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	call_v	time_n	30	3	2.9976	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12213	A reply to an ansvvere, made by a popish adversarie, to the two chapters in the first part of that booke, which is intituled a Friendly advertisement to the pretended Catholickes in Ireland Wherein, those two points; concerning his Majejesties [sic] supremacie, and the religion, established by the lawes and statutes of the kingdome, be further justified and defended against the vaine cavils and exceptions of that adversarie: by Christopher Sibthorp, Knight, one of His Majesties iustices of his Court of Chiefe Place within the same realme.	Sibthorp, Christopher, Sir, d. 1632.	1625 (1625)	STC 22524; ESTC S117400	88,953	134

courtesie in the Pope as Gratian most ungratiously would perswade but a matter of bounden duetie Ibidem Cap. Petrus and without all dissembling and seriously meant and intended by him in such manner and sort as he by those his words plainely declareth And consequently you now perceive verie fully I hope that for the space of eight hundred yeares and more after CHRIST the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors and that the Christian Emperors also had Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill within their Empyres But here now doe some Papists take exception and answere as touching Salomon his displacing of Abiathar the high Priest and putting Sadoc in his place that Salomon did this as he was a Prophet not as hee was a King But first this is but a meere supposition and conceit not found warranted in the Text. Yea the untruth of it may appeare if you please but to reade the Chapter For the offence which Abiathar 1. King 2.22.23.24 25.26.27.28 29 c. the high Priest had committed was High Treason in joyning with Adoniah against King Salomon for the kingdome Ioah also was in the same Treason and Conspiracie The King therefore caused Adoniah to be put to death he caused also Ioab to be put to death touching Abiathar the high Priest hee was also as worthy of death as the rest although for some causes and respects he was spared for that time Thou art worthie of death 1. King 2 26.27 saith the King but I will not this day kill thee because thou barest the Arke of the Lord God before David my Father and because thou hast suffered in all wherein my Father hath beene afflicted So Salomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. And the King put Benaiah in the roome of Ioab over the Hoste and the King set Sadoc the priest Vers 35. in the roome of Abiathar In which words you see that Salomon doing these things is not styled or called by the name of a Prophet but expressely by the name of a King thereby signifying and declaring that what Salomon did touching the removing of Abiathar and putting Sadoc in his place he did it as a King aswell as when he put Benaiah in the place of Ioab Secondly you see that the offence which Abiathar had committed was treason and that therefore he deserved to die aswell as Adoniah or Ioab or any other of the conspirators But yet for the reasons and respects before mentioned hee would not then put him to death though he had deserved it but was content in lieu thereof for that time to inflict this punishment upon him to have him removed from his Priest-hood Now to deale in cases of Treason and to be a Iudge of matters concerning life and death and to award execution of death or in mercie to mitigate and alter the severitie of that punishment and in lieu thereof to have a milder or not so severe a punishment as death to be inflicted be things not properly belonging to the office of a Prophet but to the office of a King they doe rightly and properly enough belong And therefore what Salomon did herein it is evident that he did it as a King not as a Prophet And consequently it still remayneth firme and sure even by this example of King Salomon as also by other examples mentioned in my former Booke whereto my adversarie is still pleased to answere nothing that Kings as Kings have power to place Bishops and againe to displace them when there is cause and to put others in their roome And as touching Moses some Papists doe also answere that he was a Priest the high Priest Bellar. de verb. Dei lib 3. cap. 4● for so saith Bellarmine and therefore that Aaron performed that reverence obedience and subjection to him that hee did as being high Priest My Adversarie likewise saith the same that God Almightie made Moses an high Priest and citeth for proofe of it Num. 27. but there is no such thing written in that Chapter nor in any other Chapter of the whole Bible beside Deut. 33.5 I reade that Moses was as a King or Prince in Israell but I no where reade throughout the whole Booke of God that God constituted Moses to be the high Priest yea it is well knowne that in Moses time Aaron was the high Priest what necessitie then was there for Moses also to be an high Priest But that Moses was no Priest properly so called much lesse an high Priest is thus made manifest For if Moses were a Priest it must be eyther before the consecration of Aaron or after But after the consecration of Aaron and his Sonnes to the Priest-hood it is cleare that not Moses but Aaron and his Sonnes were the Priests as having the Priest-hood appointed and specially given unto them by Gods owne direction Thou saith God to Moses Numb 3.10 shalt appoint Aaron and his Sonnes to execute their Priests offices and the stranger that commeth here shall be slaine So that none but Aaron and those that were of his seede might execute the Priests office For which cause Moses neyther did not durst execute the Priests office Num. 16.46.47 but commanded Aaron to burne Incense and to make an attonement for the people Wherefore it is very apparant that after the consecration of Aaron Moses was not a Priest And that Moses was also no Priest before the consecration of Aaron is likewise very evident because before that time the priest-hood was annexed to the birth-right and did belong to the first borne in whose place the Levites afterward came Numb 3.12.41.45 Lyra in Num. 3.12 Ibidem and were appointed So sai●h Lyra reporting the received judgements of the best interpreters that Ante legem datam ad Primogenitos pertinebat offerre sacrificia Before the Law given it belonged to the first-borne to offer sacrifices Againe hee saith expressely that Levitae successerunt loco eorum The Levites succeded in their place And againe he saith Lyra. in Gen. 14. Sacerdotium fuit annexum Primogeniturae usque ad legem datā per Mosem The Priest-hood was annexed to the first borne untill the Law given by Moses Now of these two brothers Moses Aaron the Sonnes of Amram it is manifest that not Moses but Aaron was the eldest and first borne For we reade in Num. 33. Num. 33.39 That Aaron was one hunded twentie and three yeares old when he died But Moses outliving Aaron Deut. 34.7 was but one hundred and twentie yeares old when he died So that Aaron appeareth questionlesse and undoubtedly to be the elder brother and the first borne and consequently even by the right of Primogeniture did the Priest-hood belong to Aaron and not to Moses If any say that the birthright was sometime taken from the eldest by a speciall appointment of God and given to the younger it hath no place here For no such especiall appointment from

to say Obsecro ut scribatis is verie consonant and most fit and congruous Againe how can Obsecro ut scribas well stand with these words Literis vestris frui concedite or with didiceritis adhibete or with Scitote and intellexeritis or with praestetis or with all the rest of the Verbes that be of the Plurall number But let this be as it will This is certaine and cannot be denied that Chrysostome prayed ayde aswell of the other Bishops of the West as of Innocentius Bishop of Rome of them all alike So that this example and times of Chrysostome Innocentius make nothing for the Bishop of Rome his supremacie but much against it For when Chrysostome was deposed from his Bishopricke in a Councell ●f Bishops at Calcedon hee appealed from them not to the Bishop of Rome but to a generall Councell This Socrates witnesseth saying Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 15. in greeke cap. 14 in the lat Iohannes eos à quibus vocabatur tanquam inimicos exceptione recusabat universalem Synodum appellabat Iohn Chrysostome refused those that called him to that Councell upon this exception that they were his enemies and appealed to a generall Councell Secondly those Bishops assembled in that Councell for the deposing of Chrysostome were so assembled not by the commandement of the Bishop of Rome but by the Emperors commandement Ibidem for so also doth Socrates testifie Thirdly when Innocentius saw that the matter could not be ended but in a generall Councell he sent Legats to Honorius and Arcadius Emperors to beseech them to call a Councell and to appoint the time and place for it where also his suite and supplication was so little regarded That his Legats were sent away with reproch Sozom. libr. 8. cap. 28. as disturbers of the West Empyre as Sozomen witnesseth Now if Innocentius Bishop of Rome had had the power and authoritie in those times to call generall Councells Why did hee not call them Yea why did he by his Legats intreate and beseech the Emperors to doe it if it were a right belonging to himselfe or if it were not a right belonging to the Emperors in those dayes Or if he were then the supreme commander of all the Christian world as the Popes now clayme to be how commeth it to passe that he was such an humble suter to the Emperors for a Councell and yet could not obtaine it Doe not all these things strongly and invincibly declare that in those times not the Popes but the Emperors had clearely the supremacie Then afterward though much out of his due time and place and very immethodically for the exception had beene fitter in the next Chapter then in this hee taketh this exception that in the first part of my Booke Cap. 2. and pag. 42. in the Margent there is a misquotation in this sort viz. Bern. de cons ad Eug. lib. 6. cap. 3. 8. where it should have beene Bern. de cons ad Eug. lib. 4 cap. 2. For indeede in this place it is that S. Bernard calleth the Popes doctrines and pastures Daemonum potius quam ovium pascua which be the wordes I cited S. Bernard for and which are accordingly there expressely to be found What a poore exception then is this to carpe at a Quotation in the margent when the verie wordes and matter are there to be found in the Author himselfe whom I cited namely in S. Bernard Is he not farre driven that is forced to this kinde of exception And yet if hee had beene pleased to have looked into the Errata of my Booke he might have found in the conclusion of them that such like faults as this I desired the Reader to correct with his Pen which he might very easily have done if he had so pleased But as it seemeth he is an hard man that neyther out of his owne courtesie nor yet upon the intreatie of others will be moved to shew so small a kindenesse What Is it because better matter fayled him that he tooke this silly exception and standeth so much upon it Or is it because by this meanes he loveth to declare himselfe to bee as voyde of good humanitie as he is of true and sound divinitie For my part I may say that he giveth me herein cause to joy and rejoyce that hee can justly take no exception to the matter contayned in my Booke but onely to a marginall Quotation thus misprinted and mistaken Howbeit hee seemeth yet further verie willing and forward to carpe at these wordes in my Booke Cap. 1 pag. 25. where I say that in the time of King William Rufus Anselmus the Archbishop of Canterbury would have appealed to Rome but not onely the King but the Bishops also of England were therein against him but the trueth of this is verie cleare and apparant For Malmesbury Malmesh lib. 1. de ges●i Pont. Angl. whom I there cite for proose hereof witnesseth That both the King disliked that his doing and that therein also Omnes Episcopi Angliae Primati suo suffragiūnegarunt All the Bishops in England denied their voyces unto their Primate Yea Matthew Paris further testifieth Matth Paris in Gulielm● 2 An. 1094. that when Anselmus Archbishop of Canterbury asked leave of King William Rufus to goe to Rome The King replyed That no Archbishop nor Bishop of his Realme should be subject to the Pope or Court of Rome especially for that he had all those rights in his kingdome which the Emperor had in his Empyre And for this cause was Anselmus Convented by the King as an offendor against the State And to this accusation did also the rest of the Bishops Ibidem except the Bishop of Rochester give their consents And because he ventured to goe over the Seas to Rome without leave All his goods were seised to the Kings use Ansel Epist 46. a● Paschalem is 3. Colon. 1612. all his acts and proceedings in the Church of England reversed and himselfe constrained to live in banishment during the life of King William whereof Anselmus himselfe complayned in his Epistle to Pope Paschalis Yea afterward also Mat●● Paris in Hen. 1. An. 1104 in the time of King Henry the first when the same Anselmus was returning home from Rome the Kings Atturney in his Masters name forbad him to enter the Land unlesse he would faithfully promise to keepe all the customes both of William the Conqueror his Father and of William Rufus his brother And when the King perceaved the Pope and the Archbishop to continue their former purpose against his Royall liberties he seised the Bishopricke into his hands and arrested all Anselmus goods that were to bee found To these and certaine other liberties of the Crowne Did also King Henry the second not long after cause all his Bishops and Nobles to be sworne For in the yeare of our Lord God M.C.LXIIII This King Henry the second being at Claredon in the presence of the Archbishops

and confuting the imagination and devise of his owne braine For the affirmative clause in the Oath is not as he imperfectly and lamely relateth it but it is this That the King is the onely Supreme Governor of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries aswell in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as Temporall The negative clause followeth and is this That no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme This word Onely in the affirmative clause hath he left out which if he had added together with all the rest of the wordes that follow in that affirmative clause he would very easily have found that to be true which I wrote namely that the effect of the negative clause is included in the former affirmative For he that affirmeth the King to be the onely Supreme Governor within his owne Dominions that in all things or causes Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall aswell as temporall doth in that speech exclude every forraine Prince person Prelate State or Potentate from having any supreme governement or any government at all without his leave and licence within his Dominions Yea it is very evident that the former affirmative clause includeth the negative clause and more For the negative clause excludeth forrain Princes persons Prelates States Potētates only from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall Authoritie but the former affirmative excludeth them from authoritie in all things or causes both temporall spirituall Againe you see that the negative clause extendeth onely to forraine persons but the affirmative clause extendeth to any persons whosoever whether forraine or domesticall Thirdly the negative clause excludeth forraine persons from having any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Realme But the former affirmative clause extendeth not only to this Realme or that Realme in particular but generally to all his Majesties Realms Dominiōs Countries So that the former affirmative clause in the Oath appeareth to be much more generall and of a farre larger extent then the negative is And therefore I hope I spake truely and within compasse when I said though in a parenthesis that the effect of the negative clause was included in the former affirmative I did not say as mine Adversarie supposeth me to hold that the Regall power includeth the Sacerdotall or Episcopall This is but his owne dreame imagination in the confutation whereof he laboureth in vaine For neyther I nor any of the Protestants doe hold that opinion but contrariewise doe hold them to be things distinct as is before declared But because he will needes carpe at my Logicke when he hath no cause let other men judge what a great Logician he is whilst he argueth thus The Regall power includeth not the Sacerdotall Ergo the affirmative clause in the Oath of SUPREMACIE includeth not the negative clause in the same Oath Hitherto then you see that my Adversarie notwithstanding all his storishes braggs and bravadoes hath shewed himselfe to be not onely a punie Lawyer as he confesseth himselfe to be but a punie Logician also most of all a punie Divine and that he hath not beene able to make any good Answere or to refell and confute any one Argument contayned in this first Chapter of my former Booke concerning the Supremacie and yet hath he also left a great part of that Chapter unanswered Neyther hath he made throughout his whole discourse and pleading so much as one good argument to prove his Clients cause that is the Popes supremacie though he purposed and laboured to doe it Where is it not a mervaile that he being a Lawyer and a Subject to our Soveraigne Lord the KING will date neverthelesse admitte of such a Client as the Pope is and of his cause which he knoweth before hand to be condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and which he now may see if hee saw it not before to be also condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of God himselfe and by all the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Records But if hee be not ashamed of such a Client and his cause his Client I suppose will be ashamed of him and entertaine him no longer to pleade for him unlesse he could doe it better And yet indeede when his Clients cause is foule naught as here it appeareth to be what Lawyer be he never so learned or what Divine be hee never so profound is able to justifie it or to make it good Notwithstanding his demurrer therefore and notwithstanding that by this his plea his purpose was to arrest and stay mens judgements I trust they will all now no cause appearing to the contrarie proceede without any further delay to give their sentence against his Client for in the behalfe of these two most worthy Peerles Princes who be the complaynants against him namely for Christ IESVS in their acknowledging and publishing him onely to be the onely universall Bishop supreme Pastor and head of the whole Church Militant upon Earth aswell as of the Triumphant in Heaven and for the King in declaring and publishing him under God to be the onely Supreme Governor over all manner of persons and in all kinde of causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his Dominions Neyther doe I doubt but all mens judgements whensoever upon good and well advised deliberation they shall please to give them will passe accordingly In the meane time let us goe one to the second Chapter see if he have any better successe in that then he hath found in the former Concerning the second Chapter IN this second Chapter of my former Booke my Adversarie supposeth that my maine scope and purpose was to prove our Church that is the Church of the Protestants to have beene in the Apostles times But never was there saith he poore Assertion so miserably mangled And true it is indeede that it is miserably mangled and cut in pieces But by whom namely by himselfe For my Assertion is not so short as he relateth it nor is to end where he maketh it to end but is of a longer and larger extent and being produced not by parts or pieces but wholy and intirely as it ought it is this viz. That our Church was in the Apostles dayes and in all times and ages since howsoever or notwitstanding that Poperie did as an infection or corruption grow unto it the meaning true sence whereof is no more but that the growing of Poperie it being but as an infection or corruption to the Church is no impediment or argument to the contrarie but that our Church had a being in the Apostles dayes and in all succeeding times and ages that notwithstanding This will the better appeare if you take the whole Proposition or assertion and turne it into a Question For then the Question will not be as mine Adversary maketh it viz.

booke not only in this second Chapter of the first part but chiefely and specially in the second Chapter of the second part of it where I have set downe this Position and proved it that the Church is not so visible as to be alwayes at all times openly seene knowne to the wicked and persecuting world And for proofe hereof Aug. in Psal 1● De Baptis contr Donat●st lib. 6. cap 4. I alledged S. Augustine who therefore compareth the Church to the M●one which is often obscured and hid yea he confesseth and teacheth That the Church may sometime be so hidden as that the verie members thereof shall not know one another It is true that the men whereof the Church consisteth are alwayes visible and may be seene as being men but the Faith and Religion they beleeve and hold is not so visible as to be alwayes seene discovered known to the wicked and malignant world although sometime it be which point you may see there further declared And therefore they be not Chymicall arguments as my Adversarie in his Chymericall and Alchymisticall Divinitie surmiseth but solide and sound proofes that I bring to declare that the true Church is sometimes visible and to be seene of this wicked world and sometimes invisible Revel 9.13 Revel 10.1.2.10.11 and not to be seene of it that is to say it is sometimes a Patent and sometimes a Latent Church of which sort because the Papists will not grant their Church to be but will have it alwayes visible evermore splendently appearing to the eyes of the world it is a plaine demonstrative argument against them that therefore theirs cannot be the true Church I further shewed in this second Chapter that the true Church planted by the Apostles was afterward by little and little and by degrees to grow corrupted and to continue in those her errors corruptions and deformities for a long time even till after the sixt Angell had begun to blow the Trumpet according to the prediction Prophecie thereof in the Revelation of S. Iohn which Prophecie because it is found to agree with our Church and that it cannot be made to agree with theirs which they will not grant to be capable of any corruption or error It thereupon also followeth that not theirs but ours must needs be the true Church planted by the Apostles These arguments I here the rather mention that my adversary might see That the blast of the sixt Angels trumpet did not blow away all the arguments which I should have brought for my purpose as he scoffingly speaketh being not able otherwise or in other then a scoffing sort to answere them For what better argument can there be to prove our Church and to disprove confute theirs then this that ours doth agree with the predictions prophecies contayned in the sacred and Canonicall Scriptures and theirs neyther doth nor can be made to agree with them And here also falleth to the ground that Paradoxe and untrue opinion which he holdeth that one error in the Church overthroweth the whole Church making it to be no true Church but onely an imaginarie Church It is true 1 Cor. 5.6 that S. Paul saith That a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe of dow But hee doth not say that it utterly overthroweth nullifieth and extinguisheth it yea even this Church of Corinth wherein this leaven was by reason of that wicked incestuous man permitted to remaine unseperated 2. Cor. 1.2 unexcommunicated amongst them to the indangering of others by his example was neverthelesse the Church of God and so doth S. Paul expressely call it notwithstanding that error amongst them Againe in the same Church of Corinth there were also Contentions amongst them 1. Cor. 15 12. 1. Cor. 1.11 1. Cor. 3.3 1. Cor. 11 18.19 1. Corinth 1.2 and envying and strife and divisions yea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schismata haereses schismes heresies and yet was it a true Church of God all these errors and faults notwithstanding as S. Paul declareth The Church of Ephesus Rev. 1.2.2 ●4 5 was likewise a true Church of God for sundrie things much commended yet had God some thing against her because she had left her first love Remember therefore saith he from whence thou art fallen and repent Revel ●2 12.13.14.15 doe the first workes c. The Church of Pergamus was also a true Church of God Yet I have saith God a few things against thee because thou hast there them that maintaine the doctrine of Balaam c. And them that maintaine the doctrine of the Nicolaytans which thing I hate The Church of Thiatyra Rev. 2.18.19.20 was likewise a true Church of God and for many things also much commended Notwithstanding saith God I have a few things against thee because thou sufferest the woman Iesabell which calleth her selfe a Prophetesse to teach and deceave my servants c. By all which you see that one error or one fault in a Church doth not therefore prove it to be no Church or no true Church Yea it appeareth that a Church and a true Church may bee though divers defaults and errors bee in it which bee not fundamentall How much then doth mine Adversarie abuse that Text of S. Iames where hee saith Qui deficit in uno factus est omnium reus Iames. 2.10.11 Whosoever shall keepe the whole law and yet fayle in one point he is guilty of all For he that said thou shalt not commit adulterie said also thou shalt not kill now though thou commit no adultery yet if thou killest thou art a transgressor of the law For what S. Iames meaneth by this that he which faileth or offendeth in breaking though but one of Gods Commandements Galat. 3.10 Deut. 27.26 is guilty of all himselfe here sheweth when he saith that he is thereby become a transgressor of the law and consequently guiltie of the curse inflicted by the sentence of the Law upon every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law to doe them So that he is guiltie of all not that he hath broken all the Commandements by breaking only of one nor that he which breaketh onely one shall be punished in hell asmuch and with as great a measure of torments as hee that carelesly breaketh them all but that by this breaking but of one Commandement he hath offended the Majestie of the Law-giver incurred his displeasure and made himselfe aswell lyable to the curse of the law that is hath deserved to suffer eternall tormēts though not in so great high a degree and measure as if he had broken them all He therefore much wrongeth this Text when he applyeth it to prove that it cannot be a true Church which hath any error in it or that he that fayles in one point of Religion hath only an imaginarie Religion and no true Religion in him What was the Church wherein