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	moses_n	weighty_a	17	3	11.6433	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A73418	Roger Widdringtons last reioynder to Mr. Thomas Fitz-Herberts Reply concerning the oath of allegiance, and the Popes power to depose princes wherein all his arguments, taken from the lawes of God, in the Old and New Testament, of nature, of nations, from the canon and ciuill law, and from the Popes breues, condemning the oath, and the cardinalls decree, forbidding two of Widdringtons bookes are answered : also many replies and instances of Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius, and of Leonard Lessius in his Singleton are confuted, and diuers cunning shifts of Cardinall Peron are discouered.	Preston, Thomas, 1563-1640.	1619 (1619)	STC 25599; ESTC S5197	680,529	682

whosoeuer hath a flux of seede and is polluted vpon the dead as well man as woman cast ye out of the campe 20 So likewise it belongeth to the Priests of the new Law to declare what is the Law of Christ and to iudge what is heresie vsurie or any other crime forbidden by the law of Christ and to command temporall Princes to roote out hereticks vsurers and such like malefactors by the meanes of temporall punishments for all this doth not exceede the bounds of spirituall authoritie but it doth not belong to the Priests of the new law as they are Priests to giue sentence of death or to punish temporally heretikes vsurers or any other malefactours by inflicting temporall punishments but only to temporall Princes who haue in their hands and power the sword of life and death and who therefore as I obserued o Disputat Theolog. ca. 7. sec 2. nu 17. Bannes 2.2 q. 11. ar 4. q. 1. in fine out of Bannes may pardon sometimes the punishment of death and punish heretikes in some other manner 21 And therefore to as little purpose also is that which Mr. Fitzherbert next adioyneth that God gaue also to the high Priest an infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement in causes of doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters For I willingly grant that the high Priests of the old Testament had an infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement at least wise for many yeares together in doubts and controuersies euen of temporall matters which could not be determined by the law yea and a greater infallibilitie of doctrine and iudgement then is now in the new law in doubts and controuersies of particular facts as whether they should ouercome in such a warre how such an inheritance of particular men was to be deuided c. Either because as well obserueth Abulensis Abulensis q. 3. in 17. Deut. in fine Abulensis q. i9 in cap. 22. lib. 1. Reg. in Defensor part ● cap. 41. the high Priest did iudge in the presence of some Prophet to whom the truth was reuealed by God or because they did know the secrets of things by the pla●es of the Priests vestement which was called the rationale wherein was contained doctrine and truth whereof we haue treated saith Abulensis Exod. 28. 22 Or thirdly as the same Abulensis obserueth when the high Priest consulted our Lord about any thing by entering into the Sanctuary in the day of Expiation which happened but once a yeere for on that day the Priest did speake vnto our Lord within the Sanctuary and did heare him speake in the Propitiatory as hath beene declared Leuit. 16. For therefore it was commanded that at what time the high Priest did enter into the Sanctuary no man should be in the Tabernacle to wit least he should heare those things which were spoken in the Sanctuary Thus Abulensis none of which wayes to finde out the truth infallibly in any doubtfull matter is ordinarily granted to the Priests of the new Law Neuerthelesse it can not from hence bee sufficiently concluded that the high Priests of the old Law had a soueraigntie of temporall authoritie or in temporall things but onely in spirituall for that as well obserueth the saide Abulensis p Q. 23. in cap. 11. Num. to instruct in the questions of the Law and to consult almighty God was a spirituall thing 23 But that which Mr. Fitzherbert immediately addeth that the Leuites and Priests were separated wholly from temporall and ciuill state in such sort that they had no dependance thereon is very vntrue and Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth the contrarie to bee probable q Supra nu 6. For as I aboue obserued out of S. Bonauenture S. Thomas Abulensis and many other learned Diuines in the Olde Testament the Priesthood was subiect to the Kingdome and Priests were directly subiect to the King as Laymen were to wit in temporalls as it appeareth saith Abulensis Num. 17. where God said that Eleezar who was the high Priest and the rest of the Israelites were subiect to Iosue who was a Secular Prince to wit of the tribe of Ephraim yea and in the time of Moses Aaron who was the high Priest was in temporalls subiect to Moses and for that cause called him his Lord Exod. 32. although in spiritualls Aaron was greater then Moses Q. 10. in 9. Leuit. Moses saith Abulensis expounding those words of Leuit. 9. and Aaron stretching forth his handes to the people hee blessed them was in temporalls greater then Aaron because hee iudged the whole people as it is contained Exod. 18. Chap. and he commanded the people those things which they ought to doe But in spiritualls Aaron was simply greater then Moses For Aaron was the high Priest but Moses one of the simple Leuites Also because Aaron had directly a right to minister but Moyses had onely this for want of Priests but this hee had not by any order or ordination And if thou say that Moses was greater then Aaron because hee commanded him to doe these sacrifices and whatsoeuer he did I answere saith Abulensis that it is not inferred from this because Moyses did not therefore commaund these things as hauing authoritie to commaund by some Prelacie or Order but because hee was the messenger of God relating those things which God had commaunded whereupon it is not properly saide that Moyses did commaund but that hee did declare the things to be done 24 But if thou yet obiect that Moyses was greater then Aaron because Moyses did consecrate Aaron It is answered saith Abulensis that it is not deduced from this for therefore Moyses did consecrate Aaron because there was no high Priest that could consecrate him nor also then any inferiour Priests for that as well the high Priest as the inferiour Priests were consecrated and yet neuerthelesse this consequence is not of force this man doth consecrate that man therefore hee is greater then hee For the Pope is consecrated by a Cardinall Bishop of Hostia who is inferiour to the Pope and after his consecration the Pope doth command him that consecrated him So also it happened among the high Priests in the Olde Testament For except the consecration of Aaron which was done by Moyses who was no Priest to wit by ordination but onely by the speciall priuiledge of God as the same Abulensis declareth q. 7. in cap. 17. Exodi and except the consecration of Eleazar which was done without any ceremonies as we shewed at large Exod. 19. all the later consecrations of the high Priests were done by inferiour Priests therefore Moyses was not greater for that he consecrated Aaron but Aaron was greater and because as the Apostle writeth Hebr. cap. 7. alwaies the lesser is blessed by the greater it was fit that the blessing ouer the people should bee done by Aaron Thus Abulensis See him also q. 2. in cap. 2. Num. 25 Now Mr. Fitzherberts next argument is as insufficient as the former I added further

Priest did onely continue for the time they were infected with leprosie for which time neuerthelesse they remained true Kings although others did administer their kingdome For vnablenesse to gouerne the kingdome doth not depriue Kings of their right and authoritie to reigne as it is manifest in a King who is vnder age in whom there is true dominion power and right to reigne although vntill hee come to yeeres of discretion there is appointed him a Protector and Guardian who doth in the Kings name and by the Kings authoritie adminster all the affaires of the kingdome And that King Ozias for all the time of his infirmitie which continued vntill the day of his death did remaine true King the Glosse doth most plainely teach 2. Paralip 26. who writeth thus The Hebrewes are of opinion that this the miraculous striking of Ozias with leprosie happened in the 25th yeere of Ozias the rest of whose yeeres are twentie seuen and he raigned fiftie one yeeres And the same is gathered not obscurely from the Scripture it selfe in that place Wherevpon although we reade in the 21. vers that for the time Ozias was a leper Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house yet wee doe not reade that Ioathan his sonne reigned for him but after that Ozias was dead vers 23. 98 To this my answere D. Schulckenius replieth thus p Pag. ● I answere first although Ozias should haue beene depriued only of the administration of the kingdome and constrained to giue it ouer to his sinne yet had kept the right and authoritie to reigne as my Aduersarie Widdrington will haue it neuerthelesse Card. Bellarmines argument would be strong and vnshaken For from hence also by the grant of my Aduersarie is we doe gather that King Ozias was by the Priest of Aaron depriued not only of the communion of sacred things but also of the administration of his kingdome and punished not only with a spirituall but also with a temporall punishment But my Aduersarie denieth that an hereticall King can be depriued of the administration of his Kingdome and he saith that he can only be depriued of the receiuing of Sacraments 99 But first it is vntrue that I euer granted as this Doctour saith that the Priest of the old law depriued King Ozias of the administration of his kingdome but as you shall beneath q Num. I affirmed the flat contrarie Secondly it is strange how Card. Bellarmines argument can stand firme and vnshaken if the antecedent proposition for as much as concerneth the principall part thereof be not true as this Doctour in this his answere doth suppose For the antecedent proposition of Card. Bellarmines argument contained two parts the one was that King Ozias was for leprosie depriued of his kingdome and authoritie to reigne and from hence he concluded as you haue seene If therefore the Priest of the old law had power to iudge a King and to depriue him of his kingdome for corporall leprosie why may not a Priest now doe the same for spirituall leprosie and of this part to wit of depriuing Princes of their kingdomes and of their right or authoritie to reigne I did only speake in this part of my answere And if this part which was the principall point of Card. Bellarmines argument be supposed to be false as this Doctour doth suppose how can his argument for as much as concerneth this point stand strong and vnshaken 100 The second part of Card. Bellarmines agrument was that King Ozias was for leprosie depriued by the High Priest of the administration of his kingdome and of this second part I did not speake one word in this part of my answere but only of the depriuing him of his kingdome dominion or right to reigne And I affirmed that although the Priests of the old law had authoritie to iudge a leper and by a declaratiue sentence or commandement to denounce that he was to be seuered from the rest of the people which was only to declare the commandement and law of God considering that this separation was ordained by the expresse commandement of God after the Priest had iudged him to be infected with leprosie yet from hence it cannot be well inferred that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue Kings that were infected with leprosie of their kingdomes euen per accidens and consequently vnlesse their dwelling apart from the rest of the people doth necessarily inferre as it doth not that they were consequently depriued also of their kingdomes But their dwelling apart from the rest of the people doth necessarily inferre saith this Doctour that they were depriued at least of the administration of their kingdome and therefore from hence it may be well inferred that the Priests of the old law had authoritie to depriue per accidens and consequently Princes that were infected with leprosie at least wise of the administration of their kingdome But of this I will treate a little beneath after I haue examined the second Reply which this Doctour maketh to this first part of my answere to his antecedent proposition 101 I answere secondly saith D. Schulckenius r Pag. 546. King Ozias did indeed retaine the name of a King for the residue of his life but a bare and naked name For his sonne did gouerne the kingdome with full power although without the name of a King For so the Scripture speaketh 2. Paralip 26. King Ozias was a leper vntill the day of his death and he dwelt in a house a part full of leprosie for the which he had beene cast out of the house of our Lord Moreouer Ioathan his sonne gouerned the Kings house and iudged the people of the land The same is said 4. Reg. 15. Therefore we haue not from the Scripture that any part of the gouernment did any way appertaine to Ozias which Iosephus doth more cleerely explicate lib. 9. Antiq. cap. 11. While he saith that the sonne of Ozias did take vpon him the kingdome and that Ozias liued a priuate life vntill his death But howsoeuer it be this is manifest that Ozias was depriued of the administration of the kingdome and therefore punished with a temporall punishment 102 But thou wilt say that Ozias retained the name of a King and as it was said in the first answere perchance a right to reigne Therefore from hence it cannot be proued that hereticall Kings may altogether be depriued of their kingdomes by the Pope I answere First from hence it is proued that the Pope may for a iust cause inflict vpon a King a temporall punishment as is the depriuing of the administration of the kingdome Secondly it is consequently gathered that for a most weightie cause and for a very heinous crime and very pernicious to the Church as for example is heresie he may inflict a more grieuous punishment as is the depriuing him altogether of his kingdome For both Innocentius the fourth did remoue Sanctius the second King of Portugall from the administration of the