aperire would seeme honestly and finally to determine this doubt and resolue this question but deludes the simple supine Reader with a new false subtle and counterfeit definition of the Church 29. Hauing thus by subtletie fitted the Church to a Monarchie by thrusting the Bishop of Rome into the definition of it because the nature of the Church-gouernement which is Aristocraticall will not beare that absolute power of one Monarch Cypr. de vnitate Eccles for Saint Cyprian saith Hoc esse caeteros Apostolos quod suit Petrus pari consortio praeditos honoris potestatis that is There was no difference in dignitie and honour betweene the rest of the Apostles and Saint Peter nor consequently betweene other Bishops and the Bishops of Rome but onely a matter of precedencie and order which is naturall to all Societies they doe therefore frame out such a Monarchie as may suite with this Aristocracie and Colledge of Bishops which Monarchie as Bellarmine describes it requires Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 3. Vt sit in repub summus aliquis princeps qui omnibus imperet nulli subijciatur which is a sufficient description of a true Monarch but when hee addes what kinde of men are subiect to this Monarch hee annihilates the former description for saith he notwithstanding this Monarch be summus Princeps nulli subijciatur omnibus imperet tamen Praesides prouinciarum vel ciuitatum non sunt Regis Vicarij siue annui Iudices sed veri Principes his subjects which gouerne his Cities or prouinces must not be Lieuetenants or annuall Presidents or Iudges but true and absolute Princes or Monarchs as the chiefe Monarch is qui imperio summi Principis obediant interim prouinciaÌ„ vel ciuitatem suam non tanquam alienam set vt propriam moderentur who must obey the chiefe Monarch and yet doe what they list in their Cities and Prouinces 30. This kinde of gouernement or Monarchie for ought I haue read is found in Vtopia onely to be absolute Princes Kings or Monarchs and yet to be subiect to another Monarch which implies contradiction to be absolutely first and yet second to another of the same order to be soueraigne gouernour and yet subiect to a greater of the same society to be a Monarch and gouerne alone and yet obey a superiour Monarch in his owne estate to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 collega to haue Ius Regis and yet arbitrium subditi all which are abhorring from the nature of a Monarch and imply contradiction 31. And where he doth instance and affirme the like Monarchicall gouernment of the Church to haue been in the old Testament vnder Dukes Iudges and Kings it is false and fallacious for the gouernment vnder Moses was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph cont Ap. Dei imperium that of the Iudges if it were not Theocraticall was Aristocraticall not Monarchicall their power was limited to the warres onely they had not the prerogatiues which were due vnto Monarchs nor that Ius Regis which is mentioned 1 Sam. 8. they could not impose tributes and taxes on the people their time was limited they wanted these and many other priuiledges which belong vnto Monarchs as is proued by Abulensis in his Preface to the booke of Iudges 32. But the gouernment of the Kings was absolutely Monarchicall like that of the Gentiles as appeareth in Sam. 1.8 not like that Monarchie which Bellarmine here describes where absolute Monarchs are subiect to the chiefe Monarch for the Principes populi were not true Monarchs or absolute Princes as hee requires them to be but Tribuni Exod. 18. Centuriones Quinquagenarij Decani qui iudicabant plebem omni tempore such as Iudges and Presidents are vnder our Monarchs and all neighbour-Kingdomes And the present gouernment of the Empire which he would haue the Church resemble is not Monarchicall in respect of the Princes Electors but meerely Aristocraticall though he be in his owne signiories an absolute Monarch 33. But this Chimericall Monarchie is deuised in the temporall state to couer the disordered Monster of their spirituall gouernment wherein the Pope is an absolute Monarch as also all Bishops are said to bee and yet subiect to him as Gretzer confesseth Gretz de Rom. Pont. li. 1. ca. 8. Nihil vetat saith he quemlibet Episcopum in suâ Dioecesi vt caput sic Monarcham vocari cum eius potestas à nullo in eius Dioecesi sed à solo vniuersali Pastore dependeat Nihil vetat Yes the definition of a Monarch will not admit it which he giueth before viz. Independens plenitudo potestatis for the power of a Bishop with them is not independens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but dependeth on the power of the Pope a Bishop with them is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnder an higher power he hath not plenitudinem potestatis appeales may bee made from him tributes imposed vpon him his power suspended and himselfe excommunicated and other the like from all which Monarchs are free 34. And yet Nihil vetat Episcopum in suâ Dioecesi sicut caput sic Monarcham vocari and his reason is as absurd as his proposition Cum eius potestas saith he à nullo in eius Dioecesi sed à solo vniuersali Pastore dependeat As if he should say Nihil vetat nothing hinders why the President of Ireland should not be called the head and Monarch of Ireland because hee hath his power from no man in Ireland but from King IAMES in England who is absolute Monarch ouer all his Kingdomes for so saith hee Nihil vetat quemlibet Episcopum in suâ Dioecesi vt caput sic Monarcham vocari cum eius potestas à nullo in eius Dioecesi sed à solo vniuersali Pastore dependeat which yet is most true being vnderstood of our Sauiour who is the vniuersall Pastor and Monarch of the Church from whom onely and wholly all the Bishops in the World receiue their spirituall power immediately but being affirmed of the Pope or Bishops of Rome as Gretzer meaneth it it is not onely treason against our Sauiours Maiesty and preregatiues for ipse est caput corporis Ecclesiae but also intolerable blasphemy Colos 1.18 and it inscribeth by a counterfeit definition in the Popes spirituall Crowne that which is proper to our Sauiours thigh and vestment Apoc. 19.16 Monarcha Monarcharum that is Rex Regum Dominus Dominantium which is the proper title of our blessed Sauiour and not to be challenged by any Monarch 35. Secundum fraudis diuerticulum the second sleight which Bellarmine vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 depraedari to steale away or carry away the Readers and deceiue them by Phylosophie which is another dangerous sleight and the Apostle exhorteth the Colossians to take heed of this aâ—so
in Saint Peter onely of whom we discourse Valentinus accused him of ignorance in the businesse betweene him and Saint Paul Tertul. de Praescrip c. 23. Cont. Marc. l. 4. c. 3. Cyril cont Julian l. 9. infine Galat. 2. but Tertullian defends him Marcion layes to his charge preuarication and simulation which accusation the same Tertullian remoues also Iulian the Apostata condemnes him of hypocrisie whom Saint Cyril confutes to say nothing of Porphyrie Hieron ad Aug. Ep. 39. who vilified Saint Paul as Saint Ierome testifies nor of the Maniches who slandered the Patriarches of the old Testament whom Saint Augustine defends in his bookes against Faustus 11. On the other extremitie the Papists ouer-extoll the fauours and dilate and enlarge the Prerogatiues Cic. which are giuen to Saint Peter in omni genere amplificationis exardent they transforme the Primacie which the Fathers afford him into a Monarchie Bellarmine holds that he was Primus Ecclesiae vniuersalis Monarcha as I haue shewed before and Gretzer he will proue it Gretz defen Bellar. l. 1. c. 8. de Rom. Pontif. and giues him Monarchicall independent fulnesse of power whereupon followes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potestas legislatiua for the whole Church and so consequently coerciua as Suarez proueth They call him The Head of the whole Church The Type of the Church The Lord and Master ouer the Apostles and so acknowledged by them The Vicar of Christ They say that Christ and Peter and the Pope pro vno tantùm Ecclesiae capite reputantur That the Apostles receiued no power of iurisdiction immediately from Christ but mediante Petro. That the other Apostles receiued the power and authority to preach from Saint Peter That potestas clauium was giuen to Peter as to the Head to the rest as to the members That Saint Peter was called in plenitudinem potestatis the other Apostles in plenitudinem solicitudinis That Saint Peter onely among the Apostles was made a Bishop by our Sauiour Christ and the others receiued ordination from Saint Peter That the Pontificalitie of the Priest-hood in the New Testament was originally from Saint Peter and consequently all Orders That Saint Peter had ordinariam potestatem which hee left to his successor the other Apostles delegatam which ceased with them That after his last Supper and before his Passion our Sauiour deliuered the gouernement of his Church into the hands of Saint Peter ne quà m diu Christus esset in sepulchro desolata maneret orbata capite Pastore To conclude all in briefe They say that the power of Saint Peter differed from the power of the other Apostles in fiue things First in modo dandi accipiendi because power was giuen to Peter ordinariè to the other Apostles ex speciali gratiâ and to themselues onely Secondly in officio for Peter was made Christs Vicar the other Apostles had but power legantine Thirdly In the obiect of their power because Peter had power ouer all the Apostles but the other Apostles had not power one ouer another but ouer the people who were subject to them Fourthly in the perpetuity of the power for the power of the other Apostles was personall to themselues only but Peters was perpetuall to him and his successors Fiftly In the very essence of their power for the authoritie committed to the Apostles was potestas executiua or as Thomas calls it authoritas gubernandi according to the Lawes prescribed to them such as our Iudges power is but the authoritie giuen to Saint Peter was potestas praeceptiua as Thomas saith authoritas regiminis which is proper to a King onely 12. These false and imaginarie prerogatiues which the Schoole-men and Iesuites ascribe to Saint Peter Aluarez Guerrero calls aurea Thesaur Christ Relig c. 1. n. 60. and gemmea the gold and jewels in Saint Peters Myter fundamentum totius sacrae paginae totius sacrtiuris Pontificij the foundation of the Popes Canon Lawes and of the holy Scriptures For indeede the Scriptures are not the foundation of them but to these propositions the Scriptures are wrested but the true foundation of them is the Popes Canon Law concerning his Monarchie 13. Thus wee see that the one extremitie hath one qualitie of the Beast which is blasphemare Tabernaculum Dei Apoc. 13.6 eos qui in coelis habitant To blaspheme Saint Peter and the Saints which are blessed in heauen The other extremitie is a qualitie or condition of the horne of the Goate which is Magnificare Petrum vsque ad fortitudinem coeli Dan. 8.10 11. deijcere de fortitudine de stellis conculcare eas vsque ad Principem fortitudinis magnificare To magnifie Peter aboue all the Apostles and his successors aboue all Bishops to conculcate and trample vpon all the lights or starres of the Church and to magnifie Peter with the honour of his Master our blessed Sauiour 15. I affect rather a quality of the Sea which doth medium terrae locum expetere that is Cic. I will runne a middle course betweene both Ne vera laus Petro detracta oratione nostra vel falsa affectata esse videatur And first with the Fathers I will either excuse any infirmitie of his which shall be tolerabile erratum and say with Saint Cyrill Cyril com Iulian. l. 9. that the controuersie betweene Saint Peter and Saint Paul which is mentioned in the Acts and gaue occasion of offence to such as would quarrell was but artificiocissima in illis dispensatio for Non mihi tam bene est Tertul. de Praescrip c. 4. Jbid. c. 23. immo non mihi tam malè est vt Apostolos committam Or with Tertullian Si reprehensus est Petrus conuersationis fuit vitium non praedicationis Or with Saint Augustine Aug. Ep. 9. ad Hieron Jbid. that Saint Peter did Iudaizare Gal. 2. compassione misericordiae non simulatione fallaciae or as hee saith afterward Non mentientis astu sed compatientis affectu as the Fathers mollifie with good reason his other infirmities or else I will make vse of them as Saint Augustine did when hee spake of that great weaknesse of denying his Master saying Hunc intuendo admoneri nos oportet ne homo quispiam de humanis viribus fidat Or say with Saint Basil Basil homil de Poeniten Tertio Dominum Petrus negauit non hoc fine vt Petrus caderet sed vt tu quoque consolationem habeas which moderation the Fathers obserue in all his infirmities but especially Epiphanius in his Booke called Ancoratus Jn argumen Anchor Quia instar anchorae ducit mentem de vitâ salute perscrutantem where it seemeth to be as it were a necessary poynt of the Christian Faith to speake honourably of Saint Peter and to extenuate or excuse his imbecillity and weakenesse 15. Secondly I will grant any
world from these blasphemous corruptions or some wise South-sayer to enforme vs what these monsters portend there were here-tofore certaine Augures as Tully notes Cic. ad At. l. 13. Epist 12. Qui Iouis optimi maximi interpretes internuntijque fuerunt but there are now in Rome certaine Cardinals Qui Pontificis summi interpretes internuntijque sunt who interpret the Scriptures onely for the Popes honour and send abroad their bookes about the world as the Popes Nuntios or Internuntios onely to vphold that monstrous informed double-faced Monarchy which is in effect to rob Christ of his kingdome for the Pope is created Summus aeconomus id est Pater-familias loco Christi or Dominus as it is in my Text and we say truely Regnum non capit duos but one will endeauor to thrust out another 41. Me thinkes the Cardinall when hee sees in the Scripture that our Sauiour is but Pontifex magnus and the Pope thus created Pontifex summus should esteem the name of Dominus or Pater-familias too high for our Sauiour and that he vsurpeth a place aboue his degree and should therefore say vnto him as it is Luke 14. Da huic locum SIR you take your place too high for you are but magnus here is one that is summus in the superlatiue degree hee is become Pater familias loco tuo let him take your place and as the Iewes said before Venient Romani tollent locum nostrum gentem so hee should say to our Sauiour Venit Romanus tollit locum tuum gentem The Pope is come and doth robbe thee of thy place and preheminence and of thy people also for hee is become Dominus Pater familias loco tuo and all thy attendants Arch-Bishops and Bishops are become his seruants and men of his familie 42. And here obserue the nature of pure ambition he is not satisfied with his owne honour and exaltation aboue his degree except Bâ—shops his equals and men of his owne ranke be humbled and debased As if hee should say Me oportet crescere vos autem minui Of a Steward I must be made Pater familias or Dominus and you of stewards must become my Seruants de famulitio men of my family I must be remoued to the highest seate you must be thrust downe to a lower fourme 43. Peraduenture you may imagine this to be some verball amplification onely Devisib Monar lib. 6 c. 4. Vide etiam Bellar. de Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. c. 18. Not so Sanders tells vs plainely that Reliqui discipuli post Christum etiam velut de familiâ comitatu Petri habentur All the rest of the Apostles or Disciples are as it were seruing-men and attendants vpon St. Peter next after Christ and therefore by consequent all arch-Arch-Bishops and Bishops are also seruants and attendants vpon the Pope for he chalengeth to his Monarchie whatsoeuer prerogatiue St. Peter had though there is not extant any writing either of Scripture or the ancient Church which may serue for any euidence of the maine conueyance of that Primacie whatsoeuer it were that St. Peter had to the Bishop of Rome but their plea is prescription or possession from the time of Saint Peter 44. But how will Sanders proue this proposition euen by euidence of Scripture for saith he when St. Marke had shewed the calling of Peter Andrew Iames and Iohn hee tells Marc. 1. how Iesus went into a desert place to pray and saith hee Prosecutus est eum Simon qui cum eo erant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this phrase saith he is thrice found in the Gospell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then makes this inference Quid aliud significat illud Qui cum Simone erant nisi reliquos discipulos post Christum agnouisse Simonem velut ducem aut Rectorem suum If we grant so much yet Dux or Rector implie not a Monarchie nor that they were de familiâ comitatu eius but rather a Primacie amongst them who otherwise are equall as the Apostles were For Cyprian saith Cyprian de vnit Eccles Hoc esse coeteros Apostolos quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praeditos honoris potestatis yet hee acknowledged a Primacie in Saint Peter 45. But this Scripture proues not so much as a Primacie for say they his Monarchie or Primacie was not begun while his name was Simon Stapleton relect but when his name was changed to Peter and that after the change he was but once called Simon but commonly Peter And when he saith Reliquos discipulos agnouisse Simonem velut Ducem Rectorem suum it is most false for they ceased not to striue for the superiority till our Sauiours Passion and Iames and Iohn made iust account of it as the next of his kinne if this great Monarchie had gone by succession And St. Chrysostome obserueth that long after this the Apostles were offended at the very suspition of Peters Prelacie when our Sauiour payed the tribute for himselfe and Peter onely Chrysost super Mat. cap. 18. for saith he Quando certos praeferri conspexerunt nihil tale passi sunt cum verò ad vnum delatus honor est tunc nimirum doluerunt When they perceiued certaine of the Apostles to be preferred it neuer troubled them but when the honour was confer'd vpon one onely then it grieued them 46. Neither are the rest of the Apostles so distinguished from St. Peter as Sanders implies who reades Prosecutus est eum Simon qui cum eo erant ioyning the word of the singular number to Peter onely and so distinguishing the Apostles from him as seruants from the Master for the Euangelist ioyneth them together with a word of the plurall number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Petrus qui cum eo erant prosecuti sunt eum as fellowes and equalls all of one company 47. Hauing thus vsurped the Monarchie ouer the house of God and made himselfe Dominum Patrem-familias and subiected all the true and lawfull Stewards the Bishops and Prelates to his seruice and from being his fellowes made them de familiâ comitatu eius as Sanders said he claimes to himselfe as his right the custodie of all the Master-keyes of Gods house And first Clauem Scientiae the keye of Knowledge which so opens to him onely the dore of the Scriptures that he cannot erre in expounding them Secondly Clauem if not putei abyssi yet abyssi the keyes of Purgatory which is next dore by where he lets loose the soules by his Indulgences and pardons Thirdly Clauem potestatis which Bellarmine calls clauem Dauid Quae aperit nemo claudit Es 22. claudit nemo aperit that is Summam potestatem Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 13. in omnem Ecclesiam which is his absolute Ecclesiasticall Monarchie Potestatem depositionis vnius institutionis alterius Fourthly Clauem Iurisdictionis whereby hee chalengeth to himselfe all Iurisdiction
St. Peters and the Popes Monarchie which is founded saith he vpon our Sauiours verball institution Non vno tota momento sed gradatim Stapleton relec cont 3. q. 1. art 1. per partes à Christo facta tradita est was not made and deliuered all at one time by our Sauiour but it was giuen by degrees and by parts and therefore as it was instituted by degrees so it must be manifested and proued by degrees and so necessarily by degrees be confuted Thirdly because Gretzer tells vs Gretz defens Bellar. l. 1. c. 23. de Rom. Pontif. that the prerogatiues of St. Peter doe not proue his Monarchie Si considerentur solitariè non iunctim If they be considered apart and not ioyntly and therefore to disproue any one of his prerogatiues is not much to the purpose Finally because they falsly obiect that they being tyed as a Beare to the stake to defend those propositions which are deliuered in print and so professed to the whole world we take no fast hold nor come to handy-gripes but a snatch and away like the dog at Nilus Qui bibit fugit for feare of a Crocodile I will therefore at my next opportunity ioyne issue with them and proue first That the Apostle St. Peter had no Monarchy ouer the Apostles or Church of GOD as Bellarmine Stapleton and Sanders teach Secondly That Saint Peter had a Primacie of order as in an Aristocracie amongst the Apostles who were his equalls and that by the testimonie of the ancient Church Thirdly That the ancient Bishops of Rome of the purer times neither had nor chalenged any Monarchy in the Church or any part thereof Fourthly That by the iudgement of the Fathers they had the Primacie among other Bishops Lastly That this Primacie is not fastened to that See but may for their tyrannies and vsurpations vpon Churches and Kingdomes be remoued from it and conferred on another 62. My conclusion should be if the time did serue with an exhortation to beware how wee vndertake the defence of any vntruth either in Religion or Moralitie considering that neither the honour wit or learning of this great Cardinall can possibly maintaine it but vni sustinendo mendacio necesse est accumulari plura Vntruths are onely maintained by vntruths and one corruption or falsification begets another Truth and a good cause are fairely defended suâ claritate as Lactantius saith by her owne clearenesse Via illa mendax saith hee the way of lying and falsifying and corrupting c. Via illa mendax quae ducit ad occasum multos tramites habet That false deceitfull way which leades to destruction hath many crosse wayes and many trickes too but being examined as you see shame followes after and as he saith Ab aniculis quas contemnunt à pueris nostris error illorum stultitia irridebitur Their error and folly shall be laughed at by our olde women and children whom they scorne 63. God who is the author and defender of truth and reuenger and reuealer of falshoode and lies so possesse your hearts with the loue of truth that it may be the scope and end of all your studies and actions and at length direct you to that true way which leadeth to the true euerlasting life This GOD grant for Christ Iesus sake to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour glorie praise and dominion for euer and euer AMEN THE SECOND SERMON Luke 12.41.42 c. Then Peter said vnto him MASTER tellest thou this parable vnto vs or euen to all And the Lord said who is a faithfull Steward and wise whom the Master shall make ruler ouer the houshold to giue them their portion of meate in season c. 1. I Haue heretofore diuided this Text into certaine conditions requisite for a good Steward but because we are to enquire Quis sit Who he is before we come to the question Qualis sit What his qualities and conditions are I shewed you that Bellarmine disputing against the Presbyterians affirmed out of St. Hilarie and the rest of the Fathers that the Bishops and Prelates of the Church were this Steward but discoursing against Protestants Cic. de Orat. Tanquam Academicus nonus qui contra omnes dicere solebant hee makes the Pope this Steward imagining these words to be spoke to St. Peter onely and to that purpose he corrupted as I then noted euery circumstance of this Text for as St. Augustine saith Aug. li. 83. quest q. 69. Non possit ijs error oboriri palliatus nomine Christiano nisi de scriptur is non intellectis aut malitiosè expositis 2. This counterfeit columne of the Popes Monarchie I then shooke asunder but it is seldome seene Cicero that in vno praelio fortuna Reipub. disceptat and this Monarchie was not collated by our Sauiour with any one speech or at any one time as Stapleton saith but by many and sundrie donations nor the great prerogatiues which were giuen to St. Peter and so consequently to the Pope are to be considered solitariè but iunctìm as Gretzer saies wherefore they must be confuted seuerally and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Tullie hath it exactly Cic. de Orat. and with a iust proportion Vt verba verbis quasi demensa paria respondeant 3. But because all the reasons and arguments which the Iesuites now make in defence of this Monarchie by vertue of any prerogatiue Monarchicall which they attribute to St. Peter Adiunante misericordiâ Domini as St. Augustine saith anteà sunt antiquorum patrum praeuentione refutata Aug. cont epist 2. Gaudentij lib. 2. cap. 6. quam illorum circumuentione prolata are preuented by the ancient Fathers interpretations before we could be circumuented by their obiections as appeareth by sundry answeres which haue beene framed of late as also because it is an argument more beseeming many volumes then a fewe Sermons I will therefore as I then promised proue to all indifferent hearers First that S. Peter had not any Monarchy ouer the Apostles or Church of Christ by our Sauiours institution Secondly that St. Peter had a Primacie of order as in an Aristocracie among the Apostles who were his equalls as the Fathers affirme Thirdly that the ancient Bishops of Rome of the purer times neither had nor challenged any Monarchie ouer the Church or any part thereof Fourthly that by the iudgement of the Fathers they had the Primacie among other Bishops Lastly that this Primacie is not fastened to this See but may for their tyrannies and vsurpations ouer Churches and Kingdomes be remoued from it and conferred on another 4. The first is that our Sauiour bequeathed no Monarchie to S. Peter nor to his Church and so consequently that the spirituall gouernement is not Monarchicall 5. This argument hath beene copiously and learnedly handled of late but especially by those two worthies of our Church the most learned and reuerend Bishops of Winchester and
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 quà m 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 quà m 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
this Monarchie Non quia diuini sunt sed quia superbi sunt not because it stands with diuinitie but because it makes for their pride August Con. l. 12. c. 25. Nec nouerunt curant Christi sententiam sed amant suam non quia vera est sed quia sua est they care not what our Sauiour instituted or the Church practised but they loue their owne Monarchie not because it is lawfull but because they possesse it and like vsurpers forbeare no colour or pretext to vphold their possession 69. Not a Priest or Iesuite that deales in this cause but he doth plausum petere praestigiae seeke commendations by a new jugling-tricke by a counterfeit distinction or falsified authority to deceiue his Readers They say that Saint Peters Monarchie is concluded in those words Tibi dabo claues c. We answere Those words were not spoke to Peter onely but to all the Apostles and the whole Church and so inforce not this Monarchicall prerogatiue We proue this out of Saint Augustine Aug. super Ioh. 12. Hom 50. and they haue it themselues in the Canon Law 24. q. 1. c. Quodcunque where Saint Augustine saith that Quodcunque ligaueris c. was not spoken to Peter only but to the Church for Peter when hee receiued the Keyes Ecclesiam sanctam significauit Du-Vall the Sorbon confesseth that Saint Augustine saith Datas esse claues toti Ecclesiae but corrupts it thus id est Petro propter Ecclesiam as if Saint Augustine lacked language to expresse his meaning And by these absurd glosses they corrupt their owne Canons 70. When we proue that they were not giuen to Saint Peter propter Ecclesiam for the Church but to the Church immediately because all the powers which are giuen to Saint Peter were bestowed vpon all the Apostles immediatè a Christo to be held immediately of Christ and not of Saint Peter they confesse that they were giuen to all the Apostles immediately from Christ Suarez de Leg. l. 4. c. 3. n. 4. sed Petro diuerso modo magis perfecto but there being found no one word of proofe either in the Scriptures or Antiquitie Videte si responsio illa Aug. Ps 140. non dementia nominanda est when it is euident that Potestas clauium ligare soluere pascere hoc facere in mei commemorationem Ire in vniuersum mundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizare in nomine Patris Filij et Spiritus sancti c. were giuen to all the Apostles in an Arithmeticall proportion and not Geometricall 71. If this will not serue they will tell you Petro datas esse claues vt capiti caeteris vt membris If wee answere that Saint Peter was not then the Head when the Keyes were giuen but was chosen afterwards by the consent of the Apostles when our Sauiour was ascended as their Anacletus testifies who saith Apostolos alioqui pares in honore et potestate Dist 21. c. in nouo Petrum Principem suum esse volnisse Suarez will glosse it and tell you Suar. de Leg. l. 4. c. 3. that Illud verbum Voluere non de voluntate antecedente siue eligente sed de voluntate consequente et acceptante intelligendum esse that phrase would haue him their chiefe or Prince was to be vnderstood not of the electing him but of the consenting to his election made by our Sauiour Cic. Nolite existimare iudices non vnam et eandem omnibus in locis esse fraudatorum et inficiatorum impudentiam they hope that any mist of an obscure distinction will bleare the eyes of their partiall Readers The Apostles saith Anacletus being alioqui pares in honore et potestate voluerunt Petrum esse Principem suum If when the Apostles were equall in honour and power they would haue Peter their Head or Primate that will of theirs was antecedens et eligens for had hee beene chosen before by our Sauiour and so the will consequent and consentient as he supposeth then it could not haue beene said Apostoli pares in honore et potestate voluerunt c. but Apostoli impares in honore et potestate voluerunt for after Saint Peters preferment to this honour by our Sauiours appointment if any such were there was no imparitie in honour and power betweene him and his fellow-Apostles so that Apostoli c. voluerunt Petrum esse Principem suum implyeth their election of Saint Peter to the Primacie and not our Sauiours appointment of him 72. Secondly if we answere that all the Apostles were capita as well as Peter and Peter a member as much as they and though he had the Primacie and so might be caput in respect of them yet partakes equally those gifts which were equally giuen to them all though somewhat particular belong to the Primacie as the head in the body partakes indifferently that power or sense of feeling which is giuen to the whole body though it haue other senses proper to it selfe They will reply though they were giuen in the same measure and proportion to the Head and the members to Peter and the other Apostles yet both Potestas ordinis et iurisdictionis and the consequents of them were giuen to Peter as to the Head tanquam ordinaria et perpetuò duratura that is to him and to his successors but to the other Apostles Suarez Ibid. n. 8. per modum legationis et personalis muneris finiendi cum vitâ ipsorum 73. If we proue this to be false and shew that the power of the rest of the Apostles was not legantine to last for their liues onely without delegation but ordinary to them and their successors as Saint Peters was for Saint Iohn and Saint Paul and the other Apostles ordained many Bishops who receiued from them both potestatem ordinis and iurisdictionis and legislationis as they terme them falsly as will appeare in fit place They answere that for orders or ordination all the Bishops in the World then had the power and authoritie and succession mediâ autoritate Petri mediatè or immediatè Suarez Ibid. n. 25. for either Saint Peter made them Bishops or else the Apostles who were consecrated by Saint Peter and made Bishops by him 74. If you reply that our Sauiour made both Saint Peter and the rest of the Apostles Bishops immediately himselfe either as he made them all Apostles or when he made them all Apostles Bellarmine will tell you that the other Apostles were not made Bishops by our Sauiour but by Saint Peter and among many vanities not fit for this breuitie hee doth instance in Saint Iames the yonger who was made Bishop of Ierusalem by Saint Peter and the other Apostles not immediately by Christ and proueth it by three authorities viz. of Anacletus Anacl Epist 2. Euseb Eccles hist l. 2. c 1. Hieron de viris illus in Iacobum of Clem. Alexand and of Saint Hierome But this is first
a fallacie for our question is of the Apostles as they were Bishops and had the whole World for each mans Territorie Euntes docete omnes gentes which was our Sauiours institution not as they or other were limited to peculiar Cities or Diocesse as Saint Iames was here to the Church of Ierusalem which is an Ecclesiasticall or Apostolicall constitution And the better to conceale this fraud from his Reader hee alledgeth the testimonie of Clement out of Eusebius but falsifieth it as if Clement should say Iacobum a Petro Iacobo Iohanne ordinatum Episcopum that Iames was ordained a Bishop by them and not by our Sauiour whereas Eusebius hath it Iacobum a Petro Iacobo et Iohanne ordinatum Episcopum Hierosolymarum hee was made by them the Bishop of Ierusalem of that Prouince or Diocesse whereas before he was made a Bishop at large as the other were not tied to one place And so all this disputation Definit in falsum mulier formosà supernè ends in a fallacie and falsification though it pretend to the World a fayre but meretricious for-head of truth 75. Secondly if you vrge that the other Apostles Saint Paul and Saint Iohn c. had potestatem iurisdictionis wheresoeuer they went et potestatem ad ferendas leges obligantes vniuersam Ecclesiam as much as Saint Peter as appeares by antiquitie they will tell you without any ground or reason for it Reliquos Apostolos ordinariè illas non tulisse Suar. ibid. n. 9. nisi ex consensu acceptatione Petri vel certè eas tulisse in eis prouincijs in quibus praedicabant et posteà non nisi sciente consentiente Petro ad totam Ecclesiam diminasse If a proofe be demanded of this assertion or some example or authoritie for it there is nothing to be said for it but that otherwise if this were not so Peter was no Monarch but the Apostles had equall power with him and that ordinary but Peter saith hee was a Monarch which wee deny and it is petitio principij and a foule blemish to a faire Disputant 76. Thirdly if you affirme that the other Apostles Saint Paul and Saint Iohn c. gaue vnto others as they past along potestatem ordinis to baptize to administer the Eucharist c. They will tell you out of their Anacletus Epist 1. Bellar. de Pontif Rom. l. 1. c. 23. that In nouo Testamento post Christum a Petro cepit sacerdotalis ordo quòd Christus suis manibus solum Petrum baptizauit also that Peter pabtized Andrew Iames and Iohn and they the other Apostles and that this is a speciall Prerogatiue to proue Peters Primacie and is affirmed by Euodius Bishop of Antioch next after Saint Peter in an Epistle of his intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lumen Niceph. l. 2. c. 3. Baron Tom. 1. ano 71. n. 13. and is cited by Nicephorus But this is some counterfeit stuffe and Baronius saith of it Hanc Epistolam ab antiquioribus nec citatam neque aliter cognitam esse reperimus Wee finde not this Epistle alledged by any of the ancients neither doe we know that any such is extant but by the report of Nicephorus who liued almost 1300. yeares after him Now if we answere directly out of the Scriptures Iesus non baptizabat ipse Iohn 4. Gretz Defen Bellar. te 1. p. 616 sed Discipuli eius Gretzer will replye confidently Baptizabat sed non ordinariè baptizabat admit that he baptized but once why might he not baptize all the Apostles at that time with Saint Peter as at one and the same time he washed the feete of all his Apostles 77. But Saint Augustine distinguisheth better acknowledging that Saint Iohn saith John 3. Iesum venisse in Iudeam ibi baptizasse and in another place Iohn 4. Iesum non baptizasse sed Discipulos eius which seeming contradiction he salueth not with ordinariè non ordinariè as Gretzer doth Aug. super Ioh. tract 15. Aug. Epist 108. but saith Christus baptizauit non baptizauit baptizauit quia ipse mundauit non baptizauit quia non ipse tingebat or else thus Baptizabat Christus praesentià maiestatis non autem baptizauit manibus suis And of this opinion that our Sauiour baptized none with his owne hands is Saint Chrisostome Homil. 28. sup Iohan Hom. 3. sup Act Apost whom Theophilact followes and Iansen sup 4. Iohan and Melchior Canus l. 8. c. 5. and Rupertus 78. For my owne part I am ready to follow a middle course betweene these extreames and neither beleeue that our Sauiour baptized the rest of the Apostles and not Saint Peter which was the opinion of a certaine Nouatian August Epist 108. as you may reade in Saint Augustine nor yet that he baptized Peter onely and not the other Apostles which is Bellarmines assertion out of a counterfeit Euodius both alike absurd neither yet that hee baptized not any at all which hath reuerend Authors but that all the Apostles were baptized by him 79. For in Saint Augustines time it was not a question whether the Apostles were baptized or no as Baronius falsly affirmes neither ought it to be a question saith he quando quisque fuit baptizatus Tom. 1 â—â—o 31. n. 40. sed quoscunque legimus in corpore Christi quod est Ecclesia pertinere ad regnum coelorum non nisi baptizatos intelligere debemus but the question then was whether the Apostles were baptized with the baptisme of Iohn or with the baptisme of Christ S. Augustine saith many were of opinion that the Apostles were baptized with the baptisme of Iohn but he thought it magis credibile that they were baptized with the baptisme of Christ and he giues his reason for it Aug. Epist 108. Neque enim saith he ministerio baptizandi defuit vt haberet baptizatos seruos per quos caeteros baptizaret hee saith not Baptizatum Petrum per quem caeteros baptizaret quia non defuit memorabilis illius humilitatis ministerio quando eis lauit pedes c. So that we cannot reconcile these Scriptures by distinguishing Baptizabat sed non ordinariè ergo Petrum solum but Distingue tempora reconciliabis he baptized his Apostles first Ioh. 3. and after that it is said Ioh. 4. as Saint Augustine notes Iesus non baptizabat sed Discipuli eius 80. There is a notable place in Saint Cyprians Booke De vnitate Ecclesiae to proue the equality of the other Apostles with Saint Peter though the Primacie were in him if you alledge this to them and say Hoc erant vtique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praedtti honoris dignitatis Suarez answereth Suarez de leg l. 4. c. 9. that this equality is to be vnderstood formaliter ceu quantum ad dignitatem Apostolicam et eam Iurisdictionem in vniuersum orbem quae praecisè ex vi illius dignitatis data
CERTAJNE SERMONS Made in OXFORD Anno Dom. 1616. Wherein 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 John Howson DOCTOR in Diuinitie and PREBENDARIE of christ-Christ-Church now BISHOP of OXON Published by Commandement LONDON Printed by T. S. for John Pyper 1622. LVKE 12.41.42 c. Then Peter said vnto him MASTER tellest thou this parable vnto vs or vnto all And the Lord said who is a faithfull Steward and a wise whom the Master shall make ruler ouer the houshold to giue them their portion of meate in due season Blessed is the seruant whom the Master c. 1. IN this short Parable our Sauiour deliuers the qualities requisite for a good Steward and the ample reward which shall bee giuen him and secondly the faults obseruable in an euill steward withall the punishment that is due vnto him 2. The qualities required in a good Steward are many 1. He must be fidelis faithfull 2. He must be humble and seruiceable to his Master for hee is but aeconomus or seruus a Steward or Seruant verse 43.3 He must be Prudens wise 4. He must not be an intruder but lawfully called by his Master Quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam for the Lord makes him ruler ouer his houshold 5. He must be diligent and carefull in executing his office and function Et dare in tempore tritici mensuram and giue them their portion of meate in due season 3. The particular circumstances of the reward as also of the euill steward and his punishment I will note hereafter August for as S. Augustine said Haec pauca de multis breuiter perstringo ne propositum operis mei nimia longitudine diuisionis impediam For before we come to speake of the qualities of this Steward wee must finde our who the Steward is Hilar. de Trin. lib. 1. 4. The antient Fathers Qui dictorum intelligentiam expectant ex dictis potiùs quà m imponunt who rather collect the meaning out of the words then impose a new sense vpon them doe commonly vnderstand the Apostles and the Bishops their successors to be the Steward here described Thus Ambrose super locum Hilarie super 24. Math Ierome super locum Chrysost lib. 2. de sacer dote Theophilact super locum c. Thus also the interpreters and commentators of the Church of Rome Beda Thomas Gorran Abulens Caietan Salmeron and Iansenius But when those of the Church of Rome come to matter of question and controuersie they behaue themselues like Poets who as Seneca notes Non putant ad rem pertinere verum dicere Sen. de benefit lib. 1. cap. 3. sed aut necessitate coacti aut decoro corrupti id quemque vocari iubent quod bellè facit ad versum and name him the steward who best fitteth in their opinion the businesse in hand 5. Thus Bellarmine Bellar. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 14. when hee proues against the Presbyterians that Bishops are superior to Priests iure diuino tum ordinis potestate tum iurisdictione alleageth for one proofe this parable as S. Mathew deliuers it Quis est seruus fidelis prudens c. Who is a faithfull seruant c. and saith fairely and truely Haec verba Hilarius coeteri patres de Episcopis dicta esse volunt Hilarie and the rest of the Fathers will haue these words to be vnderstood of Bishops and so proues the superiority of Bishops aboue Priests But when he disputes against vs Protestants for the Monarchie of the Bishop of Rome then this Steward is the Pope and although saith he Ambrose Hilarie and Ierome vnderstand it of the Bishops generally yet surely the Scripture entendeth the Popes Monarchie Bellar. de Concil lib. 2. 17. Quamuis patres saith he non loquantur expressè de Episcopo Romano tamen sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est Although the Fathers speake not expresly of the Bishop of Rome yet without doubt that is the meaning of the Scripture 6. Sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est Nay it will not be carried with so slight a proofe as Sine dubio The Popes Monarchie ouer the Church ouer the whole Christian world is a matter of highest moment Non coniecturâ sed manibus oculis tenenda we are like S. Thomas we will see it with our eyes feele it with our fingers it must be made sensible before we will grant it Tullie saith Cic. offic lib. 3. Turpe est dubitare philosophos quae ne rustici quidem dubitant If euery vulgar interpreter together with the Fathers had deliuered that sense it had beene a shame for so great a Deuine to haue doubted of it but the Fathers he confesseth vnderstand it of Bishops indifferently and no late expositor that I haue read once dreames of the Pope and yet sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est Without doubt that is the meaning of the Scripture 7. It is but a rhetoricall tricke Id sumere pro certo quod dubium controuer sumque est not to doubt of that which he knowes is controuerted Eorum quae constant saith Tullie exempla ponenda Cic. de Inuent lib. 1. eorum quae dubia sunt rationes afferendoe seeing he knew this interpretation would be especially controuerted he should haue kept on his course and haue brought proofe and reasons for it not tell vs Sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est Without doubt that is the meaning of the Scripture If he thought it did constare and were euident to his party yet exempla posuisset hee should haue brought some certaine and vndoubted examples or authorities for our satisfaction from Greeke Fathers or Latine or Councels c as his manner is 8. There are two faults much vsed inter Polemieos the writers of controuersies which are very offensiue to ingenuous readers and no maruell for Quibus rebus animus quasi debito fraudatur offenditur The minde of man is offended when it is defrauded of that which is due vnto it Tullie saith that both these faults are ridiculous Ridiculum est quod est dubium Cic. pro Quint. relinquere incertum saith he It is but a mockerie to passe that ouer without proofe which is doubtfull And againe Ridiculum est quod nemini dubium est iudicare It is also a ridiculous mockerie to vse many proofes and reasons to confirme that which no man denies 9. The former tricke is heere vsed by Bellarmine but because this assertion this sine dubio is very thinne pellucet and we may discerne great weaknesse through it hee vseth inexpiable fraudes to abuse this Text and first he hath this sleight to deceiue his readers That whereas disputing against the Presbyterians for the superiority of Bishops hee saith Sanctus Hilarius Bellar. de Cler. lib. cap. 14. caeteri patres de Episcopis haec
the Text from the confirmation of Bishops in their particular Churches and Families as hee applyed it against the Presbyterians and abuseth it by corruption only to establish the Popes vniuersall Monarchy 24. I stand not to vrge the vanity of this addition or corruption done of purpose to make the word stretch to the vniuersall Church but Sine dubio familia tota familia are both one and imply but one part of a stocke or kindred For among the Romans Gens or Genus was the whole kindred Familia or Stirps were the diuers branches Genus was refer'd ad nomen Familia ad cognomen Cornelia gens was the name of one whole house or kindred Scipiones Lentuli Dolabellae Cinnae Scyllae were cognomina or familiae gentis Corneliae So that as Familia Scipionum and tota familia Scipionum is all one and neither of both comprehends Gentem Corneliam of which there were many other families So here familia and tota familia is all one and neither of both properly signifie Gentem Christianam the vniuersall Church of which there are many particular branches and families 25. And it seemeth that the Holy Ghost would haue this obserued for when the Apostle would expresse the vniuersall Church hee vsed not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is found in my Text which Beza noted well and with him Salmeron and before them both Caietan to signifie famulitium the seruants or inferiour part of a family not a family as Bellarmine reades for his aduantage but the holy Apostle vseth a word which signifieth gentem an whole stocke or kindred consisting of many families Ephes 3.14.15 saying I bend my knees to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of whom the whole nation or kindred both in heauen and earth are denominated Christians 26. Here now when the Holy Ghost would expresse the vniuersall Church he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza Annot. sup Ephe. 3. saith Beza signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tota collectiuè as in some other places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the olde vulgar translates is paternitas as S. Ierome parentela as Erasmus cognatio à communi patre and as Beza familia but taken largely as hee acknowledges in his notes when he saith Familia id est Gens quae communem vnum patrem familiae habeas vt sanè habet Ecclesia in Christo coaptata 27. And this Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby the vniuersall Church is noted is so significant that it troubled the Interpreters as you see to expresse it with a fit Latine word and therefore euery man varies vpon it according to his owne sense so that it is no great maruell if the vulgar translator retained still the very Greeke word Psal 95.7 Psal 95. Afferte Domino patriae Gentium afferte Domino gloriam honorem Which I reading often tooke it for the Latine word Patriae the countries of the Heathen till I obserued that the Septuagint reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And because the olde vulgar thought the word familia would not reach home if hee should say familiae gentium and he would not reade gentes gentium for the Cacophonie and equiuocation hee continued the Greeke word saying Afferte Domino patriae gentium 28. But with this tricke of corruption I note not Bellarmine though hee reades familia for famulitium for famulitium a part and an inferiour part the seruants of the family familia an whole family of Wife Children and Seruants because the olde vulgar doth reade so and hee takes him and leaues him for his best aduantage But I stand somewhat the longer vpon this note because Bellarmine Sanders Stapleton and other worke great wonders out of this word Familia to maintaine the Popes Monarchie though it be falsly translated for Famulitium Familia and then for Familia tota familia and so abused to signifie the vniuersall Church 29. A fift sleight which Bellarmine vseth to abuse this Text and corrupt it to maintaine thereby the Popes Vniuersall Monarchie is in his booke de Concil authoritate where he hath this proposition Bellar. de Concil lib. 2. cap. 17. Summus Pontifex simpliciter absolutè est supra Vniuersam Ecclesiam supra generale concilium ita vt nullum in terris supra se iudicium agnoscat This proposition saith he is ferè de fide no not so it is rather verè de blasphemiâ For is not this proudly to vsurpe the title and style of our great Master For is not Christ Iesus onely Summus Pontifex simpliciter absolutè supra Ecclesiam vniuersam qui nullum supra se iudicium agnoscat What difference betweene this prerogatiue of the Pope and that of our Sauiour Ephes 1. where it is said Ephes 1.22 that God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He made our Sauiour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Summum Pontificem or caput simpliciter absolutè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his whole Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouer all men and ouer all things as the Vulgar of Christ and as Bellarmine of the Pope Supra vniuersam Ecclesiam 30. What not enough to be Primus which may inferre a Primacy which the ancient Church granted but he must be Summus 4. Similis ero altissimo which intends a Monarchie and our Sauiour detested when hee said Reges gentium dominantur eorum vos autem non sic Kings are great Monarchs not you my Apostles much lesse your successors 31. What not enough to be Primus Episcopus amongst many 20.5.5 quos constituit Dominus regere Ecclesiam but he must assumere sibi honorem vt fiat Pontifex Which our Sauiour assumed not but receiued it from his Father when hee said Filius meús es tu Which stile of Pontifex is giuen to none of the Church of Christ but to himselfe onely in the New Testament 32. What not enough to be Pontifex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but hee must be summus Pontifex a stile neuer appropriated nor vsed to any in the Church of God either in the Olde or New Testament For in the Olde Testament the high Priest was barely called Pontifex Leuit. 21.20 as Leuit. 21. Pontifex id est Sacerdos maximus not Pontifex maximus or Pontifex summus And in the New Testament our Sauiour onely hath an Epithete added to it which is giuen in comparison of Aarons high Priesthood to note that Christs Priesthood excelled it But that high and extraordinary stile but once vsed and to our Sauiour onely applied is not equall to this of the Pope For the Apostle calls our Sauiour but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui penetrauit coelos Heb. 4.14 Iesum Christum filium Dei habemus Pontificem magnum We haue saith he a great high Priest that is passed into the
Rochester D. Andrewes D. Buckerige of whom I may say as Tullie did of Carneades Tul. 2. de Orat. Nullam rem defenderunt quam not probarint nullam oppugnauerunt quam non euerterint But although all former doubts haue beene sufficiently cleared and determined yet some new proofes may euer be added and withall vsus inuentorum ab alijs scientia dispositio the vse Sen. and knowledge and disposing of those things whâ—ch are found out by others As there are medicines enough set downe by Antiquitie to cure sore eyes so that our Physitians neede not labour for more but yet there is somewhat left wherein they may exercise their best endeauours and studies because as Seneca saith Sen. Epist 65. Haec morbis temporibus aptanda sunt hoc asperitas oculorum conleuatur hoc palpebrarum crassitudo tenuitur hoc vis subita humor auertitur hoc acuitur visus 6. And as St. Bernard said to Eugenius of doctrinall or morall matters and the reformation of the Church Non planè totum quiuere emundare prophetae aliquid filijs suis Apostolis Bernard de Consid ad Eugen. l. 2. c. 6. quod agerent reliquerunt aliquid ipsi parentes nostri nobis sed nec nos ad omne sufficiemus aliquid profectò nostris relicturi sumus successoribus illi alijs alij alijs vsque in finem so in our ordinary controuersies and polemicall questions Multum egerunt qui ante nos fuerunt sed non omnino peregerunt because there are daily some fresh replies and assaults which yeelde some occasions to other mens labours But to the matter proposed 7. It is confessed on all hands that the spirituall power as we truely call it or spirituall Iurisdiction of the Church as the Papists tearme it improperly is that onely which it hath receiued from our Sauiour himselfe the first founder of it Manifestum est saith Franciscus Syluestris in his commentaries vpon Thomas Contra Gentiles quod Christus ipse regimen Ecclesiae suae instituit Fran. Syl. l. 4. c. 76. non autem ipsa Ecclesia aut populus Christianus neither Popes nor Emperours nor other Christian Kings appointed the spirituall regiment of the Church but our Sauiour onely and Sanders saith Ecclesia neque agnos quidem Sand. de visio Monar l. 1. c. 6. et oues per autoritatem suam absque Dominica institutione per Sacramentum Baptismi operante creare potest quanto minùs per se potest creare pastores Doctores c. The Church of her owne authoritie can neither make Lambes nor Sheepe without the institution of Christ working by the Sacrament of Baptisme by how much lesse then of her selfe can the Church create Pastors and Doctors The Spirituall regiment therefore is to be sought for in the Scriptures onely The temporall power and truely so called Iurisdiction of the Church some deriue from our Sauiour onely some from Christian Emperors and Kings and some from both 8. Of the first kinde who deriue the temporall power from our Sauiour onely are the Canonists and Bartholus the Ciuilian and Bozius and those other ordinis oratorij who holde that our Sauiour was the temporall Monarch of the world and left his Monarchie to St. Peter c. as appeareth in the Canonists and Canon Law Cap. 10. § 32. Quae iura valdè bona sunt ad hoc as Aluarez tells vs in speculo summorum Pontif Regum and no maruell for they were made by the Popes themselues and glossed by their flatterers This opinion is refelled by Bellarmine and he needs no helpe of vs vallatus auxilio pugnatorum Jos 8.16 being assisted with that whole societie who fight ioyntly with him 9. They who deriue the temporall power which the Church possesseth from the bountie and liberality of Christian Monarchs are the Protestants supportantes sibi inuicem in veritate ioyntly maintaining this truth by plaine euidence of vncorrupt Antiquitie acknowledging by whom euery great priuiledge was giuen as in place shall be proued 10. Now the Iesuites and that crew vigilantes animi domini necessitatibus seruientes being very vigilant and carefull to serue their Masters turne chalenge this temporall power to their Lord the Pope both from our Sauiour and from Christian Monarchs a part onely from Kings and Emperors and that directly but another part whereby they chalenge power and authoritie to excommunicate Kings and depriue them of their Kingdomes which cannot be done but by temporall power from our Sauiour ex consequente in ordine ad bonum spirituale but that is indirectè Distinctio necessitati debita a most necessary distinction for it is the onely supporter of the Popes temporall Monarchie for the Canonists opinion as too grosse is exploded by them 11. But this reedie and arundineous supporter is so shattered and torne by our reuerend Prelates fustibus argumentorum as St. Augustine calls them that we may daily expect the downe-fall and ruine of that Monarchie and of this distinction also we shall speake hereafter 12. But the spirituall power of the Church is acknowledged by Canonists Iesuites and Protestants to be deriued from our Sauiour onely for the Church had spirituall power before it had Kings to be Patrons and Nurses of it and a certaine gouernement and Gouernours to exercise that power nec auxilia à Regibus terrae religionis Christianae propagandae aut defendendae gratiâ petijt neither did it entreate ayde of the Kings of the earth either for the propagation or defence of Christian religion and of this spirituall power is our question 13. Not that our aduersaries or wee make any doubt whether there be a set or constant regiment of the Church or no for as Suarez notes well Cum Dominus Apostolicum munus creabat Suarez de Leg. l. 4. c. 4. n. 19. necessariò supponendum est illud munus cum omnibus necessarijs ad conuenientem vsum eius ordinatum fuisse when the Lord instituted the Apostolicall office or function we must needes suppose that he ordained all necessaries that were conuentent and vse-full for that office wee confesse both that this Church is Castrorum acies ordinata an armie well ordered Cant. 6. Acts 20.28 Et spiritus sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam the holy Ghost hath set Bishops to gouerne the Church 14. Nor secondly doe we dispute whether the Ecclesiasticall gouernement be spirituall and distinct from the Politicall for we both confesse that the Church had no seuerall gouernement of it or in it for a long time but spirituall gouernours onely Rom. 12.8 who did not Proeesse in dominio but in solicitudine excell in power but in diligence 15. Nor thirdly doe we question the absolute and free Monarch of the whole Church triumphant and militant for both of vs acknowledge him to be our Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus Ps 2.6 Luc. 1.33 Qui constitutus est Rex super montem
sanctum Domini Psal 2. Et regni huius non erit finis Luc. 1. and of his Kingdome there shall be no end whether wee intend extent of place or continuance of time but our question is whether our Sauiour appointed ouer his militant Church one Steward oeconomum vnum viz. St. Peter as the Papists holde as the sole spirituall Monarch of it from whom all spirituall power should be deriued or many Stewards viz. the twelue Apostles and their successors as equall and ioynt commissioners from him 16. This word Monarcha or Monarchia which is the Praedicatum in our question is no antient Ecclesiasticall word but nouus ascriptitius ciuis and but lately admitted into the Church gouernement or spirituall common-wealth of Christ Iesus it was neuer found in the Fathers applied to the Church I thinke I may be bolde to say for more then a thousand yeares not very frequent till our age in which Sanders wrote his visible Monarchie Now Franciscus à victoriâ Francis victor Relect. 7. sets downe this rule Theologis non licet in suis disputationibus sicut Iurisconsultis aliquid insolens nouum inauditum contra maiorum autoritatem asserere It is not lawfull for Diuines as it is for Lawyers to maintaine any thing that is strange new and vnheard of against the authoritie of the Fathers Notwithstanding this Non licet Sanders Stapleton Suarez Bellarmine Gretzer with that whole societie or rather conspiracie take vpon them the defence of this Monarchical Papall Church-gouernement no doubt directly against their consciences and certaine knowledge as may appeare by their slye subtill and various defence of it 17. For Bellarmine entitles his bookes plainely De Romani Pontificis Monarchiâ but with feare and a kinde of blushing Cic. Bellarl l. 1. c. 19. Verecundiam timiditas imitatur feare imitates bashfulnesse for when he comes to the issue and heart of the question hee changeth his copie as if he should say Timidè dito sed tamen dicendum est though I feare to offend my violent brethren yet I must affirme but this onely Ecclesiasticum regimen praecipuè Monarchicum esse debere which is the title of that ninth chapter praecipuè Monarchicum a word slyly put in that when he is pressed hard with any argument he may slide instantly into the Primacie which we denye not confounding for his aduantage these two questions of the Monarchie and Primacie a common practise among them all that if they be vrged hard they may after the manner of vnconstant heretickes rapidè ad vnum delabi slippe sodainely to one of them and againe when they see their time and aduantage citò in alterum confluere returne quickly to their first error 18. But there is no Monarchie in the world praecipuè Monarchicum if it be Monarchicum it is absolutè Monarchicum and whatsoeuer is found in it either Aristocraticall or Democraticall it is by the fauourable and free concession of the absolute Monarch as wee see in this Kingdome others adiacent and the Monarchs bountie grace who yeelds so much for the ease good of his people must not preiudice his absolute prerogatiue or giue to his gouernement a new forged or commentitious title for multari Monarcham diminutione aliquâ honoris contumelio sum est it is a high disgrace to depriue a Monarch of the least part of his honour 19. Notwithstanding Gretzer who hath commandement from Claudius de Aquà viuâ general Gouernour of that societie to second Bellarmine in all his attempts and obserueth in his owne writings these two qualities temerè dicere astutè reticere to speake confidently in his greatest weakenesse and conceale subtilly his aduersaries strength seeing Bellarmine vrged by Danaeus prouing the Church gouernement not to be Monarchicall and himselfe not able to make it good as one full of clamour and indignation cries out like Mars in Homer hauing taken a wound Gretz l. 2. defen Bellar. de Pontif. Rom. li. 1. ca. 9. Vbi vnquam scripsit Bellarminus Ecclesiae regimen esse Monarchicum planè id est pure sine vlla admixtione ex Aristocrattâ Democrattâ Where did Bellarmine euer write that the gouernment of the Church was plainely that is purely Monarchicall without any mixture of Aristocracie or Democracie 20. We will answere him briefly Wheresoeuer Bellarmine calls the regiment of the Church Monarchicum or S. Peter or the Pope a Monarch simply without any diminishing particle there he saith the regiment of the Church is plane purè Monarchicum and the Pope is planè purè Monarcha But that we may Cic. in Top. Vi nominis argumentum elâ—cere the etymon of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies not onely that one but one alone solus doth gouerne the state planè purè besides Bellarmine entitles his booke De Romani Pontificis Monarchiâ without any diminution and holds it affirmatiuely and saith that St. Peter was Primus Ecclesiae Romanae Monarcha Gretz l. 2. c. 2. and Gretzer saith Monarchia Monarcha supremam ab alio independentem authoritatem denotat which admits neither Aristocracy nor Democracie to be mixed with it for then it were not sola nor independens and after that absolute manner hee defines St. Peters spirituall Monarchie in his eight Chapter De Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 9. 21. And when Bellarmine saith Papam habere plenitudinem potestatis si comparetur cum Episcopis which notes the intensiue power and Papa est praepositus toti orbi Christiano in that fulnesse of power and notes the extensiue power and that he hath totam plenam eam potestatem quam Christus ad Ecclesiae vtilitatem in terris reliquit which is a plenarie power and many the like what doth he else but in plaine termes auerre the gouernment of the Church and the Popes power to be planè id est purè Monarchicum For the power Aristocraticall in other Bishops or Democraticall in inferiour Priests is not entended by Bellarmine to be with admixtion as Gretzer calls it with the Popes gouernment but by subordination to the Popes power or emanation from the Popes power as Suarez saith with which subordination De Leg. l. 4. c. 4. or emanation Aristocraticall or Democraticall as they holde it the Church regiment may be planè id est purè Monarchicum 22. Tullie saith Do Natu. DeoruÌ„ lib. 3. that a man may wrong a good cause by ill handling it Rem minime dubiam argumentando dubiam facere as no doubt the rest of the Iesuits will censure Bellarmine for halting as it were betweene the Monarchie and Primacie whereas they are resolute obstinatione quâdam sententiae that the Pope is planè purè a perfect and absolute spirituall Monarch 23. For Suarez a chiefe Captaine of that coniuration affirming that our Sauiour gaue to S. Peter Munus Apostolicum and Potestatem legislatiuam De leg l. 4. c. 4. n. 15. 16. vt
among themselues for the first place you shall finde diuers reasons giuen by reuerend Antiquitie and vrged by some late Writers and namely that it was in regâ—rd of the speciall fauour to St. Peter in giuing him the keyes and in paying tribute for him onely c. But sauing my reuerend respect to my betters Jansen I rather thinke that the foreshewing so often his death and passion caused them rather so often to question the succession 32. For before his comming to Capernaum hee foretolde his Disciples his death and passion after that they disputed as St. Marc. 9.34 Marke saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quis eorum caeteris esset maior who should be the greater of them For when they heard that he should die then they thought of his successor for as our Sauiour tolde them adhuc sine intellectuerant Mat. 15.16 as yet they were without vnderstanding Mat. 15. and also Luk. 24. they were tardi ad credendum Luc. 24.25 slowe to belieue what was written by the Prophets 33. So likewise Mat. 20. hee foretolde his death and passion to them and then saith S. Mathew the mother of the Sonnes of Zebedee entreated for the prime seates in his kingdome Mat. 20.21 and therevpon grew another contention among them 34. Lastly Luke 22. when they expected his passion euen at the last Supper Luc. 22.24 facta est contentio inter eos there was a strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest and our Sauiour instantly euery time quencheth the heate of their ambition and contention with a present answere 35. At Capernaum hearing their contention he answeres Si quis vult primus esse erit omnium nouissimus Marc. 9.35 omnium minister If any man desire to be first the same shall be last of all seruant of all allowing no desire of superiority among them who were to bee equalls in his kingdome of the Church which was well performed in the primitiue purer times when as S. Augustine saith Multi vt Episcopatum susciperent Aug. Epist 204. tenebantur inuiti Many were constrained against their wills to take Bishoprickes And I doe not find that any man among the Apostles or their first successors affected any first or chiefe place in the Church before it was endowed with honour and lands neither was there any reason why they should desire it all circumstances considered except charitie enforced them for the good of the Church and then hee tooke the gouernment who was called and chosen and not he that aspired and sought the first place 36. How then doth the Pope obserue this rule who will not onely be first among Bishops but the Monarch ouer all Bishops Gorran Gorran simply shewes vs a pretty sleight to elude this rule for saith he Hinc Dominus Papa omnium Christianorum vertex scribit se seruus seruorum Dei Hence it is that our Lord the Pope who is the top or supreame of all Christians writes himselfe the seruant of the seruants of God and that saith he after the example of Christ of whom the Prophet saith Vidimus eum nouissimum virorum Es 53.3 We haue seene him the last of men But our Sauiour saith not Qui vult primus esse scribat se nouissimum He that desires to be first let him write himselfe last but erit omnium nouissimus minister omnium Marc. 9.35 hee shall be the last of all and the seruant of all And if his great Cardinals should see the Pope indeed so humiliated as our Sauiour was and is there expressed by the Prophet Esai who fore-sawe his passion Es 53.3 and describeth him to be Nouissimum virorum opinione omnium the meanest of men in all mens opinion as the Glosse saith and virum dolorum scientem infirmitatum a man full of sorrow and acquainted with infirmities they would soone euen to his face which St. Peter did not renounce their great Monarch and abiure his acquaintance 37. I passe ouer the sensible example which our Sauiour vsed to his Apostles by taking vp a little childe in his armes as a paterne for them for by the little childe he tooke in his armes affirming that the Apostles must be like vnto such hee reproued their ambition and strife for the Monarchie because as S. Chrysostome saith A vanâ gloriâ inuidiâ paruulus mundus existit Hom. 59. in Mat. â concupiscendo Primatum A little childe is voide of vaine-glory and enuie and desire of the Primacie Cyril and as Cyril saith Puer non ambit honorem non nouit cuiusuis praerogatiuae modum A childe sues not for honour he knowes not what belongs to any prerogatiue for this is not in sensu primo an instruction to humility by a positiue doctrine as many Diuines thinke it to be commenting on this place for little children are not verè virtuoâ—i verè humiles truely vertuous truely humble and in that to be imitated but it is a negatiue doctrine forbidding all strife and contention for place and Prelacie in the Church and insinuating that they should be as free from ambition ex rationis rectitudine by the rule of reason as little children are ex imperfectione naturae through natures imperfection 38. The second discontentment and contention about the precedencie or maioritie was when the mother of Iames Mat. 20.21 and Iohn desired the first places for her Sonnes one to sit on the right hand the other on his left in his Kingdome discouering in plaine termes Mat. 20.21 that they stroue for a Monarchie as the Pope now doth 39. Our Sauiour perceiuing that the rest of his Apostles out of their particular ambition indignati sunt de duobus fratribus Verse 24. were moued with indignation against the two brethren answeres as hee did before Qui voluerit inter vos maior fieri Verse 26. fit vester minister Whosoeuer will be great among you let him be your seruant but as in the former contention he proposed a little childe whom in their neglect of honour they should resemble So here hee proposeth vnto them the Kings and Monarchs of the world whose power and regiment they should not expect You striue saith he for the first place in a Kingdome but Reges gentium dominantur in eas qui maiores sunt potestatem exercent inter eas Mat. 20.25 The Kings of the Nations exercise dominion ouer them and they that are great exercise authority vpon them Vos autem non sic but it shall not be so among you setting downe in plaine termes my negatiue The gouernment of the Church shall not be Monarchicall 40. And it is probable that our Sauiour fore-seeing that this would be a great question to exercise his Church doth therefore double this answere and vseth it againe at their last contention euen before his passion as his last determination of it for them and all their successors to
take notice of Luc. 22.25 Reges gentium dominantur eis qui habent eas in potestate benefici vocantur Vos autem non sis You must not be Kings you must not domineere The gouernment of my Church is not Monarchicall nor like the gouernment of the Kings of the World 41. Bellarmine seeing this cleare euidence against this pretended Monarchy and feeling the waite of it thinkes all would be well if he could decline the force of this blow and therefore falles to his accustomed shifts and saith that a Monarchy is not here denyed but the corruption and deflexion of a Monarchy into tyranny for he saith Bellar. de Rom. Pontif l. 5. c. 10. Dominum illis verbis non prohibere dominatum qualis esse potest principum regum piorum sed qualis est Regum ignorantium Deum qui tyranni potiùs sunt quam Reges God forbids not such gouernement as godly Kings and Princes vse but the gouernment of such Kings as know not God who are rather Tyrants then Kings 42. But see his inconstancy and thereby the weakenesse of his answere here he saith our Sauiour forbids a tyrannicall not a regall gouernment vnto his Church but in his third Booke he affirmes that our Sauiour denies both Bellar. de Pontif Rom. l. 3. c. 23. prohibet saith he dominatum regium atque tyrannicum ijs qui Ecclesiae proeesse debent he forbids both regall and tyrannicall dominion to all those who must gouerne his Church But lest he should enter his action of iniury for charging him wrongfully with a contradiction which were a great blemish to so valiant a Champion I doe imagine that in this place he doth confound regium and tyrannicum and makes them Synonimaes in hatred and detestation of Kings and Monarchs being one of that number 2 Pet. 2.10 which Saint Peter saith should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 despisers of domination gouernement Iude 8. and Saint Iude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blasphemers and slanderers of regall Maiestie and truly that same vis Iesuitica ipsa professio maledicendi doe seeme to vndertake and promise so much 43. But the former interpretation if these two be different makes well for his purpose and that sense saith he is euident Patet How thinke you By the interpretation of our Sauiour or his Apostles or the ancient Church No but yet clearely enough ex verborum Graecorum proprietate by the proper signification of the Greeke words But that is no sure rule for we alwayes may reason from the vse of a word in the Scripture not from the proprietie Sometimes we must admit a Metaphor or an Allegorie and dispute from a figuratiue and not from the proper sense of the word for as Saint Augustine saith Aug. trac 47. super Iohan. Per similitudinem Christus multa est viz. petra ostium lapis angularis c. quae per proprietatem non est Christ is many things figuratiuely which properly he is not as namely a rocke a doore the corner stone c. 44. But we will admit it for this place the propriety of the Greeke word shall beare it Matthaeus non ait saith hee Reges Gentium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. dominantur simpliciter sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. violenter dominantur therefore not Regall or Monarchicall gouernement is denyed but tyrannicall onely But though Saint Matthew say not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet S. Luke speaking of the same businesse saith from our Sauiour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that we may reply to Bellarmine Lucas non ait 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 .i. violenter dominantur but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dominantur simpliciter therefore by his owne interpretation not onely tyrannicall which is he corruption of a good regiment but Regall and Monarchicall which is a perfect kinde of regiment is denyed the Apostles and Church of God in Saint Matthew the tyranny in Saint Luke the Monarchie 45. Bellarmine could not be ignorant that Saint Matthew vsed one word and Saint Luke the other in the same argument Sed quid prodest videre eum veritatem as Lactantius saith quam nec defensurus est Lactan. l. 2. c. 3. nec secuturus what is it the better for him to see and know the truth which he will neither defend nor follow He playes on the aduantage and supposall either of the ignorance or negligence of some supine Readers 46. But lest he should reply yet without all shew of reason that Saint Luke is to bee interpreted by Saint Matthew rather then Saint Matthew by Saint Luke First we alledge that he hath not our assent that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth tyrannicall gouernment but we haue his owne confession that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies dominari simpliciter therefore if the Holy Ghost intend the same thing by both the Euangelists as it is euident he doth then by both the words absolute dominion or Monarchicall regalitie is forbidden if they intend two sences then both the one and the other are denyed and we haue our purpose 47. Secondly it is euident by the words of our Sauiour Luke 22. that Regall or Monarchicall gouernement is forbidden there Luke 22. For St. Luke saith Those Kings of the Nations which the Apostles must not be like are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as haue power ouer them and are termed bountifull but Potestas est quaedam magna perfectio Abulens sup Mat. c. 20. q. 92. nam de potissimis attributis diuinis ponitur Power is a certaine great perfection for it is one of the chiefe attributes of God and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is euer taken in bonam partem in a good sence The curing of the man which was borne lame is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 4.8 Acts 4. and it is taken pro beneficio for a benefit 1 Tim. 6. 1 Tim. 6.2 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed to our Sauiour by Saint Peter Acts 10. Acts 10.38 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that it is euident that our Sauiour saith they shall not be like Kings no not the best Kings who take their denomination of liberality and bounty 48. For bounty is a Kingly vertue maximè regium est quos volunt ad honores extollere and it is most princely for Kings to grace with honors whom they please and they whom Kings aduance must be honoured by the people Iac. 1â—â— Therefore when Saint Iames forbids vs to honour them which be rich he makes an exception to it saying Si tamen perficitis legem regalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. bene facitis Verse 8 9. Notwithstanding if ye fulfill the Royall Law c. ye doe well but if ye regard the persons ye commit sinne Where Catetan obserues that rich men may chance to be honoured for two causes Caietan super locum Altera est ex personarum acceptione the one is out
Aliqui reges Gentium c. Vos autem non sic excluding from the Apostles the tyrannicall gouernment not the regall Non dicit saith he omnes Reges Gentium sed indefinitè Reges gentium hoc est aliquos Reges gentium and then he shewes his Logicke for saith he propositio indefinita constans materià contingenti idem valet quod particularis 56. But to be briefe and speake to the point the proposition doth not consist of contingent matter but of necessarie for omnes Reges gentium dominantur eis habent eas in potestate All the Kings of the Gentiles haue dominion ouer them and exercise authority vpon them and he that doth not so or hath not power to doe so Abulens sup Mat. 20. q. 93. is no King and Abulensis saith vpon this place of Mathew that both Principatus gentium Iudaeorum which were both one as appeares Deut. 17. and 1 Sam. 8. were here excluded from the Apostles and from the Church regiment and so the matter being necessary the proposition indefinite is vniuersall forbidding the Church all kind of Monarchie that was in the world 57. But Gretzer hath a second shift to elude this Text Ibid. and saith Christus non dixit Reges Christianorum fidelium but Reges gentium and therefore the gouernment of the Church may be Monarchicall after the nature of Christian regiment though not after the fashion of heathen Monarchies SANDERS 58. But we answere that the regall gouernment of Christian Kings and those of the Nations is of one kinde and Sanders by occasion of these words so confesseth De visib Monar lib. 2. cap. 1. for saith he Ciuilis potestas apud gentes quae Deum non cognoscunt eadem reperitur quae apud fideles Reges existit licet Christus talem in suis ministris esse noluerit The ciuill power of the Nations which know not God and of Christian Kings is all one although Christ will not haue such power exercised by his Ministers The former part confutes Gretzer in terminis who thinkes that the ciuill power of Christian and heathen Kings is not all one the latter part viz. Licet Christus talem in suis ministris esse noluerit you would thinke also in plaine tearmes to be our assertion as indeed it is but I will not vrge it or charge him with such high treason against his great Monarch The Ciuilians say Inciuile est L. Inciuile H. de Leg. 5. c. nisi totâ lege perspectâ iudicare It is true that he saith plainely The regiment of the Church is not like the regiment of Kings c. but he hath his euasion too as if he should say Reges gentium fidelium habent originem regiminis eorum vel a iure gentium vel à iure ciuili The Kings of the heathen and of Christians haue the originall of their regiment either from the Law of Nations or from the ciuill Law Vos autem non sic sed regnum vestrum vel regimen tantum per mediatorem Dei hominum hominem Iesum Christum dimanauit With you it is otherwise for your Kingdome or regiment is deriued vnto you onely by the mediator of God and man the man Iesus Christ 59. Elihu was full of indignation Iob 32.3 because Iobs friends Non inuenissent responsionem rationabilem had not found a reasonable answere but this answere is not onely absurd and nothing to the purpose if it were entertained but false also and Sanders herein more subtill then wise for wee say truely that the power of Kings and the power of the Apostles and their successors are both originaliter from God only for a Pope or a Bishop in respect of his owne person hath his place designed to him by Election Confirmation and Consecration according to Ecclesiasticall Canons and Constitutions but his spirituall power is originally from God by the Law of the Gospell per verbuminsitum as St. Iames calls it as also temporall Kings either in state of election or succession haue their Kingdomes to themselues or to their successors iure gentium or ciuili or municipali but they haue potestatem regiam whatsoeuer it is originally and immediately from God by the Law of nature per verbum innatum And this the Emperor acknowledges in his Nouelis that ex vno eodemque principio imperium sacerdotium proficiscuntur although in nature they be distinguished cum hoc diuinis illud humanis praesideat CAIETAN 60. Now as Sanders will haue it vos autem non sic id est originaliter so Caietan will haue it vos autem non sic id est finaliter both will haue it one forme of regiment which Bellarmine and Gretzer denie but Sanders makes the difference in the Author Caietan in the end Sup. Luc. ca. 22. Reprimit saith Caietan ambitionem ex differentia inter principatum mundanum Ecclesiasticum penes hoc quod finis Regum est dominari gloria Vos autem non sic You shall haue the same power which Kings haue but you shall not vse it to that end 61. But the end of Monarchicall principality is not domination honor and glory but bonum vniuersi the generall and common good especially of their particular kingdomes by maintaining their Subiects in order and peace by the rules of iustice Domination or honour are but consequents of it or adiuncts to it without which that end cannot be attained but supernaturally as it was in the Church For wee may say as well to a King as to a Bishop by way of aduice Seeke not your owne domination or glory which were not well said if honour and glorie and domination were the end of their gouernment for euery man ought to studie and endeauour to attaine that end which is proposed to his office But if we should say to a King as our Sauiour saide vnto his Apostles Qui maior est fiat sicut minor Sir if you will be the greatest wee will bring you downe and humble you to vs it were Laesa maiestas violence offered against that power and Maiesty of Kings which is instituted and allowed by GOD himselfe wherefore the Regiment Ecclesiasticall differs from the Regall not onely in this false imagined end but in the kinde and species of the regiment it selfe 62. Now we will consider whether the regiment of the Church which our Sauiour left to his Apostles were conformable to the Monarchie of the world and we shall finde that as the ende of that regiment was supernaturall viz. the saluation of the world so the meanes to that end for the most part were supernaturall Faith and the Sacraments and the power of the Gouernours supernaturall reaching to the opening and shutting of Heauen to the binding and loosing of sinnes wherefore hee denyed to his Apostles all such things as appertained to the perfection of secular regiment namely Riches Secondly Power coerciue Thirdly Honour and domination that his Kingdome
might not be supposed to bee erected by ordinary meanes 63. First for Riches RICHES it was impossible the Apostles should be rich hauing forsaken all their owne substance 1. Impossible and the most part of Christians at first conuerted being of meane estate and the collections which were made were diuided to such as were needy among them 64. Secondly it was not conuenient they should be rich for hauing no place of abode 2. Not conuenient being sent as Commissioners ouer the World they had no portage for store of wealth and the care of their riches might haue stayed their course 65. Thirdly It was not safe for them to be rich for the Infidels 3. Not safe who then persecuted them for their faith would haue tooke occasion of a stricter persecution to possesse their riches 4. Not for the credit of the Gospell Arist Ethic. 66. Fourthly It was not for the credit of the Gospell for the Apostles to be rich for as Aristotle saith Multa per diuitias effecta sunt Many things are brought to passe by riches It was therefore for the glory of the Church that the chiefe rulers then should be poore and possesse nothing that whatsoeuer those first founders did effect might be ascribed to the diuine power supernaturall and God onely might be honoured in the conuersion of the Gentiles and the Christian Faith no way calumniated COERCIVE POVVER 67 The second thing which is proper to Monarchs is potestas coercendi a power to compell men to be good and iust either by Legall punishment or by Arbitrarie where legall is wanting from this power our Sauiour did quit his Apostles when he said Mat. â—0 25 26. Qui maiores sunt potestatem exercent in eos concluding Vos autem non sic They that are great exercise authority ouer others But it shall not be so among you 1. NO TEMPORAL PVNISHMENT 68. And therefore in those dayes men were not forced to goodnesse or to the Christian Faith by punishment or feare but by loue and exhortation and the reasons were diuers one is giuen by Origen because Sicut omnia carnalia in necessitate posita sunt Origen spiritualia autem in voluntate sic qui principes sunt spirituales principatus eorum in dilectione subditorum debet esse positus non in timore corporali As all carnall things are necessary but spirituall voluntary so those that are spirituall Gouernours their dominion must consist in the voluntary loue of their inferiors not in corporall feare for the olde rule was Fides cogi non debet Faith ought not to be enforced indeed it cannot be enforced 69. Secondly the Apostles had no other Law to gouerne by but the Law of Christ 2. NO LAVV BVT CHRISTS LAVV. which is not coerciue nor imposeth corporall or temporall punishment either particular or generall vpon any crime but vseth onely commination of hell fire and eternall torments neither rewardeth it any vertue but with promise of Heauen and the ioyes thereof 70. Thirdly In the Apostles time the Christian people who were subiect to them were few 3. NO IVRISDICTION and those not populus determinatus belonging to this or that territory subiect to the Apostles but they were certaine parts or pieces of people and Nations some of one Countrey and some of another who all were vnder their lawfull Princes and Monarchs and so by consequent the Apostles hauing no territory could haue no Iurisdiction at all either in ciuilibus or in criminalibus neither ouer the liues nor ouer the goods nor ouer the bodies of any Christian and if they had vsurped any such iurisdiction they should haue suffered as Malefactors and Traytors and so dishonoured the Christian Religion 71. Fourthly our Sauiour proposed his owne principality ouer them as a patterne or example of that power they should vse No other patterne but our Sauiour to follow Mat. 20.27 28. for when hee had tolde them that their gouernement should not be that of the Kings of the Nations he addeth Qui voluerit in vobis esse primus sit vester seruus c. Whosoeuer will be chiefe among you let him be your seruant euen as the Sonne of man came not to be serued but to serue and to giue his life for the ransome of many wherefore his Apostles were to vse no other Iurisdiction or coerciue power either in ciuilibus or in criminalibus but yet exercised a certaine discipline as we may call it and whereof we shall haue occasion to speake hereafter at fit opportunity 3. EXCELLENCY and HONOVR 72. The third thing that belongs to Kings is Excellency and Honour which euer attend on Riches and coerciue power both which being denyed to the Apostles they were exempt also from all worldly and temporall honour as their Master was except such as vertue procures in the hearts of the people but that is morall honour not ciuill such as we speake of and is in Kings and giuen by Kings as the Ciuilians terme it Per honorarios codicillos or per diplomata Râ—gum vpon whose onely gift all ciuill honours and nobility depend Obiect 73. If any man suppose that the Apostles had this coerciue Iurisdiction because Saint Peter as it seemes killed Ananias and his wife Ananias and Saphyra who lyed to the Holy Ghost and with-held a part of the price from the poore as also because Saint Paul deliuered ouer the Corinthian fornicator to Sathan Corinthian fornicator ad interitum carnis c. We answere that those Apostles neither vsed ciuill nor criminall Iurisdiction Respons for Saint Peter did not put to death Ananias and Saphyra but fore-shewed their death and so was neither their Iudge Acts 5. nor executioner but a prophet who fore-told that punishment which the holy Ghost would inflict 74. And although the punishment of the fornicator seeme to be an act of Iurisdiction and of secular iudgement in St. Paul who saith 1 Cor. 5.3 Ego autem absens corpore praesens spiritu iudicaui c. And againe Decreui eum tradere Satanae ad interitum carnis I haue determined to deliuer him vp to Satan for the destruction of the flesh yet this was not done by vertue of any temporall Iurisdiction but by miraculous power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verse 4. for St. Paul did not command the Corinthian to be whipt or to be banished his Country or to be fined but commanded the Diuell to assault him and so to torment him to death Verse 5. Vt spiritus saluus sit in die Domini Iesu Christi that so the spirit might be saued in the day of the Lord Iesus which act proceeded from our Sauiour immediately because Diuels are not executioners at mans command so that these punishments proceeded not from any temporall Iurisdiction but St. Paul inflicted punishment per modum orationis and St. Peter per modum praenuntiationis St. Paul by
prayer S. Peter by prophesie 75. How then did they subiugate the whole world vnto them To omit that supernaturall meanes which God vsed by the bloud of his Martyrs and by those three formes of the gifts of the holy Ghost Aug. de Trin. vnit cap. 4. the first whereof as St. Augustine notes pertinet ad ius Ecclesiasticum in regenerandis the second in virtutibus signis faciendis and the third at the Pentecost in dono linguarum and by Confirmation or Imposition of hands c. they vsed two ordinary meanes one was solicitude and care to performe their office the other was sanctitie and holinesse of life All which S. Peter deliuers to the Church and his successours as he receiued them from his Master Christ Iesus 76. For in his first Epistle not vnder the title of a Monarch but of Compresbyter hee exhorteth his fellow Priests 1 Pet. 5. saying I who am your fellow Priest who glory not of any superiority but in this onely that I am a witnesse of Christs passion and a partaker of that glory which shall be reuealed which many vnderstand of that glory which he saw at the transfiguration exhort you Pascite feede the flocke of God which is among you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking the ouersight thereof as Bishops not ruling and commanding as Kings not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready minde Neither as being Lords ouer Gods inheritance but being ensamples to the flocke c. Which words as S. Bernard saith containe interdictum Bern. de Consid lib. 2. cap. 6. and edictum the interdict forbiddeth three things as Abulensis obserues Coerciue power Riches and Domination of which wee haue spoken the edict commands two things First Pascere qui in nobis est gregem Dei the care solicitude we should haue to feed Gods flock Secondly Formas fieri gregis to be an example to our flockes in piety and sanctitie of life These also S. Paul requires the former Praeesse in solicitudine Rom. 12. the latter Rom. 12. 1 Tim 3. 1. Tim. 3. Esse irreprehensibiles and so a patterne of sanctitie to the whole flocke 77. The foundation therefore of Christian religion was not in riches or coercine power or honourable titles but in solicitude and sanctitie vpon which Christian Kings and Emperours as was fore-prophesied built those high turrets of honour riches Iurisdiction and temporall power which the Church in due time afterward possessed to the glory of our Sauiour and the credite of the Gospell as shall be shewed in due place and by these meanes was Christianity at the first propagated 78. Now it is naturall that by what ordinary meanes Religion was first dilated it should also be continued by the same Miracles and those extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost which as S. Augustine saith were giuen ad incrementum Ecclesiae De Trin. vnit cap. 4. vsque dum fidei semina iacerentur are now ceased and those things which not long after caused great progresse in Pietie and Religion namely Continentia vsque ad tenuissimum victum ieiunia non quotidiana solùm sed etiam per contextos plures dies perpetrata Ang. de vtil Creden cap. 17. castitas vsque ad coniugij prolisque contemptum patientia vsque ad cruces flammasque neglectas liberalitas vsque ad patrimonia distributa pauperibus aspernatio mundi vsque ad desiderium mortis which St. Augustine confesseth that few then performed but fewer did well and wisely performe Pauci haec faciunt pauciores benè prudenterque faciunt saith he All these things which the people then fauoured and loued and admired Et quòd ista non possent non sine prouectu mentis in Deum nec sine quibusdam scintillis virtutum setpsos accusabant These also are all in a manner through the encrease of superstition and manifold abuses vtterly abandoned there remaineth onely solicitude and piety among the primitive ordinary meanes to continue Religion in that height and greatnes in the Church of Christ 79. But the defects of those former supernaturall gifts haue beene in some measure supplied since the vnion of the Empire and temporall gouernment with the Church and spirituall power and by the bounty and liberality of Kings who prudently considered that in this incorporation as the Common-wealth did partake the blessings that the Church could afford by maintaining temporall peace and concord and subiection to Kings I speake nothing of the supernaturall blessing of regeneration and the fruites thereof so the Church should communicate with the Common-wealth out of their liberality Riches Honour and Temporall power but subordinate to them according to the Law of Nature and example of all people who had any feeling of Religion and the seruice of God either by inbred light or the custome of the Country 80. But these Riches Honours and Iurisdictions which are now added to the Church are things indifferent good or bad as they are vsed Ipsa quidem quod ad animi bonum spectat Bern. de Consid lib. 2. cap. 6. nec bona sunt nec mala vsus tamen horum bonus for the honour and credite of Christian Religion but abusio mala solicitudo peior as Saint Bernard saith 81. It is certaine that they are great temptations and prouocations to men in this our frailty oftentimes to exceed the bounds of Christian humility and morall equity which gaue occasion to that Prouerbe Religio pâ—perit diuitias filia deuorauit matrem and at the first endowment of the Church it was said Hodiè venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam which so farre infected many Prelates thereof that the out-cry against them hath beene continuall euen from those primitiue times as appeares in those Arian Bishops who liued in Athanasius dayes Athanasius and were bipedum nequissimi and so all along downe by succeeding ages some euer complaining in that forme that Hugo Cardinalis vseth vpon that of Saint Peter Non dominantes in clero Hugo Cardinalis Hoc praeceptum saith he hodiè transgrediuntur multi praelatorum qui plus se erigunt quà m possint many Prelates at this day doe transgresse this precept who exalt themselues higher then they may either by the Law of the Gospell or by the donation of Kings Vt valdè benè competat eis illud Esaiae Audiuimus superbiam Moab id est Esai 16. Praelatorum vel Clericorum carnalium that the complaint of the Prophet Esay may very well befit them Wee haue heard of the pride of Moab that is saith Hugo of the Prelates and carnall Clerkes Superbus est valdè he is maruellous proud but blessed be God for it saith he superbia eius arrogantia eius indignatio eius plus quà m fortitudo eius and to that purpose applies other places of Scripture both of Ieremie and Leuiticus 82. But this abuse appeared most in the Bishop of
â—â—ey esteeme fundamentall for the vulgar will suspeâ—â— our truth and fidelity vntill we discouer our adueâ—â—aries falshood and subtilty Cypr. de vnitate Eccles c. 2. and no maruell for Saint Cyprian saith Haeretici dum verisimilia mentiuntur veritatem subtilitate frustrantur Heretickes doe euen weaken and frustrate the truth by certaine false shewes and similitudes of it 4. Lactantius saith that as the way of wisedome Lactan. l. â— c. 7. or truth via illa sapientiae aliquid habet simile stultitiae hath somewhat in it that may seeme to be folly for as he saith in another place L. 5. c. 15. Sapientia suapte naturâ speciem quandam stultitiae habet as Saint Paul saith 1 Cor. 1.18 1 Cor. 1.23 Verbum crucis est pereuntibus stultitiae and Christus crucifixus gentibus stultuia so also the way of errour Via erroris cum sit tota stultitia saith Lactantius habet aliquid simile sapientiae the way of errour which is paued with fâ—lly hath some shew also of wisedome in it which sometimes deceiues them that seeme to be wise and sometimes is vsed by them who discerne the truth to deceiue the simple 5. Card. Bellarmine in his Bookes de Rom. Pontif. Monarchiâ Ecclesiasticâ offers himselfe a leader and guide in this way of errour but being Dux praeuaricatox subdolus now he leades them in one path and then in another wheresoeuer he may find any shew any colour of truth sometimes by a face of Scripture falsly vnderstood sometimes vnder the cloake of ancient traditions sometimes vnder the credit of the Fathers authority sometimes vnder the colour of phylosophicall reason sometimes with the counterfet aspect of logicall definitions 6. Now as all these kindes of proofes to an orthodoxe disputant are viae itinera veritatis Lactantius the Churches high and straite way to leade vs to Gods truth so to them who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nâ—zianzen calls them that is falsly informed in the Christian Religion and false informers of other they are diuerticula semitae anfractus by-pathes corners and diuerticles to leade men to errour and to this purpose many times Lactantius Dux iste coniungit omnes Bellarmine makes vse of them all and most of them runne together and meete in one center to maintaine this false Monarchy and vsurped tyranny 7. Primum fraudis diuerticulum as Tullie calles it the first crafty shift that I will obserue vnto you is abigere homines per inanem fallaciam which the Apostle notes to be a quality incident to false Teachers Colos 2.8 Colos 2.8 which is to diuert men out of the way of truth by Logicall fallacies and corrupting the definitions both of the Church and of a Monarchie by defining the Church so as it may fit their Monarchy and by deuising such a definition of a Monarchie as may fit their Church For when the Empire became possessio quasicaduca Cicero vacua an vncertaine and weake possession in eam homines occupati imperatoribus otio luxu abundantibus inuolauerunt vpon the power and priuiledges thereof crafty and ambitious Popes vsurped whilest the Emperours liued in sensuality and ease and so by consequent vpon the Church-gouernement also from which vsurped possessions they cannot endure to be remoued though Kings and Bishops now challenge againe their ancient right and natiue prerogatiues and yet being not able to maintane it by Sword they would hold their possession by colour of reason and originall right 8. And taking this as granted by all reasonable men which both Tullie the Orator teacheth vs that Omnis Câ— lib. 1. Offic. quae à ratione suscipitur de re aliquâ institutio debet à definitione proficisci that euery rationall disputation takes the beginning from definitions And Aristotle the Philosopher Dubia omnia contingentia de re aliquâ ex definitione illius soluenda sunt all doubts and questions which can arise in any businesse may be dissolued by the definitions of them they vse strange art Et ea quae naturâ diuersa sunt definitionibus coniungunt they make the Church and a Monarchie which are diuers by nature one and the same and ioyne them together by false definitions Cic. cont Rullam as Corinth doth conioyne duo maria maximè nauigationi diuersa which run along with two contrary streames 9. For a Monarchie as appeareth both by the Etymon which is vnius solius imperium Arist lib. 3. Polit. cap. 11. and by Aristotles definition is that forme of gouernment in quâ vnus praestantissimus vir rerum omnium potestate defungitur which definition Sanders doth acknowledge Sanders lib. 3. de visib Monar cap. 3. 10. The royalties or prerogatiues of a Monarch consist in two things in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in hauing power in himselfe and of himselfe only which is called also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus regia Ius regis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plenitudo potestatis and secondly in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vniuersall gouernment and command ouer all his territories 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or plenitudo potestatis semper subsistit in regis capite Fulnesse of power doth subsist in the Kings person and the prerogatiues which proceede from it as Ius nobilitandi legitimandi restituendi in integrum sententiam passos tam vitae honoribus quà m facultatibus the power and right to aduance at his pleasure to honour and nobility to legitimate to restore to their state such as are condemned both to their honours and possessions These and the like are merè regalia diuisionem vel communicationem non admittunt they cannot be diuided with any or communicated to any for then he to whom it is communicated or with whom it is diuided could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sub alterius potestate as all Subiects are and ought to be vnder a Monarch or King but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolute of himselfe also 12. The royalties which proceede â 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his dominion or gouernment are often communicated to inferiour Magistrates and Presidents and gouernours of Prouinces as the vse of tributes Subsidies and the like not the imposing of them which are proprieties of an absolute dominion such as Monarchs enioy 13. To this forme of Monarchicall gouernment by encroachment and vsurpation the Popedome is brought dum Patres-familias dormirent whilst Kings and Emperours were fast asleepe but yet it must be chalenged from Saint Peter by succession in his Stewardship and therfore Bellarmine proposeth this question and holds it affirmitiuely Fueritne Sanctus Petrus primus Ecclesiae Catholicae spiritualis Monarcha whether Saint Peter were the first spirituall Monarch of the Catholicke Church 14. And Gretzer he will proue it thus Si quis est caput vniuersale idem iure optimo Monarcha est cum independentis potestatis plenitudinem possideat at Petrus fuit caput vniuersale ergo Monarcha Here is absolute
Gospell should be abrogated by positiue Lawes Ciuill or Municipall and that the bounty and liberality of Princes which affoords their Subiects an interest in the State both Aristocraticall and Democraticall for the more ready and easie gouernment of the Common-wealth may be held and continued by prescription without the Kings consent against the Law of Nature as now they hold many Lands and Tithes of the Church and as the Church now doth so the King ought also to loose and forgoe his originall right and natiue prerogatiues 23. But as they teach for their aduantage sometimes that Nullum tempus occurrit regi in certaine miniments and trifles as we may terme them which belong to the Law so they should acknowledge that Nullum tempus and Nulla Lex occurrit Regi in those maine points which touch his prerogatiue and that there is euer in a King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inbred power limited onely with iustice and equity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolute dominion and vniuersall command and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also subiection to none but to God onely Ius Regis which cannot be alienated or communicated with any subiect no not with the Kings Sonne without either renouncing or diuiding his Empire plenitudo potestatis which cannot be emptied or frustrated by the Kings consent no not for his owne time without right of reuocation finally manus regia which cannot be shortened without wounding his Maiesty which wound though it be not so taken is deeper and more dangerous in that prerogatiue which is due by the Law of Nature then that which is granted by a positiue Law Huc vsque zelus meus Thus farre my zeale hath carried me I returne to the matter 24. By this which hath beene spoken you may perceiue that the Pope is made an absolute Monarch and hath the prerogatiues belonging to Monarchs but all this is vsurpation and abhorreth from our Sauiours institution and the primitiue practise for a Monarchie was prohibited as I haue noted Conc. 2. §. 35.36 c. and in the gouernment Ecclesiasticall which was Aristocraticall the Apostles and their first successors enioyed neither riches nor coerciue power nor domination or honor or such Monarchicall Prerogatiues and yet there was among them in spirituall things or do rerum consecratus omniae inter se apta connexa for the propagation of that spirituall gouernement 25. All which are by abuse now inueterate dissolued and a diuers gouernement by vsurpation established but because wee inforce the first institution from which they cannot appeale it being Apostolicall by practise and originall of our Sauiours ordinaon their art is as I said res difiunctas definitionibus connectere and deuise such a definition for the Church as may fit with a Monarchie and such a definition of a Monarchie as may sort with the Church vtramque rem falso naturae termino definientes 26. For where the Church is described in the ancient Credes to be vna Sancta Catholica Apostolica without any other particular mention of the kinde of gouernement but that it is Apostolica not Petrina onely discending by succession from the Apostles in an Aristocracie not from Saint Peter alone in a Monarchie and where Saint Cyprian describes it according to the gouernement to be Aristocraticall Cypr. l. 4. epist 9. as we call it saying Ecclesia Catholica vna est cohaerentium sibi inuicem sacerdotum glutino copulata The Catholique Church is one consisting of many Priests or Bishops joyned together in one vnitie And where Stapleton in the intrinsecall and essentiall definition of the Church as he termes it maketh no other mention of the gouernement Staple relect cont 1. q. 4. ar 5. but that it is legitimè ordinata and after in a full definition as hee calls it or rather description hath this onely for the gouernement of it that it is collectione ordine membrorum vna which ordo Sanders describes thus Vt iam inde ab initio Ecclesiae vnus Presbyter multis fidelium familijs vnus Episcopus presbyteris etiam multis item multis episcopis vnus praefuerit Primas for though hee dispute for a Monarchie hee is glad in conclusion to bring forth a Primacie notwithstanding all these definitions or descriptions of the Church Sanders de visib Monarch l. 1. c. 2. which incline to Aristocracie Bellarmine the first that euer I obserued to strengthen his cause puts the Pope and his Monarchie into the definition of the Church and saith Nostra sententia est Bellar. de Eccles mil. l. 3. c. 2. Ecclesiam esse coetum hominum eiusdem Christianae fidei professione eorundem Sacramentorum communione colligatum sub regimine legitimorum pastorum If heere hee had stayed he had accorded with Saint Cyprian and the ancient Church and moderne writers in their definitions but adding Precipuè sub regimine vnius Christi in terris vicarij Romani Pontificis he corrupts the definition and joyneth subtlety and falsehood together for it is false that the Bishop of Rome is Vicar to our Sauiour Christ in his Monarchie ouer the Church and hee is subtle when hee saith praecipuè as I haue noted heretofore for hee holds as I haue proued with Suarez and the rest of the Iesuites that the Church is absolutè sub regimine vnius Monarchae absolutely vnder the gouernement of one Monarch for say they the Catholiques hold that the Church is an absolute Monarchie and that the Pope is the Monarch 27. Which subtletie also appeareth by the explication of that definition in the wordes following which definition saith he hath three parts First the profession of the truth Secondly the communion of the Sacraments and lastly their subiection to their lawfull Pastor the Bishop of Rome Where that which seemed Aristocraticall in the definition designing the Regiment of many Pastors with one Primate is omitted in the explication and the whole Church absolutely subjected to one Monarch of Rome 28. But if there be vnius rei vna definitio sicut vnum esse but one definition of a thing as there is but one essence of it if a definition doe briefly and absolutely containe proprias rei alicuius qualitates the proper qualities of any thing if the essentiall parts of a thing be euer the same then this cannot now be the true definition of the Church because it was not neither could haue been the definition of the Church in the Apostles times when they made their Crede as Antiquitie holds for neither was Saint Peter put then into the definition of the Church from whom the Pope deriues all his Prerogatiues neither was there seated any Bishop at Rome at that time nor certaine yeares after to put into the definition of the Church while Saint Peter was at Antioch and at other Cities But Bellarmine who knew it to be true art Cic. de orat inuolutae rei notitiam definiendo
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
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
est yet saith he excelluit Petrus in Pontificiâ dignitate But if by the excellencie of his Pontificalitie he vnderstand a Monarchie as their vse is it is an absurd begging of the question if hee meane a Primacie onely the distinction is idle for not prioritie but superioritie takes away paritie 81. It is scarce credible how they haue corrupted this discourse of Saint Cyprian not onely by these vaine glosses but by adding to it and detracting from it to erect this Monarchie which is there demolished To these words alledged by Saint Cyprian Tu es Petrus super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam they haue falsly added super vnum aedificat Ecclesiam suam and omit two or three lines that those words might fit the better This I thinke was begunne by the late corrupters of the Canon Law and so it is found in all or most editions since the yeere 1540. for the Copies printed then before 1525. acknowledge no such words this you finde in the Decrees 24. q. 1. c. Loquitur if you compare these editions 82. From hence it seemeth to haue crept into the originall Author himselfe and because these words fauour their Monarchie they choose rather to corrupt the Author by the false Canon then correct the Canon by the true Author for the Cyprian which I vse was printed at Paris 1564. and hath no such words But if you consult some later editions as also that of Iustus Caluinus alià s Iustus Baronius that is of him who of a Caluinist for better maintenance became a Papist and so changed his name with his religion you shall finde in his second booke of Prescriptions against heresies which is this booke of Saint Cyprian De vnitate Ecclesiae at the third Chapter not onely those words added out of the corrupted Canon Law Super illum vnum aedificat Ecclesiam suam but in another place not farre off vnam constituit cathedram and some other additions which corruptions are not found in the Canon Law whereby you may perceiue they are so farre from amending that which is amisse that they doe proficere in petus and daily adde more corruptions to the writings of the ancient Fathers to extoll and magnifie Saint Peters Monarchie 83. Thus where Arnobius saith vpon Psal 106. Praedicauit Petrus baptismum Christi in quo in which baptisme or in which Iesus Christi vniuersa flumina in deserto huius mundi benedicuntur vsque hodiè à Petro all the Riuers in the world are blessed and hallowed from the time of Saint Peter to this present day Stapleton reades most corruptly thus and definitiuely of Saint Peter Vniuersa flumina in deserto huius soeculi benedicuntur vsque hodie à Petro all the Riuers in the world are blessed and hallowed by Saint Peter euen vnto this day ascribing that which is due to our Sauiour and his baptisme to Saint Peter and his baptisme belike because hee holds with Bellarmine that all Christian baptisme proceedes from Saint Peter to the other Apostles and so to the whole Church for euer 84. Againe where Arnobius saith in the same place Ipse posuit exitus aquarum in sitim ita vt qui exierit for as ab Ecclesia Petri siti pereat which is either Christus posuit exitus aquarum in sitim Christ by his preaching gaue many floods of heauenly waters to quench the desire of thirstie soules or if you will Peter by his preaching as he passed along sent out many flouds of heauenly water into the world c which is true also of the rest of the Apostles Stapleton makes him to say for Peters greater honour aboue them Ipsum esse exiâ—us aquarum in suim Stapl. relect controu 3. q. 1. art 1. conclus 3. equalizing him to his Master who was indeede the water of life which whosoeuer drinketh of should thirst no more Surely though our Sauiour Tertul. l. 4. cont Marci c. 3. as Tertullian saith affectauit charissimo Discipulorum de figuris suis nomen peculiariter communicare and tearmed him a rocke as our Sauiour was called figuratiuely yet hee neuer imparted to him his Essentialls to be the water of life that exitus aquarum which should runne along to euerlasting saluation 85. But of these vaine glosses and impious corruptions of the Fathers and Scriptures to maintaine this Monarchie facto finem vbi non est finis That Ber. which hath beene said at diuers times I hope will suffice to shew that Saint Peter had no Monarchicall power ouer the rest of the Apostles who in honour power and authority were equall to him and that all the reasons they alledge for it are false and fallacious and but craftie shifts and by-wayes to deceiue their Readers and leade them to error 86. It will perchance scarce seeme credible vnto their followers that so many men of learning and professors of Religion as are to be found in so many Colledges of Iesuites to say nothing of other orders and Religions should consent to betray so euident a cause with falsifying forgerie and fallacious sophistrie Cic. l. 3. de Natu Deorum seeing Vitiorum sine vllâ ratione graue ipsius conscientiae pondus est If they esteemed not their Christianitie yet the very conscience of these sinnes should be an heauie burthen to them No question their number their learning their profession their outward shew of holinesse and Religion their vnanimous consent in this grosse errour carry captiue many well-meaning people who cannot judge of these their writings 87. And to say the truth Quod tam desperatum collegium Cic. de Leg. l. 3. in quo nemo a decem sanâ mente sit Who would thinke the societie to be so desperately wicked that I say not one Iesuite among tenne but not in tenne Colledges of Iesuites one should haue a sound heart to acknowledge that truth which with so manifold glosses they labour to conceale for those multi tramites those by-pathes which they vse shew that it is via mendax Lactan. a deceitfull lying way which they walke in and that they treade it of purpose to leade men to errour nay ad occasum to their vtter destruction But they haue their reward the same which Lactantius allotted the Philosophers which opposed Christianitie Lactan. l. 5. c. 2. when he saith Quisquis veritatis contra quam perorat infirmare voluerit rationem ineptus vanus ridiculus apparebit 88. I hope I shall not neede in this place to vse his exhortation to our yonger Students Jbid. Ne patimini vos quasi homines imperitos istorum fraudibus illici nec simplicitas vestra praedae ac pabulo sit hominibus astutis And yet why should I not vse it Many of vs haue beene carryed head-long with as slender reasons and as grosse fallacies and corruptions to vilifie and confound the ancient Hierarchie of the Church as those are with which the Papists are moued to maintaine and dignifie their vsurped
Colos 2.8 36. For they will proue the gouernment of the Church to be Monarchicall by certaine phylosophicall propositions deceitfully vsed As that there is a Primacie among the Starres Sanders l. 1. c. 5. That there is a Principalitie among the Elements c. 6. That amongst Plants and Trees there is primum aliquid c. 7. That in all liuing creatures there is found one member which gouernes the rest ex vi naturae c. 8. That Birds which flie together haue one Chiefe c 9. 37. Againe Entia nolunt malè disponi and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho. 1. q. 103. ar 3. Tho. cont Gent. l. 4. c. 76. as Thomas saith out of Aristotle Metaph. l. 2. Againe Optimum regimen mâ—iltitudinis vt regatur per vnum as the world is by God Tho. cont Gent. All which and a number the like philosophicall reasons either enforce onely a Primacie or if a Monarchie yet a Monarchie onely in temporalibus in particular temporall States to be the best State entended by nature which we deny not 38. But the spirituall gouernement doth not paralele or participate with the temporall in the forme thereof and therefore where Sanders saith Sanders l. 1. c. 3. Vnus est Deus conditor gubernator omnium ergo Ecclesiasticum regimen est Monarchicum and if wee deny it and maintaine an Aristocracie then hee ceaseth not Criminibus terrere nouis Virgil. and threatens vs that we doe fauere multitudini Deorum aut duobus tribusue principijs quae Marcion Lucianus Manichaeus atque alij haeretici ponebant and where Bellarmine concludes Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 4. Monarchia simplex in imperio Dei locum habet ergo Monarchia est optimum regimen and so best fitteth the Church for as Sanders saith Vt aliquid in rerum naturâ excellens praestans fuerit quo Christus Ecclesiam suam non exornarit id nunquam concesserit is qui sano iudicio praeditus sit and whereas Bellarmine saith Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 4. that if a man deny this his philosophicall argument he seeth not how we can escape the errors and heresies of Marcion and the Manichees and the heathen Poets c. That they all their conspiracie may perceiue that Non me ista terrent Cicero quae mihi ad timorem proponuntur these Bugge-beares fright me not I will here ioyne issue with them and acknowledge that gouernment to be requisite and setled in the Church which is found in heauen and yet that Aristocraticall Tho. cont Gent. l. 4. c. 76. 39. My first rule shal agree with Thomas Ecclesia militans ex triumphanti per similitudinem deriuatur and for this time I admit of his reasons namely that of the Church vnder the Law it was said to Moses vt faceret omnia secundum exemplar ei in monte monstratum and of the Church vnder the Gospell Saint Iohn saith Apoc. 21.2 Vidi ciuitatem sanctam Ierusalem descendentem de coeló that is as Aquinas interprets it the manner of gouernement of the Church militant both vnder the Law and vnder the Gospell resembles the gouernement which is in heauen in the Church triumphant but in the Church triumphant one onely gouerneth who gouerneth also the whole world namely God ergo in Ecclesiâ militante vnus est qui praesidet vniuersis namely the Pope and so the gouernement of the Church is purely Monarchicall 40. But Thomas and his followers Sanders Stapleton Bellarmine should haue remembred that wee are not heathen but Christian Philosophers and that as there is a Monarchie in heauen in respect of the one God-head so in respect of the three persons it is an Aristocracie three Persons gouerning all aequales per omnia August de temp fer 191. naturâ voluntate potestate aeternitate substantiae as Saint Augustine saith and yet the Father hath primatum ordinis originis in respect of the Sonne and the holy Ghost who yet are all aeterni aborigines as I may say so that as there is found in heauen a Monarchie cum personarum multiplicatione so there is found an Aristocracie in the persons with an vnitie in the God-head 41. And according to this forme and patterne is the gouernement of the militant Church Si summis conferre minora licebit for as there is but vna Ecclesia one vniuersall Church so there is but Episcopatus vnus onely one Bishopricke in that one vniuersall Church and that indiuisus not diuided Cypr. de vnit Eccles c. 4. as Saint Cyprian hath it as there is vna Deu as in heauen and that indiuisus yet there is a multiplicity of persons that is of Bishops all of one equall power and authority and dignitie in the particular Churches of that same one Bishopricke as a Trinitie of persons is found in heauen in one Dietie 42. This one and vndeuided Bishopricke Cypr. ad Anton. Epis in that one Church which Saint Cyprian calls traditionem Dei an olde tradition euen from God himselfe hath the whole world for the Territorie Prouince or Diocesse and euery Bishop hath full and equall power in the whole Bishopricke though by Ecclesiasticall constitutions euery one be limited to his seuerall Prouince or Diocesse and so seeme to haue power but in a part of it but yet as Saint Cyprian saith a singulis in soliduÌ„ pars tenetur euery Bishop so holds a part as that he hath interest and full power in that whole Bishopricke which spreads ouer the whole world 43. Which appeareth both by the first institution when our Sauiour said to his Apostles in generall and to euery of them in particular that is to Bishops as Saint Cyprian Saint Ambrose Mat. 18.19 and Antiquitie holds it Euntes docete omnes gentes Goe and teach all nations and also by continuall practise for though now for orders sake and by Ecclesiasticall constitutions euery Bishop bee limited to his part or seuerall Diocesse yet that this part is held notwithstanding a singulis in solidum so as hee hath an interest in the whole is manifest by this that though he be bound by Ecclesiasticall Lawes sedere to sit downe and take vp his Seate or Sea in one definite place yet if hee be disposed or commanded for the good of the Church Ire docere alias gentes to goe and teach other nations according to his originall commission hee may performe his Bishoply power with effect wheresoeuer hee liues in the whole world which argues that the whole Church in solidum is his Territorie L. extra ff de Iuris omn. Iud. for no mans power stretcheth beyond his own territorie and therfore the Ciuilians say Extra territorium ius dicenti impunè non paretur 44. So that howsoeuer this vnus Episcopatus seeme to be diuided ab extra euery Bishop hauing a part distinct by himselfe which may make it seeme many Bishoprickes yet ab intra euery