Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	aaron_n	confess_v	priesthood_n	42	3	10.4730	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12592	A godly treatise containing and deciding certaine questions, mooued of late in London and other places, touching the ministerie, sacraments, and Church Whereunto one proposition more is added. After the ende of this booke you shall finde a defence of such points as M. Penry hath dealt against: and a confutation of many grosse errours broched in M. Penries last treatise. Written by Robert Some Doctor of Diuinitie.	Some, Robert, 1542-1609.; Penry, John, 1559-1593. Defence of that which hath bin written in the questions of the ignorant ministerie, and the communicating with them.	1588 (1588)	STC 22909; ESTC S117654	118,250	200

shall appeare so by Gods grace in this booke These particulars that of Caiphas priesthood and of the contentious ministers of Philippi shall be handled in their seuerall places I. Penry The dissimilitude is in the reasons drawen from the Leuiticall priesthood and the ciuill magistracie with whom if you compare the ministerie of the new couenant you shall finde first that you bring in a similitude to shewe that which is not proued and secondly that you make those to be twinnes which all men must needes graunt to be as vnlike as crooked and straight lines are vnmatchable R. Some My second fault is as you say in drawing an Argument from the Leuiticall priesthood to the ministerie of the newe Testament Is this a fault no no the fault is in your eye not in my pen but why may I not drawe an argument as I did from the Leuititical priesthood to the ministerie of the new Testament Your reason is the Leuiticall priesthood and the ministerie of the new Testament are not twins are vnmatchable they cānot stand together therefore a reason cannot be drawen from the one to the other You take this I am sure to be an inuincible argument but it is as strong as a rope of sand I denie your argument My reasons are first Aaron did not take the priesthood vpō him before he was called therefore none in our time may enter into the ministerie vnlesse he be called This argument is grounded vpon these words of the Apostle No man taketh this honour vnto himselfe but hee that is called of God as Aaron Heb. 5. Secondly the Leuiticall priests ought to be furnished with knowledge therefore the ministers of the new Testament c. The ground of this reason is set downe by the Prophet Malachi in this sort The priests lippes shal preserue knowledge and they shall seeke the Lawe at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hostes Mal. 2. You see nowe I hope that an argument may be framed from the Leuiticall priesthood to the ministerie of the newe Testament if you doe not you are starke blind if you do confesse your ignorance Thirdly the ministerie of death and condemnation and the ministerie of the spirite and righteousnesse that which should be abolished and that which remaineth are things very farre and greatly different yet an argument may be drawē from the one to the other in this sort The lawe which was the ministerie of death of condemnation and which should be abolished was glorious therefore the Gospel which is the ministerie of the spirite and righteousnes and which remaineth is more glorious This argument is as the Logicians call it à comparatis and is soundly gathered out of these wordes of the holy Apostle If the ministration of death was glorious how shall not the ministration of the spirit be more glorious If the ministerie of condemnation was glorious much more doth the ministration of righteousnes exceede in glory if that which should be abolished was glorious much more shall that which remaineth be glorious 2. Cor. 3. What say you nowe master Penry doe you not perceiue by this I haue set downe that an argument may be drawen very aptly from one thing to another wherein there is great dissimilitude which are not twinnes which are vnmatcheable if you doe be wiser hereafter in the name of God Whether an argument may be drawen from the ciuill magistracie shall appeare in an other place I. Penry And thus much I thought needefull generally to set downe concerning your maner of dealing not that I woulde any way disgrace you whom I reuerence for that is no part of mine intent the Lord is my witnesse Nay I would be loth to let that fillable escape mee that might giue you or any the least occasiō in the world to thinke that I cary any other heart towards you then I ought to beare towards a reuerent learned man fearing God And howsoeuer vnlesse you alter your iudgement I can neuer agree with you in these points because I am assured you swarue from the trueth Yet this disagreement shall be so farre from making a breach of that bond of loue wherewith in the Lord I am tyed vnto you that I doubt not but wee shall be at one in that day when all of vs shall be at vnitie in him that remaineth one and the selfe same for euer R. Some It is gently done of you when you haue broken my head you giue me a plaister but I refuse your surgerie You wil not you say disgrace me You reuerēce me Good words A foule hooke vnder a faire bait If you reuerēce your friends on this fashion what shal your enemies looke for Philippides cudgelled his owne father A mōstrous sonne Being asked why he did so his answer was he did it for loue strāge loue I will accompt somewhat better of your reuerence If I swarue from the trueth as you assure your selfe you haue great reason to dissent from me Gods trueth must be preferred It is more excellent then any creature but if I haue any learning you doe toto coelo errare You are strangely wide for you haue set downe absurd errours for cleare trueths and haue condemned sure points of diuinitie for grosse errours I see litle hope of agreement betweene you and me in these particulars I am resolute in my iudgement if you be so in yours I am sory for you God giue you an other minde CHAP. 6. Iohn Penry NOwe I am to come to your booke from the 20. page whereof vnto the 28. laying the foundation of the reasons you vse against me to proue the lawfulnesse of communicating with dumbe ministers you handle two needelesse points First that they which were baptized by popish priests haue receiued true baptisme as touching the substance Secondly that they are the Sacraments of baptisme and the holy Supper of the Lord which are deliuered in the Church of England by vnpreaching ministers In these two points M. Some you haue proued nothing that my writings haue denied but you haue quickened a dead controuersie not vnlikely to giue the wrangling spirits of this age cause to breede greater sturres in the Church I see no other effect which the handling of these questions can bring foorth but this And it is to be feared that the slendernes of the reasons vsed in your booke to proue that which you haue vndertaken to shew will giue occasion vnto many who of themselues are too too ready to iangle to doubt of that whereof before they made no question So that by seeking to stay the course of a needeful controuersie you haue both giuen it a larger passage and opened the doore vnto a question very fruitlesse in our time You knowe I deale in neither of these pointes If you cannot be stayed from entring into controuersies that are very odious and more impertinent vnto the matter in hande it were good that the Church were further and more soundly satisfied by you in

Reasons Because it was sufficient to make him a lawfull though not a good Priest for him to be of the line of Aaron R. Some YOu haue examined and censured my reasons at your pleasure I hope I may with your good leaue looke a litle vpon yours My answere is first If your first reason be good then they which receiued the Sacraments at their handes were not polluted If they were not polluted what say you to these arguments viz. The Sacrament may not be receiued at his handes which wanteth outward calling therefore not at his hands which is destitute of the inwarde graces I. Pen. Againe we haue no warrant to receiue an extraordinarie Sacrament But that which is administred by ignorant Ministers is an extraordinarie Sacrament if it be any therefore we haue no warrant to receiue it You know I am sure the father of these two arguments They came out of your owne Mint Secondly if your first reason be good then a corrupt externall approbation made them lawful Priests which had not an inward calling that is sufficiencie of gifts c. If you denie the externall approbation of the ignorant Leuites to be a corrupt approbation I proue it thus It was a breach of Gods owne order therefore it was a corrupt approbation The antecedēt is manifest in these words The Priests lips shall keepe knowledge and they shall seeke the Law at his mouth c. Mal. 2. Therefore the externall approbation of ignorant Leuites was a corrupt approbation I. Penry There was no commaundement concerning the triall of his fitnesse to teache therefore vnfitnesse to teach made not a nullitie of the Leuiticall Priestes office R. Some You proue your antecedent thus Almightie God said to Moses Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sonnes to execute the Priests office c. Num. 3.10 My answere is No trial of giftes in Aaron his sonnes was needfull at the first for Almightie God did furnish thē accordingly My reason is cōteined in these words of God himselfe My couenant was with him of life and peace and I gaue him feare and he feared me and was afraide before my Name The Lawe of trueth was in his mouth and there was no iniquitie found in his lippes he walked with me in peace and equitie and did turne many away from iniquitie Mal. 2.5 6. God did neuer call any to the holy Ministerie but he gaue them giftes fit for that function I haue proued this point in the beginning of this treatise To thinke otherwise of his Maiestie is great wickednes I hope you will not reason thus There was no commandement cōcerning the trial of gifts in Aaron and his sonnes at the first therefore there was neuer any triall afterward of giftes in Aarons posteritie If you reason thus I denie your Argument My reason is If euery one of Aarons posteritie how vnfit so euer might enter into the Priestes office by the Lords warrant Almightie God might be iustly charged to haue had very little care either of his owne honor or of the Church of the Israelites Yea his Maiestie had flatly broken one of his owne positiue Lawes conteined in these wordes The Priestes lips shall keepe knowledge they shall seeke the Lawe at his mouth Mal. 2. I. Penry It is not mentioned that any were put from the Priesthoode for want of this abilitie whereas the doubt whether they were the sonnes of Aaron Esra 2. and their idolatrie 2. Chro. bereaued them thereof therefore vnfitnes to teach made not a nullitie of the Leuiticall Priestes office R. Some Your reason is very weake It is not mentioned c. therefore none were I deny your argument for it is à non scripto ad nō factum which is not sure in this case If no ignorant Leuiticall Priests were remoued frō the priesthood for their vnfitnes to teach Gods Church had the gouernours did greater wrong I am sure they shoulde haue bene remoued for Almightie Gods resolution is flat in these wordes Because thou hast refused knowledge I will also refuse thee that thou shalt bee no priest to mee c. Hos 4. The wise Prince will displace an absurde Ambassadour The valiant captaine will remooue a cowardly souldier The husbande man will not suffer that drudge to attend on his trough which cannot feede his hogs If such as were not founde within the compasse of Aarons genealogie were remoued frō the Priesthoode they had no wrong for this was a Law of God himselfe Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sonnes to execute the priests office and the strāger that commeth neere shall be slaine Numb 3.10 If such as committed idolatrie were discharged of the Priesthood they were iustly dealt with Ezech. 44. I. Penry The example of Paul Acts. 21.26 confirmeth this who communicated since his conuersion with those priests that were as vnlearned as euer any which hee would not haue done if inabilitie to teache had made them no priestes Now therefore M. Some to make your Argument from the Leuitical priesthood to be forcible for your vnpreaching Ministers you must prooue that either our Readers Ministerie is a Leuiticall Ministerie that the continuance thereof is vnder the new Couenant or shew that the corrupt approbation for so I name the best outwarde calling they can haue of the Church is as forcible to make them Ministers as was the ordinance of God to make the sonnes of Aaron sacrificing at Ierusalem to be priests R. Some How learned or vnlearned the priests at that time were in Ierusalem appeareth not in that place of the Actes The meaning of S. Luke is this The Apostle Paul was accompted by the Iewes an enemie of Moses Lawe To cleare himselfe of this hee entred into Salomons Temple by the aduise of the Apostle Iames and of the brethren in Ierusalem and was purified Acts. 21.26 Your last reason serues very fitly for my purpose therefore I will vse it as a sworde to cut in pieces some of your fancies Paul you say communicated after his conuersion with those priests that were as vnlearned as euer any was not polluted Of this I conclude therefore they which receiue the Sacraments at the hands of vnpreaching Ministers are not polluted My reason is The ignorant Leuites and ignorant Ministers agree in eodem tertio that is in ignorance But M. Penry replies that an argument from the Leuiticall priesthoode is not forcible for vnpreaching Ministers To proue this he vseth two reasons The first is our readers Ministerie is not a Leuiticall Ministerie therefore an Argument from the Leuitical Priesthood is not forcible for vnpreaching Ministers My answere is I graunt that no ministerie in these dayes is a Leuiticall ministerie for the date of that ministerie is out long ago But I denie your Argument My reason is An argument is and may be forcibly drawen from one thing to another which are vnmatchable All Logicians confesse that similitudes are of things which differ Euery meane Sophister in the Vniuersitie knoweth it It