OVR CONSENTS.
M. PERKINS Page 185.

We hold and beleeue a presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacra­ment of the Lordes supper; and that no fained, but a true and reall presence.

HITHERTO we agree in wordes, but in sence nothing at all. For he frameth a strange construction of that real presence: which (saith he) must be considered two waies. First, in respect of the signes; Secondly, in respect of the communicants: the signes be bread and wine, with which Christes body and bloud be present, not in respect of place and coexistence, but by sacramentall relation: that is, when the sacramentall signes of bread and wine are present to the hand, they doe present to the minde of the receiuer, the body and bloud of Christ. So that al­ready M. PERKINS vnfained, true reall presence, is shrunken into a sacra­mentall relation, and only significatiue presence; such as may well be of thinges as farre distant the one from the other, as the cope of heauen is from the center of the earth: a strange reall presence surely. The second kinde of presence (saith he) is in respect of the communicants, to whose belieuing hartes he is also really present. If you aske whether this be not as odde a kinde of presence as the other was? he answereth by going about the bush: saying, that such as the communion is, such is the presence: and by the communion you must judge of the presence. Ignotum (as they say) per ignotius. He might shortly haue said (if he had meant plaine dealing) that by your faith you must mount into heauen, and take hold on Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father, and from thence drawe his righteousnesse, and conuey it to your selfe: so that both sortes of his true reall presence, is made vvithout any nearer meeting of the parties, then heauen and earth doe meete togither. But let vs giue him the hearing: this reall communion is made on this manner. God the Father giueth Christ in this Sacrament as really and truly, as any thing can be giuen to man, and that not peece-meale, but whole Christ; yet, not the substance of the God-head, but the efficacy, merits, and opera­tion are conueyed thence to the man-hood: but the whole man-hood, both in respect [Page 26] of substance, as of merits and benefits, is giuen wholy and jointly together. And when God so giueth Christ, he giueth withall at the same time the spirit of Christ: which createth in the hart of the receiuer the instrument of true faith, by which the hart doth really receiue Christ, by resting vpon the promise which God hath made, that he will giue Christ and his righteousnesse vnto euery true beleeuer. Nowe then, when God giueth Christ and his benefits, and man by faith receiueth the same; there riseth an vnion betweene them, not forged but reall, and so neare, that none can be nearer: and being a reall vnion, there is a reall communion, and consequent­ly, a reall presence of Christ to the hart of him that receiueth the Sacrament in faith. And thus farre (saith he) doe we consent with the Romish Church.

It may well be that you agree herein with the Romish Church, that is; with some apish counterfeit of the Roman: but the true Roman Church con­demneth all that phantastical kinde of receiuing, as you your selfe declare in the wordes following. But before we come vnto them, let vs note by the way some strange points (of doctrine shall I say) or rather dreaming of our conceited Masters the Protestants. Who euer yet heard in true diui­nitie, that the God-head considered apart by it selfe, had merits to conuey to the man-hood, as M. PER. here teacheth? for merits belong to an infe­rior in respect of his superior, of whome he meriteth: now the God-head is not inferior to any, as all but Arrians confesse. Againe, howe can whole Christ be giuen to man, as M. PER. first affirmeth, if the substance of the God-head be not giuen, as presently after he declareth? for the substance of the God-head is the principal part of Christ, who is both God & man. Moreouer, how is Christes substance as well as his benefits, made ours; or really present to our faith, if vve be made partakers only of his righteous­nesse, which may (as euery man knoweth) well be, without any bodily presence of his? besides, that fiction of his, that faith is created in our hart, at the same instant that we receiue the Sacrament, is very absurd. For (as all the world witnesseth) a man must be indued vvith faith, before he goe to re­ceiue that Sacrament; or else he presenteth himselfe most vnworthily vn­to that holy table. Lastly, if simple men & silly women should not receiue this Sacrament, vntill they vnderstood M. PER. doctrine of sacramentall re­lation, of his reall vnion and communion made by speciall faith in it (as no man should receiue, before he knoweth what and howe he is to receiue) then surely they should neuer receiue it, the manner of it is so intricate, and so farre passing their capacity. I may not omit here, that which I clipped off in M. PER. discourse, to make it the more perspicuous: to wit, that Christes benefits are bestowed vpon some by Gods imputation only; vpon others they are be­stowed by a kind of propagation, which M. PER. cannot expresse fitly, but doth resemble it thus. As one candle is lighted by another, and so the light of [Page 27] one is conueied vnto twenty candles: euen so the inherent righteousnes of euery be­leeuer, is deriued from the store-house of righteousnesse, which is the man-hood of Christ: this (I say) I could not but let the gentle reader vnderstand, that he may cōsider howe slippery & vnconstant the man is in his owne doctrine. In the question of justification, it is high treason to confesse any inherent righteousnesse in vs.Pag. 66. For (as he there saith) it doth rase the very foundation of religion: there only he alloweth of a certaine strange reall imputation of Christes justice vnto vs; but here (hauing belike forgotten that euer he said any such word) he teacheth besides that imputatiue, an inherent righ­teousnesse to be cōueied from Christ into euery righteous mans soule. With whome will this man agree (trowe you) that cannot agree with himselfe?

Let vs nowe come vnto the maine point of our dissent, which M. PER. deliuereth thus: we differ not touching the presence it selfe, but only in the man­ner of presence. For though we hold a reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament: yet, we doe not take it to be locall, bodily, or substantiall; but spiri­tuall and mysticall: first to the signes, by sacramentall relation; then to the com­municants, by faith alone. On the contrary, the Church of Rome maintaineth a locall, bodily, and substantiall presence of Christes body and bloud, by a change and conuersion of the bread and wine into the said body and bloud; which they beleeue to be wrought by the vertue of Christes wordes, pronounced ouer the bread and wine by a lawfull Priest, intending to doe that, which Christ at his last supper instituted and commanded him to doe.

Master PERKINS reasons to the contrary be these.

This corporall presence ouerturneth sundry articles of faith. For we beleeue that the body of Christ was made of the pure substance of the Virgin Mary, and that but once: namely, when it was conceiued by the holy Ghost. But this cannot stand, if the body of Christ be made of bread, vnlesse we beleeue contraries: that the body was made of the Virgin, and not of the Virgin; made once, and not once, but often.

We read not in our Creede, made of the Virgin Mary, but borne of her: nowe there is great difference betweene made and borne. For a house is made of a Carpenter; but is not borne of him: but the vvord made (vvhich may also in good sence be vsed) being fitter to cloake the falla­cy; Master PERKINS cared not to straine a little curtesie vvith the arti­cles of our beleefe, and to thrust in made, in stead of borne. But let this prety jugling-tricke passe, and to his argument I answere, that the appea­rance of this contrariety, proceedeth either out of meere ignorance of our doctrine, or else out of the equiuocation of this word made. For we hold, that Christes blessed body is but once made, if made be taken for to be fa­shioned and formed newe from the beginning: so was it but once made of the pure bloud of the immaculate Virgin Mary; but may be againe and [Page 28] againe well made present, vnder this or that forme, or on this or that altar: which hath no shadowe of contrariety with the other. For euery mans body vvhich is but once made in his mothers vvombe, may afterward a thousand times be made present, in one or diuers places. Nowe when we say with the ancient Fathers, that of bread is made the body of Christ; the sence is, that the substance of bread is turned into the body of Christ: so that then there is no more the substāce of bread vnder the formes of bread, but Christes body which succeedeth in place of it; & therefore the bread is said to be turned vnto Christes body, and Christes body to be made of bread: not that any part of the bread remaineth changed into Christes body, or that Christes body is a newe created and framed; but because that by that very action (wherewith the bread is remoued out the body is brought into that place) the one is said to be made of the other; so that here is nothing contrary vnto that 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 [Page 29] 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,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 sameAct. 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 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 [Page 31] 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, [Page 32] 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 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) [Page 33] 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 [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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, [Page 36] 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: [Page 37] 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 [...]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 [Page 38] (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 [Page 39] 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 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 [Page 40] 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, [Page 41] 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? [Page 42] they doubted not but that Christ had said, that he vvould giue them his flesh to eate, his speaches were so plaine for it; but yet beleeued they not, that he could doe it. Nowe what replyed Christ vnto their doubt? that he vvould giue them only bread to eate in remembrance of him? vvhich vvould surely haue satisfied them throughly, because nothing vvas more easie to doe then that. But truth is not to be concealed, for feare of Phara­saicall scandall: and therefore he told them very roundly, That vnlesse they did eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud. They should not haue life in them. And he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, hath life euer­lasting. And yet more expresly: My flesh is meate in deede, and my bloud drinke in deede. Howe should he haue made the matter more plaine?

To this M. PERKINS answereth, first; That Christ speaketh of a spirituall eating by faith: because the very point that he intendeth to proue, is; that to beleeue in him, and to eate his flesh, is all one.

This answere is absurd: For euen in their owne doctrine, there is a great difference betweene beleeuing in Christ, and receiuing the commu­nion; for many doe beleeue in Christ when they doe not receiue the com­munion: receiuing being (as they teach) a seale or confirmation of beleeuing. And to say, that Christ there maketh no difference betweene beleeuing in him, and eating of his flesh, is flat against the text. For saying that he would hereafter giue them his flesh to eate, he doth declare, that he speaketh not of beleeuing in him, vvhich he vvould haue them to doe presently; and many of them did beleeue in him before, vvho could not disgest his do­ctrine of the Sacrament.

Againe, it is altogether vnlikely, that our Sauiour would haue vsed such strange offensiue speaches (as the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his bloud) to signifie only, that they must beleeue in him: and that he seing them so much scandalized at those his hard and vnvsuall phrases, that they vvere ready to forsake him; would yet, not once in plaine tearmes interprete them, for the sauing of so many soules: wherefore, it remaineth most ma­nifest, that by eating of his flesh, he meant something else, then beleeuing in him. And M. PER. other shift, that in all the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn, Christ speaketh not one word of eating his flesh in the Sacrament, is so contrary vnto the euidence of the text it selfe, and vnto the exposition of all ancient Fathers, that it deserueth no answere; especially, vvhen neither by rea­son or authority, he goeth about to fortifie it. But I muse why he did o­mit, their ordinary objection out of the same place: The flesh profiteth no­thing, it is the spirit that quickneth. It may be (perhaps) because he knewe that the vvordes being rightly vnderstood, make more against the Pro­testants then for them. For the flesh there, must be taken either for Christes [Page 43] flesh, or for our flesh: if for Christes flesh,Tract. 27. in Ioannē. then (saith S. Augustine) Howe can it be, that it profiteth nothing? when he said before: vnlesse yo eate my flesh, you shall haue no life in you. What therefore meaneth this, it profiteth nothing? Marry (saith he) it profiteth nothing as they vnderstood it. For they tooke they should eate it, as it is torne and cut in peeces, being dead and sold in the shambles; and not as it is quickned with the spirit, which he doth illustrate with the comparison of knowledge, which being alone, doth puffe vp (scientia enim inflat) but being joyned with charity, doth edifie. Euen so (saith he) when the spirit is coupled with the flesh, then doth it profit verie much, or else the worde would not haue beene made flesh, and haue dwelled a­mong vs. With S. Augustine agreeth S. Cyril vpon that place;In cap. 6. Ioannis. but more literall seemeth to be the interpretation of S. Chrisostome, followed by Theophilact and others, vpon this place: that by the flesh, is to be vnder­stood our fleshly and naturall reason, which in these misteries of faith, doth rather hinder then helpe vs. For mans wit of it selfe, cannot com­prehend howe bread may be turned into Christes body; not howe so great a bodie can be in so litle a roome, &c. but informed with faith and Gods grace, it is then well assured, that whatsoeuer Christ saith is true, and that nothing is impossible to him, howe contrarie soeuer it seeme vnto flesh and bloud. For, his wordes (as it followeth in the text) be spirit and life, that is: be of diuine force, and giue life and being vnto vvhat hee pleaseth. And thus much of our first reason: Nowe to the second.

Christ taking bread into his handes, gaue it to his Disciples, saying: 1. Cor. 11. Math. 26 Marc. 14. Luc. 22. this is my body which is giuen for you: and giuing them the Chalice, said: drinke yee all of this, for this is my bloud of the newe Testament, which shall be shed for you. These our Sauiours wordes are so plaine, that it was not possible in so fewe wordes to expresse more perspicuously, that it was his true natu­rall bodie, which he deliuered vnto them; it being the verie same which was to be nailed on the Crosse the morrowe after.

But M. PER. answereth, that they are not to be taken properlie, but by a figure, the body there being put for a signe or seale of his bodie.

Reply. This is a very extrauagant exposition of Christes vvordes, and such a one, as if it vvere admitted for currant, vvoulde serue to subuert and ouerthrovve, all the articles of the Christian faith. For example, vvhen it is said, that the word was made flesh, the Manachees heresies against Christes true flesh, might be maintayned, by saying, that the flesh there, is put for a figure of the flesh: so might the Arrian heresie, if vvhen Christ is called God, it vvere allowed them, to ex­pound and take it, for a signe or seale of GOD; and so of all other [Page 44] articles of our beleefe: wherefore, there must be most apparant proof, for the drawing of Christes wordes into so strange a sence, before it be admit­ted of any reasonable man. But M. PER. and the Protestants are so farre off, from producing any such inuincible euidence for their odde interpre­tation, that they cannot alleadge any probable cause of it: heare, and then judge.

Genes. 17. vers. 10. Exod. 12. vers. 11. 1. Cor. 10.M. PERKINS saith first, That it is an vsuall manner of the Lord, in speaking of the Sacraments, to giue the name of the thinges signified, to the signe: as circum­cision is called the couenant of God: and the next verse, the signe of the couenant: and the Pascall lambe is called the Angels passing-ouer, whereas (in deede) it was but a signe of it: and the Rocke was Christ: 1. Cor. 5. vers. 7. the passe-ouer was Christ.

Answ. It may be, that sometimes speaking of Sacraments by the way, some figuratiue speach may be vsed: but we say, that when any Sacramēt is first instituted and ordained, that then the wordes are to be taken lite­rally, without any such figure. For example, in the Sacraments (specified by M. PER.) Circumcision was commanded in these wordes:Genes. 17. vers. 11. You shall circumcise the flesh of your prepuce, that it may be a signe of the couenant betweene you and me. These be the wordes of the institution of that Sacrament, and not one of them but must be literally taken. For the true flesh in deede, was to be circumcised and cut off, and no figure of the flesh or signe of cut­ting, would serue the turne. In like manner, where the Sacrament of the Pascall lambe is instituted,Exod. 12. vers. 3. all must be vnderstood literally, as a naturall lambe really killed, rosted and eaten: and not a figure, signe, or seale of it: euen so our blessed Sauiour instituting a Sacrament in these wordes, This is my body: the wordes must be taken literally, and not figuratiuely; and consequently, the reason which M. PER. bringeth for him, beareth strong­ly against himselfe, because it is and euer hath beene Gods fashion, when he instituteth Sacraments, to institute them in their proper tearmes, which must be taken literally, as by his owne examples hath bin proued: Nowe to his sentences. Circumcision is both a couenant, and the signe of a couenant, and that properly; although not of the same couenant. For it was a couenant tendred by God vnto Abraham, and by him accorded vnto, to circumcise himselfe and all his seede of the male-kinde: and the very same couenant was also a signe & badge of Gods peculier fauour vnto them, and their spe­ciall obligation to serue him; and a marke in them, of the chosen people of God: so that that speach (circumcision is the couenant) is not figuratiue, but literall. Neither is the lambe called the Angels passing by or ouer, in the place cited by M. P.; but rather the Iewes eating of it hastily: and walking, was a signe of the Angels speedy passing by them. The lambe is sometimes called the passe-ouer: not because it was the signe of it, but for that it vvas [Page 45] the sacrifice, celebrated in remembrance of it: so Christ is called our passe-ouer or Paschall lambe; because he is the lambe of God, sacrificed to take a­way the sinnes of the vvorld: so that not in one of these sentences, is the thing signified put for the signe, but rather the contrary. And when S. Paul saith, that the Rocke was Christ: it is to be vnderstood properly, because he speaketh of the spirituall Rocke, saying: And they did drinke all of the spiri­tuall Rocke, which was Christ properly. The materiall rocke, out of which the streames of water gushed, did (in deed) prefigure Christ on the crosse, out of whose side issued bloud and water: but the spirituall Rocke (that is) the Rocke figured by that materiall, was really Christ himselfe: so that fi­nally he hath not brought vs one place, where the name of the thing signi­fied is giuen to the signe: but suppose he could bring any, would it there­vpon followe, that this place of the institution of the Sacrament, must be expounded by the same figure? howe absurd and ridiculous is this man­ner of reasoning? In one or two places of Scripture the name of the thing signi­fied, is giuen to the signe. ergo. In vvhat place soeuer it pleaseth the Protestants, it shall be so taken; albeit, in a thousand other places, it must needes be taken otherwise.

But M. PERKINS saith secondly, That the Papists themselues confesse, the like figuratiue phrase to be in the institution of the cup, when it is said, This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud: that is (as M. PER. interpreteth it) a signe, seale, and pleadge of the newe Testament.

Answ. We say that the institution of that part of the Sacrament, is as plainely deliuered by S. Mathewe and S. Marke, as the other. For they haue in expresse vvordes: This is my bloud of the newe Testament: vvhich plaine and cleare speach doth sufficiently declare, howe S. Lukes more intricate and obscure wordes, are to be vnderstood; it being great reason, that that which is plaine & easie to vnderstand, should interpret that which is hard; and not that which is obscure, to be made an exposition of that vvhich is lightsome & cleare, as our wranglers (who loue darkenes more then light) would perswade vs. For the better vnderstanding of S. Lukes wordes you must obserue, that a Testament is taken in two sortes: either for the vvill and ordinance of the Testator; or else for the written instrument, where­by the will is knowne and performed. Nowe this holy Sacrament, may truly be called a testamēt in both sences. For it is both a special ordinance, to be obserued and practised by Christes will and institution, during the whole state of the newe Testament: and therefore truly called by S. Luke. The newe Testament, being a principall part of it. Ouer and besides, it is a singuler meanes and instrument, a more effectuall then a vvritten vvill, to conuey and deriue vnto vs, our Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus legacy, [Page 46] by the worthy receiuing of it, that is: his grace in this world, and glory in the next; and for this cause it is said of S. Mathewe, to be the bloud of the newe Testament; and not the seale or signe of it. And thus finally, the gen­tle reader may see, that M. PER. can shew no sufficient cause, why Christes wordes should be expounded by such a strange figure: whereupon it fol­loweth euidently, that they are to be taken according vnto their natiue li­terall sence. For so must all holy Scripture be vnderstood, vnlesse there be apparant reason to the contrary. Notwithstanding, because this matter is of very great moment, as being one of the highest misteries of our faith, I will insist and stand somewhat, vpon the circumstances of it. First, con­ferre all the places together, vvhere the institution is rehearsed, and you shall finde in them all,Math. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. This is my body: and not in any one of them, This is a figure of my body; as the Protestants teach.

Secondly, S. Luke and S. Paul adde: The body which shall be giuen for you; vvhich inforce vs to vnderstand it to be his true naturall body, that vvas crucified for vs, and not a figure of it, which was not crucified for vs.

Luc. 22. Cap. 13.Thirdly, Christ said: With a desire haue I desired to eate this passe-ouer with you. And S. Iohn addeth: That Christ knowing that his houre was come, that he should passe out of this world to his Father; whereas he loued his that were in the world, vnto the end he loued them: and when supper was done, &c. Know­ing that the Father had giuen him all thinges into his handes, and that he came from God, and goeth to God; and so forth: This Preface (I say) being made before the institution of the Sacrament, sheweth that Christ vehe­mently longed to come to it, and intended to leaue vnto his louing Disci­ples nowe at his last fare-well, a monument and token of his diuine power and loue towardes them. If after all this, he should haue left nothing vnto 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 [Page 48] 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 [Page 49] 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 [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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 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,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. 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. AndHomil. 24. in 1. ad Corin. he that was adored of the wise-men in the manger, is nowe pre­sent vpon the Altar. 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: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, [Page 53] 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,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.

OVR CONSENT.

MAster PERKINS would gladly seeme to agree with vs in two points: First, That the supper of the Lord is a Sacrifice, and may truly be so called as it is, and hath beene in former ages. Secondly, That the very body of Christ is offered in the Lordes supper. Howe say you to this, are we not herein at perfect concord? a plaine dealing man would thinke so, hearing these his wordes: but if you reade further, and see his exposition of them, we are as farre at square as may be. For M. PER. in handling this question will (as he saith) take a Sacrifice sometimes properly and sometimes improperly, star­ting from the one to the other at his pleasure, that you cannot know where to haue him. So when he saith in his first conclusion, That the supper of the Lord is a Sacrifice, he vnderstandeth improperly: yet it is (saith he) called a Sacrifice in three respects. First, because it is a memoriall of the reall Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse. So a painted Crucifix may be called a Sacrifice, be­cause it is a memoriall of that Sacrifice: but M. PER. addeth,Hebr. 13. vers. 15. That it with­all contayneth a thankes-giuing to God for the same: which thankes-giuing is the Sacrifice and calues of our lips.

May he not seeme worthy of a calues-head to his breakefast, that being in a serious dispute of a Sacrifice, would say that the thankes-giuing for a Sacrifice, may trulie be called the very same Sacrifice it selfe? for so a thankesgiuing for a howse, may truly be called a howse; and the thanks­giuing for a horse, a horse it selfe: and to say that the ancient Fathers so spake (as M. PER. doth) is to make them babes and too too vnskilfull how to speake. Secondly, (saith he) it may be called a Sacrifice, because e­uery communicant doth there present himselfe an acceptable Sacrifice to God, to worke in the practise of all dutiefull obedience. You should haue said, that the receiuing of the Lordes supper worthily, might rather be called a Sacri­fice, then the supper it selfe, if you put the reason of the Sacrifice, only in the receiuers conceit and deuotion, which is very different from the sup­per it selfe. Thirdly, (saith he) The Lordes supper is called a Sacrifice, in re­spect of almesse giuen to the poore, which was joyned with it: and in this regard also the ancient Fathers haue called the Sacrament, an vnbloudy Sacrifice; and the table, an Altar; and the Ministers, Priests; and the whole action, an Oblation; not to God, but to the congregation; and not by the Priest alone, but by the people.

I pray you take not the ancient Fathers for so simple, as to thinke the Sa­crament to be a Sacrifice, because some almes might happily be (then and there) giuen to the poore: For they teach that a Sacrifice, is a soueraigne seruice done vnto God alone, and not to be offered to any mortall crea­ture.Libr. 20. cont. Fau­stum c. 21 Witnesse one S. Augustine for the rest, who saith: To that worship which is proper to God alone, doth appertaine the offering of Sacrifice. We doe in no sort offer any such thing, or command it to be offered, either to any Martir, or any holy soule, or Martir, &c. And what a dotage is it, to dreame that Priests and Altars take their names of that, that almes is giuen by lay-men to the poore at Masse time, wherin there is neyther congruity, nor likelihood at al: nor hath he any author to warrant it. For almes by the Apostles order, was left vnto the disposition of Deacons; Act. 6. In exhor. ad casti­tatem. Conc. 14. & Conc. Carth. 4. cap. 4. & Priests commonly did not me­dle in it: at least, it neuer was any essentiall point of their vocation: Which was (as Tertullian briefly defineth) to teach, to minister the Sacrament, and to offer Sacrifice. Nowe Deacons might not in any case offer Sacrifice, as the whole Church in her purity defined, at the Councel of Nice: wherefore, there is no colour to say, that the vnbloudy Sacrifice, Priests, and Altars, were so called in respect of almes giuen to the congregation. we denie not, but that deuout people offered at Masse time, either bread and wine towardes the Sacrifice, or money towardes the reliefe of the Priest, and maintainance of the Altar: but that was not called the Sacrifice of the Masse by the Fathers, but distinguished from it expresly. Witnesse that very place, cited by M. PER. out of S. Augustine; who (comforting his friend [Page 57] 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 [Page 58] thing, ergo. the thing it selfe is there present; because all Sacraments of the newe Testament, doe containe and worke that which they signifie, as shall be more amply proued in his proper place. Neither doe we denie, but that by a true faith in Christ and his passion (so it vvant not other ne­cessary parts of Christian religion) a man is made partaker of the merit of it. But what is that against the Sacrifice of the Masse? one truth doth not disproue an other: but we shall heare the man (perhaps) argue more sub­stantially anone, when he draweth nearer the matter. Thus much of our fained consents, which M. PER. putteth downe to peruert the ancient Fa­thers plaine sentences, for the Sacrifice of the Masse, & to make his poore abused followers beleeue, that vvhen they approue the Sacrifice of the Masse (as they doe very often, and that in most expresse tearmes, as you shal heare hereafter) that then they meane some other matter. Much more sincerely had he dealt, if he had confessed with his owne Rabbins, that it was the common beleefe of the world, receiued by the best Schoole-men: That in the Masse a Sacrifice is offered to God for remission of sinnes, asLib. 4. Instit. ca. 18. §. 1. Cal­uin doth deliuer; vvhichDe cap­tiuit. Ba­bilon. c. 1. Luther graunteth to be conformable vnto the saying of the ancient Fathers. And oneLi. cont. Carolosta­dianos. Alberus (a famous Lutheran) spea­keth it to the great glory of his Master Luther, that he vvas the first since Christes time, who openly inueighed against it: this yet, is more inge­nious and plainer dealing, to confesse the truth, then with vaine colours to goe about to disguise it. And that the indifferent reader may be vvell assured, howe Luther (an Apostata Friar) could come vnto that high pitch of vnderstanding, as to soare vnto that, which none sithence Christes time (neither Apostles nor other) could reach vnto before him: let him reade a speciall treatise of his owne,Cocleus & Vlen­bergius. Intituled of Masse in corners, and of the conse­cration of Priestes; which is extant in the sixt Tome of his workes, set out in the German tongue and printed at Ienes, as men skilfull in that language doe testifie. In his workes in [...]tin printed at Wittenburge of the older edition, it is the seauenth Tome, though somewhat corrected and abrid­ged: there (I say) the good fellowe confesseth, that entring into a certaine conference and dispute with the Diuell, about this Sacrifice of the Masse, Luther then defending it, and the Deuill very grauely arguing against it; in fine the Master (as it was likely) ouercame his Disciple Luther, and so setled him in that opinion against the Sacrifice of the Masse, that he doub­ted not afterward to maintayne it, as a principle point of the newe Gos­pell, and is therein seconded by the vvhole band of Protestants. This is no fable, but a true history, set downe in print by himselfe, through Gods prouidence; that all the vvorld may see from vvhat authority, this their doctrine against the blessed Sacrifice of the Masse proceedeth. [Page 59] And if they vvill beleeue it (notwithstanding they knowe the Deuill to be the founder of it) are they not then most vvorthy to be rejected of God, and adjudged to him, vvhose Disciples they make themselues vvittingly and of their owne free accord?

Nowe to the difference.

OVR DIFFERENCE.
M. PERKINS Page 207.

THey make the Eucharist to bee a reall, and externall Sacrifice offered vnto God, holding that the Minister of it, is a Priest properly, in that he offereth Christes body and bloud to God, really and properly vnder the formes of bread and wine: we acknowledge no such Sacrifice for remission of sinne, but only Christes on the Crosse once offered. Here is the maine difference, which is of such moment, that their Church maintayning this, can bee no Church at all: for this pointe raseth the foundation to the very bottome; vvhich he vvill proue by the reasons follovving, if his ayme faile him not.

Obserue, that in the lawe of Moyses there vvere three kinde of pro­per Sacrifices; one called Holocaust, or vvhole burnt offeringes; the second an Host for sinne, of vvhich there were also diuers sortes; the third an Host of pacification. Holocaustes vvere vvholy consumed by fire, in recognizance and protestation of Gods Soueraigne dominion ouer vs: Hostes for sinne vvere offered (as the name improteth) to appease Gods vvrath, and to purge men from sinne: Hostes of pacification or peace, vvere to giue God thankes for benefits receiued, and to sue for conti­nuance and increase of them.

Nowe vve following the ancient Fathers doctrine, doe hold the Sa­crifice of the Masse, to succeede all these sacrifices, and to contayne the vertue and efficacy of all three, to vvit: it is offered both to acknow­ledge God to be the supreame Lord of heauen and earth, and that all our good commeth from him: as vvitnesseth this oblation of his deare Sonnes body, who being the Lord of heauen and earth, vvillingly suffe­red death to shewe his obedience to his Father. Secondly, it is offered to appease Gods vvrath, justly kindled against vs sinners, representing to him therein, the merit of Christes passion to obtaine our pardon. Thirdly, it is offered to God, to giue him thankes for all his graces bestowed vpon vs, and by the vertue thereof to craue continuance and encrease of them. These points of our doctrine being openly laide before the eyes of the [Page 60] world, M. PER. seemeth to reproue only one peece of them, to wit: That the Sacrifice of the Masse, is no true Sacrifice for remission of sinnes: and not joy­ning issue with vs, but vpon that branch only; he may be thought to agree vvith vs in the other two, to wit: that it is a proper and perfect kinde of whole burnt offering, and a Sacrifice of pacification; at least, he goeth not about to disproue the rest, and therefore he had need to spit on his fingers (as they say) and to take better hold: or else, if that were graunted him, which he endeauoureth to proue, he is very farre from obtayning the Sa­crifice of the Masse, to be no true and proper kind of Sacrifice. For it may well be an Holocaust, or Host of pacification, though it be not a Sacrifice for sinne. But that all men may see, howe confident we are in euery part and parcell of the Catholike doctrine, we will joyne issue with him, where he thinketh to haue the most aduantage against vs: and will proue it to be al­so an Host for remission of sinnes, and that aswel for the dead, as for the liuing; which is much more then M. PER. requireth: and by the way I will de­monstrate, that this doctrine is so farre off from rasing the foundation of Christian religion; that there can be no religion at all, vvithout a true and proper kinde of Sacrifice, and sacrificing Priestes. But first I will confute M. PER. reasons to the contrary, because he placeth them foremost.

Hebr. 9. v. 15.16. & ca. 10. vers. 10.The first reason: The holy Ghost saith, Christ offered himselfe but once; there­fore not often: and thus there can be no reall offering of his body and bloud, in the Sacrament of his supper; the text is plaine.

True, but your arguing out of it is somewhat vaine. For after your owne opinion, it is the Priest that doth offer the Sacrifice of Christes body in the Lordes supper: and therefore, though Christ offered it but once (as the Apostle saith) yet Priests appointed by him, may offer it many times. Doe yee perceiue howe easily your Achilles may be foiled? the good-man not looking (belike) for this answere, saith nothing to it, but frameth another in our names, vvhich is also good and true, to vvit: That the Apostle there speaketh of the bloudy Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse, which was but once offe­red: which letteth not, but that the same his body, may be vnder the formes of bread and wine sacrificed often, by the Ministery of Priestes in the Masse: Yes, but it doth (saith M. PER.) For the Authour of the Epistle to the Hebrewes (he will not for twenty pound say it was S. Paul) taketh it for graunted, that the Sa­crifice of Christ is only one, and that a bloudy Sacrifice: for he saith Christ doth not offer himselfe often, Hebr. 9. as the high Priestes did, &c. All this is true, that Christ suffered but once vpon the Crosse; but it is nothing against the former answere, in which it is not said, that Christ offered himselfe twise vpon the Crosse; but that the same his body is daylie, by the Ministery of Priestes, offered vnbloudily vnder the formes of bread and wine, vpon [Page 61] 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 [Page 62] 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. 7. vers. 24. be­tweene Christ, the high Priest of the newe Testament, and all the Leuiticall Priestes; in this, that they were many, one succeding another: but he is only one, hauing an eternall Preest-ood, which cannot passe from him to any other. Nowe if this difference be good, then Christ alone in his owne person, must be the Priest of the newe Testament, and no other with, or vnder him: If they say that the whole action is done in the person of Christ, and that the Priest is but his Mini­ster, and an instrument vnder him (as they say in deede) I say againe, it is false, because the whole Oblation is acted by the Priest, and he that doth all, is more then a bare instrument.

Answere. To beginne with that, which he saith last (because I must stay longer on the first) he bewrayeth his ignorance in the matter of the Masse, when he saith; that the Priest acteth the whole Oblation in his owne name, and not as the minister of Christ: for the principall part of both Sacrifice and Sacrament, consisteth in the consecration, as we holde; which the Priest wholy executeth in the name and person of Christ. For consecrating he saith, This is my body, speaking in the person of Christ; and not in his owne person, saying, this is Christes body: in like sorte he con­secrateth the Chalice, This is the Chalice of my bloud. So that nothing is more certaine, then that the Sacrifice of our Lordes supper is offered by the Priest, as the Minister and instrument of Christ: wherefore M. PER. pithagorically (I say againe) is conuinced to be most vntrue. Nowe to the former part of his mistaking the Apostles discourse, which is farre more profound then the Protestants take it to be: for his purpose is to proue, that Consummation (as he there speaketh) was not by the Leuiticall Priest-hood, that is;Cap. 7. vers. 11. that the Priests of Moyses lawe could not offer vp such a Sa­crifice to God, by vertue whereof Gods justice could be satisfied, and the redemption of all mankinde purchased. For if any of the high Priests could haue performed that, there needed not to haue beene many Priests, or any one successor to an other, because the former should sufficiently haue done that already, vvhich the later vvent about to doe: wherefore, the Apostle concludeth that it vvas necessary, that an other Priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedecke, whose one oblation should be so pretious in Gods sight, and of such infinite value, that it should neede, neyther to be offered twice, nor to haue the supply of any o­ther Sacrifice: vvhich vve vvillingly graunt, and teach daylie; but car­ry alvvaies in minde that the Apostle there, treateth only of that com­pleate Sacrifice, vvhich procured the generall redemption of all men, and payed the just price vnto God, for the sinnes of the vvhole vvorld: of vvhich sort, vvee acknoweledge that Sacrifice vvhich our Sauiour [Page 64] offered on the Crosse, to be the only Sacrifice, fully satisfying the rigour of Gods justice, for the offences of all the world, and as plentifully pur­chasing all kinde of graces, to be bestowed vpon all degrees of men; so that it needeth not to be repeated it selfe, or to haue any supply from any other Sacrifice. But all this doth no more proue, that our Sacrifice of the Masse is not a true and proper Sacrifice, then that the Leuiticall sacrifices were no sacrifices. For S. Paules scope is not to proue, that there were not, or should not be any more sacrifices but one: but that there can be but one such an absolute and perfect sacrifice, as Christes was on the Crosse. Well then if that one sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse, be so complete and abso­lute, what neede is there of any other sacrifice? great neede, and that for three causes. First, to represent and keepe better in minde that singuler sacrifice, which can by no meanes be so liuely represented, as by the sacri­ficing of the selfe same thinges in substance, albeit after an other manner. Secondly, to conuey and apply the vertue of that on the Crosse, vnto all obedient Christians. For it is to be obserued, though Christ paide in his body the ransome of all sinners, and purchased Gods grace for them: yet, no man vvas thereby only freede from his sinnes and receiued into grace; but euery one must vse the meanes ordained by Christ, to be made parta­ker of that heauenly fauour. The Protestants hold faith alone to be the on­ly meanes: but we more truly say, that the Sacraments and Sacrifice of the Masse, are principal conduict pipes, to conuey the streames of Gods grace into our soules, as shall be proued hereafter. The third cause, vvhy vve must haue a sacrifice, to be offered daylie in the state of the newe Testa­ment, is; that men may meete solemnely at it, to doe their fealty and chiefe homage vnto God: which shall also in this question be proued more at large. Thus haue we briefly shewed, howe there is one absolute sacrifice, and howe after the same, there yet remaineth an other; which may be the better vnderstood, if we consider, that the vertue of Christes sacrifice on the Crosse, did vvorke the saluation of men, euen from the beginning of the world:Apoc. 13. vers. 8. whereupon, Christ is called a lambe, slaine from the beginning. Now most euident it is, that notwithstanding the al-sufficiency of Christes only sacrifice on the Crosse, as well then in force, as nowe, there were both in the lawe of nature, and of Moyses, diuers other sacrifices, of which some were to purge from sinne: why therefore, may there not aswell be one o­ther since his passion? If their sacrifices then, when Christes sacrifice on the Crosse vvas as present, and in as full force vvith God, could stand vvell vvith it, vvithout any derogation vnto the full vertue of it: vvhy cannot ours aswell also doe so nowe?Hebr. 10. vers. 14. If you say, That Christ by one oblation hath con­summated or made perfect, them that be sanctified: therefore nowe there nee­deth [Page 65] no more. I answere (as before) that Christ by that same one obla­tion, obtained at his fathers handes, a generall pardon for all mankinde, and all grace to be bestowed vpon them, euen from the beginning of the world, in such sort as he thought best: and that his one oblation, doth no more exclude other Sacrifices since the time of his passion, then it did other oblations before, which all are as dependents on it, and meanes to keepe it fresh in memory, and to apply the vertue and meritte of that one oblation, vnto all men.

I vrge yet further for the Protestants, to supply M. PERKINS negli­gence, and that this hard point may be the better vnderstood; and adde out of S. Paul: Ibidem vers. 18. Where there is remission of these (iniquities) nowe there is no oblation for sinnes.

True, such an oblation as Christ offered on the Crosse; so vertuous, to wipe away all iniquities; so pretious, to pay a generall ransome: but there may be an other auailable to entreate and deserue, that the vertue of the former generall, may be deriued vnto men in particuler; because, al­though those sinnes and iniquities were vnto Christ pardoned in general: yet, at his death, or by it only, those sinnes were not remitted and pardo­ned vnto any man in particuler; so that it was meete and requisite, that be­sides the Sacrifice to purchase that generall redemption, there should be an other, to apply the vertue of it in particuler. And thus much of this argument: not that it deserued (as it was proposed nakedly by M. PER.) any more then a flat deniall; but to explicate this difficulty, and to inter­prete some obscure places of S. Paul omitted by M. PERKINS.

M. PER. fift reason. If the Priest doe offer to God Christes reall body and bloud, for the pardon of our sinnes; then man is become a mediator betweene God and Christ.

This illation is too too ridiculous. Is he Christes mediator, that asketh forgiuenes of sinnes for Christes sake? then are al Christians mediators be­tweene God and Christ: for we all present vnto God Christs passion, and beseech him (for the meritte thereof) to pardon vs our sinnes. I hope that we may both lawfully pray vnto God, and also imploy our best endea­uours, that Christ may be truly knowne, rightly honoured and serued of all men, without incroaching vpon Christs mediation. These be seruices we owe vnto Christ, and the bounden duties of good Christians, where­in it hath pleased him to imploy vs, as his seruantes and ministers; not as his mediators. But Master PERKINS addeth, that vve request in the Cannon of the Masse, That God will accept our gifts and offerings (namely Christ himselfe offered) as he did the Sacrifices of Abell and Noe (he would haue said Abraham, for Noe is not there mentioned.) True, in the sence [Page 66] there following; not that this Sacrifice of Christes body, is not a thou­sand times more gratefull vnto him, then was the Sacrifices of the best men: but that this Sacrifice which is so acceptable of it selfe, may be vn­to all the partakers of it, cause of all heauenly grace and benediction; and that also, through the same Christ our Lord, as it there followeth in the Canon.

His sixt and last reason, Is the judgement of the ancient Church, which is the feeblest of al the rest; for that he hath not one place, which maketh not flat against himselfe:Conc. Tol. 12. cap. 5. heare and then judge. First (saith he) A Councell held at Toledo in Spaine, hath these wordes. Relation is made vnto vs, that cer­taine Priests, doe not so many times receiue the grace of the holy communion, as they offer Sacrifice: but in one day, if they offer many Sacrifices to God, they suspend themselues from the Communion.

Is not this a fit testimony to proue, that there is no Sacrifice of the Masse? whereas it teacheth the quite contrary, to wit: that there were at that time Priests that did offer Sacrifice daily; but were complained on and repro­ued, for that they did not themselues communicate of euery Sacrifice which they offered. M. PER. biddeth vs marke, that the Sacrifice then, was but a kinde of seruice, because the Priest did not communicate. But why did not he marke, that they were therefore reprehended? as he well de­serueth to be, for grounding his argument vpon some simple Priests a­buse or ignorance.

Mileuit. cap. 12.Secondly he saith, That in an other Councell, the name of Masse is put for a forme of prayer. It hath pleased vs, that prayer, suppliations, and Masses, which shall be allowed in the Councell, be vsed.

Answ. Very good: It is indeed that forme of prayer, which the Catho­like Church hath alwayes vsed, set downe in the Missals or Masse-bookes; so that the Councell by him alleadged, doth allowe of Masse, Priests and Sacrifice: But (saith he very profoundly) Masses be compounded; but the Sacrifice propitiatory of the body and bloud of Christ, admitteth no compo­sition. This is so deepe and profound an obseruation of his, that I can scarce conjecture what he meaneth. The Masse (indeed) is a prayer com­posed of many parts; so (I weene) be all longer prayers: but in what sence can that be true, that the Sacrifice of Christ admitteth no composition? If he meane the passion of Christ on the Crosse, it was a bundell of Mirhe and heape of sorrowes, shames, and paines tyed together, and laid vpon the most innocent Lambe sweet IESVS: If he signifie their Lordes sup­per, doth it not consist of diuers partes, and hath it not many compositi­ons in it? let the good man then explicate himselfe better, that one may ghesse at his meaning, and then he shall be answered more particulerly. But Abbot Paschasius shall mende all (hee should by his Title of Abbot [Page 67] seeme rather likely to marre all) he saith, Because we sinne daylie, L. de cor­pore & sanguine Christi. Christ is sacrificed for vs mystically, and his passion is giuen vs in mistery. Very good: in the mistery of the Masse, Christ is sacrificed for vs; not as he was on the Crosse bloudily, but in mistery (that is) vnder the formes of bread and wine: which may serue to answere al that he citeth out of Paschasius; spe­cially considering, that in that whole treatise, and one or two other of the same Authour, his principall butte and marke is, to proue the reall pre­sence and Sacrifice. In the first Chapter of the booke cited by M. PER. he hath these wordes: Our Lord hath done all thinges in heauen and earth, as he will himselfe, and because it hath so pleased him, though the figure of bread and wine be here (that is) in the Sacrament: notwithstanding it is to be beleeued, that after consecration, there is nothing else, but the flesh and bloud of Christ; vvhich he also expresly proueth there at large. And in an other treatise of the same argument, he hath these, among many such like wordes. Christ, when he gaue his Disciples bread and broke it, did not say, this is a figure of my bo­dy, nor in this mistery there is a certaine vertue of it: but he said without dissimu­lation. This is my body, and therefore it is that which he said it was, and not that which men imagine it to be. Did I not tell you that this Abbot vvas like to helpe M. PER. but a litle? Thus at length we are come to the end of M. PER. reasons in fauour of their cause, let vs heare what he produceth for the Catholike party.

The first argument: Christ was a Priest for euer, after the order of Melchi­sedecke: but Melchisedeckes order was to Sacrifice in bread and wine, Psal. 109. ad Hebr. 5. & 7. there­fore Christ did offer vp Sacrifice in formes of bread and wine at his last supper.

And what Christ then did, that did he ordaine to be done to the worlds end, by the Apostles & their successors: therefore there is now in the true Church, a true and proper Sacrifice offered in our Lordes supper. To se­perate that which is certaine from that which is in question: first, it is gran­ted by all, that what Christ did in his last supper, that did he institute to be done by his Apostles, Priests, and by his Ministers their successors for euer af­ter: Also that Christ was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedecke; because both these haue euident warrant in the written word. That then which is to be proued, is, that this order of Melchisedeckes Priest-hood, doth properly or principally consist, in the forme & manner of his sacrificing. We say yea, M. PER. saith, no; and proueth it out of S. Paul, who shewing Christ to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedecke, doth make no mention of his Sacrifice; but compareth them together in many other points: as that he was a King of justice, a Prince of peace, without Father and Mother, Hebr. 7. or Genealogie; finally, that he tooke tithes of Abraham and blessed him: and in these points only (saith M. PERKINS) standeth the resemblance.

Reply. Not so: for that in none of these thinges doth any speciall order of Priest-hood consist: what his owne name or the name of his Citty doth signifie, are accidentall & incident thinges to Priest-hood; to receiue tithes and to blesse, belong to Priest-hood in deede, but generally to all sortes of Priest-hood, as well to the order of Aaron as to that of Melchisedecke; and therefore cānot distinguish one order of Priest-hood from another: Where­fore, it remaineth apparant that the proper order of Melchisedeckes Priest-hood, must be gathered, not from any of those circumstances specified by the Apostle, but out of the very forme and manner of sacrificing, which is (as it were) the correlatiue of a Priest, and his proper function; as the Apostle in the same Epistle defineth,Cap. 5. vers. 1. where he saith: That euery high Priest is appointed to offer Sacrifices for sinnes. Nowe, that both the order of Mel­chisedecke consisted in sacrificing bread and wine, and that therein Christ resembled him; let the learnedst and most holy ancient Fathers (no partial judges betweene vs, for they knewe neither of vs) be our arbitrators. Let vs heare first that famous Martyr S. Cyprian, vvho vpon those vvordes: Thou art a Priest for euer according vnto the order of Melchisedecke,Lib. 2. epist. 3. writeth thus. Which order surely is this, proceeding of that Sacrifice and thence descen­ding; that Melchisedecke was a Priest of the most high God, that he offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham. For who is rather a Priest of the most high, then our Lord Iesus Christ? that offered Sacrifice to God the Father, and did offer the same that Melchisedecke had offered, that is: bread and wine (to wit) his body and bloud. The same he repeateth in his treatise of our Lordes sup­per,De coena Domini. saying: That Sacraments signified by Melchisedecke, did then appeare, when our high Priest brought forth bread and wine, and said: This is my body. Can any thing be more plaine?

Epist. 126 ad Euag. S. Hierome following the sentence of the most ancient Doctors, Iereneus, Hippolitus, Eusebius, Apollinaris, and Eustathius, defineth the order of Mel­chisedecke to consist properly in this, that he offered not bloudy sacrifices of beasts, as Aaron did; but in single bread and wine, being a cleane and pure Sacrifice, did prefigure and dedicate the Sacrament of Christ. The same doth he teach vpon the twenty six Chapter of S. Mathewe.

S. Augustine in diuers passages of his most learned workes, doth con­firme the same most plainely: I will cite one. In the old Testament there was a Sacrifice after the order of Aaron: afterward Christ of his body and bloud or­dained a Sacrifice, according to the order of Melchisedecke.

He that desireth to see more of this point, let him reade Theodorete, Ar­nobius, Psal. 109. In cap. 7. & 10. Cassiodorus, and all ancient commentaries vpon that verse of the Psalme. Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Malchisedecke: and in like sort those who haue written vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes; and he [Page 69] shall find it, to be the generall resolute opinion of all antiquity, that Christ in his last supper did institute the Sacrifice of his body and bloud, vnder the formes of bread and wine, according to the order of Melchisedecke.

But why then did not the Apostle (treating of this resemblance be­tweene Christ and Melchisedecke) make mention of this point of the Sacri­fice? The reason is in readinesse, because it was not conuenient. First, it made not to his purpose, because he doth proue, that the order of Melchi­sedecke was more excellent then that of Aaron; which could not be proued by the Sacrifice of Melchisedecke in bread and wine, which were inferior vnto Beefes and Muttons, the sacrifices of Aaron. The second cause, was the weakenesse of those Hebrewes faith, who were not then sufficiently in­structed in Christes owne person, and in his Sacrifice on the Crosse, and therefore incapable of his Sacraments, and other mysteries thereupon de­pending; which the Apostle himselfe forewarneth, saying:Hebr. 5. vers. 11. Of Melchise­decke we haue great speach and inexplicable, because you are become weake to heare. Therefore very absurdly doe the Protestants argue here (ab authori­tate negatiuè, as they speake in Schooles) thus; The Apostle made no mention of this point of resemblance, therefore there is none such: whereas he himselfe told them before, that there were many profound points concerning Mel­chisedecke to be spoken off, which he omitted, because those Iewes vvere not (as yet) fit to heare them. And in truth, what could haue beene more out of season, then to haue spoken to them of the Sacrifice of the Masse (which is but a liuely resemblance of Christes death) vvho were not then rightly informed of Christes death it selfe?Epist. 126 He spake (saith S. Hierome) to the Iewes and not to the faithfull, to whome he might haue beene bold to vtter the Sacrament. And thus much to this first euasion of M. PERKINS.

Nowe to the second: That (forsooth) Melchisedecke, did not sacrifice at all in bread and wine, but only brought forth bread and wine, to refresh Abra­ham and his souldiers: and is called a Priest there, not in regard of any Sacrifice, but in consideration of his blessing of Abraham; as the wordes teach (saith he) And he was a Priest of the most high, and therefore he blessed him.

Reply. He deserueth to be blessed with a cudgell, that dareth thus per­uert the word of God. First, he addeth to the text this vvord therefore: againe, where the point in the Hebrewe text is at the end of this sentence, He was a Priest of the most high, he remoueth it to the end of the next clause, joyning that togither which is separated in the text: Thirdly, the reason is friuolous, as M. PER. pointeth it. For it can be no good reason vvhy Melchisedecke was a Priest, for that he blessed Abraham: for Abraham was a Priest as well as he; and often offered Sacrifice, as wel as Melchisedecke did. Nowe it standeth well, to declare why Melchisedecke brought forth bread [Page 70] and wine, because he was a Priest that vsed to Sacrifice in that kinde; and to honour and thanke God for that victory, he either did then presently or before had sacrificed it; and as such sanctified foode, made a present vnto Abraham of it, who needed not, either for himselfe, or for his soul­diers any victuals, because he retourned loaden vvith the spoile of foure Kinges: wherefore, the bread and wine that he brought forth, was a Sa­crifice and not common meate. And if further proofe needed, this is suffi­ciently confirmed by the Fathers already cited, who all teach, that bread and wine brought forth then by him, were Melchisedecke his Sacrifice, & a figure of ours. I will yet adde one more, out of that most ancient Patriarke Clement of Alexandria, L. 4. strom versus fi­nem. who saith: Melchisedecke King of Salem, Priest of the most high God, gaue bread and wine being a sanctified foode, in figure of the Eucharist.

The Protestants feeling themselues, wonderfully pinched and wringed with this example of Melchisedecke, assay yet (to escape from it) a third way.

For (saith M. PER.) be it graunted, that Melchisedecke offered bread and wine, and that it was also a figure of the Lordes supper: yet should bread and wine, he absurd tipes of no bread nor wine, but of the bare formes of bread and wine.

Reply. The thing prefigured must be more excellent then the figure, as the body surpasseth farre the shadowe: so, albeit the figure vvere but bread and wine; yet the thing prefigured, is the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine, sacrificed in an vnbloudy manner, as bread and wine are sacrificed without sh [...]dding bloud: and therein principally consisteth the resemblance. And thus much of our first argu­ment. Nowe to the second.

The Paschall lambe was first sacrificed vp, by the Master of the family, and then afterward eaten as a Sacrament: but the Eucharist succeedeth in roome of that, as the verity doth to the figure; therefore, it is first sacrifi­ced before it be receiued.

M. PER. first, denyeth the Paschall lambe to haue beene sacrificed: but yeeldeth no reason of his deniall, and therefore might without any further adoe be rejected. Yet fore-seing that we might easily proue it, to be sa­crificed by expresse Scripture (for Christ saith to his Disciples:Mar. 14. vers. 12. Exod. 12. vers. 6. Goe and prepare a place to sacrifice the passe-ouer, or Paschall lambe: also in Exodus Yee shall sacrifice the lambe the foure-tenth day of the Moneth; and in many o­ther places) to this hath he nought els to say, but that Sacrifice in those places is taken improperly for to kill only. His reason is, because that in one place of Scripture, the word Sacrifice is taken (saith he) for to kill: but in more then one hundreth, it is taken otherwayes, and that properly. Why then [Page 71] should we not take it there, as it doth vsually and properly signifie, rather then improperly? not any reason doth he render for it at all: but because it made so plaine against him, he must needes shift it off so wel as he could. But what if in the very place, where he saith it is taken for to kill only, and not for to Sacrifice, he be also deceiued? then hath he no colour to say, that in any place it is taken otherwise. Surely, the reason that he alleageth for it, is very insufficient. For by Iacobs bretheren inuited to his feast, may be vnderstood according to the Hebrewe phrase, men of his owne religion who might well come to his Sacrifice: wherefore, S. Paul calleth the Ro­mans, Corinthians, and men of all nations (that were Christians) his brethe­ren. But if the Paschall lambe were not properly sacrificed, howe could S. Paul resemble Christ crucified, vnto the Paschall Sacrificed? saying:1. Cor. 5. vers. 7. Dialog. cū Triph. Our Paschall lambe Christ is sacrificed. Surely, that famous and ancient Martyr Iustine, vvho vvas best acquainted vvith the rites of that people (himselfe being bredde and brought vp among them) saith most plainely; That the killing of the Paschall lambe among the Iewes, was a solemne Sacrifice, and a figure of Christ.

Wherefore, Master PERKINS prouideth an other answere to our ar­gument, and saith: That if it were graunted, that the passe-ouer were both a Sa­crifice and Sacrament: yet, would it make much against them. For they may say, that the supper of the Lord succeedeth it only in regard of the mayne end thereof, which is to increase our communion with Christ.

What is this a Gods blessing? if that be all the vse of it, the Lordes supper may also bee no Sacrament at all: for many other thinges be­sides Sacraments increase our communion with Christ. But to the pur­pose: our Lordes supper, and also the Paschall lambe vvere instituted, not only to increase our communion vvith Christ; but also to render thankes to God for benefits receiued: as their Paschall for their deli­uery out of the land of bondage; so our Eucharist, for our redemption from sinne and hell: and therefore, as they are Sacraments to feede our soules; so are they true Sacrifices to giue thankes to God for so high and singuler benefits. And because I loue not to leaue my reader in mat­ter of diuinity, naked reasons vvithout some authority; heare vvhat S. Ambrose speaking of Priests ministring the Lordes supper, saith:Lib. 1. in Lucam. When we doe offer Sacrifice, Christ is present, Christ is sacrificed: for Christ our passe-ouer is offered vp.

S. Leo is yet more plaine, vvho speaking of the passe-ouer, saith:Serm. 7. de pass. That shadowes might giue place to the body, and figures to the present veri­ly; the old obseruance is taken away by the newe Testament: one Sacrifice is turned to an other, and bloud excludeth bloud; and so the legall feast, [Page 72] whiles it is changed, is fulfilled. Marke howe the Eucharist succeedeth the Paschall lambe; the Sacrifice of the Paschall being changed into the Sacrifice of Christes body.

Our third argument is selected out of these vvordes of the Prophet Malachy.Cap. 1. vers. 11. I will take no pleasure in you (saith the Lord of Hostes) and I will not receiue a gift from your handes: for from the East vnto the West, great is my name among the Gentils, and in euery place a cleane oblation is sacrificed to my name. Hence we inferre, that after the reprobation of the Iewes, and calling of the Gentils (that is in the state of the newe Testament) a cleane Sacrifice shall be offered vnto God of the Gentils, being made Christians; as vvitnesseth the spirit of God in the holy Prophet: ergo. it cannot be denyed of Christians.

M. PERKINS answereth, That by that cleane Sacrifice is to be vnderstood the spirituall Sacrifice of prayers: because that the Apostle exhorting vs to pray for all states, hath these wordes; Lifting vp pure handes.

What good Sir, are cleane handes and a cleane Sacrifice all one vvith you? a worshipfull exposition. This man conferreth places of Scripture very handsomely together, and would no doubt, write a faire Commen­tary vpon the text, if he were let alone: but yet, tell me (I pray you) by the way, howe Christians can lift vp such pure handes, and offer so cleane a Sacrifice, if al their best workes be defiled with sinne, and no cleaner then a filthy menstruous cloute as you doe teach? But to confute him directly; our Lord speaketh there to the Priestes of the old lawe, and rebuketh them sharpely, for their fault committed in their Sacrifices offered to him: and therefore foretelleth them, that he will reject al their Sacrifices, and accept of an other cleane Sacrifice among the Gentils. Nowe as Sacrifice in the former part of his speach is taken most properly, as no man can denie: so must it be in the latter; or else, there were a great equiuocation in that sen­tence, and no plaine opposition of Sacrifice, to Sacrifice; cleane, to pollu­ted. And if he had reprehended the Iewes for their vnpure prayers, then had it beene correspondent to haue said, that he vvould haue receiued cleane prayers of others, in lieu of them: but inueighing against Priestes and sacrifices, the very order and proportion of the sentence necessarily re­quireth, that for those euill Priestes, and poluted sacrifices, he would esta­blish good Priestes, and cleane sacrifices, according vnto the proper signi­fication of the wordes. Againe, God is not so extreamely bent against the Iewes nowe, but that he would receiue the spirituall Sacrifice of prayer and thankes-giuing, euen from them, if they doe offer it; but he speaketh there of a kinde of Sacrifice that he vvill not receiue from their handes: therefore, that Sacrifice cannot be vnderstood, to be any such spirituall [Page 73] thing; but a true & proper kind of Sacrifice. And Iustine Martyr (whome M. PER. citeth) is so farre off from saying, supplications and thanks-giuing to be the only perfect Sacrifices that Christians haue, that in the very same Dialogue, he applieth this prophesie of Malachie, vnto the Sacrifice of the Masse, saying: That euen then, Malachie the Prophet did speake of our Sacrifices which are offered vp in all places, to wit: of the bread and Chalice of the Eucharist; which his equall Ireneus (cited also by M. PER.) doth more amply deliuer in these wordes. Christ tooke bread, and gaue thankes, L. 4. cont. Haeres. cap. 32. saying: This is my body, and that in the Chalice be confessed to be his bloud; which the Church receiuing from the Apostles, doth offer to God through the whole world, as the first fruites of his giftes; of which Malachie, one of the twelue Prophets, did prophesie thus: I take no pleasure in you, &c. citing the place all at large. It is to be noted, that in the Hebrewe text and Greeke translation, there is in the text of Malachie before a cleane Sacrifice, this word incense: Incense is offe­red to my name, and a cleane Sacrifice; the which the ancient Interpreters doe expound of prayer, and make it a distinct thing from the Sacrifice, there also distinctly put.Orat. cōt. Iud. ca. 9. S. Augustine doth proue out of this place of Ma­lachy, that the Leuiticall Sacrifices should all cease: and further, that though all their Sacrifices ceased; yet, there should stil remaine a true Sacrifice, to be of­fered by the Christians to the true God of Israell, and biddeth them open their eyes and see it. And in an other place specifieth, vvhat that Sacrifice is,Li. 18. de ciuit. c. 35 Li. 1. cōt. Aduersar. legis & Prophet. cap. 20. Lib. 4. de fide c. 14. saying: Nowe we see this Sacrifice by the Priest-hood of Christ, after the or­der of Melchisedecke to be offered: and againe, They knowe who read, what Melchisedecke brought forth, when he blessed Abraham (to wit) bread & wine, and they are partakers of it, and doe see such a Sacrifice to be offered nowe to God, throughout the whole world. Theodoret vpon that place of Malachy doth ex­presly teach, that according to his prophesie, There is now offered the im­maculate Lambe, in lieu of all their Sacrifices. And S. Iohn Damascene spea­king of the blessed Sacrament, saith: This is that pure and vnbloudy Sacrifice, that our Lord by his Prophet did foretell, to be offered from the rising of the sunne vnto the setting.

Thus much of the three first arguments, which M. PER. propounded in our fauour out of the olde Testament: but he hath skipped ouer other three which we haue in the newe, of which I must needes stand vpon one, because it is the ground of all the rest, the other two I am content to omitt for breuities sake: it is taken out of the wordes of consecration, and as our fourth argument may be framed thus.

Christ at his last supper did properly sacrifice vnto God, his owne body and bloud, vnder the formes of bread and wine: but what Christ then and there did, the same is to be done in the Church by his ordinance, vntill the worldes end: ergo. [Page 74] There is and alwayes must be, a proper Sacrifice in the true Church. They doe denie, that Christ offered any such Sacrifice in his last supper: we proue it thus,Luc. 22. by his owne wordes. For he saith, That his body which he gaue them to eate, was euen then giuen for them to God: & that his bloud was then presently shed for remission of their sinnes. But to offer his body and bloud to God, by such a sacred action, and vnder such visible creatures to be there eaten, is pro­perly to Sacrifice, ergo. Christ at his last supper did properly offer Sacri­fice. They answere, that albeit it be said in the present tense, then giuen and shedde: yet the meaning is, that it should be giuen only the morrowe after, on the Crosse; the present tense being put for the future: & further adde, that in the Canon of the Masse, the verbe is put in the future tense.

We reply, that men may not at their pleasure change tenses; or else the Iewes might defend, that our Messias were not yet borne: and if we proue it, saying; The Word is made flesh: they may (by this licence of changing the present tense into the future) say, that it is not so yet, but it shall be hereafter: therefore, to flie vnto chopping and changing the text, with­out any reason or authority, is rather to shift off, then to defend a cause well. But (say they) it is in the Masse booke, effundetur. God helpe the poore men, that louing the Masse no better, are driuen yet from the plaine text of holy Scripture, to flie to the Masse-booke for succour: but it vvill not serue their turne, because both are true, and agree vvell together. For Christes bloud vnder the forme of vvine, vvas presently sacrificed and shedde at his last supper; and the same in his owne forme, vvas to be shedde the morrowe after on the Crosse: and againe, vnder the forme of wine also, was to be shedde in the same Sacrament vnto the worldes end; so that truly & properly both may be said it is shedde, and it shall be shedde: and a good Interpreter of Scripture may not to delude the one, flie to the other, but defend both, because both be the vvordes of the holy Ghost. And the Greeke text in S. Luke doth inuincibly confirme, that the vvordes are to be taken in the present tense. For it hath; that the bloud as in the Chalice,Luc. 22. vers. 20. is powred out: Toúto tò potérion tò eckynómenon; This Chalice is powred out: it cannot therefore, be referred vnto that powring out, vvhich was to be made vpon the Crosse the day following, but to that that vvas powred in and out of the Chalice then presently. This might also be con­firmed, by the bloud which was sprinkled to confirme the old Testamēt; vnto which it seemeth that our Sauiour did allude, in this consecration of the Chalice.Exod. 24. vers. 8. For Moyses said: This is the bloud of the Testament; and our Sa­uiour:Hebr. 9. vers. 20. This is the bloud of the newe Testament. But that bloud which dedi­cated the old Testament, was first sacrificed to God: such therefore, vvas the bloud of the newe Testament. And to make the matter more cleare, [Page 75] let vs heare howe the best and most judicious Fathers (vvho receiued the right vnderstanding of the Scriptures, from the Apostles and their Schol­lers) doe take these vvordes of Christ.Lib. 4. cap. 32. Lib. 2. Epist. 3. In psa. 33 Conc. 2. Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. Homil. 2. in Post. ad Timoth. Orat. 1. de resur. You haue heard already out of S. Ireneus, That Christ taught at his last supper, the newe Sacrifice of the newe Testament. And out of S. Cyprian; Christ offered there a Sacrifice to his Father, after the order of Melchisedecke, taking bread, and making it his body. And out of S. Augustine, Christ instituted a Sacrifice of his body and bloud, according vnto the order of Melchisedecke, that is: vnder the formes of bread and wine: I adde vnto them S. Chrisostome, vvho saith; In steede of the slaughter of beastes, Christ hath commanded vs to offer vp him­selfe. And againe: Whether Peter or Paule, or an other Priest of meaner meritte, doe offer the holy Sacrifice, it is the same which Christ gaue to his Disciples, the which all Priestes nowe a dayes doe make; and this hath nothing lesse then that had. S. Gregory Nissene, Christ being both a Priest and the Lambe of God; offered himselfe a Sacrifice and Host for vs. When vvas this done? Euen then, when to his Disciples he gaue his body to eate, and his bloud to drinke. Isichius: First, Lib. 2. in Leui. c. 8. our Lord supped with his Apostles vpon the figuratiue Lambe, and afterward offered his owne Sacrifice. All these and many other of the most ancient Fathers, could finde a proper and reall Sacrifice in Christes supper. To omit S. Gregories authority, and all other his inferiors for this last thousand yeares, vvhome the Protestants acknowledge, v [...]holy to haue beleeued and taught the Sacrifice of the Masse. See Kemnitius in exam. Concilij Trid. page 826. & 827.

I omit some other good arguments, made for vs out of the newe Testa­ment, to returne vnto M. PERKINS, vvho proposeth this as the fourth reason for our party out of S. Paul. We haue an Altar,Hebr. 13. vers. 10. whereof they may not eate, who serue in the Tabernacle. Nowe say they, If we Christians haue an Altar, then must we consequently haue Priestes, and a proper kinde of Sacrifice: for these are correlatiues, and doe necessarily depend and followe one the other. M. PERKINS answereth, That the Altar there is to be taken not literally, but spiritually for Christ himselfe.

Reply. Obserue first, howe the Protestants are forced to flie from the plaine text of Scripture, and natiue signification of the vvordes, vnto a figuratiue & that without either reason or authority: secondly, I wish that M. P. would goe through with his paraphrase vpon the whole sentence; and if by the Altar he vnderstand Christ, then by eating of it, he will surely expound beleeuing in Christ, nowe like a prety Scholler that hath learned to read, let him put it all together, & say; That we Christians haue a Christ, in whome the Iewes may not beleeue: which is flat contradictory to that which the Apostle in that Epistle goeth about to perswade.Lib. 6. in Leui. c. 21 Isichius an ancient [Page 76] and worthy Author, in expresse tearmes doth expound these wordes, of the Altar of Christs body, which the Iewes for their incredulity were not wor­thy to behold; much lesse to be partakers of it: and therefore the Apostle, to moue the Iewes the rather to become Christians, signifieth: that so long as they serue in the tabernacle and continue Iewes, they depriue themselues of that great benefite, which they might haue, by receiuing the blessed Sa­crament. Nowe the wordes following in the text, which M. PER. citeth to interprete this sentence, belong nothing to it; but containe another rea­son to induce the Iewes to receiue Christ for their Messias, drawne for a cir­cumstance of their Sacrifices, thus: as the bodies of their Sacrifices, were burne without the Campe; so Christ suffered without the gate and citty of Hierusalem; and therefore, Christ was the truth prefigured by their Sa­crifices. It hath also an exhortation to depart out of the society of the Iewes, and to forgoe all the preferment and glory they might enjoy a­mong them, & to be content to suffer with Christ al contumelies. Briefly, there is not one word in the sentence before, to proue the Altar to be taken for Christ, but for a materiall Altar, vpon which the Christian Priestes, and offer the body and bloud of Christ in the blessed Sacrament; vvhich may be confirmed by that passage of the same Apostle:1. Cor. 10 vers. 21. You cannot drinke the cup of our Lord, and the cup of Deuils; you cannot be partakers of our Lordes table and the table of Deuils: where a comparison is made betweene our Sacrifice and table, and the Sacrifice and table of Idols; shewing first, that he vvho communicateth with the one of them, cannot be partaker of the other; and then, that he who drinketh of the bloud of the Sacrifice, is partaker of the Sacrifice. Nowe, the comparison were improper, if our cup were not the cup of a Sacrifice, as theirs was: nor our table a true Altar, as theirs was out of all doubt. And that shift of Kemnitius is not cleanely, who saith: That they who drinke of Christes cup, are partakers of his Sacrifice on the Crosse, but not of any Sacrifice there present. For S. Paules comparison is taken from the cup of a Sacrifice, to Idols immediately before offered; so that it doth conuince, our Chalice to be the cup of a Sacrifice, then presently immo­lated and offered vp.

The fift objection with M. PER. (which is our sixt argument) is this. Where alteration is both of lawe and couenant, there must needes be a newe Priest and a new Sacrifice;Hebr. 7. vers. 12. which is grounded vpon S. Paules wordes, who saith: That the Priest-hood being translated, it is necessary that a translation of the lawe be made: but in the newe Testament, there is alteration of both lawe and couenant; therefore there are both newe Priestes and a newe Sacrifice. M. PER. answe­reth, that all may be graunted, That there are both newe Priestes and a newe Sacrifice: Marry, no other Priest, but Christ himselfe both God and man, who [Page 77] as man is the Sacrifice, and as God the Altar.

Reply. Who euer heard such a proper peece of diuinity? is the God-head in Christ the Altar, vpon which he offereth? then is it not only infe­rior vnto God the Father, to whome the Sacrifice is offered: but the God-head in Christ is inferior to his man-hood, as the Altar is inferior vnto the Sacrifice and Priest. Againe, the man-hood in Christ being separated from the God-head, it not a Sacrifice of infinit value; and consequently, not sufficient to satisfie for al the sinnes of the world: so that nothing could be answered more absurdly. But his meaning (perhaps) was, That Christ sacrifycing himselfe on the Crosse, remayneth a Priest for euer, and is the only Priest of the newe Testament, in his owne person; and that by his only Sacrifice on the Crosse, and by no other.

Reply. Christes Sacrifice on the Crosse, is common aswell vnto all the faithful, that liued before his daies, euen from the beginning of the world: as vnto all that liued since; as effectuall and present vnto the one, as vnto the other:Apoc. 13. vers. 8. and therefore is he said to be the lambe slayne from the beginning of the world, so that notwithstanding this answere, the reason remaineth in his full force and vertue, that besides that Sacrifice on the Crosse, which is common to all; we must needes haue both newe and true Priestes and Sa­crifice, because we haue a newe lawe and couenant: for Christes Sacrifice on the Crosse, is no more actually present vnto vs, then it vvas vnto the Iewes, and all that were before him. And as touching the effect and benefit of that his Sacrifice, it was imparted and communicated, aswell vnto old Father Abraham, as vnto any that liued, or doth liue in the state of the newe Testament; and consequently, the Sacrifice on the Crosse, is not that pe­culiar Sacrifice, which goeth joyntly with the newe Testament. Which argument may be confirmed by this, that there was neuer any lawe or re­ligion in antiquity, without their proper Priestes, and without a true and reall Sacrifice: wherevpon it followeth, that the very natural light of mans vnderstanding doth teach vs, that God is alwayes to be worshipped with Sacrifice. Neither proceedeth this nut of the naturall corruption of men, (as Kemnitius is not ashamed to say:) but from the due consideration of mans bounden duty towardes God. For the holyest and best informed men in the lawe of nature, as Abel, Noe, Melchisedecke, Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, did often & most deuoutly offer vp Sacrifices vnto God: and in the lawe of Moyses, God himselfe prescribed vnto his people of Israel, diuers and sundry kindes of Sacrifices; so that it cannot but be a very impudent assertion to say, that to Sacrifice vnto God, issued out of the corruption of mans nature. And further, the very nature and end of a Sacrifice doth con­uince, that it is to be offered vnto God in all states and times. For what is a [Page 78] Sacrifice, but the most soueraigne honour, that man can externally exhi­bite vnto the Almighty? by not only vsing, but consuming some thing of price, to protest God to be the omnipotent Author of all things, and we his creatures: receiuing and holding our liues, and all our goodes (of both soule and body) of him. And if any aske me, whether it be not sufficient to doe this in hart inwardly, and outwardly to professe it in wordes? I an­swere, that it is not; but [...]ust besides thoughts and wordes, by actu­all deedes expresse the same. And the act of sacrificing, by the consent of the best learned of all Nations, hath beene and is approued and decla­red, for the only outward act of diuine honour proper vnto the Deity. Saint Augustine teacheth,Li. 2. cōt. Faustum. cap. 21. & de ciuitat. Dei. lib. 8. cap. 27. & l. 22. c. 10. & alibi. that the erecting of Altars; the consecrating of Priestes, and offering of Sacrifice, be thinges properly belonging vnto God; and that Christians (in deed) in memory of their Martirs, did these things: but yet, they did them only vnto God; and that the Pagans them­selues, did not honour any dead or aliue with Sacrifice; but such as they esteemed to be Gods: so that if we Christians, should want a true and proper Sacrifice, we should be lesse religious, then euer were any people, being destitute of the principall and chiefest part of true religion. And is it credible, that God should among vs only (whome he hath chosen to serue him most excellently) want the soueraigne point of his diuine ho­nour? surely no: wherefore, this our doctrine of a true Sacrifice to be daylie offered to God, is so farre from [...]asing the found [...]tion of religion to the bottome (as M. PER. writeth) as it vpholdeth the principall piller of religion: and they in denying of it, doe (as it were) strike of the head of Christian reli­gion. And who is of so meane wit, that seeth not their silly shift and last refuge of Christs Sacrifice on the crosse, to be but the last wordes that men foiled could vse [...] for very reason conuinceth, that there must be a reall Sa­crifice daylie offered by foure selected persons, whereat the rest of Christi­ans must be assembled, and meete to doe their fealty and homage, vnto the soueraigne Lord of heauen and earth; that God be not defrauded of that his supreame seruice. Nowe it is most manifest, that Christes Sacrifice on the crosse, was to be done but once, and being nowe past, can be no such ordinary [...]arbs of calling Christians together to performe any such du­ty: wherefore, cannot be that daylie Sacrifice which we Christians are to offer. But the vnbloudy oblation of his body and bloud, vnder the formes of bread and wine, is the most excellent Sacrifice (after that on the Crosse) that euer was; as containing the selfe same Host in substance, and being a most liuely representation of his death and passion: and therefore, by Christes owne institution it was established, as fittest for the perfect state of the newe Testament; and ordained, that it alone should be in steed of all [Page 79] other Sacrifices, as hath before beene proued by the testimony of the Fa­thers. I will here adde one place or two out of S. Augustine, who saith:L. 17. Ci­uit. c. 20. The Priest, who is the mediator of the newe Testament, doth exhibite to vs a table of his owne body and bloud, after the order of Melchisedecke. For that Sacri­fice doth succeede all other Sacrifices of the old Testament. Wherefore, it is said in the person of our mediator. Thou vvouldest 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 [Page 80] offered, or a [...]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 populūS. Chrysostome: I [...] [...] not vnad [...]isedly ordayned by the Apostles, that is the dreadful misteries, there should be made a commemoration of the dead. For they did kno [...]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 mystica [...]l Sacrifice, and the society of holy prayers.

S. Cyprian reporteth, An holy decree [...]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 Anacephalaeos [...]. S. Augustine ad Quod-v [...]lt-deum, haeresi 53. Damascene de centam haeresibus. So that no­ [...]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.

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; asSerm. 4. de Quadr. Idē ser, 10 S. Leo testifieth: secondly, the preparation of our minde, to meditate more deepely of our Lordes death and resurrection: thirdly, toS. 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 toIgnatius 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 bring with them temporall commodities; but those are in­cident and accidentary vnto them, not the speciall causes of them: and in Countries farre distant from the Sea, vvhere are no such fisher-men, the Lent is obserued as dulie as in our Iland, inuironed with the Sea.

Nowe to the third kinde of fasting, maintayned by M. PER., but seldome practised by his followers, which he calleth religious: because the duties of religion (as the exercise of prayer and humiliation) be practised during the time of this fast. But he doth amisse, to put this for one of the points of our agree­ment: for vve esteeme fasting it selfe (vvhen it is done, to appease Gods vvrath, and to honour him in our humiliation) to be an essentiall part of [Page 82] Gods worshippe; which the Protestants denie, and say: that fasting is only tearmed religious, because during the time of it, by prayers and preaching, and such like, they worshippe God: but so the very time, and place it selfe may be tearmed also religious, and many other such odde thinges; because they doe also concurre with actes of religion.

Let vs come to his second conclusion, to wit: We joyne with them in al­lowance of the principall and right endes of a religious fast, and they are three. The first, that thereby the minde may become attentiue in meditation of the duties of Godlines, to be by vs performed. The second, that the rebellion of the flesh may be subdued: for the flesh pampered, becommeth an instrument of licentiousnesse. The third, and (if he mistake not) the chiefest end of a religious fast, is; to pro­fesse our guiltinesse, and to testifie our humiliation before God for our sinnes: and for this end in the fastes of the Niniuites, the very beastes were made to abstayne. Hitherto Master PERKINS.

We besides the three afore-said endes, adde diuers others: as to punish & chastise our flesh for former offences, which is an act of justice: to obey the Churches commandement, which is a religious obedience; and at this time it may be an act of professing the Catholike faith, when we obserue set fastings, to make profession of our faith: and to fast, thereby to imitate and please our head Christ Iesus, is an act of perfect charity.

But let vs returne vnto M. PERKINS third conclusion, which is: We yeeld vnto them, that fasting is a helpe and furtherance vnto the worshippe of God: yea, and a good worke also (if it be vsed in good manner) allowed of God, and to be highly esteemed of all the seruants of God.

All this is good: but whereas he saith that fasting in it selfe, is a thing in­different; he abuseth the name of fasting, taking it to signifie all manner of abstinence from meate and drinke: and so (in deede) it is in it selfe indiffe­rent, & may be either good or badde, as if one should abstaine from foode to pine himselfe away. But fasting being properly taken, signifieth an absti­nence from meate, according vnto some set rule of the Catholike Church, the better to please and serue God: and so it is of it selfe, an act of the true worshippe of God.

THE DIFEERENCE.

MAster PERKINS: Our dissent from the Church of Rome in the dostrine of fasting, standeth in three points: First, about the set time of fasting: Secondly, about the manner of abstinence, and what meate is to be eaten on fasting dayes: Thirdly, about the vertue and value of fasting. Concerning the first. The Catholikes appoint and pr [...]scribe set times of fasting as necessary to be kept: We hold that no set ordinary time is to be appointed, but that the Gouernours of the Church, may sometimes vpon certaine occasions, enjoyne a religious fast. Our rea­sons [Page 83] be these. First, when the disciples of Iohn asked Christ why they and the Pharasees fasted often, but his Disciples fasted not; he answered. Math. 9. vers. 15. Can the children of the marriage-chamber mourne, as long as the Bridegrome is with them? but the dayes will come, when the Bridegrome shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast: where he giueth them to vnderstand, that they must fast as occasions of mourning are offered. Whence also I gather, that a set time of fasting is no more to be enjoyned, then a set time of mourning.

And this is all the reasons which M. PER. maketh for their opinion, ex­cept the record of antiquity, of which afterward. This reason of his, as also the other testimonies following, are so formall for him and fit for his purpose; that they doe much more proue the cleane contrary. For first, (admitting M. PER. collection, that there must then be a set time of fasting, when there is a set time of mourning) I inferre thereupon, and that expresly out of that text; That when the Bridegrome is taken from vs, then is the time of mourning: but that hath beene euer since Christes Ascension to heauen; for then was Christ our Bridegrome taken from vs: therefore, euer since Christes Ascension, there was alwayes or ought to haue beene, a set time of fasting in the Church. And this reason,De jejunio did the ancient Christians vvith Tertullian yeeld, of their yearely fasting of Lent. With vvhome S. Au­gustine agreeth, saying: Nowe therefore, Serm. 157 de Temp. because the Bridegrome is taken away from vs, we the children of that beautifull Bridegrome, must mourne; and that for good cause, if we ardently desire to be in his company: so that the same place, vvhich M. PERKINS alleageth against a set time of fasting, doth (taken euen in the very sence that he taketh it) demonstrate the flat contrary. He further citeth out of antiquity two testimonies, vvhich make as euidently against himselfe. The first out of S. Augustine, vvho hath these vvordes: I diligently considering thereof, Epist. 86. in the Euangelicall and Apostolicall letters, and in all that instrument which is called the newe Testament, doe see; that fasting is commanded: but on what dayes we ought not to fast, and on what we ought, I doe not finde it determined by the commandement of our Lord, or of the Apostles. Hence inferreth Master PERKINS, That Au­gustine was of opinion that there was no set times of fasting. But the man here as else-vvhere, sheweth himselfe to haue no conscience: for in the very same Epistle S. Augustine teacheth, that all the Church fasted at that time, euery Wednesday and Friday through the yeare: and admit­teth S. Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, to haue beene the founders of that set and ordinary fast. And in his Epistle he giueth the reason,119. c. 15. L. 30. cōt. Faust. c. 3. vvhy vve fast fourty dayes before Easter: and againe he saith, That the fast of Lent was by the consent of all men, obserued ouer all the world, euery yeare most diligently. What (therefore) could be further from this most [Page 84] circumspect and judicious Doctors minde, then to thinke or teach, that there vvas no certayne time of fasting to be obserued? true it is, that he found not expresly in holy Scripture, this certaine time defined. And note that repeating the same wordes againe towards the end of the said epistle, he addeth thereto these two wordes, to wit: in those Scriptures (which be properly so called) he did not finde it euidently defined, vvhat dayes vve are to fast. Which word euidently, he addeth (as I take it) because that els where he saith,Epist. 119 cap. 15. Serm. 64. de temp. that the fourty dayes fast of Lent, hath authority at out of the old lawe, so out of the Gospell; because our Lord fasted so many dayes, and by his example consecrated it, as he saith: so that finally, we find with S. Augustine M. PER. first witnesse, some dayes euery weeke of set fasting, and once in the yeare a solemne set fast of fourty dayes together.

Cont. Psy­chicos.M. PERKINS other Authour is Tertullian, in his booke against sensuall men; wherein he is so farre opposite to M. PER. opinion, that he runneth into the other extremity. The Protestants would haue no set time of fa­sting, not so much as one Lent: Tertullian pleading for the Mōtanists would haue three Lents euery yeare; and a farre stricter kinde of fasting, then the Catholike Church commandeth. But the goodman (perhaps) mista­king his Authour, would haue said; that Catholikes (as Tertullian repor­teth) did argue against his errour, and said: that it vvas a newe doctrine which he taught; and that true Christians were at their liberty, and not bound to receiue such newe inuentions of Montanus about fasting, though he vaunted, that he had that doctrine from the holy Ghost. But in this point we must not hearken vnto Tertullian a Patron of that errour: nor be­leeue his reportes of the Catholikes arguments against him, which he (af­ter the fashion of Heretikes) doth frame, and propose odiously.

Li. 5. hist. cap. 17.But Eusebius saith, that Montanus was the first, that made lawes of fasting.

See the place (gentle reader) either in the Greeke or Latin text, except that of Basil; and thou shalt finde there these only vvordes cited out of Apollonius: That Montanus made newe lawes of fasting, not that he vvas the first that made any lawes of fasting; but was noted as an Heretike for making newe lawes of fasting. Whence it plainely followeth, that there were other old lawes of fasting before his time, which contented not his humour, but taking pride in his owne inuention (as all Heretikes doe) he was not satisfied with one Lent, but would haue three Lents euery yeare: and vpon euery fasting day, commanded all his adherents to touch no­thing, vntill the Sunne were set; and then they should eate neither flesh nor fish, nor ought else hotte or moist; but cold, drie, and hard thinges. For which his ouer rigorous and stearne kinde of fasting, inuented by [Page 85] himselfe and obstinately defended, he vvas condemned for an Heretike; and his newe precepts of fasting rejected by the ancient Christians: and this may serue for a confutation of M. PERKINS reasons for their party. Nowe I vvill briefly confirme ours, vvhich he setteth downe by manner of objections. First,Leuit. 16. vers. 28. in the old Testament there vvere prescribed and set fastes, approued by God, which M. PER. confesseth, to haue beene part of the legall worshippe, and saith: That God commanded those then, but nowe hath left vs to our liberty.

Reply. God hauing commanded fasting as a part of his worshippe then, (as M. PER. confesseth) it being no judiciall or ceremoniall part of the lawe, but morall, and appertayning to the mastring of euery mans owne vn­brideled concupiscence; he did sufficiently teach al considerate men, that it was alwayes to be vsed for part of his worshippe; for that alwayes men should stand in neede of it, they being alwayes subject to the same rebel­lion of their flesh. And though we be freed from all vncleane meates of the lawe, and from the Iewes set times of fasting: yet, the band of fasting remayneth, because the reason of it is still in force; and we are subject to the Pastours of the Church, and bound to obey them, for the time and manner of our fasting.

Our second argument. The Gouernours of the Sinagogue had full power and authority to prescribe set times of fasting, and all the people of God vvere bound to obey them therein, as appeareth in the Prophet Zachary, who maketh mention of the fastes of the fourth, fift,Cap. 7. vers. 5. & Cap. 8. vers. 19. eight and ninth Monethes; which were not commanded by the lawe, but afterward enjoyned by the rulers of the Church. Nowe then, if the Pastours of that Sinagogue had such authority, much more haue the Prelates of the church nowe since Christes time, who hath indued them with much more ample authority, then the Iewes had before Christ. M. PER. answereth, that those fastes mentioned in Zachary, were appointed vpon occassions of the affliction of the Church in Babilon, and ceased vpon their deliuerance.

Reply. The Prophet in the same place hath plainely preuented this ans­were: for he saith, That they then in the beginning of that captiuity, Cap. 7. Cap. 8. had already fasted seauenty yeares: and addeth, That they should continue those fastes, vntill the Gentils should joyne with them in faith, vvhich vvas for foure hundreth yeares after. Adde herevnto, a fast & feast appointed at the instance of the most vertuous Queene Hester and good Mardocheus, Hest. 9. vers. 31. to be alwayes after­ward obserued by the Israelites, in remembrance of their preseruation.

The third argument. Although in the newe Testament, there be no euident testimony for a set time of fasting (as S. Augustine saith) yet there is some mention made of a set time of fasting:Act. 27. vers. 8. Whereas nowe it was not safe [Page 86] sayling, because the fast nowe was past. True it is, that some doe expound this of the Iewes set fast in the Moneth of September; but that exposition is not so probable: for after that time of the yeare (especially in those hot coun­tries) it is very safe sailing; and therefore, it cannot so wel be vnderstood of that season. Againe S. Luke wrote the acts of the Apostles, rather for the Gentils then for the Iewes, he being a companion of the Doctor of the Gen­tils: and therefore it is more probable, that he describeth the set fast of the Christian Gentils, which was in the moneth of December, nowe called em­ber dayes, when ordinarily Priestes and other ecclesiasticall persons were consecrated; as may be seeme in the pontiffical of Pope Damasus, who liued one thousand two hundreth yeares past. And this season of the yeare, a­greeth well with the text: for about, and after that time, it is perilous say­ling, the seas and windes growing bigge and tempesteous.

Epist. 86.The fourth argument, out of S. Augustine before alleadged. The Apo­stles instituted wensdayes and fridayes to be fasted euery weeke; the which Epi­phanius also confirmeth:Haeres. 75 and it is touched in the 68. Canon of the Apo­stles; so that it is an Apostolicall ordinance to fast euery weeke. Besides, the fast of fourty daies before Easter called Lent to be an Apostolical Tra­dition,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 witnessethAd 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 BishopHaeres. 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 [Page 87] 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) [Page 88] 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, then the eating of fish. For flesh, both in it selfe is more nourishing, as being of a more warme substance and fuller of [...]uyce, then fish: and againe, it is more like vnto our substance, and so more apt to feed it; and consequently, to make it (like a well fedde horse) more proude and ready to resist reason: and therefore, our Prelates had great cause to forbid eating of flesh, when they would haue vs to tame our flesh by fasting. If some dainty fish be more agreeable vnto some appetites, then some kinde of grosse meate; that is not materiall: For in comparisons if they be equall, the best of the one must be compared with the best of the other, and not the worst of one [Page 89] sort, with the best of the other. Now, ouermuch filling of our bellies with meate, as ouer charging of our heads with drinke, and hunting after dain­ty cares; are, by the very light of nature condemned, and so there needed no newe inhibition against them: but the only thing that remained indif­ferent, was the distinction of meates; wherein the wisdome of the Church hath greatly shewed her selfe: which, to make our fast more agreable vn­to the proper end of it (that is to tame the flesh) hath enjoyned vs to ab­staine from flesh. And this was obserued and collected out of the practise of her most wise, holy, and Godly children. For the Prophet Daniel when he did fast very deuoutly, abstayned, as from all dainties;Cap. 10. vers. 3. so from flesh and wine. S. Iohn Baptist (the perfect paterne of mortification of fleshly concupiscence) did neuer eate any flesh: but wilde hony, Mat. 3, 4. Orat. de Amor. pauper. and locustes were his foode. S. Peter (as that vvorthy Doctor Nazianzene reporteth) did commonly eate but a certayne kinde of pulse. S. Mathewe eate no flesh, but hearbes, fruite, and rootes; asL. 2. Pae­dag. ca. 2. Clemens Patriarke of Alexandria hath regi­stred. S. Iames (asL. 2. hist. cap. 22. Eusebius rehearseth) neuer eate flesh, nor dranke wine: the like he relateth out of Philo in the same booke,Cap. 17. of those most blessed Christians of Alexandria, gouerned by S. Marke the Euangelist. A man may finde very many like examples in antiquity: but that precisely vpon fasting dayes in Lent, vve must abstayne from flesh, these Doctors by name doe teach:Orat. 2. de jejun. S. Basil, Hom. 6. in Genesi. S. Chrisostome, Catech. 4 Cyril Hierom. L. 30. cōt. Faust. c. 3. S. Augustine, L. 2. cont. Iouinianū. S. Hierome. These most Godly and most juditious Fathers, and (with all) best acquainted with the managing of spirituall affaires, are (I hope) rather to be hearkened vnto, in the matter of distinction of meates, and to be esteemed more expert therein, then a million of our fleshly Ministers (whose belly seemeth to be their God) that may in no case abide to be a­bridged of the bodily pleasures. But to proceede.

You haue hitherto heard howe faintly M. PERKINS hath proued this distinction of meates to be foolish: nowe you shall see, howe he doth de­monstrate it to be wicked. It (saith he) taketh away the liberty of Christians, by which vnto the pure, all thinges are pure: and the Apostle biddeth vs to stand fast in this liberty, which the Church of Rome would th [...]s abolish. Galat. 5.

Answere. The Roman Church taught long before, and much better then you; that no meates are vncleane vnto Christians, either of their owne natures, or for any signification as they were in the old Testament: and aboue one thousand and two hundred yeares past, condemned the Encratites (Tatianus disciples) the Manichees, and Priscillianists for teach­ing flesh, wine, and many other meates, to be vncleane: but the same Church doth also command, that vpon some certayne dayes, vvhen vve are to humble our selues in prayer, and to afflict our bodies by fasting; [Page 90] that then wee must abstaine from the more delightfull and nourishing foode: as flesh, egges, and white-meate, and be content with one meale of fish. This commandement of our Gouernors, doth not make the meate vncleane in it selfe: but vnlawfull for vs to eate of it, for that time only.

But, (saith M. PERKINS) It is against Christian liberty to be debarred of flesh at any time, by any Superiour; for God only hath reserued vnto himselfe that power, of forbidding to eate meates: so that without his owne expresse inhibi­tion, Christians cannot be depriued of any kinde of meate.

Behold an audacious assertion, without any ground: For albeit we Christians be exempted from all vncleane meates of Moyses lawe; yet, are we subject to the order of our Gouernours, for the manner of fasting; as hath bin proued before. Neither hath God so kep [...] in his owne handes, the disposition of his creatures; but that he hath permitted others, to make diuers sorts of meates vnlawfull for Christians to eate: as it is most mani­fest by the first Councell holden by the Apostles.Act. 15. vers. 29. For they had full pow­er to command and enjoyne all Christians, to abstaine from all meates offered to Idols, from all strangled thinges, and from bloud. How plainely then, doth it repugne vnto the expresse word of God, to auerre tha [...] God only can forbid Christians any kind of meate? Neither be these precisely the Apo­stles wordes:Gallat. 5. stand fast & hold this liberty, which he cited out of the Apostle, nor is there any mention made of fasting, but of circumcision; and gene­rally of the obseruation of Moyses law. The Apostle doth blame the Gala­thians for yeelding vnto the obseruation of it, & biddeth them to flie from it, and stand in the liberty of other Christians, who were freed from the yoke of Moyses lawe; but not from obedience to their Christian Pastours. Howe absurd then was it to alleadge that against Christian fasting, which doth nothing at all concerne it?

Nowe to the other place of the Apostle which M. PERKINS toucheth by the vvay,1 Tim. 4. Cont. Adi­mantum. cap. 14. to wit: That certaine departing from the faith, and attending vnto the spirit of errour, shall teach to abstaine from meates, which God crea­ted to be receiued with thankes-giuing. To this Saint Augustine hath ans­vvered directly tvvelue hundreth yeares a-goe: for hauing rehearsed those the Apostles vvordes, he saith: He doth not describe and note them, who, doe abstaine from such meates, eyther to bridle their owne concupiscence, or not to giue offence▪ vnto the weakenes of others: but them that doe thinke the flesh in it selfe to bee vncleane, and deny God to bee Creator of such meates. Such vvere the Manichees (as Saint Augustine vvitnesseth) saying to Fau­stus a ring-leader among them:Lib. 30. cap. 5. You deny the creature of God to be good, and say it is vncleane, because the Deuill doth make flesh of a more dreggy and base matter of euill, &c. So doth Saint Hierome in his second booke against [Page 91] Iouinian, expound the same place of Saint Paul; and before them Tertul­lian in his Treatise of fasting, saying:Cap. 15. that the Apostle there condemned be­fore hand, Martion and Tatianus. And the very reason, vvhich the Apo­stle giueth in the text, conuinceth those vvordes to be only meant of such as should condemne the meate in it selfe to be vncleane, For it follow­eth in the text; For euery creature of God is good, &c. vvherefore, touching this place I vvill conclude vvith these vvordes of Saint Augustine: L. 30. cōt. Faustum. cap. 3. If Lent bee obserued of your selues without flesh, and that not superstitiously, but ac­cording vnto the lawe of God; see (I beseech you) whether it be not a point of extreame madnesse, to thinke euery abstinence from meate to bee called of S. Paul, the doctrine of Deuils.

But Socrates (a Christian hystoriographer) saith,Li. 5. hist. cap. 21. That the Apostles left it free to euery one, to vse what kinde of meates they would on fasting dayes.

What if Socrates say so that was an Heretike, and nothing so wel studied in antiquity, as was S. Hierome, who had read all Authours, Latin, Greeke, and Hebrewe, that vvere to be had in his time? He affirmeth expresly,Epist. 54. ad Mar­cellum. that it was a Tradition of the Apostles to fast Lent, and teacheth abstinence from flesh to be an essential part of fasting: as also S. Augustine in the place last cited, holdeth it to be a diuine lawe, to fast from flesh in the Lent. And diuers and many other ancient Fathers, the least of whome is of twenty times more credit then the Nouatian Heretike Socrates: vvho also in the very same place (if his booke be not corrupted) sheweth himselfe very ignorant in the fast of the Romans. For he there saith,Lib. 5. cap. 21. That they fasted but three weekes before Easter; and in those three weekes also, excepted the Satur­dayes: both which are very false. For Leo the great, who liued at the same time, and was Bishop of Rome, and therefore knewe the fastes of Rome bet­ter then he, teacheth very formally;Serm. 3. de Quadr. Epist. 86. That they fasted then six whole weekes before Easter. Furthermore, that they fasted all the yeare long at Rome on Saturdayes, S. Augustine is a most sufficient vvitnesse; so farre were they at Rome, from excepting to fast on Saturday in Lent, as Socrates fableth. Yea, Gregory the great vvho liued not long after Socrates, doth testifie;Li. 3. Dia­log. c. 33. that at Rome all euen vnto little children, doe fast vpon Saturday, Easter-eue.

But Spiridion a very holy man in Lent dressed swines-flesh, and set it be­fore a stranger; eating himselfe, and bidding the stranger also to eate: Hist. Trip. li. 1. c. 10. who refusing and professing himselfe to be a Christian; therefore (saith he) the ra­ther must thou doe it▪ for to the pure all thinges are pure, as the word of God [...]eacheth vs.

Answ. In time of sickenesse or extreame necessity, it is lawful (with the consent and licence specially of our Pastour) to eate flesh, either in Lent, [Page 92] or vpon any other fasting day: as all men skilfull in cases of conscien [...], doe teach,De obser. jejunij. cap. Con­silium. being therevnto warranted by the Canon lawe. This vvas the case of that stranger with Spiridion, vvho had not so much as one morsell of bread in his howse, or any other thing, sauing some swines-flesh povvdered vp; as the text doth plainely testifie: and therefore he seeing the poore trauailer very vveary after his journey, comman­ded some of that salted porke to be dressed to refresh him. Besides, Spiridion asked first pardon of God, before he set it before the stranger; and the stranger refused at the first to eate of it, because it was against the custome of Christians: both which circumstances doe euidently conuince, that no flesh was to be eaten in that time of Lent, had not ve­ry necessity with the leaue of such a godly Bishop as Spiridion was, made it lawefull: so that this story, so often alleadged by the Protestants against abstinence from flesh on fasting dayes; doth much rather con­firme such abstinence, then make any thing against it, all circumstances of it duely considered.

Before I come vnto the third point of difference, I will briefly runne ouer three objections,Ierem. 35. which M. PER. here maketh for vs. The first: Io­nadab commanded the Recharbites to abstaine from wine which they obeyed, and are much commended for it by God: much more (therefore) ought we to obey our Superiours commanding abstinence from some kinde of meates. He answe­reth, that this commandement was not giuen by Ionadab in way of religion, but for politike regardes.

Reply. This he saith only but proueth it not. But suppose it were so, it would not serue his turne: for if he were obeyed for a ciuill respect, much rather ought he to haue beene obeyed for an ecclesiasticall and re­ligious.

Dun. 10. vers. 3.The second objection. Daniell, three weekes together abstained from flesh, and his example is our warrant. M. PER. answereth: that Daniell abstained freely; but the Popish abstinence from flesh standeth by commandement.

Reply. Daniels fast was of his owne deuotion, and consequently his ab­stinence from flesh, free: but our ordinary fasts are by commandement, and therefore by obedience we are bound to abstaine from flesh. Nowe, we vse the example of Daniell, not to proue that we are bound to fast; but that on fasting dayes we should for-goe the eating of flesh, as he did.

But M. PER. addeth: If we imitate Daniell in refraining from flesh, why doe we not imitate him also in abstaining from dainties and oyntements.

Answere: They doe better that imitate him in one good point though they doe not in all; then they that followe him in none at all. Besides, all curious dainties are forbidden, not only on fasting dayes, but at all times, [Page 93] both by the light of nature, and by our learned Pastors: but because that may be dainty to one, which is but ordinary and meete for another (their complexion and education considered) a certaine order could not be set for all sortes of people, touching dainty meates: wherefore, they are left vnto the rule of reason for that point, and to the instruction of their Pa­stours. Nowe we confesse with Molanus, that in ancient times, men were much more feruent in fasting then they be nowe a-dayes, because the cha­rity of many is growne colde: but yet (God be thanked) there be many religious persons and also others among vs, that doe an hundreth times more deuoutly fast, then the Protestants vse to doe; who making the li­berty of Christians, the occasion of fleshly licentiousnesse, haue among their followers (wholy in manner) ruinated and rooted out all austerity of life, and Ecclesiasticall discipline.

Thirdly (saith M. PER.) they alleadge the diet of Iohn Baptist,Math. 3. 1. Tim. 5. vers. 23. whose meate was locustes and wilde hony: and of Timothy who abstayned from wine. Answere. That abstinence which they vsed was only for temperance sake, and not for conscience or merit: let them proue the contrary if they can.

Reply. Valiantly spoken: but vvhy did he not proue his assertion? what was it, because he could not? the contrary is very easie to be proued. For if that diet of S. Iohn Baptist was only for temperance, then (belike) if he had eaten meate as other men did, he had beene intemperate, and sin­ned in gluttony: which if it be absurd to thinke, more absurd is it to say; that his continuall abstinence, wa [...] only for temperance sake.

Nowe to the third and last part of our difference. Catholikes make ab­stinence it selfe, in persons fitly prepared; to be a part of the worshipping of God: but we take it to be a thing indifferent in it selfe: but yet well vsed, to be a proppe or furtherance to the worshippe of God.

It grieueth me to see the doubling and deceite, that this Minister many times vseth. Doe Catholikes make fasting of it selfe, vvithout his right end and all due circumstances, a part of Gods vvorshippe? if he say so (as his vvordes leade a man to beleeue) he belyeth vs shamefully. For vve hold that no worke, be it neuer so good in it selfe; yet, if it want either a good end, or any other due circumstance, it is not good or pleasing to God. The point then in difference is this, that vve esteeme fasting duly performed, to be a part of Gods worshippe, and to appease vvrath to­wardes vs, to satisfie for the temporall punishment of our sinnes; and fi­nally to be meritorious: which I will in a word confirme here, referring him that desireth to see more, vnto the seuerall Questions before handled, of Satisfaction, and Merits.

First, that God is thereby worshipped,Luc. 2.37 it it set downe plainely in holy [Page 94] Scripture. Aurae by fasting and prayers, serued (or worshipped) God, as the Greeke vvord Latreuósa signifieth.Rom. 12. vers. 1. Againe, exhibite your bodyes (by fa­sting as the best Expositors declare) a liuing Host (or Sacrifice) holy, and pleasing God. And the reason is manifest: for vvhen vve for his sake, doe afflict our bodyes, both to master the euill passions of it, and that our minde may more freely and feruently meditate vpon God, it cannot but be a gratefull seruice vnto him.

Secondly, that vve by fasting and humbling of our selues before God, and punishing our bodyes there-by, for our former faultes doe appease, and pacifie the vvrath of God, may be proued by many examples of the old Testament; but these two may serue the turne, which M. PERKINS toucheth. The first of the Niniuites, vpon whome God tooke mercy at the contemplation of their fasting, and other workes of penance: so saith the text; And God sawe their workes, Ionae 3. vers. 10. &c. And had mercy vpon them: and therefore, vve condemne M. PERKINS extrauagant glosse of Orleance (as they say) vvhich corrupteth so much the text; That the Niniuites (forsooth) laide hold on Gods mercy in Christ by faith. For that the Niniuites (being Gentils) had euer heard of Christ, or knewe the mistery of his mediation, Master PERKINS vvill neuer be able to proue.

The second example is of King Achab, vvho being threatned vvith great punishment according to his deserts, fearing the just judgements of God, did fast and doe great penance: Whereupon, God delaide his punishment. And M. PERKINS doth greatly ouer-shoote himselfe, in affirming that this his repentance was but hypocrisie; vvhen God himselfe doth say to Elias: 3. Reg. 21. vers. 29. Hast thou not seene Achab humbled before me? Therefore, because he hath humbled himselfe for my sake, I will not bring euill vpon his house in his dayes, but in the dayes of his Sonne. God saith that Achab vvas humbled for Gods owne sake: and M. PERKINS blusheth not to cor­rect him, and giue him (as it vvere) the lie, saying; that it was but in hypocrisie: no meruaile if this man be bold with God his Church, that feareth not to controule God himselfe.Serm. de Laps. Ioel. 2. S. Cyprian testifieth plainely, that by fasting we asswage and mitigate Gods angre, saying: Let vs ap­pease his wrath (as he himselfe admonisheth vs) by fasting, weeping, and lamentings.

The third fruit of fasting is, to satisfie for the temporall punishment due vnto our sinnes, after the remission of the eternall: vvhich very rea­son perswadeth, that they who haue offended God, by taking vnlawfull pleasures of the flesh, should by suffering some bodily chastisement, recompence for their former faultes.Lib. de je­ [...]nio. For as saith Tertullian: Euen as fast the vse of meate did vndo [...] vs: so fasting may satisfie God: vvhich might be [Page 95] confirmed by the example of King Dauid, and many others. But M. PER. crieth out and saith: It is blasphemy to hold, that any other meanes should be ap­plyed to satisfie for sinne, besides Christes passion. To this I haue answered at large in the question of satisfaction: here I say in a word, that all mortall sinne, and the eternall punishment due vnto sinners therefore, is freely through Christ remitted to euery repentant sinner; but there remaineth after that remission, other temporall paine to be endured by the party him selfe, as wel to make him conformable to Christ his head, as in punishment of his vngratefull fall, after he was once freely and fully pardoned.

Fourthly, fasting is very meritorious in Gods sight, as Christ saith ex­presly, when commanding vs to fast (not vpon vaine glory as the Phara­sees did, but to please his heauenly Father) he addeth the reward:Math. 6. vers. 18. Dan. 10▪ vers. 12. And thy Father who seeth thee in secret, will repay thee.

And to Daniel the Angell saith: Because from the first day that thou gauest thy hart to vnderstand, thou diddest afflict thee in my sight (which was by fa­sting) thy wordes were heard, and I came for thy speeches sake.

S. Paul (that chosen vessell of election) doth chastise his body (which was specially by fasting,1. Cor. 9. vers. 27. as S. Chrysostome and the other Interpreters doe take it) & brought it vnder into bondage, least whiles he preached to others, he himselfe might become a reprobate. If one would stand to collect the Sermons of the Holy Fathers, made in the praise of fasting, he might fill a whole volume: take for a taste these fewe wordes out of S. Basil. Homil. 1. de jejunio. Moyses durst not haue as­cended into the mountayne, vnlesse he had beene fenced with fasting: by fasting he receiued the Commandements, written in a table by the Finger of God. A little after: Fasting leadeth vs to God, feasting to destruction. Samuel was by fasting and prayer obtayned of God. What made the most valiant Sampson inuincible? was it not fasting? through which he was conceiued in his mothers wombe: fasting conceiued him, fasting nourished him, and fasting made him strong. Fasting bree­deth Prophets, it strengthneth the mighty, it maketh lawe-makers prudent and wise: besides, it chaseth away temptations, and armeth a man to Godlinesse; it sanctifieth the Nazarite, perfecteth the Priest. Neither is it lawfull to touch the Sacrifice without fasting, not only in this our 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 [Page 96] 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: [...]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.

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.

THE DIFFERENCE.

OVr dissent lyeth in the manner of worshipping: the Papists make two de­grees of religious worshippe, &c.

Because the Protestants doe seeme not to vnderstand the Catholike do­ctrine, concerning the worshipping of Saints, but out of their affected ignorance, doe esteeme vs therefore Idolaters: I hold it expedient to ex­plicate the state of this question more particulerly.

To beginne then with this word worshippe: it doth signifie a knowledge or conceite of an other mans excellency, joyned with a reuerent respect to the same person, vvith some either inward or outward acknowledge­ment thereof: so that all worshippe is due and done vnto an other, in re­gard of some excellent quality, which we suppose to be in him.

Nowe there being three most general kindes of excellency, there must also be three seuerall and distinct sortes of worshippe, correspondent vn­to them.

The first and principall kinde of excellency, is infinit, and proper to God alone; who is almighty, infinitly wise and good, the only Creatour, supreame Gouernour, and finall end of heauen and earth, and of al thinges contayned in them: therefore, to him alone appertayneth infinit honour and glory, and that supreame worshippe, which the Latins (vsing the Greeke word) call Latria Godly honour. Nowe to attribute or giue this soueraigne worshippe vnto any other, then vnto God only, is Idolatry, the most haynous offence that can be.

The second sort of excellency, I make the meanest of all absolute (for of respectiue excellency which is in Images, and such like holy thinges, I haue spoken in that Chapter) and that is to be found only in creatures, indued with reason and vnderstanding, in regard of some rare quality and endowment, wherein they excell and surpasse others; so that that excel­lent vertue and quality, doe proceede only out of the naturall faculty and [Page 109] perfection of the party; and doe not spring from any supernaturall gift: therefore, within the compasse of this sort of excellency, I comprehend all natural perfections, either of Men or Angels; because all such issue out of one generall fountayne, of a nature indued with reason: and to this kinde of excellency is due, a morall or ciuill obeysance or worshippe.

There is a third kinde of excellency seated betweene the two former extreames, farre surpassing the naturall perfection of any pure creature; and yet infinitly lesser then the diuine Majesty of God, which consisteth in the perfection of Faith, Hope, Charity, Religion, and other such like gifts of the holy Ghost. And to this kinde of excellency, is due a different manner of worshippe, which the Latins for distinction sake doe call Dulia. Note that I say for distinction sake: for both the wordes Latria and Dulia; if they be taken in their first natiue signification, may be giuen vnto any kinde of worship due to God or Man: yet, to auoide confusion; the lear­ned Diuines haue appropriated Latria vnto the worshippe of God; and Dulia, to signifie the honour due to Saints or Angels, in regard of their su­pernaturall perfections.

To come nowe vnto the first point of our difference. The Protestants doe commonly confound these two later kindes of vvorshippe, and doe make but one of both the ciuill and supernaturall; that they may skippe from the one of them to the other, when they be driuen vnto their shifts: and yet nothing is more cleare, then that they be as distinct and different the one from the other, as the grace of God is, from the nature of a reaso­nable creature. For as morall and ciuill worshippe only, is due vnto that excellency vvhich ariseth out of the naturall power of man, not assisted with any extraordinary grace of God (such as was in the old Heathen Ro­mans, who for their valiant prowesse, and politike gouerment deserued to be honoured & worshipped:) euen so the fortitude of Christian Martir [...], the wisdome of Ecclesiasticall Prelates, the power of diuers Confessors in curing all sortes of diseases, and in working myracles. These (I say) and the like diuine prerogatiues, cannot but deserue a farre more excellent kinde of honour and worshippe, then the former; as they are more spiri­tuall and heauenly qualities, springing from a more excellent roote of the grace of God: vvhich surpasseth in degree of excellency, the nature of Angels without cōparison, who are but Gods seruants by nature, though of greater perfection then we. By grace they were made adopted sonnes of God, and partakers of the diuine nature, as S. Peter citeth it;2. Pet. [...]. vers. 4. so as the Saints also were, who therein were equall to Angels: Wherefore, Naaman the Syrian, had reason to worshippe very humbly the Prophet H [...]liseus; who (if we consider only ciuill excellency) was but a meane person in respect [Page 110] of Na [...]man, that was a principal commander ouer all the martial affaires of a potent King: notwithstanding, he truly weighing another more excel­lent kinde of power and wisdome in Heliseus, then was in himselfe; and another kinde of credit which he had, which the God of heauen, of farre greater estimation, then that he had with his kinge, did very dutifully humble himselfe before the Prophet. All which conuinceth, that there is in godly and holy personages, another kinde of excellency aboue naturall reach, to which is due a supernaturall reuerence and worshippe, distinct from Ciuill: the which spirituall and supernaturall worship we common­ly call religious; because it is giuen vnto holy men or Saints, in conside­ration of their religious vertues, of faith, charity, fortitude in defence of religion, and of Ecclesiasticall superiority. The tearme of religious wor­shippe the Protestants vtterly mislike, pretending that all kinde of religious worship is due vnto God only: but better men and greater clearkes then they by many degrees, doe vse it in the very same sence; as may be seene in diuers of S. Augustines workes.L. 20. cōt. Faustum cap. 21. Let this one sentence suffice, where he saith: That Christian people doe celebrate the memories of Martirs, with religious solem­nity. True it is, that religious worship is sometime (by the said holy father and others) taken more strictly, for the principall acts of religion, which are proper vnto God alone; and in that sence we deny it to be giuen vnto any creature: but the same word is also (not seldome) vsed by them in a more large signification, and applied vnto all thinges that belong to reli­gion. So we call religious men, such as are specially chosen to serue God: religious houses, places where God is serued: religious vertues, such as issue out of the roote of religion; and consequently religious honour or worship, that is exhibited vnto men for their excellency in religious qualities, and religious affaires. So that any indifferent man (who delighteth not to ca­uill vpon wordes) vnderstanding our meaning to be very farre off from attributing any iote of Gods honour, vnto any Saint or any other thing whatsoeuer: cannot be justly offended with our tearmes of religious wor­shippe giuen to Saintes; when as he is before-hand giuen to vnderstand, that we take religious to signifie, not that which is proper to God: but those religious gifts which be in godly men.

Hence also it followeth most perspicuously what intollerable wrong they doe vs, that call vs Idolaters; or say, that we robbe God of his ho­nour, and giue it vnto Saintes. For vve say, and repeate it a thousand times ouer and ouer, and declare it as plainely as can be, that it is the most haynous crime in the vvorld, to giue any such soueraigne honour, as is due to God only, vnto eyther Angels or Saintes, to vvit: to esteeme them to be infinitly mighty, vvise, or good; or to bee the Creatours or [Page 111] supreame Gouernours of heauen and earth; or briefly, to be the authors of any supernaturall or naturall excellency or perfection. These and such like pointes of Diuine honour, we ascribe not to any creature: but say, that the Saintes are Gods creatures and seruants, and doe receiue all that they eyther be or haue, or Gods liberallity; yet we hold it not to derogate any whit from the due honour we owe vnto God, to yeeld such honour and worship vnto his Saints and seruants, as he hath made them worthy of. Nay rather, we doe not a litle honour God himselfe, when we worship Godly men, for his diuine gifts bestowed vpon them; and vvhen vvee thinke, that (because they haue faithfully serued him on earth) they are nowe in heauen in high fauour with him; and can soo­ner obtaine any reasonable suite of him, then other mortall men, vvho are subject to many infirmities. Neyther doe wee diminish any thing at all Christ our Sauiours mediation, by making the Saintes our interces­sours. For (as shall bee hereafter declared at large) we attribute no point of Christes mediation to them; but only range and place the Saints intercession, with the prayers of other good men liuing on earth, and vvith our owne, although in a different degree of perfection; theirs being farre better then ours: yet, all are made in Christes name, and are effectuall through the merits of his Passion.

But one may here object, howe then doe Catholikes affirme and say, that the Saints are their hope, and refuge, and howe can they desire them, To haue mercy vpon them, and to helpe them; vvhich seeme to be thinges proper to God alone, and to Christ our redeemer? I answere first, that these speeches in good sence haue beene vsed by most auncient, learned, and circumspect Authours, and that by imitation of the holie Scri­ptures. For holy Iob saith: Haue mercy on me, haue mercy on me, Iob 19. 1. Thess. 2. vers. 18. Cap. 15. vers. 30. 1. Cap. 9. vers. 19. at least you my friendes. And Saint Paul calleth the Thessalonians, His hope, his joy, and crowne of glory; and desireth the Romans to helpe him in their pray­ers: and saith to the Corinthians that he became all thinges to all men, that he might saue all; vvith diuers such like. So that no discreet man ought to condemne such speeches to the Saints, if they bee vttered vvith a good meaning, to vvit: that they taking compassion of our frailty and misery, doe by their gratious intercession helpe to procure our pardon, and to obtayne at Gods bounteous handes, through the merit of Christes passion, all such heauenly graces as vve stand neede of▪ Albeit (as I haue sayed) such tearmes haue been very vvell vsed in all antiquity; yet, in these our captious dayes I could vvish, that Catholikes vvould vse them very sparingly, for feare of scandalizing the poore deceaued Pro­testants.

Obserue lastly, that by the outward manner and externall shewe of worshippe, it cannot be sufficiently discerned, whether it be Diuine, Re­ligious, or Ciuill: for as we kneele to God, so doe we also on our knee ho­nour the King,1. Reg. 24. vers. 10. and his Councell; As Dauid did adore King Saul prostrate on the earth. But the difference consisteth chiefly in the inward conceite, and disposition of the minde; and so whether we kneele or no (if we pro­strate our harts before God, inclining it vnto him, as to the Authour of all thinges, infinitly perfect) we doe him Godly honour. So, if we kneele to any Saints, or before any picture of a Saint in honour of the Saint, ac­knowledging in our harts the Saint to be a very holy creature, indued with many great graces of God, and dearely beloued of him; we doe but duly worshippe the Saint: as kneeling to the King, and in our harts con­fessing him to be the supreame Gouernour vnder God of the temporall state of his Kingdome, vve doe but our duties vnto our King. To con­clude, it is not the outward fashion of worshippe, that maketh it proper to God or Man; when as kneeling to one, may be also in dirision of him, as when Pilates souldiers kneeled to Christ: but the inward conceite and in­clination of the judgement and hart. And therefore, they are very simple that reprehend Catholikes of Idolatry for kneeling before pictures; when as they kneele not to the picture it selfe, no more then Protestants kneele vnto that part of their seate, or to the wall that is before them: but they doe kneele to God, as to their soueraigne Lord; and to the Saint as to an holy personage, whose prayer to God for them they humbly request.

Nowe to the maine point in controuersie, M. PER. denyeth: That any ciuill worshippe in bending of the knee, or prostrating of the body, is to be giuen to either Saints or Angels; and much lesse any religious worshippe, as namely inuo­cation, signified by any bodily adoration: for that (saith he) is the honour of God himselfe, by what name soeuer you call it. And this is all he saith (for ought I can see) touching the worshipping of Saints.

We on the other side say, that vve may both bend the knee, and pro­strate the body to any Angell or Saint in heauen, and with a religious in­clination and obeysance of our harts worshippe them, for their excellent supernaturall gifts: and that this kinde of worshippe, is much inferior vn­to the honour proper to God; yea, that it is infinitly lesse, then that as hath beene already declared. M. PER. hath one only shadowe of a reason, why we must not yeeld any ciuill worship vnto the Saints: Because (saith he) they be absent from vs, and we vse not to worshippe men that be absent. ergo. Which is most easily confuted, and that two wayes. First, if we say (as vve vvill proue afterward) that though they be farre distant from vs in place; yet, they see and knowe all the honour that vve present to them, [Page 113] and so are they morally present, and as so present may be vvorshipped. Secondly, that we may truly honor them who are absent corporally, by lifting vp our harts to them; and so representing them to our mindes, may reuerence and vvorship them as spiritually present, according to that of S. Paul; I absent in body, but present in spirit: otherwise,1. Cor. 5. vers. 3. vve Christians should not vvhiles we liued on earth, adore the humanity of our Sauiour Christ IESVS, because he touching his humanity, is absent from vs; which were most absurd: and so is therefore M. PERKINS reason, out of vvhich it would necessarily followe. And because M. PER. confoundeth this point of worshipping of Saints with that of inuocation, and hudleth them together, nowe talking of the one, then of the other, besides al good methode and order, and consequently maketh two Chapters of the same matter: I will here in this former Chapter only treate of the worshipping of Saints, drawing what M. PERKINS saith of this subject into this Cha­pter, and referre the matter to inuocation vnto the next.

His second reason then against worshipping of Saints, may be that which maketh the third in the 14. Chapter: Christ refused so much as to bowe the knee vnto Satan, vpon this ground: because it is written, thou shalt wor­shippe the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serue.

To this S. Augustine hath answered 1200. yeares agoe, vpon those vvordes of Genesis: Abraham adored or worshipped the people of the land. Cap. 23. Quaest. 61. super Ge­nesi [...]. It may be demanded (saith he) howe it is written thou shalt adore thy Lord God, and him only shalt thou serue; when as Abraham did so honour that kinde of people, that he did adore them? but we must obserue that in the same Commandement, it is not said, thou shalt only adore thy Lord thy God; as it is said, him only shalt thou serue, which in Greeke is Latréysis, for such seruice is due to God only. So that in briefe this most learned Father answereth our Protestants, that the ser­uice proper to God (called Latria) is to be giuen to none but to God: Marry, that vvorship and adoration expressed in the former part of that sentence, may be giuen to others, and that Abraham gaue it very well vn­to the people of Heth. Nowe, our Sauiour had great reason, not to yeeld so much as one jote of that meaner worship to Satan; because he excelled him in nothing; but small reason haue our Protestants to reason thus (as in effect M. PER. doth:) Christ would not vvorship the Deuill, therefore Christians may not worship Saints, as though Saints were no more to be worshipped then the Deuill: a holy comparison and vvell worthy a hell­hound. But he goeth forward and addeth,Act. 10. that Peter would not suffer Cor­nelius so much as to kneele to him: though (saith he) Cornelius intended not to honour him as God: therefore, neither Saint nor Angell is to be honoured so much as with the bowing of the knee, if it carry but the least signification of diuine honor.

Answere. Doe you marke vvhat vvarre this man is at vvith himselfe? first he saith that Cornelius intended not to adore Peter as God: after head­deth, that kneeling if it carry but the signification of Godly honour, is not to be given to Saints; which conclusion of his we grant, to vvit: that no inward or outward vvorship (if it proceede from a hart meaning to exhibite di­uine honour) is to be giuen vnto any other then to God; and therefore did I declare before, that by the externall kinde of worshipping, we can­not discerne whether the party meane to offer diuine, religious, or ciuill honour to him whome he honoureth, but that is to be knowne of the par­ty himselfe, or by conjecture to be otherwise collected. To the purpose, if Cornelius meant to adore S. Peter as some petty God (as S. Hierome ga­thereth out of the text,Lib. con­tra Vigil. which hath; that he did adore S. Peter falling at his feete, and S. Peter lifting him vp said; arise, my selfe also am a man:) then is there nothing against vs, who doe also forbidde all men to adore and giue Godly honour vnto any Saint or Angell. If it were a lesser kinde of reli­gious worship, which was due to Saints; then we say with S. Chrysostome vpon this place, that S. Peter out of his humility and consideration of hu­mane frailty, refused that honour albeit it vvere due vnto his excellent piety and singular authority. The like answere is to be giuen vnto that place of the Apocalipse, Cap. 19. vers. 10. vvhere the Angell forbadde S. Iohn to adore him: vvhich M. PER. had forgot to alleage. For either S. Iohn tooke the An­gell to be God, as he spake in the person of God; and so by mistaking the person offered him diuine honour,Quaest. 61. [...]n Genes. Greg. lib. 27. Mo­ral. c. 11. Bed. An­selm. & a­lij in illum locum. as S. Augustine supposeth, and vvas justly reprehended by the Angell, and instructed that he vvas not God, but his fellowe seruant: or (as many others ancient and learned Authours thinke) S. Iohn as one that very well knewe what he had to doe, did duti­fully worship such an heauenly creature, as Gods Ambassadour to him: for otherwise he was not so dull or forgetfull, as to haue theCap. 22. vers. 8. second time fallen into the same fault. Neither did the Angell reprehend him, but af­ter a most curteous manner willed S. Iohn not to doe him that honour; be­cause he knewe well howe dearely beloued S. Iohn was vnto our Sauiour, and that perhaps S. Iohn was to haue a higher seate in heauen, then he had: vvherefore, he vvould not take that honour of so great a personage. To these reasons of M. PER. vve may adde some fewe scraps of authorities which he hath swept together.

De vera relig. 53.Augustine: we honour the Saints with charity, and not by seruitude; neither doe we erect Churches to them: And they are to be honoured for imitation; but not to be adored with religion.

Answere. Marke that in both the sentences, he teacheth vs plainly to honour and worshippe the Saints; as we doe honour the Saints, they are to be [Page 115] honoured: Marry he addeth (as we also teach after him) that no diuine and Godly honour be giuen them; vvhich he describeth in those wordes, with seruitude and with religion. The Saints (saith he euen here, as in many o­ther places of his learned vvorkes) are to be vvorshipped; but not vvith such worshippe, as seruants or creatures owe to their soueraigne Lord or creator: they are to be honoured but not with religion, being taken pre­cisely for the chiefe act of religion which concerneth only the honor and worshippe of God. Churches are not to be builded to Saints, nor Altars erected to them, nor Sacrifice offered to them. All this we graunt in such sort as S. Augustine himselfe doth declare, that is: these diuine offices are to be performed to no other then to God alone; yet, all may be done in the memory, and to the honour of Saints. Let this one place of S. Au­gustine serue the turne, where he saith:Lib. 20. cōt. Faust. cap. 21. that Christian people doe celebrate the memory of Martirs with religious solemnity; both to stirre vp imitation, as also t [...] they may be pertakers of their merits, and helped by their prayers: notwith­s [...]ding (saith he) to none of the Martirs doe we erect Altars, but to the God of Martirs; yet, in the remembrance of Martirs. For who of the Priests, in the places of their holy bodies standing at the Altar, hath said at any time: we offer vnto thee Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian? But that which is offered, is offered to God (who crowned the Martirs) at the memories of Martirs; that by the admo­nition of the very places, a greater deuotion may arise to enflame our charity, both towardes them whome we must imitate; as also towardes him, by whose helpe we may imitate them. We therefore, worship the Martirs with that worship of loue and society, wherewith holy men of God in this life are worshipped, &c. but them with so much more deuotion, as we are more assured that they haue nowe passed all perill of this life. Obserue (good reader) howe many points of the Catho­like doctrine are confirmed by this one passage of so worthy a Doctor.

First, Altars are built at the Martirs bodies. Secondly, Sacrifice is offered to God at the memories of the Martirs, to encrease our loue towardes them. Thirdly, Martirs are to be worshipped of vs, more then any holy men liuing. Fourthly, That with religious honour and celebrity they are to be worshipped: yet not with any Godly honour, as by Sacrifice, erecting of Altars, or building of Churches to them; vvhich seeme to be the only externall actes of religion proper vnto God alone.

M. PERKINS second testimony is taken out of Epiphanius, who com­mandeth that none be adored but God alone. Let Mary be in honour, Haeres. 79. but let God only be adored. Againe, Mary is holy and to be honoured, but not to ado­ration.

Answere. Who seeth not, that this holy Father teacheth vs to honour and worshippe that blessed Virgin Mary and the other Saints? Marry not [Page 116] with Sacrifice, as he there disputeth against them vvho offered Sacrifice to the Virgin Mary, or any other such like adoration vvhich is proper to God alone.

A third testimony M. PER. produceth against himselfe out of S. Cyril, when Iulian the Apostata objected against the auncient Catholikes (that which Protestants doe against vs nowe a-dayes) that they worshipped their Martirs as God: Lib. 9. & 10. Cyril (saith M. PER.) answereth then plainely (as we Catho­likes doe nowe) that Christians (indeede) did honour their Martirs, but not with adoration and Godly honour. His wordes are: We affirme not our Mar­tirs to be made Gods, but we vse to bestowe all honour vpon them.

In primū cap. Rom.The fourth and last testimony is borrowed out of S. Ambrose. Is any so madde that he will giue to the Earle, the honour of a King? yet, these men doe not thinke themselues guilty, who giue the honour of Gods name to a creature, and lea­uing their Lord adore their fellowe seruants, as though there were any thing more left for God.

Answere. S. Ambrose there inueigheth (as S. Paul doth) against P [...] Idolaters, that gaue the glory of God, some to men their fellowe seruants, some to fowles, some to serpents, and such like: all vvhich is very farre vvide from the marke of the present question. For he that condemneth men for giuing Gods honour to foolish or beastly creatures, doth not re­prehend them which honour and worship Gods seruants, with such ho­nour only as is due to them. And thus much in confutation of M. PER. reasons against worshipping of Saints: nowe to an argument or two in fauour of the Catholike party.

All men are to be honoured by the lawe of nature, with such honour as is corre­spondent and due vnto their vertue and dignity; which the Apostle confirmeth saying:Rom. 13. vers. 7. render to all men their due, &c. to whome honour, honour, &c. but a kinde of religious and supernaturall honour and worship is due vnto the Saints in heauen: ergo, we are bound to render that their due worship vnto them.

That religious honour is due vnto them, is most cleare to all that know vvhy honour is due vnto any man. If honour be due vnto Nobility of birth, as it is commonly holden; the Saints are the Sonnes of God, the most honourable Lord of heauen and earth. If to be admitted to be one of a Kinges priuy Councell, maketh a man honourable; then the Saints are honourable,1. Cor. 13. vers. 12. Apocal. 2. vers. 27. who (as S. Paul saith) doe see God face to face, and knowe him, e­uen as they are knowne. If to be aduanced vnto some high gouernement, make a man honourable; the Martirs whome Christ doth place to rule o­ver Cyties and Nations, are honourable. Briefly, if excellent vvisdome, singular valour, and such like heroycall vertues, make men honourable, as all men confesse; then are the Saints in heauen most honourable, vvho [Page 117] so farre exceeded in all such heroycall vertues of which the Philosophers vvrite, all others as farre as heauen surpasseth the earth: so that it remai­neth most euident, that the Saints are to be worshipped. And as their ex­cellent vertues doe proceede from a more noble fountayne, then the na­ture of man (to wit) from the grace of God, and doth therefore without comparison, furmount all morall and ciuill either vertue or dignity: so are they with a more spirituall and religious kinde of worship to be vvor­shipped and reuerenced. It may be said, that albeit the Saints be so very honourable: yet, because they be of another region they are not to be ho­noured by vs, that be strangers and foraigners to them: but this objecti­on S. Paul hath long sithence preuented, who saith expresly to Christi­ans: Bretheren yee are not guests and strangers, but Cytizens of the Saints, Ephes. 2. and houshold seruants of God. If then one Cytizen be to reuerence another his better, and one seruant another; then are we to worship the Saints in hea­uen, who are our fellowe Cytizens and seruants: yea, they are members of the same body of Christ, of which we are, though they be nowe in tri­umph for their lawfull fighting here, and we yet in warrefare, to attayne vnto the same triumphant estate. Yea, for the deare and mutuall affection, vvhich is or should be betweene these two partes of the said Church, S. Paul calleth that Hierusalem which is aboue our Mother: Gal. 4. vers. 26. and ought vve not to reuerence, honour, and vvorship our Mother? thus much of our former argument grounded in reason.

Nowe to another taken from example, which alone is more then suffi­cient to settle any good Christian in the faith of this point, thus it may be propounded: Both Iewes, Pagans, and Heretikes (that is, all sortes of vn­godly and misbeleeuing men) did finde great fault with the auncient true Christians for worshipping of Saints and their Relikes, and called it Ido­latry, as the Protestants doe nowe a-dayes: Contrarywise, the best and most learned Doctors in that pure antiquity, did maintayne and defend vvorshipping of Saints and their Relikes, teaching just as the Catholikes nowe doe: that they did indeede honour the Saints vvith great honour, but did not adore them, or giue the honour proper to God to any other then to God alone; let vs heare some proofe of this. When blessed Poli­carpus S. Iohn Euangelists Disciple was Martired, the Iewes were very im­portunate to haue his body consumed to ashes,Eusebius hyst. l. 4. cap. 14. least (say they) the Christi­ans doe gette it and so leauing the crucified man, doe fall to adore him, so the o­pinion of the Iewes. What answered the Christians? We (say they) meane nothing lesse then to forsake Christ; for him we adore as the true Sonne of God: but Martirs and all other his true seruants we doe worthely reuerence and embrace, for their incredible goodwill shewed towardes Christ; and doe esteeme their bones [Page 118] and relikes more rich then pretious stones, and more pure then gold, and doe cele­brate their memories, with holy dayes and great joy. This of the ancient Chri­stians answere to the Iewes, nowe of their answere to the Pagans. Iulian the Apostata with his followers, charged the Christians with making their Martirs Gods, and that they adored them: to vvhome among others Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria answered in this manner.L. 6. cont. Iulianum. We make not holy Martirs Gods, neither doe we adore them: but we honour them very highly. And it is not an vnworthy thing; nay, it is necessary to honour them eternally, that haue behaued themselues so gloriously. And because that goodly man (Iulianus) doth reprehend vs for worshipping of them; w [...] tell him, that we esteeme not Martirs to be Gods, yet are we accustomed to vouchsafe them very high honour. After these Pagans and Iewes some old Heretikes trotted apace. Faustus the Manichean Heretike calumniated and falsly slandered the Catholikes of his time, that they had turned their Martirs by worshipping of them, in­to Idols. Vnto vvhome S. Augustine that vvorthy pillar of the Church answered,Aug. l. 20. cōt. Faust. cap. 21. as is aboue rehearsed: That Christians (indeede) did celebrate the memories of Martirs with religious solemnity, and that they worshipped them with greater honour then they did any holy man aliue; yet, not with that honour which is proper to God, called by the Greekes Latria. The like did Vigilantius another dreaming Heretike object shortly after, auouching the Catholikes to be Idolaters, because they adored the bones of dead men: whome that great light of his age S. Hierome doth duly reprehend,Epist. ad Riparium. answering; That they did not adore Martirs relikes, no nor a [...]y Angell in heauen, because they would not giue the honour due to the Creator, vnto any creature: but (saith he) we doe honour the relikes of Martirs, that we may adore him whose Martirs they be. We doe honour the seruants, that the honour of the seruants: may redound vnto their master, who saith: he that receiueth you, receiueth me: nowe let the indif­ferent Christian consider, vvhether he vvere better vvith the Heathens, Iewes, and Heretikes, to denie the Saints to be worshipped, and say vvith them that it is Idolatry so to doe: or vvhether he had not rather vvith the auncient holy Fathers, and best Christians to hold, that Saints depar­ted this life, and their relikes are to be vvorshipped with greater honour, then any holy men yet liuing: yea, that vvorshipping of Saints is so farre of from Idolatry, and robbing God of the honour proper to him, that e­uen thereby God is much honoured. Surely, we Catholikes are nothing dismaide at their out-cryes, that call vs therefor Idolaters; being vvell assured, that they be but the old alarmes and reproaches, that Infidels were vvont to cast vpon the best Christians. Nowe to the third and last argu­ment for vs which is taken from authority.

Iosue 5. vers. 24. Num. 22.Iosue falling flat vpon the ground worshipped an Angell, assoone as he had [Page 119] told him that he was the Prince of Gods army: this worship being performed by a true Israelite, and accepted off by the Angell of God (yea more then that, for it was also commanded) doth conuince, that more then ciuill ho­nour is due vnto a Cytizen of heauen: this for the old Testament. For the state of the newe heare the judgement of the most auncient and best learned Doctors.

Iustine Martyr declaring vnto the Emperor the faith of the Church,Apolog. 2. speaketh thus: We Christians adore and worship God the Father, and his Sonne, who came into the world and taught vs these thinges; and after them doe we truly worship by word and deede, the army of good Angels following his conduct, and the Propheticall spirits: and this doe we copiously teach to all that will learne our doctrine.

Eusebius Caesariensis teacheth the same, and saith:Lib. 13. de praep. c. 7. Serm. 32. de Sāctis. We doe honour the Soul­diers of true Godlinesse, as them who are best beloued of God.

So doth S. Augustine: Therefore dearely beloued Bretheren, as often as we celebrate the memories of Martirs, laying a-side all worldly businesse, we ought speedily to repaire vnto the house of God, to render vnto them honour, who haue procured our saluation by the shedding of their bloud, who haue offered themselues vp to God so holy an Host, to obtayne for vs mercy at his handes; specially when al­mighty God saith to his Saints: he that honoureth you, honoureth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me. Whosoeuer therefore (concludeth S. Augustine) honoureth Martirs, honoureth Christ: and he that contemneth the Saints, con­temneth Christ; vvhich is word for word taken out ofSerm. 6. in fine. Orat. de SS. Iuuēt. &. Max. In Theod. Mart. S. Ambrose.

S. Chrysostome: We doe not worship auncient Saints and those of later time, in different sort; but all of them with the same chearefulnes: therefore (saith he) let vs often visite them, and worshippe their tombes.

Gregory Nyssene, speaking of the worship which the Church doth giue to Martirs, saith: To what King is such honour done? who are they of the most excellent among men, whose memory is so solemnely honoured? who of the Empe­rors in so many mens mouthes, are so renowned as this poore Souldier, nowe enroled a Souldier; whome S. Paul hath armed, whome the Angels haue anointed, and whome Christ hath crowned.

S. Gregory Nazianzene defineth the worshipping of Martirs,Orat. 1. cont. Iu­lianum. to be an assured marke of our loue toward Christ. An hundreth such other testimonies wil the holy auncient Fathers afford vs, if we stand in neede of them. But this may suffice to enforme any reasonable man, that both by expresse warrant of Scripture, and by the practise and doctrine of the purest anti­quity, the Saints of God and holy personages are to be worshipped of vs with that religious honour commonly called Dulia, that is: with that wor­shippe which is due vnto the better sort of Gods seruants.

OVR CONSENT.
M. PERKINS Page 258.

OVr consent I will set downe in two conclusions. The first conclu­sion: The Saints departed pray to God, by giuing thankes to him for their owne redemption, and for the redemption of the whole Church of God vpon earth.

The second conclusion. The Saints departed pray generally for the state of the whole Church.

THE DISSENT.

THey hold that the Saints in heauen doe make intercession for particular men: and that hauing receiued particular mens prayers, they present them vnto God; but this doctrine doe we flatly renounce vpon these groundes and reasons.

Esay 63. vers. 16. The Church saith to God: doubtlesse thou art our Father though Abraham be ignorant of vs, and Israel knowe vs not. Nowe if Abraham knewe not his poste­rity, neither Mary nor Peter nor any Saint departed knowe vs and our estate: and consequently they cannot make particular intercession for vs.

To this vve answere two wayes, first vvith S. Hierome vpon the same place: that to knowe one is taken there for to like and approue him and his doings,Psal. 1. as it is very often in holy Scripture: Our Lord knoweth the way of the just. Item, Christ vvill answere to them that were workers of ini­quity,Math. 7. vers. 25. I knowe yee not; as also to the foolish Virgins, I knowe yee not, that is, I like you not: euen so Abraham and Iacob could not then knowe, that is, approue the doing of those their wicked and degenerate children. Se­condly vve answere, that Abraham and the holy Patriarkes vvere (vntill Christ had by his passion paide their ransome) not yet in the possession of heauenly joyes; but detayned in a place of rest, by the learned common­ly called Lymbus Patrum. To this second answere M. PER. replyeth: If they say that Abraham was in Lymbo (which they will haue to be a part of hell) what joy could Lazarus haue in Abrahams bosome? and with what comfort could Iacob say on his death bedde: O Lord I haue wayted for thy saluation? We rejoyne, that albeit Lymbo be thought to be vnder the earth; yet is it as farre remote from hell, as the depth of the earth will giue it leaue: for the place of Purgatory is betweene hell and it. Further, that in Lymbo there was no payne, but a quiet expectation of their deliuerance from thence, [Page 121] and translation into heauen; vvhich brought them great joy: besides, the good company of many millions of holy soules, that there attended the same happy houre of their deliuerance; of all vvhich Lazarus vvas partaker being carryed into Abrahams bosome. I vvill here omit, that M. PER. in this very question, maketh this matter of Lazarus but a para­ble, and thereby not fit to confirme any point of doctrine in his owne judgement. To the second place I say, that Iacob might haue great com­fort to thinke vpon his saluation, vvhich should be accomplished in Christs time: for Abraham who was father of them,Ioh. 8. vers. 56. 2. Reg. 22. vers. 20. rejoyced to see Christs dayes, which he sawe, and was glad, as our Sauiour himselfe testifieth.

The second reason: Huldah the Prophetesse telleth Iosias, that he must be gathered to his fathers, and put in his graue in peace, that his eyes might not see all the euill, which God would bring on that place. Therefore, the Saints departed see not the state of the Church on earth: this conclusion Augustine confirmeth at large.

To this vve answere; first, that the Prophetesse (when shee saith, he should not see the euill of that place) meaneth no more, then that he should be after his death in such a place of rest and contentment, that it should not grieue and vexe him to see the just punishment of his owne Country. Secondly, it may be said of Iosias who dyed long before Christ, as it is of Abraham; that he vvas to remayne in Lymbo vvhen that euill should hap­pen, and so should not see it. But Augustine (saith he) doth confirme this conclusion at large. VVhy did not the honest man quote the place of S. Augustine as he is wont to doe? was it because it would leade vs direct­ly to the discouery of his deceit? S. Augustine (indeede) doth very copi­ously handle the question, what knowledge soules departed haue; De cura pro mort. ca. 15. 16. and resol­ueth: that soules departed, of their owne naturall knowledge doe not vnderstand what is done by their friendes here; but that either by the report of other soules that come to them, or of Angels that goe betweene; or else by the reuelation of the spi­rit of God (in whose presence Saints departed doe continually stand) they may ve­ry well knowe, that which is here done: and thus much of S. Augustine in this place, afterward you shall heare more of him concerning his opinion of the knowledge that Saints haue of our affaires.

The third reason of M. PERKINS: No Creature, Saint, or Angell, can be a Mediatour for vs to God, sauing Christ alone: for in a true Mediatour there must be three thinges. First, that the word of God must reueale and propound him vnto the Church. Surely I should thinke that he must first be a perfect Media­tour, before he be propounded for such a one. Secondly, a Mediatour must be perfectly just, so as no sinne be found in him at all. Such be all Saints in hea­uen. Thirdly, a Mediatour must be a propitiator, that is: he must bring to God [Page 122] some thing, that may appease and satisfie his wrath for our sinnes: so did Moyses vvhen he appeased Gods wrath, justly kindled against the sinnes of the Israelites in the wildernesse: thus might a man quickly answere M. PER. argument of his Mediatour.

But to explicate this matter more clearely and particularly, I say that a Mediatour may be taken two waies. First, he may be called a Mediatour, that doth in any sort imploy himself betweene two parties to agree them; vvhether it be by perswasion or intreaty; vvhether by letter or word of mouth: and so is it commonly taken, and that according vnto the pro­per signification of the word. Secondly, a Mediatour may be taken in an other sence, not for euery one that vseth meanes of attonement; but for him only that to make the agreement betweene the parties, is content to pay the debt himselfe, and to satisfie for al other damages and detrimentes: and in this sence doth S. Paul say;1. Tim. 2. vers. 5. That we haue one Mediatour the man IE­SVS Christ, who gaue himselfe a redemption for all. Note the latter vvordes, and you shall see this my distinction of Mediatour to be gathered out of the Apostles owne wordes: For (saith he) we haue one Mediatour, that gaue himselfe a redemption for all, that is, that tooke the debts of all our sinnes vpon his owne shoulders, and satisfied fully for all: see here expressed the second kinde of Mediatour. Nowe in the beginning of the Chapter, he desireth that intercessions and prayers be made of the Christians for all men, yea for Heathen Princes: behold the first kinde of Mediatour. For Chri­stians that pray for all men, by their intercession are meanes vnto God for conuersion of others, and so may be called Mediatours in a good sence; as Moyses saith of himselfe:Deut. 5. vers. 5. Gal. 3. vers. 19. Act. 7. vers. 35. Iudic. 3. vers. 9. I was an intercessour and meanes, or mediatour be­tweene our Lord and you. And by S. Paul he is plainely called a Mediatour: the law was ordayned by Angels, in the hand of a Mediatour. And by S. Stephen he is called a Redeemer: as Othoniel is tearmed a Sauiour. And that in this sence there may be many mediatours S. Cyril testifieth, saying:In Ioh. l. 3. cap. 9. The Me­diatour of God and man is IESVS Christ, not only because he reconciled men vnto God; but for that he is naturally both God and man in one person. For by this meanes God reconciled our natures to him; for otherwise howe should S. Paul haue said, Christ to be the only Mediatour: for many of the Saints haue vsed the ministery of mediation; as S Paul himselfe, crying vpon men to be reconciled to God: and Moyses was a Mediatour; for he ministred the lawe vnto the people: and Ieremy was also a Mediatour, when he stood before God and prayed for good thinges to the people. Related in 2. Concil. Nice. art. 4. What neede many wordes? (saith this great Doctor) all the Prophets and Apostles were Mediatours. VVith S. Cyril accordeth S. Basil, who hoped for mercy at Gods handes, and forgiuenesse of his sinnes by the mediation of the holy Prophets, Apostles, and Martirs. And S. Bernard [Page 123] was of the same minde,Serm. su­per sign [...] magnum apparuit in coelo. when he taught that we stand in neede of a Media­tour, to the Mediatour: and no one more for our profit and commodity, then the blessed Virgin Mary; so that this mediation and intercession of Saints, is no whit at all injurious vnto the only mediation of Christ: for it is of a farre different kind from Christes mediation, and of the same sort as the pray­ers be of other good men liuing on earth, who all sue vnto God in Christs name, and hope to obtayne (all and euery of them) their petitions, by the vertue of his merits; and therefore all our prayers and theirs, are com­monly concluded thus: Through our Lord IESVS Christ thy Sonne, who with thee liueth and raigneth in the vnity of the holy Ghost, God, for euer and euer. And thus much to M. PER. foundation laide vpon the sandes, vvherein he so insolently renounced the Catholike doctrine: but that I doe him no wrong, I must here adde a coople of other arguments which he misplaced in the former question, and therefore I reserued them to this.

The former. All true inuocation and prayer, made according vnto the will of God, must haue a double foundation: a commandement, and a promise. A com­mandement to moue vs to pray: and a promise to assure vs that we shall be heard: for euery prayer must be made in faith; and without a commandement, and promise there is no faith. Vpon this infallible ground I conclude, that we may not pray to Saints departed: for in the Scripture there is no word either commanding vs to pray to them, or assuring vs that we shall be heard when we pray.

Answere. We deny that prayer requireth that double foundation of a commandement to pray, and promise to be heard when we pray: and that vpon the vvarrant of some of the best prayers, that are recorded in holy Scri­pture. When Abraham prayed for the sauing of Sodome, and Gomorrha, Gen. 18. vers. 25. and did obtayne that if there had beene in them but tenne just persons, their Cyties should not haue beene destroyed: we reade neither of com­mandement giuen to Abraham to make that prayer, nor any promise be­fore he beganne it, to be heard; and this man was the Father of the faith­full, and knewe much better then an hundreth M. PERKINS, howe and when to pray.

And vvhen milde Moyses that most vvise conductor of the Israelites, prayed vnto God so peremptorily, that he would either blot him out of the booke of life, or else pardon his people the Israelites, Exod. 32. vers. 32. had he either commande­ment so to pray, or promise to be heard? I am sure that they can shewe me none at all in the Scripture: Nay, God before entreated Moyses, that he would not pray vnto him for them,Ibidem. vers. 10. but suffer him to punish them accor­ding to their deserts, promising to aduance Moyses exceedingly, if he would giue ouer his suite; neuerthelesse, Moyses omitted not to pray most earnestly for the same people, and vvas heard. Neede vve any other [Page 124] proofe to ouerthrowe M. PER. rotten foundation? And vvhen Iosue ra­ther commanded then prayed;Iosue 10. vers. 12. that the Sunne should not moue against Gabaon, and it stayed his course for a whole day space, God obeying vnto the voice of man, as the holy Ghost speaketh: vvhat commandement or pro­mise had Iosue for this? and to omit an hundreth other like, what promise had S. Paul to assure him to be heard,2. Cor. 12. vers. 8. when he prayed not once, but thrise that the pricke of the flesh should be taken away from him? none at al (I weene) for his request would not be granted him. By this the indifferent reader may perceiue, how grosse the Protestants judgement is in matters of faith, vvho take that for an infallible ground of religion, vvhich is so contrary vnto the expresse vvord of God, that nothing can be more. Of faith necessary in prayer shall be spoken, as soone as I haue dispatched an other text of Scripture, misplaced here and misaplyed.

Math. 4. vers. 10. We are (saith M. PER.) commanded to call vpon God only: him only shalt thou serue.

This mans eies-sight beginneth to faile him much, that cannot discerne betweene calling vpon, and seruing; when many a Master calleth vpon his man whome he doth not serue, but is serued by him. The text is already expounded out of S. Augustine: that we must serue God only with God­ly honour, as the Greeke vvordes Latréyseis doth there notifie; notwith­standing which only seruice, euery seruant (I hope) may serue his Ma­ster, and euery inferiour vvorship his superiour: and so may we doe the Saints our betters in all goodnesse, with such worship as is due vnto their singular gifts. And as we may pray vnto men aliue vvithout derogation vnto God his only seruice: so may we doe to the Saints departed.

But M. PER. fearing the weakenesse of this fortification, secondeth it with an other out of the Apostle:Rom. 10. vers. 14. Howe shall we call vpon him in whome we haue not beleeued? but we may not beleeue in Saints, therefore we may not call vp­on them.

I answere, that we cannot call vpon any man for more then we beleeue to be in him; and so much must we beleeue to be in euery man, as we will demand at his handes. We call vpon Christ for saluation, and therefore must we first beleeue him to be a Sauiour: we call vpon Saints to pray for vs; therefore must vve before hand beleeue, that they both can and will pray for vs, and that they are able (through the fauour and loue that God beareth them) to entreate much at Gods handes: see howe vve must be­leeue in them, vpon whom we call for helpe. And the very phrase of beleeuing in Saints, is vsed by the sameAd Philemon. v. 5. Apostle, not vnlike that of the old Testament:Exod. 14 vers. 31. The people beleeued God, and his seruant Moyses. M. PERKINS goeth on, patching vp his former argument with that, which hath small [Page 125] coherence with it, to wit: That we haue no promise to be heard, but for Christs sake. Admit it vvere so, it maketh nothing against prayer to Saints: for they pray for vs in Christs name, and are heard for Christs sake.

Finally, M. PERKINS fableth, that we giue for our only warrant of in­uocation of Saints, miracles and reuelations; and thereunto answereth, that to judge of any point of doctrine by miracles, three thinges must concurre. First, the doctrine of faith and piety to be confirmed. Secondly, prayer to God that some thing may be done for the ratifying of the said doctrine. Thirdly, the manifest edi­fication of the Church by the two former.

What of all this good Sir? Marry thinke what you vvill, for he infer­reth nothing; I will therefore apply all this to the purpose, and say first: That vvhen a miracle is graunted by God, to confirme any point of do­ctrine in controuersie, then euery man is as vvell bound to beleeue that point of doctrine, as if it were plainely recorded in the holy Scripture; for it hath God to witnesse, who cannot deceiue. Secondly, that S. Ber­nard (a most Godly man, and one whose testimony M. PER. doth very often alleage) did fulfill all those three worthy obseruations of M. PER. in working of miracles to confirme inuocation of Saints; and therefore it is to be beleeued of all men, euen by M. PERKINS owne sentence. For first he propounded inuocation of Saints,Lib. 3. vi­tae, cap. 5. as a doctrine of faith and great pie­ty, in the Prouince of Tolouse in France, where it was by our Protestants Grandsiers the Albigenses denyed. Secondly, he blessed some certaine loafes of bread that were presented to him, and prayed to God that if inuocation to Saints were pure doctrine of faith, that then whosoeuer should taste of that bread, might be cured of what disease soeuer he was sicke. A Bishop that stoode by, added; yea Sir, if they receiue them with good faith they shall be healed. S. Bernard re­plyed: I said not so, but whosoeuer shall truly taste of them shall be cured, that they may knowe vs to haue the truth, and to be the true messengers of God. And as it there followeth: An huge multitude of sicke and diseased persons tasting of that bread, recouered perfect health. If we had no other argument then this, it alone were sufficient to perswade any Christian, that to pray vnto Saints is the true doctrine of Christ, which God so expresly would confirme by miracles, and testifie so euidently. What would he beleeue, that will not beleeue this? But (saith M. PER.) miracles be to be done for Infidels, and not for them who beleeue. True it is, and therefore was this miracle done, to conuert or to confound such Infidels as our Protestants are, vvho will not beleeue the inuocation of Saints.

Lastly (saith he) our faith is not to be confirmed by reuelations, Luc. 16. vers. 29. and apparitions of dead men, but by the writings of the Apostles and Prophets.

What is this either to miracles, or inuocation of Saints? neither is that [Page 126] which he saith to be drawne out of those wordes of that parable, as I will proue when it shall be neede. Note by the way, that twice in this questi­on he himselfe citeth that parable of Diues and Lazarus, for proofe of do­ctrine; vvhich he afterward denyeth to be lawfull for vs to doe. What our other groundes be for inuocation of Saints, shall be declared in our arguments following.

M. PERKINS fift reason. To pray to Saints departed, to bowe the knee to them while they are in heauen, is to asscribe vnto them, that which is proper to God: namely to knowe the hart and inward desires thereof, and to knowe the speeches and behauiours of all men, in all places on the earth at all times.

Answere. This man doth too too broadly enlarge his lies; for neither doe all men at once (much lesse at all times) pray vnto euery or any one of the Saints: but suppose they did; yet, to heare all their prayers togither, is nothing so much as to see that which euery Saint doth see in heauen, to wit, the one only substance of God in three persons: for what are all the cogitations of men, compared vnto the immense and incomprehensible nature of God? not so much as the point of a pinne to the whole globe of the earth, and yet euery Saint in heauen doth clearely behold God: there­fore much more able are they to heare and see all thinges that belong vn­to men. And as the learned Diuines knowe, the man-hood of our Sauiour Christ doth see, knowe, and comprehend all the deedes, wordes, and thoughts of all men, that haue liued since the beginning of the world, vn­to the end; because it belongeth vnto him who is judge of all, to knowe all; aswell to reward the good, as to punish the euill: and yet doth no Di­uine say, that the man-hood of Christ is God, or equall vnto God in knowledge. Nowe, the Saints in heauen doe not see the secretes of our harts, in our harts; but being present to the face of God, doe behold in it (as it were in a most cleare glasse) all that is pleaseth the goodnesse of God to reueale vnto them: and it is incident, and belonging necessarily vnto their most happy estate, to haue graunted to them, all that in reason they can demande; otherwise they were not so happy as they might be. Now, what good nature would not be glad, to pleasure his owne fellowe mem­bers and deare friendes; specially such as craue so much at his handes? vvherefore, it cannot be denyed of any considerate man, but that God who satisfieth al their just requests doth ordinarily reueale vnto his deare­ly beloued Saints, all the prayers that be made vnto them. Surely S. Au­gustine in most expresse tearmes declareth:De cura pro mort. cap. 15. & 16. That God can giue such power vn­to his Saints and Martirs, that they may be present in spirit at euery place through­out the world, where there is any memory of them: or prayer made vnto them. He will not take vpon him to define, whether they be actually there present [Page 127] or no, or whether by the ministery of Angels they be relieued that seeke helpe by the intercession of Martirs: but maketh no question but that they heare all prayers made by vvhosoeuer to them, and obtayne very many of their requests. And as S. Gregory saith: What doe they not see, Lib. 12. Moral. cap. 13. who see him that seeth all thinges; yea, contayneth all thinges within himselfe? Yet M. PER. blusheth not to say, that it is but a forgery of mans braine, to imagine that the God-head is such a cleare glasse, representing all thinges; because it should then followe, that the Angels who behold Gods face, should be ignorant of nothing: but the Angels haue learned some thinges of the Church (as S. Paul wit­nesseth:) therefore they see not all thinges in God.

To this we answere, that in God all thinges are represented, and shine more brightly, then in their owne naturall places: yet, doth not God communicate and reueale all thinges vnto euery body there present; but his diuine nature in three persons, Christ, God, and Man, with all other naturall and ordinary thinges, from the cope of heauen to the center of the earth, are seene of euery Cytizen of heauen, though with a different degree of clearenes: but of Gods counsels concerning the gouernement of the world, so much is only knowne vnto either Angell or Men, as ap­pertayneth vnto their state, and that when it belongeth vnto them: there­fore the Angels might well not knowe many thinges belonging to the go­uernement of the Church, vntill they sawe it accomplished, and there­fore might be said to haue learned some such thing of the Church. But as we haue said before, it properly appertayneth vnto the state of Saints in heauenly blisse, to knowe their friendes reasonable requests made vnto them; or else their conditions should not be so perfect, but that they might in equity require the bettering of it: and consequently they could not be so throughly contented, as their estate of perfect felicity in heauen doth demande: and thus much of M. PER. reasons. To which I will here adde one argument, commonly vsed by the Protestants, though M. PER. (for the weakenesse of it perhaps) thought best to omit it: it is taken ab authoritate negatiuè, which Schollers knowe to be naught worth.Math. 11. vers. 28. Christ saith, come yee vnto me all yee that labour and be burdened, and I will refresh you; he saith not goe to the Saints, but come to me. I answere, neither doth he say, doe not goe to the Saints, and therefore here is nothing against vs. We goe to Christ for remission of our sinnes, which lye more heauy then a ta­lent of lead vpon our backes, and through our redeemers merits doe we craue pardon of them: but to moue more effectually this our redeemer, and God his father to haue pitty vpon vs, we humbly desire the Saints (his best beloued seruants) to speake a good vvord in our behalfe, acknow­ledging our selues vnvvorthy to obtayne any thing at Gods handes, [Page 128] through our owne vngratefull wickednes. Now that our Sauiour Christ IESVS, doth very well like and approue the mediation of others euen to himselfe, may be gathered out of very many euident texts of holy Scri­pture:Math. 8. vers. 13. for he at the intercession of the Centurion cured his seruant: andMath. 9 vers. 2. se­ing the faith of them that brought a man sicke of the palsey before him, he hea­led the sicke man; andLuc. 4. vers. 38. at his disciples request cured S. Peters mother in lawe. And vvhen the vvoman of Chanaan sued vnto him for her daughter,Math. 15 vers. 23. he answered her not a word before his disciples had besought him for her: by which and many such like recorded in the Gospell, euery man (that is not wilfully blinde) may well see, that the intercession of others for vs doth much preuaile, euen with our soueraigne intercessor and mediator Christ IESVS himselfe: nowe to his authorities.

Lib. 3. cōt. Parmenia. cap. 3.The first is out of S. Augustine. Christian men commend each other in their prayers to God: And who prayeth for all, and for whome none prayeth, he is the one and true mediatour.

I answere, these wordes be rather for vs, for approuing and confessing our Sauiour Christ to be the only mediatour of redemption, as we haue already declared; they teach that all Christians may commend them­selues each to others prayers: Nowe, the Saints departed be Christians (I trust) as good as we, or rather farre better; therefor all other Christi­ans may very well (in S. Augustines judgement) commend themselues vn­to the Saints holy prayers, because each one may commend himselfe to any others prayers. Concerning the word Mediatour, S. Augustine ne­uer attributeth it vnto any, sauing only to our Sauiour, taking it alwaies in the second signification aboue named, to which three thinges are proper­ly required, according to S. Augustine: first, that he pray for all, and that none pray for him; which property M. PER. toucheth, but misquoteth the place: for it is in lib. 2. cap. 8. cont. Parmenianum. The second proper­ty and the most necessary of all is, that he pay the full price and ransome of all our sinnes, and that his redemption may in equall ballance, counter­poise the grieuousnesse of our sinnes, which is taken out of diuers places of Scripture. The third which is the ground of al the rest is, that the Me­diatour be both God and Man; that participating of both natures, he may be as it vvere a naturall middle or meanes to reconcile the two Ex­treames; and so as Man, be able to suffer something to appease Gods wrath; and as God, to giue to that suffering of his man-hood, infinite va­lue, making thereby Christs sufferinges more then sufficient to pay for the redemption of an hundred vvorldes if neede had beene. And these proprieties gathered out ofLib. 9. de ciuitate, cap. 15. & alibi. S. Augustine and other Fathers, will put downe M. PER. odde deuise of proprieties of a Mediatour; all which [Page 129] make nothing against the intercession of Saints, who be not in that sence to be called mediatours, and yet cease not to pray for vs: let vs then goe on.

M. PERKINS citeth secondly another sentence out of S. Augustine, where he bringeth in our Sauiour saying:Tract. 22. in Iohan. Thou hast no whether to goe but to me, thou hast no way to goe but by me.

Answere. S. Augustine there alludeth vnto those vvordes of our Saui­our, I am the way, the truth, and the life: and saith, that for life and truth vve haue no other way to seeke vnto, but vnto Christ; vvho according vnto his diuinity, is truth and life vnto the vvorld. And in this high de­gree of redemption and mediation, he was the only way vnto his Father: for neither the Gentiles by their morall vertues, nor Iewes by the power of their law, could without him leade them to God. All this is very good do­ctrine, but no whit more against praying to Saints, then against commen­ding of vs one to anothers prayers, or vsing any other meanes of saluati­on; as S. Augustine vpon the like occasion doth himselfe plainly declare. For vpon these wordes of S. Iohn: If any man offend, 1. Ioan. 2. tract. 1. we haue an aduocate with the Father IESVS Christ the just one, where he putteth this doubt: but some man will say, therefore doe not the Saints pray for vs? doe not the Bishops and gouernours pray for the people? After hee solueth this doubt conclu­ding, that all the members of Christes body doe pray one for another, marry the head prayeth for all: vvhere he most plainely sheweth, that the soueraigne intercession or mediation of Christ the head, doth not exclude the inter­cession of Saints departed, no more then it doth of any other yet liuing.

M. PERKINS citeth also one sentence out of S. Chrysostome, who hath vvritten thus: Thou hast no neede of Patrones to God, De perfect Euangel. nor much running vp and downe to flatter and fawne vpon others; for though thou be alone and want a Patrone, and by thy selfe pray vnto God, thou shalt obtayne thy desire.

Answere. It seemeth by his wordes, of running vp and downe, and flatte­ring of others, (vvhich Gods Saints vvill not endure) that he speaketh a­gainst seeking vnto vaine-glorious and euill mortall men, to be our Pa­trones to God, which were folly. But admit he meant the Saints depar­ted; then let vs take his whole meaning, and not wrest his wordes to any other sence then he vvill allowe and like of: he doth then often inueigh both against certayne rich men (vvho hauing giuen some little almes to the poore, thought themselues sure of pardon of their sinnes, and of salua­tion, through the poore mens prayers, though they prayed not them­selues;) and also against all such sluggish lazie persons, as relyed wholy vpon the intercession of Saints, not praying much for themselues: vpon such as these doth S. Chrysostome often call to pray for themselues, and not [Page 130] to trust wholy vnto the prayers of others; perswading them, that it were better to pray for themselues vvithout Patrones, then leauing all to Pa­trons not to pray themselues at all. But the best of all to be, both to pray themselues, and to imploy also good men and the Saints to pray for them; this is his owne declaration in these his wordes:Homil. 5. in Math. Let vs not like sluggards and slouthfull companions, depend wholy vpon the merits of others; for the prayers and supplications of Saints for vs, haue their force, and that surely very great; but then truly, when we our selues doe withall by our penitence request and sue for the same. And making the like discourse in another place, he concludeth thus:Homil. 1. in 1. ad Thessal. Knowing these thinges, neither let vs despise the prayers of the Saints, nei­ther let vs cast all vpon them.

Nowe to the arguments for the Catholike party: my first argument shal be to proue, that we may pray to the Angels in heauen to blesse vs, and to pray for vs; to whome after our blessed Lady, vve assigne the first place in our Lytanie. We haue for our vvarrant the authority and example of the holy Patriarke Iacob, expresly set downe in holy Scripture for prayer to Angels,Genes. 48.15. & 16. in these wordes: God before whome my fathers Abraham and Isaac haue walked, God who hath fedde me from my youth vnto this present day, and the Angell that hath deliuered me from all euill, blesse these children. What can be more playne, then that this blessed old Patriarke did pray vnto his good Angell Guardian? Nay (saith M. PER.) for by the Angell there you [...]st vnderstand Christ; for that in Malachie Christ is signified by the Angell of the couenant. A bonny reason; because that an Angell is once in the old Testament vsed to signifie Christ, therefore it shall signifie him in vvhat place soeuer it shall please the Protestants. Neither doth an Angell in that one place singly put, signifie Christ; but with an addition, the Angell of the couenant, to distinguish that Angell from all others: so that there is no appearance or colour of likelyhood, out of that place so vnlike, to inter­prete this. It remayneth then, that the vvord Angell be taken properly (as it is most commonly in holy Scripture) for an heauenly spirit, ap­pointed by God to keepe Iacob: vvhich I confirme by the circumstance of the place; because Iacob prayeth vnto that Angell, as to one that vvas then extant and liuing, that had also before deliuered him from many pe­rils: but Christ vvas not then borne, nor had any doings in the vvorld, therefore he did not pray to him. Againe, the wise Patriarke and Prophet must be made to speake very fondly, if he should pray him that was not in rerum natura, to blesse those children; he might very well haue prayed God for Christes sake (that vvas to come) to blesse them: but to pray Christ himselfe, whome he knewe then not to be any where liuing or ex­tant to blsse them, hath no sence in it; for blessing (as all other working) [Page 131] supposeth a reall being and existence of the same party. To this example of Iacob, vve may joyne the consaile that Eliphas the Thamite gaue vnto Iob; Turne thy selfe vnto some of the Saints, and Iobs owne practise;Cap. 19. vers. 21. Tob. c. 12. vers. 12. Iob cap. 5. vers. 1. Haue pitty on me, haue pitty on me, at least you my friendes. Vpon which place S. Augustine saith, that Iob the holy man made intercession to the Angels, or to the Saints to pray for him; to vvhich we may also adde, howe that Raphael offered vp good Tobias prayers to God, and howe that anotherApoc. 8. vers. 3. Angell did giue of the incense of prayers of all Saints, vpon the Altar of gold which is before the throne of God: Out of which places, and such like I frame this argument.

The Angels be most holy and charitable creatures of themselues, they also haue by Gods appointment charge ouer vs, and doe assist vs; where­vpon it followeth most clearely, that they are most ready in vvord and deede, to further all our good desires and honest demandes: and conse­quently being by vs requested to pray for vs, cannot refuse it. To say that they haue no care of our prayers, is both contrary to their charity and to their charge, and the places in Scripture already cited: to vvhich this may be added. Christ to discourage men from offending children and little ones, alleageth this inducement:Math. 18. vers. 10. That their Angels see the face of his father in heauen, signifying that they vvould complaine of them to God, and sue for seuere punishment against such offendours; vvhich argueth, that they doe very well knowe and carefully tender our good: vvhich is also strengthned by an other place,Luc. 15. vers. 10. where our Sauiour declareth what great joy they make at the conuersion of a sinner. Out of all vvhich textes is plainely to be collected, that they knowe of our conuersion, see the parti­cular wrongs that be offered vs, and the 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 [Page 132] 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 pr [...] ­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,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, Orat. in Cyprian. and to feede his flocke, & to gouerne them togither with him. [Page 133] 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 [Page 134] 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 [Page 135] 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 c [...]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 [Page 136] 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 thereof.

Reply. Why doth he then twice in this very question gather out of it; first, that Abraham was in heauen, then, that faith is not to be confirmed by ap­paritions of dead men, vvhich are not the principall intent and scope of it? but we must giue our newe Masters leaue, both to affirme a thing when it seemeth to make for them, and after to denie the same flatly when it bea­reth against them.Lib. 2. in Iouinianū de cura pro mort. cap. 14. lib. 4. dia­log. c. 29. We then say with S. Ambrose vpon that place, vvith S. Hierome, with S. Augustine, and with S. Gregory, (the foure principall Doctors of the Latin Church) that the story of Diues and Lazarus is a true hystoricall narration, and not a parable of that which neuer was, as by the proper names of Abraham and Lazarus, and other circumstances they ga­ther. And vvhereas M. PER. objecteth against it, That then it may be col­lected out of it, that wicked men in hell haue compassion and loue to their bretheren on earth, and zeale to Gods glory, because Diues seemeth so to haue had. I an­swere, that there is no appearance of any zeale of Gods glory in Diues, only he desired that some might goe out of that place of torment to aduer­tise his bretheren of it, that they came not to him thither: which was not out of any loue neither that he bare to his bretheren, but for feare of his owne further torments if they came thither after him; because he had gi­uen them euill example and encouragement to doe euill, and perhaps e­uill counsell vvhen he liued vvith them, and therefore was by their con­demnation to receiue increase of his owne paynes: so that his intreaty for them proceeded only out of the loue of himselfe, and from the feare of more grieuous torments. Nowe it being certayne, that Abraham in hea­uen (according to the Protestants opinion) could heare Diues in hel: much more easily can the Saints in heauen heare our prayers, or any mans that dwelleth on earth; Nowe after our doctrine, who hold Abraham then to haue beene in Lymbo, thus the argument must be framed: If Abraham not yet indued with that perfect knowledge, which the Saints in heauen haue could (neuerthelesse) heare Diues in hell; betweene whome and himselfe there was magnum Chaos, Ibid. 26. as the text hath, a huge deepe darkenesse and great distance: with much facility can the Saints (who excell him being then in Lymbo in knowledge) see and heare men liuing on the earth.

Our fift argument▪ the Saints in heauen doe present vnto God the pray­ers of holy men liuing vpon the earth, therefore they knowe the same [Page 137] prayers well in particular, and embrace and recommend them to the di­uine Majestie. The consequent is manifest, because no man can offer vp by word of mouth a petition if he knowe not what it is: neither will any vvise-man (such as the Saints be) speake for he knoweth not whome nor what: wherefore if the Saints doe present our prayers to God, they doe knowe them in particular. The antecedent is set downe in expresse tearmes in the word of God: The 24. Seniours (who sate about the throne of God) fell before the Lambe, hauing euery one harpes and golden vials ful of odours, Apoc. 5. vers. 8. which are the prayers of Saints. M. PER. saith, that these were their owne prayers and not other mens, but vvithout alleadging either authority or rea­son. We proue by the text it selfe that it must be vnderstoode of other mens prayers and not their owne; because otherwise in due construction it should haue beene said, Which are their owne praiers: but the text saying, That the odour of their vials were the prayers of Saints, it distinguisheth plaine­ly those Saints from themselues, vvhich also the learned interpreters on that place, Primasius, and the Greeke schoole, with Oecumenius doth con­firme and testifie.

The former arguments were to proue, that the Saints doe heare our prayers; now the sixt reason shall be to meete with that out-cry of our ad­uersaries, that (forsooth) vve robbe God of his honour, and giue it to Saints, when we pray vnto them, thus: God is more honoured by our worshipping and praying vnto Saints departed, then if we did no wor­ship vnto them, nor prayed not vnto them at all, but went immediately to God without their helpe: therefore if it were for nothing else but for the greater honor of God, we ought to worship Saints and to pray vnto them. I proue the former proposition thus: First we worship the Saints, only for the supernaturall gifts vvhich God hath bestowed vpon them, which must needes redound vnto the honour of the giuer, as when I ho­nour any of the kings officers, it being principally because he is the kings officer, the King himselfe is together and more principally honored, and Christ saith expresly, that hee that despiseth one of his seruants, Luc. 10. vers. 16. despiseth Christ himselfe. Whence it followeth, that he who respecteth and honou­reth one of his seruants (especially because he is his seruant) doth toge­ther and (in deed) more principally honour Christ: he and his graces be­ing the very cause why vve respect and vvorshippe the other. Further, vvhen many (and those of the vvorthyest sort) doe become humble sui­tors vnto God for any one of vs, much more honour is done vnto God through the dignity of their persons, then if one meane silly sinner did sue to him alone: For it is more honourable and magnificall, to doe a pleasure at the instance and request of many vvorthy personages, then [Page 138] where one poore worme alone doth sue for it; yea and much more excel­lent thankes is rendred vnto God by the number and dignity of the sui­tors, when their petition is graunted them. This argument which is e­uident reason, is grounded also vpon S. Pauls authority; who request­eth the Christians of Corinth to helpe him in their prayers:2. Cor. 1. vers. 11. That (saith he) by many mens persons, thankes for the gift which is in vs, may be giuen by many in our behalfe. Seeing then, that by our praying vnto the Saints, they are drawne in to become suitors vvith vs, and for vs; and conse­quently obtayning their suite, they stand aswell bound to render thankes to God therefore as we doe: It followeth thereupon most euidently, that God is by our praying to his Saints, both more honored when such wor­thy persons sue vnto him for vs, and also better thanked, for that we doe obtaine by their intercession. Now let vs close vp this question with the testimony of some of the mo [...] ancient, famous, and best learned Doctors of both the Greeke and Latin Church. Origen who liued not much aboue 200. yeares after Christ, prayeth vnto that blessed paterne of patience Iob, Lib. 2. in Iob. thus: O happy Iob nowe liuing for euer with God, and remayning a conque­rour in the sight of our Lord and King, pray for vs wreatches, that the wonderfull mercy of God may also defend vs in all tribulations, and deliuer vs from all oppressi­ons of the wicked one, In euang. de sanct. Deipara. &c. Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria, and first of the foure principall Doctors of the Greeke Church, after many prayses of the immaculate Virgin Mary, saith: Therefore all the rich men of the earth doe pray vnto thee, to be enriched with thy goodes and spirituall contemplations. We doe cry vnto thee, remember vs most sacred Virgin, &c. Gregory Nazianzene the second of these famous Doctors, doth thus pray vnto S. Athanasius, who dyed in his time:Orat. in sanct. A­thanas. O Athanasius, ô sacred and louing hart, &c. thou from aboue looke fauourably vpon vs, and gouerne this holy people that adore the holy Trinity, and cherish and feede vs in peace, &c. The like prayer he maketh to S. Cyprian, and to S. Basil in his funerall orations made of them. S. Basil speaking of fourty Martirs,Orat. in quadrag. Mart. of whome he made his sermon, saith: He that is troubled flyeth vnto these fourty, and he that rejoyseth runneth vnto them: they that they may be deliuered from their aduersity; these that they may continue in prosperity: here the Godly woman is found praying for her children, &c. S. Chrysostome the last but not the least of the foure, highly commendeth the Emperour of Rome, for praying vnto S. Peter and S. Paul, saying: He that is revested in purple, Hom. 66. ad populū Antioch. Ibid. goeth to embrace their tombes, and all state laid aside doth become an humble suppliant to the Saints, that they would pray vnto God for him: he that goeth crowned with a Diademe and imperiall crowne, humbly pray­eth v [...]to the fisher-man and to the maker of tents, as to his patrones and protectors. Let vs to make vp the halfe dozen joyne one other their equall vvith the [Page 139] former; it shall be Gregory Nyssene S. Basils brother, he speaking vnto the Martir Theodore, saith: Make intercession vnto the King of all for our Country; Orat. in Theodor. we stand in dread of great persecution. The wicked Scithians are at hand, and about to wage battle against vs; thou as a souldier fight for vs, as a Martir speake boldly in our cause: and much more to this purpose, which I omit that I be not ouer tedious. To those of the Greeke Church let vs joyne as many of the Doctors of the Latin Church, beginning with S. Ambrose the first of the foure more famous Doctors: he first teacheth,Lib. de vi­duis. That Angels and Mar­tirs are to be besought vnto, and earnestly prayed vnto by vs, alleadging that they are our Presidents, and the beholders of our life and actions; and encourageth vs not to be ashamed to vse them as intercessors of our infirmity. And in another place prayeth thus: That this my prayer may be of greater force, Serm. 91. de inuent. corpor. Geruas. & Prothas. I request the aide of the blessed Virgin Mary, of the Apostles, Martirs, and Confessors; the prayers of such personages thou (ô Lord) doest neuer despise, if it shall please thee to inspire them to pray for me. S. Augustine also first teacheth vs to pray to Martirs, saying:Tract. 84 in Iohan. We doe not so remember Martirs at that table, as we doe o­thers that rest in peace: for we doe not pray for them, but rather pray to them that they will pray for vs. And else where he saith:Serm. 7. de verbis Apostoli. That it is an injury to pray for a Martir, vnto whose prayers we ought to recommend our selues. Secondly, he himselfeDe bapt. cōt. Donat lib. 7. ca. 1. prayeth vnto S. Cyprian to helpe him with his good prayers. Third­ly, he hath recordedLib. 22. de ciuitat. Dei cap. 8. the miraculous helpe which two seuerall persons obtained by praying vnto the Martir S. Stephen. S. Hierome is so formall for vvor­shipping of Relikes and praying to Saints, in his treatise against Vigilan­tius, that the Protestants are driuen to preferre that odious Heretike before him; Yet because some of them denie him to speake there of praying to Saints, note these wordes of his: Thou Vigilantius sayest, that whilest we liue we may pray one for another, but after we be dead no mans prayer shall profit other, &c. see the objection of the Protestant. Nowe heare that learned Doctors answere: If (saith he) Apostles and Martirs whiles they liued here might pray for others, when they ought to be carefull for themselues; howe much more nowe after their crownes and triumphes. Take also another place of his, which is so cleare that it cannot admit any exception:Epist. ad Eustochiū in epitaph. Paulae. Farewell (saith he to that blessed vvidowe Paula, being then departed this life) and with thy prayers helpe the old age of him that worshippeth thee: thy faith and good workes haue joyned thee to Christ: being present thou shalt more easily obtayne that which thou wilt aske. The fourth of Latin Doctors is Gregory the great (to whome vve English-men are so much bound for our conuersion to the Christian faith;) he perswadeth praying to Saints in this sort:Homil. 31 super. e­uāg. [...]fine. If any of vs had a great cause to be heard tomorrowe before a high judge; we would this day most diligent­ly seeke out a wise well spoken and gratious counsailour, that were likelyest to [Page 140] handle it in the best manner. Behold (saith he) the seuere judge IESVS, assi­sted with a terrible troupe of Angels and Archangels, is to sit vpon vs; before that majesticall assembly the cause of our saluation is to be discussed, and yet we doe not nowe prouide vs Patrones, that may on that day defend vs: Martirs will then be good aduocates, but they looke to be requested, and (as I may say) doe seeke that they may besought vnto; therefore seeke by praying vnto them to gette them to be your Patrones, make them before hand intercessors of your guiltynesse, because he that is to be our judge will be nowe intreated, that then he may not punish vs. To these foure pillers of the Latin Church, I will (to make the number equall with the Greeke Fathers) adde two others; the first shall be out of Ruffinus (vvho vvas of S. Hieromes standing) of the most Christian Emperour Theodosius:Ruffin. li. 2. hyst. ca. 33. He assisted with the Priestes and People, visited the holy places, and clad in bayre-cloath lay prostrate before the shrines of the Apostles and Mar­tirs, and by his faithfull intercession and praying to the Saints, most humbly sued for succour. The last shall be our famous country-man venerable Bede: Let vs (saith he) with swift flight, Lib. 4. in Cant. cir­ca finem. seeke vnto the holes of the wall, that is: let vs flie vnto the often intercession of Angels and Saints, that they may pray for vs vn­to our mercifull creatour, for these are the most strong and surest fortresses of holy Church. Nowe I vvould gladly knowe vvhether the testimony of these dozen of the chiefest Bishops and Doctors, aswell for their Godlynesse of life, as for their knowledge in holy Scriptures, who were also chosen by the holy Ghost to gouerne, instruct, and teach the principal Churches in both Europe, Africke, and Asia, and that in or about the most flourishing state thereof (for all of them sauing S. Gregory the great and venerable Bede, liued within 400. and some within 200. yeares of Christ:) Whither, I say, these most sound testimonies of so many sacred and worthy per­sonages, be not sufficient to perswade any reasonableman, that praying to the Saints in heauen is both agreable to Gods vvord (which no man in these dayes vnderstandeth halfe so well as the worst of any of them did) and also very profitable for vs. Yet for the further assurance of this im­portant matter, I wil adde one miracle (which I touched before) wrought in confirmation of it: so that he that will not beleeue this, shall be conuin­ced not to beleeue God himselfe witnessing of it. In the coasts of Thelousae in France, Ex lib. 3. vitae S. Bernardi cap. 5. about 400. yeares past, one Henry an Apostata and wicked fel­lowe, beganne to cry out against praying for the dead, and praying to Saints, and pilgrimages, and some other points of the Catholike doctrine: the fame of S. Bernards holynesse and learning being then very great, he was sent for by the Popes Legate to come thither, to stay the people from following that lewde companion; who on a day after he had preached at a towne called Sarlate, blessed some loaues of bread, and said: This shall be [Page 141] a certayne proofe that our doctrine is true, and theirs false; if those that be sicke, by tasting of this holy bread be cured of their diseases. There stood by among others the Bishop of Charters, who fearing what might followe, added; if they taste of it with faith: Nay said the holy Father Barnard, (nothing doubting of Gods power) I say not so, but he that shall taste of it shall be truly cured, that they may knowe vs to be true men, and the true messengers of God, then a great multitude tasting of it, were (according to his word) perfectly healed of what disease soeuer they had. What can be more euident or better assured, then that praying to Saints is the truth of God? seing that it pleased God to confirme it in such sort, by the miraculous curing of so many people.

M. PERKINS for an vpshot saith, that he finally dissenteth from the Ca­tholikes, because they are not content to pray to Saints, but say further; that God through their merits in heauen, doth bestowe many benefits vpon vs on earth.

I would he agreed with vs in the two former points, we should quick­ly be at accord in this: for the good-man is fouly mistaken if he thinke that vve affirme the Saints (after they be come to heauen) to merit a newe there; for we hold that none after their death can merit any more, but doe then receiue according vnto their former merits, either saluation or damnation: but we neuerthelesse say, that God in respect of their former merits gotten in this life, doth for their sakes bestowe many benefits vpon vs, and this doth M. PER. himselfe confirme in plaine wordes,In this question. when he graunteth (pressed thereto by the euidence of Gods word) that men vpon earth haue helpe and benefit, by the faith and piety which the Saints departed shewed when they were in this life: for (saith he further) God shewed mercy on them that keepe his commandements, to a thousand generations. True it is, that this their faith and piety he would not haue to be called merits; but vve with that most honourable Father S. Ambrose doe say: Apud Deum, Lib. 5. su­per Lucā. seruus & interueniendi meritum, & jus habet impetrandi; with God, a seruant of his hath both the merit to be an intercessour, and the right to obtayne his suite: see more of merits in that question. Here M. PER. addeth against himselfe: That the Saints in heauen haue receiued the full reward of all their me­rits, and therefore there is nothing further that they can merit. Here we haue first that the Saints had merits, which he was wont to deny flatly; againe, how doth God (hauing fully rewarded their former faith and piety at their entrance into heauen) afterward for their sakes, shew mercy to thou­sands? which he confesseth himselfe: wherefore he is aswell bound to an­swere this as we are, it bearing as strongly against his owne doctrine as it doth against ours. To saue him a labour I answere in a word, that it is one part of the reward of a faithful seruant, to be alwayes after (not deseruing the contrary) in his Masters fauour, and so gratious with him, that he may [Page 142] intreate any reasonable mat [...]r at his handes: so are the Saints vvith God, vvho can neuer be wearyed with their suites, so long as they all doe but tend vnto his owne honour, and the saluation of his poore creatures, and as we both agreed vpon before: Their faith, piety, and charity, whiles they liued, did and doth still moue and cause God to shewe mercy vnto thousands vpon earth, for their sakes; though their merits were before most abundantly rewarded: let this suffice for this question.

OVR CONSENT.
M. PERKINS Page 278.

WE hold a Christian Purgatory, by which we vnderstand, first; the afflictions of Gods children here on earth: secondly, the bloud of Christ is a Purgatory for our sinnes; and so Augustine calleth the mercy of God our Purgatory.

To this I say, that the word Purgatory may be taken di­uersly, and signifie many thinges; which because they be not to the pre­sent purpose, may be here well omitted.

THE DIFFERENCE.

WE differ in two thinges: first, concerning the place, the Catholikes hold it to be vnder the ground, into which mens soules after this life doe enter. This we deny as hauing no warrant in the word, which mentioneth only two places for men after this life: Luc. 16. v. 25.26. Ioh. 3. Apoc. 22. heauen and hell.

Here M. PER. beginneth the disproofe of Purgatory with his ordina­ry hackney, it is not mentioned in the Scriptures. To which I answere first, that it is, as shall be proued hereafter: but if it were not, yet were it to be beleeued, because it vvas receiued by Tradition euen from the Apostles [Page 145] time. Besides this fault in M. PER. argument, there is another more chil­dish, to wit: because there is no mention made of Purgatory in three or foure places by him quoted, he concludeth that it hath no warrant at all, in any other place of Scriptures; as who should say, there is no Doctor of Phisicke in two or three Colledges of Cambridge, therefore there is not one in all the Vniuersity besides. Finally,Luc. 16. vers. 25. the very first place by him ci­ted, ouerthroweth flatly his owne position, it being truly vnderstood ac­cording vnto the generall exposition of the most learned Doctors: for Abraham then was not in heauen, but in a third place called Lymbo Patrum; because, before Christ had paid their ransome by his death on the crosse, the Fathers of the old Testament were holden captiue: and so of Christ it is said, That ascending on high, he ledde captiuity captiue. Ephes. 4. vers. 8. Hebr. 9. v. 8. & 15. And S. Paul pro­ueth by the entring of the high Priest only into the second part of the Tabernacle, called Sancta Sanctorum; that the way of the Holies was not then manifested, but by the bloud of Christ to be laid open, and they by the death of the testatour, to receiue the eternall redemption. But this is by the way, to shew the wisdome of the man, to bring one text in controuersie to established another.

But he goeth forward and saith stoutly, that there can be no place for Purgatory: for that it is saide, That they who dyed in the Lord, Apoc. 14. vers. 13. are bidden to rest from their labours: which cannot be (saith he) if they goe into Purgatory. And to cut off all cauils, it is further said, their workes (that is) the reward of their workes followe them, euen at the heeles.

I answere first, that we haue here by the way, heauen to be the reward of workes by M. PER. confession, which in the question of merits he de­nied most absolutely. Secondly, that albeit they who die in our Lord, doe not goe to Purgatory, yet many others may;Lib. 20. de ciuit. c. 9. because according vnto S. Augustines judgement, and the holy bretheren of Geneua, this place is to be vnderstood of Martirs only, who die for our Lord. And we that con­fesse Purgatory, doe hold that no Martir doth goe thither; but being (as it were) a new baptized in their owne bloud, doe appeare before the face of God without any spotte: whereas other ordinary good Christians be not free from all such staines, and may also haue much penance at their death not performed, which they must endure in Purgatory. I say third­ly, that if the vvordes should be applyed to all Christians that die in the grace of God; yet is there nothing in them against Purgatory. For the wordes following may well be spoken of them that goe thither; because they both rest from their labours, which they had in their former life: and also enjoy an assurance of heauen, without any such peril or hazard there­of, as they liued in before: and their workes may very well be said to fol­lowe them; for that according vnto the rate of their workes, they must en­dure [Page 146] the fire of purgatory, either more or lesse. Fourthly, I may answere with S. Augustine on that place; that they who die in our Lord, from that time there spoken off,Vers. 13. shall goe to heauen: Amodo dicit spiritus, from thence forth saith the spirit, they shall rest from their labours. Nowe, to see what time is there spoken off, reade the seauenth verse of the same chapter, where are these wordes: Feare our Lord, and giue him honour, because the houre of judgement is come: so that from thenceforth (that is) after the last judgement there shall be no Purgatory; vvherefore, M. PERKINS very cunningly clipped the word from thence-forth out of the text, for feare of breeding some scruple: and thus you see, that the text of Scripture so highly estee­med by M. PERKINS serueth nothing for his purpose. Nowe to some fragments which he citeth out of the Fathers.

Hom. 50. Tom. 10.Augustine saith well, after this life, there remaineth no compunction or satis­faction.

This same text he cited before in the question of satisfaction some­what otherwise, viz. homil. 5. tom. 10. both quotations are most imper­fect: for in that tenth Tome of S. Augustines vvorkes, there are sixe se­uerall kinde of Homilies, to wit: De verbis Domini, De verbis Apostoli, 50. homiliarum, de Sanctis, de Tempore, de Diuers [...]s; which of these he meaneth I knowe not: and to reade ouer the 50. and fift of euery of them for one line I list not; the man belike tooke it by retayle. But it may most easily be answered euen by the very next wordes, that he citeth out of the same au­thour:Enchirid. 115. Here is all remission of sinnes; here be temptations that moue vs to sinne; lastly, here is the euill from which we desire to be deliuered, but there is none of all these thinges. So that in this life only there is compunction (that is) true repentance, and turning from all sinne, with satisfaction, or a purpose to satisfie; and he that dyeth without this true repentance, shall be damned: there is no Purgatory for them, but for such only as die with true compun­ction, and with full purpose to satisfie for their sinnes, either in this life, or in the next.

De verbis Apost. 31.M. PERKINS citeth another line out of S. Augustine. We be not here without sinnes, but we shall goe hence without sinne.

Of whome speaketh he trowe you? vvhat, of all sortes of men? then none shall be damned. Againe, what is this to Purgatory? for they that goe to Purgatory, must before they die, by true repentance obtayne par­don of their sinnes; or else they shall not goe to Purgatory, but to Hell. Lastly, I haue read the Homily ouer, and find no such word there. Heare (by the way) out of the same workes of that most vener [...]ble Doctor, three passages for Purgatory: and conferre them with those cited by M. PER. and then judge what his opinion was of Purgatory. In that Treatise cal­led [Page 147] 50. Homilies. homil. 16. he writeth thus: This punishment (of hell fire) tarryeth for them, who shal perish euerlastingly; to whome it is said: Math. 3. The chaffe he shall burne with vnquenchable fire. But they who haue done thinges wor­thy of temporall punishment, of whome the Apostle saith: 1. Cor. 3. If any mans vvorke burne he shal suffer detriment, but he shall be saued yet so as through fire; of which also the Prophet speaketh, and a fiery floodde did runne before him:Dan. 7. They shall passe through a fiery floodde, and horrible foordes of burning flames. And according to the greatnes of the matter of sinne, so shall their stay and aboade be there; and as much as their former faults required, so much shall the reasonable correction of the flame take of the man. Is not this a plaine description of Pur­gatory? The second out of his Enchyridion: Neyther is it to be denyed, Cap. 110. but that the soules of the departed, are holden by the piety of their friendes aliue; when for them is offered the Sacrifice of our Mediatour, or almes are giuen in the Church for them. But these thinges profit them, who when they liued, did deserue that these thinges might profit them: for there is a certayne kinde of life neither so good, that it doth not neede these after their death, neither so euill, but that these thinges will profit him after his death. There is a life so good, that it needeth not these thinges▪ and againe another so euill, that cannot be holpen with them, &c. The third, out of the third Treatise cited by M. PERKINS de verbis Apostoli: It is not to be doubted, but that men deceased this life, Serm. 34. are holpen by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the comfortable Sacrifice, and by almes, which are giuen for their soules; that our Lord doth deale with them more mercifully, then their sinnes required: those men then were in Purgatory. Thus much (by the way) out of S. Augustine, for a taste of his opinion touching Purgatory. Nowe to the rest of M. PERKINS testimonies.

Cyril saith: They which are once dead, Lib. 3. in Esaiam. can adde nothing to the thinges that they haue done, but shall remayne as they were left, and wayte for the time of the last judgement.

Here is such a citation as sendeth to no peece of his vvorkes; yet, no­thing difficult to be answered if any such be: for the very next sentence that he alleadgeth will serue to solue it, which is out of S. Chrysostome, who saith: That after the end of this life there be no occasions of merit. To both vvhich the answere is, that a man after his death cannot merit any more, because merit only belongeth vnto men while they liue: after death they may well reape the due reward of their merits, or else suffer just punish­ment for their former offences. Neyther can a man that is dead alter his estate, but must expect judgement according to his former deserts. Now, if he haue vpon the true foundation builded wood, hay, and stubble, then he must passe through the fire: marry, by the helpe of good prayers, al­mes, and principally by the Sacrifice of the Masse, he may haue his paines [Page 148] in that purging fire, remitted or much eased; as you haue heard before out of S. Augustine. Hom. 41. in 1. ad Corinth. And the same teacheth S. Chrysostome, saying: The dead are holpen not by their friendes weeping; but by their prayers, supplications, and almes. And this is all in effect which M. PERKINS disputeth against Purgatory.

Secondly (saith he) we differ from them touching the meanes of Purgatory. They say that men are purged by suffering of paines in Purgatory, whereby they satisfie for their veniall sinnes, and for the temporall punishment of their mortall sinnes: We teach the contrary, holding that nothing can free vs, from the least pu­nishment of the smallest sinne, but the sufferinges of Christ. Indeede they say, that our sufferinges in themselues considered, doe not purge and satisfie; but as they are made meritorious by the sufferings of Christ. But to this I oppose one text of Scripture: Hebr. 1. vers. 3. Christ hath purged our sinnes by himselfe; where the last clause cuts the throate of all humane satisfactions and merits: and it giueth vs to vnderstand, that whatsoeuer purgeth vs from our sinnes, is not to be found in vs, but in Christ alone.

To batter this his only fortresse, his owne wordes in the beginning of the same Chapter, are very sufficient: for there he plainely teacheth, That by afflictions which men suffer in this world, they are clensed from their corrupti­on; as gold is from the drosse by fire. If our owne suffering purge vs from sinne (as he confesseth before) howe then can it be true, that that vvhich purgeth vs from our sinnes, is not in vs, but in Christ alone? Againe, it is but a diuers reading in the Greeke text, that hath those wordes, by himselfe; for they are not in the Latin translation. But admitting them for currant, the sence is most easie, and nothing against eyther Purgatory or humane satisfactions: for the Apostle meaneth no other thing thereby, then that he expresseth in the 9. Chapter following, to wit: That Christ not by the bloud of Calues or Goates, but by his owne bloud, purged vs from our sinnes, and wrought our redemption; in such sort as in the question of satisfaction hath beene declared at large. Here I say briefly, that Christ appeased his Fa­thers wrath, towardes all such as shal be made pertakers of his merits, de­faced the sinne it selfe, and paide the eternall punishment due vnto their sinnes; but left a temporall paine to be endured of the offendour (for e­uery such sinne pardoned) eyther in this world, or in the next: both be­cause reason requireth, that he vvho falleth after that he was once freely pardoned (as vve were all in baptisme) should not the second time be so easilie admitted into Gods grace, as that he should not himselfe feele some smart for his offence. Againe, we being members of Christs body, meete it is that we suffer with him, Rom. 8. Col. 1, 24. if we will raigne with him, as the Apostle teach­eth: vvho also was so bold as to say, that he in his body accomplished those [Page 149] thinges, that wanted to the passions of Christ. To this place M. PER. referreth prayer for the dead, of which he propoundeth three conclusions: two af­firmatiue, and one negatiue, but proueth nothing.

The first conclusion: We hold that Christian charity must extend it selfe to them that be dead, to wit: in honest buriall of them, in preseruing their good names, and in reliefe of their posterity.

The second conclusion: Further we pray in generall for the faithfull depar­ted, that God would hasten their joyfull resurrection.

The third conclusion: To pray for particular men departed, and to pray for their deliuerance out of Purgatory, we thinke it vnlawfull; because we haue nei­ther promise, nor commandement so to doe: and so endeth he the question of Purgatory, not propounding one argument in fauour of our party.

His reason of the necessity of a promise and commandement to pray for any thing, before we pray for it, I haue in the question of praying to Saints confuted at large, and therefore omit it here: and will furnish this place vvith some arguments for the proofe of Purgatory. And though M. PER. blushed not to say, that it hath no warrant in the word of God; yet he hath, or might haue seene in Cardinall Bellarmine, Tom. 1. controuer. 6. cap. 3. & 4. little lesse then 20. textes of holy Scripture, vsed by the auncient Doctors to confirme the doctrine of Purgatory, I will make choise of some fewe of them: and be­cause Purgatory and prayer for the dead, be so closely lincked together, that the one doth necessarily followe the other, I will joyne them both to­gither. And (gentle Reader) remember here that which hath beene be­fore rehearsed out of S. Augustine: that there be some who die in so perfect an estate, that they are carryed presently to heauen; as all Innocents, and Martirs, and such other holy personages who commit fewe offences, and yet doe leade a very austere life. Others there be too too many, vvho both liue and die wickedly; such are also straight after their death, plun­ged into the flames of hell fire. Nowe, There is a third sort of men, who liue reasonable honestly, at least doe die very penitently; these only goe to Purgatory, there to doe satisfaction for their former offences, before they can be admitted into the joyes of heauen: nowe to our proofes.

First,2. Macha­baeor. 12. Iudas Machabeus (that most valiant Captayne of the people of God) with all his armie, prayed vnto God to pardon the offence of them that were slaine: Vers. 42. and afterward making a generall collection among them, sent 12000. groates to Hierusalem, that sacrifice might there be offered for the offence of the departed: the holy Ghost in the text witnessing it, To be a holy and holesome cogitation to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed and deliuered from their sinnes. This text is so euident for prayer for the dead, that it can haue no other answere, then that which Heretikes flie vnto, in their most desperate [Page 150] plunges, to vvit: to denie the whole booke to be Canonicall Scripture. Vpon which point, because it belongeth to another place, I wil not dwel: yet, vvill I note by the vvay, that S. Augustine in expresse tearmes doth declare,18. Ciuit. cap. 36. that the Church of God in his time did take it for Canonicall Scripture, although the Iewes did not so. The Protestants (I knowe vvell) cauill at ma­ny thinges in those bookes; so might they that were disposed to wrangle, against the best Hystories in the Bible. But one of milder temper may (perhaps) demand, howe those bookes that were at the first doubted off by many, and not generally receiued for Canonicall, could afterward be made Canonicall? to this I answere, that the Protestants (as vvell as we) doe take nowe for Canonicall, some such bookes as were 300. yeares after Christ doubted off, to wit: the Epistle to the Hebrewes, S. Iames Epistle, the second of S. Peter, the second and third of S. Iohn, S. Iudes Epistle, and the Apocalipse, or Reuelation of S. Iohn. Nowe, they themselues ha­uing admitted all these of the newe Testament for Canonicall, vpon the judgement and declaration of the Catholike Church: vvhy doe they not as vvell take those of the old Testament for Canonicall also, the same Church hauing aboue a thousand yeares past, approued them for Cano­nicall, as well as the other? At the first, because of the great persecutions, the learned could not so generally meete together, to examine & discusse such matters, as afterward in the peace of the Church; and therefore in that time diuers men vvere of diuers opinions, concerning the authority of such bookes: but vvhen the learned in the Church, assembling toge­ther in the name of God, and hauing the assistance of the holy Ghost to direct them, had once declared which were Canonicall, which not; there was no further question among the obedient children of the Church: on­ly vnskilfull men, or Heretikes (because they will be choosers) will admit of vvhich it pleaseth them, and reject also those vvhich displease them. But to leaue this digression; the bookes of the Machabees cannot but haue euen with Heretikes, farre greater credit, then Liuie, Plutarke, and such like prophane hystories,Pag. 307. as M. PER. also confesseth. They then vvill serue to conuince any reasonable man, that the custome of the people of Israell (then the only chosen seruants of God) vvas to pray for the dead, and to offer sacrifice for the pardon of the soules that were departed; be­cause it is so recorded in the best hystorie of their times: and is also secon­ded by Iosephus the sonne of Gordan in his booke of the Iewes vvarre;Cap. 91. vvhere he saith, that the Iewes were wont to pray for the dead, vnlesse it were for such that had slaine themselues. And thus much out of the old Testament: nowe out of the newe.

Our Sauiour Christ willeth vs to agree with our aduersary, whiles we are in [Page 151] the way with him, least perhaps he deliuer vs to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and so we be cast into prison: for verily (saith he) thou shalt not goe out from thence, till thou repay the last farthing. By this parable or example, our Sauiour teacheth vs vvhiles we liue in this vvorld, to agree vvith the lawe of God, vvhich is our aduersary when we transgresse and offend a­gainst it; otherwise at our death we shall justly be cast into prison, and lye there till we haue fully satisfied and paid the last farthing of our debt. The Protestants say, that he who is so cast into prison shal neuer come out: We say the contrary, that this parable concerneth them especially that shall be deliuered at the length, and proue it; first because the parable is not taken from a murtherer or theefe, vvho may be justly condemned to death, or to perpetuall prison; but of a debter, who ordinarily doth gette out in time: and therefore it agreeth better vnto men cast in Purgatory, to pay the debt of the former trespasses, then to them that are condem­ned to hell. Besides, the ancient Fathers doe so expound it.

Origen. Albeit it be promised, In epist. ad Rom. that he shall at length come forth of that pri­son▪ not withstanding it is designed, that he cannot goe out vntill he hath paid the last farthing.

S. Cyprian. It is one thing to stand for pardon, Lib. 4. e­pist. 2. and another to passe straight to glory: one thing, being cast into prison not to goe forth till you haue paid the last farthing; and another, to receiue presently the reward of faith and vertue: one thing, to be corrected and purged long time in fire for your sinnes; and another, by dying for Christ to haue purged all your sinnes.

Eusebius Emissenus.Homil. 3. de Epiph. But they who haue deserued temporall paines (vnto whome those wordes of our Lord appertayne, that they shall not goe out thence, vntill they haue paid the last farthing) shall passe through a floode of fire. So that both by the scope of the parable, and by the interpretation of the Fa­thers, many men dying in debt, that is, not hauing fully satisfied for their former sinnes, are cast into the prison of Purgatory, there to pay the last farthing, vnlesse by the piety and intercession of their friendes, their more speedy deliuerance be procured and obtayned.

Moreouer, that there is such pardon graunted after this life to some, is confirmed by that vvhich our Sauiour saith in another place:Math. 12. That they who sinne against the holy Ghost, shall not be forgiuen neither in this world, nor in the world to come: vvhich were a very improper kinde of speech, if none were to be pardoned in the world to come; As it should be for our King, to say to some offendour, I will not forgiue thee neither in England, nor in Italy; vvhereas he hath nothing to doe to pardon in a strange Dominion. And the learned knowe, that in enumeration of partes, it is as foule a fault to reckon something for a part which is none, as to omit some true part [Page 152] indeede: so that then our Lord parting the forgiuenesse of sinnes into this world, and the world to come, in all congruity of speech we must vn­derstand, that some sinnes are forgiuen in the world to come; which can­not be in heauen, where none are; nor in hell where there is no remission of sinne: therefore it must be in a third place, which we call Purgatory.

And this is no newe collection made by moderne Catholikes, out of the vvord of God; but as auncient as S. Augustine, who hath these wordes: Some men suffer temporall punishment in this life only, Lib. 21. de ciuit. c. 13. others after their death; some others both here and there: yet, before that last and most seuere judgement. For all men after their deathes, shall not goe vnto those euerlasting torments of hel­for (saith he, citing this place) to some, that which is not forgiuen in this world, is forgiuen in the world to come, as I haue taught before. With S. Augustine a­greeth S. Gregory, Lib. 4. di­alog. c. 39. saying: It is to be beleeued, that there is a Purgatory fire be­fore the judgement, for certayne light faults; for that the truth saith: if any man blaspheme against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiuen, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. In which sentence there is giuen to vnder­stand, that certayne faults are forgiuen in this world, and certayne in the world to come: for that which is denyed of one, by consequence, is vnderstood to be graunted to some others. In 3. Mar. serm. 66. in Cant. Euen so doe S. Bede, and S. Bernard with diuers others, ex­pound those wordes of our blessed Sauiour.

The third text of the newe Testament, shall be taken out of S. Paul to the Corinthians, vvhere he (by a similitude of building) declareth; that some men vpon the only sound foundation IESVS Christ, 1. Cor. 3. doe build gold, siluer, and pretious stones, that is, very excellent and perfect workes: others doe build vpon the same foundation, wood, hay, and stubble, that is, imperfect and many vaine trifling workes. He addeth: that the day of our Lord, which shall be reuealed in fire, shal proue the workes of the afore-said builders: and they who haue built gold, siluer, and pretious stones, because their workes will abide the proofe of fire, shall receiue their reward; but because the other sort of builders workes cannot resist the fire, but will burne, they shall suffer detri­ment, but shall be saued, yet so as by fire.

Hence we gather, that after the triall of Gods judgement, some men who are found guilty of lighter faults, shall be saued, because they keept the foundation; notwithstanding they shall suffer detriment, and passe through the fire of Purgatory: as a man that hath an halfe-timber house couered with thetch, set on fire; he being in the middest of it, must passe through the flames of fire, to escape and saue his life. The Protestants say, that it is the fire of tribulation in this life that doth try our workes, and that through it only lighter faults are purged. We reply first, that tribulation of this life, doth not commonly discerne and try good mens workes from [Page 153] the badde; because very often good men are more afflicted in this world then the badde. Againe, it is said in the text, that at the day of our Lord this tryall shall be made; vvhich day of our Lord being expressed vvith the Greeke article (as here it is) ordinarily in Scripture signifieth the day of his judgement; so that by the very circumstances of the text it is very plaine, that the Apostle S. Paul deliuered the doctrine of Purgatory: which yet is made more assured by the vniuersall consent of the holy Fa­thers, who take this place to proue Purgatory. See Origen, homil. 6. in Ex­odum. S. Basil saith: He threatneth not vtter ruine and destruction, In cap. 9. Esay. but signifieth a cleansing according vnto the Apostles sentence; but he shall be saued, yet so as by fire.

Theodorete. This same fire we beleeue to be the fire of Purgatory, In scholijs Gr. in 1. Cor. 3. In psal. 36 in which the soules of the departed are tryed and purged, as gold is in the furnace. Oecu­menius and Anselmus vpon the same place, be of the same judgement.

S. Ambrose vpon those wordes: Sinners haue drawne their swordes, saith: though our Lord will saue his, yet so they shall be saued as by fire; and albeit they shall not be consumed with fire, yet they shall be burnt. S. Hierome in 4. cap. Amos. S. Augustine in almost twenty places, expoundeth this text after the same manner. Heare this one taken out of his Commentary vpon the 37. Psalme: O Lord reproue me not in thy indignation, that I goe not to hell; nei­ther correct me in thy wrath, but purge me in this life, and make me such a one, that shall haue no neede of that purging fire, prepared for them who shall be saued; yet so, as by fire. And why so? but because here they doe build vpon the foundation, wood, hay, and stubble: if they did build gold, siluer, and pretious stones, they should be safe from both fires; not only from that euerlasting, which is to punish the wicked euerlastingly, but from that also, which shall correct them who shall be sa­ued by fire: for it is said, he shall be saued, yet so as by fire. And because he shall be saued, that fire is contemned: yea truly, though they shall be saued, yet that fire is more grieuous, then whatsoeuer a man can suffer in this life. These fewe te­stimonies of the most approued Doctors, may suffice to assure vs, that the Apostles speeches are to be taken of a purging fire, prepared after this life for them, that vpon their true faith in Christ doe build (through the frail­ty of our nature) many idle, odde, and vaine workes.

The last text of holy Scripture shall be this, taken out of S. Iohn: 1. Epist. 5. vers. 16. He that knoweth his brother to sinne a sinne not vnto death; let him aske, and life shall be giuen him: there is a sinne to death, for that I say not that any man aske. Hence I reason thus: a sinne to death, must in this place needs be taken for sinne, wherein a man dyeth; for which no man can pray, because that he vvho dyeth in deadly sinne, shall neuer afterward be pardoned: wherefore, a sinne not vnto death, is a sinne of vvhich a man repenteth him before his [Page 154] death; and for such a one doth S. Iohn exhort vs to pray: therefore, the prayer which he speaketh of when he biddeth vs not pray, being prayer for the dead; the other prayer also, must be prayer for the departed: and so doth he will vs to pray for such men departed, that dyed not in deadly sinne, but with repentance. The Caluinists say, That S. Iohn speaketh ra­ther of Apostataes, and some such like haynous offendors, for whome yet aliue he would not haue vs to pray. But this is very vvicked doctrine; for vve may pray euen for Turkes, and Iewes, and the most sinnefull persons that liue, whiles they liue and haue time to repent: for vvhat knowe vve, whether God vvill take them to mercy or no? and S. Paul saith expresly, that he would haue vs to pray for all persons, 1. Tim. 2. vers. 1. De correct & gratia cap. 12. whiles they liue. Much more conue­nient therefore is that exposition before rehearsed, which is taken out of S. Augustine, who affirmeth: That a sinne to death, is to leaue faith working by charity, euen till death.

To these arguments selected out of holy Scripture, I will joyne ano­ther of no smaller moment with vs Catholikes, which is drawne from Apo­stolicall tradition, and the practise of the vniuersall Church in her primi­tiue purity; which hath vsed alwayes to pray for the dead. Let vs heare two or three substantiall vvitnesses speake in this matter. S. Chrysostome that most renowmed Patriarke of Constantinople shall be the first, vvho saith:Hom. 69. ad populū. That it was not without good cause ordayned and decreed by the Apostles, that in the dreadfull mysteries there be made a commemoration of the dead. For they did knowe, that they should receiue thereby great profit and much commodity. S. Augustine as famous for his learning and sincerity in the Latin Church, as the other was in the Greeke, De verbis Apostoli serm. 34. saith to this point thus: It is not to be doubted, but that the dead are holpen by the prayers of holy Church, and by the 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 [Page 155] 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 [...]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 [Page 156] for them; In epist. ad eundē. 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 in Adam, &c. I therefore (ô my prayse, my life, and God of my hart) laying aside for a season her good workes, for which I rejoycing doe giue thee thankes, doe nowe pray vnto thee for the sinnes of my Mo­ther: heare me (I beseech thee) through the salue of our woundes, that hanged [Page 157] vpon the tree, and nowe sitting at thy right hand, doth plead for vs. I knowe that shee did many workes of mercy, and from her hart forgaue all them that trespassed against her: doe thou (ô Lord) also forgiue her her trespasses, if shee committed a­ny after baptisme. Pardon her, pardon her, (ô Lord) I beseech thee, and enter not into judgement with her: let thy mercy surpasse thy judgements, because thy wordes are true, and thou hast promised mercy to the mercifull, &c.

Could that most vvorthy Doctor more directly crosse Caluins false re­lation, of his coldnesse in this matter? or in better manner cleare himselfe from his spitefull slaunders? Caluin blushed not to say, that S. Augustine out of passion prayed for his mother: but he himselfe relateth, howe he did it some yeares after her death of setled judgement, hauing his hart cu­red from humane affection.

OVR CONSENT.
M. PERKINS Page 283.

TOuching the point of Supremacy Ecclesiasticall, I will set downe howe neare we may come vnto the Roman Church in two conclusions.

The first conclusion. For the founding of the primitiue Church, the Ministery of the word was distinguished by degrees not only of or­der, but also of power, and Peter was called to the highest degree; for Apostles were aboue Euangelists, and Euangelists aboue Pastors and teachers: nowe Peter was an Apostle, and so aboue all Euangelists and Pastors, howsoeuer he were not aboue other Apostles.

The second conclusion. Among the 12. Apostes, Peter had a three-fold pri­uiledge or prerogatiue: first, of authority, I meane a preheminence in regard of estimation, whereby he was in reuerence aboue the rest of the twelue. Secondly, of primacy, because he was the first named as the fore-man of the quest. Thirdly, of principality, in regard of measure of grace, wherein he excelled the rest of the twelue; but Paul excelled Peter euery way, in learning, zeale, and vnderstan­ding, as farre as Peter excelled the rest.

THE DIFFERENCE by M. PERKINS.

THe Church of Rome giueth to Peter a supremacy vnder Christ aboue all persons and causes: this standeth in a power to determine which bookes of Scripture be Canonicall, and what is the true sence of any doubtfull place of them; and for this purpose to call and assemble generall Councels, and to confirme the de­crees of them, and by these meanes to decide all controuersi [...] about matter of faith. Besides, he can excommunicate any Christian be he King or Kaesar, if they by ob­stinate withstanding Gods lawes or the decrees of holy Church, shal justly deserue it. Moreouer, to him it doth belong to make Ecclesiasticall Canons and lawes, for the due discipline and ordering of matters of the Church, which doe binde in con­science. Finally, to confirme the election of Bishops, and to decide all such greater controuersies, as by appeale are brought vnto him from any part of Christendome.

These indeede be the chiefest points of the Popes supremacy: as for that of pardoning of sinnes, it is no proper part of his primacy, but common vnto all; not only to Bishops, but also to Priests.

We (saith M. PERKINS) hold, that neyther Peter nor any Bishop of Rome, had or hath any such supremacy ouer the Catholike Church: but that all supre­macy vnder Christ is appertaining to Kinges and Princes with him in their Dominions. And that our doctrine is good and theirs false, I will make manifest by sundry rea­sons. First, Christ must be considered as he was a King, two wayes: first, as he is God, so is he King ouer al by right of creation; and so as God hath deputies on earth to gouerne the world, namely Kings and Princes. Secondly, he is King by right of [Page 159] redemption ouer the whole Church, which he hath redeemed with his pretious bloud; and so as mediatour and redeemer, he hath no fellowe nor deputy: for no creature is capable of this office, to doe in the roome and stead of Christ that which himselfe doth; because euery worke of the mediatour must arise from the effectes of two natures concurring in one action, namely the God-head and Man-hood. A­gaine, Christes Priest-hood cannot passe from his person to any other; whence it followeth, that neyther his Kingly, nor his Propheticall (he vvould haue said Priestly) office, can passe from him to any creature. Nay, it is needlesse for Christ to haue a deputy, considering that a deputy only serueth to supply the absence of the principall: whereas Christ is alwayes present by his word and spirit, it may be said that the Ministers in the worke of the ministery are Christes deputies. I answere, that they are no deputies, but only actiue instruments; because they doe only vtter the word, but it is Christ that worketh in the hart. In like manner in excommuni­cation, it is Christ that cutteth that excommunicate person from the Kingdome of heauen; and the Church doth only declare this, by cutting him off from the rest of Christes people, vntill he repent: so that in all Ecclesiasticall actions, Christ hath no deputies but only instruments, the whole action being personall in respect of Christ.

Is not this trowe you a prety peece of an argument? but we must beare with the length of it, because it alone will serue (as M. PER. opineth) to ouerthrowe many points of Popery: let it be therefore wel considered of. To it then I say first, that if it be ought worth, it as well ouerthroweth the Kinges, as the Popes Supremacy. For if the Pope may not be Christes de­puty, as he is mediatour and gouernour of his Church, because that no creature can be his deputy in any point of Ecclesiasticall gouernement as M. PER. defineth; then surely no King nor Prince, who are meere crea­tures (and not one of them I trowe, both God and Man) can be Christes deputy in the gouernement of his Church. I say secondly, that a meere creature may be Christ our mediatours deputy and Vicar in the Ecclesia­sticall gouernement of his Church: neyther is there therein any one acti­on, that necessarily proceedeth from the two natures of God and Man, as M. PER. dreameth. Examine all the points of Supremacy proposed in the difference by himselfe, and see vvhether there be any one that must needes be the action of both God and Man: to call a generall Councell is none such, nor to ratifie the decrees thereof; to discusse and declare which bookes be Canonicall Scripture, and vvhat is the true meaning of all ob­scure places therein contayned, may be done by men assisted by the inspi­ration of the holy Ghost: and so among all the rest, there is not one point of the Supremacy, but may be vvell executed by a mortall man assisted with Gods spirit. The points of Christes mediation, namely to satisfie [Page 160] his Fathers vvrath by paying him the full ransome of all mankinde; the establishing of a newe Testament or lawe; the creation of spirituall Ma­gistrates; the furnishing of it with Sacraments, and such like are indeede so proper to Christ, that they cannot be communicated vnto others: Marry, to see that his lawes be vvell obserued, lawfull Gouernours and Ministers elected, and his Sacraments rightly administred; the chardge (I say) of these thinges may be very vvell committed vnto his deputies, and the principall ouer-sight of all vnto one supreme gouernour vnder himselfe, that all the inferiour Prelates may be holden in peace and vnity. And to say that Christes presence, by his vvord and spirit is sufficient to dissolue all doubtes that arise about matter of faith, and to reforme all mis­demeanour that is among Christians, without the authority of some Ma­gistrate to see the same vvell declared, and applyed vnto particular per­sons; is to speake against all reason and experience. For vvho shall re­forme obstinate Heretikes? Christes vvord? but Heretikes haue alwayes said, and will euer say that it maketh for them. Shall Christes spirit cor­rect them? they hold that they haue that spirit in such aboundance, that it cryeth in them, Abba, Father: so that M. PER. argument driueth to this, that there must be no gouernour at all; but that euery wrangling fellowe, is to be left vnto the vvord and spirit of Christ: vvhich is most absurd in matter of gouernement. And albeit that in producing of supernaturall effectes, men be but Gods instruments: yet because they be instruments indued with reason, chosen by God, and enabled to doe that whereunto they are by Christ appointed; I see no reason why they may not be well called Christes deputies. Sure I am, that S. Paul feareth not to stile him­selfe with the other Apostles,2. Cor. 5. vers. 20. 1. Cor. 3. vers. 9, Christes Legates or Ambassadours: which is as much, if not more then his deputies. And in an other place, he goeth yet further, and saith; that they are coadjutors, or fellowe worke-men with God: for though it be Gods worke, as the only efficient cause; yet men doe con­curre thereunto as his instruments, and doe in their kinde worke properly towards the producing of the effect: as the Preacher by his perswasions, zeale, and piety, doth very much moue his Auditors to embrace Godli­nesse, although he should labour in vaine if God d [...]d not principally both concurre with his speeches, and inwardly also dispose the hart of the hea­rer to receiue them. But of this more hereafter in the matter of the Sa­craments.

Touching the matter of gouernement, I cannot vnderstand what M. PER. meaneth when he saith, that euery action thereof proceedeth from the very person of Christ: for vvhen the Bishops or congregation doth excommunicate an offendour, howe can that act of theirs be personal in [Page 161] respect [...] speaketh? Is Christ there th [...] in pa [...] ­ [...] [...] [...]n-hood togither, are they prosecution [...] sentence of excommunication? vvhat ado [...] [...] if such deepe doctrine drowne ma­ny p [...]e of Pop [...]ry. If Christ be not there present, howe th [...]n can thee action proceeds [...] him only, and be so proper to him that it may be called personall? M. PER. meaneth perhaps only, that when the con­gregation doth out [...] the Church by excommunication, then Christ [...] from the kingdome of heauen; vvhich is also false; for many [...], vvhich afterward vpon their [...] vnto that kingdome, and therefore vvere not cut off from it by Christ. But suppose it were true, that Christ then seperated that person from heauen; vvould it followe thereof, that the act of co [...] ­ting him off [...] congregation done by the Church, vvere the pro­per action of Christ proceeding immediatelie from his two [...] of God and man? nothing (I thinke) can be imagined more absurd: where­fore, all the actions of Ecclesiastical gouernement issue properly from the persons of the Gouernours, vvho are in deede placed in that seate of au­thority by Christ, and inspired by him to exercise that function duty; but so qualified by Christ, doe formally execute and vvorke all the actions belonging to gouernement, and therefore may be most properly called Deputies: vvho in their Masters name and by authority receiued from him, doe that they haue commission to doe.

M. PERKINS second reason is: All the Apostles were equall in power and authority: for the commission Apostolicall was equally giuen vnto them all. Math. 28. Goe teach all nations, baptizing them, &c.

Answere. They were equall in that point of preaching the Gospell to all nations, and in many other thinges vvhich appertayned to the plan­ting of the Christian religion: Marry alwayes with this generall prouiso; that both they and all those vvho were conuerted vnto the faith by them, should acknowledge and obey one supreme Pastor, Christes Vicegerent on earth. Which S. Leo doth very plainely teach, saying:Epist. 84. ad Anast. Betweene the most blessed Apostles in the similitude or equality of honour, there was a certayne difference of power: and where as the election of them all was equall, yet it was giuen vnto one of them to haue preheminence aboue the rest.

But M. PERKINS saith, that the promise of the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen was not priuate to Peter, but in his person made to the rest of the Apo­stles, according vnto Peters confession made in the name of the rest.

Answere. Very just; euen as Peter made his confession, so vvas the promise: but he made that confession of Christ in his owne name, and [Page 162] that by speciall reuelation from God, without consulting with any of the rest; therefore to him alone vvas that promise of Christ made, although in, and by him, to the great benefit of the whole Church.

In cap. 16. Math. But Theophilact hath: that they who receiue the gift of a Bishop, haue the power of committing and binding as Peter had.

Answere. We grant that all lawfull Bishops can binde and loose, both in the court of conscience and publikely; but thereof it followeth not, that that promise of Christ for building his Church on S. Peter, &c. was common vnto the rest of the Apostles.In psal 38 But Ambrose saith, that which is said to Peter, is said to the Apostles: Then belike that was also said vnto the rest as well as to him, This night before the Cocke crowe twise, thou shalt denie me thrife; which no man can say.

To vnderstand then such generall propositions, take this distinction vvith you, that thinges spoken vnto S. Peter are of three sundry sortes. Some are spoken vnto him as an ordinary Christian, and such sentences doe agree vnto all Christians: other thinges are spoken vnto him, as an Apostle, and those are common vnto the rest of the Apostles: there be lastly certayne thinges spoken vnto him particularly, as head of the Church, which may not be extended vnto any other of the Apostles, but only vnto his successors.

Nowe S. Ambrose speaketh of the second kinde of thinges: but against this M. PER. excepteth thus: That although Peter be admitted to haue beene in commission aboue the rest for the time, yet hence may not be gathered any supre­macy for the Bishops of Rome; because the authority of the Apostles were perso­nall, and consequently ceased with them, without being conueyed vnto any others: and he addeth the reason of this to be; because that when the Church of the newe Testament was once founded, it was needefull only, that there should be Pa­stors and Teachers for the building of it vp, vnto the worldes end.

Reply. What meaneth this man by Pastors? doth he comprehend Bi­shops vvithin that word? then he ouerthroweth himselfe: for if such Pa­stors be yet necessary, then is it needfull that the Bishops of Rome doe suc­ceede S. Peter in that ample power which he had. If by Pastors he vnder­stand Parish Priestes or Ministers that haue charge of flockes, and by Teachers other Preachers; then doth he here as much for the Bishops, as in his last discourse he did for temporall Princes, that is: as he vvent about there to proue, that Christ as our redeemer, could haue no creature for his deputy in gouernement; and consequently that Kings cannot be Christs Lieutenants in Ecclesiasticall causes: so here he doth insinuate, that Bi­shops be not necessary to the building vp of Christes Church, but the Minister of euery Parish with the Elders thereof, will suffice for ordinary [Page 163] matters; and that affaires of greater moment must be referred (belike) to the Consistoriall assembly of many Ministers and Elders togither. Doth not this sauour rankely of Puritanisme? but because he only saith this without any proofe, let it suffice for answere to say; that as Ministers are necessary to teach the word of God, and to administer the Sacraments: so are Bishops both to institute and ordayne the Ministers, and to see, that they doe diligently discharge their duty. And as Bishops are necessary to ouer-see Priests and Ministers: so are Archbishops and Metropolitanes to looke vnto Bishops, and to prouide that there be no schismes or diuisi­ons among them, and to determine their controuersies, if any arise be­tweene them. And in like manner one Supreme Pastor is necessary in the Vniuersall Church of Christ, to hold all Archbishops, Primates, and Pa­triarkes in vnity of faith, and in conformity of Christian ceremonies and manners.

M. PERKINS third reason: When the Sonnes of Zebedee sued vnto Christ for the greatest roomes of honour in his Kingdome, Christes answere was; Ye knowe that the Lordes of the Gentils haue dominion, and they that are great, exercise authority ouer them: but it shall not be so vvith you. Bernard applyeth this to Pope Eugenius on this manner; Lib. 2. do consid. it is playne that here dominion is forbidden the Apostles: goe to then, dare you (if you will) to take vp­on you ruling an Apostleship; or in your Apostleship, rule and dominion? if you will haue both alike, you shall leefe both: otherwise you must not thinke your selfe excempted from the number of them, of whome the Lord complayned; ye haue ray­gned, but not of me.

Answere. Insolent and tyrannicall dominion, such as was in those daies practised by the Gentils, Pagans, and Idolaters, is there by our Sauiour for­bidden the Apostles; but not modest and vigilant Prelature in Ecclesia­sticall gouernement, as the very text it selfe doth plainely shewe: for in that he doth foretel that there should not be such a haughty & disdaineful kinde of superiority among his disciples, he doth giue vs to vnderstand that there should be some other better; and saith further,Luc. 22. vers. 26. That he who is greater among you, let him become as the lesser, and he that is your leader (or as it is in the Greeke égouménos your Captaine or Prince) let him be your wayter. See, he vvill haue among them one greater then the rest, to be their Ca­ptayne and leader; which he confirmeth with his owne example, saying: As I my selfe came not to be wayted on, or ministred vnto, but came to minister or to wayte vpon others: so that this discourse of our Sauiours, only disproueth in Christians such Lord-like domination as vvas then in vse among the Gentils, who were giuen for the most part, to take their owne pleasures to ouer-rule lawes as they listed, to oppresse their subjects with taxes, and [Page 164] to vse them like slaues. Nowe in Ecclesiasticall gouernementall must be otherwise: the Prelate must not seeke his owne ease, wealth, or pleasure, but most vigilantly study day and night to feede and profit his flocke, vvith whome he must conuerse most modestly, not scorning or contem­ning to speake familiarly vvith the meanest amongst them. And this is that vvhich S. Bernard counsaileth Eugenius to doe; To rule as an Apostle, and not to ouer-rule or to dominier like vnto some temporal Princes: which in the same booke he doth plainely teach, saying: That when Eugenius was created Pope, he then was exalted ouer Nations and Kingdomes, yet not to domi­neer ouer them, but to serue them. And further, he doth in the same booke deliuer the Popes Supremacy in these most euident wordes, speaking thus to the same Pope Eugenius: Who art thou? a great Priest, the highest Bishop; thou art the Prince of the Bishops, the heyre of the Apostles, &c. Thou art he to whome the keyes of heauen were deliuered, to whome the sheepe were committed. There are also indeede other Porters of heauen, and Pastors of sheepe; but thou art so much the more glorious, as thou hast inherited a more excellent name aboue them. They haue their flockes to each man me; but to thee all were committed, as one flocke to one Pastor. Thou art not only Pastor of the sheepe, but of all other Pa­stors, thou alone art the Pastor. Thus farre S. Bernard, and much more doth he say in fauour of the Popes Supremacy in the same booke: vvherefore to pike out a broken sentence of his against ouer-ruling, thereby to di­sproue that which he doth most plainely proue and allowe; argueth an e­uill conscience in M. PERKINS, and a minde fully bent to deceiue them that be so simple as to beleeue him.

Ephes. 4.His fourth reason: Mention is made of gifts, which Christ gaue to his Church after his ascension, whereby some were Apostles, some Prophets, some Euangelists, some Pastors, some Teachers: nowe of there had beene an office, in which men as deputies of Christ should haue gouerned the whole Church, that calling might here haue beene named; and no doubt but that Paul would not haue concealed it, where he mentioneth callings of lesse importance.

Answere. This man will neuer leaue playing the Sophister, and vsing of fallacies insteade of sound arguments: vvhat a reason is this? there is no mention made of the supreme Pastors calling in one place of S. Paul, therefore there is no mention made of it at all. Let vs returne this his wea­pon vpon his owne pate: In that place of the Apostle, there is no mention made of the Kinges supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall, but rather a playne declaration that the Church of God needeth no such officer for her Ecclesiasticall gouernement: ergo, Kinges haue no such authority. And because M. PER. seemeth not greatly to care for the Princes supre­macy, let this argument be vrged against the admirable Elders of their [Page 165] consistoriall discipline; who notwithstanding they be such peerelesse peeres of the reformed Churches, yet were vtterly concealed, or rather neuer thought vpon by the Apostle, when and where he mentioneth cal­lings of lesser moment. Nowe the direct answere to that place may be twofold: eyther that there is not mention made of all Church officers, as it is euident and must be confessed on all parts; or else that by conuenient interpretation, they may be reduced vnto some of them there named, and so may the supreme Pastor of Christes Church be contayned well in that name of Pastors; or because it belongeth vnto the supreme Pastor to haue a generall care of all Christendome, and to send alwayes some to conuert Infidels, his chardge and calling may be well an Apostleship: as it is in the very wordes cited by M. PER. in his last argument out of S. Bernard. Epist. 162. Lib. 2. cōt. Ruffinum. Be­sides, S. Augustine, and S. Hierome with others doe call the Sea of Rome an Apostolicall chayre and seate.

M. PERKINS fift reason: The Popes supremacy is condemned by sentences of Scripture, before it was manifest to the world; by the spirit of prophesie, to wit; the man of sinne (which is Antichrist) shall exalt himselfe aboue all that is called God: nowe this whole Chapter with all the circumstances of it, 2. Thess. 2. most fitly agreeth to the sea of Rome, and the head thereof.

Answere. This is a capitall accusation, and therefore should haue bin throughly well proued, and yet you vvould meruaile to see how sleight­ly he goeth about it: I can scarse bring his proofe into any forme of argu­ment, it is so substantiall. But thus he seemeth to argue: At the decay of the Roman Empire the man of sinne shal be reuealed: but the Sea of Rome ne­uer slourished till the Empire decayed; ergo, that Sea is the man of sinne. Here is a newe found manner of arguing: Let vs admit the first proposition, because it may hap to be true, though it be very vncertaine what is meant by that defection mentioned by S. Paul. But let vs graunt it: shall euery thing that beginneth then to flourish, be the man of sinne? and if euery flourishing state shall not then be that man of sinne, vvhy shall the Sea of Rome be rather that man of sinne, then any other flourishing estate? sure it is, that it hath no consequence out of that argument. Secondly, it is most false also, that the Sea of Rome neuer flourished till the Empire decayed: for when did it euer flourish more, then in that good Emperors daies Con­stantine the great, and in many other excellent Christian Emperors that liued an hundred yeares after him? Thirdly S. Paul speaketh not of a de­cay of the Roman Empire, or vvhatsoeuer else he meaneth; but rather of a generall reuolt, or vtter ruyne and decay of it, vvhich is not as yet happe­ned: for the Empire to this day yet continueth in some part of Hungary and Beameland; so that man of sinne cannot be the Sea of Rome, vvhich so [Page 166] many yeares hath flourished together with that Roman Empire. Finally, S. Peter and three and thirty other Popes of Rome after him, enjoyed the supreme gouernement of the Church, more then foure hundred yeares before that declination & decay of the Roman Empire, which they speake off: so that nothing can be more fond and absurd, then to draw thence a­ny argument against the Popes supremacy. And whereas he saith that all that chapter agreeth fitly to the Sea of Rome: I say & wil briefly proue, that nothing in that Chapter agreeth vnto it any thing aptly. First, the Apo­stle speaketh of one particular man, as his vvordes doe manifestly shewe: for he calleth him the man of sinne, Vers. 3. the sonne of perdition, and that with the Greeke article which doth more formally particularize; howe can this be applyed vnto more then two hundred Popes? Vers. 4. In illum locum. Secondly it is said, that that man of sinne shall be extolled aboue all that is called God: and as S. Chrysostome expoundeth it, shall command himselfe to be adored and worshipped as God, vvhich is and hath euer beene most farre from the thoughtes of all Popes, vvho professe themselues seruants of all Gods seruants.Vers. 9. Thirdly, that man of iniquity shall worke many strange signes and wonders; Let them name vvhich of the Popes hath so done for these last 900. yeares, vvhich they accuse most. Fourthly, that man shall be receiued of the Iewes; for saith S. Paul,Vers. 10. Because they receiued not the charity of truth, that they might be saued; therefore God will send them the operation of errour to beleeue lying: now al the Greeke interpreters doe vnderstand this of the Iewes, as the very text lea­deth them. With whome agreeth S. Hierome, interpreting these vvordes thus:Quaest. 11. ad Algasiū Antichrist shall doe all these signes not by the power, but by the permission of God for the Iewes: that because they would not receiue the charity of truth, that is, the spirit of God by Christ, and so receiuing the Sauiour, they might haue beene saued: God will send them, &c. With these accord both S. Augustine and S. Cyril, vpon this sentence of our Sauiour speaking to the Iewes: I come to you in the name of my father, Ioh. 5. vers. 43. and you receiued me not: if any other shall come in his owne name, him you receiue, that is Antichrist: but the Iewes haue not yet receiued the Bishop of Rome for their Messias. Nay they take the Pope for the greatest enemy of their religion in the world, and like much better of all them vvho vvith-drawe themselues from society in religion with him.

Vers. 9.Finally, it is there said, that Christ with the spirit of his owne mouth shall kill that man, with the manifestation of his aduene or comming: whence the lear­ned interpreters gather, first; that Antichrist shall be punished with a ve­ry extraordinary and exemplare death, which hath not hapned to any of these Popes. Secondly, that Antichrist is to tyranize only some fewe yeares before the latter comming of Christ to judgement, which cannot [Page 167] stand with the Protestants computation of Antichrists raigne, which they drawe nine hundreth yeares in length already, and yet are vncertayne howe much remayneth behind. By this (I hope) you see, howe well you may trust M. PER. on his word another time, who blushed not to affirme all the circumstances of the man of sinne related in that Chapter, to agree most fitly vnto the Pope of Rome: when as not one sentence there penned by the Apostle, doth touch him any whit at all, but are only by the wre­sting of his enemies, violently torne and cast vpon him.

Nowe to M. PERKINS last reason, which is taken from the testimony of the auncient Church. Cyprian saith:De simpl. Praelator. Doubtlesse the same were the rest of the Apostles that Peter was, indued with equall fellowship both of honour and power, but a beginning is made of vnity that the Church may appeare to be one.

Answere. Doubtlesse here is a prety peece of cosinage; for the words are strooken out, vvhich vvould haue made all playne against the Prote­stants: for S. Cyprian there saith, that the beginning proceedeth from one, and the primacy is giuen to Peter, that the Church may appeare to be one: So that he allowing all the Apostles to be equall in honour, being all of the same cal­ling and power to preach the Gospell to all nations, yet affirmeth the Su­premacy to haue beene giuen vnto S. Peter; that by that vnity of one head, the Church might be kept perpetually in vnity of one faith, and v­niformity of religion. Note howe his owne vvitnesse doth giue playne euidence against him.

Gregory saith: If one be called vniuersall Bishop, In regist. lib. 6. e­pist. 118. the vniuersall Church goeth to decay. And cap. 144. I say boldly; that whosoeuer calleth, or desireth to call himselfe vniuersall Priest, in his pride he is a fore-runner of Antichrist. And lib. 7. cap. 30. Behold in the preface of your Epistle a proude title, calling me vniuersall Pope.

Answere. I could vvish that the cause might be determined by that blessed Bishop S. Gregories sentence, it were then already gayned on our side: for in those bookes of his Epistles, he doth almost nothing else but declare the Popes Supremacy, in ordering of all Ecclesiasticall matters, and that ouer all Countries; but whence the Bee sucketh hony, thence al­so the Spider draweth some poyson. They regard not what or how much he vvriteth there in fauour of the Supremacy; but they thinke to haue some aduantage for their cause, out of that vvhich he writeth against the name of vniuersall Bishop or Priest, but they are miserably deceiued: for one may very well be supreme head of the Church, and yet not vniuersall Bishop, as S. Gregory there taketh that word. For he is only an vniuersall Bishop after S. Gregory, who is Bishop in euery Diocesse of the vniuersall Church, other Bishops being but his Suffraganes or Deputies: such an [Page 168] vniuersall Bishop is not the Pope; for excepting the speciall points of his prerogatiues, he is not to intermedle with the particular businesse of my other Bishop within his Diocesse, no more then the Archbishop of Can­terbury, is to deale with the gouernement of any other Bishop vnder him, sauing in cases of his prerogatiue. But euen as it appertayneth vnto the Metropolitane to compose the controuersies that may arise betweene the Bishops of his Prouince, and to determine all such causes as by appeale or otherwise belong vnto his court; to call a Prouinciall Councell, and to confirme the decrees of it, and to make Ecclesiasticall Canons and consti­tutions for his Prouince: in like manner doth it appertayne vnto the su­preme Pastor of the Church, to appease and end all debates that shal hap­pen betweene the Metropolitanes or Priuates; to judge of some such matters of great moment, that may by appeale be very worthylie refer­red to his court; to call generall Councels, and to be President in them; to make Ecclesiasticall lawes for the vvhole Church: in vvhich and such like matters, the point of his Supremacy principally consisteth. And these vvere all most carefully vndertaken and practised by S. Gregory, though he misliked the name of vniuersal Bishop; because that did seeme vnto him to exclude all other Bishops from their proper dignities and callings,Lib. 7. e­pist. 69. as he expoundeth himselfe, saying: If there be one vniuersall Bi­shop, it remayneth that you be no Bishops. And if you make one vniuersall Pa­triarke, you depriue all the other Patriarkes of their title and dignity: l. 4. ep. 36. In this sence tooke S. Gregory the name of vniuersal, and therefore did just­ly refuse it himselfe, and very sharply reprehended the Patriarke of Con­stantinople, for vsurping of it: for although in a good sence it might haue beene attributed vnto the Sea of Rome, who is supreme Pastor of the vni­uersall Church; yet it could not without apparant pride and arrogancy, be vsed of the Patriarke of Constantinople, who had nothing to doe vvith­out the compasse and limits of his owne Patriarkeship.

The testimony of S. Bernard is easie to be answered: for he saith only, that Eugenius is not Lord of Bishops, but one of them: and that he is not to drawe all power to himselfe, but to leaue to euery Bishop and Arch­bishop (his bretheren in gouernement) their proper causes; all vvhich vve say with him.

But he returneth to Pope Gregory, who saith: That he was subject to the Emperours commandement: and had euery way dischardged that which was due, in that be had performed his allegeance vnto the Emperour, and yet did not con­ceale what he thought in Gods behalfe.

Answere. VVhy did he not cite the place where S. Gregory hath these wordes? there lurketh some padde vnder that strawe: but he might very [Page 169] well vse such wordes, excepting the word allegeance, which sauoureth of a false translation.Per Ioh. Diaconū, l. 4. c. 58. For S. Gregory (as it is to be seene in his life) was of so profound humility, that he called all Priestes his Brothers; al Clarkes his Sonnes; and all lay-men his Lordes or Masters: and so might well vvrite vnto the Emperour, that he was subject to his commandements; for it is an vsuall phrase both in Italy and France, to call all their friendes requests, commandements.

Besides, S. Gregory did dispatch much businesse in and about Rome for the Emperour in his absence, and so might vvrite that he had faithfully discharged the trust that the Emperour reposed in him: yet in the very Epistle whence Caluin piketh some like wordes,Lib. 4. e­pist. 31. He doth admonish the Em­perour; that he ought to doe reuerence to Priests, and putteth him in minde of Constantine the great, who would not presume to judge of Bishops causes, albeit the Bishops themselues requested and desired him so to doe. And thus much in answere to that which is objected out of S. Gregory: nowe, if you desire to see vvhat this holy Bishops opinion vvas concerning the Supremacy of the Sea of Rome, reade the 72. Epistle of his first booke, vvhere he com­mandeth, That if any out of Numidia (the remotest part of Afrike) desired to come vnto the Apostolike Sea (of Rome) that they should be permitted. And in the 37. of his second booke doth signifie, That all the foure Patriarkes might appeale vnto his court of Rome, and could not afterward remoue the case from thence, without great scandall and contumacy. And in the 7. booke, epist. 63. doth in most expresse tearmes declare, That without all doubt the Pa­triarke of Constantinople was subject vnto the Sea Apostolike. And in the 64. addeth, That all Bishops are subject vnto it; saying, For in that he saith himselfe to be subject to this Sea, if any fault be found in Bishops, I knowe not what Bishop is not subject to it. And further l. 4. epist. 52. It is euident vnto all that know the Gospel, that by our Lordes voyce the chardge of the whole Church was committed vnto the most blessed and Prince of all the Apostles, S. Peter. And in his exposition of the fourth penitentiall Psalme affirmeth, The Church of Rome to be head of all Churches. And l. 14. Moral. c 19. teacheth, That Priests (not Princes) are the chiefe members of the Church. And lib. 5. epist. 25. speaking of the Emperour Maurice, saith: I knowe the most pious Princes to line discipline, to keepe order, to reuerence the Canons of the Church, and not to intrude themselues into the businesse of Priests. This may suffice to assure him that cannot reade S. Gregories vvorkes, of his opinion in this matter; and a hundreth times more may he finde, that wil take the paines to peruse that his worke of Epistles called registrum. By this may be an­swered, that vvhich M. PER. citeth out of Pope Leo 4. that liued (as he saith) two hundreth yeares after Gregory: That he professed obedience vnto [Page 170] his imperiall commandements, to be but an vsuall Italian phrase. And vvith what congruity he citeth one of them to professe obedience of curtefie to the Emperour, whome they account to haue beene no better then Anti­christ in his full pride, and to haue acknowledged no other man for his head, yea to haue extolled himselfe aboue God, as they blaspheme; I leaue it to the consideration of the wise. Hitherto in answere of M. PERKINS objecti­on against the Popes supremacy.

It followed in due order, that hauing disputed against that, he should haue confirmed his owne opinion for the supremacy of Kings & Princes: for it doth not followe necessarily, that if the Pope be not head of the Church, that then the King is; for Patriarkes or Primates may be in the seuerall Prouinces, or else the graue learned Senate of consistoriall Mini­sters and rude artificers, called (forsooth) Elders of the congregation. But M. PER. towardes the end of his booke waxeth slouthfull, and hath omit­ted also to propose any arguments in our behalf; yea he doth not propose one reason in proofe of his owne position: Nay vvhich is most reproue­able, he doth in his owne arguments made against the Popes supremacy, vtterly subuert the Kinges supremacy, as you haue heard already in his first and fourth reasons. To vvhich I will adde a third, gathered out of him in an hundred places.

Nothing is to be beleeued as necessary to saluation, that is not written in the word of God: but it is not written any where in the new Testament, that our Saui­our Christ committed the gouernement of his Church vnto Kings or temporal Prin­ces; therefore no such thing is to be beleeued or taught by any Christian. There is so little said in fauour of their Supremacies in holy Scripture, that M. PER. held it good policy not to goe about the probation of it. Some are so simple as to alleage that of the Apostle S. Paul in proofe of it:Rom. 13. Let eue­ry soule he subject to higher powers; but it falleth many feadomes to short of it: for that sentence may be as wel applied to spirituall as to temporall go­uernours. Againe, if he speake of temporall Magistrates, most assured it is that he meant nothing lesse, then to counsaile the Christians Romans to obey their Emperors (who were then Pagans and persecutors) in mat­ter of religion. The same answere will serue for their other text out of S. Peter, 1. Pet. c. 2. vers. 14. vvho biddeth Christians obey the King as the more excellent. More excellent then whome? vvhat then Priests and Bishops? nothing lesse; but more excellent then their Dukes, Captaines, and such like officers vnder them, as it followeth in the text; of which sort very fewe in S. Pe­ters dayes were members of the Church, and much lesse supreme heades in cases Ecclesiasticall: so that there is no vvarrant in all the newe Testa­ment for Kinges supremacy in matters of religion, and as little is there [Page 171] in the old, as shall be examined in due place; vvherefore not to be belee­ued of any Protestant. And in very equity and true naturall light, how is it likely that temporall Princes both slenderly studyed in matter of Diui­nity, and nothing practised in the manner of Ecclesiastical gouernement, should be chosen as fittest persons to decide all doubtes in Diuinity, and to order and determine all controuersie in Church gouernement? or shall we thinke that our Sauiour had such a simple fore-sight, or slender care of his Church, as to commit it specially to their chardge, vvho vvere both least able, and most vnlikely to looke well vnto it? Women also and chil­dren may be lawfull Kinges; but to make them supreme Gouernours of causes Ecclesiasticall (vvherein children cannot, and vvomen may not speake) is most ridiculous. And if all other proofes fayled, the very ex­perience of our age were sufficient to perswade any reasonable man, that it is most absurd to be ruled by temporall Princes in matters of religion: for it would followe of it necessarily, that a Christian were bound to con­forme his conscience to the Kinges lawes, and to embrace that religion which the King commandeth him, because he is bound to obey his supe­rior appointed by God. And consequently my father for example, who liued in King Henryes the eight, King Edwardes, Queene Maryes, and Queene Elizabeths daies, should haue changed his religion foure times in his life, and that vvith a very good conscience; because he vvas so com­manded to doe by the formall lawes of those foure his temporall Soue­raignes: and so might without any offence to God, haue beene nowe of the old religion, then of the newe; and againe of neither old nor newe, but of a hotch-potch, and mingle-mangle of some of the one, and some of the other, vvhich is most absurd: euen so is that of which it followeth. And to confirme this with some testimony of antiquity, S. Ambrose a most firme pillar of the West Church, spake resolutely vnto the Emperour Valentinian, saying:Epist. 35. Trouble not your selfe (ô Emperour) with thinking that you haue any imperial jurisdiction ouer those thinges that be Diuine and Holy; for the right of Ciuill causes was committed vnto you, but not the chardge of Holy thinges. And another his auncient S. Athanasius, Epist. ad solita. vi­tā agētes. the first of the foure Do­ctors of the Greeke Church, doth reprehend the Emperour Constantius for intermedling vvith Ecclesiasticall causes; and recordeth an notable saying of that venerable Bishop Hosius (vvho vvas present at the first ge­nerall Councell of Nyce) vnto the same Constantius, to vvit: Command vs not (ô Emperour) in this kinde of affaires; rather learne these thinges of vs: for God hath committed the Empire to your chardge; but hath bequeathed vnto vs, and put vs in trust, with the affaires that appertayne vnto his Church. And therefore vvould not that most renowmed Emperour Constantine the great, [Page 172] judge of Bishops causes, although the Bishops themselues referred thei [...] matter to him, and requested him to compose them, but said; That it did not belong vnto him to judge them, but to be judged by them: vvhose blessed steps the most learned and juditious Emperours that followed him, chose rather to followe then the euill example of his Arrian Sonne Constantius. For Iustinianus the elder that famous lawe-maker, faith vnto Iohn the se­cond Pope of that name:In Codice tit. primo. We doe not suffer any thing to passe that belongeth vnto the state of the Church, but that we make it knowne vnto your Holynesse, who are the head of all the holy Church.

And Valentinian the Emperour in an Epistle vnto Theodosius vvriteth: We must in our times mainetaine the dignity of [...]u [...] reuerence vnto the most blessed Apostle S. Peter,Extat in­ter prae­ambulas ad Concil. Chalced. so farre-forth, as the most happy Bishop of Rome (vnto whome antiquity hath yeelded the principality of Priestly office aboue all others) may haue place and power to judge of matters of faith, and of Priests. And thus much by the way, against the Supremacy of Princes in causes Ecclesiasticall. It re­mayneth nowe that I briefly proue S. Peter to haue had this Supremacy in his time, and that therein the Bishops of Rome doe succeede him,

And for a foundation of this Question I take that for an assured truth, vvhich the best Philosophers doe grant, and the practise of the best and greatest Kingdome hath confirmed, to wit: That in one Kingdome it is best to haue one King and supreme gouernour, assisted with the counsell of his wisest subjects; which is so well knowne and confessed generally, that he must needes betaken for a vvrangler that will denie it: nowe then to our pur­pose. Christes Church is but one state or spirituall Kingdome, vvhich hath but one faith, one baptisme and forme of Sacraments, one true re­ligion and solemne manner of diuine seruice: Nowe seing vve are not to doubt, but that he (who purchased himselfe this one Church, with the shedding of his owne most pretious bloud) would haue it gouerned in the best sort; therefore we must confesse, that he hath ordayned one supreme Gouernour of it. They say, that this supreme Pastor is Christ himselfe, and that he is alwayes present with it in spirit, and by his word; vvhere­fore there needeth no deputy, or other in his roome. This I haue once before confuted, graunting that Christ is present to his Church in spirit, and that he doth inwardly quicken and gouerne it: but that is not suffici­ent; for vnlesse we haue one certayne person visibly present, to assure vs vvhich is the vvord of God, and what is the true sence of all doubtfull places of it, we shall neuer haue vnity of faith: for if they who mistake the true sence, must be left to their owne judgement, and the direction of their owne spirit, which they beleeue to be guided with the holy Ghost; then shall vve haue so many heresies currant in the Church, as there be [Page 173] Archeretikes to coyne and stampe them. The like may be said for Sacra­ments and sacred rites of religion, the which without one Supreme Mo­deratour, cannot be kept vniforme: so that it resteth most cleare, that our Sauiour Christ being to leaue this world and to returne vnto his heauenly Father, he was to commit the high charge of his only Spouse and Doue, vnto the custody and fidelity of one supreme Pastor, This is confirmed by the example of the old Testament, vvhich vvas a figure of the newe,Deut. 17. ab 8. ad 13. vvhere the soueraigne and supreme authority of deciding all doubtfull questions, that should arise about the lawe, was by Gods expresse order, giuen vnto the high Priests; and euery Israelite bound vnder payne of death to obey him, and stand to his sentence. And that this Supremacy continued all along the state of the old Testament, euen vntill Christes dayes, both the Magdeburgenses, and Caluin doe testifie.Centur. 1. lib. 1. c. 7. Lib. 4. In­stit. ca. 6. But the Prote­stants object, that some Iudges and Kinges of Iuda, did take vpon them to deale in matters appertayning to religion. I graunt, that good Kinges as principall members of the temporalty, ought to haue a speciall regard to the preser­uation of the seruice of God, and to see that matters of religion be duly ordered; because the peaceable gouernement of their temporall affaires, dependeth much vpon the concord, piety, and vertue of Ecclesiasticall persons: and therefore they are to admonish and call vpon the Bishops and Gouernours of the Clergy, to redresse all disorders among them, but not to meddle by themselues as their superiours in spiritual causes: so did those good Kinges of Israell, as it is recorded of one of the best of their King Iosaphat; who sought for reformation of Church matters,2. Paralip. 19. But re­serued the Presidency of those thinges which appertayne vnto God, vnto Amarias the high Priest. And nowe a-dayes we giue many priuiledges to Princes: as the denomination of most Bishops, and higher Magistrates of the Church; that the two states spirituall and temporal may the better agree, and liue more peaceably together. S. Augustine also doth declare it to be the duty of Kings, to defend the Church and her decrees, and to punish with seuere lawes all Heretikes, and other condemned by the Church. But directly to the former objection, let the places of the old Testament be perused, where the authority and right of Kinges be specified, and you shall not finde in any one of them, that they vvere to haue the supreme gouernement in cases Ecclesiasticall; but where the first institution of Kinges is mentio­ned, There they are willed to receiue the examplar and copy of the lawe, Deut. 17. vers. 18. from the Priests of the tribe of Leuy. And in the same Chapter a little before, All men are bound to take the true exposition of the same lawe, not from the King, but from the high Priest of the same tribe of Leuy. Nowe if the Iewes being but one nation, could not be kept in vnity of truth, without one supreme [Page 174] Gouernour, what diuision in faith and religion would there be among all the nations of Christendome (which be so many, and so diuers) if there were not one supreme Pastor, to vvhose finall sentence they should all be obedient and bound to stand? first, then it is euident, that there must be one supreme Gouernour in the Church. Nowe to goe one steppe for­ward: this supreme authority was by our Sauiour Christ IESVS giuen vnto S. Peter, which I will proue both by the promise, and performance of it.Math. 16. vers. 15. The promise of this supremacy is recorded in these wordes: Whome doe you say that I am. Simon Peter answered and said, thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God; and IESVS answering, said vnto him: blessed art thou Simon Bar-Iona, because flesh and bloud hath not reuealed it to thee, but my Father which is in heauen; And I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church, &c. Whence I reason thus: That is the foun­dation in a building, which is the head in a body and supreme Gouernour in a common-weale; for the foundation is first laide and doth vphold all the rest of the building: but our Sauiour promiseth to build the spirituall common-wealth of his Church vpon Peter, as vpon a firme Rocke and foundation; therefore he meant to make him the head and chiefe Pastor vnder himselfe of it.

Some answere that Christ said not that he would build his Church vp­on Peter, but vpon that Rocke which was himselfe; because that Christ is called a Rocke. 1. Cor. 10.

Reply. This cannot be: for albeit Christ be the most firme foundation, and chiefe corner stone of all that building; yet hath it pleased him to ap­point a Deputy and Vicar to gouerne in his absence vnder him, and so to communicate his Titles in a certayne measure and degree, vnto his ser­uants.Math. 5. vers. 15. He is the light of the world, and yet saith he to his Apostles, You are the light of the world. He is the Pastor of our soules, and he maketh them our Pastors: so he is the Rocke, that sustayneth all partes of the Church by his owne power and vertue, but hath imparted to Peter that name; to signifie, that he should be made able to beare the person of his Vicar on earth, and to rule vnder him, and by vertue receiued from him, the whole Church for his time. Nowe the very course of the text doth conuince, that the Rocke there specified cannot be Christ: for it hath joyned vvith it, the word, this, and vpon this Rocke; which doth demonstrate and point out that vvhich was spoken of immediately before, vvhich vvas Peter: Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke, &c. Againe, what congruity should there be in this sentence, to beginne with Peter, and to make shewe of be­stowing some high reward on him for his noble confession; and in the end of it, to say that he would build his Church vpon himselfe? Thirdly, [Page 175] in the next sentence there is no question made, but that Christ did pro­mise to Peter the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen, and not to reserue them to himselfe: therefore most certayne it is, that in the former sentence he pro­mised to build his Church vpon Peter. Finally, in the Syriake tongue (in vvhich our Sauiour then spake) it is so playne, that it cannot be doubted of: for it is, thou art Cephas, and vpon this Cephas I wil build my Church: nowe the vvord Cephas signifieth a rocke or stone. Let vs to make the matter more manifest, heare the judgement of some of the auncient and most learned Fathers, of both the Greeke and Latin Church touching this exposition.

S. Epiphanius.In Anco­rate. Our Lord made Peter (the chiefe of the Apostles) a firme Rocke, vpon which the Church of God is builded.

S. Gregory Nazianzeno. Orat. de mod. ser­uand. in disput. Peter is called a Rocke, and hath the foundations of the Church committed vnto his fidelity.

S. Chrysostome.Hom. 55 in Math. Our Lord said, thou art Peter, and vpon thee will I build my Church.

S. Cyril.Lib. 2. in Iob. ca. 2. Christ fore-told that he should not be called Simon but Peter, by the name it selfe fitly signifying, that he would build his Church vpon him, as on a Rocke and most sure stone.

S. Cyprian.Epist. ad Quirinū. Our Lord did choose Peter the first or chiefest, and vpon him did he build his Church.

S. Ambrose saith:Serm. 42 That Peter is called the Rocke, both because he first of all laid the foundation in the actions of faith; and also for that as an vnmoueable stone, he doth sustayne and bold together the frame and burden of all the Chri­stian worke.

S. Hierome vpon that place:Math. 16 According vnto the metaphor of a Rocke, it is rightly said to Peter, vpon thee will I build my Church.

S. Augustine sometimes indeede giueth an other interpretation; but yet alloweth of this, and leaueth it to the readers choise, adding:Lib. 1. retract. & 21. That in his time that Hymne of S. Ambrose beganne to be chaunted publikely in the Church, that the Cocke crowing, the Rocke of the Church with teares washed away his fault: so common was that exposition euen then, that the Rocke of the Church was taken for a sufficient description of S. Peters person.

By these plaine sentences of the most approued Doctors of the church, may be expounded some others more obscure, vvhich say that vpon Peters faith or confession Christ built his Church, in this manner: for the excellency of Peters faith and confession, he vvas chosen to be the rocke or foundation of the Church; which is S. Basils owne interpretation, who saith: that Peter for the excellencie of his faith, Lib. 2. in Eunomiū. receaued the building of the Church vpon him. And in true reason, the Church being a congregation [Page 176] of men, cannot be builded [...] qualities, but must haue a man of the same nature to be her [...] indeede with such spirit [...] all and heauenly qualities; or else it should not haue beene a proportiona­ble and wel shaped body, but some monster. Neither can that other shift of the Protestants (which M. PERKINS insi [...]teth) serue their turne; that (forsooth) what is s [...]a [...]ere to S. Peter, is vnderstood to haue beene spoken vnto all the rest of the Apostles. For the holy Ghost in penning this pas­sage, hath as fully preuented this euasion as it was possible, by such a par­ticular description of Peters owne person, as a curious lawyer could not in so few wordes haue done it more precisely. For Christ specifieth both his former name of [...]in [...], and his Fathers name Ionas, and then his owne newe name Peter; and so particularized & singled out from the rest, di­recteth his speech to him: I say to thee th [...] art Peter, &c. How could he better haue expressed himselfe to haue spoken to Peter particularly? A­gaine he said before; that Peter had not learned that his confession of flesh and bloud, but by the reuelation of his heauenly Father: vvhereby he signifieth, that Peter had not receiued his answere from his fellow Apostles, or spoke it as deliuered by conference from them; but out of his owne hart, inspi­red by the holy Ghost: vvherefore, to him alone were his vvordes fol­lowing directed. And thus much concerning the promise which our Sa­uiour made vnto S. Peter of the Supremacy: nowe to the wordes of per­formance, which are written in S. Iohn.

Iob. c. 21. vers. 15.IESVS faith to Peter, Simon (the sonne) of Iohn, dost thou loue me more then these? he saith to him, yea Lord, thou knowest that I loue thee: he saith to him, feede my lambes. He saith to him againe, Simon of Iohn lo [...]est thou me? yea Lord thou knowest that I lo [...]e thee? he saith to him, feede my lambes. He saith to him the third time, Simon of Iohn louest thou me? Peter was strooken fadde, because he said to him the third time, louest thou me? And he said vnto him, Lord, thou knowest all thinges, thou knowest that I loue thee: he saith vnto him, feede my sheepe. Amen, amen, I say to thee, when thou wast youn­ger, thou diddest gird thy selfe, &c. These vvordes haue I set downe at length, that euery one may first see and be well assured, that they vvere spoken to S. Peter only; because Christ doth first seuer & part him from the rest, saying▪ Dost thou loue me more then these? to wit, then the other Apostles vvho were then present. Againe, Peter vvas sad and began to misdoubt himselfe; vvhich argueth that he tooke it spoken to himselfe and sheweth playnely that he spoke in his owne name only: and thirdly the wordes following; Amen, I say vnto thee, are without all question spo­ken particularly to Peter. Nowe that Christ in giuing him chardge to f [...]ede his lambes and sheepe, did giue him the supreme gouernement ouer [Page 177] his Church, I proue first by the word pasce, feede, or be thou Pastor of my flocke: for it doth signifie not bare feeding, but to feede as a sheepe-heard doth his sheepe; which is not only to prouide them meate, but to keepe them also from the woulfe, to cure their diseases, to leade or driue them whither he will, briefly to rule and gouerne them. And this word pasce, and much more the Greeke Poimaine is frequent in holy Scripture, in this sence of gouerning: see psal. 2. vers. 9. Thou shalt rule them in an yron rodde. Michaeae 5. vers. 2. Math. 2. vers. 6. Apocal. 19. vers. 15. vvhere the Greeke word, Poimaino, is put for to rule and gouerne. And in the 77. psalme v. 71. Dauid was chosen to feede his seruant Iacob, and Israell his in heritance, that was to rule ouer them, but like a good sheepe-heard, mildly, vigilantly, and rather for the good of the sheepe, then for his owne pleasure or profit.

Nowe that the chiefe feeding and supreme gouernement of all Christs flocke was committed vnto him, it appeareth first, by those wordes of our Sauiour to him: Doest thou loue me more then these? why should he require greater charity in S. Peter then in the rest of the Apostles, but for that he meant to aduance him to a chardge aboue the rest? secondly, in that he committed to Peter the feeding of both sheepe, and lambes, that is: of both the Temporalty, signified by the lambes; and of the Clergy, vvho be sheepe; let vs heare S. Leo. Againe,Serm. 3. d [...] anniuers. Assumpt. suae. In that he committeth to him absolutely without exception of any, his sheepe, feede my sheepe; he maketh him Pastor of his whole flocke: as S. Bernard (whome M. PER. often alledgeth against vs in this question) doth very learnedly inferre.Lib. 2. de consid. cap. 8. Thou (saith he) wilt aske me howe I proue, that both sheepe and Pastor are committed and credited to thee? euen by our Lordes word. For to whome of all (I will not say Bishops but Apo­stles) were the sheep so absolutely and without limitation committed: if thou loue me Peter feede my sheepe; he saith not the people of this Kingdome, or of that City, but my sheepe: whosoeuer therefore will acknowledge himselfe to be one of Christes sheepe, must submit himselfe to be gouerned by S. Peter, or by some of his successours. You see then by the very wordes and circumstances of the text, that the supremacy is giuen to S. Peter: let vs heare whither the most learned and holy auncient Fathers, haue not so vnderstood them.

S. Cyprian saith: To Peter our Lord after his resurrection said, De vnitat. Eccles. feede my sheepe, and builded his Church vpon him alone.

Epiphanius in Ancorato: This is he who heard spoken to him, feede my sheepe, to whome the fold is credited; alluding to that place,Iob. 10. vers. 16. Lib. 2. de Sacerd [...]r. there shall be one Pastor and one fold.

S. Chrysostome, Why did our Lord shedde his bloud? truly to redeeme those sheepe, the chardge of which be committed to Peter and to his successours. And a little after: Christ would haue Peter indued with such authority, and to be farre [Page 178] aboue all his other Apostles; for he saith, Peter doest thou loue me more then these? In cap. 2. vers. 21. see him also in his learned Commentaries vpon that text of S. Iohn.

S. Augustine also vpon the same place, saith: That he committed his sheepe to Peter to be fedde, that is (saith he) to be taught and gouerned. And because he produceth S. Gregory against vs, he must giue vs leaue to cite him for vs.

Lib. 4. e­pist. 76.He saith; It is euident to all that knowe the Gospell, that by our Lordes mouth the chardge of the whole Church is committed vnto Peter, Prince of the Apostles; for vnto him it is said, Peter doest thou loue me? feede my sheepe: to him is it also said, Luc. 22. vers. 31. Behold Satan hath required to sift you as wheate, but I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not; and thou once conuerted, confirme thy brethren, &c. By these two places of holy Scripture (to omit for breuities sake twenty others) it is cleare enough to them who desire to see the truth, that S. Peter by our Sauiours owne choise and appointment, vvas not only preferred before all the rest of the Apostles in some particular gifts, but vvas made also gouernour of his Church.

Nowe to that which M. PERKINS letteth fall by the way, That though Peter excelled the rest of the twelue, yet Paul passed him euery way: this said he boldly and barely vvithout any authour, or any shewe of proofe; but let vs in kindnesse helpe him to proue it.Galat. 2. vers. 9. First, S. Paul saith: Iames. Cephas, and Iohn, who seemed to be the pillars, gaue me and Barnabas the right hand of fo [...]tery: nowe if he were fellowe with the best, he was not in­feriour to Peter.

Answere. In an orderly fellowship there is ordinarily one head and chiefe commander, and so S. Paul might be very well admitted into that holy society and fellowship of preaching the Gospell, and yet be vnder the President and Master of that Colledge or company, S. Peter.

Secondly, S. Paul further saith: That the Gospell of the prepuce, (that is, the preaching vnto the Gentils) was committed vnto him, as the chardge of the Israelites was vnto S. Peter: therefore he was S. Peters equall at least, and per­haps his better too, because a larger commission was grounted vnto him.

Answere. A partition of preaching the Gospell vnto all nations, was made by common consent among the Apostles, and it seemeth that S. Paul (who was called afterward) vvas admitted in S. Peters circuit or quarter; vvhereupon for the more orderly proceeding in that blessed vvorke, it was agreed vpon by them, that S. Paul should haue principall care of the Gentils, and S. Peter of the Iewes: not that each of them might not also deale with both Iewes and Gentils, (for S. Peter was the first of all others, that by reuelation from heauen did conuert the Gentils; as he testifieth saying:Act. 15. vers. 7. Bretheren you knowe that God chose, that by my mouth the Gentils should heare the word of God and beleeue:) yet because men commonly doe [Page 179] most tender and affect that, vvhich is more specially committed to their charge, to S. Paul were the Gentils recommended, as to S. Peter the care of the Iewes. But this might be very well done, and yet S. Paul be inferi­our vnto S. Peter, and owe him a reuerent duty in the cases of supremacy: as the Bishops of Canterbury and London haue charges of seuerall men and places; yet is London to acknowledge Canterbury as his superiour. And if the other Apostles, who had also their diuisions and Diocesses a part, were neuerthelesse inferiour vnto S. Peter: so might S. Paul be, notwithstan­ding his distinct charge.

Thirdly, S. Paul resisted S. Peter to his face and reprehended him for walking, amisse: therefore he was rather his superiour.

Answere. Not so: for an inferiour by vvay of brotherly correction, may in decent sort reprehend his superiour, if he see him not to take good courses: I knowe vvell that S. Hierome following the opinion of most of the Greeke Fathers, doth cleare S. Peter of all fault; holding it to haue beene but a set match betweene the two great Apostles, that one of them for the instruction of others, should reprehend the other. But admitting with S. Augustine that S. Peter was worthy blame, and therefore justly re­prehended by S. Paul; yet thence will followe no derogation to S. Peters dignity, but great commendation of his humility, as the holy Fathers of that opinion doe gather. Of it thus writeth S. Cyprian: Epist. 71. ad Quin­tum. Neyther did Peter whome our Lord chose the first, and vpon whome he built his Church, when Paul disputed with him about circumcision, arrogate to himselfe any thing, saying: that he bad primacy, and therefore the latter disciple ought rather to obey him; but tooke it in good part.

S. Augustine saith: Peter gaue to his posterity a more rare and holy example, Epist. 19. ad Hierō. that they should not disdayne to be corrected of their juniours, then Paul; that in­feriours (sauing their charity) might confidently resist their superiours for the defence of truth.

And S. Gregory the great, speaking of S. Peter, saith:Hom. 18. in Ezech. He yeelded vnto his inferiour brother, and in that matter became a follower of his juniour, to the end he might excell in this point: that he who chiefest in the toppe of the Apostle­ship, might be chiefest also in humility. Thus much of S. Peters supremacy: Nowe that the Popes of Rome doe succeede him in the same authority.

First, that this Monarchy and soueraigne authority of one ouer all the rest, vvas not to expire and end with S. Peter (as M. PER. dreameth) but to continue in Christes Church vntill the end of the world, is cleare and euident to them vvho consider, that this Supremacy was not giuen vnto S. Peter principally for his owne honour and aduancement; but for the benefit of the Church, to preserue and maintayne vnity and peace among [Page 180] all her louing and obedient children, according vnto that of S. Hierome: Among the twelue Apostles one is chosen, L. 1. cont. Iouinian. that a head being established, the oc­casion of schisme and diuision might be preuented and taken away. If therefore it vvas thought necessary vnto the vvisdome of God, Christ IESVS, to appoint one head among the Apostles, and a fewe of the best Christians (vvho had the first fruites of his holy spirit) to cut off dissention, and to maintayne peace; how much more neede hath there beene euer sithence, of one supreme Pastor and moderatour of controuersies, vvhen the num­ber of Christians is so greatly increased, and such variety of nations are ingrafted & incorporated into it? when through the diuersity of wits and judgements and the decay of charity, there must needes be a thousand times more neede of the supreme authority of some one, to hold all the rest together in the vnity of faith and religion. Againe, in the old Testa­ment and lawe of Moyses (which was a figure of the new) the same forme of gouernement by one head and finall judge in spirituall matters, vvas at the first established, and continued euer after vvithout alteration, till Christes first comming: Euen so must the same Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy (which our blessed Sauiour hath demised, framed, and founded) stand alwaies firme and inviolable, vntil his second comming; for he hath built it vpon so firme a Rocke, that hell gates shall not preuaile against it: vvhich may be further confirmed, if we vveigh vvell of vvhat moment and im­portance it is, to alter and change the forme of gouernement. For it is of no lesse moment, then to alter the whole estate of Christs common-weale; the very essence, forme, and vnity of a publike state, consisting princi­pally in the manner and order of ruling of it: vvhich alteration and varie­ty to imagine to haue hapned in Christs Church, is to make many seames in his vnsowed garments, or rather to rippe it, and rent the vnity thereof into many peeces. It being therefore a most certayne truth, that the same supreme gouernement vvhich S. Peter had ouer the rest, vvas to continue alwayes in Christes Church; it followeth as plainely, that the Bishops of Rome vvere to succeede him in that soueraigne authority: for the very light of nature and common custome of all nations doth teach vs; that he vvho succeedeth vnto another in any established estate and calling, doth at his lawfull enstalement therein, enter into ful possession of al the rights, dignities, and priuiledges therevnto belonging. For example, vvhen one is crowned King of any nation, he presently there vpon is endowed with al the power and prerogatiues, which his Predecessors in that King­dome enjoyed before him. And to speake of spirituall Prelates; vvho doubteth but that assoone as any Ecclesiastical person is chosen & confir­med (for example) Archbishop of Canterbury, but that forth-with he is [Page 181] not only made gouernor of that Diocesse, but also Metrapolitane and su­preame Pastor of the Church of England; his very succession in that Sea, making him (as it were) inheritour vnto all the priuiledges and preroga­tiues of his Predecessours in that seate? Euen so the Bishops of Rome suc­ceeding vnto S. Peter in that Apostolicall Sea, doe inherite and succeede him in that supreme authority, which Christ gaue vnto S. Peter, for to be continued in his Church vntill the worldes end. Now to auouch as some desperately doe, that S. Peter did not die at Rome, nor neuer was at Rome; is so grosse and palpable an vntruth, auerred by meere ghesse and phan­tasie, contrary to the euident testimony of all auncient fathers, and re­pugnant vnto the expresse and sensible monuments of the place of his ex­ecution, of his reliques, and Churches (builded by Constantine the great to the perpetuall remembrance of them) in the City of Rome, yet to this day most famously knowne through the world: this their assertion is (I say) so blockish and impudent, that it were but lost time to stand about the proofe of it; for he that is so sencelesse as to beleeue such a paradoxe, deserueth small paynes for his recouery.

But for an vpshot of this question, let vs heare the opinions of the prin­cipal Doctors of the East Church, who of all men are most likely not to attribute any such supremacy vnto a Bishop of the West Church, if they had thought it due vnto any Patriarke of theirs, or if they had not judged it to be a cleare case in true Diuinity, that such soueraigne authority was due vnto that one chiefe Pastor in Gods Church. The first shall be one the auncientest of them, that most worthy champion of Christ Athana­sius, who was also one of the chiefest Patriarkes of the East Church, as being Bishop of Alexandria: He in a speciall treatise (of Dionysius one of his predecessours in that Sea) sheweth; howe he went to Rome to another Dionysius then Pope, there to haue his cause heard and determined: which he would not haue done if he had not acknowledged the Bishop of Rome for his superiour, and one, to whose finall sentence, all of the East Church as vvell as of the West, were bound to obey. And in his Epistle vnto Pope Foelix he hath these wordes: God hath therefore placed you and your predeces­sours (Apostolicall Prelates) in the tower of superiority, and hath commanded you to take charge of all Churches, that you may succour and helpe vs. This E­pistle indeede of Athanasius M. PER. doth mislike, but because he shew­eth not vvherefore, his authority vvill not serue to discred it it. But he saith as much in another of his, and of all the Bishops of Aegipt joyned with him to Pope Marke, to wit: That they al with al committed to their charge, were and euer would be obedient vnto the Bishop of Rome.Lib. 3. hist. cap. 7. It is also recorded by the Ecclesiasticall Hystoriographer Zozemene, howe that both Atha­nasius, [Page 182] Patriarke of Alexandria, and Paule, Patriarke of Constantinople, with diuers others of the Greeke Church, being by the Arrians banished out of their owne Bishoprickes, did flie vnto the Bishop of Rome for re­fuge: Who (as that authour witnesseth) because the care of all did belong vnto him, through the dignity of his place and seate, did restore their Churches to euery of them. Athanasius also in his second Apology, hath recorded these words of the same most holy Pope Iulius, to the Bishops of the East: Are yee ignorant this to be the custome, that first of all you must write vnto vs, that from hence, it may be defined what is just. Wherefore, if there had beene any such su­spition against the Bishop, you ought to haue related it to our Church of Rome: thus much of S. Athanasius, the first of the foure Greeke Doctors.

Nowe to the second S. Gregory Nazianzene, who had beene also Patri­arke of Constantinople; In c [...]r [...]a. de vita sua. Epist. 52. ad Athan. he saith, That the Church of Rome had alwaies maine­tayned the true faith and opinion of God, as it became the City that was superiour to all the world.

His diuine companion S. Basil, aduertiseth Athanasius, That he thought it good to write vnto the Bishop of Rome, to heare their matters, and by the decree of his judgement, to determine them: and because it was hard to send from thence, that the Pope would giue to certayne chosen men authority to compose their controuersies, and to reuerse and make voide the actes of the Councell of Arimini. See what soueraignety this learned auncient Father of the East Church, doth attribute vnto the Church of Rome.

The very same doth that golden mouth, and most learned and holy Doctor S. Chrysostome acknowledge, vvriting vnto Innocentius the first, Pope of Rome: Epist. 1. ad Inno­centium. Beseeching him that he would repeale and make voide the wicked fact of the Patriarke of Alexandria, with a whole Councell of the East, and lay the Ecclesiasticall censures and punishments vpon them; vvhich euery man knoweth that he could not haue done, if he had not power and jurisdi­ction ouer all the East Church.

Vnto these foure most firme pillars of the Greeke Church, let vs joyne one neighbour of theirs, little inferiour vnto them for either standing, learning, or authority, I meane Theodorete, a Bishop in Asia that had 800. Churches vnder him. He notwithstanding his distance from Rome, wri­teth thus vnto Leo the first:Epist. ad Leonem. I doe expect the sentence of your Apostolicall Sea, and in humble wise doe beseech your Holynesse, that your just and right judge­ment may helpe me appealing vnto you; and that you will command me to runne vnto you, to verifie that my doctrine is consonant to the Apostles. And in ano­ther Epistle to Renatus a Priest of Rome, he writeth: That the Heretikes had spoyled him of his Bishopricke, and cast him out of the Cyties, without any re­uerence or respect of his gray-hayres: wherefore (saith he) I request you, that [Page 183] you will perswade the most holy Archbishop Leo, that he will vse his Apostolicall authority, and command vs to come to your Councell; for that holy seate of Rome boldeth the stearne of gouerning all the Churches in the world. Well then to conclude this long and intricate question, seing the Bishops of Rome from all antiquity (as is to be seene in their decretall Epistles) haue euer chalen­ged this right of Supremacy ouer the whole Church, as the successours of S. Peter: and that the very Patriarkes and principall Prelates, euen of the East Church (who were likelyest to haue resisted if they had seene a­ny cause vvhy) haue from the very beginning of the free practise of Ec­clesiasticall jurisdiction, acknowledged and confessed the same; and that finally the greatest, vvisest, and best Emperours of both the Latin and Greeke Church, haue (as you haue heard before) declared the same right to appertayne vnto the said Roman Sea, the matter cannot be but cleare enough to all that list not to remayne vvranglers, vvhere the right of the Supremacy resteth.

OVR CONSENT.
M. PERKINS Page 295.

THe first conclusion. We teach and beleeue that the Sacraments are signes to represent Christ with his benefits to vs.

The second conclusion. We teach further, that the Sacra­ments are indeede instruments, whereby God offereth and giueth the fore-said benefits to vs.

THE DIFFERENCE.

THe Catholikes teach, that the Sacraments are true and proper instrumen­tall causes, which being moued by God thereunto, doe produce and giue grace to the worthy receiuer. Euen as the penne doth make the letter, or as the axe doth cut the wood, being thereto applyed by the workeman: so (for example) doth the Sacrament of baptisme wash away the sinnes of the baptised, being by God there­vnto ordayned, and rightly vsed by the Minister. But M. PERKINS holdeth, that the Sacraments haue no operation to that effect of forgiuenesse of sinnes, but are only outward meanes, which being applyed vnto the party, God of himselfe [Page 184] doth immediately purge him from sinne, and not by meanes of the Sacra­ments. Againe, Whereas we require a fit disposition in the receiuer to make him capable of the grace presented, and exhibited vnto him, by the Sacrament; He holdeth, that all the vertue of the Sacrament consisteth in the receiuer, Who beholding those signes from God in the handes of the Minister, must conceite and imagine: First, that God himselfe by his owne mouth, doth promise him seue­rally and by name, remission of his sinnes, the signe and pledge whereof, is that Sa­crament; which the minde considering reasoneth thus: he that vseth the elements aright, in faith and repentance, shall receiue grace thereby; but I vse the elements aright, therefore shall I receiue from God increase of grace. Thus then faith is con­firmed, not by the worke done, but by a kinde of reasoning; the proofe whereof is borrowed from the elements, being signes and pledges of Gods mercy.

Contrarylie vve hold, that the Sacrament it selfe conferreth and doth giue great grace, so that there be no impediment or let of it, by reason of the receiuers euill disposition. Now if the receiuer come throughly vvell prepared with great humility, charity, and attention, he then ouer and besides the ordinary grace of the Sacrament, shall receiue more grace according vnto the measure of his owne preparation.

Lastly, whereas we teach the very grace of justification to be giuen in some Sacraments, as in Baptisme and Penance, M. PER. saith no; be­cause A man of yeares must first beleeue, and be justified, before he can be a meete pertaker of any Sacrament. But vvhat vvill he then say vnto Infants? must not they receiue the grace of justification by Baptisme, before they haue wit to beleeue, and to reason in such sort as he prescribeth?

Before I come vnto the arguments of either party, I thought fit to giue the reader to vnderstand, that whether the Sacraments be true physicall instruments of grace or no,Lib. 2. de Sacram. in gener. cap. 11. is not a matter of faith, as Cardinall Bellarmine declareth; so we hold them to be true morall causes of the same grace: to which M. PER. yeelded his consent; wherefore I will not be long in this question. Secondly to perceiue well the state of the question, you must obserue what difference there is betweene a physical and moral instrument. That then may be called a morall instrument, vvhich moueth the princi­pall agent to doe any thing, albeit he vse not that thing it selfe as a meanes to doe it vvithall: so that if God be effectually moued to bestowe grace vpon him that receiueth a Sacrament, by the sight of the Sacrament, though he giue not the grace by the vvorke of the Sacrament, but im­mediatly from him felfe, the Sacrament is the morall meanes of the same grace; but it cannot be called the physicall or naturall instrument of that grace, vnlesse God doe vse and apply the Sacrament it selfe, as the meane and instrument to conuey the same grace into the soule of the receiuer. [Page] Nowe, vve hold it more agreable with the word of God and sentences of the holy Fathers, and more for the dignity of the Sacraments themselues, to say that God by them as by true naturall instruments, doth conuay his graces into our soule: M. PERKINS goeth about to proue the contrary, thus.

The word preached, and the Sacraments doe differ in the manner of giuing Christ vnto vs, because the word worketh by the eare, and the Sacraments by the eye: otherwise, for the giuing it selfe they differ not, Christ saying; that in the very word is eaten his owne flesh: and what can be said more of the Lordes supper? Augustine saith, that beleeuers are pertakers of the body and bloud in baptisme: Serm. ad Infant. so saith Hierome to E [...]bia. Nowe vpon this it followeth, that seing the worke done in the word preached, conferreth not grace; neyther doth the worke done in the Sacrament conferre grace.

I answere that his owne first word must stand, wherein he said that the word preached and the Sacraments doe differ in the manner of giuing vs Christes grace: for preaching doth by perswasion drawe vs vnto grace and good­nesse; but the Sacraments as conduite-pipes, doe take and deriue grace from Christes passion, and conuay it into the soules of all them, who doe not stoppe vp those diuine conduits by their owne default, and want of due preparation. To his idle and ill shapen commation I answere, that Christes body may be eaten two vvayes: either really as in the blessed Sacrament; or else spiritually, by beleeuing in Christ and being incorpo­rate into his mysticall body: and in this second sort Infants in baptisme, and all true beleeuers doe eate the body of Christ. But howe this proueth that the vvord and the Sacraments doe giue grace after the same manner, is there any man that can tell?

His second reason: I baptise you with water to repentance, Math. 3. vers. 11. but he that com­meth after me shall baptise you with the holy Ghost and with fire. Hence (saith M PER.) it is manifest, that grace proceedeth not from any act of the Sacrament: for Iohn though he doe not disjoyne himselfe and his action from Christ, and the action of the spirit; yet doth he distinguish them plainely in number, persons, and effect.

Answere. He that can, let him pike some English out of this, and shewe howe it maketh for M. PERKINS. But to the purpose: I answere, that S. Iohn there doth put a playne difference betweene his owne baptisme, and the baptisme of Christ, saying of his owne: That it was the baptisme of water, nor giuing the holy Ghost, as the baptisme of Christ should doe; which also most of the Fathers both Greeke and Latin doe playnelie testi­fie, and the wordes of the text doe euidently confirme the same. Whence I reason thus: S. Iohns baptisme was such an instrument and meanes of [Page 186] grace,Mat. 1. as M. PER. describeth (for there was a promise of remission of sinnes, to him that receiued it with faith and repentance;) yet vvas it no­thing comparable vnto Christes baptisme, vvhich is nowe only vsed: therefore Christes baptisme doth ouer and besides the representation of grace vvhich was in S. Iohns baptisme, effectually conuay the same grace of the holy Ghost into our soules, by the very applying of it to vs; so that this worthy argument of his, proceedeth wholy against himselfe.

He goeth forward and saith, That Paul who trauayled of the Galatians, and begat them by the Gospell, 1. Cor. 3. vers. 7. saith of himselfe: that he is not any thing, not only as he was a man, but as be was a faithfull Apostle; thereby excluding the whole euangelicall Ministery, from the least part of diuine operation or efficacy in con­ferring grace.

Answere. This is nothing to the purpose, for S. Paul speaketh there of preaching the Gospell; and we treate here of ministring the Sacraments. Preaching (as hath beene said) doth not conferre grace of it selfe, but by perswasion; no more doth the preacher, and so may be said to be nothing in that worke of producing grace and faith in the hearer: but the Sacra­ments conferring grace, he that administreth the Sacrament, doth really concurre as an instrument of producing the same grace. Moreouer, such an instrument may be sa [...] to be nothing, because they themselues with al their endowments can doe nothing in that matter, vnlesse they be there­vnto applyed and moued by the principall agent, vvhich is God: as a penne, or other instrument be it neuer so good, can doe nothing of it selfe, and therefore may be said to be nothing.

M. PERKINS third reason: The Angels, nay the flesh of the sonne of God hath not any quickning vertue from it selfe, but all his vertue is from the God-head: nowe if there be no effi [...]cy in the flesh of Christ, but from the God-head, howe shall bodily actions about bodily elements conferre grace immediately?

Answere. This is too too simple; for a base bodily thing may conuay grace immediately, as an instrument of God, when as the highest crea­ture hath not power of it selfe to produce and conferre the same grace, as principall agent: as a meane subject by speciall commission and authori­ty from the Prince, may haue power of life and death; which the greatest Peere in the realme hath not of his owne authority, without some priui­ledge from the Prince.

Rom. 4.His fourth reason: Paul standeth much vpon this, to proue that justification by faith is not conferred by the Sacraments; and gathereth it, because Abra­ham was first justified, and afterward receiued circumcision, the signe and seale of his righteousnesse. Nowe the generall condition of all Sacraments is one, and the same: and that baptisme succeedeth circumcision.

Answere. He mistaketh greatly S. Pauls discourse, which is nothing lesse then that he saith, but to proue that neither by the obseruation of Moyses lawe, nor yet by the morall carriage of the Gentils men vvere to he saued, but by faith in Christ, and obedience vnto his Gospell. Yea, he is so farre off from denying justification to be conferred by the Sacra­ments, that in the same epistle he teacheth vs to be justified by baptisme, saying: We are buryed together with Christ by baptisme into death, Cap. 6. vers. 4. that as he is risen againe from the dead, &c. so we may walke in newnesse of life. Againe, if Baptisme be but a signe and seale of righteousnesse, how commeth the infant (that cannot for lacke of discretion beleeue) to that righteousnes, whereof Baptisme is the seale? Abraham in deede was justified before he vvas circumcised, because he vvas aboue 70. yeares old before he heard of any circumcision; but thence it followeth not, that the infants (cir­cumcised at eight dayes old) vvere justified before they vvere circumci­sed. And so it may be, that Cornelius the Italian Captayne was justified, before he heard a word of the Sacrament of baptisme, but that is nothing to proue or disproue the ordinary vvorking of the Sacraments; for be­fore the lawefull publication of any lawe, no man is bound to obserue that lawe: so that Abraham before he had heard of circumcision, and Cor­nelius knowing nothing of Baptisme, were not bound to them, but had other meanes of justification according to Gods vvill; and afterward re­ceiued those Sacraments in obedience to God, both in testimony of their former righteousnesse, and to increase the same grace. Hence it doth not followe, but that the ordinary vvorking of both circumcision and ba­ptisme in infants, vvas and is, to purge them from originall sinne, and to powre the grace of justification into their soules. But let vs admit al to be true which he saith, yet this argument helpeth not the maine point which he is to proue, to vvit; that the Sacraments doe not produce grace into our soules: for albeit they produced not the first justifying grace, as the Sa­crament of the Alrar and some others doe not; yet they may truely pro­duce and worke in vs an encrease of Gods grace, and so be true physicall instrumentall causes of grace, according as the Catholikes hold. Conse­quently, you may judge vvhat a pithy reason his fourth is, vvhich may be answered foure manner of wayes.

His fift is the judgement of the Church. Basil: De spiritu sancto 15. If there be any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of the water, but from the presence of the spirit.

Could any man haue produced a vvitnesse to speake more formally a­gainst himselfe? M PER. holdeth, that there commeth no vertue from the water to sanctifie the soule: S. Basil (the fore-man of his quest) auer­reth, [Page 188] that grace commeth from the water, and is in the water: marry, that grace the water hath not of his owne nature, but from the spirit of God there present.

In 14. Esaiae.His second authour. Hierome saith: Man giueth water, and God giueth the holy Ghost.

This is true, but vvhether God giueth that grace by the ministery of the man, and meanes of the Sacrament, S. Hierome in that place saith ney­ther yea nor no; and therefore his testimony helpeth not M. PER. cause. But in his 83.Ad Ocea­num. Tract. 80. in Iohan. Epistle he doth at large declare, what efficacy baptisme and the water sanctified in Christ hath.

Augustine said, Water toucheth the body, and washeth the hart.

Answere. His wordes are: What great force and vertue is this of water, 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 i [...] 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: Ephes. 5. vers. 26. Cleansing the Church, by the lauer of water in the word of life. Tit. 3. vers. 5. He hath saued vs by the lauer of rege­neration: 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:Ioh. 3. vers. 5. Vnlesse a man be borne a new of water and the holy Ghost, where our regeneration and newe [Page 189] birth is ascribed vnto the working of water; which were all very vnpro­per speeches, if they di [...]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 Ioha [...]nem. Venerable Bede, in 3. Lucae. Againe, it is the common opinion of the auncient Doctors, that the Sacraments are conduites to [Page 190] convay the merits of Christs passion into our soules; yea, are said to haue flowed out of Christes side opened on the Cr [...]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 re [...]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 p [...]gation and illumination.

S. Chrysostome.Hom. 25 in Iohan. That which the wombe is to the infant, that is water v [...] ­to the faithfull: for in water we are formed and made.

S. Cyril of Alexandria.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.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.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: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.

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 [Page 192] 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 [...]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 [Page 193] 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 our hart and soule, that it maketh it whiter then snowe, the temple of the holy Ghost, Psal. 50. 1. Cor. 6. 2. Tim. 2. vers. 21. sanctified and apt to all good workes; as the word of God witnesseth.

The third conclusion is about Christes imputatiue justice: vve hold that no man is formally justified by that justice which is in Christ, which is in­finite, and vvould make vs as just as Christ himselfe is; but that God through Christes merits, doth bestowe vpon euery righteous man a cer­tayne measure of justice, vvherewith his soule being purged from sinne, and adorned with all honesty, fit for his degree and calling, is made righ­teous in Gods sight, and worthy of the Kingdome of heauen.

M. PERKINS holdeth, that Euery just man hath faith created in his hart, whereby he layeth hand on Christes justice, and drawing that to himselfe, maketh it his owne. He proueth it by these wordes of the Apostle:1. Cor. 1. vers. 30. Christ is made vnto vs of God, Wisdome, Righteousnesse, Sanctification, and Redemption.

I answere, that Christ is in that place so made our righteousnesse, as he is made our wisdome: nowe no man holdeth that he is made our wisdome by imputation, therefore is he not our righteousnesse by imputation. The Apostles meaning is, that Christ is the procurer and meritorious cause of both our wisdome and justice, and of whatsoeuer other spirituall gifts we enjoy. And this righteousnesse which God bestoweth on vs in this life, is sufficient to enable vs to keepe Gods lawe, (as I haue proued in seuerall questions before) and to make vs worthy of life euerlasting.

The fourth conclusion: Catholikes hold it the surest course, to put their [Page 194] trust in the mercy of God and merits of Christ for their saluation: yet in sobri [...]t [...] they may haue confidence both in their owne merittes, and in other good mens prayers.

That is, because God saueth none of yeares, who doe not merit life e­uerlasting by vsing his grace well: therefore a vertuous honest man, may haue some confidence in the good course of his life. Marry, because we are not throughly assured of our owne good workes past; neither can we tell howe long we shall perseuer in that Godly course of life: therefore, vve rather stand in feare, when we consider our owne vvorkes, and our whole confidence is in the mercies of God, vvho for Christes sake calleth most vnworthy creatures to his grace, and doth neuer for sake any endea­uouring to continue in his seruice. Neyther doth that visitation of the sicke in the Dutch tongue, found in a dusty corner, any whit helpe them: for we teach all (especially notorious sinners that vvallowe in sinne vntill their dying day, such as it seemeth that visite was made for) to trust, not in their owne naughtinesse or little goodnes, vvho haue a hundreth times more euill then good in them; but in the infinite mercy of God and ine­stimable merits of our Sauiours death and passion: vvhich letteth not but that a good man may haue some confidence in his owne merits, and in the prayer of Saints. And M PER. considereth little what he saith, vvhen he affirmeth, That we make that our God, in which we put our trust: for albeit vve must trust only in God, as in the author of all good thinges; yet may vve trust in diuers other thinges, as in the meanes of our saluation. Doe not the Protestants trust in Christes passion? and yet I hope they made not his passion their God. Haue they not a confidence and trust in their liue­ly faith? yes, I vvarrant you, or else they would not be farre from despe­ration: so notwithstanding his vaine babling, Catholikes vvell grounded in vertue, may haue some confidence in their owne good deedes, and in the prayer of Saints, as orderly meanes to attayne vnto saluation, albeit vve trust in God only, as in the authour of it.

The fift and last conclusion, That we must not only beleeue in generall, the promises of life euerlasting, but apply them to vs in particular by hope. M. PER. somewhat faintly excepteth against this, and saith: That by faith we must assure our selues of our saluation present, and by hope continue the certainety of it. Marry, he addeth further, That they teach not that euery man liuing within the precincts of their Church, is certayne of his saluation by faith; but that he ought so t [...] be, and must endeauour to attayne thereto.

Why then, that man hath not the faith of Protestants, vvhich cannot but apply vnto themselues in particular the promises of life euerlasting; and that as the nature of faith requireth, without all staggering & doubt: [Page 195] but to sowe pillowes, and to lay them vnder poore deceiued mens el­bowes he sometimes saith, that he requireth not such certainety of salua­tion; yet in the conclusion of this very Chapter he forgetting himselfe so quickly, saith: That we abolish the substance of faith, namely in denying the particular certayne application of Christ crucified, and his benefits vnto our selues. A vvorthy authour, that can no better agree with himselfe.

OVR CONSENT.
M. PERKINS Page 316.

THe first conclusion. Repentance is the conuersion of a sinner; which is twofold, passiue and actiue: passiue is an action of God, whereby he conuerteth a sinner. Actiue is an action whereby the sinner once tur­ned by God, turneth himselfe and doth good workes, as the fruit there of: of this later the question is.

The second conclusion. That repentance standeth specially for practise, in contrition of hart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction in worke or deede. There be two sortes of contrition; one, when a man is sorrowfull for feare only of hell, and other punishments in this life: this he calleth legall, though in the state of the lawe there was most perfect contrition in some: The other Euangelicall, when one is greeued for his sinnes, not so much for feare of hell, as because he hath offended so good and mercyfull a God; which is alwayes necessary. Secondly, We hold confession necessary to be made, first to God, then publikely to the congre­gation, if any man be excommunicate for any crime. Thirdly, To our neighbour, when we haue offended and wronged him. Lastly, In all true repentance there must be satisfaction made: First to God, by intreating him to accept of Christes sa­tisfaction for our sinnes. Secondly, to the Church for publike offences, in humilia­tion to testifie the truth of our repentance. Thirdly, satisfaction is to be made to our neighbour, because if he be wronged, he must haue recompence and restitu­tion made.

The third conclusion. That in repentance, we are to bring forth outward fruites, worthy amendment of life: whereof the principall is, to endeauour day and night by Gods grace to leaue and renounce al and euery sinne, and in all thinges to doe the will of God.

THE DIFFERENCE.

WE dissent not from the Church of Rome in the doctrine of repentance it selfe, but in the abuses thereof: first in generall, because they beginne repentance part of the holy Ghost, and part of themselues, by the power of their free will helped by the holy Ghost; 2. Tim. 2. vers. 15. whereas Paul ascribeth it wholy vnto God, prouing if God at any time will giue them repentance, &c.

Answere. Of this point hath beene spoken in the questions of Free­vvill, and of Iustification: and here M. PERKINS answereth and confu­teth himselfe sufficiently, when he maketh as a passione repentance, by which God turneth our hartes to him; so an actiue, vvhereby a man first moued by God, turneth himselfe to God: so that by his owne doctrine, the free­will of man helped by the holy Ghost, concurreth to the first act of repen­tance. And where he saith, that the sinner was before dead, and there­fore could not moue any part towardes repentance: we answere, that the grace of God raysing him to repentance, doth quicken him and enable him to doe that good worke.

The second abuse of mistaking of penance, for the correction only of notorious offenders, is a fable.

The third abuse (saith M. PERKINS) is, that we make repentance not only a vertue, but also a Sacrament; whereas for a thousand yeares after Christ, it was not reckoned among the Sacraments. Yea, it seemeth that Lumbard was one of the first, that called it a Sacrament: and the Schoole-men after him disputed of the matter and forme of this Sacrament, not able any of them certainely to define, what should be the outward element of it.

Answere. I am sorry to see the man so carelesse of his credit: what doe schoole-men doubt of this Sacrament it selfe? or of either matter or forme of it? or are they not yet agreed what should be the outward element or visible signe of it? He needeth not feare to auouch any thing, that wil not blush at such a palpable vntruth:Sess. 14. & 3. for not only the Councell of Trent, but long before it the Councel of Florence, in the instruction of the Armeni­ans doth teach, the actes of the Penitent (to wit, contrition and confes­sion) to be the element or materiall part of it; and the absolution of the Priest, the formall. The same aboue three hundred yeares past, taught the Prince of schoole-men S. Thomas of Aquine, Richard, Durand, and diuers others vpon the fourth of the sentences, the fourtenth distinction, and now is the common opinion of al men: so that this was a lie in graine. No more truth hath the former part of his wordes: that Repentance for a thousand yeares after Christ, was not reckoned among the Sacraments For Victor Cartennensis who liued a thousand yeares past, doth in expresse [Page 197] tearmes proue, that we must make much of the Sacrament of Penance:Lib. de Poenitētia cap. 20. and most of the auncient Doctors, doe reckon and couple Penance with the Sacrament of Baptisme, or with the Sacrament of the Altar. To be­ginne with the latter that we may ascend vpward, Victor Vticensis bring­eth in the people speaking thus to the Priests, which were going into ba­nishment: Vnto whome wil yee leaue vs poore wreatches, Lib. 2. de persecut. Vādalica. whiles yee goe vnto your crownes? who shall baptize these little ones in the fountaine of euerlasting water? Who shall bestowe vpon vs the gift of Penance, and by the fauour of reconciliati­on, loose and vntie vs bounden in the bandes of sinne; because to you it was said, Whatsoeuer you loose vpon earth, shall be loosed in heauen. Is not Penance here joyned with Baptisme? the very like hath S. Augustine, vvhere he first sheweth vvhat recourse in times of danger is wont to be made to the Church: S [...]e crauing to be baptised, other to be reconciled and to doe Penance, Epist. 180 ad Honor. euery one of them seeking comfort, and the administration of the Sacraments; where he not only reckoneth reconciliation, and Penance with Baptisme, but saith that they are Sacraments; for vvhen the people seeketh after them, he saith, That they seeke after the administration of Sacraments. And a little after: If the Ministers or Priestes be present; some are baptised, some be re­conciled, none are defrauded of the communion of our Lordes body.

S. Hierome. Let him be redeemed by the bloud of our Sauiour, L. 1. cont. Pelag. Lib. 1. de Poenitētia cap. 7. eyther in the house of Baptisme; or in Penance, that doth imitate the grace of baptisme.

S. Ambrose, speaking against the Nouatians, saith: Why doe yee baptize, if sinnes may not be pardoned by a man? for in baptisme there is remission of all sinnes: neyther is it any matter, whether Priestes by Penance, or by Baptisme, doe chalenge this right to be giuen vnto them; for it is the same in both of the mysteries. So man remitteth sinnes aswell in the mysterie or Sacrament of Penance, as in Baptisme, and the like vertue is in both by S. Ambrose judgement, there the one is a Sacrament as vvell as the other. And yet more then a 100. yeares before him Tertullian saith:Lib. d [...] Poenitētia That God fore-seeing the poyson and infection of sinne, and hauing shut vp the gate of pardon, and bolted the doore of baptisme, hath yet suffered something else to lie open: for he hath in the porch or portall placed the second penance, that may be opened to them that knocke; where he testifieth the second Penance, that is, Penance after Baptisme, to be ap­pointed of God to take away sinne after baptisme, as baptisme did that vvhich was before it: so that many worthy auncient Fathers doe reckon and account penance (or repentance as he calleth it) among the Sacra­ments of the Church; and so doe most manifestly confute his shamelesse assertion.

But because I desire here at once to dispatch this matter; I will proue, that the Father of al Fathers (that is, Christ IESVS himselfe) hath institu­ted [Page 198] and deliuered vnto vs this Sacrament of Penance, viz. When breathing vpon his Disciples, Ioh. 20. vers. 23. he bid them receiue the holy Ghost; and said, that whose sinnes soeuer they remitted in earth, should be remitted in heauen. Whence we proue that as there should be sinners in the Church, so men indued with power to absolue them from their sinne: and because they are not to absolue any that desire not be absolued, the party must in humble sort request ab­solution, and declare from vvhat sinnes he desireth to be absolued; for what wise man will absolue one from he cannot tell what, and not know­ing vvhether any restitution be to be made or no? Wherefore, the party humbly confessing his fault, and the Priest absoluing of him in a religious manner, thereby to magnifie God by the due dispensation of his gifts be­stowed on men; there must needes be a visible signe of grace of justifica­tion, vvhich is at the same time conferred: so that euen after the def [...] ­tion of the Protestants, it is a true Sacrament; for there is a religious cere­mony instituted by Christ, that hath a promise of justifying grace an­nexed to it. And consequently so wide is that from truth, that vvithin a thousand yeares after Christ repentance was not accounted a Sacrament, that euen in Christes owne dayes, and by himselfe it was instituted a Sa­crament.

M. PERKINS objecteth for vs; It will be said that remissions of sinnes, and life euerlasting are promised to repentance: and answereth; That it is not to the worke of repentance, but to the person which repenteth, and that not for his works of repentance, but for the merits of Christ applyed vnto him by faith.

Reply. When there is no mention made of faith, but only of repen­tance, to attribute all to faith and nothing to repentance, is a very extraua­gant glosse; specially he doing it of his owne authority, without warrant eyther of reason or of any authour: and thus much of the abuses (for­sooth) of repentance in generall. Nowe to the particular, about Con­trition, Confession, and Satisfaction.

The first abuse concerning contrition is, that the Catholikes teach that it must be sufficient and perfect: they vse to helpe the matter by a distinction, &c.

O remarkeable abuse, that Catholikes vvould haue contrition to be suf­ficient and perfect! If vve vvould haue had it imperfect, and not fit to serue the turne, then loe we had hitte the nayle on the head: what dotage is this? vve say briefly concerning sorrowe for our sinnes past; first, that it ought to be the greatest that we can haue: for nothing is vvorthy to be so vehemently lamented, as that vve haue deadly offended our creatour and redeemer, and are fallen from his grace, into the slauery of our most deadly enemy the Deuill; so that for this, as for the greatest euill that could be fall vs, we are to be most sorrowfull. And this highest degree of [Page 199] sorrowe is requisite in contritio [...], vvhen thereby alone vve doe recouer the grace of God: but vvhen Contrition is joyned vvith Confession, and is made a part of the Sacrament, then loe though it vvere not so great be­fore as is otherwise requisite, it receiueth by vertue of participating with Christes grace in that Sacrament, the full measure of sorrowe, and so is made vp sufficient and perfect; vvhich M. PER▪ calleth the first abuse of Contrition, but goeth not about to disproue it.

The second (as he saith) is, that we ascribe to Contrition, the merit of con­gruity.

Before he sticked not to say that vve made repentance the meritorious cause of remission of sinnes; vvhich vvas a loude lie, because vve teach that no man can merit remission of his sinnes: for no man can merit ought at Gods handes, vnlesse he first be in his grace and fauour, vvhich no sinner is; vvherefore we hold only, that repentance as faith, hope, and a purpose of amendment, be only good dispositions, making the man fit and apt to receiue the grace of justification, vvhich God freely of his infinite mercy without any desert of ours, bestoweth vpon vs only for Christes sake. That apt disposition some men call merit of congruity; vvherein is no desert of the grace giuen, but only a man is made there­by more meete and better prepared to receiue such grace. Nowe mans merits doe so vvell agree and stand vvith Christes merits, that Christes order is, that none comming to the age of discretion, shall be partaker of his merits, vnlesse he by his owne merits doe make himselfe capable of them, as hath beene sufficiently proued before in the question of Me­rits.

The third abuse, That they make imperfect contrition or attrition arising of the feare of hell, to be good and profitable, and to it they apply the saying of the Prophet, The feare of God is the beginning of wisdome. But (saith he) seruile feare of it selfe, is the way to eternall destruction, &c.

Reply. He vnderstandeth not what we say: we teach, that feare of be­ing punished in hell fire, maketh euill men abstaine from sinning, and be­ginneth to put them in minde of Gods justice towardes impenitent sin­ners; vvherewith many being strooken vvith the horrour of that euerla­sting torment, are moued to flie vnto God for mercy: and so that seruile feare becommeth profitable vnto them; first in that it causeth them to ab­staine from that vvickednesse, vvhich they vvould otherwise haue com­mitted; and then being helped with Gods grace, they beginne to turne vnto his mercy: and so feare of Gods punishments becōmeth vnto them the beginning of wisdome. Thus much in effect doth M. PER. himselfe al­lowe of, and yet vvould seeme to confute it, his judgement is so slender: [Page 200] Nowe to the abuses concerning Confession.

The first abuse, That we confesse our sinnes to God in an vnknowne lan­guage.

What, is there any language vnknowne to God? or doth he meane, that the vnlearned make their confession in Latin? which is impossible for a man that vnderstandeth not one Latin vvord. He vvould say (I gheste) that some of them begin their generall confession in Latin, but we speake here of euery mans confession in particular: that general of the Churches ordinance, is commanded only to be vsed of them that are skilfull in the Latin tongue; all others may vse the English. Withall (saith he) we require the ayde and intercession of dead men. We beleeue the Saints to be liuing, which if he doth not he blasphemeth. Touching the intercession of Saints I haue treated before. Nowe as we request the helpe of their prayers, so doe we acknoweledge vnto them howe grieuously vve haue offended, that they seing our humility and sorrowe for our sinnes, may the more earnestly entreate for the remission of them. But let vs come vnto the principall point in controuersie about this matter, viz. That we haue cor­rupted Canonicall confession, by turning it into a priuate auricular confession, binding all men to confesse all their mortall sinnes, with the circumstances that change the kinde of the sinne (as farre as they can remember) once euery yeare at the least; and that to a Priest, vnlesse it be in the case of extreame necessity: but in the word of God there is no warrant for this confession, nor in the writinges of orthodoxe antiquity for the space of many hundreth yeares after Christ; as one of their owne side auoucheth: and he quoteth in the margent a man of small credit among vs Beatus Rhenanus, for his authour. Well let vs see a little, vvhat warrant we haue in holy Scriptures and in the auncient Doctors, for confession of our faultes vnto a Priest.

First it is euidently collected out of these wordes of our Sauiour: Re­ceiue the holy Ghost, Ioh. 20. vers. 23. whose sinnes yee doe forgiue in earth, they shall be forgiuen in heauen, and whose sinnes yee doe retayne, they shall be retayned. For giuing his Apostles power to remit and forgiue men their sinnes, his meaning vvas not that they should pardon them whether they would or would not, or that they should absolue any other then such as vvere contrite, and did humbly craue absolution: neyther should they absolue them from they knewe not of what, but that they should knowe vvhat, howe many and howe grieuous their offences were, that they might be put to worthy pe­nance, and receiue particular comfort and counsell 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 [Page 201] 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 [Page 202] 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 [Page 203] 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,Iac. 5. vers. 16. To confesse our sinnes one to another: vvhichHom. 2. in Leuiti­cum. Origen, L. 3. de Sacerdot. S. Chrysostome, andLib. 50. Homiliar. hom. 12. S. Augustine doe ex­pound to be meant of particular confession to the Priest. And S. Bede vp­on that place, saith: In this sentence, that discretion is to be vsed, that for day­ly and light offences we may confesse vnto such our equals, by whose prayers we trust to be helped: but the vncleannesse of the more grieuous leper, we must (as it is in the lawe) lay open to the Priest; and according to his judgement we must en­deauour to be purged, so much and so long time as he shall command.

Caluin saith, that S. Iames speaketh of such confession only, which eue­ry one is to make vnto his brother, whome he hath offended; and confir­meth it, because it followeth in the text: And pray one for another. But that vvhich goeth before, of calling the Priest to the sicke-man to anoint him, doth rather argue, that it is spoken of confession to be made to the Priest, if the sicke-man remember any mortall sinnes; for it is not enough to haue the Priest to pray for the sicke, and to anoile him, if the sicke be in state of mortall sinnes: vnlesse he first confesse himselfe of them, he can­not be absolued from them; nor vvorthylie receiue Extreame Vnction. And as other such like places are expounded, as for example,1. Pet. 4. vers. 9. Rom. 12. vers. 6. Vse hospi­tality one towardes another; euery one as he hath receiued grace, ministring the same one toward another: vvhich is not, let the poore vse hospitality as well toward the rich, as the rich toward the poore; and the sicke cure the phy­sition as vvell as the physition to cure the sicke. But vse hospitality one to­ward another, that is, those that be vvell able, towardes them that haue neede: euen so confesse one to another, that is, he that hath sinned, to him that hath authority to absolue him. Nowe let vs heare howe auncient this confession is, and vvhether it vvere heard off for a thousand yeares after Christ.

S. Ireneus, vvho liued in the next age after the Apostles,L. 1. cōt. Haeres. cap. 9. Lib. de Poenitent. maketh men­tion of certayne noble Women, whome Heretikes had pittifully abused▪ and saith; That they comming to repentance made a confession of their faultes.

Tertullian of the same age, reprehendeth some certayne, Who more fearefull (as he speaketh) of their owne shame, then carefull of their saluation, put off their confessions from day to day: whome he likeneth to them who had [Page 204] diseases in their secret partes, and fearing to discouer them to the physition, doe through their owne shamefastnesse perish. And in the end of the booke he saith: That this confession of faultes was appointed by our Lord himselfe.

Homil. 2. in Leuit.Origen. There is also a seauenth remission of sinnes, though hard and labo­rious, which is by penance: when the sinner doth wash his bedde with his teares, and when he is not ashamed to confesse his sinne to the Priest of our Lord, and to seeke remedy, &c.

Lib. 3. E­pist. 16.S. Cyprian. When in lesser offences penance is to be done a just time, and confession is to be made; his life being looked into who doth the penance, neyther can he be admitted to come to the communion, before the Bishop or Clergy haue laid their handes vpon him: how much more in these most grieuous and exceeding great crimes, must all thinges be warylie and discretly obserued, according vnto our Lordes order and discipline? Serm. 5. de lapsis. Againe, Of howe much greater faith and better feare are they, who though t [...]y be not entangled with any crime of sacrifice or libell; yet because they thought of those offences, doe simply and sorrowfully confesse them selues euen of those thoughts vnto the Priestes of God.

Serm. in illa verba. S. Athanasius vpon these vvordes (Going into a Village yee shall finde a Colt tyed) saith: Let vs examine our selues, whether the fetters of our sinnes be loosed, that we may amend our liues; and if they be not yet loosed, let vs present our selues vnto the Disciples of IESVS. For they are present, that by authority which they haue receiued from our Sauiour can loose you: Math. 18. vers. 18. Ioh. 20. vers. 23. Regula. 228. Oratione in mulie­rem pec­catricem. for he said. Whatso­euer yee binde vpon earth, shall be bound in heauen: and vvhatsoeuer yee loose on earth, shall be loosed in heauen. And whose sinnes yee for­giue, they are forgiuen.

S. Basil. Of necessity must we confesse our sinnes to them, vnto whome the di­spensation of the mysteries of God is committed, that is to Priestes.

S. Gregory Nyssene. Doe thou confidently open to the Priest thy faultes, discouer the secrets of thy hart, (as priuy woundes) vnto the physition; and he will haue care both of thy honour, and of thy health.

S. Ambrose when he did heare men that came to him to receiue penance, and to confesse their faultes, as very many came to him therefore; he did so vveepe that he constrayned them also to vveepe, as vvitnesseth holy Paulinus in his life.

In cap. 10. Ecclesiast.S. Hierome. If that serpent the Deuill haue bitten any man secretly, and haue venimed him without the priuity of any man; if he that was strooken hold his peace and doe not penance, nor will confesse his wound vnto his Brother and Master, his Master that hath a tongue to cure and heale him, cannot easily helpe him: for if he that is sicke be ashamed to shew his wound vnto the physition, phy­sicke cannot cure that which it knoweth not. And vpon the 16. of S. Mathewe he specifieth those Masters that had tongues to heale, saying: So here the [Page 205] Bishop and Priestes doe eyther binde or loose, who according to their office hauing heard the variety of sinne, doth knowe who is to be bound, and who is to be absolued.

S. Augustine. Be sorrowfull before confession, In psal. 66. but when thou hast confessed leape for joy, euen then thou shalt be cured: the conscience of him that doth not goe to confession, hath gathered together corrupt matter, an imposthume is swelled out, it vexeth him and giueth him no rest; the Physitions apply the lenitiue of wordes, and sometimes launce him, &c. Doe thou put thy selfe into the handes of the Physition, confesse and let all that corrupt matter issue forth in confession, and then rejoyce and be gladde, for the rest shall afterward be easily cured. That Priests be these Physitions of soules he teacheth, Lib. 50. homiliarum, hom. 12. Item tract. 49. super Iohan. Con. 2. in Psal. 101. Tract. 22. in Iohan. & hom. 49. Lib. 50. hom. Doe penance such as is done in the Church of God; let no man say, I doe penance secretly, I doe it to God, God knoweth that I doe it who doth pardon it. To whome he replyeth thus: Then in vayne was it said, vvhatsoeuer yee loose in earth, shall be loosed in heauen: Therefore, to no purpose were the keyes of heauen giuen to the Church; we make frustrate the Go­spell of God, we make voyde the wordes of Christ; finally, we promise to our selues that which he denyeth vs, &c. See howe playnely and formally he (so ma­ny hundreth yeares before) hath confuted the Protestants shot-anker, and only refuge of confessing their sinnes to God alone; and assureth vs, that it is a most vayne excuse, and vvill not serue any mans turne; vvhen as God himselfe hath set downe and decreed, that he will pardon no man of his sinnes, vvho doth not seeke absolution thereof from them to whome he hath committed the charge of that matter, that is from Priestes. And in right reason, can there be any better bridle vnto our corrupt nature, then the very shame and bashfulnesse of confessing our secret faultes vnto a learned, good, and graue man, such as a Confessour is or should be? Againe, where true confession of sinnes is, there men vse the best meanes that can be, to driue them from the custome of sinning: for besides the particular sorrow which they haue of their sinnes, they must firmely pur­pose neuer to returne to any kinde of sinne afterward; yea, they must ab­stayne from all occasions alluring to sinne: so that no man (vsing wel this Sacrament of Confession) can dwell in malice, vsury, leachery, or any state of sinne. Moreouer, if they haue taken away the goodes or good name of their neighbour, they are enjoyned in confession presently to doe their best to restore it backe againe. These and many other great com­modities being the inseperable companions of priuate Confession, vve Catholikes doe attribute vnto the good vse thereof, the greatest Godlines and deuotion that is amongst vs. And no maruaile, though our common [Page 206] enemy doe so busily endeauour to withdrawe sinners from it, amplifying vnto them the indignity and shame of it: but if they would consider ma­turely, that dying in their sinnes for lacke of due confession, they shal be (to their vtter shame and confusion) made to confesse them all and euery one at the latter day, before God, all his Angels and Saints, the Deuill and all damned soules being also present; they would vndoubtedly make choise, rather to confesse their sinnes to some one vertuous Priest, vvho will neuer reueale them, but in Christes name absolue and pardon them; then to leaue them to that dreadfull day of Gods just judgements, when besides the shame and confusion of them, no pardon is to be hoped for. And thus much touching Confession.

Lastly (saith M. PERKINS) The abuse of satisfaction is, that they haue bur­ned Canonicall satisfaction, which was made to the congregation by open offen­dors, into a satisfaction of the justice of God, for the temporall punishment of their sinnes. Behold here a most horrible prophanation of the whole Gospell.

Answere. Behold here a most vngodly and sencelesse out-crye what, doth the whole sanctity of the Gospell consist only in the point of our sa­tisfaction? it is too too absurd so to say. And howe knoweth he, that Ca­nonicall satisfaction vvas only or principally to satisfie the congregation? They that ordayned of old those Canons of satisfaction, had a greater care to satisfie and appease the wrath of God justly incensed against such wicked offendors; then to satisfie men: but this prophane man very fond­ly dreameth, that they rather sought to please men then God. But of this matter there is a vvhole question in the former part: there he that vvill may see, howe all satisfactions are principally instituted to appease Gods wrath, and that they doe apply vnto vs the satisfactions of Christ, and make vs partakers of them, and are besides most conuenient meanes to bridle out corrupt nature from all sorts of sinnes.

M. PERKINS to shewe that he vvas the same man in the end of his booke, as in the beginning; concludeth this part with a most palpable lie, to wit: That Priests are not put to death in England for their religion, but for their treasons which they intend and enterprise. Let their owne recordes be seene, whether very many of them haue not beene condemned, only be­cause they are Priestes, made after the auncient Roman manner, without laying vnto their charge any enterprise, eyther against the person of the Prince, or peace of the State. But what wil not a Minister auouch to dis­grace poore Priestes, vvho doe neuerthelesse not only pray, but vvill be ready also to spend their bloud for the conuersion of men of his sort, and for all others their deare country-men, by them most pitteously seduced.

Hitherto M. PERKINS hath handled pointes of religion, something [Page 207] like a schoole-man: now like a pulpit-minister he goeth on with his text, and maketh such an vnsauory glosse vpon it, that it loathes me almost to looke on it: yet because he raketh and heapeth togither all the most odi­ous matter that he can deuise against vs, I will giue it the whippe, and ha­stily runne ouer it: thus he beginneth.

Secondly out of the same text (Goe out of her my people) I gather, Pag. 331. that the true Church of God is, and hath beene in the present Roman Church, as the corne in the heape of chaffe. For though Popery ouer-spread the face of the earth for many hundreth yeares, yet, in the middest thereof, God reserued a people to him­selfe, that truly worshipped him, &c. And this will serue the turne to stoppe the mouthes of Papists, who demand of vs where our Church was one hundreth yeares agoe, before the dayes of Luther? We answere out of this text, that our Church hath beene euer since the dayes of the Apostles, and that in the very middest of the Papacy: but it first beganne to shewe it selfe in Luthers time, an vniuersall Apo­stacy hauing hidden it before for many hundreth yeares.

Answere. Here is a proper peece of doctrine, and proued as profound­ly. It is very ridiculous and absurd to say, that their Church vvas in the Church of Rome: for one that wil be both of their Church & of the Roman, must beleeue and professe not one or two, but more then twenty articles flat contradictory the one to the other, which is impossible. Can a man at once beleeue the Pope to be head of the vniuersal Church, and with-all sweare that he hath no authority in many Prouinces of it, but that all Ec­clesiasticall jurisdiction there belongeth to the Prince? or that Christs na­turall body, is really present in the Sacrament, and not really present? and that Saints are to be prayed vnto, and not to be prayed vnto? nothing is more euident, then that this cannot be: no more could the Protestants Church be in the Church of Rome. And if the Protestants vvould allowe them for theirs, vvho beleeue most of the articles of the Roman faith con­trary to their owne doctrine, so that in some fewe points they doe agree and accord with them: yet the Church of Rome wil neuer take them for a­ny of her children, who doe not wholy and inuiolably hold all the points of faith that she professeth; but renounceth them, and declareth them to be accursed: wherefore, no Protestant can be in the Church of Rome. But they say, That their Church lay hidde in the Roman, as corne in chaffe. Did it in deede lie in such obscurity, that none of them were to be seene or heard off? therefore it was no Church at all: for the most proper markes of the Church (according to their owne principles) are, The true preaching of Gods word, and the sincere administration of the Sacraments. Nowe, prea­chers of the vvord must be both seene and heard also; and they walked not inuisible (I hope) vvho ministred and receiued their Sacraments: [Page 208] wherefore, they must either graunt that their Church in that generall A­postacy was visible, or that it was no Church at all, as not hauing the inse­parable markes of their Church, which are, The true preaching of the word, and due administration of the Sacraments. Againe, if they had beene liuely members of the true Church, how could they liue vnknowne in that great Apostacy? were they not bound in conscience, to haue made profession of their faith publikely?Rom. 10. vers. 10. Math. 10. vers. 33. S. Paul saith yea: With the hart we beleeue vnto ju­stice, but with the mouth confession is made to saluation. And our Sauiour saith: He that shall deny me before men, I also will deny him, before my father which is in heauen. If they were such crauens, as made more account of their owne ease and safety, then of the truth of their religion and glory of God; they were rather cockle ouer-sowed by the enemy among the good-seede, Math. 13. vers. 25. then like vnto corne hidden in chaffe. In vaine for them also vvas that voyce sent from heauen, and recorded by S. Iohn (which M. PER. taketh for his text) Goe out of her my people; for these dastardly faint-harted fellowes, would giue no eare to it, but loued better to hide their heades in some musty cor­ner, then vvith danger of their liues, to separate themselues from those abhominations. If then there vvere any such false harted, dumbe, and deafe reprobates hidden among others, let the Protestants take them (if they please) for their worthy ancestors: But no reason in the world to cal them the true Church of God, that had neither true loue of Gods honour nor of their neighbours good and conuersion, otherwise, they would not haue holden their peace, seing Gods holy name so miserably prophaned, as they thought. Thus much of M. PER. position: nowe to his proofe.

If any man aske them where their Church was before Luthers dayes, he answe­reth out of this text, (Goe out of her my people,) that it was euer since the A­postles dayes.

Let vs drawe this to some forme of argument, that it may appeare how it hangeth togither: A voice from heauen cryed in S. Iohns dayes to the Church of Rome; Goe out of Babilon, that is; depart from the congregati­on of the wicked Heathens and Pagans: therefore the Protestants religion, hath beene euer since the Apostles dayes. Apply Iohn Barber, and thou shalt haue a newe paire of sizors for thy labour. Should not a man leese his labour to confute particularly such a sencelesse discourse? But yet a word to his next annotation vpon the text: Demanding whether the Church of Rome, he a Church or no? he answereth, That (if it be so taken as in truth it is) it is no Church at all. His proofes are, That it is Babilon, that it peruerteth the true sence of the Scripture, and ouerturneth the inward baptisme: all which I haue heretofore confuted. Here I will but demand, whether this asserti­on of his doth not vndermine and blowe vp his former? for if their hid­den [Page 209] Church were no where but in the Roman, for nine hundred yeares to­gether, and that Roman were no Church at all; then surely their Church was not at all, which had no being and existence but in the other, which vvas not at all. I may not here omit to note by the vvay vnto the gentle reader out of S. Augustine, In illa verba, ps. 85. TV SO­LVS De­VS MA­GNVS. Pag. 338. Howe they robbe Christ of his glory and inheritance bought with his pretious bloud, who hold that his Church failed, and was fled into corners. Yea, S. Hierome further affirmeth, That they make God subject to the Deuill, and a poore miserable Christ, who hold that his body the Church may pe­rish, or be so bidden that it cannot be heard off.

Wherefore, omitting such impertinent stuffe, let vs come vnto those horrible crimes that he chargeth the Church of Rome withall. The first is no lesse then Atheisme, to vvhich I haue fully answered in the preface of this booke, wherefore I doe omit it here, & doe come to the second crime of Idolatry, Which (saith he) is as grosse among vs, as euer it was among the Heathens. See the foule mouth of a preacher: howe proueth he this? Marry it is to be seene in two things: first they worship the Saints with religious worship, which is proper to God. O most impudent! doe we make Saints creators of heauen and earth, omnipotent, infinitely wise and good, or giue them any kinde of honour due vnto God only? see that question, and detest the sonnes of the Deuill, that blush not to auouch such mon­strous lies.

But we make the blessed Virgin Mary a Mediator of redemption.

Fie vpon such an impudent face: but we call her a Lady, a Queene: be it so. For so did Athanasius in Euang. de sanctiss. Deipar. apply those wordes of the 44. Psalme, The Queene standeth on thy right hand, in a golden veste­ment, &c.

So did Gregory Nazianzene, in his Verses of her: For thou (saith he) ô Queene, by the diuine fauour camest to me.

So did holy Effrem, in his Oration to her: all which liued within foure hundreth yeares off Christ. To omit S. Chrysostomes Lyturgy, because they like it not. But what of this, shee is a redeemer? O sencelesse! that shee is called a Goddesse (as they did call the Queene Elizabeth then li­uing) I reade not in any of the bookes quoted by him.Missal. Breuiar. A mediatresse of intercession, our hope, our life, and the like, shee may be called in a good sence; because we hope through the helpe of her most gratious prayers to obtayne the life of our soules: and so may it be said to her, Prepare thou glory for vs, defend vs from our enemies, and such like, to wit, by the meanes of her prayers. Againe (saith he) their Idolatry is manifest, in that they wor­ship God in, at, or before Images. Then are the Protestants also Idolaters, because they vvorship God, in, or at the Churches; at, or before their [Page 210] communion table. Whether we haue commandement or not for Images, maketh nothing to Idolatry; but whether we giue to Images the honour only due to God, which we doe not. Nowe to compare Images to adul­terers, is to dote; and deserueth no 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, [Page 211] 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 [Page 212] 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 himselfe. As for example, when a man is asked, whether he said or heard Masse in such a place, though he did, he may say that he did not, and sweare to it, meaning he was not there to reueale it to him; whereas in the law of nature he that taketh an oath, should sweare according vnto the inten­tion of him that hath power to minister an oath, and that in truth, justice, and judgement. Let them cleare their doctrine from all defence of perjury, if they can.

Answere. If he had cited but one author, you should haue heard a ful satisfaction of this matter: The truth is, that swearing a truth in his mea­ning that sweareth it, although it be against the intention of him that mi­nistreth the oath, may be lawfully vsed in two cases. The first, if he that ministreth the oath, haue not sufficient authority to minister it. The se­cond, when hauing authority he asketh something beyond the order of lawe, and against justice; then he that sweareth is excused by the rule touched by M. PERK. himselfe, because a man must sweare as in truth, so in justice, that is, to doe or say nothing againg justice. And so when one enquireth after saying or hearing Masse, as of a haynous crime, to punish good Christians for it, the man is bound not to reueale it, as being against true justice, to make his neighbour punished for so holy a fact.

The sixt sinne is, that they reuerse many of Gods Commandements, making that no [...] sinne which Gods word maketh a sinne: for example, If one steale some [Page 213] little thing that causeth no notable hurt, that is no mortall sinne; Molanus. and a merry or officious lie is but a veniall sinne, &c. If Catholikes make stealing of thinges of smale value, and officious lies veniall sinnes; then M. PER. commit­teth herein a mortall sinne, in belying them so maliciously, as to affirme them to make that no sinne, which Gods word maketh a sinne: seeing that by his owne confession vve make them and such like, sinnes, though not so haynous because there is lesse malice in them. He goeth on lying, vvhen he affirmeth vs to say, that none is bound to salute his enemy: for we hold all men bound to salute their enemies, and to afford them all com­mon duties of ciuillity; and though it be but a counsell to yeeld them the extraordinary offices of friendshippe, yet vve hold that it is much more Christan-like so to doe. As for rash judgement sodainely giuen without ad­uisement, I see not howe it can be more then a veniall sinne: for the party considering better of the matter, changeth his opinion straight way, and so doth his neighbour no vvrong. And if it be the part of a wise man sometimes to dissemble, according vnto that saying of the wise: Sapien­tis est loco dissimulare; then surely is it better to dissemble and fayne holy­nesse, then wickednesse. As for painting of the face in a moderate and mo­dest fashion, to amend the fauour, vvhen it is done without any euill end or purpose, and without scandall, I see not howe one can make any more of it, then a veniall sinne: but to daube the countenance so as some leude women doe, to allure men thereby to vnlawfull lust, is without doubt ve­ry damnable, and for no other is taken of Catholikes. Touching begging, let him name who holdeth it for vnlawfull to prohibite and forbidde it, if sufficient meanes be otherwise prouided for the mainetaynance of the poore, for I knowe none such. True it is, because the truth it selfe hath so said: That we shall haue alwayes the poore among vs. Mat. 26. vers. 11. But who doubteth but that it is much better, to prouide for them charitably in some certayne places of aboade, then to suffer them to wander vp and downe idly, and to liue dissolutely, as the greater part of them are thought to doe. More­ouer, no authour can be truly said to vphold or excuse blasphemy or swea­ring, though vvhen they deliuer their opinions in schooles concerning that matter, they affirme that rash cholerike othes (not being vsuall) are no mortall sinnes, because they breake out in manner against a mans vvil; choler for the time troubling and hindering the vse of reason.

M. PERKINS doth lastly charge our writers with manifest lying, to justi­fie our doctrine, in that they pleade all antiquity to be on our sides: whereas (saith he) it is as much for them as for vs.

Hereof he yeeldeth no proofe, and no maruaile; for many of his bre­theren are ashamed to denie this, and doe ingeniously confesse, that in [Page 214] many points of religion the auncient Fathers are wholy for vs. And in no one point that I can heare off, will he or any of his pew-fellowes be tryed by the judgement and consent of antiquity: vvhich is a most manifest proofe, that in their owne conscience they knowe wel enough, that al an­tiquity is flat against them; else vvhy should they so feare to stand vnto their most vpright determination, and so fleete and flie from it? vvhich point vvell considered off, is alone sufficient to disswade any man from their newe doctrine. For it not agreeing with the doctrine of pure anti­quity, must needes be false and wicked; because that was most true, ho­ly, and good: And the holy Ghost doth not nowe teach one to be true, and afterward change. After his Lastly he hath: Againe, that our manner is to proue our opinions by forged and counterfeit writinges of men: namely by S. Iames liturgie, by the Canons of the Apostles, by the bookes of Dionisius Ario­pagita, and so forth reckoning vp some one and twenty peeces, which he calleth counterfeit; but he goeth not about to proue any one of them to be forged. It may therefore suffice for answere; that when he or any other shall vndertake to proue, that we vse any forged writinges to confirme our doctrine, they shall (God willing) be answered. In the meane season the better to content such weaklings, I haue not past once (to my remem­brance) alleaged any sentence out of these bookes, by him suspected for counterfeit. And as touching the marrying of a Catholike vvith a Prote­stant, we dislike it more then many Ministers, who will make no bones to marrie them togither; which no Catholike Priest wil doe. Finally, we ac­cord with him in leagues of amity as he tearmeth them, and hold that Ca­tholike and Protestant Princes, may not combine in league to defend each other in all causes, or else one should stand bound to aide the other some­times against both honesty and religion; which were very absurd: So as where M. PERKINS saith well (vvhich he doth seldome in this booke of his) I willingly agree vvith him, not sparing on the other side to repre­hend that which he speaketh against the truth; vvhich all indifferent men will (I hope) take to be honest vpright dealing. Here en­deth his booke, vvere it not that after finis put to it, he ad­deth a further Aduertisement, which may not be left vnanswered: vvherefore, I haue an­nexed hereunto both it and the answere, before I come to the full period of this worke.