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	book_n	life_n	21	3	4.0066	3	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

Isaias 51. I find Abraham likewise to be called a Rock but in a different acceptation for as Hugo Grotius observes Voces per translationem usurpatae aliis aliter aptantur The Jews being there said to be hewn out of his Entrails as Stones are cut out of a Lapidicina or Quarry But in this place Peter is called a Rock in reflection on the Relation which a Rock has with the Foundation of a Building So he here is the only Rock our Savior speaks of on whom he design'd to rear his Church Christ being in this place not so properly call'd its Rock as its Architect not its Foundation as Founder as the word Aedificabo intimates This was excellently well observ'd by Hugo Grotius Paulus se Architectum vocat quod officium Christus hic sibi vendicat Besides 't is most apparent by the foregoing and following words which are directed only to him that Christ is he who here promises to build and Peter is the Person on whom he engag'd himself by Promise to build on and this you must assent to unless you will assign the words such an understanding as contradict the words immediately precedent and subsequent from which only the true genuine Sense is to be extracted The precedent words are Tu es Petrus and the subsequent are tibi dabo c. both which imply Peters Person as the Pronouns tu and tibi evidently evince the intermedial words super hanc Petram must likewise relate to Peter And you may observe that Christ did not say that he would build his Church on a Rock but determinately on this Rock deictically designing Peter vel digito vel notâ thus hanc cannot be referr'd to Christum Petram but to Petrum Petram there being no other Rock mention'd here but he Christ being describ'd here not by the name of Petra but as Filius Dei vivi he then in relation to the Rock is the Builder in reference to the Keys is the Donor This appears more evident by the Conjunction Copulative et Et ego dico tibi c. which connects and knits together the foregoing Speech of our Savior to him otherwise it should have been sed not et Besides pray tell me how were these words Et ego dico tibi spoken to him but by way of explaining the meaning of his new Name for he had a promise of this Name before as appears by the First of St. John Tu vocaberis Cephas and to what purpose was the exact description of his Person which Salmeron says was so precise Vt nec pluribus nec evidentioribus circumstantiis haeredes a Tabellionibus publicis denominantur describuntur quam Petrus hîc whose Son he was and what his Name was if nothing design'd his Person And where is the reward of his Confession which the Fathers unanimously acknowledge he deserv'd and obtain'd if the Church were not built on him Having thus at large discours'd about this Text I shall here subjoin the true Native meaning of our Savior which in short is this Tu es Petrus super te quasi rupem firmam me confitentem aedificabo Ecclesiam meam The words are really plain the Sense of them seems obvious but to see how by Interessed and Heretical Pens they be contorted is portentuous Your last Argument is That if the Church were built on Peter 's Person it must have expir'd when he gave up the Ghost To this I answer That by my saying the Church is built on him and on his Successors I mean him and them to be Supreme Heads of the Church So I shall answer this Objection by way of Question Pray did the Jewish Church expire upon the Death of Aron Did not he survive in the succeeding High-Priests even just thus Peter dies not But lives in his Successors as you may find it in Epist Praeamb Conc. Calch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Considering the B. Peter who lives and presides in his own See And accordingly Conc. Ephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter who lives judges and defines in his Succescessors Thus 't is likewise good in Law Rex non moritur The End of the Second Part. THE THIRD PART CHAP. I. Of the Keys That they denote Supreme Power Whether Sobna were High-Priest Of the High-Priests and Kings of the Jews Whether the Jewish Kings were Supreme in Church Affairs The difference betwixt the Jewish and Christian Priesthood MY ensuing Task will be to treat of the Keys which I design here to do with as much brevity as the avoidance of obscurity will permit I prov'd in my Papers to you that they by a general acceptation were Symbols and Ensigns of Dominion And moreover that by a Scriptural Metaphor in Isaias 22. they denoted Supreme Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction To my first Proof you are as silent as a Turkish Mute My second you oppugn But before I write any thing in its defence I must tell you That whether or no our Savior did allude to those words in Isaias 't is easie enough to make out that he by promising them to Peter did destine him to the Supreme Spiritual Power without the assistance of an allusion to this Passage Yet 't is highly probable Christ did allude to them and whosoever doth sedately poise these words Dabo Clavem domûs David dabo tibi Claves will find such a strict adjacency and alliance betwixt them as with good reason he may imagin our Savior did allude to them But to choak up the very Springs of this Cavil I shall now prove the Keys even in the Sense of the New Testament to decypher absolute Dominion and accordingly you will find St. Chrysostom in his 55th Homil. on St. Matthew to affirm that our Savior by vertue of his Promise of the donation of the Keys did not only give St. Peter Power over the whole World but to rise a Key higher even over things in Heaven The Keys likewise in Apocalips 1. vers 10. signifie Supreme Power where our Savior says of himself Habeo Claves mortis inferni By which Phrase absolute dominion over Death and Hell is indigitated and St. Chrysost affirms as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Key of Hell is signified that Christ has power over Life and Death In his Comments on Apoc. Cap. 8. and in the same place he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Keys are ensigns of Power And thus Oecomenius in his Comment on these words Qui habet Clavem David says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He calls Power by the name of a Key for he that has Power of shutting and opening is entrusted with the House and this you may more clearly learn in the Gospel by those words which Christ spake to Peter Et dabo tibi Claves c. And a little after he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Keys import Power and in this Sense 't is twice more us'd in that Book as in Cap. 9. v. 1. Data est ei Clavis Putei Abyssi and Cap. 20.