CERTAJNE SERMONS Made in OXFORD, Anno Dom. 1616. Wherein, is proved, that Saint PETER had no Monarchical power over the rest of the Apostles, against Bellarmine, Sanders, Stapleton, and the rest of that COMPANY.  
BY John Howson, DOCTOR in Divinity, and prebendary of Christ-Church; now BISHOP of OXON.  
Published by Commandment.  
LONDON: Printed by T. S. for John Pyper. 1622.   
LUKE 12.41.42. etc. 
Then Peter said unto him, MASTER, tellest thou this parable unto us, or unto all?  
And the Lord said: who is a faithful Steward, and a wise, whom the Master shall make ruler over the household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?  
Blessed is the servant, whom the Master, etc.  
1. IN this short Parable our Saviour delivers the qualities requisite for a good Steward, and the ample reward, which shall be given him: and secondly the faults observable in an evil steward; & withal, the punishment that is due unto him.  
2. The qualities required in a good Steward are many: 1. He must be fidelis, faithful. 2. He must be humble and serviceable to his Master; for he is but aeconomus, or seruus, a Steward, or Servant, 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 over his household. 5. He must be diligent, and careful in executing his office and function, Et dare in tempore tritici mensuram, and give them their portion of meat in due season.  
3. The particular circumstances of the reward, as also of the evil steward, and his punishment, I will note hereafter; 
August.  for as S. Augustine said, Haec pauca de multis breviter perstringo, ne propositum operis mei nimia longitudine (divisionis) impediam: For before we come to speak of the qualities of this Steward, we must find our, who the Steward is.  

Hilar. de Trin. lib. 1.  4. The ancient Fathers, Qui dictorum intelligentiam expectant ex dictis potiùs, quàm imponunt, who rather collect the meaning out of the words, then impose a new sense upon them, do commonly understand the Apostles, and the Bishops their successors, to be the Steward here described. Thus Ambrose super locum: Hilary super 24. Math: Jerome super locum: Chrysost. lib. 2. de sacer dote: Theophilact super locum, etc. Thus also the interpreters, and commentators of the Church of Rome, Beda, Thomas, Gorran, Abulens. Caietan, Salmeron, and jansenius. But when those of the Church of Rome come to matter of question, and controversy, they behave themselves like Poets (who (as Seneca notes,) Non putant ad rem pertinere verum dicere; 
Sen. de benefit. lib. 1. cap. 3.  sed aut necessitate coacti, aut decoro corrupti, id quemque vocari iubent, quod bellè facit ad versum,) and name him the steward, who best fitteth, in their opinion, the business in hand.  
5. Thus Bellarmine, 
Bellar. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 14.  when he proves against the Presbyterians, that Bishops are superior to Priests, iure divino, tum ordinis potestate, tum iurisdictione, allegeth for one proof this parable, as S. Matthew delivers it, Quis est seruus fidelis & prudens, etc. Who is a faithful servant? etc. and saith fairly and truly, Haec verba Hilarius, & coeteri patres, de Episcopis dicta esse volunt; Hilary, and the rest of the Fathers, will have these words to be understood of Bishops; and so proves the superiority of Bishops above Priests. But when he disputes against us Protestants, for the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome, than this Steward is the Pope; and although (saith he) Ambrose, Hilary, and Jerome, understand it of the Bishops generally, yet surely the Scripture intendeth the Pope's Monarchy. 
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 speak not expressly 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 proof as Sine dubio. The Pope's Monarchy over the Church, over 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, & feel it with our fingers, it must be made sensible, before we will grant it. Tully saith, 
Cic. office lib. 3.  Turpe est dubitare philosophos, quae ne rustici quidem dubitant; If every vulgar interpreter, together with the Fathers, had delivered that sense, it had been a shame for so great a Divine to have doubted of it: but the Fathers (he confesseth) understand it of Bishops indifferently: and no late expositor, that I have read, once dreams 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 rhetorical trick, Id sumere pro certo, quod dubium, controuer sumque est, not to doubt of that, which he knows is controverted. Eorum quae constant (saith Tully) exempla ponenda; 
Cic. de Invent. lib. 1.  eorum quae dubia sunt, rationes afferendoe: seeing he knew this interpretation would be especially controverted, he should have kept on his course, and have brought proof and reasons for it, & not tell us, Sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est, Without doubt that is the meaning of the Scripture: If he thought it did constare, and were evident to his party, yet exempla posuisset, he should have brought some certain and undoubted examples or authorities for our satisfaction, from Greek Fathers, or Latin, or Counsels, &c, as his manner is.  
8. There are two faults much used inter Polemieos, the writers of controversies, which are very offensive to ingenuous readers; and no marvel, for, Quibus rebus animus quasi debito fraudatur, offenditur; The mind of man is offended, when it is defrauded of that, which is due unto it. Tully saith, that both these faults are ridiculous. Ridiculum est, quod est dubium, 
Cic. pro Quint.  relinquere incertum; (saith he) It is but a mockery to pass that over without proof, which is doubtful: And again, Ridiculum est, quod nemini dubium est, iudicare; It is also a ridiculous mockery to use many proofs and reasons to confirm that, which no man denies.  
9 The former trick is here used by Bellarmine, but because this assertion, this sine dubio, is very thin, & pellucet, and we may discern great weakness through it; he useth inexpiable frauds to abuse this Text; and first he hath this sleight to deceive his readers. That, whereas disputing against the Presbyterians for the superiority of Bishops, he saith, Sanctus Hilarius, 
Bellar. de Cler. lib. cap. 14.  & caeteri patres de Episcopis haec verba dicta esse volunt; S. Hilary, and the rest of the Fathers, will have these words to be understood of Bishops, of all indifferently; alleging a consent of Fathers: when he disputes for the Pope's Monarchy against us (finding himself much crossed by that general consent of interpretation) he concealeth it, and allegeth two or three Fathers only for that opinion, as if there were no more of that mind, without & caeteri, as before: and then he opposeth his own credit to them (as if he were a Geometer, Qui non suadet, sed cogit,) saying, Sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est; Whatsoever 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 universâ; As particular Bishops are the chief stewards in their own diocese, so the Bishop of Rome is the chief steward in the universal Church.  
10. In which words I observe a second sleight, which is this: That whereas the Text saith, Quis est fidelis aeconomus & prudens, &c, he seemeth to read, Quis est summus aeconomus, etc. affirming out of that place, that every Bishop is summus aeconomus in Ecclesiâ suâ, and so by consequent the Bishop of Rome is summus aeconomus in Ecclesiâ universâ. But if he would have concluded fairly, 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 own peculiar diocese of Rome; the word summus being understood univocally in the antecedent, and consequent, sine dubio sententia scripturae illa fuisset; without doubt that had been 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 universa, as it hath no consequent or warrant from my Text, wherein there is no word of summitie or universality, so it is false, fallacious, and equivocal: for summus in the antecedent, applied to every Bishop in his diocese, hath only the force of a comparative, as if he should say, a superior in his Diocese, who may have an Archbishop, or Patriarch above him, as well as Priests and Deacons, that are his inferiors; but summus in the consequent applied to the Pope, is taken superlatively in the proper signification, 
Cic. Tusc. q. l. 2.  which Tully gives it, Summum est, quo nihil est superius. Summus in the antecedent is Aristocratical, 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 Monarchical, both Caesar, & Pompey, Quo nemo superior, cui nemo aequalis. Summus in the antecedent hath ordinariam potestatem only over his diocese; but summus in the consequent hath plenitudinem potestatis, to do what pleaseth him, without council, without control, without Law, in the universal Church; potestatem despoticam, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is not allowable in the Church of God. So that S. Matthew, and S. Luke (as he thinks) mistook our Saviour, when they read, 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. Peter's prerogatives (they suppose) run as directly into the sea of Rome, as all main rivers into the Ocean. This is a flat contradiction to that received interpretation, which Bellarmine urgeth against the Presbyterians, Hilarius & caeteri patres de Episcopis dicta esse volunt; for by this new gloss all other Bishops are directly excluded.  
13. In his first book de Pontifice Romano, 
De Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 9  (where he affirms, Regimen Ecclesiasticum praecipuè Monarchium esse debere) in his fourth reason, which is drawn from the similitudes, whereby the Church is described in the Scriptures; among other things (saith he) the Church is likened to an house, which hath unum Dominum, & unum aeconomum, as it is Luke 12. Quis est fidelis dispensator & prudens, quem constituit Dominus? etc. Quae verba (saith he) dicuntur Petro; these words (saith Bellarmine) are spoke to Peter.  
14. That S. Peter moved the question that occasioned this Parable, is evident in my Text; but he did it (as the Interpreters say, 
jansen.  and namely jansenius) omnium Apostolorum nomine, ut solet: as also he answereth sometimes in the name of the rest, 
Aug: de verb. Dom. ser. 13.  as S. Augustine observes; Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus, in Christi amore promptissimus, saepe unus respondet pro omnibus; unitas in multis. Peter the first in the order of the Apostles, & the readiest in the Love of Christ, answereth oftentimes one for all; showing an unity in the many. And S. Cyril gives reasons, why it should be so: and here the Text implies that Peter did speak 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 answer was made to them all.  
15. Bellarmine answers, that Peter asked the question, Et respondit Dominus Petro, Quis putas, etc. and then he glosseth it thus; Tibi o Petre inprimis dico: I speak only to thee o Peter; for inprimis here signifieth not especially, but only; for (saith he) by certain words of the singular number used in this Parable, Dominus apertè indicat, se unum seruum toti domui praepositurum, qui à se solo iudicari possit; the Lord doth plainly show, that he will set one servant over the whole house, which servant he only reserves to his own judgement.  
16. But not only this gloss, Tibi o Petre inprimis dico, corrupts the Text, but the words of the Text are corrupted by Bellarmine, who saith, Respondit Dominus Petro; when the Text hath barely, Dixit autem Dominus, without mentioning Peter. And if there had followed so great a consequent upon Peter's moving the question, and our Saviour's answer to him by name, as the Monarchy of the Church; St. Matthew would not have omitted that circumstance.  
17. But admit that the Evangelist said, Respondit Dominus Petro, and that our Saviour made answer 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 himself; and for proof he brings Chrysostome, and Ambrose,  (saith he) hunc locum disertè explicat Chrysostomus de Petro, & successoribus eius, Lib. 2. de Sacerdot. circa principium; Cui Ambrosius assentiens, etc.  
18. He quoteth S. Chrysostome curiously, the book, and the part of the book, but allegeth not his words; and no marvel, for, Certè hunc locum disertè explicat Chrysost. de discipulis Christi, non de ipso Petro; certainly Chrysostome doth expressly interpret this place of the Disciples of Christ, and not of Peter: for not fare from the beginning of that second book he saith, 
Chrys. de Sacerd. lib. 2.  Dominus cum discipulos alloqueretur, ait, Quis est fidelis seruus, &c, When our Saviour spoke to his Disciples, he said, Who is a faithful servant, etc. And although he say not fare from the beginning of that book, Christus curam ovium tum Petro, tum successoribus Petri committebat, (which may be verified of any other of the Apostles) yet he offers not to prove that by this Text; but comforts his friend S. Basil (who was newly made Bishop, and repent himself of accepting it; charging S. Chrysostome, that he by sleights had drawn him into it; (Longa est narratio, longae Ambages,) You cannot understand that second book, except you read over very diligently the former;) he comforts him, I say, by telling him, that if he proved 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 flock, which would argue his love to his Master; then he should receive the reward mentioned in this Parable, Super omnia bona eius constitueret cum; and so interprets this Text of the Disciples in general, and the Bishops their successors, as other Fathers do: Thus have we a good Chrysostome falsely alleged, 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 upon 1. Tim. 3. he hath those very words quoted by Bellarmine, Domus Dei est Ecclesia, 
Ambr. sup. 1. Tim. 3.  cuius body rector est Damasus; which will never prove by any consequent that these words were spoken by our Saviour, Petro, & de ipso Petro, though we should yield to the Pope all Peter's prerogatives. 
Bellar. lib. 2. de Concil. cap. 17.  But what author (think you) is this? In his second book de Concilijs, he allegeth 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; Ambrose, vel quicunque est autor illius Commentarij: You must value him high, because he is coupled with Chrysost. & then they opposed to S. Hilary, & all the Fathers.  
20. But when Bellarmine speaks not Polemicè, but historicè, when he hath him alone in a corner, and makes no use of him, he tells us, that in these Commentaries upon S. Paul's Epistles, which are found in St. Ambrose his works, Sunt non pauca, 
Bellar. de scriptor. Eccles.  quae Pelagij errores continere videntur: and thinks, that the author of them was one Hilarius, not Arelatensis, nor Pictaviensis, but Hilarius Diaconus Romanus, qui Luciferi scisma propagavit: A good author (no doubt) who favoured the heresy of Pelagius, and the schism of Lucifer Calaritanus.  
21. Thus we may see, that these wranglers, 
Hilar. lib. 1. de Trin.  in controversies, non referunt seusum, deliver not the received 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 Hilary and all the Fathers are said to affirm: Secondly, He was every Bishop in his private See, and the Bishop of Rome in the universal Church; Et sine dubio sententia scripturae illa est: Thirdly, It is Peter alone; and so consequently the Pope: and to prove it, a true Chrysostome is alleged falsely, and a false Ambrose is alleged vainly, Et talibus fundamentis tota domus nititur; And upon such foundations as these, their whole edifice relies.  
22. But because these three false pillars are too weak to support so high, & ample a building (as the Popedom is now,) upon the foundation of this Text, he addeth a fourth sleight, to deceive his readers. We all confess jointly, that Ecclesia una est, 
Cyprian de unit. Eccles.  (as S. Cyprian saith) there is one Catholic Church, Quae in multitudinem latiùs incremento foecunditatis extenditur; Which by a miraculous increase, and fecundity is extended, and divided into many particular Churches. There is unum Lumen, one great Catholic Light; but multi radij, many beams of that great light. Arbour una tenaci radice fundata, One main Catholic tree fastened, and founded with a sure root; and there are rami arboris multi, many branches of this Catholic tree; Finally, una gens, one Catholic 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, signify every Bishop in his peculiar Diocese, in his peculiar Sunbeam, in his peculiar branch, in his peculiar family, and so consequently the Bishop of Rome in his Diocese only, or particular family. That the Text may reach home to the establishing of the Pope's universal Monarchy, and prove, that he is Summus oeconomus in Ecclesiâ universâ; He addeth unto the Text, as before a word of Summitie, or Supremacy, so now a word of Universality, that as before he made him by a sleight the supreme Bishop, Supra quem nemo, He might make him an universal supreme Bishop, Qui supra omnes, an universal Monarch over all the Church.  
23. For Bellarmine disputing against Barkley, for the maintenance of the Pope's universal supremacy, perceiving that Familia, one only Family, signified by the word of my Text, was not spacious enough to entertain that great Monarch universal: But if his Cardinals should attend him, they would compass him in, Et coarctarent eum undique; 
Luk. 19.43.  He enlargeth it as much as may be, 
Bellar. cont. Barc. cap. 34.  Et dilatat terminos usque ad Euphratem; and saith, that the Pope Constitutus est super omnem familiam, Cap. 34. And again, Cap. 24. 
Jb. c. 24.  Qui toti familiae proe est. And so where our Saviour said, Quis est fidelis oeconomus, quem constituit Dominus supra familiam; He chaps, and changes, and adds to the Evangelist, and makes him say; Quis est summus oeconomus quem constituit Dominus supra omnem familiam, or supra totam familiam; and so beats off the Text from the confirmation of Bishops in their particular Churches, and Families, as he applied it against the Presbyterians; and abuseth it by corruption, only to establish the Pope's universal Monarchy.  
24. I stand not to urge the vanity of this addition, or corruption done of purpose to make the word stretch to the universal Church; but Sine dubio familia, & tota familia, are both one, and imply but one part of a stock or kindred: For among the Romans, Gens, or Genus, was the whole kindred; Familia, or Stirps were the diverse branches. Genus was referred 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 signify Gentem Christianam, the universal Church, of which there are many particular branches, and families.  
25. And it seemeth that the Holy Ghost would have this observed; for when the Apostle would express the universal Church, he used not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is found in my Text, (which Beza noted well, and with him Salmeron, and before them both Caietan, to signify famulitium, the servants, or inferior part of a family, not a family, as Bellarmine reads for his advantage,) but the holy Apostle useth a word which signifieth gentem, an whole stock or kindred, consisting of many families, 
Ephes. 3.14.15.  saying; I bend my knees to the Father of our Lord jesus Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Of whom the whole nation or kindred, both in heaven and earth, are denominated Christians.  
26. Here now, when the Holy Ghost would express the universal 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 old vulgar translates, is paternitas; as S. Jerome, parentela; as Erasmus, cognatio à communi patre; and as Beza, familia; but taken largely, as he acknowledges in his notes, when he saith Familia, id est, Gens, quae communem unum patrem familiae habeas, ut sanè habet Ecclesia in Christo coaptata.  
27. And this Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereby the universal Church is noted, is so significant, that it troubled the Interpreters (as you see) to express it with a fit Latin word; and therefore every man varies upon it according to his own sense: so that it is no great marvel, if the vulgar translator retained still the very Greek word, 
Psal. 95.7.  Psal. 95. Afferte Domino patriae Gentium, afferte Domino gloriam & honorem; Which I reading often, took it for the Latin word Patriae, the countries of the Heathen, till I observed that the Septuagint read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the people; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; And because the old vulgar thought the word, familia, would not reach home, if he should say, familiae gentium; and he would not read gentes gentium, for the Cacophonie and equivocation, he continued the Greek word saying, Afferte Domino patriae gentium.  
28. But with this trick of corruption I note not Bellarmine, though he reads familia for famulitium, for famulitium a part, and an inferior part, the servants of the family; familia, an whole family, of Wife, Children, and Servants, because the old vulgar doth read so; and he takes him, and leaves him, for his best advantage: But I stand somewhat the longer upon this note, because Bellarmine, Sanders, Stapleton, and other, work great wonders out of this word Familia, to maintain the Pope's Monarchy; though it be falsely translated for Famulitium, Familia; and then for Familia, tota familia, and so abused to signify the universal Church.  
29. A fift sleight which Bellarmine useth to abuse this Text, and corrupt it, to maintain thereby the Pope's Universal Monarchy, is in his book de Council authoritate; where he hath this proposition; 
Bellar. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 17.  Summus Pontifex simpliciter, & absolutè est supra Vniversam Ecclesiam, & supra generale concilium, ita ut 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 usurp the title, and style of our great Master? For is not Christ jesus only Summus Pontifex simpliciter, & absolutè, supra Ecclesiam universam, qui nullum supra se iudicium agnoscat? What difference between this prerogative of the Pope, and that of our Saviour, Ephes. 1. where it is said, 
Ephes. 1.22.  that God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He made our Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Summum Pontificem, or caput simpliciter, & absolutè, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to his whole Church; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over all men, and over all things, as the Vulgar of Christ; and as Bellarmine of the Pope, Supra universam Ecclesiam.  
30. What? not enough to be Primus, which may infer a Primacy, which the ancient Church granted; but he must be Summus; 
4.  Similis ero altissimo, which intends a Monarchy, and our Saviour detested, when he said, Reges gentium dominantur eorum, vos autem non sic; Kings are great Monarches, not you my Apostles, much less 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, ut fiat Pontifex? Which our Saviour assumed not, but received it from his Father, when he said, Filius meús es tu? Which style of Pontifex is given to none of the Church of Christ, but to himself only in the New Testament.  
32. What? not enough to be Pontifex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but he must be summus Pontifex, a style never appropriated, nor used to any in the Church of God, either in the Old, or New Testament? For in the Old Testament the high Priest was barely called Pontifex, 
Levit. 21.20.  as Levit. 21. Pontifex, id est, Sacerdos maximus; not Pontifex maximus, or Pontifex summus. And in the New Testament our Saviour only hath an Epithet added to it, which is given in comparison of Aaron's high Priesthood, to note that Christ's Priesthood excelled it: But that high and extraordinary style but once used, and to our Saviour only applied, is not equal to this of the Pope: For the Apostle calls our Saviour but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Qui penetravit coelos, 
Heb. 4.14.  jesum Christum filium Dei, habemus Pontificem magnum: We have (saith he) a great high Priest, that is passed into the heavens, JESUS the Son of God: But Bellarmine in this proposition tells us, that we have the Pope Pontificem maximum, two degrees of comparison above our Saviour, which is in English our Highest high Priest.  
33. What? not enough to be Summus Pontifex, with certain additions of reference to our Saviour, but it must be absolutè? not comparatè, but simpliciter? not in universâ Ecclesiâ (which words though they be high, may carry a moderate sense of Primacy, among many, who are Episcopi in universâ Ecclesiâ,) but he must be Pontifex summus simpliciter & absolutè, supra universam Ecclesiam, an highest high Priest over all the Church, and usurp a Monarchy?  
34. But I will not farther exaggerate this Luciferian proposition: I speak this by the way ex abundantiâ cordis; and conclude with S. Bernard, 
Ser. 69. super Cant.  Audet quis peruadere locum unigeniti tui? O good God, doth any man dare to challenge the place, and prerogative of thy Son, thy only Son? etc. Praecipitetur, O cast him down headlong, as Lucifer from heaven. Ponit sibi sedem in excelso? Doth he make himself a Monarch in thy Church? Subuertatur cathedra pestilentiae, and let all that behold it, say, Numquid iste vir est, 
Es. 14.16.  qui conturbavit gentes, & concussit regna? Is this he, that so troubled the world, and the kingdoms thereof, to establish his Monarchy?  
35. But let us consider, how Bellarmine proves 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. Gregory detested it. What? by bare reason? no, he knew well enough St. Augustine's rule, 
Aug. Epist. 56.  Quasi regularis est omnium haereticorum temeritas, conari stabilissimam authoritatem fundatissimae Ecclesiae quafi rationis nomine, & pollicitatione evertere. It is the usual rashness of all heretics, to strive to overthrew the most firm authority of the most established Church, by the name and promise (as it were) of reason. How then will he prove it? Ratione in scriptures fundatâ, and founded upon this Scripture, my very Text.  
36. We can ask no better: for Bellarmine maintaining a good cause against the Anabaptists, and Arians of Transiluania, viz. Licere Christianis gerere magistratus civiles, That it is lawful for Christians to exercise civil power and authority; he proves 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, Ecclesiastical government, or subjection, is not repugnant to Christian liberty; as appears (saith he) Math. 24. Quis est fidelis seruus, etc. Who is a faithful and wise servant, whom the Master shall make ruler over the household? Ergo (saith Bellarmine) non repugnat praefectura vel subiectio Politica, therefore Political government or subjection 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 lawful to have one spiritual Monarch, the Pope, over the whole Church, as to have temporal Kings and Monarches in their several Kingdoms, and that the reason be also in hâc scripturâ fundatâ, it will force as fare as the other doth: But if you examine it, you will find that he doth super alienum fundamentum aedificare, build upon reason altogether averse from this Scripture.  
37. His proof, or reason is this. Omnia nomina, quae in scriptures tribuuntur Christo, unde constat eum esse supra Ecclesiam, eadem omnia tribuuntur Pontifici. All the names which are given in Scripture to Christ, whereby it is manifest that he is over all the Church; all those are given the Pope; he might have added, and greater names too; for Christ is called Pontifex magnus, and he calls the Pope Pontificem maximum, or summum: He proves 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 own house, which is the Church, and the Pope is the chief Steward in that house. If this reason had been founded upon this Scripture, he should not have said Summus aeconomus, but aeconomus only, that Summitie of his is not in this Scripture, nor founded here: in this Text his ministry, or service is founded. But as some Philosophers said, 
Cicero.  In cerebro animi esse sedem; So Pontificis summi sedes (whom they make the very soul of the Church) is not found in my text, but in laborante cerebro, in some brain, that is greatly distempered.  
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 us go 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 own house, which is the Church; the Pope is the chief Steward in that house; that is, the Master in stead of Christ. Observe, I pray you, Oeconomus, id est, Pater-familias loco Christi; a Servant, that is, a Master.  

Cic. de diuin. li. 1.  39 Tully saith, Vbi sunt multa ambigua, multa obscura, explanationes adhibendae sunt interpretum; Where there are many things doubtful, many obscure, the expositions of Interpreters must be added. If there be any obscurity, any equivocation in the word aeconomus, the Evangelist explains it, and makes it univocal in the next verse; we need not Bellarmine's interpretation, aeconomus, id est, Pater-familias: for the Evangelist saith aeconomus, id est, seruus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a servant; & as if the holy Ghost would prevent this interpretation, so prejudicial to our Saviour, and to his Church; speaking of the same man, he calls him once only, and that in this Text aeconomum; but he calls him seruum, 
Mat. 24.  four times in the five next verses. And S. Matt. delivering the same Parable, never calls him aeconomum, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ever. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, even four sundry times in the same Parable; And yet Bellarmine dares say aeconomus, id est, Pater-familias loco Christi. Vtricroditis? Give you credit to the holy Ghost by the pen of two Evangelists, 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? 
Jwen.  Whether have we more need of an Index, or Ignis expurgatorius, to quit the world from these blasphemous corruptions: or some wise Soothsayer to inform us, what these monsters portend? there were here-tofore certain Augurs, as Tully notes, 
Cic. ad At. l. 13. Epist. 12.  Qui jovis optimi maximi interprete, internuntijque fuerunt: but there are now in Rome certain Cardinals, Qui Pontificis summi interprete, internuntijque sunt; who interpret the Scriptures only for the Pope's honour, and send abroad their books about the world, as the Pope's Nuntios, or Internuntios, only to uphold that monstrous informed doublefaced Monarchy; which is in effect to rob Christ of his kingdom: for the Pope is created Summus aeconomus, id est, Pater-familias loco Christi; or Dominus, as it is in my Text; and we say truly, Regnum non capit duos, but one will endeavour to thrust out another.  
41. Me thinks the Cardinal, when he sees in the Scripture, that our Saviour is but Pontifex magnus, and the Pope thus created Pontifex summus, should esteem the name of Dominus, or Pater-familias, too high for our Saviour, and that he usurpeth a place above his degree; and should therefore say unto him, as it is Luke 14. Da huic locum, SIR, you take your place too high, for you are but magnus, here is one that is summus in the superlative degree; he is become Pater familias loco tuo, let him take your place: and as the jews said before, Venient Romani, & tollent locum nostrum, & gentem; so he should say to our Saviour, Venit Romanus, & tollit locum tuum, & gentem: The Pope is come, and doth rob thee of thy place, and pre-eminence, and of thy people also; for he is become Dominus, & Pater familias loco tuo, and all thy attendants, Arch-Bishops, and Bishops, are become his servants, and men of his family.  
42. And here observe the nature of pure ambition: he is not satisfied with his own honour and exaltation above his degree, except Bishops, his equals, and men of his own rank be humbled, and debased: As if he 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 Servants, de famulitio, men of my family: I must be removed to the highest seat, you must be thrust down to a lower form.  
43. Peradventure you may imagine this to be some verbal amplification only. 
Devisib. Monar. lib. 6 c. 4. Vide etiam Bellar. de Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. c. 18.  Not so. Sanders tells us plainly, that Reliqui discipuli, post Christum, etiam velut de familiâ, & comitatu Petri habentur: All the rest of the Apostles or Disciples are, as it were, servingmen and attendants upon St. Peter, next after Christ: and therefore by consequent all Arch-Bishops, and Bishops, are also servants and attendants upon the Pope; for he challengeth to his Monarchy whatsoever prerogative St. Peter had, though there is not extant any writing either of Scripture, or the ancient Church, which may serve for any evidence of the main conveyance of that Primacy (whatsoever 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 prove this proposition? even by evidence of Scripture; for (saith he) when St. Mark had showed the calling of Peter, Andrew, james, and john, he tells, 
Marc. 1.  how jesus went into a desert place to pray, and (saith he) Prosecutus est eum Simon, & qui cum eo erant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and this phrase (saith he) is thrice found in the Gospel; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then makes this inference: Quid aliud significat illud (Qui cum Simone erant) nisi reliquos discipulos, post Christum, agnovisse Simonem velut ducem, aut Rectorem suum? If we grant so much, yet Dux, or Rector imply not a Monarchy; nor that they were de familiâ, & comitatu eius, but rather a Primacy amongst them, who otherwise are equal, as the Apostles were: For Cyprian saith, 
Cyprian de unit. Eccles.  Hoc esse coeteros Apostolos, quod fuit & Petrus, pari consortio praeditos & honoris, & potestatis; yet he acknowledged a Primacy in Saint Peter.  
45. But this Scripture proves not so much as a Primacy; for say they, his Monarchy, or Primacy, 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 agnovisse Simonem, velut Ducem, & Rectorem suum, it is most false; for they ceased not to strive for the superiority, till our Saviour's Passion: and james, and john made just account of it, as the next of his kin, if this great Monarchy had gone by succession. And St. Chrysostome observeth, that long after this the Apostles were offended at the very suspicion of Peter's Prelacy, when our Saviour paid the tribute for himself, and Peter only; 
Chrysost. super Mat. cap. 18.  for saith he, Quando certos praeferri conspexerunt, nihil tale passi sunt; cum verò ad unum delatus honor est, tunc nimirum doluerunt: When they perceived certain of the Apostles to be preferred, it never troubled them; but when the honour was conferred upon one only, than it grieved them.  
46. Neither are the rest of the Apostles so distinguished from St. Peter, as Sanders implies; who reads, Prosecutus est eum Simon, & qui cum eo erant, joining the word of the singular number to Peter only, and so distinguishing the Apostles from him, as servants from the Master; for the Evangelist joineth them together, with a word of the plural number, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Petrus, & qui cum eo erant, prosecuti sunt eum, as fellows, and equals, all of one company.  
47. Having thus usurped the Monarchy over the house of God, and made himself Dominum, & Patremfamilias, and subjected all the true and lawful Stewards, the Bishops, and Prelates to his service; and from being his fellows, made them de familiâ, & comitatu eius, as Sanders said; he claims to himself as his right, the custody of all the Master-keyes of God's house. And first Clavem Scientiae, the key of Knowledge, which so opens to him only the door of the Scriptures, that he cannot err in expounding them. Secondly, Clavem, if not putei abyssi, yet abyssi, the keys of Purgatory, which is next door by; where he lets lose the souls by his Indulgences, and pardons. Thirdly, Clavem potestatis, which Bellarmine calls clavem David; 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 Ecclesiastical Monarchy, Potestatem depositionis unius, & institutionis alterius. Fourthly, Clavem jurisdictionis, whereby he challengeth to himself all jurisdiction, and from himself only derives it to others; affirming, 
Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 24.  Omnem ordinariam jurisdictionem Episcoporum à Papâ immediatè descendere. Finally, Clavem Ordinationis, whereby he claims to himself the original power of consecrating Bishops, and ordering Priests, 
De Rom. Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 23.  etc. for Bellarmine tells us, that St. Peter only was consecrated a Bishop by our Saviour, and all the rest of the Apostles by Peter: so that all orders come first and originally from Peter, and now by prerogative from the Bishop of Rome: and other the like vanities.  
48. And thus you see the Pope's absolute spiritual Monarchy, to be founded partly upon the manifold 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 Patremfamilias, 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 he hath thus seated the Pope in the throne of his spiritual Monarchy, 
Bernard.  Mentitur iniquitas sibi, that by virtue of this Text thus corrupted, they may give him a name or prerogative above all kings, and Emperors; that so in nomine eius omne genu flectatur, at his honour and prerogatives all knees should bow, both temporal and spiritual, upon the face of the earth: And therefore having created him by these corruptions Patremfamilias, they compare him with Kings, and prefer him before all temporal Monarches; 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 Popedom is directum Dominium, held of God immediately, a firm and safe tenure; and that also by the virtue of this my Text.  

Bellar. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 16.  50. For Bellarmine endeavouring to prove, Summam potestatem non esse in concilio, sed in Papâ: fearing peradventure, lest we 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 think (saith he) that the Church which is Regnum Christi, is like to other Kingdoms of the earth; comparatur familiae, it is likened to a family by our Saviour, saying, Quis est seruus fidelis, 
Mat. 24.  & prudens, quem constituit Dominus supra familiam, etc. and compared also to an house in the Epistle to the Hebrews; 
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 family; would you expect, that he should imply a prerogative to the Popedom, above the prerogative of Kings, because the kingdom of Christ, which is his Church, resembleth rather a family, or an house, than a Kingdom? Quid non speremus amantes? yet he endeavours it, and after this manner. Constat Patrem-familias non habere à familiâ ullam authoritatem, sed ex se; quia ipse à familiâ non constituitur pater, sed ipse facit sibi familiam, gignendo liberos, emendo seruos; It is evident, that the Master of a family receives not any authority from the family, but hath it of himself; because he is not made the Master, or Father, by his family, but he makes a family for himself by begetting Children, and buying servants. This is very true in our Saviour 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 Servants by the price of his Blood: but the inference is not made of him, but of the Pope, as appears by the style. Vnde (saith he) Pater-familias etiamsi pessimus sit, 
Staplet. relect.  (an Epithet belonging well enough to the Popes, who, as Stapleton confesseth, have wallowed in all kind of wickedness,) Under Pater-familias etiamsi pessimus sit, nunquam potest à familiâ iudicari, vel expelli, sicut potest Rex, quando degenerat in tyrannum. Whereby it is evident, that the Master of the family (though he be never so wicked) cannot be judged, or expelled by his family, as a King may, when he degenerates into a tyrant. A wonderful privilege achieved by a false, counterfeit, corrupt gloss, set upon this Text, Quis est summus oeconomus, id est, Pater-familias, for, Quis est fidelis oeconomus, id est, seruus, whereby the Pope sits immoveable, 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 humour, may be deposed.  
51. Thus, as the Psalmist saith, Adhaerere sibi fecit sedem iniquitatis: 
Psal. 93.20.  he is now fastened to his chair of iniquity, with a tenpenny nail. But who can imagine the privilege of a common householder, or Pater-familias, to be greater than the prerogative of an absolute Monarch? This rule holds not but in the Church of Rome, wherein if a King be excommunicated, he may forfeit his kingdom; but if a Subject, or Pater-familias be excommunicated, his inheritance is not touched. So that, as it was better and safer to be Herod's Swine, than his Son, as the Proverb is; so it is safer to be a Swineherd, or any private Pater-familias in the Church of Rome, than the highest Monarch. And now we find the reason why the Pope rather favours Patres-familias, then Reges, Subjects, than Kings; even because he hath purchased a privilege beyond Kings, by usurping 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 serve to confute them at large. I will therefore only enumerate some chief 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 reverend predecessors of the purer times had but a Primacy; not above, but among other Bishops, as the nature of an Aristocracy doth require.  
53. Secondly. Papa non habet ullam authoritatem à se, sed constituitur Papa à Cardinalibus, by whom he is chosen. And although Sanders say, Alios Episcopos, primum Pontificem nec vegetare, 
De visib. Monar. l. 3. c. 7.  nec confirmare; yet Cardinal Paleottus (who maintains the Pope's Monarchy, as resolutely as he) tells us, that Quidam non insulsè dicebat, (he durst scarce speak it in his own name) sicut potentiae vegetativae tres sunt actus, sive 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, eidemque suffragantur: so that he takes his power and authority from the Cardinals.  
54. Thirdly. Papa, si pessimus sit, potest iudicari, & expelli: The Pope, if he be very wicked, may be judged, and deposed even by his Cardinals, and that by his own reason: For therefore (saith he, though falsely) Kings may be removed, Quia potestas Regis est à populo, and the reason thereof is, Quia populus facit Regem: so we may say, The Pope may be removed, 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 Cardinals. But if he may not be removed by his Cardinals, yet it may be done by a general Council, as some of his Cardinals, and greatest Doctors affirm.  
55. Fourthly. Absolute Kings, or Monarches, who have plenitudinem potestatis, fullness of power, cannot be removed by the people for their defects: for, Potestas haec non est à populo derivata, This power is not derived from the people, but from God, Per quem Reges regnant; By whom only King's reign, as appeareth in the people of God; where Saul was made King immediately by God, and deposed by him only: and afterward David, and his posterity placed in his room, and by God immediately. This is evident also among Christian Kings, who reign 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 Son immediately reigns in his stead. For the chief power is not raaicaliter, or suppletiuè in regno, that is, in the people of the Kingdom, as Bellarmine thinks; but in regno, that is, in the Kingdom itself, in iure regio, in the right of Kings, and their issue, who hold it from God, and so are to be deposed by him only.  
56. Fiftly. Those Kings or Emperors, who are made by lawful Election, for their lives only, and seem to some to be rather Primates in an Aristocracy, than Kings in a Monarchy, though they be chosen by the Optimates either of Kingdom or Empire, cannot yet be deposed by them; for although by unanimous consent, and common constitutions, and the Laws of their Country, they have power to advance one of their fellows, and equals, and to make him their King; yet when he is once regularly and lawfully possessed of the Crown, they have no power over him, but he is as absolute, as if he were placed immediately by God: as Optatus told that schismatical Bishop Donatus, Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus, 
Optat. l. 3. Cont. Parmen.  qui fecit Imperatorem, There is none above the Emperor but only God, who made the Emperor; and yet that Emperor was elected by the people.  
57 For there is in every King by the law of Nature, a certain power, which is called Ius regis, 1 Sam. 8. and Manus regia, by Homponius, 
1 Sam. 8.  and many worthy Civilians, 
Pompon. l. 2. § orig. jur.  by which power they may govern Sine certâ lege, sine certo iure, but not sine aequitate, & iustitiâ. This power Romulus had, who began his own Kingdom; and the Kings of Latium, and Hetruria; also the Kings of Asia, and Greece, who were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, meek and gentle, who ruled by their word; as Homer calls Ulysses' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which word some derive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, verbum, as if he were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that ruled all by his word. For which reason when they in Rome would elect one to have 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, Go, and they shall go, etc. As also the Assessors of the Sanedrim, among the jews, 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 soon as ever the people of Rome chose him their Emperor; so that his election by the people did nothing diminish the kingly power in him, or made him any way subject to them, as Bellarmine would teach us. And therefore that power which our Saviour expresseth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Mat. 20 25.  and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as proper to Kings of the Nations, 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 have governed exceedingly well.  

Dion.  59 And therefore Dion in the life of Augustus, calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that had absolute power to make Laws, and might give judgement ex rationis placito, which judgements were therefore called Imperatoris placita, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Dion testifies; and had the force of a Law, or imperial constitution; such a one was that Edict, which S. Luke mentioneth, and was sent out at our Saviour's nativity, 
Luc. 2.  that all the world should be taxed. And this Ius Regis, 
Joseph. de Antiq.  or Regia manus, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as josephus calls the Empire of Rome) brought forth plenitudinem potestatis, motum proprium, certam scientiam, Indulgentiam Principis; phrases which signify the absolute power, which is in all Kingdoms, and absolute Monarchies.  
60. Absurd therefore it is, which Bellarmine saith, that where the people choose the King (which he falsely holds to be general radicaliter) there the people may depose him: for although, where there are elections, the people, or the Optimates, or both, may give Ius ad Regnum: yet Ius Regis, or Regia manus, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Ius in Regno, was not in their power to give; but falls to the elected King iure divino, or by the Law of nature, and no man hath right to deprive him of it.  
61. Thus you see one main pillar of the Pope's pretended Monarchy (which is founded upon the manifold corruptions of my Text) utterly demolished: but because, Non annosa uno quercus deciditur ictu, Such an old Oak of five hundred year's increase, from Gregory the seventh; or a thousand years standing, from Phocas the Emperor, though now it be doted, will not be struck down at any one blow, nor so many roots and foundations be blown up with one only breath. Secondly, because Stapleton saith, that St. Peter, and the Pope's Monarchy, which is founded (saith he) upon our Saviour's verbal institution, Non uno tota momento, sed gradatim, 
Stapleton relec. cont. 3. q. 1. art. 1.  & per partes à Christo facta, & tradita est, was not made and delivered all at one time by our Saviour, but it was given by degrees, and by parts: and therefore as it was instituted by degrees, so it must be manifested and proved by degrees, and so necessarily by degrees be confuted. Thirdly, because Gretzer tells us, 
Gretz. defence. Bellar. l. 1. c. 23. de Rom. Pontif.  that the prerogatives of St. Peter do not prove his Monarchy, Si considerentur solitariè, & non iunctim, If they be considered apart, and not jointly: and therefore to disprove any one of his prerogatives, is not much to the purpose. Finally, because they falsely object, that they being tied as a Bear to the stake, to defend those propositions which are delivered 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 fear of a Crocodile. I will therefore at my next opportunity join issue with them; and prove, first, That the Apostle St. Peter had no Monarchy over the Apostles, or Church of GOD, as Bellarmine, Stapleton, and , teach. Secondly, That Saint Peter had a Primacy of order, as in an Aristocracy, amongst the Apostles, who were his equals; and that by the testimony of the ancient Church. Thirdly, That the ancient Bishops of Rome, of the purer times, neither had, nor challenged any Monarchy in the Church, or any part thereof. Fourthly, That by the judgement of the Fathers they had the Primacy among other Bishops. Lastly, That this Primacy is not fastened to that See, but may for their tyrannies, and usurpations upon Churches, and Kingdoms, be removed from it, and conferred on another.  
62. My conclusion should be (if the time did serve) with an exhortation, to beware how we undertake the defence of any untruth, either in Religion, or Morality, considering that neither the honour, wit, or learning of this great Cardinal can possibly maintain it; but uni sustinendo mendacio necesse est accumulari plura, Untruths are only maintained by untruths, and one corruption or falsification begets another. Truth and a good cause are fairly defended, suâ claritate (as Lactantius saith,) by her own clearness. Via illa mendax (saith he) the way of lying, and falsifying, and corrupting, etc. Via illa mendax, quae ducit ad occasum, multos tramites habet, That false, deceitful way which leads to destruction, hath many cross ways, and many tricks too: but being examined (as you see) shame follows 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 old women, and children, whom they scorn.  
63. God, who is the author, and defender of truth, and revenger, and revealer of falsehood and lies; so possess your hearts with the love 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 everlasting life: This GOD grant for Christ jesus sake; to whom with the Father, and the Holy Ghost be all honour, glory, praise, and dominion, for ever and ever. AMEN.   

THE SECOND SERMON.  Luke 12.41.42. etc. 
Then Peter said unto him, MASTER, tellest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?  
And the Lord said: who is a faithful Steward, and wise, whom the Master shall make ruler over the household, to give them their portion of meat in season? etc.  
1. I Have heretofore divided this Text into certain conditions, requisite for a good Steward; but because we are to inquire Quis sit, Who he is, before we come to the question Qualis sit, What his qualities and conditions are: I shown you that Bellarmine disputing against the Presbyterians, affirmed out of St. Hilary, 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, he makes the Pope this Steward, imagining these words to be spoke to St. Peter only: and to that purpose he corrupted, as I then noted, every 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 scripture is non intellectis, aut malitiosè expositis.  
2. This counterfeit column of the Pope's Monarchy I then shaken asunder; but it is seldom seen, 
Cicero.  that in uno praelio fortuna Reipub. disceptat: and this Monarchy was not collated by our Saviour with any one speech, or at any one time, as Stapleton saith, but by many and sundry donations: nor the great prerogatives, which were given to St. Peter, and so consequently to the Pope, are to be considered solitariè, but iunctìm, as Gretzer says; wherefore they must be confuted severally, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Tully hath it) exactly, 
Cic. de Orat.  and with a just proportion,  verba verbis quasi demensa, & paria respondeant.  
3. But because all the reasons, and arguments, which the jesuites now make in defence of this Monarchy, by virtue of any prerogative Monarchical, 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 prevented by the ancient Father's interpretations, before we could be circumvented by their objections, as appeareth by sundry answers, which have been framed of late; as also because it is an argument more beseeming many volumes, than a few Sermons, I will therefore, as I then promised, prove to all indifferent hearers,  
First, that S. Peter had not any Monarchy over the Apostles, or Church of Christ, by our Saviour's institution.  
Secondly, that St. Peter had a Primacy of order, as in an Aristocracy, among the Apostles; who were his equals, as the Fathers affirm.  
Thirdly, that the ancient Bishops of Rome, of the purer times, neither had, nor challenged any Monarchy over the Church, or any part thereof.  
Fourthly, that by the judgement of the Fathers, they had the Primacy among other Bishops.  
Lastly, that this Primacy is not fastened to this See, but may for their tyrannies, and usurpations over Churches, and Kingdoms, be removed from it, and conferred on another.  
4. The first is, that our Saviour bequeathed no Monarchy to S. Peter, nor to his Church; and so consequently, that the spiritual government is not Monarchical.  
5. This argument hath been copiously, and learnedly handled of late; but especially by those two worthies of our Church, the most learned and reverend Bishops of Winchester and Rochester: 
D. Andrew's. D. Buckerige.  of whom I may say, as Tully did of Carneades, 
Tul. 2. de Orat.  Nullam rem defenderunt, quam not probarint; nullam oppugnaverunt, quam non everterint. But although all former doubts have been sufficiently cleared, and determined, yet some new proofs may ever be added, and withal, usus, & inventorum ab alijs scientia, & dispositio, the use, 
Sen.  and knowledge, and disposing of those things, wh●ch are found out by others. As there are medicines enough set down by Antiquity to cure sore eyes, so that our Physicians need not labour for more: but yet there is somewhat left, wherein they may exercise their best endeavours, and studies; because (as Seneca saith) 
Sen. Epist. 65.  Haec morbis & temporibus aptanda sunt, hoc asperitas oculorum conlevatur; hoc palpebrarum crassitudo tenuitur; hoc vis subita & humour avertitur; hoc acuitur visus.  
6. And as St. Bernard said to Eugenius of doctrinal or moral matters, and the reformation of the Church, Non planè totum quivere 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 usque in finem: so in our ordinary controversies and polemical questions, Multum egerunt, qui ante nos fuerunt, sed non omnino peregerunt, because there are daily some fresh replies, and assaults, which yield some occasions to other men's labours. But to the matter proposed.  
7. It is confessed on all hands, that the spiritual power, as we truly call it; or spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, as the Papists term it improperly, is that only, which it hath received from our Saviour himself, the first founder of it. Manifestum est (saith Franciscus Syluestris in his commentaries upon 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 Emperors, nor other Christian Kings appointed the spiritual regiment of the Church, but our Saviour only: and Sanders saith, Ecclesia neque agnos quidem, 
Sand. de visio. Monar. l. 1. c. 6.  et oves per autoritatem suam, absque Dominica institutione per Sacramentum Baptismi operante, creare potest: quanto minùs per se potest creare pastors, & Doctores? etc. The Church of her own authority can neither make Lambs nor Sheep, without the institution of Christ working by the Sacrament of Baptism: by how much less than of herself can the Church create Pastors and Doctors? The Spiritual regiment therefore is to be sought for in the Scriptures only. The temporal power, and truly so called jurisdiction of the Church, some derive from our Saviour only: some from Christian Emperors, and Kings: and some from both.  
8. Of the first kind, who derive the temporal power from our Saviour only, are the Canonists, and Bartholus the Civilian, and Bozius, and those other ordinis oratorij, who hold, that our Saviour was the temporal Monarch of the world, and left his Monarchy to St. Peter etc. as appeareth in the Canonists, and Canon Law: 
Cap. 10. § 32.  Quae iura valdè bona sunt ad hoc, as Aluarez tells us, in speculo summorum Pontif. & Regum: and no marvel, for they were made by the Popes themselves, and glossed by their flatterers. This opinion is refelled by Bellarmine, and he needs no help of us, vallatus auxilio pugnatorum, 
Jos. 8.16.  being assisted with that whole society, who fight jointly with him.  
9 They who derive the temporal power, which the Church possesseth, from the bounty and liberality of Christian Monarches, are the Protestants, supportantes sibi invicem in veritate, jointly maintaining this truth by plain evidence of uncorrupt Antiquity, acknowledging by whom every great privilege was given; as in place shall be proved.  
10. Now the jesuites, and that crew, vigilantes animi, & domini necessitatibus seruientes, being very vigilant, and careful to serve their Master's turn, challenge this temporal power to their Lord the Pope, both from our Saviour, and from Christian Monarches: a part only from Kings and Emperors, and that directly; but another part, whereby they challenge power, and authority to excommunicate Kings, and deprive them of their Kingdoms (which cannot be done, but by temporal power) from our Saviour ex consequent, & in ordine ad bonum spirituale: but that is indirectè. Distinctio necessitati debita, a most necessary distinction, for it is the only supporter of the Pope's temporal Monarchy; for the Canonists opinion, as too gross, is exploded by them.  
11. But this reedy, and arundineous supporter is so shattered and torn by our reverend Prelates, fustibus argumentorum, as St. Augustine calls them, that we may daily expect the downfall and ruin of that Monarchy: and of this distinction also we shall speak hereafter.  
12. But the spiritual power of the Church is acknowledged by Canonists, jesuites and Protestants, to be derived from our Saviour only: for the Church had spiritual power, before it had Kings to be Patrons and Nurses of it; and a certain government, and Governors to exercise that power; nec auxilia à Regibus terrae, religionis Christianae propagandae, aut defendendae gratiâ petijt; neither did it entreat aid of the Kings of the earth, either for the propagation, or defence of Christian religion: and of this spiritual power is our question.  
13. Not that our adversaries, or we make any doubt, whether there be a set, or constant regiment of the Church, or no; for as Suarez notes well; Cum Dominus Apostolicum munus creabat, 
Suarez. de Leg. l. 4. c. 4. n. 19  necessariò supponendum est illud munus cum omnibus necessarijs, ad convenientem usum eius ordinatum fuisse; when the Lord instituted the Apostolical office or function, we must needs suppose, that he ordained all necessaries, that were conventent, and useful for that office: we confess both that this Church is Castrorum acies ordinata, an army well ordered; 
Cant. 6. Acts 20.28.  Et spiritus sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam, the holy Ghost hath set Bishops to govern the Church.  
14. Nor secondly do we dispute, whether the Ecclesiastical government be spiritual, and distinct from the Political: for we both confess, that the Church had no several government of it, or in it, for a long time; but spiritual governors only, 
Rom. 12.8.  who did not Proeesse in dominio, but in solicitudine, excel in power, but in diligence.  
15. Nor thirdly, do we question the absolute and free Monarch of the whole Church triumphant, and militant; for both of us acknowledge him to be our Lord and Saviour Christ jesus, 
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 Kingdom there shall be no end, whether we intent extent of place, or continuance of time: but our question is, whether our Saviour appointed over his militant Church one Steward, oeconomum unum, viz. St. Peter, as the Papists hold, as the sole spiritual Monarch of it, from whom all spiritual power should be derived; or many Stewards, viz. the twelve Apostles, and their successors, as equal and joint commissioners from him.  
16. This word Monarcha, or Monarchia, which is the Praedicatum in our question, is no ancient Ecclesiastical word, but nows & ascriptitius civis, and but lately admitted into the Church government, or spiritual commonwealth of Christ jesus: it was never found in the Fathers applied to the Church (I think I may be bold to say) for more than a thousand years; not very frequent till our age, in which Sanders wrote his visible Monarchy. Now Franciscus à victoriâ, 
Francis victor. Relect. 7.  sets down this rule: Theologis non licet in suis disputationibus, sicut jurisconsultis, aliquid insolens, nowm, & inauditum, contra maiorum autoritatem asserere. It is not lawful for Divines (as it is for Lawyers,) to maintain any thing, that is strange, new, and unheard of, against the authority of the Fathers. Notwithstanding this Non licet, Sanders, Stapleton, Suarez, Bellarmine, Gretzer, with that whole society, or rather conspiracy, take upon them the defence of this Monarchical, Papal Church-governement: no doubt directly against their consciences, and certain knowledge; as may appear by their sly, subtle, and various defence of it.  
17. For Bellarmine entitles his books plainly De Romani Pontificis Monarchiâ, but with fear, and a kind of blushing; 
Cic. Bellarl. l. 1. c. 19  Verecundiam timiditas imitatur, fear imitates bashfulness; for when he comes to the issue and heart of the question, he changeth his copy, as if he should say, Timidè dito, sed tamen dicendum est, though I fear to offend my violent brethren, yet I must affirm but this only, Ecclesiasticum regimen praecipuè Monarchicum esse debere, which is the title of that ninth chapter: praecipuè Monarchicum, a word slyly put in, that when he is pressed hard with any argument, he may slide instantly into the Primacy, which we deny not; confounding for his advantage these two questions of the Monarchy, and Primacy; a common practice among them all; that if they be urged hard, they may after the manner of unconstant heretics, rapidè ad unum delabi, slip suddenly to one of them: and again, when they see their time, and advantage, citò in alterum confluere, return quickly to their first error.  
18. But there is no Monarchy in the world praecipuè Monarchicum: if it be Monarchicum, it is absolutè Monarchicum; and whatsoever is found in it either Aristocratical, or democratical, it is by the favourable and free concession of the absolute Monarch; as we see in this Kingdom, & others adjacent: and the Monarch's bounty & grace, who yields so much for the ease, & good of his people, must not prejudice his absolute prerogative, or give to his government a new, forged, or commentitious title: for multari Monarcham diminutione aliquâ honoris, contumelio sum est; it is a high disgrace to deprive a Monarch of the least part of his honour.  
19 Notwithstanding, Gretzer (who hath commandment from Claudius de Aquà viuâ, general Governor of that society, to second Bellarmine in all his attempts, and observeth in his own writings these two qualities, temerè dicere, & astutè reticere, to speak confidently in his greatest weakness, and conceal subtly his adversary's strength) seeing Bellarmine urged by Danaeus (proving the Church government not to be Monarchical, and himself not able to make it good) as one full of clamour, and indignation, cries out like Mars in Homer, having taken a wound, 
Gretz. l. 2. defen. Bellar. de. Pontif. Rom. li. 1. ca 9  Vbi unquam scripsit Bellarminus Ecclesiae regimen esse Monarchicum planè, id est, pure, sine ulla admixtione ex Aristocrattâ, & Democrattâ? Where did Bellarmine ever write, that the government of the Church was plainly, that is, purely Monarchical, without any mixture of Aristocracy, or Democracie?  
20. We will answer him briefly. Wheresoever 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 only, that one, but one alone, solus, doth govern the state planè & purè: besides Bellarmine entitles his book De Romani Pontificis Monarchiâ, without any diminution; and holds it affirmatively, 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 than it were not sola, nor independens: and after that absolute manner he defines St. Peter's spiritual Monarchy, 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 intensive power: and Papa est praepositus toti orbi Christiano, in that fullness of power; and notes the extensive power: and that he hath totam & plenam eam potestatem, quam Christus ad Ecclesiae utilitatem in terris reliquit, which is a plenary power; and many the like: what doth he else, but in plain terms aver the government of the Church, and the Pope's power to be planè, id est, purè Monarchicum? For the power Aristocratical in other Bishops, or democratical in inferior Priests, is not intended by Bellarmine, to be with admixtion (as Gretzer calls it) with the Pope's government; but by subordination to the Pope's power, or emanation from the Pope's power, as Suarez saith: with which subordination, 
De Leg. l. 4. c. 4.  or emanation Aristocratical, or democratical (as they hold it) the Church regiment may be planè, id est, purè Monarchicum.  
22. Tully saith, 
Do Natu. Deorum 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 jesuits will censure Bellarmine for halting, as it were, between the Monarchy and Primacy; whereas they are resolute, obstinatione quâdam sententiae, that the Pope is planè & purè a perfect and absolute spiritual Monarch.  
23. For Suarez (a chief Captain of that conjuration) affirming that our Saviour gave to S. Peter Munus Apostolicum, and Potestatem legislativam, 
De leg. l. 4. c. 4. n. 15. & 16.  ut 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 Pope's Monarchy cannot be maintained) proves it thus: Because (saith he) it stands with reason, and congruity, that it should be so. Quia hic modus institutionis est magis consentaneus perfectae Monarchiae, qualem esse Christi Ecclesiam Catholici intelligunt. This is the Catholic opinion (as Suarez affirmeth) that the Church regiment is perfecta Monarchia, that is, planè & purè, which Gretzer denies; and not praecipuè Monarchicum, which is Bellarmine's scutum occulium, his rusty shield hanged up in a corner, as a ready defence against a powerful assault; but being surveyed, it is found not scutum, but cribrum, not a shield, but a sieve, which will bear off no blows, nor hold any water, as the Proverb is.  
24. This difference and inconstancy of opinion argues strongly the weakness of their cause, and insinuates, that the Church is no Monarchy: but because it is the Catholic opinion (as Suarez says) that it is a perfect Monarchy, which we absolutely deny: we will search to our ability the truth of the business, which admits no other than Scripture proof; seeing it is confessed on both sides, that the regiment of the Church is of our Saviour's institution. We will therefore consider, what he hath ordained concerning this regiment, either by plain terms, or by necessary consequence: for whatsoever he 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 Kingdom of juda was Monarchical; but being taken from them by the Romans, their only hope was on the Messiah, 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, joh. 24. 
John 24. Acts 1.  that is, Qui restitueret regnum Israel, Act. 1. which both jews and Gentiles understood of their temporal kingdom: for the Magis enquired, Vbi est, qui natus est Rex judaeorum? 
Mat. 2.  and brought presents used to be offered to Kings: and joh. 6. 
Joh. 6.  the people would have taken him up, and made him a King: and the chief Priests cry Mat. 27. Si Rex Israel est, 
Mat. 27.  descendat de cruse, etc. and in this error all the Apostles continued jointly without exception, all the time that he lived on earth; and they were in continual strife, Quis eorum maior esset, who should be the greatest in this Kingdom after him: neither could this carnal opinion be wrought out of them by our Saviour, till experience shown the contrary after his passion.  
26. Now our Saviour being to erect a spiritual kingdom, that he might remove all occasion of strife, and contention, of pride and ambition, chose for his Apostles twelve men of equal condition, who should succeed him in the government; and lest peradventure any one might be of better parentage than another, his Law was, that they must forsake Father, and Mother, and all their kindred: and if richer than other, they must forsake House and Land, Ship and Nets and all, and so follow him. So that our Saviour's first care was to strip them, as it were, naked of all they had; that finding no difference, or pre-eminence among themselves in worldly faculties, they might all appear equal, and of one condition.  
27. Having thus equalised them, and freed them from all worldly respects; he divides his spiritual gifts, and endowments, the spiritual offices, and honours of his Church, indifferently among them. He gave to them all the office of Apostleship; he made them all equal, and joint governors of his Church; he sent them out indifferently two and two to preach: he gave them all alike power to work miracles, and to cast out Devils, and to cure diseases, that there might be no emulation among them: he washed indifferently all their feet: they had all alike power to bind, and to lose, to remit and retain sins: he promised his presence, and Holy Ghost indifferently to them all; and in this parity, and equality, he founded his Church.  
28. Notwithstanding, as in temporal Kingdoms, in an equality of honour and state given unto many by the absolute Prince, some yet are more employed than others; some, as it seemeth, better favoured than others, and more beloved: so it happened in this spiritual Kingdom; for most conference passed between our Saviour, and St. Peter, and most love was showed to the Apostle St. john, and more familiarity and secrecy used with Peter, james and john, then with the rest: and yet all stood upon their equality, and neither challenged, nor yielded superiority to other.  
29. For self-love, and a conceit of equality of place, and desert, in their love and service to their Master, made every one think himself capable of that Kingdom, which they carnally conceived, notwithstanding particular favours were done unto some. For after that great promise made to St. Peter, Mat. 16. 
Mat. 16.19.  Tibi dabo claves, to thee will I give the keys (which the Pope makes the first promise of the Monarchy to St. Peter, and his successors) the Apostles conceived no such thing; but questioned after that, Quis eorum maior esset, who was the greater of them? So though Peter, james, 
Io. 17.  and john had been especially taken apart to see the transfiguration: and they three only severed from the rest, to be present at the raising of the daughter of jairus; 
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 twelve should be the greatest: so also though the tribute was paid for our Saviour, and Peter, 
Mat. 17.  Mat. 17. and greatest affection was showed to john, when he leaned on his Master's breast, joh. 13. 
Joh. 13.  yet the contention continued, Quis eorum maior esset, not which of those two, Peter and john, 
Luc. 22.  but which of the twelve should be the greater, even after the last Supper. And when our Saviour had satisfied them, that there was no such superiority to be expected among them, he continues still his special favours to Peter, james, and john: and the same night taking them apart, 
Mat. 26.37.  coepit coram eis tristari, & mastus esse, he began to be sorrowful, and very heavy before them: testifying that those extraordinary actions were not any argument of supremacy, or Primacy.  
30. This behaviour of the Apostles, contending so often for the first place, which they thought to be Monarchical, according to the form of the government of the jews, gave occasion to our Saviour to speak diverse and sundry times of this question.  
31. If it be demanded, why the Apostles contended so often among themselves for the first place; you shall find diverse reasons given by reverend Antiquity, and urged by some late Writers; and namely, that it was in regard of the special favour to St. Peter, in giving him the keys, and in paying tribute for him only, etc. But saving my reverend respect to my betters, 
Jansen.  I rather think, that the foreshowing so often his death, and passion, caused them rather so often to question the succession.  
32. For before his coming to Capernaum, he foretold his Disciples his death, and passion; after that they disputed (as St. 
Marc. 9.34.  Mark saith) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quis eorum caeteris esset maior, who should be the greater of them: For when they heard that he should die, than they thought of his successor: for (as our Saviour told them) adhuc sine intellectuerant, 
Mat. 15.16.  as yet they were without understanding, Mat. 15. and also Luk. 24. they were tardi ad credendum, 
Luc. 24.25.  slow to believe, what was written by the Prophets.  
33. So likewise Mat. 20. he foretold his death and passion to them; and then (saith S. Matthew) the mother of the Sons of Zebedee entreated for the prime seats in his kingdom; 
Mat. 20.21.  and thereupon grew another contention among them.  
34. Lastly, Luke 22. when they expected his passion, even 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 Saviour instantly every time quencheth the heat of their ambition, and contention, with a present answer.  
35. At Capernaum hearing their contention, he answers, Si quis vult primus esse erit omnium novissimus, 
Marc. 9.35.  & omnium minister, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, & servant of all: allowing no desire of superiority among them, who were to be equals in his kingdom of the Church; which was well performed in the primitive purer times, when (as S. Augustine saith) Multi, ut Episcopatum susciperent, 
Aug. Epist. 204.  tenebantur inviti, Many were constrained against their wills, to take Bishoprickes. And I do not find, that any man among the Apostles, or their first successors, affected any first or chief 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 charity enforced them for the good of the Church; and then he took the government, who was called, and chosen, and not he that aspired, and sought the first place.  
36. How then doth the Pope observe this rule, who will not only be first among Bishops, but the Monarch over all Bishops? 
Gorran.  Gorran simply shows us 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 supreme of all Christians, writes himself the servant of the servants of God; and that (saith he) after the example of Christ, of whom the Prophet saith, Vidimus eum novissimum virorum, 
Es. 53.3.  We have seen him the last of men. But our Saviour saith not, Qui vult primus esse, scribat se novissimum, He that desires to be first, let him write himself last, but erit omnium novissimus, & minister omnium, 
Marc. 9.35.  he shall be the last of all, and the servant of all: And if his great Cardinals should see the Pope indeed so humiliated, as our Saviour was, and is there expressed by the Prophet Esai, who foresaw his passion, 
Es. 53.3.  and describeth him to be Novissimum virorum (opinion omnium) the meanest of men, in all men's opinion, as the Gloss saith; and virum dolorum, & scientem infirmitatum, a man full of sorrow, and acquainted with infirmities; they would soon (even to his face, which St. Peter did not) renounce their great Monarch, and abjure his acquaintance.  
37. I pass over the sensible example, which our Saviour used to his Apostles, by taking up a little child in his arms, as a pattern for them: for by the little child he took in his arms, affirming that the Apostles must be like unto such, he reproved their ambition and strife for the Monarchy, because (as S. Chrysostome saith) A vanâ gloriâ & invidiâ paruulus mundus existit, 
Hom. 59 in Mat.  & â concupiscendo Primatum; A little child is void of vainglory, and envy, and desire of the Primacy: 
Cyril.  and as Cyril saith, Puer non ambit honorem, non novit cuiusuis praerogativae modum, A child sues not for honour, he knows not what belongs to any prerogative: for this is not in sensu primo, an instruction to humility by a positive doctrine; as many Divines think it to be, commenting on this place; (for little children are not verè virtuosos, verè humiles, truly virtuous, truly humble, and in that to be imitated:) but it is a negative doctrine, forbidding all strife and contention for place, and Prelacy 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 nature's imperfection.  
38. The second discontentment and contention about the precedency, or majority, was when the mother of james, 
Mat. 20.21.  and john, desired the first places for her Sons, one to sit on the right hand, the other on his left in his Kingdom; discovering in plain terms, 
Mat. 20.21.  that they striven for a Monarchy; as the Pope now doth.  
39 Our Saviour perceiving, that the rest of his Apostles, out of their particular ambition, indignati sunt de duobus fratribus, 
Verse 24.  were moved with indignation against the two brethren; answers as he did before, Qui voluerit inter vos maior fieri, 
Verse 26.  fit vester minister, Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your servant: but as in the former contention he proposed a little child, whom in their neglect of honour they should resemble: So here he proposeth unto them the Kings, and Monarches of the world, whose power and regiment they should not expect. You strive (saith he) for the first place in a Kingdom, but Reges gentium dominantur in eas: & qui maiores sunt, potestatem exercent inter eas, 
Mat. 20.25.  The Kings of the Nations exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. Vos autem non sic; but it shall not be so among you, setting down in plain terms my negative; The government of the Church shall not be Monarchical.  
40. And it is probable, that our Saviour foreseeing, that this would be a great question to exercise his Church, doth therefore double this answer, and useth it again at their last contention, even 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 eyes, & qui habent eas in potestate, benefici vocantur: Vos autem non sis. You must not be Kings, you must not domineer, The government of my Church is not Monarchical, nor like the government of the Kings of the World.  
41. Bellarmine seeing this clear evidence against this pretended Monarchy, and feeling the wait of it, thinks all would be well, if he could decline the force of this blow, and therefore falls to his accustomed shifts, and saith, that a Monarchy is not here denied, 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 government as godly Kings and Princes use, but the government of such Kings as know not God; who are rather Tyrants, than Kings.  
42. But see his inconstancy, and thereby the weakness of his answer: here he saith, our Saviour forbids a tyrannical, not a regal government, unto his Church: but in his third Book he affirms, that our Saviour denies both; 
Bellar. de Pontif. Rom. l. 3. c. 23.  prohibet (saith he) dominatum regium, atque tyrannicum ijs, qui Ecclesiae proeesse debent; he forbids both regal and tyrannical dominion to all those, who must govern his Church. But lest he should enter his action of injury, for charging him wrongfully with a contradiction (which were a great blemish to so valiant a Champion) I do imagine, that in this place he doth confound regium and tyrannicum, and makes them Synonimaes, in hatred and detestation of Kings and Monarches; being one of that number, 
2 Pet. 2.10.  which Saint Peter saith, should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, despisers of domination, & government; 
jude 8.  and Saint jude, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, blasphemers, and slanderers of regal Majesty; and truly that same vis jesuitica, & ipsa professio maledicendi, do seem to undertake 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 evident; Patet. How think you? By the interpretation of our Saviour, or his Apostles, or the ancient Church? No; but yet clearly enough ex verborum Graecorum proprietate, by the proper signification of the Greek words. But that is no sure rule; for we always may reason from the use of a word in the Scripture, not from the propriety. Sometimes we must admit a Metaphor, or an Allegory, and dispute from a figurative, and not from the proper sense of the word: for, as Saint Augustine saith, 
Aug. trac. 47. super johan.  Per similitudinem Christus multa est, viz. petra, ostium, lapis angularis, etc. quae per proprietatem non est; Christ is many things figuratively, which properly he is not, as namely a rock, a door, the corner stone, etc.  
44. But we will admit it for this place; the propriety of the Greek word shall bear it. Matthaeus non ait (saith he) Reges Gentium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i. dominantur, simpliciter, sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i. violenter dominantur: therefore not Regal, or Monarchical government is denied, but tyrannical only. But though Saint Matthew say not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet S. Luke speaking of the same business, saith from our Saviour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: so that we may reply to Bellarmine, Lucas non ait, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i violenter dominantur; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dominantur simpliciter; therefore by his own interpretation, not only tyrannical, which is he corruption of a good regiment; but Regal, and Monarchical, which is a perfect kind of regiment, is denied the Apostles, and Church of God: in Saint Matthew the tyranny, in Saint Luke the Monarchy.  
45. Bellarmine could not be ignorant, that Saint Matthew used 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 plays on the advantage, and supposal either of the ignorance, or negligence of some supine Readers.  
46. But lest he should reply (yet without all show of reason) that Saint Luke is to be interpreted by Saint Matthew, rather than Saint Matthew by Saint Luke: First, we allege, that he hath not our assent, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth tyrannical government: but we have his own confession, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies dominari simpliciter: therefore if the Holy Ghost intent the same thing by both the Evangelists, as it is evident he doth; then by both the words absolute dominion, or Monarchical regality is forbidden: if they intent two senses, than both the one and the other are denied, and we have our purpose.  
47. Secondly, it is evident by the words of our Saviour, Luke 22. that Regal or Monarchical government is forbidden there: 
Luke 22.  For St. Luke saith, Those Kings of the Nations, which the Apostles must not be like, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as have power over them, and are termed bountiful; but Potestas est quaedam magna perfectio; 
Abulens. sup. Mat. c. 20. q. 92.  nam de potissimis attributis divinis ponitur, Power is a certain great perfection; for it is one of the chief attributes of God: and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ever taken in bonam partem in a good sense. 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 applied to our Saviour by Saint Peter, Acts 10. 
Acts 10.38.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: so that it is evident, that our Saviour 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 virtue, & maximè regium est, quos volunt, ad honores extollere, and it is most princely for Kings to grace with honours, whom they please: and they, whom Kings advance, must be honoured by the people. 
jac. 1ST.  Therefore when Saint james forbids us to honour them, which be rich, he makes an exception to it, saying, Si tamen perficitis legem regalem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. bene facitis. 
Verse 8 & 9  Notwithstanding, if ye fulfil the Royal Law, etc. ye do well; but if ye regard the persons, ye commit sin: Where Catetan observes, 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 King's Law; that is, because (saith he) they are placed in authority by the King; or because they are the King's Ambassadors; or because the King hath so commanded: as appeareth plainly in Mardocheus, of whom it was said in his highest honour, Sic honorabitur, quem Rex honorare voluerit, Thus shall the man be honoured, whom the King will honour. And the Apostle gathereth this precept out of that rule in nature alleged by him, Diliges proximum tuum, 
jac. 2.8.  sicut teipsum, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thyself: where the particle sicut is used proportionaliter; as if he should say, Diliges proximum tuum in gradu, in officio, in dignitate, in privilegio suo sicut teipsum in gradu, in officio, in dignitate, in privilegio tuo.  
49. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or law of civility, which S. james mentioneth, is much neglected in these days by the Anabaptists; who after the manner of some false Apostles in S. Paul's time, so teach equality, that they acknowledge no superiority, or civil difference in Christianity: so that, if at the administration of the Eucharist, an Earl, Lord, or Bishop be present, they take not any notice of them, nor observe Legem regiam, but begin to administer to the next unto them, of what degree soever: as if Lex regia, and the Law of civility, could not stand with Christianity, and the Law of true spiritual liberty: whereas Saint Paul, 1 Tim. 6.1. & 2, tells those servants and inferiors, who being Christians, neglected their duty and reverence to their Masters, or Superiors, because either they were not Christians, or if Christians, yet comprehended with their servants and inferiors under the name of Brethren, or the Faithful (as the use was then at the first conversion of the Gentiles) that by this conceit of parity in Christianity, which was only in spiritualibus; and by neglect and contempt of superiority, which is due by nature in temporalibus, and in civility, Lege regia, by the King's prerogative, Nomen Domini, & doctrina blasphematur, both the name of Christ, and his Gospel, and doctrine is blasphemed. For if they, who were newly converted, should withdraw from their superiors in acts and ceremonies of Christianity, that respect, reverence, and honour which was due unto them, the unbelievers would have detested, vilified, and persecuted the Gospel, quasi aliena invadens, & Dominis, aut Regibus sua anferens: and therefore when in another place, the same Apostle exhorts inferiors to be subject to their superiors, and pleasing in all things; he telleth them, that such behaviour, and civility, would be an ornament to their Christianity, and the doctrine of our Saviour.  
50. Whether Caietans' exposition be the true sense of that Text of S. james, I do not determine: but surely it is very moral and mannerly: not like the English marginal gloss, at the 23. of the Acts: for where S. Paul saith there, modestly in his own excuse, when he was charged to revile Gods high Priest, I knew not Brethren, that he was the high Priest; 
Acts 23.5.  for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people: the marginal 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 serves not, nor this business to exagitate this uncivil note; but these and the like glosses make many so insolent in their behaviours and answers, both to civil and Ecclesiastical Magistrates, whom they relish not well: because in their fancies they esteem them not worthy the office they bear, or those honours the King hath advanced them to; and so by consequent to be no Magistrates, but subject to scoffs, and scurrile dicacity. But the Civilians have this rule; 
L. dubitare c. de ●rimine Sacrilegij.  Dubitare de eo, an dignus sit, quem princeps elegit, sacrilegij instar est; It is a kind of sacrilege to call his worth into question, whom the King hath preferred. Thus much by occasion of my second reason, why Monarchical government is here forbidden, drawn from the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is proper to Kings of the best note, and not unto Tyrants.  
52. Thirdly, the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are used indifferently in the same sense: for S. Peter teacheth the Bishops, that they should not domineer over the Clergy, 
1 Pet. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and St. Paul saith, he neither might nor did domineer over the faith, 
2 Cor. 1.24.  and the Christian religion; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which cuts off all absolute power and Monarchical, which the Pope challengeth, either over the Christian religion, or Ecclesiastical persons.  
53. Lastly, not to speak of the use, but of the propriety of the word, which Bellarmine challengeth; we find not, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition addeth force, or violence to every word; but what signification so ever it hath, 
Scapul●  in compositione aliquando retinet, aliquando amittit; as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both of them signify to die, neither of them to die violently: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by St. Matthew in this argument, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by St. Luke, signify both of them absolute power, not sour, bitter, or tyrannical command: 
Beza sup. Mat. 20.25.  as Beza notes, that our word here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth only dominari in eas, resolutâ compositione, the composition adding no force unto it more, then is found in the simple verb. It is Beza's annotation upon this place. If his authority have no credit with them, let them consult the old vulgar translation, which reads simpliciter, Dominari at both those Greek words, resolutâ compositione, as Beza doth.  
54. This, which hath been spoken in answer to Bellarmine may serve to show both the true sense of the words, and help to satisfy all the reasons, which are made by others, to prove that this Text excludes not a Monarchy: for if this double Canon of our Saviour, 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 removed from the siege of the Popedom, it will batter down all that is built on that Monarchy, and the Monarchy itself from the very foundation. Wherefore every one busily sets to his help to remove it, and we must as earnestly maintain the assault.  
55. Gretzer, as he is bound, seconds the Cardinal, 
GRETZER. Gretz. Antimpro deliro. does. 28.  and saith in his Antimony pro deliro, that our Saviour doth only forbid dominatum violentum, and truculentum, and makes it an indefinite proposition, and to imply a particular; as if our Saviour said, Aliqui reges Gentium, etc. Vos autem non sic: excluding from the Apostles the tyrannical government, not the regal. Non dicit (saith he) omnes Reges Gentium, sed indefinitè, Reges gentium; hoc est, aliquos Reges gentium: and then he shows his Logic; for (saith he) propositio indefinita constans materià contingenti, idem valet, quod particularis.  
56. But to be brief, and speak to the point: the proposition doth not consist of contingent matter, but of necessary: for, omnes Reges gentium dominantur eyes, & habent eas in potestate, All the Kings of the Gentiles have dominion over them, and exercise authority upon them; and he that doth not so, or hath not power to do so, 
Abulens sup. Mat. 20. q. 93.  is no King: and Abulensis saith upon this place of Matthew, that both Principatus gentium & judaeorum, (which were both one, as appears 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 universal, forbidding the Church all kind of Monarchy 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 government of the Church may be Monarchical, after the nature of Christian regiment, though not after the fashion of heathen Monarchies.  

SANDERS.  58. But we answer, that the regal government of Christian Kings, and those of the Nations, is of one kind: and  by occasion of these words so confesseth; 
De visib. Monar. lib. 2. cap. 1.  for, saith he, Civilis potestas apud gentes, quae Deum non cognoscunt, eadem reperitur, quae apud fideles Reges existit; licet Christus talem in suis ministris esse noluerit, The civil power of the Nations, which know not God, and of Christian Kings, is all one, although Christ will not have such power exercised by his Ministers. The former part confutes Gretzer in terminis, who thinks that the civil power of Christian and heathen Kings is not all one: the latter part, viz. Licet Christus talem in suis ministris esse noluerit, you would think also in plain terms to be our assertion, as indeed it is; but I will not urge it, or charge him with such high treason against his great Monarch. The Civilians say, Incivile est, 
L. Incivile, H. de Leg. & 5. c.  nisi totâ lege perspectâ iudicare. It is true, that he saith plainly, The regiment of the Church is not like the regiment of Kings, etc. but he hath his evasion too: as if he should say, Reges gentium, & fidelium habent originem regiminis eorum vel a iure gentium, vel à iure civili; The Kings of the heathen, and of Christians, have the original of their regiment either from the Law of Nations, or from the civil Law: Vos autem non sic, sed regnum vestrum, vel regimen, tantum per mediatorem Dei & hominum, hominem jesum Christum dimanavit; With you it is otherwise; for your Kingdom, or regiment is derived unto you only by the mediator of God and man, the man jesus Christ.  
59 Elihu was full of indignation, 
job 32.3.  because jobs friends, Non invenissent responsionem rationabilem, had not found a reasonable answer: but this answer is not only absurd, and nothing to the purpose, if it were entertained, but false also, and Sanders herein more subtle than wise: for we say truly, 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 own person, hath his place designed to him by Election, Confirmation, and Consecration, according to Ecclesiastical Canons, and Constitutions; but his spiritual power is originally from God, by the Law of the Gospel, per verbuminsitum, as St. james calls it; as also temporal Kings either in state of election, or succession, have their Kingdoms to themselves, or to their successors, iure gentium, or civili, or municipali: but they have potestatem regiam, whatsoever it is, originally, and immediately from God by the Law of nature, per verbum innatum. And this the Emperor acknowledges in his Novelis, that ex uno eodemque principio imperium & sacerdotium proficiscuntur, although in nature they be distinguished; cum hoc divinis, illud humanis praesideat.  

CAIETAN.  60. Now, as  will have it, vos autem non sic, id est, originaliter: so Caietan will have it, vos autem non sic, id est, finaliter: both will have it one form of regiment, which Bellarmine, and Gretzer deny; 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 have the same power which Kings have; but you shall not use it to that end.  
61. But the end of Monarchical principality is not domination, honour, and glory; but bonum universi, the general and common good, especially of their particular kingdoms, by maintaining their Subjects in order, and peace, by the rules of justice: Domination, or honour are but consequents of it, or adjuncts to it; without which that end cannot be attained, but supernaturally, as it was in the Church. For we may say as well to a King, as to a Bishop, by way of advice, Seek not your own domination, or glory: which were not well said, if honour, and glory, and domination, were the end of their government: for every man ought to study, and endeavour, to attain that end, which is proposed to his office. But if we should say to a King, as our Saviour said unto his Apostles, Qui maior est, fiat sicut minor; Sir, if you will be the greatest, we will bring you down, and humble you to us; it were Laesa maiestas, violence offered against that power, and Majesty of Kings, which is instituted and allowed by GOD himself: wherefore the Regiment Ecclesiastical differs from the Regal, not only in this false imagined end, but in the kind, and species of the regiment itself.  
62. Now we will consider, whether the regiment of the Church, which our Saviour left to his Apostles, were conformable to the Monarchy of the world and we shall find, that as the end of that regiment was supernatural, viz. the salvation of the world; so the means to that end for the most part were supernatural; Faith, and the Sacraments: and the power of the Governors' supernatural, reaching to the opening and shutting of Heaven; to the binding and losing of sins: wherefore he denied to his Apostles all such things as appertained to the perfection of secular regiment, namely, Riches: Secondly, Power coercive; Thirdly, Honour and domination; that his Kingdom might not be supposed to be erected by ordinary means.  
63. First, for Riches; 
RICHES.  it was impossible the Apostles should be rich, having forsaken all their own substance: 
1. Impossible.  and the most part of Christians at first converted, being of mean estate, and the collections which were made, were divided to such as were needy among them.  
64. Secondly, it was not convenient they should be rich, for having no place of abode, 
2. Not convenient.  being sent as Commissioners over the World, they had no portage for store of wealth, and the care of their riches might have 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 have taken occasion of a stricter persecution, to possess their riches.  

4. Not for the credit of the Gospel. Arist. Ethic.  66. Fourthly, It was not for the credit of the Gospel, for the Apostles to be rich; for as Aristotle saith, Multa per divitias effecta sunt, Many things are brought to pass by riches: It was therefore for the glory of the Church, that the chief rulers than should be poor, and possess nothing: that whatsoever those first founders did effect, might be ascribed to the divine power supernatural, and God only might be honoured in the conversion of the Gentiles, and the Christian Faith no way calumniated.  

COERCIVE POWER.  67, The second thing, which is proper to Monarches, is, potestas coercendi, a power to compel men to be good, and just, either by Legal punishment, or by arbitrary; where legal is wanting: from this power our Saviour 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 over others: But it shall not be so among you.  

1. NO TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT  68 And therefore in those day's men were not forced to goodness, or to the Christian Faith, by punishment or fear, but by love and exhortation: and the reasons were diverse; one is given by Origen, because, Sicut omnia carnalia in necessitate posita sunt, 
Origen.  spiritualia autem in voluntate: sic & qui principes sunt spirituales, principatus eorum in dilectione subditorum debet esse positus, non in timore corporali: As all carnal things are necessary, but spiritual voluntary; so those that are spiritual Governors, their dominion must consist in the voluntary love of their inferiors, not in corporal fear: for the old 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 govern by, but the Law of Christ, 
2. NO LAW BUT CHRIST'S LAW.  which is not coercive, nor imposeth corporal or temporal punishment, either particular, or general upon any crime: but useth only commination of hell fire, and eternal torments; neither rewardeth it any virtue, but with promise of Heaven, and the joys thereof.  
70. Thirdly, In the Apostles time, the Christian people, who were subject to them, were few; 
3. NO JURISDICTION.  and those not populus determinatus, belonging to this or that territory, subject to the Apostles: but they were certain parts, or pieces of people, and Nations, some of one Country, and some of another, who all were under their lawful Princes, and Monarches; and so by consequent the Apostles having no territory, could have no jurisdiction at all, either in civilibus, or in criminalibus, neither over the lives, nor over the goods, nor over the bodies of any Christian: and if they had usurped any such jurisdiction, they should have suffered as Malefactors and Traitors, and so dishonoured the Christian Religion.  
71. Fourthly, our Saviour proposed his own principality over them, as a pattern, or example of that power they should use: 

No other pattern, but our Saviour to follow.  
Mat. 20.27. &. 28.   for when he had told them, that their government should not be that of the Kings of the Nations: he addeth, Qui voluerit in vobis esse primus, sit vester seruus, etc. Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life for the ransom of many: wherefore his Apostles were to use no other jurisdiction, or coercive power, either in civilibus, or in criminalibus: but yet exercised a certain discipline, as we may call it; and whereof we shall have occasion to speak hereafter at fit opportunity.  

3. EXCELLENCY and HONOUR.  72. The third thing that belongs to Kings, is Excellency, and Honour, which ever attend on Riches, and coercive power: both which being denied to the Apostles, they were exempt also from all worldly, and temporal honour, as their Master was; except such as virtue procures in the hearts of the people: but that is moral honour, not civil, such as we speak of; and is in Kings, and given by Kings, as the Civilians term it, Per honorarios codicillos, or per diplomata R●gum; upon whose only gift all civil honours, and nobility depend.  

Object.  73. If any man suppose, that the Apostles had this coercive jurisdiction, because Saint Peter (as it seems) killed Ananias and his wife, 
Ananias and Saphyra.  who lied to the Holy Ghost, and withheld a part of the price from the poor: as also because Saint Paul delivered over the Corinthian fornicator to Satan, 
Corinthian fornicator.  ad interitum carnis, etc. We answer, that those Apostles neither used civil nor criminal jurisdiction: 
Respons.  for Saint Peter did not put to death Ananias and Saphyra, but fore-shewed their death: and so was neither their judge, 
Acts 5.  nor executioner, but a prophet, who foretell that punishment, which the holy Ghost would inflict.  
74. And although the punishment of the fornicator seem to be an act of jurisdiction, and of secular judgement in St. Paul, who saith, 
1 Cor. 5.3.  Ego autem absens corpore, & praesens spiritu iudicavi, etc. And again, Decrevi eum tradere Satanae ad interitum carnis, I have determined to deliver him up to Satan for the destruction of the flesh: yet this was not done by virtue of any temporal jurisdiction, but by miraculous power, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 
Verse 4.  for St. Paul did not command the Corinthian to be whipped, or to be banished his Country, or to be fined; but commanded the Devil to assault him, and so to torment him to death, 
Verse 5.   spiritus saluus sit in die Domini jesu Christi; that so the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord jesus: which act proceeded from our Saviour immediately, because Devils are not executioners at man's command; so that these punishments proceeded not from any temporal jurisdiction: but St. Paul inflicted punishment per modum orationis, and St. Peter, per modum praenuntiationis, St. Paul by prayer, S. Peter by prophecy.  
75. How then did they subjugated the whole world unto them? To omit that supernatural means, which God used by the blood of his Martyrs, and by those three forms of the gifts of the holy Ghost; 
Aug. de Trin. & unit. cap. 4.  the first whereof (as St. Augustine notes) pertinet ad ius Ecclesiasticum in regenerandis; the second, in virtutibus, & signis faciendis; and the third at the Pentecost, in dono linguarum, and by Confirmation, or Imposition of hands, etc. they used two ordinary means; one was solicitude, and care to perform their office; the other was sanctity, and holiness of life: All which S. Peter delivers to the Church, and his successors, as he received them from his Master Christ jesus.  
76. For in his first Epistle, not under the title of a Monarch, but of Compresbyter, he exhorteth his fellow Priests, 
1 Pet. 5.  saying, I who am your fellow Priest, who glory not of any superiority, but in this only, that I am a witness of Christ's passion, and a partaker of that glory, which shall be revealed (which many understand of that glory which he saw at the transfiguration) exhort you, Pascite, feed the flock of God, which is among you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, taking the oversight thereof as Bishops, (not ruling, and commanding as Kings) not by constraint, but willingly: not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind: Neither as being Lords over God's inheritance; but being ensamples to the flock, etc. Which words (as S. Bernard saith) contain interdictum, 
Bern. de Consid. lib. 2. cap. 6.  and edictum; the interdict forbiddeth three things, as Abulensis observes, Coercive power, Riches, and Domination; of which we have spoken: the edict commands two things: First, Pascere, qui in nobis est, gregem Dei, the care, & solicitude we should have to feed God's flock. Secondly, Formas fieri gregis, to be an example to our flocks in piety, and sanctity 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 pattern of sanctity to the whole flock.  
77. The foundation therefore of Christian religion was not in riches, or coercine power, or honourable titles; but in solicitude, and sanctity; upon which Christian Kings and Emperors, as was foreprophesied, built those high turrets of honour, riches, jurisdiction, and temporal power; which the Church in due time afterward possessed, to the glory of our Saviour, and the credit of the Gospel; as shall be showed in due place: and by these means was Christianity at the first propagated.  
78. Now it is natural, that by what ordinary means 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 given ad incrementum Ecclesiae, 
De Trin. & unit. cap. 4.  usque dum fidei semina iacerentur, are now ceased: and those things, which not long after caused great progress in Piety, and Religion, namely, Continentia usque ad tenuissimum victum; ieiunia non quotidiana solùm, sed etiam per contextos plures dies perpetrata: 
Ang. de vtil. Creden cap. 17.  castitas usque ad coniugij, prolisque contemptum: patientia usque ad cruces, flammasque neglectas: liberalitas usque ad patrimonia distributa pauperibus; aspernatio mundi usque ad desiderium mortis: which St. Augustine confesseth, that few then performed, but fewer did well and wisely perform: Pauci haec faciunt, pauciores benè, prudenterque faciunt, saith he: All these things, which the people then favoured, and loved, and admired; Et quòd ista non possent, non sine provectu mentis in Deum, nec sine quibusdam scintillis virtutum, setpsos accusabant: These also are all in a manner through the increase of superstition, and manifold abuses, utterly abandoned; there remaineth only solicitude, and piety, among the primitive ordinary means, to continue Religion in that height and greatness in the Church of Christ.  
79. But the defects of those former supernatural gifts have been in some measure supplied, since the union of the Empire, and temporal government with the Church and spiritual power, and by the bounty and liberality of Kings: who prudently considered, that in this incorporation, as the Commonwealth did partake the blessings that the Church could afford by maintaining temporal peace and concord, and subjection to Kings (I speak nothing of the supernatural blessing of regeneration, and the fruits thereof) so the Church should communicate with the Commonwealth, out of their liberality, Riches, Honour, and Temporal power, (but subordinate to them) according to the Law of Nature, and example of all people, who had any feeling of Religion, and the service of God, either by inbred light, or the custom of the Country.  
80. But these Riches, Honours, and jurisdictions, which are now added to the Church, are things indifferent, good or bad, as they are used. Ipsa quidem, quod ad animi bonum spectat, 
Bern. de Consid. lib. 2. cap. 6.  nec bona sunt, nec mala; usus tamen horum bonus, for the honour and credit of Christian Religion; but abusio mala, solicitudo peior, as Saint Bernard saith.  
81. It is certain, that they are great temptations and provocations to men, in this our frailty, oftentimes to exceed the bounds of Christian humility, and moral equity: which gave occasion to that Proverb; Religio p●perit divitias, & filia devoravit matrem: and at the first endowment of the Church it was said, Hodiè venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam, which so fare infected many Prelates thereof, that the outcry against them hath been continual, even from those primitive times; as appears in those Arian Bishops, who lived in Athanasius days, 
Athanasius.  and were bipedum nequissimi, and so all along down by succeeding ages: some ever complaining in that form, that Hugo Cardinalis useth upon 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 do transgress this precept, who exalt themselves higher than they may, either by the Law of the Gospel, or by the donation of Kings;  valdè benè competat eis illud Esaiae, Audivimus superbiam Moab, id est, 
Esai. 16.  Praelatorum, vel Clericorum carnalium, that the complaint of the Prophet Esay may very well befit them: We have heard of the pride of Moab (that is (saith Hugo) of the Prelates, and carnal Clerks;) Superbus est valdè, he is marvelous 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 jeremy, and Leviticus.  
82. But this abuse appeared most in the Bishop of Rome, who could not in the first times, when the Church was yet unsettled, moderate the power of his spiritual Primacy, (which was then of little force) as appeareth in Pope Victor's rashness, 
Euseb. lib. 5. c. 23. hist. Eccles.  who threatened to cut off from the unity of Communion, all the Churches of Asia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for differing from him in the celebration of Easter: & in that censure, which Tertullian gave of some of them, 
Tertul. adverse. Prax.  though himself deserved more to be 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 Council of Carthage made with the Bishops of Rome, saying, None of us makes himself the Bishop of Bishops, or doth compel his fellow-Bishops, Tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem: but much less could they moderate that Papal Monarchical power, which they usurped by degrees, after the Church was endowed, and honoured by the Emperors; but as Religio peperit divitias, etc. as I said before; so Imperium peperit Papatum, & Papatus devoravit Imperium: by what steps and degrees, both the one and the other were performed, is for a fit time, and more ample discourse.  
83. Now in our conclusion we only urge that which we proposed, that the Pope had not that tyrannical, nor Monarchical power (as he calls it, which he usurpeth) from our Saviour, or Saint Peter: we dispute not now from whence he had it, whether by usurpation, or donation, but we say, as Saint Bernard said to Pope Eugenius his face; 
Ber.  they have it not from Saint Peter: Esto (saith he) ut quâcunque aliâ ratione haec tibi vindices; sed non Apostolico iure; nowsoever you have got it, you hold it not by Apostolical right, as Saint Peter's inheritance: Non enim ille tibi dare, quod non habuit, potuit; for he could not give that to thee, which he had not himself. Argentum, inquit, & aurum non est mihi: Quod habuit, hoc dedit solicitudinem super Ecclesiam; Gold (saith he) and silver have I none: 
● Pet. 5.  what he had, that he gave, care over the Church; when he said, Pascite, qui in vobis est, gregem Dei, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
84. If thou sayest, though he left me not riches, yet he left me dominatum, dominion and Monarchy, and dost challenge it from God himself, 
De Maior: & obedient. c. Solite.  (as Innocent the third did in his Extravagant) who gave command to the Prophet jeremy, who was but a type of thee, as thou takest it,  evellat, & destruat, & disperdat, & dissipet, & aedificet, & plantet: yet this helps thee little; for nihil horum (saith Saint Bernard) fastum sonat, aut dominatum: Rusticani magis sudoris schemate quodam labor spiritualis expressus est: Spiritual solicitude, and labour is expressed rather under this scheme of rustical work, and rural offices; here is nothing regal, nothing Monarchical in that Commission.  
85. Peradventure in this thy greatness, thou dost think thyself more than a Prophet, because thou holdest, that the High Priest in the old Law had no jurisdiction. 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 unto thee; for that which is over and above, proceeds from evil. Learn by this example of the Prophet, Praesidere non tam ad imperitandum, quàm ad factitandum, quod tempus requirit. Disce sarculo tibi opus esse, non sceptro, ut opus facias prophetae. Thou hast more need of a Rake, than a Sceptre, to perform the work of a Prophet.  
86. If thou challenge thy Monarchy from Saint Peter, hear what he saith to thee. 
1 Pet. 5.  Non dominantes in clero, sed formae facti gregis: and that thou mayest not think, that Saint Peter spoke it in humility, not in verity; it is our Saviour's own voice in the Gospel, Reges gentium dominantur eorum, & qui potestatem habent super eos, benefici vocantur; vos autem non sic.  
87. It is plain, saith Saint Bernard, whatsoever Bellarmine and his fellow-flatterers say to the contrary, Apostolis inter dicitur dominatus, not only tyranny, but dominion is forbid the Apostles. I ergo tu, & tibi usurpare aude, aut dominans Apostolatum, aut Apostolicus dominatum; planè ab alterutro prohiberis, by our Saviour's, and Saint Peter's constitutions: Si utrumque similiter habere voles, If you will hold them both by one and the same tenure, Perdes utrumque, you will lose both. And do not think thy self exempted out of their number, of whom God complains, Ose. 8. Ipsi regnaverunt, 
Ose. 8.  & non ex me principes extiterunt, & non cognovi eos. For whosoever will reign, and be a Monarch, without power from God, Habet gloriam, sed non apud Deum: He may have 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 speak concerning this usurped Monarchy of the Pope, hath been said long ago, in the height of his pride, by one who was inferior to none of them, in solicitudine, & sanctitate: and because it was spoken before oftentimes by the same Spirit, whereof we also are partakers by the goodness of God, Nos illud tum diximus, we spoke it then: & quicquid modò eodem spiritu nos dicimus, illi dixerunt, qui ante nos fuerunt; and whatsoever we say now, by the direction of that Spirit, the same did they speak, who were before us: for the same Spirit speaketh the same in us both, though at sundry times, and in sundry ages.  
89. But that which hath been said of the Pope, both concerning our Saviour's, and Saint Peter interdict, of desiring Honour and Riches, and Dominion; as also of their Edict of Humility, Solicitude, and Sanctity, reacheth to the rest of the Clergy of all sorts.  
90. We must not forget our calling, and profession, it is Ministerium, and must be performed with care, sanctity, and holiness of life. We must have this Ministry ever before our eyes, in the height of our governments: when we sit in judgement, when we prescribe Laws to others, our inferiors, or execute them. The consideration of our Ministry, viz. that our Saviour sent us Ministrare, not Ministrari, as his condition was, will make us contemners of honour in the midst of our honour; which otherwise no doubt is very hard to perform. This consideration will serve us for a buckler against that deadly dart, which the Prophet David shoots against us. 
Psal. 84.  Homo cum in honore esset, non intellexit, etc.  
91. Let us say to ourselves, we were fellow-Ministers, and servants in the house of God: What an honour is this to be exalted, & lifted up by the blessing of Kings, by the favour of Bishops beyond our fellows? Who am I? or what is my Father's house? what is my worth? what is my service, that I should be exalted above, and before others? Verily, he that said Amice ascende superiùs, had a sure confidence, that thou wouldst be his friend. If we be found otherwise, negligent, slothful, not trusty in our Master's service; but covetous, or proud, exalting ourselves in pride, and tyranny over our fellow-servants, it will not succeed well with us. He that lifted us up, can cast us down many ways; when it will be too late to complain, 
Psal. 101.  as it is in the Psalm, Quoniam elevans allisisti me. Saint Bernard therefore said well, Non est, 
Bernard.  quod blandiatur celsitudo, ubi solicitudo maior; Celsitude in our offices threatens us dangers; solicitude in our Ministry, allows us for friends.  
92. This solicitude in our Ministry, as I have said, is proposed to us by the example of the Lawgiver himself, who was himself in the midst of the Apostles, 
Luc. 22.  tanquam qui ministrat: and who can think himself inglorious by the sole title of Minister, wherewith the Master of glory hath first signed himself? and this was that, which Saint Paul gloried in more, then in the power of his Apostleship, which was not inferior to that of Saint Peter, Ministri Christi sunt, & ego; and brags not of any Riches, Power, jurisdiction, 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 own riches, honour, and jurisdiction, which made Saint Paul say, 
Philip. 2.19.  Neminem habeo, etc. 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 Sons do, but like Mercenaries for the wages of worldly riches, and honour, and yet for all that will preach Christ continually. 
Aug. Tract. 46. in Johan.  Multi in Ecclesiâ commoda terrena sectantes, Christum tamen praedicant, & per eos vox Christi auditur; & sequuntur ones non mercenarium, sed vocem Pastoris per mercenarium; Many that are in the Church seek after earthly commodities, and yet they preach Christ, and by them is heard the voice of Christ; and the sheep follow not the hireling, but the voice of the shepherd by the hireling. None of these (saith Saint Augustine) who seek their own, and not jesus Christ's, will preach unto you, Quaere tua, & non quae jesu Christi, seek thine own, and not that which is Christ's. Quod enim male facit, non praedicat de Cathedrâ Christi; inde laedit, unde male facit, non unde bona dicit: so that no Minister 〈◊〉 germanè solicitus, who seeks for here by his labour, and preaching, his own profit and honour; but whose solicitude is joined with piety and sanctity of life; which, if you mark well, is seldom found in mercenario.  
94. Therefore Saint Peter, as you have heard, excepts against these mercenary affections, and bequeathes us (as it were) per tabulas testatorias, first, 
1 Pet. 5.2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a care, and solicitude to feed Christ's flock, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whose life and safety depends on us: and secondly, that you might be germanè soliciti, he wisheth you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ibid. vers. 3.  to become exemplary forms, or formal examples of good life, and sanctity, unto your flocks: and when that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that arch-shepheard, that Prince of shepherds shall appear, you shall receive not as mercenaries, temporalem mercedem conducentis festinanter exoptatam, the temporal reward of him that hyres you, which is speedily desired; but as Sons, aeternam hareditatem patris patienter expectatam, the eternal inheritance of the Father, which must patiently be expected: not the glory of a golden triple Crown, which is now fought for, but a Crown of Amaranthus, as the Apostle calls it Metaphorically, 
Jbid. vers. 4.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the incorruptible and neverfading crown of glory; which God send us, for his Son jesus Christ's sake, to whom, with, etc. AMEN.   

THE THIRD SERMON.  Luke 12.42. 
And the Lord said: who is a faithful Steward, and wise, whom the Master shall make ruler over the household, to give them their portion of meat in season? etc.  
1. I Doubt not but hearing these words read, whereby Bellarmine challengeth the high- Stewardship, that is, the Church Monarchy unto Saint Peter, and so consequently to the Pope, you remember, Quid in adiutorio Domini tractare promiserim, 
Aug. de verb. Apos. ser. 31.  What by God's help I promised to perform; which I shall not need to resume, 
Aug. trac. 17. in johan.  Ne adhuc eadem repetendo, ad illa, quae nondum dicta sunt, pervenire minimè permittamur; lest peradventure by repeating them, I should not reach so fare at this time, as I intended.  
2. I then entered into the first part, which was to prove, that Saint Peter had no spiritual Monarchy: in the handling whereof, 
Aug trac. 46. in joh.  Non sum dimissus coniecturae meae: I shown, that it was to be determined by Scripture proof only; because the regiment of the Church is confessed by both parts, to be only of our Saviour's institution: and therefore I shown, Quid fecerit, what he did to equalise his Disciples; and quid dixerit, what he spoke by word of mouth, by occasion of their manifold contention for the majority, or precedency, (which they thought to be Monarchical) not once only, but by many instances: first, that it was Aristocratical, 
Luc. 22.26.  Qui maior est, fiat sicut minor, etc. whereof I shall speak in fit place. Secondly, that it was not Monarchical, 
Ib. v. 25.  for Reges gentium dominantur; vos autem non sic: and thirdly, I shown that Saint Peter practised no Monarchical power, seeing in the primitive times the Church neither had riches, nor coercive power, nor domination, or honour; without which a Monarchy 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 confirm us Protestants in the belief we profess: Nulla est necessitas (saith he) sed tamen est voluntas; not ambitiosa voluntas, but iusta, grounded upon reason, and this rule of Tully, 
Cic. 1. de Oratore.  Non sufficit id, quod intendimus, confirmare, nisi & id, quod contra dicitur, refellere possumus; it is not sufficient to confirm our own assertions, but we must remove those obstacles, which our adversaries cast in our way, those grounds which ●●ey esteem fundamental: for the vulgar will suspe●● our truth and fidelity, until we discover our adversaries falsehood and subtlety: 
Cypr. de unitate Eccles. c. 2.  and no marvel; for Saint Cyprian saith, Haeretici dum verisimilia mentiuntur, veritatem subtilitate frustrantur, Heretics do even weaken and frustrate the truth, by certain false shows, and similitudes of it.  
4. Lactantius saith, that as the way of wisdom, 
Lactan. l. ●. c. 7.  or truth, via illa sapientiae aliquid habet simile stultitiae, hath somewhat in it, that may seem 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 error, Via erroris, cum sit tota stultitia (saith Lactantius) habet aliquid simile sapientiae, the way of error, which is paved with f●lly, hath some show also of wisdom in it, which sometimes deceives them that seem to be wise; and sometimes is used by them, who discern the truth, to deceive the simple.  
5. Card. Bellarmine in his Books, de Rom. Pontif. Monarchiâ Ecclesiasticâ, offers himself a leader, and guide in this way of error; but being Dux praevaricatox, & subdolus, now he leads them in one path, and then in another, wheresoever he may find any show, any colour of truth: sometimes by a face of Scripture falsely understood, sometimes under the cloak of ancient traditions; sometimes under the credit of the Father's authority; sometimes under the colour of philosophical reason, sometimes with the counterfeit aspect of logical definitions.  
6. Now as all these kinds of proofs to an orthodox disputant, are viae, & itinera veritatis, 
Lactantius.  the Churches high and straight way to lead us to God's truth; so to them, who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as N●zianzen calls them, that is, falsely informed in the Christian Religion, and false informers of other; they are diverticula, & semitae, & anfractus, bypaths, corners, and diverticles to lead men to error: and to this purpose many times, 
Lactantius.  Dux iste coniungit omnes, Bellarmine makes use of them all: and most of them run together, and meet in one centre to maintain this false Monarchy, and usurped tyranny.  
7. Primum fraudis diverticulum, as Tully calls it, the first crafty shift that I will observe unto 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 divert men out of the way of truth by Logical fallacies, and corrupting the definitions both of the Church, and of a Monarchy; by defining the Church so, as it may fit their Monarchy, and by devising such a definition of a Monarchy, as may fit their Church. For when the Empire became possessio quasicaduca, 
Cicero.  & vacua, an uncertain and weak possession, in eam homines occupati, imperatoribus otio, & luxu abundantibus, involaverunt: upon the power and privileges thereof crafty and ambitious Popes usurped, whilst the Emperors lived in sensuality and ease: and so by consequent upon the Church-governement also; from which usurped possessions they cannot endure to be removed, though Kings and Bishops now challenge again their ancient right, and native prerogatives: and yet being not able to maintane it by Sword, they would hold their possession by colour of reason, and original right.  
8. And taking this as granted by all reasonable men, which both Tully the Orator teacheth us, that Omnis, 
C●. lib. 1. Offic.  quae à ratione suscipitur de re aliquâ institutio, debet à definitione proficisci, that every rational 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 business, may be dissolved by the definitions of them: they use strange art, Et ea, quae naturâ diversa sunt, definitionibus coniungunt, they make the Church and a Monarchy, which are diverse by nature, one and the same, and join them together by false definitions; 
Cic. cont. Rullam  as Corinth doth conjoin duo maria maximè navigationi diversa, which run along with two contrary streams.  
9 For a Monarchy (as appeareth both by the Etymon, which is unius solius imperium, 
Arist. lib. 3. Polit. cap. 11.  and by Aristotle's definition) is that form of government, in quâ unus praestantissimus vir rerum omnium potestate defungitur, which definition Sanders doth acknowledge. 
Sanders lib. 3. de visib. Monar. cap. 3.   
10. The royalties or prerogatives of a Monarch, consist in two things; in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in having power in himself, and of himself only; which is called also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Manus regia, Ius regis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, plenitudo potestatis: and secondly, in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, universal government, and command over all his territories.  
11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or plenitudo potestatis, semper subsistit in regis capite, Fullness of power doth subsist in the King's person; and the prerogatives which proceed from it, as Ius nobilitandi, legitimandi, restituendi in integrum sententiam passos, tam vitae honoribus, quàm facultatibus; the power and right to advance at his pleasure to honour and nobility; to legitimate, to restore to their state, such as are condemned, both to their honours and possessions: These, and the like are merè regalia, & divisionem, vel communicationem non admittunt, they cannot be divided with any, or communicated to any; for than he, to whom it is communicated, or with whom it is divided, could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sub alterius potestate, as all Subjects are, and aught to be under a Monarch, or King, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, absolute of himself also.  
12. The royalties which proceed â 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from his dominion or government, are often communicated to inferior Magistrates, and Precedents, and governors of Provinces; as the use of tributes, Subsidies, and the like; not the imposing of them, which are proprieties of an absolute dominion, such as Monarches enjoy.  
13. To this form of Monarchical government by encroachment and usurpation, the Popedom is brought, dumb Patres-familias dormirent; whilst Kings and Emperors were fast asleep: but yet it must be challenged from Saint Peter, by succession in his Stewardship: and therefore Bellarmine proposeth this question, and holds it affirmitively, Fueritne Sanctus Petrus primus Ecclesiae Catholicae spiritualis Monarcha, whether Saint Peter were the first spiritual Monarch of the Catholic Church.  
14. And Gretzer he will prove it thus, Si quis est caput universale, idem iure optimo Monarcha est, cum independentis potestatis plenitudinem possideat: at Petrus fuit caput universale, ergo, Monarcha. Here is absolute Monarchy ascribed to St. Peter, and so to the Pope. Here is unus Princeps, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; here is regimen universale, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; here is independentia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; here is plenitudo potestatis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and so by consequent as Suarez notes, potestas legislativa, 
Suarez de Leg. lib. 4. c. 3. n. 2.  and then by another consequent, Coercive power: for he 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 prerogatives and privileges, 
Potestas dispensandi.  which naturally belong unto temporal Monarches, 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 himself in his own laws, so fare forth as they concern, or oblige a King, which is only quoad vim directivam, not coactivam. Quae sententia (saith Suar.) communis est in summo Pontifice, holds in the power of the Pope in Ecclesiastical Laws, as it holds in every temporal Monarch, or King, quoad leges civiles, in respect of civil and positive Laws: and therefore whereas the general 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 falsely affirm to agree with the Pope, to have no superior; 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, etc. quia irregularitas pertinet ad vim coercivam Legis, which reacheth not the Pope, because of his Monarchy, and absolute superiority over the whole Church.  
16. And herewithal they infer another Monarchical prerogative to the Pope, 
Imponendi tributa.  which is proper to Kings; which is potestas imponendi tributa, not only in his own territories temporal, where he hath directum dominium, as other Kings have; but if it be necessary ad spiritualem finem, for a spiritual end, as namely, to defend the Church from infidels, and heretics, potest summus Pontifex imponere tributa temporalia; and the reason is given, quia sub eâ ratione habet supremam potestatem etiam in temporalibus; for by that reason he hath supreme authority over every King's temporalties.  
17. And for the same causes; as also in subsidium sibi necessarium, he may directè impose tributes upon the goods of the Church, and reserve a part of the tenths for himself, 
Suar. de Leg. lib. 5. cap. 14.  quia in illo ordine per se, & directè, est supremus princeps totius Ecclesiae, & supremus dispensator bonorum eius. This Monarchical prerogative Suarez maintains.  

Potestas nobilitandi.  18. From thence also is drawn this Monarchical prerogative, 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 Patriaches: Qui ordo (saith Suarez) non sine authoritate Petri constitutus est: for (saith he most falsely and absurdly, as shall be showed in due place) all the Bishops, which were created by the other Apostles, Saint Paul, Saint john, etc. and so consequently all since their time, have 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 challenge another prerogative Monarchical, which is potestas restituendi in integrum sententiam passos, a power to free those that are condemned; for he can absolve not only those, who belong to his definite diocese, as he is Episcopus Romanus, but any man in the whole World, as he is Pontifex Romanus, and Monarch of the Church: and that which is more, he can absoluere defunctum à censurâ, & uti indulgentijs concessis pro defunctis: and yet (which is strange) not exceed the bounds of his territories; for that were absurd for any Monarch to challenge: wherefore to make that good, although the use of those indulgences is on the earth, and granted to men in their life for their present use, yet a certain effect of that use communicatur defunctis, & acceptatur in coelis, is bestowed on the dead, and ratified in heaven: quia totum hoc cadit sub territorium, & potestatem Pontifici concessam, 
Suarez de Leg. l. 8. c. 26. n. 18.  both Heaven and Earth belong to the Pope's territories, as Suarez saith.  
20. Finally, 
Potestas absoluendi ab infamiâ.  because it is found among the prerogatives of Kings, Quandoque absoluere paenam, & non infamiam, quandoque & paenam & infamiam abolere, sometimes to acquit from punishment, but not from infamy, and sometimes to pardon both punishment and infamy; that no prerogative may be wanting to the Pope's usurped Monarchy, 
Tho. 2. 2●. q. 68 ar. 4.  potest infamiam Ecclesiasticam remittere, saith Thomas: which privilege being harsh, the School distinguisheth of it, and understands 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 whosoever can wash out that stain of infamy, which by nature inhereth to a foul wicked action: because (saith he) Ad praeteritum non est potentia, If the infamy be inherent by the nature of the fact, not positive by Law.  
21. Thus you see if Kings had lost their prerogatives and royalties, where you may find them, even in the Pope's usurped Monarchy, where they are on foot, and in daily practice, or contemplation. In which discourse I did somewhat the more enlarge myself; that you might take occasion thereby, to enter into a due consideration of them, and the natural grounds from whence they proceed: because this age hath many Monarchomachos, I may say Theomachos, in opposing Gods divine institution, in the natural prerogatives, which belong to Kings.  
22. For those schismatics in Religion, who affect Statizing, and Cantonizing in the Commonwealth (which they would have popular) and superintending in the Church, which they would have presbyterial; do at their meetings private and public, prefer as the only deformities of Church & Commonwealth, the Monarchical prerogatives of Kings, and the Aristocratical power, and jurisdiction of Bishops, to be redressed: fond imagining out of a kind of affected and well-suited ignorance to their profession, that the natural prerogatives of Kings, which are inbred in their Crowns, and the Evangelicall power of Bishops, which is engrafted by the Gospel, should be abrogated by positive Laws Civil, or Municipal; and that the bounty and liberality of Princes, which affords their Subjects an interest in the State both Aristocratical, and democratical, for the more ready and easy government of the Commonwealth, may be held, and continued by prescription, without the King's consent against the Law of Nature; as now they hold many Lands and Tithes of the Church: and as the Church now doth, so the King ought also to lose, and forgo his original right, and native prerogatives.  
23. But as they teach for their advantage sometimes, that Nullum tempus occurrit regi, in certain miniments and trifles (as we may term them) which belong to the Law; so they should acknowledge, that Nullum tempus, and Nulla Lex occurrit Regi, in those main points, which touch his prerogative: and that there is ever in a King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an inbred power, limited only with justice, and equity: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, absolute dominion, and universal command; and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also, subjection to none, but to God only: Ius Regis, which cannot be alienated, or communicated with any subject, no, not with the King's Son, without either renouncing, or dividing his Empire: plenitudo potestatis, which cannot be emptied, or frustrated by the King's consent, no, not for his own time without right of revocation: finally, manus regia, which cannot be shortened without wounding his Majesty; which wound, though it be not so taken, is deeper, and more dangerous in that prerogative, which is due by the Law of Nature, then that which is granted by a positive Law. Huc usque zelus meus, Thus fare my zeal hath carried me. I return to the matter.  
24. By this which hath been spoken, you may perceive, that the Pope is made an absolute Monarch, and hath the prerogatives belonging to Monarches: but all this is usurpation, and abhorreth from our Saviour's institution, and the primitive practice: for a Monarchy was prohibited, as I have noted; 
Conc. 2. §. 35.36. etc.  and in the government Ecclesiastical (which was Aristocratical) the Apostles, and their first successors, enjoyed neither riches, nor coercive power, nor domination, or honour, or such Monarchical Prerogatives; and yet there was among them in spiritual things, or do rerum consecratus, & omniae inter se apta, & connexa, for the propagation of that spiritual government.  
25. All which are by abuse now inveterate, dissolved, and a diverse government by usurpation established: but because we enforce the first institution, from which they cannot appeal, it being Apostolical by practice, and original of our Saviour's ordinaon; their art is (as I said) res difiunctas definitionibus connectere; and device such a definition for the Church as may fit with a Monarchy; and such a definition of a Monarchy, as may sort with the Church, utramque rem falso naturae termino definientes.  
26. For where the Church is described in the ancient Credes to be una, Sancta, Catholica, & Apostolica; without any other particular mention of the kind of government; but that it is Apostolica, not Petrina only, descending by succession from the Apostles in an Aristocracy, not from Saint Peter alone in a Monarchy: and where Saint Cyprian describes it according to the government to be Aristocratical, 
Cypr. l. 4. epist. 9  as we call it; saying, Ecclesia Catholica una est, cohaerentium sibi invicem sacerdotum glutino copulata; The Catholic Church is one, consisting of many Priests, or Bishops, joined together in one unity. And where Stapleton in the intrinsical and essential definition of the Church (as he terms it) maketh no other mention of the government, 
Staple. relect. cont. 1. q. 4. ar. 5.  but that it is legitimè ordinata: and after in a full definition (as he calls it) or rather description, hath this only for the government of it, that it is collectione, & ordine membrorum una; which ordo, Sanders describes thus,  iam inde ab initio Ecclesiae unus Presbyter multis fidelium familijs, unus Episcopus presbyteris etiam multis, item multis episcopis unus praefuerit Primas: (for though he dispute for a Monarchy, he is glad in conclusion to bring forth a Primacy) notwithstanding all these definitions, or descriptions of the Church, 
Sanders de visib. Monarch. l. 1. c. 2.  which incline to Aristocracy; Bellarmine, (the first that ever I observed) to strengthen his cause, puts the Pope and his Monarchy 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 here he had stayed, he had accorded with Saint Cyprian, and the ancient Church, and modern writers in their definitions; but adding, Precipuè sub regimine unius Christi in terris vicarij, Romani Pontificis, he corrupts the definition, and joineth subtlety and falsehood together; for it is false, that the Bishop of Rome is Vicar to our Saviour Christ, in his Monarchy over the Church; and he is subtle, when he saith praecipuè, as I have noted heretofore: for he holds (as I have proved) with Suarez, and the rest of the jesuites, that the Church is absolutè sub regimine unius Monarchae, absolutely under the government of one Monarch: for, say they, the Catholics hold, that the Church is an absolute Monarchy, and that the Pope is the Monarch.  
27. Which subtlety also appeareth by the explication of that definition, in the words following, which definition (saith he) hath three parts. First, the profession of the truth: Secondly, the communion of the Sacraments: and lastly, their subjection to their lawful Pastor the Bishop of Rome. Where that, which seemed Aristocratical 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 unius rei una definitio, sicut & unum esse, but one definition of a thing, as there is but one essence of it: if a definition do briefly and absolutely contain proprias rei alicuius qualitates, the proper qualities of any thing; if the essential parts of a thing be ever the same; then this cannot now be the true definition of the Church, because it was not, neither could have been the definition of the Church in the Apostles times, when they made their Crede, as Antiquity holds: for neither was Saint Peter put then into the definition of the Church, from whom the Pope derives all his Prerogatives: neither was there seated any Bishop at Rome at that time, nor certain years 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.  involutae rei notitiam definiendo aperire, would seem honestly, and finally to determine this doubt, and resolve this question; but deludes the simple supine Reader with a new, false, subtle, and counterfeit definition of the Church.  
29. Having thus by subtlety fitted the Church to a Monarchy, by thrusting the Bishop of Rome into the definition of it: because the nature of the Church-governement, which is Aristocratical, will not bear that absolute power of one Monarch: 
Cypr. de unitate Eccles.  (for Saint Cyprian saith, Hoc esse caeteros Apostolos, quod suit & Petrus, pari consortio praeditos & honoris, & potestatis; that is, There was no difference in dignity and honour, between the rest of the Apostles, and Saint Peter; nor consequently between other Bishops, and the Bishops of Rome: but only a matter of precedency, and order, which is natural to all Societies,) they do therefore frame out such a Monarchy, as may suit with this Aristocracy, and College of Bishops, which Monarchy, as Bellarmine describes it, requires, 
Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 3.   sit in repub. summus aliquis princeps, qui & omnibus imperet, & nulli subijciatur; which is a sufficient description of a true Monarch: but when he adds, what kind of men are subject to this Monarch, he annihilates the former description; for, (saith he) notwithstanding this Monarch be summus Princeps, & nulli subijciatur, & omnibus imperet; tamen Praesides provinciarum, vel civitatum, non sunt Regis Vicarij, sive annui judices, sed veri Principes, his subjects, which govern his Cities or provinces, must not be Lieutenants, or annual Precedents, or judges; but true and absolute Princes, or Monarches, as the chief Monarch is: qui & imperio summi Principis obediant, & interim provinciam, vel civitatem suam, non tanquam alienam, set ut propriam moderentur; who must obey the chief Monarch, and yet do what they list in their Cities, and Provinces.  
30. This kind of government, or Monarchy, for aught I have read, is found in Utopia only: to be absolute Princes, Kings, or Monarches, and yet to be subject to another Monarch; which implies contradiction, to be absolutely first, and yet second to another of the same order; to be sovereign governor, and yet subject to a greater of the same society; to be a Monarch, and govern alone, and yet obey a superior Monarch in his own estate; to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, collega: to have 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 affirm the like Monarchical government of the Church to have been in the old Testament under Dukes, judges, and Kings, it is false and fallacious; for the government under Moses was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Joseph. count. Ap.  Dei imperium: that of the judges, if it were not theocratical, was Aristocratical, not Monarchical: their power was limited to the wars only; they had not the prerogatives, which were due unto Monarches; 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 privileges, which belong unto Monarches, as is proved by Abulensis, in his Preface to the book of judges.  
32. But the government of the Kings was absolutely Monarchical, like that of the Gentiles, as appeareth in Sam. 1.8. not like that Monarchy, which Bellarmine here describes, where absolute Monarches are subject to the chief Monarch; for the Principes populi were not true Monarches, or absolute Princes, (as he requires them to be) but Tribuni, 
Exod. 18.  Centuriones, Quinquagenarij, Decani qui iudicabant plebem omni tempore: such as judges, and Precedents are under our Monarches, and all neighbour-Kingdomes. And the present government of the Empire (which he would have the Church resemble) is not Monarchical, in respect of the Prince's Electors, but merely Aristocratical, though he be in his own signiories an absolute Monarch.  
33. But this chimerical Monarchy is devised in the temporal state, to cover the disordered Monster of their spiritual government: wherein the Pope is an absolute Monarch, as also all Bishops are said to be; and yet subject to him, as Gretzer confesseth. 
Gretz. de Rom. Pont. li. 1. ca 8.  Nihil vetat (saith he) quemlibet Episcopum in suâ Dioecesi, ut caput, sic & Monarcham vocari: cum eius potestas à nullo in eius Dioecesi, sed à solo universali Pastore dependeat. Nihil vetat? Yes, the definition of a Monarch will not admit it, which he giveth 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under an higher power: he hath not plenitudinem potestatis; appeals may be made from him; tributes imposed upon him, his power suspended, and himself excommunicated, and other the like; from all which Monarches 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) a nullo in eius Dioecesi, sed à solo universali Pastore dependeat. As if he should say; Nihil vetat, nothing hinders, why the Precedent of Ireland should not be called the head and Monarch of Ireland; because he hath his power from no man in Ireland, but from King JAMES in England, who is absolute Monarch over all his Kingdoms: for so saith he, Nihil vetat quemlibet Episcopum in suâ Dioecesi ut caput, sic & Monarcham vocari, cum eius potestas à nullo in eius Dioecesi, sed à solo universali Pastore dependeat: which yet is most true, being understood of our Saviour, who is the universal Pastor, and Monarch of the Church, from whom only, and wholly, all the Bishops in the World receive their spiritual power immediately; but being affirmed of the Pope, or Bishops of Rome, as Gretzer meaneth it, it is not only treason against our Saviour's Majesty, and preregatives, (for ipse est, caput corporis Ecclesiae) but also intolerable blasphemy; 
Colos. 1.18.  and it inscribeth by a counterfeit definition in the Pope's spiritual Crown, that which is proper to our Saviour's thigh and vestment, 
Apoc. 19.16.  Monarcha Monarcharum, that is, Rex Regum, & Dominus Dominantium, which is the proper title of our blessed Saviour, and not to be challenged by any Monarch.  
35. Secundum fraudis diverticulum, the second sleight, which Bellarmine useth, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; depraedari, to steal away, or carry away the Readers, and deceive them by Philosophy: which is another dangerous sleight, and the Apostle exhorteth the Colossians to take heed of this also. 
Colos. 2.8.   
36. For they will prove the government of the Church to be Monarchical by certain philosophical propositions deceitfully used: As that there is a Primacy among the Stars. Sanders l. 1. c. 5. That there is a Principality among the Elements, c. 6. That amongst Plants and Trees there is primum aliquid, c. 7. That in all living creatures there is found one member, which governs the rest ex vi naturae. c. 8. That Birds which fly together, have one Chief. c 9  
37. Again, Entia, nolunt malè disponi, and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Tho. 1. q. 103. ar. 3. Tho. cont. Gent. l. 4. c. 76.  as Thomas saith out of Aristotle, Metaph. l. 2. Again, Optimum regimen m●iltitudinis, ut regatur per unum, as the world is by God. Tho. cont. Gent. All which, and a number the like philosophical reasons, either enforce only a Primacy, or if a Monarchy, yet a Monarchy, only in temporalibus, in particular temporal States, to be the best State, & intended by nature; which we deny not.  
38. But the spiritual government doth not paralele, or participate with the temporal in the form thereof: and therefore where Sanders saith, 
Sanders l. 1. c. 3.  Vnus est Deus conditor, & gubernator omnium: ergo, Ecclesiasticum regimen est Monarchicum: and if we deny it, and maintain an Aristocracy, than he ceaseth not. Criminibus terrere novis, 
Virgil.  and threatens us that we do favere multitudini Deorum, aut duobus tribusue principijs, quae Martion, Lucianus, Manichaeus, atque alij haeretici ponebant: and where Bellarmine concludes, 
Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 4.  Monarchia simplex in imperio Dei locum habet; ergo, Monarchia est optimum regimen, and so best fitteth the Church: for as Sanders saith;  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 philosophical argument, he seethe not, how we can escape the errors and heresies of Martion, and the Manichees, and the heathen Poets, etc. That they, & all their conspiracy may perceive, that Non me ista terrent, 
Cicero.  quae mihi ad timorem proponuntur, these Bugbears fright me not, I will here join issue with them, and acknowledge that government to be requisite, and settled in the Church, which is found in heaven, and yet that Aristocratical.  

Tho. cont. Gent. l. 4. c. 76.  39 My first rule shall agree with Thomas, Ecclesia militans ex triumphanti per similitudinem derivatur; and for this time I admit of his reasons, namely, that of the Church under the Law it was said to Moses; ut faceret omnia secundum exemplar ei in monte monstratum: and of the Church under the Gospel's Saint john saith, 
Apoc. 21.2.  Vidi civitatem sanctam jerusalem descendentem de coeló: that is (as Aquinas interprets it) the manner of government of the Church militant, both under the Law, and under the Gospel, resembles the government, which is in heaven in the Church triumphant: but in the Church triumphant one only governeth, who governeth also the whole world, namely God: ergo in Ecclesiâ militante unus est, qui praesidet universis, namely the Pope; and so the government of the Church is purely Monarchical.  
40. But Thomas, and his followers, , Stapleton, Bellarmine, should have remembered, that we are not heathen, but Christian Philosophers; and that as there is a Monarchy in heaven in respect of the one Godhead: so in respect of the three persons it is an Aristocracy; three Persons governing 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 Son, and the holy Ghost, who yet are all aeterni & aborigines, as I may say; so that, as there is found in heaven a Monarchy cum personarum multiplicatione; so there is found an Aristocracy in the persons, with an unity in the Godhead.  
41. And according to this form and pattern is the government of the militant Church, Si summis conferre minora licebit: for as there is but una Ecclesia, one universal Church, so there is but Episcopatus unus, only one Bishopric in that one universal Church, and that indivisus, not divided, 
Cypr. de unit. Eccles. c. 4.  as Saint Cyprian hath it; (as there is una Deu as in heaven, and that indivisus) & yet there is a multiplicity of persons, that is, of Bishops, all of one equal power, and authority, and dignity in the particular Churches of that same one Bishopric; as a Trinity of persons is found in heaven in one Deity.  
42. This one, and undivided Bishopric, 
Cypr. ad Anton. Epis.  in that one Church (which Saint Cyprian calls traditionem Dei, an old tradition, even from God himself) hath the whole world for the Territory, Province, or Diocese; and every Bishop hath full and equal power in the whole Bishopric; though by Ecclesiastical constitutions every one be limited to his several Province, or Diocese; and so seem to have power but in a part of it: but yet (as Saint Cyprian saith) a singulis in solidum pars tenetur; every Bishop so holds a part, as that he hath interest and full power in that whole Bishopric, which spreads over the whole world.  
43. Which appeareth both by the first institution, when our Saviour said to his Apostles in general, and to every of them in particular (that is, to Bishops, as Saint Cyprian, Saint Ambrose, 
Mat. 18.19.  and Antiquity holds it,) Euntes docete omnes gentes; Go, and teach all nations; and also by continual practice; for though now for order's sake, and by Ecclesiastical constitutions, every Bishop be limited to his part, or several Diocese; yet that this part is held notwithstanding a singulis in solidum, so as he hath an interest in the whole, is manifest by this; that though he be bound by Ecclesiastical Laws, sedere, to sit down, and take up his Seat, or Sea, in one definite place: yet if he be disposed, or commanded for the good of the Church, Ire, & docere alias gentes, to go and teach other nations, according to his original commission: he may perform his Bishoply power with effect, wheresoever he life's in the whole world: which argues, that the whole Church in solidum is his Territory; 
L. extra. ff. de juris. omn. jud.  for no man's power stretcheth beyond his own territory, and therefore the Civilians say, Extra territorium ius dicenti, impunè non paretur.  
44. So that howsoever this unus Episcopatus seem to be divided ab extra, every Bishop having a part distinct by himself, which may make it seem many Bishoprickes; yet ab intra every particular part a singulis tenetur in solidum, by the first institution: and every one hath power in the whole, as it is undivided, indivisus; and continues for ever Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae, a Bishop of the Church universal.  
45. Now as that one Monarchy in heaven hath not the denomination in respect of any superiority, which is found among the Persons in the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, who are that one Monarch of the same power, and essence etc. but is so called in regard of the world, and celestial, and terrestrial creatures, which are subject to them: so this one Bishopric is not Monarchical in respect of any superiority among those persons, or Bishops, which are all equal in power, and degree, and make all but one Bishop, and supreme governor (under Christ) of his Church, but in regard of inferiors, Priests, and people, which are subject to them.  
46. And yet, as in the equality of persons, the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, which are all one God, there is found primatus ordinis in the Father, which is Aristocratical: so in pari consortio honoris, & dignitatis, of all the Bishops of the Church, which make all but one Bishop of that one Bishopric (for as Saint Cyprian saith, 
Cypr.  Non ignoramus unum Episcopum in Ecclesiâ catholicâ esse debere,) there is found of necessity primatus ordinis as in every Aristocracy: because ordo, or as Saint Cyprian saith, 
Cypr. de unit. Eccles.  Exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, which exordium the Fathers affirm to have been in Saint Peter.  
47. If this my brevity in this main point breed any obscurity, and so doth not satisfy some intelligent Auditor by reason of the diversity of opinions, concerning the first institution of Bishops: I will enlarge it in the proper place, when I speak of the Primacy: thus much was said by Anticipation, and by occasion of that philosophical argument, proposed by Thomas, and pursued by the jesuites for the Pope's spiritual Monarchy.  
48. Which argument resembleth that of some Civilians, and Canonists, to prove the like absurdity in the temporal state, 
Barthol. in Extrau. ad Reprimen. Glos. in cap. per venerab.  viz. That the Emperor is the Monarch of the whole world; as Bartholus hath it, and the gloss; who allege these reasons, which  and Bellarmine have borrowed from them: (for Illorum sunt omnia, quae delirant jesuitae,) 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 celestial government, ergo, Imperator est orbis Monarcha.  
49. Again, quae sunt praeter naturam, debent imitari naturalia, at in naturalibus semper unus Rector; in corpore cor, in animâ una ratio: ergo, in orbe unus Imperator, sicut unus Deus; and other the like reasons, which are applied to the Pope in the selfsame terms; mutatis mutandis, changing the Emperor for the Pope, and the world for the Church.  
50. But I conclude briefly of the Pope's spiritual Monarchy over all the Church, as Franciscus a Victoriâ doth of the Emperor's temporal Monarchy over 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 contemn the one of the Pope, as Victoria the great Master of the Spanish writers, doth the other of the Emperor, without danger of Marcionisme, Lucianisme, Porphyrianisme, and Heathenism, and such terrors and monsters of heresy, as they pretend to us.  
51. And thus much of the second diverticle, or by-path to error, which Bellarmine useth to seduce his Readers; 
Colos. 2.8.  which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I would add more, if I might not offend your patience; 
Bern.  but Brevis dies cogit breviorem sermonem, this being one of the shortest days of the year, requires a short Sermon. I will therefore conclude, beseeching him, 
Aug.  sine cuius luce non est veritas, without whose illumination we cannot walk forward in the way of truth, nor return from the way of error: that it would please him to lead into the way of truth, all such as have erred and are deceived: and so to direct our footsteps, that we seeing what is light and truth, may by his light find out also, what is not truth, and so eschew it, to the edifying of his Church, the discharge of our duties, and the salvation of our souls; which God grant for Christ jesus sake, to whom with the holy Ghost, three Persons and one God, be ascribed all honour, praise, etc. Amen.  
FINIS.   

THE FOURTH SERMON.  
1. YOu have heard of two sleights, that Bellarmine and his fellows use to deceive their Readers; tertium fraudis diverticulun, 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 us: 
Vin. Lirin. c. 37.  Proferebant Apostoli divinae legis exempla; proferunt & isti, the Apostles alleged the Scriptures to prove their true doctrine; and so do they to establish their false Monarchy; which hath ever been the practice of false Teachers (whom the Apostle calls operarios subdolos) scriptures malè interpretatis errores suos astruere, 
2 Cor. 11.13.  to fortify their errors by Scriptures misse-interpreted; by which sleight Satan did transfigure himself into an Angel of light, both when he deceived our first parents, and when he assaulted our Saviour Christ. For both he and his Ministers know full well by their long practice, and good success in it, Nullam esse ad fallendum faciliorem viam, quam ut ubi nefarij erroris subinducitur fraudulentia, ibi divinorum verborum praetendatur autoritas, that there is no such ready way to deceive the simple, as to pretend the authority of Scripture, fraudulently to underlay a nefarious error.  
2. This therefore is the third sleight, to abuse many Scriptures for confirmation of this Monarchy so long usurped, and of late years (as it seems) by common error established as just: but such is the nature of truth, 
Greg. Naz.  Quae ut Esdrae, sic mihi potentissima videtur; which seems to me, as heretofore to Esdras, to be most powerful; that they ever fail in their conclusions, and instead of a Monarchy, which they affirm, they prove a Primacy, which we deny not.  
3. To this purpose, and with this event, or to little or no purpose, are two & twenty Scriptures alleged by number, 
Cic.  and yet in tanto conventu nulla est, quae rationem, numerumque habeat; amongst so many there is none, that hath either weight or reason: for though the Books are, De Romani Pontificis Monarchia, & Petri, yet he confesseth his proofs to reach but to a Primacy: and he cannot be so ignorant, or with any reason esteem us so, that we should confound a Monarchy and Primacy, and make them Synonimaes, any more than 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 mastered by the power of truth, he thus ranks, or divides his proofs from the Scripture: 
Mat. 16.  That the first place, Tu es Petrus, etc. & tibi dabo claves, Thou art Peter, and to thee I give the Keys, pertinet ad promissionem Primatus, The Primacy (not a Monarchy) is not yet given, but promised there. The second place, where it is said to Peter▪ 
joh. 20.  Pasce oves meas, etc. Feed my Sheep, pertinet ad institutionem Primatus, belongs to his institution, or investing into the Primacy; and yet no mention of a Monarchy: and the other twenty Scriptures, which he calleth the Prerogatives of Saint Peter, pertinent ad confirmationem Primatus, belong to the confirmation of the Primacy: So that nothing being intended here to be proved but a Primacy, which we deny not, the whole discourse in that respect is idle, and requires no answer, being only a fallacy in aequivocatione verbi, as he abuseth it: who hopeth that a Primacy may pass for a Supremacy, as he would enforce an Aristocracy to be a Monarchy; as before I noted.  
5. But this seemeth strange to me, and indeed absurd, that the manifold confirmation of this Primacy is found before the Institution of it: as if confirmation should go before Baptism; or the confirmation of a Kingdom before the Coronation, or Institution into it. For the institution of Peter into the Primacy is after our Saviour's resurrection; 
Joh. 20.  and many confirmations of it both in deed, and in word, are noted by him to precede his passion; of which sort are the ten first prerogatives, which Bellarmine mentioneth in the 17. 18. and 19 Chapter of his first Book De Rom. Pontif, Monarchiâ: which is contrary to the rule of the , 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 Primacy (or Monarchy, as Bellarmine calls it) made to Saint Peter, Matth. 16. Super hanc Petram, etc. and of the Institution of it, joh. 20. Pasce oves meas, etc. which are the two main points in question, I shall speak but very briefly; because those things, which I shall allege, are so clear and evident, that it may seem a wonder, that so many so learned men do oppose, or labour to obscure the sense and verity of them: and also because the consequents, which they infer upon their false interpretations, 
Dr. Andrew's. Dr. Buckoridge.  have been exactly confuted by his excellent Majesty, and learnedly seconded by that Nobile par Episcoporum of Winchester and Rochester, that there is no need of any addition, or farther explication.  
7. I speak not this to derogate any whit from the reputation, or honour of Saint Peter; Honorabilius membrum in corpore Christi: 
Ber.  vas in honorem, plenum gratiae, & veritatis, who was to our Saviour, as Saint Stephen saith Moses was to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 
Act. 7.20.  De Petro quicunque detraxerit, necesse est, aut infirmitati, aut invidiae assignetur: whosoever shall detract from that blessed Apostle, it is to be ascribed either to his want of judgement, or in envy to the overmuch honour, or titles, which the Papists give him. Into which contradiction (I think I may say malediction) some have fallen while in opposition to the over-large and enforced prerogatives, which the Papists ascribe to Saint Peter, they bring forth rationum copias, whole troops of reasons to prove his infirmities, and imperfections; I think, I may term them with Tully, copiolas; for if we shall measure them by the interpretations of the Fathers, 
Cic.  Sunt extenuatissimae, et inopiâ bonarum rationum pessimè acceptae.  
8. The Fathers were so dainty of Saint Peter's credit, that Optatus having occasion to mention his fault, in denying his Master: While I speak 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, he entered into a comparison between him and Saint Peter, not simply, but quantum attinet ad martyrij coronam, (for both suffered for our blessed Saviour) he presently checks himself, that he might take occasion to explicate the comparison: Caeterum vereri debeo (saith he) ne in Petrum contumeliosus existam; 
Aug. de Bap. cont. Donat. l. 2. c. 1.  quis enim nescit illum Apostolatus principatum, cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum? he feared, it might be a contumely to make any comparison; wherefore he distinguisheth, concluding thus: Etsi distat Cathedrarum gratia, una est tamen Martyrum gloria, though there be a difference in the honour or grace of their two Chairs, or Sees, yet they may be compared in the glory of their Martyrdom, 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 equal in Martyrdom.  
9 And Saint Augustine speaking also of Saint Peter's great fault in denying his Master, which some in those days ex favore perverso excusare nitebantur, affirming that it was no sin, and that in those words, Nescio hominem; Homo nescio, quid dicis; 
Aug. in Joh. trac. 66.  Non sum ex discipulis eius: he denied not his Master; after he had proved, that Saint Peter did acknowledge a fault, and reproved himself, and consequently those perverse defenders; & unde eos convinceret, produxisset lachrimas testes; (for as Optatus saith, Nec doluisset, 
Optat. cont. Parm. l. 7.  nec flevisset, si nulla interuenisset offensio) lest he should seem to fall into the other extremity, or delight, viz. to search into the imperfections of the blessed Apostle, he excuseth himself, saying, 
Aug. Jbid.  Neque nos cum ista dicimus, primum Apostolorum accusare delectat; sed hunc intuendo admoneri nos oportet, ne homo quisquam humanis viribus fidat.  
10. Here we find observed by Saint Augustine, the two extremities we mentioned; one used by the Papists, perversus fauor in excusando, & extollendo: the other by some modern writers, perversa delectatio in accusando: These amplify Saint Peter's infirmities, and exagitate them by the foul names of Curiosity, Superstition, Ignorance, Ambition, Arrogancy, Wicked devotion, Lying, Rashness, etc. Sparing in their Commentaries, neither Apostles, nor Prophets, nor ancient patriarchs: a foul practice in the Primitive Church, and not to be imitated without great offence: for to instance in Saint Peter only, of whom we discourse; Valentinus accused him of ignorance, in the business between him and Saint Paul, 
Tertul. de Praescrip. c. 23. Cont. Marc. l. 4. c. 3. Cyril. count. Julian. l. 9 infine.  Galat. 2. but Tertullian defends him. Martion lays to his charge prevarication and simulation; which accusation the same Tertullian removes also. julian the Apostata condemns him of hypocrisy, whom Saint Cyril confutes: to say nothing of Porphyry, 
Hieron. ad Aug. Ep. 39  who vilified Saint Paul, as Saint Jerome testifies: nor of the Manichees, who slandered the patriarchs of the old Testament; whom Saint Augustine defends in his books against Faustus.  
11. On the other extremity; the Papists over-extoll the favours, and dilate and enlarge the Prerogatives, 
Cic.  which are given to Saint Peter, & in omni genere amplificationis exardent: they transform the Primacy, which the Fathers afford him, into a Monarchy. Bellarmine holds, that he was Primus Ecclesiae universalis Monarcha, as I have showed before: and Gretzer he will prove it, 
Gretz. defen. Bellar. l. 1. c. 8. de Rom. Pontif.  and gives him Monarchical independent fullness of power: whereupon follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, potestas legislativa for the whole Church, and so consequently coerciva, as Suarez proveth. They call him The Head of the whole Church, The Type of the Church, The Lord and Master over the Apostles, and so acknowledged by them; The Vicar of Christ. They say that Christ, and Peter, and the Pope pro uno tantùm Ecclesiae capite, reputantur: That the Apostles received no power of jurisdiction immediately from Christ, but mediante Petro. That the other Apostles received the power and authority to preach from Saint Peter. That potestas clavium was given 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 only among the Apostles, was made a Bishop by our Saviour Christ, and the others received ordination from Saint Peter. That the pontificality of the Priesthood in the New Testament was originally from Saint Peter, and consequently all Orders. That Saint Peter had ordinariam potestatem, which he left to his successor; the other Apostles delegatam, which ceased with them. That after his last Supper, and before his Passion, our Saviour delivered the government 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 brief. They say, that the power of Saint Peter differed from the power of the other Apostles in five things. First, in modo dandi, & accipiendi; because power was given to Peter ordinariè; to the other Apostles ex speciali gratiâ, and to themselves only. Secondly, in officio, for Peter was made Christ's Vicar, the other Apostles had but power legantine. Thirdly, In the object of their power, because Peter had power over all the Apostles; but the other Apostles had not power one over another, but over the people, who were subject to them. Fourthly, in the perpetuity of the power; for the power of the other Apostles was personal to themselves only; but Peter was perpetual to him, and his successors. Fiftly, In the very essence of their power, for the authority committed to the Apostles was potestas executiva, or (as Thomas calls it) authoritas gubernandi, according to the Laws prescribed to them; such as our judge's power is: but the authority given to Saint Peter, was potestas praeceptiva (as Thomas saith) authoritas regiminis, which is proper to a King only.  
12. These false and imaginary prerogatives, which the Schoolmen and jesuites ascribe to Saint Peter, Aluarez Guerrero calls aurea, 
Thesaur. Christ. Relig c. 1. n. 60.  and gemmea, the gold and jewels in Saint Peter's Mitre, & fundamentum totius sacrae paginae, & totius sacrtiuris Pontificij, the foundation of the Pope's Canon Laws, and of the holy Scriptures: For indeed the Scriptures are not the foundation of them, but to these propositions the Scriptures are wrested: but the true foundation of them is the Pope's Canon Law concerning his Monarchy.  
13. Thus we see, that the one extremity hath one quality 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 heaven: The other extremity is a quality, or condition of the horn of the Goat, which is, Magnificare (Petrum) usque ad fortitudinem coeli, 
Dan. 8.10. & 11.  & deijcere de fortitudine, & de stellis, & conculcare eas, & usque ad Principem fortitudinis magnificare: To magnify Peter above all the Apostles, and his successors above all Bishops; to conculcate and trample upon all the lights or stars of the Church; and to magnify Peter with the honour of his Master, our blessed Saviour.  
15. I affect rather a quality of the Sea, which doth medium terrae locum expetere: that is, 
Cic.  I will run a middle course between both, Ne vera laus (Petro) detracta oratione nostra, vel falsa affectata esse videatur. And first with the Fathers I will either excuse any infirmity of his, which shall be tolerabile erratum; and say with Saint Cyrill, 
Cyril. come. julian. l. 9  that the controversy between Saint Peter, and Saint Paul, which is mentioned in the Acts, and gave occasion of offence to such as would quarrel, 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, ut Apostolos committam:) Or with Tertullian, Si reprehensus est Petrus, conversationis fuit vitium, non praedicationis: Or with Saint Augustine, 
Aug. Ep. 9 ad Hieron. Jbid.  that Saint Peter did judaizare (Gal. 2.) compassione misericordiae, non simulatione fallaciae; or, as he saith afterward; Non mentientis astu, sed compatientis affectu, as the Fathers mollify with good reason, his other infirmities: or else I will make use of them, as Saint Augustine did, when he spoke of that great weakness 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 negavit; non hoc fine ut Petrus caderet, sed ut tu quoque consolationem habeas: which moderation the Fathers observe in all his infirmities; but especially Epiphanius in his Book called Ancoratus, 
In argument. Anchor.  (Quia instar anchorae ducit mentem de vitâ & salute perscrutantem) where it seemeth to be (as it were) a necessary point of the Christian Faith, to speak honourably of Saint Peter, and to extenuate, or excuse his imbecility and weakness.  
15. Secondly, I will grant any prerogative, which our Saviour, and the sacred Scriptures interpreted by the consent of the holy Fathers of the Church, have given unto him. That, which I oppose, is the imagined Monarchy, which themselves so inconstantly affirm, and so weakly prove. In affirming it they are so ridiculè inconstantes, that they confound the names of Monarchy and Primacy (as I have showed before) intituling their books Of the Monarchy of Peter, 
Conc. 2. §. 17.  and the Bishop of Rome: and proposing in the several Chapters the proofs of a Primacy; which is usual with  in his visible Monarchy: and Bellarmine when he gives this title to his ninth Chapter, Regimen Ecclesiae esse praecipuè Monarchicum, useth eight reasons, which prove only a Primacy.  

Cicero.  16. Their proofs are as weak as a band of men, that have suffered shipwreck, eiecta, & debilitata; or like those infirmiores in exercitu, as Gretzer confesseth, which are entertained of necessity, 
Gretz. defence. Bellar. l. 1. c. 17.  Cum omnes fortes esse non possint, etc. Et ut turbâ & numero exercitus compleatur; out of S. Jerome, lib. 1. cont. jovinian. c. 14. For (saith Gretzer) though S. Peter's Prerogatives be alleged to prove this Monarchy, yet praecisé ex ipsis privilegijs quâ talia, non colligitur Primatus, precisely out of those Privileges (as they are such) a Primacy is not collected; much less a Monarchy, which they pretend.  
17. And again he saith, Istae prerogativae non nudè, nec crudè inspici debent, 
Ibid.  sed cum mutuâ ad se invicèm, habitudine, cum singularum circumstantijs, & cum respectu ad potissima de Primatu testimonia: so that it is to no purpose to confute them severally; they are the forlorn hope, and of those kind of arguments, as Aristotle saith, Quae non plus afferunt, quam similitudinem veritati, quae probanda suscipitur; and being used only to prove a Primacy (as appears both by Bellarmine and Gretzer) which we deny not: quae Augur etc. Iniusta vitiosaque dixerit, irrita, 
Cic. 2. de Legibus.  infectaque sunto, those reasons which the prime jesuites confess to be weak and vicious, irrita, indictaque sunto, they are unto me as if never proposed.  
18. The main privileges, or the principalia testimonia, which are brought, are only two; one is, 
Mat. 16.  Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam; & tibi dabo claves; which they say, is promissio Primatus: the other is, Pasce oves meas, etc. which they say, 
John 21.  is Institutio Primatus: some allege a third, et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos; and hold that the Primacy was there first instituted.  
19 Now although these testimonies be alleged by Bellarmine and Gretzer, Sanders, Stapleton, etc. to maintain a Primacy, which we deny not; yet because they confound the words Primacy and Monarchy, and intend by these places and texts of Scripture to establish a Monarchy: how fare off they are from the perfection of so high a work, I will show you by the weakness of these foundations.  
20. First, the Texts of Scripture, these principalia testimonia (as they call them) were never interpreted of a Monarchy, by any one of the ancient Fathers for a thousand years after our Saviour's coming in the flesh: neither were they ever urged to that purpose before the quarrels between the Imperialists, and the Papists, between Gregory the seaventh, and Henry the Emperor, about six hundred years since, as hath been most learnedly proved by the right reverend Bishop of Rochester; for (as I noted before) out of Aluarez, this Monarchy with them is fundamentum totius sacrae paginae, which is alleged to that purpose; and not those Scriptures the foundation of that Monarchy.  
21. And ever since that controversy, the favourers of the Papacy would have the world imagine, that our Saviour made S. Peter and the Bishops his successors, Monarches formally, (after that manner that the Emperors of the East invested their Magistrates, and supreme officers; 
Niceph. Greg. l. 9  Nam cui publicè rerum gerendarum potestas dabatur, gladius unà cum sancto Euangelio in manus tradebatur,) and that St. Peter had not only the Gospel committed to him, but two swords for failing.  
22. And the gloss alleging that for the Pope's Monarchy, which the whole Church understands unanimously, and necessarily of our Saviour only God and man, 
In extrau. unam sanctam.  King of Kings, viz. Data est mihi omnis potestas in coelo, & in terrâ, which is power purely Monarchical; saith impiously and blasphemously (though he would seem mannerly) Non videtur Dominus discretus fuisse, ut cum reverentiâ eius loquar, nisi unicum post se talem vicarium reliquisset, qui haec omnia posset.  
23. Who hearing this gloss, or interpretation, will not cry with Moses, 
Levit. 24.14.  Educite blasphemum extra castra; throw these blasphemous glosses and comments out of the Church, and burn them; and examine upon the Scriptures the expositions of the ancient Fathers, who lived before that quarrel, and then you shall find (as St. Augustine said to St. Jerome,) that Incomparabiliter pulchrior est veritas Christianorum, quàm Helena Graecorum, 
Aug. epist. 19  the truth delivered upon these texts by the ancient Fathers, is incomparably more beautiful, than the meretricious false colours and collusions of the late Church of Rome?  
24. Secondly, all the words and phrases, upon which they ground and build this Monarchy, are figurative and Metaphorical: as Petra, aedificare, claves, ligare, soluere, pascere, etc. Now Stapleton prescribes us this rule, when we offer to prove the Church to be an Aristocracy, 
Staple. Relect. p. 94.  Oportet non modò perspicua esse verba, quae rem tantam decidant, verùmetiam tum praedicatione pastorum, tum fide ac moribus fidelium planissimè fieri: we with reason urge the same rule for their Monarchy; they must prove it not by figurative, but by perspicuous words; now who can find a Monarchy perspicuously in these words, Petra, aedificare, claves, ligare, soluere, confirmare, or pascere & c? Were it not ridiculous to conclude, est petra, or est pastor; ergo Monarcha est? etc. Secondly, they must prove it Praedicatione Pastorum, & fide, & moribus fidelium, and so make it planissimum. But I shown you in the former reason, that the first true Pastors for more than a thousand years preached no such doctrine; and that the Apostles themselves, and the primitive Christians acknowledged no such Monarchy in their practice and manners, appeareth by this, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first converted jews contended against Peter for going to the Gentiles, and conversing with them: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Acts 11.2.  that is, as St. Chrysostome reads, expostularunt. Now it is not good manners to expostulate with Monarches, no 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 Monarchical power in Peter, they would not have expostulated, or contended with him, or accused him of it, for that had been contumacy against their superior: but accusationis, 
Vigour.  or expostulationis, testis est scriptura, non regiae Maiestatis, as Vigorius observeth.  
25. Secondly, the Apostles acknowledged no Monarchy; 
Act. 8.14.  for Apostoli miserunt Petrum, & johannem in Samarian; now he that sendeth one, as it were an Ambassador, is greater than he that is sent, or at least his equal. 
Bel. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 16. Sand. de visib. Monar. l. 6. c. 5.  Bellarmine answers, and so doth Sanders, that a man may send one, over whom he hath no power; as par parem; and also an inferior his superior. But this answer is not to the purpose; they must prove, that an Inferior may send a Monarch.  
26. Their first instance of par parem, that an equal may send his equal, is in Herod, who is said mittere Magos in Bethlehem, 
Mat. 2.8.  over whom he had no power and authority. But to omit that, whether he had power over them, or no, in his own Country, where they were strangers; We answer, that though the Latin words be the same in the vulgar Translation, Miserunt Apostoli Petrum, and Misit Herodes Magos, yet they differ much in the Original, and in the sense of them: 
Act. 8.  for Acts 8. it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word whereof the Apostles took their denomination, 
Mat. 2.8.  and office: but Mat. 2. it is said of Herod, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which two words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though in the Gospel they be used sometimes as Synonimaes, and do 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 understands it in this place, 
Annot. super locum.  Ego existimo (saith he) Regem illis à se dimissis blandè & benignè iter demonstrasse; and translates it, & eye Bethlehem dimissis. But if Beza being ours be of less credit with them, Barradius a Master jesuite for interpretation, saith thus of Herod, 
Tom. 1. l. 9 c. 10. p. 494.  Post haec in Bethlehem hospites cum honore dimisit, vique ad se redeant, precatus: so that this instance is to little purpose; for Herod dismissed with honour, but sent not his equal on an embassage, or message, much less his superior.  
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 Reuben, Gad, and the half 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 son of Eleazar, and ten Princes with him: Cum tamen iure divino toti populo praeesset, saith Bellarmine, and therefore the people may send their Monarch upon an embassage. 
Proverb. 24.2.  But frauds labia eorum loquuntur; they deal fraudulently with us: for as they read, Miserunt Phinees filium Eleazari sacerdotem, so others read, Miserunt Phinees filium Eleazari sacerdotis: They sent not the Highpriest, but the High-Priests son; and then the matter is answered.  
28. It is true, that the vulgar Bibles printed at Lions, 1574. read, Miserunt Phinees filium Eleazari sacerdotem, but yet show, that there is some question of it, and a variety in the reading, by putting in the Margin Sacerdotis: but the more ancient Bibles printed at Lions 1516. which is about fifty years before, 
Abulens. q. 10. & q. 16. Jos. 22.30.  read, Miserunt Phinees filium Eleazari Sacerdotis, and so reads Abulensis q. 10. super Ios. e. 22. and in the 16. q. he saith, Phinees nondum erat sacerdos magnus, quia pater eius Eleazarus vivebat: 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 Highpriest were sent by the people; 
Abulens. sup. Num. c. 25. q. 8.  and that he was Princeps in temporalibus, Prince or chief in the temporalties, which belonged to the Levites; & in spiritualibus, and in spiritual matters, which concerned the whole people, and exceeded all other in wealth, and honour, and jurisdiction; yet was he no Monarch, but Maximus iudicum, the Primate in an Aristocracy; or as the chief justice among our judges, from whom (saith Abulensis) non licebat appellare: and the government of Israel being at that time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as josephus calls it; and josua being chosen out by God to govern under him extraordinarily (not as Kings govern under God, but as judges govern under Kings) the Highpriest himself was subject to him; and in the word Miserunt, he (that is, josua) is included, as Abulensis notes.  
30 So that Phinees being not the Highpriest, but the High-Priests son; or if the Highpriest, yet no Monarch, but Maximus judicum, and so sent by the rest of the Optimates, and Princes of the Tribes, who were his equals; or jointly by them and josua, who in some case was his superior; this instance availeth not against that objection, The Apostles sent out Peter and john, ergo Peter was not their absolute Monarch, but of equal honour with them, excepting the Primacy.  
31. When Caietane commented upon these words, Miserunt Petrum & johannem, 
Caiet super Act. 8.  doubting this objection, he saith to his Reader, Cum audis, Miserunt, ne proptereà Petri principatum neges: Fear it not learned Cardinal, we deny not his Principality, or Primacy, but your pretended Monarchy, and yet hold, That as the Optimates in a Monarchy, who have their honours by the favour of the Monarch, and the great affairs and employments of the State committed and delegated unto them, are ever to be directed, overruled, and commanded by the Monarch: so in an Aristocracy the Primate, who hath received his precedency from the Optimates, though the ordering of many and weighty causes be especially committed unto him, yet in matters of greatest moment he is ordered, and directed by the Optimates; and so was Saint Peter: for when the Apostles divided the World among themselves, Peter was sent by them to Rome: he sent not the other Apostles abroad into the world by his direction like a Monarch; but he himself is sent with others, and by others also. Cum duodecim Apostoli, 
Leo.  etc. (saith Leo) imbuendum Euangelio mundum, distributis sibi terrarum partibus suscepissent, Beatus Petrus princeps Apostolici ordinis, Ad arcem Romani destinatur Imperij, etc. So also Baron: 
Tom. 1. an. 44. n. 26.  Ad totius mundi principem civitatem, Princeps Apostolorum mittitur, et ad primariam urbem orbis primus Pastor iure dirigitur: and the contents of that paragraph is, De Petro Romam misso: and that this hath been, and aught to be the true state, and form of government in the Church, Vigorius proveth unto us at large; to whom I remit you.  
32. And thus much by occasion of the second reason, viz. That all the words and phrases, upon which Peter's Monarchy is founded, are Metaphorical, and Figurative, and neither expounded by the ancient Fathers to imply a Monarchy; nor so understood either in the practice of the Christian people, or the Apostles themselves; all which Stapleton requires as necessary to prove an Aristocracy, and so consequently we require as necessary to prove their Monarchy. To which I add that rule of the Schools, Scriptura symbolica non est argumentativa, firm arguments are not drawn from figurative and tropical speeches, except the holy Ghost have 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 unto all and every particular man to know, aught to be as plain as God's commandments; 
Abul. super Ios. c. 7. q. 64.  of which Abulensis gives this rule, Nunquam invenitur in aliquo pracepto dato à Deo modus loquendi Metaphoricus; sed aliquando in narrationibus rerum gestarum.  
33. Thirdly, what power and authority soever was given by our Saviour (which I confess, was great) in those words or phrases, Petra, claves soluere, ligare, pascere, etc. was given indifferently to Peter, and all the Apostles, and in them to the Church, but they are all originally and Monarchically, in our Saviour: for these royalties, and prerogatives proceed not from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or his fullness of power, which cannot be imparted to any creature; but from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his dominion, and government of the Church, which may be delegated in a certain proportion: and these he conveyed to the Apostles. Axiomata sua (saith St. Basis) jesus 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: jesus (which name importeth his humanity) imparteth his honours, his dignities, his names, his offices unto other. Lux est; vos estis Lux mundi, inquit: Sacerdos est, & facit Sacerdotes: Ouis est, & dicit, ecce ego mitto vos sicut oves in medio luporum; Petra est, & Petram facit. Quae sua sunt, largitur seruis suis.  
34. But yet he so disposeth his honours, dignities, and prerogatives, that he both holdeth the Monarchical power in himself, as he is man, and governs the Church in his own person, sitting ever personally in the chief seat of his Church, that is, in heaven (and no Monarch is resident at once in every part of his Kingdom) and he is present, as all other Kings are, by his power, direction, government, and officers till the end of the world, as other Monarches are till the end of their lives. It is he alone (not Peter, nor the Apostles, nor Bishops, nor Priests) who maketh perfect and effectual all the Church Saraments. Ipse enim est, qui baptizat; ipse est, qui peccata remittit; 
Tho. cont. Gent. c. 76. l. 4. n. 4.  ipse est verus sacerdos, qui se obtuli in arâ crucis, & cuius virtute corpus eius quotidiè in altari consecratur: and this power is not given to the Apostles, 
Abide. super Mat. c. 9 q. 30.  or Bishops formaliter, ut ipsi habeant; but ministerialiter, ut Christus per illos operetur; as Abulensis distinguisheth of the working of miracles. Now he never substitutes a Monarch under him; that was never heard of among the Monarches of the world, and maketh contra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fullness of power; and would imply contradiction, or a division of the Monarchy, and we might say, Divisum imperium cum jove (Christo) Petrus habet, that is, our Saviour is Monarch over that part of the Church, which triumphs in heaven; and St. Peter, and his successors are Monarches over the other part of the Church, which is militant on the earth: and if both have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their divisions, as all Monarches have; neither should our Saviour exercise any power on the earth, 
Mat. 28.  as he is God and man; contrary to his promise, Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad finem mundi, nor St. Peter, nor his successors Popes, or Bishops, should challenge any power in heaven; contrary to that other promise made to Peter, and the rest Quaecunque solueris in terris, soluta erunt & in coelis.  
35. But our Saviour keeps his Monarchy entire, and sitting personally in that City, quam inquirimus, whether we must all resort in order, when we be called, and give account of our Stewardships; he commends the government, and the honours, and dignities erected in his Church, to his Apostles indifferently: making them all his Messengers, and Ambassadors, enduing them with the same titles, and prerogatives of ligare, and soluere, and pascere, of being the rocks and foundations of his Church; of keeping the keys, etc. All which power and authority 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 only in : 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 challenge Episcopal 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 have one and the selfsame Apostleship; they have one and the selfsame power, which is inherent, and natural to the Apostleship; which cannot hold true, if St. Peter were their Monarch: for it is absurd to think, that the Optimates in a Monarchy should be of the same nature, and power, that the Monarch is.  
All these titles, and powers, ligare, soluere, pascere, confirmare, habere claves, esse fundamentum, to bind, to lose, to feed, to strengthen, to have the keys, to be a foundation; or a rock, are delegated alike to all the Apostles, and depended not upon the Primacy, which is a thing natural, not supernatural in the Church, as those honours and prerogatives are, and therefore can no way proceed from the Primacy; the Monarchy, & chief power, remaining in our Saviour.  
37. For he is the Monarchical head of his Church, the essential head; Ipsum dedit caput. Omnia subiecit sub pedibus eius. 
Ephes. 1.22. Mat. 28.18.  Data est illi omnis potestas, etc. By which Monarchical power, he delegateth all his Apostles alike, and makes them governors over all his Kingdoms. They are all Capita, but ministerialias, capita secundaria, capita instrumentalia. Saint Peter had but the first place, or Primacy among them; with such pre-eminence, and prerogatives, as they yielded to that place. The Church hath not two Monarches, for than must they be eiusdem dignitatis, which is blasphemy. Peter cannot be called Vicarius, or Viceroy, or Prorex, or Promonarcha, for the delegation is alike, and equal to all: he is but the first among the Proreges; he governs not by his own Laws; but by the Law of Christ, or a general Council of the Apostles.  
38. Secondly, our Saviour is the Master-Key, the Monarchical Key, Clavis David; he alone openeth, he alone shutteth; he is the Essential Key, Clavis coeli: all the Apostles are Claves ministeriales, claves ecclesiae: the Keys were given to St Peter, but in the name of them all, and in the name of the Apostles; neither is the power of all the Keys given unto them, or unto Saint Peter, absolutely, and definitively: for the absolute and definitive power belongs only to our Saviour; but he hath promised to bind, and to lose, that is, to make good in Heaven, whatsoever they shall bind or lose ministerially on Earth, as his Substitutes, 
Clem. Epist. ad Jacob. fratrem Dom.  and Vicars. It is well noted, that Episcopi vocantur claues Ecclesiae; ut rectè dicamus & Christum coeli clavem, & Apostolos Ecclesiae claves; per quorum ministerium ad claues coeli pervenire possumus.  
39 Thirdly, our Saviour is the Monarchical Rock, or foundation of the Church, Petra, or Lapis in fundamentis Zion, 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 ministerialias, & secundaria fundamenta. Saint Peter is not the only ministerial rock, or foundation: St. Paul saith of them all, Ministri estis & unusquisque secundum quod Dominus dedit: Ego plantavi, Apollo rigavit, Dominus dat incrementum. It is absurd therefore to think, that the whole Church is supported, or vnderpropt by any of these Rocks, or foundations, which are all ministerial. Although the name of Peter be used, and termed the Rock, and the Keys given him, yet it was done figuratiuè, significatiuè, quatenus repraesentavit Ecclesiam; they be Saint Augustine's terms, Petrus quando claues accepit, 
Aug. super Psal. 108.  Ecclesiam sanctam significavit; therefore when he was called Petra, ecclesiam sanctam significavit. Again, Ecclesiae, 
Aug trac. vlt. super joh.  Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui Primatum gerebat figuratâ generalitate personam: he saith, that S. Peter in a figurative generality represented the person of all the Apostles, as being a Primate, not as a Monarch. And Saint Hierome saith; 
Hieron. l. 1. adverse. jovin.  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 Peter's Monarchy, in this equality of power and authority? You will say then, where is his Primacy, that Saint Augustine tells us of? 
Jbid.  Why Saint Hierome mentioneth it there; Though there be this equality (saith he) yet proptere à inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto Schismatis tollatur occasio; that one being constituted the Head, or Primate, there might be unity, and order in the Church, and all occasion of contention for the first place removed: seeing in every Aristocracy, or equality, or fellowship, one must be chief, or else there will be contentions, and emulations among them, and no order established.  
40. Fourthly, our Saviour is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Monarchical Shepherd; the Apostles all indifferently pastors secundarij, & ministeriales; and there is no doubt, but that our Saviour meant, when he said to Peter, 
1 Pet. 5.4.  Pasce oves meas, that Peter himself was one of those sheep, as well as the other Apostles: (for, omnes fecit oves suas, 
Aug super Jo. trac. 123.  pro quibus est omnibus passus;) and no more a Monarch-Shepheard, than the rest were: They were all sheep in respect of the Monarch-Shepheard Christ, and all Shepherds in respect of the rest of the Flock. 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, etc. Et consequenter omnibus Apostolis eandem potestatem tribuit: cuius signum est, quod omnes ex aequo & ligant, et absoluunt.  
41. But let our Saviour, 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 oves meas, ostendisse Petri potestatem fuisse supremam, et Monarchicam, etiam super alios Apostolos: But Saint Basil said, that the indefinite speech, Pasce oves meas, was consequently universal, and included all the Apostles, not as Sheep, but as Shepherds, utri creditis?  
42. But Suarez will prove, that he intends Saint Peter only, 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 novo Test. and Dist. 19 c. Ita Dominus. and 24. q. 1. c. Cum beatissimus; and c. Loquitur. and Dist. 96. But the latter usurping Popes are no competent judges in their own cause. Secondly, he would prove it by reason, and the proper reason indeed; and that is, voluntas Christi; Christ's will is, that Peter should be a Monarch: which if they can prove, we will put it into our prayers, and say, Fiat voluntas tua, and will join with them effectually for the performance of it. Thirdly, he will make it good in congruity, that he should be a Monarch: Quia oportuit, et decuit in Christi Ecclesiâ esse unitatem mysticam, et perfectissimum regimen: But that, we say, is not a Monarchy simply, but mixed with an Aristocracy, which resembles the mystical unity, and regiment in Heaven: where there is one Deity Monarchical, and yet three Persons Aristocratical, equal in power, nature, dignity, etc. and yet the Father hath Primatum ordinis, et originis, in respect of the Son, and the holy Ghost: and yet is no Monarch in respect of them, but all three are one Monarch, over all creatures. As in the Church there is unus Episcopatus, 
Vide plura.  one only Bishopric, and yet many Apostles, and many Bishops of equal power and authority; and among them one hath Primatum ordinis, because Exordium, and ordo must be ab unitate: but that one is no Monarch, in respect of his fellow-Bishops, but all jointly make one Monarch, in respect of their inferiors, the Priests, and people. And therefore Suarez conclusion is false, Instituit Ecclesiam per modum Monarchiae, & supremam potestatem uni contulit, ad quam Petrum elegi●: for we say with Saint Cyprian, and reverend antiquity, Non uni dedit, sed unitati, not to Peter, but to them all as to one person, among whom Peter was first or Primate.  
43. I could add, that our Saviour is the Arch-builder, or Monarch-builder, Aedificator primarius, essentialis: the Apostles were aedificatores primarij ministeriales, operarij, materiarij; adiutores Dei, as his Ministers and Servants: all the Apostles plant and water, Christ himself gives the increase; not Peter, who is fellow-labourer with the rest. For the power which our Saviour hath given him, or them, they have not formaliter, but ministerialiter, ut Christus per ipsos operetur. And for that reason also Christ is called the Great Gate, the essential Gate, the Apostles ostia ministerialia; and Saint Peter is not the sole Porter of heaven. 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 jerusalem, & una porta Christus, & duodecim portae Christus; quia in duodecim portis Christus.  
44. Thus we see, that omnia axiomata Christi, as St. Basil calls them; omnia nomina, vocabula, all those supernatural powers, which are given for the building of the Church, are given indifferently to all the Apostles: St. Peter hath not so much as his Primacy by them; the Apostles have them omnes ex aequo; much less do they infer, or confirm a Monarchy to him, or his successors.  
45. Fourthly, Kingdoms, and Monarchies are not got by consequents, for this is a rule in the civil 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 kind of government is without jurisdiction: for merum Imperium, and jurisdictio are two several branches of a Monarchy, 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 manned.  non per consequentiam, sed per legem nominatim dantur, they are given by express words of a Law, and are not to be challenged by any consequent.  
46. Now power, or government, Imperium, as they call it, was given nominatim, by express 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 concur in one Magistrate; but part was given to one, and part to another. 
L. inter poenas. D. Iurisdict, & relegate  As for example; the Consul had Ius gladij, not Ius relegandi: Praesides or the Precedents 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 less punishment: or, Habet ius gladij, ergo Ius proscribendi, or, multam dicendi; He hath power of the sword, therefore he hath power to banish, or proscribe, or to fine a man.  
47. Now let us consider, what this Monarch-Shepheard, this great and Monarch-Bishop our Saviour Christ jesus delegated, or imparted to his Apostles; and we shall find, that he delegated not, or commended any temporal things to them by word, or by writing: not Ius gladij, or any such power as is forenamed. 
joh. 18.36.  Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo: No, it was a supernatural Kingdom and the power he gave, and those gifts he imparted, were supernatural.  
48. For the Church is not a politic but a mystical body, distinguished (as I may say) Formally from a politic body; ordained and instituted to a diverse end, viz. to supernatural felicity: united with a diverse bond, namely the unity and bond of faith; exercising diverse and distinct actions; as those that pertain to the honour of God, and sanctifying of our souls, which cannot be done without certain power supernatural imparted to it, and the chief magistrates, by the chief Monarch supernatural.  

Cont. SVAREZ. de leg l. 4. c. 2. n. 7.  49. Which power is given by consecration of that person which is consecrated; and ever requireth, and presupposeth orders; and consists in the very ordination, and is given by it, not by any election, or deputation made by the will of man, but immediately from Christ himself, by virtue of his first institution. For our Saviour setting down the honour of a Bishop, and disposing or ordering the government of his Church (as St. Cyprian tells us) in the Gospel, saith to Peter, 
Mat. 16.18. & 19  Ego tibi dico, quia tu es Petrus; I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: Ind, 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 government of the Church comes down along to us by course of times and successions,  Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur; & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur; That the Church should be settled upon the Bishops, and all the actions of the Church should be ordered by the same governors. And the Apostles were called to higher orders than the seventy two Disciples: and that appears, because Mathias (who, according to Epiphanius, 
Epiphan. haere●, 20.  was one of the seventy two Disciples) was called from the lower order into judas 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 superior over those that were before of his own order, being only Priests. And this supernatural power seemeth to be a certain character impressed in every Bishop; and hath not joined to it any temporal jurisdiction, pertaining to the external Ecclesiastical Court, which is now used, land elsewhere derived, (as shall be showed in due place;) nor consisting of any political quality of punishment pecuniary, or corporal, to restrain men by fear: but in a Discipline Ecclesiastical, wherein men were contained either by external abstension (as it was called) that is, 
Cyprian ep. 11. ad Pompon.  abstaining from their society who refused the Discipline, by separation, or excommunication, as now we call it: or by internal moral shamefastness, which made them conformable: for what Metus doth now after jurisdiction granted to the Church, that Pudor did in the beginning, before the Church was strengthened by the civil power: but of this by the way; more shall be said in the proper place, when we speak of the Primacy.  
50. Now the power, which was given by our Saviour to his Apostles, and their successors the Bishops, etc. consisted in these, and the like things. Ligare, & soluere, with a reference to sins, which is supernatural, 
Mat. 28.  not political: habere claves, which signifies the same; to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; to teach those things, which our Saviour commanded them; Hoc facere in eius commemorationem, to administer the Sacrament of his body and blood; or if you will, Sacrificare in eius commemorationem, to offer a Sacrifice commemorative of his death, and passion: Pascere, to feed his sheep: 
Mat. 28.19.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to make Disciples of others of all nations, as Christ made them his Disciples; a word never used 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 do not think, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are synonimaes signifying both of them Docere: but that this new word not elsewhere found in Scripture, but only in this commission, seems to imply (as the words following signify, their duties of ministering the Sacraments, and preaching the Gospel) a new thing, or new succession of Officers, or Disciples, such as themselves were; and the rest of the duties pertaining to that office. This last, and the other above specified, are spiritual and supernatural powers, and are veritas certa de fide, 
Suarez de. ●eg. l. 4. c. 2. n. 7.  a truth to be believed.  
51. Wherefore seeing supernatural power only was delegated to the Apostles by their Monarch our Saviour: though supernatural power be more excellent in respect of the end, and the means, than the political; yet it is no consequent to say; They have the greater power, therefore they have the less; because in power and magistracy nothing is delegated but by express words, and commissions; as I said, it is no good argument, Habet ius gladij, ergo ius mulctam dicendi, which is less.  
52. But all the arguments, which the jesuites make, and allege for this Monarchy, are of this nature, and challenge power not by express 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 far; ergo per leges coercere; ergo est Monarcha: Again, Potest ligare; ergo vinculum inijcere; ergo leges far; ergo est Monarcha; and many the like, as we may read in Suarez, and others: but seeing all the power Saint Peter had, was delegated by our Saviour, and no Monarchy commended to him by express words, we deny their consequents, and conclude that Saint Peter was no Monarch; for Autoritas negativa in materiâ supernaturali et fidei est sufficiens. 
Jbid. c. 3. a. 16.  This supernatural power is not found in the Scriptures to be conferred on Peter; therefore Peter had no such power, no such Monarchy.  
53. In maintaining this argument, we make not the Church an Anarchy, nor the government in it without power both directive, and coercive: for it should not seem to have been well instituted by our Saviour, if he had not prescribed a proportionate power, whereby to govern it: but our Saviour's power, and that which he delegated to his Apostles, was to a spiritual and supernatural end; and the Media, which are (as it were) the objects and effects of that power, are proportionate unto that end supernatural and spiritual. The directive power is spiritual; the coercive power is spiritual; that is, it useth only the spiritual sword, Sit tibi velut ethnicus; that is, hath negative or privative power, or jurisdiction (if I may so call it) that is, of withholding the Church prayers, and Sacraments, etc. from obstinate offenders; but no positive temporal jurisdiction, or temporal external court judicial; which they hold by the favour of Kings, and the first Christian Emperors; not by any natural consequents drawn from the supernatural power, as shall be showed in due place.  
54. Fiftly, though we all acknowledge a Primacy and deny this Monarchy in Saint Peter; yet neither by Tibi dabo claves, Matth. 16. where Bellarmine saith the Primacy was promised: nor by Pasce oves me as, joh. 21. where he saith it was given: nor by any prerogative, which he calleth confirmative, can a Primacy be directly proved, much less a Monarchy; for nothing is promised in the one place, or performed in the other, or confirmed by the rest, which is not common to Peter with the rest of the Apostles.  
55. For as when God made man first of the dust of the earth, Inspiravit in eius faciem, & factus est homo in animam viventem: though he be said Inspirasse in faciem, yet he gave life to the whole body, and the soul was breathed into the whole body: so that Inspiratio illa was not made for the face only, but for the whole body; as God said, Et factus est homo in animam viventem: So where our Saviour said, 
Mat. 16.18.  Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram, etc. and Tibi dabo claves; and Quodcunque ligaveris super terram; though these words were spoken in person to Saint Peter, yet they did not only Inspirare in faciem, give power to the first or chief part, which is Peter, but reached indifferently to all the Apostles, to the whole body. For not only Peter was Petra, but all the Apostles were Petrae, (Apostoli, saith Saint Hierome, 
Hieron. ●edibiae q. 8.  Petrae vocabulum acceperunt:) or fundamenta, as I shown before: the Keys were given 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 Keys upon Saint Peter, 
Cypr. l. 5. epis. 6. ad Lapsos:  per temporum & successionum vices, Episcoporum ordinatio, & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur: & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur: Thus you see, that by this promise or power nothing is given or gotten, that may enforce so much as a Primacy.  
56. How then cometh it to pass, that the Fathers generally out of Tu es Petra; and Tibi dabo claves, and Pasce oves meas, do argue the Primacy, or Principality to be in Saint Peter? I answer; not because the Primacy was here promised, or given unto him, but because the gifts were bestowed on the Church in his name, rather than in the name of any other Apostle: as we may argue, that the face is the prime place of a man's body, (as the Proverb is, (The face is the Marketplace) because when God would inspire the whole body, it is said only, Inspiravit in faciem, when neither the face was first inspired, nor the rest of the body took life from it, but at once all the whole Man was made anima vivens, a living soul.  
57 It is a good rule, which Saint Augustine sets down, 
Aug. Confess. l. 10. c. 16.  Omnes qui legimus, nitimur hoc indagare, atque comprehendere, quod voluit ille, quem legimus. Now while every man endeavours to find out, and to comprehend in the holy Scriptures, that sense and meaning, which he intended, who wrote the book; 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, joh. 21. should affirm Saint Peter's Primacy, which is true, though our Saviour in those places intended it not? For although the Apostles themselves suspected no Primacy to be granted to S. Peter, in those words (as I have noted before) yet the Fathers (when they perceived it afterwards to have been conferred upon him; whether by our Saviour, or by the Apostles, or by both, shall be showed in due place) might very well and probably imagine, that it was in these places insinuated.  
58. So that, whereas two kind of controversies 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 proved by this Text, or no: For the matter in question, that is, Saint Peter's Primacy, we say with Saint Augustine, Quod ad Petrum propriè pertinet, naturâ unus homo erat, gratiâ unus Christianus, abundantiore gratiâ unus idemque primus Apostolus: But for the sense of those Scriptures, we say also, Quando ei dictum est, Tibi dabo claues regni coelorum; &, Quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum & in coelis etc. universam significabat Ecclesiam, which is shaken in this World with diverse temptations, etc. and yet falleth not, because it is built upon the Rock, 
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 prejudicated another) we 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 strive against him; then of his commands, or his power, and authority: and our Saviour rather published his own Deity, by occasion of Saint Peter's confession, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, 
Matth. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  then Saint Peter's principality, and superiority.  
60. For by those two promises, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram, etc. and Tibi dabo claves (though Saint Chrysostome saith more for Saint Peter, 
Chrysost. super Mat. Hom. 55.  than Bellarmine doth admit, viz. that Hîc pastorem futurae Ecclesiae constituit) yet, saith he, his duabus pollicitationibus, Christus ad al●torem de se (of himself, not of Peter) opinionem Petrum adducit, & seipsum revelando Filium Dei ostendit; He raiseth Peter to an higher opinion of his Deity, and revealing himself more, proveth evidently, that he is the Son of God. For those things which God only can give, namely, Remission of sins, and that The future Church should stand firm, and immoveable against the violence of so many floods, as should break in upon it (as Saint Peter should do against all persecutions, and Martyrdom, being Pastor, 
Chrysost. Ibid.  & Caput Ecclesiae) haec, inquam, omnia, quae solius Dei sunt, se pollicetur daturum.  
61. And in that he said thrice, Simon johannis diligis me? and upon his answer replied thrice, Pasce oves meas; as the title of Petra was not proper to him, but to all the Apostles; nor he alone had the keys, but all his fellows with him: so he alone had not the Pastor's office, for Saint Ambrose saith, Post trinam interrogationem Christi, 
Amb. Pastor.  Amas me? traditas Petro oves, & omnibus Apostolis contraditas; the Sheep were committed jointly to all the Apostles.  
62. Again, where Caietan saith, that by these three questions, Petre amas me? & Amas me plus, quàm high? our Saviour committed to Saint Peter Pontificatum, that is, the Monarchy; Saint Augustine saith better, that he prepared him to Martyrdom, as appears plainly in these words following, where he saith, Passurum te ipse praedixit, 
August. super joh. tract. 123.  qui te praedixerat negaturum. And if we stand upon a Monarchy in these words, Si diligis me, pasce oves meas; redditur negationi trinae trina confessio, ne minùs amori lingua seruiat, quàm timori. Here is no Monarchy; here is no Primacy: for saith he, Quid aliud est, si diligis me, pasce oves meas; quám si diceretur, si me deligis, non te pascere cogita, sed oves meas; sicut meas pasce, non sicut tuas: gloriam meam in eyes 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 Monarchical properties; then instituteth any Monarchy, or Primacy in this place.  
63. To conclude; it is a weak consequent, which is thus inferred: Peter loved our Saviour best, therefore he gave him the Monarchy, or Primacy. For if we should grant (which seemeth true to Saint Augustine,) that Saint Peter loved our Saviour more than the rest did; yet Saint john was beloved of our Saviour more than Saint Peter, and the rest of the Apostles. Now in worldly preferments this is a rule, Solemus praeponere dilectos diligentibus. But I think, here should be an hard choice; for if we should demand with Saint Augustine: Quis duorum sit melior, utrùm qui plus, 
August super joh. tract. ult  an qui minùs diligit Christum? no doubt, we would answer; He is the better, that love's most. Again, if we demand, Quis duorum sit melior, utrum quem minùs, an quem plus diligit Christus? we would answer again; He, no doubt is the better, whom Christ love's best. Now if a third question were proposed; who is more likely to be preferred to the Primacy, or Monarchy, Peter who loved his Lord more than john, and the rest did, and was less beloved of his Lord; or Saint john, who loved his Lord less than Saint Peter did, and yet was more beloved of his Lord and Master? I might answer with Saint Augustine in the like case; Hîc planè cunctatur responsio, & augetur quaestio: a man may sooner divise more questions, then make a good answer. But if it be questionable (as I think it is) whether Saint Peter loved our Saviour more, than St. john did; and it be granted, that our Saviour loved St. john more, than he did St. Peter: quantum ipse sapio (saith St. Augustine) as they are both alike good, who love our Saviour alike; so he is more happy that is best beloved, and more likely to be preferred to the highest dignity. But this is said only to show, how weak their arguments are, who would prove St. Peter's Monarchy, or Primacy, by these consequents of phrases; not to disannul the Primacy, which the Fathers allow him.  
64. The rest of the Prerogatives are of so small moment, to prove this Monarchy, or Primacy, that you may imagine, he means to carry it numero, non pondere authoritatum; and he professeth so much, as I have noted before. For the first prerogative, whereby Bellarmine would challenge it, is Mutatio nominis, the changing of his name, from Simon to Peter; but we say, that his name was not changed as abram's was, but another super-imposed, or superadded 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 Saviour after his resurrection; and he so styleth himself in his second Epistle. And when we answer, that this was no greater privilege, than james and john had, who were called by our Saviour Boanerges; he replies, that there was a difference between the one, and the other: for Mutavit nomen Petro (saith he) sed imposuit cognomen jacobo, & johanni: but Simons name was not changed otherwise, then were the names of james and john, but they were all three retained, and Saint Mark useth the same word at the imposition of them all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Marc. 3.17  and addeth in the same place, naming james and john, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; he imposed upon them the names of Boanerges, that is, the sons of thunder: so that this is a corruption of the Text, to say, that our Saviour changed Simons name, and not the names of james and john; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he super-imposed, or superadded names to them all. If this were a Prerogative to Peter, it was common to others; and no Primacy, much less any Monarchy can be challenged by it.  
65. If he only conclude, out of these impositions of names, as Saint Chrysostome doth, 
Chrysost. super joan. c. 1.  Deum nunquam imponere nova nomina nisi maximis de causis; we yield to that, and he gaineth nothing but that, which we confess with Saint Augustine: Petrus, jacobus, 
Aug. super Ep. ad Galat. c. 2  & johannes honorabiliores in Apostolis erant; But Saint Chrysostome seemeth to give a good and particular reason, why our Saviour Christ changed some names:  ostendat (saith he) se eundem esse, 
Chrysost. super joh. hom. 18.  qui vetus dedit testamentum: ipse est, qui nomina apte imponit; qui Abram, Abraham, Sarai Sara; & jacob Israel vocavit. And if any should challenge a principality for changing his name, it should be Saint Paul, for Saint Chrysostome saith, 
Chrysost super Act. Apost.  Paulo nomen mutatur cum ordinatione, Saulus, qui & Paulus: or else, Saint Matthew; for Abulensis saith, 
Abul. super Mat. c. 9 q. 34. & 35.  nomen Matthaei, anteqùam à Christo vocaretur, non erat Matthaeus, sed solùm Levi etc. Matthaeus autem fuit vocatus post assumptionem in Discipulum, etc. Et ita videtur esse veritas: so that our Saviour calling but six Apostles at most (for the rest followed him voluntarily of themselves) and changing or adding to four of their names, Peter can carry no Monarchy by it, nor any privilege.  
66. Another Prerogative, whereby Bellarmine challengeth principality to Peter, is this. That Saint Peter's feet were first washed by our Saviour, and then the feet of the other Apostles, which although Saint Augustine seem to affirm; 
August. super Lu●. c. 13.  yet Saint Chrysostom and Theophilact say, that he washed judas feet first, and then Peter. Origen, who is the most ancient of them saith, that Lotis omnibus Discipulis, ultimò venit ad Petrum: and so doth Cyprian in the tract De ablutione pedum (if the work 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 gives a reason, why Saint Peter refused to be washed, and not the rest. If by this Prerogative a Monarchy, or Primacy may be proved, the question is between judas and Peter for the precedency, and the greater part give the prime place of being washed to the traitor judas.  
67. All the other Prerogatives serve rather for number, then wait, in this question, and do aim but at a Primacy, which we deny not; though the adversaries do not prove it by all those Prerogatives taken together: and having been once proposed, and shown to the world, each one may say to the Cardinal, Discedam, explevi numerum, 
Virgil.  redaarque tenebris: I have made up a number, and so I have done: and here I will make an end with them; 
C. quando Provo.  because Allegans frustratoria, non auditur; such trifles, and not to the question, deserve not an answer. Yet I thought it fit to observe somewhat, that may satisfy the vulgar, which are fed with vain fancies; for unto them, 
C. l. 1. de Diuin.  Obijciuntur saepè formae, quae reàpse nullae sunt, speciem autem offerunt.  
68 Lastly, it is evident, that in this question of the Monarchio, they intent not to find out the truth, but only endeavour to maintain the government in that state, wherein they find it, though it consist only in tyranny and usurpation: and therefore they fit it not to the Gospel, or the Primative times; but strain the Scriptures and Antiquity to make it good: and so they maintain this Monarchy, Non quia divini sunt, sed quia superbi sunt, not because it stands with divinity, but because it makes for their pride: 
August. Con. l. 12. c. 25.  Nec noverunt (curant) Christi sententiam, sed amant suam, non quia vera est, sed quia sua est; they care not what our Saviour instituted, or the Church practised, but they love their own Monarchy, not because it is lawful, but because they possess it; and like usurpers forbear no colour, or pretext to uphold their possession.  
69. Not a Priest, or jesuite, that deals in this cause, but he doth plausum petere praestigiae, seek commendations by a new jugling-tricke, by a counterfeit distinction, or falsified authority, to deceive his Readers. They say, that Saint Peter's Monarchy is concluded in those words; Tibi dabo claves, etc. We answer; Those words were not spoke to Peter only, but to all the Apostles, and the whole Church, and so enforce not this Monarchical prerogative: We prove this out of Saint Augustine, 
Aug. super joh. 12. Hom 50.  and they have it themselves in the Canon Law, 24. q. 1. c. Quodcunque where Saint Augustine saith, that Quodcunque ligaveris, etc. was not spoken to Peter only, but to the Church; for Peter, when he received the Keys, Ecclesiam sanctam significavit. 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 express his meaning. And by these absurd glosses they corrupt their own Canons.  
70. When we prove, that they were not given to Saint Peter propter Ecclesiam, for the Church, but to the Church immediately; because all the powers, which are given to Saint Peter, were bestowed upon all the Apostles, immediatè a Christo, to be held immediately of Christ, and not of Saint Peter: they confess, that they were given to all the Apostles immediately from Christ, 
Suarez de Leg. l. 4. c. 3. n. 4.  sed Petro diverso modo, & magis perfecto; but there being found no one word of proof, either in the Scriptures, or Antiquity, Videte si responsio illa, 
Aug. Ps. 140.  non dementia nominanda est: when it is evident, that Potestas clavium, ligare, soluere, pascere, hoc facere in mei commemorationem; Ire in universum mundum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, baptizare in nomine Patris, & Filij, et Spiritus sancti, etc. were given to all the Apostles in an Arithmetical proportion, and not Geometrical.  
71. If this will not serve, they will tell you, Petro datas esse claues ut capiti, caeteris ut membris. If we answer, that Saint Peter was not then the Head, when the Keys were given, but was chosen afterwards by the consent of the Apostles, when our Saviour was ascended, as their Anacletus testifies; who saith, Apostolos alioqui pares in honore et potestate, 
Dist. 21. c. in novo.  Petrum Principem suum esse volnisse. Suarez will gloss it, and tell you, 
Suar. de Leg. l. 4. c. 3.  that Illud verbum (Voluere) non de voluntate antecedente, sive eligente; sed de voluntate consequent, et acceptante, intelligendum esse: that phrase (would have him their chief, or Prince,) was to be understood not of the electing him, but of the consenting to his election made by our Saviour. 
Cic.  Nolite existimare, iudices, non unam et eandem omnibus in locis esse fraudatorum, et inficiatorum impudentiam: they hope, that any mist of an obscure distinction will blear the eyes of their partial Readers. The Apostles (saith Anacletus) being alioqui pares in honore et potestate, voluerunt Petrum esse Principem suum. If when the Apostles were equal in honour and power, they would have Peter their Head, or Primate, that will of theirs was antecedens, et eligens: for had he been chosen before by our Saviour, and so the will consequent, and consentient, as he supposeth; than it could not have been said, Apostoli pares in honore et potestate voluerunt, etc. but Apostoli impares in honore et potestate, voluerunt; for after Saint Peter's preferment to this honour by our Saviour's appointment (if any such were) there was no imparity in honour and power between him and his fellow-Apostles: so that Apostoli, etc. voluerunt Petrum esse Principem suum; implieth their election of Saint Peter to the Primacy, and not our Saviour's appointment of him.  
72. Secondly, if we answer, that all the Apostles were capita, as well as Peter; and Peter a member as much as they; and though he had the Primacy, and so might be caput in respect of them, yet partakes equally those gifts, which were equally given to them all, though somewhat particular belong to the Primacy: as the head in the body partakes indifferently that power or sense of feeling, which is given to the whole body, though it have other senses proper to itself: They will reply; though they were given 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 given 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 prove this to be false, and show, that the power of the rest of the Apostles was not legantine to last for their lives only without delegation; but ordinary to them, and their successors, as Saint Peter was: (for Saint john, and Saint Paul, and the other Apostles, ordained many Bishops, who received from them both potestatem ordinis, and iurisdictionis, and legislationis, as they term them falsely, as will appear in fit place:) They answer; that for orders, or ordination, all the Bishops in the World then had the power, and authority, and succession, mediâ autoritate Petri, mediatè, or immediatè: 
Suarez Ibid. n. 25.  for either Saint Peter made them Bishops, or else the Apostles, who were consecrated by Saint Peter, and made Bishops by him.  
74. If you reply, that our Saviour made both Saint Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, Bishops immediately himself, 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 Saviour, but by Saint Peter: and among many vanities (not fit for this brevity) he doth instance in Saint james the younger, who was made Bishop of jerusalem by Saint Peter and the other Apostles; not immediately by Christ: and proveth it by three authorities, viz. of Anacletus, 
Anacl. Epist. 2. Euseb. Eccles. hist. l. 2. c 1. Hieron. de viris illus. in jacobum.  of Clem. Alexand, and of Saint Hierome. But this is first a fallacy; for our question is of the Apostles, as they were Bishops, and had the whole World for each man's Territory; Euntes docete omnes gentes, which was our Saviour's institution; not as they or other were limited to peculiar Cities, or Diocese, as Saint james was here to the Church of jerusalem; which is an Ecclesiastical, or Apostolical constitution. And the better to conceal this fraud from his Reader, he allegeth the testimony of Clement out of Eusebius, but falsifieth it, as if Clement should say, jacobum a Petro, jacobo, & johanne ordinatum Episcopum; that james was ordained a Bishop by them, and not by our Saviour: whereas Eusebius hath it, jacobum a Petro, jacobo, et johanne ordinatum Episcopum Hierosolymarum, he was made by them the Bishop of jerusalem, of that Province, or Diocese; whereas before he was made a Bishop at large, as the other were; not tied to one place. And so all this disputation, definite in falsum mulier formosà supernè; ends in a fallacy and falsification, though it pretend to the World a fair, but meretricious forehead of truth.  
75. Secondly, if you urge, that the other Apostles, Saint Paul and Saint john, etc. had potestatem iurisdictionis, wheresoever they went, et potestatem ad ferendas leges, obligantes universam Ecclesiam, as much as Saint Peter, as appears by antiquity: 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 eyes provincijs, in quibus praedicabant, et posteà non nisi sciente & consentiente Petro, ad totam Ecclesiam diminasse. If a proof be demanded of this assertion, or some example, or authority 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 equal power with him, and that ordinary: but Peter (saith he) was a Monarch; which we deny; and it is petitio principij, and a foul blemish to a fair Disputant.  
76. Thirdly, if you affirm, that the other Apostles, Saint Paul and Saint john, etc. gave unto others, as they passed along, potestatem ordinis, to baptise, to administer the Eucharist, etc. They will tell you out of their Anacletus, 
Epist. 1. Bellar. de Pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 23.  that In novo Testamento post Christum, a Petro cepit sacerdotalis ordo; & quòd Christus suis manibus solum Petrum baptizavit: also that Peter pabtized Andrew, james and john; and they the other Apostles: and that this is a special Prerogative to prove Peter's Primacy: and is affirmed by Euodius, (Bishop of Antioch, next after Saint Peter) in an Epistle of his entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Lumen, 
Niceph. l. 2. c. 3. Baron. Tom. 1. ano 71. n. 13.  and is cited by Nicephorus. But this is some counterfeit stuff, and Baronius saith of it, Hanc Epistolam ab antiquioribus nec citatam, neque aliter cognitam esse reperimus: We find not this Epistle alleged by any of the ancients; neither do we know, that any such is extant, but by the report of Nicephorus, who lived almost 1300. years after him. Now if we answer directly out of the Scriptures; jesus non baptizabat ipse, 
john 4. Gretz. Defen. Bellar. te. 1. p. 616  sed Discipuli eius; Gretzer will reply confidently, Baptizabat, sed non ordinariè baptizabat: admit that he baptised but once, why might he not baptise all the Apostles at that time with Saint Peter, as at one and the same time he washed the feet of all his Apostles.  
77. But Saint Augustine distinguisheth better, acknowledging, that Saint john saith, 
John 3.  jesum venisse in judeam, & ibi baptizasse: and in another place, 
john 4.  jesum non baptizasse, sed Discipulos eius: which seeming contradiction he salueth not with ordinariè, & non ordinariè, as Gretzer doth; 
Aug. super joh. tract. 15. Aug. Epist. 108.  but saith Christus baptizavit, & non baptizavit: baptizavit, quia ipse mundavit; non baptizavit, quia non ipse tingebat: or else thus: Baptizabat Christus praesentià maiestatis, non autem baptizavit manibus suis. And of this opinion, that our Saviour baptised none with his own hands, is Saint Chrisostome Homil. 28. sup. johan: & Hom. 3. sup. Act Apost: whom Theophilact follows, and jansen. sup. 4. johan: and Melchior Canus, l. 8. c. 5. and Rupertus.  
78. For my own part, I am ready to follow a middle course, between these extremes, and neither believe, that our Saviour baptised the rest of the Apostles, and not Saint Peter, which was the opinion of a certain Novatian, 
August. Epist. 108.  as you may read in Saint Augustine; nor yet that he baptised Peter only, and not the other Apostles, which is Bellarmine's assertion out of a counterfeit Euodius; both alike absurd: neither yet that he baptised not any at all, which hath reverend Authors; but that all the Apostles were baptised by him.  
79. For in Saint Augustine's time it was not a question, whether the Apostles were baptised or no, (as Baronius falsely affirms) neither ought it to be a question (saith he) quando quisque 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 than was, whether the Apostles were baptised with the baptism of john, or with the baptism of Christ. S. Augustine saith, many were of opinion that the Apostles were baptised with the baptism of john: but he thought it magis credibile, that they were baptised with the baptism of Christ; and he gives his reason for it. 
Aug. Epist. 108.  Neque enim (saith he) ministerio baptizandi defuit, ut haberet baptizatos seruos, per quos caeteros baptizaret, (he saith not, Baptizatum Petrum, per quem caeteros baptizaret) quia non defuit memorabilis illius humilitatis ministerio, quando eis lavit pedes, etc. So that we cannot reconcile these Scriptures by distinguishing Baptizabat, sed non ordinariè, ergo Petrum solum; but Distingue tempora, & reconciliabis: he baptised his Apostles first, joh. 3. and after that it is said joh. 4. as Saint Augustine notes, jesus non baptizabat, sed Discipuli eius.  
80. There is a notable place in Saint Cyprians Book De unitate Ecclesiae, to prove the equality of the other Apostles with Saint Peter, though the Primacy were in him: if you allege this to them, and say, Hoc erant utique & 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 understood formaliter, ceu quantum ad dignitatem Apostolicam, et eam jurisdictionem in universum orbem, quae praecisè ex vi illius dignitatis data est: yet, saith he, excelluit Petrus in Pontificiâ dignitate. But if by the excellency of his pontificality he understand a Monarchy, as their use is; it is an absurd begging of the question: if he mean a Primacy only, the distinction is idle; for not priority, but superiority takes away parity.  
81. It is scarce credible, how they have corrupted this discourse of Saint Cyprian, not only by these vain glosses, but by adding to it, and detracting from it, to erect this Monarchy, which is there demolished. To these words alleged by Saint Cyprian, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam; they have falsely added, super unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam; and omit two or three lines, that those words might fit the better. This I think, was begun by the late corrupters of the Canon Law, and so it is found in all, or most editions, since the year 1540 for the Copies printed then, & before 1525. acknowledge no such words: this you find in the Decrees 24. q. 1. c. Loquitur, if you compare these editions.  
82. From hence it seemeth to have crept into the original Author himself; and because these words favour their Monarchy, they choose rather to corrupt the Author by the false Canon, then correct the Canon by the true Author: for the Cyprian, which I use, was printed at Paris 1564. and hath no such words. But if you consult some later editions, as also that of justus Caluinus, alias, justus 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 find in his second book of Prescriptions against heresies (which is this book of Saint Cyprian De unitate Ecclesiae) at the third Chapter, not only those words added out of the corrupted Canon Law, Super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam; but in another place not fare off, unam constituit cathedram, and some other additions; which corruptions are not found in the Canon Law: whereby you may perceive, they are so fare from amending that which is amiss, that they do proficere in petus, and daily add more corruptions to the writings of the ancient Fathers to extol, and magnify Saint Peter's Monarchy.  
83. Thus, where Arnobius saith upon Psal. 106. Praedicavit Petrus baptismum Christi, in quo in which baptism, or in which jesus Christi, universa flumina in deserto huius mundi benedicuntur usque hodiè à Petro; all the Rivers in the world are blessed and hallowed, from the time of Saint Peter to this present day: Stapleton reads most corruptly thus, and definitively of Saint Peter; Vniversa flumina in deserto huius soeculi benedicuntur usque hodie à Petro, all the Rivers in the world are blessed, and hallowed by Saint Peter, even unto this day; ascribing that which is due to our Saviour and his baptism, to Saint Peter and his baptism; belike, because he holds with Bellarmine that all Christian baptism proceeds from Saint Peter to the other Apostles, and so to the whole Church for ever.  
84. Again, where Arnobius saith in the same place, Ipse posuit exitus aquarum in sitim, ita ut qui exierit for as ab Ecclesia Petri, siti pereat: which is, either, Christus posuit exitus aquarum in sitim; Christ by his preaching, gave many floods of heavenly waters, to quench the desire of thirsty souls: or if you will; Peter by his preaching, as he passed along, sent out many floods of heavenly water into the world, &c (which is true also of the rest of the Apostles:) Stapleton makes him to say for Peter's greater honour above 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 indeed the water of life, which whosoever drinketh of, should thirst no more. Surely though our Saviour, 
Tertul. l. 4. cont. Marci. c. 3.  (as Tertullian saith) affectavit charissimo Discipulorum, de figuris suis, nomen peculiariter communicare, and termed him a rock, as our Saviour was called figuratively; yet he never imparted to him his Essentials, to be the water of life, that exitus aquarum, which should run along to everlasting salvation.  
85. But of these vain glosses and impious corruptions of the Fathers and Scriptures, to maintain this Monarchy facto finem, ubi non est finis. That, 
Ber.  which hath been said at diverse times (I hope) will suffice to show, that Saint Peter had no Monarchical power over the rest of the Apostles, who in honour, power, and authority were equal to him; and that all the reasons they allege for it, are false and fallacious, and but crafty shifts, and byways, to deceive their Readers, and lead them to error.  
86. It will perchance scarce seem credible unto their followers, that so many men of learning, and professors of Religion as are to be found in so many Colleges of jesuites, (to say nothing of other orders, and Religions) should consent to betray so evident a cause with falsifying, forgery, and fallacious sophistry, 
Cic. l. 3. de Natu. Deorum.  seeing, Vitiorum sine ullâ ratione graue ipsius conscientiae pondus est. If they esteemed not their Christianity, yet the very conscience of these sins should be an heavy burden to them. No question, their number, their learning, their profession, their outward show of holiness, and Religion, their unanimous consent in this gross error, carry captive many wellmeaning 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 ment sit? Who would think the society to be so desperately wicked, that (I say) not one jesuite among ten, but not in ten Colleges of jesuites, one should have a sound heart to acknowledge that truth, which with so manifold glosses they labour to conceal? for those multi tramites, those bypaths, which they use, show, that it is via mendax, 
Lactan.  a deceitful lying way, which they walk in; and that they tread it of purpose to lead men to error, nay ad occasum, to their utter destruction. But they have their reward; the same which Lactantius allotted the Philosophers which opposed Christianity; 
Lactan. l. 5. c. 2.  when he saith, Quisquis veritatis, contra quam perorat, infirmare voluerit rationem, ineptus, vanus, ridiculus apparebit.  
88 I hope, I shall not need in this place to use his exhortation to our younger 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 use it? Many of us have been carried headlong with as slender reasons, and as gross fallacies and corruptions, to vilify and confound the ancient Hierarchy of the Church, as those are, with which the Papists are moved to maintain and dignify their usurped Monarchy: and it is to be thought, that had their education been thereafter, they would have showed themselves as prompt and ready to uphold the Monarchy, as they be forward and resolute to oppugn the Hierarchy.  
89. For the Devil, who is praecursor viae stultitiae, the chief guide in the bypaths of error and folly, cuius vis & potestas omnis in fallendo est, whose chief 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 Pope's Monarchy, as in maintaining the Puritans Democracie, or oppugning our Hierarchy.  
90. Wherefore good counsel is not amiss in this place, to take heed of these frauds, not rashly to give credit to the polemical writings, but to stand to the truth of our own profession, and to use our best wit and industry to discover their fallacies; for Inter ingenium & diligentiam perpaulùm loci reliquum est arti; or fraudi: Use your wits, and diligence; 
Cic. de orat. l 2  and their frauds will easily appear.  
91. Neither are you to wonder, or much to be moved, that so sleight and weak glosses should captivated so many with a false conceit, and settled imagination of this Monarchy, so that they should refuse the oath of Supremacy to their true Monarch; nay, even the natural oath of Allegiance to their Liege-Lords and Sovereigns, even in their temporalties, with hazard of liberty, life, and living: for you know, that there is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ignorantia purae negationis, cum quis simpliciter alicuius rei cognitione destitutus est, such as Children, and mere rustics are subject to, and such as follow and maintain a custom in error; who are uncapable of all conclusions of arts, and other faculties: but there is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Arist.  ignorantia pravae dispositionis, cum quis falso argumento deceptus, falsam sententiam animo complectitur, and so persuadeth himself to know that, which he knows not, or not altogether as he ought to know it.  
92. Now this ignorance pravae dispositionis, which is common to many Students, is the mother of the first of those three kinds 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, putaverit; as if a man should believe, that Radamanthus heard, and determined causes in Hell, which concerned the dead, because Virgil saith, 
Gnossius haec Radamantus habet durissima regna,  

Aeneid. 6.  Castigatque auditque dolos;  which is most false, and Virgil himself never believed it: but used poetical fictions to teach, and delight his Readers. For I assure myself by most evident proofs of so many sleights, and shifts, and falsifycations, and contradictions, and all manner of fallacious dealings used by heretics, and false teachers of the Primitive times, and imitated by Bellarmine, that he believes no more, that the Pope is the Monarch of the Church, than Virgil thought, that Radamanthus was the Lord chiefe-Iustice in Hell.  
93. I take not upon me herein to censure his learning, which I admire; for ubi benè, nemo doctiùs; as also ubi malè, nemo fallacius; the former excellency is to be found in his writings against the Anabaptists, Sectaries, & schismatics of these times, but especially against the Arians, and Antitrinitarians, in his books De Christo; but this that I speak, is to note his dishonesty, & symbolising with those false Apostles in all those sleights, which St. Paul notes to be used in his time to seduce the simple: and they, that through weakness believe such teachers, fall into two errors, 
Aug. Ibid.  as Saint Augustine notes, Quòd & rem non credendam credunt: neque id putandus est credidisse ille, quem legunt: first they believe that which is false; and secondly, they falsely imagine, that their teachers believe it.  
94. I speak all this to confirm you in that truth which you profess; not that I think any here present tainted, or infected with this error: for as Saint Augustine sometimes said, beholding his Auditory, 
Aug. in Joh. tract. 39  as I do you: Quidam fortasse sunt in istâ multitudine Arriani, non audeo suspicari esse Sabellianos: So there may peradventure be present in this Auditory certain Puritans, or Precisians; I do not believe there is any Papist: Hoeresis, ista (as Saint Augustine said of the Sabellians) nimis antiqua est, & paulatìm eviscerata; Popery in this place (blessed be God) is antiquated, & by little & little in process of time eviscerated, unboweled, and the heart of it broken: Arrianorum autem (as he saith) videtur habere aliquam motionem, quasi cadaveris putrescentis, aut certè ut multum, quasi hominis animam agentis, The Puritan error seemeth to have but little motion in the elder sort, so much as may be in a putrifying carcase; or at the most, 
Cic.  as in a man giving up 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 delivered from that error, as others have been; and were informed, that they also hold this first kind of error, that Saint Augustine mentions, and I have observed in the Papists: Id quod fatsum est, ver●m putant; cum aliud, qui scripserunt, putaverint: they hold those positions, which are absurdly false, and destructive, of that form of government which our Saviour left to his Church, by one extremity of the Democracie; as the Papists do in the other extremity of a Monarchy: and yet their leaders and guides, and corrupters, aliud, quàm scripserunt, putant, believe not, as they writ, and instruct others: but the very opposite part, which they seem to oppose, as appeareth both by this their ambitious encroachment upon the Church's honour; which none affect more preposterously, or abuse more corruptly: as also by their fraudulent manner of writing; for in some of their books are found mille testimonia, 
Vincent. Lirin c. 37.  mille exempla, mille autoritates, de lege, de Psalmis, de Apostolis, de Prophetis, but yet interpreted tam novo, tam malo more, that you may be assured, that they were racked, and strained to this purpose, even to contradict that truth, that Hierarchy, which their consciences acknowledged; as you may observe (to omit others) in Parker's schismatical books of the Cross, and the Church government; where you may observe more Scriptures, and authorities of Fathers, and Counsels voluntarily abused to overthrew that ancient Christian cer●monie of the Cross in Baptism, and the Church's Hierarchy; then can be found in Bellarmine to maintain his false usurped Monarchy.  
95. Both these extremities know the truth, which they oppose; and though they be daily convinced, yet pro animositate suae perversitatis (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 Devil's triumph above measure, dum errores suos humanis erroribus (frauds suas humanis fraudibus) pascunt. 
Aug. de Catechiz. rudibus. c. 19   
96. But let us speak nothing but the truth in these, and the like questions; let us hear nothing but that truth which our Saviour delivered, who himself prescribed the true form of government in his Church. Out of his mouth we have learned him, who is the truth; out of his mouth we have known his Church, which is partaker of his truth; from his word interpreted by his Church we have learned the true Church government, which he instituted, and which we entertain, and in which we live: and if we make ourselves not unworthy of the continuance of so great a blessing, shall by God's good favour remain in the same to the world's end. Grant this Lord jesus, 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 ever and ever, AMEN.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 7. line 25. for Monarchium read 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 laws.  
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.