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	blood_n	chapter_n	12	3	6.8311	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

Baptisme do sinne against the same article Whence I thus conclude The doctrine of the Donatists which was hereticall could not be confuted by the scripture alone and without the helpe of the Apostolicke tradition for to confute all heresies And by consequent it conteyneth not alone sufficiently all the principles of doctrine necessarye to diuinity and Christian Religion D Tillenus his answere Let vs see if Sainte Augustine in those tenne yeares that he handled his question against the Donatists could not finde any actuall proof in the scripture vpon this poynte as Du Perron saith lib. 1. ● cōt 7. I thinke he promiseth very certayn proofes when he saith Ne videar humanis argumentis agere ex Euangelio profero certa documenta c Least I should seem to discourse with humaine reasons Lib. 2. de bap cont Don. c. 1 J will alleadge sure proofes out of the Gospell c. And in an other place Quid sit perniciosius vtrum non Baptizari an rebaptizari iudicare difficile est verumtamen recurrens ad illam stateram Dominicam vbi non ex humano sensu sed ex authoritate diuina rerum momenta pensantur inveniode vtraque re Domini sententiam Qui lotus est non habet necessitatem iterum lauandi c Jt is an hard thing to iudge whether is more dangerous not to be Baptised or to be baptized againe yet hauing recourse vnto that ballance of the Lord where not of humain sence but of diuine authority the vallews of things are weighed I finde of both matters the lords sentence He that is washed hath no neede to bee washed agayne c. And in another place hauing said that this custome came of the Tradition of the Apostles not meaning that it wanteth his proofes in Scripture he addeth Lic 5 de cont Don c. 2 Contra mandatum dei esse quod venientes ab hereticis si iam illi Baptismum christi acceperunt baptizantur quia scripturarum sanctarum testimoniis non solum ostenditur sed PLANE ostenditur That it is against the cōmandement of God that such as come frō hereticks shold be baptised if they haue already receued ther the Baptism of Christ becaus by the testimonies of holy Scriptures it is not only shewed but plainly shewed These places others of this father do shew the audaciousnes of du Perron in his affirmations and his sincerity in his allegations As for the places he bringeth out of the same father to proue that he acknowledged the imperfectiō of the scriptu e cōcerning this poynt he confoūdeth the question of act exāple or practise with the questiō of law or ordināce S Augustine saith in this matter there cā be none exāples of scripture alledged that is it cānot be foūd there that it was so practised therfore he referrd the custō or practis hereof to apostolike traditiō but that it ought so to be practised he affirmeth that not only the scripture sheweth it but that it sheweth it manyfestly Whence I conclude against the Bishops conclusiō on this second poynt The doctrine that euidently sheweth what is to be done in all matters cōcerning fayth which confuteth the heresies that repugne the same is perfect but the scripture conteyneth this doctrine Therfore it is perfect The assumption is proued not only by the scripture but also by the testimonies of the fathers by whome he pretendeth to proue the doctrine of the church of Rome I wold earnestly desire of him cleare direct answere to that place of Augustine aboue alleadged out of his secōd book 9 chapter de doctrina Christiana for in the verball conference he woulde giue no answer therūto but on condition that I would protest to forsake the scripture and not to reason any more but by the authority of the fathers The bishop of Eureux The third heresy which we haue propounded among those that cannot by the scripture alone bee confuted is that of the Greekes touching the proceeding of the holy ghost which our aduersaries hold as well as we to proceed from the father and from the sonne a thing notwithstanding which the scripture doth no where expresse On the contrary it seemeth to restrayne the originall of the same proceeding from the father alone saying ●5 26 16. The spirit of truth which proceedeth from the father For when this sentence of Christ is obiected to the Greekes He shall take of mine They answerr that this worde of mine hath relation not to the Essence nor to the person but to the doctrine so that the intention of Christ in saying he shall take of mine that is of the same treasure of doctrine and wisdome of which the sonne hath taken And they alleadg for proofe of their exposition that which followeth in the Text which sayth And he shal declare it vnto you replying that the word declare hath relation not to the essence nor to the person but to the doctrine In like sort when these places are alleadged vnto them if any one haue not haue not the spirit of Christ 8.15 ● 5.6 he is none of his And agayne the spirit of Christ crying Abba Father they answer that concludeth not that the spirit proceedeth from Christ and that he is called the spirit of Christ not by proceeding but by possessiō for asmuch as Christ according to his humanity hath receiued the guift the ful whol possession of the same spirit according to the words of Esay The Spirit of the Lord is vpō me becaus the Lord hath anoynted me And S. Peeter saith The lord hath anoynted him with the holy ghost and with power And that in this maner it is said that Elizeus receiued the spirit of Elias Not that the holy Ghost did proceed from Helias but because in a certayne measure he was possessed of Heliah When that is obiected vnto them which Christ saith vnto his Father That which is thine is myne They answer that may be expounded of the possession and outward domination ouer the creatures ouer whom the Father hath giuen all power to the sonne in heaven and in earth neither can the sēce of the words in that place be restrayned to the Essence no more then when the father of the prodigall Childe saitb to his eldest sonne the same words Omnia mea tua sunt But besides this though it should be vnderstood of the essence yet the argument concludeth nothing For if becaus the essence of the father is one the same it shoold therfore follow that the holy ghost proceedeth as well from the one as frō the other you must in like sorte conclude The essence of the father and the holy ghost is one and the same the sonn is therfore begotten of the holy ghost as well as of the Father And when it is added to those other arguments He will send the comforter They answer that he expoundeth himselfe shewing his meaning by this word Send namely that he will pray his

him in attributing vnto him this opinion This new Gnostick hath hee forgot that first principle viz. Of euery thing either the affirmatiue is true or the Negatiue the one being immediatly opposed to the other as it must be in matter of disputation Againe if these points be not conteined in Moses can his writings bee other than vnsufficient imperfect especially after his own definition wherby he defineth an imperfect vnsufficient thing to be when it is not sufficient to the end for which it is destinated and according to the maner wherby it is ordained therunto Tim 3 16 ● The end office of the Scripture is to teach the man of God that he may be perfect absolutely instructed vnto euery good worke Now if the first principles fundamentall points of this instruction be wanting therin if we must deriue them from some other way as he saith besids the Scripture It followeth either that the mā of God may be perfectly instructed without beleeuing the imortality of the soule the resurrectiō of the body Paradise hel c. which is the perfection not of a Christian faith but of a Pirrhonian beleefe Or els that the bookes that should teach thē yet cōteine thē not wholy are as imperfect as a humane body would be without a head without a hart yea without a soule or as a tutour or scool Mr for so S. Paul caleth the law Gal. 3.24 which sheweth not to his disciple so much as the .1 rudimēts or principles without which notwithstāding he should neuer be capable to learne or vnderstād any thing Also if none of the foresaid points be contayned in Moses it followeth that S. Augustine did wrongfuly shew by so many reasons Cont. Cres● Gram. l. 1. c. 17. 18. that Iesus Christ was a good Logician it would follow also that he that put him in the rank of deceiuers with Moses Mahomet did him no wrong for euery Sophister is a deceiuer and he which alledgeth for a demonstratiue proofe that which is but a vaine cold coniecture is a Sophister now if the place of Moses that Christ alledged to the Saduces for to proue the resurrection of the dead Exod. 3 6. Matth. 22.32 be not a demonstratiue proofe it is the trick of a Sophister to haue alledged it for such Also it would follow that Christ in approouing the opinion of the Iewes who thought to haue life eternall in the scripture if it were erroneous did not the office of a faithful teacher for that by this scripture is vnderstood the bookes of Moses it is manifest by the 45 46. and 47. verses of the same chapter where our Sauiour saith Iohn 5.39 that the Iewes trusted in Moses that Moses accused thē that Moses wrote of him That they could not beleeue his wordes because they beleeued not Moses writings Of necessity then whosoeuer will not openly blaspheeme Iesus Christ declare himselfe an vnmasked Atheist must acknowledge that the foresaid points are conteyned in the bookes of Moses It remaineth now to shew how they be there whether they do apeare to be there or no. I say they do so appeare to be there as mā is able to se thē there but to discerne thē he must haue the eye of his soule opē clensed like as for to see the Sun which is the clerest thing in the world the eye of the body must be open seeing Now the vnderstanding of the natural vnregenerate mā is obscured with darknes is but darknes ye is dead that is to say depriued aswel of life as of spiritual sight 1 Cor. 2.1 which is the cause he cānot see the things that are of the Spirit of God finding but folly in them And so not onely the Lawe of Moses but also the Gospell of Iesus Christ notwithstanding the brightnesse of it is hid to them that perish Cot. 4.3 of whom the God of this world hath blinded the vnderstandings that the light of the Gospell of the glory of Christ should not shine in them Both the Lawe and the Gospell become cleare vnto men when the Spirit of God by the light of his grace expelleth inwardly the darkenesses of their nature and the darnesses that the Prince of darknesse hath added therunto Pet. 119. Cor 13.12 when hee outwardly sheweth the light of the Scripture shining in darke places vntil such time as we see face to face the things which in this world cannot be seene but in a glasse darkely Here he will reply Whence commeth then this diuersitie of interpretations Whence commeth it that whosoeuer is truely inlightned by the Spirit of God findeth not streight waies the true meaning of the Scripture I answer that it is one thing to be truely inlightned another thing to be perfectly inlightned in al things It is one thing to vnderstand all the points necessarie to saluation and another thing to be able rightly to expound all the places of the Scripture one by one It is one thing to erre in the exposition of a particular place another thing to erre in a generall point of Doctrine yea though all the points be not of like importance It is one thing to say that the Scripture is perfect in it selfe conteining perfectly al that is necessary to saluation and another thing to say that men comprehend perfectly this perfection The Apostle saith that In this life we knowe but in part Cor. 13.9 we prophecie but in part It belongeth vnto God alone to know all things and in all perfection Now as there be childrē of light which see but by glymse as it were because they receiue this light by little little by degrees as the blinde mā whose eyes Christ opened to whom at first men seemed like trees ●ark 8.24 these acknowledge their Imperfectiō weaknes of sight Also there are childrē of darknesse which presume to know al to see all which neuer feele their blindnes ●●hn 9.41 whose sin as saith our Sauiour remaineth that is to say is incurable For he giueth sight to them that feele their want by his iust iudgemēt blindeth more more those that thinke they see most clearely which intitle themselues Leaders of the blinde a light to them which are in darknesse Rom. 2 which disdainfully reiect the light of the Scriptures which boast themselues of a greater wisedome than that which God hath in them reuealed which seeing themselues condemned by the Scripture refuse it for Iudge take it for an aduersarie and accuse it as guiltie of the errours of those which follow it It is the speach of the Bishop of Eureux that he said vnto me in the verball conference vpon the errour of saint Cyprian touching the rebaptizing of hereticks And heere he saith That the scripture is so farre from being instituted to serue onely for particuler instruction in all the contentious points of Religion that on the

in the beginning so that there was nothing made nor created before For if any creature had beene before this point then it is that that should haue beene made in the beginning by this meanes the creation of Angels is drawne out of Moses by a necessarie and ineuitable consequence And thus doth Thomas Aquinas vnderstand it That which the same Father saith in the same booke P. 1. q. 6● art 1. ●● ninth Chapter vpon which the Bishoppe of Eureux groundeth his replie doth not contradict it Hee saith their creation and their order is not euidently described in the constitution or creation of the world Let our Gnosticke learne that a consequence may bee euident though the Text bee not euident And the euidence of this consequence vpon this point is shewed as well in the place aboue said 〈◊〉 ciuit Dei 〈◊〉 1. C 9 as in the place of the 9 Chapter which our Sophister malitiously geldeth suppressing these words Now they were not omitted to wit Angels I Iudge it by this for that it is written that God rested the seuenth day from all his woorkes that hee had made seeing the booke it selfe heginneth thus In the beginning God created Heauen and Earth so that it is manifest that before the Heauen and the Earth there was not any other thing created And a little after Seeing all thinges were disposed by the creation which are said to haue beene finished in six daies how could the Angells haue beene omitted as if they were not of the workes of God from which he rested the seuenth day These consequences seeme necessarie and euident to Saint Augustine though the literall text of Moses seemed vnto him not euident Hee repeateth the verie same also in another place And euer his ground is It is written saith hee tradition teacheth so The last Doctour of the Rome Church which is Saint Gregorie ●ob li 33 ●4 speaking of the creation of Angels chooseth rather to drawe it from the consequence of some place of Scripture than from the pretended Tradition True it is that the Bishoppe of Eureux would haue mocked at it in good earnest if it were other than a Pope that had drawne it from that text But it sufficeth vs to obserue heere by the way 〈◊〉 33. the effect of subsidiarie Tradition without the weapons whereof our Bishoppe holdeth that the Text of the Scripture is laid open and naked to the malitious interpretation of particular Spirits for these publick and vniuersall Spirits though couered from top to toe with the armour of Tradition behaue themselues sometimes farre worse than simple particular men who finde themselues better armed with foure or fiue little stones taken out of the Scripture than with all the sumptuous armour of Saule that cumbred Dauid so 1. Sam. 17. that he could not goe much lesse fight Now to these foure principall Doctours of the Church I could adde many others which in this point of the Creation of Angels deriue nothing from Tradition but content themselues with the consequences drawne from the Scripture But I will content my selfe with one place of Epiphanius Haeres 65. cont P. Samos because hee is commonly alledged as a great defender of Tradition If the Angels saith hee had not beene created with the Heauen and the Earth the word had not said to Iob VVhen the Starres were made all my Angels praised mee with their voice Then hee bringeth in one asking this question Thou hast shewed that Angels were before the Starres hast said that they were made with the Heauen the earth tell vs whence hast thou made the demonstration of it were they made altogether before Heauen and Earth For the Scripture declareth no where clearely the time of the Creation of Angels In gr contextu corru●te legitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thou hast shewed that they were before the Starres for if they had not beene how could they haue praised GOD for the creation of the Starres Thereupon he answereth VVee cannot say by our owne discourse the solution of euery question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But by CONSEQVENCE OF THE SCRIPTVRES For the word of God note that he maketh no distinction betwene the word of God the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but take the one for the other sheweth clearely that the Angels were not made after the Starres nor before the Heauen and the earth that which is said beeing a thing manifestly vnchangeable that before the Heauen and the earth there was nothing created For in the beginning God created Heauen and Earth so that there was the beginning of the Creation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there was nothing created afore then By this is manifest on which side is greatest surety and more certainty of the trueth in this point whether in following Tradition with Saint Ambrose Hierome and many Greekes who vnawares let themselues slide into the opinion of Aristotle in steade of the Apostolick Tradition Or in relying on the Scripture by the necessarie euident consequences drawne from it with Saint Augustine Epiphanius and some others Genebrarde notwithstanding the authoritie of the Scripture ●hro Aetat the exposition of these Doctours and the determination of the Church of Rome had rather follow the Greekes and others which hold that Angels are not of the number of the workes of the six daies yet he is not so desperate as Du Perron who denyeth that their creation can be shewed in Moses For hee affirmeth that Moses sheweth plaine enough that they were created of God when he calleth them Angels of the Lord when hee maketh them his ministers and seruants c. And it is by this onely consequence of Scripture Cyril ado ●ul that Saint Cyrill Alex. confuted the impudencie of Iulian the Apostata of whom our Bishoppe hath taken this instance And thus much be spoken concerning their Creation Now for their distinction The Bishop of Eureux saith that the Iewes knewe it by Tradition either absolute or subsidiarie as he calleth it Fol. 70 And Ignatius attributeth to himselfe the knowledge of the Orders of Angels Epist ad Tra. the differences of Archangels vertues Dominions Thrones Powers the Magnificences of principalities the excellencies of the Cherubins and Seraphins the sublimitie of the spirit the raigne of the Lord and the vncomparable Diuinitie of God the father almightie But S. Augustine confesseth here freely his ignorāce Euch. ad Lau. c. 85. mocking at those that presume to knowe it without beeing able to proue it And in the Chapter following he sath that there is no need to affirme or deny the things with danger since they may be denied without crime Whence may bee concluded either that the Christian Church hath not beene so faithfull a keeper of the Tradition of the Apostles Fol 106. as Du Perron saith the Synagogue was of the tradition of the Patriarches Prophets which let not