Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	aaron_n	author_n	moses_n	28	3	7.0002	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94135	The Jesuite the chiefe, if not the onely state-heretique in the world. Or, The Venetian quarrell. Digested into a dialogue. / By Tho: Swadlin, D.D.	Swadlin, Thomas, 1600-1670.	1646 (1646)	Wing S6218; Thomason E363_8; ESTC R201230	173,078	216

Moses c. But Couaruvias with many catholique Doctors doth avouch that doubtlesse it is an evident sign and strong presumption that in temporall matters and in civill judgements the Levites were not subject unto the High Priest but unto the temporall Prince or Judge Because when Moses by a kind of mean conveyance and resignation as Catholiques would have it transmitted or transferred his whole authority of high Priest and his attendance upon the sacred service unto Aaron yet by no meanes did he then deprive or divest himselfe of authority to judge the Priests and Levits in their temporals And from hence it is evicted that such authority was not knit by any essentiall connexion to the office of the high Priest for had it been connexed in such a manner no doubt Moses would never have so wickedly robbed and cozened Aaron of such a collop as the moety or one halfe of his authority First of all lest he should be noted to wrong his brother Aaron in so high a degree namely by stripping him of no lesse then a whole moety or one halfe of his entire charge again because exemption of Clerics being as you pretend so grounded on Gods Law Moses was to leave the whole course exercise and execution of judgement in the hand of Aaron their ordinary and competent Judge lastly because Moses thereby should have gained the more free scope and greater liberty to serve in other politick imployments and affaires But howsoever Moses was both Priest and high Priest before Aaron if so much must needs be granted yet sure it is a flat Non sequitur to inferre Therefore at one and the same instant two high Priests concurred Quoad exercitium both at once executing and exercising one and the same office For wheresoever the Scripture makes mention of the high Priest it never points out Moses for the man but Aaron as Paul speaking of the high Priest Hebr. 5. saith not Who is called of God the high Priest as Moses was called but as Aaron was called As for the Fathers whom you cite and alleadge adorning Moses with all the foresaid titles I dare take upon me to affirme they witnesse the state and condition of Moses only before the time of Aarons consecration but none of them all do qualifie Moses high Priest Quoad exercitium in point of executing of the high Priests Office after Aaron himselfe was once made and consecrated high Priest For the Church with two heads in spirituals had then bin a very Monster withall the unity of the Church and of Christ himselfe had been thereby very poorely and weakely represented but in case you are so certaine as you seem That Levits were exempted from all power and judgement of the temporall Prince in temporals what meant you to be so farre overseen as to alleadge not so much as one testimony divine or humane in demonstration thereof As I and my Authors have produced two this of Moses for one and that of Solomon 1 Reg. 2. for another Howbeit had you produced any one such testimony yet for so much as the Ceremoniall and Judiciall precepts of the old Law are now abrogated I see not how they could make any thing or stand you in any stead at all for your purpose because I require and stand upon precepts of exemption drawn from Evangelicall and not from legall grounds Hetrod What man It seemes then you purpose now to inferre there was no distinction of Court in the Primitive Church Orthod You have it right in very deed there was no distinction of Court before Justinians time he was the first who upon the humble Petition and suite of Menua Bishop of Constantinople granted that Ecclesiastics might be judged in civill causes by their Prelates Nov. constit 83. Ipso tamen non impedito provided alwaies that his imperiall prerogative thereby were not any manner of way impeached In which case and in case of criminall Delinquents he leaves Ecclesiastics under the power of the temporall Prince and of his Ministers Hetrod I thinke you dreame Orthodox at least I believe you are groslly mistaken S. Paul averres the contrary that in the Primitive Church the Bishop had his peculiar Tribunall and in his own Court gave judgement or sentence upon his ecclesiasticall Subjects I mean his Cleargy Against an Elder saith Paul receive no accusation but under two or three witnesses that is to say admit none to put in a Bill or to preferre Articles against any Priest before thy Tribunall-seat except it be Billa vera or articles verified by the depositions of two or three witnesses I can dazle your eyes with a huge cloud of Councels but I am very loth to impaire your sight a few shall suffice The Councell of Agatha in Provence thus Conc. Canon 32. Clericus nè quenquam praesumat c. A Cleric shall not presume to sue any man before a secular Judge and in case a Cleric be sued in any such Court of Record he shall not put in his answer to the Declaration in any criminall cause before a secular Judge Conc. 1. Canon 9. The generall Councell held and celebrated at Chalcedon in Bethinia before Justinian was hatcht hath decreed in these expresse words Si Clericus adversus Clericum c. If one Cleric shall have an action against another the plaintiffe shall enter his action and prosecute the suite before his own Ordinary and not before any secular Judge The third Councell at Carthage in Africa more ancient you know then the former at Agatha Canon 9. about some 130. yeares before Justitian peept out of the shell thus Item placuit c. Furthermore it is decreed that if any Bishop or Presbyter Deacon or Cleric shall decline his own competent Judge and peculiar Court or cause plea to be entered or made in any other Court of judiciall audience and preceeding he shall forfeit his Ecclesiasticall dignity or other his pastorall charge if the action be of any criminall nature or quality though the sentence doth passe for the plaintiffe in case it be a civill action he shall then pay cost and dammage yea he shall forfeit whatsoever he hath evicted by sentence of the said Court The Milenitane Councell of like antiquity to that of Carthage Can. 19. thus Placuit ut quicunque c. Wee decree that whosoever shall petition the imperiall Majesty to take cognizance of his cause for Oyer Terminer thereof in any of his Majesties imperiall Courts he shall be deprived of his ecclesiasticall Dignity Now then Orthodox upon what ground what authority what warrant dare you affirme that in the Primitive Church there was no distinction of Court and that Justinian was the first by whose constitutions it was ordained and provided that Ecclesiasticks were priviledged to have their tryals and sentences before their Prelates But in plain truth at least if you can abide to heare the truth because Iustinian was a Prince who by usurpation of more then competent

reason I now presse you Hetrodox to expresse what you mean by force of reason I suppose you understand with Bellarmine and all other Authors the law of reason to be the law of nature This now supposed and granted to be their meaning and yours Thereupon would very fain learn what need so many monitories To what end so many thundering Cannon-shot of excommunication Wherefore some few yeares past have not many Priests and other Ecclesiastics of the Venetian state stooped and yeelded obedience unto the particular demonstrations Lawes and reasons of State published by that most illustrious and renowned Republick which all Christian Princes have judged and approved no lesse reasonable then honourable The law of nature is a farre stronger binder then the lawes of Magistrates and therefore it neither will nor can brooke and admit any kicking or spurning against the due obedience thereof but you say In case the Law be transgressed it is not for secular Princes to rake any cognisance of Clerics faults and to rake in the sink of their facts but all transgressions or delicts of Clerics are punishable only by the power and authority of the Keyes Now I answer This cu●s not off the power of Christian Princes and Magistrates to enact and establish Lawes Politick which may bind Ecclesiastics to the good behaviour in the politick and civill Government by the sword For in your verdict Clerics are bound at least by force of reason to keepe and observe the said politick lawes And to wade yet somewhat deeper into these waters what ward have you Hetrodox for this blow He that hath power to give life soul and being to any Law hath no lesse power as the supream and Soveraign Judge to punish every transgressour of the same law how thinke you Hetrodox is it not so Hetrod Very good Orthodox bee it so Orthod And who if not secular Princes have power to make Lawes which may bind Subjects of any calling condition or quality both in temporalls and in conscience besides The secular Prince then is armed with power to judge and with a Sword to cut off or to bring in all sorts of Subjects who like Outlawes and Rebels forsake their assigned Quarter and fly out of the pale of lawfull obedience A Cleric of any Order by the character thereof is made subject unto his Prelate say wee in all duties essentially annexed to his holy Order and Function But for a man born a Princes naturall and lawfull Subject so soon as he hath gotten any degree of holy Orders on his back to be made free exempted from the subjection of his Prince That in my understanding is a very Monster and prodigious creature not in Evangelicall doctrine alone where humility and subjection are prized and valued at a very high rate but also even in the light of nature which were all written Lawes in the world for ever lost and the light of the same totally extinguished would perpetually stand and remain to us a positive law Rom. 2. But suppose your assertion in this point is grounded upon invincible truth tell me now Hetrodox wherefore is it not consonant and agreeable to Gods law that Clerics may not live in wedlock Would you have it rest in the Popes power to slate in these dayes the roof of that old Fabrick or frame which Boniface 8. projected and attempted in the height of his Papacy to erect and raise not sparing nor fearing to remove every Stone for the purpose You know he declared by his Buls and Breeves that all such as had received the first sharing and shaving with all others entered into the foure inferior Orders should stand in subjection to the Church as his vassals though they had assumed the state of wedlock a constitution of such a dangerous exorbitant strain to supream States that all christian Princes by the vigour and rigour of their most holy and wholsome lawes have prudently and politicly laboured to quash and nip it in the crown For as then it might have been to Boniface so now it might be to his Holinesse a fit silver stirrop whereby to mount into the golden Sadle of perpetuall patronage dominion and lordship of all Christendome even in temporall estate How so Forsooth by causing all degrees of People to be sheared or else to undertake some one or other of the foure inferior Orders This liberty Hetrodox is removed and distant all the degrees in the Zodiack from Apostolical subjection I mean from that state of subjection which the Apostle S. Paul hath described and prescribed To make short work Howsoever the Levites in the old Law had their high Priest Aaron by name neverthelesse in temporall matters causes and judgments of Court still they remained under the authority of Moses their temporall Prince as right well is proved by Couaruvias Hetrodox How now Orthodox A fling at Moses too Cap. 31. qq Pract. concil 2. Rob Moses of his right of his honour Was not Moses high Priest even together with Aaron Was he not by Gods own Ordinance and extraordinary disposition greater then Aaron I know Couaruvias descants upon this plain song with unperfect cords yea with flat discords I therefore do esteem his musick not worth a blue point I credit divine Scripture and holy Fathers farre above Couaruvias by great odds who in matter of jurisdiction is caried with full sayles of partiality But heare me a little Psal 98. Exod. 40. Is it not extant in fair and faithfull record that Moses and Aaron were among his Priests even the Lords Priests That Moses offered incense unto the Lord which was the high Priests principall office and chiefe charge That Moses as high Priest and in quality of high Priest consecrated his brother Aaron made the Sonnes of Aaron Priests and offered sacrifice at their consecration That Pen to a most learned Hebrew honours Moses with stile of high Priest King and Prophet That Gregory Nazian stiles Moses Priest of priests and Prince of princes That Augustine avertes how both Moses and Aaron were high Priests That Hierome comes not an ace behind all the forenamed Authors That before all these Fathers and writers Dion Areop leads the dance and sings the same note So that Moses being high Priest it is no marvaile the Levites who were the onely chiefe Ecclesiastics of those times were subject unto Moses as unto their own proper Head and peculiar Judge Orthod You need not Hetrodox to put your selfe in so great a heate when you deal with any well grounded Catholique to prove by the authority of Fathers that Moses was either Priest or high Priest Levit. 8. and before himselfe was in the order and calling of high Priest invested Aaron in the office of high Priest viz. That he might the better apply himselfe to the exercise of the civill government surely this point is not denyed neither by Couaruvias himselfe nor by the Author whom I defend whose word is Rimasero the Levites remained subject unto