Treatise of fasting saying Cap. 15. that the Apostle there condemned before hand Martion and Tatianus And the very reason vvhich the Apostle giueth in the text conuinceth those vvordes to be only meant of such as should condemne the meate in it selfe to be vncleane For it followeth in the text For euery creature of God is good c. vvherefore touching this place I vvill conclude vvith these vvordes of Saint Augustine L. 30. coÌ„t Faustum cap. 3. If Lent bee obserued of your selues without flesh and that not superstitiously but according vnto the lawe of God see I beseech you whether it be not a point of extreame madnesse to thinke euery abstinence from meate to bee called of S. Paul the doctrine of Deuils But Socrates a Christian hystoriographer saith Li. 5. hist cap. 21. That the Apostles left it free to euery one to vse what kinde of meates they would on fasting dayes What if Socrates say so that was an Heretike and nothing so wel studied in antiquity as was S. Hierome who had read all Authours Latin Greeke and Hebrewe that vvere to be had in his time He affirmeth expresly Epist 54. ad Marcellum that it was a Tradition of the Apostles to fast Lent and teacheth abstinence from flesh to be an essential part of fasting as also S. Augustine in the place last cited holdeth it to be a diuine lawe to fast from flesh in the Lent And diuers and many other ancient Fathers the least of whome is of twenty times more credit then the Nouatian Heretike Socrates vvho also in the very same place if his booke be not corrupted sheweth himselfe very ignorant in the fast of the Romans For he there saith Lib. 5. cap. 21. That they fasted but three weekes before Easter and in those three weekes also excepted the Saturdayes both which are very false For Leo the great who liued at the same time and was Bishop of Rome and therefore knewe the fastes of Rome better then he teacheth very formally Serm. 3. de Quadr. Epist 86. That they fasted then six whole weekes before Easter Furthermore that they fasted all the yeare long at Rome on Saturdayes S. Augustine is a most sufficient vvitnesse so farre were they at Rome from excepting to fast on Saturday in Lent as Socrates fableth Yea Gregory the great vvho liued not long after Socrates doth testifie Li. 3. Dialog c. 33. that at Rome all euen vnto little children doe fast vpon Saturday Easter-eue But Spiridion a very holy man in Lent dressed swines-flesh and set it before a stranger eating himselfe and bidding the stranger also to eate Hist Trip. li. 1. c. 10. who refusing and professing himselfe to be a Christian therefore saith he the rather must thou doe it for to the pure all thinges are pure as the word of God â—eacheth vs. Answ In time of sickenesse or extreame necessity it is lawful with the consent and licence specially of our Pastour to eate flesh either in Lent or vpon any other fasting day as all men skilfull in cases of conscienâ—â— doe teach De obser jejunij cap. Consilium being therevnto warranted by the Canon lawe This vvas the case of that stranger with Spiridion vvho had not so much as one morsell of bread in his howse or any other thing sauing some swines-flesh povvdered vp as the text doth plainely testifie and therefore he seeing the poore trauailer very vveary after his journey commanded some of that salted porke to be dressed to refresh him Besides Spiridion asked first pardon of God before he set it before the stranger and the stranger refused at the first to eate of it because it was against the custome of Christians both which circumstances doe euidently conuince that no flesh was to be eaten in that time of Lent had not very necessity with the leaue of such a godly Bishop as Spiridion was made it lawefull so that this story so often alleadged by the Protestants against abstinence from flesh on fasting dayes doth much rather confirme such abstinence then make any thing against it all circumstances of it duely considered Before I come vnto the third point of difference I will briefly runne ouer three objections Ierem. 35. which M. PER. here maketh for vs. The first Ionadab commanded the Recharbites to abstaine from wine which they obeyed and are much commended for it by God much more therefore ought we to obey our Superiours commanding abstinence from some kinde of meates He answereth that this commandement was not giuen by Ionadab in way of religion but for politike regardes Reply This he saith only but proueth it not But suppose it were so it would not serue his turne for if he were obeyed for a ciuill respect much rather ought he to haue beene obeyed for an ecclesiasticall and religious Dun. 10. vers 3. The second objection Daniell three weekes together abstained from flesh and his example is our warrant M. PER. answereth that Daniell abstained freely but the Popish abstinence from flesh standeth by commandement Reply Daniels fast was of his owne deuotion and consequently his abstinence from flesh free but our ordinary fasts are by commandement and therefore by obedience we are bound to abstaine from flesh Nowe we vse the example of Daniell not to proue that we are bound to fast but that on fasting dayes we should for-goe the eating of flesh as he did But M. PER. addeth If we imitate Daniell in refraining from flesh why doe we not imitate him also in abstaining from dainties and oyntements Answere They doe better that imitate him in one good point though they doe not in all then they that followe him in none at all Besides all curious dainties are forbidden not only on fasting dayes but at all times both by the light of nature and by our learned Pastors but because that may be dainty to one which is but ordinary and meete for another their complexion and education considered a certaine order could not be set for all sortes of people touching dainty meates wherefore they are left vnto the rule of reason for that point and to the instruction of their Pastours Nowe we confesse with Molanus that in ancient times men were much more feruent in fasting then they be nowe a-dayes because the charity of many is growne colde but yet God be thanked there be many religious persons and also others among vs that doe an hundreth times more deuoutly fast then the Protestants vse to doe who making the liberty of Christians the occasion of fleshly licentiousnesse haue among their followers wholy in manner ruinated and rooted out all austerity of life and Ecclesiasticall discipline Thirdly saith M. PER. they alleadge the diet of Iohn Baptist Math. 3. 1. Tim. 5. vers 23. whose meate was locustes and wilde hony and of Timothy who abstayned from wine Answere That abstinence which they vsed was only for temperance sake and not for conscience or merit let them proue
was impossible who hath bestowed so great grace vpon vs. S. Siluester as Nycephorus hath recorded speaketh thus of baptisme e Lib. 7. hystor cap. 33. This water hauing receiued by the inuocation of the blessed Trinity heauenly vertue euen as it washeth the body without so doth it within cleanse the soule from filth and corruption and make it brighter then the Sunne-beames So that it is most conformable both vnto the holy Scriptures and the auncient Fathers to affirme and hold that the Sacraments doe really contayne and convay the graces of God into our soules as his true and proper instruments OF SAVING FAITH M. PERKINS Page 305. HEre followeth a Chapter which for the most part doth nothing but repeate points of doctrine which hath beene particularly handled in the questions of Iustification Satisfaction and Merits and aboue twenty times touched by the vvay in his booke therefore a tedious and loathsome thing it is to me here againe to heare of them yet because the man thinketh that in these points the principall glory of the newe Gospell consisteth and that there fore they are alwayes to be inculcated in season and out of seasorr I vvill briefly runne them once more ouer shewing as he doth only vvherein we differ without repeating the arguments which are to be seene in their proper places To come to the matter he putteth downe fiuâ— conclusions The first conclusion The Catholikes teach iâ— to be the property of faith to beleeue the whole word of God and especially the redemption of mankinde by Christ M. PERKINS DIFFERENCE THey beleeue indeede all the written word of God and more then all for they beleeue the bookes Apocryphall and vnwritten Traditions Answere Touching vnwritten Traditions see that Chapter in the first part M. PER. saith here Because they come to vs by the handes of men they cannot come within the compasse of our faith Then I say vpon the same ground the vvritten word cannot come within the compasse of our beleefe because it also commeth vnto vs by the handes of men And as the Apostles and their Schollers are to be credited when they deliuered the vvritten word vnto vs for Gods pure word so are they to be beleeued vvhen they taught the Church these poynts of Gods vvord vnwritten to be embraced as the true word of God although not written but committed to the harts of the faithfull And when we haue the testimony of auncient Councels or of many holy Fathers that these points of doctrine vvere by Tradition deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles vve as firmely beleeue them as if they were written in the holy Scriptures For which bookes of Scripture be Canonicall vvhich not and what is the true meaning of hard places in Scripture we knowe no other way of infallible certainty then by the declaration of the Catholike Church which we therefore aswell beleeue telling vs these thinges were deliuered from the Apostles by Tradition as those thinges in vvriting And that such credit is to be giuen to the Catholike Church the Apostles Creede witnesseth which biddeth vs beleeue the Catholike Church Nowe touching those bookes of holy Scripture vvhich vvere some hundreth yeares after Christ doubted off by some of the auncient Fathers vvhether they were Canonicall or no thus we say That albeit it were vndetermined by the Church vntill S. Augustines time vvhether they were Canonical or no and so were by diuers auncient Fathers though not condemned as Apocryphall yet not comprehended vvithin the Canon of assured Scriptures notwithstanding that matter being in a Councell holden at Carthage where among many other learned Bishops S. Augustine vvas present throughly debated Concil Cartag 3. cap. 47. those bookes doubted off before were found by the holy Ghost and them to be true Canonicall Scripture and afterward vvere by the sixt generall Councell that confirmed this Councell holden at Carthage declared and deliuered to the whole Church for Canonicall Nowe as we receiued at the first the other bookes of Canonicall Scripture on the â—â—edit of the Catholike Church euen so ought vve to doe these shee hauing declared them to be such yea the Protestants themselues haue admitted many bookes of the newe Testament vvhich vvere doubted off for three hundred yeares after Christ why then doe they not as vvell receiue them of the old The difference betwixt vs is that they only of passion and priuate fancy admit these and reject those vvhereas vve of obedience relying vpon the judgement of the vvhole Church admit those bookes for Canonicall which the Catholike Church hath declared for such And thus much of the first conclusion Nowe to the second touching saluation by Christ alone wherein the Protestants either cannot vnderstand or will not report our doctrine aright We confesse that Christ IESVS hath merited the redemption and saluation of all mankinde yet say we further that not one man is saued through Christ vnlesse he for his owne part first beleeue in Christ if he be of yeares and be content to doe all those thinges that Christ hath commanded vs to doe so that to saluation two thinges are required the first and principall is Christes mediation the second is the applying of Christes mediation and merits vnto vs vvithout this latter the former will stand no man in steede Nowe to be made partaker of Christs merits we must not only beleeue in him as the Protestants teach but also keepe his commandements and by good workes deserue heauen otherwise according to Christs decree we shall neuer come thither as in the question of Merits hath beene plentifully proued out of the holy scriptures so we teach then that besides Christs sufferings and merits we must haue some of our owne or else vve shall neuer be partakers of Christes And M. PERKINS cannot be excused from a vvilfull corruption of Gods word when he affirmeth S. Paul to say We are not saued by such workes as God hath ordayned men regenerated to walke in for those be not the wordes of the text but his peeuish construction S. Paul putting a playne distinction betweene workes that we are not saued by and workes that we must walke in calling these later good workes and the other barely workes To the other text I say that we haue no righteousnesse of our owne strength or by the vertue of Moyses lawe but through the mercy of God and Christs merits we haue true righteousnesse giuen vs by baptisme Christ indeede by himselfe and his owne sufferinges not by sacrifice of Goates or Calues hath meritoriously washed away our sinnes that is deserued of God that they should be washed away but formally he hath washed away our sinnes by infusion of Christian righteousnesse into our soules He that will see more of this let him reade the question of Iustification And where as M. PER. saith that all grace of God powred into our hartes is by the corruption of our hartes defiled he little knoweth the vertue of Gods grace vvhich so cleanseth and purifieth
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
vulgar tongue or that all thinges necessary to be beleeued to saluation are contained in the Scriptures To be short not one article of their religion which is contrary to ours is contained in this Creede of the Apostles therefore to affirme as de doth all necessarie pointes of religion to be contained in this Creede is to cast their owne religion flat to the ground and to teach that not one point of it is to be beleeued this Creede may neuerthelesse be called the key and rule of faith because it containeth the principall pointes of the Christian religion and doth open as it were the doore vnto all the rest and guide a man certainely vnto the knowledge of them by teaching vs to beleeue the Catholike Church 1. Tim. 3. vers 15. Ioh. 16. vers 13. which being the piller and ground of truth directed and guided by the spirit of truth will alwaies instruct her obedient children in all truth necessary to saluation Then saith Master PERKINS The eternal truth of God the creatour shal depend on the determination of the creature Nothing lesse for Gods truth is most sincere and certaine in it selfe before anie declaration of the Church but vve poore creatures that are subject to mistaking and errour should not so certaynelie vnderstand and knowe that truth of God vnlesse he had ordained and appointed such a skilfull and faithfull Mistris and interpreter to assure vs both what is his word and what is the true meaning of it Like as pure gold is not made perfect in it selfe by the Gold-smithes touch-stone but other men are thereby assured that it is true and pure gold euen so the word of God doth not borrowe his truth from the Church but the true children of God are by the holie Church assured which is the same his word If we did hold as we doe not that the written vvord contayneth all pointes of doctrine necessarie to saluation yet vvere it most necessarie to relie vpon the Catholike Churches declaration both to be assured which bookes of Scriptures be Canonicall which not whereupon S. Augustine a man of farre better judgement then any of these daies said Con. Epist Iud. cap. 5. that he would not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the authority of the Church moued him thereunto as also to vnderstand them truly because the wordes of holy Scripture without the true meaning and sence of them doe but deceiue men and leade them into errour and to that end haue alwaies beene and yet are by Heretikes abused to drawe others after them into destruction The like may be said of other ancient Creedes and confessions of faith which holding the Apostles Creede did adde some fewe pointes vnto it namely such as were in those daies called into question by Heretikes of greater fame and who were followed of many not touching in particuler diuers other articles generally beleeued of all true Christians or else by some fewe and obscure men only questioned Wherefore to argue that no other pointes of faith are to be beleeued but such as are expressed in ancient Creedes is to cut of a great part of our faith Lastly it is most vntrue to say that those ancient Fathers and Councels knewe not of these articles of faith by him mentioned for they haue most plainely taught them in their writinges yea and expresly condemned of heresie most of the contrary positions nowe againe reuiued and holden by the Protestantes as in those seuerall questions I haue before proued Touching beleeuing in the Church which he thrusteth in by the way we vse not that phrase as the very Creede sheweth following therein S. Augustine with others who hold that to beleeue in a thing is to make it our creatour by giuing our whole hart vnto it in which sence we beleeue not in Saintes nor in the Church albeit some other ancient Doctors take the wordes to beleeue in not so precisely but say that me may beleeue in the Church in Saintes that is beleeue certainely that the Catholike Church is the only true company of Christians and that to the lawfull gouernours thereof it appertaineth to declare both which bookes be Canonicall and what is the true meaning of all doubtfull places in them so we beleeue the Saintes in heauen to heare our prayers to be carefull to pray for vs to be able to obtaine by intreaty much at Gods handes in whose high fauour they liue Thus much in answere vnto that which M. PER. objecteth in generall nowe to that he saith in particuler He chargeth vs first with the breach of the third article Conceiued by the holy Ghost Which saith he is ouerturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Masse into the body and bloud of Christ for here we are taught to confesse the true and perpetuall incarnation of Christ beginning in his conception and neuer ending afterward Answ Here is a strange exposition of the Creede Is Christes incarnation perpetuall and not yet ended then it is true to say that Christ is not yet incarnate as we may say truly that a man is not borne vntill his birth be accomplished and ended But to the present purpose because Christes incarnation beganne at his conception cannot bread be turned afterward into his body how hangeth this together Belike he meanes that Christes body was but once conceiued and that was by the holy Ghost in his mothers wombe therefore it cannot afterward be made of any other thing This to be his meaning he declares in the question of the Sacrament but it is too too simple and childish For we hold him not to be so conceiued by bread as he was by the holy Ghost who was the efficient cause of his conception but that the same body that was cōceiued by the holy Ghost is made really present in the Sacrament by transubstantiation of bread into it which hath no opposition at al with this article as I haue more largely proued in the foresaid question And whereas he saith further cleane besides the purpose of this article that Christes body hath the essentiall properties of a true body standing of flesh and bone we grant the same but when he addeth that local circumscription cannot be seuered from a body he is deceiued for the greatest body of all others which is the highest heauen is not circumscribed by any place because there is no other body without it whose extreamities might compasse in and circumscribe that body of the highest heauen And when he saith that to be circumscribed in place is an essentiall property of euery quantity and that quantity is the common essence of euery body he makes himselfe but a common mocking-stocke vnto euery simple Logitian who knoweth that no accident such as euery quantity is can be of the essence and nature of a substance such as Christes body is Neither would any man say that cared what he said that to be circumscribed in a place is essentiall to euery quantity when all numbers that be quantities