Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	aaron_n	commit_v	priesthood_n	23	3	9.8535	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

where the purpose of the holy Ghost was to shew what Offices he bare during all his life time and what maner of man he was amongst the Israelites so long as he had been amongst them vntill that time that he was to die and to take his last farewell of them Deut. 33.5 Deut. 34.10 for there it onely appeareth that he was a King and a Prophet but not a Priest Had he bene also a Priest no doubt it would not haue bene there omitted but specified likewise aswell as his other two Offices Yea reade throughout the whole Bible the historie concerning Moses you will still finde that he was a supreame civill Magistrate a supreme Commaunder Exod. 18.13 14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26 and supreame Iudge in Israell For it is saide that When Moses sate to iudge the people the People stood about Moses from morning vnto even And when Iethro Moses Father in Law saw all that he did to the People he said what is this thou doest to the People Why sittest thou thy selfe alone and all the People stand about thee from morning vnto even And because this was too toylsome troublesome a businesse for him alone to doe he advised him to appoint some others to help him to beare the Burthen with him in hearing judging of causes Wherupon Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the People Rulers over thousands Rulers over hundreths Rulers over fifties and Rulers over tens And these iudged the people at all seasons the hard Causes they brought to Moses but every small matter they iudged themselves When againe Moses heard the murmuring and saw the weeping of the People of Israel throughout their families he was much grieved and speake thus to the Lord Numb 11.10.11.12.13.14.15 c. Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant and why have not I found favor in thy sight seeing thou hast put the charge of all this People vpon me c. By all which you see that Moses was as a King Prince or supreame commaunder over all Israel and consequently as a King commaunded Aaron and the rest of the Priests aswell as he commaunded the Levites or any of the rest of the People Moreover if Moses had bene the high Priest Exod. 24.5 he might haue offered Sacrifice himselfe and needed not to haue sent others as he did to sacrifice neither needed he to haue commaunded Numb 16.46.47 or required Aaron to burne incense as he did to make an Attonement for the People for himselfe might haue done it But whatsoever Bellarmine or other Papists hould in this case you for your part doe not hould them to be both high Priests together at one and the selfe same time but in succession one after another accounting Moses to be the high Priest first and then Aaron Heb● 5 4. afterwards Howbeit the Scripture saith that No man taketh this honor to himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron If then Moses were called of God to this honor of high Priesthood let the like warrant be shewed from God for the Authorizing of him therevnto that is to be shewed for Aaron But this you cannot shew Besides if Moses were the high Priest first and Aaron afterward why doth that Epistle to the Hebrews mention for the Patterne or President in that Case not Moses but Aaron For if Moses had bene the first high Priest no doubt he would haue said That no man taketh this honor vnto himselfe but he that is called of God as was Moses But he saith not so but he speaketh in this sort viz No man taketh this honor to himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron As if Revera not Moses at all but Aaron onelie were the first high Priest And so indeede S. Chrisostome directly affirmeth Chrysost de verbis Isaiae vidi Dominū homil 5. for speaking of Aaron he saith expressely that Is primus fuit Pontifex He was the first high Priest Againe if Moses were the high Priest so constituted of God how came he afterward to loose that honor or to be deprived of it and another namely Aaron to be put in his Place in his life time he committing no fault nor any fault declared to be in him for which he should be deprived of that his Priesthood But lastly what cause or neede is there to suppose Moses to be as you fancy him an high Priest extraordinarily elected and appointed when there was to be seene at the same time an High Priest after the ordinary maner in Esse and allowed of God namely the same Aaron For in my Reply pag. 22. 23. I haue proved that the Priesthood before the law given did ordinarily belong to the first borne and of these two Brothers Moses and Aaron I haue also there proved that not Moses but Aaron was the Elder and consequently that by right of Primogeniture Aaron was the Priest and not Moses Yea I haue there further proved that the Priesthood thus being in Aaron was so farre from being removed or taken from him that contrariwise it was continued in him and afterward confirmed vnto him by God himselfe and to his seede after him But yet you would prove Moses to be a Priest Exod. 40.12 13.14.12 because he did consecrate and annoynte Aaron and his sonnes to the Priesthood But to this I have answered before in my Reply pag. 25. 26. shewing that this proveth not Moses to be a Priest properly so called for he did this by Gods owne speciall commandement which he might not disobey or refuse but stood bound to obey and performe although he were a Civill Magistrate King Prince Prophet or what office calling soever hee had You cite also Deut 18.18 where God saith thus to Moses I will raise them up a Prophet amongst their brethren like unto thee c. This prooveth that Moses was a Prophet and that Christ of whom these wordes are a Prophecie was likewise a Prophet Act. 3.21 Act. 7.37 but they prove not Moses therefore to be a Priest because he was a Prophet But the chiefe text you rely upon is that in Psal 99. vers 6. where it is said Moses and Aaron amongst the Priests Samuel amongst them that call upon his name these called upon the Lord and he heard them Howbeit to this also I have answered before in my Reply pag. 23.24 First that the being of Moses Aaron with or among the Priests is no proofe that therefore they were Priests It is true that Aaron was a Priest but that is proved by other cleere places of Scripture and not necessarily deduced out of this because a man may be among Priests yet be no Priest Secondly I shewed that the Hebrew word there used is Cohanim which is a word of an ambiguous signification signifying aswell Princes as Priests 2. Sam. 8.18 As for example The sonnes of King David are said to bee

87. But secondly when the Text it selfe speaketh of this fact of King Solomon by way of approbation of it doth it become you or any man else to say or suppose that it was error facti in him Or that it was an Act not lawfull for him so to doe For hath not the Scripture it selfe before expressely tould vs That Solomon deposed or cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord 1. King 2.27 that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord which hee spake against the house of Ely in Shiloh Now then can that be said to bee erroniously or unlawfully done which God himselfe well liked and allowed and would have to bee done for the performance and fulfilling of his owne wordes Yea consider yet further that the Kings of Israel and Iudah had power and authoritie over the Priests not onely to depose them but also to put them to death And this you may see in King Saul who put to death divers Priests ● Sa. 22.18 ● Chron. 24. ●0 21. and in King Ioash also who put to death Zachariah the sonne of Iehoida the Priest How justly or unjustly worthily or unworthily these Priests were put to death I here dispute not but I mention these examples to shew the power authoritie that the Kings had in those times namely even to put Priests to death aswell as lay-persons upon just cause and if they did offend so farre as to deserve it 11. But now though there were a supremacy over the high Priests aswell as over the other Priests and Levites in the Kings under the Old Testament and that they also dealt in maters Ecclesiasticall yet thereupon it followeth not say you That Kings and Princes under the New Testament have the like Supremacy over Bishops and other Clergy men or the like Authority in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion Why so because say you there is now a change and alteration of the Priesthood and of the Law Heb. 7.12 But doth not the same Epistle to the Hebrews which you cite tell you wherein that Alteration and change consisteth namely that it is in respect of the Leviticall Priesthood under the ould Law or under the ould Testament which is now changed into the Priesthood of Christ under the new Law or under the new Testament why then will you stretch and extend it any further yea neither doth that Epistle nor any other sacred or canonicall Scripture testifie an Alteration or change in this Point or as touching this Particular whereof we now speake but the cleane contrary videlicet that aswell under the new Testament as under the ould Kings and Princes are to have a supremacy over all Bishops Pastors and other Ecclesiasticall Ministers and an Authority also in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as civill and temporall within their dominions The first part of this Assertion is manifest by that Text in the new Testament which I have so often recited and where S. Paul saith expressely thus Rom. 13.1 Chrysost in Rom. hom 23 Let every soule be subiect to the higher Powers yea Though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or whosoever you be saith S. Chrisostome But what shall I neede to prove this so cleere a Point so many times and so often For both in my first Booke Cap. 1. pag. 1. 2. 3. c. and in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 39. 40 41. c. and pag. 51. 52. 53. 54. c. this pointe is fully and abundantly proved Yea the Bishops of Rome themselves in former an ancient times for the space of divers hundreth yeares after Christ did acknowledge this Subiection to these higher powers namely to their Emperors as I have demonstratively shewed by the examples of Milciades Leo and Gregorie the great mentioned in my first Booke pag. 23. 24. 25. 26. And by Anastasius the second Pelagius the first Agatho Hadrian and Leo the fourth mentioned in my Reply chap. 1 pag. 11. 12. 13. 19. To all which though particularly alledged by me you according to your wonted wise maner thought it best to answere nothing Yea both the parts of this Assertion namely that Emperors Kings and Princes under the new Testament have Authority not onely over Persons Ecclesiasticall but in causes also Ecclesiasticall I have so sufficiently proved throughout the first Chapter of my first Booke and throughout the first Chapter of my second Booke which is my Reply and in this booke also as that all the Power and force you have brought or can bring against it will never be able so much as to shake it much lesse to subdue or overthrow it Yet for the more abundant proofe of this Authority of Emperors and Kings in maters Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion I alledged in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 13 14. the president and Example of that famous Christian Emperor Constantine the Great whereunto in your Reioynder you have as well became your great learning and wisedome answered iust nothing at all I alledged also in the same my Reply pag. 15. the example of Iustinian that Christian Emperor where you deny not this Emperors making of Constitutions and Lawes in Ecclesiasticall causes and concerning Bishops and other Ecclesiasticall Persons But you say those Lawes be not observed by the Protestant Cleargie and you give an instance in one particular What is this to the purpose For the question was not nor is whether our Protestant Cleargie observe those Lawes and Constitutions yea or no But whether Iustinian that Christian Emperour made those or any such lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticall causes and Ecclesiasticall persons Now then whilst you graunt that hee made those Lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiastic●ll causes and concerning Ecclesiasticall persons you graunt so much as I contended for that is to say you graunt the whole matter that was in question And therefore why should I dispute any longer with you Neverthelesse you yet further say that I much disadvantage my cause by alleadging Iustinian the Emperour who accounted called the Bishop of Rome the chiefe and head of all the holy Churches But you should doe well to observe in what sence and respects the Emperour so called and accounted him namely not that hee had in those dayes a supremacie over Iustinian who was then the Emperour ●uthen const 〈◊〉 15. Novel ● 3. For Iustinian himselfe testifieth the cleane contrarie to that conceit Wee commaund saith hee the most holy Archbishops and Patriarkes of Rome of Constantinople of Alexandria of Antioch and of Ierusalem ●vag lib. 4. c. 1 ●iceph libr. ●7 cap. 27. Yea the fifth generall Councell it selfe was also called by the commandement of this Emperor Iustinian So that it clearely appeareth that hee had the supremacie commanding authoritie over them all But in respect of the soundnesse of the faith which the Bishop of Rome held in those times against heresies and errors it was that the Emperour preferred him before the other Bishops accounting himselfe chiefe or head