was impossible who hath bestowed so great grace vpon vs. S. Siluester as Nycephorus hath recorded speaketh thus of baptisme e Lib. 7. hystor cap. 33. This water hauing receiued by the inuocation of the blessed Trinity heauenly vertue euen as it washeth the body without so doth it within cleanse the soule from filth and corruption and make it brighter then the Sunne-beames So that it is most conformable both vnto the holy Scriptures and the auncient Fathers to affirme and hold that the Sacraments doe really contayne and convay the graces of God into our soules as his true and proper instruments OF SAVING FAITH M. PERKINS Page 305. HEre followeth a Chapter which for the most part doth nothing but repeate points of doctrine which hath beene particularly handled in the questions of Iustification Satisfaction and Merits and aboue twenty times touched by the vvay in his booke therefore a tedious and loathsome thing it is to me here againe to heare of them yet because the man thinketh that in these points the principall glory of the newe Gospell consisteth and that there fore they are alwayes to be inculcated in season and out of seasorr I vvill briefly runne them once more ouer shewing as he doth only vvherein we differ without repeating the arguments which are to be seene in their proper places To come to the matter he putteth downe fiuâ— conclusions The first conclusion The Catholikes teach iâ— to be the property of faith to beleeue the whole word of God and especially the redemption of mankinde by Christ M. PERKINS DIFFERENCE THey beleeue indeede all the written word of God and more then all for they beleeue the bookes Apocryphall and vnwritten Traditions Answere Touching vnwritten Traditions see that Chapter in the first part M. PER. saith here Because they come to vs by the handes of men they cannot come within the compasse of our faith Then I say vpon the same ground the vvritten word cannot come within the compasse of our beleefe because it also commeth vnto vs by the handes of men And as the Apostles and their Schollers are to be credited when they deliuered the vvritten word vnto vs for Gods pure word so are they to be beleeued vvhen they taught the Church these poynts of Gods vvord vnwritten to be embraced as the true word of God although not written but committed to the harts of the faithfull And when we haue the testimony of auncient Councels or of many holy Fathers that these points of doctrine vvere by Tradition deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles vve as firmely beleeue them as if they were written in the holy Scriptures For which bookes of Scripture be Canonicall vvhich not and what is the true meaning of hard places in Scripture we knowe no other way of infallible certainty then by the declaration of the Catholike Church which we therefore aswell beleeue telling vs these thinges were deliuered from the Apostles by Tradition as those thinges in vvriting And that such credit is to be giuen to the Catholike Church the Apostles Creede witnesseth which biddeth vs beleeue the Catholike Church Nowe touching those bookes of holy Scripture vvhich vvere some hundreth yeares after Christ doubted off by some of the auncient Fathers vvhether they were Canonicall or no thus we say That albeit it were vndetermined by the Church vntill S. Augustines time vvhether they were Canonical or no and so were by diuers auncient Fathers though not condemned as Apocryphall yet not comprehended vvithin the Canon of assured Scriptures notwithstanding that matter being in a Councell holden at Carthage where among many other learned Bishops S. Augustine vvas present throughly debated Concil Cartag 3. cap. 47. those bookes doubted off before were found by the holy Ghost and them to be true Canonicall Scripture and afterward vvere by the sixt generall Councell that confirmed this Councell holden at Carthage declared and deliuered to the whole Church for Canonicall Nowe as we receiued at the first the other bookes of Canonicall Scripture on the â—â—edit of the Catholike Church euen so ought vve to doe these shee hauing declared them to be such yea the Protestants themselues haue admitted many bookes of the newe Testament vvhich vvere doubted off for three hundred yeares after Christ why then doe they not as vvell receiue them of the old The difference betwixt vs is that they only of passion and priuate fancy admit these and reject those vvhereas vve of obedience relying vpon the judgement of the vvhole Church admit those bookes for Canonicall which the Catholike Church hath declared for such And thus much of the first conclusion Nowe to the second touching saluation by Christ alone wherein the Protestants either cannot vnderstand or will not report our doctrine aright We confesse that Christ IESVS hath merited the redemption and saluation of all mankinde yet say we further that not one man is saued through Christ vnlesse he for his owne part first beleeue in Christ if he be of yeares and be content to doe all those thinges that Christ hath commanded vs to doe so that to saluation two thinges are required the first and principall is Christes mediation the second is the applying of Christes mediation and merits vnto vs vvithout this latter the former will stand no man in steede Nowe to be made partaker of Christs merits we must not only beleeue in him as the Protestants teach but also keepe his commandements and by good workes deserue heauen otherwise according to Christs decree we shall neuer come thither as in the question of Merits hath beene plentifully proued out of the holy scriptures so we teach then that besides Christs sufferings and merits we must haue some of our owne or else vve shall neuer be partakers of Christes And M. PERKINS cannot be excused from a vvilfull corruption of Gods word when he affirmeth S. Paul to say We are not saued by such workes as God hath ordayned men regenerated to walke in for those be not the wordes of the text but his peeuish construction S. Paul putting a playne distinction betweene workes that we are not saued by and workes that we must walke in calling these later good workes and the other barely workes To the other text I say that we haue no righteousnesse of our owne strength or by the vertue of Moyses lawe but through the mercy of God and Christs merits we haue true righteousnesse giuen vs by baptisme Christ indeede by himselfe and his owne sufferinges not by sacrifice of Goates or Calues hath meritoriously washed away our sinnes that is deserued of God that they should be washed away but formally he hath washed away our sinnes by infusion of Christian righteousnesse into our soules He that will see more of this let him reade the question of Iustification And where as M. PER. saith that all grace of God powred into our hartes is by the corruption of our hartes defiled he little knoweth the vertue of Gods grace vvhich so cleanseth and purifieth
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
in Adam c. I therefore ô my prayse my life and God of my hart laying aside for a season her good workes for which I rejoycing doe giue thee thankes doe nowe pray vnto thee for the sinnes of my Mother heare me I beseech thee through the salue of our woundes that hanged vpon the tree and nowe sitting at thy right hand doth plead for vs. I knowe that shee did many workes of mercy and from her hart forgaue all them that trespassed against her doe thou ô Lord also forgiue her her trespasses if shee committed any after baptisme Pardon her pardon her ô Lord I beseech thee and enter not into judgement with her let thy mercy surpasse thy judgements because thy wordes are true and thou hast promised mercy to the mercifull c. Could that most vvorthy Doctor more directly crosse Caluins false relation of his coldnesse in this matter or in better manner cleare himselfe from his spitefull slaunders Caluin blushed not to say that S. Augustine out of passion prayed for his mother but he himselfe relateth howe he did it some yeares after her death of setled judgement hauing his hart cured from humane affection And thus I end this question of Purgatory OF THE SVPREMACY IN CAVSES ECCLESIASTICAL OVR CONSENT M. PERKINS Page 283. TOuching the point of Supremacy Ecclesiasticall I will set downe howe neare we may come vnto the Roman Church in two conclusions The first conclusion For the founding of the primitiue Church the Ministery of the word was distinguished by degrees not only of order but also of power and Peter was called to the highest degree for Apostles were aboue Euangelists and Euangelists aboue Pastors and teachers nowe Peter was an Apostle and so aboue all Euangelists and Pastors howsoeuer he were not aboue other Apostles The second conclusion Among the 12. Apostes Peter had a three-fold priuiledge or prerogatiue first of authority I meane a preheminence in regard of estimation whereby he was in reuerence aboue the rest of the twelue Secondly of primacy because he was the first named as the fore-man of the quest Thirdly of principality in regard of measure of grace wherein he excelled the rest of the twelue but Paul excelled Peter euery way in learning zeale and vnderstanding as farre as Peter excelled the rest ANNOTATION MAster PERKINS as his manner is at the first vvould seeme to approch somewhat neare vnto the Catholike doctrine and therefore giueth as braue wordes for S. Peters prerogatiues as we doe to wit That he surpassed the other Apostles both in authority primacy and principality but pâ—â—â—ently after his old fashion he watereth his former wordes with such cold glosses that they shrinke in exceedingly for all Peters priuiledges doe extend no further then that he excelled the rest in priuate grace of learning zeale and vnderstanding and was therefore somewhat more esteemed then the rest and named first so that with M. PER. a great mill-post is quickly thwited as they say into a pudding pricke Againe all this is besides the purpose for the question is not vvhich of the Apostles excelled in those priuate gifts of vnderstanding zeale and piety for it is not vnlikely hat S. Iohn the Euangelist who sucked diuine mysteries out of our Sauiours breast was not inferior to either S. Peter or S. Paul in these spirituall graces of heauenly knowledge and charity but vve leauing these secretes vnto him vvho is the judge of the hart and of his inward gifts doe affirme S. Peter to haue beene aduanced aboue all the rest of the Apostles in the externall gouernement of Christes Church and the Bishops of Rome his successors to inherite the same supremacy THE DIFFERENCE by M. PERKINS THe Church of Rome giueth to Peter a supremacy vnder Christ aboue all persons and causes this standeth in a power to determine which bookes of Scripture be Canonicall and what is the true sence of any doubtfull place of them and for this purpose to call and assemble generall Councels and to confirme the decrees of them and by these meanes to decide all controuersiâ—â— about matter of faith Besides he can excommunicate any Christian be he King or Kaesar if they by obstinate withstanding Gods lawes or the decrees of holy Church shal justly deserue it Moreouer to him it doth belong to make Ecclesiasticall Canons and lawes for the due discipline and ordering of matters of the Church which doe binde in conscience Finally to confirme the election of Bishops and to decide all such greater controuersies as by appeale are brought vnto him from any part of Christendome These indeede be the chiefest points of the Popes supremacy as for that of pardoning of sinnes it is no proper part of his primacy but common vnto all not only to Bishops but also to Priests We saith M. PERKINS hold that neyther Peter nor any Bishop of Rome had or hath any such supremacy ouer the Catholike Church but that all supremacy vnder Christ is appertaining to Kinges and Princes with him in their Dominions And that our doctrine is good and theirs false I will make manifest by sundry reasons First Christ must be considered as he was a King two wayes first as he is God so is he King ouer al by right of creation and so as God hath deputies on earth to gouerne the world namely Kings and Princes Secondly he is King by right of redemption ouer the whole Church which he hath redeemed with his pretious bloud and so as mediatour and redeemer he hath no fellowe nor deputy for no creature is capable of this office to doe in the roome and stead of Christ that which himselfe doth because euery worke of the mediatour must arise from the effectes of two natures concurring in one action namely the God-head and Man-hood Againe Christes Priest-hood cannot passe from his person to any other whence it followeth that neyther his Kingly nor his Propheticall he vvould haue said Priestly office can passe from him to any creature Nay it is needlesse for Christ to haue a deputy considering that a deputy only serueth to supply the absence of the principall whereas Christ is alwayes present by his word and spirit it may be said that the Ministers in the worke of the ministery are Christes deputies I answere that they are no deputies but only actiue instruments because they doe only vtter the word but it is Christ that worketh in the hart In like manner in excommunication it is Christ that cutteth that excommunicate person from the Kingdome of heauen and the Church doth only declare this by cutting him off from the rest of Christes people vntill he repent so that in all Ecclesiasticall actions Christ hath no deputies but only instruments the whole action being personall in respect of Christ. Is not this trowe you a prety peece of an argument but we must beare with the length of it because it alone will serue as M. PER. opineth to ouerthrowe many points of Popery let it be therefore wel
holesome doctrine and Godly instructions are by the auncient holy Fathers gathered out of that prayer of Christ what a venemous spider then was Caluin to sucke such poison out of it if Christ so wauered where was his constancy if he were so frighted as Caluin falsly imagineth where was his fortitude if he strugled so against his Fathers decree where was his obedience if he refused to redeeme vs what was become of his charity towardes mankinde if the first motions to euill be deadly sinnes in vs as the Protestantes hold what will they make of such tumultuous and vnbridled passions in him that had a greater command ouer them then we haue But we are not yet come vnto the hight of his blasphemies which he powreth forth more aboundantly vpon those our Sauiours wordes My GOD my GOD why hast thou forsaken me Mat. 27. vers 46. saying when this kinde of temptation was proposed to Christ as though God being auerted from him he had beene appointed to vtter destruction he was seised with horror * Li. 2. Instit c. 16. sess 11. And in his Institutes treating of the same subject saith Christ feared to haue beene swallowed vp of death as a sinner And there can be no more dreadfull bottomelesse gulfe then for a man to feele himselfe forsaken and estranged from God not to be heard when he calleth vpon him euen as if God had conspired his destruction euen thither we see that Christ was throwne downe so that by enforcement of distresse he was compelled to crie out my GOD my GOD why hast thou forsaken me In the Paragraffe before he speaketh more plainely that Christ did hand in hand wrestle with the armies of hel the horror of eternal death finally that in his soule he suffered the torments of the damned and al those punishments that are due to wicked men in hell He then belike was the traytor Iudas companion for the while he was in the Diuels handes to be tormented be despaired and fared as men doe in these hellish torments What greater blasphemy can be inuented then to condemne the King of heauen that came to redeeme vs all from hell euen to the very pitte of hell it selfe Beza not willing to come behinde his master Caluin in this kinde of impiety whereas Caluin craftily admitted only In cap. 5. ad Hebr. vers 7. that Christ then despaired he affirmeth plainely that from Christ strooken with the horror of Gods curse escaped the word of desperation And else where that Christ was with the huge heauie burden of Gods wrath ouerwhelmed and adjudged to the flames of hell yea buried and drowned in the bottome of the infernall gulfe In ca. 27. Math. 22. Luc. This man you see desires to lodge Christ lowe enough that would haue him drowned in the very bottome of hell This their pestilent venime they might haue sucked out of their good grandsire Luthers writinges who vpon the very same wordes doth make this goodly commentary In Psal 22. ver 1. What shall we therefore say Christ to haue bin togither both the most just and greatest sinner both the most notorious lier and truest teacher at the same instant both the most highly glorying deepely despairing both happy in the highest degree most miserably damned Vnlesse we say this I see not saith this Oracle of the newe Gospell howe Christ was forsaken of God See him also vpon the third chapter to the Galatians where he vttereth yet more detestable speaches of Christ to wit that all the Prophets did in the spirit foresee him to be the greatest theefe robber murtherer adulterer sacrilegious person and blasphemer that euer liued I could cite you diuers others of the same opinion but I had rather note their extreame blindnesse who neglecting the auncient Fathers learned expositions of the holy Scriptures were ledde away with such horrible extrauagant conceites of our Sauiour vpon so small occasion For he at that very time hanging on the Crosse declared himselfe to be most farre of from all such hellish torments yea he shewed all possible signes of a most quiet and peaceable minde praying for the saluation euen of his persecutors he was not then belike in doubt of his owne promising also to the good theefe that the same day he should be with him in Paradise wherefore he doubted nothing of being there himselfe recommending his Mother vnto his beloued Disciple and him likewise to her and to fulfill the Scriptures both saying I thirst and citing euen those very wordes that they are scandalized at out of one of the Psalmes of Dauid And finally aduisedly considering all thinges belonging to his passion to be accomplished commended his spirit vnto his Fathers handes so that there could not possibly be more calme setled judgement more valiant constancy resolution then there was But what ment he then to say my GOD my GOD why hast thou forsaken me Forsooth nothing else but to signifie that in all these torments which he suffered he had not any comfort or consolation at that time from God who is wont to giue extraordinary aide and comfort to all those that suffer for his names sake but that Christ might as he himselfe desired be put to suffer all kinde of extremity all manner of inward consolation was wholely with-holden from him which it pleased him then to expresse by manner of complainte in those most pittifull wordes My GOD my GOD c. the more to moue vs to compassion Thus much of their impieties against Christes person nowe to those that they teach against the office of his mediatorshippe They hold first that whatsoeuer our Sauiour did or suffered before his passion was of smal value for our redemption For as a noble Protestant said the Monkes Molineus in harmonia part 51. Priestes and Papisticall Doctors did erre when they vrged Christes incarnation and natiuity for all these thinges profited vs nothing could doe nothing but only the death of Christ which alone was accepted of God for our sinnes Secondly Caluin goeth further and doubteth not to say that Christes passion and corporall death would not serue the turne Li. 2. Instit ca. 16 sess 10. and had profited vs nothing at all had he not in his soule suffered the very paines of the damned in hell This doctrine of theirs is not only contrary to an hundreth places of expresse Scripture that doe assigne our redemption vnto the bloud-shedding and passion of Christ but it also derogateth very much from the dignity of our Mediatour For not that which he suffered made the meritte of our redemption but it was his exceeding charity with which he suffered it and principally the very dignity of his diuine person which gaue that value price and estimation to his sufferinges that the very least thing that euer he suffered in his life was of infinite value and therefore sufficient to pay the ransome of all mankinde yea to haue redeemed a thousand worldes But
of Christian religion to be vnderstood of euery man as his owne knowledge and spirit should direct him and if any doubtfull question did arise there about as he fore-sawe thousandes should doe yet he tooke no other order for the deciding and ending of them but that euery one should repaire vnto the same his word and doing his diligence to vnderstand it might afterward be his owne judge As this later opinion would argue our blessed Sauiour who was the wisedome of God to be the weakest and most improuident lawe-maker that euer was so the former doth mightily blemish the inestimable price of his most pretious bloud making it not of sufficient value to purchase vnto him an euerlasting inheritance free from all errours in matter of faith and abounding in all good workes To fold vp this part let me entreate thee curteous reader to be an vpright judge betweene the Protestantes doctrine and ours in this most weighty matter of Christes dignity vertues and mediation and if thou see most euidently that ours doth more aduance them why shouldest thou not giue sentence on our side They make Christ ignorant many yeares of his life we hold him from the first instant of his conception to haue beene replenished with most perfect knowledge They that he spake and taught nowe and then as other men did and was subject to disordinate passions We that he was most free from all such and that he taught alwaies most diuinely They make his very death not sufficient to redeeme vs we hold that the least thing that euer he suffered in his life deserued the redemption of many worldes They that he died only for the elect we that he died for all though many through their owne fault doe not receiue any benefit by his death They that thereby we are not purged from our sinnes but by imputation we that all are by the vertue thereof inwardly cleansed They that Christ purchased a Church consisting of fewe not to continue long and subject to many errours we that he established a Church that should be spredde ouer all the world and that should continue to the end of the world visibly and alwaies free from any errour in any matter of faith Finally they hold that Christ left his holy word to the disputation of men not taking any certaine order for the ending of controuersies that should arise about it we teach that he hath established a most assured meanes to decide all doubtes in religion and to hold all obedient Christians in perfect vniformity of both faith and manners And because I am entred into these comparisons giue me leaue to persist yet a litle longer in them Consider also I pray you who goe neerer to Atheisme either we that thinke and speake of the most sacred Trinity as the blessed Fathers in the first Councell of Nice taught or they who directly crosse them and by the nouelty of their phrases doe breed newe or rather reuiue old heresies against it Againe who carry a more holy conceit of God either they who vpon light occasion doe rashly denie God to be able to doe that which they doe not conceiue possible or we that teach him to be able to doe tenne thousand thinges that passe our vnderstanding Whither they that affirme God of his owne free choise to cast away the greater part of men or we that defend him to desire the saluation of all men and not to be willing that any one perish vnlesse it be through his owne default Either they that hold him to be the authour of all euill done in the world and the Diuell to be but his Minister therein or we that maintayne him to be so purely good that he cannot possibly either concurre to any euill or so much as once to thinke to doe any euill Finally whose opinion of him is better either ours that hold him to haue beene so reasonable in framing of his lawes that he doth by his grace make them easie to a willing minde or theirs that auouch him to haue giuen lawes impossible for the best men to keepe If some Protestantes doe say we doe not maintayne diuers of these positions I answere that it is because they doe yet in part hold with vs and are not so farre gone as they doe wholy followe their newe masters For if they did then should they embrace all the afore-said damnable positions being so plainely taught by their principall preachers and teachers These therefore are to warne my deere Country-men to looke to it in time and then no doubt but that all such as haue a sufficient care of their saluation considering maturely whither the current and streame of the newe Gospell carrieth them will speedily disbarke themselues thence least at length they be driuen by it into the bottomelesse gulfe of flat Atheisme And is it any great meruaile that the common sort of the Protestantes fall into so many foule absurdities touching religion when as the very fountaines out of which they pretend to take their religion be so pittifully corrupted I meane the sacred word of God Master Gregory Martin a Catholike man very skilfull in the learned languages hath discouered about two hundreth of their corruptions of the very text of Gods word and after him one Master Broughton a man of their owne esteemed to be singulerly seene in the Hebrewe and Greeke tongue hath aduertised them of more then eight hundreth faultes there in And the matter is so euident that the Kinges Majestie in that publike conference holden at Hampton-Court in the first of his raigne confesseth himselfe not to haue seene one true translation of the Bible in English and that of Geneua which they were wont to esteeme most to be the worst of all others and therefore commanded them to goe in hand with a newe translation about which fifty of the most learned amongst them in both Vniuersities as it is credibly reported haue this three yeares trauailed and cannot yet hitte vpon or else not agree vpon a newe sincere and true translation Here is a large field offered me to exclaime against such corrupters and deprauers of Gods sacred word but I will leaue that to some other time because I haue beene to long already But what a lamentable case is this they hold for the most assured piller of their faith that all matters of saluation must be fished out of the Scriptures and crie vpon all men to search the Scriptures and yet are the same Scriptures by themselues so peruersly mangled that their owne pew-fellowes crie out shame vpon them therefore wherevnto if it please you joyne that the Protestantes haue no assured meanes to be resolued of such doubtes and difficulties as they shall find in the same word of God For they must neither trust ancient Father nor relie vpon the determination either of nationall or generall Councell but euery faithfull man by himselfe examining the circumstances of the text and conferring other like places vnto it together shall finde out the
Doctor void of partiallity Homil. 24 in praeoratione ad Corinth marry that of these wordes this is the sence and meaning That which is in the Chalice is the very same that flowed out of Christes side Note that the bloud of Christ is in the Chalice and so we need not runne so farre off to seeke it and saith further that we are made partakers of it with the like reall and close conjunction as the word of God and the nature of man were joyned together which was not by faith or imagination only but actually and substantially With vvhome accordeth S. Cyril vvho out of the same wordes of S. Paul proueth that Christes body is vnited with vs not only by faith or charity but bodily and according vnto the flesh saying When the vertue of the mysticall blessing is in vs Lib. 10. in Ioan. 13. doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs bodily by the participation of the flesh of Christ Here by the way obserue that the Apostle calleth the blessed Sacrament bread either because in exterior appearance it seemeth so to be as Angels appearing in the shape of men are in holy write commonly called men so the body of Christ being vnder the forme of bread is called bread or els for that bread in Scripture according to the Hebrewe phrase signifieth al kind of foode So is Manna called bread which was rather like the dewe Ioan. 6. vers 32. Psal 77. and so may our Sauiours body which is the most substantiall foode of our soules be called bread although it be nothing lesse then ordinary bread Lastly it is such bread as our Sauiour in expresse tearmes hath christened it when he said And the bread which I will giue you is my flesh Ioan. 6. vers 51. 1. Cor. 11. vers 29. Vers 27. for the life of the world Our fift argument is taken out of S. Paul He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh judgement to himselfe not discerning the body of our Lord and is guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord whence I argue thus Vnworthy receiuers who are destitute of that faith whereby they should receiue Christ according vnto the Protestants opinion or els they should not receiue vnworthily such vnworthy communicants I say doe receiue the body of Christ albeit vnworthily therefore it is not the receiuers faith that maketh it present but it is there present by the vvordes of consecration whether the party beleeue it or no or else howe should the man eate his judgement for not discerning Christes body and be guilty of his body the Protestants answere first That he is guilty of the body because he receiueth it not then when he should for lacke of faith But this glose is cleane contrary to the text that saith expresly That they receiue it by eating and drinking of it but yet vnworthily and all ancient Interpreters doe so expound it Let one S. Augustine serue in steed of the rest who saith De baptis contr Donatist lib. 5. cap. 8. That like as Iudas to whome our Lord gaue the morsell gaue place to the Deuill not by receiuing that which was euill but by receiuing of it euilly euen so euery one receiuing our Lordes Sacrament vnworthily doth not make it euill because he is euill or receiue nothing because he receiueth it not to saluation For it was the body and bloud of Christ euen to them of whome the Apostle saith He that eateth vnworthily eateth his owne damnation By which notable sentence of so worthy a Prelate the other cauill of our wrangling young-Masters is also confuted For they perceiuing that their former shift would not serue their turnes fly vnto a second that forsooth the vnworthie receiuer is guilty of Christes body because he abuseth the signe of it for the dishonour done to the picture redoundeth to the person himselfe Reply When we complaine of them for dishonouring of Images and tel them that they thereby dishonour the Saints alleadging this sentence That the dishonour done to the picture redoundeth to the person then they will not allowe of it which nowe they are glad to take hold of To the purpose we say first that the Sacrament is no picture of Christ no not in their owne opinion but a signe only and great difference is there betweene disfiguring a mans owne picture and abusing of some signe or signification of him neither is the disfiguring or breaking of a mans picture so heinous a fault if it be not done expresly in contempt of the person which formall contempt is not to be found in many vnworthy receiuers Lastly the Israelites that eate Manna or drunke of the Rocke vnworthily were not guilty of Christes body and bloud although those thinges were signes and figures of them therfore if there were nothing but a signe of Christes bodie in our Sacrament no man should be guilty of so heynous a crime for vnworthy receiuing of it but being by the verdict of S. Paul made guilty of damnation for not discerning Christes bodie it must needes followe that Christes body is there really present To these arguments collected out of holy Scriptures let vs joyne one other of no lesse authority taken from miracles done in confirmation of the reall presence For a true miracle cannot be done to confirme any vntruth or else God by whose only power they are wrought should testifie an vntruth which is impossible One miracle of preseruing a young boy aliue in a glasiers hot burning furnace I haue before rehearsed out of Nicephorus cited by M. PER. two others I will choose out of hundreths because they be recorded in famous Authors and my purpose is to be briefe Ex vita per Ioan. Diac. lib. 2. cap. 4. The first out of the life of S. Gregory the great surnamed by venerable Bede the Apostle of England This most honourable Bishop administring the blessed Sacrament came to giue it vnto the woman who had made those Hostes which he had consecrated She hearing S. Gregory say as the manner was and is The body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy soule vnto euerlasting life smiled at it wherefore the holy Bishoppe withdrewe his hand and did not communicate her but laide that Host downe vpon the Altar Masse being done he called the woman before him and demanded before the people whom shee might haue scandalized what was the cause why shee beganne to laugh in that holy and fearefull misterie she muttered at the first but after answered that she knewe it to be the bread vvhich she her selfe had made and therefore could not beleeue it to be the body of Christ as he called it Then the holy man prayed earnestly to God that in confirmation of the true presence of Christes body in the Sacrament the outward forme of bread might be turned into flesh vvhich vvas by the power of God done presently and so was she conuerted to the true faith and all the rest confirmed in it The
our names vvhich is also good and true to vvit That the Apostle there speaketh of the bloudy Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse which was but once offered which letteth not but that the same his body may be vnder the formes of bread and wine sacrificed often by the Ministery of Priestes in the Masse Yes but it doth saith M. PER. For the Authour of the Epistle to the Hebrewes he will not for twenty pound say it was S. Paul taketh it for graunted that the Sacrifice of Christ is only one and that a bloudy Sacrifice for he saith Christ doth not offer himselfe often Hebr. 9. as the high Priestes did c. All this is true that Christ suffered but once vpon the Crosse but it is nothing against the former answere in which it is not said that Christ offered himselfe twise vpon the Crosse but that the same his body is daylie by the Ministery of Priestes offered vnbloudily vnder the formes of bread and wine vpon the Altar which being so plaine and sensible a man might meruaile at their palpable grossenesse if they cannot conceiue it I thinke rather that they vnderstand it well enough but not knowing what reasonably to reply against it doe make as though they vnderstood it not Whereupon this man not hauing said one vvord to the purpose against the answere yet concludeth as though he had confuted all that we haue in holy Scripture for this Sacrifice That the Scriptures forsooth neuer knewe the twofold manner of sacrificing Christ and then goeth on triumphing That euery distinction in diuinity not founded in the written word is but a forgery of mans braine Had he not need of a messe of good broath to coole his hotte hasty braine that thus runneth away with a supposed victory before he hath strooken any one good stroke but he saith further cleane besides the drift of his former argument as his manner is sometime to droppe downe a sentence by the way Hebr. 9. vers 22. which seemeth to make for him That without shedding of bloud there is no remission of sinnes meaning belike that if our Sacrifice be vnbloudy then it doth not remit sinne Answere If no remission of sinne be obtayned nowe without shedding of bloud howe haue they remission of their sinnes by only faith vvhat doth their faith drawe bloud of them The direct answere is apparant in the Apostles vvordes vvho saith That all thinges almost according to the lawe are cleansed with bloud and that there was no remission of sinnes in the lawe of Moyses without shedding of bloud What a shamefull abusing of a text vvas this to apply that to vs in the state of the newe Testament vvhich vvas plainely spoken of the state of the old Testament and of Moyses lawe His second reason The Romish Church holdeth that the Sacrifice in the Lordes supper is all one for substance with the Sacrifice offered on the Crosse if that be so then the Sacrifice in the Eucharist must either be a continuance of the Sacrifice begunne on the Crosse or else an alternation or repetition of it Let them choose of these twaine which they will If they say it is a continuance of it then they make the Priest to bring to perfection that which Christ begunne If they say it is a repetition thus also they make it imperfect For to repeate a thing often argueth that at once it was not sufficient which is the reason of the holy Ghost to proue the sacrifices of the old Testament to be imperfect I answere that vvhen an argument consisteth of diuision then if any part or member of the diuision be omitted the argument is nought worth as the learned knowe so fareth it in this fallacy For the Sacrifice of the Masse is neither a continuance of the Sacrifice on the Crosse not for M. PER. friuolous reason for not all thinges are bettered but many made much vvorse by continuance but because the one is not immediately lincked with the other there going much time betweene them Neither is it to speake properly a repetition of the Sacrifice of the Crosse because that was bloudy this vnbloudy that offered by Christ in his owne person this by the ministery of a Priest that on the Crosse this on the Altar that to pay the generall ransome and to purchase the redemption of all mankind this to apply the vertue of that vnto particuler men So that although there be in both these Sacrifices the same body and bloud of Christ in substance yet the manner meanes and end of them being so different the one cannot conueniently be called the repetion of the other but the Sacrifice of the Masse is a liuely representation of the Sacrifice on the Crosse and the application of the vertue of it to vs. This is the third member of the diuision either not knowne or concealed by M. PER. the better to colour and cloake the deceite of his second false argument Nowe to the third The third reason A reall and outward Sacrifice in a Sacrament is against the nature of a Sacrament and specially the supper of the Lord for one of the endes thereof is to keepe in memory the Sacrifice of Christ Nowe euery remembrance must be of a thing absent past and done and if Christ be daylie really sacrificed the Sacrament is not a fit memoriall of his Sacrifice Answere Christes Sacrifice offered on the Crosse is long sithence past and done and therefore absent wherefore it may well haue a memoriall and there can be no other so liuely representation of it as to haue the same body yet in another manner set before our eyes as hath beene more then once already declared which may serue to answere the later proposition M. PERKINS confirmeth his former thus The principall end of a Sacrament is that God may giue and we receiue Christ and his benefits Nowe in a reall sacrifice God doth not giue Christ to vs but the Priest offereth vp Christ to God therefore one thing cannot be both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice Answere One and the same thing may well be both but in diuers respects It is a Sacrifice in that it is an holy Oblation of a sensible thing vnto God by consuming of it in testification of his Soueraignity It is a Sacrament as it is a visible signe of an inuisible grace bestowed then vpon the receiuer So was the Paschall lambe first sacrificed to God as shall be proued hereafter and after eaten in a Sacrament In like manner the holy body and bloud of Christ are vnder the visible formes of bread and wine offered vp first to God by the sacred action of consecration and after broken and eaten in recognizance of his supreame dominion ouer all creatures which is a Sacrifice most properly taken Againe it is instituted by Christ to signifie and worke the spiritual nuriture of our soules by receiuing of it and so it is a Sacrament M. PERKINS fourth reason The holy Ghost maketh a difference Hebr.
shedde and it shall be shedde and a good Interpreter of Scripture may not to delude the one flie to the other but defend both because both be the vvordes of the holy Ghost And the Greeke text in S. Luke doth inuincibly confirme that the vvordes are to be taken in the present tense For it hath that the bloud as in the Chalice Luc. 22. vers 20. is powred out Toúto tò potérion tò eckynómenon This Chalice is powred out it cannot therefore be referred vnto that powring out vvhich was to be made vpon the Crosse the day following but to that that vvas powred in and out of the Chalice then presently This might also be confirmed by the bloud which was sprinkled to confirme the old TestameÌ„t vnto which it seemeth that our Sauiour did allude in this consecration of the Chalice Exod. 24. vers 8. For Moyses said This is the bloud of the Testament and our Sauiour * Hebr. 9. vers 20. This is the bloud of the newe Testament But that bloud which dedicated the old Testament was first sacrificed to God such therefore vvas the bloud of the newe Testament And to make the matter more cleare let vs heare howe the best and most judicious Fathers vvho receiued the right vnderstanding of the Scriptures from the Apostles and their Schollers doe take these vvordes of Christ Lib. 4. cap. 32. Lib. 2. Epist 3. In psa 33 Conc. 2. Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. Homil. 2. in Post ad Timoth. Orat. 1. de resur You haue heard already out of S. Ireneus That Christ taught at his last supper the newe Sacrifice of the newe Testament And out of S. Cyprian Christ offered there a Sacrifice to his Father after the order of Melchisedecke taking bread and making it his body And out of S. Augustine Christ instituted a Sacrifice of his body and bloud according vnto the order of Melchisedecke that is vnder the formes of bread and wine I adde vnto them S. Chrisostome vvho saith In steede of the slaughter of beastes Christ hath commanded vs to offer vp himselfe And againe Whether Peter or Paule or an other Priest of meaner meritte doe offer the holy Sacrifice it is the same which Christ gaue to his Disciples the which all Priestes nowe a dayes doe make and this hath nothing lesse then that had S. Gregory Nissene Christ being both a Priest and the Lambe of God offered himselfe a Sacrifice and Host for vs. When vvas this done Euen then when to his Disciples he gaue his body to eate and his bloud to drinke Isichius First Lib. 2. in Leui. c. 8. our Lord supped with his Apostles vpon the figuratiue Lambe and afterward offered his owne Sacrifice All these and many other of the most ancient Fathers could finde a proper and reall Sacrifice in Christes supper To omit S. Gregories authority and all other his inferiors for this last thousand yeares vvhome the Protestants acknowledge vâ—holy to haue beleeued and taught the Sacrifice of the Masse See Kemnitius in exam Concilij Trid. page 826. 827. I omit some other good arguments made for vs out of the newe Testament to returne vnto M. PERKINS vvho proposeth this as the fourth reason for our party out of S. Paul We haue an Altar Hebr. 13. vers 10. whereof they may not eate who serue in the Tabernacle Nowe say they If we Christians haue an Altar then must we consequently haue Priestes and a proper kinde of Sacrifice for these are correlatiues and doe necessarily depend and followe one the other M. PERKINS answereth That the Altar there is to be taken not literally but spiritually for Christ himselfe Reply Obserue first howe the Protestants are forced to flie from the plaine text of Scripture and natiue signification of the vvordes vnto a figuratiue that without either reason or authority secondly I wish that M. P. would goe through with his paraphrase vpon the whole sentence and if by the Altar he vnderstand Christ then by eating of it he will surely expound beleeuing in Christ nowe like a prety Scholler that hath learned to read let him put it all together say That we Christians haue a Christ in whome the Iewes may not beleeue which is flat contradictory to that which the Apostle in that Epistle goeth about to perswade * Lib. 6. in Leui. c. 21 Isichius an ancient and worthy Author in expresse tearmes doth expound these wordes of the Altar of Christs body which the Iewes for their incredulity were not worthy to behold much lesse to be partakers of it and therefore the Apostle to moue the Iewes the rather to become Christians signifieth that so long as they serue in the tabernacle and continue Iewes they depriue themselues of that great benefite which they might haue by receiuing the blessed Sacrament Nowe the wordes following in the text which M. PER. citeth to interprete this sentence belong nothing to it but containe another reason to induce the Iewes to receiue Christ for their Messias drawne for a circumstance of their Sacrifices thus as the bodies of their Sacrifices were burne without the Campe so Christ suffered without the gate and citty of Hierusalem and therefore Christ was the truth prefigured by their Sacrifices It hath also an exhortation to depart out of the society of the Iewes and to forgoe all the preferment and glory they might enjoy among them to be content to suffer with Christ al contumelies Briefly there is not one word in the sentence before to proue the Altar to be taken for Christ but for a materiall Altar vpon which the Christian Priestes and offer the body and bloud of Christ in the blessed Sacrament vvhich may be confirmed by that passage of the same Apostle 1. Cor. 10 vers 21. You cannot drinke the cup of our Lord and the cup of Deuils you cannot be partakers of our Lordes table and the table of Deuils where a comparison is made betweene our Sacrifice and table and the Sacrifice and table of Idols shewing first that he vvho communicateth with the one of them cannot be partaker of the other and then that he who drinketh of the bloud of the Sacrifice is partaker of the Sacrifice Nowe the comparison were improper if our cup were not the cup of a Sacrifice as theirs was nor our table a true Altar as theirs was out of all doubt And that shift of Kemnitius is not cleanely who saith That they who drinke of Christes cup are partakers of his Sacrifice on the Crosse but not of any Sacrifice there present For S. Paules comparison is taken from the cup of a Sacrifice to Idols immediately before offered so that it doth conuince our Chalice to be the cup of a Sacrifice then presently immolated and offered vp The fift objection with M. PER. which is our sixt argument is this Where alteration is both of lawe and couenant there must needes be a newe Priest and a new Sacrifice Hebr. 7. vers
bring with them temporall commodities but those are incident and accidentary vnto them not the speciall causes of them and in Countries farre distant from the Sea vvhere are no such fisher-men the Lent is obserued as dulie as in our Iland inuironed with the Sea Nowe to the third kinde of fasting maintayned by M. PER. but seldome practised by his followers which he calleth religious because the duties of religion as the exercise of prayer and humiliation be practised during the time of this fast But he doth amisse to put this for one of the points of our agreement for vve esteeme fasting it selfe vvhen it is done to appease Gods vvrath and to honour him in our humiliation to be an essentiall part of Gods worshippe which the Protestants denie and say that fasting is only tearmed religious because during the time of it by prayers and preaching and such like they worshippe God but so the very time and place it selfe may be tearmed also religious and many other such odde thinges because they doe also concurre with actes of religion Let vs come to his second conclusion to wit We joyne with them in allowance of the principall and right endes of a religious fast and they are three The first that thereby the minde may become attentiue in meditation of the duties of Godlines to be by vs performed The second that the rebellion of the flesh may be subdued for the flesh pampered becommeth an instrument of licentiousnesse The third and if he mistake not the chiefest end of a religious fast is to professe our guiltinesse and to testifie our humiliation before God for our sinnes and for this end in the fastes of the Niniuites the very beastes were made to abstayne Hitherto Master PERKINS We besides the three afore-said endes adde diuers others as to punish chastise our flesh for former offences which is an act of justice to obey the Churches commandement which is a religious obedience and at this time it may be an act of professing the Catholike faith when we obserue set fastings to make profession of our faith and to fast thereby to imitate and please our head Christ Iesus is an act of perfect charity But let vs returne vnto M. PERKINS third conclusion which is We yeeld vnto them that fasting is a helpe and furtherance vnto the worshippe of God yea and a good worke also if it be vsed in good manner allowed of God and to be highly esteemed of all the seruants of God All this is good but whereas he saith that fasting in it selfe is a thing indifferent he abuseth the name of fasting taking it to signifie all manner of abstinence from meate and drinke and so in deede it is in it selfe indifferent may be either good or badde as if one should abstaine from foode to pine himselfe away But fasting being properly taken signifieth an abstinence from meate according vnto some set rule of the Catholike Church the better to please and serue God and so it is of it selfe an act of the true worshippe of God THE DIFEERENCE MAster PERKINS Our dissent from the Church of Rome in the dostrine of fasting standeth in three points First about the set time of fasting Secondly about the manner of abstinence and what meate is to be eaten on fasting dayes Thirdly about the vertue and value of fasting Concerning the first The Catholikes appoint and prâ—scribe set times of fasting as necessary to be kept We hold that no set ordinary time is to be appointed but that the Gouernours of the Church may sometimes vpon certaine occasions enjoyne a religious fast Our reasons be these First when the disciples of Iohn asked Christ why they and the Pharasees fasted often but his Disciples fasted not he answered Math. 9. vers 15. Can the children of the marriage-chamber mourne as long as the Bridegrome is with them but the dayes will come when the Bridegrome shall be taken from them and then shall they fast where he giueth them to vnderstand that they must fast as occasions of mourning are offered Whence also I gather that a set time of fasting is no more to be enjoyned then a set time of mourning And this is all the reasons which M. PER. maketh for their opinion except the record of antiquity of which afterward This reason of his as also the other testimonies following are so formall for him and fit for his purpose that they doe much more proue the cleane contrary For first admitting M. PER. collection that there must then be a set time of fasting when there is a set time of mourning I inferre thereupon and that expresly out of that text That when the Bridegrome is taken from vs then is the time of mourning but that hath beene euer since Christes Ascension to heauen for then was Christ our Bridegrome taken from vs therefore euer since Christes Ascension there was alwayes or ought to haue beene a set time of fasting in the Church And this reason De jejunio did the ancient Christians vvith Tertullian yeeld of their yearely fasting of Lent With vvhome S. Augustine agreeth saying Nowe therefore Serm. 157 de Temp. because the Bridegrome is taken away from vs we the children of that beautifull Bridegrome must mourne and that for good cause if we ardently desire to be in his company so that the same place vvhich M. PERKINS alleageth against a set time of fasting doth taken euen in the very sence that he taketh it demonstrate the flat contrary He further citeth out of antiquity two testimonies vvhich make as euidently against himselfe The first out of S. Augustine vvho hath these vvordes I diligently considering thereof Epist 86. in the Euangelicall and Apostolicall letters and in all that instrument which is called the newe Testament doe see that fasting is commanded but on what dayes we ought not to fast and on what we ought I doe not finde it determined by the commandement of our Lord or of the Apostles Hence inferreth Master PERKINS That Augustine was of opinion that there was no set times of fasting But the man here as else-vvhere sheweth himselfe to haue no conscience for in the very same Epistle S. Augustine teacheth that all the Church fasted at that time euery Wednesday and Friday through the yeare and admitteth S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles to haue beene the founders of that set and ordinary fast And in his Epistle he giueth the reason 119. c. 15. L. 30. coÌ„t Faust c. 3. vvhy vve fast fourty dayes before Easter and againe he saith That the fast of Lent was by the consent of all men obserued ouer all the world euery yeare most diligently What therefore could be further from this most circumspect and judicious Doctors minde then to thinke or teach that there vvas no certayne time of fasting to be obserued true it is that he found not expresly in holy Scripture this certaine time defined And note that repeating the same wordes
againe towards the end of the said epistle he addeth thereto these two wordes to wit in those Scriptures which be properly so called he did not finde it euidently defined vvhat dayes vve are to fast Which word euidently he addeth as I take it because that els where he saith Epist 119 cap. 15. Serm. 64. de temp that the fourty dayes fast of Lent hath authority at out of the old lawe so out of the Gospell because our Lord fasted so many dayes and by his example consecrated it as he saith so that finally we find with S. Augustine M. PER. first witnesse some dayes euery weeke of set fasting and once in the yeare a solemne set fast of fourty dayes together Cont. Psychicos M. PERKINS other Authour is Tertullian in his booke against sensuall men wherein he is so farre opposite to M. PER. opinion that he runneth into the other extremity The Protestants would haue no set time of fasting not so much as one Lent Tertullian pleading for the Mōtanists would haue three Lents euery yeare and a farre stricter kinde of fasting then the Catholike Church commandeth But the goodman perhaps mistaking his Authour would haue said that Catholikes as Tertullian reporteth did argue against his errour and said that it vvas a newe doctrine which he taught and that true Christians were at their liberty and not bound to receiue such newe inuentions of Montanus about fasting though he vaunted that he had that doctrine from the holy Ghost But in this point we must not hearken vnto Tertullian a Patron of that errour nor beleeue his reportes of the Catholikes arguments against him which he after the fashion of Heretikes doth frame and propose odiously Li. 5. hist cap. 17. But Eusebius saith that Montanus was the first that made lawes of fasting See the place gentle reader either in the Greeke or Latin text except that of Basil and thou shalt finde there these only vvordes cited out of Apollonius That Montanus made newe lawes of fasting not that he vvas the first that made any lawes of fasting but was noted as an Heretike for making newe lawes of fasting Whence it plainely followeth that there were other old lawes of fasting before his time which contented not his humour but taking pride in his owne inuention as all Heretikes doe he was not satisfied with one Lent but would haue three Lents euery yeare and vpon euery fasting day commanded all his adherents to touch nothing vntill the Sunne were set and then they should eate neither flesh nor fish nor ought else hotte or moist but cold drie and hard thinges For which his ouer rigorous and stearne kinde of fasting inuented by himselfe and obstinately defended he vvas condemned for an Heretike and his newe precepts of fasting rejected by the ancient Christians and this may serue for a confutation of M. PERKINS reasons for their party Nowe I vvill briefly confirme ours vvhich he setteth downe by manner of objections First Leuit. 16. vers 28. in the old Testament there vvere prescribed and set fastes approued by God which M. PER. confesseth to haue beene part of the legall worshippe and saith That God commanded those then but nowe hath left vs to our liberty Reply God hauing commanded fasting as a part of his worshippe then as M. PER. confesseth it being no judiciall or ceremoniall part of the lawe but morall and appertayning to the mastring of euery mans owne vnbrideled concupiscence he did sufficiently teach al considerate men that it was alwayes to be vsed for part of his worshippe for that alwayes men should stand in neede of it they being alwayes subject to the same rebellion of their flesh And though we be freed from all vncleane meates of the lawe and from the Iewes set times of fasting yet the band of fasting remayneth because the reason of it is still in force and we are subject to the Pastours of the Church and bound to obey them for the time and manner of our fasting Our second argument The Gouernours of the Sinagogue had full power and authority to prescribe set times of fasting and all the people of God vvere bound to obey them therein as appeareth in the Prophet Zachary who maketh mention of the fastes of the fourth fift Cap. 7. vers 5. Cap. 8. vers 19. eight and ninth Monethes which were not commanded by the lawe but afterward enjoyned by the rulers of the Church Nowe then if the Pastours of that Sinagogue had such authority much more haue the Prelates of the church nowe since Christes time who hath indued them with much more ample authority then the Iewes had before Christ M. PER. answereth that those fastes mentioned in Zachary were appointed vpon occassions of the affliction of the Church in Babilon and ceased vpon their deliuerance Reply The Prophet in the same place hath plainely preuented this answere for he saith That they then in the beginning of that captiuity Cap. 7. Cap. 8. had already fasted seauenty yeares and addeth That they should continue those fastes vntill the Gentils should joyne with them in faith vvhich vvas for foure hundreth yeares after Adde herevnto a fast feast appointed at the instance of the most vertuous Queene Hester and good Mardocheus Hest 9. vers 31. to be alwayes afterward obserued by the Israelites in remembrance of their preseruation The third argument Although in the newe Testament there be no euident testimony for a set time of fasting as S. Augustine saith yet there is some mention made of a set time of fasting Act. 27. vers 8. Whereas nowe it was not safe sayling because the fast nowe was past True it is that some doe expound this of the Iewes set fast in the Moneth of September but that exposition is not so probable for after that time of the yeare especially in those hot countries it is very safe sailing and therefore it cannot so wel be vnderstood of that season Againe S. Luke wrote the acts of the Apostles rather for the Gentils then for the Iewes he being a companion of the Doctor of the Gentils and therefore it is more probable that he describeth the set fast of the Christian Gentils which was in the moneth of December nowe called ember dayes when ordinarily Priestes and other ecclesiasticall persons were consecrated as may be seeme in the pontiffical of Pope Damasus who liued one thousand two hundreth yeares past And this season of the yeare agreeth well with the text for about and after that time it is perilous sayling the seas and windes growing bigge and tempesteous Epist 86. The fourth argument out of S. Augustine before alleadged The Apostles instituted wensdayes and fridayes to be fasted euery weeke the which Epiphanius also confirmeth Haeres 75 and it is touched in the 68. Canon of the Apostles so that it is an Apostolicall ordinance to fast euery weeke Besides the fast of fourty daies before Easter called Lent to be an Apostolical Tradition
the contrary if they can Reply Valiantly spoken but vvhy did he not proue his assertion what was it because he could not the contrary is very easie to be proued For if that diet of S. Iohn Baptist was only for temperance then belike if he had eaten meate as other men did he had beene intemperate and sinned in gluttony which if it be absurd to thinke more absurd is it to say that his continuall abstinence waâ— only for temperance sake Nowe to the third and last part of our difference Catholikes make abstinence it selfe in persons fitly prepared to be a part of the worshipping of God but we take it to be a thing indifferent in it selfe but yet well vsed to be a proppe or furtherance to the worshippe of God It grieueth me to see the doubling and deceite that this Minister many times vseth Doe Catholikes make fasting of it selfe vvithout his right end and all due circumstances a part of Gods vvorshippe if he say so as his vvordes leade a man to beleeue he belyeth vs shamefully For vve hold that no worke be it neuer so good in it selfe yet if it want either a good end or any other due circumstance it is not good or pleasing to God The point then in difference is this that vve esteeme fasting duly performed to be a part of Gods worshippe and to appease vvrath towardes vs to satisfie for the temporall punishment of our sinnes and finally to be meritorious which I will in a word confirme here referring him that desireth to see more vnto the seuerall Questions before handled of Satisfaction and Merits First that God is thereby worshipped Luc. 2.37 it it set downe plainely in holy Scripture Aurae by fasting and prayers serued or worshipped God as the Greeke vvord Latreuósa signifieth Rom. 12. vers 1. Againe exhibite your bodyes by fasting as the best Expositors declare a liuing Host or Sacrifice holy and pleasing God And the reason is manifest for vvhen vve for his sake doe afflict our bodyes both to master the euill passions of it and that our minde may more freely and feruently meditate vpon God it cannot but be a gratefull seruice vnto him Secondly that vve by fasting and humbling of our selues before God and punishing our bodyes there-by for our former faultes doe appease and pacifie the vvrath of God may be proued by many examples of the old Testament but these two may serue the turne which M. PERKINS toucheth The first of the Niniuites vpon whome God tooke mercy at the contemplation of their fasting and other workes of penance so saith the text And God sawe their workes Ionae 3. vers 10. c. And had mercy vpon them and therefore vve condemne M. PERKINS extrauagant glosse of Orleance as they say vvhich corrupteth so much the text That the Niniuites forsooth laide hold on Gods mercy in Christ by faith For that the Niniuites being Gentils had euer heard of Christ or knewe the mistery of his mediation Master PERKINS vvill neuer be able to proue The second example is of King Achab vvho being threatned vvith great punishment according to his deserts fearing the just judgements of God did fast and doe great penance Whereupon God delaide his punishment And M. PERKINS doth greatly ouer-shoote himselfe in affirming that this his repentance was but hypocrisie vvhen God himselfe doth say to Elias 3. Reg. 21. vers 29. Hast thou not seene Achab humbled before me Therefore because he hath humbled himselfe for my sake I will not bring euill vpon his house in his dayes but in the dayes of his Sonne God saith that Achab vvas humbled for Gods owne sake and M. PERKINS blusheth not to correct him and giue him as it vvere the lie saying that it was but in hypocrisie no meruaile if this man be bold with God his Church that feareth not to controule God himselfe Serm. de Laps Ioel. 2. S. Cyprian testifieth plainely that by fasting we asswage and mitigate Gods angre saying Let vs appease his wrath as he himselfe admonisheth vs by fasting weeping and lamentings The third fruit of fasting is to satisfie for the temporall punishment due vnto our sinnes after the remission of the eternall vvhich very reason perswadeth that they who haue offended God by taking vnlawfull pleasures of the flesh should by suffering some bodily chastisement recompence for their former faultes Lib. de jeâ—â—nio For as saith Tertullian Euen as fast the vse of meate did vndoâ— vs so fasting may satisfie God vvhich might be confirmed by the example of King Dauid and many others But M. PER. crieth out and saith It is blasphemy to hold that any other meanes should be applyed to satisfie for sinne besides Christes passion To this I haue answered at large in the question of satisfaction here I say in a word that all mortall sinne and the eternall punishment due vnto sinners therefore is freely through Christ remitted to euery repentant sinner but there remaineth after that remission other temporall paine to be endured by the party him selfe as wel to make him conformable to Christ his head as in punishment of his vngratefull fall after he was once freely and fully pardoned Fourthly fasting is very meritorious in Gods sight as Christ saith expresly when commanding vs to fast not vpon vaine glory as the Pharasees did but to please his heauenly Father he addeth the reward Math. 6. vers 18. Dan. 10 vers 12. And thy Father who seeth thee in secret will repay thee And to Daniel the Angell saith Because from the first day that thou gauest thy hart to vnderstand thou diddest afflict thee in my sight which was by fasting thy wordes were heard and I came for thy speeches sake S. Paul that chosen vessell of election doth chastise his body which was specially by fasting 1. Cor. 9. vers 27. as S. Chrysostome and the other Interpreters doe take it brought it vnder into bondage least whiles he preached to others he himselfe might become a reprobate If one would stand to collect the Sermons of the Holy Fathers made in the praise of fasting he might fill a whole volume take for a taste these fewe wordes out of S. Basil Homil. 1. de jejunio Moyses durst not haue ascended into the mountayne vnlesse he had beene fenced with fasting by fasting he receiued the Commandements written in a table by the Finger of God A little after Fasting leadeth vs to God feasting to destruction Samuel was by fasting and prayer obtayned of God What made the most valiant Sampson inuincible was it not fasting through which he was conceiued in his mothers wombe fasting conceiued him fasting nourished him and fasting made him strong Fasting breedeth Prophets it strengthneth the mighty it maketh lawe-makers prudent and wise besides it chaseth away temptations and armeth a man to Godlinesse it sanctifieth the Nazarite perfecteth the Priest Neither is it lawfull to touch the Sacrifice without fasting not only in this our
first and not so perfect as the last but it is a more speedy and ready vvay to the later and consisteth in the obseruation of some suâ—h extraordinary vvorkes that be not commanded of God as necessary to saluation but commended as thinges of more excellency and left vnto our free choise vvhether vve vvill vndertake them or no. For example God forbiddeth vs to commit adultery but he doth not command vs to professe virginity and to liue alwaies a single life the vvhich yet he recommendeth and exhorteth vs to embrace saying Math. 19. vers 12. Ibidem vers 21. There be some that make themselues Eunuches for the Kingdome of heauen adding He that can take it let him take it so he forbiddeth to steale but counsaileth only to sell all we haue and to giue it to the poore and to followe him Out of which and the like places of holy Scriptures we gather that there be diuers blessed good vvorkes vvhich are not commanded by any precept yet counsailed and perswaded as thinges of greater perfection which are also called workes of supererogation by a name taken from these vvordes Lucae 10. vers 35. Quicquid supererogaueris vvhere the good Samaritane told the Inne-Keeper that whatsoeuer he should lay out ouer and besides that vvhich he had giuen him should be repayed him at his retourne These vvorkes of perfection and supererogation the Protestants may not abide in shewe forsooth of profound humility because all that we can doe is nothing in respect of that which we ought to doe but in deede vpon enuy and malice towardes religious men and women the lustre and fame of whose singuler vertue doth mightily obscure and disgrace their fleshly and base conuersation vvho commonly passe not the vulgar sort in any other thing but in tongue and habit M. PERKINS in his second conclusion alloweth only vnto our Sauiour Christ workes of supererogation because he alone fulfilled the lawe wherefore saith he his death was more then the lawe could require at his handes being innocent But if I lifted to take aduantages as he offereth them I could tell him that although the lawe could exact nothing at Christes handes hee being God and aboue the lawe yet al that euer Christ did was commanded him by his Father and therefore by a certaine vncertaine rule of M. PER. to wit That no worke commanded can be a worke of supererogation he could not doe any worke of supererogation being bound to doe all he did by commandement of his heauenly Father whome he was bound to obey But to come to the point of our difference we hold that there be many workes of perfection vnto which no man is bound neuerthelesse whosoeuer shall performe any of them they shall haue a greater crowne of glory in heauen for their reward M. PER. goeth about to disproue it by prouing that no man can fulfill the lawe of God in this life much lesse doe workes of supererogation I say that he taketh not a direct course to improue our position For albeit a man could not fulfil that law yet may he doe many of those workes of perfection for a man may lead a chaste life yet sometime in a passion fall out with his neighbour and hurt him in word or deede or sweare and so offend in choller for this sometime hapneth and then the workes of perfection not commanded being done by such a one may the sooner purchase him pardon and be great helpes to him towardes the fulfilling of the lawe wherefore Master PERKINS erreth in the very foundation of his proofes notwithstanding we will heare his arguments because they serue to fortifie an other odde sconce or bulwarke of their heresie to wit That it is impossible to keepe Gods Commandements The first he propoundeth in this sort In the morall lawe two thinges are commanded first the loue of God and man secondly the manner of this loue Nowe the manner of louing of God is to loue him with all our hart and strength Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God Lucae 10. vers 27. with all thy hart and with all thy soule and with all thy strength and with all thy thoughts c. As Bernard said The measure of louing God is to loue him without measure and that is to loue him with the greatest perfection of loue that can befall a creature Hence it followeth that in louing God no man can posssibly doe more then the lawe requireth and therefore the performance of all vowes and of all other duties come to short of the intention and scope of the lawe Answere To loue God with all our hart and strength c. may be vnderstood in two sorts The first is to loue him so intirely that we loue no other thing with him in any such degree as may not well stand with his loue and also that in Gods seruice when his honour shal so require we are ready to imploy our vvhole strength hart and life and in this sence euery good Christian doth loue God with all his hart and may doe besides his bounden duty therein many other good vvorkes because the precept being affirmatiue doth not binde for all times but only nowe and then when occasion so requireth Secondly the wordes may be taken to signifie that we should alwayes with all the powers of both body and minde and that at the vttermost straine loue honour and serue God and so taken it is fulfilled in heauen but cannot be performed on earth by any mortall creature with ordinary grace because we must sleepe and eate sometimes and doe many other thinges besides though not contrary to the same loue In the first sence we are commanded to loue God with all our hart c. And in the second it is no commandement but only a marke for vs to ayme and leuell at but no man vnder sinne is bound to attayne vnto it To that of S. Bernard I answere that to loue God as much as he is to be loued is to loue him infinitly which none can doe but only God himselfe If he meane that we must loue God without measure then he is to be vnderstood that in the loue of God there be not as in the matter of other vertues two extreamities too little and too much only there may be too little but there cannot be too much yet there is a certaine measure or degree to which euery one is bound to attaine whither if he haue gotten he loueth God with all his hart as before hath beene declared Now beyond that degree the perfecter sort of Christians doe mount and so much the more by howe much they doe proceede in that perfection yet in this life they can neuer attaine to loue God so feruently and so perfectly but that they may alwaies encrease and loue him more and more so there is not a prefixed meere-stone or limit of louing God in which sence only we may truly say that God is to be loued without measure but that
yea for Heathen Princes behold the first kinde of Mediatour For Christians that pray for all men by their intercession are meanes vnto God for conuersion of others and so may be called Mediatours in a good sence as Moyses saith of himselfe Deut. 5. vers 5. Gal. 3. vers 19. Act. 7. vers 35. Iudic. 3. vers 9. I was an intercessour and meanes or mediatour betweene our Lord and you And by S. Paul he is plainely called a Mediatour the law was ordayned by Angels in the hand of a Mediatour And by S. Stephen he is called a Redeemer as Othoniel is tearmed a Sauiour And that in this sence there may be many mediatours S. Cyril testifieth saying * In Ioh. l. 3. cap. 9. The Mediatour of God and man is IESVS Christ not only because he reconciled men vnto God but for that he is naturally both God and man in one person For by this meanes God reconciled our natures to him for otherwise howe should S. Paul haue said Christ to be the only Mediatour for many of the Saints haue vsed the ministery of mediation as S Paul himselfe crying vpon men to be reconciled to God and Moyses was a Mediatour for he ministred the lawe vnto the people and Ieremy was also a Mediatour when he stood before God and prayed for good thinges to the people Related in 2. Concil Nice art 4. What neede many wordes saith this great Doctor all the Prophets and Apostles were Mediatours VVith S. Cyril accordeth S. Basil who hoped for mercy at Gods handes and forgiuenesse of his sinnes by the mediation of the holy Prophets Apostles and Martirs And S. Bernard was of the same minde Serm. super sign◠magnum apparuit in coelo when he taught that we stand in neede of a Mediatour to the Mediatour and no one more for our profit and commodity then the blessed Virgin Mary so that this mediation and intercession of Saints is no whit at all injurious vnto the only mediation of Christ for it is of a farre different kind from Christes mediation and of the same sort as the prayers be of other good men liuing on earth who all sue vnto God in Christs name and hope to obtayne all and euery of them their petitions by the vertue of his merits and therefore all our prayers and theirs are commonly concluded thus Through our Lord IESVS Christ thy Sonne who with thee liueth and raigneth in the vnity of the holy Ghost God for euer and euer And thus much to M. PER. foundation laide vpon the sandes vvherein he so insolently renounced the Catholike doctrine but that I doe him no wrong I must here adde a coople of other arguments which he misplaced in the former question and therefore I reserued them to this The former All true inuocation and prayer made according vnto the will of God must haue a double foundation a commandement and a promise A commandement to moue vs to pray and a promise to assure vs that we shall be heard for euery prayer must be made in faith and without a commandement and promise there is no faith Vpon this infallible ground I conclude that we may not pray to Saints departed for in the Scripture there is no word either commanding vs to pray to them or assuring vs that we shall be heard when we pray Answere We deny that prayer requireth that double foundation of a commandement to pray and promise to be heard when we pray and that vpon the vvarrant of some of the best prayers that are recorded in holy Scripture When Abraham prayed for the sauing of Sodome and Gomorrha Gen. 18. vers 25. and did obtayne that if there had beene in them but tenne just persons their Cyties should not haue beene destroyed we reade neither of commandement giuen to Abraham to make that prayer nor any promise before he beganne it to be heard and this man was the Father of the faithfull and knewe much better then an hundreth M. PERKINS howe and when to pray And vvhen milde Moyses that most vvise conductor of the Israelites prayed vnto God so peremptorily that he would either blot him out of the booke of life or else pardon his people the Israelites Exod. 32. vers 32. had he either commandement so to pray or promise to be heard I am sure that they can shewe me none at all in the Scripture Nay God before entreated Moyses that he would not pray vnto him for them Ibidem vers 10. but suffer him to punish them according to their deserts promising to aduance Moyses exceedingly if he would giue ouer his suite neuerthelesse Moyses omitted not to pray most earnestly for the same people and vvas heard Neede vve any other proofe to ouerthrowe M. PER. rotten foundation And vvhen Iosue rather commanded then prayed Iosue 10. vers 12. that the Sunne should not moue against Gabaon and it stayed his course for a whole day space God obeying vnto the voice of man as the holy Ghost speaketh vvhat commandement or promise had Iosue for this and to omit an hundreth other like what promise had S. Paul to assure him to be heard 2. Cor. 12. vers 8. when he prayed not once but thrise that the pricke of the flesh should be taken away from him none at al I weene for his request would not be granted him By this the indifferent reader may perceiue how grosse the Protestants judgement is in matters of faith vvho take that for an infallible ground of religion vvhich is so contrary vnto the expresse vvord of God that nothing can be more Of faith necessary in prayer shall be spoken as soone as I haue dispatched an other text of Scripture misplaced here and misaplyed Math. 4. vers 10. We are saith M. PER. commanded to call vpon God only him only shalt thou serue This mans eies-sight beginneth to faile him much that cannot discerne betweene calling vpon and seruing when many a Master calleth vpon his man whome he doth not serue but is serued by him The text is already expounded out of S. Augustine that we must serue God only with Godly honour as the Greeke vvordes Latréyseis doth there notifie notwithstanding which only seruice euery seruant I hope may serue his Master and euery inferiour vvorship his superiour and so may we doe the Saints our betters in all goodnesse with such worship as is due vnto their singular gifts And as we may pray vnto men aliue vvithout derogation vnto God his only seruice so may we doe to the Saints departed But M. PER. fearing the weakenesse of this fortification secondeth it with an other out of the Apostle Rom. 10. vers 14. Howe shall we call vpon him in whome we haue not beleeued but we may not beleeue in Saints therefore we may not call vpon them I answere that we cannot call vpon any man for more then we beleeue to be in him and so much must we beleeue to be in euery man as
the like occasion doth himselfe plainly declare For vpon these wordes of S. Iohn If any man offend 1. Ioan. 2. tract 1. we haue an aduocate with the Father IESVS Christ the just one where he putteth this doubt but some man will say therefore doe not the Saints pray for vs doe not the Bishops and gouernours pray for the people After hee solueth this doubt concluding that all the members of Christes body doe pray one for another marry the head prayeth for all vvhere he most plainely sheweth that the soueraigne intercession or mediation of Christ the head doth not exclude the intercession of Saints departed no more then it doth of any other yet liuing M. PERKINS citeth also one sentence out of S. Chrysostome who hath vvritten thus Thou hast no neede of Patrones to God De perfect Euangel nor much running vp and downe to flatter and fawne vpon others for though thou be alone and want a Patrone and by thy selfe pray vnto God thou shalt obtayne thy desire Answere It seemeth by his wordes of running vp and downe and flattering of others vvhich Gods Saints vvill not endure that he speaketh against seeking vnto vaine-glorious and euill mortall men to be our Patrones to God which were folly But admit he meant the Saints departed then let vs take his whole meaning and not wrest his wordes to any other sence then he vvill allowe and like of he doth then often inueigh both against certayne rich men vvho hauing giuen some little almes to the poore thought themselues sure of pardon of their sinnes and of saluation through the poore mens prayers though they prayed not themselues and also against all such sluggish lazie persons as relyed wholy vpon the intercession of Saints not praying much for themselues vpon such as these doth S. Chrysostome often call to pray for themselues and not to trust wholy vnto the prayers of others perswading them that it were better to pray for themselues vvithout Patrones then leauing all to Patrons not to pray themselues at all But the best of all to be both to pray themselues and to imploy also good men and the Saints to pray for them this is his owne declaration in these his wordes Homil. 5. in Math. Let vs not like sluggards and slouthfull companions depend wholy vpon the merits of others for the prayers and supplications of Saints for vs haue their force and that surely very great but then truly when we our selues doe withall by our penitence request and sue for the same And making the like discourse in another place he concludeth thus Homil. 1. in 1. ad Thessal Knowing these thinges neither let vs despise the prayers of the Saints neither let vs cast all vpon them Nowe to the arguments for the Catholike party my first argument shal be to proue that we may pray to the Angels in heauen to blesse vs and to pray for vs to whome after our blessed Lady vve assigne the first place in our Lytanie We haue for our vvarrant the authority and example of the holy Patriarke Iacob expresly set downe in holy Scripture for prayer to Angels Genes 48.15 16. in these wordes God before whome my fathers Abraham and Isaac haue walked God who hath fedde me from my youth vnto this present day and the Angell that hath deliuered me from all euill blesse these children What can be more playne then that this blessed old Patriarke did pray vnto his good Angell Guardian Nay saith M. PER. for by the Angell there you â—â—st vnderstand Christ for that in Malachie Christ is signified by the Angell of the couenant A bonny reason because that an Angell is once in the old Testament vsed to signifie Christ therefore it shall signifie him in vvhat place soeuer it shall please the Protestants Neither doth an Angell in that one place singly put signifie Christ but with an addition the Angell of the couenant to distinguish that Angell from all others so that there is no appearance or colour of likelyhood out of that place so vnlike to interprete this It remayneth then that the vvord Angell be taken properly as it is most commonly in holy Scripture for an heauenly spirit appointed by God to keepe Iacob vvhich I confirme by the circumstance of the place because Iacob prayeth vnto that Angell as to one that vvas then extant and liuing that had also before deliuered him from many perils but Christ vvas not then borne nor had any doings in the vvorld therefore he did not pray to him Againe the wise Patriarke and Prophet must be made to speake very fondly if he should pray him that was not in rerum natura to blesse those children he might very well haue prayed God for Christes sake that vvas to come to blesse them but to pray Christ himselfe whome he knewe then not to be any where liuing or extant to blsse them hath no sence in it for blessing as all other working supposeth a reall being and existence of the same party To this example of Iacob vve may joyne the consaile that Eliphas the Thamite gaue vnto Iob Turne thy selfe vnto some of the Saints and Iobs owne practise * Cap. 19. vers 21. Tob. c. 12. vers 12. Iob cap. 5. vers 1. Haue pitty on me haue pitty on me at least you my friendes Vpon which place S. Augustine saith that Iob the holy man made intercession to the Angels or to the Saints to pray for him to vvhich we may also adde howe that Raphael offered vp good Tobias prayers to God and howe that another a Apoc. 8. vers 3. Angell did giue of the incense of prayers of all Saints vpon the Altar of gold which is before the throne of God Out of which places and such like I frame this argument The Angels be most holy and charitable creatures of themselues they also haue by Gods appointment charge ouer vs and doe assist vs wherevpon it followeth most clearely that they are most ready in vvord and deede to further all our good desires and honest demandes and consequently being by vs requested to pray for vs cannot refuse it To say that they haue no care of our prayers is both contrary to their charity and to their charge and the places in Scripture already cited to vvhich this may be added Christ to discourage men from offending children and little ones alleageth this inducement Math. 18. vers 10. That their Angels see the face of his father in heauen signifying that they vvould complaine of them to God and sue for seuere punishment against such offendours vvhich argueth that they doe very well knowe and carefully tender our good vvhich is also strengthned by an other place Luc. 15. vers 10. where our Sauiour declareth what great joy they make at the conuersion of a sinner Out of all vvhich textes is plainely to be collected that they knowe of our conuersion see the particular wrongs that be offered vs and the
thereunto requested Wherefore saieth M. PERKINS secondly there is a great difference betweene requesting one to pray for vs and by inuocation to request them that are absent for this is a worshippe that is giuen to them and a power to heare and helpe all that call vpon them Reply First that by inuocation we may pray vnto men S. Augustine teacheth directly grounding himselfe vpon the expresse text of Scripture Locut in Gen. 200. Gen. 48. vers 15. where Iacob commandeth that his name and the name of his fore-fathers be inuocated vpon of the children of Israel And vvhat is inuocation in English but the calling vpon one vvhich is as lawfull as the praying vnto him That we doe them an honour and worship thereby I grant and say that the Saints being better then the liuing are better worthy of that worship then the liuing Further that we assigne them a power to heare them that be absent more then the liuing can doe it is no maruaile for the perfection of their heauenly state requireth that prerogatiue as I haue more then once declared But because this point of their knowledge breedeth the greatest doubt of praying vnto the Saints let S. Augustine a most juditious Doctor and one that was not partiall in that matter deliuering his sentence grounded also vpon holy Scripture be hearkened vnto and followed he treating of the happynesse of Saints in heauen hath these vvordes Lib. 22. de ciuit 29. If the Prophet Helizeus being absent in body did see his seruant Giësy receiuing the gifts which Naaman the Syrian gaue him c. how much more in that spirituall body shall Saints see all thinges not only if they shut their eyes but also from whence they be in body absent this he confirmeth by that sentence of the Apostle 1. Cor. 13. ver 9.10 We knowe in part and in part doe we prophesie but when that shall come which is perfect then shall that be made voide which is in part c. Hence thus reasoneth S. Augustine If the knowledge of this life in such as the Prophets and Apostles were be no more in comparison of the Saints knowledge in heauen then is a little childe compared to a man and this which is in part to that which is perfect then surely if Helizeus and other Prophets did see thinges done farre distant from them yea thinges that were to be done many hundred yeares after their times they being without doubt indued with this admirable knowledge from God howe much abundantly shall all they in heauen enjoy this gift when their bodies shall not hinder them yea they shall not neede bodylie eyes to see thinges absent but with the hart or spirit they shall be present to them 4. Reg. 5. vers 26. as Helizeus was who said was not my hart present when the man returned from his chariot to meete thee Can any thing be more euident or more soundly proued then that the Saints in heauen haue great preheminence aboue all that liued vpon the earth to see and knowe thinges absent and farre distant from them which the same father proueth also by most euident experience in the fifteenth and sixteenth Chapters of his booke intituled de cura pro mortuis agenda And that you may perceiue that that is not the opinion of S. Augustine alone I will joyne the testimonies of three or foure other Fathers with him S. Cyril Patriarke of Hierusalem saith Euen as S. Peter did question Ananias Catach 16 Act. 5. willing him to tell whether he had sold his ground for so much so did the Prophet Helizeus though he were not ignorant of it aske his seruant Giësy whether he had not receiued money of Naaman the Syrian for saith he nothing done euen in the darke is hidden from the Saints S. Basil writeth thus Let a Virgin first of all feare her owne conscience L. de Virginitate and if shee be neuer so solitary yet hath shee her Angell guardian present whose sight shee must not contemne specially when as they haue Angels as it were patterns of virginity but before all Angels let her respect and reuerence her spouse Christ who is present euery where And why did I speake of an Angell for shee hath an innumerable company of Angels present and with them the holy spirits or soules of the Fathers for there is none of these who doth not see all thinges euery where not truly beholding them with corporall eyes but by a spirituall sight pearcing vnto the knowledge of all thinges The same doth S. Athanasius that famous ancient Doctor resolue in his 32. question Quaest 32. See S. Augustine also lib. 20. of the Citty of God the 22. Chapter Teaching that the Saints in heauen doe knowe in particular what is done among the damned in hell And S. Hierome doth proue against Vigilantius that The Saints who followe the Lambe whither soeuer he goeth be excluded from no place and scorneth that dreaming Heretike for imagining that vnlesse the soules of the Martirs did lye houering about their shrines they could not heare their prayers that went thither to pray affirming him therefore to be a monster worthy to be banished into the vttermost câ—asts of the earth Encherines a most holy and learned Arch-bishop of Lyons all most 1200. yeares since confirmeth the same grounding his discourse vpon the same texts of Scripture that S. Augustine did saying If the Prophet Helizeus absent in body did see his seruant Giësy taking gifts howe much more shall Saints in that spirituall body see all thinges not only if they shut their eyes but also from whence they are in body absent For then shall be that perfection of which the Apostle speaketh in part we knowe and in part doe we prophesie 1. Cor. 13. but when that shall come which is perfect it shall be voyded which is in part therefore when that shall come which is perfect and this corruptible body shall no longer cumber the soule but it shall haue a glorious body which shall nothing hinder it shall the Saints then neede the helpe of bodylie eyes to see such thinges which Helizeus absent needed not to behold his seruant The testimonies of so many vvorthy Fathers will I hope suffice to perswade any reasonable man that the Saints in heauen doe very well heare our prayers To these I will joyne that which M. PER. maketh our second objection because it doth fortifie the same Luc. 16. vers 24. Abraham not then in possession of heauenly knowledge after our doctrine but in heauen as the Protestants thinke did heare Diues from hell vvhich is further off from heauen then the face of the earth which we inhabite and therefore more easily might he haue heard any liuing body praying vnto him then he did that rich glutton out of hell M. PERKINS answereth That this is a parable and out of a parable nothing can be gathered but that which is agreable vnto the intent
vers 12. considering his owne frailty Marry very good hope and confidence ought we all to haue in respect of Gods infinite mercy and goodnesse and in the inestimable merits of our Lord and Sauiour IESVS Christ but by faith we cannot beleeue it vnlesse God doe extraordinarylie reueale any such thing vnto vs which he doth to very fewe of his best beloued and best tryed seruants In the matter of our difference he saith first That we teach not faith to be a knowledge of thinges beleeued but a reuerent assent vnto them whether they be knowne or vnknowne But this he saith very vntruly for we hold faith in his owne nature to comprehend a certayne kinde of knowledge though not so cleare and euident yet of as great assurance as is the knowledge of naturall thinges but the man harpeth vpon something else if he could hitte on it We say indeede that it is not of necessity for the simpler sort and ignorant people to reade the holy Scriptures and to goe fish their faith out of that profound Ocean but may content themselues with their Pastors instructions and with their Catechismes and other bookes of piety and deuotion albeit we wish them of better vnderstanding if they be not too curious and wilfull to reade the holy Scriptures vvith reuerence seeking humbly to better their knowledge and especially to amend their liues and in places of difficulty not to trust vnto their owne wits but to referre themselues to the exposition of the Catholike Church which is the pillar and fortresse of truth and there vpon vvholy to rely Yet vve require much more knowledge in the simpler sort of people then the Protestants doe for we teach that euery one is to knowe expresly the 12. articles of the Apostles Creede the tenne Commandements and those Sacraments which they themselues are to receiue Further also all such lawes and ordinances of either the spirituall or temporall Gouernour which doe appertayne vnto their owne estate that they may knowe howe both in spirituall and temporall matters to carry themselues vvithout offence Let those our Authors which teach cases of conscience be consulted in those points and you shall finde them to charge euery man in conscience to knowe all these thinges whatsoeuer some men haue thought to the contrary who be not in that allowed but disproued euen by the testimony of that Authour Banes vvhome M. PERKINS quoteth And touching praying in Latin the lawes of the Catholike Church doth not bind any man to pray in Latin who is not first bound to learne the Latin tongue that is men in holy orders are bound to their Latin Breuiary but no man ignorant of the Latin tongue must be admitted vnto holy orders for them that are ignorant of the Latin tongue vve haue diuers bookes of English prayers vvherein they may exercise themselues fruitfully If any deuout women or others who vnderstand not Latin desire to reade some selected and approued Latin prayers we doe not forbidde them because those prayers haue many priuiledges aboue others And vve doubt not but that many of them doe reade the same Latin prayers with much more humility attention and eleuation of their mindes vnto God and all goodnesse then thousandes of Protestants or Puritans who reade and pronounce gallantly many glorious English prayers composed very curiously when their harts be farre from God Lastly he dissenteth from vs for that we say That some articles of faith were at the first beleeued generally by an infolded faith which afterward being by generall Councels vnfolded and declared to be articles of faith were beleeued expreslie This implicity of faith touching articles of religion M. PER. rejecteth saying That all matters of faith are contained plainelie in the Scriptures This he saith without probation and it is by me in the question of Traditions refuted already therefore to that place I referre the reader OF PVRGATORY OVR CONSENT M. PERKINS Page 278. WE hold a Christian Purgatory by which we vnderstand first the afflictions of Gods children here on earth secondly the bloud of Christ is a Purgatory for our sinnes and so Augustine calleth the mercy of God our Purgatory To this I say that the word Purgatory may be taken diuersly and signifie many thinges which because they be not to the present purpose may be here well omitted THE DIFFERENCE WE differ in two thinges first concerning the place the Catholikes hold it to be vnder the ground into which mens soules after this life doe enter This we deny as hauing no warrant in the word which mentioneth only two places for men after this life Luc. 16. v. 25.26 Ioh. 3. Apoc. 22. heauen and hell Here M. PER. beginneth the disproofe of Purgatory with his ordinary hackney it is not mentioned in the Scriptures To which I answere first that it is as shall be proued hereafter but if it were not yet were it to be beleeued because it vvas receiued by Tradition euen from the Apostles time Besides this fault in M. PER. argument there is another more childish to wit because there is no mention made of Purgatory in three or foure places by him quoted he concludeth that it hath no warrant at all in any other place of Scriptures as who should say there is no Doctor of Phisicke in two or three Colledges of Cambridge therefore there is not one in all the Vniuersity besides Finally Luc. 16. vers 25. the very first place by him cited ouerthroweth flatly his owne position it being truly vnderstood according vnto the generall exposition of the most learned Doctors for Abraham then was not in heauen but in a third place called Lymbo Patrum because before Christ had paid their ransome by his death on the crosse the Fathers of the old Testament were holden captiue and so of Christ it is said That ascending on high he ledde captiuity captiue Ephes 4. vers 8. Hebr. 9. v. 8. 15. And S. Paul proueth by the entring of the high Priest only into the second part of the Tabernacle called Sancta Sanctorum that the way of the Holies was not then manifested but by the bloud of Christ to be laid open and they by the death of the testatour to receiue the eternall redemption But this is by the way to shew the wisdome of the man to bring one text in controuersie to established another But he goeth forward and saith stoutly that there can be no place for Purgatory for that it is saide That they who dyed in the Lord Apoc. 14. vers 13. are bidden to rest from their labours which cannot be saith he if they goe into Purgatory And to cut off all cauils it is further said their workes that is the reward of their workes followe them euen at the heeles I answere first that we haue here by the way heauen to be the reward of workes by M. PER. confession which in the question of merits he denied most absolutely Secondly that albeit they who die in our
serm 66. in Cant. Euen so doe S. Bede and S. Bernard with diuers others expound those wordes of our blessed Sauiour The third text of the newe Testament shall be taken out of S. Paul to the Corinthians vvhere he by a similitude of building declareth that some men vpon the only sound foundation IESVS Christ 1. Cor. 3. doe build gold siluer and pretious stones that is very excellent and perfect workes others doe build vpon the same foundation wood hay and stubble that is imperfect and many vaine trifling workes He addeth that the day of our Lord which shall be reuealed in fire shal proue the workes of the afore-said builders and they who haue built gold siluer and pretious stones because their workes will abide the proofe of fire shall receiue their reward but because the other sort of builders workes cannot resist the fire but will burne they shall suffer detriment but shall be saued yet so as by fire Hence we gather that after the triall of Gods judgement some men who are found guilty of lighter faults shall be saued because they keept the foundation notwithstanding they shall suffer detriment and passe through the fire of Purgatory as a man that hath an halfe-timber house couered with thetch set on fire he being in the middest of it must passe through the flames of fire to escape and saue his life The Protestants say that it is the fire of tribulation in this life that doth try our workes and that through it only lighter faults are purged We reply first that tribulation of this life doth not commonly discerne and try good mens workes from the badde because very often good men are more afflicted in this world then the badde Againe it is said in the text that at the day of our Lord this tryall shall be made vvhich day of our Lord being expressed vvith the Greeke article as here it is ordinarily in Scripture signifieth the day of his judgement so that by the very circumstances of the text it is very plaine that the Apostle S. Paul deliuered the doctrine of Purgatory which yet is made more assured by the vniuersall consent of the holy Fathers who take this place to proue Purgatory See Origen homil 6. in Exodum S. Basil saith He threatneth not vtter ruine and destruction In cap. 9. Esay but signifieth a cleansing according vnto the Apostles sentence but he shall be saued yet so as by fire Theodorete This same fire we beleeue to be the fire of Purgatory In scholijs Gr. in 1. Cor. 3. In psal 36 in which the soules of the departed are tryed and purged as gold is in the furnace Oecumenius and Anselmus vpon the same place be of the same judgement S. Ambrose vpon those wordes Sinners haue drawne their swordes saith though our Lord will saue his yet so they shall be saued as by fire and albeit they shall not be consumed with fire yet they shall be burnt S. Hierome in 4. cap. Amos. S. Augustine in almost twenty places expoundeth this text after the same manner Heare this one taken out of his Commentary vpon the 37. Psalme O Lord reproue me not in thy indignation that I goe not to hell neither correct me in thy wrath but purge me in this life and make me such a one that shall haue no neede of that purging fire prepared for them who shall be saued yet so as by fire And why so but because here they doe build vpon the foundation wood hay and stubble if they did build gold siluer and pretious stones they should be safe from both fires not only from that euerlasting which is to punish the wicked euerlastingly but from that also which shall correct them who shall be saued by fire for it is said he shall be saued yet so as by fire And because he shall be saued that fire is contemned yea truly though they shall be saued yet that fire is more grieuous then whatsoeuer a man can suffer in this life These fewe testimonies of the most approued Doctors may suffice to assure vs that the Apostles speeches are to be taken of a purging fire prepared after this life for them that vpon their true faith in Christ doe build through the frailty of our nature many idle odde and vaine workes The last text of holy Scripture shall be this taken out of S. Iohn 1. Epist 5. vers 16. He that knoweth his brother to sinne a sinne not vnto death let him aske and life shall be giuen him there is a sinne to death for that I say not that any man aske Hence I reason thus a sinne to death must in this place needs be taken for sinne wherein a man dyeth for which no man can pray because that he vvho dyeth in deadly sinne shall neuer afterward be pardoned wherefore a sinne not vnto death is a sinne of vvhich a man repenteth him before his death and for such a one doth S. Iohn exhort vs to pray therefore the prayer which he speaketh of when he biddeth vs not pray being prayer for the dead the other prayer also must be prayer for the departed and so doth he will vs to pray for such men departed that dyed not in deadly sinne but with repentance The Caluinists say That S. Iohn speaketh rather of Apostataes and some such like haynous offendors for whome yet aliue he would not haue vs to pray But this is very vvicked doctrine for vve may pray euen for Turkes and Iewes and the most sinnefull persons that liue whiles they liue and haue time to repent for vvhat knowe vve whether God vvill take them to mercy or no and S. Paul saith expresly that he would haue vs to pray for all persons 1. Tim. 2. vers 1. De correct gratia cap. 12. whiles they liue Much more conuenient therefore is that exposition before rehearsed which is taken out of S. Augustine who affirmeth That a sinne to death is to leaue faith working by charity euen till death To these arguments selected out of holy Scripture I will joyne another of no smaller moment with vs Catholikes which is drawne from Apostolicall tradition and the practise of the vniuersall Church in her primitiue purity which hath vsed alwayes to pray for the dead Let vs heare two or three substantiall vvitnesses speake in this matter S. Chrysostome that most renowmed Patriarke of Constantinople shall be the first vvho saith Hom. 69. ad populū That it was not without good cause ordayned and decreed by the Apostles that in the dreadfull mysteries there be made a commemoration of the dead For they did knowe that they should receiue thereby great profit and much commodity S. Augustine as famous for his learning and sincerity in the Latin Church as the other was in the Greeke De verbis Apostoli serm 34. saith to this point thus It is not to be doubted but that the dead are holpen by the prayers of holy Church and by the
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
that it toucheth the body and cleanseth the hart can any thing be more cleare and forcible to ouerturne M. PERKINS position then to say that the water of baptisme washeth and purifieth mans hart this sentence scalded his lips wherefore he would gladly shake and shift it off by another place of the same Father Tract 6. in epist. Iohannis where S. Augustine teacheth That water sometimes signifieth the gifts of the holy Ghost Be it so what then doth it therefore signifie the holy Ghost in all places or in that where he saith That it toucheth the body and washeth the soule it cannot be for he speaketh of that water with which first the body is washed and that is not the holy Ghost but natural water But at least in the other place he doth not say out altogither as much as he did in the first True and who is he that treating often of one matter that is very copious and large but that sometime he handleth one point of it sometimes another here he discusseth one and the same thing more exactly there more sleightly as occasion serued wherefore it is no reason to say that in one place he said not so much of this matter therefore when he spake more particularly of iâ— in another you must expound him by that place where he spake lesse of it And thus much in answere vnto M. PERKINS reasons Nowe to some fewe arguments for the Catholike party He proposeth one for vs thus Remission of sinnes and saluation are ascribed to the Sacrament of baptisme * Act. 22. vers 17. Be baptised and wash away thy sinnes a Ephes 5. vers 26. Cleansing the Church by the lauer of water in the word of life b Tit. 3. vers 5. He hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration c 2. Tim. 1. vers 6. The grace of God was giuen to Timothy by the imposition of handes Which phrase of cleansing and sauing by the lauer or bath of water importeth no lesse then that by water as a true physicall instrument that grace of God was convayed into the soules of the baptised which may be confirmed by many the like places as where it is said d Ioh. 3. vers 5. Vnlesse a man be borne a new of water and the holy Ghost where our regeneration and newe birth is ascribed vnto the working of water which were all very vnproper speeches if they diâ—import no more then that when water is applyed vnto vs then doth God immediately from himselfe and not by any meanes of the water sanctifie vs so that first we haue the Scripture for vs in his proper natiue signification M. PERKINS answereth That saluation is ascribed vnto the Sacraments as to the word of God that is as they are instruments to signifie seale and exhibite to the beleeuing minde the fore-said benefits but indeede the proper instrument whereby saluation is apprehended is faith And Sacraments are but props of faith furthering saluation two wayes First because by their signification they helpe to nourish and preserue faith Secondly because they seale grace and saluation to vs yea God giueth grace and saluation vnto vs when we vse them well so that we beleeue the word of promise made to the Sacrament whereof they are seales This his answere I haue put downe at large that the juditious reader may see howe many wordes he vseth to answere not one word to purpose for here is indeede an explication of their owne doctrine but not any reason why we should not take the wordes of holy Scripture before alleadged according vnto the proper manner of the phrase whereby they assigne water to be the reall meanes and true instrument of our saluation and thus much of our first argument The second shall directly confute his answere thus If Sacraments doe worke like vnto the word of God preached and only exhibite and feale vnto the beleeuing minde the benefits by them promised then he that cannot vnderstand such signes and promises and hath not vvit to conceiue and beleeue them can in no case receiue any such Sacrament well and worthily as if the word were preached neuer so perfectly vnto one of no capacity or vnderstanding it would worke nothing with him by reason of his want of vnderstanding but the Sacrament of baptisme and some others giuen vnto them who haue not sufficient wit and reason to vnderstand the meaning of it as for example vnto infants yet doe neuerthelesse worke their regeneration and saluation therefore it is most manifest and euident that the Sacraments of their owne proper force as the instruments of God doe worke our saluation vvithout the helpe of the receiuers faith This is confirmed by the testimony of those auncient Fathers who hold that one speciall cause why our Sauiour would be baptised was that by touching the water he might giue it vertue to purge and cleanse vs from sinne so witnesseth S. Ambrose Lib. 2. in Lucam 12. S. Gregory Nazianzene Oratione in sancta lumina Chrysostome Hom. 25. in Iohaâ—nem Venerable Bede in 3. Lucae Againe it is the common opinion of the auncient Doctors that the Sacraments are conduites to convay the merits of Christs passion into our soules yea are said to haue flowed out of Christes side opened on the Crâ—sse they therefore doubted not but that they had a spirituall vertue in them to cleanse and sanctifie our mindes But let vs heare some fewe of them in formall tearmes deliuering the same doctrine vvhich vve teach you haue heard already S. Basil and S. Augustine cited by M. PERKINS Gregory Nyssene speaking of Aarons rodde and such like thinges by which miracles were wrought saith * Orat. de Baptismo And all these thinges being without sence and life yet hauing receiued vertue from God were meanes of great miracles euen so water being nothing but water hauing receiued the heauenly blessing doth reâ—ewe a man vnto a spirituall regeneration And further That as seede is the cause of carnall generation so water that is blessed is the instrumentall cause of mans pâ—â—gation and illumination S. Chrysostome a Hom. 25 in Iohan. That which the wombe is to the infant that is water vâ—to the faithfull for in water we are formed and made S. Cyril of Alexandria b Lib. 2. in Iohan. cap. 42. Euen as water being heated with fire doth burne like fire it selfe euen so water wherewith the body is sprinckled in baptisme by the working of the holy Ghost is reformed and raysed vp to a diuine power and vertue Tertullian c Lib. de Baptismo Of old water gaue life that is water brought forth liuing creatures that it be not strange that water in baptisme knowe howe to giue life S. Ambrose d Lib. 2. de Poenitentia cap. 2. It seemed impossible that water should wash away sinne and Naaman the Syrian did not beleeue that his leprosie could be washed away with water but God hath made possible that which
a Sacrament that euen in Christes owne dayes and by himselfe it was instituted a Sacrament M. PERKINS objecteth for vs It will be said that remissions of sinnes and life euerlasting are promised to repentance and answereth That it is not to the worke of repentance but to the person which repenteth and that not for his works of repentance but for the merits of Christ applyed vnto him by faith Reply When there is no mention made of faith but only of repentance to attribute all to faith and nothing to repentance is a very extrauagant glosse specially he doing it of his owne authority without warrant eyther of reason or of any authour and thus much of the abuses forsooth of repentance in generall Nowe to the particular about Contrition Confession and Satisfaction The first abuse concerning contrition is that the Catholikes teach that it must be sufficient and perfect they vse to helpe the matter by a distinction c. O remarkeable abuse that Catholikes vvould haue contrition to be sufficient and perfect If vve vvould haue had it imperfect and not fit to serue the turne then loe we had hitte the nayle on the head what dotage is this vve say briefly concerning sorrowe for our sinnes past first that it ought to be the greatest that we can haue for nothing is vvorthy to be so vehemently lamented as that vve haue deadly offended our creatour and redeemer and are fallen from his grace into the slauery of our most deadly enemy the Deuill so that for this as for the greatest euill that could be fall vs we are to be most sorrowfull And this highest degree of sorrowe is requisite in contritio◠vvhen thereby alone vve doe recouer the grace of God but vvhen Contrition is joyned vvith Confession and is made a part of the Sacrament then loe though it vvere not so great before as is otherwise requisite it receiueth by vertue of participating with Christes grace in that Sacrament the full measure of sorrowe and so is made vp sufficient and perfect vvhich M. PER calleth the first abuse of Contrition but goeth not about to disproue it The second as he saith is that we ascribe to Contrition the merit of congruity Before he sticked not to say that vve made repentance the meritorious cause of remission of sinnes vvhich vvas a loude lie because vve teach that no man can merit remission of his sinnes for no man can merit ought at Gods handes vnlesse he first be in his grace and fauour vvhich no sinner is vvherefore we hold only that repentance as faith hope and a purpose of amendment be only good dispositions making the man fit and apt to receiue the grace of justification vvhich God freely of his infinite mercy without any desert of ours bestoweth vpon vs only for Christes sake That apt disposition some men call merit of congruity vvherein is no desert of the grace giuen but only a man is made thereby more meete and better prepared to receiue such grace Nowe mans merits doe so vvell agree and stand vvith Christes merits that Christes order is that none comming to the age of discretion shall be partaker of his merits vnlesse he by his owne merits doe make himselfe capable of them as hath beene sufficiently proued before in the question of Merits The third abuse That they make imperfect contrition or attrition arising of the feare of hell to be good and profitable and to it they apply the saying of the Prophet The feare of God is the beginning of wisdome But saith he seruile feare of it selfe is the way to eternall destruction c. Reply He vnderstandeth not what we say we teach that feare of being punished in hell fire maketh euill men abstaine from sinning and beginneth to put them in minde of Gods justice towardes impenitent sinners vvherewith many being strooken vvith the horrour of that euerlasting torment are moued to flie vnto God for mercy and so that seruile feare becommeth profitable vnto them first in that it causeth them to abstaine from that vvickednesse vvhich they vvould otherwise haue committed and then being helped with Gods grace they beginne to turne vnto his mercy and so feare of Gods punishments becōmeth vnto them the beginning of wisdome Thus much in effect doth M. PER. himselfe allowe of and yet vvould seeme to confute it his judgement is so slender Nowe to the abuses concerning Confession The first abuse That we confesse our sinnes to God in an vnknowne language What is there any language vnknowne to God or doth he meane that the vnlearned make their confession in Latin which is impossible for a man that vnderstandeth not one Latin vvord He vvould say I gheste that some of them begin their generall confession in Latin but we speake here of euery mans confession in particular that general of the Churches ordinance is commanded only to be vsed of them that are skilfull in the Latin tongue all others may vse the English Withall saith he we require the ayde and intercession of dead men We beleeue the Saints to be liuing which if he doth not he blasphemeth Touching the intercession of Saints I haue treated before Nowe as we request the helpe of their prayers so doe we acknoweledge vnto them howe grieuously vve haue offended that they seing our humility and sorrowe for our sinnes may the more earnestly entreate for the remission of them But let vs come vnto the principall point in controuersie about this matter viz. That we haue corrupted Canonicall confession by turning it into a priuate auricular confession binding all men to confesse all their mortall sinnes with the circumstances that change the kinde of the sinne as farre as they can remember once euery yeare at the least and that to a Priest vnlesse it be in the case of extreame necessity but in the word of God there is no warrant for this confession nor in the writinges of orthodoxe antiquity for the space of many hundreth yeares after Christ as one of their owne side auoucheth and he quoteth in the margent a man of small credit among vs Beatus Rhenanus for his authour Well let vs see a little vvhat warrant we haue in holy Scriptures and in the auncient Doctors for confession of our faultes vnto a Priest First it is euidently collected out of these wordes of our Sauiour Receiue the holy Ghost Ioh. 20. vers 23. whose sinnes yee doe forgiue in earth they shall be forgiuen in heauen and whose sinnes yee doe retayne they shall be retayned For giuing his Apostles power to remit and forgiue men their sinnes his meaning vvas not that they should pardon them whether they would or would not or that they should absolue any other then such as vvere contrite and did humbly craue absolution neyther should they absolue them from they knewe not of what but that they should knowe vvhat howe many and howe grieuous their offences were that they might be put to worthy penance and receiue particular comfort and counsell
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