crime with which some Protestants charge vs that our receauing vnder the sole forme of bread is to iumpe in opinion with the Manichees we may as D. Morton confesseth reiect as iniurious saying That it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine but the reason of their forbearance that was iudged hereticall Morton Protestant Appeale lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 140. (*) Agaynst this explication of the place of Gelasius it is obiected that the same doth not agree with the reason of the Canon For Gelasius sayth men are not to be permitted to receaue but in both kinds because the diuision of one and the same Sacrament cannot be done without sacriledge The whole decree is this We find that some men hauing taken the portion of our Lords body refrayne from the Cup of the holy bloud Which men because they are imbued with I know not what superstitiō let them without any question receaue the whole Sacraments or nothing at all for the diuision of one and the same mystery cannot be vsed without a great Sacriledge I Answere first Gelasius doth not say no man is to be permitted to receaue in one kinde but only no superstitious abstinent Secondly his reason is not ōly because the deuiding of the Sacramēt is Sacriledg but quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are proued to be imbued with a certayne superstitious opinion to wit that the creature of wine is impure The discourse then of Gelasius is because these men are superstitiously conceyted that the creature of wine is the Diuells gall therefore by them the deuiding of the holy mystery receauing the consecrated Bread without the Cup sine grandi sacrilegio fieri non potest cannot be done without great Sacriledge Whēce he concludes proculdubio arceantur let such men be kept from Communion in one kind without any question mercy or indulgēce As if he had sayd Vnto men Orthodoxally conceited about the creature of wine Cōmunion in one kind may be granted sometimes vpon iust causes as if they be by nature abstemij that cannot endure wine But men that be superstitiously persuaded agaynst the nature of wine proculdubio arceantur let Communion in one kind be denyed vnto them without question and granted in no case because in respect of them Communion in one kind is euer Sacrilegious The Minister also in this place keepeth a styrre and would make the world belieue that the Iesuit Vasquez doth maynly oppose himselfe agaynst the Iesuit Answerer about this place of Gelasius The Iesuit sayth he is confuted by a learned and intelligent man of his owne Society to wit Vasquez who sayth that some of his party apply the place of Gelasius agaynst Manichees but this exposition agreeth not with the last clause of the Canon Answere You shew great desire to discredit your aduersary yet cannot you doe it so much as in this trifle with truth For in citing the censure of Vasquez you leaue out the principal word which being set down would haue marred your market Vasquez not only sayth that some of his side explicate the place of Gelasius of lay Manichees but also addeth his Iudgment about the same saying probabiliter explicant this their explication is probable Do not you see your falshood in citing and vanity in vrging this censure of Vasquez If this explication be probable euen by the Iudgment of Vasquez how is the Iesuit confuted by Vasquez of his owne Society as not answering your argument sufficiently Is it not sufficient that Catholicks bringe probable solutions vnto your arguments agaynst Christian customes defined in Councells and receaued in the Church before you or your Luther were borne You your selfe say pag. 11. That no man is to reiect the Doctrine and custome of the Church or the exposition of Scripture commonly and anciently receaued vpon vncertayne and probable reasons If the Iesuit hath answered your arguments probably as euen by this censure of Vasquez he hath then be your arguments at the most but probable and consequently your reuolt from the Church of Rome grounded thereon dānable Who now is condemned by Vasquez his Censure But Vasquez sayth that the Iesuits explication though it agree fitly to the rest of the decree of Gelasius yet cannot be fitted to the last branch thereof where Gelasius sayth that the diuision of the one and same mystery is Sacrilegious in it selfe and in nature Quare mihi magis placet altera explicatio Wherefore sayth Vasquez vnto me another explication seemeth more probable I Answere First Gelasius doth not say that the diuision of the mystery is in itselfe in nature a Sacriledge nor can it be very probably sayd that he did so meane For what sense is there in this discourse To deuide the Sacrament by receauing in one kind is a Sacriledge of his owne nature and absolutely in it selfe therefore let not these men be permitted in any case to receaue in one kinde quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are conuinced to hold superstitious Doctrine about the impurity of the creature of wine Besides had Gelasius meant that Communion in one kind is a sacriledge absolutely in it selfe he would haue decreed that not only superstitious mē but absolutely all men should be kept frō the same proculdubio without any question Wherfore Gelasius his decree cannot be better sensed then thus Because these men are conceyted superstitiously agaynst the creature of wine their receauing in one kind without the Cup can not but be impious Therefore proculdubio arceantur let not Communion in one kind be giuen vnto them in any case though vnto Orthodoxe people vpon iust reasons the same may be granted Secondly suppose all that Vasquez would cōclude to wit that another exposition is more probable what haue you gayned Surely nothing for this other exposition better liked by Vasquez is that Gelasius spake not of laymens receauing but of Priests that celebrate and consecrate affirming that it is sacrilegious in it selfe for Priests to cōsecrate without receauing in both kinds If the Iesuit Vasquez in this exposition and doctrine seeme to you learned intelligent be it so in Gods name you are satisfyed and your Aduersary contented for he did neuer meane to say that this explication is improbable specially the same being giuen by Gratian who read that Epistle of Gelasius which now it not extant This custome was the cause that Cyprian (o) Cyprian de Coena Domini sayth that the Law forbad the eating of bloud but the Ghospell commands the same should be drunke not only because some Christians to wit Priests are bound to drinke the bloud of Christ but also because Christ in his Ghospell did institute the Sacrament of his body bloud in both kinds whence grew the Custome of the primitiue Church to receaue in both kindes by custome there grew further an obligation to drinke of the cup except there were some iust cause of abstinence as in the sicke
parts howsoeuer the Angells sometimes for iust respects may in modesty refuse it Praying to Saints not iniurious to Gods mercy but rather a commendation thereof §. 4. THE fourth cause why Protestants out of their zeale refuse to inuocate Saints is the high conceite of Gods mercy For seing he calleth all men immediatly vnto himselfe (u) Matth. 11.18 Come vnto me all you that labour and I will refresh you we wrong his infinite goodnes in not approaching vnto him by prayer without the intercessions of Saints This their zeale is not ioyned with Science of the course of Gods mercyfull prouidence whose diuine wisdome prescribeth certayne bounds as it were Lawes to the infinity of his mercyes These orders and prescripts whosoeuer doth neglect yet hopes to obtaine fauours doth not truly confide but erroneously presume God is infinitely mercyfull and sayth Come to me all that labour yet the man that should seeke to him for remission of sinnes and would not submit himselfe to the Sacrament of water should hope in vayne to no purpose challenge him of his promise Come to me all Wherefore it imports vs very much to know and to vse those meanes of approaching vnto God that he hath appointed Now that the intercession of Saints is one meanes without which God wil not bestow many graces fauours aswell spirituall as temporall Christian Tradition doth deliuer vnto vs. This Tradition is also sutable with the bountifull and noble disposition of God which is not only to (x) 1. Reg. 2.30 honour glorify those that haue beene zealous of his honour to the effusion of their bloud but also to make the world know and vnderstand that he doth honour them (y) Psalm 1.38.17 for this knowledge is both for his glory and also for the good of men that seing how highly God honoreth his constant friends they be prouoked to endeauour by pure life to gaine his fauour If reuealed doctrine comming by succession of Bishops from the Apostles to vs will not alone wyn beliefe in this point euen the Scriptures affoard vs sufficient testimonyes thereof When Abimelech King of Gesara had offended God by taking away from Abraham his wife Sara and penitent of the fact though committed but in ignorance sought for pardon did not God himselfe send him vnto Abraham saying (z) Genes 20. vers 8. Restore his wife vnto the man for he is a Prophet and he will pray for thee and thou shalt liue By which example we see that Gods infinite mercy who sayth Come to me all will not many tymes bestow graces and fauours without intercession of his Saints that men may know he loues respects his friends When he was offended against Eliphas and his companions did he not send them vnto his singularly beloued seruant (a) The example of the freinds of Iob is not particular but for the instruction of all as S. Paul saith Whatsoeuer is written is written for our instruction and comfort Rom. 15.4 Hence it followes that whatsoeuer is said to one person in Scripture is said to euery one of the same state in whom the same circumstāces do concurre whether it be spoken by way of promise or warning or threate The promise made vnto Abraham Gen. 15.2 I am thy protectour agrees vnto all men that are as he was deuout worshippers of the true God What the Angell spake vnto Agar Gen. 16.9 Returne vnto thy Mistresse and be humbled vnder her is also spoken vnto euery proud fugitiue seruant Now these words spoken to the freinds of Iob Go to my seruant and my seruant shall pray for you and his presence I will regard were spoken to them in regard they had offended God did find that God would not heare their single prayers Therfore this precept belongs vnto all men that know they haue offended God and find their prayers not to be heard and togeather feele the instinct of sacred humility to seeke accesse vnto God by some of his seruants whom they know to be more gratious then themselues and able to helpe And who more gratious with God able to helpe vs then tryumphant Saints as hath been proued Therfore this precept is a warrant and an order vnto all men being in the same state circumstances of Gods offence as the freinds of Iob were to seeke and require the assistance intercession of Gods Blessed Saynts What the Minister here discourseth is all spoken in the ayre vpon his owne foolish imagination and fancy agaynst the full Traditiō of the Church and playne Scripture to wit that Saynts deceased be not the friends and fauorits of God that can help vs with him Iob that he might be a mediatour for them Ite ad seruum meum Iob offerte holocaustum pro vobis Iob autem seruus meus orabit pro vobis faciem eius suscipiam vt non vobis imputetur stultitia Iob. 42. vers 8. Out of which place two thinges are cleerly gathered First that though Gods mercy be infinite yet many tymes he will not grant our prayers but in such manner as he will make vs beholding to his Saints Secondly that we ought to prostrate our prayers vnto him as with great confidence in his goodnes so likewise with a most feeling humble distrust of our owne worthynes which affection cannot but mooue vs to seeke the intercession of them we know to be most highly gracious in his fauour So that vpon pretence of Gods great mercy to reiect the mediation of Saints is zeale without Science deuotion not throughly instructed about the lawes and orders that God hath prescribed vnto his measurelesse mercy by his incomprehensible wisdome And if we grieue to humble our selues vnto Saints and repine at Gods prouidence that he will not many tymes grant our supplications without honouring his Saints and making vs bound vnto them we may iustly expect to heare what he sayd to one in like case Friend I do thee no wrong may I not dispense my mercyes as I please If I will bestow them in such sort as to ioyne togeather with thy good the honour of my friends Is thine eye euill because I am good and courteous to thē that haue loued me more then their owne liues (b) The Minister pag. 334. lin 6. cauilleth That the Iesuits discourse is such as one may wonder and aske whether such discoursers euer heard that the sonne of God was crucified for vs Answer This cauill is at the least idle if not impious for it maketh as much against the discourse of God himselfe who said to the freinds of Iob Go to my seruant Iob and he shall pray for you and him I will regard in your behalfe without mention of Christ Iesus Will the Minister here wonder and aske whether God did know and remember that his Sonne was to be crucified for men and that mē could obtaine nothing of him but in regard of his future passion and merit God forbid he should be so
may flye to his mercy is vnderstood of veniall sinner which no man can totally auoyd which sinnes though they be not directly against the Diuine law nor properly agaynst any law yet they are agaynst the decency of reason the Diuine law supposed as hath been said Hence it followes that the coÌ„mitting of veniall sinnes doth not hinder but we may do works of supererogation not works of supererogation in rigour of iustice but through Gods merciful indulgeÌ„ce in not exacting of vs so much as he might Suppose a slaue being bound to worke 8. houres a day worke only seauen If his master forgiue him this fault without any new obligation but that henceforward he worke 8. houres a day this slaue if he worke afterward 10. houres a day doth he not a worke of supererogation Yes certaynly though a worke of supererogatioÌ„ grounded on his maisters benignity In this manner seeing God forgiueth his Children their dayly faults vpon their dayly crauing perdon without putting new obligations vpon them more then that they keepe still his law if they doe workes more then his law exacts they truly do workes of supererogation Minister pag. 526. No man though he giue all to the poore c. can exceed the highest and strictest measure of Charity and obedience in this life For the Euangelicall law commandeth vs to be perfect as our heauenly father is perfect Matth. 5.48 and to loue as Christ loued vs Rom. 5.7.8 and through the obligation of gratitude we owe vnto God according to S. Bernard Omne quod sumus omne quod possumus Answere The Euangelicall law doth not require that we should be perfect as God is in equality but only in similitude that as he loueth his enemyes and doth them good turnes that we likewise loue our Enemyes and doe them the good turnes we are bound to doe by his law which the Children of God by Diuine grace may do and more also Nor are we bound to haue charity equal vnto our Sauiours but only like vnto his to wit that as he loued vs so as he dyed for vs that we likewise dye for our brethren when need requires which many Saynts haue done and dayly do practise By the band of gratitude we owe vnto God all that we are and all that we can so fare as it is required by his law and no further We are bound by gratitude also in prâ—paratione animi to be ready to doe more then his law doth exact when he shall by speciall precept lay that obligation vpon vs. Hence it is manifest that the band of gratitude doth not hinder the possibility of doing works of supererogation as may be declared by this example Suppose the King pardon a gentleman condemned of treason and remit vnto him the forfeyture of his lands and goods whereby he oweth all he is and hath to the King in Gratitude Suppose also that the King exacting a Subsidy of his subiects require no more of this gentleman then he takes of another of his quality Verily this subiect is bound to giue no more then another and if he giue an hundred pound more theÌ„ any other it is a gratuity a worke of supererogation which he might haue omitted without any iust offence or ingratitude yet a gratuity grounded on the Kings manifold gracious liberalityes towardes him Such is our case with God He doth not exact of vs by the title of gratitude so much as he might by which his goodnes we are inabled to offer gratuityes vnto him which we might without offence or ingratitude not haue offered By the light of this annotation the mist of the Ministers Cauills is dissolued wherewith he would obscure the consent of Fathers about workes of superogation set downe in the next Paragraffe The Fathers taught works of Supererogation and proued them by Sccipture §. 3. BVT they that loue God so perfectly as they loue not only his Commaundements but also his Councells not only shunne such sins as separate from God but also such as hinder the perpetuall actuall loue of God These be they that doe more then they are commaunded that is doe workes of Supererogation And if your Maiesty call to mind vpon how manifold graces this Merit is grounded you will not I hope condemne the same of arrogancy but rather respect it as being taught by holy Fathers euen in the expresse tearmes of Supererogation In proofe wherof I alleadge these few testimonies Haymo a learned Expositor of Scripture liuing in the yeare 800. thus wryteth (g) Haymo in Euang. Domin post Pentecostem Supererogat stabularius quando hoc agit Doctor ex voto quod non accepit ex praecepto Quod fecit Paulus Apostolus quando habens licentiam vt Euangelium annuntians de Euangelio viueret hac vti potestate noluit sed die praedicans noctibus laborabat Venerable Bede in the yeare 700. vpon those words of Saint Luke (h) Beda in cap. 10. Luc. Quodcumque superogaueris ego cùm rediero reddam tibi Superogat stabularius quod in duobus denarijs non accepit cùm dicit Apostolus De Virginibus autem praeceptum Domini non habeo Consilium autem do S. Gregory the great in the yeare 590. alluding to this tearme of supererogating more then is receyued sayth (i) Greg. 1.26 mor. cap. 20. Multi virginitatis virtute pollent vt videlicet plus impendant obsequio quà m acceperunt praecepto S. Fulgentius in the yeare 500. (k) Fulg. Prolog in l. contra Monimum Quid est si quid supererogaueris nisi si quid à me magis acceperis Nam ipse qui supererogabat in eo quod non acceperat praeceptum sed dabat ex charitate Consilium Misericordiam se profitetur vtique consecutum S. Paulinus in the yeare 400. (l) Paulinus epist. 2. ad Seuerum Hic Samarites Christus redditurus est beatae virginitati de innumeris huius boni fructibus vberes gratias immortales coronas quia hoc consilium Praecepto adijciens de suo supererogauit Saint Augustine in the same Age (m) Aug. l. 2. q. Euangel cap. 30. In illis praeceptis Dominicis imperat vobis in his Consilijs si quid ampliùs supererogaueritis in redeundo reddet vobis And agayne (n) Idem ibid. cap. 19. Stabularius autem Apostolus est duo denarij duo Praecepta charitatis quam per spiritum Sanctum acceperant Apostoli ad Euangelizandum caeteris Quod supererogat autem illud est quod ait De virginibus autem praeceptum Domini non habeo eonsilium autem do And in another Booke (o) Aug. lib. de Adulteriu Coning lib. c. 14. Quae licita sunt nec vllo praecepto Domini prohibentur sed sicut expedit potiùs tractanda sunt non praescripto legis sed consilio charitatis Haec sunt quae amplius supererogantur saucio qui curandus ad stabulum Samaritani miseratione perductus est Optatus Mileuitanus in the yeare 376. (p)
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
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