, as imperfect & unsufficient. Let him learn of S. Augustine, that it is no wise necessary, that all the writings of the Prophets should be indifferently Canonical: ●●g. de Ciu. ●●i li. 18, 38 (saith he) I esteem, that they to whom the Holy Ghost revealed, that which should be authentical, for Religion, might write certain things, as men, with an Historical diligence, and other things, as Prophets, by divine inspiration: and that these same were so distinguished, that the one were attributed as to them, but the others, as to God, speaking by them: So that the former pertained to a more ample knowledge, the latter to the authority of Religion, in which authority the Canon is maintained and kept. Besides which, if there be yet any writings bearing the name of true Prophets, they serve not for to have a more abundance of knowledge by them, because it is not certain, that they be theirs, to whom they be attributed, and therefore we believe them not, especially those, in which we find things contrary to the Canonical faith. And thus is Caluin cleared. It is most certain, 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 revealing 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 study, neither as the light is in an heavenly body, but rather as that which is in the air, from which it may be easily separated: so that, as they could not heal all diseases, at all times and so often as they listed; so could they not prophesy when they would, 2. Kin. 4.27. neither knew they any thing but what it pleased the Lord to reveal unto them: witness Heliseus, who knew not the subject of the sadness and bitterness, 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 David, when he purposed to build the Temple; 1. Sam. 16▪ 7. 2. Sam. 7. etc. 1. Chro. 17▪ etc. do all that is in thine heart, for the Lord is with thee; wherein both of them were abused, by the instinct of his own mind: & therefore Saint Gregory, cited by Thomas Aquinas; saith; that it happened sometimes, that the Prophets, being asked counsel of; by reason of their great use or custom of prophesiing; uttered things of their own mind, having 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 have a Canonical authority attributed unto it; but it behoveth also, that there come between the motion and inspiration of god, assuring those holy men, not only of the truth of the matter, which they treat; (for all that containeth truth, hath not Canonical authority:) but also of the end and use thereof; namely, that it was for to be authentical, for to serve for an infallible rule to the faith and life of the faithful. To go about to conclude a Canonical authority of some book, by the all●gation of some place, that an Apostle citeth from it, is a thing that deserveth rather to be laughed at, than to be answered; for by that means it would follow, as hath been abovesaid, that Menander, Aratus, and Epimenides or Callimachus, Heathen Poets, should have the like authority, as the divine Prophets, because S. Paul allegeth and approveth some of their verses .. And therefore though we shall say with Caluin, that the particulars and circumstances, expressed in this 9 chapter, might be taken forth of the commentary of some Prophet, which we have 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 grant) that the Canon, which we have is imperfect: God of his goodness having preserved so much of it, as he knew to be necessary for his Church, that is to say, the parts essential, though there wanted some of the parts called integral. And though we should not follow the opinion of Caluin; yet would it not follow that the Apostles had the knowledge of these particulars, by the tradition or Cabal of the jews, seeing they might have taken them from some other books, not written by any Prophet, nevertheless received among the jews, though not with Prophetical authority, as some Historiographers are amongst us. And therefore the cardinal Caietan (who should every way better know, what is derived from tradition, than the B. of Eureux, who is inferior unto him in dignity, in knowledge, and in place of residence, the cardinal having been ordinarily near the oracle of Rome, & drunk of the fountain of tradition) saith in his Commentary upon this chapter, & namely of the particular of the golden censor, which after the opinion of many, was in the most holy place, from which our Bishop maketh his strongest instance; It is not known, whence, 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, & Aaron's rod, sith the solution of the jesuite Ribera doth not satisfy him; who (no more than this Cardinal) hath not recourse to Tradition, Gen. ●0. 12▪ 2. Sam. 21 etc. choosing rather to employ therein Grammar, there being the like examples of Scripture, in which the pronoun is referred to the antecedent farthest of, than to apply thereto this plaster for all sores; or to borrow the invention of Caluin, for to take away the contradiction, which the same Cardinal saith to be most manifest, between the place (1. King 8.9.) which hath these express words, Nothing was in the Ark save the two tables of the law: And this is taken in the sense, that our Bishop will have it. And Bellarmine himself, doth he not receive the opinion of them, that hold, that the golden Pot and the rod were in some outward part of the Ark, and not within the ark itself? de verb. De● Lib. 1. c, ●7 The two last Instances, taken out of the Epistle of S. Jude, have been touched above: let us confirm here our opinion by the testimony of the same Cardinal Caietan, who saith: It can not be known, whence Saint Jude had the knowledge of this combat, Comm. in epist. jud. that is to say between the Angel and the Devil; yet there be some that hold, that it, is taken out of the apocryphal books of the Hebrews: who hath then revealed it to our B. that the Apostle, & the jews held it unwritten Tradition? the apocryphas books of the jews, & the tradition, which he pretendeth to be the true & pure word of God; is it all one? To conclude, from whence so ever this history be taken, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 3. c. 2 In catalogue. whether from the book which Origen calleth the ascension of Moses, of which S. Hierome also maketh mention; or whether it be from the pretended Tradition, what availeth it against the perfection and sufficiency of the doctrine contained in the Scripture? How often have we told him, that we are at accord, that all particular deeds and sayings, ●●hn. 21.25. are not contained in it, neither can be? ●●l. 1●3. But from this history, saith he, are drawn many excellent doctrines, & the beginning of this knowledge, could not be human and natural; but of necessity must take original from an express revelation, etc. Say it be so; to what purpose all this? Is not our question, whether there is any point of doctrine, that should be derived from any other beginning than from the Scripture? Is it not whether the points of doctrine, contained in the Scripture, may be confirmed, by some other proofs besides the Scriptures; The Greeks', reciting this history, say that the Archangel was employed in the Burial of Moses, ●ecum. in ●ist. jud. & that the Devil opposed himself thereunto, alleging that Moses was his, because of the manslaughter committed in the person of the Egyptian, and that therefore he deserved not so honourable a burial. The doctrines which they draw from it, are that the Apostle would teach by it, 1. that men have to render an account after this life: 2 That there is one & the same God both of the old and new Testament. 3. That the Devil riseth up against the souls departed from the body, and striveth to hinder their way to heaven; but the good Angels assist them, and resist the wicked Spirits. 4 That we ought not to judge, nor curse rashly. 5. That honour should be yielded to Superiors. Now it were for our B. to deny, that these doctrines are contained in the scripture, and that the jews could not derive them from any other beginning, but from unwritten Tradition: and for to do this, he must raze out an infinite number of places of the law, and of the Prophets, and by this means, not only he should justify his blasphemies against the scripture, but also the heresy of the Anabaptists, in the point which concerneth the obedience due to Magistrates; as elsewhere he endeavoureth to do, touching the point of baptism of little children. Now as these doctrines are more than sufficiently proved by the Scripture, so the history in question, repugneth not any thing thereunto, whether we take it as Oecumenius reciteth it, or after the vulgar understanding, namely, that the devil, 2. Cor. ● whose enterprises we are not ignorant of, endeavoured to discover the Sepulchre of Moses, which God had expressly hid, laying therein only this body, that it might be unknown to all, and might not give occasion to Idolatry; as it happened among Christians, when they began to unbury, to transport, and to worship the relics of Martyrs, and sometimes the relics of thieves and robbers. It is therefore false, that they which received this History as Saint Jude reciteth it; Can not (as he saith) after our Maximus, fol. 11● excuse themselves of superstition in their belief, to give credit to such narrations, which had been wholly fabulous, & full of deceits, if they had come from any other, then from the pure revelation and word of God. I say it is a mere deceit, to say, that we condemn of superstition or deceit▪ all that is not contained in the holy Scripture, as he saith we do: for we abase not the price and estimation of human writings, though we make them not equal to the divine: we acknowledge the gifts of the author of Truth, even in them that have always remained under the tyranny of the father of lies; though more in them that have been translated out of the power of darkness, 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, we receive with praise; that which repugneth it, we reject with leave, and accuse of superstition the belief that is given to such narrations; which cannot have place, in the recital of Saint Jude; in as much as he is an Apostle, having the spirit of the Lord in such a measure, that he neither deceived himself, nor any other in that which the said, or wrote for to be inserted into the Canon of faith. And if we receive now some verses of certain heathen Poets, as the word of God, since they were sanctified by the Apostle; what reason were there, to reject this narration, though it were taken forth of an Apocrypha book, as the Father's thought, seeing that no new doctrine can be drawn from it but that of the Scripture by it is confirmed? It is a necessary point to know, that the Magistrate is ordained of God, that we own him honour and reverence: but know all the particular places, reasons, and testimonies, that may serve to prove this point; is not a thing necessary to know. I showed by the way, what profit the Church of Rome maketh of this tradition of S. Jude; namely, quite contrary to that it containeth: for first of all, it setteth forth all the relics of Saints departed, and suborneth false ones too, for to make the people to commit Idolatry: instead of resisting the devil when he broacheth such inventions as the Archangel did, etc. Secondly, instead of honouring & reverencing the magistrate; the Pope, who calling himself the universal Shepherd of Christian people, should be universal pattern to his flock, causeth his feet to be kissed by Kings, & Emperors, yea trampleth under his feet the greatest dignities of the earth. What saith our Bishop to this? he crieth ignorance against me, 〈◊〉 16. to impute to the Church of Rome, that which from all times hath been practised by the whole Catholic Church, throughout all the world; Item, to make no difference between the relics of Saints, before and after the Incarnation of the Saint of Saints. We thank him for confessing that the Romish Church maketh the people commit idolatry after relics true or false: For to enwrap in the same impiety, all the ancient Church, he quoteth a long list of places of the Fathers, gathering together all their Hyperboles on this matter: all the relics of Paganism, all the indiscreet devotions of the people, with the connivences of the Bishops, brought in with the stream or tide of custom: all the Prosopopoeiacs, Apostrophes, Epiphonema's, and other figures, of which their Panegyrics are full, are unto him, grounds of christian religion, Apostolic traditions, inevitable demonstrations, and indemonstrable principles: for his manner is to handle the Fathers so, as that he bringeth away from them, but the sweeping as it were, far from the industry and wisdom of an heathen, who gathered gold forth of another's dross. Now if I do not verify this by some contrary places taken forth of the same Fathers that he allegeth, he will cry against me, as he did against the Lord of Plessis: that I could not do it; and that if I went about but to quote one only example, the paper would blush an hundred years after. Let us therefore oppose to the place of Gregory of Nysse, which he setteth in the head of his squadron, some places of that excellent Epistle, which this holy Father wrote of purpose, against them that go on Pilgrimage to jerusalem; let us see from which of them we shall draw most instruction, and resolution. They, saith he, which once have dedicated themselves, to a more excellent manner of life; it shall go well with them if they take heed always to the words of the Gospel; and as they that guide their work by a Rule, redress by the straightness of the same, that which before was crooked; so I think it meet, that we address and refer these things to God, applying herein the ordinance of the Gospel, as a Rule straight & unchangeable. Seeing then there be some, that choose a private & solitary life; who think that it is godliness & religion, to have visited the places of jerusalem, wherein are seen the marks of the coming of the Lord in the flesh, the thing goeth well, if we take heed to the Rule itself; to the end that if the commandments carry us thither, we may do this work as an ordinance of the Lord. But if it appear, that it hath been brought in, besides the commandments of the Lord; I know not what this can be, that he which proposeth to himself for a law of good, commandeth another to do. When the Lord calleth the Blessed, for to receive the kingdom of heaven; he reckoneth not among the good works, Math. 2 5 which bring a man thither, going on pilgrimage to jerusalem. When he declareth the true blessedness; Math. ●. he comprehendeth not therein such an employment. Now to what purpose shall a man employ himself in that which neither maketh happy, nor serveth for the kingdom of heaver? He which hath understanding let him consider it. After he representeth at large the inconveniences & dangers, whereinto Pilgrims put themselves; the wickednesses that are committed in the places, esteemed more holy than others: And because himself had traveled thither, he yieldeth a reason of it, namely that his charge had bound him to visit the Church of Arabia, for to reform it; and that he had promised to confer with the Pastors of the Churches of jerusalem, who were troubled and had need of a mediator. Let no man then, saith he, be offended for our example; but let our judgement of it be the more receivable, seeing we give it of the things that we ourselves have seen: For we confessed Christ to be the true God, even 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 we believed his Resurrection, before we saw his Sepulchre; and we confessed his Ascension, without seeing the mount of Olives. Neither have we reaped any other fruits of our voyage, save only this, that by the comparison of the places, we have learned that ours are much more holy, than foreign parts. Wherefore you that fear the Lord, praise him in the places where you are: For change of places, maketh not the Lord nearer; but God will come to thee, so that the house of thy soul be found such, that he may dwell in thee. If thy inward man be full of perverse thoughts, though thou be'st at Golgotha, at the mount of Olives, or under the sepulchre of the resurrection; yet thou shalt receive jesus Christ as little into thee, as they that never made profession of Religion. Therefore my well-beloved, exhort the brethren, to travel from the body to the Lord, not from Cappadocia into Palestine, etc. Let this whole Epistle be compared, with the place cited forth of a panegyric of the same Father, by the Bishop of Euerux; and there is not so blind an Idolater, that seethe not, that in this same he speaketh according to the word of God, which he layeth for the ground of every good action; and according to his judgement and belief: in the other according to the abuse of the time, and according to the testimony, which he suffered, not being able to withstand it, August. a● Lannar. a● civit. l. 10▪ no more than 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, abusively;) saith thus: De vera lig. cap. 55. Let not our Religion be after our own fantasies; for whatsoever truth may be in them, yet our Religion is better far than any thing we can fain of our own heads. And a little after: Let not our Religion be the worshipping of dead men; for if they have lived religiously, they be not such, as that they would desire any such honour; but would have us honour him, by whom being illuminate, they rejoice in that we are servants with them of that which they have obtained. They should therefore be honoured for imitation, not worshipped by religion. De morib● Eccl. Cath● c. 24. He confesseth that there are many Superstitious persons in the true Religion, worshippers of sepulchres and pictures. But in another place he unfoldeth his opinion upon this matter, saying that if we pray well, & as we ought to do, we should say nothing else, Ep. 121. ● Prob. but what is set down in the Lord's prayer: And that whosoever saith, that which cannot be referred to this evangelical prayer, though his prayer be not unlawful, yet is it carnal, which cannot choose but be unlawful, seeing that they who are regenerate by the Spirit, ought only 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 he calleth, worshipping of Angels, heresy. But if Angels, which are ordained of God for our guard, which are the noblest creatures of all, which always stand before the Throne of God: cannot be adored without heresy, after the doctrine of Theodoret, and the determination of the Council of Laodicia: shall we say he thought, that the bones of dead men should be worshipped, what distinction so ever they make, which the people understand as little as the dead bones do? And if Baronius durst here condemn Theodoret, 〈◊〉 Eccl. ●. ad an. ●4. for that he condemned, as Heresy, this superstitious worshipping of Angels: How much more shall it be lawful, to condemn of Idolatry and impiety, them that so seek and press after this abominable worshipping of bones and dead bodies? For Saint Augustine in the place above alleged, will not have men serve, nor adore the heavenly bodies, for this only reason; that though they be rightly preferred before all other bodies, yet life is much better. These heavenly bodies, are not without miracles, which God hath wrought in them, and they do bring more profit to men, and do better declare the glory of God, than doth the dust and ashes of the dead, what miracles soever be done there, 〈◊〉 9.1. of which the true had none other end but to yield testimony to the truth, which the Martyrs had confessed, for to convert the Heathen thereunto, and not turn away Christians from him that is the living God, for to make them worship dead men: for to withdraw the people from the visible Elements, to the knowledge of salvation, manifested in the Scriptures, and not for to draw them to idolatries more than heathenish, 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 under his obedience. Dialog. Gazaei. ●. 5. Pa●●om. 1. Here I summon him again to tell us, on what Apostolic Tradition were and are grounded, the Pirgrimages, adorations, and all those Ceremonies, instituted a long time after the death of the Apostles? What certainty there is concerning the relics which the people worship? By what Registers showed the succession of them that have continued the keeping of them, from father to son? How by the wars and other public calamities, which have lost & abolished so many things, there hath not been lost so much as a comb of the virgin Marie, a clout of the childhood of our Saviour Christ, & ten thousand other such pieces? No not under that horrible spoil and havoc, in the time of Dioclesian, when all the Oratories, and holy places of christians were burned and ruinated, which serveth Baronius for an excuse, and for an ordinary refuge, when he would fain prove a thing by antiquity, and can not. And to come again to the history in question; there is found the very dagger, wherewith St. Michael fought with the Devil, from which Tradition the people learneth, that it is not by faith, nor by spiritual weapons, Ephes. 6. ● wherewith the Scripture armeth us, that we must combat the Devil; but that one must have 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 invade viam, vaginaque eripe ferrum: That it is not in the word, and in the Sacraments, that we must seek Christ, with his spiritual graces, but in some piece of wood, which is said to be a piece of his cross; in some nail, napkin, towel, or other relic! Though Saint Paul say, that he knoweth not jesus according to the flesh, 2. Cor. 5● so far is he off from making reckoning of these pretended Relics. The Scripture teacheth us, that God ordained Death as a curse; as the wages of sin; that dead bodies, bones and graves, were polluted, and did pollute even the living, by their touchings: because they were as so many mirrors of this curse, and of the corruption of human nature, in which the Image of God is so foully disfigured. Moreover, this same legal pollution taught the Israelites, by figure, that which the Apostles under the Gospel taught clearly; namely, that we should carefully keep ourselves from dead works, which are also called works of the flesh, and to maintain ourselves pure and holy: the pretended tradition on the contrary, teacheth, that there is no other purity nor holiness, but in stirring, kissing, gild, & adoring of dead bodies: and whereas the law particularly forbade Priests to touch dead bodies: 〈◊〉 22. there is no sort of people now adays, that so busy themselves in funerals, and in handling of bones and relics, than the Priests, who feed upon dead bodies, like Ravens & Vultures, and in the mean while brag they were figured by the Levitical Priests, whom they care for as little as for jesus Christ when he saith, Let the dead bury the dead: unless it be, that they obey him, in this that being more dead, than living, they will have no other affairs but with the dead, having no hope of the true life: and this is the reason why in their altars, whereupon they sacrifice and crucify, as much as in them is, jesus Christ, who is that life; they must have the bones and ashes of the dead; to the end that as well they as their altars, with which they live, might lively represent unto us, the possessed with unclean spirits, 〈◊〉. 8. ●5. of whom the Gospel speaketh, with the graves, in which they dwelled. Now we learn well enough by the Scripture, without the help of any tradition, that the legal pollution, that came by touching dead bodies, is abolished by the Incarnation of our Saviour Christ: but that they should be worshipped and adored, with so much superstition and Idolatry, after this incarnation; there is in it neither precept of it, nor example: though we read in it the death and burial of Saint john Baptist, of Saint Steven and others: on the contrary, this distinction of relics before and after the Incarnation, is repugnant to the Scripture, and destroyeth itself: First of all; the holy persons, which died in the faith of the Messias, were freed as well from the curse of the law, as they that are dead since the preaching of the Gospel; and therefore God vouchsafed himself to bury the body of Moses; 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 David sung of his time. Moreover the bones of Helizeus, raising up a dead body, 2. King● wrought one of the greatest mjracles that is, and therefore his body we should well believe to be freed from the slavery of Satan, whose slave as then, all human nature was, if we believe the Bishop of Eureux; not knowing or feigning not to know, that jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, Heb 13● Revel. 1● 1. Pet. 2● and to day; That the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, did always wash and sanctify the faithful by his blood: And the Ceremonial pollution might well be done away, by this extraordinary testimony, that God rendered to his Prophet after his death, notwithstanding the inclination that this people had then to Idolatry: yet did they never abandon themselves to such brutishness, as to worship bones and ashes; only the Egyptians were capable of this madness, who for to heal themselves of the bitings of Serpents, worshipped the Sepulchre of jeremiah, that was stoned to death in that Country; an adoration worthy of them, that worshipped all sorts of herbs, beasts, fishes, and monsters. Secondly, whereas according to the Doctors of the Romish Church, the souls of the Fathers of the old Testament went into Limbo, which they say to be a place without pain; They send the souls of the faithful after the incarnation of Christ, into Purgatory, there to suffer the very same torments as are in Hell, save that they last not; whence may be inferred, that the human nature is more polluted now at this day, than it was in old time; and that since the time that the blood of jesus Christ was really shed on the Cross, and all the mystery of our redemption actually accomplished, there is found therein less virtue and efficacy to purify them, than was before. Thirdly, I demand, why the patriarchs, since they were freed from that servitude of Satan, are not called upon in the Romish Church? Or if all those that died before the incarnation of Christ, have remained the slaves of Satan; why did the Emperor Arcadius give the same honour to the bones of Samuel, Lector. Niceph. ●. 10. ●ont. making them be transported from judea 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 even Bishops, to bear the Shrine? Why doth Saint Ambrose, in the place cited by our Bishop, allege sentences out of the old Testament, which speak of the care, which God had of them that deceased in that time, for to prove the worshipping of the Relics of the Saints, deceased under the new testament, if the difference be so great between the one and the other? Why doth S. Hierom confound the Relics of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, with the body of Moses? ●ig. & 〈◊〉 Sanct. 3. To conclude, why doth Bellarmine conclude, by the miracle wrought by Helizeus, that God would have them be worshipped? What becometh here of the difference between the abominable and polluted carrions, vessels of filthiness and uncleanness, organs & instruments of Satan, so du Perron calleth the bodies of the ancient Saints; 〈◊〉 20 p. 2. and between 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 over the devil and hell, by their martyrdom: But jesus Christ, to whom alone belongeth this glory, to have vanquished the Devil and Hell, by his martyrdom, must as well (with him) be spoiled of his title, for to invest therewith the bones of the dead; as the Scripture of his perfection, for to invest therewith Tradition; which in stead of a word or two, that the Scripture teacheth, concerning the combat of the Angel against the devil, for the body of Moses; reciteth unto us very amply the combat of S. Denis, Annal. Franc. 〈◊〉 of S. D● and of some other Saints, against the devil, for the soul of King Dagobert, which they plucked from him, for that this king had been greatly devoted to the said saint, robbing others, to enrich him. Also it telleth us the good turn Saint Laurence did to the Emperor Henry; how that after his death, Alb●r 〈◊〉 histor. S. ●. 1. c. 36● the Angel Michael balanced his merits against his sins; the Devil being ready to seize on the soul as his own, because it was found too light by a grain of merit: the good Saint, subtly cast into the Scale where the merits were, a gold Chalice; (note, that our Bishop's grains were not grained in those days) for to make it weigh down. Yea, it assureth us by the mouth of a Pope, that can not lie, Greg. d● l. 3. c. 12. nor err; That silly Priests have done as much or more wonders, than the Scripture reciteth of the Archangel; causing the souls of them that were already dead, and carried away of Devils, to come again; yea, employing in this Commission the Angels themselves, as Sergeants to bring them back again, and represent them. And with such foppish tales of their Tradition, as well absolute, as subsidiary, one might make great volumes. It sufficeth to note herein a word; that all that which both the Traditions tell us of Saint Michael; is borrowed from the Fables, which the heathen Poets have feigned of their Mercury; whose wings, sword, balance, (for after Diodorus, Mercury is the inventor of weights and measures) and almost all his office, it seemeth, that the Priest's Saint Michael hath inherited. I said, That the Popes gave licence to themselves to tread under feet the greatest dignities of the earth, of kings & emperors, which those against whom S. Jude speaketh in his Epist. never did: to which he answeth, that the Greeks' interpret this word (Dignities) in this place, not of secular dignities, but of Ecclesiastical, and confer this place with that of the third Epistle of S. john, where he complaineth of the insolency of Diotrephes: And thereupon he addeth, that it is for me to bethink myself, how to acquit me of this Article, etc. Oecumenius, from whom he taketh his conjecture, understandeth by this word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Dignities) the old and new Testament, 〈◊〉 3. ●5, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which interpretation, he confirmeth by the place of Saint Paul, where he saith, If that which is abolished, was full of glory, or dignity, 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. Jude pronounceth, are to fall upon their heads, that blaspheme the Scripture of unsufficiency and imperfection, that is, which blaspheme the old and new Testament. Let him see if his mitre be of proof against these Apostolical fulminations, which are of another manner of temper, than those of his jupiter Vatican. For to divert himself from these irksome thoughts, he gathereth certain flowers out of Luther's book against king Henry the eight, and thinketh to cover therewith all the indignity & outrage, that ever the most impudent Pope or Monk, did to Prince or Emperor; either to tread them under-feets, as was the Emperor Frederick the first. Or to poison them, as was the Emperor Henry the seventh. Or to chain them and tie them like Dogs under their tables, as a Duke of Venice was used; Or to canonize for saints the Parricides or murderers of them, 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 and ●●●le trehalose hel●●custs ●ere ●o exe● as of late were the murderers of Henry the third king of France, and William of Nassaw Prince of Orange: Or to stir up daily against them new Parricides and murderers, as they often did against the late Queen of blessed memory, Elizabeth; which the most shameless calumniator cannot reproach Luther, so much as to have thought of; Or to raise and invent new leagues and seditions, for to overflow all Christendom with blood, etc. Of all these goodly practices of the Apostolic tradition, not of Saint Jude the servant of Christ, but of judas, the betrayer of Christ; the Bishop of Eureux esteemeth, that the Church of Rome is not tied to yield an account: For, saith he, it is not to you, fol. 132. that she is to answer for her actions in this regard. O insoluble Argument, and inevitable demonstration, worthy the expected hat, which such an Advocate hath reason to demand, that it may blush for him. There remaineth the last Instance, taken out of the same Epistle, touching the Prophecy of Henoch, whereof mention hath been made above, & the reason, declared why the Apostle proveth not by scripture, the point in question, namely, because they, whom he describeth in this Epistle, as manifest contemners of jesus Christ; would have made as little account of the Scripture; so that it was more to purpose, to allege a judgement, described & witnessed even by the heathen; for these profane persons, having some remnant of shame left in them, could not have denied and rejected, that which was confessed and acknowledged, as well by strangers as by them of the Church. Now it hath been often said unto him, that none of his Instances is receivable, for to show the imperfection of the Scripture, unless he bring forth Instances upon some points necessary to salvation, whereof is not found any proof in the Scripture. It hath been showed him above, that this Article of the universal judgement, is found in Moses, and by measure as the light of the world approached and drew near, the doctrine, as well of this Article, as of all others, hath been more clearly expressed, though the contentious never see this light. A blindman seethe as little the light and brightness of the Sun at noonday, as that of the morning star: It is not for the contentious but against them, that the Scripture is written; & those spirits that seek issue of all the proofs of the same, shall in the end find entrance into hell: To such Spirits we say, that which the Scripture teacheth: If any lust to be contentions, we have no such custom, 〈◊〉. 11.16 ●39. neither the churches of God. But at least saith he, though there should be nothing like to it expressed in the Scripture, or that the books that contained something of it were lost, as divers other writings of the Prophets; yet this Oracle would not have lost her authority, 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 than any thing in the world; For than they would make us believe goodly matters, seeing that notwithstanding this light of the Scripture, more resplendent now, than it hath been these many ages before; they would without blushing persuade us, that their grains, Pictures▪ and other like fopperies, are means for to attain to salvation are helps of the blood of jesus Christ, as well as their Traditions are supplies of the Scripture. But if Bellarmine speaking of what was to be done, council. lib. 〈◊〉. for the election of a Pope; if in case all the Cardinals should perish at once; affirmeth, that it is unlikely ever to happen: Truly we have more reason to hope and firmly to believe that jesus Christ, who as the Bridegroom, hath joined to himself the Church with an indessoluble band, will preserve for her also the contract of marriage, the Indenture of the Covenant, more necessary to the Church, than the Cardinals to the conclave: And so, as that Antichrist with all his wiles & endeavours, shall never be able to abolish it, no more than could in times past, his predecessor, or his figure King Antiochus. The bishop of Eureux by this hypothesis, doth he not confess, that if the Church, which ought to be the guardian of the Scriptures, should lose them; it should err greatly? And if Saint john pronounceth so fearful a curse against those that add thereunto, or dimish therefrom; what should become of them, who having charge to keep it, should let it wholly be lost, and should imagine nevertherlesse. that they cannot err? But when all the rest should be lost. by what special privilege, should this Epistle of Saint Jude be saved, which by reason of the shortness of it, might be lost with the first? As for the writings of the Prophets, that have been lost, when he hath answered the place of Saint Augustine, above alleged; we shall see what shall be meet to reply thereto. Aug. de ci● Dei. l. 18. In the mean while he persisteth in his trifling impertinences, to allege unto us still the authority of our Doctors, who do not always agree in the exposition of all places, though they always agree in the doctrine of all the points of Salvation: That were good, if we held them in the same degree, as they of his Church do their Popes; all whose Expositions notwithstanding, they do not always receive without exception, but are constrained to shift them off by this distinction: That they speak sometimes as Popes, and sometimes as Doctors, and that in the latter quality they may be deceived in doctrine; That is to say, it is then, they deceive themselves most, when they assay to perform some part of their Office, that is, to teach; yea, were they Apostles. Now I demand of our Bishop, whether he had rather condemn Cardinal Bellarmine, who holdeth with Saint Hierome, Saint Augustine and all Antiquity; De verbo 〈◊〉 l. 8. c. 18. that this allegation of Saint Jude, was taken from an Apocrypha book, (which moved many of the Ancients, to reject this Epistle out of the Canon, as also doth Cardinal Caitan: than alone to maintain, that it cometh from some other principle of faith, and word of God, for to retain this wretched pretext, to calumniate the Scripture of Imperfection, and unsufficiency? He reproacheth me that I understand not this maxim; Singularium non est scientia; saying, that it is not true, but in respect of human sciences, 〈◊〉 40. not of Divinity, wherein particular things may come in as the object of the same, seeing that the most part of the Articles it teacheth, are particular points; as the Nativity, death, and whatsoever we believe else of the humanity of Christ, etc. But doth it follow therefore, that we ought or that we can know every particular thing, said, or done, concerning every one of these particular points; seeing the world itself were not able to contain them, as Saint john saith? 〈◊〉. 21. Now he understood well enough, in what sense I alleged this School Maxim: but he could not lose occasion of cavilling upon the difference of Singularium & Singulorun, not considering the jerk he giveth his Master Thomas Aquinas, who in the beginning of his Summa, taketh these two terms indifferently: 〈◊〉. 1. ●. And one that hath as much leisure as he might show him, that he understandeth not so much cunning in Philosophy, as he maketh show of, when he saith, that natural discourse cannot apprehended necessarily & infallably, any particular or singular proposition: For if that be true, the understanding knoweth not it own action, when it reasoneth or discourseth, which is ever of a particular thing: and cannot compare the universal with the singular, neither make abstraction of the one from the other, if it know not both the one and the other; nor discern 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 john, which we are wont to allege, for the sufficiency of the Scripture; He answereth. 〈◊〉. 20, 31. ●142. 1. That it is not in any sort spoken there of the doctrine, but of the signs, neither of the sufficiency of instruction, but of the efficacy of persuasion. 2. That though they pronounce (haec) should comprehend all that Saint john wrote, the argument would be much worse; for than should not be spoken, in any sort, of the sufficiency of the things written; but only of the end wherefore they are written. To this I say, that we deny not, that this pronoun (haec) is understood of the miracles, of which Saint john speaketh in the verse going afore. But we maintain that it cannot be with such a restriction to miracles, as inferreth an exclusion of doctrine; for as much as this word (Miracle) being a Relative, cannot be understood, but by his Correlative which is doctrine: For miracles are the signs and seals of Doctrine. Therefore Analogy or proportion requireth, that though Saint john had said at length, (haec signa) yet nevertheless therein is jointly also meant doctrine, of which they were signs; by reason of the perpetual and necessary relation of the one to the other: and therefore if the miracles or signs whereof he speaketh be sufficient; the doctrine is so also, which is sealed and confirmed by those miracles. And therefore these means are not of so different kinds as our Bishop saith, And seeing he granteth that the Scripture containeth sufficiently the signs or miracles, for to persuade us with efficacy, all that is needful to life eternal; he must needs grant also, that it containeth sufficiently also the doctrine, which is the thing signified; seeing that Corralatives concur in the definition of their Relatives, and cannot be understood the one without the other. Furthermore, we believe, that whosoever is effectually persuaded, is sufficiently instructed, in the knowledge of salvation; which consisteth not in evident demonstration, which the understanding of the natural man comprehendeth, for there be some that are sufficiently instructed, that understand all points of doctrine, and are able to discourse of it with admiration to the hearers, who notwithstanding are not effectually persuaded, but remain Epicures and Atheists within. In a word, the difference he putteth between Sufficiency, and Efficacy, can be none other, but that which the Philosophers put between that they call Actum primum, & Actum secundum: habitude, and operation, or actual exercise. What fond subtlety is this then, to grant that which is greater, namely; effectual persuasion, (that is to say, to salvation, otherwise it were no efficacy) and to deny the sufficient instruction, which is lesser every way? To end this controversy, I offer him an Arbitrer, which he cannot honestly refuse, though it were in quality of a judge; I mean Cardinal Baronius, whose words are these: Saint john having recited these things, 〈◊〉. tom. 1. ●●r: 34. ●10: finisheth his Gospel, omitting, as himself testifieth, many things: For that which he wrote, seemed unto him, to suffice, as well for to establish the TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL, as for to REPROVE HERESIES, for which causes Saint Hierome and others do witness, that he took in hand to write this Gospel: Doth the evangelical truth contain miracles only? The Sermons of Christ, his expositions of the Law, and confutations of the opinions of the pharisees, which the Evangelists recite of him; and in a word, all his doctrine which they set down, are they things contrary, or not belonging to the truth of the Gospel? Hence is apparent, that our Bishop's modification, wherewith he endeavoureth still to cloak his blasphemy of insufficiency, in restraining it to the confutation of Heresies, first is vain and fraudulent; for as much as he is constrained to confess, that many points necessary for the simplest lay-man, are not contained in the Scripture, and notwithstanding, a simple lay-man is not bound, to be able to confute all Heresies: Secondly, it is disproved manifestly by the decision of Cardinal Baronius, who declareth the Scripture to be sufficient, even for to confute Heresies, and putteth in our hands this Argument for to overthrow his two first Episcopal answers: that which seemed sufficient to Saint john, for to establish the truth of the Gospel, and to confute Heretics; containeth a simple and absolute sufficiency for the matters of our salvation: But the writings of the Gospel, seemed such unto Saint john: therefore they contained a simple and absolute sufficiency for the matters of our salvation. His third answer is; That though Saint john should speak of the sufficiency of that which he wrote, yet should that be referred to one Article only, which is, to make us believe that jesus is that Christ. And whereas it is replied unto him, that it is the Epitome, and substance of the Articles necessary to salvation: he hath recourse to his distinction of Mediate and Immediate sufficiency so industriously set down at the beginning of his Book, In the ●●cation 〈◊〉 title. and by us examined and confuted in a Treatise by itself: yet distrusting the force of this distinction, he addeth another, distinguishing sufficiency into Authoritative and doctrinal, and depriving the Scripture of the latter, fol. 14● of favour granteth it the first. Let us note herein two frauds; the first in that he presupposeth, that St. john spoke but of that, which he himself only had written; in stead of referring his words to all the evangelical history, written before by the other three Evangelists: St. john's scope in his writings, as all the fathers do witness, being only to make a supply, for a more express declaration of the Godhead of the son of God, because of the Heretics, that then denied it: and to confirm and seal by his testimony, Tert. d● c. 17. Hier. d● Ecl in and Apostolic authority the Canonical books of the new Testament, because of certain writings supposed and attributed to Saint Paul, by some of his Disciples and followers themselves. Whereunto hath relation that horrible threatening, which he set as a heavenly seal, to his book of the Revelation, for a shutting up of the new Testament. The other fraud is to dispute, in what sense this proposition is sufficient, or not: as if neither Saint john, nor all the other Writers of the new Testament, had written any thing else but these words only: jesus is that Christ, that Son of God, without adding any other proof or explication, without any other History, or doctrine whatsoever: a fraud most necessary for his desperate Cause, giving him occasion in appearance, to heap up a great number of words to fill up paper, or rather dust to cast into men's eyes. If so many things, as the Evangelists do write, contain not the means for to prove this proposition, and for to show plainly what Christ is; to wit, his two natures, and his three Offices; to what use serve they then? how can a thing so unsufficient in itself, make us have eternal life? If they contain but a part of the means and necessary proofs, what reason was there, to set down only that part and to omit the principal? What reason was there, to make so many books, and to fill them with matters, which (to set forth our Bishop's opinion in one word,) serveth to no use at all, seeing that even that which is written cannot be understood, without his subsidiary Tradition? could any more shamefully defame the apostles and Evangelists? these Notaries and Secretaries of the holy Ghost, than in accusing them so manifestly of disloyalty in their charge, of having suppressed and eclipsed essential and principal clauses in this instrument, which they have framed and left, for to serve for the perpetual canon or rule to the christian Church? An accusation, that cannot redound, but upon the holy-Ghost himself, by whose instinct and inspiration, they wrote, that which they wrote, for to serve to that end and use. Let us conclude then, that this distinction: Authoritative not Doctrinal; is false and blasphemous, leaving to the sacred Scripture no other title, but of a Letter of credit, but of a memorial, or direction, as he himself saith, without containing the doctrine in itself, but in another: which is in effect, to despoil it as well of authority, as of doctrine, for to invest the Pope with both in attributing unto him authority to teach whatsoever doctrine he listeth; seeing they leave Christians neither balance nor touchstone to prove it, after they have defamed the Scripture, whereby the men of Beroea, examined even the doctrine of an Apostle, yea, Act. 17, ● & that only by the scripture of the old Testament, wherein they found sufficiency of doctrine, as well as of authority, for to judge thereof: Indeed the law is called by the Hebrews (Thora) that is to say, doctrine: & the Gospel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth the same thing: But after the Doctrine of du Perro, it is a doctrine not doctrinal, as the blood of the Mass, is a blood, not bloody; that is to say, a Pyrrhonian doctrine. Yet at the worst, though we should even admit this fond, false and outrageous distinction, & that all the Scripture, were nothing else but a letter or credit, or as he saith, A memorial, containing directions and tokens for to find a Physician, which is able to declare to every on●, Fol. 14● all the necessary remedies to cure his malady: Yet he should get nothing for his Pope, nor for all his representative Church. For if a man look well into this memorial, if he take all the directions & observe well the tokens, that it containeth, he shall not find therein one only iota, that directeth him to that magnifical Roman Hierarchy, for which only our Advocate pleadeth. If the Scripture did direct sick persons to the Pope, as to the Sovereign Physician, only healing all diseases; then should these be the marks or tokens, that it should give of him: An Idol, beset with gold and precious stones, set upon a high Throne, with three crowns upon his head, a guilded Pantofle on his foot which he giveth Kings and Emperors to kiss, being prostrate before him: Cardinals round about him with red hats, and scarlet robes, representing the Senate of the ancient Rome: Many Bishops and archbishops, mitred, in copes and robes, and betrapped, as the subject of the Comedy requireth: Innumerable legions of Priests, Curates, Monks, Friars and Canons, diversified with sundry liveries, and dispersed as in Garrison, through all the provinces of the Empire of that Beast. Indeed we find, ●●al. 17. that the Scripture lively prescribeth a certain woman clothed in purple and scarlet, bedecked with gold and precious stones, which it calleth great Babylon, the mother of the whoredoms and abominations of the earth, drunken with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs of jesus Christ. And this is the Physician, to whom du Perrón, as one of his Apothecaries, directeth us, for the healing of all our diseases; 〈◊〉. 13. because it is written; Who-whosoever 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 labours; 〈◊〉. 14.13. than those that drink in the cup, wherewith this Physician or rather Magician, drencheth such as direct themselves unto him. Now that which hath been said, touching the text of S. john, sufficeth also for to understand the expositions of S. Augustine, S. Cyrill: the Bishop of Eureux bestirreth himself, & heapeth up many words without matter, for to make them to be understood of miracles, which is a thing not denied; the knot of the question being, whether it be with a restriction to miracles only, and a total exclusion of Doctrine: This is it, that we deny him, & this is it, that repugneth even common reason to speak of a sign so far forth as it is a sign, without referring it to the thing signified; of a relative without considering his correlative: that is to say, to speak of the nature & Essence of a thing, without considering the nature and Essence of the same. Therefore without using many words as he doth; do but observe these words of S. Cyril: he declareth the intention of the Gospel, as if he would rehearse, In joh. lib. C. 61. that which he wrote; For I have published these things saith he, that you might believe, and that in believing you might have life eternal. etc. And a little after. If the power of the Gospel, and the greatness of the miracles, be sufficient to persuade, that the Son of the Virgin, who was called jesus, by the voice of the Angel; is the same which the Scripture calleth Christ, and who is the Son of God, not as others, but properly, and after a singular manner, even after he was united to the humane nature; it is certain that they do err, which dare deny their Lord. Whence it manifestly appeareth, that after his opinion, Saint john spoke not of miracles only, but also of the Doctrine and force of the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation to all that believe, Rom. 1. ● from which force and power, if any separate and exclude Doctrine, he hath more need of Hellebore, than he is capable of Doctrine. And therefore it were our Bishop's part to show, how miracles only without Doctrine, can be sufficient, as well for manners, as for Doctrine, which is the sufficyencie, that Saint Cyrill attributeth unto them in the place which himself citeth, but with cutting off this that followeth; To the end that shining in a right faith, Fol. 157. works and virtue, we may attain to the Kingdom of heaven, through our Lord jesus Christ. Effects, which no miracles can ever bring forth alone, without Doctrine. But here is the most important point of the question: He saith, Though S. Augustin and S. Cyril should speak not of miracles only, but should say in express words, Fol. 158. that the Evangelists have written sufficiently, whatsoever is necessary for us to know of the deeds and sayings of our Saviour Christ, for our Salvation; Nevertheless it would not follow, that the things only, that Christ either did, or taught with his own mouth, to his Disciples, are sufficient for the instruction of the Church. etc. And for proof of this his resolution, he allegeth this saying of Christ. I have yet many things to tell you which you cannot bear now. 〈…〉 97 A place, which as S. Augustine saith, the grossest Heretics were wont to abuse, for to colour all their most abominable inventions. But see here the impudency of our Bishop, who not content to blame the Scripture of unsufficiency and imperfection; spiteth his filthy blasphemies in the face of Jesus Christ himself, blasoning him to have no more taught sufficiently by word of mouth his Apostles, than his Apostles have taught Posterity by their writings: At least if the lie he giveth the Son of God, be somewhat covered in court-phrase, which he braggeth he can speak so well; yet is it without courtesy, and without figure of Rhetoric, that he giveth the lie to this affirmation of the truth itself: I have declared unto you all things that I have heard of my Father: 〈◊〉 15.15 Whence it would follow, that the heavenly Father himself, hath not perfectly, nor sufficiently instructed his son, the Eternal wisdom. Now to agree these two propositions; (john 15.15. and 16.12.) we need not have recourse to that enallage of the time, 〈◊〉 joan. 〈◊〉 ●6. as some of the Fathers have, under colour that the Scripture speaketh sometime of things 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, when our Saviour saith, that his Disciples could not bear, that which he had to tell them; he hath respect to the sadness & sorrow, which they were full of, as appeareth by the 22. verse, they remembered not what had been already told them, & were little disposed, to make their profit, of what they then presently heard, for to prepare themselves to their charge. And what? If Jesus Christ had hid from the Apostles themselves, some necessary points; how much more should he have hid them from the other Disciples, and Auditors of the common people? of which consequently none could have been saved, 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 reveal to the Apostles, of which jesus Christ had never spoken unto 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 remembrance all things that I have said unto you: shall be of no more weight with our Bishop than the other, for to make him confess, that the holy Ghost taught no other doctrine than that which the Disciples had already heard of their master, though they had not well remembered, nor understood all; for he had rather that the blame should remain on our Lord Christ, to have taught but by halves; then on the disciples, for not learning all well: though with all that he should get nothing for his Cabbala unwritten, or written in fabulous Books, at leastwise if he receive this sentence of Saint Augustine, cited and approved by his master Thomas Aquinas. Whatsoever jesus Christ would that we should read, of his deeds and sayings; he commanded his Disciples to write, as with his own hands. To what purpose then is it to seek that which is written elsewhere by others, though it were a true thing; seeing that Christ will not have us to read it? And how much less that which is written in the golden Legend, in the Books de vita Christi, or other such fables? He saith that Saint Augustine will have us acknowledge many things in the writings of the Apostles, which our Saviour Christ never told them, whilst he corporally conversed with them, as among others this excellent doctrine; That there is in God a word Escentiall and subsisting, by which all things were created. Behold a notable untruth! The words of Saint Augustine are these: In joh. ● 96. Who is so vain and rash, that though he should speak true things as he listeth, and to whom he will; dare affirm, without any divine testimony, that they are the things which the Lord would not tell? Who among us shall do it, without incurring a most great fault of rashness, he excelling neither in Prophetical, nor Apostolical authority? For in very truth, if we had read something, in the Books confirmed by Canonical authouritie, which were written after Christ's ascension, it were to little purpose to have read it, unless one read therewithal, that it was of the number of the things, which the Lord would not tell then to his Disciples, because they could not bear it: as for example if I said, that this which we read in the beginning of this Gospel; In the beginning was the word, and the word was God, etc. Because this was written afterwards, and is not recorded that our Lord said i●, whilst he was here in the fl●sh, but one of his Apostles wrote it; Christ and his Spirit revealing it unto h●m: is of the number of those things, which the Lord would not say then, because that the Disciples could not bear them: who would hear me, saying that so rashly? Thus you see Saint Augustine protesteth, that he should incur the fault of rashness, if he affirmed the thing which the Bishop of Eureux maintaineth, that he affirmeth. Which is made manifest by these words, which this holy Father addeth in the same place a little after. Wherefore my well-beloved, think not to hear of me the things, which the Lord would not then tell his Disciples. And in the Treatise following, he unfoldeth at large this word (bear:) showing, how one and the same thing, pronounced before one and the same auditory, at one same time, is well understood of some, and ill of others; yea is understood of some, and of others not; because he that understandeth amiss, understandeth not at all: and of them that understand it, some understand it less, some more; and no man so well as the Angels; 〈◊〉. 13.9. because all men understand but in part. Besides this untruth, it is to be noted, that the Bishop of Eureux, committeth the same Sophism he imputeth to me; in taking our Saviour Christ's words, simply and absolutely, which are said, Sec●●●undum quid, as we say; that is, for a certain respect, namely of the present sadness 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 feign in wrap me in contradiction, because I said in a place; That the old Testament contained the Gospel, or Christian doctrine: And in another, Fol. 16● I say, that the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, contained all the Christian doctrine; and that for this cause, Saint Paul exhorteth them, to observe not only that which he wrote unto 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 observation of the Tradition not written. I answer, that neither doth the sufficiency of the old Testament, nor that of the new, abolish or hinder the ministery of preaching: neither do general laws and ordinances take away particular Expositions and applications: neither doth the substance of the Gospel contained in the old Testament, Rom. 1● as Saint Paul witnesseth, hinder a more ample revelation in the new: Nor doth the sufficient declaration of all the Alticles of faith, exclude the ordinances which concern policy, and the exterior order of the Church. Considering that one may say, that though there had been already 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 known, nor come into every 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 do in an evil cause; by evil Logic, in an evil conscience, which he here discovereth, as through all the rest of his Book. To conclude, the question is, whether from this place; observe the Traditions, which you have received of us, whether it be by word, or by our Epistle: One may conclude. 1. That the written word is not sufficient to Salvation. 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 answer, no: because though the Doctrine, that Saint Paul delivered by word of mouth to each particular Church, were more ample than that which is contained in each Epistle directed to these particular Churches; yet doth it not follow 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 us, who may see in other parts of the Scripture, that which is not contained in one. To the second I say, the Bishop of Eureux again confoundeth the prediction of a thing to come, with Articles of faith: that is to say, History with Doctrine. To the third I say, that this same History, touching Antichrist is found written, though not in this same Epistle, nor by this same Author; but by S. john in the Revelation. These three words do unmix the Cahos of words he had heaped together. Let the Reader note by the way, that in this Bishop's judgement, To yield thanks unto God, for that he hath chosen us to Salvation, 〈◊〉 68 in sanctification of the spirit, and in the faith of truth. etc. is not a Doctrine propounded to observe. Let us see his last argument taken from the place where Saint Paul recommendeth to Timothy, ●●m. 1.13. 〈◊〉 2. to keep the true pattern of wholesome words, 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 been superfluous, 〈◊〉 170. and unprofitable, if Timothy had heard nothing of Saint Paul, which could not be verified by the Scripture alone. I alleged the exposition of Tertullian, who observeth that the Apostle saith expressly (these things:) Tert. de p●●script. that none imagine him to speak of any unwritten Doctrine; but that they should refer it to the same Doctrine, which he had set down in writing. He replieth that this place of Tertullian is wrested without showing by the least syllable, how, or wherein? Neither can he with all his sophistry: For it is the proper exposition of the same place of the Apostle whereof he treateth; and the proper refutation of this gloze of our Bishop, before invented by the Heretics, that were in Tertullians' time. But seeing this father is not to his relish, let us present him Saint Ambrose, who expoundeth it thus: The Apostle willeth, that he commit the secrets to faithful 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 sum: That Timothy, as having the charge of an Evangelist, should take heed whom he chose for the teaching of the Gospel, Rom. 1● 1. Cor. 1● Eph. 1. 9● 3.4. which the Apostle in divers places calleth mystery, or secret. The Bishop of Eureux opposeth to the verification by scripture, the attestation of witnesses, as if they were things incompatible that cannot stand together; as if a thing witnessed by them that heard S. Paul speak, could not be verified by them that read his writings. As for the Pattern of wholesome words; if he oppose it also to the scripture; What will follow of it, but that the words of the scripture, are not wholesome words? and I willingly confess, that they be deadly, & the savour of death to all Blasphemers. We need but represent his enthimenia in form, for to show the deformity of it: Saint Paul referred Timothy to the wholesome words he had heard of him: Ergo, he referred him not to them he had written: Notwithstanding that in another place he 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 Salvation, & perfectly instructed unto every good work. He answereth to this last place; That they may instruct him to salvation, not immediately and by themselves; but by means of the faith and belief they g●ue him in Jesus Christ; not by the internal fullness of their doctrine; but by the direction, and sending to an outward supply, namely to Christ, and by Christ, to his Disciples. Or else; that they may instruct him in this special poin●; that salvation is by faith in Christ jesus: For Saint Paul speaketh but of the Scriptures of the old Testament, etc. This is ever the burden of his song; That the Scripture hath no other sufficiency, than a Letter of credit. To confute these impertinencies as often as he bringeth them; were to go about to make them be found less impertinent. We need but look into the sixteenth verse following, to know what sufficiency the Apostle attributeth unto it, which he doth so particularly, so exactly, and so clearly; that there is no brain so credulous, or so blockish, that can believe the bearer of this fond distinction; seeing how the internal fullness of the Scripture is represented therein, with the right use thereof, which consisteth in teaching the true doctrine, ●●m. 3.16. in confuting the false; in instructing us in good works, and in reproving and correcting the evil; That the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect unto all good works. Let us confer this Text with the Perronian gloze: The Scripture is given only to serve us for a memorial, a Letter of credence, a direction to outward supplies, namely to jesus Christ, and by him to his Disciples. That is to say, every one to his Curate: And it is but for this only reason, that he maketh mention of jesus Christ: For how else should it direct men unto Christ, seeing he teacheth no more with his own mouth as he did when he was conversant upon earth? And though he should still immediately teach on earth, should we receive sufficient instruction from him? No truly if we believe this Bishop, 〈◊〉 48. who boldly maintaineth that the things alone, which he did, or declared with his own mouth to his disciples, are not sufficient for the instruction of the Church. Add; nor free from Error, and by consequent of correction, as the Council of Constance could well show him, Con, Const. Sess. 13. terming it rashness and presumption, to teach that Christian people should observe, that which jesus Christ hath instituted; namely, to communicate the lords Supper in both kinds. Now I summon him to show how it can be that the Scripture serveth us for a Letter of credence, for a memorial, or direction to direct us to the pretended Church; since that he and all our adversaries maintain, that it is for that Church to show us, and to authorize the Scripture, which without this testimony should have no more authority, nor credit, than Aesop's Fables? What preposterous Method is this, that giveth the Letter of credence to the bearer, that should receive it of him? What can be more ridiculous? Can we have a more manifest proof for to show, that his principal purpose is, to make the Scripture unprofitable, and to bring it wholly to nothing? Distrusting himself to be able to sustain this same impertinency, he hath recourse to another shift, and saith, That Saint Paul meaneth, Fol. 172. that the holy Letters, are able to instruct Timothy to this special point, that salvation is by faith in Christ jesus. This gloze, as already hath been observed, is overthrown by the two verses following, which represent the inward amplitude and fullness of the scripture, as well for doctrine as for manners. True it is that this point is the substance of the whole gospel; seeing that whosoever believeth, & hath faith in jesus Christ, hath life eternal, & shall not come into judgement, but hath passed from death unto life. And if the scripture did but barely propound this sentence only, john. 3.24. without expounding it, without declaring the causes, conditions, proprieties & effects of this faith; they would be some appearance to put forth this distinction, of Mediate and Immediate; which in this case is as receivable as it is fond and blasphemous in that ample description of the end, use, and whole office of the Scripture, which this place setteth forth unto us. And who will be so senseless to maintain, that the Scripture is not fit to do the office, nor to attain to the end, whereunto God who inspired it, hath ordained it? Is it because it speaketh not of blessed grains and such like trinkets: But Saint Paul saith he, speaketh here of the Scriptures of the old Testament, for it was them that Timothy had learned from his childhood, at which time, there was nothing of the new Testament written: And these Scriptures of the old Testament could not instruct Timothy immediately, and by themselves. I answer, that the Apostle speaking of the childhood of Timothy, excludeth not the rest of his age; but showeth that he speaketh of the whole time of his life, until then: So speaking of the Scriptures of the old Testament, he excludeth not them of the new; for this term, Holy Scriptures, is general; And to go about to exclude necessarily a Species, after the position of the Genus; is but bad arguing: To go about to take away the name of holy Scriptures, from these two Epistles, which Saint Paul had then written to Timothy, and which at the least Timothy had read, besides the other writings of the new Testament, which perhaps he had also seen; is to commit blasphemy. But there needeth none other confutation of such Arguments, but the representation of their form. Saint Paul maketh mention of the study that Timothy made in his youth: Ergo he speaketh nothing at all of his studies made since. Item, Saint Paul saith, that Timothy learned the holy Scriptures: Ergo, he meaneth only the writings of the old Testament. And by consequent he meaneth not, that he should learn 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 him, how he should walk in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, 1. T●m. 3. the pillar and foundation of truth. Whereas I said, that the Romish Church, causeth an infinite number of things to be observed, as the laws of God, which we know by their own histories to have been instituted, many ages after the Apostles: he answereth two things. 1 That the practice of certain points, is found have been in the Church a long time before them, which we imagine to be the inventors of it (whereof he coteth afterwards seven 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 Mass.) 2 That they confound not under the name of Apostolic Traditions, all the Customs observed in the Church, but that they distinguish between the universal and the particular; And that even among the universal, some only are Apostolic, to wit, such as have always since the Apostles times been used in the Church, but the other that have been ordained in latter ages, are Ecclesiastical. But the question is not how they of the Romish Church distinstuish their Traditions. But by what authority, and power, they cause men observe, as the laws of God, and as necessary to salvation, things that were not instituted by Christ, nor his Apostles? For those which they call Ecclesiastical, and which by their own confession, came not in use, nor yet into knowledge, till many ages after the death of the Apostles; are not less, but much more rigorously commanded, than those which they call Apostolical. It shall suffice to verify, and manifest this by one example: It is generally known, that the most solemn and most religious devotion at this day in the Romish Church, is that which they call God's feast or Corpus Christi day; to the observation whereof, Pope Vrban the 4. attributeth remission of sins, ●●lla ●uck. which is the knowledge of salvation; according to the Gospel; And the number of pardons granted only to the beholders of the same; is almost infinite: And whether we consider the severity of Prelates in commanding it, and the magnificence in celebrating it; or the devotion of the people, in preparing themselves thereunto; and the efficacy they imagine of it; We shall find, that it is a thing, that they pretend to be much more necessary, and more divine, than to say, Requiescant in pace, than to abstain from flesh and eggs in Lent; or any other points of the pretended Apostolic Tradition: In the mean while, our Bishop himself, though he deny all, cannot deny that this devotion was instituted, near 12. hundred years after the death of the Apostles; & if he deny it, Bellarmine will reprove him, ●acr. Euch. 〈◊〉. 30. who confesseth, that Pope Vrban 4. is the first author of it. And no writer of the Romish Church denieth it, though they agree not all, touching the motive of this institution. For some will have, that the cause of it was, a certain miracle happened in Italy of a Wafer cake that bled, as a certain Priest doubting of Transubstantiation held it in his hands: Others attribute it to a woman of the country of Liege, whom the said Pope had familiarly known; before his Popedom, and who having given the Pope to understand, a Vision or Revelation, that she had, touching the institution of this Feast; he straight ordained it, and celebrated it first at Rome: And afterwards Clement the fift made a most rigorous law concerning it; confirmed even by the Council of Vienna. Hereupon I demand our Bishop, to what use is his distinction that he maketh between Apostolic and Ecclesiastic Traditions, seeing that these latter are commanded for as much or more necessary, meritorious and divine, as the former? Again, I demand to what purpose he taketh so much pains for to show that certain things are very ancient, seeing there be newer and latter things, which have more authority, necessity and efficacy, than the old; And seeing it is sufficient, that some Pope hath ordained a thing, without inquiring of the antiquity or novelty of the same? For the Pope now a days attributeth as much, yea much more power and authority to himself, than they, did that were seven or eight hundred years ago; and requireth no less, but much more obedience, in that which at this day he commandeth, than in that which his predecessors commanded a thousand years ago: For as before the God of heaven, a thousand years 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 own laws, unless they did abolish the laws of their predecessors: that is, unless they displanted Antiquity to plant in novelty. Moreover, if every thing that concerneth salvation, as those do that bring remission of sins: ought to be grounded on the word of God, either written or unwritten, as he granteth, and presupposeth throughout his Book: By what conscience could the Pope's institute this new means of salvation, with many other, in which number are our Bishop's grains? If the word of God be only found, either in the Canonical Scripture, or in the pretended Apostolic Tradition contained 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 own confession the word and invention of man? And therefore a vain thing and displeasing to God, by jesus Christ his own sentence. Math. 15. But let us hear Bellarmine on this point: De Verb. ● l. 4. c. 9 Nothing is of the faith, but only that which God hath revealed by the Apostles, or by the Prophets; or that which is evidently deduced from it: For the Church is no more governed by new Revelations, but persisteth in them, which those men, that have been Ministers of the word, have given by Tradition; For therefore it is said, Ephe. 2. builded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles. Wherefore all the things, which the Church holdeth to be matters of faith, have been given by the Apostles and Prophets, either by writing, or by word of mouth. After he addeth: When the whole Church observeth something, that none could institute but only God, and which notwithstanding is found no where written; We must say, it was given by the Tradition of jesus Christ himself, and of his Apostles; The reason is, for that the universal Church cannot err, not only in that which it believeth, but as little in that which it doth, and principally in CEREMONY, or Divine worship. Let us conclude then by the confession of this great Rabbi, who acknowledged, that this ceremony of Corpus Christi day, was instituted, well near 1200. years after the Apostles, by Pope Urban 4. the first Author thereof; (unless the Bishop of Eureux being a Courtier had rather give the glory of it to a Lady, to that Nun of Liege, who had first this revelation.) that the Church; that the pretended head of the church, who let himself be governed by a new revelation, or by an old Nun, hath erred and caused all them to err, that have received of him this new Ceremony, this new Divine worship, this new means, yea ground of Salvation, and of blessedness, 〈◊〉. 1.2. which consisteth in the remission of sins: Or else that the Church afore that time that had done nothing of it, believed nothing nor heard of it, for the space of twelve hundred years after Christ; hath erred, as well in that which it did, as in that which it believed, at least wise touching this point of the Eucharist, which it honoured not, after the manner set down in the third book of the ceremonies of the Romish Church, of which manner he that will confer it with the ceremonies sometimes observed by the heathen in honour of Isis, of the Syrian Goddess, of Diana, of the Persians fire etc. shall find out the true original of it, and an antiquity more ancient, than any Apostolke Tradition is. These are the rags, wherewith our Gaboanites do ordinarily deck their Antiquity, which their own writers freely confess; witness Cardinal Baronius, who saith, That it was to good purpose ordained; that the ceremonies or services, which belonged to the Pagan superstition, Annal. tom. 2. ad● chr. 200. should be sanctified by the worship of the true God, for to be employed in the worship of the true 〈◊〉 Religion. Now the Bishop of Eureux, instead of continuing his reply to my answer, touching the four points, that we hold with them of the Romish Church; which are the truth of the Baptism of little Children: that of the Baptism of Heretics: the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father & from the Son; and the translation of the feast of the Sabaoth day to Sunday; which Articles he had alleged as not having any ground in Scripture; instead, I say of answering to my reasons by which I showed the contrary: he goeth no further, and after he had consumed well nigh, four years, in seeking replies, to the three or four first leaves of my book; he leaveth the matter in question, and taketh another course, finding it an easier work, to cause to be written out by one of his Acolythes, or Parasites, many places of the Fathers, all already gathered and arranged, in Bellarmine, Baronius, and others; upon the seven points above quoted, which it pleased him to choose; then to seek in his own brain new cavillations, that he might rid himself of so many sound proofs drawn forth of the Scripture, which show the perfection and sufficiency of the same, in that which is necessary for us to believe, touching these four points alleged by him, rather for to prove his own imperfection, and unsufficiency, 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, wholly incompatible, and unreconcilable with them he produceth, as above I have done on like occasions; and to show beside that, the di●simili●tude that there is between some things which particular persons in the time of the ancient church observed in all liberty, as indifferent; and with the Church of Rome, commandeth & exacteth at this day with an extreme cruelty: Between those things that the one did by form of remembrance, & acknowledgement, & with the other doth for merit, and for works of supererogation. I could show the B. of Eureux his malice, in disguising the intention of the Fathers, in mixing and confounding their Historical recitalles, with their Doctrines; Customs, with Laws; undiscreet devotions, and manifest superstitions, whereof they complained, with divine institutions, The sufferance and convenience of the Church, with the approbation of the same. Though it were, I say, easy for me, to show all these things: Notwithstanding, seeing it were out of the centre of my subject, I will not imitate that myself, which I blame in my adversary, who as well here as else where showeth, that he hath no other drift nor recourse, then to obscure the principal, by a thick & dark 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 here and there and wresting them for to give colour to their blasphemies, his holy Father compareth them to those, that after they had undone and dissolved the figure of a King, made all of Precious Stones, would make of the same Stones the figure of a Dog, or a Fox, for to make men believe, that it was the same figure of the King made by the first workman: Or to those who making Centons', or mingle mangle of many matters, culled out of Homer's verses, upon a Subject, that the Poet never dreamt of, would persuade the jgnorant, that Homer himself treated of that Subject. Whereas he saith, that the instances whereupon we contended, the first day we saw each other, were the same, whereof he frameth these seven common places wherewith he filleth his Book: I answer, that it is false, for of all the points that he treateh, there was spoken only of Prayer for the dead, and that by occasion of the Lady, who had newly lost her husband, & was fully disposed to receive his impressions: Whereupon as I said, after some other reasons, that this custom of praying for the dead, had neither example, nor commandment, nor promise in Scripture; we were straightways carried on general different of the sufficiency, or unsufficiency of the scripture; as himself confesseth. The Instance whereupon we most contended, the first and second day of our conference, was the Pope's supremacy, which I maintained to be recent, and new, and by no means could be derived from the Apostles, nor proved by the Fathers, in the form and manner, as at this day we see it: during which disputation, it happened that the Bishop of Eureux for to show the contrary alleged S. Gregory, who saith, Epist, ● Epist, 6 I know not what Bishop is not subject to the Apostolical seat. Thereupon I required him to proceed with that which followed: for he had the book open before him, & read therein this sentence, so well, that not being able to excuse himself from finishing out the place, which he would have cut off, he was constrained to add these words which immediately follow; When there is no fault that requireth it, to wit this subjection to the censures: all Bishops are equal according to the reason of humility. As I noted to the standers by, this ingenious Eclipse; He replied, that there was no fraud, seeing that none of that made against him: I answered that thereby it would follow that he who was a Bishop, was equal to the Pope and every other Bishop unattainted, or convinced of notorious crime: He was forced to grant it me: But when I requested further, that he would give me this proposition in wrighting signed by him; he would not hear of it; no more than he found it fit to insert this question, in the number of the seven that he treateth. There was also spoken of the institution of Monks, of their rules and ceremonies; specially of the Monks; which instance importuned him much, finding neither canal, pipe, nor devise whatsoever that could make to flow form apostolic tradition, that Angelical perfection, whereof the Charterous and other Monks do boast. In this altercation, he said divers things so enormous, and contrary even to the Doctrine of the Romish Church, that if they had been set down in writing, as I most instantly required; we should have a goodly mirror of Theology, or rather Pyrronian Technologie. And seeing he then rather chose to break off the conference, then grant me this just request; He shall permit me also to finish rather here this answer to his reply, then to wander with him from our principal question, for to extravagte upon the new Instances, that he propoundeth beside the purpose: Considering also that before the treating of them after the method that he observeth, and requireth; namely, by the only authority of the Fathers, without any testimony, consequence, or analagie of Scripture; these questions were to be handled. I. Whether controversies ought to be decided by the writings of Fathers? II. Who gave them that authority, seeing themselves never have acknowledged nor demanded it? III. Whether, if it were true that the visible Church cannot err; this same privilege appertain to every Doctor or particular Bishop of the Church? iv If it belong only unto some, by what works we shall discern these infallible ones, from others? V Upon what ground is builded our Bishop's distinction, that the fathers may err in quality of doctors and Bishops; but not in quality of Witnesses: seeing that by this means, one part of their writings, is manifestly made equal to the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, to whom only, by special prerogative, belongeth this quality or title of Witnesses irreprochable and without exception, Luk. 24. 4● Act. 18. ● 15. &. ● in that which concerneth the points of our Salvation? For though Antipas, and other Christians are called faithful witnesses of Christ; Reu. 2.1. This testimony hath only reference to their constant confession of the Truth, in the midst of torments, not for to make authentical unto us any point of doctrine: Otherwise all the Martyrs should be made equal to the Apostles, who were chosen, instructed, and sent immediately by our Lord Christ, and all that the Fathers have written, as Witnesses, should be inserted into the Canon of the scripture, for to make it an entire Rule, seeing that after Bellarmine, the Scripture is but a Rule partial, De verbo L. 4. c. 12 not total. Yea, the very Treatise of the unsufficiency of the Scripture; if our Bishop have not written it as a false Witness, and if all that which containeth Truth, is (as he maintaineth) armed with Canonical authority, should be added to the Scripture, as an excellent piece of work, and singular ornament of the same. VI Wherefore the Romish Church hath changed, reformed, censured and abolished so many things, which the Fathers reported as Witnesses, concerning the ceremonies and policy 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 subsidiary Tradition, without which the bare text of the Scripture is unprofitable, not being able to be understood; or dangerous, not being well understood? And of such reformations, censures, and abolishments, we will produce when need shall be, innumerable Instances: Meanwhile the deposition of Cardinal Baronius shall suffice, a witness yet living, and who is worth many others, both for his learning and for his dignity. ●l. Eccl. ●1. ad aen. ●4. impres ●nt. These are his words: All the Bishops that have succeeded the Apostles, have not attained the meaning and understanding of the Scriptures, neither hath it been necessary they should always have excelled in this grace. For the Catholic Church followeth not always, nor in all things, even 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, above others. See here the subsidiary Tradition, planted by our Bishop, supplanted and cut down to the very roots, by the Axe of this Cardinal, the Pope's Library keeper. But doth he leave at leastwise to the ancient Fathers this dignity of unfallible and irrefragable Witnesses? As little truly, contrariwise he exceedingly rejecteth this outrageous flattery, 〈◊〉. 1. ad an ●39. ●22. when he saith, The Acts of the Apostles written by Saint Luke, deserveth more credit, than any authority of the Ancients. Yea, he confesseth not only, that many things have been falsely attributed to the Apostles, but also, that those things which true and sincere Writers have reported, ●n. chr. 44 ●2. have not remained entire, without being corrupted. VII Why we may not believe of many Fathers, that which this same Cardinal affirmeth of Saint Cyprian, ●al. tom. 1. ●n. 258. namely, that he abode not in his error, but renounced it before his death, though that do not appear, neither by his writings, nor by any other testimony of the Fathers? If Charity was the only cause of this affirmation touching one ancient Father's acknowledgement, why may not we use the like charity, give the same judgement, & conclude in like sort of others; considering the Retractions that one of the most excellent amongst them, augustines. hath left unto us, & who happily added many others before his death, either by writing, or at least wise in his mind? Himself also doth authorize 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 soul consented to the Truth; as though we know it not: For all that was then done among the Bishops could not be written or preserved: 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 judge of such a person, that he corrected it, and perhaps that was suppressed by those that took too great pleasure in this error, and would not be deprived of the defence of such an Advocate. These are my seven questions which must first be cleared, before we come unto his seven; the most important of which (which is the sacrifice of the Mass) is elsewhere dispatched, and as yet by him unanswered. And as for the lies he gives to Caluin, Viret, and Chemnicius, touching the institution of the other six points: they fall back, not only upon Polidorus Virgilius, Platina, Sigebert, Bergomas, and such other Historians, minorum gentium; or upon Gratian the compiler of the Decretals, which serveth for Text in the Schools of the Romish Church, as the holy Scripture doth in ours: Vide to, ● Biblio. S. trum. P▪ 1345. But also upon the head of a Pope himself, namely Damasus, who reporteth the institution of certain points, even as the others that follow him. Also upon Pope Eugenius 2. attributing sovereign authority to Gratians Decretals; and in general on all the Popes that have approved it since. But what would he get by it, if we should take the original of these things higher, and of an elder date, seeing that no authority of the ancients cometh near the authority of an Evangelist? since that which the truest writers have reported since, hath not remained entire, by Baronius his own confession? To conclude, De verb● L. 4. c, 11 seeing that Bellarmine confesseth on the other side, That the Apostles have wtitten ALL the things that are necessary for all, and the things which they had publicly preached to all: It shall be lawful for me to crown the former questions with this Conclusion, which floweth from the Confession of that Arch-Rabbi: namely, That the seven Articles, which the Bishop of Eureux propoundeth, are not necessary to all men, seeing they have not been publicly preached by the Apostles: Or if they be necessary to all, he must show by their writings that they have preached them publicly. This is it that I summon him to do: If he cannot do it, I counsel him to be silent, and to acknowledge his own imperfection and unsufficiency, rather than to attribute it to the Scripture, which is most perfect, and most sufficient, as well to save them that follow it, as to confound those that blaspheme it. FINIS.