Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	aaron_n	abide_v	priesthood_n	16	3	10.4214	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15061	An answere to a certeine booke, written by Maister William Rainolds student of diuinitie in the English colledge at Rhemes, and entituled, A refutation of sundrie reprehensions, cauils, etc. by William Whitaker ...	Whitaker, William, 1548-1595.	1585 (1585)	STC 25364A; ESTC S4474	210,264	485

the Lord continuallie raised vp and prouided for his Church such pastors and doctors as were necessarie for the gathering of the saincts togeather Further answere in this place is not needfull As for Augustine the monke Pag. 68. and Laurentius and the rest whome you call the first Apostles and conuerters of our nation I neither acknowledge them for Apostles nor Priests yea sure I am if they were true Apostles then were they no Priests and if they were Priests their Apostleship was of a wrong stampe And though Beda so call them yet it followeth not that they were popish priests seing he vsed but the phrase of common speach by which the preachers and Ministers of the word and sacraments were so called in which respect my selfe also called S. Ierome a priest of the Romane Church But this though an vsual yet is it an improper kinde of speach What wanteth in reasoning you supply in rayling pag. 69. Iohn Bale you call a sincke of iniquitie Caluin you saie is more execrable then the rest of such flowers Master Rainolds garden good reader hath aboundance as lightlie thou shalt finde anie where Those seruants of Christ of whome you speake your pleasure haue noted the fathers for their declining from the puritie of the gospel that may they in some things worthelie doe euen as Paul did Peter And touching this matter we haue in hand there were amongst them some superstitious offerings The fathers acknowledge not the Popish sacrifice which euen the papists themselues haue abandoned but that the fathers were priests in our meaning or thought they had anie reall sacrifice of Christes bodie and bloode you haue not shewed nor can Tertul. ad Scapul The fathers denie that any such sacrifice remaineth Tertullian saith we sacrifice for the safetie of the Emperour but to our God and his but as God hath commaunded with pure praier Tertullian knoweth not of any externall sacrifice amonge the Christians for then would they haue offered that also for the Emperour Iustin in dial cum Tryphone And Iustinus Martyr before him saieth that Christians haue learned to offer the sacrifice of supplications and thanksgiuing onelie Which he would not haue sayde if Christians had learned to offer the sacrifice of the masse S. Chrysost saith Chrys in epist Hebr. hom 13. If Christ be perfect neuer sinneth alwaie liueth why shoulde he offer for vs many sacrifices And againe There is no other sacrifice one hath purged vs. After that remaineth fire and hell S August saith Christ onelie is our preist our sacrifice our Temple August de fide ad Pet. Di● c. 2. I omit many moe by these testimonies the Godly reader may vnderstand that in the primitiue Church was no such sacrifice nor priesthood as the Popish is pretended to be And therefore I see no cause why I should be affraid to stand in maintenance of M. Iuell that godly and learned Bishops chalenge in this behalfe which hath not hetherto nor cannot be disprooued And though you as also many of your fellowes are still pinching at it yet you are all content to let it rest as Doctor Harding left it which was full greatlie to your discredit And as for the Doctors that Caluin alledgeth although they force the scriptures as he saieth manifestlie to a wrong purpose in applying Melchisedechs example to the matter of the sacrament yet none of them prooueth that sacrifice that Master Iewell denieth and therefore you doe but idlelie and triflinglie spend your time and trouble your reader with your follies But you would I dare saie better intertaine him if you had anie better prouision Caluin de vera Eccl. reform Yet you might haue seene that Caluin in that place censureth those fathers with these wordes by you alledged for an other place of scripture wrongly strangely applied not for defending the vnbloody sacrifice as you affirme Then you come to lift at my argument pag. 74. which I gathered out of the Apostle against your sacrificing Priests but your strength faileth you much in this enterprise The Apostle saieth that Christ hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an euerlasting Priesthoode Heb. 7.24 Here you rehearse diuerse interpretations of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle vseth although there are none but meanlie seene in that tongue that need your helpe therein For that properlie is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that passeth not away from one to an other And herein the Apostle compareth our sauiour Christ with the Priests of Aarons order sheweth a manifest difference that the Leuitical Priesthood rested not in one man but went from man to man by reason of death which suffered not one the same Priest continuallie to enioie his office but Christ liueth for euer and therefore his Priesthood abideth with him onelie The Apostles reason excludeth the Popish priests no les then the Leuitical and is not in execution enlarged to anie other And this reason of the Apostle debarreth as wel the popish as the Aaronical priests For the Priests of the popish order are no more exempted from necessitie of dying then were those priests of Aarons stocke so that they are no lesse opposed vnto Christ then the other Herein therefore lieth the force of the Apostles argument that the Priesthood of the new Testament belongeth onely vnto him that is immortal for otherwise he had not put anie necessarie difference betwene that and the other whereof it doth inuinciblie and necessarielie ensue that the onelie priest of the new Testament is Iesus Christ This Chrysostome concludeth out of the Apostles words moste plainly Chrys in Hebr. 7. homil 13. S Chrisost plainlie condemneth all popish priests As there were saieth he manie priests because they were mortall so there is but one because he is immortall For can they answere for them selues that though they die yet Christ liueth whose partners herein they recken them selues to be might not the Iewish priests likewise haue said as much seeing it cannot be denied but their priesthood also was referred vnto Christ But as those Priests togeather with their Priesthood expired when our sauiour Christ the true Priest and sacrifice was exhibited so their was no place left for other Priests nor other sacrifice all figures being in Christ moste fullie and perfectlie accomplished Yet as though Christ had bene either a mortall priest like to Aaron and his children or his sacrifice had not at once satisfied the wrath of God they substitute to Christ an infinite multitude of priestes far moe then were euer the Leuitical priests take vpon them blasphemously to offer againe daily the same sacrifice that Christ once offered which is impossible for any to offer but onely the sonne of God himselfe O that Christian people would consider the horrible dongeon of iniquitie that lieth hid vnder the abhominable sacrifice of the popish masse then which the sunne did neuer beholde a thing more lothsome

this your fashion Then let me conclude against you as you haue done against me that you are by your owne argument very Atheists such as make no account of God himselfe For otherwise this conclusion of yours that I am such a one for not honouring the name of Iesus in such sort is falssie though moste maliciouslie deuised That Iewes and Infidels haue abhorred the name of Iesus I graunt but no more the name of Iesus then the name of Christ seeing Iesus is Christ and Christ hath as much deserued to be hated of them as Iesus Christes name may a thousand times be heard amongst you and noe man mooueth capp or knee Iesus is noe sooner sounded but euerie man by and by putteth of his capp and scrapeth on the ground with his foot and yet not alwaies and in all places but in the Church and speciallie at reading of the Gospell This may breede a more dangerous opinion then it can remooue anie that Iesus is better then is Christ and more worthie of reuerence which is wicked to imagine Now Master Rainolds hauing in particular made some seelie defense pag. 516. 〈◊〉 as you haue heard for certaine of their annotations vpon the new Testament noted as notorious absurd and ridiculous conclusions because he knoweth the matter is not yet sufficienly answered addeth in the and a further proofe and confirmation of the arguments by example of the scripture it selfe wherein diuerse reasons may be found and namelie touching the resurrection which if they be examined according to philosophy and humane wisdome will followe no better then theirs haue done but may be thought as improbable weake as any that they haue made This discourse doth Master Rainolds in manie wordes prosecute with great superfluitie of speach and many opprobrious termes after his olde manner But when he hath talked his pleasure at full an answere in one word shall ouerthrow all that he hath builded and as it were cutt in sunder the threed of all that he hath sewed thus loselie together Whatsoeuer is affirmed or denied in scripture although it be moste contrarie to mans reason yet is it true and certaine and must without contradiction be beleeued because the Lord whose word is truth hath said it The resurrection of the flesh cannot I graunt be prooued by philosophicall reasons and arguments but Gods word hath set down this for a principle of our faith that our bodies shall rise againe and whatsoeuer reason iudgeth thereof faith maketh no doubte but so it shall be But now Master Rainolds what maketh this for your former collections because we must beleeue Christ and his Apostles in all that they teach though naturall reason will not so easilie yeald must we therefore allowe whatsoeuer our nouices of Rhemes haue fondlie without authoritie of Gods worde concluded in their Annotations for maintenance of Popish heresie This forsooth is your argument if you ment to make any argument at all if you thought not to driue your speach to this conclusion then haue you ranged at randon all this while and spoken neuer a word to that purpose to the which you shoulde haue directed your talke CHAP. 17. Of certaine blasphemies contained in the Annotations HEtherto hath appeered with what conscience and spirit you haue translated and expounded sundrie places of the new Testament wresting writhing moste violently the text of holie scripture to confirmation of your Popish errours and absurdities pag. 52● Wherein I doubt not but whosoeuer shall consider with himselfe aduisedlie your manner of collection your argument your application of scripture and shall examine a litle how your conclusion followeth vpon your proofes with out all coherence or consequence of reason must needes greatlie mislike your wholl Religion that is builded vpon so weake so tickle so ruinous a foundation For vnles it be graunted that of euery thing may be concluded any thing and that the word of God may be made appliable to all purposes opinions and doctrines it is impossible that these and such like arguments of yours as you haue in your annotations gathered vpon the wordes of scripture should haue in them such strength and trueth as Diuinitie and religion requireth But further when your blasphemous audacitie in controlling the word of God shall be perceaued it must of necessitie breede in all such as feare God and reuerence his worde a far greater alienation of minde from you and from all your damnable doctrine Examples of such blasphemies some I alledged whereof now Master Rainolds in his last Chapter intreateth and with his accustomed boldnes of defending anie thing laboureth to iustifie the same The Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrewes intreating at large of Christes priesthood pag. 529. Sec. compareth Christ with Melchisedech and by this argument prooueth that Christ is a priest for euer because he is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech which he confirmeth by testimonie of Moses and Dauid In all which treatise the Apostle although he fullie sheweth what resemblance was betwene Melchisedech and Christ yet he maketh not anie mention of the masse nor of the vnbloodie sacrifice of Christes bodie and blood in bread and wine nor of anie such matter as by the papists hath beene imagined Which because our Rhemists vnderstoode to be greatlie preiudiciall to their sacrifice of the Masse they haue moste shamefullie and blasphemouslie behaued themselues in handling this scripture as to anie that compareth their annotations with the text it selfe maie easily apperee For they haue plainlie written in their annotations that all that the Apostle hath alledged concerning the eternitie of Christes person and his perpetuall intercession for vs and euerlasting effect of his death prooueth not that in proper signification his priesthood is perpetuall Hebr. 7.17 Whereof what other thing can possiblie be collected but that the Apostle hath not by sufficient reasons prooued that thing which he tooke in hand to prooue that Iesus Christ is a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech For these men boldelie affirme that all this prooueth not that in proper signification Christs priesthood is perpetuall then the Apostle in proper signification hath prooued nothing lesse then that which he went about to prooue concerning Christes euerlasting priesthood wherein all our saluation consisteth hath but vsed a sleight to make men beleeue a thing which either he coulde not prooue or at lest hath not effectuallie prooued Our papists wil haue the principall respect of resemblance betweene Christ and Melchisedech to stand in offering bread and wine whereof forsooth must arise a perpetuall sacrifice to be continued in the Church Nowe hereof the Apostle hath not spoken so much as one word nor giuen the least signification of such a matter What other thing is it then but plaine blasphemie for maintenance of an idolatrous sacrifice to charge the Apostle that he hath not prooued Christs priesthood to be perpetual which yet he hath by moste necessarie and substantiall arguments