Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	church_n	religion_n	true_a	7,548	5	5.1593	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09292	A defence of that which hath bin written in the questions of the ignorant ministerie, and the communicating with them. By Iohn Penri	Penry, John, 1559-1593.	1588 (1588)	STC 19604; ESTC S101169	21,857	64

good that the church were further and more soundly satissied by you in these 2. pointes which you alone in our Churche haue publikly called in question And for mine owne parte when you haue done I know not who will be your aduersarie I see no reason whie I should deal in controuersies of so smal gaine Of this I am assured that neyther popish priests nor any other ignoraunt guides are ministers whether the element administred by thē be a sacrament or no look you to that which haue in your treatise debated that which my writings neuer called into question If you wil needs proue readers to be ministers because you can not get me to denie that which hath bene administred to be a sacrament you shall but presse that which will prooue nothing Your reason is as if you shoulde saye that eyther all they which supplie the places of ministers are ministers or els an inconuenience is likely to follow A strange manner of demonstration Gods ordinaunce must needs be thrust out of the dores because an inconuenience would be likely to ensue the admittinge of it The cause will not be thus answered at your hands and I am sorie that a man so reuerende in mine eyes hath dealt so vnsubstantially in a matter belonging to the seruice of the euerliuing God the slendernesse of the reason is apparant In the latter ende of the booke I haue farther shewed the same thither I am to referre you and the reader Now I coulde well ouerpasse these two pointes because of them-selues they containe nothing that I haue withstoode But in as muche as you haue not onely grounded them vpō false principles and such as in no wise can be warraunted by the canon of the word but also inferre vpon their grant that our readers are ministers and consequently that it is no sinne to communicate with them I am first to set downe the state of the question which in deed is and ought to be decided betweene you and me concerninge the elemente administred both by popish priests and other vnpreaching ministers and secondly to examine the groundes whereby you prooue the element alreadie deliuered by them to be a sacrament which you know I do not denie to be so And this is the point that concerneth our state rather then the other The question therefore is not whether the one or the other of them haue deliuered a sacrament in respect of the action done but whether a christian going vnto them for those holy seales may be assured that hee can receiue the same at their handes I affirme that wee can not M. Some taketh it graunted that we may my warrant is out of the worde because there is no promise made to vs therin that the action celebrated by such men is a sacramentall action and where there is no promise there can bee no assuraunce because our assurance ariseth onely of fayth whiche must be grounded vpon the promises set downe in the word wee haue no promise that they can deliuer vs a sacrament because they are no ministers For they onely are enioyned by our Sauiour Christ to deliuer a sacrament Matth. 28.18.19 neither do we know what hee can deliuer which is no minister So that the question is now growne to this issue whether popish priestes and our vnpreachinge ministers bee ministers or no whom if I can proue to be none then the matter is cleare that no man going vnto them for the sacrament can assure himselfe there to haue the same And this shall be a generall reason equally belonginge vnto both the pointes handeled by you the particulars whereof shal follow in their places That no popishe priest therefore is a minister 1 Euery minister must be at the least by profession a member of the true Church No popish prist is by profession a member of the true Church Therfore no popish priest is a minister 2 Euery minister hath an office with in the bodie of the Churche No popishe priest hath an office within the bodie of the Church Therfore no popish priest is a minister The propositions or first part of both these reasons are set downe euidently and plainely by the wisedome of God in these wordes For as we haue many members in one bodie Rom. 12.4 5.6 and all members haue not one office so we being many are one bodie in Christ and euerye one an others members seeing then that we haue giftes that are diuers c. The place sheweth cleerly that whosoeuer is not a member is not of the bodie if not of the body then no minister A gaine whosoeuer is no member he hath no office in the bodie if no office no minister He that should obiect that in this place is mente a member of the bodie by election in the secret counsell of God and not in the acknowledgemente of the Church by profession would not deserue the answering Because it is vocation and not election that maketh such a member in the church as may haue an office therein of which sort the Apostle speaketh in this place by vocation I meane that whereof the holy ghoste speaketh where it is said Many are called but few are chosen Matth. 20.10 neither can any man denie him to be a member of the Churche which by outward profession submitteth himselfe vnto true religion and such are the members whereof the Apostle speaketh To be a member so the true Church is one thing and to bee a true member of the Church is another thing namely such as are mēbers in the iudgement of the Church Iudas was a member in the iudgement of the Churche though not belonging to election A further proofe of the propositions you shall find 1. cor 12.26.28 Hee was no priest in the olde testament that was not a Iewe by profession yea and of the line of Aaron to and shall he be accounted a minister amōg vs that is a stranger from the profession of the trueth a professed Idolater Ishmael Esau were circumcized and the sonnes of those fathers vnto whome the couenaunt was made Euen I will be thy God the God of thy seed They their posterities fell from true religion well admit that the profanatiō of circumcisiō had stil cōtinued in their houses yet a man supplying the place of a priest among them was no priest in deed thogh he ten thousand times profaned circumcision and woulde brag neuer so often that he worshipped after his Idolatrous maner no other God but the God of his father Abraham sware onely by the feare of his father Isaak The reason herof is because that euery priest vnder the law must be an Israelite by professiō that is a member of the true Church neither could any of the godly assure them-selues that an Edomitishe priest administred true circumcision according to the substance Now I rekō of a popish prist no otherwise thē I would haue done of an Ismaelitishe or Edomitish circumcisiser the

profanation of that seal of the couenant still continuing in mount Seir. Whereas in the assumption or second part of both the reasons I deny popish priestes to be members of the church my meaning is not that there are none of the elect within the bodie of poperie whom the Lorde may cal in his good time For I would not denie this vnto Mahometism or that there are not left in poperie certaine rubishes and steps of true religion for this difference I make betweene thē and other Infidels though the Iewes also may claim this vnto themselues But I meane that the popish religion is such a religion as whosoeuer liueth and dyeth in the profession thereof he liueth dieth out of the Church where saluation is not possibly to be had for any thing that is made knowen vnto man Whence it necessarily followeth that in poperie there is no Church If it be obiected that the papistes are within the couenaunt inasmuch as long since they professed the trueth Mine answere wil be that popery was neuer the trueth as yet that no papist in that he was a papist euer professed the trueth and that God made no couenant with professed Idolators as all papists are Antichrist I grant should sit as God in the temple of God 2. Thes 2.4 but it was neuer the temple of God since he planted his pestilent chaire therein Poperie in deede hath inuaded the seats and possessions of true religion and began first where the trueth was professed For the mysterie of iniquitie first appeared within the Churche not else-where where true religion flowrished and not among the heathen neyther coulde he be that aduersarie whose beginning shoulde be in Paganisme But although poperie tooke roote in the soyle where the true Churche was planted yet it so grew there that it still continued to be the synagogue of Sathan could neuer as yet be the Churche of God howsoeuer it hath ouergrowen the possession thereof And what though their fathers who nowe are papistes were within the couenant as professing true religion shall it therefore followe that their Idolatrous sonnes should be so to If they returne the Lorde hath mercie in store for them I denie not But what is there in this point said for the papistes which the Iewes cannot with far more shewe of reason pretend for themselues The profaning of baptism among the papistes can make them no more to be within the Churche then the continuance of the profanation of circumcision among the Ishmaelits Edomits could keepe them under the couenant And why should ●●opish baptisme any more tye the ●●●des couenaunt to an Idolatrous race then an Ishmaelitish or Edomitish cutting off of the foreskinne linke him to be the God of those adulterous generations Oh but the Lorde himselfe hath sayd In Isaak shall thy seed be called Rom. 9.7 gen 21.12 Mal. 1.2.3 rom 9.13 and Iaacob haue I loued and hated Esau whie the same Lorde in respect of his reuealed wil for with his secret election men must not meddle hath saide the professors of true religion do I loue but the Idolatrous papists my soule abhorreth It will be heere demanded whether I make no more account of popishe baptisme then of 〈…〉 Edomitish circumcision I see no reason why I shoulde For a circumcised Edomite being receiued to be a true worshipper at Ierusalem shoulde as well content himselfe with that circumcision circumcision being not a thing inuented by man or don in respecte of man but ordained by the Lord and done in regarde of the couenant made vnto Abraham as wee do with popish baptism which is not called in question And yet that which is spoken concerning the profession of the trueth by the forefathers is not altogether true in poperye for there be many large regions nowe professing popery where not so much as the name of Christ was heard vntill they were become grossely popishe So that their first step was out of paganisme vnto poperye And this is the estate of all those poor oppressed vassals the west Indians who now in great nombers profes Romish Idolatrie For at such time as the Spanyard inuading their land brought vppon them the most miserable slauery of bodie and soule that are vpon any people vnder heauen they had not so much as hearde whether there was anye Christe Peter M. de rebus Occeanicis Decad 4.5 but were most hethnish senceles Idolaters as may appeare by the popishe hystoriographers them-selues who wrote the stories of those times And therefore to omit whose posterities many of the nations within Europe are that haue refused the light of the Gospell though it were granted that the rest of the popish rable were with in the couenant yet these miserable hethē papists can be said to be vnder no couenant but that which is made vnto poperie and paganisme I hope M Some howsoeuer you may be perswaded that other popish shauelings can deliuer a sacrament yet that you will doubt whether any man coulde be assured to receiue those holy seals at the handes of the heathen massemongers remaining in Cuba hispaniola Mexico or any other the Eastern partes And thus muche concerning the assumption I am not ignoraunt that famous and worthy men M. Caluin epist 103. haue otherwise written concerning the popishe Church and therefore I am not to be pressed with theyr authority I might in the 3. place vse agaynst you M. Some a reason of your owne thus concluded No ministerye is sacriledge because euery ministerye is an ordinance of God which cannot be turned vnto sacrileage The popish pristhood is sacriledg as you haue set downe page 21. Therfore the popish priesthood is no ministery and consequently popish priests are no ministers You may see that you haue ouerthrown your owne cause But this manner of reasoninge although it should be of force against your selfe inasmuch as your owne wordes are brought to expresse your owne meaning yet I account insufficient my third reason therefore is this 3 They are no ministers whose very ministerye ouerthroweth directly the priesthood of our sauior christ But the very ministery of popishe priests directly ouerthroweth the priesthood of Christe therefore they are no ministers I know not what can be pretended against the proposition vnlesse men woulde dreame of a ministery wyth whom the priesthood of the Lord Iesus cannot stande The latter part of the reason is true Heb. 9.28 10.10 1. iohn 1.7 act 4.12 Ephes 1.7 Heb. 10.12.15 and 9.26 Heb. 5.25 10.14 9.14 if it bee true that Christ is the onely sacrifice for sinne that he is no more to be offred that by once offering himselfe he hath made full satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole worlde and that the popishe priestes dayly sacrifice to apease Gods wrath for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead Lastly they are no ministers who are made that is called elected ordained by Idolaters Popish priests are called chosen and ordained by