question but that they heare all prayers made by vvhosoeuer to them and obtayne very many of their requests And as S. Gregory saith What doe they not see Lib. 12. Moral cap. 13. who see him that seeth all thinges yea contayneth all thinges within himselfe Yet M. PER. blusheth not to say that it is but a forgery of mans braine to imagine that the God-head is such a cleare glasse representing all thinges because it should then followe that the Angels who behold Gods face should be ignorant of nothing but the Angels haue learned some thinges of the Church as S. Paul witnesseth therefore they see not all thinges in God To this we answere that in God all thinges are represented and shine more brightly then in their owne naturall places yet doth not God communicate and reueale all thinges vnto euery body there present but his diuine nature in three persons Christ God and Man with all other naturall and ordinary thinges from the cope of heauen to the center of the earth are seene of euery Cytizen of heauen though with a different degree of clearenes but of Gods counsels concerning the gouernement of the world so much is only knowne vnto either Angell or Men as appertayneth vnto their state and that when it belongeth vnto them therefore the Angels might well not knowe many thinges belonging to the gouernement of the Church vntill they sawe it accomplished and therefore might be said to haue learned some such thing of the Church But as we haue said before it properly appertayneth vnto the state of Saints in heauenly blisse to knowe their friendes reasonable requests made vnto them or else their conditions should not be so perfect but that they might in equity require the bettering of it and consequently they could not be so throughly contented as their estate of perfect felicity in heauen doth demande and thus much of M. PER. reasons To which I will here adde one argument commonly vsed by the Protestants though M. PER. for the weakenesse of it perhaps thought best to omit it it is taken ab authoritate negatiuè which Schollers knowe to be naught worth Math. 11. vers 28. Christ saith come yee vnto me all yee that labour and be burdened and I will refresh you he saith not goe to the Saints but come to me I answere neither doth he say doe not goe to the Saints and therefore here is nothing against vs. We goe to Christ for remission of our sinnes which lye more heauy then a talent of lead vpon our backes and through our redeemers merits doe we craue pardon of them but to moue more effectually this our redeemer and God his father to haue pitty vpon vs we humbly desire the Saints his best beloued seruants to speake a good vvord in our behalfe acknowledging our selues vnvvorthy to obtayne any thing at Gods handes through our owne vngratefull wickednes Now that our Sauiour Christ IESVS doth very well like and approue the mediation of others euen to himselfe may be gathered out of very many euident texts of holy Scripture Math. 8. vers 13. for he at the intercession of the Centurion cured his seruant and * Math. 9 vers 2. seing the faith of them that brought a man sicke of the palsey before him he healed the sicke man and a Luc. 4. vers 38. at his disciples request cured S. Peters mother in lawe And vvhen the vvoman of Chanaan sued vnto him for her daughter b Math. 15 vers 23. he answered her not a word before his disciples had besought him for her by which and many such like recorded in the Gospell euery man that is not wilfully blinde may well see that the intercession of others for vs doth much preuaile euen with our soueraigne intercessor and mediator Christ IESVS himselfe nowe to his authorities Lib. 3. cōt Parmenia cap. 3. The first is out of S. Augustine Christian men commend each other in their prayers to God And who prayeth for all and for whome none prayeth he is the one and true mediatour I answere these wordes be rather for vs for approuing and confessing our Sauiour Christ to be the only mediatour of redemption as we haue already declared they teach that all Christians may commend themselues each to others prayers Nowe the Saints departed be Christians I trust as good as we or rather farre better therefor all other Christians may very well in S. Augustines judgement commend themselues vnto the Saints holy prayers because each one may commend himselfe to any others prayers Concerning the word Mediatour S. Augustine neuer attributeth it vnto any sauing only to our Sauiour taking it alwaies in the second signification aboue named to which three thinges are properly required according to S. Augustine first that he pray for all and that none pray for him which property M. PER. toucheth but misquoteth the place for it is in lib. 2. cap. 8. cont Parmenianum The second property and the most necessary of all is that he pay the full price and ransome of all our sinnes and that his redemption may in equall ballance counterpoise the grieuousnesse of our sinnes which is taken out of diuers places of Scripture The third which is the ground of al the rest is that the Mediatour be both God and Man that participating of both natures he may be as it vvere a naturall middle or meanes to reconcile the two Extreames and so as Man be able to suffer something to appease Gods wrath and as God to giue to that suffering of his man-hood infinite value making thereby Christs sufferinges more then sufficient to pay for the redemption of an hundred vvorldes if neede had beene And these proprieties gathered out of c Lib. 9. de ciuitate cap. 15. alibi S. Augustine and other Fathers will put downe M. PER. odde deuise of proprieties of a Mediatour all which make nothing against the intercession of Saints who be not in that sence to be called mediatours and yet cease not to pray for vs let vs then goe on M. PERKINS citeth secondly another sentence out of S. Augustine where he bringeth in our Sauiour saying Tract 22. in Iohan. Thou hast no whether to goe but to me thou hast no way to goe but by me Answere S. Augustine there alludeth vnto those vvordes of our Sauiour I am the way the truth and the life and saith that for life and truth vve haue no other way to seeke vnto but vnto Christ vvho according vnto his diuinity is truth and life vnto the vvorld And in this high degree of redemption and mediation he was the only way vnto his Father for neither the Gentiles by their morall vertues nor Iewes by the power of their law could without him leade them to God All this is very good doctrine but no whit more against praying to Saints then against commending of vs one to anothers prayers or vsing any other meanes of saluation as S. Augustine vpon
cut his flesh in peeces as butchers doe beefe in the shambles and either rawe or rosted haue giuen it to be eaten to some a legge to other an arme c. But we Catholikes doe eate Christes body whole and that without any detriment or diminution vnto that blessed body which is not extended vnder the partes of the sacred Host so as one part of his body is vnder one part of it and another part vnder another but is after the manner of our soule in the body the whole body vnder the whole Host and the whole vnder euery part of the Host and so without any parting or deuiding of his body it is wholy receiued of euery communicant and remaineth after whole in their bodies imparting his grace to their soules so long as the formes of bread tary in their stomackes in their proper shapes and afterward ceasseth to be there any longer which is confirmed by those diuine wordes of the glorious Apostle S. Andrewe recorded by his most deare Disciples Libr. de pass eius When the immaculate lambe is truly sacrificed and his flesh truly eaten of the people he neuerthelesse remaineth and continueth whole and aliue That which he peeceth too of the necessity which we are brought vnto by our doctrine to hold that our bodies be nourished by naked qualities which saith he is erronious in Philosophy is not worth the answering For neither are we driuen to hold that vnlesse it be out of the bounty of our owne good willes For it is nothing materiall â—o the real presence whether our bodies be nourished by the accidents there present or no neither is it so cleare a case in Philosophy whether odours that are naked quallities doe nourish or no as they who haue studied Philosophie knowe And lastly all matters of faith are aboue the rules of Philosophie vvherefore the reall presence of Christs blessed body in the Sacrament being a memoriall and monument of all his merueilous works it must not be thought strange if there followe of it many thinges aboue the reach of naturall Philosophie and yet not so many perhaps as must needes be granted by them as well as by vs in the resurrection of our bodies vvhich notwithstanding those difficulties in Philosophy all Christian men doe firmely beleeue Nowe let vs come vnto such authorities as M. PER. citeth in fauour of their part which neither are many nor taken out of the more famous fathers of either Greeke or Latin Church and which is more admirable not one of the authours by him cited but that in the very same wordes which he alleadgeth to disproue the reall presence they doe euidently auerre and proue it so well knowne and confessed a truth was this of the blessed Dialog 1 Sacrament in all antiquity Theodorete saith The same Christ who called his naturall body foode and bread who also called himselfe a vine he vouchsafed the visible signes the name of his owne body not changing nature but putting grace to nature Here are scarce two wordes together as it is in the author The former part of his wordes be Our Sauiour changed names giuing to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body that is he called his body bread and bread his body so that here is as much for vs as against vs and the latter part of the sentence is wholy for vs. For Christ would saith he haue them that he partakers of the misteries not to attend vnto the nature of the thinges which are seene that is bread and wine but by reason of the changing of names to giue credit to that change which is made by grace that is they hearing in consecration that which was before bread and wine to be then called his body and bloud should beleeue that then also bread and vvine vvere changed and made his body and bloud that change being wrought by the vertue and grace of his word To these wordes of Theodorete in his first Dialogue he joyneth other wordes of his taken out of his second yet quoting the same Dialogue The mysticall signes after consecration leese not their nature for they remaine in their first nature figure and forme and may be feine and touched as before Here M. PER. should haue stopped in the middest of the sentence as they are sometimes accustomed to doe and then had he left some shewe of wordes for his part yet such as might easily be answered but vvhen the reason of the remaining of mysticall signes in their former nature and figure is as he himselfe declareth that they may be seene as before he doth giue the learned reader to vnderstand that he speaketh not of the inward substance of them but of the outward appearance which is the proper object of the sences which outward accidence hath a certaine kind of essence and nature as well as the substance it selfe But that which followeth in Theodorete putteth al out of doubt For he addeth The mysticall signes may be seene as before but that which they are made is vnderstood And what is it vnderstood to be made Marry euen that which we beleeue and adore which can be no other thing but the true reall body of Christ Iesus God and man For in him doe vve beleeue and him doe we adore See then howe this his first and best authour disproueth plainely his owne position M. PER. second authour is one Gelasius an old writer I confesse but where or what he was De duabus naturis Christi it is vncertaine This man saith Bread and wine passe into the substance of the body and bloud of Christ yet they cease not but remaine still in the property of their nature these wordes be flat against M. PER. and the Zwinglians doctrine in that they teach bread and wine to passe into the substance of Christes body The other clause seemeth to make for the Lutherans yet may be interpreted that they remaine stil in some property of their nature that is in the same forme colour and taste as they did before M. PER. goeth on Lib. 4. sentent dist 11. Lumbard saith if he be asked what conuersion this is whether formall or substantiall or of any other kinde he cannot define it Ans Gentle reader turne to the place and imbrace his resolution For most formally doth he deliuer our doctrine and that proued by the testimony of the ancient Fathers albeit the name of transubstantion were not then in vse From the Fathers sentences M. PER. falleth to collections of his owne out of them First saith he they vsed in former times to burne with fire that which remained after the administration of the Lordes supper and therefore tooke it not for his body and quoteth for proofe of this Hesichius Libr. 2. in Leuit. c. 8. where he sheweth either ouer great boldnes if he did not see the place on exceeding wilfull malice if he read it For that ancient writer out of that ceremony of burning al
Fathers plaine sentences for the Sacrifice of the Masse to make his poore abused followers beleeue that vvhen they approue the Sacrifice of the Masse as they doe very often and that in most expresse tearmes as you shal heare hereafter that then they meane some other matter Much more sincerely had he dealt if he had confessed with his owne Rabbins that it was the common beleefe of the world receiued by the best Schoole-men That in the Masse a Sacrifice is offered to God for remission of sinnes as a Lib. 4. Instit ca. 18. §. 1. Caluin doth deliuer vvhich b De captiuit Babilon c. 1. Luther graunteth to be conformable vnto the saying of the ancient Fathers And one c Li. cont Carolostadianos Alberus a famous Lutheran speaketh it to the great glory of his Master Luther that he vvas the first since Christes time who openly inueighed against it this yet is more ingenious and plainer dealing to confesse the truth then with vaine colours to goe about to disguise it And that the indifferent reader may be vvell assured howe Luther an Apostata Friar could come vnto that high pitch of vnderstanding as to soare vnto that which none sithence Christes time neither Apostles nor other could reach vnto before him let him reade a speciall treatise of his owne Cocleus Vlenbergius Intituled of Masse in corners and of the consecration of Priestes which is extant in the sixt Tome of his workes set out in the German tongue and printed at Ienes as men skilfull in that language doe testifie In his workes in â—â—tin printed at Wittenburge of the older edition it is the seauenth Tome though somewhat corrected and abridged there I say the good fellowe confesseth that entring into a certaine conference and dispute with the Diuell about this Sacrifice of the Masse Luther then defending it and the Deuill very grauely arguing against it in fine the Master as it was likely ouercame his Disciple Luther and so setled him in that opinion against the Sacrifice of the Masse that he doubted not afterward to maintayne it as a principle point of the newe Gospell and is therein seconded by the vvhole band of Protestants This is no fable but a true history set downe in print by himselfe through Gods prouidence that all the vvorld may see from vvhat authority this their doctrine against the blessed Sacrifice of the Masse proceedeth And if they vvill beleeue it notwithstanding they knowe the Deuill to be the founder of it are they not then most vvorthy to be rejected of God and adjudged to him vvhose Disciples they make themselues vvittingly and of their owne free accord Nowe to the difference OVR DIFFERENCE M. PERKINS Page 207. THey make the Eucharist to bee a reall and externall Sacrifice offered vnto God holding that the Minister of it is a Priest properly in that he offereth Christes body and bloud to God really and properly vnder the formes of bread and wine we acknowledge no such Sacrifice for remission of sinne but only Christes on the Crosse once offered Here is the maine difference which is of such moment that their Church maintayning this can bee no Church at all for this pointe raseth the foundation to the very bottome vvhich he vvill proue by the reasons follovving if his ayme faile him not Obserue that in the lawe of Moyses there vvere three kinde of proper Sacrifices one called Holocaust or vvhole burnt offeringes the second an Host for sinne of vvhich there were also diuers sortes the third an Host of pacification Holocaustes vvere vvholy consumed by fire in recognizance and protestation of Gods Soueraigne dominion ouer vs Hostes for sinne vvere offered as the name improteth to appease Gods vvrath and to purge men from sinne Hostes of pacification or peace vvere to giue God thankes for benefits receiued and to sue for continuance and increase of them Nowe vve following the ancient Fathers doctrine doe hold the Sacrifice of the Masse to succeede all these sacrifices and to contayne the vertue and efficacy of all three to vvit it is offered both to acknowledge God to be the supreame Lord of heauen and earth and that all our good commeth from him as vvitnesseth this oblation of his deare Sonnes body who being the Lord of heauen and earth vvillingly suffered death to shewe his obedience to his Father Secondly it is offered to appease Gods vvrath justly kindled against vs sinners representing to him therein the merit of Christes passion to obtaine our pardon Thirdly it is offered to God to giue him thankes for all his graces bestowed vpon vs and by the vertue thereof to craue continuance and encrease of them These points of our doctrine being openly laide before the eyes of the world M. PER. seemeth to reproue only one peece of them to wit That the Sacrifice of the Masse is no true Sacrifice for remission of sinnes and not joyning issue with vs but vpon that branch only he may be thought to agree vvith vs in the other two to wit that it is a proper and perfect kinde of whole burnt offering and a Sacrifice of pacification at least he goeth not about to disproue the rest and therefore he had need to spit on his fingers as they say and to take better hold or else if that were graunted him which he endeauoureth to proue he is very farre from obtayning the Sacrifice of the Masse to be no true and proper kind of Sacrifice For it may well be an Holocaust or Host of pacification though it be not a Sacrifice for sinne But that all men may see howe confident we are in euery part and parcell of the Catholike doctrine we will joyne issue with him where he thinketh to haue the most aduantage against vs and will proue it to be also an Host for remission of sinnes and that aswel for the dead as for the liuing which is much more then M. PER. requireth and by the way I will demonstrate that this doctrine is so farre off from rasing the foundation of Christian religion that there can be no religion at all vvithout a true and proper kinde of Sacrifice and sacrificing Priestes But first I will confute M. PER. reasons to the contrary because he placeth them foremost Hebr. 9. v. 15.16 ca. 10. vers 10. The first reason The holy Ghost saith Christ offered himselfe but once therefore not often and thus there can be no reall offering of his body and bloud in the Sacrament of his supper the text is plaine True but your arguing out of it is somewhat vaine For after your owne opinion it is the Priest that doth offer the Sacrifice of Christes body in the Lordes supper and therefore though Christ offered it but once as the Apostle saith yet Priests appointed by him may offer it many times Doe yee perceiue howe easily your Achilles may be foiled the good-man not looking belike for this answere saith nothing to it but frameth another in
doe not wholy and inuiolably hold all the points of faith that she professeth but renounceth them and declareth them to be accursed wherefore no Protestant can be in the Church of Rome But they say That their Church lay hidde in the Roman as corne in chaffe Did it in deede lie in such obscurity that none of them were to be seene or heard off therefore it was no Church at all for the most proper markes of the Church according to their owne principles are The true preaching of Gods word and the sincere administration of the Sacraments Nowe preachers of the vvord must be both seene and heard also and they walked not inuisible I hope vvho ministred and receiued their Sacraments wherefore they must either graunt that their Church in that generall Apostacy was visible or that it was no Church at all as not hauing the inseparable markes of their Church which are The true preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments Againe if they had beene liuely members of the true Church how could they liue vnknowne in that great Apostacy were they not bound in conscience to haue made profession of their faith publikely Rom. 10. vers 10. Math. 10. vers 33. S. Paul saith yea With the hart we beleeue vnto justice but with the mouth confession is made to saluation And our Sauiour saith He that shall deny me before men I also will deny him before my father which is in heauen If they were such crauens as made more account of their owne ease and safety then of the truth of their religion and glory of God they were rather cockle ouer-sowed by the enemy among the good-seede Math. 13. vers 25. then like vnto corne hidden in chaffe In vaine for them also vvas that voyce sent from heauen and recorded by S. Iohn which M. PER. taketh for his text Goe out of her my people for these dastardly faint-harted fellowes would giue no eare to it but loued better to hide their heades in some musty corner then vvith danger of their liues to separate themselues from those abhominations If then there vvere any such false harted dumbe and deafe reprobates hidden among others let the Protestants take them if they please for their worthy ancestors But no reason in the world to cal them the true Church of God that had neither true loue of Gods honour nor of their neighbours good and conuersion otherwise they would not haue holden their peace seing Gods holy name so miserably prophaned as they thought Thus much of M. PER. position nowe to his proofe If any man aske them where their Church was before Luthers dayes he answereth out of this text Goe out of her my people that it was euer since the Apostles dayes Let vs drawe this to some forme of argument that it may appeare how it hangeth togither A voice from heauen cryed in S. Iohns dayes to the Church of Rome Goe out of Babilon that is depart from the congregation of the wicked Heathens and Pagans therefore the Protestants religion hath beene euer since the Apostles dayes Apply Iohn Barber and thou shalt haue a newe paire of sizors for thy labour Should not a man leese his labour to confute particularly such a sencelesse discourse But yet a word to his next annotation vpon the text Demanding whether the Church of Rome he a Church or no he answereth That if it be so taken as in truth it is it is no Church at all His proofes are That it is Babilon that it peruerteth the true sence of the Scripture and ouerturneth the inward baptisme all which I haue heretofore confuted Here I will but demand whether this assertion of his doth not vndermine and blowe vp his former for if their hidden Church were no where but in the Roman for nine hundred yeares together and that Roman were no Church at all then surely their Church was not at all which had no being and existence but in the other which vvas not at all I may not here omit to note by the vvay vnto the gentle reader out of S. Augustine In illa verba ps 85. TV SOLVS DeVS MAGNVS Pag. 338. Howe they robbe Christ of his glory and inheritance bought with his pretious bloud who hold that his Church failed and was fled into corners Yea S. Hierome further affirmeth That they make God subject to the Deuill and a poore miserable Christ who hold that his body the Church may perish or be so bidden that it cannot be heard off Wherefore omitting such impertinent stuffe let vs come vnto those horrible crimes that he chargeth the Church of Rome withall The first is no lesse then Atheisme to vvhich I haue fully answered in the preface of this booke wherefore I doe omit it here doe come to the second crime of Idolatry Which saith he is as grosse among vs as euer it was among the Heathens See the foule mouth of a preacher howe proueth he this Marry it is to be seene in two things first they worship the Saints with religious worship which is proper to God O most impudent doe we make Saints creators of heauen and earth omnipotent infinitely wise and good or giue them any kinde of honour due vnto God only see that question and detest the sonnes of the Deuill that blush not to auouch such monstrous lies But we make the blessed Virgin Mary a Mediator of redemption Fie vpon such an impudent face but we call her a Lady a Queene be it so For so did Athanasius in Euang. de sanctiss Deipar apply those wordes of the 44. Psalme The Queene standeth on thy right hand in a golden vestement c. So did Gregory Nazianzene in his Verses of her For thou saith he ô Queene by the diuine fauour camest to me So did holy Effrem in his Oration to her all which liued within foure hundreth yeares off Christ To omit S. Chrysostomes Lyturgy because they like it not But what of this shee is a redeemer O sencelesse that shee is called a Goddesse as they did call the Queene Elizabeth then liuing I reade not in any of the bookes quoted by him Missal Breuiar A mediatresse of intercession our hope our life and the like shee may be called in a good sence because we hope through the helpe of her most gratious prayers to obtayne the life of our soules and so may it be said to her Prepare thou glory for vs defend vs from our enemies and such like to wit by the meanes of her prayers Againe saith he their Idolatry is manifest in that they worship God in at or before Images Then are the Protestants also Idolaters because they vvorship God in or at the Churches at or before their communion table Whether we haue commandement or not for Images maketh nothing to Idolatry but whether we giue to Images the honour only due to God which we doe not Nowe to compare Images to adulterers is to dote and deserueth no
the holy Ghost in penning this passage hath as fully preuented this euasion as it was possible by such a particular description of Peters owne person as a curious lawyer could not in so few wordes haue done it more precisely For Christ specifieth both his former name of â—inâ—â—â— and his Fathers name Ionas and then his owne newe name Peter and so particularized singled out from the rest directeth his speech to him I say to thee thâ—â— art Peter c. How could he better haue expressed himselfe to haue spoken to Peter particularly Againe he said before that Peter had not learned that his confession of flesh and bloud but by the reuelation of his heauenly Father vvhereby he signifieth that Peter had not receiued his answere from his fellow Apostles or spoke it as deliuered by conference from them but out of his owne hart inspired by the holy Ghost vvherefore to him alone were his vvordes following directed And thus much concerning the promise which our Sauiour made vnto S. Peter of the Supremacy nowe to the wordes of performance which are written in S. Iohn Iob. c. 21. vers 15. IESVS faith to Peter Simon the sonne of Iohn dost thou loue me more then these he saith to him yea Lord thou knowest that I loue thee he saith to him feede my lambes He saith to him againe Simon of Iohn loâ—est thou me yea Lord thou knowest that I loâ—e thee he saith to him feede my lambes He saith to him the third time Simon of Iohn louest thou me Peter was strooken fadde because he said to him the third time louest thou me And he said vnto him Lord thou knowest all thinges thou knowest that I loue thee he saith vnto him feede my sheepe Amen amen I say to thee when thou wast younger thou diddest gird thy selfe c. These vvordes haue I set downe at length that euery one may first see and be well assured that they vvere spoken to S. Peter only because Christ doth first seuer part him from the rest saying Dost thou loue me more then these to wit then the other Apostles vvho were then present Againe Peter vvas sad and began to misdoubt himselfe vvhich argueth that he tooke it spoken to himselfe and sheweth playnely that he spoke in his owne name only and thirdly the wordes following Amen I say vnto thee are without all question spoken particularly to Peter Nowe that Christ in giuing him chardge to fâ—ede his lambes and sheepe did giue him the supreme gouernement ouer his Church I proue first by the word pasce feede or be thou Pastor of my flocke for it doth signifie not bare feeding but to feede as a sheepe-heard doth his sheepe which is not only to prouide them meate but to keepe them also from the woulfe to cure their diseases to leade or driue them whither he will briefly to rule and gouerne them And this word pasce and much more the Greeke Poimaine is frequent in holy Scripture in this sence of gouerning see psal 2. vers 9. Thou shalt rule them in an yron rodde Michaeae 5. vers 2. Math. 2. vers 6. Apocal. 19. vers 15. vvhere the Greeke word Poimaino is put for to rule and gouerne And in the 77. psalme v. 71. Dauid was chosen to feede his seruant Iacob and Israell his in heritance that was to rule ouer them but like a good sheepe-heard mildly vigilantly and rather for the good of the sheepe then for his owne pleasure or profit Nowe that the chiefe feeding and supreme gouernement of all Christs flocke was committed vnto him it appeareth first by those wordes of our Sauiour to him Doest thou loue me more then these why should he require greater charity in S. Peter then in the rest of the Apostles but for that he meant to aduance him to a chardge aboue the rest secondly in that he committed to Peter the feeding of both sheepe and lambes that is of both the Temporalty signified by the lambes and of the Clergy vvho be sheepe let vs heare S. Leo. Againe Serm. 3. dâ— anniuers Assumpt suae In that he committeth to him absolutely without exception of any his sheepe feede my sheepe he maketh him Pastor of his whole flocke as S. Bernard whome M. PER. often alledgeth against vs in this question doth very learnedly inferre Lib. 2. de consid cap. 8. Thou saith he wilt aske me howe I proue that both sheepe and Pastor are committed and credited to thee euen by our Lordes word For to whome of all I will not say Bishops but Apostles were the sheep so absolutely and without limitation committed if thou loue me Peter feede my sheepe he saith not the people of this Kingdome or of that City but my sheepe whosoeuer therefore will acknowledge himselfe to be one of Christes sheepe must submit himselfe to be gouerned by S. Peter or by some of his successours You see then by the very wordes and circumstances of the text that the supremacy is giuen to S. Peter let vs heare whither the most learned and holy auncient Fathers haue not so vnderstood them S. Cyprian saith To Peter our Lord after his resurrection said De vnitat Eccles feede my sheepe and builded his Church vpon him alone Epiphanius in Ancorato This is he who heard spoken to him feede my sheepe to whome the fold is credited alluding to that place Iob. 10. vers 16. Lib. 2. de Sacerdâ—r there shall be one Pastor and one fold S. Chrysostome Why did our Lord shedde his bloud truly to redeeme those sheepe the chardge of which be committed to Peter and to his successours And a little after Christ would haue Peter indued with such authority and to be farre aboue all his other Apostles for he saith Peter doest thou loue me more then these In cap. 2. vers 21. see him also in his learned Commentaries vpon that text of S. Iohn S. Augustine also vpon the same place saith That he committed his sheepe to Peter to be fedde that is saith he to be taught and gouerned And because he produceth S. Gregory against vs he must giue vs leaue to cite him for vs. Lib. 4. epist 76. He saith It is euident to all that knowe the Gospell that by our Lordes mouth the chardge of the whole Church is committed vnto Peter Prince of the Apostles for vnto him it is said Peter doest thou loue me feede my sheepe to him is it also said Luc. 22. vers 31. Behold Satan hath required to sift you as wheate but I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not and thou once conuerted confirme thy brethren c. By these two places of holy Scripture to omit for breuities sake twenty others it is cleare enough to them who desire to see the truth that S. Peter by our Sauiours owne choise and appointment vvas not only preferred before all the rest of the Apostles in some particular gifts but vvas made also gouernour of his Church Nowe
to that which M. PERKINS letteth fall by the way That though Peter excelled the rest of the twelue yet Paul passed him euery way this said he boldly and barely vvithout any authour or any shewe of proofe but let vs in kindnesse helpe him to proue it Galat. 2. vers 9. First S. Paul saith Iames. Cephas and Iohn who seemed to be the pillars gaue me and Barnabas the right hand of foâ—tery nowe if he were fellowe with the best he was not inferiour to Peter Answere In an orderly fellowship there is ordinarily one head and chiefe commander and so S. Paul might be very well admitted into that holy society and fellowship of preaching the Gospell and yet be vnder the President and Master of that Colledge or company S. Peter Secondly S. Paul further saith That the Gospell of the prepuce that is the preaching vnto the Gentils was committed vnto him as the chardge of the Israelites was vnto S. Peter therefore he was S. Peters equall at least and perhaps his better too because a larger commission was grounted vnto him Answere A partition of preaching the Gospell vnto all nations was made by common consent among the Apostles and it seemeth that S. Paul who was called afterward vvas admitted in S. Peters circuit or quarter vvhereupon for the more orderly proceeding in that blessed vvorke it was agreed vpon by them that S. Paul should haue principall care of the Gentils and S. Peter of the Iewes not that each of them might not also deale with both Iewes and Gentils for S. Peter was the first of all others that by reuelation from heauen did conuert the Gentils as he testifieth saying Act. 15. vers 7. Bretheren you knowe that God chose that by my mouth the Gentils should heare the word of God and beleeue yet because men commonly doe most tender and affect that vvhich is more specially committed to their charge to S. Paul were the Gentils recommended as to S. Peter the care of the Iewes But this might be very well done and yet S. Paul be inferiour vnto S. Peter and owe him a reuerent duty in the cases of supremacy as the Bishops of Canterbury and London haue charges of seuerall men and places yet is London to acknowledge Canterbury as his superiour And if the other Apostles who had also their diuisions and Diocesses a part were neuerthelesse inferiour vnto S. Peter so might S. Paul be notwithstanding his distinct charge Thirdly S. Paul resisted S. Peter to his face and reprehended him for walking amisse therefore he was rather his superiour Answere Not so for an inferiour by vvay of brotherly correction may in decent sort reprehend his superiour if he see him not to take good courses I knowe vvell that S. Hierome following the opinion of most of the Greeke Fathers doth cleare S. Peter of all fault holding it to haue beene but a set match betweene the two great Apostles that one of them for the instruction of others should reprehend the other But admitting with S. Augustine that S. Peter was worthy blame and therefore justly reprehended by S. Paul yet thence will followe no derogation to S. Peters dignity but great commendation of his humility as the holy Fathers of that opinion doe gather Of it thus writeth S. Cyprian Epist 71. ad Quintum Neyther did Peter whome our Lord chose the first and vpon whome he built his Church when Paul disputed with him about circumcision arrogate to himselfe any thing saying that he bad primacy and therefore the latter disciple ought rather to obey him but tooke it in good part S. Augustine saith Peter gaue to his posterity a more rare and holy example Epist 19. ad HieroÌ„ that they should not disdayne to be corrected of their juniours then Paul that inferiours sauing their charity might confidently resist their superiours for the defence of truth And S. Gregory the great speaking of S. Peter saith Hom. 18. in Ezech. He yeelded vnto his inferiour brother and in that matter became a follower of his juniour to the end he might excell in this point that he who chiefest in the toppe of the Apostleship might be chiefest also in humility Thus much of S. Peters supremacy Nowe that the Popes of Rome doe succeede him in the same authority First that this Monarchy and soueraigne authority of one ouer all the rest vvas not to expire and end with S. Peter as M. PER. dreameth but to continue in Christes Church vntill the end of the world is cleare and euident to them vvho consider that this Supremacy was not giuen vnto S. Peter principally for his owne honour and aduancement but for the benefit of the Church to preserue and maintayne vnity and peace among all her louing and obedient children according vnto that of S. Hierome Among the twelue Apostles one is chosen L. 1. cont Iouinian that a head being established the occasion of schisme and diuision might be preuented and taken away If therefore it vvas thought necessary vnto the vvisdome of God Christ IESVS to appoint one head among the Apostles and a fewe of the best Christians vvho had the first fruites of his holy spirit to cut off dissention and to maintayne peace how much more neede hath there beene euer sithence of one supreme Pastor and moderatour of controuersies vvhen the number of Christians is so greatly increased and such variety of nations are ingrafted incorporated into it when through the diuersity of wits and judgements and the decay of charity there must needes be a thousand times more neede of the supreme authority of some one to hold all the rest together in the vnity of faith and religion Againe in the old Testament and lawe of Moyses which was a figure of the new the same forme of gouernement by one head and finall judge in spirituall matters vvas at the first established and continued euer after vvithout alteration till Christes first comming Euen so must the same Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy which our blessed Sauiour hath demised framed and founded stand alwaies firme and inviolable vntil his second comming for he hath built it vpon so firme a Rocke that hell gates shall not preuaile against it vvhich may be further confirmed if we vveigh vvell of vvhat moment and importance it is to alter and change the forme of gouernement For it is of no lesse moment then to alter the whole estate of Christs common-weale the very essence forme and vnity of a publike state consisting principally in the manner and order of ruling of it vvhich alteration and variety to imagine to haue hapned in Christs Church is to make many seames in his vnsowed garments or rather to rippe it and rent the vnity thereof into many peeces It being therefore a most certayne truth that the same supreme gouernement vvhich S. Peter had ouer the rest vvas to continue alwayes in Christes Church it followeth as plainely that the Bishops of Rome vvere to succeede him in that