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
well to declare why Melchisedecke brought forth bread and wine because he was a Priest that vsed to Sacrifice in that kinde and to honour and thanke God for that victory he either did then presently or before had sacrificed it and as such sanctified foode made a present vnto Abraham of it who needed not either for himselfe or for his souldiers any victuals because he retourned loaden vvith the spoile of foure Kinges wherefore the bread and wine that he brought forth was a Sacrifice and not common meate And if further proofe needed this is sufficiently confirmed by the Fathers already cited who all teach that bread and wine brought forth then by him were Melchisedecke his Sacrifice a figure of ours I will yet adde one more out of that most ancient Patriarke Clement of Alexandria L. 4. strom versus finem who saith Melchisedecke King of Salem Priest of the most high God gaue bread and wine being a sanctified foode in figure of the Eucharist The Protestants feeling themselues wonderfully pinched and wringed with this example of Melchisedecke assay yet to escape from it a third way For saith M. PER. be it graunted that Melchisedecke offered bread and wine and that it was also a figure of the Lordes supper yet should bread and wine he absurd tipes of no bread nor wine but of the bare formes of bread and wine Reply The thing prefigured must be more excellent then the figure as the body surpasseth farre the shadowe so albeit the figure vvere but bread and wine yet the thing prefigured is the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine sacrificed in an vnbloudy manner as bread and wine are sacrificed without shâ—dding bloud and therein principally consisteth the resemblance And thus much of our first argument Nowe to the second The Paschall lambe was first sacrificed vp by the Master of the family and then afterward eaten as a Sacrament but the Eucharist succeedeth in roome of that as the verity doth to the figure therefore it is first sacrificed before it be receiued M. PER. first denyeth the Paschall lambe to haue beene sacrificed but yeeldeth no reason of his deniall and therefore might without any further adoe be rejected Yet fore-seing that we might easily proue it to be sacrificed by expresse Scripture for Christ saith to his Disciples Mar. 14. vers 12. Exod. 12. vers 6. Goe and prepare a place to sacrifice the passe-ouer or Paschall lambe also in Exodus Yee shall sacrifice the lambe the foure-tenth day of the Moneth and in many other places to this hath he nought els to say but that Sacrifice in those places is taken improperly for to kill only His reason is because that in one place of Scripture the word Sacrifice is taken saith he for to kill but in more then one hundreth it is taken otherwayes and that properly Why then should we not take it there as it doth vsually and properly signifie rather then improperly not any reason doth he render for it at all but because it made so plaine against him he must needes shift it off so wel as he could But what if in the very place where he saith it is taken for to kill only and not for to Sacrifice he be also deceiued then hath he no colour to say that in any place it is taken otherwise Surely the reason that he alleageth for it is very insufficient For by Iacobs bretheren inuited to his feast may be vnderstood according to the Hebrewe phrase men of his owne religion who might well come to his Sacrifice wherefore S. Paul calleth the Romans Corinthians and men of all nations that were Christians his bretheren But if the Paschall lambe were not properly sacrificed howe could S. Paul resemble Christ crucified vnto the Paschall Sacrificed saying 1. Cor. 5. vers 7. Dialog cuÌ„ Triph. Our Paschall lambe Christ is sacrificed Surely that famous and ancient Martyr Iustine vvho vvas best acquainted vvith the rites of that people himselfe being bredde and brought vp among them saith most plainely That the killing of the Paschall lambe among the Iewes was a solemne Sacrifice and a figure of Christ. Wherefore Master PERKINS prouideth an other answere to our argument and saith That if it were graunted that the passe-ouer were both a Sacrifice and Sacrament yet would it make much against them For they may say that the supper of the Lord succeedeth it only in regard of the mayne end thereof which is to increase our communion with Christ. What is this a Gods blessing if that be all the vse of it the Lordes supper may also bee no Sacrament at all for many other thinges besides Sacraments increase our communion with Christ But to the purpose our Lordes supper and also the Paschall lambe vvere instituted not only to increase our communion vvith Christ but also to render thankes to God for benefits receiued as their Paschall for their deliuery out of the land of bondage so our Eucharist for our redemption from sinne and hell and therefore as they are Sacraments to feede our soules so are they true Sacrifices to giue thankes to God for so high and singuler benefits And because I loue not to leaue my reader in matter of diuinity naked reasons vvithout some authority heare vvhat S. Ambrose speaking of Priests ministring the Lordes supper saith Lib. 1. in Lucam When we doe offer Sacrifice Christ is present Christ is sacrificed for Christ our passe-ouer is offered vp S. Leo is yet more plaine vvho speaking of the passe-ouer saith Serm. 7. de pass That shadowes might giue place to the body and figures to the present verily the old obseruance is taken away by the newe Testament one Sacrifice is turned to an other and bloud excludeth bloud and so the legall feast whiles it is changed is fulfilled Marke howe the Eucharist succeedeth the Paschall lambe the Sacrifice of the Paschall being changed into the Sacrifice of Christes body Our third argument is selected out of these vvordes of the Prophet Malachy Cap. 1. vers 11. I will take no pleasure in you saith the Lord of Hostes and I will not receiue a gift from your handes for from the East vnto the West great is my name among the Gentils and in euery place a cleane oblation is sacrificed to my name Hence we inferre that after the reprobation of the Iewes and calling of the Gentils that is in the state of the newe Testament a cleane Sacrifice shall be offered vnto God of the Gentils being made Christians as vvitnesseth the spirit of God in the holy Prophet ergo it cannot be denyed of Christians M. PERKINS answereth That by that cleane Sacrifice is to be vnderstood the spirituall Sacrifice of prayers because that the Apostle exhorting vs to pray for all states hath these wordes Lifting vp pure handes What good Sir are cleane handes and a cleane Sacrifice all one vvith you a worshipfull exposition This man conferreth places of
see that he hath done already And they holding the first motions to euil in temptation to be mortall sinnes which no mortall man ordinarily can nowe avoid howe can they pray God not to suffer them to be lead into temptation when they teach it to be impossible to escape the venime of it And if they vnderstand it so as M. PERKINS teacheth to wit that they there pray not to be left to the malice of Satan they cannot without losse of the certainety of their faith pray so because they hold themselues assured of that before hand Neither can they pray God generally to deliuer them from all euill affirming as they doe that we must needes fall into mortall sinne at euery step almost which is the greatest of all other euill And finally if it belong to God to deliuer vs from sinne and all other euill then Caluin and his followers doe wickedly blaspheame who teach God to be the authour and worker in vs of all errour sinne and wickednes Thus much of the Pater noster Nowe before I come to the Sacraments I may not omit to speake a word of the Aue Maria which in old Catechismes followeth immediately after the Pater noster The Protestantes haue cassierd it and may not abide to heare it once said but therein as much as in any other such matter they disgrace their doctrine and discredite themselues For all the wordes vsed of old therein are the very wordes of the holy Ghost registred in S. Lukes Gospell and therefore they bewray either great ignorance or a wicked spirit to dwell in them that cannot indure to heare the wordes of Gods spirit Luc. 1. Besides in holy Scripture it is prophesied that from henceforth all generations should call the Virgin MARY blessed In what tearmes then can we more conueniently so cal her then in the very same that were composed by an Archangel are penned by the Euangelists and by them commended vnto all good Christians besides the sence of them is comfortable vnto vs as contayning a remembrance of the incarnation of the Sonne of God for our redemption and we on our partes doe thereby giue thankes to God for that inestimable benefit and congratulate our Sauiour with humble thankes therefore saying Blessed be the fruit of thy wombe IESVS I need not in such cleare euidence of Gods word alleage the testimony of any ancient Father he that list to see howe it hath beene vsed in the purest antiquity let him read S. Athanasius in euang de deipara S. Ephem de laudibus B. Mariae S. Basils and S. Chrisostomes lyturgies vvhich can vvith no more reason be denied to be theirs then the rest of their workes One short sentence I wil set downe in commendations of it out of that most reuerend and deuout Bernard The Angels triumph Apud Dionisi Corinth 1. part in Euang cap. 5. 17. and the heauens doe congratulate vvith them the earth leapeth for joy and hell trembleth when the Aue Maria is deuoutly said Good Christians then must needes take great delight in it euen as the badde may not abide it Nowe let vs come to the last part of the Catechisme which is of the Sacraments where M. PERKINS doth briefly repeate his arguments vsed before against the reall presence I might therefore send the reader vnto the first Chapter of this booke for the answere but because the matter is of great importance I will here againe giue them a short answere First saith he the real presence is ouerthrowne out of these wordes he tooke bread and brake it ergo that which Christ tooke was not his body c. A simple ouerthrowe Christ in deed tooke and brake bread but presently after blessing it made it his body by these vvordes this is my body M. Per. 2 Againe Christ said not vnder the forme of bread or in bread but this that is bread is my body Answ It is false to say that this vvord Hoc This doth demonstrate bread for it is of a different gender from it both in Latin and Greeke and if he had said that that bread had beene his body his word was so omnipotent that it had beene of force to make it his body so that M. PER. maketh a false construction which nothing helpeth his errour Per. 3 Thirdly Bread was not giuen for vs but only the body of Christ and in the first institution the body of Christ was not then really giuen to death Answ This maketh nothing at all against the reall presence but doth greatly fortifie it For Christ gaue vs in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for vs this is my body that shal be giuen for you Nowe not bread but Christes true body was giuen to death for vs ergo Christ gaue vs to eate not bread but his true reall body Per. 4 Fourthly The cuppe is the newe Testament by a figure why not then the bread the body of Christ by a figure Answ A goodly reason if there be one figure there must needes be two Howe followeth this if those vvordes of S. Paul be obscure why did he not rather cleare them by conferring them with S. Mathewe and S. Marke who deliuer it plainely thus this is my bloud of the newe Testament that shall be shedde c. But he that delighteth in cauilling must seeke darkenesse Per. 5 Fiftly Christ did eate that supper but not himselfe Answ A Protestant cannot say that Christ did eate of that Sacrament as M. PERKINS doth because he hath no warrant for it in the vvritten vvord yet vve doe graunt that he did so and hold him most vvorthy to taste of that heauenly foode Per. 6 Sixtly We are bid to doe it til he come Christ then is not bodily present 1. Cor. 11. vers 26. Answ We are bid by S. Paul to shewe the death of our Lord til he come to judgement vvhich vve may very vvell doe his body being present as certaine noble Matrons preserued of their husbandes bloud to represent more freshly vnto their children the slaughter of their fathers Per. 7 Seauenthly Christ bid vs to doe it in remembrance of him but signes of remembrance are of thinges absent Answ We see one thing and remember an other By Christes body really present we remember the same to haue beene nailed on the Crosse for our redemption as Goliath sword was kept in the tabernacle in remembrance of the cutting-off of Goliathes head vvith the same sword and the women before rehearsed kept their husbandes bloud and might much easier haue preserued their bodies embalmed to keepe the better their deathes in fresh memory Per. 8 Eightly If the real presence be graunted then the body and bloud of Christ are either seuered or joyned together if seuered then Christ is stil crucified if joyned together then the bread is both the body and bloud of Christ whereas the institution saith the bread is the body and the wine is the bloud Answ The body bloud of Christ are by
his booke Rationale Diuinorum the reasons of diuine seruice And as for bodylie rites we vse but fewe and those very decent full of reuerence and most fit to stirre vp and cherish deuotion We be not spirits and therefore must serue God by bodylie ceremonies although the life and vertue of them proceede from the spirit employing all partes of the body in his worshippe and to his honor that made it neither be they borrowed of Iewes nor of the Heathens albeit they might perhaps the one by the commandement of God the other by the light of nature vse some such like but ours were deuised by the inspiration of the holy Ghost the heauenly guide and directer of the Catholike Church to moue vs to serue God more deuoutly and with greater reuerence Now to say that we giue the same worship to any Saint that we giue to God is a stale jest that hath long sithence lost all his grace being found to be nothing else but a notorious vntruth very often confuted as by others else where so by me more then once in this booke where also these other slanders here cast vpon vs are more at large in their seuerall places discussed this therefore may serue in this place for an answere to those imputations of Atheismes which Master PERKINS objecteth against vs. And for that this crime of Atheisme is the most heynous that can be as contrariewise the true opinion of the God-head and the sincere worshippe thereof is the most sweete and beautifull flower of religion let vs therefore here to hold due correspondence with Master PERKINS examine the Protestantes doctrine concerning the nature of God and their worshippe of him that the indifferent reader comparing judiciouslie our two opinions thereof together may embrace that for most pure and true that carryeth the most reuerent and holy conceite thereof For out of all doubt there can be no greater motiue to any deuout soule to like of a religion then to see that it doth deliuer a most sacred doctrine of the Soueraigne Lord of heauen and earth and doth withall most religiously adore and serue him Whereas on the other side there is not a more forcible persuasion to forsake a religion before professed then to be giuen to vnderstand that the Masters of that religion teach many absurde thinges concerning the God-head it selfe and doe as coldly and as slightly worshippe God almighty as may be Marke therefore I beseech thee gentle reader for thy owne soules sake what euidence I shall deliuer in against the Protestantes touching this point of Atheisme and following the same method that M. PER. obserueth I will first touch their errors against the most blessed Trinity and Deity secondly such as are against our Lord Iesus God and man lastly I will speake one word or two about their seruice and worshipping of God All which shall be performed in a much more temperate manner then the grauity of such a matter requireth that it may be lesse offensiue Concerning the sacred Trinity it is by the doctrine of certayne principall pillers of their newe Gospell brought into great question Lib. 1. Instit c. 13. ss 23. 25. Con. rationes Camp pag. 152. For Iohn Caluin in diuers places teacheth that the second third persons of the Trinity doe not receiue the God-head from the first but haue it of themselues euen as the first person hath And in this he is defended by M. Whitaker and preferred before all the learned Fathers of the first councell of Nice Out of which position it followeth that there is neither Father nor Sonne in the God-head for according vnto common sence and the vniforme consent of all the learned he only is a true naturall Sonne that by generation doth receiue his nature and substance from his Father We are called the Sonnes of God but that is by adoption and grace but he only is the true naturall Sonne of God that by eternall generation receiued his substance that is the God-head from him If therefore the second person did not receiue the God-head from the first but had it of himselfe as they doe affirme then certaynelie he is no true Sonne of the first and consequently the first person is no true Father For as all men confesse Father Sonne be correlatiues so that the one cannot be without the other Thus their doctrine is found to be faulty in the highest degree of Atheisme For it ouerthroweth both Father and Sonne in the Trinity And further if it were true then doth the holy Ghost proceede neither from the Father nor from the Sonne for it receiueth not the God-head from them at all as they hold but hath it of himselfe and so proceedeth no more from them then they doe from him consequently is not the third person Wherefore finally they doe ouerthrowe the whole Trinity the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost Secondly they may be truely stiled Atheistes who thinke any one to be God that hath not in him all singuler perfâ—ctions in the most perfect sort that can be but either wanteth some of them or else hath them in a meaner degree then any other they therefore that teach our Sauiour Christ in his God-head to be inferiour vnto his Father stand justly charged with Atheisme Such a one is * Epi. ad Polo pa. 940. seq Caluin who in formall tearmes doth auouch and say that Christ according to his God-head is lesse then his Father And else where he affirmeth In ca. 26 Matt. 64. CoÌ„ Stancar in locis ca. de Christo CoÌ„ Harding art 17. in the confuta of the Papists slanders the Father to hold the first ranke of honour and power and the Sonne to obtaine the second which he might haue learned of his great master Melancthon who taught that the Sonne according to his diuinity is his Fathers subject and minister Further that in Christ there was something of the nature of God some other thing then belike was wanting Againe that the God-head of Christ was obedient vnto his Father with whome our country-men Iewell and Fulke doe jumpe who affirme that the diuine nature of Christ offered sacrifice vnto his Father Briefly all Protestantes who hold Christ according to his diuine nature to haue beene a mediator make his God-head inferiour vnto God the Father For to be as a mediator must needes be a suppliant vnto another to pray and offer sacrifice to him is to acknowledge him to be his better and that something lyeth in his power to doe which the other of himselfe cannot doe but by sute must obtaine of him Ioyne here vnto that they doe expound most of the textes of holy Scripture vsed by the auncient Fathers to proue the blessed sacred Trinity euen as the old Arrians did reprouing the auncient Fathers exposition which cannot but argue that they in their hartes though they be yet ashamed to confesse it decline apace from those holy Fathers steps to fauour Arrianisme This
of many of them yet be not these men that so teach as it were the founders of the newe Gospell and men of chiefest marke among them Nowe what force such principall authours as they take Melancthon Zwinglius Bucer and Caluin to be may haue to carry the rest away into the same errours I knowe not Sure I am that Caluins Institutions wherein this matter is so vehemently vrged is translated into English and in the Preface commended to all students of Christian diuinity as one of the most profitable the holy Scriptures excepted for the sound declarations of truth in articles of religion But to proceede on with this discourse the Protestants doe not only impugne the power goodnes of God but they doe also peruert his justice For to omit their last position that God is the worker of al sinne in vs compelling as Caluin speaketh the reprobate to obedience and therefore cannot in justice punish the poore wreatches for being obedient vnto his owne will and working and not to vrge their former assertion that God of his owne wil decree hath predestinated the greater part of men to hell without any foresight of their euill desertes which if it were true should it not be intolerable wronge to torment so rigorously innocents that neuer offended him To let passe these points I say how can they defend the justice of God who hold that he hath tyed vs to such lawes as are impossible to be kept by any man For Christ as he testified himselfe will condemne men to hell fire for transgressing of these lawes Math. 7. vers 23. by working of iniquity depart from me you that worke iniquity and what equity should there be in that sentence if it had neuer beene possible for these men to haue done otherwise For no reasonable Iudge condemneth any man for not doing of that which he knewe well lay not any way in his power to be done So that nothing is more plaine and euident then that the Protestantes doctrine trotteth apace towardes open Atheisme by impugning the power of God by defacing his goodnesse mercy and justice which in our vnderstanding are the chiefe properties of his diuine substance and by calling into question the blessed Trinity it selfe which their of-spring and progeny the Trinitarians in Poland doe already denie flatly Thus much of their Atheismes against God Nowe to those that be against our Sauiour Christ Iesus I haue before touched their errors concerning his God-head here I will speake of those that be against his Man-hood and Mediatorship First it must needes argue in them a great want of good affection towardes our Sauiour that they are so backward in his blessed Mother the holy Virgins praises not hearing with patience any body that would so much as salute her with the Haile MARY Luc. 1. which notwithstanding is recorded in the Gospell and are besides so ready vpon euery litle occasion to speake in her dispraise that we may with good reason reproue them as men either wanting judgement which they will not endure of anything or else voide of due respect vnto the Sonne who are such aduersaries to the Mother whome if they would not reuerence for her owne vertues which were most rare and singuler yet for her Sonnes sake who loued her so tenderly they should shewe themselues better affected towardes her and more forward in her praises if they did indeede loue and honour her Sonne as they pretend to doe But let vs come to Christes owne person Whereas the first Adam was at the first instance of his creation replenished with perfect knowledge and it is also in holy write said of the second Ioh. 1. In cap. 2. Lu. v. 52. Collos 2. vers 4. that the word was made flesh full of grace and truth Yet they commonly teach that our Sauiours soule was subject to ignorance euen as other mens soules are that he was in his youth ignorant of many thinges But what and they spare him not in whome all the treasures of wisdome and knowledge were hidden when he came to ripe yeares and beganne nowe to preach let vs for a taste heare some of Caluins sweete obseruations vpon the text of the Gospell because the purer brethren complaine much that M. Caluins workes are in no greater request Christ saith he * Ex Caluin Turcismo li. 7. c. 13. Luc. 16. Math. 7. Ioh. 1. speaketh improperly Math. 6. vers 18. he vseth harsh and far-fetched similitudes he wresteth the Prophetes wordes into a strange sence he vseth triuiall and vulgar prouerbes as probable conjectures not as sound argumentes which he willeth vs to beare in minde as a thing often practised by our Sauiour in Math. ca. 12. vers 25. Luc. 11. vers 17. he speaketh after the manner of men not out of his heauenly cabinette Math. 11. vers 21. which is no lesse in plaine English then that he spake vntruly as men doe And very sutable to this he noteth else where In cap. 7. Lu. v. 29. that Christ could not gette any other to be his Disciples then some certaine poore fellowes of the refuse and dregges of the people Seeme not these execrable notes to issue from the pen of some malicious Iewe or ranke Atheist yet are they but flea-bitinges in comparison of those which followe In his commentary vpon these wordes of our Sauiour Father if it be possible let this chalice or cuppe passe from me Mat. 26. vers 39. He obserueth first that this prayer of Christ was vnaduisedly made secondly that he ouercome with griefe had forgotten the heauenly decree not remembring for the time that he was sent to be the redeemer of mankinde thirdly that he withstood as much as in him lay and refused to execute the office of a mediator See Caluin also vpon these wordes of Christ Ioh. 12. vers 27. Father saue me from this houre where he saith that Christ was so strooken with feare and so pinched on euery side with perplexed pensiuenesse that he was forced through these boisterous waues of temptation to wauer and fleete too and fro in his prayers and petitions Is not this pittifull impiety Whereas our most louing redeemer of set purpose tooke that feare vpon him and most willingly both suffered and caused that bloudy agony and conflict by representing vnto him selfe both the shame and paine of his dolorous passion and the causes thereof which were the innumerable most grieuous sinnes of the world that he might in euery part both of minde and body endure what he possibly could for the time and spake nothing rashly but repeated that his prayer ouer three seuerall times as is set downe in the text it selfe to shewe vs howe naturally he as all other men did abhorre such a cruell and ignominious death and yet withall to instruct vs that we should be content with it and pray to God for strength to beare it if it were his blessed will to put vs to the like This
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
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
that was left of the Pascal lambe doth gather the cleane contrary to wit that if we cannot vnderstand howe these thinges vvhich we see are turned into our Lordes body Into which mystery the Angels saith he with their cleare sight cannot pearce then must we cast into the fire of the holy Ghost these thinges perswading our selues that to be possible vnto the vertue of the holy Ghost which seemeth to vs impossible See vvhat fire that vvorthy authour speaketh of And in the sixt booke and two and twenty Chapter of the same vvorke he speaketh yet more plainely saying That he receiueth ignorantly who knoweth not the vertue and dignity of this Sacrament and who is ignorant that it is the body bloud of Christ in truth so that old Hesichius condemneth them of ignorance for not beeleuing Christes body to be truly in the Sacrament Secondly saith M. PERK by the sacramental vnion of the bread wine with the body and bloud of Christ they vsed to confirme the personall vnion of the man-hood of Christ with the God-head against heretikes Let vs admit this to be true for then it followeth necessarily against himselfe that the true body of Christ is really present in the blessed Sacrament as his true Dialog 2 God-head and man-hood were really vnited in one person But if Theodoret whome he quoteth be well read you shall finde that they against whome he writeth objected this common doctrine of the Church that bread is turned into the body of Christ to proue that the man-hood of Christ was turned into the God-head and consequently that there were not two natures in Christ but one And albeit the consequent was Hereticall yet the antecedent was Catholike good and not denyed of Theodoret but that there was a reall conuersion of bread into the true body of Christ and therefore did other Heretikes who denied our Sauiour to haue true flesh deny also consequently the truth of the blessed Sacrament as the same Dialog 3 Theodoret doth witnesse out of S. Ignatius in these wordes They admit not the Eucharist and Sacrifice because they doe not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour which was crucified for vs and which the Father of his benignity raysed againe Libr. 17. cap. 25. M. PERKINS further objecteth that Nicephorus reporteth that young children were sent for from the scoole to eate that which remayned of the Sacrament which saith he was a signe that they thought it not to be Christes body Not so for he so reporteth it that any man may see that he beleeued it to be the very body of Christ For first he saith that those children were pure and incorrupt not falne from their state of innocencie Secondly that they were fasting Thirdly he affirmeth in plaine tearmes that they receiued the immaculate body of IESVS Christ God and Man Finally he proueth it so to be and that by miracle For one of the children who had receiued that morning being by his father a malitious Iewe afterwardes cast into a glasiers furnace most fiery hot and shut in there for three daies space was miraculously preserued aliue and found there without any hurt at all by vertue of the blessed Sacrament which he had receiued What strange blindnes then was this to alleadge this against the reall presence which so admirably doth confirme it We knowe that in certaine places some vsed to giue the blessed Sacrament vnto children yea vnto sucking babes being also dipped in the chalice which rather proueth our opinion For they thought it necessary for all that would be saued to receiue this holy Sacrament Nowe these infants could haue no such act of faith as the Protestants doctrine requireth to make their communion therefore at that time they held the same kinde of reall presence which we doe which is made by lawfull consecration of the Priest and not by the faith of the receiuer And that you may perceiue that I speake not only by ghesse take the profession of one of those authors whome M. PER. alleageth Amalarius by name who saith in the worke cited by M. PER. Lib. 3. de Eccl. offic cap. 24. Here we beleeue the nature of pure bread and wine mixed with water to be conuerted into a nature indued with reason to wit into the nature of the body and bloud of Christ can any thing be more plaine against them Finally M. PER. collecteth out of one Nicholas Cabasilas his exposition of these wordes of the Masse Sursum corda lift vp your harts that the people being willed by the Priest to lift vp their thoughts from the earth and to thinke on thinges aboue Christ is not really present with them but only on the right hand of his Father To which we answere that when those wordes were spoken Christes body in deed is not there really present for they are in the preface before the Canon and consecration but is made present afterwardes by the wordes of consecration Secondly that he might notwithstanding those wordes were spoken after the consecration as they be before be there present For being admonished to call our mindes and harts from earthly thinges and to lift them vp to consider heauenly what more diuine and heauenly subject can we meditate vpon then our Sauiour Iesus Christ there present and the holy misteries of his incarnation and passion there represented and the infinite mercies and goodnesse of God powred out on vs through him and by meanes of this holy Sacrifice and thus much in effect doth the answere vnto those wordes signifie We lift vp our harts vnto our Lord to attend vpon him at this time specially in these his holy misteries Obserue that we are not bidden to lift vp our eyes to beholde the sunne or to contemplate the starres in the skie and so you may see that the Protestants ignorance in the wordes of the holy Masse doth litle auaile them or helpe their bad cause Thus at length we are come to an end of M. PERKINS reasons against vs nowe to those that he maketh for the Catholike party which are both fewe in number and very barely propounded but by the helpe of God I will doe my endeauour to supply his negligence therein The first is taken out of these wordes of our Sauiour Ioh. 6. vers 51. The bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world Here is a plaine promise made by Christ Iesus that faileth not of his word of giuing vs his flesh to eate and that very flesh which on the Crosse was to be giuen for the redemption of the vvorld these vvordes be so euident that they who heard them made no doubt of the sence of them but were astonished at it and said Howe can this man giue vs his flesh to eate they doubted not but that Christ had said that he vvould giue them his flesh to eate his speaches were so plaine for it but yet beleeued they not that he could
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.
from that which is in question first it is granted by all that what Christ did in his last supper that did he institute to be done by his Apostles Priests and by his Ministers their successors for euer after Also that Christ was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedecke because both these haue euident warrant in the written word That then which is to be proued is that this order of Melchisedeckes Priest-hood doth properly or principally consist in the forme manner of his sacrificing We say yea M. PER. saith no and proueth it out of S. Paul who shewing Christ to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedecke doth make no mention of his Sacrifice but compareth them together in many other points as that he was a King of justice a Prince of peace without Father and Mother Hebr. 7. or Genealogie finally that he tooke tithes of Abraham and blessed him and in these points only saith M. PERKINS standeth the resemblance Reply Not so for that in none of these thinges doth any speciall order of Priest-hood consist what his owne name or the name of his Citty doth signifie are accidentall incident thinges to Priest-hood to receiue tithes and to blesse belong to Priest-hood in deede but generally to all sortes of Priest-hood as well to the order of Aaron as to that of Melchisedecke and therefore cānot distinguish one order of Priest-hood from another Wherefore it remaineth apparant that the proper order of Melchisedeckes Priest-hood must be gathered not from any of those circumstances specified by the Apostle but out of the very forme and manner of sacrificing which is as it were the correlatiue of a Priest and his proper function as the Apostle in the same Epistle defineth Cap. 5. vers 1. where he saith That euery high Priest is appointed to offer Sacrifices for sinnes Nowe that both the order of Melchisedecke consisted in sacrificing bread and wine and that therein Christ resembled him let the learnedst and most holy ancient Fathers no partial judges betweene vs for they knewe neither of vs be our arbitrators Let vs heare first that famous Martyr S. Cyprian vvho vpon those vvordes Thou art a Priest for euer according vnto the order of Melchisedecke Lib. 2. epist 3. writeth thus Which order surely is this proceeding of that Sacrifice and thence descending that Melchisedecke was a Priest of the most high God that he offered bread and wine that he blessed Abraham For who is rather a Priest of the most high then our Lord Iesus Christ that offered Sacrifice to God the Father and did offer the same that Melchisedecke had offered that is bread and wine to wit his body and bloud The same he repeateth in his treatise of our Lordes supper De coena Domini saying That Sacraments signified by Melchisedecke did then appeare when our high Priest brought forth bread and wine and said This is my body Can any thing be more plaine Epist 126 ad Euag. S. Hierome following the sentence of the most ancient Doctors Iereneus Hippolitus Eusebius Apollinaris and Eustathius defineth the order of Melchisedecke to consist properly in this that he offered not bloudy sacrifices of beasts as Aaron did but in single bread and wine being a cleane and pure Sacrifice did prefigure and dedicate the Sacrament of Christ The same doth he teach vpon the twenty six Chapter of S. Mathewe S. Augustine in diuers passages of his most learned workes doth confirme the same most plainely I will cite one In the old Testament there was a Sacrifice after the order of Aaron afterward Christ of his body and bloud ordained a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedecke He that desireth to see more of this point let him reade Theodorete Arnobius Psal 109. In cap. 7. 10. Cassiodorus and all ancient commentaries vpon that verse of the Psalme Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Malchisedecke and in like sort those who haue written vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes and he shall find it to be the generall resolute opinion of all antiquity that Christ in his last supper did institute the Sacrifice of his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine according to the order of Melchisedecke But why then did not the Apostle treating of this resemblance betweene Christ and Melchisedecke make mention of this point of the Sacrifice The reason is in readinesse because it was not conuenient First it made not to his purpose because he doth proue that the order of Melchisedecke was more excellent then that of Aaron which could not be proued by the Sacrifice of Melchisedecke in bread and wine which were inferior vnto Beefes and Muttons the sacrifices of Aaron The second cause was the weakenesse of those Hebrewes faith who were not then sufficiently instructed in Christes owne person and in his Sacrifice on the Crosse and therefore incapable of his Sacraments and other mysteries thereupon depending which the Apostle himselfe forewarneth saying Hebr. 5. vers 11. Of Melchisedecke we haue great speach and inexplicable because you are become weake to heare Therefore very absurdly doe the Protestants argue here ab authoritate negatiuè as they speake in Schooles thus The Apostle made no mention of this point of resemblance therefore there is none such whereas he himselfe told them before that there were many profound points concerning Melchisedecke to be spoken off which he omitted because those Iewes vvere not as yet fit to heare them And in truth what could haue beene more out of season then to haue spoken to them of the Sacrifice of the Masse which is but a liuely resemblance of Christes death vvho were not then rightly informed of Christes death it selfe Epist 126 He spake saith S. Hierome to the Iewes and not to the faithfull to whome he might haue beene bold to vtter the Sacrament And thus much to this first euasion of M. PERKINS Nowe to the second That forsooth Melchisedecke did not sacrifice at all in bread and wine but only brought forth bread and wine to refresh Abraham and his souldiers and is called a Priest there not in regard of any Sacrifice but in consideration of his blessing of Abraham as the wordes teach saith he And he was a Priest of the most high and therefore he blessed him Reply He deserueth to be blessed with a cudgell that dareth thus peruert the word of God First he addeth to the text this vvord therefore againe where the point in the Hebrewe text is at the end of this sentence He was a Priest of the most high he remoueth it to the end of the next clause joyning that togither which is separated in the text Thirdly the reason is friuolous as M. PER. pointeth it For it can be no good reason vvhy Melchisedecke was a Priest for that he blessed Abraham for Abraham was a Priest as well as he and often offered Sacrifice as wel as Melchisedecke did Nowe it standeth
shedde and it shall be shedde and a good Interpreter of Scripture may not to delude the one flie to the other but defend both because both be the vvordes of the holy Ghost And the Greeke text in S. Luke doth inuincibly confirme that the vvordes are to be taken in the present tense For it hath that the bloud as in the Chalice Luc. 22. vers 20. is powred out Toúto tò potérion tò eckynómenon This Chalice is powred out it cannot therefore be referred vnto that powring out vvhich was to be made vpon the Crosse the day following but to that that vvas powred in and out of the Chalice then presently This might also be confirmed by the bloud which was sprinkled to confirme the old TestameÌ„t vnto which it seemeth that our Sauiour did allude in this consecration of the Chalice Exod. 24. vers 8. For Moyses said This is the bloud of the Testament and our Sauiour * Hebr. 9. vers 20. This is the bloud of the newe Testament But that bloud which dedicated the old Testament was first sacrificed to God such therefore vvas the bloud of the newe Testament And to make the matter more cleare let vs heare howe the best and most judicious Fathers vvho receiued the right vnderstanding of the Scriptures from the Apostles and their Schollers doe take these vvordes of Christ Lib. 4. cap. 32. Lib. 2. Epist 3. In psa 33 Conc. 2. Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. Homil. 2. in Post ad Timoth. Orat. 1. de resur You haue heard already out of S. Ireneus That Christ taught at his last supper the newe Sacrifice of the newe Testament And out of S. Cyprian Christ offered there a Sacrifice to his Father after the order of Melchisedecke taking bread and making it his body And out of S. Augustine Christ instituted a Sacrifice of his body and bloud according vnto the order of Melchisedecke that is vnder the formes of bread and wine I adde vnto them S. Chrisostome vvho saith In steede of the slaughter of beastes Christ hath commanded vs to offer vp himselfe And againe Whether Peter or Paule or an other Priest of meaner meritte doe offer the holy Sacrifice it is the same which Christ gaue to his Disciples the which all Priestes nowe a dayes doe make and this hath nothing lesse then that had S. Gregory Nissene Christ being both a Priest and the Lambe of God offered himselfe a Sacrifice and Host for vs. When vvas this done Euen then when to his Disciples he gaue his body to eate and his bloud to drinke Isichius First Lib. 2. in Leui. c. 8. our Lord supped with his Apostles vpon the figuratiue Lambe and afterward offered his owne Sacrifice All these and many other of the most ancient Fathers could finde a proper and reall Sacrifice in Christes supper To omit S. Gregories authority and all other his inferiors for this last thousand yeares vvhome the Protestants acknowledge vâ—holy to haue beleeued and taught the Sacrifice of the Masse See Kemnitius in exam Concilij Trid. page 826. 827. I omit some other good arguments made for vs out of the newe Testament to returne vnto M. PERKINS vvho proposeth this as the fourth reason for our party out of S. Paul We haue an Altar Hebr. 13. vers 10. whereof they may not eate who serue in the Tabernacle Nowe say they If we Christians haue an Altar then must we consequently haue Priestes and a proper kinde of Sacrifice for these are correlatiues and doe necessarily depend and followe one the other M. PERKINS answereth That the Altar there is to be taken not literally but spiritually for Christ himselfe Reply Obserue first howe the Protestants are forced to flie from the plaine text of Scripture and natiue signification of the vvordes vnto a figuratiue that without either reason or authority secondly I wish that M. P. would goe through with his paraphrase vpon the whole sentence and if by the Altar he vnderstand Christ then by eating of it he will surely expound beleeuing in Christ nowe like a prety Scholler that hath learned to read let him put it all together say That we Christians haue a Christ in whome the Iewes may not beleeue which is flat contradictory to that which the Apostle in that Epistle goeth about to perswade * Lib. 6. in Leui. c. 21 Isichius an ancient and worthy Author in expresse tearmes doth expound these wordes of the Altar of Christs body which the Iewes for their incredulity were not worthy to behold much lesse to be partakers of it and therefore the Apostle to moue the Iewes the rather to become Christians signifieth that so long as they serue in the tabernacle and continue Iewes they depriue themselues of that great benefite which they might haue by receiuing the blessed Sacrament Nowe the wordes following in the text which M. PER. citeth to interprete this sentence belong nothing to it but containe another reason to induce the Iewes to receiue Christ for their Messias drawne for a circumstance of their Sacrifices thus as the bodies of their Sacrifices were burne without the Campe so Christ suffered without the gate and citty of Hierusalem and therefore Christ was the truth prefigured by their Sacrifices It hath also an exhortation to depart out of the society of the Iewes and to forgoe all the preferment and glory they might enjoy among them to be content to suffer with Christ al contumelies Briefly there is not one word in the sentence before to proue the Altar to be taken for Christ but for a materiall Altar vpon which the Christian Priestes and offer the body and bloud of Christ in the blessed Sacrament vvhich may be confirmed by that passage of the same Apostle 1. Cor. 10 vers 21. You cannot drinke the cup of our Lord and the cup of Deuils you cannot be partakers of our Lordes table and the table of Deuils where a comparison is made betweene our Sacrifice and table and the Sacrifice and table of Idols shewing first that he vvho communicateth with the one of them cannot be partaker of the other and then that he who drinketh of the bloud of the Sacrifice is partaker of the Sacrifice Nowe the comparison were improper if our cup were not the cup of a Sacrifice as theirs was nor our table a true Altar as theirs was out of all doubt And that shift of Kemnitius is not cleanely who saith That they who drinke of Christes cup are partakers of his Sacrifice on the Crosse but not of any Sacrifice there present For S. Paules comparison is taken from the cup of a Sacrifice to Idols immediately before offered so that it doth conuince our Chalice to be the cup of a Sacrifice then presently immolated and offered vp The fift objection with M. PER. which is our sixt argument is this Where alteration is both of lawe and couenant there must needes be a newe Priest and a new Sacrifice Hebr. 7. vers
bring with them temporall commodities but those are incident and accidentary vnto them not the speciall causes of them and in Countries farre distant from the Sea vvhere are no such fisher-men the Lent is obserued as dulie as in our Iland inuironed with the Sea Nowe to the third kinde of fasting maintayned by M. PER. but seldome practised by his followers which he calleth religious because the duties of religion as the exercise of prayer and humiliation be practised during the time of this fast But he doth amisse to put this for one of the points of our agreement for vve esteeme fasting it selfe vvhen it is done to appease Gods vvrath and to honour him in our humiliation to be an essentiall part of Gods worshippe which the Protestants denie and say that fasting is only tearmed religious because during the time of it by prayers and preaching and such like they worshippe God but so the very time and place it selfe may be tearmed also religious and many other such odde thinges because they doe also concurre with actes of religion Let vs come to his second conclusion to wit We joyne with them in allowance of the principall and right endes of a religious fast and they are three The first that thereby the minde may become attentiue in meditation of the duties of Godlines to be by vs performed The second that the rebellion of the flesh may be subdued for the flesh pampered becommeth an instrument of licentiousnesse The third and if he mistake not the chiefest end of a religious fast is to professe our guiltinesse and to testifie our humiliation before God for our sinnes and for this end in the fastes of the Niniuites the very beastes were made to abstayne Hitherto Master PERKINS We besides the three afore-said endes adde diuers others as to punish chastise our flesh for former offences which is an act of justice to obey the Churches commandement which is a religious obedience and at this time it may be an act of professing the Catholike faith when we obserue set fastings to make profession of our faith and to fast thereby to imitate and please our head Christ Iesus is an act of perfect charity But let vs returne vnto M. PERKINS third conclusion which is We yeeld vnto them that fasting is a helpe and furtherance vnto the worshippe of God yea and a good worke also if it be vsed in good manner allowed of God and to be highly esteemed of all the seruants of God All this is good but whereas he saith that fasting in it selfe is a thing indifferent he abuseth the name of fasting taking it to signifie all manner of abstinence from meate and drinke and so in deede it is in it selfe indifferent may be either good or badde as if one should abstaine from foode to pine himselfe away But fasting being properly taken signifieth an abstinence from meate according vnto some set rule of the Catholike Church the better to please and serue God and so it is of it selfe an act of the true worshippe of God THE DIFEERENCE MAster PERKINS Our dissent from the Church of Rome in the dostrine of fasting standeth in three points First about the set time of fasting Secondly about the manner of abstinence and what meate is to be eaten on fasting dayes Thirdly about the vertue and value of fasting Concerning the first The Catholikes appoint and prâ—scribe set times of fasting as necessary to be kept We hold that no set ordinary time is to be appointed but that the Gouernours of the Church may sometimes vpon certaine occasions enjoyne a religious fast Our reasons be these First when the disciples of Iohn asked Christ why they and the Pharasees fasted often but his Disciples fasted not he answered Math. 9. vers 15. Can the children of the marriage-chamber mourne as long as the Bridegrome is with them but the dayes will come when the Bridegrome shall be taken from them and then shall they fast where he giueth them to vnderstand that they must fast as occasions of mourning are offered Whence also I gather that a set time of fasting is no more to be enjoyned then a set time of mourning And this is all the reasons which M. PER. maketh for their opinion except the record of antiquity of which afterward This reason of his as also the other testimonies following are so formall for him and fit for his purpose that they doe much more proue the cleane contrary For first admitting M. PER. collection that there must then be a set time of fasting when there is a set time of mourning I inferre thereupon and that expresly out of that text That when the Bridegrome is taken from vs then is the time of mourning but that hath beene euer since Christes Ascension to heauen for then was Christ our Bridegrome taken from vs therefore euer since Christes Ascension there was alwayes or ought to haue beene a set time of fasting in the Church And this reason De jejunio did the ancient Christians vvith Tertullian yeeld of their yearely fasting of Lent With vvhome S. Augustine agreeth saying Nowe therefore Serm. 157 de Temp. because the Bridegrome is taken away from vs we the children of that beautifull Bridegrome must mourne and that for good cause if we ardently desire to be in his company so that the same place vvhich M. PERKINS alleageth against a set time of fasting doth taken euen in the very sence that he taketh it demonstrate the flat contrary He further citeth out of antiquity two testimonies vvhich make as euidently against himselfe The first out of S. Augustine vvho hath these vvordes I diligently considering thereof Epist 86. in the Euangelicall and Apostolicall letters and in all that instrument which is called the newe Testament doe see that fasting is commanded but on what dayes we ought not to fast and on what we ought I doe not finde it determined by the commandement of our Lord or of the Apostles Hence inferreth Master PERKINS That Augustine was of opinion that there was no set times of fasting But the man here as else-vvhere sheweth himselfe to haue no conscience for in the very same Epistle S. Augustine teacheth that all the Church fasted at that time euery Wednesday and Friday through the yeare and admitteth S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles to haue beene the founders of that set and ordinary fast And in his Epistle he giueth the reason 119. c. 15. L. 30. coÌ„t Faust c. 3. vvhy vve fast fourty dayes before Easter and againe he saith That the fast of Lent was by the consent of all men obserued ouer all the world euery yeare most diligently What therefore could be further from this most circumspect and judicious Doctors minde then to thinke or teach that there vvas no certayne time of fasting to be obserued true it is that he found not expresly in holy Scripture this certaine time defined And note that repeating the same wordes
the contrary if they can Reply Valiantly spoken but vvhy did he not proue his assertion what was it because he could not the contrary is very easie to be proued For if that diet of S. Iohn Baptist was only for temperance then belike if he had eaten meate as other men did he had beene intemperate and sinned in gluttony which if it be absurd to thinke more absurd is it to say that his continuall abstinence waâ— only for temperance sake Nowe to the third and last part of our difference Catholikes make abstinence it selfe in persons fitly prepared to be a part of the worshipping of God but we take it to be a thing indifferent in it selfe but yet well vsed to be a proppe or furtherance to the worshippe of God It grieueth me to see the doubling and deceite that this Minister many times vseth Doe Catholikes make fasting of it selfe vvithout his right end and all due circumstances a part of Gods vvorshippe if he say so as his vvordes leade a man to beleeue he belyeth vs shamefully For vve hold that no worke be it neuer so good in it selfe yet if it want either a good end or any other due circumstance it is not good or pleasing to God The point then in difference is this that vve esteeme fasting duly performed to be a part of Gods worshippe and to appease vvrath towardes vs to satisfie for the temporall punishment of our sinnes and finally to be meritorious which I will in a word confirme here referring him that desireth to see more vnto the seuerall Questions before handled of Satisfaction and Merits First that God is thereby worshipped Luc. 2.37 it it set downe plainely in holy Scripture Aurae by fasting and prayers serued or worshipped God as the Greeke vvord Latreuósa signifieth Rom. 12. vers 1. Againe exhibite your bodyes by fasting as the best Expositors declare a liuing Host or Sacrifice holy and pleasing God And the reason is manifest for vvhen vve for his sake doe afflict our bodyes both to master the euill passions of it and that our minde may more freely and feruently meditate vpon God it cannot but be a gratefull seruice vnto him Secondly that vve by fasting and humbling of our selues before God and punishing our bodyes there-by for our former faultes doe appease and pacifie the vvrath of God may be proued by many examples of the old Testament but these two may serue the turne which M. PERKINS toucheth The first of the Niniuites vpon whome God tooke mercy at the contemplation of their fasting and other workes of penance so saith the text And God sawe their workes Ionae 3. vers 10. c. And had mercy vpon them and therefore vve condemne M. PERKINS extrauagant glosse of Orleance as they say vvhich corrupteth so much the text That the Niniuites forsooth laide hold on Gods mercy in Christ by faith For that the Niniuites being Gentils had euer heard of Christ or knewe the mistery of his mediation Master PERKINS vvill neuer be able to proue The second example is of King Achab vvho being threatned vvith great punishment according to his deserts fearing the just judgements of God did fast and doe great penance Whereupon God delaide his punishment And M. PERKINS doth greatly ouer-shoote himselfe in affirming that this his repentance was but hypocrisie vvhen God himselfe doth say to Elias 3. Reg. 21. vers 29. Hast thou not seene Achab humbled before me Therefore because he hath humbled himselfe for my sake I will not bring euill vpon his house in his dayes but in the dayes of his Sonne God saith that Achab vvas humbled for Gods owne sake and M. PERKINS blusheth not to correct him and giue him as it vvere the lie saying that it was but in hypocrisie no meruaile if this man be bold with God his Church that feareth not to controule God himselfe Serm. de Laps Ioel. 2. S. Cyprian testifieth plainely that by fasting we asswage and mitigate Gods angre saying Let vs appease his wrath as he himselfe admonisheth vs by fasting weeping and lamentings The third fruit of fasting is to satisfie for the temporall punishment due vnto our sinnes after the remission of the eternall vvhich very reason perswadeth that they who haue offended God by taking vnlawfull pleasures of the flesh should by suffering some bodily chastisement recompence for their former faultes Lib. de jeâ—â—nio For as saith Tertullian Euen as fast the vse of meate did vndoâ— vs so fasting may satisfie God vvhich might be confirmed by the example of King Dauid and many others But M. PER. crieth out and saith It is blasphemy to hold that any other meanes should be applyed to satisfie for sinne besides Christes passion To this I haue answered at large in the question of satisfaction here I say in a word that all mortall sinne and the eternall punishment due vnto sinners therefore is freely through Christ remitted to euery repentant sinner but there remaineth after that remission other temporall paine to be endured by the party him selfe as wel to make him conformable to Christ his head as in punishment of his vngratefull fall after he was once freely and fully pardoned Fourthly fasting is very meritorious in Gods sight as Christ saith expresly when commanding vs to fast not vpon vaine glory as the Pharasees did but to please his heauenly Father he addeth the reward Math. 6. vers 18. Dan. 10 vers 12. And thy Father who seeth thee in secret will repay thee And to Daniel the Angell saith Because from the first day that thou gauest thy hart to vnderstand thou diddest afflict thee in my sight which was by fasting thy wordes were heard and I came for thy speeches sake S. Paul that chosen vessell of election doth chastise his body which was specially by fasting 1. Cor. 9. vers 27. as S. Chrysostome and the other Interpreters doe take it brought it vnder into bondage least whiles he preached to others he himselfe might become a reprobate If one would stand to collect the Sermons of the Holy Fathers made in the praise of fasting he might fill a whole volume take for a taste these fewe wordes out of S. Basil Homil. 1. de jejunio Moyses durst not haue ascended into the mountayne vnlesse he had beene fenced with fasting by fasting he receiued the Commandements written in a table by the Finger of God A little after Fasting leadeth vs to God feasting to destruction Samuel was by fasting and prayer obtayned of God What made the most valiant Sampson inuincible was it not fasting through which he was conceiued in his mothers wombe fasting conceiued him fasting nourished him and fasting made him strong Fasting breedeth Prophets it strengthneth the mighty it maketh lawe-makers prudent and wise besides it chaseth away temptations and armeth a man to Godlinesse it sanctifieth the Nazarite perfecteth the Priest Neither is it lawfull to touch the Sacrifice without fasting not only in this our
first and not so perfect as the last but it is a more speedy and ready vvay to the later and consisteth in the obseruation of some suâ—h extraordinary vvorkes that be not commanded of God as necessary to saluation but commended as thinges of more excellency and left vnto our free choise vvhether vve vvill vndertake them or no. For example God forbiddeth vs to commit adultery but he doth not command vs to professe virginity and to liue alwaies a single life the vvhich yet he recommendeth and exhorteth vs to embrace saying Math. 19. vers 12. Ibidem vers 21. There be some that make themselues Eunuches for the Kingdome of heauen adding He that can take it let him take it so he forbiddeth to steale but counsaileth only to sell all we haue and to giue it to the poore and to followe him Out of which and the like places of holy Scriptures we gather that there be diuers blessed good vvorkes vvhich are not commanded by any precept yet counsailed and perswaded as thinges of greater perfection which are also called workes of supererogation by a name taken from these vvordes Lucae 10. vers 35. Quicquid supererogaueris vvhere the good Samaritane told the Inne-Keeper that whatsoeuer he should lay out ouer and besides that vvhich he had giuen him should be repayed him at his retourne These vvorkes of perfection and supererogation the Protestants may not abide in shewe forsooth of profound humility because all that we can doe is nothing in respect of that which we ought to doe but in deede vpon enuy and malice towardes religious men and women the lustre and fame of whose singuler vertue doth mightily obscure and disgrace their fleshly and base conuersation vvho commonly passe not the vulgar sort in any other thing but in tongue and habit M. PERKINS in his second conclusion alloweth only vnto our Sauiour Christ workes of supererogation because he alone fulfilled the lawe wherefore saith he his death was more then the lawe could require at his handes being innocent But if I lifted to take aduantages as he offereth them I could tell him that although the lawe could exact nothing at Christes handes hee being God and aboue the lawe yet al that euer Christ did was commanded him by his Father and therefore by a certaine vncertaine rule of M. PER. to wit That no worke commanded can be a worke of supererogation he could not doe any worke of supererogation being bound to doe all he did by commandement of his heauenly Father whome he was bound to obey But to come to the point of our difference we hold that there be many workes of perfection vnto which no man is bound neuerthelesse whosoeuer shall performe any of them they shall haue a greater crowne of glory in heauen for their reward M. PER. goeth about to disproue it by prouing that no man can fulfill the lawe of God in this life much lesse doe workes of supererogation I say that he taketh not a direct course to improue our position For albeit a man could not fulfil that law yet may he doe many of those workes of perfection for a man may lead a chaste life yet sometime in a passion fall out with his neighbour and hurt him in word or deede or sweare and so offend in choller for this sometime hapneth and then the workes of perfection not commanded being done by such a one may the sooner purchase him pardon and be great helpes to him towardes the fulfilling of the lawe wherefore Master PERKINS erreth in the very foundation of his proofes notwithstanding we will heare his arguments because they serue to fortifie an other odde sconce or bulwarke of their heresie to wit That it is impossible to keepe Gods Commandements The first he propoundeth in this sort In the morall lawe two thinges are commanded first the loue of God and man secondly the manner of this loue Nowe the manner of louing of God is to loue him with all our hart and strength Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God Lucae 10. vers 27. with all thy hart and with all thy soule and with all thy strength and with all thy thoughts c. As Bernard said The measure of louing God is to loue him without measure and that is to loue him with the greatest perfection of loue that can befall a creature Hence it followeth that in louing God no man can posssibly doe more then the lawe requireth and therefore the performance of all vowes and of all other duties come to short of the intention and scope of the lawe Answere To loue God with all our hart and strength c. may be vnderstood in two sorts The first is to loue him so intirely that we loue no other thing with him in any such degree as may not well stand with his loue and also that in Gods seruice when his honour shal so require we are ready to imploy our vvhole strength hart and life and in this sence euery good Christian doth loue God with all his hart and may doe besides his bounden duty therein many other good vvorkes because the precept being affirmatiue doth not binde for all times but only nowe and then when occasion so requireth Secondly the wordes may be taken to signifie that we should alwayes with all the powers of both body and minde and that at the vttermost straine loue honour and serue God and so taken it is fulfilled in heauen but cannot be performed on earth by any mortall creature with ordinary grace because we must sleepe and eate sometimes and doe many other thinges besides though not contrary to the same loue In the first sence we are commanded to loue God with all our hart c. And in the second it is no commandement but only a marke for vs to ayme and leuell at but no man vnder sinne is bound to attayne vnto it To that of S. Bernard I answere that to loue God as much as he is to be loued is to loue him infinitly which none can doe but only God himselfe If he meane that we must loue God without measure then he is to be vnderstood that in the loue of God there be not as in the matter of other vertues two extreamities too little and too much only there may be too little but there cannot be too much yet there is a certaine measure or degree to which euery one is bound to attaine whither if he haue gotten he loueth God with all his hart as before hath beene declared Now beyond that degree the perfecter sort of Christians doe mount and so much the more by howe much they doe proceede in that perfection yet in this life they can neuer attaine to loue God so feruently and so perfectly but that they may alwaies encrease and loue him more and more so there is not a prefixed meere-stone or limit of louing God in which sence only we may truly say that God is to be loued without measure but that
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
question but that they heare all prayers made by vvhosoeuer to them and obtayne very many of their requests And as S. Gregory saith What doe they not see Lib. 12. Moral cap. 13. who see him that seeth all thinges yea contayneth all thinges within himselfe Yet M. PER. blusheth not to say that it is but a forgery of mans braine to imagine that the God-head is such a cleare glasse representing all thinges because it should then followe that the Angels who behold Gods face should be ignorant of nothing but the Angels haue learned some thinges of the Church as S. Paul witnesseth therefore they see not all thinges in God To this we answere that in God all thinges are represented and shine more brightly then in their owne naturall places yet doth not God communicate and reueale all thinges vnto euery body there present but his diuine nature in three persons Christ God and Man with all other naturall and ordinary thinges from the cope of heauen to the center of the earth are seene of euery Cytizen of heauen though with a different degree of clearenes but of Gods counsels concerning the gouernement of the world so much is only knowne vnto either Angell or Men as appertayneth vnto their state and that when it belongeth vnto them therefore the Angels might well not knowe many thinges belonging to the gouernement of the Church vntill they sawe it accomplished and therefore might be said to haue learned some such thing of the Church But as we haue said before it properly appertayneth vnto the state of Saints in heauenly blisse to knowe their friendes reasonable requests made vnto them or else their conditions should not be so perfect but that they might in equity require the bettering of it and consequently they could not be so throughly contented as their estate of perfect felicity in heauen doth demande and thus much of M. PER. reasons To which I will here adde one argument commonly vsed by the Protestants though M. PER. for the weakenesse of it perhaps thought best to omit it it is taken ab authoritate negatiuè which Schollers knowe to be naught worth Math. 11. vers 28. Christ saith come yee vnto me all yee that labour and be burdened and I will refresh you he saith not goe to the Saints but come to me I answere neither doth he say doe not goe to the Saints and therefore here is nothing against vs. We goe to Christ for remission of our sinnes which lye more heauy then a talent of lead vpon our backes and through our redeemers merits doe we craue pardon of them but to moue more effectually this our redeemer and God his father to haue pitty vpon vs we humbly desire the Saints his best beloued seruants to speake a good vvord in our behalfe acknowledging our selues vnvvorthy to obtayne any thing at Gods handes through our owne vngratefull wickednes Now that our Sauiour Christ IESVS doth very well like and approue the mediation of others euen to himselfe may be gathered out of very many euident texts of holy Scripture Math. 8. vers 13. for he at the intercession of the Centurion cured his seruant and * Math. 9 vers 2. seing the faith of them that brought a man sicke of the palsey before him he healed the sicke man and a Luc. 4. vers 38. at his disciples request cured S. Peters mother in lawe And vvhen the vvoman of Chanaan sued vnto him for her daughter b Math. 15 vers 23. he answered her not a word before his disciples had besought him for her by which and many such like recorded in the Gospell euery man that is not wilfully blinde may well see that the intercession of others for vs doth much preuaile euen with our soueraigne intercessor and mediator Christ IESVS himselfe nowe to his authorities Lib. 3. cōt Parmenia cap. 3. The first is out of S. Augustine Christian men commend each other in their prayers to God And who prayeth for all and for whome none prayeth he is the one and true mediatour I answere these wordes be rather for vs for approuing and confessing our Sauiour Christ to be the only mediatour of redemption as we haue already declared they teach that all Christians may commend themselues each to others prayers Nowe the Saints departed be Christians I trust as good as we or rather farre better therefor all other Christians may very well in S. Augustines judgement commend themselues vnto the Saints holy prayers because each one may commend himselfe to any others prayers Concerning the word Mediatour S. Augustine neuer attributeth it vnto any sauing only to our Sauiour taking it alwaies in the second signification aboue named to which three thinges are properly required according to S. Augustine first that he pray for all and that none pray for him which property M. PER. toucheth but misquoteth the place for it is in lib. 2. cap. 8. cont Parmenianum The second property and the most necessary of all is that he pay the full price and ransome of all our sinnes and that his redemption may in equall ballance counterpoise the grieuousnesse of our sinnes which is taken out of diuers places of Scripture The third which is the ground of al the rest is that the Mediatour be both God and Man that participating of both natures he may be as it vvere a naturall middle or meanes to reconcile the two Extreames and so as Man be able to suffer something to appease Gods wrath and as God to giue to that suffering of his man-hood infinite value making thereby Christs sufferinges more then sufficient to pay for the redemption of an hundred vvorldes if neede had beene And these proprieties gathered out of c Lib. 9. de ciuitate cap. 15. alibi S. Augustine and other Fathers will put downe M. PER. odde deuise of proprieties of a Mediatour all which make nothing against the intercession of Saints who be not in that sence to be called mediatours and yet cease not to pray for vs let vs then goe on M. PERKINS citeth secondly another sentence out of S. Augustine where he bringeth in our Sauiour saying Tract 22. in Iohan. Thou hast no whether to goe but to me thou hast no way to goe but by me Answere S. Augustine there alludeth vnto those vvordes of our Sauiour I am the way the truth and the life and saith that for life and truth vve haue no other way to seeke vnto but vnto Christ vvho according vnto his diuinity is truth and life vnto the vvorld And in this high degree of redemption and mediation he was the only way vnto his Father for neither the Gentiles by their morall vertues nor Iewes by the power of their law could without him leade them to God All this is very good doctrine but no whit more against praying to Saints then against commending of vs one to anothers prayers or vsing any other meanes of saluation as S. Augustine vpon
the like occasion doth himselfe plainly declare For vpon these wordes of S. Iohn If any man offend 1. Ioan. 2. tract 1. we haue an aduocate with the Father IESVS Christ the just one where he putteth this doubt but some man will say therefore doe not the Saints pray for vs doe not the Bishops and gouernours pray for the people After hee solueth this doubt concluding that all the members of Christes body doe pray one for another marry the head prayeth for all vvhere he most plainely sheweth that the soueraigne intercession or mediation of Christ the head doth not exclude the intercession of Saints departed no more then it doth of any other yet liuing M. PERKINS citeth also one sentence out of S. Chrysostome who hath vvritten thus Thou hast no neede of Patrones to God De perfect Euangel nor much running vp and downe to flatter and fawne vpon others for though thou be alone and want a Patrone and by thy selfe pray vnto God thou shalt obtayne thy desire Answere It seemeth by his wordes of running vp and downe and flattering of others vvhich Gods Saints vvill not endure that he speaketh against seeking vnto vaine-glorious and euill mortall men to be our Patrones to God which were folly But admit he meant the Saints departed then let vs take his whole meaning and not wrest his wordes to any other sence then he vvill allowe and like of he doth then often inueigh both against certayne rich men vvho hauing giuen some little almes to the poore thought themselues sure of pardon of their sinnes and of saluation through the poore mens prayers though they prayed not themselues and also against all such sluggish lazie persons as relyed wholy vpon the intercession of Saints not praying much for themselues vpon such as these doth S. Chrysostome often call to pray for themselues and not to trust wholy vnto the prayers of others perswading them that it were better to pray for themselues vvithout Patrones then leauing all to Patrons not to pray themselues at all But the best of all to be both to pray themselues and to imploy also good men and the Saints to pray for them this is his owne declaration in these his wordes Homil. 5. in Math. Let vs not like sluggards and slouthfull companions depend wholy vpon the merits of others for the prayers and supplications of Saints for vs haue their force and that surely very great but then truly when we our selues doe withall by our penitence request and sue for the same And making the like discourse in another place he concludeth thus Homil. 1. in 1. ad Thessal Knowing these thinges neither let vs despise the prayers of the Saints neither let vs cast all vpon them Nowe to the arguments for the Catholike party my first argument shal be to proue that we may pray to the Angels in heauen to blesse vs and to pray for vs to whome after our blessed Lady vve assigne the first place in our Lytanie We haue for our vvarrant the authority and example of the holy Patriarke Iacob expresly set downe in holy Scripture for prayer to Angels Genes 48.15 16. in these wordes God before whome my fathers Abraham and Isaac haue walked God who hath fedde me from my youth vnto this present day and the Angell that hath deliuered me from all euill blesse these children What can be more playne then that this blessed old Patriarke did pray vnto his good Angell Guardian Nay saith M. PER. for by the Angell there you â—â—st vnderstand Christ for that in Malachie Christ is signified by the Angell of the couenant A bonny reason because that an Angell is once in the old Testament vsed to signifie Christ therefore it shall signifie him in vvhat place soeuer it shall please the Protestants Neither doth an Angell in that one place singly put signifie Christ but with an addition the Angell of the couenant to distinguish that Angell from all others so that there is no appearance or colour of likelyhood out of that place so vnlike to interprete this It remayneth then that the vvord Angell be taken properly as it is most commonly in holy Scripture for an heauenly spirit appointed by God to keepe Iacob vvhich I confirme by the circumstance of the place because Iacob prayeth vnto that Angell as to one that vvas then extant and liuing that had also before deliuered him from many perils but Christ vvas not then borne nor had any doings in the vvorld therefore he did not pray to him Againe the wise Patriarke and Prophet must be made to speake very fondly if he should pray him that was not in rerum natura to blesse those children he might very well haue prayed God for Christes sake that vvas to come to blesse them but to pray Christ himselfe whome he knewe then not to be any where liuing or extant to blsse them hath no sence in it for blessing as all other working supposeth a reall being and existence of the same party To this example of Iacob vve may joyne the consaile that Eliphas the Thamite gaue vnto Iob Turne thy selfe vnto some of the Saints and Iobs owne practise * Cap. 19. vers 21. Tob. c. 12. vers 12. Iob cap. 5. vers 1. Haue pitty on me haue pitty on me at least you my friendes Vpon which place S. Augustine saith that Iob the holy man made intercession to the Angels or to the Saints to pray for him to vvhich we may also adde howe that Raphael offered vp good Tobias prayers to God and howe that another a Apoc. 8. vers 3. Angell did giue of the incense of prayers of all Saints vpon the Altar of gold which is before the throne of God Out of which places and such like I frame this argument The Angels be most holy and charitable creatures of themselues they also haue by Gods appointment charge ouer vs and doe assist vs wherevpon it followeth most clearely that they are most ready in vvord and deede to further all our good desires and honest demandes and consequently being by vs requested to pray for vs cannot refuse it To say that they haue no care of our prayers is both contrary to their charity and to their charge and the places in Scripture already cited to vvhich this may be added Christ to discourage men from offending children and little ones alleageth this inducement Math. 18. vers 10. That their Angels see the face of his father in heauen signifying that they vvould complaine of them to God and sue for seuere punishment against such offendours vvhich argueth that they doe very well knowe and carefully tender our good vvhich is also strengthned by an other place Luc. 15. vers 10. where our Sauiour declareth what great joy they make at the conuersion of a sinner Out of all vvhich textes is plainely to be collected that they knowe of our conuersion see the particular wrongs that be offered vs and the
thereunto requested Wherefore saieth M. PERKINS secondly there is a great difference betweene requesting one to pray for vs and by inuocation to request them that are absent for this is a worshippe that is giuen to them and a power to heare and helpe all that call vpon them Reply First that by inuocation we may pray vnto men S. Augustine teacheth directly grounding himselfe vpon the expresse text of Scripture Locut in Gen. 200. Gen. 48. vers 15. where Iacob commandeth that his name and the name of his fore-fathers be inuocated vpon of the children of Israel And vvhat is inuocation in English but the calling vpon one vvhich is as lawfull as the praying vnto him That we doe them an honour and worship thereby I grant and say that the Saints being better then the liuing are better worthy of that worship then the liuing Further that we assigne them a power to heare them that be absent more then the liuing can doe it is no maruaile for the perfection of their heauenly state requireth that prerogatiue as I haue more then once declared But because this point of their knowledge breedeth the greatest doubt of praying vnto the Saints let S. Augustine a most juditious Doctor and one that was not partiall in that matter deliuering his sentence grounded also vpon holy Scripture be hearkened vnto and followed he treating of the happynesse of Saints in heauen hath these vvordes Lib. 22. de ciuit 29. If the Prophet Helizeus being absent in body did see his seruant Giësy receiuing the gifts which Naaman the Syrian gaue him c. how much more in that spirituall body shall Saints see all thinges not only if they shut their eyes but also from whence they be in body absent this he confirmeth by that sentence of the Apostle 1. Cor. 13. ver 9.10 We knowe in part and in part doe we prophesie but when that shall come which is perfect then shall that be made voide which is in part c. Hence thus reasoneth S. Augustine If the knowledge of this life in such as the Prophets and Apostles were be no more in comparison of the Saints knowledge in heauen then is a little childe compared to a man and this which is in part to that which is perfect then surely if Helizeus and other Prophets did see thinges done farre distant from them yea thinges that were to be done many hundred yeares after their times they being without doubt indued with this admirable knowledge from God howe much abundantly shall all they in heauen enjoy this gift when their bodies shall not hinder them yea they shall not neede bodylie eyes to see thinges absent but with the hart or spirit they shall be present to them 4. Reg. 5. vers 26. as Helizeus was who said was not my hart present when the man returned from his chariot to meete thee Can any thing be more euident or more soundly proued then that the Saints in heauen haue great preheminence aboue all that liued vpon the earth to see and knowe thinges absent and farre distant from them which the same father proueth also by most euident experience in the fifteenth and sixteenth Chapters of his booke intituled de cura pro mortuis agenda And that you may perceiue that that is not the opinion of S. Augustine alone I will joyne the testimonies of three or foure other Fathers with him S. Cyril Patriarke of Hierusalem saith Euen as S. Peter did question Ananias Catach 16 Act. 5. willing him to tell whether he had sold his ground for so much so did the Prophet Helizeus though he were not ignorant of it aske his seruant Giësy whether he had not receiued money of Naaman the Syrian for saith he nothing done euen in the darke is hidden from the Saints S. Basil writeth thus Let a Virgin first of all feare her owne conscience L. de Virginitate and if shee be neuer so solitary yet hath shee her Angell guardian present whose sight shee must not contemne specially when as they haue Angels as it were patterns of virginity but before all Angels let her respect and reuerence her spouse Christ who is present euery where And why did I speake of an Angell for shee hath an innumerable company of Angels present and with them the holy spirits or soules of the Fathers for there is none of these who doth not see all thinges euery where not truly beholding them with corporall eyes but by a spirituall sight pearcing vnto the knowledge of all thinges The same doth S. Athanasius that famous ancient Doctor resolue in his 32. question Quaest 32. See S. Augustine also lib. 20. of the Citty of God the 22. Chapter Teaching that the Saints in heauen doe knowe in particular what is done among the damned in hell And S. Hierome doth proue against Vigilantius that The Saints who followe the Lambe whither soeuer he goeth be excluded from no place and scorneth that dreaming Heretike for imagining that vnlesse the soules of the Martirs did lye houering about their shrines they could not heare their prayers that went thither to pray affirming him therefore to be a monster worthy to be banished into the vttermost câ—asts of the earth Encherines a most holy and learned Arch-bishop of Lyons all most 1200. yeares since confirmeth the same grounding his discourse vpon the same texts of Scripture that S. Augustine did saying If the Prophet Helizeus absent in body did see his seruant Giësy taking gifts howe much more shall Saints in that spirituall body see all thinges not only if they shut their eyes but also from whence they are in body absent For then shall be that perfection of which the Apostle speaketh in part we knowe and in part doe we prophesie 1. Cor. 13. but when that shall come which is perfect it shall be voyded which is in part therefore when that shall come which is perfect and this corruptible body shall no longer cumber the soule but it shall haue a glorious body which shall nothing hinder it shall the Saints then neede the helpe of bodylie eyes to see such thinges which Helizeus absent needed not to behold his seruant The testimonies of so many vvorthy Fathers will I hope suffice to perswade any reasonable man that the Saints in heauen doe very well heare our prayers To these I will joyne that which M. PER. maketh our second objection because it doth fortifie the same Luc. 16. vers 24. Abraham not then in possession of heauenly knowledge after our doctrine but in heauen as the Protestants thinke did heare Diues from hell vvhich is further off from heauen then the face of the earth which we inhabite and therefore more easily might he haue heard any liuing body praying vnto him then he did that rich glutton out of hell M. PERKINS answereth That this is a parable and out of a parable nothing can be gathered but that which is agreable vnto the intent
thereof Reply Why doth he then twice in this very question gather out of it first that Abraham was in heauen then that faith is not to be confirmed by apparitions of dead men vvhich are not the principall intent and scope of it but we must giue our newe Masters leaue both to affirme a thing when it seemeth to make for them and after to denie the same flatly when it beareth against them Lib. 2. in IouinianuÌ„ de cura pro mort cap. 14. lib. 4. dialog c. 29. We then say with S. Ambrose vpon that place vvith S. Hierome with S. Augustine and with S. Gregory the foure principall Doctors of the Latin Church that the story of Diues and Lazarus is a true hystoricall narration and not a parable of that which neuer was as by the proper names of Abraham and Lazarus and other circumstances they gather And vvhereas M. PER. objecteth against it That then it may be collected out of it that wicked men in hell haue compassion and loue to their bretheren on earth and zeale to Gods glory because Diues seemeth so to haue had I answere that there is no appearance of any zeale of Gods glory in Diues only he desired that some might goe out of that place of torment to aduertise his bretheren of it that they came not to him thither which was not out of any loue neither that he bare to his bretheren but for feare of his owne further torments if they came thither after him because he had giuen them euill example and encouragement to doe euill and perhaps euill counsell vvhen he liued vvith them and therefore was by their condemnation to receiue increase of his owne paynes so that his intreaty for them proceeded only out of the loue of himselfe and from the feare of more grieuous torments Nowe it being certayne that Abraham in heauen according to the Protestants opinion could heare Diues in hel much more easily can the Saints in heauen heare our prayers or any mans that dwelleth on earth Nowe after our doctrine who hold Abraham then to haue beene in Lymbo thus the argument must be framed If Abraham not yet indued with that perfect knowledge which the Saints in heauen haue could neuerthelesse heare Diues in hell betweene whome and himselfe there was magnum Chaos Ibid. 26. as the text hath a huge deepe darkenesse and great distance with much facility can the Saints who excell him being then in Lymbo in knowledge see and heare men liuing on the earth Our fift argument the Saints in heauen doe present vnto God the prayers of holy men liuing vpon the earth therefore they knowe the same prayers well in particular and embrace and recommend them to the diuine Majestie The consequent is manifest because no man can offer vp by word of mouth a petition if he knowe not what it is neither will any vvise-man such as the Saints be speake for he knoweth not whome nor what wherefore if the Saints doe present our prayers to God they doe knowe them in particular The antecedent is set downe in expresse tearmes in the word of God The 24. Seniours who sate about the throne of God fell before the Lambe hauing euery one harpes and golden vials ful of odours Apoc. 5. vers 8. which are the prayers of Saints M. PER. saith that these were their owne prayers and not other mens but vvithout alleadging either authority or reason We proue by the text it selfe that it must be vnderstoode of other mens prayers and not their owne because otherwise in due construction it should haue beene said Which are their owne praiers but the text saying That the odour of their vials were the prayers of Saints it distinguisheth plainely those Saints from themselues vvhich also the learned interpreters on that place Primasius and the Greeke schoole with Oecumenius doth confirme and testifie The former arguments were to proue that the Saints doe heare our prayers now the sixt reason shall be to meete with that out-cry of our aduersaries that forsooth vve robbe God of his honour and giue it to Saints when we pray vnto them thus God is more honoured by our worshipping and praying vnto Saints departed then if we did no worship vnto them nor prayed not vnto them at all but went immediately to God without their helpe therefore if it were for nothing else but for the greater honor of God we ought to worship Saints and to pray vnto them I proue the former proposition thus First we worship the Saints only for the supernaturall gifts vvhich God hath bestowed vpon them which must needes redound vnto the honour of the giuer as when I honour any of the kings officers it being principally because he is the kings officer the King himselfe is together and more principally honored and Christ saith expresly that hee that despiseth one of his seruants Luc. 10. vers 16. despiseth Christ himselfe Whence it followeth that he who respecteth and honoureth one of his seruants especially because he is his seruant doth together and in deed more principally honour Christ he and his graces being the very cause why vve respect and vvorshippe the other Further vvhen many and those of the vvorthyest sort doe become humble suitors vnto God for any one of vs much more honour is done vnto God through the dignity of their persons then if one meane silly sinner did sue to him alone For it is more honourable and magnificall to doe a pleasure at the instance and request of many vvorthy personages then where one poore worme alone doth sue for it yea and much more excellent thankes is rendred vnto God by the number and dignity of the suitors when their petition is graunted them This argument which is euident reason is grounded also vpon S. Pauls authority who requesteth the Christians of Corinth to helpe him in their prayers 2. Cor. 1. vers 11. That saith he by many mens persons thankes for the gift which is in vs may be giuen by many in our behalfe Seeing then that by our praying vnto the Saints they are drawne in to become suitors vvith vs and for vs and consequently obtayning their suite they stand aswell bound to render thankes to God therefore as we doe It followeth thereupon most euidently that God is by our praying to his Saints both more honored when such worthy persons sue vnto him for vs and also better thanked for that we doe obtaine by their intercession Now let vs close vp this question with the testimony of some of the moâ—â— ancient famous and best learned Doctors of both the Greeke and Latin Church Origen who liued not much aboue 200. yeares after Christ prayeth vnto that blessed paterne of patience Iob Lib. 2. in Iob. thus O happy Iob nowe liuing for euer with God and remayning a conquerour in the sight of our Lord and King pray for vs wreatches that the wonderfull mercy of God may also defend vs in all tribulations and deliuer
the chiefest Bishops and Doctors aswell for their Godlynesse of life as for their knowledge in holy Scriptures who were also chosen by the holy Ghost to gouerne instruct and teach the principal Churches in both Europe Africke and Asia and that in or about the most flourishing state thereof for all of them sauing S. Gregory the great and venerable Bede liued within 400. and some within 200. yeares of Christ Whither I say these most sound testimonies of so many sacred and worthy personages be not sufficient to perswade any reasonableman that praying to the Saints in heauen is both agreable to Gods vvord which no man in these dayes vnderstandeth halfe so well as the worst of any of them did and also very profitable for vs. Yet for the further assurance of this important matter I wil adde one miracle which I touched before wrought in confirmation of it so that he that will not beleeue this shall be conuinced not to beleeue God himselfe witnessing of it In the coasts of Thelousae in France Ex lib. 3. vitae S. Bernardi cap. 5. about 400. yeares past one Henry an Apostata and wicked fellowe beganne to cry out against praying for the dead and praying to Saints and pilgrimages and some other points of the Catholike doctrine the fame of S. Bernards holynesse and learning being then very great he was sent for by the Popes Legate to come thither to stay the people from following that lewde companion who on a day after he had preached at a towne called Sarlate blessed some loaues of bread and said This shall be a certayne proofe that our doctrine is true and theirs false if those that be sicke by tasting of this holy bread be cured of their diseases There stood by among others the Bishop of Charters who fearing what might followe added if they taste of it with faith Nay said the holy Father Barnard nothing doubting of Gods power I say not so but he that shall taste of it shall be truly cured that they may knowe vs to be true men and the true messengers of God then a great multitude tasting of it were according to his word perfectly healed of what disease soeuer they had What can be more euident or better assured then that praying to Saints is the truth of God seing that it pleased God to confirme it in such sort by the miraculous curing of so many people M. PERKINS for an vpshot saith that he finally dissenteth from the Catholikes because they are not content to pray to Saints but say further that God through their merits in heauen doth bestowe many benefits vpon vs on earth I would he agreed with vs in the two former points we should quickly be at accord in this for the good-man is fouly mistaken if he thinke that vve affirme the Saints after they be come to heauen to merit a newe there for we hold that none after their death can merit any more but doe then receiue according vnto their former merits either saluation or damnation but we neuerthelesse say that God in respect of their former merits gotten in this life doth for their sakes bestowe many benefits vpon vs and this doth M. PER. himselfe confirme in plaine wordes In this question when he graunteth pressed thereto by the euidence of Gods word that men vpon earth haue helpe and benefit by the faith and piety which the Saints departed shewed when they were in this life for saith he further God shewed mercy on them that keepe his commandements to a thousand generations True it is that this their faith and piety he would not haue to be called merits but vve with that most honourable Father S. Ambrose doe say Apud Deum Lib. 5. super LucaÌ„ seruus interueniendi meritum jus habet impetrandi with God a seruant of his hath both the merit to be an intercessour and the right to obtayne his suite see more of merits in that question Here M. PER. addeth against himselfe That the Saints in heauen haue receiued the full reward of all their merits and therefore there is nothing further that they can merit Here we haue first that the Saints had merits which he was wont to deny flatly againe how doth God hauing fully rewarded their former faith and piety at their entrance into heauen afterward for their sakes shew mercy to thousands which he confesseth himselfe wherefore he is aswell bound to answere this as we are it bearing as strongly against his owne doctrine as it doth against ours To saue him a labour I answere in a word that it is one part of the reward of a faithful seruant to be alwayes after not deseruing the contrary in his Masters fauour and so gratious with him that he may intreate any reasonable matâ—â—r at his handes so are the Saints vvith God vvho can neuer be wearyed with their suites so long as they all doe but tend vnto his owne honour and the saluation of his poore creatures and as we both agreed vpon before Their faith piety and charity whiles they liued did and doth still moue and cause God to shewe mercy vnto thousands vpon earth for their sakes though their merits were before most abundantly rewarded let this suffice for this question OF IMPLICITE OR INFOLDED FAITH M. PERKINS Page 266. THis question is handled for two causes as he saith pag. 274. first to rectifie the conscience of the weaker sort of his disciples secondly to rectifie their Catechismes which doe as he censureth require too full an assurance of saluation in all men It being then for the instruction of his ovvne deceiued flocke and not much appertayning to vs I will post it ouer lightly He teacheth a twofold implicity of faith first that faithfull men may be ignorant at the beginning of many articles of faith and learne them afterwardes It was so in deede in Christes time because he taught them not all a once but since the establishment of the Gospell it is necessary that euery one beleeue all the articles of the Apostles Creede the true doctrine of the Sacraments and such other necessary heades of the Christian religion other points of faith may be learned in time according vnto the capacity of the persons The second fold of his faith is that many of his deceiued disciples haue not at their conuersion and in time of temptation a full assurance of their saluation which notwithstanding will serue the turne then if they desire to haue a full assurance and labour afterward to attayne vnto it which he speaketh to the comfort of their consciences that cannot perswade themselues so assuredly that their sinnes are pardoned them This presumptious doctrine of full assurance of saluation I haue in a seueral question before confuted therefore I say only here that no Christian is bound to haue any such absolute assurance of his owne saluation but that he must according to the Apostles rule worke his saluation with trembling and feare Ad Philip. 2.
the holy Ghost in penning this passage hath as fully preuented this euasion as it was possible by such a particular description of Peters owne person as a curious lawyer could not in so few wordes haue done it more precisely For Christ specifieth both his former name of â—inâ—â—â— and his Fathers name Ionas and then his owne newe name Peter and so particularized singled out from the rest directeth his speech to him I say to thee thâ—â— art Peter c. How could he better haue expressed himselfe to haue spoken to Peter particularly Againe he said before that Peter had not learned that his confession of flesh and bloud but by the reuelation of his heauenly Father vvhereby he signifieth that Peter had not receiued his answere from his fellow Apostles or spoke it as deliuered by conference from them but out of his owne hart inspired by the holy Ghost vvherefore to him alone were his vvordes following directed And thus much concerning the promise which our Sauiour made vnto S. Peter of the Supremacy nowe to the wordes of performance which are written in S. Iohn Iob. c. 21. vers 15. IESVS faith to Peter Simon the sonne of Iohn dost thou loue me more then these he saith to him yea Lord thou knowest that I loue thee he saith to him feede my lambes He saith to him againe Simon of Iohn loâ—est thou me yea Lord thou knowest that I loâ—e thee he saith to him feede my lambes He saith to him the third time Simon of Iohn louest thou me Peter was strooken fadde because he said to him the third time louest thou me And he said vnto him Lord thou knowest all thinges thou knowest that I loue thee he saith vnto him feede my sheepe Amen amen I say to thee when thou wast younger thou diddest gird thy selfe c. These vvordes haue I set downe at length that euery one may first see and be well assured that they vvere spoken to S. Peter only because Christ doth first seuer part him from the rest saying Dost thou loue me more then these to wit then the other Apostles vvho were then present Againe Peter vvas sad and began to misdoubt himselfe vvhich argueth that he tooke it spoken to himselfe and sheweth playnely that he spoke in his owne name only and thirdly the wordes following Amen I say vnto thee are without all question spoken particularly to Peter Nowe that Christ in giuing him chardge to fâ—ede his lambes and sheepe did giue him the supreme gouernement ouer his Church I proue first by the word pasce feede or be thou Pastor of my flocke for it doth signifie not bare feeding but to feede as a sheepe-heard doth his sheepe which is not only to prouide them meate but to keepe them also from the woulfe to cure their diseases to leade or driue them whither he will briefly to rule and gouerne them And this word pasce and much more the Greeke Poimaine is frequent in holy Scripture in this sence of gouerning see psal 2. vers 9. Thou shalt rule them in an yron rodde Michaeae 5. vers 2. Math. 2. vers 6. Apocal. 19. vers 15. vvhere the Greeke word Poimaino is put for to rule and gouerne And in the 77. psalme v. 71. Dauid was chosen to feede his seruant Iacob and Israell his in heritance that was to rule ouer them but like a good sheepe-heard mildly vigilantly and rather for the good of the sheepe then for his owne pleasure or profit Nowe that the chiefe feeding and supreme gouernement of all Christs flocke was committed vnto him it appeareth first by those wordes of our Sauiour to him Doest thou loue me more then these why should he require greater charity in S. Peter then in the rest of the Apostles but for that he meant to aduance him to a chardge aboue the rest secondly in that he committed to Peter the feeding of both sheepe and lambes that is of both the Temporalty signified by the lambes and of the Clergy vvho be sheepe let vs heare S. Leo. Againe Serm. 3. dâ— anniuers Assumpt suae In that he committeth to him absolutely without exception of any his sheepe feede my sheepe he maketh him Pastor of his whole flocke as S. Bernard whome M. PER. often alledgeth against vs in this question doth very learnedly inferre Lib. 2. de consid cap. 8. Thou saith he wilt aske me howe I proue that both sheepe and Pastor are committed and credited to thee euen by our Lordes word For to whome of all I will not say Bishops but Apostles were the sheep so absolutely and without limitation committed if thou loue me Peter feede my sheepe he saith not the people of this Kingdome or of that City but my sheepe whosoeuer therefore will acknowledge himselfe to be one of Christes sheepe must submit himselfe to be gouerned by S. Peter or by some of his successours You see then by the very wordes and circumstances of the text that the supremacy is giuen to S. Peter let vs heare whither the most learned and holy auncient Fathers haue not so vnderstood them S. Cyprian saith To Peter our Lord after his resurrection said De vnitat Eccles feede my sheepe and builded his Church vpon him alone Epiphanius in Ancorato This is he who heard spoken to him feede my sheepe to whome the fold is credited alluding to that place Iob. 10. vers 16. Lib. 2. de Sacerdâ—r there shall be one Pastor and one fold S. Chrysostome Why did our Lord shedde his bloud truly to redeeme those sheepe the chardge of which be committed to Peter and to his successours And a little after Christ would haue Peter indued with such authority and to be farre aboue all his other Apostles for he saith Peter doest thou loue me more then these In cap. 2. vers 21. see him also in his learned Commentaries vpon that text of S. Iohn S. Augustine also vpon the same place saith That he committed his sheepe to Peter to be fedde that is saith he to be taught and gouerned And because he produceth S. Gregory against vs he must giue vs leaue to cite him for vs. Lib. 4. epist 76. He saith It is euident to all that knowe the Gospell that by our Lordes mouth the chardge of the whole Church is committed vnto Peter Prince of the Apostles for vnto him it is said Peter doest thou loue me feede my sheepe to him is it also said Luc. 22. vers 31. Behold Satan hath required to sift you as wheate but I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not and thou once conuerted confirme thy brethren c. By these two places of holy Scripture to omit for breuities sake twenty others it is cleare enough to them who desire to see the truth that S. Peter by our Sauiours owne choise and appointment vvas not only preferred before all the rest of the Apostles in some particular gifts but vvas made also gouernour of his Church Nowe
to be seene in their decretall Epistles haue euer chalenged this right of Supremacy ouer the whole Church as the successours of S. Peter and that the very Patriarkes and principall Prelates euen of the East Church who were likelyest to haue resisted if they had seene any cause vvhy haue from the very beginning of the free practise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction acknowledged and confessed the same and that finally the greatest vvisest and best Emperours of both the Latin and Greeke Church haue as you haue heard before declared the same right to appertayne vnto the said Roman Sea the matter cannot be but cleare enough to all that list not to remayne vvranglers vvhere the right of the Supremacy resteth OF THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENTS OVR CONSENT M. PERKINS Page 295. THe first conclusion We teach and beleeue that the Sacraments are signes to represent Christ with his benefits to vs. The second conclusion We teach further that the Sacraments are indeede instruments whereby God offereth and giueth the fore-said benefits to vs. THE DIFFERENCE THe Catholikes teach that the Sacraments are true and proper instrumentall causes which being moued by God thereunto doe produce and giue grace to the worthy receiuer Euen as the penne doth make the letter or as the axe doth cut the wood being thereto applyed by the workeman so for example doth the Sacrament of baptisme wash away the sinnes of the baptised being by God therevnto ordayned and rightly vsed by the Minister But M. PERKINS holdeth that the Sacraments haue no operation to that effect of forgiuenesse of sinnes but are only outward meanes which being applyed vnto the party God of himselfe doth immediately purge him from sinne and not by meanes of the Sacraments Againe Whereas we require a fit disposition in the receiuer to make him capable of the grace presented and exhibited vnto him by the Sacrament He holdeth that all the vertue of the Sacrament consisteth in the receiuer Who beholding those signes from God in the handes of the Minister must conceite and imagine First that God himselfe by his owne mouth doth promise him seuerally and by name remission of his sinnes the signe and pledge whereof is that Sacrament which the minde considering reasoneth thus he that vseth the elements aright in faith and repentance shall receiue grace thereby but I vse the elements aright therefore shall I receiue from God increase of grace Thus then faith is confirmed not by the worke done but by a kinde of reasoning the proofe whereof is borrowed from the elements being signes and pledges of Gods mercy Contrarylie vve hold that the Sacrament it selfe conferreth and doth giue great grace so that there be no impediment or let of it by reason of the receiuers euill disposition Now if the receiuer come throughly vvell prepared with great humility charity and attention he then ouer and besides the ordinary grace of the Sacrament shall receiue more grace according vnto the measure of his owne preparation Lastly whereas we teach the very grace of justification to be giuen in some Sacraments as in Baptisme and Penance M. PER. saith no because A man of yeares must first beleeue and be justified before he can be a meete pertaker of any Sacrament But vvhat vvill he then say vnto Infants must not they receiue the grace of justification by Baptisme before they haue wit to beleeue and to reason in such sort as he prescribeth Before I come vnto the arguments of either party I thought fit to giue the reader to vnderstand that whether the Sacraments be true physicall instruments of grace or no Lib. 2. de Sacram. in gener cap. 11. is not a matter of faith as Cardinall Bellarmine declareth so we hold them to be true morall causes of the same grace to which M. PER. yeelded his consent wherefore I will not be long in this question Secondly to perceiue well the state of the question you must obserue what difference there is betweene a physical and moral instrument That then may be called a morall instrument vvhich moueth the principall agent to doe any thing albeit he vse not that thing it selfe as a meanes to doe it vvithall so that if God be effectually moued to bestowe grace vpon him that receiueth a Sacrament by the sight of the Sacrament though he giue not the grace by the vvorke of the Sacrament but immediatly from him felfe the Sacrament is the morall meanes of the same grace but it cannot be called the physicall or naturall instrument of that grace vnlesse God doe vse and apply the Sacrament it selfe as the meane and instrument to conuey the same grace into the soule of the receiuer Nowe vve hold it more agreable with the word of God and sentences of the holy Fathers and more for the dignity of the Sacraments themselues to say that God by them as by true naturall instruments doth conuay his graces into our soule M. PERKINS goeth about to proue the contrary thus The word preached and the Sacraments doe differ in the manner of giuing Christ vnto vs because the word worketh by the eare and the Sacraments by the eye otherwise for the giuing it selfe they differ not Christ saying that in the very word is eaten his owne flesh and what can be said more of the Lordes supper Augustine saith that beleeuers are pertakers of the body and bloud in baptisme Serm. ad Infant so saith Hierome to Eâ—â—bia Nowe vpon this it followeth that seing the worke done in the word preached conferreth not grace neyther doth the worke done in the Sacrament conferre grace I answere that his owne first word must stand wherein he said that the word preached and the Sacraments doe differ in the manner of giuing vs Christes grace for preaching doth by perswasion drawe vs vnto grace and goodnesse but the Sacraments as conduite-pipes doe take and deriue grace from Christes passion and conuay it into the soules of all them who doe not stoppe vp those diuine conduits by their owne default and want of due preparation To his idle and ill shapen commation I answere that Christes body may be eaten two vvayes either really as in the blessed Sacrament or else spiritually by beleeuing in Christ and being incorporate into his mysticall body and in this second sort Infants in baptisme and all true beleeuers doe eate the body of Christ But howe this proueth that the vvord and the Sacraments doe giue grace after the same manner is there any man that can tell His second reason I baptise you with water to repentance Math. 3. vers 11. but he that commeth after me shall baptise you with the holy Ghost and with fire Hence saith M PER. it is manifest that grace proceedeth not from any act of the Sacrament for Iohn though he doe not disjoyne himselfe and his action from Christ and the action of the spirit yet doth he distinguish them plainely in number persons and effect Answere He that can let him pike some English out
of this and shewe howe it maketh for M. PERKINS But to the purpose I answere that S. Iohn there doth put a playne difference betweene his owne baptisme and the baptisme of Christ saying of his owne That it was the baptisme of water nor giuing the holy Ghost as the baptisme of Christ should doe which also most of the Fathers both Greeke and Latin doe playnelie testifie and the wordes of the text doe euidently confirme the same Whence I reason thus S. Iohns baptisme was such an instrument and meanes of grace Mat. 1. as M. PER. describeth for there was a promise of remission of sinnes to him that receiued it with faith and repentance yet vvas it nothing comparable vnto Christes baptisme vvhich is nowe only vsed therefore Christes baptisme doth ouer and besides the representation of grace vvhich was in S. Iohns baptisme effectually conuay the same grace of the holy Ghost into our soules by the very applying of it to vs so that this worthy argument of his proceedeth wholy against himselfe He goeth forward and saith That Paul who trauayled of the Galatians and begat them by the Gospell 1. Cor. 3. vers 7. saith of himselfe that he is not any thing not only as he was a man but as be was a faithfull Apostle thereby excluding the whole euangelicall Ministery from the least part of diuine operation or efficacy in conferring grace Answere This is nothing to the purpose for S. Paul speaketh there of preaching the Gospell and we treate here of ministring the Sacraments Preaching as hath beene said doth not conferre grace of it selfe but by perswasion no more doth the preacher and so may be said to be nothing in that worke of producing grace and faith in the hearer but the Sacraments conferring grace he that administreth the Sacrament doth really concurre as an instrument of producing the same grace Moreouer such an instrument may be saâ—â— to be nothing because they themselues with al their endowments can doe nothing in that matter vnlesse they be therevnto applyed and moued by the principall agent vvhich is God as a penne or other instrument be it neuer so good can doe nothing of it selfe and therefore may be said to be nothing M. PERKINS third reason The Angels nay the flesh of the sonne of God hath not any quickning vertue from it selfe but all his vertue is from the God-head nowe if there be no effiâ—â—cy in the flesh of Christ but from the God-head howe shall bodily actions about bodily elements conferre grace immediately Answere This is too too simple for a base bodily thing may conuay grace immediately as an instrument of God when as the highest creature hath not power of it selfe to produce and conferre the same grace as principall agent as a meane subject by speciall commission and authority from the Prince may haue power of life and death which the greatest Peere in the realme hath not of his owne authority without some priuiledge from the Prince Rom. 4. His fourth reason Paul standeth much vpon this to proue that justification by faith is not conferred by the Sacraments and gathereth it because Abraham was first justified and afterward receiued circumcision the signe and seale of his righteousnesse Nowe the generall condition of all Sacraments is one and the same and that baptisme succeedeth circumcision Answere He mistaketh greatly S. Pauls discourse which is nothing lesse then that he saith but to proue that neither by the obseruation of Moyses lawe nor yet by the morall carriage of the Gentils men vvere to he saued but by faith in Christ and obedience vnto his Gospell Yea he is so farre off from denying justification to be conferred by the Sacraments that in the same epistle he teacheth vs to be justified by baptisme saying We are buryed together with Christ by baptisme into death Cap. 6. vers 4. that as he is risen againe from the dead c. so we may walke in newnesse of life Againe if Baptisme be but a signe and seale of righteousnesse how commeth the infant that cannot for lacke of discretion beleeue to that righteousnes whereof Baptisme is the seale Abraham in deede was justified before he vvas circumcised because he vvas aboue 70. yeares old before he heard of any circumcision but thence it followeth not that the infants circumcised at eight dayes old vvere justified before they vvere circumcised And so it may be that Cornelius the Italian Captayne was justified before he heard a word of the Sacrament of baptisme but that is nothing to proue or disproue the ordinary vvorking of the Sacraments for before the lawefull publication of any lawe no man is bound to obserue that lawe so that Abraham before he had heard of circumcision and Cornelius knowing nothing of Baptisme were not bound to them but had other meanes of justification according to Gods vvill and afterward receiued those Sacraments in obedience to God both in testimony of their former righteousnesse and to increase the same grace Hence it doth not followe but that the ordinary vvorking of both circumcision and baptisme in infants vvas and is to purge them from originall sinne and to powre the grace of justification into their soules But let vs admit al to be true which he saith yet this argument helpeth not the maine point which he is to proue to vvit that the Sacraments doe not produce grace into our soules for albeit they produced not the first justifying grace as the Sacrament of the Alrar and some others doe not yet they may truely produce and worke in vs an encrease of Gods grace and so be true physicall instrumentall causes of grace according as the Catholikes hold Consequently you may judge vvhat a pithy reason his fourth is vvhich may be answered foure manner of wayes His fift is the judgement of the Church Basil De spiritu sancto 15. If there be any grace in the water it is not from the nature of the water but from the presence of the spirit Could any man haue produced a vvitnesse to speake more formally against himselfe M PER. holdeth that there commeth no vertue from the water to sanctifie the soule S. Basil the fore-man of his quest auerreth that grace commeth from the water and is in the water marry that grace the water hath not of his owne nature but from the spirit of God there present In 14. Esaiae His second authour Hierome saith Man giueth water and God giueth the holy Ghost This is true but vvhether God giueth that grace by the ministery of the man and meanes of the Sacrament S. Hierome in that place saith neyther yea nor no and therefore his testimony helpeth not M. PER. cause But in his 83. Ad Oceanum Tract 80. in Iohan. Epistle he doth at large declare what efficacy baptisme and the water sanctified in Christ hath Augustine said Water toucheth the body and washeth the hart Answere His wordes are What great force and vertue is this of water
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
a Sacrament that euen in Christes owne dayes and by himselfe it was instituted a Sacrament M. PERKINS objecteth for vs It will be said that remissions of sinnes and life euerlasting are promised to repentance and answereth That it is not to the worke of repentance but to the person which repenteth and that not for his works of repentance but for the merits of Christ applyed vnto him by faith Reply When there is no mention made of faith but only of repentance to attribute all to faith and nothing to repentance is a very extrauagant glosse specially he doing it of his owne authority without warrant eyther of reason or of any authour and thus much of the abuses forsooth of repentance in generall Nowe to the particular about Contrition Confession and Satisfaction The first abuse concerning contrition is that the Catholikes teach that it must be sufficient and perfect they vse to helpe the matter by a distinction c. O remarkeable abuse that Catholikes vvould haue contrition to be sufficient and perfect If vve vvould haue had it imperfect and not fit to serue the turne then loe we had hitte the nayle on the head what dotage is this vve say briefly concerning sorrowe for our sinnes past first that it ought to be the greatest that we can haue for nothing is vvorthy to be so vehemently lamented as that vve haue deadly offended our creatour and redeemer and are fallen from his grace into the slauery of our most deadly enemy the Deuill so that for this as for the greatest euill that could be fall vs we are to be most sorrowfull And this highest degree of sorrowe is requisite in contritio◠vvhen thereby alone vve doe recouer the grace of God but vvhen Contrition is joyned vvith Confession and is made a part of the Sacrament then loe though it vvere not so great before as is otherwise requisite it receiueth by vertue of participating with Christes grace in that Sacrament the full measure of sorrowe and so is made vp sufficient and perfect vvhich M. PER calleth the first abuse of Contrition but goeth not about to disproue it The second as he saith is that we ascribe to Contrition the merit of congruity Before he sticked not to say that vve made repentance the meritorious cause of remission of sinnes vvhich vvas a loude lie because vve teach that no man can merit remission of his sinnes for no man can merit ought at Gods handes vnlesse he first be in his grace and fauour vvhich no sinner is vvherefore we hold only that repentance as faith hope and a purpose of amendment be only good dispositions making the man fit and apt to receiue the grace of justification vvhich God freely of his infinite mercy without any desert of ours bestoweth vpon vs only for Christes sake That apt disposition some men call merit of congruity vvherein is no desert of the grace giuen but only a man is made thereby more meete and better prepared to receiue such grace Nowe mans merits doe so vvell agree and stand vvith Christes merits that Christes order is that none comming to the age of discretion shall be partaker of his merits vnlesse he by his owne merits doe make himselfe capable of them as hath beene sufficiently proued before in the question of Merits The third abuse That they make imperfect contrition or attrition arising of the feare of hell to be good and profitable and to it they apply the saying of the Prophet The feare of God is the beginning of wisdome But saith he seruile feare of it selfe is the way to eternall destruction c. Reply He vnderstandeth not what we say we teach that feare of being punished in hell fire maketh euill men abstaine from sinning and beginneth to put them in minde of Gods justice towardes impenitent sinners vvherewith many being strooken vvith the horrour of that euerlasting torment are moued to flie vnto God for mercy and so that seruile feare becommeth profitable vnto them first in that it causeth them to abstaine from that vvickednesse vvhich they vvould otherwise haue committed and then being helped with Gods grace they beginne to turne vnto his mercy and so feare of Gods punishments becōmeth vnto them the beginning of wisdome Thus much in effect doth M. PER. himselfe allowe of and yet vvould seeme to confute it his judgement is so slender Nowe to the abuses concerning Confession The first abuse That we confesse our sinnes to God in an vnknowne language What is there any language vnknowne to God or doth he meane that the vnlearned make their confession in Latin which is impossible for a man that vnderstandeth not one Latin vvord He vvould say I gheste that some of them begin their generall confession in Latin but we speake here of euery mans confession in particular that general of the Churches ordinance is commanded only to be vsed of them that are skilfull in the Latin tongue all others may vse the English Withall saith he we require the ayde and intercession of dead men We beleeue the Saints to be liuing which if he doth not he blasphemeth Touching the intercession of Saints I haue treated before Nowe as we request the helpe of their prayers so doe we acknoweledge vnto them howe grieuously vve haue offended that they seing our humility and sorrowe for our sinnes may the more earnestly entreate for the remission of them But let vs come vnto the principall point in controuersie about this matter viz. That we haue corrupted Canonicall confession by turning it into a priuate auricular confession binding all men to confesse all their mortall sinnes with the circumstances that change the kinde of the sinne as farre as they can remember once euery yeare at the least and that to a Priest vnlesse it be in the case of extreame necessity but in the word of God there is no warrant for this confession nor in the writinges of orthodoxe antiquity for the space of many hundreth yeares after Christ as one of their owne side auoucheth and he quoteth in the margent a man of small credit among vs Beatus Rhenanus for his authour Well let vs see a little vvhat warrant we haue in holy Scriptures and in the auncient Doctors for confession of our faultes vnto a Priest First it is euidently collected out of these wordes of our Sauiour Receiue the holy Ghost Ioh. 20. vers 23. whose sinnes yee doe forgiue in earth they shall be forgiuen in heauen and whose sinnes yee doe retayne they shall be retayned For giuing his Apostles power to remit and forgiue men their sinnes his meaning vvas not that they should pardon them whether they would or would not or that they should absolue any other then such as vvere contrite and did humbly craue absolution neyther should they absolue them from they knewe not of what but that they should knowe vvhat howe many and howe grieuous their offences were that they might be put to worthy penance and receiue particular comfort and counsell
answere Thirdly saith he their Idolatry passeth the Idolatry of the Heathens in that they worship a breaden God or Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine O impious Atheist and altogither vnworthy the name of a Christian Is not Christ to be worshipped wheresoeuer he be and that as wel vnder the formes of bread as vnder the shape of a man it is not the outward shape or shewe that maketh Christ worthy of diuine worship but the substance of his God-head there present though hidden But he is not there at all saith he vvhich to be most false I haue proued in that question The third sinne is the maintaynance of adultery first in the tollerating of the stewes Answere It is one thing to tollerate an euil another thing to maintaine it God doth tollerate many euils but maintayneth none so the stewes in some hotte Countryes are tollerated to auoide a greater mischiefe yet not maintayned but disgraced and punished and diuers meanes vsed to perswade them that liue so viciously to leaue and detest that vvicked kinde of life As our state doth tollerate vsury if it be vnder tenne in the hundreth and yet we charge them not with maintaynance of vsury but rather thinke it a politike deuise by tollerating the lesse euill to auoyde a greater Againe this is a point of ciuill pollicy and no part of the Catholike religion which is in many Kingdomes wholy embraced where there be no stewes tollerated In some hotte Countryes the ciuill Magistrate by experience findeth it better to suffer some hot and incontinent lecherous companions to haue such a remedy rather then to permit them to solicit their Wiues and Daughters to vvickednesse I would to God that the wise saying of a most worthy Doctor were not fulfilled in our Country Take away the stewes and fill all the City with adultery Is not the City of London vvell reformed trowe you by taking the stewes out of it if the man had any fore-head knowing howe their sweet Gospell hath infected both Court and Country vvith filthy and abhominable lechery he would haue beene ashamed to reprehend them who labour to breake the worser course of it seing they cannot extinguish it altogether He saith secondly That our lawe alloweth marriage beyond the fourth degree and by this meanes incest for Anne the Aunt of Nicholas may be marryed vnto the child of Nicholas childes child because shee is beyond the fourth degree Behold the wisdome of this man first vvhat yeares shall Anne be off before that child of the fourth generation after Nicholas her Nephewe be marryageable by that he be twenty yeares old shee must be six-score or there about and so a very fit match for that youth Againe it is but a supposed imagination of a rawe head that the Aunt is in steede of a Mother vnto all that descend of her Brother These good fellowes that finde fault with vs for allowing mariage beyond the fourth degree doe themselues maintayne it in the very second for brother and sisters children may and doe often marry together among them which was prohibited in S. Augustines dayes as a deformity Lib. 15. de ciuit 16. euen against the naturall shamefastnesse ingrafted in so neare of kinne And Gregory the great being demaunded at the first conuersion of the English to the faith his opinion in this matter answereth thus Cap. 6. inter Aug. ad Greg. That although a certaine earthly lawe permitted brothers children to match together yet saith he we haue by experience obserued that issue proceedeth not of such mariage and the holy Scripture teacheth vs that we may not reueale the turpitude of our kindred Whence he concludeth that euen those newely conuerted Christians to whome he graunted as great fauour as he might should vvholy abstayne from mariage in the second degree so that brethrens children marying according to their new doctrine contrary to the auncient Canons of the Church doe liue in perpetual incest and their children be no better then bastardes it is they then that allowe incest and not we In another case the Protestants by their doctrine and practise doe confirme and ratifie adultery for the innocent party for example the Husband taking his Wife in adulterie doth not only put her away by diuorse but may also marry another his former wife yet liuing vvhich to be playne adultery no meaner a learned man then S. Augustine twelue hundred yeares past hath most soundly proued and that out of the expresse word of God and therefore did he intitle that his treatise De adulterinis conjugijs of adulterous mariages The fourth sinne of Papists is magicke sorcery and witchcraft in the consecration of their Host and in making holy bread and holy water and such like and by driuing out of the Deuill by the signe of the crosse by exorcismes and ringing of bels c. For these thinges haue no force eyther by their creation or by any warrant out of the word Answere If it be sorcery and vvitch-craft to consecrate the body of Christ which is done by due pronunciation of Christs wordes then was Christ the author of that sorcery and he himselfe that first consecrated it a sorcerer which only to insinuate is most damnable See what wicked enemies of Christ we haue vnder the habite of Ministers and what a logger-headed lie is it to say that we haue no warrant in Gods word for the blessing of bread water oyle and such like when S. Paul saith That all things are sanctified and made holy by the word of God and prayer 1. Tim. 4. vers 5. Hebr. 9. vers 13. And if in the old testament The sprinckling of the ashes of a calfe did sanctifie them on whom it was cast Why may not water with vs doe as much being hallowed by prayer and making the signe of the crosse ouer it by which vve request God to blesse it through the vertue of Christs passion expressed by the signe of the crosse and hauing receiued such blessing we vse it then more confidently to such purposes as they are blessed for not doubting but that God will respect the praiers of his holy Church and the good meaning of him that vseth them And as for bels they being dedicated to the seruice of God for the assembling of his people togither to worship him and hauing many deuout prayers said ouer them to that purpose vve doubt not but that the very sound of them is terrible to the enemies of God Iosue 6. vers 5. as being the trumpets of his army And as the walles of Hiericho fel flat to the earth at the sound of the Israelites trumpets and voices so the furious vvorking of the comon enemy shall be abated vvhen he heareth by the ringing of the bels Gods people called together to joyne in prayer against him The fift sinne is perjury which they maintayne because they teach that a Papist examined may answere doubtfully against the intention of the examiner framing another meaning to
himselfe As for example when a man is asked whether he said or heard Masse in such a place though he did he may say that he did not and sweare to it meaning he was not there to reueale it to him whereas in the law of nature he that taketh an oath should sweare according vnto the intention of him that hath power to minister an oath and that in truth justice and judgement Let them cleare their doctrine from all defence of perjury if they can Answere If he had cited but one author you should haue heard a ful satisfaction of this matter The truth is that swearing a truth in his meaning that sweareth it although it be against the intention of him that ministreth the oath may be lawfully vsed in two cases The first if he that ministreth the oath haue not sufficient authority to minister it The second when hauing authority he asketh something beyond the order of lawe and against justice then he that sweareth is excused by the rule touched by M. PERK himselfe because a man must sweare as in truth so in justice that is to doe or say nothing againg justice And so when one enquireth after saying or hearing Masse as of a haynous crime to punish good Christians for it the man is bound not to reueale it as being against true justice to make his neighbour punished for so holy a fact The sixt sinne is that they reuerse many of Gods Commandements making that noâ— sinne which Gods word maketh a sinne for example If one steale some little thing that causeth no notable hurt that is no mortall sinne Molanus and a merry or officious lie is but a veniall sinne c. If Catholikes make stealing of thinges of smale value and officious lies veniall sinnes then M. PER. committeth herein a mortall sinne in belying them so maliciously as to affirme them to make that no sinne which Gods word maketh a sinne seeing that by his owne confession vve make them and such like sinnes though not so haynous because there is lesse malice in them He goeth on lying vvhen he affirmeth vs to say that none is bound to salute his enemy for we hold all men bound to salute their enemies and to afford them all common duties of ciuillity and though it be but a counsell to yeeld them the extraordinary offices of friendshippe yet vve hold that it is much more Christan-like so to doe As for rash judgement sodainely giuen without aduisement I see not howe it can be more then a veniall sinne for the party considering better of the matter changeth his opinion straight way and so doth his neighbour no vvrong And if it be the part of a wise man sometimes to dissemble according vnto that saying of the wise Sapientis est loco dissimulare then surely is it better to dissemble and fayne holynesse then wickednesse As for painting of the face in a moderate and modest fashion to amend the fauour vvhen it is done without any euill end or purpose and without scandall I see not howe one can make any more of it then a veniall sinne but to daube the countenance so as some leude women doe to allure men thereby to vnlawfull lust is without doubt very damnable and for no other is taken of Catholikes Touching begging let him name who holdeth it for vnlawfull to prohibite and forbidde it if sufficient meanes be otherwise prouided for the mainetaynance of the poore for I knowe none such True it is because the truth it selfe hath so said That we shall haue alwayes the poore among vs. Mat. 26. vers 11. But who doubteth but that it is much better to prouide for them charitably in some certayne places of aboade then to suffer them to wander vp and downe idly and to liue dissolutely as the greater part of them are thought to doe Moreouer no authour can be truly said to vphold or excuse blasphemy or swearing though vvhen they deliuer their opinions in schooles concerning that matter they affirme that rash cholerike othes not being vsuall are no mortall sinnes because they breake out in manner against a mans vvil choler for the time troubling and hindering the vse of reason M. PERKINS doth lastly charge our writers with manifest lying to justifie our doctrine in that they pleade all antiquity to be on our sides whereas saith he it is as much for them as for vs. Hereof he yeeldeth no proofe and no maruaile for many of his bretheren are ashamed to denie this and doe ingeniously confesse that in many points of religion the auncient Fathers are wholy for vs. And in no one point that I can heare off will he or any of his pew-fellowes be tryed by the judgement and consent of antiquity vvhich is a most manifest proofe that in their owne conscience they knowe wel enough that al antiquity is flat against them else vvhy should they so feare to stand vnto their most vpright determination and so fleete and flie from it vvhich point vvell considered off is alone sufficient to disswade any man from their newe doctrine For it not agreeing with the doctrine of pure antiquity must needes be false and wicked because that was most true holy and good And the holy Ghost doth not nowe teach one to be true and afterward change After his Lastly he hath Againe that our manner is to proue our opinions by forged and counterfeit writinges of men namely by S. Iames liturgie by the Canons of the Apostles by the bookes of Dionisius Ariopagita and so forth reckoning vp some one and twenty peeces which he calleth counterfeit but he goeth not about to proue any one of them to be forged It may therefore suffice for answere that when he or any other shall vndertake to proue that we vse any forged writinges to confirme our doctrine they shall God willing be answered In the meane season the better to content such weaklings I haue not past once to my remembrance alleaged any sentence out of these bookes by him suspected for counterfeit And as touching the marrying of a Catholike vvith a Protestant we dislike it more then many Ministers who will make no bones to marrie them togither which no Catholike Priest wil doe Finally we accord with him in leagues of amity as he tearmeth them and hold that Catholike and Protestant Princes may not combine in league to defend each other in all causes or else one should stand bound to aide the other sometimes against both honesty and religion which were very absurd So as where M. PERKINS saith well vvhich he doth seldome in this booke of his I willingly agree vvith him not sparing on the other side to reprehend that which he speaketh against the truth vvhich all indifferent men will I hope take to be honest vpright dealing Here endeth his booke vvere it not that after finis put to it he addeth a further Aduertisement which may not be left vnanswered vvherefore I haue annexed hereunto both it and the answere
vulgar tongue or that all thinges necessary to be beleeued to saluation are contained in the Scriptures To be short not one article of their religion which is contrary to ours is contained in this Creede of the Apostles therefore to affirme as de doth all necessarie pointes of religion to be contained in this Creede is to cast their owne religion flat to the ground and to teach that not one point of it is to be beleeued this Creede may neuerthelesse be called the key and rule of faith because it containeth the principall pointes of the Christian religion and doth open as it were the doore vnto all the rest and guide a man certainely vnto the knowledge of them by teaching vs to beleeue the Catholike Church 1. Tim. 3. vers 15. Ioh. 16. vers 13. which being the piller and ground of truth directed and guided by the spirit of truth will alwaies instruct her obedient children in all truth necessary to saluation Then saith Master PERKINS The eternal truth of God the creatour shal depend on the determination of the creature Nothing lesse for Gods truth is most sincere and certaine in it selfe before anie declaration of the Church but vve poore creatures that are subject to mistaking and errour should not so certaynelie vnderstand and knowe that truth of God vnlesse he had ordained and appointed such a skilfull and faithfull Mistris and interpreter to assure vs both what is his word and what is the true meaning of it Like as pure gold is not made perfect in it selfe by the Gold-smithes touch-stone but other men are thereby assured that it is true and pure gold euen so the word of God doth not borrowe his truth from the Church but the true children of God are by the holie Church assured which is the same his word If we did hold as we doe not that the written vvord contayneth all pointes of doctrine necessarie to saluation yet vvere it most necessarie to relie vpon the Catholike Churches declaration both to be assured which bookes of Scriptures be Canonicall which not whereupon S. Augustine a man of farre better judgement then any of these daies said Con. Epist Iud. cap. 5. that he would not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the authority of the Church moued him thereunto as also to vnderstand them truly because the wordes of holy Scripture without the true meaning and sence of them doe but deceiue men and leade them into errour and to that end haue alwaies beene and yet are by Heretikes abused to drawe others after them into destruction The like may be said of other ancient Creedes and confessions of faith which holding the Apostles Creede did adde some fewe pointes vnto it namely such as were in those daies called into question by Heretikes of greater fame and who were followed of many not touching in particuler diuers other articles generally beleeued of all true Christians or else by some fewe and obscure men only questioned Wherefore to argue that no other pointes of faith are to be beleeued but such as are expressed in ancient Creedes is to cut of a great part of our faith Lastly it is most vntrue to say that those ancient Fathers and Councels knewe not of these articles of faith by him mentioned for they haue most plainely taught them in their writinges yea and expresly condemned of heresie most of the contrary positions nowe againe reuiued and holden by the Protestantes as in those seuerall questions I haue before proued Touching beleeuing in the Church which he thrusteth in by the way we vse not that phrase as the very Creede sheweth following therein S. Augustine with others who hold that to beleeue in a thing is to make it our creatour by giuing our whole hart vnto it in which sence we beleeue not in Saintes nor in the Church albeit some other ancient Doctors take the wordes to beleeue in not so precisely but say that me may beleeue in the Church in Saintes that is beleeue certainely that the Catholike Church is the only true company of Christians and that to the lawfull gouernours thereof it appertaineth to declare both which bookes be Canonicall and what is the true meaning of all doubtfull places in them so we beleeue the Saintes in heauen to heare our prayers to be carefull to pray for vs to be able to obtaine by intreaty much at Gods handes in whose high fauour they liue Thus much in answere vnto that which M. PER. objecteth in generall nowe to that he saith in particuler He chargeth vs first with the breach of the third article Conceiued by the holy Ghost Which saith he is ouerturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Masse into the body and bloud of Christ for here we are taught to confesse the true and perpetuall incarnation of Christ beginning in his conception and neuer ending afterward Answ Here is a strange exposition of the Creede Is Christes incarnation perpetuall and not yet ended then it is true to say that Christ is not yet incarnate as we may say truly that a man is not borne vntill his birth be accomplished and ended But to the present purpose because Christes incarnation beganne at his conception cannot bread be turned afterward into his body how hangeth this together Belike he meanes that Christes body was but once conceiued and that was by the holy Ghost in his mothers wombe therefore it cannot afterward be made of any other thing This to be his meaning he declares in the question of the Sacrament but it is too too simple and childish For we hold him not to be so conceiued by bread as he was by the holy Ghost who was the efficient cause of his conception but that the same body that was cōceiued by the holy Ghost is made really present in the Sacrament by transubstantiation of bread into it which hath no opposition at al with this article as I haue more largely proued in the foresaid question And whereas he saith further cleane besides the purpose of this article that Christes body hath the essentiall properties of a true body standing of flesh and bone we grant the same but when he addeth that local circumscription cannot be seuered from a body he is deceiued for the greatest body of all others which is the highest heauen is not circumscribed by any place because there is no other body without it whose extreamities might compasse in and circumscribe that body of the highest heauen And when he saith that to be circumscribed in place is an essentiall property of euery quantity and that quantity is the common essence of euery body he makes himselfe but a common mocking-stocke vnto euery simple Logitian who knoweth that no accident such as euery quantity is can be of the essence and nature of a substance such as Christes body is Neither would any man say that cared what he said that to be circumscribed in a place is essentiall to euery quantity when all numbers that be quantities
Secondly they make him much inferiour vnto the other persons for they teach in their French Catechismes that the Father alone is to be adored in the name of the Sonne In cap. 6. 17. Isa in 16. Marc. And Caluin against Gentil saith that the title of creatour belongeth only to the Father and else where that the Father is the first degree cause of life and the Sonne the second And that the In 26. Math. v. 64. Father holdeth the first ranke of honour and gouernement and the Sonne the second where the holy Ghost is either quite excluded from part with the Father and the Sonne or at most must be content with the third degree of honour 9. I beleeue the holy Catholike Church the communion of Saints First where as there is but one Catholike Church one as the Councell of Nice expresly defineth following sundry textes of the word of God they commonly teach that there be two Churches one inuisible of the elect another visible of both good and bad Secondly they imagine it to be holy holy by the imputation of Christes holinesse to the elected Bretheren and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hartes of all the faithfull Thirdly they cannot abide the name Catholike in the true sence of it Catholike that is they wil not beleeue the true Church to haue beene alwaies visibly extant since the Apostles time and to haue bin generally spread into all Countries otherwise they must needes forsake their owne Church which began with Friar Luther and is not receiued generally in the greatest part of the Christian world Finally they beleeue no Church no not their owne in all points of faith but hold that the true Church may erre in some principall points of faith Howe then can any man safely relie his saluation vpon the credite of such an vncertaine ground erring guide may they not then as well say that they doe not beleeue the one Catholike Church because they doe as well not beleeue it as beleeue it And as for the communion of Saints their learned masters doe commonly cassier it out of the Creede and that not without cause For by the Saints vnderstanding as the Apostles did al good Christians whither aliue or departed this world they that deny praier to Saints and for the soules in Purgatory haue reason to reject the common society entercourse that is betweene the Saints and the mutuall honour and help which such good Christian soules doe yeeld and afford one to another 10. The forgiuenesse of sinnes It is not easily to find what is their setled opinion touching the forgiuenes of originall sinne in Infants Some attribute it to Baptisme but that cannot stand with their common doctrine that Sacraments haue no vertue in them to remit sinnes or to giue grace Others say that God without any meanes doth then when they be baptised of himselfe immediately justifie them but that cannot stand in their owne doctrine because Infants want the instrumēt of faith to lay hold on that justice then offered by God and therefore cannot being so yonge take it vnto them Others will haue Infants sanctified in their mothers wombe by vertue of a couenant which they suppose God to haue made with old father Abraham and all his faithfull seruants that forsooth their seede shall be holy But this is most phantastical and contrary to the Scriptures and daily experience for Isaac was the sonne of promise and yet Esau his sonne was a reprobate Dauides father was a Godly Israelite and yet Dauid affirmeth Psal 50. that he himselfe was conceiued in iniquities and we may see whole Countries nowe turned Turkes whose ancestors were good Christians therefore not all the soules of the faithfull are sanctified in their mothers wombes Secondly how euil soeuer they agree about the remission of sinne yet there is a perfect consent among them that such relikes of originall sinne remaine in euery man baptised and sanctified that it infecteth all and euery worke he doth with deadly sinne yea that which remaineth is properly sinne in it selfe though it be not imputed to the party so that sinne is alwaies in them though their sinnes be neuer so well forgiuen And as for the Sacrament of Penance by which we hold al sinnes committed after Baptisme to be forgiuen they doe renounce the benefit of it and are at vtter defiance with it 11. The resurrection of the bodies Whether Farel the first Apostle of the Geneuian Gospel doubted thereof or no let his successor Caluin tell you who answereth Farels letter thus Episto ad Farellum That the resurrection of this our flesh doth seeme to thee incredible no meruaile c. Againe many of them teach that Christ tooke not his bloud againe which he shed vpon the crosse yea some of them are so gracelesse as to say that his pretious bloud wherewith we were redeemed Vide Conradum li. 1. art 20. rotted away on the earth 1600. yeares agoe If then it be not necessary to a true resurrection to rise againe with the same bloud why is it necessary to rise againe with the same bones and flesh the one being as perfect a part of a mans body as the other 12. Life euerlasting First Captaine Caluin holdeth it for very certaine that no soule doth enter into the joyes of heauen wherein consisteth life euerlasting vntill the day of doome 3. Institu 25. sess 6. These be his wordes the soules of the Godly hauing ended the labour of this war-fare doe goe into a blessed rest where they expect the enjoying of the promised glory And that all thinges are holden in suspence vntill Christ the redeemer appeare whose opinion is yet better then was his predecessor Luthers For he teacheth in many places that the soules of the Godly departing from their bodies Enarra in Gen. c. 26. In Ecclesi c. 9. v. 10. haue no sence at all but doe lie fast a sleepe vntill the latter day Take this one for a tast Another place to proue that the dead feele or vnderstand nothing wherefore Salomon thought the dead to be wholy a sleepe and to perceiue nothing at all And againe the sleepe of the soule in the life to come is more profound then in this life And Luther with this one position of his as that famous historiographer Iohn Sleidan recordeth ouerthrewe two points of Popery Li. 9. hist to wit praying to Saintes for they are so fast a sleepe that they cannot heare vs and praying for the dead For they in Purgatory slept also so soundly that they felt no paines A meete foundation surely to build such false doctrine vpon In 20. Luc hom 35. But Brentius is most plaine in this matter who ingeniously confesseth that albeit there were not many among them that did professe publikely the soules to die with the body yet the most vncleane life which the greatest part of their followers did lead doth clearely shewe that in their hartes they thinke no life to be
force of Christs wordes consecrated a part so that if they could be naturally separated they should be also seuered in that Sacrament as they might haue beene at Christes death when al the bloud was powred forth of his body but euer sithence Christes resurrection they are so joyned together that they can be no more seuered so that we graunt vnder one kinde of the Sacrament to be both Christes body and bloud which is not wrought by the wordes of the institution but by the necessary and inseparable conjunction of Christes body with his bloud euer since his glorious resurrection Finally M. PERKINS condemneth the administration of the Sacrament vnder one only kinde for the commandement of Christ is drinke ye al of this Math. 26. vers 27. and this commandement is rehearsed to the Church of Corinth in these wordes doe this as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me ver 25. and no power can reuerse this commandement because it was established by the soueraigne head of the Church Answere He beganne to set downe the institution of the Sacrament out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. here he leapeth backe to S. Mathewe because he fitteth him better in this point to vvhome I answere that Christ there spake only vnto his twelue Apostles vvho vvere afterward to administer that holy Sacrament to others and so some thing there-about is spoken to them vvhich may not be extended vnto lay-men but vnto Priestes only who were to succeed the Apostles in that ministery All men doe confesse these vvordes hoc facite doe ye this that is administer ye this Sacrament to be spoken only to the Apostles and in them to all of the Clergie alone euen so drinke ye al of this was in like manner spoken vnto them only as Clergiemen and therefore it is a commandement only to Priestes so to doe and as for others they may either drinke of it or not drinke of it as it shall be thought most expedient by their supreame Pastors and this may be gathered out of those very wordes drinke ye al of this For why should the Apostles haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cuppe then to eate of that foode vnles it were to signifie that whereas all men should be bound to receiue Christes body they should be further bound to receiue that holy cuppe also from which bond other men should stand free But to come to the purpose when they quarrell with vs for taking away from the people one kinde of the Sacrament we answere that vve doe them no hinderance thereby because vve giue them both the blessed body sacred bloud of Christ together vnder one kind yea whole Christ both God and man because they be so vnited that they cannot be separated But what can they answere when we complaine vpon them for that they haue defrauded the poore people of both body and bloud of Christ and in lieu of that most pretious banquet doe giue them a cold breake-fast of a morsel of bread a suppe of wine this is a most miserable lamentable exchange in deede our blessed Lord giue them grace to see it deliuer them speedily from it Here is the place to shew how the Protestāts doe not only bereaue their vnfortunate folowers of this most heauenly foode of Christes body but that they also depriue them of the manifold great graces of God deriued vnto vs in 5. other sacramēts but because I haue touched it in the Preface I wil omit it here and make an end with M. PER. assoone as I haue requited him by propounding briefly some arguments for the real presence as he hath done against it Let this be the first The state of the newe Testament which is more perfect then the old requireth accordingly Sacraments of greater grace and perfection then the old had they had Manna which for substance and taste farre passed our bread and in signification was equall to it Wherefore either vve must graunt our Sacrament of bread and wine to be inferiour to theirs of the old Testament or else acknowledge and confesse it to be the true body and bloud of Christ which doth surpasse theirs exceedingly as the body doth the shadowe This argument is confirmed by our Sauiour himselfe who in expresse tearmes doth preferre the meate Iohn 6. v. 48.49 that he was to giue to his Disciples before that of Manna which their Fathers had eaten in the wildernesse Secondly Christ promised to giue to his Disciples his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke and when they marueiled howe that could be he assured them Ibid. v. 55 that vnlesse they did eate his flesh they should not haue life in them and further certified them that his flesh was truly meate and his bloud truly drinke vvhence it is most plainely deduced that he who neuer faileth of his promise gaue them his true flesh to eate Thirdly Christ said in most cleare tearmes this is my body this is my bloud What could be more certaine or more perspicuous Fourthly These vvordes of the institution are recorded by three Euangelists and by S. Paul and they al vniformely deliuer it to be not the figure of Christs body but his body and that his body which should be giuen for our redemption on the crosse ergo it was that his true reall body vvhich vvas nailed to the crosse for vs. Fiftly S. Paul demandeth thus the Chalice of benediction which we doe blesse 1. Cor. 10. vers 16. is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread that we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord if then we doe in receiuing the blessed Sacrament participate Christes body and communicate his bloud they surely are there really present Againe S. Paul saith He that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh judgement to himselfe 1. Cor. 11. vers 28. not discerning the body of our Lord and before is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ ergo the body and bloud of Christ are there present or else why should a man incurre that guilt but by his vnworthy receiuing of it and by not discerning Christes body to be there present Besides all these plaine textes of holy Scripture in confirmation of the reall presence the very circumstances of it doe much fortifie our faith therein Lucae 22. vers 15. In S. Luke vve haue that our Sauiour marueillously desired desiderio desideraui to eate that this last banquet vvith his Disciples S. Iohn addeth that whereas he loued his that were in the world Ioh. 13. v. 1. 3◠vnto the end he loued them and knowing that the Father gaue al thinges into his handes and that he came from God and goeth to God c. What coherence I say with this exceeding loue and infinit power of Christ to be shewed in his last supper if he hath left only bread and vvine to be taken in remembrance of him any meane man might easily haue done as much and Helias departing from his Disciple Heliseus did much more for he left a more noble remembrance of himselfe behind him to wit his cloake and double spirit But Christ bequeathing vs his true natural body to be the foode of our soules and comfort of our hartes as we beleeue teach he then in deede shewed his infinit power and loue towardes vs and that he came from God and as God bestowed an inestimable gift vpon vs such a one as neuer any other did or could possibly doe Moreouer the institution of a religious rite and ceremony to be vsed in the whole Church vnto the worldes end and to be receiued of all Christian people of age and discretion did necessarily require that it should be done in most certaine and cleare tearmes otherwise there might arise great strife and contention about it and be the ruine of thousandes And specially great perspicuity is required in this holy Sacrament where the mistaking of it must needes breede either Idolatry if vve vvorshippe for Christ that which is not Christ or impiety if on the other side we should not giue to it being Christ God and man diuine honour Wherefore no good Christian may thinke but that our prouident Sauiour Christ IESVS vvho very vvell foresawe all these inconueniences did deliuer it in such tearmes as he would haue to be taken properly and not be construed at mens pleasures figuratiuely Adde that he spake those wordes to the twelue Apostles only vvhome he vvas accustomed to instruct plainely and not in parable darkely and who were wont also to aske for the interpretation of obscure speaches vvho here made no question about this high mistery because they were sufficiently forewarned Ioh. 6. that they should eate Christes flesh and that his body was truly meate and therefore beleeued Christes wordes without further question Finally this holy Sacrament is a principall part of the newe Testament and one of the chiefest legacies by Christ bequeathed vnto vs Christians Nowe what lawe or conscience will permit that any legacy should be interpreted figuratiuely to vvit that for a house goodes or landes bequeathed and giuen by last vvill and testament you should vnderstand a figure of a house to be giuen or the signification and representation of some goodes or landes If this be most absurd and ridiculous in the testament of any ordinary man about temporall goodes howe much more pernitious and intollerable is it to suffer this in the eternall Testament of the Sonne of God and that in his diuine and inestimable treasures And thus at length by the grace of God I come to the end of this booke wherein good Christian reader if thou finde any thing that may confirme thee in the true Catholike faith or further thy knowledge therein giue God the Father of lightes from whome all good giftes descend the whole praise If any thing be amisse impute it partly to my slender skill ouersight or negligence and partly to the vvant of a conuenient resting-place commodity of bookes and conference all vvhich these times of persecution doe depriue vs of To the most blessed and holy Trinity be al honour and glory both nowe and for euer AMEN FINIS
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
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