Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	aaron_n	bear_v	priesthood_n	35	3	9.7923	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A28225	Unity of priesthood necessary to the unity of communion in a church with some reflections on the Oxford manuscript and the preface annexed : also a collection of canons, part of the said manuscript, faithfully translated into English from the original, but concealed by Mr. Hody and his prefacer.	Bisbie, Nathaniel, 1635-1695.	1692 (1692)	Wing B2985; ESTC R31591	83,217	72

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let no Man be Can. 19. ordained Bishop without the presence of the Metropolitan or if any shall be made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that his Ordination be null and invalid and that not only as to himself but as to all others that shall be afterwards ordained And this was the plea that Alexius made when they would unjustly have deposed him from his Patriarchship and which in probability prevented his deposition stoutly answering as Doctor Burnet relates the matter That if his Ordination was null then all Regal cap. 3. the Metropolitans whom he had ordained and all the Bishops whom those Metropolitans had ordained during the eleven years of his Administration ought to be likewise degraded From whence it is evident that if the Ordination be at first null it conveys and entails a nullity upon all its descent and what a miserable confusion this will bring in eleven years time upon the Church of England he that hath but half an eye may foresee Nay at this rate Archbishop John totius Schismatis Primas Metropolitanus will neither be Primate nor Bishop nor can it in the least justifie him from the Crime of Schism that the present Power backs him in his Invasion and Vsurpation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any one saith the Apostolical Canon Can. 30. shall make use of any secular Power to thrust himself irregularly into the Possession of a Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be deposed and excommunicated together with all those that take part with him The like i● decreed in the Council held at Paris Si quis per ordinationem regiam if any Bishop shall unduly and with two much haste ascend to the height of Episcopal Honour by the strength and interposition of Regal Power let him no ways be recieved or owned by the Bishops of the Prov●nce or if contrary to the Canon he shall be received by any of the Comprovincials then let such be separated from the rest of his brethren 32. I here foresee that the instance of Abiathar will be produced against me not only to overthrow the position of one Bishop in a Church or of one Primate in a Province but to shew that is in the Power of Kings upon good reason to depose any of them nay the highest of them all that do or can Priest it in their Dominions God say they app●inted but one High Priest at a time for the whole Jewish Church n●ither do we read of any farther order given for the displacing of him or for the putting of others upon him And yet none can deny but that in King David's days there were two High Priests together Zadock the Son of Ahitub and Abiathar the Son of Ahimelech 2 Sam. 15. 29. and this by the sole order and pleasure of the King neither do we read that he was ever the farther from being the Man after God's own heart for his doing so And it is as evident on the other hand that Solomon his Son deposed and degraded one of them to wit Abiathar 1 Kings 2. 26. after he had continued in the Office full forty years and that by no other Authority than his own Both which actions plainly demonstrate That if reasons of State so require the King may either multiply Bishops upon a Church or depose them especially as to us in England since we give the same Prerogative to our Kings as was given by Art 37. God to all Godly Princes in holy Scriptures And this they think will be a sufficient plea and cause for what they are doing But to this I answer and first as to the being of two High Priests at once 33. I think I may say that it is the only instance to be met with in Scripture from the time that the Priesthood was setled upon Aaron and his Family to the time that the Jews became Captives and were carried out of the Land And if it had been either convenient or necessary it would have been oftner practised and if it had been oftner practised we should have oftner heard of it So that it being a particular case it must have a particular reason and foundation proper and peculiar to it self upon which it stands and without which it falls Howbeit it was at a time when the High Priesthood was got into a wrong Chanel and possessed by a Family which according to the Law of Inheritance had no present right unto it I say no present right a right it had at large as b●ing of the Family of Ithamar one of the Sons of Aaron to Lev. 10. 7. whom no less than the other the Priesthood at first was given but however not without a Precedency to Eleazar as being the first born And hence we read that when Aaron was to be taken away by death Numb 20. 28. Moses was commanded to strip him of his Garments the Garments of Holiness which at his Consecration he had put upon him and to put them upon Eleazar signifying thereby the divesting Aaron of his Priesthood Lev. 8. 7. to array and invest Eleazar with it From him it was conveyed to Phineas his Son to whom and to whose Seed it was farther assured and Numb 25. 13. granted to be an everlasting Priesthood but so it happened at present that the Posterity of Eleazar was put by and the Posterity of Ithamar taken into their room and so it had been and continued for four Generations even from the time of Ely to this Abiathar's days who having escaped the Massacre made at the command of Saul upon Ahimelech his 1 Sam. 22. 18. Father and Family fled unto David and bringing the Ephod with him 1 Sam. 23. 6. was constituted High Priest in the room of his deceased Father and indeed in some measure meriting the same for it was upon David's account and for entertaining him in his necessities that his Father was put to death and the whole Family besides himself destroyed But 1 Sam. 22. 13. this appearing irregular to David because against the right of Inheritance and finding that the line of Eleazar was to be restored in his days even before the Temple should be built and Israel be in its full Glory he 1 Sam. 2. 32 35. puts Zadock the principal of the line at that time into the Priesthood and gives him the Precedency to Abiathar as being regularly the Heir and the person to whom by right thereof the Priesthood belonged continuing however Abiathar as a Copartner with him in it during life the whole afterwards to devolve upon Zadock and his Posterity as it was at first ordered So that all this was but a Pious and Righteous design in David to restore the Priesthood to its rightful owner and not unreasonably to divide the Church but reasonably to make up the Breach that had been made in the Inheritance A method commended by the Bishops of Sirmium to the Clergy of Rome upon their having

two Bishops at a time occasioned by the banishment of Liberius and the Investiture of Felix during his banishment Let them say they receive Liberius Soz. Hist l. 4. cap. 14. their former Bishop since he is permitted to return and let Felix and he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyntly enjoy the Apostolical Throne and do all things amicably and in conjunction together that so the irregularity of the one and the misfortune of the other may both be buried Neither can it be blame worthy when two Bishops do arise which yet Sozomen in the place before quoted says is in it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a certain sign of Schism and against the Rule of holy Church thus to make up the Feud and reconcile the Division persuading them like Zadock and Abiathar to go hand in hand and bear up the Ark together whilst both of 2 Sam. 15. 24 29. them do live Nay so desirable a thing is Vnity and Amity in the case that when Mel●tius and Paulinus the two Bishops of Antioch would not be persuaded to agree the matter among themselves in their lives time the chief of the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were accounted the fittest to be made Bishops after them Soz. l. 7. c. 3. Socr. l. 9. c. 4. or who had the greatest expectation of being so bound themselves mutually by an Oath that they would never so much as attempt to be Bishops in either of their rooms or so much as accept if they were chosen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as long as either Paulinus or Meletius should live but that when either of them should die the Bishoprick should remain entire to the Surviver of them and from thenceforth continue undivided 33. Neither will the other part of the Objection much affect us that I mean of Solomon's deposing Abiathar For it was in a case of High Treason driven perhaps thereunto out of hopes that if Adonijah had prevailed against Solomon he might have regained the Priesthood back unto his Family which he could not but foresee was quite going from it A Crime of so high and malignant a nature that the Church will not Advocate for it Nay though she be industrious to defend her Clergy under other Accusations that they be not too much oppressed by Secular Powers yet as to a Delinquent of this nature she utterly throws him off and exposes him to all the hardships he can meet with In Matthew Blaster's Syntagma Chapter de Episcopis ob Crimina sua judicatis I find this Law or Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. Δ. cap. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let none of the Laity judge the Clergy unless they be accused of Treason intimating that if accused of that no Sacredness of Office no Sublimity of Honour must either indemnifie except or excuse them from punishment And yet how far this Deposition wrought is not to me altogether so plain The Scripture saith no more concerning it than that Solomon thrust out Abiathar from 1 Ki●gs 2. 27. being Priest unto the Lord it neither shews how far he thrust him out nor by what method he did it Nihusius as cited by Frischmuth in his Treatise de Rege eligendo deponendo would have us believe it was ex Aula solum S. 63. Edit Jenae 1653. only from appearing at Court and exercising his Office in or about Jerusalem where the King had his abode with liberty however to execute it in the Tabernacle at Gibeon as Zadock before him had done when he was Copartner with Abiathar and this perhaps may be grounded on the 1 Chron. 16. 39. relation that Josephus makes of the matter where he brings in Solomon thus speaking to Abiathar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pains saith he that thou hast endured by accompanying Ant. l. 8. c. 1. my Father David and attending and bearing the Ark with him makes thee to escape from death yet forasmuch as thou hast taken part with Adonijah I so far condemn thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that thou depart hence and see my face no more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for since thou hast so offended me it is not convenient that thou shouldst be in Honour with me Carthusianus goes farther than Nihusius and tells us Abiatharem de integro singulari clementia Regis pristino Officio restitutum that he was by the special Frisch Loc. cit S. 64. clemency of the King wholly restored to his Office again Gersomides brings him down to a much lower station yet makes him however to be Loc. cit Zadock's Substitute when ever he was hindered by any defect from executing the Office of the High Priest himself and such an one Josephus makes Ellem the Son of Joseph to be unto Matthias in the time of his Ant. l. 17. c. 8. uncleanness But be it as it will most certain it is from Scripture 1. That he had his life given him 2. That he had liberty to retire unto his City and to dwell quietly there 3. That he had still the Name and the Title of High Priest continued to him I will not saith Solomon 1 Kings 4. 4. at this time put thee to death because thou barest the Ark of the Lord before David my Father and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my Father was afflicted it seems Gratitude to past Services and a Veneration to the high dignity of Priesthood was not then perished quite out of the Land nondam terras Astraea Neither are we less in the dark as to the manner how he was deposed We read of no formal procedure in the case all that is said about it is That Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord And yet if we will credit Menochius * De rep Heb. l. 1. c. 6. S 6. he will tell us that among many other things to be transacted in the great Synedrion the punishing of the High Priest was one and so saith the † Tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Misna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They judged not the High Priest unless in the Sanedrim or great Consistory meaning saith Selden out of Mamonides ‡ De Synod l. 3. c. 8. S. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far as Life is concerned Nay though in other Matters not concerning Life they might judge of him in other Courts yet both ‖ l. 3. c. 6. S. 1. Selden and * De Jure Belli c. 3. S. 20. Grotius affirm that in that point ne Regi quidem ipsi permitteretur it was not lawfull for the King himself to take cognizance of him Yea the former of the two having reckoned up above an hundred and forty irregularities and defects in reference to his body besides many more incident to his mind which hindered him from being admitted at all into his Office and rendered him after liable to be turned out concludes notwithstanding dum sui juris