distinctly set in two persons Moses keeping the ciuill gouernment and Aaron the Priesthood The gouernment of Moses and his successours being more ciuil The Priesthood of Aaron his successors ceremoniall it followeth that this ancient ordinance of the law of nature was altered by such positiue lawes of God which were either ciuil or ceremoniall and consequently that this alteration taketh not away the auncient right 6. If I might therefore in a matter of this nature declare my poore opinion leauing the censure hereof to the learned that are able to iudge I take it that as it is not simply vnlawfull that a King may be a Priest and neuerthelesse keepe his kingdome so I suppose this thing cannot be done without not only a lawfull but also an ordinarie calling from God and from the Church For no man taketh this honour to himselfe but he that was called thereto as was Aaron And this cannot bee done without an ordinary calling for when Kings were Priests and the first borne sacrificers as in the law of nature then they had an ordinary calling therto for that was then the ordinance of God ordinarie in the Church which now is not But if a man were first ◅ Priest and afterward aduanced to a kingdome by some Temporal right in this case it were assuredly vnlawfull for him to shake off his holy estate and betake himselfe wholly and only to his Temporall gouerment as some Cardinals haue done Then by the law of nature the King had both the power of order and Iurisdiction and howsoeuer this is altered by a positiue ordinance of God yet all is not taken away there remaineth still that part of Iurisdiction so farre as it standeth in power coactiue in respect wherof the common law of this land saith the King is persona mixta because he hath both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall Iurisdiction 7. This example of Melchisedeck both King and Priest hath much lifted vp the Pope and his flatterers for of this they take especiall hold and thinke hereby to prooue the Pope to be King of the Church because Melchisedeck was both King and Priest But to this we aunswere Melchisedeck had both these honours by a lawfull and ordinarie calling but so hath not the Pope for his Priesthood we graunt he had once thereto a lawfull calling both by locall and doctrinall succession which doctrinall succession Irenaeus calleth successionem principalem Tertullian doctrinae cōsanguinitatē cum Apostolica Ecclesia but now haue they forsaken that principall succession and haue nothing left to glory in but bare personall and locall succession Then to the office of a Bishop the Pope may shew some colour though the colour be now worne thredbare but to the princely office which he claimeth ouer the Church he can shew neither calling nor colour so that the example of Melchisedek which the Popes parasites drawe with such violence to him doth helpe him nothing but rather helpeth the cause of Christian Kings against him for it is certaine that Kings were Priests by an ordinary calling before these two offices were distinguished but it can neuer be prooued that Priests were Kings by such an ordinary calling after that these two offices were set in distinct persons If any man suppose that we haue stretched the example of Melchisedeck too farre because he was a type of Christ I aunswere this is nothing against my purpose that Melchisedeck was a type of Christ. For many men in their ordinary standing and executing ordinary functions did also beare some type extraordinarie thus did Moses Ioshua Dauid Solomon and others I speake of Melchisedeck as I finde him in his ordinary place a King and a Priest 8. By all which we conclude that vnder the law of Nature Kings were in the beginning inuested with all power Ecclesiasticall both of orders and Iurisdiction and therefore these things are not incompatible by nature All this time which lasted about the space of two thousand and fiue hundred yeeres Kings had Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction without question And therefore this Iurisdiction of Princes which we haue vndertaken to examine is found aunswerable to the first gouernment of the world vntill the time of the law giuen by Moses CHAP. III. All externall Iurisdiction coactiue was a right belonging to Kings vnder the Law NOw let vs search what Iurisdiction in matters Ecclesiasticall was found due and acknowledged to belong to the Kings right all that time vnder the Law Then we find by an especiall commaundement of God these two offices of King and Priest were distinguished and set in two seuerall persons the one in Moses the other in Aaron And the tribe of Leui was taken to the seruice of God in stead of the first borne by an expresse commaundement and the first borne which in number exceeded the number of the Louites were redeemed by fiue shekels a man for the number of the first borne was taken 22273. the number of the Leuites 22000. so that the number of the first borne exceeded the number of the Leuites by 273. These were redeemed and after that redemption the first borne of other tribes were discharged from the attendance of the seruice of God the Leuites tooke vp their place Now the Kings office and the Priests being thus distinguished we must consider what things did properly belong to each office 2. First we find that Moses who had the place of a King in gouernement as he is also called a King doth consecrate Aaron the Priest Moses is commaunded to consecrate him and his son s Exod. 28. and performeth it Leuit. 8. therefore it is repeated Num. 3. These are the names of the sonnes of Aaron the anointed Priests whom Moses did consecrate to minister in the Priests office Heere then appeareth some Iurisdiction of Moses ouer Aaron But this I meane not to vrge for it may bee thought extraordinailry to belong to Moses as Gods Apostle or Ambassadour and lawgiuer vnto Israel for in such great chaunges as was from the law of Nature to the written law somewhat must bee admitted extraordinary and this I could be well content to vnderstand so though many doubts arise for the princes right against the Priests For first it may be obiected seeing there was a Prince and a Priest set vp distinct one from the other why should the Prince consecrate the Priest and not the Priest the Prince But here we finde that Aaron doth not consecrate Moses to be Prince but Moses doth consecrate Aaron to be Priest Another doubt may be moued why Moses should consecrate not onely Aaron but his sonnes also For though we should admit the consecration of Aaron to be done by Moses of necessitie as a thing extraordinary at the first beginning of this Priesthood yet this necessitie appeareth not so much in Aarons sonnes for they might haue beene consecrated by Aaron after that himselfe had bene once consecrated by Moses And yet we find that the
consecration of Aaron and his sonnes is done altogether by Moses These things though they make faire shew for the Princes Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall ouer Priests yet wee purpose not to stand vpon them 3. But when the Priest was once consecrated and ordained and all things fully perfected concerning his function and two seuerall and distinct functions set vp then will appeare without faile in Moses his successors the right of Princes in Aaron his successors the right of Priests After all things thus perfected we finde that all the lawes which in truth proceeded originally from God were established by the authoritie of Moses and this we finde true not onely in Iudiciall and Ciuill Lawes which were to rule that state but euen in ceremoniall and Morall Lawes which were to rule the Church There is not so much as one ceremoniall law established by the authoritie of Aaron but in all the name and authoritie of Moses is expressed only we finde concerning Aaron that if any doubt in the lawes ceremoniall did arise for the interpretation of those lawes and of such doubts the high Priest must sit as iudge For the people are charged in matters that are hard to consult with the Priest and ciuill iudge Deut. 17. 8. c. Which the learned interpreters vnderstand thus that if the cause be mixt partly Ciuill partly Ceremoniall or doubâ—…full that then both the Ciuill Magistrate and the Priest must iointly determine it but if the people haue distinct causes some Ciuill other Ceremoniall the Ciuill Magistrate must iudge the causes Ciuill and the Priest must iudge the causes Ceremoniall from the consideration of which place we may drawe certaine inferences 4. First all Lawes euen Ceremoniall that is Lawes whereunto Spirituall or Canon Lawes are answerable are established by the authoritie of the Ciuill Magistrate This taketh away all authoritie of the Popes Canon law in all Christian kingdomes where it is not established by the authoritie of Kings in their kingdomes For it is against all reaâ—…on and rules whether we looke vpon the light of nature or vpon the Scriptures or the lawfull practife of authoritie since the Scriptures were written that any Lawes should be imposed vpon a Prince against or without his consent as the Popes haue indeuoured to impose the Canon Lawes vpon Princes And this appeareth in the practise of Christian Magistrates so long as lawfull authoritie stood up without confusion in the world But heere we consider the fountaine of that practise which was from Gods Law wherein we see all Lawes confirmed and established by the authoritie of the Ciuill Magistrate And if it could bee prooued that in some Lawes Ceremoniall the authoritie of Aaron was requisite yet this helpeth them nothing that plead for the Popes Canons For these men would impose these Canons vpon Princes without their consent but in all these Lawes of Moses wherein is a perfect patterne for all law-makers they cannot shew one Law though neuer so nearely concerning the Church which is established without the authoritie of Moses the Ciuill Magistrate If they obiect these things were all done by an especiall commaundement of God I aunswere this doth more establish the authoritie of Princes and confirme our purpose for let them aunswere why God would haue all these things established by the Ciuill Magistrate and not by the Priest This then maketh a greater and clearer confirmation of the Princes right Then the Church may interpret Scripture determine controuersies of faith but cannot establish a Law the reason is because for the establishing of Lawes coactiue power is requisite which is in the Ciuil Magistrate not in the Church And therefore the Canon Lawes can haue no force of lawes but as they are receiued and established by Princes in their seuerall kingdomes For neither can the law haue the force of a law without coactiue power neither hath the Pope any coactiue power in the kingdomes of other Princes but onely in such places where himselfe is a Temporall Prince 5. Secondly we obserue that the high Priest is appointed by God a iudge for interpretation of those lawes that concerne the Church in questions of conscience in causes mixt or doubtfull This might moderate the humours of some who in loue to innouation would leaue no place of iudicature to Ecclesiasticall persons for these things are insert into Moses lawe taken from the law of Nature and not as things Ceremoniall which thing is apparant from the end vse and necessitie thereof for the things which had a necessary vse before the written law and must haue a necessary vse after the abrogation of that law must be acknowledged to be taken from a perpetuall law because there must be a perpetuall rule for a perpetuall necessity This then being perpetuall and necessary matters of question and of Ecclesiasticall audience still arising the hearing and iudging of such things belong to such as are most skilfull in those affaires And hence is the iudicature of fuch things assigned to the Priest which right of Ecclesiasticall iudgements and courts standeth no lesse now due to them in the time of grace then it was under the law because this office in iugdeing hearing and determining is not heere giuen to Priests as a thing Ceremoniall but as I haue declared deriued from the law of Nature as a perpetuall seruice for a perpetuall vse 6. Thirdly we consider that the lawes Ecclesiastical are established by the authoritie of the Ciuill Magistrate but for interpretation of them the Priest is appointed to iudge Hence riseth the ground of Iurisdiction both Temporall and Spirituall wee consider Iurisdiction here as our question importeth authority coactiue in externall iudicature in the execution of lawes The fountaine of this authoritie is in him principally by whose authoritie the law is established and without whose authoritie it is not The execution of this authoritie is in them that are appointed iudges And heerein there is no difference betweene Temporall and Ecclesiasticall authoritie I speake not nowe of Spirituall gouernment by the lawes of God executed within the court of Conscience but of Ecclesiasticall gouernment in the execution of lawes Ecclesiasticall wherin there is vse of coactiue power These two things being in themselues and in nature so distinct if this one distinction might be remembred it is ynough to aunswere all the confused collections of that Catholike Diuine who wrote of late against the fift part of Reports of the Lord Cooke For all that hee writeth there resting vpon no other ground then vpon the confounding of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power is answered in one word by this one poore distinction betweene these two powers Now the distinction is apparant because in Spirituall gouernment there is no coactiue power but in Ecclesiasticall iudicature there is coactiue power which maketh an euident and famous difference in Iurisdiction because this is most certaine that all that Iurisdiction wherin coactiue power is vsed is from the Ciuill Magistrate Then if these two
tents for as then the Church was in tents Sem hauing the birthright confirmed by his fathers blessing as Iacob had by the blessing of Isaack afterward hath consequently all those priuiledges confirmed to him which followe the birthright The priuiledges which in the time of the law of nature followed the birthright were these The gouernement or principalitie the Priesthood and a portion answerable to maintaine both these dignities the two former were principall prerogatiues the third followed as an adherent to them a double portion answerable to a double dignitie The princedome and double portion are generally acknowledged to belong to the birthright but the priesthood is not so much manifested and would therefore somewhat more be opened I will here briefly collect the reasons which proue the priesthood to belong to the birthright as wel as the princedome and double portion 2. First from reason it is deduced thus It cannot by reason be imagined but that God hauing a purpose to call a Church out of this world did set vp the gouernment and meanes wherby the Church might be instituted in the true knowledge and wor◅hip of God therefore this gouernment and those meanes were set vp in the law of nature in those principalities which then stood The fir◅t principalitie that was set vp to rule many families was a kingdome as the first simply was in the gouernment of a family for before there could be a common-wealth there must be a citie or the collection of many families into the lawfull right of one societie and before there could be a citie there must bee particular houses and families so that the first gouernment that was in the world among men was the gouernment of a family now in the gouerment of a family it is absurd to thinke and impossible to prooue that the power of gouernment was in the multitude This I obserue the rather because some of the Popes flatterers of late as others also to open a wide gappe to rebellions haue written that the power of gouernment by the law of nature is in the multitude but euery man of reason carrieth thus much light and vnderstanding about him as to iudge of this thing without errour Because no man can conceiue in the first beginning any other gouernment of a family then by one whom God and nature made Patrem familias the father of the familie Now come from the gouerment of one familie to the gouernment of diuers when many families were gathered together the first gouernment that was erected among them was that with which they were first and best acquainted for as in families so in the collection of diuerse families one was in gouerment as the father of the family was in his famiile And what is a King by nature but the father of a great family and what is the father of a familie by nature but a little King and therefore the first gouernement of states by the lawe of nature was by Kings These principalities were first erected for the good of Gods Church to minister as nourcing fathers to the Church Thus were Kings erected not onely by their authoritie to see that Gods seruice were established but by the law of nature to performe that seruice in their owne persons And therefore as Adam had this care first so it is testified of Seth to whom the birthright pertained after Cain was reiected that in his time men began to call vpon the name of the Lord which declareth that he established the true worship of God in his dayes 3. Another reason may be drawen from this blessing which Noah gaue to Sem blessed be the Lord God of Sem and let Canaan bee his seruant God perswade Iaphet that hee may dwell in the tents of Sem and let Canaan be his seruant In which words three priuiledges of Sem are manifested First that God is called the Lord God of Sem Secondly that Canaan shal be his seruant Thirdly that Iaphet shall repaire to his tents The first and last are confirmations of the priesthood the second a proofe of the primogeniture then the priesthood is annexed to the birthright Another reason is from the example of Melchisedeck who was both King and Priest In which example we consider that by the law of nature before there was a positiue law to distinguish and separate these offices both did naturally concurre in one person for in this we vnderstand the ordinary course held in the law of nature If wicked Kings neglected this godly order it was because they were wicked and had shaked off the feare of God and as much as in them was extinguished the light of nature Another reason may be drawen from the testimony of Moses who witnesseth that the Lord tooke the Leuites to minister in place of the first borne I haue taken the Leuites from among the children of Israel And the Leuits shall be mine because all the first borne are mine Vpon which wordes Lyra reporting the receiued iudgements of the best interpretors saith Ante legē datam ad primogenitos pertinebat offerre sacrificia and a little after Leuitae successerunt loco eorum and againe to the same purpose Cultus diuinus ante legem datam pertinebat ad primogenitos Israel and againe Sacerdotium suit annexum primogeniturae vsque a◅ legem datam per Mosen 4. By all which thus much appeareth that by the law of nature the first borne stood in the ministerie seruice of God to preach the knowledge of God to others and to execute his ordinances and sacrifices And as the first borne in families were thus to instruct and informe the whole familie so the first borne in a nationall principalitie or kingdome were bound not onely to cominaund as ciuill magistrates but to execute the holy ordinances of God as the chiefe Priests of that nation as is euident by these reasons and by the example of Melchisedeck The same light may appeare though much darkened in the ancient gouernment of the heathen for euen heathen Kings are witnessed in old times to haue bene Priests of such gods as they serued which auncient combining of these two offices in one person came from the ancient practise in the time of the lawe of nature and from the light of nature which was receiued among the heathen 5. But here a question may be moued If Kings by the law of nature were Priests and the lawe of nature stand alwayes in force not abrogated why then are not Kings now Priests For aunswere first we say that it was altered by a positiue lawe of God as hereafter we shall declare and therefore the same authoritie that instituted this thing hath also altered it But it may be replied that the positiue law of God which hath altered this thing was partly ceremoniall partly iudiciall for these two dignities of the princedome and priesthood which vnder the law of nature were combined in one person were diuided vnder the law of Moses and
to command for otherwise the Kings command is but as the word of a priuat man or of a child if he haue not power to iudge and punish 14. Moreouer whereas Iehosaphat commandeth the Priests and Leuites to iudge betweene blood and blood Law and precepts statutes and iudgements In things that concerned questions of blood as when blood was shed by casualtie in which case the party offending had remedy by sanctuary and the high Priest was the immediat iudge as also in matters concerning lawes precepts â—…tutes iudgements that is ordinances ceremoniall or morall In these things stood the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which then was practised in the Church for to take that distinction which we must often remember in this question it is confessed that all Ecclesiasticall power is either of order or Iurisdiction In both which the King hath a part bâ—…t differently In the power of orders the Kings part and office was to see that things of that nature were orderly done and the breach thereof punished but himselfe was not to execute any thing whereunto the Priests were apointed by the power of their orders as to offer incense c. Wherefore Vzziah was smitten with leprosie for medling with that part of the Priests office Now Iurisdiction is diuided into power internall which as often wee haue said belongeth not to the King and power externall which power externall when it is coactiue is nothing but that which wee call the Kings Iurisdiction though it be in matters Ecclesiastical And this Iurisdiction is here testified to be in Iehosaphat and from him deriued to all to all iudges vnder him both Temporall and Ecclesiasticall For as he commaunded the Temporall iudges so in like sort he commaunded the Ecclesiasticall And as the Ecclesiasticall iudges might replie if they had bene such as now these are of the Romane Clergie that Ecclesiasticall iudgements were holy and the cause of God and not of the King so doth the King witnesse of Temporall iudgements for speaking to Temporall iudges he saith you execute not the iudgements of man but of the Lord. Then Temporall iudgements are the Lords cause aswell as Ecclesiasticall and herein they differ not 15. Now this Iurisdiction which is in coactiue power wee prooue to be in the King and onely in the King I speake according to the forme of the state of Israel in those dayes wherof we now speake aunswerable to which is the Soueraigne magistrate in any other state This right I say we prooue to bee onely in the King and from him deriued to other iudges both Temporall and Spirituall by these reasons first the King and onely the King commaundeth both iudges to doe their duties in their seuerall places and hath lawfull power to punish them if they doe otherwise therfore the Kings Iurisdiction coactiue is ouer both sorts alike The antecedent hath two parts the first drawen from the expresse words of the Scripture in this text the second followeth by a necessitie For the commaund of a King is ridiculous and no commaund vnlesse he haue authoritie to punish The consequence followeth by the very definition of Iurisdiction which will prooue the second part of the antecedent For this Iurisdiction for which we plead is defined by the most learned of the Church of Rome authority coactiue If it be authoritie it may command if coactiue it may punish then it followeth that where Iehosaphat had first authoritie to commaund and last to punish that questionlesse hee had this Soueraigne Iurisdiction 16. If against this any obiect that the King may command in matters of orders of preaching the Word administring the Sacraments c. In all these things the King may lawfully command the parties to doe their duties and may punish them if they doe otherwise and yet no man will put the Kings Iurisdiction in these matters of orders Preaching Sacraments c. For aunswere let me intreat the reader with attention to consider these three things First to commaund secondly to execute thirdly to punish Iurisdiction standeth wholly in the first and last and nothing at all in the second that is in authoritie and not in action So that though the King should execute a thing which belongeth to his office yet in the execution therof his Iurisdiction should not appeare howsoeuer his wisedome knowledge and actiue vertues might appeare therein for Iurisdiction is in the authoritie of commaunding and power of punishing and supereminence that riseth from both And therefore in the preaching of the Word administration of Sacraments the King hath no part because therein Iurisdiction standeth not these things being matters of execution not of commaund but the authoritie to commaund these things by making or vrging lawes for them and to punish the transgression by corporall punishments this because it includeth coactiue power is in the Soueraigne Magistrate onely If the Magistrate should either neglect his dutie as the heathen did or commaund false doctrines to be preached as the Arian Emperours did in this case the Church hath warrant to maintaine the truth but without tumults and rebellion and rather in patience to loose their liues then to forgo any part of the truth 17. Another reason to prooue this Soueraigne authoritie coactiue to be only in the King and from him respectiuely deriued to both sorts of iudges may thus bee drawen For the iudges Temporall there is not so much question made all the doubt is of iudges Ecclesiasticall the chiefe of which iudges Ecclesiasticall in the Church of Israel was the high Priest Then this Iurisdiction whereof we speake must be confessed to haue been principally and originally either in the king or in the high Priest but in the high Priest it was not Therefore in the King it must be That it was not in the high Priest we proue by these reasons The high Priest is commaunded corrected punished and deposed by the King and not the King by the Priest therefore the Soueraigne Iurisdiction is not in the high Priest but in the King Againe the high Priests did neuer practise coactiue authoritie vnlesse when they were Soueraigne Magistrates as sometimes the high Priests in Israel were but as high Priestâ—… they had no such power for the causes betweene blood and blood which were of their cognisance are by the interpreters vnderdood such cases wherein a man was killed by chaunce without the purpose or against the will of the offender in which case the high Priest might graunt him the prâ—…uiledge of sanctuary and so deliuer him from the auenger of blood but he had no power coactiue to inflict death or such punishments at his pleasure which trueth was so constantly receiued and preserued in the Church afterward that euen in the greatest power highest ruffe of Poperie the Church of Rome did not take this full â—…oactiue power but onely proceeded to degradation and then to deliuer men vp to the secular powers which was a â—…ecret confession that they had no right to
is called Aarons God but Aaron is not called Moses his God but his mouth Which thing though it bee so euident as that it seemeth to be the vndertaking of an idle and vn-necessary discourse to proue it yet because many bookes are of late filled with this conceit that Moses was a Priest which thing is taken as an especiall ground to build vp the Popes temporall Monarchie Let vs in a few wordes refute this fancy Franciscus Bozius who vndertaketh to proue this taketh a foundation so ruiâ—…ous and fallacious that it is no maruell if his whole building be answerable for he concludeth that Moses was a Priest properly so called because Psal. 99. it is written Moses and Aaron among his Priests and Samuel among such as call vppon his name The answere is easie and vulgarly knowne for Cohanim which word is there vsed signifieth both Priests and Ciuill gouernors It is vsed for Ciuill gouernors which stand in some honourable place 2. Sam. 8. 18 where the sonnâ—…s of Dauid are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be translated Priests as the Latin vulgar hath it Though this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 somtimes be takeÌ„ for a Priest yet it is certaine that Dauids sonnes were not Priests but chiefe rulers about the King as it is expounded 1. Chron. 18. 17. Then we answere that no proofe can bee drawne from this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to proue Moses a Priest because the word is ambiguous applyed both to Priests and to Ciuill gouernours And therefore the word is fitly applied to Moses and Aaron comprising both their Offices in one short word But that Moses was no Priâ—…st we prooue thus If he were a Priest it must be either before that Aaron and his successors were assumed to that Office or after Before the law assumed Aaron and his sonnes to be Priests Moses could not bee Priest because the Priesthood was annexed to the birth-right But Moses was not the first borne of Amram but Aaron was the eldest for we read Num. 33. Aaron was one hundred twentie three yeares old when he died But Moses out liuing Aaron was but one hundred twenty yeares old when he dyed Deut. 34. Theresore Aaron was questionlesse the elder brother If any obiect that the birth-right was sometimes taken from the eldest by an especiall appointment of God as appeareth in Sem and Iacob I answere this cannot help in this point for Aaron was so farre from loosing this priuiledge of his birth-right by any appointment of God that he had the Priesthood famously confirmed to him and to his posterity So that neither by the law of nature nor by any precept of God can Aaron be said to loofe any priuiledge that belonged to the Priesthood Then before the institution of the Leuiticall Priesthood Moses could not be Priest After the institution thereof the Priesthood was so appropriated to Aarons house that none could be Priests but Aaron and his sonnes onely Therefore it was not possible that Moses could be a Priest at all either before the consecration of Aaron or after 22 Another reason may be drawn from those places which declare that Iosua was appointed by God to succeede Moses and to gouerne as he did In all which places it appeareth that Iosua succeeded Moses in his place and function and was that in Israel in his time which Moses was before him But it is certaine that Iosua was no Priest therfore as certaine that Moses was no Priest For Iosua was the full and entire successour of Moses The same appeareth by the whole course of Moses his gouernment Who commandeth as a Prince is obeyed as a Prince both by the Priests and people By which command in matters temporall and ecclesiasticall if they suppose that a Priesthood is proued by the same reason all the Kings of Israel may as well be concluded to haue been Priests For they commaunded in all such thinges as Moses did Some obiect that Moses sacrificed Exod. 24. But this obiection is friuolous For the words of the Scripture are against it It is expresly said that Moses sent young men to sacrifice these were the first borne of the 12 Tribes For this was before the institution of the Leuiticall Priesthood If any obiect that Moses did something which might seeme to belong to the office of a Priest I answer so did the Kings of Israell some things which might seeme to belong to the office of a Priest For Iosias when all the people were gathered together read in their eares all the words of the booke of the couenant Which thing might seeme to belong to the Priests office So true is that principle of our common Law founded vpon the profound principles of diuinitie and good gouernment Rex est persona mixta because he hath both temporall and ecclesiasticall iurisdiction 23 And thus haue wee declared the Kings right vnder the Law from the precept of the Law practise of godly Kings Thus did Ezekiah thus did Iosiah and others and in so doing they vsurped no vnlawfull power but stood faithfull in the execution of that lawfull right which GOD committed to them From this commission they may not turne either to the right hand or to the left For as it was a great sinne in Vzziah on the one side to vsurpe the Priests office so should it be a great sinne on the other side for a King to neglect any part of a Kings office From all which wee collect the power of a Prince in matters ecclesiasticall to stand in these things He is to establish all ecclesiasticall Lawes for which no power is sufficient without his Neither is it reason that they should establish Lawes in whom there is no power to defend and maintaine the Maiestie of those Lawes so made He is to punish all transgressours of those Lawes hee is to appoint ecclesiasticall Ministers their places to be Iudges in matters of ecclesiasticall Lawes and if they offend to punish them hee may place and displace according to their merits So Salomon displaced Abiathar made Zadock high Priest in his roome But because of late suborned Mat. Tortus speaking of this example saith that Salomon did displace the high Priest as he was a Prophet not as hee was a King let vs by the way open the vanity of this shift The fault that Abiathar had committed was worthy of death as Salomon saith Thou art worthy of death But yet hee shewed him mercy because hee had borne the Arke of the Lord before his Father Dauid and had suffered in all things wherein Dauid was afflicted So that the thing which Salomon did to Abiathar he did as iudge of life and death To be a Iudge of life death was not the osfice of a Prophet but of the King therefore Salomon did it not as a Prophet but as a King Againe the Prophets office was extraordinary but this thing is so far from an