vpon the earth and the same flesh he gaue vs to eate S. Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria in the declaration of the eleauenth Anatheme of the generall Councell of Ephesus doth in fewe wordes expresse the ancient faith both of the Sacrifice and Sacrament thus We doe celebrate the holy liuely and vnbloudy Sacrifice beleeuing it to be the body and bloud not of a common man like vnto one of vs but rather we receiue it as the proper body and bloud of the word of God that quickneth all thinges which he doth often in his workes repete In his Epistle to Nestorius in these wordes Epist. ad Nestoriū We doe so come vnto the mysticall benediction and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy and pretious bloud of Christ our redeemer not receiuing it as common flesh which God defend nor as the flesh of a holy man c. But being made the proper flesh of the word of God it selfe And vpon these vvordes Howe can this man giue vs his flesh to eate he saith Lib. 4. in Ioan. c. 13 Lib. 10. in Ioan. c. 13 Let vs giue firme faith to the misteries and neuer once say or thinke howe can it be For it is a Iewish word And else where preuenting our Protestants receiuing by faith alone he addeth We denie not but by a right faith and sincere charity we are spiritually joyned with Christ but to say that we haue not also a conjunction with him according to the flesh that we vtterly denie and doe auouch it to be wholy dissonant from holy Scriptures Damascene Lib. 4. de fide ortho cap. 14. Bread and wine vvith vvater by the inuocation of the holy Ghost are supernaturally changed into the body and bloud of Christ bread is not the figure of the body nor wine the figure of the bloud which God forbidde but it is the very body of our Lord joyned with the God-head See howe formally this holy and learned Doctor about nine hundred yeares agoe confuted the opinion of Zwinglius In ca. 26. Math. So doth Theophilact also about the same time writing thus Christ did not say this is a figure but this is my body For albeit it seeme bread vnto vs yet is it by his vnspeakable working transformed If I would descend a little lower I might alleadge vvhole volumes vvritten by the learnest of those times in defence of the reall presence For some thousand yeares after Christ there started vp one Berengarius of condemned memory vvho vvas the first that directly impugned the truth of Christes bodily presence in the Sacrament but he once or twise abjured it afterward and died repentantly And thus much of this matter OF THE SACRIFICE M. PERKINS Page 204. Of the Sacrifice in the Lordes supper which the Papists call the Sacrifice of the Masse TOuching this point first I will set downe what must be vnderstood by the name of Sacrifice A Sacrifice is taken properly or vnproperly Properly it is a sacred or solemne action in which man offereth and consecrateth some outward bodily thing vnto God to please and honour him thereby improperly and by the way of resemblance all the duties of the morall lawe are called sacrifices M. PERKINS definition of a Sacrifice taken properly is not complete for it may be applyed vnto many oblations vvhich vvere not sacrifices For example diuers deuout Israelites offered some gold some siluer some other thinges to honour and please God withall Exod. 25. 35. in the building of a Tabernacle for diuine seruice according to his owne order and commandement These mens actions were both sacred and solemne and some outward bodily thing by them vvas offered and consecrated vnto God to please and honour him thereby therefore they did properly offer Sacrifice according to M. PER. definition which in true diuinity is absurd or else vvomen and children might be sacrificers Againe if his definition were perfect I cannot see howe they can denie their Lordes supper to be a Sacrifice properly For they must needes graunt that it is a sacred or solemne action and they cannot denie but that in it a man offereth and consecrateth vnto God some outward bodily thing to vvit bread and vvine and that to please and honour God thereby so that all the parts of M. PER. definition agreeing to it he cannot denie it to be a Sacrifice properly We in deede that take it to be a prophane or superstitious action highly displeasing God as being by mans inuention brought in to shoulder out his true and only seruice doe vpon just reason reject it as no Sacrifice but the Protestants that take it for diuine seruice must needes admit it to be a proper Sacrifice so doe they fall by their owne definition into that damnable abomination as they tearme it of maintayning an other proper Sacrifice in the newe Testament besides Christes death on the Crosse Wherefore to make vp the definition perfect it is to be added first that that holy action be done by a lawful Minister and then that the visible thing there presented be not only offered to God but be also really altered and consumed in testification of Gods soueraigne dominion ouer vs. We agree in the other improper acception of a Sacrifice and say that al good workes done to please and honour God may be called sacrifices improperly among which the inward act of adoration whereby a deuout minde doth acknowledge God to be the beginning midle and end of all good both in heauen earth and as such a one doth most humbly prostrate honour and adore him holdeth the most worthyest ranke and may truly be called an inuisible and inward Sacrifice The outward testimony and protestation thereof by consuming some visible thing in a solemne manner and by a chosen Minister is most properly a Sacrifice OVR CONSENT MAster PERKINS would gladly seeme to agree with vs in two points First That the supper of the Lord is a Sacrifice and may truly be so called as it is and hath beene in former ages Secondly That the very body of Christ is offered in the Lordes supper Howe say you to this are we not herein at perfect concord a plaine dealing man would thinke so hearing these his wordes but if you reade further and see his exposition of them we are as farre at square as may be For M. PER. in handling this question will as he saith take a Sacrifice sometimes properly and sometimes improperly starting from the one to the other at his pleasure that you cannot know where to haue him So when he saith in his first conclusion That the supper of the Lord is a Sacrifice he vnderstandeth improperly yet it is saith he called a Sacrifice in three respects First because it is a memoriall of the reall Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse So a painted Crucifix may be called a Sacrifice because it is a memoriall of that Sacrifice but M. PER. addeth Hebr. 13. vers 15. That it withall
is as I said before rather a marke that vve should shoote at and the end of a commandement then a thing commanded M. PERKINS second reason The compasse of the lawe is large and comprehendeth commandements not only negatiue but also affirmatiue and in the negatiue be not only forbidden the capitall sinnes as murther adultery theft but all sinnes of the same kinde with all their occasions c. And in the affirmatiue are commanded not only the contrary vertues but all helpes and meanes whereby the said vertues may be preserued thus doth our Sauiour himselfe saith he expound the lawe Vpon which ground her concludeth that all duties pertayning to life and manners come within the list of some morall commandement Answere The Commandements are but tenne and the exposition vvhich our Sauiour made Math. 5. 6. contained vvith in the compasse of two Chapters as he confesseth wherefore it is not a thing either impossible or very difficult to learne and obserue them with all their necessary branches and clauses Nowe to say That all duties of life appertayne vnto them is both false and not to the purpose for first it is most euident that the vvhole matter of the Sacraments and vvhatsoeuer else is proper vnto vs Christians by the doctrine of the Gospell and not common vnto vs with the Iewes is ouer and aboue the tenne Commandements I said also that the answere is impertinent for it proceedeth only in duties of life and we treate here of such points of perfection which no man in duty is pressed vnto but only may followe of deuotion for his aduancement in vertue and Gods fauour The other reasons following I haue answered in my former part yet because some will be vnwilling to be so often referred vnto another volume I will here againe briefly answere them M. PERKINS third reason Lucae 17. When we haue done all those thinges that are commanded vs we are vnprofitable seruants we haue done that which was our duty to doe Can any man tell to what purpose this sentence is cited here Is it to proue that we cannot keepe the Commandements but it supposeth the flat contrary to vvit that the vnprofitable seruant had done all those thinges that vvere commanded him for he must say as it is in the text When he hath done that which was commanded c. Or it is to disproue workes of supererogation and counsaile but it hath not one worde of them but speaketh only of workes commanded which S. Ambrose noted 1200. yeares past saying This doth not the Virgin say De viduis this doth not he say who sold all to wit we are vnprofitable seruants but looking for a reward they say with S. Peter Lord we haue left all what therefore wilt thou giue vs c. Math. 19. But M. PERKINS will confute S. Ambrose for he saith That thinges commanded in that they be commanded are more excellent then thinges left at liberty What is this to the matter doth Christ speake of counsailes left to our liberty in that text because commandements be more excellent vvhat a sencelesse reply is this Of like stuffe is his other shift That counsailes are thought more hard then commandements and therefore if a man cannot profit himselfe by obseruing the easier much lesse by obseruing the harder First this is cleane besides the purpose then it is also false For no men commonly can profit themselues so much by thinges easie to be done as by some other thinges hard to be done for the more excellent that thinges are so much the more difficult are they to be compassed and done according to the Latin Adage Quo difficilius eo pulchrius M. PERKINS saith Papists answere secondly that although we 've vnprofitable to God yet we are profitable to our selues Reply This is reported to the halfes for we say that to God in himselfe no profit can arise from vs who needeth none of our goodes or seruice but in the Ministery of his Church he hath great seruice and honour done him by the industry and diligence of good men and therefore doth S. Paul say expresly 2. Tim. 2. vers 21. That men cleansed from sinnes become profitable seruants vnto our Lord which is venerable Bedes exposition vpon this passage of S. Luke Vers 9. But Master PERKINS saith That they are neyther profitable to God nor to themselues because the Master there doth not so much as thanke that seruant Reply Masters in deed doe not commonly thanke their seruants when they haue done their duties but yet they pay them their wages and giue them preferments also if they like their seruice and so the seruant reapeth commodity and profit by his seruice though he be not thanked at his Masters handes But we serue so kinde a Master that will before his Father and all the company of heauen thanke his seruants and say vnto them Math. 24. vers 23. Well fare thee good and faithfull seruant because thou hast beene faithfull ouer a fewe thinges I will place thee ouer many enter into the joy of thy Lord. A third answere Papists may make vnto Master PERKINS and tell him that hee hath desperately corrupted the text and omitted a vvorde vvhich altereth the vvhole sentence Christ saith not When you haue done all that is commanded you are vnprofitable seruants but then say that you are vnprofitable seruants That is haue you then an humble opinion of your selues and thinke rather vpon your owne imperfection then of your vvell-doing and if you finde all vvell thanke him that gaue you the grace to performe it and confesse that you haue done but your duty and leaue it to your good neighbour to praise you if he please and to God to recompence you so doth S. Chrysostome interpret this place But Master PERKINS to preuent this answere thought it pollicy to strike that vvorde out of the text O vvorthy cutter of Gods vvorde His fourth reason is That it is not in the power of man to keepe the lawe much lesse is he able to doe any worke that is beyond and aboue the lawe Answere The antecedent and consequent are both false that vve be able with the helpe of Gods grace to keepe the lawe is proued in a whole question of the first part Page 78. That we may doe some workes of supererogation albeit we fayled in some workes of the lawe hath beene proued in the beginning of this question For though one vvorke of counsaile be harder to doe then one worke of the lawe yet is it of more difficulty to keepe thirty precepts of the lawe then three counsailes and againe a man may be more diligent in obseruing counsailes then commandements and so obserue them better Nowe to the arguments for the Catholike party The first is taken out of the Prophet Esay Our Lord saith vnto Eunuches that keepe his Sabbaoth Cap. 56. vers 4. and choose the thing that pleaseth him c. He will giue them a
considered of To it then I say first that if it be ought worth it as well ouerthroweth the Kinges as the Popes Supremacy For if the Pope may not be Christes deputy as he is mediatour and gouernour of his Church because that no creature can be his deputy in any point of Ecclesiasticall gouernement as M. PER. defineth then surely no King nor Prince who are meere creatures and not one of them I trowe both God and Man can be Christes deputy in the gouernement of his Church I say secondly that a meere creature may be Christ our mediatours deputy and Vicar in the Ecclesiasticall gouernement of his Church neyther is there therein any one action that necessarily proceedeth from the two natures of God and Man as M. PER. dreameth Examine all the points of Supremacy proposed in the difference by himselfe and see vvhether there be any one that must needes be the action of both God and Man to call a generall Councell is none such nor to ratifie the decrees thereof to discusse and declare which bookes be Canonicall Scripture and vvhat is the true meaning of all obscure places therein contayned may be done by men assisted by the inspiration of the holy Ghost and so among all the rest there is not one point of the Supremacy but may be vvell executed by a mortall man assisted with Gods spirit The points of Christes mediation namely to satisfie his Fathers vvrath by paying him the full ransome of all mankinde the establishing of a newe Testament or lawe the creation of spirituall Magistrates the furnishing of it with Sacraments and such like are indeede so proper to Christ that they cannot be communicated vnto others Marry to see that his lawes be vvell obserued lawfull Gouernours and Ministers elected and his Sacraments rightly administred the chardge I say of these thinges may be very vvell committed vnto his deputies and the principall ouer-sight of all vnto one supreme gouernour vnder himselfe that all the inferiour Prelates may be holden in peace and vnity And to say that Christes presence by his vvord and spirit is sufficient to dissolue all doubtes that arise about matter of faith and to reforme all misdemeanour that is among Christians without the authority of some Magistrate to see the same vvell declared and applyed vnto particular persons is to speake against all reason and experience For vvho shall reforme obstinate Heretikes Christes vvord but Heretikes haue alwayes said and will euer say that it maketh for them Shall Christes spirit correct them they hold that they haue that spirit in such aboundance that it cryeth in them Abba Father so that M. PER. argument driueth to this that there must be no gouernour at all but that euery wrangling fellowe is to be left vnto the vvord and spirit of Christ vvhich is most absurd in matter of gouernement And albeit that in producing of supernaturall effectes men be but Gods instruments yet because they be instruments indued with reason chosen by God and enabled to doe that whereunto they are by Christ appointed I see no reason why they may not be well called Christes deputies Sure I am that S. Paul feareth not to stile himselfe with the other Apostles 2. Cor. 5. vers 20. 1. Cor. 3. vers 9 Christes Legates or Ambassadours which is as much if not more then his deputies And in an other place he goeth yet further and saith that they are coadjutors or fellowe worke-men with God for though it be Gods worke as the only efficient cause yet men doe concurre thereunto as his instruments and doe in their kinde worke properly towards the producing of the effect as the Preacher by his perswasions zeale and piety doth very much moue his Auditors to embrace Godlinesse although he should labour in vaine if God dâ—d not principally both concurre with his speeches and inwardly also dispose the hart of the hearer to receiue them But of this more hereafter in the matter of the Sacraments Touching the matter of gouernement I cannot vnderstand what M. PER. meaneth when he saith that euery action thereof proceedeth from the very person of Christ for vvhen the Bishops or congregation doth excommunicate an offendour howe can that act of theirs be personal in respect 〈…〉 speaketh Is Christ there thâ—â— in paâ—â—â—â—◠〈…〉 â—â—n-hood togither are they prosecution 〈…〉 sentence of excommunication vvhat adoâ—â—◠〈…〉 if such deepe doctrine drowne many pâ—â—â—e of Popâ—â—ry If Christ be not there present howe thâ—n can thee action proceeds 〈◊〉 him only and be so proper to him that it may be called personall M. PER. meaneth perhaps only that when the congregation doth out 〈…〉 the Church by excommunication then Christ 〈…〉 from the kingdome of heauen vvhich is also false for many 〈…〉 vvhich afterward vpon their 〈◊〉 vnto that kingdome and therefore vvere not cut off from it by Christ But suppose it were true that Christ then seperated that person from heauen vvould it followe thereof that the act of coâ—ting him off 〈◊〉 congregation done by the Church vvere the proper action of Christ proceeding immediatelie from his two 〈◊〉 of God and man nothing I thinke can be imagined more absurd wherefore all the actions of Ecclesiastical gouernement issue properly from the persons of the Gouernours vvho are in deede placed in that seate of authority by Christ and inspired by him to exercise that function duty but so qualified by Christ doe formally execute and vvorke all the actions belonging to gouernement and therefore may be most properly called Deputies vvho in their Masters name and by authority receiued from him doe that they haue commission to doe M. PERKINS second reason is All the Apostles were equall in power and authority for the commission Apostolicall was equally giuen vnto them all Math. 28. Goe teach all nations baptizing them c. Answere They were equall in that point of preaching the Gospell to all nations and in many other thinges vvhich appertayned to the planting of the Christian religion Marry alwayes with this generall prouiso that both they and all those vvho were conuerted vnto the faith by them should acknowledge and obey one supreme Pastor Christes Vicegerent on earth Which S. Leo doth very plainely teach saying Epist 84. ad Anast Betweene the most blessed Apostles in the similitude or equality of honour there was a certayne difference of power and where as the election of them all was equall yet it was giuen vnto one of them to haue preheminence aboue the rest But M. PERKINS saith that the promise of the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen was not priuate to Peter but in his person made to the rest of the Apostles according vnto Peters confession made in the name of the rest Answere Very just euen as Peter made his confession so vvas the promise but he made that confession of Christ in his owne name and that by speciall reuelation from God without consulting with any of the rest therefore to him alone vvas that