no Sacrament can subsist tearmed by Deuines Materia Sacramenti This substantiall part is not wanting in the Sacrament giuen in one kind in which there is consecrated bread visible and sensible in the accidents thereof and manducation an action also visible and apparent to sense The second thing required to the substāce of the Sacramēt is Verbum the word that is a forme of speach shewing the diuine and supernatuall purpose vnto which the element is consecrated Neyther is that part wanting in the Sacrament giuen vnder one kind which is consecrated by the wordes of Christ This is my body and the Theologicall principle taken out of Saint Augustin verifyed accedit verbum ad elemētum fit Sacramentum The third thing is Signification euery Sacrament signifying some diuine effect of grace which God worketh by the application therof and the sensible signe euen by nature hath as Saint Augustine Epist. 23. noteth some proportion analogy to signify that diuine effect which to produce it is assumed by Gods omnipotency as an instrument This sacred signification which the holy Eucharist hath is of three kinds and all three are found in the Sacrament giuen vnder one kind First this Sacramēt is a signe of spirituall food for the nourishment and refection of the Soule which signification is manifestly found in Communiō vnder one (n) The Minister very often though out of place as pag. 470. li. 20. pa. 442. obiects If Communion in both kindes be not of the substance of the Sacrament why should Cōmunion in bread or wine be of the substance of the Sacrament Why may not Communion in Cheese be truly a Sacrament as well as Communion in one kind Answere First diuers Protestāts namely Beza and Caluin see Beza epist. 2. epist. 25. teach that though Christ did institute the Sacrament in bread and wine yet in case that bread and wine be wanting one may vse some other proportionable Element as Cheese and Beere Might you not imploy your talent in rayling vpon these men better then on the Councell of Constance Secondly The Protestants allowing of Cheese in lieu of Bread and beere in lieu of wine is to change the substance of the Element wherin Christ did institute the Sacrament and consequently to change the substance of the Institution and Sacrament bringing in an Institution and Sacrament of another substance But to receaue the Sacrament in the kind of bread without wine is not to change the substance of the Element but only whereas the Sacrament for more complete signification was instituted in two elemtēs as for the same reason it was instituted after supper to vse the one element without the other the whole nature of the Sacrament sufficient for all the functions thereof being found in one kind as the Iesuit doth heere demonstrate kind For the Eucharist doth signify this effect of spirituall nutrition because it is a signe of Christ the bread of life the food of Angells the fountayne of grace but by the sole forme of bread Christ is signifyed as present according to his most Sacred body and consequently as most sufficient to feed and refresh the soule Another signification of this Sacrament is vnion and coniunction betweene the faythful as being members of the same body wherof Christ is head fellow-mēbers one with another as S. Paul declares Rom. 12.4 which coniunction the Sacramēt in the forme of bread doth signify For bread being a compound of many graynes of wheate massed togeather in one loafe also made of floure and water mingled one with another signifyes the perfect vnion both of the Church with Christ of the faythfull that are in the Church one with another as Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10. testifyes vnum corpus sumus quotquot de vno pane participamus where he makes no mention of Wine the Sacrament in the forme of bread being alone able to shew worke this signification This Sacrament doth also signify the passion and death of our Sauiour which death and passion is shewed and represented by Communion vnder one kind (o) The Minister sayth pag. 479. That both kinds do more liuely represent Christs Passion then one only Answere What is this to the purpose to proue the Sacrament in one kind substantially imperfect Baptisme by plunging the Childe into water represents Christs death and resurrection more liuely thē Baptisme by sprinkling yet is Baptisme by aspersion a full and entyre Sacrament For receauing the Sacrament in the forme of wine only we haue a sufficient ground to remember the bloud of Christ that was in his passion shed and separated from his body Likewise by participating of the cōsecrated bread we may liuely conceaue the body of Christ as it was depriued of the most precious bloud by the effusion therof on the Crosse wherupon Christ as Saint Paul (p) 1. Cor. 11. v. 14.15 testifyes did after the consecration of ech kind particularly recommend the memory of his passion as knowing that in ech of them alone was a sufficient monument and memoriall thereof The fourth thing required to the substāce of a Sacrament is Causality to wit to worke in the soule the spirituall effects it signifyes This Causality cannot be wanting to the Sacrament vnder one kind wherein is conteyned the fountayne of spirituall life For the cause why the Sacrament in both kindes giueth grace and refresheth the soule is that Christ is assistant vnto them bound by his promise at the presence of sensible signes to worke proportionably spirituall effects in disposed soules But Christ is in the Sacramēt vnder the forme of bread he is able through infinite power and bound by inuiolable promise to worke the effect of grace preseruing vnto life eternall the worthy participant of this Sacrament (q) Hence is refuted what the Minister saith pag. 478. without any proofe That the promise of grace is not made to one kind only vnder the forme of bread Qui manducat hunc panem viuit in aeternum Ioan. 6.55 Not any doubt then may be made but the Sacrament in one kind is full entyre complete in substance by participation thereof prepared consciences do receaue the benefit of celestiall fauour that conserueth the life of the soule with dayly increase in perfection (*) The Minister very often obiecteth as pag. 479. 502. and elsewhere That according to the Tenet of some Scholemen greater benefit of grace it reaped by communion in both kinds Answere First Catholicke Deuines of greater number learning hold the contrary Secondly This is impertinent for the questiō is not whether Communion in both kinds be of greater perfection but whether it be necessary vnto Saluation Thirdly if Cōmunion in both kindes giue more grace yet this excesse may be easily equalled by other diligences as by often receauing in one kind and by obedience to the Church c. The Minister 472. proueth Communion in both kinds to be of greater profit because it is
Iesus what reason could you haue to trow as you doe that no Iesuit will maintayne it What Iesuit can you name of so many that haue written of this matter that doth not expresly maintayne that Christ in his supper gaue his mortall and passible body though after an immortall and impassible manner Hence though in the hoast his body could neyther be sensibly felt nor suffer yet otherwise the same might then suffer in the place where it did exist according to the naturall and proper manner of bodyes See Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 12. Suarez Vasquez Valentia and innurable others The sixt Argument pag. 398. If our Sauiours words be litterally expounded then Infidells dogges and swine may eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man But all that eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man haue euerlasting life Iohn 6.49.50.51 ANSWERE I wonder you dare with such toyes oppose the literall truth of Gods word You may see the idlenes of this your argument in the like S. Paul sayth 1. Cor. 12.3 None can say Lord Iesus but in the Holy Ghost Should one argue that these words are not properly to be vnderstood because Parrats may be taught to say Lord Iesus so if these words None can say Lord Iesus but in the holy Ghost be properly expounded then Parrats should be inspired with the holy Ghost Were not this disputant to be laught at Are you a Doctour and do not vnderstand that externall actions vnto which diuine promises are made must be not only humane proceeding from man as he is man that is from reason and freewill which cannot be â—n dogs and swine but also Christian that is proceding from deuotion â—ayth in Christ Iesus which is wanting in Infidells The seauenth Argument pag. 398. If our Sauiours words were literall playne and regular then Papists could not be diâ—â—racted about the sense thereof but they are notoriously deuided For some say the Proâ—owne this signifyeth nothing others say it signifyeth bread some say it signifyeth â—â—e accidents of bread others it signifyeth the body of Christ c. Touching the body â—â—me say it is materia prima c. ANSWERE This argument proues nothing but your Ignorance who know not â—ow to distinguish diuision about the sense of a speach from diuision aâ—out the Logicall resolution of the single wordes of a speach All know â—hat haue any learning that learned men are deuided about the Logicall â—esolution of many propositions vulgar and plaine about the sense wherâ—f there neyther is nor can be doubt This speach Peter is a man A man â—unneth The wall is white are most playne nor are men deuided about their sense And yet he deserues not the name of a Scholler that doth not â—now there be solemne dissensions in Logicke amongst learned men aâ—out the resolution of these speaches that is about the precise and punctuâ—â—l signification of euery single word All Deuines agree in the sense of Christs speach This is my body that it imports the thing he held in his hands was in the end of the prolation of his speach essentially substantially his body as the substantiue verbe Esâ— doth import But they dispute about the Logicall and precise signification of the single words what is designed punctually by the demonstratiue Pronowne this what by Body which are meere Logicall and Philosophicall subtilties common to all propositions where the same words are vsed So that to mentioÌ„ these differeÌ„ces as matters of moment is a manifest signe that Hereticall Ignorance being out of loue with the literall sense of Gods word resolued not to belieue it seekes the vayle of euery idle pretence to hide the Infidelity of his hart The eight Argument pag. 413. If the sayd words be vnderstood literally then the body of Christ is properly brokeâ— and his blood properly shed in the Eucharist for Saint Paul sayth This is my body which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Saint Luke sayth This is the Cup the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you But the body of Christ is not properly broken nor his bloud properly shed in the holy Eucharist ANSWERE The word of God doth not say that the body of Christ is broken his bloud shed in the Eucharist but onely that the Eucharist is his body which is broken his bloud which is shed for vs for many for the remission of sinnes Caluin c. 11.1 ad Cor. doth expound broken and shed for vs on the Crosse where Christs pretious blood was properly shed his sacred body broken in the flesh and veynes therof which were there rent into peeces Besides to be broken for vs and shed for the remission of sinnes in this place signifyes to be sacrificed for vs vnto God as Caluin saith in the former place frangi interpretor immolari In which sense the body of Christ is broken properly not onely on the Crosse but also in the Sacrament this being a true Propitiatory Sacrifice as Catholicks teach Now take what part you will let the Sacrament be the body bloud of CHRIST broken and shed for vs that is sacrifyced for vs on the Crosse or broken and shed that is sacrifyced for vs in the Eucharist still it followes that the Eucharist is the true body and bloud of our Lord not bread and wine seeing Christ neyther in his Supper nor on his Crosse did sacrifice bread and wine for the remission of sinnes but his body and bloud only The ninth Argument pag. 401. Many Fathers treating of the Sacramentall signes call them figures representations memorialls antitypes of the body and bloud of Christ. But that which is a figure similitude representation of a thing is not properly the same ANSWERE First the Maior proposition of your Argument is false For not one Father of the many you cite doth say that the Eucharist is the figure of the naturall body and bloud of Christ but all they say is First that the Eucharist is a figure memoriall and antytype of Christs passion and death So S. Aug l. 3. de doctrin Christ. c. 16. Secondly that it is a figure of his mysticall body and of the vnity thereof Origen in c. 15. Matth. Aug. in Psal 3. Thirdly the bread and wine before consecration be figures of his body bloud as S. Ambros. l 4. de Sacram. c. 5. Druthmarus in c. 26. Matth. Fourthly that Christ did in the Eucharist represent his body where they take representation for the Reall exhibition of the thing promised as we commonly say that the debtour on such a day is to represent the money that is realâ—y deliuer as Tertul. cont Marci l. 1. c. 14. glossa de Consecrat d. 2. Fiftly they â—ay that the sacred vessells in the old law contayned only a figure of the body and bloud of Christ as the Authour of the Imperfect vpon S. Matâ—hew Finally for want of better testimonyes you bring some that proâ—esse agaynst you that
of bread was acknowledged by the Fathers (*) The Minister pag. 462. proposeth this argument agaynst Concomitancy which he thinkes to be so stronge and glorious as he sets the same in a distinct letter ech proposition in a distinct line to call the eye of the Reader vpon it Whatsoeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was before offered to God on the Crosse. But the body of Christ hauing soule and bloud in it by Concomitancy was not offered to God vpon the Crosse. Ergo at this day soule and bloud be not in the body of Christ by Concomitancy c. I answere This argument serues as a myrrour wherein Learned men may see and admire our Ministers want both of Philosophy and Logicke His want of Philosophy in not distinguishing the being by Concomitancy in the body from being by Concomitancy in the place where the body is The body of Christ neyther on the Crosse nor in the Eucharist hath soule bloud in it and vnited with it by Concomitancy yet the body of Christ not only in the Sacrament but also on the Crosse had soule and bloud present with it by Concomitancy or consequence For the soule being substantially vnited with the body and bloud contayned within the body they were consequently inforced to be togeather with the body in the same place on the Crosse. Hence the Ministers argument is turned agaynst himselfe That body is receaued in the Eucharist which was offered to God on the Crosse but Christs body hauing soule and bloud in the same place with it by Concomitancy was offerred to God on the Crosse. Ergo the body of Christ hauing soule in the same place with it by Concomitancy is in the Sacrament His ignorance in Logicke is likewise very specious and notable to present vnto the world with so great solemnity an idle Sophisme and Fallacy tearmed by the Logitians Figurae dictionis Of which fallacy one kind is when from the substantiall word one argueth vnto the accidentall As for example this Sophisme What meate soeuer thou didst buy in the market thou dost eate at dinner but thou did'st buy raw flesh in the market Ergo thou dost eate raw flesh at dinner And this likewise What fingers soeuer thou had'st being a Childe thou hast now being a man thou had'st little fingers being a Child Ergo thou hast little fingers now being a man Iust of the same frame fashion is our Ministers argument What soeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was offered on the Crosse A body that had not blood in it by Concomitancy was offered on the Crosse Ergo a body not hauing blood in it by Concomitancy is receaued in the Sacrament If this forme be good one may proue that we do not now receaue the body of Christ risen from death Whatsoeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was offered on the Crosse A body hauing soule and blood in it by vertue of resurrection from death to life was not offered on the Crosse Ergo a body risen from death or hauing soule and blood in it by vertue of resurrection from death is not receaued in the Sacrament Here your Ladyes may see with what Baberyes you delude their Ignorance arguing from the Substantiall vnto the Accidentall tearme For though Christs body receaued in the Sacrament be the same that was offered on the Crosse in respect of substance it doth not follow that therefore it is the same also in respect of accidents qualityes and circumstances Hence his body may now haue blood and soule by Concomitancy with it in the Sacrament though it had not had blood soule by Concomitancy with it on the Crosse. This principle supposed which is no lesse certayne then the true real presence I inferre the lawfulnes of Communion vnder one kind to wit vnder the sole forme of bread by this Argument If communion vnder one kind be not agaynst the substance eyther of Christs institution or of his Sacrament or his precept or of the practise of the primitiue Church it is lawfull iustifiable for iust reasons may be commanded by the Church This proposition is true because there neyther are other causes of dislike that may not be reduced to these foure neyther doth Christs Institution or Precept or the Primitiue practise binde vs to keep them further then in substance the accidentall circumstances of institutions Sacramēts precepts primitiue Customes being variable according to the variable disposition of thinges vnto which the Church militant in this life is subiect Now I assume Concomitancy being supposed it may be made euident that Communion vnder one kind is not agaynst the substance eyther of Christs institution or of the Sacrament or of his precept or of the primitiue practise For the substance of these foure obligations is one the same to wit that we be truly really partakers of the body and bloud of our Sauiour which is (e) The Minister p. 467. saith Though Concomitancy be granted yet Communion in one kind is not iustifyed because the blood by Concomitancy is receaued in the veines of the body not as shed out of the veynes But people must receaue the blood of Christ represented as shed which is not done but by receauing the Cuppe Answere The essence of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice is to represent the effusion of our Lords blood so can not be entyre in one kind But the essence of the Eucharist as a Sacrament is to represent the body and blood of our Lord as the foode of the soule But in eyther kind the body and blood to be sufficient food of the soule the Iesuit prooueth so that people be not boūd so receaue the bloud represented distinctly and expressely as shed but only the Priest that doth sacrifice fully done by Communion vnder one kind as I will shew in the foure consequent Sections Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Institution of Christ. §. 2. DIVINE Institution is an action of God whereby he giues Being vnto things with reference vnto some speciall end This end is twofold the one corporall and temporall for which God hath instituted agreable and conuenient meanes That men may be borne into this world he did institute marriage and for maintenance of the sayd life being had he ordayned many sorts of meate The other end is spirituall for which God hath instituted Sacraments as for the first obtayning of grace and spirituall life the Sacraments of Baptisme Pennance for the preseruing of grace increasing therein particularly the Sacrament of the Eucharist That a man be bound to vse the Institution of God two things are required First that the end thereof be necessary and he bound to endeauour the attayning therof Hence it is that though marriage be the institution of God appointed to propagate mankind yet euery man is not bound to marry because he is not bound to propagate mankind when there be others that do aboundantly comply with that duty to which mankind is
especially vnto (f) Basil. epist. ad Caesar. Patritium Pratum Spiritual c. 79. Eremits to be carryed in most pure linnen Corporalls home to their houses to be takē in the morning before al other meats But there is no signe or token in Antiquity that the faythfull togeather with the consecrated bread did carry away with them cōsecrated wine yea diuers historyes shew the only forme of bread (**) Minister pag. 504. It was an ancient custome to send the Communion to persōs absent in both kinds as appeareth by Exuperius in S. Hierome Tom. 1. Epist. 4. and S. Gregory Nazianzen of his sister Gorgonia Answere Exuperius no laymen but Bishop of Tholosa hauing sold the syluer Ciboriums Chalices of his Church to mayntaine the poore was forced throgh pouerty to keep the Body and Bloud in a basket of Osier in a glasse-Cup so carrying them about when he did administer the same in the Church to the people But that he carryed the blood of our Sauiour in a glasse out of the Church about him S. Hierome doth not say yea he signifies that this vse of Osier-baskets glasse-Cups was in the Church saying Nihil ditius Exuperio nostro qui corpus Domini canistro vimineo Sanguinē portat in vitro qui auaritiam eiecit ETEMPLO nothing is more rich then Exuperius who doth carry the body of our Lord in an Osier-basket and his bloud in a glasse who hath cast Couetousnes out of the CHVRCH Nor is it probable that he carryed the bloud about him in a glasse when he went any iourney exposing the same to manifest danger of being irreuerently spilled specially glasse being so brittle and easely broken and the ancients exceeding sollicitous and anxious that the bloud might not be shed nor any particle of the sacred bread fall to the ground S. Gregory Nazianzen sayth of his sister Gorgonia praying earnestly for the recouery of her health That whatsoeuer of the Antitypes or Images of the pretious body and bloud her hand had hidden that shee did bath mingle with her teares which place Vasquez whome you so commend as learned and intelligent doth shew to be spoken of holy Images of Christs Passion and death not of the blessed Sacrament For Women were neuer permitted to touch the sacred Chalice with their hand nor to keepe consecrated Cups in their houses for the bloud but only white linen corporalls for the body It had been also agaynst the Reuerence ancient Christian deuotion did beare to the pretious bloud of our Sauiour for her to haue powred her teares into the sacred Chalice mingling them with the pretious bloud so that there is no signe in Antiquity that laymen did keep in their priuate houses or did carry about them the bloud of our Sauiour in the forme of wine Therfore in their priuate houses and out of the Church they still receaued in one kind was carryed away and consequently that the Church did not then esteeme of Communiō vnder one kind as of a sacrilegious mayming of the Sacrament as Protestants now doe Thirdly it was an ancient custome in the Grecian (g) Concil Loadicen can 49. Trullen can 52. Church to cōsecrate the holy Eucharist on Saturdayes and Sundayes on the other dayes of the weeke to Communicate ex praesanctificatis of the presanctifyed formes that is consecrated on the Saturday or Sunday before Now it is not probable that they did consecrate wine to endure fiue or six dayes long for feare specially in such hoate Countreys the same should grow sower Wherfore for the most part they did Communicate vnder one kind Fourthly the (h) Leo. serm 4. de Quadrag Manichees liued in Rome and other places shrowding themselues amongst Catholikes went to their Churches receaued the Sacrament publikely with them vnder the sole forme of bread and yet they were not noted nor thereby discerned from Catholiques A manifest signe that Communion vnder one kind was publickely in the Church permitted at the least vpon some iust causes that might be pretended For how could the Manichees still refusing the cup haue been hidden amongst these ancient Christians if they had byn perswaded as now Protestants are that receauing vnder one kind is a sacriledge If one in the Church of England should refuse the Cup but once in a publike Communion in the Church would he not be incontinently noted (i) The Minister pag. 560. First the Manichees were espyed else how could the Pope reproue their practise Secondly Vasquez the Iesuit sayth That these Heretikes receaued the Cup into their hand but dranke no wine And amōg a great multitude some few might hold the Cup to their mouth make shew of drinking and yet receaue no wine Answere The Pope did reproue that practise of the Manichees because he knew it was their Heresy so to doe in that they held wine to be the gall of the Diuell and that Christ did not shed his bloud on the Crosse which also to be their practise such as were conuerted from that heresy did witnesse Vasquez doth not say that the Manichees did only put the Cup to their mouth without drinking and so lay hidden and vnknowne for he was not so simple but he did see this could not be done but the Deacons that gaue the Cup to the Cōmunicants one by one would presently haue perceaued it He sayth that they did drinke of the cōsecrated wine but kept the same in their mouth till they came to some place where without being noted they might spit is out Which I can not thinke to be probable First the Manichees holding wine to be a thing so impure and detestable as the Diuells gall how would they take the same into their mouth Secondly how could they keepe the wine in their mouth so longe but that some part therof would goe downe Thirdly S. Leo bids Catholickes to note the men that omnino altogeather refrayne from the Cup signifying that they might by this their perpetuall abstinence be distinguished from Catholicks that sometymes refrayned But if they tooke still the wine into their mouth kept the same there till they came to a solitary place where they might spit it out securely how could they be discerned by their abstayning from the Cup more then any other Catholicks did vse to doe Hence euen Vasquez doth acknowledge that this argumēt drawne from the dissimulation of heretikes namely of the Macedonian woman related by Sozom. l. 8. c. 5. is probabile valde apparens probable and very apparent to proue that Communion in one kind was arbitrary and a thinge indifferent in the ancient Church The last Argument is practise of the Apostles that is of the first Christians vnder them of whome we read in the Acts of the Apostles (k) Act. 2.42 Erant perseuerantes in doctrina Apostolorum communicatione fractionis panis orationibus speaking of sacred Eucharisticall bread the taking whereof was ioyned with prayer which vnto the newly baptized was
Wisdome and grace see in that modest looke Trueth 's triumph errors downfall in this booke Maerebunt piscatores Isa. 19.8 Tocksonus sculpâ—â—â— THE ANSWERE VNTO The Nine Points of Controuersy Proposed by our late Soueraygne of Famous Memory vnto M. Fisher of the Society of IESVS AND THE REIOYNDER Vnto the Reply of D. Francis VVhite Minister With the Picture of the sayd Minister or Censure of his Writings prefixed Be ready alwayes to giue an ANSWERE to euery one that asketh you a reason of the Hope that is in you 1 Petr. 3. Vers. 15. Permissu Superiorum M.DC.XXVI TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE CHARLES KING OF Great Brittayne France and Ireland c. MOST GRACIOVS SOVERAIGNE These Theologicall Labours which we now publish were vndertaken by Order of our late Soueraygne of Famous Memory for his desired Satisfaction about some of the principall Points which with-held his Royall ioyning vnto the Church of Rome The Authour when he penned them did expect they should haue been kept within the priuate Library of his Princely Reading and not made publike to the World as afterward they were by a Doctour Minister togeather with a Voluminous Reply wherin he seekes to disgrace them by much bitternes of speach vttered in the violence of his Zeale This imposed an Obligation vpon the Authour to reuiew them agayne and to set them forth whole and entiere purged from the faults of hand-writing misprision cleered from the cloudes cast vpon them by ignorant Cauill strenghthened with some new Collaterall Additions of more euident Explication and Proofe Which Labours renewned published we humbly offer vnto your most Excellent Maiesty as vnto the Heyre not only of your Renowned Fathers Dignity and State but also of his Wisdome and Vertue in whome is perpetuated as the Nobility of his Bloud so the Excellency of his Mind And though it be their hard fortune to appeare in your Presence at the time wheÌ„ the light of your Royall Clemency is towardes your Catholicke Subiects eclypsed yet for themselues they confide to find some speciall Fauour not to be forbidden or banished your Maiestyes Dominions in that they be Natiffe of your Royall Fathers Command by the WarraÌ„t of his Authority borne into the World whose Sacred Pleasure through pious Excesse of Filiall Affection You still reuerence after his Discease Neyther can it be for the credit of our Aduersaryes or of their Cause that free Accesse should be denyed vnto these Writings which as themselues testify were by the sound of Authority summoned vnto the Combat vpon supposition that thereby Our weakenes and want of strength would manifestly appeare For thus they write The better to discouer their weaknes D. Whites Preface to plucke them out of their Fox-hole of Personall Succession and visibility the King imposed the Taske of writing vpon the Nine Questions knowing our Aduersaryes to be cunning and subtill in eluding our Arguments but of no strength especially in particular Questions to proue their owne Tenet or to confirme their Fayth by sacred Scripture or Auncient Tradition If after so solemne Inuitation vnto the Combat if after so bold Promises that in these Writings our weakenes would be discouered if after so great assurance giuen to their Credents that we cannot confirme our Religion by Scripture these challenged Writings be stayed by Authority not to enter into the Field this may yield vnto Iudicious Protestants iust reason to suspect that weaknes and want of strength rather lyeth on their side and that the Patrons of their Reformed Religion place their confidence of Victory rather in the Partiality of the State then in the Euidence of the Scripture in the behalfe of their Doctrines And as these Tytles euen the Credit of the Protestant Cause pleade for the free permission of this Booke so the Booke it selfe contaynes nothing that may cause the hinderance of so due a fauour Therin no person in Authority is censured no matter of State touched nothing vttered that may iustly offeÌ„d only the euideÌ„ce of Gods Holy Word is vrged in defence of that Religion which euen in your Royall Iudgment is so farre from being impious in it selfe or an Enemy of your State as You haue by most happy choyce selected the same to be the Consort of your Crowne to be the Parent of those glorious Starres which according to the hope of all Loyall Subiects shal froÌ„ your Maiesties Throne by long continued Succession shine vnto these fortunate Kingdomes who by her euer-honoured Name of MARY but much more by the rare Excellency of her Vertues liuely represents the sweet Memory of your Right Glorious Grand-mother whiles she liued for Princely qualityes the Paragon of Europe and now a singular Ornament of the Heauens in regard of her coÌ„stancy in the Catholike Roman Religion vnto death that her enraged Enemyes not being able to conquer her Immortall Affection vnto the same feared not to shed her no lesse Innocent then Noble Bloud the Fountaine of Your Maiestyes Royall Rights vnto the Kingdoms of Great Brittayne to strike of that Thrice-Venerable Head more Glorious for the lustre of the One Catholike Fayth She maintayned then for the shining gemnes of Three Christian Crownes of which two She wore and the third was vndoubtedly her Due Your Royall Magnanimity timely tokens whereof appeared in your tender Yeares hath engaged the Harts of your Loyall Subiects in a secret Ioy of Hope that God by meanes of your Maiesty will illustrate this Kingdome by many rich Blessings of Temporall Glory In which Hope we are strengthned by the fortunate Name of Charles the First fortunate I say to bring Felicities vpon Kingdomes vnder by which Name France vnder Charles the Great Spayne vnder Charles the fifth Emperour but the first of that Name Kinge of Spayne surnamed Maximus the two mightiest Kingdoms of Europe aduanced to Imperial Dignity grew vnto the highest of worldly Greatnes In which respect it is not any disloyall Affection that we wish in our Harts and pray vnto the Soueraygne MoModeratour in whose hands are the Harts of Princes that he wil incline your Princely Hart to be fauourable vnto that Religion which only hath been Conquerant in former ages that hardly can any Christian King be named Renownedly Victorious that was not a Professour or a Fauourer therof Yea if we call to mind the most famous wonderfull victoryes that haue ennobled the ChristiaÌ„ Name we may find that they were fruits and effects of some Deuotions of the Catholike Roman Fayth questioned proued in this Treatise Constantine the first Christian Emperour surnamed the Great who doth not know that his Conquests were obtayned by his worshipping Euseb. in vita Constantini lib. 3. c. 2. Zozom l. 1. cap. 8. the signe of the Holy Crosse being doubtlesse of a contrary Religion vnto the Prime Religion-deuiser of this age Martin Luther who sayth of himselfe Luther Tom. 1. Wittemberg fol. 539. If I were a Souldier and should see in the field the
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