of the sheepe but of all other Pastors thou alone art the Pastor Thus farre S. Bernard and much more doth he say in fauour of the Popes Supremacy in the same booke vvherefore to pike out a broken sentence of his against ouer-ruling thereby to disproue that which he doth most plainely proue and allowe argueth an euill conscience in M. PERKINS and a minde fully bent to deceiue them that be so simple as to beleeue him Ephes 4. His fourth reason Mention is made of gifts which Christ gaue to his Church after his ascension whereby some were Apostles some Prophets some Euangelists some Pastors some Teachers nowe of there had beene an office in which men as deputies of Christ should haue gouerned the whole Church that calling might here haue beene named and no doubt but that Paul would not haue concealed it where he mentioneth callings of lesse importance Answere This man will neuer leaue playing the Sophister and vsing of fallacies insteade of sound arguments vvhat a reason is this there is no mention made of the supreme Pastors calling in one place of S. Paul therefore there is no mention made of it at all Let vs returne this his weapon vpon his owne pate In that place of the Apostle there is no mention made of the Kinges supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall but rather a playne declaration that the Church of God needeth no such officer for her Ecclesiasticall gouernement ergo Kinges haue no such authority And because M. PER. seemeth not greatly to care for the Princes supremacy let this argument be vrged against the admirable Elders of their consistoriall discipline who notwithstanding they be such peerelesse peeres of the reformed Churches yet were vtterly concealed or rather neuer thought vpon by the Apostle when and where he mentioneth callings of lesser moment Nowe the direct answere to that place may be twofold eyther that there is not mention made of all Church officers as it is euident and must be confessed on all parts or else that by conuenient interpretation they may be reduced vnto some of them there named and so may the supreme Pastor of Christes Church be contayned well in that name of Pastors or because it belongeth vnto the supreme Pastor to haue a generall care of all Christendome and to send alwayes some to conuert Infidels his chardge and calling may be well an Apostleship as it is in the very wordes cited by M. PER. in his last argument out of S. Bernard Epist 162. Lib. 2. cōt Ruffinum Besides S. Augustine and S. Hierome with others doe call the Sea of Rome an Apostolicall chayre and seate M. PERKINS fift reason The Popes supremacy is condemned by sentences of Scripture before it was manifest to the world by the spirit of prophesie to wit the man of sinne which is Antichrist shall exalt himselfe aboue all that is called God nowe this whole Chapter with all the circumstances of it 2. Thess 2. most fitly agreeth to the sea of Rome and the head thereof Answere This is a capitall accusation and therefore should haue bin throughly well proued and yet you vvould meruaile to see how sleightly he goeth about it I can scarse bring his proofe into any forme of argument it is so substantiall But thus he seemeth to argue At the decay of the Roman Empire the man of sinne shal be reuealed but the Sea of Rome neuer slourished till the Empire decayed ergo that Sea is the man of sinne Here is a newe found manner of arguing Let vs admit the first proposition because it may hap to be true though it be very vncertaine what is meant by that defection mentioned by S. Paul But let vs graunt it shall euery thing that beginneth then to flourish be the man of sinne and if euery flourishing state shall not then be that man of sinne vvhy shall the Sea of Rome be rather that man of sinne then any other flourishing estate sure it is that it hath no consequence out of that argument Secondly it is most false also that the Sea of Rome neuer flourished till the Empire decayed for when did it euer flourish more then in that good Emperors daies Constantine the great and in many other excellent Christian Emperors that liued an hundred yeares after him Thirdly S. Paul speaketh not of a decay of the Roman Empire or vvhatsoeuer else he meaneth but rather of a generall reuolt or vtter ruyne and decay of it vvhich is not as yet happened for the Empire to this day yet continueth in some part of Hungary and Beameland so that man of sinne cannot be the Sea of Rome vvhich so many yeares hath flourished together with that Roman Empire Finally S. Peter and three and thirty other Popes of Rome after him enjoyed the supreme gouernement of the Church more then foure hundred yeares before that declination decay of the Roman Empire which they speake off so that nothing can be more fond and absurd then to draw thence any argument against the Popes supremacy And whereas he saith that all that chapter agreeth fitly to the Sea of Rome I say wil briefly proue that nothing in that Chapter agreeth vnto it any thing aptly First the Apostle speaketh of one particular man as his vvordes doe manifestly shewe for he calleth him the man of sinne Vers 3. the sonne of perdition and that with the Greeke article which doth more formally particularize howe can this be applyed vnto more then two hundred Popes Vers 4. In illum locum Secondly it is said that that man of sinne shall be extolled aboue all that is called God and as S. Chrysostome expoundeth it shall command himselfe to be adored and worshipped as God vvhich is and hath euer beene most farre from the thoughtes of all Popes vvho professe themselues seruants of all Gods seruants Vers 9. Thirdly that man of iniquity shall worke many strange signes and wonders Let them name vvhich of the Popes hath so done for these last 900. yeares vvhich they accuse most Fourthly that man shall be receiued of the Iewes for saith S. Paul Vers 10. Because they receiued not the charity of truth that they might be saued therefore God will send them the operation of errour to beleeue lying now al the Greeke interpreters doe vnderstand this of the Iewes as the very text leadeth them With whome agreeth S. Hierome interpreting these vvordes thus Quaest 11. ad Algasiū Antichrist shall doe all these signes not by the power but by the permission of God for the Iewes that because they would not receiue the charity of truth that is the spirit of God by Christ and so receiuing the Sauiour they might haue beene saued God will send them c. With these accord both S. Augustine and S. Cyril vpon this sentence of our Sauiour speaking to the Iewes I come to you in the name of my father Ioh. 5. vers 43. and you receiued me not if any
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
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
vvas so commanded to doe by the formall lawes of those foure his temporall Soueraignes and so might without any offence to God haue beene nowe of the old religion then of the newe and againe of neither old nor newe but of a hotch-potch and mingle-mangle of some of the one and some of the other vvhich is most absurd euen so is that of which it followeth And to confirme this with some testimony of antiquity S. Ambrose a most firme pillar of the West Church spake resolutely vnto the Emperour Valentinian saying Epist 35. Trouble not your selfe ô Emperour with thinking that you haue any imperial jurisdiction ouer those thinges that be Diuine and Holy for the right of Ciuill causes was committed vnto you but not the chardge of Holy thinges And another his auncient S. Athanasius Epist ad solita vitaÌ„ ageÌ„tes the first of the foure Doctors of the Greeke Church doth reprehend the Emperour Constantius for intermedling vvith Ecclesiasticall causes and recordeth an notable saying of that venerable Bishop Hosius vvho vvas present at the first generall Councell of Nyce vnto the same Constantius to vvit Command vs not ô Emperour in this kinde of affaires rather learne these thinges of vs for God hath committed the Empire to your chardge but hath bequeathed vnto vs and put vs in trust with the affaires that appertayne vnto his Church And therefore vvould not that most renowmed Emperour Constantine the great judge of Bishops causes although the Bishops themselues referred theiâ— matter to him and requested him to compose them but said That it did not belong vnto him to judge them but to be judged by them vvhose blessed steps the most learned and juditious Emperours that followed him chose rather to followe then the euill example of his Arrian Sonne Constantius For Iustinianus the elder that famous lawe-maker faith vnto Iohn the second Pope of that name In Codice tit primo We doe not suffer any thing to passe that belongeth vnto the state of the Church but that we make it knowne vnto your Holynesse who are the head of all the holy Church And Valentinian the Emperour in an Epistle vnto Theodosius vvriteth We must in our times mainetaine the dignity of â—uâ— reuerence vnto the most blessed Apostle S. Peter Extat inter praeambulas ad Concil Chalced. so farre-forth as the most happy Bishop of Rome vnto whome antiquity hath yeelded the principality of Priestly office aboue all others may haue place and power to judge of matters of faith and of Priests And thus much by the way against the Supremacy of Princes in causes Ecclesiasticall It remayneth nowe that I briefly proue S. Peter to haue had this Supremacy in his time and that therein the Bishops of Rome doe succeede him And for a foundation of this Question I take that for an assured truth vvhich the best Philosophers doe grant and the practise of the best and greatest Kingdome hath confirmed to wit That in one Kingdome it is best to haue one King and supreme gouernour assisted with the counsell of his wisest subjects which is so well knowne and confessed generally that he must needes betaken for a vvrangler that will denie it nowe then to our purpose Christes Church is but one state or spirituall Kingdome vvhich hath but one faith one baptisme and forme of Sacraments one true religion and solemne manner of diuine seruice Nowe seing vve are not to doubt but that he who purchased himselfe this one Church with the shedding of his owne most pretious bloud would haue it gouerned in the best sort therefore we must confesse that he hath ordayned one supreme Gouernour of it They say that this supreme Pastor is Christ himselfe and that he is alwayes present with it in spirit and by his word vvherefore there needeth no deputy or other in his roome This I haue once before confuted graunting that Christ is present to his Church in spirit and that he doth inwardly quicken and gouerne it but that is not sufficient for vnlesse we haue one certayne person visibly present to assure vs vvhich is the vvord of God and what is the true sence of all doubtfull places of it we shall neuer haue vnity of faith for if they who mistake the true sence must be left to their owne judgement and the direction of their owne spirit which they beleeue to be guided with the holy Ghost then shall vve haue so many heresies currant in the Church as there be Archeretikes to coyne and stampe them The like may be said for Sacraments and sacred rites of religion the which without one Supreme Moderatour cannot be kept vniforme so that it resteth most cleare that our Sauiour Christ being to leaue this world and to returne vnto his heauenly Father he was to commit the high charge of his only Spouse and Doue vnto the custody and fidelity of one supreme Pastor This is confirmed by the example of the old Testament vvhich vvas a figure of the newe Deut. 17. ab 8. ad 13. vvhere the soueraigne and supreme authority of deciding all doubtfull questions that should arise about the lawe was by Gods expresse order giuen vnto the high Priests and euery Israelite bound vnder payne of death to obey him and stand to his sentence And that this Supremacy continued all along the state of the old Testament euen vntill Christes dayes both the Magdeburgenses and Caluin doe testifie Centur. 1. lib. 1. c. 7. Lib. 4. Instit ca. 6. But the Protestants object that some Iudges and Kinges of Iuda did take vpon them to deale in matters appertayning to religion I graunt that good Kinges as principall members of the temporalty ought to haue a speciall regard to the preseruation of the seruice of God and to see that matters of religion be duly ordered because the peaceable gouernement of their temporall affaires dependeth much vpon the concord piety and vertue of Ecclesiasticall persons and therefore they are to admonish and call vpon the Bishops and Gouernours of the Clergy to redresse all disorders among them but not to meddle by themselues as their superiours in spiritual causes so did those good Kinges of Israell as it is recorded of one of the best of their King Iosaphat who sought for reformation of Church matters 2. Paralip 19. But reserued the Presidency of those thinges which appertayne vnto God vnto Amarias the high Priest And nowe a-dayes we giue many priuiledges to Princes as the denomination of most Bishops and higher Magistrates of the Church that the two states spirituall and temporal may the better agree and liue more peaceably together S. Augustine also doth declare it to be the duty of Kings to defend the Church and her decrees and to punish with seuere lawes all Heretikes and other condemned by the Church But directly to the former objection let the places of the old Testament be perused where the authority and right of Kinges be specified and you shall not finde
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
soueraigne authority for the very light of nature and common custome of all nations doth teach vs that he vvho succeedeth vnto another in any established estate and calling doth at his lawfull enstalement therein enter into ful possession of al the rights dignities and priuiledges therevnto belonging For example vvhen one is crowned King of any nation he presently there vpon is endowed with al the power and prerogatiues which his Predecessors in that Kingdome enjoyed before him And to speake of spirituall Prelates vvho doubteth but that assoone as any Ecclesiastical person is chosen confirmed for example Archbishop of Canterbury but that forth-with he is not only made gouernor of that Diocesse but also Metrapolitane and supreame Pastor of the Church of England his very succession in that Sea making him as it were inheritour vnto all the priuiledges and prerogatiues of his Predecessours in that seate Euen so the Bishops of Rome succeeding vnto S. Peter in that Apostolicall Sea doe inherite and succeede him in that supreme authority which Christ gaue vnto S. Peter for to be continued in his Church vntill the worldes end Now to auouch as some desperately doe that S. Peter did not die at Rome nor neuer was at Rome is so grosse and palpable an vntruth auerred by meere ghesse and phantasie contrary to the euident testimony of all auncient fathers and repugnant vnto the expresse and sensible monuments of the place of his execution of his reliques and Churches builded by Constantine the great to the perpetuall remembrance of them in the City of Rome yet to this day most famously knowne through the world this their assertion is I say so blockish and impudent that it were but lost time to stand about the proofe of it for he that is so sencelesse as to beleeue such a paradoxe deserueth small paynes for his recouery But for an vpshot of this question let vs heare the opinions of the principal Doctors of the East Church who of all men are most likely not to attribute any such supremacy vnto a Bishop of the West Church if they had thought it due vnto any Patriarke of theirs or if they had not judged it to be a cleare case in true Diuinity that such soueraigne authority was due vnto that one chiefe Pastor in Gods Church The first shall be one the auncientest of them that most worthy champion of Christ Athanasius who was also one of the chiefest Patriarkes of the East Church as being Bishop of Alexandria He in a speciall treatise of Dionysius one of his predecessours in that Sea sheweth howe he went to Rome to another Dionysius then Pope there to haue his cause heard and determined which he would not haue done if he had not acknowledged the Bishop of Rome for his superiour and one to whose finall sentence all of the East Church as vvell as of the West were bound to obey And in his Epistle vnto Pope Foelix he hath these wordes God hath therefore placed you and your predecessours Apostolicall Prelates in the tower of superiority and hath commanded you to take charge of all Churches that you may succour and helpe vs. This Epistle indeede of Athanasius M. PER. doth mislike but because he sheweth not vvherefore his authority vvill not serue to discred it it But he saith as much in another of his and of all the Bishops of Aegipt joyned with him to Pope Marke to wit That they al with al committed to their charge were and euer would be obedient vnto the Bishop of Rome Lib. 3. hist cap. 7. It is also recorded by the Ecclesiasticall Hystoriographer Zozemene howe that both Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria and Paule Patriarke of Constantinople with diuers others of the Greeke Church being by the Arrians banished out of their owne Bishoprickes did flie vnto the Bishop of Rome for refuge Who as that authour witnesseth because the care of all did belong vnto him through the dignity of his place and seate did restore their Churches to euery of them Athanasius also in his second Apology hath recorded these words of the same most holy Pope Iulius to the Bishops of the East Are yee ignorant this to be the custome that first of all you must write vnto vs that from hence it may be defined what is just Wherefore if there had beene any such suspition against the Bishop you ought to haue related it to our Church of Rome thus much of S. Athanasius the first of the foure Greeke Doctors Nowe to the second S. Gregory Nazianzene who had beene also Patriarke of Constantinople In câ—râ—a de vita sua Epist 52. ad Athan. he saith That the Church of Rome had alwaies mainetayned the true faith and opinion of God as it became the City that was superiour to all the world His diuine companion S. Basil aduertiseth Athanasius That he thought it good to write vnto the Bishop of Rome to heare their matters and by the decree of his judgement to determine them and because it was hard to send from thence that the Pope would giue to certayne chosen men authority to compose their controuersies and to reuerse and make voide the actes of the Councell of Arimini See what soueraignety this learned auncient Father of the East Church doth attribute vnto the Church of Rome The very same doth that golden mouth and most learned and holy Doctor S. Chrysostome acknowledge vvriting vnto Innocentius the first Pope of Rome Epist 1. ad Innocentium Beseeching him that he would repeale and make voide the wicked fact of the Patriarke of Alexandria with a whole Councell of the East and lay the Ecclesiasticall censures and punishments vpon them vvhich euery man knoweth that he could not haue done if he had not power and jurisdiction ouer all the East Church Vnto these foure most firme pillars of the Greeke Church let vs joyne one neighbour of theirs little inferiour vnto them for either standing learning or authority I meane Theodorete a Bishop in Asia that had 800. Churches vnder him He notwithstanding his distance from Rome writeth thus vnto Leo the first Epist ad Leonem I doe expect the sentence of your Apostolicall Sea and in humble wise doe beseech your Holynesse that your just and right judgement may helpe me appealing vnto you and that you will command me to runne vnto you to verifie that my doctrine is consonant to the Apostles And in another Epistle to Renatus a Priest of Rome he writeth That the Heretikes had spoyled him of his Bishopricke and cast him out of the Cyties without any reuerence or respect of his gray-hayres wherefore saith he I request you that you will perswade the most holy Archbishop Leo that he will vse his Apostolicall authority and command vs to come to your Councell for that holy seate of Rome boldeth the stearne of gouerning all the Churches in the world Well then to conclude this long and intricate question seing the Bishops of Rome from all antiquity as is
to be seene in their decretall Epistles haue euer chalenged this right of Supremacy ouer the whole Church as the successours of S. Peter and that the very Patriarkes and principall Prelates euen of the East Church who were likelyest to haue resisted if they had seene any cause vvhy haue from the very beginning of the free practise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction acknowledged and confessed the same and that finally the greatest vvisest and best Emperours of both the Latin and Greeke Church haue as you haue heard before declared the same right to appertayne vnto the said Roman Sea the matter cannot be but cleare enough to all that list not to remayne vvranglers vvhere the right of the Supremacy resteth OF THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENTS OVR CONSENT M. PERKINS Page 295. THe first conclusion We teach and beleeue that the Sacraments are signes to represent Christ with his benefits to vs. The second conclusion We teach further that the Sacraments are indeede instruments whereby God offereth and giueth the fore-said benefits to vs. THE DIFFERENCE THe Catholikes teach that the Sacraments are true and proper instrumentall causes which being moued by God thereunto doe produce and giue grace to the worthy receiuer Euen as the penne doth make the letter or as the axe doth cut the wood being thereto applyed by the workeman so for example doth the Sacrament of baptisme wash away the sinnes of the baptised being by God therevnto ordayned and rightly vsed by the Minister But M. PERKINS holdeth that the Sacraments haue no operation to that effect of forgiuenesse of sinnes but are only outward meanes which being applyed vnto the party God of himselfe doth immediately purge him from sinne and not by meanes of the Sacraments Againe Whereas we require a fit disposition in the receiuer to make him capable of the grace presented and exhibited vnto him by the Sacrament He holdeth that all the vertue of the Sacrament consisteth in the receiuer Who beholding those signes from God in the handes of the Minister must conceite and imagine First that God himselfe by his owne mouth doth promise him seuerally and by name remission of his sinnes the signe and pledge whereof is that Sacrament which the minde considering reasoneth thus he that vseth the elements aright in faith and repentance shall receiue grace thereby but I vse the elements aright therefore shall I receiue from God increase of grace Thus then faith is confirmed not by the worke done but by a kinde of reasoning the proofe whereof is borrowed from the elements being signes and pledges of Gods mercy Contrarylie vve hold that the Sacrament it selfe conferreth and doth giue great grace so that there be no impediment or let of it by reason of the receiuers euill disposition Now if the receiuer come throughly vvell prepared with great humility charity and attention he then ouer and besides the ordinary grace of the Sacrament shall receiue more grace according vnto the measure of his owne preparation Lastly whereas we teach the very grace of justification to be giuen in some Sacraments as in Baptisme and Penance M. PER. saith no because A man of yeares must first beleeue and be justified before he can be a meete pertaker of any Sacrament But vvhat vvill he then say vnto Infants must not they receiue the grace of justification by Baptisme before they haue wit to beleeue and to reason in such sort as he prescribeth Before I come vnto the arguments of either party I thought fit to giue the reader to vnderstand that whether the Sacraments be true physicall instruments of grace or no Lib. 2. de Sacram. in gener cap. 11. is not a matter of faith as Cardinall Bellarmine declareth so we hold them to be true morall causes of the same grace to which M. PER. yeelded his consent wherefore I will not be long in this question Secondly to perceiue well the state of the question you must obserue what difference there is betweene a physical and moral instrument That then may be called a morall instrument vvhich moueth the principall agent to doe any thing albeit he vse not that thing it selfe as a meanes to doe it vvithall so that if God be effectually moued to bestowe grace vpon him that receiueth a Sacrament by the sight of the Sacrament though he giue not the grace by the vvorke of the Sacrament but immediatly from him felfe the Sacrament is the morall meanes of the same grace but it cannot be called the physicall or naturall instrument of that grace vnlesse God doe vse and apply the Sacrament it selfe as the meane and instrument to conuey the same grace into the soule of the receiuer Nowe vve hold it more agreable with the word of God and sentences of the holy Fathers and more for the dignity of the Sacraments themselues to say that God by them as by true naturall instruments doth conuay his graces into our soule M. PERKINS goeth about to proue the contrary thus The word preached and the Sacraments doe differ in the manner of giuing Christ vnto vs because the word worketh by the eare and the Sacraments by the eye otherwise for the giuing it selfe they differ not Christ saying that in the very word is eaten his owne flesh and what can be said more of the Lordes supper Augustine saith that beleeuers are pertakers of the body and bloud in baptisme Serm. ad Infant so saith Hierome to Eâ—â—bia Nowe vpon this it followeth that seing the worke done in the word preached conferreth not grace neyther doth the worke done in the Sacrament conferre grace I answere that his owne first word must stand wherein he said that the word preached and the Sacraments doe differ in the manner of giuing vs Christes grace for preaching doth by perswasion drawe vs vnto grace and goodnesse but the Sacraments as conduite-pipes doe take and deriue grace from Christes passion and conuay it into the soules of all them who doe not stoppe vp those diuine conduits by their owne default and want of due preparation To his idle and ill shapen commation I answere that Christes body may be eaten two vvayes either really as in the blessed Sacrament or else spiritually by beleeuing in Christ and being incorporate into his mysticall body and in this second sort Infants in baptisme and all true beleeuers doe eate the body of Christ But howe this proueth that the vvord and the Sacraments doe giue grace after the same manner is there any man that can tell His second reason I baptise you with water to repentance Math. 3. vers 11. but he that commeth after me shall baptise you with the holy Ghost and with fire Hence saith M PER. it is manifest that grace proceedeth not from any act of the Sacrament for Iohn though he doe not disjoyne himselfe and his action from Christ and the action of the spirit yet doth he distinguish them plainely in number persons and effect Answere He that can let him pike some English out
for the amendment of their liues or else they should be the most foolish judges that euer vvere appointed vpon earth Wherefore seing that the Apostles had authority to forgiue sinnes and vvere in discretion to admmister the same vnto penitent sinners it must needes followe necessarily that the penitent should confesse all his sinnes in particular vnto them and that authority was to continue in the Church for euer it being giuen to the Apostles for the due gouerning of the Church and to the comfort of al sinners which should neuer fayle to be vntill Christes last comming to judgement They to defeate all this discourse answere That Christ gaue not his Apostles authority to pardon any mans sinnes but only to declare that their sinnes were pardoned if with true repentance and faith they receiued the preaching of the Gospell This interpretation first is repugnant to the text vvhich in expresse tearmes hath Whose sinnes yee shall remit or pardon not vvhose sinnes yee shall declare to be remitted Secondly it hath that Whose sinnes yee shall forgiue they are forgiuen to wit euen then when they remit them and not that they were remitted before as he should haue said if he had giuen them authority only to declare them to be remitted Thirdly the metaphor of keyes giuen vnto them doth demonstrate that power was giuen them to absolue and not to declare only they were absolued because keyes are giuen to open or shut dores and not to signifie that eyther the dores are already open or shall be vpon condition Lastly the Ministers pronouncing of men absolued should be very rash and friuolous if they doe not truly absolue them For if he pronounce them absolutely to be absolued without good assurance of their faith repentance he should but lie and if he doe pronounce them absolued conditionally if they beleeue aright and be truly penitent then vvere his absolution in vaine for it depending vpon their faith and repentance and not vpon the Ministers pronouncing it bringeth no further assurance then they had before yea they themselues being of the faithfull could not be ignorant of so much before to wit that he was free from sinne and needed not his absolution Nowe that the Apostles then and Bishops and Priests their successours euer sithence did truly absolue men from their sinnes and were not like to cryers only proclaymers thereof see first S. Chrysostome who saith That such power was giuen here to men Lib. 3. de Sacerdot which God would neuer giue to Angels who yet had power to pronounce saluation to penitent sinners Secondly That Priestes haue such power of binding and loosing ouer the soules as Kinges haue ouer their subjects bodyes vvhich is truly to binde or to loose them and not only to declare them bound or loosed Thirdly he saith expresly That the Priestes among the Iewes had power to purge the leprosie or rather to try whether they were purged from it or no but it is graunted vnto our Priestes not only to discerne whether the body be purged from leprosie or no but playnely to purge our soules from the filth of sinne S. Ambrose in diuers places proueth directly against the Nouatians that Christ gaue power to Priestes to remit sinnes Lib. 1. de Poenitent c. 2. 7. The Nouatians denyed not but that one might preach the Gospell vnto such sinners that vvere relapsed and promise them pardon too if they repented but would not haue the Priests to reconcile them vnto the Church by the Sacrament of Penance denying that Priestes had any such power ouer such sinners but that they must leaue them to God alone vvhich the holy Doctor confuteth by these places of Scripture Math. 16. vers 19. cap. 18. vers 18. Ioh. 20. vers 23. Whatsoeuer yee forgiue in earth shall be forgiuen in heauen Epist ad Heliodor S. Hierome saith God forbidde that I should speake any euill of them who succeeding in the Apostolike degree doe with their sacred mouth make the body of Christ and by whome we are made Christians who hauing the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen doe in a certayne manner judge before the day of judgement Lib. 20. de ciuit c. 9. S. Augustine doth define in these wordes Whatsoeuer yee shall binde vpon earth shal be bound in heauen that authority is giuen vnto the rulers of the Church to judge in spirituall causes and not only to declare Hom. 62. in Euang. S. Gregory vpon these vvordes Whose sinnes you forgiue c. Behold saith he the Apostles are not only made secure of themselues but haue power giuen them to release other mens handes and doe obtayne a prerogatiue of the heauenly judgement that in Gods steede they may forgiue to some their sinnes and binde some others and truly the Bishops nowe doe hold the same place in the Church they receiue authority to binde and to loose c. By this you may see in part vvith what fore-head M. PERKINS affirmed that for a thousand yeares after Christ there was no mention of the Sacrament of Penance and more you shall see shortly if that first I shall note out of the Scripture it selfe both the acknowledgement of receite of that power to reconcile and absolue and the practise and commandement of confession S. Paul acknowledgeth and declareth 2. Cor. 5. vers 18. 20. that God had giuen vnto them the ministery of reconciliation and addeth that they be Gods Legates and therefore exhorteth them to be reconciled but they that be sent Ambassadours vvith full commission to reconcile men vnto their Prince must knowe both howe grieuously they haue offended and what recompence they are willing to make vvhich must needes be by their owne confession Nowe for the practise of confession by the first Christians Act. 19. vers 18. 19. it is recorded That many of the faithfull came confessing and declaring their deedes and many that had followed curious actes brought their bookes and burned them in the presence of al the rest Note here both particular confession made vnto S. Paul of the seuerall deedes and factes and not in generall that they vvere sinners as the very vvordes doe witnesse Confessing their deedes that is vvhat they had done in particular And againe howe should he haue knowne their study of curious bookes if they had not told their sinnes in particular some Protestants conuinced by the text say That they confessed some of their sinnes in particular but not all But I meruaile how they came by the knowledge of that for vvhy should they confesse some more then others and the vse of Scriptures is by the naming of sinnes indefinitely to signifie all as when we pray Forgiue vs our sinnes we meane all our sinnes and when it is said of Christ He shall saue his people from their sinnes it is meant that he shall saue them not from some of their sinnes but from al. Lastly touching the commandement S. Iames doth charge vs a Iac.
Secondly they make him much inferiour vnto the other persons for they teach in their French Catechismes that the Father alone is to be adored in the name of the Sonne In cap. 6. 17. Isa in 16. Marc. And Caluin against Gentil saith that the title of creatour belongeth only to the Father and else where that the Father is the first degree cause of life and the Sonne the second And that the In 26. Math. v. 64. Father holdeth the first ranke of honour and gouernement and the Sonne the second where the holy Ghost is either quite excluded from part with the Father and the Sonne or at most must be content with the third degree of honour 9. I beleeue the holy Catholike Church the communion of Saints First where as there is but one Catholike Church one as the Councell of Nice expresly defineth following sundry textes of the word of God they commonly teach that there be two Churches one inuisible of the elect another visible of both good and bad Secondly they imagine it to be holy holy by the imputation of Christes holinesse to the elected Bretheren and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hartes of all the faithfull Thirdly they cannot abide the name Catholike in the true sence of it Catholike that is they wil not beleeue the true Church to haue beene alwaies visibly extant since the Apostles time and to haue bin generally spread into all Countries otherwise they must needes forsake their owne Church which began with Friar Luther and is not receiued generally in the greatest part of the Christian world Finally they beleeue no Church no not their owne in all points of faith but hold that the true Church may erre in some principall points of faith Howe then can any man safely relie his saluation vpon the credite of such an vncertaine ground erring guide may they not then as well say that they doe not beleeue the one Catholike Church because they doe as well not beleeue it as beleeue it And as for the communion of Saints their learned masters doe commonly cassier it out of the Creede and that not without cause For by the Saints vnderstanding as the Apostles did al good Christians whither aliue or departed this world they that deny praier to Saints and for the soules in Purgatory haue reason to reject the common society entercourse that is betweene the Saints and the mutuall honour and help which such good Christian soules doe yeeld and afford one to another 10. The forgiuenesse of sinnes It is not easily to find what is their setled opinion touching the forgiuenes of originall sinne in Infants Some attribute it to Baptisme but that cannot stand with their common doctrine that Sacraments haue no vertue in them to remit sinnes or to giue grace Others say that God without any meanes doth then when they be baptised of himselfe immediately justifie them but that cannot stand in their owne doctrine because Infants want the instrumēt of faith to lay hold on that justice then offered by God and therefore cannot being so yonge take it vnto them Others will haue Infants sanctified in their mothers wombe by vertue of a couenant which they suppose God to haue made with old father Abraham and all his faithfull seruants that forsooth their seede shall be holy But this is most phantastical and contrary to the Scriptures and daily experience for Isaac was the sonne of promise and yet Esau his sonne was a reprobate Dauides father was a Godly Israelite and yet Dauid affirmeth Psal 50. that he himselfe was conceiued in iniquities and we may see whole Countries nowe turned Turkes whose ancestors were good Christians therefore not all the soules of the faithfull are sanctified in their mothers wombes Secondly how euil soeuer they agree about the remission of sinne yet there is a perfect consent among them that such relikes of originall sinne remaine in euery man baptised and sanctified that it infecteth all and euery worke he doth with deadly sinne yea that which remaineth is properly sinne in it selfe though it be not imputed to the party so that sinne is alwaies in them though their sinnes be neuer so well forgiuen And as for the Sacrament of Penance by which we hold al sinnes committed after Baptisme to be forgiuen they doe renounce the benefit of it and are at vtter defiance with it 11. The resurrection of the bodies Whether Farel the first Apostle of the Geneuian Gospel doubted thereof or no let his successor Caluin tell you who answereth Farels letter thus Episto ad Farellum That the resurrection of this our flesh doth seeme to thee incredible no meruaile c. Againe many of them teach that Christ tooke not his bloud againe which he shed vpon the crosse yea some of them are so gracelesse as to say that his pretious bloud wherewith we were redeemed Vide Conradum li. 1. art 20. rotted away on the earth 1600. yeares agoe If then it be not necessary to a true resurrection to rise againe with the same bloud why is it necessary to rise againe with the same bones and flesh the one being as perfect a part of a mans body as the other 12. Life euerlasting First Captaine Caluin holdeth it for very certaine that no soule doth enter into the joyes of heauen wherein consisteth life euerlasting vntill the day of doome 3. Institu 25. sess 6. These be his wordes the soules of the Godly hauing ended the labour of this war-fare doe goe into a blessed rest where they expect the enjoying of the promised glory And that all thinges are holden in suspence vntill Christ the redeemer appeare whose opinion is yet better then was his predecessor Luthers For he teacheth in many places that the soules of the Godly departing from their bodies Enarra in Gen. c. 26. In Ecclesi c. 9. v. 10. haue no sence at all but doe lie fast a sleepe vntill the latter day Take this one for a tast Another place to proue that the dead feele or vnderstand nothing wherefore Salomon thought the dead to be wholy a sleepe and to perceiue nothing at all And againe the sleepe of the soule in the life to come is more profound then in this life And Luther with this one position of his as that famous historiographer Iohn Sleidan recordeth ouerthrewe two points of Popery Li. 9. hist to wit praying to Saintes for they are so fast a sleepe that they cannot heare vs and praying for the dead For they in Purgatory slept also so soundly that they felt no paines A meete foundation surely to build such false doctrine vpon In 20. Luc hom 35. But Brentius is most plaine in this matter who ingeniously confesseth that albeit there were not many among them that did professe publikely the soules to die with the body yet the most vncleane life which the greatest part of their followers did lead doth clearely shewe that in their hartes they thinke no life to be