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
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
eosdem Praepositos gubernetur Thus you see that by this promise or power nothing is giuen or gotten that may enforce so much as a Primacie 56. How then commeth it to passe that the Fathers generally out of Tu es Petra and Tibi dabo claues and Pasce oues meas doe argue the Primacie or Principality to be in Saint Peter I answere not because the Primacie was heere promised or giuen vnto him but because the gifts were bestowed on the Church in his name rather then in the name of any other Apostle as wee may argue that the face is the prime place of a mans body as the Prouerbe is The face is the Market-place because when God would inspire the whole body it is said onely Inspirauit in faciem when neither the face was first inspired nor the rest of the body tooke life from it but at once all the whole Man was made anima viuens a liuing soule 57. It is a good rule which Saint Augustine sets downe Aug. Confess l. 10. c. 16. Omnes qui legimus nitimur hoc indagare atque comprehendere quod voluit ille quem legimus Now while euery man endeauours to finde out and to comprehend in the holy Scriptures that sense and meaning which hee intended who wrote the booke Quid mali est Jbid. saith Saint Augustine si hoc sentiat quod tu Lux omnium veridicarum mentium ostendis verum esse etiamsi hoc non sentit ille quem legit cum ille verum non tamen hoc senserit What ill is it if the Fathers out of this place Matth. 16. and that other Ioh. 21. should affirme Saint Peters Primacie which is true though our Sauiour in those places intended it not For although the Apostles themselues suspected no Primacie to be granted to S. Peter in those wordes as I haue noted before yet the Fathers when they perceiued it afterwards to haue beene conferred vpon him whether by our Sauiour or by the Apostles or by both shall be shewed in due place might very well and probably imagine that it was in these places insinuated 58. So that whereas two kinde of controuersies may arise cum aliquid à nuncijs veracibus per signa enuntiatur by occasion of some passage of Holy-writ one Si de veritate rerum dissensio est whether the matter in question be true or no another Si de ipsius qui annuntiat voluntate dissensio est whether it may be proued by this Text or no For the matter in question that is Saint Peters Primacie wee say with Saint Augustine Quod ad Petrum propriè pertinet naturâ vnus homo erat gratiâ vnus Christianus abundantiore gratiâ vnus idemque primus Apostolus But for the sense of those Scriptures we say also Quando ei dictum est Tibi dabo claues regni coelorum Quodcunque ligaueris super terram erit ligatum in coelis c. vniuersam significabat Ecclesiam which is shaken in this World with diuers temptations c. and yet falleth not because it is built vpon the Rocke Aug. super Joh. tract 1â—4 Vnde Petrus nomen accepit non enim à Petro petra sed Petrus a petra sicut non Christus à Christiano sed Christianus à Christo vocatur 59. And to omit the various interpretations of the ancient Fathers which may all stand true for one truth doth not prejudicate another wee say that these were not times for the Apostles to expect Monarchies or meaner Primacies and Principalities but Saint Peter was rather informed in those words of his passions and afflictions and the gates of Hell which should striue against him then of his commands or his power and authoritie and our Sauiour rather published his owne Deitie by occasion of Saint Peters confession Tu es Christus filius Dei viui Matth. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then Saint Peters principality and superiority 60. For by those two promises Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. and Tibi dabo claues though Saint Chrysostome saith more for Saint Peter Chrysost super Mat. Hom. 55. then Bellarmine doth admit viz. that Hîc pastorem futurae Ecclesiae constituit yet saith he his duabus pollicitationibus Christus ad alâ—torem de se of himselfe not of Peter opinionem Petrum adducit seipsum reuelando Filium Dei ostendit He rayseth Peter to an higher opinion of his Deitie and reuealing himselfe more proueth euidently that he is the Sonne of God For those things which God onely can giue namely Remission of sins and that The future Church should stand firme and immoueable against the violence of so many floods as should breake in vpon it as Saint Peter should doe against all persecutions and Martyrdome being Pastor Chrysost Ibid. Caput Ecclesiae haec inquam omnia quae solius Dei sunt se pollicetur daturum 61. And in that he said thrice Simon Iohannis diligis me and vpon his answere replyed thrice Pasce oues meas as the title of Petra was not proper to him but to all the Apostles nor hee alone had the keyes but all his fellowes with him so hee alone had not the Pastors office for Saint Ambrose saith Post trinam interrogationem Christi Amb. Pastor Amas me traditas Petro oues omnibus Apostolis contraditas the Sheepe were committed ioyntly to all the Apostles 62. Againe where Caietan saith that by these three questions Petre amas me Amas me plus quà m hi our Sauiour committed to Saint Peter Pontificatum that is the Monarchie Saint Augustine saith better that he prepared him to Martyrdome as appeares plainely in these words following where he saith Passurum te ipse praedixit August super Ioh. tract 123. qui te praedixerat negaturum And if wee stand vpon a Monarchie in these words Si diligis me pasce oues meas redditur negationi trinae trina confessio ne minùs amori lingua seruiat quà m timori Here is no Monarchie here is no Primacie for saith he Quid aliud est si diligis me pasce oues meas quám si diceretur si me deligis non te pascere cogita sed oues meas sicut meas pasce non sicut tuas gloriam meam in eis quaere non tuam Dominium meum non tuum lucra mea non tua So that he rather forbiddeth glory and profit and dominion to Saint Peter which are Monarchicall properties then instituteth any Monarchie or Primacie in this place 63. To conclude it is a weake consequent which is thus inferred Peter loued our Sauiour best therefore he gaue him the Monarchie or Primacie For if we should grant which seemeth true to Saint Augustine that Saint Peter loued our Sauiour more then the rest did yet Saint Iohn was beloued of our Sauiour more then Saint Peter and the rest of the Apostles Now in wordly preferments this is a rule Solemus praeponere
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
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
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
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