a fallacie for our question is of the Apostles as they were Bishops and had the whole World for each mans Territorie Euntes docete omnes gentes which was our Sauiours institution not as they or other were limited to peculiar Cities or Diocesse as Saint Iames was here to the Church of Ierusalem which is an Ecclesiasticall or Apostolicall constitution And the better to conceale this fraud from his Reader hee alledgeth the testimonie of Clement out of Eusebius but falsifieth it as if Clement should say Iacobum a Petro Iacobo Iohanne ordinatum Episcopum that Iames was ordained a Bishop by them and not by our Sauiour whereas Eusebius hath it Iacobum a Petro Iacobo et Iohanne ordinatum Episcopum Hierosolymarum hee was made by them the Bishop of Ierusalem of that Prouince or Diocesse whereas before he was made a Bishop at large as the other were not tied to one place And so all this disputation Definit in falsum mulier formosà supernè ends in a fallacie and falsification though it pretend to the World a fayre but meretricious for-head of truth 75. Secondly if you vrge that the other Apostles Saint Paul and Saint Iohn c. had potestatem iurisdictionis wheresoeuer they went et potestatem ad ferendas leges obligantes vniuersam Ecclesiam as much as Saint Peter as appeares by antiquitie they will tell you without any ground or reason for it Reliquos Apostolos ordinariè illas non tulisse Suar. ibid. n. 9. nisi ex consensu acceptatione Petri vel certè eas tulisse in eis prouincijs in quibus praedicabant et posteà non nisi sciente consentiente Petro ad totam Ecclesiam diminasse If a proofe be demanded of this assertion or some example or authoritie for it there is nothing to be said for it but that otherwise if this were not so Peter was no Monarch but the Apostles had equall power with him and that ordinary but Peter saith hee was a Monarch which wee deny and it is petitio principij and a foule blemish to a faire Disputant 76. Thirdly if you affirme that the other Apostles Saint Paul and Saint Iohn c. gaue vnto others as they past along potestatem ordinis to baptize to administer the Eucharist c. They will tell you out of their Anacletus Epist 1. Bellar. de Pontif Rom. l. 1. c. 23. that In nouo Testamento post Christum a Petro cepit sacerdotalis ordo quòd Christus suis manibus solum Petrum baptizauit also that Peter pabtized Andrew Iames and Iohn and they the other Apostles and that this is a speciall Prerogatiue to proue Peters Primacie and is affirmed by Euodius Bishop of Antioch next after Saint Peter in an Epistle of his intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lumen Niceph. l. 2. c. 3. Baron Tom. 1. ano 71. n. 13. and is cited by Nicephorus But this is some counterfeit stuffe and Baronius saith of it Hanc Epistolam ab antiquioribus nec citatam neque aliter cognitam esse reperimus Wee finde not this Epistle alledged by any of the ancients neither doe we know that any such is extant but by the report of Nicephorus who liued almost 1300. yeares after him Now if we answere directly out of the Scriptures Iesus non baptizabat ipse Iohn 4. Gretz Defen Bellar. te 1. p. 616 sed Discipuli eius Gretzer will replye confidently Baptizabat sed non ordinariè baptizabat admit that he baptized but once why might he not baptize all the Apostles at that time with Saint Peter as at one and the same time he washed the feete of all his Apostles 77. But Saint Augustine distinguisheth better acknowledging that Saint Iohn saith John 3. Iesum venisse in Iudeam ibi baptizasse and in another place Iohn 4. Iesum non baptizasse sed Discipulos eius which seeming contradiction he salueth not with ordinariè non ordinariè as Gretzer doth Aug. super Ioh. tract 15. Aug. Epist 108. but saith Christus baptizauit non baptizauit baptizauit quia ipse mundauit non baptizauit quia non ipse tingebat or else thus Baptizabat Christus praesentià maiestatis non autem baptizauit manibus suis And of this opinion that our Sauiour baptized none with his owne hands is Saint Chrisostome Homil. 28. sup Iohan Hom. 3. sup Act Apost whom Theophilact followes and Iansen sup 4. Iohan and Melchior Canus l. 8. c. 5. and Rupertus 78. For my owne part I am ready to follow a middle course betweene these extreames and neither beleeue that our Sauiour baptized the rest of the Apostles and not Saint Peter which was the opinion of a certaine Nouatian August Epist 108. as you may reade in Saint Augustine nor yet that he baptized Peter onely and not the other Apostles which is Bellarmines assertion out of a counterfeit Euodius both alike absurd neither yet that hee baptized not any at all which hath reuerend Authors but that all the Apostles were baptized by him 79. For in Saint Augustines time it was not a question whether the Apostles were baptized or no as Baronius falsly affirmes neither ought it to be a question saith he quando quisque fuit baptizatus Tom. 1 â—â—o 31. n. 40. sed quoscunque legimus in corpore Christi quod est Ecclesia pertinere ad regnum coelorum non nisi baptizatos intelligere debemus but the question then was whether the Apostles were baptized with the baptisme of Iohn or with the baptisme of Christ S. Augustine saith many were of opinion that the Apostles were baptized with the baptisme of Iohn but he thought it magis credibile that they were baptized with the baptisme of Christ and he giues his reason for it Aug. Epist 108. Neque enim saith he ministerio baptizandi defuit vt haberet baptizatos seruos per quos caeteros baptizaret hee saith not Baptizatum Petrum per quem caeteros baptizaret quia non defuit memorabilis illius humilitatis ministerio quando eis lauit pedes c. So that we cannot reconcile these Scriptures by distinguishing Baptizabat sed non ordinariè ergo Petrum solum but Distingue tempora reconciliabis he baptized his Apostles first Ioh. 3. and after that it is said Ioh. 4. as Saint Augustine notes Iesus non baptizabat sed Discipuli eius 80. There is a notable place in Saint Cyprians Booke De vnitate Ecclesiae to proue the equality of the other Apostles with Saint Peter though the Primacie were in him if you alledge this to them and say Hoc erant vtique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praedtti honoris dignitatis Suarez answereth Suarez de leg l. 4. c. 9. that this equality is to be vnderstood formaliter ceu quantum ad dignitatem Apostolicam et eam Iurisdictionem in vniuersum orbem quae praecisè ex vi illius dignitatis data
verba dicta esse volunt S. Hilarie and the rest of the Fathers will haue these words to bee vnderstood of Bishops of all indifferently alleaging a consent of Fathers when hee disputes for the Popes Monarchie against vs finding himselfe much crossed by that generall consent of interpretation hee concealeth it and alleageth two or three Fathers onely for that opinion as if there were no more of that minde without caeteri as before and then hee opposeth his owne credite to them as if he were a Geometer Qui non suadet sed cogit saying Sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est Whatsoeuer those Fathers say this is the meaning of the Scripture Vti Episcopi particulares sunt summi aeconomi in Ecclesijs suis ita Romanum Episcopum esse summum aeconomum in Ecclesiâ vniuersâ As particular Bishops are the chiefe stewards in their owne diocesse so the Bishop of Rome is the chiefe steward in the vniuersall Church 10. In which words I obserue a second sleight which is this That whereas the Text saith Quis est fidelis aeconomus prudens c he seemeth to reade Quis est summus aeconomus c. affirming out of that place that euery Bishop is summus aeconomus in Ecclesiâ suâ and so by consequent the Bishop of Rome is summus aeconomus in Ecclesiâ vniuersâ But if he would haue concluded fairely and said Quilibet Episcopus est aeconomus in Ecclesiâ suâ ergo Romanus Episcopus est aeconomus in Ecclesiâ suâ id est Romanâ sine dubio sententia scripturae illa fuisset Or thus Quilibet Episcopus est summus aeconomus in Ecclesiâ suâ ergo Romanus Episcopus est summus aeconomus in Ecclesiâ suâ in his owne peculiar diocesse of Rome the word summus being vnderstood vniuocally in the antecedent and consequent sine dubio sententia scripturae illa fuisset without doubt that had beene the meaning of that Scripture 11. But to conclude thus Quilibet Episcopus est summus aeconomus in Ecclesia sua ergo Romanus Episcopus est summus aeconomus in Ecclesia vniuersa as it hath no consequent or warrant from my Text wherin there is no word of summitie or vniuersalitie so it is false fallacious and equiuocall for summus in the antecedent applied to euery Bishop in his diocesse hath onely the force of a comparatiue as if he should say a superior in his Diocesse who may haue an Arch-Bishop or Patriarke aboue him as well as Priests and Deacons that are his inferiours but summus in the consequent applied to the Pope is taken superlatiuely in the proper signification Cic. Tusc q. l. 2. which Tullie giues it Summum est quo nihil est superius Summus in the antecedent is Aristocraticall and admits many fellow-fellow-Bishops and equals who are all Summi and Optimates in the Church of God but summus in the consequent or in the Pope is Monarchicall both Caesar Pompey Quo nemo superior cui nemo aequalis Summus in the antecedent hath ordinariam potestatem onely ouer his diocesse but summus in the consequent hath plenitudinem potestatis to doe what pleaseth him without councell without controule without Law in the vniuersall Church potestatem despoticam or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not allowable in the Church of God So that S. Mathew and S. Luke as he thinkes mistooke our Sauiour when they reade Quis est fidelis aeconomus for he either said or meant Quis est summus aeconomus for sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est he meant saith Bellarmine the great Pope or Monarch of Rome 12. A third sleight he hath to corrupt this Text which carrieth it more directly to the Bishop of Rome and that is by appropriating these words to S. Peter for all S. Peters prerogatiues they suppose run as directly into the sea of Rome as all maine riuers into the Ocean This is a flat contradiction to that receiued interpretation which Bellarmine vrgeth against the Presbyterians Hilarius caeteri patres de Episcopis dicta esse volunt for by this new glosse all other Bishops are directly excluded 13. In his first booke de Pontifice Romano De Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 9. where he affirmes Regimen Ecclesiasticum praecipuè Monarchium esse debere in his fourth reason which is drawne from the similitudes whereby the Church is described in the Scriptures among other things saith hee the Church is likened to an house which hath vnum Dominum vnum aeconomum as it is Luke 12. Quis est fidelis dispensator prudens quem constituit Dominus c. Quae verba saith hee dicuntur Petro these words saith Bellarmine are spoke to Peter 14. That S. Peter moued the question that occasioned this Parable is euident in my Text but he did it as the Interpreters say Iansen and namely Iansenius omnium Apostolorum nomine vt solet as also he answereth sometimes in the name of the rest Aug de verb. Dom. ser 13. as S. Augustine obserues Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus in Christi amore promptissimus saepe vnus respondet pro omnibus vnitas in multis Peter the first in the order of the Apostles the readiest in the Loue of Christ answereth oftentimes one for all shewing an vnity in the many And S. Cyril giues reasons why it should be so and here the Text implies that Peter did speake for them all for he saith Domine ad nos dicis parabolam hanc an ad omnes And if the question were made in the name of them all it is likely the answere was made to them all 15. Bellarmine answeres that Peter asked the question Et respondit Dominus Petro Quis putas c. and then he glosseth it thus Tibi ô Petre inprimis dico I speake onely to thee ô Peter for inprimis here signifieth not especially but onely for saith hee by certaine words of the singular number vsed in this Parable Dominus apertè indicat se vnum seruum toti domui praepositurum qui à se solo iudicari possit the Lord doth plainely shew that he will set one seruant ouer the whole house which seruant he onely reserues to his owne iudgement 16. But not onely this glosse Tibi ô Petre inprimis dico corrupts the Text but the words of the Text are corrupted by Bellarmine who saith Respondit Dominus Petro when the Text hath barely Dixit autem Dominus without mentioning Peter And if there had followed so great a consequent vpon Peters mouing the question and our Sauiours answere to him by name as the Monarchie of the Church St. Mathew would not haue omitted that circumstance 17. But admit that the Euangelist said Respondit Dominus Petro and that our Sauiour made answere to Peter yet it is not spoken of Peter but of all Bellarmine knew this might be replied and therefore he addeth Haec verba dicuntur Petro de ipso Petro these words
are spoke to Peter and of Peter himselfe and for proofe he brings Chrysostome and Ambrose Certe saith he hunc locum disertè explicat Chrysostomus de Petro successoribus eius Lib. 2. de Sacerdot circa principium Cui Ambrosius assentiens c. 18. Hee quoteth S. Chrysostome curiously the booke and the part of the booke but alleageth not his words and no maruell for Certè hunc locum disertè explicat Chrysost de discipulis Christi non de ipso Petro certainely Chrysostome doth expresly interprete this place of the Disciples of Christ and not of Peter for not farre from the beginning of that second booke hee saith Chrys de Sacerd. lib. 2. Dominus cum discipulos alloqueretur ait Quis est fidelis seruus c When our Sauiour spoke to his Disciples he said Who is a faithfull seruant c. And although he say not farre from the beginning of that booke Christus curam ouium tum Petro tum successoribus Petri committebat which may be verified of any other of the Apostles yet hee offers not to proue that by this Text but comforts his friend S. Basil who was newly made Bishop and repented himselfe of accepting it charging S. Chrysostome that he by sleights had drawen him into it Longa est narratio longae Ambages You cannot vnderstand that second booke except you reade ouer very diligently the former he comforts him I say by telling him that if he proued to be fidelis dispensator prudens that is a good Bishop not a good Peter not a good Pope but a good Bishop in Greece and performed well the feeding of his flocke which would argue his loue to his Master then hee should receiue the reward mentioned in this Parable Super omnia bona eius constitueret cum and so interprets this Text of the Disciples in generall and the Bishops their successours as other Fathers doe Thus haue wee a good Chrysostome falsly alleaged to sway an ill cause 19. To S. Chrysostome saith he Ambrose assents but this Ambrose neither nameth Peter nor yet this my Text but in his Commentaries vpon 1. Tim. 3. he hath those very words quoted by Bellarmine Domus Dei est Ecclesia Ambr. sup 1. Tim. 3. cuius bodie rector est Damasus which will neuer proue by any consequent that these words were spoken by our Sauiour Petro de ipso Petro though we should yeeld to the Pope all Peters prerogatiues Bellar. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 17. But what author thinke you is this In his second booke de Concilijs hee alleageth him with S. Chrysostome to this very purpose and there calls him Ambrose as the other Chrysostome but here he saith with addition or rather detraction Ambrosius vel quicunque est autor illius Commentarij You must value him high because he is coupled with Chrysost then they opposed to S. Hilarie all the Fathers 20. But when Bellarmine speakes not Polemicè but historicè when hee hath him alone in a corner and makes no vse of him he tells vs that in these Commentaries vpon S. Pauls Epistles which are found in St. Ambrose his workes Sunt non pauca Bellar. de scriptor Eccles quae Pelagij errores continere videntur and thinkes that the author of them was one Hilarius not Arelatensis nor Pictauiensis but Hilarius Diaconus Romanus qui Luciferi scisma propagauit A good author no doubt who fauoured the heresie of Pelagius and the scisme of Lucifer Calaritanus 21. Thus wee may see that these wranglers Hilar. lib. 1. de Trin. in controuersies non referunt seusum deliuer not the receiued sense of the Scripture sed afferunt but they vary it at their pleasure as best fits their purpose This Steward was first all the Bishops and Prelates of the Church as Hilarie and all the Fathers are said to affirme Secondly He was euery Bishop in his priuate See and the Bishop of Rome in the vniuersall Church Et sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est Thirdly It is Peter alone and so consequently the Pope and to proue it a true Chrysostome is alleaged falsly and a false Ambrose is alleaged vainely Et talibus fundamentis tota domus nititur And vpon such foundations as these their whole edifice relies 22. But because these three false pillars are too weake to support so high ample a building as the Popedome is now vpon the foundation of this Text he addeth a fourth sleight to deceiue his readers We all confesse ioyntly that Ecclesia vna est Cyprian de vnit Eccles as S. Cyprian saith there is one Catholike Church Quae in multitudinem latiùs incremento foecunditatis extenditur Which by a miraculous increase and fecundity is extended and diuided into many particular Churches There is vnum Lumen one great Catholicke Light but multi radij many beames of that great light Arbor vna tenaci radice fundata One maine Catholicke tree fastened and founded with a sure roote and there are rami arboris multi many branches of this Catholike tree Finally vna gens one Catholicke nation or kindred who were first called Fideles and afterwards Christiani Christians at Antioch Et multae familiae many particular families or Churches Now because Oeconomus quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam doth literally or naturally as Bellarmine confesseth by the interpretation of Fathers signifie euery Bishop in his peculiar Diocesse in his peculiar Sunne-beame in his peculiar branch in his peculiar family and so consequently the Bishop of Rome in his Diocesse onely or particular family That the Text may reach home to the establishing of the Popes vniuersall Monarchie and proue that hee is Summus oeconomus in Ecclesiâ vniuersâ Hee addeth vnto the Text as before a word of Summitie or Supremacie so now a word of Vniuersalitie that as before hee made him by a sleight the supreame Bishop Supra quem nemo Hee might make him an vniuersall supreame Bishop Qui supra omnes an vniuersall Monarch ouer all the Church 23. For Bellarmine disputing against Barkley for the maintenance of the Popes vniuersall supremacie perceiuing that Familia one onely Family signified by the word of my Text was not spacious enough to entertaine that great Monarch vniuersall But if his Cardinals should attend him they would compasse him in Et coarctarent eum vndique Luk. 19.43 He inlargeth it as much as may be Bellar. cont Barc cap. 34. Et dilatat terminos vsque ad Euphratem and saith that the Pope Constitutus est super omnem familiam Cap. 34. And againe Cap. 24. Jb. c. 24. Qui toti familiae proe est And so where our Sauiour said Quis est fidelis oeconomus quem constituit Dominus supra familiam He chops and changes and addes to the Euangelist and makes him say Quis est summus oeconomus quem constituit Dominus supra omnem familiam or supra totam familiam and so beates off
Colos 2.8 36. For they will proue the gouernment of the Church to be Monarchicall by certaine phylosophicall propositions deceitfully vsed As that there is a Primacie among the Starres Sanders l. 1. c. 5. That there is a Principalitie among the Elements c. 6. That amongst Plants and Trees there is primum aliquid c. 7. That in all liuing creatures there is found one member which gouernes the rest ex vi naturae c. 8. That Birds which flie together haue one Chiefe c 9. 37. Againe Entia nolunt malè disponi and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho. 1. q. 103. ar 3. Tho. cont Gent. l. 4. c. 76. as Thomas saith out of Aristotle Metaph. l. 2. Againe Optimum regimen mâ—iltitudinis vt regatur per vnum as the world is by God Tho. cont Gent. All which and a number the like philosophicall reasons either enforce onely a Primacie or if a Monarchie yet a Monarchie onely in temporalibus in particular temporall States to be the best State entended by nature which we deny not 38. But the spirituall gouernement doth not paralele or participate with the temporall in the forme thereof and therefore where Sanders saith Sanders l. 1. c. 3. Vnus est Deus conditor gubernator omnium ergo Ecclesiasticum regimen est Monarchicum and if wee deny it and maintaine an Aristocracie then hee ceaseth not Criminibus terrere nouis Virgil. and threatens vs that we doe fauere multitudini Deorum aut duobus tribusue principijs quae Marcion Lucianus Manichaeus atque alij haeretici ponebant and where Bellarmine concludes Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 4. Monarchia simplex in imperio Dei locum habet ergo Monarchia est optimum regimen and so best fitteth the Church for as Sanders saith Vt aliquid in rerum naturâ excellens praestans fuerit quo Christus Ecclesiam suam non exornarit id nunquam concesserit is qui sano iudicio praeditus sit and whereas Bellarmine saith Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 4. that if a man deny this his philosophicall argument he seeth not how we can escape the errors and heresies of Marcion and the Manichees and the heathen Poets c. That they all their conspiracie may perceiue that Non me ista terrent Cicero quae mihi ad timorem proponuntur these Bugge-beares fright me not I will here ioyne issue with them and acknowledge that gouernment to be requisite and setled in the Church which is found in heauen and yet that Aristocraticall Tho. cont Gent. l. 4. c. 76. 39. My first rule shal agree with Thomas Ecclesia militans ex triumphanti per similitudinem deriuatur and for this time I admit of his reasons namely that of the Church vnder the Law it was said to Moses vt faceret omnia secundum exemplar ei in monte monstratum and of the Church vnder the Gospell Saint Iohn saith Apoc. 21.2 Vidi ciuitatem sanctam Ierusalem descendentem de coeló that is as Aquinas interprets it the manner of gouernement of the Church militant both vnder the Law and vnder the Gospell resembles the gouernement which is in heauen in the Church triumphant but in the Church triumphant one onely gouerneth who gouerneth also the whole world namely God ergo in Ecclesiâ militante vnus est qui praesidet vniuersis namely the Pope and so the gouernement of the Church is purely Monarchicall 40. But Thomas and his followers Sanders Stapleton Bellarmine should haue remembred that wee are not heathen but Christian Philosophers and that as there is a Monarchie in heauen in respect of the one God-head so in respect of the three persons it is an Aristocracie three Persons gouerning all aequales per omnia August de temp fer 191. naturâ voluntate potestate aeternitate substantiae as Saint Augustine saith and yet the Father hath primatum ordinis originis in respect of the Sonne and the holy Ghost who yet are all aeterni aborigines as I may say so that as there is found in heauen a Monarchie cum personarum multiplicatione so there is found an Aristocracie in the persons with an vnitie in the God-head 41. And according to this forme and patterne is the gouernement of the militant Church Si summis conferre minora licebit for as there is but vna Ecclesia one vniuersall Church so there is but Episcopatus vnus onely one Bishopricke in that one vniuersall Church and that indiuisus not diuided Cypr. de vnit Eccles c. 4. as Saint Cyprian hath it as there is vna Deu as in heauen and that indiuisus yet there is a multiplicity of persons that is of Bishops all of one equall power and authority and dignitie in the particular Churches of that same one Bishopricke as a Trinitie of persons is found in heauen in one Dietie 42. This one and vndeuided Bishopricke Cypr. ad Anton. Epis in that one Church which Saint Cyprian calls traditionem Dei an olde tradition euen from God himselfe hath the whole world for the Territorie Prouince or Diocesse and euery Bishop hath full and equall power in the whole Bishopricke though by Ecclesiasticall constitutions euery one be limited to his seuerall Prouince or Diocesse and so seeme to haue power but in a part of it but yet as Saint Cyprian saith a singulis in soliduÌ„ pars tenetur euery Bishop so holds a part as that he hath interest and full power in that whole Bishopricke which spreads ouer the whole world 43. Which appeareth both by the first institution when our Sauiour said to his Apostles in generall and to euery of them in particular that is to Bishops as Saint Cyprian Saint Ambrose Mat. 18.19 and Antiquitie holds it Euntes docete omnes gentes Goe and teach all nations and also by continuall practise for though now for orders sake and by Ecclesiasticall constitutions euery Bishop bee limited to his part or seuerall Diocesse yet that this part is held notwithstanding a singulis in solidum so as hee hath an interest in the whole is manifest by this that though he be bound by Ecclesiasticall Lawes sedere to sit downe and take vp his Seate or Sea in one definite place yet if hee be disposed or commanded for the good of the Church Ire docere alias gentes to goe and teach other nations according to his originall commission hee may performe his Bishoply power with effect wheresoeuer hee liues in the whole world which argues that the whole Church in solidum is his Territorie L. extra ff de Iuris omn. Iud. for no mans power stretcheth beyond his own territorie and therfore the Ciuilians say Extra territorium ius dicenti impunè non paretur 44. So that howsoeuer this vnus Episcopatus seeme to be diuided ab extra euery Bishop hauing a part distinct by himselfe which may make it seeme many Bishoprickes yet ab intra euery
CERTAJNE SERMONS Made in OXFORD Anno Dom. 1616. Wherein is proued that Saint PETER had no Monarchicall power ouer the rest of the Apostles against Bellarmine Sanders Stapleton and the rest of that COMPANIE BY John Howson DOCTOR in Diuinitie and PREBENDARIE of Christ-Church now BISHOP of OXON Published by Commandement LONDON Printed by T. S. for John Pyper 1622. LVKE 12.41.42 c. Then Peter said vnto him MASTER tellest thou this parable vnto vs or vnto all And the Lord said who is a faithfull Steward and a wise whom the Master shall make ruler ouer the houshold to giue them their portion of meate in due season Blessed is the seruant whom the Master c. 1. IN this short Parable our Sauiour deliuers the qualities requisite for a good Steward and the ample reward which shall bee giuen him and secondly the faults obseruable in an euill steward withall the punishment that is due vnto him 2. The qualities required in a good Steward are many 1. He must be fidelis faithfull 2. He must be humble and seruiceable to his Master for hee is but aeconomus or seruus a Steward or Seruant verse 43.3 He must be Prudens wise 4. He must not be an intruder but lawfully called by his Master Quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam for the Lord makes him ruler ouer his houshold 5. He must be diligent and carefull in executing his office and function Et dare in tempore tritici mensuram and giue them their portion of meate in due season 3. The particular circumstances of the reward as also of the euill steward and his punishment I will note hereafter August for as S. Augustine said Haec pauca de multis breuiter perstringo ne propositum operis mei nimia longitudine diuisionis impediam For before we come to speake of the qualities of this Steward wee must finde our who the Steward is Hilar. de Trin. lib. 1. 4. The antient Fathers Qui dictorum intelligentiam expectant ex dictis potiùs quà m imponunt who rather collect the meaning out of the words then impose a new sense vpon them doe commonly vnderstand the Apostles and the Bishops their successors to be the Steward here described Thus Ambrose super locum Hilarie super 24. Math Ierome super locum Chrysost lib. 2. de sacer dote Theophilact super locum c. Thus also the interpreters and commentators of the Church of Rome Beda Thomas Gorran Abulens Caietan Salmeron and Iansenius But when those of the Church of Rome come to matter of question and controuersie they behaue themselues like Poets who as Seneca notes Non putant ad rem pertinere verum dicere Sen. de benefit lib. 1. cap. 3. sed aut necessitate coacti aut decoro corrupti id quemque vocari iubent quod bellè facit ad versum and name him the steward who best fitteth in their opinion the businesse in hand 5. Thus Bellarmine Bellar. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 14. when hee proues against the Presbyterians that Bishops are superior to Priests iure diuino tum ordinis potestate tum iurisdictione alleageth for one proofe this parable as S. Mathew deliuers it Quis est seruus fidelis prudens c. Who is a faithfull seruant c. and saith fairely and truely Haec verba Hilarius coeteri patres de Episcopis dicta esse volunt Hilarie and the rest of the Fathers will haue these words to be vnderstood of Bishops and so proues the superiority of Bishops aboue Priests But when he disputes against vs Protestants for the Monarchie of the Bishop of Rome then this Steward is the Pope and although saith he Ambrose Hilarie and Ierome vnderstand it of the Bishops generally yet surely the Scripture entendeth the Popes Monarchie Bellar. de Concil lib. 2. 17. Quamuis patres saith he non loquantur expressè de Episcopo Romano tamen sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est Although the Fathers speake not expresly of the Bishop of Rome yet without doubt that is the meaning of the Scripture 6. Sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est Nay it will not be carried with so slight a proofe as Sine dubio The Popes Monarchie ouer the Church ouer the whole Christian world is a matter of highest moment Non coniecturâ sed manibus oculis tenenda we are like S. Thomas we will see it with our eyes feele it with our fingers it must be made sensible before we will grant it Tullie saith Cic. offic lib. 3. Turpe est dubitare philosophos quae ne rustici quidem dubitant If euery vulgar interpreter together with the Fathers had deliuered that sense it had beene a shame for so great a Deuine to haue doubted of it but the Fathers he confesseth vnderstand it of Bishops indifferently and no late expositor that I haue read once dreames of the Pope and yet sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est Without doubt that is the meaning of the Scripture 7. It is but a rhetoricall tricke Id sumere pro certo quod dubium controuer sumque est not to doubt of that which he knowes is controuerted Eorum quae constant saith Tullie exempla ponenda Cic. de Inuent lib. 1. eorum quae dubia sunt rationes afferendoe seeing he knew this interpretation would be especially controuerted he should haue kept on his course and haue brought proofe and reasons for it not tell vs Sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est Without doubt that is the meaning of the Scripture If he thought it did constare and were euident to his party yet exempla posuisset hee should haue brought some certaine and vndoubted examples or authorities for our satisfaction from Greeke Fathers or Latine or Councels c as his manner is 8. There are two faults much vsed inter Polemieos the writers of controuersies which are very offensiue to ingenuous readers and no maruell for Quibus rebus animus quasi debito fraudatur offenditur The minde of man is offended when it is defrauded of that which is due vnto it Tullie saith that both these faults are ridiculous Ridiculum est quod est dubium Cic. pro Quint. relinquere incertum saith he It is but a mockerie to passe that ouer without proofe which is doubtfull And againe Ridiculum est quod nemini dubium est iudicare It is also a ridiculous mockerie to vse many proofes and reasons to confirme that which no man denies 9. The former tricke is heere vsed by Bellarmine but because this assertion this sine dubio is very thinne pellucet and we may discerne great weaknesse through it hee vseth inexpiable fraudes to abuse this Text and first he hath this sleight to deceiue his readers That whereas disputing against the Presbyterians for the superiority of Bishops hee saith Sanctus Hilarius Bellar. de Cler. lib. cap. 14. caeteri patres de Episcopis haec
the Text from the confirmation of Bishops in their particular Churches and Families as hee applyed it against the Presbyterians and abuseth it by corruption only to establish the Popes vniuersall Monarchy 24. I stand not to vrge the vanity of this addition or corruption done of purpose to make the word stretch to the vniuersall Church but Sine dubio familia tota familia are both one and imply but one part of a stocke or kindred For among the Romans Gens or Genus was the whole kindred Familia or Stirps were the diuers branches Genus was refer'd ad nomen Familia ad cognomen Cornelia gens was the name of one whole house or kindred Scipiones Lentuli Dolabellae Cinnae Scyllae were cognomina or familiae gentis Corneliae So that as Familia Scipionum and tota familia Scipionum is all one and neither of both comprehends Gentem Corneliam of which there were many other families So here familia and tota familia is all one and neither of both properly signifie Gentem Christianam the vniuersall Church of which there are many particular branches and families 25. And it seemeth that the Holy Ghost would haue this obserued for when the Apostle would expresse the vniuersall Church hee vsed not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is found in my Text which Beza noted well and with him Salmeron and before them both Caietan to signifie famulitium the seruants or inferiour part of a family not a family as Bellarmine reades for his aduantage but the holy Apostle vseth a word which signifieth gentem an whole stocke or kindred consisting of many families Ephes 3.14.15 saying I bend my knees to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of whom the whole nation or kindred both in heauen and earth are denominated Christians 26. Here now when the Holy Ghost would expresse the vniuersall Church he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza Annot. sup Ephe. 3. saith Beza signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tota collectiuè as in some other places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the olde vulgar translates is paternitas as S. Ierome parentela as Erasmus cognatio à communi patre and as Beza familia but taken largely as hee acknowledges in his notes when he saith Familia id est Gens quae communem vnum patrem familiae habeas vt sanè habet Ecclesia in Christo coaptata 27. And this Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby the vniuersall Church is noted is so significant that it troubled the Interpreters as you see to expresse it with a fit Latine word and therefore euery man varies vpon it according to his owne sense so that it is no great maruell if the vulgar translator retained still the very Greeke word Psal 95.7 Psal 95. Afferte Domino patriae Gentium afferte Domino gloriam honorem Which I reading often tooke it for the Latine word Patriae the countries of the Heathen till I obserued that the Septuagint reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And because the olde vulgar thought the word familia would not reach home if hee should say familiae gentium and he would not reade gentes gentium for the Cacophonie and equiuocation hee continued the Greeke word saying Afferte Domino patriae gentium 28. But with this tricke of corruption I note not Bellarmine though hee reades familia for famulitium for famulitium a part and an inferiour part the seruants of the family familia an whole family of Wife Children and Seruants because the olde vulgar doth reade so and hee takes him and leaues him for his best aduantage But I stand somewhat the longer vpon this note because Bellarmine Sanders Stapleton and other worke great wonders out of this word Familia to maintaine the Popes Monarchie though it be falsly translated for Famulitium Familia and then for Familia tota familia and so abused to signifie the vniuersall Church 29. A fift sleight which Bellarmine vseth to abuse this Text and corrupt it to maintaine thereby the Popes Vniuersall Monarchie is in his booke de Concil authoritate where he hath this proposition Bellar. de Concil lib. 2. cap. 17. Summus Pontifex simpliciter absolutè est supra Vniuersam Ecclesiam supra generale concilium ita vt nullum in terris supra se iudicium agnoscat This proposition saith he is ferè de fide no not so it is rather verè de blasphemiâ For is not this proudly to vsurpe the title and style of our great Master For is not Christ Iesus onely Summus Pontifex simpliciter absolutè supra Ecclesiam vniuersam qui nullum supra se iudicium agnoscat What difference betweene this prerogatiue of the Pope and that of our Sauiour Ephes 1. where it is said Ephes 1.22 that God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He made our Sauiour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Summum Pontificem or caput simpliciter absolutè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his whole Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouer all men and ouer all things as the Vulgar of Christ and as Bellarmine of the Pope Supra vniuersam Ecclesiam 30. What not enough to be Primus which may inferre a Primacy which the ancient Church granted but he must be Summus 4. Similis ero altissimo which intends a Monarchie and our Sauiour detested when hee said Reges gentium dominantur eorum vos autem non sic Kings are great Monarchs not you my Apostles much lesse your successors 31. What not enough to be Primus Episcopus amongst many 20.5.5 quos constituit Dominus regere Ecclesiam but he must assumere sibi honorem vt fiat Pontifex Which our Sauiour assumed not but receiued it from his Father when hee said Filius meús es tu Which stile of Pontifex is giuen to none of the Church of Christ but to himselfe onely in the New Testament 32. What not enough to be Pontifex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but hee must be summus Pontifex a stile neuer appropriated nor vsed to any in the Church of God either in the Olde or New Testament For in the Olde Testament the high Priest was barely called Pontifex Leuit. 21.20 as Leuit. 21. Pontifex id est Sacerdos maximus not Pontifex maximus or Pontifex summus And in the New Testament our Sauiour onely hath an Epithete added to it which is giuen in comparison of Aarons high Priesthood to note that Christs Priesthood excelled it But that high and extraordinary stile but once vsed and to our Sauiour onely applied is not equall to this of the Pope For the Apostle calls our Sauiour but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui penetrauit coelos Heb. 4.14 Iesum Christum filium Dei habemus Pontificem magnum We haue saith he a great high Priest that is passed into the
world from these blasphemous corruptions or some wise South-sayer to enforme vs what these monsters portend there were here-tofore certaine Augures as Tully notes Cic. ad At. l. 13. Epist 12. Qui Iouis optimi maximi interpretes internuntijque fuerunt but there are now in Rome certaine Cardinals Qui Pontificis summi interpretes internuntijque sunt who interpret the Scriptures onely for the Popes honour and send abroad their bookes about the world as the Popes Nuntios or Internuntios onely to vphold that monstrous informed double-faced Monarchy which is in effect to rob Christ of his kingdome for the Pope is created Summus aeconomus id est Pater-familias loco Christi or Dominus as it is in my Text and we say truely Regnum non capit duos but one will endeauor to thrust out another 41. Me thinkes the Cardinall when hee sees in the Scripture that our Sauiour is but Pontifex magnus and the Pope thus created Pontifex summus should esteem the name of Dominus or Pater-familias too high for our Sauiour and that he vsurpeth a place aboue his degree and should therefore say vnto him as it is Luke 14. Da huic locum SIR you take your place too high for you are but magnus here is one that is summus in the superlatiue degree hee is become Pater familias loco tuo let him take your place and as the Iewes said before Venient Romani tollent locum nostrum gentem so hee should say to our Sauiour Venit Romanus tollit locum tuum gentem The Pope is come and doth robbe thee of thy place and preheminence and of thy people also for hee is become Dominus Pater familias loco tuo and all thy attendants Arch-Bishops and Bishops are become his seruants and men of his familie 42. And here obserue the nature of pure ambition he is not satisfied with his owne honour and exaltation aboue his degree except Bâ—shops his equals and men of his owne ranke be humbled and debased As if hee should say Me oportet crescere vos autem minui Of a Steward I must be made Pater familias or Dominus and you of stewards must become my Seruants de famulitio men of my family I must be remoued to the highest seate you must be thrust downe to a lower fourme 43. Peraduenture you may imagine this to be some verball amplification onely Devisib Monar lib. 6 c. 4. Vide etiam Bellar. de Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. c. 18. Not so Sanders tells vs plainely that Reliqui discipuli post Christum etiam velut de familiâ comitatu Petri habentur All the rest of the Apostles or Disciples are as it were seruing-men and attendants vpon St. Peter next after Christ and therefore by consequent all arch-Arch-Bishops and Bishops are also seruants and attendants vpon the Pope for he chalengeth to his Monarchie whatsoeuer prerogatiue St. Peter had though there is not extant any writing either of Scripture or the ancient Church which may serue for any euidence of the maine conueyance of that Primacie whatsoeuer it were that St. Peter had to the Bishop of Rome but their plea is prescription or possession from the time of Saint Peter 44. But how will Sanders proue this proposition euen by euidence of Scripture for saith he when St. Marke had shewed the calling of Peter Andrew Iames and Iohn hee tells Marc. 1. how Iesus went into a desert place to pray and saith hee Prosecutus est eum Simon qui cum eo erant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this phrase saith he is thrice found in the Gospell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then makes this inference Quid aliud significat illud Qui cum Simone erant nisi reliquos discipulos post Christum agnouisse Simonem velut ducem aut Rectorem suum If we grant so much yet Dux or Rector implie not a Monarchie nor that they were de familiâ comitatu eius but rather a Primacie amongst them who otherwise are equall as the Apostles were For Cyprian saith Cyprian de vnit Eccles Hoc esse coeteros Apostolos quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praeditos honoris potestatis yet hee acknowledged a Primacie in Saint Peter 45. But this Scripture proues not so much as a Primacie for say they his Monarchie or Primacie was not begun while his name was Simon Stapleton relect but when his name was changed to Peter and that after the change he was but once called Simon but commonly Peter And when he saith Reliquos discipulos agnouisse Simonem velut Ducem Rectorem suum it is most false for they ceased not to striue for the superiority till our Sauiours Passion and Iames and Iohn made iust account of it as the next of his kinne if this great Monarchie had gone by succession And St. Chrysostome obserueth that long after this the Apostles were offended at the very suspition of Peters Prelacie when our Sauiour payed the tribute for himselfe and Peter onely Chrysost super Mat. cap. 18. for saith he Quando certos praeferri conspexerunt nihil tale passi sunt cum verò ad vnum delatus honor est tunc nimirum doluerunt When they perceiued certaine of the Apostles to be preferred it neuer troubled them but when the honour was confer'd vpon one onely then it grieued them 46. Neither are the rest of the Apostles so distinguished from St. Peter as Sanders implies who reades Prosecutus est eum Simon qui cum eo erant ioyning the word of the singular number to Peter onely and so distinguishing the Apostles from him as seruants from the Master for the Euangelist ioyneth them together with a word of the plurall number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Petrus qui cum eo erant prosecuti sunt eum as fellowes and equalls all of one company 47. Hauing thus vsurped the Monarchie ouer the house of God and made himselfe Dominum Patrem-familias and subiected all the true and lawfull Stewards the Bishops and Prelates to his seruice and from being his fellowes made them de familiâ comitatu eius as Sanders said he claimes to himselfe as his right the custodie of all the Master-keyes of Gods house And first Clauem Scientiae the keye of Knowledge which so opens to him onely the dore of the Scriptures that he cannot erre in expounding them Secondly Clauem if not putei abyssi yet abyssi the keyes of Purgatory which is next dore by where he lets loose the soules by his Indulgences and pardons Thirdly Clauem potestatis which Bellarmine calls clauem Dauid Quae aperit nemo claudit Es 22. claudit nemo aperit that is Summam potestatem Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 13. in omnem Ecclesiam which is his absolute Ecclesiasticall Monarchie Potestatem depositionis vnius institutionis alterius Fourthly Clauem Iurisdictionis whereby hee chalengeth to himselfe all Iurisdiction
St. Peters and the Popes Monarchie which is founded saith he vpon our Sauiours verball institution Non vno tota momento sed gradatim Stapleton relec cont 3. q. 1. art 1. per partes à Christo facta tradita est was not made and deliuered all at one time by our Sauiour but it was giuen by degrees and by parts and therefore as it was instituted by degrees so it must be manifested and proued by degrees and so necessarily by degrees be confuted Thirdly because Gretzer tells vs Gretz defens Bellar. l. 1. c. 23. de Rom. Pontif. that the prerogatiues of St. Peter doe not proue his Monarchie Si considerentur solitariè non iunctim If they be considered apart and not ioyntly and therefore to disproue any one of his prerogatiues is not much to the purpose Finally because they falsly obiect that they being tyed as a Beare to the stake to defend those propositions which are deliuered in print and so professed to the whole world we take no fast hold nor come to handy-gripes but a snatch and away like the dog at Nilus Qui bibit fugit for feare of a Crocodile I will therefore at my next opportunity ioyne issue with them and proue first That the Apostle St. Peter had no Monarchy ouer the Apostles or Church of GOD as Bellarmine Stapleton and Sanders teach Secondly That Saint Peter had a Primacie of order as in an Aristocracie amongst the Apostles who were his equalls and that by the testimonie of the ancient Church Thirdly That the ancient Bishops of Rome of the purer times neither had nor chalenged any Monarchy in the Church or any part thereof Fourthly That by the iudgement of the Fathers they had the Primacie among other Bishops Lastly That this Primacie is not fastened to that See but may for their tyrannies and vsurpations vpon Churches and Kingdomes be remoued from it and conferred on another 62. My conclusion should be if the time did serue with an exhortation to beware how wee vndertake the defence of any vntruth either in Religion or Moralitie considering that neither the honour wit or learning of this great Cardinall can possibly maintaine it but vni sustinendo mendacio necesse est accumulari plura Vntruths are onely maintained by vntruths and one corruption or falsification begets another Truth and a good cause are fairely defended suâ claritate as Lactantius saith by her owne clearenesse Via illa mendax saith hee the way of lying and falsifying and corrupting c. Via illa mendax quae ducit ad occasum multos tramites habet That false deceitfull way which leades to destruction hath many crosse wayes and many trickes too but being examined as you see shame followes after and as he saith Ab aniculis quas contemnunt à pueris nostris error illorum stultitia irridebitur Their error and folly shall be laughed at by our olde women and children whom they scorne 63. God who is the author and defender of truth and reuenger and reuealer of falshoode and lies so possesse your hearts with the loue of truth that it may be the scope and end of all your studies and actions and at length direct you to that true way which leadeth to the true euerlasting life This GOD grant for Christ Iesus sake to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour glorie praise and dominion for euer and euer AMEN THE SECOND SERMON Luke 12.41.42 c. Then Peter said vnto him MASTER tellest thou this parable vnto vs or euen to all And the Lord said who is a faithfull Steward and wise whom the Master shall make ruler ouer the houshold to giue them their portion of meate in season c. 1. I Haue heretofore diuided this Text into certaine conditions requisite for a good Steward but because we are to enquire Quis sit Who he is before we come to the question Qualis sit What his qualities and conditions are I shewed you that Bellarmine disputing against the Presbyterians affirmed out of St. Hilarie and the rest of the Fathers that the Bishops and Prelates of the Church were this Steward but discoursing against Protestants Cic. de Orat. Tanquam Academicus nonus qui contra omnes dicere solebant hee makes the Pope this Steward imagining these words to be spoke to St. Peter onely and to that purpose he corrupted as I then noted euery circumstance of this Text for as St. Augustine saith Aug. li. 83. quest q. 69. Non possit ijs error oboriri palliatus nomine Christiano nisi de scriptur is non intellectis aut malitiosè expositis 2. This counterfeit columne of the Popes Monarchie I then shooke asunder but it is seldome seene Cicero that in vno praelio fortuna Reipub. disceptat and this Monarchie was not collated by our Sauiour with any one speech or at any one time as Stapleton saith but by many and sundrie donations nor the great prerogatiues which were giuen to St. Peter and so consequently to the Pope are to be considered solitariè but iunctìm as Gretzer saies wherefore they must be confuted seuerally and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Tullie hath it exactly Cic. de Orat. and with a iust proportion Vt verba verbis quasi demensa paria respondeant 3. But because all the reasons and arguments which the Iesuites now make in defence of this Monarchie by vertue of any prerogatiue Monarchicall which they attribute to St. Peter Adiunante misericordiâ Domini as St. Augustine saith anteà sunt antiquorum patrum praeuentione refutata Aug. cont epist 2. Gaudentij lib. 2. cap. 6. quam illorum circumuentione prolata are preuented by the ancient Fathers interpretations before we could be circumuented by their obiections as appeareth by sundry answeres which haue beene framed of late as also because it is an argument more beseeming many volumes then a fewe Sermons I will therefore as I then promised proue to all indifferent hearers First that S. Peter had not any Monarchy ouer the Apostles or Church of Christ by our Sauiours institution Secondly that St. Peter had a Primacie of order as in an Aristocracie among the Apostles who were his equalls as the Fathers affirme Thirdly that the ancient Bishops of Rome of the purer times neither had nor challenged any Monarchie ouer the Church or any part thereof Fourthly that by the iudgement of the Fathers they had the Primacie among other Bishops Lastly that this Primacie is not fastened to this See but may for their tyrannies and vsurpations ouer Churches and Kingdomes be remoued from it and conferred on another 4. The first is that our Sauiour bequeathed no Monarchie to S. Peter nor to his Church and so consequently that the spirituall gouernement is not Monarchicall 5. This argument hath beene copiously and learnedly handled of late but especially by those two worthies of our Church the most learned and reuerend Bishops of Winchester and
Rochester D. Andrewes D. Buckerige of whom I may say as Tullie did of Carneades Tul. 2. de Orat. Nullam rem defenderunt quam not probarint nullam oppugnauerunt quam non euerterint But although all former doubts haue beene sufficiently cleared and determined yet some new proofes may euer be added and withall vsus inuentorum ab alijs scientia dispositio the vse Sen. and knowledge and disposing of those things whâ—ch are found out by others As there are medicines enough set downe by Antiquitie to cure sore eyes so that our Physitians neede not labour for more but yet there is somewhat left wherein they may exercise their best endeauours and studies because as Seneca saith Sen. Epist 65. Haec morbis temporibus aptanda sunt hoc asperitas oculorum conleuatur hoc palpebrarum crassitudo tenuitur hoc vis subita humor auertitur hoc acuitur visus 6. And as St. Bernard said to Eugenius of doctrinall or morall matters and the reformation of the Church Non planè totum quiuere emundare prophetae aliquid filijs suis Apostolis Bernard de Consid ad Eugen. l. 2. c. 6. quod agerent reliquerunt aliquid ipsi parentes nostri nobis sed nec nos ad omne sufficiemus aliquid profectò nostris relicturi sumus successoribus illi alijs alij alijs vsque in finem so in our ordinary controuersies and polemicall questions Multum egerunt qui ante nos fuerunt sed non omnino peregerunt because there are daily some fresh replies and assaults which yeelde some occasions to other mens labours But to the matter proposed 7. It is confessed on all hands that the spirituall power as we truely call it or spirituall Iurisdiction of the Church as the Papists tearme it improperly is that onely which it hath receiued from our Sauiour himselfe the first founder of it Manifestum est saith Franciscus Syluestris in his commentaries vpon Thomas Contra Gentiles quod Christus ipse regimen Ecclesiae suae instituit Fran. Syl. l. 4. c. 76. non autem ipsa Ecclesia aut populus Christianus neither Popes nor Emperours nor other Christian Kings appointed the spirituall regiment of the Church but our Sauiour onely and Sanders saith Ecclesia neque agnos quidem Sand. de visio Monar l. 1. c. 6. et oues per autoritatem suam absque Dominica institutione per Sacramentum Baptismi operante creare potest quanto minùs per se potest creare pastores Doctores c. The Church of her owne authoritie can neither make Lambes nor Sheepe without the institution of Christ working by the Sacrament of Baptisme by how much lesse then of her selfe can the Church create Pastors and Doctors The Spirituall regiment therefore is to be sought for in the Scriptures onely The temporall power and truely so called Iurisdiction of the Church some deriue from our Sauiour onely some from Christian Emperors and Kings and some from both 8. Of the first kinde who deriue the temporall power from our Sauiour onely are the Canonists and Bartholus the Ciuilian and Bozius and those other ordinis oratorij who holde that our Sauiour was the temporall Monarch of the world and left his Monarchie to St. Peter c. as appeareth in the Canonists and Canon Law Cap. 10. § 32. Quae iura valdè bona sunt ad hoc as Aluarez tells vs in speculo summorum Pontif Regum and no maruell for they were made by the Popes themselues and glossed by their flatterers This opinion is refelled by Bellarmine and he needs no helpe of vs vallatus auxilio pugnatorum Jos 8.16 being assisted with that whole societie who fight ioyntly with him 9. They who deriue the temporall power which the Church possesseth from the bountie and liberality of Christian Monarchs are the Protestants supportantes sibi inuicem in veritate ioyntly maintaining this truth by plaine euidence of vncorrupt Antiquitie acknowledging by whom euery great priuiledge was giuen as in place shall be proued 10. Now the Iesuites and that crew vigilantes animi domini necessitatibus seruientes being very vigilant and carefull to serue their Masters turne chalenge this temporall power to their Lord the Pope both from our Sauiour and from Christian Monarchs a part onely from Kings and Emperors and that directly but another part whereby they chalenge power and authoritie to excommunicate Kings and depriue them of their Kingdomes which cannot be done but by temporall power from our Sauiour ex consequente in ordine ad bonum spirituale but that is indirectè Distinctio necessitati debita a most necessary distinction for it is the onely supporter of the Popes temporall Monarchie for the Canonists opinion as too grosse is exploded by them 11. But this reedie and arundineous supporter is so shattered and torne by our reuerend Prelates fustibus argumentorum as St. Augustine calls them that we may daily expect the downe-fall and ruine of that Monarchie and of this distinction also we shall speake hereafter 12. But the spirituall power of the Church is acknowledged by Canonists Iesuites and Protestants to be deriued from our Sauiour onely for the Church had spirituall power before it had Kings to be Patrons and Nurses of it and a certaine gouernement and Gouernours to exercise that power nec auxilia à Regibus terrae religionis Christianae propagandae aut defendendae gratiâ petijt neither did it entreate ayde of the Kings of the earth either for the propagation or defence of Christian religion and of this spirituall power is our question 13. Not that our aduersaries or wee make any doubt whether there be a set or constant regiment of the Church or no for as Suarez notes well Cum Dominus Apostolicum munus creabat Suarez de Leg. l. 4. c. 4. n. 19. necessariò supponendum est illud munus cum omnibus necessarijs ad conuenientem vsum eius ordinatum fuisse when the Lord instituted the Apostolicall office or function we must needes suppose that he ordained all necessaries that were conuentent and vse-full for that office wee confesse both that this Church is Castrorum acies ordinata an armie well ordered Cant. 6. Acts 20.28 Et spiritus sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam the holy Ghost hath set Bishops to gouerne the Church 14. Nor secondly doe we dispute whether the Ecclesiasticall gouernement be spirituall and distinct from the Politicall for we both confesse that the Church had no seuerall gouernement of it or in it for a long time but spirituall gouernours onely Rom. 12.8 who did not Proeesse in dominio but in solicitudine excell in power but in diligence 15. Nor thirdly doe we question the absolute and free Monarch of the whole Church triumphant and militant for both of vs acknowledge him to be our Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus Ps 2.6 Luc. 1.33 Qui constitutus est Rex super montem
Rome who could not in the first times when the Church was yet vnsetled moderate the power of his spirituall Primacie which was then of little force as appeareth in Pope Victors rashnesse Euseb lib. 5. c. 23. hist Eccles who threatned to cut off from the vnitie of Communion all the Churches of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for differing from him in the celebration of Easter in that censure which Tertullian gaue of some of them Tertul. aduers Prax. though himselfe deserued more to bee censured that they were In pace Leones in praelio cerui and in that comparison Cypr. Epis 73. habetur apud Aug. l. 2. c. 2. cont Donatist which Saint Cyprian and the whole Councell of Carthage made with the Bishops of Rome saying None of vs makes himselfe the Bishop of Bishops or doth compel his fellow-fellow-Bishops Tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem but much lesse could they moderate that Papall Monarchicall power which they vsurped by degrees after the Church was endowed and honoured by the Emperours but as Religio peperit diuitias c. as I said before so Imperium peperit Papatum Papatus deuorauit Imperium by what steps and degrees both the one and the other were performed is for a fitter time and more ample discourse 83. Now in our conclusion wee onely vrge that which we proposed that the Pope had not that tyrannicall nor Monarchicall power as he calles it which he vsurpeth from our Sauiour or Saint Peter we dispute not now from whence he had it whether by vsurpation or donation but we say as Saint Bernard said to Pope Eugenius his face Ber. they haue it not from Saint Peter Esto saith he vt quâcunque aliâ ratione haec tibi vindices sed non Apostolico iure nowsoeuer you haue got it you hold it not by Apostolicall right as Saint Peters inheritance Non enim ille tibi dare quod non habuit potuit for he could not giue that to thee which he had not himselfe Argentum inquit aurum non est mihi Quod habuit hoc dedit solicitudinem super EcclesiaÌ„ Gold saith he and siluer haue I none â— Pet. 5. what he had that he gaue care ouer the Church when he said Pascite qui in vobis est gregem Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 84. If thou sayest though he left me not riches yet he left me dominatum dominion and Monarchie and doest challenge it from God himselfe De Maior obedient c. Solite as Innocent the third did in his Extrauagant who gaue command to the Prophet Ieremie who was but a type of thee as thou takest it Vt euellat destruat disperdat dissipet aedificet plantet yet this helpes thee little for nihil horum saith Saint Bernard fastum sonat aut dominatum Rusticani magis sudoris schemate quodam labor spiritualis expressus est Spirituall solicitude and labour is expressed rather vnder this scheme of rusticall worke and rurall offices here is nothing regall nothing Monarchicall in that Commission 85. Peraduenture in this thy greatnesse thou doest thinke thy selfe more then a Prophet because thou holdest that the High Priest in the olde Law had no Iurisdiction Si sapis eris contentus mensurâ quam tibi mensus est Deus nam quod amplius est à malo est If thou art wise thou wilt be contented with that measure which GOD hath meated vnto thee for that which is ouer and aboue proceedes from euill Learne by this example of the Prophet Praesidere non tam ad imperitandum quà m ad factitandum quod tempus requirit Disce sarculo tibi opus esse non sceptro vt opus facias prophetae Thou hast more neede of a Rake then a Scepter to performe the worke of a Prophet 86. If thou challenge thy Monarchy from Saint Peter heare what he saith to thee 1 Pet. 5. Non dominantes in clero sed formae facti gregis and that thou mayest not thinke that Saint Peter spake it in humility not in verity it is our Sauiours owne voyce in the Gospell Reges gentium dominantur eorum qui potestatem habent super eos benefici vocantur vos autem non sic 87. It is plaine saith Saint Bernard whatsoeuer Bellarmine and his fellow-flatterers say to the contrary Apostolis inter dicitur dominatus not onely tyrannie but dominion is forbid the Apostles I ergo tu tibi vsurpare aude aut dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus dominatum planè ab alterutro prohiberis by our Sauiours and Saint Peters constitutions Si vtrumque similiter habere voles If you will hold them both by one and the same tenure Perdes vtrumque you will loose both And doe not thinke thy seâ—fe exempted out of their number of whom God complaines Ose 8. Ipsi regnauerunt Ose 8. non ex me principes extiterunt non cognoui eos For whosoeuer will raigne and be a Monarke without power from God Habet gloriam sed non apud Deum He may haue glory with men but not with God Aug. sup Psal 95. 88. Thus you see that as Saint Augustine said Quod modò dixi iam dudum dictum est that which I speake concerning this vsurped Monarchy of the Pope hath beene said long agoe in the height of his pride by one who was inferiour to none of them in solicitudine sanctitate and because it was spoken before oftentimes by the same Spirit whereof wee also are partakers by the goodnesse of God Nos illud tum diximus wee spake it then quicquid modò eodem spiritu nos dicimus illi dixerunt qui ante nos fuerunt and whatsoeuer we say now by the direction of that Spirit the same did they speake who were before vs for the same Spirit speaketh the same in vs both though at sundry times and in sundry ages 89. But that which hath beene said of the Pope both concerning our Sauiours and Saint Peters interdict of desiring Honour and Riches and Dominion as also of their Edict of Humilitie Solicitude and Sanctitie reacheth to the rest of the Cleargie of all sorts 90. We must not forget our calling and profession it is Ministerium and must be performed with care sanctitie and holinesse of life We must haue this Ministrie euer before our eyes in the height of our gouernments when we sit in iudgement when we prescribe Lawes to others our inferiours or execute them The consideration of our Ministry viz. that our Sauiour sent vs Ministrare not Ministrari as his condition was will make vs contemners of honour in the middest of our honour which otherwise no doubt is very hard to performe This consideration will serue vs for a buckler against that deadly dart which the Prophet Dauid shootes against vs. Psal 84. Homo cum in honore esset non intellexit c. 91. Let vs say to our selues wee
Gospell should be abrogated by positiue Lawes Ciuill or Municipall and that the bounty and liberality of Princes which affoords their Subiects an interest in the State both Aristocraticall and Democraticall for the more ready and easie gouernment of the Common-wealth may be held and continued by prescription without the Kings consent against the Law of Nature as now they hold many Lands and Tithes of the Church and as the Church now doth so the King ought also to loose and forgoe his originall right and natiue prerogatiues 23. But as they teach for their aduantage sometimes that Nullum tempus occurrit regi in certaine miniments and trifles as we may terme them which belong to the Law so they should acknowledge that Nullum tempus and Nulla Lex occurrit Regi in those maine points which touch his prerogatiue and that there is euer in a King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inbred power limited onely with iustice and equity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolute dominion and vniuersall command and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also subiection to none but to God onely Ius Regis which cannot be alienated or communicated with any subiect no not with the Kings Sonne without either renouncing or diuiding his Empire plenitudo potestatis which cannot be emptied or frustrated by the Kings consent no not for his owne time without right of reuocation finally manus regia which cannot be shortened without wounding his Maiesty which wound though it be not so taken is deeper and more dangerous in that prerogatiue which is due by the Law of Nature then that which is granted by a positiue Law Huc vsque zelus meus Thus farre my zeale hath carried me I returne to the matter 24. By this which hath beene spoken you may perceiue that the Pope is made an absolute Monarch and hath the prerogatiues belonging to Monarchs but all this is vsurpation and abhorreth from our Sauiours institution and the primitiue practise for a Monarchie was prohibited as I haue noted Conc. 2. §. 35.36 c. and in the gouernment Ecclesiasticall which was Aristocraticall the Apostles and their first successors enioyed neither riches nor coerciue power nor domination or honor or such Monarchicall Prerogatiues and yet there was among them in spirituall things or do rerum consecratus omniae inter se apta connexa for the propagation of that spirituall gouernement 25. All which are by abuse now inueterate dissolued and a diuers gouernement by vsurpation established but because wee inforce the first institution from which they cannot appeale it being Apostolicall by practise and originall of our Sauiours ordinaon their art is as I said res difiunctas definitionibus connectere and deuise such a definition for the Church as may fit with a Monarchie and such a definition of a Monarchie as may sort with the Church vtramque rem falso naturae termino definientes 26. For where the Church is described in the ancient Credes to be vna Sancta Catholica Apostolica without any other particular mention of the kinde of gouernement but that it is Apostolica not Petrina onely discending by succession from the Apostles in an Aristocracie not from Saint Peter alone in a Monarchie and where Saint Cyprian describes it according to the gouernement to be Aristocraticall Cypr. l. 4. epist 9. as we call it saying Ecclesia Catholica vna est cohaerentium sibi inuicem sacerdotum glutino copulata The Catholique Church is one consisting of many Priests or Bishops joyned together in one vnitie And where Stapleton in the intrinsecall and essentiall definition of the Church as he termes it maketh no other mention of the gouernement Staple relect cont 1. q. 4. ar 5. but that it is legitimè ordinata and after in a full definition as hee calls it or rather description hath this onely for the gouernement of it that it is collectione ordine membrorum vna which ordo Sanders describes thus Vt iam inde ab initio Ecclesiae vnus Presbyter multis fidelium familijs vnus Episcopus presbyteris etiam multis item multis episcopis vnus praefuerit Primas for though hee dispute for a Monarchie hee is glad in conclusion to bring forth a Primacie notwithstanding all these definitions or descriptions of the Church Sanders de visib Monarch l. 1. c. 2. which incline to Aristocracie Bellarmine the first that euer I obserued to strengthen his cause puts the Pope and his Monarchie into the definition of the Church and saith Nostra sententia est Bellar. de Eccles mil. l. 3. c. 2. Ecclesiam esse coetum hominum eiusdem Christianae fidei professione eorundem Sacramentorum communione colligatum sub regimine legitimorum pastorum If heere hee had stayed he had accorded with Saint Cyprian and the ancient Church and moderne writers in their definitions but adding Precipuè sub regimine vnius Christi in terris vicarij Romani Pontificis he corrupts the definition and joyneth subtlety and falsehood together for it is false that the Bishop of Rome is Vicar to our Sauiour Christ in his Monarchie ouer the Church and hee is subtle when hee saith praecipuè as I haue noted heretofore for hee holds as I haue proued with Suarez and the rest of the Iesuites that the Church is absolutè sub regimine vnius Monarchae absolutely vnder the gouernement of one Monarch for say they the Catholiques hold that the Church is an absolute Monarchie and that the Pope is the Monarch 27. Which subtletie also appeareth by the explication of that definition in the wordes following which definition saith he hath three parts First the profession of the truth Secondly the communion of the Sacraments and lastly their subiection to their lawfull Pastor the Bishop of Rome Where that which seemed Aristocraticall in the definition designing the Regiment of many Pastors with one Primate is omitted in the explication and the whole Church absolutely subjected to one Monarch of Rome 28. But if there be vnius rei vna definitio sicut vnum esse but one definition of a thing as there is but one essence of it if a definition doe briefly and absolutely containe proprias rei alicuius qualitates the proper qualities of any thing if the essentiall parts of a thing be euer the same then this cannot now be the true definition of the Church because it was not neither could haue been the definition of the Church in the Apostles times when they made their Crede as Antiquitie holds for neither was Saint Peter put then into the definition of the Church from whom the Pope deriues all his Prerogatiues neither was there seated any Bishop at Rome at that time nor certaine yeares after to put into the definition of the Church while Saint Peter was at Antioch and at other Cities But Bellarmine who knew it to be true art Cic. de orat inuolutae rei notitiam definiendo
particular part a singulis tenetur in solidum by the first institution and euery one hath power in the whole as it is vndeuided indiuisus and continues for euer Episcopus vniuersalis Ecclesiae a Bishop of the Church vniuersall 45. Now as that one Monarchie in heauen hath not the denomination in respect of any superioritie which is found among the Persons in the Trinitie the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost who are that one Monarch of the same power and essence c. but is so called in regard of the world and coelestiall and terrestriall creatures which are subiect to them so this one Bishopricke is not Monarchicall in respect of any superioritie among those persons or Bishops which are all equall in power and degree and make all but one Bishop and supreame gouernour vnder Christ of his Church but in regard of inferiors Priests and people which are subiect to them 46. And yet as in the equalitie of persons the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost which are all one God there is found primatus ordinis in the Father which is Aristocraticall so in pari consortio honoris dignitatis of all the Bishops of the Church which make all but one Bishop of that one Bishopricke for as Saint Cyprian saith Cypr. Non ignoramus vnum Episcopum in Ecclesiâ catholicâ esse debere there is found of necessitie primatus ordinis as in euery Aristocracie because ordo or as Saint Cyprian saith Cypr. de vnit Eccles Exordium ab vnitate proficiscitur which exordium the Fathers affirme to haue beene in Saint Peter 47. If this my breuitie in this maine point breede any obscuritie and so doth not satisfie some intelligent Auditor by reason of the diuersitie of opinions concerning the first institution of Bishops I will enlarge it in the proper place when I speake of the Primacie thus much was said by Anticipation and by occasion of that philosophicall argument proposed by Thomas and pursued by the Iesuites for the Popes spirituall Monarchie 48. Which argument resembleth that of some Ciuilians and Canonists to proue the like absurditie in the temporall state Barthol in Extrau ad Reprimen Glos in cap. per venerab viz. That the Emperour is the Monarch of the whole world as Bartholus hath it and the glosse who alledge these reasons which Sanders and Bellarmine haue borrowed from them for Illorum sunt omnia quae delirant Iesuitae as thus Non est credendum quin Deus instituerit in orbe optimum genus gubernationis because it is said Psal 103. Omnia in sapientiâ fecisti sed illud est Monarchia which resembleth the coelestiall gouernement ergo Imperator est orbis Monarcha 49. Againe quae sunt praeter naturam debent imitari naturalia at in naturalibus semper vnus Rector in corpore cor in animâ vna ratio ergo in orbe vnus Imperator sicut vnus Deus and other the like reasons which are applied to the Pope in the selfe-same termes mutatis mutandis changing the Emperour for the Pope and the world for the Church 50. But I conclude briefly of the Popes spirituall Monarchie ouer all the Church as Franciscus a Victoriâ doth of the Emperours temporall Monarchie ouer the whole world notwithstanding all those reasons acknowledged by him Fran. Victor relec 5. de Indis Haec opinio est sine aliquo fundamento and therefore we may safely contemne the one of the Pope as Victoria the great Master of the Spanish writers doth the other of the Emperour without danger of Marcionisme Lucianisme Porphyrianisme and Heathenisme and such terrours and monsters of heresie as they pretend to vs. 51. And thus much of the second diuerticle or by-path to error which Bellarmine vseth to seduce his Readers Colos 2.8 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I would adde more if I might not offend your patience Bern. but Breuis dies cogit breuiorem sermonem this being one of the shortest dayes of the yeere requires a short Sermon I will therefore conclude beseeching him Aug. sine cuius luce non est veritas without whose illumination we cannot walke forward in the way of truth nor returne from the way of error that it would please him to leade into the way of truth all such as haue erred and are deceiued and so to direct our footsteps that we seeing what is light and truth may by his light finde out also what is not truth and so eschew it to the edifying of his Church the discharge of our duties and the saluation of our soules which God grant for Christ Iesus sake to whom with the holy Ghost three Persons and one God be ascribed all honour praise c. Amen FINIS THE FOVRTH SERMON 1. YOu haue heard of two sleights that Bellarmine and his fellowes vse to deceiue their Readers tertium fraudis diuerticulū his third by-way is 2 Cor. 11.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be transfigured into the Apostles of CHRIST And how is that done Vincent Lirin tells vs Vin. Lirin c. 37. Proferebant Apostoli diuinae legis exempla proferunt isti the Apostles alledged the Scriptures to prooue their true doctrine and so doe they to establish their false Monarchie which hath euer beene the practise of false Teachers whom the Apostle calls operarios subdolos scripturis malè interpretatis errores suos astruere 2 Cor. 11.13 to fortifie their errours by Scriptures misse-interpreted by which sleight Satan did transfigure himselfe into an Angel of light both when he deceiued our first parents and when he assaulted our Sauior Christ For both he and his Ministers know full well by their long practise and good successe in it Nullam esse ad fallendum faciliorem viam quam vt vbi nefarij erroris subinducitur fraudulentia ibi diuinorum verborum praetendatur autoritas that there is no such ready way to deceiue the simple as to pretend the authority of Scripture fraudulently to vnderlay a nefarious errour 2. This therefore is the third sleight to abuse many Scriptures for confirmation of this Monarchie so long vsurped and of late yeares as it seemes by common errour established as iust but such is the nature of truth Greg. Naz. Quae vt Esdrae sic mihi potentissima videtur which seemes to mee as heretofore to Esdras to be most powerfull that they euer fayle in their conclusions and instead of a Monarchie which they affirme they proue a Primacie which we deny not 3. To this purpose and with this euent or to little or no purpose are two twenty Scriptures alledged by number Cic. and yet in tanto conuentu nulla est quae rationem numerumque habeat amongst so many there is none that hath either weight or reason for though the Bookes are De Romani Pontificis Monarchia Petri yet he confesseth his proofes to reach but to a Primacie and he cannot be so ignorant or with any
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
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
prayer S. Peter by prophesie 75. How then did they subiugate the whole world vnto them To omit that supernaturall meanes which God vsed by the bloud of his Martyrs and by those three formes of the gifts of the holy Ghost Aug. de Trin. vnit cap. 4. the first whereof as St. Augustine notes pertinet ad ius Ecclesiasticum in regenerandis the second in virtutibus signis faciendis and the third at the Pentecost in dono linguarum and by Confirmation or Imposition of hands c. they vsed two ordinary meanes one was solicitude and care to performe their office the other was sanctitie and holinesse of life All which S. Peter deliuers to the Church and his successours as he receiued them from his Master Christ Iesus 76. For in his first Epistle not vnder the title of a Monarch but of Compresbyter hee exhorteth his fellow Priests 1 Pet. 5. saying I who am your fellow Priest who glory not of any superiority but in this onely that I am a witnesse of Christs passion and a partaker of that glory which shall be reuealed which many vnderstand of that glory which he saw at the transfiguration exhort you Pascite feede the flocke of God which is among you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking the ouersight thereof as Bishops not ruling and commanding as Kings not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready minde Neither as being Lords ouer Gods inheritance but being ensamples to the flocke c. Which words as S. Bernard saith containe interdictum Bern. de Consid lib. 2. cap. 6. and edictum the interdict forbiddeth three things as Abulensis obserues Coerciue power Riches and Domination of which wee haue spoken the edict commands two things First Pascere qui in nobis est gregem Dei the care solicitude we should haue to feed Gods flock Secondly Formas fieri gregis to be an example to our flockes in piety and sanctitie of life These also S. Paul requires the former Praeesse in solicitudine Rom. 12. the latter Rom. 12. 1 Tim 3. 1. Tim. 3. Esse irreprehensibiles and so a patterne of sanctitie to the whole flocke 77. The foundation therefore of Christian religion was not in riches or coercine power or honourable titles but in solicitude and sanctitie vpon which Christian Kings and Emperours as was fore-prophesied built those high turrets of honour riches Iurisdiction and temporall power which the Church in due time afterward possessed to the glory of our Sauiour and the credite of the Gospell as shall be shewed in due place and by these meanes was Christianity at the first propagated 78. Now it is naturall that by what ordinary meanes Religion was first dilated it should also be continued by the same Miracles and those extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost which as S. Augustine saith were giuen ad incrementum Ecclesiae De Trin. vnit cap. 4. vsque dum fidei semina iacerentur are now ceased and those things which not long after caused great progresse in Pietie and Religion namely Continentia vsque ad tenuissimum victum ieiunia non quotidiana solùm sed etiam per contextos plures dies perpetrata Ang. de vtil Creden cap. 17. castitas vsque ad coniugij prolisque contemptum patientia vsque ad cruces flammasque neglectas liberalitas vsque ad patrimonia distributa pauperibus aspernatio mundi vsque ad desiderium mortis which St. Augustine confesseth that few then performed but fewer did well and wisely performe Pauci haec faciunt pauciores benè prudenterque faciunt saith he All these things which the people then fauoured and loued and admired Et quòd ista non possent non sine prouectu mentis in Deum nec sine quibusdam scintillis virtutum setpsos accusabant These also are all in a manner through the encrease of superstition and manifold abuses vtterly abandoned there remaineth onely solicitude and piety among the primitive ordinary meanes to continue Religion in that height and greatnes in the Church of Christ 79. But the defects of those former supernaturall gifts haue beene in some measure supplied since the vnion of the Empire and temporall gouernment with the Church and spirituall power and by the bounty and liberality of Kings who prudently considered that in this incorporation as the Common-wealth did partake the blessings that the Church could afford by maintaining temporall peace and concord and subiection to Kings I speake nothing of the supernaturall blessing of regeneration and the fruites thereof so the Church should communicate with the Common-wealth out of their liberality Riches Honour and Temporall power but subordinate to them according to the Law of Nature and example of all people who had any feeling of Religion and the seruice of God either by inbred light or the custome of the Country 80. But these Riches Honours and Iurisdictions which are now added to the Church are things indifferent good or bad as they are vsed Ipsa quidem quod ad animi bonum spectat Bern. de Consid lib. 2. cap. 6. nec bona sunt nec mala vsus tamen horum bonus for the honour and credite of Christian Religion but abusio mala solicitudo peior as Saint Bernard saith 81. It is certaine that they are great temptations and prouocations to men in this our frailty oftentimes to exceed the bounds of Christian humility and morall equity which gaue occasion to that Prouerbe Religio pâ—perit diuitias filia deuorauit matrem and at the first endowment of the Church it was said Hodiè venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam which so farre infected many Prelates thereof that the out-cry against them hath beene continuall euen from those primitiue times as appeares in those Arian Bishops who liued in Athanasius dayes Athanasius and were bipedum nequissimi and so all along downe by succeeding ages some euer complaining in that forme that Hugo Cardinalis vseth vpon that of Saint Peter Non dominantes in clero Hugo Cardinalis Hoc praeceptum saith he hodiè transgrediuntur multi praelatorum qui plus se erigunt quà m possint many Prelates at this day doe transgresse this precept who exalt themselues higher then they may either by the Law of the Gospell or by the donation of Kings Vt valdè benè competat eis illud Esaiae Audiuimus superbiam Moab id est Esai 16. Praelatorum vel Clericorum carnalium that the complaint of the Prophet Esay may very well befit them Wee haue heard of the pride of Moab that is saith Hugo of the Prelates and carnall Clerkes Superbus est valdè he is maruellous proud but blessed be God for it saith he superbia eius arrogantia eius indignatio eius plus quà m fortitudo eius and to that purpose applies other places of Scripture both of Ieremie and Leuiticus 82. But this abuse appeared most in the Bishop of