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
his booke Rationale Diuinorum the reasons of diuine seruice And as for bodylie rites we vse but fewe and those very decent full of reuerence and most fit to stirre vp and cherish deuotion We be not spirits and therefore must serue God by bodylie ceremonies although the life and vertue of them proceede from the spirit employing all partes of the body in his worshippe and to his honor that made it neither be they borrowed of Iewes nor of the Heathens albeit they might perhaps the one by the commandement of God the other by the light of nature vse some such like but ours were deuised by the inspiration of the holy Ghost the heauenly guide and directer of the Catholike Church to moue vs to serue God more deuoutly and with greater reuerence Now to say that we giue the same worship to any Saint that we giue to God is a stale jest that hath long sithence lost all his grace being found to be nothing else but a notorious vntruth very often confuted as by others else where so by me more then once in this booke where also these other slanders here cast vpon vs are more at large in their seuerall places discussed this therefore may serue in this place for an answere to those imputations of Atheismes which Master PERKINS objecteth against vs. And for that this crime of Atheisme is the most heynous that can be as contrariewise the true opinion of the God-head and the sincere worshippe thereof is the most sweete and beautifull flower of religion let vs therefore here to hold due correspondence with Master PERKINS examine the Protestantes doctrine concerning the nature of God and their worshippe of him that the indifferent reader comparing judiciouslie our two opinions thereof together may embrace that for most pure and true that carryeth the most reuerent and holy conceite thereof For out of all doubt there can be no greater motiue to any deuout soule to like of a religion then to see that it doth deliuer a most sacred doctrine of the Soueraigne Lord of heauen and earth and doth withall most religiously adore and serue him Whereas on the other side there is not a more forcible persuasion to forsake a religion before professed then to be giuen to vnderstand that the Masters of that religion teach many absurde thinges concerning the God-head it selfe and doe as coldly and as slightly worshippe God almighty as may be Marke therefore I beseech thee gentle reader for thy owne soules sake what euidence I shall deliuer in against the Protestantes touching this point of Atheisme and following the same method that M. PER. obserueth I will first touch their errors against the most blessed Trinity and Deity secondly such as are against our Lord Iesus God and man lastly I will speake one word or two about their seruice and worshipping of God All which shall be performed in a much more temperate manner then the grauity of such a matter requireth that it may be lesse offensiue Concerning the sacred Trinity it is by the doctrine of certayne principall pillers of their newe Gospell brought into great question Lib. 1. Instit c. 13. ss 23. 25. Con. rationes Camp pag. 152. For Iohn Caluin in diuers places teacheth that the second third persons of the Trinity doe not receiue the God-head from the first but haue it of themselues euen as the first person hath And in this he is defended by M. Whitaker and preferred before all the learned Fathers of the first councell of Nice Out of which position it followeth that there is neither Father nor Sonne in the God-head for according vnto common sence and the vniforme consent of all the learned he only is a true naturall Sonne that by generation doth receiue his nature and substance from his Father We are called the Sonnes of God but that is by adoption and grace but he only is the true naturall Sonne of God that by eternall generation receiued his substance that is the God-head from him If therefore the second person did not receiue the God-head from the first but had it of himselfe as they doe affirme then certaynelie he is no true Sonne of the first and consequently the first person is no true Father For as all men confesse Father Sonne be correlatiues so that the one cannot be without the other Thus their doctrine is found to be faulty in the highest degree of Atheisme For it ouerthroweth both Father and Sonne in the Trinity And further if it were true then doth the holy Ghost proceede neither from the Father nor from the Sonne for it receiueth not the God-head from them at all as they hold but hath it of himselfe and so proceedeth no more from them then they doe from him consequently is not the third person Wherefore finally they doe ouerthrowe the whole Trinity the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost Secondly they may be truely stiled Atheistes who thinke any one to be God that hath not in him all singuler perfâ—ctions in the most perfect sort that can be but either wanteth some of them or else hath them in a meaner degree then any other they therefore that teach our Sauiour Christ in his God-head to be inferiour vnto his Father stand justly charged with Atheisme Such a one is * Epi. ad Polo pa. 940. seq Caluin who in formall tearmes doth auouch and say that Christ according to his God-head is lesse then his Father And else where he affirmeth In ca. 26 Matt. 64. CoÌ„ Stancar in locis ca. de Christo CoÌ„ Harding art 17. in the confuta of the Papists slanders the Father to hold the first ranke of honour and power and the Sonne to obtaine the second which he might haue learned of his great master Melancthon who taught that the Sonne according to his diuinity is his Fathers subject and minister Further that in Christ there was something of the nature of God some other thing then belike was wanting Againe that the God-head of Christ was obedient vnto his Father with whome our country-men Iewell and Fulke doe jumpe who affirme that the diuine nature of Christ offered sacrifice vnto his Father Briefly all Protestantes who hold Christ according to his diuine nature to haue beene a mediator make his God-head inferiour vnto God the Father For to be as a mediator must needes be a suppliant vnto another to pray and offer sacrifice to him is to acknowledge him to be his better and that something lyeth in his power to doe which the other of himselfe cannot doe but by sute must obtaine of him Ioyne here vnto that they doe expound most of the textes of holy Scripture vsed by the auncient Fathers to proue the blessed sacred Trinity euen as the old Arrians did reprouing the auncient Fathers exposition which cannot but argue that they in their hartes though they be yet ashamed to confesse it decline apace from those holy Fathers steps to fauour Arrianisme This
Scripture very handsomely together and would no doubt write a faire Commentary vpon the text if he were let alone but yet tell me I pray you by the way howe Christians can lift vp such pure handes and offer so cleane a Sacrifice if al their best workes be defiled with sinne and no cleaner then a filthy menstruous cloute as you doe teach But to confute him directly our Lord speaketh there to the Priestes of the old lawe and rebuketh them sharpely for their fault committed in their Sacrifices offered to him and therefore foretelleth them that he will reject al their Sacrifices and accept of an other cleane Sacrifice among the Gentils Nowe as Sacrifice in the former part of his speach is taken most properly as no man can denie so must it be in the latter or else there were a great equiuocation in that sentence and no plaine opposition of Sacrifice to Sacrifice cleane to polluted And if he had reprehended the Iewes for their vnpure prayers then had it beene correspondent to haue said that he vvould haue receiued cleane prayers of others in lieu of them but inueighing against Priestes and sacrifices the very order and proportion of the sentence necessarily requireth that for those euill Priestes and poluted sacrifices he would establish good Priestes and cleane sacrifices according vnto the proper signification of the wordes Againe God is not so extreamely bent against the Iewes nowe but that he would receiue the spirituall Sacrifice of prayer and thankes-giuing euen from them if they doe offer it but he speaketh there of a kinde of Sacrifice that he vvill not receiue from their handes therefore that Sacrifice cannot be vnderstood to be any such spirituall thing but a true proper kind of Sacrifice And Iustine Martyr whome M. PER. citeth is so farre off from saying supplications and thanks-giuing to be the only perfect Sacrifices that Christians haue that in the very same Dialogue he applieth this prophesie of Malachie vnto the Sacrifice of the Masse saying That euen then Malachie the Prophet did speake of our Sacrifices which are offered vp in all places to wit of the bread and Chalice of the Eucharist which his equall Ireneus cited also by M. PER. doth more amply deliuer in these wordes Christ tooke bread and gaue thankes L. 4. cont Haeres cap. 32. saying This is my body and that in the Chalice be confessed to be his bloud which the Church receiuing from the Apostles doth offer to God through the whole world as the first fruites of his giftes of which Malachie one of the twelue Prophets did prophesie thus I take no pleasure in you c. citing the place all at large It is to be noted that in the Hebrewe text and Greeke translation there is in the text of Malachie before a cleane Sacrifice this word incense Incense is offered to my name and a cleane Sacrifice the which the ancient Interpreters doe expound of prayer and make it a distinct thing from the Sacrifice there also distinctly put Orat. cōt Iud. ca. 9. S. Augustine doth proue out of this place of Malachy that the Leuiticall Sacrifices should all cease and further that though all their Sacrifices ceased yet there should stil remaine a true Sacrifice to be offered by the Christians to the true God of Israell and biddeth them open their eyes and see it And in an other place specifieth vvhat that Sacrifice is Li. 18. de ciuit c. 35 Li. 1. cōt Aduersar legis Prophet cap. 20. Lib. 4. de fide c. 14. saying Nowe we see this Sacrifice by the Priest-hood of Christ after the order of Melchisedecke to be offered and againe They knowe who read what Melchisedecke brought forth when he blessed Abraham to wit bread wine and they are partakers of it and doe see such a Sacrifice to be offered nowe to God throughout the whole world Theodoret vpon that place of Malachy doth expresly teach that according to his prophesie There is now offered the immaculate Lambe in lieu of all their Sacrifices And S. Iohn Damascene speaking of the blessed Sacrament saith This is that pure and vnbloudy Sacrifice that our Lord by his Prophet did foretell to be offered from the rising of the sunne vnto the setting Thus much of the three first arguments which M. PER. propounded in our fauour out of the olde Testament but he hath skipped ouer other three which we haue in the newe of which I must needes stand vpon one because it is the ground of all the rest the other two I am content to omitt for breuities sake it is taken out of the wordes of consecration and as our fourth argument may be framed thus Christ at his last supper did properly sacrifice vnto God his owne body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine but what Christ then and there did the same is to be done in the Church by his ordinance vntill the worldes end ergo There is and alwayes must be a proper Sacrifice in the true Church They doe denie that Christ offered any such Sacrifice in his last supper we proue it thus Luc. 22. by his owne wordes For he saith That his body which he gaue them to eate was euen then giuen for them to God that his bloud was then presently shed for remission of their sinnes But to offer his body and bloud to God by such a sacred action and vnder such visible creatures to be there eaten is properly to Sacrifice ergo Christ at his last supper did properly offer Sacrifice They answere that albeit it be said in the present tense then giuen and shedde yet the meaning is that it should be giuen only the morrowe after on the Crosse the present tense being put for the future further adde that in the Canon of the Masse the verbe is put in the future tense We reply that men may not at their pleasure change tenses or else the Iewes might defend that our Messias were not yet borne and if we proue it saying The Word is made flesh they may by this licence of changing the present tense into the future say that it is not so yet but it shall be hereafter therefore to flie vnto chopping and changing the text without any reason or authority is rather to shift off then to defend a cause well But say they it is in the Masse booke effundetur God helpe the poore men that louing the Masse no better are driuen yet from the plaine text of holy Scripture to flie to the Masse-booke for succour but it vvill not serue their turne because both are true and agree vvell together For Christes bloud vnder the forme of vvine vvas presently sacrificed and shedde at his last supper and the same in his owne forme vvas to be shedde the morrowe after on the Crosse and againe vnder the forme of wine also was to be shedde in the same Sacrament vnto the worldes end so that truly properly both may be said it is
is as I said before rather a marke that vve should shoote at and the end of a commandement then a thing commanded M. PERKINS second reason The compasse of the lawe is large and comprehendeth commandements not only negatiue but also affirmatiue and in the negatiue be not only forbidden the capitall sinnes as murther adultery theft but all sinnes of the same kinde with all their occasions c. And in the affirmatiue are commanded not only the contrary vertues but all helpes and meanes whereby the said vertues may be preserued thus doth our Sauiour himselfe saith he expound the lawe Vpon which ground her concludeth that all duties pertayning to life and manners come within the list of some morall commandement Answere The Commandements are but tenne and the exposition vvhich our Sauiour made Math. 5. 6. contained vvith in the compasse of two Chapters as he confesseth wherefore it is not a thing either impossible or very difficult to learne and obserue them with all their necessary branches and clauses Nowe to say That all duties of life appertayne vnto them is both false and not to the purpose for first it is most euident that the vvhole matter of the Sacraments and vvhatsoeuer else is proper vnto vs Christians by the doctrine of the Gospell and not common vnto vs with the Iewes is ouer and aboue the tenne Commandements I said also that the answere is impertinent for it proceedeth only in duties of life and we treate here of such points of perfection which no man in duty is pressed vnto but only may followe of deuotion for his aduancement in vertue and Gods fauour The other reasons following I haue answered in my former part yet because some will be vnwilling to be so often referred vnto another volume I will here againe briefly answere them M. PERKINS third reason Lucae 17. When we haue done all those thinges that are commanded vs we are vnprofitable seruants we haue done that which was our duty to doe Can any man tell to what purpose this sentence is cited here Is it to proue that we cannot keepe the Commandements but it supposeth the flat contrary to vvit that the vnprofitable seruant had done all those thinges that vvere commanded him for he must say as it is in the text When he hath done that which was commanded c. Or it is to disproue workes of supererogation and counsaile but it hath not one worde of them but speaketh only of workes commanded which S. Ambrose noted 1200. yeares past saying This doth not the Virgin say De viduis this doth not he say who sold all to wit we are vnprofitable seruants but looking for a reward they say with S. Peter Lord we haue left all what therefore wilt thou giue vs c. Math. 19. But M. PERKINS will confute S. Ambrose for he saith That thinges commanded in that they be commanded are more excellent then thinges left at liberty What is this to the matter doth Christ speake of counsailes left to our liberty in that text because commandements be more excellent vvhat a sencelesse reply is this Of like stuffe is his other shift That counsailes are thought more hard then commandements and therefore if a man cannot profit himselfe by obseruing the easier much lesse by obseruing the harder First this is cleane besides the purpose then it is also false For no men commonly can profit themselues so much by thinges easie to be done as by some other thinges hard to be done for the more excellent that thinges are so much the more difficult are they to be compassed and done according to the Latin Adage Quo difficilius eo pulchrius M. PERKINS saith Papists answere secondly that although we 've vnprofitable to God yet we are profitable to our selues Reply This is reported to the halfes for we say that to God in himselfe no profit can arise from vs who needeth none of our goodes or seruice but in the Ministery of his Church he hath great seruice and honour done him by the industry and diligence of good men and therefore doth S. Paul say expresly 2. Tim. 2. vers 21. That men cleansed from sinnes become profitable seruants vnto our Lord which is venerable Bedes exposition vpon this passage of S. Luke Vers 9. But Master PERKINS saith That they are neyther profitable to God nor to themselues because the Master there doth not so much as thanke that seruant Reply Masters in deed doe not commonly thanke their seruants when they haue done their duties but yet they pay them their wages and giue them preferments also if they like their seruice and so the seruant reapeth commodity and profit by his seruice though he be not thanked at his Masters handes But we serue so kinde a Master that will before his Father and all the company of heauen thanke his seruants and say vnto them Math. 24. vers 23. Well fare thee good and faithfull seruant because thou hast beene faithfull ouer a fewe thinges I will place thee ouer many enter into the joy of thy Lord. A third answere Papists may make vnto Master PERKINS and tell him that hee hath desperately corrupted the text and omitted a vvorde vvhich altereth the vvhole sentence Christ saith not When you haue done all that is commanded you are vnprofitable seruants but then say that you are vnprofitable seruants That is haue you then an humble opinion of your selues and thinke rather vpon your owne imperfection then of your vvell-doing and if you finde all vvell thanke him that gaue you the grace to performe it and confesse that you haue done but your duty and leaue it to your good neighbour to praise you if he please and to God to recompence you so doth S. Chrysostome interpret this place But Master PERKINS to preuent this answere thought it pollicy to strike that vvorde out of the text O vvorthy cutter of Gods vvorde His fourth reason is That it is not in the power of man to keepe the lawe much lesse is he able to doe any worke that is beyond and aboue the lawe Answere The antecedent and consequent are both false that vve be able with the helpe of Gods grace to keepe the lawe is proued in a whole question of the first part Page 78. That we may doe some workes of supererogation albeit we fayled in some workes of the lawe hath beene proued in the beginning of this question For though one vvorke of counsaile be harder to doe then one worke of the lawe yet is it of more difficulty to keepe thirty precepts of the lawe then three counsailes and againe a man may be more diligent in obseruing counsailes then commandements and so obserue them better Nowe to the arguments for the Catholike party The first is taken out of the Prophet Esay Our Lord saith vnto Eunuches that keepe his Sabbaoth Cap. 56. vers 4. and choose the thing that pleaseth him c. He will giue them a
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
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
in Adam c. I therefore ô my prayse my life and God of my hart laying aside for a season her good workes for which I rejoycing doe giue thee thankes doe nowe pray vnto thee for the sinnes of my Mother heare me I beseech thee through the salue of our woundes that hanged vpon the tree and nowe sitting at thy right hand doth plead for vs. I knowe that shee did many workes of mercy and from her hart forgaue all them that trespassed against her doe thou ô Lord also forgiue her her trespasses if shee committed any after baptisme Pardon her pardon her ô Lord I beseech thee and enter not into judgement with her let thy mercy surpasse thy judgements because thy wordes are true and thou hast promised mercy to the mercifull c. Could that most vvorthy Doctor more directly crosse Caluins false relation of his coldnesse in this matter or in better manner cleare himselfe from his spitefull slaunders Caluin blushed not to say that S. Augustine out of passion prayed for his mother but he himselfe relateth howe he did it some yeares after her death of setled judgement hauing his hart cured from humane affection And thus I end this question of Purgatory OF THE SVPREMACY IN CAVSES ECCLESIASTICAL OVR CONSENT M. PERKINS Page 283. TOuching the point of Supremacy Ecclesiasticall I will set downe howe neare we may come vnto the Roman Church in two conclusions The first conclusion For the founding of the primitiue Church the Ministery of the word was distinguished by degrees not only of order but also of power and Peter was called to the highest degree for Apostles were aboue Euangelists and Euangelists aboue Pastors and teachers nowe Peter was an Apostle and so aboue all Euangelists and Pastors howsoeuer he were not aboue other Apostles The second conclusion Among the 12. Apostes Peter had a three-fold priuiledge or prerogatiue first of authority I meane a preheminence in regard of estimation whereby he was in reuerence aboue the rest of the twelue Secondly of primacy because he was the first named as the fore-man of the quest Thirdly of principality in regard of measure of grace wherein he excelled the rest of the twelue but Paul excelled Peter euery way in learning zeale and vnderstanding as farre as Peter excelled the rest ANNOTATION MAster PERKINS as his manner is at the first vvould seeme to approch somewhat neare vnto the Catholike doctrine and therefore giueth as braue wordes for S. Peters prerogatiues as we doe to wit That he surpassed the other Apostles both in authority primacy and principality but pâ—â—â—ently after his old fashion he watereth his former wordes with such cold glosses that they shrinke in exceedingly for all Peters priuiledges doe extend no further then that he excelled the rest in priuate grace of learning zeale and vnderstanding and was therefore somewhat more esteemed then the rest and named first so that with M. PER. a great mill-post is quickly thwited as they say into a pudding pricke Againe all this is besides the purpose for the question is not vvhich of the Apostles excelled in those priuate gifts of vnderstanding zeale and piety for it is not vnlikely hat S. Iohn the Euangelist who sucked diuine mysteries out of our Sauiours breast was not inferior to either S. Peter or S. Paul in these spirituall graces of heauenly knowledge and charity but vve leauing these secretes vnto him vvho is the judge of the hart and of his inward gifts doe affirme S. Peter to haue beene aduanced aboue all the rest of the Apostles in the externall gouernement of Christes Church and the Bishops of Rome his successors to inherite the same supremacy THE DIFFERENCE by M. PERKINS THe Church of Rome giueth to Peter a supremacy vnder Christ aboue all persons and causes this standeth in a power to determine which bookes of Scripture be Canonicall and what is the true sence of any doubtfull place of them and for this purpose to call and assemble generall Councels and to confirme the decrees of them and by these meanes to decide all controuersiâ—â— about matter of faith Besides he can excommunicate any Christian be he King or Kaesar if they by obstinate withstanding Gods lawes or the decrees of holy Church shal justly deserue it Moreouer to him it doth belong to make Ecclesiasticall Canons and lawes for the due discipline and ordering of matters of the Church which doe binde in conscience Finally to confirme the election of Bishops and to decide all such greater controuersies as by appeale are brought vnto him from any part of Christendome These indeede be the chiefest points of the Popes supremacy as for that of pardoning of sinnes it is no proper part of his primacy but common vnto all not only to Bishops but also to Priests We saith M. PERKINS hold that neyther Peter nor any Bishop of Rome had or hath any such supremacy ouer the Catholike Church but that all supremacy vnder Christ is appertaining to Kinges and Princes with him in their Dominions And that our doctrine is good and theirs false I will make manifest by sundry reasons First Christ must be considered as he was a King two wayes first as he is God so is he King ouer al by right of creation and so as God hath deputies on earth to gouerne the world namely Kings and Princes Secondly he is King by right of redemption ouer the whole Church which he hath redeemed with his pretious bloud and so as mediatour and redeemer he hath no fellowe nor deputy for no creature is capable of this office to doe in the roome and stead of Christ that which himselfe doth because euery worke of the mediatour must arise from the effectes of two natures concurring in one action namely the God-head and Man-hood Againe Christes Priest-hood cannot passe from his person to any other whence it followeth that neyther his Kingly nor his Propheticall he vvould haue said Priestly office can passe from him to any creature Nay it is needlesse for Christ to haue a deputy considering that a deputy only serueth to supply the absence of the principall whereas Christ is alwayes present by his word and spirit it may be said that the Ministers in the worke of the ministery are Christes deputies I answere that they are no deputies but only actiue instruments because they doe only vtter the word but it is Christ that worketh in the hart In like manner in excommunication it is Christ that cutteth that excommunicate person from the Kingdome of heauen and the Church doth only declare this by cutting him off from the rest of Christes people vntill he repent so that in all Ecclesiasticall actions Christ hath no deputies but only instruments the whole action being personall in respect of Christ. Is not this trowe you a prety peece of an argument but we must beare with the length of it because it alone will serue as M. PER. opineth to ouerthrowe many points of Popery let it be therefore wel
Such nowe a daies is the condition of the Lutherans De prophetia Christi that if any man list to behold a great number of Knawes robbers malitious persons coseners vsurers and such like deceiuers let him but enter into a City where the Gospell is taught and there he shall find good store of them and a litle after Surely it is true that among Heathens Iewes Turkes and other Infidels none can be found more vnruly and that lesse esteeme of honestie and vertue then the Euangelicall Bretheren with whome all thinges passe currant and nothing almost is blamed except vertue For the Diuell hath shaken of all their bandes and turned them loose Hauing done with the Creede and tenne Commandements we must nowe come to our Lordes praier Master PER. beginneth with it thus The Lordes praier is a most absolute forme of prayer nowe in this we are taught to direct our prayers to God alone Our father c. and that only in the name and mediation of Christ for God is our father only by Christ therefore to vse any mediation of Saints is needelesse Ans We allowe our Lordes praier to be a most perfect forme of praier yet hold that many other sort of praiers may be made vnto God very acceptably as sundry other praiers vsed by Christ set downe in the Gospel doe teach vs and therefore to argue that because one praier of Christs making is directed to God that no other may be made to any Saint is very childish We gather praier to Saints out of S. Paules requesting the Romans and Corinthians and others to pray for him and out of the mediation of the woman of Cananea to Christ for her daughter and the Disciples speaking to Christ for her with such like both out of the old and newe Testament For if it had beene either needlesse or bootelesse to haue praied vnto God any otherwise then in the name and by the mediation of Christ then S. Paul would not haue requested the helpe of mortall mens praiers to God for him and if poore sinners praiers may helpe vs much more may the intercession of the glorious Saints doe who are in farre greater fauour with God See the question of intercession of Saints Againe if that only forme of praier were to be vsed neither were it lawfull to pray to Christ himselfe neither could it be proued thereby that we should pray in Christes name For there is no expresse mention of Christes name neither any petition for Christes sake For God may be truly called our father in that he immediately createth and giueth vs our soules which is more then our bodies that we receiue from our carnall fathers Secondly he hoppeth to the fourth petition Giue vs our daylie bread in which wordes we acknowledge saith he that euery morsel of bread is the meere gift of God what madnesse then is it for vs to thinke that we should merit the kingdome of heauen that cannot merit so much as bread It is false that we cannot merit our bread Math. 10. vers 11. 1. Cor. 9. vers 14. For Christ teacheth that he who goeth to preach the Gospell is worthy of that is meriteth and deserueth his meate which S. Paul testifieth saying that our Lord ordained that those who preach the Gospell should liue of the Gospell And doe not day labourers deserue their bread before they eate it and others that buy their bread doe I hope deserue it What ignorance then is it in the very principles of our faith to auouch that we cannot merit bread which notwithstanding we pray God to giue vs because neither could we deserue and yerne it without his helpe and assistance neither would it doe vs any good without his blessing Thirdly in the next petition Forgiue vs our debtes fower opinions of the Roman religion saith he are directly ouerthrowne What fower at one blowe what a Hercules haue we here let vs heare which The first is humane satisfaction for the child of God is taught here to pray for the pardon of his sinnes nowe to pray for pardon and to make satisfaction be contrary Answ This is a sillie ouerthrowe for it is so farre of that praier and satisfaction are contraries that praier it selfe is one of the three workes of satisfaction Fasting Praying and giuing of Almesse are not contrary but the very workes of satisfaction Lib. 1. de Simbolo cap. 6. in Enchir. cap. 69. And our Lordes praier is esteemed by S. Augustine who is assoone to be beleeued as M. PERKINS sufficient of it selfe to satisfie for the light daylie offences that just men fall into besides Christ himselfe praied for pardon of these mortall sinnes for which notwithstanding Gods justice was fully satisfied by Christ his sufferings wherefore satisfaction and to sue for pardon are not so contrary but they may well stand together Nowe to the second downefall merits are here also ouerthrowne For we acknowledge our selues debters and we daylie increase our debts nowe it is madnesse to thinke that they who daylie increase their debts can deserue or purchase any good of the creditors in a word this must be thought vpon c. And good reason too First then I answere that venial sinnes and smal debts that just men daylie incurre doe not hinder the daylie merit of their other good workes As a seruant hired by the day by committing some small fault doth not thereby loose his daies wages againe though he should commit such a fault that might make him vnworthy of his daies hire yet if his Master did forgiue him that fault his wages were notwithstanding due to him and so the asking pardon for our sinnes doth not ouerthrowe but rather establish and fortifie our merits The third opinion imagined to be confuted by this petition is that temporall punishment may be retained after the crime it selfe and the eternall is remitted but this cannot stand saith he For we owe to God obedience and for the defect of this paiment we owe to God the forfeiture of punishment Sinne then is called our debt in respect of the punishment And therefore when we pray for pardon of our sinnes we require not only the fault to be pardoned but the whole punishment and when debt is pardoned it is absurd to thinke that the least paiment should remaine Answ Here is a most absurd collection For when we in our Lordes praier craue pardon of our debts we confesse that we are in his debt and that there is paiment of punishment yet due vnto vs the remission whereof we then require nowe this praier is made by the best men after their conuersion as he confesseth who standing in Gods fauour and therefore free from eternall punishment doe notwithstanding craue pardon and release of some punishment by M. PERKINS owne interpretation Whereupon it followeth most euidently out of this petition that after eternall punishment is forgiuen vnto the just there is some other punishment remaining of which they craue pardon and consequently this
vers 12. considering his owne frailty Marry very good hope and confidence ought we all to haue in respect of Gods infinite mercy and goodnesse and in the inestimable merits of our Lord and Sauiour IESVS Christ but by faith we cannot beleeue it vnlesse God doe extraordinarylie reueale any such thing vnto vs which he doth to very fewe of his best beloued and best tryed seruants In the matter of our difference he saith first That we teach not faith to be a knowledge of thinges beleeued but a reuerent assent vnto them whether they be knowne or vnknowne But this he saith very vntruly for we hold faith in his owne nature to comprehend a certayne kinde of knowledge though not so cleare and euident yet of as great assurance as is the knowledge of naturall thinges but the man harpeth vpon something else if he could hitte on it We say indeede that it is not of necessity for the simpler sort and ignorant people to reade the holy Scriptures and to goe fish their faith out of that profound Ocean but may content themselues with their Pastors instructions and with their Catechismes and other bookes of piety and deuotion albeit we wish them of better vnderstanding if they be not too curious and wilfull to reade the holy Scriptures vvith reuerence seeking humbly to better their knowledge and especially to amend their liues and in places of difficulty not to trust vnto their owne wits but to referre themselues to the exposition of the Catholike Church which is the pillar and fortresse of truth and there vpon vvholy to rely Yet vve require much more knowledge in the simpler sort of people then the Protestants doe for we teach that euery one is to knowe expresly the 12. articles of the Apostles Creede the tenne Commandements and those Sacraments which they themselues are to receiue Further also all such lawes and ordinances of either the spirituall or temporall Gouernour which doe appertayne vnto their owne estate that they may knowe howe both in spirituall and temporall matters to carry themselues vvithout offence Let those our Authors which teach cases of conscience be consulted in those points and you shall finde them to charge euery man in conscience to knowe all these thinges whatsoeuer some men haue thought to the contrary who be not in that allowed but disproued euen by the testimony of that Authour Banes vvhome M. PERKINS quoteth And touching praying in Latin the lawes of the Catholike Church doth not bind any man to pray in Latin who is not first bound to learne the Latin tongue that is men in holy orders are bound to their Latin Breuiary but no man ignorant of the Latin tongue must be admitted vnto holy orders for them that are ignorant of the Latin tongue vve haue diuers bookes of English prayers vvherein they may exercise themselues fruitfully If any deuout women or others who vnderstand not Latin desire to reade some selected and approued Latin prayers we doe not forbidde them because those prayers haue many priuiledges aboue others And vve doubt not but that many of them doe reade the same Latin prayers with much more humility attention and eleuation of their mindes vnto God and all goodnesse then thousandes of Protestants or Puritans who reade and pronounce gallantly many glorious English prayers composed very curiously when their harts be farre from God Lastly he dissenteth from vs for that we say That some articles of faith were at the first beleeued generally by an infolded faith which afterward being by generall Councels vnfolded and declared to be articles of faith were beleeued expreslie This implicity of faith touching articles of religion M. PER. rejecteth saying That all matters of faith are contained plainelie in the Scriptures This he saith without probation and it is by me in the question of Traditions refuted already therefore to that place I referre the reader OF PVRGATORY OVR CONSENT M. PERKINS Page 278. WE hold a Christian Purgatory by which we vnderstand first the afflictions of Gods children here on earth secondly the bloud of Christ is a Purgatory for our sinnes and so Augustine calleth the mercy of God our Purgatory To this I say that the word Purgatory may be taken diuersly and signifie many thinges which because they be not to the present purpose may be here well omitted THE DIFFERENCE WE differ in two thinges first concerning the place the Catholikes hold it to be vnder the ground into which mens soules after this life doe enter This we deny as hauing no warrant in the word which mentioneth only two places for men after this life Luc. 16. v. 25.26 Ioh. 3. Apoc. 22. heauen and hell Here M. PER. beginneth the disproofe of Purgatory with his ordinary hackney it is not mentioned in the Scriptures To which I answere first that it is as shall be proued hereafter but if it were not yet were it to be beleeued because it vvas receiued by Tradition euen from the Apostles time Besides this fault in M. PER. argument there is another more childish to wit because there is no mention made of Purgatory in three or foure places by him quoted he concludeth that it hath no warrant at all in any other place of Scriptures as who should say there is no Doctor of Phisicke in two or three Colledges of Cambridge therefore there is not one in all the Vniuersity besides Finally Luc. 16. vers 25. the very first place by him cited ouerthroweth flatly his owne position it being truly vnderstood according vnto the generall exposition of the most learned Doctors for Abraham then was not in heauen but in a third place called Lymbo Patrum because before Christ had paid their ransome by his death on the crosse the Fathers of the old Testament were holden captiue and so of Christ it is said That ascending on high he ledde captiuity captiue Ephes 4. vers 8. Hebr. 9. v. 8. 15. And S. Paul proueth by the entring of the high Priest only into the second part of the Tabernacle called Sancta Sanctorum that the way of the Holies was not then manifested but by the bloud of Christ to be laid open and they by the death of the testatour to receiue the eternall redemption But this is by the way to shew the wisdome of the man to bring one text in controuersie to established another But he goeth forward and saith stoutly that there can be no place for Purgatory for that it is saide That they who dyed in the Lord Apoc. 14. vers 13. are bidden to rest from their labours which cannot be saith he if they goe into Purgatory And to cut off all cauils it is further said their workes that is the reward of their workes followe them euen at the heeles I answere first that we haue here by the way heauen to be the reward of workes by M. PER. confession which in the question of merits he denied most absolutely Secondly that albeit they who die in our