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
vulgar tongue or that all thinges necessary to be beleeued to saluation are contained in the Scriptures To be short not one article of their religion which is contrary to ours is contained in this Creede of the Apostles therefore to affirme as de doth all necessarie pointes of religion to be contained in this Creede is to cast their owne religion flat to the ground and to teach that not one point of it is to be beleeued this Creede may neuerthelesse be called the key and rule of faith because it containeth the principall pointes of the Christian religion and doth open as it were the doore vnto all the rest and guide a man certainely vnto the knowledge of them by teaching vs to beleeue the Catholike Church 1. Tim. 3. vers 15. Ioh. 16. vers 13. which being the piller and ground of truth directed and guided by the spirit of truth will alwaies instruct her obedient children in all truth necessary to saluation Then saith Master PERKINS The eternal truth of God the creatour shal depend on the determination of the creature Nothing lesse for Gods truth is most sincere and certaine in it selfe before anie declaration of the Church but vve poore creatures that are subject to mistaking and errour should not so certaynelie vnderstand and knowe that truth of God vnlesse he had ordained and appointed such a skilfull and faithfull Mistris and interpreter to assure vs both what is his word and what is the true meaning of it Like as pure gold is not made perfect in it selfe by the Gold-smithes touch-stone but other men are thereby assured that it is true and pure gold euen so the word of God doth not borrowe his truth from the Church but the true children of God are by the holie Church assured which is the same his word If we did hold as we doe not that the written vvord contayneth all pointes of doctrine necessarie to saluation yet vvere it most necessarie to relie vpon the Catholike Churches declaration both to be assured which bookes of Scriptures be Canonicall which not whereupon S. Augustine a man of farre better judgement then any of these daies said Con. Epist Iud. cap. 5. that he would not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the authority of the Church moued him thereunto as also to vnderstand them truly because the wordes of holy Scripture without the true meaning and sence of them doe but deceiue men and leade them into errour and to that end haue alwaies beene and yet are by Heretikes abused to drawe others after them into destruction The like may be said of other ancient Creedes and confessions of faith which holding the Apostles Creede did adde some fewe pointes vnto it namely such as were in those daies called into question by Heretikes of greater fame and who were followed of many not touching in particuler diuers other articles generally beleeued of all true Christians or else by some fewe and obscure men only questioned Wherefore to argue that no other pointes of faith are to be beleeued but such as are expressed in ancient Creedes is to cut of a great part of our faith Lastly it is most vntrue to say that those ancient Fathers and Councels knewe not of these articles of faith by him mentioned for they haue most plainely taught them in their writinges yea and expresly condemned of heresie most of the contrary positions nowe againe reuiued and holden by the Protestantes as in those seuerall questions I haue before proued Touching beleeuing in the Church which he thrusteth in by the way we vse not that phrase as the very Creede sheweth following therein S. Augustine with others who hold that to beleeue in a thing is to make it our creatour by giuing our whole hart vnto it in which sence we beleeue not in Saintes nor in the Church albeit some other ancient Doctors take the wordes to beleeue in not so precisely but say that me may beleeue in the Church in Saintes that is beleeue certainely that the Catholike Church is the only true company of Christians and that to the lawfull gouernours thereof it appertaineth to declare both which bookes be Canonicall and what is the true meaning of all doubtfull places in them so we beleeue the Saintes in heauen to heare our prayers to be carefull to pray for vs to be able to obtaine by intreaty much at Gods handes in whose high fauour they liue Thus much in answere vnto that which M. PER. objecteth in generall nowe to that he saith in particuler He chargeth vs first with the breach of the third article Conceiued by the holy Ghost Which saith he is ouerturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Masse into the body and bloud of Christ for here we are taught to confesse the true and perpetuall incarnation of Christ beginning in his conception and neuer ending afterward Answ Here is a strange exposition of the Creede Is Christes incarnation perpetuall and not yet ended then it is true to say that Christ is not yet incarnate as we may say truly that a man is not borne vntill his birth be accomplished and ended But to the present purpose because Christes incarnation beganne at his conception cannot bread be turned afterward into his body how hangeth this together Belike he meanes that Christes body was but once conceiued and that was by the holy Ghost in his mothers wombe therefore it cannot afterward be made of any other thing This to be his meaning he declares in the question of the Sacrament but it is too too simple and childish For we hold him not to be so conceiued by bread as he was by the holy Ghost who was the efficient cause of his conception but that the same body that was cōceiued by the holy Ghost is made really present in the Sacrament by transubstantiation of bread into it which hath no opposition at al with this article as I haue more largely proued in the foresaid question And whereas he saith further cleane besides the purpose of this article that Christes body hath the essentiall properties of a true body standing of flesh and bone we grant the same but when he addeth that local circumscription cannot be seuered from a body he is deceiued for the greatest body of all others which is the highest heauen is not circumscribed by any place because there is no other body without it whose extreamities might compasse in and circumscribe that body of the highest heauen And when he saith that to be circumscribed in place is an essentiall property of euery quantity and that quantity is the common essence of euery body he makes himselfe but a common mocking-stocke vnto euery simple Logitian who knoweth that no accident such as euery quantity is can be of the essence and nature of a substance such as Christes body is Neither would any man say that cared what he said that to be circumscribed in a place is essentiall to euery quantity when all numbers that be quantities
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
of bread only doth as vvell present vnto our mindes as if the substance of bread were there present with it Againe saith M. PER. it abolisheth the endes of the Sacrament First it maketh we cannot remember Christ who being present bodily in the Sacrament needeth not be remembred because helpes of remembrance are of thinges absent Answ A man would thinke were not his wits somewhat distempered that he might be remembred best that is most present to vs neither is remembrance only of things absent For as euery one may well remember when they see one whome they haue seldome seene before the very sight of him or his speech or some other token which he telleth calleth vs to remembrance of him who is personally then present But if this were not so yet were the end of the Sacrament accomplished most perfectly For by Christes reall presence in the Sacrament we are admonished to remember not his body barely 1. Cor. 11. but his death on the Crosse as S. Paul expoundeth it which death of his is absent and by the consecrating of his body apart from his bloud and by the eleuation of it is represented vnto vs very liuely and so we are put in minde and made to remember a thing absent to wit the death and passion of Christ Moreouer M. PER. saith that an other end of the Sacrament is to feed the soule with eternall life but by transubstantiation the principall feeding is of the body and not of the soule which is only fed with spirituall foode Answere Alas into what straightes was he brought when he wrote this a man would thinke that if the substance of bread remained still as in their counterfeit Sacrament it doth it should rather be food for the body then for the spirit For bread as fooles knowe as well as phisitions doth nourish the body naturally We then that remoue the substance of bread out of the Sacrament must needes therefore meane to feed only the soule thereby and not the body at all For Christes blessed body receiued in the Sacrament is nurriture only of our soule by his graces bountifully bestowed vpon the worthy receiuer it giueth to the body only a certaine seede or pledge of immortallity according vnto that Ioh. 6. vers 54. He that eateth my flesh c. hath life euerlasting and I will raise him vp in the last day M. PERKINS fourth reason In the Sacrament the body of Christ is receiued as it was crucified and his bloud as it was shed vpon the crosse but nowe the act of crucifying is past it is faith alone that maketh Christ crucified to be present vnto vs in the Sacrament ergo Answere We denie his first proposition for we receiue the same body that was crucified but not after that bloudy manner as it was there vsed but vnder the formes of bread and wine which Christes owne vvordes doe importe take eate this is my body that shall be giuen for you he saith not as M. PER. doth as it shall be giuen for you that is not in the same manner though it be the same in substance Yet as I once said before the consecration of his bloud in the Chalice as it were a part from his body and powred out with the lifting vp of the body after cōsecration as it is done in the Masse with the breaking and receiuing of the holy Host doth liuely represent vnto the faithfull Christes blessed death and passion But what resemblance hath the eating of bread drinking of wine the Protestants holy communion with the crucifying of Christ Is eating and drinking of so pleasing food meete to expresse Christes drinking of gall and most painefull torments by their feeling faith they would salue this but they cannot For besides faith there must be as M. PER. himselfe before confessed a proportion betweene the signe and the thing signified but there is no proportion betweene eating of fine bread drinking of good wine with the dolorous crosse of Christ Seing then that in the Sacrament as M. PER. teacheth Christes body must be receiued as it was crucified he must needes appoint something else then bread wine to be the signes of this Sacrament for they be most vnproper to represent Christes passion Againe saith he discoursing very learnedly That bloud which ranne out of Christes side was not gathered vp againe nay the collection of it was needlesse because after the resurrection he liued no more a naturall but a spirituall life Ans Here is a proper peece of diuinity He might aswel say if his reason were good that Christs body is not risen againe because a body also is as needles vnto a spiritual life The truth is that the body with the bloud in the veines of it is risen againe else were it no true resurrection which is only when the very same body numero with all the same parts and parcels of it which it had before be restored vnto their former essence integrity Note by the way the admirable rare vertue of the Protestants faith whose property is saith M. P. to giue a being vnto thinges which are not What being good Sir that any thing should be extant in the world which before was not yes marry that that bloud should be receiued spiritually which is not at al. True perhaps in the Protestants vaine imagination but in deed most ridiculous to imagine that that can be receiued either corporally or spiritually vvhich is not extant nor hath any being at all For a thing must be of it selfe before it can be receiued of an other 1. Cor. 10. vers 3. M. PER. fift reason The fathers of the old Testament did eate the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the rocke which was Christ but they could not eate his body which was not then crucified but by faith the Papists answere that the fathers did eate the same meate among themselues and not that which we eate that is all the Israelites did eate the same spirituall foode of Manna and did drinke all of the vvater which issued out of the spirituall Rocke one of them as well as an other yet they had not the same Sacraments that we Christians haue neither did they receiue the same that we doe But M. PER. will proue that they had Because saith he the Apostles intent is to proue that the Iewes were euery way equall to the Corinthians and in nothing inferior Reply S. Paul meant and intended nothing lesse but in the same his Epistle and in many of the rest expresly teacheth the state of the Christians such as the Corinthians were to surpasse farre the state of the Iewes For the old Testament is compared to the letter that killeth 2. Cor. 3. and therefore called the ministration of damnation the newe to the spirit that quickneth and to the ministry of justice and the old Testament did ingender to bondage Gal. 4.14 Vers 1. Ver. 3. 9 Hebr. 10. vers
1. the newe to liberty And there they were as seruants we as heires they seruing vnder the weake and poore elements of this world we hauing the spirit of sonnes c. And the lawe had a shadowe of the thinges to come not the very Image as we haue so that nothing could be further from the Apostles meaning then to make the Iewes equall in Sacraments and graces with the Corinthians who were Christians But his intention was as may be easily seene by that vvhich goeth before and followeth to warne the Corinthians to chastice their bodies as he himselfe did as he saith in the end of the Chapter going before and to flie from all vice and not to rely only vpon the extraordinary gifts of God bestowed vpon them For saith he the ancient Israelites all were partakers of many singuler fauours of God as of the eating of Manna of drinking of the Rocke c. And yet because many of them committed fornication and liued wickedly God was not pleased vvith all of them Obserue also that not one thing there mentioned by the Apostle was a Sacramēt among the Iewes and therefore are they vnskilfully compared with our Sacraments For a Sacrament is a set ceremony to be vsed ordinarily in the vvorship of God but their passing through the red Sea was but once therefore no set ceremony their eating of Manna and drinking of the Rocke were but naturall refections to them yea their cattle did drinke of the Rocke aswell as their Masters vvhich thinges though they did prefigure our Sacraments yet were no Sacraments at all and much lesse any thing in vertue comparable to our Sacraments M. PERKINS sixt reason The Sabbaoth was made for man and not man for the Sabbaoth so it may be said that the Sacrament was made for man and not man for the Sacrament and therefore man is more excellent then the Sacrament the end being alwaies better then the thing ordained to the end but if Christes body be really in the Sacrament then is not man more excellent then it ergo Ans By the like argumēt you may as wel proue that the Sonne of God is not nor euer shal be incarnate for the redemption of man or els which is most absurd that man is better then God because for vs men for our saluation Christ descended from heauen was borne of the V. Mary The end then being alwaies better then the thing ordained to the end as M. P. argueth either Christ is not yet borne to redeme man or els man is better then Christ See what goodly arguments they vse to deceiue the simple withal the direct answere is that the maine principall end of Christs incarnation passion and reall presence in the Sacrament is the glory of Gods justice wisdome and goodnesse and of his owne mercy and bounty which are more excellent then Christes incarnation and reall presence mans redemption spirituall feeding and saluation are but secondary endes which are farre inferior vnto our most louing redeemers mercy kindnesse and charity through which he hath procured it M. PER. confirmeth this reason with that which is nothing like it saying Euer◠beleeuer in the supper of the Lord receiueth whole Christ God man though not the God-head vvhich wordes imply a manifest contradiction For howe can God or whole Christ be receiued without the God-head but by carnall eating we receiue not wholy Christ but only a part of the man-hood and therefore in the Sacrament there is no carnall eating nor reall presence Answ We Catholikes doe eate al Christes body wholy For we part not his body but beleeue that it is whole in euery cōsecrated Host Moreouer because his blessed body is a perfect liuing body vve knowe also that it hath bloud in it as other bodies haue and is yet further joyned vvith his most holy soule and so in receiuing his body we receiue all his man-hood both body soule Ouer and besides his God-head being lincked and joyned inseperably with his man-hood whole Christ both God and man is alwaies receiued together so that euery lay Catholike communicating but vnder one kind doth receiue Christs body bloud yea wholy both all his man-hood and God-head whereas in the Protestants naturall communion of bread and wine there is in deed neither body nor bloud not any peece of Christ but only in their owne phantasticall imagination so that those their ordinary out-cries are most fond The Papistes robbe you of the bloud being one part of the Sacrament Whereas Catholike Pastors giue to their flocke vnder one kinde both the body and bloud yea the very soule and God-head of Christ as you haue heard But the Protestantes are the great Theeues in deede vvho defraude their vnhappy followers of both body and bloud and giue them only sacramental signes and relations to feede their foolish phantasies Before I come vnto M. PER. last reason taken from authority I thinke it fittest to place here certaine other objections which out of place he hudleth vp together in the answere vnto our second argumēt where he saith first that Christes body could not be receiued in bodily manner before his passion We say contrarily that it could be as well before as after When he goeth about to proue his position he shall be answered Secondly That Christ was the Minister of this Sacrament and therefore if he had conuerted bread into his body he should haue taken his owne body into his handes vvhich we graunt following S. Augustine vpon these vvordes He was caried in his owne handes Conc. 1. in psal 31. Howe this may be vnderstood saith he of Dauid literally we finde not but we finde it in Christ for Christ was carried in his owne handes when deliuering his owne body he said this is my body For then he carried that his body in his owne handes M. PER. addeth yet further that it should also followe that Christ did eate his owne flesh for he did communicate also saith he to consecrate his last supper in his owne person This may be true though it haue no warrant in the word For S. Hierome a holy and most learned Doctor doth affirme it saying Epistol ad Hedibian quaest 2. our Lord Iesus is both the guest and the banquet he who doth eate and is eaten and no greater incōuenience is this in our opinion then in theirs For who more meete to receiue Christes blessed body then himselfe and vvhat more foolish then for Christ by faith to apply himselfe and his benefits vnto himselfe which as you haue heard before out of M. PERKINS is to receiue the Lordes supper like a good Protestant Lastly he auoucheth that if we eate Christes body really we must needes be man-slayers but he forgotte to proue it dixit abijt If other proofe fayled him he might haue fledde vnto the rusty opinion of the old farne Capernaites which is mentioned in the Gospell it selfe For they as S. Augustine expoundeth it thought that Christ would
other miracle is of record in the life of that deuout Father S. Bernard Lib. 2. cap. 3. This holy man caused a vvoman who had beene many yeares possessed with a wicked spirit that did strangely torment her to be brought before him as he vvas at Masse and then holding the consecrated Host ouer the womans head spake these vvordes Thou wicked spirit here is present thy judge the supreame power is here present resist and if thou canst he is here present who being to suffer for our saluation said Nowe the Prince of this world shall be cast forth and pointing to the blessed Sacrament said This is that body that was borne of the body of the Virgin that was streatched vpon the Crosse that lay in the Sepulcher that rose from Death that in the sight of his Disciples ascended into Heauen therefore in the dreadfull power of this Majesty I command thee wicked spirit that thou depart out of this handmaide of his and neuer hereafter presume once to touch her The Deuill was forced to acknowledge the Majesticall presence and dreadfull power of Christes body in that holy Host and to gette him packing presently wherefore he must needes be greatly blinded of the Deuill that knowing this miracle to be vvrought by the vertue of Christes body there present vvill not yet beleeue and confesse it But nowe let vs vvinde vp all this question in the testimonies of the most ancient and best approued Doctors S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler saith I desire the bread of God Epist 15. ad Rom. heauenly bread which is the flesh of the Sonne of God S. Iustine declaring the faith of the Christians in the second hundreth yeare after Christ vvriteth to the Emperor Antonine thus Apol. 2. We take not these thinges as common bread nor as common wine but as Christ incarnate by the word of God tooke flesh and bloud for our saluation euen so are we taught that the foode wherewith our flesh is by alteration nourished being by him blessed and made the Eucharist is the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus incarnate S. Ireneus Iustins equall proueth both Christ to be the Sonne of God Li. 4. con Haeres cap. 34. the creatour of the vvorld and also the resurrection of the bodies by the reall presence of Christes body in the blessed Sacrament so assured a principle and so generally confessed a truth was then this point of the reall presence Homil. 5. in diuers Origen that most learned Doctor saith When thou takest that holy foode and that incorruptible feast when thou enjoyest the bread and cup of life when thou doest eate and drinke the body and bloud of our Lord then loe doth our Lord enter vnder thy roofe Thou therefore humbling thy selfe imitate this Centurion and say O Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe c. De coena Domini S. Cyprian The bread that our Lord deliuered vnto his Disciples being not in outward shewe but in substance changed was by the omnipotent power of the word made flesh Catech. 4. mist S. Cyril Patriarke of Hierusalem doth most formally teach our doctrine saying When Christ himselfe doth affirme of bread This is my body who afterward dareth to doubt of it and he confirming and saying This is my bloud Who can doubt and say this is not his bloud And a little after doth proue it saying He before changed water into wine which commeth neare to bloud and shall he be thought vnworthy to be beleeued that he hath changed wine into his bloud wherefore let vs receiue with all assurance the body and bloud of Christ for vnder the forme of bread his body is giuen vs and his bloud vnder the forme of wine Orat. 2. de Paschate S. Gregory Nazianzene speaking of the blessed Sacrament sayeth Without shame and doubt eate the body and drinke the bloud and doe not mistrust these wordes of the flesh c. S. Iohn Chrisostome Patriarke of Constantinople perswadeth the same thus Homil. 83 in Math. Let vs alwaies beleeue God and not resist him though that which he saith seeme absurd to our imagination which we must doe in all thinges but specially in holy misteries not beholding those thinges only which are set in our sight but hauing an eye vnto his wordes For his word cannot deceiue vs but our sences may most easily be deceiued wherefore considering that he saith This is my body let vs not doubt of it at all but beleeue it Againe a Hom. 61 ad populū what shep-heard doth feede his flocke with his owne flesh Nay many mothers giue out their children to be nursed of others but Christ with his owne flesh and bloud doth feede vs. b Itē hom 3. in epist ad Ephes It is his flesh and bloud that sitteth aboue the heauens that is humbly adored of the Angels And c Homil. 24. in 1. ad Corin. he that was adored of the wise-men in the manger is nowe present vpon the Altar d Hom. 83 in Math. 60. ad populum And not by faith only or by charity but in deede and really his flesh is joyned with ours by receiuing this holy Sacrament S. Ambrose e Libr. 4. de Sacrament c. 4. Thou maist perhaps say that my bread is but common bread this bread is bread in deede before the wordes of the Sacrament but when consecration commeth of bread it is made the body of Christ And if you demand further howe there can be any such vertue in vvordes he doth answere That by the word of God heauen and earth were made and all that in them is and therefore if Gods word were able of nothing to make all thinges howe much more easily can it take a thing that already is and turne it into an other S. Hierome Let vs beare and beleeue that the bread which our Lord brake Epistol ad Hedib quaest 2. and gaue to his Disciples is the body of our Lord and Sauiour * Epist ad Heliodorū Cont. Aduers legis Prophe lib. 2. c. 9. And God forbidde saith he that I should speake sinistrously of Priestes who succeeding the Apostles in degree doe with their holy mouth consecrate and make Christes body S. Augustine The mediatour of God and men the man Iesus Christ giuing vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke we doe receiue it with faithfull hart and mouth although it seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to kill it and to drinke mans bloud then to shedde it Againe a In psal 65. 93 The very bloud that through their malice the Iewes shedde they conuerted by Gods grace doe drinke And vpon the 98. Psalme he doth teach vs to adore Christes body in the Sacrament vvith Godly honour where he saith Christ tooke earth of earth for flesh is of earth and of the flesh of the Virgin Mary he tooke flesh in which flesh he walked here
shedde and it shall be shedde and a good Interpreter of Scripture may not to delude the one flie to the other but defend both because both be the vvordes of the holy Ghost And the Greeke text in S. Luke doth inuincibly confirme that the vvordes are to be taken in the present tense For it hath that the bloud as in the Chalice Luc. 22. vers 20. is powred out Toúto tò potérion tò eckynómenon This Chalice is powred out it cannot therefore be referred vnto that powring out vvhich was to be made vpon the Crosse the day following but to that that vvas powred in and out of the Chalice then presently This might also be confirmed by the bloud which was sprinkled to confirme the old TestameÌ„t vnto which it seemeth that our Sauiour did allude in this consecration of the Chalice Exod. 24. vers 8. For Moyses said This is the bloud of the Testament and our Sauiour * Hebr. 9. vers 20. This is the bloud of the newe Testament But that bloud which dedicated the old Testament was first sacrificed to God such therefore vvas the bloud of the newe Testament And to make the matter more cleare let vs heare howe the best and most judicious Fathers vvho receiued the right vnderstanding of the Scriptures from the Apostles and their Schollers doe take these vvordes of Christ Lib. 4. cap. 32. Lib. 2. Epist 3. In psa 33 Conc. 2. Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. Homil. 2. in Post ad Timoth. Orat. 1. de resur You haue heard already out of S. Ireneus That Christ taught at his last supper the newe Sacrifice of the newe Testament And out of S. Cyprian Christ offered there a Sacrifice to his Father after the order of Melchisedecke taking bread and making it his body And out of S. Augustine Christ instituted a Sacrifice of his body and bloud according vnto the order of Melchisedecke that is vnder the formes of bread and wine I adde vnto them S. Chrisostome vvho saith In steede of the slaughter of beastes Christ hath commanded vs to offer vp himselfe And againe Whether Peter or Paule or an other Priest of meaner meritte doe offer the holy Sacrifice it is the same which Christ gaue to his Disciples the which all Priestes nowe a dayes doe make and this hath nothing lesse then that had S. Gregory Nissene Christ being both a Priest and the Lambe of God offered himselfe a Sacrifice and Host for vs. When vvas this done Euen then when to his Disciples he gaue his body to eate and his bloud to drinke Isichius First Lib. 2. in Leui. c. 8. our Lord supped with his Apostles vpon the figuratiue Lambe and afterward offered his owne Sacrifice All these and many other of the most ancient Fathers could finde a proper and reall Sacrifice in Christes supper To omit S. Gregories authority and all other his inferiors for this last thousand yeares vvhome the Protestants acknowledge vâ—holy to haue beleeued and taught the Sacrifice of the Masse See Kemnitius in exam Concilij Trid. page 826. 827. I omit some other good arguments made for vs out of the newe Testament to returne vnto M. PERKINS vvho proposeth this as the fourth reason for our party out of S. Paul We haue an Altar Hebr. 13. vers 10. whereof they may not eate who serue in the Tabernacle Nowe say they If we Christians haue an Altar then must we consequently haue Priestes and a proper kinde of Sacrifice for these are correlatiues and doe necessarily depend and followe one the other M. PERKINS answereth That the Altar there is to be taken not literally but spiritually for Christ himselfe Reply Obserue first howe the Protestants are forced to flie from the plaine text of Scripture and natiue signification of the vvordes vnto a figuratiue that without either reason or authority secondly I wish that M. P. would goe through with his paraphrase vpon the whole sentence and if by the Altar he vnderstand Christ then by eating of it he will surely expound beleeuing in Christ nowe like a prety Scholler that hath learned to read let him put it all together say That we Christians haue a Christ in whome the Iewes may not beleeue which is flat contradictory to that which the Apostle in that Epistle goeth about to perswade * Lib. 6. in Leui. c. 21 Isichius an ancient and worthy Author in expresse tearmes doth expound these wordes of the Altar of Christs body which the Iewes for their incredulity were not worthy to behold much lesse to be partakers of it and therefore the Apostle to moue the Iewes the rather to become Christians signifieth that so long as they serue in the tabernacle and continue Iewes they depriue themselues of that great benefite which they might haue by receiuing the blessed Sacrament Nowe the wordes following in the text which M. PER. citeth to interprete this sentence belong nothing to it but containe another reason to induce the Iewes to receiue Christ for their Messias drawne for a circumstance of their Sacrifices thus as the bodies of their Sacrifices were burne without the Campe so Christ suffered without the gate and citty of Hierusalem and therefore Christ was the truth prefigured by their Sacrifices It hath also an exhortation to depart out of the society of the Iewes and to forgoe all the preferment and glory they might enjoy among them to be content to suffer with Christ al contumelies Briefly there is not one word in the sentence before to proue the Altar to be taken for Christ but for a materiall Altar vpon which the Christian Priestes and offer the body and bloud of Christ in the blessed Sacrament vvhich may be confirmed by that passage of the same Apostle 1. Cor. 10 vers 21. You cannot drinke the cup of our Lord and the cup of Deuils you cannot be partakers of our Lordes table and the table of Deuils where a comparison is made betweene our Sacrifice and table and the Sacrifice and table of Idols shewing first that he vvho communicateth with the one of them cannot be partaker of the other and then that he who drinketh of the bloud of the Sacrifice is partaker of the Sacrifice Nowe the comparison were improper if our cup were not the cup of a Sacrifice as theirs was nor our table a true Altar as theirs was out of all doubt And that shift of Kemnitius is not cleanely who saith That they who drinke of Christes cup are partakers of his Sacrifice on the Crosse but not of any Sacrifice there present For S. Paules comparison is taken from the cup of a Sacrifice to Idols immediately before offered so that it doth conuince our Chalice to be the cup of a Sacrifice then presently immolated and offered vp The fift objection with M. PER. which is our sixt argument is this Where alteration is both of lawe and couenant there must needes be a newe Priest and a new Sacrifice Hebr. 7. vers
to that which M. PERKINS letteth fall by the way That though Peter excelled the rest of the twelue yet Paul passed him euery way this said he boldly and barely vvithout any authour or any shewe of proofe but let vs in kindnesse helpe him to proue it Galat. 2. vers 9. First S. Paul saith Iames. Cephas and Iohn who seemed to be the pillars gaue me and Barnabas the right hand of foâ—tery nowe if he were fellowe with the best he was not inferiour to Peter Answere In an orderly fellowship there is ordinarily one head and chiefe commander and so S. Paul might be very well admitted into that holy society and fellowship of preaching the Gospell and yet be vnder the President and Master of that Colledge or company S. Peter Secondly S. Paul further saith That the Gospell of the prepuce that is the preaching vnto the Gentils was committed vnto him as the chardge of the Israelites was vnto S. Peter therefore he was S. Peters equall at least and perhaps his better too because a larger commission was grounted vnto him Answere A partition of preaching the Gospell vnto all nations was made by common consent among the Apostles and it seemeth that S. Paul who was called afterward vvas admitted in S. Peters circuit or quarter vvhereupon for the more orderly proceeding in that blessed vvorke it was agreed vpon by them that S. Paul should haue principall care of the Gentils and S. Peter of the Iewes not that each of them might not also deale with both Iewes and Gentils for S. Peter was the first of all others that by reuelation from heauen did conuert the Gentils as he testifieth saying Act. 15. vers 7. Bretheren you knowe that God chose that by my mouth the Gentils should heare the word of God and beleeue yet because men commonly doe most tender and affect that vvhich is more specially committed to their charge to S. Paul were the Gentils recommended as to S. Peter the care of the Iewes But this might be very well done and yet S. Paul be inferiour vnto S. Peter and owe him a reuerent duty in the cases of supremacy as the Bishops of Canterbury and London haue charges of seuerall men and places yet is London to acknowledge Canterbury as his superiour And if the other Apostles who had also their diuisions and Diocesses a part were neuerthelesse inferiour vnto S. Peter so might S. Paul be notwithstanding his distinct charge Thirdly S. Paul resisted S. Peter to his face and reprehended him for walking amisse therefore he was rather his superiour Answere Not so for an inferiour by vvay of brotherly correction may in decent sort reprehend his superiour if he see him not to take good courses I knowe vvell that S. Hierome following the opinion of most of the Greeke Fathers doth cleare S. Peter of all fault holding it to haue beene but a set match betweene the two great Apostles that one of them for the instruction of others should reprehend the other But admitting with S. Augustine that S. Peter was worthy blame and therefore justly reprehended by S. Paul yet thence will followe no derogation to S. Peters dignity but great commendation of his humility as the holy Fathers of that opinion doe gather Of it thus writeth S. Cyprian Epist 71. ad Quintum Neyther did Peter whome our Lord chose the first and vpon whome he built his Church when Paul disputed with him about circumcision arrogate to himselfe any thing saying that he bad primacy and therefore the latter disciple ought rather to obey him but tooke it in good part S. Augustine saith Peter gaue to his posterity a more rare and holy example Epist 19. ad HieroÌ„ that they should not disdayne to be corrected of their juniours then Paul that inferiours sauing their charity might confidently resist their superiours for the defence of truth And S. Gregory the great speaking of S. Peter saith Hom. 18. in Ezech. He yeelded vnto his inferiour brother and in that matter became a follower of his juniour to the end he might excell in this point that he who chiefest in the toppe of the Apostleship might be chiefest also in humility Thus much of S. Peters supremacy Nowe that the Popes of Rome doe succeede him in the same authority First that this Monarchy and soueraigne authority of one ouer all the rest vvas not to expire and end with S. Peter as M. PER. dreameth but to continue in Christes Church vntill the end of the world is cleare and euident to them vvho consider that this Supremacy was not giuen vnto S. Peter principally for his owne honour and aduancement but for the benefit of the Church to preserue and maintayne vnity and peace among all her louing and obedient children according vnto that of S. Hierome Among the twelue Apostles one is chosen L. 1. cont Iouinian that a head being established the occasion of schisme and diuision might be preuented and taken away If therefore it vvas thought necessary vnto the vvisdome of God Christ IESVS to appoint one head among the Apostles and a fewe of the best Christians vvho had the first fruites of his holy spirit to cut off dissention and to maintayne peace how much more neede hath there beene euer sithence of one supreme Pastor and moderatour of controuersies vvhen the number of Christians is so greatly increased and such variety of nations are ingrafted incorporated into it when through the diuersity of wits and judgements and the decay of charity there must needes be a thousand times more neede of the supreme authority of some one to hold all the rest together in the vnity of faith and religion Againe in the old Testament and lawe of Moyses which was a figure of the new the same forme of gouernement by one head and finall judge in spirituall matters vvas at the first established and continued euer after vvithout alteration till Christes first comming Euen so must the same Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy which our blessed Sauiour hath demised framed and founded stand alwaies firme and inviolable vntil his second comming for he hath built it vpon so firme a Rocke that hell gates shall not preuaile against it vvhich may be further confirmed if we vveigh vvell of vvhat moment and importance it is to alter and change the forme of gouernement For it is of no lesse moment then to alter the whole estate of Christs common-weale the very essence forme and vnity of a publike state consisting principally in the manner and order of ruling of it vvhich alteration and variety to imagine to haue hapned in Christs Church is to make many seames in his vnsowed garments or rather to rippe it and rent the vnity thereof into many peeces It being therefore a most certayne truth that the same supreme gouernement vvhich S. Peter had ouer the rest vvas to continue alwayes in Christes Church it followeth as plainely that the Bishops of Rome vvere to succeede him in that