Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	aaron_n	chief_a	moses_n	154	4	10.2658	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12215	A surreplication to the reioynder of a popish adversarie VVherein, the spirituall supremacy of Christ Iesus in his church; and the civill or temporall supremacie of emperours, kings, and princes within their owne dominions, over persons ecclesiastical, & in causes also ecclesiasticall (as well as civill and temporall) be yet further declared defended and maintayned against him. By Christopher Sibthorp, knight, one of his majesties iustices of his court of Chiefe-place in Ireland.	Sibthorp, Christopher, Sir, d. 1632.	1637 (1637)	STC 22525; ESTC S102608	74,151	92

Cohanim that is Princes or great Rulers so it is explayned 2. Sam 20.26 and declared in 1 Chron. 18.17 And so it is likewise said of Ira the Iairite that hee was Cohen le David that is a Prince or chiefe Ruler about David For to conster these to be Priests in the proper and usuall signification of the word they not being of the Tribe of Levi were verie absurd And to these thus formerly alledged in my Reply you have answered nothing in your Rejoynder Yea S. Ierome himselfe in his owne observation sheweth that the Hebrew word though he translate it Sacerdotes in the one case and Sacerdos in the other case yet signifieth as I before affirmed For saith he Ira Iairites erat sacerdos David Hier. tradit Hebr. in libros Regum to 3 id est Magister sicut alibi scriptum est Filij autem David erant sacerdotes idest Magistri fratrum suorum But because you also object S. Augustine as the Iesuites likewise did object both S. Ierome and S. Augustine in this case writing upon this Psalm 99. to prove Moses to bee a Priest I had rather you should take your Answer thereunto from the wordes of that reverend and learned Bishop Doctor Bilson then from me who answereth the Iesuites and consequently you in this sort In his Booke called the difference betweene Christian subiection unchristian rebellion part 3. pag. 102.103 Hier. in Psal 98. Aug. in Psal 98. All that S. Ierome saith is this that Moses had the rule of the Law and Aaron of the Priesthood and that eyther of them did foreshew the comming of Christ with a Priestly kinde of Proclamation Moses with the sound of the Law and Aaron with the Bels of his garments Where S. Hierome calleth the Propheticall function of Moses to teach the people the lawes of God a Priestly kinde of Proclamation foreshewing that the Son of God should come in the flesh to teach us the will of his Father S. Augustine useth the word in the like sence for that sacred service which Moses yeelded to God in reporting his lawes and precepts to the people And therefore in the same place he saith of Samuel also that hee was made high Priest which is expressely against the Scriptures if you take the Priest for him that was annointed to offer sacrifice unto God For Samuel was but a Levite and no Priest much lesse an high Priest The sons of Samuel 1. Chron. 6. are reckoned in the Scripture it selfe among the Levites apart from the Priests office and linage And the high Priesthood was long before given to Phinees and his house Num. 25.13 1. Sam. 14. 1. Chron. 6. by covenant from Gods owne mouth and in the dayes of Samuel was held by Abiah the sonne of Ahitub who was directly of the discent of Phinees S. Augustine elsewhere debating this question of Moses and Aaron resolveth in doubtfull manner Moses and Aaron were both high Priests or rather Moses the chiefe and Aaron under him or else Aaron chiefe for the Pontificall attire and Moses for a more excellent Ministerie And in that sence Moses may be called a Priest if you meane as S. Augustine doth an interpreter of Gods will to Aaron others which is the right vocation of all Prophets that were no Priests common to them all save that by a more excellent prerogative then any other Prophet of the Olde Testament Numb 12. Exod. 33. had God spake to Moses mouth to mouth and face to face as a man speaketh to his friend But this doth not hinder his civill power which was to bee chiefe Iudge and soveraigne executor of Iustice amongst them and by vertue thereof to put them to death that were offenders against the Law of God And in his stead succeeded not Eleazar nor Phinees the sonnes of Aaron but Ioshuah and Iudah the Captaines and leaders of Israel So farre hee Thus then you see in what sence it is that both S. Ierome and S. Augustine did or might call Moses a Priest and yet not bee such a Priest strictly and properly taken as you fancie him Yea you see that S. Augustine likewise affirmeth Samuel to be a Priest who neverthelesse revera Bellarmin de verb. Dei lib. 3. cap. 4. and properly was not a Priest as before is shewed And Bellarmine also himselfe confesseth somuch of Samuel saying expressely Samulem non fuisse sacerdotem sed Iudicem tantum Non enim descendit ex familia Aaron sed Core consobrini ejus 1. Paralip 6. That Samuel was not a Priest but onely a Iudge for he descended not of the family of Aaron but of Core And he saith further that S. Hierome likewise libr. 1. in Iovinianum ostendit Samuelem non fuisse Sacerdotem shewed that Samuel was not a Priest As for those two Chapters of Exodus 28. and 29. cited by Bellarmine whereby he will prove Moses to be truely and properly a Priest If you reade those Chapters you shall finde no such matter but rather the contrary namely that not Moses but Aaron and his sonnes Exod. 28 1.2 3.4 were the Priests For God saith there to Moses Take Aaron thy Brother and his Sonnes with him from amongst the children of Israel that he may minister unto me in the Priests Office even Aaron Nadab and Abibu Eleazar and Ithamar Aarons sonnes It is true that there you may reade that Moses made holy Garments Exod. 29.1.2.3.4 c. and offered certaine Sacrifices But observe withall that all this was done by Gods owne expresse and speciall commaundement and to no other end but this viz for the conseruating of Aaron and his Sonnes to the Priesthood So that by those two Chapters it further appeareth that not Moses but Aaron onely and his Sonnes were the Priests But as the Iesuites In his booke before named part 3. pag. 103. 104. in time past would have proved Samuel to be a Priest because it is said that he Sacrificed so you say the same of King Saul that he also sacrificed and thereby would likewise prove him to be a priest Howbeit the former reverēd learned Bishop D. Bilson doth againe shew both them and you how much you deceave your selves by such phrazes and maner of speeches and that when they are rightly vnderstood they inferre no such conclusion as you and they would deduce out of them My collection saith he is grounded upon the law of God Samuel was none of the Sonnes of Aaron Ergo 1. Sam. 7. Samuel was no Priest It is true that the Scripture saith He tooke a sucking lambe and offered it for a burnt offering unto the Lord. So Iephta said Iudg. 11. That thing which first cometh out of the Dores of my house to me I will offer it for a burnt offering And yet Iephtah was neither Priest nor Levite So the Angell said to Manoah Iudg. 13. If thou wilt make a burnt offering offer it unto the

powers Who saith S. Bernard hath excepted you speaking to an Archbishop from this generalitie Hee that bringeth in an exception saith hee useth but a delusion And you may remember that even S. Chrysostome also himselfe as hee subjecteth Kings to Bishops Priests and Pastors in respect of their power and commission graunted them from God So on the other side in respect of the Regall sword power and authoritie given and graunted likewise from God to Kings and Princes he declareth verie fully that Bishops Priests Pastors and all Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever aswell as lay people are to be subject to them But this point concerning the subjection of all Bishops Priests and Pastors and even of the Bishop of Rome himselfe aswell as of others unto Emperours Kings and Princes as also in causes even Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and temporall is so cleerely plainely and plentifully proved both in my first and second Bookes and in this also all your answers evasions quirkes and quiddities being therein utterly frustrated confuted and confounded as that it is to mee a matter of wounder that you should not see and so acknowledge the truth of it But it seemeth you cannot see the wood for trees which I am sorrie for 8. Howbeit to make this point yet the more evident viz the subjection of Priests and Ecclesiasticall Ministers unto the King and therewithall the Kings supremacie or supreame commaund over them even in causes Ecclesiasticall I alledged in my Reply cap. 1. pag. 5. the example of Moses who commaunded not onely the Levites Deut. 31.25.26 and that in a matter Ecclesiasticall and concerning their verie office but hee commaunded also even Aaron the high Priest in a matter likewise Ecclesiasticall and concerning his verie office Numb 16.46.47 saying thus unto him Take the censer and put fire therein of the Altar and put therein incense and goe quickely unto the congregation and make an attonement for them for there is wrath gone out from the Lorde the plague is begun then Aaron tooke as Moses had commaunded him c. Here you say I abuse my Reader by falsely citing this text for the right wordes say you are these Moses said to Aaron take the Censer and drawing fire from the Altar put incense upon it going quickely to the people to pray for them To pray say you and to make attonement doe differ and be not all one howbeit indeede not I but you are the man that abuse your Reader by falsely citing the wordes of this Text For you therein follow the wordes of your vulgar Latin translation which is untrue and unsound and I follow our English translation which is according to the Originall in Hebrew and therefore true which you also if you were a good Hebrician would know and perceive even in this verie particular But whether wee take your translation of Praying for the people or our translation of Attonement-making it commeth all to one passe as touching that purpose for which I cited it namely to prove that Moses commaunded Aaron the high Priest in a matter Ecclesiasticall cōcerning his verie office For your selfe do say that this praying for the people was a religious act to bee wrought by Aaron as being intermediate betweene the people God to reconcile or gaine unto them the favours of heaven And on the other side we say that to burne incense to mak attonement for the people 2. Chron. 26.18 is likwise expressely a thing properly pertayning to the Priests office So that as touching that purpose for which I cited that text it maketh as I said before no difference But then you go further seem to speake as if Moses had not there commanded Aaron But when Moses spake to Aaron in this sort Accipe thuribulū Take the censer Be not these wordes of commaunding especially in this case and at this time being also spoken by a Superior namely by him that was as the Scripture calleth him a king in the common-weale of Israel Deut. 33.5 Deut. 31.25 26.27 Yea bee they not wordes of as full and cleere commaund as when hee spake in like sort to the Levites saying Take the booke of this law and put yee it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord our God c. The Text it selfe sheweth that these were wordes of commaunding in Moses And so witnesseth also your owne translation that herein Moses praecepit Levitis Moses commaunded the Levites Yea that Moses aswell as his successor Ioshuah commaunded not onely the Levites but the Priests also and all the congregation and people of Israel appeareth by that answer and acclamation they gave to the same Ioshuah saying thus unto him Iosh 1.16.17.18 All that thou hast commaunded us wee will doe and whethersoever thou sendest us wee will goe As wee have obeyed Moses in all things so will we obey thee onely the Lord thy God be with thee as bee was with Moses whosoever shall rebell against thy commaundement and will not obey thy wordes in all that thou commaundest him let him bee put to death But then when you cannot gainesay but that Moses commaunded Aaron and that in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning his very office you come to your last refuge and doe say that Moses was the high Priest and so as an high Priest commaunded Aaron But first how doe you prove this that Moses was an high Priest And yet if you could prove it what would you or could you gaine from thence for your selfe doe say that Moses was as well a king as a Priest therefore why might hee not commaund him as hee was a king rather then otherwise for did he in his time commaund the Priests Levites the whole People of Israel otherwise or in any other sort or sence then Ioshuah his successor did who was no Priest how be it if Moses had been both a Priest and a King would not the holy Scripture somewhere haue testified and expressed so much aswell as it doth in the like case of Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 Hebr. 7.1 For as touching those Texts of Scripture which you bring to prove Moses to be a Priest it shall by and by appeare that they prove it not Againe if Moses were the high Priest what will you make Aaron to be for it is evident and confessed of all sides that Aaron was the high Priest and if Moses were also another high Priest at the same time Deut. 33.5 then beside that there should be two high Priests together at one time how could the one commaund the other they being both of equall authority Or can he be rightly and truely called Summus Sacerdos that hath a Superior Priest over him to commaund him It is cleere that the Scripture doth expressely testifie of Moses that he was a King and therefore of that there can be no doubt but that he was also a Priest or an high Priest as you suppose it doth not affirme no not in that Place