in Adam c. I therefore ô my prayse my life and God of my hart laying aside for a season her good workes for which I rejoycing doe giue thee thankes doe nowe pray vnto thee for the sinnes of my Mother heare me I beseech thee through the salue of our woundes that hanged vpon the tree and nowe sitting at thy right hand doth plead for vs. I knowe that shee did many workes of mercy and from her hart forgaue all them that trespassed against her doe thou ô Lord also forgiue her her trespasses if shee committed any after baptisme Pardon her pardon her ô Lord I beseech thee and enter not into judgement with her let thy mercy surpasse thy judgements because thy wordes are true and thou hast promised mercy to the mercifull c. Could that most vvorthy Doctor more directly crosse Caluins false relation of his coldnesse in this matter or in better manner cleare himselfe from his spitefull slaunders Caluin blushed not to say that S. Augustine out of passion prayed for his mother but he himselfe relateth howe he did it some yeares after her death of setled judgement hauing his hart cured from humane affection And thus I end this question of Purgatory OF THE SVPREMACY IN CAVSES ECCLESIASTICAL OVR CONSENT M. PERKINS Page 283. TOuching the point of Supremacy Ecclesiasticall I will set downe howe neare we may come vnto the Roman Church in two conclusions The first conclusion For the founding of the primitiue Church the Ministery of the word was distinguished by degrees not only of order but also of power and Peter was called to the highest degree for Apostles were aboue Euangelists and Euangelists aboue Pastors and teachers nowe Peter was an Apostle and so aboue all Euangelists and Pastors howsoeuer he were not aboue other Apostles The second conclusion Among the 12. Apostes Peter had a three-fold priuiledge or prerogatiue first of authority I meane a preheminence in regard of estimation whereby he was in reuerence aboue the rest of the twelue Secondly of primacy because he was the first named as the fore-man of the quest Thirdly of principality in regard of measure of grace wherein he excelled the rest of the twelue but Paul excelled Peter euery way in learning zeale and vnderstanding as farre as Peter excelled the rest ANNOTATION MAster PERKINS as his manner is at the first vvould seeme to approch somewhat neare vnto the Catholike doctrine and therefore giueth as braue wordes for S. Peters prerogatiues as we doe to wit That he surpassed the other Apostles both in authority primacy and principality but pâ—â—â—ently after his old fashion he watereth his former wordes with such cold glosses that they shrinke in exceedingly for all Peters priuiledges doe extend no further then that he excelled the rest in priuate grace of learning zeale and vnderstanding and was therefore somewhat more esteemed then the rest and named first so that with M. PER. a great mill-post is quickly thwited as they say into a pudding pricke Againe all this is besides the purpose for the question is not vvhich of the Apostles excelled in those priuate gifts of vnderstanding zeale and piety for it is not vnlikely hat S. Iohn the Euangelist who sucked diuine mysteries out of our Sauiours breast was not inferior to either S. Peter or S. Paul in these spirituall graces of heauenly knowledge and charity but vve leauing these secretes vnto him vvho is the judge of the hart and of his inward gifts doe affirme S. Peter to haue beene aduanced aboue all the rest of the Apostles in the externall gouernement of Christes Church and the Bishops of Rome his successors to inherite the same supremacy THE DIFFERENCE by M. PERKINS THe Church of Rome giueth to Peter a supremacy vnder Christ aboue all persons and causes this standeth in a power to determine which bookes of Scripture be Canonicall and what is the true sence of any doubtfull place of them and for this purpose to call and assemble generall Councels and to confirme the decrees of them and by these meanes to decide all controuersiâ—â— about matter of faith Besides he can excommunicate any Christian be he King or Kaesar if they by obstinate withstanding Gods lawes or the decrees of holy Church shal justly deserue it Moreouer to him it doth belong to make Ecclesiasticall Canons and lawes for the due discipline and ordering of matters of the Church which doe binde in conscience Finally to confirme the election of Bishops and to decide all such greater controuersies as by appeale are brought vnto him from any part of Christendome These indeede be the chiefest points of the Popes supremacy as for that of pardoning of sinnes it is no proper part of his primacy but common vnto all not only to Bishops but also to Priests We saith M. PERKINS hold that neyther Peter nor any Bishop of Rome had or hath any such supremacy ouer the Catholike Church but that all supremacy vnder Christ is appertaining to Kinges and Princes with him in their Dominions And that our doctrine is good and theirs false I will make manifest by sundry reasons First Christ must be considered as he was a King two wayes first as he is God so is he King ouer al by right of creation and so as God hath deputies on earth to gouerne the world namely Kings and Princes Secondly he is King by right of redemption ouer the whole Church which he hath redeemed with his pretious bloud and so as mediatour and redeemer he hath no fellowe nor deputy for no creature is capable of this office to doe in the roome and stead of Christ that which himselfe doth because euery worke of the mediatour must arise from the effectes of two natures concurring in one action namely the God-head and Man-hood Againe Christes Priest-hood cannot passe from his person to any other whence it followeth that neyther his Kingly nor his Propheticall he vvould haue said Priestly office can passe from him to any creature Nay it is needlesse for Christ to haue a deputy considering that a deputy only serueth to supply the absence of the principall whereas Christ is alwayes present by his word and spirit it may be said that the Ministers in the worke of the ministery are Christes deputies I answere that they are no deputies but only actiue instruments because they doe only vtter the word but it is Christ that worketh in the hart In like manner in excommunication it is Christ that cutteth that excommunicate person from the Kingdome of heauen and the Church doth only declare this by cutting him off from the rest of Christes people vntill he repent so that in all Ecclesiasticall actions Christ hath no deputies but only instruments the whole action being personall in respect of Christ. Is not this trowe you a prety peece of an argument but we must beare with the length of it because it alone will serue as M. PER. opineth to ouerthrowe many points of Popery let it be therefore wel
commandements Besides S. Gregory did dispatch much businesse in and about Rome for the Emperour in his absence and so might vvrite that he had faithfully discharged the trust that the Emperour reposed in him yet in the very Epistle whence Caluin piketh some like wordes Lib. 4. epist 31. He doth admonish the Emperour that he ought to doe reuerence to Priests and putteth him in minde of Constantine the great who would not presume to judge of Bishops causes albeit the Bishops themselues requested and desired him so to doe And thus much in answere to that which is objected out of S. Gregory nowe if you desire to see vvhat this holy Bishops opinion vvas concerning the Supremacy of the Sea of Rome reade the 72. Epistle of his first booke vvhere he commandeth That if any out of Numidia the remotest part of Afrike desired to come vnto the Apostolike Sea of Rome that they should be permitted And in the 37. of his second booke doth signifie That all the foure Patriarkes might appeale vnto his court of Rome and could not afterward remoue the case from thence without great scandall and contumacy And in the 7. booke epist 63. doth in most expresse tearmes declare That without all doubt the Patriarke of Constantinople was subject vnto the Sea Apostolike And in the 64. addeth That all Bishops are subject vnto it saying For in that he saith himselfe to be subject to this Sea if any fault be found in Bishops I knowe not what Bishop is not subject to it And further l. 4. epist 52. It is euident vnto all that know the Gospel that by our Lordes voyce the chardge of the whole Church was committed vnto the most blessed and Prince of all the Apostles S. Peter And in his exposition of the fourth penitentiall Psalme affirmeth The Church of Rome to be head of all Churches And l. 14. Moral c 19. teacheth That Priests not Princes are the chiefe members of the Church And lib. 5. epist 25. speaking of the Emperour Maurice saith I knowe the most pious Princes to line discipline to keepe order to reuerence the Canons of the Church and not to intrude themselues into the businesse of Priests This may suffice to assure him that cannot reade S. Gregories vvorkes of his opinion in this matter and a hundreth times more may he finde that wil take the paines to peruse that his worke of Epistles called registrum By this may be answered that vvhich M. PER. citeth out of Pope Leo 4. that liued as he saith two hundreth yeares after Gregory That he professed obedience vnto his imperiall commandements to be but an vsuall Italian phrase And vvith what congruity he citeth one of them to professe obedience of curtefie to the Emperour whome they account to haue beene no better then Antichrist in his full pride and to haue acknowledged no other man for his head yea to haue extolled himselfe aboue God as they blaspheme I leaue it to the consideration of the wise Hitherto in answere of M. PERKINS objection against the Popes supremacy It followed in due order that hauing disputed against that he should haue confirmed his owne opinion for the supremacy of Kings Princes for it doth not followe necessarily that if the Pope be not head of the Church that then the King is for Patriarkes or Primates may be in the seuerall Prouinces or else the graue learned Senate of consistoriall Ministers and rude artificers called forsooth Elders of the congregation But M. PER. towardes the end of his booke waxeth slouthfull and hath omitted also to propose any arguments in our behalf yea he doth not propose one reason in proofe of his owne position Nay vvhich is most reproueable he doth in his owne arguments made against the Popes supremacy vtterly subuert the Kinges supremacy as you haue heard already in his first and fourth reasons To vvhich I will adde a third gathered out of him in an hundred places Nothing is to be beleeued as necessary to saluation that is not written in the word of God but it is not written any where in the new Testament that our Sauiour Christ committed the gouernement of his Church vnto Kings or temporal Princes therefore no such thing is to be beleeued or taught by any Christian There is so little said in fauour of their Supremacies in holy Scripture that M. PER. held it good policy not to goe about the probation of it Some are so simple as to alleage that of the Apostle S. Paul in proofe of it Rom. 13. Let euery soule he subject to higher powers but it falleth many feadomes to short of it for that sentence may be as wel applied to spirituall as to temporall gouernours Againe if he speake of temporall Magistrates most assured it is that he meant nothing lesse then to counsaile the Christians Romans to obey their Emperors who were then Pagans and persecutors in matter of religion The same answere will serue for their other text out of S. Peter 1. Pet. c. 2. vers 14. vvho biddeth Christians obey the King as the more excellent More excellent then whome vvhat then Priests and Bishops nothing lesse but more excellent then their Dukes Captaines and such like officers vnder them as it followeth in the text of which sort very fewe in S. Peters dayes were members of the Church and much lesse supreme heades in cases Ecclesiasticall so that there is no vvarrant in all the newe Testament for Kinges supremacy in matters of religion and as little is there in the old as shall be examined in due place vvherefore not to be beleeued of any Protestant And in very equity and true naturall light how is it likely that temporall Princes both slenderly studyed in matter of Diuinity and nothing practised in the manner of Ecclesiastical gouernement should be chosen as fittest persons to decide all doubtes in Diuinity and to order and determine all controuersie in Church gouernement or shall we thinke that our Sauiour had such a simple fore-sight or slender care of his Church as to commit it specially to their chardge vvho vvere both least able and most vnlikely to looke well vnto it Women also and children may be lawfull Kinges but to make them supreme Gouernours of causes Ecclesiasticall vvherein children cannot and vvomen may not speake is most ridiculous And if all other proofes fayled the very experience of our age were sufficient to perswade any reasonable man that it is most absurd to be ruled by temporall Princes in matters of religion for it would followe of it necessarily that a Christian were bound to conforme his conscience to the Kinges lawes and to embrace that religion which the King commandeth him because he is bound to obey his superior appointed by God And consequently my father for example who liued in King Henryes the eight King Edwardes Queene Maryes and Queene Elizabeths daies should haue changed his religion foure times in his life and that vvith a very good conscience because he
other shall come in his owne name him you receiue that is Antichrist but the Iewes haue not yet receiued the Bishop of Rome for their Messias Nay they take the Pope for the greatest enemy of their religion in the world and like much better of all them vvho vvith-drawe themselues from society in religion with him Vers 9. Finally it is there said that Christ with the spirit of his owne mouth shall kill that man with the manifestation of his aduene or comming whence the learned interpreters gather first that Antichrist shall be punished with a very extraordinary and exemplare death which hath not hapned to any of these Popes Secondly that Antichrist is to tyranize only some fewe yeares before the latter comming of Christ to judgement which cannot stand with the Protestants computation of Antichrists raigne which they drawe nine hundreth yeares in length already and yet are vncertayne howe much remayneth behind By this I hope you see howe well you may trust M. PER. on his word another time who blushed not to affirme all the circumstances of the man of sinne related in that Chapter to agree most fitly vnto the Pope of Rome when as not one sentence there penned by the Apostle doth touch him any whit at all but are only by the wresting of his enemies violently torne and cast vpon him Nowe to M. PERKINS last reason which is taken from the testimony of the auncient Church Cyprian saith De simpl Praelator Doubtlesse the same were the rest of the Apostles that Peter was indued with equall fellowship both of honour and power but a beginning is made of vnity that the Church may appeare to be one Answere Doubtlesse here is a prety peece of cosinage for the words are strooken out vvhich vvould haue made all playne against the Protestants for S. Cyprian there saith that the beginning proceedeth from one and the primacy is giuen to Peter that the Church may appeare to be one So that he allowing all the Apostles to be equall in honour being all of the same calling and power to preach the Gospell to all nations yet affirmeth the Supremacy to haue beene giuen vnto S. Peter that by that vnity of one head the Church might be kept perpetually in vnity of one faith and vniformity of religion Note howe his owne vvitnesse doth giue playne euidence against him Gregory saith If one be called vniuersall Bishop In regist lib. 6. epist 118. the vniuersall Church goeth to decay And cap. 144. I say boldly that whosoeuer calleth or desireth to call himselfe vniuersall Priest in his pride he is a fore-runner of Antichrist And lib. 7. cap. 30. Behold in the preface of your Epistle a proude title calling me vniuersall Pope Answere I could vvish that the cause might be determined by that blessed Bishop S. Gregories sentence it were then already gayned on our side for in those bookes of his Epistles he doth almost nothing else but declare the Popes Supremacy in ordering of all Ecclesiasticall matters and that ouer all Countries but whence the Bee sucketh hony thence also the Spider draweth some poyson They regard not what or how much he vvriteth there in fauour of the Supremacy but they thinke to haue some aduantage for their cause out of that vvhich he writeth against the name of vniuersall Bishop or Priest but they are miserably deceiued for one may very well be supreme head of the Church and yet not vniuersall Bishop as S. Gregory there taketh that word For he is only an vniuersall Bishop after S. Gregory who is Bishop in euery Diocesse of the vniuersall Church other Bishops being but his Suffraganes or Deputies such an vniuersall Bishop is not the Pope for excepting the speciall points of his prerogatiues he is not to intermedle with the particular businesse of my other Bishop within his Diocesse no more then the Archbishop of Canterbury is to deale with the gouernement of any other Bishop vnder him sauing in cases of his prerogatiue But euen as it appertayneth vnto the Metropolitane to compose the controuersies that may arise betweene the Bishops of his Prouince and to determine all such causes as by appeale or otherwise belong vnto his court to call a Prouinciall Councell and to confirme the decrees of it and to make Ecclesiasticall Canons and constitutions for his Prouince in like manner doth it appertayne vnto the supreme Pastor of the Church to appease and end all debates that shal happen betweene the Metropolitanes or Priuates to judge of some such matters of great moment that may by appeale be very worthylie referred to his court to call generall Councels and to be President in them to make Ecclesiasticall lawes for the vvhole Church in vvhich and such like matters the point of his Supremacy principally consisteth And these vvere all most carefully vndertaken and practised by S. Gregory though he misliked the name of vniuersal Bishop because that did seeme vnto him to exclude all other Bishops from their proper dignities and callings Lib. 7. epist 69. as he expoundeth himselfe saying If there be one vniuersall Bishop it remayneth that you be no Bishops And if you make one vniuersall Patriarke you depriue all the other Patriarkes of their title and dignity l. 4. ep 36. In this sence tooke S. Gregory the name of vniuersal and therefore did justly refuse it himselfe and very sharply reprehended the Patriarke of Constantinople for vsurping of it for although in a good sence it might haue beene attributed vnto the Sea of Rome who is supreme Pastor of the vniuersall Church yet it could not without apparant pride and arrogancy be vsed of the Patriarke of Constantinople who had nothing to doe vvithout the compasse and limits of his owne Patriarkeship The testimony of S. Bernard is easie to be answered for he saith only that Eugenius is not Lord of Bishops but one of them and that he is not to drawe all power to himselfe but to leaue to euery Bishop and Archbishop his bretheren in gouernement their proper causes all vvhich vve say with him But he returneth to Pope Gregory who saith That he was subject to the Emperours commandement and had euery way dischardged that which was due in that be had performed his allegeance vnto the Emperour and yet did not conceale what he thought in Gods behalfe Answere VVhy did he not cite the place where S. Gregory hath these wordes there lurketh some padde vnder that strawe but he might very well vse such wordes excepting the word allegeance which sauoureth of a false translation Per Ioh. Diaconū l. 4. c. 58. For S. Gregory as it is to be seene in his life was of so profound humility that he called all Priestes his Brothers al Clarkes his Sonnes and all lay-men his Lordes or Masters and so might well vvrite vnto the Emperour that he was subject to his commandements for it is an vsuall phrase both in Italy and France to call all their friendes requests
was impossible who hath bestowed so great grace vpon vs. S. Siluester as Nycephorus hath recorded speaketh thus of baptisme e Lib. 7. hystor cap. 33. This water hauing receiued by the inuocation of the blessed Trinity heauenly vertue euen as it washeth the body without so doth it within cleanse the soule from filth and corruption and make it brighter then the Sunne-beames So that it is most conformable both vnto the holy Scriptures and the auncient Fathers to affirme and hold that the Sacraments doe really contayne and convay the graces of God into our soules as his true and proper instruments OF SAVING FAITH M. PERKINS Page 305. HEre followeth a Chapter which for the most part doth nothing but repeate points of doctrine which hath beene particularly handled in the questions of Iustification Satisfaction and Merits and aboue twenty times touched by the vvay in his booke therefore a tedious and loathsome thing it is to me here againe to heare of them yet because the man thinketh that in these points the principall glory of the newe Gospell consisteth and that there fore they are alwayes to be inculcated in season and out of seasorr I vvill briefly runne them once more ouer shewing as he doth only vvherein we differ without repeating the arguments which are to be seene in their proper places To come to the matter he putteth downe fiuâ— conclusions The first conclusion The Catholikes teach iâ— to be the property of faith to beleeue the whole word of God and especially the redemption of mankinde by Christ M. PERKINS DIFFERENCE THey beleeue indeede all the written word of God and more then all for they beleeue the bookes Apocryphall and vnwritten Traditions Answere Touching vnwritten Traditions see that Chapter in the first part M. PER. saith here Because they come to vs by the handes of men they cannot come within the compasse of our faith Then I say vpon the same ground the vvritten word cannot come within the compasse of our beleefe because it also commeth vnto vs by the handes of men And as the Apostles and their Schollers are to be credited when they deliuered the vvritten word vnto vs for Gods pure word so are they to be beleeued vvhen they taught the Church these poynts of Gods vvord vnwritten to be embraced as the true word of God although not written but committed to the harts of the faithfull And when we haue the testimony of auncient Councels or of many holy Fathers that these points of doctrine vvere by Tradition deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles vve as firmely beleeue them as if they were written in the holy Scriptures For which bookes of Scripture be Canonicall vvhich not and what is the true meaning of hard places in Scripture we knowe no other way of infallible certainty then by the declaration of the Catholike Church which we therefore aswell beleeue telling vs these thinges were deliuered from the Apostles by Tradition as those thinges in vvriting And that such credit is to be giuen to the Catholike Church the Apostles Creede witnesseth which biddeth vs beleeue the Catholike Church Nowe touching those bookes of holy Scripture vvhich vvere some hundreth yeares after Christ doubted off by some of the auncient Fathers vvhether they were Canonicall or no thus we say That albeit it were vndetermined by the Church vntill S. Augustines time vvhether they were Canonical or no and so were by diuers auncient Fathers though not condemned as Apocryphall yet not comprehended vvithin the Canon of assured Scriptures notwithstanding that matter being in a Councell holden at Carthage where among many other learned Bishops S. Augustine vvas present throughly debated Concil Cartag 3. cap. 47. those bookes doubted off before were found by the holy Ghost and them to be true Canonicall Scripture and afterward vvere by the sixt generall Councell that confirmed this Councell holden at Carthage declared and deliuered to the whole Church for Canonicall Nowe as we receiued at the first the other bookes of Canonicall Scripture on the â—â—edit of the Catholike Church euen so ought vve to doe these shee hauing declared them to be such yea the Protestants themselues haue admitted many bookes of the newe Testament vvhich vvere doubted off for three hundred yeares after Christ why then doe they not as vvell receiue them of the old The difference betwixt vs is that they only of passion and priuate fancy admit these and reject those vvhereas vve of obedience relying vpon the judgement of the vvhole Church admit those bookes for Canonicall which the Catholike Church hath declared for such And thus much of the first conclusion Nowe to the second touching saluation by Christ alone wherein the Protestants either cannot vnderstand or will not report our doctrine aright We confesse that Christ IESVS hath merited the redemption and saluation of all mankinde yet say we further that not one man is saued through Christ vnlesse he for his owne part first beleeue in Christ if he be of yeares and be content to doe all those thinges that Christ hath commanded vs to doe so that to saluation two thinges are required the first and principall is Christes mediation the second is the applying of Christes mediation and merits vnto vs vvithout this latter the former will stand no man in steede Nowe to be made partaker of Christs merits we must not only beleeue in him as the Protestants teach but also keepe his commandements and by good workes deserue heauen otherwise according to Christs decree we shall neuer come thither as in the question of Merits hath beene plentifully proued out of the holy scriptures so we teach then that besides Christs sufferings and merits we must haue some of our owne or else vve shall neuer be partakers of Christes And M. PERKINS cannot be excused from a vvilfull corruption of Gods word when he affirmeth S. Paul to say We are not saued by such workes as God hath ordayned men regenerated to walke in for those be not the wordes of the text but his peeuish construction S. Paul putting a playne distinction betweene workes that we are not saued by and workes that we must walke in calling these later good workes and the other barely workes To the other text I say that we haue no righteousnesse of our owne strength or by the vertue of Moyses lawe but through the mercy of God and Christs merits we haue true righteousnesse giuen vs by baptisme Christ indeede by himselfe and his owne sufferinges not by sacrifice of Goates or Calues hath meritoriously washed away our sinnes that is deserued of God that they should be washed away but formally he hath washed away our sinnes by infusion of Christian righteousnesse into our soules He that will see more of this let him reade the question of Iustification And where as M. PER. saith that all grace of God powred into our hartes is by the corruption of our hartes defiled he little knoweth the vertue of Gods grace vvhich so cleanseth and purifieth