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
promise of Christ made although in and by him to the great benefit of the whole Church In cap. 16. Math. But Theophilact hath that they who receiue the gift of a Bishop haue the power of committing and binding as Peter had Answere We grant that all lawfull Bishops can binde and loose both in the court of conscience and publikely but thereof it followeth not that that promise of Christ for building his Church on S. Peter c. was common vnto the rest of the Apostles In psal 38 But Ambrose saith that which is said to Peter is said to the Apostles Then belike that was also said vnto the rest as well as to him This night before the Cocke crowe twise thou shalt denie me thrife which no man can say To vnderstand then such generall propositions take this distinction vvith you that thinges spoken vnto S. Peter are of three sundry sortes Some are spoken vnto him as an ordinary Christian and such sentences doe agree vnto all Christians other thinges are spoken vnto him as an Apostle and those are common vnto the rest of the Apostles there be lastly certayne thinges spoken vnto him particularly as head of the Church which may not be extended vnto any other of the Apostles but only vnto his successors Nowe S. Ambrose speaketh of the second kinde of thinges but against this M. PER. excepteth thus That although Peter be admitted to haue beene in commission aboue the rest for the time yet hence may not be gathered any supremacy for the Bishops of Rome because the authority of the Apostles were personall and consequently ceased with them without being conueyed vnto any others and he addeth the reason of this to be because that when the Church of the newe Testament was once founded it was needefull only that there should be Pastors and Teachers for the building of it vp vnto the worldes end Reply What meaneth this man by Pastors doth he comprehend Bishops vvithin that word then he ouerthroweth himselfe for if such Pastors be yet necessary then is it needfull that the Bishops of Rome doe succeede S. Peter in that ample power which he had If by Pastors he vnderstand Parish Priestes or Ministers that haue charge of flockes and by Teachers other Preachers then doth he here as much for the Bishops as in his last discourse he did for temporall Princes that is as he vvent about there to proue that Christ as our redeemer could haue no creature for his deputy in gouernement and consequently that Kings cannot be Christs Lieutenants in Ecclesiasticall causes so here he doth insinuate that Bishops be not necessary to the building vp of Christes Church but the Minister of euery Parish with the Elders thereof will suffice for ordinary matters and that affaires of greater moment must be referred belike to the Consistoriall assembly of many Ministers and Elders togither Doth not this sauour rankely of Puritanisme but because he only saith this without any proofe let it suffice for answere to say that as Ministers are necessary to teach the word of God and to administer the Sacraments so are Bishops both to institute and ordayne the Ministers and to see that they doe diligently discharge their duty And as Bishops are necessary to ouer-see Priests and Ministers so are Archbishops and Metropolitanes to looke vnto Bishops and to prouide that there be no schismes or diuisions among them and to determine their controuersies if any arise betweene them And in like manner one Supreme Pastor is necessary in the Vniuersall Church of Christ to hold all Archbishops Primates and Patriarkes in vnity of faith and in conformity of Christian ceremonies and manners M. PERKINS third reason When the Sonnes of Zebedee sued vnto Christ for the greatest roomes of honour in his Kingdome Christes answere was Ye knowe that the Lordes of the Gentils haue dominion and they that are great exercise authority ouer them but it shall not be so vvith you Bernard applyeth this to Pope Eugenius on this manner Lib. 2. do consid it is playne that here dominion is forbidden the Apostles goe to then dare you if you will to take vpon you ruling an Apostleship or in your Apostleship rule and dominion if you will haue both alike you shall leefe both otherwise you must not thinke your selfe excempted from the number of them of whome the Lord complayned ye haue raygned but not of me Answere Insolent and tyrannicall dominion such as was in those daies practised by the Gentils Pagans and Idolaters is there by our Sauiour forbidden the Apostles but not modest and vigilant Prelature in Ecclesiasticall gouernement as the very text it selfe doth plainely shewe for in that he doth foretel that there should not be such a haughty disdaineful kinde of superiority among his disciples he doth giue vs to vnderstand that there should be some other better and saith further Luc. 22. vers 26. That he who is greater among you let him become as the lesser and he that is your leader or as it is in the Greeke égouménos your Captaine or Prince let him be your wayter See he vvill haue among them one greater then the rest to be their Captayne and leader which he confirmeth with his owne example saying As I my selfe came not to be wayted on or ministred vnto but came to minister or to wayte vpon others so that this discourse of our Sauiours only disproueth in Christians such Lord-like domination as vvas then in vse among the Gentils who were giuen for the most part to take their owne pleasures to ouer-rule lawes as they listed to oppresse their subjects with taxes and to vse them like slaues Nowe in Ecclesiasticall gouernementall must be otherwise the Prelate must not seeke his owne ease wealth or pleasure but most vigilantly study day and night to feede and profit his flocke vvith whome he must conuerse most modestly not scorning or contemning to speake familiarly vvith the meanest amongst them And this is that vvhich S. Bernard counsaileth Eugenius to doe To rule as an Apostle and not to ouer-rule or to dominier like vnto some temporal Princes which in the same booke he doth plainely teach saying That when Eugenius was created Pope he then was exalted ouer Nations and Kingdomes yet not to domineer ouer them but to serue them And further he doth in the same booke deliuer the Popes Supremacy in these most euident wordes speaking thus to the same Pope Eugenius Who art thou a great Priest the highest Bishop thou art the Prince of the Bishops the heyre of the Apostles c. Thou art he to whome the keyes of heauen were deliuered to whome the sheepe were committed There are also indeede other Porters of heauen and Pastors of sheepe but thou art so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a more excellent name aboue them They haue their flockes to each man me but to thee all were committed as one flocke to one Pastor Thou art not only Pastor
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
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
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