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
see that he hath done already And they holding the first motions to euil in temptation to be mortall sinnes which no mortall man ordinarily can nowe avoid howe can they pray God not to suffer them to be lead into temptation when they teach it to be impossible to escape the venime of it And if they vnderstand it so as M. PERKINS teacheth to wit that they there pray not to be left to the malice of Satan they cannot without losse of the certainety of their faith pray so because they hold themselues assured of that before hand Neither can they pray God generally to deliuer them from all euill affirming as they doe that we must needes fall into mortall sinne at euery step almost which is the greatest of all other euill And finally if it belong to God to deliuer vs from sinne and all other euill then Caluin and his followers doe wickedly blaspheame who teach God to be the authour and worker in vs of all errour sinne and wickednes Thus much of the Pater noster Nowe before I come to the Sacraments I may not omit to speake a word of the Aue Maria which in old Catechismes followeth immediately after the Pater noster The Protestantes haue cassierd it and may not abide to heare it once said but therein as much as in any other such matter they disgrace their doctrine and discredite themselues For all the wordes vsed of old therein are the very wordes of the holy Ghost registred in S. Lukes Gospell and therefore they bewray either great ignorance or a wicked spirit to dwell in them that cannot indure to heare the wordes of Gods spirit Luc. 1. Besides in holy Scripture it is prophesied that from henceforth all generations should call the Virgin MARY blessed In what tearmes then can we more conueniently so cal her then in the very same that were composed by an Archangel are penned by the Euangelists and by them commended vnto all good Christians besides the sence of them is comfortable vnto vs as contayning a remembrance of the incarnation of the Sonne of God for our redemption and we on our partes doe thereby giue thankes to God for that inestimable benefit and congratulate our Sauiour with humble thankes therefore saying Blessed be the fruit of thy wombe IESVS I need not in such cleare euidence of Gods word alleage the testimony of any ancient Father he that list to see howe it hath beene vsed in the purest antiquity let him read S. Athanasius in euang de deipara S. Ephem de laudibus B. Mariae S. Basils and S. Chrisostomes lyturgies vvhich can vvith no more reason be denied to be theirs then the rest of their workes One short sentence I wil set downe in commendations of it out of that most reuerend and deuout Bernard The Angels triumph Apud Dionisi Corinth 1. part in Euang cap. 5. 17. and the heauens doe congratulate vvith them the earth leapeth for joy and hell trembleth when the Aue Maria is deuoutly said Good Christians then must needes take great delight in it euen as the badde may not abide it Nowe let vs come to the last part of the Catechisme which is of the Sacraments where M. PERKINS doth briefly repeate his arguments vsed before against the reall presence I might therefore send the reader vnto the first Chapter of this booke for the answere but because the matter is of great importance I will here againe giue them a short answere First saith he the real presence is ouerthrowne out of these wordes he tooke bread and brake it ergo that which Christ tooke was not his body c. A simple ouerthrowe Christ in deed tooke and brake bread but presently after blessing it made it his body by these vvordes this is my body M. Per. 2 Againe Christ said not vnder the forme of bread or in bread but this that is bread is my body Answ It is false to say that this vvord Hoc This doth demonstrate bread for it is of a different gender from it both in Latin and Greeke and if he had said that that bread had beene his body his word was so omnipotent that it had beene of force to make it his body so that M. PER. maketh a false construction which nothing helpeth his errour Per. 3 Thirdly Bread was not giuen for vs but only the body of Christ and in the first institution the body of Christ was not then really giuen to death Answ This maketh nothing at all against the reall presence but doth greatly fortifie it For Christ gaue vs in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for vs this is my body that shal be giuen for you Nowe not bread but Christes true body was giuen to death for vs ergo Christ gaue vs to eate not bread but his true reall body Per. 4 Fourthly The cuppe is the newe Testament by a figure why not then the bread the body of Christ by a figure Answ A goodly reason if there be one figure there must needes be two Howe followeth this if those vvordes of S. Paul be obscure why did he not rather cleare them by conferring them with S. Mathewe and S. Marke who deliuer it plainely thus this is my bloud of the newe Testament that shall be shedde c. But he that delighteth in cauilling must seeke darkenesse Per. 5 Fiftly Christ did eate that supper but not himselfe Answ A Protestant cannot say that Christ did eate of that Sacrament as M. PERKINS doth because he hath no warrant for it in the vvritten vvord yet vve doe graunt that he did so and hold him most vvorthy to taste of that heauenly foode Per. 6 Sixtly We are bid to doe it til he come Christ then is not bodily present 1. Cor. 11. vers 26. Answ We are bid by S. Paul to shewe the death of our Lord til he come to judgement vvhich vve may very vvell doe his body being present as certaine noble Matrons preserued of their husbandes bloud to represent more freshly vnto their children the slaughter of their fathers Per. 7 Seauenthly Christ bid vs to doe it in remembrance of him but signes of remembrance are of thinges absent Answ We see one thing and remember an other By Christes body really present we remember the same to haue beene nailed on the Crosse for our redemption as Goliath sword was kept in the tabernacle in remembrance of the cutting-off of Goliathes head vvith the same sword and the women before rehearsed kept their husbandes bloud and might much easier haue preserued their bodies embalmed to keepe the better their deathes in fresh memory Per. 8 Eightly If the real presence be graunted then the body and bloud of Christ are either seuered or joyned together if seuered then Christ is stil crucified if joyned together then the bread is both the body and bloud of Christ whereas the institution saith the bread is the body and the wine is the bloud Answ The body bloud of Christ are by
of many of them yet be not these men that so teach as it were the founders of the newe Gospell and men of chiefest marke among them Nowe what force such principall authours as they take Melancthon Zwinglius Bucer and Caluin to be may haue to carry the rest away into the same errours I knowe not Sure I am that Caluins Institutions wherein this matter is so vehemently vrged is translated into English and in the Preface commended to all students of Christian diuinity as one of the most profitable the holy Scriptures excepted for the sound declarations of truth in articles of religion But to proceede on with this discourse the Protestants doe not only impugne the power goodnes of God but they doe also peruert his justice For to omit their last position that God is the worker of al sinne in vs compelling as Caluin speaketh the reprobate to obedience and therefore cannot in justice punish the poore wreatches for being obedient vnto his owne will and working and not to vrge their former assertion that God of his owne wil decree hath predestinated the greater part of men to hell without any foresight of their euill desertes which if it were true should it not be intolerable wronge to torment so rigorously innocents that neuer offended him To let passe these points I say how can they defend the justice of God who hold that he hath tyed vs to such lawes as are impossible to be kept by any man For Christ as he testified himselfe will condemne men to hell fire for transgressing of these lawes Math. 7. vers 23. by working of iniquity depart from me you that worke iniquity and what equity should there be in that sentence if it had neuer beene possible for these men to haue done otherwise For no reasonable Iudge condemneth any man for not doing of that which he knewe well lay not any way in his power to be done So that nothing is more plaine and euident then that the Protestantes doctrine trotteth apace towardes open Atheisme by impugning the power of God by defacing his goodnesse mercy and justice which in our vnderstanding are the chiefe properties of his diuine substance and by calling into question the blessed Trinity it selfe which their of-spring and progeny the Trinitarians in Poland doe already denie flatly Thus much of their Atheismes against God Nowe to those that be against our Sauiour Christ Iesus I haue before touched their errors concerning his God-head here I will speake of those that be against his Man-hood and Mediatorship First it must needes argue in them a great want of good affection towardes our Sauiour that they are so backward in his blessed Mother the holy Virgins praises not hearing with patience any body that would so much as salute her with the Haile MARY Luc. 1. which notwithstanding is recorded in the Gospell and are besides so ready vpon euery litle occasion to speake in her dispraise that we may with good reason reproue them as men either wanting judgement which they will not endure of anything or else voide of due respect vnto the Sonne who are such aduersaries to the Mother whome if they would not reuerence for her owne vertues which were most rare and singuler yet for her Sonnes sake who loued her so tenderly they should shewe themselues better affected towardes her and more forward in her praises if they did indeede loue and honour her Sonne as they pretend to doe But let vs come to Christes owne person Whereas the first Adam was at the first instance of his creation replenished with perfect knowledge and it is also in holy write said of the second Ioh. 1. In cap. 2. Lu. v. 52. Collos 2. vers 4. that the word was made flesh full of grace and truth Yet they commonly teach that our Sauiours soule was subject to ignorance euen as other mens soules are that he was in his youth ignorant of many thinges But what and they spare him not in whome all the treasures of wisdome and knowledge were hidden when he came to ripe yeares and beganne nowe to preach let vs for a taste heare some of Caluins sweete obseruations vpon the text of the Gospell because the purer brethren complaine much that M. Caluins workes are in no greater request Christ saith he * Ex Caluin Turcismo li. 7. c. 13. Luc. 16. Math. 7. Ioh. 1. speaketh improperly Math. 6. vers 18. he vseth harsh and far-fetched similitudes he wresteth the Prophetes wordes into a strange sence he vseth triuiall and vulgar prouerbes as probable conjectures not as sound argumentes which he willeth vs to beare in minde as a thing often practised by our Sauiour in Math. ca. 12. vers 25. Luc. 11. vers 17. he speaketh after the manner of men not out of his heauenly cabinette Math. 11. vers 21. which is no lesse in plaine English then that he spake vntruly as men doe And very sutable to this he noteth else where In cap. 7. Lu. v. 29. that Christ could not gette any other to be his Disciples then some certaine poore fellowes of the refuse and dregges of the people Seeme not these execrable notes to issue from the pen of some malicious Iewe or ranke Atheist yet are they but flea-bitinges in comparison of those which followe In his commentary vpon these wordes of our Sauiour Father if it be possible let this chalice or cuppe passe from me Mat. 26. vers 39. He obserueth first that this prayer of Christ was vnaduisedly made secondly that he ouercome with griefe had forgotten the heauenly decree not remembring for the time that he was sent to be the redeemer of mankinde thirdly that he withstood as much as in him lay and refused to execute the office of a mediator See Caluin also vpon these wordes of Christ Ioh. 12. vers 27. Father saue me from this houre where he saith that Christ was so strooken with feare and so pinched on euery side with perplexed pensiuenesse that he was forced through these boisterous waues of temptation to wauer and fleete too and fro in his prayers and petitions Is not this pittifull impiety Whereas our most louing redeemer of set purpose tooke that feare vpon him and most willingly both suffered and caused that bloudy agony and conflict by representing vnto him selfe both the shame and paine of his dolorous passion and the causes thereof which were the innumerable most grieuous sinnes of the world that he might in euery part both of minde and body endure what he possibly could for the time and spake nothing rashly but repeated that his prayer ouer three seuerall times as is set downe in the text it selfe to shewe vs howe naturally he as all other men did abhorre such a cruell and ignominious death and yet withall to instruct vs that we should be content with it and pray to God for strength to beare it if it were his blessed will to put vs to the like This
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
Fathers plaine sentences for the Sacrifice of the Masse to make his poore abused followers beleeue that vvhen they approue the Sacrifice of the Masse as they doe very often and that in most expresse tearmes as you shal heare hereafter that then they meane some other matter Much more sincerely had he dealt if he had confessed with his owne Rabbins that it was the common beleefe of the world receiued by the best Schoole-men That in the Masse a Sacrifice is offered to God for remission of sinnes as a Lib. 4. Instit ca. 18. §. 1. Caluin doth deliuer vvhich b De captiuit Babilon c. 1. Luther graunteth to be conformable vnto the saying of the ancient Fathers And one c Li. cont Carolostadianos Alberus a famous Lutheran speaketh it to the great glory of his Master Luther that he vvas the first since Christes time who openly inueighed against it this yet is more ingenious and plainer dealing to confesse the truth then with vaine colours to goe about to disguise it And that the indifferent reader may be vvell assured howe Luther an Apostata Friar could come vnto that high pitch of vnderstanding as to soare vnto that which none sithence Christes time neither Apostles nor other could reach vnto before him let him reade a speciall treatise of his owne Cocleus Vlenbergius Intituled of Masse in corners and of the consecration of Priestes which is extant in the sixt Tome of his workes set out in the German tongue and printed at Ienes as men skilfull in that language doe testifie In his workes in â—â—tin printed at Wittenburge of the older edition it is the seauenth Tome though somewhat corrected and abridged there I say the good fellowe confesseth that entring into a certaine conference and dispute with the Diuell about this Sacrifice of the Masse Luther then defending it and the Deuill very grauely arguing against it in fine the Master as it was likely ouercame his Disciple Luther and so setled him in that opinion against the Sacrifice of the Masse that he doubted not afterward to maintayne it as a principle point of the newe Gospell and is therein seconded by the vvhole band of Protestants This is no fable but a true history set downe in print by himselfe through Gods prouidence that all the vvorld may see from vvhat authority this their doctrine against the blessed Sacrifice of the Masse proceedeth And if they vvill beleeue it notwithstanding they knowe the Deuill to be the founder of it are they not then most vvorthy to be rejected of God and adjudged to him vvhose Disciples they make themselues vvittingly and of their owne free accord Nowe to the difference OVR DIFFERENCE M. PERKINS Page 207. THey make the Eucharist to bee a reall and externall Sacrifice offered vnto God holding that the Minister of it is a Priest properly in that he offereth Christes body and bloud to God really and properly vnder the formes of bread and wine we acknowledge no such Sacrifice for remission of sinne but only Christes on the Crosse once offered Here is the maine difference which is of such moment that their Church maintayning this can bee no Church at all for this pointe raseth the foundation to the very bottome vvhich he vvill proue by the reasons follovving if his ayme faile him not Obserue that in the lawe of Moyses there vvere three kinde of proper Sacrifices one called Holocaust or vvhole burnt offeringes the second an Host for sinne of vvhich there were also diuers sortes the third an Host of pacification Holocaustes vvere vvholy consumed by fire in recognizance and protestation of Gods Soueraigne dominion ouer vs Hostes for sinne vvere offered as the name improteth to appease Gods vvrath and to purge men from sinne Hostes of pacification or peace vvere to giue God thankes for benefits receiued and to sue for continuance and increase of them Nowe vve following the ancient Fathers doctrine doe hold the Sacrifice of the Masse to succeede all these sacrifices and to contayne the vertue and efficacy of all three to vvit it is offered both to acknowledge God to be the supreame Lord of heauen and earth and that all our good commeth from him as vvitnesseth this oblation of his deare Sonnes body who being the Lord of heauen and earth vvillingly suffered death to shewe his obedience to his Father Secondly it is offered to appease Gods vvrath justly kindled against vs sinners representing to him therein the merit of Christes passion to obtaine our pardon Thirdly it is offered to God to giue him thankes for all his graces bestowed vpon vs and by the vertue thereof to craue continuance and encrease of them These points of our doctrine being openly laide before the eyes of the world M. PER. seemeth to reproue only one peece of them to wit That the Sacrifice of the Masse is no true Sacrifice for remission of sinnes and not joyning issue with vs but vpon that branch only he may be thought to agree vvith vs in the other two to wit that it is a proper and perfect kinde of whole burnt offering and a Sacrifice of pacification at least he goeth not about to disproue the rest and therefore he had need to spit on his fingers as they say and to take better hold or else if that were graunted him which he endeauoureth to proue he is very farre from obtayning the Sacrifice of the Masse to be no true and proper kind of Sacrifice For it may well be an Holocaust or Host of pacification though it be not a Sacrifice for sinne But that all men may see howe confident we are in euery part and parcell of the Catholike doctrine we will joyne issue with him where he thinketh to haue the most aduantage against vs and will proue it to be also an Host for remission of sinnes and that aswel for the dead as for the liuing which is much more then M. PER. requireth and by the way I will demonstrate that this doctrine is so farre off from rasing the foundation of Christian religion that there can be no religion at all vvithout a true and proper kinde of Sacrifice and sacrificing Priestes But first I will confute M. PER. reasons to the contrary because he placeth them foremost Hebr. 9. v. 15.16 ca. 10. vers 10. The first reason The holy Ghost saith Christ offered himselfe but once therefore not often and thus there can be no reall offering of his body and bloud in the Sacrament of his supper the text is plaine True but your arguing out of it is somewhat vaine For after your owne opinion it is the Priest that doth offer the Sacrifice of Christes body in the Lordes supper and therefore though Christ offered it but once as the Apostle saith yet Priests appointed by him may offer it many times Doe yee perceiue howe easily your Achilles may be foiled the good-man not looking belike for this answere saith nothing to it but frameth another in
12. which is grounded vpon S. Paules wordes who saith That the Priest-hood being translated it is necessary that a translation of the lawe be made but in the newe Testament there is alteration of both lawe and couenant therefore there are both newe Priestes and a newe Sacrifice M. PER. answereth that all may be graunted That there are both newe Priestes and a newe Sacrifice Marry no other Priest but Christ himselfe both God and man who as man is the Sacrifice and as God the Altar Reply Who euer heard such a proper peece of diuinity is the God-head in Christ the Altar vpon which he offereth then is it not only inferior vnto God the Father to whome the Sacrifice is offered but the God-head in Christ is inferior to his man-hood as the Altar is inferior vnto the Sacrifice and Priest Againe the man-hood in Christ being separated from the God-head it not a Sacrifice of infinit value and consequently not sufficient to satisfie for al the sinnes of the world so that nothing could be answered more absurdly But his meaning perhaps was That Christ sacrifycing himselfe on the Crosse remayneth a Priest for euer and is the only Priest of the newe Testament in his owne person and that by his only Sacrifice on the Crosse and by no other Reply Christes Sacrifice on the Crosse is common aswell vnto all the faithful that liued before his daies euen from the beginning of the world as vnto all that liued since as effectuall and present vnto the one as vnto the other Apoc. 13. vers 8. and therefore is he said to be the lambe slayne from the beginning of the world so that notwithstanding this answere the reason remaineth in his full force and vertue that besides that Sacrifice on the Crosse which is common to all we must needes haue both newe and true Priestes and Sacrifice because we haue a newe lawe and couenant for Christes Sacrifice on the Crosse is no more actually present vnto vs then it vvas vnto the Iewes and all that were before him And as touching the effect and benefit of that his Sacrifice it was imparted and communicated aswell vnto old Father Abraham as vnto any that liued or doth liue in the state of the newe Testament and consequently the Sacrifice on the Crosse is not that peculiar Sacrifice which goeth joyntly with the newe Testament Which argument may be confirmed by this that there was neuer any lawe or religion in antiquity without their proper Priestes and without a true and reall Sacrifice wherevpon it followeth that the very natural light of mans vnderstanding doth teach vs that God is alwayes to be worshipped with Sacrifice Neither proceedeth this nut of the naturall corruption of men as Kemnitius is not ashamed to say but from the due consideration of mans bounden duty towardes God For the holyest and best informed men in the lawe of nature as Abel Noe Melchisedecke Abraham Isaac and Iacob did often most deuoutly offer vp Sacrifices vnto God and in the lawe of Moyses God himselfe prescribed vnto his people of Israel diuers and sundry kindes of Sacrifices so that it cannot but be a very impudent assertion to say that to Sacrifice vnto God issued out of the corruption of mans nature And further the very nature and end of a Sacrifice doth conuince that it is to be offered vnto God in all states and times For what is a Sacrifice but the most soueraigne honour that man can externally exhibite vnto the Almighty by not only vsing but consuming some thing of price to protest God to be the omnipotent Author of all things and we his creatures receiuing and holding our liues and all our goodes of both soule and body of him And if any aske me whether it be not sufficient to doe this in hart inwardly and outwardly to professe it in wordes I answere that it is not but â—â—â—â—ust besides thoughts and wordes by actuall deedes expresse the same And the act of sacrificing by the consent of the best learned of all Nations hath beene and is approued and declared for the only outward act of diuine honour proper vnto the Deity Saint Augustine teacheth Li. 2. coÌ„t Faustum cap. 21. de ciuitat Dei lib. 8. cap. 27. l. 22. c. 10. alibi that the erecting of Altars the consecrating of Priestes and offering of Sacrifice be thinges properly belonging vnto God and that Christians in deed in memory of their Martirs did these things but yet they did them only vnto God and that the Pagans themselues did not honour any dead or aliue with Sacrifice but such as they esteemed to be Gods so that if we Christians should want a true and proper Sacrifice we should be lesse religious then euer were any people being destitute of the principall and chiefest part of true religion And is it credible that God should among vs only whome he hath chosen to serue him most excellently want the soueraigne point of his diuine honour surely no wherefore this our doctrine of a true Sacrifice to be daylie offered to God is so farre from â—asing the foundâ—tion of religion to the bottome as M. PER. writeth as it vpholdeth the principall piller of religion and they in denying of it doe as it were strike of the head of Christian religion And who is of so meane wit that seeth not their silly shift and last refuge of Christs Sacrifice on the crosse to be but the last wordes that men foiled could vseâ— for very reason conuinceth that there must be a reall Sacrifice daylie offered by foure selected persons whereat the rest of Christians must be assembled and meete to doe their fealty and homage vnto the soueraigne Lord of heauen and earth that God be not defrauded of that his supreame seruice Nowe it is most manifest that Christes Sacrifice on the crosse was to be done but once and being nowe past can be no such ordinary â—â—arbs of calling Christians together to performe any such duty wherefore cannot be that daylie Sacrifice which we Christians are to offer But the vnbloudy oblation of his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine is the most excellent Sacrifice after that on the Crosse that euer was as containing the selfe same Host in substance and being a most liuely representation of his death and passion and therefore by Christes owne institution it was established as fittest for the perfect state of the newe Testament and ordained that it alone should be in steed of all other Sacrifices as hath before beene proued by the testimony of the Fathers I will here adde one place or two out of S. Augustine who saith L. 17. Ciuit c. 20. The Priest who is the mediator of the newe Testament doth exhibite to vs a table of his owne body and bloud after the order of Melchisedecke For that Sacrifice doth succeede all other Sacrifices of the old Testament Wherefore it is said in the person of our mediator Thou vvouldest
force of Christs wordes consecrated a part so that if they could be naturally separated they should be also seuered in that Sacrament as they might haue beene at Christes death when al the bloud was powred forth of his body but euer sithence Christes resurrection they are so joyned together that they can be no more seuered so that we graunt vnder one kinde of the Sacrament to be both Christes body and bloud which is not wrought by the wordes of the institution but by the necessary and inseparable conjunction of Christes body with his bloud euer since his glorious resurrection Finally M. PERKINS condemneth the administration of the Sacrament vnder one only kinde for the commandement of Christ is drinke ye al of this Math. 26. vers 27. and this commandement is rehearsed to the Church of Corinth in these wordes doe this as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me ver 25. and no power can reuerse this commandement because it was established by the soueraigne head of the Church Answere He beganne to set downe the institution of the Sacrament out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. here he leapeth backe to S. Mathewe because he fitteth him better in this point to vvhome I answere that Christ there spake only vnto his twelue Apostles vvho vvere afterward to administer that holy Sacrament to others and so some thing there-about is spoken to them vvhich may not be extended vnto lay-men but vnto Priestes only who were to succeed the Apostles in that ministery All men doe confesse these vvordes hoc facite doe ye this that is administer ye this Sacrament to be spoken only to the Apostles and in them to all of the Clergie alone euen so drinke ye al of this was in like manner spoken vnto them only as Clergiemen and therefore it is a commandement only to Priestes so to doe and as for others they may either drinke of it or not drinke of it as it shall be thought most expedient by their supreame Pastors and this may be gathered out of those very wordes drinke ye al of this For why should the Apostles haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cuppe then to eate of that foode vnles it were to signifie that whereas all men should be bound to receiue Christes body they should be further bound to receiue that holy cuppe also from which bond other men should stand free But to come to the purpose when they quarrell with vs for taking away from the people one kinde of the Sacrament we answere that vve doe them no hinderance thereby because vve giue them both the blessed body sacred bloud of Christ together vnder one kind yea whole Christ both God and man because they be so vnited that they cannot be separated But what can they answere when we complaine vpon them for that they haue defrauded the poore people of both body and bloud of Christ and in lieu of that most pretious banquet doe giue them a cold breake-fast of a morsel of bread a suppe of wine this is a most miserable lamentable exchange in deede our blessed Lord giue them grace to see it deliuer them speedily from it Here is the place to shew how the Protestāts doe not only bereaue their vnfortunate folowers of this most heauenly foode of Christes body but that they also depriue them of the manifold great graces of God deriued vnto vs in 5. other sacramēts but because I haue touched it in the Preface I wil omit it here and make an end with M. PER. assoone as I haue requited him by propounding briefly some arguments for the real presence as he hath done against it Let this be the first The state of the newe Testament which is more perfect then the old requireth accordingly Sacraments of greater grace and perfection then the old had they had Manna which for substance and taste farre passed our bread and in signification was equall to it Wherefore either vve must graunt our Sacrament of bread and wine to be inferiour to theirs of the old Testament or else acknowledge and confesse it to be the true body and bloud of Christ which doth surpasse theirs exceedingly as the body doth the shadowe This argument is confirmed by our Sauiour himselfe who in expresse tearmes doth preferre the meate Iohn 6. v. 48.49 that he was to giue to his Disciples before that of Manna which their Fathers had eaten in the wildernesse Secondly Christ promised to giue to his Disciples his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke and when they marueiled howe that could be he assured them Ibid. v. 55 that vnlesse they did eate his flesh they should not haue life in them and further certified them that his flesh was truly meate and his bloud truly drinke vvhence it is most plainely deduced that he who neuer faileth of his promise gaue them his true flesh to eate Thirdly Christ said in most cleare tearmes this is my body this is my bloud What could be more certaine or more perspicuous Fourthly These vvordes of the institution are recorded by three Euangelists and by S. Paul and they al vniformely deliuer it to be not the figure of Christs body but his body and that his body which should be giuen for our redemption on the crosse ergo it was that his true reall body vvhich vvas nailed to the crosse for vs. Fiftly S. Paul demandeth thus the Chalice of benediction which we doe blesse 1. Cor. 10. vers 16. is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread that we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord if then we doe in receiuing the blessed Sacrament participate Christes body and communicate his bloud they surely are there really present Againe S. Paul saith He that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh judgement to himselfe 1. Cor. 11. vers 28. not discerning the body of our Lord and before is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ ergo the body and bloud of Christ are there present or else why should a man incurre that guilt but by his vnworthy receiuing of it and by not discerning Christes body to be there present Besides all these plaine textes of holy Scripture in confirmation of the reall presence the very circumstances of it doe much fortifie our faith therein Lucae 22. vers 15. In S. Luke vve haue that our Sauiour marueillously desired desiderio desideraui to eate that this last banquet vvith his Disciples S. Iohn addeth that whereas he loued his that were in the world Ioh. 13. v. 1. 3◠vnto the end he loued them and knowing that the Father gaue al thinges into his handes and that he came from God and goeth to God c. What coherence I say with this exceeding loue and infinit power of Christ to be shewed in his last supper if he hath left only bread and vvine to be taken in remembrance of him any meane man might easily haue done as much and Helias departing from his Disciple Heliseus did much more for he left a more noble remembrance of himselfe behind him to wit his cloake and double spirit But Christ bequeathing vs his true natural body to be the foode of our soules and comfort of our hartes as we beleeue teach he then in deede shewed his infinit power and loue towardes vs and that he came from God and as God bestowed an inestimable gift vpon vs such a one as neuer any other did or could possibly doe Moreouer the institution of a religious rite and ceremony to be vsed in the whole Church vnto the worldes end and to be receiued of all Christian people of age and discretion did necessarily require that it should be done in most certaine and cleare tearmes otherwise there might arise great strife and contention about it and be the ruine of thousandes And specially great perspicuity is required in this holy Sacrament where the mistaking of it must needes breede either Idolatry if vve vvorshippe for Christ that which is not Christ or impiety if on the other side we should not giue to it being Christ God and man diuine honour Wherefore no good Christian may thinke but that our prouident Sauiour Christ IESVS vvho very vvell foresawe all these inconueniences did deliuer it in such tearmes as he would haue to be taken properly and not be construed at mens pleasures figuratiuely Adde that he spake those wordes to the twelue Apostles only vvhome he vvas accustomed to instruct plainely and not in parable darkely and who were wont also to aske for the interpretation of obscure speaches vvho here made no question about this high mistery because they were sufficiently forewarned Ioh. 6. that they should eate Christes flesh and that his body was truly meate and therefore beleeued Christes wordes without further question Finally this holy Sacrament is a principall part of the newe Testament and one of the chiefest legacies by Christ bequeathed vnto vs Christians Nowe what lawe or conscience will permit that any legacy should be interpreted figuratiuely to vvit that for a house goodes or landes bequeathed and giuen by last vvill and testament you should vnderstand a figure of a house to be giuen or the signification and representation of some goodes or landes If this be most absurd and ridiculous in the testament of any ordinary man about temporall goodes howe much more pernitious and intollerable is it to suffer this in the eternall Testament of the Sonne of God and that in his diuine and inestimable treasures And thus at length by the grace of God I come to the end of this booke wherein good Christian reader if thou finde any thing that may confirme thee in the true Catholike faith or further thy knowledge therein giue God the Father of lightes from whome all good giftes descend the whole praise If any thing be amisse impute it partly to my slender skill ouersight or negligence and partly to the vvant of a conuenient resting-place commodity of bookes and conference all vvhich these times of persecution doe depriue vs of To the most blessed and holy Trinity be al honour and glory both nowe and for euer AMEN FINIS