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 house_n place_n 17 3 3.7280 3 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A45152 A plea for the non-conformists tending to justifie them against the clamorous charge of schisme. By a Dr. of Divinity. With two sheets on the same subject by another Hand and Judgement. Humfrey, John, 1621-1719. 1674 (1674) Wing H3703A; ESTC R217013 46,853 129

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Bishop Curates he should have said no more then the Kingdom when the King dyes and yet certainly the King and People are as much constitutive parts of a Kingdom as Pastor and People of a Church who will say that considers what he saith that a particular Church is dissolved by the death or removal of the Pastor Afterward he tell us the Opinion of Dr. Gouge then of Mr. Baxter as to the removing of Abiather and lastly p. 77. That he hath thought hitherto that the distinction of the Office and of the exercise of the Office had gone uncontrouled amongst Presbyterians and though the Ministers of Christ depend not not upon the Christian Magistrate for their Office and he cannot degrade them yet quoad Exercitium as to the Exercise of it in his Dominions he might and that he had power to silence such as are judged unmeet to Preach and in this Mr. Baxter confirms him c. § 52. He will at least ex abundanti grant that man hath no power to say to those Do not preach to whom Christ and his Church hath said Go and Preach it is some relief yet that he will in any thing suffer us to acknowledge Imperatorem coeli The Ministers were not put out of Office 1662. then Onely forbidden to exercise that Office within the Kingdom of England but where was this prohibition The Law only saith in publick Churches and Chappels But the Churches he saith were not dissolved any more by having new Pastors than the Kingdom is dissolved when the King dyes he should have said by having a new King The Question is whether the Churches were not dissolved by the removal of their Pastor We think not so he saith Are we not agreed the Governours were in being the Governed in being only the Governours were in Prison and for a time could not exercise their Office in their Churches But if the Governours were discommissioned unordained surely the Governing Church was dissolved as the Governing Kingdom so far as the Governours act by commission is by his leave dissolved at the death of a King as we all know § 53. He asks who will say That a particular Church is dissolved upon the Death or Removal of the Fastor I answer any one that understands sense if there were no other Governour and he be not in being surely the particular organical Governing Church is dissolved the body is not necessitated to part but at liberty whether they will agree to the next Pastor yea or no his Friend Mr. Candry hath said so Mr. Hooker had said If the Church be not a Church without Officers Cawdrys Answer to Mr. Hookers Survey chap. 8. page 133. then as oft as the Officers dye the Church dyeth also That is an Authoritative Governing Church and indeed for any to say a Church is a Ministerial Church without a Minister or a Governing Church without a Governour is a piece of sence I cannot understand § 54. But to return to the Case of Abiathar which is brought to prove the power of Magistrates to put Ministers as well out of their Office as out of their Preferments Possessions and publick Temples all which is granted and excluded the Question I have nothing to do with any mans Opinion in the case Let us fairly debate and understand the case and see whether it will conclude for the Author yea or no. Aaron was Gods undoubted High-Priest immediately constituted so by himself His Sons were also ordained by God to succeed him Aaron had four Sons 1 Chron. 6.4 Nanab and Abihu these Lev. 10. dyed before their Father Eleazar and Ithamor By Gods special order Eleazar was made the High-Priest instead of Aaron Numb 20.26 28. Eleazer died Josh 24.33 Phinehas his Son succeeded him Jud. 20.28 Here the Scripture leaveth us The next High Priest we read of was Eli for his neglect to correct his scandalous Sons God threatneth that he would cut off his Posterity from his Altar 1 Sam. 2.33 35. and raise up unto himself a saithful Priest This was the known will of God declared to Eli by two Prophets his Sons Hophni and Phinehas died before him Ahilub is by Divines concluded to have succeeded him he is called Ichabods Bother 1 Sam. 14.3 That is Elies Grandchild Ahiah succeeded Ahilub as is plain from 1 Sam. 14.3 Ahimelech succeeded him as is plain 1 Sam. 22.11 Here God's Vengeance on Elies Family began to appear Saul slays him and all his Fathers House 1 Sam. 22.16 only v. 20. Abiathar escapeth and fleeth unto David and was with him in all his troubles by Saul but in the mean time it would be enquired who was High Priest for Saul at Jerusalem and this the Scripture saith not possibly he little regarded the Ecclesiastical Order instituted by God But it is a greater difficulty how the H. Priesthood came out of the line of Eleazer Aarons Eldest Son into the line of Ithamar the Younger Son of Aaron Nor doth the Scripture resolve us nor Josephus who assureth us Eli was of the Family of Ithamar and the first of it but says only He took the Priesthood of whose Family Abiathar was the last Josephus v. 62.12 This Abiathar was one of those who during Davids life and contrary to his Will proclaimed Adonijah King 1 Sam. 1.25 which was no less than High Treason Solomon calling him to account for it spares his life for the kindness he had shewed to his Father telling him he was worthy of death but confineth him to Anathoth where he could not execute the Priests Office 1 King 2.26 27. So saith the Text He thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord and it is added That he might fulfil the Word of the Lord which he spake concerning the House of Eli in Shiloh yet 1 King 4.3 In the rool of the Officers we find Zadock and Abiathar were the Priests so that it seems he was a Priest still Whatever is to be understood by He put him out of the Priests Office 't is certain 1 King 2.35 he made Zadoc in his room who was of the Sons of Eleazar 1 Chron. 24.3 We cannot understand from Scripture but that the High-Priesthood ought to have been in the Family of Eleazer and it is like the disorderly times of the Judges altered it Solomon restoreth it and in doing it fulfilled what he knew was the will of God about Elies Family It is not improbable but David had done it before but for Abiathars peculiar Service to him in his troubles Now we have the case 1. Solomon knew that Abiathar was of the younger House from Aaron whereas the High-Priesthood truly belong'd to the Elder 2. He knew also God had declared his Will to root out the House of Eli. 3. This Abiathar had committed the highest crime Solomon might have put him to death but for his kindness to his Father as to life he spares him but thinks fit to send him far enough from the Court and the place
where the High-Priests Office was to be Executed at Hierusalem and to confine him to Anathoth where he could not execute the Office of the High-Priest and so he was in effect turned from the High-Priests Office 4. And Zadoc to whom that Office was due is invested with it But Abiathar remains a Priest still is so called after and joyned next to Zadoc but the High Priesthood could not truly belong to him but to the Elder House from Aaron and besides God had declared his Will that this should be done he is said to have done it that he might fulfil the Word of the Lord and he that did it was a man inspired by God and a Pen-man of Holy Writ What will follow from hence think we therefore Kings and Magistrates may remove 1. The chiefest Priests from their Preferments Dignities and their own Courts 2. That in case they have deserved death and the Magistrate thinks fit to shew mercy but yet to punish them with Banishment to remote places where their flock cannot come he may thus in effect turn them out from their Pastoral Relation 3. That in case he finds them no true Ministers of Christ he may forbid them to Minister 4. That if God from Heaven by a revelation or by any plain Scripture commands them to turn true Ministers out of Office they may do it I can see nothing more let the Author make his best of this § 55. But he had thought the distinction of the Office and the exercise of it had been uncontrouled by the Presbyterians and that they had granted that though the Magistrate could not degrade them yet as to the exercise of their Office he might and that he had power to silence such as he judged unmeet to Preach Presbyterians can without the help of this Authors Logick distinguish betwixt the Office and the exercise of the Office and make one distinction more between the exercise of the Office in publick places undoubtedly in the Magistrates disposal and in their own private Houses or in the private Houses of others They do believe it in the power of the Magistrate though not to take away their Office or Relation to their Flock Yet to hinder the exercise of it and that they ought to obey him commanding them to forbear the exercise of it in publick places belonging to the Magistrates and accordingly have generally been so obedient though the Law so far be not so plain that any are prohibited to Preach except such as are disabled which is the case of very few They know Paul Preached in his hired House at Rome Act. 28. and in the School of Tirannus when the Jewish Rulers forbad them the Synagogues the Office not taken away nor to be taken away they conclude the Relation attending the Office abiding But hitherto we have only justified our first Plea It is no separation because there never was an Union nor could be of very many of us to a Parochial Ministerial Governing Church And considering it only as a part of the Catholick Church we are in all points one with it § 56. But we will suppose that this is not the case of all our Brethren but some have been United to the Parochial Societies wherein they lived and implicitly consented to be one body with them by not only hearing the Ministers there but receiving the Communion with them What shall be said for them We say they are not sinfully separated 1. Are they separated They now indeed meet for worship in other places and that statedly but do they condemn the Ministers or Churches from which they are come do they not own them as true Ministers and such Churches as true Churches Do they not pay to the Ministers love the Brethren where 's the Schisme then For when men have said all they can Schisme is a sin against the command of Love to our Neighbour It is no command of God you shall be of this Congregation or another other then it falls under general precepts commanding us to use the best means for our Souls Now cannot I love my Neighbour except I dwell in his Family or chuse her for my Wife or him for my Husband Besides it is most certain I am bound to love my own Soul in the first place and as an Evidence to that I am tied to use the best means I can not contradicted by God's Word according to my own Conscience which certainly must judg for me in my highest concern for the Salvation of it § 57. I am a-ware of what this Author hath said That a man may not depart from a Congregation to which he was United either to enjoy the Ordinances of God more powerfully or purely or perfectly administred in another convenient enough for me to joyn with This is the substance of what he hath said and quoted from others as their Opinion But this will never enter into my thoughts Let them speak plainly to this Is it not the duty of every Christian to use what appears to his Conscience the best and most probable means for his Salvation The light of Nature as well as Scripture will evince this Now I would fain know of any person what it is under Heaven except the bare Word and Sacraments that God hath appointed as means for the Instruction Edification and Salvation of my Soul but the gifts of his Ministers or People with which in order to these ends his holy Spirit works not miraculously but in a national orderly way secundum quae nactus est Organa There is nothing more evident than that in Ministers there is a great diversity of Gifts and as much a diversity of Wills Humours and Fancies and also a great variety of peoples Capacities There 's nothing more evident than that our Ministers parts method of Preaching c. is really more fitted to the Instruction and Edification of some people than the Gifts and Methods of others are as we say every good Man makes not a good Husband for every good Woman so it is demonstrably true that every able and good Minister is not a fit and good Instructor for every good Christian they possibly understand not his language nor cannot learn his method possibly 't is Cryptick and requires a Schollar to understand it Shall these people be perpetually staked down in the case that let their Souls be never so much concerned they must not ordinarily joyn with another Minister and hear him though their habitations be convenient enough for it or must these persons possibly to the loss of their Trade and Livelihood which in Towns lyes much upon their habitation be forced to remove into that other Parish where hath God required any such thing § 58. Besides that I understand not much those of my Brethren that are so Zealous in this point In my little dealings in the World I use always to be afraid of that Trades-man whom I perceive using arts to tye me to his Shop and upon that Work-man that I see