Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	aaron_n	apostle_n	difference_n	13	3	8.3152	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A68078	D. Heskins, D. Sanders, and M. Rastel, accounted (among their faction) three pillers and archpatriarches of the popish synagogue (vtter enemies to the truth of Christes Gospell, and all that syncerely professe the same) ouerthrowne, and detected of their seuerall blasphemous heresies. By D. Fulke, Maister of Pembrooke Hall in Cambridge. Done and directed to the Church of England, and all those which loue the trueth.	Fulke, William, 1538-1589.	1579 (1579)	STC 11433; ESTC S114345	602,455	884

twentieth Chapter beginneth to speake of the Prophesies and first of the prophesie of the priesthood of Christe after the order of Melchizedech The one halfe of this Chapter is consumed in citing of textes to proue that Christe is a Priest after the order of Melchizedech and at length hee deuideth the Priestes office into two partes teaching and sacrificing Then he affirmeth that Christ was not a Priest after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchizedech Yet in the ende of the Chapter like a blasphemous dogge hee sayeth that Christ executed his priesthood after the order of Aaron vppon the Crosse. Where beside his blasphemie note how hee agreeth with him selfe But Christ he sayeth it called a Priest after the order of Melchizedech for the manner of his sacrifice which maketh the difference betweene the order of Aaron and the order of Melchizedech For Aaron offered in bloud the other in bread and wine The Apostle to the Hebrues obseruing many differences could not finde this But M. Heskins aunswereth that the cause why the Apostle did leaue out this manner of sacrifice was for that his principall purpose was to shewe the excellencie of Christ and his priesthood aboue Aaron and his priesthood which could not bee by shewing that he sacrificed breade and wine for the Iewes sacrifices were more glorious then bread and wine By this wise reason he giueth vs to deeme that the Apostle of subtiltie suppressed this comparison because they were weake as though they knewe not what the sacramentes of the Church were But if Christe sacrificed his bodie and bloud twise he could not better haue shewed his excellencie aboue Aaron then in declaring that Christe did not onely offer him self in bloud on the Crosse but also in bread wine after the example of Melchizedech For if offering of sacrifice were one of the chiefe partes of a Priestes office and breade and wine had beene the sacrifice of Melchizedech the Apostle neither would nor coulde haue dissembled the comparison of his sacrifice with the sacrifice of Christe which would infinitely haue aduaunced his priesthood aboue Aaron For else the Hebrues whom M. Heskins imagineth would haue obiected their sacrifices to be more glorious then bread and wine might more probably haue replyed that the Apostles compared Melchizedech with Christe in small matters and omitted the chiefest parte of his office which was this sacrifice so that if he were inferiour in the chiefe it was little to excell in the small matters But M. Heskins taketh vppon him to aunswere our obiection that we make against this sacrifice of breade and wine which is this as the Apostle to the Hebrues speaketh nothing of it no more doeth Moses in Genesis For it is sayed there that Melchizedech brought foorth breade and wine but neuer a worde that he did sacrifice breade and wine This obiection he wil aunswer both by scripture and by the eldest learned men of Christes parleament Concerning the parleament men as it is true that many of them did thinke Melchizedech to be a figure of Christ in bringing foorth bread and wine so when we come to consider their voyces it shall appeare that they make little for transubstantiation or the carnall presence But now let vs heare the scripture The scripture to proue that Melchisedech did sacrifice this bread and wine saith that he was a Priest of the most high God to whome is belongeth not to bring foorth but to offer bread and wine so that the verie connexion of the Scripture and dependants of the same enforceth vs to take this sense and none other can be admitted This is a verie peremptorie sentence plumped downe of you M. Heskins not as from your doctours chaire but euen as from Apolloes three footed stoole But if it may please you to heare is it not also scripture that he was King of Salem and wil not the verie connexion and dependance of the Scripture leade vs to thinke that as an example of his royall liberalitie he brought foorth bread wine to refresh the hungrie and wearie souldiers of Abraham which being such a multitude could not easily be prouided for by a priuate man And where Moses sayeth he was a priest of the highest God hee addeth also an example of his priestly holynesse that he blessed Abraham praysed God and that Abraham gaue him tythes of al. And lest you should exclame as your manner is that this is a newe exposition Iosephus in the firste booke tenth Chapter of his Iewishe antiquities doth so expounde it Hic Melchisedechus milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit nihil eis ad victum deesse passus c. This Melchisedech gaue verie liberall intertainment to the souldiours of Abraham suffered them to want nothing vnto their liuing But if M. Heskins wil obiect that Iosephus was a Iewe then let him heare the author of Scholastica historia a Christian and a Catholike as M. Heskins will confesse allowing of the same exposition Chap. 46. in these wordes At verò Melchizedech rex Salem obtulit ei panem vinum quod quasi exponen● Iosephus ait ministrauit exercitui Xenia multam abundantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit et super epulas benedixit deum qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi But Melchizedech King of Salem offered vnto him bread and wine which Iosephus as it were expounding of it sayeth he ministred to his armie the dueties of hospitalitie and gaue him great plentie of things necessary beside the feast or at the feast he blessed God which had subdued vnto Abraham his enimies For he was a priest of the high● so god Thus farre he 〈◊〉 M. Heskins for his connexion perchaunce will vrge the Coniunction enim erat enim saterdos c. in the vulgar Latine text to make it to be referred to the former clause but neither the Hebrue nor the Greeke text hath that Coniunction To be short if the bringing foorth of bread and wine perteined to his priestly office there is nothing in the text to expresse his Kingly office but Moses as he calleth him both a King and a priest so doth he distinctly shewe what he did as a King and what he did as a priest Yet Maister Heskins goeth on and will proue That if Christ were a Priest after the order of Melchizedech he offred a sacrifice after that order but he neuer made any mo oblations then two the one on the crosse after the order of Aaron the other in his last Supper after the order of Melchisedech except we will say that Christe altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God. Marke here Christian Reader how many horrible blasphemies this impudent dogge barketh out against our Sauiour Christ directly contrarie to his expresse worde First he affirmeth that Christ made two offerings of himselfe whereas the holy Ghost saith Heb. 9. not that he should oftentimes offer himselfe as the high priest c. For

easie of all men to be vnderstanded and neede none interpreter for that we be all taught of God and of his spirite c. Of which minde he imagineth his aduersarie to be In that he would the scriptures to be common to all men How false slanderous this his report is of Luther may sufficiently appeare by that one worde Theodidacti taught of God by which it is most manifest that Luther affirmeth the scriptures to be easie to be vnderstood not of all men in generall but onely of all them that are taught of God and of his spirite by which they were indighted But nowe our Burgesse will make plaine by discussion that the scriptures be obscure darke and hard to be vnderstanded and for that cause not of all men indifferently to be read and that by seuen arguments Although it followeth not that the scriptures are not to be read bicause they are hard but the contrarie yet let vs weigh these seuen arguments The first There be many controuersies of the blessed sacrament therefore there be difficulties in the scriptures If controuersies raysed by froward maintainers of falshoode be a proofe of difficultie there shall nothing be plaine not only in the scriptures of God neither in any other writings or sayings of men no not in such matters as are subiect to our senses but we shall be brought into an Academicall doubtfulnesse of all things But what say you M. Heskins are not the scriptures plaine for the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament which you maintaine Is Hoc est corpus meum nowe a matter of diffic●ltie Let all Papistes that haue witte beware of your proceding you haue euen now by your first argumēt cut asunder the synnes strength of al your cause The second The very disciples of Christ besides the Iewes vnderstoode not Christes owne words before they were written Ioh. 6. Much lesse we the same written To passe ouer the vngodly difference you make betweene Christes wordes proceeding out of his owne mouth and the same writtē by inspiration of his owne holy spirit call you them the very disciples of Christ which offended with that speach departed from him or them that abid the interpretation of them and tarried still with him Such disciples as the former were be you and your sect which when the scripture serueth not your purpose accuse it of difficultie and vncertaintie as the olde Heretiques the Valentinians did as witnesseth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. But Chrysostome I suppose helpeth you much where hee saith Quid ergo est durus difficilis intellectu quem capere non posset eorum imbecillitas plenus formidinis What then is this word hard difficult to be vnderstoode and such as their weaknesse could not receiue full of fearefulnes Here is the name of the words of Chrysostome but to what purpose when no doctor more often or more earnestly exhorteth all Lay men that are Christians to read the scriptures of God affirming thē also to be easie to be vnderstood for the most part and not onely without daunger but also verie profitable euen where they be hard to be vnderstoode I wil rehearse one or two places of a great number In Luc. cap. 16. Idque hortor hortari non desinam c. And this I exhort you and will not cease to exhort you that you would not only in this place meaning in the Church giue heede to those things that are said but also when you shall be at home you would euery day giue your selues to the reading of the holy scriptures And there followeth a reason Neque nunc fieri potest Neither can it nowe be I say it can not be that any man should obtaine saluation except hee bee continually conuersant in spirituall reading And not long after Etiamsi non intelligas illic recondita c. yea although thou vnderstand not the misteries that are therein hidden yet of the very reading of them great holinesse groweth Finally In genesim Hom. 9. In diuinis autem scripturis c. but in the holy scriptures in those spirituall and precious stories neither is it lawfull to suspect any danger neither is there any great labour but vnspeakable gaine onely let vs bring with chearefulnesse that which lyeth in vs. The third If the scriptures be plaine and easie for euery mā to vnderstand it was no great benefit that Christ did open his Apostles witts that they might vnderstand the scriptures nor that he did interpret Moses and the Prophetes to the disciples that went to Emaus wherefore we conclude with S. Peter that as he witnessing the Epistles of S. Paule be hard so be the rest of the scriptures hard O blundering Burgesse Who did euer affirme that the scriptures were easie to be vnderstād without the spirit of Christ Or what asse of Acarnania wold brave out suche a reason The Apostles could not vnderstand the scriptures sufficiētly to teach all the world without a singular gift of interpretation therefore no Christian man may learne by reading the scriptures howe to knowe God to his eternall saluation without the same extraordinarie gift But by your leaue maister speaker for the office you take vpon you I know not howe you came vnto it you misreport S Peter being a Lord of the higher house as you count him for he saith not that the Epistles of S. Paule be hard but that among those things which he wrote of the second comming of Christ some things are hard to be vnderstoode Wherefore neither his authoritie nor your reason will be sufficient to conclude your cause The fourth The Chamberlen could not vnderstand the prophet Esay without an interpreter therefore the scriptures are not plaine and easie of all men to be vnderstanded A proper conclusion There is some difficultie in some scriptures therefore they are all hard and can not be vnderstoode We neither affirme that all things in the scriptures are easie to be vnderstanded nor that they are easie to be vnderstood of all men But that the children of God by his spirite are instructed to vnderstand so much in them as is profitable for their saluation and that nothing necessarie for vs to knowe is so obscurely set foorth in one scripture but it is as plainly set down in an other Neither do we reiect interpreters bicause we read the scriptures but as Chrysostom teacheth by reading the scripturs we are made more apt to vnderstād the interpreters In Euan. Ioan. Hom. 10. The exāple of Philip sent vnto the Chamberlen doth also declare howe God wil blesse the reading of the scriptures whē he is sought in them The fift The Apostles them selues vnderstoode not Christe speaking of his passion and resurrection Iohn 16. After a while c. therfore if the liuely voyce of Christ was dark much more is the same now written in dead letters dark hard to be vnderstanded The Apostles by speciall dispensation not yet so wel lightned that they vnderstood their master not