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
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
power of the spirit tooke vpon them power aboue the Ciuill Magistrate practising wholly coactiue power which they called Spirituall when they had forsaken the power of the spirit and reiected it from them 5. The Iurisdiction which the Apostles practised was partly from the commission of Christ spirituall partly from the law of Nature and from the example of that gouernment which was established in the Church of the Iewes The things which belonged to Apostolicall Iurisdiction either concerned the gouernment of the ministery or of the whole Church Touching the gouernement of the ministery these things belonged to the Apostles so long as they liued and afterward to Bishops their successours First a power to ordaine ministers Thus did Paul and Barnabas when they called Churches through Lycaonia Pisidia and Pamphylia They ordained Elders in euery Church Elders that is Pastors Preachers to preserue the Doctrine continually which the Apostles had once planted And this charge to ordaine Elders or Priests did the Apostles leaue also to them that succeeded in the gouernement of the Church This commission Saint Paul gaue to Titus For this cause I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest continue to redresse the things that remaine and ordaine Elders in euery city as I appointed thee which ordaining signifieth also institution in the place or cure they ministred in 6. The Apostles had also in themselues and left to their successours power and Iurisdiction to command those Pastors which thus they had ordained to preach the truth without mixture of false doctrines This power as Saint Paul had in himselfe so he left the same to Timothie and consequently to others As I besought thee to abide still in Ephesus when I departed to Macedonia so doe that thou maist command some that they teach no other doctrine These were the principall parts of Iurisdiction which the Apostles left to their successors to continue in the Church for euer For the end and vse of this gouernment is perpetuall as to ordaine Preachers and to see that they so ordained should teach the truth without heresie It followeth certainely that such gouernours as the Apostles themselues ordained in the Church for these perpetuall vses are to remaine perpetuall gouernours in the Church Thus was the gouernement of Bishops placed by the Apostles to stand and continue till the end of the world because the Apostles placed such for the ordination of ministers and the preseruation of true Doctrines For they who aunswere that these offices and places wherin the Apostles placed Timothie and Titus were either extraordinarie or to indure for a short time do not consider the end and vse of these places which end and vse is neither extraordinary nor temporary but ordinary and perpetuall For ministers must be ordained commanded to preserue the truth without heresie as long as the Church standeth Then the necessitie and vse of the ends will prooue the like necessitie and vse of these gouernours which by the Apostles were placed for these endes 7. Another part of this Iurisdiction and depending vpon the last was that which the Apostle leaueth in commission to Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stoppe their mouthes For which cause the Angell of the Church of Thyatira is reprooued by Christ because he suffered a false Prophetesse to teach and to deceiue the people and to make them commit fornication and to eate meat sacrificed to idols If Titus be commaunded to put some to silence and the other reprooued for suffering a false teacher to teach then the gouernours of the Church haue authoritie and Iurisdiction in these things but how farre it is extended we shall consider hereafter But because it may be questioned whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be to silence ministers or to conuince them by argument To this wee ' aunswere that albe it wee denie not conuiction by reason to be also included in the word yet there is a further meaning of iudiciall proceeding by authoritie heere vnderstood which thing will appeare by conference of this and other places For Saint Paul hauing first declared that he left Titus at Crete to ordaine Elders describeth what manner of men they must be that are so to be ordained For a ' Bishop must be vnreproueable c. Then he declareth that many be otherwise for there are many disobedient and vaine talkers and deceiuers c. If the question be demaunded what shall be done to these deceiuers the wordes immediatly following containe an aunswere whose mouthes must be stopped So that the sense of these words is the same with that which hee saith to Timothie charging him to command some that they teach no other Doctrine Then the word containeth not only conuiction by argument but Iurisdiction also For conuiction by argument onely would not haue serued to suppresse the false Prophetesse of Thyatyra And if a minister be accused of heresie or such like he was to be iudged by such as were set in chiefe authoritie in the Clergie For that there was a consistory and iudiciall proceedings set vp it is euident and no lesse euident that the Bishop was iudge Against an Elder saith S. Paul to Timothie receiue none accusation but vnder two or three witnesses Now he that is appointed to heare accusations to receiue the testimonies of witnesses is placed in a place of iudgement with Iurisdiction and therefore hath authoritie not onely to conuince by argument but also to proceed iudicially against false teachers and to put them to silence 8. Thus farre was Iurisdiction practised ouer ministers the things which follow touched the whole Church Another part of Iurisdiction practised by the Apostles touching the Church in generall was to call Councels for the determination of such controuersies as were raised vp by them that troubled the doctrines of the truth and peace of the Church Such was the Councell gathered by the Apostles Act 15. Consisting of Apostles and Elders that is of persons Ecclesiasticall wherin sentence proceeded after good deliberation and great disputation This is the greatest power or Iurisdiction of the Church because the whole or many chiefe parts together is greater then any one part 9. Further concerning the extension of this Iurisdiction it cannot be denied but that there is a power in the Church not only internall but also of externall Iurisdiction of internall power there is no question made Externall Iurisdiction being vnderstood all that is practised in externall Courts or consistories is either definitiue or mulctatiue Authority definitiue in matters of faith and religion belongeth to the Church Mulctatiue power may be vnderstood either as it is referred to spirituall censures or as it is with coaction as it standeth in spirituall censures it is the right of the Church and was practised by the Church when the Church was without a Christian Magistrate and since But coactiue Iurisdiction was neuer practised by the Church when the Church was without
and answereth to an obiection which I will set downe in his own words Quod si Christiani non deposuerunt olim Neronem Diocletianum Iulianum Valentem similes iâ—…suerat quia deerant vires temporales Christianis That is If Christians of old deposed not Nero Diocletian Iulian Valens and the like this was because Christians then wanted Temporall forces They will shortly without blushing tell vs that Iesus Christ also submitted himselfe to the heathen Emperours and to their deputies because he wanted power to resist them for this they may say with some sophisticall shew of reason aswell as that which they doe say Then his opinion is that the Pope as Pope hath not any Temporall power but yet the Pope and onely the Pope hath Temporall power aboue all Kings and Emperours This is one of the greatest points wherein the Pope hath incroached vpon the right of Kings 9. Besides this Temporall Iurisdiction there is another part of Iurisdiction called spirituall which the writers of the Church of Rome deuide into internall and externall internall they referre to the Sacraments onely Gerson de potest ecclesi consid 1. Bellar. de Rom. pont lib. 4. cap. 22. Bellarmine in the place last cited disputing of Iurisdiction saith there is a triple power in the Bishop of Rome first of order secondly of internall Iurisdiction thirdly of externall Iurisdiction the first is referred to the Sacraments the second to inward gouernment which is in the court of conscience the third to that externall gouernment which is practised in externall courts and confesseth that of the first and second there is no question betweene vs but onely of the third De primâ secundâ non est questio sed solum de tertiâ saith he Then of this wee are agreed that the question betweene vs and them is onely of Iurisdiction in the third sense and therein especially of Iurisdiction coactiue in externall courts binding and compelling by force of law and other externall mulcts and punishments beside excommunication as for Spirituall Iurisdiction of the Church standing in examinations of controuersies of faith iudging of heresies deposing of heretickes excommunication of notorious and stubborne offenders ordination of Priests and Deacons institution and collation of benefices and spirituall cures c. This we reserue intire to the Church which Princes cannot giue or take from the Church This power hath bene practised by the Church without coactiue Iurisdiction other then of excommunication But when the matters handled in the Ecclesiasticall consistorie are not matters of faith and religion but of a ciuill nature which yet are called Ecclesiasticall as being giuen by Princes and appointed to be within the cognisance of that consistorie and when the censures are not spirituall but carnall compulsiue coactiue here appeareth the power of the ciuill magistrate This power we yeeld to the magistrate and here is the question whether the magistrate hath right to this power or Iurisdiction which is thus described by the Romanists Externall Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall is a power coactiue giuen to gouerne Christian people in contentious courts this is the principal question which we haue here to search Our English flatterers of the Pope that write now and of late haue written vndertake to prooue that this Iurisdiction is first and principally in the Pope and from him deriued to Bishops and that Kings haue not this power at all or any part of it vnlesse by commission from the Pope our assertion is contrary that this power of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction externall and coactiue beâ—…ongs to Kings only not to Ecclesiasticall persons but as they â—…aue commission from their Princes And because we would â—…ot be mistaken in the question we will set down the words of the best of that side for better euidence and assurance who take the question thus and not otherwise Iohn Gerson saith Potestas Ecclesiastica Iurisdictionis in foro exteriori est potestas Ecclâ—…siastica coactiua quae valet exerceri in alterum etiam iâ—…uitum Bellarmine speaking of the same power saith it is ad regendum populum Christianum iâ—… foro exteriori 10. Then this is the thing which wee are to prooue that Ecclesiasticall coactiue power by force of lawe and corporall punishments by which Christian people are to be gouerned in externall and contentious courts is a power which of right belongeth to Christian Princes Concerning the power of orders and institutions of excommunication and deposition and of internall Iurisdiction in the court of Conscience in administration of Sacraments absolution by power of the keyes this we giue not to Princes but Princes as they are preseruers of Religion and nurcing fathers of the Church are to see that Bishops and all inferiour ministers performe their faithfull duties in their seuerall places and if they be found faulty to punish them because that belongeth to external Iurisdiction coactiue Thus much may suffice for the state of the question For the manner of handling I purpose to search the right of Kinges first in the law of nature secondly in the written law giuen by Moses continued vntill the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ thirdly to declare the confirmation of the same right by Christ and his Apostles and the Church succeeding vntill that time that the Pope drew a newe estate and Iurisdiction to himselfe After which time I purpose to obserue how the Pope hath incroached first vpon the Bishops then vpon the right of kings and last vpon the right of the Church and generall Councels By all which will appeare how late how new and strange that Iurisdiction is which the flatterers of the court of Rome now yeeld to the Pope CHAP. II. Kings in the time of the Law of nature had all power Ecclesiasticall both of order and Iurisdiction IN the Law of nature we haue not many examples of Kings that gouerned a people where the Church of God was planted there is onely mention of Melchisedecke King of Salem of him it is said Gen. 14. Melchisedecke King of Salem was a priest of the high God In his person these two offices the kingdom the priesthood were ioyned both which offices followed the prerogatiue of the birthright for that this Melchisedeck was Sem is the receiued opinion of many interpretours wherein is some difference Some take Sem to be the eldest sonne of Noah but others from a probable collation of Scriptures hold him to be the second sonne but whether hee were eldest or not it is apparant and out of doubt by that blessing Gen. 9. that he had the birthright for Canaan is made his seruant which is the auncient stile and euidence of the birth-right as is expressed in the birthright of Iacob Iaphet is perswaded to dwell in the tents of Sem. Whereas therefore hee hath that honor aboue both his brethren the birthright is euidently confirmed vnto him Canaan being made his seruant and Iaâ—…het being directed to repaire to his
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
gouernments I meane Ecclesiasticall and Temporal be directed by coactiue power there is no difference in the point of Iurisdiction betweene Temporall and Ecclesiasticall authoritie For the King and only the King is to appoint iudges in matters Temporall and Ecclesiasticall the King hath no more authoritie in reuersing the iudgement of the one then of the other being true iust and lawfull So that the Kings Iurisdiction standeth not in a power to dissanull true and righteous iudgemens but in a power supereminent by which he is charged First to confirme lawes Ecclesiasticall and Temporall Secondly to place Iudges for both causes Thirdly to see that those iudges of both sortes iudge iustly according to right and equity Fourthly to punish them if they shall be found to giue vniust and corrupt sentences Fiftly and last of all his Iurisdiction appeareth in appellations 7. But heere a question will be moued whether a man may appeale from an Ecclesiasticall iudge to the Prince For that one may appeale from a Temporall iudge I suppose it is not doubted at least I see no reason why it should be doubted But in a cause Ecclesiasticall and from a iudge Ecclesiasticall to appeale to the Temporall Magistrate of this some Romish Doctors doubt This doubt which the Canonists haue made may be increased by that place Deu. 17. 10. Thou shalt not decline from that thing which they shall shew thee neither to the right hand nor to the left And that man that will do presumptuously not hearkning to the Priest that standeth before the Lord thy God to minister there or vnto the iudge that man shall die It might seeme to be collected hence that there is no appellation from the Priest no though hee should iudge as some Rabbins expound the words I will declare their exposition because it sauoureth much like the expositions of some Papists where the text saith thou shalt not decline to the right hand nor to the left they expound it that if the Priest shall say thy right hand is thy left or thy left is thy right this sentence thou must receiue and therein rest 8. But this is a fond assertion not only without reason but against the expresse words of the Scripture for it is said according to the law which shall teach thee and according to the iudgement which they shall tell thee thou shalt doe Where we finde two rules for these two kindes of Iudges the Priest and the iudge the sentence of the Priest must be according to the written lawe the sentence of the other according to the truth of iustice and iudgement If a man be able to shew that he is wronged he may vndoubtedly appeale to a Superiour now a man may be able to shew that he is wronged if hee can shew that the Priest declineth from the law of God which is appointed his rule or the Temporall iudge from iustice And therefore if there be a Superiour in the land he may appeale but if there be no Superiour he is without remedie as when Hely was both Priest and iudge from him at that time there could be no appellation but where the forme of a kingdome is established where one King is set vp in lawfull authoritie by whose power iudges Spirituall and Temporall are placed in his dominions heere appeareth a fountaine of Iurisdiction deriued as it were into two inferiour riuers and from these inferior powers appellation may be brought if they shall not in their sentences keepe their rules prescribed to them the lawe and iustice for the appellation being grounded vpon the lawe of Nature to moderate the peruersitie and partialitie of iudges it were an absurd thing to denie this in causes Ecclesiasticall vnlesse a man would suppose that persons Ecclesiasticall may not be corrupt in their iudgements Now if we shall once graunt appellations then assuredly wee confirme the Iurisdiction of Princes in all matters wherein appellation may bee made to them And because Iurisdiction is assuredly proued by appellation we will for the farther manifestation of the truth seeke to cleere this point the rather becâ—…use our aduersaries tell vs confidently that in matters Ecclesiasticall all appellation belongeth to the Pope The Popes say so and they beleeue them we hold that appellation in causes Ecclesiasticall is to bee directed to the King who is by God set ouer the persons appellant 9. In the Old Testament we haue fewe examples or none that I remember of any that appealed from any inferior iudge Ecclesiasticall to the Soueraigne but in the New Testament there is one example sufficient to confirme the truth S. Paul being accused for causes Ecclesiasticall appealed from the high Priest to Câ—…sar Therfore it is lawfull in matters Ecclesiasticall to appeale from iudges Ecclesiasticall to the Ciuill Magistrate The consequence resteth vpon this that Saint Paul heerein did nothing but that which he might doe iustly and lawfully which thing I suppose the greatest enemie of Saint Pauls Doctrine will not denie for he came vp to Ierusalem with this profession and purpose I am ready not to bee bound onely but euen to die for the name of the Lord Iesus Neither durst he for sauing of his life giue a scandall to the Gospell The antecedent consisteth of these two parts First that the matters for which Saint Paul was accused were matters Ecclesiasticall Secondly that therein he appealed from the high Priest both are witnessed by the expresse words of the Scripture For Festusâ—…aith â—…aith They brought no crime against him but had certaine questions against him of their owne superstition and of one Iesus which was dead whom Paul affirmed to be aliue These questions be out of doubt Ecclesiasticall euen in the iudgement of our aduersaries that he appealed from the high Priest reskuing himselfe from his iudgement it is euident by the words in the twentie three Chapter where the Apostle speaketh to the high Priest as to his iudge Thou sittest to iudge me according to the law And when he was reskued from the Priests by Lysias and sent to Felix and left by him to Festus he neuer thinketh of appealing from any of theâ—…e ciuill gouernours But when Festus asked him if he will goe to Ierusalem and there be iudged of these things then Pâ—…ul vtterly refusing the high-Priest appealed to Câ—…sar by which it followeth that in matters Ecclesiasticall a man may appeale from iudges Ecclesiasticall to the Soueraigne Prince Whereupon this vndoubtedly followeth that there resteth Soueraigne Iurisdiction in the Prince And therefore the Popes their flatterers vnderstanding well that Supreame Iurisdiction could neuer bee prooued to rest in the Popes vnlesse first Appellation should be made to them wrought by all subtilty as hereafter we shall declare by right or wrong they neither cared nor spared to cause Appellations to be made to them which thing when once they had obtained that in all causes Ecclesiasticall Appellation might be made to the Popes then and not before
this opinion was r◅olued that Supreame Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction was in the Popes And therefore we prouing that Supreame and last Appellation doth by the law of God belong to none but to the Soueraigne Prince conclude vndoubtedly that Supreame Iurisdiction belongeth to him onely 10. Heere a question may be mooued whether Saint Paul did well and orderly when he appealed to Caesar and whether Caesar was made iudge of these questions which were Doctrines We aunswere Saint Paul had no meaning to make C◅sar iudge of any point of faith But whereas hee was persecuted by the high Priests who sought his life in this matter of coactiue power Saint Paul giueth Iurisdiction to Caesar. There is also a difference betweene that power which heathen Princes haue and that which Christian Princes haue for heathen Princes haue all power coactiue whatsoeuer the cause be and without this helpe the Church could neuer deale in matters of this nature Christian Princes besides this coactiue power haue also as appeareth in the gouernment of Israel externall discipline in matters Ecclesiasticall 11. Thus we haue declared the distinct right of the King and the Priest after that they were distinguished by the written law of God we haue prooued that the Soueraigne Iurisdiction coactiue resteth in the Prince by a right which God hath giuen and therefore may not be taken away by man It followeth to consider how this right hath beene accordingly exercised by the godly Kings of Israel Ios◅ commanded the people to be circumcised and not Eleazerus the cause was Eccles◅ticall but to command in such causes declareth iurisdiction Dauid reduceth the Arke he appointeth Priests Leuites Singers Porters to serue at the Tabernacle he assigneth Officers of the sonnes of Aaro◅ All which being matters Ecclesiasticall the Prince as hauing soueraigne authority in both causes ordaineth Solomon buildeth the Temple and consecrateth it Asa remoueth Idols and dedicated the Altar of God that was before the porch of the Lord. Iehosaphat abolisheth Idolatry cutteth downe the groues sendeth Priests and Leuites to teach in Townes and Cities Setteth vp Iudges both ciuill and Ecclesiasticall and commandeth both to iudge according to godlinesse truth and Iustice. Because in the words of Iehosaphat these things are distinctly deliuered we will obserue the whole place The wordes are these And hee set iudges in the land throughout all the strong Cities of Iuda Citie by Citie And said to the Iudges take heed what you doe for you execute not the iudgement of man but of the Lord and he will be with you in the cause and iudgement Wherefore now let the feare of the Lord be vpon you take heed and doe it for there is no iniquitie with the Lord our God neither respect of persons nor receiuing of reward Moreouer in Ierusalem did Iehosaphat set of the Leuites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the families in Israel for the iudgement and cause of the Lord and they returned to Ierusalem And he charged them saying thus shall you doe in the feare of the Lord with a perfect heart And in euery cause that shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in your Cities betweene blood and blood betweene Law and precept Statutes and iudgements you shall iudge them and admonish them that they trespasse not against the Lord that wrath come not vpon you and vpon your brethren And behold Amariah the high Preist shall be the chiefe ouer you in all matters of the Lord. 12. From which words we collect thus much concerning ◅he Kings Iurisdiction and the things wherein it consisteth ◅irst the King appointeth and placeth both Temporall and clesi◅sticall Iudges and commandeth and chargeth them so placed to execute their functions faithfully we inferre vpon this command in both alike that hee hath Iurisdiction ouer both causes But here let me remember a trifling obiection which some of our aduersaries haue deuised of late they would distinguish betweene command and Iurisdiction For they deny not but that all sortes of persons are vnder the Kings commaund and gouernment whom he may command each to doe their Office and yet they vtterly deny the Kings Iurisdiction and tell vs that command and Iurisdiction must not be hudled vp together Now let vs consider what hudling is in this when the Kings command and his Iurisdiction are set as things depending and cohaering one to the other When we say the King may command we meane plainely as we speake that the King hath from God lawfull authoritie to command and to punish them that breake his command This is the common vnderstanding of the Kings command But these Romish sophisters when they say the King may command do not vnderstand neither will they acknowledge at any hand that the King hath lawfull authoritie from God to punish the breach of his command for they vtterly deny that the King hath any authoritie to punish a Clarke though he should breake his commandement And call you this a command The King may command and goe without as the saying is This is the deuils sophistry taken vp by men hardned against shame content to stoupe downe to gather vp the meanest and basest shifts to dazell the simple The Iesuites resolue of this as of a truth most soundly concluded in their schooles That the King may not punish Ecclesiasticall persons that the Kings Court may not heare examine and iudge them though they should commit murders adulteries robberies or what other wickednesse soeuer And yet they tell vs that the King may command them Now to say one thing and yet to let the world see that they are resolued in the contrary this sauoreth strongly of the spirit of illusion when reason learning honestie and all faileth yet well fare a bold and hardned face which neuer faileth this generation 13. The truth is if the King haue not lawfull authority to punish he hath not lawfull authoritie to command and punish he cannot vnlesse he hath authority to iudge or cause iudgement to be done so that they who take away from the King power to iudge persons Ecclesiasticall take from him power to punish and consequently power to command but the Doctrine of the Papists this day as shall hereafter appeare in his due place taketh from the king power to iudge per sons Ecclesiastical therefore they rob him of power to punish and to cōmaund for nothing can more strongly take away the Kings command then to deny him power to punish and to iudge And yet they are not ashamed to tell vs that they deny not the kings cōmand but his Iurisdiction Then to leaue these men with their absurd and perplexed contradictions where the King ◅ay command he may iudge and punish the breach of that command and therefore his Iurisdiction appeareth in his lawfull authority and command Then by this charge and commaund of Iehosaph◅ is declared his Iurisdiction in these causes wherein he hath this authority
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