vers 12. considering his owne frailty Marry very good hope and confidence ought we all to haue in respect of Gods infinite mercy and goodnesse and in the inestimable merits of our Lord and Sauiour IESVS Christ but by faith we cannot beleeue it vnlesse God doe extraordinarylie reueale any such thing vnto vs which he doth to very fewe of his best beloued and best tryed seruants In the matter of our difference he saith first That we teach not faith to be a knowledge of thinges beleeued but a reuerent assent vnto them whether they be knowne or vnknowne But this he saith very vntruly for we hold faith in his owne nature to comprehend a certayne kinde of knowledge though not so cleare and euident yet of as great assurance as is the knowledge of naturall thinges but the man harpeth vpon something else if he could hitte on it We say indeede that it is not of necessity for the simpler sort and ignorant people to reade the holy Scriptures and to goe fish their faith out of that profound Ocean but may content themselues with their Pastors instructions and with their Catechismes and other bookes of piety and deuotion albeit we wish them of better vnderstanding if they be not too curious and wilfull to reade the holy Scriptures vvith reuerence seeking humbly to better their knowledge and especially to amend their liues and in places of difficulty not to trust vnto their owne wits but to referre themselues to the exposition of the Catholike Church which is the pillar and fortresse of truth and there vpon vvholy to rely Yet vve require much more knowledge in the simpler sort of people then the Protestants doe for we teach that euery one is to knowe expresly the 12. articles of the Apostles Creede the tenne Commandements and those Sacraments which they themselues are to receiue Further also all such lawes and ordinances of either the spirituall or temporall Gouernour which doe appertayne vnto their owne estate that they may knowe howe both in spirituall and temporall matters to carry themselues vvithout offence Let those our Authors which teach cases of conscience be consulted in those points and you shall finde them to charge euery man in conscience to knowe all these thinges whatsoeuer some men haue thought to the contrary who be not in that allowed but disproued euen by the testimony of that Authour Banes vvhome M. PERKINS quoteth And touching praying in Latin the lawes of the Catholike Church doth not bind any man to pray in Latin who is not first bound to learne the Latin tongue that is men in holy orders are bound to their Latin Breuiary but no man ignorant of the Latin tongue must be admitted vnto holy orders for them that are ignorant of the Latin tongue vve haue diuers bookes of English prayers vvherein they may exercise themselues fruitfully If any deuout women or others who vnderstand not Latin desire to reade some selected and approued Latin prayers we doe not forbidde them because those prayers haue many priuiledges aboue others And vve doubt not but that many of them doe reade the same Latin prayers with much more humility attention and eleuation of their mindes vnto God and all goodnesse then thousandes of Protestants or Puritans who reade and pronounce gallantly many glorious English prayers composed very curiously when their harts be farre from God Lastly he dissenteth from vs for that we say That some articles of faith were at the first beleeued generally by an infolded faith which afterward being by generall Councels vnfolded and declared to be articles of faith were beleeued expreslie This implicity of faith touching articles of religion M. PER. rejecteth saying That all matters of faith are contained plainelie in the Scriptures This he saith without probation and it is by me in the question of Traditions refuted already therefore to that place I referre the reader OF PVRGATORY OVR CONSENT M. PERKINS Page 278. WE hold a Christian Purgatory by which we vnderstand first the afflictions of Gods children here on earth secondly the bloud of Christ is a Purgatory for our sinnes and so Augustine calleth the mercy of God our Purgatory To this I say that the word Purgatory may be taken diuersly and signifie many thinges which because they be not to the present purpose may be here well omitted THE DIFFERENCE WE differ in two thinges first concerning the place the Catholikes hold it to be vnder the ground into which mens soules after this life doe enter This we deny as hauing no warrant in the word which mentioneth only two places for men after this life Luc. 16. v. 25.26 Ioh. 3. Apoc. 22. heauen and hell Here M. PER. beginneth the disproofe of Purgatory with his ordinary hackney it is not mentioned in the Scriptures To which I answere first that it is as shall be proued hereafter but if it were not yet were it to be beleeued because it vvas receiued by Tradition euen from the Apostles time Besides this fault in M. PER. argument there is another more childish to wit because there is no mention made of Purgatory in three or foure places by him quoted he concludeth that it hath no warrant at all in any other place of Scriptures as who should say there is no Doctor of Phisicke in two or three Colledges of Cambridge therefore there is not one in all the Vniuersity besides Finally Luc. 16. vers 25. the very first place by him cited ouerthroweth flatly his owne position it being truly vnderstood according vnto the generall exposition of the most learned Doctors for Abraham then was not in heauen but in a third place called Lymbo Patrum because before Christ had paid their ransome by his death on the crosse the Fathers of the old Testament were holden captiue and so of Christ it is said That ascending on high he ledde captiuity captiue Ephes 4. vers 8. Hebr. 9. v. 8. 15. And S. Paul proueth by the entring of the high Priest only into the second part of the Tabernacle called Sancta Sanctorum that the way of the Holies was not then manifested but by the bloud of Christ to be laid open and they by the death of the testatour to receiue the eternall redemption But this is by the way to shew the wisdome of the man to bring one text in controuersie to established another But he goeth forward and saith stoutly that there can be no place for Purgatory for that it is saide That they who dyed in the Lord Apoc. 14. vers 13. are bidden to rest from their labours which cannot be saith he if they goe into Purgatory And to cut off all cauils it is further said their workes that is the reward of their workes followe them euen at the heeles I answere first that we haue here by the way heauen to be the reward of workes by M. PER. confession which in the question of merits he denied most absolutely Secondly that albeit they who die in our
an other auailable to entreate and deserue that the vertue of the former generall may be deriued vnto men in particuler because although those sinnes and iniquities were vnto Christ pardoned in general yet at his death or by it only those sinnes were not remitted and pardoned vnto any man in particuler so that it was meete and requisite that besides the Sacrifice to purchase that generall redemption there should be an other to apply the vertue of it in particuler And thus much of this argument not that it deserued as it was proposed nakedly by M. PER. any more then a flat deniall but to explicate this difficulty and to interprete some obscure places of S. Paul omitted by M. PERKINS M. PER. fift reason If the Priest doe offer to God Christes reall body and bloud for the pardon of our sinnes then man is become a mediator betweene God and Christ This illation is too too ridiculous Is he Christes mediator that asketh forgiuenes of sinnes for Christes sake then are al Christians mediators betweene God and Christ for we all present vnto God Christs passion and beseech him for the meritte thereof to pardon vs our sinnes I hope that we may both lawfully pray vnto God and also imploy our best endeauours that Christ may be truly knowne rightly honoured and serued of all men without incroaching vpon Christs mediation These be seruices we owe vnto Christ and the bounden duties of good Christians wherein it hath pleased him to imploy vs as his seruantes and ministers not as his mediators But Master PERKINS addeth that vve request in the Cannon of the Masse That God will accept our gifts and offerings namely Christ himselfe offered as he did the Sacrifices of Abell and Noe he would haue said Abraham for Noe is not there mentioned True in the sence there following not that this Sacrifice of Christes body is not a thousand times more gratefull vnto him then was the Sacrifices of the best men but that this Sacrifice which is so acceptable of it selfe may be vnto all the partakers of it cause of all heauenly grace and benediction and that also through the same Christ our Lord as it there followeth in the Canon His sixt and last reason Is the judgement of the ancient Church which is the feeblest of al the rest for that he hath not one place which maketh not flat against himselfe Conc. Tol. 12. cap. 5. heare and then judge First saith he A Councell held at Toledo in Spaine hath these wordes Relation is made vnto vs that certaine Priests doe not so many times receiue the grace of the holy communion as they offer Sacrifice but in one day if they offer many Sacrifices to God they suspend themselues from the Communion Is not this a fit testimony to proue that there is no Sacrifice of the Masse whereas it teacheth the quite contrary to wit that there were at that time Priests that did offer Sacrifice daily but were complained on and reproued for that they did not themselues communicate of euery Sacrifice which they offered M. PER. biddeth vs marke that the Sacrifice then was but a kinde of seruice because the Priest did not communicate But why did not he marke that they were therefore reprehended as he well deserueth to be for grounding his argument vpon some simple Priests abuse or ignorance Mileuit cap. 12. Secondly he saith That in an other Councell the name of Masse is put for a forme of prayer It hath pleased vs that prayer suppliations and Masses which shall be allowed in the Councell be vsed Answ Very good It is indeed that forme of prayer which the Catholike Church hath alwayes vsed set downe in the Missals or Masse-bookes so that the Councell by him alleadged doth allowe of Masse Priests and Sacrifice But saith he very profoundly Masses be compounded but the Sacrifice propitiatory of the body and bloud of Christ admitteth no composition This is so deepe and profound an obseruation of his that I can scarce conjecture what he meaneth The Masse indeed is a prayer composed of many parts so I weene be all longer prayers but in what sence can that be true that the Sacrifice of Christ admitteth no composition If he meane the passion of Christ on the Crosse it was a bundell of Mirhe and heape of sorrowes shames and paines tyed together and laid vpon the most innocent Lambe sweet IESVS If he signifie their Lordes supper doth it not consist of diuers partes and hath it not many compositions in it let the good man then explicate himselfe better that one may ghesse at his meaning and then he shall be answered more particulerly But Abbot Paschasius shall mende all hee should by his Title of Abbot seeme rather likely to marre all he saith Because we sinne daylie L. de corpore sanguine Christi Christ is sacrificed for vs mystically and his passion is giuen vs in mistery Very good in the mistery of the Masse Christ is sacrificed for vs not as he was on the Crosse bloudily but in mistery that is vnder the formes of bread and wine which may serue to answere al that he citeth out of Paschasius specially considering that in that whole treatise and one or two other of the same Authour his principall butte and marke is to proue the reall presence and Sacrifice In the first Chapter of the booke cited by M. PER. he hath these wordes Our Lord hath done all thinges in heauen and earth as he will himselfe and because it hath so pleased him though the figure of bread and wine be here that is in the Sacrament notwithstanding it is to be beleeued that after consecration there is nothing else but the flesh and bloud of Christ vvhich he also expresly proueth there at large And in an other treatise of the same argument he hath these among many such like wordes Christ when he gaue his Disciples bread and broke it did not say this is a figure of my body nor in this mistery there is a certaine vertue of it but he said without dissimulation This is my body and therefore it is that which he said it was and not that which men imagine it to be Did I not tell you that this Abbot vvas like to helpe M. PER. but a litle Thus at length we are come to the end of M. PER. reasons in fauour of their cause let vs heare what he produceth for the Catholike party The first argument Christ was a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedecke but Melchisedeckes order was to Sacrifice in bread and wine Psal 109. ad Hebr. 5. 7. therefore Christ did offer vp Sacrifice in formes of bread and wine at his last supper And what Christ then did that did he ordaine to be done to the worlds end by the Apostles their successors therefore there is now in the true Church a true and proper Sacrifice offered in our Lordes supper To seperate that which is certaine
promise of Christ made although in and by him to the great benefit of the whole Church In cap. 16. Math. But Theophilact hath that they who receiue the gift of a Bishop haue the power of committing and binding as Peter had Answere We grant that all lawfull Bishops can binde and loose both in the court of conscience and publikely but thereof it followeth not that that promise of Christ for building his Church on S. Peter c. was common vnto the rest of the Apostles In psal 38 But Ambrose saith that which is said to Peter is said to the Apostles Then belike that was also said vnto the rest as well as to him This night before the Cocke crowe twise thou shalt denie me thrife which no man can say To vnderstand then such generall propositions take this distinction vvith you that thinges spoken vnto S. Peter are of three sundry sortes Some are spoken vnto him as an ordinary Christian and such sentences doe agree vnto all Christians other thinges are spoken vnto him as an Apostle and those are common vnto the rest of the Apostles there be lastly certayne thinges spoken vnto him particularly as head of the Church which may not be extended vnto any other of the Apostles but only vnto his successors Nowe S. Ambrose speaketh of the second kinde of thinges but against this M. PER. excepteth thus That although Peter be admitted to haue beene in commission aboue the rest for the time yet hence may not be gathered any supremacy for the Bishops of Rome because the authority of the Apostles were personall and consequently ceased with them without being conueyed vnto any others and he addeth the reason of this to be because that when the Church of the newe Testament was once founded it was needefull only that there should be Pastors and Teachers for the building of it vp vnto the worldes end Reply What meaneth this man by Pastors doth he comprehend Bishops vvithin that word then he ouerthroweth himselfe for if such Pastors be yet necessary then is it needfull that the Bishops of Rome doe succeede S. Peter in that ample power which he had If by Pastors he vnderstand Parish Priestes or Ministers that haue charge of flockes and by Teachers other Preachers then doth he here as much for the Bishops as in his last discourse he did for temporall Princes that is as he vvent about there to proue that Christ as our redeemer could haue no creature for his deputy in gouernement and consequently that Kings cannot be Christs Lieutenants in Ecclesiasticall causes so here he doth insinuate that Bishops be not necessary to the building vp of Christes Church but the Minister of euery Parish with the Elders thereof will suffice for ordinary matters and that affaires of greater moment must be referred belike to the Consistoriall assembly of many Ministers and Elders togither Doth not this sauour rankely of Puritanisme but because he only saith this without any proofe let it suffice for answere to say that as Ministers are necessary to teach the word of God and to administer the Sacraments so are Bishops both to institute and ordayne the Ministers and to see that they doe diligently discharge their duty And as Bishops are necessary to ouer-see Priests and Ministers so are Archbishops and Metropolitanes to looke vnto Bishops and to prouide that there be no schismes or diuisions among them and to determine their controuersies if any arise betweene them And in like manner one Supreme Pastor is necessary in the Vniuersall Church of Christ to hold all Archbishops Primates and Patriarkes in vnity of faith and in conformity of Christian ceremonies and manners M. PERKINS third reason When the Sonnes of Zebedee sued vnto Christ for the greatest roomes of honour in his Kingdome Christes answere was Ye knowe that the Lordes of the Gentils haue dominion and they that are great exercise authority ouer them but it shall not be so vvith you Bernard applyeth this to Pope Eugenius on this manner Lib. 2. do consid it is playne that here dominion is forbidden the Apostles goe to then dare you if you will to take vpon you ruling an Apostleship or in your Apostleship rule and dominion if you will haue both alike you shall leefe both otherwise you must not thinke your selfe excempted from the number of them of whome the Lord complayned ye haue raygned but not of me Answere Insolent and tyrannicall dominion such as was in those daies practised by the Gentils Pagans and Idolaters is there by our Sauiour forbidden the Apostles but not modest and vigilant Prelature in Ecclesiasticall gouernement as the very text it selfe doth plainely shewe for in that he doth foretel that there should not be such a haughty disdaineful kinde of superiority among his disciples he doth giue vs to vnderstand that there should be some other better and saith further Luc. 22. vers 26. That he who is greater among you let him become as the lesser and he that is your leader or as it is in the Greeke égouménos your Captaine or Prince let him be your wayter See he vvill haue among them one greater then the rest to be their Captayne and leader which he confirmeth with his owne example saying As I my selfe came not to be wayted on or ministred vnto but came to minister or to wayte vpon others so that this discourse of our Sauiours only disproueth in Christians such Lord-like domination as vvas then in vse among the Gentils who were giuen for the most part to take their owne pleasures to ouer-rule lawes as they listed to oppresse their subjects with taxes and to vse them like slaues Nowe in Ecclesiasticall gouernementall must be otherwise the Prelate must not seeke his owne ease wealth or pleasure but most vigilantly study day and night to feede and profit his flocke vvith whome he must conuerse most modestly not scorning or contemning to speake familiarly vvith the meanest amongst them And this is that vvhich S. Bernard counsaileth Eugenius to doe To rule as an Apostle and not to ouer-rule or to dominier like vnto some temporal Princes which in the same booke he doth plainely teach saying That when Eugenius was created Pope he then was exalted ouer Nations and Kingdomes yet not to domineer ouer them but to serue them And further he doth in the same booke deliuer the Popes Supremacy in these most euident wordes speaking thus to the same Pope Eugenius Who art thou a great Priest the highest Bishop thou art the Prince of the Bishops the heyre of the Apostles c. Thou art he to whome the keyes of heauen were deliuered to whome the sheepe were committed There are also indeede other Porters of heauen and Pastors of sheepe but thou art so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a more excellent name aboue them They haue their flockes to each man me but to thee all were committed as one flocke to one Pastor Thou art not only Pastor
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
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.
see that he hath done already And they holding the first motions to euil in temptation to be mortall sinnes which no mortall man ordinarily can nowe avoid howe can they pray God not to suffer them to be lead into temptation when they teach it to be impossible to escape the venime of it And if they vnderstand it so as M. PERKINS teacheth to wit that they there pray not to be left to the malice of Satan they cannot without losse of the certainety of their faith pray so because they hold themselues assured of that before hand Neither can they pray God generally to deliuer them from all euill affirming as they doe that we must needes fall into mortall sinne at euery step almost which is the greatest of all other euill And finally if it belong to God to deliuer vs from sinne and all other euill then Caluin and his followers doe wickedly blaspheame who teach God to be the authour and worker in vs of all errour sinne and wickednes Thus much of the Pater noster Nowe before I come to the Sacraments I may not omit to speake a word of the Aue Maria which in old Catechismes followeth immediately after the Pater noster The Protestantes haue cassierd it and may not abide to heare it once said but therein as much as in any other such matter they disgrace their doctrine and discredite themselues For all the wordes vsed of old therein are the very wordes of the holy Ghost registred in S. Lukes Gospell and therefore they bewray either great ignorance or a wicked spirit to dwell in them that cannot indure to heare the wordes of Gods spirit Luc. 1. Besides in holy Scripture it is prophesied that from henceforth all generations should call the Virgin MARY blessed In what tearmes then can we more conueniently so cal her then in the very same that were composed by an Archangel are penned by the Euangelists and by them commended vnto all good Christians besides the sence of them is comfortable vnto vs as contayning a remembrance of the incarnation of the Sonne of God for our redemption and we on our partes doe thereby giue thankes to God for that inestimable benefit and congratulate our Sauiour with humble thankes therefore saying Blessed be the fruit of thy wombe IESVS I need not in such cleare euidence of Gods word alleage the testimony of any ancient Father he that list to see howe it hath beene vsed in the purest antiquity let him read S. Athanasius in euang de deipara S. Ephem de laudibus B. Mariae S. Basils and S. Chrisostomes lyturgies vvhich can vvith no more reason be denied to be theirs then the rest of their workes One short sentence I wil set downe in commendations of it out of that most reuerend and deuout Bernard The Angels triumph Apud Dionisi Corinth 1. part in Euang cap. 5. 17. and the heauens doe congratulate vvith them the earth leapeth for joy and hell trembleth when the Aue Maria is deuoutly said Good Christians then must needes take great delight in it euen as the badde may not abide it Nowe let vs come to the last part of the Catechisme which is of the Sacraments where M. PERKINS doth briefly repeate his arguments vsed before against the reall presence I might therefore send the reader vnto the first Chapter of this booke for the answere but because the matter is of great importance I will here againe giue them a short answere First saith he the real presence is ouerthrowne out of these wordes he tooke bread and brake it ergo that which Christ tooke was not his body c. A simple ouerthrowe Christ in deed tooke and brake bread but presently after blessing it made it his body by these vvordes this is my body M. Per. 2 Againe Christ said not vnder the forme of bread or in bread but this that is bread is my body Answ It is false to say that this vvord Hoc This doth demonstrate bread for it is of a different gender from it both in Latin and Greeke and if he had said that that bread had beene his body his word was so omnipotent that it had beene of force to make it his body so that M. PER. maketh a false construction which nothing helpeth his errour Per. 3 Thirdly Bread was not giuen for vs but only the body of Christ and in the first institution the body of Christ was not then really giuen to death Answ This maketh nothing at all against the reall presence but doth greatly fortifie it For Christ gaue vs in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for vs this is my body that shal be giuen for you Nowe not bread but Christes true body was giuen to death for vs ergo Christ gaue vs to eate not bread but his true reall body Per. 4 Fourthly The cuppe is the newe Testament by a figure why not then the bread the body of Christ by a figure Answ A goodly reason if there be one figure there must needes be two Howe followeth this if those vvordes of S. Paul be obscure why did he not rather cleare them by conferring them with S. Mathewe and S. Marke who deliuer it plainely thus this is my bloud of the newe Testament that shall be shedde c. But he that delighteth in cauilling must seeke darkenesse Per. 5 Fiftly Christ did eate that supper but not himselfe Answ A Protestant cannot say that Christ did eate of that Sacrament as M. PERKINS doth because he hath no warrant for it in the vvritten vvord yet vve doe graunt that he did so and hold him most vvorthy to taste of that heauenly foode Per. 6 Sixtly We are bid to doe it til he come Christ then is not bodily present 1. Cor. 11. vers 26. Answ We are bid by S. Paul to shewe the death of our Lord til he come to judgement vvhich vve may very vvell doe his body being present as certaine noble Matrons preserued of their husbandes bloud to represent more freshly vnto their children the slaughter of their fathers Per. 7 Seauenthly Christ bid vs to doe it in remembrance of him but signes of remembrance are of thinges absent Answ We see one thing and remember an other By Christes body really present we remember the same to haue beene nailed on the Crosse for our redemption as Goliath sword was kept in the tabernacle in remembrance of the cutting-off of Goliathes head vvith the same sword and the women before rehearsed kept their husbandes bloud and might much easier haue preserued their bodies embalmed to keepe the better their deathes in fresh memory Per. 8 Eightly If the real presence be graunted then the body and bloud of Christ are either seuered or joyned together if seuered then Christ is stil crucified if joyned together then the bread is both the body and bloud of Christ whereas the institution saith the bread is the body and the wine is the bloud Answ The body bloud of Christ are by
then the eating of fish For flesh both in it selfe is more nourishing as being of a more warme substance and fuller of â—uyce then fish and againe it is more like vnto our substance and so more apt to feed it and consequently to make it like a well fedde horse more proude and ready to resist reason and therefore our Prelates had great cause to forbid eating of flesh when they would haue vs to tame our flesh by fasting If some dainty fish be more agreeable vnto some appetites then some kinde of grosse meate that is not materiall For in comparisons if they be equall the best of the one must be compared with the best of the other and not the worst of one sort with the best of the other Now ouermuch filling of our bellies with meate as ouer charging of our heads with drinke and hunting after dainty cares are by the very light of nature condemned and so there needed no newe inhibition against them but the only thing that remained indifferent was the distinction of meates wherein the wisdome of the Church hath greatly shewed her selfe which to make our fast more agreable vnto the proper end of it that is to tame the flesh hath enjoyned vs to abstaine from flesh And this was obserued and collected out of the practise of her most wise holy and Godly children For the Prophet Daniel when he did fast very deuoutly abstayned as from all dainties Cap. 10. vers 3. so from flesh and wine S. Iohn Baptist the perfect paterne of mortification of fleshly concupiscence did neuer eate any flesh but wilde hony Mat. 3 4. Orat. de Amor. pauper and locustes were his foode S. Peter as that vvorthy Doctor Nazianzene reporteth did commonly eate but a certayne kinde of pulse S. Mathewe eate no flesh but hearbes fruite and rootes as * L. 2. Paedag ca. 2. Clemens Patriarke of Alexandria hath registred S. Iames as a L. 2. hist cap. 22. Eusebius rehearseth neuer eate flesh nor dranke wine the like he relateth out of Philo in the same booke b Cap. 17. of those most blessed Christians of Alexandria gouerned by S. Marke the Euangelist A man may finde very many like examples in antiquity but that precisely vpon fasting dayes in Lent vve must abstayne from flesh these Doctors by name doe teach c Orat. 2. de jejun S. Basil d Hom. 6. in Genesi S. Chrisostome e Catech. 4 Cyril Hierom. f L. 30. coÌ„t Faust c. 3. S. Augustine g L. 2. cont IouinianuÌ„ S. Hierome These most Godly and most juditious Fathers and with all best acquainted with the managing of spirituall affaires are I hope rather to be hearkened vnto in the matter of distinction of meates and to be esteemed more expert therein then a million of our fleshly Ministers whose belly seemeth to be their God that may in no case abide to be abridged of the bodily pleasures But to proceede You haue hitherto heard howe faintly M. PERKINS hath proued this distinction of meates to be foolish nowe you shall see howe he doth demonstrate it to be wicked It saith he taketh away the liberty of Christians by which vnto the pure all thinges are pure and the Apostle biddeth vs to stand fast in this liberty which the Church of Rome would thâ—s abolish Galat. 5. Answere The Roman Church taught long before and much better then you that no meates are vncleane vnto Christians either of their owne natures or for any signification as they were in the old Testament and aboue one thousand and two hundred yeares past condemned the Encratites Tatianus disciples the Manichees and Priscillianists for teaching flesh wine and many other meates to be vncleane but the same Church doth also command that vpon some certayne dayes vvhen vve are to humble our selues in prayer and to afflict our bodies by fasting that then wee must abstaine from the more delightfull and nourishing foode as flesh egges and white-meate and be content with one meale of fish This commandement of our Gouernors doth not make the meate vncleane in it selfe but vnlawfull for vs to eate of it for that time only But saith M. PERKINS It is against Christian liberty to be debarred of flesh at any time by any Superiour for God only hath reserued vnto himselfe that power of forbidding to eate meates so that without his owne expresse inhibition Christians cannot be depriued of any kinde of meate Behold an audacious assertion without any ground For albeit we Christians be exempted from all vncleane meates of Moyses lawe yet are we subject to the order of our Gouernours for the manner of fasting as hath bin proued before Neither hath God so kepâ— in his owne handes the disposition of his creatures but that he hath permitted others to make diuers sorts of meates vnlawfull for Christians to eate as it is most manifest by the first Councell holden by the Apostles Act. 15. vers 29. For they had full power to command and enjoyne all Christians to abstaine from all meates offered to Idols from all strangled thinges and from bloud How plainely then doth it repugne vnto the expresse word of God to auerre thaâ— God only can forbid Christians any kind of meate Neither be these precisely the Apostles wordes Gallat 5. stand fast hold this liberty which he cited out of the Apostle nor is there any mention made of fasting but of circumcision and generally of the obseruation of Moyses law The Apostle doth blame the Galathians for yeelding vnto the obseruation of it biddeth them to flie from it and stand in the liberty of other Christians who were freed from the yoke of Moyses lawe but not from obedience to their Christian Pastours Howe absurd then was it to alleadge that against Christian fasting which doth nothing at all concerne it Nowe to the other place of the Apostle which M. PERKINS toucheth by the vvay 1 Tim. 4. Cont. Adimantum cap. 14. to wit That certaine departing from the faith and attending vnto the spirit of errour shall teach to abstaine from meates which God created to be receiued with thankes-giuing To this Saint Augustine hath ansvvered directly tvvelue hundreth yeares a-goe for hauing rehearsed those the Apostles vvordes he saith He doth not describe and note them who doe abstaine from such meates eyther to bridle their owne concupiscence or not to giue offence vnto the weakenes of others but them that doe thinke the flesh in it selfe to bee vncleane and deny God to bee Creator of such meates Such vvere the Manichees as Saint Augustine vvitnesseth saying to Faustus a ring-leader among them Lib. 30. cap. 5. You deny the creature of God to be good and say it is vncleane because the Deuill doth make flesh of a more dreggy and base matter of euill c. So doth Saint Hierome in his second booke against Iouinian expound the same place of Saint Paul and before them Tertullian in his
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