Positions lately held by the L. Du Perron, Bishop of Eureux, against the sufficiency and perfection of the scriptures maintaning the necessitie and authoritie of vnwritten traditions. Verie learnedly answered and confuted by D. Daniell Tillenus, Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Sedan. VVith a defence of the sufficiency and perfection of the holy scriptures by the same author. Faithfully translated.

The B. of Eureux.

And as for our sauiour Christes argument against the Sa∣duces, it prooueth indeede the immortality of the soule, and not the other points: But that argument till his time was vnknowne to the Iewes, who for this cause did admire the infinitenesse of his wisedome: And therefore it must needs follow that they had re∣ceiued the beleefe of it, for to holde it for an article of faith, by another meanes than by the reading of the bookes of Moyses: to wit, by Tradition from Abraham, Isaack, Iacob, and other Fathers.

D. Tillenus his answer.

He sheweth heere, that hee hath as little insight into the bookes of the Euangelists, as in those of Moyses: he saith that this argument prooueth indeed the immortality of the soule, but not the other points, that is to say the Resurrection of the body. And notwithstanding Saint Matthew saith in expresse tearmes, that our Lord cited that place of Moyses, for to prooue the Resurrection of the dead, and that by this onely argument he stopped his enemies mouthes, who chose rather to be silent, than to continue to blaspheme. Jf vntill then it had beene vnknowne to the Iewes, as Du Perron saith, Yet that sheweth not any vnsufficiency in the scripture; rather in∣deede the ignoraunce of the Church till those times, and the negligence of those, that would not vouchsafe to trie and sound the depth of the scriptures, as our Lord Iesus Christ did therein exhort them.

I know not why he findeth so great obscuritie in this ar∣gument of our Sauior: For so great a Philosopher as he, shold haue better perceiued therein the light of that Philosophicall maxime which saith, When the whole is propounded, the parts of the same are also propounded: Put then, that God is the god of Abraham, of Isaack and of Iacob, as saith Moyses; Jt follo∣weth therefore that hee is their god both in soule and Body: which are the principall parts of euery man. But seeing the Saduces could not find, or would not searche the Resurrecti∣on of the dead in the bookes of Moyses; wherefore then did

they beleeue it as little by Tradition? VVhy did not our Lord and Sauiour send them thereunto? VVherefore did he draw so obscure an argument (as Du Perron will haue it) from the Scripture, if there had bene any manifest reasons in Tradition? VVherefore doth he attribute the cause of their errour to their ignoraunce of the Scripture? And truely Abraham referred the brethren of the wicked rich man, to keepe them out of hell, not onely to the Prophets, but euen to Moyses also, where they might see how God had sayde to Abraham, that he would be his buckler, and his exceeding great reward: that in his seede should all Nations be blessed: Which doctrine conteyneth the foundation of the substance of the doctrine of saluation.

Now put case that the aboue named points could not be found so manifest in the bookes of Moyses, yet could not that conclude any thing against the sufficiency and perfecti∣on of the Scriptures, which we haue in the Christian church: For, as god reuealed his will to the first Patriarches by word of mouth, for to instruct them in his knowledge, before there was any Scripture; so did he continue the same manner of re∣uelation in Moyses time, speaking to him as familiarly as a man speaketh to his friend, instructing him of all maters: yet neuer giuing him this liberty, to ordayne any thing concer∣ning religion of his owne authority: Also Moyses very reli∣giously conteyned himselfe within the limits of obedience, not onely in the least Ceremonies, but also in the publicke administration or gouernement, wherein notwithstanding, it seems he might haue vsurped a little more power: but we see he wold determine nothing against him that had brokē the Sabbath; but caused him to be put in prison, till God had declared vnto him, with what manner of punishment the Transgressor should be punished. Contrariwise the Romish Church presumeth, to ordayne an infinite number of things, as well in Religion as in Policy, which they are not onely vnable to prooue by any Scripture, but which also, euen theyr pretended Apostolike Traditions cannot shew; in de∣fence

whereof theyr mayntainers set foorth the aucthority of the Church, which they say cannot erre. Now although the Church of the Iewes had Oracles, visions, diuine dreams, Vrim and Thummim, and Prophets extraordinarily sent of God, by which meanes (now ceased since God hath spoken vnto vs by his Sonne) it might be more fully instructed in all things: Yet notwithstanding the holy Scripture is al∣wayes recommended vnto them aboue all. God himselfe though he spake to Ioshuah by word of mouth confirming him in his charge, notwithstanding he commended vnto him onely the booke of the Law, not promising him his as∣sistance and blessing, but on condition that he should do and obserue all that is conteined therein. After that, so often as the reformation of the Church was intended, there was neuer any other patterne taken than the scripture, as appeareth by the examples of Iosaphat, Ioas, Ezechias, Iosias, Ezra, Ne∣hemias, &c. Contrariwise when Amon and Manasses would diuert the people from the seruice of god to idolatry, they hid the book of the Law, that it might no more be read publickly as god by Moyses had ordained.

As touching the creation of Angels, the being & creation of deuils, which du Perron very improperly distinguisheth, as if diuels were not angels at the beginning, or as if god had cre∣ated them by themselues, so wicked as they are: ther is reuea∣led in the books of Moyses as much of it, as god hath iudged to be expedient for the simplicity of that people. To tell what day, or in what order they were created, we know it no more by Traditiō thā by the scripture, though it be augmēted since Moses; from whom we gather their Creation, when he saith, that the heauēs & the earth were finished and all their host. In the vision of Iacobs ladder, and elsewhere, we read their ap∣paritions and mynistery; which the Jewes, in the time of Moyses knewe rather by theyr experience, than by Tra∣dition, sith the Lawe was published by them. As for the supposed distinction of theyr orders, Areopagita speaketh with such assuraunce, as if he had beene present at it all,

though even he that was rapt vp into the third heauen, not onely forbeareth to speake of it, but also witnesseth that it is not lawfull to reueale these secrets. We say with S. Augustine that when disputation is had of a thing very obscure, with∣out certaine and cleare proofe of the diuine scriptures, the supposition of man is to be kept in, not leaning more on the one side, than the other: He sendeth vs not in this case to vn∣written Tradition.

Irenaeus, who should know more of Apostolike tradition, that any of our time, defied certaine Gnosticks in his dayes, swolne with I know not what knowledge taken out of the scripture, in reckoning vp and describing the distinctions, orders and preheminences of Angells, Archangells, Powers, Thrones, Dominations: and in a word all those things which the Church of Rome braggeth she knoweth, and which this holy Father propounded to his aduersaries as impossible to comprehend.

Touching the diuell, Moyses teacheth the Iewes in the scripture, that he was a lyar, a tempter and seducer from the beginning. That the seede of the woman should bruise his head, &c. If there had been neede of knowing more, he could haue giuen them the knowledge of it, by a more authenticall and true Oracle, than that of Rome is. I know not whether du Perron would maintaine, that the nine orders or degrees which the Schoolemen haue made among diuells, in imitati∣on of the Angelicall Hierarchie, are from Apostolicke tra∣dition.

Notes

• Math. 22 Exod. 3.••
• Ioh. 5.3••
• Exod. 3 ••
• •• 22.9.29. 6.29. to ••d.
• 15.1. ••s. 12.3.
• 15.34.
• Hebr. 1.
• Iosh. 1.7
• 2. Chro. •• 2 Chro. •• 2. Chro. •• 2. King, •• 2, King. 2 Nehe, 8.
• Gen. 2, •• Gen. 28 Deut. 3•• Gal, 3.1
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 12.4.
• ••••st. cont. ••. it.
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 s. 3.