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
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-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
take notice of Luc. 22.25 Reges gentium dominantur eis qui habent eas in potestate benefici vocantur Vos autem non sis You must not be Kings you must not domineere The gouernment of my Church is not Monarchicall nor like the gouernment of the Kings of the World 41. Bellarmine seeing this cleare euidence against this pretended Monarchy and feeling the waite of it thinkes all would be well if he could decline the force of this blow and therefore falles to his accustomed shifts and saith that a Monarchy is not here denyed but the corruption and deflexion of a Monarchy into tyranny for he saith Bellar. de Rom. Pontif l. 5. c. 10. Dominum illis verbis non prohibere dominatum qualis esse potest principum regum piorum sed qualis est Regum ignorantium Deum qui tyranni potiùs sunt quam Reges God forbids not such gouernement as godly Kings and Princes vse but the gouernment of such Kings as know not God who are rather Tyrants then Kings 42. But see his inconstancy and thereby the weakenesse of his answere here he saith our Sauiour forbids a tyrannicall not a regall gouernment vnto his Church but in his third Booke he affirmes that our Sauiour denies both Bellar. de Pontif Rom. l. 3. c. 23. prohibet saith he dominatum regium atque tyrannicum ijs qui Ecclesiae proeesse debent he forbids both regall and tyrannicall dominion to all those who must gouerne his Church But lest he should enter his action of iniury for charging him wrongfully with a contradiction which were a great blemish to so valiant a Champion I doe imagine that in this place he doth confound regium and tyrannicum and makes them Synonimaes in hatred and detestation of Kings and Monarchs being one of that number 2 Pet. 2.10 which Saint Peter saith should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 despisers of domination gouernement Iude 8. and Saint Iude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blasphemers and slanderers of regall Maiestie and truly that same vis Iesuitica ipsa professio maledicendi doe seeme to vndertake and promise so much 43. But the former interpretation if these two be different makes well for his purpose and that sense saith he is euident Patet How thinke you By the interpretation of our Sauiour or his Apostles or the ancient Church No but yet clearely enough ex verborum Graecorum proprietate by the proper signification of the Greeke words But that is no sure rule for we alwayes may reason from the vse of a word in the Scripture not from the proprietie Sometimes we must admit a Metaphor or an Allegorie and dispute from a figuratiue and not from the proper sense of the word for as Saint Augustine saith Aug. trac 47. super Iohan. Per similitudinem Christus multa est viz. petra ostium lapis angularis c. quae per proprietatem non est Christ is many things figuratiuely which properly he is not as namely a rocke a doore the corner stone c. 44. But we will admit it for this place the propriety of the Greeke word shall beare it Matthaeus non ait saith hee Reges Gentium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. dominantur simpliciter sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. violenter dominantur therefore not Regall or Monarchicall gouernement is denyed but tyrannicall onely But though Saint Matthew say not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet S. Luke speaking of the same businesse saith from our Sauiour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that we may reply to Bellarmine Lucas non ait 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 .i. violenter dominantur but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dominantur simpliciter therefore by his owne interpretation not onely tyrannicall which is he corruption of a good regiment but Regall and Monarchicall which is a perfect kinde of regiment is denyed the Apostles and Church of God in Saint Matthew the tyranny in Saint Luke the Monarchie 45. Bellarmine could not be ignorant that Saint Matthew vsed one word and Saint Luke the other in the same argument Sed quid prodest videre eum veritatem as Lactantius saith quam nec defensurus est Lactan. l. 2. c. 3. nec secuturus what is it the better for him to see and know the truth which he will neither defend nor follow He playes on the aduantage and supposall either of the ignorance or negligence of some supine Readers 46. But lest he should reply yet without all shew of reason that Saint Luke is to bee interpreted by Saint Matthew rather then Saint Matthew by Saint Luke First we alledge that he hath not our assent that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth tyrannicall gouernment but we haue his owne confession that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies dominari simpliciter therefore if the Holy Ghost intend the same thing by both the Euangelists as it is euident he doth then by both the words absolute dominion or Monarchicall regalitie is forbidden if they intend two sences then both the one and the other are denyed and we haue our purpose 47. Secondly it is euident by the words of our Sauiour Luke 22. that Regall or Monarchicall gouernement is forbidden there Luke 22. For St. Luke saith Those Kings of the Nations which the Apostles must not be like are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as haue power ouer them and are termed bountifull but Potestas est quaedam magna perfectio Abulens sup Mat. c. 20. q. 92. nam de potissimis attributis diuinis ponitur Power is a certaine great perfection for it is one of the chiefe attributes of God and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is euer taken in bonam partem in a good sence The curing of the man which was borne lame is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 4.8 Acts 4. and it is taken pro beneficio for a benefit 1 Tim. 6. 1 Tim. 6.2 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed to our Sauiour by Saint Peter Acts 10. Acts 10.38 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that it is euident that our Sauiour saith they shall not be like Kings no not the best Kings who take their denomination of liberality and bounty 48. For bounty is a Kingly vertue maximè regium est quos volunt ad honores extollere and it is most princely for Kings to grace with honors whom they please and they whom Kings aduance must be honoured by the people Iac. 1â—â— Therefore when Saint Iames forbids vs to honour them which be rich he makes an exception to it saying Si tamen perficitis legem regalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. bene facitis Verse 8 9. Notwithstanding if ye fulfill the Royall Law c. ye doe well but if ye regard the persons ye commit sinne Where Catetan obserues that rich men may chance to be honoured for two causes Caietan super locum Altera est ex personarum acceptione the one is out
were fellow-Ministers and seruants in the house of God What an honor is this to be exalted lifted vp by the blessing of Kings by the fauour of Bishops beyond our fellowes Who am I or what is my Fathers house what is my worth what is my seruice that I should be exalted aboue and before others Verily he that said Amice ascende superiùs had a sure confidence that thou wouldst be his friend If wee be found otherwise negligent slothfull not trusty in our Masters seruice but couetous or proud exalting our selues in pride and tyranny ouer our fellow-seruants it will not succeed well with vs. Hee that lifted vs vp can cast vs downe many wayes when it will be too late to complaine Psal 101. as it is in the Psalme Quoniam eleuans allisisti me Saint Bernard therefore said well Non est Bernard quod blandiatur celsitudo vbi solicitudo maior Celsitude in our offices threatens vs dangers solicitude in our Ministery allowes vs for friends 92. This solicitude in our Ministery as I haue said is proposed to vs by the example of the Law-giuer himselfe who was himselfe in the middest of the Apostles Luc. 22. tanquam qui ministrat and who can thinke himselfe in-glorious by the sole title of Minister wherewith the Master of glorie hath first signed himselfe and this was that which Saint Paul gloried in more then in the power of his Apostleship which was not inferiour to that of Saint Peter Ministri Christi sunt ego and brags not of any Riches Power Iurisdiction but of his labours his stripes his imprisonment and the like 93. For the true care and solicitude of a Minister of Christ doth not stand with a care of our owne riches honour and Iurisdiction which made Saint Paul say Philip. 2.19 Neminem habeo c. qui de vobis germanè solicitus sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why so Omnes enim quae sua sunt quaerunt These Saint Augustine saith are not Filij but Mercenarij they labour not for the inheritance which is promised as Sonnes doe but like Mercenaries for the wages of worldly riches and honour and yet for all that will preach Christ continually Aug. Tract 46. in Johan Multi in Ecclesiâ commoda terrena sectantes Christum tamen praedicant per eos vox Christi auditur sequuntur ones non mercenarium sed vocem Pastoris per mercenarium Many that are in the Church seeke after earthly commodities and yet they preach Christ and by them is heard the voyce of Christ and the sheepe follow not the hyreling but the voyce of the shepheard by the hyreling None of these saith Saint Augustine who seeke their owne and not Iesus Christs will preach vnto you Quaere tua non quae Iesu Christi seeke thine owne and not that which is Christs Quod enim male facit non praedicat de Cathedrâ Christi inde laedit vnde male facit non vnde bona dicit so that no Minister 〈◊〉 germanè solicitus who seekes for here by his labour and preaching his owne profit and honour but whose solicitude is ioyned with piety and sanctity of life which if you marke well is seldome found in mercenario 94. Therefore Saint Peter as you haue heard excepts against these mercenary affections and bequeaths vs as it were per tabulas testatorias first 1 Pet. 5.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a care and solicitude to feede Christs flocke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose life and safety depends on vs and secondly that you might be germanè soliciti he wisheth you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. vers 3. to become exemplary formes or formall examples of good life and sanctitie vnto your flockes and when that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that arch-shepheard that Prince of shepheards shall appeare you shall receiue not as mercenaries temporalem mercedem conducentis festinanter exoptatam the temporall reward of him that hyres you which is speedily desired but as Sonnes aeternam hareditatem patris patienter expectatam the eternall inheritance of the Father which must patiently be expected not the glory of a golden triple Crowne which is now fought for but a Crowne of Amaranthus as the Apostle calls it Metaphorically Jbid. vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the incorruptible and neuer-fading crowne of glory which God send vs for his Sonne Iesus Christs sake to whom with c. AMEN THE THIRD SERMON Luke 12.42 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 Doubt not but hearing these words read whereby Bellarmine challengeth the high Stewardship that is the Church Monarchie vnto Saint Peter and so consequently to the Pope you remember Quid in adiutorio Domini tractare promiserim Aug. de verb. Apos ser 31. What by Gods helpe I promised to performe which I shall not neede to resume Aug. trac 17. in Iohan. Ne adhuc eadem repetendo ad illa quae nondum dicta sunt peruenire minimè permittamur lest peraduenture by repeating them I should not reach so farre at this time as I intended 2. I then entred into the first part which was to proue that Saint Peter had no spirituall Monarchie in the handling whereof Aug trac 46. in Ioh. Non sum dimissus coniecturae meae I shewed that it was to be determined by Scripture proofe onely because the regiment of the Church is confessed by both parts to be onely of our Sauiours institution and therefore I shewed Quid fecerit what he did to equalize his Disciples and quid dixerit what he spake by word of mouth by occasion of their manifold contention for the maiority or precedency which they thought to be Monarchicall not once onely but by many instances first that it was Aristocraticall Luc. 22.26 Qui maior est fiat sicut minor c. whereof I shall speake in fit place Secondly that it was not Monarchicall Ib. v. 25. for Reges gentium dominantur vos autem non sic and thirdly I shewed that Saint Peter practised no Monarchicall power seeing in the primitiue times the Church neither had riches nor coerciue power nor domination or honour without which a Monarchie hath no consistence Aug. in Jo. trac 46. 3. Now as Saint Augustine said Nulla est necessitas aliquid aliud quaerere for this is sufficient to confirme vs Protestants in the beliefe we professe Nulla est necessitas saith he sed tamen est voluntas not ambitiosa voluntas but iusta grounded vpon reason and this rule of Tullie Cic. 1. de Oratore Non sufficit id quod intendimus confirmare nisi id quod contra dicitur refellere possumus it is not sufficient to confirme our owne assertions but wee must remoue those obstacles which our aduersaries cast in our way those grounds which
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
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
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
therefore can no way proceede from the Primacie the Monarchie chiefe power remaining in our Sauiour 37. For he is the Monarchicall head of his Church the essentiall head Ipsum dedit caput Omnia subiecit sub pedibus eius Ephes 1.22 Mat. 28.18 Data est illi omnis potestas c. By which Monarchicall power he delegateth all his Apostles alike and makes them gouernours ouer all his Kingdomes They are all Capita but ministerialia capita secundaria capita instrumentalia Saint Peter had but the first place or Primacie among them with such preheminence and prerogatiues as they yeelded to that place The Church hath not two Monarchs for then must they be eiusdem dignitatis which is blasphemie Peter cannot be called Vicarius or Vice-roy or Prorex or Promonarcha for the delegation is alike and equall to all hee is but the first among the Proreges he gouernes not by his owne Lawes but by the Law of Christ or a generall Councell of the Apostles 38. Secondly our Sauiour is the Master-Key the Monarchicall Key Clauis Dauid he alone openeth he alone shutteth hee is the Essentiall Key Clauis coeli all the Apostles are Claues ministeriales claues ecclesiae the Keyes were giuen to St Peter but in the name of them all and in the name of the Apostles neither is the power of all the Keyes giuen vnto them or vnto Saint Peter absolutely and definitiuely for the absolute and definitiue power belongs onely to our Sauiour but he hath promised to binde and to loose that is to make good in Heauen whatsoeuer they shall binde or loose ministerially on Earth as his Substitutes Clem. Epist ad Jacob. fratrem Dom. and Vicars It is well noted that Episcopi vocantur claues Ecclesiae vt rectè dicamus Christum coeli clauem Apostolos Ecclesiae claues per quorum ministerium ad claues coeli peruenire possumus 39. Thirdly our Sauiour is the Monarchicall Rock or foundation of the Church Petra or Lapis in fundamentis Sion Lapis probatus Lapis Angularis Lapis pretiosus Lapis in fundamento fundatus Lapis essentialis Fundamentum primum maximum Aug. super Psalm 86. as Saint Augustine saith Fundamentum fundamentorum the Apostles are ministerialia secundaria fundamenta Saint Peter is not the onely ministeriall rocke or foundation St. Paul saith of them all Ministri estis vnusquisque secundum quod Dominus dedit Ego plantaui Apollo rigauit Dominus dat incrementum It is absurd therefore to thinke that the whole Church is supported or vnderpropt by any of these Rockes or foundations which are all ministeriall Although the name of Peter be vsed and termed the Rocke and the Keyes giuen him yet it was done figuratiuè significatiuè quatenus repraesentauit Ecclesiam they be Saint Augustines termes Petrus quando claues accepit Aug. super Psal 108. Ecclesiam sanctam significauit therefore when he was called Petra ecclesiā sanctā significauit Againe Ecclesiae Aug trac vlt. super Ioh. Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui Primatum gerebat figuratâ generalitate personam he saith that S. Peter in a figuratiue generality represented the person of all the Apostles as being a Primate not as a Monarch And Saint Hierome saith Hieron l. 1. aduers Iouin Super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet id alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claues regni coelorum accipiunt ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur Where then is Saint Peters Monarchie in this equality of power and authoritie You will say then where is his Primacie that Saint Augustine tells vs of Jbid. Why Saint Hierome mentioneth it there Though there be this equality saith he yet proptere à inter duodecim vnus eligitur vt capite constituto Schismatis tollatur occasio that one being constituted the Head or Primate there might be vnity and order in the Church and all occasion of contention for the first place remoued seeing in euery Aristocracie or equality or fellowship one must be chiefe or else there will be contentions and emulations among them and no order established 40. Fourthly our Sauiour is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Monarchicall Shepheard the Apostles all indifferently Pastores secundarij ministeriales and there is no doubt but that our Sauiour meant when he saide to Peter 1 Pet. 5.4 Pasce oues meas that Peter himselfe was one of those sheepe as well as the other Apostles for omnes fecit oues suas Aug super Jo. trac 123. pro quibus est omnibus passus and no more a Monarch-Shepheard then the rest were They were all sheepe in respect of the Monarch-Shepheard Christ and all Shepheards in respect of the rest of the Flocke For though those words were spoke to Saint Peter yet the scope and power of them reached to all the Apostles Hoc ab ipso Christo docemur saith Saint Basil Basil de vitâ sclit c. 23. qui Petrum Ecclesiae suae pastorem constituit c. Et consequenter omnibus Apostolis eandem potestatem tribuit cuius signum est quod omnes ex aequo ligant et absoluunt 41. But let our Sauiour and Saint Basil and all the company of holy Fathers conclude what they list Suarez de Leg. l. 4. c. 3. n. 1. yet Suarez he tells you Christum dum indefinitè dixit Pasce oues meas ostendisse Petri potestatem fuisse supremam et Monarchicam etiam super alios Apostolos But Saint Basil said that the indefinite speech Pasce oues meas was consequently vniuersall and included all the Apostles not as Sheepe but as Shepheards vtri creditis 42. But Suarez will proue that he intends Saint Peter onely and him a Monarch And first he would enforce it by authorities from the Canon Law Quae iura valdè bona sunt ad hoc saith Aluarez as namely Dist. 2. c. In nouo Test and Dist 19. c. Ita Dominus and 24. q. 1. c. Cum beatissimus and c. Loquitur and Dist 96. But the latter vsurping Popes are no competent Iudges in their owne cause Secondly hee would proue it by reason and the proper reason indeed and that is voluntas Christi Christs will is that Peter should be a Monarch which if they can proue wee will put it into our prayers and say Fiat voluntas tua and will joyne with them effectually for the performance of it Thirdly hee will make it good in congruitie that hee should be a Monarch Quia oportuit et decuit in Christi Ecclesiâ esse vnitatem mysticam et perfectissimum regimen But that we say is not a Monarchie simply but mixt with an Aristocracie which resembles the mysticall vnitie and regiment in Heauen where there is one Deitie Monarchicall and yet three Persons Aristocraticall equall in power nature dignitie c. and yet the Father hath Primatum ordinis et originis in respect of the Sonne and the holy
eosdem Praepositos gubernetur Thus you see that by this promise or power nothing is giuen or gotten that may enforce so much as a Primacie 56. How then commeth it to passe that the Fathers generally out of Tu es Petra and Tibi dabo claues and Pasce oues meas doe argue the Primacie or Principality to be in Saint Peter I answere not because the Primacie was heere promised or giuen vnto him but because the gifts were bestowed on the Church in his name rather then in the name of any other Apostle as wee may argue that the face is the prime place of a mans body as the Prouerbe is The face is the Market-place because when God would inspire the whole body it is said onely Inspirauit in faciem when neither the face was first inspired nor the rest of the body tooke life from it but at once all the whole Man was made anima viuens a liuing soule 57. It is a good rule which Saint Augustine sets downe Aug. Confess l. 10. c. 16. Omnes qui legimus nitimur hoc indagare atque comprehendere quod voluit ille quem legimus Now while euery man endeauours to finde out and to comprehend in the holy Scriptures that sense and meaning which hee intended who wrote the booke Quid mali est Jbid. saith Saint Augustine si hoc sentiat quod tu Lux omnium veridicarum mentium ostendis verum esse etiamsi hoc non sentit ille quem legit cum ille verum non tamen hoc senserit What ill is it if the Fathers out of this place Matth. 16. and that other Ioh. 21. should affirme Saint Peters Primacie which is true though our Sauiour in those places intended it not For although the Apostles themselues suspected no Primacie to be granted to S. Peter in those wordes as I haue noted before yet the Fathers when they perceiued it afterwards to haue beene conferred vpon him whether by our Sauiour or by the Apostles or by both shall be shewed in due place might very well and probably imagine that it was in these places insinuated 58. So that whereas two kinde of controuersies may arise cum aliquid à nuncijs veracibus per signa enuntiatur by occasion of some passage of Holy-writ one Si de veritate rerum dissensio est whether the matter in question be true or no another Si de ipsius qui annuntiat voluntate dissensio est whether it may be proued by this Text or no For the matter in question that is Saint Peters Primacie wee say with Saint Augustine Quod ad Petrum propriè pertinet naturâ vnus homo erat gratiâ vnus Christianus abundantiore gratiâ vnus idemque primus Apostolus But for the sense of those Scriptures we say also Quando ei dictum est Tibi dabo claues regni coelorum Quodcunque ligaueris super terram erit ligatum in coelis c. vniuersam significabat Ecclesiam which is shaken in this World with diuers temptations c. and yet falleth not because it is built vpon the Rocke Aug. super Joh. tract 1â—4 Vnde Petrus nomen accepit non enim à Petro petra sed Petrus a petra sicut non Christus à Christiano sed Christianus à Christo vocatur 59. And to omit the various interpretations of the ancient Fathers which may all stand true for one truth doth not prejudicate another wee say that these were not times for the Apostles to expect Monarchies or meaner Primacies and Principalities but Saint Peter was rather informed in those words of his passions and afflictions and the gates of Hell which should striue against him then of his commands or his power and authoritie and our Sauiour rather published his owne Deitie by occasion of Saint Peters confession Tu es Christus filius Dei viui Matth. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then Saint Peters principality and superiority 60. For by those two promises Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. and Tibi dabo claues though Saint Chrysostome saith more for Saint Peter Chrysost super Mat. Hom. 55. then Bellarmine doth admit viz. that Hîc pastorem futurae Ecclesiae constituit yet saith he his duabus pollicitationibus Christus ad alâ—torem de se of himselfe not of Peter opinionem Petrum adducit seipsum reuelando Filium Dei ostendit He rayseth Peter to an higher opinion of his Deitie and reuealing himselfe more proueth euidently that he is the Sonne of God For those things which God onely can giue namely Remission of sins and that The future Church should stand firme and immoueable against the violence of so many floods as should breake in vpon it as Saint Peter should doe against all persecutions and Martyrdome being Pastor Chrysost Ibid. Caput Ecclesiae haec inquam omnia quae solius Dei sunt se pollicetur daturum 61. And in that he said thrice Simon Iohannis diligis me and vpon his answere replyed thrice Pasce oues meas as the title of Petra was not proper to him but to all the Apostles nor hee alone had the keyes but all his fellowes with him so hee alone had not the Pastors office for Saint Ambrose saith Post trinam interrogationem Christi Amb. Pastor Amas me traditas Petro oues omnibus Apostolis contraditas the Sheepe were committed ioyntly to all the Apostles 62. Againe where Caietan saith that by these three questions Petre amas me Amas me plus quà m hi our Sauiour committed to Saint Peter Pontificatum that is the Monarchie Saint Augustine saith better that he prepared him to Martyrdome as appeares plainely in these words following where he saith Passurum te ipse praedixit August super Ioh. tract 123. qui te praedixerat negaturum And if wee stand vpon a Monarchie in these words Si diligis me pasce oues meas redditur negationi trinae trina confessio ne minùs amori lingua seruiat quà m timori Here is no Monarchie here is no Primacie for saith he Quid aliud est si diligis me pasce oues meas quám si diceretur si me deligis non te pascere cogita sed oues meas sicut meas pasce non sicut tuas gloriam meam in eis quaere non tuam Dominium meum non tuum lucra mea non tua So that he rather forbiddeth glory and profit and dominion to Saint Peter which are Monarchicall properties then instituteth any Monarchie or Primacie in this place 63. To conclude it is a weake consequent which is thus inferred Peter loued our Sauiour best therefore he gaue him the Monarchie or Primacie For if we should grant which seemeth true to Saint Augustine that Saint Peter loued our Sauiour more then the rest did yet Saint Iohn was beloued of our Sauiour more then Saint Peter and the rest of the Apostles Now in wordly preferments this is a rule Solemus praeponere
this Monarchie Non quia diuini sunt sed quia superbi sunt not because it stands with diuinitie but because it makes for their pride August Con. l. 12. c. 25. Nec nouerunt curant Christi sententiam sed amant suam non quia vera est sed quia sua est they care not what our Sauiour instituted or the Church practised but they loue their owne Monarchie not because it is lawfull but because they possesse it and like vsurpers forbeare no colour or pretext to vphold their possession 69. Not a Priest or Iesuite that deales in this cause but he doth plausum petere praestigiae seeke commendations by a new jugling-tricke by a counterfeit distinction or falsified authority to deceiue his Readers They say that Saint Peters Monarchie is concluded in those words Tibi dabo claues c. We answere Those words were not spoke to Peter onely but to all the Apostles and the whole Church and so inforce not this Monarchicall prerogatiue We proue this out of Saint Augustine Aug. super Ioh. 12. Hom 50. and they haue it themselues in the Canon Law 24. q. 1. c. Quodcunque where Saint Augustine saith that Quodcunque ligaueris c. was not spoken to Peter only but to the Church for Peter when hee receiued the Keyes Ecclesiam sanctam significauit Du-Vall the Sorbon confesseth that Saint Augustine saith Datas esse claues toti Ecclesiae but corrupts it thus id est Petro propter Ecclesiam as if Saint Augustine lacked language to expresse his meaning And by these absurd glosses they corrupt their owne Canons 70. When we proue that they were not giuen to Saint Peter propter Ecclesiam for the Church but to the Church immediately because all the powers which are giuen to Saint Peter were bestowed vpon all the Apostles immediatè a Christo to be held immediately of Christ and not of Saint Peter they confesse that they were giuen to all the Apostles immediately from Christ Suarez de Leg. l. 4. c. 3. n. 4. sed Petro diuerso modo magis perfecto but there being found no one word of proofe either in the Scriptures or Antiquitie Videte si responsio illa Aug. Ps 140. non dementia nominanda est when it is euident that Potestas clauium ligare soluere pascere hoc facere in mei commemorationem Ire in vniuersum mundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizare in nomine Patris Filij et Spiritus sancti c. were giuen to all the Apostles in an Arithmeticall proportion and not Geometricall 71. If this will not serue they will tell you Petro datas esse claues vt capiti caeteris vt membris If wee answere that Saint Peter was not then the Head when the Keyes were giuen but was chosen afterwards by the consent of the Apostles when our Sauiour was ascended as their Anacletus testifies who saith Apostolos alioqui pares in honore et potestate Dist 21. c. in nouo Petrum Principem suum esse volnisse Suarez will glosse it and tell you Suar. de Leg. l. 4. c. 3. that Illud verbum Voluere non de voluntate antecedente siue eligente sed de voluntate consequente et acceptante intelligendum esse that phrase would haue him their chiefe or Prince was to be vnderstood not of the electing him but of the consenting to his election made by our Sauiour Cic. Nolite existimare iudices non vnam et eandem omnibus in locis esse fraudatorum et inficiatorum impudentiam they hope that any mist of an obscure distinction will bleare the eyes of their partiall Readers The Apostles saith Anacletus being alioqui pares in honore et potestate voluerunt Petrum esse Principem suum If when the Apostles were equall in honour and power they would haue Peter their Head or Primate that will of theirs was antecedens et eligens for had hee beene chosen before by our Sauiour and so the will consequent and consentient as he supposeth then it could not haue beene said Apostoli pares in honore et potestate voluerunt c. but Apostoli impares in honore et potestate voluerunt for after Saint Peters preferment to this honour by our Sauiours appointment if any such were there was no imparitie in honour and power betweene him and his fellow-Apostles so that Apostoli c. voluerunt Petrum esse Principem suum implyeth their election of Saint Peter to the Primacie and not our Sauiours appointment of him 72. Secondly if we answere that all the Apostles were capita as well as Peter and Peter a member as much as they and though he had the Primacie and so might be caput in respect of them yet partakes equally those gifts which were equally giuen to them all though somewhat particular belong to the Primacie as the head in the body partakes indifferently that power or sense of feeling which is giuen to the whole body though it haue other senses proper to it selfe They will reply though they were giuen in the same measure and proportion to the Head and the members to Peter and the other Apostles yet both Potestas ordinis et iurisdictionis and the consequents of them were giuen to Peter as to the Head tanquam ordinaria et perpetuò duratura that is to him and to his successors but to the other Apostles Suarez Ibid. n. 8. per modum legationis et personalis muneris finiendi cum vitâ ipsorum 73. If we proue this to be false and shew that the power of the rest of the Apostles was not legantine to last for their liues onely without delegation but ordinary to them and their successors as Saint Peters was for Saint Iohn and Saint Paul and the other Apostles ordained many Bishops who receiued from them both potestatem ordinis and iurisdictionis and legislationis as they terme them falsly as will appeare in fit place They answere that for orders or ordination all the Bishops in the World then had the power and authoritie and succession mediâ autoritate Petri mediatè or immediatè Suarez Ibid. n. 25. for either Saint Peter made them Bishops or else the Apostles who were consecrated by Saint Peter and made Bishops by him 74. If you reply that our Sauiour made both Saint Peter and the rest of the Apostles Bishops immediately himselfe either as he made them all Apostles or when he made them all Apostles Bellarmine will tell you that the other Apostles were not made Bishops by our Sauiour but by Saint Peter and among many vanities not fit for this breuitie hee doth instance in Saint Iames the yonger who was made Bishop of Ierusalem by Saint Peter and the other Apostles not immediately by Christ and proueth it by three authorities viz. of Anacletus Anacl Epist 2. Euseb Eccles hist l. 2. c 1. Hieron de viris illus in Iacobum of Clem. Alexand and of Saint Hierome But this is first
Monarchie and it is to be thought that had their education beene there-after they would haue shewed themselues as prompt and ready to vphold the Monarchie as they be forward and resolute to oppugne the Hierarchie 89. For the Deuill who is praecursor viae stultitiae the chiefe guide in the by-pathes of errour and folly cuius vis potestas omnis in fallendo est whose chiefe power consists in falsehoods and fallacies as appeareth both by his discourse with our innocent parent and our innocent maker and redeemer Homines in fraudem non posset inducere Lactan. l. 6. c. 7. nisi verisimilia illis ostendando and there is as much probability at least in the defence of the Popes Monarchie as in maintaining the Puritans Democracie or oppugning our Hierarchie 90. Wherefore good counsell is not amisse in this place to take heede of these fraudes not rashly to giue credite to the Polemicall writings but to stand to the truth of our owne profession and to vse our best wit and industrie to discouer their fallacies for Inter ingenium diligentiam perpaulùm loci reliquum est arti or fraudi Vse your wits and diligence Cic. de orat l 2 and their fraudes will easily appeare 91. Neither are you to wonder or much to be moued that so sleight and weake glosses should captiuate so many with a false conceit and setled imagination of this Monarchie so that they should refuse the oath of Supremacie to their true Monarch nay euen the naturall oath of Allegiance to their Liege-Lords and Soueraignes euen in their temporalties with hazard of liberty life and liuing for you know that there is not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ignorantia purae negationis cum quis simpliciter alicuius rei cognitione destitutus est such as Children and meere rustickes are subject to and such as follow and maintaine a custome in errour who are vncapable of all conclusions of arts and other faculties but there is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist ignorantia prauae dispositionis cum quis falso argumento deceptus falsam sententiam animo complectitur and so perswadeth himselfe to know that which he knowes not or not altogether as hee ought to know it 92. Now this ignorance prauae dispositionis which is common to many Students is the mother of the first of those three kindes of error which Saint Augustine mentioneth Aug. de vtil Creden c. 4. and is this Cum id quod falsum est verum putatur etiamsi aliud qui scripsit putauerit as if a man should beleeue that Radamanthus heard and determined causes in Hell which concerned the dead because Virgil saith Gnossius haec Radamantus habet durissima regna Aeneid 6. Castigatque auditque dolos which is most false and Virgil himselfe neuer beleeued it but vsed poeticall fictions to teach and delight his Readers For I assure my selfe by most euident proofes of so many sleights and shifts and falsifycations and contradictions and all manner of fallacious dealings vsed by heretickes and false teachers of the Primitiue times and imitated by Bellarmine that he beleeues no more that the Pope is the Monarch of the Church then Virgil thought that Radamanthus was the Lord chiefe-Iustice in Hell 93. I take not vpon me herein to censure his learning which I admire for vbi benè nemo doctiùs as also vbi malè nemo fallacius the former excellencie is to be found in his writings against the Anabaptists Sectaries Schismatickes of these times but especially against the Arians and Antitrinitarians in his bookes De Christo but this that I speake is to note his dishonestie symbolizing with those false Apostles in all those sleights which St. Paul notes to be vsed in his time to seduce the simple and they that through weaknesse beleeue such teachers fall into two errors Aug. Ibid. as Saint Augustine notes Quòd rem non credendam credunt neque id putandus est credidisse ille quem legunt first they beleeue that which is false and secondly they falsly imagine that their teachers beleeue it 94. I speake all this to confirme you in that truth which you professe not that I thinke any here present tainted or infected with this errour for as Saint Augustine sometimes said beholding his Auditorie Aug. in Joh. tract 39. as I doe you Quidam fortasse sunt in istâ multitudine Arriani non audeo suspicari esse Sabellianos So there may peraduenture be present in this Auditorie certaine Puritans or Precisians I doe not beleeue there is any Papist Hoeresis ista as Saint Augustine said of the Sabellians nimis antiqua est paulatìm euiscerata Poperie in this place blessed be God is antiquated by little little in processe of time euiscerated vnbowelled and the heart of it broken Arrianorum autem as he saith videtur habere aliquam motionem quasi cadaueris putrescentis aut certè vt multum quasi hominis animam agentis The Puritan error seemeth to haue but little motion in the elder sort so much as may be in a putrifying carkasse or at the most Cic. as in a man giuing vp the Ghost but Qui norunt os adolescentioris Academiae they who know the conditions of many of the younger sort qui non delectu aliquo aut sapientiâ ducitur ad iudicandum sed â—â—petu nonnunquam quadâm temeritate think that this error hath taken hold fast on many of them Aug. Ibid Oportet inde reliquos liberari sicut inde multi liberati sâ—m It were well for the peace of the Church that the rest were deliuered from that error as others haue beene and were informed that they also hold this first kinde of error that Saint Augustine mentions and I haue obserued in the Papists Id quod fatsum est verâ—m putant cum aliud qui scripserunt putauerint they hold those positions which are absurdly false and destructiue of that forme of gouernement which our Sauiour left to his Church by one extremitie of the Democracie as the Papists doe in the other extremitie of a Monarchie and yet their leaders and guides and corrupters aliud quà m scripserunt putant beleeue not as they write and instruct others but the very opposite part which they seeme to oppose as appeareth both by this their ambitious encroachment vpon the Churches honour which none affect more preposterously or abuse more corruptly as also by their fraudulent manner of writing for in some of their bookes are found mille testimonia Vincent Lirin c. 37. mille exempla mille autoritates de lege de Psalmis de Apostolis de Prophetis but yet interpreted tam nouo tam malo more that you may be assured that they were racked and strayned to this purpose euen to contradict that truth that Hierarchie which their consciences acknowledged as you may obserue to omit others in Parkers schismaticall books of the Crosse and the Church gouernement where you may obserue more Scriptures and authorities of Fathers and Councells voluntarily abused to ouerthrow that ancient Christian cerâ—monie of the Crosse in Baptisme and the Churches Hierarchie then can be found in Bellarmine to maintaine his false vsurped Monarchie 95. Both these extremities know the truth which they oppose and though they be daily conuinced yet pro animositate suae peruersitatis as Saint Augustine said of the Rogatians contra veritatem sibi notissimam dimicant Aug. Epist 48. An impiety saith he quae fortasse Idololatraim superat and wherein the Diuels triumph aboue measure dum errores suos humanis erroribus fraudes suas humanis fraudibus pascunt Aug. de Catechiz rudibus c. 19. 96. But let vs speake nothing but the truth in these and the like questions let vs heare nothing but that truth which our Sauiour deliuered who himselfe prescribed the true forme of gouernement in his Church Out of his mouth wee haue learned him who is the truth out of his mouth we haue knowne his Church which is partaker of his truth from his word interpreted by his Church we haue learned the true Church gouernement which hee instituted and which we entertaine and in which wee liue and if we make our selues not vnworthy of the continuance of so great a blessing shall by Gods good fauour remaine in the same to the worlds end Grant this Lord Iesus the great MASTER and sole Monarch the Author and establisher of it To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost three persons and one God be ascribed all honour praise and glory for euer and euer AMEN FINIS ERRATA PAge 7. line 25. for Monarchium reade Monarchicum P. 13. l. 14. corruption r. corruption P. 25. l. 25. Dominm r. Dominum P. 32. l. 9. to makes law r. to make lawes P. 39. l. 22. not r. non P. 53. l. 19. seruus r. seruum P. 56. l. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 120. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 144. l. 22. imagine r. imagine
reason esteeme vs so that we should confound a Monarchie and Primacie and make them Synonimaes any more then Solus and Primus are whereof the one admits no fellow the other implies that there is some companion 4. Yet either pleading as it were simplicity or presuming of our ignorance or mastred by the power of truth he thus rankes or diuides his proofes from the Scripture Mat. 16. That the first place Tu es Petrus c. tibi dabo claues Thou art Peter and to thee I giue the Keyes pertinet ad promissionem Primatus The Primacie not a Monarchie is not yet giuen but promised there The second place where it is said to Peter Ioh. 20. Pasce oues meas c. Feede my Sheepe pertinet ad institutionem Primatus belongs to his institution or inuesting into the Primacie and yet no mention of a Monarchie and the other twentie Scriptures which he calleth the Prerogatiues of Saint Peter pertinent ad confirmationem Primatus belong to the confirmation of the Primacie So that nothing being entended heere to be proued but a Primacie which wee deny not the whole discourse in that respect is idle and requires no answer being onely a fallacie in aequiuocatione verbi as he abuseth it who hopeth that a Primacie may passe for a Supremacie as he would enforce an Aristocracie to be a Monarchie as before I noted 5. But this seemeth strange to mee and indeed absurd that the many-fold confirmation of this Primacie is found before the Institution of it as if confirmation should goe before Baptisme or the confirmation of a Kingdome before the Coronation or Institution into it For the institution of Peter into the Primacie is after our Sauiours resurrection Joh. 20. and many confirmations of it both in deede and in word are noted by him to precede his passion of which sort are the tenne first prerogatiues which Bellarmine mentioneth in the 17. 18. and 19. Chapter of his first Booke De Rom. Pontif Monarchiâ which is contrary to the rule of the Arch-deacon who is Panorm per excellentiam doctissimus canonistarum who saith Aluarez c. 1. n. 3. Quod Dominus ante resurrectionem elegit Petrum in Principem sed confirmationem distulit post resurrectionem 6. Of the Promise of this Primacie or Monarchie as Bellarmine calls it made to Saint Peter Matth. 16. Super hanc Petram c. and of the Institution of it Ioh. 20. Pasce oues meas c. which are the two main points in question I shall speake but very briefly because those things which I shall alledge are so cleare and euident that it may seeme a wonder that so many so learned men doe oppose or labour to obscure the sense and veritie of them and also because the consequents which they inferre vpon their false interpretations Dr. Andrewes Dr. Buckoridge haue beene exactly confuted by his excellent Maiestie and learnedly seconded by that Nobile par Episcoporum of Winchester and Rochester that there is no need of any addition or farther explication 7. I speake not this to derogate any whit from the reputation or honor of Saint Peter Honorabilius membrum in corpore Christi Ber. vas in honorem plenum gratiae veritatis who was to our Sauiour as Saint Stephen saith Moses was to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 7.20 De Petro quicunque detraxerit necesse est aut infirmitati aut inuidiae assignetur whosoeuer shall detract from that blessed Apostle it is to be ascribed either to his want of judgement or in enuie to the ouer-much honour or titles which the Papists giue him Into which contradiction I thinke I may say malediction some haue fallen while in opposition to the ouer-large and enforced prerogatiues which the Papists ascribe to Saint Peter they bring forth rationum copias whole troupes of reasons to proue his infirmities and imperfections I thinke I may terme them with Tullie copiolas for if wee shall measure them by the interpretations of the Fathers Cic. Sunt extenuatissimae et inopiâ bonarum rationum pessimè acceptae 8. The Fathers were so daintie of Saint Peters credite that Optatus hauing occasion to mention his fault in denying his Master While I speake of it saith he Ipsius Sancti Petri beatitudo veniam tribuat Optat. cont Parmen l. 7. si illud commemorare videar quod factum constat legitur and Saint Augustine when out of great affection to Saint Cyprian hee entred into a comparison betweene him and Saint Peter not simply but quantum attinet ad martyrij coronam for both suffered for our blessed Sauiour hee presently checkes himselfe that he might take occasion to explicate the comparison Caeterum vereri debeo saith hee ne in Petrum contumeliosus existam Aug. de Bap. cont Donat. l. 2. c. 1. quis enim nescit illum Apostolatus principatum cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum hee feared it might be a contumely to make any comparison wherefore he distinguisheth concluding thus Etsi distat Cathedrarum gratia vna est tamen Martyrum gloria though there be a difference in the honour or grace of their two Chayres or Sees yet they may be compared in the glory of their Martyrdome which is one and the same as Tertullian said Tertul. de Praescrip c. 24. Petrus Paulo in Martyrio coaequatur Peter and Paul and Paul and Peter are equall in Martyrdome 9. And Saint Augustine speaking also of Saint Peters great fault in denying his Master which some in those dayes ex fauore peruerso excusare nitebantur affirming that it was no sinne and that in those words Nescio hominem Homo nescio quid dicis Aug. in Joh. trac 66. Non sum ex discipulis eius hee denyed not his Master after hee had proued that Saint Peter did acknowledge a fault and reprooued himselfe and consequently those peruerse defenders vnde eos conuinceret produxisset lachrimas testes for as Optatus saith Nec doluisset Optat. cont Parm. l. 7. nec fleuisset si nulla interuenisset offensio lest hee should seeme to fall into the other extremitie or delight viz. to search into the imperfections of the blessed Apostle hee excuseth himselfe saying Aug. Jbid. Neque nos cum ista dicimus primum Apostolorum accusare delectat sed hunc intuendo admoneri nos oportet ne homo quisquam humanis viribus fidat 10. Here we finde obserued by Saint Augustine the two extremities we mentioned one vsed by the Papists peruersus fauor in excusando extollendo the other by some moderne writers peruersa delectatio in accusando These amplifie Saint Peters infirmities and exagitate them by the foule names of Curiositie Superstition Ignorance Ambition Arrogancie Wicked deuotion Lying Rashnesse c. Sparing in their Commentaries neither Apostles nor Prophets nor antient Patriarches a foule practise in the Primitiue Church and not to be imitated without great offence for to instance