Ghost and yet is no Monarch in respect of them but all three are one Monarch ouer all creatures As in the Church there is vnus Episcopatus Vide plura one onely Bishopricke and yet many Apostles and many Bishops of equall power and authoritie and among them one hath Primatum ordinis because Exordium and ordo must be ab vnitate but that one is no Monarch in respect of his fellow-Bishops but all joyntly make one Monarch in respect of their inferiours the Priests and people And therefore Suarez conclusion is false Instituit Ecclesiam per modum Monarchiae supremā potestatem vni contulit ad quam Petrum elegi◠for we say with Saint Cyprian and reuerent antiquitie Non vni dedit sed vnitati not to Peter but to them all as to one person among whom Peter was first or Primate 43. I could adde that our Sauiour is the Arch-builder or Monarch-builder Aedificator primarius essentialis the Apostles were aedificatores primarij ministeriales operarij materiarij adiutores Dei as his Ministers and Seruants all the Apostles plant and water Christ himselfe giues the encrease not Peter who is fellow-labourer with the rest For the power which our Sauiour hath giuen him or them they haue not formaliter but ministerialiter vt Christus per ipsos operetur And for that reason also Christ is called the Great Gate the essentiall Gate the Apostles ostia ministerialia and Saint Peter is not the sole Porter of heauen And why are they called Gates saith Saint Augustine viz. Quia per ipsos intramus in regnum Dei praedicant enim nobis cum per ipsos intramus per Christum intramus Aug. super Psal 86. Ipse est enim ianua cum dicuntur duodecim portae Ierusalem vna porta Christus duodecim portae Christus quia in duodecim portis Christus 44. Thus wee see that omnia axiomata Christi as St. Basil calls them omnia nomina vocabula all those supernaturall powers which are giuen for the building of the Church are giuen indifferently to all the Apostles St. Peter hath not so much as his Primacie by them the Apostles haue them omnes ex aequo much lesse doe they inferre or confirme a Monarchie to him or his successors 45. Fourthly Kingdomes and Monarchies are not got by consequents for this is a rule in the ciuill Law Argumenta à maiori vel minori in his quae sunt meri Imperij non valent such arguments are not in force where merum Imperium is delegated which kinde of gouernement is without Iurisdiction for merum Imperium and Iurisdictio are two seuerall branches of a Monarchie and each may be delegated without the other The reason of the rule is this Quia ea quae ex mero Imperto proficiscuntur L. 1. §. Qui mandata D. Offic. eius cui mand non per consequentiam sed per legem nominatim dantur they are giuen by expresse words of a Law and are not to be chalenged by any consequent 46. Now power or gouernement Imperium as they call it was giuen nominatim by expresse words and by Law and the Prince or Monarch prescribed quatenùs exerceri debuit he prescribed certam speciem modum formam and therefore all things which were Imperij did not concurre in one Magistrate but part was giuen to one and part to another L. inter poenas D. Iurisdict relegat◠As for example the Consul had Ius gladij not Ius relegandi Praesides or the Presidents had Ius gladij and Ius damnandiin metallum but they had neither Ius deportandi nor confiscandi so that it is no good consequent Habet ius gladij ergo Ius damnandi in metallum though it be a lesse punishment or Habet ius gladij ergo Ius proscribendi or multam dicendi Hee hath power of the sword therefore hee hath power to banish or proscribe or to fine a man 47. Now let vs consider what this Monarch-Shepheard this great and Monarch-Bishop our Sauiour Christ Iesus delegated or imparted to his Apostles and we shall finde that he delegated not or commended any temporall things to them by word or by writing not Ius gladij or any such power as is forenamed Ioh. 18.36 Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo No it was a supernaturall Kingdome and the power hee gaue and those gifts he imparted were supernaturall 48. For the Church is not a politicke but a mysticall body distinguished as I may say Formally from a politicke bodie ordained and instituted to a diuers end viz. to supernaturall felicitie vnited with a diuers bond namely the vnitie and bond of faith exercising diuers and distinct actions as those that pertaine to the honour of God and sanctifying of our soules which cannot bee done without certaine power supernaturall imparted to it and the chiefe magistrates by the chiefe Monarch supernaturall Cont. SVAREZ de leg l. 4. c. 2. n. 7. 49. Which power is giuen by consecration of that person which is consecrated and euer requireth and presupposeth orders and consists in the very ordination and is giuen by it not by any election or deputation made by the wil of man but immediately from Christ himselfe by vertue of his first institution For our Sauiour setting downe the honour of a Bishop and disposing or ordering the gouernement of his Church as St. Cyprian tells vs in the Gospell saith to Peter Mat. 16.18 19. Ego tibi dico quia tu es Petrus I say vnto thee that thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And I will giue vnto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heauen Inde from hence saith St. Cyprian from this time forward per temporum Cypri Epist 27. ad Lapsos successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit the ordination of Bishops and the gouernement of the Church comes downe along to vs by course of times and successions Vt Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur That the Church should be setled vpon the Bishops and all the actions of the Church should be ordered by the same gouernours And the Apostles were called to higher orders then the seauentie two Disciples and that appeares because Matthias who according to Epiphanius Epiphan haere◠20. was one of the seauentie two Disciples was called from the lower order into Iudas his place which was an higher order Episcopatum eius accipiat alter Accipiat is an argument that he had it not before and that ordination was a collation of a new power by which he became superiour ouer those that were before of his owne order being onely Priests And this supernaturall power seemeth to be a certaine character impressed in euery Bishop and hath not ioyned to it
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
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
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
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
ordinario Pastori cui succedendum erat alijs autem Apostolis tanquam Legatis vitalitijs as he calls them Legates for their life another distinction which is necessitati debita as necessary as the former without this the Popes Monarchie cannot be maintained proues it thus Because saith he it stands with reason and congruitie that it should be so Quia hic modus institutionis est magis consentaneus perfectae Monarchiae qualem esse Christi Ecclesiam Catholici intelligunt This is the Catholicke opinion as Suarez affirmeth that the Church regiment is perfecta Monarchia that is planè purè which Gretzer denies and not praecipuè Monarchicum which is Bellarmines scutum occulium his rustie shield hanged vp in a corner as a ready defence against a powerfull assault but being surueied it is found not scutum but cribrum not a shield but a sieue which will beare off no blowes nor hold any water as the Prouerbe is 24. This difference and inconstancy of opinion argues strongly the weaknesse of their cause and insinuates that the Church is no Monarchy but because it is the Catholicke opinion as Suarez saies that it is a perfect Monarchy which we absolutely denie wee will search to our ability the truth of the businesse which admits no other then Scripture proofe seeing it is confessed on both sides that the regiment of the Church is of our Sauiours institution Wee will therefore consider what he hath ordained concerning this regiment either by plaine tearmes or by necessarie consequence for whatsoeuer hee hath said or done in the Scripture Ser. 109. de Tempore as St. Augustine saith Vox est Christi dicentis obserua 25. It is granted that the Kingdome of Iuda was Monarchicall but being taken from them by the Romans their only hope was on the Messias whom they expected a long time Luc. 2.25 Luc. 2.32 as the consolation of Israel Lu. 2.25 as the glory of Israel vers 32. as the redemption of Israel Ioh. 24. John 24. Acts 1. that is Qui restitueret regnū Israel Act. 1. which both Iewes and Gentiles vnderstood of their temporal kingdome for the Magi enquired Vbi est qui natus est Rex Iudaeorum Mat. 2. and brought presents vsed to be offered to Kings and Ioh. 6. Joh. 6. the people would haue taken him vp and made him a King and the chiefe Priests crye Mat. 27. Si Rex Israel est Mat. 27. descendat de cruce c. and in this error all the Apostles continued ioyntly without exception all the time that he liued on earth and they were in continuall strife Quis eorum maior esset who should be the greatest in this Kingdome after him neither could this carnall opinion be wrought out of them by our Sauiour till experience shewed the contrarie after his passion 26. Now our Sauiour being to erect a spirituall kingdome that hee might remoue all occasion of strife and contention of pride and ambition chose for his Apostles twelue men of equall condition who should succeede him in the gouernement and least peraduenture any one might be of better parentage then another his Law was that they must forsake Father and Mother and all their kindred and if richer then other they must forsake House and Land Shippe and Nets and all and so follow him So that our Sauiours first care was to strippe them as it were naked of all they had that finding no difference or preheminence among themselues in worldly faculties they might all appeare equall and of one condition 27. Hauing thus equalized them and freed them from all worldly respects hee diuides his spirituall gifts and endowments the spirituall offices and honours of his Church indifferently among them He gaue to them all the office of Apostleship hee made them all equall and ioynt gouernours of his Church he sent them out indifferently two and two to preach he gaue them all alike power to worke miracles and to cast out Diuels and to cure diseases that there might be no emulation among them hee washed indifferently all their feete they had all alike power to binde and to loose to remit and reteyne sinnes he promised his presence and Holy Ghost indifferently to them all and in this paritie and equalitie hee founded his Church 28. Notwithstanding as in temporall Kingdomes in an equalitie of honour and state giuen vnto many by the absolute Prince some yet are more imployed then others some as it seemeth better fauoured then others and more beloued so it happened in this spirituall Kingdome for most conference passed betweene our Sauiour and St. Peter and most loue was shewed to the Apostle St. Iohn and more familiaritie and secrecie vsed with Peter Iames and Iohn then with the rest and yet all stood vpon their equallity and neither challenged nor yeelded superiority to other 29. For selfe-loue and a conceit of equallitie of place and desert in their loue and seruice to their Master made euery one thinke himselfe capable of that Kingdome which they carnally conceiued notwithstanding particular fauours were done vnto some For after that great promise made to St. Peter Mat. 16. Mat. 16.19 Tibi dabo claues to thee will I giue the keyes which the Pope makes the first promise of the Monarchie to St. Peter and his successors the Apostles conceiued no such thing but questioned after that Quis eorum maior esset who was the greater of them So though Peter Iames Io. 17. and Iohn had beene especially taken apart to see the transfiguration and they three onely seuered from the rest to be present at the raysing of the daughter of Iairus Marc. 3.37 yet there was contention afterward among them Quis eorum videretur maior not which of them three should be the greater but Quis eorum which of the twelue should be the greatest so also though the tribute was payed for our Sauiour and Peter Mat. 17. Mat. 17. and greatest affection was shewed to Iohn when he leaned on his Masters breast Ioh. 13. Joh. 13. yet the contention continued Quis eorum maior esset not which of those two Peter and Iohn Luc. 22. but which of the twelue should be the greater euen after the last Supper And when our Sauiour had satisfied them that there was no such superiority to be expected among them he continues still his speciall fauours to Peter Iames and Iohn and the same night taking them apart Mat. 26.37 coepit coram eis tristari mastus esse he beganne to be sorrowfull and very heauy before them testifying that those extraordinary actions were not any argument of supremacie or Primacie 30. This behauiour of the Apostles contending so often for the first place which they thought to be Monarchical according to the forme of the gouernment of the Iewes gaue occasion to our Sauiour to speake diuers and sundry times of this question 31. If it be demanded why the Apostles contended so often
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