them but an order of eating a morsell of bread and drinking a suppe of vvine in remembrance of his death there had beene no congruity in it For many much meaner men then he had left far greater remembrances and pleadges of their loue behinde them Wherefore the wordes must be taken as they sound and then no creature euer left or could possibly leaue the like token and pleadge of his power and loue to his friendes as his owne body and bloud to be the diuine comfort and foode of their soules And this doth that most eloquent Father S. Iohn Chrisostome both note and dilate Homil. 83 in Math. saying Louers when they depart from them whome they loue are wont to leaue with them for a remembrance of their harty affection some such jewell or gift as they are able but no other creature sauing Christ could leaue his owne proper flesh Homil. 2. ad populū Antioch And in an other place Elias departing from his disciple Eliseus left him his mantle but our Sauiour Christ did leaue vnto vs his owne body An other motiue to perswade that Christes vvordes are to be taken literally is gathered of this that they be a part of Christes Testament and containe a legacy bequeathed vnto vs Christians vvhich kinde of vvordes are alwaies to be interpreted according to their proper signification And it should be the most foolish part in the vvorld vvhen a father doth by his last vvill bequeath vnto one of his sonnes a farme or any certaine portion of good to pleade that the vvordes vvere to be expounded figuratiuely and that he meant only to leaue his sonne a figure of a farme or some signe of a portion vvhich yet the Protestants doe pleade in this most diuine testament of our Sauiour Christ Iesus Thirdly you haue heard before also howe that in the institution of all Sacraments the speaches are to be taken literally and much more in this vvhich is the very marrowe of Christian religion and vvherein errour is most dangerous therefore most requisite it was to haue beene deliuered in such tearmes as vvere to be vnderstood literally Lastly albeit Christ oftentimes spake vnto the multitude in parables and obscurely because of their incredulity yet vnto his Disciples vvhome he vvould haue to vnderstand him he commonly spake plainely or else vvas accustomed to interpret vnto them his harder speaches according to that Math. 13. vers 11. To you it is giuen to knowe the mysteries of the Kingdome of heauen to them it is not giuen and therefore in parables speake I to them But Christ here giueth no other interpretation then that it was the same His body which should be nayled to the Crosse neither did the Disciples aske after any exposition of them vvhich is a plaine signe that they tooke them literally the holy Ghost putting them in minde of that which Christ had taught them before of this admirable Sacrament in the sixt of S. Iohn That he would giue them his flesh to eate and that his flesh was truly meate c. Hitherto I haue prosecuted two reasons for the reall presence one out of the promise of it the other out of the performance and institution of it vvhich are all that it pleased M. PERKINS to produce in our fauour though he had multiplied reasons for his owne party and enlarged them very amply but hath as cuttedly proposed ours loded them also with very many replies wherefore somewhat to supply his default herein I will adde foure more for vs that for a doozen of his we may be alowed to haue halfe a doozen The first of them which is the third in order shall be gathered from the figure of this Sacrament thus The figure or shadowe of any thing is alwaies inferior vnto the thing it selfe as the Image of a man is not to be compared to the man himselfe nor the shadowe to the body but if in the Sacrament there be but bread signifying the body of Christ then should the figure of it be more excellent then it selfe wherefore to auoide that inconuenience it must needs be granted that the body of Christ is there really present which farre surpasseth all the figures of it The minor proposition is to be proued First to omitte all other figures of the blessed Sacrament it is manifest that Manna raigned downe from heauen to feede the Israelites in the desert vvas one of the principall as our Sauiour signifieth comparing Manna and the food which he would giue vs Iob. 6. ver 49. 58. 1. Cor. 10. together and S. Paul plainely teacheth it calling it a spirituall foode and numbring it among the figures which the Hebrewes had of our Sacraments and the proportion betweene the thinges themselues vvith the consent of all ancient Interpreters doth conuince it but Manna farre surpassed the Protestants communion For first being a figure of Christ it prefigured him as theirs doth Psal 77. then it was made of Angels and came downe from heauen theirs commeth out of the ouen made by a baker Againe Manna was so agreeable vnto their taste Sap. 16. that it was in taste vnto euery one euen the most delitious and dainty meate that he could desire theirs is but ordinary wherefore they must needs confesse either that Christes body is really present in the Sacrament or else that the figure of it farre surmounted it the thing it selfe The good fellowes to auoid this inconuenience are content to yeeld vnto the Hebrewes as good and vertuous Sacraments as ours be but that also is most false Collos 2. vers 17. Gal. 4. Iob. 6. ver 49. 58. De ijs qui initiantur misterijs cap. 9. 1. Cor. 10. vers 16. For S. Paul compareth theirs to shadowes ours to the bodie he calleth theirs weake and poore elements And to omit here other testimonies cited before Christ himselfe expresly preferreth the foode which he hath giuen vs before Manna wherevpon S. Ambrose discourseth thus Consider nowe whether be more excellent the bread of Angels or the flesh of Christ which surely is the body of life that Manna was from heauen but this is aboue heauen that of heauen this the Lordes of heauen that subject to corruption if it were kept till the morrowe but this free from all corruption Fourthly the Reall presence of Christes body is proued out of these wordes of S. Paul The Chalice or cuppe of benediction which we blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ And the bread which we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord If we receiue and doe participate Christes body and bloud they are certainely there present And the expossition of S. Chrisostome vpon the same place hath stopped vp our aduersaries starting-hole who are wont to say that we indeed doe receiue the bodie of Christ yet not there present but by faith we mount aboue the skies and receiue it there But what saith this holy and learned
other miracle is of record in the life of that deuout Father S. Bernard Lib. 2. cap. 3. This holy man caused a vvoman who had beene many yeares possessed with a wicked spirit that did strangely torment her to be brought before him as he vvas at Masse and then holding the consecrated Host ouer the womans head spake these vvordes Thou wicked spirit here is present thy judge the supreame power is here present resist and if thou canst he is here present who being to suffer for our saluation said Nowe the Prince of this world shall be cast forth and pointing to the blessed Sacrament said This is that body that was borne of the body of the Virgin that was streatched vpon the Crosse that lay in the Sepulcher that rose from Death that in the sight of his Disciples ascended into Heauen therefore in the dreadfull power of this Majesty I command thee wicked spirit that thou depart out of this handmaide of his and neuer hereafter presume once to touch her The Deuill was forced to acknowledge the Majesticall presence and dreadfull power of Christes body in that holy Host and to gette him packing presently wherefore he must needes be greatly blinded of the Deuill that knowing this miracle to be vvrought by the vertue of Christes body there present vvill not yet beleeue and confesse it But nowe let vs vvinde vp all this question in the testimonies of the most ancient and best approued Doctors S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler saith I desire the bread of God Epist 15. ad Rom. heauenly bread which is the flesh of the Sonne of God S. Iustine declaring the faith of the Christians in the second hundreth yeare after Christ vvriteth to the Emperor Antonine thus Apol. 2. We take not these thinges as common bread nor as common wine but as Christ incarnate by the word of God tooke flesh and bloud for our saluation euen so are we taught that the foode wherewith our flesh is by alteration nourished being by him blessed and made the Eucharist is the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus incarnate S. Ireneus Iustins equall proueth both Christ to be the Sonne of God Li. 4. con Haeres cap. 34. the creatour of the vvorld and also the resurrection of the bodies by the reall presence of Christes body in the blessed Sacrament so assured a principle and so generally confessed a truth was then this point of the reall presence Homil. 5. in diuers Origen that most learned Doctor saith When thou takest that holy foode and that incorruptible feast when thou enjoyest the bread and cup of life when thou doest eate and drinke the body and bloud of our Lord then loe doth our Lord enter vnder thy roofe Thou therefore humbling thy selfe imitate this Centurion and say O Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe c. De coena Domini S. Cyprian The bread that our Lord deliuered vnto his Disciples being not in outward shewe but in substance changed was by the omnipotent power of the word made flesh Catech. 4. mist S. Cyril Patriarke of Hierusalem doth most formally teach our doctrine saying When Christ himselfe doth affirme of bread This is my body who afterward dareth to doubt of it and he confirming and saying This is my bloud Who can doubt and say this is not his bloud And a little after doth proue it saying He before changed water into wine which commeth neare to bloud and shall he be thought vnworthy to be beleeued that he hath changed wine into his bloud wherefore let vs receiue with all assurance the body and bloud of Christ for vnder the forme of bread his body is giuen vs and his bloud vnder the forme of wine Orat. 2. de Paschate S. Gregory Nazianzene speaking of the blessed Sacrament sayeth Without shame and doubt eate the body and drinke the bloud and doe not mistrust these wordes of the flesh c. S. Iohn Chrisostome Patriarke of Constantinople perswadeth the same thus Homil. 83 in Math. Let vs alwaies beleeue God and not resist him though that which he saith seeme absurd to our imagination which we must doe in all thinges but specially in holy misteries not beholding those thinges only which are set in our sight but hauing an eye vnto his wordes For his word cannot deceiue vs but our sences may most easily be deceiued wherefore considering that he saith This is my body let vs not doubt of it at all but beleeue it Againe a Hom. 61 ad populū what shep-heard doth feede his flocke with his owne flesh Nay many mothers giue out their children to be nursed of others but Christ with his owne flesh and bloud doth feede vs. b Itē hom 3. in epist ad Ephes It is his flesh and bloud that sitteth aboue the heauens that is humbly adored of the Angels And c Homil. 24. in 1. ad Corin. he that was adored of the wise-men in the manger is nowe present vpon the Altar d Hom. 83 in Math. 60. ad populum And not by faith only or by charity but in deede and really his flesh is joyned with ours by receiuing this holy Sacrament S. Ambrose e Libr. 4. de Sacrament c. 4. Thou maist perhaps say that my bread is but common bread this bread is bread in deede before the wordes of the Sacrament but when consecration commeth of bread it is made the body of Christ And if you demand further howe there can be any such vertue in vvordes he doth answere That by the word of God heauen and earth were made and all that in them is and therefore if Gods word were able of nothing to make all thinges howe much more easily can it take a thing that already is and turne it into an other S. Hierome Let vs beare and beleeue that the bread which our Lord brake Epistol ad Hedib quaest 2. and gaue to his Disciples is the body of our Lord and Sauiour * Epist ad Heliodorū Cont. Aduers legis Prophe lib. 2. c. 9. And God forbidde saith he that I should speake sinistrously of Priestes who succeeding the Apostles in degree doe with their holy mouth consecrate and make Christes body S. Augustine The mediatour of God and men the man Iesus Christ giuing vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke we doe receiue it with faithfull hart and mouth although it seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to kill it and to drinke mans bloud then to shedde it Againe a In psal 65. 93 The very bloud that through their malice the Iewes shedde they conuerted by Gods grace doe drinke And vpon the 98. Psalme he doth teach vs to adore Christes body in the Sacrament vvith Godly honour where he saith Christ tooke earth of earth for flesh is of earth and of the flesh of the Virgin Mary he tooke flesh in which flesh he walked here
shedde and it shall be shedde and a good Interpreter of Scripture may not to delude the one flie to the other but defend both because both be the vvordes of the holy Ghost And the Greeke text in S. Luke doth inuincibly confirme that the vvordes are to be taken in the present tense For it hath that the bloud as in the Chalice Luc. 22. vers 20. is powred out Toúto tò potérion tò eckynómenon This Chalice is powred out it cannot therefore be referred vnto that powring out vvhich was to be made vpon the Crosse the day following but to that that vvas powred in and out of the Chalice then presently This might also be confirmed by the bloud which was sprinkled to confirme the old TestameÌ„t vnto which it seemeth that our Sauiour did allude in this consecration of the Chalice Exod. 24. vers 8. For Moyses said This is the bloud of the Testament and our Sauiour * Hebr. 9. vers 20. This is the bloud of the newe Testament But that bloud which dedicated the old Testament was first sacrificed to God such therefore vvas the bloud of the newe Testament And to make the matter more cleare let vs heare howe the best and most judicious Fathers vvho receiued the right vnderstanding of the Scriptures from the Apostles and their Schollers doe take these vvordes of Christ Lib. 4. cap. 32. Lib. 2. Epist 3. In psa 33 Conc. 2. Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. Homil. 2. in Post ad Timoth. Orat. 1. de resur You haue heard already out of S. Ireneus That Christ taught at his last supper the newe Sacrifice of the newe Testament And out of S. Cyprian Christ offered there a Sacrifice to his Father after the order of Melchisedecke taking bread and making it his body And out of S. Augustine Christ instituted a Sacrifice of his body and bloud according vnto the order of Melchisedecke that is vnder the formes of bread and wine I adde vnto them S. Chrisostome vvho saith In steede of the slaughter of beastes Christ hath commanded vs to offer vp himselfe And againe Whether Peter or Paule or an other Priest of meaner meritte doe offer the holy Sacrifice it is the same which Christ gaue to his Disciples the which all Priestes nowe a dayes doe make and this hath nothing lesse then that had S. Gregory Nissene Christ being both a Priest and the Lambe of God offered himselfe a Sacrifice and Host for vs. When vvas this done Euen then when to his Disciples he gaue his body to eate and his bloud to drinke Isichius First Lib. 2. in Leui. c. 8. our Lord supped with his Apostles vpon the figuratiue Lambe and afterward offered his owne Sacrifice All these and many other of the most ancient Fathers could finde a proper and reall Sacrifice in Christes supper To omit S. Gregories authority and all other his inferiors for this last thousand yeares vvhome the Protestants acknowledge vâ—holy to haue beleeued and taught the Sacrifice of the Masse See Kemnitius in exam Concilij Trid. page 826. 827. I omit some other good arguments made for vs out of the newe Testament to returne vnto M. PERKINS vvho proposeth this as the fourth reason for our party out of S. Paul We haue an Altar Hebr. 13. vers 10. whereof they may not eate who serue in the Tabernacle Nowe say they If we Christians haue an Altar then must we consequently haue Priestes and a proper kinde of Sacrifice for these are correlatiues and doe necessarily depend and followe one the other M. PERKINS answereth That the Altar there is to be taken not literally but spiritually for Christ himselfe Reply Obserue first howe the Protestants are forced to flie from the plaine text of Scripture and natiue signification of the vvordes vnto a figuratiue that without either reason or authority secondly I wish that M. P. would goe through with his paraphrase vpon the whole sentence and if by the Altar he vnderstand Christ then by eating of it he will surely expound beleeuing in Christ nowe like a prety Scholler that hath learned to read let him put it all together say That we Christians haue a Christ in whome the Iewes may not beleeue which is flat contradictory to that which the Apostle in that Epistle goeth about to perswade * Lib. 6. in Leui. c. 21 Isichius an ancient and worthy Author in expresse tearmes doth expound these wordes of the Altar of Christs body which the Iewes for their incredulity were not worthy to behold much lesse to be partakers of it and therefore the Apostle to moue the Iewes the rather to become Christians signifieth that so long as they serue in the tabernacle and continue Iewes they depriue themselues of that great benefite which they might haue by receiuing the blessed Sacrament Nowe the wordes following in the text which M. PER. citeth to interprete this sentence belong nothing to it but containe another reason to induce the Iewes to receiue Christ for their Messias drawne for a circumstance of their Sacrifices thus as the bodies of their Sacrifices were burne without the Campe so Christ suffered without the gate and citty of Hierusalem and therefore Christ was the truth prefigured by their Sacrifices It hath also an exhortation to depart out of the society of the Iewes and to forgoe all the preferment and glory they might enjoy among them to be content to suffer with Christ al contumelies Briefly there is not one word in the sentence before to proue the Altar to be taken for Christ but for a materiall Altar vpon which the Christian Priestes and offer the body and bloud of Christ in the blessed Sacrament vvhich may be confirmed by that passage of the same Apostle 1. Cor. 10 vers 21. You cannot drinke the cup of our Lord and the cup of Deuils you cannot be partakers of our Lordes table and the table of Deuils where a comparison is made betweene our Sacrifice and table and the Sacrifice and table of Idols shewing first that he vvho communicateth with the one of them cannot be partaker of the other and then that he who drinketh of the bloud of the Sacrifice is partaker of the Sacrifice Nowe the comparison were improper if our cup were not the cup of a Sacrifice as theirs was nor our table a true Altar as theirs was out of all doubt And that shift of Kemnitius is not cleanely who saith That they who drinke of Christes cup are partakers of his Sacrifice on the Crosse but not of any Sacrifice there present For S. Paules comparison is taken from the cup of a Sacrifice to Idols immediately before offered so that it doth conuince our Chalice to be the cup of a Sacrifice then presently immolated and offered vp The fift objection with M. PER. which is our sixt argument is this Where alteration is both of lawe and couenant there must needes be a newe Priest and a new Sacrifice Hebr. 7. vers
their place that there dwell men who make more account of their Princes honour then they doe of Christes And that their meeting in that place cal it what you wil is rather to serue their Prince then to serue Christ. But I haue beene longer in their place of prayer then I thought I come nowe to the men that are elected to serue the Lord there Be not many of them for the whole corps I will not touch such as Ieroboam was glad to choose when he made a Schisme in Israel to wit de extremis populi qui non erant de filijs Leui not lawfull successors of the true Priestes but others of the baser sort of the people and them commonly that are notable either for ignorance or some other odde quality and must they not also fill their good patrons handes with some feeling commodity before they can gette a benefice And so beginning with simonie lincked with perjurie for the poore fellowes must neuerthelesse sweare that they come freely to their benefice are they not like to proceede on holily As for the vowe of chastity the daylie seruice and often fasting which Catholike Priests are bound vnto they by the sweet liberty of the newe Gospell doe exchange into solacing themselues with their yoke-fellowes this of the common sort of their Ministers With their preachers I will not meddle for feare of offence yet if any desire to knowe howe they behaue themselues in other countries they may read the censure of a zealous learned preacher one of their owne compagnions who amongst many other thinges writeth thus of them Menno l. de Christ fide titul de fide mulieris Cananeae When you come to preachers who bragge that they haue the word of God you shall find certaine of them manifest liars others drunkers some vsurers and foule-mouthed slanderers some persecutors and betraiers of harmelesse persons Howe some of them behaue themselues and by what meanes they gette their wiues and what kind of wiues they haue that I leaue to the Lord and them They liue an jdle slouthfull and voluptuous life by fraude and flattery they feed themselues of the spoiles of Antichrist he meaneth the benefices taken from the Papists and doe preach just as the earthly and carnall Magistrate desireth to heare and will permitte c. So much and not a litle more speaketh one great Master of the late reformation concerning his Euangelicall bretheren Are not these goodly lampes of the newe Gospell and likely persons to be chosen by Christ to giue light to others and to reforme the world But peraduenture they haue in some secret corners certaine deuout religious soules who in an austere retired life doe with continuall teares bewaile the sinnes of the rest and make incessant sute vnto the Almighty for a generall pardon of the whole Would to God they had but I feare me that they be of their inuisible congregation or rather none such to be found amongst them For those religious houses which our Ancesters had built for such Godly and vertuous people who forsaking both father mother all their kinne and acquaintance and flying from all the pleasures and preferments which this transitorie world could yeeld them gaue themselues wholy to the holy exercises of humility chastity pouerty and all sortes of mortification these Monasteries I say and all that professed in them a retired religious life the Protestantes haue beaten downe and banished and haue not in their places erected any other for the singuler Godly men or women of their religion Which doth most euidently argue that there is in them smale zeale and rare practise of any such extraordinary piety and deuotion Surely it must needes be a strange Christian congregation that holdeth them for no tollerable members of their common weale whome Christ specially chooseth to serue him day and night and by whose holy example and most feruent prayers all other Christians doe find themselues much edified and mightily protected So that briefly whether you consider the persons that serue God or the place where he is serued or the manner of his diuine seruice the Catholike religion doth in euery point surpasse the Protestant by many degrees Thus much in answere vnto Master PERKINS objection of Atheisme against vs the which I esteemed fittest for this Preface being a matter of so great moment and therefore most worthy to be examined and considered of a part with mature judgement Nowe to the rest of his questions according to his owne order OF THE REALL PRESENCE OVR CONSENTS M. PERKINS Page 185. We hold and beleeue a presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament of the Lordes supper and that no fained but a true and reall presence HITHERTO we agree in wordes but in sence nothing at all For he frameth a strange construction of that real presence which saith he must be considered two waies First in respect of the signes Secondly in respect of the communicants the signes be bread and wine with which Christes body and bloud be present not in respect of place and coexistence but by sacramentall relation that is when the sacramentall signes of bread and wine are present to the hand they doe present to the minde of the receiuer the body and bloud of Christ So that already M. PERKINS vnfained true reall presence is shrunken into a sacramentall relation and only significatiue presence such as may well be of thinges as farre distant the one from the other as the cope of heauen is from the center of the earth a strange reall presence surely The second kinde of presence saith he is in respect of the communicants to whose belieuing hartes he is also really present If you aske whether this be not as odde a kinde of presence as the other was he answereth by going about the bush saying that such as the communion is such is the presence and by the communion you must judge of the presence Ignotum as they say per ignotius He might shortly haue said if he had meant plaine dealing that by your faith you must mount into heauen and take hold on Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father and from thence drawe his righteousnesse and conuey it to your selfe so that both sortes of his true reall presence is made vvithout any nearer meeting of the parties then heauen and earth doe meete togither But let vs giue him the hearing this reall communion is made on this manner God the Father giueth Christ in this Sacrament as really and truly as any thing can be giuen to man and that not peece-meale but whole Christ yet not the substance of the God-head but the efficacy merits and operation are conueyed thence to the man-hood but the whole man-hood both in respect of substance as of merits and benefits is giuen wholy and jointly together And when God so giueth Christ he giueth withall at the same time the spirit of Christ which createth in the hart of the receiuer the instrument of true
Doctor void of partiallity Homil. 24 in praeoratione ad Corinth marry that of these wordes this is the sence and meaning That which is in the Chalice is the very same that flowed out of Christes side Note that the bloud of Christ is in the Chalice and so we need not runne so farre off to seeke it and saith further that we are made partakers of it with the like reall and close conjunction as the word of God and the nature of man were joyned together which was not by faith or imagination only but actually and substantially With vvhome accordeth S. Cyril vvho out of the same wordes of S. Paul proueth that Christes body is vnited with vs not only by faith or charity but bodily and according vnto the flesh saying When the vertue of the mysticall blessing is in vs Lib. 10. in Ioan. 13. doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs bodily by the participation of the flesh of Christ Here by the way obserue that the Apostle calleth the blessed Sacrament bread either because in exterior appearance it seemeth so to be as Angels appearing in the shape of men are in holy write commonly called men so the body of Christ being vnder the forme of bread is called bread or els for that bread in Scripture according to the Hebrewe phrase signifieth al kind of foode So is Manna called bread which was rather like the dewe Ioan. 6. vers 32. Psal 77. and so may our Sauiours body which is the most substantiall foode of our soules be called bread although it be nothing lesse then ordinary bread Lastly it is such bread as our Sauiour in expresse tearmes hath christened it when he said And the bread which I will giue you is my flesh Ioan. 6. vers 51. 1. Cor. 11. vers 29. Vers 27. for the life of the world Our fift argument is taken out of S. Paul He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh judgement to himselfe not discerning the body of our Lord and is guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord whence I argue thus Vnworthy receiuers who are destitute of that faith whereby they should receiue Christ according vnto the Protestants opinion or els they should not receiue vnworthily such vnworthy communicants I say doe receiue the body of Christ albeit vnworthily therefore it is not the receiuers faith that maketh it present but it is there present by the vvordes of consecration whether the party beleeue it or no or else howe should the man eate his judgement for not discerning Christes body and be guilty of his body the Protestants answere first That he is guilty of the body because he receiueth it not then when he should for lacke of faith But this glose is cleane contrary to the text that saith expresly That they receiue it by eating and drinking of it but yet vnworthily and all ancient Interpreters doe so expound it Let one S. Augustine serue in steed of the rest who saith De baptis contr Donatist lib. 5. cap. 8. That like as Iudas to whome our Lord gaue the morsell gaue place to the Deuill not by receiuing that which was euill but by receiuing of it euilly euen so euery one receiuing our Lordes Sacrament vnworthily doth not make it euill because he is euill or receiue nothing because he receiueth it not to saluation For it was the body and bloud of Christ euen to them of whome the Apostle saith He that eateth vnworthily eateth his owne damnation By which notable sentence of so worthy a Prelate the other cauill of our wrangling young-Masters is also confuted For they perceiuing that their former shift would not serue their turnes fly vnto a second that forsooth the vnworthie receiuer is guilty of Christes body because he abuseth the signe of it for the dishonour done to the picture redoundeth to the person himselfe Reply When we complaine of them for dishonouring of Images and tel them that they thereby dishonour the Saints alleadging this sentence That the dishonour done to the picture redoundeth to the person then they will not allowe of it which nowe they are glad to take hold of To the purpose we say first that the Sacrament is no picture of Christ no not in their owne opinion but a signe only and great difference is there betweene disfiguring a mans owne picture and abusing of some signe or signification of him neither is the disfiguring or breaking of a mans picture so heinous a fault if it be not done expresly in contempt of the person which formall contempt is not to be found in many vnworthy receiuers Lastly the Israelites that eate Manna or drunke of the Rocke vnworthily were not guilty of Christes body and bloud although those thinges were signes and figures of them therfore if there were nothing but a signe of Christes bodie in our Sacrament no man should be guilty of so heynous a crime for vnworthy receiuing of it but being by the verdict of S. Paul made guilty of damnation for not discerning Christes bodie it must needes followe that Christes body is there really present To these arguments collected out of holy Scriptures let vs joyne one other of no lesse authority taken from miracles done in confirmation of the reall presence For a true miracle cannot be done to confirme any vntruth or else God by whose only power they are wrought should testifie an vntruth which is impossible One miracle of preseruing a young boy aliue in a glasiers hot burning furnace I haue before rehearsed out of Nicephorus cited by M. PER. two others I will choose out of hundreths because they be recorded in famous Authors and my purpose is to be briefe Ex vita per Ioan. Diac. lib. 2. cap. 4. The first out of the life of S. Gregory the great surnamed by venerable Bede the Apostle of England This most honourable Bishop administring the blessed Sacrament came to giue it vnto the woman who had made those Hostes which he had consecrated She hearing S. Gregory say as the manner was and is The body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy soule vnto euerlasting life smiled at it wherefore the holy Bishoppe withdrewe his hand and did not communicate her but laide that Host downe vpon the Altar Masse being done he called the woman before him and demanded before the people whom shee might haue scandalized what was the cause why shee beganne to laugh in that holy and fearefull misterie she muttered at the first but after answered that she knewe it to be the bread vvhich she her selfe had made and therefore could not beleeue it to be the body of Christ as he called it Then the holy man prayed earnestly to God that in confirmation of the true presence of Christes body in the Sacrament the outward forme of bread might be turned into flesh vvhich vvas by the power of God done presently and so was she conuerted to the true faith and all the rest confirmed in it The
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
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
7. vers 24. betweene Christ the high Priest of the newe Testament and all the Leuiticall Priestes in this that they were many one succeding another but he is only one hauing an eternall Preest-ood which cannot passe from him to any other Nowe if this difference be good then Christ alone in his owne person must be the Priest of the newe Testament and no other with or vnder him If they say that the whole action is done in the person of Christ and that the Priest is but his Minister and an instrument vnder him as they say in deede I say againe it is false because the whole Oblation is acted by the Priest and he that doth all is more then a bare instrument Answere To beginne with that which he saith last because I must stay longer on the first he bewrayeth his ignorance in the matter of the Masse when he saith that the Priest acteth the whole Oblation in his owne name and not as the minister of Christ for the principall part of both Sacrifice and Sacrament consisteth in the consecration as we holde which the Priest wholy executeth in the name and person of Christ For consecrating he saith This is my body speaking in the person of Christ and not in his owne person saying this is Christes body in like sorte he consecrateth the Chalice This is the Chalice of my bloud So that nothing is more certaine then that the Sacrifice of our Lordes supper is offered by the Priest as the Minister and instrument of Christ wherefore M. PER. pithagorically I say againe is conuinced to be most vntrue Nowe to the former part of his mistaking the Apostles discourse which is farre more profound then the Protestants take it to be for his purpose is to proue that Consummation as he there speaketh was not by the Leuiticall Priest-hood that is Cap. 7. vers 11. that the Priests of Moyses lawe could not offer vp such a Sacrifice to God by vertue whereof Gods justice could be satisfied and the redemption of all mankinde purchased For if any of the high Priests could haue performed that there needed not to haue beene many Priests or any one successor to an other because the former should sufficiently haue done that already vvhich the later vvent about to doe wherefore the Apostle concludeth that it vvas necessary that an other Priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedecke whose one oblation should be so pretious in Gods sight and of such infinite value that it should neede neyther to be offered twice nor to haue the supply of any other Sacrifice vvhich vve vvillingly graunt and teach daylie but carry alvvaies in minde that the Apostle there treateth only of that compleate Sacrifice vvhich procured the generall redemption of all men and payed the just price vnto God for the sinnes of the vvhole vvorld of vvhich sort vvee acknoweledge that Sacrifice vvhich our Sauiour offered on the Crosse to be the only Sacrifice fully satisfying the rigour of Gods justice for the offences of all the world and as plentifully purchasing all kinde of graces to be bestowed vpon all degrees of men so that it needeth not to be repeated it selfe or to haue any supply from any other Sacrifice But all this doth no more proue that our Sacrifice of the Masse is not a true and proper Sacrifice then that the Leuiticall sacrifices were no sacrifices For S. Paules scope is not to proue that there were not or should not be any more sacrifices but one but that there can be but one such an absolute and perfect sacrifice as Christes was on the Crosse Well then if that one sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse be so complete and absolute what neede is there of any other sacrifice great neede and that for three causes First to represent and keepe better in minde that singuler sacrifice which can by no meanes be so liuely represented as by the sacrificing of the selfe same thinges in substance albeit after an other manner Secondly to conuey and apply the vertue of that on the Crosse vnto all obedient Christians For it is to be obserued though Christ paide in his body the ransome of all sinners and purchased Gods grace for them yet no man vvas thereby only freede from his sinnes and receiued into grace but euery one must vse the meanes ordained by Christ to be made partaker of that heauenly fauour The Protestants hold faith alone to be the only meanes but we more truly say that the Sacraments and Sacrifice of the Masse are principal conduict pipes to conuey the streames of Gods grace into our soules as shall be proued hereafter The third cause vvhy vve must haue a sacrifice to be offered daylie in the state of the newe Testament is that men may meete solemnely at it to doe their fealty and chiefe homage vnto God which shall also in this question be proued more at large Thus haue we briefly shewed howe there is one absolute sacrifice and howe after the same there yet remaineth an other which may be the better vnderstood if we consider that the vertue of Christes sacrifice on the Crosse did vvorke the saluation of men euen from the beginning of the world Apoc. 13. vers 8. whereupon Christ is called a lambe slaine from the beginning Now most euident it is that notwithstanding the al-sufficiency of Christes only sacrifice on the Crosse as well then in force as nowe there were both in the lawe of nature and of Moyses diuers other sacrifices of which some were to purge from sinne why therefore may there not aswell be one other since his passion If their sacrifices then when Christes sacrifice on the Crosse vvas as present and in as full force vvith God could stand vvell vvith it vvithout any derogation vnto the full vertue of it vvhy cannot ours aswell also doe so nowe Hebr. 10. vers 14. If you say That Christ by one oblation hath consummated or made perfect them that be sanctified therefore nowe there needeth no more I answere as before that Christ by that same one oblation obtained at his fathers handes a generall pardon for all mankinde and all grace to be bestowed vpon them euen from the beginning of the world in such sort as he thought best and that his one oblation doth no more exclude other Sacrifices since the time of his passion then it did other oblations before which all are as dependents on it and meanes to keepe it fresh in memory and to apply the vertue and meritte of that one oblation vnto all men I vrge yet further for the Protestants to supply M. PERKINS negligence and that this hard point may be the better vnderstood and adde out of S. Paul Ibidem vers 18. Where there is remission of these iniquities nowe there is no oblation for sinnes True such an oblation as Christ offered on the Crosse so vertuous to wipe away all iniquities so pretious to pay a generall ransome but there may be
from that which is in question first it is granted by all that what Christ did in his last supper that did he institute to be done by his Apostles Priests and by his Ministers their successors for euer after Also that Christ was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedecke because both these haue euident warrant in the written word That then which is to be proued is that this order of Melchisedeckes Priest-hood doth properly or principally consist in the forme manner of his sacrificing We say yea M. PER. saith no and proueth it out of S. Paul who shewing Christ to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedecke doth make no mention of his Sacrifice but compareth them together in many other points as that he was a King of justice a Prince of peace without Father and Mother Hebr. 7. or Genealogie finally that he tooke tithes of Abraham and blessed him and in these points only saith M. PERKINS standeth the resemblance Reply Not so for that in none of these thinges doth any speciall order of Priest-hood consist what his owne name or the name of his Citty doth signifie are accidentall incident thinges to Priest-hood to receiue tithes and to blesse belong to Priest-hood in deede but generally to all sortes of Priest-hood as well to the order of Aaron as to that of Melchisedecke and therefore cānot distinguish one order of Priest-hood from another Wherefore it remaineth apparant that the proper order of Melchisedeckes Priest-hood must be gathered not from any of those circumstances specified by the Apostle but out of the very forme and manner of sacrificing which is as it were the correlatiue of a Priest and his proper function as the Apostle in the same Epistle defineth Cap. 5. vers 1. where he saith That euery high Priest is appointed to offer Sacrifices for sinnes Nowe that both the order of Melchisedecke consisted in sacrificing bread and wine and that therein Christ resembled him let the learnedst and most holy ancient Fathers no partial judges betweene vs for they knewe neither of vs be our arbitrators Let vs heare first that famous Martyr S. Cyprian vvho vpon those vvordes Thou art a Priest for euer according vnto the order of Melchisedecke Lib. 2. epist 3. writeth thus Which order surely is this proceeding of that Sacrifice and thence descending that Melchisedecke was a Priest of the most high God that he offered bread and wine that he blessed Abraham For who is rather a Priest of the most high then our Lord Iesus Christ that offered Sacrifice to God the Father and did offer the same that Melchisedecke had offered that is bread and wine to wit his body and bloud The same he repeateth in his treatise of our Lordes supper De coena Domini saying That Sacraments signified by Melchisedecke did then appeare when our high Priest brought forth bread and wine and said This is my body Can any thing be more plaine Epist 126 ad Euag. S. Hierome following the sentence of the most ancient Doctors Iereneus Hippolitus Eusebius Apollinaris and Eustathius defineth the order of Melchisedecke to consist properly in this that he offered not bloudy sacrifices of beasts as Aaron did but in single bread and wine being a cleane and pure Sacrifice did prefigure and dedicate the Sacrament of Christ The same doth he teach vpon the twenty six Chapter of S. Mathewe S. Augustine in diuers passages of his most learned workes doth confirme the same most plainely I will cite one In the old Testament there was a Sacrifice after the order of Aaron afterward Christ of his body and bloud ordained a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedecke He that desireth to see more of this point let him reade Theodorete Arnobius Psal 109. In cap. 7. 10. Cassiodorus and all ancient commentaries vpon that verse of the Psalme Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Malchisedecke and in like sort those who haue written vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes and he shall find it to be the generall resolute opinion of all antiquity that Christ in his last supper did institute the Sacrifice of his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine according to the order of Melchisedecke But why then did not the Apostle treating of this resemblance betweene Christ and Melchisedecke make mention of this point of the Sacrifice The reason is in readinesse because it was not conuenient First it made not to his purpose because he doth proue that the order of Melchisedecke was more excellent then that of Aaron which could not be proued by the Sacrifice of Melchisedecke in bread and wine which were inferior vnto Beefes and Muttons the sacrifices of Aaron The second cause was the weakenesse of those Hebrewes faith who were not then sufficiently instructed in Christes owne person and in his Sacrifice on the Crosse and therefore incapable of his Sacraments and other mysteries thereupon depending which the Apostle himselfe forewarneth saying Hebr. 5. vers 11. Of Melchisedecke we haue great speach and inexplicable because you are become weake to heare Therefore very absurdly doe the Protestants argue here ab authoritate negatiuè as they speake in Schooles thus The Apostle made no mention of this point of resemblance therefore there is none such whereas he himselfe told them before that there were many profound points concerning Melchisedecke to be spoken off which he omitted because those Iewes vvere not as yet fit to heare them And in truth what could haue beene more out of season then to haue spoken to them of the Sacrifice of the Masse which is but a liuely resemblance of Christes death vvho were not then rightly informed of Christes death it selfe Epist 126 He spake saith S. Hierome to the Iewes and not to the faithfull to whome he might haue beene bold to vtter the Sacrament And thus much to this first euasion of M. PERKINS Nowe to the second That forsooth Melchisedecke did not sacrifice at all in bread and wine but only brought forth bread and wine to refresh Abraham and his souldiers and is called a Priest there not in regard of any Sacrifice but in consideration of his blessing of Abraham as the wordes teach saith he And he was a Priest of the most high and therefore he blessed him Reply He deserueth to be blessed with a cudgell that dareth thus peruert the word of God First he addeth to the text this vvord therefore againe where the point in the Hebrewe text is at the end of this sentence He was a Priest of the most high he remoueth it to the end of the next clause joyning that togither which is separated in the text Thirdly the reason is friuolous as M. PER. pointeth it For it can be no good reason vvhy Melchisedecke was a Priest for that he blessed Abraham for Abraham was a Priest as well as he and often offered Sacrifice as wel as Melchisedecke did Nowe it standeth
force of Christs wordes consecrated a part so that if they could be naturally separated they should be also seuered in that Sacrament as they might haue beene at Christes death when al the bloud was powred forth of his body but euer sithence Christes resurrection they are so joyned together that they can be no more seuered so that we graunt vnder one kinde of the Sacrament to be both Christes body and bloud which is not wrought by the wordes of the institution but by the necessary and inseparable conjunction of Christes body with his bloud euer since his glorious resurrection Finally M. PERKINS condemneth the administration of the Sacrament vnder one only kinde for the commandement of Christ is drinke ye al of this Math. 26. vers 27. and this commandement is rehearsed to the Church of Corinth in these wordes doe this as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me ver 25. and no power can reuerse this commandement because it was established by the soueraigne head of the Church Answere He beganne to set downe the institution of the Sacrament out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. here he leapeth backe to S. Mathewe because he fitteth him better in this point to vvhome I answere that Christ there spake only vnto his twelue Apostles vvho vvere afterward to administer that holy Sacrament to others and so some thing there-about is spoken to them vvhich may not be extended vnto lay-men but vnto Priestes only who were to succeed the Apostles in that ministery All men doe confesse these vvordes hoc facite doe ye this that is administer ye this Sacrament to be spoken only to the Apostles and in them to all of the Clergie alone euen so drinke ye al of this was in like manner spoken vnto them only as Clergiemen and therefore it is a commandement only to Priestes so to doe and as for others they may either drinke of it or not drinke of it as it shall be thought most expedient by their supreame Pastors and this may be gathered out of those very wordes drinke ye al of this For why should the Apostles haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cuppe then to eate of that foode vnles it were to signifie that whereas all men should be bound to receiue Christes body they should be further bound to receiue that holy cuppe also from which bond other men should stand free But to come to the purpose when they quarrell with vs for taking away from the people one kinde of the Sacrament we answere that vve doe them no hinderance thereby because vve giue them both the blessed body sacred bloud of Christ together vnder one kind yea whole Christ both God and man because they be so vnited that they cannot be separated But what can they answere when we complaine vpon them for that they haue defrauded the poore people of both body and bloud of Christ and in lieu of that most pretious banquet doe giue them a cold breake-fast of a morsel of bread a suppe of wine this is a most miserable lamentable exchange in deede our blessed Lord giue them grace to see it deliuer them speedily from it Here is the place to shew how the Protestāts doe not only bereaue their vnfortunate folowers of this most heauenly foode of Christes body but that they also depriue them of the manifold great graces of God deriued vnto vs in 5. other sacramēts but because I haue touched it in the Preface I wil omit it here and make an end with M. PER. assoone as I haue requited him by propounding briefly some arguments for the real presence as he hath done against it Let this be the first The state of the newe Testament which is more perfect then the old requireth accordingly Sacraments of greater grace and perfection then the old had they had Manna which for substance and taste farre passed our bread and in signification was equall to it Wherefore either vve must graunt our Sacrament of bread and wine to be inferiour to theirs of the old Testament or else acknowledge and confesse it to be the true body and bloud of Christ which doth surpasse theirs exceedingly as the body doth the shadowe This argument is confirmed by our Sauiour himselfe who in expresse tearmes doth preferre the meate Iohn 6. v. 48.49 that he was to giue to his Disciples before that of Manna which their Fathers had eaten in the wildernesse Secondly Christ promised to giue to his Disciples his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke and when they marueiled howe that could be he assured them Ibid. v. 55 that vnlesse they did eate his flesh they should not haue life in them and further certified them that his flesh was truly meate and his bloud truly drinke vvhence it is most plainely deduced that he who neuer faileth of his promise gaue them his true flesh to eate Thirdly Christ said in most cleare tearmes this is my body this is my bloud What could be more certaine or more perspicuous Fourthly These vvordes of the institution are recorded by three Euangelists and by S. Paul and they al vniformely deliuer it to be not the figure of Christs body but his body and that his body which should be giuen for our redemption on the crosse ergo it was that his true reall body vvhich vvas nailed to the crosse for vs. Fiftly S. Paul demandeth thus the Chalice of benediction which we doe blesse 1. Cor. 10. vers 16. is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread that we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord if then we doe in receiuing the blessed Sacrament participate Christes body and communicate his bloud they surely are there really present Againe S. Paul saith He that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh judgement to himselfe 1. Cor. 11. vers 28. not discerning the body of our Lord and before is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ ergo the body and bloud of Christ are there present or else why should a man incurre that guilt but by his vnworthy receiuing of it and by not discerning Christes body to be there present Besides all these plaine textes of holy Scripture in confirmation of the reall presence the very circumstances of it doe much fortifie our faith therein Lucae 22. vers 15. In S. Luke vve haue that our Sauiour marueillously desired desiderio desideraui to eate that this last banquet vvith his Disciples S. Iohn addeth that whereas he loued his that were in the world Ioh. 13. v. 1. 3◠vnto the end he loued them and knowing that the Father gaue al thinges into his handes and that he came from God and goeth to God c. What coherence I say with this exceeding loue and infinit power of Christ to be shewed in his last supper if he hath left only bread and vvine to be taken in remembrance of him any meane man might easily haue done as much and Helias departing from his Disciple Heliseus did much more for he left a more noble remembrance of himselfe behind him to wit his cloake and double spirit But Christ bequeathing vs his true natural body to be the foode of our soules and comfort of our hartes as we beleeue teach he then in deede shewed his infinit power and loue towardes vs and that he came from God and as God bestowed an inestimable gift vpon vs such a one as neuer any other did or could possibly doe Moreouer the institution of a religious rite and ceremony to be vsed in the whole Church vnto the worldes end and to be receiued of all Christian people of age and discretion did necessarily require that it should be done in most certaine and cleare tearmes otherwise there might arise great strife and contention about it and be the ruine of thousandes And specially great perspicuity is required in this holy Sacrament where the mistaking of it must needes breede either Idolatry if vve vvorshippe for Christ that which is not Christ or impiety if on the other side we should not giue to it being Christ God and man diuine honour Wherefore no good Christian may thinke but that our prouident Sauiour Christ IESVS vvho very vvell foresawe all these inconueniences did deliuer it in such tearmes as he would haue to be taken properly and not be construed at mens pleasures figuratiuely Adde that he spake those wordes to the twelue Apostles only vvhome he vvas accustomed to instruct plainely and not in parable darkely and who were wont also to aske for the interpretation of obscure speaches vvho here made no question about this high mistery because they were sufficiently forewarned Ioh. 6. that they should eate Christes flesh and that his body was truly meate and therefore beleeued Christes wordes without further question Finally this holy Sacrament is a principall part of the newe Testament and one of the chiefest legacies by Christ bequeathed vnto vs Christians Nowe what lawe or conscience will permit that any legacy should be interpreted figuratiuely to vvit that for a house goodes or landes bequeathed and giuen by last vvill and testament you should vnderstand a figure of a house to be giuen or the signification and representation of some goodes or landes If this be most absurd and ridiculous in the testament of any ordinary man about temporall goodes howe much more pernitious and intollerable is it to suffer this in the eternall Testament of the Sonne of God and that in his diuine and inestimable treasures And thus at length by the grace of God I come to the end of this booke wherein good Christian reader if thou finde any thing that may confirme thee in the true Catholike faith or further thy knowledge therein giue God the Father of lightes from whome all good giftes descend the whole praise If any thing be amisse impute it partly to my slender skill ouersight or negligence and partly to the vvant of a conuenient resting-place commodity of bookes and conference all vvhich these times of persecution doe depriue vs of To the most blessed and holy Trinity be al honour and glory both nowe and for euer AMEN FINIS
our names vvhich is also good and true to vvit That the Apostle there speaketh of the bloudy Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse which was but once offered which letteth not but that the same his body may be vnder the formes of bread and wine sacrificed often by the Ministery of Priestes in the Masse Yes but it doth saith M. PER. For the Authour of the Epistle to the Hebrewes he will not for twenty pound say it was S. Paul taketh it for graunted that the Sacrifice of Christ is only one and that a bloudy Sacrifice for he saith Christ doth not offer himselfe often Hebr. 9. as the high Priestes did c. All this is true that Christ suffered but once vpon the Crosse but it is nothing against the former answere in which it is not said that Christ offered himselfe twise vpon the Crosse but that the same his body is daylie by the Ministery of Priestes offered vnbloudily vnder the formes of bread and wine vpon the Altar which being so plaine and sensible a man might meruaile at their palpable grossenesse if they cannot conceiue it I thinke rather that they vnderstand it well enough but not knowing what reasonably to reply against it doe make as though they vnderstood it not Whereupon this man not hauing said one vvord to the purpose against the answere yet concludeth as though he had confuted all that we haue in holy Scripture for this Sacrifice That the Scriptures forsooth neuer knewe the twofold manner of sacrificing Christ and then goeth on triumphing That euery distinction in diuinity not founded in the written word is but a forgery of mans braine Had he not need of a messe of good broath to coole his hotte hasty braine that thus runneth away with a supposed victory before he hath strooken any one good stroke but he saith further cleane besides the drift of his former argument as his manner is sometime to droppe downe a sentence by the way Hebr. 9. vers 22. which seemeth to make for him That without shedding of bloud there is no remission of sinnes meaning belike that if our Sacrifice be vnbloudy then it doth not remit sinne Answere If no remission of sinne be obtayned nowe without shedding of bloud howe haue they remission of their sinnes by only faith vvhat doth their faith drawe bloud of them The direct answere is apparant in the Apostles vvordes vvho saith That all thinges almost according to the lawe are cleansed with bloud and that there was no remission of sinnes in the lawe of Moyses without shedding of bloud What a shamefull abusing of a text vvas this to apply that to vs in the state of the newe Testament vvhich vvas plainely spoken of the state of the old Testament and of Moyses lawe His second reason The Romish Church holdeth that the Sacrifice in the Lordes supper is all one for substance with the Sacrifice offered on the Crosse if that be so then the Sacrifice in the Eucharist must either be a continuance of the Sacrifice begunne on the Crosse or else an alternation or repetition of it Let them choose of these twaine which they will If they say it is a continuance of it then they make the Priest to bring to perfection that which Christ begunne If they say it is a repetition thus also they make it imperfect For to repeate a thing often argueth that at once it was not sufficient which is the reason of the holy Ghost to proue the sacrifices of the old Testament to be imperfect I answere that vvhen an argument consisteth of diuision then if any part or member of the diuision be omitted the argument is nought worth as the learned knowe so fareth it in this fallacy For the Sacrifice of the Masse is neither a continuance of the Sacrifice on the Crosse not for M. PER. friuolous reason for not all thinges are bettered but many made much vvorse by continuance but because the one is not immediately lincked with the other there going much time betweene them Neither is it to speake properly a repetition of the Sacrifice of the Crosse because that was bloudy this vnbloudy that offered by Christ in his owne person this by the ministery of a Priest that on the Crosse this on the Altar that to pay the generall ransome and to purchase the redemption of all mankind this to apply the vertue of that vnto particuler men So that although there be in both these Sacrifices the same body and bloud of Christ in substance yet the manner meanes and end of them being so different the one cannot conueniently be called the repetion of the other but the Sacrifice of the Masse is a liuely representation of the Sacrifice on the Crosse and the application of the vertue of it to vs. This is the third member of the diuision either not knowne or concealed by M. PER. the better to colour and cloake the deceite of his second false argument Nowe to the third The third reason A reall and outward Sacrifice in a Sacrament is against the nature of a Sacrament and specially the supper of the Lord for one of the endes thereof is to keepe in memory the Sacrifice of Christ Nowe euery remembrance must be of a thing absent past and done and if Christ be daylie really sacrificed the Sacrament is not a fit memoriall of his Sacrifice Answere Christes Sacrifice offered on the Crosse is long sithence past and done and therefore absent wherefore it may well haue a memoriall and there can be no other so liuely representation of it as to haue the same body yet in another manner set before our eyes as hath beene more then once already declared which may serue to answere the later proposition M. PERKINS confirmeth his former thus The principall end of a Sacrament is that God may giue and we receiue Christ and his benefits Nowe in a reall sacrifice God doth not giue Christ to vs but the Priest offereth vp Christ to God therefore one thing cannot be both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice Answere One and the same thing may well be both but in diuers respects It is a Sacrifice in that it is an holy Oblation of a sensible thing vnto God by consuming of it in testification of his Soueraignity It is a Sacrament as it is a visible signe of an inuisible grace bestowed then vpon the receiuer So was the Paschall lambe first sacrificed to God as shall be proued hereafter and after eaten in a Sacrament In like manner the holy body and bloud of Christ are vnder the visible formes of bread and wine offered vp first to God by the sacred action of consecration and after broken and eaten in recognizance of his supreame dominion ouer all creatures which is a Sacrifice most properly taken Againe it is instituted by Christ to signifie and worke the spiritual nuriture of our soules by receiuing of it and so it is a Sacrament M. PERKINS fourth reason The holy Ghost maketh a difference Hebr.