indiuiduall things When soule and body come to be vnited by this vnion is produced a third substance to wit a maÌ„ composed of soule and body When two waters that were seuered come to ioyne togeather there ariseth one third water wherin the two lesser waters are included as parts But Father and Sonne the one in London the other at Constantinople do not compose a third indiuiduall nature constant of theÌ„ both wherin they both are contayned as is most euident Ergo It is ridiculous to affirme that the Father in London is truly and really vnited with his Sonne in Constantinople Finally put case there were true and reall vnity betwixt Father and Sonne so that the sonne might be said to be one with his father truly and properly in respect of kind or specificall Identity what can this serue to shew that consecrated bread remaining bread in nature kind may be said to be the body of Christ or the same with it Had Christ said of another mans body This is my Body you might haue coÌ„strued it thus This is my body that is a body of the same kind and nature with mine but Christ saying of that which was bread this is my Body how can you vnderstand this to be true in respect of specificall Vnity Is bread of the same kind and nature as Christs body I am sure being afore warned of this absurdity you will not dare so to teach What then doth specificall Identity or vnity in nature and kind serue to shew that coÌ„secrated bread remaining bread in kind nature essence may be truly really Christs body Certainly Christ did affirme that the thing contained within the shape of bread was his indiuiduall body not another indiuiduall body of the same kind This cannot be true verily and according to propriety of speach as you grant if the substaÌ„ce of bread remaine much lesse if also the substance of Christs body be locally absent The Iesuits argument then doth conuince that the Sacrament cannot be truly really substantially Christs body if the body of Christ be not locally indistant from the same A fifth Example About Satisfaction §. 5. I will produce yet another Example of your Ignorance by which you contradict Protestants yea your selfe in the very same page and establish our Catholike doctrine of Satisfaction and Purgatory against which in that place you earnestly dispute Thus you wite pag. 540. The difference betweene the PontificiaÌ„s vs in this dostrin is THAT WE BELEEVE A REMAINDER of TEMPORALL Affliction AFTER the REMISSION of the GVILTE of Sinne in this life onely for Chastisement ERVDITION and PROBATION They maintaine a Remainder of Temporall Punishement not onely in this life but after the same in Purgatory Further we beleeue that the Paine of Chastisement inflicted vpon penitent sinners may by prayers of fayth exercise of vertue humiliation and mortification be REMOVED MITIGATED or conuerted to the increase of grace and glory in them that with patience holines endure the same in this life But we deny that eyther any paine followeth iust persons after their decease or that they can in this life by any good workes merit release of any temporall punishment or satisfy the Diuine Iustice for the fault or guilt of any sinnes on their behalfe much lesse for others Thus you On the one side denying against Catholikes Temporall Paine in the next life and on the other granting against ProtestaÌ„ts a Remaynder of Temporall Chastisement for sinne remitted after the remission of the guilt Wherby you contradict your selfe yea establish the possibillity of superabouÌ„dant Satisfaction Yow lay Principles which vnanswerably inforce temporall paine for remisse Penitents in the next world Which three thinges I will in order demonstrate that so it may appeare that through Ignorance you haue your selfe dissolued broken in peeces the whole frame of your Voluminous Reply in euery poynt of Controuersy proposed by his Maiesty and handled therein First you contradict your selfe for in this very pag. 540. against the Remainder of temporall paine thus you write That which is so forgiuen that after pardon it is not mentioned or remembred and which is cast behind Gods backe throwne into the bottome of the sea and which can no where be found and which is blotted out of the Debt-booke of the Almighty is not taken away by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesser but by a free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment But the holy Scripture and the Fathers teach such a remission of sinne on Gods part to the penitent Thus you what cleerer contradiction can be deuised then is betweene these two sentences Remission of sinne is made not by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesse but by free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment There is a remainder of temporall paine after the remission of guilt of sinne not onely for the triall and erudition of the penitent but also for Chastisement which may be remoued or mitigated by mortification and penitentiall workes What clearer contradiction I say can be deuised For teÌ„porall paine inflicted vpon penitent sinners by way of chastisement after the remission of the guilt of their sinne is vindictiue Punishment You professe in the end of this page to belieue Temporall paine to remaine not onely by way of Probation and Erudition but euen by way of chastisement after the remission of the guilt of their sinne Therfore you contradict what you say in the beginning of this page That remission of sinne is free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment Agayne Condonation of sinne wherby eternall punishment is changed into temporall is remission of sinne by commutation of a greater chastisemeÌ„t into a lesse to wit of eternall into temporall as is most euident But in the end of this page you teach that sinne is so remitted as the guilt of sinne and eternall Damnation is changed into a remainder of temporall affliction for chastisement of the penitent sinner Wherefore if the changing of Eternall punishment into Temporall be commutation of greater punishment into lesse then by granting in the end of the cited page a Remaynder of Temporall Affliction after the remission of the Eternall you ouerthrow what you taught in the beginning of the same that remission of sinne is not made by commutation of greater punishment into lesse Secondly this your doctrine of the remainder of temporall paine after the remission of the guilt of sinne proueth that penitent saints may make compeÌ„sant yea superaboundant satisfaction in manner as Catholikes teach for in the remainder of temporall affliction we may consider and distinguish two things the greatnes of the paine reserued and the greatnes of Gods remaining anger against sinne remitted which he doth yet temporally punish If we regard the greatnes of Gods iust anger and offence we hold (t) Si ad ipsam offensam Diuinae Maiestatis respiciamus quatenus Deus videlicet sic homini manet infeÌ„sus vt meritâ—
Ministers you cypher 1. Tim. 6.12 Fight the good fight of fayth lay hold on eterâ—all life whereunto thou art called Ibid. lin 3. to proue â—he Scripture to be sufficient for spirituall men you â—ypher 1. Cor. 2.15 But he that is spirituall iudgeth all â—hinges and is iudged of none which proueth the conâ—rary if it proue any thing to wit that the spirituâ—ll Man is not iudged and ruled by Scripture but raâ—her the Scripture is iudged and ruled by him Pag. â—0 lin 21. to proue that we wrong you in saying â—ou derogate from the Church you cite Matth. 18. â—7 He that heareth not the Church let him be as a Heathen publican Ibid. to the same purpose you cypher Heb. â—â— 17 Obey your Prelates and submit your selfe vnto them â—ag 169. lin 22. to proue that no Church euer priâ—â—d the oblation meritts of Christs passion more â—â—ghly and religiously then you do you cypher Heb. â— 14 With one oblation he did consummate for euer the â—â—nctifyed and Ephes. 5.2 He gaue himselfe a sacrifice 〈◊〉 vs to a sweet smelling sauour Iohn 1.29 Behold the â—ambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world â—ct 4.12 There is not Saluation in any other Name Pag. â—1 lin 1. to proue we wrong you by saying you aâ—â—int that (m) The words of Iohn White way pag. 126. EVERY particuler MAN examine â—â—dge of the Church her teaching you cite 1. Cor. â— 19 Are all Apostles Are all Prophets Are all teachers â—re all workers of miracles If one would study to apâ—â—y Scriptures impertineÌ„tly I am persuaded he could â—â—rdly deuise greater impertinencyes then these â—hich are so riâ—e in euery page of your booke so that it was intolerable folly for your Poet and Paynter to represent this your Voluminous cyphering of Scripture with a crowne vpon it bidding men to Behâ—â—â— grace and wisdome in your looke and Truthes Triumphâ—â—â— your booke For if this kind of cyphering of Scripture be Wisdome what I pray you is the last Extreme anâ— Non-plus of (*) I wonder you would not be warned to be more wise by the Booke of Quaeres or Prurit-anus For you cite the Scripturs as impertinently in good earnest as he did in iest to shew your Ministeriall Folly Folly You cite cypher Scriptures that make agaynst you §. 8. HEREVNTO I adde that the texts you cypheâ— many tymes make agaynst you Pag. 548. lin 19. to proue that reward is giuen vnto workes of Graâ—â— and bounty aswell as of Desert you cypher Rom. 4 4. which sayth to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt Could any text be deuise more directly agaynst the purpose you cite it For by this place ioyned with a sentence of yours I conclude vnanswerably our Catholike doctrine of Merit The reward which is giuen to him that worketh in regard of the Goodnes and Righteousnes of his worke is giuen not of grace but of debt But Eternâ—â— life is tearmed a Crowne of glory because it is bestowed 〈◊〉 them which exercise Righteousnes and in regard of thâ— righteousnes the true inherent dignity sanctity and purity of their workes Ergo Eternall life is a reward oâ— good workes giuen to Gods children of debt not 〈◊〉 meere grace and bounty The Maior is S. Paules by you cyphered in this place the Minor your ownâ— in so many words pag. 174. in fine and 1â—9 so thâ—â— the text of Scripture by you cited proueth inuinciâ—bly the doctrine of Merit against which you cite iâ— Pag. 558. lin 4. to proue that liuing Saints haue no communion with Saints defunct by partaking the â—â—perabundant satisfaction you cyte Rom. 12. v. 4. We haue many members in one body and euery member hath â—ot the same office This text proueth the contrary to â—hat you intend to wit that Satisfactions are communicable betwixt Saints for from this text I arâ—ue thus If Saints liuing Saints deceased be memâ—ers of the same body hauing different offices then â—here must be betwixt them coÌ„munion in all things which superabound in some members and are neeâ—ed of other for this we see to be that fellowship which by the institution of nature the members of â—he same body ought to enioy the one with the oâ—her But the Myrrh of mortifications and satisfactions superabound in many most rare innocent and penitent Saints in heauen and is no lesse needed of diuers other Saints vpon the earth that haue done many sinnes and cannot do such great pennance Therfore the Myrrh of superabounding Pennance and Satisfaction ought to flow downe from deceased Saints in heauen vnto their fellow-members the needy Saints that liue on earth The Iesuite (n) See the Reply pag. 523. sayth that the first Precept Thou shalt loue thy Lord God with all thy hart c. bindeth not man to loue God in this life with Beatificall loue nor to be alwayes in actuall imployment of his loue on him but only to loue sincerely and inwardly to the keeping of all commandements without any mortall offence which breaketh friendship with God desiring though not inioying the happynes of beatificall loue This he sayth is the meaning of S. Bernard and S. Augustine when they say the perfection of the next life is contayned in this precept to wit in voto not in re This doctrine you impugne pag. 525. lin 26. saying That the Saints of God hauing obserued other commandements brake the first commandement and did vndergo corporall payne after the breach thereof How proue you this marry you cypher Heb. 11.31 They were stoned they were sawen a sunder they were slayne with the sword Doth this text proue the Saints transgressed the first Commandment That they were corporally afflicted for their not louing God with all their hart Doth it not rather shew the contrary that they loued God perfectly and were temporally tormented because they so loued him with al their hart that they would rather vndergo most cruell and barbarous deaths then offend him or abandon the truth of his word which is as our Sauiour saith the highest degree of Charity Pag. 10. lin 20. You deny the Church to be infallible in her Traditions and Definitions yet say you we acknowledge her lawfull authority for expounding Scripture and maintayning vnity in right fayth In proofe hereof you cite Matth. 18.17 Who so heareth not the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican You could not haue inuented a text that doth more inuincibly shew the coÌ„trary of what you intend Let vs make this text of Scripture the Maior and your Protestant doctrine the Minor and put your Argument in forme then will you see how handsomely you proue that you acknowledge all the lawfull authority of the Church The Scripture saith The Church is of so great absolute infallible authority that whosoeuer doth not heare her is to be held as an Heathen and a Publican Protestants say the Church is so subiect to
〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten that this is the prime ground of â—ayth more fundamentall then Scripture you most larâ—ely labour to refell and tearme it pag. 91. an Anti-â—hristian and impudent assertion to depresse the written â—ord of God exalt the prophane bastardly Apocriphal â—â—aditions of the Pope This is bitter inough yet cerâ—â—ynly you teach that there be traditions maintayâ—ing and vpholding the Scripture in authority or 〈◊〉 you speake ineptly not knowing what you affirâ—e For some two pages before this your reprochfull words to wit pag. 89. you thus distinguish about Traditions The Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such as are EYTHER contayned in Scripture OR which are subseruient to MAINTAINE the Fayth Verity and AVTHORITY of the Scripture the doctrine thereof Thus you I demand of you These subseruient Traditious about fayth and doctrine be they contayned in Scripture or not If they be your distinction is senselesse one member thereof not being condistinct agaynst the other for if subseruient traditions be traditions coÌ„tayned in Scripture what more inept then to say traditions eyther contayned in Scripture or subseruient If they be not contayned in Scripture but condistinct from them then according to your distinction there be some traditions not contayned in Scripture which maintayne and vphold the authority of Scripture and the verity and doctrine thereof If you grant this as you must vnlesse you will grant your distinction be voyd of iudgment then must you also grant tradition to be more fundamentall then Scripture For thus I argue That which is the ground of the authority of Scripture is more fundameÌ„tall then Scripture That which doth mantayne and vphold the authority of Scripture is the ground and foundation of the authority of Scripture Ergo That which doth vphold and mantayne the authority of Scripture is more fundamentall then Scripture Now your selfe ascribe vnto Tradition subseruient condistinct agaynst written Tradition the office of mantayning the authority of Scripture So that eyther you know not what you doe write or else by your owne distinctions you are conuinced to establish that very doctrine which elsewhere you so sharpely censure as Antichristian impudeÌ„t prophane bastardly Certainly you are a seely Disputant about matters of Theodogy No more sense or iudgement is there in the distinctioÌ„ you make of holy Belieuers into triumphant militant pag. 49. The tearme Church say you is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy belieuers in all ages and more strictly for the whole number of holy belieuers vnder the new Testament Hebr. 12.23 Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27 And thus it comprehendeth both the Church militant triumphant Thus you distinguishing the Church of belieuers into militant and Triumphant whence it is consequent that the Triumphant Saynts in heauen are belieuers What more ridiculous and agaynst the prime and knowne Notion of Triumphant Saynts It may be God permitted you to stumble vpon this grosse simplicity through want of reflexion that you might thereby be warned to reflect vpon the foulenes of another doctrine which wittingly willfully you mantayne though being no lesse exorbitant then this The doctrine is that your Protestant Militant Church is a multitude who (a) Iohn White in his Defence pag. 309. by diuine illumination see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued of the Blessed Trinity and other mysteryes that you are like not vnto men (b) Francis White Orthodoxe pag. 108. which see a farre off a certayne obscure glimmering of the light but vnto men that coming to the place where the light is behold the sayd light in it selfe Verily to tearme the Church militant a multitude of BEHOLDERS resolued of truth by manifest light euidence is as Exoticall and as idle Gibberish in Christian Theology as to call the Church triuÌ„phant a multitude of BELEEVERS that warre and walke by Fayth As for your Protestant triuÌ„phant Church if they did not formerly belieue in this life the word of God without seing the light lustre and resplendant verity of the doctrine thereof as you pretend they did not I do not doubt but they are belieuers in the next world to wit in the number of them of whom the Apostle writeth Ioan. 2.9 credunt contremiscunt Ignorance in Scripture SECT IV. CONCERNING Holy Scripture you brag intollerably in euery page of your Reply how the same standeth cleerly on your side and that the Iesuit hath not been able to proue any of the Nine Poynts by Scripture How vaine this your vant is doth appear by the Reioynder wherin you are proued almost in euery controuersy to forsake the litterall and plaine sense of Scripture and to deuise now figuratiue typicall and mysticall interpretations How idlely also you dispute out of Scriptures for matters of greatest moment which you most confidently maintayne in your Religion is made euident by what hath been shewed concerning your arguing for the preteÌ„ded Diuine Ordinance binding ignorant Laymen to read the Scripture Notwithstanding that your ignorance herin may more indeniably appeare I will add here some other arguments and tokens of the same to wit vnto what shamefull shifts you are forced to answere Scriptuâ—es brought by your Aduersary in the behalfe of Caâ—holicke doctrine You deny the Text and Context of Scripture §. 1. FIRST many times you are enforced by your aduersary when you cannot answere to deny the â—ext context of Scripture wherof I alleadge two â—xamples The Iesuit pag. 480. to proue that Christ â—romised eternall life vnto the worthy participant â—f the sacrament vnder the forme of bread bringeth â—he words of our Sauiour Iohn 6. Qui manducat hunc â—anem viuet in aeternum he that eateth this bread shall â—ue for euer You in the place quoted answere The â—cripture Iohn 6.51 saith not whosoeuer eateth sacraâ—entall bread without wine shall liue for euer but if any â—â—te this bread which came downe from heaueÌ„ to wit Christ â—â—sus incarnate shall liue for euer And then it followeth â—nlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke 〈◊〉 blood you shall not haue life in you Iohn 5.53 Thus 〈◊〉 Now marke vnto what straytes maugre your â—â—agging you are brought by the Iesuite First you are not acknowledge these words cited by the Ieâ—â—ite he that eateth this bread liueth for euer to be our â—â—uiours but onely those If any shall eate c. Wherâ—â— they be our Sauiours the expresse text of Scripâ—â—re in so many words syllables Iohn 6.59 which â—â—yth He that eateth this bread liueth for euer Seâ—â—ndly you are compelled to answere that Christ â—â—ter he had said he that eateth this bread liueth for â—â—er said Vnlesse you eate the flesh and drinke the â—â—oud of the sonne of man you shall not haue life in â—ou By which ensuing senteÌ„ce he did as you thinke â—eclare the former If any eate this bread c. that it must not be vnderstood of Sacramentall bread without wine This is
errour and so fallible that euery particuler man of the people for feare of being deceaued (o) Iohn white way pag. 116. must examine her teaching yea your selfe affirme (p) Reply pag. 136. lin 20. c. that not whosoeuer contradicteth the whole Church is to be held as an Heathen and Publican but only such as oppose the whole Church rashly without cause or inordinatly Ergo Protestants acknowledge the authority giuen to the Church by the word of God and consequently her lawfull authority Pag. 169. The Iesuit doth charge you to extenuate the value of our Lords passion in saying that the same doth not purchase and merit true inward purity and sanctity to mens soules and actions Against this you say (q) Reply pag. 169. lin 20. No Christian Church euer prized the oblation and merits more highly and religiously then we Great prayse or rather pride euen the Church of the Apostles were not more religiously deuout vnto nor more highly conceyted of Christ Iesus his passion then you are Well how proue you it Heb. 10.14 it is written with one oblation he did consummate his sanctifyed for euer Iohn 1.29 Behold the Lambe that taketh away the sinns of the world This is euen iust as if an Arian should argue in this sort It is written Iohn 10.30 I and and my Father are one Ergo Neuer Christian Church prized the diuinity of Christ nor thought more highly or religiously of his Equality with his Father then we Would not this argument should an Arian vse it proue him to be more ridiculous then religious And the same force hath this your argument as will appeare if we put togeather into forme the propositions thereof the one Scriptures the other your Assertion It is written that Christ is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world who by his one oblation on the Crosse did consummate the sanctifyed for euer Protestants (r) Caluin Antidot Trident in sess 5 Permaneâ— verè peccatuÌ„ in nobis neque per BaptismuÌ„ vno die extinguitur lib. 3. Institut c. 14. §. 9. NulluÌ„ à sanctis exire potest opus quod non mereatur iustaÌ„ opprobrij mercedem say that Christ taketh not away the sinnes of the world but that the same doth truly and properly remayne in iustifyed persons and is only hidden and not imputed yea your selfe affirme pag. 170. and 171. That sinne is still adiacent vnto all the vertuous actions of iust men and that this imperfection sinfulnes is only couered by Christ his merits and purity that it be not imputed Ergo Protestants prize the value of Christs passion for the effectuall and perfect sanctification cleansing and consummation of saints and their actions as highly and religiously as euer did any Christian Church Scriptures abused and falsifyed §. 9. I Will conclude this section with some few Examples of fraud and falshood in your citing of Scriptures where you help the dice by addition or subtraction of some particle or word to make the Scripture found on your side Although I do not doubt but your scoring vp in cyphers of so many impertinent Texts though being discouered it be ridiculous was also not without fraud by you vsed that you might make shew of Scriptures for such articles of your doctrine for which you know in coÌ„science that no true proofe from Scripture can be produced The text Iohn 5.39 abused Search the Scriptures To begin with the Scriptures themselues with a falshood more then once repeated in your Booke you would shew that the sacred Scripture is so easy as Vnlearned people may vnderstand the sense thereof without relying on the Churches Tradition Exposition To this purpose you say Pag. 9. lin 9. Our Sauiour commanded euen simple people to vse the Scripture Ioan. 5.39 One would according to this your citation thinke that the sacred Text did expresly say that Search the Scriptures was spoken vnto simple people And yet this is a fancy by you cunningly foysted into the text against the playne euidence therof which sheweth that Search the Scriptures was sayd not to the simple people but to the Church-magistracy of the Iewes as these three arguments euince First the word Iewes in the Ghospel of S. Iohn doth signify the Magistracy of the Iewes excluding the simple people This might be proued by forty exaÌ„ples but this may suffice Iohn 7.13 Ioan. 1.9 2.18.20 5.15.16.18 7.1.11.35 8.22.48 9.18.22 There was much muttering about him our Sauiour amongst the coÌ„mon people yet none durst speake openly of him for feare of the Iewes Behold the Iewes opposed coÌ„distinguished against coÌ„mon people feared of them wherby it is manifest that by the Iewes the Gospel of S. Iohn doth vnderstand the Magistracy of the Iewes But certayne it is that our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures to the Iewes according to the signification of that word in the Gospell of S. Iohn Dixit Iesus Iudaeis Scrutamini Scripturas c. Iohn 5.32 Therefore the wordes were sayd to the Magistracy of the Iewes the common people being excluded Secondly our Sauiour doth testify that he sayd search the Scriptures vnto them that sent the Embassage vnto Iohn to know what he was Iohn 5.34 vos misistis ad Ioannem But cleere it is that the authours of this Embassage were not the simple people but the Church-magistracy of the Iewes Ergo Not vnto simple people but vnto Church-men and Church-magistrates did our Sauiour say search the Scriptures Thirdly our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures vnto men highly persuaded of the sole-sufficieÌ„cy of the Scripture thinking in them to haue eternall life This appeareth by the text Ibid. vers 33. TestimoniuÌ„ perâ—ibuit veritati Ibid. vers 36. opera quae facio testimonium perhibent Ibid vers 37. Pater qui misit me testimonium perhibuit mihi search the Scriptures because in them you thinke to haue eternall life Hence they would not belieue in our Sauiour neyther vpon the testimony of Iohn nor vpon the testimony of his workes and miracles nor vpon the testimony of his Fathers voyce from heauen Now that the simple people were thus conceyted of Scriptures agaynst the miracles of our Sauiour we haue no grouÌ„d to think whereas that the Church-magistracy of the Iewes was thus conceyted the Gospell doth expressely declare There we reade how they appealed from his miracles to Moyses his bookes bidding such as were lead away by his workes Ioan. 7 52.5â— Scrutare Scripturas vide quia à Galilaea Propheta non surgit to search the Scriptures see that our Sauiour could not be the Prophet Therfore to these men standing vpon the testimony of Scripture sole-sufficiency therof vnto eternal life not to simple People did our Sauiour say Search the Scriptures because in them you thinke that you haue eternall life without me wheras euen these giue testimony of me Hence appeareth another falsificatioÌ„ of
this place by cogging in your own conceyt as it were the very Text to wit that our Sauiour by these words gaue a command to vse scriptures For it is cleere he did not by way of command say to the Iewes search the Scripturs but by way of permission in respect of their obstinacy whereby they would not without Scripture belieue in him vpon other most sufficient diuine testimonies So that search the Scriptures because in them you thinke to haue eternall life hath this sense Seing you will not be wonne to belieue vpon the testimony of Iohn nor of my miracles nor of my Fathers voyce from heauen but appeale from these testimonyes vnto Scriptures thinking that in them you haue eternall life search the Scriptures in Gods name I am content 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not superficially looke vpon theÌ„ but search deeply into them for being thus searched into they yield testimony vnto me Certainly if our Sauiour had been of the Protestants mind and would haue giuen the precept they pretend he would not haue sayd to the Iewes search the Scriptures because in them you thinke that you haue eternall life but search the scriptures because in them only eternall life is to be had or because nothing necessary vnto eternall life is to be belieued vntill it be cleerly proued by them This he doth not say but rather rebuketh the Iewes for this their Ministerial coÌ„ceite that nothing is to be belieued vpon any other testimony without Scripture He did not therfore command theÌ„ to vse the Scriptures but seing them obstinatly addicted vnto only Scripture he permitted them to proceed in their own way Euen as wheÌ„ Protestants caÌ„not be wonne to belieue neither the testimony of Iohn that is the consent of Fathers nor the testimony of Christs works that is of myracles done daily in his Church nor the Fathers liuely voyce from heauen that is Gods word vnwritten we at last say vnto them Search the Scriptures for euen they giue testimony vnto the Catholike doctrine Hence two thinges appeare First that your two assertions that Christ saying search the Scriptures did command and command euen simple people to vse Scriptures be two fancyes of your owne foysted into the Scripture not by way of interpretation but by way of Historical Relation of the sacred text which is grosse abuse thereof Secondly that if we search deepely into this text Search the Scriptures the same doth cleerly condemne the Protestant fancy that only Scripture is the rule of fayth and shewes this to haue been the ground and principle of Iewish Infidelity The text Matth. 24.24 That euen the elect be deceaued were it possible grossely applied THVS you write pag. 586. Although the Tradition and teaching of the Church be fallible yet vnlearned people where they inioy the free vse of Scripture as in ancient times all people did and if they be carefull of their saluation and desire to know the truth God blesseth his owne Ordinance and ordinarily assisteth them by grace in such sort as they shall not be seduced to damnation Math. 24.24 Thus you encourage simple people to be proud and obstinate in their priuate fancies agaynst the teaching and tradition of the Church For in this speach you assure theÌ„ that reading their vulgar Bible if they be carefull of their saluation and desire to know the truth though they will not regard the Church as the pillar ground and infallible Mistresse of truth yet God will so blesse and assist them as they shall not be seduced into daÌ„nable errour Now what is the bane of Christianity but this false and proud persuasion inserted into the heads of Sots Trinitarians Anabaptists Arians Brownists Familians do they not desire to know the truth who to that end so studiously peruse their Bible Be they not carefull of their Saluation that goe so readily to the fyre rather then abandon the doctrine which by their skill in the Vulgar Bible they iudge to be the sauing Truth In these Wretches you may see how in men desirous to know the truth God blesseth the ordinaÌ„ce of reading the vulgar Bible without regard had to the Church as an infallible Mistresse And as your doctrine is the seed springe of heresy so is the text of Scripture Matth. 24.24 most violently drawne to confirme it For what sayth the text They the false Prophets shall doe great signes wonders that euen the elect be induced into errour if it be possible By which text it is cleere that the elect people of God cannot be finally intrapped in damnable errour This is vnderstood as Deuines speake in sensu composito that is they cannot be deceaued because God ordaynes and foresees that they shall vse the meanes to know sauing Truth which meanes is to cleaue vnto the Tradition of the Church not trusting their owne skill Now then with what engines can you from this truth wrest your Paradoxe that men desyrous of the truth reading the vulgar Bible cannot be damned Are all men desirous of the truth that reade the Bible Gods elect If Heretiks dispute in this manner The Elect cannot be seduced vnto damnation Ergo If they presume on their skill in the Bible not respecting the Churches doctrine as infallible they shall not be seduced vnto damnation Why may not murderers argue in like sort The elect cannot be damned Therefore if they commit murder euery day and so perseuer vntill the end they cannot be damned This argument is as good as yours For the contemners of the Church can no more be saued theÌ„ murderers if our Sauiour say true who so heareth not the Church let him to thee as a Heathen and Publican The text Act. 17.11 about the Beroeans abused TO the same purpose of encouraging simple People to follow their fancyes gotten by reading their vulgar Bible you say pag. â—87 Vnlearnâ—d people by comparing the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture may certainly know whether it erreth or not Act. 17.11 Thus you What sayth the text that thence you may make such deductioÌ„s These were more Noble then those of Thessalonica who receaued the word with all readines of mind searching dayly whether these thinges were so Now behold your manifold abuse of this sacred Narration First the text doth not say these Beroeans were vnlearned how then can you hence conclude any thinge for the ability of vnlearned people to search the Scriptures Agayne the Text doth not say that by comparing the doctrine of Paul with Scripture they came to know certaynly that the doctrine of Paul was true but only that belieuing his doctrine they searched the Scriptures about the same without mention of the successe of their search And if they were resolued by Scripture this was only in one poynt to wit whether Iesus were the Messias about which the Scriptures are cleere and expresse How theÌ„ can you hence proue that vnlearned people may know certainly whether the doctrine of the Church be true by comparing the same
teach it as Christ commanded deliuered the same Thirdly if this Promise were conditionall not absolute then by this place the Church could not be proued to last absolutly for euer but only so long as she Christeneth aright teacheth the truth wherin according to this ProtestaÌ„t exposition she may fayle But the Fathers from this text gather agaynst the Donatists that the Church shal neuer fayle to be in all Nations of the world vntill the end therof as S. Aug. in Psalm 101. conc 2. Leo Epist. 3. ad Pulcheriam and others hence proue Therfore the sense is absolute his Church shal be still in the world he still assisting his Church by his spirit to teach and baptize aright promise of wonderfull comfort vnto them that pawne their soules saluation vpon Gods word deliuered by perpetuall Tradition for in this sentence appeares the six thinges I before set downe First that there is still A ChristiaÌ„ Church all dayes not wanting in the world so much as one day till the consummation of the world SecoÌ„dly this Church is euer visible and conspicuous For the Church that alwayes teacheth Christeneth all Nations must needs be visible But this Church alwaies teacheth and Christeneth all Nations I am alwayes with you not with you sitting in Corners or hidden vnder ground but with you exercising the office enioyned you in the words precedent Docete omnes gentes baptizantes Thirdly this Church is euer Apostolicall for to his Apostles Christ said I am alwaies with you to the coÌ„summation of the world not with you in your owne persons but with you in your successours in whome you shal continue vntill the worlds end Ergo a lawfull company of Bishops Pastours Doctors succeeding the Apostles must be perpetually in the world Forthly this Church is Vniuersal Ite in muÌ„dum vniuersum where I will be alwayes with you Fifthly this Church is One not diuided into parts because it teacheth and belieueth vniformely all that Christ deliuered and commanded without Factions Sects or Parts about matters of fayth Sixtly this Church is alwayes holy for doctrine neuer deliuering or teaching any falshood I who am the Truth am alwayes with you teaching all nations Holy also for life Christ the holy of holyes assisting and making her able to conuert Infidels which she could not well doe (s) The Minister p. 85. 86.102 alleadgeth diuers Fathers scholmeÌ„ to proue that now miracles are ceased not necessary Answere The Minister shold distinguish as the fathers doe who make two manner of beings of Miracles to wit ordinary extraordinary and affirme three things First that in the primitiue Church miracles were absolutly necessary for the plaÌ„ting of the Ghospell in the world Ioan. 5.24 Act. 4.29.30 and then the gift of miracles was ordinarily annexed vnto the Ministery of Preaching yea so that euery Christian coÌ„monly had that gift in some kind or other 1. Cor. 12.28 Act. 8.17 10. 4.6 Secondly that since the planting of the Gospell by twelue Fishermen this being the miracle of miracles no further miracle is absolutly necessary for meÌ„ vnto whoÌ„ this is known and therfore the gift of miracles is ceased to be ordinarily annexed to the office of preaching or common to al Christians as before it was Aug. de Ciuit. l. 22. c. 8. Gregor 27. moral c. 1. Thirdly notwithstaÌ„ding in all ages there were are and shal euer be some speciall places and persons extraordinarily indued with the gift of miracles for the comfort of Christians Conuersion of some remote Nations that know not the first miraculous planting of our Religion by certayne celebrious fame of miracles in this kind the writings of the Fathers all ChristiaÌ„ histories are full See S. Aug. l. 22. de Ciuit. c. 8. Gregory in his Dialogues THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH not before Luther without miracles and tokens of wonderfull sanctity at the least in her more eminent Preachers That the Romane is the One Holy Catholike Apostolical Church from by which we are to receyue the Tradition of Christian Doctrine §. 5. THIS Ground being laid it is apparent that the Romane Church that is the multitude of Christians spread ouer the world cleauing to the doctrine and Tradition of the Church of Rome is the only holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church The first Argument THERE must alwayes be in the world one holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church That is a Church deliuering doctrines vniformely thereby making them credible vniuersally thereby making them famously knowne to mankind holyly so making them certayne such as on them we may securely rely Apostolically so making theÌ„ perpetually flow without change vnto the present Christianity in the channell of a neuer-interrupted Succession of Bishopps from the Apostles And this Church (t) Vnto this Argument the Minister pag. 104. makes answere that his Protestant Church was before Luther in essence kind though it began in Luther touching the Name and some things accidental In proofe whereof he thus wryteth In all ages before Luther some persons held the substantiall articles of our Religion both in the Roman Grecian Church And by name the Grecians maintained with vs that the Roman Church hath no primacy of Iurisdiction aboue or ouer all other Churches neyther is the same infallible in fayth They deny Purgatory Priuate Masses Sacrifice for the dead and they propugne the Marriage of Priests In this Westerne part of the world the Waldenses Thaborites of Bohemia Wickliffiâ—ts maÌ„tayned the same doctrine in substance as appeareth by their confession of fayth and by the testimony of some learned Pontificians This being the substance of all the Minister hath sayd or can say for his Church before Luther the same is insufficient false more for Anabaptists then Protestants This I proue In generall this pedegree is insufficient for two reasons First because it is not for all ages The Grecians were vnited with the Romane Church vntill the yeare 1060. the Waldensians began about the yeare 1160. Now there remaynes six or seauen ages since the pretended Apostacy of the Roman Church for which the Minister doth not name any professours that were Protestants for essence and kind Secondly because Protestants teach that the most substantiall article of their Religion is Iustification by speciall fayth only and not by workes and merits of grace as all know But these pretended professours namely the Waldenses Wickliffists held rigorously the merit of works In so much as Wickliffe sayd Let euery man confide in his merits for which saying he is refuted by the Catholike authour Thomas Waldensis Tom. 3. c. 7.8.9 Graecians no Protestants in Essence In particular the Pedigree is notoriously false in respect of the Graecians who cannot without impudency be named as Protestants according to essence and kind First they hold damnable heresyes and substantiall errours in the Iudgement of Protestants so wit Inuocation of Saints Adoration of Images as they professe in their Censure
Christians behaued thēselues towards it sayth Flecte genu lignumque Crucis venerabile adora Bow knee adore the Crosses sacred wood Origen Homil. 6. in Epist. ad Rom. So great is the power of the Crosse that if it be placed before the eyes and faythfully retayned in mind fixed vpon the death of Christ the army of sinne flesh is conquered S. Gregory called Illuminator who conuerted Armenia did as Euthim. panop part 3. tit 20. relates place wooden Images of the Crosse vpon the shrines of Martyrs bidding the multitude of people that thither resorted to giue worship vnto God by the Adoration of the Crosse. S. Procopius Martyr as doth witnes Nicephorus l. 7. c. 15. did adore a golden image of the Crosse of Christ crucifyed by it got great victoryes In the second age in the beginning wherof some of the Apostles liued Tertull. in Apol. c. 44. writing against Heathens that obiected that Christians were worshippers of the woodden image of the Crosse graunts the thing to be true defendeth the same Yea the Protestant Magdeburgians Centur. 5. c. 6. acknowledge that such Crosses of wood were then amongst Christians frequently vsed set vp in Churches S. Ignatius epist. ad Philip. doth acknowledge diuine power vertue in the image of the Crosse. It is sayth he the victorious trophey or the monument of Christs victory against the Diuell quod vbi viderit horret S. Martial Epist. ad Burdeg l. 8. exhorts Christians still to haue the Crosse before them in mente in ore in signo in mind in mouth in the image thereof this being the inuincible armour of a Christian agaynst Satan The Canons of the Apostles haue beene euer famous in the Christian Church wherof one is cited in 2. Nicen Synode which sayth Let not the faythfull be deceyued by Idolls but paint the diuine humane vnmingled image of the true God our Sauiour Iesus Christ of his seruants agaynst Pagans Iewes that so they neyther goe astray vnto Idolls nor be like the Iewes Finally that these images of Christ crucified were vsed in the Apostles time by their allowance the Iesuite proueth by the text of S. Paul to the Galathians 3.1 so cleerly as you are forced to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify to depaint agaynst all Lexicons agaynst the principall Protestants that so translate yea agaynst your selfe and yet you wonder at your aduersaries wondrous weakenes THE SECOND AND THIRD POINT 2. Prayings offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary 3. VVorshipping Inuocation of Saints and Angells I Haue ioyned these two Controuersyes togeather hoping I might doe it with your Maiesties good liking the maine difficulty of thē both being the same to wit worship and Inuocation of Angells and Saints For I am fully perswaded that if your Maiesty did allow of Inuocation of any Saint you would neuer deny that deuotion vnto the B. Virgin mother of God Opera Regia Respons ad ep Card. Peron p. 402. whome you honour and reuerence aboue the rest though perchance you may dislike some particular formes of our prayers that seeme to giue her Tytles aboue that which is due to a creature about which I shall in the end of this discourse endeauour to giue your Maiesty satisfaction In which question I will suppose without large and particular proofe being able to prooue it by testimonyes vndeniable if need be that Worship Inuocation of Saints hath byn generally receaued in the whole Christian Church at least euer since the dayes of Constantine HEERE the Minister either out of ignorāce or rather out of desire to out-face the truth writes in this sort pag. 290. You presuppose that which notwithstanding your outfacing you will neuer be able to proue that Inuocatiō of Saints was vniuersally receaued as an article of faith This Discourse following is an addition wherin is declared that the Ancient Fathers held Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth euer since the dayes of Cōstantine Thus he Wherfore aswell because the matter is important as also to take away this tergiuersation I will heere make good the Answerers word and demonstrate that al the Fathers some one way some another haue testifyed to the world that they held Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Christian fayth and Religion An eleauen Demonstrations that the Ancient Christian Church did euer hold Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth and Religion § 1. TO accomplish this more cleerly and with lesse tediousnesse vnto the Reader I shal reduce the Fathers saying vnto an eleauen heads which may serue as an eleauen different arguments demonstrations of this truth The first Demonstration If the Fathers held the doctrine that Saints are to be inuocated that men are aided by their merits as certain infallible then they held it as a point of faith or a reuealed truth for on what other ground but the word of God could they pretend to hold it as certaine the same not being euident in the light of nature But the Fathers teach this doctrine as a matter certayne and infallible not to be doubted of by Christians as their words declare S Augustine (a) Augustine de cur◠pro mortuis cap. 16. Illa quaestio vires superat intelligentiae meae quemadmodum Martyres opitulentur ijs quos per eos CERTVM est adiuuari This question is beyond the reach of my knowledge how martyrs help them whome it is CERTAINE that they help And againe (*) Idem serm 244. Tunc pro nobis absque vlla dubitatione Sancti Martyres intercedunt Then WITHOVT ANY DOVBT the holy Martyrs intercede for vs when they find in vs some part of their vertues S. Ambrose (b) Ambros. ser. 91. Quid non credunt vtrum quòd à martyribus possunt aliqui visitari hoc est Christo nou credere ipse enim dixit Et maiora his facietis Not to belieue that Martyrs may visit and relieue men liuing in this world is Not to belieue in Christ seing he sayd you shall do yet greater thinges Nectarius speaking vnto Saint Theodore Martyr (c) Nectar orat in primū Sabb. sanctorum Ieiuniorum in S. Theodorum Te post mortem viuere CREDIMVS vt ergo in Christo viuis stas prope eum precibus tuis propitium eum redde famulis tuis We belieue that thou doest liue in God a life without decay or end Therefore as thou doest liue in Christ stands by him so make him by thy prayers propitious mercyfull vnto vs thy seruants What is this but to say that as certainly as Saints see God so certaine it is that they pray for vs and heare our prayers S. Gregory Nazianzen (d) Gregory Nazianzen orat 26. in patrem suum Apostolium ferè ab initio NEC DVBITO quin hoc nunc quoque magis faciat postulatione sua quā priùs doctrinâ I do NOT DOVBT but this blessed Saint in
could not haue more fondly sensed them For his Maiesty speaking of prayers and denying merit vnto the repeating of prayers what according to sense could he meane but the merit proper of prayers which is to impetrate or obtayne And so the Iesuit prouing the speciall merit of Impetration hath proued what his Maiesty questioned As for your selfe seeing you deny not that vnto repetition of prayers speciall merit of Impetration is affixed I do not doubt but you yield the very Doctrine his Maiesty disliked to wit that repetition of prayers in a fixed number hath speciall force and efficacy to impetrate certayne number for the causes before mētioned destitute of the example of Saints that liued in the best ages of the Church Palladius in his history cap. 14. 25. setteth downe some examples of Saints praying in this kind Yea the Century-writers Cent. 4. col 1329. and Osiander acknowledge the example of Saint Paul a most holy Monke liuing in the fourth age after Christ that In dies singulos trecentas orationes Deo velut tributum reddidit ac ne per imprudentiam in numero erraret trecentis lapillis in sinum coniectis ad singulas preces singulos eiecit lapillos consumptis igitur lapillis constabat sibi orationes lapillis numero pares abs se expletas esse Which example of so great a Saint so knowne and notorious (u) The Minister answereth that singular exāples are no rule for Ammonius being sollicited to be a Bishop cut of his owne eare yet he is not imitable herein so neyther is S. Paules exāple in saying prayers vpon Beades to be followed I Answere Some thinges are such of their owne nature as they cannot be done lawfully and with out sinne but by special reuelation as the killing mayming himselfe in which kind examples in Scripture or else where related are admirable not imitable But when the thinge vsed by some singular Saint is not agaynst any law of God or man but a thinge that may be done without speciall reuelation the same is imitable by all others in due circumstances Now what law diuine or human forbids a man to say three hundred prayers a day one hundred to ech of the three Diuine Persons Or what law doth prohibit him to vse 300. little stones or beades in numbring them for help of Memory Or why may we not help our memory in numbring our deuotions by calculation of Beades if S. Paules example be pious and laudable If to say Prayers in a certayne number vpon beades be intrinsecally euill it cannot be done piously by the singular instinct of Gods Spirit seing God can neuer inspire men to doe any thinge that is essentially euill If it be not of it selfe essentially euill why should Protestants forbid men to vse such helpes of our deuotion except they can shew an expresse positiue Diuine law in Scripture agaynst it and neuer censured by any Father may more then abundantly suffice for satisfaction in a matter of no more moment then this For we are not curious in this Point nor doe require of any man that he say his prayers in a certaine number so that he may not say more or lesse as his deuotion serues him THE SIXTH POINT The doctrine of Transubstantiation YOVR Excellent Maiesty submitting your Iudgement to Gods expresse word doth firmely belieue the body of Christ to be truly present in the most venerable Sacrament of the Altar which doctrine doth naturally and necessarily inferre whatsoeuer the Church of Rome holds as matter of Fayth concerning the manner of this Presence To declare this and togeather answere an Obiection much vrged by some Protestants that they belieue the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament but are not boūd by this to belieue the Manner that not being expressed in Scripture We must note that men are bound firmely to belieue the manner of a mystery reuealed when the same belongs to the substance therof so that reiecting the manner we reiect the beliefe of the substance of the mystery This is euident and may be declared by the example of the mystery of the Incarnation the substance wherof is that in Christ Iesus the nature of God and the nature of man are so vnited that God is truly Man man verily God The manner of this mystery is ineffable and incomprehensible yet we are bound to belieue three thinges concerning it which if we deny we deny the mystery in substāce howsoeuer we may retayne the same in words First that this vnion is not only Metaphoricall (a) Non affectualis vnitas sed secundū subsistentiam Synodus 5. Generalis quae est Constantinop 2. Can. 4. by Affection as two persons that are great friends may truly be sayd to be all one but also true and Reall Secondly reall Vnion of natures is (b) Qui nō confitetur Dei verbū substantialiter VNIRI carni Anathema sit Synod Chal. act 5. Synod quinta General can 5. substantiall and not accidentall so that therby the nature is not only accidentally perfected by receauing excellent participations of the diuine nature power wisdome and Maiesty but also substantially the very fulnes of the God-head dwelling corporally and substantially in him Thirdly that this substantiall Vnion is not according to the Natures so that the nature of God the nature of man became one and the same nature as Eutiches taught but (c) Ex duabus naturis secundū substātiā vnitis vnum eumdem Christū qui non confitetur condēnatus est Concil Lateran sub Martin 1. Can. 6. Hypostaticall whereby God and Man became one and the same person These particulars about the manner of the Incarnation though high subtill and incomprehensible to reason Christians may and must belieue because they belong to the substāce of the Mystery and are declared by the Church in generall Councels though the vulgar be not bound explicitely to know them In this sort we say that the manner how our Sauiours Body is in the Sacrament of his last Supper must be belieued may not be denyed as farre as it concernes the very life being and substance of the Mystery reuealed Which mystery in substance is that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament in such sort that the Priest minister therof demonstrating what seemeth bread may truly say thereof in the person of Christ This is my body This supposed as the substāce of the mystery I inferre that two Catholike doctrines concerning the manner of this mystery belong to the substance of this mystery cannot be called in question without danger of misbeliefe First the Real Presence of the whole body of Christ vnder the formes of bread Secondly that this is done by Transubstantiation An Addition prouing the Catholicke Reall Presence according to the litterall Truth of Gods Word agaynst Ministeriall Metaphores Figures and Shifts HIS Maiesty in questioning onely Transubstantiation seemeth to suppose the Reall Presence of the Body and Blood of our
Optat. l. 6. cont Parmenian Sed quia qui saucium commendauerat se promiserat redditurum quicquid in curam amplius erogasset post impensos duos denarios non praecepta sed consilium erogat Paulus Nec impedimentum est voluntati nec nolentes impellit aut cogit Qui dederit inquit virginem suam bene facit qui non dederit melius facit Hae sunt verba Consilij nec sunt vlla praecepta coniuncta Saint Hierome (q) Hier. aduersus Iouin cap. 7. l. 1. Plus amat Christus Virgines quia sponte tribuunt quod sibi non fuerat imperatum maiorisque gratiae est offerre quod non debeas quà m reddere quod exigaris Saint Chrysostome (r) Chrys. hom 8. de Poenitentia Nequaquam Dominum incuses haud mandat impossibilia multi ipsa superant mandata Saint Gregory Nazianzen (s) Greg. Naz. orat 3. In legibus nostris alia parendi necessitatem imponunt nec siue periculo praetermitti possunt alia non necessitate constringunt sed in arbitrio voluntate posita sunt ac proinde hanc rationem habent vt qui ea custodierint praemijs honore afficiantur qui autem minus ea expleuerint nihil periculi pertimescant Saint Cyprian (t) Cypr. de habitu Virginem prope finem Non iubet virginitatem Dominus sed hortatur nec iugum necessitatis imponit quando manet voluntatis arbitrium liberum Origenes (u) Orig. in cap. 15. ad Rom. Eaqua supra debitum facimus non facimus ex praecepto verbi causa virginitas non ex debito soluitur sed supra debitum offertur I will not bring more proofes of this doctrine out of Scripture which the Fathers I cited proue by the words of Saint Paul (x) 1. Cor. 7. in expresse tearmes affirming that there are besides Precepts works of Supererogation or Counsells De virginibus praeceptum Domini non habeo sed consilium do Nor will I alleadge more testimonies of Fathers which might be produced in great number most playne and pregnant Only I cannot omit one place of Saint Ambrose who deliuering this doctrine doth togeather answere a Protestant vulgar obiection agaynst it (y) Ambros. l. de viduis vltra medium Itaque qui praeceptum impleuerint possunt dicere serui inutiles sumus quod debuimus facere fecimus Hoc virgo non dicit non dicit qui bona sua vendidit sed quasi reposita expectat praemia sicut Sanctus Apostolus ait Ecce nos reliquimus omnia secuti sumus te quid ergo erit nobis Sunt enim (z) Luc. 17. v. 10. Matth. 19. v. 17. Ibid. v. 12. spadones qui se castrauerunt propter regnum Caelorum sed hoc non omnibus imperatur sed ab omnibus flagitatur Virgo prouocatur consilijs non vinculis alligatur sed nec vidua praeceptum accipit sed consilium What can be more cleerly spoken for works of Supererogation or Coūsells Neyther is there any arrogancy as I said before in this doctrine For neyther the Fathers nor we attribute more vnto man then Protestants doe but only acknowledge one kind of diuine liberality towards man which Protestants be some-what backward to belieue for supposing that God exacteth much lesse then he might much lesse then man is able by his grace to performe Protestants will not deny but a man may offer vnto God some voluntary seruices beyond commaunded duties Catholikes also graunt that had God vsed the vttermost seuerity of charging vs with debts as he might haue done we could neuer by any measure of grace that now is ordinarily affoarded vnto men haue complyed with all our obligations much lesse haue performed vnrequired offices The difference therfore betweene them and vs is this They thinke that God seuerely exacteth of man that euer in all occasions he worke according to the vtter most of his power yea commaunds him thinges impossible for him to performe Contrariwise we hold that God to the end his Law may be vnto men a sweet yoke a light loade and his Commaundements not difficile doth not exact of man all that man is able to doe with his grace but much lesse and so much lesse as man is able through this remission to offer him liberalityes What pride is it for man to acknowledge this sweet prouidence of his Creatour to prayse his mercyfull Indulgence in not exacting so much as he might specially belieuing that this diuine Indulgence not to exact of man consequētly mans ability to present vnto God more perfect and excellent seruice then he requires is giuen him through the merits of CHRIST IESVS The doctrine of Satisfaction §. 4. THE other part of this Cōtrouersy proposed by your Maiesty about workes referred vnto the Treasure of the Church concernes good Workes not as they are meritorious of reward but as they are satisfactory for sinne For the workes of Saints as they are merits be layd vp not in the Treasury of the Church to be applyed vnto others but in the memory of God to receyue their deserued guerdon in due tyme (a) What the Minister heere Cauilleth about Communion of Satisfactions not of merits betwixt Saynts is refelled after ward §. 5. in the Annotation at lit x This doctrine of Satisfaction is like vnto the former of Merit much spoken against by many disliked in the highest degree who yet perchance doe not much vnderstand what they so earnestly impugne as may appeare by this briefe declaration of our doctrine in this point First we doe not thinke that any sinner can make satisfaction by works vnto God for the guilt of Mortall or damnable sinne The reason is because works of Satisfaction are such as merit pardon and obtayne it by some kind of Iustice from God The works of his Children may merit in this sort as being the workes of them that are instruments of the holy Ghost dwelling operating within them liuing members of Christ his mysticall body receauing influence of life and operation from him as from their head Sinners are neyther the Children of God nor the Temples of the Holy Ghost nor liuing members of Christ so their workes cannot be so gracious as they may deserue any thing as due to them in any kind of Iustice from God much lesse can they deserue so great a reward as remission of mortall sinne and of the eternall punishment due thereunto Secondly we doe not teach that any Saint or Angell can make satisfaction vnto God for the mortall sinne of any man no not all Saints Angells putting togeather all their good works and satisfactions The reason is because an Iniury is so much the greater by how much the person that offers it is Base and the person to whome it is offered is Noble as the light of reason the estimation of mankind sheweth But God whome man casteth away abandoneth by sinne consequently wronges is of infinite dignity and
man offending him comparatiuely with him infinitely base wherfore mortall sinne which is an abandoning of God for some transitory content is iniury done vnto God incomparably grieuous On the other side satisfaction is the lesse esteemed by how much the person satisfying is meane and the person offended great Men and Angells what are they being compared with God Certainly nothing therfore certainly their works satisfactions are inestimably disproportionable to satisfy for any the least mortall sinne the guilt wherof is so great a debt as it is vnsatisfiable but only by the precious bloud of the Sonne of God He being a person Coequall Consubstantiall with his Father to satisfy Gods anger by humbling the infinite dignity of his persō vnto the most disgracefull death of the Crosse offered satisfaction full and complete yea superabundant the person satisfying in regard of his Diuinity being infinitly more honorable then the person offending was contemptible by reason of his basenes Thirdly the Roman Church teacheth that those that haue byn made the Childrē of God by Baptisme if they sinne mortally afterward when they repent God forgiues them the guilt of sinne and consequently the eternall punishment by the Sacrament of Pennance bountifully graciously through the meer merits of Christ without their satisfaction only they must by Fayth by feare by hope by Contrition by purposes of amendment prepare make themselues capable of that gracious and grace-infusing pardon Fourthly the Roman Church holdes that God by Pennance forgiuing the eternall punishment doth in lieu thereof many tymes appoint a taske of tēporall paine to be endured by the Penitent This reserued penalty is greater or lesser according to the multitude and grieuousnes of the sinnes committed and is that for which penitents may and must satisfy And why may not the penall workes performed by the Children of God beautifyed by so many aforenamed excellent graces be sufficient to deserue of God the remission of this temporall mulct and cancell the debt of enduring transitory payne I could bring testimonyes of the most ancient Fathers in great number for the necessity we haue of suffering these voluntary afflictions for sinnes and of the efficacity therof to expiate sinne with the very name of Satisfaction (*) The Minister would fayne elude this consent of Fathers by diuers Shifts but two be the chiefe which I will heere fully refute Pag. 544. he saith The Romists in their course of doctrine about Satisfaction peruert all that which the Fathers taught First that which the Fathers speake of the fault and guilt of sinne they wrest to the temporall payne of mortall sinne remayning after the remission of the euerlasting guilt Answer You are according to the Ministerial wōt proud bold in your accusations but poore and miserable in your proofs You say the Fathers spake not of the tēporall payne of mortall sinne but of the very guilt thereof And in another place pag. 547. yet more boldely WHAT SOEVER is spoken in holy Scripture or by the ancient Fathers concerning redeming sinnes by satisfaction belonges to the fault and eternall payne of sinne and this satisfaction must be performed by the delinquent himselfe in this present life This you say but proue it not yea the contrary is cleere truth and proued by these 4. or 5. Arguments First if after the remission of the euerlasting guilt there remayne a temporall payne to be mitigated and taken away by penitential workes then there is no reason to thinke but the Fathers spake something thereof But your selfe p. 540. lin vlt. say That there is a remaynder of Temporall affliction after the remission of the guilt of sin And pag 541. lin 7. That this temporall payne may be remoued or mitigated by workes of mortification and pennance Therefore you haue no reason to thinke the Fathers neuer spake thereof Secondly The Fathers spake of that kind of satisfaction which Dauid made vnto God for his adultery and murder of Vrias yea they make this satisfaction of Dauid the prototype and perfect patterne of that satisfaction they require Hilarius in Psal. 118. alij But Dauid his satisfaction by patient enduring penaltyes inflicted was satisfaction for the temporal payne and not for the staine and eternal guilt of sinne which was remitted longe before presently vpon his inward contrition and repentance Dominus à te transtulit peccatum tuum 2. Reg. 12.13 Therefore the satisfaction which Scriptures and the Fathers require is for the temporall payne not for the guilt of mortall sinne Thirdly the Fathers teach that after inward griefe and contrition for sinne by which they knew the guilt of sinne and of eternall payne was remitted according to the truth of Gods word Ezechiel 18.22 long continued satisfaction must be done to pacify Gods wrath Cyprian Epist. 40. Dominus longa continua satisfactione placandus est But the guilt of sinne and eternall paine being remitted men need not nor cannot satisfye but for the temporall Fourthly the Fathers teach that men must seeke to satisfye for their sinnes euen after they be iust and Gods adopted Children Hierom. in Epitaph Paulae but in the Children of God the euerlasting guilt is remitted and nothing can remayne to be remoued by satisfaction but the guilt of Temporall payne Finally the Fathers teach that after this life often there remayneth something of sinne to be expiated by Purgatory paynes from which soules may be released and relieued by the pious workes of their liuing friends So sayth S. Augustine expressely l. 21. de Ciuit. c. 24. serm 32. de verbis Apostol and many others I omit other demonstrations of this truth To what you so much obiect that Fathers say men must redeeme their sinns and satisfy for their offences to God I Answere By sinne they meane the payne due vnto sinne which is tearmed sinne because it is the effect of sinne Hence sinne is sayd after the remission thereof to remayne in the soule to wit in his effect nor can the soule be sayd to be fully cleansed vntill this debt be satisfyed Minister pag. 544. Secondly that which the Fathers stiled Satisfaction improperly and by way of deprecation the Romists make satisfaction of condignity yea of rigour of Iustice. Nazarius in 3 p. D. Thom. q. 1. art 2. controu 7. pag. 113. And for veniall sinne more effectuall then Christs satisfaction Suarez Tom. 4. in 3. p. disp 48. sect 3. Answere Your slaūdring humour is intolerable Nazarius sayth proueth that our satisfactiō neither is nor can be in rigour of iustice He addeth If our satisfaction be ioyned with Christs dicetur eam esse de rigore iustiti◠ratione satisfactionis Christi it shall be sayd to be in rigour of iustice in respect not of it selfe but of the satisfaction of Christ. Hence you charge him with this proposition Men may make satisfaction to God in rigour of iustice Verily you may as well accuse S. Paul of making himselfe omnipotent absolutely and without any
being not only as satisfactions but also as merits superfluous in respect of himselfe be communicable vnto other not only as satisfactory for their sinnes but also as meritorious of glory for them In the Saynts liuing vpon earth it is not so For they be not in glory nor can they in this life be so perfect but they may merit still more more glory and as they merit more and more so their reward is greater and greater Hence their workes as meritorious of heauen can neuer be superfluous nor without the effect of a full and condigne reward in their owne persons whereby it cometh also to passe that nothing of their merits superabounds to be communicated vnto others But of their workes as satisfactory for Temporall reserued payne there is not the same reason For some Saints may be preserued by speciall grace from al actual sinne as the Blessed Virgin was or from any greuous sinne as was S. Iohn Baptist Others though they committed some mortall sinnes when they repent the penalty reserued after the remission thereof being finit temporall they may by voluntary assumption or diuine infliction endure more payne then is the reserued Hence Saynts may haue satisfaction which superabouÌ„ds that is which hath not the reward of remission of temporall payne in their owne persons and consequently satisfactions that be communicable vnto others though the merit of their workes be still proper to themselues and incommunicable If the Minister will continue his rayling agaynst this reason he may but I doe not doubt could he deliuer reasons for his Protestant Doctrine so drawne out of the bowells and principles of Christian Theology as this is he would not rayle so much as he doth but yield his Reader some learned discourses in lieu of so many bitter inuectiues Minister pag. 555. Though the superabundant satisfactions want the proper fruite and reward of satisfaction yet this being recompensed by a large increase and surplasage in an other kind can be no dishonour to God As prayer though sometimes the same want the most proper fruite and effect thereof which is to obtayne the thinge requested yet is the same otherwise sufficiently rewarded ANSWERE Your Example makes agaynst your selfe for pious and Godly prayer being both meritorious of heauen and impetratory of what is requested neuer wants eyther of these two fruites For as it doth still merit new increase of glory so doth it still obtayne the thinge requested so farre as it is requested for the thinge is requested by Godly prayer so farre as it is profitable for the soule according to Gods holy will but so farre it is still impetrated And if the particular thinge requested be not for the soules greater good another thing is obtained in lieu therof that is better Hence I thus argue You grant if there be superabondant satisfactions of Saynts the same must be rewarded by the proper fruite of satisfaction as much as prayer hath still the reward of impetration But prayer is still rewarded with the fruite of impetration eyther in the person of him that prayeth or in some other person for which it is offered Ergo the superaboundant satisfactions of Saints must haue the reward of satisfactioÌ„ which seing they cannot haue in their persons they must haue it in some other partyes to whome it is applyed The Minister pag. 556. If one should affirme It is more for Christs glory to purchase to himselfe a people which in this life is perfectly innocent then to purchase a people carrying alwayes about them the remaynder of sinne he should not honour Christ but proue himselfe a lyer 1. Iohn 1.8 so likewise to affirme It is a greater honour to Christs merits to purchase Saynts that can make condigne and superabondant satisfaction for their sinnes carryeth a shew of honouring Christ but is in truth a Sacrilegious errour Answere First the power and strength of the Diuine grace is better seen in infirmityes and in men compassed about with the remaynders and incombrances of sinne as S. Paul sayth 2. Cor. 12.9 and S. Augustine That the grace of Innocency was felicior but the grace of redemption is fortior de Corr. grat c. 11. Secondly â—f Christ did purchase to himselfe some excellent Saynts that did make condigne satisfactions this is an honour to his merits But the Scripture and Fathers affirme that he hath purchased to himselfe Saynts that can and do offer vnto God condigne fruites and works of pennance satisfactions compensations Sacrifices of iustice pennance equall commeasured vnto the quantity of the sinne in respect of the reserued debt of Temporall payne as hath been shewed yea that Saynts by their works obtaine a crowne of glory so as God giueth it them proceeding as a iust iudge 2. Tim. 4.8 Ergo this is an honour to Christ in truth and to say it is a Sacrilegious errour is blasphemy The Minister pag. 357. The Communion of Saynts in respect of the liuing is compartnership in fayth c. Answere The word of the Creed Communion of Saynts is absolute without restraynt not to be limited by the brayne fancy of a Minister Hence it imports that betweene Saynts there is a Communion of all graces and perfections which superabound in the one and are needed of the other But good workes according as they are satisfactioÌ„s superabouÌ„d in some Saynts are needed of some other as hath been shewed Therfore betweene Saynts there is Communion in respect of them The Minister pag. 558. Dauid was a man full of grace according to the hart of God c. and so did not need the superabondant satisfactions of others Wherefore in respect of this Communion he did not reioyce saying Psal. 118. I am O Lord partaker of all that feare thee Answer Suppose Dauid did not need the satisfaction of other Saynts yet he might reioyce in that he was a member of the house of Saints who may participate of the superaboundaÌ„t satisfactions of others if they need them that he did not need them he knew not certaynly after he had committed the two enormous sinns To the place of S. Paul 1. Coloss. 22. I ioy in my sufferings for you and I make full the thinges that want of the sufferings of Christs in my flesh for his Body which is the Church The Minister pag. 559. Christs passions are of two kinds some personall and in his owne flesh some by simpathy and compassion of others The first are satisfactory and S. Paul supplyed not or perfected not them for then Christs sufferings were imperfect The second are Exemplare Purgatiue Probatiue and for the edifying of the Church these S. Paul did accomplish and supply Answere To shew the weakenesse of your Reply I aske whether Christs sufferings on the Crosse as exaÌ„ples were imperfect or not If you say they were imperfect perfectible by Creatures you blaspheme also you may as truly say his satisfaction was imperfect and suppliable by the addition of Saints If you
vnto men through Gods only mercy but by merit of Good workes done by the power of grace by workes I say so good and gracious as God may according to them giue eternall life as a crowne proceeding as a iust Iudge as the Scripture teacheth 2. Tim. 4.8 and in a thousand other places In the same manner the remission of the stayne of mortall sinne of the eternall guilt purchased by the death of Christ is applyed vnto particular persons by meere grace by vertue of the Sacraments and the sinners humble preparation to receaue the same But the releasement of Tēporall punishment reserued is not giuen of meere mercy but penitents being now Gods Children after the gracious pardon of the sinne eternall guilt must to obtaine full remission do fructus dignos poenitentiae Matth. 3.8 Luc. 3.8 condigne workes of pennance satisfactions compensations iust worthy condigne equall vnto the quantity of the reserued sinne or penalty as hath been proued by the Fathers Hence as eternall Glory though it be an effect of Christs merits only yet is it not giuē but vnto such works as God may as a iust Iudge reward therewith so likewise remissiō of Temporal payne though purchased immediatly by the merits of Christ only yet is not applyed vnto the penitent Saynts without satisfaction equall condigne eyther done by the penitent himselfe or applyed vnto him out of the superabundant satisfactions of others by the vertue of Communion of Saynts Minister pag. 567. Daniel a sanctifyed person a Prophet able to communicate his satisfactions praying for the remission of the eternall and temporall guilt of sin presents not his owne satisfactions to God nor yet the super abundant merits and satisfactions of any Patriarkes but resteth wholly vpon the free mercy of God and the future satisfafactions of the Messias to come Daniel 9.7 Answere First your argument Daniel in this prayer did not offer vnto God the superabundant satisfactions of Saynts Ergo they may not be offered is idle For though there be superabundant satisfactions of Saynts yet it is not necessary that in euery prayer we obsecrate God by them Secondly you cannot proue that Daniel did not offer superabundant Saintly satisfactions If you say the Scripture doth not mention any such oblation and therfore he made no such oblation your argumēt is reproued by your own assertion Your selfe say that Daniel did obsecrate God not only by his mercies but also by the future satisfaction of the Messias to come and yet these future satisfactions be not mentioned by the Scripture as any part of his prayer but only Gods mercyes not for our owne righteousnes but for thy great mercyes Why then may not we say Daniel alleadged the superabundant satisfactions of Saynts though the Scripture make not mention that he did Thirdly no doubt Daniell was of the same Religion that the three Children his companions were who praying for the remission of their sinnes and of their whole people offered vnto God the merits of the Patriarkes saying For Abraham thy beloued for Isaac thy seruant for Israel thine holy One. Daniel 3.35 The Minister pag 567. lin 23. being angry at the Iesuit that he doth so sleight the Protestant arguments in this poynt sayth If the Iesuit be so rigide as to admit no argument on our part which may receaue any colourable answer I intreate him to deliuer so much as one probable Argument I will not require a Demonstration that the Roman Bishops haue power ouer the soules of Purgatory Answer When you shal find in the Iesuits writings that the Pope hath power ouer the soules of Purgatory or can by way of authority dispose of thē I wil promise you that he shal bring ten thousand demōstrations in proofe thereof The meane while the world may see your vanity desire to delude them You know that the Iesuit can bring euident proofes for euery point of his Religion and therfore you charge him to prooue what is no part of his fayth to bring probable arguments for that doctrine which he doth not hold as probable to wit that the Pope can by way of power and authority deliuer soules out of Purgatory The Pope by the power of his Keyes may grant pardon vnto the liuing out of the treasury of Christ his satisfaction and the satisfactions of the liuing may be applyed to releeue the dead as the Fathers most cleerly and vniformely teach But the Keyes of Peter can only bind and loose vpon earth and absolue from sinne and penalty the liuing Ministers when they dispute with Catholikes be like vnto a man that sitteth on thornes so pricked and vrged with the euidencyes of the present argumēts as they would fayne be remoouing to some other Controuersy they care not to what Thus you in this place are so galled to see your vanity displayed by the Iesuit as you wish your selfe euen in Purgatory to be rid of the Iesuits vrging pag. 563. lin 23. I dare say had his Maiesty proposed the question Whether some soules be purged by Temporall payne after this life their state being releeuable by the suffrages of the liuing the Iesuit would haue so scorched your Infidelity with the cleere testimonyes of Scriptures and Fathers as you would haue runne as fast from Purgatory as you now would fayne be in it Whether the Pope haue authority in Purgatory or no you need not greatly care being sure belieuing as you do neuer to come thither nor after death within the precincts of Peters Dominion who beares the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen No doubt you are to fall into a lower place except you repent of that heauy sinne so cleerly discouered in this your Reply to impugne known truths to falsify our Authors of purpose to make the doctrine of the Church seeme odious Of which damnable and hardly remissible crime I beseech sweet Iesus of his infinit mercy to giue you grace to be purged in this present life that so there may be some hope you may be saued at the least by Purgatory in the next not for eternall but only temporall Punishment (*) The Ministers rayling Arguments against the former doctrine censured I shall not need particularly to refell the vulgar obiections agaynst this doctrine all which proceed vpon mistaking impugne what we neuer dreamed off They proue that Christ only dyed for the world and redeemed mankind not any Saint who doubts thereof That we are sanctifyed and washed from the stayne of sinne by the bloud of the Lambe not of any Saint We confesse it They bring the testimonyes of Saint Leo of Saint Augustine that the Saints receaued Crownes of God gaue not Crownes vnto others but only Christ we neuer did nor will deny it That only in Christ we dye to sinne are raysed agayne soule and body vnto eternall life we neuer taught the Contrary For the satisfaction of Saints haue not vertue to redeeme the world nor to satisfy for the guilt of
say his sufferings as examples were perfect and full yet were supplyed by Saint Paul why may not the same sufferings as satisfactions be supplyed by S. Paul without being imperfect For Saint Paul is sayd to supply the sufferings of Christ as satisfactory not because they were not of infinit value but because God will haue the satisfactions of his seruants to be ioyned with Christs that Christs may haue their full effect euen to the cancelling of the debt of temporall payne Minister pag. 564. The indulgences Tertullian opposed were the same whereof S. Cyprian speaketh Epist. 10.11.12 to wit relaxation of Canonicall censures and pennances to notorious sinners at the request of martyrs liuing in prison Answere It is true Tertullian being an Heretike opposed such indulgences as S. Cyprian doth mention as allowed in the Catholike Church But that these indulgences were only relaxations of Canonicall pennances censures you say but shew not yea that the pennances released were required in foro conscientiae to satisfy Gods anger appeareth by S. Cyprian his words in that tenth Epistle by you mentioned Deo patri misericordi satisfacere pro delictis suis poenitentiam agentes possunt And that penitents to make this full satisfaction vnto God and so obtayne pardon were holpen by the suffrages of Martyrs the same Saint Cyprian doth affirme Epist. 13. They who haue receaued bills from the Martyrs to be released of their Pennance may by the PREROGATIVE OF MARTYRS BE HOLPEN WITH GOD. And Epist. 14. They who bring the Bills from the Martyrs may by THEIR HELP BE AYDED IN THEIR SINNES This Catholike practise of pardoning vnto Penitents the reserued temporall penalty by the application of Martyrs suffrages satisfactions to haue byn impugned by Tertullian in his heresy is manifest by his making the Penitent in an heretical humour to say to the Martyr who applyed his satisfaction for his pardon If thou be a sinner thou needest satisfaction and pardon thy selfe How then can thine oyle of satisfaction be sufficient both for thee and me Also the Martyrs that sued for pardon to be giuen to the penitents he accuseth of Prodigality therin which is a signe that Martyrs bestowed something that was their owne vpon penitents that they by vertue thereof might be pardoned which cannot be any thing besides their own sufferings according as they were satisfactory for sinne Minister pag. 565. The aduersary is so farre from being able to proue Popes pardons in Tertullians dayes That he caÌ„not proue they had any being in the dayes of Peter Lombard or Hugo Victor Answere Still you shew your selfe to be a bold affirmer about things you know not For what more euideÌ„t falshood then this you vent That Indulgences had not any being in the dayes of Peter Lombard The Waldensian Sect was in being in the dayes of Peter Lombard as doth witnesse Illyricus in catalog Test. colum 1498. and they as the same Illyricus doth record ibid. colum 1501. 1511. contemned and derided the indulgences of the Church which they would not haue done but that they saw the same had some being and vse then in the Church Pope Paschall the 2. some yeares before Peter Lombard graunted the Indulgences of 40. dayes to all that were present at the Lateran Generall Councell kept in his tyme as writeth Vrspergens Chron. an 1106. Vrban the second in the yeare 1096. before Peter Lombard was borne in the Generall Councell of Cleremont in France graunted a Plenary Indulgence vnto al that should go to fight for the recouery of the Holy Land yea Leo the third almost foure hundred yeares before Peter Lombard to wit eight hundred yeares agoe as writes S. Lutgerus in vita Sancti Switberti c. 9. did at the request of Charles the Great dedicate the temple of our Blessed Lady of Aquisgraâ—e donans eam multis indulgentijs bestowing many Indulgences vpon it Moreouer The Pope sayth he in France consecrated many Churches euery where graunting many indulgences And agayne The Pope graunted speciall Indulgences vnto the sayd Church for all the faythfull that should keep the feast of Saint Switbert and come on his day to heare diuine seruice Behold how frequent and ordinary a thing it was eight hundred yeares agoe for the Pope to giue out Indulgences which you say had not any being in the dayes of Peter Lombard Not only S. Thomas many Catholikes write that Saint Gregory the Great before the yeare six hundred graunted Indulgences but also Protestants as Fryar Bale Act. Rom. Pontif. printed at Basil Anno 1558. Gregory sayth he did confirme the deuotion of people in visiting images by granting them indulgences And agayne He was the first Pope that did grant Indulgences vnto theÌ„ that should vpon certayne dayes visit Churches And though we cannot directly proue that such generall Indulgences for all the faithfull were vsed before Saint Gregory yet it is not probable that holy Pope would vse it without the example of his predecessors yea had this practise been then nouell the same would haue been noted But whensoeuer the vse of such Indulgences began certayne it is that Personall Indulgences graunted vnto particular persons vpon particular examination of their cause were euer in vse since the Apostles tyme as doth appeare by the former testimony of S. Cyprian Tertullian Minister pag. 566. The holy Scripture teacheth expressely that all spirituall redemption is immediatly wrought by the bloud of Christ who purged sinne by himselfe Hebr. 1.3 But our Aduersaryes restrayne this and the like place to the stayne and eternall guilt of sin saying that the guilt of temporall payne is redeemed by Christ only mediatly by the satisfaction of Saynts Which is agaynst the Apostle Coloss. 2.12 affirming that Christ blotted out the handwriting of decrees contayned in the Law that was agaynst vs and that by himselfe but the temporary punishment is contayned within the latitude of the law Leuit. 26.14 Answere You do not vnderstand the Doctrine of your Aduersaryes or else wittingly misrelate the same For Catholikes distinguish the merit of Christs redemption and the conditions by meanes of which the same is applyed vnto particular persons All spirituall guifts of this life of the future all remissions of sinne eyther mortall or veniall all releasement of punishment eyther eternall or temporall is wrought by way of redemption immediatly only by the bloud Passion of our Sauiour But the condition which God requireth that the same be applyed vnto particular persons is not only the suffering of Christ nor is the same kind of condition required in respect of euery grace Some be giuen vpon condition of meere mercy some not otherwise then according to mens works The guift of iustifying grace is applyed vnto men by the vertue of Sacramtts through Gods only mercy the sinner by fayth pennance and contrition disposing his soule for the reception thereof But the grace and guift of eternall life purchased by Christ his bloud is not applyed