Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	bind_v	heaven_n	key_n	4,425	5	10.2745	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03760	Certaine sermons made in Oxford, anno Dom. 1616 VVherein, is proued, that Saint Peter had no monarchicall power ouer the rest of the Apostles, against Bellarmine, Sanders, Stapleton, and the rest of that companie. By Iohn Howson, Doctor in Diuinitie, and prebendarie of Christ-Church; now Bishop of Oxon. Published by commandement.	Howson, John, 1557?-1632.	1622 (1622)	STC 13879; ESTC S104261	94,968	168

therefore can no way proceede from the Primacie the Monarchie chiefe power remaining in our Sauiour 37. For he is the Monarchicall head of his Church the essentiall head Ipsum dedit caput Omnia subiecit sub pedibus eius Ephes 1.22 Mat. 28.18 Data est illi omnis potestas c. By which Monarchicall power he delegateth all his Apostles alike and makes them gouernours ouer all his Kingdomes They are all Capita but ministerialia capita secundaria capita instrumentalia Saint Peter had but the first place or Primacie among them with such preheminence and prerogatiues as they yeelded to that place The Church hath not two Monarchs for then must they be eiusdem dignitatis which is blasphemie Peter cannot be called Vicarius or Vice-roy or Prorex or Promonarcha for the delegation is alike and equall to all hee is but the first among the Proreges he gouernes not by his owne Lawes but by the Law of Christ or a generall Councell of the Apostles 38. Secondly our Sauiour is the Master-Key the Monarchicall Key Clauis Dauid he alone openeth he alone shutteth hee is the Essentiall Key Clauis coeli all the Apostles are Claues ministeriales claues ecclesiae the Keyes were giuen to St Peter but in the name of them all and in the name of the Apostles neither is the power of all the Keyes giuen vnto them or vnto Saint Peter absolutely and definitiuely for the absolute and definitiue power belongs onely to our Sauiour but he hath promised to binde and to loose that is to make good in Heauen whatsoeuer they shall binde or loose ministerially on Earth as his Substitutes Clem. Epist ad Jacob. fratrem Dom. and Vicars It is well noted that Episcopi vocantur claues Ecclesiae vt rectè dicamus Christum coeli clauem Apostolos Ecclesiae claues per quorum ministerium ad claues coeli peruenire possumus 39. Thirdly our Sauiour is the Monarchicall Rock or foundation of the Church Petra or Lapis in fundamentis Sion Lapis probatus Lapis Angularis Lapis pretiosus Lapis in fundamento fundatus Lapis essentialis Fundamentum primum maximum Aug. super Psalm 86. as Saint Augustine saith Fundamentum fundamentorum the Apostles are ministerialia secundaria fundamenta Saint Peter is not the onely ministeriall rocke or foundation St. Paul saith of them all Ministri estis vnusquisque secundum quod Dominus dedit Ego plantaui Apollo rigauit Dominus dat incrementum It is absurd therefore to thinke that the whole Church is supported or vnderpropt by any of these Rockes or foundations which are all ministeriall Although the name of Peter be vsed and termed the Rocke and the Keyes giuen him yet it was done figuratiuè significatiuè quatenus repraesentauit Ecclesiam they be Saint Augustines termes Petrus quando claues accepit Aug. super Psal 108. Ecclesiam sanctam significauit therefore when he was called Petra ecclesiā sanctā significauit Againe Ecclesiae Aug trac vlt. super Ioh. Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui Primatum gerebat figuratâ generalitate personam he saith that S. Peter in a figuratiue generality represented the person of all the Apostles as being a Primate not as a Monarch And Saint Hierome saith Hieron l. 1. aduers Iouin Super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet id alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claues regni coelorum accipiunt ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur Where then is Saint Peters Monarchie in this equality of power and authoritie You will say then where is his Primacie that Saint Augustine tells vs of Jbid. Why Saint Hierome mentioneth it there Though there be this equality saith he yet proptere à inter duodecim vnus eligitur vt capite constituto Schismatis tollatur occasio that one being constituted the Head or Primate there might be vnity and order in the Church and all occasion of contention for the first place remoued seeing in euery Aristocracie or equality or fellowship one must be chiefe or else there will be contentions and emulations among them and no order established 40. Fourthly our Sauiour is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Monarchicall Shepheard the Apostles all indifferently Pastores secundarij ministeriales and there is no doubt but that our Sauiour meant when he saide to Peter 1 Pet. 5.4 Pasce oues meas that Peter himselfe was one of those sheepe as well as the other Apostles for omnes fecit oues suas Aug super Jo. trac 123. pro quibus est omnibus passus and no more a Monarch-Shepheard then the rest were They were all sheepe in respect of the Monarch-Shepheard Christ and all Shepheards in respect of the rest of the Flocke For though those words were spoke to Saint Peter yet the scope and power of them reached to all the Apostles Hoc ab ipso Christo docemur saith Saint Basil Basil de vitâ sclit c. 23. qui Petrum Ecclesiae suae pastorem constituit c. Et consequenter omnibus Apostolis eandem potestatem tribuit cuius signum est quod omnes ex aequo ligant et absoluunt 41. But let our Sauiour and Saint Basil and all the company of holy Fathers conclude what they list Suarez de Leg. l. 4. c. 3. n. 1. yet Suarez he tells you Christum dum indefinitè dixit Pasce oues meas ostendisse Petri potestatem fuisse supremam et Monarchicam etiam super alios Apostolos But Saint Basil said that the indefinite speech Pasce oues meas was consequently vniuersall and included all the Apostles not as Sheepe but as Shepheards vtri creditis 42. But Suarez will proue that he intends Saint Peter onely and him a Monarch And first he would enforce it by authorities from the Canon Law Quae iura valdè bona sunt ad hoc saith Aluarez as namely Dist. 2. c. In nouo Test and Dist 19. c. Ita Dominus and 24. q. 1. c. Cum beatissimus and c. Loquitur and Dist 96. But the latter vsurping Popes are no competent Iudges in their owne cause Secondly hee would proue it by reason and the proper reason indeed and that is voluntas Christi Christs will is that Peter should be a Monarch which if they can proue wee will put it into our prayers and say Fiat voluntas tua and will joyne with them effectually for the performance of it Thirdly hee will make it good in congruitie that hee should be a Monarch Quia oportuit et decuit in Christi Ecclesiâ esse vnitatem mysticam et perfectissimum regimen But that we say is not a Monarchie simply but mixt with an Aristocracie which resembles the mysticall vnitie and regiment in Heauen where there is one Deitie Monarchicall and yet three Persons Aristocraticall equall in power nature dignitie c. and yet the Father hath Primatum ordinis et originis in respect of the Sonne and the holy

reason esteeme vs so that we should confound a Monarchie and Primacie and make them Synonimaes any more then Solus and Primus are whereof the one admits no fellow the other implies that there is some companion 4. Yet either pleading as it were simplicity or presuming of our ignorance or mastred by the power of truth he thus rankes or diuides his proofes from the Scripture Mat. 16. That the first place Tu es Petrus c. tibi dabo claues Thou art Peter and to thee I giue the Keyes pertinet ad promissionem Primatus The Primacie not a Monarchie is not yet giuen but promised there The second place where it is said to Peter Ioh. 20. Pasce oues meas c. Feede my Sheepe pertinet ad institutionem Primatus belongs to his institution or inuesting into the Primacie and yet no mention of a Monarchie and the other twentie Scriptures which he calleth the Prerogatiues of Saint Peter pertinent ad confirmationem Primatus belong to the confirmation of the Primacie So that nothing being entended heere to be proued but a Primacie which wee deny not the whole discourse in that respect is idle and requires no answer being onely a fallacie in aequiuocatione verbi as he abuseth it who hopeth that a Primacie may passe for a Supremacie as he would enforce an Aristocracie to be a Monarchie as before I noted 5. But this seemeth strange to mee and indeed absurd that the many-fold confirmation of this Primacie is found before the Institution of it as if confirmation should goe before Baptisme or the confirmation of a Kingdome before the Coronation or Institution into it For the institution of Peter into the Primacie is after our Sauiours resurrection Joh. 20. and many confirmations of it both in deede and in word are noted by him to precede his passion of which sort are the tenne first prerogatiues which Bellarmine mentioneth in the 17. 18. and 19. Chapter of his first Booke De Rom. Pontif Monarchiâ which is contrary to the rule of the Arch-deacon who is Panorm per excellentiam doctissimus canonistarum who saith Aluarez c. 1. n. 3. Quod Dominus ante resurrectionem elegit Petrum in Principem sed confirmationem distulit post resurrectionem 6. Of the Promise of this Primacie or Monarchie as Bellarmine calls it made to Saint Peter Matth. 16. Super hanc Petram c. and of the Institution of it Ioh. 20. Pasce oues meas c. which are the two main points in question I shall speake but very briefly because those things which I shall alledge are so cleare and euident that it may seeme a wonder that so many so learned men doe oppose or labour to obscure the sense and veritie of them and also because the consequents which they inferre vpon their false interpretations Dr. Andrewes Dr. Buckoridge haue beene exactly confuted by his excellent Maiestie and learnedly seconded by that Nobile par Episcoporum of Winchester and Rochester that there is no need of any addition or farther explication 7. I speake not this to derogate any whit from the reputation or honor of Saint Peter Honorabilius membrum in corpore Christi Ber. vas in honorem plenum gratiae veritatis who was to our Sauiour as Saint Stephen saith Moses was to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 7.20 De Petro quicunque detraxerit necesse est aut infirmitati aut inuidiae assignetur whosoeuer shall detract from that blessed Apostle it is to be ascribed either to his want of judgement or in enuie to the ouer-much honour or titles which the Papists giue him Into which contradiction I thinke I may say malediction some haue fallen while in opposition to the ouer-large and enforced prerogatiues which the Papists ascribe to Saint Peter they bring forth rationum copias whole troupes of reasons to proue his infirmities and imperfections I thinke I may terme them with Tullie copiolas for if wee shall measure them by the interpretations of the Fathers Cic. Sunt extenuatissimae et inopiâ bonarum rationum pessimè acceptae 8. The Fathers were so daintie of Saint Peters credite that Optatus hauing occasion to mention his fault in denying his Master While I speake of it saith he Ipsius Sancti Petri beatitudo veniam tribuat Optat. cont Parmen l. 7. si illud commemorare videar quod factum constat legitur and Saint Augustine when out of great affection to Saint Cyprian hee entred into a comparison betweene him and Saint Peter not simply but quantum attinet ad martyrij coronam for both suffered for our blessed Sauiour hee presently checkes himselfe that he might take occasion to explicate the comparison Caeterum vereri debeo saith hee ne in Petrum contumeliosus existam Aug. de Bap. cont Donat. l. 2. c. 1. quis enim nescit illum Apostolatus principatum cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum hee feared it might be a contumely to make any comparison wherefore he distinguisheth concluding thus Etsi distat Cathedrarum gratia vna est tamen Martyrum gloria though there be a difference in the honour or grace of their two Chayres or Sees yet they may be compared in the glory of their Martyrdome which is one and the same as Tertullian said Tertul. de Praescrip c. 24. Petrus Paulo in Martyrio coaequatur Peter and Paul and Paul and Peter are equall in Martyrdome 9. And Saint Augustine speaking also of Saint Peters great fault in denying his Master which some in those dayes ex fauore peruerso excusare nitebantur affirming that it was no sinne and that in those words Nescio hominem Homo nescio quid dicis Aug. in Joh. trac 66. Non sum ex discipulis eius hee denyed not his Master after hee had proued that Saint Peter did acknowledge a fault and reprooued himselfe and consequently those peruerse defenders vnde eos conuinceret produxisset lachrimas testes for as Optatus saith Nec doluisset Optat. cont Parm. l. 7. nec fleuisset si nulla interuenisset offensio lest hee should seeme to fall into the other extremitie or delight viz. to search into the imperfections of the blessed Apostle hee excuseth himselfe saying Aug. Jbid. Neque nos cum ista dicimus primum Apostolorum accusare delectat sed hunc intuendo admoneri nos oportet ne homo quisquam humanis viribus fidat 10. Here we finde obserued by Saint Augustine the two extremities we mentioned one vsed by the Papists peruersus fauor in excusando extollendo the other by some moderne writers peruersa delectatio in accusando These amplifie Saint Peters infirmities and exagitate them by the foule names of Curiositie Superstition Ignorance Ambition Arrogancie Wicked deuotion Lying Rashnesse c. Sparing in their Commentaries neither Apostles nor Prophets nor antient Patriarches a foule practise in the Primitiue Church and not to be imitated without great offence for to instance

44. n. 26. Ad totius mundi principem ciuitatem Princeps Apostolorum mittitur et ad primariam vrbem orbis primus Pastor iure dirigitur and the contents of that paragraph is De Petro Romam misso and that this hath beene and ought to be the true state and forme of gouernement in the Church Vigorius proueth vnto vs at large to whom I remit you 32. And thus much by occasion of the second reason viz. That all the words and phrases vpon which Peters Monarchie is founded are Metaphoricall and Figuratiue and neither expounded by the antient Fathers to implie a Monarchie nor so vnderstood either in the practise of the Christian people or the Apostles themselues all which Stapleton requires as necessarie to proue an Aristocracie and so consequently we require as necessary to proue their Monarchie To which I adde that rule of the Schooles Scriptura symbolica non est argumentatiua firme arguments are not drawne from figuratiue and tropicall speeches except the holy Ghost haue explained them in holy Scriptures or the consent of the Church allowed of them both which are here wanting and so I conclude with another rule of Stapleton Regimen Ecclesiae Ibid. pag. 94. quod ad omnes singulos spectat nunquam in obscuritate vocis alicuius latere potuisse for that which belongs vnto all and euery particular man to know ought to be as playne as Gods commandements Abul super Ios c. 7. q. 64. of which Abulensis giues this rule Nunquam inuenitur in aliquo pracepto dato à Deo modus loquendi Metaphoricus sed aliquando in narrationibus rerum gestarum 33. Thirdly what power and authority soeuer was giuen by our Sauiour which I confesse was great in those words or phrases Petra claues soluere ligare pascere c. was giuen indifferently to Peter and all the Apostles and in them to the Church but they are all originally and Monarchically in our Sauiour for these royalties and prerogatiues proceede not from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or his fulnesse of power which cannot be imparted to any creature but from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his dominion and gouernement of the Church which may be delegated in a certaine proportion and these he conueyed to the Apostles Axiomata sua saith St. Basis Iesus largitur alijs St. Basil hom de Paeniten August super Joh. trac 47. Amb. super Luc. c. 9. Augustine saith Nomina sua St. Ambrose saith vocabula sua Iesus which name importeth his humanity imparteth his honours his dignities his names his offices vnto other Lux est vos estis Lux mundi inquit Sacerdos est facit Sacerdotes Ouis est dicit ecce ego mitto vos sicut oues in medio luporum Petra est Petram facit Quae sua sunt largitur seruis suis 34. But yet he so disposeth his honours dignities and prerogatiues that he both holdeth the Monarchicall power in himselfe as he is man and gouernes the Church in his own person sitting euer personally in the chiefe seate of his Church that is in heauen and no Monarch is resident at once in euery part of his Kingdome and he is present as all other Kings are by his power direction gouernement and officers till the end of the world as other Monarchs are till the end of their liues It is he alone not Peter nor the Apostles nor Bishops nor Priests who maketh perfect and effectuall all the Church Saraments Ipse enim est qui baptizat ipse est qui peccata remittit Tho. cont Gent. c. 76. l. 4. n. 4. ipse est verus sacerdos qui se obtuli in arâ crucis cuius virtute corpus eius quotidiè in altari consecratur and this power is not giuen to the Apostles Abid super Mat. c. 9. q. 30. or Bishops formaliter vt ipsi habeant but ministerialiter vt Christus per illos operetur as Abulensis distinguisheth of the working of miracles Now hee neuer substitutes a Monarch vnder him that was neuer heard of among the Monarchs of the world and maketh contra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fulnesse of power and would implie contradiction or a diuision of the Monarchie and we might say Diuisum imperium cum Ioue Christo Petrus habet that is our Sauiour is Monarch ouer that part of the Church which triumphes in heauen and St. Peter and his successors are Monarchs ouer the other part of the Church which is militant on the earth and if both haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their diuisions as all Monarchs haue neither should our Sauiour exercise any power on the earth Mat. 28. as he is God and man contrary to his promise Ecce ego vobiscum sum vsque ad finem mundi nor St. Peter nor his successors Popes or Bishops should chalenge any power in heauen contrary to that other promise made to Peter and the rest Quaecunque solueris in terris soluta erunt in coelis 35. But our Sauiour keepes his Monarchie entire and sitting personally in that Citie quam inquirimus whether we must all resort in order when wee be called and giue account of our Stewardships he commends the gouernement and the honours and dignities erected in his Church to his Apostles indifferently making them all his Messengers and Embassadors enduing them with the same titles and prerogatiues of ligare and soluere and pascere of being the rockes and foundations of his Church of keeping the keyes c. All which power and authoritie he made entire and indifferent to all his Apostles and to all Bishops their successors as is confessed at least consequently by them all De visib Monar p. 16. 108. I will instance onely in Sanders Episcopi omnes saith he per totum mundum non minùs sunt Episcopi quàm summus Pontifex nec aliam Episcopatus naturam sed eandem prorsus cum illo tenent which is to say seeing they chalenge Episcopall power but from St. Peter Apostoli omnes non minus sunt Apostoli quàm sanctus Petrus nec aliam Apostolatus naturam sed candem cum illo habent If they were all Apostles alike or Bishops alike if the nature of their Apostleship be not different if they haue one and the selfe-same Apostleship they haue one and the selfe-same power which is inherent and naturall to the Apostleship which cannot hold true if St. Peter were their Monarch for it is absurd to thinke that the Optimates in a Monarchie should be of the same nature and power that the Monarch is All these titles and powers ligare soluere pascere confirmare habere claues esse fundamentum to binde to loose to feede to strengthen to haue the keyes to be a foundation or a rocke are delegated alike to all the Apostles and depended not vpon the Primacie which is a thing naturall not supernaturall in the Church as those honours and prerogatiues are and