againe towards the end of the said epistle he addeth thereto these two wordes to wit in those Scriptures which be properly so called he did not finde it euidently defined vvhat dayes vve are to fast Which word euidently he addeth as I take it because that els where he saith Epist 119 cap. 15. Serm. 64. de temp that the fourty dayes fast of Lent hath authority at out of the old lawe so out of the Gospell because our Lord fasted so many dayes and by his example consecrated it as he saith so that finally we find with S. Augustine M. PER. first witnesse some dayes euery weeke of set fasting and once in the yeare a solemne set fast of fourty dayes together Cont. Psychicos M. PERKINS other Authour is Tertullian in his booke against sensuall men wherein he is so farre opposite to M. PER. opinion that he runneth into the other extremity The Protestants would haue no set time of fasting not so much as one Lent Tertullian pleading for the Mōtanists would haue three Lents euery yeare and a farre stricter kinde of fasting then the Catholike Church commandeth But the goodman perhaps mistaking his Authour would haue said that Catholikes as Tertullian reporteth did argue against his errour and said that it vvas a newe doctrine which he taught and that true Christians were at their liberty and not bound to receiue such newe inuentions of Montanus about fasting though he vaunted that he had that doctrine from the holy Ghost But in this point we must not hearken vnto Tertullian a Patron of that errour nor beleeue his reportes of the Catholikes arguments against him which he after the fashion of Heretikes doth frame and propose odiously Li. 5. hist cap. 17. But Eusebius saith that Montanus was the first that made lawes of fasting See the place gentle reader either in the Greeke or Latin text except that of Basil and thou shalt finde there these only vvordes cited out of Apollonius That Montanus made newe lawes of fasting not that he vvas the first that made any lawes of fasting but was noted as an Heretike for making newe lawes of fasting Whence it plainely followeth that there were other old lawes of fasting before his time which contented not his humour but taking pride in his owne inuention as all Heretikes doe he was not satisfied with one Lent but would haue three Lents euery yeare and vpon euery fasting day commanded all his adherents to touch nothing vntill the Sunne were set and then they should eate neither flesh nor fish nor ought else hotte or moist but cold drie and hard thinges For which his ouer rigorous and stearne kinde of fasting inuented by himselfe and obstinately defended he vvas condemned for an Heretike and his newe precepts of fasting rejected by the ancient Christians and this may serue for a confutation of M. PERKINS reasons for their party Nowe I vvill briefly confirme ours vvhich he setteth downe by manner of objections First Leuit. 16. vers 28. in the old Testament there vvere prescribed and set fastes approued by God which M. PER. confesseth to haue beene part of the legall worshippe and saith That God commanded those then but nowe hath left vs to our liberty Reply God hauing commanded fasting as a part of his worshippe then as M. PER. confesseth it being no judiciall or ceremoniall part of the lawe but morall and appertayning to the mastring of euery mans owne vnbrideled concupiscence he did sufficiently teach al considerate men that it was alwayes to be vsed for part of his worshippe for that alwayes men should stand in neede of it they being alwayes subject to the same rebellion of their flesh And though we be freed from all vncleane meates of the lawe and from the Iewes set times of fasting yet the band of fasting remayneth because the reason of it is still in force and we are subject to the Pastours of the Church and bound to obey them for the time and manner of our fasting Our second argument The Gouernours of the Sinagogue had full power and authority to prescribe set times of fasting and all the people of God vvere bound to obey them therein as appeareth in the Prophet Zachary who maketh mention of the fastes of the fourth fift Cap. 7. vers 5. Cap. 8. vers 19. eight and ninth Monethes which were not commanded by the lawe but afterward enjoyned by the rulers of the Church Nowe then if the Pastours of that Sinagogue had such authority much more haue the Prelates of the church nowe since Christes time who hath indued them with much more ample authority then the Iewes had before Christ M. PER. answereth that those fastes mentioned in Zachary were appointed vpon occassions of the affliction of the Church in Babilon and ceased vpon their deliuerance Reply The Prophet in the same place hath plainely preuented this answere for he saith That they then in the beginning of that captiuity Cap. 7. Cap. 8. had already fasted seauenty yeares and addeth That they should continue those fastes vntill the Gentils should joyne with them in faith vvhich vvas for foure hundreth yeares after Adde herevnto a fast feast appointed at the instance of the most vertuous Queene Hester and good Mardocheus Hest 9. vers 31. to be alwayes afterward obserued by the Israelites in remembrance of their preseruation The third argument Although in the newe Testament there be no euident testimony for a set time of fasting as S. Augustine saith yet there is some mention made of a set time of fasting Act. 27. vers 8. Whereas nowe it was not safe sayling because the fast nowe was past True it is that some doe expound this of the Iewes set fast in the Moneth of September but that exposition is not so probable for after that time of the yeare especially in those hot countries it is very safe sailing and therefore it cannot so wel be vnderstood of that season Againe S. Luke wrote the acts of the Apostles rather for the Gentils then for the Iewes he being a companion of the Doctor of the Gentils and therefore it is more probable that he describeth the set fast of the Christian Gentils which was in the moneth of December nowe called ember dayes when ordinarily Priestes and other ecclesiasticall persons were consecrated as may be seeme in the pontiffical of Pope Damasus who liued one thousand two hundreth yeares past And this season of the yeare agreeth well with the text for about and after that time it is perilous sayling the seas and windes growing bigge and tempesteous Epist 86. The fourth argument out of S. Augustine before alleadged The Apostles instituted wensdayes and fridayes to be fasted euery weeke the which Epiphanius also confirmeth Haeres 75 and it is touched in the 68. Canon of the Apostles so that it is an Apostolicall ordinance to fast euery weeke Besides the fast of fourty daies before Easter called Lent to be an Apostolical Tradition
in Adam c. I therefore ô my prayse my life and God of my hart laying aside for a season her good workes for which I rejoycing doe giue thee thankes doe nowe pray vnto thee for the sinnes of my Mother heare me I beseech thee through the salue of our woundes that hanged vpon the tree and nowe sitting at thy right hand doth plead for vs. I knowe that shee did many workes of mercy and from her hart forgaue all them that trespassed against her doe thou ô Lord also forgiue her her trespasses if shee committed any after baptisme Pardon her pardon her ô Lord I beseech thee and enter not into judgement with her let thy mercy surpasse thy judgements because thy wordes are true and thou hast promised mercy to the mercifull c. Could that most vvorthy Doctor more directly crosse Caluins false relation of his coldnesse in this matter or in better manner cleare himselfe from his spitefull slaunders Caluin blushed not to say that S. Augustine out of passion prayed for his mother but he himselfe relateth howe he did it some yeares after her death of setled judgement hauing his hart cured from humane affection And thus I end this question of Purgatory OF THE SVPREMACY IN CAVSES ECCLESIASTICAL OVR CONSENT M. PERKINS Page 283. TOuching the point of Supremacy Ecclesiasticall I will set downe howe neare we may come vnto the Roman Church in two conclusions The first conclusion For the founding of the primitiue Church the Ministery of the word was distinguished by degrees not only of order but also of power and Peter was called to the highest degree for Apostles were aboue Euangelists and Euangelists aboue Pastors and teachers nowe Peter was an Apostle and so aboue all Euangelists and Pastors howsoeuer he were not aboue other Apostles The second conclusion Among the 12. Apostes Peter had a three-fold priuiledge or prerogatiue first of authority I meane a preheminence in regard of estimation whereby he was in reuerence aboue the rest of the twelue Secondly of primacy because he was the first named as the fore-man of the quest Thirdly of principality in regard of measure of grace wherein he excelled the rest of the twelue but Paul excelled Peter euery way in learning zeale and vnderstanding as farre as Peter excelled the rest ANNOTATION MAster PERKINS as his manner is at the first vvould seeme to approch somewhat neare vnto the Catholike doctrine and therefore giueth as braue wordes for S. Peters prerogatiues as we doe to wit That he surpassed the other Apostles both in authority primacy and principality but pâ—â—â—ently after his old fashion he watereth his former wordes with such cold glosses that they shrinke in exceedingly for all Peters priuiledges doe extend no further then that he excelled the rest in priuate grace of learning zeale and vnderstanding and was therefore somewhat more esteemed then the rest and named first so that with M. PER. a great mill-post is quickly thwited as they say into a pudding pricke Againe all this is besides the purpose for the question is not vvhich of the Apostles excelled in those priuate gifts of vnderstanding zeale and piety for it is not vnlikely hat S. Iohn the Euangelist who sucked diuine mysteries out of our Sauiours breast was not inferior to either S. Peter or S. Paul in these spirituall graces of heauenly knowledge and charity but vve leauing these secretes vnto him vvho is the judge of the hart and of his inward gifts doe affirme S. Peter to haue beene aduanced aboue all the rest of the Apostles in the externall gouernement of Christes Church and the Bishops of Rome his successors to inherite the same supremacy THE DIFFERENCE by M. PERKINS THe Church of Rome giueth to Peter a supremacy vnder Christ aboue all persons and causes this standeth in a power to determine which bookes of Scripture be Canonicall and what is the true sence of any doubtfull place of them and for this purpose to call and assemble generall Councels and to confirme the decrees of them and by these meanes to decide all controuersiâ—â— about matter of faith Besides he can excommunicate any Christian be he King or Kaesar if they by obstinate withstanding Gods lawes or the decrees of holy Church shal justly deserue it Moreouer to him it doth belong to make Ecclesiasticall Canons and lawes for the due discipline and ordering of matters of the Church which doe binde in conscience Finally to confirme the election of Bishops and to decide all such greater controuersies as by appeale are brought vnto him from any part of Christendome These indeede be the chiefest points of the Popes supremacy as for that of pardoning of sinnes it is no proper part of his primacy but common vnto all not only to Bishops but also to Priests We saith M. PERKINS hold that neyther Peter nor any Bishop of Rome had or hath any such supremacy ouer the Catholike Church but that all supremacy vnder Christ is appertaining to Kinges and Princes with him in their Dominions And that our doctrine is good and theirs false I will make manifest by sundry reasons First Christ must be considered as he was a King two wayes first as he is God so is he King ouer al by right of creation and so as God hath deputies on earth to gouerne the world namely Kings and Princes Secondly he is King by right of redemption ouer the whole Church which he hath redeemed with his pretious bloud and so as mediatour and redeemer he hath no fellowe nor deputy for no creature is capable of this office to doe in the roome and stead of Christ that which himselfe doth because euery worke of the mediatour must arise from the effectes of two natures concurring in one action namely the God-head and Man-hood Againe Christes Priest-hood cannot passe from his person to any other whence it followeth that neyther his Kingly nor his Propheticall he vvould haue said Priestly office can passe from him to any creature Nay it is needlesse for Christ to haue a deputy considering that a deputy only serueth to supply the absence of the principall whereas Christ is alwayes present by his word and spirit it may be said that the Ministers in the worke of the ministery are Christes deputies I answere that they are no deputies but only actiue instruments because they doe only vtter the word but it is Christ that worketh in the hart In like manner in excommunication it is Christ that cutteth that excommunicate person from the Kingdome of heauen and the Church doth only declare this by cutting him off from the rest of Christes people vntill he repent so that in all Ecclesiasticall actions Christ hath no deputies but only instruments the whole action being personall in respect of Christ. Is not this trowe you a prety peece of an argument but we must beare with the length of it because it alone will serue as M. PER. opineth to ouerthrowe many points of Popery let it be therefore wel
was impossible who hath bestowed so great grace vpon vs. S. Siluester as Nycephorus hath recorded speaketh thus of baptisme e Lib. 7. hystor cap. 33. This water hauing receiued by the inuocation of the blessed Trinity heauenly vertue euen as it washeth the body without so doth it within cleanse the soule from filth and corruption and make it brighter then the Sunne-beames So that it is most conformable both vnto the holy Scriptures and the auncient Fathers to affirme and hold that the Sacraments doe really contayne and convay the graces of God into our soules as his true and proper instruments OF SAVING FAITH M. PERKINS Page 305. HEre followeth a Chapter which for the most part doth nothing but repeate points of doctrine which hath beene particularly handled in the questions of Iustification Satisfaction and Merits and aboue twenty times touched by the vvay in his booke therefore a tedious and loathsome thing it is to me here againe to heare of them yet because the man thinketh that in these points the principall glory of the newe Gospell consisteth and that there fore they are alwayes to be inculcated in season and out of seasorr I vvill briefly runne them once more ouer shewing as he doth only vvherein we differ without repeating the arguments which are to be seene in their proper places To come to the matter he putteth downe fiuâ— conclusions The first conclusion The Catholikes teach iâ— to be the property of faith to beleeue the whole word of God and especially the redemption of mankinde by Christ M. PERKINS DIFFERENCE THey beleeue indeede all the written word of God and more then all for they beleeue the bookes Apocryphall and vnwritten Traditions Answere Touching vnwritten Traditions see that Chapter in the first part M. PER. saith here Because they come to vs by the handes of men they cannot come within the compasse of our faith Then I say vpon the same ground the vvritten word cannot come within the compasse of our beleefe because it also commeth vnto vs by the handes of men And as the Apostles and their Schollers are to be credited when they deliuered the vvritten word vnto vs for Gods pure word so are they to be beleeued vvhen they taught the Church these poynts of Gods vvord vnwritten to be embraced as the true word of God although not written but committed to the harts of the faithfull And when we haue the testimony of auncient Councels or of many holy Fathers that these points of doctrine vvere by Tradition deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles vve as firmely beleeue them as if they were written in the holy Scriptures For which bookes of Scripture be Canonicall vvhich not and what is the true meaning of hard places in Scripture we knowe no other way of infallible certainty then by the declaration of the Catholike Church which we therefore aswell beleeue telling vs these thinges were deliuered from the Apostles by Tradition as those thinges in vvriting And that such credit is to be giuen to the Catholike Church the Apostles Creede witnesseth which biddeth vs beleeue the Catholike Church Nowe touching those bookes of holy Scripture vvhich vvere some hundreth yeares after Christ doubted off by some of the auncient Fathers vvhether they were Canonicall or no thus we say That albeit it were vndetermined by the Church vntill S. Augustines time vvhether they were Canonical or no and so were by diuers auncient Fathers though not condemned as Apocryphall yet not comprehended vvithin the Canon of assured Scriptures notwithstanding that matter being in a Councell holden at Carthage where among many other learned Bishops S. Augustine vvas present throughly debated Concil Cartag 3. cap. 47. those bookes doubted off before were found by the holy Ghost and them to be true Canonicall Scripture and afterward vvere by the sixt generall Councell that confirmed this Councell holden at Carthage declared and deliuered to the whole Church for Canonicall Nowe as we receiued at the first the other bookes of Canonicall Scripture on the â—â—edit of the Catholike Church euen so ought vve to doe these shee hauing declared them to be such yea the Protestants themselues haue admitted many bookes of the newe Testament vvhich vvere doubted off for three hundred yeares after Christ why then doe they not as vvell receiue them of the old The difference betwixt vs is that they only of passion and priuate fancy admit these and reject those vvhereas vve of obedience relying vpon the judgement of the vvhole Church admit those bookes for Canonicall which the Catholike Church hath declared for such And thus much of the first conclusion Nowe to the second touching saluation by Christ alone wherein the Protestants either cannot vnderstand or will not report our doctrine aright We confesse that Christ IESVS hath merited the redemption and saluation of all mankinde yet say we further that not one man is saued through Christ vnlesse he for his owne part first beleeue in Christ if he be of yeares and be content to doe all those thinges that Christ hath commanded vs to doe so that to saluation two thinges are required the first and principall is Christes mediation the second is the applying of Christes mediation and merits vnto vs vvithout this latter the former will stand no man in steede Nowe to be made partaker of Christs merits we must not only beleeue in him as the Protestants teach but also keepe his commandements and by good workes deserue heauen otherwise according to Christs decree we shall neuer come thither as in the question of Merits hath beene plentifully proued out of the holy scriptures so we teach then that besides Christs sufferings and merits we must haue some of our owne or else vve shall neuer be partakers of Christes And M. PERKINS cannot be excused from a vvilfull corruption of Gods word when he affirmeth S. Paul to say We are not saued by such workes as God hath ordayned men regenerated to walke in for those be not the wordes of the text but his peeuish construction S. Paul putting a playne distinction betweene workes that we are not saued by and workes that we must walke in calling these later good workes and the other barely workes To the other text I say that we haue no righteousnesse of our owne strength or by the vertue of Moyses lawe but through the mercy of God and Christs merits we haue true righteousnesse giuen vs by baptisme Christ indeede by himselfe and his owne sufferinges not by sacrifice of Goates or Calues hath meritoriously washed away our sinnes that is deserued of God that they should be washed away but formally he hath washed away our sinnes by infusion of Christian righteousnesse into our soules He that will see more of this let him reade the question of Iustification And where as M. PER. saith that all grace of God powred into our hartes is by the corruption of our hartes defiled he little knoweth the vertue of Gods grace vvhich so cleanseth and purifieth
before I come to the full period of this worke Curteous Reader BEARE WITH THE FAVLTS IN PRINTING WHICH CAN HARDLY BE FEW CONSIDERING THE MANIFOLD DIFFICVLTIES OF THE time And yet besides the ouer-sights in pointing are not very many which be thus corrected IN THE MARGENT THESE Generally a ss is set in the quotation of Caluins Institution for the Section or Number For. Page Reade Beza in Neoph. 9. in Creophag simil ibid. Simler sess 17. 2. 11. number 1. 2. Homil. in praeâ—rat 48. In priorem ad Corint Conc. 56. Canon IN THE TEXT THESE For. Page Line Reade declared 7 15 declare Atheisme 20 9 Atheismes was this 40 35 was it pithagorically 63. 22 pithagoricall I say to solemnely 86 22 to be solemnely Euchirines 135 24 Eucherius established 145 17 establish Cesanis 155 39 Caesarius Pomachius 156 1 Pamachius demised 180 18 deuised proofe 181 16 disproofe The quotation of S. Augustine which is in psalm 33. conc 2. is omitted in the 68. page Hier. cont Lucif cap. 6. wanteth page 209. And in the Aduertisment page the 25. for apud Dionysium 1. Cor. reade apud Ludolphum de vita Christi part 1. cap. 5. pag. 17. AN ANSVVERE VNTO M. PERKINS ADVERTISEMENT M. PERKINS Aduertisement to all fauourers of the Roman religion shewing as he weeneth that the said Religion is against the Catholike principles of the Catechisme that hath beene agreed vpon euer since the dayes of the Apostles by al Churches which principles be fowre The Apostles Creede the tenne Commandements the Lordes prayer the institution of two Sacraments Baptisme and the Lordes supper 1. COR. 11. vers 23. I HAD once determined to haue wholy omitted this goodly post-script because it containeth in manner nothing else but an irkesome repetition of that which hath beene I will not say twise before but more then twenty times handled ouer and ouer in this former small treatise notwithstanding considering both howe ready many are when they see any thing omitted to say that it could not be answered and also for that these pointes here reiterated are the most odious that he could cull out of all the rest to vrge against vs I finally resolued to giue them a short answere And further also by prouing their newe religion to be very opposite vnto those old groundes of the true religion to requite him with the like that I die not in his debt Thus he beginneth The Roman religion established by the Councell of Trent is in the principall pointes thereof against the very groundes of the Catechisme the Creede the tenne Commandements the Lordes prayer the two Sacraments THE Catholike religion embraced and defended by the Church of Rome was planted and established there by the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul fifteene hundreth yeares before the Councell of Trent and hath beene euer sithence by the Bishops of Rome their lawfull successors constantly reteined and most sincerely obserued and maintayned some articles thereof called into question by the Heretikes of this latter age were in that most learned generall Councell of Trent declared and defined And great meruaile it were if the principall pointes thereof should be against the groundes of the Catechisme which is in euery point most substantially expounded by the decree and order of the very same Councell Or is it credible that the Church of Rome with which all other ancient Churches and holy Fathers did desire to agree and which hath beene euer most diligent to obserue all Apostolicall traditions should in the principall points of faith crosse and destroy the very principles of that religion that hath beene agreed vpon by all Churches euer since the Apostles daies as he saith Is it not much more likely and probable that the Protestantes who slaunder all Churches euer since the time of the Apostles with some kind of corruption or other and who hold no kind of Apostolicall tradition to be necessary is it not I say more credible that they should shake those groundes of faith which come by tradition from the Apostles and haue beene euer since by all Churches agreed vpon I suppose that fewe men of any indifferent judgement can thinke the contrarie But let vs descend to the particulers wherein the truth will appeare more plainely Thus beginneth Master PERKINS with the Creede First of all it must be considered that some of the principall doctrines beleeued in the Church of Rome are that the Bishoppe of Rome is the Vicar of Christ and head of the Catholike Church that there is a fire of Purgatory that Images of God and Saintes are to be placed in the Church and worshipped that prayer is to be made to Saintes departed that there is a propitiatory sacrifice daylie offered in the Masse for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead These pointes are of that moment that without them the Roman religion cannot stand c. And yet marke the Apostles Creede which hath beene thought to contayne all necessary pointes of religion to be beleeued and hath therefore beene called the key and rule of faith This Creede I say hath not any of these pointes nor the expositions made thereof by the ancient Fathers nor any other Creede or confession of faith made by any Councell or Church for the space of many hundreth yeares This is a plaine proofe to any indifferent man that these be newe articles of faith neuer knowne in the Apostolike Church and that the Fathers and Councels could not finde any such articles of faith in the bookes of the old and newe Testament Answere is made that all these points of doctrine are beleeued vnder the article I beleeue the Catholike Church the meaning whereof they will haue to be this I beleeue all thinges which the Catholike Church holdeth and teacheth to be beleeued If this be as they say we must beleeue in the Church that is put our confidence in the Church for the manifestation and the certainety of all doctrine necessary to saluation And thus the eternall truth of God the creatour shall depend vpon the determination of the creature And the written word of God in this respect is made insufficient as though it had not plainely reuealed all points of doctrine pertaining to saluation And the ancient Churches haue beene farre ouer-seene that did not propound the former pointes to be beleeued as articles of faith but left them to these later times Thus farre Master PERKINS Wherein are hudled vp many thinges confusedly I will answere briefly and distinctlie to euery point The first is that in the Apostles Creede are contained all pointes of religion necessary to be beleeued which is most apparantly false as the Protestantes themselues must needes confesse or else graunt that it is not necessary to beleeue the King to be Supreame-head of the Church or that the Church is to be gouerned by Bishops or that vve are justified by Christes justice imputed to vs or that there be but two Sacramentes or that the Church seruice must be said in the
haue no relation vnto any place neither is it of the essence of any quantity to be actually circumscribed by a place but it is a property flowing out of the essence of one only kinde of quantity to be apt and fit to be circumscribed and compassed about with a place And naturally all bodies except the highest heauen haue one place out of which they passe as S. Augustine said when they come into another but by the omnipotent power of God any body may be separated from his place or be in as many places at once as it shal please God to seate it because to be circumscribed with a place actually is a meere accident vnto a substantiall body and without the nature of quantity and God may not without blasphemie be disabled to seperate a substance from an accident By this is confuted also his second instance Christ is ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father therefore his body is not really and locally in the Sacrament This followeth not because it is in both places at once as S. Chrisostome in expresse tearmes teacheth Chris lib. 3. de Sacerd O miracle O goodnesse of God! he that sitteth aboue with his Father at the very same instant is touched with the handes of all men and giueth himselfe to them that will receiue and embrace him See more of this in the question of the blessed Sacrament where M. PERKINS citeth the very same authorities which he here repeteth see my answere to them there Thirdly he reasoneth thus In that we beleeue the Catholike Church it followeth that it is inuisible because thinges seene are not beleeued We answere that the persons in the Catholike Church are and euer were visible euen to Iewes and Heathens who persecuted them but the inward indowmentes of those persons that is their faith hope and charitie their assistance by Gods spirit and such like Christian qualities are inuisible and to be beleeued And euen as a man is truly said to be visible though he consist aswell of an inuisible soule as of a visible body so the Church is visible for the visible persons visible teaching and administring of Sacraments in it albeit the inward qualities of it be not visible His last objection against vs out of the Creede is That the articles of remission of sinnes resurrection of the body and life euerlasting containe a confession of speciall faith For the meaning of them is thus much I beleeue the remission of mine owne sinnes and the resurrection of mine owne body to life euerlasting Answere That is not the meaning vnlesse you adde some conditions to wit I beleeue the remission of my sinnes if I haue duly vsed the meanes ordained by our Sauiour for the remission of them which is after Baptisme the Sacrament of Penance Item I beleeue I shal haue life euerlasting if I keepe as Christ willed the yong-man to keepe Gods commandements or at the least if I doe die with true repentance Nowe whether I haue done or shall doe these thinges required of me I am not so well assured as that I can beleeue it for I may be deceiued therein but I haue or may haue a very good hope by the grace of God to performe them Neither is there any more to be gathered out of S. Augustine as some of the wordes by himselfe here alleaged doe conuince For he requireth besides faith that we turne from our sinnes conforme our will to Gods will and abide in the lappe of the Catholike Church and so at length we shall be healed See the question of certainety of saluation Note also by the way the vncertainetie of M. PER. doctrine Pag. 270. 275. concerning this point for he holdeth that it is not necessary to haue a certaine perswasion of our owne saluation but that it is sufficient to haue a desire to haue it and that doctrine he putteth there as he saith himselfe to expound the Catechismes that propound faith at so high a reach as fewe can attaine vnto yet here and else where the good man forgetting himselfe chargeth vs to crosse the Creede because we doe not wrest faith vp to so high a straine and so in heate of quarelling often expoundeth this contrary to his owne rule Nowe for proofe of S. Augustines opinion herein whome he only citeth take these two sentences for the two points he speaketh of For the first that we be certaine by ordinary faith of our saluation let this serue Of life euerlasting De bono perseuer cap. 22. De correct grat cap. 13. which God that cannot lie hath promised to his children no man can be secure and out of danger before his life be ended which is a tentation vpon earth Secondly that a man once truly justified may afterward fall We must beleeue saith this holie Father that certaine of the children of perdition doe liue in faith that worketh by charity and so doe for a time liue faithfully and justly they were then truly justified and yet afterward doe fall and that finally because he calleth then the children of perdition Thus much in answere vnto that which Master PERKINS objecteth against our religion out of the Creede which as you haue seene consisteth wholy vpon his owne forced exposition and vaine illations Hence he proceedeth to the tenne Commandements But before I followe him thither I may not omitte here to declare howe the Protestant Doctors doe fouly mangle and in manner ouer-turne the greatest part of the Creede Obserue first that according to their common doctrine it is not necessary to beleeue this Creede at all because it is no part of the written word secondly that Caluin doubteth whether it were made by the Apostles or no Cal. lib. 2. Instit cap. 16. sess 18 being then no part of the written word not made by the Apostles it must by their doctrine be wholy rejected Nowe to the particulers 1. Concerning the first article I beleeue in God the Father almighty maker of heauen and earth they doe erre many waies First they doe destroy the most simple vnitie of the God-head Confess fidei gener by teaching the diuine essence to be really distinguished into three persons If the diuine nature be really distinguished into three there must needes be three diuine essences or natures ergo three Gods Caluin also saith In actis Serueti pag. 872. that the Sonne of God hath a distinct substance from his Father Melancthon that there be aswell three diuine natures as three persons in locis de Christo Secondly they ouerthrowe the Father in the God-head by denying the Sonne of God to haue receiued the diuine nature from his Father as Caluin Beza and Whitakers doe See the Preface Thirdly howe is God almightie if he cannot doe all thinges that haue no manifest repugnance in them But he cannot after the opinion of diuers of them make a body to be without locall circumscription or to be in two places at once which notwithstanding some others of
faith by which the hart doth really receiue Christ by resting vpon the promise which God hath made that he will giue Christ and his righteousnesse vnto euery true beleeuer Nowe then when God giueth Christ and his benefits and man by faith receiueth the same there riseth an vnion betweene them not forged but reall and so neare that none can be nearer and being a reall vnion there is a reall communion and consequently a reall presence of Christ to the hart of him that receiueth the Sacrament in faith And thus farre saith he doe we consent with the Romish Church It may well be that you agree herein with the Romish Church that is with some apish counterfeit of the Roman but the true Roman Church condemneth all that phantastical kinde of receiuing as you your selfe declare in the wordes following But before we come vnto them let vs note by the way some strange points of doctrine shall I say or rather dreaming of our conceited Masters the Protestants Who euer yet heard in true diuinitie that the God-head considered apart by it selfe had merits to conuey to the man-hood as M. PER. here teacheth for merits belong to an inferior in respect of his superior of whome he meriteth now the God-head is not inferior to any as all but Arrians confesse Againe howe can whole Christ be giuen to man as M. PER. first affirmeth if the substance of the God-head be not giuen as presently after he declareth for the substance of the God-head is the principal part of Christ who is both God man Moreouer how is Christes substance as well as his benefits made ours or really present to our faith if vve be made partakers only of his righteousnesse which may as euery man knoweth well be without any bodily presence of his besides that fiction of his that faith is created in our hart at the same instant that we receiue the Sacrament is very absurd For as all the world witnesseth a man must be indued vvith faith before he goe to receiue that Sacrament or else he presenteth himselfe most vnworthily vnto that holy table Lastly if simple men silly women should not receiue this Sacrament vntill they vnderstood M. PER. doctrine of sacramentall relation of his reall vnion and communion made by speciall faith in it as no man should receiue before he knoweth what and howe he is to receiue then surely they should neuer receiue it the manner of it is so intricate and so farre passing their capacity I may not omit here that which I clipped off in M. PER. discourse to make it the more perspicuous to wit that Christes benefits are bestowed vpon some by Gods imputation only vpon others they are bestowed by a kind of propagation which M. PER. cannot expresse fitly but doth resemble it thus As one candle is lighted by another and so the light of one is conueied vnto twenty candles euen so the inherent righteousnes of euery beleeuer is deriued from the store-house of righteousnesse which is the man-hood of Christ this I say I could not but let the gentle reader vnderstand that he may cōsider howe slippery vnconstant the man is in his owne doctrine In the question of justification it is high treason to confesse any inherent righteousnesse in vs. Pag. 66. For as he there saith it doth rase the very foundation of religion there only he alloweth of a certaine strange reall imputation of Christes justice vnto vs but here hauing belike forgotten that euer he said any such word he teacheth besides that imputatiue an inherent righteousnesse to be cōueied from Christ into euery righteous mans soule With whome will this man agree trowe you that cannot agree with himselfe Let vs nowe come vnto the maine point of our dissent which M. PER. deliuereth thus we differ not touching the presence it selfe but only in the manner of presence For though we hold a reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament yet we doe not take it to be locall bodily or substantiall but spirituall and mysticall first to the signes by sacramentall relation then to the communicants by faith alone On the contrary the Church of Rome maintaineth a locall bodily and substantiall presence of Christes body and bloud by a change and conuersion of the bread and wine into the said body and bloud which they beleeue to be wrought by the vertue of Christes wordes pronounced ouer the bread and wine by a lawfull Priest intending to doe that which Christ at his last supper instituted and commanded him to doe Master PERKINS reasons to the contrary be these This corporall presence ouerturneth sundry articles of faith For we beleeue that the body of Christ was made of the pure substance of the Virgin Mary and that but once namely when it was conceiued by the holy Ghost But this cannot stand if the body of Christ be made of bread vnlesse we beleeue contraries that the body was made of the Virgin and not of the Virgin made once and not once but often We read not in our Creede made of the Virgin Mary but borne of her nowe there is great difference betweene made and borne For a house is made of a Carpenter but is not borne of him but the vvord made vvhich may also in good sence be vsed being fitter to cloake the fallacy Master PERKINS cared not to straine a little curtesie vvith the articles of our beleefe and to thrust in made in stead of borne But let this prety jugling-tricke passe and to his argument I answere that the appearance of this contrariety proceedeth either out of meere ignorance of our doctrine or else out of the equiuocation of this word made For we hold that Christes blessed body is but once made if made be taken for to be fashioned and formed newe from the beginning so was it but once made of the pure bloud of the immaculate Virgin Mary but may be againe and againe well made present vnder this or that forme or on this or that altar which hath no shadowe of contrariety with the other For euery mans body vvhich is but once made in his mothers vvombe may afterward a thousand times be made present in one or diuers places Nowe when we say with the ancient Fathers that of bread is made the body of Christ the sence is that the substance of bread is turned into the body of Christ so that then there is no more the substāce of bread vnder the formes of bread but Christes body which succeedeth in place of it therefore the bread is said to be turned vnto Christes body and Christes body to be made of bread not that any part of the bread remaineth changed into Christes body or that Christes body is a newe created and framed but because that by that very action wherewith the bread is remoued out the body is brought into that place the one is said to be made of the other so that here is nothing contrary vnto that
that was left of the Pascal lambe doth gather the cleane contrary to wit that if we cannot vnderstand howe these thinges vvhich we see are turned into our Lordes body Into which mystery the Angels saith he with their cleare sight cannot pearce then must we cast into the fire of the holy Ghost these thinges perswading our selues that to be possible vnto the vertue of the holy Ghost which seemeth to vs impossible See vvhat fire that vvorthy authour speaketh of And in the sixt booke and two and twenty Chapter of the same vvorke he speaketh yet more plainely saying That he receiueth ignorantly who knoweth not the vertue and dignity of this Sacrament and who is ignorant that it is the body bloud of Christ in truth so that old Hesichius condemneth them of ignorance for not beeleuing Christes body to be truly in the Sacrament Secondly saith M. PERK by the sacramental vnion of the bread wine with the body and bloud of Christ they vsed to confirme the personall vnion of the man-hood of Christ with the God-head against heretikes Let vs admit this to be true for then it followeth necessarily against himselfe that the true body of Christ is really present in the blessed Sacrament as his true Dialog 2 God-head and man-hood were really vnited in one person But if Theodoret whome he quoteth be well read you shall finde that they against whome he writeth objected this common doctrine of the Church that bread is turned into the body of Christ to proue that the man-hood of Christ was turned into the God-head and consequently that there were not two natures in Christ but one And albeit the consequent was Hereticall yet the antecedent was Catholike good and not denyed of Theodoret but that there was a reall conuersion of bread into the true body of Christ and therefore did other Heretikes who denied our Sauiour to haue true flesh deny also consequently the truth of the blessed Sacrament as the same Dialog 3 Theodoret doth witnesse out of S. Ignatius in these wordes They admit not the Eucharist and Sacrifice because they doe not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour which was crucified for vs and which the Father of his benignity raysed againe Libr. 17. cap. 25. M. PERKINS further objecteth that Nicephorus reporteth that young children were sent for from the scoole to eate that which remayned of the Sacrament which saith he was a signe that they thought it not to be Christes body Not so for he so reporteth it that any man may see that he beleeued it to be the very body of Christ For first he saith that those children were pure and incorrupt not falne from their state of innocencie Secondly that they were fasting Thirdly he affirmeth in plaine tearmes that they receiued the immaculate body of IESVS Christ God and Man Finally he proueth it so to be and that by miracle For one of the children who had receiued that morning being by his father a malitious Iewe afterwardes cast into a glasiers furnace most fiery hot and shut in there for three daies space was miraculously preserued aliue and found there without any hurt at all by vertue of the blessed Sacrament which he had receiued What strange blindnes then was this to alleadge this against the reall presence which so admirably doth confirme it We knowe that in certaine places some vsed to giue the blessed Sacrament vnto children yea vnto sucking babes being also dipped in the chalice which rather proueth our opinion For they thought it necessary for all that would be saued to receiue this holy Sacrament Nowe these infants could haue no such act of faith as the Protestants doctrine requireth to make their communion therefore at that time they held the same kinde of reall presence which we doe which is made by lawfull consecration of the Priest and not by the faith of the receiuer And that you may perceiue that I speake not only by ghesse take the profession of one of those authors whome M. PER. alleageth Amalarius by name who saith in the worke cited by M. PER. Lib. 3. de Eccl. offic cap. 24. Here we beleeue the nature of pure bread and wine mixed with water to be conuerted into a nature indued with reason to wit into the nature of the body and bloud of Christ can any thing be more plaine against them Finally M. PER. collecteth out of one Nicholas Cabasilas his exposition of these wordes of the Masse Sursum corda lift vp your harts that the people being willed by the Priest to lift vp their thoughts from the earth and to thinke on thinges aboue Christ is not really present with them but only on the right hand of his Father To which we answere that when those wordes were spoken Christes body in deed is not there really present for they are in the preface before the Canon and consecration but is made present afterwardes by the wordes of consecration Secondly that he might notwithstanding those wordes were spoken after the consecration as they be before be there present For being admonished to call our mindes and harts from earthly thinges and to lift them vp to consider heauenly what more diuine and heauenly subject can we meditate vpon then our Sauiour Iesus Christ there present and the holy misteries of his incarnation and passion there represented and the infinite mercies and goodnesse of God powred out on vs through him and by meanes of this holy Sacrifice and thus much in effect doth the answere vnto those wordes signifie We lift vp our harts vnto our Lord to attend vpon him at this time specially in these his holy misteries Obserue that we are not bidden to lift vp our eyes to beholde the sunne or to contemplate the starres in the skie and so you may see that the Protestants ignorance in the wordes of the holy Masse doth litle auaile them or helpe their bad cause Thus at length we are come to an end of M. PERKINS reasons against vs nowe to those that he maketh for the Catholike party which are both fewe in number and very barely propounded but by the helpe of God I will doe my endeauour to supply his negligence therein The first is taken out of these wordes of our Sauiour Ioh. 6. vers 51. The bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world Here is a plaine promise made by Christ Iesus that faileth not of his word of giuing vs his flesh to eate and that very flesh which on the Crosse was to be giuen for the redemption of the vvorld these vvordes be so euident that they who heard them made no doubt of the sence of them but were astonished at it and said Howe can this man giue vs his flesh to eate they doubted not but that Christ had said that he vvould giue them his flesh to eate his speaches were so plaine for it but yet beleeued they not that he could
doe it Nowe what replyed Christ vnto their doubt that he vvould giue them only bread to eate in remembrance of him vvhich vvould surely haue satisfied them throughly because nothing vvas more easie to doe then that But truth is not to be concealed for feare of Pharasaicall scandall and therefore he told them very roundly That vnlesse they did eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud They should not haue life in them And he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting And yet more expresly My flesh is meate in deede and my bloud drinke in deede Howe should he haue made the matter more plaine To this M. PERKINS answereth first That Christ speaketh of a spirituall eating by faith because the very point that he intendeth to proue is that to beleeue in him and to eate his flesh is all one This answere is absurd For euen in their owne doctrine there is a great difference betweene beleeuing in Christ and receiuing the communion for many doe beleeue in Christ when they doe not receiue the communion receiuing being as they teach a seale or confirmation of beleeuing And to say that Christ there maketh no difference betweene beleeuing in him and eating of his flesh is flat against the text For saying that he would hereafter giue them his flesh to eate he doth declare that he speaketh not of beleeuing in him vvhich he vvould haue them to doe presently and many of them did beleeue in him before vvho could not disgest his doctrine of the Sacrament Againe it is altogether vnlikely that our Sauiour would haue vsed such strange offensiue speaches as the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud to signifie only that they must beleeue in him and that he seing them so much scandalized at those his hard and vnvsuall phrases that they vvere ready to forsake him would yet not once in plaine tearmes interprete them for the sauing of so many soules wherefore it remaineth most manifest that by eating of his flesh he meant something else then beleeuing in him And M. PER. other shift that in all the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn Christ speaketh not one word of eating his flesh in the Sacrament is so contrary vnto the euidence of the text it selfe and vnto the exposition of all ancient Fathers that it deserueth no answere especially vvhen neither by reason or authority he goeth about to fortifie it But I muse why he did omit their ordinary objection out of the same place The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickneth It may be perhaps because he knewe that the vvordes being rightly vnderstood make more against the Protestants then for them For the flesh there must be taken either for Christes flesh or for our flesh if for Christes flesh Tract 27. in Ioannē then saith S. Augustine Howe can it be that it profiteth nothing when he said before vnlesse yo eate my flesh you shall haue no life in you What therefore meaneth this it profiteth nothing Marry saith he it profiteth nothing as they vnderstood it For they tooke they should eate it as it is torne and cut in peeces being dead and sold in the shambles and not as it is quickned with the spirit which he doth illustrate with the comparison of knowledge which being alone doth puffe vp scientia enim inflat but being joyned with charity doth edifie Euen so saith he when the spirit is coupled with the flesh then doth it profit verie much or else the worde would not haue beene made flesh and haue dwelled among vs. With S. Augustine agreeth S. Cyril vpon that place In cap. 6. Ioannis but more literall seemeth to be the interpretation of S. Chrisostome followed by Theophilact and others vpon this place that by the flesh is to be vnderstood our fleshly and naturall reason which in these misteries of faith doth rather hinder then helpe vs. For mans wit of it selfe cannot comprehend howe bread may be turned into Christes body not howe so great a bodie can be in so litle a roome c. but informed with faith and Gods grace it is then well assured that whatsoeuer Christ saith is true and that nothing is impossible to him howe contrarie soeuer it seeme vnto flesh and bloud For his wordes as it followeth in the text be spirit and life that is be of diuine force and giue life and being vnto vvhat hee pleaseth And thus much of our first reason Nowe to the second Christ taking bread into his handes gaue it to his Disciples saying 1. Cor. 11. Math. 26 Marc. 14. Luc. 22. this is my body which is giuen for you and giuing them the Chalice said drinke yee all of this for this is my bloud of the newe Testament which shall be shed for you These our Sauiours wordes are so plaine that it was not possible in so fewe wordes to expresse more perspicuously that it was his true naturall bodie which he deliuered vnto them it being the verie same which was to be nailed on the Crosse the morrowe after But M. PER. answereth that they are not to be taken properlie but by a figure the body there being put for a signe or seale of his bodie Reply This is a very extrauagant exposition of Christes vvordes and such a one as if it vvere admitted for currant vvoulde serue to subuert and ouerthrovve all the articles of the Christian faith For example vvhen it is said that the word was made flesh the Manachees heresies against Christes true flesh might be maintayned by saying that the flesh there is put for a figure of the flesh so might the Arrian heresie if vvhen Christ is called God it vvere allowed them to expound and take it for a signe or seale of GOD and so of all other articles of our beleefe wherefore there must be most apparant proof for the drawing of Christes wordes into so strange a sence before it be admitted of any reasonable man But M. PER. and the Protestants are so farre off from producing any such inuincible euidence for their odde interpretation that they cannot alleadge any probable cause of it heare and then judge Genes 17. vers 10. Exod. 12. vers 11. 1. Cor. 10. M. PERKINS saith first That it is an vsuall manner of the Lord in speaking of the Sacraments to giue the name of the thinges signified to the signe as circumcision is called the couenant of God and the next verse the signe of the couenant and the Pascall lambe is called the Angels passing-ouer whereas in deede it was but a signe of it and the Rocke was Christ * 1. Cor. 5. vers 7. the passe-ouer was Christ Answ It may be that sometimes speaking of Sacraments by the way some figuratiue speach may be vsed but we say that when any Sacramēt is first instituted and ordained that then the wordes are to be taken literally without any such figure For example in the Sacraments specified by M. PER.
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
could but rake out of the ashes the least peeces of their burnt bones they did esteeme them more pure then gold and of greater value then pretious stones as in expresse tearmes is recorded in the Ecclesiasticall History of Eusebius Lib. 4. cap. 14. see what respect men in the purest antiquity carryed towardes the bodily reliques of Saints THE DIFFERENCE OVr dissent lyeth in the manner of worshipping the Papists make two degrees of religious worshippe c. Because the Protestants doe seeme not to vnderstand the Catholike doctrine concerning the worshipping of Saints but out of their affected ignorance doe esteeme vs therefore Idolaters I hold it expedient to explicate the state of this question more particulerly To beginne then with this word worshippe it doth signifie a knowledge or conceite of an other mans excellency joyned with a reuerent respect to the same person vvith some either inward or outward acknowledgement thereof so that all worshippe is due and done vnto an other in regard of some excellent quality which we suppose to be in him Nowe there being three most general kindes of excellency there must also be three seuerall and distinct sortes of worshippe correspondent vnto them The first and principall kinde of excellency is infinit and proper to God alone who is almighty infinitly wise and good the only Creatour supreame Gouernour and finall end of heauen and earth and of al thinges contayned in them therefore to him alone appertayneth infinit honour and glory and that supreame worshippe which the Latins vsing the Greeke word call Latria Godly honour Nowe to attribute or giue this soueraigne worshippe vnto any other then vnto God only is Idolatry the most haynous offence that can be The second sort of excellency I make the meanest of all absolute for of respectiue excellency which is in Images and such like holy thinges I haue spoken in that Chapter and that is to be found only in creatures indued with reason and vnderstanding in regard of some rare quality and endowment wherein they excell and surpasse others so that that excellent vertue and quality doe proceede only out of the naturall faculty and perfection of the party and doe not spring from any supernaturall gift therefore within the compasse of this sort of excellency I comprehend all natural perfections either of Men or Angels because all such issue out of one generall fountayne of a nature indued with reason and to this kinde of excellency is due a morall or ciuill obeysance or worshippe There is a third kinde of excellency seated betweene the two former extreames farre surpassing the naturall perfection of any pure creature and yet infinitly lesser then the diuine Majesty of God which consisteth in the perfection of Faith Hope Charity Religion and other such like gifts of the holy Ghost And to this kinde of excellency is due a different manner of worshippe which the Latins for distinction sake doe call Dulia Note that I say for distinction sake for both the wordes Latria and Dulia if they be taken in their first natiue signification may be giuen vnto any kinde of worship due to God or Man yet to auoide confusion the learned Diuines haue appropriated Latria vnto the worshippe of God and Dulia to signifie the honour due to Saints or Angels in regard of their supernaturall perfections To come nowe vnto the first point of our difference The Protestants doe commonly confound these two later kindes of vvorshippe and doe make but one of both the ciuill and supernaturall that they may skippe from the one of them to the other when they be driuen vnto their shifts and yet nothing is more cleare then that they be as distinct and different the one from the other as the grace of God is from the nature of a reasonable creature For as morall and ciuill worshippe only is due vnto that excellency vvhich ariseth out of the naturall power of man not assisted with any extraordinary grace of God such as was in the old Heathen Romans who for their valiant prowesse and politike gouerment deserued to be honoured worshipped euen so the fortitude of Christian Martirâ— the wisdome of Ecclesiasticall Prelates the power of diuers Confessors in curing all sortes of diseases and in working myracles These I say and the like diuine prerogatiues cannot but deserue a farre more excellent kinde of honour and worshippe then the former as they are more spirituall and heauenly qualities springing from a more excellent roote of the grace of God vvhich surpasseth in degree of excellency the nature of Angels without coÌ„parison who are but Gods seruants by nature though of greater perfection then we By grace they were made adopted sonnes of God and partakers of the diuine nature as S. Peter citeth it 2. Pet. â— vers 4. so as the Saints also were who therein were equall to Angels Wherefore Naaman the Syrian had reason to worshippe very humbly the Prophet Hâ—liseus who if we consider only ciuill excellency was but a meane person in respect of Naâ—man that was a principal commander ouer all the martial affaires of a potent King notwithstanding he truly weighing another more excellent kinde of power and wisdome in Heliseus then was in himselfe and another kinde of credit which he had which the God of heauen of farre greater estimation then that he had with his kinge did very dutifully humble himselfe before the Prophet All which conuinceth that there is in godly and holy personages another kinde of excellency aboue naturall reach to which is due a supernaturall reuerence and worshippe distinct from Ciuill the which spirituall and supernaturall worship we commonly call religious because it is giuen vnto holy men or Saints in consideration of their religious vertues of faith charity fortitude in defence of religion and of Ecclesiasticall superiority The tearme of religious worshippe the Protestants vtterly mislike pretending that all kinde of religious worship is due vnto God only but better men and greater clearkes then they by many degrees doe vse it in the very same sence as may be seene in diuers of S. Augustines workes L. 20. coÌ„t Faustum cap. 21. Let this one sentence suffice where he saith That Christian people doe celebrate the memories of Martirs with religious solemnity True it is that religious worship is sometime by the said holy father and others taken more strictly for the principall acts of religion which are proper vnto God alone and in that sence we deny it to be giuen vnto any creature but the same word is also not seldome vsed by them in a more large signification and applied vnto all thinges that belong to religion So we call religious men such as are specially chosen to serue God religious houses places where God is serued religious vertues such as issue out of the roote of religion and consequently religious honour or worship that is exhibited vnto men for their excellency in religious qualities and religious affaires So that any indifferent man
he saith Lib. 20. coÌ„t Faust cap. 21. that Christian people doe celebrate the memory of Martirs with religious solemnity both to stirre vp imitation as also tâ—â—â— they may be pertakers of their merits and helped by their prayers notwithsâ—â—â—ding saith he to none of the Martirs doe we erect Altars but to the God of Martirs yet in the remembrance of Martirs For who of the Priests in the places of their holy bodies standing at the Altar hath said at any time we offer vnto thee Peter or Paul or Cyprian But that which is offered is offered to God who crowned the Martirs at the memories of Martirs that by the admonition of the very places a greater deuotion may arise to enflame our charity both towardes them whome we must imitate as also towardes him by whose helpe we may imitate them We therefore worship the Martirs with that worship of loue and society wherewith holy men of God in this life are worshipped c. but them with so much more deuotion as we are more assured that they haue nowe passed all perill of this life Obserue good reader howe many points of the Catholike doctrine are confirmed by this one passage of so worthy a Doctor First Altars are built at the Martirs bodies Secondly Sacrifice is offered to God at the memories of the Martirs to encrease our loue towardes them Thirdly Martirs are to be worshipped of vs more then any holy men liuing Fourthly That with religious honour and celebrity they are to be worshipped yet not with any Godly honour as by Sacrifice erecting of Altars or building of Churches to them vvhich seeme to be the only externall actes of religion proper vnto God alone M. PERKINS second testimony is taken out of Epiphanius who commandeth that none be adored but God alone Let Mary be in honour Haeres 79. but let God only be adored Againe Mary is holy and to be honoured but not to adoration Answere Who seeth not that this holy Father teacheth vs to honour and worshippe that blessed Virgin Mary and the other Saints Marry not with Sacrifice as he there disputeth against them vvho offered Sacrifice to the Virgin Mary or any other such like adoration vvhich is proper to God alone A third testimony M. PER. produceth against himselfe out of S. Cyril when Iulian the Apostata objected against the auncient Catholikes that which Protestants doe against vs nowe a-dayes that they worshipped their Martirs as God Lib. 9. 10. Cyril saith M. PER. answereth then plainely as we Catholikes doe nowe that Christians indeede did honour their Martirs but not with adoration and Godly honour His wordes are We affirme not our Martirs to be made Gods but we vse to bestowe all honour vpon them In primuÌ„ cap. Rom. The fourth and last testimony is borrowed out of S. Ambrose Is any so madde that he will giue to the Earle the honour of a King yet these men doe not thinke themselues guilty who giue the honour of Gods name to a creature and leauing their Lord adore their fellowe seruants as though there were any thing more left for God Answere S. Ambrose there inueigheth as S. Paul doth against Pâ—â—â—â— Idolaters that gaue the glory of God some to men their fellowe seruants some to fowles some to serpents and such like all vvhich is very farre vvide from the marke of the present question For he that condemneth men for giuing Gods honour to foolish or beastly creatures doth not reprehend them which honour and worship Gods seruants with such honour only as is due to them And thus much in confutation of M. PER. reasons against worshipping of Saints nowe to an argument or two in fauour of the Catholike party All men are to be honoured by the lawe of nature with such honour as is correspondent and due vnto their vertue and dignity which the Apostle confirmeth saying Rom. 13. vers 7. render to all men their due c. to whome honour honour c. but a kinde of religious and supernaturall honour and worship is due vnto the Saints in heauen ergo we are bound to render that their due worship vnto them That religious honour is due vnto them is most cleare to all that know vvhy honour is due vnto any man If honour be due vnto Nobility of birth as it is commonly holden the Saints are the Sonnes of God the most honourable Lord of heauen and earth If to be admitted to be one of a Kinges priuy Councell maketh a man honourable then the Saints are honourable 1. Cor. 13. vers 12. Apocal. 2. vers 27. who as S. Paul saith doe see God face to face and knowe him euen as they are knowne If to be aduanced vnto some high gouernement make a man honourable the Martirs whome Christ doth place to rule over Cyties and Nations are honourable Briefly if excellent vvisdome singular valour and such like heroycall vertues make men honourable as all men confesse then are the Saints in heauen most honourable vvho so farre exceeded in all such heroycall vertues of which the Philosophers vvrite all others as farre as heauen surpasseth the earth so that it remaineth most euident that the Saints are to be worshipped And as their excellent vertues doe proceede from a more noble fountayne then the nature of man to wit from the grace of God and doth therefore without comparison furmount all morall and ciuill either vertue or dignity so are they with a more spirituall and religious kinde of worship to be vvorshipped and reuerenced It may be said that albeit the Saints be so very honourable yet because they be of another region they are not to be honoured by vs that be strangers and foraigners to them but this objection S. Paul hath long sithence preuented who saith expresly to Christians Bretheren yee are not guests and strangers but Cytizens of the Saints Ephes 2. and houshold seruants of God If then one Cytizen be to reuerence another his better and one seruant another then are we to worship the Saints in heauen who are our fellowe Cytizens and seruants yea they are members of the same body of Christ of which we are though they be nowe in triumph for their lawfull fighting here and we yet in warrefare to attayne vnto the same triumphant estate Yea for the deare and mutuall affection vvhich is or should be betweene these two partes of the said Church S. Paul calleth that Hierusalem which is aboue our Mother Gal. 4. vers 26. and ought vve not to reuerence honour and vvorship our Mother thus much of our former argument grounded in reason Nowe to another taken from example which alone is more then sufficient to settle any good Christian in the faith of this point thus it may be propounded Both Iewes Pagans and Heretikes that is all sortes of vngodly and misbeleeuing men did finde great fault with the auncient true Christians for worshipping of Saints and their Relikes and called it Idolatry as
yea for Heathen Princes behold the first kinde of Mediatour For Christians that pray for all men by their intercession are meanes vnto God for conuersion of others and so may be called Mediatours in a good sence as Moyses saith of himselfe Deut. 5. vers 5. Gal. 3. vers 19. Act. 7. vers 35. Iudic. 3. vers 9. I was an intercessour and meanes or mediatour betweene our Lord and you And by S. Paul he is plainely called a Mediatour the law was ordayned by Angels in the hand of a Mediatour And by S. Stephen he is called a Redeemer as Othoniel is tearmed a Sauiour And that in this sence there may be many mediatours S. Cyril testifieth saying * In Ioh. l. 3. cap. 9. The Mediatour of God and man is IESVS Christ not only because he reconciled men vnto God but for that he is naturally both God and man in one person For by this meanes God reconciled our natures to him for otherwise howe should S. Paul haue said Christ to be the only Mediatour for many of the Saints haue vsed the ministery of mediation as S Paul himselfe crying vpon men to be reconciled to God and Moyses was a Mediatour for he ministred the lawe vnto the people and Ieremy was also a Mediatour when he stood before God and prayed for good thinges to the people Related in 2. Concil Nice art 4. What neede many wordes saith this great Doctor all the Prophets and Apostles were Mediatours VVith S. Cyril accordeth S. Basil who hoped for mercy at Gods handes and forgiuenesse of his sinnes by the mediation of the holy Prophets Apostles and Martirs And S. Bernard was of the same minde Serm. super sign◠magnum apparuit in coelo when he taught that we stand in neede of a Mediatour to the Mediatour and no one more for our profit and commodity then the blessed Virgin Mary so that this mediation and intercession of Saints is no whit at all injurious vnto the only mediation of Christ for it is of a farre different kind from Christes mediation and of the same sort as the prayers be of other good men liuing on earth who all sue vnto God in Christs name and hope to obtayne all and euery of them their petitions by the vertue of his merits and therefore all our prayers and theirs are commonly concluded thus Through our Lord IESVS Christ thy Sonne who with thee liueth and raigneth in the vnity of the holy Ghost God for euer and euer And thus much to M. PER. foundation laide vpon the sandes vvherein he so insolently renounced the Catholike doctrine but that I doe him no wrong I must here adde a coople of other arguments which he misplaced in the former question and therefore I reserued them to this The former All true inuocation and prayer made according vnto the will of God must haue a double foundation a commandement and a promise A commandement to moue vs to pray and a promise to assure vs that we shall be heard for euery prayer must be made in faith and without a commandement and promise there is no faith Vpon this infallible ground I conclude that we may not pray to Saints departed for in the Scripture there is no word either commanding vs to pray to them or assuring vs that we shall be heard when we pray Answere We deny that prayer requireth that double foundation of a commandement to pray and promise to be heard when we pray and that vpon the vvarrant of some of the best prayers that are recorded in holy Scripture When Abraham prayed for the sauing of Sodome and Gomorrha Gen. 18. vers 25. and did obtayne that if there had beene in them but tenne just persons their Cyties should not haue beene destroyed we reade neither of commandement giuen to Abraham to make that prayer nor any promise before he beganne it to be heard and this man was the Father of the faithfull and knewe much better then an hundreth M. PERKINS howe and when to pray And vvhen milde Moyses that most vvise conductor of the Israelites prayed vnto God so peremptorily that he would either blot him out of the booke of life or else pardon his people the Israelites Exod. 32. vers 32. had he either commandement so to pray or promise to be heard I am sure that they can shewe me none at all in the Scripture Nay God before entreated Moyses that he would not pray vnto him for them Ibidem vers 10. but suffer him to punish them according to their deserts promising to aduance Moyses exceedingly if he would giue ouer his suite neuerthelesse Moyses omitted not to pray most earnestly for the same people and vvas heard Neede vve any other proofe to ouerthrowe M. PER. rotten foundation And vvhen Iosue rather commanded then prayed Iosue 10. vers 12. that the Sunne should not moue against Gabaon and it stayed his course for a whole day space God obeying vnto the voice of man as the holy Ghost speaketh vvhat commandement or promise had Iosue for this and to omit an hundreth other like what promise had S. Paul to assure him to be heard 2. Cor. 12. vers 8. when he prayed not once but thrise that the pricke of the flesh should be taken away from him none at al I weene for his request would not be granted him By this the indifferent reader may perceiue how grosse the Protestants judgement is in matters of faith vvho take that for an infallible ground of religion vvhich is so contrary vnto the expresse vvord of God that nothing can be more Of faith necessary in prayer shall be spoken as soone as I haue dispatched an other text of Scripture misplaced here and misaplyed Math. 4. vers 10. We are saith M. PER. commanded to call vpon God only him only shalt thou serue This mans eies-sight beginneth to faile him much that cannot discerne betweene calling vpon and seruing when many a Master calleth vpon his man whome he doth not serue but is serued by him The text is already expounded out of S. Augustine that we must serue God only with Godly honour as the Greeke vvordes Latréyseis doth there notifie notwithstanding which only seruice euery seruant I hope may serue his Master and euery inferiour vvorship his superiour and so may we doe the Saints our betters in all goodnesse with such worship as is due vnto their singular gifts And as we may pray vnto men aliue vvithout derogation vnto God his only seruice so may we doe to the Saints departed But M. PER. fearing the weakenesse of this fortification secondeth it with an other out of the Apostle Rom. 10. vers 14. Howe shall we call vpon him in whome we haue not beleeued but we may not beleeue in Saints therefore we may not call vpon them I answere that we cannot call vpon any man for more then we beleeue to be in him and so much must we beleeue to be in euery man as
the chiefest Bishops and Doctors aswell for their Godlynesse of life as for their knowledge in holy Scriptures who were also chosen by the holy Ghost to gouerne instruct and teach the principal Churches in both Europe Africke and Asia and that in or about the most flourishing state thereof for all of them sauing S. Gregory the great and venerable Bede liued within 400. and some within 200. yeares of Christ Whither I say these most sound testimonies of so many sacred and worthy personages be not sufficient to perswade any reasonableman that praying to the Saints in heauen is both agreable to Gods vvord which no man in these dayes vnderstandeth halfe so well as the worst of any of them did and also very profitable for vs. Yet for the further assurance of this important matter I wil adde one miracle which I touched before wrought in confirmation of it so that he that will not beleeue this shall be conuinced not to beleeue God himselfe witnessing of it In the coasts of Thelousae in France Ex lib. 3. vitae S. Bernardi cap. 5. about 400. yeares past one Henry an Apostata and wicked fellowe beganne to cry out against praying for the dead and praying to Saints and pilgrimages and some other points of the Catholike doctrine the fame of S. Bernards holynesse and learning being then very great he was sent for by the Popes Legate to come thither to stay the people from following that lewde companion who on a day after he had preached at a towne called Sarlate blessed some loaues of bread and said This shall be a certayne proofe that our doctrine is true and theirs false if those that be sicke by tasting of this holy bread be cured of their diseases There stood by among others the Bishop of Charters who fearing what might followe added if they taste of it with faith Nay said the holy Father Barnard nothing doubting of Gods power I say not so but he that shall taste of it shall be truly cured that they may knowe vs to be true men and the true messengers of God then a great multitude tasting of it were according to his word perfectly healed of what disease soeuer they had What can be more euident or better assured then that praying to Saints is the truth of God seing that it pleased God to confirme it in such sort by the miraculous curing of so many people M. PERKINS for an vpshot saith that he finally dissenteth from the Catholikes because they are not content to pray to Saints but say further that God through their merits in heauen doth bestowe many benefits vpon vs on earth I would he agreed with vs in the two former points we should quickly be at accord in this for the good-man is fouly mistaken if he thinke that vve affirme the Saints after they be come to heauen to merit a newe there for we hold that none after their death can merit any more but doe then receiue according vnto their former merits either saluation or damnation but we neuerthelesse say that God in respect of their former merits gotten in this life doth for their sakes bestowe many benefits vpon vs and this doth M. PER. himselfe confirme in plaine wordes In this question when he graunteth pressed thereto by the euidence of Gods word that men vpon earth haue helpe and benefit by the faith and piety which the Saints departed shewed when they were in this life for saith he further God shewed mercy on them that keepe his commandements to a thousand generations True it is that this their faith and piety he would not haue to be called merits but vve with that most honourable Father S. Ambrose doe say Apud Deum Lib. 5. super LucaÌ„ seruus interueniendi meritum jus habet impetrandi with God a seruant of his hath both the merit to be an intercessour and the right to obtayne his suite see more of merits in that question Here M. PER. addeth against himselfe That the Saints in heauen haue receiued the full reward of all their merits and therefore there is nothing further that they can merit Here we haue first that the Saints had merits which he was wont to deny flatly againe how doth God hauing fully rewarded their former faith and piety at their entrance into heauen afterward for their sakes shew mercy to thousands which he confesseth himselfe wherefore he is aswell bound to answere this as we are it bearing as strongly against his owne doctrine as it doth against ours To saue him a labour I answere in a word that it is one part of the reward of a faithful seruant to be alwayes after not deseruing the contrary in his Masters fauour and so gratious with him that he may intreate any reasonable matâ—â—r at his handes so are the Saints vvith God vvho can neuer be wearyed with their suites so long as they all doe but tend vnto his owne honour and the saluation of his poore creatures and as we both agreed vpon before Their faith piety and charity whiles they liued did and doth still moue and cause God to shewe mercy vnto thousands vpon earth for their sakes though their merits were before most abundantly rewarded let this suffice for this question OF IMPLICITE OR INFOLDED FAITH M. PERKINS Page 266. THis question is handled for two causes as he saith pag. 274. first to rectifie the conscience of the weaker sort of his disciples secondly to rectifie their Catechismes which doe as he censureth require too full an assurance of saluation in all men It being then for the instruction of his ovvne deceiued flocke and not much appertayning to vs I will post it ouer lightly He teacheth a twofold implicity of faith first that faithfull men may be ignorant at the beginning of many articles of faith and learne them afterwardes It was so in deede in Christes time because he taught them not all a once but since the establishment of the Gospell it is necessary that euery one beleeue all the articles of the Apostles Creede the true doctrine of the Sacraments and such other necessary heades of the Christian religion other points of faith may be learned in time according vnto the capacity of the persons The second fold of his faith is that many of his deceiued disciples haue not at their conuersion and in time of temptation a full assurance of their saluation which notwithstanding will serue the turne then if they desire to haue a full assurance and labour afterward to attayne vnto it which he speaketh to the comfort of their consciences that cannot perswade themselues so assuredly that their sinnes are pardoned them This presumptious doctrine of full assurance of saluation I haue in a seueral question before confuted therefore I say only here that no Christian is bound to haue any such absolute assurance of his owne saluation but that he must according to the Apostles rule worke his saluation with trembling and feare Ad Philip. 2.