Aaron the high Priest was gods minister But to inferre such a superioritie on the word ministerie as debarreth the Princes supremacie which you would doe I take that Philo was not halfe so cunning But what cunning soeuer Philo had we Christians ye saye ought not to be ignorant of it to wit that he was not only the peoples Minister but also gods Minister and moreouer the figure of christ For this also is signified when he is not onely called Priest but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the annoynted priest For Christ being named of annoynting would haue his ministers called annoynted VVherevpon is spoken that of Dauid touche not mine annoynted For if Moyses as the seruaunt in the house of God that is in the Iewishe people were faithfull in the witnesse of those things that were to bee spoken truely sith the other Priests descending from the stocke of Aaron kepte the lawe of Moyses euen they also were seruauntes in the house of God and of Christ to witnesse those things that were to be spoken But they were seruauntes not onely of the people but muche more of christ VVhereupon God sayth to Moyses the Leuites are mine I am the Lorde and vnto Ieremie I will multiplie the seede of Dauid my seruaunte and the Leuites my Ministers Ye runne at randon Maister Saunders Who denyeth that the Leuites and Priests were gods Ministers and his seruauntes and his annoynted wée are not ignoraunte thankes be to God of this althoughe many of them were ignoraunt of this their office and dutie and your selfe shewe no small ignoraunce to tell vs that he would haue his ministers called annoynted bycause his name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyeth annoynted As though Christ were annoynted with suche externall oyntment as Aaron and the high Priests were or as though Christes Ministers shoulde be annoynted with such externall oyntment or as though the Popishe Priests greasie annoynting were deriued of Christes annoynting which was onely spirituall Oleo letitiae prae consortibus with the oyle of gladnesse aboue his fellowes or as thoughe the ministers of Christ were onely Christians and were onely annoynted with this spirituall oile of the comforter and not al true Christians that are members of Christ of whome they take this name or as though any of these things the faythfull seruice and the externall annoynting then of the Priests and the spirituall annointing now of all Christians hynder the Princes superioritie These are such things M Saunders that where ye say we ought not to be ignorant that the high priest was Christs Minister then you that professe to be much more his Ministers now ought to be ashamed that ye are so ignorant of them And sée againe how in this impertinent vaunting of your selues ye shew in your last sentence cited the follie of your former argument on the order of placing the name to infer the greater authoritie Is not here the sede of Dauid that is the royall stocke placed before the Leuites euen where he calleth them his ministers And thus Maister Saunders vnawares hath mard his former argument But still he procéedeth saying Euen as therfore the Bishops in that they vvere ministers of the Synagog ought to haue been lesse tha the people to whō they ministred so in that they vvere the ministers of Christ and of him placed ouer the Synagog they vvere also greater than the Synagog For sith Christ vvas the true Lord as well of the Synagog as of the Church it vvas lavvfull for him to do vvith his ovvne that vvhich seemed good to him and to make a faithfull seruaunt ouer his house Neither onely the Lord himselfe but also he vvhom the Lord placeth ouer his familie is greater then the same familie No man denieth you Maister Saunders that the function of his office is greater But as this hindreth not our matter so these texts furder not yours although ye wrest the sayings of the new testament to the olde to enforce then We graūt ye the Lord can do vvith his houshold as he vvill Put that he vvill doe as you vvill and as you saye he doth proue that and there an ende In the meane time note here againe your owne confession that the Bishops in that they be ministers to the people are lesse than the people which is more than Philo sayde with whome ye founde fault bicause hée made them equall which as it declareth in you another contradiction so it argueth lacke of due consideration euen in the high Prieste dignitie that ye would so faine extoll and yet bicause ye can not haue your owne minde ye pettithely dashe it downe For althoughe the Bishop minister to the people he is not therin their inferior but rather in dede their superior The Prince ministreth to them also and yet euen in his ministration he is superior to them and in that they both minister to the people they are gods ministers both of them Yea the Bishop ministreth to the king the worde and sacraments of God yet is he not therin lesser but superior to him The king againe ministreth to the Bishop the maintenance and direction of him in ouerseing the Byshoppe doe his duetie and yet he is not therein lesse than he but his superior VVherefore saith M. Saunders the annointed priest as the minister of Christ is placed in the first place before the people vvhile in the meane season the king standes belovv in the third place nor in the reason of sacrificing differs muche from the priuate man. You couet stil the higher place M. Saūders like a proude Pharisee and dispise the Prince as though he were a Publican But his cause shall be iustified and he exalted and you shall be brought downe with shame and goe home condemned Yea your owne mouth hath condemned you already placing the seede of Dauid before the Leuits and yet ye haue neuer dene with babling of your former placing Now when Philo will not serue to confirme this argumente better ye runne to Iosephus who was no more a Christian than was Philo and had muche lesse cunning in diuinitie than Philo althoughe a more notable historiographer But alacke it is a poore helpe ye haue of him but let vs sée it as it is VVherevpon Iosephus hathe lefte thus written vpon the same matters The Princes also when they Sacrificed for sinne doe offer the same things that the common people doe onely this is the difference that they bring for offering a bull and an hee Goate by words Iosephus signifies that priuate men brought a cowe and not a bull a she goate and nota he goate to offring What is this to the purpose Maister Saunders if the argument be good as you make it it will make still against your selfe he that brought to offring debilius animal minus dignum the weaker beast and leste worthie is him selfe the lesse worthie Were this true as it is false and foolishe let vs I pray ye
religion Secondly that they ought to doe this with an especiall regards and care Thirdely they perceyue and rightly vnderstande that it is Gods will they shoulde so doe Now since that this by master Stapletons déepe silence is agréed vpon betwixt the Bishop and him I make hereon this argument To order and set forth Gods true religion with especiall regarde and care is the Princes duetie But the only sort of gouernment that the Quéenes Maiestie doth chalenge and take vpon hiâ—… in ecclesiasticall causes is to order and set forth Gods true Religion with an especiall regarde and care Ergo Prinâ—… ought to take vpon them such gouernment as the Quéenes Maiestie doth claime and take vpon hir in ecclesiasticall causes And thus is the Bishops antecedent directly proued and so consequently the principall matter of M. Feck issue Nowe as the former part being the generall assertion to all the ensamples following is no whitte impeached by any aunswere of master Stap. to it but by silence whiche with him is an argument of confession graunted so like a very Counterblaster in déed he blusâ—…reth and puffeth at the seconde part as though he would all to blast it Moses sayth the Bishop was supreme gouernour ouer Gods people and was not chief priest or Bishop for that was Aaron Here master Stapleton denyeth not Moses to be the supreme gouernour but that he was not chiefe priest or Bishop he vtterly gainsayeth it It is an vntruth sayth he in his score for Moses was the chiefe priest as shall be prooued Here is a flat promise of proufe but I feare me it wil neuer be perfourmed neyther doth master Stapleton here go about the perfourmance of it And therefore the Bishops denial of Moses to be the chiefe Priest must stand for a truth till by prouing Moses to be the chiefe Priest he haue proued it to be an vntruth And in the meane time his promise must stande but for a crake as also his prowde entraâ—…nte into his Chapter That the Scripture by the Bishop alleaged reacheth nothing home but rather infringeth and plainely marreth the Bishoppes purpose and fullye standeth on our syde sayeth this student so greatly hath arrogancie sotted him He fareth as did the Souldiour who when his aduersarie had manye tymes in wrastling hurled him downe in the sighte of euerie stander by yet woulde hée neuer confesse that hée had anye fall yea most arrogantlye â–ª he styll affyrmed that hée had â—…ast the other And euen so playeth this student for this of wrastling is one of his common similitudes he contendeth to wrastle with the Bishoppe whiche is in verys déede as hée sayeth in this Chapter Impar congressus Achâ—…lls Troilus An vneuen matche betweene Troylus and Achilles What a number of â—…oule falles hée hath had yea howe hée hath béene ouerturned in hys â—…wne trippes is apparaunt to euery Readers eyes and goe no further but euen to hys last Chapter And yet sée howe hée craketh that all the Byshoppes allegations marre hys owne cause and fully stande on hys syde Where contraryewyse they haue drie beaten him backe bellie side and all And as hée thus fondely maketh vaunt of his former victorie â—…o I doubt nothing sayth he it will fare with his examples Well sayd of a student like an other Gawin he doubteth nothing But sée a sodaine qualme of hys inconstancie for euen streyght wayes after he hath cryed out all comes to shorâ—… he sayth but here am I shrewedly â—…ncombred and in a great doubt what to doe Whie master Stapleton are ye now so soone in a great doubt and right nowe as doeth bolde Bayarde doubted nothing and haue before alreadie without any stammering thereat clapped downe your marginall note for a full resolute aunswere that Moyses was the chiefe Priest and nowe doubt ye what to answere But master Stapleton hath so many weapons that he is shrewdly encombred with them as it were another armed Golias and yet one smal poebble stone will soone ease him of this encombrance He telles vs he hath so many aunsweres that he doubteth with which he should beginne for I could sayth he make a short but a true aunswere that these ensamples are fully aunswered alreadie by master D. Harding and master Dorman In déede master Stapleton this were a short aunswers but I sée your selfe feare as ye sayde before it woulde come to short and not reache home to the matter Yet say you if ye shoulde referre the Reader thither to his and your great ease it should be to the sparing not only of penne ynke and paper but of the time also which of all thinges is most precious It séemeth master Stapleton ye are a man of déepe casting these are good considerations of penne ynke paper and tyme. But whie followe ye not your owne councell whiche if ye had obserued and left out so many impertinent vagaries and other your trifling common places ye had saued more paper penne ynke and tyme by thrée halues than ye haue done And here as séeming full resolued to follow this aduise ye clappe downe another marginall note All master Hornes examples out of the olde Testament aunswered alreadie by master Doctour Harding and master Dorman Here sayth he is a shorte but a true aunswere To this shorte aunswere I aunswere againe All M. Doctor Hardings and M. Dormans answeres confuted alreadie by the B of Sarum and M. Nowell Here is another as short an answere as yours M. Stap. and a great deale truer whiche I remitte to the indifferent viewers of both their answeres Nowe might we both rest and breath vs from further answering of these ensamples and spare penue ynke paper and time also that he séemeth to accompt most precious But another thing was more precious vnto him and that was master Feckenhams hyre and his friendes largesse for so much Paper penne ynke and time spent about his booke and the gaine of the printed copies which the bigger volume it came vnto for he woulde not séeme a thréehalfepennie student the fatter exhibition it should yéelde and he séeme the greater clerke yea to go beyonde his masters And therefore there is no remedie he will spare neyther penne ynke paper time nor paynes also but that his Counterblast shall be blowne vp to so large and full a volume that it may encounter euen the best of theirs To whose answeres if he shoulde referre himselfe and saye no more thereto Then I feare me sayth he woulde steppe forth if not master Horne a good simple plaine man in his dealings yet some other ioly fine freshe pregnant wittie fellowe yea and bring me to the streightes which way so euer I did treade You are loath I perceiue master Stapleton to be brought into the streight way to treade aright therein for then your wrie treading woulde soone be espied But ye séeke crookes and shifting answeres for the nonce And lyke the vayne talkatiue Arrian Philosopher ye dispise the right reuerende and learned father calling
ouer the Reubenites and the Gadites and the halfe of the tribe of Manasses for euery matter perteyning to God and for the kings businesse that is to say both in spirituall and temporall things And also a little aboue In all the businesse of the Lorde and for the seruice of the King. Howbeit I speake not this so much to proue King Dauids supremacie ouer the Porters in all and euery ecclesiasticall matter so well as temporall but chiefly to followe your shift of the Prophetes For here we sée howe expresly the Prophets also were appoynted their orders by the king and euen the principall fathers of them attendant vnto him as their children were to them And thoughe theyr children were vnder theyr gouernmentes as were the inferiour Priestes vnder the higher Priestes yet as Asaph Heman and Iduthim were vnder the gouernment of the King also who ordered directed appoynted and coÌ„maunded them so was Aaron and his successors the high priests vnder the appointment and order of the King for all that their sonnes and inferior priests were vnderneath their gouernment For the one gouernment doth not exclude the other as master Stapleton himselfe confesseth that in one man many rulers may and do dayly concurre which in some sense may euery one be called his supreme gouernour And thus was first God by the ministerie of his priestes and prophetes the absolute supreme gouernour vnto Dauid So was Dauid next vnder God by his ouersight ordering and commaunding those ecclesiasticall actions to be rightly done the supreme gouernour not onely to the Leuits and Porters but to the chiefe Priestes to the chiefe Prophets and all And so were the chiefe priestes and principall Prophets in their functions and ministeries of theyr offices the supreme gouernors ouer their inferior priests prophets and yet was not their gouernment embarring the kings nor the kings any whit preiudicial to theirs For the priestes and the prophets did the action but the coÌ„maundements the appointing ordring was the kings next to god who coÌ„maunded them to him â—…e to the priests prophets And this order should M. St. haue séene had he but read the next sentence before the text that he vrgeth Secundum dispositioneÌ„ Dauid regis Gad videÌ„tu regis c. According to the commaundement or disposition of Dauid the king of Gad the kings Seer of visions and Nathan the prophet c. Thus the prince euen in those thingâ—… that god coÌ„maundeth by the hand of the prophets is chéef for his authoritie vnder god Next to whom are adioyâ—…ed the Prophets or learned preachers or ministers of Gods worde as by whose mouth or hande God commaundeth it to be done and haue mosts skill thereof And yet that both priest prophet do their offices faithfully apperteyneth to the kings coÌ„mauÌ„dement appéereth further throughout this chap. as also in Ezechias ensample froÌ„ whence be takes this seÌ„tence as we shall sée wheÌ„ we come therto Onely thus much to detect the shifts that M. St. maketh stil leaping from priest to prophet froÌ„ prophet again to priest as it were a squirrel skipping froÌ„ one trée to another to saue hir froÌ„ the birdbolt but all wil not be nothing wil any thing serue his turne but euery thing maketh quite against him which wheÌ„ he séeth as it were to set an Oliuer agaynst a Rowlande he alleageth agaynst king Dauids eusample the ensample of Carolus Magnus Againe saith he the like might you haue alleaged of Carolus Magnus that he corrected most diligently the order of reading and singing in the church that he brought first into Frauâ—…ce caâ—…tum GregorianuÌ„ the order of singing lefte by S. Gregorie at Rome and appoynted singers therfore when they did not well placed other in their rowmes And many such other like matters of the church wherin that godly Emperour much busied him selfe and yet exercised no supreme gouernment ouer the clergie but was of all other Princes most far froÌ„ it as it may easily appeare to him that wil read in the decrees dist 19. in memoriam where he protesteth obedience to the Sea of Rome yea though an importable charge should be layde vpon him by that holy Sea. Ye haue picked out an vnlike vneuen match M. St. to compare herein the doings of king Dauid with K. Charlemaines Where is become your Impar congressus Achilli Troilus the vnequall matche betwene Troilus and Achilles Howe corrupte the tyme of king Charlemayne was and what practises and fetches your Pope vsed to get the crowne of Fraunce to Pepin his father from the right and lawful prince therof and the Empire of Rome to Charlemayne froÌ„ the Emperour of Constantinople to whoÌ„ it dyd belong euery hiltoriographer can tel may fitter be declared in his proper place than here to leape ouer the stile ere ye come at it by many an hundreth miles yet for hast ye breake your shinnes euen agaynst those things that as trifles ye recken vp vnto vs As the correcting most diligently the order of reading and singing in the Church the placing and displacing singers if he did these things as a godly Emperor as ye say then he tooke it that as Emperor he had a gouernment in them But ye say as a godly Emperor he much busied him selfe If he found him self busines like a busie body wherin he had no authoritie thus so place displace to institute order and correct how was he a godly Emperour therin or not rather as ye sayd before played Oza his part But ye say he was therein a godly Emperour therefore he did nothing of any buâ—…iositie but of his owne authoritie and supreme gouernment therein Well yet say you it was but in singing and ouer singers Was it no further M. Stapleton howe then do you say the like you might haue alleaged of Carolus Magnus to King Dauids doings Did King Dauid meddle onely with singing and singers Did he not meddle with Priestes and Prophetes also But to salue the matter ye say and many other suche like matters of the Church Whie tell ye not man what those many other matters were haue ye no lust to declare them for feare they would marre your market Well let them alone till we come to the proper examination of them Howbeit whatsoeuer they shall fall out to be here remember ye liken them to King Dauids doings But King Dauid commaunded and appoynted singers Priests Prophetes all the clergie high and lowe of what degrée so euer Ergo King Charlemaines authoritie stretched further than to singing men euen to all Priestes Prophetes and all the clergie besides And thus eyther your similitude is not like or else the one and the other maketh cleane against you But if these doings of Charlemaine be not like yet hath master Stapleton another proufe in store Also in the decrees 11. Q. 1. which Iuo also alleageth where he renueth out of the Code of Theodosius a lawe binding all his subiects
olde testament the Prince was otherwise than in the foresayde respects inferiour to the Priest and people It remaineth sayth he that we proue the king of the Hebrue nation to haue ben lesse than his nation and his Bishop VVho shall bee a better iudge in this cause than euen God himselfe For he entreating of sacrifices for sinne committed by ignorance distinguisheth foure sortes of men For either the anoynted priest sinneth or the people or the Prince or the priuate person Of these foure sortes the anoynted Prieste helde the firste place the people of Israell the seconde place the Prince the third place the priuate man the last place If the Prieste that is anoynted shall haue sinned making the people to offende he shall offer for his sinne an vnspotted ' Bullocke without blemishe vnto the Lorde But if all the people of Israell shall haue doone of ignorance that whiche is contrarie to the commaundement of the Lorde and shall afterwarde vnderstande their sinne the people shall offer a Bullocke for their sinne If the Prince shall haue sinned and among many thinges shall doe ought by ignorance that is forbidden by the Lawe of the Lorde and shall afterwarde vnderstande his sinne he shall offer for an offering to the Lorde from among the she Goates an he Goate vnspotted But if any soule of the people of the lande shall haue sinned through ignorance hee shall offer a shee Goate vnspotted Loe foure sacrifices whereof the moste worthy is the Bullocke whiche is offered as well for the Prieste as for all the people The hee Goate is but of the nexte worthynesse the which the King offered Therefore euen as the Prince is prefered before the priuate man so al the people is preferred before the Prince but the anoynted Prieste is preferred before them both This argument is taken from the Sacrifices for sinnes in the olde Testament and is nothing pertayning to gouernment and therfore can infer no necessarie but wrested conclusion therevnto Nowe as this matter is nothing to the present purpose so his argumentes thereon argue the greater follie the more nicely he standeth on them He driueth thē to infer a superioritie by two reasons the one of the more worthy Sacrifice the other of the order placing the discription of these Sacrifices Of the Sacrifice he reasoneth on the more worthy beast as thus He that offered the more worthy beast was the more worthy in authoritie But the highe Prieste and the people offered a more worthe beaste than dyd the Prince Ergo the highe Priest and the people were more worthy in authoritie than the Prince The Maior he taketh for graunted after his manner ▪ The Minor he proueth thus A Bullocke is a more worthie beast than a Goate But the highe Priest and the people offered a Bullocke the Prince but a Goate Ergo they offered a more worthie beaste I aunswere to this worthy if not rather beastly argument made from a Bullocke as I remember once a Papiste sayde in Cambridge of a righte worthie Doctor of hys owne Popishe Church his name quoth he is Doctor Bullocke but per contractionem it maye be Doctor Blocke and so this is a Bullockishe argument but per contractionem it is a very blockishe argument and farre more fitte for Doctour Bullock thā for Doctor Sanders to haue made except that he be made Bullatus Doctor I graunt there was great differences to be obserued in the thinges offered howe beit the worthynesse of the Sacrifice laye not in the things offered but euery Sacrifice had this or that kynd of matter appointed to be offered as the wisdome of God thoughte fittest to expresse the nature of that sinne or propitiation whereof it was a Sacrifice A Lyon is counted a more worthy beast than a Bullocke and yet was it counted an vncleane beast In the second chapter going before this alledged God saith of flower and Corne offered which is not so worthy a thing as is a beast it is the most holy of the offerings of the Lorde made by fire In the thirde Chapter he saithe if he offer a Lambe for his oblation and afterwarde he sayth and if his offerings be a Goate A Goate is a more worthy beast than Lambe But what shall we conclude hereon for the more worthynesse of the Persons authoritie that offered all these and other more different things But nowe if a Bullocke be the moste worthy beast dyd not many Kings many times offer many Bullockes Did not also the high Priests offer other things for themselues besides bullockes in the. 8. chapter of Leuit. a bullocke and ◅ ram was offered for Aaron and his sonnes but here the bullocke is still placed before the ram as a more worthie beast by maister Saunders reason But in the ninth chapter he sayth And in the. 8. daye Moyses called Aaron and his sonnes and the elders of Israel and then he said to Aaron take thee a yong calfe for a sinne offering and a ram for a burnte offering both without blemishe and bring them before the Lorde and vnto the Children of Israel saying take ye an hee Goate for a sinne offering and a Calfe and a Lambe both of a yeare olde without blemishe for a burnt offering also a Bullocke and a ram for a peace offering here is a yong calfe preferred before a bullocke for the Priests sin offering and a ram before a Calfe yea a bullocke and a ram for the people and but a yong calfe and a ram for the high Priest and so the people by this reason shoulde be more worthie than the high Priest and equall at the least they are made euen in this place that M. Saunders so narrowly examineth for the Priest and the people offer a bullocke both of them Now if the dignitie of the beast sacrificed will not inferre the dignitie of the man offering the sacrifice yet wil master Saunders enforce his argument furder from the dignitie of the place in the order of naming eche persons sacrifyce as thus He that is former placed is former in dignitie and hee that is placed later is inferior in dignitie But the priest annointed held the first place the people of Israel the second place the Prince the thirde place the priuate man the last place Ergo the Prince is inferior in dignitie to the Priest and the people and onely superior to the priuate man. I answere this is as meane if not a worser argumente than the other from the former place in recitall to the former place in dignitie Maister Saunders owne order of his booke in this selfe same treatise confuteth himselfe In hys firste booke he examineth the peoples authoritie In his seconde booke the Princes authoritie in his thirde booke the Priests authoritie shall wee v◅gehim herevpon that he ment to giue the people superior authoritie to Princes and Princes superior authoritie vnto Priests he will saye be ment it not
the kings'gouernmeÌ„t vntil Saul came Ergo kings gouerne theÌ„ not in that they are meÌ„bers of Christ. Is all your drift come to this M. Saunders to run from the matter to the name of kings what if neither the name nor estate of kings were before the time of Saul was not the people of God alwayes gouerned euen froÌ„ the beginning with a ciuil or politike Magistrate cal him King or Prince or Patriark or Duke or Iudge or what you will do you inueygh here onely againste Kings is it the name of King that you beare such spite vnto to call it but a fleshly power as though Sathan hadeuen fleshed you against kings For what more grosse or bestiall name can you giue the gouernment of the Turkes infidels than here you terme the power persons of ChristiaÌ„ kings but al these argumeÌ„ts are false M. Saund. the Church of Christ neuer wanted magistrats the magistrates were not only themselues if they were good the members of Christ although they had a fleshly part the old man in theÌ„ as euen the pastors haue also but they had a speciall charge and regard to their subiects eueÌ„ in that they were meÌ„bers of Christ. Not that they toke vpon them the office of spirituall pastors to preach gods word vnto theÌ„ administer the sacraments except som of them were such persons as might not only ouersée it done of others but might or ought theÌ„selues to do it as all the Patriarches ordinarilye till Aarons time and some of the Priests and Prophets extraordinarily and very seldome afterwardes chosen therevnto but this was the duetie of all the Magistrates which all the good Princes did principallie looke vnto howsoeuer other did neglecte or abuse the same This therefore Maister Saunders is a foule sclaunder to speake so lewdly on Christian Princes and also a contradiction to your former saying that theyr estate was spirituall Yea howe doth this agree with your words next following VVherefore say you sith Kings and pastours do now come together into one body of the Church and the powers of theÌ„ before distinguished oughte nowe to serue one Christe to wit eyther of them in their place and order but most certaine it is that the spirituall power which is instituted for the church is knit more nerer with Christe than the power of earthlye Kings which is appoynted to defende men in earthly peace not onely within but also without the Churche of Christe I see not but that he hath loste his common sense in iudging gods matters if any man contende that the spirituall power of the Church is not aboue the earthly power of Kings â–ª What soeuer you see or see not M. Saunders I see you haue a great conceite of your selfe that thus in your conclusion almost of euery argumente you make all men fooles doltes and madde and out of their wits and to want reason common sense and to be no better than beasts if they denie that that you affirme Whether it come of the contempte of others or of the pride of your selfe that makes you to vse these speaches so often let other wiser Iudge for we are fooles and madde men in your opinion But if you be not blinde in your owne conceite doe you not see what contraries still you vtter to make the Princes power â—…oth fleshely and spirituall to stretch to furder endes than bodily peace yet to stretch no furder but these are your olde contradictions You tell vs of a superioritie and a superioritie we haue graunted Neither haue we so loste our common sense but that we see your false packing in charging vs to contende that the spirituall power of the Churche is not aboue the earthly power of Princes For neither do we denie the superioritie of the spirituall power of the Churche neither do we graunt the power of Christian Princes to be onely an earthly power But what is this for the priest to depose the Prince God be thanked we haue not so loste our common sense but that we see you straggle from the question But let vs sée if you come any néerer to it For if neither parte be ouer the other howe in one body of the Churche do bothe powers abide beeing not vnited or howe are they vnited if they yet abide so distinguished that one can not gouerne the other or who euer sawe in one body of a liuing creature two members vtterly distinguished placed in one place and honor who hathe seene except in a monstruous body the foote made equall to the arme the thighe to the necke the legge to the fide But and if the kingly and spirituall power are not altogither equall members distinguished onely in number as two handes two feete and two eyes for those that differ in originall in vse and in ende can neuer be equall or else they be also thinges vtterly seuered bicause they be vnited and filled togither in one body of the Churche we must needes confesse that they differ in the placing of them and yet they are continued in the compasse of one body Héere is Sim Suttle M. Saunders of all that euer I sée A man had néede haue more than common sense that shall vnderstande this geare althoughe he studie for it you couet to speake so darkely We go playnely to worke we graunt that the ecclesiastical power and the polytical power are two distinct powers We graunt that they are ioyned togither in one body of the Churche of Christ. We graunt also that the one hathe in some respects a superioritie and in other respectes an inferioritie to the other We do not confounde them béeing thus ioyned and yet distinguished the one in the same or like place with the other It is your selues that woulde thus confound them giuing bothe the powers vnto one person and confounde one member wyth another and make a monstrous body We attribute not both powers to the Prince as you do to your Pope We affirme that the Prince differeth from the Bishop the Bishop from the Prince We affirme that bothe are members of the mysticall body of the Church of Christ and bothe rule the other members and that as meÌ„bers too We affirme the Bishops power in respect of his ministerie in exhorting and rebuking is aboue the Princes and the Princes in respect of his gouernment in maynteyning punishing is aboue the Bishops So that héere is not one or the like place and honor geuen to bothe but bothe haue suche places as are fitte for either And thus as the head is superior in one respect coÌ„cerning iudgement inuention and memorie and the harte is superior in another respect concerning lyfe and will so the Bishop may be graunted a superior member in the body of the Church in one respect and the Prince superior in another What monstrous body is héere or what confusion or rather not in your owne darke spéeches instling confounding these things
He toucheth two reasons The one in that he saith to my Lorde The other To the Lordes anoynted But bicause that was the chiefest reason for that Saule was anoynted of the most highe God that onely he nameth twyse Whereby we sée he accempted Saule still as his lawfull king and himselfe to be his dutifull and obedient subiect And so he acknowledged him selfe to Saule when he cried after him saying O my Lord the king â–ª and when Saule looked behind him Dauid enelined his face to the earth and bowed himselfe And Dauid sayd to Saul wherefore giuest thou eare to mennes words that say beholde Dauid seeketh euill against thee Beholde this day thine eyes haue seene that the Lorde hath deliuered thee this day into my hand in the caue and some badde me kill thee But I had compassion on thee and sayd I will not lay my hande on my Maister For he is the Lordes anoynted Moreouer my father behold I say the lappe of thy garment in my hande For when I cut off the lappe of thy garment I killed thee not Vnderstande and see that there is no euill nor wickednesse in me neither haue I sinned against thee According to the Hebrue saith Caietane neither is rebellion in me c. He excludeth all sinne by repeating his worke backwarde For last of all he excludeth sinne against Saul and before rebellion against the King and first of all euill vniuersally And vpon these words The Lord be iudge betwen thee and me And the Lord auenge me of thee and let not my hand be on thee This he said saith Lyra in the zeale of Iustice and not of reuengement For no body ought to take vengeance on his own iniurie by himself except it lye vpon him by his office and euen then it were better that he did it by another All these words saith Caietane are not of him that wisheth but foretelleth and expecteth For they are in the Hebrue texte of the future tence and the indicatiue mode He shall iudge and he shall auenge So farre is Dauid from wishing any euil vnto the king And he so humbleth himselfe vnto him that he calleth himselfe in comparisoÌ„ of the King a dead dogge and a flie Sith I am saith Lyra of no moment or nothing worth in regarde of thee Thus farre was Dauid froÌ„ euer attempting to depose King Saul after Samuel had anoynted him And that not onely where Ionathas but euen where Saul himselfe acknowledged that Dauid shoulde be Kâ—…ng after him saying and nowe I know of a certaintie that thou shalt raigne and the kingdome of Israel shall be established in thy hand But yet he saith not that he then presently raigned neither doth he resigne vnto him but make a couenant and take an othe of Dauid that when he should raigne he shoulde not destroy his séede after him nor take away his name from his fathers house this Dauid swore vnto him Wherin he acknowledgeth though a state to come yet no state in present The like occasion falling out againe 1. Reg. 26. Dauid behaued himselfe to Saul in semblable wise For when he might haue killed him and Abisai would haue killed him â—…he not onely woulde not doe it nor suffer it to be done But he sayth to Abisai destroye him not For who can laye his handes on the Lords anoynted and be giltlesse Dauid sayth Lyra wold gyue this to the person of him so long as he was suffered of God in the Kingdome Alwayes sayth Caietane Dauid had fixed in his harte and in his mouth the honour of the moste high God in so muche that he thoughte none innocent that stretched hys hande vpon the anoynted of god As the Lorde lyueth saith he either the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to dye or he shall descende into battell and perishe The Lorde keepe me from laying my hand vpon the Lords anoynted By this saith Lira Dauid entended that by no meanes he would be the efficient cause of his death excepte perhaps in defending himselfe so that he could not otherwise escape And when Dauid called to Abner he challenged him to be worthy of death for keping the Kings person no better and when Saul knowing his voice said is this thy voyce my sonne Dauid and Dauid sayd it is my voyce my Lorde O king And he sayde wherefore doth my Lord thus persecute his seruant for what haue I done or what euil is in my hand Now therefore I beseeche thee let my Lorde the King heare the wordes of his seruaunt c. thus humbleth he himselfe in his purgation and sayth the King of Israell is come out to seeke a flie as one woulde hunte a Partridge in the mountaynes So lowly abasing himselfe in comparison of Saul whome he calleth the King of Israel Neyther dissembled he but spake Bona fide euen as he thought in his hart So farre was Dauid from not acknowledging Saul to be still hys soueraigne Lorde and lawfull King so farre from gathering anye vnlawfull assemblyes againste him so farre from any priuie conspiracie or open rebellion so farre from so much as thinking to depose him that when he had him in his daunger he woulde not onely not hurt him nor suffer other to doeit but gaue him so great honour as any subiecte can giue his Prince How then is not the storie of Saule and Dauid wrested for a Christian subiect that hath no such authoritie as Dauid had to depose or take armes against his Christian Prince or to go from the obedience of him as no longer lawfull Kyng after the Byshop shall saye he hathe deposed him and to obey any other that the Bishop shal appoint for King The third thing that Master Saunders inferreth is this that althoughe the Pope and his Bishops may doe thus to Princes yet Princes were very tyrants if they should doe oughte to them And hereto he alleageth that when the high Priest Achimelech asked counsell of the Lord for Dauid Saul hauing intelligence thereof commaunded his seruants to fall vpon the Priests of the Lord no man durst execute so cruell a commaundement besides onely Doeg the Idumean For Achimelechs asking counsell of the Lord for Dauid Whâ—… Dauid fled vnto him first the case Maister Saunders is not so cléere but that as Lyra confesseth a question is made theron for there appéereth no such thing in the. 21. Chapter Althoughe Doeg so accused him and Achimelech standeth not to the deniall thereof but vpon his innocencie Lyra sayth Dicunt aliqui c. Some saye that he lyed as tale bearers are wont to saye more than is in deede but the contrary seemeth rather to bee true So that this is not so cleare a case as you make it But what is all thys storye to the purpose or not rather againste you especially that that followeth of Saules puttyng the Priestes to death Wherein although he dyd a wycked and tyrannous acte yet it argueth
cut halfe away of the Bishops definition which within eight lines after though nipping and wresting the woordes yet some what more truly than before he expresseth saying in those actions that may any way properly belong to the subiecte or thing gouerned Wherein he séemeth vnskilfully or as one astonnied to make no difference betwixt the subiect which is the person and the obiect which is the matter and action or not to vnderstande that properly the gouernour is not said to order and direct the obiect but the subiect in or about the obiect In which point as the Bishops definition is distinct and cleere so M. Stap. finding fault therewith but not able to saie here lieth the faulte nor to amende it and yet going about to amende it either in conclusion maketh one nothing differing in matter or farre worsse so much as it differeth from it A supreme gouernour saith M. Stapl. is he that hath the chiefe gouernment of the thing gouerned not in those actiōs that may in any wise belong to the subiect or thing gouerned as M. Horne saith but in those actions that belong to the ende whereunto the gouernour tendeth This is your perfect definition M. St. which either is Idē per Idem a gouernour is he that gouerneth in those actions wherein he is a gouernour and so your fautles definition is very faultie it selfe or els it is in effect and matter all one with the Bishops definition that ye reprehende though ye would in wordes séeme to make some difference so againe it is the more vitious the more obscure it is But this may well be say you to confirme your definitiō although he haue not the chiefe gouernment in al the actions of the thing gouerned but in such actions as properly appertaine to him as a subiect to that gouernour M. St. we stande not now in question what may well be but what is of necessarie consequence But ye séeke out corners and darke speaches to wrappe the truth in such obscuritie after the Popishe manner that your readers might rather meruayle at ye than vnderstand ye Which if they did they should sée your folly and contradictions and that your selfe scarce vnderstād your owne wordes if they were your owne for if ye vnderstoode your selfe when ye say he hath chiefe gouernment in such actions as properly pertayne to him as a subiect to that gouernour then would ye also sée how it followeth that being a subiect to him as M. Feckenham hath confessed as well in that he is an Ecclesiasticall person as Temporall he is also a subiect to him in such actions as are so well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall The argument is euident He that is subiect to the Princes supreme gouernment is vnder him in all such actions as appertaine to him as a subiect to that gouernour But euery manner person so well Ecclesiasticall as Temporal borne in the Princes dominiōs is subiect to the Princes supreme gouernment Ergo The Prince hath the supreme gouernment ouer euery manner person borne in his dominions in all such actions as are Ecclesiasticall so well as Temporal And thus his owne darke speaches being brought to light make flatte agaynst him selfe But to make the Reader vnderstande his meaning better and to vnwrappe him selfe out of this obscuritie in the which he hath rather hindred than bettered his cause he setteth out the same with sundrie ensamples of a Master and his Seruaunt a Father and his Sonne a Mayor and a Citizen the Prince and his subiect a Schoolemaster and his scholers the Shipmaster and the Mariners For in one man saith he many rulers may and do dayly concurre which in some sense may euery one be called his supreme gouernour As if he be a seruant the Maister and if he be a sonne in that respect the father and if his father and Master dwell in a citie the Mayor also is the fathers maisters so his chiefe gouernour to for things concerning the chiefe gouernment of the citie and of all these the Prince chiefe and supreme gouernour as they be subiects Otherwise the Prince doth not intermeddle with the fathers office in duetifulnesse dewe to him by his sonne nor the Master for that gouernmēt he hath vpō his seruant no more than with the scholemaster for the gouernment of his schollers and their actions or the maister of the ship for the actions doings of the mariners otherwise than any of these offende the positiue lawes of the realme and so hath the Prince to do with him as his subiect or when he shal haue neede to vse them for the cōmon welth wherein as subiects and members of the said common welth they must to him obey Much like is it with the spiritual men which be also members of the said common welth and therefore in that respect subiect to the Prince and his lawes and so is it true that the Prince is supreme gouernour of all persons as well spirituall as temporall But that therefore he should also be supreme gouernour in al their actions will no more follow than of the actions of thē before rehersed yea much lesse M. St. thinketh he hath now clered the coast that by all these ensamples the matter goeth cléere with him Shewyng first how euery one of these rulers master father mayor and Prince may in some sense be called supreme gouernours But yet either he doth not or wil not sée withal how in the sense now in controuersie all these ensamples are also flat against him For as the father in all causes that haue respect from the father as father to the sonne as sonne ▪ is the sonnes supreme gouernour as he saith and as the master in all causes that haue respect from the master as master to the seruant as seruant is likewise the seruants supreme gouernour and as the mayor in all causes that haue respect frō the mayor in that he is mayor to the citizen in that he is a citizen is also the citizens supreme gouernour so the supreme gouernour of ecclesiasticall persons in all causes that haue respect from him in that he is a supreme gouernour to ecclesiasticall persons in that they be ecclesiasticall persons is in all those causes their supreme gouernour but the causes in respecte whereof they be called ecclesiasticall persons beyng no other than ecclesiasticall causes it followeth that he is not onely supreme gouernour of the persons but also in the causes belonging to the persons as the father or master is not onely supreme gouernour of the sonnes or seruaunts persons but also in those causes in respect whereof he is the sonne or seruant Yea but saith M. St. though the Prince be supreme gouernour to these and all other persons in the realme yet as he entermedleth not with father schoolemaster shipmaster c. in their seuerall actions of their offices or vocations so though the Prince be supreme gouernour of all persons ecclesiasticall yet is he not supreme gouernour in
soone be espyed And that in swaruing from the hearing and obeying of the olde lawe of Moyses and the Gospell of Christe to all proportions of these peâ—…ons offices would be but an homely sequele to serue your â—…urpose and rather abase Christe than serue any thyng for Moyses to make him a Priest and a Bishop And where you make Chryste a fygure of Moyses to make Moyses also a Priest and a Bishoppe bycause Chryste is so the texte maketh a similitude from Moyses to Chryst onely in eyther béeing a Prophete and that the one Prophete and the other shoulde be heard and obeyed But you turne it topsie turuie and making Christes person represente Moyses person conclude thereon not onely Prophete but Priest and Bishop also which the texte citeth not nor any other mentioneth in the scripture that Moyses was priest and Bishop Nor the Priesthood of Christe was prefigured by Moyses priesthoode for that is a question whether Moyses were Priest at all or no but the Scripture expressely for Christes priesthoode testifyeth that Aarons Priesthoode in some respectes but chiefly Melchisâ—…decks were the onely fygures thereof and not any Priesthood of Moyses and therefore your selfe durste not flatly conclude before that hee was the chiefe Prieste but a highe Priest But dare ye saye the lyke of Christe he was a hyghe Priest but not the chiefe or hyghest Priest of all But when ye sawe a glimse that this inuersed argument could not proue Moyses to be a lyke Priest to Christ nor bishoppe at al nor that his béeing a Prophete tooke awaye the ensample of his Princely authoritie as ye did the residue so ye subtilly inuerte and folde vp the conclusion For where it shoulde haue falne out thus As Christe is of vs to hee hearde and obeyed as vvell in all matters Ecclesiasticall as temporall so vvas Moyses to bee hearde and obeyed of the Iewes in all matters and causes as well spirituall as temporall whiche were the playn conclusion yée come indreaming and saye in matters and causes as vvell temporall as spirituall as thoughe the â—…uestion were moued of temporall not of spirituall matters â–ª neither dare ye say all as ye did in the former part But if ye replie that ye ment all and so the proportion of your argument runneth and that I do ye wrong to charge ye with so lighte a matter since the indefinite is taken for the vniuersall maye not I replie agayne that ye doe the Bishop muche more treble wrong that so often call and make suche outcryes for thys syllable all when soeuer he concludes In matters so wel ecclesiastical as temporall Lo say you he leaueth out in all matters Ecclesiast and temporall Whiche althoughe it were no parte of his issue with M. Feckenham and yet he settes it downe oftener than ye woulde haue it though he be not in euery particular proofe bounde thereto yet sée howe thys hitteth your selfe that if ye leaue out this word All ye can make no good conclusion from Christe to Moyses at all Nowe when you haue thus Master Stapleton preferred Moyses before Christe ye crie out vnto the Bishoppe Shewe vs Master Horne any Prince in the newe Testamente so conditioned and endued and then make youre argument on Gods name Haue you made your argument on Gods name M. Stapleton or not rather in his name that exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God when ye haue made the mayster serue as a fygure to the seruaunte to serue youre purpose But lette Moyses haue hys due estymation vnder Christe and hys especiall prefiguryng of Chryste also and all prerogatiues of dooyng any thyng for the tyme then by Gods especiall appoyntmente that Princes nowe can not doe Yet on Gods name maye anye man argue as the Bishoppe dyd that Moyses care and regarde béeyng the Prince of the Israelites in settyng foorthe and ryghtely orderyng Gods true religion then maye and is and oughte to be a paterne to all Christian Princes to care and regarde in setting foorth and rightely ordering Gods true religion nowe And what though in this coÌ„parison although in déed iâ—… be no comparison as you call it but an example any christian Prince that now is compared with Moyses be Impar congressus Achilli Troilus as vneuen a match as Troilus to contende with Achilles may not therefore a christian Prince followe Moses examples Why bring ye that Poets sentence M. St what Prince goeth about to coÌ„pare contend with Moyses and not rather submit them selues to his example heerein Ye slaunder christian Princes ye deface Christes glory ye belye Moyses ye skippe from Priest to Prophet from Prophet to Priest agayne to delude the bishops ensample and yet all this will not frame neither smoothly nor roughly to your purpose Whiche when ye perceiue leauing all these shifts of descant to infringe the authoritie of this first example that vrgeth you so sore that ye can not tell what to say vnto it but are driuen to the harde wall and that all store olde stuffe and new stuffe is cleane spent then as a desperate man ye quite denie all examples either of Moyses or of any that hereafter shall be alleaged and â—…ée for sanctuarie once agayne to the place of the Deuteronomie mentioned in the former diuision of the doubts arising betweene bloud and bloud plea and plea leprie and leprie to be determined by the priestes Iudge And héere clayming sanctuarie and remouing al examples And the lawier sayth say you legibus non exemplis iudicatur VVe muste iudge according to the precise rule of the lawe and not by examples extraordinary doings enforce no ordinary prescription or rule The ordinary rule of priests iudgements without whyes and what 's and suche other tryfling importune instances as ye are wont to make agaynst it by the lawe of Moyses and by your owne chapter before alleaged in doubtfull cases muste absolutely vpon payne of death be obeyed By this rule of the lawe you must measure all the examples following of kinges and princes vnder this laâ—…e Ye muste square your examples to the rule and not the rule to the examples vnlesse ye will make of the lawe of God Lesbiam regulam and bothe vnskilfully and vnorderly worke therwith And hereon as a ruled case ye set downe your marginall iudgement Men must iudge by lawe and not by examples If ye will not M. St. be iudged by examples wherefore do ye take vpon you to defende M. Feckenham and impugne the byshop For one of the foure meanes whereby he desireth to haue his issue proued and will be iudged by is practise which altogither ye wot standeth of examples and therfore the byshop proueth it by examples And if you will now flée from the authoritie of examples ye should at the beginning haue striken off one of those foure meanes to haue the issue proued by and not first to admit them and â—…id the byshop go on and say ye will yeelde also if he proue ought by
of his humaine nature but trowe you he gaue this prerogatiue to his Apostles you alledge Iohn 20. As my father hath sent me so sende I you But trowe you this is to be stretched to the visible ministerie of al things belonging to his humaine nature His mediation belongeth to the ministerie of his humanitie so wel as to his Diuinitie hath he giuen theÌ„ the office of his mediatioÌ„ The propiciatorie sacrifice of his owne bodie belonged to the visible ministerie of his humaine nature gaue he this power to the Disciples that their bodies also in suffering deathe shoulde be propiciatoris sacrifices The ordeining of Sacraments was in the visible ministerie belonging not only to Christes Diuinitie but also to his humanitie gaue he this power to his Disciples to make Sacramentes Christe therefore gaue not his Ministers all the povver in the visible ministerie necessarie to saluation that belonged to him in his humaine nature but reserued many things peculiar to himselfe Althoughe all the power they haue he gaue it theÌ„ yet all the power he hath â–ª he gaue them not He gaue them power in preaching the worde in binding and losing in administring the Sacramentes And yet is there a great difference betwéene that power that is proper of ones owne and that whiche is legantine and representeth but an others betwéene that that is simple and absolute and that that is bounded and conditionall betwéene that that is principall that that is but ministeriall All whiche distinctions are your owne Scholemens and therefore these powers are nothing like and yet are they so farre vnlike from such princely power of earthly honor as you imagine that they are rather cleane against it both in Christ and in his ministers too And this your own glosse out of your own Pope Gregorie might haue taught you Sicut misit me paâ—…er Idest ad passiones c As my father sent me that is to say to troubles and afflictioÌ„s so send I you to suffer persecution not to raigne like Kings rule kingdomes And therfore sith this sentence of Christ is true that he sent them as he was sent he was not sente in his humaine nature to depose kings nor to dispose of their kingdomes nor to gouerne them therefore his Disciples were not sent thereto But the Pope saith he is sent therto and takes it vpon him therefore he is neither minister of Christ nor successor of his Disciples but his Disciple that hath offered him worldly kingdomes if he would fal downe and worship him as he hath done and so hath gotten his kingdomes As for the sentence of Epiphaniâ—… writing againste the Nazarei although as he hath culled it out it séemeth to giue the Priestes the power of Kings yet this is neither the meaning nor the wordes of Epiphanius Epiphanius whole sentence is this Our Lorde Iesus Christe is therefore a Prieste for euer according to the order of Melchizedech and also a King according to the order from aboue that hee mighte translate the Priesthoode togither vvith the lavve He is of the seede of Dauid bycause he came of Marie sitting in the throne for euer and of his kingdome thereis no ende For novve it behoued him to translate the order bothe of the Priesthoode and of the kingdome For his kingdome is not of the vvorld as hee saide in the Gospell to Pontius Pilate my kingdome is not of this vvorld For sith Christe by hidde speaches fulfilleth all things â–ª the matters declared of him came to a certaine full measure For he vvhich alvvays raigneth came not to receiue the encrease of a kingdome but he gaue a kingdome to those that he hath appointed vnder him that it should not be said he proceeded from smal things to greater For his throne abideth and thereis no ende of his kingdome And hee sitteth vpon the throne of Dauid So that he hath translated the kingdome of Dauid togither vvith the Priesthoode and giuen it to his seruantes that is to the Bishops of the Church Wherby it appeareth playn Epiphanius meaneth not that Christ hath giuen them an earthly kingdome which he toke not vpon himselfe and he flat debarreth from them nor he euer gaue to his Disciples nor they euer exercised But he meaneth of a spirituall kingdome which he himself kéepeth euer and yet he euer communicateth to all his faithfull but in especiall to the Ministers of the Church that set forth the mysteries of this heauenly and not of an earthly kingdome This sentence therefore of Epiphanius maketh nothing for Byshops to be depesers of Kings or disposers and rulers of earthly kingdomes which is the present question VVherefore saithâ—… Saunders sithe there is a double povver in the Churche the one spirituall of vvhich â—…orte is that of the ministers of Christ to whom is commaunded that they should teach baptise all nations but the other is mixt that is to say by the beginning thereof secular howebeit to be now referred to a spirituall end although in the originall in the vse in a certaine middle end they differ as is before declared yet doe they bothe concurre in one bodie of the Church and are caryed to one ende of eternall saluation for the vvhich thinges they are to be counted one certaine vnder povver ordeined For as in Christe there is neither Ievve nor Greeke neither bonde nor free neither male nor female but they ar al one in christ So in the kingdoÌ„e of god the powers are not as it were altogither distinguished either of the father ouer the sonne or of the husbande ouer the vvife or of the master ouer the seruaÌ„t or of the Prince ouer his subiect or of the Pastor ouer his sheepe but al these powers are one in the Church of god And among all men I take this to be agreed vpon that all these povvers shall besvvallovved vp of that infinite glorie that in the life to come shall be poured on the sonnes of adoption in so much that there shall be no secular thing in the kingdoÌ„e of god And sith the Church of Christ is a certaine liuely Image of the life to come although there remaine by reason of the mixte condition of this life certain differences of these povvers yet notvvithstanding they are so among themselues disposed and placed in their orders that euen as euery one of them dravveth neare vnto the life to come so it ought more and moreto gouerne all the residue But it is manifest that euerie kingly or ciuill povver is also among them that are not the meÌ„bers of christ Neither any vvhit lesse appeareth it that the povver of the Pastors and teachers is placed and appointed in the only Church of God for the edifying thereof in Iesu Christe VVherevpon it is euicted that the spiritual power of the pastors of the church dravveth nearer to the state of the life to come than any other povver or familie or earthly coÌ„mon wealth For