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
ordinario Pastori cui succedendum erat alijs autem Apostolis tanquam Legatis vitalitijs as he calls them Legates for their life another distinction which is necessitati debita as necessary as the former without this the Popes Monarchie cannot be maintained proues it thus Because saith he it stands with reason and congruitie that it should be so Quia hic modus institutionis est magis consentaneus perfectae Monarchiae qualem esse Christi Ecclesiam Catholici intelligunt This is the Catholicke opinion as Suarez affirmeth that the Church regiment is perfecta Monarchia that is planè purè which Gretzer denies and not praecipuè Monarchicum which is Bellarmines scutum occulium his rustie shield hanged vp in a corner as a ready defence against a powerfull assault but being surueied it is found not scutum but cribrum not a shield but a sieue which will beare off no blowes nor hold any water as the Prouerbe is 24. This difference and inconstancy of opinion argues strongly the weaknesse of their cause and insinuates that the Church is no Monarchy but because it is the Catholicke opinion as Suarez saies that it is a perfect Monarchy which we absolutely denie wee will search to our ability the truth of the businesse which admits no other then Scripture proofe seeing it is confessed on both sides that the regiment of the Church is of our Sauiours institution Wee will therefore consider what he hath ordained concerning this regiment either by plaine tearmes or by necessarie consequence for whatsoeuer hee hath said or done in the Scripture Ser. 109. de Tempore as St. Augustine saith Vox est Christi dicentis obserua 25. It is granted that the Kingdome of Iuda was Monarchicall but being taken from them by the Romans their only hope was on the Messias whom they expected a long time Luc. 2.25 Luc. 2.32 as the consolation of Israel Lu. 2.25 as the glory of Israel vers 32. as the redemption of Israel Ioh. 24. John 24. Acts 1. that is Qui restitueret regnū Israel Act. 1. which both Iewes and Gentiles vnderstood of their temporal kingdome for the Magi enquired Vbi est qui natus est Rex Iudaeorum Mat. 2. and brought presents vsed to be offered to Kings and Ioh. 6. Joh. 6. the people would haue taken him vp and made him a King and the chiefe Priests crye Mat. 27. Si Rex Israel est Mat. 27. descendat de cruce c. and in this error all the Apostles continued ioyntly without exception all the time that he liued on earth and they were in continuall strife Quis eorum maior esset who should be the greatest in this Kingdome after him neither could this carnall opinion be wrought out of them by our Sauiour till experience shewed the contrarie after his passion 26. Now our Sauiour being to erect a spirituall kingdome that hee might remoue all occasion of strife and contention of pride and ambition chose for his Apostles twelue men of equall condition who should succeede him in the gouernement and least peraduenture any one might be of better parentage then another his Law was that they must forsake Father and Mother and all their kindred and if richer then other they must forsake House and Land Shippe and Nets and all and so follow him So that our Sauiours first care was to strippe them as it were naked of all they had that finding no difference or preheminence among themselues in worldly faculties they might all appeare equall and of one condition 27. Hauing thus equalized them and freed them from all worldly respects hee diuides his spirituall gifts and endowments the spirituall offices and honours of his Church indifferently among them He gaue to them all the office of Apostleship hee made them all equall and ioynt gouernours of his Church he sent them out indifferently two and two to preach he gaue them all alike power to worke miracles and to cast out Diuels and to cure diseases that there might be no emulation among them hee washed indifferently all their feete they had all alike power to binde and to loose to remit and reteyne sinnes he promised his presence and Holy Ghost indifferently to them all and in this paritie and equalitie hee founded his Church 28. Notwithstanding as in temporall Kingdomes in an equalitie of honour and state giuen vnto many by the absolute Prince some yet are more imployed then others some as it seemeth better fauoured then others and more beloued so it happened in this spirituall Kingdome for most conference passed betweene our Sauiour and St. Peter and most loue was shewed to the Apostle St. Iohn and more familiaritie and secrecie vsed with Peter Iames and Iohn then with the rest and yet all stood vpon their equallity and neither challenged nor yeelded superiority to other 29. For selfe-loue and a conceit of equallitie of place and desert in their loue and seruice to their Master made euery one thinke himselfe capable of that Kingdome which they carnally conceiued notwithstanding particular fauours were done vnto some For after that great promise made to St. Peter Mat. 16. Mat. 16.19 Tibi dabo claues to thee will I giue the keyes which the Pope makes the first promise of the Monarchie to St. Peter and his successors the Apostles conceiued no such thing but questioned after that Quis eorum maior esset who was the greater of them So though Peter Iames Io. 17. and Iohn had beene especially taken apart to see the transfiguration and they three onely seuered from the rest to be present at the raysing of the daughter of Iairus Marc. 3.37 yet there was contention afterward among them Quis eorum videretur maior not which of them three should be the greater but Quis eorum which of the twelue should be the greatest so also though the tribute was payed for our Sauiour and Peter Mat. 17. Mat. 17. and greatest affection was shewed to Iohn when he leaned on his Masters breast Ioh. 13. Joh. 13. yet the contention continued Quis eorum maior esset not which of those two Peter and Iohn Luc. 22. but which of the twelue should be the greater euen after the last Supper And when our Sauiour had satisfied them that there was no such superiority to be expected among them he continues still his speciall fauours to Peter Iames and Iohn and the same night taking them apart Mat. 26.37 coepit coram eis tristari mastus esse he beganne to be sorrowfull and very heauy before them testifying that those extraordinary actions were not any argument of supremacie or Primacie 30. This behauiour of the Apostles contending so often for the first place which they thought to be Monarchical according to the forme of the gouernment of the Iewes gaue occasion to our Sauiour to speake diuers and sundry times of this question 31. If it be demanded why the Apostles contended so often
â—â—ey esteeme fundamentall for the vulgar will suspeâ—â— our truth and fidelity vntill we discouer our adueâ—â—aries falshood and subtilty Cypr. de vnitate Eccles c. 2. and no maruell for Saint Cyprian saith Haeretici dum verisimilia mentiuntur veritatem subtilitate frustrantur Heretickes doe euen weaken and frustrate the truth by certaine false shewes and similitudes of it 4. Lactantius saith that as the way of wisedome Lactan. l. â— c. 7. or truth via illa sapientiae aliquid habet simile stultitiae hath somewhat in it that may seeme to be folly for as he saith in another place L. 5. c. 15. Sapientia suapte naturâ speciem quandam stultitiae habet as Saint Paul saith 1 Cor. 1.18 1 Cor. 1.23 Verbum crucis est pereuntibus stultitiae and Christus crucifixus gentibus stultuia so also the way of errour Via erroris cum sit tota stultitia saith Lactantius habet aliquid simile sapientiae the way of errour which is paued with fâ—lly hath some shew also of wisedome in it which sometimes deceiues them that seeme to be wise and sometimes is vsed by them who discerne the truth to deceiue the simple 5. Card. Bellarmine in his Bookes de Rom. Pontif. Monarchiâ Ecclesiasticâ offers himselfe a leader and guide in this way of errour but being Dux praeuaricatox subdolus now he leades them in one path and then in another wheresoeuer he may find any shew any colour of truth sometimes by a face of Scripture falsly vnderstood sometimes vnder the cloake of ancient traditions sometimes vnder the credit of the Fathers authority sometimes vnder the colour of phylosophicall reason sometimes with the counterfet aspect of logicall definitions 6. Now as all these kindes of proofes to an orthodoxe disputant are viae itinera veritatis Lactantius the Churches high and straite way to leade vs to Gods truth so to them who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nâ—zianzen calls them that is falsly informed in the Christian Religion and false informers of other they are diuerticula semitae anfractus by-pathes corners and diuerticles to leade men to errour and to this purpose many times Lactantius Dux iste coniungit omnes Bellarmine makes vse of them all and most of them runne together and meete in one center to maintaine this false Monarchy and vsurped tyranny 7. Primum fraudis diuerticulum as Tullie calles it the first crafty shift that I will obserue vnto you is abigere homines per inanem fallaciam which the Apostle notes to be a quality incident to false Teachers Colos 2.8 Colos 2.8 which is to diuert men out of the way of truth by Logicall fallacies and corrupting the definitions both of the Church and of a Monarchie by defining the Church so as it may fit their Monarchy and by deuising such a definition of a Monarchie as may fit their Church For when the Empire became possessio quasicaduca Cicero vacua an vncertaine and weake possession in eam homines occupati imperatoribus otio luxu abundantibus inuolauerunt vpon the power and priuiledges thereof crafty and ambitious Popes vsurped whilest the Emperours liued in sensuality and ease and so by consequent vpon the Church-gouernement also from which vsurped possessions they cannot endure to be remoued though Kings and Bishops now challenge againe their ancient right and natiue prerogatiues and yet being not able to maintane it by Sword they would hold their possession by colour of reason and originall right 8. And taking this as granted by all reasonable men which both Tullie the Orator teacheth vs that Omnis Câ— lib. 1. Offic. quae à ratione suscipitur de re aliquâ institutio debet à definitione proficisci that euery rationall disputation takes the beginning from definitions And Aristotle the Philosopher Dubia omnia contingentia de re aliquâ ex definitione illius soluenda sunt all doubts and questions which can arise in any businesse may be dissolued by the definitions of them they vse strange art Et ea quae naturâ diuersa sunt definitionibus coniungunt they make the Church and a Monarchie which are diuers by nature one and the same and ioyne them together by false definitions Cic. cont Rullam as Corinth doth conioyne duo maria maximè nauigationi diuersa which run along with two contrary streames 9. For a Monarchie as appeareth both by the Etymon which is vnius solius imperium Arist lib. 3. Polit. cap. 11. and by Aristotles definition is that forme of gouernment in quâ vnus praestantissimus vir rerum omnium potestate defungitur which definition Sanders doth acknowledge Sanders lib. 3. de visib Monar cap. 3. 10. The royalties or prerogatiues of a Monarch consist in two things in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in hauing power in himselfe and of himselfe only which is called also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus regia Ius regis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plenitudo potestatis and secondly in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vniuersall gouernment and command ouer all his territories 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or plenitudo potestatis semper subsistit in regis capite Fulnesse of power doth subsist in the Kings person and the prerogatiues which proceede from it as Ius nobilitandi legitimandi restituendi in integrum sententiam passos tam vitae honoribus quà m facultatibus the power and right to aduance at his pleasure to honour and nobility to legitimate to restore to their state such as are condemned both to their honours and possessions These and the like are merè regalia diuisionem vel communicationem non admittunt they cannot be diuided with any or communicated to any for then he to whom it is communicated or with whom it is diuided could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sub alterius potestate as all Subiects are and ought to be vnder a Monarch or King but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolute of himselfe also 12. The royalties which proceede â 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his dominion or gouernment are often communicated to inferiour Magistrates and Presidents and gouernours of Prouinces as the vse of tributes Subsidies and the like not the imposing of them which are proprieties of an absolute dominion such as Monarchs enioy 13. To this forme of Monarchicall gouernment by encroachment and vsurpation the Popedome is brought dum Patres-familias dormirent whilst Kings and Emperours were fast asleepe but yet it must be chalenged from Saint Peter by succession in his Stewardship and therfore Bellarmine proposeth this question and holds it affirmitiuely Fueritne Sanctus Petrus primus Ecclesiae Catholicae spiritualis Monarcha whether Saint Peter were the first spirituall Monarch of the Catholicke Church 14. And Gretzer he will proue it thus Si quis est caput vniuersale idem iure optimo Monarcha est cum independentis potestatis plenitudinem possideat at Petrus fuit caput vniuersale ergo Monarcha Here is absolute
Rochester D. Andrewes D. Buckerige of whom I may say as Tullie did of Carneades Tul. 2. de Orat. Nullam rem defenderunt quam not probarint nullam oppugnauerunt quam non euerterint But although all former doubts haue beene sufficiently cleared and determined yet some new proofes may euer be added and withall vsus inuentorum ab alijs scientia dispositio the vse Sen. and knowledge and disposing of those things whâ—ch are found out by others As there are medicines enough set downe by Antiquitie to cure sore eyes so that our Physitians neede not labour for more but yet there is somewhat left wherein they may exercise their best endeauours and studies because as Seneca saith Sen. Epist 65. Haec morbis temporibus aptanda sunt hoc asperitas oculorum conleuatur hoc palpebrarum crassitudo tenuitur hoc vis subita humor auertitur hoc acuitur visus 6. And as St. Bernard said to Eugenius of doctrinall or morall matters and the reformation of the Church Non planè totum quiuere emundare prophetae aliquid filijs suis Apostolis Bernard de Consid ad Eugen. l. 2. c. 6. quod agerent reliquerunt aliquid ipsi parentes nostri nobis sed nec nos ad omne sufficiemus aliquid profectò nostris relicturi sumus successoribus illi alijs alij alijs vsque in finem so in our ordinary controuersies and polemicall questions Multum egerunt qui ante nos fuerunt sed non omnino peregerunt because there are daily some fresh replies and assaults which yeelde some occasions to other mens labours But to the matter proposed 7. It is confessed on all hands that the spirituall power as we truely call it or spirituall Iurisdiction of the Church as the Papists tearme it improperly is that onely which it hath receiued from our Sauiour himselfe the first founder of it Manifestum est saith Franciscus Syluestris in his commentaries vpon Thomas Contra Gentiles quod Christus ipse regimen Ecclesiae suae instituit Fran. Syl. l. 4. c. 76. non autem ipsa Ecclesia aut populus Christianus neither Popes nor Emperours nor other Christian Kings appointed the spirituall regiment of the Church but our Sauiour onely and Sanders saith Ecclesia neque agnos quidem Sand. de visio Monar l. 1. c. 6. et oues per autoritatem suam absque Dominica institutione per Sacramentum Baptismi operante creare potest quanto minùs per se potest creare pastores Doctores c. The Church of her owne authoritie can neither make Lambes nor Sheepe without the institution of Christ working by the Sacrament of Baptisme by how much lesse then of her selfe can the Church create Pastors and Doctors The Spirituall regiment therefore is to be sought for in the Scriptures onely The temporall power and truely so called Iurisdiction of the Church some deriue from our Sauiour onely some from Christian Emperors and Kings and some from both 8. Of the first kinde who deriue the temporall power from our Sauiour onely are the Canonists and Bartholus the Ciuilian and Bozius and those other ordinis oratorij who holde that our Sauiour was the temporall Monarch of the world and left his Monarchie to St. Peter c. as appeareth in the Canonists and Canon Law Cap. 10. § 32. Quae iura valdè bona sunt ad hoc as Aluarez tells vs in speculo summorum Pontif Regum and no maruell for they were made by the Popes themselues and glossed by their flatterers This opinion is refelled by Bellarmine and he needs no helpe of vs vallatus auxilio pugnatorum Jos 8.16 being assisted with that whole societie who fight ioyntly with him 9. They who deriue the temporall power which the Church possesseth from the bountie and liberality of Christian Monarchs are the Protestants supportantes sibi inuicem in veritate ioyntly maintaining this truth by plaine euidence of vncorrupt Antiquitie acknowledging by whom euery great priuiledge was giuen as in place shall be proued 10. Now the Iesuites and that crew vigilantes animi domini necessitatibus seruientes being very vigilant and carefull to serue their Masters turne chalenge this temporall power to their Lord the Pope both from our Sauiour and from Christian Monarchs a part onely from Kings and Emperors and that directly but another part whereby they chalenge power and authoritie to excommunicate Kings and depriue them of their Kingdomes which cannot be done but by temporall power from our Sauiour ex consequente in ordine ad bonum spirituale but that is indirectè Distinctio necessitati debita a most necessary distinction for it is the onely supporter of the Popes temporall Monarchie for the Canonists opinion as too grosse is exploded by them 11. But this reedie and arundineous supporter is so shattered and torne by our reuerend Prelates fustibus argumentorum as St. Augustine calls them that we may daily expect the downe-fall and ruine of that Monarchie and of this distinction also we shall speake hereafter 12. But the spirituall power of the Church is acknowledged by Canonists Iesuites and Protestants to be deriued from our Sauiour onely for the Church had spirituall power before it had Kings to be Patrons and Nurses of it and a certaine gouernement and Gouernours to exercise that power nec auxilia à Regibus terrae religionis Christianae propagandae aut defendendae gratiâ petijt neither did it entreate ayde of the Kings of the earth either for the propagation or defence of Christian religion and of this spirituall power is our question 13. Not that our aduersaries or wee make any doubt whether there be a set or constant regiment of the Church or no for as Suarez notes well Cum Dominus Apostolicum munus creabat Suarez de Leg. l. 4. c. 4. n. 19. necessariò supponendum est illud munus cum omnibus necessarijs ad conuenientem vsum eius ordinatum fuisse when the Lord instituted the Apostolicall office or function we must needes suppose that he ordained all necessaries that were conuentent and vse-full for that office wee confesse both that this Church is Castrorum acies ordinata an armie well ordered Cant. 6. Acts 20.28 Et spiritus sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam the holy Ghost hath set Bishops to gouerne the Church 14. Nor secondly doe we dispute whether the Ecclesiasticall gouernement be spirituall and distinct from the Politicall for we both confesse that the Church had no seuerall gouernement of it or in it for a long time but spirituall gouernours onely Rom. 12.8 who did not Proeesse in dominio but in solicitudine excell in power but in diligence 15. Nor thirdly doe we question the absolute and free Monarch of the whole Church triumphant and militant for both of vs acknowledge him to be our Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus Ps 2.6 Luc. 1.33 Qui constitutus est Rex super montem
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
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
dilectos diligentibus But I thinke here should be an hard choyse for if we should demand with Saint Augustine Quis duorum sit melior vtrùm qui plus August super Ioh. tract vlt an qui minùs diligit Christum no doubt wee would answere He is the better that loues most Againe if we demand Quis duorum sit melior vtrum quem minùs an quem plus diligit Christus we would answere againe Hee no doubt is the better whom Christ loues best Now if a third question were proposed who is more likely to be preferred to the Primacie or Monarchie Peter who loued his Lord more then Iohn and the rest did and was lesse beloued of his Lord or Saint Iohn who loued his Lord lesse then Saint Peter did and yet was more beloued of his Lord and Master I might answere with Saint Augustine in the like case Hîc planè cunctatur responsio augetur quaestio a man may sooner diuise more questions then make a good answere But if it be questionable as I thinke it is whether Saint Peter loued our Sauiour more then St. Iohn did and it bee granted that our Sauiour loued St. Iohn more then he did St. Peter quantum ipse sapio saith St. Augustine as they are both alike good who loue our Sauiour alike so hee is more happy that is best beloued and more likely to be preferred to the highest dignitie But this is sayd onely to shew how weake their arguments are who would proue St. Peters Monarchie or Primacie by these consequents of phrases not to disanull the Primacie which the Fathers allow him 64. The rest of the Prerogatiues are of so small moment to proue this Monarchie or Primacie that you may imagine hee meanes to carry it numero non pondere authoritatum and he professeth so much as I haue noted before For the first prerogatiue whereby Bellarmine would chalenge it is Mutatio nominis the changing of his name from Simon to Peter but we say that his name was not changed as Abrams was but another super-imposed or super-added to it as appeareth Pet. Epist 1. c. 1. v. 1. because he still retained the name of Simon and was so called by our Sauiour after his resurrection and hee so stileth himselfe in his second Epistle And when we answere that this was no greater priuiledge then Iames and Iohn had who were called by our Sauiour Boanerges he replies that there was a difference betweene the one and the other for Mutauit nomen Petro saith he sed imposuit cognomen Iacobo Iohanni but Simons name was not changed otherwise then were the names of Iames and Iohn but they were all three reteyned and Saint Marke vseth the same word at the imposition of them all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marc. 3.17 and addeth in the same place naming Iames and Iohn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he imposed vpon them the names of Boanerges that is the sonnes of thunder so that this is a corruption of the Text to say that our Sauiour changed Simons name and not the names of Iames and Iohn for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he super-imposed or super-added names to them all If this were a Prerogatiue to Peter it was common to others and no Primacie much lesse any Monarchie can be chalenged by it 65. If he onely conclude out of these impositions of names as Saint Chrysostome doth Chrysost super Ioan. c. 1. Deum nunquam imponere noua nomina nisi maximis de causis wee yeeld to that and he gaineth nothing but that which wee confesse with Saint Augustine Petrus Iacobus Aug. super Ep. ad Galat. c. 2 Iohannes honorabiliores in Apostolis erant But Saint Chrysostome seemeth to giue a good and particular reason why our Sauiour Christ changed some names Vt ostendat saith he se eundem esse Chrysost super Ioh. hom 18. qui vetus dedit testamentum ipse est qui nomina apte imponit qui Abram Abraham Sarai Sara Iacob Israel vocauit And if any should chalenge a principalitie for changing his name it should be Saint Paul for Saint Chrysostome saith Chrysost super Act. Apost Paulo nomen mutatur cum ordinatione Saulus qui Paulus or else Saint Matthew for Abulensis saith Abul super Mat. c. 9. q. 34. 35. nomen Matthaei anteqùam à Christo vocaretur non erat Matthaeus sed solùm Leui c. Matthaeus autem fuit vocatus post assumptionem in Discipulum c. Et ita videtur esse veritas so that our Sauiour calling but sixe Apostles at most for the rest followed him voluntarily of themselues and changing or adding to foure of their names Peter can carrie no Monarchie by it nor any priuiledge 66. Another Prerogatiue whereby Bellarmine chalengeth principalitie to Peter is this That Saint Peters feete were first washed by our Sauiour and then the feete of the other Apostles which although Saint Augustine seeme to affirme August super Lu◠c. 13. yet Saint Chrysostom and Theophilact say that hee washed Iudas feete first and then Peters Origen who is the most ancient of them saith that Lotis omnibus Discipulis vltimò venit ad Petrum and so doth Cyprian in the tract De ablutione pedum if the worke be his if not yet is the bokoe antiqui eruditi scriptoris Bellar. de Scriptor Eccles as Bellarmine confesseth and so of force against him and the same Author giues a reason why Saint Peter refused to be washed and not the rest If by this Prerogatiue a Monarchie or Primacie may be proued the question is betweene Iudas and Peter for the precedencie and the greater part giue the prime place of being washed to the traytor Iudas 67. All the other Prerogatiues serue rather for number then waite in this question and doe aime but at a Primacie which we deny not though the aduersaries doe not proue it by all those Prerogatiues taken together and hauing beene once proposed and shewed to the world each one may say to the Cardinall Discedam expleui numerum Virgil. redaarque tenebris I haue made vp a number and so I haue done and here I will make an end with them C. quando Prouo because Allegans frustratoria non auditur such trifles and not to the question deserue not an answere Yet I thought it fit to obserue somewhat that may satisfie the vulgar which are fed with vaine fancies for vnto them C. l. 1. de Diuin Obijciuntur saepè formae quae reà pse nullae sunt speciem autem offerunt 68. Lastly it is euident that in this question of the Monarchio they intend not to finde out the truth but onely endeauour to maintaine the gouernement in that state wherein they finde it though it consist onely in tyranny and vsurpation and therefore they fit it not to the Gospell or the Primatiue times but straine the Scriptures and Antiquitie to make it good and so they maintaine