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
of this and shewe howe it maketh for M. PERKINS But to the purpose I answere that S. Iohn there doth put a playne difference betweene his owne baptisme and the baptisme of Christ saying of his owne That it was the baptisme of water nor giuing the holy Ghost as the baptisme of Christ should doe which also most of the Fathers both Greeke and Latin doe playnelie testifie and the wordes of the text doe euidently confirme the same Whence I reason thus S. Iohns baptisme was such an instrument and meanes of grace Mat. 1. as M. PER. describeth for there was a promise of remission of sinnes to him that receiued it with faith and repentance yet vvas it nothing comparable vnto Christes baptisme vvhich is nowe only vsed therefore Christes baptisme doth ouer and besides the representation of grace vvhich was in S. Iohns baptisme effectually conuay the same grace of the holy Ghost into our soules by the very applying of it to vs so that this worthy argument of his proceedeth wholy against himselfe He goeth forward and saith That Paul who trauayled of the Galatians and begat them by the Gospell 1. Cor. 3. vers 7. saith of himselfe that he is not any thing not only as he was a man but as be was a faithfull Apostle thereby excluding the whole euangelicall Ministery from the least part of diuine operation or efficacy in conferring grace Answere This is nothing to the purpose for S. Paul speaketh there of preaching the Gospell and we treate here of ministring the Sacraments Preaching as hath beene said doth not conferre grace of it selfe but by perswasion no more doth the preacher and so may be said to be nothing in that worke of producing grace and faith in the hearer but the Sacraments conferring grace he that administreth the Sacrament doth really concurre as an instrument of producing the same grace Moreouer such an instrument may be saâ—â— to be nothing because they themselues with al their endowments can doe nothing in that matter vnlesse they be therevnto applyed and moued by the principall agent vvhich is God as a penne or other instrument be it neuer so good can doe nothing of it selfe and therefore may be said to be nothing M. PERKINS third reason The Angels nay the flesh of the sonne of God hath not any quickning vertue from it selfe but all his vertue is from the God-head nowe if there be no effiâ—â—cy in the flesh of Christ but from the God-head howe shall bodily actions about bodily elements conferre grace immediately Answere This is too too simple for a base bodily thing may conuay grace immediately as an instrument of God when as the highest creature hath not power of it selfe to produce and conferre the same grace as principall agent as a meane subject by speciall commission and authority from the Prince may haue power of life and death which the greatest Peere in the realme hath not of his owne authority without some priuiledge from the Prince Rom. 4. His fourth reason Paul standeth much vpon this to proue that justification by faith is not conferred by the Sacraments and gathereth it because Abraham was first justified and afterward receiued circumcision the signe and seale of his righteousnesse Nowe the generall condition of all Sacraments is one and the same and that baptisme succeedeth circumcision Answere He mistaketh greatly S. Pauls discourse which is nothing lesse then that he saith but to proue that neither by the obseruation of Moyses lawe nor yet by the morall carriage of the Gentils men vvere to he saued but by faith in Christ and obedience vnto his Gospell Yea he is so farre off from denying justification to be conferred by the Sacraments that in the same epistle he teacheth vs to be justified by baptisme saying We are buryed together with Christ by baptisme into death Cap. 6. vers 4. that as he is risen againe from the dead c. so we may walke in newnesse of life Againe if Baptisme be but a signe and seale of righteousnesse how commeth the infant that cannot for lacke of discretion beleeue to that righteousnes whereof Baptisme is the seale Abraham in deede was justified before he vvas circumcised because he vvas aboue 70. yeares old before he heard of any circumcision but thence it followeth not that the infants circumcised at eight dayes old vvere justified before they vvere circumcised And so it may be that Cornelius the Italian Captayne was justified before he heard a word of the Sacrament of baptisme but that is nothing to proue or disproue the ordinary vvorking of the Sacraments for before the lawefull publication of any lawe no man is bound to obserue that lawe so that Abraham before he had heard of circumcision and Cornelius knowing nothing of Baptisme were not bound to them but had other meanes of justification according to Gods vvill and afterward receiued those Sacraments in obedience to God both in testimony of their former righteousnesse and to increase the same grace Hence it doth not followe but that the ordinary vvorking of both circumcision and baptisme in infants vvas and is to purge them from originall sinne and to powre the grace of justification into their soules But let vs admit al to be true which he saith yet this argument helpeth not the maine point which he is to proue to vvit that the Sacraments doe not produce grace into our soules for albeit they produced not the first justifying grace as the Sacrament of the Alrar and some others doe not yet they may truely produce and worke in vs an encrease of Gods grace and so be true physicall instrumentall causes of grace according as the Catholikes hold Consequently you may judge vvhat a pithy reason his fourth is vvhich may be answered foure manner of wayes His fift is the judgement of the Church Basil De spiritu sancto 15. If there be any grace in the water it is not from the nature of the water but from the presence of the spirit Could any man haue produced a vvitnesse to speake more formally against himselfe M PER. holdeth that there commeth no vertue from the water to sanctifie the soule S. Basil the fore-man of his quest auerreth that grace commeth from the water and is in the water marry that grace the water hath not of his owne nature but from the spirit of God there present In 14. Esaiae His second authour Hierome saith Man giueth water and God giueth the holy Ghost This is true but vvhether God giueth that grace by the ministery of the man and meanes of the Sacrament S. Hierome in that place saith neyther yea nor no and therefore his testimony helpeth not M. PER. cause But in his 83. Ad Oceanum Tract 80. in Iohan. Epistle he doth at large declare what efficacy baptisme and the water sanctified in Christ hath Augustine said Water toucheth the body and washeth the hart Answere His wordes are What great force and vertue is this of water
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.
that was left of the Pascal lambe doth gather the cleane contrary to wit that if we cannot vnderstand howe these thinges vvhich we see are turned into our Lordes body Into which mystery the Angels saith he with their cleare sight cannot pearce then must we cast into the fire of the holy Ghost these thinges perswading our selues that to be possible vnto the vertue of the holy Ghost which seemeth to vs impossible See vvhat fire that vvorthy authour speaketh of And in the sixt booke and two and twenty Chapter of the same vvorke he speaketh yet more plainely saying That he receiueth ignorantly who knoweth not the vertue and dignity of this Sacrament and who is ignorant that it is the body bloud of Christ in truth so that old Hesichius condemneth them of ignorance for not beeleuing Christes body to be truly in the Sacrament Secondly saith M. PERK by the sacramental vnion of the bread wine with the body and bloud of Christ they vsed to confirme the personall vnion of the man-hood of Christ with the God-head against heretikes Let vs admit this to be true for then it followeth necessarily against himselfe that the true body of Christ is really present in the blessed Sacrament as his true Dialog 2 God-head and man-hood were really vnited in one person But if Theodoret whome he quoteth be well read you shall finde that they against whome he writeth objected this common doctrine of the Church that bread is turned into the body of Christ to proue that the man-hood of Christ was turned into the God-head and consequently that there were not two natures in Christ but one And albeit the consequent was Hereticall yet the antecedent was Catholike good and not denyed of Theodoret but that there was a reall conuersion of bread into the true body of Christ and therefore did other Heretikes who denied our Sauiour to haue true flesh deny also consequently the truth of the blessed Sacrament as the same Dialog 3 Theodoret doth witnesse out of S. Ignatius in these wordes They admit not the Eucharist and Sacrifice because they doe not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour which was crucified for vs and which the Father of his benignity raysed againe Libr. 17. cap. 25. M. PERKINS further objecteth that Nicephorus reporteth that young children were sent for from the scoole to eate that which remayned of the Sacrament which saith he was a signe that they thought it not to be Christes body Not so for he so reporteth it that any man may see that he beleeued it to be the very body of Christ For first he saith that those children were pure and incorrupt not falne from their state of innocencie Secondly that they were fasting Thirdly he affirmeth in plaine tearmes that they receiued the immaculate body of IESVS Christ God and Man Finally he proueth it so to be and that by miracle For one of the children who had receiued that morning being by his father a malitious Iewe afterwardes cast into a glasiers furnace most fiery hot and shut in there for three daies space was miraculously preserued aliue and found there without any hurt at all by vertue of the blessed Sacrament which he had receiued What strange blindnes then was this to alleadge this against the reall presence which so admirably doth confirme it We knowe that in certaine places some vsed to giue the blessed Sacrament vnto children yea vnto sucking babes being also dipped in the chalice which rather proueth our opinion For they thought it necessary for all that would be saued to receiue this holy Sacrament Nowe these infants could haue no such act of faith as the Protestants doctrine requireth to make their communion therefore at that time they held the same kinde of reall presence which we doe which is made by lawfull consecration of the Priest and not by the faith of the receiuer And that you may perceiue that I speake not only by ghesse take the profession of one of those authors whome M. PER. alleageth Amalarius by name who saith in the worke cited by M. PER. Lib. 3. de Eccl. offic cap. 24. Here we beleeue the nature of pure bread and wine mixed with water to be conuerted into a nature indued with reason to wit into the nature of the body and bloud of Christ can any thing be more plaine against them Finally M. PER. collecteth out of one Nicholas Cabasilas his exposition of these wordes of the Masse Sursum corda lift vp your harts that the people being willed by the Priest to lift vp their thoughts from the earth and to thinke on thinges aboue Christ is not really present with them but only on the right hand of his Father To which we answere that when those wordes were spoken Christes body in deed is not there really present for they are in the preface before the Canon and consecration but is made present afterwardes by the wordes of consecration Secondly that he might notwithstanding those wordes were spoken after the consecration as they be before be there present For being admonished to call our mindes and harts from earthly thinges and to lift them vp to consider heauenly what more diuine and heauenly subject can we meditate vpon then our Sauiour Iesus Christ there present and the holy misteries of his incarnation and passion there represented and the infinite mercies and goodnesse of God powred out on vs through him and by meanes of this holy Sacrifice and thus much in effect doth the answere vnto those wordes signifie We lift vp our harts vnto our Lord to attend vpon him at this time specially in these his holy misteries Obserue that we are not bidden to lift vp our eyes to beholde the sunne or to contemplate the starres in the skie and so you may see that the Protestants ignorance in the wordes of the holy Masse doth litle auaile them or helpe their bad cause Thus at length we are come to an end of M. PERKINS reasons against vs nowe to those that he maketh for the Catholike party which are both fewe in number and very barely propounded but by the helpe of God I will doe my endeauour to supply his negligence therein The first is taken out of these wordes of our Sauiour Ioh. 6. vers 51. The bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world Here is a plaine promise made by Christ Iesus that faileth not of his word of giuing vs his flesh to eate and that very flesh which on the Crosse was to be giuen for the redemption of the vvorld these vvordes be so euident that they who heard them made no doubt of the sence of them but were astonished at it and said Howe can this man giue vs his flesh to eate they doubted not but that Christ had said that he vvould giue them his flesh to eate his speaches were so plaine for it but yet beleeued they not that he could
Circumcision was commanded in these wordes Genes 17. vers 11. You shall circumcise the flesh of your prepuce that it may be a signe of the couenant betweene you and me These be the wordes of the institution of that Sacrament and not one of them but must be literally taken For the true flesh in deede was to be circumcised and cut off and no figure of the flesh or signe of cutting would serue the turne In like manner where the Sacrament of the Pascall lambe is instituted Exod. 12. vers 3. all must be vnderstood literally as a naturall lambe really killed rosted and eaten and not a figure signe or seale of it euen so our blessed Sauiour instituting a Sacrament in these wordes This is my body the wordes must be taken literally and not figuratiuely and consequently the reason which M. PER. bringeth for him beareth strongly against himselfe because it is and euer hath beene Gods fashion when he instituteth Sacraments to institute them in their proper tearmes which must be taken literally as by his owne examples hath bin proued Nowe to his sentences Circumcision is both a couenant and the signe of a couenant and that properly although not of the same couenant For it was a couenant tendred by God vnto Abraham and by him accorded vnto to circumcise himselfe and all his seede of the male-kinde and the very same couenant was also a signe badge of Gods peculier fauour vnto them and their speciall obligation to serue him and a marke in them of the chosen people of God so that that speach circumcision is the couenant is not figuratiue but literall Neither is the lambe called the Angels passing by or ouer in the place cited by M. P. but rather the Iewes eating of it hastily and walking was a signe of the Angels speedy passing by them The lambe is sometimes called the passe-ouer not because it was the signe of it but for that it vvas the sacrifice celebrated in remembrance of it so Christ is called our passe-ouer or Paschall lambe because he is the lambe of God sacrificed to take away the sinnes of the vvorld so that not in one of these sentences is the thing signified put for the signe but rather the contrary And when S. Paul saith that the Rocke was Christ it is to be vnderstood properly because he speaketh of the spirituall Rocke saying And they did drinke all of the spirituall Rocke which was Christ properly The materiall rocke out of which the streames of water gushed did in deed prefigure Christ on the crosse out of whose side issued bloud and water but the spirituall Rocke that is the Rocke figured by that materiall was really Christ himselfe so that finally he hath not brought vs one place where the name of the thing signified is giuen to the signe but suppose he could bring any would it therevpon followe that this place of the institution of the Sacrament must be expounded by the same figure howe absurd and ridiculous is this manner of reasoning In one or two places of Scripture the name of the thing signified is giuen to the signe ergo In vvhat place soeuer it pleaseth the Protestants it shall be so taken albeit in a thousand other places it must needes be taken otherwise But M. PERKINS saith secondly That the Papists themselues confesse the like figuratiue phrase to be in the institution of the cup when it is said This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud that is as M. PER. interpreteth it a signe seale and pleadge of the newe Testament Answ We say that the institution of that part of the Sacrament is as plainely deliuered by S. Mathewe and S. Marke as the other For they haue in expresse vvordes This is my bloud of the newe Testament vvhich plaine and cleare speach doth sufficiently declare howe S. Lukes more intricate and obscure wordes are to be vnderstood it being great reason that that which is plaine easie to vnderstand should interpret that which is hard and not that which is obscure to be made an exposition of that vvhich is lightsome cleare as our wranglers who loue darkenes more then light would perswade vs. For the better vnderstanding of S. Lukes wordes you must obserue that a Testament is taken in two sortes either for the vvill and ordinance of the Testator or else for the written instrument whereby the will is knowne and performed Nowe this holy Sacrament may truly be called a testamēt in both sences For it is both a special ordinance to be obserued and practised by Christes will and institution during the whole state of the newe Testament and therefore truly called by S. Luke The newe Testament being a principall part of it Ouer and besides it is a singuler meanes and instrument a more effectuall then a vvritten vvill to conuey and deriue vnto vs our Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus legacy by the worthy receiuing of it that is his grace in this world and glory in the next and for this cause it is said of S. Mathewe to be the bloud of the newe Testament and not the seale or signe of it And thus finally the gentle reader may see that M. PER. can shew no sufficient cause why Christes wordes should be expounded by such a strange figure whereupon it followeth euidently that they are to be taken according vnto their natiue literall sence For so must all holy Scripture be vnderstood vnlesse there be apparant reason to the contrary Notwithstanding because this matter is of very great moment as being one of the highest misteries of our faith I will insist and stand somewhat vpon the circumstances of it First conferre all the places together vvhere the institution is rehearsed and you shall finde in them all Math. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. This is my body and not in any one of them This is a figure of my body as the Protestants teach Secondly S. Luke and S. Paul adde The body which shall be giuen for you vvhich inforce vs to vnderstand it to be his true naturall body that vvas crucified for vs and not a figure of it which was not crucified for vs. Luc. 22. Cap. 13. Thirdly Christ said With a desire haue I desired to eate this passe-ouer with you And S. Iohn addeth That Christ knowing that his houre was come that he should passe out of this world to his Father whereas he loued his that were in the world vnto the end he loued them and when supper was done c. Knowing that the Father had giuen him all thinges into his handes and that he came from God and goeth to God and so forth This Preface I say being made before the institution of the Sacrament sheweth that Christ vehemently longed to come to it and intended to leaue vnto his louing Disciples nowe at his last fare-well a monument and token of his diuine power and loue towardes them If after all this he should haue left nothing vnto
Scripture very handsomely together and would no doubt write a faire Commentary vpon the text if he were let alone but yet tell me I pray you by the way howe Christians can lift vp such pure handes and offer so cleane a Sacrifice if al their best workes be defiled with sinne and no cleaner then a filthy menstruous cloute as you doe teach But to confute him directly our Lord speaketh there to the Priestes of the old lawe and rebuketh them sharpely for their fault committed in their Sacrifices offered to him and therefore foretelleth them that he will reject al their Sacrifices and accept of an other cleane Sacrifice among the Gentils Nowe as Sacrifice in the former part of his speach is taken most properly as no man can denie so must it be in the latter or else there were a great equiuocation in that sentence and no plaine opposition of Sacrifice to Sacrifice cleane to polluted And if he had reprehended the Iewes for their vnpure prayers then had it beene correspondent to haue said that he vvould haue receiued cleane prayers of others in lieu of them but inueighing against Priestes and sacrifices the very order and proportion of the sentence necessarily requireth that for those euill Priestes and poluted sacrifices he would establish good Priestes and cleane sacrifices according vnto the proper signification of the wordes Againe God is not so extreamely bent against the Iewes nowe but that he would receiue the spirituall Sacrifice of prayer and thankes-giuing euen from them if they doe offer it but he speaketh there of a kinde of Sacrifice that he vvill not receiue from their handes therefore that Sacrifice cannot be vnderstood to be any such spirituall thing but a true proper kind of Sacrifice And Iustine Martyr whome M. PER. citeth is so farre off from saying supplications and thanks-giuing to be the only perfect Sacrifices that Christians haue that in the very same Dialogue he applieth this prophesie of Malachie vnto the Sacrifice of the Masse saying That euen then Malachie the Prophet did speake of our Sacrifices which are offered vp in all places to wit of the bread and Chalice of the Eucharist which his equall Ireneus cited also by M. PER. doth more amply deliuer in these wordes Christ tooke bread and gaue thankes L. 4. cont Haeres cap. 32. saying This is my body and that in the Chalice be confessed to be his bloud which the Church receiuing from the Apostles doth offer to God through the whole world as the first fruites of his giftes of which Malachie one of the twelue Prophets did prophesie thus I take no pleasure in you c. citing the place all at large It is to be noted that in the Hebrewe text and Greeke translation there is in the text of Malachie before a cleane Sacrifice this word incense Incense is offered to my name and a cleane Sacrifice the which the ancient Interpreters doe expound of prayer and make it a distinct thing from the Sacrifice there also distinctly put Orat. cōt Iud. ca. 9. S. Augustine doth proue out of this place of Malachy that the Leuiticall Sacrifices should all cease and further that though all their Sacrifices ceased yet there should stil remaine a true Sacrifice to be offered by the Christians to the true God of Israell and biddeth them open their eyes and see it And in an other place specifieth vvhat that Sacrifice is Li. 18. de ciuit c. 35 Li. 1. cōt Aduersar legis Prophet cap. 20. Lib. 4. de fide c. 14. saying Nowe we see this Sacrifice by the Priest-hood of Christ after the order of Melchisedecke to be offered and againe They knowe who read what Melchisedecke brought forth when he blessed Abraham to wit bread wine and they are partakers of it and doe see such a Sacrifice to be offered nowe to God throughout the whole world Theodoret vpon that place of Malachy doth expresly teach that according to his prophesie There is now offered the immaculate Lambe in lieu of all their Sacrifices And S. Iohn Damascene speaking of the blessed Sacrament saith This is that pure and vnbloudy Sacrifice that our Lord by his Prophet did foretell to be offered from the rising of the sunne vnto the setting Thus much of the three first arguments which M. PER. propounded in our fauour out of the olde Testament but he hath skipped ouer other three which we haue in the newe of which I must needes stand vpon one because it is the ground of all the rest the other two I am content to omitt for breuities sake it is taken out of the wordes of consecration and as our fourth argument may be framed thus Christ at his last supper did properly sacrifice vnto God his owne body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine but what Christ then and there did the same is to be done in the Church by his ordinance vntill the worldes end ergo There is and alwayes must be a proper Sacrifice in the true Church They doe denie that Christ offered any such Sacrifice in his last supper we proue it thus Luc. 22. by his owne wordes For he saith That his body which he gaue them to eate was euen then giuen for them to God that his bloud was then presently shed for remission of their sinnes But to offer his body and bloud to God by such a sacred action and vnder such visible creatures to be there eaten is properly to Sacrifice ergo Christ at his last supper did properly offer Sacrifice They answere that albeit it be said in the present tense then giuen and shedde yet the meaning is that it should be giuen only the morrowe after on the Crosse the present tense being put for the future further adde that in the Canon of the Masse the verbe is put in the future tense We reply that men may not at their pleasure change tenses or else the Iewes might defend that our Messias were not yet borne and if we proue it saying The Word is made flesh they may by this licence of changing the present tense into the future say that it is not so yet but it shall be hereafter therefore to flie vnto chopping and changing the text without any reason or authority is rather to shift off then to defend a cause well But say they it is in the Masse booke effundetur God helpe the poore men that louing the Masse no better are driuen yet from the plaine text of holy Scripture to flie to the Masse-booke for succour but it vvill not serue their turne because both are true and agree vvell together For Christes bloud vnder the forme of vvine vvas presently sacrificed and shedde at his last supper and the same in his owne forme vvas to be shedde the morrowe after on the Crosse and againe vnder the forme of wine also was to be shedde in the same Sacrament vnto the worldes end so that truly properly both may be said it is
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
Secondly they make him much inferiour vnto the other persons for they teach in their French Catechismes that the Father alone is to be adored in the name of the Sonne In cap. 6. 17. Isa in 16. Marc. And Caluin against Gentil saith that the title of creatour belongeth only to the Father and else where that the Father is the first degree cause of life and the Sonne the second And that the In 26. Math. v. 64. Father holdeth the first ranke of honour and gouernement and the Sonne the second where the holy Ghost is either quite excluded from part with the Father and the Sonne or at most must be content with the third degree of honour 9. I beleeue the holy Catholike Church the communion of Saints First where as there is but one Catholike Church one as the Councell of Nice expresly defineth following sundry textes of the word of God they commonly teach that there be two Churches one inuisible of the elect another visible of both good and bad Secondly they imagine it to be holy holy by the imputation of Christes holinesse to the elected Bretheren and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hartes of all the faithfull Thirdly they cannot abide the name Catholike in the true sence of it Catholike that is they wil not beleeue the true Church to haue beene alwaies visibly extant since the Apostles time and to haue bin generally spread into all Countries otherwise they must needes forsake their owne Church which began with Friar Luther and is not receiued generally in the greatest part of the Christian world Finally they beleeue no Church no not their owne in all points of faith but hold that the true Church may erre in some principall points of faith Howe then can any man safely relie his saluation vpon the credite of such an vncertaine ground erring guide may they not then as well say that they doe not beleeue the one Catholike Church because they doe as well not beleeue it as beleeue it And as for the communion of Saints their learned masters doe commonly cassier it out of the Creede and that not without cause For by the Saints vnderstanding as the Apostles did al good Christians whither aliue or departed this world they that deny praier to Saints and for the soules in Purgatory haue reason to reject the common society entercourse that is betweene the Saints and the mutuall honour and help which such good Christian soules doe yeeld and afford one to another 10. The forgiuenesse of sinnes It is not easily to find what is their setled opinion touching the forgiuenes of originall sinne in Infants Some attribute it to Baptisme but that cannot stand with their common doctrine that Sacraments haue no vertue in them to remit sinnes or to giue grace Others say that God without any meanes doth then when they be baptised of himselfe immediately justifie them but that cannot stand in their owne doctrine because Infants want the instrumēt of faith to lay hold on that justice then offered by God and therefore cannot being so yonge take it vnto them Others will haue Infants sanctified in their mothers wombe by vertue of a couenant which they suppose God to haue made with old father Abraham and all his faithfull seruants that forsooth their seede shall be holy But this is most phantastical and contrary to the Scriptures and daily experience for Isaac was the sonne of promise and yet Esau his sonne was a reprobate Dauides father was a Godly Israelite and yet Dauid affirmeth Psal 50. that he himselfe was conceiued in iniquities and we may see whole Countries nowe turned Turkes whose ancestors were good Christians therefore not all the soules of the faithfull are sanctified in their mothers wombes Secondly how euil soeuer they agree about the remission of sinne yet there is a perfect consent among them that such relikes of originall sinne remaine in euery man baptised and sanctified that it infecteth all and euery worke he doth with deadly sinne yea that which remaineth is properly sinne in it selfe though it be not imputed to the party so that sinne is alwaies in them though their sinnes be neuer so well forgiuen And as for the Sacrament of Penance by which we hold al sinnes committed after Baptisme to be forgiuen they doe renounce the benefit of it and are at vtter defiance with it 11. The resurrection of the bodies Whether Farel the first Apostle of the Geneuian Gospel doubted thereof or no let his successor Caluin tell you who answereth Farels letter thus Episto ad Farellum That the resurrection of this our flesh doth seeme to thee incredible no meruaile c. Againe many of them teach that Christ tooke not his bloud againe which he shed vpon the crosse yea some of them are so gracelesse as to say that his pretious bloud wherewith we were redeemed Vide Conradum li. 1. art 20. rotted away on the earth 1600. yeares agoe If then it be not necessary to a true resurrection to rise againe with the same bloud why is it necessary to rise againe with the same bones and flesh the one being as perfect a part of a mans body as the other 12. Life euerlasting First Captaine Caluin holdeth it for very certaine that no soule doth enter into the joyes of heauen wherein consisteth life euerlasting vntill the day of doome 3. Institu 25. sess 6. These be his wordes the soules of the Godly hauing ended the labour of this war-fare doe goe into a blessed rest where they expect the enjoying of the promised glory And that all thinges are holden in suspence vntill Christ the redeemer appeare whose opinion is yet better then was his predecessor Luthers For he teacheth in many places that the soules of the Godly departing from their bodies Enarra in Gen. c. 26. In Ecclesi c. 9. v. 10. haue no sence at all but doe lie fast a sleepe vntill the latter day Take this one for a tast Another place to proue that the dead feele or vnderstand nothing wherefore Salomon thought the dead to be wholy a sleepe and to perceiue nothing at all And againe the sleepe of the soule in the life to come is more profound then in this life And Luther with this one position of his as that famous historiographer Iohn Sleidan recordeth ouerthrewe two points of Popery Li. 9. hist to wit praying to Saintes for they are so fast a sleepe that they cannot heare vs and praying for the dead For they in Purgatory slept also so soundly that they felt no paines A meete foundation surely to build such false doctrine vpon In 20. Luc hom 35. But Brentius is most plaine in this matter who ingeniously confesseth that albeit there were not many among them that did professe publikely the soules to die with the body yet the most vncleane life which the greatest part of their followers did lead doth clearely shewe that in their hartes they thinke no life to be