Selected quad for the lemma: order_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
order_n	aaron_n	abraham_n	family_n	20	3	7.5940	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48358	Holy characters containing a miscelany of theolocicall [sic] discovrses that is theology, positiue, scholasticall, polemicall, and morall built upon the foundation of scriptures, traditions, councils, fathers, divided into two books / written by George Leybvrn ...	Leyburn, George, 1593-1677.	1662 (1662)	Wing L1938; ESTC R18553	388,184	688

Christians in as much as they dayly serue God and haue dominion ouer their concupiscen●es declining whatsoeuer inclineth to sin are kings in a spirituall metaphoricall signification and in as much as they daily offer themselues a liuing sacrifice holy and acceptable vnto the diuine Majesty are Preists in a spirituall metaphoricall signification their works so offered being sacrifices in a spirituall metaphoricall signification Sacrifice taken in a speciall and proper sense is (c) Catholick definition of a sacrifice taken in the proper sense an outward oblation of a sensible visible thing by lawfull authority exhibited to God only no other object interuening vnto destruction or reall change of the thing offered in recognition of his supream excellency and dominion ouer all creatures In this Catholike definition of sacrifice are obseruable seuen sundry requisits's necessarily concurring vnto the compleating of a true proper sacrifice 1. Oblation for in euery sacrifice taken in the proper sense some sensible visible thing is offered to God and consequently euery true proper sacrifice is an oblation though * Secundum S. Thomam omne sacrificium est oblatio sed non è contra euery oblation is not a sacrifice in the proper sense for many things were offered in the old law namely brass siluer gold oile which were only sacrifices improperly and metaphorically 2. Outward oblation of a sensible thing for proper sacrifice is an act of heighest worship called by (d) This vsage and practise hath continued warrantable down from the begining of Christian Religion till these tymes Quem penes arbitrium est vis sorma loquendi vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherby God is honoured ād worshipped in respect of his supream excellency in consequence whereof proper sacrifice is the chiefest kind of adoration which consisteth of some externall thing signifying the internall esteem that such as adore haue of the thing adored 3. The sensible thing must be permanent because a proper sacrifice is an exhibition of tribute due to God as king of Heauen and earth but tribute is a permanent during thing as experience teacheth in the payment of tribute vnto temporall Princes which is not a meer locution or other action enduring only for a litle while but brass siluer gold or some other permanent thing that is not flitting as are naked words 4. Oblation instituted by lawfull authority For proper sacrifice if the will of God and his institution were excluded is not an act euen of morall vertue hauing of and in it's self no goodness worthy praise nor worthiness deseruing esteem For example in the old law the slaughter or death of Lambes sheep and calfes was not more laudable then the killing of dogs wolues and hogs nay it had been far less laudable to kill those then these if God had not instituted in the old law sacrifices of Lambs sheep and calues excluding the others Furthermore the death and passion of Christ that was the most excellent and proper sacrifice considered in it self only abstracting from the (e) According to S. John the Euangelist cap. 10. Christ after he had declared to the Pharisies his power to lay down his life immediately added This commandement haue I receiued from my Father command he had from his diuine Father to giue his life for the redemption of the world is not an action of vertue because the death of Christ participated it's goodness and worthiness from the diuine command and his own will and indeed Abraham's willingnes to kill his son Isack who was a type of Christ had been a detestable wickedness if he had not had God's warrantable authority for it who is Author of life and death 5. Exhibited by a lawfull Minister for euery man is not a proper Minister of proper sacrifice but he onely who is by lawfull authority designed ordained and consecrated for that speciall charge and * Hebrae 5. nec quisquā sumit sibi honorem sed qui vocatur à Deo tanquam Aaron sic Christ is nō semetipsum clarificauit vt Pontisex fieret sed qui locutus est ad eum tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secūdum ordinem Melchisedech no man should take this honour vnto himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron neither did Christ take vnto himselfe the office of High-Priest For he gaue it him that said vnto him thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech And though God declared vnto the children of Israel that if they would heare his voice and keepe his Couenant he would make them * Exod. 19. si audieritis vocē meam eritis mihi in Regnum Sacerdotale gens sancta a priestly kingdom and a holy nation neuertheless they were not all royall Priest's taken in the proper sense but (f) According to S. Hierom. in quaes Hebraicis it was a tradition amongst the ancient Iew 's that down from Noe vnto Abraham the eldest son of each family was a Priest by diuine dispensation but the family of Aaron was invested with priestly dignity long after the institution of the pascall Lamb Exod. 12. and 28. so that in order to that sacrifice the ancient priuiledge granted to the eldest son of the family continued in force only such as descended from Aaron and both Saul and * 2. Paralip 26. 4. Reg. 14. Osias lepra punitus Osias were seuerely reprehended and punishad for attempting to offer sacrifice to which they were not specially deputed If euery priuate man should turn Priest and minister of proper sacrifice such vnnaturall proceeding against the law of God and nature would cause as dangerous and execrable confusion in the spirituall Church-gouerment as in ciuill State-gouerment if euery priuate man should turne king affecting to rule as king howeuer euen such Priest's as assume to themselue speciall and proper priesthood and deny speciall and proper sacrifice acknowledging spirituall and metaphoricall only open a door to the said confusion giuing occasion to euery priuate man to count himselfe as lawfull a Priest as such are being by baptism designed and consecrated to offer spirituall sacrifice and consequently as to the proper function of a Priest which is to * Hebrae 5. omnis Sacerdos Pontifex institutus vt offerat dona sacrificia offer sacrifice there is no distinction between a priuate man so baptised and such Priest's afore mentioned 6. Exhibited to God only because the end and motiue of proper sacrifice which is omnipotency or supream dominion in recognition wherof sacrifice is offered is found in God only although the catholick Church (g) According to S. Austin c. 20. con Faustum c. 21. Though Altars were erected in memory and honour of Martyrs neuertheless it was not the custom to offer sacrifice to Martyrs but to the God of Martyrs erecteth Altars in memory and honour of Martyrs and other blessed Saint's neuertheless she doth not offer sacrifice but to the sole God of both Martyrs and

him that is ordained a Bishop which is the Tenet of all catholick writers that assert Episcopacy to deriue it's institution from Christ and to be an ecclesiasticall order taken in the proper sense for the Council of Tent sess 23. c. 4. can 4. doth define the Sacrament of Order to imprint a character which definition being absolute without restriction or distinction between one order and an other it doth euidently follow that all orders doe imprint a character which is a spirituall signe deriued into the soul wherby a man is muested with power to exercise certain ecclesiasticall functions in order to the ministery of the Eucharist and it matters not that the priestly is more worthy and excellent then the Episcopall character as distinct from it for the impression of a new and distinct character is not grounded in the more or less perfection and excellency of a precedent character but in the distinction of powers and abilities in reference to exercising the ministery of the Euchariste neither Matters it that Fathers and Councils when they number the Sacraments of the new law do acknowledg seuen only comprehending holy order for one for in so numbring of them they consider holy Order in (l) According to the Ancient Fathers ordination of a Bishop and a Priest is said to be one and the same that is taken in the generall sense and holy order so taken is but one Sacrament onely but a Bishop taken in the proper sense euen according to S. Hierom. Dial. con Lucif hath in the Church the preeminence which Aaron had in law of Moses and to meer Priests he giues that Degree of preeminence onely into which the sons of Aaron were inuested Besides s. Epiphan l. de Sacerdot dignit c. 6. calleth Episcopacy a Deified Order and cap. 7. assert's difference between a Bishop and a meer Priest being God exact's not the same thing 's from a Priest as from a Bishop that has preeminence aboue him a genericall signification as it containeth all it's sundry species or kinds Wherfore in as much as according to the rules of Logick what can be rightly affirmed of a thing taken in the generall sense may be also affirmed of all the sundry species contained therin it doth plainly follow that since ecclesiasticall order taken in its genericall signification is a Sacrament and doth imprint a Character euery true species therof is a Sacrament and imprinteth a Character In like manner Fathers and Councils reckoning seuen Orders they do cōprehend Episcopacy vnder Priesthood And for as much as Christ had but one spouse which is the Church a Bishop and a Priest that supplieth his room and representeth his Person in the ministery ought to be married to the Church only * S. Hieron in sua Apolog con Jouin Apostoli inquit vel virgines vel post nuptias continētes fuerunt id est absquo vxorum consortio wherfore the Apostles after they were ordained Bishops and Priests led their life 's in all godliness purity and chastity and this apostolicall practice Bishops and Priests down from them to these times haue religiously obserued S. Hierom L. in vigilantium exclaimeth against some Modern Hereticks of those times for taking such of the people only to be Priest's as had (m) According to the second Council of Carthage continency was enioyned to Bishops and Priests the ancient Fathers there assembled declaring with one accord that they ought to obserue it being the Apostles taught it and antiquity kept it Besides the first Council of Nice put forth an ordinance that Bishops Priest's and Deacons should entertaine no woman in their families except Mothers Grand-mothers sisters and Aunts making no mention of wifes From whence S. Basil Epis 17 infer's that to take wifes after the receiuing of holy Order was not permitted And indeed Clergy-men of those dayes had so great a reuerence to chastity that euen the Arian Bishop's ordain'd no man that was marryed as witnesseth S. Epiphan her 37. moreouer it was neuer permitted in the Church of Christ that a Bishop or Priest might marry as appear's by the Testimonies of ancient Fathers of the Greek Church though now this Church faln into schism differs from the Latins in opinion and practice as to such as had wifes before their ordination wiues contrary to the custome of both the Eastern and western Churches that allwaies promoted to the Maior-orders Virginia or such as were esteemed chast and pure from all carnall vncleaness and though in the primitiue times when there was great scarcity of single persons as proper and fit to be ordained Bishops Priest's Deacons and Sub-Deacons the Church-gouernours tooke of married men for the exercising those functions neuertheless these did not accompany with their wiues after their ordination but led their liues in all purity and chastity as did their wiues also according to a mutuall promise of continency and since the Priests of the old law to whom marriage was permitted as it were of necessity to multiply the people of God and who did s●adow only in their ministery what the Priests of the new law do really offer in their sacrifices viz. the true and reall body and blood of Christ in memory of his death and passion did abstain not only from the carnall embracement's of their wiues but also from the houses wherin they resided before they were to enter into the Temple for the performance of their spirituall functions respectruely it is most consonant as to reason that Priest's of the new law doe obserue continency together with purity and holyness Besides the vnmarried careth for the things of our lord how he may please him but he that is married careth for the things of the world how he may please his wife 1. Cor. 7. Wherfore such as leaue the world to be ordained Bishops Priest's Deacons and Sub Deacons ought to leade a single life without wifes and truly in regard therof there is less danger of dissipating ecclesiasticall goods and conuerting them to the making vp of inheritance for Clergy-mens children Furthermore Priests vnmarried are in a better condition to reproue the vices of lay-people then if they were married and for as much as they are single men they be less vnquiet contentious and troublesome to their flock not seeking to enrich children which they haue not Iouinianus and Vigilātius were the first sectaries that stood vp in defence of Priests marriages and Luther and Caluin raysed vp againe that heresy after that it had been dead and buried for many ages teaching that it is not only lawfull for Peiests to marry before but euen after their ordination These are followd by all the sectaries of the present times And knowing well that the opinion contradicteth all antiquity they labour to make it agree with the holy scriptures whence they cut out weak interpretations and form coniecturall deductions only abusing sundry text's for Example God says Gen. 1. bring forth fruit and multiply whence they very weakly

likwise defined that vnwritten Tradition the faithfull of these dayes might haue been * S. Basil dicit Sabellianismum esse quēdam Iudaismum Sabellius voro qui omnibus hareticis impietate antecelluit eirca annum 260. haresim Trinitatis propagauit quod Pr●xeas omniū primus humo Romanae inuexit proximè accessit ad errorem Iudaeorum Sabellians or Iewes as for any clear speaking scripture to hinder them Again we belieue that the holy Ghost is not the son of God nor that his procession is generation taken in the proper sense notwithstanding without tradition and interpretation of the holy Church it cannot be proued sufficiently that is to say by express scripture-testimony nor matters it that the Euangelists doe name the second person of the blessed Trinity the only begotten son for hence it follows not by necessary consequence that the holy Ghost is no son for Salomon is styled the only begotten son Prouerb 4. Howeuer it plainly appeareth by the first booke of Paralipomenon or cronicles that he had many brothers yet he was named the only begotten son in regard he was beloued as if he had been the only begotten We must belieue that such (f) The Council of Nice hath defined that such as are baptized by hereticks must not be rebaptized And in regard the Donatists impugned this assertion which is grounded vpon tradition and the Churches definition they were counted hereticks and S. Aust I. de vtilitate credendi cap. 22. expresly affirms that the said assertion is not contained in any express scripture and indeed practice and tradition of the Church only was obiected against S. Cypri that asserted rebaptizing of such as were baptized by hereticks as appeares by his own Epistle ad Iubaian 74. ad Pompeium he conceiuing that he had scripture authority on his side left the Churches tradition and practice yet S. Austin in sundry places of his writings excuseth him from heresie because he was not obstinate in defending of his opinion neither did he break vnion with the Church Besid that controuersy rose before any generall Council defined validity of baptism conferred by Hereticks as are baptized by hereticks ought not to be baptized again wee must belieue that we are bound to keepe holy our lords day which is sunday and we must belieue that there is a necessary obligation to receiue the Apostles Creed yet for as much as none of all these doctrines be contained expresly in or can be deduced out of the holy scriptures by immodiate necessary and euident consequences they would haue nothing of weight with vs in the conuincing of our vnderstanding if the tradition and definition of the Church were laid a side Moreouer the Lutherans and Caluinists in regard they reject Church tradition adhering to the meer letter of scripture and their own interpretations thereof cannot as yet after frequent disputes euince against the Anabaptists that the Sacramēt of Baptism ought to be administred vnto infants where they alledge the words of Christ set down Math. 19. suffer little children and forbid them not to come to me for of such is the kingdom of Heauen as also the practice of the Apostles that baptized whole housholds Act. 19. it is plainly euident that from neither of these testimonies they can as much as deduce by any necessary consequence what they assert as a doctrine of their faith namely that baptism ought to be applied to young children that want the vse of reason especially supposing (g) Caluin l. 4. insti c. 16. and the whole sect of Lutherans though they denyed baptism to be a requisit necessary to the saluation of children neuertheless in their conferences with Anabaptists ingeniously confessed that baptism might lawfully and indeed ought to be ministred vnto children what Lutherans and Caluinists hold as an other article of their reformed religion viz. that baptism is not absolutly necessary to saluation for as to the first testimony though by litle children Christ meant not such only as can goe and speake but also infants sucking their Mothers breasts neuertheless the words of Christ declare them only capable of blessedness without mentioning baptism at all Since then Lutherans and Caluinists doe teach that baptism is not an expedient absolutly necessary to blessedness they can infer nothing of moment and efficacy from these words of Christ to conuince the Anabaptists because the blessedness that is to say the kingdom of Heauen whereof Infants are declared capable may be obtained without baptisin according to Lutherans Caluinists and Anabaptists yet for as much as catholick faith teacheth absolute necessity of baptism out of S. Iohn Cap. 3. that except a man be borne againe of water he cannot enter into the kingdom of Heauen Catholicks can by a clear inference from the said words of Christ proue that Baptism ought euen of necessity to be administred to children because Christs words declare thē capable of the kingdom of Heauen and consequently of baptism that being an expedient absolutly necessary vnto the obtaining of it whosoeuer is capable of any end is likwise capable of the expedient or medium which is of absolute necessity in order to the purchasing of it As touching the latter scripture testimony though it containes a most pregnant coniecture or presumption that the Apostles when they baptized whole families baptised children with all neuertheless it is not sufficient enough to the grounding of an euident and necessary consequence vnto prouing that de facto they did so because experience sheweth that many whole housholds haue no children at all Wherefore it is cleare that neither of the scripture testimonyes do proue effectually the baptism of Infants laying aside the tradition and definition of the Church And truly Lutherans and Caluinists haue only meer coniectures and remote inferences drawn from the interpretation of their own priuat spirits which is the Mother of heresies to euince the foundamentall and essentiall doctrines of their reformed religion namly that faith alone iustifieth that there are but two Sacraments that no addresses of intercession ought to be made vnto Saints or prayers offered for the benefit of soules departed c. and it is a foundamentall article of Caluinism that the Sacrament of the Eucharist signifieth only the body of Christ being a meer figure thereof contrary wise it is a foundamentall article of Lutherans that the body of Christ is really contained in the Sacrament together with the substance of bread and though both Caluinists and Lutherans teach that the scriptures speake and propounde clearly doctrines of faith howeuer they haue not as yet reconciled that controuersy which notwithstanding the many conferences and disputes held about it continueth in debate Caluinists impute to the Lutherans an heresie or errour in faith for admitting and the Lutherans ascribe heresie vnto the Caluinists for denying the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist whereby appeareth plainly the necessity of Church tradition and interpretation for the deciding all hard