this Monarchie Non quia diuini sunt sed quia superbi sunt not because it stands with diuinitie but because it makes for their pride August Con. l. 12. c. 25. Nec nouerunt curant Christi sententiam sed amant suam non quia vera est sed quia sua est they care not what our Sauiour instituted or the Church practised but they loue their owne Monarchie not because it is lawfull but because they possesse it and like vsurpers forbeare no colour or pretext to vphold their possession 69. Not a Priest or Iesuite that deales in this cause but he doth plausum petere praestigiae seeke commendations by a new jugling-tricke by a counterfeit distinction or falsified authority to deceiue his Readers They say that Saint Peters Monarchie is concluded in those words Tibi dabo claues c. We answere Those words were not spoke to Peter onely but to all the Apostles and the whole Church and so inforce not this Monarchicall prerogatiue We proue this out of Saint Augustine Aug. super Ioh. 12. Hom 50. and they haue it themselues in the Canon Law 24. q. 1. c. Quodcunque where Saint Augustine saith that Quodcunque ligaueris c. was not spoken to Peter only but to the Church for Peter when hee receiued the Keyes Ecclesiam sanctam significauit Du-Vall the Sorbon confesseth that Saint Augustine saith Datas esse claues toti Ecclesiae but corrupts it thus id est Petro propter Ecclesiam as if Saint Augustine lacked language to expresse his meaning And by these absurd glosses they corrupt their owne Canons 70. When we proue that they were not giuen to Saint Peter propter Ecclesiam for the Church but to the Church immediately because all the powers which are giuen to Saint Peter were bestowed vpon all the Apostles immediatè a Christo to be held immediately of Christ and not of Saint Peter they confesse that they were giuen to all the Apostles immediately from Christ Suarez de Leg. l. 4. c. 3. n. 4. sed Petro diuerso modo magis perfecto but there being found no one word of proofe either in the Scriptures or Antiquitie Videte si responsio illa Aug. Ps 140. non dementia nominanda est when it is euident that Potestas clauium ligare soluere pascere hoc facere in mei commemorationem Ire in vniuersum mundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizare in nomine Patris Filij et Spiritus sancti c. were giuen to all the Apostles in an Arithmeticall proportion and not Geometricall 71. If this will not serue they will tell you Petro datas esse claues vt capiti caeteris vt membris If wee answere that Saint Peter was not then the Head when the Keyes were giuen but was chosen afterwards by the consent of the Apostles when our Sauiour was ascended as their Anacletus testifies who saith Apostolos alioqui pares in honore et potestate Dist 21. c. in nouo Petrum Principem suum esse volnisse Suarez will glosse it and tell you Suar. de Leg. l. 4. c. 3. that Illud verbum Voluere non de voluntate antecedente siue eligente sed de voluntate consequente et acceptante intelligendum esse that phrase would haue him their chiefe or Prince was to be vnderstood not of the electing him but of the consenting to his election made by our Sauiour Cic. Nolite existimare iudices non vnam et eandem omnibus in locis esse fraudatorum et inficiatorum impudentiam they hope that any mist of an obscure distinction will bleare the eyes of their partiall Readers The Apostles saith Anacletus being alioqui pares in honore et potestate voluerunt Petrum esse Principem suum If when the Apostles were equall in honour and power they would haue Peter their Head or Primate that will of theirs was antecedens et eligens for had hee beene chosen before by our Sauiour and so the will consequent and consentient as he supposeth then it could not haue beene said Apostoli pares in honore et potestate voluerunt c. but Apostoli impares in honore et potestate voluerunt for after Saint Peters preferment to this honour by our Sauiours appointment if any such were there was no imparitie in honour and power betweene him and his fellow-Apostles so that Apostoli c. voluerunt Petrum esse Principem suum implyeth their election of Saint Peter to the Primacie and not our Sauiours appointment of him 72. Secondly if we answere that all the Apostles were capita as well as Peter and Peter a member as much as they and though he had the Primacie and so might be caput in respect of them yet partakes equally those gifts which were equally giuen to them all though somewhat particular belong to the Primacie as the head in the body partakes indifferently that power or sense of feeling which is giuen to the whole body though it haue other senses proper to it selfe They will reply though they were giuen in the same measure and proportion to the Head and the members to Peter and the other Apostles yet both Potestas ordinis et iurisdictionis and the consequents of them were giuen to Peter as to the Head tanquam ordinaria et perpetuò duratura that is to him and to his successors but to the other Apostles Suarez Ibid. n. 8. per modum legationis et personalis muneris finiendi cum vitâ ipsorum 73. If we proue this to be false and shew that the power of the rest of the Apostles was not legantine to last for their liues onely without delegation but ordinary to them and their successors as Saint Peters was for Saint Iohn and Saint Paul and the other Apostles ordained many Bishops who receiued from them both potestatem ordinis and iurisdictionis and legislationis as they terme them falsly as will appeare in fit place They answere that for orders or ordination all the Bishops in the World then had the power and authoritie and succession mediâ autoritate Petri mediatè or immediatè Suarez Ibid. n. 25. for either Saint Peter made them Bishops or else the Apostles who were consecrated by Saint Peter and made Bishops by him 74. If you reply that our Sauiour made both Saint Peter and the rest of the Apostles Bishops immediately himselfe either as he made them all Apostles or when he made them all Apostles Bellarmine will tell you that the other Apostles were not made Bishops by our Sauiour but by Saint Peter and among many vanities not fit for this breuitie hee doth instance in Saint Iames the yonger who was made Bishop of Ierusalem by Saint Peter and the other Apostles not immediately by Christ and proueth it by three authorities viz. of Anacletus Anacl Epist 2. Euseb Eccles hist l. 2. c 1. Hieron de viris illus in Iacobum of Clem. Alexand and of Saint Hierome But this is first
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
â—â—ey esteeme fundamentall for the vulgar will suspeâ—â— our truth and fidelity vntill we discouer our adueâ—â—aries falshood and subtilty Cypr. de vnitate Eccles c. 2. and no maruell for Saint Cyprian saith Haeretici dum verisimilia mentiuntur veritatem subtilitate frustrantur Heretickes doe euen weaken and frustrate the truth by certaine false shewes and similitudes of it 4. Lactantius saith that as the way of wisedome Lactan. l. â— c. 7. or truth via illa sapientiae aliquid habet simile stultitiae hath somewhat in it that may seeme to be folly for as he saith in another place L. 5. c. 15. Sapientia suapte naturâ speciem quandam stultitiae habet as Saint Paul saith 1 Cor. 1.18 1 Cor. 1.23 Verbum crucis est pereuntibus stultitiae and Christus crucifixus gentibus stultuia so also the way of errour Via erroris cum sit tota stultitia saith Lactantius habet aliquid simile sapientiae the way of errour which is paued with fâ—lly hath some shew also of wisedome in it which sometimes deceiues them that seeme to be wise and sometimes is vsed by them who discerne the truth to deceiue the simple 5. Card. Bellarmine in his Bookes de Rom. Pontif. Monarchiâ Ecclesiasticâ offers himselfe a leader and guide in this way of errour but being Dux praeuaricatox subdolus now he leades them in one path and then in another wheresoeuer he may find any shew any colour of truth sometimes by a face of Scripture falsly vnderstood sometimes vnder the cloake of ancient traditions sometimes vnder the credit of the Fathers authority sometimes vnder the colour of phylosophicall reason sometimes with the counterfet aspect of logicall definitions 6. Now as all these kindes of proofes to an orthodoxe disputant are viae itinera veritatis Lactantius the Churches high and straite way to leade vs to Gods truth so to them who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nâ—zianzen calls them that is falsly informed in the Christian Religion and false informers of other they are diuerticula semitae anfractus by-pathes corners and diuerticles to leade men to errour and to this purpose many times Lactantius Dux iste coniungit omnes Bellarmine makes vse of them all and most of them runne together and meete in one center to maintaine this false Monarchy and vsurped tyranny 7. Primum fraudis diuerticulum as Tullie calles it the first crafty shift that I will obserue vnto you is abigere homines per inanem fallaciam which the Apostle notes to be a quality incident to false Teachers Colos 2.8 Colos 2.8 which is to diuert men out of the way of truth by Logicall fallacies and corrupting the definitions both of the Church and of a Monarchie by defining the Church so as it may fit their Monarchy and by deuising such a definition of a Monarchie as may fit their Church For when the Empire became possessio quasicaduca Cicero vacua an vncertaine and weake possession in eam homines occupati imperatoribus otio luxu abundantibus inuolauerunt vpon the power and priuiledges thereof crafty and ambitious Popes vsurped whilest the Emperours liued in sensuality and ease and so by consequent vpon the Church-gouernement also from which vsurped possessions they cannot endure to be remoued though Kings and Bishops now challenge againe their ancient right and natiue prerogatiues and yet being not able to maintane it by Sword they would hold their possession by colour of reason and originall right 8. And taking this as granted by all reasonable men which both Tullie the Orator teacheth vs that Omnis Câ— lib. 1. Offic. quae à ratione suscipitur de re aliquâ institutio debet à definitione proficisci that euery rationall disputation takes the beginning from definitions And Aristotle the Philosopher Dubia omnia contingentia de re aliquâ ex definitione illius soluenda sunt all doubts and questions which can arise in any businesse may be dissolued by the definitions of them they vse strange art Et ea quae naturâ diuersa sunt definitionibus coniungunt they make the Church and a Monarchie which are diuers by nature one and the same and ioyne them together by false definitions Cic. cont Rullam as Corinth doth conioyne duo maria maximè nauigationi diuersa which run along with two contrary streames 9. For a Monarchie as appeareth both by the Etymon which is vnius solius imperium Arist lib. 3. Polit. cap. 11. and by Aristotles definition is that forme of gouernment in quâ vnus praestantissimus vir rerum omnium potestate defungitur which definition Sanders doth acknowledge Sanders lib. 3. de visib Monar cap. 3. 10. The royalties or prerogatiues of a Monarch consist in two things in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in hauing power in himselfe and of himselfe only which is called also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus regia Ius regis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plenitudo potestatis and secondly in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vniuersall gouernment and command ouer all his territories 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or plenitudo potestatis semper subsistit in regis capite Fulnesse of power doth subsist in the Kings person and the prerogatiues which proceede from it as Ius nobilitandi legitimandi restituendi in integrum sententiam passos tam vitae honoribus quà m facultatibus the power and right to aduance at his pleasure to honour and nobility to legitimate to restore to their state such as are condemned both to their honours and possessions These and the like are merè regalia diuisionem vel communicationem non admittunt they cannot be diuided with any or communicated to any for then he to whom it is communicated or with whom it is diuided could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sub alterius potestate as all Subiects are and ought to be vnder a Monarch or King but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolute of himselfe also 12. The royalties which proceede â 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his dominion or gouernment are often communicated to inferiour Magistrates and Presidents and gouernours of Prouinces as the vse of tributes Subsidies and the like not the imposing of them which are proprieties of an absolute dominion such as Monarchs enioy 13. To this forme of Monarchicall gouernment by encroachment and vsurpation the Popedome is brought dum Patres-familias dormirent whilst Kings and Emperours were fast asleepe but yet it must be chalenged from Saint Peter by succession in his Stewardship and therfore Bellarmine proposeth this question and holds it affirmitiuely Fueritne Sanctus Petrus primus Ecclesiae Catholicae spiritualis Monarcha whether Saint Peter were the first spirituall Monarch of the Catholicke Church 14. And Gretzer he will proue it thus Si quis est caput vniuersale idem iure optimo Monarcha est cum independentis potestatis plenitudinem possideat at Petrus fuit caput vniuersale ergo Monarcha Here is absolute
Monarchie ascribed to St. Peter and so to the Pope Here is vnus Princeps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is regimen vniuersale 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is independentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is plenitudo potestatis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so by consequent as Suarez notes potestas legislatiua Suarez de Leg. lib. 4. c. 3. n. 2. and then by another consequent Coerciue power for hee that hath power to make a Law as Aristotle saith Ethic. 10. hath power to enforce it 15. And hereupon follow to the Pope all the prerogatiues and priuiledges Potestas dispensandi which naturally belong vnto temporall Monarchs as namely Suarez lib. 6. de Leg. cap. 12. n. 8. Potestas dispensandi secum in suis legibus quatenus illis etiam ipse ligatur A power to dispense with himselfe in his owne lawes so farre forth as they concerne or oblige a King which is only quoad vim directiuam not coactiuam Quae sententia saith Suar. communis est in summo Pontifice holdes in the power of the Pope in Ecclesiasticall Lawes as it holds in euery temporal Monarch or King quoad leges ciuiles in respect of ciuill and positiue Lawes and therfore where-as the generall rule is Omnem hominem capacem ordinis Suarez Tom. 5. in 3. Tho. disp 40. Sect. 7. n. 7. esse etiam capacem irregularitatis yet this exception must be put to the rule in honour of the Pope Si in terris habeat superiorem if he be not a Monarch which they falsly affirme to agree with the Pope to haue no superiour so that Licet contingat homicidium committere irregularis non fiet though he chance to commit murder yet he shall not be irregular Quia cum irregularitas sit de iure Pontificio non potest ipsum Pontificem summum comprehendere c. quia irregularitas pertinet ad vim coerciuam Legis which reacheth not the Pope because of his Monarchie and absolute superiority ouer the whole Church 16. And here-withall they inferre another Monarchicall prerogatiue to the Pope Imponendi tributa which is proper to Kings which is potestas imponendi tributa not onely in his owne territories temporall where hee hath directum dominium as other Kings haue but if it be necessary ad spiritualem finem for a spirituall end as namely to defend the Church from infidels and heretickes potest summus Pontifex imponere tributa temporalia and the reason is giuen quia sub eâ ratione habet supremam potestatem etiam in temporalibus for by that reason he hath supreame authority ouer euery Kings temporalties 17. And for the same causes as also in subsidium sibi necessarium he may directè impose tributes vpon the goods of the Church and reserue a part of the tenths for himselfe Suar. de Leg. lib. 5. cap. 14. quia in illo ordine per se directè est supremus princeps totius Ecclesiae supremus dispensator bonorum eius This Monarchicall prerogatiue Suarez maintaines Potestas nobilitandi 18. From thence also is drawne this Monarchicall prerogatiue potestas nobilitandi which in the Church is called potestas ordinis Hierarchici which is the power to create Bishops Suar. de Leg. l. 4. cap. 4. n. 27. arch-Arch-Bishops and Patriachs Qui ordo saith Suarez non sine authoritate Petri constitutus est for saith he most falsly and absurdly as shall be shewed in due place all the Bishops which were created by the other Apostles Saint Paul Saint Iohn c. and so consequently all since their time haue had their succession honour and dignity mediâ authoritate Petri Suar. Jbid. mediatè vel immediatè and so consequently from the Bishops of Rome Potestas restituendi in integrum 19. From thence also they chalenge another prerogatiue Monarchicall which is potestas restituendi in integrum sententiam passos a power to free those that are condemned for he can absolue not onely those who belong to his definite diocesse as he is Episcopus Romanus but any man in the whole World as hee is Pontifex Romanus and Monarch of the Church and that which is more he can absoluere defunctum à censurâ vti indulgentijs concessis pro defunctis and yet which is strange not exceede the bounds of his territories for that were absurd for any Monarch to challenge wherefore to make that good although the vse of those indulgences is on the earth and granted to men in their life for their present vse yet a certaine effect of that vse communicatur defunctis acceptatur in coelis is bestowed on the dead and ratified in heauen quia totum hoc cadit sub territorium potestatem Pontifici concessam Suarez de Leg. l. 8. c. 26. n. 18. both Heauen and Earth belong to the Popes territories as Suarez saith 20. Finally Potestas absoluendi ab infamiâ because it is found among the prerogatiues of Kings Quandoque absoluere paenam non infamiam quandoque paenam infamiam abolere sometimes to acquit from punishment but not from infamy and sometimes to pardon both punishment and infamy that no prerogatiue may be wanting to the Popes vsurped Monarchy Tho. 2 2◠q. 68. ar 4. potest infamiam Ecclesiasticam remittere saith Thomas which priuiledge being harsh the Schoole distinguisheth of it and vnderstands it de infamiâ iuris not facti for labem illam Soto de Instit iure l. 5. q. 5. ar 4. quae turpi facto annexa est nemo delere potest as Soto concludes no man whosoeuer can wash out that staine of infamy which by nature inhereth to a foule wicked action because saith he Ad praeteritum non est potentia If the infamy be inherent by the nature of the fact not positiue by Law 21. Thus you see if Kings had lost their prerogatiues and royalties where you may finde them euen in the Popes vsurped Monarchy where they are on foot and in daily practise or contemplation In which discourse I did somewhat the more enlarge my selfe that you might take occasion thereby to enter into a due consideration of them and the naturall grounds from whence they proceede because this age hath many Monarchomachos I may say Theomachos in opposing Gods diuine institution in the naturall prerogatiues which belong to Kings 22. For those Schismatickes in Religion who affect Statizing and Cantonizing in the Common-wealth which they would haue popular and superintending in the Church which they would haue presbyteriall doe at their meetings priuate and publike preferre as the onely deformities of Church Common-wealth the Monarchical prerogatiues of Kings and the Aristocraticall power and iurisdiction of Bishops to be redressed fondly imagining out of a kind of affected and well-suited ignorance to their profession that the naturall prerogatiues of Kings which are inbred in their Crownes and the Euangelicall power of Bishops which is ingrafted by the
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
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
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
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
aperire would seeme honestly and finally to determine this doubt and resolue this question but deludes the simple supine Reader with a new false subtle and counterfeit definition of the Church 29. Hauing thus by subtletie fitted the Church to a Monarchie by thrusting the Bishop of Rome into the definition of it because the nature of the Church-gouernement which is Aristocraticall will not beare that absolute power of one Monarch Cypr. de vnitate Eccles for Saint Cyprian saith Hoc esse caeteros Apostolos quod suit Petrus pari consortio praeditos honoris potestatis that is There was no difference in dignitie and honour betweene the rest of the Apostles and Saint Peter nor consequently betweene other Bishops and the Bishops of Rome but onely a matter of precedencie and order which is naturall to all Societies they doe therefore frame out such a Monarchie as may suite with this Aristocracie and Colledge of Bishops which Monarchie as Bellarmine describes it requires Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 3. Vt sit in repub summus aliquis princeps qui omnibus imperet nulli subijciatur which is a sufficient description of a true Monarch but when hee addes what kinde of men are subiect to this Monarch hee annihilates the former description for saith he notwithstanding this Monarch be summus Princeps nulli subijciatur omnibus imperet tamen Praesides prouinciarum vel ciuitatum non sunt Regis Vicarij siue annui Iudices sed veri Principes his subjects which gouerne his Cities or prouinces must not be Lieuetenants or annuall Presidents or Iudges but true and absolute Princes or Monarchs as the chiefe Monarch is qui imperio summi Principis obediant interim prouinciaÌ„ vel ciuitatem suam non tanquam alienam set vt propriam moderentur who must obey the chiefe Monarch and yet doe what they list in their Cities and Prouinces 30. This kinde of gouernement or Monarchie for ought I haue read is found in Vtopia onely to be absolute Princes Kings or Monarchs and yet to be subiect to another Monarch which implies contradiction to be absolutely first and yet second to another of the same order to be soueraigne gouernour and yet subiect to a greater of the same society to be a Monarch and gouerne alone and yet obey a superiour Monarch in his owne estate to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 collega to haue Ius Regis and yet arbitrium subditi all which are abhorring from the nature of a Monarch and imply contradiction 31. And where he doth instance and affirme the like Monarchicall gouernment of the Church to haue been in the old Testament vnder Dukes Iudges and Kings it is false and fallacious for the gouernment vnder Moses was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph cont Ap. Dei imperium that of the Iudges if it were not Theocraticall was Aristocraticall not Monarchicall their power was limited to the warres onely they had not the prerogatiues which were due vnto Monarchs nor that Ius Regis which is mentioned 1 Sam. 8. they could not impose tributes and taxes on the people their time was limited they wanted these and many other priuiledges which belong vnto Monarchs as is proued by Abulensis in his Preface to the booke of Iudges 32. But the gouernment of the Kings was absolutely Monarchicall like that of the Gentiles as appeareth in Sam. 1.8 not like that Monarchie which Bellarmine here describes where absolute Monarchs are subiect to the chiefe Monarch for the Principes populi were not true Monarchs or absolute Princes as hee requires them to be but Tribuni Exod. 18. Centuriones Quinquagenarij Decani qui iudicabant plebem omni tempore such as Iudges and Presidents are vnder our Monarchs and all neighbour-Kingdomes And the present gouernment of the Empire which he would haue the Church resemble is not Monarchicall in respect of the Princes Electors but meerely Aristocraticall though he be in his owne signiories an absolute Monarch 33. But this Chimericall Monarchie is deuised in the temporall state to couer the disordered Monster of their spirituall gouernment wherein the Pope is an absolute Monarch as also all Bishops are said to bee and yet subiect to him as Gretzer confesseth Gretz de Rom. Pont. li. 1. ca. 8. Nihil vetat saith he quemlibet Episcopum in suâ Dioecesi vt caput sic Monarcham vocari cum eius potestas à nullo in eius Dioecesi sed à solo vniuersali Pastore dependeat Nihil vetat Yes the definition of a Monarch will not admit it which he giueth before viz. Independens plenitudo potestatis for the power of a Bishop with them is not independens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but dependeth on the power of the Pope a Bishop with them is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnder an higher power he hath not plenitudinem potestatis appeales may bee made from him tributes imposed vpon him his power suspended and himselfe excommunicated and other the like from all which Monarchs are free 34. And yet Nihil vetat Episcopum in suâ Dioecesi sicut caput sic Monarcham vocari and his reason is as absurd as his proposition Cum eius potestas saith he à nullo in eius Dioecesi sed à solo vniuersali Pastore dependeat As if he should say Nihil vetat nothing hinders why the President of Ireland should not be called the head and Monarch of Ireland because hee hath his power from no man in Ireland but from King IAMES in England who is absolute Monarch ouer all his Kingdomes for so saith hee Nihil vetat quemlibet Episcopum in suâ Dioecesi vt caput sic Monarcham vocari cum eius potestas à nullo in eius Dioecesi sed à solo vniuersali Pastore dependeat which yet is most true being vnderstood of our Sauiour who is the vniuersall Pastor and Monarch of the Church from whom onely and wholly all the Bishops in the World receiue their spirituall power immediately but being affirmed of the Pope or Bishops of Rome as Gretzer meaneth it it is not onely treason against our Sauiours Maiesty and preregatiues for ipse est caput corporis Ecclesiae but also intolerable blasphemy Colos 1.18 and it inscribeth by a counterfeit definition in the Popes spirituall Crowne that which is proper to our Sauiours thigh and vestment Apoc. 19.16 Monarcha Monarcharum that is Rex Regum Dominus Dominantium which is the proper title of our blessed Sauiour and not to be challenged by any Monarch 35. Secundum fraudis diuerticulum the second sleight which Bellarmine vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 depraedari to steale away or carry away the Readers and deceiue them by Phylosophie which is another dangerous sleight and the Apostle exhorteth the Colossians to take heed of this aâ—so
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
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
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-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
any temporall Iurisdiction pertaining to the externall Ecclesiasticall Court which is now vsed land else-where deriued as shall be shewed in due place nor consisting of any politicall qualitie of punishment pecuniary or corporall to restraine men by feare but in a Discipline Ecclesiasticall wherein men were contained either by externall abstension as it was called that is Cyprian ep 11. ad Pompon abstaining from their societie who refused the Discipline by separation or excommunication as now we call it or by internall morall shamefastnesse which made them conformable for what Metus doth now after Iurisdiction granted to the Church that Pudor did in the beginning before the Church was strengthened by the ciuill power but of this by the way more shall be said in the proper place when we speake of the Primacie 50. Now the power which was giuen by our Sauiour to his Apostles and their successors the Bishops c. consisted in these and the like things Ligare soluere with a reference to sinnes which is supernaturall Mat. 28. not politicall habere claues which signifies the same to baptize in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost to teach those things which our Sauiour commanded them Hoc facere in eius commemorationem to administer the Sacrament of his body and bloud or if you will Sacrificare in eius commemorationem to offer a Sacrifice commemoratiue of his death and passion Pascere to feede his sheepe Mat. 28.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make Disciples of others of all nations as Christ made them his Disciples a word neuer vsed in the New Testament but in this great commission and as I take it saluo meliore iudicio implies Ordination and succession of Bishops for I doe not thinke that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are synonimaes signifying both of them Docere but that this new word not else-where found in Scripture but onely in this commission seemes to implye as the words following signifie their duties of ministring the Sacraments and preaching the Gospell a new thing or new succession of Officers or Disciples such as themselues were and the rest of the duties pertaining to that office This last and the other aboue specified are spirituall and supernaturall powers and are veritas certa de fide Suarez de â—eg l. 4. c. 2. n. 7. a truth to be beleeued 51. Wherefore seeing supernaturall power onely was delegated to the Apostles by their Monarch our Sauiour though supernaturall power be more excellent in respect of the end and the meanes then the politicall yet it is no consequent to say They haue the greater power therefore they haue the lesse because in power and magistracie nothing is delegated but by expresse words and commissions as I said it is no good argument Habet ius gladij ergo ius mulctam dicendi which is lesse 52. But all the arguments which the Iesuites make and alledge for this Monarchie are of this nature and chalenge power not by expresse Law or Commissions but by consequents and à maiore or à minore as thus Potest Petrus pascere Suarez de Leg. l. 4. c. 2. ergo dirigere ergo leges ferre ergo per leges coercere ergo est Monarcha Againe Potest ligare ergo vinculum inijcere ergo leges ferre ergo est Monarcha and many the like as we may reade in Suarez and others but seeing all the power Saint Peter had was delegated by our Sauiour and no Monarchie commended to him by expresse words wee deny their consequents and conclude that Saint Peter was no Monarch for Autoritas negatiua in materiâ supernaturali et fidei est sufficiens Jbid. c. 3. a. 16. This supernaturall power is not found in the Scriptures to be conferd on Peter therefore Peter had no such power no such Monarchie 53. In maintaining this argument wee make not the Church an Anarchie nor the gouernement in it without power both directiue and coerciue for it should not seeme to haue beene well instituted by our Sauiour if hee had not prescribed a proportionate power whereby to gouerne it but our Sauiours power and that which he delegated to his Apostles was to a spirituall and supernaturall end and the Media which are as it were the obiects and effects of that power are proportionate vnto that end supernaturall and spirituall The directiue power is spirituall the coerciue power is spirituall that is it vseth onely the spirituall sword Sit tibi velut ethnicus that is hath negatiue or priuatiue power or jurisdiction if I may so call it that is of withholding the Church prayers and Sacraments c. from obstinate offenders but no positiue temporall jurisdiction or temporall externall court judiciall which they hold by the fauour of Kings and the first Christian Emperours not by any naturall consequents drawne from the supernaturall power as shall be shewed in due place 54. Fiftly though wee all acknowledge a Primacie and deny this Monarchie in Saint Peter yet neither by Tibi dabo claues Matth. 16. where Bellarmine saith the Primacie was promised nor by Pasce oues me as Ioh. 21. where he saith it was giuen nor by any prerogatiue which he calleth confirmatiue can a Primacie be directly proued much lesse a Monarchie for nothing is promised in the one place or performed in the other or confirmed by the rest which is not common to Peter with the rest of the Apostles 55. For as when God made man first of the dust of the earth Inspirauit in eius faciem factus est homo in animam viuentem though hee be said Inspirasse in faciem yet he gaue life to the whole body and the soule was breathed into the whole body so that Inspiratio illa was not made for the face onely but for the whole body as God said Et factus est homo in animam viuentem So where our Sauiour said Mat. 16.18 Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. and Tibi dabo claues and Quodcunque ligaueris super terram though these words were spoken in person to Saint Peter yet they did not onely Inspirare in faciem giue power to the first or chiefe part which is Peter but reached indifferently to all the Apostles to the whole body For not onely Peter was Petra but all the Apostles were Petrae Apostoli saith Saint Hierome Hieron â—edibiae q. 8. Petrae vocabulum acceperunt or fundamenta as I shewed before the Keyes were giuen to them all ex aequo and they did all ligare and soluere ex aequo and so did the Bishops their successors for inde from hence saith Saint Cyprian from these promises and from this bestowing of the Keyes vpon Saint Peter Cypr. l. 5. epis 6. ad Lapsos per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit vt Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per