A defence of the Apology of the Church of England containing an answer to…A defence of the Apologie of the Churche of Englande conteininge an answeare to…

Moses was not only a Civil Magistrate.^‡ but also a Priest. In that he had both offices,^* it proveth that a Priest may have both: but not contrariwise, that a King may have both For the greater may include the less, but the less can not include the greater.^‡ The office of a Priest is the highest of all. ^*And Christ coming naturally of the Kings line from David in the tribe of Judah, yet esteemed that honour nothing in respect of that he was a Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Therefore Melchizedek also being both Priest and King, was not yet said to be the figure of Christ so much concerning his Kingdom,⁵ as his Priesthood. For David said of Christ, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchtsedech. As for his Kingdom, it was included in his Priests office. And therefore when we speak of Christs Kingdom, though in every respect he be the very King in deed of all Kings,⁶ and Lord of all Lords: yet we assign it also to have ben upon the Cross, ubiregnavit à ligno Deus, where God reigned from the wood. According to the same meaning, whereas the people of Israel were called Regnum Sacerdotal, a Priestly Kingdom: S. Peter writing to the Christians, turned the order of the words, calling the Church of Christ, Sacerdotium Regale, a Kingly Priesthood. Moses was both a Priest and a Civil Governor, as being a figure of Christ, who joined both together, making the tribe of Judah, which was before kingly, now also to be Priestly. Therefore S. Augustine upon those words of David,