Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	aaron_n	priest_n	simony_n	12	3	14.9160	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A17036	An ansvvere to Master Cartvvright his letter for ioyning with the English Churches: whereunto the true copie of his sayde letter is annexed.	Browne, Robert, ca. 1550-1633.; Cartwright, Thomas, 1535-1603.; Harrison, Robert, d. 1585?, attributed name.	1585 (1585)	STC 3909; ESTC S109433	77,571	102

baptised of him yea among the Pharisces there were those that touching the righteousnesse which is in the lawe were vnrebukeable They were as it appeareth most of them Leuites openly called and authorised to preach by the Elders aud people in the Synagognes And surely that it is but a vaine exception which Master Cartwright maketh of the high Priest That he was made a yeerely officer and came in by Simonie into his office For Eleazar was made high priest while Aaron the high Priest yet liued And Zadok was made high Priest and Abiathar and his sonnes put from the priesthoode when as yet the couenant of the priesthoode pertained by the lawe vnto Abiathar and his house But necessities and iust occasions did oftentimes make change of the ceremoniall lawes and yet no corruption nor abuse came thereby Wherefore for aunswere I say that the priesthoode was not made a yeerely office but that by course euery yeere two priestes did execute the office And this seemed to be tollerable by the Lawe seeing that if one priest shoulde be sicke or letted by some greater occafions the other might be in his steade As wee shewed before that Eeleazar was chosen high Priest while Aaron yet liued and Zadok in Abiathars steade and yet were there not two high Priestes in the office at once but onely one at once was to execute the office Also there seemed to be much doubt and controuersie to which of the p●iestes the priesthoode did belong as also we may reade in Iosephus And therefore two chiefely standing for it there were two chosen to it And because the lawe of God did not suffer two at once to bee in the office they did succeede one another in the execution of the office Againe seeing they were of the sonnes of Aaron and called after the order of Aaron no doubt their calling was lawfull and good Otherwise if any at that time had bene lawfull high Priestes and yet not lawfully called as was Aaron then the Apostle woulde not haue set downe this for a generall trueth That no man taketh this honour vnto him selfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron Neither let him here shift off our answere by his fonde distinction of the essence of a priest and of a lawfull priest which before is refuted As for Symonie wherewith he chargeth the high Priestes hee can not prooue it against them For if the Romanes ouerruling them did grieuously exact their tributes and paiments both of Christ himselfe as we may reade in Matth and of the high priestes it was no more Symonie in the priestes then it was in Christ to pay them their exactions For the priesthoode was their right seeing it pertained vnto them being the sonnes of Aaron yet can not Master Cartwright prooue that they payed any monie when they tooke their right or if they did that they thereby bought their right and not rather payed an exaction which the Romanes demanded when they tooke their right But suppose that secretly they gaue bribes to the Romanes delt by Symonie yet that being hidden and not manifest to the people they were to be taken of men as lawfully called to that office For if the Lawe and common tribute exacted monie of them they might pay it as well as Christ. If the officers did exact any besides lawe they did it secretely lest they them selues should be condemned by lawe and so it is manifest that no symonie could be laid to their charge And therefore no maruaile though Christ bad the man shewe him selfe to the high Priest For before the high priestes became open persecuters there was a lawfull communion to be had with them But this communion was afterward broken and made vnlawfull through their open wickednesse Also it is false which Master Cartwright saith that Christ did reuerence the high Priest and gaue him accountes of his doctrine For he gaue him no accountes and answered him so roundly that one of the officers whiche stoode by smote him with a rodde Also his aunswere is false cōcerning that place in Hoshea that the Lord would refuse the priestes for being any more his priestes seeing they were without knowledge of which wordes he sayeth that the prophet rather giueth a rule to be followed in their election or deposition then howe farre they may be vsed Nay the Prophet there speaketh nothing of electing them or deposing them by men but rather of the plague or destruction that shoulde come vpon them yea hee sheweth that through the ignorance of the priestes all wickednesse and idolatrie reigned and therefore he saith that there shal be like people like Priest meaning that they shall haue a like destruction Now Master Cartwright dare not say that all abominable wickednes and Idolatrie reigning and the priests them selues being wicked idolaters I say he dare not affirme that they helde the couenant or were the people or church of God For before he hath said the contrary And howe then dare he say that such priestes were yet priestes vnto God and were not deposed from their priesthoode when as their owne wickednes and idolatrie did depose them For that whole chapter of Hoshea is altogether against their wickednesse and idolatrie And let M. C. knowe that our open grosse sinnes abuses being not curable by the discipline of the Church are as euill as Idolatrie as Samuel the Prophet doeth witnes saying that rebellion is as the sinne of witchcraft and transgression he meaneth trāsgression which is stoode in and wil not be mended is wickednes idolatry But this matter is made manifest before Now followeth the last part of his letter the last matter in controuersie as whether by communicating with a reading minister we do communicate with their impietie establish their ministerie M. C. herein doth more shamefully erre then if he should with the bishops altogether iustifie such reading ministers For he might better say they were lawfull ministers and that their ministerie were lawfull then that he should confesse them to be vnlawfull ministers yet iustifie that we may receiue them as hauing the essence and substance of ministers and partake in their wicked ministerie without impietie or establishing their But he may playnly see except his eies of vnderstanding be vtterly darkened that if any do vsurpe as traitors against her maiesty then they also that come vnder their vsurped rule and gouernment being once free from it are also trayters together with them So likewise those men vsurping a ministery which Christ neuer gaue them neyther sanctified to be in his Church both they doe wickedly and they also that wil come vnder theyr ministery doe establish theyr wicked ministery and partake with them in theyr impiety If a man of the winde sayth the prophet and false fellowe doe he saying I will prophecie vnto you of wine and of strong drinke he shall euen be the prophet of this people Yea why not

good thinges they offer vnto vs that I suppose I may not well yeelde vnto the grounde hereof I take from the former parte of my answere that for so much as they are allowed by the churches of god they ought vntill remedie may be founde of so great disorder to be heard and receiued so farre as they can giue vs any thing that is of christ and for this cause our Sauiour christ commanded that the Scribes shoulde be heard in that they taught truely which honour our sauiour christ woulde neuer haue giuen vnto them vnlesse the churche calling had mooued him thereunto 〈◊〉 had it bene lawfull for the people otherwise to haue hearde them for it is euident that their vnfitnesse and vnlawfulnesse in the ministerie although another way was as great as it is in our reading ministers they were all together deceiued in the Messias for neither knewe they that Iesus was the christ nor yet that the christ whome they looked for shuld be the sone of god but held him for a bare nakedman It appeareth also that they taught the iustification which is by the lawe of workes not onely in the eighteenth of Luke but euen the very selfe same place where our Sauiour commaundeth this audience vnto them for speaking of the workes of the morall Lawe which they woulde not touch with one of their fingers hee saith that they layde them vpon the peoples backes as burdens which coulde not be borne whereby our Sauiour besides the Pharisticall pride and Lordlinesse in teaching signifieth that they taught them to iustification seeing that if they had onely taught them as testimonies and fruites of faith they had not bene vntollerable but as our Sauiour saith an easie yoke and as Saint Iohn sayeth not grieuous or heauie Now the dumbe ministerie is not farther off from the institution of a lawfull ministerie then to teach vntruely in the chiefe groundes of Religion neither is the edifying of the church respected in making lawes for the ministerie lesse hindered by a ministerie teaching false thinges and that in so waightie pointes as by an vnpreaching minister and according to this saying of our Sauiour christ we may see what the practise of the Prophetes had bene before who although they had oftentimes to doe both with false teachers and Priestes that dumbe dogges and not able to barke yet giuing the people warning of their corruptions and insufficientnesse threatning also the casting them from the ministerie in the good time when the Lorde shoulde haue pitie on his Church they are neuer founde to haue forbidden the people to come to their sacrifices or to bring their sacrifices commaunded by the lawe vnto them yea our Sauiour that liued in the corruptest times of the Churche and when things were most confused and fewest steppes of any lawfull calling to be seene yet commaunded the man whome he purged from his leprosie to shewe him selfe vnto the priest where it is to be obserued that he saith to the priest generally without willing him to make choise of a priest better instructed or affected vnto the trueth then the rest but indifferently vnto the priest the high priest albeit hee was at that time contrary to the Lawe made a yeerely officer although he entred in by Simonie and rewarde vnto the Romanes yet notwithstanding we see our sauiour bare him reuerence for his office sake and as before his Iudge in spirituall causes gaue an accompt of his doctrine we haue another example of reuerence vnto such rulers euen in thinges that were done by them wrongefully for Ieremie being as it appeareth suspended for a time from comming into the Temple and albeit at libertie of his body woulde not least as it seemeth be should make a tumult enter into the temple and therefore hauing written that which he had to say sent Baruch to reade his sermon in the temple moreouer when a magistrate is not able to doe some parte of his office as for example being able to doe the dueties which are to be perfourmed in peace is insufficient for mortall offences yet no man refuseth to take that which he is able to giue because he is not able to doe all that is required Euen so endeuoring to our uttermost to a sufficient ministerie I woulde thinke in the meane season that the good thinges that they are able to giue vs may be taken at their handes and if any say that it is of the substance of a church minister to be able to teach and therefore he is no minister that hath not that habilitie it may be answered that it is of the substāce of a good lawfull minister of God but not simply of a minister whereunto it is sufficient to haue the church calling as it is of the substance rather of a lawfull magistrate to be able to iudge betweene his subiectes then simply of a magistrate whome the election of the people or of other to whome his choise belongeth maketh a magistrate of the Lorde although he be no lawfull or sufficient magistrate as therefore we take him for a magistrate which for the ignorance of his charge may be called an idoll magistrate Euen so it seemeth that he may bee holden for a minister which hath the Churches calling albeit he be not able to doe the principall charge of that ministerie Neither doeth the place of the Prophet 〈◊〉 whiche sayeth because they haue refused knowledge they shall bee no Priestes vnto him stande against this the Prophet rather giuing a rule to followe in the election or disposition of them then shewing howe farre they may be vsed finally to that which is obiected of communicating with their 〈◊〉 in taking any thing at their handes I answere first that the same might haue bene laide to the peoples charge vnder the Lawe which is neuer done of the Prophetes Secondly if by communicating with him we shoulde make him minister I graunt that a piece of his guilte would sticke to our fingers but when that is not I see not howe by receiuing the sacramentes of him which partake more vnto his wickednesse then the sonne is partaker of his fathers murther because he receiueth of his fathers gifte some parte of his owne landes and moueables and so much there then here as the father giueth his owne thinges where the dumbe minister doeth onely dispence the giftes of the Lorde wherefore it may bee rather feared least in refusing the Sacramentes offered by him we put the Lorde awaye from vs whose they be then in taking the Sacramentes at his handes to bee parteners of impietie which is the meanes and can take no holde of the Sacramentes in any sorte For euen as not able to auoyde him I may communicate with a minister that is an adulterer without being partaker of his adulterie Euen so also may I communicate with a dumbe minister and yet neuerthelesse be free from his impietie Thus haue you my aunswere written not without the feare