Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	aaron_n	according_a	put_v	24	3	4.5166	3	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

oppugne directly the holy Scripture which testifieth clearely inough that He that absolueth the wicked is an abhomination to the Lord Pro 17.15 And in another place commaundeth in expresse termes to pluck murtherers from the alter of God Exod 21.14 that they may die And whether it be referred to infidel gouernours Math. 27.5 ● Mar. 15.6 as S. Mathew S. Marke do or to the Synagogue corrupted as the Bishop of Eureux thinketh to shew it by S. Iohn yet the corruption transgression of the Law therein is euident Therfore Saint Cyrill for to excuse the ancient Synagogue groundeth this custome on the Law written touching māslaughter committed vnawares Cyr. in Iul ● 2. c. 14. Num. 35. and thinketh that the Synagogue that was in Christs time of hatred rage wherwith it burned against him transgressed that Lawe asking the deliuerance of a detestable robber and murtherer in steade of one that had killed a man by mischance and vnawares See then the Bishop of Eureux his tradition rased and condemned by the sentence of a Patriarch of Alexandria Theophylact speaketh of it these words Wee may say that the Iewes ●heoph in 〈◊〉 c. 18. teaching the doctrines which are the commaundements of men haue inuented many things of their owne heads and haue not vsed the lawes of God so that this point also became a custome without reason as many other things without commaundement of the Lawe See here againe Tradition the pretended word of God after our Bishop called a custome without reason by a Bishoppe much ancienter and of better authoritie than ours And whereas I sayd that they which deliuer Barrabasses do crucifie Iesus Christ in his members he accuseth me of inuectiues and of ignorance of the mysteries and iudgements of God forgetting the place of S. Ambrose whence I drew that cōclusion the words are these The Lawes of iniquitie are such that it hateth innocencie loueth wickednes VVherin notwithstanding the interpretation of the name giueth apparance of a figure For this word Barrabas Amb. in Luc. ●ib 10. signifieth some of the Fathers those then to whome it is said Your Father is the Diuell are declared that they perfer Anti-christ the sonne of their Father before the true sonne of God The sentence of S. Augustine who saith that the Iewes are not to be reprehended for that they deliuered a guiltie person at Easter but for that they put to death an innocent should be vnderstood not simply and absolutely but by cōparison as if he had said to put to death him that brought life and righteousnesse into the world is a crime so horrible and to deliuer a person guilty is nothing in comparison For this holy Doctour was too much conuersant in the Scripture and too good an interpreter of the places aboue alleadged for to declare absolutely vnreproueable those whome the spirit of God declareth to be an abhomination before the Lord. But it is not without mysticall reason that our Bishoppe would make murtherers bee found irreprehensible ●xod 21.14 ●o 17.15 ● Tim. 3.2 ●it 1.6 that is to say capable to bee Bishoppes it is without reason and not without ignorance to call mee ignorant of his mysteries which we are no more ignorant of thē of the traditiō of Boniface the fift who was the first Pope that ordained That altars and Churches should serue for places of fredome to Malefactors Platin. in Bonif. 5. wherein the good Prelate re-established the Tradition of Pilate to deliuer Robbers As for the instances he taketh out of the Epistle to the Hebrues where Saint Paul reciteth certaine legall ceremonies of which Moses maketh not expresse mention though we should graunt him all of them yet could they not helpe his desperate cause For they are things Chap. 9. which concerne historie and not doctrine the onely act of the sacrifice made for the ratification of the couenante and not the ordinary vse and custome of daily and yearly sacrifices therefore might be vnknowne without danger of saluatiō not onely of the people but euen of the Priests themselues seeing they were not preceps touching the māners of their ordinary seruice but onely certaine circumstances of a singular and extraordinary sacrifice the substance whereof is described by Moses In a word they be Traditions of such a nature of which we haue oftē said there be many but which derogate in nothing from the perfection sufficiency of the Scripture which consisteth in doctrine Now because this chapter with a good part of the rest of this Epistle giueth a deadly blow to the masse he laboureth to comfort the wound with these Instances taken from the same place because he can not make vse of it as of Achilles dart or as of a Scorpion for to draw a remedy from the same from whence the hurte came He supplyeth with his braine as much as he can and maketh S. Paul say that Moses in the solemnity of the said sacrifice mixed water with the blood of the Testamēt which S. Paul saith not no more thā Moses though he say that he tooke water with blood wool as if one could not take two things one with another without mixing thē one within another the priests of the Romish church whē they baptize take water oyle other drugs Ergo they mixe them all together in the Sacramental water A goodly argument What is there in the text of Saint Paule that forceth vs to conclude that Moses mixed the water within the bloud for to sprinkle therewith the people by one onely sprinkling rather than to say that he sprinkled them first with water for to purifie and wash them as they did the sacrifices before they offered them which is the ground of the analogy by which I said that this ceremonie might be gathered out of Moses He reprooueth me of vanitie for affirming that the sacrifices for sinne And that such sacrifices were of hee goates The first is manifest for that Moses in the first place speaketh of whole burnt offerings which were expiatorie propitiatory after which he maketh mention of sacrifices of thanksgiuing The other appeareth by analogie or proportion of the Law which saith If the Prince of the people that is one of them that haue publick charge as the seauenty Elders and the heads of the tribes had commit sin let his offering be of an hee goate Now in this Sacrifice whereof is question the 70. elders are commanded to goe vp with Moses Aaron Nadab and Abihu Leui. 4.22.23 whose sacrifices were of bullockes according to the Law It is gathered therefore by analogie that the offrings of the 70. elders were of hee goats To say that the institution of all these particulars was after the Sacrifice of the Couenant were not to consider that sacrifices notwithstanding this were in vse before the Lawe giuen by God to Moses Leu. 4.3 and that not according to each mans fantasie but according as God reuealed and

Reuelation where the soules of them that were killed for the word of God cried vnder the Altar How long ô Lord which art holy and true doest thou not iudge and auenge our blood on them that dwell one the earth Behold almost the same light the same stile in the first and last booke of the holy Scripture 〈◊〉 9.5 c When god saith in the same booke of Moses that he will require againe the blood of soules Resur c. 28. he sheweth vs the same thing and furnisheth vs matter of a like argument Notwithstanding Tertullian draweth thence a consequēce not onely for the Immortality of the soule but also for the Resurrection of the body reasoning thus That which God requireth againe must be restored but God requireth againe the blood shed as well by the hand of beasts as by the hand of men therefore it must be restored for that which is not at all can not be auenged And then he concludeth that what is spoken of the blood is spoken of the flesh ●●p 32 without which the blood can not bee and that the flesh shall be raysed vp that the blood may be auenged and in the same booke he saith that Moses in this place maketh mention of beasts at whose handes the blood shall be required the better to expresse the resurrection euen of bodies deuoured by them The Bishopp of Eureux findeth that this is but an hyperbolicall threatning for to terrifie men from manslaughter But they which take the prohibitions of Murder for hyperboles they are the very same that hyperbolically giue licence to themselues to commit it following the Tradition not of the Apostles vnlesse it be of Iudas but of certaine Robbers among the Donatists which they called Circumcelliones Now sith this place cannot be well vnderstood in his iudgment without Tradition he secretly insinuateh that euen the ciuill Magistrate cannot punish murder by vertue of this law of the Scripture that so he might put into this false scabbard of his tradition both the two swords togither the spirituall and the Temporall From the taking vp of Henoch I make this argument he which is taken out of this life gathered vnto god enioyeth an eternall felicity But Henoch being no more seene among men was gathered or taken away vnto GOD therefore Henoch enioyeth eternall felicitie This argument proueth not only the immortalitie of the soule But also Paradise that is to say an eternall felicitie The Sadduces reply by the mouth of his aduocate Du Perron is That it may bee graunted that this translation was a withdrawing from the conuersation of men and a delay and staying of death till a certaine time vnknowne to men of the first ages but that it followeth not that the soule after the extinction of the bodie subsisteth and remaineth for euer I answere that if it be permitted to the Saducie and his Aduocate to adde to the text of Moses what they please they may conclude from thence what they list and one day shall finde that which they will like but little But this Sadducean or Perronian glosse is contrarie to the Text of Moses which setteth downe vnto vs the temporall life of Henoch much shorter than was the ordinarie of that time So that this taking vp cannot be vnderstood of a delay or staying of death Moreouer this text representeth vnto vs Henoch as the most excellent man in pietie and loue of GOD which liued in his age and setteth forth vnto vs also without the helpe of any glosse his taking vp as a manifest testimonie of the fauour of God towards him On the other side all the Law of Moses teacheth vs that it was rather the testimonie of a curse than of a blessing to be soone depriued of this temporall life seeing that long life vpon earth is promised propounded as a speciall blessing I● followeth therefore by necessarie and ineuitable consequence that there is another and more happy life then this earthly life Into which Henoch was translated Reuel 21. which we call Paradise that is to say a place extempt from all euill and abounding in all good This consequence is drawne from the text it selfe not from the word of Tertullian who calleth Henoch Candidatum aeternitatis which I had inserted by the way But take away this floorish that hee maketh vpon occasion of this word as if I would prooue the immortality of the soule by Tertullian hee remaineth lame and benummed and not able to passe any further For the rest that he saith is as much to purpose as if one would ground the originall of the Esseians or of the Monks o● Popery on this withdrawing of Enoch from the conuersation of men And if our Bishop had not taken in hand to plead the cause of the Saduces he might find heere a good proofe for the Esseians or for the Monkes From the historie of the Deluge may be drawne proofe for the Vniuersall iudgement which Du Perron holdeth not to haue beene beleeued among the Iewes ●●n 7 but by Tradition of the Prophesie of Henoch cited in the Epistle of saint Iude For that which we see foretold in the same prophecie we finde it accomplished in the seuenth chapter of Genesis The argument may be formed thus He which executeth iudgement against all and condemneth all the wicked for the works of their impiety executeth an vniuersall Iudgment But God executed such a Iudgment in the flood against all the wicked Therefore he executed an vniuersall Iudgment The Bishoppe of Eureux cannot deny the Maior for it is taken from the foresaide tradition nor the Minor without denying the historie of Moses who teacheth vs that this Iudgment was vniuersall And if the Saducie alleadge the promise that GOD made Genes 9.11 and .15 Verses not to destroy the whole earth any more we can shew him the restriction that is there added namely that he will not destroy the earth any more by the waters of the Flood his iudgments not being subiect to one onely forme And seeing that the same Iustice is alwaies in God which the Saducie is constrained to confesse and the same vnrighteousnes and impietie reigneth amongst men It followeth that he will execute also the same iudgment to wit vniuersall though we can not know the day nor the houre Tradition beeing no lesse silent heere than the Scripture From the Couenant that God made with Abraham and the Hebrewes I argue thus Genes 15.17 2 4.7 A couenant that dureth for euer requireth that the parties betweene whom it is contracted doe abide for euer But the couenaunt that GOD contracteth with his dureth for euer Therefore they must also abide for euer The onely light of nature sheweth as well to the Iewes and to the Heathen as to Christians the truth of the Maior For it is most certein that when one of the Correlatiues is extinct the relation which is betweene them is extinct also The Minor is prooued to a Sadducie by a