other miracle is of record in the life of that deuout Father S. Bernard Lib. 2. cap. 3. This holy man caused a vvoman who had beene many yeares possessed with a wicked spirit that did strangely torment her to be brought before him as he vvas at Masse and then holding the consecrated Host ouer the womans head spake these vvordes Thou wicked spirit here is present thy judge the supreame power is here present resist and if thou canst he is here present who being to suffer for our saluation said Nowe the Prince of this world shall be cast forth and pointing to the blessed Sacrament said This is that body that was borne of the body of the Virgin that was streatched vpon the Crosse that lay in the Sepulcher that rose from Death that in the sight of his Disciples ascended into Heauen therefore in the dreadfull power of this Majesty I command thee wicked spirit that thou depart out of this handmaide of his and neuer hereafter presume once to touch her The Deuill was forced to acknowledge the Majesticall presence and dreadfull power of Christes body in that holy Host and to gette him packing presently wherefore he must needes be greatly blinded of the Deuill that knowing this miracle to be vvrought by the vertue of Christes body there present vvill not yet beleeue and confesse it But nowe let vs vvinde vp all this question in the testimonies of the most ancient and best approued Doctors S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholler saith I desire the bread of God Epist 15. ad Rom. heauenly bread which is the flesh of the Sonne of God S. Iustine declaring the faith of the Christians in the second hundreth yeare after Christ vvriteth to the Emperor Antonine thus Apol. 2. We take not these thinges as common bread nor as common wine but as Christ incarnate by the word of God tooke flesh and bloud for our saluation euen so are we taught that the foode wherewith our flesh is by alteration nourished being by him blessed and made the Eucharist is the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus incarnate S. Ireneus Iustins equall proueth both Christ to be the Sonne of God Li. 4. con Haeres cap. 34. the creatour of the vvorld and also the resurrection of the bodies by the reall presence of Christes body in the blessed Sacrament so assured a principle and so generally confessed a truth was then this point of the reall presence Homil. 5. in diuers Origen that most learned Doctor saith When thou takest that holy foode and that incorruptible feast when thou enjoyest the bread and cup of life when thou doest eate and drinke the body and bloud of our Lord then loe doth our Lord enter vnder thy roofe Thou therefore humbling thy selfe imitate this Centurion and say O Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe c. De coena Domini S. Cyprian The bread that our Lord deliuered vnto his Disciples being not in outward shewe but in substance changed was by the omnipotent power of the word made flesh Catech. 4. mist S. Cyril Patriarke of Hierusalem doth most formally teach our doctrine saying When Christ himselfe doth affirme of bread This is my body who afterward dareth to doubt of it and he confirming and saying This is my bloud Who can doubt and say this is not his bloud And a little after doth proue it saying He before changed water into wine which commeth neare to bloud and shall he be thought vnworthy to be beleeued that he hath changed wine into his bloud wherefore let vs receiue with all assurance the body and bloud of Christ for vnder the forme of bread his body is giuen vs and his bloud vnder the forme of wine Orat. 2. de Paschate S. Gregory Nazianzene speaking of the blessed Sacrament sayeth Without shame and doubt eate the body and drinke the bloud and doe not mistrust these wordes of the flesh c. S. Iohn Chrisostome Patriarke of Constantinople perswadeth the same thus Homil. 83 in Math. Let vs alwaies beleeue God and not resist him though that which he saith seeme absurd to our imagination which we must doe in all thinges but specially in holy misteries not beholding those thinges only which are set in our sight but hauing an eye vnto his wordes For his word cannot deceiue vs but our sences may most easily be deceiued wherefore considering that he saith This is my body let vs not doubt of it at all but beleeue it Againe a Hom. 61 ad populū what shep-heard doth feede his flocke with his owne flesh Nay many mothers giue out their children to be nursed of others but Christ with his owne flesh and bloud doth feede vs. b Itē hom 3. in epist ad Ephes It is his flesh and bloud that sitteth aboue the heauens that is humbly adored of the Angels And c Homil. 24. in 1. ad Corin. he that was adored of the wise-men in the manger is nowe present vpon the Altar d Hom. 83 in Math. 60. ad populum And not by faith only or by charity but in deede and really his flesh is joyned with ours by receiuing this holy Sacrament S. Ambrose e Libr. 4. de Sacrament c. 4. Thou maist perhaps say that my bread is but common bread this bread is bread in deede before the wordes of the Sacrament but when consecration commeth of bread it is made the body of Christ And if you demand further howe there can be any such vertue in vvordes he doth answere That by the word of God heauen and earth were made and all that in them is and therefore if Gods word were able of nothing to make all thinges howe much more easily can it take a thing that already is and turne it into an other S. Hierome Let vs beare and beleeue that the bread which our Lord brake Epistol ad Hedib quaest 2. and gaue to his Disciples is the body of our Lord and Sauiour * Epist ad Heliodorū Cont. Aduers legis Prophe lib. 2. c. 9. And God forbidde saith he that I should speake sinistrously of Priestes who succeeding the Apostles in degree doe with their holy mouth consecrate and make Christes body S. Augustine The mediatour of God and men the man Iesus Christ giuing vs his flesh to eate and his bloud to drinke we doe receiue it with faithfull hart and mouth although it seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to kill it and to drinke mans bloud then to shedde it Againe a In psal 65. 93 The very bloud that through their malice the Iewes shedde they conuerted by Gods grace doe drinke And vpon the 98. Psalme he doth teach vs to adore Christes body in the Sacrament vvith Godly honour where he saith Christ tooke earth of earth for flesh is of earth and of the flesh of the Virgin Mary he tooke flesh in which flesh he walked here
vpon the earth and the same flesh he gaue vs to eate S. Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria in the declaration of the eleauenth Anatheme of the generall Councell of Ephesus doth in fewe wordes expresse the ancient faith both of the Sacrifice and Sacrament thus We doe celebrate the holy liuely and vnbloudy Sacrifice beleeuing it to be the body and bloud not of a common man like vnto one of vs but rather we receiue it as the proper body and bloud of the word of God that quickneth all thinges which he doth often in his workes repete In his Epistle to Nestorius in these wordes Epist. ad Nestoriū We doe so come vnto the mysticall benediction and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy and pretious bloud of Christ our redeemer not receiuing it as common flesh which God defend nor as the flesh of a holy man c. But being made the proper flesh of the word of God it selfe And vpon these vvordes Howe can this man giue vs his flesh to eate he saith Lib. 4. in Ioan. c. 13 Lib. 10. in Ioan. c. 13 Let vs giue firme faith to the misteries and neuer once say or thinke howe can it be For it is a Iewish word And else where preuenting our Protestants receiuing by faith alone he addeth We denie not but by a right faith and sincere charity we are spiritually joyned with Christ but to say that we haue not also a conjunction with him according to the flesh that we vtterly denie and doe auouch it to be wholy dissonant from holy Scriptures Damascene Lib. 4. de fide ortho cap. 14. Bread and wine vvith vvater by the inuocation of the holy Ghost are supernaturally changed into the body and bloud of Christ bread is not the figure of the body nor wine the figure of the bloud which God forbidde but it is the very body of our Lord joyned with the God-head See howe formally this holy and learned Doctor about nine hundred yeares agoe confuted the opinion of Zwinglius In ca. 26. Math. So doth Theophilact also about the same time writing thus Christ did not say this is a figure but this is my body For albeit it seeme bread vnto vs yet is it by his vnspeakable working transformed If I would descend a little lower I might alleadge vvhole volumes vvritten by the learnest of those times in defence of the reall presence For some thousand yeares after Christ there started vp one Berengarius of condemned memory vvho vvas the first that directly impugned the truth of Christes bodily presence in the Sacrament but he once or twise abjured it afterward and died repentantly And thus much of this matter OF THE SACRIFICE M. PERKINS Page 204. Of the Sacrifice in the Lordes supper which the Papists call the Sacrifice of the Masse TOuching this point first I will set downe what must be vnderstood by the name of Sacrifice A Sacrifice is taken properly or vnproperly Properly it is a sacred or solemne action in which man offereth and consecrateth some outward bodily thing vnto God to please and honour him thereby improperly and by the way of resemblance all the duties of the morall lawe are called sacrifices M. PERKINS definition of a Sacrifice taken properly is not complete for it may be applyed vnto many oblations vvhich vvere not sacrifices For example diuers deuout Israelites offered some gold some siluer some other thinges to honour and please God withall Exod. 25. 35. in the building of a Tabernacle for diuine seruice according to his owne order and commandement These mens actions were both sacred and solemne and some outward bodily thing by them vvas offered and consecrated vnto God to please and honour him thereby therefore they did properly offer Sacrifice according to M. PER. definition which in true diuinity is absurd or else vvomen and children might be sacrificers Againe if his definition were perfect I cannot see howe they can denie their Lordes supper to be a Sacrifice properly For they must needes graunt that it is a sacred or solemne action and they cannot denie but that in it a man offereth and consecrateth vnto God some outward bodily thing to vvit bread and vvine and that to please and honour God thereby so that all the parts of M. PER. definition agreeing to it he cannot denie it to be a Sacrifice properly We in deede that take it to be a prophane or superstitious action highly displeasing God as being by mans inuention brought in to shoulder out his true and only seruice doe vpon just reason reject it as no Sacrifice but the Protestants that take it for diuine seruice must needes admit it to be a proper Sacrifice so doe they fall by their owne definition into that damnable abomination as they tearme it of maintayning an other proper Sacrifice in the newe Testament besides Christes death on the Crosse Wherefore to make vp the definition perfect it is to be added first that that holy action be done by a lawful Minister and then that the visible thing there presented be not only offered to God but be also really altered and consumed in testification of Gods soueraigne dominion ouer vs. We agree in the other improper acception of a Sacrifice and say that al good workes done to please and honour God may be called sacrifices improperly among which the inward act of adoration whereby a deuout minde doth acknowledge God to be the beginning midle and end of all good both in heauen earth and as such a one doth most humbly prostrate honour and adore him holdeth the most worthyest ranke and may truly be called an inuisible and inward Sacrifice The outward testimony and protestation thereof by consuming some visible thing in a solemne manner and by a chosen Minister is most properly a Sacrifice OVR CONSENT MAster PERKINS would gladly seeme to agree with vs in two points First That the supper of the Lord is a Sacrifice and may truly be so called as it is and hath beene in former ages Secondly That the very body of Christ is offered in the Lordes supper Howe say you to this are we not herein at perfect concord a plaine dealing man would thinke so hearing these his wordes but if you reade further and see his exposition of them we are as farre at square as may be For M. PER. in handling this question will as he saith take a Sacrifice sometimes properly and sometimes improperly starting from the one to the other at his pleasure that you cannot know where to haue him So when he saith in his first conclusion That the supper of the Lord is a Sacrifice he vnderstandeth improperly yet it is saith he called a Sacrifice in three respects First because it is a memoriall of the reall Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse So a painted Crucifix may be called a Sacrifice because it is a memoriall of that Sacrifice but M. PER. addeth Hebr. 13. vers 15. That it withall
that was left of the Pascal lambe doth gather the cleane contrary to wit that if we cannot vnderstand howe these thinges vvhich we see are turned into our Lordes body Into which mystery the Angels saith he with their cleare sight cannot pearce then must we cast into the fire of the holy Ghost these thinges perswading our selues that to be possible vnto the vertue of the holy Ghost which seemeth to vs impossible See vvhat fire that vvorthy authour speaketh of And in the sixt booke and two and twenty Chapter of the same vvorke he speaketh yet more plainely saying That he receiueth ignorantly who knoweth not the vertue and dignity of this Sacrament and who is ignorant that it is the body bloud of Christ in truth so that old Hesichius condemneth them of ignorance for not beeleuing Christes body to be truly in the Sacrament Secondly saith M. PERK by the sacramental vnion of the bread wine with the body and bloud of Christ they vsed to confirme the personall vnion of the man-hood of Christ with the God-head against heretikes Let vs admit this to be true for then it followeth necessarily against himselfe that the true body of Christ is really present in the blessed Sacrament as his true Dialog 2 God-head and man-hood were really vnited in one person But if Theodoret whome he quoteth be well read you shall finde that they against whome he writeth objected this common doctrine of the Church that bread is turned into the body of Christ to proue that the man-hood of Christ was turned into the God-head and consequently that there were not two natures in Christ but one And albeit the consequent was Hereticall yet the antecedent was Catholike good and not denyed of Theodoret but that there was a reall conuersion of bread into the true body of Christ and therefore did other Heretikes who denied our Sauiour to haue true flesh deny also consequently the truth of the blessed Sacrament as the same Dialog 3 Theodoret doth witnesse out of S. Ignatius in these wordes They admit not the Eucharist and Sacrifice because they doe not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour which was crucified for vs and which the Father of his benignity raysed againe Libr. 17. cap. 25. M. PERKINS further objecteth that Nicephorus reporteth that young children were sent for from the scoole to eate that which remayned of the Sacrament which saith he was a signe that they thought it not to be Christes body Not so for he so reporteth it that any man may see that he beleeued it to be the very body of Christ For first he saith that those children were pure and incorrupt not falne from their state of innocencie Secondly that they were fasting Thirdly he affirmeth in plaine tearmes that they receiued the immaculate body of IESVS Christ God and Man Finally he proueth it so to be and that by miracle For one of the children who had receiued that morning being by his father a malitious Iewe afterwardes cast into a glasiers furnace most fiery hot and shut in there for three daies space was miraculously preserued aliue and found there without any hurt at all by vertue of the blessed Sacrament which he had receiued What strange blindnes then was this to alleadge this against the reall presence which so admirably doth confirme it We knowe that in certaine places some vsed to giue the blessed Sacrament vnto children yea vnto sucking babes being also dipped in the chalice which rather proueth our opinion For they thought it necessary for all that would be saued to receiue this holy Sacrament Nowe these infants could haue no such act of faith as the Protestants doctrine requireth to make their communion therefore at that time they held the same kinde of reall presence which we doe which is made by lawfull consecration of the Priest and not by the faith of the receiuer And that you may perceiue that I speake not only by ghesse take the profession of one of those authors whome M. PER. alleageth Amalarius by name who saith in the worke cited by M. PER. Lib. 3. de Eccl. offic cap. 24. Here we beleeue the nature of pure bread and wine mixed with water to be conuerted into a nature indued with reason to wit into the nature of the body and bloud of Christ can any thing be more plaine against them Finally M. PER. collecteth out of one Nicholas Cabasilas his exposition of these wordes of the Masse Sursum corda lift vp your harts that the people being willed by the Priest to lift vp their thoughts from the earth and to thinke on thinges aboue Christ is not really present with them but only on the right hand of his Father To which we answere that when those wordes were spoken Christes body in deed is not there really present for they are in the preface before the Canon and consecration but is made present afterwardes by the wordes of consecration Secondly that he might notwithstanding those wordes were spoken after the consecration as they be before be there present For being admonished to call our mindes and harts from earthly thinges and to lift them vp to consider heauenly what more diuine and heauenly subject can we meditate vpon then our Sauiour Iesus Christ there present and the holy misteries of his incarnation and passion there represented and the infinite mercies and goodnesse of God powred out on vs through him and by meanes of this holy Sacrifice and thus much in effect doth the answere vnto those wordes signifie We lift vp our harts vnto our Lord to attend vpon him at this time specially in these his holy misteries Obserue that we are not bidden to lift vp our eyes to beholde the sunne or to contemplate the starres in the skie and so you may see that the Protestants ignorance in the wordes of the holy Masse doth litle auaile them or helpe their bad cause Thus at length we are come to an end of M. PERKINS reasons against vs nowe to those that he maketh for the Catholike party which are both fewe in number and very barely propounded but by the helpe of God I will doe my endeauour to supply his negligence therein The first is taken out of these wordes of our Sauiour Ioh. 6. vers 51. The bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world Here is a plaine promise made by Christ Iesus that faileth not of his word of giuing vs his flesh to eate and that very flesh which on the Crosse was to be giuen for the redemption of the vvorld these vvordes be so euident that they who heard them made no doubt of the sence of them but were astonished at it and said Howe can this man giue vs his flesh to eate they doubted not but that Christ had said that he vvould giue them his flesh to eate his speaches were so plaine for it but yet beleeued they not that he could
Epist 54. ad Marcel serm 6. de Quadrag S. Hierome and S. Leo doe in expresse tearmes declare and mention is made of it in the Councell of Nice and in S. Ignatius the Apostles disciple Finally Aërius the Heretike vnto the Arrians heresie addeth this error as witnesseth * Ad Quod vult haeres 53. S. Augustine that prescribed set fasts were not to solemnely obserued but that euery one should fast when he would himselfe least we should seme to be vnder the law Behold M.P. very opinion plainely condemned for heresie 1200. yeares agoe yea before that time almost 100. yeares it was recorded for an heresie by that Godly and learned Bishop a Haeres 75. Epiphanius Before I end this point I may not forget M.P. owne objectiō against him selfe that forsooth some reformed Churches of the Protestants who cānot erre in his opinion obserue set dayes of fasting He granteth that they doe so indeed but not vpon necessity for conscience sake but for politike regardes whereas the Church of Rome holdeth it to be sinne to defer the set time of fasting til the next day Reply This answere first imployeth a notable errour that Protestants are not bound in conscience to obey their ciuill Magistrates lawes which S. Paul expresly condemneth Rom. 13. vers 5. saying Therefore be subject of necessity not only for wrath but also for conscience sake Wherefore the ciuill Magistrates commanding a set fast the Protestants must of necessity and for conscience sake obserue it or else they commit the sinne of disobedience at the least But besides this absurdity there is an other no lesse conteined in this answere For I doe aske whether the Protestants lawe of set fasting be good and allowable or no If good as M. P. graunteth then Christians surely are bound to keepe it because they are bound to obey their Gouernors in good matters and consequently their liberty of eating may be abridged by their Superiors lawes by their owne confession wherefore they must either condemne their owne Magistrates lawes for nought worth or else whether they will or will not allowe of ours And that excuse of the diuersity of endes is not to purpose For if the Magistrates may for a ciuill respect restraine our liberty much more may they doe it for a religious which is of a higher nature and more forcible to binde our consciences Now to the second point of difference Where M. P. findeth fault with two petty imperfections in the manner of our fasting before he commeth to the greatest to wit with the permission to drinke water wine Iudic. 20. vers 26. 2. Samuel 1. vers 12. or electuaries vpon fasting daies with the eating of one meale at or about noone-tide which he disproueth first because it is contrary to the practise of the old Testament To which we answere first that there is no mention made at al of drinking wine or water or of not drinking wherefore to that part it is altogether impertinēt And to speake a word by the way of drinking of wine vpon fasting dayes it was wholy forbidden in the East Church where the countries being exceeding hotte water alone might be drunken without dāger of health In other countries somewhat colder which haue no other drinke but wine and water as it is in Spaine Italy and in that climate where Nauarra liued there wine is premitted on fasting daies vsed in the winter season specially but yet wel tempered with water But in England and in other like places where we haue beere there to drinke much wine on fasting daies is not tollerable Touching the other point of taking the meale about noone-tide I grant that the Israelites in the two places cited by M. PER. did fast till euening but we are not bound to conforme our selues to that their fasting First because it was an extraordinary fast and so being but once vsed might easier be borne for one day Secondly mens bodies were in those daies stronger better able to beare out a long fast then they are at these and therefore our discreet deare Mother the Catholike Church condescending vnto the infirmity of her tender children doth not exact more then they are wel able to performe without danger of health And therefore albeit in the primatiue Church generally when men were stronger both in spirit and body the lawe custome was to fast vntill three of the clocke in the after-noone notwithstanding in these later daies when men are growne weaker the Church doth not exact any more of vs then to fast vntil noone though she like those better who being wel able doe fast longer Nowe to the maine point of difference of meates The Catholikes saith Master PERKINS allowe only white-meate on their fasting daies yea they allowe not so much neither in Lent but only fish and that of necessity and for conscience sake True All Catholikes hold themselues bound in conscience to obey the lawes of their Superiors in these cases if they be able if not to aske leaue of their Pastours to eate that vvhich will serue their turne But saith M. PER. out of the presumption of his owne wisdome we hold this distinction of meates to be both foolish and wicked Good wordes Sir I pray you for be it spoken without your disparagement farre wiser and better men then your selfe haue beene and are of an other opinion But he will proue his assertion so mightily that no man shall be able to gaine-say it Let vs heare him First it is foolish saith he because in such meates as they prescribe there is as much filling and delight as in flesh namely in fish fruites and wine Howe proueth he this Neither by reason nor yet by any authority of either foole or phisicion and therefore we must needes take him for an odde wiseman that so lightly vpon his owne phantasie only durst condemne the constant opinion of all Christians of many hundreth yeares for foolish and wicked But pleaseth it you to vnderstand good Sir that although there were no difference in the meates yet the commandement of our Pastours being to refraine from the one and not from the other were sufficient to make a distinction of meates and to binde vs to abstaine from them without any touch of folly For what difference for delight or filling was there betweene the forbidden fruite of Paradise and other fruites Yet because contrary to commandement our first parents Adam and Eue did eate thereof they became both foolish wicked therefore it is no foolish part to obserue a distinction of meates vvhen it is so appointed by our Gouernours To confute him more fully let vs heare what reason our Pastours had to prescribe such a distinction of meate fasting being specially instituted to bridle and subdue the vnlawfull desires of the flesh it was most meete that we should refraine from eating of flesh on fasting dayes because that the eating of flesh doth more nourish and pamper vp our flesh
answere Thirdly saith he their Idolatry passeth the Idolatry of the Heathens in that they worship a breaden God or Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine O impious Atheist and altogither vnworthy the name of a Christian Is not Christ to be worshipped wheresoeuer he be and that as wel vnder the formes of bread as vnder the shape of a man it is not the outward shape or shewe that maketh Christ worthy of diuine worship but the substance of his God-head there present though hidden But he is not there at all saith he vvhich to be most false I haue proued in that question The third sinne is the maintaynance of adultery first in the tollerating of the stewes Answere It is one thing to tollerate an euil another thing to maintaine it God doth tollerate many euils but maintayneth none so the stewes in some hotte Countryes are tollerated to auoide a greater mischiefe yet not maintayned but disgraced and punished and diuers meanes vsed to perswade them that liue so viciously to leaue and detest that vvicked kinde of life As our state doth tollerate vsury if it be vnder tenne in the hundreth and yet we charge them not with maintaynance of vsury but rather thinke it a politike deuise by tollerating the lesse euill to auoyde a greater Againe this is a point of ciuill pollicy and no part of the Catholike religion which is in many Kingdomes wholy embraced where there be no stewes tollerated In some hotte Countryes the ciuill Magistrate by experience findeth it better to suffer some hot and incontinent lecherous companions to haue such a remedy rather then to permit them to solicit their Wiues and Daughters to vvickednesse I would to God that the wise saying of a most worthy Doctor were not fulfilled in our Country Take away the stewes and fill all the City with adultery Is not the City of London vvell reformed trowe you by taking the stewes out of it if the man had any fore-head knowing howe their sweet Gospell hath infected both Court and Country vvith filthy and abhominable lechery he would haue beene ashamed to reprehend them who labour to breake the worser course of it seing they cannot extinguish it altogether He saith secondly That our lawe alloweth marriage beyond the fourth degree and by this meanes incest for Anne the Aunt of Nicholas may be marryed vnto the child of Nicholas childes child because shee is beyond the fourth degree Behold the wisdome of this man first vvhat yeares shall Anne be off before that child of the fourth generation after Nicholas her Nephewe be marryageable by that he be twenty yeares old shee must be six-score or there about and so a very fit match for that youth Againe it is but a supposed imagination of a rawe head that the Aunt is in steede of a Mother vnto all that descend of her Brother These good fellowes that finde fault with vs for allowing mariage beyond the fourth degree doe themselues maintayne it in the very second for brother and sisters children may and doe often marry together among them which was prohibited in S. Augustines dayes as a deformity Lib. 15. de ciuit 16. euen against the naturall shamefastnesse ingrafted in so neare of kinne And Gregory the great being demaunded at the first conuersion of the English to the faith his opinion in this matter answereth thus Cap. 6. inter Aug. ad Greg. That although a certaine earthly lawe permitted brothers children to match together yet saith he we haue by experience obserued that issue proceedeth not of such mariage and the holy Scripture teacheth vs that we may not reueale the turpitude of our kindred Whence he concludeth that euen those newely conuerted Christians to whome he graunted as great fauour as he might should vvholy abstayne from mariage in the second degree so that brethrens children marying according to their new doctrine contrary to the auncient Canons of the Church doe liue in perpetual incest and their children be no better then bastardes it is they then that allowe incest and not we In another case the Protestants by their doctrine and practise doe confirme and ratifie adultery for the innocent party for example the Husband taking his Wife in adulterie doth not only put her away by diuorse but may also marry another his former wife yet liuing vvhich to be playne adultery no meaner a learned man then S. Augustine twelue hundred yeares past hath most soundly proued and that out of the expresse word of God and therefore did he intitle that his treatise De adulterinis conjugijs of adulterous mariages The fourth sinne of Papists is magicke sorcery and witchcraft in the consecration of their Host and in making holy bread and holy water and such like and by driuing out of the Deuill by the signe of the crosse by exorcismes and ringing of bels c. For these thinges haue no force eyther by their creation or by any warrant out of the word Answere If it be sorcery and vvitch-craft to consecrate the body of Christ which is done by due pronunciation of Christs wordes then was Christ the author of that sorcery and he himselfe that first consecrated it a sorcerer which only to insinuate is most damnable See what wicked enemies of Christ we haue vnder the habite of Ministers and what a logger-headed lie is it to say that we haue no warrant in Gods word for the blessing of bread water oyle and such like when S. Paul saith That all things are sanctified and made holy by the word of God and prayer 1. Tim. 4. vers 5. Hebr. 9. vers 13. And if in the old testament The sprinckling of the ashes of a calfe did sanctifie them on whom it was cast Why may not water with vs doe as much being hallowed by prayer and making the signe of the crosse ouer it by which vve request God to blesse it through the vertue of Christs passion expressed by the signe of the crosse and hauing receiued such blessing we vse it then more confidently to such purposes as they are blessed for not doubting but that God will respect the praiers of his holy Church and the good meaning of him that vseth them And as for bels they being dedicated to the seruice of God for the assembling of his people togither to worship him and hauing many deuout prayers said ouer them to that purpose vve doubt not but that the very sound of them is terrible to the enemies of God Iosue 6. vers 5. as being the trumpets of his army And as the walles of Hiericho fel flat to the earth at the sound of the Israelites trumpets and voices so the furious vvorking of the comon enemy shall be abated vvhen he heareth by the ringing of the bels Gods people called together to joyne in prayer against him The fift sinne is perjury which they maintayne because they teach that a Papist examined may answere doubtfully against the intention of the examiner framing another meaning to