before by my Reply pag. 9. 10. if you had so pleased Touching King Iosuah I said in my Reply pag. 6. 7. That he commaunded the high Priest aswell as the other Priests and dealt also in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Gods service and religion And amongst other Text of Scripture for proofe thereof I alledged that Text of 2 King 23.4 where it is accorded that the King commaunded Hilkiah the high Priest and the Priests of the second order c. Hereunto you answere that there is no such matter in the Place by me cited and that the force of this Argument consisteth in these coyned words of mine The King commaunded Hilkiah whom you call Helcias which words not being in Scripture say you I am a wilie Wittnesse for strengthning my cause to produce so shamefull an untruth and though I be a Iudge yet you see no commission I have to use falshood These words be able to provoke a mans patience But you must know that bad words and a bould face will doe you no good Let others therefore iudge whether you or I be the honester man in this Point You say there is no such matter in the Place by me cited Wherefore I desire the Reader but to turne to that place I cited which is according to our English Bibles 2. Kings 23.4 and according to your Latine Bibles 4. Reg. 23.4 and there shall he see whether there be any such matter or no and whether these words The King commaunded Hilkiah whom you call Helcias be words coyned by me as you shame not to speake or whether they be in the Scripture it selfe extant and apparant For first those words be in the Hebrew Secondly they be in our English Translations and thirdly they be also even in your owne vulgar Latine Translation For even in that your owne Translation the words be these Et praecepit Rex Helciae Pontifici Sacerdotibus secundi ordinis c. And the King commaunded Helcias the high Priest and the Priests of the second order c Now then is it not Impudency intollerable in you to deny this You shall therefore doe well yet at last to confesse that this good and godly King Iosias commaunded Hilkiah otherwise called Helcias the high Priest and the Priests of the second Order and that he also dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion as I there sayed and have further declared in the same place of my Reply pag. 6.7 To that which I alledged concerning King Asa and King Hezekiah in my Reply pag. 7. 8. who likewise had Authority as is there shewed over Persons Ecclesiasticall and in causes also Ecclesiasticall you answer nothing in your Reioinder that deserveth to be replyed unto And concerning King Iehosaphat also your answere is likewise very idle and friuolous and scarce worthy the mentioning For whereas I alledged amongst other things 2. Chron. 19 8.9.10.11 That this King Iehosaphat did constitute or set in Hierusalem of the Levites and of the Priests and of the Chiefe of the families of Israel for the iudgment and cause of the Lord c. which words were sufficient to prove my purpose there namely the Kings Authority over Priests and Levites and in causes also Ecclesiasticall you to shew your great learning and iudgment in this point doe taxe me for omitting or not rehearsing of some subsequent words in the which verse of that Chapter which when they be vttered and rehearsed doe indeede make more against you then for you for the words be these And behould saith the King Amoriah the high Priest shall be the Chiefe over you in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmaell a Ruler of the house of Iudah shall be for all the Kings affaires By which words it appeareth That King Iehosaphat did aswell constitute and appointe Amariah the Priest to be the Chiefe over that Assembly Councell or Synedrion which he set at Hierusalem for all matters of the Lord as he did constitute and appoint Zebadiah to be the Chiefe amongst them for all the Kings affaires For the words of the Text put no difference but that he might and did constitute the one to be the Chiefe in the one case aswell as he did constitute the other to be the Chiefe in the other case As for that reason you bring for a difference it is nothing worth for it is graunted that the King did not nor could by his Regall Authority without a speciall commaundement or warrant from God consecrate or make a Priest neither is it there said That King Iehosaphat did consecrate or make Amariah to be a Priest But he being a Priest before the King did there constitute and appoint him as lawfully he might to be the President or Chiefe in that Synedrion or Assembly in all matters of the Lord aswell as he did or might constitute Zebadiah to be therein the Chiefe or President for all the Kings affaires 10. Now then to come to King Solomon I proved him also in my Reply pag. 7. to have had authoritie over the Priests and Levites and to have dealt likewise in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion But to that Text of 2. Chron. 8.14.15 by mee alledged for proofe thereof you answer not Onely to that Text of 1. King 2.27.35 where Solomon deposed Abiathar the high Priest and put Sadocke in his place you answer and graunt it to be true that hee did so But this say you hee did as being a Prophet and not as a King This answer of yours I before confuted and tooke a way in my Reply pag. 20. 21. whether I againe referre you because that standeth still in full force against you you having said nothing against it in your Reioynder But now I adde further unto it that it doth moreover appeare even by the wordes of the Text it selfe that Solomon did not doe this as a Prophet but as a King because hee therein did no more but execute that which a Prophet or man of God had before spoken from God concerning the house of Ely For so the words of the Text doe shew that Solomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord that hee might fulfill the wordes of the Lord which hee spake against the house of Ely in Shilo 1. King 2.27 and 1. Sam. 2.27.28.29.30.31 c. where the Prophet or man of God as hee is called that uttered the Prophesie and the King that executed the Prophesie must of necessitie bee distinguished And therefore as hee that received and uttered the Prophesie is in the receiving and uttering of it to bee called and supposed a Prophet So King Solomon that was onely the executer and performer of that Prophesie is in the execution and performance of it to be tearmed and deemed a King and not a Prophet But whilst I thus prove the authoritie of Kings over the high Priest because King Solomon deposed Abiathar and put Sadock in his place You would inferre that Elias by the like reason
powers Who saith S. Bernard hath excepted you speaking to an Archbishop from this generalitie Hee that bringeth in an exception saith hee useth but a delusion And you may remember that even S. Chrysostome also himselfe as hee subjecteth Kings to Bishops Priests and Pastors in respect of their power and commission graunted them from God So on the other side in respect of the Regall sword power and authoritie given and graunted likewise from God to Kings and Princes he declareth verie fully that Bishops Priests Pastors and all Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever aswell as lay people are to be subject to them But this point concerning the subjection of all Bishops Priests and Pastors and even of the Bishop of Rome himselfe aswell as of others unto Emperours Kings and Princes as also in causes even Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and temporall is so cleerely plainely and plentifully proved both in my first and second Bookes and in this also all your answers evasions quirkes and quiddities being therein utterly frustrated confuted and confounded as that it is to mee a matter of wounder that you should not see and so acknowledge the truth of it But it seemeth you cannot see the wood for trees which I am sorrie for 8. Howbeit to make this point yet the more evident viz the subjection of Priests and Ecclesiasticall Ministers unto the King and therewithall the Kings supremacie or supreame commaund over them even in causes Ecclesiasticall I alledged in my Reply cap. 1. pag. 5. the example of Moses who commaunded not onely the Levites Deut. 31.25.26 and that in a matter Ecclesiasticall and concerning their verie office but hee commaunded also even Aaron the high Priest in a matter likewise Ecclesiasticall and concerning his verie office Numb 16.46.47 saying thus unto him Take the censer and put fire therein of the Altar and put therein incense and goe quickely unto the congregation and make an attonement for them for there is wrath gone out from the Lorde the plague is begun then Aaron tooke as Moses had commaunded him c. Here you say I abuse my Reader by falsely citing this text for the right wordes say you are these Moses said to Aaron take the Censer and drawing fire from the Altar put incense upon it going quickely to the people to pray for them To pray say you and to make attonement doe differ and be not all one howbeit indeede not I but you are the man that abuse your Reader by falsely citing the wordes of this Text For you therein follow the wordes of your vulgar Latin translation which is untrue and unsound and I follow our English translation which is according to the Originall in Hebrew and therefore true which you also if you were a good Hebrician would know and perceive even in this verie particular But whether wee take your translation of Praying for the people or our translation of Attonement-making it commeth all to one passe as touching that purpose for which I cited it namely to prove that Moses commaunded Aaron the high Priest in a matter Ecclesiasticall cōcerning his verie office For your selfe do say that this praying for the people was a religious act to bee wrought by Aaron as being intermediate betweene the people God to reconcile or gaine unto them the favours of heaven And on the other side we say that to burne incense to mak attonement for the people 2. Chron. 26.18 is likwise expressely a thing properly pertayning to the Priests office So that as touching that purpose for which I cited that text it maketh as I said before no difference But then you go further seem to speake as if Moses had not there commanded Aaron But when Moses spake to Aaron in this sort Accipe thuribulū Take the censer Be not these wordes of commaunding especially in this case and at this time being also spoken by a Superior namely by him that was as the Scripture calleth him a king in the common-weale of Israel Deut. 33.5 Deut. 31.25 26.27 Yea bee they not wordes of as full and cleere commaund as when hee spake in like sort to the Levites saying Take the booke of this law and put yee it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord our God c. The Text it selfe sheweth that these were wordes of commaunding in Moses And so witnesseth also your owne translation that herein Moses praecepit Levitis Moses commaunded the Levites Yea that Moses aswell as his successor Ioshuah commaunded not onely the Levites but the Priests also and all the congregation and people of Israel appeareth by that answer and acclamation they gave to the same Ioshuah saying thus unto him Iosh 1.16.17.18 All that thou hast commaunded us wee will doe and whethersoever thou sendest us wee will goe As wee have obeyed Moses in all things so will we obey thee onely the Lord thy God be with thee as bee was with Moses whosoever shall rebell against thy commaundement and will not obey thy wordes in all that thou commaundest him let him bee put to death But then when you cannot gainesay but that Moses commaunded Aaron and that in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning his very office you come to your last refuge and doe say that Moses was the high Priest and so as an high Priest commaunded Aaron But first how doe you prove this that Moses was an high Priest And yet if you could prove it what would you or could you gaine from thence for your selfe doe say that Moses was as well a king as a Priest therefore why might hee not commaund him as hee was a king rather then otherwise for did he in his time commaund the Priests Levites the whole People of Israel otherwise or in any other sort or sence then Ioshuah his successor did who was no Priest how be it if Moses had been both a Priest and a King would not the holy Scripture somewhere haue testified and expressed so much aswell as it doth in the like case of Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 Hebr. 7.1 For as touching those Texts of Scripture which you bring to prove Moses to be a Priest it shall by and by appeare that they prove it not Againe if Moses were the high Priest what will you make Aaron to be for it is evident and confessed of all sides that Aaron was the high Priest and if Moses were also another high Priest at the same time Deut. 33.5 then beside that there should be two high Priests together at one time how could the one commaund the other they being both of equall authority Or can he be rightly and truely called Summus Sacerdos that hath a Superior Priest over him to commaund him It is cleere that the Scripture doth expressely testifie of Moses that he was a King and therefore of that there can be no doubt but that he was also a Priest or an high Priest as you suppose it doth not affirme no not in that Place
87. But secondly when the Text it selfe speaketh of this fact of King Solomon by way of approbation of it doth it become you or any man else to say or suppose that it was error facti in him Or that it was an Act not lawfull for him so to doe For hath not the Scripture it selfe before expressely tould vs That Solomon deposed or cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord 1. King 2.27 that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord which hee spake against the house of Ely in Shiloh Now then can that be said to bee erroniously or unlawfully done which God himselfe well liked and allowed and would have to bee done for the performance and fulfilling of his owne wordes Yea consider yet further that the Kings of Israel and Iudah had power and authoritie over the Priests not onely to depose them but also to put them to death And this you may see in King Saul who put to death divers Priests â— Sa. 22.18 â— Chron. 24. â—0 21. and in King Ioash also who put to death Zachariah the sonne of Iehoida the Priest How justly or unjustly worthily or unworthily these Priests were put to death I here dispute not but I mention these examples to shew the power authoritie that the Kings had in those times namely even to put Priests to death aswell as lay-persons upon just cause and if they did offend so farre as to deserve it 11. But now though there were a supremacy over the high Priests aswell as over the other Priests and Levites in the Kings under the Old Testament and that they also dealt in maters Ecclesiasticall yet thereupon it followeth not say you That Kings and Princes under the New Testament have the like Supremacy over Bishops and other Clergy men or the like Authority in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion Why so because say you there is now a change and alteration of the Priesthood and of the Law Heb. 7.12 But doth not the same Epistle to the Hebrews which you cite tell you wherein that Alteration and change consisteth namely that it is in respect of the Leviticall Priesthood under the ould Law or under the ould Testament which is now changed into the Priesthood of Christ under the new Law or under the new Testament why then will you stretch and extend it any further yea neither doth that Epistle nor any other sacred or canonicall Scripture testifie an Alteration or change in this Point or as touching this Particular whereof we now speake but the cleane contrary videlicet that aswell under the new Testament as under the ould Kings and Princes are to have a supremacy over all Bishops Pastors and other Ecclesiasticall Ministers and an Authority also in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as civill and temporall within their dominions The first part of this Assertion is manifest by that Text in the new Testament which I have so often recited and where S. Paul saith expressely thus Rom. 13.1 Chrysost in Rom. hom 23 Let every soule be subiect to the higher Powers yea Though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or whosoever you be saith S. Chrisostome But what shall I neede to prove this so cleere a Point so many times and so often For both in my first Booke Cap. 1. pag. 1. 2. 3. c. and in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 39. 40 41. c. and pag. 51. 52. 53. 54. c. this pointe is fully and abundantly proved Yea the Bishops of Rome themselves in former an ancient times for the space of divers hundreth yeares after Christ did acknowledge this Subiection to these higher powers namely to their Emperors as I have demonstratively shewed by the examples of Milciades Leo and Gregorie the great mentioned in my first Booke pag. 23. 24. 25. 26. And by Anastasius the second Pelagius the first Agatho Hadrian and Leo the fourth mentioned in my Reply chap. 1 pag. 11. 12. 13. 19. To all which though particularly alledged by me you according to your wonted wise maner thought it best to answere nothing Yea both the parts of this Assertion namely that Emperors Kings and Princes under the new Testament have Authority not onely over Persons Ecclesiasticall but in causes also Ecclesiasticall I have so sufficiently proved throughout the first Chapter of my first Booke and throughout the first Chapter of my second Booke which is my Reply and in this booke also as that all the Power and force you have brought or can bring against it will never be able so much as to shake it much lesse to subdue or overthrow it Yet for the more abundant proofe of this Authority of Emperors and Kings in maters Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion I alledged in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 13 14. the president and Example of that famous Christian Emperor Constantine the Great whereunto in your Reioynder you have as well became your great learning and wisedome answered iust nothing at all I alledged also in the same my Reply pag. 15. the example of Iustinian that Christian Emperor where you deny not this Emperors making of Constitutions and Lawes in Ecclesiasticall causes and concerning Bishops and other Ecclesiasticall Persons But you say those Lawes be not observed by the Protestant Cleargie and you give an instance in one particular What is this to the purpose For the question was not nor is whether our Protestant Cleargie observe those Lawes and Constitutions yea or no But whether Iustinian that Christian Emperour made those or any such lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticall causes and Ecclesiasticall persons Now then whilst you graunt that hee made those Lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticâ—ll causes and concerning Ecclesiasticall persons you graunt so much as I contended for that is to say you graunt the whole matter that was in question And therefore why should I dispute any longer with you Neverthelesse you yet further say that I much disadvantage my cause by alleadging Iustinian the Emperour who accounted called the Bishop of Rome the chiefe and head of all the holy Churches But you should doe well to observe in what sence and respects the Emperour so called and accounted him namely not that hee had in those dayes a supremacie over Iustinian who was then the Emperour â—uthen const 〈◊〉 15. Novel â— 3. For Iustinian himselfe testifieth the cleane contrarie to that conceit Wee commaund saith hee the most holy Archbishops and Patriarkes of Rome of Constantinople of Alexandria of Antioch and of Ierusalem â—vag lib. 4. c. 1 â—iceph libr. â—7 cap. 27. Yea the fifth generall Councell it selfe was also called by the commandement of this Emperor Iustinian So that it clearely appeareth that hee had the supremacie commanding authoritie over them all But in respect of the soundnesse of the faith which the Bishop of Rome held in those times against heresies and errors it was that the Emperour preferred him before the other Bishops accounting himselfe chiefe or head
office and function of the Ecclesiasticall Ministers As for that your other reason whereby you would disswade me because these are points of great difficultie surpasse a Lawyers abilitie as you speake although I arrogate nothing to my selfe yet why should you say that it surpasseth a Lawyers abilitie to deale in these things when as you your selfe being a Lawyer doe neverthelesse intermedle in them Or why should it surpasse or exceede a Lawyers talent or a Lawyers abilitie in mee more then in you Indeede if a man be nothing else but a meere Lawyer in respect of that his meere worldly calling he is not fitte to deale in matters concerning God and his religion But if hee bee a Christian Lawyer exercised in the Booke of God and well grounded in the points of his faith and religion as all Lawyers and other lay-men ought to be then in respect of that his divine and Christian calling hee may meddle with points of Divinitie and Christianitie Eatenus Quatenus so farre forth as is before shewed and as is in my first Booke more at large declared And yet there is also a more speciall reason why I should bee permitted to intermeddle herein because being not onely a Lawyer but a Iudge also in the Common-weale it well becommeth mee and is my dutie as I conceive it for that reason so much as in me lyeth to seeke to have the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme especially in these most high and most important points aswell as in other that bee inferiour points unto them to be observed of all his Majesties Subjectes within this kingdome Neyther are there any such great doubts or difficulties in these points as you would perswade yea they bee verie cleare plaine open and evident points and such as any man though but of meane understanding may easily and readily conceive and apprehend For first the verie name of a Subject if there were no more may serve to teach any man that the King whose Subject hee is hath of due right a Regall and Temporall Supremacie not onely over him but over all the rest of his Subjects within his owne Dominions and secondly the verie name of a Christian may serve to teach a man to beleeve and to professe no other religion but that which Christ himselfe taught eyther by himselfe or by his Apostles as also to acknowledge no other to bee the spirituall King head and Monarch of the whole Christian Church but the same CHRIST IESVS onely 4. Now then you are come at last to the matter it selfe Where first of all you affirme and confesse two Supremacies the one spirituall the other temporall The spirituall Supremacie or spirituall Monarchie which indeede rightly Iob. 18.36.57 1 Cor. 15.25 Ephes 1.20.21.22.23 and properly belongeth unto CHRIST IESVS you attribute unto the Pope of Rome But by what right Namely as being his Deputie Vicar or Attorney as you call him But can you shew any letter of Attorney or any Letters Patents Commission or Warrant from him or from his word to prove the same You have sought long but could never yet finde or shew any such warrant although you have pretended divers which prove no such matter If then it bee high treason in a subject to take upon him to bee a Vice-roy or Lord-Deputie in a terrestriall kingdome without a warrant or Commission from his King Is it not likewise as grand as high a treason in the Bishop of Rome to take upon him to bee Vice-roy or Deputie unto Christ in his spirituall kingdome without any warrant or commission from him But as in the point of the spirituall supremacie hee thus intolerably wrongeth Christ Iesus himselfe his Crowne and dignitie so doth hee also intolerable wrong to Emperours Kings and Princes and to their Crownes and dignities in respect of their Civill and Temporall supremacie authoritie rightly aunciently belonging to them over Persons Ecclesiasticall and in causes also Ecclesiasticall within their severall Dominions And this to men that bee not extreamely wilfull perverse and froward I have very sufficiently and abundantly proved in my first and second Bookes whereunto you neyther in your first Answer nor yet in your second which is your Rejoynder have alledged any thing that is of force or weight sufficient to refell or confute any one Argument I brought in that behalfe And herein I refuse not the judgement of any equall and judicious person whosoever Howbeit in that your Reioynder to prove the Popes supremacie you cite one Text of Scripture namely Deut. 17. The wordes whereof because you doe not fully set them downe I will here recite that the Reader may the better perceive how well or ill they fitte your purpose Deut. 17.8.9 10 11.12.13 the wordes be these If there arise a matter to hard for thee in judgement betweene bloud and bloud betweene plea and plea and betweene stroke and stroke being matter of controversie within thy Gates then shalt thou arise and get unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose And thou shalt come unto the Priests Levites and unto the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and enquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgement and thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee thou shalt doe Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand nor to the left And the man that will doe presumptuously and will not bearken unto the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Iudge even that man shall die and thou shalt put away the evill from Israel and the people shall heare and feare and doe no more presumptuously Here for the honour of the Priest you say that hee is in this case to bee obeyed upon penaltie of death and why doe you not say asmuch for the honour of the Iudge that is of the civill Magistrate For the wordes of the Text doe shew that disobedience aswell to the one as to the other was punishable with death But you will say peradventure as the Iesuites did that the Latin translation called S. Ieromes was in times past Ex decreto Iudicis morietur home ille By the decree of the Iudge shall that man die that obeyeth not the Priest In his Booke against the Iesuites part 3. pag. 33. 34 35. To whom that reverend and learned Bishop Doctor Bilson answereth that it was a corrupt translation and that the verie same translation not long sithence was not Ex decreto Iudicis but decreto Iudicis hee that obeyeth not the commaundement of the Priest and the decree of the Iudge that man shall die This was saith he the text of the Bible which you call S. Ieromes Nich. de Lyâ—… in Deut. 17. not much more then two hundred yeares since when
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
A SVRREPLICATION TO THE REIOYNDER OF A POPISH ADVERSARIE VVherein THE SPIRITVALL SVPREMACY of Christ Iesus in his Church and the Civill or Temporall Supremacie of Emperours Kings and Princes within their owne Dominions over Persons Ecclesiasticall in causes also Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and Temporall be yet further declared defended and maintayned against him By CHRISTOPHER SIBTHORP Knight one of his Majesties Iustices of his Court of Chiefe-place in IRELAND Give therefore unto Cesar the things that bee Cesars and unto God the things that be Gods Matth. 22.21 He that is not with mee saith Christ is against me And he that gathereth not with me scattereth Luke 11.23 Imprinted at DVBLIN by the Societie of Stationers Anno Domini M.DC.XXVII To the Reader I Did expect Courteous Reader that before I had written any word in these matters both my first Booke and my second also which is my Reply should first have beene answered and that in such sort as in the Postscript annexed at the end of the same my Reply is declared but therein I perceive mine expectation is deceaved and that my Adversarie without any regard had to that which I desired hath taken his owne course and put forth a Rejoynder to that my Reply In which his Rejoynder I am sorry to see how much he debating the point of Supremacie wrongeth not onely Me and his Reader and the auncient Christian Emperours and auncient Fathers but even CHRIST IESVS also himselfe and all Kings and Princes generally in respect of their severall rights to them belonging Wherfore I thought it not meete or seemely for me in this case to be silent or to desist but being thus provoked to proceede and to make and publish a Surreplication to that Rejoynder And this I doe the rather that so a third book being added to my two former they all three together might serve so much the more strongly to perswade him and the rest of the pretended Catholickes to the truth in this cause for vis unita fortior a threefold corde is not easily broken If by all or any of my labours I shall bee a meane or helpe to worke their conformitie or reformation I shall be glad of it for it is the maine thing I seeke after but if they hate to be reformed and will in contempt and scorne of all admonitions live die in their errors which were a case most fearefull desperate and lamentable whom can they blame therein but themselves and their Popish teachers by whom they are so much misled and abused My Adversarie when he tooke upon him to answer the two Chapters in my first Booke did not prefixe those two Chapters of mine to his answer neyther when hee answered my Reply did he prefixe my Reply to his Rejoynder And therefore also neyther did I prefixe his answere to my Reply nor his Rejoynder to this my Surreplication Whereat neyther he nor any other for him hath cause to be offended or to take exception in asmuch as I doe therein but follow his owne president and example which himselfe first used and wherein hee began unto mee The substance neverthelesse marrow pith and strength of all his Bookes and of his reasons and arguments therein contayned I omit not but mention and that usually or rather evermore in his owne words and doe also make answere thereunto But I am loth any longer to detaine you and therefore I here leave you to the reading of that which followeth and that which followeth to your owne judicious just and equall censure Beseeching God to guide us all unto his truth to keepe establish us therein continually after that wee once see and know it Amen A SVRREPLICATION TO THE REIOYNDER OF A POPISH ADVERSARIE To my Adversarie SIR As you throughout your Rejoynder addressed your speech to me in particular so doe I in like sort here direct my speech unto you in this worke of mine For although I neyther purposed nor promised it nor others I suppose expected it yet that which you have of late published against my Reply hath provoked me once more to set penne to paper in defence of that cause which you so much strive against in vaine In the beginning of that your Rejoynder you say that although wee bee different in religion yet you desire much that wee be united in affection This speech of yours I dislike not because it savoureth as I conceive it of that humanitie and charitie which is to be entertayned and continued amongst us notwithstanding these differences in points of religion as also of some good affection and inclination in you unto Gods trueth wherein chiefely it is that wee are to be united For as touching any other kindes of unitie namely that which is in error and falsehood I hope you desire it not because it is as S. Augustine rightly calleth it Error is conspiratio a conspiracie of error against the truth The unitie which is joyned with divine veritie is it which S. Paul calleth The unitie of the spirit and which hee would have all Christians to be evermore verie carefull to observe saying Ephes 4.3 Endevour to keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace and hee saith againe thus Ephes 4.15 Let us follow the truth in love and in all things grow up into him which is the head that is Chirist This truth if we did all earnestly seeke after and follow and that in love and in a charitable manner as here we are required to doe all our controversies would the better and the sooner be ended and determined which have now so long disquieted many mens mindes and doe so much hinder that which is indeede most requisite namely the good and due practise of true religion in the world For how can any practise religion aright before they know which is the right religion which they are to practise and to walke in Or how can they know which is the right religion they are to walke in so long as they be doubtfull of it by reason of questions and controversies that doe perplexe and distract them The first thing then which men desirous to live good and godly lives are to seeke after is in the middest of all these controversies to get obtain within themselves a resolution of a right religion which resolution they can never certainely have or attaine unto but by meanes of the sacred and Canonicall Scriptures which be the onely infallible rule of all divine truth as I have shewed in my first Booke So that the purpose and intention of that my first Booke as likewise of the second which is my Reply and of this also was not nor is to have men to dwell continually and everlastingly in controversies but cleane contrariwise to have them all ended and determined and that as speedily as might bee in every mans conscience by diligent searching of those holy Scriptures and finding out thereby what is the undoubted trueth in them that men being
once thus satisfied and resolved of the truth and true religion might afterward the better and the more freely apply themselves to the good and due practise of it in their affections words workes lives and conversations refusing all other religions of humane invention whatsoever and the wayes thereof But now though the truth be never so manifest and apparant yet some there be of that froward and perverse disposition that they will not yeelde unto it but as Iannes and Iambres withstood Moses 2. Tim. 3.8 so doe these also resist the truth being men of corrupt mindes and reprobate concerning the faith as S. Paul speaketh of which sort of men if I could helpe it I would not have you to be though you be mine Adversarie yea though you were mine utter enemie And therefore as to the answere which you made to the two Chapters contayned in the first part of my first Booke I replyed so to your Rejoynder I have here also thought it good to make a Surreplication wherein I must not omit to tell you that as touching the second Chapter of my Reply you have in your Rejoynder made no answere at all unto it but it remaineth wholly and entirely unanswered and consequently in his full force strength against you And as touching the first Chapter of my Reply concerning the Supremacie upon which point it seemeth that all your thoughts were wholly fixed imployed although you make some kinde of answere in your Rejoynder unto it and such as perchance you and your partakers may thinke to be somewhat strong yet it is indeede of that great debilitie as that upon the matter it is as good as no answere as will appeare by the sequele and yet have you moreover left a great part even of that first Chapter also unanswered Beside that you have againe in your Reioynder sundry things which were before answered in my Reply and much other idle futile and frivolous stuffe which I suppose you would never have inserted into your booke but fro want of better matter in your cause For first what an idle exception is this that you take to my Reply in that I dedicated it to the Right Honourable the Lord Deputie Why might I not doe so Was it not lawfull Or was there any inconvenience or indecorum in it You say that his Lordship hath taken the Oath of Supremacie which maketh him a direct Partie being a Partie he may not also be a Iudge in the same cause What have you so soone forgotten what your selfe did For when you made your answere to the two Chapters of my first Booke you may remember that you dedicated it To your dearest countreymen the Lawyers of Ireland You then thought it lawfull and seemely enough for you so to dedicate it notwithstanding that by their refusall and utter dislike to take the Oath of Supremacie they manifestly shewed themselves to be Parties And was this lawfull for you to doe and was not the other as lawfull at least or rather much more lawfull and seemely all things considered for mee to doe Howbeit you know also that Bookes be not alwayes dedicated to men to make them Iudges but sometimes and usually to the end they should be the Patrons thereof albeit therein also they be not disallowed but well allowed to passe their judgement and censure upon the same But indeede no reason had you to dislike of the dedication of that my Booke unto his Lordship in whom your selfe doe acknowledge that there is sufficiencie to understand wisedome to discerne and power to commaund A like second exception you take for that I call the Papists of this kingdome Pretended Catholickes which title say you they doe not acknowledge But whether they acknowledge it or no it must bee graunted that whilest they call themselves Catholickes when re vera they bee not so as I have shewed and prooved in my first Booke they can bee no other but Pretended Catholickes As likewise hee that calleth himselfe an honest man when revera he is not so is at the most but a pretended honest man Yet another exception you take in this that you say I call you Canis festinans and Luscus inter caecos But you mistake in both For in that my epistle dedicatorie of my Reply I did not say that you were Caniâ— festinans but that whilest in your Answere you strived to make more hast then good speede you shewed your selfe to be like Canis festinans caecos edens catibos which is a proverbiall speech tolerable enough in the judgment of such as be not over captious and often and ordinarily vsed in that sort and sence to that purpose that I used it Neither did I say definitely expressely of you that you were Luscus inter caecos but my words be these Regnat inter caecos Luscus which may be aswell spoken of any other as of you vnlesse you will needs be the man and so take and apply it as you doe to your selfe particularly 2. After these exceptions you come next to the the three requests I made to him that would take upâ—n him to answer my first booke in the first whereof I desired that he would answere it not by parts or peasemeals but wholly and entirely from the beginning of it unto the end The second was that he would doe it not superficialie and sophistically but substantially soundly satisfactorily if he could Thirdly I desired him to doe it as in love and charity so also with an affection only to follow Gods truth and with all to set his name unto it as I had done to that booke of mine But hereunto you take divers exceptions though now somewhat lately in your Reioynder First you say that these being conditions they should have beene agreed upon by the mutuall consent of parties and that if any advantage be given it should be in favour of the defendant as in matter of challenge for the defendant appoints the weapon time and place But in this challenge of mine contrary unto law and custome I have say you assumed unto my selfe being the challenger the proposing of such conditions as doe disadvantage the defendant It is true that in contracts and bargaines betweene man and man the conditions must be agreed upon by mutuall consent of parties before it be or can be a perfect contract or a perfect bargaine howbeit conditions for all that not onely may be but also must be first propounded before they can bee assented unto or agreed upon Againe there is aswell a subsequent agreement as a precedent As if a man propound or offer unto you a Lease for yeares of lands upon certaine conditions you may choose whether you will accept of it or no upon those conditions but if though not at the first yet afterward you having the election doe declare your consent and acceptance of it by entring upon the lands manuring them taking the profits is it not reason you should performe the conditions thereunto annexed