doe not wholy and inuiolably hold all the points of faith that she professeth but renounceth them and declareth them to be accursed wherefore no Protestant can be in the Church of Rome But they say That their Church lay hidde in the Roman as corne in chaffe Did it in deede lie in such obscurity that none of them were to be seene or heard off therefore it was no Church at all for the most proper markes of the Church according to their owne principles are The true preaching of Gods word and the sincere administration of the Sacraments Nowe preachers of the vvord must be both seene and heard also and they walked not inuisible I hope vvho ministred and receiued their Sacraments wherefore they must either graunt that their Church in that generall Apostacy was visible or that it was no Church at all as not hauing the inseparable markes of their Church which are The true preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments Againe if they had beene liuely members of the true Church how could they liue vnknowne in that great Apostacy were they not bound in conscience to haue made profession of their faith publikely Rom. 10. vers 10. Math. 10. vers 33. S. Paul saith yea With the hart we beleeue vnto justice but with the mouth confession is made to saluation And our Sauiour saith He that shall deny me before men I also will deny him before my father which is in heauen If they were such crauens as made more account of their owne ease and safety then of the truth of their religion and glory of God they were rather cockle ouer-sowed by the enemy among the good-seede Math. 13. vers 25. then like vnto corne hidden in chaffe In vaine for them also vvas that voyce sent from heauen and recorded by S. Iohn which M. PER. taketh for his text Goe out of her my people for these dastardly faint-harted fellowes would giue no eare to it but loued better to hide their heades in some musty corner then vvith danger of their liues to separate themselues from those abhominations If then there vvere any such false harted dumbe and deafe reprobates hidden among others let the Protestants take them if they please for their worthy ancestors But no reason in the world to cal them the true Church of God that had neither true loue of Gods honour nor of their neighbours good and conuersion otherwise they would not haue holden their peace seing Gods holy name so miserably prophaned as they thought Thus much of M. PER. position nowe to his proofe If any man aske them where their Church was before Luthers dayes he answereth out of this text Goe out of her my people that it was euer since the Apostles dayes Let vs drawe this to some forme of argument that it may appeare how it hangeth togither A voice from heauen cryed in S. Iohns dayes to the Church of Rome Goe out of Babilon that is depart from the congregation of the wicked Heathens and Pagans therefore the Protestants religion hath beene euer since the Apostles dayes Apply Iohn Barber and thou shalt haue a newe paire of sizors for thy labour Should not a man leese his labour to confute particularly such a sencelesse discourse But yet a word to his next annotation vpon the text Demanding whether the Church of Rome he a Church or no he answereth That if it be so taken as in truth it is it is no Church at all His proofes are That it is Babilon that it peruerteth the true sence of the Scripture and ouerturneth the inward baptisme all which I haue heretofore confuted Here I will but demand whether this assertion of his doth not vndermine and blowe vp his former for if their hidden Church were no where but in the Roman for nine hundred yeares together and that Roman were no Church at all then surely their Church was not at all which had no being and existence but in the other which vvas not at all I may not here omit to note by the vvay vnto the gentle reader out of S. Augustine In illa verba ps 85. TV SOLVS DeVS MAGNVS Pag. 338. Howe they robbe Christ of his glory and inheritance bought with his pretious bloud who hold that his Church failed and was fled into corners Yea S. Hierome further affirmeth That they make God subject to the Deuill and a poore miserable Christ who hold that his body the Church may perish or be so bidden that it cannot be heard off Wherefore omitting such impertinent stuffe let vs come vnto those horrible crimes that he chargeth the Church of Rome withall The first is no lesse then Atheisme to vvhich I haue fully answered in the preface of this booke wherefore I doe omit it here doe come to the second crime of Idolatry Which saith he is as grosse among vs as euer it was among the Heathens See the foule mouth of a preacher howe proueth he this Marry it is to be seene in two things first they worship the Saints with religious worship which is proper to God O most impudent doe we make Saints creators of heauen and earth omnipotent infinitely wise and good or giue them any kinde of honour due vnto God only see that question and detest the sonnes of the Deuill that blush not to auouch such monstrous lies But we make the blessed Virgin Mary a Mediator of redemption Fie vpon such an impudent face but we call her a Lady a Queene be it so For so did Athanasius in Euang. de sanctiss Deipar apply those wordes of the 44. Psalme The Queene standeth on thy right hand in a golden vestement c. So did Gregory Nazianzene in his Verses of her For thou saith he ô Queene by the diuine fauour camest to me So did holy Effrem in his Oration to her all which liued within foure hundreth yeares off Christ To omit S. Chrysostomes Lyturgy because they like it not But what of this shee is a redeemer O sencelesse that shee is called a Goddesse as they did call the Queene Elizabeth then liuing I reade not in any of the bookes quoted by him Missal Breuiar A mediatresse of intercession our hope our life and the like shee may be called in a good sence because we hope through the helpe of her most gratious prayers to obtayne the life of our soules and so may it be said to her Prepare thou glory for vs defend vs from our enemies and such like to wit by the meanes of her prayers Againe saith he their Idolatry is manifest in that they worship God in at or before Images Then are the Protestants also Idolaters because they vvorship God in or at the Churches at or before their communion table Whether we haue commandement or not for Images maketh nothing to Idolatry but whether we giue to Images the honour only due to God which we doe not Nowe to compare Images to adulterers is to dote and deserueth no
yea for Heathen Princes behold the first kinde of Mediatour For Christians that pray for all men by their intercession are meanes vnto God for conuersion of others and so may be called Mediatours in a good sence as Moyses saith of himselfe Deut. 5. vers 5. Gal. 3. vers 19. Act. 7. vers 35. Iudic. 3. vers 9. I was an intercessour and meanes or mediatour betweene our Lord and you And by S. Paul he is plainely called a Mediatour the law was ordayned by Angels in the hand of a Mediatour And by S. Stephen he is called a Redeemer as Othoniel is tearmed a Sauiour And that in this sence there may be many mediatours S. Cyril testifieth saying * In Ioh. l. 3. cap. 9. The Mediatour of God and man is IESVS Christ not only because he reconciled men vnto God but for that he is naturally both God and man in one person For by this meanes God reconciled our natures to him for otherwise howe should S. Paul haue said Christ to be the only Mediatour for many of the Saints haue vsed the ministery of mediation as S Paul himselfe crying vpon men to be reconciled to God and Moyses was a Mediatour for he ministred the lawe vnto the people and Ieremy was also a Mediatour when he stood before God and prayed for good thinges to the people Related in 2. Concil Nice art 4. What neede many wordes saith this great Doctor all the Prophets and Apostles were Mediatours VVith S. Cyril accordeth S. Basil who hoped for mercy at Gods handes and forgiuenesse of his sinnes by the mediation of the holy Prophets Apostles and Martirs And S. Bernard was of the same minde Serm. super sign◠magnum apparuit in coelo when he taught that we stand in neede of a Mediatour to the Mediatour and no one more for our profit and commodity then the blessed Virgin Mary so that this mediation and intercession of Saints is no whit at all injurious vnto the only mediation of Christ for it is of a farre different kind from Christes mediation and of the same sort as the prayers be of other good men liuing on earth who all sue vnto God in Christs name and hope to obtayne all and euery of them their petitions by the vertue of his merits and therefore all our prayers and theirs are commonly concluded thus Through our Lord IESVS Christ thy Sonne who with thee liueth and raigneth in the vnity of the holy Ghost God for euer and euer And thus much to M. PER. foundation laide vpon the sandes vvherein he so insolently renounced the Catholike doctrine but that I doe him no wrong I must here adde a coople of other arguments which he misplaced in the former question and therefore I reserued them to this The former All true inuocation and prayer made according vnto the will of God must haue a double foundation a commandement and a promise A commandement to moue vs to pray and a promise to assure vs that we shall be heard for euery prayer must be made in faith and without a commandement and promise there is no faith Vpon this infallible ground I conclude that we may not pray to Saints departed for in the Scripture there is no word either commanding vs to pray to them or assuring vs that we shall be heard when we pray Answere We deny that prayer requireth that double foundation of a commandement to pray and promise to be heard when we pray and that vpon the vvarrant of some of the best prayers that are recorded in holy Scripture When Abraham prayed for the sauing of Sodome and Gomorrha Gen. 18. vers 25. and did obtayne that if there had beene in them but tenne just persons their Cyties should not haue beene destroyed we reade neither of commandement giuen to Abraham to make that prayer nor any promise before he beganne it to be heard and this man was the Father of the faithfull and knewe much better then an hundreth M. PERKINS howe and when to pray And vvhen milde Moyses that most vvise conductor of the Israelites prayed vnto God so peremptorily that he would either blot him out of the booke of life or else pardon his people the Israelites Exod. 32. vers 32. had he either commandement so to pray or promise to be heard I am sure that they can shewe me none at all in the Scripture Nay God before entreated Moyses that he would not pray vnto him for them Ibidem vers 10. but suffer him to punish them according to their deserts promising to aduance Moyses exceedingly if he would giue ouer his suite neuerthelesse Moyses omitted not to pray most earnestly for the same people and vvas heard Neede vve any other proofe to ouerthrowe M. PER. rotten foundation And vvhen Iosue rather commanded then prayed Iosue 10. vers 12. that the Sunne should not moue against Gabaon and it stayed his course for a whole day space God obeying vnto the voice of man as the holy Ghost speaketh vvhat commandement or promise had Iosue for this and to omit an hundreth other like what promise had S. Paul to assure him to be heard 2. Cor. 12. vers 8. when he prayed not once but thrise that the pricke of the flesh should be taken away from him none at al I weene for his request would not be granted him By this the indifferent reader may perceiue how grosse the Protestants judgement is in matters of faith vvho take that for an infallible ground of religion vvhich is so contrary vnto the expresse vvord of God that nothing can be more Of faith necessary in prayer shall be spoken as soone as I haue dispatched an other text of Scripture misplaced here and misaplyed Math. 4. vers 10. We are saith M. PER. commanded to call vpon God only him only shalt thou serue This mans eies-sight beginneth to faile him much that cannot discerne betweene calling vpon and seruing when many a Master calleth vpon his man whome he doth not serue but is serued by him The text is already expounded out of S. Augustine that we must serue God only with Godly honour as the Greeke vvordes Latréyseis doth there notifie notwithstanding which only seruice euery seruant I hope may serue his Master and euery inferiour vvorship his superiour and so may we doe the Saints our betters in all goodnesse with such worship as is due vnto their singular gifts And as we may pray vnto men aliue vvithout derogation vnto God his only seruice so may we doe to the Saints departed But M. PER. fearing the weakenesse of this fortification secondeth it with an other out of the Apostle Rom. 10. vers 14. Howe shall we call vpon him in whome we haue not beleeued but we may not beleeue in Saints therefore we may not call vpon them I answere that we cannot call vpon any man for more then we beleeue to be in him and so much must we beleeue to be in euery man as
let vs proceede on with the Protestantes opinion did Christes sufferinges of the tormentes of hell deserue of God in justice the redemption of man not so if we may beleeue one of Foxes Martirs who held as he recordeth that Christ with all his workes could not meritte heauen for vs. But for that litle credit is to be giuen to such a Martir Actes monuments pag. 487 and such a Martir-monger let vs heare what some of the learnest amongst them say I truly confesse saith Caluin that if a man will set Christ singly and by himselfe against the judgements of God there wil be no roome for merit And after L. 2. Insti c. 17. ss 1. In abster calumni Heshu Christ could not deserue any thing but by the good pleasure of God Finally the deseruinges of Christ depend vpon the only grace of God which is defended by his disciple Beza against Heshusius so that briefly all Christes sufferinges in hell and out of hell in true Protestant reckoning amount to no higher a value then that by the good pleasure and acceptance of God they deserued our redemption therefore in rigour of justice they were not of sufficient worth to redeeme vs but were only of grace by God accepted for such Is not here a faire reckoning so might any other man endued with grace haue redeemed al mankinde as well as Christ if it had pleased God to haue so accepted it seing no equall recompence was to be expected But to helpe him here by the way that could not vnderstand howe we were saued by the mercy of God if Christes merittes did in justice deserue our saluation it is to be noted that both be true if they be duely considered For we are saued by Christes merits in rigour of justice he satisfying of God as far-forth fully as we offended him and yet we be saued freely by the mercy of God too both because he hath of his meere mercy without any desert of ours giuen vs Christ his Sonne to be our Sauiour and also for that he hath out of the same his mercy freely applyed vnto euery one in particuler that is saued the merits of Christ through which he is saued To returne to our purpose and to discouer yet more of the Protestantes disgraces offered to our Sauiours mediation Did Christ suffer his passion for the redemption of all mankinde Cō Hesh pag. 39. Sup. Ioh. pag. 39. In locis fol. 361. 1. Ioh. 2. vers 2. or did he die only for some fewe of the elect let Caluin answere you Christes flesh was not crucified for the vngodly neither was the bloud of Christ shed to clense their sinnes With him agreeth brother Bucer Christ by his death did only redeeme the sinnes of the elect Musculus wil beare a part in that consort Christes death is a satisfaction only for the sinnes of the elect all as contrary to the plaine text of Scripture as can be Christ is a propitiation for our sinnes where he spake in the person of the elect and not for ours only but also for the whole worldes Let vs goe on yet one step further What effect doth the bloud of Christ worke in the small number of these elected bretheren Doth it cleanse their soules from al filth of sinne and powre into them the manifold giftes of the holy Ghost whereby they may afterward resist sinne Pag. 31. and serue God in holynesse of life nothing lesse For in the regenerate as M. PERKINS with all the rest of them doth teach there remaineth originall sinne which infecteth euery worke of man and maketh it a mortall sinne So that inwardly in their soules these elected Protestantes be voide of justice and full of all manner of iniquity marry they haue created in them the rare instrument of a newe deuised faith by which they lay hold on Christes justice and so by reall imputation to vse M. PERKINS wordes of Christes justice to them they on the soddaine become exceeding just therefore Frier Luther had some reason to say that whosoeuer was borne againe of this Euangelicall faith was equall in grace vnto both Peter and Paul Supra 1. Pet. 1. In actis disput Tigur Fox Act. fol. 1335. 1138. and vnto the Virgin MARY Mother of God Nay it seemes that Luther came to short and Zwinglius strooke home when he said that God the Father did no lesse fauour all the faithfull then he did Christ his owne Sonne And out of the confidence of the same liuely-feeling faith proceeded these speaches of our newe Gospellers in England And we haue as much right to heauen as Christ hath we cannot be damned vnlesse Christ be damned neither can Christ be saued vnlesse we be saued Christ belike could not liue in blisse without their holy company What audacious compagnions and saucy Gospellers were these yet their reason seemeth sound in the way of their owne religion for if they were most assured of the benefit of Christs owne justice to be imputed vnto them they could not be lesse assured of their owne saluation then they were of Christes owne To conclude this point consider good reader howe the Protestantes who would be thought to magnifie Christes sufferings exceedingly doe in very deede extreamely debase them For as you haue heard they esteeme very litle of all the rest of his life besides his passion secondly they make his passion without suffering of hell tormentes not sufficient to redeeme vs thirdly that all those sufferings put togither doe not in justice merit the remission of our sinnes but only that of grace and curtesie God doth accept them for such fourthly that when all is done they deserue fauour only for a few of the elect and that not to purge those fewe neither from all their sinnes but only to purchase them an imputation of justice to be apprehended by a strong imagination or rather presumption falsly by them tearmed faith Is not here a huge great mill-post fairely thwited into a poore pudding pricke as they say by them who after so high exaltations of the all-sufficiency of Christes suffering doe in fine conclude that in a very fewe persons it worketh only an imputation or shadowe of justice but it agreeth very well and hangeth handsomely together that by the merits of Christes sufferings in hell which are meere phantasticall these men should haue created in them a phantasticall faith neuer heard of before their dayes to lay-hold vpon a vaine shadowe of an imputatiue and phantasticall justice But to returne vnto Christes mediatorship and merits Is it not moreouer a great disparagement vnto them to maintayne as the Protestantes doe that his best-beloued spouse the Church should continue but a small time at least in any sight and should be penned vp in corners yea and during that time too it should not be free from many foule grosse errours in the very foundation of faith Furthermore that he left his holy word the only rule and square as they hold
of Christian religion to be vnderstood of euery man as his owne knowledge and spirit should direct him and if any doubtfull question did arise there about as he fore-sawe thousandes should doe yet he tooke no other order for the deciding and ending of them but that euery one should repaire vnto the same his word and doing his diligence to vnderstand it might afterward be his owne judge As this later opinion would argue our blessed Sauiour who was the wisedome of God to be the weakest and most improuident lawe-maker that euer was so the former doth mightily blemish the inestimable price of his most pretious bloud making it not of sufficient value to purchase vnto him an euerlasting inheritance free from all errours in matter of faith and abounding in all good workes To fold vp this part let me entreate thee curteous reader to be an vpright judge betweene the Protestantes doctrine and ours in this most weighty matter of Christes dignity vertues and mediation and if thou see most euidently that ours doth more aduance them why shouldest thou not giue sentence on our side They make Christ ignorant many yeares of his life we hold him from the first instant of his conception to haue beene replenished with most perfect knowledge They that he spake and taught nowe and then as other men did and was subject to disordinate passions We that he was most free from all such and that he taught alwaies most diuinely They make his very death not sufficient to redeeme vs we hold that the least thing that euer he suffered in his life deserued the redemption of many worldes They that he died only for the elect we that he died for all though many through their owne fault doe not receiue any benefit by his death They that thereby we are not purged from our sinnes but by imputation we that all are by the vertue thereof inwardly cleansed They that Christ purchased a Church consisting of fewe not to continue long and subject to many errours we that he established a Church that should be spredde ouer all the world and that should continue to the end of the world visibly and alwaies free from any errour in any matter of faith Finally they hold that Christ left his holy word to the disputation of men not taking any certaine order for the ending of controuersies that should arise about it we teach that he hath established a most assured meanes to decide all doubtes in religion and to hold all obedient Christians in perfect vniformity of both faith and manners And because I am entred into these comparisons giue me leaue to persist yet a litle longer in them Consider also I pray you who goe neerer to Atheisme either we that thinke and speake of the most sacred Trinity as the blessed Fathers in the first Councell of Nice taught or they who directly crosse them and by the nouelty of their phrases doe breed newe or rather reuiue old heresies against it Againe who carry a more holy conceit of God either they who vpon light occasion doe rashly denie God to be able to doe that which they doe not conceiue possible or we that teach him to be able to doe tenne thousand thinges that passe our vnderstanding Whither they that affirme God of his owne free choise to cast away the greater part of men or we that defend him to desire the saluation of all men and not to be willing that any one perish vnlesse it be through his owne default Either they that hold him to be the authour of all euill done in the world and the Diuell to be but his Minister therein or we that maintayne him to be so purely good that he cannot possibly either concurre to any euill or so much as once to thinke to doe any euill Finally whose opinion of him is better either ours that hold him to haue beene so reasonable in framing of his lawes that he doth by his grace make them easie to a willing minde or theirs that auouch him to haue giuen lawes impossible for the best men to keepe If some Protestantes doe say we doe not maintayne diuers of these positions I answere that it is because they doe yet in part hold with vs and are not so farre gone as they doe wholy followe their newe masters For if they did then should they embrace all the afore-said damnable positions being so plainely taught by their principall preachers and teachers These therefore are to warne my deere Country-men to looke to it in time and then no doubt but that all such as haue a sufficient care of their saluation considering maturely whither the current and streame of the newe Gospell carrieth them will speedily disbarke themselues thence least at length they be driuen by it into the bottomelesse gulfe of flat Atheisme And is it any great meruaile that the common sort of the Protestantes fall into so many foule absurdities touching religion when as the very fountaines out of which they pretend to take their religion be so pittifully corrupted I meane the sacred word of God Master Gregory Martin a Catholike man very skilfull in the learned languages hath discouered about two hundreth of their corruptions of the very text of Gods word and after him one Master Broughton a man of their owne esteemed to be singulerly seene in the Hebrewe and Greeke tongue hath aduertised them of more then eight hundreth faultes there in And the matter is so euident that the Kinges Majestie in that publike conference holden at Hampton-Court in the first of his raigne confesseth himselfe not to haue seene one true translation of the Bible in English and that of Geneua which they were wont to esteeme most to be the worst of all others and therefore commanded them to goe in hand with a newe translation about which fifty of the most learned amongst them in both Vniuersities as it is credibly reported haue this three yeares trauailed and cannot yet hitte vpon or else not agree vpon a newe sincere and true translation Here is a large field offered me to exclaime against such corrupters and deprauers of Gods sacred word but I will leaue that to some other time because I haue beene to long already But what a lamentable case is this they hold for the most assured piller of their faith that all matters of saluation must be fished out of the Scriptures and crie vpon all men to search the Scriptures and yet are the same Scriptures by themselues so peruersly mangled that their owne pew-fellowes crie out shame vpon them therefore wherevnto if it please you joyne that the Protestantes haue no assured meanes to be resolued of such doubtes and difficulties as they shall find in the same word of God For they must neither trust ancient Father nor relie vpon the determination either of nationall or generall Councell but euery faithfull man by himselfe examining the circumstances of the text and conferring other like places vnto it together shall finde out the
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
article of our beleefe borne of the Virgin Mary No more is there vnto that other specified by M. PERKINS he ascended into heauen and from thence shall he come to judge c for albeit he ascended the fortith day after his resurrection and shall at the last day come from thence to judgement yet betweene those two daies he may be where he will and wheresoeuer else he be it hath no direct repugnance with either branch of that article and therefore it doth but bewray the insufficiency of the Protestants skill in the rules of opposition or repugnances who so confidently auerre such great contrariety to be where there is none at all But Augustine saith Tract 50. in Ioannē Lib. 9. in Ioannem Lib. 2. ad Thras Cont. Eutich lib. 1. cap. 4. that Christ according vnto his Majestie prouidence grace is present with vs to the end of the world but according vnto his assumed flesh he is not alwaies with vs the same doth also Cyril Fulgentius and Vigilius testifie We answere that Christ in deede according vnto that visible forme of a man in which he once liued here vvith his Disciples hath very seldome beene seene vpon earth since his ascension but according vnto that forme of assumed flesh sitteth on the right hand of his Father which answere I take out of Vigilius cited here by M. PER. For he saith that Christ is departed from vs in the forme of a seruant that is according vnto his naturall shape of man but may neuerthelesse be very well with vs vnder the formes of bread and wine in the Sacrament which S. Augustine insinuateth in the very treatise alleaged by M. PERKINS saying that Christ is nowe with vs in foure sortes by Faith by the signe of the Crosse by Baptisme and by the Eucharist where making his manner of being with vs in the Eucharist distinct from his presence both by faith signe and grace doth shewe it to be a reall bodily presence which he teacheth most plainely vpon these wordes of the Psalme adore his foote-stoole concluding thereon Psal 98. that the same flesh which our Sauiour tooke of the blessed Virgin Mary was then and is nowe to be adored in the Sacrament therefore notwithstanding his being in heauen in forme of man he assuredly belieued his naturall body to be really present in the Eucharist So did S. Cyril another of M. PER. authours Libr. 12. cap. 31. who vpon S. Iohn auoucheth Christ by his flesh receiued in the Eucharist to sanctifie the soules and bodies of all communicants and to be wholy in euery one of them to vvhome I will joyne their equall S. Gregory of Nisse who saith Orat. de Paschate like as the God-head doth fill the vvhole vvorld euen so consecration is made in very many places and yet is it but one body so that by these worthy writers judgements Christes ascention to heauen doth not any whit hinder the reall presence of his body in the holy Sacrament And to dispatch here together that which M. PER. repeateth againe and againe that a true body cannot be in two places at once we plainely hold with the holy Fathers that one and the same body may by the omnipotent power of God be in as many places at once as it shall please him to set it That this hath no repugnance vvith true Philosophy shall be proued in the next argument And here by the warrant of Gods word I will proue that Christes body de facto hath beene in two places at once That since the ascension it sitteth at the right hand of God in heauen both we and they confesse but longe after his ascension Actor 9. he appeared bodily vnto S. Paul as he went towardes Damasco ergo his body hath beene in two places at once Caluin turneth himselfe on both sides seeketh all possible meanes to shift from the euidence of this place saying first In cap. 9. Actor Act. 22. vers 15 Act. 26 vers 16. that it was some voice only heard from heauen by S. Paul as at Christes baptisme but Christ was not there really This is said most manifestly against the plaine text God ordained that thou shouldest see the just one and heare a voice out of his owne mouth therefore he vvas really present and Christ saith to this end I appeared vnto thee And S. Paul himselfe vvitnesseth a 1. Cor. 3 vers 1.6 1. Cor. 15. vers 8. that he had seene Christ after his resurrection euen as the other Apostles had done which was in bodily presence in the same b Act. 9. vers 5. 4. Instit 17. § 29. chap. S. Paul demanded of him that appeared who art thou Lord and he answered I am IESVS was not he then present What can be more plainely set downe or is more often repeated in the very text of Scripture yet the blind obstinacy of Caluin was such that not being able to defend but that Christ appeared turneth himselfe the other way and had rather say that S. Paules eye-sight was so much strengthned and made so sharpe that it pearced through the heauens and did see Christ sitting there on the right hand of his Father and so Christ did not descend or was seene out of heauen but S. Paules sight mounted vp thether Reply This doctrine is first repugnant to himselfe vvho scoffeth at vs for maintayning that the Saints in heauen can heare our prayers 3. Instit 20. §. 24. and asketh howe they can haue so long eares and so sharpe eyes as to heare and see so farre off vvhich here notvvithstanding hee attributeth vnto a poore earthly creature nothing comparable to the Saints in heauen But besides that contradiction this his answere is much more absurde then the other For vvhome he imagineth to be so Eagle-eyed that he could see into heauen Act. 9. vers 8. the text vvitnesseth to be strooke starke blinde and not able to see the broad high-vvay before him Againe if that vision had beene through the vertue of S. Paules sight his companions should not haue beene partakers of it Act. 26. vers 13. Act. 9. vers 8. Act. 9. vers 17. but they did both see the light and also heard the voice though not so distinctly as to vnderstand it Further there passed many speaches betweene them Who art thou Lord What wilt thou haue mee to doe c. vvhich doth conuince a sensible and bodily presence Lastly it is said directly that Christ appeared vnto S. Paul in the way not that he had seene him in heauen so that nothing can be more certaine euen by the euidence of Gods vvord then that Christes body hath beene in two places at once as vvell may it be in two thousand or in as many more as it shall please God to imploy it for there is no greater repugnance in reason for being in many places then for being in tvvo at once S. Chrisost S. Ambros Primasius in cap. 10. And as you
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.
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
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
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.
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
could but rake out of the ashes the least peeces of their burnt bones they did esteeme them more pure then gold and of greater value then pretious stones as in expresse tearmes is recorded in the Ecclesiasticall History of Eusebius Lib. 4. cap. 14. see what respect men in the purest antiquity carryed towardes the bodily reliques of Saints THE DIFFERENCE OVr dissent lyeth in the manner of worshipping the Papists make two degrees of religious worshippe c. Because the Protestants doe seeme not to vnderstand the Catholike doctrine concerning the worshipping of Saints but out of their affected ignorance doe esteeme vs therefore Idolaters I hold it expedient to explicate the state of this question more particulerly To beginne then with this word worshippe it doth signifie a knowledge or conceite of an other mans excellency joyned with a reuerent respect to the same person vvith some either inward or outward acknowledgement thereof so that all worshippe is due and done vnto an other in regard of some excellent quality which we suppose to be in him Nowe there being three most general kindes of excellency there must also be three seuerall and distinct sortes of worshippe correspondent vnto them The first and principall kinde of excellency is infinit and proper to God alone who is almighty infinitly wise and good the only Creatour supreame Gouernour and finall end of heauen and earth and of al thinges contayned in them therefore to him alone appertayneth infinit honour and glory and that supreame worshippe which the Latins vsing the Greeke word call Latria Godly honour Nowe to attribute or giue this soueraigne worshippe vnto any other then vnto God only is Idolatry the most haynous offence that can be The second sort of excellency I make the meanest of all absolute for of respectiue excellency which is in Images and such like holy thinges I haue spoken in that Chapter and that is to be found only in creatures indued with reason and vnderstanding in regard of some rare quality and endowment wherein they excell and surpasse others so that that excellent vertue and quality doe proceede only out of the naturall faculty and perfection of the party and doe not spring from any supernaturall gift therefore within the compasse of this sort of excellency I comprehend all natural perfections either of Men or Angels because all such issue out of one generall fountayne of a nature indued with reason and to this kinde of excellency is due a morall or ciuill obeysance or worshippe There is a third kinde of excellency seated betweene the two former extreames farre surpassing the naturall perfection of any pure creature and yet infinitly lesser then the diuine Majesty of God which consisteth in the perfection of Faith Hope Charity Religion and other such like gifts of the holy Ghost And to this kinde of excellency is due a different manner of worshippe which the Latins for distinction sake doe call Dulia Note that I say for distinction sake for both the wordes Latria and Dulia if they be taken in their first natiue signification may be giuen vnto any kinde of worship due to God or Man yet to auoide confusion the learned Diuines haue appropriated Latria vnto the worshippe of God and Dulia to signifie the honour due to Saints or Angels in regard of their supernaturall perfections To come nowe vnto the first point of our difference The Protestants doe commonly confound these two later kindes of vvorshippe and doe make but one of both the ciuill and supernaturall that they may skippe from the one of them to the other when they be driuen vnto their shifts and yet nothing is more cleare then that they be as distinct and different the one from the other as the grace of God is from the nature of a reasonable creature For as morall and ciuill worshippe only is due vnto that excellency vvhich ariseth out of the naturall power of man not assisted with any extraordinary grace of God such as was in the old Heathen Romans who for their valiant prowesse and politike gouerment deserued to be honoured worshipped euen so the fortitude of Christian Martirâ— the wisdome of Ecclesiasticall Prelates the power of diuers Confessors in curing all sortes of diseases and in working myracles These I say and the like diuine prerogatiues cannot but deserue a farre more excellent kinde of honour and worshippe then the former as they are more spirituall and heauenly qualities springing from a more excellent roote of the grace of God vvhich surpasseth in degree of excellency the nature of Angels without coÌ„parison who are but Gods seruants by nature though of greater perfection then we By grace they were made adopted sonnes of God and partakers of the diuine nature as S. Peter citeth it 2. Pet. â— vers 4. so as the Saints also were who therein were equall to Angels Wherefore Naaman the Syrian had reason to worshippe very humbly the Prophet Hâ—liseus who if we consider only ciuill excellency was but a meane person in respect of Naâ—man that was a principal commander ouer all the martial affaires of a potent King notwithstanding he truly weighing another more excellent kinde of power and wisdome in Heliseus then was in himselfe and another kinde of credit which he had which the God of heauen of farre greater estimation then that he had with his kinge did very dutifully humble himselfe before the Prophet All which conuinceth that there is in godly and holy personages another kinde of excellency aboue naturall reach to which is due a supernaturall reuerence and worshippe distinct from Ciuill the which spirituall and supernaturall worship we commonly call religious because it is giuen vnto holy men or Saints in consideration of their religious vertues of faith charity fortitude in defence of religion and of Ecclesiasticall superiority The tearme of religious worshippe the Protestants vtterly mislike pretending that all kinde of religious worship is due vnto God only but better men and greater clearkes then they by many degrees doe vse it in the very same sence as may be seene in diuers of S. Augustines workes L. 20. coÌ„t Faustum cap. 21. Let this one sentence suffice where he saith That Christian people doe celebrate the memories of Martirs with religious solemnity True it is that religious worship is sometime by the said holy father and others taken more strictly for the principall acts of religion which are proper vnto God alone and in that sence we deny it to be giuen vnto any creature but the same word is also not seldome vsed by them in a more large signification and applied vnto all thinges that belong to religion So we call religious men such as are specially chosen to serue God religious houses places where God is serued religious vertues such as issue out of the roote of religion and consequently religious honour or worship that is exhibited vnto men for their excellency in religious qualities and religious affaires So that any indifferent man
the Protestants doe nowe a-dayes Contrarywise the best and most learned Doctors in that pure antiquity did maintayne and defend vvorshipping of Saints and their Relikes teaching just as the Catholikes nowe doe that they did indeede honour the Saints vvith great honour but did not adore them or giue the honour proper to God to any other then to God alone let vs heare some proofe of this When blessed Policarpus S. Iohn Euangelists Disciple was Martired the Iewes were very importunate to haue his body consumed to ashes Eusebius hyst l. 4. cap. 14. least say they the Christians doe gette it and so leauing the crucified man doe fall to adore him so the opinion of the Iewes What answered the Christians We say they meane nothing lesse then to forsake Christ for him we adore as the true Sonne of God but Martirs and all other his true seruants we doe worthely reuerence and embrace for their incredible goodwill shewed towardes Christ and doe esteeme their bones and relikes more rich then pretious stones and more pure then gold and doe celebrate their memories with holy dayes and great joy This of the ancient Christians answere to the Iewes nowe of their answere to the Pagans Iulian the Apostata with his followers charged the Christians with making their Martirs Gods and that they adored them to vvhome among others Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria answered in this manner L. 6. cont Iulianum We make not holy Martirs Gods neither doe we adore them but we honour them very highly And it is not an vnworthy thing nay it is necessary to honour them eternally that haue behaued themselues so gloriously And because that goodly man Iulianus doth reprehend vs for worshipping of them wâ— tell him that we esteeme not Martirs to be Gods yet are we accustomed to vouchsafe them very high honour After these Pagans and Iewes some old Heretikes trotted apace Faustus the Manichean Heretike calumniated and falsly slandered the Catholikes of his time that they had turned their Martirs by worshipping of them into Idols Vnto vvhome S. Augustine that vvorthy pillar of the Church answered Aug. l. 20. coÌ„t Faust cap. 21. as is aboue rehearsed That Christians indeede did celebrate the memories of Martirs with religious solemnity and that they worshipped them with greater honour then they did any holy man aliue yet not with that honour which is proper to God called by the Greekes Latria The like did Vigilantius another dreaming Heretike object shortly after auouching the Catholikes to be Idolaters because they adored the bones of dead men whome that great light of his age S. Hierome doth duly reprehend Epist ad Riparium answering That they did not adore Martirs relikes no nor aâ—y Angell in heauen because they would not giue the honour due to the Creator vnto any creature but saith he we doe honour the relikes of Martirs that we may adore him whose Martirs they be We doe honour the seruants that the honour of the seruants may redound vnto their master who saith he that receiueth you receiueth me nowe let the indifferent Christian consider vvhether he vvere better vvith the Heathens Iewes and Heretikes to denie the Saints to be worshipped and say vvith them that it is Idolatry so to doe or vvhether he had not rather vvith the auncient holy Fathers and best Christians to hold that Saints departed this life and their relikes are to be vvorshipped with greater honour then any holy men yet liuing yea that vvorshipping of Saints is so farre of from Idolatry and robbing God of the honour proper to him that euen thereby God is much honoured Surely we Catholikes are nothing dismaide at their out-cryes that call vs therefor Idolaters being vvell assured that they be but the old alarmes and reproaches that Infidels were vvont to cast vpon the best Christians Nowe to the third and last argument for vs which is taken from authority * Iosue 5. vers 24. Num. 22. Iosue falling flat vpon the ground worshipped an Angell assoone as he had told him that he was the Prince of Gods army this worship being performed by a true Israelite and accepted off by the Angell of God yea more then that for it was also commanded doth conuince that more then ciuill honour is due vnto a Cytizen of heauen this for the old Testament For the state of the newe heare the judgement of the most auncient and best learned Doctors Iustine Martyr declaring vnto the Emperor the faith of the Church Apolog. 2. speaketh thus We Christians adore and worship God the Father and his Sonne who came into the world and taught vs these thinges and after them doe we truly worship by word and deede the army of good Angels following his conduct and the Propheticall spirits and this doe we copiously teach to all that will learne our doctrine Eusebius Caesariensis teacheth the same and saith Lib. 13. de praep c. 7. Serm. 32. de SaÌ„ctis We doe honour the Souldiers of true Godlinesse as them who are best beloued of God So doth S. Augustine Therefore dearely beloued Bretheren as often as we celebrate the memories of Martirs laying a-side all worldly businesse we ought speedily to repaire vnto the house of God to render vnto them honour who haue procured our saluation by the shedding of their bloud who haue offered themselues vp to God so holy an Host to obtayne for vs mercy at his handes specially when almighty God saith to his Saints he that honoureth you honoureth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me Whosoeuer therefore concludeth S. Augustine honoureth Martirs honoureth Christ and he that contemneth the Saints contemneth Christ vvhich is word for word taken out of * Serm. 6. in fine Orat. de SS IuueÌ„t Max. In Theod. Mart. S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome We doe not worship auncient Saints and those of later time in different sort but all of them with the same chearefulnes therefore saith he let vs often visite them and worshippe their tombes Gregory Nyssene speaking of the worship which the Church doth giue to Martirs saith To what King is such honour done who are they of the most excellent among men whose memory is so solemnely honoured who of the Emperors in so many mens mouthes are so renowned as this poore Souldier nowe enroled a Souldier whome S. Paul hath armed whome the Angels haue anointed and whome Christ hath crowned S. Gregory Nazianzene defineth the worshipping of Martirs Orat. 1. cont Iulianum to be an assured marke of our loue toward Christ An hundreth such other testimonies wil the holy auncient Fathers afford vs if we stand in neede of them But this may suffice to enforme any reasonable man that both by expresse warrant of Scripture and by the practise and doctrine of the purest antiquity the Saints of God and holy personages are to be worshipped of vs with that religious honour commonly called Dulia that is with that worshippe which is due vnto the better sort
doubted off by many and not generally receiued for Canonicall could afterward be made Canonicall to this I answere that the Protestants as vvell as we doe take nowe for Canonicall some such bookes as were 300. yeares after Christ doubted off to wit the Epistle to the Hebrewes S. Iames Epistle the second of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn S. Iudes Epistle and the Apocalipse or Reuelation of S. Iohn Nowe they themselues hauing admitted all these of the newe Testament for Canonicall vpon the judgement and declaration of the Catholike Church vvhy doe they not as vvell take those of the old Testament for Canonicall also the same Church hauing aboue a thousand yeares past approued them for Canonicall as well as the other At the first because of the great persecutions the learned could not so generally meete together to examine discusse such matters as afterward in the peace of the Church and therefore in that time diuers men vvere of diuers opinions concerning the authority of such bookes but vvhen the learned in the Church assembling together in the name of God and hauing the assistance of the holy Ghost to direct them had once declared which were Canonicall which not there was no further question among the obedient children of the Church only vnskilfull men or Heretikes because they will be choosers will admit of vvhich it pleaseth them and reject also those vvhich displease them But to leaue this digression the bookes of the Machabees cannot but haue euen with Heretikes farre greater credit then Liuie Plutarke and such like prophane hystories Pag. 307. as M. PER. also confesseth They then vvill serue to conuince any reasonable man that the custome of the people of Israell then the only chosen seruants of God vvas to pray for the dead and to offer sacrifice for the pardon of the soules that were departed because it is so recorded in the best hystorie of their times and is also seconded by Iosephus the sonne of Gordan in his booke of the Iewes vvarre Cap. 91. vvhere he saith that the Iewes were wont to pray for the dead vnlesse it were for such that had slaine themselues And thus much out of the old Testament nowe out of the newe Our Sauiour Christ willeth vs to agree with our aduersary whiles we are in the way with him least perhaps he deliuer vs to the judge and the judge to the officer and so we be cast into prison for verily saith he thou shalt not goe out from thence till thou repay the last farthing By this parable or example our Sauiour teacheth vs vvhiles we liue in this vvorld to agree vvith the lawe of God vvhich is our aduersary when we transgresse and offend against it otherwise at our death we shall justly be cast into prison and lye there till we haue fully satisfied and paid the last farthing of our debt The Protestants say that he who is so cast into prison shal neuer come out We say the contrary that this parable concerneth them especially that shall be deliuered at the length and proue it first because the parable is not taken from a murtherer or theefe vvho may be justly condemned to death or to perpetuall prison but of a debter who ordinarily doth gette out in time and therefore it agreeth better vnto men cast in Purgatory to pay the debt of the former trespasses then to them that are condemned to hell Besides the ancient Fathers doe so expound it Origen Albeit it be promised In epist ad Rom. that he shall at length come forth of that prison not withstanding it is designed that he cannot goe out vntill he hath paid the last farthing S. Cyprian It is one thing to stand for pardon Lib. 4. epist 2. and another to passe straight to glory one thing being cast into prison not to goe forth till you haue paid the last farthing and another to receiue presently the reward of faith and vertue one thing to be corrected and purged long time in fire for your sinnes and another by dying for Christ to haue purged all your sinnes Eusebius Emissenus Homil. 3. de Epiph. But they who haue deserued temporall paines vnto whome those wordes of our Lord appertayne that they shall not goe out thence vntill they haue paid the last farthing shall passe through a floode of fire So that both by the scope of the parable and by the interpretation of the Fathers many men dying in debt that is not hauing fully satisfied for their former sinnes are cast into the prison of Purgatory there to pay the last farthing vnlesse by the piety and intercession of their friendes their more speedy deliuerance be procured and obtayned Moreouer that there is such pardon graunted after this life to some is confirmed by that vvhich our Sauiour saith in another place Math. 12. That they who sinne against the holy Ghost shall not be forgiuen neither in this world nor in the world to come vvhich were a very improper kinde of speech if none were to be pardoned in the world to come As it should be for our King to say to some offendour I will not forgiue thee neither in England nor in Italy vvhereas he hath nothing to doe to pardon in a strange Dominion And the learned knowe that in enumeration of partes it is as foule a fault to reckon something for a part which is none as to omit some true part indeede so that then our Lord parting the forgiuenesse of sinnes into this world and the world to come in all congruity of speech we must vnderstand that some sinnes are forgiuen in the world to come which cannot be in heauen where none are nor in hell where there is no remission of sinne therefore it must be in a third place which we call Purgatory And this is no newe collection made by moderne Catholikes out of the vvord of God but as auncient as S. Augustine who hath these wordes Some men suffer temporall punishment in this life only Lib. 21. de ciuit c. 13. others after their death some others both here and there yet before that last and most seuere judgement For all men after their deathes shall not goe vnto those euerlasting torments of helfor saith he citing this place to some that which is not forgiuen in this world is forgiuen in the world to come as I haue taught before With S. Augustine agreeth S. Gregory Lib. 4. dialog c. 39. saying It is to be beleeued that there is a Purgatory fire before the judgement for certayne light faults for that the truth saith if any man blaspheme against the holy Ghost it shall not be forgiuen neither in this world nor in the world to come In which sentence there is giuen to vnderstand that certayne faults are forgiuen in this world and certayne in the world to come for that which is denyed of one by consequence is vnderstood to be graunted to some others In 3. Mar.
considered of To it then I say first that if it be ought worth it as well ouerthroweth the Kinges as the Popes Supremacy For if the Pope may not be Christes deputy as he is mediatour and gouernour of his Church because that no creature can be his deputy in any point of Ecclesiasticall gouernement as M. PER. defineth then surely no King nor Prince who are meere creatures and not one of them I trowe both God and Man can be Christes deputy in the gouernement of his Church I say secondly that a meere creature may be Christ our mediatours deputy and Vicar in the Ecclesiasticall gouernement of his Church neyther is there therein any one action that necessarily proceedeth from the two natures of God and Man as M. PER. dreameth Examine all the points of Supremacy proposed in the difference by himselfe and see vvhether there be any one that must needes be the action of both God and Man to call a generall Councell is none such nor to ratifie the decrees thereof to discusse and declare which bookes be Canonicall Scripture and vvhat is the true meaning of all obscure places therein contayned may be done by men assisted by the inspiration of the holy Ghost and so among all the rest there is not one point of the Supremacy but may be vvell executed by a mortall man assisted with Gods spirit The points of Christes mediation namely to satisfie his Fathers vvrath by paying him the full ransome of all mankinde the establishing of a newe Testament or lawe the creation of spirituall Magistrates the furnishing of it with Sacraments and such like are indeede so proper to Christ that they cannot be communicated vnto others Marry to see that his lawes be vvell obserued lawfull Gouernours and Ministers elected and his Sacraments rightly administred the chardge I say of these thinges may be very vvell committed vnto his deputies and the principall ouer-sight of all vnto one supreme gouernour vnder himselfe that all the inferiour Prelates may be holden in peace and vnity And to say that Christes presence by his vvord and spirit is sufficient to dissolue all doubtes that arise about matter of faith and to reforme all misdemeanour that is among Christians without the authority of some Magistrate to see the same vvell declared and applyed vnto particular persons is to speake against all reason and experience For vvho shall reforme obstinate Heretikes Christes vvord but Heretikes haue alwayes said and will euer say that it maketh for them Shall Christes spirit correct them they hold that they haue that spirit in such aboundance that it cryeth in them Abba Father so that M. PER. argument driueth to this that there must be no gouernour at all but that euery wrangling fellowe is to be left vnto the vvord and spirit of Christ vvhich is most absurd in matter of gouernement And albeit that in producing of supernaturall effectes men be but Gods instruments yet because they be instruments indued with reason chosen by God and enabled to doe that whereunto they are by Christ appointed I see no reason why they may not be well called Christes deputies Sure I am that S. Paul feareth not to stile himselfe with the other Apostles 2. Cor. 5. vers 20. 1. Cor. 3. vers 9 Christes Legates or Ambassadours which is as much if not more then his deputies And in an other place he goeth yet further and saith that they are coadjutors or fellowe worke-men with God for though it be Gods worke as the only efficient cause yet men doe concurre thereunto as his instruments and doe in their kinde worke properly towards the producing of the effect as the Preacher by his perswasions zeale and piety doth very much moue his Auditors to embrace Godlinesse although he should labour in vaine if God dâ—d not principally both concurre with his speeches and inwardly also dispose the hart of the hearer to receiue them But of this more hereafter in the matter of the Sacraments Touching the matter of gouernement I cannot vnderstand what M. PER. meaneth when he saith that euery action thereof proceedeth from the very person of Christ for vvhen the Bishops or congregation doth excommunicate an offendour howe can that act of theirs be personal in respect 〈…〉 speaketh Is Christ there thâ—â— in paâ—â—â—â—◠〈…〉 â—â—n-hood togither are they prosecution 〈…〉 sentence of excommunication vvhat adoâ—â—◠〈…〉 if such deepe doctrine drowne many pâ—â—â—e of Popâ—â—ry If Christ be not there present howe thâ—n can thee action proceeds 〈◊〉 him only and be so proper to him that it may be called personall M. PER. meaneth perhaps only that when the congregation doth out 〈…〉 the Church by excommunication then Christ 〈…〉 from the kingdome of heauen vvhich is also false for many 〈…〉 vvhich afterward vpon their 〈◊〉 vnto that kingdome and therefore vvere not cut off from it by Christ But suppose it were true that Christ then seperated that person from heauen vvould it followe thereof that the act of coâ—ting him off 〈◊〉 congregation done by the Church vvere the proper action of Christ proceeding immediatelie from his two 〈◊〉 of God and man nothing I thinke can be imagined more absurd wherefore all the actions of Ecclesiastical gouernement issue properly from the persons of the Gouernours vvho are in deede placed in that seate of authority by Christ and inspired by him to exercise that function duty but so qualified by Christ doe formally execute and vvorke all the actions belonging to gouernement and therefore may be most properly called Deputies vvho in their Masters name and by authority receiued from him doe that they haue commission to doe M. PERKINS second reason is All the Apostles were equall in power and authority for the commission Apostolicall was equally giuen vnto them all Math. 28. Goe teach all nations baptizing them c. Answere They were equall in that point of preaching the Gospell to all nations and in many other thinges vvhich appertayned to the planting of the Christian religion Marry alwayes with this generall prouiso that both they and all those vvho were conuerted vnto the faith by them should acknowledge and obey one supreme Pastor Christes Vicegerent on earth Which S. Leo doth very plainely teach saying Epist 84. ad Anast Betweene the most blessed Apostles in the similitude or equality of honour there was a certayne difference of power and where as the election of them all was equall yet it was giuen vnto one of them to haue preheminence aboue the rest But M. PERKINS saith that the promise of the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen was not priuate to Peter but in his person made to the rest of the Apostles according vnto Peters confession made in the name of the rest Answere Very just euen as Peter made his confession so vvas the promise but he made that confession of Christ in his owne name and that by speciall reuelation from God without consulting with any of the rest therefore to him alone vvas that
promise of Christ made although in and by him to the great benefit of the whole Church In cap. 16. Math. But Theophilact hath that they who receiue the gift of a Bishop haue the power of committing and binding as Peter had Answere We grant that all lawfull Bishops can binde and loose both in the court of conscience and publikely but thereof it followeth not that that promise of Christ for building his Church on S. Peter c. was common vnto the rest of the Apostles In psal 38 But Ambrose saith that which is said to Peter is said to the Apostles Then belike that was also said vnto the rest as well as to him This night before the Cocke crowe twise thou shalt denie me thrife which no man can say To vnderstand then such generall propositions take this distinction vvith you that thinges spoken vnto S. Peter are of three sundry sortes Some are spoken vnto him as an ordinary Christian and such sentences doe agree vnto all Christians other thinges are spoken vnto him as an Apostle and those are common vnto the rest of the Apostles there be lastly certayne thinges spoken vnto him particularly as head of the Church which may not be extended vnto any other of the Apostles but only vnto his successors Nowe S. Ambrose speaketh of the second kinde of thinges but against this M. PER. excepteth thus That although Peter be admitted to haue beene in commission aboue the rest for the time yet hence may not be gathered any supremacy for the Bishops of Rome because the authority of the Apostles were personall and consequently ceased with them without being conueyed vnto any others and he addeth the reason of this to be because that when the Church of the newe Testament was once founded it was needefull only that there should be Pastors and Teachers for the building of it vp vnto the worldes end Reply What meaneth this man by Pastors doth he comprehend Bishops vvithin that word then he ouerthroweth himselfe for if such Pastors be yet necessary then is it needfull that the Bishops of Rome doe succeede S. Peter in that ample power which he had If by Pastors he vnderstand Parish Priestes or Ministers that haue charge of flockes and by Teachers other Preachers then doth he here as much for the Bishops as in his last discourse he did for temporall Princes that is as he vvent about there to proue that Christ as our redeemer could haue no creature for his deputy in gouernement and consequently that Kings cannot be Christs Lieutenants in Ecclesiasticall causes so here he doth insinuate that Bishops be not necessary to the building vp of Christes Church but the Minister of euery Parish with the Elders thereof will suffice for ordinary matters and that affaires of greater moment must be referred belike to the Consistoriall assembly of many Ministers and Elders togither Doth not this sauour rankely of Puritanisme but because he only saith this without any proofe let it suffice for answere to say that as Ministers are necessary to teach the word of God and to administer the Sacraments so are Bishops both to institute and ordayne the Ministers and to see that they doe diligently discharge their duty And as Bishops are necessary to ouer-see Priests and Ministers so are Archbishops and Metropolitanes to looke vnto Bishops and to prouide that there be no schismes or diuisions among them and to determine their controuersies if any arise betweene them And in like manner one Supreme Pastor is necessary in the Vniuersall Church of Christ to hold all Archbishops Primates and Patriarkes in vnity of faith and in conformity of Christian ceremonies and manners M. PERKINS third reason When the Sonnes of Zebedee sued vnto Christ for the greatest roomes of honour in his Kingdome Christes answere was Ye knowe that the Lordes of the Gentils haue dominion and they that are great exercise authority ouer them but it shall not be so vvith you Bernard applyeth this to Pope Eugenius on this manner Lib. 2. do consid it is playne that here dominion is forbidden the Apostles goe to then dare you if you will to take vpon you ruling an Apostleship or in your Apostleship rule and dominion if you will haue both alike you shall leefe both otherwise you must not thinke your selfe excempted from the number of them of whome the Lord complayned ye haue raygned but not of me Answere Insolent and tyrannicall dominion such as was in those daies practised by the Gentils Pagans and Idolaters is there by our Sauiour forbidden the Apostles but not modest and vigilant Prelature in Ecclesiasticall gouernement as the very text it selfe doth plainely shewe for in that he doth foretel that there should not be such a haughty disdaineful kinde of superiority among his disciples he doth giue vs to vnderstand that there should be some other better and saith further Luc. 22. vers 26. That he who is greater among you let him become as the lesser and he that is your leader or as it is in the Greeke égouménos your Captaine or Prince let him be your wayter See he vvill haue among them one greater then the rest to be their Captayne and leader which he confirmeth with his owne example saying As I my selfe came not to be wayted on or ministred vnto but came to minister or to wayte vpon others so that this discourse of our Sauiours only disproueth in Christians such Lord-like domination as vvas then in vse among the Gentils who were giuen for the most part to take their owne pleasures to ouer-rule lawes as they listed to oppresse their subjects with taxes and to vse them like slaues Nowe in Ecclesiasticall gouernementall must be otherwise the Prelate must not seeke his owne ease wealth or pleasure but most vigilantly study day and night to feede and profit his flocke vvith whome he must conuerse most modestly not scorning or contemning to speake familiarly vvith the meanest amongst them And this is that vvhich S. Bernard counsaileth Eugenius to doe To rule as an Apostle and not to ouer-rule or to dominier like vnto some temporal Princes which in the same booke he doth plainely teach saying That when Eugenius was created Pope he then was exalted ouer Nations and Kingdomes yet not to domineer ouer them but to serue them And further he doth in the same booke deliuer the Popes Supremacy in these most euident wordes speaking thus to the same Pope Eugenius Who art thou a great Priest the highest Bishop thou art the Prince of the Bishops the heyre of the Apostles c. Thou art he to whome the keyes of heauen were deliuered to whome the sheepe were committed There are also indeede other Porters of heauen and Pastors of sheepe but thou art so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a more excellent name aboue them They haue their flockes to each man me but to thee all were committed as one flocke to one Pastor Thou art not only Pastor
that it toucheth the body and cleanseth the hart can any thing be more cleare and forcible to ouerturne M. PERKINS position then to say that the water of baptisme washeth and purifieth mans hart this sentence scalded his lips wherefore he would gladly shake and shift it off by another place of the same Father Tract 6. in epist. Iohannis where S. Augustine teacheth That water sometimes signifieth the gifts of the holy Ghost Be it so what then doth it therefore signifie the holy Ghost in all places or in that where he saith That it toucheth the body and washeth the soule it cannot be for he speaketh of that water with which first the body is washed and that is not the holy Ghost but natural water But at least in the other place he doth not say out altogither as much as he did in the first True and who is he that treating often of one matter that is very copious and large but that sometime he handleth one point of it sometimes another here he discusseth one and the same thing more exactly there more sleightly as occasion serued wherefore it is no reason to say that in one place he said not so much of this matter therefore when he spake more particularly of iâ— in another you must expound him by that place where he spake lesse of it And thus much in answere vnto M. PERKINS reasons Nowe to some fewe arguments for the Catholike party He proposeth one for vs thus Remission of sinnes and saluation are ascribed to the Sacrament of baptisme * Act. 22. vers 17. Be baptised and wash away thy sinnes a Ephes 5. vers 26. Cleansing the Church by the lauer of water in the word of life b Tit. 3. vers 5. He hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration c 2. Tim. 1. vers 6. The grace of God was giuen to Timothy by the imposition of handes Which phrase of cleansing and sauing by the lauer or bath of water importeth no lesse then that by water as a true physicall instrument that grace of God was convayed into the soules of the baptised which may be confirmed by many the like places as where it is said d Ioh. 3. vers 5. Vnlesse a man be borne a new of water and the holy Ghost where our regeneration and newe birth is ascribed vnto the working of water which were all very vnproper speeches if they diâ—import no more then that when water is applyed vnto vs then doth God immediately from himselfe and not by any meanes of the water sanctifie vs so that first we haue the Scripture for vs in his proper natiue signification M. PERKINS answereth That saluation is ascribed vnto the Sacraments as to the word of God that is as they are instruments to signifie seale and exhibite to the beleeuing minde the fore-said benefits but indeede the proper instrument whereby saluation is apprehended is faith And Sacraments are but props of faith furthering saluation two wayes First because by their signification they helpe to nourish and preserue faith Secondly because they seale grace and saluation to vs yea God giueth grace and saluation vnto vs when we vse them well so that we beleeue the word of promise made to the Sacrament whereof they are seales This his answere I haue put downe at large that the juditious reader may see howe many wordes he vseth to answere not one word to purpose for here is indeede an explication of their owne doctrine but not any reason why we should not take the wordes of holy Scripture before alleadged according vnto the proper manner of the phrase whereby they assigne water to be the reall meanes and true instrument of our saluation and thus much of our first argument The second shall directly confute his answere thus If Sacraments doe worke like vnto the word of God preached and only exhibite and feale vnto the beleeuing minde the benefits by them promised then he that cannot vnderstand such signes and promises and hath not vvit to conceiue and beleeue them can in no case receiue any such Sacrament well and worthily as if the word were preached neuer so perfectly vnto one of no capacity or vnderstanding it would worke nothing with him by reason of his want of vnderstanding but the Sacrament of baptisme and some others giuen vnto them who haue not sufficient wit and reason to vnderstand the meaning of it as for example vnto infants yet doe neuerthelesse worke their regeneration and saluation therefore it is most manifest and euident that the Sacraments of their owne proper force as the instruments of God doe worke our saluation vvithout the helpe of the receiuers faith This is confirmed by the testimony of those auncient Fathers who hold that one speciall cause why our Sauiour would be baptised was that by touching the water he might giue it vertue to purge and cleanse vs from sinne so witnesseth S. Ambrose Lib. 2. in Lucam 12. S. Gregory Nazianzene Oratione in sancta lumina Chrysostome Hom. 25. in Iohaâ—nem Venerable Bede in 3. Lucae Againe it is the common opinion of the auncient Doctors that the Sacraments are conduites to convay the merits of Christs passion into our soules yea are said to haue flowed out of Christes side opened on the Crâ—sse they therefore doubted not but that they had a spirituall vertue in them to cleanse and sanctifie our mindes But let vs heare some fewe of them in formall tearmes deliuering the same doctrine vvhich vve teach you haue heard already S. Basil and S. Augustine cited by M. PERKINS Gregory Nyssene speaking of Aarons rodde and such like thinges by which miracles were wrought saith * Orat. de Baptismo And all these thinges being without sence and life yet hauing receiued vertue from God were meanes of great miracles euen so water being nothing but water hauing receiued the heauenly blessing doth reâ—ewe a man vnto a spirituall regeneration And further That as seede is the cause of carnall generation so water that is blessed is the instrumentall cause of mans pâ—â—gation and illumination S. Chrysostome a Hom. 25 in Iohan. That which the wombe is to the infant that is water vâ—to the faithfull for in water we are formed and made S. Cyril of Alexandria b Lib. 2. in Iohan. cap. 42. Euen as water being heated with fire doth burne like fire it selfe euen so water wherewith the body is sprinckled in baptisme by the working of the holy Ghost is reformed and raysed vp to a diuine power and vertue Tertullian c Lib. de Baptismo Of old water gaue life that is water brought forth liuing creatures that it be not strange that water in baptisme knowe howe to giue life S. Ambrose d Lib. 2. de Poenitentia cap. 2. It seemed impossible that water should wash away sinne and Naaman the Syrian did not beleeue that his leprosie could be washed away with water but God hath made possible that which
was impossible who hath bestowed so great grace vpon vs. S. Siluester as Nycephorus hath recorded speaketh thus of baptisme e Lib. 7. hystor cap. 33. This water hauing receiued by the inuocation of the blessed Trinity heauenly vertue euen as it washeth the body without so doth it within cleanse the soule from filth and corruption and make it brighter then the Sunne-beames So that it is most conformable both vnto the holy Scriptures and the auncient Fathers to affirme and hold that the Sacraments doe really contayne and convay the graces of God into our soules as his true and proper instruments OF SAVING FAITH M. PERKINS Page 305. HEre followeth a Chapter which for the most part doth nothing but repeate points of doctrine which hath beene particularly handled in the questions of Iustification Satisfaction and Merits and aboue twenty times touched by the vvay in his booke therefore a tedious and loathsome thing it is to me here againe to heare of them yet because the man thinketh that in these points the principall glory of the newe Gospell consisteth and that there fore they are alwayes to be inculcated in season and out of seasorr I vvill briefly runne them once more ouer shewing as he doth only vvherein we differ without repeating the arguments which are to be seene in their proper places To come to the matter he putteth downe fiuâ— conclusions The first conclusion The Catholikes teach iâ— to be the property of faith to beleeue the whole word of God and especially the redemption of mankinde by Christ M. PERKINS DIFFERENCE THey beleeue indeede all the written word of God and more then all for they beleeue the bookes Apocryphall and vnwritten Traditions Answere Touching vnwritten Traditions see that Chapter in the first part M. PER. saith here Because they come to vs by the handes of men they cannot come within the compasse of our faith Then I say vpon the same ground the vvritten word cannot come within the compasse of our beleefe because it also commeth vnto vs by the handes of men And as the Apostles and their Schollers are to be credited when they deliuered the vvritten word vnto vs for Gods pure word so are they to be beleeued vvhen they taught the Church these poynts of Gods vvord vnwritten to be embraced as the true word of God although not written but committed to the harts of the faithfull And when we haue the testimony of auncient Councels or of many holy Fathers that these points of doctrine vvere by Tradition deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles vve as firmely beleeue them as if they were written in the holy Scriptures For which bookes of Scripture be Canonicall vvhich not and what is the true meaning of hard places in Scripture we knowe no other way of infallible certainty then by the declaration of the Catholike Church which we therefore aswell beleeue telling vs these thinges were deliuered from the Apostles by Tradition as those thinges in vvriting And that such credit is to be giuen to the Catholike Church the Apostles Creede witnesseth which biddeth vs beleeue the Catholike Church Nowe touching those bookes of holy Scripture vvhich vvere some hundreth yeares after Christ doubted off by some of the auncient Fathers vvhether they were Canonicall or no thus we say That albeit it were vndetermined by the Church vntill S. Augustines time vvhether they were Canonical or no and so were by diuers auncient Fathers though not condemned as Apocryphall yet not comprehended vvithin the Canon of assured Scriptures notwithstanding that matter being in a Councell holden at Carthage where among many other learned Bishops S. Augustine vvas present throughly debated Concil Cartag 3. cap. 47. those bookes doubted off before were found by the holy Ghost and them to be true Canonicall Scripture and afterward vvere by the sixt generall Councell that confirmed this Councell holden at Carthage declared and deliuered to the whole Church for Canonicall Nowe as we receiued at the first the other bookes of Canonicall Scripture on the â—â—edit of the Catholike Church euen so ought vve to doe these shee hauing declared them to be such yea the Protestants themselues haue admitted many bookes of the newe Testament vvhich vvere doubted off for three hundred yeares after Christ why then doe they not as vvell receiue them of the old The difference betwixt vs is that they only of passion and priuate fancy admit these and reject those vvhereas vve of obedience relying vpon the judgement of the vvhole Church admit those bookes for Canonicall which the Catholike Church hath declared for such And thus much of the first conclusion Nowe to the second touching saluation by Christ alone wherein the Protestants either cannot vnderstand or will not report our doctrine aright We confesse that Christ IESVS hath merited the redemption and saluation of all mankinde yet say we further that not one man is saued through Christ vnlesse he for his owne part first beleeue in Christ if he be of yeares and be content to doe all those thinges that Christ hath commanded vs to doe so that to saluation two thinges are required the first and principall is Christes mediation the second is the applying of Christes mediation and merits vnto vs vvithout this latter the former will stand no man in steede Nowe to be made partaker of Christs merits we must not only beleeue in him as the Protestants teach but also keepe his commandements and by good workes deserue heauen otherwise according to Christs decree we shall neuer come thither as in the question of Merits hath beene plentifully proued out of the holy scriptures so we teach then that besides Christs sufferings and merits we must haue some of our owne or else vve shall neuer be partakers of Christes And M. PERKINS cannot be excused from a vvilfull corruption of Gods word when he affirmeth S. Paul to say We are not saued by such workes as God hath ordayned men regenerated to walke in for those be not the wordes of the text but his peeuish construction S. Paul putting a playne distinction betweene workes that we are not saued by and workes that we must walke in calling these later good workes and the other barely workes To the other text I say that we haue no righteousnesse of our owne strength or by the vertue of Moyses lawe but through the mercy of God and Christs merits we haue true righteousnesse giuen vs by baptisme Christ indeede by himselfe and his owne sufferinges not by sacrifice of Goates or Calues hath meritoriously washed away our sinnes that is deserued of God that they should be washed away but formally he hath washed away our sinnes by infusion of Christian righteousnesse into our soules He that will see more of this let him reade the question of Iustification And where as M. PER. saith that all grace of God powred into our hartes is by the corruption of our hartes defiled he little knoweth the vertue of Gods grace vvhich so cleanseth and purifieth
our hart and soule that it maketh it whiter then snowe the temple of the holy Ghost Psal 50. 1. Cor. 6. 2. Tim. 2. vers 21. sanctified and apt to all good workes as the word of God witnesseth The third conclusion is about Christes imputatiue justice vve hold that no man is formally justified by that justice which is in Christ which is infinite and vvould make vs as just as Christ himselfe is but that God through Christes merits doth bestowe vpon euery righteous man a certayne measure of justice vvherewith his soule being purged from sinne and adorned with all honesty fit for his degree and calling is made righteous in Gods sight and worthy of the Kingdome of heauen M. PERKINS holdeth that Euery just man hath faith created in his hart whereby he layeth hand on Christes justice and drawing that to himselfe maketh it his owne He proueth it by these wordes of the Apostle 1. Cor. 1. vers 30. Christ is made vnto vs of God Wisdome Righteousnesse Sanctification and Redemption I answere that Christ is in that place so made our righteousnesse as he is made our wisdome nowe no man holdeth that he is made our wisdome by imputation therefore is he not our righteousnesse by imputation The Apostles meaning is that Christ is the procurer and meritorious cause of both our wisdome and justice and of whatsoeuer other spirituall gifts we enjoy And this righteousnesse which God bestoweth on vs in this life is sufficient to enable vs to keepe Gods lawe as I haue proued in seuerall questions before and to make vs worthy of life euerlasting The fourth conclusion Catholikes hold it the surest course to put their trust in the mercy of God and merits of Christ for their saluation yet in sobriâ—tâ— they may haue confidence both in their owne merittes and in other good mens prayers That is because God saueth none of yeares who doe not merit life euerlasting by vsing his grace well therefore a vertuous honest man may haue some confidence in the good course of his life Marry because we are not throughly assured of our owne good workes past neither can we tell howe long we shall perseuer in that Godly course of life therefore vve rather stand in feare when we consider our owne vvorkes and our whole confidence is in the mercies of God vvho for Christes sake calleth most vnworthy creatures to his grace and doth neuer for sake any endeauouring to continue in his seruice Neyther doth that visitation of the sicke in the Dutch tongue found in a dusty corner any whit helpe them for we teach all especially notorious sinners that vvallowe in sinne vntill their dying day such as it seemeth that visite was made for to trust not in their owne naughtinesse or little goodnes vvho haue a hundreth times more euill then good in them but in the infinite mercy of God and inestimable merits of our Sauiours death and passion vvhich letteth not but that a good man may haue some confidence in his owne merits and in the prayer of Saints And M PER. considereth little what he saith vvhen he affirmeth That we make that our God in which we put our trust for albeit vve must trust only in God as in the author of all good thinges yet may vve trust in diuers other thinges as in the meanes of our saluation Doe not the Protestants trust in Christes passion and yet I hope they made not his passion their God Haue they not a confidence and trust in their liuely faith yes I vvarrant you or else they would not be farre from desperation so notwithstanding his vaine babling Catholikes vvell grounded in vertue may haue some confidence in their owne good deedes and in the prayer of Saints as orderly meanes to attayne vnto saluation albeit vve trust in God only as in the authour of it The fift and last conclusion That we must not only beleeue in generall the promises of life euerlasting but apply them to vs in particular by hope M. PER. somewhat faintly excepteth against this and saith That by faith we must assure our selues of our saluation present and by hope continue the certainety of it Marry he addeth further That they teach not that euery man liuing within the precincts of their Church is certayne of his saluation by faith but that he ought so tâ— be and must endeauour to attayne thereto Why then that man hath not the faith of Protestants vvhich cannot but apply vnto themselues in particular the promises of life euerlasting and that as the nature of faith requireth without all staggering doubt but to sowe pillowes and to lay them vnder poore deceiued mens elbowes he sometimes saith that he requireth not such certainety of saluation yet in the conclusion of this very Chapter he forgetting himselfe so quickly saith That we abolish the substance of faith namely in denying the particular certayne application of Christ crucified and his benefits vnto our selues A vvorthy authour that can no better agree with himselfe OF REPENTANCE OVR CONSENT M. PERKINS Page 316. THe first conclusion Repentance is the conuersion of a sinner which is twofold passiue and actiue passiue is an action of God whereby he conuerteth a sinner Actiue is an action whereby the sinner once turned by God turneth himselfe and doth good workes as the fruit there of of this later the question is The second conclusion That repentance standeth specially for practise in contrition of hart confession of mouth and satisfaction in worke or deede There be two sortes of contrition one when a man is sorrowfull for feare only of hell and other punishments in this life this he calleth legall though in the state of the lawe there was most perfect contrition in some The other Euangelicall when one is greeued for his sinnes not so much for feare of hell as because he hath offended so good and mercyfull a God which is alwayes necessary Secondly We hold confession necessary to be made first to God then publikely to the congregation if any man be excommunicate for any crime Thirdly To our neighbour when we haue offended and wronged him Lastly In all true repentance there must be satisfaction made First to God by intreating him to accept of Christes satisfaction for our sinnes Secondly to the Church for publike offences in humiliation to testifie the truth of our repentance Thirdly satisfaction is to be made to our neighbour because if he be wronged he must haue recompence and restitution made The third conclusion That in repentance we are to bring forth outward fruites worthy amendment of life whereof the principall is to endeauour day and night by Gods grace to leaue and renounce al and euery sinne and in all thinges to doe the will of God THE DIFFERENCE WE dissent not from the Church of Rome in the doctrine of repentance it selfe but in the abuses thereof first in generall because they beginne repentance part of the holy Ghost and part of themselues by the
them but an order of eating a morsell of bread and drinking a suppe of vvine in remembrance of his death there had beene no congruity in it For many much meaner men then he had left far greater remembrances and pleadges of their loue behinde them Wherefore the wordes must be taken as they sound and then no creature euer left or could possibly leaue the like token and pleadge of his power and loue to his friendes as his owne body and bloud to be the diuine comfort and foode of their soules And this doth that most eloquent Father S. Iohn Chrisostome both note and dilate Homil. 83 in Math. saying Louers when they depart from them whome they loue are wont to leaue with them for a remembrance of their harty affection some such jewell or gift as they are able but no other creature sauing Christ could leaue his owne proper flesh Homil. 2. ad populū Antioch And in an other place Elias departing from his disciple Eliseus left him his mantle but our Sauiour Christ did leaue vnto vs his owne body An other motiue to perswade that Christes vvordes are to be taken literally is gathered of this that they be a part of Christes Testament and containe a legacy bequeathed vnto vs Christians vvhich kinde of vvordes are alwaies to be interpreted according to their proper signification And it should be the most foolish part in the vvorld vvhen a father doth by his last vvill bequeath vnto one of his sonnes a farme or any certaine portion of good to pleade that the vvordes vvere to be expounded figuratiuely and that he meant only to leaue his sonne a figure of a farme or some signe of a portion vvhich yet the Protestants doe pleade in this most diuine testament of our Sauiour Christ Iesus Thirdly you haue heard before also howe that in the institution of all Sacraments the speaches are to be taken literally and much more in this vvhich is the very marrowe of Christian religion and vvherein errour is most dangerous therefore most requisite it was to haue beene deliuered in such tearmes as vvere to be vnderstood literally Lastly albeit Christ oftentimes spake vnto the multitude in parables and obscurely because of their incredulity yet vnto his Disciples vvhome he vvould haue to vnderstand him he commonly spake plainely or else vvas accustomed to interpret vnto them his harder speaches according to that Math. 13. vers 11. To you it is giuen to knowe the mysteries of the Kingdome of heauen to them it is not giuen and therefore in parables speake I to them But Christ here giueth no other interpretation then that it was the same His body which should be nayled to the Crosse neither did the Disciples aske after any exposition of them vvhich is a plaine signe that they tooke them literally the holy Ghost putting them in minde of that which Christ had taught them before of this admirable Sacrament in the sixt of S. Iohn That he would giue them his flesh to eate and that his flesh was truly meate c. Hitherto I haue prosecuted two reasons for the reall presence one out of the promise of it the other out of the performance and institution of it vvhich are all that it pleased M. PERKINS to produce in our fauour though he had multiplied reasons for his owne party and enlarged them very amply but hath as cuttedly proposed ours loded them also with very many replies wherefore somewhat to supply his default herein I will adde foure more for vs that for a doozen of his we may be alowed to haue halfe a doozen The first of them which is the third in order shall be gathered from the figure of this Sacrament thus The figure or shadowe of any thing is alwaies inferior vnto the thing it selfe as the Image of a man is not to be compared to the man himselfe nor the shadowe to the body but if in the Sacrament there be but bread signifying the body of Christ then should the figure of it be more excellent then it selfe wherefore to auoide that inconuenience it must needs be granted that the body of Christ is there really present which farre surpasseth all the figures of it The minor proposition is to be proued First to omitte all other figures of the blessed Sacrament it is manifest that Manna raigned downe from heauen to feede the Israelites in the desert vvas one of the principall as our Sauiour signifieth comparing Manna and the food which he would giue vs Iob. 6. ver 49. 58. 1. Cor. 10. together and S. Paul plainely teacheth it calling it a spirituall foode and numbring it among the figures which the Hebrewes had of our Sacraments and the proportion betweene the thinges themselues vvith the consent of all ancient Interpreters doth conuince it but Manna farre surpassed the Protestants communion For first being a figure of Christ it prefigured him as theirs doth Psal 77. then it was made of Angels and came downe from heauen theirs commeth out of the ouen made by a baker Againe Manna was so agreeable vnto their taste Sap. 16. that it was in taste vnto euery one euen the most delitious and dainty meate that he could desire theirs is but ordinary wherefore they must needs confesse either that Christes body is really present in the Sacrament or else that the figure of it farre surmounted it the thing it selfe The good fellowes to auoid this inconuenience are content to yeeld vnto the Hebrewes as good and vertuous Sacraments as ours be but that also is most false Collos 2. vers 17. Gal. 4. Iob. 6. ver 49. 58. De ijs qui initiantur misterijs cap. 9. 1. Cor. 10. vers 16. For S. Paul compareth theirs to shadowes ours to the bodie he calleth theirs weake and poore elements And to omit here other testimonies cited before Christ himselfe expresly preferreth the foode which he hath giuen vs before Manna wherevpon S. Ambrose discourseth thus Consider nowe whether be more excellent the bread of Angels or the flesh of Christ which surely is the body of life that Manna was from heauen but this is aboue heauen that of heauen this the Lordes of heauen that subject to corruption if it were kept till the morrowe but this free from all corruption Fourthly the Reall presence of Christes body is proued out of these wordes of S. Paul The Chalice or cuppe of benediction which we blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ And the bread which we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord If we receiue and doe participate Christes body and bloud they are certainely there present And the expossition of S. Chrisostome vpon the same place hath stopped vp our aduersaries starting-hole who are wont to say that we indeed doe receiue the bodie of Christ yet not there present but by faith we mount aboue the skies and receiue it there But what saith this holy and learned