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
an other auailable to entreate and deserue that the vertue of the former generall may be deriued vnto men in particuler because although those sinnes and iniquities were vnto Christ pardoned in general yet at his death or by it only those sinnes were not remitted and pardoned vnto any man in particuler so that it was meete and requisite that besides the Sacrifice to purchase that generall redemption there should be an other to apply the vertue of it in particuler And thus much of this argument not that it deserued as it was proposed nakedly by M. PER. any more then a flat deniall but to explicate this difficulty and to interprete some obscure places of S. Paul omitted by M. PERKINS M. PER. fift reason If the Priest doe offer to God Christes reall body and bloud for the pardon of our sinnes then man is become a mediator betweene God and Christ This illation is too too ridiculous Is he Christes mediator that asketh forgiuenes of sinnes for Christes sake then are al Christians mediators betweene God and Christ for we all present vnto God Christs passion and beseech him for the meritte thereof to pardon vs our sinnes I hope that we may both lawfully pray vnto God and also imploy our best endeauours that Christ may be truly knowne rightly honoured and serued of all men without incroaching vpon Christs mediation These be seruices we owe vnto Christ and the bounden duties of good Christians wherein it hath pleased him to imploy vs as his seruantes and ministers not as his mediators But Master PERKINS addeth that vve request in the Cannon of the Masse That God will accept our gifts and offerings namely Christ himselfe offered as he did the Sacrifices of Abell and Noe he would haue said Abraham for Noe is not there mentioned True in the sence there following not that this Sacrifice of Christes body is not a thousand times more gratefull vnto him then was the Sacrifices of the best men but that this Sacrifice which is so acceptable of it selfe may be vnto all the partakers of it cause of all heauenly grace and benediction and that also through the same Christ our Lord as it there followeth in the Canon His sixt and last reason Is the judgement of the ancient Church which is the feeblest of al the rest for that he hath not one place which maketh not flat against himselfe Conc. Tol. 12. cap. 5. heare and then judge First saith he A Councell held at Toledo in Spaine hath these wordes Relation is made vnto vs that certaine Priests doe not so many times receiue the grace of the holy communion as they offer Sacrifice but in one day if they offer many Sacrifices to God they suspend themselues from the Communion Is not this a fit testimony to proue that there is no Sacrifice of the Masse whereas it teacheth the quite contrary to wit that there were at that time Priests that did offer Sacrifice daily but were complained on and reproued for that they did not themselues communicate of euery Sacrifice which they offered M. PER. biddeth vs marke that the Sacrifice then was but a kinde of seruice because the Priest did not communicate But why did not he marke that they were therefore reprehended as he well deserueth to be for grounding his argument vpon some simple Priests abuse or ignorance Mileuit cap. 12. Secondly he saith That in an other Councell the name of Masse is put for a forme of prayer It hath pleased vs that prayer suppliations and Masses which shall be allowed in the Councell be vsed Answ Very good It is indeed that forme of prayer which the Catholike Church hath alwayes vsed set downe in the Missals or Masse-bookes so that the Councell by him alleadged doth allowe of Masse Priests and Sacrifice But saith he very profoundly Masses be compounded but the Sacrifice propitiatory of the body and bloud of Christ admitteth no composition This is so deepe and profound an obseruation of his that I can scarce conjecture what he meaneth The Masse indeed is a prayer composed of many parts so I weene be all longer prayers but in what sence can that be true that the Sacrifice of Christ admitteth no composition If he meane the passion of Christ on the Crosse it was a bundell of Mirhe and heape of sorrowes shames and paines tyed together and laid vpon the most innocent Lambe sweet IESVS If he signifie their Lordes supper doth it not consist of diuers partes and hath it not many compositions in it let the good man then explicate himselfe better that one may ghesse at his meaning and then he shall be answered more particulerly But Abbot Paschasius shall mende all hee should by his Title of Abbot seeme rather likely to marre all he saith Because we sinne daylie L. de corpore sanguine Christi Christ is sacrificed for vs mystically and his passion is giuen vs in mistery Very good in the mistery of the Masse Christ is sacrificed for vs not as he was on the Crosse bloudily but in mistery that is vnder the formes of bread and wine which may serue to answere al that he citeth out of Paschasius specially considering that in that whole treatise and one or two other of the same Authour his principall butte and marke is to proue the reall presence and Sacrifice In the first Chapter of the booke cited by M. PER. he hath these wordes Our Lord hath done all thinges in heauen and earth as he will himselfe and because it hath so pleased him though the figure of bread and wine be here that is in the Sacrament notwithstanding it is to be beleeued that after consecration there is nothing else but the flesh and bloud of Christ vvhich he also expresly proueth there at large And in an other treatise of the same argument he hath these among many such like wordes Christ when he gaue his Disciples bread and broke it did not say this is a figure of my body nor in this mistery there is a certaine vertue of it but he said without dissimulation This is my body and therefore it is that which he said it was and not that which men imagine it to be Did I not tell you that this Abbot vvas like to helpe M. PER. but a litle Thus at length we are come to the end of M. PER. reasons in fauour of their cause let vs heare what he produceth for the Catholike party The first argument Christ was a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedecke but Melchisedeckes order was to Sacrifice in bread and wine Psal 109. ad Hebr. 5. 7. therefore Christ did offer vp Sacrifice in formes of bread and wine at his last supper And what Christ then did that did he ordaine to be done to the worlds end by the Apostles their successors therefore there is now in the true Church a true and proper Sacrifice offered in our Lordes supper To seperate that which is certaine
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
of bread only doth as vvell present vnto our mindes as if the substance of bread were there present with it Againe saith M. PER. it abolisheth the endes of the Sacrament First it maketh we cannot remember Christ who being present bodily in the Sacrament needeth not be remembred because helpes of remembrance are of thinges absent Answ A man would thinke were not his wits somewhat distempered that he might be remembred best that is most present to vs neither is remembrance only of things absent For as euery one may well remember when they see one whome they haue seldome seene before the very sight of him or his speech or some other token which he telleth calleth vs to remembrance of him who is personally then present But if this were not so yet were the end of the Sacrament accomplished most perfectly For by Christes reall presence in the Sacrament we are admonished to remember not his body barely 1. Cor. 11. but his death on the Crosse as S. Paul expoundeth it which death of his is absent and by the consecrating of his body apart from his bloud and by the eleuation of it is represented vnto vs very liuely and so we are put in minde and made to remember a thing absent to wit the death and passion of Christ Moreouer M. PER. saith that an other end of the Sacrament is to feed the soule with eternall life but by transubstantiation the principall feeding is of the body and not of the soule which is only fed with spirituall foode Answere Alas into what straightes was he brought when he wrote this a man would thinke that if the substance of bread remained still as in their counterfeit Sacrament it doth it should rather be food for the body then for the spirit For bread as fooles knowe as well as phisitions doth nourish the body naturally We then that remoue the substance of bread out of the Sacrament must needes therefore meane to feed only the soule thereby and not the body at all For Christes blessed body receiued in the Sacrament is nurriture only of our soule by his graces bountifully bestowed vpon the worthy receiuer it giueth to the body only a certaine seede or pledge of immortallity according vnto that Ioh. 6. vers 54. He that eateth my flesh c. hath life euerlasting and I will raise him vp in the last day M. PERKINS fourth reason In the Sacrament the body of Christ is receiued as it was crucified and his bloud as it was shed vpon the crosse but nowe the act of crucifying is past it is faith alone that maketh Christ crucified to be present vnto vs in the Sacrament ergo Answere We denie his first proposition for we receiue the same body that was crucified but not after that bloudy manner as it was there vsed but vnder the formes of bread and wine which Christes owne vvordes doe importe take eate this is my body that shall be giuen for you he saith not as M. PER. doth as it shall be giuen for you that is not in the same manner though it be the same in substance Yet as I once said before the consecration of his bloud in the Chalice as it were a part from his body and powred out with the lifting vp of the body after cōsecration as it is done in the Masse with the breaking and receiuing of the holy Host doth liuely represent vnto the faithfull Christes blessed death and passion But what resemblance hath the eating of bread drinking of wine the Protestants holy communion with the crucifying of Christ Is eating and drinking of so pleasing food meete to expresse Christes drinking of gall and most painefull torments by their feeling faith they would salue this but they cannot For besides faith there must be as M. PER. himselfe before confessed a proportion betweene the signe and the thing signified but there is no proportion betweene eating of fine bread drinking of good wine with the dolorous crosse of Christ Seing then that in the Sacrament as M. PER. teacheth Christes body must be receiued as it was crucified he must needes appoint something else then bread wine to be the signes of this Sacrament for they be most vnproper to represent Christes passion Againe saith he discoursing very learnedly That bloud which ranne out of Christes side was not gathered vp againe nay the collection of it was needlesse because after the resurrection he liued no more a naturall but a spirituall life Ans Here is a proper peece of diuinity He might aswel say if his reason were good that Christs body is not risen againe because a body also is as needles vnto a spiritual life The truth is that the body with the bloud in the veines of it is risen againe else were it no true resurrection which is only when the very same body numero with all the same parts and parcels of it which it had before be restored vnto their former essence integrity Note by the way the admirable rare vertue of the Protestants faith whose property is saith M. P. to giue a being vnto thinges which are not What being good Sir that any thing should be extant in the world which before was not yes marry that that bloud should be receiued spiritually which is not at al. True perhaps in the Protestants vaine imagination but in deed most ridiculous to imagine that that can be receiued either corporally or spiritually vvhich is not extant nor hath any being at all For a thing must be of it selfe before it can be receiued of an other 1. Cor. 10. vers 3. M. PER. fift reason The fathers of the old Testament did eate the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the rocke which was Christ but they could not eate his body which was not then crucified but by faith the Papists answere that the fathers did eate the same meate among themselues and not that which we eate that is all the Israelites did eate the same spirituall foode of Manna and did drinke all of the vvater which issued out of the spirituall Rocke one of them as well as an other yet they had not the same Sacraments that we Christians haue neither did they receiue the same that we doe But M. PER. will proue that they had Because saith he the Apostles intent is to proue that the Iewes were euery way equall to the Corinthians and in nothing inferior Reply S. Paul meant and intended nothing lesse but in the same his Epistle and in many of the rest expresly teacheth the state of the Christians such as the Corinthians were to surpasse farre the state of the Iewes For the old Testament is compared to the letter that killeth 2. Cor. 3. and therefore called the ministration of damnation the newe to the spirit that quickneth and to the ministry of justice and the old Testament did ingender to bondage Gal. 4.14 Vers 1. Ver. 3. 9 Hebr. 10. vers
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
doe it Nowe what replyed Christ vnto their doubt that he vvould giue them only bread to eate in remembrance of him vvhich vvould surely haue satisfied them throughly because nothing vvas more easie to doe then that But truth is not to be concealed for feare of Pharasaicall scandall and therefore he told them very roundly That vnlesse they did eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud They should not haue life in them And he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting And yet more expresly My flesh is meate in deede and my bloud drinke in deede Howe should he haue made the matter more plaine To this M. PERKINS answereth first That Christ speaketh of a spirituall eating by faith because the very point that he intendeth to proue is that to beleeue in him and to eate his flesh is all one This answere is absurd For euen in their owne doctrine there is a great difference betweene beleeuing in Christ and receiuing the communion for many doe beleeue in Christ when they doe not receiue the communion receiuing being as they teach a seale or confirmation of beleeuing And to say that Christ there maketh no difference betweene beleeuing in him and eating of his flesh is flat against the text For saying that he would hereafter giue them his flesh to eate he doth declare that he speaketh not of beleeuing in him vvhich he vvould haue them to doe presently and many of them did beleeue in him before vvho could not disgest his doctrine of the Sacrament Againe it is altogether vnlikely that our Sauiour would haue vsed such strange offensiue speaches as the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud to signifie only that they must beleeue in him and that he seing them so much scandalized at those his hard and vnvsuall phrases that they vvere ready to forsake him would yet not once in plaine tearmes interprete them for the sauing of so many soules wherefore it remaineth most manifest that by eating of his flesh he meant something else then beleeuing in him And M. PER. other shift that in all the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn Christ speaketh not one word of eating his flesh in the Sacrament is so contrary vnto the euidence of the text it selfe and vnto the exposition of all ancient Fathers that it deserueth no answere especially vvhen neither by reason or authority he goeth about to fortifie it But I muse why he did omit their ordinary objection out of the same place The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickneth It may be perhaps because he knewe that the vvordes being rightly vnderstood make more against the Protestants then for them For the flesh there must be taken either for Christes flesh or for our flesh if for Christes flesh Tract 27. in Ioannē then saith S. Augustine Howe can it be that it profiteth nothing when he said before vnlesse yo eate my flesh you shall haue no life in you What therefore meaneth this it profiteth nothing Marry saith he it profiteth nothing as they vnderstood it For they tooke they should eate it as it is torne and cut in peeces being dead and sold in the shambles and not as it is quickned with the spirit which he doth illustrate with the comparison of knowledge which being alone doth puffe vp scientia enim inflat but being joyned with charity doth edifie Euen so saith he when the spirit is coupled with the flesh then doth it profit verie much or else the worde would not haue beene made flesh and haue dwelled among vs. With S. Augustine agreeth S. Cyril vpon that place In cap. 6. Ioannis but more literall seemeth to be the interpretation of S. Chrisostome followed by Theophilact and others vpon this place that by the flesh is to be vnderstood our fleshly and naturall reason which in these misteries of faith doth rather hinder then helpe vs. For mans wit of it selfe cannot comprehend howe bread may be turned into Christes body not howe so great a bodie can be in so litle a roome c. but informed with faith and Gods grace it is then well assured that whatsoeuer Christ saith is true and that nothing is impossible to him howe contrarie soeuer it seeme vnto flesh and bloud For his wordes as it followeth in the text be spirit and life that is be of diuine force and giue life and being vnto vvhat hee pleaseth And thus much of our first reason Nowe to the second Christ taking bread into his handes gaue it to his Disciples saying 1. Cor. 11. Math. 26 Marc. 14. Luc. 22. this is my body which is giuen for you and giuing them the Chalice said drinke yee all of this for this is my bloud of the newe Testament which shall be shed for you These our Sauiours wordes are so plaine that it was not possible in so fewe wordes to expresse more perspicuously that it was his true naturall bodie which he deliuered vnto them it being the verie same which was to be nailed on the Crosse the morrowe after But M. PER. answereth that they are not to be taken properlie but by a figure the body there being put for a signe or seale of his bodie Reply This is a very extrauagant exposition of Christes vvordes and such a one as if it vvere admitted for currant vvoulde serue to subuert and ouerthrovve all the articles of the Christian faith For example vvhen it is said that the word was made flesh the Manachees heresies against Christes true flesh might be maintayned by saying that the flesh there is put for a figure of the flesh so might the Arrian heresie if vvhen Christ is called God it vvere allowed them to expound and take it for a signe or seale of GOD and so of all other articles of our beleefe wherefore there must be most apparant proof for the drawing of Christes wordes into so strange a sence before it be admitted of any reasonable man But M. PER. and the Protestants are so farre off from producing any such inuincible euidence for their odde interpretation that they cannot alleadge any probable cause of it heare and then judge Genes 17. vers 10. Exod. 12. vers 11. 1. Cor. 10. M. PERKINS saith first That it is an vsuall manner of the Lord in speaking of the Sacraments to giue the name of the thinges signified to the signe as circumcision is called the couenant of God and the next verse the signe of the couenant and the Pascall lambe is called the Angels passing-ouer whereas in deede it was but a signe of it and the Rocke was Christ * 1. Cor. 5. vers 7. the passe-ouer was Christ Answ It may be that sometimes speaking of Sacraments by the way some figuratiue speach may be vsed but we say that when any Sacramēt is first instituted and ordained that then the wordes are to be taken literally without any such figure For example in the Sacraments specified by M. PER.
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
Scripture very handsomely together and would no doubt write a faire Commentary vpon the text if he were let alone but yet tell me I pray you by the way howe Christians can lift vp such pure handes and offer so cleane a Sacrifice if al their best workes be defiled with sinne and no cleaner then a filthy menstruous cloute as you doe teach But to confute him directly our Lord speaketh there to the Priestes of the old lawe and rebuketh them sharpely for their fault committed in their Sacrifices offered to him and therefore foretelleth them that he will reject al their Sacrifices and accept of an other cleane Sacrifice among the Gentils Nowe as Sacrifice in the former part of his speach is taken most properly as no man can denie so must it be in the latter or else there were a great equiuocation in that sentence and no plaine opposition of Sacrifice to Sacrifice cleane to polluted And if he had reprehended the Iewes for their vnpure prayers then had it beene correspondent to haue said that he vvould haue receiued cleane prayers of others in lieu of them but inueighing against Priestes and sacrifices the very order and proportion of the sentence necessarily requireth that for those euill Priestes and poluted sacrifices he would establish good Priestes and cleane sacrifices according vnto the proper signification of the wordes Againe God is not so extreamely bent against the Iewes nowe but that he would receiue the spirituall Sacrifice of prayer and thankes-giuing euen from them if they doe offer it but he speaketh there of a kinde of Sacrifice that he vvill not receiue from their handes therefore that Sacrifice cannot be vnderstood to be any such spirituall thing but a true proper kind of Sacrifice And Iustine Martyr whome M. PER. citeth is so farre off from saying supplications and thanks-giuing to be the only perfect Sacrifices that Christians haue that in the very same Dialogue he applieth this prophesie of Malachie vnto the Sacrifice of the Masse saying That euen then Malachie the Prophet did speake of our Sacrifices which are offered vp in all places to wit of the bread and Chalice of the Eucharist which his equall Ireneus cited also by M. PER. doth more amply deliuer in these wordes Christ tooke bread and gaue thankes L. 4. cont Haeres cap. 32. saying This is my body and that in the Chalice be confessed to be his bloud which the Church receiuing from the Apostles doth offer to God through the whole world as the first fruites of his giftes of which Malachie one of the twelue Prophets did prophesie thus I take no pleasure in you c. citing the place all at large It is to be noted that in the Hebrewe text and Greeke translation there is in the text of Malachie before a cleane Sacrifice this word incense Incense is offered to my name and a cleane Sacrifice the which the ancient Interpreters doe expound of prayer and make it a distinct thing from the Sacrifice there also distinctly put Orat. cōt Iud. ca. 9. S. Augustine doth proue out of this place of Malachy that the Leuiticall Sacrifices should all cease and further that though all their Sacrifices ceased yet there should stil remaine a true Sacrifice to be offered by the Christians to the true God of Israell and biddeth them open their eyes and see it And in an other place specifieth vvhat that Sacrifice is Li. 18. de ciuit c. 35 Li. 1. cōt Aduersar legis Prophet cap. 20. Lib. 4. de fide c. 14. saying Nowe we see this Sacrifice by the Priest-hood of Christ after the order of Melchisedecke to be offered and againe They knowe who read what Melchisedecke brought forth when he blessed Abraham to wit bread wine and they are partakers of it and doe see such a Sacrifice to be offered nowe to God throughout the whole world Theodoret vpon that place of Malachy doth expresly teach that according to his prophesie There is now offered the immaculate Lambe in lieu of all their Sacrifices And S. Iohn Damascene speaking of the blessed Sacrament saith This is that pure and vnbloudy Sacrifice that our Lord by his Prophet did foretell to be offered from the rising of the sunne vnto the setting Thus much of the three first arguments which M. PER. propounded in our fauour out of the olde Testament but he hath skipped ouer other three which we haue in the newe of which I must needes stand vpon one because it is the ground of all the rest the other two I am content to omitt for breuities sake it is taken out of the wordes of consecration and as our fourth argument may be framed thus Christ at his last supper did properly sacrifice vnto God his owne body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine but what Christ then and there did the same is to be done in the Church by his ordinance vntill the worldes end ergo There is and alwayes must be a proper Sacrifice in the true Church They doe denie that Christ offered any such Sacrifice in his last supper we proue it thus Luc. 22. by his owne wordes For he saith That his body which he gaue them to eate was euen then giuen for them to God that his bloud was then presently shed for remission of their sinnes But to offer his body and bloud to God by such a sacred action and vnder such visible creatures to be there eaten is properly to Sacrifice ergo Christ at his last supper did properly offer Sacrifice They answere that albeit it be said in the present tense then giuen and shedde yet the meaning is that it should be giuen only the morrowe after on the Crosse the present tense being put for the future further adde that in the Canon of the Masse the verbe is put in the future tense We reply that men may not at their pleasure change tenses or else the Iewes might defend that our Messias were not yet borne and if we proue it saying The Word is made flesh they may by this licence of changing the present tense into the future say that it is not so yet but it shall be hereafter therefore to flie vnto chopping and changing the text without any reason or authority is rather to shift off then to defend a cause well But say they it is in the Masse booke effundetur God helpe the poore men that louing the Masse no better are driuen yet from the plaine text of holy Scripture to flie to the Masse-booke for succour but it vvill not serue their turne because both are true and agree vvell together For Christes bloud vnder the forme of vvine vvas presently sacrificed and shedde at his last supper and the same in his owne forme vvas to be shedde the morrowe after on the Crosse and againe vnder the forme of wine also was to be shedde in the same Sacrament vnto the worldes end so that truly properly both may be said it is
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
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
their place that there dwell men who make more account of their Princes honour then they doe of Christes And that their meeting in that place cal it what you wil is rather to serue their Prince then to serue Christ. But I haue beene longer in their place of prayer then I thought I come nowe to the men that are elected to serue the Lord there Be not many of them for the whole corps I will not touch such as Ieroboam was glad to choose when he made a Schisme in Israel to wit de extremis populi qui non erant de filijs Leui not lawfull successors of the true Priestes but others of the baser sort of the people and them commonly that are notable either for ignorance or some other odde quality and must they not also fill their good patrons handes with some feeling commodity before they can gette a benefice And so beginning with simonie lincked with perjurie for the poore fellowes must neuerthelesse sweare that they come freely to their benefice are they not like to proceede on holily As for the vowe of chastity the daylie seruice and often fasting which Catholike Priests are bound vnto they by the sweet liberty of the newe Gospell doe exchange into solacing themselues with their yoke-fellowes this of the common sort of their Ministers With their preachers I will not meddle for feare of offence yet if any desire to knowe howe they behaue themselues in other countries they may read the censure of a zealous learned preacher one of their owne compagnions who amongst many other thinges writeth thus of them Menno l. de Christ fide titul de fide mulieris Cananeae When you come to preachers who bragge that they haue the word of God you shall find certaine of them manifest liars others drunkers some vsurers and foule-mouthed slanderers some persecutors and betraiers of harmelesse persons Howe some of them behaue themselues and by what meanes they gette their wiues and what kind of wiues they haue that I leaue to the Lord and them They liue an jdle slouthfull and voluptuous life by fraude and flattery they feed themselues of the spoiles of Antichrist he meaneth the benefices taken from the Papists and doe preach just as the earthly and carnall Magistrate desireth to heare and will permitte c. So much and not a litle more speaketh one great Master of the late reformation concerning his Euangelicall bretheren Are not these goodly lampes of the newe Gospell and likely persons to be chosen by Christ to giue light to others and to reforme the world But peraduenture they haue in some secret corners certaine deuout religious soules who in an austere retired life doe with continuall teares bewaile the sinnes of the rest and make incessant sute vnto the Almighty for a generall pardon of the whole Would to God they had but I feare me that they be of their inuisible congregation or rather none such to be found amongst them For those religious houses which our Ancesters had built for such Godly and vertuous people who forsaking both father mother all their kinne and acquaintance and flying from all the pleasures and preferments which this transitorie world could yeeld them gaue themselues wholy to the holy exercises of humility chastity pouerty and all sortes of mortification these Monasteries I say and all that professed in them a retired religious life the Protestantes haue beaten downe and banished and haue not in their places erected any other for the singuler Godly men or women of their religion Which doth most euidently argue that there is in them smale zeale and rare practise of any such extraordinary piety and deuotion Surely it must needes be a strange Christian congregation that holdeth them for no tollerable members of their common weale whome Christ specially chooseth to serue him day and night and by whose holy example and most feruent prayers all other Christians doe find themselues much edified and mightily protected So that briefly whether you consider the persons that serue God or the place where he is serued or the manner of his diuine seruice the Catholike religion doth in euery point surpasse the Protestant by many degrees Thus much in answere vnto Master PERKINS objection of Atheisme against vs the which I esteemed fittest for this Preface being a matter of so great moment and therefore most worthy to be examined and considered of a part with mature judgement Nowe to the rest of his questions according to his owne order OF THE REALL PRESENCE OVR CONSENTS M. PERKINS Page 185. We hold and beleeue a presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament of the Lordes supper and that no fained but a true and reall presence HITHERTO we agree in wordes but in sence nothing at all For he frameth a strange construction of that real presence which saith he must be considered two waies First in respect of the signes Secondly in respect of the communicants the signes be bread and wine with which Christes body and bloud be present not in respect of place and coexistence but by sacramentall relation that is when the sacramentall signes of bread and wine are present to the hand they doe present to the minde of the receiuer the body and bloud of Christ So that already M. PERKINS vnfained true reall presence is shrunken into a sacramentall relation and only significatiue presence such as may well be of thinges as farre distant the one from the other as the cope of heauen is from the center of the earth a strange reall presence surely The second kinde of presence saith he is in respect of the communicants to whose belieuing hartes he is also really present If you aske whether this be not as odde a kinde of presence as the other was he answereth by going about the bush saying that such as the communion is such is the presence and by the communion you must judge of the presence Ignotum as they say per ignotius He might shortly haue said if he had meant plaine dealing that by your faith you must mount into heauen and take hold on Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father and from thence drawe his righteousnesse and conuey it to your selfe so that both sortes of his true reall presence is made vvithout any nearer meeting of the parties then heauen and earth doe meete togither But let vs giue him the hearing this reall communion is made on this manner God the Father giueth Christ in this Sacrament as really and truly as any thing can be giuen to man and that not peece-meale but whole Christ yet not the substance of the God-head but the efficacy merits and operation are conueyed thence to the man-hood but the whole man-hood both in respect of substance as of merits and benefits is giuen wholy and jointly together And when God so giueth Christ he giueth withall at the same time the spirit of Christ which createth in the hart of the receiuer the instrument of true
faith by which the hart doth really receiue Christ by resting vpon the promise which God hath made that he will giue Christ and his righteousnesse vnto euery true beleeuer Nowe then when God giueth Christ and his benefits and man by faith receiueth the same there riseth an vnion betweene them not forged but reall and so neare that none can be nearer and being a reall vnion there is a reall communion and consequently a reall presence of Christ to the hart of him that receiueth the Sacrament in faith And thus farre saith he doe we consent with the Romish Church It may well be that you agree herein with the Romish Church that is with some apish counterfeit of the Roman but the true Roman Church condemneth all that phantastical kinde of receiuing as you your selfe declare in the wordes following But before we come vnto them let vs note by the way some strange points of doctrine shall I say or rather dreaming of our conceited Masters the Protestants Who euer yet heard in true diuinitie that the God-head considered apart by it selfe had merits to conuey to the man-hood as M. PER. here teacheth for merits belong to an inferior in respect of his superior of whome he meriteth now the God-head is not inferior to any as all but Arrians confesse Againe howe can whole Christ be giuen to man as M. PER. first affirmeth if the substance of the God-head be not giuen as presently after he declareth for the substance of the God-head is the principal part of Christ who is both God man Moreouer how is Christes substance as well as his benefits made ours or really present to our faith if vve be made partakers only of his righteousnesse which may as euery man knoweth well be without any bodily presence of his besides that fiction of his that faith is created in our hart at the same instant that we receiue the Sacrament is very absurd For as all the world witnesseth a man must be indued vvith faith before he goe to receiue that Sacrament or else he presenteth himselfe most vnworthily vnto that holy table Lastly if simple men silly women should not receiue this Sacrament vntill they vnderstood M. PER. doctrine of sacramentall relation of his reall vnion and communion made by speciall faith in it as no man should receiue before he knoweth what and howe he is to receiue then surely they should neuer receiue it the manner of it is so intricate and so farre passing their capacity I may not omit here that which I clipped off in M. PER. discourse to make it the more perspicuous to wit that Christes benefits are bestowed vpon some by Gods imputation only vpon others they are bestowed by a kind of propagation which M. PER. cannot expresse fitly but doth resemble it thus As one candle is lighted by another and so the light of one is conueied vnto twenty candles euen so the inherent righteousnes of euery beleeuer is deriued from the store-house of righteousnesse which is the man-hood of Christ this I say I could not but let the gentle reader vnderstand that he may cōsider howe slippery vnconstant the man is in his owne doctrine In the question of justification it is high treason to confesse any inherent righteousnesse in vs. Pag. 66. For as he there saith it doth rase the very foundation of religion there only he alloweth of a certaine strange reall imputation of Christes justice vnto vs but here hauing belike forgotten that euer he said any such word he teacheth besides that imputatiue an inherent righteousnesse to be cōueied from Christ into euery righteous mans soule With whome will this man agree trowe you that cannot agree with himselfe Let vs nowe come vnto the maine point of our dissent which M. PER. deliuereth thus we differ not touching the presence it selfe but only in the manner of presence For though we hold a reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament yet we doe not take it to be locall bodily or substantiall but spirituall and mysticall first to the signes by sacramentall relation then to the communicants by faith alone On the contrary the Church of Rome maintaineth a locall bodily and substantiall presence of Christes body and bloud by a change and conuersion of the bread and wine into the said body and bloud which they beleeue to be wrought by the vertue of Christes wordes pronounced ouer the bread and wine by a lawfull Priest intending to doe that which Christ at his last supper instituted and commanded him to doe Master PERKINS reasons to the contrary be these This corporall presence ouerturneth sundry articles of faith For we beleeue that the body of Christ was made of the pure substance of the Virgin Mary and that but once namely when it was conceiued by the holy Ghost But this cannot stand if the body of Christ be made of bread vnlesse we beleeue contraries that the body was made of the Virgin and not of the Virgin made once and not once but often We read not in our Creede made of the Virgin Mary but borne of her nowe there is great difference betweene made and borne For a house is made of a Carpenter but is not borne of him but the vvord made vvhich may also in good sence be vsed being fitter to cloake the fallacy Master PERKINS cared not to straine a little curtesie vvith the articles of our beleefe and to thrust in made in stead of borne But let this prety jugling-tricke passe and to his argument I answere that the appearance of this contrariety proceedeth either out of meere ignorance of our doctrine or else out of the equiuocation of this word made For we hold that Christes blessed body is but once made if made be taken for to be fashioned and formed newe from the beginning so was it but once made of the pure bloud of the immaculate Virgin Mary but may be againe and againe well made present vnder this or that forme or on this or that altar which hath no shadowe of contrariety with the other For euery mans body vvhich is but once made in his mothers vvombe may afterward a thousand times be made present in one or diuers places Nowe when we say with the ancient Fathers that of bread is made the body of Christ the sence is that the substance of bread is turned into the body of Christ so that then there is no more the substāce of bread vnder the formes of bread but Christes body which succeedeth in place of it therefore the bread is said to be turned vnto Christes body and Christes body to be made of bread not that any part of the bread remaineth changed into Christes body or that Christes body is a newe created and framed but because that by that very action wherewith the bread is remoued out the body is brought into that place the one is said to be made of the other so that here is nothing contrary vnto that
haue heard before that S. Augustine and S. Cyrill taught him to be bodily present in as many places as the blessed Sacrament is administred so doe the ancient Expositors of the Epistle to the Hebrewes affirme that Christes body is offered now on many Altars at the same very moment And to cite one of their sentences at large Lib. 3. de sacerdot S. Chrisostome cryeth out O miracle O goodnesse of God! he that sitteth aboue with his Father at the very same instant of time is touched by the handes of all and doth offer and deliuer himselfe to them who are willing to receaue him Homil. 2. ad populū in fine and Helias left his cloake to his disciple Heliseus but Christ ascending left vs his flesh Helias in deede cast his cloake off but Christ both left his flesh to vs and ascending tooke it vp with himselfe By this you see howe farre this most holy and learned Father vvas from arguing as our Protestants are wont to doe his body is ascended therefore it cannot be in the Sacrament Nay saith he most expresly it is both there and here together through Christes power and loue towardes vs. Master PERKINS second reason This bodily presence ouerturneth the nature of a true body whose essentiall propriety it is to haue length breadth and thicknesse and by reason of these three dimensions a body can occupy but one place at once as Aristotle said the propriety of a body is to be seated in some place they therefore that say the body of Christ is in many places at once doe make it no body at all Answere We graunt it to be the intrinsecall nature of a body to haue length breadth and thicknesse so that no body can possibly be vvithout those dimensions but vve denie it to be essentiall vnto a body to be seated in some place For quantity and vbi be two distinct predicaments as the learned knowe quantity being perfect in his owne nature vvithout any relation to the place for quantity hath an absolute and no respectiue essence True it is that a body is by nature fit and apt to be seated in a place vvhich is that that Aristole teacheth of it As a man naturally is apt to bee learned yet actually to bee learned is a meere accident to man and manie men be vvithout it euen so to be actually seated in a place is altogither vvithout the nature of a body in so much as the greatest body of all others to vvit the highest heauen is vvithout a place there being no body vvithout it vvhose extremity may enuiron and compasse in that heauen being the highest body as the nature of a place requireth so that it belongeth not to the essence and nature of a body actually to be in any place and consequently vvhether it be in a place or not in any place vvhether it be in one place or in many places the body remayneth still a true perfect body accomplished vvith all his substantiall partes Againe our faith teacheth vs that the naturall subsistence and person of a man vvhich is much nearer to the nature of man then his seating in a place can be separated from man leauing his vvhole nature entire and perfect as it is in Christ our Sauiour vvhere the full complete nature of man is vvithout his owne naturall subsistence and person it being ingrafted and taken into the person of GOD. Hovve much more easily then may his blessed body be vvithout occupying any place vvhich is farre more extrinsecall to him And touching the taking vp of as great a place as the biggenesse of the body requireth vve hold vpon the same groundes that it is of no such necessity but that the power of God can dispence vvith it For if a body may be in no place at all it may be in as little a roome as it shall please God to enclose it VVhich our Sauiour also very plainely teacheth vvhen he signifieth that it is possible to God Mat. 19. vers 26. Ioh. 20. vers 26. for to passe a Camell through the eye of a needle And Christ himselfe entring into the house vvhere his Disciples vvere assembled the doores being shutte gaue vs a manifest experiment that a true naturall body needeth no space at all to be seated in but may by diuine power passe through other solide bodies so that it remaineth euident to them that haue skill in Philosophie that there is no such repugnance in a true naturall body but that it may be in many places at once or in as litle a place as it shall please God to bestow it And when any of the ancient Fathers say that bodies must needes haue places proportionable to them they meane that according vnto the ordinary course of nature so it must be yet they doe not denie but that God can otherwise dispose of them M. PERKINS third reason Transubstantion ouerthroweth the very supper of the Lord. For in euery Sacrament there must be a signe a thing signified and a proportion betweene them both Good let it be remembred but the Catholikes reall presence taketh all away For when the bread is really turned into the body of Christ then the signe is abolished and there remaineth nothing but the outward formes of bread and wine Answere Not so for there is also the body and bloud of Christ as vve hold and so at the most there is nothing gone but the signe only as he tearmeth the bread but neither is that taken away and then all remaineth whole For not the substance of bread and wine but the outward formes of them are the signe of the Sacrament For they alone doe no lesse represent vnto our minde and vnderstanding the spiritual feeding of our soules by Christes body then if they had the substance of bread vnder them as the similitude of fiery tongues Act. 2. without the true substance of tongues did sufficiently signifie the gift of tongues bestowed vpon the Apostles at the feast of Pentecost Math. 3. And it is not necessary to belieue that the Doue which descended vpon our Sauiour at his baptisme was a true naturall Pigeon but the outward shape of a Doue was sufficient to expresse those Doue-like qualities vvhich were in our Sauiour so the outward shewe of bread and wine although the substance be absent serueth very cōueniently to make vs remember and vnderstand that euen then when we receiue the blessed Sacrament our soules are as spiritually fedde vvith it as our bodies are wont to be with bread and wine or which is signified secondarylie that as bread is made of many graines of corne vnited and compact into one masse and body euen so all vve Christians by receiuing the Sacrament worthily and by the spirit of Christ dwelling in vs are made one misticall body of Christ and should therefore one loue and tender the good of another as members of the same body are wont to doe All this I say the outward forme and shewe
1. the newe to liberty And there they were as seruants we as heires they seruing vnder the weake and poore elements of this world we hauing the spirit of sonnes c. And the lawe had a shadowe of the thinges to come not the very Image as we haue so that nothing could be further from the Apostles meaning then to make the Iewes equall in Sacraments and graces with the Corinthians who were Christians But his intention was as may be easily seene by that vvhich goeth before and followeth to warne the Corinthians to chastice their bodies as he himselfe did as he saith in the end of the Chapter going before and to flie from all vice and not to rely only vpon the extraordinary gifts of God bestowed vpon them For saith he the ancient Israelites all were partakers of many singuler fauours of God as of the eating of Manna of drinking of the Rocke c. And yet because many of them committed fornication and liued wickedly God was not pleased vvith all of them Obserue also that not one thing there mentioned by the Apostle was a Sacramēt among the Iewes and therefore are they vnskilfully compared with our Sacraments For a Sacrament is a set ceremony to be vsed ordinarily in the vvorship of God but their passing through the red Sea was but once therefore no set ceremony their eating of Manna and drinking of the Rocke were but naturall refections to them yea their cattle did drinke of the Rocke aswell as their Masters vvhich thinges though they did prefigure our Sacraments yet were no Sacraments at all and much lesse any thing in vertue comparable to our Sacraments M. PERKINS sixt reason The Sabbaoth was made for man and not man for the Sabbaoth so it may be said that the Sacrament was made for man and not man for the Sacrament and therefore man is more excellent then the Sacrament the end being alwaies better then the thing ordained to the end but if Christes body be really in the Sacrament then is not man more excellent then it ergo Ans By the like argumēt you may as wel proue that the Sonne of God is not nor euer shal be incarnate for the redemption of man or els which is most absurd that man is better then God because for vs men for our saluation Christ descended from heauen was borne of the V. Mary The end then being alwaies better then the thing ordained to the end as M. P. argueth either Christ is not yet borne to redeme man or els man is better then Christ See what goodly arguments they vse to deceiue the simple withal the direct answere is that the maine principall end of Christs incarnation passion and reall presence in the Sacrament is the glory of Gods justice wisdome and goodnesse and of his owne mercy and bounty which are more excellent then Christes incarnation and reall presence mans redemption spirituall feeding and saluation are but secondary endes which are farre inferior vnto our most louing redeemers mercy kindnesse and charity through which he hath procured it M. PER. confirmeth this reason with that which is nothing like it saying Euer◠beleeuer in the supper of the Lord receiueth whole Christ God man though not the God-head vvhich wordes imply a manifest contradiction For howe can God or whole Christ be receiued without the God-head but by carnall eating we receiue not wholy Christ but only a part of the man-hood and therefore in the Sacrament there is no carnall eating nor reall presence Answ We Catholikes doe eate al Christes body wholy For we part not his body but beleeue that it is whole in euery cōsecrated Host Moreouer because his blessed body is a perfect liuing body vve knowe also that it hath bloud in it as other bodies haue and is yet further joyned vvith his most holy soule and so in receiuing his body we receiue all his man-hood both body soule Ouer and besides his God-head being lincked and joyned inseperably with his man-hood whole Christ both God and man is alwaies receiued together so that euery lay Catholike communicating but vnder one kind doth receiue Christs body bloud yea wholy both all his man-hood and God-head whereas in the Protestants naturall communion of bread and wine there is in deed neither body nor bloud not any peece of Christ but only in their owne phantasticall imagination so that those their ordinary out-cries are most fond The Papistes robbe you of the bloud being one part of the Sacrament Whereas Catholike Pastors giue to their flocke vnder one kinde both the body and bloud yea the very soule and God-head of Christ as you haue heard But the Protestantes are the great Theeues in deede vvho defraude their vnhappy followers of both body and bloud and giue them only sacramental signes and relations to feede their foolish phantasies Before I come vnto M. PER. last reason taken from authority I thinke it fittest to place here certaine other objections which out of place he hudleth vp together in the answere vnto our second argumēt where he saith first that Christes body could not be receiued in bodily manner before his passion We say contrarily that it could be as well before as after When he goeth about to proue his position he shall be answered Secondly That Christ was the Minister of this Sacrament and therefore if he had conuerted bread into his body he should haue taken his owne body into his handes vvhich we graunt following S. Augustine vpon these vvordes He was caried in his owne handes Conc. 1. in psal 31. Howe this may be vnderstood saith he of Dauid literally we finde not but we finde it in Christ for Christ was carried in his owne handes when deliuering his owne body he said this is my body For then he carried that his body in his owne handes M. PER. addeth yet further that it should also followe that Christ did eate his owne flesh for he did communicate also saith he to consecrate his last supper in his owne person This may be true though it haue no warrant in the word For S. Hierome a holy and most learned Doctor doth affirme it saying Epistol ad Hedibian quaest 2. our Lord Iesus is both the guest and the banquet he who doth eate and is eaten and no greater incōuenience is this in our opinion then in theirs For who more meete to receiue Christes blessed body then himselfe and vvhat more foolish then for Christ by faith to apply himselfe and his benefits vnto himselfe which as you haue heard before out of M. PERKINS is to receiue the Lordes supper like a good Protestant Lastly he auoucheth that if we eate Christes body really we must needes be man-slayers but he forgotte to proue it dixit abijt If other proofe fayled him he might haue fledde vnto the rusty opinion of the old farne Capernaites which is mentioned in the Gospell it selfe For they as S. Augustine expoundeth it thought that Christ would
cut his flesh in peeces as butchers doe beefe in the shambles and either rawe or rosted haue giuen it to be eaten to some a legge to other an arme c. But we Catholikes doe eate Christes body whole and that without any detriment or diminution vnto that blessed body which is not extended vnder the partes of the sacred Host so as one part of his body is vnder one part of it and another part vnder another but is after the manner of our soule in the body the whole body vnder the whole Host and the whole vnder euery part of the Host and so without any parting or deuiding of his body it is wholy receiued of euery communicant and remaineth after whole in their bodies imparting his grace to their soules so long as the formes of bread tary in their stomackes in their proper shapes and afterward ceasseth to be there any longer which is confirmed by those diuine wordes of the glorious Apostle S. Andrewe recorded by his most deare Disciples Libr. de pass eius When the immaculate lambe is truly sacrificed and his flesh truly eaten of the people he neuerthelesse remaineth and continueth whole and aliue That which he peeceth too of the necessity which we are brought vnto by our doctrine to hold that our bodies be nourished by naked qualities which saith he is erronious in Philosophy is not worth the answering For neither are we driuen to hold that vnlesse it be out of the bounty of our owne good willes For it is nothing materiall â—o the real presence whether our bodies be nourished by the accidents there present or no neither is it so cleare a case in Philosophy whether odours that are naked quallities doe nourish or no as they who haue studied Philosophie knowe And lastly all matters of faith are aboue the rules of Philosophie vvherefore the reall presence of Christs blessed body in the Sacrament being a memoriall and monument of all his merueilous works it must not be thought strange if there followe of it many thinges aboue the reach of naturall Philosophie and yet not so many perhaps as must needes be granted by them as well as by vs in the resurrection of our bodies vvhich notwithstanding those difficulties in Philosophy all Christian men doe firmely beleeue Nowe let vs come vnto such authorities as M. PER. citeth in fauour of their part which neither are many nor taken out of the more famous fathers of either Greeke or Latin Church and which is more admirable not one of the authours by him cited but that in the very same wordes which he alleadgeth to disproue the reall presence they doe euidently auerre and proue it so well knowne and confessed a truth was this of the blessed Dialog 1 Sacrament in all antiquity Theodorete saith The same Christ who called his naturall body foode and bread who also called himselfe a vine he vouchsafed the visible signes the name of his owne body not changing nature but putting grace to nature Here are scarce two wordes together as it is in the author The former part of his wordes be Our Sauiour changed names giuing to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body that is he called his body bread and bread his body so that here is as much for vs as against vs and the latter part of the sentence is wholy for vs. For Christ would saith he haue them that he partakers of the misteries not to attend vnto the nature of the thinges which are seene that is bread and wine but by reason of the changing of names to giue credit to that change which is made by grace that is they hearing in consecration that which was before bread and wine to be then called his body and bloud should beleeue that then also bread and vvine vvere changed and made his body and bloud that change being wrought by the vertue and grace of his word To these wordes of Theodorete in his first Dialogue he joyneth other wordes of his taken out of his second yet quoting the same Dialogue The mysticall signes after consecration leese not their nature for they remaine in their first nature figure and forme and may be feine and touched as before Here M. PER. should haue stopped in the middest of the sentence as they are sometimes accustomed to doe and then had he left some shewe of wordes for his part yet such as might easily be answered but vvhen the reason of the remaining of mysticall signes in their former nature and figure is as he himselfe declareth that they may be seene as before he doth giue the learned reader to vnderstand that he speaketh not of the inward substance of them but of the outward appearance which is the proper object of the sences which outward accidence hath a certaine kind of essence and nature as well as the substance it selfe But that which followeth in Theodorete putteth al out of doubt For he addeth The mysticall signes may be seene as before but that which they are made is vnderstood And what is it vnderstood to be made Marry euen that which we beleeue and adore which can be no other thing but the true reall body of Christ Iesus God and man For in him doe vve beleeue and him doe we adore See then howe this his first and best authour disproueth plainely his owne position M. PER. second authour is one Gelasius an old writer I confesse but where or what he was De duabus naturis Christi it is vncertaine This man saith Bread and wine passe into the substance of the body and bloud of Christ yet they cease not but remaine still in the property of their nature these wordes be flat against M. PER. and the Zwinglians doctrine in that they teach bread and wine to passe into the substance of Christes body The other clause seemeth to make for the Lutherans yet may be interpreted that they remaine stil in some property of their nature that is in the same forme colour and taste as they did before M. PER. goeth on Lib. 4. sentent dist 11. Lumbard saith if he be asked what conuersion this is whether formall or substantiall or of any other kinde he cannot define it Ans Gentle reader turne to the place and imbrace his resolution For most formally doth he deliuer our doctrine and that proued by the testimony of the ancient Fathers albeit the name of transubstantion were not then in vse From the Fathers sentences M. PER. falleth to collections of his owne out of them First saith he they vsed in former times to burne with fire that which remained after the administration of the Lordes supper and therefore tooke it not for his body and quoteth for proofe of this Hesichius Libr. 2. in Leuit. c. 8. where he sheweth either ouer great boldnes if he did not see the place on exceeding wilfull malice if he read it For that ancient writer out of that ceremony of burning al
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
contayneth a thankes-giuing to God for the same which thankes-giuing is the Sacrifice and calues of our lips May he not seeme worthy of a calues-head to his breakefast that being in a serious dispute of a Sacrifice would say that the thankes-giuing for a Sacrifice may trulie be called the very same Sacrifice it selfe for so a thankesgiuing for a howse may truly be called a howse and the thanksgiuing for a horse a horse it selfe and to say that the ancient Fathers so spake as M. PER. doth is to make them babes and too too vnskilfull how to speake Secondly saith he it may be called a Sacrifice because euery communicant doth there present himselfe an acceptable Sacrifice to God to worke in the practise of all dutiefull obedience You should haue said that the receiuing of the Lordes supper worthily might rather be called a Sacrifice then the supper it selfe if you put the reason of the Sacrifice only in the receiuers conceit and deuotion which is very different from the supper it selfe Thirdly saith he The Lordes supper is called a Sacrifice in respect of almesse giuen to the poore which was joyned with it and in this regard also the ancient Fathers haue called the Sacrament an vnbloudy Sacrifice and the table an Altar and the Ministers Priests and the whole action an Oblation not to God but to the congregation and not by the Priest alone but by the people I pray you take not the ancient Fathers for so simple as to thinke the Sacrament to be a Sacrifice because some almes might happily be then and there giuen to the poore For they teach that a Sacrifice is a soueraigne seruice done vnto God alone and not to be offered to any mortall creature Libr. 20. cont Faustum c. 21 Witnesse one S. Augustine for the rest who saith To that worship which is proper to God alone doth appertaine the offering of Sacrifice We doe in no sort offer any such thing or command it to be offered either to any Martir or any holy soule or Martir c. And what a dotage is it to dreame that Priests and Altars take their names of that that almes is giuen by lay-men to the poore at Masse time wherin there is neyther congruity nor likelihood at al nor hath he any author to warrant it For almes by the Apostles order was left vnto the disposition of Deacons Act. 6. In exhor ad castitatem Conc. 14. Conc. Carth. 4. cap. 4. Priests commonly did not medle in it at least it neuer was any essentiall point of their vocation Which was as Tertullian briefly defineth to teach to minister the Sacrament and to offer Sacrifice Nowe Deacons might not in any case offer Sacrifice as the whole Church in her purity defined at the Councel of Nice wherefore there is no colour to say that the vnbloudy Sacrifice Priests and Altars were so called in respect of almes giuen to the congregation we denie not but that deuout people offered at Masse time either bread and wine towardes the Sacrifice or money towardes the reliefe of the Priest and maintainance of the Altar but that was not called the Sacrifice of the Masse by the Fathers but distinguished from it expresly Witnesse that very place cited by M. PER. out of S. Augustine who comforting his friend pittifully lamenting the captiuity of three virgins Epist 122 taken prisoners and led away captiue by Infidels citeth the example of Azarias and his fellowe captiues in Babilon of whome honourable mention is made in Daniel Cap. 3. Whereupon he saith These virgins be in captiuity nowe as were then those Israelites in a heathen country where they could not sacrifice vnto our Lord after their lawe because Hierusalem was the only place where they might offer Sacrifice So saith he these virgins now cannot either carry an offering to the Altar of God or finde a Priest there by whome they may offer it to God These be his wordes by which he is so farre from saying that women did offer Sacrifice at the Altar as M. PER. falsely translateth ferre oblationem ad altare Dei that he plainely teacheth the contrarie the place of their captiuity affording them neither Altars nor Priests Now both those captiue Israelites in Babilon and these captiue virgins might and did deuoutly fast and pray and might also to their power giue almes and yet as testifieth S. Augustine they could not offer Sacrifice because they wanted a conuenient place Priestes and Altars wherevpon it followeth most euidently euen by the testimony which M. PER. alleadgeth for himselfe that the giuing of Almes and other godly deuotions of lay-men doe not make Priests and Altars or giue them their names but be most distinct thinges from them as shall more amply be shewed hereafter out of the ancient Fathers who make the Sacrifice of the Masse a most proper kinde of Sacrifice yet vnbloudie because ther is no bloud shed there but the body and bloud of Christ are offered vnder the formes of bread and wine not as M. PER. saith in his second conclusion in figure only and representation but also really and most truly We denie not the Sacrifice of Christes body in the Masse to be a representation of Christes suffering on the Crosse but affirme it to be such a representation as contayneth withall the same reall body there vnbloudily sacrificed which S. Augustine fully testifieth in these fewe wordes Libr. 20. con Faust cap. 18. Christians doe celebrate the memory of the Sacrifice already performed on the Crosse by the very holy Oblation and participation of the body of Christ we say therefore with the same author by M. PER. alleadged That Sacraments haue the resemblance of thinges whereof they are the Sacramentes but say further that besides the resemblance they containe also the thinges which they resemble As baptisme hath by washing the body outwardlie a resemblance of washing the soule inwardly from sinnes and withall doth when it is ministred truly wash and purge it from all sinne So that it is a foule kinde of reasoning in the matter of Sacraments to argue thus as the Protestants vse It is the signe or the representation of such a thing therefore the thing it selfe is not there present whereas the contrary is most certaine that it is the signe of such a thing ergo the thing it selfe is there present because all Sacraments of the newe Testament doe containe and worke that which they signifie as shall be more amply proued in his proper place Neither doe we denie but that by a true faith in Christ and his passion so it vvant not other necessary parts of Christian religion a man is made partaker of the merit of it But what is that against the Sacrifice of the Masse one truth doth not disproue an other but we shall heare the man perhaps argue more substantially anone when he draweth nearer the matter Thus much of our fained consents which M. PER. putteth downe to peruert the ancient
Fathers plaine sentences for the Sacrifice of the Masse to make his poore abused followers beleeue that vvhen they approue the Sacrifice of the Masse as they doe very often and that in most expresse tearmes as you shal heare hereafter that then they meane some other matter Much more sincerely had he dealt if he had confessed with his owne Rabbins that it was the common beleefe of the world receiued by the best Schoole-men That in the Masse a Sacrifice is offered to God for remission of sinnes as a Lib. 4. Instit ca. 18. §. 1. Caluin doth deliuer vvhich b De captiuit Babilon c. 1. Luther graunteth to be conformable vnto the saying of the ancient Fathers And one c Li. cont Carolostadianos Alberus a famous Lutheran speaketh it to the great glory of his Master Luther that he vvas the first since Christes time who openly inueighed against it this yet is more ingenious and plainer dealing to confesse the truth then with vaine colours to goe about to disguise it And that the indifferent reader may be vvell assured howe Luther an Apostata Friar could come vnto that high pitch of vnderstanding as to soare vnto that which none sithence Christes time neither Apostles nor other could reach vnto before him let him reade a speciall treatise of his owne Cocleus Vlenbergius Intituled of Masse in corners and of the consecration of Priestes which is extant in the sixt Tome of his workes set out in the German tongue and printed at Ienes as men skilfull in that language doe testifie In his workes in â—â—tin printed at Wittenburge of the older edition it is the seauenth Tome though somewhat corrected and abridged there I say the good fellowe confesseth that entring into a certaine conference and dispute with the Diuell about this Sacrifice of the Masse Luther then defending it and the Deuill very grauely arguing against it in fine the Master as it was likely ouercame his Disciple Luther and so setled him in that opinion against the Sacrifice of the Masse that he doubted not afterward to maintayne it as a principle point of the newe Gospell and is therein seconded by the vvhole band of Protestants This is no fable but a true history set downe in print by himselfe through Gods prouidence that all the vvorld may see from vvhat authority this their doctrine against the blessed Sacrifice of the Masse proceedeth And if they vvill beleeue it notwithstanding they knowe the Deuill to be the founder of it are they not then most vvorthy to be rejected of God and adjudged to him vvhose Disciples they make themselues vvittingly and of their owne free accord Nowe to the difference OVR DIFFERENCE M. PERKINS Page 207. THey make the Eucharist to bee a reall and externall Sacrifice offered vnto God holding that the Minister of it is a Priest properly in that he offereth Christes body and bloud to God really and properly vnder the formes of bread and wine we acknowledge no such Sacrifice for remission of sinne but only Christes on the Crosse once offered Here is the maine difference which is of such moment that their Church maintayning this can bee no Church at all for this pointe raseth the foundation to the very bottome vvhich he vvill proue by the reasons follovving if his ayme faile him not Obserue that in the lawe of Moyses there vvere three kinde of proper Sacrifices one called Holocaust or vvhole burnt offeringes the second an Host for sinne of vvhich there were also diuers sortes the third an Host of pacification Holocaustes vvere vvholy consumed by fire in recognizance and protestation of Gods Soueraigne dominion ouer vs Hostes for sinne vvere offered as the name improteth to appease Gods vvrath and to purge men from sinne Hostes of pacification or peace vvere to giue God thankes for benefits receiued and to sue for continuance and increase of them Nowe vve following the ancient Fathers doctrine doe hold the Sacrifice of the Masse to succeede all these sacrifices and to contayne the vertue and efficacy of all three to vvit it is offered both to acknowledge God to be the supreame Lord of heauen and earth and that all our good commeth from him as vvitnesseth this oblation of his deare Sonnes body who being the Lord of heauen and earth vvillingly suffered death to shewe his obedience to his Father Secondly it is offered to appease Gods vvrath justly kindled against vs sinners representing to him therein the merit of Christes passion to obtaine our pardon Thirdly it is offered to God to giue him thankes for all his graces bestowed vpon vs and by the vertue thereof to craue continuance and encrease of them These points of our doctrine being openly laide before the eyes of the world M. PER. seemeth to reproue only one peece of them to wit That the Sacrifice of the Masse is no true Sacrifice for remission of sinnes and not joyning issue with vs but vpon that branch only he may be thought to agree vvith vs in the other two to wit that it is a proper and perfect kinde of whole burnt offering and a Sacrifice of pacification at least he goeth not about to disproue the rest and therefore he had need to spit on his fingers as they say and to take better hold or else if that were graunted him which he endeauoureth to proue he is very farre from obtayning the Sacrifice of the Masse to be no true and proper kind of Sacrifice For it may well be an Holocaust or Host of pacification though it be not a Sacrifice for sinne But that all men may see howe confident we are in euery part and parcell of the Catholike doctrine we will joyne issue with him where he thinketh to haue the most aduantage against vs and will proue it to be also an Host for remission of sinnes and that aswel for the dead as for the liuing which is much more then M. PER. requireth and by the way I will demonstrate that this doctrine is so farre off from rasing the foundation of Christian religion that there can be no religion at all vvithout a true and proper kinde of Sacrifice and sacrificing Priestes But first I will confute M. PER. reasons to the contrary because he placeth them foremost Hebr. 9. v. 15.16 ca. 10. vers 10. The first reason The holy Ghost saith Christ offered himselfe but once therefore not often and thus there can be no reall offering of his body and bloud in the Sacrament of his supper the text is plaine True but your arguing out of it is somewhat vaine For after your owne opinion it is the Priest that doth offer the Sacrifice of Christes body in the Lordes supper and therefore though Christ offered it but once as the Apostle saith yet Priests appointed by him may offer it many times Doe yee perceiue howe easily your Achilles may be foiled the good-man not looking belike for this answere saith nothing to it but frameth another in
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.
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
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
12. which is grounded vpon S. Paules wordes who saith That the Priest-hood being translated it is necessary that a translation of the lawe be made but in the newe Testament there is alteration of both lawe and couenant therefore there are both newe Priestes and a newe Sacrifice M. PER. answereth that all may be graunted That there are both newe Priestes and a newe Sacrifice Marry no other Priest but Christ himselfe both God and man who as man is the Sacrifice and as God the Altar Reply Who euer heard such a proper peece of diuinity is the God-head in Christ the Altar vpon which he offereth then is it not only inferior vnto God the Father to whome the Sacrifice is offered but the God-head in Christ is inferior to his man-hood as the Altar is inferior vnto the Sacrifice and Priest Againe the man-hood in Christ being separated from the God-head it not a Sacrifice of infinit value and consequently not sufficient to satisfie for al the sinnes of the world so that nothing could be answered more absurdly But his meaning perhaps was That Christ sacrifycing himselfe on the Crosse remayneth a Priest for euer and is the only Priest of the newe Testament in his owne person and that by his only Sacrifice on the Crosse and by no other Reply Christes Sacrifice on the Crosse is common aswell vnto all the faithful that liued before his daies euen from the beginning of the world as vnto all that liued since as effectuall and present vnto the one as vnto the other Apoc. 13. vers 8. and therefore is he said to be the lambe slayne from the beginning of the world so that notwithstanding this answere the reason remaineth in his full force and vertue that besides that Sacrifice on the Crosse which is common to all we must needes haue both newe and true Priestes and Sacrifice because we haue a newe lawe and couenant for Christes Sacrifice on the Crosse is no more actually present vnto vs then it vvas vnto the Iewes and all that were before him And as touching the effect and benefit of that his Sacrifice it was imparted and communicated aswell vnto old Father Abraham as vnto any that liued or doth liue in the state of the newe Testament and consequently the Sacrifice on the Crosse is not that peculiar Sacrifice which goeth joyntly with the newe Testament Which argument may be confirmed by this that there was neuer any lawe or religion in antiquity without their proper Priestes and without a true and reall Sacrifice wherevpon it followeth that the very natural light of mans vnderstanding doth teach vs that God is alwayes to be worshipped with Sacrifice Neither proceedeth this nut of the naturall corruption of men as Kemnitius is not ashamed to say but from the due consideration of mans bounden duty towardes God For the holyest and best informed men in the lawe of nature as Abel Noe Melchisedecke Abraham Isaac and Iacob did often most deuoutly offer vp Sacrifices vnto God and in the lawe of Moyses God himselfe prescribed vnto his people of Israel diuers and sundry kindes of Sacrifices so that it cannot but be a very impudent assertion to say that to Sacrifice vnto God issued out of the corruption of mans nature And further the very nature and end of a Sacrifice doth conuince that it is to be offered vnto God in all states and times For what is a Sacrifice but the most soueraigne honour that man can externally exhibite vnto the Almighty by not only vsing but consuming some thing of price to protest God to be the omnipotent Author of all things and we his creatures receiuing and holding our liues and all our goodes of both soule and body of him And if any aske me whether it be not sufficient to doe this in hart inwardly and outwardly to professe it in wordes I answere that it is not but â—â—â—â—ust besides thoughts and wordes by actuall deedes expresse the same And the act of sacrificing by the consent of the best learned of all Nations hath beene and is approued and declared for the only outward act of diuine honour proper vnto the Deity Saint Augustine teacheth Li. 2. coÌ„t Faustum cap. 21. de ciuitat Dei lib. 8. cap. 27. l. 22. c. 10. alibi that the erecting of Altars the consecrating of Priestes and offering of Sacrifice be thinges properly belonging vnto God and that Christians in deed in memory of their Martirs did these things but yet they did them only vnto God and that the Pagans themselues did not honour any dead or aliue with Sacrifice but such as they esteemed to be Gods so that if we Christians should want a true and proper Sacrifice we should be lesse religious then euer were any people being destitute of the principall and chiefest part of true religion And is it credible that God should among vs only whome he hath chosen to serue him most excellently want the soueraigne point of his diuine honour surely no wherefore this our doctrine of a true Sacrifice to be daylie offered to God is so farre from â—asing the foundâ—tion of religion to the bottome as M. PER. writeth as it vpholdeth the principall piller of religion and they in denying of it doe as it were strike of the head of Christian religion And who is of so meane wit that seeth not their silly shift and last refuge of Christs Sacrifice on the crosse to be but the last wordes that men foiled could vseâ— for very reason conuinceth that there must be a reall Sacrifice daylie offered by foure selected persons whereat the rest of Christians must be assembled and meete to doe their fealty and homage vnto the soueraigne Lord of heauen and earth that God be not defrauded of that his supreame seruice Nowe it is most manifest that Christes Sacrifice on the crosse was to be done but once and being nowe past can be no such ordinary â—â—arbs of calling Christians together to performe any such duty wherefore cannot be that daylie Sacrifice which we Christians are to offer But the vnbloudy oblation of his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine is the most excellent Sacrifice after that on the Crosse that euer was as containing the selfe same Host in substance and being a most liuely representation of his death and passion and therefore by Christes owne institution it was established as fittest for the perfect state of the newe Testament and ordained that it alone should be in steed of all other Sacrifices as hath before beene proued by the testimony of the Fathers I will here adde one place or two out of S. Augustine who saith L. 17. Ciuit c. 20. The Priest who is the mediator of the newe Testament doth exhibite to vs a table of his owne body and bloud after the order of Melchisedecke For that Sacrifice doth succeede all other Sacrifices of the old Testament Wherefore it is said in the person of our mediator Thou vvouldest
in any one of them that they vvere to haue the supreme gouernement in cases Ecclesiasticall but where the first institution of Kinges is mentioned There they are willed to receiue the examplar and copy of the lawe Deut. 17. vers 18. from the Priests of the tribe of Leuy And in the same Chapter a little before All men are bound to take the true exposition of the same lawe not from the King but from the high Priest of the same tribe of Leuy Nowe if the Iewes being but one nation could not be kept in vnity of truth without one supreme Gouernour what diuision in faith and religion would there be among all the nations of Christendome which be so many and so diuers if there were not one supreme Pastor to vvhose finall sentence they should all be obedient and bound to stand first then it is euident that there must be one supreme Gouernour in the Church Nowe to goe one steppe forward this supreme authority was by our Sauiour Christ IESVS giuen vnto S. Peter which I will proue both by the promise and performance of it Math. 16. vers 15. The promise of this supremacy is recorded in these wordes Whome doe you say that I am Simon Peter answered and said thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God and IESVS answering said vnto him blessed art thou Simon Bar-Iona because flesh and bloud hath not reuealed it to thee but my Father which is in heauen And I say to thee that thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church c. Whence I reason thus That is the foundation in a building which is the head in a body and supreme Gouernour in a common-weale for the foundation is first laide and doth vphold all the rest of the building but our Sauiour promiseth to build the spirituall common-wealth of his Church vpon Peter as vpon a firme Rocke and foundation therefore he meant to make him the head and chiefe Pastor vnder himselfe of it Some answere that Christ said not that he would build his Church vpon Peter but vpon that Rocke which was himselfe because that Christ is called a Rocke 1. Cor. 10. Reply This cannot be for albeit Christ be the most firme foundation and chiefe corner stone of all that building yet hath it pleased him to appoint a Deputy and Vicar to gouerne in his absence vnder him and so to communicate his Titles in a certayne measure and degree vnto his seruants Math. 5. vers 15. He is the light of the world and yet saith he to his Apostles You are the light of the world He is the Pastor of our soules and he maketh them our Pastors so he is the Rocke that sustayneth all partes of the Church by his owne power and vertue but hath imparted to Peter that name to signifie that he should be made able to beare the person of his Vicar on earth and to rule vnder him and by vertue receiued from him the whole Church for his time Nowe the very course of the text doth conuince that the Rocke there specified cannot be Christ for it hath joyned vvith it the word this and vpon this Rocke which doth demonstrate and point out that vvhich was spoken of immediately before vvhich vvas Peter Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke c. Againe what congruity should there be in this sentence to beginne with Peter and to make shewe of bestowing some high reward on him for his noble confession and in the end of it to say that he would build his Church vpon himselfe Thirdly in the next sentence there is no question made but that Christ did promise to Peter the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen and not to reserue them to himselfe therefore most certayne it is that in the former sentence he promised to build his Church vpon Peter Finally in the Syriake tongue in vvhich our Sauiour then spake it is so playne that it cannot be doubted of for it is thou art Cephas and vpon this Cephas I wil build my Church nowe the vvord Cephas signifieth a rocke or stone Let vs to make the matter more manifest heare the judgement of some of the auncient and most learned Fathers of both the Greeke and Latin Church touching this exposition S. Epiphanius In Ancorate Our Lord made Peter the chiefe of the Apostles a firme Rocke vpon which the Church of God is builded S. Gregory Nazianzeno * Orat. de mod seruand in disput Peter is called a Rocke and hath the foundations of the Church committed vnto his fidelity S. Chrysostome a Hom. 55 in Math. Our Lord said thou art Peter and vpon thee will I build my Church S. Cyril b Lib. 2. in Iob. ca. 2. Christ fore-told that he should not be called Simon but Peter by the name it selfe fitly signifying that he would build his Church vpon him as on a Rocke and most sure stone S. Cyprian c Epist ad QuirinuÌ„ Our Lord did choose Peter the first or chiefest and vpon him did he build his Church S. Ambrose saith d Serm. 42 That Peter is called the Rocke both because he first of all laid the foundation in the actions of faith and also for that as an vnmoueable stone he doth sustayne and bold together the frame and burden of all the Christian worke S. Hierome vpon that place e Math. 16 According vnto the metaphor of a Rocke it is rightly said to Peter vpon thee will I build my Church S. Augustine sometimes indeede giueth an other interpretation but yet alloweth of this and leaueth it to the readers choise adding f Lib. 1. retract 21. That in his time that Hymne of S. Ambrose beganne to be chaunted publikely in the Church that the Cocke crowing the Rocke of the Church with teares washed away his fault so common was that exposition euen then that the Rocke of the Church was taken for a sufficient description of S. Peters person By these plaine sentences of the most approued Doctors of the church may be expounded some others more obscure vvhich say that vpon Peters faith or confession Christ built his Church in this manner for the excellency of Peters faith and confession he vvas chosen to be the rocke or foundation of the Church which is S. Basils owne interpretation who saith that Peter for the excellencie of his faith Lib. 2. in EunomiuÌ„ receaued the building of the Church vpon him And in true reason the Church being a congregation of men cannot be builded 〈…〉 qualities but must haue a man of the same nature to be her 〈…〉 indeede with such spiritâ— all and heauenly qualities or else it should not haue beene a proportionable and wel shaped body but some monster Neither can that other shift of the Protestants which M. PERKINS insiâ—â—â—teth serue their turne that forsooth what is sâ—â—a â—ere to S. Peter is vnderstood to haue beene spoken vnto all the rest of the Apostles For
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
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
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