and observed wherein and in what respects it was that this excellencie of the one above the other did consist For as it is true that in respect of converting soules and fitting them for Gods kingdome by preaching of Gods word administring of the Sacraments and exercise of the Ecclesiasticall discipline the spirituall function and authoritie is to bee preferred before the Regall or Temporall So no lesse true is it that in respect of the temporall power of the sword externally to commaund compell and to punish offenders in causes both Ecclesiasticall and Civill the Regall and temporall office and authoritie is to bee preferred before the Episcopall or Sacerdotall This distinction because it killeth and striketh dead your cause you cannot endure and therefore doe you in your Reioynder exclayme against it and call it a distinction never heard of before and that it was lately hatched in the Vniversitie of Mollinmighan as you scoffingly speake in the Colledge there of your owne divising and nomination and whereof you are the father and the founder But to let this passe as an idle fiction of a fantasticall braine why will you not acknowledge the truth of this distinction which is so cleare plaine and evident in it selfe The first part of it you neyther doe nor can denie namely that in respect of converting soules Chrys in Mat hom 83. Ad popul antioch homil 60. and fitting them for Gods kingdome by preaching of Gods word administring of the Sacraments and exercise of the Ecclesiasticall discipline the spirituall office and authoritie is to bee preferred before the Regall or Temporall For this is verie apparant even by S. Chrysostome himselfe who speaketh to Ecclesiasticall Ministers on this wise No small vengeance saith hee hangeth over your heads if you doe suffer any hainous offender to be partaker of the Lords Table his bloud shall be required at your hands whether hee be a Captaine Lieutenant or a crowned King forbid him in these cases thy power is greater then his Againe hee saith Si vis videre discrimen quantum absit Rex à Sacerdote expende modum potestatis vtrique traditae Chrysost de verb. Esa vidi Dom. hom 5. If you will see the difference how great it is betweene the King and the Priest weigh the measure of the power or authoritie graunted unto them both And there shewing the power and authoritie which God hath committed to the Priest he saith Eoque Deus ipsum regale caput sacerdotis manibus subiecit and in that respect saith hee hath God subiected the head of the King to the hand of the Priest So that it is onely in respect of their Ministerie power and authoritie graunted them from God not in all respects nor to all intents and purposes that this their excellencie and preheminencie consisteth Yea he further sheweth that their power and offices bee distinct and limitted and that the one may not intrude into the office and bounds of the other For when King Vzziah otherwise called Ozias 2. Chron. 26.16.17 18. entred into the Temple to burne incense which pertayned to the Priests office and not to the King S. Chrysostome reproving and condemning this saith thus unto the King Chrysost de verbis Esaiae vidi Dom. homil 4. Mane intra tuos terminos alij sunt termini Regni alij termini sacerdotis Keepe you within your owne bounds For the limits or bounds of the Regall calling be one and the limits or bounds of the Sacerdotall calling be another And againe hee saith that Res est mala non manere intra fines nobis à Deo praescriptos It is an ill thing not to abide within the limits or bounds prescribed unto us of God Hee againe thus distinguisheth their offices Regi corpora commissa sunt sacerdoti animae Rex maculas corporum remittit Sacerdos autem maculas peccatorum Ille cogit hic exhortatur Ille necessitate hic consilio Ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia Ille bellum gerit cum barbaris mihi belium est adversus Daemones To the King saith he Homil. 5. Idem ibidem hom 4. are bodies committed to the Priest soules the King remitteth the spots of the bodies the Priest the spots of sinnes The King compelleth the Priest exhorteth the one with necessitie or constraint the other with advice or counsaile The King hath sensible weapons the Priest hath spirituall weapons The King maketh warre with the Barbarians and the Priest hath warres against the Divels Againe hee saith Regi ea quae hic sunt commissa sunt mihi caelestia mihi quum dico sacerdotem intelligo To the King are those things committed that bee here To mee are things heavenly committed And when I say to mee I meane saith hee the Priest So that although hee there affirmeth the Sacerdotall power or office to bee more excellent or greater then the Regall yet withall hee sheweth you wherein and in what respects it is namely as I said before in respect of those things which properly belong to the office ministerie and function of a Priest or Bishop of which sort is preaching of Gods word administring of the Sacraments and binding and loosing of sinners by Excommunication or Absolution as the case requireth But hee may not by vertue of that his Ecclesiasticall and Priestly office use any externall civill coactive power or compulsion which you see even by the evident testimonie of the same S. Chrysostome himselfe rightly and properly belongeth to the King and not to the Priest Now then here you may perceive withall the other part of my distinction to be likewise undoubtedly true namely That in respect of the Temporall power of the sword thereby externally to commaund compell and to punish offendors in causes both Ecclesiasticall and Civill the Regall and temporall office and authoritie is to bee preferred before the Episcopall or Sacerdotall For it is cleare that God hath committed this Civill and Temporall sword onely to Kings and Princes and such like terrestriall Potentates and not to Bishops or Priests For so also doth S. Paul himselfe directly shew And who is there but hee knoweth that it properly appertayneth to the power office of this civill and temporall sword to commaund compell and to punish offendors civilly and in a temporall manner For the same Apostle saith of everie of these higher powers that beare this temporall Sword that hee beareth it not in vaine Yea hee saith that hee is the Minister of God a revenger unto wrath to him that doth evill Here is no exception of any person or of any cause but hee that offendeth or doth evill bee hee a lay-man or a cleargie-man or be he an offendor in a cause Civill or cause Ecclesiasticall hee appeareth to bee subject to this sword and authoritie of these higher powers For seeing the expresse wordes of the Text be Bernard ad Senonen Arobiepisc epist 42. Chrysost in Rom. hom 23 Let everie soule be subiect to the higher
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
where the purpose of the holy Ghost was to shew what Offices he bare during all his life time and what maner of man he was amongst the Israelites so long as he had been amongst them vntill that time that he was to die and to take his last farewell of them Deut. 33.5 Deut. 34.10 for there it onely appeareth that he was a King and a Prophet but not a Priest Had he bene also a Priest no doubt it would not haue bene there omitted but specified likewise aswell as his other two Offices Yea reade throughout the whole Bible the historie concerning Moses you will still finde that he was a supreame civill Magistrate a supreme Commaunder Exod. 18.13 14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26 and supreame Iudge in Israell For it is saide that When Moses sate to iudge the people the People stood about Moses from morning vnto even And when Iethro Moses Father in Law saw all that he did to the People he said what is this thou doest to the People Why sittest thou thy selfe alone and all the People stand about thee from morning vnto even And because this was too toylsome troublesome a businesse for him alone to doe he advised him to appoint some others to help him to beare the Burthen with him in hearing judging of causes Wherupon Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the People Rulers over thousands Rulers over hundreths Rulers over fifties and Rulers over tens And these iudged the people at all seasons the hard Causes they brought to Moses but every small matter they iudged themselves When againe Moses heard the murmuring and saw the weeping of the People of Israel throughout their families he was much grieved and speake thus to the Lord Numb 11.10.11.12.13.14.15 c. Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant and why have not I found favor in thy sight seeing thou hast put the charge of all this People vpon me c. By all which you see that Moses was as a King Prince or supreame commaunder over all Israel and consequently as a King commaunded Aaron and the rest of the Priests aswell as he commaunded the Levites or any of the rest of the People Moreover if Moses had bene the high Priest Exod. 24.5 he might haue offered Sacrifice himselfe and needed not to haue sent others as he did to sacrifice neither needed he to haue commaunded Numb 16.46.47 or required Aaron to burne incense as he did to make an Attonement for the People for himselfe might haue done it But whatsoever Bellarmine or other Papists hould in this case you for your part doe not hould them to be both high Priests together at one and the selfe same time but in succession one after another accounting Moses to be the high Priest first and then Aaron Heb◠5 4. afterwards Howbeit the Scripture saith that No man taketh this honor to himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron If then Moses were called of God to this honor of high Priesthood let the like warrant be shewed from God for the Authorizing of him therevnto that is to be shewed for Aaron But this you cannot shew Besides if Moses were the high Priest first and Aaron afterward why doth that Epistle to the Hebrews mention for the Patterne or President in that Case not Moses but Aaron For if Moses had bene the first high Priest no doubt he would haue said That no man taketh this honor vnto himselfe but he that is called of God as was Moses But he saith not so but he speaketh in this sort viz No man taketh this honor to himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron As if Revera not Moses at all but Aaron onelie were the first high Priest And so indeede S. Chrisostome directly affirmeth Chrysost de verbis Isaiae vidi Dominū homil 5. for speaking of Aaron he saith expressely that Is primus fuit Pontifex He was the first high Priest Againe if Moses were the high Priest so constituted of God how came he afterward to loose that honor or to be deprived of it and another namely Aaron to be put in his Place in his life time he committing no fault nor any fault declared to be in him for which he should be deprived of that his Priesthood But lastly what cause or neede is there to suppose Moses to be as you fancy him an high Priest extraordinarily elected and appointed when there was to be seene at the same time an High Priest after the ordinary maner in Esse and allowed of God namely the same Aaron For in my Reply pag. 22. 23. I haue proved that the Priesthood before the law given did ordinarily belong to the first borne and of these two Brothers Moses and Aaron I haue also there proved that not Moses but Aaron was the Elder and consequently that by right of Primogeniture Aaron was the Priest and not Moses Yea I haue there further proved that the Priesthood thus being in Aaron was so farre from being removed or taken from him that contrariwise it was continued in him and afterward confirmed vnto him by God himselfe and to his seede after him But yet you would prove Moses to be a Priest Exod. 40.12 13.14.12 because he did consecrate and annoynte Aaron and his sonnes to the Priesthood But to this I have answered before in my Reply pag. 25. 26. shewing that this proveth not Moses to be a Priest properly so called for he did this by Gods owne speciall commandement which he might not disobey or refuse but stood bound to obey and performe although he were a Civill Magistrate King Prince Prophet or what office calling soever hee had You cite also Deut 18.18 where God saith thus to Moses I will raise them up a Prophet amongst their brethren like unto thee c. This prooveth that Moses was a Prophet and that Christ of whom these wordes are a Prophecie was likewise a Prophet Act. 3.21 Act. 7.37 but they prove not Moses therefore to be a Priest because he was a Prophet But the chiefe text you rely upon is that in Psal 99. vers 6. where it is said Moses and Aaron amongst the Priests Samuel amongst them that call upon his name these called upon the Lord and he heard them Howbeit to this also I have answered before in my Reply pag. 23.24 First that the being of Moses Aaron with or among the Priests is no proofe that therefore they were Priests It is true that Aaron was a Priest but that is proved by other cleere places of Scripture and not necessarily deduced out of this because a man may be among Priests yet be no Priest Secondly I shewed that the Hebrew word there used is Cohanim which is a word of an ambiguous signification signifying aswell Princes as Priests 2. Sam. 8.18 As for example The sonnes of King David are said to bee
Lord And yet Manoah was of the tribe of Dan. Of David that was no Priest the Scripture saith Then David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord. And againe David built there an Altar unto the Lord and offered burnt offerings 1. Sam. 10. and peace-offerings and the Lord was appeased towards the Land And likewise of Salomon The King went to Gibeon to sacrifice there 1. King 3. a thousand burnt offerings did Salomon offer upon the Altar Thrise a yeare did Salomon offer burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the Altar 1. King 9. which he built to the Lord and he burnt incense upon the Altar that was before the Lord. Nothing is oftner in the Scriptures then these kinde of speeches By the which no more is meant but that either they brought these things to be offered or else they caused the Priests to offer them For in their owne Persones they could not sacrifice them because they were no Priests In that sence the Scripture saith of Saul That he offered burnt offerings at Gilgal before Samuel came not that Saul offered it with his owne hands 1. Sam. 13. as you before did fondly imagine and said Hee was deposed for aspiring to the spirituall function 1. Sam. 14. v. 3.18 But he commaunded the Priest to doe it who was then present in the host with the Arke of God as the next chapter doth witnesse in two speciall Places And as for the reproofe that Samuel gave to King Saul it was saith he for distrusting and disobeying God For when God first advanced Saul to the Kingdome he charged him by the Mouth of Samuel to goe to Gilgal and there to stay seaven Dayes 1. Sam. 10. before he ventured to doe any Sacrifice till the Prophet were sent to shew him what he should doe 1 Sam 13. But seeing his enemies gathered to fight against him on the one side and his people â—hâ—inking from him on the other side because Samuel came not he began to suspect that Samuel had beguiled him and therefore upon his owne head against the commandement of God willed the Priest to goe foreward with his Sacrifices and to consult God what he should doe This secret distruct and presumption against the charge which God had given him was the thing that God tooke in so evill part And since he would not submitte himselfe to be ruled by God and expect his leasure God reiected him as unfitte to governe the People Neither did Samuel challenge him for invading the Priests Office but for not staying the time that God prefixed him before the Prophet should come So farre he whom I thus recite the more at large for your better satisfaction in this Point But yet moreover that worthy In his Booke of iurisdiction Regall Episcopall Papall pag. 31. 32. 33. c. learned and reverend Bishop also D. Carleton amongst other arguments which he bringeth to prove Moses to be a Ciuill Magistrate and a Prince but not a Priest alledgeth that Text of Exodus 4.16 where Moses is said to be as a God to Aaron and Aaron as a Mouth to Moses The word there used is Elohim and the same that is also used in Psal 82. and is never applyed throughout the whole Scriptures when it is given to men but to such as were Kings Princes Iudges and other Civil Magistrate and at no time to Priests vnles they were themselves the chiefe Magistrates or received Authority from the Chiefe Magistrate Give you an instance in the holy Scripture to the Contrary if you can or else confesse the truth of it And here you may also observe one reason among the rest which Christ himselfe giveth why they be called Gods in that Psalm 82. Psal 82.6 For in that Psalme it is that these words are written I have said ye are Gods which be the words that Christ citeth in the Gospell of S. Iohn Ioh. 10.34.35 and saith thereupon thus If hee called them Gods unto whom the word of God was given c. So that this appeareth to be one reason why Kings Princes and Civill Magistrates Deut. 17.18 19 Iosh 1.8 2 King 11.12 be called Gods namely because they have the word of God given or committed to them although not to preach it as Bishops Pastors and Doctors doe yet by way of speciall commission to keepe it to establish it by Authority to commaund obedience to it to punish the Violaters of it and to encourage countenance protect and defend the Professors and Practisers of it For it is certaine that all that Psalme whence Christ tooke those words is wholy and entirely understood of Kings Princes and such like Civill Magistrates not of Priests Bishops or other Ecclesiasticall Ministers as any man may perceave that will reade that Psalme Seeing then this word Elohim is given to Moses and that comparatively and in respect of Aaron the Priest it must be graunted that Moses was a Civil Magistrate and as a King or Prince in respect of him and others But neither Priest nor high Priest as you surmise And as for that Text before mentioned of Psalm 99. vers 6. how much soever you and others stand vpon it yet give me leave here once more to tell you that being well considered you may in your owne iudgment easily perceave that you can enforce nothing thereout to prove Moses to be a Priest properly so called although Aaron was for the purpose and intention of those words is no more but this to shew that not onely Moses a Civill Magistrate but Aaron also a Chiefe Priest amongst the other Priests and Samuel likewise a Prophet amongst others that called upon the name of the Lord were all heard of him when they prayed Now because all those when they prayed called vpon the name of the Lord were heard and obtained their requests is that any argument that therefore they were all Priests properly so called No man I thinke will be so absurd as to make such an inference 9. I therefore now come to Ioshuah the Successor of Moses he aswell as Moses did as a Prince or King commaund the Priests Levites and all Israell and dealt in matters also Ecclesiasticall aswell as Temporall as I have shewed in my Reply pag. 6. hereunto you in your Reioynder answere nothing that is of any weight or moment Your best answer is That what Iosuah did in matters Ecclesiasticall he did it by the direction and advise of Eleasar the Priest which if it be graunted maketh nothing to the Question For the Question is not by whose direction or advise but by whose Authority those things were done It is not denyed but that Priests might as was fitte they should give their best direction and advise vnto their Kings and Princes But this derogateth nothing from that Authority which Kings and Princes have and beare within their owne dominions Yea how impertinent weake and feeble this your answere is you might have perceived
had the supremacie because hee as you say deposed King Benhadad and put Hazael in his place Howbeit you are therin much deceived For it is not reade in like sort that Elias deposed the one King and put the other in his place Dan. 4.12.22.17.25 Luke 2.52 Dan. 2.37 The power to depose Kings belongeth onely unto God who giveth kingdomes to whomsoever hee pleaseth But what the Prophet Elias did concerning Hazael to bee king over Syria and concerning Iehu also to bee King over Israel hee had a speciall and direct commaundement for it from God himselfe For the Lord said thus unto Elias Goe returne on thy way 1. King 19.15 to the wildernesse of Damascus and when thou commest annoynt Hazael to bee King over Syria And Iehu the sonne of Nimshi shalt thou annoynt to be King over Israel So that it was God and not Elias that put downe the one King and raysed up the other As for Elias and Elisha 2. King 9.1.2.3 c. and other Prophets they were but the publishers and declarers of Gods will and pleasure in all such cases and not the deposers of any Kings Touching that you say of Queene Athalia there was good reason for her to bee deposed For shee was a meere usurper and Ioas was the true and rightfull heyre For Behold saith the Text the Kings sonne must raigne 2. Chr. 23.3 as the Lord hath said of the sonnes of David Neyther was it Iehoida the Priest alone but the rest of the rulers and people also that according to their duties both to God and the King by an unanimous consent deposed that wicked usurper Athalia and put Ioas in the kingdome to whom the right of it appertayned For the words of the Text are 2. Chron. 23.11 Then they brought out the Kings sonne and put upon him the Crowne and gave him the testimonie and made him King and Iehoida and his sonnes annoynted him and said God save the King And concerning King Vzziah otherwise called Ozias whom you also mention it is true that he went into the Temple of the Lord to burne Incense upon th' Altar of incēse that Azariah the Priest went in after him with him fourescore Priests of the Lord which withstood Eziah said unto him It pertayneth not to thee Vziah 2. Chron. 26.16.17.18.19.20 to burne Incense unto the Lord but to the Priests the sons of Aaron that are consecrated to offer incense Goe thou forth of the sanctuarie for thou hast transgressed c. And for this his presuming to burne incense he was stricken with a leprosie which when Azariah the chiefe Priest and the other Priests saw and beheld they caused him hastily to depart from thence and hee was even compelled to goe out because the Lord had smitten him So that hee was not compelled to goe out of the Temple by reason of any force weapons or violence offered to his person by Azariah or any other of the Priests but because the Lord had smitten him viz. with a leaprosie And therefore even your owne translation which you call S. Hieromes hath it thus Sed ipse perterritus acceleravit egredi eo qued sensisset illico plagam Domini That hee made hast himselfe to goe out as being terrified with the present sence of the Lords blow upon him It is true that Azarias the Priest and the other Priests with him withstood the King But how by words onely as namely by telling him of his sinne advising him to goe out of the Temple and using divine threats and such other lawfull and allowable courses as became Priests to use but not by swords and weapons force of armes or such like externall power coactive And thus doth S. Chrysostome also himselfe testifie even in this verie case and therefore bringeth in the Priest saying thus unto God Chrysost de verbis Esaiae vidi Dominū homil 4. I have done saith hee my dutie to warne and reprove him I can goe no further Nam sacerdotis est tantùm arguere c. For it is the Priests office onely to reprove and freely to admonish and not saith he to assaile with armes not to use targets not to handle speares not to bend bowes not to cast darts but onely to reprove and freely to admonish c. But if it had beene so that Azariah and the rest of the Priests with him had forcibly and by bodily and externall violence expelled and thrust the King out of the Temple which neverthelesse you see S. Chrysostome expressely denieth to have beene done yet were this no proofe that therefore they expelled deposed or deprived him of his kingdome Yea this king Vziah otherwise called Ozias notwithstanding whatsoever these Priests did against him and notwithstanding his leaprosie wherewith hee was stricken was neverthelesse not deposed nor deprived of his kingdome For although he was a leaper unto the day of his death and dwelt as a leaper in an house apart from others according to the law yet during the time of that his leaprosie 2. Chron. 26.21.23 did hee continue King of Iudah and all that while was Iotham his son over all the kings house and iudged the people of the land as a regent or curator like a Lord Protector or Lieutenant to his father Neyther is it said that Iotham his sonne raigned in his stead or governed as a king in his owne right untill after the death of that his Father Ioseph antiq lib. 9. cap. 11 2. Chron. 26 1.3 And this appeareth to bee evidently true by computation of time for Vzziah lived but sixtie eight yeares in all as Iosephus witnesseth and hee was sixteene yeares olde when hee began to raigne and hee raigned fiftie two yeares as the Scripture it selfe testifieth So that from the time hee began to be a King hee continued a King unto his dying day But what meane you by all this For if hereby you would proove it lawfull for the Bishop of Rome to depose Kings you see that the former precedents and examples of those Prophets and Priests which you produce doe warrant no such matter admitting that the Bishop of Rome were the chiefe or high Priest in the Christian Church which hee is not as I have now and often said and shewed before Yea they rather declare the cleane contrarie to that detestable Romish and rebellious position But if I will needes still urge that Salomon as a King did depose Abiathar the high Priest and put Zadocke in his place It may bee answered say you that this act of Solomons was error facti and consequently not warrantable de Iure It seemeth by this your manner of answering that you care not much what you answer so that you make any answer at all bee it never so grosse absurde or unsound For first this your distinction of de facto and de Iure in this and the like cases I have refelled and confuted before in my Reply pag. 13. pag. 86.
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