article of our beleefe borne of the Virgin Mary No more is there vnto that other specified by M. PERKINS he ascended into heauen and from thence shall he come to judge c for albeit he ascended the fortith day after his resurrection and shall at the last day come from thence to judgement yet betweene those two daies he may be where he will and wheresoeuer else he be it hath no direct repugnance with either branch of that article and therefore it doth but bewray the insufficiency of the Protestants skill in the rules of opposition or repugnances who so confidently auerre such great contrariety to be where there is none at all But Augustine saith Tract 50. in Ioannē Lib. 9. in Ioannem Lib. 2. ad Thras Cont. Eutich lib. 1. cap. 4. that Christ according vnto his Majestie prouidence grace is present with vs to the end of the world but according vnto his assumed flesh he is not alwaies with vs the same doth also Cyril Fulgentius and Vigilius testifie We answere that Christ in deede according vnto that visible forme of a man in which he once liued here vvith his Disciples hath very seldome beene seene vpon earth since his ascension but according vnto that forme of assumed flesh sitteth on the right hand of his Father which answere I take out of Vigilius cited here by M. PER. For he saith that Christ is departed from vs in the forme of a seruant that is according vnto his naturall shape of man but may neuerthelesse be very well with vs vnder the formes of bread and wine in the Sacrament which S. Augustine insinuateth in the very treatise alleaged by M. PERKINS saying that Christ is nowe with vs in foure sortes by Faith by the signe of the Crosse by Baptisme and by the Eucharist where making his manner of being with vs in the Eucharist distinct from his presence both by faith signe and grace doth shewe it to be a reall bodily presence which he teacheth most plainely vpon these wordes of the Psalme adore his foote-stoole concluding thereon Psal 98. that the same flesh which our Sauiour tooke of the blessed Virgin Mary was then and is nowe to be adored in the Sacrament therefore notwithstanding his being in heauen in forme of man he assuredly belieued his naturall body to be really present in the Eucharist So did S. Cyril another of M. PER. authours Libr. 12. cap. 31. who vpon S. Iohn auoucheth Christ by his flesh receiued in the Eucharist to sanctifie the soules and bodies of all communicants and to be wholy in euery one of them to vvhome I will joyne their equall S. Gregory of Nisse who saith Orat. de Paschate like as the God-head doth fill the vvhole vvorld euen so consecration is made in very many places and yet is it but one body so that by these worthy writers judgements Christes ascention to heauen doth not any whit hinder the reall presence of his body in the holy Sacrament And to dispatch here together that which M. PER. repeateth againe and againe that a true body cannot be in two places at once we plainely hold with the holy Fathers that one and the same body may by the omnipotent power of God be in as many places at once as it shall please him to set it That this hath no repugnance vvith true Philosophy shall be proued in the next argument And here by the warrant of Gods word I will proue that Christes body de facto hath beene in two places at once That since the ascension it sitteth at the right hand of God in heauen both we and they confesse but longe after his ascension Actor 9. he appeared bodily vnto S. Paul as he went towardes Damasco ergo his body hath beene in two places at once Caluin turneth himselfe on both sides seeketh all possible meanes to shift from the euidence of this place saying first In cap. 9. Actor Act. 22. vers 15 Act. 26 vers 16. that it was some voice only heard from heauen by S. Paul as at Christes baptisme but Christ was not there really This is said most manifestly against the plaine text God ordained that thou shouldest see the just one and heare a voice out of his owne mouth therefore he vvas really present and Christ saith to this end I appeared vnto thee And S. Paul himselfe vvitnesseth a 1. Cor. 3 vers 1.6 1. Cor. 15. vers 8. that he had seene Christ after his resurrection euen as the other Apostles had done which was in bodily presence in the same b Act. 9. vers 5. 4. Instit 17. § 29. chap. S. Paul demanded of him that appeared who art thou Lord and he answered I am IESVS was not he then present What can be more plainely set downe or is more often repeated in the very text of Scripture yet the blind obstinacy of Caluin was such that not being able to defend but that Christ appeared turneth himselfe the other way and had rather say that S. Paules eye-sight was so much strengthned and made so sharpe that it pearced through the heauens and did see Christ sitting there on the right hand of his Father and so Christ did not descend or was seene out of heauen but S. Paules sight mounted vp thether Reply This doctrine is first repugnant to himselfe vvho scoffeth at vs for maintayning that the Saints in heauen can heare our prayers 3. Instit 20. §. 24. and asketh howe they can haue so long eares and so sharpe eyes as to heare and see so farre off vvhich here notvvithstanding hee attributeth vnto a poore earthly creature nothing comparable to the Saints in heauen But besides that contradiction this his answere is much more absurde then the other For vvhome he imagineth to be so Eagle-eyed that he could see into heauen Act. 9. vers 8. the text vvitnesseth to be strooke starke blinde and not able to see the broad high-vvay before him Againe if that vision had beene through the vertue of S. Paules sight his companions should not haue beene partakers of it Act. 26. vers 13. Act. 9. vers 8. Act. 9. vers 17. but they did both see the light and also heard the voice though not so distinctly as to vnderstand it Further there passed many speaches betweene them Who art thou Lord What wilt thou haue mee to doe c. vvhich doth conuince a sensible and bodily presence Lastly it is said directly that Christ appeared vnto S. Paul in the way not that he had seene him in heauen so that nothing can be more certaine euen by the euidence of Gods vvord then that Christes body hath beene in two places at once as vvell may it be in two thousand or in as many more as it shall please God to imploy it for there is no greater repugnance in reason for being in many places then for being in tvvo at once S. Chrisost S. Ambros Primasius in cap. 10. And as you
of bread only doth as vvell present vnto our mindes as if the substance of bread were there present with it Againe saith M. PER. it abolisheth the endes of the Sacrament First it maketh we cannot remember Christ who being present bodily in the Sacrament needeth not be remembred because helpes of remembrance are of thinges absent Answ A man would thinke were not his wits somewhat distempered that he might be remembred best that is most present to vs neither is remembrance only of things absent For as euery one may well remember when they see one whome they haue seldome seene before the very sight of him or his speech or some other token which he telleth calleth vs to remembrance of him who is personally then present But if this were not so yet were the end of the Sacrament accomplished most perfectly For by Christes reall presence in the Sacrament we are admonished to remember not his body barely 1. Cor. 11. but his death on the Crosse as S. Paul expoundeth it which death of his is absent and by the consecrating of his body apart from his bloud and by the eleuation of it is represented vnto vs very liuely and so we are put in minde and made to remember a thing absent to wit the death and passion of Christ Moreouer M. PER. saith that an other end of the Sacrament is to feed the soule with eternall life but by transubstantiation the principall feeding is of the body and not of the soule which is only fed with spirituall foode Answere Alas into what straightes was he brought when he wrote this a man would thinke that if the substance of bread remained still as in their counterfeit Sacrament it doth it should rather be food for the body then for the spirit For bread as fooles knowe as well as phisitions doth nourish the body naturally We then that remoue the substance of bread out of the Sacrament must needes therefore meane to feed only the soule thereby and not the body at all For Christes blessed body receiued in the Sacrament is nurriture only of our soule by his graces bountifully bestowed vpon the worthy receiuer it giueth to the body only a certaine seede or pledge of immortallity according vnto that Ioh. 6. vers 54. He that eateth my flesh c. hath life euerlasting and I will raise him vp in the last day M. PERKINS fourth reason In the Sacrament the body of Christ is receiued as it was crucified and his bloud as it was shed vpon the crosse but nowe the act of crucifying is past it is faith alone that maketh Christ crucified to be present vnto vs in the Sacrament ergo Answere We denie his first proposition for we receiue the same body that was crucified but not after that bloudy manner as it was there vsed but vnder the formes of bread and wine which Christes owne vvordes doe importe take eate this is my body that shall be giuen for you he saith not as M. PER. doth as it shall be giuen for you that is not in the same manner though it be the same in substance Yet as I once said before the consecration of his bloud in the Chalice as it were a part from his body and powred out with the lifting vp of the body after cōsecration as it is done in the Masse with the breaking and receiuing of the holy Host doth liuely represent vnto the faithfull Christes blessed death and passion But what resemblance hath the eating of bread drinking of wine the Protestants holy communion with the crucifying of Christ Is eating and drinking of so pleasing food meete to expresse Christes drinking of gall and most painefull torments by their feeling faith they would salue this but they cannot For besides faith there must be as M. PER. himselfe before confessed a proportion betweene the signe and the thing signified but there is no proportion betweene eating of fine bread drinking of good wine with the dolorous crosse of Christ Seing then that in the Sacrament as M. PER. teacheth Christes body must be receiued as it was crucified he must needes appoint something else then bread wine to be the signes of this Sacrament for they be most vnproper to represent Christes passion Againe saith he discoursing very learnedly That bloud which ranne out of Christes side was not gathered vp againe nay the collection of it was needlesse because after the resurrection he liued no more a naturall but a spirituall life Ans Here is a proper peece of diuinity He might aswel say if his reason were good that Christs body is not risen againe because a body also is as needles vnto a spiritual life The truth is that the body with the bloud in the veines of it is risen againe else were it no true resurrection which is only when the very same body numero with all the same parts and parcels of it which it had before be restored vnto their former essence integrity Note by the way the admirable rare vertue of the Protestants faith whose property is saith M. P. to giue a being vnto thinges which are not What being good Sir that any thing should be extant in the world which before was not yes marry that that bloud should be receiued spiritually which is not at al. True perhaps in the Protestants vaine imagination but in deed most ridiculous to imagine that that can be receiued either corporally or spiritually vvhich is not extant nor hath any being at all For a thing must be of it selfe before it can be receiued of an other 1. Cor. 10. vers 3. M. PER. fift reason The fathers of the old Testament did eate the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the rocke which was Christ but they could not eate his body which was not then crucified but by faith the Papists answere that the fathers did eate the same meate among themselues and not that which we eate that is all the Israelites did eate the same spirituall foode of Manna and did drinke all of the vvater which issued out of the spirituall Rocke one of them as well as an other yet they had not the same Sacraments that we Christians haue neither did they receiue the same that we doe But M. PER. will proue that they had Because saith he the Apostles intent is to proue that the Iewes were euery way equall to the Corinthians and in nothing inferior Reply S. Paul meant and intended nothing lesse but in the same his Epistle and in many of the rest expresly teacheth the state of the Christians such as the Corinthians were to surpasse farre the state of the Iewes For the old Testament is compared to the letter that killeth 2. Cor. 3. and therefore called the ministration of damnation the newe to the spirit that quickneth and to the ministry of justice and the old Testament did ingender to bondage Gal. 4.14 Vers 1. Ver. 3. 9 Hebr. 10. vers
1. the newe to liberty And there they were as seruants we as heires they seruing vnder the weake and poore elements of this world we hauing the spirit of sonnes c. And the lawe had a shadowe of the thinges to come not the very Image as we haue so that nothing could be further from the Apostles meaning then to make the Iewes equall in Sacraments and graces with the Corinthians who were Christians But his intention was as may be easily seene by that vvhich goeth before and followeth to warne the Corinthians to chastice their bodies as he himselfe did as he saith in the end of the Chapter going before and to flie from all vice and not to rely only vpon the extraordinary gifts of God bestowed vpon them For saith he the ancient Israelites all were partakers of many singuler fauours of God as of the eating of Manna of drinking of the Rocke c. And yet because many of them committed fornication and liued wickedly God was not pleased vvith all of them Obserue also that not one thing there mentioned by the Apostle was a Sacramēt among the Iewes and therefore are they vnskilfully compared with our Sacraments For a Sacrament is a set ceremony to be vsed ordinarily in the vvorship of God but their passing through the red Sea was but once therefore no set ceremony their eating of Manna and drinking of the Rocke were but naturall refections to them yea their cattle did drinke of the Rocke aswell as their Masters vvhich thinges though they did prefigure our Sacraments yet were no Sacraments at all and much lesse any thing in vertue comparable to our Sacraments M. PERKINS sixt reason The Sabbaoth was made for man and not man for the Sabbaoth so it may be said that the Sacrament was made for man and not man for the Sacrament and therefore man is more excellent then the Sacrament the end being alwaies better then the thing ordained to the end but if Christes body be really in the Sacrament then is not man more excellent then it ergo Ans By the like argumēt you may as wel proue that the Sonne of God is not nor euer shal be incarnate for the redemption of man or els which is most absurd that man is better then God because for vs men for our saluation Christ descended from heauen was borne of the V. Mary The end then being alwaies better then the thing ordained to the end as M. P. argueth either Christ is not yet borne to redeme man or els man is better then Christ See what goodly arguments they vse to deceiue the simple withal the direct answere is that the maine principall end of Christs incarnation passion and reall presence in the Sacrament is the glory of Gods justice wisdome and goodnesse and of his owne mercy and bounty which are more excellent then Christes incarnation and reall presence mans redemption spirituall feeding and saluation are but secondary endes which are farre inferior vnto our most louing redeemers mercy kindnesse and charity through which he hath procured it M. PER. confirmeth this reason with that which is nothing like it saying Euer◠beleeuer in the supper of the Lord receiueth whole Christ God man though not the God-head vvhich wordes imply a manifest contradiction For howe can God or whole Christ be receiued without the God-head but by carnall eating we receiue not wholy Christ but only a part of the man-hood and therefore in the Sacrament there is no carnall eating nor reall presence Answ We Catholikes doe eate al Christes body wholy For we part not his body but beleeue that it is whole in euery cōsecrated Host Moreouer because his blessed body is a perfect liuing body vve knowe also that it hath bloud in it as other bodies haue and is yet further joyned vvith his most holy soule and so in receiuing his body we receiue all his man-hood both body soule Ouer and besides his God-head being lincked and joyned inseperably with his man-hood whole Christ both God and man is alwaies receiued together so that euery lay Catholike communicating but vnder one kind doth receiue Christs body bloud yea wholy both all his man-hood and God-head whereas in the Protestants naturall communion of bread and wine there is in deed neither body nor bloud not any peece of Christ but only in their owne phantasticall imagination so that those their ordinary out-cries are most fond The Papistes robbe you of the bloud being one part of the Sacrament Whereas Catholike Pastors giue to their flocke vnder one kinde both the body and bloud yea the very soule and God-head of Christ as you haue heard But the Protestantes are the great Theeues in deede vvho defraude their vnhappy followers of both body and bloud and giue them only sacramental signes and relations to feede their foolish phantasies Before I come vnto M. PER. last reason taken from authority I thinke it fittest to place here certaine other objections which out of place he hudleth vp together in the answere vnto our second argumēt where he saith first that Christes body could not be receiued in bodily manner before his passion We say contrarily that it could be as well before as after When he goeth about to proue his position he shall be answered Secondly That Christ was the Minister of this Sacrament and therefore if he had conuerted bread into his body he should haue taken his owne body into his handes vvhich we graunt following S. Augustine vpon these vvordes He was caried in his owne handes Conc. 1. in psal 31. Howe this may be vnderstood saith he of Dauid literally we finde not but we finde it in Christ for Christ was carried in his owne handes when deliuering his owne body he said this is my body For then he carried that his body in his owne handes M. PER. addeth yet further that it should also followe that Christ did eate his owne flesh for he did communicate also saith he to consecrate his last supper in his owne person This may be true though it haue no warrant in the word For S. Hierome a holy and most learned Doctor doth affirme it saying Epistol ad Hedibian quaest 2. our Lord Iesus is both the guest and the banquet he who doth eate and is eaten and no greater incōuenience is this in our opinion then in theirs For who more meete to receiue Christes blessed body then himselfe and vvhat more foolish then for Christ by faith to apply himselfe and his benefits vnto himselfe which as you haue heard before out of M. PERKINS is to receiue the Lordes supper like a good Protestant Lastly he auoucheth that if we eate Christes body really we must needes be man-slayers but he forgotte to proue it dixit abijt If other proofe fayled him he might haue fledde vnto the rusty opinion of the old farne Capernaites which is mentioned in the Gospell it selfe For they as S. Augustine expoundeth it thought that Christ would
cut his flesh in peeces as butchers doe beefe in the shambles and either rawe or rosted haue giuen it to be eaten to some a legge to other an arme c. But we Catholikes doe eate Christes body whole and that without any detriment or diminution vnto that blessed body which is not extended vnder the partes of the sacred Host so as one part of his body is vnder one part of it and another part vnder another but is after the manner of our soule in the body the whole body vnder the whole Host and the whole vnder euery part of the Host and so without any parting or deuiding of his body it is wholy receiued of euery communicant and remaineth after whole in their bodies imparting his grace to their soules so long as the formes of bread tary in their stomackes in their proper shapes and afterward ceasseth to be there any longer which is confirmed by those diuine wordes of the glorious Apostle S. Andrewe recorded by his most deare Disciples Libr. de pass eius When the immaculate lambe is truly sacrificed and his flesh truly eaten of the people he neuerthelesse remaineth and continueth whole and aliue That which he peeceth too of the necessity which we are brought vnto by our doctrine to hold that our bodies be nourished by naked qualities which saith he is erronious in Philosophy is not worth the answering For neither are we driuen to hold that vnlesse it be out of the bounty of our owne good willes For it is nothing materiall â—o the real presence whether our bodies be nourished by the accidents there present or no neither is it so cleare a case in Philosophy whether odours that are naked quallities doe nourish or no as they who haue studied Philosophie knowe And lastly all matters of faith are aboue the rules of Philosophie vvherefore the reall presence of Christs blessed body in the Sacrament being a memoriall and monument of all his merueilous works it must not be thought strange if there followe of it many thinges aboue the reach of naturall Philosophie and yet not so many perhaps as must needes be granted by them as well as by vs in the resurrection of our bodies vvhich notwithstanding those difficulties in Philosophy all Christian men doe firmely beleeue Nowe let vs come vnto such authorities as M. PER. citeth in fauour of their part which neither are many nor taken out of the more famous fathers of either Greeke or Latin Church and which is more admirable not one of the authours by him cited but that in the very same wordes which he alleadgeth to disproue the reall presence they doe euidently auerre and proue it so well knowne and confessed a truth was this of the blessed Dialog 1 Sacrament in all antiquity Theodorete saith The same Christ who called his naturall body foode and bread who also called himselfe a vine he vouchsafed the visible signes the name of his owne body not changing nature but putting grace to nature Here are scarce two wordes together as it is in the author The former part of his wordes be Our Sauiour changed names giuing to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body that is he called his body bread and bread his body so that here is as much for vs as against vs and the latter part of the sentence is wholy for vs. For Christ would saith he haue them that he partakers of the misteries not to attend vnto the nature of the thinges which are seene that is bread and wine but by reason of the changing of names to giue credit to that change which is made by grace that is they hearing in consecration that which was before bread and wine to be then called his body and bloud should beleeue that then also bread and vvine vvere changed and made his body and bloud that change being wrought by the vertue and grace of his word To these wordes of Theodorete in his first Dialogue he joyneth other wordes of his taken out of his second yet quoting the same Dialogue The mysticall signes after consecration leese not their nature for they remaine in their first nature figure and forme and may be feine and touched as before Here M. PER. should haue stopped in the middest of the sentence as they are sometimes accustomed to doe and then had he left some shewe of wordes for his part yet such as might easily be answered but vvhen the reason of the remaining of mysticall signes in their former nature and figure is as he himselfe declareth that they may be seene as before he doth giue the learned reader to vnderstand that he speaketh not of the inward substance of them but of the outward appearance which is the proper object of the sences which outward accidence hath a certaine kind of essence and nature as well as the substance it selfe But that which followeth in Theodorete putteth al out of doubt For he addeth The mysticall signes may be seene as before but that which they are made is vnderstood And what is it vnderstood to be made Marry euen that which we beleeue and adore which can be no other thing but the true reall body of Christ Iesus God and man For in him doe vve beleeue and him doe we adore See then howe this his first and best authour disproueth plainely his owne position M. PER. second authour is one Gelasius an old writer I confesse but where or what he was De duabus naturis Christi it is vncertaine This man saith Bread and wine passe into the substance of the body and bloud of Christ yet they cease not but remaine still in the property of their nature these wordes be flat against M. PER. and the Zwinglians doctrine in that they teach bread and wine to passe into the substance of Christes body The other clause seemeth to make for the Lutherans yet may be interpreted that they remaine stil in some property of their nature that is in the same forme colour and taste as they did before M. PER. goeth on Lib. 4. sentent dist 11. Lumbard saith if he be asked what conuersion this is whether formall or substantiall or of any other kinde he cannot define it Ans Gentle reader turne to the place and imbrace his resolution For most formally doth he deliuer our doctrine and that proued by the testimony of the ancient Fathers albeit the name of transubstantion were not then in vse From the Fathers sentences M. PER. falleth to collections of his owne out of them First saith he they vsed in former times to burne with fire that which remained after the administration of the Lordes supper and therefore tooke it not for his body and quoteth for proofe of this Hesichius Libr. 2. in Leuit. c. 8. where he sheweth either ouer great boldnes if he did not see the place on exceeding wilfull malice if he read it For that ancient writer out of that ceremony of burning al
comfortable sacrifice and by the almes that are giuen for their soules that God may deale more mercifully with them then their sinnes deserued For saith he the vniuersall Church obserueth and keepeth this as by tradition receiued from the Fathers that for them who are departed in the communion of the body and bloud of Christ when at the sacrifice there is made a commemoration or mention of them they are prayed for and the sacrifice is remembred to be offered for them The third witnesse is Tertullian a most auncient and learned authour De corona militis who reckoneth it among the traditions of the Apostles to pray for the soules of the faithfull departed It appearing then so manifest by the testimony of such approued witnesses that to pray for the dead is an Apostolicall tradition generally receiued and practised in the most flourishing state of the Church S. Augustines verdict must needes proue true who saith that it is a point of most insolent madnesse to dispute against that which the whole Church doth practise Wherefore our Protestants vvere 1300. yeares agoe condemned for Heretikes in this point in one Aerius vvho vvas censured by that holy and learned Bishop Epiphanius haeres 75. and by S. Augustine ad Quodvult deum haeres 53. an Heretike because that to the Arrian heresie he added this of his owne that we must not offer sacrifice nor pray for the soules of the departed so that to denie prayer for the dead is by the judgement of the auncient Church deemed flat heresie To these former authorities let vs adde one reason deducted also out of the vvord of God When a sinner is truly conuerted though the fault and eternall paine due to it be through Christes merits freely pardoned him yet there remayneth some temporall punishment to be suffered by the party himselfe for the same offence before remitted This proposition is denyed by the Protestants but it is so manifestly set downe in Gods vvord that they cannot but be put to great shame for it if they be vrged with the examples of the children of Israell of Aaron and Moyses and Dauid Num. 14. Ibi. c. 20. ver 24. Deut. 32. vers 51. 2. Reg. 12. who were all first pardoned of their sinnes and afterward put to penance for the very same offences as I haue in the matter of satisfaction more amply proued Nowe to the present purpose But many who haue beene great offendors are not conuerted till towardes their death or else being conuerted long before doe not fulfill such penance as in justice is due vnto their grieuous and manifold former offences therefore the due order of Gods justice requireth that after their death they accomplish that which was wanting in their life time To this nothing else can be answered but that which some of them doe answere that the very death vvhich euery one endureth doth serue to supply all former defectes of his life and purgeth him cleane from all payne due to his former sinnes but this is said both without authority or any reason For a naturall death is due vnto all the Sonnes of Adam for original sinne in so much as the very innocents baptised are not freed from it and therefore that cannot be also a satisfaction for all other actuall sinnes Againe some vvho haue deserued great punishment die suddainely and vvith small payne so that there is no proportin betweene the payne of their death and their former trespasses We denie not but that such may be both the length and sharpenesse of the sickenesse whereof some die that it being patiently taken may either greatly diminish or perhaps wholy extinguish al former offences but to say that euery ones ordinary death doth cancell all former obligation of sinnes howe many or howe great soeuer they were hath neither â—ime or reason in it I could for a conclusion assemble the sentences of the fathers and shew howe they prayed for the soules departed in their funerall Orations for them as Gregory Nazianzene for the soule of Cesanis S. Ambrose for the soules of Theodosius Valentinian and Satyrus promising also to offer sacrifice for them In epist. ad eundeÌ„ Lib. 5. hystor c. 26. Lib. 3. Institut c. 5. §. 10. S Hierome commending Pomachius for praying and giuing almes for the soule of his wife and Theodorete praysing the Emperour Theodosius the younger for prostrating himselfe at the Relikes of S. Iohn Chrysostome and praying there for the soules of his parents Arcadius and Eudoxia I could I say bring a clowde of witnesses to this purpose but Caluin easeth me of that labour who acknowledgeth That for 1300. yeares before his dayes that is almost from the first time that the auncient Fathers beganne to write the custome of praying for the dead hath beene vsed in the Church Marry he would haue vs beleeue that it was brought in by the vulgar sort after the imitation of the Gentils But we haue shewed that the best learned and most sincere and Godly Preachers and Doctors haue both out of the word of God and Tradition of the Apostles taught their flockes that point of Christian doctrine and further by name condemned them of heresie that taught the contrary so that very fondly doth Caluin taxe S. Augustine for praying for his mothers soule saying forsooth that he did it only to satisfie the old womans request and saith yet more impudently that in his booke of the care to be taken for the dead he doth very coldly handle the matter vvhereas you haue heard I hope sufficiently out of him howe resolute and peremptory he is for Purgatory See the beginning of it and cap. 4. And in that said booke his principall intent is to approue the burying of the dead neare vnto the body or relikes of some Martir to the intent that he vvho remembreth the body of his best beloued to be there buryed may vvith greater deuotion recommend vnto the same Martir his deare friendes soule And therefore he doth much commend a deuout Matron for burying her sonne neare vnto the relikes of S. Foelix and counsaileth others so to doe adding that if they cannot procure any such burying place for their friendes yet that in no case they ought to cease from necessary prayers and supplications for them For saith he wheresoeuer the body of the departed doe lie the rest and peace of his soule is to be procured and sought for And whether out of fond affection towardes his mother or out of a most setled judgement he prayed for her and vvhether it were coldly or no let his owne wordes declare thus he beginneth to proue Caluin an audacious lyer Lib. 9. Confess cap. 13. But nowe I hauing my hart cured of that wound in which humane affection might be faulty doe powre forth vnto thee our God for that thy seruant his mother Monica another manner of teares which floweth from a minde stroken with feare by consideration of those perils which followe euery soule that dyeth
Secondly they make him much inferiour vnto the other persons for they teach in their French Catechismes that the Father alone is to be adored in the name of the Sonne In cap. 6. 17. Isa in 16. Marc. And Caluin against Gentil saith that the title of creatour belongeth only to the Father and else where that the Father is the first degree cause of life and the Sonne the second And that the In 26. Math. v. 64. Father holdeth the first ranke of honour and gouernement and the Sonne the second where the holy Ghost is either quite excluded from part with the Father and the Sonne or at most must be content with the third degree of honour 9. I beleeue the holy Catholike Church the communion of Saints First where as there is but one Catholike Church one as the Councell of Nice expresly defineth following sundry textes of the word of God they commonly teach that there be two Churches one inuisible of the elect another visible of both good and bad Secondly they imagine it to be holy holy by the imputation of Christes holinesse to the elected Bretheren and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hartes of all the faithfull Thirdly they cannot abide the name Catholike in the true sence of it Catholike that is they wil not beleeue the true Church to haue beene alwaies visibly extant since the Apostles time and to haue bin generally spread into all Countries otherwise they must needes forsake their owne Church which began with Friar Luther and is not receiued generally in the greatest part of the Christian world Finally they beleeue no Church no not their owne in all points of faith but hold that the true Church may erre in some principall points of faith Howe then can any man safely relie his saluation vpon the credite of such an vncertaine ground erring guide may they not then as well say that they doe not beleeue the one Catholike Church because they doe as well not beleeue it as beleeue it And as for the communion of Saints their learned masters doe commonly cassier it out of the Creede and that not without cause For by the Saints vnderstanding as the Apostles did al good Christians whither aliue or departed this world they that deny praier to Saints and for the soules in Purgatory haue reason to reject the common society entercourse that is betweene the Saints and the mutuall honour and help which such good Christian soules doe yeeld and afford one to another 10. The forgiuenesse of sinnes It is not easily to find what is their setled opinion touching the forgiuenes of originall sinne in Infants Some attribute it to Baptisme but that cannot stand with their common doctrine that Sacraments haue no vertue in them to remit sinnes or to giue grace Others say that God without any meanes doth then when they be baptised of himselfe immediately justifie them but that cannot stand in their owne doctrine because Infants want the instrumēt of faith to lay hold on that justice then offered by God and therefore cannot being so yonge take it vnto them Others will haue Infants sanctified in their mothers wombe by vertue of a couenant which they suppose God to haue made with old father Abraham and all his faithfull seruants that forsooth their seede shall be holy But this is most phantastical and contrary to the Scriptures and daily experience for Isaac was the sonne of promise and yet Esau his sonne was a reprobate Dauides father was a Godly Israelite and yet Dauid affirmeth Psal 50. that he himselfe was conceiued in iniquities and we may see whole Countries nowe turned Turkes whose ancestors were good Christians therefore not all the soules of the faithfull are sanctified in their mothers wombes Secondly how euil soeuer they agree about the remission of sinne yet there is a perfect consent among them that such relikes of originall sinne remaine in euery man baptised and sanctified that it infecteth all and euery worke he doth with deadly sinne yea that which remaineth is properly sinne in it selfe though it be not imputed to the party so that sinne is alwaies in them though their sinnes be neuer so well forgiuen And as for the Sacrament of Penance by which we hold al sinnes committed after Baptisme to be forgiuen they doe renounce the benefit of it and are at vtter defiance with it 11. The resurrection of the bodies Whether Farel the first Apostle of the Geneuian Gospel doubted thereof or no let his successor Caluin tell you who answereth Farels letter thus Episto ad Farellum That the resurrection of this our flesh doth seeme to thee incredible no meruaile c. Againe many of them teach that Christ tooke not his bloud againe which he shed vpon the crosse yea some of them are so gracelesse as to say that his pretious bloud wherewith we were redeemed Vide Conradum li. 1. art 20. rotted away on the earth 1600. yeares agoe If then it be not necessary to a true resurrection to rise againe with the same bloud why is it necessary to rise againe with the same bones and flesh the one being as perfect a part of a mans body as the other 12. Life euerlasting First Captaine Caluin holdeth it for very certaine that no soule doth enter into the joyes of heauen wherein consisteth life euerlasting vntill the day of doome 3. Institu 25. sess 6. These be his wordes the soules of the Godly hauing ended the labour of this war-fare doe goe into a blessed rest where they expect the enjoying of the promised glory And that all thinges are holden in suspence vntill Christ the redeemer appeare whose opinion is yet better then was his predecessor Luthers For he teacheth in many places that the soules of the Godly departing from their bodies Enarra in Gen. c. 26. In Ecclesi c. 9. v. 10. haue no sence at all but doe lie fast a sleepe vntill the latter day Take this one for a tast Another place to proue that the dead feele or vnderstand nothing wherefore Salomon thought the dead to be wholy a sleepe and to perceiue nothing at all And againe the sleepe of the soule in the life to come is more profound then in this life And Luther with this one position of his as that famous historiographer Iohn Sleidan recordeth ouerthrewe two points of Popery Li. 9. hist to wit praying to Saintes for they are so fast a sleepe that they cannot heare vs and praying for the dead For they in Purgatory slept also so soundly that they felt no paines A meete foundation surely to build such false doctrine vpon In 20. Luc hom 35. But Brentius is most plaine in this matter who ingeniously confesseth that albeit there were not many among them that did professe publikely the soules to die with the body yet the most vncleane life which the greatest part of their followers did lead doth clearely shewe that in their hartes they thinke no life to be
right meaning of all obscure sentences as they most childishly beare their followers in hand Briefly to conclude this point a great number of them hauing Gods word corrupted for the lanterne to their feete and their owne dimme sight for their best guide no maruaile though they stumble at many difficulties in these high misteries and fall into very absurd opinions concerning the principall partes of them Nowe to make vp an euen reckoning with M. PER. Atheisme I must come vnto their diuine seruice and worship of God the third point that I promised to handle because he spared not to speake his pleasure of ours First then whereas a true reall and externall sacrifice is among all externall workes the most excellent seruice that can be done to the diuine Majestie as shall be proued in the question of the sacrifice which also hath euer since the beginning of the world beene by the best men practised to acknowledge and testifie aswell the soueraigne dominion that God hath ouer vs as our dutifull subjection vnto his almighty goodnesse the Protestantes to make knowne vnto the wiser sorte that they are not Gods true loyall people will not vouchsafe to performe to him any such speciall seruice as to sacrifice in his honour nay they are fallen so farre out with this principall part of Gods true worship that they doe in despite of it powre out most vile reproches against the daylie sacrifice of the Catholike Church which contayneth the blessed body and most pretious bloud of our redeemer IESVS Christ. Secondly of seauen Sacraments instituted by our Sauiour both to exhibite honour to God and to sanctifie our soules they doe flatly reject fiue of them And doe further as much as in them lieth extinguish the vertue and efficacy of the other two For they hold Baptisme not to be the true instrumentall cause of remission of our sinnes and of the infusion of grace into our soules but only to be the signe and seale thereof And in steade of Christes sacred body really giuen to all Catholikes in the Sacrament of the Altar to their exceeding comfort and dignity the Protestantes must be content to take vp with a bitte of bread and with a suppe of wine a most pittifull exchange for so heauenly a banquet They doe daylie feele and I would to God they had grace to vnderstand what a want they haue of the Sacrament of Confession which is the most soueraigne salue of the world to cure all the deadly and dangerous woundes of the soule Ah howe caresty doe they daylie heape sinne vpon sinne and suffer them to lie festring in their breastes euen till death for lacke of launcing them in season by true and due confession Besides at the point of death when the Diuell is most busie to assault vs labouring then to make vs his owne for euer there is amongst them no anointing of the sicke with holy oile in the name of our Lord as S. Iames prescribeth joyned with the Priestes prayer Cap. 5. vers 14. which should saue the sicke and by meanes whereof his sinnes should be forgiuen and he lifted vp by our Lord and inwardly both greatly comforted and strengthned these heauenly helpes I say and many others which our Catholike religion afford vnto all persons by which rightly administred God is highly magnified are quite banished out of the Protestant territories and consequently their religion for want of them is mightily maymed They haue yet remayning some poore short prayers to be said twise a weeke for fearing belike to make their Ministers surfette of ouer much praying they will not tie them to any daylie prayers Mattins Euensong and other set houres they leaue to the Priestes sauing that on the Sabbaoth they solemnely meete together at the Church to say their seruice which is a certayne mingle-mangle translated out of the old portaise and Masse booke patched vp together with some fewe of their owne inuentions And though it be but short yet it is the Lord he knowes performed by most of them so slightly that an indifferent beholder would rather judge them to come thither to gase one vpon another or to common of worldly businesse then reuerently there to serue God Nowe as concerning the place where their diuine seruice is said if goodly stately Churches had not beene by men of our religion built to their handes in what simple cotes trowe you would their key-cold deuotion haue beene content to serue their Lord if one Church or great steeple by any mishap fall into vtter ruine a collection throughout all England for many yeares together will not serue to build it vp againe which maketh men of judgement to perceiue that their religion is exceeding cold in the setting foreward of good workes and that it rather tendeth to destruction then to edification Againe whereas our Churches are furnished with many goodly Altars trimmed vp decently and garnished with sundry faire and religious pictures to strike into the beholders a reuerent respect of that place and to drawe them to heauenly meditations theirs haue ordinarely bare walles hanged with cob-webs except some of the better sort which are daubed like Ale-houses with some broken sentences of Scripture Besides the ancient custome of Christians being to pray with their faces towardes the Sunne rising to shewe the hope they haue of a good resurrection and that by tradition receiued euen from the Apostles as witnesseth Saint Basil their Ministers in their highest misteries De Spiritu sancto 27. looke ouer their communion table into the South to signifie perhaps that their spirituall estate is now at the highest and that in their religion there is no hope of rising towardes heauen but assurance of declining I may not here omitte that of late yeares they haue caused the Kinges armes to be set vp in the place where Christes armes the Crucifix was wont to stand the which I confesse would haue graced their Church better if it had beene else where placed But I hope they will giue me leaue to aske them howe they durst set vp any such Images in their Churches as be in that armes For they haue taught hitherto that it is expresly against the second commandement and a kind of Idolatry not only to worshippe Images but also to set them vp in Churches and yet nowe as it were cleane forgetting themselues they fall into that fault themselues that they haue so much blamed in others Neither will it helpe them to say that they reproued only the setting vp of holy pictures but not of others For the second commandement as they expound it is aswell against the one as the other forbidding generally the making of any kind of Image And is it not a pittifull blindnesse to thinke that the pictures of Lions and Liberts doe better become the house of God then the Image of his owne Sonne and of his faithfull seruants And may not simple people thinke when they see Christes armes cast downe and the Princes set vp in
haue heard before that S. Augustine and S. Cyrill taught him to be bodily present in as many places as the blessed Sacrament is administred so doe the ancient Expositors of the Epistle to the Hebrewes affirme that Christes body is offered now on many Altars at the same very moment And to cite one of their sentences at large Lib. 3. de sacerdot S. Chrisostome cryeth out O miracle O goodnesse of God! he that sitteth aboue with his Father at the very same instant of time is touched by the handes of all and doth offer and deliuer himselfe to them who are willing to receaue him Homil. 2. ad populū in fine and Helias left his cloake to his disciple Heliseus but Christ ascending left vs his flesh Helias in deede cast his cloake off but Christ both left his flesh to vs and ascending tooke it vp with himselfe By this you see howe farre this most holy and learned Father vvas from arguing as our Protestants are wont to doe his body is ascended therefore it cannot be in the Sacrament Nay saith he most expresly it is both there and here together through Christes power and loue towardes vs. Master PERKINS second reason This bodily presence ouerturneth the nature of a true body whose essentiall propriety it is to haue length breadth and thicknesse and by reason of these three dimensions a body can occupy but one place at once as Aristotle said the propriety of a body is to be seated in some place they therefore that say the body of Christ is in many places at once doe make it no body at all Answere We graunt it to be the intrinsecall nature of a body to haue length breadth and thicknesse so that no body can possibly be vvithout those dimensions but vve denie it to be essentiall vnto a body to be seated in some place For quantity and vbi be two distinct predicaments as the learned knowe quantity being perfect in his owne nature vvithout any relation to the place for quantity hath an absolute and no respectiue essence True it is that a body is by nature fit and apt to be seated in a place vvhich is that that Aristole teacheth of it As a man naturally is apt to bee learned yet actually to bee learned is a meere accident to man and manie men be vvithout it euen so to be actually seated in a place is altogither vvithout the nature of a body in so much as the greatest body of all others to vvit the highest heauen is vvithout a place there being no body vvithout it vvhose extremity may enuiron and compasse in that heauen being the highest body as the nature of a place requireth so that it belongeth not to the essence and nature of a body actually to be in any place and consequently vvhether it be in a place or not in any place vvhether it be in one place or in many places the body remayneth still a true perfect body accomplished vvith all his substantiall partes Againe our faith teacheth vs that the naturall subsistence and person of a man vvhich is much nearer to the nature of man then his seating in a place can be separated from man leauing his vvhole nature entire and perfect as it is in Christ our Sauiour vvhere the full complete nature of man is vvithout his owne naturall subsistence and person it being ingrafted and taken into the person of GOD. Hovve much more easily then may his blessed body be vvithout occupying any place vvhich is farre more extrinsecall to him And touching the taking vp of as great a place as the biggenesse of the body requireth vve hold vpon the same groundes that it is of no such necessity but that the power of God can dispence vvith it For if a body may be in no place at all it may be in as little a roome as it shall please God to enclose it VVhich our Sauiour also very plainely teacheth vvhen he signifieth that it is possible to God Mat. 19. vers 26. Ioh. 20. vers 26. for to passe a Camell through the eye of a needle And Christ himselfe entring into the house vvhere his Disciples vvere assembled the doores being shutte gaue vs a manifest experiment that a true naturall body needeth no space at all to be seated in but may by diuine power passe through other solide bodies so that it remaineth euident to them that haue skill in Philosophie that there is no such repugnance in a true naturall body but that it may be in many places at once or in as litle a place as it shall please God to bestow it And when any of the ancient Fathers say that bodies must needes haue places proportionable to them they meane that according vnto the ordinary course of nature so it must be yet they doe not denie but that God can otherwise dispose of them M. PERKINS third reason Transubstantion ouerthroweth the very supper of the Lord. For in euery Sacrament there must be a signe a thing signified and a proportion betweene them both Good let it be remembred but the Catholikes reall presence taketh all away For when the bread is really turned into the body of Christ then the signe is abolished and there remaineth nothing but the outward formes of bread and wine Answere Not so for there is also the body and bloud of Christ as vve hold and so at the most there is nothing gone but the signe only as he tearmeth the bread but neither is that taken away and then all remaineth whole For not the substance of bread and wine but the outward formes of them are the signe of the Sacrament For they alone doe no lesse represent vnto our minde and vnderstanding the spiritual feeding of our soules by Christes body then if they had the substance of bread vnder them as the similitude of fiery tongues Act. 2. without the true substance of tongues did sufficiently signifie the gift of tongues bestowed vpon the Apostles at the feast of Pentecost Math. 3. And it is not necessary to belieue that the Doue which descended vpon our Sauiour at his baptisme was a true naturall Pigeon but the outward shape of a Doue was sufficient to expresse those Doue-like qualities vvhich were in our Sauiour so the outward shewe of bread and wine although the substance be absent serueth very cōueniently to make vs remember and vnderstand that euen then when we receiue the blessed Sacrament our soules are as spiritually fedde vvith it as our bodies are wont to be with bread and wine or which is signified secondarylie that as bread is made of many graines of corne vnited and compact into one masse and body euen so all vve Christians by receiuing the Sacrament worthily and by the spirit of Christ dwelling in vs are made one misticall body of Christ and should therefore one loue and tender the good of another as members of the same body are wont to doe All this I say the outward forme and shewe
them but an order of eating a morsell of bread and drinking a suppe of vvine in remembrance of his death there had beene no congruity in it For many much meaner men then he had left far greater remembrances and pleadges of their loue behinde them Wherefore the wordes must be taken as they sound and then no creature euer left or could possibly leaue the like token and pleadge of his power and loue to his friendes as his owne body and bloud to be the diuine comfort and foode of their soules And this doth that most eloquent Father S. Iohn Chrisostome both note and dilate Homil. 83 in Math. saying Louers when they depart from them whome they loue are wont to leaue with them for a remembrance of their harty affection some such jewell or gift as they are able but no other creature sauing Christ could leaue his owne proper flesh Homil. 2. ad populū Antioch And in an other place Elias departing from his disciple Eliseus left him his mantle but our Sauiour Christ did leaue vnto vs his owne body An other motiue to perswade that Christes vvordes are to be taken literally is gathered of this that they be a part of Christes Testament and containe a legacy bequeathed vnto vs Christians vvhich kinde of vvordes are alwaies to be interpreted according to their proper signification And it should be the most foolish part in the vvorld vvhen a father doth by his last vvill bequeath vnto one of his sonnes a farme or any certaine portion of good to pleade that the vvordes vvere to be expounded figuratiuely and that he meant only to leaue his sonne a figure of a farme or some signe of a portion vvhich yet the Protestants doe pleade in this most diuine testament of our Sauiour Christ Iesus Thirdly you haue heard before also howe that in the institution of all Sacraments the speaches are to be taken literally and much more in this vvhich is the very marrowe of Christian religion and vvherein errour is most dangerous therefore most requisite it was to haue beene deliuered in such tearmes as vvere to be vnderstood literally Lastly albeit Christ oftentimes spake vnto the multitude in parables and obscurely because of their incredulity yet vnto his Disciples vvhome he vvould haue to vnderstand him he commonly spake plainely or else vvas accustomed to interpret vnto them his harder speaches according to that Math. 13. vers 11. To you it is giuen to knowe the mysteries of the Kingdome of heauen to them it is not giuen and therefore in parables speake I to them But Christ here giueth no other interpretation then that it was the same His body which should be nayled to the Crosse neither did the Disciples aske after any exposition of them vvhich is a plaine signe that they tooke them literally the holy Ghost putting them in minde of that which Christ had taught them before of this admirable Sacrament in the sixt of S. Iohn That he would giue them his flesh to eate and that his flesh was truly meate c. Hitherto I haue prosecuted two reasons for the reall presence one out of the promise of it the other out of the performance and institution of it vvhich are all that it pleased M. PERKINS to produce in our fauour though he had multiplied reasons for his owne party and enlarged them very amply but hath as cuttedly proposed ours loded them also with very many replies wherefore somewhat to supply his default herein I will adde foure more for vs that for a doozen of his we may be alowed to haue halfe a doozen The first of them which is the third in order shall be gathered from the figure of this Sacrament thus The figure or shadowe of any thing is alwaies inferior vnto the thing it selfe as the Image of a man is not to be compared to the man himselfe nor the shadowe to the body but if in the Sacrament there be but bread signifying the body of Christ then should the figure of it be more excellent then it selfe wherefore to auoide that inconuenience it must needs be granted that the body of Christ is there really present which farre surpasseth all the figures of it The minor proposition is to be proued First to omitte all other figures of the blessed Sacrament it is manifest that Manna raigned downe from heauen to feede the Israelites in the desert vvas one of the principall as our Sauiour signifieth comparing Manna and the food which he would giue vs Iob. 6. ver 49. 58. 1. Cor. 10. together and S. Paul plainely teacheth it calling it a spirituall foode and numbring it among the figures which the Hebrewes had of our Sacraments and the proportion betweene the thinges themselues vvith the consent of all ancient Interpreters doth conuince it but Manna farre surpassed the Protestants communion For first being a figure of Christ it prefigured him as theirs doth Psal 77. then it was made of Angels and came downe from heauen theirs commeth out of the ouen made by a baker Againe Manna was so agreeable vnto their taste Sap. 16. that it was in taste vnto euery one euen the most delitious and dainty meate that he could desire theirs is but ordinary wherefore they must needs confesse either that Christes body is really present in the Sacrament or else that the figure of it farre surmounted it the thing it selfe The good fellowes to auoid this inconuenience are content to yeeld vnto the Hebrewes as good and vertuous Sacraments as ours be but that also is most false Collos 2. vers 17. Gal. 4. Iob. 6. ver 49. 58. De ijs qui initiantur misterijs cap. 9. 1. Cor. 10. vers 16. For S. Paul compareth theirs to shadowes ours to the bodie he calleth theirs weake and poore elements And to omit here other testimonies cited before Christ himselfe expresly preferreth the foode which he hath giuen vs before Manna wherevpon S. Ambrose discourseth thus Consider nowe whether be more excellent the bread of Angels or the flesh of Christ which surely is the body of life that Manna was from heauen but this is aboue heauen that of heauen this the Lordes of heauen that subject to corruption if it were kept till the morrowe but this free from all corruption Fourthly the Reall presence of Christes body is proued out of these wordes of S. Paul The Chalice or cuppe of benediction which we blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ And the bread which we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord If we receiue and doe participate Christes body and bloud they are certainely there present And the expossition of S. Chrisostome vpon the same place hath stopped vp our aduersaries starting-hole who are wont to say that we indeed doe receiue the bodie of Christ yet not there present but by faith we mount aboue the skies and receiue it there But what saith this holy and learned
Doctor void of partiallity Homil. 24 in praeoratione ad Corinth marry that of these wordes this is the sence and meaning That which is in the Chalice is the very same that flowed out of Christes side Note that the bloud of Christ is in the Chalice and so we need not runne so farre off to seeke it and saith further that we are made partakers of it with the like reall and close conjunction as the word of God and the nature of man were joyned together which was not by faith or imagination only but actually and substantially With vvhome accordeth S. Cyril vvho out of the same wordes of S. Paul proueth that Christes body is vnited with vs not only by faith or charity but bodily and according vnto the flesh saying When the vertue of the mysticall blessing is in vs Lib. 10. in Ioan. 13. doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs bodily by the participation of the flesh of Christ Here by the way obserue that the Apostle calleth the blessed Sacrament bread either because in exterior appearance it seemeth so to be as Angels appearing in the shape of men are in holy write commonly called men so the body of Christ being vnder the forme of bread is called bread or els for that bread in Scripture according to the Hebrewe phrase signifieth al kind of foode So is Manna called bread which was rather like the dewe Ioan. 6. vers 32. Psal 77. and so may our Sauiours body which is the most substantiall foode of our soules be called bread although it be nothing lesse then ordinary bread Lastly it is such bread as our Sauiour in expresse tearmes hath christened it when he said And the bread which I will giue you is my flesh Ioan. 6. vers 51. 1. Cor. 11. vers 29. Vers 27. for the life of the world Our fift argument is taken out of S. Paul He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh judgement to himselfe not discerning the body of our Lord and is guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord whence I argue thus Vnworthy receiuers who are destitute of that faith whereby they should receiue Christ according vnto the Protestants opinion or els they should not receiue vnworthily such vnworthy communicants I say doe receiue the body of Christ albeit vnworthily therefore it is not the receiuers faith that maketh it present but it is there present by the vvordes of consecration whether the party beleeue it or no or else howe should the man eate his judgement for not discerning Christes body and be guilty of his body the Protestants answere first That he is guilty of the body because he receiueth it not then when he should for lacke of faith But this glose is cleane contrary to the text that saith expresly That they receiue it by eating and drinking of it but yet vnworthily and all ancient Interpreters doe so expound it Let one S. Augustine serue in steed of the rest who saith De baptis contr Donatist lib. 5. cap. 8. That like as Iudas to whome our Lord gaue the morsell gaue place to the Deuill not by receiuing that which was euill but by receiuing of it euilly euen so euery one receiuing our Lordes Sacrament vnworthily doth not make it euill because he is euill or receiue nothing because he receiueth it not to saluation For it was the body and bloud of Christ euen to them of whome the Apostle saith He that eateth vnworthily eateth his owne damnation By which notable sentence of so worthy a Prelate the other cauill of our wrangling young-Masters is also confuted For they perceiuing that their former shift would not serue their turnes fly vnto a second that forsooth the vnworthie receiuer is guilty of Christes body because he abuseth the signe of it for the dishonour done to the picture redoundeth to the person himselfe Reply When we complaine of them for dishonouring of Images and tel them that they thereby dishonour the Saints alleadging this sentence That the dishonour done to the picture redoundeth to the person then they will not allowe of it which nowe they are glad to take hold of To the purpose we say first that the Sacrament is no picture of Christ no not in their owne opinion but a signe only and great difference is there betweene disfiguring a mans owne picture and abusing of some signe or signification of him neither is the disfiguring or breaking of a mans picture so heinous a fault if it be not done expresly in contempt of the person which formall contempt is not to be found in many vnworthy receiuers Lastly the Israelites that eate Manna or drunke of the Rocke vnworthily were not guilty of Christes body and bloud although those thinges were signes and figures of them therfore if there were nothing but a signe of Christes bodie in our Sacrament no man should be guilty of so heynous a crime for vnworthy receiuing of it but being by the verdict of S. Paul made guilty of damnation for not discerning Christes bodie it must needes followe that Christes body is there really present To these arguments collected out of holy Scriptures let vs joyne one other of no lesse authority taken from miracles done in confirmation of the reall presence For a true miracle cannot be done to confirme any vntruth or else God by whose only power they are wrought should testifie an vntruth which is impossible One miracle of preseruing a young boy aliue in a glasiers hot burning furnace I haue before rehearsed out of Nicephorus cited by M. PER. two others I will choose out of hundreths because they be recorded in famous Authors and my purpose is to be briefe Ex vita per Ioan. Diac. lib. 2. cap. 4. The first out of the life of S. Gregory the great surnamed by venerable Bede the Apostle of England This most honourable Bishop administring the blessed Sacrament came to giue it vnto the woman who had made those Hostes which he had consecrated She hearing S. Gregory say as the manner was and is The body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy soule vnto euerlasting life smiled at it wherefore the holy Bishoppe withdrewe his hand and did not communicate her but laide that Host downe vpon the Altar Masse being done he called the woman before him and demanded before the people whom shee might haue scandalized what was the cause why shee beganne to laugh in that holy and fearefull misterie she muttered at the first but after answered that she knewe it to be the bread vvhich she her selfe had made and therefore could not beleeue it to be the body of Christ as he called it Then the holy man prayed earnestly to God that in confirmation of the true presence of Christes body in the Sacrament the outward forme of bread might be turned into flesh vvhich vvas by the power of God done presently and so was she conuerted to the true faith and all the rest confirmed in it The
contayneth a thankes-giuing to God for the same which thankes-giuing is the Sacrifice and calues of our lips May he not seeme worthy of a calues-head to his breakefast that being in a serious dispute of a Sacrifice would say that the thankes-giuing for a Sacrifice may trulie be called the very same Sacrifice it selfe for so a thankesgiuing for a howse may truly be called a howse and the thanksgiuing for a horse a horse it selfe and to say that the ancient Fathers so spake as M. PER. doth is to make them babes and too too vnskilfull how to speake Secondly saith he it may be called a Sacrifice because euery communicant doth there present himselfe an acceptable Sacrifice to God to worke in the practise of all dutiefull obedience You should haue said that the receiuing of the Lordes supper worthily might rather be called a Sacrifice then the supper it selfe if you put the reason of the Sacrifice only in the receiuers conceit and deuotion which is very different from the supper it selfe Thirdly saith he The Lordes supper is called a Sacrifice in respect of almesse giuen to the poore which was joyned with it and in this regard also the ancient Fathers haue called the Sacrament an vnbloudy Sacrifice and the table an Altar and the Ministers Priests and the whole action an Oblation not to God but to the congregation and not by the Priest alone but by the people I pray you take not the ancient Fathers for so simple as to thinke the Sacrament to be a Sacrifice because some almes might happily be then and there giuen to the poore For they teach that a Sacrifice is a soueraigne seruice done vnto God alone and not to be offered to any mortall creature Libr. 20. cont Faustum c. 21 Witnesse one S. Augustine for the rest who saith To that worship which is proper to God alone doth appertaine the offering of Sacrifice We doe in no sort offer any such thing or command it to be offered either to any Martir or any holy soule or Martir c. And what a dotage is it to dreame that Priests and Altars take their names of that that almes is giuen by lay-men to the poore at Masse time wherin there is neyther congruity nor likelihood at al nor hath he any author to warrant it For almes by the Apostles order was left vnto the disposition of Deacons Act. 6. In exhor ad castitatem Conc. 14. Conc. Carth. 4. cap. 4. Priests commonly did not medle in it at least it neuer was any essentiall point of their vocation Which was as Tertullian briefly defineth to teach to minister the Sacrament and to offer Sacrifice Nowe Deacons might not in any case offer Sacrifice as the whole Church in her purity defined at the Councel of Nice wherefore there is no colour to say that the vnbloudy Sacrifice Priests and Altars were so called in respect of almes giuen to the congregation we denie not but that deuout people offered at Masse time either bread and wine towardes the Sacrifice or money towardes the reliefe of the Priest and maintainance of the Altar but that was not called the Sacrifice of the Masse by the Fathers but distinguished from it expresly Witnesse that very place cited by M. PER. out of S. Augustine who comforting his friend pittifully lamenting the captiuity of three virgins Epist 122 taken prisoners and led away captiue by Infidels citeth the example of Azarias and his fellowe captiues in Babilon of whome honourable mention is made in Daniel Cap. 3. Whereupon he saith These virgins be in captiuity nowe as were then those Israelites in a heathen country where they could not sacrifice vnto our Lord after their lawe because Hierusalem was the only place where they might offer Sacrifice So saith he these virgins now cannot either carry an offering to the Altar of God or finde a Priest there by whome they may offer it to God These be his wordes by which he is so farre from saying that women did offer Sacrifice at the Altar as M. PER. falsely translateth ferre oblationem ad altare Dei that he plainely teacheth the contrarie the place of their captiuity affording them neither Altars nor Priests Now both those captiue Israelites in Babilon and these captiue virgins might and did deuoutly fast and pray and might also to their power giue almes and yet as testifieth S. Augustine they could not offer Sacrifice because they wanted a conuenient place Priestes and Altars wherevpon it followeth most euidently euen by the testimony which M. PER. alleadgeth for himselfe that the giuing of Almes and other godly deuotions of lay-men doe not make Priests and Altars or giue them their names but be most distinct thinges from them as shall more amply be shewed hereafter out of the ancient Fathers who make the Sacrifice of the Masse a most proper kinde of Sacrifice yet vnbloudie because ther is no bloud shed there but the body and bloud of Christ are offered vnder the formes of bread and wine not as M. PER. saith in his second conclusion in figure only and representation but also really and most truly We denie not the Sacrifice of Christes body in the Masse to be a representation of Christes suffering on the Crosse but affirme it to be such a representation as contayneth withall the same reall body there vnbloudily sacrificed which S. Augustine fully testifieth in these fewe wordes Libr. 20. con Faust cap. 18. Christians doe celebrate the memory of the Sacrifice already performed on the Crosse by the very holy Oblation and participation of the body of Christ we say therefore with the same author by M. PER. alleadged That Sacraments haue the resemblance of thinges whereof they are the Sacramentes but say further that besides the resemblance they containe also the thinges which they resemble As baptisme hath by washing the body outwardlie a resemblance of washing the soule inwardly from sinnes and withall doth when it is ministred truly wash and purge it from all sinne So that it is a foule kinde of reasoning in the matter of Sacraments to argue thus as the Protestants vse It is the signe or the representation of such a thing therefore the thing it selfe is not there present whereas the contrary is most certaine that it is the signe of such a thing ergo the thing it selfe is there present because all Sacraments of the newe Testament doe containe and worke that which they signifie as shall be more amply proued in his proper place Neither doe we denie but that by a true faith in Christ and his passion so it vvant not other necessary parts of Christian religion a man is made partaker of the merit of it But what is that against the Sacrifice of the Masse one truth doth not disproue an other but we shall heare the man perhaps argue more substantially anone when he draweth nearer the matter Thus much of our fained consents which M. PER. putteth downe to peruert the ancient
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.
not Sacrifice and oblation but thou hast perfected for me a body Because that in lieu of all those Sacrifices and oblations his body is offered and ministred vnto all communicants And in his Commentaries vpon those wordes of the Psalme Psal 39. Thou wouldest not Sacrifice and oblation c. What saith he are we therefore at this time without a Sacrifice God forbidde But thou hast made for me a body which was giuen in performance of all the other Cap. 9. And in his oration against the Iewes after he had proued against them out of the Prophet Malachy that all their Sacrifices should cease he adjoyneth But yet doe you not thinke that because your Sacrifices shall cease that therefore no Sacrifice is to be offered For saith he God will not be without a Sacrifice He that desireth to reade more authorities for the confirmation of the Sacrifice of the Masse and howe it is not annulled but established by Christes only Sacrifice on the Crosse let him reade S. Ambrose S. Chrisostome Primasius Theophilact Oecumenius and other ancient Commentaries vpon the eleauenth verse of the tenth to the Hebrewes who there doe moue and resolue this difficulty howe notwithstanding the sufficiency of Christes Sacrifice on the Crosse vve Christians doe offer 〈◊〉 daylie Sacrifice For the judgement of the auncient Church I neede not to make a distinct argument because I haue already in all the other reasons plentifully alleadged it And might here if neede vvere produce vvhole Masses formally penned and deliuered to posterity by some of the most reuerend holy and learned Fathers as that of Saint Iohn Chrisostomes S. Basils and S. Ambrose of vvhich no more question can be made then of the rest of their vvorkes albeit Master PERKINS vvithout any reason rejecteth them to omitt the Lyturgie of Saint Clement and of Saint Iames the Apostle because they are called in question Yet to finish and make vp the Chapter I vvill for a vvorke of supererogation cite some plaine sentences of the choisest Antiquity to proue the Sacrifice of the Masse to be very auaileable not only for the liuing but also for the soules of the faithfull departed * Quaest. 2 ad dulcit in Enchirid ca. 109. Saint Augustine in two places of his vvorkes hath these vvordes It is not to bee denyed but that the soules of the departed are relieued by the deuotion of their friendes aliue when the Sacrifice of the Mediatour is offered or aâ—â—es is given for them And a little after When the Sacrifice of the Altar is offered or almes is giuen for the soules of the baptised departed for the very good soules they are thankes-giuing for them that dyed 〈◊〉 very euil they are meanes to obtaine mercy for others that dyed in very euill estate though they be no helpes to them so dead yet are they consolation vnto the liuing Catech. 5. Mystag S. Cyril Patriarke of Hierusalem teacheth thus We doe beleeue that the intercession of the holy and dreadfull Sacrifice which is set vpon the Altar doth much relieue their soules for whome it is offered Lib. 2. Epist 8. S. Ambrose comforting Faustinus for the death of his sister saith I thinke her not to be so much lamented as to be prayed for nor her soule to be grieued with thy teares but rather to be recommended to God by Sacrifices Hom. 69. ad populuÌ„ S. Chrysostome I◠〈◊〉 not vnadâ—isedly ordayned by the Apostles that is the dreadful misteries there should be made a commemoration of the dead For they did knoâ—e 〈◊〉 thereby the soules receiued much profit and great commodity L. 4. vitae Constant cap. 71. Lib. 1. Epist 9. Eusebius Caesar recordeth That Constantine the great being buryed his soule did enjoy according to his owne desire when he was aliue the diuine ceremonies the mysticaâ—l Sacrifice and the society of holy prayers S. Cyprian reporteth An holy decree â—o haue beene made by the religious Bishops his Predecessors that whosoeuer dying made a Clarke the Gardian and tutor of his children should in punishment thereof be depriued of the benefit of the Sacrifice so as no oblation should be made for him nor Sacrifice celebrated at his death By which he giueth vs to vnderstand that for the soules of others well departed Sacrifice was accustomed to be offered To be short it was defined and declared by the Catholike Church in her prime-time that it was an heresie to denie that Sacrifice was to be offered for the dead as Epiphanias doth testifie in Anacephalaeosâ— S. Augustine ad Quod-vâ—lt-deum haeresi 53. Damascene de centam haeresibus So that noâ—hing can be more certaine both by the expresse vvord of God and by the record of the purest antiquity then that there hath alwayes beene in the Catholike Church a true and proper Sacrifice and that the same hath beene day he offered aswell for the soules in Purgatory as for the liuing Thus much of the Sacrifice of the Masse OF FASTING OVR CONSENTS M. PERKINS Page 221. OVr consent may be set downe in three conclusions First we doe not condemne fasting but maintayne three sortes of it to wit a morall a ciuill and a religious fast A morall fast is a practise of sobriety or temperance When as in the vse of meates and drinkes the appetite is restrayned that it doe not exceede moderation and this must be vsed of all Christians in the whole course of their liues A ciuill fast is when vpon some politike consideration men abstayne from certaine meates as in our common weale the lawe enjoyneth vs to abstayne from flesh at certaine seasons of the yeare for these speciall endes to preserue the breede of cattell and to maintayne the calling of fisher-men Obserue by the way that if he meane the fast of Lent as it is most likely by his wordes he is fouly deceiued in the speciall endes of it which are not those vvorldly respects by him mentioned but principally others more spirituall and heauenly to wit First the punishment of our owne flesh for the faultes committed in ouermuch eating the whole yeare before as * Serm. 4. de Quadr. IdeÌ„ ser 10 S. Leo testifieth secondly the preparation of our minde to meditate more deepely of our Lordes death and resurrection thirdly to a S. Hier. in 3. cap. Ionae dispose and make vs more worthy to receiue the blessed Sacrament which euery Christian is bound to receiue about Easter Briefly to omit diuers other causes we fast the Lent to b Ignatius ad Philip. Basil orat 1. de jejunio Nazianz orat in sanct laua Hieron in c. 58. Esai Chrisost hom 1. in Genes Aug. epist 119. c. 15. Ambros serm 37. imitate as neare as our frailty doth permit our soueraigne Lord and Master who fasted fourty dayes so that to reduce the fast of Lent vnto a ciuill fast principally is to preferre earthly respects before heauenly We denie not but that many times spirituall exercises doe
mysticall and true adoration of God but in that also which was a figure of it Fasting made Elias a beholder of a great vision for after he had by fourty daies fast purged his soule he sawe God as farre-forth as it is lawefull for a man And much more to the same purpose The Puritans fast here commended by Master PERKINS is described and proscribed by the Prophet Esay 58. vers 3. and 4. Behold in the day of your fast there is found your owne will behold you fast to strife and contention c. For their fast is not prescribed by publike authority of the state but out of their owne priuate Preachers fancy and their exercises therefor the greater part are inuectiues and raylinges against the Pope and Papists and perhaps against the state also to vvhome that worthy saying of S. Augustine may be applyed De vtilit jejunij cap. 5. Doest thou duely tame thy owne members or body who tearest the members of Christ And whereas in such time of common calamity deuout men vvere vvont in sacke-cloth to humble themselues before God they meete I warrant you clothed in their best and that trimmed vp curiously so that they fast to strife and to fulfill their owne fancy Finally it seemeth they fast certaine houres the longer that they may afterward vvith better appetite feede vpon a large and dainty banquet vvhich is alwayes lightly prouided at the end of their holy exercises of speaking Such fasters S. Augustine noteth with a blacke-cole vvhen he saith â—n psal 44. Fasting is not commended in him who reserueth his belly for a full supper as they vvho vvhen they haue fasted till three a clocke after noone doe then or shortly after fall with better appetite to a full meale of the best meate that they can prouide Thus much of fasting Nowe to the state of perfection OF THE STATE OF PERFECTION M. PERKINS Page 232. BEcause M. PERKINS here doth not deale vprightly but vnder the title of our consents putteth downe their owne doctrine farre dissenting from ours I will first out of him deliuer their opinion touching the perfection of man and then declare ours that vve may vvith more perspicuity perceiue the difference He in his first conclusion graunteth That all true beleeuers haue a state of true perfection in this life Which perfection saith he consisteth in two partes The former is the imputation of Christes perfect obedience vnto vs The latter is a certayne sincerity and vprightnesse standing in two thinges The first is to acknowledge our owne imperfection The second to haue a constant purpose endeauour and care to keepe not some fewe but all and euery Commandement of the lawe of God And this endeauour is a fruit of perfection in that it proceedeth from the regenerate For as all men through Adams fall haue in them by nature the seedes of all sinne the sinne against the holy Ghost not excepted so by grace of regeneration through Christ all the faithfull haue in them likewise the seedes of all vertues necessary to saluation and therevpon they both can and doe endeauour to yeeld perfect obedience vnto God according vnto the whole lawe and so they may be tearmed perfect as a child is called a perfect man who though he want the perfection of age stature and reason yet he hath euery part and faculty both of body and soule that is required to a perfect man Hitherto M. PRR In whose discourse of perfection I finde many imperfections For to omitte the imputatiue part of mans perfection which I haue disproued in the question of justification Howe can it well hang together that one and the same point of mans perfection to wit an endeauour to keep all Gods commandements is both an essentiall part of it and yet but a fruite issuing out of it as M. PER. maketh it in expresse termes and that within the compasse of fewe lines For if this good andeauour be but a fruite of perfection proceeding from a man regenerate as he saith in the later place the surely the man regenerate vvas perfect before hee had that fruit and so can it not be any substantiall part of perfection as he before appointed it Further if he meane that the inward and inherent perfection of the regenerate doth wholy consist in the seeds of vertue either he taketh the seedes very improperly for the corne and perfect vertues themselues or else he leaueth his perfect man as the Heathen Philosophers did a babe newly borne like vnto a rased paire of tables altogither imperfect hauing nothing written in them but an aptnesse only and capacity to receiue much if it be by diligent endeauour afterward filled But it is much to be wondered at that he is become so exact a censor as to require in his imperfect perfect man A constant purpose endeauour and care to keepe not some fewe but all and euery Commandement of the lawe of God In his 4. reason Hath he not often before yea doth he not in this very question take it for certaine that no regenerate man can fulfill the lawe which if it were true howe can any haue a constant purpose to keepe it For as both Philosophers and diuines doe teach in schoole and very reason informeth euery one of meane vnderstanding at home no man vvell in his wits can haue a full purpose and determination to doe that vvhich he knovveth to be impossible for him to doe Who euer endeauoured to leape ouer mountaines or had a speciall care to build Churches not knowing any possible meanes to effect them M. PERKINS then was very euill aduised to counsaile his regenerate man to haue a constant purpose to endeauour and care to keepe that which he teacheth to be impossible for him to fulfill and accomplish Novve to the doctrine of the Catholikes We teach first that a man baptised and in the state of grace hath in him not the seedes only of all vertues both morall and diuine necessary for his sanctification but the vertues themselues infused and powred in his soule by the bountifull hand of God through the merits of Christ Iesus our redeemer vvithout any desert of ours vvhereby man is made able vvith the assistance of Gods grace to ouercome his owne euill passions and to fulfill all Gods Commandements And this kinde of perfection vve hold to be freely bestowed vpon euery Christian at his first justification of vvhich I haue treated at large in that question A second kinde of perfection there is vvhich consisteth in the perfect and complete subduing of all such disordinate affections such a complete mortification of them I doe vnderstand as the frailty of our nature doth permitte in this life vnto vvhich the best men after long exercise of all kinde of vertue doe attayne Of neither of these two states of perfection doe vve here entreate but the present controuersie is about a third kinde of perfection vvhich is as it vvere placed betweene the other two more perfect then the
busines so for pleasing of God who making an Antithesis betweene the Virgin and the married woman saith Vers 32.33.34 The Virgin is careful for the thinges that appertaine vnto our Lord how she may please God and be holy in body and spirit whereas the wife is carefull of this world and howe to please her husband so that for sanctification of body and soule and for pleasing God virginity by the expresse sentence of the Apostle is better then mariage and therefore they must needes be much blinded with partiallity that cannot see it or obstinately bent against the truth that seeing it will not confesse it The fift argument It is good for me to dye rather 1. Cor. 9. vers 16. then that any man should make my glory voide For if I Euangelize it is no glory to me for necessity lieth vpon me c. What is my reward then that preaching the Gospell I yeeld the Gospell without cost Out of which words we collect that S. Paul preaching the Gospell on his owne charges without any cost vnto his Auditors did a worke of supererogation and that therefore he expected both glory and reward at Gods handes M. PER. answereth That generally it was in Pauls liberty to preach the Gospell freely or not to doe it but in Corinth vpon speciall circumstances he was bound in conscience to preach it freely as he did by reason of false teachers who would otherwise haue taken occasion to disgrace his ministery and haue hindred the glory of God Now it was Pauls duty to preuent that hinderance Reply S. Paul himselfe hath confuted for vs both partes of this answere The former That he was bound to preach freely in that place in these wordes If I preach it is no glory to me so that if he were bound in conscience to preach freely he could expect no such glory as he speaketh off and yet he saith That he would rather die then leese that glory and reward whence it appeareth plainely that he was not bound in conscience to preach there of free cost which he also most largely proueth from the third verse of that Chapter vnto the three and twenty By Moyses lawe by Christes Commandement by the example of all the other Apostles and by many comparisons and reasons so that nothing is more cleare then that he might haue liued at Corinth as well as in other places on their charges to vvhome he preached And by his whole discourse a man may easily gather that the false teachers did cleane contrary to M. PERKINS imagination accuse him for not taking his charges as the rest did vvherevpon they malitiously gaue out that he was no Apostle nor had not the freedome to liue by the Gospell as the Apostles had to vvhich in the beginning of the Chapter he answereth Am I not free am I not an Apostle and my defence to them that examine me is this haue not we power to eate and drinke as also the rest of the Apostles c. Where he proueth that he had power so to doe yet would not vse that power but preach freely both for his owne greater glory and reward in heauen and also that no kinde of let might be giuen vnto the couetous persons and niggardes who not being liberall in expences he chose rather to liue among them at his owne cost then to burden them vvho might perhaps not be so vvilling to receiue him if they must haue beene at charges to maintayne him or else to auoide the sinister report of some malitious who would not haue spared to haue bruited abroadâ— that he made gaines of the Gospell although he had sparingly liued by it Briefly to auoide some such let as he was not in conscience bound to auoide because it vvas not any scandall of the weake which we are bound to auoide but of the wicked and malitious which may with good conscience be contemned as the other Apostles did yet S. Paul of a superaboundant charity had an eye to that also so that the other Apostles that did liue vpon the Gospel did very well but the better that would not vse that his power and liberty Our sixt argument is taken from the testimony of the ancient Church Origen saith In cap. 15. Roma Those thinges which we doe aboue duty we doe them not by commandement For example virginity is performed not of duty for it is not required by any commandement but is offered aboue duty De habitu Virginiâ— S. Cyprian speaking of virginity saith Neither doth our Lord command this but commend it and exhort vnto it and whereas in his Fathers house there be many mansions you Virgins tend vnto the better places and by cutting-off the desires of the flesh you shall obtayne in heauen a reward of greater grace The like saith S. Basil de Virginitat S. Chrysostome Homil. 8. de penitent S. Hierome lib. 1. cont Iouin S. Augustine de sanct Virg. cap. 30. with many others which to auoide perplexity I doe omitte OF THE WORSHIPPING OF SAINTS SPECIALLY OF INVOCATION OVR CONSENTS M. PERKINS Page 245. THe first conclusion The true Saints of God are to be worshipped three wayes First by keeping in remembrance their vertues Secondly by giuing thankes to God for them and the benefits that by them God vouchsafed to his Chrurch Thirdly They are to be honoured by imitation of their vertues The second conclusion Their true reliques that is their vertues and good examples left to all posterity we keepe and respect with due reuerence yea if any man can shewe vs the bodily true reliques of any true Saint and can proue it so to be though we will not worshippe it yet will we not despise it but keepe it as a monument if it may be done without offence And thus farre we agree with the Church of Rome ANNOTATION HOwe vvell the Protestants obserue and keepe the vertues and good examples of the Saints I leaue it to the vertuous readers consideration But what deuotion they haue to their holy reliques may appeare partly by the manifold limitations this man vseth If they be true reliques if of true Saints if we can so proue them for they are resolute to call all into doubt and finally If it may also be done without offence to wit of their vveake Bretheren and fellowe Heretikes vvhich can neuer be then loe this considerate and aduised man Will not despise them By these exceptions one may easily espie the coldnes of their affection towardes them But the practise of their predecessours vvho made hauocke and burnt all the honourable reliques of the best Saints that they could lay their handes vpon without reuerence and respect doth demonstrate the same wicked spirit to haue possessed them which of old spurred foreward the Iewes and Pagans to consume into ashes the blessed bodies of the Martirs least the Christians should worshippe them and keepe them most reuerently as they were alwayes accustomed to doe when they could get them Yea if they
good deedes we doe so that the Protestants can finde no starting hole to escape out at for that they both heare our prayers and be willing to pray for vs. And hauing wonne the Protestants to beginne our Lytanies with vs Luc. 20. vers 36. and so to say S. Michael pray for vs all holy Angels pray for vs c. We may no doubt perswade them to goe forward thus the Saints in heauen are equall vnto Angels both in charity knowledge affection towardes vs and what else soeuer is requisite vnto intercession therefore if we may pray vnto Angels we may also pray vnto the Saints M. PERKINS answereth that at the generall resurrection Saints shall be equall vnto Angels as our Sauiour saith but not before Reply If Saints then shall be equall to Angels they are so at their first entrance into possession of the heauenly joyes for as all Diuines confesse the essentiall glory of their soule shal not be encreased at the resurrection and the glory of their body which they shall then receiue doth not make them more like but rather more vnlike vnto Angels that haue no bodies at all therefore this answere is insufficient which M. PERKINS foreseing addeth a second Saints be equall to Angels in glory but not in office and ministery by which they are ministring spirits for good men leauing vs to vnderstand belike for the good man doth not expresse it that because the Angels are ministring spirits therefore they better knowe our prayers and are more carefull to pray for vs. Reply First the Saints being of our owne nature and hauing passed the like perils that we be in and being also members of the same body of Christ as vve are cannot but tender the matter of our saluation as much as Angels doe especially considering that their charity towardes God bindeth them to further by all possible meanes his honour and seruice and their loue towardes their neighbours doth moue them sufficiently to second and helpe forward our saluation in what they can But the other point of their knowledge of our affaires is of greater difficulty the which vve proue first by the perfect knowledge they haue of God which is as great and also greater then some Angels haue and so in that cleare mirrour of Gods substance they may most easily see all that hath beene is or shall be said or done vpon earth And we say further that the perfection of their most happy state doth demand as due to it that they should be made priuy vnto their friendes reasonable suites vnto them All vvhich hath beene already proued But here I will adde this which is to the prâ—sent purpose That the Saints haue also charge ouer vs and therefore that it belongeth vnto their office as well as to the office of Angels to be acquainted with our affaires in particular That God hath appointed the Saints to rule ouer vs is proued out of our Sauiours wordes vvhere he saith Luc. 19. vers 17. That the good seruant for well vsing of his pound shall be placed ouer tenne Cyties And againe * Apoc. 2. vers 26. He that shall ouercome and keepe my wordes vntill the end I will giue him power ouer Nations and he shall rule them with a rodde of yron c. euen as I haue receiued of my father Item a Ibid. 3. vers 21. I will giue him to sit with me in my throne Out of which textes is plainely gathered that Christ giueth vnto holy Martirs and Saints a charge and command ouer Cyties Countries and Nations which the auncient Fathers haue well obserued and doe plainely testifie Lib. 8. in Lucam De viduis In 40. Mart. Whereupon S. Ambrose saith Euen as Angels doe gouerne ouer vs so doe they who haue attayned vnto the life of Angels In another place he calleth the Saints departed salutis nostrae Praesides the Presidents of our saluation S. Basil tearmeth them Protectors of mankinde Gregory Nazianzene desireth S. Cyprian to looke downe vpon him and to direct his speech and life b Orat. in Cyprian and to feede his flocke to gouerne them togither with him Theodorete saith that they at his time that went from home Lib. 8. de curandis prayed the Martirs to be their companions or rather the guides of their journey and returning safe did yeeld them thankes acknowledging the benefit by them Many more such like testimonies may be produced out of the auncient learned Fathers if neede require to shewe manifestly howe they vnderstood the Scriptures concerning this office and ministery or rather presidency of the Saints departed ouer vs that liue on the earth vvherefore to conclude this reason the Saints being equall vnto the Angels aswell in office and ministery as in charity and affection towardes vs we may aswel pray vnto them as vnto the Angels Our third reason shall be to preuent that euasion of theirs their God forsooth is so ready of himselfe to heare vs that we need not any spokesman to him thus I propose it One of vs liuing here may pray vnto another to pray to God for him therefore much rather may vve pray vnto the Saints departed to pray for vs because the better that the men be that pray for vs the more vvorth are their prayers according to that of S. Iames The continual praier of a just man auaileth much Iac. cap. 5 vers 17. And the examples of Abraham Moyses Iob Elias and such like excellent men doe confirme the same vvhose prayers God did heare when he refused to heare others Yea Gen. 20. vers 7. Iob 42. vers 8. God himselfe as the Scripture teacheth aduised Abimilech King of Egipt to speake vnto Abraham to pray for him and would not heare Iobs friendes praying for themselues but sent them to his seruant Iob to request him to pray for them at whose intercession he did pardon them Doth not this most plainely proue that notwithstanding Gods readinesse to receiue vs into his grace yet his will and pleasure is that vve doe pray vnto others to be a meanes vnto him for vs especially vvhen we haue so offended him that vve may justly be ashamed euen to present our selues before his diuine Majestie neede we any better warrant for praying vnto others then the aduise and commandement of God himselfe Now to the confirmation of the consequent But the Saints Math. 11. vers 11. yea the least in the Kingdome of heauen is greater then S. Iohn Baptist that is then the best on earth ergo their prayers will doe vs much more good then any mans prayer yet liuing M. PERKINS answereth that we haue a commandement to pray vnto the liuing but none to pray vnto Saints departed Reply I haue already confuted this answere vvhere I shewed before that we neede no commandement to pray or to desire others to pray for vs but it is sufficient to knowe their credit with God and willingnesse to intreate for vs when they be
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
that it toucheth the body and cleanseth the hart can any thing be more cleare and forcible to ouerturne M. PERKINS position then to say that the water of baptisme washeth and purifieth mans hart this sentence scalded his lips wherefore he would gladly shake and shift it off by another place of the same Father Tract 6. in epist. Iohannis where S. Augustine teacheth That water sometimes signifieth the gifts of the holy Ghost Be it so what then doth it therefore signifie the holy Ghost in all places or in that where he saith That it toucheth the body and washeth the soule it cannot be for he speaketh of that water with which first the body is washed and that is not the holy Ghost but natural water But at least in the other place he doth not say out altogither as much as he did in the first True and who is he that treating often of one matter that is very copious and large but that sometime he handleth one point of it sometimes another here he discusseth one and the same thing more exactly there more sleightly as occasion serued wherefore it is no reason to say that in one place he said not so much of this matter therefore when he spake more particularly of iâ— in another you must expound him by that place where he spake lesse of it And thus much in answere vnto M. PERKINS reasons Nowe to some fewe arguments for the Catholike party He proposeth one for vs thus Remission of sinnes and saluation are ascribed to the Sacrament of baptisme * Act. 22. vers 17. Be baptised and wash away thy sinnes a Ephes 5. vers 26. Cleansing the Church by the lauer of water in the word of life b Tit. 3. vers 5. He hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration c 2. Tim. 1. vers 6. The grace of God was giuen to Timothy by the imposition of handes Which phrase of cleansing and sauing by the lauer or bath of water importeth no lesse then that by water as a true physicall instrument that grace of God was convayed into the soules of the baptised which may be confirmed by many the like places as where it is said d Ioh. 3. vers 5. Vnlesse a man be borne a new of water and the holy Ghost where our regeneration and newe birth is ascribed vnto the working of water which were all very vnproper speeches if they diâ—import no more then that when water is applyed vnto vs then doth God immediately from himselfe and not by any meanes of the water sanctifie vs so that first we haue the Scripture for vs in his proper natiue signification M. PERKINS answereth That saluation is ascribed vnto the Sacraments as to the word of God that is as they are instruments to signifie seale and exhibite to the beleeuing minde the fore-said benefits but indeede the proper instrument whereby saluation is apprehended is faith And Sacraments are but props of faith furthering saluation two wayes First because by their signification they helpe to nourish and preserue faith Secondly because they seale grace and saluation to vs yea God giueth grace and saluation vnto vs when we vse them well so that we beleeue the word of promise made to the Sacrament whereof they are seales This his answere I haue put downe at large that the juditious reader may see howe many wordes he vseth to answere not one word to purpose for here is indeede an explication of their owne doctrine but not any reason why we should not take the wordes of holy Scripture before alleadged according vnto the proper manner of the phrase whereby they assigne water to be the reall meanes and true instrument of our saluation and thus much of our first argument The second shall directly confute his answere thus If Sacraments doe worke like vnto the word of God preached and only exhibite and feale vnto the beleeuing minde the benefits by them promised then he that cannot vnderstand such signes and promises and hath not vvit to conceiue and beleeue them can in no case receiue any such Sacrament well and worthily as if the word were preached neuer so perfectly vnto one of no capacity or vnderstanding it would worke nothing with him by reason of his want of vnderstanding but the Sacrament of baptisme and some others giuen vnto them who haue not sufficient wit and reason to vnderstand the meaning of it as for example vnto infants yet doe neuerthelesse worke their regeneration and saluation therefore it is most manifest and euident that the Sacraments of their owne proper force as the instruments of God doe worke our saluation vvithout the helpe of the receiuers faith This is confirmed by the testimony of those auncient Fathers who hold that one speciall cause why our Sauiour would be baptised was that by touching the water he might giue it vertue to purge and cleanse vs from sinne so witnesseth S. Ambrose Lib. 2. in Lucam 12. S. Gregory Nazianzene Oratione in sancta lumina Chrysostome Hom. 25. in Iohaâ—nem Venerable Bede in 3. Lucae Againe it is the common opinion of the auncient Doctors that the Sacraments are conduites to convay the merits of Christs passion into our soules yea are said to haue flowed out of Christes side opened on the Crâ—sse they therefore doubted not but that they had a spirituall vertue in them to cleanse and sanctifie our mindes But let vs heare some fewe of them in formall tearmes deliuering the same doctrine vvhich vve teach you haue heard already S. Basil and S. Augustine cited by M. PERKINS Gregory Nyssene speaking of Aarons rodde and such like thinges by which miracles were wrought saith * Orat. de Baptismo And all these thinges being without sence and life yet hauing receiued vertue from God were meanes of great miracles euen so water being nothing but water hauing receiued the heauenly blessing doth reâ—ewe a man vnto a spirituall regeneration And further That as seede is the cause of carnall generation so water that is blessed is the instrumentall cause of mans pâ—â—gation and illumination S. Chrysostome a Hom. 25 in Iohan. That which the wombe is to the infant that is water vâ—to the faithfull for in water we are formed and made S. Cyril of Alexandria b Lib. 2. in Iohan. cap. 42. Euen as water being heated with fire doth burne like fire it selfe euen so water wherewith the body is sprinckled in baptisme by the working of the holy Ghost is reformed and raysed vp to a diuine power and vertue Tertullian c Lib. de Baptismo Of old water gaue life that is water brought forth liuing creatures that it be not strange that water in baptisme knowe howe to giue life S. Ambrose d Lib. 2. de Poenitentia cap. 2. It seemed impossible that water should wash away sinne and Naaman the Syrian did not beleeue that his leprosie could be washed away with water but God hath made possible that which
was impossible who hath bestowed so great grace vpon vs. S. Siluester as Nycephorus hath recorded speaketh thus of baptisme e Lib. 7. hystor cap. 33. This water hauing receiued by the inuocation of the blessed Trinity heauenly vertue euen as it washeth the body without so doth it within cleanse the soule from filth and corruption and make it brighter then the Sunne-beames So that it is most conformable both vnto the holy Scriptures and the auncient Fathers to affirme and hold that the Sacraments doe really contayne and convay the graces of God into our soules as his true and proper instruments OF SAVING FAITH M. PERKINS Page 305. HEre followeth a Chapter which for the most part doth nothing but repeate points of doctrine which hath beene particularly handled in the questions of Iustification Satisfaction and Merits and aboue twenty times touched by the vvay in his booke therefore a tedious and loathsome thing it is to me here againe to heare of them yet because the man thinketh that in these points the principall glory of the newe Gospell consisteth and that there fore they are alwayes to be inculcated in season and out of seasorr I vvill briefly runne them once more ouer shewing as he doth only vvherein we differ without repeating the arguments which are to be seene in their proper places To come to the matter he putteth downe fiuâ— conclusions The first conclusion The Catholikes teach iâ— to be the property of faith to beleeue the whole word of God and especially the redemption of mankinde by Christ M. PERKINS DIFFERENCE THey beleeue indeede all the written word of God and more then all for they beleeue the bookes Apocryphall and vnwritten Traditions Answere Touching vnwritten Traditions see that Chapter in the first part M. PER. saith here Because they come to vs by the handes of men they cannot come within the compasse of our faith Then I say vpon the same ground the vvritten word cannot come within the compasse of our beleefe because it also commeth vnto vs by the handes of men And as the Apostles and their Schollers are to be credited when they deliuered the vvritten word vnto vs for Gods pure word so are they to be beleeued vvhen they taught the Church these poynts of Gods vvord vnwritten to be embraced as the true word of God although not written but committed to the harts of the faithfull And when we haue the testimony of auncient Councels or of many holy Fathers that these points of doctrine vvere by Tradition deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles vve as firmely beleeue them as if they were written in the holy Scriptures For which bookes of Scripture be Canonicall vvhich not and what is the true meaning of hard places in Scripture we knowe no other way of infallible certainty then by the declaration of the Catholike Church which we therefore aswell beleeue telling vs these thinges were deliuered from the Apostles by Tradition as those thinges in vvriting And that such credit is to be giuen to the Catholike Church the Apostles Creede witnesseth which biddeth vs beleeue the Catholike Church Nowe touching those bookes of holy Scripture vvhich vvere some hundreth yeares after Christ doubted off by some of the auncient Fathers vvhether they were Canonicall or no thus we say That albeit it were vndetermined by the Church vntill S. Augustines time vvhether they were Canonical or no and so were by diuers auncient Fathers though not condemned as Apocryphall yet not comprehended vvithin the Canon of assured Scriptures notwithstanding that matter being in a Councell holden at Carthage where among many other learned Bishops S. Augustine vvas present throughly debated Concil Cartag 3. cap. 47. those bookes doubted off before were found by the holy Ghost and them to be true Canonicall Scripture and afterward vvere by the sixt generall Councell that confirmed this Councell holden at Carthage declared and deliuered to the whole Church for Canonicall Nowe as we receiued at the first the other bookes of Canonicall Scripture on the â—â—edit of the Catholike Church euen so ought vve to doe these shee hauing declared them to be such yea the Protestants themselues haue admitted many bookes of the newe Testament vvhich vvere doubted off for three hundred yeares after Christ why then doe they not as vvell receiue them of the old The difference betwixt vs is that they only of passion and priuate fancy admit these and reject those vvhereas vve of obedience relying vpon the judgement of the vvhole Church admit those bookes for Canonicall which the Catholike Church hath declared for such And thus much of the first conclusion Nowe to the second touching saluation by Christ alone wherein the Protestants either cannot vnderstand or will not report our doctrine aright We confesse that Christ IESVS hath merited the redemption and saluation of all mankinde yet say we further that not one man is saued through Christ vnlesse he for his owne part first beleeue in Christ if he be of yeares and be content to doe all those thinges that Christ hath commanded vs to doe so that to saluation two thinges are required the first and principall is Christes mediation the second is the applying of Christes mediation and merits vnto vs vvithout this latter the former will stand no man in steede Nowe to be made partaker of Christs merits we must not only beleeue in him as the Protestants teach but also keepe his commandements and by good workes deserue heauen otherwise according to Christs decree we shall neuer come thither as in the question of Merits hath beene plentifully proued out of the holy scriptures so we teach then that besides Christs sufferings and merits we must haue some of our owne or else vve shall neuer be partakers of Christes And M. PERKINS cannot be excused from a vvilfull corruption of Gods word when he affirmeth S. Paul to say We are not saued by such workes as God hath ordayned men regenerated to walke in for those be not the wordes of the text but his peeuish construction S. Paul putting a playne distinction betweene workes that we are not saued by and workes that we must walke in calling these later good workes and the other barely workes To the other text I say that we haue no righteousnesse of our owne strength or by the vertue of Moyses lawe but through the mercy of God and Christs merits we haue true righteousnesse giuen vs by baptisme Christ indeede by himselfe and his owne sufferinges not by sacrifice of Goates or Calues hath meritoriously washed away our sinnes that is deserued of God that they should be washed away but formally he hath washed away our sinnes by infusion of Christian righteousnesse into our soules He that will see more of this let him reade the question of Iustification And where as M. PER. saith that all grace of God powred into our hartes is by the corruption of our hartes defiled he little knoweth the vertue of Gods grace vvhich so cleanseth and purifieth
for the amendment of their liues or else they should be the most foolish judges that euer vvere appointed vpon earth Wherefore seing that the Apostles had authority to forgiue sinnes and vvere in discretion to admmister the same vnto penitent sinners it must needes followe necessarily that the penitent should confesse all his sinnes in particular vnto them and that authority was to continue in the Church for euer it being giuen to the Apostles for the due gouerning of the Church and to the comfort of al sinners which should neuer fayle to be vntill Christes last comming to judgement They to defeate all this discourse answere That Christ gaue not his Apostles authority to pardon any mans sinnes but only to declare that their sinnes were pardoned if with true repentance and faith they receiued the preaching of the Gospell This interpretation first is repugnant to the text vvhich in expresse tearmes hath Whose sinnes yee shall remit or pardon not vvhose sinnes yee shall declare to be remitted Secondly it hath that Whose sinnes yee shall forgiue they are forgiuen to wit euen then when they remit them and not that they were remitted before as he should haue said if he had giuen them authority only to declare them to be remitted Thirdly the metaphor of keyes giuen vnto them doth demonstrate that power was giuen them to absolue and not to declare only they were absolued because keyes are giuen to open or shut dores and not to signifie that eyther the dores are already open or shall be vpon condition Lastly the Ministers pronouncing of men absolued should be very rash and friuolous if they doe not truly absolue them For if he pronounce them absolutely to be absolued without good assurance of their faith repentance he should but lie and if he doe pronounce them absolued conditionally if they beleeue aright and be truly penitent then vvere his absolution in vaine for it depending vpon their faith and repentance and not vpon the Ministers pronouncing it bringeth no further assurance then they had before yea they themselues being of the faithfull could not be ignorant of so much before to wit that he was free from sinne and needed not his absolution Nowe that the Apostles then and Bishops and Priests their successours euer sithence did truly absolue men from their sinnes and were not like to cryers only proclaymers thereof see first S. Chrysostome who saith That such power was giuen here to men Lib. 3. de Sacerdot which God would neuer giue to Angels who yet had power to pronounce saluation to penitent sinners Secondly That Priestes haue such power of binding and loosing ouer the soules as Kinges haue ouer their subjects bodyes vvhich is truly to binde or to loose them and not only to declare them bound or loosed Thirdly he saith expresly That the Priestes among the Iewes had power to purge the leprosie or rather to try whether they were purged from it or no but it is graunted vnto our Priestes not only to discerne whether the body be purged from leprosie or no but playnely to purge our soules from the filth of sinne S. Ambrose in diuers places proueth directly against the Nouatians that Christ gaue power to Priestes to remit sinnes Lib. 1. de Poenitent c. 2. 7. The Nouatians denyed not but that one might preach the Gospell vnto such sinners that vvere relapsed and promise them pardon too if they repented but would not haue the Priests to reconcile them vnto the Church by the Sacrament of Penance denying that Priestes had any such power ouer such sinners but that they must leaue them to God alone vvhich the holy Doctor confuteth by these places of Scripture Math. 16. vers 19. cap. 18. vers 18. Ioh. 20. vers 23. Whatsoeuer yee forgiue in earth shall be forgiuen in heauen Epist ad Heliodor S. Hierome saith God forbidde that I should speake any euill of them who succeeding in the Apostolike degree doe with their sacred mouth make the body of Christ and by whome we are made Christians who hauing the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen doe in a certayne manner judge before the day of judgement Lib. 20. de ciuit c. 9. S. Augustine doth define in these wordes Whatsoeuer yee shall binde vpon earth shal be bound in heauen that authority is giuen vnto the rulers of the Church to judge in spirituall causes and not only to declare Hom. 62. in Euang. S. Gregory vpon these vvordes Whose sinnes you forgiue c. Behold saith he the Apostles are not only made secure of themselues but haue power giuen them to release other mens handes and doe obtayne a prerogatiue of the heauenly judgement that in Gods steede they may forgiue to some their sinnes and binde some others and truly the Bishops nowe doe hold the same place in the Church they receiue authority to binde and to loose c. By this you may see in part vvith what fore-head M. PERKINS affirmed that for a thousand yeares after Christ there was no mention of the Sacrament of Penance and more you shall see shortly if that first I shall note out of the Scripture it selfe both the acknowledgement of receite of that power to reconcile and absolue and the practise and commandement of confession S. Paul acknowledgeth and declareth 2. Cor. 5. vers 18. 20. that God had giuen vnto them the ministery of reconciliation and addeth that they be Gods Legates and therefore exhorteth them to be reconciled but they that be sent Ambassadours vvith full commission to reconcile men vnto their Prince must knowe both howe grieuously they haue offended and what recompence they are willing to make vvhich must needes be by their owne confession Nowe for the practise of confession by the first Christians Act. 19. vers 18. 19. it is recorded That many of the faithfull came confessing and declaring their deedes and many that had followed curious actes brought their bookes and burned them in the presence of al the rest Note here both particular confession made vnto S. Paul of the seuerall deedes and factes and not in generall that they vvere sinners as the very vvordes doe witnesse Confessing their deedes that is vvhat they had done in particular And againe howe should he haue knowne their study of curious bookes if they had not told their sinnes in particular some Protestants conuinced by the text say That they confessed some of their sinnes in particular but not all But I meruaile how they came by the knowledge of that for vvhy should they confesse some more then others and the vse of Scriptures is by the naming of sinnes indefinitely to signifie all as when we pray Forgiue vs our sinnes we meane all our sinnes and when it is said of Christ He shall saue his people from their sinnes it is meant that he shall saue them not from some of their sinnes but from al. Lastly touching the commandement S. Iames doth charge vs a Iac.
them hold to be possible In colloq Marpurg art 29. Li. 1. cont Scargum cap. 14. as Zwinglius Oecolampadius Andreas Volanus c. Fourthly though we beleeue God to be maker of heauen and earth yet neuer none but blasphemous Heretikes held him to be true authour and proper worker of al euil done vpon earth by men Such neuerthelesse be Bucer Zwinglius Caluin and others of greatest estimation among the Protestantes See the Preface 2. And in IESVS Christ his only Sonne our Lord. They must needes hold Christ not to be Gods true naturall Sonne which denie him to haue receiued the diuine nature from the Father againe they make him according to his God-head inferiour to his Father See the Preface 3. Borne of the Virgin MARY Many of them teach that Christ was borne as other children are Dialog de corpore Christi pag. 94. De consil part 2. 276. with breach of his Mothers virginity as Bucer and Molineus in vnione Euangelij part 3. and Caluin signifieth no lesse in harmo sup 2. Math. vers 13. 4. Suffered vnder Pontius Pilate crucified dead and buried Friar Luther with a great band of his followers doth toughly defend that the God-head it selfe suffered which to be blasphemy Musculus doth proue in his booke of the errours of Luthers Schollers yet Beza with all them that hold Christ to haue beene our mediatour according to his diuine nature can hardly saue themselues from the same blasphemy For the chiefest act of Christes mediation consisteth in his death if then the God-head did not suffer that death it had no part in the principal point of Christs mediatiō Hither also appertaine all these their blasphemies to wit that Christ was so frighted with the apprehension of death that he forgotte himselfe to be our mediatour yea refused as much as in him lay to be our redeemer Item that he thought himselfe forsaken of God and finally despaired See the Preface 5. Descended into hel the third day he arose againe from the dead It is worth a mans labour to behold their goodly variety of expositions about Christs descending into hell 2. Apolog. ad Sanct. Beza followed of Corliel our Country-man thinkes this to haue crept into the Creede by negligence and so the French Hugonots and Flemish Gues haue cast it cleane out of their Creede but they are misliked of many others who had rather admit the wordes because they be found in Athanasius Creede and also in the old Roman Creede expounded by Ruffinus but they doe most peruersly expound them Caluin saith that Christes suffering of the paines of hell on the Crosse is signified by these wordes but he pleaseth not some others of them because Christes suffering and death also goeth before his descending into hel and the wordes must be taken orderly as they lie Thirdly diuers of them will haue it to signifie the laying of Christes body in the graue but that is signified plainely by the word buried Wherefore some others of them expound it to signifie the lying of his body in the graue three daies which M. PER. approueth as the best but it is as wide from the proper and literall signification of the wordes as can be For what likenesse is there betweene lying in the graue and descending into hell Besides Caluin their great Rabbin misliketh this exposition as much as any of the rest Lib. 2. Instit ca 16. sess 8. and calleth it an jdle fancy Fourthly Luther Smideline and others cited by Beza art 2. doe say that Christes soule after his death went to hell where the Diuels are there to be punished for our sinnes thereby to purchase vs a fuller redemption which is so blasphemous that it needes not any refutation As ridiculous is another receiued of most Protestantes that Christes soule went into Paradise which well vnderstood is true For his soule in hell had the joyes of Paradise but to make that an exposition of Christes descending into hell is to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it Al these and some other expositions also the Protestants haue deuised to lead their followers from the ancient and only true interpretation of it to wit that Christ in soule descended vnto those lower partes of the earth where all the soules departed from the beginning of the world were detained by the just judgement of God till Christ had paide their ransome and were not admitted into the kingdome of heauen before Christ had opened them the way thither 6. Concerning Christes resurrection they doe also erre For whereas a resurrection is the rising vp of the very same body that died with all his naturall partes they denie Christ to haue taken againe the same bloud Cal. in 27. Math. Perkins pag. 194. In cap. 24. Lucae which he shed in his passion and yet is the bloud one notable part of the body Caluin also affirmeth it to be an old wifes dreame to thinke that in Christes handes and feete there remaine the print of nailes and the wound in his side notwithstanding that Christ shewed them to his Disciples and offered them to be touched of S. Thomas 7. About Christes assension into heauen they doe somewhat dissent from the truth For some of them say that Christs body did not pearce through the heauens by vertue of a glorious body least they should thereby be compelled to graunt that two naturall bodies may be together in one place and therefore as well one true body in two places at once but that broad gappes were made in the lower heauens to make him way to the highest which is very ridiculous and more against true Philosophy they say also 1. Cor. 15. vers 21. Coll. 1 18. that he was not the first man that entered into the possession of heauen which is flat against the Scriptures that call Christ the first fruites and first begotten of the dead Thirdly they locke Christ so closely vp in heauen Beza in c. 2. actorum that they hold it impossible for him to remoue thence at any time before the last judgement for feare they should otherwise be inforced to confesse that his body may be in two places at once which is to make him not Lord of the place but some poore prisoner therein And as for Christs sitting on the right hād of his Father they are not yet agreed what it signifieth See Conrad L. 1. ar 25 de concor Caluinist L. 2. Insti c. 14. ss 3. Caluin plainely saith that after the later judgemēt he shal sit there no longer That God shal then render to euery man according to his workes as holy Scripture very often doth testifie al the packe of them doth vtterly denie 8. I beleeue in the holy Ghost First Caluin and his followers who hold the holy Ghost to haue the God-head of himselfe and not to haue receiued it from the Father and the Sonne must consequently denie the holy Ghost to proceede from the Father and the Sonne In the Preface as hath beene else where proued
Such nowe a daies is the condition of the Lutherans De prophetia Christi that if any man list to behold a great number of Knawes robbers malitious persons coseners vsurers and such like deceiuers let him but enter into a City where the Gospell is taught and there he shall find good store of them and a litle after Surely it is true that among Heathens Iewes Turkes and other Infidels none can be found more vnruly and that lesse esteeme of honestie and vertue then the Euangelicall Bretheren with whome all thinges passe currant and nothing almost is blamed except vertue For the Diuell hath shaken of all their bandes and turned them loose Hauing done with the Creede and tenne Commandements we must nowe come to our Lordes praier Master PER. beginneth with it thus The Lordes praier is a most absolute forme of prayer nowe in this we are taught to direct our prayers to God alone Our father c. and that only in the name and mediation of Christ for God is our father only by Christ therefore to vse any mediation of Saints is needelesse Ans We allowe our Lordes praier to be a most perfect forme of praier yet hold that many other sort of praiers may be made vnto God very acceptably as sundry other praiers vsed by Christ set downe in the Gospel doe teach vs and therefore to argue that because one praier of Christs making is directed to God that no other may be made to any Saint is very childish We gather praier to Saints out of S. Paules requesting the Romans and Corinthians and others to pray for him and out of the mediation of the woman of Cananea to Christ for her daughter and the Disciples speaking to Christ for her with such like both out of the old and newe Testament For if it had beene either needlesse or bootelesse to haue praied vnto God any otherwise then in the name and by the mediation of Christ then S. Paul would not haue requested the helpe of mortall mens praiers to God for him and if poore sinners praiers may helpe vs much more may the intercession of the glorious Saints doe who are in farre greater fauour with God See the question of intercession of Saints Againe if that only forme of praier were to be vsed neither were it lawfull to pray to Christ himselfe neither could it be proued thereby that we should pray in Christes name For there is no expresse mention of Christes name neither any petition for Christes sake For God may be truly called our father in that he immediately createth and giueth vs our soules which is more then our bodies that we receiue from our carnall fathers Secondly he hoppeth to the fourth petition Giue vs our daylie bread in which wordes we acknowledge saith he that euery morsel of bread is the meere gift of God what madnesse then is it for vs to thinke that we should merit the kingdome of heauen that cannot merit so much as bread It is false that we cannot merit our bread Math. 10. vers 11. 1. Cor. 9. vers 14. For Christ teacheth that he who goeth to preach the Gospell is worthy of that is meriteth and deserueth his meate which S. Paul testifieth saying that our Lord ordained that those who preach the Gospell should liue of the Gospell And doe not day labourers deserue their bread before they eate it and others that buy their bread doe I hope deserue it What ignorance then is it in the very principles of our faith to auouch that we cannot merit bread which notwithstanding we pray God to giue vs because neither could we deserue and yerne it without his helpe and assistance neither would it doe vs any good without his blessing Thirdly in the next petition Forgiue vs our debtes fower opinions of the Roman religion saith he are directly ouerthrowne What fower at one blowe what a Hercules haue we here let vs heare which The first is humane satisfaction for the child of God is taught here to pray for the pardon of his sinnes nowe to pray for pardon and to make satisfaction be contrary Answ This is a sillie ouerthrowe for it is so farre of that praier and satisfaction are contraries that praier it selfe is one of the three workes of satisfaction Fasting Praying and giuing of Almesse are not contrary but the very workes of satisfaction Lib. 1. de Simbolo cap. 6. in Enchir. cap. 69. And our Lordes praier is esteemed by S. Augustine who is assoone to be beleeued as M. PERKINS sufficient of it selfe to satisfie for the light daylie offences that just men fall into besides Christ himselfe praied for pardon of these mortall sinnes for which notwithstanding Gods justice was fully satisfied by Christ his sufferings wherefore satisfaction and to sue for pardon are not so contrary but they may well stand together Nowe to the second downefall merits are here also ouerthrowne For we acknowledge our selues debters and we daylie increase our debts nowe it is madnesse to thinke that they who daylie increase their debts can deserue or purchase any good of the creditors in a word this must be thought vpon c. And good reason too First then I answere that venial sinnes and smal debts that just men daylie incurre doe not hinder the daylie merit of their other good workes As a seruant hired by the day by committing some small fault doth not thereby loose his daies wages againe though he should commit such a fault that might make him vnworthy of his daies hire yet if his Master did forgiue him that fault his wages were notwithstanding due to him and so the asking pardon for our sinnes doth not ouerthrowe but rather establish and fortifie our merits The third opinion imagined to be confuted by this petition is that temporall punishment may be retained after the crime it selfe and the eternall is remitted but this cannot stand saith he For we owe to God obedience and for the defect of this paiment we owe to God the forfeiture of punishment Sinne then is called our debt in respect of the punishment And therefore when we pray for pardon of our sinnes we require not only the fault to be pardoned but the whole punishment and when debt is pardoned it is absurd to thinke that the least paiment should remaine Answ Here is a most absurd collection For when we in our Lordes praier craue pardon of our debts we confesse that we are in his debt and that there is paiment of punishment yet due vnto vs the remission whereof we then require nowe this praier is made by the best men after their conuersion as he confesseth who standing in Gods fauour and therefore free from eternall punishment doe notwithstanding craue pardon and release of some punishment by M. PERKINS owne interpretation Whereupon it followeth most euidently out of this petition that after eternall punishment is forgiuen vnto the just there is some other punishment remaining of which they craue pardon and consequently this
opinion of ours is by this very petition and M. PER. owne exposition of it much strengthned and confirmed and nothing at all weakened The fourth point of our doctrine hence impugned by M. PER. is that a man in this life may fulfill the lawe Whereas in this place euery seruant of God is taught to aske daylie pardon for the breach of the lawe answere is made that our daylie sinnes are veniall and not against the lawe though besides the lawe but this which they say is against this petition for a debt that commeth by forfeiture is against the band or obligation Nowe euery sinne is a debt causing the forfeiture of punishment and therefore is not beside but against the lawe Ans I graunt that euery sinne is a debt causing the forfeiture of punishment but this punishment may be small short and so the sinne veniall the debt not against the lawe directly yet against the band of some morall duty as the mispending of time vsing of some jdle wordes and the committing of such like light faults which I am bound in reason to auoid but not by any prescript lawe directly And thus in fine we see how fouly M. PER. was mistaken that thought to ouerthrow fower points of our doctrine at a clap when not so much as one is thereby any whit at all stirred He saith further In this clause as we forgiue our debters it is taken for graunted that we may certainely knowe that we repent and beleeue and are reconciled by God which all Roman Catholikes denie Answ Nothing lesse because much more is required to the one then to the other For it is farre easier to discerne whether I doe yet beare any euil will to my neighbour then to knowe assuredly that I doe hartily repent me of al my sinnes and that for the loue of God and further that I haue a firme purpose not to commit hereafter any kind of mortall sinne these thinges as euery one may plainely see are farre more difficult then the other of forgiuing them that trespasse against vs. In the last wordes and lead vs not into temptation we pray not saith he that God should free vs from temptation Psal 26. vers 1. for it is otherwhiles good to be tempted but that we be not left vnto the malice of Satan and held captiue of the temptation for here to be led into temptation and to be deliuered are opposed Nowe hence I gather that he who is the child of God truly justified and sanctified shall neuer fall wholy and finally from the grace of God and I conclude on this manner That which we aske according to the will of God 1. Ioh. 5. shall be graunted but this the child of God asketh that he might neuer be wholy forsaken of his father and led captiue into temptation this therefore shall be graunted Answ If this argument were sound neuer should any Christian that saith our Lordes praier fall finally and be damned because they all make this petition and that according to the will of God 1. Tim. 2. vers 4. who would haue all men saued Many thinges then besides saying our Lordes praier are required to saluation for want of which many that haue often said that praier fall finally Againe he mistaketh the true sence of that petition for therein we doe not aske that we continue not in sinne which we asked in the former petition forgiue vs our trespasses but we pray that we be not ouercome by the Deuill by yeelding our consent to the temptation and so fall into sinne Lastly he forgetteth himselfe much when he saith that it is good to be tempted for he holdeth for certaine that the very first motions to sinne in vs which is the beginning of the temptation are mortal sinnes and so by himselfe it is good to fall into mortall sinne if it be good we should be tempted Finally he saith this clause Amen signifieth a speciall faith concerning all the former petitions that they shall be graunted and therefore a speciall faith concerning remission of sinnes Answ It signifieth a speciall hope and confidence to obtaine them but no certainety of faith vnlesse vpon a condition which is vncertaine that is if we doe our partes God will not faile of his if we doe hartily repent vs and vse the Sacrament of Penance duly we shall assuredly obtaine remission of our sinnes Hitherto M. PER. hath argued against vs out of the Lordes praier nowe I will briefly shewe howe the Protestantes doctrine contrarieth it I haue in my answere to his objections touched some points already I adde that one position of their doctrine crosseth three of the first petitions I proue it thus In euery petition we must be assured as M. PER. holdeth or at the least haue a good hope to obtaine that we pray for or else it booteth vs not to pray but according to the Protestants doctrine no man can be assured nay can haue any hope to obtaine the three first petitions for if originall sinne doe continually dwell in vs and infect all our actions with deadly sinne as they teach Gods name cannot be sanctified in vs that are infected with such an vncleane leprosie neither secondly can God raigne as a King in vs if sinne possesse command all our members and thirdly Gods wil cannot be done by vs on earth as it is done in heauen if we cannot keepe his lawes and commandements which they in heauen doe wherefore the Protestantes haue no assurance to obtaine the three first petitions who are by their teachers assured that they are not to be expected or hoped for nor they cannot according to their owne rules from their hart make the said petitions being out of all hope to obtaine them In the fourth we aske aswell to be made partakers of Christes blessed body in the Sacrament which is the food of our soules as for our daylie corporal susteinance For so doe the ancient Fathers expound that petition as namely S. Ciprian in oratione Dominica S. Hierome in 6. Mathaei S. Ambrose li. 5. de Sacrament c. 4. where he hath these memorable wordes of the blessed Sacrament that before the wordes of Christ it was bread but after it is the body of Christ Why then saith he is it called here bread he answereth that it is called bread not simply but supersubstantiall bread For so doth the greeke word Epióusion signifie as well as daylie it is saith he not such bread as passeth into our body but it is the bread of eternal life that vpholdeth the substance of our soules Nowe you may be well assured that Protestantes who will not beleeue any such bodily presence doe not pray to God to giue it them And touching forgiuenesse of their debts to God and sinnes they are so assured of that before hand by the certainety of their new faith that they can no more request of God forgiuenesse of their sinnes then they can aske that God will make them reasonable creatures which they
force of Christs wordes consecrated a part so that if they could be naturally separated they should be also seuered in that Sacrament as they might haue beene at Christes death when al the bloud was powred forth of his body but euer sithence Christes resurrection they are so joyned together that they can be no more seuered so that we graunt vnder one kinde of the Sacrament to be both Christes body and bloud which is not wrought by the wordes of the institution but by the necessary and inseparable conjunction of Christes body with his bloud euer since his glorious resurrection Finally M. PERKINS condemneth the administration of the Sacrament vnder one only kinde for the commandement of Christ is drinke ye al of this Math. 26. vers 27. and this commandement is rehearsed to the Church of Corinth in these wordes doe this as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me ver 25. and no power can reuerse this commandement because it was established by the soueraigne head of the Church Answere He beganne to set downe the institution of the Sacrament out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. here he leapeth backe to S. Mathewe because he fitteth him better in this point to vvhome I answere that Christ there spake only vnto his twelue Apostles vvho vvere afterward to administer that holy Sacrament to others and so some thing there-about is spoken to them vvhich may not be extended vnto lay-men but vnto Priestes only who were to succeed the Apostles in that ministery All men doe confesse these vvordes hoc facite doe ye this that is administer ye this Sacrament to be spoken only to the Apostles and in them to all of the Clergie alone euen so drinke ye al of this was in like manner spoken vnto them only as Clergiemen and therefore it is a commandement only to Priestes so to doe and as for others they may either drinke of it or not drinke of it as it shall be thought most expedient by their supreame Pastors and this may be gathered out of those very wordes drinke ye al of this For why should the Apostles haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cuppe then to eate of that foode vnles it were to signifie that whereas all men should be bound to receiue Christes body they should be further bound to receiue that holy cuppe also from which bond other men should stand free But to come to the purpose when they quarrell with vs for taking away from the people one kinde of the Sacrament we answere that vve doe them no hinderance thereby because vve giue them both the blessed body sacred bloud of Christ together vnder one kind yea whole Christ both God and man because they be so vnited that they cannot be separated But what can they answere when we complaine vpon them for that they haue defrauded the poore people of both body and bloud of Christ and in lieu of that most pretious banquet doe giue them a cold breake-fast of a morsel of bread a suppe of wine this is a most miserable lamentable exchange in deede our blessed Lord giue them grace to see it deliuer them speedily from it Here is the place to shew how the Protestāts doe not only bereaue their vnfortunate folowers of this most heauenly foode of Christes body but that they also depriue them of the manifold great graces of God deriued vnto vs in 5. other sacramēts but because I haue touched it in the Preface I wil omit it here and make an end with M. PER. assoone as I haue requited him by propounding briefly some arguments for the real presence as he hath done against it Let this be the first The state of the newe Testament which is more perfect then the old requireth accordingly Sacraments of greater grace and perfection then the old had they had Manna which for substance and taste farre passed our bread and in signification was equall to it Wherefore either vve must graunt our Sacrament of bread and wine to be inferiour to theirs of the old Testament or else acknowledge and confesse it to be the true body and bloud of Christ which doth surpasse theirs exceedingly as the body doth the shadowe This argument is confirmed by our Sauiour himselfe who in expresse tearmes doth preferre the meate Iohn 6. v. 48.49 that he was to giue to his Disciples before that of Manna which their Fathers had eaten in the wildernesse Secondly Christ promised to giue to his Disciples his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke and when they marueiled howe that could be he assured them Ibid. v. 55 that vnlesse they did eate his flesh they should not haue life in them and further certified them that his flesh was truly meate and his bloud truly drinke vvhence it is most plainely deduced that he who neuer faileth of his promise gaue them his true flesh to eate Thirdly Christ said in most cleare tearmes this is my body this is my bloud What could be more certaine or more perspicuous Fourthly These vvordes of the institution are recorded by three Euangelists and by S. Paul and they al vniformely deliuer it to be not the figure of Christs body but his body and that his body which should be giuen for our redemption on the crosse ergo it was that his true reall body vvhich vvas nailed to the crosse for vs. Fiftly S. Paul demandeth thus the Chalice of benediction which we doe blesse 1. Cor. 10. vers 16. is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread that we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord if then we doe in receiuing the blessed Sacrament participate Christes body and communicate his bloud they surely are there really present Againe S. Paul saith He that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh judgement to himselfe 1. Cor. 11. vers 28. not discerning the body of our Lord and before is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ ergo the body and bloud of Christ are there present or else why should a man incurre that guilt but by his vnworthy receiuing of it and by not discerning Christes body to be there present Besides all these plaine textes of holy Scripture in confirmation of the reall presence the very circumstances of it doe much fortifie our faith therein Lucae 22. vers 15. In S. Luke vve haue that our Sauiour marueillously desired desiderio desideraui to eate that this last banquet vvith his Disciples S. Iohn addeth that whereas he loued his that were in the world Ioh. 13. v. 1. 3◠vnto the end he loued them and knowing that the Father gaue al thinges into his handes and that he came from God and goeth to God c. What coherence I say with this exceeding loue and infinit power of Christ to be shewed in his last supper if he hath left only bread and vvine to be taken in remembrance of him any meane man might easily haue done as much and Helias departing from his Disciple Heliseus did much more for he left a more noble remembrance of himselfe behind him to wit his cloake and double spirit But Christ bequeathing vs his true natural body to be the foode of our soules and comfort of our hartes as we beleeue teach he then in deede shewed his infinit power and loue towardes vs and that he came from God and as God bestowed an inestimable gift vpon vs such a one as neuer any other did or could possibly doe Moreouer the institution of a religious rite and ceremony to be vsed in the whole Church vnto the worldes end and to be receiued of all Christian people of age and discretion did necessarily require that it should be done in most certaine and cleare tearmes otherwise there might arise great strife and contention about it and be the ruine of thousandes And specially great perspicuity is required in this holy Sacrament where the mistaking of it must needes breede either Idolatry if vve vvorshippe for Christ that which is not Christ or impiety if on the other side we should not giue to it being Christ God and man diuine honour Wherefore no good Christian may thinke but that our prouident Sauiour Christ IESVS vvho very vvell foresawe all these inconueniences did deliuer it in such tearmes as he would haue to be taken properly and not be construed at mens pleasures figuratiuely Adde that he spake those wordes to the twelue Apostles only vvhome he vvas accustomed to instruct plainely and not in parable darkely and who were wont also to aske for the interpretation of obscure speaches vvho here made no question about this high mistery because they were sufficiently forewarned Ioh. 6. that they should eate Christes flesh and that his body was truly meate and therefore beleeued Christes wordes without further question Finally this holy Sacrament is a principall part of the newe Testament and one of the chiefest legacies by Christ bequeathed vnto vs Christians Nowe what lawe or conscience will permit that any legacy should be interpreted figuratiuely to vvit that for a house goodes or landes bequeathed and giuen by last vvill and testament you should vnderstand a figure of a house to be giuen or the signification and representation of some goodes or landes If this be most absurd and ridiculous in the testament of any ordinary man about temporall goodes howe much more pernitious and intollerable is it to suffer this in the eternall Testament of the Sonne of God and that in his diuine and inestimable treasures And thus at length by the grace of God I come to the end of this booke wherein good Christian reader if thou finde any thing that may confirme thee in the true Catholike faith or further thy knowledge therein giue God the Father of lightes from whome all good giftes descend the whole praise If any thing be amisse impute it partly to my slender skill ouersight or negligence and partly to the vvant of a conuenient resting-place commodity of bookes and conference all vvhich these times of persecution doe depriue vs of To the most blessed and holy Trinity be al honour and glory both nowe and for euer AMEN FINIS