Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	aaron_n	altar_n	use_v	15	3	4.7543	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13773	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.	Tilenus, Daniel, 1563-1633.; Du Perron, Jacques Davy, 1556-1618. Discours sur l'autorité.; Tilenus, Daniel, 1563-1633. Defence of the sufficiency and perfection of the holy scripture. aut	1606 (1606)	STC 24071; ESTC S101997	143,995	256

particularly The sprinkling of the booke may be comprehēded vnder the sprinkling of the altar si●h both the one and the other represented God in this ratification of the Couenant for the booke conteined the Lawe and the conditions that God required in this Contract wherefore as S. Paule omitteth the sprinkling of the altar so Moses omitteth the expresse mention of the booke both of them vsing a Synecdoche The inconuenience that the B. of Eureux alledgeth is that if the booke had beene sprinkled with the Altar Moses had blotted out the writing of the Couenant before hee had read it to the people A great matter sure that one cannot sprinkle a thing without blotting and spoyling it as though he who in consecrating Aaron sprinkled those parts of him that God had commaunded him to sprinkle without plunging or drowning him in bloud though in other places he sprinkled a great quantitie could not as well sprinkle the booke without marring it shedding the great quantitie of bloud vpon the altar There is as much cunning in this consideration as there is reason in his reproofe of our translation of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which S. Paule vseth verse 19. to speake which Du Perron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordaineth by the tradition of his new Lexicon that hēceforth it signifie to read He perswadeth himself that the opinion of Caluin who saith that in Saint Pauls time there was perhaps some Cōmentaries of the Prophets which recounted more amply that which Moses had touched onely by forme of abridgement maketh greatly for his purpose as if it did follow that those commentaries conteined infallibly the traditions at this day in controuersie Or because they be lost that hee doth the Scripture no wrong to defame it as imperfect unsufficiēt Let him learne of S. Augustine that it is no wise necessarie that all the writings of the Prophets should bee indifferently Canonicall ●●g de Ciu. ●●i li. 18 38 saith hee I esteeme that they to vvhom the Holy Ghost reuealed that vvhich should bee authenticall for Religion might write certaine things as men with an Historicall diligence and other things as Prophets by diuine inspiration and that these same vvere so distinguished that the one vvere attributed as to them but the others as to God speaking by them So that the former perteined to a more ample knovvledge the latter to the authoritie of Religion in vvhich authoritie the Canon is maintained and kept Besides which if there bee yet any writings bearing the name of true Prophets they serue not for to haue a more abundance of knowledge by them because it is not certaine that they be theirs to whom they be attributed and therefore wee beleeue them not especially those in which we finde things contrarie to the Canonicall faith And thus is Caluin cleered It is most certaine that the Prophets and Apostles ceased not to be men after that God had chosen them to be Prophets and Apostles and the gift of prophesying and reuealing the mysteries of God to men whether it were by word of mouth or by writing Vide Thom● Aqui. par 2 q. 171. ar 1. was not in them as the habitude of a science gotten by studie neither as the light is in an heauenly bodie but rather as that which is in the ayre from which it may bee easily seperated so that as they could not heale al diseases at al times and so often as they listed so could they not prophesie whē they would 2. Kin. 4.27 neither knew they any thing but what it pleased the Lord to reueale vnto them witnes Heliseus who knew not the subiect of the sadnes and bitternes that the Sunamite had in her heart because the Lord had hid it from him And Samuel thought that Eliab had been him that the Lord had chosen to be King in Saules stead Nathan also said to Dauid when he purposed to build the Temple 1. Sam. 16 7. 2. Sam. 7. c. 1. Chro. 17 c. do all that is in thine heart for the Lord is with thee wherein both of thē were abused by the instinct of his owne minde therefore Saint Gregorie cited by Thomas Aquinas saith that it hapned sometimes that the Prophets being asked counsaile of by reason of their great vse or custome of prophesiing vttered things of their owne minde hauing opinion that they were of the holy Ghost It is not therefore sufficient that a thing be pronounced or written by a Prophet or an Apostle for to haue a Canonicall authority attributed vnto it but it behooueth also that there come betweene the motion and inspiration of god assuring those holy men not only of the truth of the matter which they treate for all that conteineth trueth hath not Canonicall authoritie but also of the end and vse thereof namely that it was for to be authenticall for to serue for an infallible rule to the faith and life of the faithfull To goe about to cōclude a Canonicall authority of some book by the all●gation of some place that an Apostle citeth from it is a thing that deserueth rather to be laughed at than to be answered for by that meanes it would follow as hath bin abouesaid that Menander Aratus and Epimenides or Callimachus Heathen Poets should haue the like authoritie as the diuine Prophets because S. Paule alleadgeth and approueth some of their verses .. And therefore though wee shall say with Caluin that the particulars and circumstances expressed in this 9. chapter might be taken forth of the commentarie of some Prophet which we haue not Yet it would not follow either that it was part of the Canon or though it were which we say only by concession or graunt that the Canon which we haue is imperfect God of his goodnesse hauing preserued so much of it as he knew to be necessarie for his Church that is to say the parts essentiall though there wanted some of the parts called integrall And though we should not follow the opinion of Caluin yet would it not followe that the Apostles had the knowledge of these particulars by the tradition or Cabale of the Iewes seing they might haue taken them from some other bookes not written by any Prophet neuerthelesse receiued among the Iewes though not with Propheticall authority as some Historiographers are amongst vs. And therfore the cardinall Caietan who should euery way better know what is deriued from tradition than the B. of Eureux who is inferiour vnto him in dignitie in knowledge and in place of residēce the cardinal hauing bin ordinarily neer the oracle of Rome drunk of the foūtaine of tradition saith in his Cōmentary vpon this chapter namely of the particular of the golden Censoure which after the opinion of many was in the most holy place from which our Bishop maketh his strongest instance It is not knovvne vvhence the Author of this Epistle hath taken this namely that the golden Censer was in the

Eureux The Apostles also euer anon alledge Tradition be it by way of History or by way of Argument Saint Paul saith that Moses in the act of the solemnity of the couenant mingled water in the blood of the Testament wherewith he sprinckled the people which was a figure that we should be sprinkled with the bloud of Christ which is the bloud of our couenant Neuerthelesse this mixture of water with blood not set downe by Moses nor by any other author of the olld Testament D. Tillenus his answer Moyses made not expresse mention of some ceremonies which the Apostle reciteth 〈◊〉 19 21 but we learne them better by analogie and consequence of Scripture than by vnwritten Tradition It was commaunded to vse water in all sacrifices And if that was requisite in particular mens sacrifices how much more in the ratification of the publick couenant wherof Moises speaketh 〈◊〉 ●4 He nameth not likewise in expresse words the hee goats purple wooll and hysope but he saith that the children of Israell offered burnt offerings and then peace offerings or offerings of thanksgiuing Now the whole burnt offerings which were expiatory for sinne could not be but of goats Leuit 16 8● as the scripture teacheth elsewhere So we see that god commandeth they should offer vnto him purple wooll Hysope was commaunded before they came out of Egypt Leuit ● Numb and after was ordayned to serue alwayes for an Jnstrument to the sprinklings whereunto Dauid alludeth Psal 5 when he prayeth that god would purge him with hysope that he might be clean Now seeing god would that these things should be ordinary vnder the Law it appeareth by Analogy that he had caused them to be as an example of the other that should com after The B. of Eureux He sprinckled also the booke of the Couenant with the same blood saith saint Paul which was a figure that the booke of the Law should take his force from the bloud Iesus Christ And yet neuerthelesse of this sprinckling of the booke there is not any mention made in the olld Testament D. Tillenus his answer Touching the sprinckling of the book Exod. 2● we gather by that which is sayd in the same place that Moyses hauing sprinkled the Altar tooke the book which as appeareth was vpon the Altar with which it was in like manner sprinckled The B. of Eureux He saith that the golden pot of Manna and the rod of Aaron were put into the Arke which we know was the place of adoratiō And notwithstanding not one book of the olld testament maketh any mention of it D. Tillenus his answer As for the pot of Manna Moyses saith Exod. 1 Numb● 1. King ● 2 Chro● that it was put before the face of the Lord that is before the Arke and not with in it the same is said of Aarons rod. And elsewhere the scripture saith in expresse vvords that there vvas nothing in the Ark 〈◊〉 4. but the two tables of stone That which is sayd in the Epistle to the Hebrewes is not against it For the relatiue En hi is not to be referred to the word Kibotou Arke though it be neerest to it but to the word Scéné Tabernacle And of such like constructions there are found many other examples in Scripture otherwise there should be a manifest contradiction which is that du Perron would fain find if he could in the Scripture The B. of Eureux Saint Iude declareth the Angells combate with the Deuill about the buriall of Moses as a thing euidentlye knowne among the Iewes and thereof frameth an argument against those that blasphemed dignities reciting the very words of the Angell Now this was a tradition which could not haue taken his originall of any humane doctrine but from the pure reuelation and word of God D. Tillenus his answer The knowledge of the combat of the Angell with the diuell about the body of the Moyses is not so come by Tradition but that we learne some thing of it euen from the Scripture 〈◊〉 3 2 for there is no doubt but that saint Iude aymed at the place of Zacharie where we read the same words The Lord rebuke thee ô Satan The Prophet calleth him the Angell of the Lord whom the Apostle calleth Michael the Archangell both of them doo meane the Prince of angells that is to say Jesus Christ who hath combatted and ouercome Sathan and wonne the body of Moyses that is hath accomplished the mystery of our redemption figured by the shadowes of Moyses 〈◊〉 ●2 17 whereof Christ is the true body as the Scriptur saith And in that he durst not denounce the sentence of curse it derogateth nothing from his deity and Maiesty For we must consider him in this place as Mediatour in which quality he is subiect and obedient to his Father not exercising his Allmightines If the L. of Perron wil not admit this exposition let him know then that the reason the apostle draweth from this vnwritten history is found very well grounded on the Scripture Exod 22. ● which in expresse words forbiddeth to curse or speake euill of Princes But the Church of Rome doth profit very ill by this Tradition of saint Iude For first it exposeth and prostituteth all the bodies and reliques of Saints departed and suborneth false ones too in their roome to cause the people to commit Jdolatry in steade of resisting the diuell when he bringeth foorth such inuentions as the Archangell did who according to the common exposition of this place fought with him when he woulde haue discouered the sepulcher of Moyses which God had of purpose hid that he might take away from his people all occasion of idolatry and secondly Deut 3 4● it taketh liberty to it selfe to blaspheme and tread vnder feete the greatest dignities of the earth as the Popes haue impiously and arrogantly shewed it euen to Kings and Emperors The B. of Eureux In like manner he maketh mention of the prophesie of Enoch touching the last comming of god in the day of iudgement And this was a word of god which was profitable yea necessary to bee beleeued of all those to whom the notification thereof should com and notwithstanding that Enoch had euer written any thing it is no way manifest by the scripture D. Tillenus his answer The prophecy of Enoch which the same Apostle alledgeth touching the last iudgement is not onely not repugned by the scripture but is also therein more clearly expressed than the prophane contemners of God would haue it We receiue most willingly all Traditions which haue like conformity and approbation in scripture as this prophecy We confesse that all particular deeds and sayings are not conteyned therin For Singularium nulla est scientia but the reason groūd of all these things are found therein and the sentence of saint Iohn remayneth true though all that our Lord hath doon be not written yet that which is written Iohn 20●30

made of this Indiuiduall to wit Isaacke This consequence is drawne from the text it selfe and the Apostle who alledgeth it neither addeth therunto nor presupposeth therein any tradition But such a spirit as our Bishop is of Heb 11 19 findeth more taste in the tradition of S. Siluester that raised vp a dead Bull Or in that of S. Germaine that raised vp an asse a calfe which they of his house had eaten From the words that God saith to Abraham Gen. 15. Gen. 15. I reason thus He which hath God for his reward hath immortality and life eternall But Abraham hath God for his reward Therefore he hath immortalitie and life eternal Du Perron saith That some of ours vnderstand this reward of earthly and temporall things true but they exclude not heauenly and eternall vnlesse he forge himselfe a God without immortalitie and without eternitie His answeres and ordinarie manners of arguing are to snatch one part thereby to exclude the other as if hee should say God framed Adam a bodie therefore hee gaue him not a soule Let vs set him downe the argument in this sort Whosoeuer hath God for reward hath more than an earthly and temporall thing But Abraham hath God for reward therefore hee hath more than an earthly and temporall thing But since the Bishoppe of Eureux receiueth the exposition of Oecolampadius vpon this place who vnderstandeth as if God said vnto Abraham If I bee for thee who shall be against thee If I be thy buckler and thy protection who shall hurt thee Let him receiue also this argument Hee whom nothing can hurt is immortall otherwise death should hurt him yea breake this buckler which is God and vanquish this protector which is the same God Now nothing may hurt Abraham therefore he is immortall and all the calamities that hee suffered did not hurt him to speake properly But if death had abolished his bodie his soule both together without hope of restitution resurrection then should the promise of God haue beene found vaine and frustrate From the exclamation that Iacob maketh at the point of death I drawe this argument Gen 49. ● Whosoeuer waiteth for the saluation of God at the houre of his death when he is going out of this life thinketh not to die wholly and altogether but Iacob at the point of his death waiteth for the Saluation of God therefore he thought not to die wholly and altogether for it behooueth that some thing of him should remaine for to receiue this saluation And though it should be vnderstood of some succours for his posteritie yet it behooueth that hee which waiteth and hopeth for that be not wholly extinguished brought to nothing So in the vulgar translation which is authentick in the Church of Rome there is in the future tense I will waite for thy saluation O Lord. If Du Perron reply that his Sadducie holdeth not that translation for authenticall No more doe we that of his pretended Rabbi that he alledgeth vnto vs. 〈◊〉 14 〈◊〉 49 29. 〈◊〉 15.55 〈◊〉 8 17 From this speach to be gathered to his fathers or people many times repeated in this first booke of Moses I conclude that if those to whom Abraham Isaack Iacob be gathered be not at all Moses speaketh vnaptly and falsely But this consequent is false therefore also the antecedent is so too Out of the second booke of Moses called Exodus ●●d 3 6 This book furnisheth vs in the first place with the argumēt wherewith our Sauiour Christ stopped the mouthes of the Saduces proouing vnto them the resurrection of the dead the forme of it is this They of whom God calleth himselfe the God are liuing Now God calleth himselfe the God of Abraham the God of Isaacke and the God of Iacob Therefore they are liuing And seeing that according to the body they are not yet raised vp from the dead that must needes bee one day though in respect of God to whom all things are present they bee already raised vp and therefore he calleth himselfe their God speaking of a thing which shall infallibly be done as if it were alreadie done The Bishop of Eureux cryeth as lowde as hee can that Iesus Christ cited this place onely for to prooue the immortalitie of the soule and that it belongeth not to the Resurrection of the bodie I say though hee presuppose the immortalitie of the soule yet hee meaneth it necessarily of the Resurrection of the dead because it is the question that the Sadduces proposed to our Sauiour which of the seuen brethren in the resurrection should haue the woman to wife who had beene maried to thē all one after another is there any tradition that maketh mariages between soules without their bodies such a mariage would be another māner of mysterie than that is which the Romish tradition hath made a Sacrament Bellarmine himselfe saith our Lord being about to prooue the Resurrection to the Saduces alleadged this testimony of Scripture I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaak and the God of Iacob and addeth God is not the God of the dead but of the liuing whence his intention is to inferre The dead therefore rise againe Now although the Saduces denyed also the Immortality of the soule yet the Resurrection of the body seemed vnto them much more absurde And vpon this pointe was grounded the most formall dissention betweene them and the Pharises as appeareth by that which Saint Luke saith of thē Act. 23.6.7 Also the three Euangelists qualifie the Saduces by this marke as the most notable that they beleeued not the Resurrectiō And if our Sauiour Christ by the Resurrection of the dead meant only of the cōtinuāce of souls not of the Resurrectiō of the flesh besides that he had done nothing by his argumēt takē out of Moses that a Heathen Philosopher by naturall reasons might not haue done It would follow that he had then graunted that the soule dyeth or at the least sleepeth till the day of Iudgment for this tearme resurrection or rising againe can not agree but to that which before is fallen as it fareth in the body by death And when it is attributed to the soule it is but by figure like as sinne is called the death of the soule in as much as it depriueth it of the spirituall life which is in God yet without abolishing her substance But our Bishopp attributeth this opinion to Christ for to conforme it with that of one of his pretēded vicars Pope Iohn the 22. who was constrayned by a King of France to retract it and to vnsay himselfe by sound of Trumpet as Gerson witnesseth Now let vs see the Spirit of astoniednesse which possesseth him in saying Though Saint Mathew should say in expresse tearmes that Christ alledgeth this Text against the Sadduces vpon the question of the Resurrection of the bodie what can hee necessarily inferre thereupon I answere if Iesus Christ alledged this text for the