Selected quad for the lemma: master_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
master_n	aaron_n	priest_n	prince_n	37	3	6.3359	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91392	The true grounds of ecclesiasticall regiment set forth in a briefe dissertation. Maintaining the Kings spirituall supremacie against the pretended independencie of the prelates, &c. Together, vvith some passages touching the ecclesiasticall power of parliaments, the use of synods, and the power of excommunication.	Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.	1641 (1641)	Wing P428; Thomason E176_18; ESTC R212682	61,943	101

Priests as also of the reall effectuall dominion of Princes I shall now prove further that the sword of Kings if it be not so spirituall as the Pope pretends to cut off souls yet it is more then temporall and extends to things most spirituall The Founders and Patriarchs of the World before the Law of Moses did not only governe the Church but also execute all pastorall spirituall Offices as they were Princes and Supream Potentates within their own limits they did not governe men as they were the Priests of God but they did sacrifice and officiate before God as they were the Heads and Governours of men In those times it was not held usurpation or intrusion upon priests for Princes to sacrifice with their own hands or to teach the will of God with their own mouthes it would have been held presumption if any else had attempted the like and a dishonour to Gods service Nature then taught that the most excellent person was most fit for Gods service in the Church and that no person could be more excellent then hee which served God in the Throne The word priest now may have divers acceptions In some sense whole Nations have been called priests viz. comparatively and in some sense all Fathers of Children and Masters of Servants are in the nature of priests and in more usuall sense all Princes so farre as they have charge and cure of souls and are intrusted with Divine Service within their severall commands are more supereminently taken for priests but the most usuall sense is this A Priest is hee which hath cure of Souls and a trust of Gods worship by a more peculiar kinde of publike and politike consecration and dedication thereunto of such consecration or ordination before Aaron we read nothing and for ought I see we are bound to believe nothing Melchisideck was a pious man a devout Father a religious Master nay a zealous Prince and Commander but in all these respects hee had no priviledge nor right to the denomination of priest more then Adam Sem Noah c. had You will say then how is that denomination given him so peculiarly This denomination might be given not by reason of any externall formall ceremoniall Unction or imposition of hands or any other solemne Dedication or separation before men but in this respect that he did perhaps publikely officiate in the presence of all his Subjects and perhaps in behalfe of all his subjects and this is a higher and blesseder Sacerdotall Office then any we read of in his predecessors or successors till Aarons dayes It is probable that God was served in Families before Aaron and perhaps there were solemne days and Feasts which all Families by joynt consent did in severall places dedicate to Gods service by strict observance of the same but that any publike places were appointed for whole Congregations to joyne and meet publikely in under the charge and function of any one publike Priest till Aaron is not specified This only we may guesse by the speciall name of priest applied to Melchisedeck that perhaps being a priest of Salem he was the first that made the worship of God so publike and did not only by the generall influence of his power take order for the service and knowledge of God in severall Families but also gather severall assemblies of united Families and there publikely sacrifise and officiate in behalf of great and solemne Congregations wherein he might far exceed Abraham Howsoever its sufficient for my purpose that this he might doe by vertue of his Regall power and dignity without any further consecration or Sacerdotal instalment whatsoever And in this respect he was without predecessor and perhaps successor so that I think hee was the most lively and Honourable type of our Saviour for Aarons Order was Substitute and his consecration was performed by the hand of his Prince and Superiour and being so consecrated He did sacrifise not as a Prince but meerly as a Priest Whereas Melchisedeck received his Order from none but himselfe and so remayned not only independent but his service also being both Regall and Sacerdotall as our Saviours also was it was yet more Honorable in that it was Regall then in that it was Sacerdotall And this certainly sutes best with our Saviours Order for no Secular authority but his own did concurre in his inauguration hee was his owne Ancestor in this in that his owne Royall dignitie gave vertue to his Sacerdotall and though hee would not assume to himselfe the externall Function of Royalty in meer Secular things yet in this he would follow holy Melchisedeck But to passe from Melchisedeck within some few ages after wee finde the Scepter and Censor severed Wee finde no prints of great Empires before Moses for in small Countries we finde divers petty independant principalities and it may be imagin'd that neither true policie nor wicked tyranny was then knowne in such perfection as now it is The Israelites at their departure from Egypt were a great and formidable Nation as appeares by the combinations of many other Potentates against them yet at that time the weightie charges both of prince and priest were supported by Moses alone This was exceeding grievous till Jethro in civill affaires and till God himselfe in matters of Religion for his further ease took much of his laborious part from off his shoulders Subordinate Magistrates were now appointed in the State and priests and Levits in the Church the Nation being growne numerous and Ceremonies in Religion very various but wee must not think that Moses was hereby emptied or lesned of any of his Civill or Ecclesiasticall authoritie as he retained still Supremacie of power to himselfe in all things so that Supremacy became now the more awfull and Majesticall The poet says of waters Maxima per multos tenuantur flumina rivos And indeed did waters run backwards they would spend and diminish themselves by often divisions in their courses but we see that in their ordinary naturall Tracts many litle petty streams officiously hasten to discharge themselves into greater so that the more continued the course is the greater the streams ever grow It is so with power both in Church and State Sovereigntie is as the mayne Ocean of its vast abundance it feeds all and is fed by all as it is the fountain to enrich others so it is the Cisterne to receive and require back againe all the riches of others That which Moses parted with all and derived to others was for the better expedition both of pietie and justice that GOD might be more duly served that the people might be more quickly relieved and that his own shoulders might be the freelier disburdened for as a man hee could not intend universall businesse yet a Prince he might well superintend it in others And it is manifest that after the separation of the Priesthood he did still as superiour to Aaron in the most sacred things approach God in the Mountain to receive the

that vast spirituall power which He hath put into their hands yea according to that vast spirituall power so will God certainly require at their hands Let Princes know that preaching is not the onely meanes of salvation nor are Ministers the only Preachers nor that the Sacraments are therefore efficacious because the Clergy only may administer them Let them know that though Ministers call themselves only spirituall Persons and the Lot of God and the Church of Christ and put them into the number of Temporall and Lay-men and limit them to secular things yet God will not be so abused they must make an answer to him for things most spirituall and for the improvement of those graces and prerogatives which belong to Gods most beloved inheritance and honoured servants and neere Officers in his Church And let Ministers also on the other side learne to acknowledge that Character of Divinity which is so much more fairely stamped upon Princes than it is upon them and let them not rob Princes of that influence in sacred things which they of themselves can never injoy For as Princes shall answer for them if they imploy their power to the depression of Ministers so shall Ministers also answer for Princes if they cosen Princes out of their supreme power out of pretense that Gods message is so delivered to them Let Ministers assist Princes in their religious and spirituall offices as Aaron and Hur did Moses Let them not contend for supremacy in the highest offices of devotion but like humble servants let them account it their most supreme service to attend upon that supremacy Let them in the most glorious services of Religion looke upon Princes as Ioab did upon his Master in martiall exployts Let them be jealous of themselves that no part of honour due to the independent power of Princes may rest upon the secondary instruments but returne to the first and highest movers And thus shal more honour and sanctity passe from Ministers to Kings and more efficacy and vertue from Kings to Ministers and more grace and happinesse from both to the people Another occasion of mistake and error in Nazianzen and Bilson seemes to be that in comparing the great fruits of Princes and Priests in their severall functions they both speake of the whole order of Priest hood as if every Prince were therefore lesse spirituall or excellent than every Priest because all Priests in some things excell some Princes If we speak of a Prince and all the Clergy within his dominion perhaps we may say he is universis minor and yet he may be singulis major perhaps he may not doe so much good in the Church as all his Clergy yet he may doe more than a great number of them And yet for my part I am of opinion that all the Clergie are so dependent and borrow such vertue from the Kings supreme spirituality as I may so say that whatsoever good they doe they ought not to let the honour thereof terminate in them but returne to him upon whom they depend And now I thinke these things being made cleere that Princes are sacred in respect of their supreme rule and spirituall in respect of their spirituall rule and that Priests have no proper rule at al over mens spirits or in any Ecclesiasticall cases but derivative and subordinate to Princes I may conclude that there can be no office nor action so sacred upon Earth for which Princes are incompetent in respect of personall sanctity And therefore as it is most erroneous to argue that Princes are not capable of spirituall rule because their persons are not holy enough So it is most undenyably true and we may safely argue on the contrary that no mens persons can bee more holy than such as God hath honoured and intrusted with such supremacy of spirituall rule as He hath done Princes THe next argument which raises the Miter above the Diadem is drawne from the power of the Church in Excommunication and it is framed thus That supremacy which makes Princes to be above the Church and free from Ecclesiasticall censures is absurd but such is here maintained Ergo by the word Church may be meant the Catholike Church or some Nationall Church The Church Triumphant or the Church Militant th Church which was from the beginning and shall be to the end or the Church which now is We apply the Title of Head ship to Princes over no Churches but such as are under their present Dominions and that Head-ship we account subordinate to Christs and we allow with Saint Ambrose in some sense that the King is Intra and not supra Ecclesiam For he is not such an universall supreme Head as Christ is but is a member under Christ the Head Yet this impugnes not but that the King may in an other sense be both intra and supra as to his owne dominions for take the Church for Ecclesiasticall persons and so the King may governe all under Christ but take it for Ecclesiasticall graces and so the King may be subject He may be superior to Priests yet acknowledge inferiority to Scripture Sacraments c. And therefore with that of Ambrose that of Nazianzen may well stand Thou raignest King together with Christ Thou rulest together with him Thy sword is from him Thou art the Image of God And surely this is something more glorious than can be applyed in so proper and direct a sense to any Clergie-man whatsoever But let us briefly see what this spirituall sword of Excommunication is which the Church that is Church-men only clayme and wherewith they thinke they may as freely strike Princes as Princes may doe them with the temporall The grounds in Scripture for Excommunication are severall not all intending the same thing yet all are blended and confounded by Clergie-men to the same purpose wheras we ought to put a great difference betweene Excommunication and Non-communication and in Excommunication betweene that spirituall stroke and punishment which was ordinary in case of contempt and that which was extraordinary in cases of most hainous nature Non-communication may be supposed to have beene from the beginning and by common equity for Gemmes were never to be cast to Swines nor the priviledges and Treasures of the Church to bee imparted to such as were enemies and strangers to the Church Heathens and Publicans hated the Religion of the Iewes and therefore it was hatefull to the Iewes to communicate with them either in matters of Religion or in offices of friendship The Iewes did not forbeare all civill conversing with them but all familiarity they did forbeare and yet the forbearance of familiarity was no proper punishment to them Nor was it a thing spiritually inflicted by authority but by generall and naturall consent practised So men of the same nature as Publicans and Heathens now viz. such as hold our Religion contemptible or whose profession is scandalous to Religion they ought to be to us as they were to the Iewes to mingle

Excommunicate as they pretend yet this concludes not that they may excommunicate Princes We know the Primitives did use excommunication very moderatly and tenderly and not without great policy and respect had to the good of the Church and therefore Saint Aug. openly avers that excommunication is a proud pernicious and sacrilegious attempt when it is denounced against any considerable number of people ubi periculum sit schismatis We must know that it is of worse example when it is used against Princes than diverse other great bodies and societies in as much as one Prince is of more consequence and power than thousands of other Lay-men We know also that in all judgments there is a necessity of legall tryall to precede conviction and that great multitudes may be convented examin'd sentenced and punished with lesse disturbance of peace lesse violation of Majestie and lesse obstruction to policy than those which sway the Ball imperiall And if the condemnation of Princes might bee upon due tryalls without violence yet the execution of the sentence would produce more grievous and rigorous events in them than in private men for how shall the people honour obey and worship him in the State as Gods Lievtenan● whom they see accursed cut off and abhorred in the Church as the Devils Vassall That which was obtruded upon private men at first as a wholsom Corrosive plaister for their spirits declined after into corporall penances and after that into pecuniary mults but what have beene the sufferings of private men in comparison of that which Princes have lost hereby to the Clergie Vpon the Excommunication of Princes whole Nations have bin interdicted whole States ruined the innocent with the obstinate the Prince with the people all have bin sacrificed to bloud thirsty Priests under pretence of Obedience to the holy Church It will be objected that if Princes be not this way punishable they are no other way punishable and that it is very mischievous in the Church that there should be any scandall given and no meanes left for its purgation and expiation I answer The Iewish Kings did sinne in the most offencive manner that can be imagined yet God assigned no spirituall Rulers for their Castigation and the Heathen Emperors were also free from any coercive restraint or punishment and this God suffered and we must suppose that if it had bin so extremely and publikely mischievous God would not have suffered it Besides in civill transgressions of the Law Priests doe not usually clayme jurisdiction though Saint Ambrose vindicated murder upon Theodosius for so their power would be as temporall and as large as the Princes and yet there is no reason why God should not have left a judicatory to punish civill violations in all men whatsoever as well as Ecclesiasticall In the last place also if scandal shal not remaine unpunishable in the supreme temporall Magistrate yet it shall in the spirituall and that is a mischiefe of the same nature as the other For if the King shall abide the judgement of this Bishop or that Consistory yet what judgment shal that Bishop or Consistory abide If this spirituall supremacy rest in any one that one must be unpunishable for two supremes are things incompatible and if this supremacy rest in more than one this is not consistent with Monarchy for either the one or the other must be predominant and transcendent We reade that lustinian did command the Clergy to be proceeded against by excommunication suspension and deprivation and we cannot deny this to be his right and all other Princes in the like manner when misdemeanours are scandalous in the highest Cleargy-men or Consistores and we know that such command and constraint in Iustinian is more than to excommunicate suspend or deprive We may justly therefore inferre that Iustinian having a power above excommunication ought not himselfe to be excommunicated by those which were under his power for so the excommunication of the inferior would disable the excommunication of the superior And since excommunication cannot be promiscuously and oppositely used by two one against the other without variance and confusion but either the one or the other must be above excommunication it is more reasonable that the higher bee exempted and priviledged than the lower And so it is a stronge argument that Princes are not liable to excommunication because even in the power of excommunication it selfe their function is more excellent and their power more sublime than theirs is which excommunicate under them and at their command the Prince doing herein the nobler office quantum qui navem temperat anteit Remigis officium but when it is argued against Princes that they may be excommunicated by Priests because they beare offices lesse sacred and serve God in places lesse glorious than Priests the grounds are here utterly false and repugnant to all right reason and sound Divinity Let us not then doubt to submit all things under one supreme on Earth submitting him to his supreme in Heaven For it is no small thing as we imagine in such case to be left to the searching judgment of God for God is not negligent of his office therein nor need we doubt or hold our selves utterly remedilesse whilst we can say truly Omne sub regno graviore regnum est And let us not mistake our supreme on earth for if God had intended to have left us a spirituall sword and miraculous judicatory under the Gospell never before knowne or usefull to the world and that of perpetuall necessity doubtlesse he would have left us some cleere command in Scripture and not have involved his meaning in metaphors so intricate and ambiguous THe next argument against the Soveraigne Dignity of Kings is this If servants are to be measured by the degree of their Master whom they serve they are the greatest servants which serve Christ But Ministers serve Christ Ergo This can decide nothing for Princes and Priests serving both the same Master The argument hath the same force for Princes and for Priests and if it be further said that Christ as a Priest is greater than Christ as a Prince and that Princes therefore serving under him as a Prince are not so great as Priests serving under him as a Priest I shall deny that to bee so for Christ as Mediator was inferior to his Father and all workes of his regiment over the Church are not done by him as Mediator but doe belong to his Kingly Office and as to his Kingly power He is equall with the Father THe next Argument therefore of truer force is this There can be no office more sacred or dignity more excellent then such as is signified under these glorious Titles of Gods Starres Angels Embassadors Rulers Fathers Stewards Pastors Leaders Teachers but these glorious Titles are applyed to Ministers Ergo Wee will acknowledge all these Honourable badges given to Ministers and duely given and wee will acknowledge these no empty words without truth and so make words and things

contrary and we will acknowledge the Function of Ministers to bee more venerable than any amongst men besides that which beares the sword the Embleme of Gods imperiall Majestie But to such as are Gods sword-bearers upon Earth we conceive Ministers ought to give place and pay subjection as humbly as any others The preminence of Kings we hold to be three ways manifest in order in measure and in kind In the very sanctity of the Priest-hood it selfe we conceive the ministration of Priests to be subordinate to Princes inasmuch as to superintend in the most religious affaires is due to Princes and to officiate only to Priests and to superintend is more than to officiate Secondly In measure we conceive Princes excell also in asmuch as in religious affaires such Priests have the charge of such flockes and such Bishops of such Priests but all both Bishops Priests and flockes are under the Kings charge And not only in religious affaires but in civill also the authority of Princes is both intensive and extensive many wayes where Priests may not at all intermeddle And though to governe Christians as Christians be the most transcendent honour of Kings yet to governe men as men and not only to governe but to governe well is a thing of divine impression Thirdly in kinde the regiment of Princes is far excelling for the regiment of Kings is a true proper regiment assisted with reall power decored with externall honour founded in the generall consent of men and blessed by the gratious influence of God but the rule of Priests is but ethicall or metaphoricall only its utmost vigor is but perswasive and is not at all coercive either inwardly or outwardly and that subjection which it challengeth is not to it selfe but to the Word and Sacraments whereto it selfe rendreth as much as it requireth from others This generall answer might suffice but to each particular Title we will briefly reply further Ministers they are GODS viz. to such as are under their cure but then as they are GODS to others so Princes are GODS to them Thus Moses was a God to Aaron though Aaron was a God to his inferiors Ministers are Stars but not in magnitude equall to the Sun neither is their light and influence so independent as the Suns Ministers are Angels viz. upon earth and their internall piety is like a shining rayment to them amongst men but they serve under Gods on Earth whose robes of Majesty are every way resplendent as well externally as internally Ministers are Embassadors but all Embassadors persons are not of the like honour nor all their Embassages of the like moment nor all their Commissions of the like extent and in all these respects Preachers are inferior to Princes being joyned to them as Aaron was to Moses for a spokesman or an Interpreter only Ministers are Rulers viz. quoad vim directivam but not quoad vim coactivam Ministers are Fathers viz. such as have been Gods instruments to regenerate us and so as Saint Ierome sayes they are the Fathers of our soules and perhaps as Chrysostome sayes in this respect they are more to be honoured than our naturall parents But Ministers alwayes and onely are not so our Parents and they that are so our Parents are not so physicall and selfe efficacious causes as our naturall Parents are but if they may challenge more honour than our fleshly Parents yet this advances them not above Kings who are both politicall and Spirituall Fathers also Fabius the Consull though he was to pay Honour and reverence to his naturall Father yet he was to demand a greater measure of the same from him being his politicall son and it did not mis-beseeme him to prefer the civill right before the physicall Yet Fabius here was a meere Magistrate and in that farre lesse glorious than our Christian Magistrates are Ministers are Stewards but not the highest in the house of God for Princes are Stewards also and only accountable to God but they are accountable to Princes themselves And as Stewards doe provide food for those by whom themselves are fed and manage only but one part of their Lords affaires so it is with Ministers under Princess Ministers are Pastors Leaders Teachers their Doctrine is their food wherewith they comfort the people their perswasion is the light wherewith they secure them from falling they feede by their exhortations and guide by their dehortations but all these are offices of a servant rather than priviledges of a Master and even in these offices they are subordinate also So the Pilot at Sea may have the safety of his Prince committed to his direction charge and rule So the Commander in Warre gives order for all affaires of the battaile assigning to the King Himselfe a fit station So the Iudge in matters of Law by his just decree bindes the right of his owne Master So the Physition limits and prescribes rules of diet and sets downe Lawes of exercise to his Soveraigne Lord In all these cases there is a kinde of Obedience due from Kings and that obedience implyes some kind of inferiority and yet this obedience of the King doth not drowne the higher and greater obedience of the Subject nor doth this inferiority contradict that which is of a farre other quality and degree In the selfe same manner also the Priest officiates in the Church perhaps before the King perhaps before his owne Metropolitan at this time in this place and in this office there is honour reverence and obedience due to him from the King and Metropolitan yet this doth not exempt him from that stronger and holyer tye of subjection awe and subordination by which he is alwayes bound to those which governe him in other things when Ambrose therefore sayes Honor sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari and againe Nihil potest esse in hoc seculo excellentius Sacerdotibus nihil sublimius Episcopis reperiri wee answer if he here include Princes as having Episcopall power and a jurisdiction both over Priests and Bishops we agree hereunto but if he exclude Princes we exclude this from our beliefe And againe when he sayes if you compare Episcopall sublimity to the brightnesse of Kings or Diadems of Princes that of Kings and Princes will be more inferior than leade compared with gold we answer if he here intend the meere secular authority of Princes in things meerly temporall we suppose some mild construction may bee allowed but if he speake of the intire Soveraignty and Prerogative of Princes and put that as lead in comparison of the golden Miter we reject him as erroneous That which Chrysostome sayes that more awe is due to Priests than to Kings and Princes we admit also in this sense viz. to the Embassages of God in their mouthes not to their persons and those Embassages also and instructions we oppose to the meere civill Ordinances of Kings not to religious injunctions wherein Princes are sent with larger Commission than they are