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	vocation_n	20	3	12.5083	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A16152	The true difference betweene Christian subiection and unchristian rebellion wherein the princes lawfull power to commaund for trueth, and indepriuable right to beare the sword are defended against the Popes censures and the Iesuits sophismes vttered in their apologie and defence of English Catholikes: with a demonstration that the thinges refourmed in the Church of England by the lawes of this realme are truely Catholike, notwithstanding the vaine shew made to the contrary in their late Rhemish Testament: by Thomas Bilson warden of Winchester. Perused and allowed publike authoritie.	Bilson, Thomas, 1546 or 7-1616.	1585 (1585)	STC 3071; ESTC S102066	1,136,326	864

discent of Phinees Sainct Augustine else-where debating this question of Moses and Aaron resolueth in doubtfull manner Moses and Aaron were both high Priestes or rather Moses the chiefe and Aaron vnder him or else Aaron chiefe for the pontificall attyre and Moses for a more excellent ministerie And in that sense Moses may bee called a Priest if you meane as Saint Augustine doeth an interpreter of Gods will to Aaron and others which is the right vocation of all Prophetes that were no Priestes and common to them all saue that by a more excellent prerogatiue than anie other Prophete of the olde Testament had God spake to Moses mouth to mouth and face to face as a man speaketh vnto his friend But this doth not hinder his ciuill power which was to bee chiefe iudge and soueraigne executor of iustice among th●m and by vertue thereof to put them to death that were offend ors against the law of God And in his steede succeeded not Eleazar or Phinees the sonnes of Aaron but Ioshua and Iudah the captaines and leaders of Israel Phi. Your collection of Samuel is not true For God sent him to do sacrifice when he annointed Dauid and therefore Samuel was a Priest Theo. My collection is grounded vpon the law of God Samuel was none of the sonnes of Aaron ergo Samuel was no Priest nor might not come neere the Altar to offer anie sacrifice in his owne person Phi. The Scripture s●yeth He tooke a sucking Lambe and offered it for a burnt offering vnto the Lorde Theo. You mistake the speech of the holy Ghost So Iephtah saide That thing which commeth first out of the doores of myne house to meete mee I will offer it for a burnt offering yet Iephtah was neither Priest nor Leuite So the Angell saide to Manoah If thou wilt make a burnt offering offer it to the Lorde and yet Manoah was of the tribe of Dan. Of Dauid that was no Priest the Scripture saith Then Dauid offered burnt offeringes peace offeringes before the Lorde And againe Dauid built there an Altar vnto the Lorde and offered burnt offeringes and peace offeringes and the Lorde was appeased towarde the Lande And likewise of Salomon The king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there a thowsande burnt offeringes did Salomon offer vppon that Altar Thrise a yeare did Salomon offer burnt offeringes and peace offeringes vppon the Altar which hee built to the Lorde and hee burnt incense vppon the Altar that was before the Lorde Nothing is oftener in the Scriptures than these kindes of speeches by the which no more is ment but that either they brought these things to be offered or else they caused the priests to offer them For in their own persons they coulde not sacrifice them because they were no Priests In that sense the Scripture saieth of Saul that He offered a burnt offering at Gilgall before Samuel came not that Saul offered it with his owne handes as you before did fondely imagine and sayde hee was deposed for aspiring to the spirituall function but hee commaunded the Priest to doe it who was then present in the host with the Arke of GOD as the next chapter doth witnesse in two seuerall places Phi. Then was Saul free from sinne when Samuel reproued him Theo. Samuel reproued him for distrusting and disobeying God For when God first aduanced Saul to the kingdom he charged him by the mouth of Samuel to go to Gilgal and there to staie seuen daies before he ventered to do any sacrifice til the Prophet were sent to shewe him what hee shoulde doe but he seeing his enimies gathered to fight against him on the one side and his people shrinking from him on the other side because Samuel came not beganne to suspecte that Samuel had beguiled him and therefore vppon his owne head against the commaundement of God willed the Priest to goe forwarde with his sacrifices and to consult GOD what hee shoulde doe This secrete distrust and presumption against the charge which God had giuen him was the thing that GOD tooke in so euill part and since hee woulde not submitte him-selfe to bee ruled by GOD and expect his leasure God reiected him as vnfitte to gouerne his people Neither did Samuel chalenge him for inuading the Priestes office but for not staying the time that God prefixed him before the Prophet should come Philand Wee reade in the booke of Numbers that the Captaine and all the people were commaunded to goe in and out that is to proceede in warres according to the order of Eleazarus the Priest Such were the warres of Abia other kinges of Iudah that fought most iustly and prosperouslie against the schismaticall Israelites and iustly possessed the Cities which they conquered in those warres As also Edom and Libuah reuolted from king Ioram for Religion euen because hee forsooke the God of their forefathers and coulde neuer bee recouered to the same againe Wherein also the example and zeale of the children of Israell was verie notable that they woulde haue denounced warre against the Tribe of Ruben and Gad onely for erecting as they tooke it a schismaticall altar out of the only place where our Lord appointed that sacrifice should be doone vnto his honor Theo. Yee bee tried men to interprete Scriptures The words which you applie to Eleazar the Priest stande in the text indifferent to be referred either to God or to Ieboshuah or to Eleazar and you lustilie leaue out both GOD and the Magistrate and will haue the Priest to bee the Master of the Musters And did the wordes pertaine to Eleazar no such power as you conceiue is thereby giuen to the Priest to caulme and kindle warres when hee list but onely to consult the Lord before his Arke and to reporte backe to the Captaine and leader of the people what the Lorde saide that no warres might bee vndertaken without expresse warrant from God This kinde of asking counsell at Gods mouth in their warres you should finde exemplyfied in sundrie places of the olde Testament as Iudges twentie first Samuel fourteene first Samuel twentie-three first Samuel thirtie But in this case the Priest had no farther authority than to inquire at Gods mouth and that hee did when the king commaunded him which is far from licencing subiectes to rebell against their king as you woulde haue it The warres of Abia the king of Iudah against Israell were not of Subiectes against their Soueraignes but of a lawfull Prince bearing the sworde and thinking to recouer the kingdome of Israell which Roboam his father lost from his enimies Where you iustifie the warres of Abia against Israell more bouldly than wisely GOD him-selfe prohibiting the children of Iudah and Beniamin in the dayes of Roboam his Father to fight against the children of Israell their brethren and professing the diuision of the Kingdome

Phi. It may Theo. Should corrupt false Religion be displaced banished and the spredders of it dispersed skattered Phi. In any case Theo. Ought malefactors against God as heretikes blasphemers sorcerers idolaters such other transgressours of the first table to be reuenged and punished as well as offenders against men and the breakers of the second table Phi. What else Theo. Can any man freely permit safely defend generally restrayne and externally punish within a realme but onely the Prince Phi. None Theo. Then if these things needfully must and lawfully may bee done for Christ and his Church none can doe them but Magistrates it is euident that the Princes power charge doth stretch vnto thinges causes that bee spirituall as well as temporall Or if S. Austens wordes do better please you that Princes may command that which is good and prohibite that which is euill within their kingdomes not in ciuile affaires onely but in matters also that concerne diuine Religion Phi. Did the Christian Princes in the primatiue Church since the cōming of Christ commaund punish in matters Ecclesiasticall Theo. If their examples do not concur with my former proofes good leaue haue you to beleeue neither if they do take heede you withstand not a manifest truth And here you shal choose whether you will haue a short report or a large rehearsal of their doings Socrates touching them all saith We therefore make mention of Emperors throughout this historie for that since they became Christians Ecclesiastical matters depend on them the greatest Synods haue been and are yet called by their appointment And Alciat a man of your own side Nemim dubiū est quin in primatiua ecclesia de rebus personis ecclesiast c. THERE CAN BE NO DOVBT saith he but in the primatiue Church Emperors had the iurisdiction that is the ruling and gouerning of persons and causes Ecclesiasticall Ius dicere referred to Princes is not to decide matters in question by law for so did Iudges not Princes but to make lawes and betweene lawmakers gouernors you can find litle difference for by publike lawes commāding good punishing euil princes do chiefly gouerne Then if christian Monarks in the primatiue church guided ecclesiastical matters persons by their imperiall lawes as this learned famous lawier putteth vs out of doubt they did you must shew when how they forfeited this power If it were thē lawful vsual how can it be now strange vsurped If there be no doubt of this with what cōscience do you not doubt but deny this Perhaps you disdaine the witnesse Alciat in euery respect was well learned in his faculty which was law deserueth more credit than the best of you yet least I should seeme to presse you with names not with proofes let vs view the proceedings of some Christiā Emperors and iudge you whether they be not both ancient and euident What power Constantine claimed vsed in causes ecclesiasticall the foure books of Eusebius other church stories describing the lawes letters acts of Cōstantine beare witnes sufficient First he gaue the christiās free liberty to professe their religion built them places of praier at his own charges entreated their bishops with all possible fauor honor Next he prohibited the gentiles their ancient vsual idolatries diuinatiōs oracles images sacrifices Heretiks he debarred not only churches secret conuents but excluded them also from the priuileges which him-selfe had prouided for Catholike persons If Constantines example deserue to be praised followed which no man except he be void of common sense wil gainsay then may christian Princes in the right of their scepter sword I meane their publike vocation charge without seeking any farther warrāt from Rome forbid wicked and idolatrous superstition admit and assist to the best of their power the preaching of the trueth sequester heretikes from the dignities and liberties graunted to good and religious subiectes for so did Constantine whose godly vertues and happie paines all nations then imbraced all ages since confessed all Princes now should imitate Besides this he did many thinges both for spredding the faith guiding the church of Christ worthy great cōmendation By my ministery saith this good Emperor mākind is brought to the keeping obseruing of the most sacred law by the seruice which I perform to God al things euery where directly speaking of things ecclesiasticall are setled in order yea the barbarous nations which til this time knew not the truth now praise the name of God sincerely whom they reuerēce for dread of vs. Towards the church of Christ he shewed an excellēt special care calling coūcels of bishops when any dissention sprang as a common bishop ouerseer appointed by God not disdaining to be present confer with them the rather to keep thē al in christian peace For his maner was in their synods not to sit idle but to marke aduisedly what euery man said to help their either side disputing to tēper such as kindled too fast to reason mildly with ech part vndertake iointly with thē to search out the truth confirming their decrees with his seal least other tēporal iudges rulers should infringe them When occasiō serued him not to gather a coūcel he did by writing aduertise the parties dissenting of his opiniō iudgemēt interposing himself as an arbiter in their cōtrouersies somtimes Prescribing the bishops what was profitable for the church of God somtimes the people to which end he wrot many letters emitting neither rebukes nor threats whē need so required Whē the coūcel of Tyrus was gathered by his edict he cōmāded thē first to discusse the truth of such crimes as were pretēded against Athan. who was loth to come before thē saue that he feared the thretning letters of Const. writtē to this effect If any which I think not in contēpt of our mādate fail to come before you we wil send a warrāt frō our roial autority that he shal be banished to teach him what it is for bishops clerks to withstād the precept of the chief ruler defending the truth Athan. the bishops of his part appeared but finding the coūcel very partial protested against thē appealed frō thē in these words Because we see many things spitefully cōtriued against vs much wrōg offred the catholik church vnder our names we be forced to request that the debating of our maters may be kept for the princes most excellēt person we can not bear the drifts iniuries of our enimies therfore require the cause to be referred to the most religious deuout emperor before whō we shal be sufferd to stād in our own defēces plead the right of the church Yet to preuēt the worst Athan. himself fled to Constant. beseeching him to send for the bishops examine their acts