Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	aaron_n	account_n	moses_n	43	3	7.2545	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33411	St. Peter's supremacy faithfully discuss'd according to Holy Scripture and Greek and Latin fathers with a detection and confutation of the errors of Protestant writers on this article : together with a succinct handling of several other considerable points.	Clenche, William.	1686 (1686)	Wing C4640; ESTC R5309	132,726	227

and it is granted you that he did so but then you are to look on him as a mixt Person in whom both the Sacerdotal and Regal Power were combin'd So what he did herein was not purely by virtue of his Kingly but Priestly Power This is clear out of St. Austin's Testimony in his Questions on Leviticus Lib. 3. Quest 23. Si Moises Sacerdos non fuit quomodo per illum omnia gerebantur si fuit quomodo summum Sacerdotium ab ejus fratre incipit which he thus solves Ambo erant summi Sacerdotes Aaron propter vestem Pontificalem Moses propter excellentius ministerium Thus likewise Philo in his Life of Moses gives this account of him in his Third Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the Life and Death of Moses who was both King Legislator High-Priest and Prophet And accordingly Greg. Nazianzen in his Sixth Oration calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prince of Princes and Priest of Priests Now the Secular and Ecclesiastick Power which was united in the Person of Moses was afterwards parted betwixt Eleazer and Joshua the one succeeding him in the Priestly and the other in the Princely Power as you may see in the 27th of Numbers where God commands Moses to give Joshua part of his Glory but in the same Chapt. you may see that he subjected Joshua to Eleazer at whose word both he and all the Children of Israel were to go in and out Your next Example is of Salomon whom I grant to have remov'd Abiathar from the Pontificate and to have subrogated Sadock in his place But first you are to understand that he was not depos'd for any matter of Faith or concerning Religion but for Treason and Rebellion For conspiring with Adonia whom he had Anointed King against Salomon Next you are to observe that Salomon exauctorated him not as King but as Prophet to whom God had committed some things after an extraordinary manner So what he acted herein was not by his own Royal Power but by Authority and Commission from God by Divine Inspiration as the Text evidences Vt impleretur Sermo Dei quem locutus est super domo Eli in Silo. This Action therefore of his do's not at all prove him to be superior to the High-Priest But only that God was pleas'd to make use of him as an Executer for the performance of a Sentence which he had formerly denounc'd And this will be easily understood if recourse be made to History Aaron had two Sons Eleazar and Ithamar Eleazar as eldest succeeded him in the Priesthood his Son Phinees succeeded him and his Posterity down to Heli continued in that Holy Function At which time the Posterity of Phinees incuriously administring the Priesthood God was pleas'd to punish their neglect by translating it from the Family of Eleazar to that of Ithamar to wit to Heli in which Family it continued about 120 Years to Salomons days who depos'd Abiathar the Abnepos of Heli for conspiring with his Corrival Adonias substituting Sadock in his place Now as the Pontificate was remov'd by God's order from the Family of the eldest Brother to that of the younger House so was it likewise transplanted from thence into the right Line by the Authority of the same God who was pleas'd in several things to order and direct those Kings of Israel governing as it were by them This made Josephus to affirm in his Second Book against Appio That God did not so much institute in Israel a Monarchy as a Theocracy or Deiarchy But now if this Action of Salomon's deposing Adonias be construed in favor of the Prince as if he thereby were Superior to the High-Priest The Clergy has as strong an Argument for their Superiority in Samuel's declaring King Saul dethron'd but I look on both these Examples as extraordinary and consequently not Presidential The next Example is David but he being likewise King and Prophet what can be alledg'd concerning him is answered in what is said of Salomon it is moreover mention'd of him that what he did in Church Matters was Juxta omnia quae scripta sunt in Lege Domini As for the Example of Ezechias tho' it be granted he constituted Levites in the House of God yet in the Second Book Paralip Cap. 29. you may perceive that what he did herein was Secundum dispositionem David Gad videntis Nathan Prophetae Siquidem Domini praeceptum fuit per manum Prophetarum ejus And herein you will likewise find that he was much ruled by Isaias as in Eccles 48. 25. Fecit Ezechias quod placuit Deo fortiter ivit in via David Patris sui quam mandavit illi Isaias Thus you may perceive that the Examples of these Kings are not at all apposit to your Point they not proving that Princes by their sole Royal Power may intermeddle in Church Affairs or reform Religion in its Substance enacting things by their own Authority contrary to the Assent of Gods High-Priest and Prophets Some Kings by extraordinary Command as Kings and Prophets did concern themselves in Church Affairs Others not without consent and assistance of the Priests did very laudably use their utmost power to destroy Idolatry and restore Discipline but which of them disown'd the Authority of the High-Priest abrogated his-Power and invested himself with it Now that the Kings of Israel were not Supreme in Church Matters seems evident by the word of God spoken to the High-Priest Eliakim in Isaias 22. where after he had promis'd to give him the Key of David he explains to him the Power of it Et aperiet non erit qui claudat claudet non erit qui aperiat by which he plainly makes him Supreme in Church Affairs no Person whatsoever being able to exclude whom he opened to Or to introduce whom he shut out And to Sinew this Argument with a stronger Nerve you will find that Jehosophat who was a Religious Prince would not handle Church Affairs knowing that they belong'd to the High-Priest as in Paralip 2. 19. Ananias autem Sacerdos Pontifex vester in his quae ad Deum pertinent praesidebit And on the contrary Osias who presum'd to usurp the Sacerdotal Function and offer Incense to God was by the incensed Deity struck with Leprosy By what I have mention'd it will clearly appear how irrational it is for you to produce the Jewish Kings as Examples to justifie your former Kings exorbitant tampering in Church Affairs there being no Parallel at all betwixt them They acting therein as Kings and Prophets Authoriz'd by Gods extraordinary Commission and in their Reformations joining with the High-Priest whereas yours was in opposition to him and warranted by nothing but Secular Might But now after all this if you could clearly prove that the Jewish Kings were superior to the High-Priest and Supreme Quatenùs Kings in Church Affairs it would not follow that that similitude should hold good amongst Christians The Priesthood in