harts to them and so representing them to our mindes may reuerence and vvorship them as spiritually present according to that of S. Paul I absent in body but present in spirit otherwise 1. Cor. 5. vers 3. vve Christians should not vvhiles we liued on earth adore the humanity of our Sauiour Christ IESVS because he touching his humanity is absent from vs which were most absurd and so is therefore M. PERKINS reason out of vvhich it would necessarily followe And because M. PER. confoundeth this point of worshipping of Saints with that of inuocation and hudleth them together nowe talking of the one then of the other besides al good methode and order and consequently maketh two Chapters of the same matter I will here in this former Chapter only treate of the worshipping of Saints drawing what M. PERKINS saith of this subject into this Chapter and referre the matter to inuocation vnto the next His second reason then against worshipping of Saints may be that which maketh the third in the 14. Chapter Christ refused so much as to bowe the knee vnto Satan vpon this ground because it is written thou shalt worshippe the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue To this S. Augustine hath answered 1200. yeares agoe vpon those vvordes of Genesis Abraham adored or worshipped the people of the land Cap. 23. Quaest 61. super Genesiâ— It may be demanded saith he howe it is written thou shalt adore thy Lord God and him only shalt thou serue when as Abraham did so honour that kinde of people that he did adore them but we must obserue that in the same Commandement it is not said thou shalt only adore thy Lord thy God as it is said him only shalt thou serue which in Greeke is Latréysis for such seruice is due to God only So that in briefe this most learned Father answereth our Protestants that the seruice proper to God called Latria is to be giuen to none but to God Marry that vvorship and adoration expressed in the former part of that sentence may be giuen to others and that Abraham gaue it very well vnto the people of Heth. Nowe our Sauiour had great reason not to yeeld so much as one jote of that meaner worship to Satan because he excelled him in nothing but small reason haue our Protestants to reason thus as in effect M. PER. doth Christ would not vvorship the Deuill therefore Christians may not worship Saints as though Saints were no more to be worshipped then the Deuill a holy comparison and vvell worthy a hell-hound But he goeth forward and addeth Act. 10. that Peter would not suffer Cornelius so much as to kneele to him though saith he Cornelius intended not to honour him as God therefore neither Saint nor Angell is to be honoured so much as with the bowing of the knee if it carry but the least signification of diuine honor Answere Doe you marke vvhat vvarre this man is at vvith himselfe first he saith that Cornelius intended not to adore Peter as God after headdeth that kneeling if it carry but the signification of Godly honour is not to be given to Saints which conclusion of his we grant to vvit that no inward or outward vvorship if it proceede from a hart meaning to exhibite diuine honour is to be giuen vnto any other then to God and therefore did I declare before that by the externall kinde of worshipping we cannot discerne whether the party meane to offer diuine religious or ciuill honour to him whome he honoureth but that is to be knowne of the party himselfe or by conjecture to be otherwise collected To the purpose if Cornelius meant to adore S. Peter as some petty God as S. Hierome gathereth out of the text Lib. contra Vigil which hath that he did adore S. Peter falling at his feete and S. Peter lifting him vp said arise my selfe also am a man then is there nothing against vs who doe also forbidde all men to adore and giue Godly honour vnto any Saint or Angell If it were a lesser kinde of religious worship which was due to Saints then we say with S. Chrysostome vpon this place that S. Peter out of his humility and consideration of humane frailty refused that honour albeit it vvere due vnto his excellent piety and singular authority The like answere is to be giuen vnto that place of the Apocalipse Cap. 19. vers 10. vvhere the Angell forbadde S. Iohn to adore him vvhich M. PER. had forgot to alleage For either S. Iohn tooke the Angell to be God as he spake in the person of God and so by mistaking the person offered him diuine honour Quaest 61 â—n Genes Greg. lib. 27. Moral c. 11. Bed Anselm alij in illum locum as S. Augustine supposeth and vvas justly reprehended by the Angell and instructed that he vvas not God but his fellowe seruant or as many others ancient and learned Authours thinke S. Iohn as one that very well knewe what he had to doe did dutifully worship such an heauenly creature as Gods Ambassadour to him for otherwise he was not so dull or forgetfull as to haue the * Cap. 22. vers 8. second time fallen into the same fault Neither did the Angell reprehend him but after a most curteous manner willed S. Iohn not to doe him that honour because he knewe well howe dearely beloued S. Iohn was vnto our Sauiour and that perhaps S. Iohn was to haue a higher seate in heauen then he had vvherefore he vvould not take that honour of so great a personage To these reasons of M. PER. vve may adde some fewe scraps of authorities which he hath swept together De vera relig 53. Augustine we honour the Saints with charity and not by seruitude neither doe we erect Churches to them And they are to be honoured for imitation but not to be adored with religion Answere Marke that in both the sentences he teacheth vs plainly to honour and worshippe the Saints as we doe honour the Saints they are to be honoured Marry he addeth as we also teach after him that no diuine and Godly honour be giuen them vvhich he describeth in those wordes with seruitude and with religion The Saints saith he euen here as in many other places of his learned vvorkes are to be vvorshipped but not vvith such worshippe as seruants or creatures owe to their soueraigne Lord or creator they are to be honoured but not with religion being taken precisely for the chiefe act of religion which concerneth only the honor and worshippe of God Churches are not to be builded to Saints nor Altars erected to them nor Sacrifice offered to them All this we graunt in such sort as S. Augustine himselfe doth declare that is these diuine offices are to be performed to no other then to God alone yet all may be done in the memory and to the honour of Saints Let this one place of S. Augustine serue the turne where
serm 66. in Cant. Euen so doe S. Bede and S. Bernard with diuers others expound those wordes of our blessed Sauiour The third text of the newe Testament shall be taken out of S. Paul to the Corinthians vvhere he by a similitude of building declareth that some men vpon the only sound foundation IESVS Christ 1. Cor. 3. doe build gold siluer and pretious stones that is very excellent and perfect workes others doe build vpon the same foundation wood hay and stubble that is imperfect and many vaine trifling workes He addeth that the day of our Lord which shall be reuealed in fire shal proue the workes of the afore-said builders and they who haue built gold siluer and pretious stones because their workes will abide the proofe of fire shall receiue their reward but because the other sort of builders workes cannot resist the fire but will burne they shall suffer detriment but shall be saued yet so as by fire Hence we gather that after the triall of Gods judgement some men who are found guilty of lighter faults shall be saued because they keept the foundation notwithstanding they shall suffer detriment and passe through the fire of Purgatory as a man that hath an halfe-timber house couered with thetch set on fire he being in the middest of it must passe through the flames of fire to escape and saue his life The Protestants say that it is the fire of tribulation in this life that doth try our workes and that through it only lighter faults are purged We reply first that tribulation of this life doth not commonly discerne and try good mens workes from the badde because very often good men are more afflicted in this world then the badde Againe it is said in the text that at the day of our Lord this tryall shall be made vvhich day of our Lord being expressed vvith the Greeke article as here it is ordinarily in Scripture signifieth the day of his judgement so that by the very circumstances of the text it is very plaine that the Apostle S. Paul deliuered the doctrine of Purgatory which yet is made more assured by the vniuersall consent of the holy Fathers who take this place to proue Purgatory See Origen homil 6. in Exodum S. Basil saith He threatneth not vtter ruine and destruction In cap. 9. Esay but signifieth a cleansing according vnto the Apostles sentence but he shall be saued yet so as by fire Theodorete This same fire we beleeue to be the fire of Purgatory In scholijs Gr. in 1. Cor. 3. In psal 36 in which the soules of the departed are tryed and purged as gold is in the furnace Oecumenius and Anselmus vpon the same place be of the same judgement S. Ambrose vpon those wordes Sinners haue drawne their swordes saith though our Lord will saue his yet so they shall be saued as by fire and albeit they shall not be consumed with fire yet they shall be burnt S. Hierome in 4. cap. Amos. S. Augustine in almost twenty places expoundeth this text after the same manner Heare this one taken out of his Commentary vpon the 37. Psalme O Lord reproue me not in thy indignation that I goe not to hell neither correct me in thy wrath but purge me in this life and make me such a one that shall haue no neede of that purging fire prepared for them who shall be saued yet so as by fire And why so but because here they doe build vpon the foundation wood hay and stubble if they did build gold siluer and pretious stones they should be safe from both fires not only from that euerlasting which is to punish the wicked euerlastingly but from that also which shall correct them who shall be saued by fire for it is said he shall be saued yet so as by fire And because he shall be saued that fire is contemned yea truly though they shall be saued yet that fire is more grieuous then whatsoeuer a man can suffer in this life These fewe testimonies of the most approued Doctors may suffice to assure vs that the Apostles speeches are to be taken of a purging fire prepared after this life for them that vpon their true faith in Christ doe build through the frailty of our nature many idle odde and vaine workes The last text of holy Scripture shall be this taken out of S. Iohn 1. Epist 5. vers 16. He that knoweth his brother to sinne a sinne not vnto death let him aske and life shall be giuen him there is a sinne to death for that I say not that any man aske Hence I reason thus a sinne to death must in this place needs be taken for sinne wherein a man dyeth for which no man can pray because that he vvho dyeth in deadly sinne shall neuer afterward be pardoned wherefore a sinne not vnto death is a sinne of vvhich a man repenteth him before his death and for such a one doth S. Iohn exhort vs to pray therefore the prayer which he speaketh of when he biddeth vs not pray being prayer for the dead the other prayer also must be prayer for the departed and so doth he will vs to pray for such men departed that dyed not in deadly sinne but with repentance The Caluinists say That S. Iohn speaketh rather of Apostataes and some such like haynous offendors for whome yet aliue he would not haue vs to pray But this is very vvicked doctrine for vve may pray euen for Turkes and Iewes and the most sinnefull persons that liue whiles they liue and haue time to repent for vvhat knowe vve whether God vvill take them to mercy or no and S. Paul saith expresly that he would haue vs to pray for all persons 1. Tim. 2. vers 1. De correct gratia cap. 12. whiles they liue Much more conuenient therefore is that exposition before rehearsed which is taken out of S. Augustine who affirmeth That a sinne to death is to leaue faith working by charity euen till death To these arguments selected out of holy Scripture I will joyne another of no smaller moment with vs Catholikes which is drawne from Apostolicall tradition and the practise of the vniuersall Church in her primitiue purity which hath vsed alwayes to pray for the dead Let vs heare two or three substantiall vvitnesses speake in this matter S. Chrysostome that most renowmed Patriarke of Constantinople shall be the first vvho saith Hom. 69. ad populū That it was not without good cause ordayned and decreed by the Apostles that in the dreadfull mysteries there be made a commemoration of the dead For they did knowe that they should receiue thereby great profit and much commodity S. Augustine as famous for his learning and sincerity in the Latin Church as the other was in the Greeke De verbis Apostoli serm 34. saith to this point thus It is not to be doubted but that the dead are holpen by the prayers of holy Church and by the
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
1. the newe to liberty And there they were as seruants we as heires they seruing vnder the weake and poore elements of this world we hauing the spirit of sonnes c. And the lawe had a shadowe of the thinges to come not the very Image as we haue so that nothing could be further from the Apostles meaning then to make the Iewes equall in Sacraments and graces with the Corinthians who were Christians But his intention was as may be easily seene by that vvhich goeth before and followeth to warne the Corinthians to chastice their bodies as he himselfe did as he saith in the end of the Chapter going before and to flie from all vice and not to rely only vpon the extraordinary gifts of God bestowed vpon them For saith he the ancient Israelites all were partakers of many singuler fauours of God as of the eating of Manna of drinking of the Rocke c. And yet because many of them committed fornication and liued wickedly God was not pleased vvith all of them Obserue also that not one thing there mentioned by the Apostle was a Sacramēt among the Iewes and therefore are they vnskilfully compared with our Sacraments For a Sacrament is a set ceremony to be vsed ordinarily in the vvorship of God but their passing through the red Sea was but once therefore no set ceremony their eating of Manna and drinking of the Rocke were but naturall refections to them yea their cattle did drinke of the Rocke aswell as their Masters vvhich thinges though they did prefigure our Sacraments yet were no Sacraments at all and much lesse any thing in vertue comparable to our Sacraments M. PERKINS sixt reason The Sabbaoth was made for man and not man for the Sabbaoth so it may be said that the Sacrament was made for man and not man for the Sacrament and therefore man is more excellent then the Sacrament the end being alwaies better then the thing ordained to the end but if Christes body be really in the Sacrament then is not man more excellent then it ergo Ans By the like argumēt you may as wel proue that the Sonne of God is not nor euer shal be incarnate for the redemption of man or els which is most absurd that man is better then God because for vs men for our saluation Christ descended from heauen was borne of the V. Mary The end then being alwaies better then the thing ordained to the end as M. P. argueth either Christ is not yet borne to redeme man or els man is better then Christ See what goodly arguments they vse to deceiue the simple withal the direct answere is that the maine principall end of Christs incarnation passion and reall presence in the Sacrament is the glory of Gods justice wisdome and goodnesse and of his owne mercy and bounty which are more excellent then Christes incarnation and reall presence mans redemption spirituall feeding and saluation are but secondary endes which are farre inferior vnto our most louing redeemers mercy kindnesse and charity through which he hath procured it M. PER. confirmeth this reason with that which is nothing like it saying Euer◠beleeuer in the supper of the Lord receiueth whole Christ God man though not the God-head vvhich wordes imply a manifest contradiction For howe can God or whole Christ be receiued without the God-head but by carnall eating we receiue not wholy Christ but only a part of the man-hood and therefore in the Sacrament there is no carnall eating nor reall presence Answ We Catholikes doe eate al Christes body wholy For we part not his body but beleeue that it is whole in euery cōsecrated Host Moreouer because his blessed body is a perfect liuing body vve knowe also that it hath bloud in it as other bodies haue and is yet further joyned vvith his most holy soule and so in receiuing his body we receiue all his man-hood both body soule Ouer and besides his God-head being lincked and joyned inseperably with his man-hood whole Christ both God and man is alwaies receiued together so that euery lay Catholike communicating but vnder one kind doth receiue Christs body bloud yea wholy both all his man-hood and God-head whereas in the Protestants naturall communion of bread and wine there is in deed neither body nor bloud not any peece of Christ but only in their owne phantasticall imagination so that those their ordinary out-cries are most fond The Papistes robbe you of the bloud being one part of the Sacrament Whereas Catholike Pastors giue to their flocke vnder one kinde both the body and bloud yea the very soule and God-head of Christ as you haue heard But the Protestantes are the great Theeues in deede vvho defraude their vnhappy followers of both body and bloud and giue them only sacramental signes and relations to feede their foolish phantasies Before I come vnto M. PER. last reason taken from authority I thinke it fittest to place here certaine other objections which out of place he hudleth vp together in the answere vnto our second argumēt where he saith first that Christes body could not be receiued in bodily manner before his passion We say contrarily that it could be as well before as after When he goeth about to proue his position he shall be answered Secondly That Christ was the Minister of this Sacrament and therefore if he had conuerted bread into his body he should haue taken his owne body into his handes vvhich we graunt following S. Augustine vpon these vvordes He was caried in his owne handes Conc. 1. in psal 31. Howe this may be vnderstood saith he of Dauid literally we finde not but we finde it in Christ for Christ was carried in his owne handes when deliuering his owne body he said this is my body For then he carried that his body in his owne handes M. PER. addeth yet further that it should also followe that Christ did eate his owne flesh for he did communicate also saith he to consecrate his last supper in his owne person This may be true though it haue no warrant in the word For S. Hierome a holy and most learned Doctor doth affirme it saying Epistol ad Hedibian quaest 2. our Lord Iesus is both the guest and the banquet he who doth eate and is eaten and no greater incōuenience is this in our opinion then in theirs For who more meete to receiue Christes blessed body then himselfe and vvhat more foolish then for Christ by faith to apply himselfe and his benefits vnto himselfe which as you haue heard before out of M. PERKINS is to receiue the Lordes supper like a good Protestant Lastly he auoucheth that if we eate Christes body really we must needes be man-slayers but he forgotte to proue it dixit abijt If other proofe fayled him he might haue fledde vnto the rusty opinion of the old farne Capernaites which is mentioned in the Gospell it selfe For they as S. Augustine expoundeth it thought that Christ would
that was left of the Pascal lambe doth gather the cleane contrary to wit that if we cannot vnderstand howe these thinges vvhich we see are turned into our Lordes body Into which mystery the Angels saith he with their cleare sight cannot pearce then must we cast into the fire of the holy Ghost these thinges perswading our selues that to be possible vnto the vertue of the holy Ghost which seemeth to vs impossible See vvhat fire that vvorthy authour speaketh of And in the sixt booke and two and twenty Chapter of the same vvorke he speaketh yet more plainely saying That he receiueth ignorantly who knoweth not the vertue and dignity of this Sacrament and who is ignorant that it is the body bloud of Christ in truth so that old Hesichius condemneth them of ignorance for not beeleuing Christes body to be truly in the Sacrament Secondly saith M. PERK by the sacramental vnion of the bread wine with the body and bloud of Christ they vsed to confirme the personall vnion of the man-hood of Christ with the God-head against heretikes Let vs admit this to be true for then it followeth necessarily against himselfe that the true body of Christ is really present in the blessed Sacrament as his true Dialog 2 God-head and man-hood were really vnited in one person But if Theodoret whome he quoteth be well read you shall finde that they against whome he writeth objected this common doctrine of the Church that bread is turned into the body of Christ to proue that the man-hood of Christ was turned into the God-head and consequently that there were not two natures in Christ but one And albeit the consequent was Hereticall yet the antecedent was Catholike good and not denyed of Theodoret but that there was a reall conuersion of bread into the true body of Christ and therefore did other Heretikes who denied our Sauiour to haue true flesh deny also consequently the truth of the blessed Sacrament as the same Dialog 3 Theodoret doth witnesse out of S. Ignatius in these wordes They admit not the Eucharist and Sacrifice because they doe not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour which was crucified for vs and which the Father of his benignity raysed againe Libr. 17. cap. 25. M. PERKINS further objecteth that Nicephorus reporteth that young children were sent for from the scoole to eate that which remayned of the Sacrament which saith he was a signe that they thought it not to be Christes body Not so for he so reporteth it that any man may see that he beleeued it to be the very body of Christ For first he saith that those children were pure and incorrupt not falne from their state of innocencie Secondly that they were fasting Thirdly he affirmeth in plaine tearmes that they receiued the immaculate body of IESVS Christ God and Man Finally he proueth it so to be and that by miracle For one of the children who had receiued that morning being by his father a malitious Iewe afterwardes cast into a glasiers furnace most fiery hot and shut in there for three daies space was miraculously preserued aliue and found there without any hurt at all by vertue of the blessed Sacrament which he had receiued What strange blindnes then was this to alleadge this against the reall presence which so admirably doth confirme it We knowe that in certaine places some vsed to giue the blessed Sacrament vnto children yea vnto sucking babes being also dipped in the chalice which rather proueth our opinion For they thought it necessary for all that would be saued to receiue this holy Sacrament Nowe these infants could haue no such act of faith as the Protestants doctrine requireth to make their communion therefore at that time they held the same kinde of reall presence which we doe which is made by lawfull consecration of the Priest and not by the faith of the receiuer And that you may perceiue that I speake not only by ghesse take the profession of one of those authors whome M. PER. alleageth Amalarius by name who saith in the worke cited by M. PER. Lib. 3. de Eccl. offic cap. 24. Here we beleeue the nature of pure bread and wine mixed with water to be conuerted into a nature indued with reason to wit into the nature of the body and bloud of Christ can any thing be more plaine against them Finally M. PER. collecteth out of one Nicholas Cabasilas his exposition of these wordes of the Masse Sursum corda lift vp your harts that the people being willed by the Priest to lift vp their thoughts from the earth and to thinke on thinges aboue Christ is not really present with them but only on the right hand of his Father To which we answere that when those wordes were spoken Christes body in deed is not there really present for they are in the preface before the Canon and consecration but is made present afterwardes by the wordes of consecration Secondly that he might notwithstanding those wordes were spoken after the consecration as they be before be there present For being admonished to call our mindes and harts from earthly thinges and to lift them vp to consider heauenly what more diuine and heauenly subject can we meditate vpon then our Sauiour Iesus Christ there present and the holy misteries of his incarnation and passion there represented and the infinite mercies and goodnesse of God powred out on vs through him and by meanes of this holy Sacrifice and thus much in effect doth the answere vnto those wordes signifie We lift vp our harts vnto our Lord to attend vpon him at this time specially in these his holy misteries Obserue that we are not bidden to lift vp our eyes to beholde the sunne or to contemplate the starres in the skie and so you may see that the Protestants ignorance in the wordes of the holy Masse doth litle auaile them or helpe their bad cause Thus at length we are come to an end of M. PERKINS reasons against vs nowe to those that he maketh for the Catholike party which are both fewe in number and very barely propounded but by the helpe of God I will doe my endeauour to supply his negligence therein The first is taken out of these wordes of our Sauiour Ioh. 6. vers 51. The bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world Here is a plaine promise made by Christ Iesus that faileth not of his word of giuing vs his flesh to eate and that very flesh which on the Crosse was to be giuen for the redemption of the vvorld these vvordes be so euident that they who heard them made no doubt of the sence of them but were astonished at it and said Howe can this man giue vs his flesh to eate they doubted not but that Christ had said that he vvould giue them his flesh to eate his speaches were so plaine for it but yet beleeued they not that he could
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
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
an other auailable to entreate and deserue that the vertue of the former generall may be deriued vnto men in particuler because although those sinnes and iniquities were vnto Christ pardoned in general yet at his death or by it only those sinnes were not remitted and pardoned vnto any man in particuler so that it was meete and requisite that besides the Sacrifice to purchase that generall redemption there should be an other to apply the vertue of it in particuler And thus much of this argument not that it deserued as it was proposed nakedly by M. PER. any more then a flat deniall but to explicate this difficulty and to interprete some obscure places of S. Paul omitted by M. PERKINS M. PER. fift reason If the Priest doe offer to God Christes reall body and bloud for the pardon of our sinnes then man is become a mediator betweene God and Christ This illation is too too ridiculous Is he Christes mediator that asketh forgiuenes of sinnes for Christes sake then are al Christians mediators betweene God and Christ for we all present vnto God Christs passion and beseech him for the meritte thereof to pardon vs our sinnes I hope that we may both lawfully pray vnto God and also imploy our best endeauours that Christ may be truly knowne rightly honoured and serued of all men without incroaching vpon Christs mediation These be seruices we owe vnto Christ and the bounden duties of good Christians wherein it hath pleased him to imploy vs as his seruantes and ministers not as his mediators But Master PERKINS addeth that vve request in the Cannon of the Masse That God will accept our gifts and offerings namely Christ himselfe offered as he did the Sacrifices of Abell and Noe he would haue said Abraham for Noe is not there mentioned True in the sence there following not that this Sacrifice of Christes body is not a thousand times more gratefull vnto him then was the Sacrifices of the best men but that this Sacrifice which is so acceptable of it selfe may be vnto all the partakers of it cause of all heauenly grace and benediction and that also through the same Christ our Lord as it there followeth in the Canon His sixt and last reason Is the judgement of the ancient Church which is the feeblest of al the rest for that he hath not one place which maketh not flat against himselfe Conc. Tol. 12. cap. 5. heare and then judge First saith he A Councell held at Toledo in Spaine hath these wordes Relation is made vnto vs that certaine Priests doe not so many times receiue the grace of the holy communion as they offer Sacrifice but in one day if they offer many Sacrifices to God they suspend themselues from the Communion Is not this a fit testimony to proue that there is no Sacrifice of the Masse whereas it teacheth the quite contrary to wit that there were at that time Priests that did offer Sacrifice daily but were complained on and reproued for that they did not themselues communicate of euery Sacrifice which they offered M. PER. biddeth vs marke that the Sacrifice then was but a kinde of seruice because the Priest did not communicate But why did not he marke that they were therefore reprehended as he well deserueth to be for grounding his argument vpon some simple Priests abuse or ignorance Mileuit cap. 12. Secondly he saith That in an other Councell the name of Masse is put for a forme of prayer It hath pleased vs that prayer suppliations and Masses which shall be allowed in the Councell be vsed Answ Very good It is indeed that forme of prayer which the Catholike Church hath alwayes vsed set downe in the Missals or Masse-bookes so that the Councell by him alleadged doth allowe of Masse Priests and Sacrifice But saith he very profoundly Masses be compounded but the Sacrifice propitiatory of the body and bloud of Christ admitteth no composition This is so deepe and profound an obseruation of his that I can scarce conjecture what he meaneth The Masse indeed is a prayer composed of many parts so I weene be all longer prayers but in what sence can that be true that the Sacrifice of Christ admitteth no composition If he meane the passion of Christ on the Crosse it was a bundell of Mirhe and heape of sorrowes shames and paines tyed together and laid vpon the most innocent Lambe sweet IESVS If he signifie their Lordes supper doth it not consist of diuers partes and hath it not many compositions in it let the good man then explicate himselfe better that one may ghesse at his meaning and then he shall be answered more particulerly But Abbot Paschasius shall mende all hee should by his Title of Abbot seeme rather likely to marre all he saith Because we sinne daylie L. de corpore sanguine Christi Christ is sacrificed for vs mystically and his passion is giuen vs in mistery Very good in the mistery of the Masse Christ is sacrificed for vs not as he was on the Crosse bloudily but in mistery that is vnder the formes of bread and wine which may serue to answere al that he citeth out of Paschasius specially considering that in that whole treatise and one or two other of the same Authour his principall butte and marke is to proue the reall presence and Sacrifice In the first Chapter of the booke cited by M. PER. he hath these wordes Our Lord hath done all thinges in heauen and earth as he will himselfe and because it hath so pleased him though the figure of bread and wine be here that is in the Sacrament notwithstanding it is to be beleeued that after consecration there is nothing else but the flesh and bloud of Christ vvhich he also expresly proueth there at large And in an other treatise of the same argument he hath these among many such like wordes Christ when he gaue his Disciples bread and broke it did not say this is a figure of my body nor in this mistery there is a certaine vertue of it but he said without dissimulation This is my body and therefore it is that which he said it was and not that which men imagine it to be Did I not tell you that this Abbot vvas like to helpe M. PER. but a litle Thus at length we are come to the end of M. PER. reasons in fauour of their cause let vs heare what he produceth for the Catholike party The first argument Christ was a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedecke but Melchisedeckes order was to Sacrifice in bread and wine Psal 109. ad Hebr. 5. 7. therefore Christ did offer vp Sacrifice in formes of bread and wine at his last supper And what Christ then did that did he ordaine to be done to the worlds end by the Apostles their successors therefore there is now in the true Church a true and proper Sacrifice offered in our Lordes supper To seperate that which is certaine
well to declare why Melchisedecke brought forth bread and wine because he was a Priest that vsed to Sacrifice in that kinde and to honour and thanke God for that victory he either did then presently or before had sacrificed it and as such sanctified foode made a present vnto Abraham of it who needed not either for himselfe or for his souldiers any victuals because he retourned loaden vvith the spoile of foure Kinges wherefore the bread and wine that he brought forth was a Sacrifice and not common meate And if further proofe needed this is sufficiently confirmed by the Fathers already cited who all teach that bread and wine brought forth then by him were Melchisedecke his Sacrifice a figure of ours I will yet adde one more out of that most ancient Patriarke Clement of Alexandria L. 4. strom versus finem who saith Melchisedecke King of Salem Priest of the most high God gaue bread and wine being a sanctified foode in figure of the Eucharist The Protestants feeling themselues wonderfully pinched and wringed with this example of Melchisedecke assay yet to escape from it a third way For saith M. PER. be it graunted that Melchisedecke offered bread and wine and that it was also a figure of the Lordes supper yet should bread and wine he absurd tipes of no bread nor wine but of the bare formes of bread and wine Reply The thing prefigured must be more excellent then the figure as the body surpasseth farre the shadowe so albeit the figure vvere but bread and wine yet the thing prefigured is the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine sacrificed in an vnbloudy manner as bread and wine are sacrificed without shâ—dding bloud and therein principally consisteth the resemblance And thus much of our first argument Nowe to the second The Paschall lambe was first sacrificed vp by the Master of the family and then afterward eaten as a Sacrament but the Eucharist succeedeth in roome of that as the verity doth to the figure therefore it is first sacrificed before it be receiued M. PER. first denyeth the Paschall lambe to haue beene sacrificed but yeeldeth no reason of his deniall and therefore might without any further adoe be rejected Yet fore-seing that we might easily proue it to be sacrificed by expresse Scripture for Christ saith to his Disciples Mar. 14. vers 12. Exod. 12. vers 6. Goe and prepare a place to sacrifice the passe-ouer or Paschall lambe also in Exodus Yee shall sacrifice the lambe the foure-tenth day of the Moneth and in many other places to this hath he nought els to say but that Sacrifice in those places is taken improperly for to kill only His reason is because that in one place of Scripture the word Sacrifice is taken saith he for to kill but in more then one hundreth it is taken otherwayes and that properly Why then should we not take it there as it doth vsually and properly signifie rather then improperly not any reason doth he render for it at all but because it made so plaine against him he must needes shift it off so wel as he could But what if in the very place where he saith it is taken for to kill only and not for to Sacrifice he be also deceiued then hath he no colour to say that in any place it is taken otherwise Surely the reason that he alleageth for it is very insufficient For by Iacobs bretheren inuited to his feast may be vnderstood according to the Hebrewe phrase men of his owne religion who might well come to his Sacrifice wherefore S. Paul calleth the Romans Corinthians and men of all nations that were Christians his bretheren But if the Paschall lambe were not properly sacrificed howe could S. Paul resemble Christ crucified vnto the Paschall Sacrificed saying 1. Cor. 5. vers 7. Dialog cuÌ„ Triph. Our Paschall lambe Christ is sacrificed Surely that famous and ancient Martyr Iustine vvho vvas best acquainted vvith the rites of that people himselfe being bredde and brought vp among them saith most plainely That the killing of the Paschall lambe among the Iewes was a solemne Sacrifice and a figure of Christ. Wherefore Master PERKINS prouideth an other answere to our argument and saith That if it were graunted that the passe-ouer were both a Sacrifice and Sacrament yet would it make much against them For they may say that the supper of the Lord succeedeth it only in regard of the mayne end thereof which is to increase our communion with Christ. What is this a Gods blessing if that be all the vse of it the Lordes supper may also bee no Sacrament at all for many other thinges besides Sacraments increase our communion with Christ But to the purpose our Lordes supper and also the Paschall lambe vvere instituted not only to increase our communion vvith Christ but also to render thankes to God for benefits receiued as their Paschall for their deliuery out of the land of bondage so our Eucharist for our redemption from sinne and hell and therefore as they are Sacraments to feede our soules so are they true Sacrifices to giue thankes to God for so high and singuler benefits And because I loue not to leaue my reader in matter of diuinity naked reasons vvithout some authority heare vvhat S. Ambrose speaking of Priests ministring the Lordes supper saith Lib. 1. in Lucam When we doe offer Sacrifice Christ is present Christ is sacrificed for Christ our passe-ouer is offered vp S. Leo is yet more plaine vvho speaking of the passe-ouer saith Serm. 7. de pass That shadowes might giue place to the body and figures to the present verily the old obseruance is taken away by the newe Testament one Sacrifice is turned to an other and bloud excludeth bloud and so the legall feast whiles it is changed is fulfilled Marke howe the Eucharist succeedeth the Paschall lambe the Sacrifice of the Paschall being changed into the Sacrifice of Christes body Our third argument is selected out of these vvordes of the Prophet Malachy Cap. 1. vers 11. I will take no pleasure in you saith the Lord of Hostes and I will not receiue a gift from your handes for from the East vnto the West great is my name among the Gentils and in euery place a cleane oblation is sacrificed to my name Hence we inferre that after the reprobation of the Iewes and calling of the Gentils that is in the state of the newe Testament a cleane Sacrifice shall be offered vnto God of the Gentils being made Christians as vvitnesseth the spirit of God in the holy Prophet ergo it cannot be denyed of Christians M. PERKINS answereth That by that cleane Sacrifice is to be vnderstood the spirituall Sacrifice of prayers because that the Apostle exhorting vs to pray for all states hath these wordes Lifting vp pure handes What good Sir are cleane handes and a cleane Sacrifice all one vvith you a worshipfull exposition This man conferreth places of
12. which is grounded vpon S. Paules wordes who saith That the Priest-hood being translated it is necessary that a translation of the lawe be made but in the newe Testament there is alteration of both lawe and couenant therefore there are both newe Priestes and a newe Sacrifice M. PER. answereth that all may be graunted That there are both newe Priestes and a newe Sacrifice Marry no other Priest but Christ himselfe both God and man who as man is the Sacrifice and as God the Altar Reply Who euer heard such a proper peece of diuinity is the God-head in Christ the Altar vpon which he offereth then is it not only inferior vnto God the Father to whome the Sacrifice is offered but the God-head in Christ is inferior to his man-hood as the Altar is inferior vnto the Sacrifice and Priest Againe the man-hood in Christ being separated from the God-head it not a Sacrifice of infinit value and consequently not sufficient to satisfie for al the sinnes of the world so that nothing could be answered more absurdly But his meaning perhaps was That Christ sacrifycing himselfe on the Crosse remayneth a Priest for euer and is the only Priest of the newe Testament in his owne person and that by his only Sacrifice on the Crosse and by no other Reply Christes Sacrifice on the Crosse is common aswell vnto all the faithful that liued before his daies euen from the beginning of the world as vnto all that liued since as effectuall and present vnto the one as vnto the other Apoc. 13. vers 8. and therefore is he said to be the lambe slayne from the beginning of the world so that notwithstanding this answere the reason remaineth in his full force and vertue that besides that Sacrifice on the Crosse which is common to all we must needes haue both newe and true Priestes and Sacrifice because we haue a newe lawe and couenant for Christes Sacrifice on the Crosse is no more actually present vnto vs then it vvas vnto the Iewes and all that were before him And as touching the effect and benefit of that his Sacrifice it was imparted and communicated aswell vnto old Father Abraham as vnto any that liued or doth liue in the state of the newe Testament and consequently the Sacrifice on the Crosse is not that peculiar Sacrifice which goeth joyntly with the newe Testament Which argument may be confirmed by this that there was neuer any lawe or religion in antiquity without their proper Priestes and without a true and reall Sacrifice wherevpon it followeth that the very natural light of mans vnderstanding doth teach vs that God is alwayes to be worshipped with Sacrifice Neither proceedeth this nut of the naturall corruption of men as Kemnitius is not ashamed to say but from the due consideration of mans bounden duty towardes God For the holyest and best informed men in the lawe of nature as Abel Noe Melchisedecke Abraham Isaac and Iacob did often most deuoutly offer vp Sacrifices vnto God and in the lawe of Moyses God himselfe prescribed vnto his people of Israel diuers and sundry kindes of Sacrifices so that it cannot but be a very impudent assertion to say that to Sacrifice vnto God issued out of the corruption of mans nature And further the very nature and end of a Sacrifice doth conuince that it is to be offered vnto God in all states and times For what is a Sacrifice but the most soueraigne honour that man can externally exhibite vnto the Almighty by not only vsing but consuming some thing of price to protest God to be the omnipotent Author of all things and we his creatures receiuing and holding our liues and all our goodes of both soule and body of him And if any aske me whether it be not sufficient to doe this in hart inwardly and outwardly to professe it in wordes I answere that it is not but â—â—â—â—ust besides thoughts and wordes by actuall deedes expresse the same And the act of sacrificing by the consent of the best learned of all Nations hath beene and is approued and declared for the only outward act of diuine honour proper vnto the Deity Saint Augustine teacheth Li. 2. coÌ„t Faustum cap. 21. de ciuitat Dei lib. 8. cap. 27. l. 22. c. 10. alibi that the erecting of Altars the consecrating of Priestes and offering of Sacrifice be thinges properly belonging vnto God and that Christians in deed in memory of their Martirs did these things but yet they did them only vnto God and that the Pagans themselues did not honour any dead or aliue with Sacrifice but such as they esteemed to be Gods so that if we Christians should want a true and proper Sacrifice we should be lesse religious then euer were any people being destitute of the principall and chiefest part of true religion And is it credible that God should among vs only whome he hath chosen to serue him most excellently want the soueraigne point of his diuine honour surely no wherefore this our doctrine of a true Sacrifice to be daylie offered to God is so farre from â—asing the foundâ—tion of religion to the bottome as M. PER. writeth as it vpholdeth the principall piller of religion and they in denying of it doe as it were strike of the head of Christian religion And who is of so meane wit that seeth not their silly shift and last refuge of Christs Sacrifice on the crosse to be but the last wordes that men foiled could vseâ— for very reason conuinceth that there must be a reall Sacrifice daylie offered by foure selected persons whereat the rest of Christians must be assembled and meete to doe their fealty and homage vnto the soueraigne Lord of heauen and earth that God be not defrauded of that his supreame seruice Nowe it is most manifest that Christes Sacrifice on the crosse was to be done but once and being nowe past can be no such ordinary â—â—arbs of calling Christians together to performe any such duty wherefore cannot be that daylie Sacrifice which we Christians are to offer But the vnbloudy oblation of his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine is the most excellent Sacrifice after that on the Crosse that euer was as containing the selfe same Host in substance and being a most liuely representation of his death and passion and therefore by Christes owne institution it was established as fittest for the perfect state of the newe Testament and ordained that it alone should be in steed of all other Sacrifices as hath before beene proued by the testimony of the Fathers I will here adde one place or two out of S. Augustine who saith L. 17. Ciuit c. 20. The Priest who is the mediator of the newe Testament doth exhibite to vs a table of his owne body and bloud after the order of Melchisedecke For that Sacrifice doth succeede all other Sacrifices of the old Testament Wherefore it is said in the person of our mediator Thou vvouldest
againe towards the end of the said epistle he addeth thereto these two wordes to wit in those Scriptures which be properly so called he did not finde it euidently defined vvhat dayes vve are to fast Which word euidently he addeth as I take it because that els where he saith Epist 119 cap. 15. Serm. 64. de temp that the fourty dayes fast of Lent hath authority at out of the old lawe so out of the Gospell because our Lord fasted so many dayes and by his example consecrated it as he saith so that finally we find with S. Augustine M. PER. first witnesse some dayes euery weeke of set fasting and once in the yeare a solemne set fast of fourty dayes together Cont. Psychicos M. PERKINS other Authour is Tertullian in his booke against sensuall men wherein he is so farre opposite to M. PER. opinion that he runneth into the other extremity The Protestants would haue no set time of fasting not so much as one Lent Tertullian pleading for the Mōtanists would haue three Lents euery yeare and a farre stricter kinde of fasting then the Catholike Church commandeth But the goodman perhaps mistaking his Authour would haue said that Catholikes as Tertullian reporteth did argue against his errour and said that it vvas a newe doctrine which he taught and that true Christians were at their liberty and not bound to receiue such newe inuentions of Montanus about fasting though he vaunted that he had that doctrine from the holy Ghost But in this point we must not hearken vnto Tertullian a Patron of that errour nor beleeue his reportes of the Catholikes arguments against him which he after the fashion of Heretikes doth frame and propose odiously Li. 5. hist cap. 17. But Eusebius saith that Montanus was the first that made lawes of fasting See the place gentle reader either in the Greeke or Latin text except that of Basil and thou shalt finde there these only vvordes cited out of Apollonius That Montanus made newe lawes of fasting not that he vvas the first that made any lawes of fasting but was noted as an Heretike for making newe lawes of fasting Whence it plainely followeth that there were other old lawes of fasting before his time which contented not his humour but taking pride in his owne inuention as all Heretikes doe he was not satisfied with one Lent but would haue three Lents euery yeare and vpon euery fasting day commanded all his adherents to touch nothing vntill the Sunne were set and then they should eate neither flesh nor fish nor ought else hotte or moist but cold drie and hard thinges For which his ouer rigorous and stearne kinde of fasting inuented by himselfe and obstinately defended he vvas condemned for an Heretike and his newe precepts of fasting rejected by the ancient Christians and this may serue for a confutation of M. PERKINS reasons for their party Nowe I vvill briefly confirme ours vvhich he setteth downe by manner of objections First Leuit. 16. vers 28. in the old Testament there vvere prescribed and set fastes approued by God which M. PER. confesseth to haue beene part of the legall worshippe and saith That God commanded those then but nowe hath left vs to our liberty Reply God hauing commanded fasting as a part of his worshippe then as M. PER. confesseth it being no judiciall or ceremoniall part of the lawe but morall and appertayning to the mastring of euery mans owne vnbrideled concupiscence he did sufficiently teach al considerate men that it was alwayes to be vsed for part of his worshippe for that alwayes men should stand in neede of it they being alwayes subject to the same rebellion of their flesh And though we be freed from all vncleane meates of the lawe and from the Iewes set times of fasting yet the band of fasting remayneth because the reason of it is still in force and we are subject to the Pastours of the Church and bound to obey them for the time and manner of our fasting Our second argument The Gouernours of the Sinagogue had full power and authority to prescribe set times of fasting and all the people of God vvere bound to obey them therein as appeareth in the Prophet Zachary who maketh mention of the fastes of the fourth fift Cap. 7. vers 5. Cap. 8. vers 19. eight and ninth Monethes which were not commanded by the lawe but afterward enjoyned by the rulers of the Church Nowe then if the Pastours of that Sinagogue had such authority much more haue the Prelates of the church nowe since Christes time who hath indued them with much more ample authority then the Iewes had before Christ M. PER. answereth that those fastes mentioned in Zachary were appointed vpon occassions of the affliction of the Church in Babilon and ceased vpon their deliuerance Reply The Prophet in the same place hath plainely preuented this answere for he saith That they then in the beginning of that captiuity Cap. 7. Cap. 8. had already fasted seauenty yeares and addeth That they should continue those fastes vntill the Gentils should joyne with them in faith vvhich vvas for foure hundreth yeares after Adde herevnto a fast feast appointed at the instance of the most vertuous Queene Hester and good Mardocheus Hest 9. vers 31. to be alwayes afterward obserued by the Israelites in remembrance of their preseruation The third argument Although in the newe Testament there be no euident testimony for a set time of fasting as S. Augustine saith yet there is some mention made of a set time of fasting Act. 27. vers 8. Whereas nowe it was not safe sayling because the fast nowe was past True it is that some doe expound this of the Iewes set fast in the Moneth of September but that exposition is not so probable for after that time of the yeare especially in those hot countries it is very safe sailing and therefore it cannot so wel be vnderstood of that season Againe S. Luke wrote the acts of the Apostles rather for the Gentils then for the Iewes he being a companion of the Doctor of the Gentils and therefore it is more probable that he describeth the set fast of the Christian Gentils which was in the moneth of December nowe called ember dayes when ordinarily Priestes and other ecclesiasticall persons were consecrated as may be seeme in the pontiffical of Pope Damasus who liued one thousand two hundreth yeares past And this season of the yeare agreeth well with the text for about and after that time it is perilous sayling the seas and windes growing bigge and tempesteous Epist 86. The fourth argument out of S. Augustine before alleadged The Apostles instituted wensdayes and fridayes to be fasted euery weeke the which Epiphanius also confirmeth Haeres 75 and it is touched in the 68. Canon of the Apostles so that it is an Apostolicall ordinance to fast euery weeke Besides the fast of fourty daies before Easter called Lent to be an Apostolical Tradition
Lord doe not goe to Purgatory yet many others may Lib. 20. de ciuit c. 9. because according vnto S. Augustines judgement and the holy bretheren of Geneua this place is to be vnderstood of Martirs only who die for our Lord. And we that confesse Purgatory doe hold that no Martir doth goe thither but being as it were a new baptized in their owne bloud doe appeare before the face of God without any spotte whereas other ordinary good Christians be not free from all such staines and may also haue much penance at their death not performed which they must endure in Purgatory I say thirdly that if the vvordes should be applyed to all Christians that die in the grace of God yet is there nothing in them against Purgatory For the wordes following may well be spoken of them that goe thither because they both rest from their labours which they had in their former life and also enjoy an assurance of heauen without any such peril or hazard thereof as they liued in before and their workes may very well be said to followe them for that according vnto the rate of their workes they must endure the fire of purgatory either more or lesse Fourthly I may answere with S. Augustine on that place that they who die in our Lord from that time there spoken off Vers 13. shall goe to heauen Amodo dicit spiritus from thence forth saith the spirit they shall rest from their labours Nowe to see what time is there spoken off reade the seauenth verse of the same chapter where are these wordes Feare our Lord and giue him honour because the houre of judgement is come so that from thenceforth that is after the last judgement there shall be no Purgatory vvherefore M. PERKINS very cunningly clipped the word from thence-forth out of the text for feare of breeding some scruple and thus you see that the text of Scripture so highly esteemed by M. PERKINS serueth nothing for his purpose Nowe to some fragments which he citeth out of the Fathers Hom. 50. Tom. 10. Augustine saith well after this life there remaineth no compunction or satisfaction This same text he cited before in the question of satisfaction somewhat otherwise viz. homil 5. tom 10. both quotations are most imperfect for in that tenth Tome of S. Augustines vvorkes there are sixe seuerall kinde of Homilies to wit De verbis Domini De verbis Apostoli 50. homiliarum de Sanctis de Tempore de Diuersâ—s which of these he meaneth I knowe not and to reade ouer the 50. and fift of euery of them for one line I list not the man belike tooke it by retayle But it may most easily be answered euen by the very next wordes that he citeth out of the same authour Enchirid. 115. Here is all remission of sinnes here be temptations that moue vs to sinne lastly here is the euill from which we desire to be deliuered but there is none of all these thinges So that in this life only there is compunction that is true repentance and turning from all sinne with satisfaction or a purpose to satisfie and he that dyeth without this true repentance shall be damned there is no Purgatory for them but for such only as die with true compunction and with full purpose to satisfie for their sinnes either in this life or in the next De verbis Apost 31. M. PERKINS citeth another line out of S. Augustine We be not here without sinnes but we shall goe hence without sinne Of whome speaketh he trowe you vvhat of all sortes of men then none shall be damned Againe what is this to Purgatory for they that goe to Purgatory must before they die by true repentance obtayne pardon of their sinnes or else they shall not goe to Purgatory but to Hell Lastly I haue read the Homily ouer and find no such word there Heare by the way out of the same workes of that most venerâ—ble Doctor three passages for Purgatory and conferre them with those cited by M. PER. and then judge what his opinion was of Purgatory In that Treatise called 50. Homilies homil 16. he writeth thus This punishment of hell fire tarryeth for them who shal perish euerlastingly to whome it is said Math. 3. The chaffe he shall burne with vnquenchable fire But they who haue done thinges worthy of temporall punishment of whome the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 3. If any mans vvorke burne he shal suffer detriment but he shall be saued yet so as through fire of which also the Prophet speaketh and a fiery floodde did runne before him Dan. 7. They shall passe through a fiery floodde and horrible foordes of burning flames And according to the greatnes of the matter of sinne so shall their stay and aboade be there and as much as their former faults required so much shall the reasonable correction of the flame take of the man Is not this a plaine description of Purgatory The second out of his Enchyridion Neyther is it to be denyed Cap. 110. but that the soules of the departed are holden by the piety of their friendes aliue when for them is offered the Sacrifice of our Mediatour or almes are giuen in the Church for them But these thinges profit them who when they liued did deserue that these thinges might profit them for there is a certayne kinde of life neither so good that it doth not neede these after their death neither so euill but that these thinges will profit him after his death There is a life so good that it needeth not these thinges and againe another so euill that cannot be holpen with them c. The third out of the third Treatise cited by M. PERKINS de verbis Apostoli It is not to be doubted but that men deceased this life Serm. 34. are holpen by the prayers of the holy Church and by the comfortable Sacrifice and by almes which are giuen for their soules that our Lord doth deale with them more mercifully then their sinnes required those men then were in Purgatory Thus much by the way out of S. Augustine for a taste of his opinion touching Purgatory Nowe to the rest of M. PERKINS testimonies Cyril saith They which are once dead Lib. 3. in Esaiam can adde nothing to the thinges that they haue done but shall remayne as they were left and wayte for the time of the last judgement Here is such a citation as sendeth to no peece of his vvorkes yet nothing difficult to be answered if any such be for the very next sentence that he alleadgeth will serue to solue it which is out of S. Chrysostome who saith That after the end of this life there be no occasions of merit To both vvhich the answere is that a man after his death cannot merit any more because merit only belongeth vnto men while they liue after death they may well reape the due reward of their merits or else suffer just punishment for their
doubted off by many and not generally receiued for Canonicall could afterward be made Canonicall to this I answere that the Protestants as vvell as we doe take nowe for Canonicall some such bookes as were 300. yeares after Christ doubted off to wit the Epistle to the Hebrewes S. Iames Epistle the second of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn S. Iudes Epistle and the Apocalipse or Reuelation of S. Iohn Nowe they themselues hauing admitted all these of the newe Testament for Canonicall vpon the judgement and declaration of the Catholike Church vvhy doe they not as vvell take those of the old Testament for Canonicall also the same Church hauing aboue a thousand yeares past approued them for Canonicall as well as the other At the first because of the great persecutions the learned could not so generally meete together to examine discusse such matters as afterward in the peace of the Church and therefore in that time diuers men vvere of diuers opinions concerning the authority of such bookes but vvhen the learned in the Church assembling together in the name of God and hauing the assistance of the holy Ghost to direct them had once declared which were Canonicall which not there was no further question among the obedient children of the Church only vnskilfull men or Heretikes because they will be choosers will admit of vvhich it pleaseth them and reject also those vvhich displease them But to leaue this digression the bookes of the Machabees cannot but haue euen with Heretikes farre greater credit then Liuie Plutarke and such like prophane hystories Pag. 307. as M. PER. also confesseth They then vvill serue to conuince any reasonable man that the custome of the people of Israell then the only chosen seruants of God vvas to pray for the dead and to offer sacrifice for the pardon of the soules that were departed because it is so recorded in the best hystorie of their times and is also seconded by Iosephus the sonne of Gordan in his booke of the Iewes vvarre Cap. 91. vvhere he saith that the Iewes were wont to pray for the dead vnlesse it were for such that had slaine themselues And thus much out of the old Testament nowe out of the newe Our Sauiour Christ willeth vs to agree with our aduersary whiles we are in the way with him least perhaps he deliuer vs to the judge and the judge to the officer and so we be cast into prison for verily saith he thou shalt not goe out from thence till thou repay the last farthing By this parable or example our Sauiour teacheth vs vvhiles we liue in this vvorld to agree vvith the lawe of God vvhich is our aduersary when we transgresse and offend against it otherwise at our death we shall justly be cast into prison and lye there till we haue fully satisfied and paid the last farthing of our debt The Protestants say that he who is so cast into prison shal neuer come out We say the contrary that this parable concerneth them especially that shall be deliuered at the length and proue it first because the parable is not taken from a murtherer or theefe vvho may be justly condemned to death or to perpetuall prison but of a debter who ordinarily doth gette out in time and therefore it agreeth better vnto men cast in Purgatory to pay the debt of the former trespasses then to them that are condemned to hell Besides the ancient Fathers doe so expound it Origen Albeit it be promised In epist ad Rom. that he shall at length come forth of that prison not withstanding it is designed that he cannot goe out vntill he hath paid the last farthing S. Cyprian It is one thing to stand for pardon Lib. 4. epist 2. and another to passe straight to glory one thing being cast into prison not to goe forth till you haue paid the last farthing and another to receiue presently the reward of faith and vertue one thing to be corrected and purged long time in fire for your sinnes and another by dying for Christ to haue purged all your sinnes Eusebius Emissenus Homil. 3. de Epiph. But they who haue deserued temporall paines vnto whome those wordes of our Lord appertayne that they shall not goe out thence vntill they haue paid the last farthing shall passe through a floode of fire So that both by the scope of the parable and by the interpretation of the Fathers many men dying in debt that is not hauing fully satisfied for their former sinnes are cast into the prison of Purgatory there to pay the last farthing vnlesse by the piety and intercession of their friendes their more speedy deliuerance be procured and obtayned Moreouer that there is such pardon graunted after this life to some is confirmed by that vvhich our Sauiour saith in another place Math. 12. That they who sinne against the holy Ghost shall not be forgiuen neither in this world nor in the world to come vvhich were a very improper kinde of speech if none were to be pardoned in the world to come As it should be for our King to say to some offendour I will not forgiue thee neither in England nor in Italy vvhereas he hath nothing to doe to pardon in a strange Dominion And the learned knowe that in enumeration of partes it is as foule a fault to reckon something for a part which is none as to omit some true part indeede so that then our Lord parting the forgiuenesse of sinnes into this world and the world to come in all congruity of speech we must vnderstand that some sinnes are forgiuen in the world to come which cannot be in heauen where none are nor in hell where there is no remission of sinne therefore it must be in a third place which we call Purgatory And this is no newe collection made by moderne Catholikes out of the vvord of God but as auncient as S. Augustine who hath these wordes Some men suffer temporall punishment in this life only Lib. 21. de ciuit c. 13. others after their death some others both here and there yet before that last and most seuere judgement For all men after their deathes shall not goe vnto those euerlasting torments of helfor saith he citing this place to some that which is not forgiuen in this world is forgiuen in the world to come as I haue taught before With S. Augustine agreeth S. Gregory Lib. 4. dialog c. 39. saying It is to be beleeued that there is a Purgatory fire before the judgement for certayne light faults for that the truth saith if any man blaspheme against the holy Ghost it shall not be forgiuen neither in this world nor in the world to come In which sentence there is giuen to vnderstand that certayne faults are forgiuen in this world and certayne in the world to come for that which is denyed of one by consequence is vnderstood to be graunted to some others In 3. Mar.
in any one of them that they vvere to haue the supreme gouernement in cases Ecclesiasticall but where the first institution of Kinges is mentioned There they are willed to receiue the examplar and copy of the lawe Deut. 17. vers 18. from the Priests of the tribe of Leuy And in the same Chapter a little before All men are bound to take the true exposition of the same lawe not from the King but from the high Priest of the same tribe of Leuy Nowe if the Iewes being but one nation could not be kept in vnity of truth without one supreme Gouernour what diuision in faith and religion would there be among all the nations of Christendome which be so many and so diuers if there were not one supreme Pastor to vvhose finall sentence they should all be obedient and bound to stand first then it is euident that there must be one supreme Gouernour in the Church Nowe to goe one steppe forward this supreme authority was by our Sauiour Christ IESVS giuen vnto S. Peter which I will proue both by the promise and performance of it Math. 16. vers 15. The promise of this supremacy is recorded in these wordes Whome doe you say that I am Simon Peter answered and said thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God and IESVS answering said vnto him blessed art thou Simon Bar-Iona because flesh and bloud hath not reuealed it to thee but my Father which is in heauen And I say to thee that thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church c. Whence I reason thus That is the foundation in a building which is the head in a body and supreme Gouernour in a common-weale for the foundation is first laide and doth vphold all the rest of the building but our Sauiour promiseth to build the spirituall common-wealth of his Church vpon Peter as vpon a firme Rocke and foundation therefore he meant to make him the head and chiefe Pastor vnder himselfe of it Some answere that Christ said not that he would build his Church vpon Peter but vpon that Rocke which was himselfe because that Christ is called a Rocke 1. Cor. 10. Reply This cannot be for albeit Christ be the most firme foundation and chiefe corner stone of all that building yet hath it pleased him to appoint a Deputy and Vicar to gouerne in his absence vnder him and so to communicate his Titles in a certayne measure and degree vnto his seruants Math. 5. vers 15. He is the light of the world and yet saith he to his Apostles You are the light of the world He is the Pastor of our soules and he maketh them our Pastors so he is the Rocke that sustayneth all partes of the Church by his owne power and vertue but hath imparted to Peter that name to signifie that he should be made able to beare the person of his Vicar on earth and to rule vnder him and by vertue receiued from him the whole Church for his time Nowe the very course of the text doth conuince that the Rocke there specified cannot be Christ for it hath joyned vvith it the word this and vpon this Rocke which doth demonstrate and point out that vvhich was spoken of immediately before vvhich vvas Peter Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke c. Againe what congruity should there be in this sentence to beginne with Peter and to make shewe of bestowing some high reward on him for his noble confession and in the end of it to say that he would build his Church vpon himselfe Thirdly in the next sentence there is no question made but that Christ did promise to Peter the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen and not to reserue them to himselfe therefore most certayne it is that in the former sentence he promised to build his Church vpon Peter Finally in the Syriake tongue in vvhich our Sauiour then spake it is so playne that it cannot be doubted of for it is thou art Cephas and vpon this Cephas I wil build my Church nowe the vvord Cephas signifieth a rocke or stone Let vs to make the matter more manifest heare the judgement of some of the auncient and most learned Fathers of both the Greeke and Latin Church touching this exposition S. Epiphanius In Ancorate Our Lord made Peter the chiefe of the Apostles a firme Rocke vpon which the Church of God is builded S. Gregory Nazianzeno * Orat. de mod seruand in disput Peter is called a Rocke and hath the foundations of the Church committed vnto his fidelity S. Chrysostome a Hom. 55 in Math. Our Lord said thou art Peter and vpon thee will I build my Church S. Cyril b Lib. 2. in Iob. ca. 2. Christ fore-told that he should not be called Simon but Peter by the name it selfe fitly signifying that he would build his Church vpon him as on a Rocke and most sure stone S. Cyprian c Epist ad QuirinuÌ„ Our Lord did choose Peter the first or chiefest and vpon him did he build his Church S. Ambrose saith d Serm. 42 That Peter is called the Rocke both because he first of all laid the foundation in the actions of faith and also for that as an vnmoueable stone he doth sustayne and bold together the frame and burden of all the Christian worke S. Hierome vpon that place e Math. 16 According vnto the metaphor of a Rocke it is rightly said to Peter vpon thee will I build my Church S. Augustine sometimes indeede giueth an other interpretation but yet alloweth of this and leaueth it to the readers choise adding f Lib. 1. retract 21. That in his time that Hymne of S. Ambrose beganne to be chaunted publikely in the Church that the Cocke crowing the Rocke of the Church with teares washed away his fault so common was that exposition euen then that the Rocke of the Church was taken for a sufficient description of S. Peters person By these plaine sentences of the most approued Doctors of the church may be expounded some others more obscure vvhich say that vpon Peters faith or confession Christ built his Church in this manner for the excellency of Peters faith and confession he vvas chosen to be the rocke or foundation of the Church which is S. Basils owne interpretation who saith that Peter for the excellencie of his faith Lib. 2. in EunomiuÌ„ receaued the building of the Church vpon him And in true reason the Church being a congregation of men cannot be builded 〈…〉 qualities but must haue a man of the same nature to be her 〈…〉 indeede with such spiritâ— all and heauenly qualities or else it should not haue beene a proportionable and wel shaped body but some monster Neither can that other shift of the Protestants which M. PERKINS insiâ—â—â—teth serue their turne that forsooth what is sâ—â—a â—ere to S. Peter is vnderstood to haue beene spoken vnto all the rest of the Apostles For
the holy Ghost in penning this passage hath as fully preuented this euasion as it was possible by such a particular description of Peters owne person as a curious lawyer could not in so few wordes haue done it more precisely For Christ specifieth both his former name of â—inâ—â—â— and his Fathers name Ionas and then his owne newe name Peter and so particularized singled out from the rest directeth his speech to him I say to thee thâ—â— art Peter c. How could he better haue expressed himselfe to haue spoken to Peter particularly Againe he said before that Peter had not learned that his confession of flesh and bloud but by the reuelation of his heauenly Father vvhereby he signifieth that Peter had not receiued his answere from his fellow Apostles or spoke it as deliuered by conference from them but out of his owne hart inspired by the holy Ghost vvherefore to him alone were his vvordes following directed And thus much concerning the promise which our Sauiour made vnto S. Peter of the Supremacy nowe to the wordes of performance which are written in S. Iohn Iob. c. 21. vers 15. IESVS faith to Peter Simon the sonne of Iohn dost thou loue me more then these he saith to him yea Lord thou knowest that I loue thee he saith to him feede my lambes He saith to him againe Simon of Iohn loâ—est thou me yea Lord thou knowest that I loâ—e thee he saith to him feede my lambes He saith to him the third time Simon of Iohn louest thou me Peter was strooken fadde because he said to him the third time louest thou me And he said vnto him Lord thou knowest all thinges thou knowest that I loue thee he saith vnto him feede my sheepe Amen amen I say to thee when thou wast younger thou diddest gird thy selfe c. These vvordes haue I set downe at length that euery one may first see and be well assured that they vvere spoken to S. Peter only because Christ doth first seuer part him from the rest saying Dost thou loue me more then these to wit then the other Apostles vvho were then present Againe Peter vvas sad and began to misdoubt himselfe vvhich argueth that he tooke it spoken to himselfe and sheweth playnely that he spoke in his owne name only and thirdly the wordes following Amen I say vnto thee are without all question spoken particularly to Peter Nowe that Christ in giuing him chardge to fâ—ede his lambes and sheepe did giue him the supreme gouernement ouer his Church I proue first by the word pasce feede or be thou Pastor of my flocke for it doth signifie not bare feeding but to feede as a sheepe-heard doth his sheepe which is not only to prouide them meate but to keepe them also from the woulfe to cure their diseases to leade or driue them whither he will briefly to rule and gouerne them And this word pasce and much more the Greeke Poimaine is frequent in holy Scripture in this sence of gouerning see psal 2. vers 9. Thou shalt rule them in an yron rodde Michaeae 5. vers 2. Math. 2. vers 6. Apocal. 19. vers 15. vvhere the Greeke word Poimaino is put for to rule and gouerne And in the 77. psalme v. 71. Dauid was chosen to feede his seruant Iacob and Israell his in heritance that was to rule ouer them but like a good sheepe-heard mildly vigilantly and rather for the good of the sheepe then for his owne pleasure or profit Nowe that the chiefe feeding and supreme gouernement of all Christs flocke was committed vnto him it appeareth first by those wordes of our Sauiour to him Doest thou loue me more then these why should he require greater charity in S. Peter then in the rest of the Apostles but for that he meant to aduance him to a chardge aboue the rest secondly in that he committed to Peter the feeding of both sheepe and lambes that is of both the Temporalty signified by the lambes and of the Clergy vvho be sheepe let vs heare S. Leo. Againe Serm. 3. dâ— anniuers Assumpt suae In that he committeth to him absolutely without exception of any his sheepe feede my sheepe he maketh him Pastor of his whole flocke as S. Bernard whome M. PER. often alledgeth against vs in this question doth very learnedly inferre Lib. 2. de consid cap. 8. Thou saith he wilt aske me howe I proue that both sheepe and Pastor are committed and credited to thee euen by our Lordes word For to whome of all I will not say Bishops but Apostles were the sheep so absolutely and without limitation committed if thou loue me Peter feede my sheepe he saith not the people of this Kingdome or of that City but my sheepe whosoeuer therefore will acknowledge himselfe to be one of Christes sheepe must submit himselfe to be gouerned by S. Peter or by some of his successours You see then by the very wordes and circumstances of the text that the supremacy is giuen to S. Peter let vs heare whither the most learned and holy auncient Fathers haue not so vnderstood them S. Cyprian saith To Peter our Lord after his resurrection said De vnitat Eccles feede my sheepe and builded his Church vpon him alone Epiphanius in Ancorato This is he who heard spoken to him feede my sheepe to whome the fold is credited alluding to that place Iob. 10. vers 16. Lib. 2. de Sacerdâ—r there shall be one Pastor and one fold S. Chrysostome Why did our Lord shedde his bloud truly to redeeme those sheepe the chardge of which be committed to Peter and to his successours And a little after Christ would haue Peter indued with such authority and to be farre aboue all his other Apostles for he saith Peter doest thou loue me more then these In cap. 2. vers 21. see him also in his learned Commentaries vpon that text of S. Iohn S. Augustine also vpon the same place saith That he committed his sheepe to Peter to be fedde that is saith he to be taught and gouerned And because he produceth S. Gregory against vs he must giue vs leaue to cite him for vs. Lib. 4. epist 76. He saith It is euident to all that knowe the Gospell that by our Lordes mouth the chardge of the whole Church is committed vnto Peter Prince of the Apostles for vnto him it is said Peter doest thou loue me feede my sheepe to him is it also said Luc. 22. vers 31. Behold Satan hath required to sift you as wheate but I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not and thou once conuerted confirme thy brethren c. By these two places of holy Scripture to omit for breuities sake twenty others it is cleare enough to them who desire to see the truth that S. Peter by our Sauiours owne choise and appointment vvas not only preferred before all the rest of the Apostles in some particular gifts but vvas made also gouernour of his Church Nowe
to be seene in their decretall Epistles haue euer chalenged this right of Supremacy ouer the whole Church as the successours of S. Peter and that the very Patriarkes and principall Prelates euen of the East Church who were likelyest to haue resisted if they had seene any cause vvhy haue from the very beginning of the free practise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction acknowledged and confessed the same and that finally the greatest vvisest and best Emperours of both the Latin and Greeke Church haue as you haue heard before declared the same right to appertayne vnto the said Roman Sea the matter cannot be but cleare enough to all that list not to remayne vvranglers vvhere the right of the Supremacy resteth OF THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENTS OVR CONSENT M. PERKINS Page 295. THe first conclusion We teach and beleeue that the Sacraments are signes to represent Christ with his benefits to vs. The second conclusion We teach further that the Sacraments are indeede instruments whereby God offereth and giueth the fore-said benefits to vs. THE DIFFERENCE THe Catholikes teach that the Sacraments are true and proper instrumentall causes which being moued by God thereunto doe produce and giue grace to the worthy receiuer Euen as the penne doth make the letter or as the axe doth cut the wood being thereto applyed by the workeman so for example doth the Sacrament of baptisme wash away the sinnes of the baptised being by God therevnto ordayned and rightly vsed by the Minister But M. PERKINS holdeth that the Sacraments haue no operation to that effect of forgiuenesse of sinnes but are only outward meanes which being applyed vnto the party God of himselfe doth immediately purge him from sinne and not by meanes of the Sacraments Againe Whereas we require a fit disposition in the receiuer to make him capable of the grace presented and exhibited vnto him by the Sacrament He holdeth that all the vertue of the Sacrament consisteth in the receiuer Who beholding those signes from God in the handes of the Minister must conceite and imagine First that God himselfe by his owne mouth doth promise him seuerally and by name remission of his sinnes the signe and pledge whereof is that Sacrament which the minde considering reasoneth thus he that vseth the elements aright in faith and repentance shall receiue grace thereby but I vse the elements aright therefore shall I receiue from God increase of grace Thus then faith is confirmed not by the worke done but by a kinde of reasoning the proofe whereof is borrowed from the elements being signes and pledges of Gods mercy Contrarylie vve hold that the Sacrament it selfe conferreth and doth giue great grace so that there be no impediment or let of it by reason of the receiuers euill disposition Now if the receiuer come throughly vvell prepared with great humility charity and attention he then ouer and besides the ordinary grace of the Sacrament shall receiue more grace according vnto the measure of his owne preparation Lastly whereas we teach the very grace of justification to be giuen in some Sacraments as in Baptisme and Penance M. PER. saith no because A man of yeares must first beleeue and be justified before he can be a meete pertaker of any Sacrament But vvhat vvill he then say vnto Infants must not they receiue the grace of justification by Baptisme before they haue wit to beleeue and to reason in such sort as he prescribeth Before I come vnto the arguments of either party I thought fit to giue the reader to vnderstand that whether the Sacraments be true physicall instruments of grace or no Lib. 2. de Sacram. in gener cap. 11. is not a matter of faith as Cardinall Bellarmine declareth so we hold them to be true morall causes of the same grace to which M. PER. yeelded his consent wherefore I will not be long in this question Secondly to perceiue well the state of the question you must obserue what difference there is betweene a physical and moral instrument That then may be called a morall instrument vvhich moueth the principall agent to doe any thing albeit he vse not that thing it selfe as a meanes to doe it vvithall so that if God be effectually moued to bestowe grace vpon him that receiueth a Sacrament by the sight of the Sacrament though he giue not the grace by the vvorke of the Sacrament but immediatly from him felfe the Sacrament is the morall meanes of the same grace but it cannot be called the physicall or naturall instrument of that grace vnlesse God doe vse and apply the Sacrament it selfe as the meane and instrument to conuey the same grace into the soule of the receiuer Nowe vve hold it more agreable with the word of God and sentences of the holy Fathers and more for the dignity of the Sacraments themselues to say that God by them as by true naturall instruments doth conuay his graces into our soule M. PERKINS goeth about to proue the contrary thus The word preached and the Sacraments doe differ in the manner of giuing Christ vnto vs because the word worketh by the eare and the Sacraments by the eye otherwise for the giuing it selfe they differ not Christ saying that in the very word is eaten his owne flesh and what can be said more of the Lordes supper Augustine saith that beleeuers are pertakers of the body and bloud in baptisme Serm. ad Infant so saith Hierome to Eâ—â—bia Nowe vpon this it followeth that seing the worke done in the word preached conferreth not grace neyther doth the worke done in the Sacrament conferre grace I answere that his owne first word must stand wherein he said that the word preached and the Sacraments doe differ in the manner of giuing vs Christes grace for preaching doth by perswasion drawe vs vnto grace and goodnesse but the Sacraments as conduite-pipes doe take and deriue grace from Christes passion and conuay it into the soules of all them who doe not stoppe vp those diuine conduits by their owne default and want of due preparation To his idle and ill shapen commation I answere that Christes body may be eaten two vvayes either really as in the blessed Sacrament or else spiritually by beleeuing in Christ and being incorporate into his mysticall body and in this second sort Infants in baptisme and all true beleeuers doe eate the body of Christ But howe this proueth that the vvord and the Sacraments doe giue grace after the same manner is there any man that can tell His second reason I baptise you with water to repentance Math. 3. vers 11. but he that commeth after me shall baptise you with the holy Ghost and with fire Hence saith M PER. it is manifest that grace proceedeth not from any act of the Sacrament for Iohn though he doe not disjoyne himselfe and his action from Christ and the action of the spirit yet doth he distinguish them plainely in number persons and effect Answere He that can let him pike some English out