the Protestants doe nowe a-dayes Contrarywise the best and most learned Doctors in that pure antiquity did maintayne and defend vvorshipping of Saints and their Relikes teaching just as the Catholikes nowe doe that they did indeede honour the Saints vvith great honour but did not adore them or giue the honour proper to God to any other then to God alone let vs heare some proofe of this When blessed Policarpus S. Iohn Euangelists Disciple was Martired the Iewes were very importunate to haue his body consumed to ashes Eusebius hyst l. 4. cap. 14. least say they the Christians doe gette it and so leauing the crucified man doe fall to adore him so the opinion of the Iewes What answered the Christians We say they meane nothing lesse then to forsake Christ for him we adore as the true Sonne of God but Martirs and all other his true seruants we doe worthely reuerence and embrace for their incredible goodwill shewed towardes Christ and doe esteeme their bones and relikes more rich then pretious stones and more pure then gold and doe celebrate their memories with holy dayes and great joy This of the ancient Christians answere to the Iewes nowe of their answere to the Pagans Iulian the Apostata with his followers charged the Christians with making their Martirs Gods and that they adored them to vvhome among others Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria answered in this manner L. 6. cont Iulianum We make not holy Martirs Gods neither doe we adore them but we honour them very highly And it is not an vnworthy thing nay it is necessary to honour them eternally that haue behaued themselues so gloriously And because that goodly man Iulianus doth reprehend vs for worshipping of them wâ— tell him that we esteeme not Martirs to be Gods yet are we accustomed to vouchsafe them very high honour After these Pagans and Iewes some old Heretikes trotted apace Faustus the Manichean Heretike calumniated and falsly slandered the Catholikes of his time that they had turned their Martirs by worshipping of them into Idols Vnto vvhome S. Augustine that vvorthy pillar of the Church answered Aug. l. 20. coÌ„t Faust cap. 21. as is aboue rehearsed That Christians indeede did celebrate the memories of Martirs with religious solemnity and that they worshipped them with greater honour then they did any holy man aliue yet not with that honour which is proper to God called by the Greekes Latria The like did Vigilantius another dreaming Heretike object shortly after auouching the Catholikes to be Idolaters because they adored the bones of dead men whome that great light of his age S. Hierome doth duly reprehend Epist ad Riparium answering That they did not adore Martirs relikes no nor aâ—y Angell in heauen because they would not giue the honour due to the Creator vnto any creature but saith he we doe honour the relikes of Martirs that we may adore him whose Martirs they be We doe honour the seruants that the honour of the seruants may redound vnto their master who saith he that receiueth you receiueth me nowe let the indifferent Christian consider vvhether he vvere better vvith the Heathens Iewes and Heretikes to denie the Saints to be worshipped and say vvith them that it is Idolatry so to doe or vvhether he had not rather vvith the auncient holy Fathers and best Christians to hold that Saints departed this life and their relikes are to be vvorshipped with greater honour then any holy men yet liuing yea that vvorshipping of Saints is so farre of from Idolatry and robbing God of the honour proper to him that euen thereby God is much honoured Surely we Catholikes are nothing dismaide at their out-cryes that call vs therefor Idolaters being vvell assured that they be but the old alarmes and reproaches that Infidels were vvont to cast vpon the best Christians Nowe to the third and last argument for vs which is taken from authority * Iosue 5. vers 24. Num. 22. Iosue falling flat vpon the ground worshipped an Angell assoone as he had told him that he was the Prince of Gods army this worship being performed by a true Israelite and accepted off by the Angell of God yea more then that for it was also commanded doth conuince that more then ciuill honour is due vnto a Cytizen of heauen this for the old Testament For the state of the newe heare the judgement of the most auncient and best learned Doctors Iustine Martyr declaring vnto the Emperor the faith of the Church Apolog. 2. speaketh thus We Christians adore and worship God the Father and his Sonne who came into the world and taught vs these thinges and after them doe we truly worship by word and deede the army of good Angels following his conduct and the Propheticall spirits and this doe we copiously teach to all that will learne our doctrine Eusebius Caesariensis teacheth the same and saith Lib. 13. de praep c. 7. Serm. 32. de SaÌ„ctis We doe honour the Souldiers of true Godlinesse as them who are best beloued of God So doth S. Augustine Therefore dearely beloued Bretheren as often as we celebrate the memories of Martirs laying a-side all worldly businesse we ought speedily to repaire vnto the house of God to render vnto them honour who haue procured our saluation by the shedding of their bloud who haue offered themselues vp to God so holy an Host to obtayne for vs mercy at his handes specially when almighty God saith to his Saints he that honoureth you honoureth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me Whosoeuer therefore concludeth S. Augustine honoureth Martirs honoureth Christ and he that contemneth the Saints contemneth Christ vvhich is word for word taken out of * Serm. 6. in fine Orat. de SS IuueÌ„t Max. In Theod. Mart. S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome We doe not worship auncient Saints and those of later time in different sort but all of them with the same chearefulnes therefore saith he let vs often visite them and worshippe their tombes Gregory Nyssene speaking of the worship which the Church doth giue to Martirs saith To what King is such honour done who are they of the most excellent among men whose memory is so solemnely honoured who of the Emperors in so many mens mouthes are so renowned as this poore Souldier nowe enroled a Souldier whome S. Paul hath armed whome the Angels haue anointed and whome Christ hath crowned S. Gregory Nazianzene defineth the worshipping of Martirs Orat. 1. cont Iulianum to be an assured marke of our loue toward Christ An hundreth such other testimonies wil the holy auncient Fathers afford vs if we stand in neede of them But this may suffice to enforme any reasonable man that both by expresse warrant of Scripture and by the practise and doctrine of the purest antiquity the Saints of God and holy personages are to be worshipped of vs with that religious honour commonly called Dulia that is with that worshippe which is due vnto the better sort
litle therefore may suffice to demonstrate howe the chiefe pillers of the Protestantes religion doe shake the very foundations of the Christian faith by their strange glosses and speeches about the sacred Trinity and by their diuers derogations to Christes diuinity But this shall appeare yet much more perspiciously if we doe well weigh what they teach touching the very nature of the God-head it selfe Whosoeuer denies God to be almighty or presumes to limit the infinite power of God within the compasse of mans weake vnderstanding he in effect makes him no God at all but some meane creature of a limitted strength and power such be all Protestantes OEcolāp de verbis Domini Beza in Neoph. simil cōt And. pag 15. who affirme that God can not set a body in the world without a circumscribed place nor any one body in many places at once with such like the which because they cannot out of the dulnesse of their witte or will not of frowardnesse conceiue to be in nature possible they flatlie deny God to be able to doe yea some of them were so blind * In a cōference at Paris and bold as to auouch God not to be able to conceiue or vnderstand how that is possible which notwithstanding very naturall philosophy teacheth to haue no repugnance in it selfe as in his place I haue proued If they were enemies to Gods omnipotencie alone it might be somewhat excused because that might seeme to proceede rather from the weakenesse of their vnderstanding then out of any ill affection towardes God but if they doe further oppose themselues against the goodnesse mercy and justice of God that must needes discouer very great impiety to lie festring in their bowels Who seeth not that it doth highly attainte the inestimable goodnesse of God and his tender loue towardes mankinde to impute the reprobation of man and his eternall damnation not vnto mans owne wickednesse and desertes but vnto the meere will and pleasure of God himselfe and yet this is too too common an assertion amangst the Protestantes In colloq Monpelgar pag. 522. Let Beza one of their brauest champions speake for the rest God saith he in his secret counsel hath set downe an vnremoueable decree that he wil not haue the greater part of men saued nor to beleeue in Christ and come to the knowledge of truth but hath created ordained and predestinated them to euerlasting damnation Pag. 336. To whome M. PER. in this booke draweth neere affirming it to proceede from the very wil of God that he shewes mercy to some and forsaketh others Mercy indeede God of his meere goodnes doth powre out vpon vs abundantly but to imagine that he of his owne will and prime choise without any foresight of our sinnes doth forsake vs and appoint vs to hell fire is heynous impiety most contrary vnto the very nature of God whose goodnesse is so pure and sincere that it doth good to all thinges and wisheth euill to none vnlesse they doe first greatly deserue it What an vngodly opinion then is it to hold that he of his owne free choise ordained man a creature made to his owne Image and likenesse to most grieuous and endlesse torments without foresight of any offence of his As though he should take a singuler pleasure to see a principall worke of his owne handes fry in hell fire Another opinion some of them hold which is yet much more blasphemous then the other to wit that God who hath beene alwaies by good men esteemed the author of all good and so meerely good in his owne nature and will that he cannot possibly doe or thinke any euill that this Ocean I say of goodnesse is become the author plotter promoter and worker of all the wickednesse and mischiefe that is or hath beene committed in the world This is the doctrine of Zwinglius a great Rabin among the newe Gospellers De prouid Dei pag. 365. who auoucheth that when we commit either adultery murder or any such like crime that it is the worke of God he being the authour mouing and pushing vs on to doe it Againe that the theefe by Gods motion and perswasion murthereth and is often times compelled to sinne In cap. 1. ad Rom. With him agreeth Bucer sometimes a professor of diuinity in the vniuersitie of Cambridge censuring him to denie God flatly who doth not firmely beleeue that God doth worke in man as well all euill as all good Of the same accursed crue was Melancthon who vpon the 8. chapter to the Romanes saith Euen as we confesse Paules vocation to haue bin Gods proper worke so doe we acknowledge these to be the proper workes of God which are either indifferent as is to eate and drinke or that are euil as the adultery of Dauid and such like For it is euident out of the first to the Romanes that God doth al thinges mightely as Augustine speaketh not permissiuely so that the treason of Iudas is as properly the worke of God Li. 1. Inst c. 18. ss 1. as the calling of Paul But the principall proctor and promoter of this blasphemy is Caluin who of set purpose bestowes a whole chapter of his Institutions to hell to proue and perswade it There he auoucheth boldly that the blinding and madnesse of Achab was the will and decree of God that Absolon indeede defiling his fathers bed with incestuous adultery committed detestable wickednes yet this was Gods owne worke briefly that nothing is more plaine then that God blindeth the eies of men striketh them with giddines maketh them drunke casteth them into madnes and hardneth their harts And whereas the poore Papists were wont to interprete such textes of Scripture as seeme to attribute these thinges to God by saying that God doth indeede justly permit and suffer such thinges to be done but is not the author of them this Caluin will not in any wise admitte of but in the same place confutes it saying These thinges many referre to sufferance as if in forsaking the reprobate he suffered them to be blinded by Satan but that solution saith he is too fond and so goeth on prouing that God doth not only suffer but actually effect and worke all the euill that any man committeth yea he addeth that which is more horrible that God doth worke this euill in man Ibidem sess 17. 2. by Satans seruice as a meane yet so as God is the principall worker of it and the Diuell but his instrument Is not this blasphemy in the highest degree to make God a more principall author and worker of all wickednesse done in the world then the Diuell himselfe this is much worse then flat Atheisme for it is the lesser impiety of two to hold that there is no God at all then to beleeue that God worketh more effectually all mischiefe then the infernal spirits doe But some of our Protestants wil perhaps say that they hold not this opinion be it so for I thinke better
1. the newe to liberty And there they were as seruants we as heires they seruing vnder the weake and poore elements of this world we hauing the spirit of sonnes c. And the lawe had a shadowe of the thinges to come not the very Image as we haue so that nothing could be further from the Apostles meaning then to make the Iewes equall in Sacraments and graces with the Corinthians who were Christians But his intention was as may be easily seene by that vvhich goeth before and followeth to warne the Corinthians to chastice their bodies as he himselfe did as he saith in the end of the Chapter going before and to flie from all vice and not to rely only vpon the extraordinary gifts of God bestowed vpon them For saith he the ancient Israelites all were partakers of many singuler fauours of God as of the eating of Manna of drinking of the Rocke c. And yet because many of them committed fornication and liued wickedly God was not pleased vvith all of them Obserue also that not one thing there mentioned by the Apostle was a Sacramēt among the Iewes and therefore are they vnskilfully compared with our Sacraments For a Sacrament is a set ceremony to be vsed ordinarily in the vvorship of God but their passing through the red Sea was but once therefore no set ceremony their eating of Manna and drinking of the Rocke were but naturall refections to them yea their cattle did drinke of the Rocke aswell as their Masters vvhich thinges though they did prefigure our Sacraments yet were no Sacraments at all and much lesse any thing in vertue comparable to our Sacraments M. PERKINS sixt reason The Sabbaoth was made for man and not man for the Sabbaoth so it may be said that the Sacrament was made for man and not man for the Sacrament and therefore man is more excellent then the Sacrament the end being alwaies better then the thing ordained to the end but if Christes body be really in the Sacrament then is not man more excellent then it ergo Ans By the like argumēt you may as wel proue that the Sonne of God is not nor euer shal be incarnate for the redemption of man or els which is most absurd that man is better then God because for vs men for our saluation Christ descended from heauen was borne of the V. Mary The end then being alwaies better then the thing ordained to the end as M. P. argueth either Christ is not yet borne to redeme man or els man is better then Christ See what goodly arguments they vse to deceiue the simple withal the direct answere is that the maine principall end of Christs incarnation passion and reall presence in the Sacrament is the glory of Gods justice wisdome and goodnesse and of his owne mercy and bounty which are more excellent then Christes incarnation and reall presence mans redemption spirituall feeding and saluation are but secondary endes which are farre inferior vnto our most louing redeemers mercy kindnesse and charity through which he hath procured it M. PER. confirmeth this reason with that which is nothing like it saying Euer◠beleeuer in the supper of the Lord receiueth whole Christ God man though not the God-head vvhich wordes imply a manifest contradiction For howe can God or whole Christ be receiued without the God-head but by carnall eating we receiue not wholy Christ but only a part of the man-hood and therefore in the Sacrament there is no carnall eating nor reall presence Answ We Catholikes doe eate al Christes body wholy For we part not his body but beleeue that it is whole in euery cōsecrated Host Moreouer because his blessed body is a perfect liuing body vve knowe also that it hath bloud in it as other bodies haue and is yet further joyned vvith his most holy soule and so in receiuing his body we receiue all his man-hood both body soule Ouer and besides his God-head being lincked and joyned inseperably with his man-hood whole Christ both God and man is alwaies receiued together so that euery lay Catholike communicating but vnder one kind doth receiue Christs body bloud yea wholy both all his man-hood and God-head whereas in the Protestants naturall communion of bread and wine there is in deed neither body nor bloud not any peece of Christ but only in their owne phantasticall imagination so that those their ordinary out-cries are most fond The Papistes robbe you of the bloud being one part of the Sacrament Whereas Catholike Pastors giue to their flocke vnder one kinde both the body and bloud yea the very soule and God-head of Christ as you haue heard But the Protestantes are the great Theeues in deede vvho defraude their vnhappy followers of both body and bloud and giue them only sacramental signes and relations to feede their foolish phantasies Before I come vnto M. PER. last reason taken from authority I thinke it fittest to place here certaine other objections which out of place he hudleth vp together in the answere vnto our second argumēt where he saith first that Christes body could not be receiued in bodily manner before his passion We say contrarily that it could be as well before as after When he goeth about to proue his position he shall be answered Secondly That Christ was the Minister of this Sacrament and therefore if he had conuerted bread into his body he should haue taken his owne body into his handes vvhich we graunt following S. Augustine vpon these vvordes He was caried in his owne handes Conc. 1. in psal 31. Howe this may be vnderstood saith he of Dauid literally we finde not but we finde it in Christ for Christ was carried in his owne handes when deliuering his owne body he said this is my body For then he carried that his body in his owne handes M. PER. addeth yet further that it should also followe that Christ did eate his owne flesh for he did communicate also saith he to consecrate his last supper in his owne person This may be true though it haue no warrant in the word For S. Hierome a holy and most learned Doctor doth affirme it saying Epistol ad Hedibian quaest 2. our Lord Iesus is both the guest and the banquet he who doth eate and is eaten and no greater incōuenience is this in our opinion then in theirs For who more meete to receiue Christes blessed body then himselfe and vvhat more foolish then for Christ by faith to apply himselfe and his benefits vnto himselfe which as you haue heard before out of M. PERKINS is to receiue the Lordes supper like a good Protestant Lastly he auoucheth that if we eate Christes body really we must needes be man-slayers but he forgotte to proue it dixit abijt If other proofe fayled him he might haue fledde vnto the rusty opinion of the old farne Capernaites which is mentioned in the Gospell it selfe For they as S. Augustine expoundeth it thought that Christ would
busines so for pleasing of God who making an Antithesis betweene the Virgin and the married woman saith Vers 32.33.34 The Virgin is careful for the thinges that appertaine vnto our Lord how she may please God and be holy in body and spirit whereas the wife is carefull of this world and howe to please her husband so that for sanctification of body and soule and for pleasing God virginity by the expresse sentence of the Apostle is better then mariage and therefore they must needes be much blinded with partiallity that cannot see it or obstinately bent against the truth that seeing it will not confesse it The fift argument It is good for me to dye rather 1. Cor. 9. vers 16. then that any man should make my glory voide For if I Euangelize it is no glory to me for necessity lieth vpon me c. What is my reward then that preaching the Gospell I yeeld the Gospell without cost Out of which words we collect that S. Paul preaching the Gospell on his owne charges without any cost vnto his Auditors did a worke of supererogation and that therefore he expected both glory and reward at Gods handes M. PER. answereth That generally it was in Pauls liberty to preach the Gospell freely or not to doe it but in Corinth vpon speciall circumstances he was bound in conscience to preach it freely as he did by reason of false teachers who would otherwise haue taken occasion to disgrace his ministery and haue hindred the glory of God Now it was Pauls duty to preuent that hinderance Reply S. Paul himselfe hath confuted for vs both partes of this answere The former That he was bound to preach freely in that place in these wordes If I preach it is no glory to me so that if he were bound in conscience to preach freely he could expect no such glory as he speaketh off and yet he saith That he would rather die then leese that glory and reward whence it appeareth plainely that he was not bound in conscience to preach there of free cost which he also most largely proueth from the third verse of that Chapter vnto the three and twenty By Moyses lawe by Christes Commandement by the example of all the other Apostles and by many comparisons and reasons so that nothing is more cleare then that he might haue liued at Corinth as well as in other places on their charges to vvhome he preached And by his whole discourse a man may easily gather that the false teachers did cleane contrary to M. PERKINS imagination accuse him for not taking his charges as the rest did vvherevpon they malitiously gaue out that he was no Apostle nor had not the freedome to liue by the Gospell as the Apostles had to vvhich in the beginning of the Chapter he answereth Am I not free am I not an Apostle and my defence to them that examine me is this haue not we power to eate and drinke as also the rest of the Apostles c. Where he proueth that he had power so to doe yet would not vse that power but preach freely both for his owne greater glory and reward in heauen and also that no kinde of let might be giuen vnto the couetous persons and niggardes who not being liberall in expences he chose rather to liue among them at his owne cost then to burden them vvho might perhaps not be so vvilling to receiue him if they must haue beene at charges to maintayne him or else to auoide the sinister report of some malitious who would not haue spared to haue bruited abroadâ— that he made gaines of the Gospell although he had sparingly liued by it Briefly to auoide some such let as he was not in conscience bound to auoide because it vvas not any scandall of the weake which we are bound to auoide but of the wicked and malitious which may with good conscience be contemned as the other Apostles did yet S. Paul of a superaboundant charity had an eye to that also so that the other Apostles that did liue vpon the Gospel did very well but the better that would not vse that his power and liberty Our sixt argument is taken from the testimony of the ancient Church Origen saith In cap. 15. Roma Those thinges which we doe aboue duty we doe them not by commandement For example virginity is performed not of duty for it is not required by any commandement but is offered aboue duty De habitu Virginiâ— S. Cyprian speaking of virginity saith Neither doth our Lord command this but commend it and exhort vnto it and whereas in his Fathers house there be many mansions you Virgins tend vnto the better places and by cutting-off the desires of the flesh you shall obtayne in heauen a reward of greater grace The like saith S. Basil de Virginitat S. Chrysostome Homil. 8. de penitent S. Hierome lib. 1. cont Iouin S. Augustine de sanct Virg. cap. 30. with many others which to auoide perplexity I doe omitte OF THE WORSHIPPING OF SAINTS SPECIALLY OF INVOCATION OVR CONSENTS M. PERKINS Page 245. THe first conclusion The true Saints of God are to be worshipped three wayes First by keeping in remembrance their vertues Secondly by giuing thankes to God for them and the benefits that by them God vouchsafed to his Chrurch Thirdly They are to be honoured by imitation of their vertues The second conclusion Their true reliques that is their vertues and good examples left to all posterity we keepe and respect with due reuerence yea if any man can shewe vs the bodily true reliques of any true Saint and can proue it so to be though we will not worshippe it yet will we not despise it but keepe it as a monument if it may be done without offence And thus farre we agree with the Church of Rome ANNOTATION HOwe vvell the Protestants obserue and keepe the vertues and good examples of the Saints I leaue it to the vertuous readers consideration But what deuotion they haue to their holy reliques may appeare partly by the manifold limitations this man vseth If they be true reliques if of true Saints if we can so proue them for they are resolute to call all into doubt and finally If it may also be done without offence to wit of their vveake Bretheren and fellowe Heretikes vvhich can neuer be then loe this considerate and aduised man Will not despise them By these exceptions one may easily espie the coldnes of their affection towardes them But the practise of their predecessours vvho made hauocke and burnt all the honourable reliques of the best Saints that they could lay their handes vpon without reuerence and respect doth demonstrate the same wicked spirit to haue possessed them which of old spurred foreward the Iewes and Pagans to consume into ashes the blessed bodies of the Martirs least the Christians should worshippe them and keepe them most reuerently as they were alwayes accustomed to doe when they could get them Yea if they
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
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