doe not wholy and inuiolably hold all the points of faith that she professeth but renounceth them and declareth them to be accursed wherefore no Protestant can be in the Church of Rome But they say That their Church lay hidde in the Roman as corne in chaffe Did it in deede lie in such obscurity that none of them were to be seene or heard off therefore it was no Church at all for the most proper markes of the Church according to their owne principles are The true preaching of Gods word and the sincere administration of the Sacraments Nowe preachers of the vvord must be both seene and heard also and they walked not inuisible I hope vvho ministred and receiued their Sacraments wherefore they must either graunt that their Church in that generall Apostacy was visible or that it was no Church at all as not hauing the inseparable markes of their Church which are The true preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments Againe if they had beene liuely members of the true Church how could they liue vnknowne in that great Apostacy were they not bound in conscience to haue made profession of their faith publikely Rom. 10. vers 10. Math. 10. vers 33. S. Paul saith yea With the hart we beleeue vnto justice but with the mouth confession is made to saluation And our Sauiour saith He that shall deny me before men I also will deny him before my father which is in heauen If they were such crauens as made more account of their owne ease and safety then of the truth of their religion and glory of God they were rather cockle ouer-sowed by the enemy among the good-seede Math. 13. vers 25. then like vnto corne hidden in chaffe In vaine for them also vvas that voyce sent from heauen and recorded by S. Iohn which M. PER. taketh for his text Goe out of her my people for these dastardly faint-harted fellowes would giue no eare to it but loued better to hide their heades in some musty corner then vvith danger of their liues to separate themselues from those abhominations If then there vvere any such false harted dumbe and deafe reprobates hidden among others let the Protestants take them if they please for their worthy ancestors But no reason in the world to cal them the true Church of God that had neither true loue of Gods honour nor of their neighbours good and conuersion otherwise they would not haue holden their peace seing Gods holy name so miserably prophaned as they thought Thus much of M. PER. position nowe to his proofe If any man aske them where their Church was before Luthers dayes he answereth out of this text Goe out of her my people that it was euer since the Apostles dayes Let vs drawe this to some forme of argument that it may appeare how it hangeth togither A voice from heauen cryed in S. Iohns dayes to the Church of Rome Goe out of Babilon that is depart from the congregation of the wicked Heathens and Pagans therefore the Protestants religion hath beene euer since the Apostles dayes Apply Iohn Barber and thou shalt haue a newe paire of sizors for thy labour Should not a man leese his labour to confute particularly such a sencelesse discourse But yet a word to his next annotation vpon the text Demanding whether the Church of Rome he a Church or no he answereth That if it be so taken as in truth it is it is no Church at all His proofes are That it is Babilon that it peruerteth the true sence of the Scripture and ouerturneth the inward baptisme all which I haue heretofore confuted Here I will but demand whether this assertion of his doth not vndermine and blowe vp his former for if their hidden Church were no where but in the Roman for nine hundred yeares together and that Roman were no Church at all then surely their Church was not at all which had no being and existence but in the other which vvas not at all I may not here omit to note by the vvay vnto the gentle reader out of S. Augustine In illa verba ps 85. TV SOLVS DeVS MAGNVS Pag. 338. Howe they robbe Christ of his glory and inheritance bought with his pretious bloud who hold that his Church failed and was fled into corners Yea S. Hierome further affirmeth That they make God subject to the Deuill and a poore miserable Christ who hold that his body the Church may perish or be so bidden that it cannot be heard off Wherefore omitting such impertinent stuffe let vs come vnto those horrible crimes that he chargeth the Church of Rome withall The first is no lesse then Atheisme to vvhich I haue fully answered in the preface of this booke wherefore I doe omit it here doe come to the second crime of Idolatry Which saith he is as grosse among vs as euer it was among the Heathens See the foule mouth of a preacher howe proueth he this Marry it is to be seene in two things first they worship the Saints with religious worship which is proper to God O most impudent doe we make Saints creators of heauen and earth omnipotent infinitely wise and good or giue them any kinde of honour due vnto God only see that question and detest the sonnes of the Deuill that blush not to auouch such monstrous lies But we make the blessed Virgin Mary a Mediator of redemption Fie vpon such an impudent face but we call her a Lady a Queene be it so For so did Athanasius in Euang. de sanctiss Deipar apply those wordes of the 44. Psalme The Queene standeth on thy right hand in a golden vestement c. So did Gregory Nazianzene in his Verses of her For thou saith he ô Queene by the diuine fauour camest to me So did holy Effrem in his Oration to her all which liued within foure hundreth yeares off Christ To omit S. Chrysostomes Lyturgy because they like it not But what of this shee is a redeemer O sencelesse that shee is called a Goddesse as they did call the Queene Elizabeth then liuing I reade not in any of the bookes quoted by him Missal Breuiar A mediatresse of intercession our hope our life and the like shee may be called in a good sence because we hope through the helpe of her most gratious prayers to obtayne the life of our soules and so may it be said to her Prepare thou glory for vs defend vs from our enemies and such like to wit by the meanes of her prayers Againe saith he their Idolatry is manifest in that they worship God in at or before Images Then are the Protestants also Idolaters because they vvorship God in or at the Churches at or before their communion table Whether we haue commandement or not for Images maketh nothing to Idolatry but whether we giue to Images the honour only due to God which we doe not Nowe to compare Images to adulterers is to dote and deserueth no
vulgar tongue or that all thinges necessary to be beleeued to saluation are contained in the Scriptures To be short not one article of their religion which is contrary to ours is contained in this Creede of the Apostles therefore to affirme as de doth all necessarie pointes of religion to be contained in this Creede is to cast their owne religion flat to the ground and to teach that not one point of it is to be beleeued this Creede may neuerthelesse be called the key and rule of faith because it containeth the principall pointes of the Christian religion and doth open as it were the doore vnto all the rest and guide a man certainely vnto the knowledge of them by teaching vs to beleeue the Catholike Church 1. Tim. 3. vers 15. Ioh. 16. vers 13. which being the piller and ground of truth directed and guided by the spirit of truth will alwaies instruct her obedient children in all truth necessary to saluation Then saith Master PERKINS The eternal truth of God the creatour shal depend on the determination of the creature Nothing lesse for Gods truth is most sincere and certaine in it selfe before anie declaration of the Church but vve poore creatures that are subject to mistaking and errour should not so certaynelie vnderstand and knowe that truth of God vnlesse he had ordained and appointed such a skilfull and faithfull Mistris and interpreter to assure vs both what is his word and what is the true meaning of it Like as pure gold is not made perfect in it selfe by the Gold-smithes touch-stone but other men are thereby assured that it is true and pure gold euen so the word of God doth not borrowe his truth from the Church but the true children of God are by the holie Church assured which is the same his word If we did hold as we doe not that the written vvord contayneth all pointes of doctrine necessarie to saluation yet vvere it most necessarie to relie vpon the Catholike Churches declaration both to be assured which bookes of Scriptures be Canonicall which not whereupon S. Augustine a man of farre better judgement then any of these daies said Con. Epist Iud. cap. 5. that he would not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the authority of the Church moued him thereunto as also to vnderstand them truly because the wordes of holy Scripture without the true meaning and sence of them doe but deceiue men and leade them into errour and to that end haue alwaies beene and yet are by Heretikes abused to drawe others after them into destruction The like may be said of other ancient Creedes and confessions of faith which holding the Apostles Creede did adde some fewe pointes vnto it namely such as were in those daies called into question by Heretikes of greater fame and who were followed of many not touching in particuler diuers other articles generally beleeued of all true Christians or else by some fewe and obscure men only questioned Wherefore to argue that no other pointes of faith are to be beleeued but such as are expressed in ancient Creedes is to cut of a great part of our faith Lastly it is most vntrue to say that those ancient Fathers and Councels knewe not of these articles of faith by him mentioned for they haue most plainely taught them in their writinges yea and expresly condemned of heresie most of the contrary positions nowe againe reuiued and holden by the Protestantes as in those seuerall questions I haue before proued Touching beleeuing in the Church which he thrusteth in by the way we vse not that phrase as the very Creede sheweth following therein S. Augustine with others who hold that to beleeue in a thing is to make it our creatour by giuing our whole hart vnto it in which sence we beleeue not in Saintes nor in the Church albeit some other ancient Doctors take the wordes to beleeue in not so precisely but say that me may beleeue in the Church in Saintes that is beleeue certainely that the Catholike Church is the only true company of Christians and that to the lawfull gouernours thereof it appertaineth to declare both which bookes be Canonicall and what is the true meaning of all doubtfull places in them so we beleeue the Saintes in heauen to heare our prayers to be carefull to pray for vs to be able to obtaine by intreaty much at Gods handes in whose high fauour they liue Thus much in answere vnto that which M. PER. objecteth in generall nowe to that he saith in particuler He chargeth vs first with the breach of the third article Conceiued by the holy Ghost Which saith he is ouerturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Masse into the body and bloud of Christ for here we are taught to confesse the true and perpetuall incarnation of Christ beginning in his conception and neuer ending afterward Answ Here is a strange exposition of the Creede Is Christes incarnation perpetuall and not yet ended then it is true to say that Christ is not yet incarnate as we may say truly that a man is not borne vntill his birth be accomplished and ended But to the present purpose because Christes incarnation beganne at his conception cannot bread be turned afterward into his body how hangeth this together Belike he meanes that Christes body was but once conceiued and that was by the holy Ghost in his mothers wombe therefore it cannot afterward be made of any other thing This to be his meaning he declares in the question of the Sacrament but it is too too simple and childish For we hold him not to be so conceiued by bread as he was by the holy Ghost who was the efficient cause of his conception but that the same body that was cōceiued by the holy Ghost is made really present in the Sacrament by transubstantiation of bread into it which hath no opposition at al with this article as I haue more largely proued in the foresaid question And whereas he saith further cleane besides the purpose of this article that Christes body hath the essentiall properties of a true body standing of flesh and bone we grant the same but when he addeth that local circumscription cannot be seuered from a body he is deceiued for the greatest body of all others which is the highest heauen is not circumscribed by any place because there is no other body without it whose extreamities might compasse in and circumscribe that body of the highest heauen And when he saith that to be circumscribed in place is an essentiall property of euery quantity and that quantity is the common essence of euery body he makes himselfe but a common mocking-stocke vnto euery simple Logitian who knoweth that no accident such as euery quantity is can be of the essence and nature of a substance such as Christes body is Neither would any man say that cared what he said that to be circumscribed in a place is essentiall to euery quantity when all numbers that be quantities
of bread only doth as vvell present vnto our mindes as if the substance of bread were there present with it Againe saith M. PER. it abolisheth the endes of the Sacrament First it maketh we cannot remember Christ who being present bodily in the Sacrament needeth not be remembred because helpes of remembrance are of thinges absent Answ A man would thinke were not his wits somewhat distempered that he might be remembred best that is most present to vs neither is remembrance only of things absent For as euery one may well remember when they see one whome they haue seldome seene before the very sight of him or his speech or some other token which he telleth calleth vs to remembrance of him who is personally then present But if this were not so yet were the end of the Sacrament accomplished most perfectly For by Christes reall presence in the Sacrament we are admonished to remember not his body barely 1. Cor. 11. but his death on the Crosse as S. Paul expoundeth it which death of his is absent and by the consecrating of his body apart from his bloud and by the eleuation of it is represented vnto vs very liuely and so we are put in minde and made to remember a thing absent to wit the death and passion of Christ Moreouer M. PER. saith that an other end of the Sacrament is to feed the soule with eternall life but by transubstantiation the principall feeding is of the body and not of the soule which is only fed with spirituall foode Answere Alas into what straightes was he brought when he wrote this a man would thinke that if the substance of bread remained still as in their counterfeit Sacrament it doth it should rather be food for the body then for the spirit For bread as fooles knowe as well as phisitions doth nourish the body naturally We then that remoue the substance of bread out of the Sacrament must needes therefore meane to feed only the soule thereby and not the body at all For Christes blessed body receiued in the Sacrament is nurriture only of our soule by his graces bountifully bestowed vpon the worthy receiuer it giueth to the body only a certaine seede or pledge of immortallity according vnto that Ioh. 6. vers 54. He that eateth my flesh c. hath life euerlasting and I will raise him vp in the last day M. PERKINS fourth reason In the Sacrament the body of Christ is receiued as it was crucified and his bloud as it was shed vpon the crosse but nowe the act of crucifying is past it is faith alone that maketh Christ crucified to be present vnto vs in the Sacrament ergo Answere We denie his first proposition for we receiue the same body that was crucified but not after that bloudy manner as it was there vsed but vnder the formes of bread and wine which Christes owne vvordes doe importe take eate this is my body that shall be giuen for you he saith not as M. PER. doth as it shall be giuen for you that is not in the same manner though it be the same in substance Yet as I once said before the consecration of his bloud in the Chalice as it were a part from his body and powred out with the lifting vp of the body after cōsecration as it is done in the Masse with the breaking and receiuing of the holy Host doth liuely represent vnto the faithfull Christes blessed death and passion But what resemblance hath the eating of bread drinking of wine the Protestants holy communion with the crucifying of Christ Is eating and drinking of so pleasing food meete to expresse Christes drinking of gall and most painefull torments by their feeling faith they would salue this but they cannot For besides faith there must be as M. PER. himselfe before confessed a proportion betweene the signe and the thing signified but there is no proportion betweene eating of fine bread drinking of good wine with the dolorous crosse of Christ Seing then that in the Sacrament as M. PER. teacheth Christes body must be receiued as it was crucified he must needes appoint something else then bread wine to be the signes of this Sacrament for they be most vnproper to represent Christes passion Againe saith he discoursing very learnedly That bloud which ranne out of Christes side was not gathered vp againe nay the collection of it was needlesse because after the resurrection he liued no more a naturall but a spirituall life Ans Here is a proper peece of diuinity He might aswel say if his reason were good that Christs body is not risen againe because a body also is as needles vnto a spiritual life The truth is that the body with the bloud in the veines of it is risen againe else were it no true resurrection which is only when the very same body numero with all the same parts and parcels of it which it had before be restored vnto their former essence integrity Note by the way the admirable rare vertue of the Protestants faith whose property is saith M. P. to giue a being vnto thinges which are not What being good Sir that any thing should be extant in the world which before was not yes marry that that bloud should be receiued spiritually which is not at al. True perhaps in the Protestants vaine imagination but in deed most ridiculous to imagine that that can be receiued either corporally or spiritually vvhich is not extant nor hath any being at all For a thing must be of it selfe before it can be receiued of an other 1. Cor. 10. vers 3. M. PER. fift reason The fathers of the old Testament did eate the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the rocke which was Christ but they could not eate his body which was not then crucified but by faith the Papists answere that the fathers did eate the same meate among themselues and not that which we eate that is all the Israelites did eate the same spirituall foode of Manna and did drinke all of the vvater which issued out of the spirituall Rocke one of them as well as an other yet they had not the same Sacraments that we Christians haue neither did they receiue the same that we doe But M. PER. will proue that they had Because saith he the Apostles intent is to proue that the Iewes were euery way equall to the Corinthians and in nothing inferior Reply S. Paul meant and intended nothing lesse but in the same his Epistle and in many of the rest expresly teacheth the state of the Christians such as the Corinthians were to surpasse farre the state of the Iewes For the old Testament is compared to the letter that killeth 2. Cor. 3. and therefore called the ministration of damnation the newe to the spirit that quickneth and to the ministry of justice and the old Testament did ingender to bondage Gal. 4.14 Vers 1. Ver. 3. 9 Hebr. 10. vers
cut his flesh in peeces as butchers doe beefe in the shambles and either rawe or rosted haue giuen it to be eaten to some a legge to other an arme c. But we Catholikes doe eate Christes body whole and that without any detriment or diminution vnto that blessed body which is not extended vnder the partes of the sacred Host so as one part of his body is vnder one part of it and another part vnder another but is after the manner of our soule in the body the whole body vnder the whole Host and the whole vnder euery part of the Host and so without any parting or deuiding of his body it is wholy receiued of euery communicant and remaineth after whole in their bodies imparting his grace to their soules so long as the formes of bread tary in their stomackes in their proper shapes and afterward ceasseth to be there any longer which is confirmed by those diuine wordes of the glorious Apostle S. Andrewe recorded by his most deare Disciples Libr. de pass eius When the immaculate lambe is truly sacrificed and his flesh truly eaten of the people he neuerthelesse remaineth and continueth whole and aliue That which he peeceth too of the necessity which we are brought vnto by our doctrine to hold that our bodies be nourished by naked qualities which saith he is erronious in Philosophy is not worth the answering For neither are we driuen to hold that vnlesse it be out of the bounty of our owne good willes For it is nothing materiall â—o the real presence whether our bodies be nourished by the accidents there present or no neither is it so cleare a case in Philosophy whether odours that are naked quallities doe nourish or no as they who haue studied Philosophie knowe And lastly all matters of faith are aboue the rules of Philosophie vvherefore the reall presence of Christs blessed body in the Sacrament being a memoriall and monument of all his merueilous works it must not be thought strange if there followe of it many thinges aboue the reach of naturall Philosophie and yet not so many perhaps as must needes be granted by them as well as by vs in the resurrection of our bodies vvhich notwithstanding those difficulties in Philosophy all Christian men doe firmely beleeue Nowe let vs come vnto such authorities as M. PER. citeth in fauour of their part which neither are many nor taken out of the more famous fathers of either Greeke or Latin Church and which is more admirable not one of the authours by him cited but that in the very same wordes which he alleadgeth to disproue the reall presence they doe euidently auerre and proue it so well knowne and confessed a truth was this of the blessed Dialog 1 Sacrament in all antiquity Theodorete saith The same Christ who called his naturall body foode and bread who also called himselfe a vine he vouchsafed the visible signes the name of his owne body not changing nature but putting grace to nature Here are scarce two wordes together as it is in the author The former part of his wordes be Our Sauiour changed names giuing to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body that is he called his body bread and bread his body so that here is as much for vs as against vs and the latter part of the sentence is wholy for vs. For Christ would saith he haue them that he partakers of the misteries not to attend vnto the nature of the thinges which are seene that is bread and wine but by reason of the changing of names to giue credit to that change which is made by grace that is they hearing in consecration that which was before bread and wine to be then called his body and bloud should beleeue that then also bread and vvine vvere changed and made his body and bloud that change being wrought by the vertue and grace of his word To these wordes of Theodorete in his first Dialogue he joyneth other wordes of his taken out of his second yet quoting the same Dialogue The mysticall signes after consecration leese not their nature for they remaine in their first nature figure and forme and may be feine and touched as before Here M. PER. should haue stopped in the middest of the sentence as they are sometimes accustomed to doe and then had he left some shewe of wordes for his part yet such as might easily be answered but vvhen the reason of the remaining of mysticall signes in their former nature and figure is as he himselfe declareth that they may be seene as before he doth giue the learned reader to vnderstand that he speaketh not of the inward substance of them but of the outward appearance which is the proper object of the sences which outward accidence hath a certaine kind of essence and nature as well as the substance it selfe But that which followeth in Theodorete putteth al out of doubt For he addeth The mysticall signes may be seene as before but that which they are made is vnderstood And what is it vnderstood to be made Marry euen that which we beleeue and adore which can be no other thing but the true reall body of Christ Iesus God and man For in him doe vve beleeue and him doe we adore See then howe this his first and best authour disproueth plainely his owne position M. PER. second authour is one Gelasius an old writer I confesse but where or what he was De duabus naturis Christi it is vncertaine This man saith Bread and wine passe into the substance of the body and bloud of Christ yet they cease not but remaine still in the property of their nature these wordes be flat against M. PER. and the Zwinglians doctrine in that they teach bread and wine to passe into the substance of Christes body The other clause seemeth to make for the Lutherans yet may be interpreted that they remaine stil in some property of their nature that is in the same forme colour and taste as they did before M. PER. goeth on Lib. 4. sentent dist 11. Lumbard saith if he be asked what conuersion this is whether formall or substantiall or of any other kinde he cannot define it Ans Gentle reader turne to the place and imbrace his resolution For most formally doth he deliuer our doctrine and that proued by the testimony of the ancient Fathers albeit the name of transubstantion were not then in vse From the Fathers sentences M. PER. falleth to collections of his owne out of them First saith he they vsed in former times to burne with fire that which remained after the administration of the Lordes supper and therefore tooke it not for his body and quoteth for proofe of this Hesichius Libr. 2. in Leuit. c. 8. where he sheweth either ouer great boldnes if he did not see the place on exceeding wilfull malice if he read it For that ancient writer out of that ceremony of burning al
we will demand at his handes We call vpon Christ for saluation and therefore must we first beleeue him to be a Sauiour we call vpon Saints to pray for vs therefore must vve before hand beleeue that they both can and will pray for vs and that they are able through the fauour and loue that God beareth them to entreate much at Gods handes see howe vve must beleeue in them vpon whom we call for helpe And the very phrase of beleeuing in Saints is vsed by the same a Ad Philemon v. 5. Apostle not vnlike that of the old Testament b Exod. 14 vers 31. The people beleeued God and his seruant Moyses M. PERKINS goeth on patching vp his former argument with that which hath small coherence with it to wit That we haue no promise to be heard but for Christs sake Admit it vvere so it maketh nothing against prayer to Saints for they pray for vs in Christs name and are heard for Christs sake Finally M. PERKINS fableth that we giue for our only warrant of inuocation of Saints miracles and reuelations and thereunto answereth that to judge of any point of doctrine by miracles three thinges must concurre First the doctrine of faith and piety to be confirmed Secondly prayer to God that some thing may be done for the ratifying of the said doctrine Thirdly the manifest edification of the Church by the two former What of all this good Sir Marry thinke what you vvill for he inferreth nothing I will therefore apply all this to the purpose and say first That vvhen a miracle is graunted by God to confirme any point of doctrine in controuersie then euery man is as vvell bound to beleeue that point of doctrine as if it were plainely recorded in the holy Scripture for it hath God to witnesse who cannot deceiue Secondly that S. Bernard a most Godly man and one whose testimony M. PER. doth very often alleage did fulfill all those three worthy obseruations of M. PER. in working of miracles to confirme inuocation of Saints and therefore it is to be beleeued of all men euen by M. PERKINS owne sentence For first he propounded inuocation of Saints Lib. 3. vitae cap. 5. as a doctrine of faith and great piety in the Prouince of Tolouse in France where it was by our Protestants Grandsiers the Albigenses denyed Secondly he blessed some certaine loafes of bread that were presented to him and prayed to God that if inuocation to Saints were pure doctrine of faith that then whosoeuer should taste of that bread might be cured of what disease soeuer he was sicke A Bishop that stoode by added yea Sir if they receiue them with good faith they shall be healed S. Bernard replyed I said not so but whosoeuer shall truly taste of them shall be cured that they may knowe vs to haue the truth and to be the true messengers of God And as it there followeth An huge multitude of sicke and diseased persons tasting of that bread recouered perfect health If we had no other argument then this it alone were sufficient to perswade any Christian that to pray vnto Saints is the true doctrine of Christ which God so expresly would confirme by miracles and testifie so euidently What would he beleeue that will not beleeue this But saith M. PER. miracles be to be done for Infidels and not for them who beleeue True it is and therefore was this miracle done to conuert or to confound such Infidels as our Protestants are vvho will not beleeue the inuocation of Saints Lastly saith he our faith is not to be confirmed by reuelations Luc. 16. vers 29. and apparitions of dead men but by the writings of the Apostles and Prophets What is this either to miracles or inuocation of Saints neither is that which he saith to be drawne out of those wordes of that parable as I will proue when it shall be neede Note by the way that twice in this question he himselfe citeth that parable of Diues and Lazarus for proofe of doctrine vvhich he afterward denyeth to be lawfull for vs to doe What our other groundes be for inuocation of Saints shall be declared in our arguments following M. PERKINS fift reason To pray to Saints departed to bowe the knee to them while they are in heauen is to asscribe vnto them that which is proper to God namely to knowe the hart and inward desires thereof and to knowe the speeches and behauiours of all men in all places on the earth at all times Answere This man doth too too broadly enlarge his lies for neither doe all men at once much lesse at all times pray vnto euery or any one of the Saints but suppose they did yet to heare all their prayers togither is nothing so much as to see that which euery Saint doth see in heauen to wit the one only substance of God in three persons for what are all the cogitations of men compared vnto the immense and incomprehensible nature of God not so much as the point of a pinne to the whole globe of the earth and yet euery Saint in heauen doth clearely behold God therefore much more able are they to heare and see all thinges that belong vnto men And as the learned Diuines knowe the man-hood of our Sauiour Christ doth see knowe and comprehend all the deedes wordes and thoughts of all men that haue liued since the beginning of the world vnto the end because it belongeth vnto him who is judge of all to knowe all aswell to reward the good as to punish the euill and yet doth no Diuine say that the man-hood of Christ is God or equall vnto God in knowledge Nowe the Saints in heauen doe not see the secretes of our harts in our harts but being present to the face of God doe behold in it as it were in a most cleare glasse all that is pleaseth the goodnesse of God to reueale vnto them and it is incident and belonging necessarily vnto their most happy estate to haue graunted to them all that in reason they can demande otherwise they were not so happy as they might be Now what good nature would not be glad to pleasure his owne fellowe members and deare friendes specially such as craue so much at his handes vvherefore it cannot be denyed of any considerate man but that God who satisfieth al their just requests doth ordinarily reueale vnto his dearely beloued Saints all the prayers that be made vnto them Surely S. Augustine in most expresse tearmes declareth De cura pro mort cap. 15. 16. That God can giue such power vnto his Saints and Martirs that they may be present in spirit at euery place throughout the world where there is any memory of them or prayer made vnto them He will not take vpon him to define whether they be actually there present or no or whether by the ministery of Angels they be relieued that seeke helpe by the intercession of Martirs but maketh no
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
to that which M. PERKINS letteth fall by the way That though Peter excelled the rest of the twelue yet Paul passed him euery way this said he boldly and barely vvithout any authour or any shewe of proofe but let vs in kindnesse helpe him to proue it Galat. 2. vers 9. First S. Paul saith Iames. Cephas and Iohn who seemed to be the pillars gaue me and Barnabas the right hand of foâ—tery nowe if he were fellowe with the best he was not inferiour to Peter Answere In an orderly fellowship there is ordinarily one head and chiefe commander and so S. Paul might be very well admitted into that holy society and fellowship of preaching the Gospell and yet be vnder the President and Master of that Colledge or company S. Peter Secondly S. Paul further saith That the Gospell of the prepuce that is the preaching vnto the Gentils was committed vnto him as the chardge of the Israelites was vnto S. Peter therefore he was S. Peters equall at least and perhaps his better too because a larger commission was grounted vnto him Answere A partition of preaching the Gospell vnto all nations was made by common consent among the Apostles and it seemeth that S. Paul who was called afterward vvas admitted in S. Peters circuit or quarter vvhereupon for the more orderly proceeding in that blessed vvorke it was agreed vpon by them that S. Paul should haue principall care of the Gentils and S. Peter of the Iewes not that each of them might not also deale with both Iewes and Gentils for S. Peter was the first of all others that by reuelation from heauen did conuert the Gentils as he testifieth saying Act. 15. vers 7. Bretheren you knowe that God chose that by my mouth the Gentils should heare the word of God and beleeue yet because men commonly doe most tender and affect that vvhich is more specially committed to their charge to S. Paul were the Gentils recommended as to S. Peter the care of the Iewes But this might be very well done and yet S. Paul be inferiour vnto S. Peter and owe him a reuerent duty in the cases of supremacy as the Bishops of Canterbury and London haue charges of seuerall men and places yet is London to acknowledge Canterbury as his superiour And if the other Apostles who had also their diuisions and Diocesses a part were neuerthelesse inferiour vnto S. Peter so might S. Paul be notwithstanding his distinct charge Thirdly S. Paul resisted S. Peter to his face and reprehended him for walking amisse therefore he was rather his superiour Answere Not so for an inferiour by vvay of brotherly correction may in decent sort reprehend his superiour if he see him not to take good courses I knowe vvell that S. Hierome following the opinion of most of the Greeke Fathers doth cleare S. Peter of all fault holding it to haue beene but a set match betweene the two great Apostles that one of them for the instruction of others should reprehend the other But admitting with S. Augustine that S. Peter was worthy blame and therefore justly reprehended by S. Paul yet thence will followe no derogation to S. Peters dignity but great commendation of his humility as the holy Fathers of that opinion doe gather Of it thus writeth S. Cyprian Epist 71. ad Quintum Neyther did Peter whome our Lord chose the first and vpon whome he built his Church when Paul disputed with him about circumcision arrogate to himselfe any thing saying that he bad primacy and therefore the latter disciple ought rather to obey him but tooke it in good part S. Augustine saith Peter gaue to his posterity a more rare and holy example Epist 19. ad HieroÌ„ that they should not disdayne to be corrected of their juniours then Paul that inferiours sauing their charity might confidently resist their superiours for the defence of truth And S. Gregory the great speaking of S. Peter saith Hom. 18. in Ezech. He yeelded vnto his inferiour brother and in that matter became a follower of his juniour to the end he might excell in this point that he who chiefest in the toppe of the Apostleship might be chiefest also in humility Thus much of S. Peters supremacy Nowe that the Popes of Rome doe succeede him in the same authority First that this Monarchy and soueraigne authority of one ouer all the rest vvas not to expire and end with S. Peter as M. PER. dreameth but to continue in Christes Church vntill the end of the world is cleare and euident to them vvho consider that this Supremacy was not giuen vnto S. Peter principally for his owne honour and aduancement but for the benefit of the Church to preserue and maintayne vnity and peace among all her louing and obedient children according vnto that of S. Hierome Among the twelue Apostles one is chosen L. 1. cont Iouinian that a head being established the occasion of schisme and diuision might be preuented and taken away If therefore it vvas thought necessary vnto the vvisdome of God Christ IESVS to appoint one head among the Apostles and a fewe of the best Christians vvho had the first fruites of his holy spirit to cut off dissention and to maintayne peace how much more neede hath there beene euer sithence of one supreme Pastor and moderatour of controuersies vvhen the number of Christians is so greatly increased and such variety of nations are ingrafted incorporated into it when through the diuersity of wits and judgements and the decay of charity there must needes be a thousand times more neede of the supreme authority of some one to hold all the rest together in the vnity of faith and religion Againe in the old Testament and lawe of Moyses which was a figure of the new the same forme of gouernement by one head and finall judge in spirituall matters vvas at the first established and continued euer after vvithout alteration till Christes first comming Euen so must the same Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy which our blessed Sauiour hath demised framed and founded stand alwaies firme and inviolable vntil his second comming for he hath built it vpon so firme a Rocke that hell gates shall not preuaile against it vvhich may be further confirmed if we vveigh vvell of vvhat moment and importance it is to alter and change the forme of gouernement For it is of no lesse moment then to alter the whole estate of Christs common-weale the very essence forme and vnity of a publike state consisting principally in the manner and order of ruling of it vvhich alteration and variety to imagine to haue hapned in Christs Church is to make many seames in his vnsowed garments or rather to rippe it and rent the vnity thereof into many peeces It being therefore a most certayne truth that the same supreme gouernement vvhich S. Peter had ouer the rest vvas to continue alwayes in Christes Church it followeth as plainely that the Bishops of Rome vvere to succeede him in that
our hart and soule that it maketh it whiter then snowe the temple of the holy Ghost Psal 50. 1. Cor. 6. 2. Tim. 2. vers 21. sanctified and apt to all good workes as the word of God witnesseth The third conclusion is about Christes imputatiue justice vve hold that no man is formally justified by that justice which is in Christ which is infinite and vvould make vs as just as Christ himselfe is but that God through Christes merits doth bestowe vpon euery righteous man a certayne measure of justice vvherewith his soule being purged from sinne and adorned with all honesty fit for his degree and calling is made righteous in Gods sight and worthy of the Kingdome of heauen M. PERKINS holdeth that Euery just man hath faith created in his hart whereby he layeth hand on Christes justice and drawing that to himselfe maketh it his owne He proueth it by these wordes of the Apostle 1. Cor. 1. vers 30. Christ is made vnto vs of God Wisdome Righteousnesse Sanctification and Redemption I answere that Christ is in that place so made our righteousnesse as he is made our wisdome nowe no man holdeth that he is made our wisdome by imputation therefore is he not our righteousnesse by imputation The Apostles meaning is that Christ is the procurer and meritorious cause of both our wisdome and justice and of whatsoeuer other spirituall gifts we enjoy And this righteousnesse which God bestoweth on vs in this life is sufficient to enable vs to keepe Gods lawe as I haue proued in seuerall questions before and to make vs worthy of life euerlasting The fourth conclusion Catholikes hold it the surest course to put their trust in the mercy of God and merits of Christ for their saluation yet in sobriâ—tâ— they may haue confidence both in their owne merittes and in other good mens prayers That is because God saueth none of yeares who doe not merit life euerlasting by vsing his grace well therefore a vertuous honest man may haue some confidence in the good course of his life Marry because we are not throughly assured of our owne good workes past neither can we tell howe long we shall perseuer in that Godly course of life therefore vve rather stand in feare when we consider our owne vvorkes and our whole confidence is in the mercies of God vvho for Christes sake calleth most vnworthy creatures to his grace and doth neuer for sake any endeauouring to continue in his seruice Neyther doth that visitation of the sicke in the Dutch tongue found in a dusty corner any whit helpe them for we teach all especially notorious sinners that vvallowe in sinne vntill their dying day such as it seemeth that visite was made for to trust not in their owne naughtinesse or little goodnes vvho haue a hundreth times more euill then good in them but in the infinite mercy of God and inestimable merits of our Sauiours death and passion vvhich letteth not but that a good man may haue some confidence in his owne merits and in the prayer of Saints And M PER. considereth little what he saith vvhen he affirmeth That we make that our God in which we put our trust for albeit vve must trust only in God as in the author of all good thinges yet may vve trust in diuers other thinges as in the meanes of our saluation Doe not the Protestants trust in Christes passion and yet I hope they made not his passion their God Haue they not a confidence and trust in their liuely faith yes I vvarrant you or else they would not be farre from desperation so notwithstanding his vaine babling Catholikes vvell grounded in vertue may haue some confidence in their owne good deedes and in the prayer of Saints as orderly meanes to attayne vnto saluation albeit vve trust in God only as in the authour of it The fift and last conclusion That we must not only beleeue in generall the promises of life euerlasting but apply them to vs in particular by hope M. PER. somewhat faintly excepteth against this and saith That by faith we must assure our selues of our saluation present and by hope continue the certainety of it Marry he addeth further That they teach not that euery man liuing within the precincts of their Church is certayne of his saluation by faith but that he ought so tâ— be and must endeauour to attayne thereto Why then that man hath not the faith of Protestants vvhich cannot but apply vnto themselues in particular the promises of life euerlasting and that as the nature of faith requireth without all staggering doubt but to sowe pillowes and to lay them vnder poore deceiued mens elbowes he sometimes saith that he requireth not such certainety of saluation yet in the conclusion of this very Chapter he forgetting himselfe so quickly saith That we abolish the substance of faith namely in denying the particular certayne application of Christ crucified and his benefits vnto our selues A vvorthy authour that can no better agree with himselfe OF REPENTANCE OVR CONSENT M. PERKINS Page 316. THe first conclusion Repentance is the conuersion of a sinner which is twofold passiue and actiue passiue is an action of God whereby he conuerteth a sinner Actiue is an action whereby the sinner once turned by God turneth himselfe and doth good workes as the fruit there of of this later the question is The second conclusion That repentance standeth specially for practise in contrition of hart confession of mouth and satisfaction in worke or deede There be two sortes of contrition one when a man is sorrowfull for feare only of hell and other punishments in this life this he calleth legall though in the state of the lawe there was most perfect contrition in some The other Euangelicall when one is greeued for his sinnes not so much for feare of hell as because he hath offended so good and mercyfull a God which is alwayes necessary Secondly We hold confession necessary to be made first to God then publikely to the congregation if any man be excommunicate for any crime Thirdly To our neighbour when we haue offended and wronged him Lastly In all true repentance there must be satisfaction made First to God by intreating him to accept of Christes satisfaction for our sinnes Secondly to the Church for publike offences in humiliation to testifie the truth of our repentance Thirdly satisfaction is to be made to our neighbour because if he be wronged he must haue recompence and restitution made The third conclusion That in repentance we are to bring forth outward fruites worthy amendment of life whereof the principall is to endeauour day and night by Gods grace to leaue and renounce al and euery sinne and in all thinges to doe the will of God THE DIFFERENCE WE dissent not from the Church of Rome in the doctrine of repentance it selfe but in the abuses thereof first in generall because they beginne repentance part of the holy Ghost and part of themselues by the
himselfe As for example when a man is asked whether he said or heard Masse in such a place though he did he may say that he did not and sweare to it meaning he was not there to reueale it to him whereas in the law of nature he that taketh an oath should sweare according vnto the intention of him that hath power to minister an oath and that in truth justice and judgement Let them cleare their doctrine from all defence of perjury if they can Answere If he had cited but one author you should haue heard a ful satisfaction of this matter The truth is that swearing a truth in his meaning that sweareth it although it be against the intention of him that ministreth the oath may be lawfully vsed in two cases The first if he that ministreth the oath haue not sufficient authority to minister it The second when hauing authority he asketh something beyond the order of lawe and against justice then he that sweareth is excused by the rule touched by M. PERK himselfe because a man must sweare as in truth so in justice that is to doe or say nothing againg justice And so when one enquireth after saying or hearing Masse as of a haynous crime to punish good Christians for it the man is bound not to reueale it as being against true justice to make his neighbour punished for so holy a fact The sixt sinne is that they reuerse many of Gods Commandements making that noâ— sinne which Gods word maketh a sinne for example If one steale some little thing that causeth no notable hurt that is no mortall sinne Molanus and a merry or officious lie is but a veniall sinne c. If Catholikes make stealing of thinges of smale value and officious lies veniall sinnes then M. PER. committeth herein a mortall sinne in belying them so maliciously as to affirme them to make that no sinne which Gods word maketh a sinne seeing that by his owne confession vve make them and such like sinnes though not so haynous because there is lesse malice in them He goeth on lying vvhen he affirmeth vs to say that none is bound to salute his enemy for we hold all men bound to salute their enemies and to afford them all common duties of ciuillity and though it be but a counsell to yeeld them the extraordinary offices of friendshippe yet vve hold that it is much more Christan-like so to doe As for rash judgement sodainely giuen without aduisement I see not howe it can be more then a veniall sinne for the party considering better of the matter changeth his opinion straight way and so doth his neighbour no vvrong And if it be the part of a wise man sometimes to dissemble according vnto that saying of the wise Sapientis est loco dissimulare then surely is it better to dissemble and fayne holynesse then wickednesse As for painting of the face in a moderate and modest fashion to amend the fauour vvhen it is done without any euill end or purpose and without scandall I see not howe one can make any more of it then a veniall sinne but to daube the countenance so as some leude women doe to allure men thereby to vnlawfull lust is without doubt very damnable and for no other is taken of Catholikes Touching begging let him name who holdeth it for vnlawfull to prohibite and forbidde it if sufficient meanes be otherwise prouided for the mainetaynance of the poore for I knowe none such True it is because the truth it selfe hath so said That we shall haue alwayes the poore among vs. Mat. 26. vers 11. But who doubteth but that it is much better to prouide for them charitably in some certayne places of aboade then to suffer them to wander vp and downe idly and to liue dissolutely as the greater part of them are thought to doe Moreouer no authour can be truly said to vphold or excuse blasphemy or swearing though vvhen they deliuer their opinions in schooles concerning that matter they affirme that rash cholerike othes not being vsuall are no mortall sinnes because they breake out in manner against a mans vvil choler for the time troubling and hindering the vse of reason M. PERKINS doth lastly charge our writers with manifest lying to justifie our doctrine in that they pleade all antiquity to be on our sides whereas saith he it is as much for them as for vs. Hereof he yeeldeth no proofe and no maruaile for many of his bretheren are ashamed to denie this and doe ingeniously confesse that in many points of religion the auncient Fathers are wholy for vs. And in no one point that I can heare off will he or any of his pew-fellowes be tryed by the judgement and consent of antiquity vvhich is a most manifest proofe that in their owne conscience they knowe wel enough that al antiquity is flat against them else vvhy should they so feare to stand vnto their most vpright determination and so fleete and flie from it vvhich point vvell considered off is alone sufficient to disswade any man from their newe doctrine For it not agreeing with the doctrine of pure antiquity must needes be false and wicked because that was most true holy and good And the holy Ghost doth not nowe teach one to be true and afterward change After his Lastly he hath Againe that our manner is to proue our opinions by forged and counterfeit writinges of men namely by S. Iames liturgie by the Canons of the Apostles by the bookes of Dionisius Ariopagita and so forth reckoning vp some one and twenty peeces which he calleth counterfeit but he goeth not about to proue any one of them to be forged It may therefore suffice for answere that when he or any other shall vndertake to proue that we vse any forged writinges to confirme our doctrine they shall God willing be answered In the meane season the better to content such weaklings I haue not past once to my remembrance alleaged any sentence out of these bookes by him suspected for counterfeit And as touching the marrying of a Catholike vvith a Protestant we dislike it more then many Ministers who will make no bones to marrie them togither which no Catholike Priest wil doe Finally we accord with him in leagues of amity as he tearmeth them and hold that Catholike and Protestant Princes may not combine in league to defend each other in all causes or else one should stand bound to aide the other sometimes against both honesty and religion which were very absurd So as where M. PERKINS saith well vvhich he doth seldome in this booke of his I willingly agree vvith him not sparing on the other side to reprehend that which he speaketh against the truth vvhich all indifferent men will I hope take to be honest vpright dealing Here endeth his booke vvere it not that after finis put to it he addeth a further Aduertisement which may not be left vnanswered vvherefore I haue annexed hereunto both it and the answere
before I come to the full period of this worke Curteous Reader BEARE WITH THE FAVLTS IN PRINTING WHICH CAN HARDLY BE FEW CONSIDERING THE MANIFOLD DIFFICVLTIES OF THE time And yet besides the ouer-sights in pointing are not very many which be thus corrected IN THE MARGENT THESE Generally a ss is set in the quotation of Caluins Institution for the Section or Number For. Page Reade Beza in Neoph. 9. in Creophag simil ibid. Simler sess 17. 2. 11. number 1. 2. Homil. in praeâ—rat 48. In priorem ad Corint Conc. 56. Canon IN THE TEXT THESE For. Page Line Reade declared 7 15 declare Atheisme 20 9 Atheismes was this 40 35 was it pithagorically 63. 22 pithagoricall I say to solemnely 86 22 to be solemnely Euchirines 135 24 Eucherius established 145 17 establish Cesanis 155 39 Caesarius Pomachius 156 1 Pamachius demised 180 18 deuised proofe 181 16 disproofe The quotation of S. Augustine which is in psalm 33. conc 2. is omitted in the 68. page Hier. cont Lucif cap. 6. wanteth page 209. And in the Aduertisment page the 25. for apud Dionysium 1. Cor. reade apud Ludolphum de vita Christi part 1. cap. 5. pag. 17. AN ANSVVERE VNTO M. PERKINS ADVERTISEMENT M. PERKINS Aduertisement to all fauourers of the Roman religion shewing as he weeneth that the said Religion is against the Catholike principles of the Catechisme that hath beene agreed vpon euer since the dayes of the Apostles by al Churches which principles be fowre The Apostles Creede the tenne Commandements the Lordes prayer the institution of two Sacraments Baptisme and the Lordes supper 1. COR. 11. vers 23. I HAD once determined to haue wholy omitted this goodly post-script because it containeth in manner nothing else but an irkesome repetition of that which hath beene I will not say twise before but more then twenty times handled ouer and ouer in this former small treatise notwithstanding considering both howe ready many are when they see any thing omitted to say that it could not be answered and also for that these pointes here reiterated are the most odious that he could cull out of all the rest to vrge against vs I finally resolued to giue them a short answere And further also by prouing their newe religion to be very opposite vnto those old groundes of the true religion to requite him with the like that I die not in his debt Thus he beginneth The Roman religion established by the Councell of Trent is in the principall pointes thereof against the very groundes of the Catechisme the Creede the tenne Commandements the Lordes prayer the two Sacraments THE Catholike religion embraced and defended by the Church of Rome was planted and established there by the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul fifteene hundreth yeares before the Councell of Trent and hath beene euer sithence by the Bishops of Rome their lawfull successors constantly reteined and most sincerely obserued and maintayned some articles thereof called into question by the Heretikes of this latter age were in that most learned generall Councell of Trent declared and defined And great meruaile it were if the principall pointes thereof should be against the groundes of the Catechisme which is in euery point most substantially expounded by the decree and order of the very same Councell Or is it credible that the Church of Rome with which all other ancient Churches and holy Fathers did desire to agree and which hath beene euer most diligent to obserue all Apostolicall traditions should in the principall points of faith crosse and destroy the very principles of that religion that hath beene agreed vpon by all Churches euer since the Apostles daies as he saith Is it not much more likely and probable that the Protestantes who slaunder all Churches euer since the time of the Apostles with some kind of corruption or other and who hold no kind of Apostolicall tradition to be necessary is it not I say more credible that they should shake those groundes of faith which come by tradition from the Apostles and haue beene euer since by all Churches agreed vpon I suppose that fewe men of any indifferent judgement can thinke the contrarie But let vs descend to the particulers wherein the truth will appeare more plainely Thus beginneth Master PERKINS with the Creede First of all it must be considered that some of the principall doctrines beleeued in the Church of Rome are that the Bishoppe of Rome is the Vicar of Christ and head of the Catholike Church that there is a fire of Purgatory that Images of God and Saintes are to be placed in the Church and worshipped that prayer is to be made to Saintes departed that there is a propitiatory sacrifice daylie offered in the Masse for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead These pointes are of that moment that without them the Roman religion cannot stand c. And yet marke the Apostles Creede which hath beene thought to contayne all necessary pointes of religion to be beleeued and hath therefore beene called the key and rule of faith This Creede I say hath not any of these pointes nor the expositions made thereof by the ancient Fathers nor any other Creede or confession of faith made by any Councell or Church for the space of many hundreth yeares This is a plaine proofe to any indifferent man that these be newe articles of faith neuer knowne in the Apostolike Church and that the Fathers and Councels could not finde any such articles of faith in the bookes of the old and newe Testament Answere is made that all these points of doctrine are beleeued vnder the article I beleeue the Catholike Church the meaning whereof they will haue to be this I beleeue all thinges which the Catholike Church holdeth and teacheth to be beleeued If this be as they say we must beleeue in the Church that is put our confidence in the Church for the manifestation and the certainety of all doctrine necessary to saluation And thus the eternall truth of God the creatour shall depend vpon the determination of the creature And the written word of God in this respect is made insufficient as though it had not plainely reuealed all points of doctrine pertaining to saluation And the ancient Churches haue beene farre ouer-seene that did not propound the former pointes to be beleeued as articles of faith but left them to these later times Thus farre Master PERKINS Wherein are hudled vp many thinges confusedly I will answere briefly and distinctlie to euery point The first is that in the Apostles Creede are contained all pointes of religion necessary to be beleeued which is most apparantly false as the Protestantes themselues must needes confesse or else graunt that it is not necessary to beleeue the King to be Supreame-head of the Church or that the Church is to be gouerned by Bishops or that vve are justified by Christes justice imputed to vs or that there be but two Sacramentes or that the Church seruice must be said in the
them hold to be possible In colloq Marpurg art 29. Li. 1. cont Scargum cap. 14. as Zwinglius Oecolampadius Andreas Volanus c. Fourthly though we beleeue God to be maker of heauen and earth yet neuer none but blasphemous Heretikes held him to be true authour and proper worker of al euil done vpon earth by men Such neuerthelesse be Bucer Zwinglius Caluin and others of greatest estimation among the Protestantes See the Preface 2. And in IESVS Christ his only Sonne our Lord. They must needes hold Christ not to be Gods true naturall Sonne which denie him to haue receiued the diuine nature from the Father againe they make him according to his God-head inferiour to his Father See the Preface 3. Borne of the Virgin MARY Many of them teach that Christ was borne as other children are Dialog de corpore Christi pag. 94. De consil part 2. 276. with breach of his Mothers virginity as Bucer and Molineus in vnione Euangelij part 3. and Caluin signifieth no lesse in harmo sup 2. Math. vers 13. 4. Suffered vnder Pontius Pilate crucified dead and buried Friar Luther with a great band of his followers doth toughly defend that the God-head it selfe suffered which to be blasphemy Musculus doth proue in his booke of the errours of Luthers Schollers yet Beza with all them that hold Christ to haue beene our mediatour according to his diuine nature can hardly saue themselues from the same blasphemy For the chiefest act of Christes mediation consisteth in his death if then the God-head did not suffer that death it had no part in the principal point of Christs mediatiō Hither also appertaine all these their blasphemies to wit that Christ was so frighted with the apprehension of death that he forgotte himselfe to be our mediatour yea refused as much as in him lay to be our redeemer Item that he thought himselfe forsaken of God and finally despaired See the Preface 5. Descended into hel the third day he arose againe from the dead It is worth a mans labour to behold their goodly variety of expositions about Christs descending into hell 2. Apolog. ad Sanct. Beza followed of Corliel our Country-man thinkes this to haue crept into the Creede by negligence and so the French Hugonots and Flemish Gues haue cast it cleane out of their Creede but they are misliked of many others who had rather admit the wordes because they be found in Athanasius Creede and also in the old Roman Creede expounded by Ruffinus but they doe most peruersly expound them Caluin saith that Christes suffering of the paines of hell on the Crosse is signified by these wordes but he pleaseth not some others of them because Christes suffering and death also goeth before his descending into hel and the wordes must be taken orderly as they lie Thirdly diuers of them will haue it to signifie the laying of Christes body in the graue but that is signified plainely by the word buried Wherefore some others of them expound it to signifie the lying of his body in the graue three daies which M. PER. approueth as the best but it is as wide from the proper and literall signification of the wordes as can be For what likenesse is there betweene lying in the graue and descending into hell Besides Caluin their great Rabbin misliketh this exposition as much as any of the rest Lib. 2. Instit ca 16. sess 8. and calleth it an jdle fancy Fourthly Luther Smideline and others cited by Beza art 2. doe say that Christes soule after his death went to hell where the Diuels are there to be punished for our sinnes thereby to purchase vs a fuller redemption which is so blasphemous that it needes not any refutation As ridiculous is another receiued of most Protestantes that Christes soule went into Paradise which well vnderstood is true For his soule in hell had the joyes of Paradise but to make that an exposition of Christes descending into hell is to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it Al these and some other expositions also the Protestants haue deuised to lead their followers from the ancient and only true interpretation of it to wit that Christ in soule descended vnto those lower partes of the earth where all the soules departed from the beginning of the world were detained by the just judgement of God till Christ had paide their ransome and were not admitted into the kingdome of heauen before Christ had opened them the way thither 6. Concerning Christes resurrection they doe also erre For whereas a resurrection is the rising vp of the very same body that died with all his naturall partes they denie Christ to haue taken againe the same bloud Cal. in 27. Math. Perkins pag. 194. In cap. 24. Lucae which he shed in his passion and yet is the bloud one notable part of the body Caluin also affirmeth it to be an old wifes dreame to thinke that in Christes handes and feete there remaine the print of nailes and the wound in his side notwithstanding that Christ shewed them to his Disciples and offered them to be touched of S. Thomas 7. About Christes assension into heauen they doe somewhat dissent from the truth For some of them say that Christs body did not pearce through the heauens by vertue of a glorious body least they should thereby be compelled to graunt that two naturall bodies may be together in one place and therefore as well one true body in two places at once but that broad gappes were made in the lower heauens to make him way to the highest which is very ridiculous and more against true Philosophy they say also 1. Cor. 15. vers 21. Coll. 1 18. that he was not the first man that entered into the possession of heauen which is flat against the Scriptures that call Christ the first fruites and first begotten of the dead Thirdly they locke Christ so closely vp in heauen Beza in c. 2. actorum that they hold it impossible for him to remoue thence at any time before the last judgement for feare they should otherwise be inforced to confesse that his body may be in two places at once which is to make him not Lord of the place but some poore prisoner therein And as for Christs sitting on the right hād of his Father they are not yet agreed what it signifieth See Conrad L. 1. ar 25 de concor Caluinist L. 2. Insti c. 14. ss 3. Caluin plainely saith that after the later judgemēt he shal sit there no longer That God shal then render to euery man according to his workes as holy Scripture very often doth testifie al the packe of them doth vtterly denie 8. I beleeue in the holy Ghost First Caluin and his followers who hold the holy Ghost to haue the God-head of himselfe and not to haue receiued it from the Father and the Sonne must consequently denie the holy Ghost to proceede from the Father and the Sonne In the Preface as hath beene else where proued