A General View of Papistry, Book 1 · Controversy 4 · Question 1
THE FIRST QVESTION, WHETHER THE Regiment of the Church be Monarchicall.
error 36 WE are not ignorant that the Philosophers made three formes and states of gouernement in the commonwealth: the Monarchical, when as the principall and soueraigne power rested in one, as in the King, Queene or Emperor: as Rome sometime was ruled by Kings, and many yeares after by Emperors. Secondly, the Aristocratical, when the commonwealth was gouerned by an assembly and Senate of nobles, as the Romanes had a long time, their Consuls and Senators. Thirdly, the Democratical, which is the popular state, when the people and multitude bare the greatest sway: as sometime in Rome also, tribuni plebis, the officers for the people had the chiefe authoritie. Now of all these in common-wealth matters, the first kinde is the best and safest, the Monarchical or princely gouernement. The question now is, whether the same forme ought to bee reteyned in Church-gouernement: and in this question certaine things are to bee obserued: First, that wee hauehave not to deale in this place with that part of Ecclesiasticall regiment, wherein the prince hath interest, as in ordayning Ecclesiasticall Lawes, and seeing to the execution thereof: but the question is onelyonly of that regiment Ecclesiasticall, which is proper to the gouernors of the Church, which consisteth in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments, in ordaining and electing of Church-ministers, in the dispensing of the keyes of the Church, in the Ecclesiasticall censures and discipline, and such like: whether in the Church there ought to bee one chiefe Bishop, from whom all other receiue this power in the premisses. Secondly, the question is not of the spirituall gouernement of Christ, who is the chiefe Monarch and King of his Church, but of the outward and externall regiment vponupon earth. Thirdly, wee speake not of the state of any particular Church, either nationall, prouinciall, or oppidall, but of the generall state of the Church: whether ouer all Churches there ought to be one chiefe Bishop. These things premised, wee come now to the question.
The Papists.
THat there ought to bee one chiefe Monarch and high Bishop ouer all the Church, in all Ecclesiasticall matters, for the deciding of controuersies, preseruing the vnitie of the Church, from whom all other Ecclesiasticall Ministers doe receiue their power and authoritie, they thus would proue.
1 The militant Church is in all things answerable and correspondent to the triumphant companie in Heauen: as Heb. 8.5. Moses was bid to make all things according to the paterne shewed in the Mount. But in heauen there is beside God himselfe, a Monarch and chiefe commaunder of the Angels, euen Michael the Archangel, Reuel. 12.7. Michael and his Angels fought. Ergo, it ought to be so vponupon earth.
We answer. First, the Church vponupon earth, neither is, nor can be altogether like to the celestiall congregation: for there is no temple, Reuel. 21.22. There shall enter no vncleane thing: and many such like differences there are: We are bid to follow them in holines and obedience, so farre wee must imitate the Angels, as in the Lords prayer 3. Petit. As for imitation and conformitie in other things, we hauehave no such commaundement: we are promised hereafter to be like them, but that is not yet. Neither doth that place proue any such thing, Heb. 8. For how followeth it, Moses was shewed a paterne to make the Tabernacle by, Ergo the Church hath a paterne of her gouernement from Heauen? When they can shew any such paterne reuealed in the word, (for their dreames and phantasies we wil not beleeue) for the Church, as Moses had for the Tabernacle, then they shall say somewhat.
2 It is a vaine controuersie so to descant of the Angels, as to appoynt them a Captaine and commaunder, and to make nine orders or bands of them, as our Rhemist. annot 1. Ephes. vers. 21. These are but their dreames, they hauehave not a worde in Scripture for it. And concerning Michael, they are much deceiued, for in that place Apocal. 12.7. Christ is called Michael: Michael and his Angels fought against the Dragon. And who I pray you is the chiefe Captaine of the Church against the diuell and his hoast but Christ? And so is it expounded verse 10. Now is saluation in Heauen, and the strength and Kingdome of our God, and the power of his Christ: Here hee is called Christ, who before is Michael. In other places also, Michael is vnderstood to be Christ, as Dan. 10.21. there is none that holdeth with mee but Michael your Prince: here Michael is the prince of the Church, and not of the Angels. And that Michael is not the prince of the Angels, as our aduersaries meane, taking Michael for an Angell, it is proued out of the 13. verse. Michael one of the chiefe princes: the Angels are all called princes, and not one to bee prince aboue them.
Likewise the nature and signification of the word Michael agreeth hereunto:Tremel. for it is compounded of three hebrue particles, as much as to say, one that is equall vntounto GOD: which name in that sense cannot bee giuen vntounto any creature.
Further, Epistle Iud. 9. there is mention made of Michael the Archangell, who stroue against the diuell, and saide, the Lord rebuke thee Sathan: where the Apostle alludeth, to that place of Zacher. 3.2. where the very same words are found: but there the prophet calleth him Iehouah, that spake those words, and here the Apostle calleth him Michael: so that in this place it must needes bee vnderstoode for Christ.
But to conclude, we denie not, but that Michael may bee the name of some glorious Angell: but out of these places it cannot bee proued. And againe, we will not stand with them, but that there may be degrees of excellencie amongst the Angels, as there shall be amongst the Saints: but that any one hath any such soueraigne and commaunding authoritie ouer the rest, it is a curious and presumptuous surmise.
2 The Church of the olde Testament was a figure of the Church vnderunder the New: but they had a high Priest aboue the rest. Ergo, there ought to be now.
We answere, First, we graunt the high Priest was a figure, but neither of Peter nor Pope, but onelyonly of Christ: for in two things did the high Priest resemble Christ, in offering of sacrifice (so hath Christ offered vp himselfe. Heb. 7.27.) and in entring into the sanctuarie to make attonement for the people: so Christ is entred into the Heauens, to appeare in sight for vsus before God, as the apostle saith. Heb. 9.24. I trow in neither of these the high priest could be a type either of Peter or Pope.
2 Neither doth it follow, because there was an high priest in one countrey, therefore there ought to bee one ouer the Churches in al countries: as the Iesuite frameth an other argument by a comparison: because a bishop is ouer his diocesse, a Metropolitane ouer his prouince, there may bee as well a Pope ouer the whole Church: For by the same reason, because a Lorde may bee the chiefe in his seignorie, a Duke in his prouince, a Prince in his Kingdome, therefore there ought to bee an Emperour ouer all the world: or as Master Caluine saith, because one fielde is committed to one Husbandman to dresse and to till, therefore the whole Worlde may: which were a thing impossible.
The Protestants.
THat there ought not to be any one chiefe Bishop, Pope or prelate, to exercise iurisdiction ouer the whole Church, wee doe thus make it good.
1 We acknowledge no head of the Church but Christ, neither doth the Scripture attribute this title of Maiestie ouer the whole Church, but onelyonly to Christ. If the Pope or any else bee the head, the Church is his bodie,Iuel ans. to the Apol. page. 657. which Bellarmine is a shamed to graunt yet. Pope Athanasius doubted not to call populos mundi, partes corporis sui, the people of the Worlde the partes of his bodie.
Againe, if he be the head, hee must doe the duetie of an head, which is, to knit and ioyne the parts together, and to giuegive effectuall power to eueryevery part. Ephes. 4.16. Where the Apostle alludeth to the gouernement of mans bodie: in the which the parts receiue a double benefite from the head, the knitting and ioyning together by sinewes, which come from the head, and sense and motion also giuen to eueryevery part from the head: but it were blasphemie to thinke this of the Pope, that he giueth any influence to the Church. If they answer, he is but a ministeriall head, Christ is the principall. We say againe, that although these things are principallie wrought by the principall head, yet they must bee done instrumentally or Ministerially by the Ministeriall head: or else it is but a rotten head: such an one as the Wolfe found in a caruers shop (as you knowe the fable is) a goodly head, saith hee, but without wit or braine. If Christ performe all the duetie of the head himselfe, then is there no other head: if the Pope doe somewhat, that belongeth to the head, tell vsus, what is it? If hee will bee an head, and doe nothing, surely hee must needes bee a brainelesse and witlesse head.
2 It is a daungerous and impossible thing to hauehave the charge of all Churches committed to one man: GOD alone is sufficient to beare that burthen. Saint Paule saith, who is sufficient for these things? No pastor or minister, that is but set ouer one flocke or parish, is sufficient to preach the worde: much lesse is any one man sufficient to gouerne the whole Church.
Bellarmine answereth first: Saint Paul saith of himselfe, that hee had the care of all Churches. 2. Corinth. 11.28. We replie againe, first, then belike Saint Paul was vniuersall pastor and not Peter. Secondly, wee must consider that the Apostles were sent to all the world: their calling was not limited: when they had planted the Gospell in one place, they did take care also for other places: but now there is no such Apostolicall calling. Thirdly, Paul did not beare this burthen alone, but the Apostles and Euangelists were his coadiutors and fellow-helpers.
Secondly, sayth he, why may not the care of the whole Church bee committed to one man, as well as the gouernment almost of the whole world was appointed by God to Nabuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Augustus; seeing the gouernement of the Church is easier then the ciuill and politike regiment?
We replie. First, wee neuer reade of any that had dominion ouer the whole world, as the Pope chalengeth to hauehave ouer the whole Church, which is dispersed throughout the world. Secondly, these great and large Monarches are saide to hauehave been giuen of God, Dan. 2.37. Not that this large dominion and vsurpation ouer other countries so much pleased God: for the people of God the Israelites in their most flourishing estate neuer had such soueraigntie ouer other countries, but by voluntarie subiection, as in Solomons dayes, 1. King. 4.21. the Kings round about brought presents vntounto him: But because the Lord turned and vsed this their large and mightie dominion to the good of his Church: for Cyrus was a defender of the Church, against all that bare euill will thereat: and the large Empire of the Romans serued very commodiously for the propagation of the Gospell. Thirdly, the Iesuite sheweth his skill, when he saith, that the regiment of the Church is easier, then the gouernement of the commonwealth: Whereas there is no greater and waightier burthen vponupon earth, then is the charge of soules. It seemeth the Pope taketh his ease, finding the care of the Church to be so easie and pleasant a thing: in deede as he vseth it, it is no great matter: for hee preacheth not, but giueth himselfe to ease and idlenes and all princely pleasures. But England hath found by experience, and so did that worthie and famous Prince King Henry the eight, that there was neuer matter so hardlie compassed, as was the reformation of the Church, and the suppression of idolatrie and superstition in this lande. Augustine saith, Nemo nostrum se episcopum episcoporum constituit, aut quasi tyrannico terrore ad obsequēdi necessitatem collegas suos adigit. de Baptis. 2.2. None of vsus doth count himselfe a Bishop ouer other Bishops, or taketh vponupon him after a commaunding manner, as tyrants vse, to enforce his fellowes to obey. Ergo by his iudgement all Bishops are of like and equall authoritie.