CERTAJNE SERMONS Made in OXFORD, Anno Dom. 1616. Wherein, is proued, that Saint PETER had no Monarchicall power ouer the rest of the Apostles, against Bellarmine, Sanders, Stapleton, and the rest of that COMPANIE.

BY John Howson, DOCTOR in Diuinitie, and PREBENDARIE of Christ-Church; now BISHOP of OXON.

Published by Commandement.

LONDON: Printed by T. S. for John Pyper. 1622.

LVKE 12.41.42. &c.

Then Peter said vnto him, MASTER, tel­lest thou this parable vnto vs, or vnto all?

And the Lord said: who is a faithfull Steward, and a wise, whom the Master shall make ruler ouer the houshold, to giue them their portion of meate in due season?

Blessed is the seruant, whom the Master, &c.

1. IN this short Parable our Sauiour deliuers the qualities requisite for a good Steward, and the ample reward, which shall bee giuen him: and secondly the faults obseruable in an euill steward; & with­all, the punishment that is due vnto him.

2. The qualities required in a good Steward are many: 1. He must be fidelis, faithfull. 2. He must be [Page 2] humble and seruiceable to his Master; for hee is but aeconomus, or seruus, a Steward, or Seruant, verse 43.3. He must be Prudens, wise. 4. He must not be an in­truder, but lawfully called by his Master: Quem consti­tuit Dominus super familiam suam, for the Lord makes him ruler ouer his houshold. 5. He must be diligent, and carefull in executing his office and function, Et dare in tempore tritici mensuram, and giue them their portion of meate in due season.

3. The particular circumstances of the reward, as also of the euill steward, and his punishment, I will note hereafter;August. for as S. Augustine said, Haec pauca de mul­tis breuiter perstringo, ne propositum operis mei nimia longitudine (diuisionis) impediam: For before we come to speake of the qualities of this Steward, wee must finde our, who the Steward is.

Hilar. de Trin. lib. 1.4. The antient Fathers, Qui dictorum intelligenti­am expectant ex dictis potiùs, quàm imponunt, who ra­ther collect the meaning out of the words, then im­pose a new sense vpon them, doe commonly vnder­stand the Apostles, and the Bishops their successors, to be the Steward here described. Thus Ambrose su­per locum: Hilarie super 24. Math: Ierome super locum: Chrysost. lib. 2. de sacer dote: Theophilact super locum, &c. Thus also the interpreters, and commentators of the Church of Rome, Beda, Thomas, Gorran, Abulens. Ca­ietan, Salmeron, and Iansenius. But when those of the Church of Rome come to matter of question, and controuersie, they behaue themselues like Poets (who (as Seneca notes,) Non putant ad rem pertinere verum dicere; Sen. de benefit. lib. 1. cap. 3. sed aut necessitate coacti, aut decoro corrupti, id quem (que) vocari iubent, quod bellè facit ad versum,) and [Page 3] name him the steward, who best fitteth, in their opini­on, the businesse in hand.

5. Thus Bellarmine, Bellar. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 14. when hee proues against the Presbyterians, that Bishops are superior to Priests, iu­re diuino, tum ordinis potestate, tum iurisdictione, allea­geth for one proofe this parable, as S. Mathew deli­uers it, Quis est seruus fidelis & prudens, &c. Who is a faithfull seruant? &c. and saith fairely and truely, Haec verba Hilarius, & coeteri patres, de Episcopis dicta esse volunt; Hilarie, and the rest of the Fathers, will haue these words to be vnderstood of Bishops; and so proues the superiority of Bishops aboue Priests. But when he disputes against vs Protestants, for the Monarchie of the Bishop of Rome, then this Steward is the Pope; and although (saith he) Ambrose, Hila­rie, and Ierome, vnderstand it of the Bishops general­ly, yet surely the Scripture entendeth the Popes Mo­narchie. Bellar. de Con­cil. lib. 2. 17. Quamuis patres (saith he) non loquantur ex­pressè de Episcopo Romano, tamen sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est; Although the Fathers speake not ex­presly of the Bishop of Rome, yet without doubt that is the meaning of the Scripture.

6. Sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est? Nay, it will not be carried with so slight a proofe as Sine du­bio. The Popes Monarchie ouer the Church, ouer the whole Christian world, is a matter of highest mo­ment; Non coniecturâ sed manibus, & oculis tenenda; we are like S. Thomas, we will see it with our eyes, & feele it with our fingers, it must be made sensible, be­fore we will grant it. Tullie saith,Cic. offic. lib. 3. Turpe est dubitare philosophos, quae ne rustici quidem dubitant; If euery vulgar interpreter, together with the Fathers, had [Page 4] deliuered that sense, it had beene a shame for so great a Deuine to haue doubted of it: but the Fathers (he confesseth) vnderstand it of Bishops indifferently: and no late expositor, that I haue read, once dreames of the Pope; and yet, sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est, Without doubt that is the meaning of the Scrip­ture.

7. It is but a rhetoricall tricke, Id sumere pro certo, quod dubium, controuer sum (que) est, not to doubt of that, which he knowes is controuerted. Eorum quae constant (saith Tullie) exempla ponenda; Cic. de Inuent. lib. 1. eorum quae dubia sunt, rationes afferendoe: seeing he knew this interpretati­on would be especially controuerted, he should haue kept on his course, and haue brought proofe and rea­sons for it, & not tell vs, Sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est, Without doubt that is the meaning of the Scrip­ture: If he thought it did constare, and were euident to his party, yet exempla posuisset, hee should haue brought some certaine and vndoubted examples or authorities for our satisfaction, from Greeke Fathers, or Latine, or Councels, &c, as his manner is.

8. There are two faults much vsed inter Polemieos, the writers of controuersies, which are very offen­siue to ingenuous readers; and no maruell, for, Qui­bus rebus animus quasi debito fraudatur, offenditur; The minde of man is offended, when it is defrauded of that, which is due vnto it. Tullie saith, that both these faults are ridiculous. Ridiculum est, quod est du­bium, Cic. pro Quint. relinquere incertum; (saith he) It is but a mocke­rie to passe that ouer without proofe, which is doubt­full: And againe, Ridiculum est, quod nemini dubium est, iudicare; It is also a ridiculous mockerie to vse [Page 5] many proofes and reasons to confirme that, which no man denies.

9. The former tricke is heere vsed by Bellarmine, but because this assertion, this sine dubio, is very thinne, & pellucet, and we may discerne great weak­nesse through it; hee vseth inexpiable fraudes to a­buse this Text; and first he hath this sleight to de­ceiue his readers. That, whereas disputing against the Presbyterians for the superiority of Bishops, hee saith, Sanctus Hilarius, Bellar. de Cler. lib. cap. 14. & caeteri patres de Episcopis haec verba dicta esse volunt; S. Hilarie, and the rest of the Fathers, will haue these words to bee vnderstood of Bishops, of all indifferently; alleaging a consent of Fa­thers: when hee disputes for the Popes Monarchie a­gainst vs (finding himselfe much crossed by that ge­nerall consent of interpretation) hee concealeth it, and alleageth two or three Fathers onely for that o­pinion, as if there were no more of that minde, with­out & caeteri, as before: and then hee opposeth his owne credite to them (as if he were a Geometer, Qui non suadet, sed cogit,) saying, Sine dubio sententia scrip­turae illa est; Whatsoeuer those Fathers say, this is the meaning of the Scripture, Vti Episcopi particulares sunt summi aeconomi in Ecclesijs suis, ita Romanum Episcopum esse summum aeconomum in Ecclesiâ vniuersâ; As parti­cular Bishops are the chiefe stewards in their owne di­ocesse, so the Bishop of Rome is the chiefe steward in the vniuersall Church.

10. In which words I obserue a second sleight, which is this: That whereas the Text saith, Quis est fidelis aeconomus & prudens, &c, he seemeth to reade, Quis est summus aeconomus, &c. affirming out of that [Page 6] place, that euery Bishop is summus aeconomus in Eccle­siâ suâ, and so by consequent the Bishop of Rome is summus aeconomus in Ecclesiâ vniuersâ. But if he would haue concluded fairely, and said, Quilibet Episcopus est aeconomus in Ecclesiâ suâ, ergo, Romanus Episcopus est aeconomus in Ecclesiâ suâ, id est, Romanâ: sine du­bio sententia scripturae illa fuisset. Or thus, Quilibet E­piscopus est summus aeconomus in Ecclesiâ suâ, ergo, Ro­manus Episcopus est summus aeconomus in Ecclesiâ suâ, in his owne peculiar diocesse of Rome; the word summus being vnderstood vniuocally in the antece­dent, and consequent, sine dubio sententia scripturae illa fuisset; without doubt that had beene the meaning of that Scripture.

11. But to conclude thus, Quilibet Episcopus est summus aeconomus in Ecclesia sua, ergo, Romanus Epis­copus est summus aeconomus in Ecclesia vniuersa, as it hath no consequent or warrant from my Text, wher­in there is no word of summitie or vniuersalitie, so it is false, fallacious, and equiuocall: for summus in the antecedent, applied to euery Bishop in his diocesse, hath onely the force of a comparatiue, as if he should say, a superior in his Diocesse, who may haue an Arch-Bishop, or Patriarke aboue him, as well as Priests and Deacons, that are his inferiours; but sum­mus in the consequent applied to the Pope, is taken superlatiuely in the proper signification,Cic. Tusc. q. l. 2. which Tullie giues it, Summum est, quo nihil est superius. Summus in the antecedent is Aristocraticall, and admits many fellow-Bishops and equals, who are all Summi, and Optimates in the Church of God: but summus in the consequent, or in the Pope is Monarchicall, both [Page 7] Caesar, & Pompey, Quo nemo superior, cui nemo aequalis. Summus in the antecedent hath ordinariam potesta­tem onely ouer his diocesse; but summus in the con­sequent hath plenitudinem potestatis, to doe what plea­seth him, without councell, without controule, with­out Law, in the vniuersall Church; potestatem despoti­cam, or [...], which is not allowable in the Church of God. So that S. Mathew, and S. Luke (as he thinkes) mistooke our Sauiour, when they reade, Quis est fidelis aeconomus? for, he either said, or meant, Quis est summus aeconomus? for, sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est; he meant (saith Bellarmine) the great Pope, or Monarch of Rome.

12. A third sleight he hath to corrupt this Text, which carrieth it more directly to the Bishop of Rome, and that is, by appropriating these words to S. Peter: for all S. Peters prerogatiues (they suppose) run as directly into the sea of Rome, as all maine ri­uers into the Ocean. This is a flat contradiction to that receiued interpretation, which Bellarmine vrgeth against the Presbyterians, Hilarius & caeteri patres de Episcopis dicta esse volunt; for by this new glosse all other Bishops are directly excluded.

13. In his first booke de Pontifice Romano, De Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 9. (where he affirmes, Regimen Ecclesiasticum praecipuè Monarchi­um esse debere) in his fourth reason, which is drawne from the similitudes, whereby the Church is descri­bed in the Scriptures; among other things (saith hee) the Church is likened to an house, which hath vnum Dominum, & vnum aeconomum, as it is Luke 12. Quis est fidelis dispensator & prudens, quem constituit Dominus? &c. Quae verba (saith hee) dicuntur Petro; [Page 8] these words (saith Bellarmine) are spoke to Peter.

14. That S. Peter moued the question that occasi­oned this Parable, is euident in my Text; but he did it (as the Interpreters say,Iansen. and namely Iansenius) om­nium Apostolorum nomine, vt solet: as also he answe­reth sometimes in the name of the rest,Aug: de verb. Dom. ser. 13. as S. Augustine obserues; Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus, in Chri­sti amore promptissimus, saepe vnus respondet pro omni­bus; vnitas in multis. Peter the first in the order of the Apostles, & the readiest in the Loue of Christ, answe­reth oftentimes one for all; shewing an vnity in the many. And S. Cyril giues reasons, why it should be so: and here the Text implies that Peter did speake for them all; for he saith, Domine ad nos dicis parabo­lam hanc, an ad omnes? And if the question were made in the name of them all, it is likely the answere was made to them all.

15. Bellarmine answeres, that Peter asked the que­stion, Et respondit Dominus Petro, Quis putas, &c. and then he glosseth it thus; Tibi ô Petre inprimis dico: I speake onely to thee ô Peter; for inprimis here signi­fieth not especially, but onely; for (saith hee) by cer­taine words of the singular number vsed in this Para­ble, Dominus apertè indicat, se vnum seruum toti domui praepositurum, qui à se solo iudicari possit; the Lord doth plainely shew, that he will set one seruant ouer the whole house, which seruant he onely reserues to his owne iudgement.

16. But not onely this glosse, Tibi ô Petre inprimis dico, corrupts the Text, but the words of the Text are corrupted by Bellarmine, who saith, Respondit Dominus Petro; when the Text hath barely, Dixit [Page 9] autem Dominus, without mentioning Peter. And if there had followed so great a consequent vpon Pe­ters mouing the question, and our Sauiours answere to him by name, as the Monarchie of the Church; St. Mathew would not haue omitted that circum­stance.

17. But admit that the Euangelist said, Respondit Dominus Petro, and that our Sauiour made answere to Peter; yet it is not spoken of Peter, but of all. Bel­larmine knew this might be replied, and therefore he addeth, Haec verba dicuntur Petro, & de ipso Petro, these words are spoke to Peter, and of Peter himselfe; and for proofe he brings Chrysostome, and Ambrose, Certe (saith he) hunc locum disertè explicat Chrysosto­mus de Petro, & successoribus eius, Lib. 2. de Sacerdot. circa principium; Cui Ambrosius assentiens, &c.

18. Hee quoteth S. Chrysostome curiously, the booke, and the part of the booke, but alleageth not his words; and no maruell, for, Certè hunc locum di­sertè explicat Chrysost. de discipulis Christi, non de ipso Petro; certainely Chrysostome doth expresly inter­prete this place of the Disciples of Christ, and not of Peter: for not farre from the beginning of that se­cond booke hee saith,Chrys. de Sacerd. lib. 2. Dominus cum discipulos alloque­retur, ait, Quis est fidelis seruus, &c, When our Saui­our spoke to his Disciples, he said, Who is a faithfull seruant, &c. And although he say not farre from the beginning of that booke, Christus curam ouium tum Petro, tum successoribus Petri committebat, (which may be verified of any other of the Apostles) yet hee of­fers not to proue that by this Text; but comforts his friend S. Basil (who was newly made Bishop, and [Page 10] repented himselfe of accepting it; charging S. Chry­sostome, that he by sleights had drawen him into it; (Longa est narratio, longae Ambages,) You cannot vn­derstand that second booke, except you reade ouer very diligently the former;) he comforts him, I say, by telling him, that if he proued to be fidelis dispensa­tor, & prudens; that is, a good Bishop, not a good Pe­ter, not a good Pope, but a good Bishop in Greece, and performed well the feeding of his flocke, which would argue his loue to his Master; then hee should receiue the reward mentioned in this Parable, Super omnia bona eius constitueret cum; and so interprets this Text of the Disciples in generall, and the Bi­shops their successours, as other Fathers doe: Thus haue wee a good Chrysostome falsly alleaged, to sway an ill cause.

19. To S. Chrysostome (saith he) Ambrose assents; but this Ambrose neither nameth Peter, nor yet this my Text: but in his Commentaries vpon 1. Tim. 3. he hath those very words quoted by Bellarmine, Do­mus Dei est Ecclesia, Ambr. sup. 1. Tim. 3. cuius bodie rector est Damasus; which will neuer proue by any consequent that these words were spoken by our Sauiour, Petro, & de ipso Petro, though we should yeeld to the Pope all Peters prerogatiues.Bellar. lib. 2. de Concil. cap. 17. But what author (thinke you) is this? In his second booke de Concilijs, hee alleageth him with S. Chrysostome, to this very purpose, and there calls him Ambrose, as the other Chrysostome; but here he saith with addition, or rather detraction; Ambro­sius, vel quicun (que) est autor illius Commentarij: You must value him high, because he is coupled with Chrysost. & then they opposed to S. Hilarie, & all the Fathers.

[Page 11]20. But when Bellarmine speakes not Polemicè, but historicè, when hee hath him alone in a corner, and makes no vse of him, he tells vs, that in these Com­mentaries vpon S. Pauls Epistles, which are found in St. Ambrose his workes, Sunt non pauca, Bellar. de scrip­tor. Eccles. quae Pelagij errores continere videntur: and thinkes, that the au­thor of them was one Hilarius, not Arelatensis, nor Pictauiensis, but Hilarius Diaconus Romanus, qui Luci­feri scisma propagauit: A good author (no doubt) who fauoured the heresie of Pelagius, and the scisme of Lucifer Calaritanus.

21. Thus wee may see, that these wranglers,Hilar. lib. 1. de Trin. in controuersies, non referunt seusum, deliuer not the re­ceiued sense of the Scripture, sed afferunt, but they vary it at their pleasure, as best fits their purpose. This Steward was first, all the Bishops and Prelates of the Church, as Hilarie and all the Fathers are said to affirme: Secondly, He was euery Bishop in his pri­uate See, and the Bishop of Rome in the vniuersall Church; Et sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est: Third­ly, It is Peter alone; and so consequently the Pope: and to proue it, a true Chrysostome is alleaged falsly, and a false Ambrose is alleaged vainely, Et talibus fun­damentis tota domus nititur; And vpon such foundati­ons as these, their whole edifice relies.

22. But because these three false pillars are too weake to support so high, & ample a building (as the Popedome is now,) vpon the foundation of this Text, he addeth a fourth sleight, to deceiue his readers. We all confesse ioyntly, that Ecclesia vna est, Cyprian de vnit. Eccles. (as S. Cyprian saith) there is one Catholike Church, Quae in multitu­dinem latiùs incremento foecunditatis extenditur; Which [Page 12] by a miraculous increase, and fecundity is extended, and diuided into many particular Churches. There is vnum Lumen, one great Catholicke Light; but mul­ti radij, many beames of that great light. Arbor vna tenaci radice fundata, One maine Catholicke tree fa­stened, and founded with a sure roote; and there are rami arboris multi, many branches of this Catholike tree; Finally, vna gens, one Catholicke nation or kindred, who were first called Fideles, and afterwards Christiani, Christians, at Antioch; Et multae familiae, many particular families, or Churches: Now, be­cause Oeconomus, quem constituit Dominus super famili­am suam, doth literally or naturally (as Bellarmine confesseth) by the interpretation of Fathers, signifie euery Bishop in his peculiar Diocesse, in his peculiar Sunne-beame, in his peculiar branch, in his peculiar family, and so consequently the Bishop of Rome in his Diocesse onely, or particular family. That the Text may reach home to the establishing of the Popes vniuersall Monarchie, and proue, that hee is Summus oeconomus in Ecclesiâ vniuersâ; Hee addeth vnto the Text, as before a word of Summitie, or Supremacie, so now a word of Vniuersalitie, that as before hee made him by a sleight the supreame Bishop, Supra quem ne­mo, Hee might make him an vniuersall supreame Bi­shop, Qui supra omnes, an vniuersall Monarch ouer all the Church.

23. For Bellarmine disputing against Barkley, for the maintenance of the Popes vniuersall supremacie, perceiuing that Familia, one onely Family, signified by the word of my Text, was not spacious enough to entertaine that great Monarch vniuersall: But if [Page 13] his Cardinals should attend him, they would com­passe him in, Et coarctarent eum vndi (que); Luk. 19.43. He inlargeth it as much as may be,Bellar. cont. Barc. cap. 34. Et dilatat terminos vs (que) ad Eu­phratem; and saith, that the Pope Constitutus est super omnem familiam, Cap. 34. And againe, Cap. 24.Jb. c. 24. Qui toti familiae proe est. And so where our Sauiour said, Quis est fidelis oeconomus, quem constituit Dominus su­pra familiam; He chops, and changes, and addes to the Euangelist, and makes him say; Quis est summus oeconomus quem constituit Dominus supra omnem famili­am, or supra totam familiam; and so beates off the Text from the confirmation of Bishops in their par­ticular Churches, and Families, as hee applyed it a­gainst the Presbyterians; and abuseth it by corrupti­on, only to establish the Popes vniuersall Monarchy.

24. I stand not to vrge the vanity of this addition, or corruption done of purpose to make the word stretch to the vniuersall Church; but Sine dubio fa­milia, & tota familia, are both one, and imply but one part of a stocke or kindred: For among the Romans, Gens, or Genus, was the whole kindred; Familia, or Stirps were the diuers branches. Genus was refer'd ad nomen; Familia ad cognomen. Cornelia gens, was the name of one whole house or kindred; Scipiones, Len­tuli, Dolabellae, Cinnae, Scyllae, were cognomina, or fami­liae gentis Corneliae: So that as Familia Scipionum, and tota familia Scipionum, is all one, and neither of both comprehends Gentem Corneliam, of which there were many other families: So here familia, and tota familia, is all one, and neither of both properly signifie Gen­tem Christianam, the vniuersall Church, of which there are many particular branches, and families.

[Page 14]25. And it seemeth that the Holy Ghost would haue this obserued; for when the Apostle would ex­presse the vniuersall Church, hee vsed not [...], which is found in my Text, (which Beza noted well, and with him Salmeron, and before them both Caie­tan, to signifie famulitium, the seruants, or inferiour part of a family, not a family, as Bellarmine reades for his aduantage,) but the holy Apostle vseth a word which signifieth gentem, an whole stocke or kindred, consisting of many families,Ephes. 3.14.15. saying; I bend my knees to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, [...], Of whom the whole nation or kindred, both in heauen and earth, are denominated Christians.

26. Here now, when the Holy Ghost would ex­presse the vniuersall Church, he saith, [...], (which word [...],Beza Annot. sup. Ephe. 3. saith Beza, signifieth [...], tota col­lectiuè, as in some other places,) [...], not [...]: which word [...], as the olde vulgar translates, is paternitas; as S. Ierome, parentela; as E­rasmus, cognatio à communi patre; and as Beza, fami­lia; but taken largely, as hee acknowledges in his notes, when he saith Familia, id est, Gens, quae commu­nem vnum patrem familiae habeas, vt sanè habet Ecclesia in Christo coaptata.

27. And this Greeke word [...], whereby the vniuersall Church is noted, is so significant, that it troubled the Interpreters (as you see) to expresse it with a fit Latine word; and therefore euery man va­ries vpon it according to his owne sense: so that it is no great maruell, if the vulgar translator retained still the very Greeke word,Psal. 95.7. Psal. 95. Afferte Domino [Page 15] patriae Gentium, afferte Domino gloriam & honorem; Which I reading often, tooke it for the Latine word Patriae, the countries of the Heathen, till I obserued that the Septuagint reade [...], for the people; [...]; And because the olde vulgar thought the word, familia, would not reach home, if hee should say, familiae gentium; and he would not reade gentes gentium, for the Cacopho­nie and equiuocation, hee continued the Greeke word saying, Afferte Domino patriae gentium.

28. But with this tricke of corruption I note not Bellarmine, though hee reades familia for famulitium, for famulitium a part, and an inferiour part, the ser­uants of the family; familia, an whole family, of Wife, Children, and Seruants, because the olde vulgar doth reade so; and hee takes him, and leaues him, for his best aduantage: But I stand somewhat the longer vpon this note, because Bellarmine, Sanders, Staple­ton, and other, worke great wonders out of this word Familia, to maintaine the Popes Monarchie; though it be falsly translated for Famulitium, Familia; and then for Familia, tota familia, and so abused to signi­fie the vniuersall Church.

29. A fift sleight which Bellarmine vseth to abuse this Text, and corrupt it, to maintaine thereby the Popes Vniuersall Monarchie, is in his booke de Con­cil authoritate; where he hath this proposition;Bellar. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 17. Sum­mus Pontifex simpliciter, & absolutè est supra Vniuersam Ecclesiam, & supra generale concilium, ita vt nullum in terris supra se iudicium agnoscat. This proposition (saith he) is ferè de fide; no, not so; it is rather verè de blasphemiâ: For is not this proudly to vsurpe the [Page 16] title, and style of our great Master? For is not Christ Iesus onely Summus Pontifex simpliciter, & absolutè, supra Ecclesiam vniuersam, qui nullum supra se iudici­um agnoscat? What difference betweene this prero­gatiue of the Pope, and that of our Sauiour, Ephes. 1. where it is said,Ephes. 1.22. that God [...]; He made our Sauiour [...], Summum Pontificem, or caput simpliciter, & absolutè, [...], to his whole Church; [...] ouer all men, and ouer all things, as the Vulgar of Christ; and as Bellarmine of the Pope, Supra vniuersam Ec­clesiam.

30. What? not enough to be Primus, which may inferre a Primacy, which the ancient Church granted; but he must be Summus; 4. Similis ero altissimo, which intends a Monarchie, and our Sauiour detested, when hee said, Reges gentium dominantur eorum, vos autem non sic; Kings are great Monarchs, not you my Apostles, much lesse your successors.

31. What? not enough to be Primus Episcopus amongst many,20.5.5. quos constituit Dominus regere Ecclesi­am; but he must assumere sibi honorem, vt fiat Ponti­fex? Which our Sauiour assumed not, but receiued it from his Father, when hee said, Filius meús es tu? Which stile of Pontifex is giuen to none of the Church of Christ, but to himselfe onely in the New Testament.

32. What? not enough to be Pontifex [...], but hee must be summus Pontifex, a stile neuer ap­propriated, nor vsed to any in the Church of God, either in the Olde, or New Testament? For in the Olde Testament the high Priest was barely called Ponti­fex, Leuit. 21.20. [Page 17] as Leuit. 21. Pontifex, id est, Sacerdos maximus; not Pontifex maximus, or Pontifex summus. And in the New Testament our Sauiour onely hath an Epi­thete added to it, which is giuen in comparison of Aarons high Priesthood, to note that Christs Priesthood excelled it: But that high and extraordinary stile but once vsed, and to our Sauiour onely applied, is not equall to this of the Pope: For the Apostle calls our Sauiour but [...]; Qui penetrauit coelos, Heb. 4.14. Ie­sum Christum filium Dei, habemus Pontificem magnum: We haue (saith he) a great high Priest, that is passed into the heauens, IESVS the Sonne of God: But Bel­larmine in this proposition tells vs, that we haue the Pope Pontificem maximum, two degrees of compari­son aboue our Sauiour, which is in English our High­est high Priest.

33. What? not enough to be Summus Pontifex, with certaine additions of reference to our Sauiour, but it must be absolutè? not comparatè, but simplici­ter? not in vniuersâ Ecclesiâ (which words though they be high, may carry a moderate sense of Primacie, among many, who are Episcopi in vniuersâ Ecclesiâ,) but he must be Pontifex summus simpliciter & absolu­tè, supra vniuersam Ecclesiam, an highest high Priest ouer all the Church, and vsurpe a Monarchie?

34. But I will not farther exaggerate this Luci­ferian proposition: I speake this by the way ex abun­dantiâ cordis; and conclude with S. Bernard, Ser. 69. super Cant. Audet quis peruadere locum vnigeniti tui? O good God, doth any man dare to challenge the place, and preroga­tiue of thy Sonne, thy onely Sonne? &c. Praecipite­tur, O cast him downe headlong, as Lucifer from [Page 18] heauen. Ponit sibi sedem in excelso? Doth hee make himselfe a Monarch in thy Church? Subuertatur ca­thedra pestilentiae, and let all that behold it, say, Num­quid iste vir est, Es. 14.16. qui conturbauit gentes, & concussit reg­na? Is this he, that so troubled the world, and the kingdomes thereof, to establish his Monarchy?

35. But let vs consider, how Bellarmine proues this proposition; for thereupon depends my note. What? by Scripture? no, it contradicteth the very phrase of the Scripture. How then? by Fathers? no, Tertullian scoffed at the title; St. Gregorie detested it. What? by bare reason? no, he knew well enough St. Augustines rule,Aug. Epist. 56. Quasi regularis est omnium haereti­corum temeritas, conari stabilissimam authoritatem funda­tissimae Ecclesiae quafi rationis nomine, & pollicitatione euertere. It is the vsuall rashnesse of all heretickes, to striue to ouerthrow the most firme authority of the most established Church, by the name and promise (as it were) of reason. How then will hee proue it? Ratione in scripturis fundatâ, and founded vpon this Scripture, my very Text.

36. We can aske no better: for Bellarmine main­taining a good cause against the Anabaptists, and A­rians of Transiluania, viz. Licere Christianis gerere ma­gistratus ciuiles, That it is lawfull for Christians to ex­ercise ciuill power and authority; hee proues it hap­pily ratione in scripturâ fundatâ, by reason founded on this Scripture,Bellar. de Laicis, lib. 3. after this manner. Non repugnat libertati Christianae praefectura, vel subiectio Ecclesiasti­ca, Ecclesiasticall gouernment, or subiection, is not re­pugnant to Christian libertie; as appeares (saith he) Math. 24. Quis est fidelis seruus, &c. Who is a faithfull [Page 19] and wise seruant, whom the Master shall make ruler ouer the houshold? Ergo (saith Bellarmine) non repugnat praefectura vel subiectio Politica, therefore Politicall gouernment or subiection is not repugnant to Chri­stianity. You see how in a good cause he can dispute well, Ratione in hac scripturâ fundatâ. If now it be as lawfull to haue one spiritual Monarch, the Pope, ouer the whole Church, as to haue temporall Kings and Monarchs in their seuerall Kingdomes, and that the reason be also in hâc scripturâ fundatâ, it will force as farre as the other doth: But if you examine it, you will finde that he doth super alienum fundamentum ae­dificare, build vpon reason altogether auerse from this Scripture.

37. His proofe, or reason is this. Omnia nomina, quae in scripturis tribuuntur Christo, vnde constat eum esse supra Ecclesiam, eadem omnia tribuuntur Pontifici. All the names which are giuen in Scripture to Christ, whereby it is manifest that he is ouer all the Church; all those are giuen the Pope; he might haue added, and greater names too; for Christ is called Pontifex magnus, and he calls the Pope Pontificem maximum, or summum: He proues that reason by an Induction, and takes one instance, or example, out of my Text: First (saith he) Christus est pater-familias in domo suâ, quae est Ecclesia; Pontifex in eâdem est summus aecono­mus: Christ is the Master of the family in his owne house, which is the Church, and the Pope is the chiefe Steward in that house. If this reason had beene foun­ded vpon this Scripture, hee should not haue said Summus aeconomus, but aeconomus onely, that Summi­tie of his is not in this Scripture, nor founded here: [Page 20] in this Text his ministery, or seruice is founded. But as some Philosophers said,Cicero. In cerebro animi esse sedem; So Pontificis summi sedes (whom they make the very soule of the Church) is not found in my text, but in laboran­te cerebro, in some braine, that is greatly distemper'd.

38. Here now (you see) is, corruptor stylus, the word or style of the Scripture corrupted, and Sum­mus put in stead of Fidelis; but let vs goe on, and we shall find also,Tortul. that there is adulter sensus, the sense of the Scripture strangely adulterated; for (saith he) Christus est Pater-familias in domo suâ, quae est Ecclesiâ: Pontifex in eâdem domo est summus aeconomus, id est, Pa­ter-familias loco Christi. Christ is Master in his owne house, which is the Church; the Pope is the chiefe Steward in that house; that is, the Master in stead of Christ. Obserue, I pray you, Oeconomus, id est, Pater-familias loco Christi; a Seruant, that is, a Master.

Cic. de diuin. li. 1.39. Tullie saith, Vbi sunt multa ambigua, multa ob­scura, explanationes adhibendae sunt interpretum; Where there are many things doubtfull, many obscure, the expositions of Interpreters must be added. If there be any obscurity, any equiuocation in the word aeco­nomus, the Euangelist explaines it, and makes it vni­uocall in the next verse; we need not Bellarmines in­terpretation, aeconomus, id est, Pater-familias: for the Euangelist saith aeconomus, id est, seruus, [...], a ser­uant; & as if the holy Ghost would preuent this inter­pretation, so preiudiciall to our Sauiour, and to his Church; speaking of the same man, he calls him once onely, and that in this Text aeconomum; but he calls him seruum, Mat. 24. foure times in the fiue next verses. And S. Matt. deliuering the same Parable, neuer calls him [Page 21] aeconomum, but [...], euer. [...], euen foure sundry times in the same Parable; And yet Bellarmine dares say aeconomus, id est, Pater-familias loco Christi. Vtricroditis? Giue you credit to the holy Ghost by the pen of two Euangelists, who say eight times ae­conomus, id est, seruus; or to Bellar: who reads aeconomus, id est, Pater-familias, or dominus, as it is in the Text?

40. O fratres Censore opus est, an Aruspice nobis? Juuen. Whe­ther haue we more need of an Index, or Ignis expur­gatorius, to quit the world from these blasphemous corruptions: or some wise South-sayer to enforme vs, what these monsters portend? there were here-tofore certaine Augures, as Tully notes,Cic. ad At. l. 13. Epist. 12. Qui Iouis optimi maxi­mi interpretes, internuntij (que) fuerunt: but there are now in Rome certaine Cardinals, Qui Pontificis summi inter­pretes, internuntij (que) 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 [Page 22] 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 B [...]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, [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] 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 [Page 25] 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, and from himselfe onely deriues it to others; affirming,Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 24. Omnem ordinariam Iurisdictionem Episcoporum à Papâ immedi­atè descendere. Finally, Clauem Ordinationis, where­by he claimes to himselfe the originall power of con­secrating Bishops, and ordering Priests,De Rom. Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 23. &c. for Bel­larmine tells vs, that St. Peter onely was consecrated a Bishop by our Sauiour, and all the rest of the Apo­stles by Peter: so that all orders come first and origi­nally from Peter, and now by prerogatiue from the Bishop of Rome: and other the like vanities.

48. And thus you see the Popes absolute spirituall Monarchie, to be founded partly vpon the manifolde corruptions of this my Text; Quis est fidelis dispen­sator & prudens, quem constituit Dominus supra famili­am; which is most monstrously transformed, thus: Quis est summus dispensator, or, summus Pontifex, qui constituit seipsum Patrem-familias, or, Domium supra totam familiam collectiuè, or, supra Omnem familiam distributiuè; or, supra Omnes oeconomos, id est, Praelatos & Episcopos, qui facti sunt quasi de familiâ, & comi­tatu eius.

49. When hee hath thus seated the Pope in the throne of his spirituall Monarchie, Bernard. Mentitur iniquitas sibi, that by vertue of this Text thus corrupted, they [Page 26] may giue him a name or prerogatiue aboue all kings, and Emperours; that so in nomine eius omne genu fle­ctatur, at his honor and prerogatiues all knees should bowe, both temporall and spirituall, vpon the face of the earth: And therfore hauing created him by these corruptions Patrem-familias, they compare him with Kings, and preferre him before all temporall Mo­narchs; affirming, that Kings hold it but in fee, and (as it were) at the pleasure and will of the people, and may be deposed, and forfeit their estates: but the Popedome is directum Dominium, held of God imme­diately, a firme and safe tenure; and that also by the vertue of this my Text.

Bellar. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 16.50. For Bellarmine endeauouring to proue, Sum­mam potestatem non esse in concilio, sed in Papâ: fearing peraduenture, least wee should argue thus out of his false principles, Summa potestas est in regno, non in re­ge; Ergo, Summa potestas est in Ecclesiâ, vel concilio, non in Papâ: That you may not thinke (saith hee) that the Church which is Regnum Christi, is like to other Kingdomes of the earth; comparatur familiae, it is likened to a family by our Sauiour, saying, Quis est seruus fidelis, Mat. 24. & prudens, quem constituit Dominus supra familiam, &c. and compared also to an house in the Epistle to the Hebrewes;Heb. 3. Moses erat fidelis in totâ do­mo Dei tanquam seruus; Christus autem erat fidelis in to­tâ domo sua tanquam dominus. Here you see (saith he) the Church compared to an house, and to a familie; would you expect, that hee should implie a preroga­tiue to the Popedome, aboue the prerogatiue of Kings, because the kingdome of Christ, which is his Church, resembleth rather a family, or an house, then [Page 27] a Kingdome? Quid non speremus amantes? yet hee endeuours it, and after this manner. Constat Patrem-familias non habere à familiâ vllam authoritatem, sed ex se; quia ipse à familiâ non constituitur pater, sed ipse fa­cit sibi familiam, gignendo liberos, emendo seruos; It is euident, that the Master of a familie receiues not any authority from the family, but hath it of himselfe; because he is not made the Master, or Father, by his family, but he makes a family for himselfe by beget­ting Children, and buying seruants. This is very true in our Sauiour Christ, who is the true Pater-fa­milias, and hath espoused the Church, and begotten many Children by the seed of his Word, and pur­chased many Seruants by the price of his Bloud: but the inference is not made of him, but of the Pope, as appeares by the style. Vnde (saith he) Pater-familias etiamsi pessimus sit, Staplet. relect. (an Epithete belonging well e­nough to the Popes, who, as Stapleton confesseth, haue wallowed in all kinde of wickednes,) Vnde Pa­ter-familias etiamsi pessimus sit, nunquam potest à fami­liâ iudicari, vel expelli, sicut potest Rex, quando dege­nerat in tyrannum. Whereby it is euident, that the Master of the family (though he be neuer so wicked) cannot be iudged, or expelled by his family, as a King may, when he degenerates into a tyrant. A wonder­full priuiledge atchieued by a false, counterfeit, cor­rupt glosse, set vpon this Text, Quis est summus oeco­nomus, id est, Pater-familias, for, Quis est fidelis oecono­mus, id est, seruus, wherby the Pope sits immoueable, iniudicable in his throne, etiamsi pessimus sit, & Kings, and Bishops, who are (as it were) of his family, if they degenerate, or fit not his humor, may be deposed.

[Page 28]51. Thus, as the Psalmist saith, Adhaerere sibi fe­cit sedem iniquitatis: Psal. 93.20. he is now fastened to his chaire of iniquitie, with a ten-penny naile. But who can ima­gine the priuiledge of a common house-holder, or Pa­ter-familias, to be greater then the prerogatiue of an absolute Monarch? This rule holds not but in the Church of Rome, wherein if a King be excommuni­cated, he may forfeit his kingdome; but if a Subiect, or Pater-familias bee excommunicated, his inheri­tance is not touched. So that, as it was better and safer to be Herods Swine, then his Sonne, as the Pro­uerbe is; so it is safer to be a Swine-heard, or any priuate Pater-familias in the Church of Rome, then the highest Monarch. And now we finde the reason why the Pope rather fauours Patres-familias, then Reges, Subiects, then Kings; euen because hee hath purchased a priuiledge beyond Kings, by vsurping the title of Pater-familias in the Church of God.

‘52. This assertion of Bellarmine is so dangerous to be spoken, that it may not be passed in silence; and yet so full of absurdities, that the time will not serue to confute them at large. I will therefore on­ly enumerate some chiefe of them, for, enumerasse, est confutasse. For first, the Pope is not Pater-fami­lias, but oeconomus, or seruus, as other Bishops are; his holy, and reuerend predecessors of the purer times had but a Primacie; not aboue, but among o­ther Bishops, as the nature of an Aristocracie doth require.’

‘53. Secondly. Papa non habet vllam authoritatem à se, sed constituitur Papa à Cardinalibus, by whom hee is chosen. And although Sanders say, Alios [Page 29] Episcopos, primum Pontificem nec vegetare, De visib. Monar. l. 3. c. 7. nec confir­mare; yet Cardinall Paleottus (who maintaines the Popes Monarchie, as resolutely as hee) tels vs, that Quidam non insulsè dicebat, (hee durst scarce speake it in his owne name) sicut potentiae vegetatiuae tres sunt actus, siue officia; quae sunt Generare, Nutrire, Augere: sic Cardinales dicuntur quodam modo Generare Papam, Paleot. de Con­sist. parte q. 5. dum illum eligunt; Nutrire, cum illi dant consilia; Au­gere, dum opere ei praestò sunt, eidem (que) suffragantur: so that hee takes his power and authority from the Cardinals.’

‘54. Thirdly. Papa, si pessimus sit, potest iudicari, & expelli: The Pope, if hee be very wicked, may be iudged, and deposed euen by his Cardinals, and that by his owne reason: For therefore (saith hee, though falsly) Kings may be remoued, Quia potes­tas Regis est à populo, and the reason thereof is, Quia populus facit Regem: so wee may say, The Pope may be remoued, Quia potestas Papae est à Cardinalibus, Bellar. de Concil. l. 2. c. 17. because the power of the Pope is from the Cardi­nals; and the reason of it is, Quia Cardinales faciunt Papam, because the Pope is created by the Cardi­nalls. But if hee may not be remoued by his Car­dinalls, yet it may be done by a generall Councell, as some of his Cardinals, and greatest Doctors affirme.’

‘55. Fourthly. Absolute Kings, or Monarchs, who haue plenitudinem potestatis, fulnesse of power, cannot be remoued by the people for their defects: for, Potestas haec non est à populo deriuata, This power is not deriued from the people, but from God, Per quem Reges regnant; By whom onely Kings raigne, as appeareth in the people of God; where Saul was [Page 30] made King immediately by God, and deposed by him onely: and afterward Dauid, and his posteritie placed in his roome, and by God immediately. This is euident also among Christian Kings, who raigne by inheritance, and succession; where there is no interregnum at the death of the King, for the people to practise their power in; but his Sonne immediately raignes in his stead. For the chiefe po­wer is not raaicaliter, or suppletiuè in regno, that is, in the people of the Kingdome, as Bellarmine thinks; but in regno, that is, in the Kingdome it selfe, in iure regio, in the right of Kings, and their issue, who hold it from God, and so are to be deposed by him onely.’

‘56. Fiftly. Those Kings or Emperours, who are made by lawfull Election, for their liues onely, and seeme to some to be rather Primates in an Aristocra­cie, then Kings in a Monarchie, though they be cho­sen by the Optimates either of Kingdome or Em­pire, cannot yet be deposed by them; for although by vnanimous consent, and common constitutions, and the Lawes of their Countrey, they haue power to aduance one of their fellowes, and equalls, and to make him their King; yet when hee is once re­gularly and lawfully possessed of the Crowne, they haue no power ouer him, but hee is as absolute, as if hee were placed immediately by God: as Optatus told that scismaticall Bishop Donatus, Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus, Optat. l. 3. Cont. Parmen. qui fecit Imperatorem, There is none aboue the Emperor but onely God, who made the Emperor; and yet that Emperor was e­lected by the people.’

[Page 31] ‘57. For there is in euery King by the law of Na­ture, a certaine power, which is called Ius regis, 1 Sam. 8. and Manus regia, by Homponius, 1 Sam. 8. and many worthy Ciuilians,Pompon. l. 2. § orig. Iur. by which power they may go­uerne Sine certâ lege, sine certo iure, but not sine ae­quitate, & iustitiâ. This power Romulus had, who began his owne Kingdome; and the Kings of La­tium, and Hetruria; also the Kings of Asia, and Greece, who were called [...], meeke and gentle, who ruled by their word; as Homer calls Vlysses [...]: which word some deriue of [...], verbum, as if hee were, [...], one that ruled all by his word. For which reason when they in Rome would elect one to haue the place and power of a King, though but for a short time (which name they abhorred, and were con­tent fictione lenior is nominis in Regem incidere) they called him first Dictatorem, one, whose word should stand, as it were a Law; and after that Imperatorem, a Commander, like the Centurion, who shall say to the people, Goe, and they shall goe, &c. As also the Assessors of the Sanedrim, among the Iewes, were called by the Latinists Verbistae, because their word was a Law to the people.’

58. This Ius Regis, or Regia manus, was in Au­gustus ‘as soone as euer the people of Rome chose him their Emperour; so that his election by the people did nothing diminish the kingly power in him, or made him any way subiect to them, as Bel­larmine would teach vs. And therefore that po­wer which our Sauiour expresseth by [...],Mat. 20 25. and [...], as proper to Kings of the Nati­ons, [Page 32] that is, to all Kings, (for there were then no kings, but of the Nations) the Romans called [...], an inbred or inherent power in the King: Liberum arbitrium Regis, or potestas ar­bitrij, by which Kings haue gouerned exceedingly well.’

Dion.59. And therefore Dion in the life of Augustus, calls him [...], one that had ab­solute power to make Lawes, and might giue iudgement ex rationis placito, which iudgements were therfore called Imperatoris placita, or [...], as Dion testifies; and had the force of a Law, or imperiall constitution; such a one was that Edict, which S. Luke mentioneth, and was sent out at our Sauiours natiuitie,Luc. 2. that all the world should be taxed. And this Ius Regis, Joseph. de An­tiq. or Regia manus, or [...], (as Iosephus calls the Empire of Rome) brought forth plenitudinem potestatis, motum proprium, cer­tam scientiam, Indulgentiam Principis; phrases which signifie the absolute power, which is in all Kingdomes, and absolute Monarchies.’

60. Absurd therefore it is, which Bellarmine saith, ‘that where the people choose the King (which hee falsly holds to be generall radicaliter) there the peo­ple may depose him: for although, where there are elections, the people, or the Optimates, or both, may giue Ius ad Regnum: yet Ius Regis, or Regia manus, or [...], or Ius in Regno, was not in their power to giue; but falls to the elected King iure diuino, or by the Law of nature, and no man hath right to depriue him of it.’

61. Thus you see one maine pillar of the Popes [Page 33] pretended Monarchie (which is founded vpon the manifold corruptions of my Text) vtterly demoli­shed: but because, ‘Non annosa vno quercus deciditur ictu,’ Such an olde Oake of fiue hundred yeares increase, from Gregory the seuenth; or a thousand yeares stan­ding, from Phocas the Emperour, though now it be doted, will not be strucke downe at any one blowe, nor so many rootes and foundations be blowne vp with one onely breath. Secondly, because Stapleton saith, that 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 [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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 [Page 38] 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.

[Page 39]Secondly, that St. Peter had a Primacie of order, as in an Aristocracie, among the Apostles; who were his equalls, as the Fathers affirme.

Thirdly, that the ancient Bishops of Rome, of the pu­rer times, neither had, nor challenged any Monarchie o­uer the Church, or any part thereof.

Fourthly, that by the iudgement of the Fathers, they had the Primacie among other Bishops.

Lastly, that this Primacie is not fastened to this See, but may for their tyrannies, and vsurpations ouer Churches, and Kingdomes, be remoued from it, and conferred on another.

4. The first is, that our Sauiour bequeathed no Mo­narchie to S. Peter, nor to his Church; and so conse­quently, that the spirituall gouernement is not Monarchicall.

5. This argument hath beene copiously, and learnedly handled of late; but especially by those two worthies of our Church, the most learned and reue­rend Bishops of Winchester and Rochester: D. Andrewes. D. Buckerige. of whom I may say, as Tullie did of Carneades, Tul. 2. de Orat. Nullam rem de­fenderunt, quam not probarint; nullam oppugnauerunt, quam non euerterint. But although all former doubts haue beene sufficiently cleared, and determined, yet some new proofes may euer be added, and withall, vsus, & inuentorum ab alijs scientia, & dispositio, the vse,Sen. and knowledge, and disposing of those things, wh [...]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 [Page 40] 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 vs (que) 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 ne (que) agnos quidem, Sand. de visio. Monar. l. 1. c. 6. et oues per autoritatem suam, abs (que) 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, [Page 41] 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 [Page 42] 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.

1 13. Not that our aduersaries, or wee make any doubt, whether there be a set, or constant regiment [Page 43] 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.

2 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.

3 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 sanctum Domini, Psal. 2. Et regni huius non erit finis, Luc. 1. and of his Kingdome there shall be no end, whether wee intend extent of place, or continuance of time: but our question is, whether our Sauiour appointed ouer his militant Church one Steward, oeconomum vnum, viz. St. Peter, as the Papists holde, as the sole spirituall Monarch of it, from whom all spirituall power should be deriued; or ma­ny Stewards, viz. the twelue Apostles, and their suc­cessors, as equall and ioynt commissioners from him.

[Page 44]16. This word Monarcha, or Monarchia, which is the Praedicatum in our question, is no antient Eccle­siasticall word, but nouus & ascriptitius ciuis, and but lately admitted into the Church gouernement, or spirituall common-wealth of Christ Iesus: it was ne­uer found in the Fathers applied to the Church (I thinke I may be bolde to say) for more then a thou­sand yeares; not very frequent till our age, in which Sanders wrote his visible Monarchie. Now Francis­cus à victoriâ, Francis victor. Relect. 7. sets downe this rule: Theologis non licet in suis disputationibus, sicut Iurisconsultis, aliquid inso­lens, nouum, & inauditum, contra maiorum autoritatem asserere. It is not lawfull for Diuines (as it is for Law­yers,) to maintaine any thing, that is strange, new, and vnheard of, against the authoritie of the Fathers. Notwithstanding this Non licet, Sanders, Stapleton, Suarez, Bellarmine, Gretzer, with that whole societie, or rather conspiracie, take vpon them the defence of this Monarchical, Papall Church-gouernement: no doubt directly against their consciences, and certaine know­ledge; as may appeare by their slye, subtill, and va­rious defence of it.

17. For Bellarmine entitles his bookes plainely De Romani Pontificis Monarchiâ, but with feare, and a kinde of blushing;Cic. Bellarl. l. 1. c. 19. Verecundiam timiditas imitatur, feare imitates bashfulnesse; for when he comes to the issue and heart of the question, hee changeth his co­pie, as if he should say, Timidè dito, sed tamen dicen­dum est, though I feare to offend my violent brethren, yet I must affirme but this onely, Ecclesiasticum regi­men praecipuè Monarchicum esse debere, which is the title of that ninth chapter: praecipuè Monarchicum, a [Page 45] word slyly put in, that when he is pressed hard with any argument, he may slide instantly into the Pri­macie, which we denye not; confounding for his ad­uantage these two questions of the Monarchie, and Primacie; a common practise among them all; that if they be vrged hard, they may after the manner of vnconstant heretickes, rapidè ad vnum delabi, slippe sodainely to one of them: and againe, when they see their time, and aduantage, citò in alterum confluere, returne quickly to their first error.

18. But there is no Monarchie in the world praeci­puè Monarchicum: if it be Monarchicum, it is absolutè Monarchicum; and whatsoeuer is found in it either Aristocraticall, or Democraticall, it is by the fauourable and free concession of the absolute Monarch; as wee see in this Kingdome, & others adiacent: and the Mo­narchs bountie & grace, who yeelds so much for the ease, & good of his people, must not preiudice his ab­solute prerogatiue, or giue to his gouernement a new, forged, or commentitious title: for multari Monar­cham diminutione aliquâ honoris, contumelio sum est; it is a high disgrace to depriue a Monarch of the least part of his honour.

19. Notwithstanding, Gretzer (who hath com­mandement from Claudius de Aquà viuâ, general Go­uernour of that societie, to second Bellarmine in all his attempts, and obserueth in his owne writings these two qualities, temerè dicere, & astutè reticere, to speake confidently in his greatest weakenesse, and conceale subtilly his aduersaries strength) seeing Bel­larmine vrged by Danaeus (prouing the Church go­uernement not to be Monarchicall, and himselfe not [Page 46] able to make it good) as one full of clamour, and in­dignation, cries out like Mars in Homer, hauing ta­ken a wound,Gretz. l. 2. defen. Bellar. de. Pontif. Rom. li. 1. ca. 9. Vbi vnquam scripsit Bellarminus Ecclesiae regimen esse Monarchicum planè, id est, pure, sine vlla admixtione ex Aristocrattâ, & Democrattâ? Where did Bellarmine euer write, that the gouernment of the Church was plainely, that is, purely Monarchicall, without any mixture of Aristocracie, or Democracie?

20. We will answere him briefly. Wheresoeuer Bellarmine calls the regiment of the Church Monar­chicum, or S. Peter, or the Pope a Monarch simply without any diminishing particle, there he saith, the regiment of the Church is plane & purè Monarchicum; and the Pope is planè & purè Monarcha. But that we may,Cic. in Top. Vi nominis argumentum el [...]cere, the etymon of the word [...] implies not onely, that one, but one alone, solus, doth gouerne the state planè & purè: besides Bellarmine entitles his booke De Romani Pon­tificis Monarchiâ, without any diminution; and holds it affirmatiuely, and saith that St. Peter was Primus Ecclesiae Romanae Monarcha; Gretz l. 2. c. 2. and Gretzer saith, Monar­chia, & Monarcha supremam, & ab alio independentem authoritatem denotat; which admits neither Aristocracy, nor Democracie to be mixed with it; for then it were not sola, nor independens: and after that absolute man­ner hee defines St. Peters spirituall Monarchie, in his eight Chapter.

De Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 9.21. And when Bellarmine saith, Papam habere pleni­tudinem potestatis, si comparetur cum Episcopis, which notes the intensiue power: and Papa est praepositus to­ti orbi Christiano, in that fulnesse of power; and notes the extensiue power: and that he hath totam & ple­nam [Page 47] eam potestatem, quam Christus ad Ecclesiae vtilita­tem in terris reliquit, which is a plenarie power; and many the like: what doth he else, but in plaine termes auerre the gouernment of the Church, and the Popes power to be planè, id est, purè Monarchicum? For the power Aristocraticall in other Bishops, or De­mocraticall in inferiour Priests, is not entended by Bellarmine, to be with admixtion (as Gretzer calls it) with the Popes gouernment; but by subordination to the Popes power, or emanation from the Popes po­wer, as Suarez saith: with which subordination, De Leg. l. 4. c. 4. or e­manation Aristocraticall, or Democraticall (as they holde it) the Church regiment may be planè, id est, purè Monarchicum.

22. Tullie saith,Do Natu. Deorū lib. 3. that a man may wrong a good cause by ill handling it, Rem minime dubiam argumen­tando dubiam facere, as no doubt the rest of the Iesuits will censure Bellarmine for halting, as it were, be­tweene the Monarchie and Primacie; whereas they are resolute, obstinatione quâdam sententiae, that the Pope is planè & purè a perfect and absolute spirituall Monarch.

23. For Suarez (a chiefe Captaine of that coniu­ration) affirming that our Sauiour gaue to S. Peter Munus Apostolicum, and Potestatem legislatiuam, De leg. l. 4. c. 4. n. 15. & 16. vt 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 [Page 48] 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 [Page 49] 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 [Page 50] 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, [Page 51] 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 among themselues for the first place; you shall finde diuers reasons giuen by reuerend An­tiquitie, and vrged by some late Writers; and name­ly, [Page 52] that it was in reg [...]rd of the speciall fauour to St. Peter, in giuing him the keyes, and in paying tri­bute for him onely, &c. But sauing my reuerend re­spect to my betters,Jansen. I rather thinke, that the fore­shewing so often his death, and passion, caused them rather so often to question the succession.

1 32. For before his comming to Capernaum, hee foretolde his Disciples his death, and passion; after that they disputed (as St.Marc. 9.34. Marke saith) [...], quis eorum caeteris esset maior, who should be the grea­ter of them: For when they heard that he should die, then they thought of his successor: for (as our Saui­our tolde them) adhuc sine intellectuerant, Mat. 15.16. as yet they were without vnderstanding, Mat. 15. and also Luk. 24. they were tardi ad credendum, Luc. 24.25. slowe to belieue, what was written by the Prophets.

2 33. So likewise Mat. 20. hee foretolde his death and passion to them; and then (saith S. Mathew) the mother of the Sonnes of Zebedee entreated for the prime seates in his kingdome;Mat. 20.21. and therevpon grew another contention among them.

3 34. Lastly, Luke 22. when they expected his pas­sion, euen at the last Supper,Luc. 22.24. facta est contentio inter eos, there was a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest; and our Sauiour instantly euery time quencheth the heate of their am­bition, and contention, with a present answere.

35. At Capernaum hearing their contention, he an­sweres, Si quis vult primus esse erit omnium nouissimus, Marc. 9.35. & omnium minister, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, & seruant of all: allowing no desire of superiority among them, who were to bee [Page 53] equalls in his kingdome of the Church; which was well performed in the primitiue purer times, when (as S. Augustine saith) Multi, vt Episcopatum suscipe­rent, Aug. Epist. 204. tenebantur inuiti, Many were constrained against their wills, to take Bishoprickes. And I doe not find, that any man among the Apostles, or their first suc­cessors, affected any first or chiefe place in the Church, before it was endowed with honour and lands; nei­ther was there any reason, why they should desire it, all circumstances considered; except charitie enfor­ced them for the good of the Church; and then hee tooke the gouernment, who was called, and chosen, and not he that aspired, and sought the first place.

36. How then doth the Pope obserue this rule, who will not onely be first among Bishops, but the Monarch ouer all Bishops?Gorran. Gorran simply shewes vs a pretty sleight to elude this rule; for, saith he, Hinc Dominus Papa, omnium Christianorum vertex, scribit se seruus seruorum Dei; Hence it is, that our Lord the Pope, who is the top, or supreame of all Christians, writes himselfe the seruant of the seruants of God; and that (saith he) after the example of Christ, of whom the Prophet saith, Vidimus eum nouissimum virorum, Es. 53.3. We haue seene him the last of men. But our Sauiour saith not, Qui vult primus esse, scribat se nouissimum, He that desires to be first, let him write himselfe last, but erit omnium nouissimus, & minister omnium, Marc. 9.35. hee shall be the last of all, and the seruant of all: And if his great Cardinals should see the Pope indeed so humiliated, as our Sauiour was, and is there expressed by the Pro­phet Esai, who fore-sawe his passion,Es. 53.3. and describeth him to be Nouissimum virorum (opinione omnium) the [Page 54] meanest of men, in all mens opinion, as the Glosse saith; and virum dolorum, & scientem infirmitatum, a man full of sorrow, and acquainted with infirmities; they would soone (euen to his face, which St. Peter did not) renounce their great Monarch, and abiure his acquaintance.

37. I passe ouer the sensible example, which our Sauiour vsed to his Apostles, by taking vp a little childe in his armes, as a paterne for them: for by the little childe he tooke in his armes, affirming that the Apostles must be like vnto such, hee reproued their ambition and strife for the Monarchie, because (as S. Chrysostome saith) A vanâ gloriâ & inuidiâ paruu­lus mundus existit, Hom. 59. in Mat. & â concupiscendo Primatum; A lit­tle childe is voide of vaine-glory, and enuie, and de­sire of the Primacie: Cyril. and as Cyril saith, Puer non am­bit honorem, non nouit cuiusuis praerogatiuae modum, A childe sues not for honour, he knowes not what be­longs to any prerogatiue: for this is not in sensu pri­mo, an instruction to humility by a positiue doctrine; as many Diuines thinke it to be, commenting on this place; (for little children are not verè virtuo [...]i, verè humiles, truely vertuous, truely humble, and in that to be imitated:) but it is a negatiue doctrine, forbid­ding all strife and contention for place, and Prelacie in the Church; and insinuating, that they should be as free from ambition ex rationis rectitudine, by the rule of reason, as little children are ex imperfectione naturae, through natures imperfection.

38. The second discontentment and contention about the precedencie, or maioritie, was when the mo­ther of Iames, Mat. 20.21. and Iohn, desired the first places for her [Page 55] Sonnes, one to sit on the right hand, the other on his left in his Kingdome; discouering in plaine termes,Mat. 20.21. that they stroue for a Monarchie; as the Pope now doth.

39. Our Sauiour perceiuing, that the rest of his Apostles, out of their particular ambition, indignati sunt de duobus fratribus, Verse 24. were moued with indignati­on against the two brethren; answeres as hee did be­fore, Qui voluerit inter vos maior fieri, Ʋerse 26. fit vester mini­ster, Whosoeuer will be great among you, let him be your seruant: but as in the former contention he pro­posed a little childe, whom in their neglect of honour they should resemble: So here hee proposeth vnto them the Kings, and Monarchs of the world, whose power and regiment they should not expect. You striue (saith he) for the first place in a Kingdome, but Reges gentium dominantur in eas: & qui maiores sunt, potestatem exercent inter eas, Mat. 20.25. The Kings of the Nati­ons exercise dominion ouer them, and they that are great exercise authority vpon them. Vos autem non sic; but it shall not be so among you, setting downe in plaine termes my negatiue; The gouernment of the Church shall not be Monarchicall.

40. And it is probable, that our Sauiour fore-see­ing, that this would be a great question to exercise his Church, doth therefore double this answere, and v­seth it againe at their last contention, euen before his passion, as his last determination of it, for them, and all their successors to 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 [Page 56] 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, at (que) 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, [Page 57] 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 [Page 58] 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 [Page 59] 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. 1 [...]. 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 of a respect to persons; that is, precisely because they are rich: Altera est ex lege re­giâ, the other is by reason of the Kings Law; that is, because (saith he) they are placed in authority by the King; or because they are the Kings Embassadors; or because the King hath so commanded: as appeareth plainely in Mardocheus, of whom it was saide in his highest honour, Sic honorabitur, quem Rex honorare vo­luerit, Thus shall the man be honoured, whom the [Page 60] King will honour. And the Apostle gathereth this precept out of that rule in nature alledged by him, Diliges proximum tuum, Iac. 2.8. sicut teipsum, Thou shalt loue thy Neighbour as thy selfe: where the particle sicut is vsed proportionaliter; as if he should say, Diliges pro­ximum tuum in gradu, in officio, in dignitate, in priuile­gio suo sicut teipsum in gradu, in officio, in dignitate, in priuilegio tuo.

49. This [...], or law of ciuility, which S. Iames mentioneth, is much neglected in these daies by the Anabaptists; who after the manner of some false Apostles in S. Pauls time, so teach equality, that they acknowledge no superiority, or ciuill difference in Christianity: so that, if at the administration of the Eucharist, an Earle, Lord, or Bishop be present, they take not any notice of them, nor obserue Legem regiam, but beginne to administer to the next vnto them, of what degree soeuer: as if Lex regia, and the Law of ciuilitie, could not stand with Christianitie, and the Law of true spirituall liberty: whereas Saint Paul, 1 Tim. 6.1. & 2, tells those seruants and inferi­ours, who being Christians, neglected their dutie and reuerence to their Masters, or Superiours, because ei­ther they were not Christians, or if Christians, yet comprehended with their seruants and inferiours vnder the name of Brethren, or the Faithfull (as the vse was then at the first conuersion of the Gentiles) that by this conceit of paritie in Christianity, which was onely in spiritualibus; and by neglect and con­tempt of superioritie, which is due by nature in tem­poralibus, and in ciuilitie, Lege regia, by the Kings pre­rogatiue, Nomen Domini, & doctrina blasphematur, [Page 61] both the name of Christ, and his Gospell, and do­ctrine is blasphemed. For if they, who were newly conuerted, should with-draw from their superiours in acts and ceremonies of Christianity, that respect, reuerence, and honour which was due vnto them, the vnbelieuers would haue detested, vilified, and persecuted the Gospell, quasi aliena inuadens, & Do­minis, aut Regibus sua anferens: and therefore when in another place, the same Apostle exhorts inferiours to be subiect to their superiours, and pleasing in all things; he telleth them, that such behauiour, and ci­uilitie, would be an ornament to their Christianity, and the doctrine of our Sauiour.

50. Whether Caietans exposition be the true sense of that Text of S. Iames, I doe not determine: but surely it is very morall and mannerly: not like the English marginall glosse, at the 23. of the Acts: for where S. Paul saith there, modestly in his owne ex­cuse, when he was charged to reuile Gods high Priest, I knew not Brethren, that he was the high Priest; Acts 23.5. for it is written, Thou shalt not speake euill of the ruler of thy peo­ple: the marginall note saith, He made this excuse, as it were, in a mockery: as if he should say, I know nothing in this man worthy the office of the High Priest.

51. Time serues not, nor this businesse to exagitate this vnciuill note; but these and the like glosses make many so insolent in their behauiours and answeres, both to ciuill and Ecclesiasticall Magistrates, whom they relish not well: because in their fancies they esteeme them not worthy the office they beare, or those honours the King hath aduanced them to; and so by consequent to be no Magistrates, but subiect [Page 62] to scoffes, and scurrill dicacity. But the Ciuilians haue this rule;L. dubitare c. de [...]rimine Sacri­legij. Dubitare de eo, an dignus sit, quem prin­ceps elegit, sacrilegij instar est; It is a kinde of sacriledge to call his worth into question, whom the King hath preferred. Thus much by occasion of my second reason, why Monarchicall gouernment is here for­bidden, drawne from the name [...], which is proper to Kings of the best note, and not vnto Ty­rants.

3 52. Thirdly, the words [...], and [...], are vsed indifferently in the same sense: for S. Peter teacheth the Bishops, that they should not dominere ouer the Clergie,1 Pet. 5. [...]: and St. Paul saith, he neither might nor did dominere o­uer the faith,2 Cor. 1.24. and the Christian religion; [...]: which cuts off all absolute power and Monarchicall, which the Pope chalengeth, either ouer the Christian religion, or Ecclesiasticall persons.

4 53. Lastly, not to speake of the vse, but of the propriety of the word, which Bellarmine chalengeth; we finde not, that [...] in composition addeth force, or violence to euery word; but what signification so euer it hath,Scapul [...] in compositione aliquando retinet, aliquan­do amittit; as [...], and [...], both of them signifie to die, neither of them to die violently: and [...] vsed by St. Mathew in this argument, and [...] vsed by St. Luke, signifie both of them absolute power, not soure, bitter, or tyrannicall command:Beza sup. Mat. 20.25. as Beza notes, that our word here [...], signifieth onely dominari in eas, reso­lutâ compositione, the composition adding no force vnto it more, then is found in the simple verbe. It is [Page 63] Beza's annotation vpon this place. If his authority haue no credite with them, let them consult the olde vulgar translation, which reades simpliciter, Dominari at both those Greeke words, resolutâ compositione, as Beza doth.

54. This, which hath beene spoken in answere to Bellarmine may serue to shew both the true sense of the words, and helpe to satisfie all the reasons, which are made by others, to proue that this Text excludes not a Monarchie: for if this double Canon of our Sa­uiour, or duplicated rule for his Apostles (Mat. 20. and Luke 22. Vos autem non sic, you shall not rule as the Kings of the world) be not transplanted, and re­moued from the siege of the Popedome, it will bat­ter downe all that is built on that Monarchie, and the Monarchie it selfe from the very foundation. Where­fore euery one busily sets to his helpe to remoue it, and we must as earnestly maintaine the assault.

55. Gretzer, as he is bound, seconds the Cardinall,GRETZER. Gretz. Antim­pro deliro. dos. 28. and saith in his Antimonie pro deliro, that our Saui­our doth onely forbid dominatum violentum, and tru­culentum, and makes it an indefinite proposition, and to implie a particular; as if our Sauiour said, Aliqui reges Gentium, &c. Vos autem non sic: excluding from the Apostles the tyrannicall gouernment, not the re­gall. Non dicit (saith he) omnes Reges Gentium, sed inde­finitè, Reges gentium; hoc est, aliquos Reges gentium: and then he shewes his Logicke; for (saith he) propositio indefinita constans materià contingenti, idem valet, quod particularis.

56. But to be briefe, and speake to the point: the proposition doth not consist of contingent matter, but [Page 64] of necessarie: for, omnes Reges gentium dominantur eis, & habent eas in potestate, All the Kings of the Gen­tiles haue dominion ouer them, and exercise autho­rity vpon them; and he that doth not so, or hath not power to doe so,Abulens sup. Mat. 20. q. 93. is no King: and Abulensis saith vp­on this place of Mathew, that both Principatus genti­um & Iudaeorum, (which were both one, as appeares Deut. 17. and 1 Sam. 8.) were here excluded from the Apostles, and from the Church regiment; and so the matter being necessary, the proposition indefinite is vniuersall, forbidding the Church all kind of Monar­chie that was in the world.

57. But Gretzer hath a second shift to elude this Text,Ibid. and saith, Christus non dixit, Reges Christiano­rum, & fidelium, but Reges gentium, and therefore the gouernment of the Church may be Monarchicall, af­ter the nature of Christian regiment, though not af­ter the fashion of heathen Monarchies.

SANDERS.58. But we answere, that the regall gouernment of Christian Kings, and those of the Nations, is of one kinde: and Sanders by occasion of these words so confesseth;De visib. Mo­nar. lib. 2. cap. 1. for, saith he, Ciuilis potestas apud gen­tes, quae Deum non cognoscunt, eadem reperitur, quae a­pud fideles Reges existit; licet Christus talem in suis mi­nistris esse noluerit, The ciuill power of the Nations, which know not God, and of Christian Kings, is all one, although Christ will not haue such power exer­cised by his Ministers. The former part confutes Gretzer in terminis, who thinkes that the ciuill power of Christian and heathen Kings is not all one: the latter part, viz. Licet Christus talem in suis ministris esse noluerit, you would thinke also in plaine tearmes [Page 65] to be our assertion, as indeed it is; but I will not vrge it, or charge him with such high treason against his great Monarch. The Ciuilians say, Inciuile est, L. Inciuile, H. de Leg. & 5. c. nisi totâ lege perspectâ iudicare. It is true, that he saith plainely, The regiment of the Church is not like the regiment of Kings, &c. but he hath his euasion too: as if he should say, Reges gentium, & fidelium habent ori­ginem regiminis eorum vel a iure gentium, vel à iure ci­uili; The Kings of the heathen, and of Christians, haue the originall of their regiment either from the Law of Nations, or from the ciuill Law: Vos autem non sic, sed regnum vestrum, vel regimen, tantum per mediato­rem Dei & hominum, hominem Iesum Christum dima­nauit; With you it is otherwise; for your King­dome, or regiment is deriued vnto you onely by the mediator of God and man, the man Iesus Christ.

59. Elihu was full of indignation,Iob 32.3. because Iobs friends, Non inuenissent responsionem rationabilem, had not found a reasonable answere: but this answere is not onely absurd, and nothing to the purpose, if it were entertained, but false also, and Sanders herein more subtill then wise: for wee say truely, that the power of Kings, and the power of the Apostles, and their successors, are both originaliter from God only: for a Pope, or a Bishop, in respect of his owne per­son, hath his place designed to him by Election, Con­firmation, and Consecration, according to Ecclesiasticall Canons, and Constitutions; but his spirituall power is originally from God, by the Law of the Gospell, per verbuminsitum, as St. Iames calls it; as also temporall Kings either in state of election, or succession, haue their Kingdomes to themselues, or to their successors, [Page 66] iure gentium, or ciuili, or municipali: but they haue potestatem regiam, whatsoeuer it is, originally, and im­mediately from God by the Law of nature, per ver­bum innatum. And this the Emperor acknowledges in his Nouelis, that ex vno eodem (que) principio imperium & sacerdotium proficiscuntur, although in nature they be distinguished; cum hoc diuinis, illud humanis praesideat.

CAIETAN. 60. Now, as Sanders will haue it, vos autem non sic, id est, originaliter: so Caietan will haue it, vos autem non sic, id est, finaliter: both will haue it one forme of re­giment, which Bellarmine, and Gretzer denie; but Sanders makes the difference in the Author, Caietan in the end. Sup. Luc. ca. 22. Reprimit (saith Caietan) ambitionem ex differentia inter principatum mundanum, & Ecclesiasti­cum, penes hoc; quod finis Regum est dominari, & glo­ria; Vos autem non sic: You shall haue the same power which Kings haue; but you shall not vse it to that end.

61. But the end of Monarchicall principality is not do­mination, honor, and glory; but bonum vniuersi, the generall and common good, especially of their parti­cular kingdomes, by maintaining their Subiects in order, and peace, by the rules of iustice: Dominati­on, or honour are but consequents of it, or adiuncts to it; without which that end cannot be attained, but supernaturally, as it was in the Church. For wee may say as well to a King, as to a Bishop, by way of aduice, Seeke not your owne domination, or glory: which were not well said, if honour, and glorie, and domination, were the end of their gouernment: for euery man ought to studie, and endeauour, to at­taine that end, which is proposed to his office. But if [Page 67] we should say to a King, as our Sauiour saide vnto his Apostles, Qui maior est, fiat sicut minor; Sir, if you will be the greatest, wee will bring you downe, and humble you to vs; it were Laesa maiestas, violence of­fered against that power, and Maiesty of Kings, which is instituted and allowed by GOD himselfe: wherefore the Regiment Ecclesiasticall differs from the Regall, not onely in this false imagined end, but in the kinde, and species of the regiment it selfe.

62. Now we will consider, whether the regiment of the Church, which our Sauiour left to his Apostles, were conformable to the Monarchie of the world and we shall finde, that as the ende of that regiment was supernaturall, viz. the saluation of the world; so the meanes to that end for the most part were supernatu­rall; Faith, and the Sacraments: and the power of the Gouernours supernaturall, reaching to the opening and shutting of Heauen; to the binding and loosing of sinnes: wherefore hee denyed to his Apostles all such things as appertained to the perfection of secu­lar regiment, namely, Riches: Secondly, Power coerciue; Thirdly, Honour and domination; that his Kingdome might not be supposed to bee erected by ordinary meanes.

63. First, for Riches; RICHES. it was impossible the Apostles should be rich, hauing forsaken all their owne sub­stance:1. Impossible. and the most part of Christians at first conuer­ted, being of meane estate, and the collections which were made, were diuided to such as were needy a­mong them.

64. Secondly, it was not conuenient they should be rich, for hauing no place of abode,2. Not conueni­ent. being sent as [Page 68] Commissioners ouer the World, they had no portage for store of wealth, and the care of their riches might haue stayed their course.

65. Thirdly, It was not safe for them to be rich; for the Infidels,3. Not safe. who then persecuted them for their faith, would haue tooke occasion of a stricter perse­cution, to possesse their riches.

4. Not for the credit of the Gospell. Arist. Ethic.66. Fourthly, It was not for the credit of the Go­spell, for the Apostles to be rich; for as Aristotle saith, Multa per diuitias effecta sunt, Many things are brought to passe by riches: It was therefore for the glory of the Church, that the chiefe rulers then should be poore, and possesse nothing: that whatsoeuer those first founders did effect, might be ascribed to the di­uine power supernaturall, and God onely might be honoured in the conuersion of the Gentiles, and the Christian Faith no way calumniated.

COERCIVE POVVER.67, The second thing, which is proper to Mo­narchs, is, potestas coercendi, a power to compell men to be good, and iust, either by Legall punish­ment, or by Arbitrarie; where legall is wanting: from this power our Sauiour did quit his Apostles, when he said,Mat. [...]0.25. & 26. Qui maiores sunt, potestatem exercent in eos, con­cluding, Vos autem non sic; They that are great exer­cise authority ouer others: But it shall not be so a­mong you.

1. NO TEM­PORAL PV­NISHMENT68. And therefore in those dayes men were not forced to goodnesse, or to the Christian Faith, by pu­nishment or feare, but by loue and exhortation: and the reasons were diuers; one is giuen by Origen, be­cause, Sicut omnia carnalia in necessitate posita sunt, Origen. spiri­tualia autem in voluntate: sic & qui principes sunt spiri­tuales, [Page 69] principatus eorum in dilectione subditorum debet esse positus, non in timore corporali: As all carnall things are necessary, but spirituall voluntary; so those that are spirituall Gouernours, their dominion must consist in the voluntary loue of their inferiors, not in corporall feare: for the olde rule was, Fides cogi non debet, Faith ought not to be enforced, indeed it can­not be enforced.

69. Secondly, the Apostles had no other Law to gouerne by, but the Law of Christ, 2. NO LAVV BVT CHRISTS LAVV. which is not coer­ciue, nor imposeth corporall or temporall punish­ment, either particular, or generall vpon any crime: but vseth onely commination of hell fire, and eter­nall torments; neither rewardeth it any vertue, but with promise of Heauen, and the ioyes there­of.

70. Thirdly, In the Apostles time, the Christian people, who were subiect to them, were few;3. NO IVRIS­DICTION. and those not populus determinatus, belonging to this or that territory, subiect to the Apostles: but they were certaine parts, or pieces of people, and Nations, some of one Countrey, and some of another, who all were vnder their lawfull Princes, and Monarchs; and so by consequent the Apostles hauing no territory, could haue no Iurisdiction at all, either in ciuilibus, or in cri­minalibus, neither ouer the liues, nor ouer the goods, nor ouer the bodies of any Christian: and if they had vsurped any such iurisdiction, they should haue suf­fered as Malefactors and Traytors, and so dishonou­red the Christian Religion.

71. Fourthly, our Sauiour proposed his owne principality ouer them, as a patterne, or example of [Page 70] that power they should vse:No other pat­terne, but our Sauiour to fol­low. Mat. 20.27. &. 28. for when hee had tolde them, that their gouernement should not be that of the Kings of the Nations: he addeth, Qui voluerit in vobis esse primus, sit vester seruus, &c. Whosoeuer will be chiefe among you, let him be your seruant; euen as the Sonne of man came not to be serued, but to serue, and to giue his life for the ransome of many: where­fore his Apostles were to vse no other Iurisdiction, or coerciue power, either in ciuilibus, or in criminalibus: but yet exercised a certaine discipline, as we may call it; and whereof we shall haue occasion to speake hereaf­ter at fit opportunity.

3. EXCEL­LENCY and HONOVR.72. The third thing that belongs to Kings, is Ex­cellency, and Honour, which euer attend on Riches, and coerciue power: both which being denyed to the Apo­stles, they were exempt also from all worldly, and tem­porall honour, as their Master was; except such as ver­tue procures in the hearts of the people: but that is morall honour, not ciuill, such as we speake of; and is in Kings, and giuen by Kings, as the Ciuilians terme it, Per honorarios codicillos, or per diplomata R [...]gum; vpon whose onely gift all ciuill honours, and nobility depend.

Obiect.73. If any man suppose, that the Apostles had this coerciue Iurisdiction, because Saint Peter (as it seemes) killed Ananias and his wife,Ananias and Saphyra. who lyed to the Holy Ghost, and with-held a part of the price from the poore: as also because Saint Paul deliuered ouer the Corin­thian fornicator to Sathan,Corinthian fornicator. ad interitum carnis, &c. We answere, that those Apostles neither vsed ciuill nor criminall Iurisdiction:Respons. for Saint Peter did not put to death Ananias and Saphyra, but fore-shewed their [Page 71] death: and so was neither their Iudge, Acts 5. nor executio­ner, but a prophet, who fore-told that punishment, which the holy Ghost would inflict.

74. And although the punishment of the forni­cator seeme to be an act of Iurisdiction, and of secu­lar iudgement in St. Paul, who saith,1 Cor. 5.3. Ego autem absens corpore, & praesens spiritu iudicaui, &c. And againe, Decreui eum tradere Satanae ad interitum carnis, I haue determined to deliuer him vp to Satan for the de­struction of the flesh: yet this was not done by ver­tue of any temporall Iurisdiction, but by miraculous power, [...]:Ʋerse 4. for St. Paul did not command the Corinthian to be whipt, or to be banished his Country, or to be fined; but commanded the Diuell to assault him, and so to tor­ment him to death,Ʋerse 5. Vt spiritus saluus sit in die Domini Iesu Christi; that so the spirit might be saued in the day of the Lord Iesus: which act proceeded from our Sauiour immediately, because Diuels are not ex­ecutioners at mans command; so that these punish­ments proceeded not from any temporall Iurisdicti­on: but St. Paul inflicted punishment per modum o­rationis, and St. Peter, per modum praenuntiationis, St. Paul by prayer, S. Peter by prophesie.

75. How then did they subiugate the whole world vnto them? To omit that supernaturall meanes, which God vsed by the bloud of his Martyrs, and by those three formes of the gifts of the holy Ghost;Aug. de Trin. & vnit. cap. 4. the first whereof (as St. Augustine notes) pertinet ad ius Ecclesiasticum in regenerandis; the second, in virtu­tibus, & signis faciendis; and the third at the Pente­cost, in dono linguarum, and by Confirmation, or Im­position [Page 72] of hands, &c. they vsed two ordinary meanes; one was solicitude, and care to performe their office; the other was sanctitie, and holinesse of life: All which S. Peter deliuers to the Church, and his successours, as he receiued them from his Master Christ Iesus.

76. For in his first Epistle, not vnder the title of a Monarch, but of Compresbyter, hee exhorteth his fel­low Priests,1 Pet. 5. saying, I who am your fellow Priest, who glory not of any superiority, but in this onely, that I am a witnesse of Christs passion, and a partaker of that glory, which shall be reuealed (which many vnder­stand of that glory which he saw at the transfigura­tion) exhort you, Pascite, feede the flocke of God, which is among you, [...], not [...], taking the ouersight thereof as Bishops, (not ruling, and commanding as Kings) not by constraint, but willingly: not for filthy lucre, but of a ready minde: Neither as being Lords ouer Gods inheritance; but being ensamples to the flocke, &c. Which words (as S. Bernard saith) containe interdictum, Bern. de Consid. lib. 2. cap. 6. and edictum; the interdict forbiddeth three things, as Abulensis obserues, Coerciue power, Riches, and Domination; of which wee haue spoken: the edict commands two things: First, Pascere, qui in nobis est, gregem Dei, the care, & solicitude we should haue to feed Gods flock. Secondly, Formas fieri gregis, to be an example to our flockes in piety, and sanctitie of life. These also S. Paul requires; the former Praeesse in solicitudine, Rom. 12. the latter,Rom. 12. 1 Tim 3. 1. Tim. 3. Esse irreprehensibiles, and so a patterne of sanctitie to the whole flocke.

77. The foundation therefore of Christian reli­gion [Page 73] was not in riches, or coercine power, or honoura­ble titles; but in solicitude, and sanctitie; vpon which Christian Kings and Emperours, as was fore-prophe­sied, built those high turrets of honour, riches, Iuris­diction, and temporall power; which the Church in due time afterward possessed, to the glory of our Sa­uiour, and the credite of the Gospell; as shall be shewed in due place: and by these meanes was Chri­stianity at the first propagated.

78. Now it is naturall, that by what ordinary meanes Religion was first dilated, it should also be continued by the same. Miracles, and those extraor­dinary gifts of the holy Ghost, which (as S. Augu­stine saith) were giuen ad incrementum Ecclesiae, De Trin. & vnit. cap. 4. vs (que) dum fidei semina iacerentur, are now ceased: and those things, which not long after caused great progresse in Pietie, and Religion, namely, Continentia vs (que) ad te­nuissimum victum; ieiunia non quotidiana solùm, sed eti­am per contextos plures dies perpetrata: Ang. de vtil. Creden cap. 17. castitas vs (que) ad coniugij, prolis (que) contemptum: patientia vs (que) ad cruces, flammas (que) neglectas: liberalitas vs (que) ad patrimonia di­stributa pauperibus; aspernatio mundi vs (que) ad desideri­um mortis: which St. Augustine confesseth, that few then performed, but fewer did well and wisely per­forme: Pauci haec faciunt, pauciores benè, prudenter (que) faciunt, saith he: All these things, which the people then fauoured, and loued, and admired; Et quòd ista non possent, non sine prouectu mentis in Deum, nec sine quibusdam scintillis virtutum, setpsos accusabant: These also are all in a manner through the encrease of su­perstition, and manifold abuses, vtterly abandoned; there remaineth onely solicitude, and piety, among [Page 74] the primitive ordinary meanes, to continue Religion in that height and greatnes in the Church of Christ.

79. But the defects of those former supernatu­rall gifts haue beene in some measure supplied, since the vnion of the Empire, and temporall gouernment with the Church and spirituall power, and by the bounty and liberality of Kings: who prudently consi­dered, that in this incorporation, as the Common-wealth did partake the blessings that the Church could afford by maintaining temporall peace and concord, and subiecti­on to Kings (I speake nothing of the supernaturall bles­sing of regeneration, and the fruites thereof) so the Church should communicate with the Common­wealth, out of their liberality, Riches, Honour, and Temporall power, (but subordinate to them) accor­ding to the Law of Nature, and example of all peo­ple, who had any feeling of Religion, and the seruice of God, either by inbred light, or the custome of the Country.

80. But these Riches, Honours, and Iurisdictions, which are now added to the Church, are things in­different, good or bad, as they are vsed. Ipsa quidem, quod ad animi bonum spectat, Bern. de Consid. lib. 2. cap. 6. nec bona sunt, nec mala; vsus tamen horum bonus, for the honour and credite of Christian Religion; but abusio mala, solicitudo peior, as Saint Bernard saith.

81. It is certaine, that they are great temptations and prouocations to men, in this our frailty, often­times to exceed the bounds of Christian humility, and morall equity: which gaue occasion to that Pro­uerbe; Religio p [...]perit diuitias, & filia deuorauit ma­trem: and at the first endowment of the Church it [Page 75] was said, Hodiè venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam, which so farre infected many Prelates thereof, that the out-cry against them hath beene continuall, euen from those primitiue times; as appeares in those A­rian Bishops, who liued in Athanasius dayes,Athanasius. and were bipedum nequissimi, and so all along downe by suc­ceeding ages: some euer complaining in that forme, that Hugo Cardinalis vseth vpon that of Saint Peter, Non dominantes in clero. Hugo Cardinalis. Hoc praeceptum (saith he) ho­diè transgrediuntur multi praelatorum, qui plus se eri­gunt, quàm possint; many Prelates at this day doe transgresse this precept, who exalt themselues higher then they may, either by the Law of the Gospell, or by the donation of Kings; Vt valdè benè competat eis illud Esaiae, Audiuimus superbiam Moab, id est,Esai. 16. Prae­latorum, vel Clericorum carnalium, that the complaint of the Prophet Esay may very well befit them: Wee haue heard of the pride of Moab (that is (saith Hugo) of the Prelates, and carnall Clerkes;) Superbus est val­dè, he is maruellous proud: but blessed be God for it (saith he) superbia eius, & arrogantia eius, & indigna­tio eius, plus quàm fortitudo eius: and to that purpose applies other places of Scripture, both of Ieremie, and Leuiticus.

82. But this abuse appeared most in the Bishop of Rome, who could not in the first times, when the Church was yet vnsetled, moderate the power of his spirituall Primacie, (which was then of little force) as appeareth in Pope Victors rashnesse,Euseb. lib. 5. c. 23. hist. Eccles. who threat­ned to cut off from the vnitie of Communion, all the Churches of Asia, [...], for differing from him in the celebration of Easter: & in that cen­sure, [Page 76] which Tertullian gaue of some of them,Tertul. aduers. Prax. though himselfe deserued more to bee censured; that they were In pace Leones, in praelio cerui: and in that com­parison,Cypr. Epis. 73. & habetur apud. Aug. l. 2. c. 2. cont. Donatist. which Saint Cyprian, and the whole Councell of Carthage made with the Bishops of Rome, saying, None of vs makes himselfe the Bishop of Bishops, or doth compel his fellow-Bishops, Tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem: but much lesse could they moderate that Papall Monarchicall power, which they vsurped by degrees, after the Church was endowed, and ho­noured by the Emperours; but as Religio peperit di­uitias, &c. as I said before; so Imperium peperit Pa­patum, & Papatus deuorauit Imperium: by what steps and degrees, both the one and the other were per­formed, is for a fitter time, and more ample dis­course.

83. Now in our conclusion wee onely vrge that which we proposed, that the Pope had not that ty­rannicall, nor Monarchicall power (as he calles it, which he vsurpeth) from our Sauiour, or Saint Pe­ter: we dispute not now from whence he had it, whe­ther by vsurpation, or donation, but we say, as Saint Bernard said to Pope Eugenius his face;Ber. they haue it not from Saint Peter: Esto (saith he) vt quâcun (que) aliâ ratione haec tibi vindices; sed non Apostolico iure; now­soeuer you haue got it, you hold it not by Apostoli­call right, as Saint Peters inheritance: Non enim ille ti­bi dare, quod non habuit, potuit; for he could not giue that to thee, which he had not himselfe. Argentum, inquit, & aurum non est mihi: Quod habuit, hoc dedit so­licitudinem super Ecclesiā; Gold (saith he) and siluer haue I none: [...] Pet. 5. what he had, that he gaue, care ouer the [Page 77] Church; when he said, Pascite, qui in vobis est, gregem Dei, [...], &c.

84. If thou sayest, though he left me not riches, yet he left me dominatum, dominion and Monarchie, and doest challenge it from God himselfe,De Maior: & o­bedient. c. Solite. (as Inno­cent the third did in his Extrauagant) who gaue com­mand to the Prophet Ieremie, who was but a type of thee, as thou takest it, Vt euellat, & destruat, & disperdat, & dissipet, & aedificet, & plantet: yet this helpes thee lit­tle; for nihil horum (saith Saint Bernard) fastum sonat, aut dominatum: Rusticani magis sudoris schemate quo­dam labor spiritualis expressus est: Spirituall solicitude, and labour is expressed rather vnder this scheme of rusticall worke, and rurall offices; here is nothing re­gall, nothing Monarchicall in that Commission.

85. Peraduenture in this thy greatnesse, thou doest thinke thy selfe more then a Prophet, because thou holdest, that the High Priest in the olde Law had no Iurisdiction. Si sapis, eris contentus mensurâ, quam tibi mensus est Deus, nam quod amplius est, à malo est: If thou art wise, thou wilt be contented with that measure, which GOD hath meated vnto thee; for that which is ouer and aboue, proceedes from euill. Learne by this example of the Prophet, Praesidere non tam ad imperitandum, quàm ad factitandum, quod tempus requirit. Disce sarculo tibi opus esse, non sceptro, vt opus facias prophetae. Thou hast more neede of a Rake, then a Scepter, to performe the worke of a Prophet.

86. If thou challenge thy Monarchy from Saint Peter, heare what he saith to thee.1 Pet. 5. Non dominantes in clero, sed formae facti gregis: and that thou mayest not [Page 78] thinke, that Saint Peter spake it in humility, not in verity; it is our Sauiours owne voyce in the Gospell, Reges gentium dominantur eorum, & qui potestatem ha­bent super eos, benefici vocantur; vos autem non sic.

87. It is plaine, saith Saint Bernard, whatsoeuer Bellarmine and his fellow-flatterers say to the contra­ry, Apostolis inter dicitur dominatus, not onely tyran­nie, but dominion is forbid the Apostles. I ergo tu, & tibi vsurpare aude, aut dominans Apostolatum, aut Apo­stolicus dominatum; planè ab alterutro prohiberis, by our Sauiours, and Saint Peters constitutions: Si vtrum (que) similiter habere voles, If you will hold them both by one and the same tenure, Perdes vtrum (que), you will loose both. And doe not thinke thy se [...]fe exempted out of their number, of whom God complaines, O­se. 8. Ipsi regnauerunt, Ose. 8. & non ex me principes extiterunt, & non cognoui eos. For whosoeuer will raigne, and be a Monarke, without power from God, Habet gloriam, sed non apud Deum: He may haue glory with men, but not with God.

Aug. sup. Psal. 95.88. Thus you see, that (as Saint Augustine said) Quod modò dixi, iam dudum dictum est; that which I speake concerning this vsurped Monarchy of the Pope, hath beene said long agoe, in the height of his pride, by one who was inferiour to none of them, in solicitudine, & sanctitate: and because it was spoken before oftentimes by the same Spirit, whereof wee also are partakers by the goodnesse of God, Nos il­lud tum diximus, wee spake it then: & quicquid modò eodem spiritu nos dicimus, illi dixerunt, qui ante nos fuerunt; and whatsoeuer we say now, by the directi­on [Page 79] of that Spirit, the same did they speake, who were before vs: for the same Spirit speaketh the same in vs both, though at sundry times, and in sundry ages.

89. But that which hath beene said of the Pope, both concerning our Sauiours, and Saint Peters interdict, of desiring Honour and Riches, and Domi­nion; as also of their Edict of Humilitie, Solicitude, and Sanctitie, reacheth to the rest of the Cleargie of all sorts.

90. We must not forget our calling, and profes­sion, it is Ministerium, and must be performed with care, sanctitie, and holinesse of life. We must haue this Ministrie euer before our eyes, in the height of our gouernments: when we sit in iudgement, when we prescribe Lawes to others, our inferiours, or execute them. The consideration of our Ministry, viz. that our Sauiour sent vs Ministrare, not Ministrari, as his condition was, will make vs contemners of honour in the middest of our honour; which otherwise no doubt is very hard to performe. This consideration will serue vs for a buckler against that deadly dart, which the Prophet Dauid shootes against vs.Psal. 84. Homo cum in honore esset, non intellexit, &c.

91. Let vs say to our selues, wee 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 [Page 80] 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 [Page 81] 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 [Page 82] 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 [Page 84] 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 [...]ey esteeme fundamentall: for the vulgar will suspe [...] our truth and fidelity, vntill we discouer our adue [...]aries falshood and subtilty:Cypr. de vnitate Eccles. c. 2. and no maruell; for Saint Cy­prian saith, Haeretici dum verisimilia mentiuntur, veri­tatem [Page 85] 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. [...]. 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 f [...]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 N [...]zianzen calls them, that is, falsly informed in the Christian Religion, and [Page 86] 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, C [...]. lib. 1. Offic. quae à ratione suscipitur de re aliquâ institutio, [Page 87] 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, quàm 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 [Page 88] regalia, & diuisionem, vel communicationem non admit­tunt, they cannot be diuided with any, or commu­nicated to any; for then he, to whom it is communi­cated, or with whom it is diuided, could not be [...], sub alterius potestate, as all Subiects are, and ought to be vnder a Monarch, or King, but [...], absolute of himselfe also.

12. The royalties which proceede â [...], from his dominion or gouernment, are often com­municated to inferiour Magistrates, and Presidents, and gouernours of Prouinces; as the vse of tributes, Subsidies, and the like; not the imposing of them, which are proprieties of an absolute dominion, such as Monarchs enioy.

13. To this forme of Monarchicall gouernment by encroachment and vsurpation, the Popedome is brought, dum Patres-familias dormirent; whilst Kings and Emperours were fast asleepe: but yet it must be chalenged from Saint Peter, by succession in his Ste­wardship: and therfore Bellarmine proposeth this que­stion, and holds it affirmitiuely, Fueritne Sanctus Pe­trus primus Ecclesiae Catholicae spiritualis Monarcha, whether Saint Peter were the first spirituall Monarch of the Catholicke Church.

14. And Gretzer he will proue it thus, Si quis est caput vniuersale, idem iure optimo Monarcha est, cum in­dependentis potestatis plenitudinem possideat: at Petrus fuit caput vniuersale, ergo, Monarcha. Here is absolute Monarchie ascribed to St. Peter, and so to the Pope. Here is vnus Princeps, [...]; here is regimen vniuer­sale, [...]; here is independentia, [...]; here is plenitudo potestatis, [...]: and so by consequent [Page 89] as Suarez notes, potestas legislatiua, Suarez de Leg. lib. 4. c. 3. n. 2. and then by ano­ther consequent, Coerciue power: for hee that hath power to make a Law, as Aristotle saith,Ethic. 10. hath power to enforce it.

15. And hereupon follow to the Pope all the pre­rogatiues and priuiledges,Potestas dispen­sandi. which naturally belong vnto temporall Monarchs, as namely,Suarez lib. 6. de Leg. cap. 12. n. 8. Potestas dispen­sandi secum in suis legibus, quatenus illis etiam ipse liga­tur, A power to dispense with himselfe in his owne lawes, so farre forth as they concerne, or oblige a King, which is only quoad vim directiuam, not coacti­uam. Quae sententia (saith Suar.) communis est in summo Pontifice, holdes in the power of the Pope in Ecclesia­sticall Lawes, as it holds in euery temporal Monarch, or King, quoad leges ciuiles, in respect of ciuill and po­sitiue Lawes: and therfore where-as the generall rule is, Omnem hominem capacem ordinis, Suarez Tom. 5. in 3. Tho. disp. 40. Sect. 7. n. 7. esse etiam capacem irregularitatis: yet this exception must be put to the rule in honour of the Pope, Si in terris habeat superi­orem, if he be not a Monarch; which they falsly af­firme to agree with the Pope, to haue no superiour; so that Licet contingat homicidium committere, irregula­ris non fiet, though he chance to commit murder, yet he shall not be irregular: Quia cum irregularitas sit de iure Pontificio, non potest ipsum Pontificem summum comprehendere, &c. quia irregularitas pertinet ad vim coerciuam Legis, which reacheth not the Pope, be­cause of his Monarchie, and absolute superiority o­uer the whole Church.

16. And here-withall they inferre another Mo­narchicall prerogatiue to the Pope,Imponendi tri­buta. which is proper to Kings; which is potestas imponendi tributa, not [Page 90] onely in his owne territories temporall, where hee hath directum dominium, as other Kings haue; but if it be necessary ad spiritualem finem, for a spirituall end, as namely, to defend the Church from infidels, and heretickes, potest summus Pontifex imponere tribu­ta temporalia; and the reason is giuen, quia sub eâ ra­tione habet supremam potestatem etiam in temporalibus; for by that reason he hath supreame authority ouer euery Kings temporalties.

17. And for the same causes; as also in subsidium sibi necessarium, he may directè impose tributes vpon the goods of the Church, and reserue a part of the tenths for himselfe,Suar. de Leg. lib. 5. cap. 14. quia in illo ordine per se, & directè, est supremus princeps totius Ecclesiae, & supremus dispen­sator bonorum eius. This Monarchicall prerogatiue Suarez maintaines.

Potestas nobili­tandi.18. From thence also is drawne this Monarchicall prerogatiue, potestas nobilitandi, which in the Church is called potestas ordinis Hierarchici, which is the power to create Bishops,Suar. de Leg. l. 4. cap. 4. n. 27. Arch-Bishops, and Patriachs: Qui ordo (saith Suarez) non sine authoritate Petri consti­tutus est: for (saith he most falsly and absurdly, as shall be shewed in due place) all the Bishops, which were created by the other Apostles, Saint Paul, Saint Iohn, &c. and so consequently all since their time, haue had their succession, honour, and dignity, me­diâ authoritate Petri, Suar. Jbid. mediatè, vel immediatè, and so consequently from the Bishops of Rome.

Potestas restitu­endi in inte­grum.19. From thence also they chalenge another pre­rogatiue Monarchicall, which is potestas restituendi in integrum sententiam passos, a power to free those that are condemned; for he can absolue not onely those, [Page 91] who belong to his definite diocesse, as he is Episcopus Romanus, but any man in the whole World, as hee is Pontifex Romanus, and Monarch of the Church: and that which is more, he can absoluere defunctum à cen­surâ, & vti indulgentijs concessis pro defunctis: and yet (which is strange) not exceede the bounds of his ter­ritories; for that were absurd for any Monarch to challenge: wherefore to make that good, although the vse of those indulgences is on the earth, and gran­ted to men in their life for their present vse, yet a cer­taine effect of that vse communicatur defunctis, & ac­ceptatur in coelis, is bestowed on the dead, and ratified in heauen: quia totum hoc cadit sub territorium, & pote­statem Pontifici concessam, Suarez de Leg. l. 8. c. 26. n. 18. both Heauen and Earth be­long to the Popes territories, as Suarez saith.

20. Finally,Potestas absol­uendi ab infa­miâ. because it is found among the pre­rogatiues of Kings, Quando (que) absoluere paenam, & non infamiam, quando (que) & paenam & infamiam abolere, some­times to acquit from punishment, but not from infa­my, and sometimes to pardon both punishment and infamy; that no prerogatiue may be wanting to the Popes vsurped Monarchy, Tho. 2.2 [...]. q. 68. ar. 4. potest infamiam Ecclesiasti­cam remittere, saith Thomas: which priuiledge being harsh, the Schoole distinguisheth of it, and vnder­stands it de infamiâ iuris, not facti: for labem illam, Soto de Instit. & iure, l. 5. q. 5. ar. 4. quae turpi facto annexa est, nemo delere potest, as Soto con­cludes; no man whosoeuer can wash out that staine of infamy, which by nature inhereth to a foule wic­ked action: because (saith he) Ad praeteritum non est potentia, If the infamy be inherent by the nature of the fact, not positiue by Law.

21. Thus you see if Kings had lost their preroga­tiues [Page 92] and royalties, where you may finde them, euen in the Popes vsurped Monarchy, where they are on foot, and in daily practise, or contemplation. In which dis­course I did somewhat the more enlarge my selfe; that you might take occasion thereby, to enter into a due consideration of them, and the naturall grounds from whence they proceede: because this age hath many Monarchomachos, I may say Theomachos, in op­posing Gods diuine institution, in the naturall prero­gatiues, which belong to Kings.

22. For those Schismatickes in Religion, who af­fect Statizing, and Cantonizing in the Common­wealth (which they would haue popular) and super­intending in the Church, which they would haue pres­byteriall; doe at their meetings priuate and publike, preferre as the onely deformities of Church & Com­mon-wealth, the Monarchical prerogatiues of Kings, and the Aristocraticall power, and iurisdiction of Bi­shops, to be redressed: fondly imagining out of a kind of affected and well-suited ignorance to their profes­sion, that the naturall prerogatiues of Kings, which are inbred in their Crownes, and the Euangelicall power of Bishops, which is ingrafted by the Gospell, should be a­brogated by positiue Lawes Ciuill, or Municipall; and that the bounty and liberality of Princes, which affoords their Subiects an interest in the State both Aristocraticall, and Democraticall, for the more rea­dy and easie gouernment of the Common-wealth, may be held, and continued by prescription, without the Kings consent against the Law of Nature; as now they hold many Lands and Tithes of the Church: and as the Church now doth, so the King ought al­so [Page 93] 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 vs (que) 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) [Page 94] 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, vtram (que) 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 [Page 95] 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 [Page 96] 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 [Page 97] 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 prouinciā, 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, [Page 98] 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 [Page 99] 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 [Page 100] 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 a [...]so.Colos. 2.8.

36. For they will proue the gouernment of the Church to be Monarchicall by certaine phylosophi­call propositions deceitfully vsed: 1 As that there is a Primacie among the Starres. Sanders l. 1. c. 5. 2 That there is a Principalitie among the Elements, c. 6. 3 That amongst Plants and Trees there is primum aliquid, c. 7. 4 That in all liuing creatures there is found one member, which go­uernes the rest ex vi naturae. c. 8. 5 That Birds which flie together, haue one Chiefe. c 9.

37. Againe, Entia, nolunt malè disponi, and there­fore [Page 101] [...],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 m [...]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, at (que) 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.

[Page 102] 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, [Page 103] 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 solidū 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, [Page 104] to sit downe, and take vp his Seate, or Sea, in one de­finite place: yet if hee be disposed, or commanded for the good of the Church, Ire, & docere alias gentes, to goe and teach other nations, according to his ori­ginall commission: hee may performe his Bishoply power with effect, wheresoeuer hee liues in the whole world: which argues, that the whole Church in so­lidum is his Territorie;L. extra. ff. de Iuris. omn. Iud. for no mans power stretcheth beyond his own territorie, and therfore the Ciuilians say, Extra territorium ius dicenti, impunè non paretur.

44. So that howsoeuer this vnus Episcopatus seeme to be diuided ab extra, euery Bishop hauing a part distinct by himselfe, which may make it seeme many Bishoprickes; yet ab intra euery particular part a sin­gulis tenetur in solidum, by the first institution: and euery one hath power in the whole, as it is vndeui­ded, indiuisus; and continues for euer Episcopus vni­uersalis Ecclesiae, a Bishop of the Church vniuersall.

45. Now as that one Monarchie in heauen hath not the denomination in respect of any superioritie, which is found among the Persons in the Trinitie, the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, who are that one Monarch of the same power, and essence &c. but is so called in regard of the world, and coelestiall, and terrestriall creatures, which are subiect to them: so this one Bishopricke is not Monarchicall in respect of any superioritie among those persons, or Bishops, which are all equall in power, and degree, and make all but one Bishop, and supreame gouernour (vnder Christ) of his Church, but in regard of inferiors, Priests, and people, which are subiect to them.

46. And yet, as in the equalitie of persons, the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, which are all [Page 105] 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 [Page 106] 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 by­path 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 [Page 108] 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, numerum (que) 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 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 [Page 109] 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 [Page 110] 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 quicun (que) 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, [Page 111] 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. Ne (que) 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 [Page 112] 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 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 [Page 113] 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 quàm 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 [Page 114] 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) vs (que) ad fortitudinem coeli, Dan. 8.10. & 11. & deijcere de fortitudine, & de stellis, & conculcare eas, & vs (que) 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 [Page 115] 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. 1 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 quo (que) 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 prerogatiue, which [Page 116] our Sauiour, and the sacred Scriptures interpreted by the consent of the holy Fathers of the Church, haue giuen vnto him. That, which I oppose, is the imagined Monarchie, which themselues so inconstant­ly affirme, and so weakely proue. In affirming it they are so ridiculè inconstantes, that they confound the names of Monarchie and Primacie (as I haue shewed before) intituling their bookes Of the Monarchie of Peter, Conc. 2. §. 17. and the Bishop of Rome: and proposing in the seuerall Chapters the proofes of a Primacie; which is vsuall with Sanders in his visible Monarchie: and Bellarmine when hee giues this title to his ninth Chapter, Regi­men Ecclesiae esse praecipuè Monarchicum, vseth eight reasons, which proue onely a Primacie.

Cicero.16. Their proofes are as weake as a band of men, that haue suffered ship-wracke, eiecta, & debilitata; or like those infirmiores in exercitu, as Gretzer confesseth, which are entertained of necessitie,Gretz. defens. Bellar. l. 1. c. 17. Cum omnes fortes esse non possint, &c. Et vt turbâ & numero exercitus com­pleatur; out of S. Ierome, lib. 1. cont. Iouinian. c. 14. For (saith Gretzer) though S. Peters Prerogatiues be al­ledged to proue this Monarchie, yet praecisé ex ipsis priuilegijs quâ talia, non colligitur Primatus, precisely out of those Priuiledges (as they are such) a Primacie is not collected; much lesse a Monarchie, which they pretend.

17. And againe he saith, Istae prerogatiuae non nu­dè, nec crudè inspici debent, Ibid. sed cum mutuâ ad se inui­cèm, habitudine, cum singularum circumstantijs, & cum respectu ad potissima de Primatu testimonia: so that it is to no purpose to confute them seuerally; they are the forlorne hope, and of those kinde of arguments, [Page 117] as Aristotle saith, Quae non plus afferunt, quam simili­tudinem veritati, quae probanda suscipitur; and being vsed onely to proue a Primacie (as appeares both by Bellarmine and Gretzer) which wee deny not: quae Augur &c. Iniusta vitiosa (que) dixerit, irrita, Cic. 2. de Le­gibus. infecta (que) sunto, those reasons which the prime Iesuites confesse to be weake and vitious, irrita, indicta (que) sunto, they are vnto me as if neuer proposed.

18. The maine priuiledges, or the principalia testi­monia, which are brought, are onely two; one is,Mat. 16. Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam; & tibi dabo claues; which they say, is promissio Primatus: the other is, Pasce oues meas, &c. which they say,John 21. is Institutio Primatus: some alleadge a third, et tu ali­quando conuersus confirma fratres tuos; and holde that the Primacie was there first instituted.

19. Now although these testimonies be alleadged by Bellarmine and Gretzer, Sanders, Stapleton, &c. to maintaine a Primacie, which we denie not; yet be­cause they confound the words Primacie and Monar­chie, and entend by these places and texts of Scrip­ture to establish a Monarchie: how farre off they are from the perfection of so high a worke, I will shew you by the weaknesse of these foundations.

20. 1 First, the Texts of Scripture, these principalia testimonia (as they call them) were neuer interpreted of a Monarchie, by any one of the ancient Fathers for a thousand yeares after our Sauiours comming in the flesh: neither were they euer vrged to that purpose before the quarrels betweene the Imperialists, and the Papists, betweene Gregory the seauenth, and Henry the Emperour, about sixe hundred yeares since, as [Page 118] hath beene most learnedly proued by the right reue­rend Bishop of Rochester; for (as I noted before) out of Aluarez, this Monarchie with them is fundamentum totius sacrae paginae, which is alleadged to that purpose; and not those Scriptures the foundation of that Mo­narchie.

21. And euer since that controuersie, the fauourers of the Papacie would haue the world imagine, that our Sauiour made S. Peter and the Bishops his succes­sors, Monarchs formally, (after that manner that the Emperours of the East invested their Magistrates, and supreme officers;Niceph. Greg. l. 9. Nam cui publicè rerum gerendarum potestas dabatur, gladius vnà cum sancto Euangelio in manus tradebatur,) and that St. Peter had not onely the Gospell committed to him, but two swords for fayling.

22. And the glosse alledging that for the Popes Monarchie, which the whole Church vnderstands v­nanimously, and necessarily of our Sauiour only God and man,In extrau. vnam sanctam. King of Kings, viz. Data est mihi omnis potestas in coelo, & in terrâ, which is power purely Mo­narchicall; saith impiously and blasphemously (though he would seeme mannerly) Non videtur Dominus dis­cretus fuisse, vt cum reuerentiâ eius loquar, nisi vnicum post se talem vicarium reliquisset, qui haec omnia posset.

23. Who hearing this glosse, or interpretation, will not crye with Moses, Leuit. 24.14. Educite blasphemum extra castra; throw these blasphemous glosses and com­ments out of the Church, and burne them; and ex­amine vpon the Scriptures the expositions of the an­tient Fathers, who liued before that quarrell, and then you shall finde (as St. Augustine said to St. Ie­rome,) [Page 119] that Incomparabiliter pulchrior est veritas Chri­stianorum, quàm Helena Graecorum, Aug. epist. 19. the truth deliue­red vpon these texts by the antient Fathers, is incom­parably more beautifull, then the meretricious false colours and collusions of the late Church of Rome?

24. 2 Secondly, all the words and phrases, vpon which they ground and build this Monarchie, are figuratiue and Metaphoricall: as Petra, aedificare, claues, ligare, soluere, pascere, &c. Now Stapleton pre­scribes vs this rule, when wee offer to proue the Church to be an Aristocracie, Staple. Relect. p. 94. Oportet non modò perspi­cua esse verba, quae rem tantam decidant, verùm-etiam tum praedicatione pastorum, tum fide ac moribus fidelium planissimè fieri: we with reason vrge the same rule for their Monarchie; they must proue it not by figura­tiue, but by perspicuous words; now who can finde a Monarchie perspicuously in these words, Petra, aedi­ficare, claues, ligare, soluere, confirmare, or pascere &c? Were it not ridiculous to conclude, est petra, or est pastor; ergo Monarcha est? &c. Secondly, they must proue it Praedicatione Pastorum, & fide, & moribus fi­delium, and so make it planissimum. But I shewed you in the former reason, that the first true Pastors for more then a thousand yeares preached no such do­ctrine; and that the Apostles themselues, and the primitiue Christians acknowledged no such Monar­chie in their practise and manners, appeareth by this, that [...], the first conuerted Iewes con­tended against Peter for going to the Gentiles, and conuersing with them: [...],Acts 11.2. that is, as St. Chrysostome reades, expostularunt. Now it is not good manners to expostulate with Monarchs, no [Page 120] prescribing to him, who can proscribe. They say it was humilitatis in Petro, to take it at their hands: but if those Christians had acknowledged Monarchicall power in Peter, they would not haue expostulated, or contended with him, or accused him of it, for that had beene contumacie against their superior: but ac­cusationis, Ʋigor. or expostulationis, testis est scriptura, non regiae Maiestatis, as Vigorius obserueth.

25. Secondly, the Apostles acknowledged no Monarchie;Act. 8.14. for Apostoli miserunt Petrum, & Iohan­nem in Samariā; now he that sendeth one, as it were an Embassadour, is greater then he that is sent, or at least his equall.Bel. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 16. Sand. de visib. Monar. l. 6. c. 5. Bellarmine answeres, and so doth Sanders, that a man may send one, ouer whom hee hath no power; as par parem; and also an inferiour his superiour. But this answere is not to the pur­pose; they must proue, that an Inferiour may send a Monarch.

26. Their first instance of par parem, that an equall may send his equall, is in Herod, who is said mittere Magos in Bethlehem, Mat. 2.8. ouer whom hee had no power and authoritie. But to omit that, whether hee had power ouer them, or no, in his owne Country, where they were strangers; We answere, that though the Latine words be the same in the vulgar Translati­on, Miserunt Apostoli Petrum, and Misit Herodes Magos, yet they differ much in the Originall, and in the sense of them:Act. 8. for Acts 8. it is said, [...], of [...], the word whereof the Apostles tooke their denomination,Mat. 2.8. and office: but Mat. 2. it is said of Herod, [...], which two words, [...], and [...], though in the Gospell [Page 121] they be vsed sometimes as Synonimaes, and doe both imply the sending of the Apostles; yet [...] is sometimes interpreted dimitto, not mitto; as it is in Homer. [...], he dismissed me with the rest of the Gods; and Beza so vnderstands it in this place,Annot. super locum. Ego existimo (saith he) Regem illis à se di­missis blandè & benignè iter demonstrasse; and tran­slates it, & eis Bethlehem dimissis. But if Beza being ours be of lesse credite with them, Barradius a Master Iesuite for interpretation, saith thus of Herod, Tom. 1. l. 9. c. 10. p. 494. Post haec in Bethlehem hospites cum honore dimisit, vi (que) ad se redeant, precatus: so that this instance is to little pur­pose; for Herod dismissed with honor, but sent not his equall on an embassage, or message, much lesse his superiour.

27 Which is the second instance; wherein it is said, that the rest of the children of Israel, miserunt ad illos, that is, to the Tribe of Ruben, Gad, and the halfe Tribe of Manasses; Jos. 22.13. Miserunt ad illos in terram Galaad, Phinees filium Eleazari Sacerdotem, & decem principes cum eo: They sent on an embassage Phinees the Priest, the sonne of Eleazar, and tenne Princes with him: Cum tamen iure diuino toti populo praeesset, saith Bellarmine, and therefore the people may send their Monarch vpon an embassage.Prouerb. 24.2. But fraudes labia eorum loquuntur; they deale fraudulently with vs: for as they reade, Miserunt Phinees filium Eleazari sa­cerdotem, so others reade, Miserunt Phinees filium E­leazari sacerdotis: They sent not the High-Priest, but the High-Priests sonne; and then the matter is an­swered.

28. It is true, that the vulgar Bibles printed at [Page 122] Lions, 1574. reade, Miserunt Phinees filium Eleazari sacerdotem, but yet shew, that there is some question of it, and a varietie in the reading, by putting in the Margent Sacerdotis: but the more ancient Bibles printed at Lions 1516. which is about fiftie yeares before,Abulens. q. 10. & q. 16. Jos. 22.30. reade, Miserunt Phinees filium Eleazari Sacer­dotis, and so reades Abulensis q. 10. super Ios. e. 22. and in the 16. q. he saith, Phinees nondum erat sacerdos magnus, quia pater eius Eleazarus viuebat: and if he be called Phinees Sacerdos, Abul. Jbid. as he is afterward, it is not per excellentiam, sed quia erat de stirpe Sacerdotum.

29 But admit, that the High-Priest were sent by the people;Abulens. sup. Num. c. 25. q. 8. and that he was Princeps in temporalibus, Prince or chiefe in the temporalties, which belonged to the Leuites; & in spiritualibus, and in spirituall matters, which concerned the whole people, and ex­ceeded all other in wealth, and honour, and iuris­diction; yet was he no Monarch, but Maximus iudi­cum, the Primate in an Aristocracie; or as the chiefe Iustice among our Iudges, from whom (saith Abulen­sis) non licebat appellare: and the gouernement of Is­rael being at that time [...], as Iosephus calls it; and Iosua being chosen out by God to gouerne vn­der him extraordinarily (not as Kings gouerne vnder God, but as Iudges gouerne vnder Kings) the High-Priest himselfe was subiect to him; and in the word Miserunt, he (that is, Iosua) is included, as Abulensis notes.

30 So that Phinees being not the High-Priest, but the High-Priests sonne; or if the High-priest, yet no Monarch, but Maximus Iudicum, and so sent by the rest of the Optimates, and Princes of the Tribes, who [Page 123] were his equalls; or joyntly by them and Iosua, who in some case was his superiour; this instance auaileth not against that obiection, The Apostles sent out Peter and Iohn, ergo Peter was not their absolute Monarch, but of equall honour with them, excepting the Pri­macie.

31. When Caietane commented vpon these words, Miserunt Petrum & Iohannem, Caiet super Act. 8. doubting this obiecti­on, he saith to his Reader, Cum audis, Miserunt, ne proptereà Petri principatum neges: Feare it not lear­ned Cardinall, we deny not his Principalitie, or Pri­macie, but your pretended Monarchie, and yet hold, That as the Optimates in a Monarchie, who haue their honours by the fauour of the Monarch, and the great affaires and imployments of the State committed and delegated vnto them, are euer to be directed, ouer-ru­led, and commanded by the Monarch: so in an Ari­stocracie the Primate, who hath receiued his preceden­cie from the Optimates, though the ordering of many and waightie causes bee especially committed vnto him, yet in matters of greatest moment hee is orde­red, and directed by the Optimates; and so was Saint Peter: for when the Apostles diuided the World among themselues, Peter was sent by them to Rome: he sent not the other Apostles abroad into the world by his direction like a Monarch; but hee himselfe is sent with others, and by others also. Cum duodecim Apostoli, Leo. &c. (saith Leo) imbuendum Euangelio mun­dum, distributis sibi terrarum partibus suscepissent, Bea­tus Petrus princeps Apostolici ordinis, Ad arcem Romani destinatur Imperij, &c. So also Baron: Tom. 1. an. 44. n. 26. Ad totius mun­di principem ciuitatem, Princeps Apostolorum mittitur, [Page 124] et ad primariam vrbem orbis primus Pastor iure diri­gitur: and the contents of that paragraph is, De Pe­tro Romam misso: and that this hath beene, and ought to be the true state, and forme of gouerne­ment in the Church, Vigorius proueth vnto vs at large; to whom I remit you.

32. And thus much by occasion of the second reason, viz. That all the words and phrases, vpon which Peters Monarchie is founded, are Metaphori­call, and Figuratiue, and neither expounded by the antient Fathers to implie a Monarchie; nor so vnder­stood either in the practise of the Christian people, or the Apostles themselues; all which Stapleton re­quires as necessarie to proue an Aristocracie, and so consequently we require as necessary to proue their Monarchie. To which I adde that rule of the Schooles, Scriptura symbolica non est argumentatiua, firme argu­ments are not drawne from figuratiue and tropicall speeches, except the holy Ghost haue explained them in holy Scriptures, or the consent of the Church al­lowed of them; both which are here wanting: and so I conclude with another rule of Stapleton: Regi­men Ecclesiae, Ibid. pag. 94. quod ad omnes, & singulos spectat, nun­quam in obscuritate vocis alicuius latere potuisse; for that which belongs vnto all and euery particular man to know, ought to be as playne as Gods commande­ments;Abul. super Ios. c. 7. q. 64. of which Abulensis giues this rule, Nunquam inuenitur in aliquo pracepto dato à Deo modus loquendi Metaphoricus; sed aliquando in narrationibus rerum ge­starum.

3 33. Thirdly, what power and authority soeuer was giuen by our Sauiour (which I confesse, was [Page 125] great) in those words or phrases, Petra, claues soluere, ligare, pascere, &c. was giuen indifferently to Peter, and all the Apostles, and in them to the Church, but they are all originally and Monarchically, in our Sa­uiour: for these royalties, and prerogatiues proceede not from [...], or his fulnesse of power, which cannot be imparted to any creature; but from [...] from his dominion, and gouernement of the Church, which may be delegated in a certaine pro­portion: and these he conueyed to the Apostles. Axiomata sua (saith St. Basis) Iesus largitur alijs, St.Basil. hom. de Paeniten. August super Joh. trac. 47. Amb. super. Luc. c. 9. Augustine saith, Nomina sua; St. Ambrose saith, vo­cabula sua: Iesus (which name importeth his huma­nity) imparteth his honours, his dignities, his names, his offices vnto other. Lux est; vos estis Lux mundi, inquit: Sacerdos est, & facit Sacerdotes: Ouis est, & dicit, ecce ego mitto vos sicut oues in medio luporum; Pe­tra est, & Petram facit. Quae sua sunt, largitur seruis suis.

34. But yet he so disposeth his honours, digni­ties, and prerogatiues, that he both holdeth the Mo­narchicall power in himselfe, as he is man, and go­uernes the Church in his own person, sitting euer per­sonally in the chiefe seate of his Church, that is, in heauen (and no Monarch is resident at once in euery part of his Kingdome) and he is present, as all other Kings are, by his power, direction, gouernement, and officers till the end of the world, as other Mo­narchs are till the end of their liues. It is he alone (not Peter, nor the Apostles, nor Bishops, nor Priests) who maketh perfect and effectuall all the Church Saraments. Ipse enim est, qui baptizat; ipse est, qui pec­cata [Page 126] remittit; Tho. cont. Gent. c. 76. l. 4. n. 4. ipse est verus sacerdos, qui se obtuli in arâ crucis, & cuius virtute corpus eius quotidiè in altari con­secratur: and this power is not giuen to the Apo­stles,Abid. super Mat. c. 9. q. 30. or Bishops formaliter, vt ipsi habeant; but mini­sterialiter, vt Christus per illos operetur; as Abulensis distinguisheth of the working of miracles. Now hee neuer substitutes a Monarch vnder him; that was neuer heard of among the Monarchs of the world, and ma­keth contra [...] fulnesse of power; and would implie contradiction, or a diuision of the Monarchie, and we might say, Diuisum imperium cum Ioue (Chri­sto) Petrus habet, that is, our Sauiour is Monarch ouer that part of the Church, which triumphes in heauen; and St. Peter, and his successors are Monarchs ouer the other part of the Church, which is militant on the earth: and if both haue [...] or [...] in their diuisions, as all Monarchs haue; neither should our Sauiour exercise any power on the earth,Mat. 28. as he is God and man; contrary to his promise, Ecce ego vo­biscum sum vs (que) ad finem mundi, nor St. Peter, nor his successors Popes, or Bishops, should chalenge any power in heauen; contrary to that other promise made to Peter, and the rest Quaecun (que) solueris in terris, soluta erunt & in coelis.

35. But our Sauiour keepes his Monarchie entire, and sitting personally in that Citie, quam inquirimus, whether we must all resort in order, when wee be called, and giue account of our Stewardships; he com­mends the gouernement, and the honours, and dig­nities erected in his Church, to his Apostles indiffe­rently: making them all his Messengers, and Embas­sadors, enduing them with the same titles, and pre­rogatiues [Page 127] of ligare, and soluere, and pascere, of being the rockes and foundations of his Church; of keeping the keyes, &c. All which power and authoritie he made entire, and indifferent to all his Apostles, and to all Bishops their successors; as is confessed, at least con­sequently, by them all.De visib. Monar. p. 16. &. 108. I will instance onely in San­ders: Episcopi omnes (saith he) per totum mundum non minùs sunt Episcopi, quàm summus Pontifex, nec aliam Episcopatus naturam, sed eandem prorsus cum illo tenent; which is to say (seeing they chalenge Episcopall power but from St. Peter) Apostoli omnes non minus sunt Apostoli, quàm sanctus Petrus, nec aliam Apostola­tus naturam, sed candem cum illo habent. If they were all Apostles alike, or Bishops alike; if the nature of their Apostleship be not different; if they haue one and the selfe-same Apostleship; they haue one and the selfe-same power, which is inherent, and naturall to the Apostleship; which cannot hold true, if St. Peter were their Monarch: for it is absurd to thinke, that the Optimates in a Monarchie should be of the same nature, and power, that the Monarch is.

All these titles, and powers, ligare, soluere, pascere, confirmare, habere claues, esse fundamentum, to binde, to loose, to feede, to strengthen, to haue the keyes, to be a foundation; or a rocke, are delegated alike to all the Apostles, and depended not vpon the Primacie, which is a thing naturall, not supernaturall in the Church, as those honours and prerogatiues are, and therefore can no way proceede from the Primacie; the Monarchie, & chiefe power, remaining in our Sauiour.

37. For he is the Monarchicall head of his Church, the essentiall head; Ipsum dedit caput. Omnia subiecit [Page 128] 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, [Page 129] 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 & vnusquis (que) 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 [Page 130] 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.

4 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?

[Page 131]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 Ghost: and yet is no Monarch in respect of them, but all three are one Monarch, ouer all crea­tures. As in the Church there is vnus Episcopatus, Ʋide plura. one onely Bishopricke, and yet many Apostles, and many Bishops of equall power and authoritie; and among them one hath Primatum ordinis, because Ex­ordium, and ordo must be ab vnitate: but that one is no Monarch, in respect of his fellow-Bishops, but all joyntly make one Monarch, in respect of their inferi­ours, [Page 132] the Priests, and people. And therefore Suarez conclusion is false, Instituit Ecclesiam per modum Mo­narchiae, & supremā potestatem vni contulit, ad quam Petrum elegi [...]: for we say with Saint Cyprian, and re­uerent antiquitie, Non vni dedit, sed vnitati, not to Peter, but to them all as to one person, among whom Peter was first or Primate.

43. I could adde, that our Sauiour is the Arch­builder, or Monarch-builder, Aedificator primarius, es­sentialis: the Apostles were aedificatores primarij mi­nisteriales, operarij, materiarij; adiutores Dei, as his Ministers and Seruants: all the Apostles plant and water, Christ himselfe giues the encrease; not Peter, who is fellow-labourer with the rest. For the power which our Sauiour hath giuen him, or them, they haue not formaliter, but ministerialiter, vt Christus per ipsos operetur. And for that reason also Christ is cal­led the Great Gate, the essentiall Gate, the Apostles ostia ministerialia; and Saint Peter is not the sole Porter of heauen. And why are they called Gates, saith Saint Augustine? viz. Quia per ipsos intramus in regnum Dei: praedicant enim nobis, & cum per ipsos intramus, per Christum intramus. Aug. super Psal. 86. Ipse est enim ianua; & cum dicun­tur duodecim portae Ierusalem, & vna porta Christus, & duodecim portae Christus; quia in duodecim portis Chri­stus.

44. Thus wee see, that omnia axiomata Christi, as St. Basil calls them; omnia nomina, vocabula, all those supernaturall powers, which are giuen for the buil­ding of the Church, are giuen indifferently to all the Apostles: St. Peter hath not so much as his Prima­cie by them; the Apostles haue them omnes ex aequo; [Page 133] much lesse doe they inferre, or confirme a Monarchie to him, or his successors.

2 45. Fourthly, Kingdomes, and Monarchies are not got by consequents, for this is a rule in the ciuill Law, Argumenta à maiori vel minori, in his quae sunt meri Imperij, non valent: such arguments are not in force, where merum Imperium is delegated, which kinde of gouernement is without Iurisdiction: for merum Imperium, and Iurisdictio are two seuerall branches of a Monarchie, and each may be delegated without the other. The reason of the rule is this; Quia ea, quae ex mero Imperto proficiscuntur, L. 1. §. Qui mandata D. Offic. eius cui mand. non per consequentiam, sed per legem nominatim dantur, they are giuen by expresse words of a Law, and are not to be chalenged by any consequent.

46. Now power, or gouernement, Imperium, as they call it, was giuen nominatim, by expresse words, and by Law; and the Prince or Monarch prescribed, quatenùs exerceri debuit; he prescribed certam speciem, modum, formam: and therefore all things which were Imperij, did not concurre in one Magistrate; but part was giuen to one, and part to another.L. inter poenas. D. Iurisdict, & relegat [...] As for example; the Consul had Ius gladij, not Ius rele­gandi: Praesides or the Presidents had Ius gladij, and Ius damnandiin metallum, but they had neither Ius deportandi, nor confiscandi: so that it is no good con­sequent, Habet ius gladij, ergo Ius damnandi in metal­lum, though it be a lesse punishment: or, Habet ius gladij, ergo Ius proscribendi, or, multam dicendi; Hee hath power of the sword, therefore hee hath power to banish, or proscribe, or to fine a man.

47. Now let vs consider, what this Monarch-Shepheard, [Page 134] this great and Monarch-Bishop our Sauiour Christ Iesus delegated, or imparted to his Apostles; and we shall finde, that he delegated not, or commen­ded any temporall things to them by word, or by writing: not Ius gladij, or any such power as is fore­named.Ioh. 18.36. Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo: No, it was a supernaturall Kingdome and the power hee gaue, and those gifts he imparted, were supernatu­rall.

48. For the Church is not a politicke but a mysti­call body, distinguished (as I may say) Formally from a politicke bodie; ordained and instituted to a diuers end, viz. to supernaturall felicitie: vnited with a di­uers bond, namely the vnitie and bond of faith; ex­ercising diuers and distinct actions; as those that per­taine to the honour of God, and sanctifying of our soules, which cannot bee done without certaine power supernaturall imparted to it, and the chiefe magistrates, by the chiefe Monarch supernaturall.

Cont. SVA­REZ. de leg l. 4. c. 2. n. 7.49. Which power is giuen by consecration of that person which is consecrated; and euer requireth, and presupposeth orders; and consists in the very or­dination, and is giuen by it, not by any election, or deputation made by the wil of man, but immediately from Christ himselfe, by vertue of his first instituti­on. For our Sauiour setting downe the honour of a Bishop, and disposing or ordering the gouernement of his Church (as St. Cyprian tells vs) in the Gospell, saith to Peter, Mat. 16.18. & 19. Ego tibi dico, quia tu es Petrus; I say vn­to thee, that thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it. And I will giue vnto thee the keyes of the king­dome [Page 135] of heauen: and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde on earth, shall be bound in heauen: Inde, from hence (saith St. Cyprian) from this time forward, per temporum, Cypri. Epist. 27. ad Lapsos. & successionum vices, Episcoporum ordinatio & Eccle­siae ratio decurrit; the ordination of Bishops, and the gouernement of the Church comes downe along to vs by course of times and successions, Vt Ecclesia su­per Episcopos constituatur; & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur; That the Church should be setled vpon the Bishops, and all the actions of the Church should be ordered by the same gouernours. And the Apostles were called to higher orders then the seauentie two Disciples: and that appeares, be­cause Matthias (who, according to Epiphanius, Epiphan. haere [...], 20. was one of the seauentie two Disciples) was called from the lower order into Iudas his place, which was an higher order: Episcopatum eius accipiat alter; Accipiat is an argument that he had it not before; and that or­dination was a collation of a new power, by which he became superiour ouer those that were before of his owne order, being onely Priests. And this super­naturall power seemeth to be a certaine character im­pressed in euery Bishop; and hath not ioyned to it any temporall Iurisdiction, pertaining to the exter­nall Ecclesiasticall Court, which is now vsed, land else-where deriued, (as shall be shewed in due place;) nor consisting of any politicall qualitie of punish­ment pecuniary, or corporall, to restraine men by feare: but in a Discipline Ecclesiasticall, wherein men were contained either by externall abstension (as it was called) that is,Cyprian ep. 11. ad Pompon. abstaining from their societie who refused the Discipline, by separation, or excom­munication, [Page 136] as now we call it: or by internall morall shamefastnesse, which made them conformable: for what Metus doth now after Iurisdiction granted to the Church, that Pudor did in the beginning, before the Church was strengthened by the ciuill power: but of this by the way; more shall be said in the pro­per place, when we speake of the Primacie.

50. Now the power, which was giuen by our Sa­uiour to his Apostles, and their successors the Bi­shops, &c. consisted in these, and the like things. Ligare, & soluere, with a reference to sinnes, which is supernaturall,Mat. 28. not politicall: habere claues, which signifies the same; to baptize in the name of the Fa­ther, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghost; to teach those things, which our Sauiour commanded them; Hoc facere in eius commemorationem, to administer the Sa­crament of his body and bloud; or if you will, Sa­crificare in eius commemorationem, to offer a Sacrifice commemoratiue of his death, and passion: Pascere, to feede his sheepe:Mat. 28.19. [...], to make Disciples of others of all nations, as Christ made them his Dis­ciples; a word neuer vsed in the New Testament but in this great commission: and (as I take it, saluo me­liore iudicio) implies Ordination, and succession of Bishops: for I doe not thinke, that [...] and [...] are synonimaes signifying both of them Docere: but that this new word not else-where found in Scripture, but onely in this commission, seemes to implye (as the words following signifie, their duties of ministring the Sacraments, and preaching the Gospell) a new thing, or new succession of Officers, or Disciples, such as themselues were; and the rest of the duties [Page 137] pertaining to that office. This last, and the other a­boue specified, are spirituall and supernaturall pow­ers, and are veritas certa de fide, Suarez de. [...]eg. l. 4. c. 2. n. 7. a truth to be be­leeued.

51. Wherefore seeing supernaturall power onely was delegated to the Apostles by their Monarch our Sauiour: though supernaturall power be more ex­cellent in respect of the end, and the meanes, then the politicall; yet it is no consequent to say; They haue the greater power, therefore they haue the lesse; because in power and magistracie nothing is delega­ted but by expresse words, and commissions; as I said, it is no good argument, Habet ius gladij, ergo ius mulctam dicendi, which is lesse.

52. But all the arguments, which the Iesuites make, and alledge for this Monarchie, are of this nature, and chalenge power not by expresse Law, or Commissions, but by consequents, and à maiore, or à minore, as thus: Potest Petrus pascere, Suarez. de Leg. l. 4. c. 2. ergo diri­gere; ergo leges ferre; ergo per leges coercere; ergo est Monarcha: Againe, Potest ligare; ergo vinculum inij­cere; ergo leges ferre; ergo est Monarcha; and many the like, as we may reade in Suarez, and others: but seeing all the power Saint Peter had, was delega­ted by our Sauiour, and no Monarchie commended to him by expresse words, wee deny their consequents, and conclude that Saint Peter was no Monarch; for Autoritas negatiua in materiâ supernaturali et fidei est sufficiens. Jbid. c. 3. a. 16. This supernaturall power is not found in the Scriptures to be conferd on Peter; therefore Pe­ter had no such power, no such Monarchie.

53. In maintaining this argument, wee make not [Page 138] the Church an Anarchie, nor the gouernement in it without power both directiue, and coerciue: for it should not seeme to haue beene well instituted by our Sauiour, if hee had not prescribed a proportionate power, whereby to gouerne it: but our Sauiours power, and that which he delegated to his Apostles, was to a spirituall and supernaturall end; and the Me­dia, which are (as it were) the obiects and effects of that power, are proportionate vnto that end super­naturall and spirituall. The directiue power is spiri­tuall; the coerciue power is spirituall; that is, it vseth onely the spirituall sword, Sit tibi velut ethnicus; that is, hath negatiue or priuatiue power, or jurisdicti­on (if I may so call it) that is, of withholding the Church prayers, and Sacraments, &c. from obsti­nate offenders; but no positiue temporall jurisdicti­on, or temporall externall court judiciall; which they hold by the fauour of Kings, and the first Chri­stian Emperours; not by any naturall consequents drawne from the supernaturall power, as shall be shewed in due place.

5 54. Fiftly, though wee all acknowledge a Prima­cie and deny this Monarchie in Saint Peter; yet neither by Tibi dabo claues, Matth. 16. where Bellarmine saith the Primacie was promised: nor by Pasce oues me as, Ioh. 21. where he saith it was giuen: nor by any pre­rogatiue, which he calleth confirmatiue, can a Prima­cie be directly proued, much lesse a Monarchie; for nothing is promised in the one place, or perfor­med in the other, or confirmed by the rest, which is not common to Peter with the rest of the A­postles.

[Page 139]55. For as when God made man first of the dust of the earth, Inspirauit in eius faciem, & factus est ho­mo in animam viuentem: though hee be said Inspirasse in faciem, yet he gaue life to the whole body, and the soule was breathed into the whole body: so that Inspiratio illa was not made for the face onely, but for the whole body; as God said, Et factus est homo in animam viuentem: So where our Sauiour said,Mat. 16.18. Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram, &c. and Tibi dabo cla­ues; and Quodcun (que) ligaueris super terram; though these words were spoken in person to Saint Peter, yet they did not onely Inspirare in faciem, giue power to the first or chiefe part, which is Peter, but reached indifferently to all the Apostles, to the whole body. For not onely Peter was Petra, but all the Apostles were Petrae, (Apostoli, saith Saint Hierome, Hieron. [...]edi­biae q. 8. Petrae vo­cabulum acceperunt:) or fundamenta, as I shewed be­fore: the Keyes were giuen to them all ex aequo; and they did all ligare, and soluere ex aequo, and so did the Bishops their successors: for inde, from hence (saith Saint Cyprian,) from these promises, and from this bestowing of the Keyes vpon Saint Peter, Cypr. l. 5. epis. 6. ad Lapsos: per tempo­rum & successionum vices, Episcoporum ordinatio, & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, vt Ecclesia super Episcopos con­stituatur: & omnis actus Ecclesiae per 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 [Page 140] 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, at (que) 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.

[Page 141]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 idem (que) primus Apostolus: But for the sense of those Scriptures, we say also, Quando ei di­ctum est, Tibi dabo claues regni coelorum; &, Quodcun (que) 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. 1 [...]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.

[Page 142]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 al [...]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, quàm hi? our Sauiour committed to Saint Peter Pon­tificatum, that is, the Monarchie; Saint Augustine saith better, that he prepared him to Martyrdome, [Page 143] 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, quàm 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 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, [Page 144] 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 [Page 145] 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 [Page 146] 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 [Page 147] taken together: and hauing beene once proposed, and shewed to the world, each one may say to the Cardinall, Discedam, expleui numerum, Virgil. redaar (que) 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 reàpse nullae sunt, speciem autem offerunt.

6 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 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. [Page 148] 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. Quodcun (que) where Saint Augustine saith, that Quodcun (que) 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.

[Page 149]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 [Page 150] 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 [Page 151] 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 a fallacie; for our question is of the Apostles, as they were Bishops, and had the whole World for each mans Territorie; Euntes docete omnes gentes, which was our Sauiours institution; not as they or other were limited to peculiar Cities, or Diocesse, as Saint Iames was here to the Church of Ierusalem; which is an Ecclesiasticall, or Apostolicall constitution. And the better to conceale this fraud from his Reader, hee al­ledgeth the testimonie of Clement out of Eusebius, but falsifieth it, as if Clement should say, Iacobum a Petro, Iacobo, & Iohanne ordinatum Episcopum; that Iames was ordained a Bishop by them, and not by our Sauiour: whereas Eusebius hath it, Iacobum a Pe­tro, Iacobo, et Iohanne ordinatum Episcopum Hierosoly­marum, hee was made by them the Bishop of Ieru­salem, of that Prouince, or Diocesse; whereas before [Page 152] he was made a Bishop at large, as the other were; not tied to one place. And so all this disputation, Definit in falsum mulier formosà supernè; ends in a fallacie and falsification, though it pretend to the World a fayre, but meretricious for-head of truth.

75. Secondly, if you vrge, that the other Apo­stles, Saint Paul and Saint Iohn, &c. had potestatem iurisdictionis, wheresoeuer they went, et potestatem ad ferendas leges, obligantes vniuersam Ecclesiam, as much as Saint Peter, as appeares by antiquitie: they will tell you without any ground, or reason for it; Reliquos Apostolos ordinariè illas non tulisse, Suar. ibid. n. 9. nisi ex consensu, & acceptatione Petri: vel certè eas tulisse in eis prouincijs, in quibus praedicabant, et posteà non nisi scien­te & consentiente Petro, ad totam Ecclesiam diminasse. If a proofe be demanded of this assertion, or some ex­ample, or authoritie for it: there is nothing to be said for it, but that otherwise, if this were not so, Peter was no Monarch, but the Apostles had equall power with him, and that ordinary: but Peter (saith hee) was a Monarch; which wee deny; and it is petitio principij, and a foule blemish to a faire Dispu­tant.

76. Thirdly, if you affirme, that the other Apo­stles, Saint Paul and Saint Iohn, &c. gaue vnto others, as they past along, potestatem ordinis, to baptize, to administer the Eucharist, &c. They will tell you out of their Anacletus, Epist. 1. Bellar. de Pon­tif. Rom. l. 1. c. 23. that In nouo Testamento post Chri­stum, a Petro cepit sacerdotalis ordo; & quòd Christus suis manibus solum Petrum baptizauit: also that Peter pabtized Andrew, Iames and Iohn; and they the other Apostles: and that this is a speciall Prerogatiue to [Page 153] proue Peters Primacie: and is affirmed by Euodius, (Bishop of Antioch, next after Saint Peter) in an E­pistle of his intituled [...], or Lumen, Niceph. l. 2. c. 3. Baron. Tom. 1. ano 71. n. 13. and is cited by Nicephorus. But this is some counterfeit stuffe, and Baronius saith of it, Hanc Epistolam ab antiquioribus nec citatam, ne (que) aliter cognitam esse reperimus: Wee finde not this Epistle alledged by any of the ancients; nei­ther doe we know, that any such is extant, but by the report of Nicephorus, who liued almost 1300. yeares after him. Now if we answere directly out of the Scriptures; Iesus non baptizabat ipse, Iohn 4. Gretz. Defen. Bellar. te. 1. p. 616 sed Discipuli eius; Gretzer will replye confidently, Baptizabat, sed non ordinariè baptizabat: admit that he baptized but once, why might he not baptize all the Apostles at that time with Saint Peter, as at one and the same time he washed the feete of all his Apostles.

77. But Saint Augustine distinguisheth better, ac­knowledging, that Saint Iohn saith,John 3. Iesum venisse in Iudeam, & ibi baptizasse: and in another place,Iohn 4. Ie­sum non baptizasse, sed Discipulos eius: which seeming contradiction he salueth not with ordinariè, & non ordinariè, as Gretzer doth;Aug. super Ioh. tract. 15. Aug. Epist. 108. but saith Christus baptiza­uit, & non baptizauit: baptizauit, quia ipse mundauit; non baptizauit, quia non ipse tingebat: or else thus: Baptizabat Christus praesentià maiestatis, non autem bap­tizauit manibus suis. And of this opinion, that our Sauiour baptized none with his owne hands, is Saint Chrisostome Homil. 28. sup. Iohan: & Hom. 3. sup. Act Apost: whom Theophilact followes, and Iansen. sup. 4. Iohan: and Melchior Canus, l. 8. c. 5. and Rupertus.

78. For my owne part, I am ready to follow a middle course, betweene these extreames, and neither [Page 154] beleeue, that our Sauiour baptized the rest of the A­postles, and not Saint Peter, which was the opinion of a certaine Nouatian, August. Epist. 108. as you may reade in Saint Au­gustine; nor yet that he baptized Peter onely, and not the other Apostles, which is Bellarmines assertion out of a counterfeit Euodius; both alike absurd: neither yet that hee baptized not any at all, which hath reue­rend Authors; but that all the Apostles were bapti­zed by him.

79. For in Saint Augustines time it was not a que­stion, whether the Apostles were baptized or no, (as Baronius falsly affirmes) neither ought it to be a que­stion (saith he) quando quis (que) fuit baptizatus, Tom. 1. [...]o. 31. n. 40. sed quos­cunque legimus in corpore Christi, quod est Ecclesia, per­tinere ad regnum coelorum, non nisi baptizatos intelligere debemus: but the question then was, whether the A­postles were baptized with the baptisme of Iohn, or with the baptisme of Christ. S. Augustine saith, many were of opinion that the Apostles were baptized with the baptisme of Iohn: but he thought it magis credibile, that they were baptized with the baptisme of Christ; and he giues his reason for it.Aug. Epist. 108. Ne (que) enim (saith he) mini­sterio baptizandi defuit, vt haberet baptizatos seruos, per quos caeteros baptizaret, (hee saith not, Baptizatum Pe­trum, per quem caeteros baptizaret) quia non defuit me­morabilis illius humilitatis ministerio, quando eis lauit pedes, &c. So that we cannot reconcile these Scrip­tures by distinguishing Baptizabat, sed non ordinariè, ergo Petrum solum; but Distingue tempora, & reconcilia­bis: he baptized his Apostles first, Ioh. 3. and after that it is said Ioh. 4. as Saint Augustine notes, Iesus non baptizabat, sed Discipuli eius.

[Page 155]80. There is a notable place in Saint Cyprians Booke De vnitate Ecclesiae, to proue the equality of the other Apostles with Saint Peter, though the Pri­macie were in him: if you alledge this to them, and say, Hoc erant vti (que) & caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praedtti & honoris, & dignitatis: Suarez answereth,Suarez de leg. l. 4. c. 9. that this equality is to be vnderstood for­maliter, ceu quantum ad dignitatem Apostolicam, et eam Iurisdictionem in vniuersum orbem, quae praecisè ex vi illius dignitatis data est: yet, saith he, excelluit Petrus in Pontificiâ dignitate. But if by the excellencie of his Pontificalitie he vnderstand a Monarchie, as their vse is; it is an absurd begging of the question: if hee meane a Primacie onely, the distinction is idle; for not prioritie, but superioritie takes away paritie.

81. It is scarce credible, how they haue corrupted this discourse of Saint Cyprian, not onely by these vaine glosses, but by adding to it, and detracting from it, to erect this Monarchie, which is there demo­lished. To these words alledged by Saint Cyprian, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam; they haue falsly added, super vnum aedificat Ecclesiam suam; and omit two or three lines, that those words might fit the better. This I thinke, was begunne by the late corrupters of the Canon Law, and so it is found in all, or most editions, since the yeere 1540. for the Copies printed then, & before 1525. acknow­ledge no such words: this you finde in the Decrees 24. q. 1. c. Loquitur, if you compare these editions.

82. From hence it seemeth to haue crept into the originall Author himselfe; and because these words fauour their Monarchie, they choose rather to corrupt [Page 156] the Author by the false Canon, then correct the Ca­non by the true Author: for the Cyprian, which I vse, was printed at Paris 1564. and hath no such words. But if you consult some later editions, as also that of Iustus Caluinus, aliàs, Iustus Baronius (that is, of him, who of a Caluinist for better maintenance be­came a Papist, and so changed his name with his reli­gion) you shall finde in his second booke of Pre­scriptions against heresies (which is this booke of Saint Cyprian De vnitate Ecclesiae) at the third Chap­ter, not onely those words added out of the corrup­ted Canon Law, Super illum vnum aedificat Ecclesiam suam; but in another place not farre off, vnam con­stituit cathedram, and some other additions; which corruptions are not found in the Canon Law: whereby you may perceiue, they are so farre from amending that which is amisse, that they doe profi­cere in petus, and daily adde more corruptions to the writings of the ancient Fathers to extoll, and magni­fie Saint Peters Monarchie.

83. Thus, where Arnobius saith vpon Psal. 106. Praedicauit Petrus baptismum Christi, in quo in which baptisme, or in which Iesus Christi, vniuersa flumina in deserto huius mundi benedicuntur vs (que) hodiè à Petro; all the Riuers in the world are blessed and hallowed, from the time of Saint Peter to this present day: Stapleton reades most corruptly thus, and definitiue­ly of Saint Peter; Vniuersa flumina in deserto huius soe­culi benedicuntur vs (que) hodie à Petro, all the Riuers in the world are blessed, and hallowed by Saint Peter, euen vnto this day; ascribing that which is due to our Sauiour and his baptisme, to Saint Peter and his [Page 157] baptisme; belike, because hee holds with Bellarmine that all Christian baptisme proceedes from Saint Pe­ter to the other Apostles, and so to the whole Church for euer.

84. Againe, where Arnobius saith in the same place, Ipse posuit exitus aquarum in sitim, ita vt qui ex­ierit for as ab Ecclesia Petri, siti pereat: which is, ei­ther, Christus posuit exitus aquarum in sitim; Christ by his preaching, gaue many floods of heauenly waters, to quench the desire of thirstie soules: or if you will; Peter by his preaching, as he passed along, sent out many flouds of heauenly water into the world, &c (which is true also of the rest of the Apostles:) Stapleton makes him to say for Peters greater honour aboue them; Ipsum esse exi [...]us aquarum in suim, Stapl. relect. controu. 3. q. 1. art. 1. conclus. 3. equa­lizing him to his Master, who was indeede the water of life, which whosoeuer drinketh of, should thirst no more. Surely though our Sauiour,Tertul. l. 4. cont. Marci. c. 3. (as Tertullian saith) affectauit charissimo Discipulorum, de figuris suis, nomen peculiariter communicare, and tearmed him a rocke, as our Sauiour was called figuratiuely; yet hee neuer imparted to him his Essentialls, to be the water of life, that exitus aquarum, which should runne along to euerlasting saluation.

85. But of these vaine glosses and impious corrup­tions of the Fathers and Scriptures, to maintaine this Monarchie facto finem, vbi non est finis. That,Ber. which hath beene said at diuers times (I hope) will suffice to shew, that Saint Peter had no Monarchicall power ouer the rest of the Apostles, who in honour, power, and authority were equall to him; and that all the reasons they alledge for it, are false and fallacious, [Page 158] and but craftie shifts, and by-wayes, to deceiue their Readers, and leade them to error.

86. It will perchance scarce seeme credible vnto their followers, that so many men of learning, and professors of Religion as are to be found in so many Colledges of Iesuites, (to say nothing of other or­ders, and Religions) should consent to betray so eui­dent a cause with falsifying, forgerie, and fallacious sophistrie,Cic. l. 3. de Na­tu. Deorum. seeing, Vitiorum sine vllâ ratione graue ipsi­us conscientiae pondus est. If they esteemed not their Christianitie, yet the very conscience of these sinnes should be an heauie burthen to them. No question, their number, their learning, their profession, their outward shew of holinesse, and Religion, their vnani­mous consent in this grosse errour, carry captiue ma­ny well-meaning people, who cannot judge of these their writings.

87. And to say the truth, Quod tam desperatum col­legium, Cic. de Leg. l. 3. in quo nemo a decem sanâ mente sit? Who would thinke the societie to be so desperately wicked, that (I say) not one Iesuite among tenne, but not in tenne Colledges of Iesuites, one should haue a sound heart to acknowledge that truth, which with so ma­nifold glosses they labour to conceale? for those multi tramites, those by-pathes, which they vse, shew, that it is via mendax, Lactan. a deceitfull lying way, which they walke in; and that they treade it of purpose to leade men to errour, nay ad occasum, to their vtter de­struction. But they haue their reward; the same which Lactantius allotted the Philosophers which opposed Christianitie;Lactan. l. 5. c. 2. when he saith, Quisquis veri­tatis, contra quam perorat, infirmare voluerit rationem, ineptus, vanus, ridiculus apparebit.

[Page 159]88. I hope, I shall not neede in this place to vse his exhortation to our yonger Students:Jbid. Ne patimini vos, quasi homines imperitos istorum fraudibus illici, nec simplicitas vestra praedae, ac pabulo sit hominibus astutis. And yet why should I not vse it? Many of vs haue beene carryed head-long with as slender reasons, and as grosse fallacies and corruptions, to vilifie and con­found the ancient Hierarchie of the Church, as those are, with which the Papists are moued to maintaine and dignifie their vsurped 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.

[Page 160]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.
Castigat (que) audit (que) 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 [Page 161] 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: ne (que) 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 [Page 162] 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 [...] ­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 s [...]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, ve­r [...]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, quàm 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 [Page 163] 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 cer [...]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 [Page 164] 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.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.