considered of To it then I say first that if it be ought worth it as well ouerthroweth the Kinges as the Popes Supremacy For if the Pope may not be Christes deputy as he is mediatour and gouernour of his Church because that no creature can be his deputy in any point of Ecclesiasticall gouernement as M. PER. defineth then surely no King nor Prince who are meere creatures and not one of them I trowe both God and Man can be Christes deputy in the gouernement of his Church I say secondly that a meere creature may be Christ our mediatours deputy and Vicar in the Ecclesiasticall gouernement of his Church neyther is there therein any one action that necessarily proceedeth from the two natures of God and Man as M. PER. dreameth Examine all the points of Supremacy proposed in the difference by himselfe and see vvhether there be any one that must needes be the action of both God and Man to call a generall Councell is none such nor to ratifie the decrees thereof to discusse and declare which bookes be Canonicall Scripture and vvhat is the true meaning of all obscure places therein contayned may be done by men assisted by the inspiration of the holy Ghost and so among all the rest there is not one point of the Supremacy but may be vvell executed by a mortall man assisted with Gods spirit The points of Christes mediation namely to satisfie his Fathers vvrath by paying him the full ransome of all mankinde the establishing of a newe Testament or lawe the creation of spirituall Magistrates the furnishing of it with Sacraments and such like are indeede so proper to Christ that they cannot be communicated vnto others Marry to see that his lawes be vvell obserued lawfull Gouernours and Ministers elected and his Sacraments rightly administred the chardge I say of these thinges may be very vvell committed vnto his deputies and the principall ouer-sight of all vnto one supreme gouernour vnder himselfe that all the inferiour Prelates may be holden in peace and vnity And to say that Christes presence by his vvord and spirit is sufficient to dissolue all doubtes that arise about matter of faith and to reforme all misdemeanour that is among Christians without the authority of some Magistrate to see the same vvell declared and applyed vnto particular persons is to speake against all reason and experience For vvho shall reforme obstinate Heretikes Christes vvord but Heretikes haue alwayes said and will euer say that it maketh for them Shall Christes spirit correct them they hold that they haue that spirit in such aboundance that it cryeth in them Abba Father so that M. PER. argument driueth to this that there must be no gouernour at all but that euery wrangling fellowe is to be left vnto the vvord and spirit of Christ vvhich is most absurd in matter of gouernement And albeit that in producing of supernaturall effectes men be but Gods instruments yet because they be instruments indued with reason chosen by God and enabled to doe that whereunto they are by Christ appointed I see no reason why they may not be well called Christes deputies Sure I am that S. Paul feareth not to stile himselfe with the other Apostles 2. Cor. 5. vers 20. 1. Cor. 3. vers 9 Christes Legates or Ambassadours which is as much if not more then his deputies And in an other place he goeth yet further and saith that they are coadjutors or fellowe worke-men with God for though it be Gods worke as the only efficient cause yet men doe concurre thereunto as his instruments and doe in their kinde worke properly towards the producing of the effect as the Preacher by his perswasions zeale and piety doth very much moue his Auditors to embrace Godlinesse although he should labour in vaine if God dâ—d not principally both concurre with his speeches and inwardly also dispose the hart of the hearer to receiue them But of this more hereafter in the matter of the Sacraments Touching the matter of gouernement I cannot vnderstand what M. PER. meaneth when he saith that euery action thereof proceedeth from the very person of Christ for vvhen the Bishops or congregation doth excommunicate an offendour howe can that act of theirs be personal in respect 〈…〉 speaketh Is Christ there thâ—â— in paâ—â—â—â—◠〈…〉 â—â—n-hood togither are they prosecution 〈…〉 sentence of excommunication vvhat adoâ—â—◠〈…〉 if such deepe doctrine drowne many pâ—â—â—e of Popâ—â—ry If Christ be not there present howe thâ—n can thee action proceeds 〈◊〉 him only and be so proper to him that it may be called personall M. PER. meaneth perhaps only that when the congregation doth out 〈…〉 the Church by excommunication then Christ 〈…〉 from the kingdome of heauen vvhich is also false for many 〈…〉 vvhich afterward vpon their 〈◊〉 vnto that kingdome and therefore vvere not cut off from it by Christ But suppose it were true that Christ then seperated that person from heauen vvould it followe thereof that the act of coâ—ting him off 〈◊〉 congregation done by the Church vvere the proper action of Christ proceeding immediatelie from his two 〈◊〉 of God and man nothing I thinke can be imagined more absurd wherefore all the actions of Ecclesiastical gouernement issue properly from the persons of the Gouernours vvho are in deede placed in that seate of authority by Christ and inspired by him to exercise that function duty but so qualified by Christ doe formally execute and vvorke all the actions belonging to gouernement and therefore may be most properly called Deputies vvho in their Masters name and by authority receiued from him doe that they haue commission to doe M. PERKINS second reason is All the Apostles were equall in power and authority for the commission Apostolicall was equally giuen vnto them all Math. 28. Goe teach all nations baptizing them c. Answere They were equall in that point of preaching the Gospell to all nations and in many other thinges vvhich appertayned to the planting of the Christian religion Marry alwayes with this generall prouiso that both they and all those vvho were conuerted vnto the faith by them should acknowledge and obey one supreme Pastor Christes Vicegerent on earth Which S. Leo doth very plainely teach saying Epist 84. ad Anast Betweene the most blessed Apostles in the similitude or equality of honour there was a certayne difference of power and where as the election of them all was equall yet it was giuen vnto one of them to haue preheminence aboue the rest But M. PERKINS saith that the promise of the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen was not priuate to Peter but in his person made to the rest of the Apostles according vnto Peters confession made in the name of the rest Answere Very just euen as Peter made his confession so vvas the promise but he made that confession of Christ in his owne name and that by speciall reuelation from God without consulting with any of the rest therefore to him alone vvas that
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
for the amendment of their liues or else they should be the most foolish judges that euer vvere appointed vpon earth Wherefore seing that the Apostles had authority to forgiue sinnes and vvere in discretion to admmister the same vnto penitent sinners it must needes followe necessarily that the penitent should confesse all his sinnes in particular vnto them and that authority was to continue in the Church for euer it being giuen to the Apostles for the due gouerning of the Church and to the comfort of al sinners which should neuer fayle to be vntill Christes last comming to judgement They to defeate all this discourse answere That Christ gaue not his Apostles authority to pardon any mans sinnes but only to declare that their sinnes were pardoned if with true repentance and faith they receiued the preaching of the Gospell This interpretation first is repugnant to the text vvhich in expresse tearmes hath Whose sinnes yee shall remit or pardon not vvhose sinnes yee shall declare to be remitted Secondly it hath that Whose sinnes yee shall forgiue they are forgiuen to wit euen then when they remit them and not that they were remitted before as he should haue said if he had giuen them authority only to declare them to be remitted Thirdly the metaphor of keyes giuen vnto them doth demonstrate that power was giuen them to absolue and not to declare only they were absolued because keyes are giuen to open or shut dores and not to signifie that eyther the dores are already open or shall be vpon condition Lastly the Ministers pronouncing of men absolued should be very rash and friuolous if they doe not truly absolue them For if he pronounce them absolutely to be absolued without good assurance of their faith repentance he should but lie and if he doe pronounce them absolued conditionally if they beleeue aright and be truly penitent then vvere his absolution in vaine for it depending vpon their faith and repentance and not vpon the Ministers pronouncing it bringeth no further assurance then they had before yea they themselues being of the faithfull could not be ignorant of so much before to wit that he was free from sinne and needed not his absolution Nowe that the Apostles then and Bishops and Priests their successours euer sithence did truly absolue men from their sinnes and were not like to cryers only proclaymers thereof see first S. Chrysostome who saith That such power was giuen here to men Lib. 3. de Sacerdot which God would neuer giue to Angels who yet had power to pronounce saluation to penitent sinners Secondly That Priestes haue such power of binding and loosing ouer the soules as Kinges haue ouer their subjects bodyes vvhich is truly to binde or to loose them and not only to declare them bound or loosed Thirdly he saith expresly That the Priestes among the Iewes had power to purge the leprosie or rather to try whether they were purged from it or no but it is graunted vnto our Priestes not only to discerne whether the body be purged from leprosie or no but playnely to purge our soules from the filth of sinne S. Ambrose in diuers places proueth directly against the Nouatians that Christ gaue power to Priestes to remit sinnes Lib. 1. de Poenitent c. 2. 7. The Nouatians denyed not but that one might preach the Gospell vnto such sinners that vvere relapsed and promise them pardon too if they repented but would not haue the Priests to reconcile them vnto the Church by the Sacrament of Penance denying that Priestes had any such power ouer such sinners but that they must leaue them to God alone vvhich the holy Doctor confuteth by these places of Scripture Math. 16. vers 19. cap. 18. vers 18. Ioh. 20. vers 23. Whatsoeuer yee forgiue in earth shall be forgiuen in heauen Epist ad Heliodor S. Hierome saith God forbidde that I should speake any euill of them who succeeding in the Apostolike degree doe with their sacred mouth make the body of Christ and by whome we are made Christians who hauing the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen doe in a certayne manner judge before the day of judgement Lib. 20. de ciuit c. 9. S. Augustine doth define in these wordes Whatsoeuer yee shall binde vpon earth shal be bound in heauen that authority is giuen vnto the rulers of the Church to judge in spirituall causes and not only to declare Hom. 62. in Euang. S. Gregory vpon these vvordes Whose sinnes you forgiue c. Behold saith he the Apostles are not only made secure of themselues but haue power giuen them to release other mens handes and doe obtayne a prerogatiue of the heauenly judgement that in Gods steede they may forgiue to some their sinnes and binde some others and truly the Bishops nowe doe hold the same place in the Church they receiue authority to binde and to loose c. By this you may see in part vvith what fore-head M. PERKINS affirmed that for a thousand yeares after Christ there was no mention of the Sacrament of Penance and more you shall see shortly if that first I shall note out of the Scripture it selfe both the acknowledgement of receite of that power to reconcile and absolue and the practise and commandement of confession S. Paul acknowledgeth and declareth 2. Cor. 5. vers 18. 20. that God had giuen vnto them the ministery of reconciliation and addeth that they be Gods Legates and therefore exhorteth them to be reconciled but they that be sent Ambassadours vvith full commission to reconcile men vnto their Prince must knowe both howe grieuously they haue offended and what recompence they are willing to make vvhich must needes be by their owne confession Nowe for the practise of confession by the first Christians Act. 19. vers 18. 19. it is recorded That many of the faithfull came confessing and declaring their deedes and many that had followed curious actes brought their bookes and burned them in the presence of al the rest Note here both particular confession made vnto S. Paul of the seuerall deedes and factes and not in generall that they vvere sinners as the very vvordes doe witnesse Confessing their deedes that is vvhat they had done in particular And againe howe should he haue knowne their study of curious bookes if they had not told their sinnes in particular some Protestants conuinced by the text say That they confessed some of their sinnes in particular but not all But I meruaile how they came by the knowledge of that for vvhy should they confesse some more then others and the vse of Scriptures is by the naming of sinnes indefinitely to signifie all as when we pray Forgiue vs our sinnes we meane all our sinnes and when it is said of Christ He shall saue his people from their sinnes it is meant that he shall saue them not from some of their sinnes but from al. Lastly touching the commandement S. Iames doth charge vs a Iac.
well to declare why Melchisedecke brought forth bread and wine because he was a Priest that vsed to Sacrifice in that kinde and to honour and thanke God for that victory he either did then presently or before had sacrificed it and as such sanctified foode made a present vnto Abraham of it who needed not either for himselfe or for his souldiers any victuals because he retourned loaden vvith the spoile of foure Kinges wherefore the bread and wine that he brought forth was a Sacrifice and not common meate And if further proofe needed this is sufficiently confirmed by the Fathers already cited who all teach that bread and wine brought forth then by him were Melchisedecke his Sacrifice a figure of ours I will yet adde one more out of that most ancient Patriarke Clement of Alexandria L. 4. strom versus finem who saith Melchisedecke King of Salem Priest of the most high God gaue bread and wine being a sanctified foode in figure of the Eucharist The Protestants feeling themselues wonderfully pinched and wringed with this example of Melchisedecke assay yet to escape from it a third way For saith M. PER. be it graunted that Melchisedecke offered bread and wine and that it was also a figure of the Lordes supper yet should bread and wine he absurd tipes of no bread nor wine but of the bare formes of bread and wine Reply The thing prefigured must be more excellent then the figure as the body surpasseth farre the shadowe so albeit the figure vvere but bread and wine yet the thing prefigured is the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine sacrificed in an vnbloudy manner as bread and wine are sacrificed without shâ—dding bloud and therein principally consisteth the resemblance And thus much of our first argument Nowe to the second The Paschall lambe was first sacrificed vp by the Master of the family and then afterward eaten as a Sacrament but the Eucharist succeedeth in roome of that as the verity doth to the figure therefore it is first sacrificed before it be receiued M. PER. first denyeth the Paschall lambe to haue beene sacrificed but yeeldeth no reason of his deniall and therefore might without any further adoe be rejected Yet fore-seing that we might easily proue it to be sacrificed by expresse Scripture for Christ saith to his Disciples Mar. 14. vers 12. Exod. 12. vers 6. Goe and prepare a place to sacrifice the passe-ouer or Paschall lambe also in Exodus Yee shall sacrifice the lambe the foure-tenth day of the Moneth and in many other places to this hath he nought els to say but that Sacrifice in those places is taken improperly for to kill only His reason is because that in one place of Scripture the word Sacrifice is taken saith he for to kill but in more then one hundreth it is taken otherwayes and that properly Why then should we not take it there as it doth vsually and properly signifie rather then improperly not any reason doth he render for it at all but because it made so plaine against him he must needes shift it off so wel as he could But what if in the very place where he saith it is taken for to kill only and not for to Sacrifice he be also deceiued then hath he no colour to say that in any place it is taken otherwise Surely the reason that he alleageth for it is very insufficient For by Iacobs bretheren inuited to his feast may be vnderstood according to the Hebrewe phrase men of his owne religion who might well come to his Sacrifice wherefore S. Paul calleth the Romans Corinthians and men of all nations that were Christians his bretheren But if the Paschall lambe were not properly sacrificed howe could S. Paul resemble Christ crucified vnto the Paschall Sacrificed saying 1. Cor. 5. vers 7. Dialog cuÌ„ Triph. Our Paschall lambe Christ is sacrificed Surely that famous and ancient Martyr Iustine vvho vvas best acquainted vvith the rites of that people himselfe being bredde and brought vp among them saith most plainely That the killing of the Paschall lambe among the Iewes was a solemne Sacrifice and a figure of Christ. Wherefore Master PERKINS prouideth an other answere to our argument and saith That if it were graunted that the passe-ouer were both a Sacrifice and Sacrament yet would it make much against them For they may say that the supper of the Lord succeedeth it only in regard of the mayne end thereof which is to increase our communion with Christ. What is this a Gods blessing if that be all the vse of it the Lordes supper may also bee no Sacrament at all for many other thinges besides Sacraments increase our communion with Christ But to the purpose our Lordes supper and also the Paschall lambe vvere instituted not only to increase our communion vvith Christ but also to render thankes to God for benefits receiued as their Paschall for their deliuery out of the land of bondage so our Eucharist for our redemption from sinne and hell and therefore as they are Sacraments to feede our soules so are they true Sacrifices to giue thankes to God for so high and singuler benefits And because I loue not to leaue my reader in matter of diuinity naked reasons vvithout some authority heare vvhat S. Ambrose speaking of Priests ministring the Lordes supper saith Lib. 1. in Lucam When we doe offer Sacrifice Christ is present Christ is sacrificed for Christ our passe-ouer is offered vp S. Leo is yet more plaine vvho speaking of the passe-ouer saith Serm. 7. de pass That shadowes might giue place to the body and figures to the present verily the old obseruance is taken away by the newe Testament one Sacrifice is turned to an other and bloud excludeth bloud and so the legall feast whiles it is changed is fulfilled Marke howe the Eucharist succeedeth the Paschall lambe the Sacrifice of the Paschall being changed into the Sacrifice of Christes body Our third argument is selected out of these vvordes of the Prophet Malachy Cap. 1. vers 11. I will take no pleasure in you saith the Lord of Hostes and I will not receiue a gift from your handes for from the East vnto the West great is my name among the Gentils and in euery place a cleane oblation is sacrificed to my name Hence we inferre that after the reprobation of the Iewes and calling of the Gentils that is in the state of the newe Testament a cleane Sacrifice shall be offered vnto God of the Gentils being made Christians as vvitnesseth the spirit of God in the holy Prophet ergo it cannot be denyed of Christians M. PERKINS answereth That by that cleane Sacrifice is to be vnderstood the spirituall Sacrifice of prayers because that the Apostle exhorting vs to pray for all states hath these wordes Lifting vp pure handes What good Sir are cleane handes and a cleane Sacrifice all one vvith you a worshipfull exposition This man conferreth places of
shedde and it shall be shedde and a good Interpreter of Scripture may not to delude the one flie to the other but defend both because both be the vvordes of the holy Ghost And the Greeke text in S. Luke doth inuincibly confirme that the vvordes are to be taken in the present tense For it hath that the bloud as in the Chalice Luc. 22. vers 20. is powred out Toúto tò potérion tò eckynómenon This Chalice is powred out it cannot therefore be referred vnto that powring out vvhich was to be made vpon the Crosse the day following but to that that vvas powred in and out of the Chalice then presently This might also be confirmed by the bloud which was sprinkled to confirme the old TestameÌ„t vnto which it seemeth that our Sauiour did allude in this consecration of the Chalice Exod. 24. vers 8. For Moyses said This is the bloud of the Testament and our Sauiour * Hebr. 9. vers 20. This is the bloud of the newe Testament But that bloud which dedicated the old Testament was first sacrificed to God such therefore vvas the bloud of the newe Testament And to make the matter more cleare let vs heare howe the best and most judicious Fathers vvho receiued the right vnderstanding of the Scriptures from the Apostles and their Schollers doe take these vvordes of Christ Lib. 4. cap. 32. Lib. 2. Epist 3. In psa 33 Conc. 2. Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. Homil. 2. in Post ad Timoth. Orat. 1. de resur You haue heard already out of S. Ireneus That Christ taught at his last supper the newe Sacrifice of the newe Testament And out of S. Cyprian Christ offered there a Sacrifice to his Father after the order of Melchisedecke taking bread and making it his body And out of S. Augustine Christ instituted a Sacrifice of his body and bloud according vnto the order of Melchisedecke that is vnder the formes of bread and wine I adde vnto them S. Chrisostome vvho saith In steede of the slaughter of beastes Christ hath commanded vs to offer vp himselfe And againe Whether Peter or Paule or an other Priest of meaner meritte doe offer the holy Sacrifice it is the same which Christ gaue to his Disciples the which all Priestes nowe a dayes doe make and this hath nothing lesse then that had S. Gregory Nissene Christ being both a Priest and the Lambe of God offered himselfe a Sacrifice and Host for vs. When vvas this done Euen then when to his Disciples he gaue his body to eate and his bloud to drinke Isichius First Lib. 2. in Leui. c. 8. our Lord supped with his Apostles vpon the figuratiue Lambe and afterward offered his owne Sacrifice All these and many other of the most ancient Fathers could finde a proper and reall Sacrifice in Christes supper To omit S. Gregories authority and all other his inferiors for this last thousand yeares vvhome the Protestants acknowledge vâ—holy to haue beleeued and taught the Sacrifice of the Masse See Kemnitius in exam Concilij Trid. page 826. 827. I omit some other good arguments made for vs out of the newe Testament to returne vnto M. PERKINS vvho proposeth this as the fourth reason for our party out of S. Paul We haue an Altar Hebr. 13. vers 10. whereof they may not eate who serue in the Tabernacle Nowe say they If we Christians haue an Altar then must we consequently haue Priestes and a proper kinde of Sacrifice for these are correlatiues and doe necessarily depend and followe one the other M. PERKINS answereth That the Altar there is to be taken not literally but spiritually for Christ himselfe Reply Obserue first howe the Protestants are forced to flie from the plaine text of Scripture and natiue signification of the vvordes vnto a figuratiue that without either reason or authority secondly I wish that M. P. would goe through with his paraphrase vpon the whole sentence and if by the Altar he vnderstand Christ then by eating of it he will surely expound beleeuing in Christ nowe like a prety Scholler that hath learned to read let him put it all together say That we Christians haue a Christ in whome the Iewes may not beleeue which is flat contradictory to that which the Apostle in that Epistle goeth about to perswade * Lib. 6. in Leui. c. 21 Isichius an ancient and worthy Author in expresse tearmes doth expound these wordes of the Altar of Christs body which the Iewes for their incredulity were not worthy to behold much lesse to be partakers of it and therefore the Apostle to moue the Iewes the rather to become Christians signifieth that so long as they serue in the tabernacle and continue Iewes they depriue themselues of that great benefite which they might haue by receiuing the blessed Sacrament Nowe the wordes following in the text which M. PER. citeth to interprete this sentence belong nothing to it but containe another reason to induce the Iewes to receiue Christ for their Messias drawne for a circumstance of their Sacrifices thus as the bodies of their Sacrifices were burne without the Campe so Christ suffered without the gate and citty of Hierusalem and therefore Christ was the truth prefigured by their Sacrifices It hath also an exhortation to depart out of the society of the Iewes and to forgoe all the preferment and glory they might enjoy among them to be content to suffer with Christ al contumelies Briefly there is not one word in the sentence before to proue the Altar to be taken for Christ but for a materiall Altar vpon which the Christian Priestes and offer the body and bloud of Christ in the blessed Sacrament vvhich may be confirmed by that passage of the same Apostle 1. Cor. 10 vers 21. You cannot drinke the cup of our Lord and the cup of Deuils you cannot be partakers of our Lordes table and the table of Deuils where a comparison is made betweene our Sacrifice and table and the Sacrifice and table of Idols shewing first that he vvho communicateth with the one of them cannot be partaker of the other and then that he who drinketh of the bloud of the Sacrifice is partaker of the Sacrifice Nowe the comparison were improper if our cup were not the cup of a Sacrifice as theirs was nor our table a true Altar as theirs was out of all doubt And that shift of Kemnitius is not cleanely who saith That they who drinke of Christes cup are partakers of his Sacrifice on the Crosse but not of any Sacrifice there present For S. Paules comparison is taken from the cup of a Sacrifice to Idols immediately before offered so that it doth conuince our Chalice to be the cup of a Sacrifice then presently immolated and offered vp The fift objection with M. PER. which is our sixt argument is this Where alteration is both of lawe and couenant there must needes be a newe Priest and a new Sacrifice Hebr. 7. vers
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