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
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
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
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
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
litle therefore may suffice to demonstrate howe the chiefe pillers of the Protestantes religion doe shake the very foundations of the Christian faith by their strange glosses and speeches about the sacred Trinity and by their diuers derogations to Christes diuinity But this shall appeare yet much more perspiciously if we doe well weigh what they teach touching the very nature of the God-head it selfe Whosoeuer denies God to be almighty or presumes to limit the infinite power of God within the compasse of mans weake vnderstanding he in effect makes him no God at all but some meane creature of a limitted strength and power such be all Protestantes OEcolāp de verbis Domini Beza in Neoph. simil cōt And. pag 15. who affirme that God can not set a body in the world without a circumscribed place nor any one body in many places at once with such like the which because they cannot out of the dulnesse of their witte or will not of frowardnesse conceiue to be in nature possible they flatlie deny God to be able to doe yea some of them were so blind * In a cōference at Paris and bold as to auouch God not to be able to conceiue or vnderstand how that is possible which notwithstanding very naturall philosophy teacheth to haue no repugnance in it selfe as in his place I haue proued If they were enemies to Gods omnipotencie alone it might be somewhat excused because that might seeme to proceede rather from the weakenesse of their vnderstanding then out of any ill affection towardes God but if they doe further oppose themselues against the goodnesse mercy and justice of God that must needes discouer very great impiety to lie festring in their bowels Who seeth not that it doth highly attainte the inestimable goodnesse of God and his tender loue towardes mankinde to impute the reprobation of man and his eternall damnation not vnto mans owne wickednesse and desertes but vnto the meere will and pleasure of God himselfe and yet this is too too common an assertion amangst the Protestantes In colloq Monpelgar pag. 522. Let Beza one of their brauest champions speake for the rest God saith he in his secret counsel hath set downe an vnremoueable decree that he wil not haue the greater part of men saued nor to beleeue in Christ and come to the knowledge of truth but hath created ordained and predestinated them to euerlasting damnation Pag. 336. To whome M. PER. in this booke draweth neere affirming it to proceede from the very wil of God that he shewes mercy to some and forsaketh others Mercy indeede God of his meere goodnes doth powre out vpon vs abundantly but to imagine that he of his owne will and prime choise without any foresight of our sinnes doth forsake vs and appoint vs to hell fire is heynous impiety most contrary vnto the very nature of God whose goodnesse is so pure and sincere that it doth good to all thinges and wisheth euill to none vnlesse they doe first greatly deserue it What an vngodly opinion then is it to hold that he of his owne free choise ordained man a creature made to his owne Image and likenesse to most grieuous and endlesse torments without foresight of any offence of his As though he should take a singuler pleasure to see a principall worke of his owne handes fry in hell fire Another opinion some of them hold which is yet much more blasphemous then the other to wit that God who hath beene alwaies by good men esteemed the author of all good and so meerely good in his owne nature and will that he cannot possibly doe or thinke any euill that this Ocean I say of goodnesse is become the author plotter promoter and worker of all the wickednesse and mischiefe that is or hath beene committed in the world This is the doctrine of Zwinglius a great Rabin among the newe Gospellers De prouid Dei pag. 365. who auoucheth that when we commit either adultery murder or any such like crime that it is the worke of God he being the authour mouing and pushing vs on to doe it Againe that the theefe by Gods motion and perswasion murthereth and is often times compelled to sinne In cap. 1. ad Rom. With him agreeth Bucer sometimes a professor of diuinity in the vniuersitie of Cambridge censuring him to denie God flatly who doth not firmely beleeue that God doth worke in man as well all euill as all good Of the same accursed crue was Melancthon who vpon the 8. chapter to the Romanes saith Euen as we confesse Paules vocation to haue bin Gods proper worke so doe we acknowledge these to be the proper workes of God which are either indifferent as is to eate and drinke or that are euil as the adultery of Dauid and such like For it is euident out of the first to the Romanes that God doth al thinges mightely as Augustine speaketh not permissiuely so that the treason of Iudas is as properly the worke of God Li. 1. Inst c. 18. ss 1. as the calling of Paul But the principall proctor and promoter of this blasphemy is Caluin who of set purpose bestowes a whole chapter of his Institutions to hell to proue and perswade it There he auoucheth boldly that the blinding and madnesse of Achab was the will and decree of God that Absolon indeede defiling his fathers bed with incestuous adultery committed detestable wickednes yet this was Gods owne worke briefly that nothing is more plaine then that God blindeth the eies of men striketh them with giddines maketh them drunke casteth them into madnes and hardneth their harts And whereas the poore Papists were wont to interprete such textes of Scripture as seeme to attribute these thinges to God by saying that God doth indeede justly permit and suffer such thinges to be done but is not the author of them this Caluin will not in any wise admitte of but in the same place confutes it saying These thinges many referre to sufferance as if in forsaking the reprobate he suffered them to be blinded by Satan but that solution saith he is too fond and so goeth on prouing that God doth not only suffer but actually effect and worke all the euill that any man committeth yea he addeth that which is more horrible that God doth worke this euill in man Ibidem sess 17. 2. by Satans seruice as a meane yet so as God is the principall worker of it and the Diuell but his instrument Is not this blasphemy in the highest degree to make God a more principall author and worker of all wickednesse done in the world then the Diuell himselfe this is much worse then flat Atheisme for it is the lesser impiety of two to hold that there is no God at all then to beleeue that God worketh more effectually all mischiefe then the infernal spirits doe But some of our Protestants wil perhaps say that they hold not this opinion be it so for I thinke better
Circumcision was commanded in these wordes Genes 17. vers 11. You shall circumcise the flesh of your prepuce that it may be a signe of the couenant betweene you and me These be the wordes of the institution of that Sacrament and not one of them but must be literally taken For the true flesh in deede was to be circumcised and cut off and no figure of the flesh or signe of cutting would serue the turne In like manner where the Sacrament of the Pascall lambe is instituted Exod. 12. vers 3. all must be vnderstood literally as a naturall lambe really killed rosted and eaten and not a figure signe or seale of it euen so our blessed Sauiour instituting a Sacrament in these wordes This is my body the wordes must be taken literally and not figuratiuely and consequently the reason which M. PER. bringeth for him beareth strongly against himselfe because it is and euer hath beene Gods fashion when he instituteth Sacraments to institute them in their proper tearmes which must be taken literally as by his owne examples hath bin proued Nowe to his sentences Circumcision is both a couenant and the signe of a couenant and that properly although not of the same couenant For it was a couenant tendred by God vnto Abraham and by him accorded vnto to circumcise himselfe and all his seede of the male-kinde and the very same couenant was also a signe badge of Gods peculier fauour vnto them and their speciall obligation to serue him and a marke in them of the chosen people of God so that that speach circumcision is the couenant is not figuratiue but literall Neither is the lambe called the Angels passing by or ouer in the place cited by M. P. but rather the Iewes eating of it hastily and walking was a signe of the Angels speedy passing by them The lambe is sometimes called the passe-ouer not because it was the signe of it but for that it vvas the sacrifice celebrated in remembrance of it so Christ is called our passe-ouer or Paschall lambe because he is the lambe of God sacrificed to take away the sinnes of the vvorld so that not in one of these sentences is the thing signified put for the signe but rather the contrary And when S. Paul saith that the Rocke was Christ it is to be vnderstood properly because he speaketh of the spirituall Rocke saying And they did drinke all of the spirituall Rocke which was Christ properly The materiall rocke out of which the streames of water gushed did in deed prefigure Christ on the crosse out of whose side issued bloud and water but the spirituall Rocke that is the Rocke figured by that materiall was really Christ himselfe so that finally he hath not brought vs one place where the name of the thing signified is giuen to the signe but suppose he could bring any would it therevpon followe that this place of the institution of the Sacrament must be expounded by the same figure howe absurd and ridiculous is this manner of reasoning In one or two places of Scripture the name of the thing signified is giuen to the signe ergo In vvhat place soeuer it pleaseth the Protestants it shall be so taken albeit in a thousand other places it must needes be taken otherwise But M. PERKINS saith secondly That the Papists themselues confesse the like figuratiue phrase to be in the institution of the cup when it is said This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud that is as M. PER. interpreteth it a signe seale and pleadge of the newe Testament Answ We say that the institution of that part of the Sacrament is as plainely deliuered by S. Mathewe and S. Marke as the other For they haue in expresse vvordes This is my bloud of the newe Testament vvhich plaine and cleare speach doth sufficiently declare howe S. Lukes more intricate and obscure wordes are to be vnderstood it being great reason that that which is plaine easie to vnderstand should interpret that which is hard and not that which is obscure to be made an exposition of that vvhich is lightsome cleare as our wranglers who loue darkenes more then light would perswade vs. For the better vnderstanding of S. Lukes wordes you must obserue that a Testament is taken in two sortes either for the vvill and ordinance of the Testator or else for the written instrument whereby the will is knowne and performed Nowe this holy Sacrament may truly be called a testamēt in both sences For it is both a special ordinance to be obserued and practised by Christes will and institution during the whole state of the newe Testament and therefore truly called by S. Luke The newe Testament being a principall part of it Ouer and besides it is a singuler meanes and instrument a more effectuall then a vvritten vvill to conuey and deriue vnto vs our Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus legacy by the worthy receiuing of it that is his grace in this world and glory in the next and for this cause it is said of S. Mathewe to be the bloud of the newe Testament and not the seale or signe of it And thus finally the gentle reader may see that M. PER. can shew no sufficient cause why Christes wordes should be expounded by such a strange figure whereupon it followeth euidently that they are to be taken according vnto their natiue literall sence For so must all holy Scripture be vnderstood vnlesse there be apparant reason to the contrary Notwithstanding because this matter is of very great moment as being one of the highest misteries of our faith I will insist and stand somewhat vpon the circumstances of it First conferre all the places together vvhere the institution is rehearsed and you shall finde in them all Math. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. This is my body and not in any one of them This is a figure of my body as the Protestants teach Secondly S. Luke and S. Paul adde The body which shall be giuen for you vvhich inforce vs to vnderstand it to be his true naturall body that vvas crucified for vs and not a figure of it which was not crucified for vs. Luc. 22. Cap. 13. Thirdly Christ said With a desire haue I desired to eate this passe-ouer with you And S. Iohn addeth That Christ knowing that his houre was come that he should passe out of this world to his Father whereas he loued his that were in the world vnto the end he loued them and when supper was done c. Knowing that the Father had giuen him all thinges into his handes and that he came from God and goeth to God and so forth This Preface I say being made before the institution of the Sacrament sheweth that Christ vehemently longed to come to it and intended to leaue vnto his louing Disciples nowe at his last fare-well a monument and token of his diuine power and loue towardes them If after all this he should haue left nothing vnto
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
former offences Neyther can a man that is dead alter his estate but must expect judgement according to his former deserts Now if he haue vpon the true foundation builded wood hay and stubble then he must passe through the fire marry by the helpe of good prayers almes and principally by the Sacrifice of the Masse he may haue his paines in that purging fire remitted or much eased as you haue heard before out of S. Augustine Hom. 41. in 1. ad Corinth And the same teacheth S. Chrysostome saying The dead are holpen not by their friendes weeping but by their prayers supplications and almes And this is all in effect which M. PERKINS disputeth against Purgatory Secondly saith he we differ from them touching the meanes of Purgatory They say that men are purged by suffering of paines in Purgatory whereby they satisfie for their veniall sinnes and for the temporall punishment of their mortall sinnes We teach the contrary holding that nothing can free vs from the least punishment of the smallest sinne but the sufferinges of Christ Indeede they say that our sufferinges in themselues considered doe not purge and satisfie but as they are made meritorious by the sufferings of Christ But to this I oppose one text of Scripture Hebr. 1. vers 3. Christ hath purged our sinnes by himselfe where the last clause cuts the throate of all humane satisfactions and merits and it giueth vs to vnderstand that whatsoeuer purgeth vs from our sinnes is not to be found in vs but in Christ alone To batter this his only fortresse his owne wordes in the beginning of the same Chapter are very sufficient for there he plainely teacheth That by afflictions which men suffer in this world they are clensed from their corruption as gold is from the drosse by fire If our owne suffering purge vs from sinne as he confesseth before howe then can it be true that that vvhich purgeth vs from our sinnes is not in vs but in Christ alone Againe it is but a diuers reading in the Greeke text that hath those wordes by himselfe for they are not in the Latin translation But admitting them for currant the sence is most easie and nothing against eyther Purgatory or humane satisfactions for the Apostle meaneth no other thing thereby then that he expresseth in the 9. Chapter following to wit That Christ not by the bloud of Calues or Goates but by his owne bloud purged vs from our sinnes and wrought our redemption in such sort as in the question of satisfaction hath beene declared at large Here I say briefly that Christ appeased his Fathers wrath towardes all such as shal be made pertakers of his merits defaced the sinne it selfe and paide the eternall punishment due vnto their sinnes but left a temporall paine to be endured of the offendour for euery such sinne pardoned eyther in this world or in the next both because reason requireth that he vvho falleth after that he was once freely pardoned as vve were all in baptisme should not the second time be so easilie admitted into Gods grace as that he should not himselfe feele some smart for his offence Againe we being members of Christs body meete it is that we suffer with him Rom. 8. Col. 1 24. if we will raigne with him as the Apostle teacheth vvho also was so bold as to say that he in his body accomplished those thinges that wanted to the passions of Christ. To this place M. PER. referreth prayer for the dead of which he propoundeth three conclusions two affirmatiue and one negatiue but proueth nothing The first conclusion We hold that Christian charity must extend it selfe to them that be dead to wit in honest buriall of them in preseruing their good names and in reliefe of their posterity The second conclusion Further we pray in generall for the faithfull departed that God would hasten their joyfull resurrection The third conclusion To pray for particular men departed and to pray for their deliuerance out of Purgatory we thinke it vnlawfull because we haue neither promise nor commandement so to doe and so endeth he the question of Purgatory not propounding one argument in fauour of our party His reason of the necessity of a promise and commandement to pray for any thing before we pray for it I haue in the question of praying to Saints confuted at large and therefore omit it here and will furnish this place vvith some arguments for the proofe of Purgatory And though M. PER. blushed not to say that it hath no warrant in the word of God yet he hath or might haue seene in Cardinall Bellarmine Tom. 1. controuer 6. cap. 3. 4. little lesse then 20. textes of holy Scripture vsed by the auncient Doctors to confirme the doctrine of Purgatory I will make choise of some fewe of them and because Purgatory and prayer for the dead be so closely lincked together that the one doth necessarily followe the other I will joyne them both togither And gentle Reader remember here that which hath beene before rehearsed out of S. Augustine that there be some who die in so perfect an estate that they are carryed presently to heauen as all Innocents and Martirs and such other holy personages who commit fewe offences and yet doe leade a very austere life Others there be too too many vvho both liue and die wickedly such are also straight after their death plunged into the flames of hell fire Nowe There is a third sort of men who liue reasonable honestly at least doe die very penitently these only goe to Purgatory there to doe satisfaction for their former offences before they can be admitted into the joyes of heauen nowe to our proofes First 2. Machabaeor 12. Iudas Machabeus that most valiant Captayne of the people of God with all his armie prayed vnto God to pardon the offence of them that were slaine * Vers 42. and afterward making a generall collection among them sent 12000. groates to Hierusalem that sacrifice might there be offered for the offence of the departed the holy Ghost in the text witnessing it To be a holy and holesome cogitation to pray for the dead that they may be loosed and deliuered from their sinnes This text is so euident for prayer for the dead that it can haue no other answere then that which Heretikes flie vnto in their most desperate plunges to vvit to denie the whole booke to be Canonicall Scripture Vpon which point because it belongeth to another place I wil not dwel yet vvill I note by the vvay that S. Augustine in expresse tearmes doth declare 18. Ciuit. cap. 36. that the Church of God in his time did take it for Canonicall Scripture although the Iewes did not so The Protestants I knowe vvell cauill at many thinges in those bookes so might they that were disposed to wrangle against the best Hystories in the Bible But one of milder temper may perhaps demand howe those bookes that were at the first
considered of To it then I say first that if it be ought worth it as well ouerthroweth the Kinges as the Popes Supremacy For if the Pope may not be Christes deputy as he is mediatour and gouernour of his Church because that no creature can be his deputy in any point of Ecclesiasticall gouernement as M. PER. defineth then surely no King nor Prince who are meere creatures and not one of them I trowe both God and Man can be Christes deputy in the gouernement of his Church I say secondly that a meere creature may be Christ our mediatours deputy and Vicar in the Ecclesiasticall gouernement of his Church neyther is there therein any one action that necessarily proceedeth from the two natures of God and Man as M. PER. dreameth Examine all the points of Supremacy proposed in the difference by himselfe and see vvhether there be any one that must needes be the action of both God and Man to call a generall Councell is none such nor to ratifie the decrees thereof to discusse and declare which bookes be Canonicall Scripture and vvhat is the true meaning of all obscure places therein contayned may be done by men assisted by the inspiration of the holy Ghost and so among all the rest there is not one point of the Supremacy but may be vvell executed by a mortall man assisted with Gods spirit The points of Christes mediation namely to satisfie his Fathers vvrath by paying him the full ransome of all mankinde the establishing of a newe Testament or lawe the creation of spirituall Magistrates the furnishing of it with Sacraments and such like are indeede so proper to Christ that they cannot be communicated vnto others Marry to see that his lawes be vvell obserued lawfull Gouernours and Ministers elected and his Sacraments rightly administred the chardge I say of these thinges may be very vvell committed vnto his deputies and the principall ouer-sight of all vnto one supreme gouernour vnder himselfe that all the inferiour Prelates may be holden in peace and vnity And to say that Christes presence by his vvord and spirit is sufficient to dissolue all doubtes that arise about matter of faith and to reforme all misdemeanour that is among Christians without the authority of some Magistrate to see the same vvell declared and applyed vnto particular persons is to speake against all reason and experience For vvho shall reforme obstinate Heretikes Christes vvord but Heretikes haue alwayes said and will euer say that it maketh for them Shall Christes spirit correct them they hold that they haue that spirit in such aboundance that it cryeth in them Abba Father so that M. PER. argument driueth to this that there must be no gouernour at all but that euery wrangling fellowe is to be left vnto the vvord and spirit of Christ vvhich is most absurd in matter of gouernement And albeit that in producing of supernaturall effectes men be but Gods instruments yet because they be instruments indued with reason chosen by God and enabled to doe that whereunto they are by Christ appointed I see no reason why they may not be well called Christes deputies Sure I am that S. Paul feareth not to stile himselfe with the other Apostles 2. Cor. 5. vers 20. 1. Cor. 3. vers 9 Christes Legates or Ambassadours which is as much if not more then his deputies And in an other place he goeth yet further and saith that they are coadjutors or fellowe worke-men with God for though it be Gods worke as the only efficient cause yet men doe concurre thereunto as his instruments and doe in their kinde worke properly towards the producing of the effect as the Preacher by his perswasions zeale and piety doth very much moue his Auditors to embrace Godlinesse although he should labour in vaine if God dâ—d not principally both concurre with his speeches and inwardly also dispose the hart of the hearer to receiue them But of this more hereafter in the matter of the Sacraments Touching the matter of gouernement I cannot vnderstand what M. PER. meaneth when he saith that euery action thereof proceedeth from the very person of Christ for vvhen the Bishops or congregation doth excommunicate an offendour howe can that act of theirs be personal in respect 〈…〉 speaketh Is Christ there thâ—â— in paâ—â—â—â—◠〈…〉 â—â—n-hood togither are they prosecution 〈…〉 sentence of excommunication vvhat adoâ—â—◠〈…〉 if such deepe doctrine drowne many pâ—â—â—e of Popâ—â—ry If Christ be not there present howe thâ—n can thee action proceeds 〈◊〉 him only and be so proper to him that it may be called personall M. PER. meaneth perhaps only that when the congregation doth out 〈…〉 the Church by excommunication then Christ 〈…〉 from the kingdome of heauen vvhich is also false for many 〈…〉 vvhich afterward vpon their 〈◊〉 vnto that kingdome and therefore vvere not cut off from it by Christ But suppose it were true that Christ then seperated that person from heauen vvould it followe thereof that the act of coâ—ting him off 〈◊〉 congregation done by the Church vvere the proper action of Christ proceeding immediatelie from his two 〈◊〉 of God and man nothing I thinke can be imagined more absurd wherefore all the actions of Ecclesiastical gouernement issue properly from the persons of the Gouernours vvho are in deede placed in that seate of authority by Christ and inspired by him to exercise that function duty but so qualified by Christ doe formally execute and vvorke all the actions belonging to gouernement and therefore may be most properly called Deputies vvho in their Masters name and by authority receiued from him doe that they haue commission to doe M. PERKINS second reason is All the Apostles were equall in power and authority for the commission Apostolicall was equally giuen vnto them all Math. 28. Goe teach all nations baptizing them c. Answere They were equall in that point of preaching the Gospell to all nations and in many other thinges vvhich appertayned to the planting of the Christian religion Marry alwayes with this generall prouiso that both they and all those vvho were conuerted vnto the faith by them should acknowledge and obey one supreme Pastor Christes Vicegerent on earth Which S. Leo doth very plainely teach saying Epist 84. ad Anast Betweene the most blessed Apostles in the similitude or equality of honour there was a certayne difference of power and where as the election of them all was equall yet it was giuen vnto one of them to haue preheminence aboue the rest But M. PERKINS saith that the promise of the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen was not priuate to Peter but in his person made to the rest of the Apostles according vnto Peters confession made in the name of the rest Answere Very just euen as Peter made his confession so vvas the promise but he made that confession of Christ in his owne name and that by speciall reuelation from God without consulting with any of the rest therefore to him alone vvas that
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