and it is granted you that he did so but then you are to look on him as a mixt Person in whom both the Sacerdotal and Regal Power were combin'd So what he did herein was not purely by virtue of his Kingly but Priestly Power This is clear out of St. Austin's Testimony in his Questions on Leviticus Lib. 3. Quest 23. Si Moises Sacerdos non fuit quomodo per illum omnia gerebantur si fuit quomodo summum Sacerdotium ab ejus fratre incipit which he thus solves Ambo erant summi Sacerdotes Aaron propter vestem Pontificalem Moses propter excellentius ministerium Thus likewise Philo in his Life of Moses gives this account of him in his Third Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the Life and Death of Moses who was both King Legislator High-Priest and Prophet And accordingly Greg. Nazianzen in his Sixth Oration calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prince of Princes and Priest of Priests Now the Secular and Ecclesiastick Power which was united in the Person of Moses was afterwards parted betwixt Eleazer and Joshua the one succeeding him in the Priestly and the other in the Princely Power as you may see in the 27th of Numbers where God commands Moses to give Joshua part of his Glory but in the same Chapt. you may see that he subjected Joshua to Eleazer at whose word both he and all the Children of Israel were to go in and out Your next Example is of Salomon whom I grant to have remov'd Abiathar from the Pontificate and to have subrogated Sadock in his place But first you are to understand that he was not depos'd for any matter of Faith or concerning Religion but for Treason and Rebellion For conspiring with Adonia whom he had Anointed King against Salomon Next you are to observe that Salomon exauctorated him not as King but as Prophet to whom God had committed some things after an extraordinary manner So what he acted herein was not by his own Royal Power but by Authority and Commission from God by Divine Inspiration as the Text evidences Vt impleretur Sermo Dei quem locutus est super domo Eli in Silo. This Action therefore of his do's not at all prove him to be superior to the High-Priest But only that God was pleas'd to make use of him as an Executer for the performance of a Sentence which he had formerly denounc'd And this will be easily understood if recourse be made to History Aaron had two Sons Eleazar and Ithamar Eleazar as eldest succeeded him in the Priesthood his Son Phinees succeeded him and his Posterity down to Heli continued in that Holy Function At which time the Posterity of Phinees incuriously administring the Priesthood God was pleas'd to punish their neglect by translating it from the Family of Eleazar to that of Ithamar to wit to Heli in which Family it continued about 120 Years to Salomons days who depos'd Abiathar the Abnepos of Heli for conspiring with his Corrival Adonias substituting Sadock in his place Now as the Pontificate was remov'd by God's order from the Family of the eldest Brother to that of the younger House so was it likewise transplanted from thence into the right Line by the Authority of the same God who was pleas'd in several things to order and direct those Kings of Israel governing as it were by them This made Josephus to affirm in his Second Book against Appio That God did not so much institute in Israel a Monarchy as a Theocracy or Deiarchy But now if this Action of Salomon's deposing Adonias be construed in favor of the Prince as if he thereby were Superior to the High-Priest The Clergy has as strong an Argument for their Superiority in Samuel's declaring King Saul dethron'd but I look on both these Examples as extraordinary and consequently not Presidential The next Example is David but he being likewise King and Prophet what can be alledg'd concerning him is answered in what is said of Salomon it is moreover mention'd of him that what he did in Church Matters was Juxta omnia quae scripta sunt in Lege Domini As for the Example of Ezechias tho' it be granted he constituted Levites in the House of God yet in the Second Book Paralip Cap. 29. you may perceive that what he did herein was Secundum dispositionem David Gad videntis Nathan Prophetae Siquidem Domini praeceptum fuit per manum Prophetarum ejus And herein you will likewise find that he was much ruled by Isaias as in Eccles 48. 25. Fecit Ezechias quod placuit Deo fortiter ivit in via David Patris sui quam mandavit illi Isaias Thus you may perceive that the Examples of these Kings are not at all apposit to your Point they not proving that Princes by their sole Royal Power may intermeddle in Church Affairs or reform Religion in its Substance enacting things by their own Authority contrary to the Assent of Gods High-Priest and Prophets Some Kings by extraordinary Command as Kings and Prophets did concern themselves in Church Affairs Others not without consent and assistance of the Priests did very laudably use their utmost power to destroy Idolatry and restore Discipline but which of them disown'd the Authority of the High-Priest abrogated his-his-Power and invested himself with it Now that the Kings of Israel were not Supreme in Church Matters seems evident by the word of God spoken to the High-Priest Eliakim in Isaias 22. where after he had promis'd to give him the Key of David he explains to him the Power of it Et aperiet non erit qui claudat claudet non erit qui aperiat by which he plainly makes him Supreme in Church Affairs no Person whatsoever being able to exclude whom he opened to Or to introduce whom he shut out And to Sinew this Argument with a stronger Nerve you will find that Jehosophat who was a Religious Prince would not handle Church Affairs knowing that they belong'd to the High-Priest as in Paralip 2. 19. Ananias autem Sacerdos Pontifex vester in his quae ad Deum pertinent praesidebit And on the contrary Osias who presum'd to usurp the Sacerdotal Function and offer Incense to God was by the incensed Deity struck with Leprosy By what I have mention'd it will clearly appear how irrational it is for you to produce the Jewish Kings as Examples to justifie your former Kings exorbitant tampering in Church Affairs there being no Parallel at all betwixt them They acting therein as Kings and Prophets Authoriz'd by Gods extraordinary Commission and in their Reformations joining with the High-Priest whereas yours was in opposition to him and warranted by nothing but Secular Might But now after all this if you could clearly prove that the Jewish Kings were superior to the High-Priest and Supreme Quatenùs Kings in Church Affairs it would not follow that that similitude should hold good amongst Christians The Priesthood in
Pope acknowledging him the Prince and Head of Gods Holy Priests You make Laws in defiance of him pulling of him down as a Spiritual Usurper They made Laws which were according to his Approbation the Rules and Definitions of the Church backing the Spiritual with the Temporal Sword You make Laws in affront to him and against the Decrees of the Church Thus you see their proceedings herein have no affinity with Henry the Eighth's Headship nor with Edward the Sixth's Reformation of the Ecclesiastick Laws nor with Queen Eliz. New Articles and Canons But that you may more be convinc'd herein I shall give you a few Patterns of these Emperors Decrees which at your leisure you may confront with those of your party and see how they quadrate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justinian Novel 131. We enact that according to their own Sanctions the most Holy Pope of Old Rome be the Prince of High-Priests And in his Decrees about Justiniana he acknowledges therein to have followed the Definitions of Pope Vigilius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Justin eod Lib. 7. he says thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither will we suffer any thing which belongs to to the State of the Church not to be referr'd to your Holiness as being the Head of all the Holy Priests of God As for Theodosius I find in Sozom. L. 7. C. 4. that he put out an Edict Commanding that Religion which Pope Damasus had preserv'd as deliver'd to him by St. Peter should be observ'd enjoining all his Subjects to embrace it I can find no Edict of his for reforming and altering it This he enjoyn'd those under him to be of under penalty of being reputed Hereticks and Infamous and deservers of Punishment Thus much Power in Church-Affairs is still granted every King and to speak the Truth 't is their Duty to defend the Church by their Temporal Power against Heresie and Schism By such Actions as these they purchase to themselves the glorious Title of Nursing Fathers and Propugnators not by usurping Authority over the Church depluming its Head of that Power which Christ invested him with and appropriating it to themselves changing Articles of Belief establish'd by General Councils and Antient Traditionary Truths handed down from Father to Son these are Actions unpresidented by any well instructed Christian Emperor who I find to be very cautious touching Church-Affairs as you may perceive by the Answer of the Emperor Valentinian to the Bishop of Heraclea Sozom. Lib. 6. C. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawful for me who am one of the Laity to concern my self about such things After this vagrancy of your Roving Fancy you begin to think of home and being return'd into your own Countrey you affirm of our English Kings that Church-Affairs were both de facto jure govern'd by them This if you shall ever be able to prove out of good Authors you will certainly deserve the Palm for an admirable Historian I have already prov'd that Church-Matters do belong to the Spiritual not to the Temporal Power and that these two Governments are distinct and for this I have the Authority of St. Chrysost who in his Hom. 4. de verbis Isaiae in Vidi Dominum says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There be other limits of a Kingdom and other limits of the Priesthood but this is greater than that As for Matter of Fact I will not deny but that some Princes before Henry the Eighth irritated either by their Passion or allur'd by a curiosity of intermedling with what did not appertain to them have intrench'd upon the Immunities of the Church and asserting a pretended Right have clashed with the Roman Bishop and medled de facto with Church-Matters but quo jure is the Question You cannot prove a right of Power by proving an exercise of Power unless it be allow'd of for granted That whatever a King do's is lawful Their Quarrels with the Pope were chiefly about Investitures and disposal of Bishopricks They did not deny his Supremacy in Spirituals or if they quarrelled with any particular Pope they did not attempt the abolishing of Papacy A Pope may be to blame and so may a King but neither of these Institutions as Sacred ought to be abrogated for the faults of Men. But to bring the parrallel home to your Case Did our Kings before Henry the Eighth make themselves absolute Heads of the Church immediately under Christ Did they challenge as innate to their Crowns Supreme Power in all Cases both Spiritual and Civil Did they rob the Pope of his Power and assume Papal Jurisdiction Did they vendicate to themselves Authority in Church Affairs ordering Laymen Vicar Generals in Spiritualities as Cromwell was who sat in the Convocation-House amongst the Bishops as Head over them This would to them have appear'd as new and monstrous a sight as ever was brought out of Africa Suppose they clash'd with the Church of Rome did they ever part from her and all other Christian Churches besides as you did in your Reformation making Laws to reverse Decrees of General Councils changing Religion and altering Articles of Belief Did they pick Quarrels with the Church and then Sacrilegiously seize on her Lands and Goods Sacrificing to their fury as many Churchmen as would not comply with their Nefarious Oaths Demolishing Religious Houses violating Sacred Orders Was any thing of this nature acted in the days of Henry the Seventh or of those brave Princes before him But I shall not proceed further on this Point we having at present a King granted us by the indulgent benignity of Heaven who well knows how to distinguish betwixt the Rights of the Church and his own Royal Right betwixt what belongs to God and what to Caesar what to the Miter and what to the Crown A most Religious Prince tracing the sure Footsteps of his Great Ancestors owning the Religion which his vast Kingdoms receiv'd at their forsaking Heathenism and Conversion to Christianity In a Right and proper Sense Defender of the true Catholick Apostolick Faith for defending whereof this Crown obtain'd that illustrious Title For this Prince Pietate insignis Armis no less Pious than Valiant no less Just than Good endued with all those Adorable Qualities which render him amongst Kings the most Conspicuous amongst Monarchs the most Renown'd we ought to be highly grateful to the Supreme God whose Lieutenant he is hoping that under so Gracious and Merciful a Prince we may be protected from our cruel inveterate Enemies and that now at length our Innocency may be a sufficient Shield to defend us from the false Oaths of Profligate Perjur'd Villains who have so long triumph'd over us bathing their wicked Hands in guiltless Blood And now having made mention of our Natural Liege Sovereign I shall conclude this Point with a Prayer for him according to the Platform of Tertullian wishing his Majesty Vitam prolixam Imperium securum Domum tutam Exercitus fortes Senatum fidelem Populum probum
v. 1. Videt Johannes Angelum habentem Clavem Abyssi And accordingly it was antiently us'd in Orphicis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus you may see I need not be beholden to that Passage in Isaias to prove Peters Power granted him by the gift of the Keys but because I mention'd it as an Argument I shall say a little in its defence and make some Reply to your Objections First you say That it cannot be prov'd that Sobna or Eliakim were of the Priests Order To this I answer that you cannot disprove but that they were This I am sure of that I have better Authority which avouches they were than you have that they were not As for your Pretensions to the Hebrew Tongue should I grant them just and permit you to pass Muster for a Rabbi yet it do's not at all follow that I should be so conceited of you as to equalize you to St. Hierom whose knowledge in that Language was so great as all ought to veil to him So I judge it my safest way not to exorbitate from his Translation impress'd by the stamp of the Catholick Church But to keep to the Point the Hebrew word Sochen which is no novelty in that Language is liable to different meanings But I find St. Hierom to translate Ingredere ad Sochen thus Ingredere ad eum qui habitat in Tabernaculo ad Sobnam Praepositum Templi The Septuag says thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was a place in which the Priests did abide whilst they serv'd in the Temple thence they were called Pastophori Pastus signifying either the Sacerdotal Pall or Lodging And thus St. Cyril on Book 2. Comments on Isaias upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This place is in the Temple Hence this Sobna is called Praepositus Templi and the Prophet deters him from the excision of his Sepulcher because God would transplant the Priesthood Thus v. 18. 't is said Coronans te coronabit c. which Corn. a Lapide observes is rendred in the Chaldee Auferet a te Tiaram The Septuag says Auferet stolam coronam tuam gloriosam by which is meant Corona Tiara Pontificalis And accordingly I find St. Cyril to call the Stola 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy Sacred And in his Second Book of his Comments on Isaias speaking of Eliakim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Sacerdotal Honor was conferr'd on him is manifest by his promising to Crown him and saying I will give you the Stola Oeconomy and Power to be able to rule the People subject to you Now as for Sobna his being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I find St. Cyril to solve that Objection in his Second Book of Comments on Isaias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He inveights against Sobna the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who had got the High-Priesthood but abus'd it Your other Argument to cut him off from being High-Priest is because he is called Praefectus Domûs scilicet Regiae as you add by which you would have him to be only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Steward of the Kings House but you must understand that the Temple was called Antonomasticè Domus and accordingly our Savior when he drove the Buyers and Sellers our of the Temple told them that his House was call'd Domus precationis c. Now if Josephus makes no mention of them as you affirm that at best is but a Negative and so inconcludent I find he is silent of several things which the Scripture makes mention of he takes no notice of Gods punishing the Israelites for their murmuring whilst the Flesh of the Quails stuck betwixt their Teeth I hope I may have the liberty to believe it tho' he be found mute herein but if his Authority be so swaying with you I shall hope you will not disbelieve Absoloms Hair to have weigh'd two hundred Sicles and that it could scarcely be powl'd in Eight days time Then you say that the High-Priests of the Jews were Types of Christ not of Peter That they were Types of Christ in some Sense cannot be deny'd so was Salomon for his peaceable Reign Christ being styl'd Princeps pacis so was Isaac carrying the Wood to burn the Sacrifice as Christ did the Wood of the Cross and Jonas for abiding Three Days and Nights in the Whales Belly as Christ was in the Sepulcher and Joseph sold by his Brothers as he was by Judas And many more Types might be mention'd but this is not worth the insisting on and it may easily be prov'd that the Jewish High-Priests were Typical of the Christian if the Point were material I am sure St. Cyprian in his Epistles Expounds those things which are said concerning the one of the other The next thing you affirm is That by the Keys in that place is not meant any Supreme Authority either in Church or State such as the Romanist's claim for Peter and his Successors for Sobna and Eliakim if Priests were subject to King Hezechias and the Kings in those Days and many Ages after were Supreme in all Causes both Ecclesiastical and Civil To this I answer that 't is not necessary to my purpose to go about to prove what is meant by the Keys mention'd by Isaias St. Peters Authority being not grounded upon that but on the words in St. Matthew Et dabo tibi Claves As for the other part of your Assertion That the Jewish High-Priests were subject to the Jewish Kings whom you affirm to be Supreme in all Causes both Ecclesiastical and Civil and to have govern'd Church Affairs both de facto de jure I find my self oblig'd to make some Reply to it as likewise of Christian Princes to whom from the Jewish you descend But I would more willingly have declin'd treating of this Point knowing how nice and dangerous it is to handle it and that now I walk per ignes suppositos cineri doloso But because you have so fairly thrown it in my way and being treating of the Keys it will seem fit to clear their Authority I cannot well avoid taking some notice of it which I shall here do making a short halt in taking up this Atalanta's Apple which you seem to have drop'd to impede my course It may appear strange that I who am of the Laity should write in favor of the Clergy and that you who are a Divine should endeavour to establish Laicocephalism and depress the Clergy robbing it of its just Rights and thereby becoming false to your own Coat But if this be well inspected there is much to be said in your Vindication for you knowing that your New Religion was begun and hitherto maintain'd by the Secular Power cannot but in gratitude and policy give it the preference however you may perhaps in this present conjuncture be willing to recal part of what you have so prodigally granted The first you mention to have govern'd Church Affairs both de facto de jure is Moses
do with a Pertinacious Undisciplin'd Fanatick but with a Candidate of Literature a Votary of Antiquity if you can prove that I go contrariant to her stemming her Sacred Current I shall acknowledge my Error and sing my Palinode upon your convincing me But notwithstanding this my pliant and yielding inclination you shall find me severe enough to such as endeavour by delusory Impostures to obtrude their Smoke on me offering Fallacies wash'd with Chymical Tinctures such Persons I have just reason to shun and abhor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now how sincere you have dealt by me in Matters of Religion will be obvious to the dimmest Eye when I shall have ungilt your Varnish unmask'd your specious Artifices detected your Wiles and Doubles then it will be discernible whether you have endeavour'd to reduce me to the right Opinion or seduce me into Erroneous Principles The first thing you attack is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I affirm'd to signifie Regere gubernare as well as Pascere To this you make no other Reply than this but aliter pascit Rex aliter Episcopus This seem'd to me a meer evasive sleight and I must acknowledge my want of Augury to Divine what you mean by the word Rex for I never ascrib'd any Royalty or Monarchy to Peter but what was meerly Spiritual If this then be all you have to say against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it amounts to no more than a Greek Expletive Particle which signifies nothing it remains then that it denotes to Rule as well as to Feed and if you think I did not sufficiently prove it in my first Papers I shall here give you full satisfaction St. Austin Tract 123. in Johan gives a clear Gloss on Oves pascendas id est says he docendas regendasque St. Ambrose Lib. 10. Cap. 24. on St. Luke speaking of Peter Oves pascere jubetur perfectiores ut perfectior gubernaret And Theophylact John 21. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now besides these Testimonies Reason will carry it on my side for to this very Intention our Savior chang'd the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which implies not all the Functions of Pastoral Authority but only what appertain to feed for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies both to Feed and to Rule this was observ'd by Erasmus in his Notes on this place Bis dixit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Pasce sive ale semel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. rege Thus the word is commonly us'd and it being apply'd to Reasonable Creatures it imports Rule and Government For this cause Kings are called Pastores as in Isaia 44. Qui dico Cyro pastor meus es And accordingly the Five Tribes spoke to David Dixit Dominus ad te tu pasces populum meum Israel tu eris Dux super Israel Thus the Emperor Tiberius in Suetonius compares himself to a Shepherd and his Subjects to Sheep Praesidibus onerandas tributo provincias suadentibus rescripsit Boni Pastoris esse tondere pecus non deglubere which Dion renders thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plato in his 4th Book de Repub. calls the Magistrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer calls Agamemnon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Hesiod likewise in his Theog calls Jason so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence Cyril Glaphyr Lib. 1. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is usual with the Divine Writ and with the Wise Men of Greece to call the Governors of Nations Cities or People Shepherds of the People Xenophon says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Actions of a good Shepherd and a good King are nigh related And St. Basil Homil. de Mar. Mam. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Pastoral and Regal Art are Sisters differing only in this the one is entrusted with the Government of Irrational the other of Rational Creatures These Authorities I look on to be a sufficient Guard to secure what I wrote on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Next you affirm That the other Apostles had Commission to Feed and Rule the whole Flock as much as Peter This your Assertion I cannot assent to yet I will grant that the other Apostles were Capita Pastores totius Mundi Having most full and ample Power to found Churches every where to Convert Baptize and Preach to every Creature and that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All in Common entrusted with the world the whole Universe being their Diocess Yet notwithstanding all this they did not equalize Peter for he besides his equal share with the rest in that General Commission to teach all Nations given to him jointly with them had a particular Commission apart solely to himself in which the rest were no immediate sharers not only to strengthen and confirm but also to feed and govern the rest they being included in the words Oves meas and consequently recommended to his Pastoral Care and Regency who by vertue of these our Saviors words was created not only chief Pastor of all other Christians but even of the Apostles themselves He then only had Commission to feed the whole Flock of Christ taken in a Collective Sense as comprehending all Christians and likewise the Apostles themselves as I shall hereafter Illustrate Your following Attempt to lessen Peters Power is by assaying to take his Commission from him affirming Pasce Oves meas to be an Exhortation and no Commission This Artifice I find to be made use of by several Modern Protestant Authors Dr. Hammond says All that can by any torture be extracted from it is an Exhortation to a diligent discharge of that Office to which he was before Commission'd Dr. Stillingfleet in his Part. 2. C. 7. Those words contain no particular Commission to Peter but a more vehement Exhortation to the discharge of his Duty Dr. Barrow in his Treatise of the Supremacy These words are not Institutive or Collative of Power but rather only Admonitive Exhortative to Duty Thus they agree in their united Verdict But the words being pronounc'd by a Lord to his Servant Imperatively have no Lineaments of an Exhortation but of a Commission And accordingly I find the Fathers whose Sense I rather choose to follow than such Authors to Interpret them looking on them as a Command Commission Injunction as a great trust committed to him as will clearly appear by the following Quotations Mandatum de pascendis Ovibus suis unum idemque ter praecepit August Lib. 3. de Consens Evang. And in the same place Petrum ter interrogavit utrum ab illo amaretur ei pascendas commendavit Oves Dominus respondenti amorem commendat agnos suos Serm. 149. de Temp. Tanquam bonus Pastor tuendum Gregem suscepit In festo Cathedrae Petri. Cui pascendas Oves suas post Resurrectionem Dominus commendavit Cont. Epist Manih And again Pastor est Petrus cui pascendas Oves credidisti ipse commendasti Interrogatur amor imperatur labor Festo Cathed Petri Oves pascere jubetur