Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	aaron_n	atonement_n	incense_n	257	3	11.6752	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A18305	The second part of the Defence of the Reformed Catholicke VVherein the religion established in our Church of England (for the points here handled) is apparently iustified by authoritie of Scripture, and testimonie of the auncient Church, against the vaine cauillations collected by Doctor Bishop seminary priest, as out of other popish writers, so especially out of Bellarmine, and published vnder the name of The marrow and pith of many large volumes, for the oppugning thereof. By Robert Abbot Doctor of Diuinitie.; Defence of the Reformed Catholicke of M. W. Perkins. Part 2	Abbot, Robert, 1560-1618.	1607 (1607)	STC 49; ESTC S100532	1,359,700	1,255

b Gal. 6.5 Euery man shall beare his owne burden it had bene his part to make it plaine first that the burden there spoken of is to be vnderstood of temporall afflictions Secondly if it be so to be vnderstood he should againe haue told vs how it followeth that those afflictions must necessarily be taken to be satisfactions Thirdly if they be satisfactions it would haue bene considered how this place standeth with the doctrine and practise of the Church of Rome which the Apostle saying Euery man shall beare his owne burden that is if we beleeue M. Bishop shall satisfie for himselfe doth notwithstanding appoint one man to beare the burden and satisfactions of another If euery man beare his owne burden why doth the Pope pretend by his Pardons to impart to one man the satisfactions of another or if the Pope doe thereby impart the satisfactions of Saints and Martyrs to the helpe of those that want why doth Maister Bishop tell vs that of temporall satisfactions it is said that euery man shall beare his owne burden But thus he is wont to cite texts at all aduenture be they with him or against him all is one they helpe to fill vp a booke and that is enough for his purpose But the meaning of those words plainely appeareth out of the circumstance of the place The Apostle labouring to withdraw men from iudging and condemning others and from iustifying themselues by measuring comparing themselues to them whom they condemned wisheth euery man to consider himselfe in himselfe to make triall of his owne worke not to content himselfe for that he seemeth to himself to be preferred before another but to endeuour without comparison to others to be approued in himselfe To this meaning are these words c 〈◊〉 ● Let euery man proue his own worke then shall he haue reioycing in himselfe and not in another For reason hereof he addeth for euery man shall beare his owne burden as if he should say It concerneth not one man what another is the burdening of another shall be no disburdening of thee what is amisse in him he shall answer for himselfe but looke thou to thine owne burden for whatsoeuer it is thou shalt answer to God for it The burden then which the Apostle speaketh of is as Thomas Aquinas saith d Tho. Aquin. in Gal. cap. 6. lect 1. Onus reddendae rationis c. in die iudicij the burden of our reckoning account to be made vnto God at the day of iudgment and his words are to the very same meaning as elsewhere he saith e Rom. 14.12 Euery one of vs shall giue accounts of himselfe to God So that M. Bishops argument falleth out in the end to be this Euery man at the day of iudgement must giue reckoning to God for himselfe Therefore Christ hath left vs to make temporal satisfaction to God for our owne sinnes Thou must take it as it is gentle Reader for he can make it no better then it will be denie his argument and he hath no more to say 3 W. BISHOP Nay saith M. Perkins we must then be new Christes and Redeemers and Priests of the same order with himselfe Nothing so but hauing grace from him we may in vertue thereof satisfie not for the crime it selfe or euerlasting punishment which is linked with it because that would require an infinite vertue but for the tēporall pain of it one indued with grace may satisfie for the measure of stripes must not exceede the rate of the fault the punishment then resting vnsatisfied being limited a creature may pay it And that the Reader may better perceiue what we meane by the temporall paine let him consider that in sin are two things the one is the turning away from God whom we offend the other is the turning vnto the thing for the loue of which we offend as for glory lust lucre or such like the sinner transgresseth now when he is by the grace of God conuerted his turning away from God both the sin and the eternall paine due vnto it are freely through Christ pardoned but for the pleasure which he tooke in the sin the man himselfe is to satisfie and so according vnto the greatnesse of that his pleasure he is to do pennance R. ABBOT M. Perkins gaue argument and reason of that which he said but M. Bishop like a reasonlesse man without giuing any reason affirmeth that againe against which M. Perkins argued He rightly alledgeth that no part of the Priesthood of Christ can be said to haue passed from him to vs that to make satisfaction for sinnes whether temporally or eternally is a part of the Priesthood of Christ and therefore that it is not a thing passed from him to vs to make satisfaction for our sinnes Againe to attribute that to vs for which and by which Christ is Christ our Redeemer high Priest is to make vs Christes Redeemers and Priests for our selues But to attribute to vs to make fatisfaction for sinnes either temporally or eternally is to attribute that to vs for which and by which Christ is Christ our Redeemer and high Priest It is therfore the same as to affirme vs to be Christes Redeemers and Priests for our selues M. Bishop answereth ridiculously and childishly Not so but Christ hath satisfied for the eternall punishment which required an infinite vertue as for the temporall paine it may be satisfied by vs. But what is here for exception to our collection that sith the name office of Christ of a Redeemer and Priest standeth in satisfying for sinne therefore if we be said to satisfie temporally for our selues then as Christ is our Christ Redeemer and Priest in respect of satisfying for the eternall punishment of our sinnes so we are Christs Redeemers and Priests for our selues in respect of making temporally an attonement for our selues But that it belongeth to the Priesthood of Christ to make attonement for temporall punishments is plaine in the law where we reade that the plague being begun the high Priest in figure of our high Priest Iesus Christ maketh attonement for the staying of it a Numb 16.46 Take the censer saith Moses to Aaron and put fire therein of the Altar and put therein Incense and go quickly to the Cōgregation and make an attonement for thē for there is wrath gone out frō the Lord the plague is begun He did so the plague was staid The like we see in the plague that followed vpō Dauids numbring of the people b 2. Sam. 24.25 he offered burnt offerings peace offerings and the Lord was appeased towards the land and the plague ceased frō Israel And hereby we vnderstād that all the sacrifices of the law wherin c August Enchirid cap. 33. Singulare sacrificium Christi cuius erant vmbrae omnia sacrificia legis prophetarum Christ was alwaies set before them had a respect of appeasing the wrath of God not onely for euerlasting

glory of his grace And what of that Marry then hath charitie the principall part therein saith he for the directing of all to the honour and glory of God is the proper office and action of charity But therein he deceiueth himselfe for the Apostle hath expressed it as the very proper office and act of faith y Rom. 4.20 to giue glory vnto God and therefore Moses and Aaron at the waters of strife are said z Num. 20 12. not to haue sanctified the Lord that is to say not to haue giuen him glory because they beleeued him not For a 1. Iohn 5.10 not to beleeue God is to make him a liar which is the reproch and dishonour of God but to beleeue God is to ascribe vnto him truth and power and wisedome and iustice and mercy and whatsoeuer else belongeth vnto him Therefore Arnobius saith that b Arno in Psal 129 Bene facere ad gloriam hominis benè credere ad gloriam Dei pertinet to do well belongeth to the glory of man but to beleeue well concerneth the glory of God c Chrysost ad Rom. hom 8. Qui mandata illius implet obedit ei hic autem qui credit conuenientē de eo opinionē accipit cumque glorificat atque admi●atur nu●lo magis quàm operū demonstratio Jlla ergò gloriatio eius est qui rect● factū aliquod prae●titeri● haec autem Deum ipsum glorificat ac qu●●ta est tota ipsius est Gloriatur enim ob hoc quòd magna quaedam de eo concipiat quae ad gloriam eius redundant By works saith Chrysostome we obey God but faith entertaineth a meete opinion concerning God and glorifieth and admireth him much more then the shewing forth of workes Workes commend the doer but faith commendeth God onely and what it is it is wholy his For it reioyceth in this that it conceiueth of him great things which do redound to his glory And whereas our Sauiour in the Gospell teacheth vs that our good works do glorifie God saying Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorifie your Father which is in heauen he saith that it is of faith that our good works do glorifie God d Jbid Ecce hoc fidei esse apparuit Behold saith he it appeareth that this commeth of faith M. Bishops argument therefore maketh against himselfe and proueth that we are iustified rather by faith then by charity because it is faith principally that yeeldeth honour vnto God The last place alledged out of Austine is nothing against vs for although we defend that a man is iustified by faith alone yet we say that both faith hope and charity must concurre to accomplish the perfection of a Christian man whereof anone we shall see further 23 W. BISHOP The third of these trifling reasons is peruersly propounded by M. Perkins thus Faith is neuer alone therefore it doth not iustifie alone That this argument is fondly framed appeareth plainly in that that Catholikes do not deny but affirme that faith may be without charity as it is in all sinfull Catholikes we then forme the reason thus If faith alone be the whole cause of iustification then if both hope and charity were remoued from faith at least by thought and in conceipt faith would neuerthelesse iustifie But faith considered without hope and charity will not iustifie ergo it is not the whole cause of iustification The first proposition cannot be denied of them who know the nature propriety of causes for the entire and totall cause of any thing being as the Philosophers say in act the effect must needs follow and very sense teacheth the simple that if any thing be set to worke and if it do not act that which it is set too then there wanted some thing requisite And consequently that was not the whole cause of that worke Now to the second proposition But their imagined faith cannot apply to themselues Christes righteousnesse without the presence of hope and charity For else he might be iustified without any hope of heauen and without any loue towards God and estimation of his honour which are things most absurd in themselues but yet very well fitting the Protestants iustification which is nothing else but the plaine vice of presumption as hath bene before declared Yet to auoid this inconuenience which is so great M. Perkins graunteth that both hope and charity must needs be present at the iustification but do nothing in it but faith doth all as the head is present to the eie whē it seeth yet it is the eie alone that seeth Here is a worthy peece of Philosophy that the eie alone doth see wheras in truth it is but the instrument of seeing the soule being the principall cause of sight as it is of all other actions of life sense reason and it is not to purpose here where we require the presence of the whole cause and not onely of the instrumentall cause And to returne your similitude vpon your selfe as the eie cannot see without the head because it receiueth influence from it before it can see so cannot faith iustifie without charity because it necessarily receiueth spirit of life from it before it can do any thing acceptable in Gods sight R. ABBOT He may indeede very iustly call them trifling reasons if at least trifles may carie the name of reasons As for this reason it is not peruersely propounded by Maister Perkins but in such sort as some of Maister Bishops part haue propounded it vpon supposall of our assertion that faith can neuer be alone But as he propoundeth it himselfe the termes of his argument being declared the answer will be plaine and he shall be found a Sophister onely and no sound disputer It is therefore to be vnderstood that remouing or separating of things one from the other is either reall in the subiect or mentall in the vnderstanding Reall separation of faith and charity we wholy denie so as that true faith can no where be found but it hath charitie infallibly conioyned with it Separation mentall in vnderstanding and consideration is either negatiue or priuatiue Negatiue when in the vnderstanding there is an affirming of one and denying of another and the one is considered as to be without the other which vnderstanding in things that cannot be really and indeed separated in the subiect is false vnderstanding and not to be admitted Separation priuatiue in vnderstanding is whē of things that cannot be separated indeed yet a man vnderstandeth the one and omitteth to vnderstand the other considereth the one and considereth not the other Thus though light and heate cannot be separated in the fire yet a man may consider the light and not consider the heate though in the reasonable soule vnderstanding reason memory and will and in the sensitiue part the faculties of seeing hearing smelling c. cannot be remoued or separated one from the other yet a man