Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	aaron_n	high_a	priest_n	19	3	6.4619	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01324	A reioynder to Bristows replie in defence of Allens scroll of articles and booke of purgatorie Also the cauils of Nicholas Sander D. in Diuinitie about the supper of our Lord, and the apologie of the Church of England, touching the doctrine thereof, confuted by William Fulke, Doctor in Diuinitie, and master of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge. Seene and allowed.	Fulke, William, 1538-1589.	1581 (1581)	STC 11448; ESTC S112728	578,974	809

sacrifice and sacrificer the other is offered continually the sacrificer liuing As for his rule to know proper and vnproper speaches let him trie to teach his pupils when I am disposed to learne I will chuse a better learned teacher But now he cōmeth to answere obiections First I sayd the bringing foorth of bread and wine was no part of Melchisedeks priesthood seeing the Apostle comparing him with Christ in all thinges in which he was comparable neuer teacheth it as any part of his priesthood This argument Bristow maketh to be of one place of Scripture negatiuely not consideting it is the onely place where such comparison is made and that it is absurd to thinke the Apostle would omit so principall a part of Melchisedeks and Christs priesthood But Bristow will examine the text First their vulgar translation begining at proferens both gelding the text falsely translating At verò Melchisedek rex Salem proferens panem vinum erat enim sacerdos dei altissimi benedixit ei c. But truly Melchisedek King of Salem bringing foorth bread and wine for he was the priest of the highest GOD blessed him saying What doth this context helpe him which is as much to say as he blessed him because he was a priest Bristow fraudulently omitteth the parenthesis and in translation changeth the participle into the verbe But in the Hebrue If we beleeue Bristowe the poynting declareth that also the Rabbines themselues take it in the same sort What a greate Rabbine is Bristowe sodenly growne to be since his departure out of Oxforde But what poynting should declare this he sheweth not neither can I gesse The text is And Melchisedek King of Salem brought foorth bread and wine there is the middle of the verse then it followeth And he was a Priest of the highe GOD there is the end then it followeth And he blessed him c. In deede Rabby Salomon but not in respect of any poynting sayth of the bringing foorth of bread and wine for a true exposition First that it was vsuall to doe so to men that were wearied in warre also that thereby he shewed that he was not offended with him for killing of his Children for he taketh Melchisedek to be Sem the middle sonne of Noach Secondly for a Mideash or vaine exposition that it was to signifie the Minchoth and Nesecuth the meat offeringes and the drinke offeringes which his children or posteritie should offer in that place not that Melchisedek in respecte that he was a Prieste did bring foorth bread and wine But all the Fathers doe agree in this similitude of Melchisedeches Priesthood with CHRIST I knowe that many doe so but one Apostle is of greater authoritie then they all yet none of them all speaketh of a Priesthoode to offer vp the naturall bodie of Christ in a propitiatorie sacrifice which is the principall matter in question But if Melchisedek were a Prieste Bristowe will aske me what was his sacrifice if it were not bread and wine seeing none other is mentioned For my part I am not ashamed to be ignorant of that which the Holy Ghost hath not reueiled Sure I am if bread and wine had beene his sacrifice and the sacrifice of Christ also the Apostle would not haue omitted it which compareth much smaler matters in him with Christ then that Where I say it is horrible blasphemie to challenge the Priesthoode according to the order of Melchisedek which is singular to Christ Psalm 110. and Heb. 7. Bristowe asketh if the scripture say not that there is one baptizer which is Christ and yet all are not blasphemers that are baptisers I answere if any take vpon him to baptise with the holy ghost and with fire he is an horrible blasphemer But to baptise with water that is to be ministers of the outwarde sacrament in which onely Christ baptiseth inwardly Christ hath called all those ministers of his word and sacramentes Shewe you the like calling for your blasphemous Priesthood after the order of Melchisedek or else your example of baptisers will not discharge you of horrible blasphemie But you haue another docterlike argument when you haue scoffed out my poore doctershippe Were not all the rest in the olde time the ministers of Aaron but Aaron himselfe was Priest onely in his owne time and after him euerie one in his time was Priest as well as he and therefore in that law were many Priestes He asketh the question as though it were out of question Were not all c. O famous and illuminate doctor where did your docters hoode learne that all the high Priestes successiuely whereof euerie one was a figure of Christ as much as Aaron were ministers of Aaron For you speake of high Priestes or else what meane you to say that Aaron him selfe was priest onely in his owne time for all his sonnes were priests although he onely the high priest in his time Vpon this stronge foundation you build a similitude and dissimilitude So that the olde testament was like to England since the conquest hauing successiuely many Kinges But the newe testament is like to England duduring the time of one King who being but one yet hath many ministers as one might say so many ministerial kinges You shew learning ynough in this similitude and dissimilitude to make you a doctor after the popes order But let vs vnder correctiō of your doctors hood examine your cōparisō The olde Testament was like England since the Conquest hauing successiuely many Kings Had not euerie of those kings many Ministers vnder them And euerie Aaronicall priest had also many Priestes and Leuites vnder him And was not Christ head of the Church of the Iewes in the seuerall times of euery the high Priest Wherefore the olde testament is as like to England during the time of one King as the newe in those pointes but the difference is this that the figuratiue high priestes were many because they could not continue but by death were alwaies chaunged Christ being an euerlasting Priest hath a priesthoode that descendeth not by succession so that although he haue many ministers yet he onely hath the euerlasting priesthoode which is according to the order of Melchisedek Heb. 7. As for your terme of ministeriall kings howe well it agreeth to your shauen crownes I will not stand here to discusse My third argument as Bristowe calleth it is this The Apostle to the Hebrues cap. 10. teacheth vs that Christ offering but one sacrifice for our sinnes and that but once cap. 9. hath made perfect for euer those that are sanctified that our sinnes are taken away by that sacrifice and therefore there is no more sacrifice for sinnes left To this Bris●owe aunswereth that I doe not vnderstand what the Apostle meaneth by those that are sanctified by their making perfect by sacrifice for sinne The sanctified are onely the newe baptized by his iudgement for which he quoteth 1. Cor 6. where the Apostle saith But nowe you are washed you

but this is sufficient that neither facere in Cyprian signifieth to sacrifice neither the bodie of Christ was otherwise sacrificed of him then as it suffered in his sacrifice The 20. circumstance of the pronowne Hoc Christ saith doe or make this thing or as Haymo saith Make this bodie for he saith not sic facite doe so but hoc facite doe or make this thing I haue answered sufficiently this making in the first booke where Sander findeth fault with our translation wherevnto I adde that which Cyprian writeth in the Epistle last mentioned Nam si in sacrificio quod Christus est non nisi Christus sequendus est vtique id not obaudire facere oportet quod Christus fecit quod faciendum esse mandauit cùns ipse in Euangelis suo dicat si feceritis quod mando vobis iam non dico vos seruos sed amicos c. If in the sacrifice which is Christ none but Christ is to bee followed verily that wee ought to obey and to doe which Christ did and commaunded to bee doone seeing hee himselfe saieth in his Gospel if you shall doe that which I commaunde you nowe doe I not call you seruants but friendes In this saying Cyprian referreth the verbe facere to all thinges that Christ did and not to making his bodie But if wee shoulde graunt facere to signifie onely to make yet coulde Sander get no more of vs by making but a sacrament of his bodie yet for his exposition hee saieth hee hath Iustinus Printed by Robert Steuens at Paris Anno Dom. 1551. where hee writeth thus The Apostles in their commentaries which are called Gospels haue deliuered that Iesus gaue them thus in commaundemēt who when he had taken bread and giuen thanks said Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say my bodie First Sander hath put in more wordes then Iustinus for hee hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which Sander giueth Doe and make hee might as well haue added and sacrifice Secondly the whole weight of the matter standeth vppon the errour of the Printer omitting one small letter o for in the next lyne continuing the hystorie of the institution he rehearseth the verie words of Christ. This is my bloude wherefore there is no doubt but lustinus telling what Christ saide doth not onely rehearse these wordes Doe this in remembrance of me but also these This is my bodie and so haue all the translato●s taken it as Sander doth confesse Neither doth the processe of Iustinus prooue that he did write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he saide before they tooke the meate that was consecrated by the worde of prayer to bee the flesh and bloude of Christ for that the Apostles do witnesse that Christ hath giuen them such a precept Hoc facite doe or make this thing that is to say my bodie for hee prooueth it by the whole hystorie of the institution remayning in the commentaries of the Apostles in which it is written that Christ saide Doe this in remēbrance of me This is my bodie likewise after he had taken the cup and giuen thanks that he said This is my blood This processe therefore declareth what Christe said as wel in the one part as in the other and therefore excludeth the vaine cauillation of Sander grounded vpon a letter missing in one print which in other copies is not omitted as all the translations declare The 21. circumstance of the wordes in meam commemorationem for the remembrance of me The ende of the institution was the remembrance of Christes death but that is best remembred by the presence of him selfe ergo he is really present for Christe would make the best remembrance that could be I answere Christe saith in the remembrance of me and not onelie of his dying but of me dying and redeeming It is against the nature of recordation or hauing in minde to haue the thing remembred actually present therefore Christ ordained the best memorial that could be reteining the nature of recordation and considering other circumstances to be considered as he did in al tokens that euer he made which were the best that could be deuised for God in al things doth the best wherfore this reasō of Sand would proue the reall presence of Christ in all sacraments that were before his incarnatiō as wel as in this And whereas Chrysostome saieth Christ himselfe is daily set before vs that we shoulde not forget him he meaneth as saint Paul to the Galathians where he saith he was crucified among them and to the Corinthians saying his glorie shewed vnto vs with vncouered face which is by doctrine more cleare then the figures of the Lawe Gal. 3. 2. Cor. 3. and not in the Sacrament onely Last of all whereas a potte of Manna was commaunded to be reserued for a memoriall vnto the children of Israel with what breade the Lord had fedde their fathers in the wildernesse to prooue that a thing may be the remēbrance of it selfe I answere that it is nothing like For there a part of that visible foode was reserued for a sensible token of remembrance not of it selfe but of that which was eaten being of the same kinde But in this sacrament there is no such matter except wee shoulde beleeue the tales of a bloudie finger seene in the patten c. as a part of the whole bodie c. and the Papistes confesse that Christ is not sensiblie present as that Manna was The 22. circumstance of these words drinke yee all of this They all dranke of one cuppe Iudas and al saith hee for if two or three had drunke vp all either Christ must haue consecrated the cuppe againe or the rest must haue receiued a drinke not consecrated as they do in Englande when one cuppe is drunke vp an other is filled out of a prophane potte that standeth by therefore this circumstance doth shewe that more then wine is drunke This conclusion shal be graunted of them that drinke worthily without this circumstance and of them that drinke vnworthily also for they drinke iudgement to themselues But concerning consecration Sander imagineth it to be a magicall murmuring of wordes ouer that wine which is present in one cuppe Whereas the consecration of Christ and the ministers of England is a dedicating to the holy vse of the supper of so much bread and wine as shal be occupied in the celebration and neither more nor lesse But because he saith it is not the will of Christ that one Priest should consecrate in one ma●●eany more then once each kinde of the sacrament because Christ dyed but once and then both kinds together because his bloud and soule must be signified apart from his flesh and bodie I aske him what large cuppe they had or howe often in a day they said masse in the time of Leo bishop of Rome when a