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
that was left of the Pascal lambe doth gather the cleane contrary to wit that if we cannot vnderstand howe these thinges vvhich we see are turned into our Lordes body Into which mystery the Angels saith he with their cleare sight cannot pearce then must we cast into the fire of the holy Ghost these thinges perswading our selues that to be possible vnto the vertue of the holy Ghost which seemeth to vs impossible See vvhat fire that vvorthy authour speaketh of And in the sixt booke and two and twenty Chapter of the same vvorke he speaketh yet more plainely saying That he receiueth ignorantly who knoweth not the vertue and dignity of this Sacrament and who is ignorant that it is the body bloud of Christ in truth so that old Hesichius condemneth them of ignorance for not beeleuing Christes body to be truly in the Sacrament Secondly saith M. PERK by the sacramental vnion of the bread wine with the body and bloud of Christ they vsed to confirme the personall vnion of the man-hood of Christ with the God-head against heretikes Let vs admit this to be true for then it followeth necessarily against himselfe that the true body of Christ is really present in the blessed Sacrament as his true Dialog 2 God-head and man-hood were really vnited in one person But if Theodoret whome he quoteth be well read you shall finde that they against whome he writeth objected this common doctrine of the Church that bread is turned into the body of Christ to proue that the man-hood of Christ was turned into the God-head and consequently that there were not two natures in Christ but one And albeit the consequent was Hereticall yet the antecedent was Catholike good and not denyed of Theodoret but that there was a reall conuersion of bread into the true body of Christ and therefore did other Heretikes who denied our Sauiour to haue true flesh deny also consequently the truth of the blessed Sacrament as the same Dialog 3 Theodoret doth witnesse out of S. Ignatius in these wordes They admit not the Eucharist and Sacrifice because they doe not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour which was crucified for vs and which the Father of his benignity raysed againe Libr. 17. cap. 25. M. PERKINS further objecteth that Nicephorus reporteth that young children were sent for from the scoole to eate that which remayned of the Sacrament which saith he was a signe that they thought it not to be Christes body Not so for he so reporteth it that any man may see that he beleeued it to be the very body of Christ For first he saith that those children were pure and incorrupt not falne from their state of innocencie Secondly that they were fasting Thirdly he affirmeth in plaine tearmes that they receiued the immaculate body of IESVS Christ God and Man Finally he proueth it so to be and that by miracle For one of the children who had receiued that morning being by his father a malitious Iewe afterwardes cast into a glasiers furnace most fiery hot and shut in there for three daies space was miraculously preserued aliue and found there without any hurt at all by vertue of the blessed Sacrament which he had receiued What strange blindnes then was this to alleadge this against the reall presence which so admirably doth confirme it We knowe that in certaine places some vsed to giue the blessed Sacrament vnto children yea vnto sucking babes being also dipped in the chalice which rather proueth our opinion For they thought it necessary for all that would be saued to receiue this holy Sacrament Nowe these infants could haue no such act of faith as the Protestants doctrine requireth to make their communion therefore at that time they held the same kinde of reall presence which we doe which is made by lawfull consecration of the Priest and not by the faith of the receiuer And that you may perceiue that I speake not only by ghesse take the profession of one of those authors whome M. PER. alleageth Amalarius by name who saith in the worke cited by M. PER. Lib. 3. de Eccl. offic cap. 24. Here we beleeue the nature of pure bread and wine mixed with water to be conuerted into a nature indued with reason to wit into the nature of the body and bloud of Christ can any thing be more plaine against them Finally M. PER. collecteth out of one Nicholas Cabasilas his exposition of these wordes of the Masse Sursum corda lift vp your harts that the people being willed by the Priest to lift vp their thoughts from the earth and to thinke on thinges aboue Christ is not really present with them but only on the right hand of his Father To which we answere that when those wordes were spoken Christes body in deed is not there really present for they are in the preface before the Canon and consecration but is made present afterwardes by the wordes of consecration Secondly that he might notwithstanding those wordes were spoken after the consecration as they be before be there present For being admonished to call our mindes and harts from earthly thinges and to lift them vp to consider heauenly what more diuine and heauenly subject can we meditate vpon then our Sauiour Iesus Christ there present and the holy misteries of his incarnation and passion there represented and the infinite mercies and goodnesse of God powred out on vs through him and by meanes of this holy Sacrifice and thus much in effect doth the answere vnto those wordes signifie We lift vp our harts vnto our Lord to attend vpon him at this time specially in these his holy misteries Obserue that we are not bidden to lift vp our eyes to beholde the sunne or to contemplate the starres in the skie and so you may see that the Protestants ignorance in the wordes of the holy Masse doth litle auaile them or helpe their bad cause Thus at length we are come to an end of M. PERKINS reasons against vs nowe to those that he maketh for the Catholike party which are both fewe in number and very barely propounded but by the helpe of God I will doe my endeauour to supply his negligence therein The first is taken out of these wordes of our Sauiour Ioh. 6. vers 51. The bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world Here is a plaine promise made by Christ Iesus that faileth not of his word of giuing vs his flesh to eate and that very flesh which on the Crosse was to be giuen for the redemption of the vvorld these vvordes be so euident that they who heard them made no doubt of the sence of them but were astonished at it and said Howe can this man giue vs his flesh to eate they doubted not but that Christ had said that he vvould giue them his flesh to eate his speaches were so plaine for it but yet beleeued they not that he could
Doctor void of partiallity Homil. 24 in praeoratione ad Corinth marry that of these wordes this is the sence and meaning That which is in the Chalice is the very same that flowed out of Christes side Note that the bloud of Christ is in the Chalice and so we need not runne so farre off to seeke it and saith further that we are made partakers of it with the like reall and close conjunction as the word of God and the nature of man were joyned together which was not by faith or imagination only but actually and substantially With vvhome accordeth S. Cyril vvho out of the same wordes of S. Paul proueth that Christes body is vnited with vs not only by faith or charity but bodily and according vnto the flesh saying When the vertue of the mysticall blessing is in vs Lib. 10. in Ioan. 13. doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs bodily by the participation of the flesh of Christ Here by the way obserue that the Apostle calleth the blessed Sacrament bread either because in exterior appearance it seemeth so to be as Angels appearing in the shape of men are in holy write commonly called men so the body of Christ being vnder the forme of bread is called bread or els for that bread in Scripture according to the Hebrewe phrase signifieth al kind of foode So is Manna called bread which was rather like the dewe Ioan. 6. vers 32. Psal 77. and so may our Sauiours body which is the most substantiall foode of our soules be called bread although it be nothing lesse then ordinary bread Lastly it is such bread as our Sauiour in expresse tearmes hath christened it when he said And the bread which I will giue you is my flesh Ioan. 6. vers 51. 1. Cor. 11. vers 29. Vers 27. for the life of the world Our fift argument is taken out of S. Paul He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh judgement to himselfe not discerning the body of our Lord and is guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord whence I argue thus Vnworthy receiuers who are destitute of that faith whereby they should receiue Christ according vnto the Protestants opinion or els they should not receiue vnworthily such vnworthy communicants I say doe receiue the body of Christ albeit vnworthily therefore it is not the receiuers faith that maketh it present but it is there present by the vvordes of consecration whether the party beleeue it or no or else howe should the man eate his judgement for not discerning Christes body and be guilty of his body the Protestants answere first That he is guilty of the body because he receiueth it not then when he should for lacke of faith But this glose is cleane contrary to the text that saith expresly That they receiue it by eating and drinking of it but yet vnworthily and all ancient Interpreters doe so expound it Let one S. Augustine serue in steed of the rest who saith De baptis contr Donatist lib. 5. cap. 8. That like as Iudas to whome our Lord gaue the morsell gaue place to the Deuill not by receiuing that which was euill but by receiuing of it euilly euen so euery one receiuing our Lordes Sacrament vnworthily doth not make it euill because he is euill or receiue nothing because he receiueth it not to saluation For it was the body and bloud of Christ euen to them of whome the Apostle saith He that eateth vnworthily eateth his owne damnation By which notable sentence of so worthy a Prelate the other cauill of our wrangling young-Masters is also confuted For they perceiuing that their former shift would not serue their turnes fly vnto a second that forsooth the vnworthie receiuer is guilty of Christes body because he abuseth the signe of it for the dishonour done to the picture redoundeth to the person himselfe Reply When we complaine of them for dishonouring of Images and tel them that they thereby dishonour the Saints alleadging this sentence That the dishonour done to the picture redoundeth to the person then they will not allowe of it which nowe they are glad to take hold of To the purpose we say first that the Sacrament is no picture of Christ no not in their owne opinion but a signe only and great difference is there betweene disfiguring a mans owne picture and abusing of some signe or signification of him neither is the disfiguring or breaking of a mans picture so heinous a fault if it be not done expresly in contempt of the person which formall contempt is not to be found in many vnworthy receiuers Lastly the Israelites that eate Manna or drunke of the Rocke vnworthily were not guilty of Christes body and bloud although those thinges were signes and figures of them therfore if there were nothing but a signe of Christes bodie in our Sacrament no man should be guilty of so heynous a crime for vnworthy receiuing of it but being by the verdict of S. Paul made guilty of damnation for not discerning Christes bodie it must needes followe that Christes body is there really present To these arguments collected out of holy Scriptures let vs joyne one other of no lesse authority taken from miracles done in confirmation of the reall presence For a true miracle cannot be done to confirme any vntruth or else God by whose only power they are wrought should testifie an vntruth which is impossible One miracle of preseruing a young boy aliue in a glasiers hot burning furnace I haue before rehearsed out of Nicephorus cited by M. PER. two others I will choose out of hundreths because they be recorded in famous Authors and my purpose is to be briefe Ex vita per Ioan. Diac. lib. 2. cap. 4. The first out of the life of S. Gregory the great surnamed by venerable Bede the Apostle of England This most honourable Bishop administring the blessed Sacrament came to giue it vnto the woman who had made those Hostes which he had consecrated She hearing S. Gregory say as the manner was and is The body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy soule vnto euerlasting life smiled at it wherefore the holy Bishoppe withdrewe his hand and did not communicate her but laide that Host downe vpon the Altar Masse being done he called the woman before him and demanded before the people whom shee might haue scandalized what was the cause why shee beganne to laugh in that holy and fearefull misterie she muttered at the first but after answered that she knewe it to be the bread vvhich she her selfe had made and therefore could not beleeue it to be the body of Christ as he called it Then the holy man prayed earnestly to God that in confirmation of the true presence of Christes body in the Sacrament the outward forme of bread might be turned into flesh vvhich vvas by the power of God done presently and so was she conuerted to the true faith and all the rest confirmed in it The
other miracle is of record in the life of that deuout Father S. Bernard Lib. 2. cap. 3. This holy man caused a vvoman who had beene many yeares possessed with a wicked spirit that did strangely torment her to be brought before him as he vvas at Masse and then holding the consecrated Host ouer the womans head spake these vvordes Thou wicked spirit here is present thy judge the supreame power is here present resist and if thou canst he is here present who being to suffer for our saluation said Nowe the Prince of this world shall be cast forth and pointing to the blessed Sacrament said This is that body that was borne of the body of the Virgin that was streatched vpon the Crosse that lay in the Sepulcher that rose from Death that in the sight of his Disciples ascended into Heauen therefore in the dreadfull power of this Majesty I command thee wicked spirit that thou depart out of this handmaide of his and neuer hereafter presume once to touch her The Deuill was forced to acknowledge the Majesticall presence and dreadfull power of Christes body in that holy Host and to gette him packing presently wherefore he must needes be greatly blinded of the Deuill that knowing this miracle to be vvrought by the vertue of Christes body there present vvill not yet beleeue and confesse it But nowe let vs vvinde vp all this question in the testimonies of the most ancient and best approued Doctors S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler saith I desire the bread of God Epist 15. ad Rom. heauenly bread which is the flesh of the Sonne of God S. Iustine declaring the faith of the Christians in the second hundreth yeare after Christ vvriteth to the Emperor Antonine thus Apol. 2. We take not these thinges as common bread nor as common wine but as Christ incarnate by the word of God tooke flesh and bloud for our saluation euen so are we taught that the foode wherewith our flesh is by alteration nourished being by him blessed and made the Eucharist is the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus incarnate S. Ireneus Iustins equall proueth both Christ to be the Sonne of God Li. 4. con Haeres cap. 34. the creatour of the vvorld and also the resurrection of the bodies by the reall presence of Christes body in the blessed Sacrament so assured a principle and so generally confessed a truth was then this point of the reall presence Homil. 5. in diuers Origen that most learned Doctor saith When thou takest that holy foode and that incorruptible feast when thou enjoyest the bread and cup of life when thou doest eate and drinke the body and bloud of our Lord then loe doth our Lord enter vnder thy roofe Thou therefore humbling thy selfe imitate this Centurion and say O Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe c. De coena Domini S. Cyprian The bread that our Lord deliuered vnto his Disciples being not in outward shewe but in substance changed was by the omnipotent power of the word made flesh Catech. 4. mist S. Cyril Patriarke of Hierusalem doth most formally teach our doctrine saying When Christ himselfe doth affirme of bread This is my body who afterward dareth to doubt of it and he confirming and saying This is my bloud Who can doubt and say this is not his bloud And a little after doth proue it saying He before changed water into wine which commeth neare to bloud and shall he be thought vnworthy to be beleeued that he hath changed wine into his bloud wherefore let vs receiue with all assurance the body and bloud of Christ for vnder the forme of bread his body is giuen vs and his bloud vnder the forme of wine Orat. 2. de Paschate S. Gregory Nazianzene speaking of the blessed Sacrament sayeth Without shame and doubt eate the body and drinke the bloud and doe not mistrust these wordes of the flesh c. S. Iohn Chrisostome Patriarke of Constantinople perswadeth the same thus Homil. 83 in Math. Let vs alwaies beleeue God and not resist him though that which he saith seeme absurd to our imagination which we must doe in all thinges but specially in holy misteries not beholding those thinges only which are set in our sight but hauing an eye vnto his wordes For his word cannot deceiue vs but our sences may most easily be deceiued wherefore considering that he saith This is my body let vs not doubt of it at all but beleeue it Againe a Hom. 61 ad populū what shep-heard doth feede his flocke with his owne flesh Nay many mothers giue out their children to be nursed of others but Christ with his owne flesh and bloud doth feede vs. b Itē hom 3. in epist ad Ephes It is his flesh and bloud that sitteth aboue the heauens that is humbly adored of the Angels And c Homil. 24. in 1. ad Corin. he that was adored of the wise-men in the manger is nowe present vpon the Altar d Hom. 83 in Math. 60. ad populum And not by faith only or by charity but in deede and really his flesh is joyned with ours by receiuing this holy Sacrament S. Ambrose e Libr. 4. de Sacrament c. 4. Thou maist perhaps say that my bread is but common bread this bread is bread in deede before the wordes of the Sacrament but when consecration commeth of bread it is made the body of Christ And if you demand further howe there can be any such vertue in vvordes he doth answere That by the word of God heauen and earth were made and all that in them is and therefore if Gods word were able of nothing to make all thinges howe much more easily can it take a thing that already is and turne it into an other S. Hierome Let vs beare and beleeue that the bread which our Lord brake Epistol ad Hedib quaest 2. and gaue to his Disciples is the body of our Lord and Sauiour * Epist ad Heliodorū Cont. Aduers legis Prophe lib. 2. c. 9. And God forbidde saith he that I should speake sinistrously of Priestes who succeeding the Apostles in degree doe with their holy mouth consecrate and make Christes body S. Augustine The mediatour of God and men the man Iesus Christ giuing vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke we doe receiue it with faithfull hart and mouth although it seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to kill it and to drinke mans bloud then to shedde it Againe a In psal 65. 93 The very bloud that through their malice the Iewes shedde they conuerted by Gods grace doe drinke And vpon the 98. Psalme he doth teach vs to adore Christes body in the Sacrament vvith Godly honour where he saith Christ tooke earth of earth for flesh is of earth and of the flesh of the Virgin Mary he tooke flesh in which flesh he walked here
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
their place that there dwell men who make more account of their Princes honour then they doe of Christes And that their meeting in that place cal it what you wil is rather to serue their Prince then to serue Christ. But I haue beene longer in their place of prayer then I thought I come nowe to the men that are elected to serue the Lord there Be not many of them for the whole corps I will not touch such as Ieroboam was glad to choose when he made a Schisme in Israel to wit de extremis populi qui non erant de filijs Leui not lawfull successors of the true Priestes but others of the baser sort of the people and them commonly that are notable either for ignorance or some other odde quality and must they not also fill their good patrons handes with some feeling commodity before they can gette a benefice And so beginning with simonie lincked with perjurie for the poore fellowes must neuerthelesse sweare that they come freely to their benefice are they not like to proceede on holily As for the vowe of chastity the daylie seruice and often fasting which Catholike Priests are bound vnto they by the sweet liberty of the newe Gospell doe exchange into solacing themselues with their yoke-fellowes this of the common sort of their Ministers With their preachers I will not meddle for feare of offence yet if any desire to knowe howe they behaue themselues in other countries they may read the censure of a zealous learned preacher one of their owne compagnions who amongst many other thinges writeth thus of them Menno l. de Christ fide titul de fide mulieris Cananeae When you come to preachers who bragge that they haue the word of God you shall find certaine of them manifest liars others drunkers some vsurers and foule-mouthed slanderers some persecutors and betraiers of harmelesse persons Howe some of them behaue themselues and by what meanes they gette their wiues and what kind of wiues they haue that I leaue to the Lord and them They liue an jdle slouthfull and voluptuous life by fraude and flattery they feed themselues of the spoiles of Antichrist he meaneth the benefices taken from the Papists and doe preach just as the earthly and carnall Magistrate desireth to heare and will permitte c. So much and not a litle more speaketh one great Master of the late reformation concerning his Euangelicall bretheren Are not these goodly lampes of the newe Gospell and likely persons to be chosen by Christ to giue light to others and to reforme the world But peraduenture they haue in some secret corners certaine deuout religious soules who in an austere retired life doe with continuall teares bewaile the sinnes of the rest and make incessant sute vnto the Almighty for a generall pardon of the whole Would to God they had but I feare me that they be of their inuisible congregation or rather none such to be found amongst them For those religious houses which our Ancesters had built for such Godly and vertuous people who forsaking both father mother all their kinne and acquaintance and flying from all the pleasures and preferments which this transitorie world could yeeld them gaue themselues wholy to the holy exercises of humility chastity pouerty and all sortes of mortification these Monasteries I say and all that professed in them a retired religious life the Protestantes haue beaten downe and banished and haue not in their places erected any other for the singuler Godly men or women of their religion Which doth most euidently argue that there is in them smale zeale and rare practise of any such extraordinary piety and deuotion Surely it must needes be a strange Christian congregation that holdeth them for no tollerable members of their common weale whome Christ specially chooseth to serue him day and night and by whose holy example and most feruent prayers all other Christians doe find themselues much edified and mightily protected So that briefly whether you consider the persons that serue God or the place where he is serued or the manner of his diuine seruice the Catholike religion doth in euery point surpasse the Protestant by many degrees Thus much in answere vnto Master PERKINS objection of Atheisme against vs the which I esteemed fittest for this Preface being a matter of so great moment and therefore most worthy to be examined and considered of a part with mature judgement Nowe to the rest of his questions according to his owne order OF THE REALL PRESENCE OVR CONSENTS M. PERKINS Page 185. We hold and beleeue a presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament of the Lordes supper and that no fained but a true and reall presence HITHERTO we agree in wordes but in sence nothing at all For he frameth a strange construction of that real presence which saith he must be considered two waies First in respect of the signes Secondly in respect of the communicants the signes be bread and wine with which Christes body and bloud be present not in respect of place and coexistence but by sacramentall relation that is when the sacramentall signes of bread and wine are present to the hand they doe present to the minde of the receiuer the body and bloud of Christ So that already M. PERKINS vnfained true reall presence is shrunken into a sacramentall relation and only significatiue presence such as may well be of thinges as farre distant the one from the other as the cope of heauen is from the center of the earth a strange reall presence surely The second kinde of presence saith he is in respect of the communicants to whose belieuing hartes he is also really present If you aske whether this be not as odde a kinde of presence as the other was he answereth by going about the bush saying that such as the communion is such is the presence and by the communion you must judge of the presence Ignotum as they say per ignotius He might shortly haue said if he had meant plaine dealing that by your faith you must mount into heauen and take hold on Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father and from thence drawe his righteousnesse and conuey it to your selfe so that both sortes of his true reall presence is made vvithout any nearer meeting of the parties then heauen and earth doe meete togither But let vs giue him the hearing this reall communion is made on this manner God the Father giueth Christ in this Sacrament as really and truly as any thing can be giuen to man and that not peece-meale but whole Christ yet not the substance of the God-head but the efficacy merits and operation are conueyed thence to the man-hood but the whole man-hood both in respect of substance as of merits and benefits is giuen wholy and jointly together And when God so giueth Christ he giueth withall at the same time the spirit of Christ which createth in the hart of the receiuer the instrument of true
faith by which the hart doth really receiue Christ by resting vpon the promise which God hath made that he will giue Christ and his righteousnesse vnto euery true beleeuer Nowe then when God giueth Christ and his benefits and man by faith receiueth the same there riseth an vnion betweene them not forged but reall and so neare that none can be nearer and being a reall vnion there is a reall communion and consequently a reall presence of Christ to the hart of him that receiueth the Sacrament in faith And thus farre saith he doe we consent with the Romish Church It may well be that you agree herein with the Romish Church that is with some apish counterfeit of the Roman but the true Roman Church condemneth all that phantastical kinde of receiuing as you your selfe declare in the wordes following But before we come vnto them let vs note by the way some strange points of doctrine shall I say or rather dreaming of our conceited Masters the Protestants Who euer yet heard in true diuinitie that the God-head considered apart by it selfe had merits to conuey to the man-hood as M. PER. here teacheth for merits belong to an inferior in respect of his superior of whome he meriteth now the God-head is not inferior to any as all but Arrians confesse Againe howe can whole Christ be giuen to man as M. PER. first affirmeth if the substance of the God-head be not giuen as presently after he declareth for the substance of the God-head is the principal part of Christ who is both God man Moreouer how is Christes substance as well as his benefits made ours or really present to our faith if vve be made partakers only of his righteousnesse which may as euery man knoweth well be without any bodily presence of his besides that fiction of his that faith is created in our hart at the same instant that we receiue the Sacrament is very absurd For as all the world witnesseth a man must be indued vvith faith before he goe to receiue that Sacrament or else he presenteth himselfe most vnworthily vnto that holy table Lastly if simple men silly women should not receiue this Sacrament vntill they vnderstood M. PER. doctrine of sacramentall relation of his reall vnion and communion made by speciall faith in it as no man should receiue before he knoweth what and howe he is to receiue then surely they should neuer receiue it the manner of it is so intricate and so farre passing their capacity I may not omit here that which I clipped off in M. PER. discourse to make it the more perspicuous to wit that Christes benefits are bestowed vpon some by Gods imputation only vpon others they are bestowed by a kind of propagation which M. PER. cannot expresse fitly but doth resemble it thus As one candle is lighted by another and so the light of one is conueied vnto twenty candles euen so the inherent righteousnes of euery beleeuer is deriued from the store-house of righteousnesse which is the man-hood of Christ this I say I could not but let the gentle reader vnderstand that he may cōsider howe slippery vnconstant the man is in his owne doctrine In the question of justification it is high treason to confesse any inherent righteousnesse in vs. Pag. 66. For as he there saith it doth rase the very foundation of religion there only he alloweth of a certaine strange reall imputation of Christes justice vnto vs but here hauing belike forgotten that euer he said any such word he teacheth besides that imputatiue an inherent righteousnesse to be cōueied from Christ into euery righteous mans soule With whome will this man agree trowe you that cannot agree with himselfe Let vs nowe come vnto the maine point of our dissent which M. PER. deliuereth thus we differ not touching the presence it selfe but only in the manner of presence For though we hold a reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament yet we doe not take it to be locall bodily or substantiall but spirituall and mysticall first to the signes by sacramentall relation then to the communicants by faith alone On the contrary the Church of Rome maintaineth a locall bodily and substantiall presence of Christes body and bloud by a change and conuersion of the bread and wine into the said body and bloud which they beleeue to be wrought by the vertue of Christes wordes pronounced ouer the bread and wine by a lawfull Priest intending to doe that which Christ at his last supper instituted and commanded him to doe Master PERKINS reasons to the contrary be these This corporall presence ouerturneth sundry articles of faith For we beleeue that the body of Christ was made of the pure substance of the Virgin Mary and that but once namely when it was conceiued by the holy Ghost But this cannot stand if the body of Christ be made of bread vnlesse we beleeue contraries that the body was made of the Virgin and not of the Virgin made once and not once but often We read not in our Creede made of the Virgin Mary but borne of her nowe there is great difference betweene made and borne For a house is made of a Carpenter but is not borne of him but the vvord made vvhich may also in good sence be vsed being fitter to cloake the fallacy Master PERKINS cared not to straine a little curtesie vvith the articles of our beleefe and to thrust in made in stead of borne But let this prety jugling-tricke passe and to his argument I answere that the appearance of this contrariety proceedeth either out of meere ignorance of our doctrine or else out of the equiuocation of this word made For we hold that Christes blessed body is but once made if made be taken for to be fashioned and formed newe from the beginning so was it but once made of the pure bloud of the immaculate Virgin Mary but may be againe and againe well made present vnder this or that forme or on this or that altar which hath no shadowe of contrariety with the other For euery mans body vvhich is but once made in his mothers vvombe may afterward a thousand times be made present in one or diuers places Nowe when we say with the ancient Fathers that of bread is made the body of Christ the sence is that the substance of bread is turned into the body of Christ so that then there is no more the substāce of bread vnder the formes of bread but Christes body which succeedeth in place of it therefore the bread is said to be turned vnto Christes body and Christes body to be made of bread not that any part of the bread remaineth changed into Christes body or that Christes body is a newe created and framed but because that by that very action wherewith the bread is remoued out the body is brought into that place the one is said to be made of the other so that here is nothing contrary vnto that
doe it Nowe what replyed Christ vnto their doubt that he vvould giue them only bread to eate in remembrance of him vvhich vvould surely haue satisfied them throughly because nothing vvas more easie to doe then that But truth is not to be concealed for feare of Pharasaicall scandall and therefore he told them very roundly That vnlesse they did eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud They should not haue life in them And he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting And yet more expresly My flesh is meate in deede and my bloud drinke in deede Howe should he haue made the matter more plaine To this M. PERKINS answereth first That Christ speaketh of a spirituall eating by faith because the very point that he intendeth to proue is that to beleeue in him and to eate his flesh is all one This answere is absurd For euen in their owne doctrine there is a great difference betweene beleeuing in Christ and receiuing the communion for many doe beleeue in Christ when they doe not receiue the communion receiuing being as they teach a seale or confirmation of beleeuing And to say that Christ there maketh no difference betweene beleeuing in him and eating of his flesh is flat against the text For saying that he would hereafter giue them his flesh to eate he doth declare that he speaketh not of beleeuing in him vvhich he vvould haue them to doe presently and many of them did beleeue in him before vvho could not disgest his doctrine of the Sacrament Againe it is altogether vnlikely that our Sauiour would haue vsed such strange offensiue speaches as the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud to signifie only that they must beleeue in him and that he seing them so much scandalized at those his hard and vnvsuall phrases that they vvere ready to forsake him would yet not once in plaine tearmes interprete them for the sauing of so many soules wherefore it remaineth most manifest that by eating of his flesh he meant something else then beleeuing in him And M. PER. other shift that in all the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn Christ speaketh not one word of eating his flesh in the Sacrament is so contrary vnto the euidence of the text it selfe and vnto the exposition of all ancient Fathers that it deserueth no answere especially vvhen neither by reason or authority he goeth about to fortifie it But I muse why he did omit their ordinary objection out of the same place The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickneth It may be perhaps because he knewe that the vvordes being rightly vnderstood make more against the Protestants then for them For the flesh there must be taken either for Christes flesh or for our flesh if for Christes flesh Tract 27. in Ioannē then saith S. Augustine Howe can it be that it profiteth nothing when he said before vnlesse yo eate my flesh you shall haue no life in you What therefore meaneth this it profiteth nothing Marry saith he it profiteth nothing as they vnderstood it For they tooke they should eate it as it is torne and cut in peeces being dead and sold in the shambles and not as it is quickned with the spirit which he doth illustrate with the comparison of knowledge which being alone doth puffe vp scientia enim inflat but being joyned with charity doth edifie Euen so saith he when the spirit is coupled with the flesh then doth it profit verie much or else the worde would not haue beene made flesh and haue dwelled among vs. With S. Augustine agreeth S. Cyril vpon that place In cap. 6. Ioannis but more literall seemeth to be the interpretation of S. Chrisostome followed by Theophilact and others vpon this place that by the flesh is to be vnderstood our fleshly and naturall reason which in these misteries of faith doth rather hinder then helpe vs. For mans wit of it selfe cannot comprehend howe bread may be turned into Christes body not howe so great a bodie can be in so litle a roome c. but informed with faith and Gods grace it is then well assured that whatsoeuer Christ saith is true and that nothing is impossible to him howe contrarie soeuer it seeme vnto flesh and bloud For his wordes as it followeth in the text be spirit and life that is be of diuine force and giue life and being vnto vvhat hee pleaseth And thus much of our first reason Nowe to the second Christ taking bread into his handes gaue it to his Disciples saying 1. Cor. 11. Math. 26 Marc. 14. Luc. 22. this is my body which is giuen for you and giuing them the Chalice said drinke yee all of this for this is my bloud of the newe Testament which shall be shed for you These our Sauiours wordes are so plaine that it was not possible in so fewe wordes to expresse more perspicuously that it was his true naturall bodie which he deliuered vnto them it being the verie same which was to be nailed on the Crosse the morrowe after But M. PER. answereth that they are not to be taken properlie but by a figure the body there being put for a signe or seale of his bodie Reply This is a very extrauagant exposition of Christes vvordes and such a one as if it vvere admitted for currant vvoulde serue to subuert and ouerthrovve all the articles of the Christian faith For example vvhen it is said that the word was made flesh the Manachees heresies against Christes true flesh might be maintayned by saying that the flesh there is put for a figure of the flesh so might the Arrian heresie if vvhen Christ is called God it vvere allowed them to expound and take it for a signe or seale of GOD and so of all other articles of our beleefe wherefore there must be most apparant proof for the drawing of Christes wordes into so strange a sence before it be admitted of any reasonable man But M. PER. and the Protestants are so farre off from producing any such inuincible euidence for their odde interpretation that they cannot alleadge any probable cause of it heare and then judge Genes 17. vers 10. Exod. 12. vers 11. 1. Cor. 10. M. PERKINS saith first That it is an vsuall manner of the Lord in speaking of the Sacraments to giue the name of the thinges signified to the signe as circumcision is called the couenant of God and the next verse the signe of the couenant and the Pascall lambe is called the Angels passing-ouer whereas in deede it was but a signe of it and the Rocke was Christ * 1. Cor. 5. vers 7. the passe-ouer was Christ Answ It may be that sometimes speaking of Sacraments by the way some figuratiue speach may be vsed but we say that when any Sacramēt is first instituted and ordained that then the wordes are to be taken literally without any such figure For example in the Sacraments specified by M. PER.
vpon the earth and the same flesh he gaue vs to eate S. Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria in the declaration of the eleauenth Anatheme of the generall Councell of Ephesus doth in fewe wordes expresse the ancient faith both of the Sacrifice and Sacrament thus We doe celebrate the holy liuely and vnbloudy Sacrifice beleeuing it to be the body and bloud not of a common man like vnto one of vs but rather we receiue it as the proper body and bloud of the word of God that quickneth all thinges which he doth often in his workes repete In his Epistle to Nestorius in these wordes Epist. ad Nestoriū We doe so come vnto the mysticall benediction and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy and pretious bloud of Christ our redeemer not receiuing it as common flesh which God defend nor as the flesh of a holy man c. But being made the proper flesh of the word of God it selfe And vpon these vvordes Howe can this man giue vs his flesh to eate he saith Lib. 4. in Ioan. c. 13 Lib. 10. in Ioan. c. 13 Let vs giue firme faith to the misteries and neuer once say or thinke howe can it be For it is a Iewish word And else where preuenting our Protestants receiuing by faith alone he addeth We denie not but by a right faith and sincere charity we are spiritually joyned with Christ but to say that we haue not also a conjunction with him according to the flesh that we vtterly denie and doe auouch it to be wholy dissonant from holy Scriptures Damascene Lib. 4. de fide ortho cap. 14. Bread and wine vvith vvater by the inuocation of the holy Ghost are supernaturally changed into the body and bloud of Christ bread is not the figure of the body nor wine the figure of the bloud which God forbidde but it is the very body of our Lord joyned with the God-head See howe formally this holy and learned Doctor about nine hundred yeares agoe confuted the opinion of Zwinglius In ca. 26. Math. So doth Theophilact also about the same time writing thus Christ did not say this is a figure but this is my body For albeit it seeme bread vnto vs yet is it by his vnspeakable working transformed If I would descend a little lower I might alleadge vvhole volumes vvritten by the learnest of those times in defence of the reall presence For some thousand yeares after Christ there started vp one Berengarius of condemned memory vvho vvas the first that directly impugned the truth of Christes bodily presence in the Sacrament but he once or twise abjured it afterward and died repentantly And thus much of this matter OF THE SACRIFICE M. PERKINS Page 204. Of the Sacrifice in the Lordes supper which the Papists call the Sacrifice of the Masse TOuching this point first I will set downe what must be vnderstood by the name of Sacrifice A Sacrifice is taken properly or vnproperly Properly it is a sacred or solemne action in which man offereth and consecrateth some outward bodily thing vnto God to please and honour him thereby improperly and by the way of resemblance all the duties of the morall lawe are called sacrifices M. PERKINS definition of a Sacrifice taken properly is not complete for it may be applyed vnto many oblations vvhich vvere not sacrifices For example diuers deuout Israelites offered some gold some siluer some other thinges to honour and please God withall Exod. 25. 35. in the building of a Tabernacle for diuine seruice according to his owne order and commandement These mens actions were both sacred and solemne and some outward bodily thing by them vvas offered and consecrated vnto God to please and honour him thereby therefore they did properly offer Sacrifice according to M. PER. definition which in true diuinity is absurd or else vvomen and children might be sacrificers Againe if his definition were perfect I cannot see howe they can denie their Lordes supper to be a Sacrifice properly For they must needes graunt that it is a sacred or solemne action and they cannot denie but that in it a man offereth and consecrateth vnto God some outward bodily thing to vvit bread and vvine and that to please and honour God thereby so that all the parts of M. PER. definition agreeing to it he cannot denie it to be a Sacrifice properly We in deede that take it to be a prophane or superstitious action highly displeasing God as being by mans inuention brought in to shoulder out his true and only seruice doe vpon just reason reject it as no Sacrifice but the Protestants that take it for diuine seruice must needes admit it to be a proper Sacrifice so doe they fall by their owne definition into that damnable abomination as they tearme it of maintayning an other proper Sacrifice in the newe Testament besides Christes death on the Crosse Wherefore to make vp the definition perfect it is to be added first that that holy action be done by a lawful Minister and then that the visible thing there presented be not only offered to God but be also really altered and consumed in testification of Gods soueraigne dominion ouer vs. We agree in the other improper acception of a Sacrifice and say that al good workes done to please and honour God may be called sacrifices improperly among which the inward act of adoration whereby a deuout minde doth acknowledge God to be the beginning midle and end of all good both in heauen earth and as such a one doth most humbly prostrate honour and adore him holdeth the most worthyest ranke and may truly be called an inuisible and inward Sacrifice The outward testimony and protestation thereof by consuming some visible thing in a solemne manner and by a chosen Minister is most properly a Sacrifice OVR CONSENT MAster PERKINS would gladly seeme to agree with vs in two points First That the supper of the Lord is a Sacrifice and may truly be so called as it is and hath beene in former ages Secondly That the very body of Christ is offered in the Lordes supper Howe say you to this are we not herein at perfect concord a plaine dealing man would thinke so hearing these his wordes but if you reade further and see his exposition of them we are as farre at square as may be For M. PER. in handling this question will as he saith take a Sacrifice sometimes properly and sometimes improperly starting from the one to the other at his pleasure that you cannot know where to haue him So when he saith in his first conclusion That the supper of the Lord is a Sacrifice he vnderstandeth improperly yet it is saith he called a Sacrifice in three respects First because it is a memoriall of the reall Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse So a painted Crucifix may be called a Sacrifice because it is a memoriall of that Sacrifice but M. PER. addeth Hebr. 13. vers 15. That it withall
an other auailable to entreate and deserue that the vertue of the former generall may be deriued vnto men in particuler because although those sinnes and iniquities were vnto Christ pardoned in general yet at his death or by it only those sinnes were not remitted and pardoned vnto any man in particuler so that it was meete and requisite that besides the Sacrifice to purchase that generall redemption there should be an other to apply the vertue of it in particuler And thus much of this argument not that it deserued as it was proposed nakedly by M. PER. any more then a flat deniall but to explicate this difficulty and to interprete some obscure places of S. Paul omitted by M. PERKINS M. PER. fift reason If the Priest doe offer to God Christes reall body and bloud for the pardon of our sinnes then man is become a mediator betweene God and Christ This illation is too too ridiculous Is he Christes mediator that asketh forgiuenes of sinnes for Christes sake then are al Christians mediators betweene God and Christ for we all present vnto God Christs passion and beseech him for the meritte thereof to pardon vs our sinnes I hope that we may both lawfully pray vnto God and also imploy our best endeauours that Christ may be truly knowne rightly honoured and serued of all men without incroaching vpon Christs mediation These be seruices we owe vnto Christ and the bounden duties of good Christians wherein it hath pleased him to imploy vs as his seruantes and ministers not as his mediators But Master PERKINS addeth that vve request in the Cannon of the Masse That God will accept our gifts and offerings namely Christ himselfe offered as he did the Sacrifices of Abell and Noe he would haue said Abraham for Noe is not there mentioned True in the sence there following not that this Sacrifice of Christes body is not a thousand times more gratefull vnto him then was the Sacrifices of the best men but that this Sacrifice which is so acceptable of it selfe may be vnto all the partakers of it cause of all heauenly grace and benediction and that also through the same Christ our Lord as it there followeth in the Canon His sixt and last reason Is the judgement of the ancient Church which is the feeblest of al the rest for that he hath not one place which maketh not flat against himselfe Conc. Tol. 12. cap. 5. heare and then judge First saith he A Councell held at Toledo in Spaine hath these wordes Relation is made vnto vs that certaine Priests doe not so many times receiue the grace of the holy communion as they offer Sacrifice but in one day if they offer many Sacrifices to God they suspend themselues from the Communion Is not this a fit testimony to proue that there is no Sacrifice of the Masse whereas it teacheth the quite contrary to wit that there were at that time Priests that did offer Sacrifice daily but were complained on and reproued for that they did not themselues communicate of euery Sacrifice which they offered M. PER. biddeth vs marke that the Sacrifice then was but a kinde of seruice because the Priest did not communicate But why did not he marke that they were therefore reprehended as he well deserueth to be for grounding his argument vpon some simple Priests abuse or ignorance Mileuit cap. 12. Secondly he saith That in an other Councell the name of Masse is put for a forme of prayer It hath pleased vs that prayer suppliations and Masses which shall be allowed in the Councell be vsed Answ Very good It is indeed that forme of prayer which the Catholike Church hath alwayes vsed set downe in the Missals or Masse-bookes so that the Councell by him alleadged doth allowe of Masse Priests and Sacrifice But saith he very profoundly Masses be compounded but the Sacrifice propitiatory of the body and bloud of Christ admitteth no composition This is so deepe and profound an obseruation of his that I can scarce conjecture what he meaneth The Masse indeed is a prayer composed of many parts so I weene be all longer prayers but in what sence can that be true that the Sacrifice of Christ admitteth no composition If he meane the passion of Christ on the Crosse it was a bundell of Mirhe and heape of sorrowes shames and paines tyed together and laid vpon the most innocent Lambe sweet IESVS If he signifie their Lordes supper doth it not consist of diuers partes and hath it not many compositions in it let the good man then explicate himselfe better that one may ghesse at his meaning and then he shall be answered more particulerly But Abbot Paschasius shall mende all hee should by his Title of Abbot seeme rather likely to marre all he saith Because we sinne daylie L. de corpore sanguine Christi Christ is sacrificed for vs mystically and his passion is giuen vs in mistery Very good in the mistery of the Masse Christ is sacrificed for vs not as he was on the Crosse bloudily but in mistery that is vnder the formes of bread and wine which may serue to answere al that he citeth out of Paschasius specially considering that in that whole treatise and one or two other of the same Authour his principall butte and marke is to proue the reall presence and Sacrifice In the first Chapter of the booke cited by M. PER. he hath these wordes Our Lord hath done all thinges in heauen and earth as he will himselfe and because it hath so pleased him though the figure of bread and wine be here that is in the Sacrament notwithstanding it is to be beleeued that after consecration there is nothing else but the flesh and bloud of Christ vvhich he also expresly proueth there at large And in an other treatise of the same argument he hath these among many such like wordes Christ when he gaue his Disciples bread and broke it did not say this is a figure of my body nor in this mistery there is a certaine vertue of it but he said without dissimulation This is my body and therefore it is that which he said it was and not that which men imagine it to be Did I not tell you that this Abbot vvas like to helpe M. PER. but a litle Thus at length we are come to the end of M. PER. reasons in fauour of their cause let vs heare what he produceth for the Catholike party The first argument Christ was a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedecke but Melchisedeckes order was to Sacrifice in bread and wine Psal 109. ad Hebr. 5. 7. therefore Christ did offer vp Sacrifice in formes of bread and wine at his last supper And what Christ then did that did he ordaine to be done to the worlds end by the Apostles their successors therefore there is now in the true Church a true and proper Sacrifice offered in our Lordes supper To seperate that which is certaine
well to declare why Melchisedecke brought forth bread and wine because he was a Priest that vsed to Sacrifice in that kinde and to honour and thanke God for that victory he either did then presently or before had sacrificed it and as such sanctified foode made a present vnto Abraham of it who needed not either for himselfe or for his souldiers any victuals because he retourned loaden vvith the spoile of foure Kinges wherefore the bread and wine that he brought forth was a Sacrifice and not common meate And if further proofe needed this is sufficiently confirmed by the Fathers already cited who all teach that bread and wine brought forth then by him were Melchisedecke his Sacrifice a figure of ours I will yet adde one more out of that most ancient Patriarke Clement of Alexandria L. 4. strom versus finem who saith Melchisedecke King of Salem Priest of the most high God gaue bread and wine being a sanctified foode in figure of the Eucharist The Protestants feeling themselues wonderfully pinched and wringed with this example of Melchisedecke assay yet to escape from it a third way For saith M. PER. be it graunted that Melchisedecke offered bread and wine and that it was also a figure of the Lordes supper yet should bread and wine he absurd tipes of no bread nor wine but of the bare formes of bread and wine Reply The thing prefigured must be more excellent then the figure as the body surpasseth farre the shadowe so albeit the figure vvere but bread and wine yet the thing prefigured is the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine sacrificed in an vnbloudy manner as bread and wine are sacrificed without shâ—dding bloud and therein principally consisteth the resemblance And thus much of our first argument Nowe to the second The Paschall lambe was first sacrificed vp by the Master of the family and then afterward eaten as a Sacrament but the Eucharist succeedeth in roome of that as the verity doth to the figure therefore it is first sacrificed before it be receiued M. PER. first denyeth the Paschall lambe to haue beene sacrificed but yeeldeth no reason of his deniall and therefore might without any further adoe be rejected Yet fore-seing that we might easily proue it to be sacrificed by expresse Scripture for Christ saith to his Disciples Mar. 14. vers 12. Exod. 12. vers 6. Goe and prepare a place to sacrifice the passe-ouer or Paschall lambe also in Exodus Yee shall sacrifice the lambe the foure-tenth day of the Moneth and in many other places to this hath he nought els to say but that Sacrifice in those places is taken improperly for to kill only His reason is because that in one place of Scripture the word Sacrifice is taken saith he for to kill but in more then one hundreth it is taken otherwayes and that properly Why then should we not take it there as it doth vsually and properly signifie rather then improperly not any reason doth he render for it at all but because it made so plaine against him he must needes shift it off so wel as he could But what if in the very place where he saith it is taken for to kill only and not for to Sacrifice he be also deceiued then hath he no colour to say that in any place it is taken otherwise Surely the reason that he alleageth for it is very insufficient For by Iacobs bretheren inuited to his feast may be vnderstood according to the Hebrewe phrase men of his owne religion who might well come to his Sacrifice wherefore S. Paul calleth the Romans Corinthians and men of all nations that were Christians his bretheren But if the Paschall lambe were not properly sacrificed howe could S. Paul resemble Christ crucified vnto the Paschall Sacrificed saying 1. Cor. 5. vers 7. Dialog cuÌ„ Triph. Our Paschall lambe Christ is sacrificed Surely that famous and ancient Martyr Iustine vvho vvas best acquainted vvith the rites of that people himselfe being bredde and brought vp among them saith most plainely That the killing of the Paschall lambe among the Iewes was a solemne Sacrifice and a figure of Christ. Wherefore Master PERKINS prouideth an other answere to our argument and saith That if it were graunted that the passe-ouer were both a Sacrifice and Sacrament yet would it make much against them For they may say that the supper of the Lord succeedeth it only in regard of the mayne end thereof which is to increase our communion with Christ. What is this a Gods blessing if that be all the vse of it the Lordes supper may also bee no Sacrament at all for many other thinges besides Sacraments increase our communion with Christ But to the purpose our Lordes supper and also the Paschall lambe vvere instituted not only to increase our communion vvith Christ but also to render thankes to God for benefits receiued as their Paschall for their deliuery out of the land of bondage so our Eucharist for our redemption from sinne and hell and therefore as they are Sacraments to feede our soules so are they true Sacrifices to giue thankes to God for so high and singuler benefits And because I loue not to leaue my reader in matter of diuinity naked reasons vvithout some authority heare vvhat S. Ambrose speaking of Priests ministring the Lordes supper saith Lib. 1. in Lucam When we doe offer Sacrifice Christ is present Christ is sacrificed for Christ our passe-ouer is offered vp S. Leo is yet more plaine vvho speaking of the passe-ouer saith Serm. 7. de pass That shadowes might giue place to the body and figures to the present verily the old obseruance is taken away by the newe Testament one Sacrifice is turned to an other and bloud excludeth bloud and so the legall feast whiles it is changed is fulfilled Marke howe the Eucharist succeedeth the Paschall lambe the Sacrifice of the Paschall being changed into the Sacrifice of Christes body Our third argument is selected out of these vvordes of the Prophet Malachy Cap. 1. vers 11. I will take no pleasure in you saith the Lord of Hostes and I will not receiue a gift from your handes for from the East vnto the West great is my name among the Gentils and in euery place a cleane oblation is sacrificed to my name Hence we inferre that after the reprobation of the Iewes and calling of the Gentils that is in the state of the newe Testament a cleane Sacrifice shall be offered vnto God of the Gentils being made Christians as vvitnesseth the spirit of God in the holy Prophet ergo it cannot be denyed of Christians M. PERKINS answereth That by that cleane Sacrifice is to be vnderstood the spirituall Sacrifice of prayers because that the Apostle exhorting vs to pray for all states hath these wordes Lifting vp pure handes What good Sir are cleane handes and a cleane Sacrifice all one vvith you a worshipfull exposition This man conferreth places of
to be seene in their decretall Epistles haue euer chalenged this right of Supremacy ouer the whole Church as the successours of S. Peter and that the very Patriarkes and principall Prelates euen of the East Church who were likelyest to haue resisted if they had seene any cause vvhy haue from the very beginning of the free practise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction acknowledged and confessed the same and that finally the greatest vvisest and best Emperours of both the Latin and Greeke Church haue as you haue heard before declared the same right to appertayne vnto the said Roman Sea the matter cannot be but cleare enough to all that list not to remayne vvranglers vvhere the right of the Supremacy resteth OF THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENTS OVR CONSENT M. PERKINS Page 295. THe first conclusion We teach and beleeue that the Sacraments are signes to represent Christ with his benefits to vs. The second conclusion We teach further that the Sacraments are indeede instruments whereby God offereth and giueth the fore-said benefits to vs. THE DIFFERENCE THe Catholikes teach that the Sacraments are true and proper instrumentall causes which being moued by God thereunto doe produce and giue grace to the worthy receiuer Euen as the penne doth make the letter or as the axe doth cut the wood being thereto applyed by the workeman so for example doth the Sacrament of baptisme wash away the sinnes of the baptised being by God therevnto ordayned and rightly vsed by the Minister But M. PERKINS holdeth that the Sacraments haue no operation to that effect of forgiuenesse of sinnes but are only outward meanes which being applyed vnto the party God of himselfe doth immediately purge him from sinne and not by meanes of the Sacraments Againe Whereas we require a fit disposition in the receiuer to make him capable of the grace presented and exhibited vnto him by the Sacrament He holdeth that all the vertue of the Sacrament consisteth in the receiuer Who beholding those signes from God in the handes of the Minister must conceite and imagine First that God himselfe by his owne mouth doth promise him seuerally and by name remission of his sinnes the signe and pledge whereof is that Sacrament which the minde considering reasoneth thus he that vseth the elements aright in faith and repentance shall receiue grace thereby but I vse the elements aright therefore shall I receiue from God increase of grace Thus then faith is confirmed not by the worke done but by a kinde of reasoning the proofe whereof is borrowed from the elements being signes and pledges of Gods mercy Contrarylie vve hold that the Sacrament it selfe conferreth and doth giue great grace so that there be no impediment or let of it by reason of the receiuers euill disposition Now if the receiuer come throughly vvell prepared with great humility charity and attention he then ouer and besides the ordinary grace of the Sacrament shall receiue more grace according vnto the measure of his owne preparation Lastly whereas we teach the very grace of justification to be giuen in some Sacraments as in Baptisme and Penance M. PER. saith no because A man of yeares must first beleeue and be justified before he can be a meete pertaker of any Sacrament But vvhat vvill he then say vnto Infants must not they receiue the grace of justification by Baptisme before they haue wit to beleeue and to reason in such sort as he prescribeth Before I come vnto the arguments of either party I thought fit to giue the reader to vnderstand that whether the Sacraments be true physicall instruments of grace or no Lib. 2. de Sacram. in gener cap. 11. is not a matter of faith as Cardinall Bellarmine declareth so we hold them to be true morall causes of the same grace to which M. PER. yeelded his consent wherefore I will not be long in this question Secondly to perceiue well the state of the question you must obserue what difference there is betweene a physical and moral instrument That then may be called a morall instrument vvhich moueth the principall agent to doe any thing albeit he vse not that thing it selfe as a meanes to doe it vvithall so that if God be effectually moued to bestowe grace vpon him that receiueth a Sacrament by the sight of the Sacrament though he giue not the grace by the vvorke of the Sacrament but immediatly from him felfe the Sacrament is the morall meanes of the same grace but it cannot be called the physicall or naturall instrument of that grace vnlesse God doe vse and apply the Sacrament it selfe as the meane and instrument to conuey the same grace into the soule of the receiuer Nowe vve hold it more agreable with the word of God and sentences of the holy Fathers and more for the dignity of the Sacraments themselues to say that God by them as by true naturall instruments doth conuay his graces into our soule M. PERKINS goeth about to proue the contrary thus The word preached and the Sacraments doe differ in the manner of giuing Christ vnto vs because the word worketh by the eare and the Sacraments by the eye otherwise for the giuing it selfe they differ not Christ saying that in the very word is eaten his owne flesh and what can be said more of the Lordes supper Augustine saith that beleeuers are pertakers of the body and bloud in baptisme Serm. ad Infant so saith Hierome to Eâ—â—bia Nowe vpon this it followeth that seing the worke done in the word preached conferreth not grace neyther doth the worke done in the Sacrament conferre grace I answere that his owne first word must stand wherein he said that the word preached and the Sacraments doe differ in the manner of giuing vs Christes grace for preaching doth by perswasion drawe vs vnto grace and goodnesse but the Sacraments as conduite-pipes doe take and deriue grace from Christes passion and conuay it into the soules of all them who doe not stoppe vp those diuine conduits by their owne default and want of due preparation To his idle and ill shapen commation I answere that Christes body may be eaten two vvayes either really as in the blessed Sacrament or else spiritually by beleeuing in Christ and being incorporate into his mysticall body and in this second sort Infants in baptisme and all true beleeuers doe eate the body of Christ But howe this proueth that the vvord and the Sacraments doe giue grace after the same manner is there any man that can tell His second reason I baptise you with water to repentance Math. 3. vers 11. but he that commeth after me shall baptise you with the holy Ghost and with fire Hence saith M PER. it is manifest that grace proceedeth not from any act of the Sacrament for Iohn though he doe not disjoyne himselfe and his action from Christ and the action of the spirit yet doth he distinguish them plainely in number persons and effect Answere He that can let him pike some English out
force of Christs wordes consecrated a part so that if they could be naturally separated they should be also seuered in that Sacrament as they might haue beene at Christes death when al the bloud was powred forth of his body but euer sithence Christes resurrection they are so joyned together that they can be no more seuered so that we graunt vnder one kinde of the Sacrament to be both Christes body and bloud which is not wrought by the wordes of the institution but by the necessary and inseparable conjunction of Christes body with his bloud euer since his glorious resurrection Finally M. PERKINS condemneth the administration of the Sacrament vnder one only kinde for the commandement of Christ is drinke ye al of this Math. 26. vers 27. and this commandement is rehearsed to the Church of Corinth in these wordes doe this as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me ver 25. and no power can reuerse this commandement because it was established by the soueraigne head of the Church Answere He beganne to set downe the institution of the Sacrament out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. here he leapeth backe to S. Mathewe because he fitteth him better in this point to vvhome I answere that Christ there spake only vnto his twelue Apostles vvho vvere afterward to administer that holy Sacrament to others and so some thing there-about is spoken to them vvhich may not be extended vnto lay-men but vnto Priestes only who were to succeed the Apostles in that ministery All men doe confesse these vvordes hoc facite doe ye this that is administer ye this Sacrament to be spoken only to the Apostles and in them to all of the Clergie alone euen so drinke ye al of this was in like manner spoken vnto them only as Clergiemen and therefore it is a commandement only to Priestes so to doe and as for others they may either drinke of it or not drinke of it as it shall be thought most expedient by their supreame Pastors and this may be gathered out of those very wordes drinke ye al of this For why should the Apostles haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cuppe then to eate of that foode vnles it were to signifie that whereas all men should be bound to receiue Christes body they should be further bound to receiue that holy cuppe also from which bond other men should stand free But to come to the purpose when they quarrell with vs for taking away from the people one kinde of the Sacrament we answere that vve doe them no hinderance thereby because vve giue them both the blessed body sacred bloud of Christ together vnder one kind yea whole Christ both God and man because they be so vnited that they cannot be separated But what can they answere when we complaine vpon them for that they haue defrauded the poore people of both body and bloud of Christ and in lieu of that most pretious banquet doe giue them a cold breake-fast of a morsel of bread a suppe of wine this is a most miserable lamentable exchange in deede our blessed Lord giue them grace to see it deliuer them speedily from it Here is the place to shew how the Protestāts doe not only bereaue their vnfortunate folowers of this most heauenly foode of Christes body but that they also depriue them of the manifold great graces of God deriued vnto vs in 5. other sacramēts but because I haue touched it in the Preface I wil omit it here and make an end with M. PER. assoone as I haue requited him by propounding briefly some arguments for the real presence as he hath done against it Let this be the first The state of the newe Testament which is more perfect then the old requireth accordingly Sacraments of greater grace and perfection then the old had they had Manna which for substance and taste farre passed our bread and in signification was equall to it Wherefore either vve must graunt our Sacrament of bread and wine to be inferiour to theirs of the old Testament or else acknowledge and confesse it to be the true body and bloud of Christ which doth surpasse theirs exceedingly as the body doth the shadowe This argument is confirmed by our Sauiour himselfe who in expresse tearmes doth preferre the meate Iohn 6. v. 48.49 that he was to giue to his Disciples before that of Manna which their Fathers had eaten in the wildernesse Secondly Christ promised to giue to his Disciples his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke and when they marueiled howe that could be he assured them Ibid. v. 55 that vnlesse they did eate his flesh they should not haue life in them and further certified them that his flesh was truly meate and his bloud truly drinke vvhence it is most plainely deduced that he who neuer faileth of his promise gaue them his true flesh to eate Thirdly Christ said in most cleare tearmes this is my body this is my bloud What could be more certaine or more perspicuous Fourthly These vvordes of the institution are recorded by three Euangelists and by S. Paul and they al vniformely deliuer it to be not the figure of Christs body but his body and that his body which should be giuen for our redemption on the crosse ergo it was that his true reall body vvhich vvas nailed to the crosse for vs. Fiftly S. Paul demandeth thus the Chalice of benediction which we doe blesse 1. Cor. 10. vers 16. is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread that we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord if then we doe in receiuing the blessed Sacrament participate Christes body and communicate his bloud they surely are there really present Againe S. Paul saith He that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh judgement to himselfe 1. Cor. 11. vers 28. not discerning the body of our Lord and before is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ ergo the body and bloud of Christ are there present or else why should a man incurre that guilt but by his vnworthy receiuing of it and by not discerning Christes body to be there present Besides all these plaine textes of holy Scripture in confirmation of the reall presence the very circumstances of it doe much fortifie our faith therein Lucae 22. vers 15. In S. Luke vve haue that our Sauiour marueillously desired desiderio desideraui to eate that this last banquet vvith his Disciples S. Iohn addeth that whereas he loued his that were in the world Ioh. 13. v. 1. 3◠vnto the end he loued them and knowing that the Father gaue al thinges into his handes and that he came from God and goeth to God c. What coherence I say with this exceeding loue and infinit power of Christ to be shewed in his last supper if he hath left only bread and vvine to be taken in remembrance of him any meane man might easily haue done as much and Helias departing from his Disciple Heliseus did much more for he left a more noble remembrance of himselfe behind him to wit his cloake and double spirit But Christ bequeathing vs his true natural body to be the foode of our soules and comfort of our hartes as we beleeue teach he then in deede shewed his infinit power and loue towardes vs and that he came from God and as God bestowed an inestimable gift vpon vs such a one as neuer any other did or could possibly doe Moreouer the institution of a religious rite and ceremony to be vsed in the whole Church vnto the worldes end and to be receiued of all Christian people of age and discretion did necessarily require that it should be done in most certaine and cleare tearmes otherwise there might arise great strife and contention about it and be the ruine of thousandes And specially great perspicuity is required in this holy Sacrament where the mistaking of it must needes breede either Idolatry if vve vvorshippe for Christ that which is not Christ or impiety if on the other side we should not giue to it being Christ God and man diuine honour Wherefore no good Christian may thinke but that our prouident Sauiour Christ IESVS vvho very vvell foresawe all these inconueniences did deliuer it in such tearmes as he would haue to be taken properly and not be construed at mens pleasures figuratiuely Adde that he spake those wordes to the twelue Apostles only vvhome he vvas accustomed to instruct plainely and not in parable darkely and who were wont also to aske for the interpretation of obscure speaches vvho here made no question about this high mistery because they were sufficiently forewarned Ioh. 6. that they should eate Christes flesh and that his body was truly meate and therefore beleeued Christes wordes without further question Finally this holy Sacrament is a principall part of the newe Testament and one of the chiefest legacies by Christ bequeathed vnto vs Christians Nowe what lawe or conscience will permit that any legacy should be interpreted figuratiuely to vvit that for a house goodes or landes bequeathed and giuen by last vvill and testament you should vnderstand a figure of a house to be giuen or the signification and representation of some goodes or landes If this be most absurd and ridiculous in the testament of any ordinary man about temporall goodes howe much more pernitious and intollerable is it to suffer this in the eternall Testament of the Sonne of God and that in his diuine and inestimable treasures And thus at length by the grace of God I come to the end of this booke wherein good Christian reader if thou finde any thing that may confirme thee in the true Catholike faith or further thy knowledge therein giue God the Father of lightes from whome all good giftes descend the whole praise If any thing be amisse impute it partly to my slender skill ouersight or negligence and partly to the vvant of a conuenient resting-place commodity of bookes and conference all vvhich these times of persecution doe depriue vs of To the most blessed and holy Trinity be al honour and glory both nowe and for euer AMEN FINIS
Circumcision was commanded in these wordes Genes 17. vers 11. You shall circumcise the flesh of your prepuce that it may be a signe of the couenant betweene you and me These be the wordes of the institution of that Sacrament and not one of them but must be literally taken For the true flesh in deede was to be circumcised and cut off and no figure of the flesh or signe of cutting would serue the turne In like manner where the Sacrament of the Pascall lambe is instituted Exod. 12. vers 3. all must be vnderstood literally as a naturall lambe really killed rosted and eaten and not a figure signe or seale of it euen so our blessed Sauiour instituting a Sacrament in these wordes This is my body the wordes must be taken literally and not figuratiuely and consequently the reason which M. PER. bringeth for him beareth strongly against himselfe because it is and euer hath beene Gods fashion when he instituteth Sacraments to institute them in their proper tearmes which must be taken literally as by his owne examples hath bin proued Nowe to his sentences Circumcision is both a couenant and the signe of a couenant and that properly although not of the same couenant For it was a couenant tendred by God vnto Abraham and by him accorded vnto to circumcise himselfe and all his seede of the male-kinde and the very same couenant was also a signe badge of Gods peculier fauour vnto them and their speciall obligation to serue him and a marke in them of the chosen people of God so that that speach circumcision is the couenant is not figuratiue but literall Neither is the lambe called the Angels passing by or ouer in the place cited by M. P. but rather the Iewes eating of it hastily and walking was a signe of the Angels speedy passing by them The lambe is sometimes called the passe-ouer not because it was the signe of it but for that it vvas the sacrifice celebrated in remembrance of it so Christ is called our passe-ouer or Paschall lambe because he is the lambe of God sacrificed to take away the sinnes of the vvorld so that not in one of these sentences is the thing signified put for the signe but rather the contrary And when S. Paul saith that the Rocke was Christ it is to be vnderstood properly because he speaketh of the spirituall Rocke saying And they did drinke all of the spirituall Rocke which was Christ properly The materiall rocke out of which the streames of water gushed did in deed prefigure Christ on the crosse out of whose side issued bloud and water but the spirituall Rocke that is the Rocke figured by that materiall was really Christ himselfe so that finally he hath not brought vs one place where the name of the thing signified is giuen to the signe but suppose he could bring any would it therevpon followe that this place of the institution of the Sacrament must be expounded by the same figure howe absurd and ridiculous is this manner of reasoning In one or two places of Scripture the name of the thing signified is giuen to the signe ergo In vvhat place soeuer it pleaseth the Protestants it shall be so taken albeit in a thousand other places it must needes be taken otherwise But M. PERKINS saith secondly That the Papists themselues confesse the like figuratiue phrase to be in the institution of the cup when it is said This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud that is as M. PER. interpreteth it a signe seale and pleadge of the newe Testament Answ We say that the institution of that part of the Sacrament is as plainely deliuered by S. Mathewe and S. Marke as the other For they haue in expresse vvordes This is my bloud of the newe Testament vvhich plaine and cleare speach doth sufficiently declare howe S. Lukes more intricate and obscure wordes are to be vnderstood it being great reason that that which is plaine easie to vnderstand should interpret that which is hard and not that which is obscure to be made an exposition of that vvhich is lightsome cleare as our wranglers who loue darkenes more then light would perswade vs. For the better vnderstanding of S. Lukes wordes you must obserue that a Testament is taken in two sortes either for the vvill and ordinance of the Testator or else for the written instrument whereby the will is knowne and performed Nowe this holy Sacrament may truly be called a testamēt in both sences For it is both a special ordinance to be obserued and practised by Christes will and institution during the whole state of the newe Testament and therefore truly called by S. Luke The newe Testament being a principall part of it Ouer and besides it is a singuler meanes and instrument a more effectuall then a vvritten vvill to conuey and deriue vnto vs our Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus legacy by the worthy receiuing of it that is his grace in this world and glory in the next and for this cause it is said of S. Mathewe to be the bloud of the newe Testament and not the seale or signe of it And thus finally the gentle reader may see that M. PER. can shew no sufficient cause why Christes wordes should be expounded by such a strange figure whereupon it followeth euidently that they are to be taken according vnto their natiue literall sence For so must all holy Scripture be vnderstood vnlesse there be apparant reason to the contrary Notwithstanding because this matter is of very great moment as being one of the highest misteries of our faith I will insist and stand somewhat vpon the circumstances of it First conferre all the places together vvhere the institution is rehearsed and you shall finde in them all Math. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. This is my body and not in any one of them This is a figure of my body as the Protestants teach Secondly S. Luke and S. Paul adde The body which shall be giuen for you vvhich inforce vs to vnderstand it to be his true naturall body that vvas crucified for vs and not a figure of it which was not crucified for vs. Luc. 22. Cap. 13. Thirdly Christ said With a desire haue I desired to eate this passe-ouer with you And S. Iohn addeth That Christ knowing that his houre was come that he should passe out of this world to his Father whereas he loued his that were in the world vnto the end he loued them and when supper was done c. Knowing that the Father had giuen him all thinges into his handes and that he came from God and goeth to God and so forth This Preface I say being made before the institution of the Sacrament sheweth that Christ vehemently longed to come to it and intended to leaue vnto his louing Disciples nowe at his last fare-well a monument and token of his diuine power and loue towardes them If after all this he should haue left nothing vnto
our names vvhich is also good and true to vvit That the Apostle there speaketh of the bloudy Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse which was but once offered which letteth not but that the same his body may be vnder the formes of bread and wine sacrificed often by the Ministery of Priestes in the Masse Yes but it doth saith M. PER. For the Authour of the Epistle to the Hebrewes he will not for twenty pound say it was S. Paul taketh it for graunted that the Sacrifice of Christ is only one and that a bloudy Sacrifice for he saith Christ doth not offer himselfe often Hebr. 9. as the high Priestes did c. All this is true that Christ suffered but once vpon the Crosse but it is nothing against the former answere in which it is not said that Christ offered himselfe twise vpon the Crosse but that the same his body is daylie by the Ministery of Priestes offered vnbloudily vnder the formes of bread and wine vpon the Altar which being so plaine and sensible a man might meruaile at their palpable grossenesse if they cannot conceiue it I thinke rather that they vnderstand it well enough but not knowing what reasonably to reply against it doe make as though they vnderstood it not Whereupon this man not hauing said one vvord to the purpose against the answere yet concludeth as though he had confuted all that we haue in holy Scripture for this Sacrifice That the Scriptures forsooth neuer knewe the twofold manner of sacrificing Christ and then goeth on triumphing That euery distinction in diuinity not founded in the written word is but a forgery of mans braine Had he not need of a messe of good broath to coole his hotte hasty braine that thus runneth away with a supposed victory before he hath strooken any one good stroke but he saith further cleane besides the drift of his former argument as his manner is sometime to droppe downe a sentence by the way Hebr. 9. vers 22. which seemeth to make for him That without shedding of bloud there is no remission of sinnes meaning belike that if our Sacrifice be vnbloudy then it doth not remit sinne Answere If no remission of sinne be obtayned nowe without shedding of bloud howe haue they remission of their sinnes by only faith vvhat doth their faith drawe bloud of them The direct answere is apparant in the Apostles vvordes vvho saith That all thinges almost according to the lawe are cleansed with bloud and that there was no remission of sinnes in the lawe of Moyses without shedding of bloud What a shamefull abusing of a text vvas this to apply that to vs in the state of the newe Testament vvhich vvas plainely spoken of the state of the old Testament and of Moyses lawe His second reason The Romish Church holdeth that the Sacrifice in the Lordes supper is all one for substance with the Sacrifice offered on the Crosse if that be so then the Sacrifice in the Eucharist must either be a continuance of the Sacrifice begunne on the Crosse or else an alternation or repetition of it Let them choose of these twaine which they will If they say it is a continuance of it then they make the Priest to bring to perfection that which Christ begunne If they say it is a repetition thus also they make it imperfect For to repeate a thing often argueth that at once it was not sufficient which is the reason of the holy Ghost to proue the sacrifices of the old Testament to be imperfect I answere that vvhen an argument consisteth of diuision then if any part or member of the diuision be omitted the argument is nought worth as the learned knowe so fareth it in this fallacy For the Sacrifice of the Masse is neither a continuance of the Sacrifice on the Crosse not for M. PER. friuolous reason for not all thinges are bettered but many made much vvorse by continuance but because the one is not immediately lincked with the other there going much time betweene them Neither is it to speake properly a repetition of the Sacrifice of the Crosse because that was bloudy this vnbloudy that offered by Christ in his owne person this by the ministery of a Priest that on the Crosse this on the Altar that to pay the generall ransome and to purchase the redemption of all mankind this to apply the vertue of that vnto particuler men So that although there be in both these Sacrifices the same body and bloud of Christ in substance yet the manner meanes and end of them being so different the one cannot conueniently be called the repetion of the other but the Sacrifice of the Masse is a liuely representation of the Sacrifice on the Crosse and the application of the vertue of it to vs. This is the third member of the diuision either not knowne or concealed by M. PER. the better to colour and cloake the deceite of his second false argument Nowe to the third The third reason A reall and outward Sacrifice in a Sacrament is against the nature of a Sacrament and specially the supper of the Lord for one of the endes thereof is to keepe in memory the Sacrifice of Christ Nowe euery remembrance must be of a thing absent past and done and if Christ be daylie really sacrificed the Sacrament is not a fit memoriall of his Sacrifice Answere Christes Sacrifice offered on the Crosse is long sithence past and done and therefore absent wherefore it may well haue a memoriall and there can be no other so liuely representation of it as to haue the same body yet in another manner set before our eyes as hath beene more then once already declared which may serue to answere the later proposition M. PERKINS confirmeth his former thus The principall end of a Sacrament is that God may giue and we receiue Christ and his benefits Nowe in a reall sacrifice God doth not giue Christ to vs but the Priest offereth vp Christ to God therefore one thing cannot be both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice Answere One and the same thing may well be both but in diuers respects It is a Sacrifice in that it is an holy Oblation of a sensible thing vnto God by consuming of it in testification of his Soueraignity It is a Sacrament as it is a visible signe of an inuisible grace bestowed then vpon the receiuer So was the Paschall lambe first sacrificed to God as shall be proued hereafter and after eaten in a Sacrament In like manner the holy body and bloud of Christ are vnder the visible formes of bread and wine offered vp first to God by the sacred action of consecration and after broken and eaten in recognizance of his supreame dominion ouer all creatures which is a Sacrifice most properly taken Againe it is instituted by Christ to signifie and worke the spiritual nuriture of our soules by receiuing of it and so it is a Sacrament M. PERKINS fourth reason The holy Ghost maketh a difference Hebr.
shedde and it shall be shedde and a good Interpreter of Scripture may not to delude the one flie to the other but defend both because both be the vvordes of the holy Ghost And the Greeke text in S. Luke doth inuincibly confirme that the vvordes are to be taken in the present tense For it hath that the bloud as in the Chalice Luc. 22. vers 20. is powred out Toúto tò potérion tò eckynómenon This Chalice is powred out it cannot therefore be referred vnto that powring out vvhich was to be made vpon the Crosse the day following but to that that vvas powred in and out of the Chalice then presently This might also be confirmed by the bloud which was sprinkled to confirme the old TestameÌ„t vnto which it seemeth that our Sauiour did allude in this consecration of the Chalice Exod. 24. vers 8. For Moyses said This is the bloud of the Testament and our Sauiour * Hebr. 9. vers 20. This is the bloud of the newe Testament But that bloud which dedicated the old Testament was first sacrificed to God such therefore vvas the bloud of the newe Testament And to make the matter more cleare let vs heare howe the best and most judicious Fathers vvho receiued the right vnderstanding of the Scriptures from the Apostles and their Schollers doe take these vvordes of Christ Lib. 4. cap. 32. Lib. 2. Epist 3. In psa 33 Conc. 2. Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. Homil. 2. in Post ad Timoth. Orat. 1. de resur You haue heard already out of S. Ireneus That Christ taught at his last supper the newe Sacrifice of the newe Testament And out of S. Cyprian Christ offered there a Sacrifice to his Father after the order of Melchisedecke taking bread and making it his body And out of S. Augustine Christ instituted a Sacrifice of his body and bloud according vnto the order of Melchisedecke that is vnder the formes of bread and wine I adde vnto them S. Chrisostome vvho saith In steede of the slaughter of beastes Christ hath commanded vs to offer vp himselfe And againe Whether Peter or Paule or an other Priest of meaner meritte doe offer the holy Sacrifice it is the same which Christ gaue to his Disciples the which all Priestes nowe a dayes doe make and this hath nothing lesse then that had S. Gregory Nissene Christ being both a Priest and the Lambe of God offered himselfe a Sacrifice and Host for vs. When vvas this done Euen then when to his Disciples he gaue his body to eate and his bloud to drinke Isichius First Lib. 2. in Leui. c. 8. our Lord supped with his Apostles vpon the figuratiue Lambe and afterward offered his owne Sacrifice All these and many other of the most ancient Fathers could finde a proper and reall Sacrifice in Christes supper To omit S. Gregories authority and all other his inferiors for this last thousand yeares vvhome the Protestants acknowledge vâ—holy to haue beleeued and taught the Sacrifice of the Masse See Kemnitius in exam Concilij Trid. page 826. 827. I omit some other good arguments made for vs out of the newe Testament to returne vnto M. PERKINS vvho proposeth this as the fourth reason for our party out of S. Paul We haue an Altar Hebr. 13. vers 10. whereof they may not eate who serue in the Tabernacle Nowe say they If we Christians haue an Altar then must we consequently haue Priestes and a proper kinde of Sacrifice for these are correlatiues and doe necessarily depend and followe one the other M. PERKINS answereth That the Altar there is to be taken not literally but spiritually for Christ himselfe Reply Obserue first howe the Protestants are forced to flie from the plaine text of Scripture and natiue signification of the vvordes vnto a figuratiue that without either reason or authority secondly I wish that M. P. would goe through with his paraphrase vpon the whole sentence and if by the Altar he vnderstand Christ then by eating of it he will surely expound beleeuing in Christ nowe like a prety Scholler that hath learned to read let him put it all together say That we Christians haue a Christ in whome the Iewes may not beleeue which is flat contradictory to that which the Apostle in that Epistle goeth about to perswade * Lib. 6. in Leui. c. 21 Isichius an ancient and worthy Author in expresse tearmes doth expound these wordes of the Altar of Christs body which the Iewes for their incredulity were not worthy to behold much lesse to be partakers of it and therefore the Apostle to moue the Iewes the rather to become Christians signifieth that so long as they serue in the tabernacle and continue Iewes they depriue themselues of that great benefite which they might haue by receiuing the blessed Sacrament Nowe the wordes following in the text which M. PER. citeth to interprete this sentence belong nothing to it but containe another reason to induce the Iewes to receiue Christ for their Messias drawne for a circumstance of their Sacrifices thus as the bodies of their Sacrifices were burne without the Campe so Christ suffered without the gate and citty of Hierusalem and therefore Christ was the truth prefigured by their Sacrifices It hath also an exhortation to depart out of the society of the Iewes and to forgoe all the preferment and glory they might enjoy among them to be content to suffer with Christ al contumelies Briefly there is not one word in the sentence before to proue the Altar to be taken for Christ but for a materiall Altar vpon which the Christian Priestes and offer the body and bloud of Christ in the blessed Sacrament vvhich may be confirmed by that passage of the same Apostle 1. Cor. 10 vers 21. You cannot drinke the cup of our Lord and the cup of Deuils you cannot be partakers of our Lordes table and the table of Deuils where a comparison is made betweene our Sacrifice and table and the Sacrifice and table of Idols shewing first that he vvho communicateth with the one of them cannot be partaker of the other and then that he who drinketh of the bloud of the Sacrifice is partaker of the Sacrifice Nowe the comparison were improper if our cup were not the cup of a Sacrifice as theirs was nor our table a true Altar as theirs was out of all doubt And that shift of Kemnitius is not cleanely who saith That they who drinke of Christes cup are partakers of his Sacrifice on the Crosse but not of any Sacrifice there present For S. Paules comparison is taken from the cup of a Sacrifice to Idols immediately before offered so that it doth conuince our Chalice to be the cup of a Sacrifice then presently immolated and offered vp The fift objection with M. PER. which is our sixt argument is this Where alteration is both of lawe and couenant there must needes be a newe Priest and a new Sacrifice Hebr. 7. vers
then the eating of fish For flesh both in it selfe is more nourishing as being of a more warme substance and fuller of â—uyce then fish and againe it is more like vnto our substance and so more apt to feed it and consequently to make it like a well fedde horse more proude and ready to resist reason and therefore our Prelates had great cause to forbid eating of flesh when they would haue vs to tame our flesh by fasting If some dainty fish be more agreeable vnto some appetites then some kinde of grosse meate that is not materiall For in comparisons if they be equall the best of the one must be compared with the best of the other and not the worst of one sort with the best of the other Now ouermuch filling of our bellies with meate as ouer charging of our heads with drinke and hunting after dainty cares are by the very light of nature condemned and so there needed no newe inhibition against them but the only thing that remained indifferent was the distinction of meates wherein the wisdome of the Church hath greatly shewed her selfe which to make our fast more agreable vnto the proper end of it that is to tame the flesh hath enjoyned vs to abstaine from flesh And this was obserued and collected out of the practise of her most wise holy and Godly children For the Prophet Daniel when he did fast very deuoutly abstayned as from all dainties Cap. 10. vers 3. so from flesh and wine S. Iohn Baptist the perfect paterne of mortification of fleshly concupiscence did neuer eate any flesh but wilde hony Mat. 3 4. Orat. de Amor. pauper and locustes were his foode S. Peter as that vvorthy Doctor Nazianzene reporteth did commonly eate but a certayne kinde of pulse S. Mathewe eate no flesh but hearbes fruite and rootes as * L. 2. Paedag ca. 2. Clemens Patriarke of Alexandria hath registred S. Iames as a L. 2. hist cap. 22. Eusebius rehearseth neuer eate flesh nor dranke wine the like he relateth out of Philo in the same booke b Cap. 17. of those most blessed Christians of Alexandria gouerned by S. Marke the Euangelist A man may finde very many like examples in antiquity but that precisely vpon fasting dayes in Lent vve must abstayne from flesh these Doctors by name doe teach c Orat. 2. de jejun S. Basil d Hom. 6. in Genesi S. Chrisostome e Catech. 4 Cyril Hierom. f L. 30. coÌ„t Faust c. 3. S. Augustine g L. 2. cont IouinianuÌ„ S. Hierome These most Godly and most juditious Fathers and with all best acquainted with the managing of spirituall affaires are I hope rather to be hearkened vnto in the matter of distinction of meates and to be esteemed more expert therein then a million of our fleshly Ministers whose belly seemeth to be their God that may in no case abide to be abridged of the bodily pleasures But to proceede You haue hitherto heard howe faintly M. PERKINS hath proued this distinction of meates to be foolish nowe you shall see howe he doth demonstrate it to be wicked It saith he taketh away the liberty of Christians by which vnto the pure all thinges are pure and the Apostle biddeth vs to stand fast in this liberty which the Church of Rome would thâ—s abolish Galat. 5. Answere The Roman Church taught long before and much better then you that no meates are vncleane vnto Christians either of their owne natures or for any signification as they were in the old Testament and aboue one thousand and two hundred yeares past condemned the Encratites Tatianus disciples the Manichees and Priscillianists for teaching flesh wine and many other meates to be vncleane but the same Church doth also command that vpon some certayne dayes vvhen vve are to humble our selues in prayer and to afflict our bodies by fasting that then wee must abstaine from the more delightfull and nourishing foode as flesh egges and white-meate and be content with one meale of fish This commandement of our Gouernors doth not make the meate vncleane in it selfe but vnlawfull for vs to eate of it for that time only But saith M. PERKINS It is against Christian liberty to be debarred of flesh at any time by any Superiour for God only hath reserued vnto himselfe that power of forbidding to eate meates so that without his owne expresse inhibition Christians cannot be depriued of any kinde of meate Behold an audacious assertion without any ground For albeit we Christians be exempted from all vncleane meates of Moyses lawe yet are we subject to the order of our Gouernours for the manner of fasting as hath bin proued before Neither hath God so kepâ— in his owne handes the disposition of his creatures but that he hath permitted others to make diuers sorts of meates vnlawfull for Christians to eate as it is most manifest by the first Councell holden by the Apostles Act. 15. vers 29. For they had full power to command and enjoyne all Christians to abstaine from all meates offered to Idols from all strangled thinges and from bloud How plainely then doth it repugne vnto the expresse word of God to auerre thaâ— God only can forbid Christians any kind of meate Neither be these precisely the Apostles wordes Gallat 5. stand fast hold this liberty which he cited out of the Apostle nor is there any mention made of fasting but of circumcision and generally of the obseruation of Moyses law The Apostle doth blame the Galathians for yeelding vnto the obseruation of it biddeth them to flie from it and stand in the liberty of other Christians who were freed from the yoke of Moyses lawe but not from obedience to their Christian Pastours Howe absurd then was it to alleadge that against Christian fasting which doth nothing at all concerne it Nowe to the other place of the Apostle which M. PERKINS toucheth by the vvay 1 Tim. 4. Cont. Adimantum cap. 14. to wit That certaine departing from the faith and attending vnto the spirit of errour shall teach to abstaine from meates which God created to be receiued with thankes-giuing To this Saint Augustine hath ansvvered directly tvvelue hundreth yeares a-goe for hauing rehearsed those the Apostles vvordes he saith He doth not describe and note them who doe abstaine from such meates eyther to bridle their owne concupiscence or not to giue offence vnto the weakenes of others but them that doe thinke the flesh in it selfe to bee vncleane and deny God to bee Creator of such meates Such vvere the Manichees as Saint Augustine vvitnesseth saying to Faustus a ring-leader among them Lib. 30. cap. 5. You deny the creature of God to be good and say it is vncleane because the Deuill doth make flesh of a more dreggy and base matter of euill c. So doth Saint Hierome in his second booke against Iouinian expound the same place of Saint Paul and before them Tertullian in his
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
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
vvas so commanded to doe by the formall lawes of those foure his temporall Soueraignes and so might without any offence to God haue beene nowe of the old religion then of the newe and againe of neither old nor newe but of a hotch-potch and mingle-mangle of some of the one and some of the other vvhich is most absurd euen so is that of which it followeth And to confirme this with some testimony of antiquity S. Ambrose a most firme pillar of the West Church spake resolutely vnto the Emperour Valentinian saying Epist 35. Trouble not your selfe ô Emperour with thinking that you haue any imperial jurisdiction ouer those thinges that be Diuine and Holy for the right of Ciuill causes was committed vnto you but not the chardge of Holy thinges And another his auncient S. Athanasius Epist ad solita vitaÌ„ ageÌ„tes the first of the foure Doctors of the Greeke Church doth reprehend the Emperour Constantius for intermedling vvith Ecclesiasticall causes and recordeth an notable saying of that venerable Bishop Hosius vvho vvas present at the first generall Councell of Nyce vnto the same Constantius to vvit Command vs not ô Emperour in this kinde of affaires rather learne these thinges of vs for God hath committed the Empire to your chardge but hath bequeathed vnto vs and put vs in trust with the affaires that appertayne vnto his Church And therefore vvould not that most renowmed Emperour Constantine the great judge of Bishops causes although the Bishops themselues referred theiâ— matter to him and requested him to compose them but said That it did not belong vnto him to judge them but to be judged by them vvhose blessed steps the most learned and juditious Emperours that followed him chose rather to followe then the euill example of his Arrian Sonne Constantius For Iustinianus the elder that famous lawe-maker faith vnto Iohn the second Pope of that name In Codice tit primo We doe not suffer any thing to passe that belongeth vnto the state of the Church but that we make it knowne vnto your Holynesse who are the head of all the holy Church And Valentinian the Emperour in an Epistle vnto Theodosius vvriteth We must in our times mainetaine the dignity of â—uâ— reuerence vnto the most blessed Apostle S. Peter Extat inter praeambulas ad Concil Chalced. so farre-forth as the most happy Bishop of Rome vnto whome antiquity hath yeelded the principality of Priestly office aboue all others may haue place and power to judge of matters of faith and of Priests And thus much by the way against the Supremacy of Princes in causes Ecclesiasticall It remayneth nowe that I briefly proue S. Peter to haue had this Supremacy in his time and that therein the Bishops of Rome doe succeede him And for a foundation of this Question I take that for an assured truth vvhich the best Philosophers doe grant and the practise of the best and greatest Kingdome hath confirmed to wit That in one Kingdome it is best to haue one King and supreme gouernour assisted with the counsell of his wisest subjects which is so well knowne and confessed generally that he must needes betaken for a vvrangler that will denie it nowe then to our purpose Christes Church is but one state or spirituall Kingdome vvhich hath but one faith one baptisme and forme of Sacraments one true religion and solemne manner of diuine seruice Nowe seing vve are not to doubt but that he who purchased himselfe this one Church with the shedding of his owne most pretious bloud would haue it gouerned in the best sort therefore we must confesse that he hath ordayned one supreme Gouernour of it They say that this supreme Pastor is Christ himselfe and that he is alwayes present with it in spirit and by his word vvherefore there needeth no deputy or other in his roome This I haue once before confuted graunting that Christ is present to his Church in spirit and that he doth inwardly quicken and gouerne it but that is not sufficient for vnlesse we haue one certayne person visibly present to assure vs vvhich is the vvord of God and what is the true sence of all doubtfull places of it we shall neuer haue vnity of faith for if they who mistake the true sence must be left to their owne judgement and the direction of their owne spirit which they beleeue to be guided with the holy Ghost then shall vve haue so many heresies currant in the Church as there be Archeretikes to coyne and stampe them The like may be said for Sacraments and sacred rites of religion the which without one Supreme Moderatour cannot be kept vniforme so that it resteth most cleare that our Sauiour Christ being to leaue this world and to returne vnto his heauenly Father he was to commit the high charge of his only Spouse and Doue vnto the custody and fidelity of one supreme Pastor This is confirmed by the example of the old Testament vvhich vvas a figure of the newe Deut. 17. ab 8. ad 13. vvhere the soueraigne and supreme authority of deciding all doubtfull questions that should arise about the lawe was by Gods expresse order giuen vnto the high Priests and euery Israelite bound vnder payne of death to obey him and stand to his sentence And that this Supremacy continued all along the state of the old Testament euen vntill Christes dayes both the Magdeburgenses and Caluin doe testifie Centur. 1. lib. 1. c. 7. Lib. 4. Instit ca. 6. But the Protestants object that some Iudges and Kinges of Iuda did take vpon them to deale in matters appertayning to religion I graunt that good Kinges as principall members of the temporalty ought to haue a speciall regard to the preseruation of the seruice of God and to see that matters of religion be duly ordered because the peaceable gouernement of their temporall affaires dependeth much vpon the concord piety and vertue of Ecclesiasticall persons and therefore they are to admonish and call vpon the Bishops and Gouernours of the Clergy to redresse all disorders among them but not to meddle by themselues as their superiours in spiritual causes so did those good Kinges of Israell as it is recorded of one of the best of their King Iosaphat who sought for reformation of Church matters 2. Paralip 19. But reserued the Presidency of those thinges which appertayne vnto God vnto Amarias the high Priest And nowe a-dayes we giue many priuiledges to Princes as the denomination of most Bishops and higher Magistrates of the Church that the two states spirituall and temporal may the better agree and liue more peaceably together S. Augustine also doth declare it to be the duty of Kings to defend the Church and her decrees and to punish with seuere lawes all Heretikes and other condemned by the Church But directly to the former objection let the places of the old Testament be perused where the authority and right of Kinges be specified and you shall not finde
the holy Ghost in penning this passage hath as fully preuented this euasion as it was possible by such a particular description of Peters owne person as a curious lawyer could not in so few wordes haue done it more precisely For Christ specifieth both his former name of â—inâ—â—â— and his Fathers name Ionas and then his owne newe name Peter and so particularized singled out from the rest directeth his speech to him I say to thee thâ—â— art Peter c. How could he better haue expressed himselfe to haue spoken to Peter particularly Againe he said before that Peter had not learned that his confession of flesh and bloud but by the reuelation of his heauenly Father vvhereby he signifieth that Peter had not receiued his answere from his fellow Apostles or spoke it as deliuered by conference from them but out of his owne hart inspired by the holy Ghost vvherefore to him alone were his vvordes following directed And thus much concerning the promise which our Sauiour made vnto S. Peter of the Supremacy nowe to the wordes of performance which are written in S. Iohn Iob. c. 21. vers 15. IESVS faith to Peter Simon the sonne of Iohn dost thou loue me more then these he saith to him yea Lord thou knowest that I loue thee he saith to him feede my lambes He saith to him againe Simon of Iohn loâ—est thou me yea Lord thou knowest that I loâ—e thee he saith to him feede my lambes He saith to him the third time Simon of Iohn louest thou me Peter was strooken fadde because he said to him the third time louest thou me And he said vnto him Lord thou knowest all thinges thou knowest that I loue thee he saith vnto him feede my sheepe Amen amen I say to thee when thou wast younger thou diddest gird thy selfe c. These vvordes haue I set downe at length that euery one may first see and be well assured that they vvere spoken to S. Peter only because Christ doth first seuer part him from the rest saying Dost thou loue me more then these to wit then the other Apostles vvho were then present Againe Peter vvas sad and began to misdoubt himselfe vvhich argueth that he tooke it spoken to himselfe and sheweth playnely that he spoke in his owne name only and thirdly the wordes following Amen I say vnto thee are without all question spoken particularly to Peter Nowe that Christ in giuing him chardge to fâ—ede his lambes and sheepe did giue him the supreme gouernement ouer his Church I proue first by the word pasce feede or be thou Pastor of my flocke for it doth signifie not bare feeding but to feede as a sheepe-heard doth his sheepe which is not only to prouide them meate but to keepe them also from the woulfe to cure their diseases to leade or driue them whither he will briefly to rule and gouerne them And this word pasce and much more the Greeke Poimaine is frequent in holy Scripture in this sence of gouerning see psal 2. vers 9. Thou shalt rule them in an yron rodde Michaeae 5. vers 2. Math. 2. vers 6. Apocal. 19. vers 15. vvhere the Greeke word Poimaino is put for to rule and gouerne And in the 77. psalme v. 71. Dauid was chosen to feede his seruant Iacob and Israell his in heritance that was to rule ouer them but like a good sheepe-heard mildly vigilantly and rather for the good of the sheepe then for his owne pleasure or profit Nowe that the chiefe feeding and supreme gouernement of all Christs flocke was committed vnto him it appeareth first by those wordes of our Sauiour to him Doest thou loue me more then these why should he require greater charity in S. Peter then in the rest of the Apostles but for that he meant to aduance him to a chardge aboue the rest secondly in that he committed to Peter the feeding of both sheepe and lambes that is of both the Temporalty signified by the lambes and of the Clergy vvho be sheepe let vs heare S. Leo. Againe Serm. 3. dâ— anniuers Assumpt suae In that he committeth to him absolutely without exception of any his sheepe feede my sheepe he maketh him Pastor of his whole flocke as S. Bernard whome M. PER. often alledgeth against vs in this question doth very learnedly inferre Lib. 2. de consid cap. 8. Thou saith he wilt aske me howe I proue that both sheepe and Pastor are committed and credited to thee euen by our Lordes word For to whome of all I will not say Bishops but Apostles were the sheep so absolutely and without limitation committed if thou loue me Peter feede my sheepe he saith not the people of this Kingdome or of that City but my sheepe whosoeuer therefore will acknowledge himselfe to be one of Christes sheepe must submit himselfe to be gouerned by S. Peter or by some of his successours You see then by the very wordes and circumstances of the text that the supremacy is giuen to S. Peter let vs heare whither the most learned and holy auncient Fathers haue not so vnderstood them S. Cyprian saith To Peter our Lord after his resurrection said De vnitat Eccles feede my sheepe and builded his Church vpon him alone Epiphanius in Ancorato This is he who heard spoken to him feede my sheepe to whome the fold is credited alluding to that place Iob. 10. vers 16. Lib. 2. de Sacerdâ—r there shall be one Pastor and one fold S. Chrysostome Why did our Lord shedde his bloud truly to redeeme those sheepe the chardge of which be committed to Peter and to his successours And a little after Christ would haue Peter indued with such authority and to be farre aboue all his other Apostles for he saith Peter doest thou loue me more then these In cap. 2. vers 21. see him also in his learned Commentaries vpon that text of S. Iohn S. Augustine also vpon the same place saith That he committed his sheepe to Peter to be fedde that is saith he to be taught and gouerned And because he produceth S. Gregory against vs he must giue vs leaue to cite him for vs. Lib. 4. epist 76. He saith It is euident to all that knowe the Gospell that by our Lordes mouth the chardge of the whole Church is committed vnto Peter Prince of the Apostles for vnto him it is said Peter doest thou loue me feede my sheepe to him is it also said Luc. 22. vers 31. Behold Satan hath required to sift you as wheate but I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not and thou once conuerted confirme thy brethren c. By these two places of holy Scripture to omit for breuities sake twenty others it is cleare enough to them who desire to see the truth that S. Peter by our Sauiours owne choise and appointment vvas not only preferred before all the rest of the Apostles in some particular gifts but vvas made also gouernour of his Church Nowe
answere Thirdly saith he their Idolatry passeth the Idolatry of the Heathens in that they worship a breaden God or Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine O impious Atheist and altogither vnworthy the name of a Christian Is not Christ to be worshipped wheresoeuer he be and that as wel vnder the formes of bread as vnder the shape of a man it is not the outward shape or shewe that maketh Christ worthy of diuine worship but the substance of his God-head there present though hidden But he is not there at all saith he vvhich to be most false I haue proued in that question The third sinne is the maintaynance of adultery first in the tollerating of the stewes Answere It is one thing to tollerate an euil another thing to maintaine it God doth tollerate many euils but maintayneth none so the stewes in some hotte Countryes are tollerated to auoide a greater mischiefe yet not maintayned but disgraced and punished and diuers meanes vsed to perswade them that liue so viciously to leaue and detest that vvicked kinde of life As our state doth tollerate vsury if it be vnder tenne in the hundreth and yet we charge them not with maintaynance of vsury but rather thinke it a politike deuise by tollerating the lesse euill to auoyde a greater Againe this is a point of ciuill pollicy and no part of the Catholike religion which is in many Kingdomes wholy embraced where there be no stewes tollerated In some hotte Countryes the ciuill Magistrate by experience findeth it better to suffer some hot and incontinent lecherous companions to haue such a remedy rather then to permit them to solicit their Wiues and Daughters to vvickednesse I would to God that the wise saying of a most worthy Doctor were not fulfilled in our Country Take away the stewes and fill all the City with adultery Is not the City of London vvell reformed trowe you by taking the stewes out of it if the man had any fore-head knowing howe their sweet Gospell hath infected both Court and Country vvith filthy and abhominable lechery he would haue beene ashamed to reprehend them who labour to breake the worser course of it seing they cannot extinguish it altogether He saith secondly That our lawe alloweth marriage beyond the fourth degree and by this meanes incest for Anne the Aunt of Nicholas may be marryed vnto the child of Nicholas childes child because shee is beyond the fourth degree Behold the wisdome of this man first vvhat yeares shall Anne be off before that child of the fourth generation after Nicholas her Nephewe be marryageable by that he be twenty yeares old shee must be six-score or there about and so a very fit match for that youth Againe it is but a supposed imagination of a rawe head that the Aunt is in steede of a Mother vnto all that descend of her Brother These good fellowes that finde fault with vs for allowing mariage beyond the fourth degree doe themselues maintayne it in the very second for brother and sisters children may and doe often marry together among them which was prohibited in S. Augustines dayes as a deformity Lib. 15. de ciuit 16. euen against the naturall shamefastnesse ingrafted in so neare of kinne And Gregory the great being demaunded at the first conuersion of the English to the faith his opinion in this matter answereth thus Cap. 6. inter Aug. ad Greg. That although a certaine earthly lawe permitted brothers children to match together yet saith he we haue by experience obserued that issue proceedeth not of such mariage and the holy Scripture teacheth vs that we may not reueale the turpitude of our kindred Whence he concludeth that euen those newely conuerted Christians to whome he graunted as great fauour as he might should vvholy abstayne from mariage in the second degree so that brethrens children marying according to their new doctrine contrary to the auncient Canons of the Church doe liue in perpetual incest and their children be no better then bastardes it is they then that allowe incest and not we In another case the Protestants by their doctrine and practise doe confirme and ratifie adultery for the innocent party for example the Husband taking his Wife in adulterie doth not only put her away by diuorse but may also marry another his former wife yet liuing vvhich to be playne adultery no meaner a learned man then S. Augustine twelue hundred yeares past hath most soundly proued and that out of the expresse word of God and therefore did he intitle that his treatise De adulterinis conjugijs of adulterous mariages The fourth sinne of Papists is magicke sorcery and witchcraft in the consecration of their Host and in making holy bread and holy water and such like and by driuing out of the Deuill by the signe of the crosse by exorcismes and ringing of bels c. For these thinges haue no force eyther by their creation or by any warrant out of the word Answere If it be sorcery and vvitch-craft to consecrate the body of Christ which is done by due pronunciation of Christs wordes then was Christ the author of that sorcery and he himselfe that first consecrated it a sorcerer which only to insinuate is most damnable See what wicked enemies of Christ we haue vnder the habite of Ministers and what a logger-headed lie is it to say that we haue no warrant in Gods word for the blessing of bread water oyle and such like when S. Paul saith That all things are sanctified and made holy by the word of God and prayer 1. Tim. 4. vers 5. Hebr. 9. vers 13. And if in the old testament The sprinckling of the ashes of a calfe did sanctifie them on whom it was cast Why may not water with vs doe as much being hallowed by prayer and making the signe of the crosse ouer it by which vve request God to blesse it through the vertue of Christs passion expressed by the signe of the crosse and hauing receiued such blessing we vse it then more confidently to such purposes as they are blessed for not doubting but that God will respect the praiers of his holy Church and the good meaning of him that vseth them And as for bels they being dedicated to the seruice of God for the assembling of his people togither to worship him and hauing many deuout prayers said ouer them to that purpose vve doubt not but that the very sound of them is terrible to the enemies of God Iosue 6. vers 5. as being the trumpets of his army And as the walles of Hiericho fel flat to the earth at the sound of the Israelites trumpets and voices so the furious vvorking of the comon enemy shall be abated vvhen he heareth by the ringing of the bels Gods people called together to joyne in prayer against him The fift sinne is perjury which they maintayne because they teach that a Papist examined may answere doubtfully against the intention of the examiner framing another meaning to
see that he hath done already And they holding the first motions to euil in temptation to be mortall sinnes which no mortall man ordinarily can nowe avoid howe can they pray God not to suffer them to be lead into temptation when they teach it to be impossible to escape the venime of it And if they vnderstand it so as M. PERKINS teacheth to wit that they there pray not to be left to the malice of Satan they cannot without losse of the certainety of their faith pray so because they hold themselues assured of that before hand Neither can they pray God generally to deliuer them from all euill affirming as they doe that we must needes fall into mortall sinne at euery step almost which is the greatest of all other euill And finally if it belong to God to deliuer vs from sinne and all other euill then Caluin and his followers doe wickedly blaspheame who teach God to be the authour and worker in vs of all errour sinne and wickednes Thus much of the Pater noster Nowe before I come to the Sacraments I may not omit to speake a word of the Aue Maria which in old Catechismes followeth immediately after the Pater noster The Protestantes haue cassierd it and may not abide to heare it once said but therein as much as in any other such matter they disgrace their doctrine and discredite themselues For all the wordes vsed of old therein are the very wordes of the holy Ghost registred in S. Lukes Gospell and therefore they bewray either great ignorance or a wicked spirit to dwell in them that cannot indure to heare the wordes of Gods spirit Luc. 1. Besides in holy Scripture it is prophesied that from henceforth all generations should call the Virgin MARY blessed In what tearmes then can we more conueniently so cal her then in the very same that were composed by an Archangel are penned by the Euangelists and by them commended vnto all good Christians besides the sence of them is comfortable vnto vs as contayning a remembrance of the incarnation of the Sonne of God for our redemption and we on our partes doe thereby giue thankes to God for that inestimable benefit and congratulate our Sauiour with humble thankes therefore saying Blessed be the fruit of thy wombe IESVS I need not in such cleare euidence of Gods word alleage the testimony of any ancient Father he that list to see howe it hath beene vsed in the purest antiquity let him read S. Athanasius in euang de deipara S. Ephem de laudibus B. Mariae S. Basils and S. Chrisostomes lyturgies vvhich can vvith no more reason be denied to be theirs then the rest of their workes One short sentence I wil set downe in commendations of it out of that most reuerend and deuout Bernard The Angels triumph Apud Dionisi Corinth 1. part in Euang cap. 5. 17. and the heauens doe congratulate vvith them the earth leapeth for joy and hell trembleth when the Aue Maria is deuoutly said Good Christians then must needes take great delight in it euen as the badde may not abide it Nowe let vs come to the last part of the Catechisme which is of the Sacraments where M. PERKINS doth briefly repeate his arguments vsed before against the reall presence I might therefore send the reader vnto the first Chapter of this booke for the answere but because the matter is of great importance I will here againe giue them a short answere First saith he the real presence is ouerthrowne out of these wordes he tooke bread and brake it ergo that which Christ tooke was not his body c. A simple ouerthrowe Christ in deed tooke and brake bread but presently after blessing it made it his body by these vvordes this is my body M. Per. 2 Againe Christ said not vnder the forme of bread or in bread but this that is bread is my body Answ It is false to say that this vvord Hoc This doth demonstrate bread for it is of a different gender from it both in Latin and Greeke and if he had said that that bread had beene his body his word was so omnipotent that it had beene of force to make it his body so that M. PER. maketh a false construction which nothing helpeth his errour Per. 3 Thirdly Bread was not giuen for vs but only the body of Christ and in the first institution the body of Christ was not then really giuen to death Answ This maketh nothing at all against the reall presence but doth greatly fortifie it For Christ gaue vs in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for vs this is my body that shal be giuen for you Nowe not bread but Christes true body was giuen to death for vs ergo Christ gaue vs to eate not bread but his true reall body Per. 4 Fourthly The cuppe is the newe Testament by a figure why not then the bread the body of Christ by a figure Answ A goodly reason if there be one figure there must needes be two Howe followeth this if those vvordes of S. Paul be obscure why did he not rather cleare them by conferring them with S. Mathewe and S. Marke who deliuer it plainely thus this is my bloud of the newe Testament that shall be shedde c. But he that delighteth in cauilling must seeke darkenesse Per. 5 Fiftly Christ did eate that supper but not himselfe Answ A Protestant cannot say that Christ did eate of that Sacrament as M. PERKINS doth because he hath no warrant for it in the vvritten vvord yet vve doe graunt that he did so and hold him most vvorthy to taste of that heauenly foode Per. 6 Sixtly We are bid to doe it til he come Christ then is not bodily present 1. Cor. 11. vers 26. Answ We are bid by S. Paul to shewe the death of our Lord til he come to judgement vvhich vve may very vvell doe his body being present as certaine noble Matrons preserued of their husbandes bloud to represent more freshly vnto their children the slaughter of their fathers Per. 7 Seauenthly Christ bid vs to doe it in remembrance of him but signes of remembrance are of thinges absent Answ We see one thing and remember an other By Christes body really present we remember the same to haue beene nailed on the Crosse for our redemption as Goliath sword was kept in the tabernacle in remembrance of the cutting-off of Goliathes head vvith the same sword and the women before rehearsed kept their husbandes bloud and might much easier haue preserued their bodies embalmed to keepe the better their deathes in fresh memory Per. 8 Eightly If the real presence be graunted then the body and bloud of Christ are either seuered or joyned together if seuered then Christ is stil crucified if joyned together then the bread is both the body and bloud of Christ whereas the institution saith the bread is the body and the wine is the bloud Answ The body bloud of Christ are by