Cohanim that is Princes or great Rulers so it is explayned 2. Sam 20.26 and declared in 1 Chron. 18.17 And so it is likewise said of Ira the Iairite that hee was Cohen le David that is a Prince or chiefe Ruler about David For to conster these to be Priests in the proper and usuall signification of the word they not being of the Tribe of Levi were verie absurd And to these thus formerly alledged in my Reply you have answered nothing in your Rejoynder Yea S. Ierome himselfe in his owne observation sheweth that the Hebrew word though he translate it Sacerdotes in the one case and Sacerdos in the other case yet signifieth as I before affirmed For saith he Ira Iairites erat sacerdos David Hier. tradit Hebr. in libros Regum to 3 id est Magister sicut alibi scriptum est Filij autem David erant sacerdotes idest Magistri fratrum suorum But because you also object S. Augustine as the Iesuites likewise did object both S. Ierome and S. Augustine in this case writing upon this Psalm 99. to prove Moses to bee a Priest I had rather you should take your Answer thereunto from the wordes of that reverend and learned Bishop Doctor Bilson then from me who answereth the Iesuites and consequently you in this sort In his Booke called the difference betweene Christian subiection unchristian rebellion part 3. pag. 102.103 Hier. in Psal 98. Aug. in Psal 98. All that S. Ierome saith is this that Moses had the rule of the Law and Aaron of the Priesthood and that eyther of them did foreshew the comming of Christ with a Priestly kinde of Proclamation Moses with the sound of the Law and Aaron with the Bels of his garments Where S. Hierome calleth the Propheticall function of Moses to teach the people the lawes of God a Priestly kinde of Proclamation foreshewing that the Son of God should come in the flesh to teach us the will of his Father S. Augustine useth the word in the like sence for that sacred service which Moses yeelded to God in reporting his lawes and precepts to the people And therefore in the same place he saith of Samuel also that hee was made high Priest which is expressely against the Scriptures if you take the Priest for him that was annointed to offer sacrifice unto God For Samuel was but a Levite and no Priest much lesse an high Priest The sons of Samuel 1. Chron. 6. are reckoned in the Scripture it selfe among the Levites apart from the Priests office and linage And the high Priesthood was long before given to Phinees and his house Num. 25.13 1. Sam. 14. 1. Chron. 6. by covenant from Gods owne mouth and in the dayes of Samuel was held by Abiah the sonne of Ahitub who was directly of the discent of Phinees S. Augustine elsewhere debating this question of Moses and Aaron resolveth in doubtfull manner Moses and Aaron were both high Priests or rather Moses the chiefe and Aaron under him or else Aaron chiefe for the Pontificall attire and Moses for a more excellent Ministerie And in that sence Moses may be called a Priest if you meane as S. Augustine doth an interpreter of Gods will to Aaron others which is the right vocation of all Prophets that were no Priests common to them all save that by a more excellent prerogative then any other Prophet of the Olde Testament Numb 12. Exod. 33. had God spake to Moses mouth to mouth and face to face as a man speaketh to his friend But this doth not hinder his civill power which was to bee chiefe Iudge and soveraigne executor of Iustice amongst them and by vertue thereof to put them to death that were offenders against the Law of God And in his stead succeeded not Eleazar nor Phinees the sonnes of Aaron but Ioshuah and Iudah the Captaines and leaders of Israel So farre hee Thus then you see in what sence it is that both S. Ierome and S. Augustine did or might call Moses a Priest and yet not bee such a Priest strictly and properly taken as you fancie him Yea you see that S. Augustine likewise affirmeth Samuel to be a Priest who neverthelesse revera Bellarmin de verb. Dei lib. 3. cap. 4. and properly was not a Priest as before is shewed And Bellarmine also himselfe confesseth somuch of Samuel saying expressely Samulem non fuisse sacerdotem sed Iudicem tantum Non enim descendit ex familia Aaron sed Core consobrini ejus 1. Paralip 6. That Samuel was not a Priest but onely a Iudge for he descended not of the family of Aaron but of Core And he saith further that S. Hierome likewise libr. 1. in Iovinianum ostendit Samuelem non fuisse Sacerdotem shewed that Samuel was not a Priest As for those two Chapters of Exodus 28. and 29. cited by Bellarmine whereby he will prove Moses to be truely and properly a Priest If you reade those Chapters you shall finde no such matter but rather the contrary namely that not Moses but Aaron and his sonnes Exod. 28 1.2 3.4 were the Priests For God saith there to Moses Take Aaron thy Brother and his Sonnes with him from amongst the children of Israel that he may minister unto me in the Priests Office even Aaron Nadab and Abibu Eleazar and Ithamar Aarons sonnes It is true that there you may reade that Moses made holy Garments Exod. 29.1.2.3.4 c. and offered certaine Sacrifices But observe withall that all this was done by Gods owne expresse and speciall commaundement and to no other end but this viz for the conseruating of Aaron and his Sonnes to the Priesthood So that by those two Chapters it further appeareth that not Moses but Aaron onely and his Sonnes were the Priests But as the Iesuites In his booke before named part 3. pag. 103. 104. in time past would have proved Samuel to be a Priest because it is said that he Sacrificed so you say the same of King Saul that he also sacrificed and thereby would likewise prove him to be a priest Howbeit the former reverēd learned Bishop D. Bilson doth againe shew both them and you how much you deceave your selves by such phrazes and maner of speeches and that when they are rightly vnderstood they inferre no such conclusion as you and they would deduce out of them My collection saith he is grounded upon the law of God Samuel was none of the Sonnes of Aaron Ergo 1. Sam. 7. Samuel was no Priest It is true that the Scripture saith He tooke a sucking lambe and offered it for a burnt offering unto the Lord. So Iephta said Iudg. 11. That thing which first cometh out of the Dores of my house to me I will offer it for a burnt offering And yet Iephtah was neither Priest nor Levite So the Angell said to Manoah Iudg. 13. If thou wilt make a burnt offering offer it unto the
Nicholaus de Lyra your ordinarie Glosse did comment upon it and so they read to this day as also many written coppies which I have seene saith hee And therefore it is no small blemish to the Papists that in former times they had also thus corrupted even that which they call S. Ieromes translation Hee further sheweth that the originall Hebrew and the Greeke translation of the Septuagints bee also directly against that their then corrupted translation in this point And so did S. Cyprian also repeate this Text. Lib. 1. epist 3 8.1◠libr. 3. epist 4 epist 9 Et homo quicunque fecerit in superbia ut non exaudiat sacerdotem aut Iudicem quicunque fuerit in diebus illis morietur homo ille Et omnis populus tum audierit timebit And the man whosoever shall in pride not heare the Priest or the Iudge which shall be in those dayes that man shall die and the people when they shall heare of it shall feare First then obedience is by the wordes of this text commaunded aswell toward the Iudge that is to say the civill Magistrate as toward the Priest For you see the Priest and the Iudge therein to bee not all one but directly distinguished yea by Iudges as by the chiefe rulers was Israel sometimes governed and that for sundrie yeares untill kings were appointed as the Booke of Iudges it selfe declareth And when Kings were appointed both Priests and Iudges were subject to the Kings as the Bookes of Samuel of the Kings and of the Chronicles doe shew And for an evident proofe hereof you may take the example of that godly and religious King Iehoshaphat amongst the rest For hee not onely set Iudges in the land throughout all the fenced Cities of Iudah Citie by Citie but hee said likewise to those Iudges Take heede what yee doe 2. Chron. 19. v. 5 6.7.8 9.10.11 for yee judge not for man but for the Lord who is with you in the judgement wherefore now let the feare of the Lord bee upon you take heede and doe it For there is no iniquitie with the Lord our God nor respect of persons nor taking of gifts Moreover in Ierusalem did Iehoshaphat set of the Leuites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for the iudgement of the Lord and for controversies when they returned to Ierusalem and he charged them sayng Thus shall you doe in the feare of the Lord faithfully and with a perfect heart And what cause soever shall come unto you of your brethren that dwell in the Cities betweene bloud and bloud betweene Law and Commaundement Statutes and Iudgements yee shall warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord and so wrath come upon you and upon your brethren this doe and yee shall not trespasse And behold Amariah the Priest shal be the chiefe over you in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmael a ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters and the Levites shall be Officers before you Deale couragiously and the Lord shall be with the good Where you see that in the time of the Kings the Iudges and the Priests also were subject to the King and at his ordering and appointment For all these both Iudges Priests and Levites did King Iehosaphat thus constitute and appoint But now secondly observe that both the Priest and the Iudge Deut. 17.11 mentioned in this Text of Deut. 17. were to Iudge and give sentence not as they listed themselves but according to the Law which God himselfe had given in those cases So that the sentence Mal 2.7.8.9 Isa 6.10.11 12 Ier. 23 11.12.13 Esai 56.10.11 Ier. 6.13.14 Ezec. 22.25.26 Micah 3.5 6 7. Exod. 32.1 23.4.5.6.7.8 c. Iere. 26.7.8 Act. 23.1.2 3. Act. 4.18 Act. 5.40 not onely of the inferiour Priests but even of the chiefe or high-Priest himselfe was not alwayes certainely true and evermore infallible as you say it was unlesse it were directed and done according to that law For otherwise they might and did erre in their judgements Yea many complaints were in the old Testament against them for their errours and going astray from Gods law insomuch that although they said as the Papists likewise doe of their Priest of Rome Non peribit lex à Sacerdote That the law shall not perish from the Priest Ierem. 18.18 yet God himselfe sayed otherwise namely that Lex peribit à Sacerdote The law shall perish from the priest Ezech. 7.26 And for further proofe hereof remember that Aaron was the high Priest and yet that he with the rest of the Priests and people erred when they made the golden Calfe Againe were they not the Priests and Prophets that gave sentence of death against Ieremie Gods true Prophet was that therefore a just sentence which was so given against him Was it not also in a Councell that Ananias the high Priest commaunded men that stood by to smite S. Paul on the mouth was it therefore well done and justifiable Was not moreover the high Priest present in that Councell which commaunded the Apostles to teach no more in the name of IESVS was that therefore a good commaundement or a good and allowable decree that was thus made against them Yea was not the high Priest present in that Councell wherein CHRIST himselfe was condemned Math. 26.59 62.63.65.66 And did not hee in that Councell say expressely of Christ that hee had spoken blasphemie It is then verie apparant that not onely the inferiour Priests but even the high Priest also though joyned assembled with others in a Councell might neverthelesse possibly erre and did erre sometimes in his sentence and giving of judgement And therefore so also may the Pope of Rome erre not onely as hee is singly considered by himselfe but even though hee be joyned with others in a Councell admitting that hee were the high Priest Heb. 9.11 Hebr. 5.5 Heb. 4.14 Heb. 7.26 1. Pet. 5.1.2 3.4 Hebr. 13.20 in the Christian Church which hee is not as I have shewed in my Reply pag. 10.11 whereto you have made no Answer in your Reioynder For the sacred Scriptures acknowledge no other high Priest in the Christian Church but CHRIST IESVS onely nor any other to be the chiefe Sheepheard or Supreame Pastor over all the severall Pastors of all the severall flockes in the world but onely CHRIST IESVS But yet here thirdly observe that this Text of Deut. 17. which you cite concerneth onely the Iewish policie or Common-wealth of the Iewes as being a part of the Iudiciall law proper to that nation and which is now abrogated and abolished For to determine those harder and difficulter questions and litigious cases concerning bloud and the other things there mentioned the partie grieved is required to resort to the Leviticall Priests Deu 17.8.9 of which sort there be none at this day amongst Christians and againe To the place which the Lord their God should
choose which was in aftertimes Ierusalem where the Temple was builded and where Iehosaphat also according to this law erected and constituted a Synedrion or Councell consisting of Levites Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel 2 Chron. 19.8.9 But none is bound at this day to goe to Ierusalem to have his litigious and doubtfull cases to bee decided and determined by any Leviticall Priest or other Iudges there Neyther is Rome that Ierusalem nor is the Pope of Rome or his Priests any of those Priests descended of the Tribe of Levi. And therefore also will not this text of Deut. 17. any way serve your turne nor helpe to maintayne your Popes so long vainely fancied Supremacie 5. But I proceede prosecuting matters not confusedly as you doe but for the most part in that sort and order as they be layed downe in my Reply that so the Reader also may the better and the more easily perceive both what you have Answered in this your Reioynder and what and how much you have left unanswered Chrysost hom 4. de verb. Esa vid. Dom. as also how good or bad your Answers bee In my Reply therefore pag. 1. I said that S. Chrysostome distinguishing those two offices viz. the Regall and Sacerdotall did say thus Ille cogit hic exhortatur ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia The King compelleth the Priest exhorteth the King hath sensible weapons the Priest hath spirituall weapons Hereunto you Answer that S. Chrysostome meant onely that the King with his sensible weapons of imprisonment banishment pecuniarie mulcts temporall death and other penalties should force when other meanes fayled the rebellious children of the Church to performe their dutie unto their Prince Prelate not that the Prince hath any power over the Pastor unto whom say you by the ordinance of God hee is subjected and thus you make the King to have power onely over such as you here call the children of the Church but not over Bishops Pastors and other Ecclesiasticall Ministers and of this opinion you would drawe S. Chrysostome to bee against his owne good will and liking But although by his words precedent and subsequent which you so much speake of it appeareth that Kings and Princes are to bee subject to Bishops and Pastors in respect of the due administration of those their sacred offices functions and ministeries committed to them from God yet in respect of themselves and of their owne Persons hee held them verie clearely to bee not superiour but subject to Kings and Princes Rom. 13.1 Chrys ho. 23. in epistol ad Rom. For whereas S. Paul speaketh thus Let everie soule be subject to the higher powers The same S. Chrysostome saith which I mervaile you have so soone forgotten that omnibus ista praecipiuntur Sacerdotibus quo que ac Monachis non solum secularibus These things be cōmanded to all even to Priests also to Monckes and not to lay or secular men onely Yea hee saith further in the same place that though you bee an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or whatsoever you bee you must be subiect to these higher powers Remember againe Chrys ad Populū Antioch homil 2. that speaking of the Emperour hee saith that Non habet parem ullum super terram He hath no Peere nor equall upon earth Yea hee saith of him that hee was Caput summit as omnium super terras hominum The head and one that had the supremacie over all men upon earth Yea S. Chrysostome himselfe did yet further really and actually declare this subjection to these higher powers even in his owne person For did not the Emperour exile and banish him Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 15. graec cap. 14. Latine Theodor. lib. 2 cap. 2.4.13 Theodor. lib. 2 cap. 2.4 13. And did not hee though Archbishop of Constantinople humbly submit himselfe thereunto and yeelde obedience Was not likewise Liberius though a Bishop of Rome exiled and banished by the Emperour and did not hee also quietly submit himselfe unto it as being done by the Emperours commaundement and authoritie And was not also Atbanasius banished by the Emperours authoritie and did not he likewise patiently and obediently undergoe it You see then that not onely lay people and such as you call the children of the Church but even those also that were Fathers in the same as namely Bishops and Pastors Archbishops and even Bishops of Rome themselves were in those former and auncient times Pelag. Epist. 16. Concil edit Bin. tom 2. pag. 633. subject to these higher powers viz. to Emperours Kings and Princes Quibus nos etiam subditos esse sanctae Scripturae praecipiunt To whom saith also Pelagius another Bishop of Rome the holy Scriptures commaund even us that be Bishops and the Bishops of Rome to be subiect So that those Bishops in those dayes performed this subjection and obedience unto them as being moved thereunto out of dutie and good conscience and because God in his holy Scriptures had so commaunded But these two points namely that Emperours Kings and Princes bee subject to that authoritie message and ministerie which God hath committed to Bishops and Pastors And that Bishops againe and Pastors all Ministers Ecclesiasticall be neverthelesse subject to Emperours Kings and Princes in respect of their owne persons is largely declared both in my first Booke in my Reply also aswell as here As for those precedent and subsequent wordes in S. Chrysostome which you so often speake of even you aswell as I might verie well have omitted them as being needlesse to be mentioned because the matter and substance of them was before graunted and confessed by me in my former Bookes as it is likewise here againe in this and yet you never the neerer of your purpose And therefore you had no cause to complaine of the omission of thē by me when the recitall of them by you will do you no more good nor prove or inferre any more matter in your behalfe then that which was formerly by me confessed and granted unto you But least reason of all had you to insinuate as though by omission of those precedent and subsequent wordes I had a meaning to delude my Reader by concealing the truth For you see that I had no such purpose or meaning to conceale that truth which my selfe had formerly delivered and graunted and which I still confesse with S. Chrysostome touching the subjection of Princes to Gods authoritie committed to his Ministers But it is your selfe in verie deede which abuse delude your Reader in this case by concealing truth For although you tell some truth you tell not the whole truth as you ought but conceale a part of it or which is worse you denie a part of it inasmuch as you affirme the subjection of Emperours Kings and Princes to that authoritie which God hath committed to his Bishops and Pastors But the other part of truth concerning
the subjection which Bishops Pastors and all Ecclesiasticall Ministers aswell as lay people owe and are to performe to Emperours Kings and Princes in respect of their owne persons this you conceale and doe not affirme Yea you doe directly denie it although S. Chrysostome as here is manifest doth directly affirme it Henceforth therefore wrong not S Chrysostome in this point as you doe nor delude your Reader any longer with these your false Comments and untrue surmises 6. But in my Reply pag. 2. I further cited the text of 1. Tim. 2.1.2 where S. Paul exhorteth Christians to pray chiefly especiall for Kings and all that are in authoritie that under them We may lead a quiet and peaceable life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you say I English thus in all godlinesse and honestie But you are deceived for although I put these wordes so together in the English yet I make them not all to be the English of those Greeke wordes Everie meane Grecian knoweth that the English of those Greeke wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no more but in all godlinesse but I added the other wordes and honestie not as being signified by those former Greeke wordes but as being other wordes annexed in the English Text the Greeke whereof I did not then mention which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now all being put together both according to the Greeke and English the Text is as I rightly recited it in all godlinesse and honestie And therefore in all this you doe but Nodum in sirpo quaerere which becommeth you not But why doe you further say that I cite this Text to no purpose I shewed you in my Reply to what end and purpose I cited it namely to declare that Kings and Princes are to respect aswell pietie godlinesse and religion as civill honestie and correspondencie of humane societie For beside that the wordes of the Text doe plainely import somuch can any reasonable man suppose that eyther S. Paul would exhort Christians or that Christians themselves would pray for Kings and Princes for this respect and to this end onely that they should maintayne externall worldly peace civill honestie and humane societie without any respect or regard had at all unto pietie godlinesse and to that Christian religion they held and professed and which they more esteemed then their lives and more then all earthly treasures and worldly happinesse whatsoever Yea to this end and purpose it was that I there also mentioned some speeches of Iustinian Valentinian and Theodosius Emperours testifying and declaring their chiefest care within their Empyres and Dominions to be for and concerning Gods religion whereunto you have not answered But yet for further proofe hereof I alledged in the same my Reply pag. 3. Aug. contr◠Crescon lib ◠cap 51. that cleere testimonie also of S. Augustine where hee sheweth that It is enioyned Kings from God that in their kingdomes they should commaund good things and forbid evill things not onely such things as belong to humane societie but such things also as belong to Gods religion You say the wordes of S. Augustine be these In this Kings as they bee commaunded from heaven doe serve God as they be Kings if in their kingdomes they commaund good prohibite ill not onely what pertaynes to humane societie but also what pertaynes to divine religion Let the wordes bee as you relate them all commeth to one effect as touching that purpose for which I alledged him For what Is it not all one in sence to say that Kings are enjoyned from God and Kings are commaunded from heaven For when you say that Kings are commaunded from heaven I make no doubt but you meane thereby the same thing that I doe when I say it is enjoyned Kings from God when you say againe that Kings doe as they are commaunded from heaven serve God as Kings if in their Kingdomes they commaund good and prohibite ill not onely what pertaynes to humane societie but what also pertaynes to divine Religion Doe not these wordes of yours as clearely and as strongly prove the Kings authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion as my wordes doe when I say that it is enioyned Kings from God that in their kingdomes they should commaund good things and forbid evill things not onely such things as belong to humane societie but such things also as belong to Gods religion Yea even your selfe forced by the unresistable evidence of this testimonie of S. Augustine doe at last yeeld and graunt that Kings may commaund in things belonging to religion But then what those things bee which the King may commaund belonging to religion you seeme to say that they be Theft Rape and such like And yet you cite the same S. Augustine affirming that utilissium saluberrimum est c. It is most profitable and expedient that the King make lawes to restraine the free will of man from transgressing in such things as the law of God doth intimate unto us Hereby you may perceive that you needed no better confuter then your selfe For be onely Theft Rape and such like civill offences prohibited by the law of God And be not Idolatrie false worship blasphemie and other offences against God and his religion by the same law of God also prohibited Yea S. Augustine himselfe as you see here distinguisheth betweene things belonging to humane or civill societie and things belonging to divine religion and therefore you must not confound those things which hee hath so directly distinguished Now Theft Rape and such like offences concerne civill or humane societie and bee offences against the second Table of Gods Law but there be also offences that bee done immediatly against God which bee comprised in the first Table of his Law And did you never reade nor heare that the King is Custos utriusque Tabulae The keeper of both the Tables Deut. 17.18.19 Why was the Booke of Gods law at the first institution of Kings in the Common-weale of Israel required to be delivered to the King And why was hee charged to reade therein all the dayes of his life and to keepe all the wordes and ordinances contayned in it if hee were not aswell to see the duties of the first Table of the Law as of the second to bee observed within his kingdome For the Booke of Gods law comprehendeth more then the duties of the second Table And you must observe that this was enjoyned to him not in respect of his private conversation onely as hee was a man but in respect of his Regall and Princely office and function specially For when he was set upon the throne of his Kingdome then it was that he was enjoyned these things as the verie wordes of the Text it selfe doe expressely testifie Wherfore well spake S. Augustine That a King serveth God one way as hee is a man Aug epist 50 and another way as he is a King as hee is a man hee serveth God by living faithfully As hee
powers Who saith S. Bernard hath excepted you speaking to an Archbishop from this generalitie Hee that bringeth in an exception saith hee useth but a delusion And you may remember that even S. Chrysostome also himselfe as hee subjecteth Kings to Bishops Priests and Pastors in respect of their power and commission graunted them from God So on the other side in respect of the Regall sword power and authoritie given and graunted likewise from God to Kings and Princes he declareth verie fully that Bishops Priests Pastors and all Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever aswell as lay people are to be subject to them But this point concerning the subjection of all Bishops Priests and Pastors and even of the Bishop of Rome himselfe aswell as of others unto Emperours Kings and Princes as also in causes even Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and temporall is so cleerely plainely and plentifully proved both in my first and second Bookes and in this also all your answers evasions quirkes and quiddities being therein utterly frustrated confuted and confounded as that it is to mee a matter of wounder that you should not see and so acknowledge the truth of it But it seemeth you cannot see the wood for trees which I am sorrie for 8. Howbeit to make this point yet the more evident viz the subjection of Priests and Ecclesiasticall Ministers unto the King and therewithall the Kings supremacie or supreame commaund over them even in causes Ecclesiasticall I alledged in my Reply cap. 1. pag. 5. the example of Moses who commaunded not onely the Levites Deut. 31.25.26 and that in a matter Ecclesiasticall and concerning their verie office but hee commaunded also even Aaron the high Priest in a matter likewise Ecclesiasticall and concerning his verie office Numb 16.46.47 saying thus unto him Take the censer and put fire therein of the Altar and put therein incense and goe quickely unto the congregation and make an attonement for them for there is wrath gone out from the Lorde the plague is begun then Aaron tooke as Moses had commaunded him c. Here you say I abuse my Reader by falsely citing this text for the right wordes say you are these Moses said to Aaron take the Censer and drawing fire from the Altar put incense upon it going quickely to the people to pray for them To pray say you and to make attonement doe differ and be not all one howbeit indeede not I but you are the man that abuse your Reader by falsely citing the wordes of this Text For you therein follow the wordes of your vulgar Latin translation which is untrue and unsound and I follow our English translation which is according to the Originall in Hebrew and therefore true which you also if you were a good Hebrician would know and perceive even in this verie particular But whether wee take your translation of Praying for the people or our translation of Attonement-making it commeth all to one passe as touching that purpose for which I cited it namely to prove that Moses commaunded Aaron the high Priest in a matter Ecclesiasticall cōcerning his verie office For your selfe do say that this praying for the people was a religious act to bee wrought by Aaron as being intermediate betweene the people God to reconcile or gaine unto them the favours of heaven And on the other side we say that to burne incense to mak attonement for the people 2. Chron. 26.18 is likwise expressely a thing properly pertayning to the Priests office So that as touching that purpose for which I cited that text it maketh as I said before no difference But then you go further seem to speake as if Moses had not there commanded Aaron But when Moses spake to Aaron in this sort Accipe thuribulū Take the censer Be not these wordes of commaunding especially in this case and at this time being also spoken by a Superior namely by him that was as the Scripture calleth him a king in the common-weale of Israel Deut. 33.5 Deut. 31.25 26.27 Yea bee they not wordes of as full and cleere commaund as when hee spake in like sort to the Levites saying Take the booke of this law and put yee it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord our God c. The Text it selfe sheweth that these were wordes of commaunding in Moses And so witnesseth also your owne translation that herein Moses praecepit Levitis Moses commaunded the Levites Yea that Moses aswell as his successor Ioshuah commaunded not onely the Levites but the Priests also and all the congregation and people of Israel appeareth by that answer and acclamation they gave to the same Ioshuah saying thus unto him Iosh 1.16.17.18 All that thou hast commaunded us wee will doe and whethersoever thou sendest us wee will goe As wee have obeyed Moses in all things so will we obey thee onely the Lord thy God be with thee as bee was with Moses whosoever shall rebell against thy commaundement and will not obey thy wordes in all that thou commaundest him let him bee put to death But then when you cannot gainesay but that Moses commaunded Aaron and that in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning his very office you come to your last refuge and doe say that Moses was the high Priest and so as an high Priest commaunded Aaron But first how doe you prove this that Moses was an high Priest And yet if you could prove it what would you or could you gaine from thence for your selfe doe say that Moses was as well a king as a Priest therefore why might hee not commaund him as hee was a king rather then otherwise for did he in his time commaund the Priests Levites the whole People of Israel otherwise or in any other sort or sence then Ioshuah his successor did who was no Priest how be it if Moses had been both a Priest and a King would not the holy Scripture somewhere haue testified and expressed so much aswell as it doth in the like case of Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 Hebr. 7.1 For as touching those Texts of Scripture which you bring to prove Moses to be a Priest it shall by and by appeare that they prove it not Againe if Moses were the high Priest what will you make Aaron to be for it is evident and confessed of all sides that Aaron was the high Priest and if Moses were also another high Priest at the same time Deut. 33.5 then beside that there should be two high Priests together at one time how could the one commaund the other they being both of equall authority Or can he be rightly and truely called Summus Sacerdos that hath a Superior Priest over him to commaund him It is cleere that the Scripture doth expressely testifie of Moses that he was a King and therefore of that there can be no doubt but that he was also a Priest or an high Priest as you suppose it doth not affirme no not in that Place
87. But secondly when the Text it selfe speaketh of this fact of King Solomon by way of approbation of it doth it become you or any man else to say or suppose that it was error facti in him Or that it was an Act not lawfull for him so to doe For hath not the Scripture it selfe before expressely tould vs That Solomon deposed or cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord 1. King 2.27 that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord which hee spake against the house of Ely in Shiloh Now then can that be said to bee erroniously or unlawfully done which God himselfe well liked and allowed and would have to bee done for the performance and fulfilling of his owne wordes Yea consider yet further that the Kings of Israel and Iudah had power and authoritie over the Priests not onely to depose them but also to put them to death And this you may see in King Saul who put to death divers Priests â— Sa. 22.18 â— Chron. 24. â—0 21. and in King Ioash also who put to death Zachariah the sonne of Iehoida the Priest How justly or unjustly worthily or unworthily these Priests were put to death I here dispute not but I mention these examples to shew the power authoritie that the Kings had in those times namely even to put Priests to death aswell as lay-persons upon just cause and if they did offend so farre as to deserve it 11. But now though there were a supremacy over the high Priests aswell as over the other Priests and Levites in the Kings under the Old Testament and that they also dealt in maters Ecclesiasticall yet thereupon it followeth not say you That Kings and Princes under the New Testament have the like Supremacy over Bishops and other Clergy men or the like Authority in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion Why so because say you there is now a change and alteration of the Priesthood and of the Law Heb. 7.12 But doth not the same Epistle to the Hebrews which you cite tell you wherein that Alteration and change consisteth namely that it is in respect of the Leviticall Priesthood under the ould Law or under the ould Testament which is now changed into the Priesthood of Christ under the new Law or under the new Testament why then will you stretch and extend it any further yea neither doth that Epistle nor any other sacred or canonicall Scripture testifie an Alteration or change in this Point or as touching this Particular whereof we now speake but the cleane contrary videlicet that aswell under the new Testament as under the ould Kings and Princes are to have a supremacy over all Bishops Pastors and other Ecclesiasticall Ministers and an Authority also in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as civill and temporall within their dominions The first part of this Assertion is manifest by that Text in the new Testament which I have so often recited and where S. Paul saith expressely thus Rom. 13.1 Chrysost in Rom. hom 23 Let every soule be subiect to the higher Powers yea Though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or whosoever you be saith S. Chrisostome But what shall I neede to prove this so cleere a Point so many times and so often For both in my first Booke Cap. 1. pag. 1. 2. 3. c. and in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 39. 40 41. c. and pag. 51. 52. 53. 54. c. this pointe is fully and abundantly proved Yea the Bishops of Rome themselves in former an ancient times for the space of divers hundreth yeares after Christ did acknowledge this Subiection to these higher powers namely to their Emperors as I have demonstratively shewed by the examples of Milciades Leo and Gregorie the great mentioned in my first Booke pag. 23. 24. 25. 26. And by Anastasius the second Pelagius the first Agatho Hadrian and Leo the fourth mentioned in my Reply chap. 1 pag. 11. 12. 13. 19. To all which though particularly alledged by me you according to your wonted wise maner thought it best to answere nothing Yea both the parts of this Assertion namely that Emperors Kings and Princes under the new Testament have Authority not onely over Persons Ecclesiasticall but in causes also Ecclesiasticall I have so sufficiently proved throughout the first Chapter of my first Booke and throughout the first Chapter of my second Booke which is my Reply and in this booke also as that all the Power and force you have brought or can bring against it will never be able so much as to shake it much lesse to subdue or overthrow it Yet for the more abundant proofe of this Authority of Emperors and Kings in maters Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion I alledged in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 13 14. the president and Example of that famous Christian Emperor Constantine the Great whereunto in your Reioynder you have as well became your great learning and wisedome answered iust nothing at all I alledged also in the same my Reply pag. 15. the example of Iustinian that Christian Emperor where you deny not this Emperors making of Constitutions and Lawes in Ecclesiasticall causes and concerning Bishops and other Ecclesiasticall Persons But you say those Lawes be not observed by the Protestant Cleargie and you give an instance in one particular What is this to the purpose For the question was not nor is whether our Protestant Cleargie observe those Lawes and Constitutions yea or no But whether Iustinian that Christian Emperour made those or any such lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticall causes and Ecclesiasticall persons Now then whilst you graunt that hee made those Lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticâ—ll causes and concerning Ecclesiasticall persons you graunt so much as I contended for that is to say you graunt the whole matter that was in question And therefore why should I dispute any longer with you Neverthelesse you yet further say that I much disadvantage my cause by alleadging Iustinian the Emperour who accounted called the Bishop of Rome the chiefe and head of all the holy Churches But you should doe well to observe in what sence and respects the Emperour so called and accounted him namely not that hee had in those dayes a supremacie over Iustinian who was then the Emperour â—uthen const 〈◊〉 15. Novel â— 3. For Iustinian himselfe testifieth the cleane contrarie to that conceit Wee commaund saith hee the most holy Archbishops and Patriarkes of Rome of Constantinople of Alexandria of Antioch and of Ierusalem â—vag lib. 4. c. 1 â—iceph libr. â—7 cap. 27. Yea the fifth generall Councell it selfe was also called by the commandement of this Emperor Iustinian So that it clearely appeareth that hee had the supremacie commanding authoritie over them all But in respect of the soundnesse of the faith which the Bishop of Rome held in those times against heresies and errors it was that the Emperour preferred him before the other Bishops accounting himselfe chiefe or head
of Germanie are abused by the Pope whom hee leadeth and handleth like bruite beasts both for spoile and slaughter at his owne pleasure This Poperie saith hee is lively described by S. Peter 2. Pet. 2. where bee saith They despise Rulers or Governours by Rulers signifying secular Princes Now the Popish Cleargie have by their owne authoritie exempted themselves from tributes subiection and all charges of the Common-weale contrarie to the doctrine of Peter and Paul Yea so farre is the Pope from acknowledging the soveraignetie of Princes over him that hee will scarce admitte them to kisse his feete Calvine likewise writeth thus The word of God Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 2. sect 22. saith hee teacheth us to obey all Princes who are established in there thrones be it by what meanes soever Yea though they doe nothing lesse then the office of Kings yet must they bee obeyed and though the King be never so wicked and indeede unworthy the name of a King yet must subiects acknowledge the image of Divine power in his publike authoritie and as touching obedience they must reverence and honour him aswell as if hee were the godlyest King in the world Nebuchadnezzar was a mightie invader and subduer of other Nations yet God saith by his Prophet that he had given those lands and countries unto him Ezech. 29. Dan. 2. Neyther would he have any rebellion or resistance to be offered but contrarywise commaunded obedience to be performed unto him Iere. 27. And therefore we must never suffer these seditious conceites to possesse our mindes as to thinke an evill King must be so dealt withall as hee deserveth but we are directly charged to obey the King though he bee a savage Tyrant and never so bad Beza confess cap. 5. sect 45 Beza also speaketh in like sort Private men amongst whom I account inferiour Magistrates in respect of their King have no other remedie saith hee against Tyrants to whom they are subiect but amendment of their lives prayers and teares which God in his good time will not despise And if it so fall out that wee cannot obey the commandement of the King but that wee must offend God the King of kings Then must wee rather obey God then man Yet so as that wee remember that it is one thing not to obey and another thing Ibidem to resist and to betake ourselves to Armes which wee may not doe Againe hee saith The impudencie of our Adversaries is herein most notorious that they who contrarie to the word of God have openly subiected Kings and kingdomes to their authoritie and be themselves the most rebellious sect under heaven yet dare netwithstanding to obiect the guilt of that crime unto us These being the doctrines and positions of Luther Calvine Beza and other Protestants concerning Kings and kingdomes let the equall Reader Iudge what and how great the wrong is you doe unto them and whether also that is or can possibly be true which you write both in your Answer and againe in your Reioynder namely That Kings and Princes may more confidently build the safetie of their persons Act. 17.7 Ioh. 18.36 Ephes 1.21.22.23 Ephes 4.15.16 Coloss 1.17.18 and estates upon the loyaltie of their Catholicke subiects then upon any Protestant subiects Why more confidently I pray you For is this a good reason which you bring viz. because although Papists give the spirituall supremacie headship and Monarchie over the whole Church upon earth unto the Pope which indeed they should not do in asmuch as it is a Regall right and Prerogative properly belonging unto Christ Iesus yet doe they acknowledge in Kings a supremacie in Temporall matters yea this reason if you did well observe it maketh rather much against you For it sheweth that Papists bee revera neyther so good Christians nor yet so good subiects Colos 2.19 as Protestants bee Not so good Christians because They bold not the head CHRIST IESVS as S. Paul speaketh but have without any warrant or commission from him errected to themselves another head Monarch and Spirituall King namely the Pope of Rome Not so good subjects because they acknowledge not to belong unto Kings an authoritie over persons Ecclesiasticall and in causes also Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and Temporall as Protestants doe For whereas you say that the Protestant Subjects doe take from the King the Temporall supremacie aswell as the Spirituall it is too lewd and loud a slaunder Yea what is there that the Protestants doe more earnestly contend for against the Pope and against his partakers then the Spirituall supremacie or Spirituall kingdome to be given to Christ Iesus And the Civill or Temporall supremacie over persons Ecclesiasticall and in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Temporall to bee given unto Kings and Princes within their Dominions But because you yet further object against the Protestants both rebellious doctrines and rebellious practises and affirme that many instances of this kinde may bee reade in the Booke of dangerous Positions For a cleere and full Answer to all that you have said or rather Papists have or can say in that case I referre you unto that Booke which is called An exact Discoverie of Romish Doctrine in the Case of Conspiracie Rebellion and the Reply to him that calleth himselfe the Moderate Answerer thereof In which Bookes so conjoyned in one Volume you may reade and see at large a cleere justification of Luther Calvine Beza and other Protestants in this point and contrarywise the Papists to bee notoriously guiltie therein And this you may also see further debated and shewed in that Booke which is called The true difference betweene Christian subiection and unchristian Rebellion In the third part whereof be refelled the Iesuites reasons and authorities which they alleadge for the Popes depriving of Princes and the bearing of Armes by Subjects against their Soveraignes and where the tyrannies and injuries of Antichrist seeking to exalt himselfe above Kings and Princes bee further discovered and declared c. These things I would not here thus farre have spoken of had not you provoked me thereunto not only by your first beginning but by your continuance still stiffe-standing in these your needlesse cōparisons calumniations But you proceed come next from p. 50. in my Reply to p. 79. where againe you skippe over fourteene leaves more together in the same booke In that pag. 79. It is true that I said That not onely those kings of England before mentioned namely King William Rufus king Henry the First and King Henry the Second and some others thus contended and opposed themselves against the Pope of Rome But King William the Conqueror also who was before all these made the like Kingly opposition For when Hildebrand otherwise called Pope Gregory the Seventh was bold to demand of this King an Oath of fealtie to bee made to him as if the King were to hold the kingdome of him as of his Soveraigne Lord This King would by
Emperours and Kings doe which persecute the true and Orthodoxe Christians This is not the right using but abusing of the sword and authoritie committed to them So that the power and authoritie is the same to both but the difference is in the use or abuse of that Authoritie All the supremacie power and authoritie graunted from God to any Emperours Kings and Princes within their Dominions ought to be imployed for God and not against him in any sort And according hereunto the true Christian Emperours and Kings use their Civill swords and authorities for God and for advancement of his service truth and religion And although Heathen and Infidell Emperours and Kings doe commonly abuse that sword and authoritie which God hath given them against God and against his service servants and religion Ezra 1.2.3 c. Ezra 6.1.2 3 c. Ezra 7.12.13.14.15.16.17 18. c. Dan. 3.28.29 Dan. 6.24.25.26 Yet if any Heathen Emperour or King doe commaund any thing for God or for his service worship or religion as they may doe and sometimes have done as appeareth by the examples of King Cyrus King Darius King Artaxerxes King Nabuchadnezzar and others therein they are no lesse to bee obeyed then if it had beene commaunded by the godlyest best professed Christian King in the world And this you may see further declared in my first Booke Chap. 1. pag 7. and in my Reply pag. 44. 45. Wherefore it is evident that even Pagan and Heathen Kings have the same supremacie power and authoritie within their Kingdomes and Dominions to commaund for God his service religion which Christian Kings and Princes have although they doe not as they should evermore use extend and imploy that their power and authoritie accordingly for God and his religion and consequently the defect is not in respect of any power or authoritie which they want not but in respect of their understandings wils and affections which being depraved and corrupted and not rectified or sanctified nor converted to Christ and Christianitie doe carrie them awry and the wrong way But you propound unto mee yet further another question which is this What if the King of Slavonia or any other king misled by frailtie ignorance or malice should imploy their powers to force their subjectes from the true Religion and thereby subvert and ruinate not onely their owne soules but the soules of their subjects also Might not the King in this case being as you call him a scabbed sheepe all other meanes fayling of his recoverie be compelled by the Bishop of Rome to imbrace Gods true faith and religion and to permitte the same freedome unto his subjects I answer no. For first what right or authoritie from God hath the Bishop of Rome in this case to compell Kings and Princes more thâ—n other Bishops have Yea neyther the Bishop of Rome nor any other Bishop or Ecclesiasticall Minister hath any such power or authoritie included or comprised within those their Ecclesiasticall callings and Ministeries as by worldly power and externall force of Armes to compell a King to the right religion It is true that the Ministers of Christ may exhort perswade the best they can a King erring in his Religion from his error and may doe what their Ecclesiasticall commission graunted them from Christ will warrant them to doe but no further may they goe for then doe they Fines alienos invadere Rom 13.4 Invade other mens bounds S. Bernard speaketh as kings have the temporall sword to commaund and to compell Bishops Pastors and Ministers Ecclesiasticall have not that but another sword to use namely a spirituall sword or sword of the spirit which is the word of God Ephes 6.17 as S. Paul calleth defineth it And therefore these two swords must bee distinguished and not confounded Yea Christ Iesus himselfe whilst hee was here upon earth would not meddle with worldly or temporall matters For when one spake unto him desiring him to bid his brother to devide the inheritance with him Luke 12.13 14. Math 16.19 hee refused and said Man who made mee to be a Iudge or a devider over you If you object that Christ said to Peter Whatsoever thou bindest on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou loosest on earth shal be loosed in heaven Remember that hee spake also the same thing plurally to all the Apostles giving to them all alike the same authoritie Math. 18.18 saying thus Quicquid ligaveritis c. Whatsoever yee binde on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven You cannot therefore by vertue of those wordes inferre that Peter or his successors had any more authoritie to depose Kings or to compell them in any sort to the right religion or to any thing else then eyther Iames or Iohn or the rest of the Apostles or any of their successors had in the like case For the same authoritie and in the same wordes is as you see graunted aswell to the one as to the other Neyther againe must you forget or omit the former part of those wordes spoken by CHRIST unto Peter which bee these I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Mat. 16.19 For the subsequent wordes spoken to him of binding and loosing have reference thereunto and are therefore to bee expounded not of things earthly or concerning terrestiall matters or worldly kingdomes but of things concerning another world and kingdome namely concerning the kingdome of heaven And so also doth S. Bernard directly declare saying thus to Eugenius Bishop of Rome Ergo in criminibus non in possessionibus Bernard de considerat ad Eugen. lib. 2. potestas vestra Quoniam propter illa non propter has accepistu claves regni coelorum Your power saith hee concerneth sinnes and not matters of possession because for those and not for these yee have received the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Yea that the keyes of the kingdome of heaven were also graunted equally and alike to all the Apostles I have further shewed very fully and plainely in my first Booke pag. 292. 293. 294. c. And that no part of the power of those keyes no not Excommunication it selfe were it never so justly or lawfully awarded is of any force by Gods law and institution to depose Kings or to disanall the duetie allegeance of subjects I have likewise shewed in the same my first Booke pag. 299. 300. 301. By what right or reason then shall or can the Bishop of Rome who is also revera no Minister of Christ at all but the very apparant grand Antichrist as I have proved at large throughout the third part of my first Booke clayme to have any such externall power coactive or compulsive over Kings But moreover this question here propounded by you was sufficently answered and resolved before by S Chrysostome in the case of king Vzziah otherwise called Ozias where hee putteth this difference