THE SECOND PART OF THE REFORMATION OF A CATHOLIC DEFORMED by Master W. PERKINS.  S. AUGUST. in PSAL. 36. 
Tanto magis debemus commemorare vanitatem Haereticorum: quanto magis quaerimus salutem eorum.  
The more we seek after the salvation of Heretics: the more we must rehearse and show their vanity.  
Printed with Privilege. 1607.   

TO THE READER.  
GENTLE Reader, I must needs entreat thy patience to bear with the late edition of this second part: because it is now more than two years, since it was given to be printed. But, we that cannot have things done when we will: must be content to take them when we may. And to tell thee the truth, some part of this being penned, was also by mischance lost; which is now repaired. Take it (I pray thee) simple as it is, in good part: and accept of his good will, that wisheth it much better, that it might give thee the greater satisfaction.  
Farewell.   

THE PREFACE.  
CHRISTIAN READER, I suppose it shall please thee better, if I do entertain thy studious mind with some serious discourse, then if I went about to court it, with the ordinary compliments of a curious preamble. Wherefore I purpose (by thy gentle patience) to handle here a matter of marvelous great importance, which M. PER. towards the latter end of his book, layeth out against us in manner of a most grievous complaint: it is, that we Catholics, among many other capital crimes by us (as he fableth) defended, do bolster and uphold the most heinous sin of Atheism. The man is not a little troubled to devise wherein we do maintain any such point of impiety: For compelled by the clear evidence of truth, he confessed that we do rightly acknowledge the unity of the Godhead in the Trinity of persons: yet that he may seem to say something therein against us, he flieth unto the threadbare rags of their common slanders of man's merits and satisfactions, and such old stuff: and stretching them on the tenterhooks, yet one nail further than his fellows, striveth to draw out of them a certain strange kind of Atheism, in this manner: The Roman religion makes the merit of the works of men, to concur with the grace of God, therefore it overthrows the grace of God. 
Rom. 11. vers. 6.  Item, they acknowledge the infinite justice and mercy of God, but by consequence both are denied: for how can that be infinite justice, which may any way be appeased by human satisfaction? And how shall God's mercy be infinite, when we by our own satisfactions must add a supply to the satisfaction of Christ? There needs a pretty wit (I ween) to understand how these points appertain to Atheism. For suppose that we defended, that the merit of the works of man concurred with God's grace, as two distinct agents, which we do not; for we hold that no works of man have any merit, unless they spring and proceed from the very grace of God: but let that be granted, what kind of Atheism or denying of God were this? or how followeth it thereof, that the grace of God (which is the principal agent, and far more potent than the other) must thereby needs be cast to the ground and foiled? this is so silly and simple, that I know not what to term it: for he doth untruly slander our doctrine, and that to no end and purpose. To his second cavil I answer in a word, that we teach (as he knoweth right well) the infinite justice of God to be appeased no other way, then by the infinite satisfaction of Christ's passion: And that our satisfactions are only to pay for the temporal pains remaining yet due, after the infinite are paid for by Christ. Now whether any such temporal pain remain or no, after the sin is remitted, is a question between us: but to say (as M. PER. doth) that we be Atheists, and do deny God to be God, for that we hold some temporal punishment of man to be due, after pardon granted of his greater pain, is most apparently a very senseless assertion. As wide from all reason is his third instance: That God's mercy cannot be infinite, when by our own satisfactions we add a supply to the satisfaction of Christ. For if Christ's most perfect and full satisfaction, can well stand with God's infinite mercy; far more easily may man's satisfactions agree with it, which are infinitely less than Christ's. But the infinite riches of God's mercy appeareth especially, in that it pleased him freely to give unto us (so mean creatures and wretched sinners) his own only dear Son, to be our Redeemer and Saviour; and both Christ's satisfaction & ours are rather to be referred unto God's justice, then to his mercy: wherefore very unskilfully doth M. PER. compare them with God's mercy. Neither is it possible to distill any quintessence of Atheism out of it, more than out of the former; nay, they both uprightly weighed, are so far of from Atheism, or derogating any thing from God's glory; that they do much magnify and advance the same. For albeit we hold our good works to be both meritorious and satisfactory: yet do we teach the virtue, value, and estimation of them, to proceed wholly from the grace of God in us, whereby we be enabled and helped to do them; and not any part of the dignity and worthiness of the works, to issue from the natural faculty or industry of the man that doth them. So that when we maintain the merit or satisfaction of good works, we extol not the nature of man, but do only defend and uphold the dignity and virtue of God's grace: which Protestants do greatly debase, extenuate and vilify, not allowing it to be sufficient to help the best minded man in the world, to do any work that doth not offend God mortally. Thus much concerning our supposed Atheism against God: now of those that be (as he imagineth) against Christ the Son of God: First he argueth thus. He that hath not the Son, hath not the Father: and he that hath neither Father nor Son, denies God: now the present Roman religion hath not the Son, that is jesus Christ God and man: For they in effect abolish his manhood, by teaching of him to have two kinds of existing; one natural in heaven, whereby he is visible, touchable, and circumscribed: the other against nature, whereby he is substantially according to his flesh in the hands of every Priest, invisible and uncircumscribed.  
Answer. M. PER. and all Protestants know right well, that we believe jesus Christ to be perfect God, and perfect man, and therefore we have both the Son and the Father; and his reason against it, is not worth a rush: for we do not destroy the nature of man, by teaching it to have two divers manners of existing or being in a place. When Christ was transfigured before his Apostles, he had another manner of outward form and appearance, than he had before: yet was not the nature of man in him thereby destroyed, and after his resurrection he was (when it pleased him) visible to his Apostles, and at other times invisible: and yet was not his manhood thereby abolished, as M. PER. would make us believe: no more is it when his body is in many places at once; or in one place circumscribed, and in the other uncircumscribed. For these external relations of bodies unto their places, do no whit at all destroy their inward and natural substances, as all Philosophy testifieth: wherefore hence to gather that we deny both the Father and the Son to be God, doth savour (I will not say of a silly wit) but of a froward will, peevishly bend to cavil and calumniate. Secondly, Master PERKINS chargeth us with disgrading Christ of his offices: saying, that for one jesus Christ the only King, lawgiver, and head of the Church, they join unto him the Pope, not only as a Vicar, but as a fellow, in that they give unto him power to make laws binding in conscience: to resolve and determine infallibly the sense of holy Scripture: properly to pardon sin: to have authority over the whole earth, and a part of hell: to depose Kings, to whom under Christ every soul is subject: to absolve subjects from the oath of allegiance, etc.  
Answer. Here is a bead-roll of many superfluous speeches: for not one of all these things (if we admit them all to be true) doth convince us to have disgraded Christ of his offices, which are these: to appease God's wrath towards us: to pay the ransom for our sins: to conquer the Devil: to open the Kingdom of heaven: to be supreme head of both men and Angels, and such like. He may (without any derogation unto these his sovereign prerogatives) give unto his servants; first, power to make laws that bind in conscience, as he hath done to all Princes, which the Protestants themselves dare not deny: then, to determine unfallibly of the true sense of holy Scripture, which the Apostles could do, as all men confess; and yet do not make them Christ's fellows, but his humble servants: to whom also he gave power properly to pardon sins: 
Luc. 24. joan. 20. Mar. 16. Matt. 28.  Whose sins you pardon on earth, sbal be pardoned in heaven: and finally, to them he also gave authority over the whole earth: go into the universal world. Over part of hell no Pope hath authority; and when he doth good to any soul in Purgatory, it is per modum suffragij, as a suppliant and entreater, not as a commander. Whether he hath any authority over Princes & their subjects in temporal affairs, it is questioned by some: yet no man (not wilfully blind) can doubt, but that Christ might have given him that authority, without disgrading himself of it; as he hath imparted to him and to others also, faculties of greater authority and virtue, reserving nevertheless the same unto himself, in a much more excellent manner. As a King by substituting a viceroy, or some such like deputy, to whom he gives most large commission, doth not thereby disgrade himself of his Kingly authority, as all the world knows: no more did our Saviour Christ jesus bereave himself of his power or dignity, when he bestowed some part thereof upon his substitutes. He goes on multiplying a number of idle words to small purpose: as that we for one Christ the only real Priest of the new Testament, join many secondary Priests unto him, which offer Christ daily in the Mass. We indeed hold the Apostles to have been made by Christ, not imputative or fantastical, but real and true Priests: And by Christ his own order and commandment, to have offered his body and blood daily in the sacrifice of the Mass; what of that? see that question. Furthermore he saith, for one jesus the all sufficient mediator of intercession, they have added many fellows to him, to make request for us: namely as many Saints as be in the Pope's Calendar: yea and many more too. For we hold that any of the faithful yet living, may be also requested to pray for us: neither shall he in haste be able to prove, that Christ only maketh intercession for us, though he be the only mediator that hath redeemed us. Lastly saith M. PERKINS, for the only merits of Christ, in whom alone the Father is well pleased, (what, was he not well pleased with his Apostles?) they have devised a treasury of the Churches, containing besides the merits of Christ, the overplus of the merits of Saints, to be dispensed to men at the discretion of the Pope, and thus we see that Christ and his merits be abolished.  
Answer. The good man is somewhat mistaken, for we hold not any overplus of merits in Saints, the which we acknowledge to be by God fully rewarded in heaven: but we affirm that some Saints and blessed Martyrs have suffered more pains in this life, than the temporal punishment of their own sins ●eserued: 
job 6. v. ●  Who therefore might truly say with that just man job? would to God my sins, whereby I have deserved wrath, were weighed with the calamity that I suffer: even as the sands of the Sea, this should be the heavyer. Now part of these sufferings of God's Saints (as being needless for their own satisfaction) are reserved in the Church's storehouse, and may by the high steward of the Church (to whom the dispensation of her treasure belongeth) he communicated to others, as very reason teacheth us; for who is fit to dispose of any man's goods, than he to whom the charge thereof is given by his testament? And thus I hope every reasonable man doth find us Catholics to be far of from transforming Christ into an Idol of man's conceit, as Master PERKINS dreameth: only we see a misconceited man, labouring in vain to deface Christ's benefits toward us, to calumniate his chief servants, and to skirmish more against his own fantasies, then against any doctrine of ours. He layeth lastly a third kind of Atheism against us, for worshipping of God, not with such respect as is suitable to his nature. For (saith he) our worship is mere will worship for the most part, without any allowance or commandment of God, as Durand in his Rationale in effect acknowledgeth: it is a carnal service standing of innumerable bodily rites and ceremonies, borrowed partly from the jews, and partly from the Heathens: it is divided between God and some of his creatures, in that they are worshipped both with one kind of worship, let them paint it as they can, etc.  
Answer. Ipse dixit: Pythagoras hath pronounced his sentence; yet you need not believe him, unless you list, because he fableth so formally: doth Durand acknowledge that all our worship is mere will worship, and that it hath no allowance of God? O egregious and impudent deceiver! For that learned devout Author Durand, doth nothing else in all that book, than set out the Majesty and declared the meaning of the true worship of God, used daily in our service throughout the whole year: And therefore doth entitle his book Rationale Divinorum, the reasons of divine service. And as for bodily rites, we use but few, and those very decent, full of reverence, and most fit to stir up and cherish devotion. We be not spirits, and therefore must serve God by bodily ceremonies, although the life and virtue of them proceed from the spirit, employing all parts of the body, in his worship and to his honour that made it: neither be they borrowed of jews nor of the Heathens; albeit they might perhaps (the one by the commandment of God, the other by the light of nature) use some such like: but ours were devised by the inspiration of the holy Ghost (the heavenly guide and director of the Catholic Church) to move us to serve God more devoutly, and with greater reverence. Now to say that we give the same worship to any Saint that we give to God, is a stolen jest, that hath long sithence lost all his grace, being found to be nothing else, but a notorious untruth very often confuted; as by others else where, so by me more than once in this book: where also these other slanders here cast upon us, are more at large in their several places discussed: this therefore may serve in this place for an answer to those imputations of Atheisms, which Master PERKINS objecteth against us. And for that this crime of Atheism is the most heinous that can be, as contrariwise, the true opinion of the Godhead and the sincere worship thereof, is the most sweet and beautiful flower of religion: let us therefore, here (to hold due correspondence with Master PERKINS) examine the Protestants doctrine, concerning the nature of God, and their worship of him; that the indifferent reader, comparing judiciouslie our two opinions thereof together, may embrace that for most pure and true, that carrieth the most reverent and holy conceit thereof. For out of all doubt, there can be no greater motive to any devout soul, to like of a religion, then to see that it doth deliver a most sacred doctrine of the Sovereign Lord of heaven and earth, and doth withal most religiously adore and serve him: Whereas on the other side, there is not a more forcible persuasion to forsake a religion before professed, then to be given to understand, that the Masters of that religion, teach many absurd things concerning the Godhead itself, and do as coldly and as slightly worship God almighty; as may be. Mark therefore, I beseech thee (gentle reader) for thy own soul's sake, what evidence I shall deliver in against the Protestants, touching this point of Atheism, and following the same method that M. PER. observeth, I will first touch their errors against the most blessed Trinity and Deity: secondly, such as are against our Lord jesus God and man: lastly, I will speak one word or two about their service and worshipping of God: All which shall be performed in a much more temperate manner, than the gravity of such a matter requireth; that it may be less offensive. Concerning the sacred Trinity, it is by the doctrine of certain principal pillars of their new Gospel brought into great question. 
Lib. 1. Instit. c. 13. ss. 23. 25. Con. rationes Camp. pag. 152.  For john Caluin in divers places teacheth, that the second & third persons of the Trinity, do not receive the Godhead from the first, but have it of themselves, even as the first person hath. And in this he is defended by M. Whitaker, and preferred before all the learned Fathers of the first council of Nice. Out of which position it followeth, that there is neither Father nor Son in the Godhead: for according unto common sense, and the uniform consent of all the learned; he only is a true natural Son, that by generation doth receive his nature and substance from his Father. We are called the Sons of God, but that is by adoption and grace: but he only is the true natural Son of God, that by eternal generation received his substance: that is, the Godhead from him. If therefore the second person did not receive the Godhead from the first, but had it of himself, as they do affirm: then certainly he is no true Son of the first, and consequently the first person is no true Father. For (as all men confess) Father & Son be correlatives, so that the one cannot be without the other. Thus their doctrine is found to be faulty in the highest degree of Atheism. For it overthroweth both Father and Son in the Trinity. And further, if it were true, then doth the holy Ghost proceed neither from the Father, nor from the Son: for it receiveth not the Godhead from them at all, as they hold; but hath it of himself, and so proceedeth no more from them, than they do from him, & consequently is not the third person: Wherefore finally they do overthrow the whole Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost. Secondly, they may be truly styled Atheists, who think any one to be God, that hath not in him all singular perf●ctions, in the most perfect sort that can be, but either wanteth some of them, or else hath them in a meaner degree than any other: they therefore that teach our Saviour Christ, in his Godhead to be inferior unto his Father; stand justly charged with Atheism. Such a one is 
* Epi. ad Polo. pa. 940. & seq.  Caluin who in formal terms doth avouch and say, that Christ according to his Godhead, is less than his Father. And else where he affirmeth, 
In ca 26, Matt. 64. Cō. Stancar. in locis, ca de Christo. Cō. Harding, art. 17. in the confuta. of the Papists slanders.  the Father to hold the first rank of honour and power, and the Son to obtain the second, which he might have learned of his great master Melancthon, who taught that the Son according to his divinity, is his Father's subject and minister. Further, that in Christ there was something of the nature of God; some other thing then belike was wanting. Again, that the Godhead of Christ was obedient unto his Father: with whom our countrymen jewel and Fulke do jump, who affirm that the divine nature of Christ offered sacrifice unto his Father. Briefly, all Protestants (who hold Christ according to his divine nature, to have been a mediator) make his Godhead inferior unto God the Father. For to be (as a mediator, must needs be) a suppliant unto another: to pray and offer sacrifice to him, is to acknowledge him to be his better, and that something lieth in his power to do, which the other of himself cannot do, but by suit must obtain of him. join here unto that they do expound most of the texts of holy Scripture, used by the ancient Fathers to prove the blessed & sacred Trinity, even as the old Arrians did, reproving the ancient Father's exposition; which cannot but argue, that they in their hearts (though they be yet ashamed to confess it) decline apace from those holy Father's steps, to favour Arrianisme. This little therefore may suffice to demonstrate, how the chief pillars of the Protestants religion, do shake the very foundations of the Christian faith, by their strange glosses and speeches about the sacred Trinity, and by their divers derogations to Christ's divinity. But this shall appear yet much more perspiciously, if we do well weigh what they teach touching the very nature of the Godhead itself. Whosoever denies God to be almighty, or presumes to limit the infinite power of God, within the compass of man's weak understanding, he in effect makes him no God at all, but some mean creature of a limited strength and power: such be all Protestants, 
Oecolamp de verbis Domini. Beza in Neoph. simil. count. And. pag 15.  who affirm that God can not set a body in the world, without a circumscribed place; nor any one body in many places at once, with such like: the which (because they cannot, out of the dullness of their wit, or will not of frowardness, conceive to be in nature possible) they flatly deny God to be able to do: yea, some of them were so blind 
* In a conference at Paris.  and bold, as to avouch God, not to be able to conceive or understand, how that is possible; which notwithstanding very natural philosophy teacheth, to have no repugnance in itself, as in his place I have proved. If they were enemies to God's omnipotency alone, it might be somewhat excused, because that might seem to proceed rather from the weakness of their understanding, then out of any ill affection towards God: but if they do further oppose themselves against the goodness, mercy, and justice of God; that must needs discover very great impiety to lie festering in their bowels. Who seethe not, that it doth highly attaint the inestimable goodness of God, and his tender love towards mankind, to impute the reprobation of man and his eternal damnation, not unto man's own wickedness and deserts, but unto the mere will and pleasure of God himself? and yet this is too too common an assertion amangst the Protestants. 
In colloq Monpelgar. pag. 522.  Let Beza one of their bravest champions, speak for the rest: God (saith he) in his secret counsel, hath set down an unremovable decree, that he will not have the greater part of men saved, nor to believe in Christ, and come to the knowledge of truth; but hath created, ordained, and predestinated them to everlasting damnation. 
Pag. 336.  To whom M. PER. in this book draweth near, affirming it to proceed from the very will of God, that he shows mercy to some and forsaketh others. Mercy (indeed) God of his mere goodness doth power out upon us abundantly: but to imagine that he of his own will and prime choice, without any foresight of our sins, doth forsake us, and appoint us to hell fire, is heinous impiety, most contrary unto the very nature of God; whose goodness is so pure and sincere, that it doth good to all things, and wisheth evil to none; unless they do first greatly deserve it. What an ungodly opinion than is it, to hold that he of his own free choice ordained man (a creature made to his own Image and likeness) to most grievous and endless torments, without foresight of any offence of his? As though he should take a singular pleasure, to see a principal work of his own hands, fry in hell fire.  
Another opinion some of them hold, which is yet much more blasphemous than the other, to wit: that God, who hath been always by good men esteemed the author of all good, and so merely good in his own nature and will, that he cannot possibly do or think any evil: that this Ocean (I say) of goodness, is become the author, plotter, promoter, and worker of all the wickedness and mischief, that is, or hath been committed in the world. This is the doctrine of Zwinglius a great Rabin among the new Gospelers, 
De provid. Dei. pag. 365.  who avoucheth that when we commit either adultery, murder, or any such like crime, that it is the work of God, he being the author, moving and pushing us on to do it. Again, that the thief by God's motion and persuasion, murdereth, and is often times compelled to sin. 
In cap. 1. ad Rom.  With him agreeth Bucer, sometimes a professor of divinity in the university of Cambridge; censuring him to deny God flatly, who doth not firmly believe, that God doth work in man, as well all evil, as all good. Of the same accursed crew was Melancthon, who upon the 8. chapter to the Romans, saith: Even as we confess Paul's vocation to have been Gods proper work: so do we acknowledge these to be the proper works of God, which are either indifferent, as is to eat and drink; or that are evil, as the adultery of David, and such like. For it is evident out of the first to the Romans, that God doth all things mightily (as Augustine speaketh) & not permissively: so that the treason of judas is as properly the work of God, 
Li. 1. Inst. c. 18. ss. 1.  as the calling of Paul. But the principal proctor and promoter of this blasphemy is Caluin, who of set purpose bestows a whole chapter of his Institutions, to hell, to prove and persuade it. There he avoucheth boldly, that the blinding and madness of Achab, was the will and decree of God: that Absalon indeed defiling his father's bed with incestuous adultery, committed detestable wickedness; yet this was Gods own work: briefly, that nothing is more plain, then that God blindeth the eyes of men, striketh them with giddiness, maketh them drunk, casteth them into madness, and hardeneth their hearts. And whereas the poor Papists were wont to interpret such texts of Scripture, as seem to attribute these things to God, by saying, that God doth indeed justly permit, and suffer such things to be done, but is not the author of them: this, Caluin will not in any wise admit of, but in the same place confutes it; saying. These things many refer to sufferance, as if in forsaking the reprobate, he suffered them to be blinded by Satan: but that solution (saith he) is too fond, and so goeth on, proving that God doth not only suffer, but actually effect and work all the evil, that any man committeth: yea, he addeth that which is more horrible: that God doth work this evil in man, 
Ibidem sess. 17. 2.  by Satan's service as a mean; yet so as God is the principal worker of it, and the Devil but his instrument. Is not this blasphemy in the highest degree, to make God a more principal author, and worker of all wickedness, done in the world, than the Devil himself? this is much worse than flat Atheism: for it is the lesser impiety of two to hold that there is no God at all, then to believe that God worketh more effectually all mischief, than the infernal spirits do. But some of our Protestants will perhaps say, that they hold not this opinion: be it so, for I think better of many of them: yet, be not these men that so teach, as it were the founders of the new Gospel, and men of chiefest mark among them? Now what force such principal authors (as they take Melancthon, Zwinglius, Bucer, and Caluin to be) may have, to carry the rest away into the same errors, I know not. Sure I am, that Caluins' Institutions (wherein this matter is so vehemently urged) is translated into English, and in the Preface commended to all students of Christian divinity, as one of the most profitable (the holy Scriptures excepted) for the sound declarations of truth in articles of religion.  
But to proceed on with this discourse: the Protestants do not only impugn the power & goodness of God: but they do also pervert his justice. For to omit their last position, that God is the worker of all sin in us compelling (as Caluin speaketh) the reprobate to obedience; and therefore cannot in justice punish the poor wreatches, for being obedient unto his own will and working: and not to urge their former assertion, that God of his own will & decree, hath predestinated the greater part of men to hell, without any foresight of their evil deserts: which if it were true, should it not be intolerable wrong, to torment so rigorously innocents, that never offended him? To let pass these points (I say) how can they defend the justice of God, who hold that he hath tied us to such laws, as are impossible to be kept by any man? For Christ (as he testified himself) will condemn men to hell fire for transgressing of these laws, 
Math. 7. vers. 23.  by working of iniquity; depart from me you that work iniquity: and what equity should there be in that sentence, if it had never been possible for these men to have done otherwise? For no reasonable judge condemneth any man for not doing of that, which he knew well, lay not any way in his power to be done. So that nothing is more plain and evident, then that the Protestants doctrine trotteth apace towards open Atheism: by impugning the power of God: by defacing his goodness, mercy, and justice, which in our understanding are the chief properties of his divine substance: and by calling into question the blessed Trinity itself, which their offspring and progeny the Trinitarians in Poland do already deny flatly.  
Thus much of their Atheisms against God. Now to those that be against our Saviour Christ jesus: I have before touched their errors concerning his Godhead; here I will speak of those that be against his Manhood, and Mediatorship. First, it must needs argue in them a great want of good affection towards our Saviour, that they are so backward in his blessed Mother the holy Virgin's praises, not hearing with patience, any body that would so much as salute her with the Hail MARY, 
Luc. 1.  which notwithstanding is recorded in the Gospel? and are beside so ready upon every little occasion, to speak in her dispraise, that we may with good reason reprove them, as men either wanting judgement (which they will not endure of anything) or else void of due respect unto the Son, who are such adversaries to the Mother: whom if they would not reverence for her own virtues, which were most rare and singular; yet for her sons sake (who loved her so tenderly) they should show themselves better affected towards her, and more forward in her praises, if they did indeed love and honour her Son, as they pretend to do.  
But let us come to Christ's own person. Whereas the first Adam was (at the first instance of his creation) replenished with perfect knowledge: and it is also in holy write said of the second, 
joh. 1. In cap. 2. Lu. v. 52. Collos. 2. vers. 4.  that the word was made flesh, full of grace and truth: Yet they commonly teach, that our saviours soul was subject to ignorance, even as other men's souls are: & that he was in his youth ignorant of many things. But what and they spare him not (in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge were hidden) when he came to ripe years, and began now to preach? let us for a taste, hear some of Caluins sweet observations upon the text of the Gospel; because the purer brethren complain much, that M. Caluins' works are in no greater request. Christ (saith he) 
* Ex Caluin. Turcismo. li. 7. c. 13. Luc. 16. Math. 7. joh. 1.  speaketh improperly, Math. 6. vers. 18. he useth harsh and farfetched similitudes: he wresteth the Prophets' words into a strange sense: he useth trivial and vulgar proverbs, as probable conjectures, not as sound arguments; which he willeth us to bear in mind, as a thing often practised by our Saviour, in Math. ca 12. vers. 25. Luc. 11. vers. 17. he speaketh after the manner of men, not out of his heavenly cabinette, Math. 11. vers. 21. which is no less in plain English, then that he spoke untruly as men do. And very suitable to this he noteth else where, 
In cap. 7. Lu. v. 29.  that Christ could not get any other to be his Disciples, than some certain poor fellows of the refuse and dregs of the people. Seem not these execrable notes to issue from the pen of some malicious jew, or rank Atheist? yet are they but flea-bitinges in comparison of those which follow. In his commentary upon these words of our Saviour: Father if it be possible, let this chalice or cup pass from me. 
Mat. 26. vers. 39  He observeth first, that this prayer of Christ was unadvisedly made: secondly, that he overcome with grief, had forgotten the heavenly decree, not remembering for the time, that he was sent to be the redeemer of mankind: thirdly, that he withstood as much as in him lay, and refused to execute the office of a mediator. See Caluin also upon these words of Christ: 
joh. 12. vers. 27.  Father save me from this hour: where he saith, that Christ was so strooken with fear, and so pinched on every side with perplexed pensiveness, that he was forced through these boisterous waves of temptation, to waver and fleet too and fro in his prayers and petitions. Is not this pitiful impiety? Whereas our most loving redeemer, of set purpose took that fear upon him, and most willingly both suffered, and caused that bloody agony and conflict, by representing unto himself, both the shame and pain of his dolorous passion, and the causes thereof (which were the innumerable most grievous sins of the world) that he might in every part both of mind and body, endure what he possibly could, for the time; and spoke nothing rashly, but repeated that his prayer over three several times, as is set down in the text itself; to show us how naturally he (as all other men) did abhor such a cruel and ignominious death: and yet withal to instruct us, that we should be content with it, and pray to God for strength to bear it, if it were his blessed will to put us to the like. This wholesome doctrine and Godly instructions, are by the ancient holy Fathers gathered out of that prayer of Christ: what a venomous spider than was Caluin, to suck such poison out of it? if Christ so wavered, where was his constancy? if he were so frighted (as Caluin falsely imagineth) where was his fortitude? if he struggled so against his Father's decree, where was his obedience? if he refused to redeem us, what was become of his charity towards mankind? if the first motions to evil be deadly sins in us (as the Protestants hold) what will they make of such tumultuous, and unbridled passions in him, that had a greater command over them, than we have? But we are not yet come unto the height of his blasphemies, which he poureth forth more abundantly upon those our saviours words: My GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsaken me! 
Mat. 27. vers. 46.  saying: when this kind of temptation was proposed to Christ (as though God being averted from him, he had been appointed to utter destruction) he was seized with horror. 
* Li. 2. Instit. c. 16. sess. 11.  And in his Institutes treating of the same subject, saith: Christ feared to have been swallowed up of death as a sinner: And there can be no more dreadful bottomless gulf, then for a man to feel himself forsaken and estranged from God, & not to be heard, when he calleth upon him, even as if God had conspired his destruction: even thither we see that Christ was thrown down, so that by enforcement of distress he was compelled to cry out: my GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsaken me. In the paragraph before, he speaketh more plainly, that Christ did hand in hand wrestle with the armies of hell, & the horror of eternal death: finally, that in his soul he suffered the torments of the damned, and all those punishments that are due to wicked men in hell: He then (belike) was the traitor judas companion: for the while he was in the devils hands to be tormented, be despaired and fared as men do in these hellish torments. What greater blasphemy can be invented, then to condemn the King of heaven, that came to redeem us all from hell, even to the very pit of hell itself? Beza not willing to come behind his master Caluin in this kind of impiety, whereas Caluin craftily admitted only, 
In cap. 5. ad Hebr. vers. 7.  that Christ then despaired, he affirmeth plainly: that from Christ (strooken with the horror of God's curse) escaped the word of desperation. And else where, that Christ was (with the huge heavy burden of God's wrath, overwhelmed and adjudged to the flames of hell: yea, buried and drowned in the bottom of the infernal gulf: 
In ca 27. Math. & 22. Luc.  This man (you see) desires to lodge Christ low enough, that would have him drowned in the very bottom of hell. This their pestilent venom, they might have sucked out of their good grandsire Luther's writings, who upon the very same words, doth make this goodly commentary. 
In Psal. 22. ver. 1.  What shall we therefore say? Christ to have been together both the most just, and greatest sinner: both the most notorious liar, and truest teacher: at the same instant, both the most highly glorying, & deeply despairing: both happy in the highest degree, & most miserably damned. Unless we say this, I see not (saith this Oracle of the new Gospel) how Christ was forsaken of God. See him also upon the third chapter to the Galatians, where he uttereth yet more detestable speeches of Christ, to wit: that all the Prophets did in the spirit foresee him to be the greatest thief, robber, murderer, adulterer, sacrilegious person and blasphemer, that ever lived. I could cite you divers others of the same opinion, but I had rather note their extreme blindness, who neglecting the ancient Father's learned expositions of the holy Scriptures, were led away with such horrible extravagant conceits of our Saviour, upon so small occasion. For he at that very time hanging on the Cross, declared himself to be most far of from all such hellish torments: yea, he showed all possible signs of a most quiet and peaceable mind, praying for the salvation even of his persecutors (he was not then belike in doubt of his own) promising also to the good thief that the same day he should be with him in Paradise; wherefore he doubted nothing of being there himself: recommending his Mother unto his beloved Disciple, and him likewise to her; and to fulfil the Scriptures, both saying I thirst, and citing even those very words, that they are scandalised at, out of one of the Psalms of David: And finally, advisedly considering all things belonging to his passion, to be accomplished, commended his spirit unto his Father's hands; so that there could not possibly be more calm settled judgement, more valiant constancy & resolution, than there was. But what meant he then to say, my GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsaken me? Forsooth nothing else, but to signify, that in all these torments which he suffered, he had not any comfort or consolation at that time from God, who is wont to give extraordinary aid and comfort to all those, that suffer for his name's sake: but that Christ might (as he himself desired) be put to suffer all kind of extremity, all manner of inward consolation was wholly withholden from him; which it pleased him then to express by manner of complaint in those most pitiful words: My GOD, my GOD, etc. the more to move us to compassion. Thus much of their impieties against Christ's person: now to those that they teach against the office of his mediatorshippe.  
They hold first, that whatsoever our Saviour did or suffered before his passion, was of small value for our redemption. For as a noble Protestant said, the Monks, 
Molineus in harmonia, part. 51.  Priests, and Papistical Doctors did err, when they urged Christ's incarnation and nativity: for all these things profited us nothing; could do nothing: but only the death of Christ, which alone was accepted of God for our sins. Secondly, Caluin goeth further, and doubteth not to say, that Christ's passion and corporal death would not serve the turn, 
Li. 2. Instit. ca 16 sess. 10.  and had profited us nothing at all, had he not in his soul suffered the very pains of the damned in hell. This doctrine of theirs is not only contrary to an hundredth places of express Scripture, that do assign our redemption unto the bloodshedding and passion of Christ: but it also derogateth very much from the dignity of our Mediator. For not that which he suffered, made the merit of our redemption: but it was his exceeding charity, with which he suffered it, and principally the very dignity of his divine person, which gave that value, price, and estimation to his sufferings, that the very lest thing that ever he suffered in his life, was of infinite value; and therefore sufficient to pay the ransom of all mankind: yea, to have redeemed a thousand worlds. But let us proceed on with the Protestants opinion: did Christ's sufferings of the torments of hell deserve of God in justice, the redemption of man? not so, if we may believe one of Foxes Martyrs, who held (as he recordeth) that Christ with all his works could not merit heaven for us. But for that little credit is to be given to such a Martyr, 
Acts & monuments. pag. 487  and such a Martir-monger, let us hear what some of the learnest amongst them say. I truly confess (saith Caluin) that if a man will set Christ singly and by himself, against the judgements of God, there will be no room for merit. And after: 
L. 2. Insti. c. 17. ss. 1. In abster. calumni. Heshu.  Christ could not deserve any thing, but by the good pleasure of God. Finally, the deservings of Christ depend upon the only grace of God, which is defended by his disciple Beza against Heshusius: so that briefly, all Christ's sufferings in hell and out of hell, in true Protestant reckoning, amount to no higher a value, then that by the good pleasure and acceptance of God, they deserved our redemption; therefore in rigour of justice they were not of sufficient worth to redeem us, but were only of grace, by God accepted for such. Is not here a fair reckoning? so might any other man endued with grace, have redeemed all mankind as well as Christ, if it had pleased God to have so accepted it; seeing no equal recompense was to be expected. But to help him here by the way, that could not understand how we were saved by the mercy of God: if Christ's merits did in justice deserve our salvation, it is to be noted that both be true, if they be duly considered. For we are saved by Christ's merits in rigour of justice, he satisfying of God as farforth fully, as we offended him: and yet we be saved freely by the mercy of God too; both, because he hath of his mere mercy without any desert of ours, given us Christ his Son to be our Saviour: and also for that he hath (out of the same his mercy) freely applied unto every one in particular that is saved, the merits of Christ, through which he is saved.  
To return to our purpose, and to discover yet more of the Protestants disgraces offered to our saviours mediation. Did Christ suffer his passion for the redemption of all mankind, 
Cō. Hesh pag. 39 Sup. joh. pag. 39 In locis fol. 361. 1. joh. 2. vers. 2.  or did he die only for some few of the elect? let Caluin answer you. Christ's flesh was not crucified for the ungodly, neither was the blood of Christ shed to cleanse their sins. With him agreeth brother Bucer: Christ by his death did only redeem the sins of the elect. Musculus will bear a part in that consort: Christ's death is a satisfaction only for the sins of the elect; all as contrary to the plain text of Scripture, as can be. Christ is a propitiation for our sins (where he spoke in the person of the elect) and not for ours only, but also for the whole worlds. Let us go on yet one step further. What effect doth the blood of Christ work in the small number of these elected brethren? Doth it cleanse their souls from all filth of sin, and power into them the manifold gifts of the holy Ghost, whereby they may afterward resist sin, 
Pag. 31.  and serve God in holiness of life? nothing less. For in the regenerate (as M. PERKINS with all the rest of them doth teach) there remaineth original sin, which infecteth every work of man, and maketh it a mortal sin. So that inwardly in their souls these elected Protestants, be void of justice, and full of all manner of iniquity: marry, they have created in them the rare instrument of a new devised faith, by which they lay hold on Christ's justice, and so by real imputation (to use M. PERKINS words) of Christ's justice to them, they on the sudden become exceeding just: therefore Friar Luther had some reason to say, that whosoever was borne again of this evangelical faith, was equal in grace unto both Peter and Paul; 
Supra 1. Pet. 1. In acts disput. Tigur. Fox Act. fol. 1335. & 1138.  and unto the Virgin MARY Mother of God: Nay, it seems that Luther came to short, and Zwinglius struck home when he said: that God the Father did no less favour all the faithful, than he did Christ his own Son. And out of the confidence of the same lively-feeling faith, proceeded these speeches of our new Gospelers in England. And we have as much right to heaven, as Christ hath; we cannot be damned, unless Christ be damned: neither can Christ be saved, unless we be saved. Christ (belike) could not live in bliss without their holy company. What audacious companion's, and saucy Gospelers were these? yet their reason seemeth sound in the way of their own religion: for if they were most assured of the benefit of Christ's own justice to be imputed unto them, they could not be less assured of their own salvation, than they were of Christ's own. To conclude this point, consider (good reader) how the Protestants (who would be thought to magnify Christ's sufferings exceedingly) do in very deed extremely debase them. For (as you have heard) they esteem very little of all the rest of his life, besides his passion: secondly, they make his passion without suffering of hell torments, not sufficient to redeem us: thirdly, that all those sufferings put together, do not in justice merit the remission of our sins, but only that of grace and courtesy, God doth accept them for such: four, that when all is done, they deserve favour only for a few of the elect, and that not to purge those few neither from all their sins, but only to purchase them an imputation of justice, to be apprehended by a strong imagination or rather presumption, falsely by them termed faith. Is not here a huge great mill-post, fairly thwited into a poor pudding prick (as they say) by them, who after so high exaltations of the all-sufficiency of Christ's suffering, do in fine conclude, that in a very few persons it worketh only an imputation or shadow of justice: but it agreeth very well and hangeth handsomely together, that by the merits of Christ's sufferings in hell, (which are mere fantastical) these men should have created in them a fantastical faith, never heard of before their days, to lay-hold upon a vain shadow of an imputative and fantastical justice.  
But to return unto Christ's mediatorship and merits. Is it not moreover a great disparagement unto them, to maintain (as the Protestants do) that his bestbeloved spouse the Church, should continue but a small time, at least in any sight, and should be penned up in corners: yea, and during that time too, it should not be free from many foul gross errors, in the very foundation of faith? Furthermore, that he left his holy word (the only rule and square (as they hold) of Christian religion) to be understood of every man as his own knowledge and spirit should direct him? and if any doubtful question did arise there about (as he foresaw thousands should do) yet he took no other order for the deciding and ending of them, but that every one should repair unto the same his word, and doing his diligence to understand it, might afterward be his own judge. As this later opinion would argue our blessed Saviour, who was the wisdom of God, to be the weakest and most improvident lawemaker that ever was: so the former doth mightily blemish the inestimable price of his most precious blood, making it not of sufficient value, to purchase unto him an everlasting inheritance, free from all errors in matter of faith, and abounding in all good works.  
To fold up this part, let me entreat thee (courteous reader) to be an upright judge between the Protestants doctrine and ours, in this most weighty matter of Christ's dignity, virtues, and mediation; and if thou see most evidently, that ours doth more advance them, why shouldest thou not give sentence on our side? They make Christ ignorant many years of his life: we hold him from the first instant of his conception, to have been replenished with most perfect knowledge. They, that he spoke and taught now and then, as other men did; and was subject to disordinate passions: We, that he was most free from all such, and that he taught always most divinely. They make his very death not sufficient to redeem us: we hold that the least thing that ever he suffered in his life, deserved the redemption of many worlds. They, that he died only for the elect: we, that he died for all, though many through their own fault, do not receive any benefit by his death. They, that thereby we are not purged from our sins, but by imputation: we, that all are by the virtue thereof inwardly cleansed. They, that Christ purchased a Church consisting of few, not to continue long, and subject to many errors: we, that he established a Church, that should be spread over all the world, and that should continue to the end of the world visibly, and always free from any error in any matter of faith. Finally, they hold that Christ left his holy word to the disputation of men, not taking any certain order for the ending of controversies, that should arise about it: we teach, that he hath established a most assured means, to decide all doubts in religion, and to hold all obedient Christians in perfect uniformity, of both faith and manners. And because I am entered into these comparisons, give me leave to persist yet a little longer in them. Consider also (I pray you) who go nearer to Atheism, either we, that think and speak of the most sacred Trinity, as the blessed Fathers in the first Council of Nice taught: or they, who directly cross them, and by the novelty of their phrases, do breed new, or rather revive old heresies against it. Again, who carry a more holy conceit of God, either they, who upon light occasion do rashly deny God to be able to do that, which they do not conceive possible: or we, that teach him to be able to do ten thousand things, that pass our understanding. Wither they, that affirm God of his own free choice, to cast away the greater part of men: or we, that defend him to desire the salvation of all men, and not to be willing that any one perish, unless it be through his own default. Either they, that hold him to be the author of all evil done in the world, and the Devil to be but his Minister therein: or we, that maintain him to be so purely good, that he cannot possibly either concur to any evil, or so much as once to think to do any evil. Finally, whose opinion of him is better, either ours, that hold him to have been so reasonable in framing of his laws, that he doth by his grace make them easy to a willing mind: or theirs, that avouch him to have given laws impossible for the best men to keep? If some Protestants do say, we do not maintain divers of these positions. I answer that it is, because they do yet in part hold with us, and are not so far gone, as they do wholly follow their new masters: For if they did, then should they embrace all the aforesaid damnable positions, being so plainly taught by their principal preachers and teachers. These therefore are to warn my dear Countrymen, to look to it in time; and then (no doubt) but that all such as have a sufficient care of their salvation, considering maturely whither the current and stream of the new Gospel carrieth them, will speedily disbarke themselves thence, least at length they be driven by it, into the bottomless gulf of flat Atheism.  
And is it any great marvel, that the common sort of the Protestants fall into so many foul absurdities touching religion, when as the very fountains, out of which they pretend to take their religion, be so pitifully corrupted? I mean the sacred word of God. Master Gregory Martin a Catholic man, very skilful in the learned languages, hath discovered about two hundredth of their corruptions of the very text of God's word: and after him one Master Broughton a man of their own (esteemed to be singularly seen in the Hebrew and Greek tongue) hath advertised them of more than eight hundredth faults there in. And the matter is so evident, that the kings Majesty, in that public conference holden at Hampton-Court, in the first of his reign, confesseth himself not to have seen one true translation of the Bible in English; and that of Geneva, which they were wont to esteem most, to be the worst of all others: and therefore commanded them to go in hand with a new translation; about which, fifty of the most learned amongst them in both Universities (as it is credibly reported) have this three years travailed, and cannot yet hit upon, or else not agree upon, a new sincere and true translation. Here is a large field offered me to exclaim against such corrupters and depravers of God's sacred word: but I will leave that to some other time, because I have been to long already. But what a lamentable case is this! they hold for the most assured pillar of their faith, that all matters of salvation must be fished out of the Scriptures, and cry upon all men to search the Scriptures: and yet are the same Scriptures by themselves so perversely mangled, that their own pewfellows cry out shame upon them therefore: whereunto (if it please you) join, that the Protestants have no assured means to be resolved of such doubts and difficulties, as they shall find in the same word of God. For they must neither trust ancient Father, nor rely upon the determination, either of national or general Council; but every faithful man (by himself) examining the circumstances of the text, and conferring other like places unto it together, shall find out the right meaning of all obscure sentences, as they most childishly bear their followers in hand. Briefly to conclude this point, a great number of them having God's word corrupted, for the lantern to their feet; and their own dim sight, for their best guide: no marvel, though they stumble at many difficulties in these high mysteries, and fall into very absurd opinions, concerning the principal parts of them.  
Now to make up an even reckoning with M. PER. Atheism, I must come unto their divine service and worship of God, the third point that I promised to handle; because he spared not to speak his pleasure of ours. First then, whereas a true, real, and external sacrifice, is among all external works, the most excellent service that can be done to the divine Majesty, as shall be proved in the question of the sacrifice; which also hath ever since the beginning of the world, been by the best men practised, to acknowledge and testify, aswell the sovereign dominion that God hath over us, as our dutiful subjection unto his almighty goodness: the Protestants to make known unto the wiser sort, that they are not Gods true loyal people, will not vouchsafe to perform to him any such special service, as to sacrifice in his honour: nay they are fallen so far out with this principal part of God's true worship, that they do in despite of it, power out most vile reproaches against the daily sacrifice of the Catholic Church, which containeth the blessed body and most precious blood of our redeemer JESUS Christ. Secondly, of seven Sacraments (instituted by our Saviour, both to exhibit honour to God, and to sanctify our souls) they do flatly reject five of them: And do further (as much as in them lieth) extinguish the virtue and efficacy of the other two. For they hold Baptism not to be the true instrumental cause of remission of our sins, and of the infusion of grace into our souls; but only to be the sign and seal thereof. And in stead of Christ's sacred body, really given to all Catholics in the Sacrament of the Altar, to their exceeding comfort and dignity, the Protestants must be content to take up with a bit of bread, and with a sup of wine: a most pitiful exchange, for so heavenly a banquet. They do daily feel (and I would to God they had grace to understand) what a want they have of the Sacrament of Confession, which is the most sovereign salve of the world, to cure all the deadly and dangerous wounds of the soul. Ah how caresty do they daily heap sin upon sin, and suffer them to lie festering in their breasts even till death, for lack of lancing them in season by true and due confession! Besides, at the point of death, when the Devil is most busy to assault us, labouring then to make us his own for ever, there is amongst them no anointing of the sick with holy oil in the name of our Lord, (as S. james prescribeth) joined with the priests prayer, 
Cap. 5. vers. 14.  which should save the sick, and by means whereof his sins should be forgiven, and he lifted up by our Lord, and inwardly both greatly comforted and strengthened: these heavenly helps (I say) and many others, which our Catholic religion afford unto all persons, & by which rightly administered, God is highly magnified, are quite banished out of the Protestant territories, and consequently their religion for want of them, is mightily maimed. They have yet remaining some poor short prayers to be said twice a week: for fearing (belike) to make their Ministers surfeit of over much praying, they will not tie them to any daily prayers: Matins, Evensong, and other set hours they leave to the Priests, saving that on the Sabbaoth they solemnly meet together at the Church, to say their service, which is a certain mingle-mangle, translated out of the old portaise and Mass book, patched up together with some few of their own inventions. And though it be but short, yet it is (the Lord he knows) performed by most of them so slightly, that an indifferent beholder, would rather judge them to come thither to gaze one upon another, or to common of worldly business, then reverently there to serve God. Now as concerning the place where their divine service is said: if goodly stately Churches, had not been by men of our religion built to their hands, in what simple coats (trow you) would their key-cold devotion have been content to serve their Lord? if one Church or great steeple, by any mishap fall into utter ruin, a collection throughout all England for many years together, will not serve to build it up again: which maketh men of judgement to perceive, that their religion is exceeding cold in the setting forward of good works, and that it rather tendeth to destruction, then to edification. Again, whereas our Churches are furnished with many goodly Altars, trimmed up decently, and garnished with sundry fair and religious pictures, to strike into the beholders a reverent respect of that place, and to draw them to heavenly meditations: theirs have ordinarily bare walls, hanged with cobwebs except some of the better sort, which are daubed like Alehouses, with some broken sentences of Scripture. Besides, the ancient custom of Christians, being to pray with their faces towards the Sun rising, to show the hope they have of a good resurrection, and that by tradition received even from the Apostles, as witnesseth Saint Basil: their Ministers in their highest mysteries, 
De Spiritu sancto. 27.  look over their communion table into the South: to signify (perhaps) that their spiritual estate is now at the highest, and that in their religion there is no hope of rising towards heaven, but assurance of declining.  
I may not here omit, that of late years they have caused the kings arms to be set up in the place, where Christ's arms the Crucifix was wont to stand: the which I confess would have graced their Church better, if it had been else where placed. But I hope they will give me leave to ask them, how they durst set up any such Images in their Churches, as be in that arms. For they have taught hitherto, that it is expressly against the second commandment, and a kind of Idolatry, not only to worship Images; but also to set them up in Churches: and yet now (as it were) clean forgetting themselves, they fall into that fault themselves, that they have so much blamed in others. Neither will it help them to say, that they reproved only the setting up of holy pictures, but not of others. For the second commandment (as they expound it) is aswell against the one as the other, forbidding generally the making of any kind of Image. And is it not a pitiful blindness to think, that the pictures of Lions and Liberts do better become the house of God, than the Image of his own Son, and of his faithful servants? And may not simple people think, when they see Christ's arms cast down, and the Princes set up in their place, that there dwell men, who make more account of their Prince's honour, than they do of Christ's? And that their meeting in that place (call it what you will) is rather to serve their Prince, then to serve Christ. But I have been longer in their place of prayer than I thought.  
I come now to the men that are elected to serve the Lord there. Be not many of them (for the whole corpse I will not touch) such as jeroboam was glad to choose, when he made a Schism in Israel: to wit, de extremis populi, qui non erant de filijs Levi: not lawful successors of the true Priests, but others of the base sort of the people, and them commonly that are notable, either for ignorance or some other odd quality? and must they not also fill their good patrons hands with some feeling commodity, before they can get a benefice? And so beginning with simony, linked with perjury (for the poor fellows must nevertheless swear, that they come freely to their benefice) are they not like to proceed on holily? As for the vow of chastity, the daily service and often fasting, which Catholic Priests are bound unto; they by the sweet liberty of the new Gospel, do exchange into solacing themselves with their yokefellows: this of the common sort of their Ministers. With their preachers I will not meddle for fear of offence: yet if any desire to know how they behave themselves in other countries, they may read the censure of a zealous learned preacher, one of their own companion's; who amongst many other things writeth thus of them. 
Menno l. de Christ fide. titul. de fide. mulieris Cananeae  When you come to preachers, who brag that they have the word of God, you shall find certain of them manifest liars, others drunkers, some usurers and foul-mouthed slanderers, some persecutors and betrayers of harmless persons. How some of them behave themselves, and by what means they get their wives, and what kind of wives they have, that I leave to the Lord and them. They live an jdle, slothful and voluptuous life: by fraud and flattery they feed themselves of the spoils of Antichrist (he meaneth the benefices taken from the Papists) and do preach just as the earthly and carnal Magistrate desireth to hear, and will permit, etc. So much, and not a little more, speaketh one great Master of the late reformation, concerning his evangelical brethren. Are not these goodly lamps of the new Gospel, and likely persons to be chosen by Christ, to give light to others, and to reform the world? But peradventure they have in some secret corners, certain devout religious souls, who in an austere retired life, do with continual tears bewail the sins of the rest, and make incessant suit unto the Almighty, for a general pardon of the whole. Would to God they had, but I fear me that they be of their invisible congregation, or rather none such to be found amongst them. For those religious houses, which our Ancestors had built for such Godly and virtuous people, who (forsaking both father, mother, all their kin and acquaintance, and flying from all the pleasures and preferments, which this transitory world could yield them) gave themselves wholly to the holy exercises of humility, chastity, poverty, and all sorts of mortification: these Monasteries (I say) and all that professed in them a retired religious life, the Protestants have beaten down and banished, and have not in their places erected any other, for the singular Godly men or women of their religion; Which doth most evidently argue, that there is in them small zeal, and rare practice, of any such extraordinary piety and devotion. Surely it must needs be a strange Christian congregation, that holdeth them for no tolerable members of their common weal, whom Christ specially chooseth to serve him day and night; and by whose holy example and most fervent prayers, all other Christians do find themselves much edified, and mightily protected. So that briefly, whether you consider the persons that serve God; or the place where he is served; or the manner of his divine service, the Catholic religion doth in every point surpass the Protestant by many degrees. Thus much in answer unto Master PERKINS objection of Atheism against us, the which I esteemed fittest for this Preface, being a matter of so great moment, and therefore most worthy to be examined and considered of a part, with mature judgement. Now to the rest of his questions, according to his own order.   

OF THE REAL PRESENCE  

OUR CONSENTS.  
M. PERKINS Page 185.  
We hold and believe a presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament of the lords supper; and that no feigned, but a true and real presence.  
HITHERTO we agree in words, but in sense nothing at all. For he frameth a strange construction of that real presence: which (saith he) must be considered two ways. First, in respect of the signs; Secondly, in respect of the communicants: the signs be bread and wine, with which Christ's body and blood be present, not in respect of place and coexistence, but by sacramental relation: that is, when the sacramental signs of bread and wine are present to the hand, they do present to the mind of the receiver, the body and blood of Christ. So that already M. PERKINS unfeigned, true real presence, is shrunken into a sacramental relation, and only significative presence; such as may well be of things as far distant the one from the other, as the cope of heaven is from the centre of the earth: a strange real presence surely. The second kind of presence (saith he) is in respect of the communicants, to whose believing hearts he is also really present. If you ask whether this be not as odd a kind 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 have said (if he had meant plain dealing) that by your faith you must mount into heaven, and take hold on Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father, and from thence draw his righteousness, and convey it to yourself: so that both sorts of his true real presence, is made without any nearer meeting of the parties, than heaven and earth do meet together. But let us give him the hearing: this real communion is made on this manner. God the Father giveth Christ in this Sacrament as really and truly, as any thing can be given to man, and that not piece-meal, but whole Christ; yet, not the substance of the Godhead, but the efficacy, merits, and operation are conveyed thence to the manhood: but the whole manhood, both in respect of substance, as of merits and benefits, is given wholly and jointly together. And when God so giveth Christ, he giveth withal at the same time the spirit of Christ: which createth in the heart of the receiver the instrument of true faith, by which the heart doth really receive Christ, by resting upon the promise which God hath made, that he will give Christ and his righteousness unto every true believer. Now then, when God giveth Christ and his benefits, and man by faith receiveth the same; there riseth an union between them, not forged but real, and so near, that none can be nearer: and being a real union, there is a real communion, and consequently, a real presence of Christ to the heart of him that receiveth the Sacrament in faith. And thus far (saith he) do 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 fantastical kind of receiving, as you yourself declare in the words following. But before we come unto them, let us note by the way some strange points (of doctrine shall I say) or rather dreaming of our conceited Masters the Protestants. Who ever yet heard in true divinity, that the Godhead considered apart by itself, had merits to convey to the manhood, as M. PER. here teacheth? for merits belong to an inferior in respect of his superior, of whom he meriteth: now the Godhead is not inferior to any, as all but Arrians confess. Again, how can whole Christ be given to man, as M. PER. first affirmeth, if the substance of the Godhead be not given, as presently after he declareth? for the substance of the Godhead is the principal part of Christ, who is both God & man. Moreover, how is Christ's substance as well as his benefits, made ours; or really present to our faith, if we be made partakers only of his righteousness, which may (as every man knoweth) well be, without any bodily presence of his? beside, that fiction of his, that faith is created in our heart, at the same instant that we receive the Sacrament, is very absurd. For (as all the world witnesseth) a man must be endued with faith, before he go to receive that Sacrament; or else he presenteth himself most unworthily unto that holy table. Lastly, if simple men & silly women should not receive this Sacrament, until they understood M. PER. doctrine of sacramental relation, of his real union and communion made by special faith in it (as no man should receive, before he knoweth what and how he is to receive) then surely they should never receive it, the manner of it is so intricate, and so far 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 Christ's benefits are bestowed upon some by God's imputation only; upon others they are bestowed by a kind of propagation, which M. PER. cannot express fitly, but doth resemble it thus. As one candle is lighted by another, and so the light of one is conveyed unto twenty candles: even so the inherent righteousness of every believer, is derived from the storehouse of righteousness, which is the manhood of Christ: this (I say) I could not but let the gentle reader understand, that he may consider how slippery & unconstant the man is in his own doctrine. In the question of justification, it is high treason to confess any inherent righteousness in us. 
Pag. 66.  For (as he there saith) it doth raze the very foundation of religion: there only he alloweth of a certain strange real imputation of Christ's justice unto us; but here (having belike forgotten that ever he said any such word) he teacheth beside that imputative, an inherent righteousness to be conveyed from Christ into every righteous man's soul. With whom will this man agree (trow you) that cannot agree with himself?  
Let us now come unto the main point of our dissent, which M. PER. delivereth thus: we differ not touching the presence itself, but only in the manner of presence. For though we hold a real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament: yet, we do not take it to be local, bodily, or substantial; but spiritual and mystical: first to the signs, by sacramental relation; then to the communicants, by faith alone. On the contrary, the Church of Rome maintaineth a local, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ's body and blood, by a change and conversion of the bread and wine into the said body and blood; which they believe to be wrought by the virtue of Christ's words, pronounced over the bread and wine by a lawful Priest, intending to do that, which Christ at his last supper instituted and commanded him to do.  
Master PERKINS reasons to the contrary be these.  
This corporal presence overturneth sundry articles of faith. For we believe that the body of Christ was made of the pure substance of the Virgin Mary, and that but once: namely, when it was conceived by the holy Ghost. But this cannot stand, if the body of Christ be made of bread, unless we believe 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 Creed, made of the Virgin Mary, but borne of her: now there is great difference between made and borne. For a house is made of a Carpenter; but is not borne of him: but the word made (which may also in good sense be used) being fitter to cloak the fallacy; Master PERKINS cared not to strain a little courtesy with the articles of our belief, and to thrust in made, in stead of borne. But let this pretty jugling-tricke pass, and to his argument I answer, that the appearance of this contrariety, proceedeth either out of mere ignorance of our doctrine, or else out of the equivocation of this word made. For we hold, that Christ's blessed body is but once made, if made be taken for to be fashioned and form new from the beginning: so was it but once made of the pure blood of the immaculate Virgin Mary; but may be again and again well made present, under this or that form, or on this or that altar: which hath no shadow of contrariety with the other. For every man's body which is but once made in his mother's womb, may afterward a thousand times be made present, in one or divers places. Now when we say with the ancient Fathers, that of bread is made the body of Christ; the sense is, that the substance of bread is turned into the body of Christ: so that then there is no more the substance of bread under the forms of bread, but Christ's body which succeed in place of it; & therefore the bread is said to be turned unto Christ's body, and Christ's body to be made of bread: not that any part of the bread remaineth changed into Christ's body, or that Christ's body is a new created and framed; but because that by that very action (wherewith the bread is removed out the body is brought into that place) the one is said to be made of the other; so that here is nothing contrary unto that article of our belief: borne of the Virgin Mary.  
No more is there unto that other specified by M. PERKINS: he ascended into heaven; and from thence shall he come to judge, &c: for albeit he ascended the fortieth day after his resurrection, and shall at the last day come from thence to judgement: yet, between those two days he may be where he will; and wheresoever 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 aver such great contrariety to be, where there is none at all. But Augustine saith, 
Tract. 50. in joannem. Lib. 9 in joannem. Lib. 2. ad Thras. Cont. Eutich. lib. 1. cap. 4.  that Christ according unto his Majesty, providence & grace, is present with us to the end of the world; but according unto his assumed flesh, he is not always with us: the same doth also Cyril, Fulgentius, and Vigilius testify.  
We answer: that Christ (in deed) according unto that visible form of a man, in which he once lived here with his Disciples, hath very seldom been seen upon earth since his ascension; but according unto that form of assumed flesh, sitteth on the right hand of his Father: which answer I take out of Vigilius cited here by M. PER. For he saith, that Christ is departed from us in the form of a servant, that is: according unto his natural shape of man; but may nevertheless be very well with us, under the forms of bread and wine in the Sacrament, which S. Augustine insinuateth in the very treatise alleged by M. PERKINS, saying: that Christ is now with us in four sorts; by Faith, by the sign of the Cross, by Baptism, and by the Eucharist: where making his manner of being with us in the Eucharist, distinct from his presence both by faith, sign, and grace, doth show it to be a real bodily presence; which he teacheth most plainly upon these words of the Psalm, adore his footstool; concluding thereon, 
Psal. 98.  that the same flesh which our Saviour took of the blessed Virgin Mary, was then, and is now to be adored in the Sacrament: therefore (notwithstanding his being in heaven in form of man) he assuredly believed his natural body to be really present in the Eucharist. So did S. Cyril another of M. PER. authors, 
Libr. 12. cap. 31.  who upon S. john avoucheth, Christ (by his flesh received in the Eucharist) to sanctify the souls and bodies of all communicants, and to be wholly in every one of them; to whom I will join their equal S. Gregory of Nisse: who saith, 
Orat. de Paschate.  like as the Godhead doth fill the whole world: even so consecration is made in very many places, and yet is it but one body; so that by these worthy writer's judgements, Christ's ascension to heaven, doth not any whit hinder the real presence of his body in the holy Sacrament. And to dispatch here together that which M. PER. repeateth again and again, that a true body cannot be in two places at once: we plainly 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 with true Philosophy, shall be proved in the next argument.  
And here by the warrant of God's word I will prove, that Christ's body de facto, hath been in two places at once. That since the ascension it sitteth at the right hand of God in heaven, both we and they confess: but long after his ascension, 
Actor. 9  he appeared bodily unto S. Paul as he went towards Damascus: ergo, his body hath been in two places at once. Caluin turneth himself on both sides, & seeketh all possible means to shift from the evidence 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 heaven by S. Paul, as at Christ's baptism; but Christ was not there really. This is said most manifestly against the plain text: God ordained that thou shouldest see the just one, and hear a voice out of his own mouth; therefore he was really present: and Christ saith, to this end I appeared unto thee. And S. Paul himself witnesseth, 
a 1. Cor. 3 vers. 1.6 1. Cor. 15. vers. 8.  that he had seen Christ after his resurrection, even as the other Apostles had done, which was in bodily presence: & in the same 
b Act. 9 vers. 5. 4. Instit 17. § 29.  chap. S. Paul demanded of him that appeared, who art thou Lord? and he answered, I am JESUS: was not he then present? What can be more plainly set down, 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 himself the other way, and had rather say that S. Paul's eyesight was so much strengthened and made so sharp, that it pierced through the heavens, and did see Christ sitting there on the right hand of his Father; and so Christ did not descend, or was seen out of heaven, but S. Paul's sight mounted up thither.  
Reply. This doctrine is first repugnant to himself, who scoffeth at us for maintaining that the Saints in heaven can hear our prayers, 
3. Instit. 20. §. 24.  and asketh how they can have so long ears, and so sharp eyes, as to hear and see so far off? which here notwithstanding he attributeth unto a poor earthly creature, nothing comparable to the Saints in heaven. But besides that contradiction, this his answer, is much more absurd than the other. For whom he imagineth to be so Eagle-eyed, that he could see into heaven; 
Act. 9 vers. 8.  the text witnesseth to be struck stark blind, and not able to see the broad highway before him. Again, if that vision had been through the virtue of S. Paul's sight, his companions should not have been 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 understand it. Further, there passed many speeches between them: Who art thou Lord? What wilt thou have me to do? etc. which doth convince a sensible and bodily presence. Lastly, it is said directly, that Christ appeared unto S. Paul in the way: not that he had seen him in heaven; so that nothing can be more certain even by the evidence of God's word, then that Christ's body hath been in two places at once; as well may it be in two thousand, or in as many more as it shall please God to employ it: for there is no greater repugnance in reason for being in many places, then for being in two at once. 
S. Chrisost S. Ambros Primasius in cap. 10.  And as you have heard before, that S. Augustine, and S. Cyrill taught him to be bodily present in as many places, as the blessed Sacrament is administered: so do the ancient Expositors of the Epistle to the Hebrews affirm, that Christ's 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. chrysostom crieth out: O miracle! O goodness of God he that sitteth above with his Father, at the very same instant of time, is touched by the hands of all; and doth offer and deliver himself to them, who are willing to receive him! 
Homil. 2. ad populum in fine.  and Helias left his cloak to his disciple Heliseus: but Christ ascending, left us his flesh. Helias (in deed) cast his cloak off: but Christ both left his flesh to us, and ascending took it up with himself. By this you see how far this most holy and learned Father was, from arguing as our Protestants are wont to do: his body is ascended, therefore it cannot be in the Sacrament. Nay (saith he) most expressly, it is both there, and here together: through Christ's power and love towards us.  
Master PERKINS second reason. This bodily presence overturneth the nature of a true body, whose essential propriety it is, to have length, breadth, and thickness: and by reason of these three dimensions, a body can occupy but one place at once, as Aristotle said, the propriety of a body is to be seated in some place: they therefore that say the body of Christ is in many places at once, do make it no body at all.  
Answer. We grant it to be the intrinsical nature of a body, to have length, breadth, and thickness; so that no body can possibly be without those dimensions: but we deny it to be essential unto a body, to be seated in some place. For quantity and ubi, be two distinct predicaments, as the learned know; quantity being perfect in his own nature, without any relation to the place: for quantity hath an absolute and no respective essence. True it is, that a body is by nature fit and apt to be seated in a place, which is that that Aristole teacheth of it. As a man naturally is apt to be learned; yet, actually to be learned, is a mere accident to man, and many men be without it: even so to be actually seated in a place, is altogether without the nature of a body; in so much as the greatest body of all others (to wit) the highest heaven, is without a place, there being no body without it, whose extremity may environ and compass in that heaven 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, whether it be in a place, or not in any place; whether it be in one place or in many places, the body remaineth still a true perfect body, accomplished with all his substantial parts. Again, our faith teacheth us, that the natural subsistence and person of a man (which is much nearer to the nature of man, than his seating in a place) can be separated from man leaving his whole nature entire and perfect, as it is in Christ our Saviour; where the full complete nature of man, is without his own natural subsistence and person, it being engrafted and taken into the person of God. How much more easily then, may his blessed body be without occupying any place, which is far more extrinsical to him? And touching the taking up of as great a place, as the bigness of the body requireth, we hold upon the same grounds: that it is of no such necessity, but that the power of God can dispense with it. For if a body may be in no place at all, it may be in as little a room as it shall please God to enclose it. Which our Saviour also very plainly teacheth: when he signifieth that it is possible to God, 
Mat. 19 vers. 26. joh. 20. vers. 26.  for to pass a Camel through the eye of a needle. And Christ himself entering into the house, where his Disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; gave us a manifest experiment, that a true natural body needeth no space at all to be seated in, but may (by divine power) pass through other  bodies: so that it remaineth evident to them that have skill in Philosophy, that there is no such repugnance in a true natural body, but that it may be in many places at once; or in as little a place as it shall please God to bestow it. And when any of the ancient Fathers say, that bodies must needs have places proportionable to them; they mean, that according unto the ordinary course of nature, so it must be: yet they do not deny, but that God can otherwise dispose of them.  
M. PERKINS third reason. Transubstantion overthroweth the very supper of the Lord. For in every Sacrament there must be a sign, a thing signified, and a proportion between them both. Good, let it be remembered: but the Catholics real presence taketh all away. For when the bread is really turned into the body of Christ then the sign is abolished, and there remaineth nothing but the outward forms of bread and wine.  
Answer. Not so: for there is also the body and blood of Christ as we hold, and so at the most there is nothing gone but the sign only, as he termeth the bread: but neither is that taken away, and then all remaineth whole. For not the substance of bread and wine, but the outward forms of them, are the sign of the Sacrament. For they alone do no less represent unto our mind and understanding, the spiritual feeding of our souls by Christ's body, then if they had the substance of bread under them: as the similitude of fiery tongues, 
Act. 2.  without the true substance of tongues, did sufficiently signify the gift of tongues, bestowed upon the Apostles at the feast of Pentecost. 
Math. 3.  And it is not necessary to believe, that the Dove which descended upon our Saviour at his baptism, was a true natural Pigeon: but the outward shape of a Dove, was sufficient to express those dove-like qualities which were in our Saviour: so the outward show of bread and wine, although the substance be absent, serveth very conveniently to make us remember and understand, that even then when we receive the blessed Sacrament, our souls are as spiritually fed with it, as our bodies are wont to be with bread and wine: or which is signified secondarylie, that as bread is made of many grains of corn, united and compact into one mass and body; even so all we Christians by receiving the Sacrament worthily, and by the spirit of Christ dwelling in us, are made one mystical body of Christ; and should therefore one love and tender the good of another, as members of the same body are wont to do: All this (I say) the outward form and show of bread only, doth as well present unto our minds, as if the substance of bread were there present with it.  
Again (saith M. PER.) it abolisheth the ends of the Sacrament. First, it maketh we cannot remember Christ: who being present bodily in the Sacrament needeth not be remembered, because helps of remembrance are of things absent.  
Answ. A man would think (were not his wits somewhat distempered) that he might be remembered best, that is most present to us: neither is remembrance only of things absent. For as every one may well remember, when they see one whom they have seldom seen before; the very sight of him, or his speech, or some other token which he telleth, calleth us 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 Christ's real presence in the Sacrament, we are admonished to remember, not his body barely; 
1. Cor. 11.  but his death on the Cross (as S. Paul expoundeth it) which death of his is absent: and by the consecrating of his body apart from his blood, and by the elevation of it, is represented unto us very lively; and so we are put in mind and made to remember a thing absent, to wit: the death and passion of Christ.  
Moreover, M. PER. saith, that an other end of the Sacrament is, to feed the soul with eternal life: but by transubstantiation the principal feeding is of the body, and not of the soul, which is only fed with spiritual food.  
Answer. Alas, into what straights was he brought when he wrote this? a man would think, 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 fools know as well as physicians) doth nourish the body naturally. We then that remove the substance of bread out of the Sacrament, must needs therefore mean to feed only the soul thereby, and not the body at all. For Christ's blessed body received in the Sacrament, is nurture only of our soul, by his graces bountifully bestowed upon the worthy receiver; it giveth to the body only, a certain seed or pledge of immortality, according unto that: 
joh. 6. vers. 54.  He that eateth my flesh, etc. hath life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.  
M. PERKINS fourth reason. In the Sacrament the body of Christ is received, as it was crucified, and his blood as it was shed upon the cross, but now the act of crucifying is passed; it is faith alone, that maketh Christ crucified to be present unto us in the Sacrament. ergo.  
Answer. We deny his first proposition: for we receive the same body that was crucified, but not after that bloody manner, as it was there used; but under the forms of bread and wine, which Christ's own words do import: take eat, this is my body, that shall be given for you: he saith not (as M. PER. doth) as it shall be given 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 blood in the Chalice, as it were a part from his body, and powered out with the lifting up of the body after consecration (as it is done in the Mass) with the breaking and receiving of the holy Host, doth lively represent unto the faithful, Christ's blessed death and passion. But what resemblance hath the eating of bread, & drinking of wine (the Protestants holy communion) with the crucifying of Christ? Is eating and drinking of so pleasing food, meet to express Christ's drinking of gall, and most painful torments? by their feeling faith, they would salve this, but they cannot. For besides faith, there must be (as M. PER. himself before confessed) a proportion between the sign and the thing signified; but there is no proportion between eating of fine bread, & drinking of good wine, with the dolorous cross of Christ. Seeing then, that in the Sacrament (as M. PER. teacheth) Christ's body must be received, as it was crucified, he must needs appoint something else then bread & wine, to be the signs of this Sacrament: for they be most unproper to represent Christ's passion.  
Again (saith he, discoursing very learnedly) That blood which ran out of Christ's side was not gathered up again; nay, the collection of it was needless, because after the resurrection, he lived no more a natural, but a spiritual life.  
Ans. Here is a proper piece of divinity. He might aswell say (if his reason were good) that Christ's body is not risen again, because a body also, is as needles unto a spiritual life. The truth is, that the body with the blood in the veins of it, is risen again: 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 unto their former essence & integrity. Note by the way, the admirable rare virtue of the Protestants faith, whose property is (saith M. P.) to give a being unto things, which are not. What being good Sir? that any thing should be extant in the world, which before was not? yes marry, that that blood should be received spiritually, which is not at al. True (perhaps) in the Protestants vain imagination: but (in deed) most ridiculous, to imagine that that can be received either corporally or spiritually, which is not extant, nor hath any being at all. For a thing must be of itself, before it can be received of an other.  

1. Cor. 10. vers. 3.  M. PER. fift reason. The fathers of the old Testament did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the rock which was Christ; but they could not eat his body which was not then crucified, but by faith: the Papists answer, that the fathers did eat the same meat among themselves: and not that which we eat, that is: all the Israelites did eat the same spiritual food of Manna, and did drink all of the water, which issued out of the spiritual Rock, one of them as well as an other: yet, they had not the same Sacraments, that we Christians have; neither did they receive the same that we do. But M. PER. will prove that they had: Because (saith he) the Apostles intent is, to prove that the jews were every way equal to the Corinthians, and in nothing inferior.  
Reply. S. Paul meant and intended nothing less: but in the same his Epistle, and in many of the rest, expressly teacheth the state of the Christians (such as the Corinthians were) to surpass far the state of the jews. For the old Testament is compared to the letter that killeth, 
2. Cor. 3.  and therefore called the ministration of damnation: the new, to the spirit that quickeneth, and to the ministry of justice: and the old Testament did engender to bondage, 
Gal. 4.14 Vers. 1. Ver. 3. & 9 Hebr. 10. vers. 1.  the new to liberty. And there they were as servants; we as heirs: they serving under the weak and poor elements of this world: we having the spirit of sons, etc. And the law had a shadow of the things to come, not the very Image, as we have; so that nothing could be further from the Apostles meaning, then to make the jews equal in Sacraments and graces, with the Corinthians who were Christians. But his intention was (as may be easily seen by that which goeth before and followeth) to warn the Corinthians to chastise their bodies, as he himself did (as he saith in the end of the Chapter going before) and to fly from all vice; and not to rely only upon the extraordinary gifts of God bestowed upon them. For (saith he) the ancient Israelites all, were partakers of many singular favours of God: as of the eating of Manna, of drinking of the Rock, etc. And yet, because many of them committed fornication and lived wickedly, God was not pleased with all of them. Observe also that not one thing there mentioned by the Apostle was a Sacrament among the jews; and therefore are they unskilfully compared with our Sacraments. For a Sacrament is a set ceremony, to be used ordinarily in the worship of God: but their passing through the red Sea was but once, therefore no set ceremony: their eating of Manna, and drinking of the Rock, were but natural refections to them; yea, their cattle did drink of the Rock aswell as their Masters: which things, though they did prefigure our Sacraments; yet, were no Sacraments at all, and much less any thing in virtue comparable to our Sacraments.  
M. PERKINS sixth 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 than the Sacrament, the end being always better than the thing ordained to the end: but if Christ's body be really in the Sacrament, then is not man more excellent than it. ergo.  
Ans. By the like argument you may as well prove, that the Son of God is not, nor ever shall be incarnate for the redemption of man: or else (which is most absurd) that man is better than God, because for us men, & for our salvation, Christ descended from heaven, & was borne of the V Mary. The end then, being always better than the thing ordained to the end (as M. P. argueth) either Christ is not yet borne to redeem man; or else man is better than Christ. See what goodly arguments they use, to deceive the simple withal! the direct answer is, that the main & principal end of Christ's incarnation, passion, and real presence in the Sacrament, is the glory of God's justice, wisdom, and goodness, and of his own mercy and bounty, which are more excellent than Christ's incarnation and real presence: man's redemption, spiritual feeding and salvation, are but secondary ends, which are far inferior unto our most loving redeemers mercy, kindness, and charity, through which he hath procured it.  
M. PER. confirmeth this reason with that which is nothing like it, saying: Euer● believer in the supper of the Lord, receiveth whole Christ God & man, though not the Godhead (which words imply a manifest contradiction. For how can God, or whole Christ be received, without the Godhead) but by carnal eating we receive not wholly Christ, but only a part of the manhood: and therefore in the Sacrament there is no carnal eating, nor real presence.  
Answ. We Catholics do eat all Christ's body wholly. For we part not his body, but believe that it is whole in every consecrated Host. Moreover, because his blessed body is a perfect living body, we know also that it hath blood in it, as other bodies have; and is (yet further) joined with his most holy soul: and so in receiving his body, we receive all his manhood both body & soul. Over and beside, his Godhead being linked and joined inseparably with his manhood; whole Christ both God and man is always received together; so that every lay Catholic communicating but under one kind, doth receive Christ's body & blood: yea wholly, both all his manhood and Godhead: whereas, in the Protestants natural communion of bread and wine, there is (in deed) neither body nor blood, not any piece of Christ, but only in their own fantastical imagination; so that those their ordinary outcries are most fond: The Papists rob you of the blood, being one part of the Sacrament: Whereas Catholic Pastors give to their flock under one kind, both the body and blood; yea, the very soul and Godhead of Christ, as you have heard. But the Protestants are the great thieves in deed, who defraud their unhappy followers of both body and blood, and give them only sacramental signs and relations, to feed their foolish fantasies.  
Before I come unto M. PER. last reason taken from authority, I think it fittest to place here certain other objections, which out of place he hudleth up together, in the answer unto our second argument, where he saith: first, that Christ's body could not be received in bodily manner, before his passion.  
We say contrarily, that it could be as well before, as after. When he goeth about to prove his position, he shall be answered.  
Secondly, That Christ was the Minister of this Sacrament, and therefore if he had converted bread into his body, he should have taken his own body into his hands: which we grant, following S. Augustine upon these words: He was carried in his own hands. 
Conc. 1. in psal. 31.  How this may be understood (saith he) of David literally, we find not; but we find it in Christ: for Christ was carried in his own hands, when delivering his own body, he said: this is my body. For than he carried that his body in his own hands.  
M. PER. addeth yet further, that it should also follow that Christ did eat his own flesh: for he did communicate also (saith he) to consecrate his last supper in his own person. This may be true, though it have no warrant in the word. For S. Hierome a holy and most learned Doctor, doth affirm it, saying: 
Epistol. ad Hedibian quaest. 2.  our Lord jesus is both the guest and the banquet; he who doth eat, and is eaten: and no greater inconvenience is this in our opinion, then in theirs. For who more meet to receive. Christ's blessed body, than himself? and what more foolish, then for Christ by faith to apply himself and his benefits, unto himself? which (as you have heard before out of M. PERKINS) is to receive the lords supper like a good Protestant.  
Lastly he avoucheth, that if we eat Christ's body really, we must needs be manslayers: but he forgot to prove it, dixit & abijt. If other proof failed him, he might have fled unto the rusty opinion of the old farne Capernaites, which is mentioned in the Gospel itself. For they (as S. Augustine expoundeth it) thought that Christ would cut his flesh in pieces, as butchers do beef in the shambles, and either raw or roasted, have given it to be eaten; to some a leg, to other an arm, etc. But we Catholics do eat Christ's body whole, and that without any detriment or diminution unto that blessed body, which is not extended under the parts of the sacred Host, so as one part of his body is under one part of it, and another part under another: but is after the manner of our soul in the body, the whole body under the whole Host, and the whole under every part of the Host; and so without any parting or dividing of his body, it is wholly received of every communicant, and remaineth after whole in their bodies, imparting his grace to their souls, so long as the forms of bread tarry in their stomachs in their proper shapes, and afterward ceaseth to be there any longer: which is confirmed by those divine words of the glorious Apostle S. Andrew, recorded by his most dear Disciples. 
Libr. de pass. eius.  When the immaculate lamb is truly sacrificed, and his flesh truly eaten of the people, he nevertheless remaineth and continueth whole and alive. That which he peeceth too, of the necessity which we are brought unto by our doctrine, to hold that our bodies be nourished by naked qualities, which (saith he) is erroneous in Philosophy; is not worth the answering. For neither are we driven to hold that, unless it be out of the bounty of our own good wills. For it is nothing material ●o the real presence, whether our bodies be nourished by the accidents there present or no: neither is it so clear a case in Philosophy, whether odours (that are naked qualities) do nourish or no? as they, who have studied Philosophy know. And lastly, all matters of faith are above the rules of Philosophy: wherefore the real presence of Christ's blessed body in the Sacrament, being a memorial and monument of all his marvelous works; it must not be thought strange, if there follow of it, many things above the reach of natural Philosophy: and yet not so many (perhaps) as must needs be granted by them, as well as by us; in the resurrection of our bodies; which (notwithstanding those difficulties in Philosophy) all Christian men do firmly believe.  
Now let us come unto such authorities as M. PER. citeth in favour of their part, which neither are many, nor taken out of the more famous fathers of either Greek or Latin Church; and which is more admirable, not one of the authors by him cited, but that in the very same words which he allegeth to disprove the real presence, they do evidently aver and prove it: so well known and confessed a truth was this of the blessed Dialog. 1 Sacrament in all antiquity. Theodorete saith, The same Christ, who called his natural body food and bread, who also called himself a vine; he vouchsafed the visible signs, the name of his own body: not changing nature, but putting grace to nature. Here are scarce two words together; as it is in the author. The former part of his words be: Our Saviour changed names, giving to his body, the name of the sign; and to the sign, the name of his body, that is: he called his body bread, and bread his body; so that here is as much for us, as against us: and the latter part of the sentence is wholly for us. For Christ would (saith he) have them that he partakers of the mysteries, not to attend unto the nature of the things which are seen (that is bread and wine) but by reason of the changing of names, to give 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 blood, should believe that then also bread and wine, were changed and made his body and blood; that change being wrought by the virtue and grace of his word. To these words of Theodorete in his first Dialogue, he joineth other words of his taken out of his second, yet quoting the same Dialogue. The mystical signs after consecration lose not their nature: for they remain in their first nature, figure and form, and may be feign and touched as before. Here M. PER. should have stopped in the midst of the sentence, as they are sometimes accustomed to do, and then had he left some show of words for his part; yet, such as might easily be answered: but when the reason of the remaining of mystical signs in their former nature and figure, is (as he himself declareth) that they may be seen as before; he doth give the learned reader to understand, that he speaketh not of the inward substance of them, but of the outward appearance, which is the proper object of the senses: which outward accidence, hath a certain kind of essence and nature, as well as the substance itself. But that which followeth in Theodorete putteth all out of doubt. For he addeth: The mystical signs may be seen as before: but that which they are made, is understood. And what is it understood to be made? Marry, even that which we believe and adore: which can be no other thing, but the true real body, of Christ jesus God and man. For in him do we believe, and him do we adore. See then, how this his first and best author, disproveth plainly his own position. M. PER. second author is one Gelasius, an old writer I confess, but where or what he was, 
De duabus naturis Christi.  it is uncertain. This man saith: Bread and wine pass into the substance of the body and blood of Christ; yet they cease not, but remain still in the property of their nature: these words be flat against M. PER. and the Zwinglians doctrine, in that they teach bread and wine to pass into the substance of Christ's body. The other clause seemeth to make for the Lutherans: yet, may be interpreted, that they remain still in some property of their nature, that is: in the same form, colour, and taste, as they did before. M. PER. goeth on. 
Lib. 4. sentent. dist. 11.  Lombard saith, if he be asked what conversion this is, whether formal or substantial, or of any other kind, he cannot define it.  
Ans. Gentle reader turn to the place, and embrace his resolution. For most formally doth he deliver our doctrine; and that proved by the testimony of the ancient Fathers: albeit, the name of transubstantion were not then in use.  
From the Father's sentences, M. PER. falleth to collections of his own, out of them. First (saith he) they used in former times to burn with fire, that which remained after the administration of the lords supper, and therefore took it not for his body: and quoteth for proof of this Hesichius, 
Libr. 2. in Leuit. c. 8.  where he showeth either over great boldness, if he did not see the place, on exceeding wilful malice, if he read it. For that ancient writer (out of that ceremony of burning all that was left of the Pascal lamb) doth gather the clean contrary, to wit: that if we cannot understand how these things which we see are turned into our lords body (Into which mystery the Angels (saith he) with their clear sight cannot pierce) then must we cast into the fire of the holy Ghost, these things; persuading ourselves, that to be possible unto the virtue of the holy Ghost, which seemeth to us impossible: See what fire that worthy author speaketh of. And in the sixth book and two and twenty Chapter of the same work, he speaketh yet more plainly, saying: That he receiveth ignorantly, who knoweth not the virtue and dignity of this Sacrament, and who is ignorant that it is the body & blood of Christ in truth; so that old Hesichius condemneth them of ignorance for not beeleving Christ's body to be truly in the Sacrament. Secondly (saith M. PERK.) by the sacramental union of the bread & wine, with the body and blood of Christ, they used to confirm the personal union of the manhood of Christ with the Godhead, against heretics. Let us admit this to be true: for than it followeth necessarily against himself, that the true body of Christ, is really present in the blessed Sacrament, as his true Dialog. 2 Godhead and manhood, were really united in one person. But if Theodoret (whom he quoteth) be well read, you shall find, that they against whom he writeth, objected this common doctrine of the Church (that bread is turned into the body of Christ) to prove, that the manhood of Christ was turned into the Godhead; and consequently, that there were not two natures in Christ, but one. And albeit the consequent was Heretical; yet the antecedent was Catholic, good, and not denied of Theodoret, but that there was a real conversion of bread into the true body of Christ: and therefore did other Heretics (who denied our Saviour to have true flesh) deny also consequently, the truth of the blessed Sacrament, as the same Dialog. 3 Theodoret doth witness out of S. Ignatius, in these words. They admit not the Eucharist and Sacrifice, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, which was crucified for us, and which the Father of his benignity raised again.  

Libr. 17. cap. 25.  M. PERKINS further objecteth, that Nicephorus reporteth, that young children were sent for from the school, to eat that which remained of the Sacrament: which (saith he) was a sign, that they thought it not to be Christ's body.  
Not so: for he so reporteth it, that any man may see, that he believed it to be the very body of Christ. For first he saith, that those children were pure and incorrupt, not fallen from their state of innocency. Secondly, that they were fasting. Thirdly, he affirmeth in plain terms, that they received the immaculate body of JESUS Christ God and man.. Finally, he proveth it so to be, and that by miracle. For one of the children who had received that morning, being by his father a malicious jew, afterwards cast into a glaziers furnace most fiery hot, and shut in there for three days space was miraculously preserved alive, and found there without any hurt at all, by virtue of the blessed Sacrament which he had received. What strange blindness than was this, to allege this against the real presence, which so admirably doth confirm it? We know that in certain places, some used to give the blessed Sacrament unto children: yea, unto sucking babes, being also dipped in the chalice; which rather proveth our opinion. For they thought it necessary for all that would be saved, to receive this holy Sacrament. Now these infants, could have no such act of faith (as the Protestants doctrine requireth) to make their communion: therefore, at that time they held the same kind of real presence which we do; which is made by lawful consecration of the Priest, and not by the faith of the receiver. And that you may perceive, that I speak not only by guess, take the profession of one of those authors whom M. PER. allegeth, Amalarius by name, who saith in the work cited by M. PER. 
Lib. 3. de Eccl. office cap. 24.  Here we believe the nature of pure bread and wine (mixed with water) to be converted into a nature endued with reason, to wit: into the nature of the body and blood of Christ: can any thing be more plain against them? Finally, M. PER. collecteth out of one Nicholas Cabasilas, his exposition of these words of the Mass, Sursum corda, lift up your hearts: that (the people being willed by the Priest to lift up their thoughts from the earth, and to think on things above) Christ is not really present with them; but only on the right hand of his Father. To which we answer, that when those words were spoken, Christ's body (in deed) is not there really present, for they are in the preface before the Canon and consecration: but is made present afterwards, by the words of consecration. Secondly, that he might (notwithstanding those words were spoken after the consecration, as they be before) be there present. For being admonished to call our minds and hearts from earthly things, and to lift them up to consider heavenly: what more divine and heavenly subject can we meditate upon, than our Saviour jesus Christ there present, and the holy mysteries of his incarnation and passion there represented, and the infinite mercies and goodness of God, powered out on us through him, and by means of this holy Sacrifice? and thus much in effect, doth the answer unto those words signify (We lift up our hearts unto our Lord) to attend upon him at this time specially, in these his holy mysteries. Observe, that we are not bidden to lift up our eyes to behold the sun, or to contemplate the stars in the sky; and so you may see, that the Protestants ignorance in the words of the holy Mass, doth little avail them or help their bad cause. Thus at length we are come to an end of M. PERKINS reasons against us, now to those that he maketh for the Catholic party, which are both few in number, and very barely propounded; but by the help of God, I will do my endeavour to supply his negligence therein.  
The first, is taken out of these words of our Saviour. 
joh. 6. vers. 51.  The bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Here is a plain promise made by Christ jesus (that faileth not of his word) of giving us his flesh to eat, and that very flesh which on the Cross was to be given for the redemption of the world: these words be so evident, that they who heard them, made no doubt of the sense of them; but were astonished at it, and said: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? they doubted not but that Christ had said, that he would give them his flesh to eat, his speeches were so plain for it; but yet believed they not, that he could do it. Now what replied Christ unto their doubt? that he would give them only bread to eat in remembrance of him? which would surely have satisfied them thoroughly, because nothing was more easy to do then that. But truth is not to be concealed, for fear of pharasaical scandal: and therefore he told them very roundly, That unless they did eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood. They should not have life in them. And he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting. And yet more expressly: My flesh is meat in deed, and my blood drink in deed. How should he have made the matter more plain?  
To this M. PERKINS answereth, first; That Christ speaketh of a spiritual eating by faith: because the very point that he intendeth to prove, is; that to believe in him, and to eat his flesh, is all one.  
This answer is absurd: For even in their own doctrine, there is a great difference between believing in Christ, and receiving the communion; for many do believe in Christ when they do not receive the communion: receiving being (as they teach) a seal or confirmation of believing. And to say, that Christ there maketh no difference between believing in him, and eating of his flesh, is flat against the text. For saying that he would hereafter give them his flesh to eat, he doth declare, that he speaketh not of believing in him, which he would have them to do presently; and many of them did believe in him before, who could not digest his doctrine of the Sacrament.  
Again, it is altogether unlikely, that our Saviour would have used such strange offensive speeches (as the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood) to signify only, that they must believe in him: and that he seeing them so much scandalised at those his hard and unusual phrases, that they were ready to forsake him; would yet, not once in plain terms interpret them, for the saving of so many souls: wherefore, it remaineth most manifest, that by eating of his flesh, he meant something else, then believing in him. And M. PER. other shift, that in all the sixth Chapter of S. john, Christ speaketh not one word of eating his flesh in the Sacrament, is so contrary unto the evidence of the text itself, and unto the exposition of all ancient Fathers, that it deserveth no answer; especially, when neither by reason or authority, he goeth about to fortify 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 quickeneth. It may be (perhaps) because he knew that the words being rightly understood, make more against the Protestants then for them. For the flesh there, must be taken either for Christ's flesh, or for our flesh: if for Christ's flesh, 
Tract. 27. in joannem.  than (saith S. Augustine) How can it be, that it profiteth nothing? when he said before: unless you eat my flesh, you shall have no life in you. What therefore meaneth this, it profiteth nothing? Marry (saith he) it profiteth nothing as they understood it. For they took they should eat it, as it is torn and cut in pieces, being dead and sold in the shambles; and not as it is quickened with the spirit, which he doth illustrate with the comparison of knowledge, which being alone, doth puff up (scientia enim inflat) but being joined with charity, doth edify. Even so (saith he) when the spirit is coupled with the flesh, then doth it profit very much, or else the word would not have been made flesh, and have dwelled among us. With S. Augustine agreeth S. Cyril upon that place; 
In cap. 6. joannis.  but more literal seemeth to be the interpretation of S. chrysostom, followed by Theophilact and others, upon this place: that by the flesh, is to be understood our fleshly and natural reason, which in these mysteries of faith, doth rather hinder than help us. For man's wit of itself, cannot comprehend how bread may be turned into Christ's body; not how so great a body can be in so little a room, etc. but informed with faith and God's grace, it is then well assured, that whatsoever Christ saith is true, and that nothing is impossible to him, how contrary soever it seem unto flesh and blood. For, his words (as it followeth in the text) be spirit and life, that is: be of divine force, and give life and being unto what he pleaseth. And thus much of our first reason: Now to the second.  
Christ taking bread into his hands, gave it to his Disciples, saying: 
1. Cor. 11. Math. 26 Marc. 14. Luc. 22.  this is my body which is given for you: and giving them the Chalice, said: drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new Testament, which shall be shed for you. These our saviours words are so plain, that it was not possible in so few words to express more perspicuously, that it was his true natural body, which he delivered unto them; it being the very same which was to be nailed on the Cross the morrow after.  
But M. PER. answereth, that they are not to be taken properly, but by a figure, the body there being put for a sign or seal of his body.  
Reply. This is a very extravagant exposition of Christ's words, and such a one, as if it were admitted for currant, would serve to subvert and overthrow, all the articles of the Christian faith. For example, when it is said, that the word was made flesh, the Manachees heresies against Christ's true flesh, might be maintained, by saying, that the flesh there, is put for a figure of the flesh: so might the Arrian heresy, if when Christ is called God, it were allowed them, to expound and take it, for a sign or seal of GOD; and so of all other articles of our belief: wherefore, there must be most apparent proof, for the drawing of Christ's words into so strange a sense, before it be admitted of any reasonable man. But M. PER. and the Protestants are so far off, from producing any such invincible evidence for their odd interpretation, that they cannot allege any probable cause of it: hear, and then judge.  

Genes. 17. vers. 10. Exod. 12. vers. 11. 1. Cor. 10.  M. PERKINS saith first, That it is an usual manner of the Lord, in speaking of the Sacraments, to give the name of the things signified, to the sign: as circumcision is called the covenant of God: and the next verse, the sign of the covenant: and the Paschal lamb is called the Angels passing-over, whereas (in deed) it was but a sign of it: and the Rock was Christ: 
* 1. Cor. 5. vers. 7.  the passover was Christ.  
Answ. It may be, that sometimes speaking of Sacraments by the way, some figurative speech may be used: but we say, that when any Sacrament is first instituted and ordained, that then the words are to be taken literally, without any such figure. For example, in the Sacraments (specified by M. PER.) Circumcision was commanded in these words: 
Genes. 17. vers. 11.  You shall circumcise the flesh of your prepuce, that it may be a sign of the covenant between you and me. These be the words of the institution of that Sacrament, and not one of them but must be literally taken. For the true flesh in deed, was to be circumcised and cut off, and no figure of the flesh or sign of cutting, would serve the turn. In like manner, where the Sacrament of the Paschal lamb is instituted, 
Exod. 12. vers. 3.  all must be understood literally, as a natural lamb really killed, roasted and eaten: and not a figure, sign, or seal of it: even so our blessed Saviour instituting a Sacrament in these words, This is my body: the words must be taken literally, and not figuratively; and consequently, the reason which M. PER. bringeth for him, beareth strongly against himself, because it is and ever hath been God's fashion, when he suiteth Sacraments, to institute them in their proper terms, which must be taken literally, as by his own examples hath been proved: Now to his sentences. Circumcision is both a covenant, and the sign of a covenant, and that properly; although not of the same covenant. For it was a covenant tendered by God unto Abraham, and by him accorded unto, to circumcise himself and all his seed of the male-kind: and the very same covenant was also a sign & badge of God's peculiar favour unto them, and their special obligation to serve him; and a mark in them, of the chosen people of God: so that that speech (circumcision is the covenant) is not figurative, but literal. Neither is the lamb called the Angels passing by or over, in the place cited by M. P.; but rather the jews eating of it hastily: and walking, was a sign of the Angels speedy passing by them. The lamb is sometimes called the passover: not because it was the sign of it, but for that it was the sacrifice, celebrated in remembrance of it: so Christ is called our passover or Paschall lamb; because he is the lamb of God, sacrificed to take away the sins of the world: so that not in one of these sentences, is the thing signified put for the sign, but rather the contrary. And when S. Paul saith, that the Rock was Christ: it is to be understood properly, because he speaketh of the spiritual Rock, saying: And they did drink all of the spiritual Rock, which was Christ properly. The material rock, out of which the streams of water gushed, did (in deed) prefigure Christ on the cross, out of whose side issued blood and water: but the spiritual Rock (that is) the Rock figured by that material, was really Christ himself: so that finally he hath not brought us one place, where the name of the thing signified is given to the sign: but suppose he could bring any, would it thereupon follow, that this place of the institution of the Sacrament, must be expounded by the same figure? how absurd and ridiculous is this manner of reasoning? In one or two places of Scripture the name of the thing signified, is given to the sign. ergo. In what place soever it pleaseth the Protestants, it shall be so taken; albeit, in a thousand other places, it must needs be taken otherwise.  
But M. PERKINS saith secondly, That the Papists themselves confess, the like figurative phrase to be in the institution of the cup, when it is said, This cup is the new Testament in my blood: that is (as M. PER. interpreteth it) a sign, seal, and pledge of the new Testament.  
Answ. We say that the institution of that part of the Sacrament, is as plainly delivered by S. Mathewe and S. Mark, as the other. For they have in express words: This is my blood of the new Testament: which plain and clear speech doth sufficiently declare, how S. Luke's more intricate and obscure words, are to be understood; it being great reason, that that which is plain & easy to understand, should interpret that which is hard; and not that which is obscure, to be made an exposition of that which is lightsome & clear, as our wranglers (who love darkness more than light) would persuade us. For the better understanding of S. Luke's words you must observe, that a Testament is taken in two sorts: either for the will and ordinance of the Testator; or else for the written instrument, whereby the will is known and performed. Now this holy Sacrament, may truly be called a testament in both senses. For it is both a special ordinance, to be observed and practised by Christ's will and institution, during the whole state of the new Testament: and therefore truly called by S. Luke. The new Testament, being a principal part of it. Over and beside, it is a singular means and instrument, a more effectual than a written will, to convey and derive unto us, our Lord and Saviour Christ jesus legacy, by the worthy receiving 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 blood of the new Testament; and not the seal or sign of it. And thus finally, the gentle reader may see, that M. PER. can show no sufficient cause, why Christ's words should be expounded by such a strange figure: whereupon it followeth evidently, that they are to be taken according unto their native literal sense. For so must all holy Scripture be understood, unless there be apparent reason to the contrary. Notwithstanding, because this matter is of very great moment, as being one of the highest mysteries of our faith, I will insist and stand somewhat, upon the circumstances of it. First, confer all the places together, where the institution is rehearsed, and you shall find 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 add: The body which shall be given for you; which enforce us to understand it to be his true natural body, that was crucified for us, and not a figure of it, which was not crucified for us.  

Luc. 22. Cap. 13.  Thirdly, Christ said: With a desire have I desired to eat this passover with you. And S. john addeth: That Christ knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to his Father; whereas he loved his that were in the world, unto the end he loved them: and when supper was done, etc. Knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands, 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, showeth that Christ vehemently longed to come to it, and intended to leave unto his loving Disciples now at his last farewell, a monument and token of his divine power and love towards them. If after all this, he should have left nothing unto them, but an order of eating a morsel of bread, and drinking a sup of wine, in remembrance of his death; there had been no congruity in it. For many much meaner men than he, had left far greater remembrances, and pledges of their love behind them. Wherefore the words must be taken as they sound; and then, no creature ever left, or could possibly leave, the like token and pledge of his power and love to his friends, as his own body and blood, to be the divine comfort and food of their souls. And this doth that most eloquent Father S. john chrysostom, both note and dilate, 
Homil. 83 in Math.  saying: Lovers when they depart from them, whom they love, are wont to leave with them (for a remembrance of their hearty affection) some such jewel or gift as they are able: but no other creature saving Christ, could leave his own proper flesh. 
Homil. 2. ad populum Antioch.  And in an other place: Elias departing from his disciple Eliseus, left him his mantle: but our Saviour Christ did leave unto us his own body.  
another motive to persuade, that Christ's words are to be taken literally, is gathered of this, that they be a part of Christ's Testament, and contain a legacy bequeathed unto us Christians; which kind of words are always to be interpreted, according to their proper signification. And it should be the most foolish part in the world, when a father doth by his last will, bequeath unto one of his sons a farm, or any certain portion of good, to plead that the words were to be expounded figuratively, and that he meant only to leave his son a figure of a farm, or some sign of a portion; which yet the Protestants do plead in this most divine testament of our Saviour Christ jesus. Thirdly, you have heard before also, how that in the institution of all Sacraments, the speeches are to be taken literally; and much more in this, which is the very marrow of Christian religion, and wherein error is most dangerous: therefore, most requisite it was to have been delivered in such terms, as were to be understood literally. Lastly, albeit Christ oftentimes, spoke unto the multitude in parables and obscurely, because of their incredulity: yet, unto his Disciples (whom he would have to understand him) he commonly spoke plainly; or else; was accustomed to interpret unto them his harder speeches; according to that: 
Math. 13. vers. 11.  To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven, to them it is not given, and therefore in parables speak I to them. But Christ here giveth no other interpretation, then that it was the same, His body, which should be nailed to the Cross: neither did the Disciples ask after any exposition of them; which is a plain sign, that they took them literally, the holy Ghost putting them in mind of that, which Christ had taught them before, of this admirable Sacrament, in the sixth of S. john: That he would give them his flesh to eat; and that his flesh was truly meat, etc.  
Hitherto I have prosecuted two reasons for the real presence: one out of the promise of it; the other out of the performance, and institution of it: which are all that it pleased M. PERKINS to produce in our favour, though he had multiplied reasons for his own party, and enlarged them very amply; but hath as crookedly proposed ours, & loaded them also with very many replies: wherefore, somewhat to supply his default herein, I will add four more for us: that for a dozen of his, we may be allowed to have half a dozen. The first of them which is the third in order, shall be gathered from the figure of this Sacrament thus. The figure or shadow of any thing, is always inferior unto the thing itself (as the Image of a man is not to be compared to the man himself, nor the shadow 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 than itself: wherefore, to avoid that inconvenience it must needs be granted, that the body of Christ is there really present, which far surpasseth all the figures of it. The minor proposition is to be proved: First, to omit all other figures of the blessed Sacrament, it is manifest, that Manna (reigned down from heaven to feed the Israelites in the desert) was one of the principal; as our Saviour signifieth, comparing Manna and the food which he would give us, 
job. 6. ver. 49. & 58. 1. Cor. 10.  together: and S. Paul plainly teacheth it, calling it a spiritual food, and numbering it among the figures, which the Hebrews had of our Sacraments; and the proportion between the things themselves, with the consent of all ancient Interpreters, doth convince it: but Manna far surpassed the Protestants communion. For first, being a figure of Christ, it prefigured him as theirs doth: 
Psal. 77.  than it was made of Angels, and came down from heaven: theirs cometh out of the oven, made by a baker. Again, Manna was so agreeable unto their taste, 
Sap. 16.  that it was in taste unto every one, even the most delicious and dainty meat, that he could desire: theirs is but ordinary: wherefore, they must needs confess, either that Christ's body is really present in the Sacrament; or else that the figure of it far surmounted it, the thing itself. The good fellows to avoid this inconvenience, are content to yield unto the Hebrews, as good and virtuous Sacraments as ours be: but that also is most false. 
Collos. 2. vers. 17. Gal. 4. job. 6. ver. 49. & 58. De ijs qui initiantur misterijs cap. 9 1. Cor. 10. vers. 16.  For S. Paul compareth theirs to shadows, ours, to the body: he calleth theirs, weak and poor elements. And to omit here other testimonies cited before, Christ himself, expressly preferreth the food which he hath given us, before Manna: whereupon S. Ambrose discourseth thus. Consider now, whether be more excellent the bread of Angels, or the flesh of Christ, which surely is the body of life: that Manna was from heaven; but this is above heaven: that of heaven, this the Lords of heaven: that subject to corruption if it were kept till the morrow, but this free from all corruption.  
Fourthly, the Real presence of Christ's body is proved out of these words of S. Paul: The Chalice or cup of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord? If we receive and do participate Christ's body and blood, they are certainly there present. And the expossition of S. chrysostom upon the same place, hath stopped up our adversaries starting-hole, who are wont to say that we (indeed) do receive the body of Christ, yet not there present; but by faith we mount above the skies: and receive it there. But what saith this holy and learned Doctor void of partiality? 
Homil. 24 in praeoratione ad Corinth.  marry, that of these words, this is the sense and meaning: That which is in the Chalice, is the very same that flowed out of Christ's side. Note that the blood of Christ is in the Chalice, and so we need not run so far off to seek it: and saith further, that we are made partakers of it, with the like real and close conjunction, as the word of God and the nature of man, were joined together: which was not by faith or imagination only; but actually and substantially. With whom accordeth S. Cyril: who out of the same words of S. Paul proveth, that Christ's body is united with us, not only by faith or charity; but bodily and according unto the flesh, saying: When the virtue of the mystical blessing is in us, 
Lib. 10. in joan. 13.  doth it not make Christ to dwell in us bodily, by the participation of the flesh of Christ? Here by the way observe, 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 under the form of bread, is called bread) or else, for that bread in Scripture (according to the Hebrew phrase) signifieth all kind of food. So is Manna called bread, which was rather like the dew: 
joan. 6. vers. 32. Psal. 77.  and so may our saviours body, which is the most substantial food of our souls, be called bread, although it be nothing less than ordinary bread. Lastly, it is such bread, as our Saviour in express terms hath christened it, when he said: And the bread which I will give you, is my flesh, 
joan. 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 unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord: and is guilty of the body and blood of our Lord: whence I argue thus. Unworthy receivers, who are destitute of that faith, whereby they should receive Christ (according unto the Protestants opinion) or else they should not receive unworthily: such unworthy communicants (I say) do receive the body of Christ, albeit unworthily; therefore, it is not the receivers faith that maketh it present, but it is there present by the words of consecration, whether the party believe it or no: or else, how should the man eat his judgement, for not discerning Christ's body, and be guilty of his body? the Protestants answer first, That he is guilty of the body, because he receiveth it not then, when he should, for lack of faith: But this gloze is clean contrary to the text, that saith expressly. That they receive it by eating and drinking of it; but yet unworthily: and all ancient Interpreters do so expound it. Let one S. Augustine serve in steed of the rest, who saith: 
De baptis. contr. Donatist. lib. 5. cap. 8.  That like as judas (to whom our Lord gave the morsel) gave place to the Devil, not by receiving that which was evil, but by receiving of it evilly: even so, every one receiving our lords Sacrament unworthily, doth not make it evil, because he is evil; or receive nothing, because he receiveth it not to salvation. For it was the body and blood of Christ, even to them of whom the Apostle saith, He that eateth unworthily, eateth his own damnation. By which notable sentence of so worthy a Prelate, the other cavil of our wrangling young-Masters, is also confuted. For they (perceiving that their former shift would not serve their turns) fly unto a second; that (forsooth) the unworthy receiver is guilty of Christ's body, because he abuseth the sign of it: for the dishonour done to the picture, redoundeth to the person himself.  
Reply. When we complain of them for dishonouring of Images, and tell them that they thereby dishonour the Saints, alleging this sentence; That the dishonour done to the picture, redoundeth to the person: then they will not allow of it, which now 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 own opinion, but a sign only: and great difference is there between disfiguring a man's own picture, and abusing of some sign or signification of him: neither is the disfiguring or breaking of a man's picture, so heinous a fault, if it be not done expressly in contempt of the person; which formal contempt, is not to be found in many unworthy receivers. Lastly, the Israelites that eat Manna, or drunk of the Rock unworthily, were not guilty of Christ's body and blood, although those things were signs and figures of them: therefore, if there were nothing, but a sign of Christ's body in our Sacrament, no man should be guilty of so heinous a crime, for unworthy receiving of it: but being by the verdict of S. Paul, made guilty of damnation for not discerning Christ's body, it must needs follow, that Christ's body is there really present.  
To these arguments collected out of holy Scriptures, let us join one other of no less authority taken from miracles done in confirmation of the real presence. For a true miracle cannot be done to confirm any untruth: or else God (by whose only power they are wrought) should testify an untruth, which is impossible. One miracle, of preserving a young boy alive in a glaziers hot burning furnace, I have before rehearsed out of Nicephorus, cited by M. PER.: two others I will choose out of hundreds, because they be recorded in famous Authors, and my purpose is to be brief. 
Ex vita per joan. 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 administering the blessed Sacrament, came to give it unto the woman who had made those Hosts which he had consecrated. She hearing S. Gregory say (as the manner was and is) The body of our Lord jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto everlasting life, smiled at it: wherefore, the holy Bishop withdrew his hand, and did not communicate her, but laid that Host down upon the Altar: Mass being done, he called the woman before him, and demanded before the people (whom she might have scandalised) what was the cause, why she began to laugh in that holy and fearful mystery? she muttered at the first, but after answered, that she knew it to be the bread, which she herself had made, and therefore could not believe 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 Christ's body in the Sacrament, the outward form of bread might be turned into flesh, which was (by the power of God) done presently; and so was she converted to the true faith, and all the rest confirmed in it. The other miracle is of record, in the life of that devout Father S. Bernard. 
Lib. 2. cap. 3.  This holy man, caused a woman (who had been many years possessed with a wicked spirit, that did strangely torment her) to be brought before him, as he was at Mass; and then holding the consecrated Host over the woman's head, spoke these words. Thou wicked spirit, here is present thy judge, the supreme power, is here present; resist and if thou canst: he is here present, who being to suffer for our salvation, said: Now 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 stretched upon the Cross, that lay in the Sepulchre, that rose from Death, that in the sight of his Disciples ascended into Heaven: therefore, in the dreadful power of this Majesty, I command thee wicked spirit, that thou depart out of this handmaid of his, and never hereafter presume once to touch her. The Devil was forced to acknowledge the Majestical presence, and dreadful power of Christ's body in that holy Host, and to get him packing presently: wherefore, he must needs be greatly blinded of the Devil, that knowing this miracle to be wrought, by the virtue of Christ's body there present, will not yet believe and confess it. But now let us wind up all this question, in the testimonies of the most ancient and best approved Doctors.  
S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholar, saith: I desire the bread of God, 
Epist. 15. ad Rom.  heavenly bread, which is the flesh of the Son of God.  
S. justine declaring the faith of the Christians, in the second hundredth year after Christ, writeth to the Emperor Antonine, thus. 
Apol. 2.  We take not these things as common bread, nor as common wine; but as Christ incarnate by the word of God, took flesh and blood for our salvation: even so are we taught, that the food (wherewith our flesh is by alteration nourished) being by him blessed and made the Eucharist, is the flesh and blood of the same jesus incarnate.  
S. Ireneus justins equal proveth, both Christ to be the Son of God, 
Li. 4. con. Haeres. cap. 34.  the creator of the world; and also the resurrection of the bodies, by the real presence of Christ's body in the blessed Sacrament: so assured a principle, and so generally confessed a truth was then, this point of the real presence.  

Homil. 5. in divers.  Origen that most learned Doctor saith: When thou takest that holy food, and that incorruptible feast; when thou enjoyest the bread and cup of life; when thou dost eat and drink the body and blood of our Lord: then (lo) doth our Lord enter under thy roof. Thou therefore humbling thyself, imitate this Centurion and say: O Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof, etc.  

De coena Domini.  S. Cyprian: The bread that our Lord delivered unto his Disciples, being not in outward show, but in substance changed; was by the omnipotent power of the word, made flesh.  

Catech. 4. mist.  S. Cyril Patriarch of Jerusalem, doth most formally teach our doctrine, saying: When Christ himself doth affirm of bread: This is my body, who afterward dareth to doubt of it? and he confirming and saying, This is my blood. Who can doubt and say, this is not his blood? And a little after doth prove it, saying: He before changed water into wine, which cometh near to blood; and shall he be thought unworthy to be believed, that he hath changed wine into his blood? wherefore, let us receive with all assurance, the body and blood of Christ: for under the form of bread, his body is given us; and his blood, under the form of wine.  

Orat. 2. de Paschate.  S. Gregory Nazianzene, speaking of the blessed Sacrament, sayeth: Without shame and doubt, eat the body and drink the blood, and do not mistrust these words of the flesh, etc.  
S. john chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople, persuadeth the same thus: 
Homil. 83 in Math.  Let us always believe God, and not resist him, though that which he saith, seem absurd to our imagination: which we must do in all things, but specially in holy mysteries; not beholding those things only, which are set in our sight; but having an eye unto his words. For his word cannot deceive us; but our senses may most easily be deceived: wherefore, considering that he saith, This is my body; let us not doubt of it at all, but believe it. Again, 
a Hom. 61 ad populum  what shepherd doth feed his flock with his own flesh? Nay, many mothers give out their children to be nursed of others: but Christ with his own flesh and blood, doth feed us. 
b Iten hom. 3. in epist. ad Ephes.  It is his flesh and blood, that sitteth above the heavens; that is humbly adored of the Angels. And 
c Homil. 24. in 1. ad Corin.  he that was adored of the wisemen in the manger, is now present upon the Altar. 
d Hom. 83 in Math. & 60. ad populum.  And not by faith only, or by charity: but in deed and really, his flesh is joined with ours, by receiving this holy Sacrament.  
S. Ambrose: 
e Libr. 4. de Sacrament. c. 4.  Thou mayst (perhaps) say, that my bread is but common bread; this bread is bread in deed, before the words of the Sacrament: but when consecration cometh; of bread, it is made the body of Christ. And if you demand further, how there can be any such virtue in words? he doth answer, That by the word of God, heaven and earth were made, and all that in them is: and therefore, if God's word were able of nothing to make all things, how much more easily, can it take a thing that already is, and turn it into an other?  
S. Hierome: Let us bear and believe, that the bread which our Lord broke, 
Epistol. ad Hedib. quaest. 2.  and gave to his Disciples, is the body of our Lord and Saviour. 
* Epist. ad Heliodorun Cont. Adverse. legis & Prophe lib. 2. c. 9  And God forbid (saith he) that I should speak sinistrously of Priests, who succeeding the Apostles in degree; do with their holy mouth, consecrate and make Christ's body.  
S. Augustine: The mediator of God and men, the man jesus Christ, giving us his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink; we do receive it with faithful heart and mouth, although it seem more horrible to eat man's flesh, then to kill it; and to drink man's blood, then to shed it. Again, 
a In psal. 65. & 93  The very blood that through their malice the jews shed, they (converted by God's grace) do drink. And upon the 98. Psalm, he doth teach us to adore Christ's body in the Sacrament, with Godly honour; where he saith: Christ took earth of earth, for flesh is of earth: and of the flesh of the Virgin Mary he took flesh; in which flesh he walked here upon the earth, and the same flesh he gave us to eat.  
S. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, in the declaration of the eleventh Anatheme of the general Council of Ephesus: doth in few words express the ancient faith both of the Sacrifice and Sacrament, thus: We do celebrate the holy, lively, and unbloody Sacrifice, believing it to be the body and blood, not of a common man like unto one of us: but rather we receive it, as the proper body and blood of the word of God, that quickeneth all things, which he doth often in his works repeat. In his Epistle to Nestorius in these words: 
Epist. ad Nestorium.  We do so come unto the mystical benediction, and are sanctified; being made partakers of the holy and precious blood of Christ our redeemer: not receiving it as common flesh (which God defend) nor as the flesh of a holy man, etc. But being made the proper flesh of the word of God itself. And upon these words, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? he saith: 
Lib. 4. in joan. c. 13 Lib. 10. in joan. c. 13  Let us give firm faith to the mysteries, and never once say or think, how can it be? For it is a jewish word. And else where preventing our Protestants receiving by faith alone, he addeth: We deny not, but by a right faith and sincere charity, we are spiritually joined with Christ: but to say, that we have not also a conjunction with him according to the flesh; that we utterly deny, and do avouch it to be wholly dissonant from holy Scriptures.  
Damascene: 
Lib. 4. de fide ortho. cap. 14.  Bread and wine (with water) by the invocation of the holy Ghost, are supernaturally changed into the body and blood of Christ: bread is not the figure of the body, nor wine the figure of the blood (which God forbid) but it is the very body of our Lord, joined with the Godhead: See how formally this holy and learned Doctor, about nine hundred years ago 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 seem bread unto us; yet is it by his unspeakable working transformed.  
If I would descend a little lower, I might allege whole volumes, written by the learnest of those times, in defence of the real presence. For some thousand years after Christ, there started up one Berengarius of condemned memory, who was the first, that directly impugned the truth of Christ's bodily presence in the Sacrament: but he once or twice abjured it afterward, and died repentantly.  
And thus much of this matter.    

OF THE SACRIFICE.  
M. PERKINS Page 204.  
Of the Sacrifice in the lords supper, which the Papists call the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
TOuching this point, first I will set down, what must be understood by the name of Sacrifice. A Sacrifice is taken properly, or unproperly. Properly, it is a sacred or solemn action, in which man offereth and consecrateth some outward bodily thing unto God, to please and honour him thereby: improperly and by the way of resemblance, all the duties of the moral law are called sacrifices.  
M. PERKINS definition of a Sacrifice taken properly, is not complete: for it may be applied unto many oblations, which were not sacrifices. For example, divers devout Israelites offered some gold, some silver, some other things to honour and please God withal, 
Exod. 25. & 35.  in the building of a Tabernacle for divine service, according to his own order and commandment. These men's actions were both sacred and solemn, and some outward bodily thing, by them was offered and consecrated unto God, to please and honour him thereby: therefore, they did properly offer Sacrifice (according to M. PER. definition) which in true divinity is absurd, or else women and children might be sacrificers. Again, if his definition were perfect, I cannot see how they can deny their lords supper to be a Sacrifice properly. For they must needs grant, that it is a sacred or solemn action: and they cannot deny, but that in it a man offereth and consecrateth unto God some outward bodily thing (to wit) bread and wine; and that to please and honour God thereby: so that all the parts of M. PER. definition agreeing to it, he cannot deny it to be a Sacrifice properly. We (in deed) that take it to be a profane or superstitious action, highly displeasing God, as being by man's invention brought in, to shoulder out his true and only service; do upon just reason reject it, as no Sacrifice: but the Protestants that take it for divine service, must needs admit it to be a proper Sacrifice; & so do they fall by their own definition, into that damnable abomination (as they term it) of maintaining an other proper Sacrifice in the new Testament, besides Christ's death on the Cross.  
Wherefore, to make up the definition perfect, it is to be added: first, that that holy action be done by a lawful Minister, and then that the visible thing there presented, be not only offered to God; but be also really altered and consumed, in testification of God's sovereign dominion over us. We agree in the other improper acception of a Sacrifice, and say; that all good works done to please and honour God, may be called sacrifices improperly: among which the inward act of adoration (whereby a devout mind doth acknowledge God to be the beginning, middle, and end of all good both in heaven & earth, and as such a one, doth most humbly prostrate, honour and adore him) holdeth the most worthiest rank; and may truly be called an invisible and inward Sacrifice: The outward testimony and protestation thereof, by consuming some visible thing, in a solemn manner and by a chosen Minister, is most properly a Sacrifice.  

OUR CONSENT.  
MAster PERKINS would gladly seem to agree with us in two points: First, That the supper of the Lord is a Sacrifice, and may truly be so called as it is, and hath been in former ages. Secondly, That the very body of Christ is offered in the lords supper. How say you to this, are we not herein at perfect concord? a plain dealing man would think so, hearing these his words: but if you read further, and see his exposition of them, we are as far 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 have him. So when he saith in his first conclusion, That the supper of the Lord is a Sacrifice, he understandeth improperly: yet it is (saith he) called a Sacrifice in three respects. First, because it is a memorial of the real Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. So a painted Crucifix may be called a Sacrifice, because it is a memorial of that Sacrifice: but M. PER. addeth, 
Hebr. 13. vers. 15.  That it withal containeth a thanksgiving to God for the same: which thanksgiving is the Sacrifice and calves of our lips.  
May he not seem worthy of a calues-head to his breakfast, that being in a serious dispute of a Sacrifice, would say that the thanksgiving for a Sacrifice, may truly be called the very same Sacrifice itself? for so a thanksgiving for a house, may truly be called a house; and the thanksgiving for a horse, a horse itself: and to say that the ancient Fathers so spoke (as M. PER. doth) is to make them babes and too too unskilful how to speak. Secondly, (saith he) it may be called a Sacrifice, because every communicant doth there present himself an acceptable Sacrifice to God, to work in the practice of all dutiefull obedience. You should have said, that the receiving of the lords supper worthily, might rather be called a Sacrifice, than the supper itself, if you put the reason of the Sacrifice, only in the receivers conceit and devotion, which is very different from the supper itself. Thirdly, (saith he) The lords supper is called a Sacrifice, in respect of alms given to the poor, which was joined with it: and in this regard also the ancient Fathers have called the Sacrament, an unbloody 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 think the Sacrament to be a Sacrifice, because some alms might happily be (then and there) given to the poor: For they teach that a Sacrifice, is a sovereign service done unto God alone, and not to be offered to any mortal creature. 
Libr. 20. cont. Faustum c. 21  Witness one S. Augustine for the rest, who saith: To that worship which is proper to God alone, doth appertain the offering of Sacrifice. We do in no sort offer any such thing, or command it to be offered, either to any Martyr, or any holy soul, or Martyr, etc. And what a dotage is it, to dream that Priests and Altars take their names of that, that alms is given by laymen to the poor at Mass time, wherein there is neither congruity, nor likelihood at all: nor hath he any author to warrant it. For alms by the Apostles order, was left unto the disposition of Deacons; 
Act. 6. In exhor. ad castitatem. Conc. 14. & Conc. Carth. 4. cap. 4.  & Priests commonly did not meddle in it: at least, it never was any essential point of their vocation: Which was (as Tertullian briefly defineth) to teach, to minister the Sacrament, and to offer Sacrifice. Now Deacons might not in any case offer Sacrifice, as the whole Church in her purity defined, at the Council of Nice: wherefore, there is no colour to say, that the unbloody Sacrifice, Priests, and Altars, were so called in respect of alms given to the congregation. we deny not, but that devout people offered at Mass time, either bread and wine towards the Sacrifice, or money towards the relief of the Priest, and maintenance of the Altar: but that was not called the Sacrifice of the Mass by the Fathers, but distinguished from it expressly. Witness that very place, cited by M. PER. out of S. Augustine; who (comforting his friend pitifully lamenting the captivity of three virgins, 
Epist. 122  taken prisoners and led away captive by Infidels) citeth the example of Azarias, and his fellow captives in Babylon, of whom honourable mention is made in Daniel. 
Cap. 3.  Whereupon he saith, These virgins be in captivity now, as were then those Israelites in a heathen country, where they could not sacrifice unto our Lord after their law, because Jerusalem 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 find a Priest there, by whom they may offer it to God. These be his words? by which he is so far from saying, that women did offer Sacrifice at the Altar, (as M. PER. falsely translateth, far oblationem ad altare Dei) that he plainly teacheth the contrary, the place of their captivity affording them, neither Altars nor Priests. Now both those captive Israelites in Babylon, and these captive virgins, might and did devoutly fast and pray, and might also to their power give alms; and yet (as testifieth S. Augustine) they could not offer Sacrifice, because they wanted a convenient place, Priests, and Altars: whereupon it followeth most evidently (even by the testimony which M. PER. allegeth for himself) that the giving of Alms, and other godly devotions of laymen, do not make Priests and Altars, or give them their names; but be most distinct things from them, as shall more amply be showed hereafter out of the ancient Fathers, who make the Sacrifice of the Mass, a most proper kind of Sacrifice? yet unbloody, because there is no blood shed there, but the body and blood of Christ are offered under the forms 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 deny not the Sacrifice of Christ's body in the Mass, to be a representation of Christ's suffering on the Cross; but affirm it to be such a representation, as containeth withal, the same real body there unbloodily sacrificed; which S. Augustine fully testifieth in these few words. 
Libr. 20. con. Faust. cap. 18.  Christians do celebrate the memory of the Sacrifice (already performed on the Cross) by the very holy Oblation and participation of the body of Christ: we say therefore with the same author, by M. PER. alleged, That Sacraments have the resemblance of things, whereof they are the Sacraments; but say further, that besides the resemblance, they contain also the things which they resemble. As baptism hath by washing the body outwardly, a resemblance of washing the soul inwardly from sins; and withal doth when it is ministered truly, wash and purge it from all sin. So that it is a foul kind of reasoning in the matter of Sacraments, to argue thus as the Protestants use; It is the sign or the representation of such a thing; therefore the thing itself is not there present: whereas the contrary is most certain; that it is the sign of such a thing, ergo. the thing itself is there present; because all Sacraments of the new Testament, do contain and work that which they signify, as shall be more amply proved in his proper place. Neither do we deny, but that by a true faith in Christ and his passion (so it want 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 Mass? one truth doth not disprove an other: but we shall hear the man (perhaps) argue more substantially anon, when he draweth nearer the matter. Thus much of our feigned consents, which M. PER. putteth down to pervert the ancient Father's plain sentences, for the Sacrifice of the Mass, & to make his poor abused followers believe, that when they approve the Sacrifice of the Mass (as they do very often, and that in most express terms, as you shall hear hereafter) that then they mean some other matter. Much more sincerely had he dealt, if he had confessed with his own Rabbins, that it was the common belief of the world, received by the best Schoolmen: That in the Mass a Sacrifice is offered to God for remission of sins, as 
a Lib. 4. Instit. ca 18. §. 1.  Caluin doth deliver; which 
b De captivit. Babylon. c. 1.  Luther granteth to be conformable unto the saying of the ancient Fathers. And one 
c Li. count Carolostadianos.  Alberus (a famous Lutheran) speaketh it to the great glory of his Master Luther, that he was the first since Christ's time, who openly inveighed against it: this yet, is more ingenious and plainer dealing, to confess the truth, then with vain colours to go about to disguise it. And that the indifferent reader may be well assured, how Luther (an Apostata Friar) could come unto that high pitch of understanding, as to soar unto that, which none since Christ's time (neither Apostles nor other) could reach unto before him: let him read a special treatise of his own, 
Cocleus & Vlenbergius.  Entitled of Mass in corners, and of the consecration of Priests; which is extant in the sixth Tome of his works, set out in the Germane tongue and printed at jenes, as men skilful in that language do testify. In his works in ●●tin printed at Wittenburge of the older edition, it is the seventh Tome, though somewhat corrected and abridged: there (I say) the good fellow confesseth, that entering into a certain conference and dispute with the Devil, about this Sacrifice of the Mass, Luther then defending it, and the Devil very gravely arguing against it; in fine the Master (as it was likely) overcame his Disciple Luther, and so settled him in that opinion against the Sacrifice of the Mass, that he doubted not afterward to maintain it, as a principle point of the new Gospel, and is therein seconded by the whole band of Protestants. This is no fable, but a true history, set down in print by himself, through God's providence; that all the world may see from what authority, this their doctrine against the blessed Sacrifice of the Mass proceedeth. And if they will believe it (notwithstanding they know the Devil to be the founder of it) are they not than most worthy to be rejected of God, and adjudged to him, whose Disciples they make themselves wittingly and of their own free accord?  
Now to the difference.   

OUR DIFFERENCE.  
M. PERKINS Page 207.  
THey make the Eucharist to be a real, and external Sacrifice offered unto God, holding that the Minister of it, is a Priest properly, in that he offereth Christ's body and blood to God, really and properly under the forms of bread and wine: we acknowledge no such Sacrifice for remission of sin, but only Christ's on the Cross once offered. Here is the main difference, which is of such moment, that their Church maintaining this, can be no Church at all: for this point raseth the foundation to the very bottom; which he will prove by the reason's following, if his aim fail him not.  
Observe, that in the law of Moses there were three kind of proper Sacrifices; one called Holocaust, or whole  offerings; the second an Host for sin, of which there were also divers sorts; the third an Host of pacification. Holocaustes were wholly consumed by fire, in recognisance and protestation of God's Sovereign dominion over us: Hosts for sin were offered (as the name improteth) to appease God's wrath, and to purge men from sin: Hosts of pacification or peace, were to give God thanks for benefits received, and to sue for continuance and increase of them.  
Now we following the ancient Father's doctrine, do hold the Sacrifice of the Mass, to succeed all these sacrifices, and to contain the virtue and efficacy of all three, to wit: it is offered both to acknowledge God to be the supreme Lord of heaven and earth, and that all our good cometh from him: as witnesseth this oblation of his dear sons body, who being the Lord of heaven and earth, willingly suffered death to show his obedience to his Father. Secondly, it is offered to appease God's wrath, justly kindled against us sinners, representing to him therein, the merit of Christ's passion to obtain our pardon. Thirdly, it is offered to God, to give him thanks for all his graces bestowed upon us, and by the virtue thereof to crave continuance and increase of them. These points of our doctrine being openly laid before the eyes of the world, M. PER. seemeth to reprove only one piece of them, to wit: That the Sacrifice of the Mass, is no true Sacrifice for remission of sins: and not joining issue with us, but upon that branch only; he may be thought to agree with us in the other two, to wit: that it is a proper and perfect kind of whole  offering, and a Sacrifice of pacification; at least, he goeth not about to disprove 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 granted him, which he endeavoureth to prove, he is very far from obtaining the Sacrifice of the Mass, 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 sin. But that all men may see, how confident we are in every part and parcel of the Catholic doctrine, we will join issue with him, where he thinketh to have the most advantage against us: and will prove it to be also an Host for remission of sins, and that aswell for the dead, as for the living; which is much more than M. PER. requireth: and by the way I will demonstrate, that this doctrine is so far off from rasing the foundation of Christian religion; that there can be no religion at all, without a true and proper kind of Sacrifice, and sacrificing Priests. 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 himself but once; therefore not often: and thus there can be no real offering of his body and blood, in the Sacrament of his supper; the text is plain.  
True, but your arguing out of it is somewhat vain. For after your own opinion, it is the Priest that doth offer the Sacrifice of Christ's body in the lords supper: and therefore, though Christ offered it but once (as the Apostle saith) yet Priests appointed by him, may offer it many times. Do ye perceive how easily your Achilles may be foiled? the goodman not looking (belike) for this answer, saith nothing to it, but frameth another in our names, which is also good and true, to wit: That the Apostle there speaketh of the bloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, which was but once offered: which letteth not, but that the same his body, may be under the forms of bread and wine sacrificed often, by the Ministry of Priests in the Mass: Yes, but it doth (saith M. PER.) For the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (he will not for twenty pound say it was S. Paul) taketh it for granted, that the Sacrifice of Christ is only one, and that a bloody Sacrifice: for he saith Christ doth not offer himself often, 
Hebr. 9  as the high Priests did, etc. All this is true, that Christ suffered but once upon the Cross; but it is nothing against the former answer, in which it is not said, that Christ offered himself twice upon the Cross; but that the same his body is daily, by the Ministry of Priests, offered unbloodily under the forms of bread and wine, upon the Altar: which being so plain and sensible, a man might marvel at their palpable grossness, if they cannot conceive it. I think rather that they understand it well enough; but not knowing what reasonably to reply against it, do make as though they understood it not: Whereupon, this man (not having said one word to the purpose against the answer) yet concludeth (as though he had confuted all that we have in holy Scripture for this Sacrifice) That the Scriptures (forsooth) never knew the twofold manner of sacrificing Christ: and then goeth on triumphing, That every distinction in divinity not founded in the written word, is but a forgery of man's brain. Had he not need of a mess of good broth, to cool his hot hasty brain, that thus runneth away with a supposed victory, before he hath strooken any one good stroke? but he saith further (clean besides the drift of his former argument, as his manner is, sometime to drop down a sentence by the way, 
Hebr. 9 vers. 22.  which seemeth to make for him) That without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins: meaning (belike) that if our Sacrifice be unbloody, than it doth not remit sin.  
Answer. If no remission of sin be obtained now, without shedding of blood: how have they remission of their sins by only faith? what, doth their faith draw blood of them? The direct answer is apparent in the Apostles words, who saith: That all things almost, according to the law are cleansed with blood: and that there was no remission of sins (in the law of Moses) without shedding of blood. What a shameful abusing of a text was this, to apply that to us in the state of the new Testament, which was plainly spoken of the state of the old Testament, and of Moses' law?  
His second reason: The Romish Church holdeth, that the Sacrifice in the lords supper, is all one for substance, with the Sacrifice offered on the Cross: if that be so, than the Sacrifice in the Eucharist must either be a continuance of the Sacrifice begun on the Cross, or else an alternation or repetition of it. Let them choose of these twain which they will. If they say, it is a continuance of it, than they make the Priest to bring to perfection, that which Christ begun: If they say it is a repetition, thus also they make it imperfect. For to repeat a thing often, argueth that at once it was not sufficient; which is the reason of the holy Ghost, to prove the sacrifices of the old Testament to be imperfect.  
I answer, that when an argument consisteth of division, then if any part or member of the division be omitted, the argument is nought worth, as the learned know: so fareth it in this fallacy. For the Sacrifice of the Mass is neither a continuance of the Sacrifice on the Cross, not for M. PER. frivolous reason (for not all things are bettered, but many made much worse by continuance) but because the one is not immediately linked with the other, there going much time between them. Neither is it (to speak properly) a repetition of the Sacrifice of the Cross, because that was bloody, this unbloody; that, offered by Christ in his own person; this, by the ministry of a Priest: that, on the Cross, this, on the Altar: that, to pay the general ransom, and to purchase the redemption of all mankind, this, to apply the virtue of that unto particular men: So that although there be in both these Sacrifices, the same body and blood of Christ in substance; yet, the manner, means, and end of them, being so different, the one cannot conveniently be called the repetition of the other: but the Sacrifice of the Mass is a lively representation of the Sacrifice on the Cross, and the application of the virtue of it to us. This is the third member of the division, either not known, or concealed by M. PER. the better to colour and cloak the deceit of his second false argument. Now to the third.  
The third reason. A real and outward Sacrifice in a Sacrament, is against the nature of a Sacrament, and specially the supper of the Lord: for one of the ends thereof, is to keep in memory the Sacrifice of Christ. Now every remembrance must be of a thing absent, past, and done: and if Christ be daily really sacrificed, the Sacrament is not a fit memorial of his Sacrifice.  
Answer. Christ's Sacrifice offered on the Cross, is long sithence past and done, and therefore absent: wherefore, it may well have a memorial; and there can be no other so lively representation of it, as to have the same body (yet in another manner) set before our eyes, as hath been more than once already declared, which may serve to answer the later proposition.  
M. PERKINS confirmeth his former thus: The principal end of a Sacrament is, that God may give, and we receive Christ and his benefits. Now in a real sacrifice, God doth not give Christ to us, but the Priest offereth up Christ to God: therefore, one thing cannot be both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice.  
Answer. One and the same thing may well be both, but in divers respects. It is a Sacrifice, in that it is an holy Oblation of a sensible thing unto God, by consuming of it in testification of his Sovereignty: It is a Sacrament, as it is a visible sign of an invisible grace, bestowed then upon the receiver. So was the Paschall lamb first sacrificed to God (as shall be proved hereafter) and after eaten in a Sacrament. In like manner, the holy body and blood of Christ, are (under the visible forms of bread and wine) offered up first to God, by the sacred action of consecration, and after broken and eaten, in recognisance of his supreme dominion over all creatures: which is a Sacrifice most properly taken. Again, it is instituted by Christ to signify and work the spiritual nuriture of our souls by receiving of it: and so it is a Sacrament.  
M. PERKINS fourth reason. The holy Ghost maketh a difference, 
Hebr. 7. vers. 24.  between Christ, the high Priest of the new Testament, and all the Levitical Priests; in this, that they were many, one succeeding another: but he is only one, having an eternal Preest-ood, which cannot pass from him to any other. Now if this difference be good, than Christ alone in his own person, must be the Priest of the new Testament, and no other with, or under 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 under him (as they say in deed) I say again, it is false, because the whole Oblation is acted by the Priest, and he that doth all, is more than a bare instrument.  
Answer. To begin with that, which he saith last (because I must stay longer on the first) he bewrayeth his ignorance in the matter of the Mass, when he saith; that the Priest acteth the whole Oblation in his own name, and not as the minister of Christ: for the principal part of both Sacrifice and Sacrament, consisteth in the consecration, as we hold; which the Priest wholly 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 own person, saying, this is Christ's body: in like sort he consecrateth the Chalice, This is the Chalice of my blood. So that nothing is more certain, then that the Sacrifice of our lords supper is offered by the Priest, as the Minister and instrument of Christ: wherefore M. PER. pithagorically (I say again) is convinced to be most untrue. Now to the former part of his mistaking the Apostles discourse, which is far more profound than the Protestants take it to be: for his purpose is to prove, that Consummation (as he there speaketh) was not by the Levitical Priesthood, that is; 
Cap. 7. vers. 11.  that the Priests of Moses' law could not offer up such a Sacrifice to God, by virtue whereof God's justice could be satisfied, and the redemption of all mankind purchased. For if any of the high Priests could have performed that, there needed not to have been many Priests, or any one successor to an other, because the former should sufficiently have done that already, which the later went about to do: wherefore, the Apostle concludeth that it was necessary, that an other Priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedecke, whose one oblation should be so precious in God's sight, and of such infinite value, that it should need, neither to be offered twice, nor to have the supply of any other Sacrifice: which we willingly grant, and teach daily; but carry always in mind that the Apostle there, treateth only of that complete Sacrifice, which procured the general redemption of all men, and paid the just price unto God, for the sins of the whole world: of which sort, we acknowledge that Sacrifice which our Saviour offered on the Cross, to be the only Sacrifice, fully satisfying the rigour of God's justice, for the offences of all the world, and as plentifully purchasing all kind of graces, to be bestowed upon all degrees of men; so that it needeth not to be repeated itself, or to have any supply from any other Sacrifice. But all this doth no more prove, that our Sacrifice of the Mass is not a true and proper Sacrifice, then that the Levitical sacrifices were no sacrifices. For S. Paul's scope is not to prove, 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 Christ's was on the Cross. Well then if that one sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, be so complete and absolute, what need is there of any other sacrifice? great need, and that for three causes. First, to represent and keep better in mind that singular sacrifice, which can by no means be so lively represented, as by the sacrificing of the self same things in substance, albeit after an other manner. Secondly, to convey and apply the virtue of that on the Cross, unto all obedient Christians. For it is to be observed, though Christ paid in his body the ransom of all sinners, and purchased God's grace for them: yet, no man was thereby only freed from his sins and received into grace; but every one must use the means ordained by Christ, to be made partaker of that heavenly favour. The Protestants hold faith alone to be the only means: but we more truly say, that the Sacraments and Sacrifice of the Mass, are principal conduct pipes, to convey the streams of God's grace into our souls, as shall be proved hereafter. The third cause, why we must have a sacrifice, to be offered daily in the state of the new Testament, is; that men may meet solemnly at it, to do their fealty and chief homage unto God: which shall also in this question be proved more at large. Thus have we briefly showed, how there is one absolute sacrifice, and how after the same, there yet remaineth an other; which may be the better understood, if we consider, that the virtue of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, did work the salvation of men, even from the beginning of the world: 
Apoc. 13. vers. 8.  whereupon, Christ is called a lamb, slain from the beginning. Now most evident it is, that notwithstanding the all-sufficiency of Christ's only sacrifice on the Cross, as well then in force, as now, there were both in the law of nature, and of Moses, divers other sacrifices, of which some were to purge from sin: why therefore, may there not aswell be one other since his passion? If their sacrifices then, when Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was as present, and in as full force with God, could stand well with it, without any derogation unto the full virtue of it: why cannot ours aswell also do so now? 
Hebr. 10. vers. 14.  If you say, That Christ by one oblation hath consummated or made perfect, them that be sanctified: therefore now there needeth no more. I answer (as before) that Christ by that same one oblation, obtained at his father's hands, a general pardon for all mankind, and all grace to be bestowed upon them, even 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, than it did other oblations before, which all are as dependants on it, and means to keep it fresh in memory, and to apply the virtue and merit of that one oblation, unto all men.  
I urge yet further for the Protestants, to supply M. PERKINS negligence, and that this hard point may be the better understood; and add out of S. Paul: 
Ibidem vers. 18.  Where there is remission of these (iniquities) now there is no oblation for sins.  
True, such an oblation as Christ offered on the Cross; so virtuous, to wipe away all iniquities; so precious, to pay a general ransom: but there may be an other available to entreat and deserve, that the virtue of the former general, may be derived unto men in particular; because, although those sins and iniquities were unto Christ pardoned in general: yet, at his death, or by it only, those sins were not remitted and pardoned unto any man in particular; so that it was meet and requisite, that besides the Sacrifice to purchase that general redemption, there should be an other, to apply the virtue of it in particular. And thus much of this argument: not that it deserved (as it was proposed nakedly by M. PER.) any more than a flat denial; but to explicate this difficulty, and to interpret some obscure places of S. Paul omitted by M. PERKINS.  
M. PER. fift reason. If the Priest do offer to God Christ's real body and blood, for the pardon of our sins; then man is become a mediator between God and Christ.  
This illation is too too ridiculous. Is he Christ's mediator, that asketh forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake? then are all Christians mediators between God and Christ: for we all present unto God Christ's passion, and beseech him (for the merit thereof) to pardon us our sins. I hope that we may both lawfully pray unto God, and also employ our best endeavours, that Christ may be truly known, rightly honoured and served of all men, without encroaching upon Christ's mediation. These be services we own unto Christ, and the bounden duties of good Christians, wherein it hath pleased him to employ us, as his servants and ministers; not as his mediators. But Master PERKINS addeth, that we request in the Cannon of the Mass, That God will accept our gifts and offerings (namely Christ himself offered) as he did the Sacrifices of Abel and Noah (he would have said Abraham, for Noah is not there mentioned.) True, in the sense there following; not that this Sacrifice of Christ's body, is not a thousand times more grateful unto him, than was the Sacrifices of the best men: but that this Sacrifice which is so acceptable of itself, may be unto all the partakers of it, cause of all heavenly grace and benediction; and that also, through the same Christ our Lord, as it there followeth in the Canon.  
His sixth and last reason, Is the judgement of the ancient Church, which is the feeblest of all the rest; for that he hath not one place, which maketh not flat against himself: 
Conc. Tol. 12. cap. 5.  hear and then judge. First (saith he) A Council held at Toledo in Spain, hath these words. Relation is made unto us, that certain Priests, do not so many times receive the grace of the holy communion, as they offer Sacrifice: but in one day, if they offer many Sacrifices to God, they suspend themselves from the Communion.  
Is not this a fit testimony to prove, that there is no Sacrifice of the Mass? 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 reproved, for that they did not themselves communicate of every Sacrifice which they offered. M. PER. biddeth us mark, that the Sacrifice then, was but a kind of service, because the Priest did not communicate. But why did not he mark, that they were therefore reprehended? as he well deserveth to be, for grounding his argument upon some simple Priests abuse or ignorance.  

Milevit. cap. 12.  Secondly he saith, That in an other Council, the name of Mass is put for a form of prayer. It hath pleased us, that prayer, suppliations, and Masses, which shall be allowed in the Council, be used.  
Answ. Very good: It is indeed that form of prayer, which the Catholic Church hath always used, set down in the Missals or mass-books; so that the Council by him alleged, doth allow of Mass, Priests and Sacrifice: But (saith he very profoundly) Masses be compounded; but the Sacrifice propitiatory of the body and blood of Christ, admitteth no composition. This is so deep and profound an observation of his, that I can scarce conjecture what he meaneth. The Mass (indeed) is a prayer composed of many parts; so (I ween) be all longer prayers: but in what sense can that be true, that the Sacrifice of Christ admitteth no composition? If he mean the passion of Christ on the Cross, it was a bundle of Myrrh and heap of sorrows, shames, and pains tied together, and laid upon the most innocent Lamb sweet JESUS: If he signify their lords supper, doth it not consist of divers parts, and hath it not many compositions in it? let the good man than explicate himself better, that one may guess at his meaning, and then he shall be answered more particularly. But Abbot Paschasius shall mend all (he should by his Title of Abbot seem rather likely to mar all) he saith, Because we sin daily, 
L. de corpore & sanguine Christi.  Christ is sacrificed for us mystically, and his passion is given us in mystery. Very good: in the mystery of the Mass, Christ is sacrificed for us; not as he was on the Cross bloodily, but in mystery (that is) under the forms of bread and wine: which may serve to answer all that he citeth out of Paschasius; specially considering, that in that whole treatise, and one or two other of the same Author, his principal butt and mark is, to prove the real presence and Sacrifice. In the first Chapter of the book cited by M. PER. he hath these words: Our Lord hath done all things in heaven and earth, as he will himself, 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 believed, that after consecration, there is nothing else, but the flesh and blood of Christ; which he also expressly proveth there at large. And in an other treatise of the same argument, he hath these, among many such like words. Christ, when he gave his Disciples bread and broke it, did not say, this is a figure of my body, nor in this mystery there is a certain virtue 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 was like to help M. PER. but a little? Thus at length we are come to the end of M. PER. reasons in favour of their cause, let us hear what he produceth for the Catholic party.  
The first argument: Christ was a Priest for ever, 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 up Sacrifice in forms of bread and wine at his last supper.  
And what Christ then did, that did he ordain to be done to the world's end, by the Apostles & their successors: therefore there is now in the true Church, a true and proper Sacrifice offered in our lords supper. To separate that which is certain 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 ever after: Also that Christ was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedecke; because both these have evident warrant in the written word. That than which is to be proved, is, that this order of Melchisedeckes Priesthood, doth properly or principally consist, in the form & manner of his sacrificing. We say yea, M. PER. saith, no; and proveth it out of S. Paul, who showing 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 Genealogy; finally, that he took 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 things doth any special order of Priesthood consist: what his own name or the name of his City doth signify, are accidental & incident things to Priesthood; to receive tithes and to bless, belong to Priesthood in deed, but generally to all sorts of Priesthood, as well to the order of Aaron as to that of Melchisedecke; and therefore cannot distinguish one order of Priesthood from another: Wherefore, it remaineth apparent that the proper order of Melchisedeckes Priesthood, must be gathered, not from any of those circumstances specified by the Apostle, but out of the very form and manner of sacrificing, which is (as it were) the correlative of a Priest, and his proper function; as the Apostle in the same Epistle defineth, 
Cap. 5. vers. 1.  where he saith: That every high Priest is appointed to offer Sacrifices for sins. Now, 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 between us, for they knew neither of us) be our arbitrators. Let us hear first that famous Martyr S. Cyprian, who upon those words: Thou art a Priest for ever according unto 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, than our Lord jesus 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 blood. The same he repeateth in his treatise of our lords supper, 
De coena Domini.  saying: That Sacraments signified by Melchisedecke, did then appear, when our high Priest brought forth bread and wine, and said: This is my body. Can any thing be more plain?  

Epist. 126 ad evag.  S. Hierome following the sentence of the most ancient Doctors, jereneus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Apollinaris, and Eustathius, defineth the order of Melchisedecke to consist properly in this, that he offered not bloody sacrifices of beasts, as Aaron did; but in single bread and wine, being a clean and pure Sacrifice, did prefigure and dedicate the Sacrament of Christ. The same doth he teach upon the twenty six Chapter of S. Mathewe.  
S. Augustine in divers passages of his most learned works, doth confirm the same most plainly: I will cite one. In the old Testament there was a Sacrifice after the order of Aaron: afterward Christ of his body and blood ordained a Sacrifice, according to the order of Melchisedecke.  
He that desireth to see more of this point, let him read Theodorete, Arnobius, 
Psal. 109. In cap. 7. & 10.  Cassiodorus, and all ancient commentaries upon that verse of the Psalm. Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Malchisedecke: and in like sort those who have written upon the Epistle to the Hebrews; and he shall find it, to be the general resolute opinion of all antiquity, that Christ in his last supper did institute the Sacrifice of his body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine, according to the order of Melchisedecke.  
But why then did not the Apostle (treating of this resemblance between Christ and Melchisedecke) make mention of this point of the Sacrifice? The reason is in readiness, because it was not convenient. First, it made not to his purpose, because he doth prove, that the order of Melchisedecke was more excellent than that of Aaron; which could not be proved by the Sacrifice of Melchisedecke in bread and wine, which were inferior unto beeves and Muttons, the sacrifices of Aaron. The second cause, was the weakness of those Hebrews faith, who were not then sufficiently instructed in Christ's own person, and in his Sacrifice on the Cross, and therefore incapable of his Sacraments, and other mysteries thereupon depending; which the Apostle himself forewarneth, saying: 
Hebr. 5. vers. 11.  Of Melchisedecke we have great speech and inexplicable, because you are become weak to hear. Therefore very absurdly do the Protestants argue here (ab authoritate negatiuè, as they speak in Schools) thus; The Apostle made no mention of this point of resemblance, therefore there is none such: whereas he himself told them before, that there were many profound points concerning Melchisedecke to be spoken off, which he omitted, because those jews were not (as yet) fit to hear them. And in truth, what could have been more out of season, then to have spoken to them of the Sacrifice of the Mass (which is but a lively resemblance of Christ's death) who were not then rightly informed of Christ's death itself? 
Epist. 126  He spoke (saith S. Hierome) to the jews and not to the faithful, to whom he might have been bold to utter the Sacrament. And thus much to this first evasion of M. PERKINS.  
Now 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 soldiers: and is called a Priest there, not in regard of any Sacrifice, but in consideration of his blessing of Abraham; as the words teach (saith he) And he was a Priest of the most high, and therefore he blessed him.  
Reply. He deserveth to be blessed with a cudgel, that dareth thus pervert the word of God. First, he addeth to the text this word therefore: again, where the point in the Hebrew text is at the end of this sentence, He was a Priest of the most high, he removeth it to the end of the next clause, joining that together which is separated in the text: Thirdly, the reason is frivolous, as M. PER. pointeth it. For it can be no good reason why Melchisedecke was a Priest, for that he blessed Abraham: for Abraham was a Priest as well as he; and often offered Sacrifice, as well as Melchisedecke did. Now it standeth well, to declare why Melchisedecke brought forth bread and wine, because he was a Priest that used to Sacrifice in that kind; and to honour and thank God for that victory, he either did then presently or before had sacrificed it; and as such sanctified food, made a present unto Abraham of it, who needed not, either for himself, or for his soldiers any victuals, because he returned loaden with the spoil of four Kings: wherefore, the bread and wine that he brought forth, was a Sacrifice and not common meat. And if further proof 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 add one more, out of that most ancient Patriarch Clement of Alexandria, 
L. 4. storm versus finem.  who saith: Melchisedecke King of Salem, Priest of the most high God, gave bread and wine being a sanctified food, in figure of the Eucharist.  
The Protestants feeling themselves, wonderfully pinched and wringed with this example of Melchisedecke, assay yet (to escape from it) a third way.  
For (saith M. PER.) be it granted, that Melchisedecke offered bread and wine, and that it was also a figure of the lords supper: yet should bread and wine, he absurd types of no bread nor wine, but of the bare forms of bread and wine.  
Reply. The thing prefigured must be more excellent than the figure, as the body surpasseth far the shadow: so, albeit the figure were but bread and wine; yet the thing prefigured, is the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, sacrificed in an unbloody manner, as bread and wine are sacrificed without sh●dding blood: and therein principally consisteth the resemblance. And thus much of our first argument. Now to the second.  
The Paschall lamb was first sacrificed up, by the Master of the family, and then afterward eaten as a Sacrament: but the Eucharist succeed in room of that, as the verity doth to the figure; therefore, it is first sacrificed before it be received.  
M. PER. first, denieth the Paschall lamb to have been sacrificed: but yieldeth no reason of his denial, and therefore might without any further ado be rejected. Yet foreseeing that we might easily prove it, to be sacrificed by express Scripture (for Christ saith to his Disciples: 
Mar. 14. vers. 12. Exod. 12. vers. 6.  Go and prepare a place to sacrifice the passover, or Paschall lamb: also in Exodus Ye shall sacrifice the lamb the fouretenth day of the month; and in many other places) to this hath he nought else 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 than one hundredth, it is taken otherways, and that properly. Why then should we not take it there, as it doth usually and properly signify, rather than improperly? not any reason doth he render for it at all: but because it made so plain against him, he must needs shift it off so well 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 deceived? then hath he no colour to say, that in any place it is taken otherwise. Surely, the reason that he allegeth for it, is very insufficient. For by jacobs' brethren invited to his feast, may be understood according to the Hebrew phrase, men of his own religion who might well come to his Sacrifice: wherefore, S. Paul calleth the Romans, Corinthians, and men of all nations (that were Christians) his brethren. But if the Paschall lamb were not properly sacrificed, how could S. Paul resemble Christ crucified, unto the Paschall Sacrificed? saying: 
1. Cor. 5. vers. 7. Dialog. cum Triph.  Our Paschall lamb Christ is sacrificed. Surely, that famous and ancient Martyr justine, who was best acquainted with the rites of that people (himself being bred and brought up among them) saith most plainly; That the kill of the Paschall lamb among the jews, was a solemn Sacrifice, and a figure of Christ.  
Wherefore, Master PERKINS provideth an other answer to our argument, and saith: That if it were granted, that the passover were both a Sacrifice and Sacrament: yet, would it make much against them. For they may say, that the supper of the Lord succeed it only in regard of the main end thereof, which is to increase our communion with Christ.  
What is this a God's blessing? if that be all the use of it, the lords supper may also be no Sacrament at all: for many other things besides Sacraments increase our communion with Christ. But to the purpose: our lords supper, and also the Paschall lamb were instituted, not only to increase our communion with Christ; but also to render thanks to God for benefits received: as their Paschall for their delivery out of the land of bondage; so our Eucharist, for our redemption from sin and hell: and therefore, as they are Sacraments to feed our souls; so are they true Sacrifices to give thanks to God for so high and singular benefits. And because I love not to leave my reader in matter of divinity, naked reasons without some authority; hear what S. Ambrose speaking of Priest's ministering the lords supper, saith: 
Lib. 1. in Lucam.  When we do offer Sacrifice, Christ is present, Christ is sacrificed: for Christ our passover is offered up.  
S. Leo is yet more plain, who speaking of the passover, saith: 
Serm. 7. de pass.  That shadows might give place to the body, and figures to the present verily; the old observance is taken away by the new Testament: one Sacrifice is turned to an other, and blood excludeth blood; and so the legal feast, whiles it is changed, is fulfilled. Mark how the Eucharist succeed the Paschall lamb; the Sacrifice of the Paschall being changed into the Sacrifice of Christ's body.  
Our third argument is selected out of these words of the Prophet Malachy. 
Cap. 1. vers. 11.  I will take no pleasure in you (saith the Lord of Hosts) and I will not receive a gift from your hands: for from the East unto the West, great is my name among the Gentiles, and in every place a clean oblation is sacrificed to my name. Hence we infer, that after the reprobation of the jews, and calling of the Gentiles (that is in the state of the new Testament) a clean Sacrifice shall be offered unto God of the Gentiles, being made Christians; as witnesseth the spirit of God in the holy Prophet: ergo. it cannot be denied of Christians.  
M. PERKINS answereth, That by that clean Sacrifice is to be understood the spiritual Sacrifice of prayers: because that the Apostle exhorting us to pray for all states, hath these words; Lifting up pure hands.  
What good Sir, are clean hands and a clean Sacrifice all one with you? a worshipful exposition. This man conferreth places of Scripture very handsomely together, and would no doubt, writ a fair Commentary upon the text, if he were let alone: but yet, tell me (I pray you) by the way, how Christians can lift up such pure hands, and offer so clean a Sacrifice, if all their best works be defiled with sin, and no cleaner than a filthy menstruous clout as you do teach? But to confute him directly; our Lord speaketh there to the Priests of the old law, and rebuketh them sharply, for their fault committed in their Sacrifices offered to him: and therefore foretelleth them, that he will reject all their Sacrifices, and accept of an other clean Sacrifice among the Gentiles. Now as Sacrifice in the former part of his speech is taken most properly, as no man can deny: so must it be in the latter; or else, there were a great equivocation in that sentence, and no plain opposition of Sacrifice, to Sacrifice; clean, to polluted. And if he had reprehended the jews for their unpure prayers, than had it been correspondent to have said, that he would have received clean prayers of others, in am of them: but inveighing against Priests and sacrifices, the very order and proportion of the sentence necessarily requireth, that for those evil Priests, and polluted sacrifices, he would establish good Priests, and clean sacrifices, according unto the proper signification of the words. Again, God is not so extremely bend against the jews now, but that he would receive the spiritual Sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving, even from them, if they do offer it; but he speaketh there of a kind of Sacrifice that he will not receive from their hands: therefore, that Sacrifice cannot be understood, to be any such spiritual thing; but a true & proper kind of Sacrifice. And justine Martyr (whom M. PER. citeth) is so far off from saying, supplications and thanksgiving to be the only perfect Sacrifices that Christians have, that in the very same Dialogue, he apply this prophesy of Malachi, unto the Sacrifice of the Mass, saying: That even then, Malachi the Prophet did speak of our Sacrifices which are offered up in all places, to wit: of the bread and Chalice of the Eucharist; which his equal Ireneus (cited also by M. PER.) doth more amply deliver in these words. Christ took bread, and gave thanks, 
L. 4. cont. Haeres. cap. 32.  saying: This is my body, and that in the Chalice be confessed to be his blood; which the Church receiving from the Apostles, doth offer to God through the whole world, as the first fruits of his gifts; of which Malachi, one of the twelve Prophets, did prophesy thus: I take no pleasure in you, etc. citing the place all at large. It is to be noted, that in the Hebrew text and Greek translation, there is in the text of Malachi before a clean Sacrifice, this word incense: Incense is offered to my name, and a clean Sacrifice; the which the ancient Interpreters do expound of prayer, and make it a distinct thing from the Sacrifice, there also distinctly put. 
Orat. cont. jud. ca 9  S. Augustine doth prove out of this place of Malachy, that the Levitical Sacrifices should all cease: and further, that though all their Sacrifices ceased; yet, there should still remain a true Sacrifice, to be offered by the Christians to the true God of Israel, and biddeth them open their eyes and see it. And in an other place specifieth, what that Sacrifice is, 
Li. 18. de civit. c. 35 Li. 1. cont. Aduersar. legis & Prophet. cap. 20. Lib. 4. de fide c. 14.  saying: Now we see this Sacrifice by the Priesthood of Christ, after the order of Melchisedecke to be offered: and again, They know who read, what Melchisedecke brought forth, when he blessed Abraham (to wit) bread & wine, and they are partakers of it, and do see such a Sacrifice to be offered now to God, throughout the whole world. Theodoret upon that place of Malachy doth expressly teach, that according to his prophesy, There is now offered the immaculate Lamb, in am of all their Sacrifices. And S. john Damascene speaking of the blessed Sacrament, saith: This is that pure and unbloody Sacrifice, that our Lord by his Prophet did foretell, to be offered from the rising of the sun unto the setting.  
Thus much of the three first arguments, which M. PER. propounded in our favour out of the old Testament: but he hath skipped over other three which we have in the new, of which I must needs stand upon one, because it is the ground of all the rest, the other two I am content to omit for brevities sake: it is taken out of the words of consecration, and as our fourth argument may be framed thus.  
Christ at his last supper did properly sacrifice unto God, his own body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine: but what Christ then and there did, the same is to be done in the Church by his ordinance, until the worlds end: ergo. There is and always must be, a proper Sacrifice in the true Church. They do deny, that Christ offered any such Sacrifice in his last supper: we prove it thus, 
Luc. 22.  by his own words. For he saith, That his body which he gave them to eat, was even then given for them to God: & that his blood was then presently shed for remission of their sins. But to offer his body and blood to God, by such a sacred action, and under such visible creatures to be there eaten, is properly to Sacrifice, ergo. Christ at his last supper did properly offer Sacrifice. They answer, that albeit it be said in the present tense, then given and shed: yet the meaning is, that it should be given only the morrow after, on the Cross; the present tense being put for the future: & further add, that in the Canon of the Mass, the verb is put in the future tense.  
We reply, that men may not at their pleasure change tenses; or else the jews might defend, that our Messias were not yet borne: and if we prove 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 fly unto 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 Mass book, effundetur. God help the poor men, that loving the Mass no better, are driven yet from the plain text of holy Scripture, to fly to the Mass-book for secure: but it will not serve their turn, because both are true, and agree well together. For Christ's blood under the form of wine, was presently sacrificed and shed at his last supper; and the same in his own form, was to be shed the morrow after on the Cross: and again, under the form of wine also, was to be shed in the same Sacrament unto the worlds end; so that truly & properly both may be said it is shed, and it shall be shed: and a good Interpreter of Scripture may not to delude the one, fly to the other, but defend both, because both be the words of the holy Ghost. And the Greek text in S. Luke doth invincibly confirm, that the words are to be taken in the present tense. For it hath; that the blood as in the Chalice, 
Luc. 22. vers. 20.  is powered out: Toúto tò potérion tò eckynómenon; This Chalice is powered out: it cannot therefore, be referred unto that pouring out, which was to be made upon the Cross the day following, but to that that was powered in and out of the Chalice then presently. This might also be confirmed, by the blood which was sprinkled to confirm the old Testament; unto which it seemeth that our Saviour did allude, in this consecration of the Chalice. 
Exod. 24. vers. 8.  For Moses said: This is the blood of the Testament; and our Saviour: 
* Hebr. 9 vers. 20.  This is the blood of the new Testament. But that blood which dedicated the old Testament, was first sacrificed to God: such therefore, was the blood of the new Testament. And to make the matter more clear, let us hear how the best and most judicious Fathers (who received the right understanding of the Scriptures, from the Apostles and their Scholars) do take these words 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 have heard already out of S. Ireneus, That Christ taught at his last supper, the new Sacrifice of the new 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 blood, according unto the order of Melchisedecke, that is: under the forms of bread and wine: I add unto them S. chrysostom, who saith; In steed of the slaughter of beasts, Christ hath commanded us to offer up himself. And again: Whether Peter or Paul, or an other Priest of meaner merit, do offer the holy Sacrifice, it is the same which Christ gave to his Disciples, the which all Priests now a days do make; and this hath nothing less than that had. S. Gregory Nissene, Christ being both a Priest and the Lamb of God; offered himself a Sacrifice and Host for us. When was this done? Even then, when to his Disciples he gave his body to eat, and his blood to drink. Isichius: First, 
Lib. 2. in Levi. c. 8.  our Lord supped with his Apostles upon the figurative Lamb, and afterward offered his own Sacrifice. All these and many other of the most ancient Fathers, could find a proper and real Sacrifice in Christ's supper. To omit S. Gregory's authority, and all other his inferiors for this last thousand years, whom the Protestants acknowledge, unholy to have believed and taught the Sacrifice of the Mass. See Kemnitius in exam. Concilij Trid. page 826. & 827.  
I omit some other good arguments, made for us out of the new Testament, to return unto M. PERKINS, who proposeth this as the fourth reason for our party out of S. Paul. We have an Altar, 
Hebr. 13. vers. 10.  whereof they may not eat, who serve in the Tabernacle. Now say they, If we Christians have an Altar, then must we consequently have Priests, and a proper kind of Sacrifice: for these are correlatives, and do necessarily depend and follow one the other. M. PERKINS answereth, That the Altar there is to be taken not literally, but spiritually for Christ himself.  
Reply. Observe first, how the Protestants are forced to fly from the plain text of Scripture, and native signification of the words, unto a figurative & that without either reason or authority: secondly, I wish that M. P. would go through with his paraphrase upon the whole sentence; and if by the Altar he understand Christ, then by eating of it, he will surely expound believing in Christ, now like a pretty Scholar that hath learned to read, let him put it all together, & say; That we Christians have a Christ, in whom the jews may not believe: which is flat contradictory to that which the Apostle in that Epistle goeth about to persuade. 
* Lib. 6. in Levi. c. 21  Isichius an ancient and worthy Author, in express terms doth expound these words, of the Altar of Christ's body, which the jews for their incredulity were not worthy to behold; much less to be partakers of it: and therefore the Apostle, to move the jews the rather to become Christians, signifieth: that so long as they serve in the tabernacle and continue jews, they deprive themselves of that great benefit, which they might have, by receiving the blessed Sacrament. Now the words following in the text, which M. PER. citeth to interpret this sentence, belong nothing to it; but contain another reason to induce the jews to receive Christ for their Messias, drawn for a circumstance of their Sacrifices, thus: as the bodies of their Sacrifices, were burn without the Camp; so Christ suffered without the gate and city of Jerusalem; and therefore, Christ was the truth prefigured by their Sacrifices. It hath also an exhortation to departed out of the society of the jews, and to forego all the preferment and glory they might enjoy among them, & to be content to suffer with Christ all contumelies. Briefly, there is not one word in the sentence before, to prove the Altar to be taken for Christ, but for a material Altar, upon which the Christian Priests, and offer the body and blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament; which may be confirmed by that passage of the same Apostle: 
1. Cor. 10 vers. 21.  You cannot drink the cup of our Lord, and the cup of Devils; you cannot be partakers of our lords table and the table of Devils: where a comparison is made between our Sacrifice and table, and the Sacrifice and table of Idols; showing first, that he who communicateth with the one of them, cannot be partaker of the other; and then, that he who drinketh of the blood of the Sacrifice, is partaker of the Sacrifice. Now, 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 cleanly, who saith: That they who drink of Christ's cup, are partakers of his Sacrifice on the Cross, but not of any Sacrifice there present. For S. Paul's comparison is taken from the cup of a Sacrifice, to Idols immediately before offered; so that it doth convince, our Chalice to be the cup of a Sacrifice, then presently immolated and offered up.  
The fift objection with M. PER. (which is our sixth argument) is this. Where alteration is both of law and covenant, there must needs be a new Priest and a new Sacrifice; 
Hebr. 7. vers. 12.  which is grounded upon S. Paul's words, who saith: That the Priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation of the law be made: but in the new Testament, there is alteration of both law and covenant; therefore there are both new Priests and a new Sacrifice. M. PER. answereth, that all may be granted, That there are both new Priests and a new Sacrifice: Marry, no other Priest, but Christ himself both God and man, who as man is the Sacrifice, and as God the Altar.  
Reply. Who ever heard such a proper piece of divinity? is the Godhead in Christ the Altar, upon which he offereth? then is it not only inferior unto God the Father, to whom the Sacrifice is offered: but the Godhead in Christ is inferior to his manhood, as the Altar is inferior unto the Sacrifice and Priest. Again, the manhood in Christ being separated from the Godhead, it not a Sacrifice of infinite value; and consequently, not sufficient to satisfy for all the sins of the world: so that nothing could be answered more absurdly. But his meaning (perhaps) was, That Christ sacrificing himself on the Cross, remaineth a Priest for ever, and is the only Priest of the new Testament, in his own person; and that by his only Sacrifice on the Cross, and by no other.  
Reply. Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, is common aswell unto all the faithful, that lived before his days, even from the beginning of the world: as unto all that lived since; as effectual and present unto the one, as unto the other: 
Apoc. 13. vers. 8.  and therefore is he said to be the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, so that notwithstanding this answer, the reason remaineth in his full force and virtue, that besides that Sacrifice on the Cross, which is common to all; we must needs have both new and true Priests and Sacrifice, because we have a new law and covenant: for Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, is no more actually present unto us, than it was unto the jews, and all that were before him. And as touching the effect and benefit of that his Sacrifice, it was imparted and communicated, aswell unto old Father Abraham, as unto any that lived, or doth live in the state of the new Testament; and consequently, the Sacrifice on the Cross, is not that peculiar Sacrifice, which goeth jointly with the new Testament. Which argument may be confirmed by this, that there was never any law or religion in antiquity, without their proper Priests, and without a true and real Sacrifice: whereupon it followeth, that the very natural light of man's understanding doth teach us, that God is always to be worshipped with Sacrifice. Neither proceedeth this nut of the natural corruption of men, (as Kemnitius is not ashamed to say:) but from the due consideration of man's bounden duty towards God. For the holiest and best informed men in the law of nature, as Abel, No, Melchisedecke, Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, did often & most devoutly offer up Sacrifices unto God: and in the law of Moses, God himself prescribed unto his people of Israel, divers and sundry kinds of Sacrifices; so that it cannot but be a very impudent assertion to say, that to Sacrifice unto God, issued out of the corruption of man's nature. And further, the very nature and end of a Sacrifice doth convince, that it is to be offered unto God in all states and times. For what is a Sacrifice, but the most sovereign honour, that man can externally exhibit unto the Almighty? by not only using, but consuming some thing of price, to protest God to be the omnipotent Author of all things, and we his creatures: receiving and holding our lives, and all our goods (of both soul and body) of him. And if any ask me, whether it be not sufficient to do this in heart inwardly, and outwardly to profess it in words? I answer, that it is not; but ●●●●ust besides thoughts and words, by actual deeds express the same. And the act of sacrificing, by the consent of the best learned of all Nations, hath been and is approved and declared, for the only outward act of divine honour proper unto the Deity. Saint Augustine teacheth, 
Li. 2. cont. Faustum. cap. 21. & de civitat. Dei. lib. 8. cap. 27. & l. 22. c. 10. & alibi.  that the erecting of Altars; the consecrating of Priests, and offering of Sacrifice, be things properly belonging unto God; and that Christians (in deed) in memory of their Martyrs, did these things: but yet, they did them only unto God; and that the Pagan's themselves, did not honour any dead or alive 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 less religious, then ever were any people, being destitute of the principal and chiefest part of true religion. And is it credible, that God should among us only (whom he hath chosen to serve him most excellently) want the sovereign point of his divine honour? surely no: wherefore, this our doctrine of a true Sacrifice to be daily offered to God, is so far from ●asing the foundation of religion to the bottom (as M. PER. writeth) as it upholdeth the principal pillar of religion: and they in denying of it, do (as it were) strike of the head of Christian religion. And who is of so mean wit, that seethe not their silly shift and last refuge of Christ's Sacrifice on the cross, to be but the last words that men foiled could vse● for very reason convinceth, that there must be a real Sacrifice daily offered by four selected persons, whereat the rest of Christians must be assembled, and meet to do their fealty and homage, unto the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth; that God be not defrauded of that his supreme service. Now it is most manifest, that Christ's Sacrifice on the cross, was to be done but once, and being now past, can be no such ordinary ●●arbs of calling Christians together to perform any such duty: wherefore, cannot be that daily Sacrifice which we Christians are to offer. But the unbloody oblation of his body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine, is the most excellent Sacrifice (after that on the Cross) that ever was; as containing the self same Host in substance, and being a most lively representation of his death and passion: and therefore, by Christ's own institution it was established, as fittest for the perfect state of the new Testament; and ordained, that it alone should be in steed of all other Sacrifices, as hath before been proved by the testimony of the Fathers. I will here add one place or two out of S. Augustine, who saith: 
L. 17. Civit. c. 20.  The Priest, who is the mediator of the new Testament, doth exhibit to us a table of his own body and blood, after the order of Melchisedecke. For that Sacrifice doth succeed all other Sacrifices of the old Testament. Wherefore, it is said in the person of our mediator. Thou wouldst not Sacrifice and oblation, but thou hast perfected for me a body: Because that in am of all those Sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and ministered unto all communicants. And in his Commentaries upon those words of the Psalm: 
Psal. 39  Thou wouldst not Sacrifice and oblation, etc. What (saith he) are we therefore at this time without a Sacrifice? God forbid. But thou hast made for me a body: which was given in performance of all the other. 
Cap. 9  And in his oration against the jews after he had proved against them, out of the Prophet Malachy, that all their Sacrifices should cease, he adjoineth: But yet do you not think, 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 read more authorities, for the confirmation of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and how it is not annulled, but established by Christ's only Sacrifice on the Cross, let him read S. Ambrose, S. chrysostom, Primasius, Theophilact, Oecumenius, and other ancient Commentaries upon the eleventh verse of the tenth to the Hebrews: who there do move and resolve this difficulty; how notwithstanding the sufficiency of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, we Christians do offer 〈◊〉 daily Sacrifice.  
For the judgement of the ancient Church, I need not to make a distinct argument, because I have already in all the other reasons, plentifully alleged it. And might here if need were, produce whole Masses, formally penned and delivered to posterity, by some of the most reverend, holy, and learned Fathers: as that of Saint john Chrisostomes', S. Basils', and S. Ambrose, of which no more question can be made, then of the rest of their works; albeit Master PERKINS without any reason rejecteth them: to omit the liturgy of Saint Clement, and of Saint james the Apostle, because they are called in question. Yet, to finish and make up the Chapter, I will for a work of supererogation, cite some plain sentences of the choicest Antiquity, to prove the Sacrifice of the Mass to be very available, not only for the living; but also for the souls of the faithful departed.  

* Quaest 2 ad dulcit. & in Enchirid. ca 109.  Saint Augustine in two places of his works, hath these words: It is not to be denied, but that the souls of the departed, are relieved by the devotion of their friends alive; when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered, or a●●es is given for them. And a little after: When the Sacrifice of the Altar is offered, or alms is given for the souls of the baptized departed: for the very good souls, they are thanksgiving: for them that died 〈◊〉 very evil, they are means to obtain mercy: for others that died in very evil estate, though they be no helps to them so dead; yet are they consolation unto the living.  

Catech. 5. Mystag.  S. Cyril Patriarch of Jerusalem teacheth thus: We do believe, that the intercession of the holy and dreadful Sacrifice, which is set upon the Altar, doth much relieve their souls for whom it is offered.  

Lib. 2. Epist 8.  S. Ambrose, comforting Faustinus for the death of his sister, saith: I think her not to be so much lamented, as to be prayed for; nor her soul to be grieved with thy tears, but rather to be recommended to God by Sacrifices.  

Hom. 69. ad populum  S. chrysostom: I● 〈◊〉 not unadvisedly ordained by the Apostles, that is the dreadful mysteries, there should be made a commemoration of the dead. For they did kno●e, 〈◊〉 thereby the souls received much profit, and great commodity.  

L. 4. vitae Constant. cap. 71. Lib. 1. Epist. 9  Eusebius Caesar. recordeth: That Constantine the great being buried, his soul did enjoy (according to his own desire, when he was alive) the divine ceremonies, the mystical Sacrifice, and the society of holy prayers.  
S. Cyprian reporteth, An holy decree ●o have been made by the religious Bishops his Predecessors; that whosoever dying, made a Clerk the Guardian and tutor of his children, should in punishment thereof, be deprived of the benefit of the Sacrifice; so as no oblation should be made for him, nor Sacrifice celebrated at his death. By which he giveth us to understand, that for the souls of others well departed, Sacrifice was accustomed to be offered.  
To be short, it was defined and declared by the Catholic Church in her prime-time, that it was an heresy to deny, that Sacrifice was to be offered for the dead: as Epiphanias doth testify in Anacephalaeos●. S. Augustine ad Quod-v●lt-deum, haeresi 53. Damascene de centam haeresibus. So that nothing can be more certain, both by the express word of God, and by the record of the purest antiquity, then that there hath always been in the Catholic Church, a true and proper Sacrifice, and that the same hath been day he offered, aswell for the souls in Purgatory, as for the living.  
Thus much of the Sacrifice of the Mass.    

OF FASTING.  

OUR CONSENTS.  
M. PERKINS Page 221.  
Our consent may be set down in three conclusions. First, we do not condemn fasting, but maintain three sorts of it, to wit: a moral, a civil, and a religious fast. A moral fast is a practice of sobriety or temperance. When as in the use of meats and drinks, the appetite is restrained, that it do not exceed moderation: and this must be used of all Christians, in the whole course of their lives. A civil fast is, when upon some politic consideration men abstain from certain meats: as in our common weal, the law enjoineth us to abstain from flesh at certain seasons of the year, for these special ends; to preserve the breed of cattle, and to maintain the calling of fishermen.  
Observe by the way, that if he mean the fast of Lent (as it is most likely by his words) he is foully deceived in the special ends of it; which are not those worldly respects by him mentioned, but principally others more spiritual and heavenly, to wit: First, the punishment of our own flesh, for the faults committed in overmuch eating the whole year before; as 
* Serm. 4. de Quadr. Idem ser, 10  S. Leo testifieth: secondly, the preparation of our mind, to meditate more deeply of our lords death and resurrection: thirdly, to 
a S. Hier. in 3. cap. jonae.  dispose and make us more worthy to receive the blessed Sacrament, which every Christian is bound to receive about Easter. Briefly, to omit divers other causes, we fast the Lent to 
b Ignatius ad Philip. Basil. orat. 1. de jejunio. Nazianz orat. in sanct. lava. Hieron. in c. 58. Esai. Chrisost. hom. 1. in Genes. Aug. epist. 119. c. 15. Ambros. serm. 37.  imitate (as near as our frailty doth permit) our sovereign Lord and Master, who fasted forty days: so that to reduce the fast of Lent unto a civil fast, principally; is to prefer earthly respects before heavenly. We deny not, but that many times spiritual exercises, do bring with them temporal commodities; but those are incident and accidentary unto them, not the special causes of them: and in Countries far distant from the Sea, where are no such fishermen, the Lent is observed as duly as in our Island, environed with the Sea.  
Now to the third kind of fasting, maintained by M. PER., but seldom 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 amiss, to put this for one of the points of our agreement: for we esteem fasting itself (when it is done, to appease God's wrath, and to honour him in our humiliation) to be an essential part of God's worship; which the Protestants deny, and say: that fasting is only termed religious, because during the time of it, by prayers and preaching, and such like, they worship God: but so the very time, and place itself may be termed also religious, and many other such odd things; because they do also concur with acts of religion.  
Let us come to his second conclusion, to wit: We join with them in allowance of the principal and right ends of a religious fast, and they are three. The first, that thereby the mind may become attentive in meditation of the duties of Godliness, to be by us performed. The second, that the rebellion of the flesh may be subdued: for the flesh pampered, becometh an instrument of licentiousness. The third, and (if he mistake not) the chiefest end of a religious fast, is; to profess our guiltiness, and to testify our humiliation before God for our sins: and for this end in the fasts of the Ninivites, the very beasts were made to abstain. Hitherto Master PERKINS.  
We besides the three aforesaid ends, add divers others: as to punish & chastise our flesh for former offences, which is an act of justice: to obey the Church's commandment, which is a religious obedience; and at this time it may be an act of professing the Catholic faith, when we observe set fastings, to make profession of our faith: and to fast, thereby to imitate and please our head Christ jesus, is an act of perfect charity.  
But let us return unto M. PERKINS third conclusion, which is: We yield unto them, that fasting is a help and furtherance unto the worship of God: yea, and a good work also (if it be used in good manner) allowed of God, and to be highly esteemed of all the servants of God.  
All this is good: but whereas he saith that fasting in itself, is a thing indifferent; he abuseth the name of fasting, taking it to signify all manner of abstinence from meat and drink: and so (in deed) it is in itself indifferent, & may be either good or bad, as if one should abstain from food to pine himself away. But fasting being properly taken, signifieth an abstinence from meat, according unto some set rule of the Catholic Church, the better to please and serve God: and so it is of itself, an act of the true worship of God.   

THE DIFEERENCE.  
MAster PERKINS: Our dissent from the Church of Rome in the doctrine of fasting, standeth in three points: First, about the set time of fasting: Secondly, about the manner of abstinence, and what meat is to be eaten on fasting days: Thirdly, about the virtue and value of fasting. Concerning the first. The Catholics 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 Governors of the Church, may sometimes upon certain occasions, enjoin a religious fast. Our reasons be these. First, when the disciples of john 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 mourn, as long as the Bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the Bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast: where he giveth them to understand, 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 enjoined, than 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 formal for him and fit for his purpose; that they do much more prove the clean 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 infer thereupon, and that expressly out of that text; That when the Bridegroom is taken from us, then is the time of mourning: but that hath been ever since Christ's Ascension to heaven; for than was Christ our Bridegroom taken from us: therefore, ever since Christ's Ascension, there was always or aught to have been, a set time of fasting in the Church. And this reason, 
De jejunio  did the ancient Christians with Tertullian yield, of their yearly fasting of Lent. With whom S. Augustine agreeth, saying: Now therefore, 
Serm. 157 de Temp.  because the Bridegroom is taken away from us, we the children of that beautiful Bridegroom, must mourn; and that for good cause, if we ardently desire to be in his company: so that the same place, which M. PERKINS allegeth against a set time of fasting, doth (taken even in the very sense that he taketh it) demonstrate the flat contrary. He further citeth out of antiquity two testimonies, which make as evidently against himself. The first out of S. Augustine, who hath these words: I diligently considering thereof, 
Epist. 86.  in the evangelical and Apostolical letters, and in all that instrument which is called the new Testament, do see; that fasting is commanded: but on what days we ought not to fast, and on what we ought, I do not find it determined by the commandment 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 elsewhere, showeth himself to have no conscience: for in the very same Epistle S. Augustine teacheth, that all the Church fasted at that time, every Wednesday and Friday through the year: and admitteth S. Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, to have been the founders of that set and ordinary fast. And in his Epistle he giveth the reason, 
119. c. 15. L. 30. cont. Faust. c. 3.  why we fast forty days before Easter: and again he saith, That the fast of Lent was by the consent of all men, observed over all the world, every year most diligently. What (therefore) could be further from this most circumspect and judicious Doctor's mind, then to think or teach, that there was no certain time of fasting to be observed? true it is, that he found not expressly in holy Scripture, this certain time defined. And note that repeating the same words again towards the end of the said epistle, he addeth thereto these two words, to wit: in those Scriptures (which be properly so called) he did not find it evidently defined, what days we are to fast. Which word evidently, he addeth (as I take it) because that else where he saith, 
Epist. 119 cap. 15. Serm. 64. de temp.  that the forty days fast of Lent, hath authority at out of the old law, so out of the Gospel; because our Lord fasted so many days, and by his example consecrated it, as he saith: so that finally, we find with S. Augustine M. PER. first witness, some days every week of set fasting, and once in the year a solemn set fast of forty days together.  

Cont. Psychicos.  M. PERKINS other Author is Tertullian, in his book against sensual men; wherein he is so far opposite to M. PER. opinion, that he runneth into the other extremity. The Protestants would have no set time of fasting, not so much as one Lent: Tertullian pleading for the Montanists would have three Lents every year; and a far stricter kind of fasting, than the Catholic Church commandeth. But the goodman (perhaps) mistaking his Author, would have said; that Catholics (as Tertullian reporteth) did argue against his error, and said: that it was a new doctrine which he taught; and that true Christians were at their liberty, and not bound to receive such new inventions of Montanus about fasting, though he vaunted, that he had that doctrine from the holy Ghost. But in this point we must not hearken unto Tertullian a Patron of that error: nor believe his reports of the Catholics arguments against him, which he (after the fashion of Heretics) doth frame, and propose odiously.  

Li. 5. hist. cap. 17.  But Eusebius saith, that Montanus was the first, that made laws of fasting.  
See the place (gentle reader) either in the Greek or Latin text, except that of Basil; and thou shalt find there these only words cited out of Apollonius: That Montanus made new laws of fasting, not that he was the first that made any laws of fasting; but was noted as an Heretic for making new laws of fasting. Whence it plainly followeth, that there were other old laws of fasting before his time, which contented not his humour, but taking pride in his own invention (as all Heretics do) he was not satisfied with one Lent, but would have three Lents every year: and upon every fasting day, commanded all his adherents to touch nothing, until the Sun were set; and then they should eat neither flesh nor fish, nor ought else hot or moist; but cold, dry, and hard things. For which his over rigorous and stern kind of fasting, invented by himself and obstinately defended, he was condemned for an Heretic; and his new precepts of fasting rejected by the ancient Christians: and this may serve for a confutation of M. PERKINS reasons for their party. Now I will briefly confirm ours, which he setteth down by manner of objections. First, 
Levit. 16. vers. 28.  in the old Testament there were prescribed and set fasts, approved by God, which M. PER. confesseth, to have been part of the legal worship, and saith: That God commanded those then, but now hath left us to our liberty.  
Reply. God having commanded fasting as a part of his worship then, (as M. PER. confesseth) it being no judicial or ceremonial part of the law, but moral, and appertaining to the mastering of every man's own unbridled concupiscence; he did sufficiently teach all considerate men, that it was always to be used for part of his worship; for that always men should stand in need of it, they being always subject to the same rebellion of their flesh. And though we be freed from all unclean meats of the law, and from the jews set times of fasting: yet, the band of fasting remaineth, because the reason of it is still in force; and we are subject to the Pastors of the Church, and bound to obey them, for the time and manner of our fasting.  
Our second argument. The Governors of the Synagogue had full power and authority to prescribe set times of fasting, and all the people of God were bound to obey them therein, as appeareth in the Prophet Zachary, who maketh mention of the fasts of the fourth, fift, 
Cap. 7. vers. 5. & Cap. 8. vers. 19  eight and ninth Months; which were not commanded by the law, but afterward enjoined by the rulers of the Church. Now then, if the Pastors of that Synagogue had such authority, much more have the Prelates of the church now since Christ's time, who hath endued them with much more ample authority, than the jews had before Christ. M. PER. answereth, that those fasts mentioned in Zachary, were appointed upon occasions of the affliction of the Church in Babylon, and ceased upon their deliverance.  
Reply. The Prophet in the same place hath plainly prevented this answer: for he saith, That they then in the beginning of that captivity, 
Cap. 7. Cap. 8.  had already fasted scutcheon years: and addeth, That they should continue those fasts, until the Gentiles should join with them in faith, which was for four hundredth years after. Add hereunto, a fast & feast appointed at the instance of the most virtuous Queen Hester and good Mardocheus, 
Hest. 9 vers. 31.  to be always afterward observed by the Israelites, in remembrance of their preservation.  
The third argument. Although in the new Testament, there be no evident 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 now it was not safe sailing, because the fast now was past. True it is, that some do expound this of the jews set fast in the month of September; but that exposition is not so probable: for after that time of the year (especially in those hot countries) it is very safe sailing; and therefore, it cannot so well be understood of that season. Again S. Luke wrote the acts of the Apostles, rather for the Gentiles then for the jews, he being a companion of the Doctor of the Gentiles: and therefore it is more probable, that he describeth the set fast of the Christian Gentiles, which was in the month of December, now called ember days, when ordinarily Priests and other ecclesiastical persons were consecrated; as may be seem in the Pontifical of Pope Damasus, who lived one thousand two hundredth years past. And this season of the year, agreeth well with the text: for about, and after that time, it is perilous sailing, the seas and winds growing big and tempestuous.  

Epist. 86.  The fourth argument, out of S. Augustine before alleged. The Apostles instituted wensdayes and fridays to be fasted every week; the which Epiphanius also confirmeth: 
Haeres. 75  and it is touched in the 68 Canon of the Apostles; so that it is an Apostolical ordinance to fast every week. Besides, the fast of forty days before Easter called Lent to be an Apostolical Tradition, 
Epist. 54. ad Marcel. serm. 6. de Quadrag.  S. Hierome, and S. Leo, do in express terms declare: and mention is made of it in the Council of Nice, and in S. Ignatius, the Apostles disciple. Finally, Aërius the Heretic unto the Arrians heresy, addeth this error (as witnesseth 
* Ad Quod vult. haeres. 53.  S. Augustine) that prescribed & set fasts, were not to solemnly observed, but that every one should fast when he would himself, lest we should seem to be under the law. Behold M.P. very opinion plainly condemned for heresy, 1200. years ago: yea, before that time almost 100 years, it was recorded for an heresy, by that Godly and learned Bishop 
a Haeres. 75.  Epiphanius.  
Before I end this point I may not forget M.P. own objection against himself, that (forsooth) some reformed Churches of the Protestants (who cannot err in his opinion) observe set days of fasting. He granteth that they do so indeed, but not upon necessity & for conscience sake, but for politic regards: whereas the Church of Rome holdeth it to be sin, to defer the set time of fasting, till the next day.  
Reply. This answer, first employeth a notable error, that Protestants are not bound in conscience to obey their civil Magistrates laws, which S. Paul expressly condemneth, 
Rom. 13. vers. 5.  saying: Therefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake: Wherefore, the civil Magistrates commanding a set fast, the Protestants must of necessity and for conscience sake observe it; or else, they commit the sin of disobedience at the least. But besides this absurdity, there is an other no less, contained in this answer: For I do ask whether the Protestants law of set fasting be good and allowable or no? If good (as M. P. granteth) than Christians surely are bound to keep it; because they are bound to obey their Governors in good matters: and consequently, their liberty of eating may be abridged by their Superiors laws, by their own confession: wherefore, they must either condemn their own Magistrates laws for nought worth; or else, whether they will or will not, allow of ours. And that excuse of the diversity of ends, is not to purpose. For if the Magistrates may for a civil respect, restrain our liberty: much more may they do it for a religious; which is of a higher nature, and more forcible to bind 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 cometh to the greatest, to wit: with the permission to drink water, wine, 
judic. 20. vers. 26. & 2. Samuel. 1. vers. 12.  or electuaries upon fasting days; & with the eating of one meal, at, or about noontide: which he disproveth first, because it is contrary to the practice of the old Testament.  
To which we answer: first, that there is no mention made at all, of drinking wine or water, or of not drinking: wherefore, to that part, it is altogether impertinent. And to speak a word by the way, of drinking of wine upon fasting days; it was wholly forbidden in the East Church, where the countries being exceeding hot, water alone might be drunken without danger of health. In other countries somewhat colder, which have no other drink but wine and water, as it is in Spain, Italy, and in that climate where Navarra lived: there, wine is premitted on fasting days, & used in the winter season specially; but yet, well tempered with water. But in England and in other like places, where we have beer: there to drink much wine on fasting days, is not tolerable. Touching the other point, of taking the meal about noontide, I grant that the Israelites, in the two places cited by M. PER. did fast till evening: but we are not bound to conform ourselves to that their fasting. First, because it was an extraordinary fast, and so being but once used, might easier be borne for one day. Secondly, men's bodies were in those days stronger, & better able to bear out a long fast, than they are at these: and therefore, our discreet & dear Mother the Catholic Church, condescending unto the infirmity of her tender children, doth not exact more than they are well able to perform, without danger of health. And therefore, albeit in the primitive Church generally, when men were stronger both in spirit and body, the law & custom was to fast, until three of the clock in the afternoon: notwithstanding, in these later days, when men are grown weaker; the Church doth not exact any more of us, then to fast until noon, though she like those better, who (being well able) do fast longer. Now to the main point of difference of meats.  
The Catholics (saith Master PERKINS) allow only white-meate on their fasting days (yea, they allow not so much neither in Lent, but only fish) and that of necessity and for conscience sake.  
True. All Catholics hold themselves bound in conscience, to obey the laws of their Superiors in these cases, if they be able; if not, to ask leave of their Pastors, to eat that which will serve their turn. But (saith M. PER. out of the presumption of his own wisdom) we hold this distinction of meats to be both foolish and wicked.  
Good words Sir (I pray you) for (be it spoken without your disparagement) far wiser and better men than yourself, have been and are of an other opinion. But he will prove his assertion so mightily, that no man shall be able to gainsay it. Let us hear him.  
First, it is foolish (saith he) because in such meats as they prescribe, there is as much filling and delight, as in flesh: namely in fish, fruits, and wine.  
How proveth he this? Neither by reason, nor yet by any authority of either fool or physician: and therefore we must needs take him for an odd wiseman, that so lightly upon his own fantasy only, durst condemn the constant opinion of all Christians of many hundredth years for foolish and wicked. But, pleaseth it you to understand (good Sir) that, although there were no difference in the meats; yet, the commandment of our Pastors (being to refrain from the one, and not from the other) were sufficient to make a distinction of meats, and to bind us to abstain from them, without any touch of folly. For what difference for delight or filling, was there between the forbidden fruit of Paradise and other fruits? Yet, because contrary to commandment, our first parents Adam and Eve did eat thereof, they became both foolish & wicked: therefore, it is no foolish part to observe a distinction of meats, when it is so appointed by our Governors.  
To confute him more fully, let us hear what reason our Pastors had to prescribe such a distinction of meat, fasting being specially instituted to bridle and subdue the unlawful desires of the flesh, it was most meet that we should refrain from eating of flesh on fasting days; because that the eating of flesh, doth more nourish and pamper up our flesh, than the eating of fish. For flesh, both in itself is more nourishing, as being of a more warm substance and fuller of juice, than fish: and again, it is more like unto our substance, and so more apt to feed it; and consequently, to make it (like a well fed horse) more proud and ready to resist reason: and therefore, our Prelates had great cause to forbid eating of flesh, when they would have us to tame our flesh by fasting. If some dainty fish be more agreeable unto some appetites, than some kind of gross meat; that is not material: For in comparisons if they be equal, the best of the one must be compared with the best of the other, and not the worst of one sort, with the best of the other. Now, overmuch filling of our bellies with meat, as over charging of our heads with drink, and hunting after dainty cares; are, by the very light of nature condemned, and so there needed no new inhibition against them: but the only thing that remained indifferent, was the distinction of meats; wherein the wisdom of the Church hath greatly showed herself: which, to make our fast more agreeable unto the proper end of it (that is to tame the flesh) hath enjoined us to abstain from flesh. And this was observed and collected out of the practice of her most wise, holy, and Godly children. For the Prophet Daniel when he did fast very devoutly, abstained, as from all dainties; 
Cap. 10. vers. 3.  so from flesh and wine. S. john Baptist (the perfect pattern of mortification of fleshly concupiscence) did never eat any flesh: but wild honey, 
Mat. 3, 4. Orat. de Amor. pauper.  and locusts were his food. S. Peter (as that worthy Doctor Nazianzene reporteth) did commonly eat but a certain kind of pulse. S. Mathewe eat no flesh, but herbs, fruit, and roots; as 
* L. 2. Paedag. ca 2.  Clemens Patriarch of Alexandria hath registered. S. james (as 
a L. 2. hist. cap. 22.  Eusebius rehearseth) never eat flesh, nor drank wine: the like he relateth out of Philo in the same book, 
b Cap. 17.  of those most blessed Christians of Alexandria, governed by S. Mark the Evangelist. A man may find very many like examples in antiquity: but that precisely upon fasting days in Lent, we must abstain from flesh, these Doctors by name do teach: 
c Orat. 2. de jejun.  S. Basil, 
d Hom. 6. in Genesi.  S. chrysostom, 
e Catech. 4  Cyril Hierom. 
f L. 30. cont. Faust. c. 3.  S. Augustine, 
g L. 2. cont. iovinianum.  S. Hierome. These most Godly and most judicious Fathers, and (with all) best acquainted with the managing of spiritual affairs, are (I hope) rather to be harkened unto, in the matter of distinction of meats, and to be esteemed more expert therein, than 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 proceed.  
You have hitherto heard how faintly M. PERKINS hath proved this distinction of meats to be foolish: now you shall see, how he doth demonstrate it to be wicked. It (saith he) taketh away the liberty of Christians, by which unto the pure, all things are pure: and the Apostle biddeth us to stand fast in this liberty, which the Church of Rome would th●s abolish. 
Galat. 5.   
Answer. The Roman Church taught long before, and much better than you; that no meats are unclean unto Christians, either of their own natures, or for any signification as they were in the old Testament: and above one thousand and two hundred years past, condemned the Encratites (Tatianus disciples) the Manichees, and Priscillianists for teaching flesh, wine, and many other meats, to be unclean: but the same Church doth also command, that upon some certain days, when we are to humble ourselves in prayer, and to afflict our bodies by fasting; that then we must abstain from the more delightful and nourishing food: as flesh, eggs, and white-meate, and be content with one meal of fish. This commandment of our Governors, doth not make the meat unclean in itself: but unlawful for us to eat 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 Superior; for God only hath reserved unto himself that power, of forbidding to eat meats: so that without his own express inhibition, Christians cannot be deprived of any kind of meat.  
Behold an audacious assertion, without any ground: For albeit we Christians be exempted from all unclean meats of Moses' law; yet, are we subject to the order of our Governors, for the manner of fasting; as hath been proved before. Neither hath God so kep● in his own hands, the disposition of his creatures; but that he hath permitted others, to make divers sorts of meats unlawful for Christians to eat: as it is most manifest by the first Council holden by the Apostles. 
Act. 15. vers. 29.  For they had full power to command and enjoin all Christians, to abstain from all meats offered to Idols, from all strangled things, and from blood. How plainly then, doth it repugn unto the express word of God, to aver tha● God only can forbid Christians any kind of meat? Neither be these precisely the Apostles words: 
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 observation of Moses' law. The Apostle doth blame the Galathians for yielding unto the observation of it, & biddeth them to fly from it, and stand in the liberty of other Christians, who were freed from the yoke of Moses' law; but not from obedience to their Christian Pastors. How absurd then was it to allege that against Christian fasting, which doth nothing at all concern it?  
Now to the other place of the Apostle which M. PERKINS toucheth by the way, 
1 Tim. 4. Cont. Adimantum. cap. 14.  to wit: That certain departing from the faith, and attending unto the spirit of error, shall teach to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving. To this Saint Augustine hath answered directly twelve hundredth years ago: for having rehearsed those the Apostles words, he saith: He doth not describe and note them, who, do abstain from such meats, either to bridle their own concupiscence, or not to give offence▪ unto the weakness of others: but them that do think the flesh in itself to be unclean, and deny God to be Creator of such meats. Such were the Manichees (as Saint Augustine witnesseth) saying to Faustus a ringleader among them: 
Lib. 30. cap. 5.  You deny the creature of God to be good, and say it is unclean, because the Devil doth make flesh of a more dreggy and base matter of evil, etc. So doth Saint Hierome in his second book against jovinian, 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, which the Apostle giveth in the text, convinceth those words to be only meant of such as should condemn the meat in itself to be unclean, For it followeth in the text; For every creature of God is good, etc. wherefore, touching this place I will conclude with these words of Saint Augustine: 
L. 30. cont. Faustum. cap. 3.  If Lent be observed of yourselves without flesh, and that not superstitiously, but according unto the law of God; see (I beseech you) whether it be not a point of extreme madness, to think every abstinence from meat to be called of S. Paul, the doctrine of Devils.  
But Socrates (a Christian historiographer) saith, 
Li. 5. hist. cap. 21.  That the Apostles left it free to every one, to use what kind of meats they would on fasting days.  
What if Socrates say so that was an Heretic, and nothing so well studied in antiquity, as was S. Hierome, who had read all Authors, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, that were to be had in his time? He affirmeth expressly, 
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 divine law, to fast from flesh in the Lent. And divers and many other ancient Fathers, the least of whom is of twenty times more credit than the Novatian Heretic Socrates: who also in the very same place (if his book be not corrupted) showeth himself very ignorant in the fast of the Romans. For he there saith, 
Lib. 5. cap. 21.  That they fasted but three weeks before Easter; and in those three weeks also, excepted the saturdays: both which are very false. For Leo the great, who lived at the same time, and was Bishop of Rome, and therefore knew the fasts of Rome better than he, teacheth very formally; 
Serm. 3. de Quadr. Epist. 86.  That they fasted then six whole weeks before Easter. Furthermore, that they fasted all the year long at Rome on saturdays, S. Augustine is a most sufficient witness; so far were they at Rome, from excepting to fast on Saturday in Lent, as Socrates fableth. Yea, Gregory the great who lived not long after Socrates, doth testify; 
Li. 3. Dialog. c. 33.  that at Rome all even unto little children, do fast upon Saturday, Easter-eve.  
But Spiridion a very holy man in Lent dressed swines-flesh, and set it before a stranger; eating himself, and bidding the stranger also to eat: 
Hist. Trip. li. 1. c. 10.  who refusing and professing himself to be a Christian; therefore (saith he) the rather must thou do it▪ for to the pure all things are pure, as the word of God reaches us.  
Answ. In time of sickness or extreme necessity, it is lawful (with the consent and licence specially of our Pastor) to eat flesh, either in Lent, or upon any other fasting day: as all men skilful in cases of conscience, do teach, 
De obser. jejunij. cap. Consilium.  being thereunto warranted by the Canon law. This was the case of that stranger with Spiridion, who had not so much as one morsel of bread in his house, or any other thing, saving some swines-flesh powdered up; as the text doth plainly testify: and therefore he seeing the poor travailer very weary after his journey, commanded some of that salted pork 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 eat of it, because it was against the custom of Christians: both which circumstances do evidently convince, that no flesh was to be eaten in that time of Lent, had not very necessity with the leave of such a godly Bishop as Spiridion was, made it lawful: so that this story, so often alleged by the Protestants against abstinence from flesh on fasting days; doth much rather confirm such abstinence, then make any thing against it, all circumstances of it duly considered.  
Before I come unto the third point of difference, I will briefly run over three objections, 
jerem. 35.  which M. PER. here maketh for us. The first: jonadab commanded the Recharbites to abstain from wine which they obeyed, and are much commended for it by God: much more (therefore) ought we to obey our Superiors commanding abstinence from some kind of meats. He answereth, that this commandment was not given by jonadab in way of religion, but for politic regards.  
Reply. This he saith only but proveth it not. But suppose it were so, it would not serve his turn: for if he were obeyed for a civil respect, much rather ought he to have been obeyed for an ecclesiastical and religious.  

Dun. 10. vers. 3.  The second objection. Daniel, three weeks together abstained from flesh, and his example is our warrant. M. PER. answereth: that Daniel abstained freely; but the Popish abstinence from flesh standeth by commandment.  
Reply. daniel's fast was of his own devotion, and consequently his abstinence from flesh, free: but our ordinary fasts are by commandment, and therefore by obedience we are bound to abstain from flesh. Now, we use the example of Daniel, not to prove that we are bound to fast; but that on fasting days we should forego the eating of flesh, as he did.  
But M. PER. addeth: If we imitate Daniel in refraining from flesh, why do we not imitate him also in abstaining from dainties and ointments.  
Answer: They do better that imitate him in one good point though they do not in all; then they that follow him in none at all. Besides, all curious dainties are forbidden, not only on fasting days, but at all times, both by the light of nature, and by our learned Pastors: but because that may be dainty to one, which is but ordinary and meet for another (their complexion and education considered) a certain order could not be set for all sorts of people, touching dainty meats: wherefore, they are left unto the rule of reason for that point, and to the instruction of their Pastors. Now we confess with Molanus, that in ancient times, men were much more fervent in fasting then they be now a-dayes, because the charity of many is grown cold: but yet (God be thanked) there be many religious persons and also others among us, that do an hundredth times more devoutly fast, than the Protestants use to do; who making the liberty of Christians, the occasion of fleshly licentiousness, have among their followers (wholly in manner) ruinated and rooted out all austerity of life, and Ecclesiastical discipline.  
Thirdly (saith M. PER.) they allege the diet of john Baptist, 
Math. 3. 1. Tim. 5. vers. 23.  whose meat was locusts and wild honey: and of Timothy who abstained from wine. Answer. That abstinence which they used was only for temperance sake, and not for conscience or merit: let them prove the contrary if they can.  
Reply. Valiantly spoken: but why did he not prove his assertion? what was it, because he could not? the contrary is very easy to be proved. For if that diet of S. john Baptist was only for temperance, than (belike) if he had eaten meat as other men did, he had been intemperate, and sinned in gluttony: which if it be absurd to think, more absurd is it to say; that his continual abstinence, wa● only for temperance sake.  
Now to the third and last part of our difference. Catholics make abstinence itself, in persons fitly prepared; to be a part of the worshipping of God: but we take it to be a thing indifferent in itself: but yet well used, to be a prop or furtherance to the worship of God.  
It grieveth me to see the doubling and deceit, that this Minister many times useth. Do Catholics make fasting of itself, without his right end and all due circumstances, a part of God's worship? if he say so (as his words lead a man to believe) he belieth us shamefully. For we hold that no work, be it never so good in itself; 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 we esteem fasting duly performed, to be a part of God's worship, and to appease wrath towards us, to satisfy for the temporal punishment of our sins; and finally to be meritorious: which I will in a word confirm here, referring him that desireth to see more, unto the several Questions before handled, of Satisfaction, and Merits.  
First, that God is thereby worshipped, 
Luc. 2.37  it it set down plainly in holy Scripture. Aurae by fasting and prayers, served (or worshipped) God, as the Greek word Latreuósa signifieth. 
Rom. 12. vers. 1.  Again, exhibit your bodies (by fasting as the best Expositors declare) a living Host (or Sacrifice) holy, and pleasing God. And the reason is manifest: for when we for his sake, do afflict our bodies, both to master the evil passions of it, and that our mind may more freely and fervently meditate upon God, it cannot but be a grateful service unto him.  
Secondly, that we by fasting and humbling of ourselves before God, and punishing our bodies there-by, for our former faults do appease, and pacify the wrath of God, may be proved by many examples of the old Testament; but these two may serve the turn, which M. PERKINS toucheth. The first of the Ninivites, upon whom God took mercy at the contemplation of their fasting, and other works of penance: so saith the text; And God saw their works, 
jonae 3. vers. 10.  etc. And had mercy upon them: and therefore, we condemn M. PERKINS extravagant gloss of Orleans (as they say) which corrupteth so much the text; That the Ninivites (forsooth) laid hold on God's mercy in Christ by faith. For that the Ninivites (being Gentiles) had ever heard of Christ, or knew the mystery of his mediation, Master PERKINS will never be able to prove.  
The second example is of King Achab, who being threatened with great punishment according to his deserts, fearing the just judgements of God, did fast and do great penance: Whereupon, God delayed his punishment. And M. PERKINS doth greatly overshoote himself, in affirming that this his repentance was but hypocrisy; when God himself doth say to Elias: 
3. Reg. 21. vers. 29.  Hast thou not seen Achab humbled before me? Therefore, because he hath humbled himself for my sake, I will not bring evil upon his house in his days, but in the days of his Son. God saith that Achab was humbled for Gods own sake: and M. PERKINS blusheth not to correct him, and give him (as it were) the lie, saying; that it was but in hypocrisy: no marvel if this man be bold with God his Church, that feareth not to control God himself. 
Serm. de Laps. joel. 2.  S. Cyprian testifieth plainly, that by fasting we assuage and mitigate God's anger, saying: Let us appease his wrath (as he himself admonisheth us) by fasting, weeping, and lament.  
The third fruit of fasting is, to satisfy for the temporal punishment due unto our sins, after the remission of the eternal: which very reason persuadeth, that they who have offended God, by taking unlawful pleasures of the flesh, should by suffering some bodily chastisement, recompense for their former faults. 
Lib. de je●●nio.  For as saith Tertullian: Even as fast the use of meat did vndo● us: so fasting may satisfy God: which might be confirmed by the example of King David, and many others. But M. PER. crieth out and saith: It is blasphemy to hold, that any other means should be applied to satisfy for sin, besides Christ's passion. To this I have answered at large in the question of satisfaction: here I say in a word, that all mortal sin, and the eternal punishment due unto sinners therefore, is freely through Christ remitted to every repentant sinner; but there remaineth after that remission, other temporal pain to be endured by the party himself, as well to make him conformable to Christ his head, as in punishment of his ungrateful fall, after he was once freely and fully pardoned.  
Fourthly, fasting is very meritorious in God's sight, as Christ saith expressly, when commanding us to fast (not upon vain glory as the Pharasees did, but to please his heavenly Father) he addeth the reward: 
Math. 6. vers. 18. Dan. 10▪ vers. 12.  And thy Father who seethe thee in secret, will repay thee.  
And to Daniel the Angel saith: Because from the first day that thou gavest thy heart to understand, thou didst afflict thee in my sight (which was by fasting) thy words were heard, and I came for thy speeches sake.  
S. Paul (that chosen vessel of election) doth chastise his body (which was specially by fasting, 
1. Cor. 9 vers. 27.  as S. chrysostom and the other Interpreters do take it) & brought it under into bondage, lest whiles he preached to others, he himself 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 few words out of S. Basil. 
Homil. 1. de jejunio.  Moses' durst not have ascended into the mountain, unless he had been fenced with fasting: by fasting he received the Commandments, written in a table by the Finger of God. A little after: Fasting leadeth us to God, feasting to destruction. Samuel was by fasting and prayer obtained of God. What made the most valiant Samson invincible? was it not fasting? through which he was conceived in his mother's womb: fasting conceived him, fasting nourished him, and fasting made him strong. Fasting breedeth Prophets, it strengtheneth the mighty, it maketh lawe-makers prudent and wise: beside, it chaseth away temptations, and armeth a man to Godliness; it sanctifieth the Nazarite, perfecteth the Priest. Neither is it lawful to touch the Sacrifice without fasting, not only in this our mystical 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 forty days fast purged his soul, he saw God, as farforth as it is lawful 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 own will: behold, you fast to strife and contention, etc. For their fast is not prescribed by public authority of the state, but out of their own private Preachers fancy; and their exercises therefore the greater part, are invectives and railings against the Pope and Papists, and (perhaps) against the state also: to whom that worthy saying of S. Augustine may be applied. 
De utilit. jejunij. cap. 5.  Dost thou duly tame thy own members or body, who tearest the members of Christ? And whereas in such time of common calamity, devout men were want in sackcloth to humble themselves before God: they meet (I warrant you) clothed in their best, and that trimmed up curiously; so that they fast to strife, and to fulfil their own fancy.  
Finally (it seemeth) they fast certain hours the longer, that they may afterward with better appetite, feed upon a large and dainty banquet, which is always lightly provided, at the end of their holy exercises of speaking. Such fasters S. Augustine noteth with a blacke-cole, when he saith: 
●n psal. 44.  Fasting is not commended in him, who reserveth his belly for a full supper; as they, who when they have fasted till three a clock after noon, do then or shortly after, fall with better appetite, to a full meal of the best meat that they can provide.  
Thus much of fasting. Now to the state of perfection.    

OF THE STATE OF PERFECTION.  
M. PERKINS Page 232.  
BEcause M. PERKINS here doth not deal uprightly, but under the title of our consents, putteth down their own doctrine, far dissenting from ours, I will first out of him, deliver their opinion touching the perfection of man, and then declare ours; that we may with more perspicuity perceive the difference.  
He in his first conclusion granteth, That all true believers have a state of true perfection in this life. Which perfection (saith he) consisteth in two parts: The former is, the imputation of Christ's perfect obedience unto us; The latter is, a certain sincerity and uprightness, standing in two things: The first, is to acknowledge our own imperfection; The second, to have a constant purpose, endeavour, and care to keep not some few, but all and every Commandment of the law of God. And this endeavour is a fruit of perfection, in that it proceedeth from the regenerate: For, as all men through Adam's fall, have in them by nature the seeds of all sin, the sin against the holy Ghost not excepted: so by grace of regeneration through Christ, all the faithful have in them likewise, the seeds of all virtues necessary to salvation: and thereupon, they both can and do endeavour to yield perfect obedience unto God, according unto the whole law; and so they may be termed perfect, as a child is called a perfect man: who though he want the perfection of age, stature, and reason; yet, he hath every part and faculty both of body and soul, that is required to a perfect man.  
Hitherto M. PRR. In whose discourse of perfection, I find many imperfections. For to omit the imputative part of man's perfection (which I have disproved in the question of justification.) How can it well hang together, that one and the same point of man's perfection (to wit: an endeavour to keep all God's commandments) is both an essential part of it; and yet but a fruit issuing out of it▪ as M. PER. maketh it in express terms, and that within the compass of few lines. For if this good andeavour, be but a fruit of perfection, proceeding from a man regenerate, as he saith in the later place: the surely the man regenerate was perfect before he had that fruit; and so can it not be any substantial part of perfection, as he before appointed it. Further, if he mean that the inward and inherent perfection of the regenerate, doth wholly consist in the seeds of virtue; either he taketh the seeds very improperly for the corn, and perfect virtues themselves: or else, he leaveth his perfect man (as the Heathen Philosophers did a babe newly borne) like unto a razed pair of tables, altogether imperfect; having nothing written in them, but an aptness only and capacity to receive much, if it be by diligent endeavour afterward filled. But it is much to be wondered at, that he is become so exact a censor, as to require in his imperfect perfect man, A constant purpose; endeavour, and care to keep not some few, but all and every Commandment of the law of God. 
In his 4. reason.  Hath he not often before; yea, doth he not in this very question take it for certain, that no regenerate man can fulfil the law? which if it were true, how can any have a constant purpose to keep it? For (as both Philosophers and divines do teach in school, and very reason informeth every one of mean understanding at home) no man well in his wits, can have a full purpose and determination to do that, which he knoweth to be impossible for him to do. Who ever endeavoured to leap over mountains? or had a special care to build Churches, not knowing any possible means to effect them? M. PERKINS then was very evil advised to counsel his regenerate man, to have a constant purpose to endeavour, and care to keep that, which he teacheth to be impossible for him to fulfil and accomplish. Now to the doctrine of the Catholics.  
We teach first, that a man baptized and in the state of grace, hath in him not the seeds only of all virtues both moral and divine, necessary for his sanctification, but the virtues themselves, infused and powered in his soul, by the bountiful hand of God, through the merits of Christ jesus our redeemer, without any desert of ours: whereby man is made able with the assistance of God's grace, to overcome his own evil passions, and to fulfil all God's Commandments. And this kind of perfection we hold, to be freely bestowed upon every Christian at his first justification, of which I have treated at large in that question. A second kind of perfection there is, which consisteth in the perfect and complete subduing of all such disordinate affections; such a complete mortification of them I do understand, as the frailty of our nature doth permit in this life, unto which the best men (after long exercise of all kind of virtue) do attain. Of neither of these two states of perfection do we here entreat: but the present controversy is about a third kind of perfection, which is (as it were) placed between the other two, more perfect than the first, and not so perfect as the last: but it is a more speedy and ready way to the later, and consisteth in the observation of some su●h extraordinary works, that be not commanded of God, as necessary to salvation; but commended, as things of more excellency, and left unto our free choice whether we will undertake them or no. For example, God forbiddeth us to commit adultery: but he doth not command us to profess virginity, and to live always a single life; the which yet he recommendeth, and exhorteth us to embrace, saying: 
Math. 19 vers. 12. Ibidem. vers. 21.  There be some that make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven; adding, He that can take it, let him take it: so he forbiddeth to steal; but counseleth only to sell all we have, and to give it to the poor and to follow him. Out of which and the like places of holy Scriptures we gather; that there be divers blessed good works, which are not commanded by any precept; yet, counseled and persuaded as things of greater perfection, which are also called works of supererogation, by a name taken from these words: 
Lucae 10. vers. 35.  Quicquid supererogaveris, where the good Samaritane told the Innkeeper, that whatsoever he should lay out, over and beside that which he had given him, should be repaid him at his return. These works of perfection, and supererogation, the Protestants may not abide, in show (forsooth) of profound humility, because all that we can do, is nothing in respect of that which we ought to do: but (in deed) upon envy and malice towards religious men and women; the lustre and fame of whose singular virtue, doth mightily obscure and disgrace their fleshly and base conversation, who commonly pass not the vulgar sort in any other thing, but in tongue and habit.  
M. PERKINS in his second conclusion, alloweth only unto our Saviour Christ, works of supererogation, because he alone fulfilled the law: wherefore (saith he) his death was more than the law could require at his hands being innocent.  
But if I lifted to take advantages as he offereth them, I could tell him, that although the law could exact nothing at Christ's hands, he being God and above the law; yet, all that ever Christ did was commanded him by his Father: and therefore by a certain uncertain rule of M. PER. (to wit, That no work commanded: can be a work of supererogation) he could not do any work of supererogation, being bound to do all he did, by commandment of his heavenly Father, whom he was bound to obey.  
But to come to the point of our difference: we hold that there be many works of perfection, unto which no man is bound; nevertheless whosoever shall perform any of them, they shall have a greater crown of glory in heaven for their reward. M. PER. goeth about to disprove it, by proving that no man can fulfil the law of God in this life, much less do works of supererogation. I say that he taketh not a direct course to improve our position. For albeit a man could not fulfil that law; yet, may he do many of those works of perfection: for a man may lead a chaste life; & yet sometime in a passion fall out with his neighbour, and hurt him in word or deed, or swear, and so offend in choler: for this sometime happeneth; and then the works of perfection not commanded, being done by such a one, may the sooner purchase him pardon, and be great helps to him, towards the fulfilling of the law: wherefore, Master PERKINS erreth in the very foundation of his proofs; notwithstanding we will hear his arguments, because they serve to fortify an other odd sconce or bulwark of their heresy, to wit: That it is impossible to keep God's Commandments. The first, he propoundeth in this sort.  
In the moral law two things are commanded: first, the love of God and man; secondly, the manner of this love. Now the manner of loving of God, is to love him with all our heart and strength: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, 
Lucae 10. vers. 27.  with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy thoughts, etc. As Bernard said: The measure of loving God, is to love him without measure; and that is, to love him with the greatest perfection of love, that can befall a creature. Hence it followeth, that in loving God, no man can posssibly do more than the law requireth: and therefore, the performance of all vows and of all other duties, come to short of the intention and scope of the law.  
Answer. To love God with all our heart, and strength, etc. may be understood in two sorts. The first is to love him so entirely, that we love no other thing with him, in any such degree, as may not well stand with his love: and also that in God's service (when his honour shall so require) we are ready to employ our whole strength, heart, and life; and in this sense every good Christian doth love God, with all his heart, and may do (besides his bounden duty therein) many other good works: because the precept being affirmative, doth not bind for all times; but only now and then, when occasion so requireth. Secondly, the words may be taken to signify, that we should always (with all the powers of both body and mind, and that at the uttermost strain) love, honour, and serve God: and so taken, it is fulfilled in heaven, but cannot be performed on earth by any mortal creature, with ordinary grace; because we must sleep and eat sometimes, and do many other things beside, though not contrary to the same love. In the first sense we are commanded to love God with all our heart, etc. And in the second, it is no commandment, but only a mark for us to aim and level at; but no man under sin is bound to attain unto it.  
To that of S. Bernard I answer, that to love God as much as he is to be loved, is to love him infinitely, which none can do, but only God himself. If he mean that we must love God without measure: then he is to be understood, that in the love of God, there be not (as in the matter of other virtues) two extremities; too little and too much: only there may be too little, but there cannot be too much; yet, there is a certain measure or degree, to which every one is bound to attain: whither, if he have gotten, he loveth God with all his heart, as before hath been declared. Now beyond that degree, the perfecter sort of Christians do mount, and so much the more, by how much they do proceed in that perfection: yet, in this life they can never attain to love God, so fervently and so perfectly, but that they may always increase and love him more and more; & so there is not a prefixed meere-stone, or limit of loving God: in which sense only, we may truly say; that God is to be loved without measure: but that is (as I said before) rather a mark that we should shoot at, and the end of a commandment, than a thing commanded.  
M. PERKINS second reason. The compass of the law is large and comprehendeth commandments, not only negative but also affirmative, and in the negative be not only forbidden the capital sins, as murder, adultery, theft: but all sins of the same kind, with all their occasions, etc. And in the affirmative are commanded not only the contrary virtues, but all helps and means, whereby the said virtues may be preserved: thus doth our Saviour himself (saith he) expound the law. Upon which ground her concludeth, that all duties pertaining to life and manners; come within the list of some moral commandment.  
Answer. The Commandments are but ten, and the exposition which our Saviour made, 
Math. 5. & 6.  contained with in the compass of two Chapters, as he confesseth: wherefore, it is not a thing either impossible or very difficult, to learn and observe them, with all their necessary branches and clauses. Now to say, That all duties of life appertain unto them, is both false, and not to the purpose: for first, it is most evident, that the whole matter of the Sacraments, and whatsoever else is proper unto us Christians by the doctrine of the Gospel, and not common unto us with the jews, is over and above the ten Commandments. I said also, that the answer is impertinent: for it proceedeth only in duties of life, and we treat here of such points of perfection, which no man in duty is pressed unto; but only may follow of devotion, for his advancement in virtue and God's favour. The other reasons following I have answered in my former part, yet because some will be unwilling to be so often referred unto another volume, I will here again briefly answer them.  
M. PERKINS third reason. 
Lucae 17.  When we have done all those things that are commanded us, we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to do.  
Can any man tell to what purpose this sentence is cited here? Is it to prove that we cannot keep the Commandments? but it supposeth the flat contrary, to wit: that the unprofitable servant had done all those things, that were commanded him; for he must say as it is in the text, When he hath done that which was commanded, etc. Or it is to disprove works of supererogation and counsel; but it hath not one word of them, but speaketh only of works commanded, which S. Ambrose noted 1200. years past, saying: This doth not the Virgin say, 
De viduis.  this doth not he say who sold all (to wit, we are unprofitable servants:) but looking for a reward, they say with S. Peter, Lord we have left all, what therefore wilt thou give us? etc. 
Math. 19   
But M. PERKINS will confute S. Ambrose: for he saith, That things commanded in that they be commanded, are more excellent than things left at liberty.  
What is this to the matter? doth Christ speak of counsels left to our liberty in that text, because commandments be more excellent? what a senseless reply is this? Of like stuff is his other shift, That counsels are thought more hard than commandments: and therefore, if a man cannot profit himself by observing the easier, much less by observing the harder. First, this is clean besides the purpose; than it is also false. For no men commonly can profit themselves so much by things easy to be done, as by some other things hard to be done: for the more excellent that things are, so much the more difficult are they to be compassed and done, according to the Latin Adage: Quo difficilius eo pulchrius.  
M. PERKINS saith: Papists answer secondly, that although 've unprofitable to God: yet we are profitable to ourselves.  
Reply. This is reported to the halves: for we say, that to God in himself, no profit can arise from us, who needeth none of our goods or service; but in the Ministry of his Church, he hath great service and honour done him, by the industry and diligence of good men: and therefore doth S. Paul say expressly: 
2. Tim. 2. vers. 21.  That men cleansed from sins, become profitable servants unto our Lord, which is venerable Bedes exposition upon this passage of S. Luke.  

Vers. 9  But Master PERKINS saith, That they are neither profitable to God, nor to themselves: because the Master there doth not so much as thank that servant.  
Reply. Masters in deed do not commonly thank their servants, when they have done their duties: but yet, they pay them their wages, and give them preferments also, if they like their service; and so the servant reapeth commodity and profit by his service; though he be not thanked at his Master's hands. But we serve so kind a Master, that will before his Father and all the company of heaven, thank his servants, and say unto them: 
Math. 24. vers. 23.  Well far thee, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many, enter into the joy of thy Lord. A third answer Papists may make unto Master PERKINS, and tell him, that he hath desperately corrupted the text, and omitted a word, which altereth the whole sentence. Christ saith not; When you have done all that is commanded, you are unprofitable servants: but, then say, that you are unprofitable servants. That is: have you then an humble opinion of yourselves, and think rather upon your own imperfection, then of your welldoing; and if you find all well, thank him that gave you the grace to perform it, and confess that you have done but your duty: and leave it to your good neighbour, to praise you if he please; and to God to recompense you: so doth S. chrysostom interpret this place. But Master PERKINS to prevent this answer, thought it policy to strike that word out of the text. O worthy cutter of God's word!  
His fourth reason is: That it is not in the power of man to keep the law: much less is he able to do any work that is beyond and above the law.  
Answer. The antecedent and consequent are both false: that we be able with the help of God's grace, to keep the law, is proved in a whole question of the first part. 
Page 78.  That we may do some works of supererogation (albeit we failed in some works of the law) hath been proved in the beginning of this question. For though one work of counsel be harder to do, than one work of the law; yet, is it of more difficulty to keep thirty precepts of the law, than three counsels: and again, a man may be more diligent in observing counsels, than commandments, and so observe them better.  
Now to the arguments for the Catholic party. The first is taken out of the Prophet Esay: Our Lord saith unto eunuchs that keep his Sabbaoth, 
Cap. 56. vers. 4.  and choose the thing that pleaseth him, etc. He will give them a place and a name, better than to the Sons and Daughters, an everlasting name that shall not perish.  
Hence we thus reason. Unto eunuchs that choose the thing which pleaseth God (that is, make choice of a single and chaste life) God will give more grace in this world, and more glory in the next, 
De Virg. cap. 25. 1. Cor. 7.  as Saint Augustine also expoundeth it. Now, no man is bound by the law to profess virginity, as Saint Paul declareth: wherefore, the observation of virginity is of counsel and supererogation, very pleasing to God if it be performed: yet, not commanded. Master PERKINS answereth: That to such eunuchs a greater reward is promised, not for profession of their chastity, but because they observed the Lords Sabbaoth, and kept his covenant, which is (saith he) to believe the word of God, and to obey his Commandments.  
Reply. This cannot be said: for unto those eunuchs, A greater reward is promised then unto other Sons and Daughters, that is: then to others of the faithful. Now that greater must be due unto them for some thing in them, which was not to be found in other of the faithful; But to believe the word of God, and to obey his Commandments, is a thing common unto all that are to be saved: therefore, it followeth necessarily, that for their chastity wherein they excelled others, they are preferred before others; which is confirmed by that place, where it is said: 
Apoc. 14.  That they that are Virgins (because they were Virgins) do sing a song, that no man else can sing: See S. Augustine cap. 29. de Virg. and in the Chapter of vows in the former part, where this argument is more largely proved.  
The second argument: our Saviour Christ saith, 
Math. 19 vers. 12.  That there are some who have made themselves chaste, for the Kingdom of Heaven; and biddeth them that can take that course of life, to take it: therefore, the vow of single life is warrantable by the word of God, and hath a special promise of glory in heaven, and yet is not commanded: whence it evidently followeth, that there are works of counsel, over and beside the Commandments of God, left to the free choice of men. Master PERKINS answereth: That some having the gift of continency, do lead a single life, that they may with more liberty and less distraction, f●●●her the good state of the Church of God, or the kingdom of grace in themselves, and others: this (saith he) is all that can be gathered out of this place.  
Not all, but so much as out of which, the rest necessarily followeth, to wit: that by profession of chastity, as they do more benefit the Church of God; so consequently do they more please God; and deserve of him a greater reward: and that chastity being only counseled and not enjoined by precept, it is a work of supererogation and perfection.  

Math. 19 vers. 21.  The third argument: Christ saith unto a young man: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have a treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. Hereupon we infer, that he who forsaketh all to follow Christ, shall have a treasure (that is) a greater measure of glory in heaven; and yet, that this is not commanded any man, but commended to them, as being a work of greater perfection: If thou wilt be perfect, etc. go sell all. etc. M. PEE. answer is, that Christ to discover to this man the secret corruption of his own heart, commanded him to go sell all: and so this is a commandment of trial, not common to all, but special to him only; as the sacrificing of Abraham's son was only to Abraham, and not to be drawn for an example to others.  
Reply. First, Christ's words do show manifestly, that this was no absolute commandment; not so much as to that young man, To sell all: but conditional, if he aspired unto greater perfection, than the keeping of the commandments. 
Ibidem.  For he was first bid to keep the commandments, if he would have life everlasting, and he answering that he had so done from his youth, 
Marc. 10. vers. 21.  and desirous to know what was yet wanting unto him: then jesus looking on him, loved him, as it is expressly set down in the text; so far off was he from misliking or taxing of him: and after said, That if he would be perfect, he should go and sell all; so that M. PER. idle paraphrase, is flat against the text. Again, as Christ speech in the beginning to that young man (If thou wilt have life, keep the commandements:) is to be extended unto all others, who if they keep Gods Commandments, shall be saved as well as that young man: so these his later must be common unto all, that tend to perfection. Moreover, this exposition is confirmed by the question of S. Peter following in the same Chapter; Lord (behold) we have forsaken all (we have done that which thou diddest counsel unto that young man) what reward shall we therefore have: which argueth, that Christ did not only exhort that young man to forsake all; but that whosoever should so do, to follow Christ, should be highly rewarded for it: and that (as Christ himself there promiseth) He shall therefore receive an hundred fold, and life everlasting. 
Cap. 4. vers. 37.  Finally, the practice of the best Christians recorded in the Acts; Who sold all, and laid the price of it, at the Apostles feet; and the Commentaries of the Doctors, do most manifestly confute this miserable shift of the Protestants: for they all teach it both to be a counsel, and that also general unto whosoever pleaseth to take it.  
The fourth reason. 
1. Cor. 7. vers. 25.  As concerning Virgins I have no commandment of our Lord, but counsel I give, as having obtained mercy of our Lord to be faithful. This counsel he expressed: I would all men to be as myself; (that is) to live unmarried; saying also, That he who marrieth doth well, 
Vers. 38.  but he who marrieth not doth better: Wh whence it followeth most plainly, both that chastity & single life is counseled, not commanded; & that it is better so to live, then to marry. M. PER. answereth with the old Heretic jovinian, That it is better in some temporal respect, because single men are freed from many worldly cares, which married men be clogged withal. But that most worthy Doctor S. Augustine hath rejected this answer many hundredth years past, saying: They do marvelously dote, who think the goodness of this chastity, not to be necessary for the kingdom of heaven, but for this present world: which he confirmeth by the Prophet Esay 58. by our Saviour Mathewe 19 and Apocalypse 14. which are cited before; and his words I have alleged at length in the question of vows: wherefore I omit them here. But we need no other than S. Paul himself in the same Chapter, to teach that single life is better; as for the avoiding of worldly business, so for pleasing of God: who making an Antithesis between the Virgin and the married woman, saith: 
Vers. 32.33.34.  The Virgin is careful for the things that appertain unto our Lord, how she may please God, and be holy in body and spirit: whereas the wife is careful of this world, and how to please her husband; so that for sanctification of body and soul, and for pleasing God, virginity (by the express sentence of the Apostle) is better than marriage: and therefore, they must needs be much blinded with partiality, that cannot see it; or obstinately bend against the truth, that seeing it, will not confess it.  
The fift argument. It is good for me to die rather, 
1. Cor. 9 vers. 16.  then that any man should make my glory void. For if I evangelize, it is no glory to me: for necessity lieth upon me, etc. What is my reward then? that preaching the Gospel, I yield the Gospel without cost. Out of which words we collect, that S. Paul preaching the Gospel on his own charges, without any cost unto his Auditors, did a work of supererogation; and that therefore he expected both glory, and reward at God's hands. M. PER. answereth: That generally it was in Paul's liberty to preach the Gospel freely, or not to do it: but in Corinth upon special circumstances, he was bound in conscience to preach it freely, as he did; by reason of false teachers, who would otherwise have taken occasion to disgrace his ministry, and have hindered the glory of God: Now it was Paul's duty to prevent that hindrance.  
Reply. S. Paul himself hath confuted for us, both parts of this answer. The former (That he was bound to preach freely in that place) in these words: If I preach, it is no glory to me; so that if he were bound in conscience to preach freely, he could expect no such glory, as he speaketh off; and yet he saith▪ That he would rather die, then lose that glory and reward: whence it appeareth plainly, that he was not bound in conscience to preach there of free cost; which he also most largely proveth from the third verse of that Chapter unto the three and twenty: By Moses' law, by Christ's Commandment, by the example of all the other, Apostles, and by many comparisons, and reasons; so that nothing is more clear, then that he might have lived at Corinth, as well as in other places, on their charges to whom he preached. And by his whole discourse, a man may easily gather, that the false teachers did (clean contrary to M. PERKINS imagination) accuse him for not taking his charges, as the rest did: whereupon, they maliciously gave out, that he was no Apostle, nor had not the freedom to live by the Gospel, as the Apostles had; to which in the beginning of the Chapter he answereth. Am I not free? am I not an Apostle? and, my defence to them that examine me is this: have not we power to eat and drink, as also the rest of the Apostles? etc. Where he proveth that he had power so to do; yet would not use that power, but preach freely: both for his own greater glory and reward in heaven: and also, that no kind of let might be given unto the covetous persons and niggards; who not being liberal in expenses, he chose rather to live among them at his own cost; then to burden them, who might (perhaps) not be so willing to receive him, if they must have been at charges to maintain him: or else, to avoid the sinister report of some malicious, who would not have spared to have bruited abroad, that he made gains of the Gospel, although he had sparingly lived by it. Briefly, to avoid some such let, as he was not in conscience bound to avoid, because it was not any scandal of the weak, which we are bound to avoid; but of the wicked and malicious, which may with good conscience be contemned, as the other Apostles did (yet S. Paul of a superabundant charity, had an eye to that also:) so that the other Apostles that did live upon the Gospel, did very well; but the better, that would not use that his power and liberty.  
Our sixth argument is taken from the testimony of the ancient Church. Origen saith: 
In cap. 15. Roma.  Those things which we do above duty, we do them not by commandment. For example, virginity is performed not of duty: for it is not required by any commandment, but is offered above duty.  

De habitu Virgini●.  S. Cyprian, speaking of virginity, saith: Neither doth our Lord command this, but commend it, and exhort unto it: and whereas in his Father's house there be many mansions, you Virgins tend unto the better places, and by cutting-off the desires of the flesh, you shall obtain in heaven a reward of greater grace. The like saith S. Basil de Virginitat. S. chrysostom Homil. 8. de penitent. S. Hierome lib. 1. cont. jovin. S. Augustine de sanct. Virg. cap. 30. with many others, which to avoid perplexity I do omit.   

OF THE WORSHIPPING OF SAINTS, SPECIALLY OF INVOCATION.  

OUR CONSENTS.  
M. PERKINS Page 245.  
THe first conclusion: The true Saints of God are to be worshipped three ways. First, by keeping in remembrance their virtues. Secondly, by giving thanks 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 virtues.  
The second conclusion. Their true relics (that is) their virtues and good examples left to all posterity, we keep and respect with due reverence: yea, if any man can show us the bodily true relics of any true Saint, and can prove it so to be, though we will not worship it, yet will we not despise it, but keep it as a monument, if it may be done without offence. And thus far we agree with the Church of Rome.  

ANNOTATION.  
How well the Protestants observe and keep the virtues and good examples of the Saints, I leave it to the virtuous reader's consideration. But what devotion they have to their holy relics, may appear partly by the manifold limitations this man useth: If they be true relics▪ if of true Saints, if we can so prove them (for they are resolute to call all into doubt:) and finally, If it may also be done without offence (to wit) of their weak brethren, and fellow Heretics (which can never be) then (lo) this considerate and advised man, Will not despise them. By these exceptions, one may easily espy the coldness of their affection towards them. But the practice of their predecessors (who made havoc, and burned all the honourable relics of the best Saints, that they could lay their hands upon, without reverence and respect) doth demonstrate the same wicked spirit to have possessed them, which of old spurred forward the jews and Pagans, to consume into ashes the blessed bodies of the Martyrs, lest the Christians should worship them and keep them most reverently, as they were always accustomed to do, when they could get them. Yea, if they could but rake out of the ashes, the least pieces of their  bones, they did esteem them more pure than gold, and of greater value, then precious stones, as in express terms is recorded in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius: 
Lib. 4. cap. 14.  see what respect men in the purest antiquity, carried towards the bodily relics of Saints.    

THE DIFFERENCE.  
Our dissent lieth in the manner of worshipping: the Papists make two degrees of religious worship, etc.  
Because the Protestants do seem not to understand the Catholic doctrine, concerning the worshipping of Saints, but out of their affected ignorance, do esteem us therefore Idolaters: I hold it expedient to explicate the state of this question more particularly.  
To begin then with this word worship: it doth signify a knowledge or conceit of an other man's excellency, joined with a reverent respect to the same person, with some either inward or outward acknowledgement thereof: so that all worship is due and done unto an other, in regard of some excellent quality, which we suppose to be in him.  
Now there being three most general kinds of excellency, there must also be three several and distinct sorts of worship, correspondent unto them.  
The first and principal kind of excellency, is infinite, and proper to God alone; who is almighty, infinitely wise and good, the only Creator, supreme Governor, and final end of heaven and earth, and of all things contained in them: therefore, to him alone appertaineth infinite honour and glory, and that supreme worship, which the Latins (using the Greek word) call Latria Godly honour. Now to attribute or give this sovereign worship unto any other, then unto God only, is Idolatry, the most heinous offence that can be.  
The second sort of excellency, I make the meanest of all absolute (for of respective excellency which is in Images, and such like holy things, I have spoken in that Chapter) and that is to be found only in creatures, endued with reason and understanding, in regard of some rare quality and endowment, wherein they excel and surpass others; so that that excellent virtue and quality, do proceed only out of the natural faculty and perfection of the party; and do not spring from any supernatural gift: therefore, within the compass of this sort of excellency, I comprehend all natural perfections, either of Men or Angels; because all such issue out of one general fountain, of a nature endued with reason: and to this kind of excellency is due, a moral or civil obeisance or worship.  
There is a third kind of excellency seated between the two former extremes, far surpassing the natural perfection of any pure creature; and yet infinitely lesser than the divine 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 kind of excellency, is due a different manner of worship, which the Latins for distinction sake do call Dulia. Note that I say for distinction sake: for both the words Latria and Dulia; if they be taken in their first native signification, may be given unto any kind of worship due to God or Man: yet, to avoid confusion; the learned Divines have appropriated Latria unto the worship of God; and Dulia, to signify the honour due to Saints or Angels, in regard of their supernatural perfections.  
To come now unto the first point of our difference. The Protestants do commonly confound these two later kinds of worship, and do make but one of both the civil and supernatural; that they may skip from the one of them to the other, when they be driven unto their shifts: and yet nothing is more clear, 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 moral and civil worship only, is due unto that excellency which ariseth out of the natural power of man, not assisted with any extraordinary grace of God (such as was in the old Heathen Romans, who for their valiant prowess, and politic government deserved to be honoured & worshipped:) even so the fortitude of Christian Martyr, the wisdom of Ecclesiastical Prelates, the power of divers Confessors in curing all sorts of diseases, and in working miracles. These (I say) and the like divine prerogatives, cannot but deserve a far more excellent kind of honour and worship, than the former; as they are more spiritual and heavenly qualities, springing from a more excellent root of the grace of God: which surpasseth in degree of excellency, the nature of Angels without comparison, who are but God's servants by nature, though of greater perfection than we. By grace they were made adopted sons of God, and partakers of the divine nature, as S. Peter citeth it; 
2. Pet. ●. vers. 4.  so as the Saints also were, who therein were equal to Angels: Wherefore, Naaman the Syrian, had reason to worship very humbly the Prophet H●liseus; who (if we consider only civil excellency) was but a mean person in respect of Na●man, that was a principal commander over all the martial affairs of a potent King: notwithstanding, he truly weighing another more excellent kind of power and wisdom in Heliseus, then was in himself; and another kind of credit which he had, which the God of heaven, of far greater estimation, then that he had with his king, did very dutifully humble himself before the Prophet. All which convinceth, that there is in godly and holy personages, another kind of excellency above natural reach, to which is due a supernatural reverence and worship, distinct from Civil: the which spiritual and supernatural worship we commonly call religious; because it is given unto holy men or Saints, in consideration of their religious virtues, of faith, charity, fortitude in defence of religion, and of Ecclesiastical superiority. The term of religious worship the Protestants utterly mislike, pretending that all kind of religious worship is due unto God only: but better men and greater clerk than they by many degrees, do use it in the very same sense; as may be seen in divers of S. Augustine's works. 
L. 20. cont. Faustum cap. 21.  Let this one sentence suffice, where he saith: That Christian people do celebrate the memories of Martyrs, with religious solemnity. True it is, that religious worship is sometime (by the said holy father and others) taken more strictly, for the principal acts of religion, which are proper unto God alone; and in that sense we deny it to be given unto any creature: but the same word is also (not seldom) used by them in a more large signification, and applied unto all things that belong to religion. So we call religious men, such as are specially chosen to serve God: religious houses, places where God is served: religious virtues, such as issue out of the root of religion; and consequently religious honour or worship, that is exhibited unto men for their excellency in religious qualities, and religious affairs. So that any indifferent man (who delighteth not to cavil upon words) understanding our meaning to be very far off from attributing any jot of God's honour, unto any Saint or any other thing whatsoever: cannot be justly offended with our terms of religious worship given to saints; when as he is beforehand given to understand, that we take religious to signify, not that which is proper to God: but those religious gifts which be in godly men.  
Hence also it followeth most perspicuously what intolerable wrong they do us, that call us Idolaters; or say, that we rob God of his honour, and give it unto saints. For we say, and repeat it a thousand times over and over, and declare it as plainly as can be, that it is the most heinous crime in the world, to give any such sovereign honour, as is due to God only, unto either Angels or Saints, to wit: to esteem them to be infinitely mighty, wise, or good; or to be the Creators or supreme Governors of heaven and earth; or briefly, to be the authors of any supernatural or natural excellency or perfection. These and such like points of Divine honour, we ascribe not to any creature: but say, that the Saints are Gods creatures and servants, and do receive all that they either be or have, or God's liberality; yet we hold it not to derogate any whit from the due honour we own unto God, to yield such honour and worship unto his Saints and servants, as he hath made them worthy of. Nay rather, we do not a little honour God himself, when we worship Godly men, for his divine gifts bestowed upon them; and when we think, that (because they have faithfully served him on earth) they are now in heaven in high favour with him; and can sooner obtain any reasonable suit of him, than other mortal men, who are subject to many infirmities. Neither do we diminish any thing at all Christ our saviours mediation, by making the Saints our intercessors. For (as shall be hereafter declared at large) we attribute no point of Christ's mediation to them; but only range and place the Saints intercession, with the prayers of other good men living on earth, and with our own, although in a different degree of perfection; theirs being far better than ours: yet, all are made in Christ's name, and are effectual through the merits of his Passion.  
But one may here object, how then do Catholics affirm and say, that the Saints are their hope, and refuge, and how can they desire them, To have mercy upon them, and to help them; which seem to be things proper to God alone, and to Christ our redeemer? I answer first, that these speeches in good sense have been used by most ancient, learned, and circumspect Authors, and that by imitation of the holy Scriptures. For holy job saith: Have mercy on me, have mercy on me, 
job 19 1. Thess. 2. vers. 18. Cap. 15. vers. 30. 1. Cap. 9 vers. 19  at least you my friends. And Saint Paul calleth the Thessalonians, His hope, his joy, and crown of glory; and desireth the Romans to help him in their prayers: and saith to the Corinthians that he became all things to all men, that he might save all; with divers such like. So that no discreet man ought to condemn such speeches to the Saints, if they be uttered with a good meaning, to wit: that they taking compassion of our frailty and misery, do by their gracious intercession help to procure our pardon, and to obtain at God's bounteous hands, through the merit of Christ's passion, all such heavenly graces as we stand need of▪ Albeit (as I have said) such terms have been very well used in all antiquity; yet, in these our captious days I could wish, that Catholics would use them very sparingly, for fear of scandalising the poor deceived Protestants.  
Observe lastly, that by the outward manner and external show of worship, it cannot be sufficiently discerned, whether it be Divine, Religious, or Civil: for as we kneel to God, so do we also on our knee honour the King, 
1. Reg. 24. vers. 10.  and his Council; As David did adore King Saul prostrate on the earth. But the difference consisteth chief in the inward conceit, and disposition of the mind; and so whether we kneel or no (if we prostrate our hearts before God, inclining it unto him, as to the Author of all things, infinitely perfect) we do him Godly honour. So, if we kneel to any Saints, or before any picture of a Saint in honour of the Saint, acknowledging in our hearts the Saint to be a very holy creature, endued with many great graces of God, and dearly beloved of him; we do but duly worship the Saint: as kneeling to the King, and in our hearts confessing him to be the supreme Governor under God of the temporal state of his Kingdom, we do but our duties unto our King. To conclude, it is not the outward fashion of worship, that maketh it proper to God or Man; when as kneeling to one, may be also in derision of him, as when pilate's soldiers kneeled to Christ: but the inward conceit and inclination of the judgement and heart. And therefore, they are very simple that reprehend Catholics of Idolatry for kneeling before pictures; when as they kneel not to the picture itself, no more than Protestants kneel unto that part of their seat, or to the wall that is before them: but they do kneel to God, as to their sovereign Lord; and to the Saint as to an holy parsonage, whose prayer to God for them they humbly request.  
Now to the main point in controversy, M. PER. denieth: That any civil worship in bending of the knee, or prostrating of the body, is to be given to either Saints or Angels; and much less any religious worship, as namely invocation, signified by any bodily adoration: for that (saith he) is the honour of God himself, by what name soever you call it. And this is all he saith (for aught I can see) touching the worshipping of Saints.  
We on the other side say, that we may both bend the knee, and prostrate the body to any Angel or Saint in heaven, and with a religious inclination and obeisance of our heart's worship them, for their excellent supernatural gifts: and that this kind of worship, is much inferior unto the honour proper to God; yea, that it is infinitely less, then that as hath been already declared. M. PER. hath one only shadow of a reason, why we must not yield any civil worship unto the Saints: Because (saith he) they be absent from us, and we use not to worship men that be absent. ergo. Which is most easily confuted, and that two ways. First, if we say (as we will prove afterward) that though they be far distant from us in place; yet, they see and know all the honour that we present to them, and so are they morally present, and as so present may be worshipped. Secondly, that we may truly honour them who are absent corporally, by lifting up our hearts to them; and so representing them to our minds, may reverence and worship them as spiritually present, according to that of S. Paul; I absent in body, but present in spirit: otherwise, 
1. Cor. 5. vers. 3.  we Christians should not while we lived on earth, adore the humanity of our Saviour Christ JESUS, because he touching his humanity, is absent from us; which were most absurd: and so is therefore M. PERKINS reason, out of which it would necessarily follow. And because M. PER. confoundeth this point of worshipping of Saints with that of invocation, and hudleth them together, now talking of the one, then of the other, besides all good method and order, and consequently maketh two Chapters of the same matter: I will here in this former Chapter only treat of the worshipping of Saints, drawing what M. PERKINS saith of this subject into this Chapter, and refer the matter to invocation unto 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 bow the knee unto Satan, upon this ground: because it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.  
To this S. Augustine hath answered 1200. years ago, upon those words of Genesis: Abraham adored or worshipped the people of the land. 
Cap. 23. Quaest. 61. super Genesi●.  It may be demanded (saith he) how it is written thou shalt adore thy Lord God, and him only shalt thou serve; when as Abraham did so honour that kind of people, that he did adore them? but we must observe that in the same Commandment, it is not said, thou shalt only adore thy Lord thy God; as it is said, him only shalt thou serve, which in Greek is Latréysis, for such service is due to God only. So that in brief this most learned Father answereth our Protestants, that the service proper to God (called Latria) is to be given to none but to God: Marry, that worship and adoration expressed in the former part of that sentence, may be given to others, and that Abraham gave it very well unto the people of Heth. Now, our Saviour had great reason, not to yield so much as one jot of that meaner worship to Satan; because he excelled him in nothing; but small reason have our Protestants to reason thus (as in effect M. PER. doth:) Christ would not worship the Devil, therefore Christians may not worship Saints, as though Saints were no more to be worshipped then the Devil: a holy comparison and well worthy a hellhound. But he goeth forward and addeth, 
Act. 10.  that Peter would not suffer Cornelius so much as to kneel to him: though (saith he) Cornelius intended not to honour him as God: therefore, neither Saint nor Angel is to be honoured so much as with the bowing of the knee, if it carry but the least signification of divine honour.  
Answer. Do you mark what war this man is at with himself? 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 wit: that no inward or outward worship (if it proceed from a heart meaning to exhibit divine honour) is to be given unto any other then to God; and therefore did I declare before, that by the external kind of worshipping, we cannot discern whether the party mean to offer divine, religious, or civil honour to him whom he honoureth, but that is to be known of the party himself, 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 feet, and S. Peter lifting him up said; arise, myself also am a man:) then is there nothing against us, who do also forbid all men to adore and give Godly honour unto any Saint or Angel. If it were a lesser kind of religious worship, which was due to Saints; then we say with S. chrysostom upon this place, that S. Peter out of his humility and consideration of human frailty, refused that honour albeit it were due unto his excellent piety and singular authority. The like answer is to be given unto that place of the Apocalypse, 
Cap. 19 vers. 10.  where the Angel forbade S. john to adore him: which M. PER. had forgot to allege. For either S. john took the Angel to be God, as he spoke in the person of God; and so by mistaking the person offered him divine honour, 
Quaest. 61. ●n Genes. Greg. lib. 27. Moral. c. 11. Bed. Anselm. & alij in illum locum.  as S. Augustine supposeth, and was justly reprehended by the Angel, and instructed that he was not God, but his fellow servant: or (as many others ancient and learned Authors think) S. john as one that very well knew what he had to do, did dutifully worship such an heavenly creature, as God's Ambassador to him: for otherwise he was not so dull or forgetful, as to have the 
* Cap. 22. vers. 8.  second time fallen into the same fault. Neither did the Angel reprehend him, but after a most courteous manner willed S. john not to do him that honour; because he knew well how dearly beloved S. john was unto our Saviour, and that perhaps S. john was to have a higher seat in heaven, than he had: wherefore, he would not take that honour of so great a parsonage. To these reasons of M. PER. we may add some few scraps of authorities which he hath swept together.  

De vera relig. 53.  Augustine: we honour the Saints with charity, and not by servitude; neither do we erect Churches to them: And they are to be honoured for imitation; but not to be adored with religion.  
Answer. Mark that in both the sentences, he teacheth us plainly to honour and worship the Saints; as we do honour the Saints, they are to be honoured: Marry he addeth (as we also teach after him) that no divine and Godly honour be given them; which he describeth in those words, with servitude and with religion. The Saints (saith he even here, as in many other places of his learned works) are to be worshipped; but not with such worship, as servants or creatures own to their sovereign Lord or creator: they are to be honoured but not with religion, being taken precisely for the chief act of religion which concerneth only the honour and worship of God. Churches are not to be builded to Saints, nor Altars erected to them, nor Sacrifice offered to them. All this we grant in such sort as S. Augustine himself doth declare, that is: these divine offices are to be performed to no other than to God alone; yet, all may be done in the memory, and to the honour of Saints. Let this one place of S. Augustine serve the turn, where he saith: 
Lib. 20. cont. Faust. cap. 21.  that Christian people do celebrate the memory of Martyrs with religious solemnity; both to stir up imitation, as also t●●● they may be partakers of their merits, and helped by their prayers: notwithstanding (saith he) to none of the Martyrs do we erect Altars, but to the God of Martyrs; yet, in the remembrance of Martyrs. For who of the Priests, in the places of their holy bodies standing at the Altar, hath said at any time: we offer unto thee Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian? But that which is offered, is offered to God (who crowned the Martyrs) at the memories of Martyrs; that by the admonition of the very places, a greater devotion may arise to inflame our charity, both towards them whom we must imitate; as also towards him, by whose help we may imitate them. We therefore, worship the Martyrs with that worship of love and society, wherewith holy men of God in this life are worshipped, etc. but them with so much more devotion, as we are more assured that they have now passed all peril of this life. Observe (good reader) how many points of the Catholic doctrine are confirmed by this one passage of so worthy a Doctor.  
First, Altars are built at the martyrs bodies. Secondly, Sacrifice is offered to God at the memories of the Martyrs, to increase our love towards them. Thirdly, Martyrs are to be worshipped of us, more than any holy men living. 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; which seem to be the only external acts of religion proper unto 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. Again, Mary is holy and to be honoured, but not to adoration.  
Answer. Who seethe not, that this holy Father teacheth us to honour and worship that blessed Virgin Mary and the other Saints? Marry not with Sacrifice, as he there disputeth against them who offered Sacrifice to the Virgin Mary, or any other such like adoration which is proper to God alone.  
A third testimony M. PER. produceth against himself out of S. Cyril, when julian the Apostata objected against the ancient Catholics (that which Protestants do against us now a-dayes) that they worshipped their Martyrs as God: 
Lib. 9 & 10.  Cyril (saith M. PER.) answereth then plainly (as we Catholics do now) that Christians (indeed) did honour their Martyrs, but not with adoration and Godly honour. His words are: We affirm not our Martyrs to be made Gods, but we use to bestow all honour upon them.  

In primum cap. Rom.  The fourth and last testimony is borrowed out of S. Ambrose. Is any so mad that he will give to the Earl, the honour of a King? yet, these men do not think themselves guilty, who give the honour of God's name to a creature, and leaving their Lord adore their fellow servants, as though there were any thing more left for God.  
Answer. S. Ambrose there inveigheth (as S. Paul doth) against P●●●● Idolaters, that gave the glory of God, some to men their fellow servants, some to fowls, some to serpents, and such like: all which is very far wide from the mark of the present question. For he that condemneth men for giving God's honour to foolish or beastly creatures, doth not reprehend them which honour and worship God's servants, with such honour only as is due to them. And thus much in confutation of M. PER. reasons against worshipping of Saints: now to an argument or two in favour of the Catholic party.  
All men are to be honoured by the law of nature, with such honour as is correspondent and due unto their virtue and dignity; which the Apostle confirmeth saying: 
Rom. 13. vers. 7.  render to all men their due, etc. to whom honour, honour, etc. but a kind of religious and supernatural honour and worship is due unto the Saints in heaven: ergo, we are bound to render that their due worship unto them.  
That religious honour is due unto them, is most clear to all that know why honour is due unto any man. If honour be due unto Nobility of birth, as it is commonly holden; the Saints are the Sons of God, the most honourable Lord of heaven and earth. If to be admitted to be one of a kings privy Council, maketh a man honourable; then the Saints are honourable, 
1. Cor. 13. vers. 12. Apocal. 2. vers. 27.  who (as S. Paul saith) do see God face to face, and know him, even as they are known. If to be advanced unto some high government, make a man honourable; the Martyrs whom Christ doth place to rule over Cities and Nations, are honourable. Briefly, if excellent wisdom, singular valour, and such like heroical virtues, make men honourable, as all men confess; then are the Saints in heaven most honourable, who so far exceeded in all such heroical virtues of which the Philosophers write, all others as far as heaven surpasseth the earth: so that it remaineth most evident, that the Saints are to be worshipped. And as their excellent virtues do proceed from a more noble fountain, than the nature of man (to wit) from the grace of God, and doth therefore without comparison, furmount all moral and civil either virtue or dignity: so are they with a more spiritual and religious kind of worship to be worshipped and reverenced. 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 us, that be strangers and foreigners to them: but this objection S. Paul hath long sithence prevented, who saith expressly to Christians: brethren ye are not guests and strangers, but Citizens of the Saints, 
Ephes. 2.  and household servants of God. If then one citizen be to reverence another his better, and one servant another; then are we to worship the Saints in heaven, who are our fellow Citizens and servants: yea, they are members of the same body of Christ, of which we are, though they be now in triumph for their lawful fight here, and we yet in warfare, to attain unto the same triumphant estate. Yea, for the dear and mutual affection, which is or should be between these two parts of the said Church, S. Paul calleth that Jerusalem which is above our Mother: 
Gal. 4. vers. 26.  and ought we not to reverence, honour, and worship our Mother? thus much of our former argument grounded in reason.  
Now to another taken from example, which alone is more than sufficient to settle any good Christian in the faith of this point, thus it may be propounded: Both jews, Pagans, and Heretics (that is, all sorts of ungodly and misbelieving men) did find great fault with the ancient true Christians for worshipping of Saints and their Relics, and called it Idolatry, as the Protestants do now a-dayes: Contrariwise, the best and most learned Doctors in that pure antiquity, did maintain and defend worshipping of Saints and their Relics, teaching just as the Catholics now do: that they did indeed honour the Saints with great honour, but did not adore them, or give the honour proper to God to any other then to God alone; let us hear some proof of this. When blessed Policarpus S. john Evangelists Disciple was Martyred, the jews were very importunate to have his body consumed to ashes, 
Eusebius hyst. l. 4. cap. 14.  lest (say they) the Christians do get it and so leaving the crucified man, do fall to adore him, so the opinion of the jews. What answered the Christians? We (say they) mean nothing less than to forsake Christ; for him we adore as the true Son of God: but Martyrs and all other his true servants we do worthily reverence and embrace, for their incredible goodwill showed towards Christ; and do esteem their bones and relics more rich than precious stones, and more pure than gold, and do celebrate their memories, with holy days and great joy. This of the ancient Christians answer to the jews, now of their answer to the Pagans. julian the Apostata with his followers, charged the Christians with making their martyrs Gods, and that they adored them: to whom among others Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria answered in this manner. 
L. 6. cont. julianum.  We make not holy martyrs Gods, neither do we adore them: but we honour them very highly. And it is not an unworthy thing; nay, it is necessary to honour them eternally, that have behaved themselves so gloriously. And because that goodly man (julianus) doth reprehend us for worshipping of them; w● tell him, that we esteem not Martyrs to be Gods, yet are we accustomed to vouchsafe them very high honour. After these Pagans and jews some old Heretics trotted apace. Faustus the Manichean Heretic calumniated and falsely slandered the Catholics of his time, that they had turned their Martyrs by worshipping of them, into Idols. Unto whom S. Augustine that worthy pillar of the Church answered, 
Aug. l. 20. cont. Faust. cap. 21.  as is above rehearsed: That Christians (indeed) did celebrate the memories of Martyrs with religious solemnity, and that they worshipped them with greater honour than they did any holy man alive; yet, not with that honour which is proper to God, called by the Greeks' Latria. The like did Vigilantius another dreaming Heretic object shortly after, avouching the Catholics to be Idolaters, because they adored the bones of dead men: whom that great light of his age S. Hierome doth duly reprehend, 
Epist. ad Riparium.  answering; That they did not adore martyrs relics, no nor a●y Angel in heaven, because they would not give the honour due to the Creator, unto any creature: but (saith he) we do honour the relics of Martyrs, that we may adore him whose Martyrs they be. We do honour the servants, that the honour of the servants: may redound unto their master, who saith: he that receiveth you, receiveth me: now let the indifferent Christian consider, whether he were better with the Heathens, jews, and Heretics, to deny the Saints to be worshipped, and say with them that it is Idolatry so to do: or whether he had not rather with the ancient holy Fathers, and best Christians to hold, that Saints departed this life, and their relics are to be worshipped with greater honour, than any holy men yet living: yea, that worshipping of Saints is so far of from Idolatry, and robbing God of the honour proper to him, that even thereby God is much honoured. Surely, we Catholics are nothing dismayed at their outcries, that call us therefore Idolaters; being well assured, that they be but the old alarms and reproaches, that Infidels were want to cast upon the best Christians. Now to the third and last argument for us which is taken from authority.  

* joshua 5. vers. 24. Num. 22.  joshua falling flat upon the ground worshipped an Angel, assoon as he had told him that he was the Prince of God's army: this worship being performed by a true Israelite, and accepted off by the Angel of God (yea more than that, for it was also commanded) doth convince, that more than civil honour is due unto a citizen of heaven: this for the old Testament. For the state of the new hear the judgement of the most ancient and best learned Doctors.  
justine Martyr declaring unto the Emperor the faith of the Church, 
Apolog. 2.  speaketh thus: We Christians adore and worship God the Father, and his Son, who came into the world and taught us these things; and after them do we truly worship by word and deed, the army of good Angels following his conduct, and the Prophetical spirits: and this do we copiously teach to all that will learn our doctrine.  
Eusebius Caesariensis teacheth the same, and saith: 
Lib. 13. de praep. c. 7. Serm. 32. de Sanctis.  We do honour the Soldiers of true Godliness, as them who are best beloved of God.  
So doth S. Augustine: Therefore dearly beloved brethren, as often as we celebrate the memories of Martyrs, laying aside all worldly business, we ought speedily to repair unto the house of God, to render unto them honour, who have procured our salvation by the shedding of their blood, who have offered themselves up to God so holy an Host, to obtain for us mercy at his hands; specially when almighty God saith to his Saints: he that honoureth you, honoureth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me. Whosoever therefore (concludeth S. Augustine) honoureth Martyrs, honoureth Christ: and he that contemneth the Saints, contemneth Christ; which is word for word taken out of 
* Serm. 6. in fine. Orat. de SS. Iwent. &. Max. In Theod. Mart.  S. Ambrose.  
S. chrysostom: We do not worship ancient Saints and those of later time, in different sort; but all of them with the same cheerfulness: therefore (saith he) let us often visit them, and worship their tombs.  
Gregory Nyssene, speaking of the worship which the Church doth give to Martyrs, saith: To what King is such honour done? who are they of the most excellent among men, whose memory is so solemnly honoured? who of the Emperors in so many men's mouths, are so renowned as this poor Soldier, now enrolled a Soldier; whom S. Paul hath armed, whom the Angels have anointed, and whom Christ hath crowned.  
S. Gregory Nazianzene defineth the worshipping of Martyrs, 
Orat. 1. cont. julianum.  to be an assured mark of our love toward Christ. An hundredth such other testimonies will the holy ancient Fathers afford us, if we stand in need of them. But this may suffice to inform any reasonable man, that both by express warrant of Scripture, and by the practice and doctrine of the purest antiquity, the Saints of God and holy personages are to be worshipped of us with that religious honour commonly called Dulia, that is: with that worship which is due unto the better sort of God's servants.    

OF INTERCESSION OF SAINTS.  

OUR CONSENT.  
M. PERKINS Page 258.  
Our consent I will set down in two conclusions. The first conclusion: The Saints departed pray to God, by giving thanks to him for their own redemption, and for the redemption of the whole Church of God upon earth.  
The second conclusion. The Saints departed pray generally for the state of the whole Church.   

THE DISSENT.  
THey hold that the Saints in heaven do make intercession for particular men: and that having received particular men's prayers, they present them unto God; but this doctrine do we flatly renounce upon these grounds and reasons.  

Esay 63. vers. 16.  The Church saith to God: doubtless thou art our Father though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel know us not. Now if Abraham knew not his posterity, neither Mary nor Peter nor any Saint departed know us and our estate: and consequently they cannot make particular intercession for us.  
To this we answer two ways, first with S. Hierome upon the same place: that to know one is taken there for to like and approve him and his doings, 
Psal. 1.  as it is very often in holy Scripture: Our Lord knoweth the way of the just. Item, Christ will answer to them that were workers of iniquity, 
Math. 7. vers. 25.  I know ye not; as also to the foolish Virgins, I know ye not, that is, I like you not: even so Abraham and jacob could not then know, that is, approve the doing of those their wicked and degenerate children. Secondly we answer, that Abraham and the holy patriarchs were (until Christ had by his passion paid their ransom) not yet in the possession of heavenly joys; but detained in a place of rest, by the learned commonly called Lymbus Patrum. To this second answer M. PER. replieth: If they say that Abraham was in Limbo (which they will have to be a part of hell) what joy could Lazarus have in Abraham's bosom? and with what comfort could jacob say on his death bed: O Lord I have waited for thy salvation? We rejoin, that albeit Limbo be thought to be under the earth; yet is it as far remote from hell, as the depth of the earth will give it leave: for the place of Purgatory is between hell and it. Further, that in Limbo there was no pain, but a quiet expectation of their deliverance from thence, and translation into heaven; which brought them great joy: beside, the good company of many millions of holy souls, that there attended the same happy hour of their deliverance; of all which Lazarus was partaker being carried into Abraham's bosom. I will here omit, that M. PER. in this very question, maketh this matter of Lazarus but a parable, and thereby not fit to confirm any point of doctrine in his own judgement. To the second place I say, that jacob might have great comfort to think upon his salvation, which should be accomplished in Christ's time: for Abraham who was father of them, 
joh. 8. vers. 56. 2. Reg. 22. vers. 20.  rejoiced to see Christ's days, which he saw, and was glad, as our Saviour himself testifieth.  
The second reason: Huldah the Prophetess telleth josias, that he must be gathered to his fathers, and put in his grave in peace, that his eyes might not see all the evil, 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 we answer; first, that the Prophetess (when she saith, he should not see the evil 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 grieve and vex him to see the just punishment of his own Country. Secondly, it may be said of josias who died long before Christ, as it is of Abraham; that he was to remain in Limbo when that evil should happen, and so should not see it. But Augustine (saith he) doth confirm this conclusion at large. Why did not the honest man quote the place of S. Augustine as he is wont to do? was it because it would lead us directly to the discovery of his deceit? S. Augustine (indeed) doth very copiously handle the question, what knowledge souls departed have; 
De cura pro mort. ca 15. 16.  and resolveth: that souls departed, of their own natural knowledge do not understand what is done by their friends here; but that either by the report of other souls that come to them, or of Angels that go between; or else by the revelation of the spirit of God (in whose presence Saints departed do continually stand) they may very well know, that which is here done: and thus much of S. Augustine in this place, afterward you shall hear more of him concerning his opinion of the knowledge that Saints have of our affairs.  
The third reason of M. PERKINS: No Creature, Saint, or Angel, can be a Mediator for us to God, saving Christ alone: for in a true Mediator there must be three things. First, that the word of God must reveal and propound him unto the Church. Surely I should think that he must first be a perfect Mediator, before he be propounded for such a one. Secondly, a Mediator must be perfectly just, so as no sin be found in him at all. Such be all Saints in heaven. Thirdly, a Mediator must be a propitiator, that is: he must bring to God some thing, that may appease and satisfy his wrath for our sins: so did Moses when he appeased God's wrath, justly kindled against the sins of the Israelites in the wilderness: thus might a man quickly answer M. PER. argument of his Mediator.  
But to explicate this matter more clearly and particularly, I say that a Mediator may be taken two ways. First, he may be called a Mediator, that doth in any sort employ himself between two parties to agree them; whether it be by persuasion or entreaty; whether by letter or word of mouth: and so is it commonly taken, and that according unto the proper signification of the word. Secondly, a Mediator may be taken in an other sense, not for every one that useth means of atonement; but for him only that to make the agreement between the parties, is content to pay the debt himself, and to satisfy for all other damages and detrimentes: and in this sense doth S. Paul say; 
1. Tim. 2. vers. 5.  That we have one Mediator the man JESUS Christ, who gave himself a redemption for all. Note the latter words, and you shall see this my distinction of Mediator to be gathered out of the Apostles own words: For (saith he) we have one Mediator, that gave himself a redemption for all, that is, that took the debts of all our sins upon his own shoulders, and satisfied fully for all: see here expressed the second kind of Mediator. Now 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 kind of Mediator. For Christians that pray for all men, by their intercession are means unto God for conversion of others, and so may be called Mediators in a good sense; as Moses saith of himself: 
Deut. 5. vers. 5. Gal. 3. vers. 19 Act. 7. vers. 35. judic. 3. vers. 9  I was an intercessor and means, or mediator between our Lord and you. And by S. Paul he is plainly called a Mediator: the law was ordained by Angels, in the hand of a Mediator. And by S. Stephen he is called a Redeemer: as Othoniel is termed a Saviour. And that in this sense there may be many mediators S. Cyril testifieth, saying: 
* In joh. l. 3. cap. 9  The Mediator of God and man is JESUS Christ, not only because he reconciled men unto God; but for that he is naturally both God and man in one person. For by this means God reconciled our natures to him; for otherwise how should S. Paul have said, Christ to be the only Mediator: for many of the Saints have used the ministry of mediation; as S Paul himself, crying upon men to be reconciled to God: and Moses was a Mediator; for he ministered the law unto the people: and jeremy was also a Mediator, when he stood before God and prayed for good things to the people. 
Related in 2. Concil. Nice. art. 4.  What need many words? (saith this great Doctor) all the Prophets and Apostles were Mediators. With S. Cyril accordeth S. Basil, who hoped for mercy at God's hands, and forgiveness of his sins by the mediation of the holy Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs. And S. Bernard was of the same mind, 
Serm. super sign● magnum apparuit in coelo.  when he taught that we stand in need of a Mediator, to the Mediator: and no one more for our profit and commodity, than the blessed Virgin Mary; so that this mediation and intercession of Saints, is no whit at all injurious unto the only mediation of Christ: for it is of a far different kind from Christ's mediation, and of the same sort as the prayers be of other good men living on earth, who all sue unto God in Christ's name, and hope to obtain (all and every of them) their petitions, by the virtue of his merits; and therefore all our prayers and theirs, are commonly concluded thus: Through our Lord JESUS Christ thy Son, who with thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the holy Ghost, God, for ever and ever. And thus much to M. PER. foundation laid upon the sands, wherein he so insolently renounced the Catholic doctrine: but that I do him no wrong, I must here add a couple of other arguments which he misplaced in the former question, and therefore I reserved them to this.  
The former. All true invocation and prayer, made according unto the will of God, must have a double foundation: a commandment, and a promise. A commandment to move us to pray: and a promise to assure us that we shall be heard: for every prayer must be made in faith; and without a commandment, and promise there is no faith. Upon this infallible ground I conclude, that we may not pray to Saints departed: for in the Scripture there is no word either commanding us to pray to them, or assuring us that we shall be heard when we pray.  
Answer. We deny that prayer requireth that double foundation of a commandment to pray, and promise to be heard when we pray: and that upon the warrant of some of the best prayers, that are recorded in holy Scripture. When Abraham prayed for the saving of Sodom, and Gomorrha, 
Gen. 18. vers. 25.  and did obtain that if there had been in them but ten just persons, their Cities should not have been destroyed: we read neither of commandment given to Abraham to make that prayer, nor any promise before he began it, to be heard; and this man was the Father of the faithful, and knew much better than an hundredth M. PERKINS, how and when to pray.  
And when mild Moses that most wise conductor of the Israelites, prayed unto God so peremptorily, that he would either blot him out of the book of life, or else pardon his people the Israelites, 
Exod. 32. vers. 32.  had he either commandment so to pray, or promise to be heard? I am sure that they can show me none at all in the Scripture: Nay, God before entreated Moses, that he would not pray unto him for them, 
Ibidem. vers. 10.  but suffer him to punish them according to their deserts, promising to advance Moses' exceedingly, if he would give over his suit; nevertheless, Moses omitted not to pray most earnestly for the same people, and was heard. Need we any other proof to overthrow M. PER. rotten foundation? And when joshua rather commanded then prayed; 
joshua 10. vers. 12.  that the Sun should not move against Gabaon, and it stayed his course for a whole day space, God obeying unto the voice of man, as the holy Ghost speaketh: what commandment or promise had joshua for this? and to omit an hundredth other like, what promise had S. Paul to assure him to be heard, 
2. Cor. 12. vers. 8.  when he prayed not once, but thrice that the prick of the flesh should be taken away from him? none at all (I ween) for his request would not be granted him. By this the indifferent reader may perceive, how gross the Protestants judgement is in matters of faith, who take that for an infallible ground of religion, which is so contrary unto the express word of God, that nothing can be more. Of faith necessary in prayer shall be spoken, as soon as I have dispatched an other text of Scripture, misplaced here and misaplyed.  

Math. 4. vers. 10.  We are (saith M. PER.) commanded to call upon God only: him only shalt thou serve.  
This man's eies-sight beginneth to fail him much, that cannot discern between calling upon, and serving; when many a Master calleth upon his man whom he doth not serve, but is served by him. The text is already expounded out of S. Augustine: that we must serve God only with Godly honour, as the Greek words Latréyseis doth there notify; notwithstanding which only service, every servant (I hope) may serve his Master, and every inferior worship his superior: and so may we do the Saints our betters in all goodness, with such worship as is due unto their singular gifts. And as we may pray unto men alive without derogation unto God his only service: so may we do to the Saints departed.  
But M. PER. fearing the weakness of this fortification, secondeth it with an other out of the Apostle: 
Rom. 10. vers. 14.  How shall we call upon him in whom we have not believed? but we may not believe in Saints, therefore we may not call upon them.  
I answer, that we cannot call upon any man for more than we believe to be in him; and so much must we believe to be in every man, as we will demand at his hands. We call upon Christ for salvation, and therefore must we first believe him to be a Saviour: we call upon Saints to pray for us; therefore must we before hand believe, that they both can and will pray for us, and that they are able (through the favour and love that God beareth them) to entreat much at God's hands: see how we must believe in them, upon whom we call for help. And the very phrase of believing in Saints, is used by the same 
a Ad Philemon. v. 5.  Apostle, not unlike that of the old Testament: 
b Exod. 14 vers. 31.  The people believed God, and his servant Moses. M. PERKINS goeth on, patching up his former argument with that, which hath small coherence with it, to wit: That we have no promise to be heard, but for Christ's sake. Admit it were so, it maketh nothing against prayer to Saints: for they pray for us in Christ's name, and are heard for Christ's sake.  
Finally, M. PERKINS fableth, that we give for our only warrant of invocation of Saints, miracles and revelations; and thereunto answereth, that to judge of any point of doctrine by miracles, three things must concur. 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 think what you will, for he inferreth nothing; I will therefore apply all this to the purpose, and say first: That when a miracle is granted by God, to confirm any point of doctrine in controversy, than every man is as well bound to believe that point of doctrine, as if it were plainly recorded in the holy Scripture; for it hath God to witness, who cannot deceive. Secondly, that S. Bernard (a most Godly man, and one whose testimony M. PER. doth very often allege) did fulfil all those three worthy observations of M. PER. in working of miracles to confirm invocation of Saints; and therefore it is to be believed of all men, even by M. PERKINS own sentence. For first he propounded invocation of Saints, 
Lib. 3. vitae, cap. 5.  as a doctrine of faith and great piety, in the Province of Tolouse in France, where it was by our Protestants Grandsires the Albigenses denied. Secondly, he blessed some certain loafes of bread that were presented to him, and prayed to God that if invocation to Saints were pure doctrine of faith, that than whosoever should taste of that bread, might be cured of what disease soever he was sick. A Bishop that stood by, added; yea Sir, if they receive them with good faith they shall be healed. S. Bernard replied: I said not so, but whosoever shall truly taste of them shall be cured, that they may know us to have the truth, and to be the true messengers of God. And as it there followeth: An huge multitude of sick and diseased persons tasting of that bread, recovered perfect health. If we had no other argument than this, it alone were sufficient to persuade any Christian, that to pray unto Saints is the true doctrine of Christ, which God so expressly would confirm by miracles, and testify so evidently. What would he believe, that will not believe this? But (saith M. PER.) miracles be to be done for Infidels, and not for them who believe. True it is, and therefore was this miracle done, to convert or to confound such Infidels as our Protestants are, who will not believe the invocation of Saints.  
Lastly (saith he) our faith is not to be confirmed by revelations, 
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 invocation of Saints? neither is that which he saith to be drawn out of those words of that parable, as I will prove when it shall be need. Note by the way, that twice in this question he himself citeth that parable of Dives and Lazarus, for proof of doctrine; which he afterward denieth to be lawful for us to do. What our other grounds be for invocation of Saints, shall be declared in our arguments following.  
M. PERKINS fift reason. To pray to Saints departed, to bow the knee to them while they are in heaven, is to ascribe unto them, that which is proper to God: namely to know the heart and inward desires thereof, and to know the speeches and behaviours of all men, in all places on the earth at all times.  
Answer. This man doth too too broadly enlarge his lies; for neither do all men at once (much less at all times) pray unto every or any one of the Saints: but suppose they did; yet, to hear all their prayers together, is nothing so much as to see that which every Saint doth see in heaven, to wit, the one only substance of God in three persons: for what are all the cogitations of men, compared unto the immense and incomprehensible nature of God? not so much as the point of a pin to the whole globe of the earth, and yet every Saint in heaven doth clearly behold God: therefore much more able are they to hear and see all things that belong unto men. And as the learned Divines know, the manhood of our Saviour Christ doth see, know, and comprehend all the deeds, words, and thoughts of all men, that have lived since the beginning of the world, unto the end; because it belongeth unto him who is judge of all, to know all; aswell to reward the good, as to punish the evil: and yet doth no Divine say, that the manhood of Christ is God, or equal unto God in knowledge. Now, the Saints in heaven do not see the secrets of our hearts, in our hearts; but being present to the face of God, do behold in it (as it were in a most clear glass) all that is pleaseth the goodness of God to reveal unto them: and it is incident, and belonging necessarily unto their most happy estate, to have granted to them, all that in reason they can demand; otherwise they were not so happy as they might be. Now, what good nature would not be glad, to pleasure his own fellow members and dear friends; specially such as crave so much at his hands? wherefore, it cannot be denied of any considerate man, but that God who satisfieth all their just requests doth ordinarily reveal unto his dearly beloved Saints, all the prayers that be made unto them. Surely S. Augustine in most express terms declareth: 
De cura pro mort. cap. 15. & 16.  That God can give such power unto his Saints and Martyrs, that they may be present in spirit at every place throughout the world, where there is any memory of them: or prayer made unto them. He will not take upon him to define, whether they be actually there present or no, or whether by the ministry of Angels they be relieved that seek help by the intercession of Martyrs: but maketh no question but that they hear all prayers made by whosoever to them, and obtain very many of their requests. And as S. Gregory saith: What do they not see, 
Lib. 12. Moral. cap. 13.  who see him that seethe all things; yea, containeth all things within himself? Yet M. PER. blusheth not to say, that it is but a forgery of man's brain, to imagine that the Godhead is such a clear glass, representing all things; because it should then follow, that the Angels who behold God's face, should be ignorant of nothing: but the Angels have learned some things of the Church (as S. Paul witnesseth:) therefore they see not all things in God.  
To this we answer, that in God all things are represented, and shine more brightly, then in their own natural places: yet, doth not God communicate and reveal all things unto every body there present; but his divine nature in three persons, Christ, God, and Man, with all other natural and ordinary things, from the cope of heaven to the centre of the earth, are seen of every citizen of heaven, though with a different degree of clearness: but of God's counsels concerning the government of the world, so much is only known unto either Angel or Men, as appertaineth unto their state, and that when it belongeth unto them: therefore the Angels might well not know many things belonging to the government of the Church, until they saw it accomplished, and therefore might be said to have learned some such thing of the Church. But as we have said before, it properly appertaineth unto the state of Saints in heavenly bliss, to know their friends reasonable requests made unto 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 thoroughly contented, as their estate of perfect felicity in heaven doth demand: and thus much of M. PER. reasons. To which I will here add one argument, commonly used by the Protestants, though M. PER. (for the weakness of it perhaps) thought best to omit it: it is taken ab authoritate negatiuè, which Scholars know to be nought worth. 
Math. 11. vers. 28.  Christ saith, come ye unto me all ye that labour and be burdened, and I will refresh you; he saith not go to the Saints, but come to me. I answer, neither doth he say, do not go to the Saints, and therefore here is nothing against us. We go to Christ for remission of our sins, which lie more heavy than a talon of lead upon our backs, and through our redeemers merits do we crave pardon of them: but to move more effectually this our redeemer, and God his father to have pity upon us, we humbly desire the Saints (his best beloved servants) to speak a good word in our behalf, acknowledging ourselves unworthy to obtain any thing at God's hands, through our own ungrateful wickedness. Now that our Saviour Christ JESUS, doth very well like and approve the mediation of others even to himself, may be gathered out of very many evident texts of holy Scripture: 
Math. 8. vers. 13.  for he at the intercession of the Centurion cured his servant: and 
* Math. 9 vers. 2.  seeing the faith of them that brought a man sick of the palsy before him, he healed the sick man; and 
a Luc. 4. vers. 38.  at his disciples request cured S. Peter's mother in law. And when the woman of Chanaan sued unto him for her daughter, 
b 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 Gospel, every man (that is not wilfully blind) may well see, that the intercession of others for us doth much prevail, even with our sovereign intercessor and mediator Christ JESUS himself: now to his authorities.  

Lib. 3. cont. 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 whom none prayeth, he is the one and true mediator.  
I answer, these words be rather for us, for approving and confessing our Saviour Christ to be the only mediator of redemption, as we have already declared; they teach that all Christians may commend themselves each to others prayers: Now, the Saints departed be christian's (I trust) as good as we, or rather far better; therefore all other Christians may very well (in S. Augustine's judgement) commend themselves unto the Saints holy prayers, because each one may commend himself to any others prayers. Concerning the word Mediator, S. Augustine never attributeth it unto any, saving only to our Saviour, taking it always in the second signification above named, to which three things 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 ransom of all our sins, and that his redemption may in equal balance, counterpoise the grievousness of our sins, which is taken out of divers places of Scripture. The third which is the ground of all the rest is, that the Mediator be both God and Man; that participating of both natures, he may be as it were a natural middle or means to reconcile the two Extremes; and so as Man, be able to suffer something to appease God's wrath; and as God, to give to that suffering of his manhood, infinite value, making thereby Christ's sufferings more than sufficient to pay for the redemption of an hundred worlds if need had been. And these proprieties gathered out of 
c Lib. 9 de civitate, cap. 15. & alibi.  S. Augustine and other Fathers, will put down M. PER. odd devise of proprieties of a Mediator; all which make nothing against the intercession of Saints, who be not in that sense to be called mediators, and yet cease not to pray for us: let us then go on.  
M. PERKINS citeth secondly another sentence out of S. Augustine, where he bringeth in our Saviour saying: 
Tract. 22. in johan.  Thou hast no whether to go but to me, thou hast no way to go but by me.  
Answer. S. Augustine there alludeth unto those words of our Saviour, I am the way, the truth, and the life: and saith, that for life and truth we have no other way to seek unto, but unto Christ; who according unto his divinity, is truth and life unto the world. And in this high degree of redemption and mediation, he was the only way unto his Father: for neither the Gentiles by their moral virtues, nor jews by the power of their law, could without him lead them to God. All this is very good doctrine, but no whit more against praying to Saints, then against commending of us one to another's prayers, or using any other means of salvation; as S. Augustine upon the like occasion doth himself plainly declare. For upon these words of S. john: If any man offend, 
1. joan. 2. tract. 1.  we have an advocate with the Father JESUS Christ the just one, where he putteth this doubt: but some man will say, therefore do not the Saints pray for us? do not the Bishops and governors pray for the people? After he solueth this doubt concluding, that all the members of Christ's body do pray one for another, marry the head prayeth for all: where he most plainly showeth, that the sovereign intercession or mediation of Christ the head, doth not exclude the intercession of Saints departed, no more than it doth of any other yet living.  
M. PERKINS citeth also one sentence out of S. chrysostom, who hath written thus: Thou hast no need of patrons to God, 
De perfect Euangel.  nor much running up and down to flatter and fawn upon others; for though thou be alone and want a Patron, and by thyself pray unto God, thou shalt obtain thy desire.  
Answer. It seemeth by his words, of running up and down, and flattering of others, (which Gods Saints will not endure) that he speaketh against seeking unto vainglorious and evil mortal men, to be our patrons to God, which were folly. But admit he meant the Saints departed; then let us take his whole meaning, and not wrest his words to any other sense than he will allow and like of: he doth then often inveigh both against certain rich men (who having given some little alms to the poor, thought themselves sure of pardon of their sins, and of salvation, through the poor men's prayers, though they prayed not themselves;) and also against all such sluggish lazy persons, as relied wholly upon the intercession of Saints, not praying much for themselves: upon such as these doth S. chrysostom often call to pray for themselves, and not to trust wholly unto the prayers of others; persuading them, that it were better to pray for themselves without patrons, then leaving all to Patrons not to pray themselves at all. But the best of all to be, both to pray themselves, and to employ also good men and the Saints to pray for them; this is his own declaration in these his words: 
Homil. 5. in Math.  Let us not like sluggards and slothful companions, depend wholly upon the merits of others; for the prayers and supplications of Saints for us, have their force, and that surely very great; but then truly, when we ourselves do withal 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 Thessaly.  Knowing these things, neither let us despise the prayers of the Saints, neither let us cast all upon them.  
Now to the arguments for the Catholic party: my first argument shall be to prove, that we may pray to the Angels in heaven to bless us, and to pray for us; to whom after our blessed Lady, we assign the first place in our Lytanie. We have for our warrant the authority and example of the holy Patriarch jacob, expressly set down in holy Scripture for prayer to Angels, 
Genes. 48.15. & 16.  in these words: God before whom my father's Abraham and Isaac have walked, God who hath fed me from my youth unto this present day, and the Angel that hath delivered me from all evil, bless these children. What can be more plain, then that this blessed old Patriarch did pray unto his good Angel Guardian? Nay (saith M. PER.) for by the Angel there you ●●st understand Christ; for that in Malachi Christ is signified by the Angel of the covenant. A bonny reason; because that an Angel is once in the old Testament used to signify Christ, therefore it shall signify him in what place soever it shall please the Protestants. Neither doth an Angel in that one place singly put, signify Christ; but with an addition, the Angel of the covenant, to distinguish that Angel from all others: so that there is no appearance or colour of likelihood, out of that place so unlike, to interpret this. It remaineth then, that the word Angel be taken properly (as it is most commonly in holy Scripture) for an heavenly spirit, appointed by God to keep jacob: which I confirm by the circumstance of the place; because jacob prayeth unto that Angel, as to one that was then extant and living, that had also before delivered him from many perils: but Christ was not then borne, nor had any doings in the world, therefore he did not pray to him. Again, the wise Patriarch and Prophet must be made to speak very fond, if he should pray him that was not in rerum natura, to bless those children; he might very well have prayed God for Christ's sake (that was to come) to bless them: but to pray Christ himself, whom he knew then not to be any where living or extant to blsse them, hath no sense in it; for blessing (as all other working) supposeth a real being and existence of the same party. To this example of jacob, we may join the counsel that Eliphas the Thamite gave unto job; Turn thyself unto some of the Saints, and jobs own practice; 
* Cap. 19 vers. 21. Tob. c. 12. vers. 12.  
job cap. 5. vers. 1.  Have pity on me, have pity on me, at least you my friends. Upon which place S. Augustine saith, that job the holy man made intercession to the Angels, or to the Saints to pray for him; to which we may also add, how that Raphael offered up good Tobias prayers to God, and how that another 
a Apoc. 8. vers. 3.  Angel did give of the incense of prayers of all Saints, upon 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 themselves, they also have by God's appointment charge over us, and do assist us; whereupon it followeth most clearly, that they are most ready in word and deed, to further all our good desires and honest demands: and consequently being by us requested to pray for us, cannot refuse it. To say that they have no care of our prayers, is both contrary to their charity and to their charge, and the places in Scripture already cited: to which this may be added. Christ to discourage men from offending children and little ones, allegeth this inducement: 
Math. 18. vers. 10.  That their Angels see the face of his father in heaven, signifying that they would complain of them to God, and sue for severe punishment against such offenders; which argueth, that they do very well know and carefully tender our good: which is also strengthened by an other place, 
Luc. 15. vers. 10.  where our Saviour declareth what great joy they make at the conversion of a sinner. Out of all which texts is plainly to be collected, that they know of our conversion, see the particular wrongs that be offered us, and the good deeds we do: so that the Protestants can find no starting hole to escape out at; for that they both hear our prayers, and be willing to pray for us. And having won the Protestants to begin our Lytanies with us, 
Luc. 20. vers. 36.  and so to say S. Michael pray for us, all holy Angels pray for us, etc. We may no doubt persuade them to go forward thus: the Saints in heaven are equal unto Angels both in charity, knowledge, affection towards us, and what else soever is requisite unto intercession; therefore if we may pray unto Angels, we may also pray unto the Saints.  
M. PERKINS answereth, that at the general resurrection Saints shall be equal unto Angels, as our Saviour saith, but not before.  
Reply. If Saints then shall be equal to Angels, they are so at their first entrance into possession of the heavenly joys, for (as all Divines confess) the essential glory of their soul, shall not be increased at the resurrection; and the glory of their body which they shall then receive, doth not make them more like, but rather more unlike unto Angels that have no bodies at all: therefore this answer is insufficient, which M. PERKINS foreseeing addeth a second.  
Saints be equal to Angels in glory, but not in office and ministry, by which they are ministering spirits for good men▪ leaving us to understand belike, (for the good man doth not express it) that because the Angels are ministering spirits, therefore they better know our prayers, and are more careful to pray for us.  
Reply. First, the Saints being of our own nature, and having passed the like perils that we be in, and being also members of the same body of Christ, as we are, cannot but tender the matter of our salvation, as much as Angels do; especially considering that their charity towards God bindeth them, to further by all possible means his honour and service: and their love towards their neighbours doth move them sufficiently to second and help forward our salvation, in what they can. But the other point of their knowledge of our affairs is of greater difficulty: the which we prove first, by the perfect knowledge they have of God, which is as great, and also greater than some Angels have, and so in that clear mirror of God's substance they may most easily see all that hath been, is, or shall be said or done upon earth. And we say further, that the perfection of their most happy state doth demand as due to it, that they should be made privy unto their friends reasonable suits unto them: All which hath been already proved. But here I will add this, which is to the present purpose. That the Saints have also charge over us, and therefore that it belongeth unto their office, as well as to the office of Angels, to be acquainted with our affairs in particular. That God hath appointed the Saints to rule over us, is proved out of our saviours words, where he saith: 
Luc. 19 vers: 17.  That the good servant for well using of his pound, shall be placed over ten Cities. And again, 
* Apoc. 2. vers. 26.  He that shall overcome, and keep my words until the end, I will give him power over Nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, etc. even as I have received of my father. Item, 
a Ibid. 3. vers. 21.  I will give him to sit with me in my throne. Out of which texts is plainly gathered, that Christ giveth unto holy Martyrs and Saints, a charge and command over Cities, Countries, and Nations: which the ancient Fathers have well observed, and do plainly testify. 
Lib. 8. in Lucam. De viduis. In 40. Mart.  Whereupon S. Ambrose saith: Even as Angels do govern over us, so do they who have attained unto the life of Angels. In another place he calleth the Saints departed salutis nostrae Praesides: the Precedents of our salvation. S. Basil termeth them Protectors of mankind. Gregory Nazianzene desireth S. Cyprian to look down upon him, and to direct his speech and life, 
b Orat. in Cyprian.  and to feed his flock, & to govern them together with him. Theodorete saith, that they at his time that went from home, 
Lib. 8. de curandis.  prayed the Martyrs to be their companions, or rather the guides of their journey: and returning safe did yield them thanks, acknowledging the benefit by them. Many more such like testimonies, may be produced out of the ancient learned Fathers if need require, to show manifestly how they understood the Scriptures concerning this office and ministry, or rather presidency of the Saints departed over us that live on the earth: wherefore to conclude this reason, the Saints being equal unto the Angels, aswell in office and ministry; as in charity and affection towards us, we may aswell pray unto them as unto the Angels.  
Our third reason shall be to prevent that evasion of theirs, their God (forsooth) is so ready of himself to hear us, that we need not any spokesman to him: thus I propose it. One of us living here may pray unto another to pray to God for him; therefore much rather may we pray unto the Saints departed to pray for us, because the better that the men be that pray for us, the more worth are their prayers, according to that of S. james: The continual prayer of a just man availeth much. 
jac. cap. 5 vers. 17.  And the examples of Abraham, Moses, job, Elias, and such like excellent men, do confirm the same; whose prayers God did hear when he refused to hear others. Yea, 
Gen. 20. vers. 7. job 42. vers. 8.  God himself (as the Scripture teacheth) advised Abimilech King of Egypt, to speak unto Abraham to pray for him: and would not hear jobs friends praying for themselves; but sent them to his servant job, to request him to pray for them; at whose intercession he did pardon them. Doth not this most plainly prove, that notwithstanding God's readiness to receive us into his grace; yet his will and pleasure is, that we do pray unto others to be a means unto him for us, especially when we have so offended him, that we may justly be ashamed even to present ourselves before his divine Majesty? need we any better warrant for praying unto others, than the advise and commandment of God himself? Now to the confirmation of the consequent: But the Saints, 
Math. 11. vers. 11.  yea the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than S. john Baptist (that is) than the best on earth; ergo, their prayers will do us much more good, than any man's prayer yet living.  
M. PERKINS answereth that we have a commandment to pray unto the living, but none to pray unto Saints departed.  
Reply. I have already confuted this answer, where I showed before that we need no commandment to pray, or to desire others to pray for us; but it is sufficient to know their credit with God, and willingness to entreat for us when they be thereunto requested.  
Wherefore saith M. PERKINS, secondly there is a great difference between requesting one to pray for us, and by invocation to request them that are absent: for this is a worship that is given to them, and a power to hear and help all that call upon them.  
Reply. First, that by invocation we may pray unto men S. Augustine teacheth directly, grounding himself upon the express text of Scripture, 
Locut. in Gen. 200. Gen. 48. vers. 15.  where jacob commandeth that his name and the name of his forefathers be invocated upon of the children of Israel. And what is invocation in English but the calling upon one, which is as lawful as the praying unto him? That we do them an honour and worship thereby, I grant; and say that the Saints being better than the living, are better worthy of that worship then the living. Further, that we assign them a power to hear them that be absent more than the living can do, it is no marvel; for the perfection of their heavenly state requireth that prerogative, as I have more than once declared. But because this point of their knowledge, breedeth the greatest doubt of praying unto the Saints, let S. Augustine (a most judicious Doctor, and one that was not partial in that matter, delivering his sentence grounded also upon holy Scripture) be harkened unto and followed: he treating of the happiness of Saints in heaven, hath these words. 
Lib. 22. de civit. 29.  If the Prophet Helizeus being absent in body, did see his servant Giësy receiving the gifts which Naaman the Syrian gave him, etc. how much more in that spiritual body shall Saints see all things, 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 know in part and in part do we prophesy, but when that shall come which is perfect, then shall that be made void which is in part, etc. 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 heaven, than is a little child compared to a man, and this which is in part to that which is perfect: then surely if Helizeus and other Prophets did see things done far distant from them, yea things that were to be done many hundred years after their times; they being (without doubt) endued with this admirable knowledge from God: how much abundantly shall all they in heaven enjoy this gift, when their bodies shall not hinder them, yea they shall not need bodily eyes to see things absent, but with the heart or spirit they shall be present to them, 
4. Reg. 5. vers. 26.  as Helizeus was, who said: was not my heart present, when the man returned from his chariot to meet thee? Can any thing be more evident or more sound proved, then that the Saints in heaven have great pre-eminence above all that lived upon the earth, to see and know things absent and far distant from them? which the same father proveth also by most evident experience, in the fifteenth and sixteenth Chapters of his book entitled de cura pro mortuis agenda. And that you may perceive, that that is not the opinion of S. Augustine alone, I will join the testimonies of three or four other Fathers with him. S. Cyril Patriarch of Jerusalem saith; Even 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) ask his servant Giësy, whether he had not received money of Naaman the Syrian; for (saith he) nothing done even in the dark, is hidden from the Saints. S. Basil writeth thus: Let a Virgin first of all fear her own conscience; 
L. de Virginitate.  and if she be never so solitary, yet hath she her Angel guardian present, whose sight she must not contemn, specially when as they have Angels (as it were) patterns of virginity: but before all Angels, let her respect and reverence her spouse Christ, who is present every where. And why did I speak of an Angel? for she hath an innumerable company of Angels present, and with them the holy spirits or souls of the Fathers: for there is none of these, who doth not see all things every where; not truly beholding them with corporal eyes, but by a spiritual sight piercing unto the knowledge of all things. The same doth S. Athanasius that famous ancient Doctor resolve in his 32. question. 
Quaest. 32.  See S. Augustine also lib. 20. of the City of God, the 22. Chapter, Teaching that the Saints in heaven, do know in particular what is done among the damned in hell. And S. Hierome doth prove against Vigilantius, that The Saints (who follow the Lamb whither soever he goeth) be excluded from no place: and scorneth that dreaming Heretic for imagining, that unless the souls of the Martyrs did lie hovering about their shrines, they could not hear their prayers that went thither to pray; affirming him therefore to be a monster worthy to be banished into the uttermost coasts of the earth. Encherines' a most holy and learned Archbishop of Lions, all most 1200. years since confirmeth the same, grounding his discourse upon the same texts of Scripture that S. Augustine did, saying: If the Prophet Helizeus absent in body, did see his servant Giësy taking gifts: how much more shall Saints in that spiritual body see all things, not only if they shut their eyes, but also from whence they are in body absent. For than shall be that perfection of which the Apostle speaketh, in part we know, and in part do we prophesy; 
1. Cor. 13.  but when that shall come which is perfect, it shall be voided which is in part: therefore when that shall come which is perfect, and this corruptible body shall no longer cumber the soul, but it shall have a glorious body which shall nothing hinder it, shall the Saints than need the help of bodily eyes, to see such things which Helizeus absent needed not to behold his servant? The testimonies of so many worthy Fathers will (I hope) suffice to persuade any reasonable man, that the Saints in heaven do very well hear our prayers.  
To these I will join that which M. PER. maketh our second objection, because it doth fortify the same. 
Luc. 16. vers. 24.  Abraham (not then in possession of heavenly knowledge after our doctrine, but in heaven as the Protestants think) did hear Dives from hell, which is further off from heaven then the face of the earth which we inhabit; and therefore more easily might he have heard any living body praying unto him, than 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 agreeable unto the intent thereof.  
Reply. Why doth he then twice in this very question gather out of it; first, that Abraham was in heaven, then, that faith is not to be confirmed by apparitions of dead men, which are not the principal intent and scope of it? but we must give our new Master's leave, both to affirm a thing when it seemeth to make for them, and after to deny the same flatly when it beareth against them. 
Lib. 2. in iovinianum de cura pro mort. cap. 14. lib. 4. dialog. c. 29.  We then say with S. Ambrose upon that place, with S. Hierome, with S. Augustine, and with S. Gregory, (the four principal Doctors of the Latin Church) that the story of Dives and Lazarus is a true historical narration, and not a parable of that which never was, as by the proper names of Abraham and Lazarus, and other circumstances they gather. And whereas M. PER. objecteth against it, That then it may be collected out of it, that wicked men in hell have compassion and love to their brethren on earth, and zeal to God's glory, because Dives seemeth so to have had. I answer, that there is no appearance of any zeal of God's glory in Dives, only he desired that some might go out of that place of torment to advertise his brethren of it, that they came not to him thither: which was not out of any love neither that he bore to his brethren, but for fear of his own further torments if they came thither after him; because he had given them evil example and encouragement to do evil, and perhaps evil counsel when he lived with them, and therefore was by their condemnation to receive increase of his own pains: so that his entreaty for them proceeded only out of the love of himself, and from the fear of more grievous torments. Now it being certain, that Abraham in heaven (according to the Protestants opinion) could hear Dives in hell: much more easily can the Saints in heaven hear our prayers, or any man's that dwelleth on earth; Now after our doctrine, who hold Abraham then to have been in Limbo, thus the argument must be framed: If Abraham not yet endued with that perfect knowledge, which the Saints in heaven have could (nevertheless) hear Dives in hell; between whom and himself there was magnum Chaos, 
Ibid. 26.  as the text hath, a huge deep darkness and great distance: with much facility can the Saints (who excel him being then in Limbo in knowledge) see and hear men living on the earth.  
Our fift argument▪ the Saints in heaven do present unto God the prayers of holy men living upon the earth, therefore they know the same prayers well in particular, and embrace and recommend them to the divine Majesty. The consequent is manifest, because no man can offer up by word of mouth a petition if he know not what it is: neither will any wiseman (such as the Saints be) speak for he knoweth not whom nor what: wherefore if the Saints do present our prayers to God, they do know them in particular. The antecedent is set down in express terms in the word of God: The 24. Seniors (who sat about the throne of God) fell before the Lamb, having every one haps and golden vials full of odours, 
Apoc. 5. vers. 8.  which are the prayers of Saints. M. PER. saith, that these were their own prayers and not other men's, but without alleging either authority or reason. We prove by the text itself that it must be understood of other men's prayers and not their own; because otherwise in due construction it should have been said, Which are their own prayers: but the text saying, That the odour of their vials were the prayers of Saints, it distinguisheth plainly those Saints from themselves, which also the learned interpreters on that place, Primasius, and the Greek school, with Oecumenius doth confirm and testify.  
The former arguments were to prove, that the Saints do hear our prayers; now the sixth reason shall be to meet with that outcry of our adversaries, that (forsooth) we rob God of his honour, and give it to Saints, when we pray unto them, thus: God is more honoured by our worshipping and praying unto Saints departed, then if we did no worship unto them, nor prayed not unto them at all, but went immediately to God without their help: therefore if it were for nothing else but for the greater honour of God, we ought to worship Saints and to pray unto them. I prove the former proposition thus: First we worship the Saints, only for the supernatural gifts which God hath bestowed upon them, which must needs redound unto the honour of the giver, as when I honour any of the king's officers, it being principally because he is the king's officer, the King himself is together and more principally honoured, and Christ saith expressly, that he that despiseth one of his servants, 
Luc. 10. vers. 16.  despiseth Christ himself. Whence it followeth, that he who respecteth and honoureth one of his servants (especially because he is his servant) doth together and (in deed) more principally honour Christ: he and his graces being the very cause why we respect and worship the other. Further, when many (and those of the worthiest sort) do become humble suitors unto God for any one of us, much more honour is done unto God through the dignity of their persons, then if one mean silly sinner did sue to him alone: For it is more honourable and magnifical, to do a pleasure at the instance and request of many worthy personages, then where one poor worm alone doth sue for it; yea and much more excellent thanks is rendered unto God by the number and dignity of the suitors, when their petition is granted them. This argument which is evident reason, is grounded also upon S. Paul's authority; who requesteth the Christians of Corinth to help him in their prayers: 
2. Cor. 1. vers. 11.  That (saith he) by many men's persons, thanks for the gift which is in us, may be given by many in our behalf. Seeing then, that by our praying unto the Saints, they are drawn in to become suitors with us, and for us; and consequently obtaining their suit, they stand aswell bound to render thanks to God therefore as we do: It followeth thereupon most evidently, that God is by our praying to his Saints, both more honoured when such worthy persons sue unto him for us, and also better thanked, for that we do obtain by their intercession. Now let us close up this question with the testimony of some of the mo●● ancient, famous, and best learned Doctors of both the Greek and Latin Church. Origen who lived not much above 200. years after Christ, prayeth unto that blessed pattern of patience job, 
Lib. 2. in job.  thus: O happy job now living for ever with God, and remaining a conqueror in the sight of our Lord and King, pray for us wreatches, that the wonderful mercy of God may also defend us in all tribulations, and deliver us from all oppressions of the wicked one, 
In evang. de sanct. Deipara.  etc. Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, and first of the four principal Doctors of the Greek Church, after many praises of the immaculate Virgin Mary, saith: Therefore all the rich men of the earth do pray unto thee, to be enriched with thy goods and spiritual contemplations. We do cry unto thee, remember us most sacred Virgin, etc. Gregory Nazianzene the second of these famous Doctors, doth thus pray unto S. Athanasius, who died in his time: 
Orat. in sanct. Athanas.  O Athanasius, o sacred and loving heart, etc. thou from above look favourably upon us, and govern this holy people that adore the holy Trinity, and cherish and feed us in peace, etc. The like prayer he maketh to S. Cyprian, and to S. Basil in his funeral orations made of them. S. Basil speaking of forty Martyrs, 
Orat. in quadrag. Mart.  of whom he made his sermon, saith: He that is troubled flieth unto these forty, and he that rejoyseth runneth unto them: they that they may be delivered from their adversity; these that they may continue in prosperity: here the Godly woman is found praying for her children, etc. S. chrysostom the last but not the least of the four, highly commendeth the Emperor of Rome, for praying unto S. Peter and S. Paul, saying: He that is revested in purple, 
Hom. 66. ad populum Antioch. Ibid.  goeth to embrace their tombs, and all state laid aside doth become an humble suppliant to the Saints, that they would pray unto God for him: he that goeth crowned with a Diadem and imperial crown, humbly prayeth v●to the fisherman and to the maker of tents, as to his patrons and protectors. Let us to make up the half dozen join one other their equal with the former; it shall be Gregory Nyssene S. Basils' brother, he speaking unto the Martyr Theodore, saith: Make intercession unto the King of all for our Country; 
Orat. in Theodor.  we stand in dread of great persecution. The wicked Scythians are at hand, and about to wage battle against us; thou as a soldier fight for us, as a Martyr speak boldly in our cause: and much more to this purpose, which I omit that I be not over tedious. To those of the Greek Church let us join as many of the Doctors of the Latin Church, beginning with S. Ambrose the first of the four more famous Doctors: he first teacheth, 
Lib. de viduis.  That Angels and Martyrs are to be besought unto, and earnestly prayed unto by us, alleging that they are our Precedents, and the beholders of our life and actions; and encourageth us not to be ashamed to use them as intercessors of our infirmity. And in another place prayeth thus: That this my prayer may be of greater force, 
Serm. 91. de invent. corpor. Geruas'. & Prothas.  I request the aid of the blessed Virgin Mary, of the Apostles, Martyrs, and Confessors; the prayers of such personages thou (o Lord) dost never despise, if it shall please thee to inspire them to pray for me. S. Augustine also first teacheth us to pray to Martyrs, saying: 
a Tract. 84 in johan.  We do not so remember Martyrs at that table, as we do others that rest in peace: for we do not pray for them, but rather pray to them that they will pray for us. And else where he saith: 
b Serm. 7. de verbis Apostoli.  That it is an injury to pray for a Martyr, unto whose prayers we ought to recommend ourselves. Secondly, he himself 
c De bapt. count. Donat lib. 7. ca 1.  prayeth unto S. Cyprian to help him with his good prayers. Thirdly, he hath recorded 
d Lib. 22. de civitat. Dei cap. 8.  the miraculous help which two several persons obtained by praying unto the Martyr S. Stephen. S. Hierome is so formal for worshipping of Relics and praying to Saints, in his treatise against Vigilantius, that the Protestants are driven to prefer that odious Heretic before him; Yet because some of them deny him to speak there of praying to Saints, note these words of his: Thou Vigilantius sayest, that whilst we live we may pray one for another, but after we be dead no man's prayer shall profit other, etc. see the objection of the Protestant. Now hear that learned Doctor's answer: If (saith he) Apostles and Martyrs whiles they lived here might pray for others, when they ought to be careful for themselves; how much more now after their crowns and triumphs. Take also another place of his, which is so clear that it cannot admit any exception: 
Epist. ad Eustochium in epitaph. Paulae.  Farewell (saith he to that blessed widow Paula, being then departed this life) and with thy prayers help the old age of him that worshippeth thee: thy faith and good works have joined thee to Christ: being present thou shalt more easily obtain that which thou wilt ask. The fourth of Latin Doctors is Gregory the great (to whom we Englishmen are so much bound for our conversion to the Christian faith;) he persuadeth praying to Saints in this sort: 
Homil. 31 supper. evang. afine.  If any of us had a great cause to be heard tomorrow before a high judge; we would this day most diligently seek out a wise well spoken and gracious counsellor, that were likeliest to handle it in the best manner. Behold (saith he) the severe judge JESUS, assisted with a terrible troop of Angels and Archangels, is to sit upon us; before that majestical assembly the cause of our salvation is to be discussed, and yet we do not now provide us patrons, that may on that day defend us: Martyrs will then be good advocates, but they look to be requested, and (as I may say) do seek that they may besought unto; therefore seek by praying unto them to get them to be your patrons, make them before hand intercessors of your guiltiness, because he that is to be our judge will be now entreated, that then he may not punish us. To these four pillars of the Latin Church, I will (to make the number equal with the Greek Fathers) add two others; the first shall be out of Ruffinus (who was of S. Hieromes standing) of the most Christian Emperor Theodosius: 
Ruffin. li. 2. hyst. ca 33.  He assisted with the Priests and People, visited the holy places, and clad in bayre-cloath lay prostrate before the shrines of the Apostles and Martyrs, and by his faithful intercession and praying to the Saints, most humbly sued for succour. The last shall be our famous countryman venerable Bede: Let us (saith he) with swift flight, 
Lib. 4. in Cant. circa finem.  seek unto the holes of the wall, that is: let us fly unto the often intercession of Angels and Saints, that they may pray for us unto our merciful creator, for these are the most strong and surest fortresses of holy Church. Now I would gladly know whether the testimony of these dozen of the chiefest Bishops and Doctors, aswell for their Godliness of life, as for their knowledge in holy Scriptures, who were also chosen by the holy Ghost to govern, instruct, and teach the principal Churches in both Europe, Africa, and Asia, and that in or about the most flourishing state thereof (for all of them saving S. Gregory the great and venerable Bede, lived within 400. and some within 200. years of Christ:) Whither, I say, these most sound testimonies of so many sacred and worthy personages, be not sufficient to persuade any reasonableman, that praying to the Saints in heaven is both agreeable to God's word (which no man in these days understandeth half so well as the worst of any of them did) and also very profitable for us. Yet for the further assurance of this important matter, I will add one miracle (which I touched before) wrought in confirmation of it: so that he that will not believe this, shall be convinced not to believe God himself witnessing of it. In the coasts of Thelousae in France, 
Ex lib. 3. vitae S. Bernardi cap. 5.  about 400. years past, one Henry an Apostata and wicked fellow, began to cry out against praying for the dead, and praying to Saints, and pilgrimages, and some other points of the Catholic doctrine: the fame of S. Bernard's holiness and learning being then very great, he was sent for by the Pope's Legate to come thither, to stay the people from following that lewd companion; who on a day after he had preached at a town called Sarlate, blessed some loaves of bread, and said: This shall be a certain proof that our doctrine is true, and theirs false; if those that be sick, by tasting of this holy bread be cured of their diseases. There stood by among others the Bishop of Charters, who fearing what might follow, added; if they taste of it with faith: Nay said the holy Father Barnard, (nothing doubting of God's power) I say not so, but he that shall taste of it shall be truly cured, that they may know us to be true men, and the true messengers of God, than a great multitude tasting of it, were (according to his word) perfectly healed of what disease soever they had. What can be more evident or better assured, then that praying to Saints is the truth of God? seeing that it pleased God to confirm it in such sort, by the miraculous curing of so many people.  
M. PERKINS for an upshot saith, that he finally dissenteth from the Catholics, because they are not content to pray to Saints, but say further; that God through their merits in heaven, doth bestow many benefits upon us on earth.  
I would he agreed with us in the two former points, we should quickly be at accord in this: for the goodman is foully mistaken if he think that we affirm the Saints (after they be come to heaven) to merit a new there; for we hold that none after their death can merit any more, but do then receive according unto their former merits, either salvation or damnation: but we nevertheless say, that God in respect of their former merits gotten in this life, doth for their sakes bestow many benefits upon us, and this doth M. PER. himself confirm in plain words, 
In this question.  when he granteth (pressed thereto by the evidence of God's word) that men upon earth have help and benefit, by the faith and piety which the Saints departed showed when they were in this life: for (saith he further) God showed mercy on them that keep his commandments, to a thousand generations. True it is, that this their faith and piety he would not have to be called merits; but we with that most honourable Father S. Ambrose do say: Apud Deum, 
Lib. 5. super Lucan.  servus & interueniendi meritum, & jus habet impetrandi; with God, a servant of his hath both the merit to be an intercessor, and the right to obtain his suit: see more of merits in that question. Here M. PER. addeth against himself: That the Saints in heaven have received the full reward of all their merits, and therefore there is nothing further that they can merit. Here we have first that the Saints had merits, which he was wont to deny flatly; again, how doth God (having fully rewarded their former faith and piety at their entrance into heaven) afterward for their sakes, show mercy to thousands? which he confesseth himself: wherefore he is aswell bound to answer this as we are, it bearing as strongly against his own doctrine as it doth against ours. To save him a labour I answer in a word, that it is one part of the reward of a faithful servant, to be always after (not deserving the contrary) in his Master's favour, and so gracious with him, that he may entreat any reasonable mat●●r at his hands: so are the Saints with God, who can never be wearied with their suits, so long as they all do but tend unto his own honour, and the salvation of his poor creatures, and as we both agreed upon before: Their faith, piety, and charity, whiles they lived, did and doth still move and cause God to show mercy unto thousands upon earth, for their sakes; though their merits were before most abundantly rewarded: let this suffice for this question.    

OF IMPLICIT OR ENFOLDED FAITH.  
M. PERKINS Page 266.  
THis question is handled for two causes (as he saith pag. 274.) first, to rectify the conscience of the weaker sort of his disciples: secondly, to rectify their Catechisms which do (as he censureth) require too full an assurance of salvation in all men.  
It being then for the instruction of his own deceived flock, and not much appertaining to us, I will post it over lightly.  
He teacheth a twofold implicity of faith: first, that faithful men may be ignorant at the beginning of many articles of faith, and learn them afterwards.  
It was so (in deed) in Christ's time, because he taught them not all a once; but since the establishment of the Gospel, it is necessary that every one believe all the articles of the Apostles Creed, the true doctrine of the Sacraments, and such other necessary heads of the Christian religion: other points of faith may be learned in time, according unto the capacity of the persons.  
The second fold of his faith is: that many (of his deceived disciples) have not at their conversion, and in time of temptation, a full assurance of their salvation; which notwithstanding will serve the turn then, if they desire to have a full assurance, and labour afterward to attain unto it: which he speaketh to the comfort of their consciences, that cannot persuade themselves so assuredly, that their sins are pardoned them.  
This presumptuous doctrine of full assurance of salvation, I have in a several question before confuted; therefore I say only here, that no Christian is bound to have any such absolute assurance of his own salvation, but that he must (according to the Apostles rule) work his salvation with trembling and fear, 
Ad Philip. 2. vers. 12.  considering his own frailty: Marry, very good hope and confidence ought we all to have, in respect of Gods infinite mercy and goodness, and in the inestimable merits of our Lord and Saviour JESUS Christ; but by faith we cannot believe it, unless God do extraordinarylie reveal any such thing unto us: which he doth to very few of his best beloved, and best tried servants.  
In the matter of our difference, he saith first; That we teach not faith to be a knowledge of things believed; but a reverent assent unto them, whether they be known or unknown.  
But this he saith very untruly: for we hold faith in his own nature, to comprehend a certain kind of knowledge, though not so clear and evident; yet of as great assurance, as is the knowledge of natural things: but the man harpeth upon something else, if he could hit on it. We say (indeed) that it is not of necessity, for the simpler sort and ignorant people, to read the holy Scriptures, and to go fish their faith out of that profound Ocean; but may content themselves with their Pastor's instructions, and with their Catechisms and other books of piety and devotion: albeit, we wish them of better understanding (if they be not too curious and wilful) to read the holy Scriptures with reverence, seeking humbly to better their knowledge, and especially to amend their lives; and in places of difficulty, not to trust unto their own wits, but to refer themselves to the exposition of the Catholic Church, which is the pillar and fortress of truth: and there upon wholly to rely. Yet, we require much more knowledge in the simpler sort of people, than the Protestants do: for we teach, that every one is to know expressly the 12. articles of the Apostles Creed, the ten Commandments, and those Sacraments which they themselves are to receive. Further also, all such laws and ordinances of either the spiritual, or temporal Governor, which do appertain unto their own estate; that they may know how, both in spiritual and temporal matters, to carry themselves without offence. Let those our Authors which teach cases of conscience, be consulted in those points, and you shall find them to charge every man in conscience, to know all these things, whatsoever some men have thought to the contrary; who be not in that allowed, but disproved even by the testimony of that Author Banes whom M. PERKINS quoteth.  
And touching praying in Latin, the laws of the Catholic Church doth not bind any man to pray in Latin, who is not first bound to learn the Latin tongue, that is: men in holy orders are bound to their Latin Breviary; but no man ignorant of the Latin tongue, must be admitted unto holy orders: for them that are ignorant of the Latin tongue, we have divers books of English prayers, wherein they may exercise themselves fruitfully. If any devout women, or others who understand not Latin, desire to read some selected and approved Latin prayers, we do not forbid them; because those prayers have many privileges above others. And we doubt not, but that many of them do read the same Latin prayers, with much more humility, attention, and elevation of their minds unto God and all goodness; then thousands of Protestants or Puritans, who read and pronounce gallantly, many glorious English prayers composed very curiously, when their hearts be far from God.  
Lastly, he dissenteth from us, for that we say; That some articles of faith, were at the first believed generally by an enfolded faith, which afterward being by general Counsels unfolded, and declared to be articles of faith, were believed expressly.  
This implicity of faith touching articles of religion, M. PER. rejecteth, saying; That all matters of faith are contained plainly in the Scriptures. This he saith without probation, and it is by me in the question of Traditions refuted already: therefore, to that place I refer the reader.   

OF PURGATORY.  

OUR CONSENT.  
M. PERKINS Page 278.  
WE hold a Christian Purgatory, by which we understand, first; the afflictions of God's children here on earth: secondly, the blood of Christ is a Purgatory for our sins; and so Augustine calleth the mercy of God our Purgatory.  
To this I say, that the word Purgatory may be taken diversly, and signify many things; which because they be not to the present purpose, may be here well omitted.   

THE DIFFERENCE.  
WE differ in two things: first, concerning the place, the Catholics hold it to be under the ground, into which men's souls after this life do enter. This we deny as having no warrant in the word, which mentioneth only two places for men after this life: 
Luc. 16. v. 25.26. joh. 3. Apoc. 22.  heaven and hell.  
Here M. PER. beginneth the disproof of Purgatory with his ordinary hackney, it is not mentioned in the Scriptures. To which I answer first, that it is, as shall be proved hereafter: but if it were not, yet were it to be believed, because it was received by Tradition even from the Apostles time. Besides this fault in M. PER. argument, there is another more childish, to wit: because there is no mention made of Purgatory in three or four 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 Physic in two or three Colleges of Cambridge, therefore there is not one in all the University beside. Finally, 
Luc. 16. vers. 25.  the very first place by him cited, overthroweth flatly his own position, it being truly understood according unto the general exposition of the most learned Doctors: for Abraham then was not in heaven, but in a third place called Limbo Patrum; because, before Christ had paid their ransom by his death on the cross, the Fathers of the old Testament were holden captive: and so of Christ it is said, That ascending on high, he led captivity captive. 
Ephes. 4. vers. 8. Hebr. 9 v. 8. & 15.  And S. Paul proveth by the entering 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 blood of Christ to be laid open, and they by the death of the testator, to receive the eternal redemption. But this is by the way, to show the wisdom of the man, to bring one text in controversy to established another.  
But he goeth forward and saith stoutly, that there can be no place for Purgatory: for that it is said, That they who died in the Lord, 
Apoc. 14. vers. 13.  are bidden to rest from their labours: which cannot be (saith he) if they go into Purgatory. And to cut off all cavils, it is further said, their works (that is) the reward of their works follow them, even at the heels.  
I answer first, that we have here by the way, heaven to be the reward of works by M. PER. confession, which in the question of merits he denied most absolutely. Secondly, that albeit they who die in our Lord, do not go to Purgatory, yet many others may; 
Lib. 20. de civit. c. 9  because according unto S. Augustine's judgement, and the holy brethren of Geneva, this place is to be understood of Martyrs only, who die for our Lord. And we that confess Purgatory, do hold that no Martyr doth go thither; but being (as it were) a new baptised in their own blood, do appear before the face of God without any spot: whereas other ordinary good Christians be not free from all such stains, and may also have much penance at their death not performed, which they must endure in Purgatory. I say thirdly, that if the words should be applied to all Christians that die in the grace of God; yet is there nothing in them against Purgatory. For the words following may well be spoken of them that go thither; because they both rest from their labours, which they had in their former life: and also enjoy an assurance of heaven, without any such peril or hazard thereof, as they lived in before: and their works may very well be said to follow them; for that according unto the rate of their works, they must endure the fire of purgatory, either more or less. Fourthly, I may answer with S. Augustine on that place; that they who die in our Lord, from that time there spoken off, 
Vers. 13.  shall go to heaven: Amodo dicit spiritus, from thence forth saith the spirit, they shall rest from their labours. Now, to see what time is there spoken off, read the seventh verse of the same chapter, where are these words: Fear our Lord, and give him honour, because the hour of judgement is come: so that from thenceforth (that is) after the last judgement there shall be no Purgatory; wherefore, M. PERKINS very cunningly clipped the word from thenceforth out of the text, for fear of breeding some scruple: and thus you see, that the text of Scripture so highly esteemed by M. PERKINS serveth nothing for his purpose. Now 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. Augustine's works, there are six several kind of Homilies, to wit: De verbis Domini, De verbis Apostoli, 50. homiliarum, de Sanctis, de Tempore, de Diverses; which of these he meaneth I know not: and to read over the 50. and fift of every of them for one line I list not; the man belike took it by retail. But it may most easily be answered even by the very next words, that he citeth out of the same author: 
Enchirid. 115.  Here is all remission of sins; here be temptations that move us to sin; lastly, here is the evil from which we desire to be delivered, but there is none of all these things. So that in this life only there is compunction (that is) true repentance, and turning from all sin, with satisfaction, or a purpose to satisfy; and he that dieth 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 satisfy for their sins, 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 sins, but we shall go hence without sin.  
Of whom speaketh he trow you? what, of all sorts of men? then none shall be damned. Again, what is this to Purgatory? for they that go to Purgatory, must before they die, by true repentance obtain pardon of their sins; or else they shall not go to Purgatory, but to Hell. Lastly, I have read the Homily over, and find no such word there. Hear (by the way) out of the same works of that most venerable Doctor, three passages for Purgatory: and confer them with those cited by M. PER. and then judge what his opinion was of Purgatory. In that Treatise called 50. Homilies. homil. 16. he writeth thus: This punishment (of hell fire) tarrieth for them, who shall perish everlastingly; to whom it is said: 
Math. 3.  The chaff he shall burn with unquenchable fire. But they who have done things worthy of temporal punishment, of whom the Apostle saith: 
1. Cor. 3.  If any man's work burn he shall suffer detriment, but he shall be saved yet so as through fire; of which also the Prophet speaketh, and a fiery flood did run before him: 
Dan. 7.  They shall pass through a fiery flood, and horrible fords of burning flames. And according to the greatness of the matter of sin, so shall their stay and abode 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 plain description of Purgatory? The second out of his Enchyridion: Neither is it to be denied, 
Cap. 110.  but that the souls of the departed, are holden by the piety of their friends alive; when for them is offered the Sacrifice of our Mediator, or alms are given in the Church for them. But these things profit them, who when they lived, did deserve that these things might profit them: for there is a certain kind of life neither so good, that it doth not need these after their death, neither so evil, but that these things will profit him after his death. There is a life so good, that it needeth not these things▪ and again another so evil, that cannot be helped with them, etc. 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 helped by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the comfortable Sacrifice, and by alms, which are given for their souls; that our Lord doth deal with them more mercifully, than their sins required: those men than were in Purgatory. Thus much (by the way) out of S. Augustine, for a taste of his opinion touching Purgatory. Now to the rest of M. PERKINS testimonies.  
Cyril saith: They which are once dead, 
Lib. 3. in Esaiam.  can add nothing to the things that they have done, but shall remain as they were left, and wait for the time of the last judgement.  
Here is such a citation as sendeth to no piece of his works; yet, nothing difficult to be answered if any such be: for the very next sentence that he allegeth will serve to solve it, which is out of S. chrysostom, who saith: That after the end of this life there be no occasions of merit. To both which the answer is, that a man after his death cannot merit any more, because merit only belongeth unto men while they live: after death they may well reap the due reward of their merits, or else suffer just punishment for their former offences. Neither can a man that is dead alter his estate, but must expect judgement according to his former deserts. Now, if he have upon the true foundation builded wood, hay, and stubble, than he must pass through the fire: marry, by the help of good prayers, alms, and principally by the Sacrifice of the Mass, he may have his pains in that purging fire, remitted or much eased; as you have heard before out of S. Augustine. 
Hom. 41. in 1. ad Corinth.  And the same teacheth S. chrysostom, saying: The dead are helped not by their friends weeping; but by their prayers, supplications, and alms. And this is all in effect which M. PERKINS disputeth against Purgatory.  
Secondly (saith he) we differ from them touching the means of Purgatory. They say that men are purged by suffering of pains in Purgatory, whereby they satisfy for their venial sins, and for the temporal punishment of their mortal sins: We teach the contrary, holding that nothing can free us, from the least punishment of the smallest sin, but the sufferings of Christ. Indeed they say, that our sufferings in themselves considered, do not purge and satisfy; 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 sins by himself; where the last clause cuts the throat of all human satisfactions and merits: and it giveth us to understand, that whatsoever purgeth us from our sins, is not to be found in us, but in Christ alone.  
To batter this his only fortress, his own words in the beginning of the same Chapter, are very sufficient: for there he plainly teacheth, That by afflictions which men suffer in this world, they are cleansed from their corruption; as gold is from the dross by fire. If our own suffering purge us from sin (as he confesseth before) how then can it be true, that that which purgeth us from our sins, is not in us, but in Christ alone? Again, it is but a divers reading in the Greek text, that hath those words, by himself; for they are not in the Latin translation. But admitting them for currant, the sense is most easy, and nothing against either Purgatory or human 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 blood of Calves or Goats, but by his own blood, purged us from our sins, and wrought our redemption; in such sort as in the question of satisfaction hath been declared at large. Here I say briefly, that Christ appeased his Father's wrath, towards all such as shall be made partakers of his merits, defaced the sin itself, and paid the eternal punishment due unto their sins; but left a temporal pain to be endured of the offender (for every such sin pardoned) either in this world, or in the next: both because reason requireth, that he who falleth after that he was once freely pardoned (as we were all in baptism) should not the second time be so easily admitted into God's grace, as that he should not himself feel some smart for his offence. Again, we being members of Christ's body, meet it is that we suffer with him, 
Rom. 8. Col. 1, 24.  if we will reign with him, as the Apostle teacheth: who also was so bold as to say, that he in his body accomplished those things, that wanted to the passions of Christ. To this place M. PER. referreth prayer for the dead, of which he propoundeth three conclusions: two affirmative, and one negative, but proveth nothing.  
The first conclusion: We hold that Christian charity must extend itself to them that be dead, to wit: in honest burial of them, in preserving their good names, and in relief of their posterity.  
The second conclusion: Further we pray in general for the faithful departed, that God would hasten their joyful resurrection.  
The third conclusion: To pray for particular men departed, and to pray for their deliverance out of Purgatory, we think it unlawful; because we have neither promise, nor commandment so to do: and so endeth he the question of Purgatory, not propounding one argument in favour of our party.  
His reason of the necessity of a promise and commandment to pray for any thing, before we pray for it, I have in the question of praying to Saints confuted at large, and therefore omit it here: and will furnish this place with some arguments for the proof 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 have seen in Cardinal Bellarmine, 
Tom. 1. controuer. 6. cap. 3. & 4.  little less than 20. texts of holy Scripture, used by the ancient Doctors to confirm the doctrine of Purgatory, I will make choice of some few of them: and because Purgatory and prayer for the dead, be so closely linked together, that the one doth necessarily follow the other, I will join them both together. And (gentle Reader) remember here that which hath been before rehearsed out of S. Augustine: that there be some who die in so perfect an estate, that they are carried presently to heaven; as all Innocents', and Martyrs, and such other holy personages who commit few offences, and yet do lead a very austere life. Others there be too too many, who both live and die wickedly; such are also strait after their death, plunged into the flames of hell fire. Now, There is a third sort of men, who live reasonable honestly, at least do die very penitently; these only go to Purgatory, there to do satisfaction for their former offences, before they can be admitted into the joys of heaven: now to our proofs.  
First, 
2. Machabaeor. 12.  judas Machabeus (that most valiant Captain of the people of God) with all his army, prayed unto God to pardon the offence of them that were slain: 
* Vers. 42.  and afterward making a general collection among them, sent 12000. groats to Jerusalem, 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 wholesome cogitation to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed and delivered from their sins. This text is so evident for prayer for the dead, that it can have no other answer, then that which Heretics fly unto, in their most desperate plunges, to wit: to deny the whole book to be Canonical Scripture. Upon which point, because it belongeth to another place, I will not dwell: yet, will I note by the way, that S. Augustine in express terms doth declare, 
18. Civit. cap. 36.  that the Church of God in his time did take it for Canonical Scripture, although the jews did not so. The Protestants (I know well) cavil at many things in those books; so might they that were disposed to wrangle, against the best Histories in the Bible. But one of milder temper may (perhaps) demand, how those books that were at the first doubted off by many, and not generally received for Canonical, could afterward be made Canonical? to this I answer, that the Protestants (as well as we) do take now for Canonical, some such books as were 300. years after Christ doubted off, to wit: the Epistle to the Hebrews, S. james Epistle, the second of S. Peter, the second and third of S. john, S. judes Epistle, and the Apocalypse, or Revelation of S. john. Now, they themselves having admitted all these of the new Testament for Canonical, upon the judgement and declaration of the Catholic Church: why do they not as well take those of the old Testament for Canonical also, the same Church having above a thousand years past, approved them for Canonical, as well as the other? At the first, because of the great persecutions, the learned could not so generally meet together, to examine & discuss such matters, as afterward in the peace of the Church; and therefore in that time divers men were of divers opinions, concerning the authority of such books: but when the learned in the Church, assembling together in the name of God, and having the assistance of the holy Ghost to direct them, had once declared which were Canonical, which not; there was no further question among the obedient children of the Church: only unskilful men, or Heretics (because they will be choosers) will admit of which it pleaseth them, and reject also those which displease them. But to leave this digression; the books of the Maccabees cannot but have even with Heretics, far greater credit, than Livy, Plutarch, and such like profane histories, 
Pag. 307.  as M. PER. also confesseth. They then will serve to convince any reasonable man, that the custom of the people of Israel (than the only chosen servants of God) was to pray for the dead, and to offer sacrifice for the pardon of the souls that were departed; because it is so recorded in the best history of their times: and is also seconded by josephus the son of Gordan in his book of the jews war; 
Cap. 91.  where he saith, that the jews were wont to pray for the dead, unless it were for such that had slain themselves. And thus much out of the old Testament: now out of the new.  
Our Saviour Christ willeth us to agree with our adversary, whiles we are in the way with him, lest perhaps he deliver us to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and so we be cast into prison: for verily (saith he) thou shalt not go out from thence, till thou repay the last farthing. By this parable or example, our Saviour teacheth us while we live in this world, to agree with the law of God, which is our adversary when we transgress and offend against it; otherwise at our death we shall justly be cast into prison, and lie there till we have fully satisfied and paid the last farthing of our debt. The Protestants say, that he who is so cast into prison shall never come out: We say the contrary, that this parable concerneth them especially that shall be delivered at the length, and prove it; first because the parable is not taken from a murderer or thief, who may be justly condemned to death, or to perpetual prison; but of a debtor, who ordinarily doth get out in time: and therefore it agreeth better unto men cast in Purgatory, to pay the debt of the former trespasses, then to them that are condemned to hell. Besides, the ancient Fathers do 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 go out until he hath paid the last farthing.  
S. Cyprian. It is one thing to stand for pardon, 
Lib. 4. epist. 2.  and another to pass strait to glory: one thing, being cast into prison not to go forth till you have paid the last farthing; and another, to receive presently the reward of faith and virtue: one thing, to be corrected and purged long time in fire for your sins; and another, by dying for Christ to have purged all your sins.  
Eusebius Emissenus. 
Homil. 3. de Epiph.  But they who have deserved temporal pains (unto whom those words of our Lord appertain, that they shall not go out thence, until they have paid the last farthing) shall pass through a flood 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 having fully satisfied for their former sins, are cast into the prison of Purgatory, there to pay the last farthing, unless by the piety and intercession of their friends, their more speedy deliverance be procured and obtained.  
Moreover, that there is such pardon granted after this life to some, is confirmed by that which our Saviour saith in another place: 
Math. 12.  That they who sin against the holy Ghost, shall not be forgiven neither in this world, nor in the world to come: which were a very improper kind of speech, if none were to be pardoned in the world to come; As it should be for our King, to say to some offender, I will not forgive thee neither in England, nor in Italy; whereas he hath nothing to do to pardon in a strange Dominion. And the learned know, that in enumeration of parts, it is as foul a fault to reckon something for a part which is none, as to omit some true part indeed: so that than our Lord parting the forgiveness of sins into this world, and the world to come, in all congruity of speech we must understand, that some sins are forgiven in the world to come; which cannot be in heaven, where none are; nor in hell where there is no remission of sin: therefore it must be in a third place, which we call Purgatory.  
And this is no new collection made by modern Catholics, out of the word of God; but as ancient as S. Augustine, who hath these words: Some men suffer temporal punishment in this life only, 
Lib. 21. de civit. c. 13.  others after their death; some others both here and there: yet, before that last and most severe judgement. For all men after their deaths, shall not go unto those everlasting torments of helfor (saith he, citing this place) to some, that which is not forgiven in this world, is forgiven in the world to come, as I have taught before. With S. Augustine agreeth S. Gregory, 
Lib. 4. dialog. c. 39  saying: It is to be believed, that there is a Purgatory fire before the judgement, for certain light faults; for that the truth saith: if any man blaspheme against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. In which sentence there is given to understand, that certain faults are forgiven in this world, and certain in the world to come: for that which is denied of one, by consequence, is understood to be granted to some others. 
In 3. Mar. serm. 66. in Cant.  Even so do S. Bede, and S. Bernard with divers others, expound those words of our blessed Saviour.  
The third text of the new Testament, shall be taken out of S. Paul to the Corinthians, where he (by a similitude of building) declareth; that some men upon the only sound foundation JESUS Christ, 
1. Cor. 3.  do build gold, silver, and precious stones, that is, very excellent and perfect works: others do build upon the same foundation, wood, hay, and stubble, that is, imperfect and many vain trifling works. He addeth: that the day of our Lord, which shall be revealed in fire, shall prove the works of the aforesaid builders: and they who have built gold, silver, and precious stones, because their works will abide the proof of fire, shall receive their reward; but because the other sort of bvilder's works cannot resist the fire, but will burn, they shall suffer detriment, but shall be saved, yet so as by fire.  
Hence we gather, that after the trial of God's judgement, some men who are found guilty of lighter faults, shall be saved, because they kept the foundation; notwithstanding they shall suffer detriment, and pass through the fire of Purgatory: as a man that hath an halfe-timber house covered with thetch, set on fire; he being in the midst of it, must pass through the flames of fire, to escape and save his life. The Protestants say, that it is the fire of tribulation in this life that doth try our works, and that through it only lighter faults are purged. We reply first, that tribulation of this life, doth not commonly discern and try good men's works from the bad; because very often good men are more afflicted in this world than the bad. Again, it is said in the text, that at the day of our Lord this trial shall be made; which day of our Lord being expressed with the Greek 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 plain, that the Apostle S. Paul delivered the doctrine of Purgatory: which yet is made more assured by the universal consent of the holy Fathers, who take this place to prove Purgatory. See Origen, homil. 6. in Exodum. S. Basil saith: He threateneth not utter ruin and destruction, 
In cap. 9 Esay.  but signifieth a cleansing according unto the Apostles sentence; but he shall be saved, yet so as by fire.  
Theodorete. This same fire we believe to be the fire of Purgatory, 
In scholijs Gr. in 1. Cor. 3. In psal. 36  in which the souls of the departed are tried and purged, as gold is in the furnace. Oecumenius and Anselmus upon the same place, be of the same judgement.  
S. Ambrose upon those words: Sinners have drawn their sword, saith: though our Lord will save his, yet so they shall be saved 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. Hear this one taken out of his Commentary upon the 37. Psalm: O Lord reprove me not in thy indignation, that I go not to hell; neither correct me in thy wrath, but purge me in this life, and make me such a one, that shall have no need of that purging fire, prepared for them who shall be saved; yet so, as by fire. And why so? but because here they do build upon the foundation, wood, hay, and stubble: if they did build gold, silver, and precious stones, they should be safe from both fires; not only from that everlasting, which is to punish the wicked everlastingly, but from that also, which shall correct them who shall be saved by fire: for it is said, he shall be saved, yet so as by fire. And because he shall be saved, that fire is contemned: yea truly, though they shall be saved, yet that fire is more grievous, than whatsoever a man can suffer in this life. These few testimonies of the most approved Doctors, may suffice to assure us, that the Apostles speeches are to be taken of a purging fire, prepared after this life for them, that upon their true faith in Christ do build (through the frailty of our nature) many idle, odd, and vain works.  
The last text of holy Scripture shall be this, taken out of S. john: 
1. Epist. 5. vers. 16.  He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin not unto death; let him ask, and life shall be given him: there is a sin to death, for that I say not that any man ask. Hence I reason thus: a sin to death, must in this place needs be taken for sin, wherein a man dieth; for which no man can pray, because that he who dieth in deadly sin, shall never afterward be pardoned: wherefore, a sin not unto death, is a sin of which a man repenteth him before his death; and for such a one doth S. john exhort us to pray: therefore, the prayer which he speaketh of when he biddeth us not pray, being prayer for the dead; the other prayer also, must be prayer for the departed: and so doth he will us to pray for such men departed, that died not in deadly sin, but with repentance. The Caluinists say, That S. john speaketh rather of Apostates, and some such like heinous offenders, for whom yet alive he would not have us to pray. But this is very wicked doctrine; for we may pray even for Turks, and jews, and the most sinful persons that live, whiles they live and have time to repent: for what know we, whether God will take them to mercy or no? and S. Paul saith expressly, that he would have us to pray for all persons, 
1. Tim. 2. vers. 1. De correct & gratia cap. 12.  whiles they live. Much more convenient therefore is that exposition before rehearsed, which is taken out of S. Augustine, who affirmeth: That a sin to death, is to leave faith working by charity, even till death.  
To these arguments selected out of holy Scripture, I will join another of no smaller moment with us Catholics, which is drawn from Apostolical tradition, and the practice of the universal Church in her primitive purity; which hath used always to pray for the dead. Let us hear two or three substantial witnesses speak in this matter. S. chrysostom that most renowned Patriarch of Constantinople shall be the first, who saith: 
Hom. 69. ad populum.  That it was not without good cause ordained and decreed by the Apostles, that in the dreadful mysteries there be made a commemoration of the dead. For they did know, that they should receive 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 Greek, 
De verbis Apostoli serm. 34.  saith to this point thus: It is not to be doubted, but that the dead are helped by the prayers of holy Church, and by the comfortable sacrifice, and by the alms that are given for their souls, that God may deal more mercifully with them, than their sins deserved. For (saith he) the universal Church observeth and keepeth this, as by tradition received from the Fathers, that for them who are departed in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, when at the sacrifice there is made a commemoration or mention of them, they are prayed for; and the sacrifice is remembered to be offered for them. The third witness is Tertullian a most ancient and learned author: 
De corona militis.  who reckoneth it among the traditions of the Apostles, to pray for the souls of the faithful departed. It appearing then so manifest, by the testimony of such approved witnesses, that to pray for the dead is an Apostolical tradition, generally received and practised in the most flourishing state of the Church; S. Augustine's verdict must needs prove true, who saith: that it is a point of most insolent madness, to dispute against that, which the whole Church doth practise. Wherefore, our Protestants were 1300. years ago, condemned for Heretics in this point in one Aerius, who was censured by that holy and learned Bishop Epiphanius, haeres. 75. and by S. Augustine ad Quodvult deum, haeres. 53. an Heretic; because that to the Arrian heresy he added this of his own, that we must not offer sacrifice nor pray for the souls of the departed: so that to deny prayer for the dead, is by the judgement of the ancient Church, deemed flat heresy.  
To these former authorities, let us add one reason deducted also out of the word of God. When a sinner is truly converted, though the fault and eternal pain due to it, be through Christ's merits freely pardoned him; yet, there remaineth some temporal punishment to be suffered by the party himself, for the same offence before remitted. This proposition is denied by the Protestants; but it is so manifestly set down in God's word, that they cannot but be put to great shame for it, if they be urged with the examples of the children of Israel, of Aaron, and Moses, and David; 
Num. 14. Ibi. c. 20. ver. 24. & Deut. 32. vers. 51. 2. Reg. 12.  who were all first pardoned of their sins, and afterward put to penance for the very same offences, as I have in the matter of satisfaction more amply proved. Now to the present purpose: But many who have been great offenders, are not converted till towards their death; or else being converted long before, do not fulfil such penance, as in justice is due unto their grievous and manifold former offences: therefore, the due order of God's 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 do answer: that the very death which every one endureth, doth serve to supply all former defects of his life, and purgeth him clean from all pain due to his former sins: but this is said both without authority, or any reason. For a natural death is due unto all the Sons of Adam, for original sin; in so much as the very innocents baptized are not freed from it: and therefore, that cannot be also a satisfaction for all other actual sins. Again, some who have deserved great punishment, die suddenly, and with small pain: so that there is no proportin between the pain of their death, and their former trespasses. We deny not, but that such may be both the length and sharpness of the sickness whereof some die; that it being patiently taken may either greatly diminish, or (perhaps) wholly extinguish all former offences: but to say that every ones ordinary death, doth cancel all former obligation of sins, how many or how great soever they were, hath neither ●ime or reason in it.  
I could for a conclusion assemble the sentences of the fathers, and show how they prayed for the souls departed in their funeral Orations for them: as Gregory Nazianzene, for the soul of Cesanis; S. Ambrose for the souls of Theodosius, Valentinian, and Satyrus, promising also to offer sacrifice for them; 
In epist. ad eundem. Lib. 5. hystor. c. 26. Lib. 3. Institut. c. 5. §. 10.  S Hierome commending Pomachius for praying and giving alms for the soul of his wife; and Theodorete praising the Emperor Theodosius the younger for prostrating himself at the Relics of S. john chrysostom, and praying there for the souls of his parents, Arcadius and Eudoxia. I could (I say) bring a cloud of witnesses to this purpose, but Caluin easeth me of that labour; who acknowledgeth, That for 1300. years before his days (that is almost, from the first time that the ancient Fathers began to write) the custom of praying for the dead hath been used in the Church: Marry, he would have us believe, that it was brought in by the vulgar sort, after the imitation of the Gentiles. But we have showed, that the best learned and most sincere and Godly Preachers and Doctors, have both out of the word of God, and Tradition of the Apostles taught their flocks that point of Christian doctrine; and further, by name condemned them of heresy, that taught the contrary: so that very fond doth Caluin tax S. Augustine for praying for his mother's soul, saying (forsooth) that he did it only to satisfy the old woman's request; and saith yet more impudently, that in his book of the care to be taken for the dead, he doth very coldly handle the matter: whereas you have heard (I hope) sufficiently out of him, how resolute and peremptory he is for Purgatory. 
See the beginning of it, and cap. 4.  And in that said book his principal intent is, to approve the burying of the dead near unto the body or relics of some Martyr, to the intent that he, who remembreth the body of his best beloved to be there buried, may with greater devotion recommend unto the same Martyr, his dear friends soul. And therefore he doth much commend a devout Matron, for burying her son near unto the relics of S. Foelix; and counseleth others so to do, adding: that if they cannot procure any such burying place for their friends; yet, that in no case they ought to cease from necessary prayers and supplications for them: For (saith he) wheresoever the body of the departed do lie, the rest and peace of his soul, is to be procured and sought for. And whether out of fond affection towards his mother, or out of a most settled judgement he prayed for her; and whether it were coldly or no, let his own words declare: thus he beginneth to prove Caluin an audacious liar. 
Lib. 9 Confess. cap. 13.  But now I having my heart cured of that wound, in which human affection might be faulty, do power forth unto thee (our God) for that thy servant (his mother Monica) another manner of tears, which floweth from a mind strooken with fear, by consideration of those perils, which follow every soul that dieth in Adam, etc. I therefore (o my praise, my life, and God of my heart) laying aside for a season her good works, for which I rejoicing do give thee thanks, do now pray unto thee for the sins of my Mother: hear me (I beseech thee) through the salve of our wounds, that hanged upon the tree, and now sitting at thy right hand, doth plead for us. I know that she did many works of mercy, and from her heart forgave all them that trespassed against her: do thou (o Lord) also forgive her her trespasses, if she committed any after baptism. Pardon her, pardon her, (o Lord) I beseech thee, and enter not into judgement with her: let thy mercy surpass thy judgements, because thy words are true, and thou hast promised mercy to the merciful, etc.  
Can that most worthy Doctor more directly cross Caluins false relation, of his coldness in this matter? or in better manner clear himself from his spiteful slanders? Caluin blushed not to say, that S. Augustine out of passion prayed for his mother: but he himself relateth, how he did it some years after her death of settled judgement, having his heart cured from human affection.  
And thus I end this question of Purgatory.    

OF THE SUPREMACY IN CAUSES ECCLESIASTICAL.  

OUR CONSENT.  
M. PERKINS Page 283.  
TOuching the point of Supremacy Ecclesiastical, I will set down how near we may come unto the Roman Church in two conclusions.  
The first conclusion. For the founding of the primitive Church, the Ministry 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 above Evangelists, and Evangelists above Pastors and teachers: now Peter was an Apostle, and so above all Evangelists and Pastors, howsoever he were not above other Apostles.  
The second conclusion. Among the 12. Apostes, Peter had a threefold privilege or prerogative: first, of authority, I mean a pre-eminence in regard of estimation, whereby he was in reverence above the rest of the twelve. Secondly, of primacy, because he was the first named as the foreman of the quest. Thirdly, of principality, in regard of measure of grace, wherein he excelled the rest of the twelve; but Paul excelled Peter every way, in learning, zeal, and understanding, as far as Peter excelled the rest.  

ANNOTATION.  
MAster PERKINS (as his manner is) at the first would seem to approach somewhat near unto the Catholic doctrine, and therefore giveth as brave words for S. Peter's prerogatives, as we do, to wit; That he surpassed the other Apostles both in authority, primacy, and principality: but p●●●ently (after his old fashion) he watereth his former words with such cold glosses, that they shrink in exceedingly; for all Peter's privileges do extend no further, then that he excelled the rest in private grace of learning, zeal, and understanding, and was therefore somewhat more esteemed than the rest, and named first: so that with M. PER. a great mill-post, is quickly thwited (as they say) into a pudding prick. Again, all this is beside the purpose: for the question is not which of the Apostles excelled in those private gifts of understanding, zeal, and piety; for it is not unlikely hat S. john the Evangelist (who sucked divine mysteries out of our saviours breast) was not inferior to either S. Peter or S. Paul, in these spiritual graces of heavenly knowledge and charity: but we leaving these secrets unto him who is the judge of the heart, and of his inward gifts; do affirm S. Peter to have been advanced above all the rest of the Apostles, in the external government of Christ's Church; and the Bishops of Rome his successors, to inherit the same supremacy.    

THE DIFFERENCE by M. PERKINS.  
THe Church of Rome giveth to Peter a supremacy under Christ above all persons and causes: this standeth in a power to determine which books of Scripture be Canonical, and what is the true sense of any doubtful place of them; and for this purpose to call and assemble general Counsels, and to confirm the decrees of them, and by these means 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 laws or the decrees of holy Church, shall justly deserve it. Moreover, to him it doth belong to make Ecclesiastical Canons and laws, for the due discipline and ordering of matters of the Church, which do bind in conscience. Finally, to confirm the election of Bishops, and to decide all such greater controversies, as by appeal are brought unto him from any part of Christendom.  
These indeed be the chiefest points of the Pope's supremacy: as for that of pardoning of sins, it is no proper part of his primacy, but common unto all; not only to Bishops, but also to Priests.  
We (saith M. PERKINS) hold, that neither Peter nor any Bishop of Rome, had or hath any such supremacy over the Catholic Church: but that all supremacy under Christ is appertaining to Kings 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 ways: first, as he is God, so is he King over all by right of creation; and so as God hath deputies on earth to govern the world, namely Kings and Princes. Secondly, he is King by right of redemption over the whole Church, which he hath redeemed with his precious blood; and so as mediator and redeemer, he hath no fellow nor deputy: for no creature is capable of this office, to do in the room and stead of Christ that which himself doth; because every work of the mediator must arise from the effects of two natures concurring in one action, namely the Godhead and Manhood. Again, Christ's Priesthood cannot pass from his person to any other; whence it followeth, that neither his Kingly, nor his Prophetical (he would have said Priestly) office, can pass from him to any creature. Nay, it is needless for Christ to have a deputy, considering that a deputy only serveth to supply the absence of the principal: whereas Christ is always present by his word and spirit, it may be said that the Ministers in the work of the ministry are Christ's deputies. I answer, that they are no deputies, but only active instruments; because they do only utter the word, but it is Christ that worketh in the heart. In like manner in excommunication, it is Christ that cutteth that excommunicate person from the Kingdom of heaven; and the Church doth only declare this, by cutting him off from the rest of Christ's people, until he repent: so that in all Ecclesiastical actions, Christ hath no deputies but only instruments, the whole action being personal in respect of Christ.  
Is not this trow you a pretty piece of an argument? but we must bear with the length of it, because it alone will serve (as M. PER. opineth) to overthrow many points of Popery: let it be therefore well considered of. To it then I say first, that if it be aught worth, it as well overthroweth the Kings, as the Pope's Supremacy. For if the Pope may not be Christ's deputy, as he is mediator and governor of his Church, because that no creature can be his deputy in any point of Ecclesiastical government as M. PER. defineth; then surely no King nor Prince, who are mere creatures (and not one of them I trow, both God and Man) can be Christ's deputy in the government of his Church. I say secondly, that a mere creature may be Christ our mediators deputy and Vicar in the Ecclesiastical government of his Church: neither 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 himself, and see whether there be any one that must needs be the action of both God and Man: to call a general Council is none such, nor to ratify the decrees thereof; to discuss and declare which books be Canonical Scripture, and what is the true meaning of all obscure places therein contained, 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 well executed by a mortal man assisted with God's spirit. The points of Christ's mediation, namely to satisfy his Father's wrath by paying him the full ransom of all mankind; the establishing of a new Testament or law; the creation of spiritual Magistrates; the furnishing of it with Sacraments, and such like are indeed so proper to Christ, that they cannot be communicated unto others: Marry, to see that his laws be well observed, lawful Governors and Ministers elected, and his Sacraments rightly administered; the charged (I say) of these things may be very well committed unto his deputies, and the principal oversight of all unto one supreme governor under himself, that all the inferior Prelates may be holden in peace and unity. And to say that Christ's presence, by his word and spirit is sufficient to dissolve all doubts that arise about matter of faith, and to reform all misdemeanour that is among Christians, without the authority of some Magistrate to see the same well declared, and applied unto particular persons; is to speak against all reason and experience. For who shall reform obstinate Heretics? Christ's word? but Heretics have always said, and will ever say that it maketh for them. Shall Christ's spirit correct them? they hold that they have that spirit in such abundance, that it crieth in them, Abba, Father: so that M. PER. argument driveth to this, that there must be no governor at all; but that every wrangling fellow, is to be left unto the word and spirit of Christ: which is most absurd in matter of government. And albeit that in producing of supernatural effects, men be but God's instruments: yet because they be instruments endued with reason, chosen by God, and enabled to do that whereunto they are by Christ appointed; I see no reason why they may not be well called Christ's deputies. Sure I am, that S. Paul feareth not to style himself with the other Apostles, 
2. Cor. 5. vers. 20. 1. Cor. 3. vers. 9,  Christ's Legates or Ambassadors: which is as much, if not more than his deputies. And in an other place, he goeth yet further, and saith; that they are coadjutors, or fellow workmen with God: for though it be Gods work, as the only efficient cause; yet men do concur thereunto as his instruments, and do in their kind work properly towards the producing of the effect: as the Preacher by his persuasions, zeal, and piety, doth very much move his Auditors to embrace Godliness, although he should labour in vain if God d●d not principally both concur with his speeches, and inwardly also dispose the heart of the hearer to receive them. But of this more hereafter in the matter of the Sacraments.  
Touching the matter of government, I cannot understand what M. PER. meaneth when he saith, that every action thereof proceedeth from the very person of Christ: for when the Bishops or congregation doth excommunicate an offender, how can that act of theirs be personal in respect 〈…〉 speaketh? Is Christ there th●● in pa●●●●● 〈…〉 manhood together, are they prosecution 〈…〉 sentence of excommunication? what ado●●● 〈…〉 if such deep doctrine drown many p●●●e of Pop●●ry. If Christ be not there present, how th●n can thee action proceeds 〈◊〉 him only, and be so proper to him that it may be called personal? M. PER. meaneth perhaps only, that when the congregation doth out 〈…〉 the Church by excommunication, than Christ 〈…〉 from the kingdom of heaven; which is also false; for many 〈…〉, which afterward upon their 〈◊〉 unto that kingdom, and therefore were not cut off from it by Christ. But suppose it were true, that Christ then separated that person from heaven; would it follow thereof, that the act of co●ting him off 〈◊〉 congregation done by the Church, were the proper action of Christ proceeding immediately from his two 〈◊〉 of God and man? nothing (I think) can be imagined more absurd: wherefore, all the actions of Ecclesiastical government issue properly from the persons of the Governors, who are in deed placed in that seat of authority by Christ, and inspired by him to exercise that function duty; but so qualified by Christ, do formally execute and work all the actions belonging to government, and therefore may be most properly called Deputies: who in their Master's name and by authority received from him, do that they have commission to do.  
M. PERKINS second reason is: All the Apostles were equal in power and authority: for the commission Apostolical was equally given unto them all. 
Math. 28.  Go teach all nations, baptizing them, etc.  
Answer. They were equal in that point of preaching the Gospel to all nations, and in many other things which appertained to the planting of the Christian religion: Marry always with this general proviso; that both they and all those who were converted unto the faith by them, should acknowledge and obey one supreme Pastor, Christ's Vicegerent on earth. Which S. Leo doth very plainly teach, saying: 
Epist. 84. ad Anast.  Between the most blessed Apostles in the similitude or equality of honour, there was a certain difference of power: and where as the election of them all was equal, yet it was given unto one of them to have pre-eminence above the rest.  
But M. PERKINS saith, that the promise of the keys of the Kingdom of heaven was not private to Peter, but in his person made to the rest of the Apostles, according unto Peter's confession made in the name of the rest.  
Answer. Very just; even as Peter made his confession, so was the promise: but he made that confession of Christ in his own name, and that by special revelation from God, without consulting with any of the rest; therefore to him alone was 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 receive the gift of a Bishop, have the power of committing and binding as Peter had.  
Answer. We grant that all lawful Bishops can bind and loose, both in the court of conscience and publicly; but thereof it followeth not, that that promise of Christ for building his Church on S. Peter, etc. was common unto 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 unto the rest as well as to him, This night before the Cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrife; which no man can say.  
To understand then such general propositions, take this distinction with you, that things spoken unto S. Peter are of three sundry sorts. Some are spoken unto him as an ordinary Christian, and such sentences do agree unto all Christians: other things are spoken unto him, as an Apostle, and those are common unto the rest of the Apostles: there be lastly certain things spoken unto him particularly, as head of the Church, which may not be extended unto any other of the Apostles, but only unto his successors.  
Now S. Ambrose speaketh of the second kind of things: but against this M. PER. excepteth thus: That although Peter be admitted to have been in commission above 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 personal, and consequently ceased with them, without being conveyed unto any others: and he addeth the reason of this to be; because that when the Church of the new Testament was once founded, it was needful only, that there should be Pastors and Teachers for the building of it up, unto the worlds end.  
Reply. What meaneth this man by Pastors? doth he comprehend Bishops within that word? then he overthroweth himself: for if such Pastors be yet necessary, then is it needful that the Bishops of Rome do succeed S. Peter in that ample power which he had. If by Pastors he understand Parish Priests or Ministers that have charge of flocks, and by Teachers other Preachers; then doth he here as much for the Bishops, as in his last discourse he did for temporal Princes, that is: as he went about there to prove, that Christ as our redeemer, could have no creature for his deputy in government; and consequently that Kings cannot be Christ's Lieutenants in Ecclesiastical causes: so here he doth insinuate, that Bishops be not necessary to the building up of Christ's Church, but the Minister of every Parish with the Elders thereof, will suffice for ordinary matters; and that affairs of greater moment must be referred (belike) to the consistorial assembly of many Ministers and Elders together. Doth not this savour rankly of Puritanisme? but because he only saith this without any proof, let it suffice for answer 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 ordain the Ministers, and to see, that they do diligently discharge their duty. And as Bishops are necessary to oversee Priests and Ministers: so are Archbishops and metropolitans to look unto Bishops, and to provide that there be no schisms or divisions among them, and to determine their controversies, if any arise between them. And in like manner one Supreme Pastor is necessary in the Universal Church of Christ, to hold all Archbishops, Primates, and patriarchs in unity of faith, and in conformity of Christian ceremonies and manners.  
M. PERKINS third reason: When the Sons of Zebedee sued unto Christ for the greatest rooms of honour in his Kingdom, Christ's answer was; Ye know that the Lords of the Gentiles have dominion, and they that are great, exercise authority over them: but it shall not be so with you. Bernard applieth this to Pope Eugenius on this manner; 
Lib. 2. do consid.  it is plain that here dominion is forbidden the Apostles: go to then, dare you (if you will) to take upon you ruling an Apostleship; or in your Apostleship, rule and dominion? if you will have both alike, you shall lief both: otherwise you must not think yourself excempted from the number of them, of whom the Lord complained; ye have reigned, but not of me.  
Answer. Insolent and tyrannical dominion, such as was in those days practised by the Gentiles, Pagans, and Idolaters, is there by our Saviour forbidden the Apostles; but not modest and vigilant Prelature in Ecclesiastical government, as the very text itself doth plainly show: for in that he doth foretell that there should not be such a haughty & disdainful kind of superiority among his disciples, he doth give us to understand 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 Greek égouménos your Captain or Prince) let him be your waiter. See, he will have among them one greater than the rest, to be their Captain and leader; which he confirmeth with his own example, saying: As I myself came not to be waited on, or ministered unto, but came to minister or to wait upon others: so that this discourse of our saviours, only disproveth in Christians such Lordlike domination as was then in use among the Gentiles, who were given for the most part, to take their own pleasures to overrule laws as they listed, to oppress their subjects with taxes, and to use them like slaves. Now in Ecclesiastical governementall must be otherwise: the Prelate must not seek his own ease, wealth, or pleasure, but most vigilantly study day and night to feed and profit his flock, with whom he must converse most modestly, not scorning or contemning to speak familiarly with the meanest amongst them. And this is that which S. Bernard counseleth Eugenius to do; To rule as an Apostle, and not to overrule or to domineer like unto some temporal Princes: which in the same book he doth plainly teach, saying: That when Eugenius was created Pope, he then was exalted over Nations and Kingdoms, yet not to domineer over them, but to serve them. And further, he doth in the same book deliver the Pope's Supremacy in these most evident words, speaking thus to the same Pope Eugenius: Who art thou? a great Priest, the highest Bishop; thou art the Prince of the Bishops, the heir of the Apostles, etc. Thou art he to whom the keys of heaven were delivered, to whom the sheep were committed. There are also indeed other Porters of heaven, and Pastors of sheep; but thou art so much the more glorious, as thou hast inherited a more excellent name above them. They have their flocks to each man me; but to thee all were committed, as one flock to one Pastor. Thou art not only Pastor of the sheep, but of all other Pastors, thou alone art the Pastor. Thus far S. Bernard, and much more doth he say in favour of the Pope's Supremacy in the same book: wherefore to pike out a broken sentence of his against overruling, thereby to disprove that which he doth most plainly prove and allow; argueth an evil conscience in M. PERKINS, and a mind fully bend to deceive them that be so simple as to believe him.  

Ephes. 4.  His fourth reason: Mention is made of gifts, which Christ gave to his Church after his ascension, whereby some were Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors, some Teachers: now of there had been an office, in which men as deputies of Christ should have governed the whole Church, that calling might here have been named; and no doubt but that Paul would not have concealed it, where he mentioneth callings of less importance.  
Answer. This man will never leave playing the Sophister, and using of fallacies instead of sound arguments: what 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 us return this his weapon upon his own pate: In that place of the Apostle, there is no mention made of the kings supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical, but rather a plain declaration that the Church of God needeth no such officer for her Ecclesiastical government: ergo, Kings have no such authority. And because M. PER. seemeth not greatly to care for the Prince's supremacy, let this argument be urged against the admirable Elders of their consistorial discipline; who notwithstanding they be such peerless peers of the reformed Churches, yet were utterly concealed, or rather never thought upon by the Apostle, when and where he mentioneth callings of lesser moment. Now the direct answer to that place may be twofold: either that there is not mention made of all Church officers, as it is evident and must be confessed on all parts; or else that by convenient interpretation, they may be reduced unto some of them there named, and so may the supreme Pastor of Christ's Church be contained well in that name of Pastors; or because it belongeth unto the supreme Pastor to have a general care of all Christendom, and to send always some to convert Infidels, his charged and calling may be well an Apostleship: as it is in the very words cited by M. PER. in his last argument out of S. Bernard. 
Epist. 162. Lib. 2. cont. Ruffinum.  Besides, S. Augustine, and S. Hierome with others do call the Sea of Rome an Apostolical chair and seat.  
M. PERKINS fift reason: The Pope's supremacy is condemned by sentences of Scripture, before it was manifest to the world; by the spirit of prophesy, to wit; the man of sin (which is Antichrist) shall exalt himself above all that is called God: now this whole Chapter with all the circumstances of it, 
2. Thess. 2.  most fitly agreeth to the sea of Rome, and the head thereof.  
Answer. This is a capital accusation, and therefore should have been thoroughly well proved, and yet you would marvel to see how slightly he goeth about it: I can scarce bring his proof into any form of argument, it is so substantial. But thus he seemeth to argue: At the decay of the Roman Empire the man of sin shall be revealed: but the Sea of Rome never slourished till the Empire decayed; ergo, that Sea is the man of sin. Here is a new found manner of arguing: Let us admit the first proposition, because it may hap to be true, though it be very uncertain what is meant by that defection mentioned by S. Paul. But let us grant it: shall every thing that beginneth then to flourish, be the man of sin? and if every flourishing state shall not then be that man of sin, why shall the Sea of Rome be rather that man of sin, than 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 never flourished till the Empire decayed: for when did it ever flourish more, then in that good Emperor's days Constantine the great, and in many other excellent Christian Emperors that lived an hundred years after him? Thirdly S. Paul speaketh not of a decay of the Roman Empire, or whatsoever else he meaneth; but rather of a general revolt, or utter ruin and decay of it, which is not as yet happened: for the Empire to this day yet continueth in some part of Hungary and Beameland; so that man of sin cannot be the Sea of Rome, which so many years hath flourished together with that Roman Empire. Finally, S. Peter and three and thirty other Popes of Rome after him, enjoyed the supreme government of the Church, more than four hundred years before that declination & decay of the Roman Empire, which they speak off: so that nothing can be more fond and absurd, then to draw thence any argument against the Pope's supremacy. And whereas he saith that all that chapter agreeth fitly to the Sea of Rome: I say & will briefly prove, that nothing in that Chapter agreeth unto it any thing aptly. First, the Apostle speaketh of one particular man, as his words do manifestly show: for he calleth him the man of sin, 
Vers. 3.  the son of perdition, and that with the Greek article which doth more formally particularise; how can this be applied unto more than two hundred Popes? 
Vers. 4. In illum locum.  Secondly it is said, that that man of sin shall be extolled above all that is called God: and as S. chrysostom expoundeth it, shall command himself to be adored and worshipped as God, which is and hath ever been most far from the thoughts of all Popes, who profess themselves servants of all God's servants. 
Vers. 9  Thirdly, that man of iniquity shall work many strange signs and wonders; Let them name which of the Popes hath so done for these last 900. years, which they accuse most. Fourthly, that man shall be received of the jews; for saith S. Paul, 
Vers. 10.  Because they received not the charity of truth, that they might be saved; therefore God will send them the operation of error to believe lying: now all the Greek interpreters do understand this of the jews, as the very text leadeth them. With whom agreeth S. Hierome, interpreting these words thus: 
Quaest. 11. ad Algasium  Antichrist shall do all these signs not by the power, but by the permission of God for the jews: that because they would not receive the charity of truth, that is, the spirit of God by Christ, and so receiving the Saviour, they might have been saved: God will send them, etc. With these accord both S. Augustine and S. Cyril, upon this sentence of our Saviour speaking to the jews: I come to you in the name of my father, 
joh. 5. vers. 43.  and you received me not: if any other shall come in his own name, him you receive, that is Antichrist: but the jews have not yet received 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 who withdraw themselves from society in religion with him.  

Vers. 9  Finally, it is there said, that Christ with the spirit of his own mouth shall kill that man, with the manifestation of his advene or coming: whence the learned interpreters gather, first; that Antichrist shall be punished with a very extraordinary and exemplare death, which hath not happened to any of these Popes. Secondly, that Antichrist is to tyrannize only some few years before the latter coming of Christ to judgement, which cannot stand with the Protestants computation of Antichrists reign, which they draw nine hundredth years in length already, and yet are uncertain how much remaineth behind. By this (I hope) you see, how well you may trust M. PER. on his word another time, who blushed not to affirm all the circumstances of the man of sin related in that Chapter, to agree most fitly unto 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 torn and cast upon him.  
Now to M. PERKINS last reason, which is taken from the testimony of the ancient Church. Cyprian saith: 
De simple. Praelator.  Doubtless the same were the rest of the Apostles that Peter was, endued with equal fellowship both of honour and power, but a beginning is made of unity that the Church may appear to be one.  
Answer. Doubtless here is a pretty piece of cozenage; for the words are strooken out, which would have made all plain against the Protestants: for S. Cyprian there saith, that the beginning proceedeth from one, and the primacy is given to Peter, that the Church may appear to be one: So that he allowing all the Apostles to be equal in honour, being all of the same calling and power to preach the Gospel to all nations, yet affirmeth the Supremacy to have been given unto S. Peter; that by that unity of one head, the Church might be kept perpetually in unity of one faith, and uniformity of religion. Note how his own witness doth give plain evidence against him.  
Gregory saith: If one be called universal Bishop, 
In regist. lib. 6. epist. 118.  the universal Church goeth to decay. And cap. 144. I say boldly; that whosoever calleth, or desireth to call himself universal Priest, in his pride he is a forerunner of Antichrist. And lib. 7. cap. 30. Behold in the preface of your Epistle a proud title, calling me universal Pope.  
Answer. I could wish that the cause might be determined by that blessed Bishop S. Gregory's sentence, it were then already gained on our side: for in those books of his Epistles, he doth almost nothing else but declare the Pope's Supremacy, in ordering of all Ecclesiastical matters, and that over all Countries; but whence the Bee sucketh honey, thence also the Spider draweth some poison. They regard not what or how much he writeth there in favour of the Supremacy; but they think to have some advantage for their cause, out of that which he writeth against the name of universal Bishop or Priest, but they are miserably deceived: for one may very well be supreme head of the Church, and yet not universal Bishop, as S. Gregory there taketh that word. For he is only an universal Bishop after S. Gregory, who is Bishop in every Diocese of the universal Church, other Bishops being but his Suffragans or Deputies: such an universal Bishop is not the Pope; for excepting the special points of his prerogatives, he is not to intermeddle with the particular business of my other Bishop within his Diocese, no more than the Archbishop of Canterbury, is to deal with the government of any other Bishop under him, saving in cases of his prerogative. But even as it appertaineth unto the Metropolitan to compose the controversies that may arise between the Bishops of his Province, and to determine all such causes as by appeal or otherwise belong unto his court; to call a Provincial Council, and to confirm the decrees of it, and to make Ecclesiastical Canons and constitutions for his Province: in like manner doth it appertain unto the supreme Pastor of the Church, to appease and end all debates that shall happen between the metropolitans or Privates; to judge of some such matters of great moment, that may by appeal be very worthily referred to his court; to call general Counsels, and to be Precedent in them; to make Ecclesiastical laws for the whole Church: in which and such like matters, the point of his Supremacy principally consisteth. And these were all most carefully undertaken and practised by S. Gregory, though he misliked the name of universal Bishop; because that did seem unto him to exclude all other Bishops from their proper dignities and callings, 
Lib. 7. epist. 69.  as he expoundeth himself, saying: If there be one universal Bishop, it remaineth that you be no Bishops. And if you make one universal Patriarch, you deprive all the other patriarchs of their title and dignity: l. 4. ep. 36. In this sense took S. Gregory the name of universal, and therefore did justly refuse it himself, and very sharply reprehended the Patriarch of Constantinople, for usurping of it: for although in a good sense it might have been attributed unto the Sea of Rome, who is supreme Pastor of the universal Church; yet it could not without apparent pride and arrogancy, be used of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who had nothing to do without the compass and limits of his own Patriarkeship.  
The testimony of S. Bernard is easy to be answered: for he saith only, that Eugenius is not Lord of Bishops, but one of them: and that he is not to draw all power to himself, but to leave to every Bishop and Archbishop (his brethren in government) their proper causes; all which we say with him.  
But he returneth to Pope Gregory, who saith: That he was subject to the emperors commandment: and had every way discharged that which was due, in that be had performed his allegiance unto the Emperor, and yet did not conceal what he thought in God's behalf.  
Answer. Why did he not cite the place where S. Gregory hath these words? there lurketh some pad under that straw: but he might very well use such words, excepting the word allegiance, which savoureth of a false translation. 
Per joh. Diaconun, l. 4. c. 58.  For S. Gregory (as it is to be seen in his life) was of so profound humility, that he called all Priests his Brothers; all Clerks his Sons; and all laymen his Lords or Masters: and so might well write unto the Emperor, that he was subject to his commandments; for it is an usual phrase both in Italy and France, to call all their friends requests, commandments.  
Besides, S. Gregory did dispatch much business in and about Rome for the Emperor in his absence, and so might write that he had faithfully discharged the trust that the Emperor reposed in him: yet in the very Epistle whence Caluin piketh some like words, 
Lib. 4. epist. 31.  He doth admonish the Emperor; that he ought to do reverence to Priests, and putteth him in mind of Constantine the great, who would not presume to judge of Bishop's causes, albeit the Bishops themselves requested and desired him so to do. And thus much in answer to that which is objected out of S. Gregory: now, if you desire to see what this holy Bishop's opinion was concerning the Supremacy of the Sea of Rome, read the 72. Epistle of his first book, where he commandeth, That if any out of Numidia (the remotest part of Africa) desired to come unto the Apostolic Sea (of Rome) that they should be permitted. And in the 37. of his second book doth signify, That all the four patriarchs might appeal unto his court of Rome, and could not afterward remove the case from thence, without great scandal and contumacy. And in the 7. book, epist. 63. doth in most express terms declare, That without all doubt the Patriarch of Constantinople was subject unto the Sea Apostolic. And in the 64. addeth, That all Bishops are subject unto it; saying, For in that he saith himself to be subject to this Sea, if any fault be found in Bishops, I know not what Bishop is not subject to it. And further l. 4. epist. 52. It is evident unto all that know the Gospel, that by our lords voice the charged of the whole Church was committed unto the most blessed and Prince of all the Apostles, S. Peter. And in his exposition of the fourth penitential Psalm affirmeth, The Church of Rome to be head of all Churches. And l. 14. Moral. c 19 teacheth, That Priests (not Princess) are the chief members of the Church. And lib. 5. epist. 25. speaking of the Emperor Maurice, saith: I know the most pious Princes to line discipline, to keep order, to reverence the Canons of the Church, and not to intrude themselves into the business of Priests. This may suffice to assure him that cannot read S. Gregory's works, of his opinion in this matter; and a hundredth times more may he find, that will take the pains to peruse that his work of Epistles called registrum. By this may be answered, that which M. PER. citeth out of Pope Leo 4. that lived (as he saith) too hundredth years after Gregory: That he professed obedience unto his imperial commandments, to be but an usual Italian phrase. And with what congruity he citeth one of them to profess obedience of courtesy to the Emperor, whom they account to have been no better than Antichrist in his full pride, and to have acknowledged no other man for his head, yea to have extolled himself above God, as they blaspheme; I leave it to the consideration of the wise. Hitherto in answer of M. PERKINS objection against the Pope's supremacy.  
It followed in due order, that having disputed against that, he should have confirmed his own opinion for the supremacy of Kings & Princes: for it doth not follow necessarily, that if the Pope be not head of the Church, that then the King is; for patriarchs or Primates may be in the several Provinces, or else the grave learned Senate of consistorial Ministers and rude artificers, called (forsooth) Elders of the congregation. But M. PER. towards the end of his book waxeth slothful, and hath omitted also to propose any arguments in our behalf; yea he doth not propose one reason in proof of his own position: Nay which is most reprovable, he doth in his own arguments made against the Pope's supremacy, utterly subvert the kings supremacy, as you have heard already in his first and fourth reasons. To which I will add a third, gathered out of him in an hundred places.  
Nothing is to be believed as necessary to salvation, that is not written in the word of God: but it is not written any where in the new Testament, that our Saviour Christ committed the government of his Church unto Kings or temporal Princes; therefore no such thing is to be believed or taught by any Christian. There is so little said in favour of their Supremacies in holy Scripture, that M. PER. held it good policy not to go about the probation of it. Some are so simple as to allege that of the Apostle S. Paul in proof of it: 
Rom. 13.  Let every soul he subject to higher powers; but it falleth many feadomes to short of it: for that sentence may be as well applied to spiritual as to temporal governors. Again, if he speak of temporal Magistrates, most assured it is that he meant nothing less, then to counsel the Christians Romans to obey their Emperors (who were then Pagans and persecutors) in matter of religion. The same answer will serve for their other text out of S. Peter, 
1. Pet. c. 2. vers. 14.  who biddeth Christians obey the King as the more excellent. More excellent than whom? what then Priests and Bishops? nothing less; but more excellent than their Dukes, Captains, and such like officers under them, as it followeth in the text; of which sort very few in S. Peter's days were members of the Church, and much less supreme heads in cases Ecclesiastical: so that there is no warrant in all the new Testament for kings supremacy in matters of religion, and as little is there in the old, as shall be examined in due place; wherefore not to be believed of any Protestant. And in very equity and true natural light, how is it likely that temporal Princes both slenderly studied in matter of Divinity, and nothing practised in the manner of Ecclesiastical government, should be chosen as fittest persons to decide all doubts in Divinity, and to order and determine all controversy in Church government? or shall we think that our Saviour had such a simple foresight, or slender care of his Church, as to commit it specially to their charged, who were both least able, and most unlikely to look well unto it? Women also and children may be lawful Kings; but to make them supreme Governors of causes Ecclesiastical (wherein children cannot, and women may not speak) is most ridiculous. And if all other proofs failed, the very experience of our age were sufficient to persuade any reasonable man, that it is most absurd to be ruled by temporal Princes in matters of religion: for it would follow of it necessarily, that a Christian were bound to conform his conscience to the kings laws, 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 lived in King Henry's the eight, King Edwardes, Queen mary's, and Queen Elizabeth's days, should have changed his religion four times in his life, and that with a very good conscience; because he was so commanded to do by the formal laws of those four his temporal Sovereigns: and so might without any offence to God, have been now of the old religion, then of the new; and again of neither old nor new, but of a hodge-podge, and mingle-mangle of some of the one, and some of the other, which is most absurd: even so is that of which it followeth. And to confirm this with some testimony of antiquity, S. Ambrose a most firm pillar of the West Church, spoke resolutely unto the Emperor Valentinian, saying: 
Epist. 35.  Trouble not yourself (o Emperor) with thinking that you have any imperial jurisdiction over those things that be Divine and Holy; for the right of Civil causes was committed unto you, but not the charged of Holy things. And another his ancient S. Athanasius, 
Epist. ad solita. vitam agentes.  the first of the four Doctors of the Greek Church, doth reprehend the Emperor Constantius for intermeddling with Ecclesiastical causes; and recordeth an notable saying of that venerable Bishop Hosius (who was present at the first general Council of nice) unto the same Constantius, to wit: Command us not (o Emperor) in this kind of affairs; rather learn these things of us: for God hath committed the Empire to your charged; but hath bequeathed unto us, and put us in trust, with the affairs that appertain unto his Church. And therefore would not that most renowned Emperor Constantine the great, judge of Bishop's causes, although the Bishops themselves referred thei● matter to him, and requested him to compose them, but said; That it did not belong unto him to judge them, but to be judged by them: whose blessed steps the most learned and judicious Emperors that followed him, chose rather to follow then the evil example of his Arrian Son Constantius. For justinianus the elder that famous lawemaker, faith unto john the second Pope of that name: 
In Codice tit. primo.  We do not suffer any thing to pass that belongeth unto the state of the Church, but that we make it known unto your Holiness, who are the head of all the holy Church.  
And Valentinian the Emperor in an Epistle unto Theodosius writeth: We must in our times maintain the dignity of ●u● reverence unto the most blessed Apostle S. Peter, 
Extat inter praeambulas ad Concil. Chalced.  so farforth, as the most happy Bishop of Rome (unto whom antiquity hath yielded the principality of Priestly office above all others) may have 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 Ecclesiastical. It remaineth now that I briefly prove S. Peter to have had this Supremacy in his time, and that therein the Bishops of Rome do succeed him,  
And for a foundation of this Question I take that for an assured truth, which the best Philosophers do grant, and the practice of the best and greatest Kingdom hath confirmed, to wit: That in one Kingdom it is best to have one King and supreme governor, assisted with the counsel of his wisest subjects; which is so well known and confessed generally, that he must needs betaken for a wrangler that will deny it: now then to our purpose. Christ's Church is but one state or spiritual Kingdom, which hath but one faith, one baptism and form of Sacraments, one true religion and solemn manner of divine service: Now seeing we are not to doubt, but that he (who purchased himself this one Church, with the shedding of his own most precious blood) would have it governed in the best sort; therefore we must confess, that he hath ordained one supreme Governor of it. They say, that this supreme Pastor is Christ himself, and that he is always present with it in spirit, and by his word; wherefore there needeth no deputy, or other in his room. This I have once before confuted, granting that Christ is present to his Church in spirit, and that he doth inwardly quicken and govern it: but that is not sufficient; for unless we have one certain person visibly present, to assure us which is the word of God, and what is the true sense of all doubtful places of it, we shall never have unity of faith: for if they who mistake the true sense, must be left to their own judgement, and the direction of their own spirit, which they believe to be guided with the holy Ghost; then shall we have so many heresies currant in the Church, as there be Archeretikes to coin and stamp them. The like may be said for Sacraments and sacred rites of religion, the which without one Supreme Moderator, cannot be kept uniform: so that it resteth most clear, that our Saviour Christ being to leave this world and to return unto his heavenly Father, he was to commit the high charge of his only Spouse and Dove, unto the custody and fidelity of one supreme Pastor, This is confirmed by the example of the old Testament, which was a figure of the new, 
Deut. 17. ab 8. ad 13.  where the sovereign and supreme authority of deciding all doubtful questions, that should arise about the law, was by God's express order, given unto the high Priests; and every Israelite bound under pain of death to obey him, and stand to his sentence. And that this Supremacy continued all along the state of the old Testament, even until Christ's days, both the Magdeburgenses, and Caluin do testify. 
Centur. 1. lib. 1. c. 7. Lib. 4. Instit. ca 6.  But the Protestants object, that some judges and Kings of juda, did take upon them to deal in matters appertaining to religion. I grant, that good Kings as principal members of the temporalty, aught to have a special regard to the preservation of the service of God, and to see that matters of religion be duly ordered; because the peaceable government of their temporal affairs, dependeth much upon the concord, piety, and virtue of Ecclesiastical persons: and therefore they are to admonish and call upon the Bishops and Governors of the Clergy, to redress all disorders among them, but not to meddle by themselves as their superiors in spiritual causes: so did those good Kings of Israel, as it is recorded of one of the best of their King josaphat; who sought for reformation of Church matters, 
2. Paralip. 19  But reserved the Presidency of those things which appertain unto God, unto Amarias' the high Priest. And now a-dayes we give many privileges to Princes: as the denomination of most Bishops, and higher Magistrates of the Church; that the two states spiritual and temporal may the better agree, and live 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 severe laws all Heretics, 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 Kings be specified, and you shall not find in any one of them, that they were to have the supreme government in cases Ecclesiastical; but where the first institution of Kings is mentioned, There they are willed to receive the exemplar and copy of the law, 
Deut. 17. vers. 18.  from the Priests of the tribe of Levy. And in the same Chapter a little before, All men are bound to take the true exposition of the same law, not from the King, but from the high Priest of the same tribe of Levy. Now if the jews being but one nation, could not be kept in unity of truth, without one supreme Governor, what division in faith and religion would there be among all the nations of Christendom (which be so many, and so divers) if there were not one supreme Pastor, to whose final sentence they should all be obedient and bound to stand? first, than it is evident, that there must be one supreme Governor in the Church. Now to go one step forward: this supreme authority was by our Saviour Christ JESUS given unto S. Peter, which I will prove both by the promise, and performance of it. 
Math. 16. vers. 15.  The promise of this supremacy is recorded in these words: Whom do you say that I am. Simon Peter answered and said, thou art Christ the Son of the living God; and JESUS answering, said unto him: blessed art thou Simon Bar-Iona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father which is in heaven; And I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, etc. Whence I reason thus: That is the foundation in a building, which is the head in a body and supreme Governor in a commonweal; for the foundation is first laid and doth uphold all the rest of the building: but our Saviour promiseth to build the spiritual commonwealth of his Church upon Peter, as upon a firm Rock and foundation; therefore he meant to make him the head and chief Pastor under himself of it.  
Some answer that Christ said not that he would build his Church upon Peter, but upon that Rock which was himself; because that Christ is called a Rock. 
1. Cor. 10.   
Reply. This cannot be: for albeit Christ be the most firm foundation, and chief corner stone of all that building; yet hath it pleased him to appoint a Deputy and Vicar to govern in his absence under him, and so to communicate his Titles in a certain measure and degree, unto his servants. 
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 souls, and he maketh them our Pastors: so he is the Rock, that sustaineth all parts of the Church by his own power and virtue, but hath imparted to Peter that name; to signify, that he should be made able to bear the person of his Vicar on earth, and to rule under him, and by virtue received from him, the whole Church for his time. Now the very course of the text doth convince, that the Rock there specified cannot be Christ: for it hath joined with it, the word, this, and upon this Rock; which doth demonstrate and point out that which was spoken of immediately before, which was Peter: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock, etc. Again, what congruity should there be in this sentence, to begin with Peter, and to make show 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 upon himself? Thirdly, in the next sentence there is no question made, but that Christ did promise to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and not to reserve them to himself: therefore most certain it is, that in the former sentence he promised to build his Church upon Peter. Finally, in the Syriake tongue (in which our Saviour then spoke) it is so plain, that it cannot be doubted of: for it is, thou art Cephas, and upon this Cephas I will build my Church: now the word Cephas signifieth a rock or stone. Let us to make the matter more manifest, hear the judgement of some of the ancient and most learned Fathers, of both the Greek and Latin Church touching this exposition.  
S. Epiphanius. 
In Ancorate.  Our Lord made Peter (the chief of the Apostles) a firm Rock, upon which the Church of God is builded.  
S. Gregory Nazianzeno. 
* Orat. de mod. seruand. in disput.  Peter is called a Rock, and hath the foundations of the Church committed unto his fidelity.  
S. chrysostom. 
a Hom. 55 in Math.  Our Lord said, thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my Church.  
S. Cyril. 
b Lib. 2. in job. ca 2.  Christ foretold that he should not be called Simon but Peter, by the name itself fitly signifying, that he would build his Church upon him, as on a Rock and most sure stone.  
S. Cyprian. 
c Epist. ad Quirinun.  Our Lord did choose Peter the first or chiefest, and upon him did he build his Church.  
S. Ambrose saith: 
d Serm. 42  That Peter is called the Rock, both because he first of all laid the foundation in the actions of faith; and also for that as an unmovable stone, he doth sustain and bold together the frame and burden of all the Christian work.  
S. Hierome upon that place: 
e Math. 16  According unto the metaphor of a Rock, it is rightly said to Peter, upon thee will I build my Church.  
S. Augustine sometimes indeed giveth an other interpretation; but yet alloweth of this, and leaveth it to the reader's choice, adding: 
f Lib. 1. retract. & 21.  That in his time that Hymn of S. Ambrose began to be chanted publicly in the Church, that the Cock crowing, the Rock of the Church with tears washed away his fault: so common was that exposition even then, that the Rock of the Church was taken for a sufficient description of S. Peter's person.  
By these plain sentences of the most approved Doctors of the church, may be expounded some others more obscure, which say that upon Peter's faith or confession Christ built his Church, in this manner: for the excellency of Peter's faith and confession, he was chosen to be the rock or foundation of the Church; which is S. Basils' own interpretation, who saith: that Peter for the excellency of his faith, 
Lib. 2. in Eunomium.  received the building of the Church upon him. And in true reason, the Church being a congregation of men, cannot be builded 〈…〉 qualities, but must have a man of the same nature to be her 〈…〉 indeed with such spirit● all and heavenly qualities; or else it should not have been a proportionable and well shaped body, but some monster. Neither can that other shift of the Protestants (which M. PERKINS insi●●●teth) serve their turn; that (forsooth) what is s●●a ●ere to S. Peter, is understood to have been spoken unto all the rest of the Apostles. For the holy Ghost in penning this passage, hath as fully prevented this evasion as it was possible, by such a particular description of Peter's own person, as a curious lawyer could not in so few words have done it more precisely. For Christ specifieth both his former name of ●in●●●, and his Father's name jonas, and then his own new name Peter; and so particularized & singled out from the rest, directeth his speech to him: I say to thee th●● art Peter, etc. How could he better have expressed himself to have spoken to Peter particularly? Again he said before; that Peter had not learned that his confession of flesh and blood, but by the revelation of his heavenly Father: whereby he signifieth, that Peter had not received his answer from his fellow Apostles, or spoke it as delivered by conference from them; but out of his own heart, inspired by the holy Ghost: wherefore, to him alone were his words following directed. And thus much concerning the promise which our Saviour made unto S. Peter of the Supremacy: now to the words of performance, which are written in S. john.  

job. c. 21. vers. 15.  JESUS faith to Peter, Simon (the son) of john, dost thou love me more than these? he saith to him, yea Lord, thou knowest that I love thee: he saith to him, feed my lambs. He saith to him again, Simon of john lo●est thou me? yea Lord thou knowest that I lo●e thee? he saith to him, feed my lambs. He saith to him the third time, Simon of john lovest thou me? Peter was strooken fadde, because he said to him the third time, lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee: he saith unto him, feed my sheep. Amen, amen, I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, etc. These words have I set down at length, that every one may first see and be well assured, that they were spoken to S. Peter only; because Christ doth first sever & part him from the rest, saying▪ Dost thou love me more than these? to wit, than the other Apostles who were then present. Again, Peter was sad and began to misdoubt himself; which argueth that he took it spoken to himself and showeth plainly that he spoke in his own name only: and thirdly the words following; Amen, I say unto thee, are without all question spoken particularly to Peter. Now that Christ in giving him charged to f●ede his lambs and sheep, did give him the supreme government over his Church, I prove first by the word pasce, feed, or be thou Pastor of my flock: for it doth signify not bare feeding, but to feed as a shepherd doth his sheep; which is not only to provide them meat, but to keep them also from the wolf, to cure their diseases, to lead or drive them whither he will, briefly to rule and govern them. And this word pasce, and much more the Greek Poimaine is frequent in holy Scripture, in this sense of governing: see psal. 2. vers. 9 Thou shalt rule them in an iron rod. Michaeae 5. vers. 2. Math. 2. vers. 6. Apocal. 19 vers. 15. where the Greek word, Poimaino, is put for to rule and govern. And in the 77. psalm v. 71. David was chosen to feed his servant jacob, and Israel his in heritance, that was to rule over them, but like a good shepherd, mildly, vigilantly, and rather for the good of the sheep, then for his own pleasure or profit.  
Now that the chief feeding and supreme government of all Christ's flock was committed unto him, it appeareth first, by those words of our Saviour to him: Dost thou love me more than these? why should he require greater charity in S. Peter then in the rest of the Apostles, but for that he meant to advance him to a charged above the rest? secondly, in that he committed to Peter the feeding of both sheep, and lambs, that is: of both the Temporalty, signified by the lambs; and of the Clergy, who be sheep; let us hear S. Leo. Again, 
Serm. 3. d● annivers. Assumpt. suae.  In that he committeth to him absolutely without exception of any, his sheep, feed my sheep; he maketh him Pastor of his whole flock: as S. Bernard (whom M. PER. often allegeth against us in this question) doth very learnedly infer. 
Lib. 2. de consid. cap. 8.  Thou (saith he) will't ask me how I prove, that both sheep and Pastor are committed and credited to thee? even by our lords word. For to whom of all (I will not say Bishops but Apostles) were the sheep so absolutely and without limitation committed: if thou love me Peter feed my sheep; he saith not the people of this Kingdom, or of that City, but my sheep: whosoever therefore will acknowledge himself to be one of Christ's sheep, must submit himself to be governed by S. Peter, or by some of his successors. You see then by the very words and circumstances of the text, that the supremacy is given to S. Peter: let us hear whither the most learned and holy ancient Fathers, have not so understood them.  
S. Cyprian saith: To Peter our Lord after his resurrection said, 
De unitat. Eccles.  feed my sheep, and builded his Church upon him alone.  
Epiphanius in Ancorato: This is he who heard spoken to him, feed my sheep, to whom the fold is credited; alluding to that place, 
job. 10. vers. 16. Lib. 2. de Sacerd●r.  there shall be one Pastor and one fold.  
S. chrysostom, Why did our Lord shed his blood? truly to redeem those sheep, the charged of which be committed to Peter and to his successors. And a little after: Christ would have Peter endued with such authority, and to be far above all his other Apostles; for he saith, Peter dost thou love me more than these? 
In cap. 2. vers. 21.  see him also in his learned Commentaries upon that text of S. john.  
S. Augustine also upon the same place, saith: That he committed his sheep to Peter to be fed, that is (saith he) to be taught and governed. And because he produceth S. Gregory against us, he must give us leave to cite him for us.  

Lib. 4. epist. 76.  He saith; It is evident to all that know the Gospel, that by our lords mouth the charged of the whole Church is committed unto Peter, Prince of the Apostles; for unto him it is said, Peter dost thou love me? feed my sheep: to him is it also said, 
Luc. 22. vers. 31.  Behold Satan hath required to sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou once converted, confirm thy brethren, etc. By these two places of holy Scripture (to omit for brevities sake twenty others) it is clear enough to them who desire to see the truth, that S. Peter by our saviours own choice and appointment, was not only preferred before all the rest of the Apostles in some particular gifts, but was made also governor of his Church.  
Now to that which M. PERKINS letteth fall by the way, That though Peter excelled the rest of the twelve, yet Paul passed him every way: this said he boldly and barely without any author, or any show of proof; but let us in kindness help him to prove it. 
Galat. 2. vers. 9  First, S. Paul saith: james. Cephas, and john, who seemed to be the pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fo●tery: now if he were fellow with the best, he was not inferior to Peter.  
Answer. In an orderly fellowship there is ordinarily one head and chief commander, and so S. Paul might be very well admitted into that holy society and fellowship of preaching the Gospel, and yet be under the Precedent and Master of that College or company, S. Peter.  
Secondly, S. Paul further saith: That the Gospel of the prepuce, (that is, the preaching unto the Gentiles) was committed unto him, as the charged of the Israelites was unto S. Peter: therefore he was S. Peter's equal at least, and perhaps his better too, because a larger commission was grounted unto him.  
Answer. A partition of preaching the Gospel unto all nations, was made by common consent among the Apostles, and it seemeth that S. Paul (who was called afterward) was admitted in S. Peter's circuit or quarter; whereupon for the more orderly proceeding in that blessed work, it was agreed upon by them, that S. Paul should have principal care of the Gentiles, and S. Peter of the jews: not that each of them might not also deal with both jews and Gentiles, (for S. Peter was the first of all others, that by revelation from heaven did convert the Gentiles; as he testifieth saying: 
Act. 15. vers. 7.  brethren you know that God chose, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of God and believe:) yet because men commonly do most tender and affect that, which is more specially committed to their charge, to S. Paul were the Gentiles recommended, as to S. Peter the care of the jews. But this might be very well done, and yet S. Paul be inferior unto S. Peter, and own him a reverent duty in the cases of supremacy: as the Bishops of Canterbury and London have charges of several men and places; yet is London to acknowledge Canterbury as his superior. And if the other Apostles, who had also their divisions and Dioceses a part, were nevertheless inferior unto 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, amiss: therefore he was rather his superior.  
Answer. Not so: for an inferior by way of brotherly correction, may in decent sort reprehend his superior, if he see him not to take good courses: I know well that S. Hierome following the opinion of most of the Greek Fathers, doth clear S. Peter of all fault; holding it to have been but a set match between 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 follow no derogation to S. Peter's dignity, but great commendation of his humility, as the holy Fathers of that opinion do gather. Of it thus writeth S. Cyprian: 
Epist. 71. ad Quintum.  Neither did Peter whom our Lord chose the first, and upon whom he built his Church, when Paul disputed with him about circumcision, arrogate to himself any thing, saying: that he bad primacy, and therefore the latter disciple ought rather to obey him; but took it in good part.  
S. Augustine saith: Peter gave to his posterity a more rare and holy example, 
Epist. 19 ad Hieron.  that they should not disdain to be corrected of their juniours, than Paul; that inferiors (saving their charity) might confidently resist their superiors for the defence of truth.  
And S. Gregory the great, speaking of S. Peter, saith: 
Hom. 18. in Ezech.  He yielded unto his inferior brother, and in that matter became a follower of his juniour, to the end he might excel in this point: that he who chiefest in the top of the Apostleship, might be chiefest also in humility. Thus much of S. Peter's supremacy: Now that the Popes of Rome do succeed him in the same authority.  
First, that this Monarchy and sovereign authority of one over all the rest, was not to expire and end with S. Peter (as M. PER. dreameth) but to continue in Christ's Church until the end of the world, is clear and evident to them who consider, that this Supremacy was not given unto S. Peter principally for his own honour and advancement; but for the benefit of the Church, to preserve and maintain unity and peace among all her loving and obedient children, according unto that of S. Hierome: Among the twelve Apostles one is chosen, 
L. 1. cont. jovinian.  that a head being established, the occasion of schism and division might be prevented and taken away. If therefore it was thought necessary unto the wisdom of God, Christ JESUS, to appoint one head among the Apostles, and a few of the best Christians (who had the first fruits of his holy spirit) to cut off dissension, and to maintain peace; how much more need hath there been ever sithence, of one supreme Pastor and moderator of controversies, when the number of Christians is so greatly increased, and such variety of nations are engrafted & incorporated into it? when through the diversity of wits and judgements and the decay of charity, there must needs be a thousand times more need of the supreme authority of some one, to hold all the rest together in the unity of faith and religion. Again, in the old Testament and law of Moses (which was a figure of the new) the same form of government by one head and final judge in spiritual matters, was at the first established, and continued ever after without alteration, till Christ's first coming: Even so must the same Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (which our blessed Saviour hath demised, framed, and founded) stand always firm and inviolable, until his second coming; for he hath built it upon so firm a Rock, that hell gates shall not prevail against it: which may be further confirmed, if we weigh well of what moment and importance it is, to alter and change the form of government. For it is of no less moment, then to alter the whole estate of Christ's commonweal; the very essence, form, and unity of a public state, consisting principally in the manner and order of ruling of it: which alteration and variety to imagine to have happened in Christ's Church, is to make many seams in his unsowed garments, or rather to rip it, and rend the unity thereof into many pieces. It being therefore a most certain truth, that the same supreme government which S. Peter had over the rest, was to continue always in Christ's Church; it followeth as plainly, that the Bishops of Rome were to succeed him in that sovereign authority: for the very light of nature and common custom of all nations doth teach us; that he who succeed unto another in any established estate and calling, doth at his lawful enstalement therein, enter into full possession of all the rights, dignities, and privileges thereunto belonging. For example, when one is crowned King of any nation, he presently there upon is endowed with all the power and prerogatives, which his Predecessors in that Kingdom enjoyed before him. And to speak of spiritual Prelates; who doubteth but that assoon as any Ecclesiastical person is chosen & confirmed (for example) Archbishop of Canterbury, but that forthwith he is not only made governor of that Diocese, but also Metropolitan and supreme Pastor of the Church of England; his very succession in that Sea, making him (as it were) inheritor unto all the privileges and prerogatives of his Predecessors in that seat? Even so the Bishops of Rome succeeding unto S. Peter in that Apostolical Sea, do inherit and succeed him in that supreme authority, which Christ gave unto S. Peter, for to be continued in his Church until the worlds end. Now to avouch as some desperately do, that S. Peter did not die at Rome, nor never was at Rome; is so gross and palpable an untruth, averred by mere guess and fantasy, contrary to the evident testimony of all ancient fathers, and repugnant unto the express and sensible monuments of the place of his execution, of his relics, and Churches (builded by Constantine the great to the perpetual remembrance of them) in the City of Rome, yet to this day most famously known through the world: this their assertion is (I say) so blockish and impudent, that it were but lost time to stand about the proof of it; for he that is so senseless as to believe such a paradox, deserveth small pains for his recovery.  
But for an upshot of this question, let us hear the opinions of the principal Doctors of the East Church, who of all men are most likely not to attribute any such supremacy unto a Bishop of the West Church, if they had thought it due unto any Patriarch of theirs, or if they had not judged it to be a clear case in true Divinity, that such sovereign authority was due unto that one chief Pastor in God's Church. The first shall be one the ancientest of them, that most worthy champion of Christ Athanasius, who was also one of the chiefest patriarchs of the East Church, as being Bishop of Alexandria: He in a special treatise (of Dionysius one of his predecessors in that Sea) showeth; how he went to Rome to another Dionysius then Pope, there to have his cause heard and determined: which he would not have done if he had not acknowledged the Bishop of Rome for his superior, and one, to whose final sentence, all of the East Church as well as of the West, were bound to obey. And in his Epistle unto Pope Foelix he hath these words: God hath therefore placed you and your predecessors (Apostolical Prelates) in the tower of superiority, and hath commanded you to take charge of all Churches, that you may secure and help us. This Epistle indeed of Athanasius M. PER. doth mislike, but because he showeth not wherefore, his authority will not serve to discred it it. But he saith as much in another of his, and of all the Bishops of Egypt joined with him to Pope Mark, to wit: That they all with all committed to their charge, were and ever would be obedient unto the Bishop of Rome. 
Lib. 3. hist. cap. 7.  It is also recorded by the Ecclesiastical historiographer Zozemene, how that both Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, and Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople, with divers others of the Greek Church, being by the Arrians banished out of their own bishoprics, did fly unto the Bishop of Rome for refuge: Who (as that author witnesseth) because the care of all did belong unto him, through the dignity of his place and seat, did restore their Churches to every of them. Athanasius also in his second Apology, hath recorded these words of the same most holy Pope julius, to the Bishops of the East: Are ye ignorant this to be the custom, that first of all you must write unto us, that from hence, it may be defined what is just. Wherefore, if there had been any such suspicion against the Bishop, you ought to have related it to our Church of Rome: thus much of S. Athanasius, the first of the four Greek Doctors.  
Now to the second S. Gregory Nazianzene, who had been also Patriarch of Constantinople; 
In c●r●a. de vita sua. Epist. 52. ad Athan.  he saith, That the Church of Rome had always maintained the true faith and opinion of God, as it became the City that was superior to all the world.  
His divine companion S. Basil, advertiseth Athanasius, That he thought it good to write unto the Bishop of Rome, to hear 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 give to certain chosen men authority to compose their controversies, and to reverse and make void the acts of the Council of Arimini. See what sovereignty this learned ancient Father of the East Church, doth attribute unto the Church of Rome.  
The very same doth that golden mouth, and most learned and holy Doctor S. chrysostom acknowledge, writing unto Innocentius the first, Pope of Rome: 
Epist. 1. ad Innocentium.  Beseeching him that he would repeal and make void the wicked fact of the Patriarch of Alexandria, with a whole Council of the East, and lay the Ecclesiastical censures and punishments upon them; which every man knoweth that he could not have done, if he had not power and jurisdiction over all the East Church.  
Unto these four most firm pillars of the Greek Church, let us join one neighbour of theirs, little inferior unto them for either standing, learning, or authority, I mean Theodorete, a Bishop in Asia that had 800. Churches under him. He notwithstanding his distance from Rome, writeth thus unto Leo the first: 
Epist. ad Leonem.  I do expect the sentence of your Apostolical Sea, and in humble wise do beseech your Holiness, that your just and right judgement may help me appealing unto you; and that you will command me to run unto you, to verify that my doctrine is consonant to the Apostles. And in another Epistle to Renatus a Priest of Rome, he writeth: That the Heretics had spoiled him of his Bishopric, and cast him out of the Cities, without any reverence or respect of his gray-hayres: wherefore (saith he) I request you, that you will persuade the most holy Archbishop Leo, that he will use his Apostolical authority, and command us to come to your Council; for that holy seat of Rome boldeth the stern of governing all the Churches in the world. Well then to conclude this long and intricate question, seeing the Bishops of Rome from all antiquity (as is to be seen in their decretal Epistles) have ever challenged this right of Supremacy over the whole Church, as the successors of S. Peter: and that the very patriarchs and principal Prelates, even of the East Church (who were likeliest to have resisted if they had seen any cause why) have from the very beginning of the free practice of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, acknowledged and confessed the same; and that finally the greatest, wisest, and best Emperors of both the Latin and Greek Church, have (as you have heard before) declared the same right to appertain unto the said Roman Sea, the matter cannot be but clear enough to all that list not to remain wranglers, where the right of the Supremacy resteth.    

OF THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENTS.  

OUR CONSENT.  
M. PERKINS Page 295.  
THe first conclusion. We teach and believe that the Sacraments are signs to represent Christ with his benefits to us.  
The second conclusion. We teach further, that the Sacraments are indeed instruments, whereby God offereth and giveth the foresaid benefits to us.   

THE DIFFERENCE.  
THe Catholics teach, that the Sacraments are true and proper instrumental causes, which being moved by God thereunto, do produce and give grace to the worthy receiver. Even as the pen doth make the letter, or as the axe doth cut the wood, being thereto applied by the workman: so (for example) doth the Sacrament of baptism wash away the sins of the baptized, being by God thereunto ordained, and rightly used by the Minister. But M. PERKINS holdeth, that the Sacraments have no operation to that effect of forgiveness of sins, but are only outward means, which being applied unto the party, God of himself doth immediately purge him from sin, and not by means of the Sacraments. Again, Whereas we require a fit disposition in the receiver to make him capable of the grace presented, and exhibited unto him, by the Sacrament; He holdeth, that all the virtue of the Sacrament consisteth in the receiver, Who beholding those signs from God in the hands of the Minister, must conceit and imagine: First, that God himself by his own mouth, doth promise him severally and by name, remission of his sins, the sign and pledge whereof, is that Sacrament; which the mind considering reasoneth thus: he that useth the elements aright, in faith and repentance, shall receive grace thereby; but I use the elements aright, therefore shall I receive from God increase of grace. Thus then faith is confirmed, not by the work done, but by a kind of reasoning; the proof whereof is borrowed from the elements, being signs and pledges of God's mercy.  
Contrarylie we hold, that the Sacrament itself conferreth and doth give great grace, so that there be no impediment or let of it, by reason of the receivers evil disposition. Now if the receiver come thoroughly well prepared with great humility, charity, and attention, he then over and beside the ordinary grace of the Sacrament, shall receive more grace according unto the measure of his own preparation.  
Lastly, whereas we teach the very grace of justification to be given in some Sacraments, as in Baptism and Penance, M. PER. saith no; because A man of years must first believe, and be justified, before he can be a meet partaker of any Sacrament. But what will he then say unto Infants? must not they receive the grace of justification by Baptism, before they have wit to believe, and to reason in such sort as he prescribeth?  
Before I come unto the arguments of either party, I thought fit to give the reader to understand, that whether the Sacraments be true physical instruments of grace or no, 
Lib. 2. de Sacram. in gener. cap. 11.  is not a matter of faith, as Cardinal Bellarmine declareth; so we hold them to be true moral causes of the same grace: to which M. PER. yielded his consent; wherefore I will not be long in this question. Secondly to perceive well the state of the question, you must observe what difference there is between a physical and moral instrument. That then may be called a moral instrument, which moveth the principal agent to do any thing, albeit he use not that thing itself as a means to do it withal: so that if God be effectually moved to bestow grace upon him that receiveth a Sacrament, by the sight of the Sacrament, though he give not the grace by the work of the Sacrament, but immediately from him self, the Sacrament is the moral means of the same grace; but it cannot be called the physical or natural instrument of that grace, unless God do use and apply the Sacrament itself, as the mean and instrument to convey the same grace into the soul of the receiver. Now, we hold it more agreeable with the word of God and sentences of the holy Fathers, and more for the dignity of the Sacraments themselves, to say that God by them as by true natural instruments, doth convey his graces into our soul: M. PERKINS goeth about to prove the contrary, thus.  
The word preached, and the Sacraments do differ in the manner of giving Christ unto us, because the word worketh by the ear, and the Sacraments by the eye: otherwise, for the giving itself they differ not, Christ saying; that in the very word is eaten his own flesh: and what can be said more of the lords supper? Augustine saith, that believers are partakers of the body and blood in baptism: 
Serm. ad Infant.  so saith Hierome to E●●bia. Now upon this it followeth, that seeing the work done in the word preached, conferreth not grace; neither doth the work done in the Sacrament confer grace.  
I answer that his own first word must stand, wherein he said that the word preached and the Sacraments do differ in the manner of giving us Christ's grace: for preaching doth by persuasion draw us unto grace and goodness; but the Sacraments as conduite-pipes, do take and derive grace from Christ's passion, and convey it into the souls of all them, who do not stop up those divine conduits by their own default, and want of due preparation. To his idle and ill shapen commation I answer, that Christ's body may be eaten two ways: either really as in the blessed Sacrament; or else spiritually, by believing in Christ and being incorporate into his mystical body: and in this second sort Infants in baptism, and all true believers do eat the body of Christ. But how this proveth that the word and the Sacraments do give grace after the same manner, is there any man that can tell?  
His second reason: I baptize you with water to repentance, 
Math. 3. vers. 11.  but he that cometh after me shall baptize 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 john though he do not disjoin himself and his action from Christ, and the action of the spirit; yet doth he distinguish them plainly in number, persons, and effect.  
Answer. He that can, let him pike some English out of this, and show how it maketh for M. PERKINS. But to the purpose: I answer, that S. john there doth put a plain difference between his own baptism, and the baptism of Christ, saying of his own: That it was the baptism of water, nor giving the holy Ghost, as the baptism of Christ should do; which also most of the Fathers both Greek and Latin do plainly testify, and the words of the text do evidently confirm the same. Whence I reason thus: S. john's baptism was such an instrument and means of grace, 
Mat. 1.  as M. PER. describeth (for there was a promise of remission of sins, to him that received it with faith and repentance;) yet was it nothing comparable unto Christ's baptism, which is now only used: therefore Christ's baptism doth over and beside the representation of grace which was in S. john's baptism, effectually convey the same grace of the holy Ghost into our souls, by the very applying of it to us; so that this worthy argument of his, proceedeth wholly against himself.  
He goeth forward and saith, That Paul who travailed of the Galatians, and begat them by the Gospel, 
1. Cor. 3. vers. 7.  saith of himself: that he is not any thing, not only as he was a man, but as be was a faithful Apostle; thereby excluding the whole evangelical Ministry, from the least part of divine operation or efficacy in conferring grace.  
Answer. This is nothing to the purpose, for S. Paul speaketh there of preaching the Gospel; and we treat here of ministering the Sacraments. Preaching (as hath been said) doth not confer grace of itself, but by persuasion; no more doth the preacher, and so may be said to be nothing in that work of producing grace and faith in the hearer: but the Sacraments conferring grace, he that administereth the Sacrament, doth really concur as an instrument of producing the same grace. Moreover, such an instrument may be sa●● to be nothing, because they themselves with all their endowments can do nothing in that matter, unless they be thereunto applied and moved by the principal agent, which is God: as a pen, or other instrument be it never so good, can do nothing of itself, and therefore may be said to be nothing.  
M. PERKINS third reason: The Angels, nay the flesh of the son of God hath not any quickening virtue from itself, but all his virtue is from the Godhead: now if there be no efficacy in the flesh of Christ, but from the Godhead, how shall bodily actions about bodily elements confer grace immediately?  
Answer. This is too too simple; for a base bodily thing may convey grace immediately, as an instrument of God, when as the highest creature hath not power of itself to produce and confer the same grace, as principal agent: as a mean subject by special commission and authority from the Prince, may have power of life and death; which the greatest Peer in the realm hath not of his own authority, without some privilege from the Prince.  

Rom. 4.  His fourth reason: Paul standeth much upon this, to prove that justification by faith is not conferred by the Sacraments; and gathereth it, because Abraham was first justified, and afterward received circumcision, the sign and seal of his righteousness. Now the general condition of all Sacraments is one, and the same: and that baptism succeed circumcision.  
Answer. He mistaketh greatly S. Paul's discourse, which is nothing less than that he saith, but to prove that neither by the observation of Moses' law, nor yet by the moral carriage of the Gentiles men were to he saved, but by faith in Christ, and obedience unto his Gospel. Yea, he is so far off from denying justification to be conferred by the Sacraments, that in the same epistle he teacheth us to be justified by baptism, saying: We are buried together with Christ by baptism into death, 
Cap. 6. vers. 4.  that as he is risen again from the dead, etc. so we may walk in newness of life. Again, if Baptism be but a sign and seal of righteousness, how cometh the infant (that cannot for lack of discretion believe) to that righteousness, whereof Baptism is the seal? Abraham in deed was justified before he was circumcised, because he was above 70. years old before he heard of any circumcision; but thence it followeth not, that the infants (circumcised at eight days old) were justified before they were circumcised. And so it may be, that Cornelius the Italian Captain was justified, before he heard a word of the Sacrament of baptism, but that is nothing to prove or disprove the ordinary working of the Sacraments; for before the lawful publication of any law, no man is bound to observe that law: so that Abraham before he had heard of circumcision, and Cornelius knowing nothing of Baptism, were not bound to them, but had other means of justification according to God's will; and afterward received those Sacraments in obedience to God, both in testimony of their former righteousness, and to increase the same grace. Hence it doth not follow, but that the ordinary working of both circumcision and baptism in infants, was and is, to purge them from original sin, and to power the grace of justification into their souls. But let us admit all to be true which he saith, yet this argument helpeth not the main point which he is to prove, to wit; that the Sacraments do not produce grace into our souls: for albeit they produced not the first justifying grace, as the Sacrament of the Alrar and some others do not; yet they may truly produce and work in us an increase of God's grace, and so be true physical instrumental causes of grace, according as the Catholics hold. Consequently, you may judge what a pithy reason his fourth is, which may be answered four manner of ways.  
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.  
Can any man have produced a witness to speak more formally against himself? M PER. holdeth, that there cometh no virtue from the water to sanctify the soul: S. Basil (the foreman of his quest) averreth, that grace cometh from the water, and is in the water: marry, that grace the water hath not of his own nature, but from the spirit of God there present.  

In 14. Esaiae.  His second author. Hierome saith: Man giveth water, and God giveth the holy Ghost.  
This is true, but whether God giveth that grace by the ministry of the man, and means of the Sacrament, S. Hierome in that place saith neither yea nor no; and therefore his testimony helpeth not M. PER. cause. But in his 83. 
Ad Oceanum. Tract. 80. in johan.  Epistle he doth at large declare, what efficacy baptism and the water sanctified in Christ hath.  
Augustine said, Water toucheth the body, and washeth the heart.  
Answer. His words are: What great force and virtue is this of water, that it toucheth the body and cleanseth the heart? can any thing be more clear and forcible to overturn M. PERKINS position, then to say that the water of baptism washeth and purifieth man's heart? 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. johannis.  where S. Augustine teacheth, That water sometimes signifieth the gifts of the holy Ghost. Be it so: what then? doth it therefore signify the holy Ghost in all places? or in that where he saith, That it toucheth the body and washeth the soul? 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 altogether, 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 slightly, as occasion served? wherefore, it is no reason to say that in one place he said not so much of this matter, therefore when he spoke more particularly of i● in another, you must expound him by that place where he spoke less of it. And thus much in answer unto M. PERKINS reasons.  
Now to some few arguments for the Catholic party. He proposeth one for us, thus: Remission of sins and salvation are ascribed to the Sacrament of baptism; 
* Act. 22. vers. 17.  Be baptized and wash away thy sins: 
a Ephes. 5. vers. 26.  Cleansing the Church, by the laver of water in the word of life. 
b Tit. 3. vers. 5.  He hath saved us by the laver of regeneration: 
c 2. Tim. 1. vers. 6.  The grace of God was given to Timothy, by the imposition of hands. Which phrase of cleansing, and saving by the laver or bathe of water, importeth no less than that by water, as a true physical instrument, that grace of God was conveyed into the souls of the baptized; which may be confirmed by many the like places, as where it is said: 
d joh. 3. vers. 5.  Unless a man be borne a new of water and the holy Ghost, where our regeneration and new birth is ascribed unto the working of water; which were all very unproper speeches, if they di●import no more, then that when water is applied unto us, then doth God immediately from himself and not by any means of the water, sanctify us: so that first we have the Scripture for us in his proper native signification.  
M. PERKINS answereth, That salvation is ascribed unto the Sacraments as to the word of God, that is: as they are instruments to signify, seal, and exhibit to the believing mind the foresaid benefits, but indeed the proper instrument whereby salvation is apprehended, is faith. And Sacraments are but props of faith, furthering salvation two ways: First, because by their signification they help to nourish and preserve faith. Secondly, because they seal grace and salvation to us; yea, God giveth grace and salvation unto us, when we use them well: so that we believe the word of promise made to the Sacrament, whereof they are seals. This his answer I have put down at large, that the judicious reader may see, how many words he useth, to answer not one word to purpose; for here is indeed an explication of their own doctrine, but not any reason, why we should not take the words of holy Scripture before alleged, according unto the proper manner of the phrase, whereby they assign water to be the real means, and true instrument of our salvation: and thus much of our first argument.  
The second shall directly confute his answer, thus: If Sacraments do work like unto the word of God preached, and only exhibit and feal unto the believing mind, the benefits by them promised; then he that cannot understand such signs and promises, and hath not wit to conceive and believe them, can in no case receive any such Sacrament well and worthily (as if the word were preached never so perfectly unto one of no capacity or understanding, it would work nothing with him, by reason of his want of understanding:) but the Sacrament of baptism and some others, given unto them who have not sufficient wit and reason to understand the meaning of it, as (for example) unto infants; yet do nevertheless work their regeneration and salvation: therefore, it is most manifest and evident, that the Sacraments of their own proper force, as the instruments of God do work our salvation, without the help of the receivers faith. This is confirmed by the testimony of those ancient Fathers, who hold that one special cause why our Saviour would be baptized was, that by touching the water, he might give it virtue to purge and cleanse us from sin: so witnesseth S. Ambrose, Lib. 2. in Lucam 12. S. Gregory Nazianzene, Oratione in sancta lumina. chrysostom, Hom. 25. in Ioha●nem. Venerable Bede, in 3. Lucae. Again, it is the common opinion of the ancient Doctors, that the Sacraments are conduits to convey the merits of Christ's passion into our souls; yea, are said to have flowed out of Christ's side opened on the Cr●sse: they therefore doubted not but that they had a spiritual virtue in them, to cleanse and sanctify our minds. But let us hear some few of them in formal terms delivering the same doctrine which we teach: you have heard already S. Basil and S. Augustine, cited by M. PERKINS.  
Gregory Nyssene, speaking of Aaron's rod, and such like things by which miracles were wrought, saith: 
* Orat. de Baptismo.  And all these things being without sense and life, yet having received virtue from God, were means of great miracles: even so, water being nothing but water, having received the heavenly blessing, doth remewe a man unto a spiritual regeneration. And further, That as seed is the cause of carnal generation: so water that is blessed, is the instrumental cause of man's purgation and illumination.  
S. chrysostom. 
a Hom. 25 in johan.  That which the womb is to the infant, that is water v●to the faithful: for in water we are form and made.  
S. Cyril of Alexandria. 
b Lib. 2. in johan. cap. 42.  Even as water being heated with fire, doth burn like fire itself: even so, water wherewith the body is sprinkled in baptism, by the working of the holy Ghost is reform, and raised up to a divine power and virtue.  
Tertullian. 
c Lib. de Baptismo.  Of old, water gave life, that is, water brought forth living creatures; that it be not strange, that water in baptism know how to give life.  
S. Ambrose. 
d Lib. 2. de Poenitentia cap. 2.  It seemed impossible that water should wash away sin: and Naaman the Syrian did not believe that his leprosy could be washed away with water; but God hath made possible, that which was impossible, who hath bestowed so great grace upon us.  
S. Silvester (as Nycephorus hath recorded) speaketh thus of baptism: 
e Lib. 7. hystor. cap. 33.  This water having received by the invocation of the blessed Trinity, heavenly virtue; even as it washeth the body without, so doth it within cleanse the soul from filth and corruption, and make it brighter than the Sunbeams. So that it is most conformable both unto the holy Scriptures, and the ancient Fathers, to affirm and hold, that the Sacraments do really contain and convey the graces of God into our souls, as his true and proper instruments.    

OF SAVING FAITH.  
M. PERKINS Page 305.  
HEre followeth a Chapter, which for the most part doth nothing but repeat points of doctrine, which hath been particularly handled in the questions of justification, Satisfaction, and Merits, and above twenty times touched by the way in his book; therefore a tedious and loathsome thing it is to me here again to hear of them: yet, because the man thinketh that in these points the principal glory of the new Gospel consisteth, and that therefore they are always to be inculcated in season and out of seasorr, I will briefly run them once more over, showing (as he doth) only wherein we differ, without repeating the arguments, which are to be seen in their proper places.  
To come to the matter he putteth down fiu● conclusions. The first conclusion. The Catholics teach i● to be the property of faith to believe the whole word of God, and especially the redemption of mankind by Christ.  

M. PERKINS DIFFERENCE.  
THey believe indeed all the written word of God, and more than all: for they believe the books Apocryphal, and unwritten Traditions.  
Answer. Touching unwritten Traditions, see that Chapter in the first part. M. PER. saith here, Because they come to us by the hands of men, they cannot come within the compass of our faith. Then I say upon the same ground; the written word cannot come within the compass of our belief, because it also cometh unto us by the hands of men. And as the Apostles and their Scholars are to be credited, when they delivered the written word unto us for God's pure word: so are they to be believed, when they taught the Church these points of God's word unwritten, to be embraced as the true word of God, although not written, but committed to the hearts of the faithful. And when we have the testimony of ancient Counsels, or of many holy Fathers, that these points of doctrine were by Tradition delivered unto the Church by the Apostles; we as firmly believe them, as if they were written in the holy Scriptures. For which books of Scripture be Canonical, which not; and what is the true meaning of hard places in Scripture, we know no other way of infallible certainty, then by the declaration of the Catholic Church: which we therefore aswell believe, telling us these things were delivered from the Apostles by Tradition, as those things in writing. And that such credit is to be given to the Catholic Church, the Apostles Creed witnesseth, which biddeth us believe the Catholic Church. Now touching those books of holy Scripture, which were some hundredth years after Christ doubted off by some of the ancient Fathers, whether they were Canonical or no, thus we say: That albeit it were undetermined by the Church until S. Augustine's time, whether they were Canonical or no, and so were by divers ancient Fathers, though not condemned as Apocryphal, yet not comprehended within the Canon of assured Scriptures: notwithstanding, that matter being in a Council holden at Carthage (where among many other learned Bishops S. Augustine was present) thoroughly debated, 
Concil. Cartag. 3. cap. 47.  those books doubted off before, were found by the holy Ghost and them, to be true Canonical Scripture; and afterward were by the sixth general Council (that confirmed this Council holden at Carthage) declared and delivered to the whole Church for Canonical. Now, as we received at the first the other books of Canonical Scripture, on the ●●edit of the Catholic Church: even so ought we to do these, she having declared them to be such; yea, the Protestants themselves have admitted many books of the new Testament, which were doubted off for three hundred years after Christ: why then do they not as well receive them of the old? The difference betwixt us is, that they only of passion and private fancy admit these, and reject those: whereas we of obedience relying upon the judgement of the whole Church, admit those books for Canonical, which the Catholic Church hath declared for such. And thus much of the first conclusion.  
Now to the second, touching salvation by Christ alone, wherein the Protestants either cannot understand, or will not report our doctrine aright. We confess that Christ JESUS hath merited the redemption and salvation of all mankind; yet say we further, that not one man is saved through Christ, unless he for his own part first believe in Christ, if he be of years, and be content to do all those things that Christ hath commanded us to do: so that to salvation two things are required, the first and principal is Christ's mediation, the second is the applying of Christ's mediation and merits unto us; without this latter, the former will stand no man in steed. Now to be made partaker of Christ's merits, we must not only believe in him as the Protestants teach, but also keep his commandments, and by good works deserve heaven; otherwise according to Christ's decree, we shall never come thither, as in the question of Merits hath been plentifully proved out of the holy scriptures: so we teach then, that besides Christ's sufferings and merits we must have some of our own, or else we shall never be partakers of Christ's.  
And M. PERKINS cannot be excused from a wilful corruption of God's word, when he affirmeth S. Paul to say; We are not saved by such works as God hath ordained men regenerated to walk in: for those be not the words of the text, but his peevish construction, S. Paul putting a plain distinction between works that we are not saved by, and works that we must walk in; calling these later good works, and the other barely works. To the other text I say, that we have no righteousness of our own strength, or by the virtue of Moses' law; but through the mercy of God, and Christ's merits, we have true righteousness given us by baptism. Christ indeed by himself and his own sufferings, not by sacrifice of Goats or Calves, hath meritoriously washed away our sins, that is: deserved of God that they should be washed away; but formally he hath washed away our sins by infusion of Christian righteousness into our souls. He that will see more of this, let him read the question of justification. And where as M. PER. saith, that all grace of God powered into our hearts, is by the corruption of our hearts defiled; he little knoweth the virtue of God's grace, which so cleanseth and purifieth our heart and soul, that it maketh it whiter than snow, the temple of the holy Ghost, 
Psal. 50. 1. Cor. 6. 2. Tim. 2. vers. 21.  sanctified and apt to all good works; as the word of God witnesseth.  
The third conclusion is about Christ's imputative justice: we hold that no man is formally justified by that justice which is in Christ, which is infinite, and would make us as just as Christ himself is; but that God through Christ's merits, doth bestow upon every righteous man a certain measure of justice, wherewith his soul being purged from sin, and adorned with all honesty, fit for his degree and calling, is made righteous in God's sight, and worthy of the Kingdom of heaven.  
M. PERKINS holdeth, that Every just man hath faith created in his heart, whereby he layeth hand on Christ's justice, and drawing that to himself, maketh it his own. He proveth it by these words of the Apostle: 
1. Cor. 1. vers. 30.  Christ is made unto us of God, Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification, and Redemption.  
I answer, that Christ is in that place so made our righteousness, as he is made our wisdom: now no man holdeth that he is made our wisdom by imputation, therefore is he not our righteousness by imputation. The Apostles meaning is, that Christ is the procurer and meritorious cause of both our wisdom and justice, and of whatsoever other spiritual gifts we enjoy. And this righteousness which God bestoweth on us in this life, is sufficient to enable us to keep God's law, (as I have proved in several questions before) and to make us worthy of life everlasting.  
The fourth conclusion: Catholics hold it the surest course, to put their trust in the mercy of God and merits of Christ for their salvation: yet in sobriety they may have confidence both in their own merits, and in other good men's prayers.  
That is, because God saveth none of years, who do not merit life everlasting by using his grace well: therefore a virtuous honest man, may have some confidence in the good course of his life. Marry, because we are not thoroughly assured of our own good works past; neither can we tell how long we shall persever in that Godly course of life: therefore, we rather stand in fear, when we consider our own works, and our whole confidence is in the mercies of God, who for Christ's sake calleth most unworthy creatures to his grace, and doth never for sake any endeavouring to continue in his service. Neither doth that visitation of the sick in the Dutch tongue, found in a dusty corner, any whit help them: for we teach all (especially notorious sinners that wallow in sin until their dying day, such as it seemeth that visit was made for) to trust, not in their own naughtiness or little goodness, who have a hundredth times more evil than good in them; but in the infinite mercy of God and inestimable merits of our saviours death and passion: which letteth not but that a good man may have some confidence in his own merits, and in the prayer of Saints. And M PER. considereth little what he saith, when he affirmeth, That we make that our God, in which we put our trust: for albeit we must trust only in God, as in the author of all good things; yet may we trust in divers other things, as in the means of our salvation. Do not the Protestants trust in Christ's passion? and yet I hope they made not his passion their God. Have they not a confidence and trust in their lively faith? yes, I warrant you, or else they would not be far from desperation: so notwithstanding his vain babbling, Catholics well grounded in virtue, may have some confidence in their own good deeds, and in the prayer of Saints, as orderly means to attain unto salvation, albeit we trust in God only, as in the author of it.  
The fift and last conclusion, That we must not only believe in general, the promises of life everlasting, but apply them to us in particular by hope. M. PER. somewhat faintly excepteth against this, and saith: That by faith we must assure ourselves of our salvation present, and by hope continue the certainty of it. Marry, he addeth further, That they teach not that every man living within the precincts of their Church, is certain of his salvation by faith; but that he ought so t● be, and must endeavour to attain thereto.  
Why then, that man hath not the faith of Protestants, which cannot but apply unto themselves in particular the promises of life everlasting; and that as the nature of faith requireth, without all staggering & doubt: but to sow pillows, and to lay them under poor deceived men's elbows he sometimes saith, that he requireth not such certainty of salvation; yet in the conclusion of this very Chapter he forgetting himself so quickly, saith: That we abolish the substance of faith, namely in denying the particular certain application of Christ crucified, and his benefits unto ourselves. A worthy author, that can no better agree with himself.    

OF REPENTANCE.  

OUR CONSENT.  
M. PERKINS Page 316.  
THe first conclusion. Repentance is the conversion of a sinner; which is twofold, passive and active: passive is an action of God, whereby he converteth a sinner. Active is an action whereby the sinner once turned by God, turneth himself and doth good works, as the fruit there of: of this later the question is.  
The second conclusion. That repentance standeth specially for practise, in contrition of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction in work or deed. There be two sorts of contrition; one, when a man is sorrowful for fear only of hell, and other punishments in this life: this he calleth legal, though in the state of the law there was most perfect contrition in some: The other evangelical, when one is grieved for his sins, not so much for fear of hell, as because he hath offended so good and merciful a God; which is always necessary. Secondly, We hold confession necessary to be made, first to God, then publicly to the congregation, if any man be excommunicate for any crime. Thirdly, To our neighbour, when we have offended and wronged him. Lastly, In all true repentance there must be satisfaction made: First to God, by entreating him to accept of Christ's satisfaction for our sins. Secondly, to the Church for public offences, in humiliation to testify the truth of our repentance. Thirdly, satisfaction is to be made to our neighbour, because if he be wronged, he must have recompense and restitution made.  
The third conclusion. That in repentance, we are to bring forth outward fruits, worthy amendment of life: whereof the principal is, to endeavour day and night by God's grace to leave and renounce all and every sin, and in all things to do the will of God.   

THE DIFFERENCE.  
WE descent not from the Church of Rome in the doctrine of repentance itself, but in the abuses thereof: first in general, because they begin repentance part of the holy Ghost, and part of themselves, by the power of their free will helped by the holy Ghost; 
2. Tim. 2. vers. 15.  whereas Paul ascribeth it wholly unto God, proving if God at any time will give them repentance, etc.  
Answer. Of this point hath been spoken in the questions of free-will, and of justification: and here M. PERKINS answereth and confuteth himself sufficiently, when he maketh as a passione repentance, by which God turneth our hearts to him; so an active, whereby a man first moved by God, turneth himself to God: so that by his own doctrine, the free-will 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 move any part towards repentance: we answer, that the grace of God raising him to repentance, doth quicken him and enable him to do that good work.  
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 virtue, but also a Sacrament; whereas for a thousand years after Christ, it was not reckoned among the Sacraments. Yea, it seemeth that Lombard was one of the first, that called it a Sacrament: and the Schoolmen after him disputed of the matter and form of this Sacrament, not able any of them certainly to define, what should be the outward element of it.  
Answer. I am sorry to see the man so careless of his credit: what do schoolmen doubt of this Sacrament itself? or of either matter or form of it? or are they not yet agreed what should be the outward element or visible sign of it? He needeth not fear to avouch any thing, that will not blush at such a palpable untruth: 
Sess. 14. & 3.  for not only the Council of Trent, but long before it the Council of Florence, in the instruction of the Armenians doth teach, the acts of the Penitent (to wit, contrition and confession) to be the element or material part of it; and the absolution of the Priest, the formal. The same above three hundred years past, taught the Prince of schoolmen S. Thomas of Aquine, Richard, Durand, and divers others upon the fourth of the sentences, the fourteenth distinction, and now is the common opinion of all men: so that this was a lie in grain. No more truth hath the former part of his words: that Repentance for a thousand years after Christ, was not reckoned among the Sacraments For Victor Cartennensis who lived a thousand years past, doth in express terms prove, that we must make much of the Sacrament of Penance: 
Lib. de Poenitentia cap. 20.  and most of the ancient Doctors, do reckon and couple Penance with the Sacrament of Baptism, or with the Sacrament of the Altar. To begin with the latter that we may ascend upward, Victor Vticensis bringeth in the people speaking thus to the Priests, which were going into banishment: Unto whom will ye leave us poor wreatches, 
Lib. 2. de persecut. Vandalica.  whiles ye go unto your crowns? who shall baptise these little ones in the fountain of everlasting water? Who shall bestow upon us the gift of Penance, and by the favour of reconciliation, lose and untie us bounden in the bands of sin; because to you it was said, Whatsoever you lose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Is not Penance here joined with Baptism? the very like hath S. Augustine, where he first showeth what recourse in times of danger is wont to be made to the Church: S●●e craving to be baptized, other to be reconciled and to do Penance, 
Epist. 180 ad honour.  every one of them seeking comfort, and the administration of the Sacraments; where he not only reckoneth reconciliation, and Penance with Baptism, but saith that they are Sacraments; for when the people seeketh after them, he saith, That they seek after the administration of Sacraments. And a little after: If the Ministers or Priests be present; some are baptized, some be reconciled, none are defrauded of the communion of our lords body.  
S. Hierome. Let him be redeemed by the blood of our Saviour, 
L. 1. cont. Pelag. Lib. 1. de Poenitentia cap. 7.  either in the house of Baptism; or in Penance, that doth imitate the grace of baptism.  
S. Ambrose, speaking against the Novatians, saith: Why do ye baptise, if sins may not be pardoned by a man? for in baptism there is remission of all sins: neither is it any matter, whether Priests by Penance, or by Baptism, do challenge this right to be given unto them; for it is the same in both of the mysteries. So man remitteth sins aswell in the mystery or Sacrament of Penance, as in Baptism, and the like virtue is in both by S. Ambrose judgement, there the one is a Sacrament as well as the other. And yet more than a 100 years before him Tertullian saith: 
Lib. d● Poenitentia  That God foreseeing the poison and infection of sin, and having shut up the gate of pardon, and bolted the door of baptism, hath yet suffered something else to lie open: for he hath in the porch or portal placed the second penance, that may be opened to them that knock; where he testifieth the second Penance, that is, Penance after Baptism, to be appointed of God to take away sin after baptism, as baptism did that which was before it: so that many worthy ancient Fathers do reckon and account penance (or repentance as he calleth it) among the Sacraments of the Church; and so do most manifestly confute his shameless assertion.  
But because I desire here at once to dispatch this matter; I will prove, that the Father of all Fathers (that is, Christ JESUS himself) hath instituted and delivered unto us this Sacrament of Penance, viz. When breathing upon his Disciples, 
joh. 20. vers. 23.  he bid them receive the holy Ghost; and said, that whose sins soever they remitted in earth, should be remitted in heaven. Whence we prove that as there should be sinners in the Church, so men endued with power to absolve them from their sin: and because they are not to absolve any that desire not be absolved, the party must in humble sort request absolution, and declare from what sins he desireth to be absolved; for what wise man will absolve one from he cannot tell what, and not knowing whether any restitution be to be made or no? Wherefore, the party humbly confessing his fault, and the Priest absolving of him in a religious manner, thereby to magnify God by the due dispensation of his gifts bestowed on men; there must needs be a visible sign of grace of justification, which is at the same time conferred: so that even 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 within a thousand years after Christ repentance was not accounted a Sacrament, that even in Christ's own days, and by himself it was instituted a Sacrament.  
M. PERKINS objecteth for us; It will be said that remissions of sins, and life everlasting are promised to repentance: and answereth; That it is not to the work of repentance, but to the person which repenteth, and that not for his works of repentance, but for the merits of Christ applied unto 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 extravagant gloss; specially he doing it of his own authority, without warrant either of reason or of any author: and thus much of the abuses (forsooth) of repentance in general. Now to the particular, about Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction.  
The first abuse concerning contrition is, that the Catholics teach that it must be sufficient and perfect: they use to help the matter by a distinction, etc.  
O remarkable abuse, that Catholics would have contrition to be sufficient and perfect! If we would have had it imperfect, and not fit to serve the turn, then lo we had hit the nail on the head: what dotage is this? we say briefly concerning sorrow for our sins past; first, that it ought to be the greatest that we can have: for nothing is worthy to be so vehemently lamented, as that we have deadly offended our creator and redeemer, and are fallen from his grace, into the slavery of our most deadly enemy the Devil; so that for this, as for the greatest evil that could be fall us, we are to be most sorrowful. And this highest degree of sorrow is requisite in contrition, when thereby alone we do recover the grace of God: but when Contrition is joined with Confession, and is made a part of the Sacrament, then lo though it were not so great before as is otherwise requisite, it receiveth by virtue of participating with Christ's grace in that Sacrament, the full measure of sorrow, and so is made up sufficient and perfect; which M. PER▪ calleth the first abuse of Contrition, but goeth not about to disprove it.  
The second (as he saith) is, that we ascribe to Contrition, the merit of congruity.  
Before he sticked not to say that we made repentance the meritorious cause of remission of sins; which was a loud lie, because we teach that no man can merit remission of his sins: for no man can merit aught at God's hands, unless he first be in his grace and favour, which no sinner is; wherefore we hold only, that repentance as faith, hope, and a purpose of amendment, be only good dispositions, making the man fit and apt to receive the grace of justification, which God freely of his infinite mercy without any desert of ours, bestoweth upon us only for Christ's sake. That apt disposition some men call merit of congruity; wherein is no desert of the grace given, but only a man is made thereby more meet and better prepared to receive such grace. Now man's merits do so well agree and stand with Christ's merits, that Christ's order is, that none coming to the age of discretion, shall be partaker of his merits, unless he by his own merits do make himself capable of them, as hath been sufficiently proved before in the question of Merits.  
The third abuse, That they make imperfect contrition or attrition arising of the fear of hell, to be good and profitable, and to it they apply the saying of the Prophet, The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. But (saith he) servile fear of itself, is the way to eternal destruction, etc.  
Reply. He understandeth not what we say: we teach, that fear of being punished in hell fire, maketh evil men abstain from sinning, and beginneth to put them in mind of God's justice towards impenitent sinners; wherewith many being strooken with the horror of that everlasting torment, are moved to fly unto God for mercy: and so that servile fear becometh profitable unto them; first in that it causeth them to abstain from that wickedness, which they would otherwise have committed; and then being helped with God's grace, they begin to turn unto his mercy: and so fear of God's punishments becometh unto them the beginning of wisdom. Thus much in effect doth M. PER. himself allow of, and yet would seem to confute it, his judgement is so slender: Now to the abuses concerning Confession.  
The first abuse, That we confess our sins to God in an unknown language.  
What, is there any language unknown to God? or doth he mean, that the unlearned make their confession in Latin? which is impossible for a man that understandeth not one Latin word. He would say (I guest) that some of them begin their general confession in Latin, but we speak here of every man's confession in particular: that general of the Church's ordinance, is commanded only to be used of them that are skilful in the Latin tongue; all others may use the English. Withal (saith he) we require the aid and intercession of dead men. We believe the Saints to be living, which if he doth not he blasphemeth. Touching the intercession of Saints I have treated before. Now as we request the help of their prayers, so do we acknowledge unto them how grievously we have offended, that they seeing our humility and sorrow for our sins, may the more earnestly entreat for the remission of them. But let us come unto the principal point in controversy about this matter, viz. That we have corrupted Canonical confession, by turning it into a private auricular confession, binding all men to confess all their mortal sins, with the circumstances that change the kind of the sin (as far as they can remember) once every year at the least; and that to a Priest, unless it be in the case of extreme necessity: but in the word of God there is no warrant for this confession, nor in the writings of orthodox antiquity for the space of many hundredth years after Christ; as one of their own side avoucheth: and he quoteth in the margin a man of small credit among us Beatus Rhenanus, for his author. Well let us see a little, what warrant we have in holy Scriptures and in the ancient Doctors, for confession of our faults unto a Priest.  
First it is evidently collected out of these words of our Saviour: Receive the holy Ghost, 
joh. 20. vers. 23.  whose sins ye do forgive in earth, they shall be forgiven in heaven, and whose sins ye do retain, they shall be retained. For giving his Apostles power to remit and forgive men their sins, his meaning was not that they should pardon them whether they would or would not, or that they should absolve any other than such as were contrite, and did humbly crave absolution: neither should they absolve them from they knew not of what, but that they should know what, how many and how grievous their offences were, that they might be put to worthy penance, and receive particular comfort and counsel for the amendment of their lives; or else they should be the most foolish judges, that ever were appointed upon earth. Wherefore, seeing that the Apostles had authority to forgive sins, and were in discretion to admmister the same unto penitent sinners; it must needs follow necessarily, that the penitent should confess all his sins in particular unto them: and that authority was to continue in the Church for ever, it being given to the Apostles for the due governing of the Church, and to the comfort of all sinners; which should never fail to be until Christ's last coming to judgement. They to defeat all this discourse, answer: That Christ gave not his Apostles authority to pardon any man's sins, but only to declare that their sins were pardoned, if with true repentance and faith they received the preaching of the Gospel. This interpretation first is repugnant to the text, which in express terms hath, Whose sins ye shall remit or pardon; not whose sins ye shall declare to be remitted. Secondly it hath, that Whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven, to wit: even then, when they remit them, and not that they were remitted before; as he should have said, if he had given them authority only to declare them to be remitted. Thirdly, the metaphor of keys given unto them, doth demonstrate that power was given them to absolve, and not to declare only they were absolved; because keys are given to open or shut doors, and not to signify that either the doors are already open, or shall be upon condition. Lastly, the Ministers pronouncing of men absolved, should be very rash and frivolous if they do not truly absolve them. For if he pronounce them absolutely to be absolved without good assurance of their faith & repentance, he should but lie: and if he do pronounce them absolved conditionally if they believe aright and be truly penitent, then were his absolution in vain; for it depending upon their faith and repentance, and not upon the Ministers pronouncing, it bringeth no further assurance than they had before: yea, they themselves being of the faithful, could not be ignorant of so much before, to wit, that he was free from sin, and needed not his absolution. Now that the Apostles then, and Bishops, and Priests their successors ever sithence, did truly absolve men from their sins, and were not (like to criers) only proclaimers thereof, see first S. chrysostom, who saith: That such power was given here to men, 
Lib. 3. de Sacerdot  which God would never give to Angels, who yet had power to pronounce salvation to penitent sinners. Secondly, That Priests have such power of binding and losing over the souls, as Kings have over their subjects bodies; which is truly to bind or to lose them, and not only to declare them bound or loosed. Thirdly, he saith expressly: That the Priests among the jews had power to purge the leprosy, or rather to try whether they were purged from it or no; but it is granted unto our Priests, not only to discern whether the body be purged from leprosy or no, but plainly to purge our souls from the filth of sin.  
S. Ambrose in divers places proveth directly against the Novatians, that Christ gave power to Priests to remit sins. 
Lib. 1. de Poenitent. c. 2. & 7.  The Novatians denied not but that one might preach the Gospel unto such sinners that were relapsed, and promise them pardon too if they repent, but would not have the Priests to reconcile them unto the Church by the Sacrament of Penance; denying that Priests had any such power over such sinners, but that they must leave them to God alone: which the holy Doctor confuteth by these places of Scripture, Math. 16. vers. 19 & cap. 18. vers. 18. joh. 20. vers. 23. Whatsoever ye forgive in earth, shall be forgiven in heaven.  

Epist. ad Heliodor.  S. Hierome saith: God forbid, that I should speak any evil of them, who succeeding in the Apostolic degree, do with their sacred mouth make the body of Christ, and by whom we are made Christians: who having the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, do in a certain manner judge before the day of judgement.  

Lib. 20. de civit. c. 9  S. Augustine doth define in these words (Whatsoever ye shall bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven) that authority is given unto the rulers of the Church to judge in spiritual causes; and not only to declare.  

Hom. 62. in evang.  S. Gregory upon these words, Whose sins you forgive, etc. Behold (saith he) the Apostles are not only made secure of themselves, but have power given them to release other men's hands; and do obtain a prerogative of the heavenly judgement, that in God's steed they may forgive to some their sins, and bind some others: and truly the Bishops now do hold the same place in the Church; they receive authority to bind and to loose, etc. By this you may see in part, with what forehead M. PERKINS affirmed, that for a thousand years 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 itself, both the acknowledgement of receipt of that power to reconcile and absolve, and the practice and commandment of confession. S. Paul acknowledgeth and declareth, 
2. Cor. 5. vers. 18. & 20.  that God had given unto them the ministry of reconciliation: and addeth, that they be God's Legates, and therefore exhorteth them to be reconciled: but they that be sent Ambassadors with full commission to reconcile men unto their Prince, must know both how grievously they have offended, and what recompense they are willing to make; which must needs be by their own confession. Now for the practice of confession by the first Christians, 
Act. 19 vers. 18. & 19  it is recorded: That many of the faithful came confessing, and declaring their deeds: and many that had followed curious acts, brought their books and burned them in the presence of all the rest. Note here both particular confession made unto S. Paul of the several deeds and facts, and not in general: that they were sinners as the very words do witness, Confessing their deeds, that is; what they had done in particular. And again, how should he have known their study of curious books, if they had not told their sins in particular? some Protestants convinced by the text say, That they confessed some of their sins in particular, but not all. But I marvel how they came by the knowledge of that: for why should they confess some more than others? and the use of Scriptures is, by the naming of sins indefinitely, to signify all; as when we pray, Forgive us our sins, we mean all our sins: and when it is said of Christ; He shall save his people from their sins, it is meant, that he shall save them not from some of their sins, but from al. Lastly, touching the commandment, S. james doth charge us, 
a jac. 5. vers. 16.  To confess our sins one to another: which 
b Hom. 2. in Leviticum.  Origen, 
c L. 3. de Sacerdot.  S. chrysostom, and 
d Lib. 50. Homiliar. hom. 12.  S. Augustine do expound to be meant of particular confession to the Priest. And S. Bede upon that place, saith: In this sentence, that discretion is to be used, that for daily and light offences we may confess unto such our equals, by whose prayers we trust to be helped: but the uncleanness of the more grievous leper, we must (as it is in the law) lay open to the Priest; and according to his judgement we must endeavour to be purged, so much and so long time as he shall command.  
Caluin saith, that S. james speaketh of such confession only, which every one is to make unto his brother, whom he hath offended; and confirmeth it, because it followeth in the text: And pray one for another. But that which goeth before, of calling the Priest to the sick-man to anoint him, doth rather argue, that it is spoken of confession to be made to the Priest, if the sick-man remember any mortal sins; for it is not enough to have the Priest to pray for the sick, and to anoile him, if the sick be in state of mortal sins: unless he first confess himself of them, he cannot be absolved from them; nor worthylie receive Extreme Unction. And as other such like places are expounded, as for example, 
1. Pet. 4. vers. 9 Rom. 12. vers. 6.  Use hospitality one towards another; every one as he hath received grace, ministering the same one toward another: which is not, let the poor use hospitality as well toward the rich, as the rich toward the poor; and the sick cure the physician as well as the physician to cure the sick. But use hospitality one toward another, that is, those that be well able, towards them that have need: even so confess one to another, that is, he that hath sinned, to him that hath authority to absolve him. Now let us hear how ancient this confession is, and whether it were heard off for a thousand years after Christ.  
S. Ireneus, who lived in the next age after the Apostles, 

L. 1. cont. Haeres. cap. 9  
Lib. de Poenitent.   maketh mention of certain noble Women, whom Heretics had pitifully abused▪ and saith; That they coming to repentance made a confession of their faults.  
Tertullian of the same age, reprehendeth some certain, Who more fearful (as he speaketh) of their own shame, then careful of their salvation, put off their confessions from day to day: whom he likeneth to them who had diseases in their secret parts, and fearing to discover them to the physician, do through their own shamefastness perish. And in the end of the book he saith: That this confession of faults was appointed by our Lord himself.  

Homil. 2. in Leuit.  Origen. There is also a seventh remission of sins, though hard and laborious, which is by penance: when the sinner doth wash his bed with his tears, and when he is not ashamed to confess his sin to the Priest of our Lord, and to seek remedy, etc.  

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, neither can he be admitted to come to the communion, before the Bishop or Clergy have laid their hands upon him: how much more in these most grievous and exceeding great crimes, must all things be warylie and discretely observed, according unto our lords order and discipline? 
Serm. 5. de lapsis.  Again, Of how much greater faith and better fear are they, who though t●●y be not entangled with any crime of sacrifice or libel; yet because they thought of those offences, do simply and sorrowfully confess themselves even of those thoughts unto the Priests of God.  

Serm. in illa verba.  S. Athanasius upon these words (Going into a Village ye shall find a Colt tied) saith: Let us examine ourselves, whether the fetters of our sins be loosed, that we may amend our lives; and if they be not yet loosed, let us present ourselves unto the Disciples of JESUS. For they are present, that by authority which they have received from our Saviour can loose you: 

Math. 18. vers. 18. joh. 20. vers. 23. Regula. 228.  
Oratione in mulierem peccatricem.   for he said. Whatsoever ye bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. And whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven.  
S. Basil. Of necessity must we confess our sins to them, unto whom the dispensation of the mysteries of God is committed, that is to Priests.  
S. Gregory Nyssene. Do thou confidently open to the Priest thy faults, discover the secrets of thy heart, (as privy wounds) unto the physician; and he will have care both of thy honour, and of thy health.  
S. Ambrose when he did hear men that came to him to receive penance, and to confess their faults, as very many came to him therefore; he did so weep that he constrained them also to weep, as witnesseth holy Paulinus in his life.  

In cap. 10. Ecclesiast.  S. Hierome. If that serpent the Devil have bitten any man secretly, and have venimed him without the privity of any man; if he that was strooken hold his peace and do not penance, nor will confess his wound unto his Brother and Master, his Master that hath a tongue to cure and heal him, cannot easily help him: for if he that is sick be ashamed to show his wound unto the physician, physic cannot cure that which it knoweth not. And upon the 16. of S. Mathewe he specifieth those Masters that had tongues to heal, saying: So here the Bishop and Priests do either bind or loose, who according to their office having heard the variety of sin, doth know who is to be bound, and who is to be absolved.  
S. Augustine. Be sorrowful before confession, 
In psal. 66.  but when thou hast confessed leap for joy, even than thou shalt be cured: the conscience of him that doth not go to confession, hath gathered together corrupt matter, an impostume is swelled out, it vexeth him and giveth him no rest; the Physicians apply the lenitive of words, and sometimes lance him, etc. Do thou put thyself into the hands of the Physician, confess and let all that corrupt matter issue forth in confession, and then rejoice and be glad, for the rest shall afterward be easily cured. That Priests be these Physicians of souls he teacheth, Lib. 50. homiliarum, hom. 12. Item tract. 49. super johan. Con. 2. in Psal. 101. Tract. 22. in johan. & hom. 49. Lib. 50. hom. Do penance such as is done in the Church of God; let no man say, I do penance secretly, I do it to God, God knoweth that I do it who doth pardon it. To whom he replieth thus: Then in vain was it said, whatsoever ye lose in earth, shall be loosed in heaven: Therefore, to no purpose were the keys of heaven given to the Church; we make frustrate the Gospel of God, we make void the words of Christ; finally, we promise to ourselves that which he denieth us, etc. See how plainly and formally he (so many hundredth years before) hath confuted the Protestants shot-anker, and only refuge of confessing their sins to God alone; and assureth us, that it is a most vain excuse, and will not serve any man's turn; when as God himself hath set down and decreed, that he will pardon no man of his sins, who doth not seek absolution thereof from them to whom he hath committed the charge of that matter, that is from Priests. And in right reason, can there be any better bridle unto our corrupt nature, than the very shame and bashfulness of confessing our secret faults unto a learned, good, and grave man, such as a Confessor is or should be? Again, where true confession of sins is, there men use the best means that can be, to drive them from the custom of sinning: for besides the particular sorrow which they have of their sins, they must firmly purpose never to return to any kind of sin afterward; yea, they must abstain from all occasions alluring to sin: so that no man (using well this Sacrament of Confession) can dwell in malice, usury, lechery, or any state of sin. Moreover, if they have taken away the goods or good name of their neighbour, they are enjoined in confession presently to do their best to restore it back again. These and many other great commodities being the inseparable companions of private Confession, we Catholics do attribute unto the good use thereof, the greatest Godliness and devotion that is amongst us. And no marvel, though our common enemy do so busily endeavour to withdraw sinners from it, amplifying unto them the indignity and shame of it: but if they would consider maturely, that dying in their sins for lack of due confession, they shall be (to their utter shame and confusion) made to confess them all and every one at the latter day, before God, all his Angels and Saints, the Devil and all damned souls being also present; they would undoubtedly make choice, rather to confess their sins to some one virtuous Priest, who will never reveal them, but in Christ's name absolve and pardon them; then to leave them to that dreadful day of God's 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 have burned Canonical satisfaction, which was made to the congregation by open offenders, into a satisfaction of the justice of God, for the temporal punishment of their sins. Behold here a most horrible profanation of the whole Gospel.  
Answer. Behold here a most ungodly and senseless out-crye what, doth the whole sanctity of the Gospel consist only in the point of our satisfaction? it is too too absurd so to say. And how knoweth he, that Canonical satisfaction was only or principally to satisfy the congregation? They that ordained of old those Canons of satisfaction, had a greater care to satisfy and appease the wrath of God justly incensed against such wicked offenders; then to satisfy men: but this profane man very fond dreameth, that they rather sought to please men then God. But of this matter there is a whole question in the former part: there he that will may see, how all satisfactions are principally instituted to appease God's wrath, and that they do apply unto us the satisfactions of Christ, and make us partakers of them, and are besides most convenient means to bridle out corrupt nature from all sorts of sins.  
M. PERKINS to show that he was the same man in the end of his book, 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 intent and enterprise. Let their own records be seen, whether very many of them have not been condemned, only because they are Priests, made after the ancient Roman manner, without laying unto their charge any enterprise, either against the person of the Prince, or peace of the State. But what will not a Minister avouch to disgrace poor Priests, who do nevertheless not only pray, but will be ready also to spend their blood for the conversion of men of his sort, and for all others their dear countrymen, by them most piteously seduced.  
Hitherto M. PERKINS hath handled points of religion, something like a schoolman: now like a pulpit-minister he goeth on with his text, and maketh such an unsavoury gloss upon it, that it loathes me almost to look on it: yet because he raketh and heapeth together all the most odious matter that he can devise against us, I will give it the whip, and hastily run over it: thus he beginneth.  
Secondly out of the same text (Go out of her my people) I gather, 
Pag. 331.  that the true Church of God is, and hath been in the present Roman Church, as the corn in the heap of chaff. For though Popery overspread the face of the earth for many hundredth years, yet, in the midst thereof, God reserved a people to himself, that truly worshipped him, etc. And this will serve the turn to stop the mouths of Papists, who demand of us where our Church was one hundredth years ago, before the days of Luther? We answer out of this text, that our Church hath been ever since the days of the Apostles, and that in the very midst of the Papacy: but it first began to show itself in Luther's time, an universal Apostasy having hidden it before for many hundredth years.  
Answer. Here is a proper piece of doctrine, and proved as profoundly. It is very ridiculous and absurd to say, that their Church was in the Church of Rome: for one that will be both of their Church & of the Roman, must believe and profess not one or two, but more than twenty articles flat contradictory the one to the other, which is impossible. Can a man at once believe the Pope to be head of the universal Church, and withal swear that he hath no authority in many Provinces of it, but that all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction there belongeth to the Prince? or that Christ's natural body, is really present in the Sacrament, and not really present? and that Saints are to be prayed unto, and not to be prayed unto? nothing is more evident, then that this cannot be: no more could the Protestants Church be in the Church of Rome. And if the Protestants would allow them for theirs, who believe most of the articles of the Roman faith contrary to their own doctrine, so that in some few points they do agree and accord with them: yet the Church of Rome will never take them for any of her children, who do not wholly and inviolably 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 hid in the Roman, as corn in chaff. Did it in deed lie in such obscurity, that none of them were to be seen or heard off? therefore it was no Church at all: for the most proper marks of the Church (according to their own principles) are, The true preaching of God's word, and the sincere administration of the Sacraments. Now, preachers of the word must be both seen and heard also; and they walked not invisible (I hope) who ministered and received their Sacraments: wherefore, they must either grant that their Church in that general Apostasy was visible, or that it was no Church at all, as not having the inseparable marks of their Church, which are, The true preaching of the word, and due administration of the Sacraments. Again, if they had been lively members of the true Church, how could they live unknown in that great Apostasy? were they not bound in conscience, to have made profession of their faith publicly? 
Rom. 10. vers. 10. Math. 10. vers. 33.  S. Paul saith yea: With the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made to salvation. And our Saviour saith: He that shall deny me before men, I also will deny him, before my father which is in heaven. If they were such cravens, as made more account of their own ease and safety, then of the truth of their religion and glory of God; they were rather cockle oversowed by the enemy among the good-seede, 
Math. 13. vers. 25.  then like unto corn hidden in chaff. In vain for them also was that voice sent from heaven, and recorded by S. john (which M. PER. taketh for his text) Go out of her my people; for these dastardly faint-hearted fellows, would give no ear to it, but loved better to hide their heads in some musty corner, then with danger of their lives, to separate themselves from those abominations. If then there were any such false hearted, dumb, and deaf reprobates hidden among others, let the Protestants take them (if they please) for their worthy ancestors: But no reason in the world to call them the true Church of God, that had neither true love of God's honour nor of their neighbours good and conversion, otherwise, they would not have holden their peace, seeing Gods holy name so miserably profaned, as they thought. Thus much of M. PER. position: now to his proof.  
If any man ask them where their Church was before Luther's days, he answereth out of this text, (Go out of her my people,) that it was ever since the Apostles days.  
Let us draw this to some form of argument, that it may appear how it hangeth together: A voice from heaven cried in S. john's days to the Church of Rome; Go out of Babylon, that is; depart from the congregation of the wicked Heathens and Pagans: therefore the Protestants religion, hath been ever since the Apostles days. Apply john Barber, and thou shalt have a new pair of sizors for thy labour. Should not a man lose his labour to confute particularly such a senseless discourse? But yet a word to his next annotation upon 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 proofs are, That it is Babylon, that it perverteth the true sense of the Scripture, and overturneth the inward baptism: all which I have heretofore confuted. Here I will but demand, whether this assertion of his doth not undermine and blow up his former? for if their hidden Church were no where but in the Roman, for nine hundred years 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 was not at all. I may not here omit to note by the way unto the gentle reader out of S. Augustine, 
In illa verba, ps.. 85. TV SOLUS DeVS MAGNUS. Pag. 338.  How they rob Christ of his glory and inheritance bought with his precious blood, who hold that his Church failed, and was fled into corners. Yea, S. Hierome further affirmeth, That they make God subject to the Devil, and a poor 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 stuff, let us come unto those horrible crimes that he chargeth the Church of Rome withal. The first is no less than Atheism, to which I have fully answered in the preface of this book, wherefore I do omit it here, & do come to the second crime of Idolatry, Which (saith he) is as gross among us, as ever it was among the Heathens. See the foul mouth of a preacher: how proveth he this? Marry it is to be seen in two things: first they worship the Saints with religious worship, which is proper to God. O most impudent! do we make Saints creators of heaven and earth, omnipotent, infinitely wise and good, or give them any kind of honour due unto God only? see that question, and detest the sons of the Devil, that blush not to avouch such monstrous lies.  
But we make the blessed Virgin Mary a Mediator of redemption.  
Fie upon such an impudent face: but we call her a Lady, a Queen: be it so. For so did Athanasius in evang. de sanctiss. Deipar. apply those words of the 44. Psalm, The Queen standeth on thy right hand, in a golden vestment, etc.  
So did Gregory Nazianzene, in his Verses of her: For thou (saith he) o Queen, by the divine favour camest to me.  
So did holy Effrem, in his Oration to her: all which lived within four hundredth years off Christ. To omit S. Chrysostom's liturgy, because they like it not. But what of this, she is a redeemer? O senseless! that she is called a Goddess (as they did call the Queen Elizabeth then living) I read not in any of the books quoted by him. 
Missal. Breviar.  A mediatresse of intercession, our hope, our life, and the like, she may be called in a good sense; because we hope through the help of her most gracious prayers to obtain the life of our souls: and so may it be said to her, Prepare thou glory for us, defend us from our enemies, and such like, to wit, by the means of her prayers. Again (saith he) their Idolatry is manifest, in that they worship God in, at, or before Images. Then are the Protestants also Idolaters, because they worship God, in, or at the Churches; at, or before their communion table. Whether we have commandment or not for Images, maketh nothing to Idolatry; but whether we give to Images the honour only due to God, which we do not. Now to compare Images to adulterers, is to dote; and deserveth no answer.  
Thirdly (saith he) their Idolatry passeth the Idolatry of the Heathens, in that they worship a breaden God, or Christ under the forms of bread and wine.  
O impious Atheist, and altogether unworthy the name of a Christian! Is not Christ to be worshipped wheresoever he be? and that as well under the forms of bread, as under the shape of a man? it is not the outward shape or show, that maketh Christ worthy of divine worship: but the substance of his Godhead there present though hidden. But he is not there at all saith he: which to be most false, I have proved in that question.  
The third sin is the maintenance of adultery, first in the tolerating of the stews.  
Answer. It is one thing to tolerate an evil, another thing to maintain it. God doth tolerate many evils, but maintaineth none: so the stews in some hot Countries are tolerated, to avoid a greater mischief; yet not maintained but disgraced and punished, and divers means used to persuade them that live so viciously, to leave and detest that wicked kind of life. As our state doth tolerate usury, if it be under ten in the hundredth: and yet we charge them not with maintenance of usury, but rather think it a politic devise, by tolerating the less evil to avoid a greater. Again, this is a point of civil policy, and no part of the Catholic religion, which is in many Kingdoms wholly embraced, where there be no stews tolerated. In some hot Countries the civil Magistrate by experience findeth it better, to suffer some hot and incontinent lecherous companions to have such a remedy, rather than to permit them to solicit their Wives and Daughters to wickedness. I would to God that the wise saying of a most worthy Doctor were not fulfilled in our Country: Take away the stews, and fill all the City with adultery. Is not the City of London well reform (trow you) by taking the stews out of it? if the man had any forehead, knowing how their sweet Gospel hath infected both Court and Country with filthy and abominable lechery, he would have been ashamed to reprehend them, who labour to break the worse course of it, seeing they cannot extinguish it altogether.  
He saith secondly, That our law alloweth marriage beyond the fourth degree, and by this means incest: for Anne the Aunt of Nicholas may be married unto the child of Nicholas child's child, because she is beyond the fourth degree.  
Behold the wisdom of this man: first what years shall Anne be off, before that child of the fourth generation after Nicholas her Nephew, be marriageable? by that he be twenty years old, she must be sixscore or there about, and so a very fit match for that youth. Again, it is but a supposed imagination of a raw head, that the Aunt is in steed of a Mother unto all that descend of her Brother. These good fellows that find fault with us, for allowing marriage beyond the fourth degree, do themselves maintain it in the very second; for brother and sister's children may and do often marry together among them: which was prohibited in S. Augustine's days as a deformity, 
Lib. 15. de civit. 16.  even against the natural shamefastness engrafted in so near of kin. And Gregory the great being demanded at the first conversion of the English to the faith, his opinion in this matter, answereth thus: 
Cap. 6. inter. Aug. ad Greg.  That although a certain earthly law permitted brothers children to match together; yet (saith he) we have by experience observed, that issue proceedeth not of such marriage: and the holy Scripture teacheth us, that we may not reveal the turpitude of our kindred. Whence he concludeth, that even those newly converted Christians (to whom he granted as great favour as he might) should wholly abstain from marriage in the second degree: so that brethren's children marrying according to their new doctrine, contrary to the ancient Canons of the Church, do live in perpetual incest, and their children be no better than bastards; it is they then that allow incest, and not we. In another case, the Protestants by their doctrine and practice do confirm and ratify adultery: for the innocent party (for example the Husband) taking his Wife in adultery, doth not only put her away by divorce, but may also marry another, his former wife yet living; which to be plain adultery no meaner a learned man then S. Augustine, twelve hundred years past hath most sound proved, and that out of the express word of God: and therefore did he entitle that his treatise, De adulterinis conjugijs, of adulterous marriages.  
The fourth sin of Papists is magic, sorcery, and witchcraft, in the consecration of their Host, and in making holy bread and holy water and such like; and by driving out of the Devil by the sign of the cross, by exorcisms and ringing of bells, etc. For these things have no force either by their creation, or by any warrant out of the word.  
Answer. If it be sorcery and witchcraft to consecrate the body of Christ (which is done by due pronunciation of Christ's words) then was Christ the author of that sorcery, and he himself that first consecrated it, a sorcerer, which only to insinuate is most damnable. See what wicked enemies of Christ we have under the habit of Ministers: and what a loggerheaded lie is it, to say that we have no warrant in God's word for the blessing of bread, water, oil, and such like? when S. Paul saith, That all things are sanctified and made holy by the word of God and prayer. 
1. Tim. 4. vers. 5. Hebr. 9 vers. 13.  And if in the old testament, The sprinkling of the ashes of a calf did sanctify them on whom it was cast: Why may not water with us do as much being hallowed by prayer, and making the sign of the cross over it; by which we request God to bless it through the virtue of Christ's passion, expressed by the sign of the cross? and having received such blessing, we use it then more confidently to such purposes as they are blessed for; not doubting but that God will respect the prayers of his holy Church, and the good meaning of him that useth them. And as for bells, they being dedicated to the service of God, for the assembling of his people together to worship him, and having many devout prayers said over them to that purpose; we doubt not but that the very sound of them is terrible to the enemies of God, 
joshua 6. vers. 5.  as being the trumpets of his army. And as the walls of Hiericho fell flat to the earth at the sound of the Israelites trumpets and voices: so the furious working of the common enemy shall be abated, when he heareth by the ringing of the bells, God's people called together to join in prayer against him.  
The fift sin is perjury, which they maintain; because they teach that a Papist examined, may answer doubtfully against the intention of the examiner, framing another meaning to himself. As for example, when a man is asked, whether he said or heard Mass in such a place, though he did, he may say that he did not, and swear to it, meaning he was not there to reveal it to him; whereas in the law of nature he that taketh an oath, should swear according unto the intention of him that hath power to minister an oath, and that in truth, justice, and judgement. Let them clear their doctrine from all defence of perjury, if they can.  
Answer. If he had cited but one author, you should have heard a full 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 ministereth the oath, may be lawfully used in two cases. The first, if he that ministereth the oath, have not sufficient authority to minister it. The second, when having authority he asketh something beyond the order of law, and against justice; then he that sweareth is excused by the rule touched by M. PERK. himself, because a man must swear as in truth, so in justice, that is, to do or say nothing against justice. And so when one inquireth after saying or hearing Mass, as of a heinous crime, to punish good Christians for it, the man is bound not to reveal it, as being against true justice, to make his neighbour punished for so holy a fact.  
The sixth sin is, that they reverse many of God's Commandments, making that no● sin which Gods word maketh a sin: for example, If one steal some little thing that causeth no notable hurt, that is no mortal sin; 
Molanus.  and a merry or officious lie is but a venial sin, etc. If Catholics make stealing of things of small value, and officious lies venial sins; then M. PER. committeth herein a mortal sin, in belying them so maliciously, as to affirm them to make that no sin, which Gods word maketh a sin: seeing that by his own confession we make them and such like, sins, though not so heinous because there is less malice in them. He goeth on lying, when he affirmeth us 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 civility; and though it be but a counsel to yield them the extraordinary offices of friendship, yet we hold that it is much more Christan-like so to do. As for rash judgement suddenly given without advisement, I see not how it can be more than a venial sin: for the party considering better of the matter, changeth his opinion strait way, and so doth his neighbour no wrong. And if it be the part of a wise man sometimes to dissemble, according unto that saying of the wise: Sapientis est loco dissimulare; then surely is it better to dissemble and fayne holiness, than wickedness. As for painting of the face in a moderate and modest fashion, to amend the favour, when it is done without any evil end or purpose, and without scandal, I see not how one can make any more of it, than a venial sin: but to daub the countenance so as some lewd women do, to allure men thereby to unlawful lust, is without doubt very damnable, and for no other is taken of Catholics. Touching begging, let him name who holdeth it for unlawful to prohibit and forbid it, if sufficient means be otherwise provided for the mainetaynance of the poor, for I know none such. True it is, because the truth itself hath so said: That we shall have always the poor among us. 
Mat. 26. vers. 11.  But who doubteth but that it is much better, to provide for them charitably in some certain places of abode, then to suffer them to wander up and down idly, and to live dissolutely, as the greater part of them are thought to do. Moreover, no author can be truly said to uphold or excuse blasphemy or swearing, though when they deliver their opinions in schools concerning that matter, they affirm that rash choleric oaths (not being usual) are no mortal sins, because they break out in manner against a man's will; choler for the time troubling and hindering the use of reason.  
M. PERKINS doth lastly charge our writers with manifest lying, to justify our doctrine, in that they plead all antiquity to be on our sides: whereas (saith he) it is as much for them as for us.  
Hereof he yieldeth no proof, and no marvel; for many of his brethren are ashamed to deny this, and do ingeniously confess, that in many points of religion the ancient Fathers are wholly for us. And in no one point that I can hear off, will he or any of his pewfellows be tried by the judgement and consent of antiquity: which is a most manifest proof, that in their own conscience they know well enough, that all antiquity is flat against them; else why should they so fear to stand unto their most upright determination, and so fleet and fly from it? which point well considered off, is alone sufficient to dissuade any man from their new doctrine. For it not agreeing with the doctrine of pure antiquity, must needs be false and wicked; because that was most true, holy, and good: And the holy Ghost doth not now teach one to be true, and afterward change. After his Lastly he hath: Again, that our manner is to prove our opinions by forged and counterfeit writings of men: namely by S. james liturgy, by the Canons of the Apostles, by the books of Dionysius Ariopagita, and so forth reckoning up some one and twenty pieces, which he calleth counterfeit; but he goeth not about to prove any one of them to be forged. It may therefore suffice for answer; that when he or any other shall undertake to prove, that we use any forged writings to confirm our doctrine, they shall (God willing) be answered. In the mean season the better to content such weaklings, I have not past once (to my remembrance) alleged any sentence out of these books, by him suspected for counterfeit. And as touching the marrying of a Catholic with a Protestant, we dislike it more than many Ministers, who will make no bones to marry them together; which no Catholic Priest will do. Finally, we accord with him in leagues of amity as he termeth them, and hold that Catholic and Protestant Princes, may not combine in league to defend each other in all causes, or else one should stand bound to aid the other sometimes against both honesty and religion; which were very absurd: So as where M. PERKINS saith well (which he doth seldom in this book of his) I willingly agree with him, not sparing on the other side to reprehend that which he speaketh against the truth; which all indifferent men will (I hope) take to be honest upright dealing. Here endeth his book, were it not that after finis put to it, he addeth a further Advertisement, which may not be left unanswered: wherefore, I have annexed hereunto both it and the answer, before I come to the full period of this work.    

Courteous Reader,  
BEAR WITH THE FAULTS IN PRINTING, WHICH CAN HARDLY BE FEW CONSIDERING THE MANIFOLD DIFFICULTIES OF THE time: And yet (besides the oversights in pointing) are not very many, which be thus corrected.  

IN THE MARGIN THESE.  
Generally a ss. is set in the quotation of Caluins' Institution for the Section or Number.  
For. Page. read. Beza in Neoph. 9 in Creophag. simil. ibid. Simler. sess. 17. 2. 11. number 1. & 2. Homil. in prae●rat. 48. In priorem ad Corint. Conc. 56. Canon.   

IN THE TEXT THESE.  
For. Page.) (Line. read. declared 7) (15 declare Atheism 20) (9 Atheisms was this 40) (35 was it pithagorically 63.) (22 pythagorical, I say to solemnly 86) (22 to be solemnly Euchirines 135) (24 Eucherius established 145) (17 establish Cesanis 155) (39 Caesarius Pomachius 156) (1 Pamachius demised 180) (18 devised proof 181) (16 disproof   

The quotation of S. Augustine which is in psalm. 33. conc. 2. is omitted in the 68 page.  
Hier. count Lucif. cap. 6. wanteth page 209.  
And in the Advertisement, page the 25. for apud Dionysium 1. Cor. read apud Ludolphum de vita Christi, part. 1. cap. 5. pag. 17.    

AN ANSWER UNTO M. PERKINS ADVERTISEMENT.  
M. PERKINS Advertisement to all favourers of the Roman religion, showing (as he weeneth) that the said Religion is against the Catholic principles of the Catechism, that hath been agreed upon ever since the days of the Apostles, by all Churches: which principles be four. The Apostles Creed: the ten Commandments: the lords prayer: the institution of two Sacraments, Baptism and the lords supper.  
1. COR. 11. vers. 23.  
I HAD once determined to have wholly omitted this goodly postscript, because it containeth (in manner) nothing else, but an irksome repetition of that, which hath been (I will not say twice before, but more than twenty times) handled over and over, in this former small treatise: notwithstanding, considering both how ready many are, when they see any thing omitted, to say that it could not be answered; and also for that these points here reiterated, are the most odious that he could cull out of all the rest to urge against us: I finally resolved to give them a short answer; And further, also by proving their new religion, to be very opposite unto those old grounds of the true religion, to requite him with the like, that I die not in his debt. Thus he beginneth.  
The Roman religion established by the Council of Trent, is in the principal points thereof, against the very grounds of the Catechism: the Creed: the ten Commandments: the lords prayer: the two Sacraments.  
THE Catholic religion embraced and defended by the Church of Rome, was planted and established there by the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, fifteen hundredth years before the Council of Trent, and hath been ever sithence, by the Bishops of Rome their lawful successors, constantly retained, and most sincerely observed and maintained: some articles thereof, called into question by the Heretics of this latter age, were in that most learned general Council of Trent, declared and defined. And great marvel it were, if the principal points thereof, should be against the grounds of the Catechism, which is in every point most substantially expounded, by the decree and order of the very same Council. Or is it credible, that the Church of Rome (with which all other ancient Churches and holy Fathers, did desire to agree; and which hath been ever most diligent to observe all Apostolical traditions) should in the principal points of faith, cross and destroy the very principles of that religion, that hath been agreed upon by all Churches ever since the Apostles days, as he saith? Is it not much more likely and probable, that the Protestants, who slander all Churches, ever since the time of the Apostles, with some kind of corruption or other, and who hold no kind of Apostolical tradition to be necessary: is it not (I say) more credible, that they should shake those grounds of faith, which come by tradition from the Apostles, and have been ever since by all Churches agreed upon? I suppose that few men of any indifferent judgement, can think the contrary. But let us descend to the particulars, wherein the truth will appear more plainly. Thus beginneth Master PERKINS with the Creed.  
First of all it must be considered, that some of the principal doctrines believed in the Church of Rome, are; that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ, and head of the Catholic Church: that there is a fire of Purgatory: that Images of God and saints, are to be placed in the Church, and worshipped: that prayer is to be made to saints departed: that there is a propitiatory sacrifice daily offered in the Mass, for the sins of the quick and the dead. These points are of that moment, that without them the Roman religion cannot stand, etc. And yet mark the Apostles Creed, which hath been thought to contain all necessary points of religion to be believed, and hath therefore been called the key and rule of faith: This Creed (I say) hath not any of these points, nor the expositions made thereof by the ancient Fathers; nor any other Creed or confession of faith made by any Council or Church, for the space of many hundredth years. This is a plain proof to any indifferent man, that these be new articles of faith, never known in the Apostolic Church; and that the Fathers and Counsels could not find any such articles of faith in the books of the old and new Testament. Answer is made, that all these points of doctrine are believed under the article, (I believe the Catholic Church:) the meaning whereof they will have to be this. I believe all things which the Catholic Church holdeth and teacheth to be believed. If this be as they say, we must believe in the Church: that is, put our confidence in the Church, for the manifestation and the certainty of all doctrine necessary to salvation. And thus the eternal truth of God the creator, shall depend upon the determination of the creature; And the written word of God in this respect is made insufficient, as though it had not plainly revealed all points of doctrine pertaining to salvation. And the ancient Churches have been far overseen, that did not propound the former points to be believed as articles of faith, but left them to these later times. Thus far Master PERKINS: Wherein are huddled up many things confusedly: I will answer briefly and distinctly to every point.  
The first is, that in the Apostles Creed are contained all points of religion necessary to be believed, which is most apparently false, as the Protestants themselves must needs confess; or else grant, that it is not necessary to believe the King to be Supreame-head of the Church: or that the Church is to be governed by Bishops: or that we are justified by Christ's justice imputed to us: or that there be but two Sacraments: or that the Church service must be said in the vulgar tongue; or that all things necessary to be believed to salvation, are contained in the Scriptures. To be short, not one article of their religion (which is contrary to ours) is contained in this Creed of the Apostles: therefore to affirm as de doth, all necessary points of religion to be contained in this Creed, is to cast their own religion flat to the ground; and to teach, that not one point of it is to be believed: this Creed may nevertheless be called the key and rule of faith, because it containeth the principal points of the Christian religion, and doth open (as it were) the door unto all the rest, and guide a man certainly unto the knowledge of them, by teaching us to believe the Catholic Church, 
1. Tim. 3. vers. 15. joh. 16. vers. 13.  which being the pillar and ground of truth, directed and guided by the spirit of truth, will always instruct her obedient children, in all truth necessary to salvation.  
Then saith Master PERKINS: The eternal truth of God, the creator shall depend on the determination of the creature.  
Nothing less: for God's truth is most sincere and certain in itself, before any declaration of the Church: but we poor creatures that are subject to mistaking and error, should not so certainly understand and know that truth of God, unless he had ordained and appointed such a skilful and faithful Mistress and interpreter, to assure us both what is his word, and what is the true meaning of it. Like as pure gold, is not made perfect in itself by the Goldsmith's touchstone; but other men are thereby assured, that it is true and pure gold: even so the word of God doth not borrow his truth from the Church; but the true children of God are by the holy Church assured, which is the same his word. If we did hold (as we do not) that the written word containeth all points of doctrine necessary to salvation: yet were it most necessary to rely upon the Catholic Church's declaration, both to be assured which books of Scriptures be Canonical, which not; (whereupon S. Augustine (a man of far better judgement than any of these days) said, 
Con. Epist. jud. cap. 5.  that he would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church moved him thereunto:) as also to understand them truly; because the words of holy Scripture, without the true meaning and sense of them, do but deceive men and lead them into error; and to that end have always been, and yet are, by Heretics abused, to draw others after them into destruction.  
The like may be said of other ancient Creeds, and confessions of faith, which holding the Apostles Creed, did add some few points unto it: namely, such as were in those days called into question by Heretics of greater fame, and who were followed of many, not touching in particular divers other articles generally believed of all true Christians, or else by some few and obscure men only questioned. Wherefore to argue that no other points of faith are to be believed, but such as are expressed in ancient Creeds, is to cut of a great part of our faith.  
Lastly, it is most untrue to say that those ancient Fathers and Counsels knew not of these articles of faith by him mentioned: for they have most plainly taught them in their writings: yea, and expressly condemned of heresy, most of the contrary positions, now again revived and holden by the Protestants; as in those several questions I have before proved.  
Touching believing in the Church, which he thrusteth in by the way, we use not that phrase, as the very Creed showeth; following therein S. Augustine with others, who hold, that to believe in a thing, is to make it our creator, by giving our whole heart unto it; in which sense we believe not in saints, nor in the Church: albeit some other ancient Doctors, take the words to believe in, not so precisely, but say that me may believe in the Church & in Saints: that is, believe certainly that the Catholic Church is the only true company of Christians; and that to the lawful governors thereof, it appertaineth to declare both which books be Canonical, and what is the true meaning of all doubtful places in them: so we believe the Saints in heaven to hear our prayers, to be careful to pray for us, & to be able to obtain by entreaty much at God's hands, in whose high favour they live. Thus much in answer unto that which M. PER. objecteth in general, now to that he saith in particular.  
He chargeth us first, with the breach of the third article, Conceived by the holy Ghost: Which (saith he) is overturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Mass, into the body and blood of Christ: for here we are taught to confess the true and perpetual incarnation of Christ, beginning in his conception, and never ending afterward.  
Answ. Here is a strange exposition of the Creed. Is Christ's incarnation perpetual, and not yet ended? then it is true to say, that Christ is not yet incarnate; as we may say truly, that a man is not borne, until his birth be accomplished and ended. But to the present purpose: because Christ's incarnation began at his conception, cannot bread be turned afterward into his body? how hangeth this together? Belike he means that Christ's body was but once conceived, and that was by the holy Ghost in his mother's womb: therefore it cannot afterward be made of any other thing. This to be his meaning, he declares in the question of the Sacrament; but it is too too simple and childish. For we hold him not to be so conceived by bread, as he was by the holy Ghost, who was the efficient cause of his conception: but that the same body that was conceived by the holy Ghost, is made really present in the Sacrament, by transubstantiation of bread into it, which hath no opposition at all with this article, as I have more largely proved in the foresaid question. And whereas he saith further, clean besides the purpose of this article, that Christ's body hath the essential properties of a true body, standing of flesh and bone: we grant the same; but when he addeth that local circumscription cannot be severed from a body, he is deceived: for the greatest body of all others, (which is the highest heaven) is not circumscribed by any place; because there is no other body without it, whose extremities might compass in, and circumscribe that body of the highest heaven. And when he saith, that to be circumscribed in place, is an essential property of every quantity; and that quantity is the common essence of every body: he makes himself but a common mocking-stocke unto every simple Logician, who knoweth that no accident (such as every quantity is) can be of the essence and nature of a substance, such as Christ's body is. Neither would any man say, (that cared what he said) that to be circumscribed in a place is essential to every quantity, when all numbers that be quantities, have no relation unto any place: neither is it of the essence of any quantity to be actually circumscribed by a place; but it is a property flowing out of the essence of one only kind of quantity, to be apt, and fit to be circumscribed and compassed about with a place. And naturally all bodies (except the highest heaven) have one place, out of which they pass (as S. Augustine said) when they come into another: but by the omnipotent power of God, any body may be separated from his place, or be in as many places at once, as it shall please God to seat it; because to be circumscribed with a place actually, is a mere accident unto a substantial body, and without the nature of quantity; and God may not without blasphemy be disabled to separate a substance from an accident. By this is confuted also his second instance: Christ is ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, therefore his body is not really and locally in the Sacrament. This followeth not, because it is in both places at once, as S. chrysostom in express terms teacheth. 
Chris. lib. 3. de Sacerd.  O miracle! O goodness of God he that sitteth above with his Father, at the very same instant is touched with the hands of all men, and giveth himself to them that will receive and embrace him! See more of this in the question of the blessed Sacrament, where M. PERKINS citeth the very same authorities, which he here repeateth: see my answer to them there.  
Thirdly, he reasoneth thus: In that we believe the Catholic Church, it followeth that it is invisible, because things seen, are not believed.  
We answer: that the persons in the Catholic Church are and ever were visible, even to jews and Heathens who persecuted them; but the inward indowmentes of those persons: that is, their faith, hope, and charity; their assistance by God's spirit, and such like Christian qualities, are invisible and to be believed. And even as a man is truly said to be visible, though he consist aswell of an invisible soul, as of a visible body: so the Church is visible, for the visible persons, visible teaching and administering of Sacraments in it; albeit the inward qualities of it be not visible.  
His last objection against us out of the Creed, is: That the articles of remission of sins; resurrection of the body; and life everlasting, contain a confession of special faith. For the meaning of them is thus much: I believe the remission of mine own sins, and the resurrection of mine own body to life everlasting.  
Answer. That is not the meaning, unless you add some conditions: to wit, I believe the remission of my sins, if I have duly used the means ordained by our Saviour for the remission of them; which is after Baptism, the Sacrament of Penance. Item, I believe I shall have life everlasting, if I keep (as Christ willed the youngman to keep) God's commandments, or (at the least) if I do die with true repentance. Now whether I have done or shall do these things required of me, I am not so well assured, as that I can believe it: for I may be deceived therein; but I have or may have a very good hope, by the grace of God to perform them. Neither is there any more to be gathered out of S. Augustine, as some of the words by himself here alleged do convince. For he requireth beside faith, that we turn from our sins, conform our will to Gods will, and abide in the lap of the Catholic Church; and so at length we shall be healed. See the question of certainty of salvation. Note also by the way, the uncertainty of M. PER. doctrine, 
Pag. 270. & 275.  concerning this point: for he holdeth that it is not necessary to have a certain persuasion of our own salvation, but that it is sufficient to have a desire to have it: and that doctrine he putteth there (as he saith himself) to expound the Catechisms, that propound faith at so high a reach, as few can attain unto: yet here and else where, the good man forgetting himself, chargeth us to cross the Creed, because we do not wrest faith up to so high a strain; and so in heat of quarreling, often expoundeth this contrary to his own rule. Now for proof of S. Augustine's opinion herein (whom he only citeth) take these two sentences for the two points he speaketh of. For the first, that we be certain by ordinary faith of our salvation, let this serve. Of life everlasting, 
De bono persever. cap. 22. De correct. & great. cap. 13.  which God (that cannot lie) hath promised to his children, no man can be secure (and out of danger) before his life be ended, which is a tentation upon earth. Secondly, that a man once truly justified may afterward fall: We must believe (saith this holy Father) that certain of the children of perdition do live in faith, that worketh by charity, and so do for a time live faithfully and justly (they were then truly justified) and yet afterward do fall, and that finally; because he calleth then the children of perdition. Thus much in answer unto that, which Master PERKINS objecteth against our religion out of the Creed, which (as you have seen) consisteth wholly upon his own forced exposition, and vain illations.  
Hence he proceedeth to the ten Commandments. But before I follow him thither, I may not omit here to declare how the Protestant Doctors do foully mangle, and in manner overturn the greatest part of the Creed. Observe first, that according to their common doctrine, it is not necessary to believe this Creed at all, because it is no part of the written word: secondly, that Caluin doubteth whether it were made by the Apostles or no; 
Cal. lib. 2. Instit. cap. 16. sess. 18  being then no part of the written word, not made by the Apostles, it must by their doctrine be wholly rejected. Now to the particulars.  
1. Concerning the first article, I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, they do err many ways. First, they do destroy the most simple unity of the Godhead, 
Confess. fidei gener.  by teaching the divine essence to be really distinguished into three persons. If the divine nature be really distinguished into three, there must needs be three divine essences or natures: ergo, three Gods. Caluin also saith, 
In acts Serueti. pag. 872.  that the Son of God hath a distinct substance from his Father. Melancthon, that there be aswell three divine natures, as three persons, in locis de Christo.  
Secondly, they overthrow the Father in the Godhead, by denying the Son of God, to have received the divine nature from his Father: as Caluin, Beza, and Whitakers do. See the Preface.  
Thirdly, how is God almighty, if he cannot do all things that have no manifest repugnance in them? But he cannot after the opinion of divers of them, make a body to be without local circumscription, or to be in two places at once; which notwithstanding some others of them hold to be possible, 
In colloq. Marpurg. art. 29. Li. 1. cont. Scargum, cap. 14.  as Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, Andreas Volanus, etc.  
Fourthly, though we believe God to be maker of heaven and earth; yet never none but blasphemous Heretics, held him to be true author and proper worker of all evil done upon earth by men. Such nevertheless be Bucer, Zwinglius, Caluin, and others of greatest estimation among the Protestants. See the Preface.  
2. And in JESUS Christ his only Son our Lord. They must needs hold Christ not to be Gods true natural Son, which deny him to have received the divine nature from the Father: again, they make him according to his Godhead, inferior to his Father. See the Preface.  
3. Born of the Virgin MARY. Many of them teach, that Christ was borne as other children are, 
Dialog. de corpore Christi. pag. 94. De consil. part. 2. 276.  with breach of his Mother's virginity, as Bucer, and Molineus in unione evangelii part. 3. and Caluin signifieth no less in harmo. sup. 2. Math. vers. 13.  
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead, and buried. Friar Luther (with a great band of his followers) doth toughly defend, that the Godhead itself suffered; which to be blasphemy, Musculus doth prove in his book of the errors of Luther's Scholars: yet Beza with all them that hold Christ to have been our mediator, according to his divine nature, can hardly save themselves from the same blasphemy. For the chiefest act of Christ's mediation, consisteth in his death: if then the Godhead did not suffer that death, it had no part in the principal point of Christ's mediation. Hither also appertain all these their blasphemies, to wit: that Christ was so frighted with the apprehension of death, that he forgot himself to be our mediator; yea refused (as much as in him lay) to be our redeemer: Item, that he thought himself forsaken of God, and finally despaired. See the Preface.  
5. Descended into hell, the third day he arose again from the dead. It is worth a man's labour, to behold their goodly variety of expositions about Christ's descending into hell: 
2. Apolog. ad Sanct.  Beza followed of Corliel our Countryman, thinks this to have crept into the Creed by negligence; and so the French Hugonots, and Flemish Gues have cast it clean out of their Creed: but they are misliked of many others, who had rather admit the words, because they be found in Athanasius Creed, and also in the old Roman Creed expounded by Ruffinus: but they do most perversely expound them. Caluin saith, that Christ's suffering of the pains of hell on the Cross, is signified by these words: but he pleaseth not some others of them; because Christ's suffering and death also, goeth before his descending into hell, and the words must be taken orderly as they lie. Thirdly, divers of them will have it to signify, the laying of Christ's body in the grave; but that is signified plainly by the word, buried. Wherefore some others of them expound it to signify, the lying of his body in the grave three days, which M. PER. approveth as the best; but it is as wide from the proper and literal signification of the words, as can be. For what likeness is there between lying in the grave, and descending into hell? Besides, Caluin their great Rabbin misliketh this exposition, as much as any of the rest, 
Lib. 2. Instit. ca 16. sess. 8.  and calleth it an jdle fancy. Fourthly, Luther, Smideline, and others cited by Beza, art. 2. do say, that Christ's soul after his death went to hell, where the Devils are, there to be punished for our sins, thereby to purchase us a fuller redemption; which is so blasphemous that it needs not any refutation. As ridiculous is another, received of most Protestants; that Christ's soul went into Paradise, which well understood is true. For his soul in hell, had the joys of Paradise; but to make that an exposition of Christ's descending into hell, is to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it. All these and some other expositions also, the Protestants have devised, to lead their followers from the ancient, and only true interpretation of it: to wit, that Christ in soul descended unto those lower parts of the earth, where all the souls departed from the beginning of the world, were detained by the just judgement of God, till Christ had paid their ransom; and were not admitted into the kingdom of heaven, before Christ had opened them the way thither.  
6. Concerning Christ's resurrection, they do also err. For whereas a resurrection is the rising up of the very same body that died, with all his natural parts: they deny Christ to have taken again the same blood, 
Cal. in 27. Math. Perkins pag. 194. In cap. 24. Lucae.  which he shed in his passion; and yet is the blood one notable part of the body. Caluin also affirmeth it to be an old wife's dream, to think that in Christ's hands and feet there remain the print of nails, and the wound in his side, notwithstanding that Christ showed them to his Disciples, and offered them to be touched of S. Thomas.  
7. About Christ's ascension into heaven, they do somewhat dissent from the truth. For some of them say, that Christ's body did not pierce through the heavens by virtue of a glorious body (lest they should thereby be compelled to grant, that two natural bodies may be together in one place, and therefore as well one true body in two places at once) but that broad gaps were made in the lower heavens, to make him way to the highest, which is very ridiculous, and more against true Philosophy: they say also, 
1. Cor. 15. vers. 21. Coll. 1, 18.  that he was not the first man that entered into the possession of heaven, which is flat against the Scriptures, that call Christ the first fruits and first begotten of the dead. Thirdly, they lock Christ so closely up in heaven, 
Beza in c. 2. actorum  that they hold it impossible for him to remove thence at any time before the last judgement (for fear they should otherwise be enforced to confess, that his body may be in two places at once) which is to make him not Lord of the place, but some poor prisoner therein. And as for Christ's sitting on the right hand of his Father, they are not yet agreed what it signifieth. See Conrade. 
L. 1. ar. 25 de concor. Caluinist. 
L. 2. Insti c. 14. ss. 3.   Caluin plainly saith, that after the later judgement he shall sit there no longer. That God shall then render to every man according to his works (as holy Scripture very often doth testify) all the pack of them doth utterly deny.  
8. I believe in the holy Ghost. First Caluin and his followers (who hold the holy Ghost to have the Godhead of himself, and not to have received it from the Father and the Son) must consequently deny the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son, 
In the Preface.  as hath been else where proved. Secondly, they make him much inferior unto the other persons: for they teach in their French Catechisms, that the Father alone is to be adored in the name of the Son. 
In cap. 6. & 17. Isa. & in 16. Marc.  And Caluin against Gentil saith, that the title of creator belongeth only to the Father: and else where, that the Father is the first degree & cause of life, and the Son the second. And that the 
In 26. Math. v. 64.  Father holdeth the first rank of honour and government, and the Son the second; where the holy Ghost is either quite excluded from part with the Father and the Son, or at most, must be content with the third degree of honour.  
9 I believe the holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints. First, where as there is but one Catholic Church, 
one  as the Council of Nice expressly defineth, following sundry texts of the word of God; they commonly teach that there be two Churches: one invisible of the elect; another visible of both good and bad. Secondly, they imagine it to be holy, 
holy  by the imputation of Christ's holiness to the elected brethren, and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hearts of all the faithful. Thirdly, they cannot abide the name Catholic in the true sense of it: 
Catholic  that is, they will not believe the true Church, to have been always visibly extant since the Apostles time, and to have been generally spread into all Countries; otherwise they must needs forsake their own Church, which began with Friar Luther, and is not received generally in the greatest part of the Christian world. Finally, they believe no Church, no not their own in all points of faith: but hold that the true Church may err in some principal points of faith. How then can any man safely rely his salvation, upon the credit of such an uncertain ground & erring guide? may they not then as well say that they do not believe the one Catholic Church: because they do as well not believe it, as believe it? And as for the communion of Saints, their learned masters do commonly cassier it out of the Creed, and that not without cause. For by the Saint's understanding (as the Apostles did) all good Christians whither alive or departed this world, they that deny prayer to Saints, and for the souls in Purgatory, have reason to reject the common society & intercourse that is between the Saints, and the mutual honour and help, which such good Christian souls do yield and afford one to another.  
10. The forgiveness of sins. It is not easily to find what is their settled opinion, touching the forgiveness of original sin in Infants. Some attribute it to Baptism; but that cannot stand with their common doctrine, that Sacraments have no virtue in them to remit sins, or to give grace. Others say, that God without any means doth then, when they be baptized, of himself immediately justify them; but that cannot stand in their own doctrine, because Infants want the instrument of faith to lay hold on that justice then offered by God, and therefore cannot being so young, take it unto them. Others will have Infants sanctified in their mother's womb, by virtue of a covenant, which they suppose God to have made with old father Abraham, and all his faithful servants, that (forsooth) their seed shall be holy; But this is most fantastical, and contrary to the Scriptures and daily experience: for Isaac was the son of promise, and yet Esau his son was a reprobate; Davides father was a Godly Israelite, and yet David affirmeth, 
Psal. 50.  that he himself was conceived in iniquities; and we may see whole Countries now turned Turks, whose ancestors were good Christians: therefore not all the souls of the faithful, are sanctified in their mother's wombs. Secondly, how evil soever they agree about the remission of sin; yet there is a perfect consent among them, that such relics of original sin remain in every man baptized and sanctified, that it infecteth all and every work he doth, with deadly sin: yea that which remaineth is properly sin in itself, though it be not imputed to the party; so that sin is always in them, though their sins be never so well forgiven. And as for the Sacrament of Penance, by which we hold all sins committed after Baptism to be forgiven; they do renounce the benefit of it, and are at utter defiance with it.  
11. The resurrection of the bodies. Whether Farel the first Apostle of the Genevian Gospel doubted thereof or no, let his successor Caluin tell you, who answereth Farels letter thus. 
Episto. ad Farellum.  That the resurrection of this our flesh doth seem to thee incredible, no marvel, etc. Again, many of them teach that Christ took not his blood again, which he shed upon the cross: yea, some of them are so graceless, as to say; that his precious blood wherewith we were redeemed, 
Vide Conradum, li. 1. art. 20.  rotten away on the earth. 1600. years ago. If then it be not necessary to a true resurrection, to rise again with the same blood; why is it necessary to rise again with the same bones and flesh, the one being as perfect a part of a man's body as the other?  
12. Life everlasting. First, Captain Caluin holdeth it for very certain, that no soul doth enter into the joys of heaven (wherein consisteth life everlasting) until the day of doom. 
3. Institu. 25. sess. 6.  These be his words: the souls of the Godly having ended the labour of this warfare, do go into a blessed rest, where they expect the enjoying of the promised glory: And that all things are holden in suspense until Christ the redeemer appear; whose opinion is yet better than was his predecessor Luther's. For he teacheth in many places, that the souls of the Godly departing from their bodies, 
Enarra. in Gen. c. 26. In Ecclesi. c. 9 v. 10.  have no sense at all, but do lie fast a sleep until the latter day: Take this one for a taste. Another place to prove, that the dead feel, or understand nothing: wherefore Solomon thought the dead to be wholly a sleep, and to perceive nothing at all. And again, the sleep of the soul in the life to come, is more profound then in this life. And Luther with this one position of his (as that famous historiographer john Sleidan recordeth) overthrew two points of Popery: 
Li. 9 hist.  to wit, praying to Saints; for they are so fast a sleep, that they cannot hear us: and praying for the dead; For they in Purgatory slept also so sound, that they felt no pains. A meet foundation surely to build such false doctrine upon. 
In 20. Luc hom. 35.  But Brentius is most plain in this matter, who ingeniously confesseth; that, albeit there were not many among them, that did profess publicly the souls to die with the body; yet the most unclean life, which the greatest part of their followers did lead, doth clearly show, that in their hearts they think no life to be after this: yea, that many such speeches do sometimes proceed from them. Finally, it is a gross error of theirs, to think that every mean Godly man, shall be then made equal in glory with the Apostles, 
In 1. cap. Petri 1. 1. Cor. 15. vers. 42.  which Luther teacheth; whereas clean contrary S. Paul declareth, that as one star differeth from another in glory: so also shall be the resurrection of the dead.  
I omit here many other particularities, that I be not over tedious: For these their bickerings against the very principles of our Christian faith, (not leaving any one article of our Creed unskirmished with all) will serve any indifferent man for a warning, to beware of their profane doctrine, that leadeth the high way to Infidelity. They use to cry out much against the Antichrist of Rome, for corrupting the purity of the Gospel, as the wicked Elders did against the adultery of Susanna: but the judicious Christian may easily espy, them themselves to be the true forerunners of Antichrist in deed, by their so general hacking and hewing at every point of the ancient Christian faith. Thus much concerning the Creed: now let us pass to the Commandments.  
First (saith Master PERKINS) it is a rule in expounding the several Commandments, that all virtues of the same kind are reduced to that Commandment: Hence it followeth, that counsels of perfection are enjoined in the law, and therefore prescribe no state of perfection beyond the scope of the law.  
Answ. None of the counsels of perfection are enjoined in the ten Commandments, though for some affinity, they may be reduced to some of them. For example: It is commanded that I shall not steal, that is: to take any of my neighbour's goods against his will; but to give away all my own to the poor, is beyond the compass of the law: so likewise it is commanded not to commit adultery; but we are not commanded to vow perpetual chastity and obedience. Such offices only that are necessarily required to the performance of any commandment, are comprehended with in the same, but no others; though some men take occasion of the commandment, to treat of the counsels of perfection.  
Secondly (saith M. PER.) the Commandment, thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, etc. hath two several parts: the first forbiddeth the making of Images: the second the adoration of them. He concludeth out of deuteronomy, that the Images of the true jehova are forbidden in the Commandment, and consequently the adoration of such Images. Hence he will have it to follow, that to worship God in or at Images with religious worship, is abominable Idolatry.  
Answ. First if the Images of God only be there prohibited, and then worship done to them according to his own exposition, than it followeth most clearly, that there is no prohibition for either making or worshipping the Images of any Saints; and therefore with a very evil conscience doth he wrest the commandment against them. Secondly I say, though God had forbidden us to worship Images, yet doth it not follow thereof, that we must not worship God in, or at Images. For as God is every where; so may he be worshipped in all places, and as well at or before an Image; as in the Church, and before the communion table. Thirdly, we make no Images to express the nature of God, which is a spirit, and cannot be represented by lines and colours, but only allow of some such pictures, as set out some apparitions of God, recorded in the Bible; not doubting but that such works of God, may aswell be expressed in colours to our eyes, as they are by words to our ears and understanding. Lastly, touching religious worship to be done to Saints or pictures, the Heretics cavilling consisteth principally in the divers taking of the word religious. For it is ambiguous, & principally signifieth the worship only due to God; 
Analogon.  in which sense to give it to any creature were Idolatry: but it is also with the best authors taken some other time, to signify a worship due to creatures, for some supernatural virtue or quality in them; and in this sense to term it detestable Idolatry, is either detestable malice, or damnable ignorance. And whereas (he saith) that common reason teacheth, that they who adore God in Images, do bind God and his hearing of us, to certain things and places: I say the contrary, that God may be worshipped in all places; but we rather choose to worship him in Churches and before Images then in other places, because the sight of such holy things, do breed more reverence and devotion in us, & better keep our minds from wandering upon vain matters. If we taught that God could be worshipped no where else, or by no other means, than he had not lied so loudly. But let us hear the end of his discourse: thus he argueth. They that worship, they know not what, worship an Idol. This exposition is false, unless they worship it with divine honour. But go on: the Papists worship they know not what. I prove it thus: to the consecration of the Host, there it required the intention of the Priest: but they cannot have any certainty of the priests intention, wherefore they are not certain whether it be bread, or the body of Christ. ergo, worshipping of it, they worship they know not what.  
Answ. First, here is leaping from the Commandments to the Sacraments, which is out of order: secondly, I return his argument upon himself. To their service and in the administration of the lords supper, the Minister's intention is required: for if he intent to serve the Devil, and by giving them the communion to bind them the faster to him; then do they (in saying Amen to his prayers, & receiving the communion at his hands) join with him in the devils service. Now they have no more certainty of their Minister's meaning, than we have of our Priest's intention: yea much less of many of them, who are mad-merry fellows, and care not greatly whereabout they go, nor what they intent: must they therefore fly from their divine service and holy communion, because they be not certain of their Minister's intention therein? Surely they should, if his reason were aught worth. But in such cases we must persuade ourselves that God's Ministers do their duty, unless we see great cause to the contrary; and thereupon are we bold to do our duty to the blessed Sacrament: If he should fail in his, yet our intention being pure to adore Christ's holy body only, and nothing else there, we should formally be the true worshippers of Christ, though materially we were mistaken in that Host; which to term Idolatry, is to style our Saviour JESUS Christ an Idol, and therefore blasphemy in the highest degree.  
His third objection is out of the fourth Commandment, which (as he saith) giveth a liberty to work six days in the ordinary affairs of our calling, which liberty (saith he) cannot be repealed by any creature: the Church of Rome therefore erreth, in that it prescribeth other set and ordinary festival days, to be observed as straightly, and with as much solemnity as the Sabbaoth of the Lord.  
Answ. Doth not the Church of England also prescribe the Nativity of our Saviour, and of S. john Baptist, the feasts of the Apostles, and many others to be kept holy, and command that no man work in the affairs of their calling those days? doth their own Church also err therein? How say you then to the Church of the Israelites, which kept the feasts of Easter, Whitsuntide, and of the Tabernacles, as straightly and with as much solemnity, as they kept the Lords Sabbaoth: was it also misled to the breach of God's Commandments? or must we not rather thereby learn, that six days in the week, were at the first left us free to labour in; but yet so, that by the decree and commandment of our spiritual Governors, any of them might (upon just occasion) be made festival, and thereupon every good Christian bound to keep them, by their obedience unto their Governors? to think the contrary is a high point of Puritanisme.  
Fourthly (saith M. PER.) the fist Commandment enjoineth children to obey father and mother in all things, specially in matters of moment; as in their Marriages and choice of their calling, and that even to death: and yet the Church of Rome against the intent of this Commandment, alloweth that clandestine Marriages and the vow of religion shall be in force, though they be without and against the consent of wise and careful parents.  
Answ. It is very false to say that children must obey their parents in all things: for if parents command them any thing either against God's law or the Princes, they must not obey them therein. And touching clandestine and privy Marriages, they are of force aswell in the Church of England, as in the Church of Rome: yea more too. For by the Church of Rome always they have been forbidden very severely; and since the Council of Trent, are made void and of no force, where the Council can be published. Concerning entering into religion, children's vows (during their minority) may be annullated and made of no force by their parents: marry, when they come to riper days, if their father stand not in necessity of their help, they may forsake him to follow Christ in a more perfect kind of life: as S. james & S. john forsook their father Zebedee, & followed Christ. 
Math. 4. vers. 22.   
Fiftly, The last Commandment (saith M. PER.) forbiddeth the first motions to sin, that are before consent. He proveth it thus: Lusting with consent is forbidden in the former Commandments: thou shalt not commit adultery, and thou shalt not steal: therefore if the last forbidden no more, it is confounded with the former. Again, the Philosophers knew that lust with consent was evil, even by the light of nature; but Paul a learned Pharisee, knew not lust to be sin, that is forbid in the Commandment. Lust therefore that is forbidden here, is without consent. 
Rom. 7.  Wicked then is the doctrine of Rome, that requireth our consent to every mortal sin.  
Answ. Their doctrine is most reasonable and godly: For the first motions to sin, are rather the actions of the evil spirit, tempting us to evil; then of a man, in whose mind they are before he is aware of them; and who assoon as he beginneth to mark them, disliketh them and chaseth them thence: and how can he carry a right opinion of the mild goodness of God, that thinketh him so hasty with his frail creature man, as to punish him eternally for such a thought, as is thrust into his mind at unawares, and may come upon him in his sleep, went he never so well disposed to bed? See more of this in the question of original sin. To his reasons to the contrary I answer to the first, that lust with consent is not expressly forbid in the former commandments, but the act of adultery and stealing: yet, it might well have been reduced unto them, as it is in the other commandments. Nevertheless, because our frailty is more prone to the wicked lust of concupiscence, and desire of our neighbour's goods; it pleased God for the better bridling of them, to give us particular precepts against them; specially considering, that it was also very hard, by the dim light of our darkened reason, to discern them to be such capital sins. And whereas he saith, that the Philosophers knew the inward consent of our mind, without any exterior acts to be mortal sin: I take him to speak at random, and more than he can prove. Sure it is, that many learned jews, who should know more than Philosophers, knew not so much: 
Cap. 5.28. & 29. Rom. ca 7. vers. 7.  as may be gathered out of S. Mathewe, and out of josephus lib. 12. Antiq. cap. 13. and David Kimhy upon the 66. Psalm vers. 17. And S. Paul's own confession rightly understood witnesseth the same: For (saith he) I had not known concupiscence to have been sin, unless the law had taught it to be sin. Wherefore it was very expedient, after the inhibition of the acts of adultery and theft, to forbid in plain and express terms, the lusts and desires of them.  
Lastly (saith M. PER.) the words of the second Commandment (and show mercy unto thousands on them that love me, and keep my Commandments) overthroweth all human merits. For if the reward be given of mercy to them that keep the law, it is not given for the merit of the work done.  
Answ. Either simple was this man's judgement sometimes, or else most perversely bend to deceive the simple. For God speaketh there, neither of the reward that is rendered in heaven for good works; neither of any reward at all, that is rendered unto the person himself that keepeth God's commandments: but of a superabundant favour, that God of his bounty will show unto thousands of others, for one man's sake that loveth him and keepeth his commandments: therefore very peuishly doth he draw hence any thing against merits.  
And to begin here where M. PER. leaveth, to show how their new doctrine and inventious, doth cross and make void the commandments of God. First in that, that he promiseth mercy and favour unto thousands for ones sake, that keepeth his Commandments, we gather: that God in regard of his Saints (who so holily observed his Commandments) doth grant unto us many favours and graces: also, that the satisfaction of one may serve for another; for else God would not punish children unto the third and fourth generation, for the offence of their great grandfather, unless their punishment served to satisfy for their ancestors offence: hence also we gather, that some men do keep God's Commandments, otherwise God did in vain promise to favour thousands for their sakes that kept the Commandments, if he knew well that there should be none such. Therefore most ungodly is that position of the Protestants, that it is impossible to keep the Commandments: and which alone overthroweth all the ten Commandments. For as all men skilful in the true nature of laws do hold: there can be no just law, that is impossible to be kept, by the greater part of them to whom the law is given; because laws are both to direct our actions, and do also bind every man to observe them. Now what reasonable lawemaker will beat his brain to direct a man to do that, which he knoweth before hand, not to lie in the man's power to do? and as tyrannical should he be esteemed, that would bind a man under a great penalty, to do that which he knew to be impossible for him to do. Which two points S. Augustine doth in one sentence confirm, saying; 
De fid cont. Manich. cap. 9  Who doth not cry out that it is folly to give him Commandments, in whose power it is not to perform them? and who doth not say that it is unjust, to condemn him for not doing just things, when he could not do them? The Protestants therefore affirming the Commandments not to be possible to be performed, do make them no laws at all; and so they at one blow, do beat down all the ten Commandments. But let us come to the particulars.  
1. The first Commandment, as it forbiddeth us to worship false Gods: so doth it also include a commandment to worship a right the only true God, which is done principally by Faith, Hope, Charity and Religion. The Protestants by their perverting of many articles of our belief (as hath been showed) have lost the true faith, and by their new certainty of faith, leave no place for hope: for they are past hope of salvation, that make themselves so assured of it as they do. 
1. Epist. 5. vers. 3.  And as for charity which S. john defineth to be the keeping of God's Commandments, they must needs confess themselves to be far from it, which hold that to be impossible: and with the principal part of true religion (which consisteth in offering a true, real, and external sacrifice unto God, as in that question hath been proved) they are at utter defiance.  
2. Touching the second Commandment after our account; as God is honoured by swearing in justice, judgement, and truth: so is he also by vows made unto him of Godly and religious duties, which the Prophet David signifieth, 
Psal. 75. vers. 13.  when he saith: vow ye, and render your vows unto the Lord your God. hereupon many Catholics have, and do continually vow perpetual poverty, chastity, and obedience, the more fully and freely to serve God; which holy vows the Protestants disallow wholly: neither do they allow of any other vows, for aught I have heard: they do therefore diminish the service of God, and pair away a part of that which is reduced to the second Commandment.  
3. And whereas in the third we are commanded to keep holy the Sabaoth day, which is principally performed by hearing (attentively and devoutly) that divine service, which was instituted by Christ, and delivered by his Apostles, which is the holy Mass: they may not abide it, but serve God after the invention of their own brains, with a mingle-mangle of some old, some new, oddly patched together.  
4. In the fourth we are commanded to obey our Princes, as well as our parents, and all other our Governors in all lawful matters: yet the Protestants hold, that our Prince's laws do not bind us in conscience.  
5. The fift Commandment, teacheth that no man be killed by private authority: yet Protestants hold it lawful to take arms, even against their lawful Princes for the advancement of their Gospel, and have in that quarrel killed, and caused to be killed, millions in Germany, France, Flanders, and Scotland.  
6. The sixth forbiddeth adultery, which is allowed of by Protestants in some case. For they permit one party after divorcement to marry again, the other yet living; 
Mar. 10. vers. 11.  whereas our Saviour saith: Whosoever dimisseth his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery upon her. And if the wife dimisse her husband and marry another, she committeth adultery. Moreover, incest is also forbidden in this Commandment; now by the Canons of the Catholic Church, and the authority of the ancient Fathers, it is incest for one cozen germane to marry with an other: yet is it not seldom practised; yea, it is generally allowed of in the Church of England.  
7. The seventh Commandment, condemneth with theft, usury, & all withholding of our neighbour's goods, which was gotten unlawfully: yet Protestants commonly make no conscience to take ten in the hundredth, which is plain usury; and as for restitution of evil gotten goods, it is clean out of fashion among them.  
8. The eight probibiteth us to bear false witness against our neighbour: and yet do Ministers (the master Protestants) in their pulpit (where truth should only be taught) most commonly bear such safe witness against Catholics, that the very stones may be astonished at their most impudent slanders, to wit: that Papists believe in stocks and stones: that they will not be saved by Christ and his passion, but by their own works: that they rob God of his honour, and give it to Saints; and a hundredth such like most notorious and palpable lies. Wherefore as they Preachers be guilty of bearing false witness: so the auditors deserve to be seduced by them, who hearing them to lie so shamelessly in some things, will nevertheless believe them in others.  
9 and 10. Of the ninth and tenth. I have spoken already; wherein they err grievously, in teaching every man to sin damnably, by having any evil motion cast into his mind by the Devil, albeit he resisteth it presently, and forthwith chase it away. In which conflict & overcoming of temptation, the grace and power of God is perfected as S. Paul witnesseth: and S. james calleth the allurement of concupiscence temptation only; and then first sin when it conceiveth (that is) getteth some liking of the party.  
Now to conclude this passage, if you please to hear to what height of perfect observance of the Commandments, the evangelical preachers have brought their followers in Germany unto, by teaching the Commandments to be impossible, and that only faith justifieth, & that good works have no reward in heaven, and such like; jacobus Andreas a famous Lutheran shall inform you, who writeth thus. 
De Planetis.  That the whole world may see these men alienated from the Papacy, and to put no confidence in works; therefore they do no good work at all. In stead of fasting, they feast and are drunken day and night: in am of Alms, they oppress & pill the poor: they have changed praying into cursing & blaspheming the name of God so profanely; that no Turks nor Saracens commit the like impiety against Christ: for humility, there reigneth pride, disdain, cruelty, and riot in apparel, etc. and much more to the same purpose. And that this truth may be confirmed by the testimony of two sound witnesses; Musculus a man of no small account among them, thus reporteth of his brethren in the lord Such now a days is the condition of the Lutherans, 
De prophetia Christi.  that if any man list to behold a great number of Knows, robbers, malicious persons, cozeners, usurers, and such like deceivers, let him but enter into a City where the Gospel is taught, and there he shall find good store of them: and a little after. Surely it is true, that among Heathens, jews, Turks, and other Infidels, none can be found more unruly, and that less esteem of honesty and virtue, than the evangelical brethren; with whom all things pass currant, and nothing almost is blamed (except virtue:) For the Devil hath shaken of all their bands, and turned them lose. Having done with the Creed and ten Commandments, we must now come to our lords prayer.  
Master PER. beginneth with it thus. The lords prayer is a most absolute form of prayer: now in this we are taught to direct our prayers to God alone, Our father, etc. and that only in the name and mediation of Christ; for God is our father only by Christ: therefore to use any mediation of Saints is needless.  
Ans. We allow our lords prayer to be a most perfect form of prayer: yet hold that many other sort of prayers may be made unto God very acceptably, as sundry other prayers used by Christ & set down in the Gospel do teach us: and therefore to argue that because one prayer of Christ's making is directed to God, that no other may be made to any Saint, is very childish. We gather prayer to Saints out of S. Paul's requesting the Romans and Corinthians, and others to pray for him: and out of the mediation of the woman of Cananea to Christ for her daughter: and the Disciples speaking to Christ for her; with such like both out of the old and new Testament. For if it had been either needless or bootless, to have prayed unto God any otherwise, then in the name and by the mediation of Christ; then S. Paul would not have requested the help of mortal men's prayers to God for him: and if poor sinners prayers may help us, much more may the intercession of the glorious Saints do, who are in far greater favour with God: See the question of intercession of Saints. Again, if that only form of prayer were to be used, neither were it lawful to pray to Christ himself; neither could it be proved thereby, that we should pray in Christ's name. For there is no express mention of Christ's name; neither any petition for Christ's sake. For God may be truly called our father, in that he immediately createth and giveth us our souls, which is more than our bodies, that we receive from our carnal fathers.  
Secondly, he hoppeth to the fourth petition. Give us our daily bread: in which words we acknowledge (saith he) that every morsel of bread is the mere gift of God: what madness then is it for us to think that we should merit the kingdom of heaven, that cannot merit so much as bread? It is false that we cannot merit our bread: 
Math. 10. vers. 11. 1. Cor. 9 vers. 14.  For Christ teacheth, that he who goeth to preach the Gospel, is worthy of, that is: meriteth and deserveth his meat; which S. Paul testifieth, saying: that our Lord ordained, that those who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. And do not day labourers deserve their bread, before they eat it? and others that buy their bread, do I hope deserve it. What ignorance then is it, in the very principles of our faith, to avouch that we cannot merit bread? which notwithstanding we pray God to give us; because, neither could we deserve and yearn it, without his help and assistance; neither would it do us any good without his blessing.  
Thirdly, in the next petition: Forgive us our debts; four opinions of the Roman religion (saith he) are directly overthrown. What four at one blow! what a Hercules have we here? let us hear which. The first is human satisfaction: for the child of God is taught here to pray for the pardon of his sins; now to pray for pardon and to make satisfaction be contrary.  
Answ. This is a silly overthrow: for it is so far of, that prayer and satisfaction are contraries, that prayer itself is one of the three works of satisfaction: Fasting, Praying, and giving of Alms are not contrary, but the very works of satisfaction. 
Lib. 1. de Simbolo. cap. 6. in Enchir. cap. 69.  And our lords prayer is esteemed by S. Augustine (who is assoon to be believed as M. PERKINS) sufficient of itself, to satisfy for the light daily offences that just men fall into: besides Christ himself prayed for pardon of these mortal sins, for which notwithstanding God's justice was fully satisfied by Christ his sufferings; wherefore satisfaction and to sue for pardon, are not so contrary, but they may well stand together.  
Now to the second downfall: merits are here also overthrown. For we acknowledge ourselves debtor, and we daily increase our debts: now it is madness to think that they, who daily increase their debts, can deserve or purchase any good of the creditors, in a word, this must be thought upon, etc.  
And good reason too. First then I answer, that venial sins and small debts that just men daily incur, do not hinder the daily merit of their other good works. As a servant hired by the day, by committing some small fault, doth not thereby lose his days wages: again, though he should commit such a fault, that might make him unworthy of his days hire; yet, if his Master did forgive him that fault, his wages were notwithstanding due to him: and so the ask pardon for our sins doth not overthrow, but rather establish and fortify our merits.  
The third opinion imagined to be confuted by this petition, is: that temporal punishment may be retained after the crime itself, and the eternal is remitted: but this cannot stand (saith he.) For we own to God obedience, and for the defect of this payment, we own to God the forfeiture of punishment. Sin then is called our debt, in respect of the punishment: And therefore when we pray for pardon of our sins, we require not only the fault to be pardoned, but the whole punishment; and when debt is pardoned, it is absurd to think that the least payment should remain.  
Answ. Here is a most absurd collection: For when we in our lords prayer crave pardon of our debts, we confess that we are in his debt, and that there is payment of punishment yet due unto us, the remission whereof we then require: now this prayer is made by the best men after their conversion (as he confesseth) who standing in God's favour, and therefore free from eternal punishment, do notwithstanding crave pardon and release of some punishment, by M. PERKINS own interpretation: Whereupon it followeth most evidently out of this petition, that after eternal punishment is forgiven unto the just, there is some other punishment remaining, of which they crave pardon; and consequently this opinion of ours is (by this very petition and M. PER. own exposition of it) much strengthened and confirmed, and nothing at all weakened.  
The fourth point of our doctrine hence impugned by M. PER. is that a man in this life may fulfil the law. Whereas in this place every servant of God is taught to ask daily pardon for the breach of the law: answer is made, that our daily sins are venial, and not against the law, though besides the law: but this which they say, is against this petition: for a debt that cometh by forfeiture, is against the band or obligation. Now every sin is a debt causing the forfeiture of punishment, and therefore is not beside, but against the law.  
Ans. I grant that every sin is a debt, causing the forfeiture of punishment; but this punishment may be small & short, and so the sin venial, & the debt not against the law directly, yet against the band of some moral duty: as the misspending of time, using of some jdle words, and the committing of such like light faults, which I am bound in reason to avoid; but not by any prescript law directly. And thus in fine we see, how foully M. PER. was mistaken, that thought to overthrow four points of our doctrine at a clap, when not so much as one is thereby any whit at all stirred.  
He saith further, In this clause (as we forgive our debtor) it is taken for granted, that we may certainly know that we repent and believe, and are reconciled by God; which all Roman Catholics deny.  
Answ. Nothing less, because much more is required to the one, then to the other. For it is far easier to discern, whether I do yet bear any evil will to my neighbour, then to know assuredly, that I do heartily repent me of all my sins, and that for the love of God; and further that I have a firm purpose not to commit hereafter, any kind of mortal sin: these things (as every one may plainly see) are far more difficult, than the other of forgiving them that trespass against us.  
In the last words: and lead us not into temptation, we pray not (saith he) that God should free us from temptation, 
Psal. 26. vers. 1.  for it is otherwhiles good to be tempted: but that we be not left unto the malice of Satan, and held captive of the temptation: for here to be led into temptation, and to be delivered, are opposed. Now hence I gather, that he who is the child of God truly justified and sanctified, shall never fall wholly and finally from the grace of God; and I conclude on this manner. That which we ask according to the will of God, 
1. joh. 5.  shall be granted: but this the child of God asketh, that he might never be wholly forsaken of his father, and led captive into temptation: this therefore shall be granted.  
Answ. If this argument were sound, never should any Christian that saith our lords prayer, fall finally and be damned; because they all make this petition, and that according to the will of God, 
1. Tim. 2. vers. 4.  who would have all men saved. Many things then besides saying our lords prayer, are required to salvation, for want of which many that have often said that prayer fall finally. Again, he mistaketh the true sense of that petition: for therein we do not ask that we continue not in sin, which we asked in the former petition (forgive us our trespasses) but we pray that we be not overcome by the Devil, by yielding our consent to the temptation, and so fall into sin. Lastly, he forgetteth himself much when he saith, that it is good to be tempted: for he holdeth for certain, that the very first motions to sin in us (which is the beginning of the temptation) are mortal sins; and so by himself, it is good to fall into mortal sin, if it be good we should be tempted.  
Finally (he saith) this clause (Amen) signifieth a special faith concerning all the former petitions, that they shall be granted, and therefore a special faith concerning remission of sins.  
Answ. It signifieth a special hope and confidence to obtain them, but no certainty of faith, unless upon a condition which is uncertain: that is, if we do our parts, God will not fail of his; if we do heartily repent us, and use the Sacrament of Penance duly, we shall assuredly obtain remission of our sins. Hitherto M. PER. hath argued against us out of the lords prayer: now I will briefly show how the Protestants doctrine cotrarieth it.  
I have in my answer to his objections, touched some points already: I add, that one position of their doctrine crosseth three of the first petitions. I prove it thus: In every petition we must be assured (as M. PER. holdeth) or at the least have a good hope to obtain that we pray for, or else it booteth us not to pray: but according to the Protestants doctrine no man can be assured, nay can have any hope to obtain the three first petitions: for if original sin do continually dwell in us, and infect all our actions with deadly sin as they teach; God's name cannot be sanctified in us, that are infected with such an unclean leprosy: neither secondly, can God reign as a King in us, if sin possess & command all our members: and thirdly, God's will cannot be done by us on earth as it is done in heaven, if we cannot keep his laws and commandments, which they in heaven do: wherefore the Protestants have no assurance to obtain the three first petitions, who are by their teachers assured, that they are not to be expected or hoped for: nor they cannot (according to their own rules) from their heart make the said petitions, being out of all hope to obtain them.  
In the fourth, we ask aswell to be made partakers of Christ's blessed body in the Sacrament, which is the food of our souls: as for our daily corporal susteinance. For so do the ancient Fathers expound that petition: as namely S. Cyprian in oratione Dominica: S. Hierome in 6. Mathaei: S. Ambrose li. 5. the Sacrament. c. 4. where he hath these memorable words of the blessed Sacrament: that before the words of Christ it was bread, but after it is the body of Christ. Why then (saith he) is it called here bread? he answereth, that it is called bread not simply, but supersubstantial bread. For so doth the greek word Epióusion signify, as well as daily:) it is (saith he) not such bread as passeth into our body, but it is the bread of eternal life that upholdeth the substance of our souls. Now you may be well assured, that Protestants who will not believe any such bodily presence, do not pray to God to give it them.  
And touching forgiveness of their debts to God, and sins; they are so assured of that before hand, by the certainty of their new faith, that they can no more request of God forgiveness of their sins, than they can ask, that God will make them reasonable creatures, which they see that he hath done already. And they holding the first motions to evil in temptation, to be mortal sins, which no mortal man ordinarily can now avoid; how can they pray God not to suffer them to be lead into temptation, when they teach it to be impossible to escape the venom of it? And if they understand it so, as M. PERKINS teacheth: to wit, that they there pray, not to be left to the malice of Satan, they cannot without loss of the certainty of their faith pray so; because they hold themselves assured of that before hand.  
Neither can they pray God generally to deliver them from all evil, affirming as they do, that we must needs fall into mortal sin at every step almost, which is the greatest of all other evil. And finally; if it belong to God to deliver us from sin, and all other evil; then Caluin and his followers do wickedly blaspheme, who teach God to be the author and worker in us, of all error, sin, and wickedness. Thus much of the Pater noster.  
Now before I come to the Sacraments, I may not omit to speak a word of the ave Maria, which in old Catechisms followeth immediately after the Pater noster. The Protestants have cassierd it, and may not abide to hear it once said; but therein, as much as in any other such matter, they disgrace their doctrine and discredit themselves. For all the words used of old therein, are the very words of the holy Ghost, registered in S. Luke's Gospel; and therefore they bewray either great ignorance, or a wicked spirit to dwell in them, that cannot endure to hear the words of God's spirit. 
Luc. 1.  Besides, in holy Scripture it is prophesied, that from henceforth all generations should call the Virgin MARY blessed. In what terms then can we more conveniently so call her, then in the very same that were composed by an Archangel, are penned by the Evangelists, and by them commended unto all good Christians? beside, the sense of them is comfortable unto us, as containing a remembrance of the incarnation of the Son of God for our redemption, and we on our parts do thereby give thanks to God for that inestimable benefit, and congratulate our Saviour with humble thanks therefore, saying: Blessed be the fruit of thy womb, JESUS. I need not in such clear evidence of God's word, allege the testimony of any ancient Father: he that list to see how it hath been used in the purest antiquity, let him read S. Athanasius in evang. de deipara S. Ephem. de laudibus B. Mariae. S. Basils and S. Chrisostomes' liturgies, which can with no more reason be denied to be theirs, than the rest of their works. One short sentence I will set down in commendations of it, out of that most reverend and devout Bernard. The Angel's triumph, 
Apud Dionisi. Corinth. 1. part. in evang. cap. 5. 17.  and the heavens do congratulate with them; the earth leapeth for joy, and hell trembleth when the ave Maria is devoutly said. Good Christians then must needs take great delight in it, even as the bad may not abide it.  
Now let us come to the last part of the Catechism, which is of the Sacraments, where M. PERKINS doth briefly repeat his arguments, used before against the real presence: I might therefore, send the reader unto the first Chapter of this book for the answer; but because the matter is of great importance, I will here again give them a short answer. First (saith he) the real presence is overthrown out of these words, he took bread and broke it: ergo, that which Christ took, was not his body, etc.  
A simple overthrow, Christ (in deed) took and broke bread, but presently after blessing it, made it his body by these words, this is my body.  
M. Per. 2 Again: Christ said not under the form of bread, or in bread; but this, that is: bread is my body.  
Answ. It is false to say that this word (Hoc, This) doth demonstrate bread: for it is of a different gender from it, both in Latin and Greek; and if he had said, that that bread had been his body, his word was so omnipotent, that it had been of force to make it his body; so that M. PER. maketh a false construction, which nothing helpeth his error.  
Per. 3 Thirdly, Bread was not given for us, but only the body of Christ; and in the first institution, the body of Christ was not then really given to death.  
Answ. This maketh nothing at all against the real presence, but doth greatly fortify it: For Christ gave us in the Sacrament, that which should be put to death for us, this is my body that shall be given for you. Now not bread, but Christ's true body was given to death for us: ergo, Christ gave us to eat not bread, but his true real body.  
Per. 4 Fourthly, The cup is the new Testament by a figure, why not then the bread the body of Christ by a figure?  
Answ. A goodly reason, if there be one figure there must needs be two. How followeth this? if those words of S. Paul be obscure, why did he not rather clear them by conferring them with S. Mathewe, and S. Mark, who deliver it plainly thus: this is my blood of the new Testament that shall be shed, & c.? But he that delighteth in cavilling, must seek darkness.  
Per. 5 Fiftly, Christ did eat that supper, but not himself?  
Answ. A Protestant cannot say that Christ did eat of that Sacrament, as M. PERKINS doth, because he hath no warrant for it in the written word: yet we do grant that he did so, and hold him most worthy to taste of that heavenly food.  
Per. 6 Sixtly, We are bid to do it till he come: Christ then is not bodily present.  

1. Cor. 11. vers. 26.  Answ. We are bid by S. Paul to show the death of our Lord till he come to judgement, which we may very well do, his body being present▪ as certain noble Matrons preserved of their husbands blood, to represent more freshly unto their children, the slaughter of their fathers.  
Per. 7 Seventhly, Christ bid us to do it in remembrance of him; but signs of remembrance are of things absent.  
Answ. We see one thing and remember an other. By Christ's body really present, we remember the same to have been nailed on the Cross for our redemption: as Goliath sword was kept in the tabernacle, in remembrance of the cutting-off of Goliathes' head with the same sword▪ and the women before rehearsed kept their husbands blood, and might much easier have preserved their bodies embalmed, to keep the better their deaths in fresh memory.  
Per. 8 Eightly, If the real presence be granted, than the body and blood of Christ are either severed or joined together: if severed, than Christ is still crucified: if joined together, than the bread is both the body and blood of Christ; whereas the institution saith, the bread is the body, and the wine is the blood.  
Answ. The body & blood of Christ, are (by force of Christ's words) consecrated a part, so that if they could be naturally separated, they should be also severed in that Sacrament, as they might have been at Christ's death, when all the blood was powered forth of his body; but ever sithence Christ's resurrection, they are so joined together, that they can be no more severed: so that we grant under one kind of the Sacrament to be both Christ's body and blood, which is not wrought by the words of the institution, but by the necessary and inseparable conjunction of Christ's body with his blood, ever since his glorious resurrection.  
Finally, M. PERKINS condemneth the administration of the Sacrament under one only kind: for the commandment of Christ is, drink ye all of this, Math. 26. vers. 27. and this commandment is rehearsed to the Church of Corinth in these words: do this as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. ver. 25. and no power can reverse this commandment, because it was established by the sovereign head of the Church.  
Answer. He began to set down the institution of the Sacrament out of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11. here he leapeth back to S. Mathewe, because he fitteth him better in this point: to whom I answer, that Christ there spoke only unto his twelve Apostles, who were afterward to administer that holy Sacrament to others; and so some thing thereabout is spoken to them, which may not be extended unto laymen, but unto Priests only, who were to succeed the Apostles in that ministry. All men do confess these words: hoc facite, do ye this: that is, administer ye this Sacrament, to be spoken only to the Apostles, and in them to all of the Clergy alone: even so, drink ye all of this, was in like manner spoken unto them only as Clergiemen; and therefore it is a commandment only to Priests so to do: and as for others, they may either drink of it, or not drink of it, as it shall be thought most expedient by their supreme Pastors; and this may be gathered out of those very words, drink ye all of this. For why should the Apostles have a special charge more to drink of that cup, then to eat of that food? unless it were to signify, that whereas all men should be bound to receive Christ's body: they should be further bound to receive that holy cup also; from which bond other men should stand free. But to come to the purpose, when they quarrel with us for taking away from the people one kind of the Sacrament: we answer, that we do them no hindrance thereby; because we give them both the blessed body & sacred blood of Christ together under one kind: yea, whole Christ, both God and man; because they be so united that they cannot be separated. But what can they answer, when we complain upon them, for that they have defrauded the poor people, of both body and blood of Christ, and in am of that most precious banquet, do give them a cold breakfast, of a morsel of bread & a sup of wine? this is a most miserable & lamentable exchange in deed: our blessed Lord give them grace to see it, & deliver them speedily from it. Here is the place to show, how the Protestant's do not only bereave their unfortunate followers of this most heavenly food of Christ's body: but that they also deprive them of the manifold & great graces of God, derived unto us in 5. other sacraments: but because I have touched it in the Preface, I will omit it here, and make an end with M. PER. assoon as I have requited him, by propounding briefly some arguments for the real presence, as he hath done against it. Let this be the first.  
The state of the new Testament, which is more perfect than the old, requireth accordingly Sacraments of greater grace and perfection than the old had: they had Manna, which for substance and taste far passed our bread, and in signification was equal to it: Wherefore, either we must grant our Sacrament of bread and wine, to be inferior to theirs of the old Testament; or else acknowledge and confess it to be the true body and blood of Christ, which doth surpass theirs exceedingly, as the body doth the shadow. This argument is confirmed by our Saviour himself, who in express terms doth prefer the meat, 
john. 6. v. 48.49.  that he was to give to his Disciples, before that of Manna, which their Fathers had eaten in the wilderness.  
Secondly, Christ promised to give to his Disciples his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink: and when they marveled how that could be, he assured them; 
Ibid. v. 55  that unless they did eat his flesh, they should not have life in them; and further certified them, that his flesh was truly meat, and his blood truly drink: whence it is most plainly deduced, that he who never faileth of his promise, gave them his true flesh to eat.  
Thirdly, Christ said in most clear terms, this is my body: this is my blood. What could be more certain or more perspicuous?  
Fourthly, These words of the institution are recorded by three Evangelists, and by S. Paul: and they all uniformly deliver it to be not the figure of Christ's body, but his body; and that his body which should be given for our redemption on the cross: ergo, it was that his true real body, which was nailed to the cross for us.  
Fiftly, S. Paul demandeth thus: the Chalice of benediction which we do bless, 
1. Cor. 10. vers. 16.  is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? and the bread that we break, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord? if than we do in receiving the blessed Sacrament participate Christ's body, and communicate his blood, they surely are there really present.  
Again, S. Paul saith: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, 
1. Cor. 11. vers. 28.  not discerning the body of our Lord: and before, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ: ergo, the body and blood of Christ are there present; or else why should a man incur that guilt, but by his unworthy receiving of it, and by not discerning Christ's body to be there present?  
Besides all these plain texts of holy Scripture in confirmation of the real presence, the very circumstances of it do much fortify our faith therein. 
Lucae 22. vers. 15.  In S. Luke we have, that our Saviour marueillously desired (desiderio desideravi) to eat that this last banquet with his Disciples. S. john addeth: that whereas he loved his that were in the world, 
joh. 13. v. 1. & 3●  unto the end he loved them: and knowing that the Father gave all things into his hands, and that he came from God, and goeth to God, etc. What coherence (I say) with this exceeding love and infinite power of Christ, to be showed in his last supper, if he hath left only bread and wine to be taken in remembrance of him? any mean man might easily have done as much; and Helias departing from his Disciple Heliseus, did much more: for he left a more noble remembrance of himself behind him, to wit: his cloak and double spirit. But Christ bequeathing us his true natural body to be the food of our souls, and comfort of our hearts as we believe & teach, he then (in deed) showed his infinite power and love towards us, and that he came from God, and as God bestowed an inestimable gift upon us, such a one as never any other did, or could possibly do.  
Moreover, the institution of a religious rite and ceremony, to be used in the whole Church unto the worlds end, and to be received of all Christian people of age and discretion, did necessarily require that it should be done in most certain and clear terms; otherwise, there might arise great strife and contention about it, and be the ruin of thousands. And specially great perspicuity is required in this holy Sacrament, where the mistaking of it, must needs breed either Idolatry, if we worship for Christ, that which is not Christ: or impiety, if on the other side we should not give to it (being Christ God and man) divine honour. Wherefore, no good Christian may think, but that our provident Saviour Christ JESUS, who very well foresaw all these inconveniences, did deliver it in such terms as he would have to be taken properly, and not be construed at men's pleasures figuratively. Add, that he spoke those words to the twelve Apostles only, whom he was accustomed to instruct plainly, and not in parable darkly; and who were wont also to ask for the interpretation of obscure speeches, who here made no question about this high mystery, because they were sufficiently forewarned, 
joh. 6.  that they should eat Christ's flesh, and that his body was truly meat: and therefore believed Christ's words without further question.  
Finally, this holy Sacrament is a principal part of the new Testament, and one of the chiefest legacies by Christ bequeathed unto us Christians. Now what law or conscience will permit, that any legacy should be interpreted figuratively? to wit: that for a house, goods, or lands bequeathed and given by last will and testament; you should understand a figure of a house to be given, or the signification and representation of some goods or lands. If this be most absurd and ridiculous in the testament of any ordinary man, about temporal goods: how much more pernicious and intolerable is it, to suffer this in the eternal Testament of the Son of God, and that in his divine and inestimable treasures? And thus at length by the grace of God I come to the end of this book, wherein (good Christian reader) if thou find any thing, that may confirm thee in the true Catholic faith, or further thy knowledge therein; give God (the Father of lights, from whom all good gifts descend) the whole praise: If any thing be amiss, impute it partly to my slender skill, oversight, or negligence; and partly to the want of a convenient restingplace, commodity of books, and conference: all which, these times of persecution do deprive us of.  
To the most blessed and holy Trinity, be all honour and glory both now and for ever. AMEN.  
FINIS.