mysterijs initiantur cap. â— Moyses his word changed the waters of Aegypt into bloud agayne turned them from bloud into water If so great was the benediction of man what may we thinke of diuine consecration where the very words of our Sauiour worke The word of Elias had power to bring downe fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ haue force to change the kinds of the elements Againe (i) Ambros. lib. 4. de Sâ—cram cap. 4. Thou seest how working efficacious is the word of Christ. If therfore such vertue is in his word that therby things that are not receaue being how much more hath it power that the things that are still remayne in the general latitude of being according to the sensible accidents and be conuerted into another substance VIII Fourthly the effect of this transmutatioÌ„ taught by the Fathers is the presence of the substance of Christs body the absence of the substance of bread binding vs to abnegate our senses and not to belieue what we seeme to see with our eyes IX Theophilact (k) Theophilact c. 4. 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation although to vs it seeme bread because we are weake and haue horrour to eate raw flesh especially the flesh of man for this reason bread appeareth but in essence and substance it is not bread Saint Cyrill (l) Cyrill Hieros Catech. mystagog 4. Come not therfore as vnto simple bread and wine for it is the body and bloud of Christ according to the affirmation of our Lord for although sense suggest the contrary yet let fayth confirme thee Iudge not of the thing by tast but indubitably with full fayth belieue that thou art made partaker of the body bloud of Christ. And againe Know this with full certitude belieue that the bread seene is not bread though it so seeme to the tast but the body of Christ that wine seene is not wine though tast iudge it to be wine but the bloud of Christ. X. Finally that the Fathers held Transubstantiation is prooued by the continuancy which they taught of Christs body in the Sacrament so long as the accidents of bread last as appeareth by their reseruing of the same For reseruation to haue been the custome of the primitiue Church Protestants grant That (m) Habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum fateor Caluin Instit. l. 9. c. 17. sect 39. the Sacrament was of some reserued in the elder dayes of the Church is not sayth (n) Fulke agaynst Heskins Saunders p. 77. M. Fulke so great a questioÌ„ as whether it ought to be reserued And Chemnitius (o) Chemnit in exam Con. Trid. p. 2. p. 102. granteth that in this point on our side stands Antiquitas consuetudinis latè patentis diu propagatae And whereas he addeth haec tamen veritati praescribere non debet he accuseth the Primitiue Church opposeth no lesse agaynst them then vs. And I am sure your Maiesty knowes that the primitiue Fathers did vse to send the Sacrament vnto them that were lawfully absent from Church as doth witnesse S. Iustine (p) Iustin. Apol. 2. fine vnto the sicke as (q) Dionys. Alexand ep ad Fab. apud Euseb. l. 6. cap. 36. Chrysost. Ep. 1. ad Innocent Dionysius Alexandrinus writes of Serapion That Christians carryed the same to their priuate houses to take in the morning before other meate as testifyeth Tertullian (r) Tertul. l. 2. ad vxorem Gregor Nazian orat de Gorgon That many tymes they did weare the same about them for protection as (s) Ambros. orat in obitâ—â— fratris Satyri Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose going to sea carryed it in a stole by vertue whereof he was saued in shipwracke That Martyrs had the same frequently for their Viaticum as (t) SimeoÌ„ Metaphrast vitae S. Stephani Papae Martyris cap. 17. Vsuard in martyrolog Guitmund de corp sanguine l. 2. Tharsilius a most glorious Martyr who being taken with the Sacrament about him permitted himselfe rather to be bruized with stones to death then disclose it vnto the Persecutours whome when they had crowned thy searching curiously for the Sacrament in his clothes and about his dead body found nothing God by miracle keeping the same out of their impious hands Saint (u) Cyprian serm de Lapsis Cyprian records diuers miracles done in the confirmation of this our Sauiours permanent presence in the SacrameÌ„t namely of a woman vnworthily approaching to the chest where the same was kept that was frighted backe with fire that thence flashed out tanta est Domini potentia sayth Saint Cyprian taÌ„ta maiestas And so fully were they perswaded in this opinion that Christs body is permanently in the Sacrament that Cyrill (x) Cyrill Alex. ep ad Calosyr dareth say Insaniunt qui dicunt benedictionem à sanctificatione cessare siquae reliquiae remanserunt eius in sequentem diem Non enim mutabitur Sacrosanctum corpus Christi sed virtus benedictionis viuificatiua gratia iugis in eo est They be mad with hereticall folly who say that the blessed Sanctification of the Sacrament ceaseth if the same be reserued vntill the next day For thereby the sacred body of Christ is not changed but the grace of benediction viuification is perpetuall in it Now what reason could the Fathers haue thus constantly to defend this continuation of our Sauiour in the SacrameÌ„t but that they belieued bread to be changed into his body remayning demonstrable by the formes accidences thereof so long as they remayned entyre and were not changed into the accidences of some other substances XI A Refutation of the Ministers Shifts to elude the former Testimonies of the Fathers according to the reference of the precedent Numbers I. NO words of Scripture or Christian Antiquity can be so cleere euident which Hereticall obstinacy will not wrest against the truth yea racke till they rent them in peeces by violent interpretations as saith S. Ambrose Ep. 17. In which kind be the Ministers Replyes vnto these expresse pregnant testimonies of the Fathers for Transubstantiation as wil appeare by the confutation which heere ensueth II. Transelementing The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TranselemeÌ„tation saith the Minister pag. 421. proueth not Transubstantiation For in Transubstantiation the matter is destroyed the quantity and accidents remayne in Transelementation the matter remayneth the essentiall accidentall formes are altered Answere The falshood and inanity of this Shift is conuinced by these foure arguments which shew Transelementation to import the same as Transubstantiation The First is drawne from the notion of the word Elements Transelementation For Transelementation of bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord signifyes that there is a change betwixt them according to their elemeÌ„ts Elements import the primordiall simples the original principles the substantiall parts of which
a thing is fundamentally composed Hence Fire Ayre Water Earth as also the Letters of the Alphabet be tearmed Elements because both are primordiall simples and substantial parts the one of mixed substances the other of wordes and sentences Now the body and bloud of Christ as also bread wine being corporall substances the primordiall simples and substantiall principles wherof their nature is originally composed be substantiall matter forme as euery Philosopher knowes Ergo Transelementation of bread wine into Christs body and bloud doth import that bread and wine be changed into Christs body bloud according to their Elements that is matter forme Is not this Transubstantiation The second reason is because in Transelementation matter doth no more remayne then in Transubstantiation so your deuised difference betwixt them is false For as when Transelementation is partiall that is according to forme only the matter remaynes so likewise in Transubstantiation For example when wood is turned into fyre the forme being destroyed the matter remayneth As wood by this change may be sayd to be Transelemented into fire because it is changed into fire according to the forme which is one element of wood so likewise it may be sayd to be Transubstantiated into fire because it is changed into fire according to the forme which is one part of the substance of wood Though Christians do not vse so to speake because aswel the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Grecian Church as the word Transubstantiation by the latin be consecrated to signify the substantiall change in the Eucharist which is totall according to both elements substantiall parts Thirdly I thus argue The Minister grants that Transelementation doth import an essētial change or a chāge according to the essentiall forme of bread into Christs body but this cannot be according to the essentiall forme only not also according to the essentiall matter of bread else the body of Christ should be made bigger by the matter of bread changed into it as we see the fire to be made bigger by the matter of wood remayning after the conuersion therof into fire Ergo seing the Minister grants that Trāselementation imports an essentiall chāge he must if he will not be ridiculously absurd consequently grant that this change is to tall else the body of Christ shal be augmēted by the material additiō of bread vnto it Fourthly this is proued by the Fathers appropriation of this word vnto the mystery of the holy Eucharist For did not Transelementation of bread wine into Christs body blood import a substantiall change but only an accidental mystical significatiue conuersion of them I aske First why do the Fathers neuer say that the water of Baptisme is Transelemēted into Christs bloud as wel as they say that wine is Trāselemented into his bloud For thus they might haue spoken of Baptisme as well as of the Eucharist had they been of the Protestants Religion which is that water is mystically and significatiuely made Christs bloud in Baptisme as much as wine in the Eucharist Secōdly why do the Fathers neuer say that our bodyes in the day of iudgment are Transelemēted into Christs body but only as the Minister cites S. Nissen orat Catechist c. 34. transmutantur they be transmuted why this but because transmutation being a Generall tearme signifyes any mutation whether substantial or accidental whereas Transelementation cannot import but a substantial change Finally why do the Fathers neuer say that mans soule is by grace charity Transelemented into Christ into whome the same is mystically changed Theophilact indeed cited by the Minister in Ioan. c. 6. v. 56. saith that a man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a manner Transelemented into Christ as he might no lesse truly haue sayd in a manner Transubstantiated into Christ but that men are by grace Transelemented into Christ they neuer say Which be manifest signes that the Fathers vnderstood by Transelementation according to the proper naturall signification of the word a substantiall conuersion not only an accidental much lesse a meere mysticall change III. S. Cyrill sayth the Minister by the words Conuerting bread and wine into the verity of his owne flesh vnderstandeth not Popish Transubstantiation but mysticall Sacramentall Conuersion to wit Conuersion of signification vse operation For he speaketh of bread wine according to their whole nature contayning substance accidents but the accidents are only mystically conuerted into Christ his body Answere This myst which the Minister would cast vpon this matter by the tearme of mystical cōuersion serues only to catch Woodcocks for euery man of iudgment may presently see that this sense cannot stand with the words of S. Cyrill For S. Cyrill sayth that did men see and feele what is inwardly done in consecrated bread wine men should find horrour to feed theron because they should see and feele that they eate and drinke flesh bloud Hence that this may not be perceaued he sayth the conuersion of bread wine is done inwardly by Christs penetratiue power conuerting them into the verity of his flesh and bloud But did men see what is inwardly done in bread wine by the Protestant significatiue conuersion they would feele no horrour for in their Tenet no change at all is made inwardly in bread but the whole outward substance is assumed as an Instrument to sanctify the soule If a Christian should see this conuersion of vse operation should he see I say that bread is eleuated to produce sanctifying grace in his soule why should he feele horrour to feed thereon So that it is not only willfulnes against the light of truth but also folly to expound this place of S. Cyrill of meere mysticall significatiue change IIII. Vnto this Testimony of S. Chrysostome the Minister replyeth in these words The Father sayth not that nothing of the substance is left but the cleane the cōtrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing of the substance goeth away the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are falsely translated for they are not Is consumed by the substance but Is coabsumed with the substance Also the substance of bread is not consumed by the body of Christ according to the Tenet of many Scholemen The substance of the externall elements passeth into the body of the receauer is consumed or vnited to the flesh of the receauer Answere This your Reply toucheth two points first the Translation secondly the sense of this place I will discouer your vanity about both As concerning the first you shew your selfe to be a wrangler and giuen vnto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by S. Paul labouring to make those sayings to be dissonant and contrary betwixt which there is not any difference in respect of sense What disagreement in respect of sense is there between these two sentences which you say be contrary When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance thereof is
vnderstand the naturall qualityes that flow form the nature and essence of bread and wine (a) By substance also they vnderstand not the inward substance but outward corpulency massines of bread and wine for ordinarily and in common speach the naturall accidents and proprietyes of a thing are tearmed the nature of a thing Thus we say to be heauy and fall downeward is the nature of the stone to be hoat and to burne the nature of the fire which are but naturall qualityes of stone and fire By this or rather by a more strange manner of speach S. Theodoret Bishop of Ancyra (b) Hom. de natiuit Saluatoris in corr Epiph. p. 3. c. 9. to explicate agaynst Nestorius and Eutiches the coniunction of two Natures in one Person by the example of the water that Moyses conuerted into bloud sayth That the water was not changed in nature nor did cease to be water which in rigour of speach taking the nature of water for the inward substance thereof as cōdistinct from the naturall qualityes is not true But because water chāged into bloud remaynes according to some naturall qualityes and propertyes which it hath common with bread as moisture liquidnes the like he the better to fit accomodate the similitude sayth The water remayned according to the nature that is according to some naturall qualityes therof For these Fathers (c) These Fathers vnderstood not the inward Nature of bread and wine to remaine nor the inward substāce because they say that the mysticall signes passe by the working of the holy Ghost into another substane yet remaine in the propriety of their nature So saith Gelasius which cannot be vnderstood otherwise then that according to their outward nature and substance they remaine though in their inward nature and substance they be changed and passed into the substance of Christs body and blood bring those similitudes to declare the mystery of the Incarnatiō against the Heresy of Eutiches who denyed the naturall qualityes propertyes of the two Natures of God and Man to remayne distinct in the person of Christ. This errour they reiected by the example of the Eucharist where the naturall qualityes of bread remaine together with the body of Christ in the same Sacrament which naturall qualityes of bread they tearme the nature of bread as in some sense they may be tearmed to the end that the phrase of two distinct natures remaining might be common to the mysteries of the Incarnation and Eucharist and so the similitude seeme more fit and proper Yet the Fathers know well that the phrase did not agree to both mysteryes equally in the same sense And this obscure vttering of his mind is the lesse to be wōdered at in Theodoret because he doth professe in that place not to speake plainly as fearing that some Infidells or Gatechumens were present to whom the mistery of Transubstantiation was not to be reuealed Non oportet sayth he apertè dicere est enim verisimile adesse aliquos non initiatos Much lesse cause haue they to stand vpon the wordes of Saint Augustine (d) August serm ad Infant apud Bedam in cap. 10. Quod videtur panis est quod etiam oculi renūtiant quod autem fides postulat panis est corpus Christi For the sense is that consecrated bread is bread in outward appearance and the naturall accidences of bread truly remayne as the eye doth witnesse but in wardly and according to the substance it is not bread but the body of Christ as fayth requireth we belieue And it is to be noted that these wordes are not extant in the workes of S. Augustine but alleadged by Venerable Bede a follower of Saint Augustines doctrine and so it is not likely they are to be vnderstood but as Bede vnderstood thē who sets downe his mind in these words (e) Beda de mysterio missae apud Thom. Waldens Tom. 2. c. 8. 2. The forme of bread is seene but the substance of bread is not there nor any other bread but only that bread which came downe from heauen (*) The Minister pag. 435. to make a shew of many Fathers addeth vnto Theodoret and Gelasius the testimony of Bertram S. Chrysostome in epist. ad Caesarium Monachum S. Irenaeus S. Damascen Answere The booke of Bertram is of no credit being set forth with many Protestant additions as themselues confesse and you may see proued in a Treatise tearmed The Plea for the Reall Presence agaynst Syr Hūfrey Lynd his Bertrā The Epistle ad Caesariū Monachum is not S. Chrysostomes S. Irenaeus his testimony hath been already shewed to be impertinently alleadged S. Damascen is by you grossely abused as being brought quite contrary to his mind For when he sayth l. 4. de fide c. 14. As a fiery coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not only bread but bread vnited to the Diuinity he meaneth by the bread of the holy Cōmunion not bread remayning bread but bread changed into Christ his flesh To say that bread remayning bread in substance is vnited personally vnto the Deity is impious S. Damascen in that place doth most cleerly shew that he speaketh of bread changed into flesh For thus he writeth Christ did conioyne his diuinity with bread and wine that so by thinges that are common and to which we are vsed we may attayne to thinges diuine and aboue nature for verily the body borne of the Virgin is a body vnited vnto the Deity not that his body assumpted into heauen doth agayne descend in the Eucharist from heauen but that bread it selfe and wine are conuerted into the flesh and bloud of God And a little after A coale is not only wood but wood ioyned to fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not simple bread but bread vnited vnto the Deity But the body vnited to the Deity is not any single nature but the nature of flesh and the nature of the Deity be conioyned together in it Thus he most cleerly shewing not that the bread of the holy Communion remaining bread in nature is vnited to the Deity to make togither with it a personall compound of two natures it were blasphemy so to thinke but that bread chāged into Christs flesh is vnited to the Deity because the flesh into which it is changed is not meere and only flesh but also flesh vnited with the Deity How intolerably is S. Damascen falsifyed by you Being truly and fully cited how fully doth he teach Transubstantiation But such is your Religion you must make a shew of the Fathers to be on your side though you know in conscience they make agaynst you you must patch togither some of their mangled sentences to make a gay fooles-coate for your seely Credents least they seeme naked The seeming repugnances this mistery hath with sense should incline Christians the sooner to belieue it §. 4. THE former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfy were
left When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance thereof goeth away Certainly they disagree as much as these two which for sense are iust the same When meate is set on the Table before the hungry persons nothing is left When meate is set on the table before hungry persons nothing goeth away For when S. Chrysostome sayth waxe being put into fire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing of the substance goeth away you cannot except you would haue him seeme a â—oole make him meane that nothing of the waxe goeth away by consumption and metling into the fire for euery child knoweth this to be false His meaning theÌ„ is nothing of the substance goeth away from the fire vnconsumed but the whole substance is conuerted into fire as the Iesuit expounds Also what difference betwixt these two translations which you make Contrary The mysteries are togeather consumed by the substance of the body The mysteries are coabsumed with the substaÌ„ce of the body They be punctually the very same in regard of sense as much as these two are Wood and Coale are coabsumed with fire Wood Coale are togeather consumed by fire For without question S. Chrysostome saying that the mysteries are coÌ„sumed with the substance of the body as waxe is by fire doth intend that the body is the Instrument wherby the mysteryes are consumed as fire is the Instrument to consume waxe As concerning the sense of this place that S. Chrysostome doth intend to teach that the substance of bread is coÌ„sumed by the body of Christ not by the body of the receauer is euident by the drift of his discourse Which because it is cleere pregnant for TransubstantiatioÌ„ I will set it downe in Greeke as it is in M. Sauells Edition in the 7. To me amongst S. Chrysostomes Genuine works Homil. 6. de poenitentia pag. 690. where S. Chrysostome repreheÌ„ding them who hauing spent the morning of festiuall dayes in ridiculous vanityes and toyes yet come to the holy Sacraments sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is in English After these vanities with what confidence doest thou approach vnto the Mysteries with a conscience so polluted If thou did'st hold dunge in thy hands durst thou touch the hemme of the garment of an earthly King No thou durst not Do not regard that it is bread in outward shew do not thinke that it is wine for it is not meate that is cast out by egestion as others are God forbidd do not so thinke But as when waxe is ioyned to the fire nothing of the substance thereof goeth away out of the fire inconsumed so do thou thinke the mysteryes are consumed by the substaÌ„ce of the body Wherfore coÌ„ming to receaue do not thinke you take the diuine body as from the hand of a man but as fire from the tonges of the Seraphim Thus S. Chrysostome affirming and prouing that the mysticall bread and wine be not in truth and substance bread and wine but the body of Christ because as waxe is so consumed by fire as nothing of the substance therof escapeth or goeth away so the substance of bread wine is consumed by the substance of Christs body The conceyt insinuated by the Minister that S. Chrysostome meanes that the mysticall Elements are indeed consumed but by the body of the receauer is most seely For S. Chrysostome because the Sacramentall bread and wine be consumed by the substance of the body concludes that therfore when we receaue we must not thinke we receaue bread and wine in truth nor ordinary meate such as is cast out by egestion What discourse can be more sottish then this of S. Chrysostome did he meane as you would make him that the mysticall elements be by digestion consumed into the flesh of the receauer and that therefore when we take them they be not truly bread and wine nor such meate as is cast out by egestion for his reason concludes the playne contrary of what he would prooue Agayne S. Chrysostome hauing sayd that the mysteryes are consumed by the substance of the body as waxe is by fire inferres that therefore when we receaue we ought to receaue Christs diuine body as FIRE from the hand of the Seraphim which cleerely shewes that the diuine body of Christ is by him said to be as FIRE consuming into it selfe the substance of bread wine and not the body of the receauer Where note that this holy Father doth not say that we should thinke the Sacrament to be a coale of fire taken froÌ„ the hand of the Seraphim but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thinke as if we receaued a coale of fire from the tongues of the Seraphim wheÌ„ce is answered the seely obiection the Minister makes that if we take the wordes of S. Chrysostome as they found we must say that the Sacrament is fire and not giuen by the Priest but by the Seraphim For Saint Chrysostomes words neyther haue this sense nor sound Finally what he sayth that the substance of bread is not consumed by the body of Christ according to the Tenet of many Scholemen shewes his want of skill to vnderstand Scholasticke Authours For they all agree that the body of Christ made present in the Eucharist by vigour of his word This is my body doth destroy and consume the substance of bread at the least morally that is by binding God to destroy it that his word may be true which without the destruction of bread cannot be true in the sense by him intended Only the question is whether the body of Christ as present haue also physicall opposition with the substance of bread destroying the same by physicall impression made vpon it wherein some hold the affirmatiue some the negatiue part whome the Minister in his margent citeth saying substantiam corporis Christi non pugnare cum substantia panis SVAPTE NATVRA Is not this impertinent V. The Minister heere sayth It is inconsequent to argue they are changed in nature Ergo their naturall substance is destroyed For S. Peter speaking of Regenerate persons 2. Pet. 1.5 sayth they are made partakers of the Diuine Nature and yet his meaning is not that their former substance is abolished Answere First the Minister doth not set downe the true force of the argument For the argument is not Bread is changed in nature Ergo the substance thereof is destroyed but thus we argue What is so changed in nature that it is no longer the thing or substance nature framed is destroyed according to the substance thereof This is manifest for were not the nature thereof destroyed it should be still the thing and substance nature framed But S. Ambrose sayth bringeth many conuincing arguments out of Scripture to proue that by consecration bread is so changed in nature as Non est quod natura formauit it is no longer the thing and substance nature framed but the body of Christ Ergo according to Saint Ambrose bread in the Eucharist is so changed as the nature
congruous in respect of the eternity of glory yea the Passions of Christ being temporall and short were not by their owne nature condigne or Congruous vnto eternall glory nor could haue been condigne had they not been eleuated by the dignity of Gods naturall sonne from whome they proceeded Minister pag. 517. The Iesuit hath set fire on his owne house for if we owe our works vnto to God as he sayth we doe by the titles of iustice Religion gratitude what peeping hole I pray you is left for merit to creepe in at Answere Our workes by the titles of iustice Religion and gratitude are due vnto God so farre as he doth please to exact them by his law and no further but he is pleased not wholly and totally to exact them by the aforesayd titles but to leaue them vnto men to vse them for the gayning of the crowne of glory as we are taught by his word Hence mans merit is not in rigour of iustice but grounded vpon Gods mercifull indulgence in not exacting vpon workes with vttermost rigour This mercifull indulgence is a wide gate by the which Merit makes entrance into Gods Children shewed you by the Iesuit yet so blind you are as you see it not but goe peeping about to find an hole for Merit to creep in at the Catholike Saints of God vse not to coÌ„fide in their merits past specially being guilty of diuers dayly negligences but fly to Gods mercyes as the Church teacheth vs in the Lyturgy of the Masse dayly praying In sanctorum nos consortium non aestimator meriti sed veniae quaesumus largitor admitte (A) The Ministers Arguments or rather Inuestiues agaynst this doctrine of Merit with a short Answer thereunto Did Protestants know that we require all these diuine fauours to make any worke meritorious did they also consider how singular and excellent these fauours are they would not perchance wonder that workes graced with so many excellencies should haue some proportioÌ„ with the heauenly Reward And so dealing with your Maiesty who is well able to ponder these things I shall without proofe passe by this doctrine as not particularly belonging to the proposed difficulty Merit of workes of Supererogation §. 2. WHEREFORE to come to works of Supererogation these workes besides the seauen aforenamed graces suppose another singular fauor stand grouÌ„ded theron This fauour is that God thogh he might yet doth not rigorously require of his Saints seruants that in his seruice they do the vttermost of their forces He hath prescribed vnto men certayne Lawes CoÌ„maundements which if they keep he is satisfyed and what they do voluntary beyond these commaunded dutyes he receaues as a gracious spontaneous guift This diuine benignity is noted by Saint Chrysostome Homil. 21. in priorem ad Cor. and excellently declared in these wordes Ete nim cum benignus sit Dominus suis praeceptit multum admiscuit mansuctudinis Potuisset enim si hoc voluisset preceptum magis intendere augere dicere Qui non perpetuò ieiunat puniatur qui non exercet virginitatem det poenas qui se non omnibus exuit facultatibus luat vltimum supplicium sed non hoc fâ—cit concedent nobis vt non solum ex iussu sed etiam ex libero faciamus arbitrio Wherefore the precept Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy hart with all thy soule with all thy strength doth not commaund an entyre imployment of all our vttermost forces Nor that we neuer loue nor desire nor thinke of any thing besides him nor that all our thoughts and affections be wholly entirely perpetually on him For this were a thing impossible and God doth not require of vs thinges impossible as (b) Ioan 5.3 Mandata eius grauia non sunt Scriptures and Fathers (c) Basil. ho. in illud Moysis attende tibi ipsi Impium est asserere mandata Spiritus Sancti impossibiliae esse obseruatu teach This precept therefore commands a quadruple integrity of diuine loue The first integrity is in respect of our selues that we loue God wholly and entyrely not only with the outside but with the inside euen to the bottome of our soule that is in a word Sincerely The second integrity is in respect of God that we loue God according to all his Commaundements not leauing any vnkept and so to loue God entirely or with all the hart is the same as to walke in all his Commaundements The third integrity is in regard of the effect of loue which is to ioyne men in friendship with God whome we must so loue that there be no breach between God and vs nor we seperated from him which we doe so long as we keep his commaundements without sinning mortally agaynst them The fourth integrity is in respect of time that we loue him entierely not only for this present life but also desiring hoping to see and loue him for eternity And in this sense (d) Aug. de spiritu lit cap. vlt. Saint Augustine Saint (e) Bernard serm 5. in Cantica Bernard and other Fathers are to be vnderstood that say in the precept Diliges Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo is conteyned the perfection of the life to come and a perfection impossible to be atteyned to in this life to wit it is conteyned in the precept not as a perfection commanded to be practised in this life but as a perfection to be desired and hoped for in the next so that he that loues God sincerely from the bottome of hart to the keeping of all his Commaundments perfectly without breach of friendship betweene him and God hauing his desires loue referred with hope vnto Eternity without question he loueth God with all his hart soule strength * What the Minister cauilleth agaynst this truth is reduced to two heades Minister pag. 522. First to the definition of workes of supererogation is required that all which the Diuine law commandes be fullfilled But if iust men haue sinne they performe not all the Diuine law doth require For euery sinne is a transgression of the Diuine law 1. Iohn 3.4 Answere The law of God bindeth men to performe the workes thereof so farre as they are necessary vnto Saluation vnto which the obseruance of the law is ordayned If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandments Math. 19.17 Hence veniall sinne is not properly agaynst the law of God but against the decency and perfection of reason the law of God supposed and his goodnes towards man The place you cite as Saint Iohns Euery sinne is a transgression of the diuine law is by you falsifyed as I haue shewed in the Censure Sect. 4. §. 9. though also that text speake of mortall sinne not of veniall The testimony of S. Bernard serm 2. de Vig. Nat. by you cited p. 522. affirming that God coÌ„mands his law to be kept exceedingly that when we cannot doe it finding our imperfection we