thinke it not meete to Confirme children untill they come to the use of reason and be able to confesse their faith The Catechisme set forth by the decree of the councell of Trent thinkes it requisite that children be either twelve years old or at least seven years old before they be confirmed And Durantus tells us that a Synod at Millan did decree and that hee sayes piously and religiously That the Sacrament of Confirmation should be administred to none under seven years old Thus have they by their own confession departed from the judgment and practice of the ancient Fathers themselves and why then should they presse us with it After Confirmation the Marquesse commeth to communicating in one kinde which they hold sufficient And he saith that they have Scripture for it viz. Ioh. 6. 51. not 15. If any man eate of this bread hee shall live for ever Whence hee inferrs If everlasting life be sufficient then it is also sufficient to communicate under one kinde So Acts 2. 42. They continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayer Where is no mention of the Cup and yet they remained stedfast in the Apostles Doctrine So also Luke 24. 30 35. Where Christ communicated hee saith his two Disciples under one kinde He addes that Austine Theophylact and Chrysostome expound that place of the Sacrament Answ The Scripture plainly shewes that our Saviour instituting the Sacrament of his Supper took and blessed and gave the Cup as well as the bread and commanded that to be drunk as well as this to be eaten in remembrance of him Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. And the Apostle tells us that As oft as we eate this bread and drinke the Cup of the Lord we shew forth the Lords death till he come 1 Cor. 11. 26. And he bids v. 28. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that Bread and drinke of that Cup. Protestants therefore have good reason to hold it necessary to communicate in both kindes and that it is utterly unlawfull to withhold the Cup from people as they in the Church of Rome do Our Adversaries thinke to put off those words of our Saviour Drinke yee all of this by saying that Christ spake so onely to the Apostles and therefore wee must not infer from them that the common sort of people are to drinke of the Cup in the Sacrament But 1. by this reason they may as well withhold the bread also from the people and so deprive them of the whole sacrament For when Christ gave the Bread and bad take eate he spake onely to the Apostles as well as when hee gave the cup and bad that all should drinke of it 2. The Apostle spake universally of all Christians requiring that having examined themselves they should not onely eate of the bread but drinke of the cup also All antiquity is here on our side How doe we teach or provoke them saith Cyprian to shed their blood in the confession of Christ if we deny them the blood of Christ when they are going to war-fare Or how doe we make them meete for the Cup of Martyrdome if we doe not first admit them to drinke the Lords Cup in the Church by the right of Communion Thus spake Cyprian and he spake in the name of a whole Synod of Affrick as Pamelius observes concerning such as though they had grossely offended yet were judged meete to be admitted to the Sacrament because of a persecution which was ready to come upon them that so they might be strengthened and prepared for it This clearly shewes that in Cyprians time all that did communicate at all did communicate in both kindes and not in one onely So also in another place Considering saith Cyprian that they therefore daily drinke the cup of Christs Blood that they also for Christ may shed their blood There is a decree of Pope Iulius recorded by Gratian wherein hee condemneth the practice of some who used to give unto people the bread dipped for a full communion This he saith is not consonant to the Gospell where we finde that the bread and the cup were given severally each by it selfe Much more we may suppose hee would have disliked that the bread alone without any manner of participation of the cup should have been administred Sure I am the reason that hee alledgeth is every whit as much against this as against the other So another Pope viz. Gelasius as the same Gratian relates hearing of some that would onely receive the bread but not the Cup bade that either they should receive the whole Sacrament or no part of it because the division of one and the same mystery hee saith cannot be without great Sacriledge And whereas they speake of a concomitancy of the blood with the body and so would have it sufficient to receive the bread onely the glosse upon that canon is expressely against them saying that the bread hath reference onely to Christs Body and the Wine onely to his Blood and that therefore the Sacrament is received in both kindes to signifie that Christ assumed both Body and Soule and that the participation of the Sacrament is available both to Soule and Body Wherefore it saith if the Sacrament should be received onely in one kinde in Bread onely it would shew that it availes onely for the good of the one viz. of the Body and not for the good of the other viz. of the Soule Not to multiply testimonies Cassander in the very beginning of the Article wherein he treates of this point ingenuously confesseth that the Universall Church of Christ to this day doth and the Westerne or Roman Church for more then a thousand years after Christ did especially in the solemne and ordinary dispensation of the Sacrament exhibit both kindes both Bread and Wine to all the members of Christ which he saith is manifest by innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers both Greek and Latine And hee addes that they were induced hereunto first by the institution and example of Christ who did give this Sacrament of his Body and Blood under two signes viz. Bread and Wine unto his Disciples as representing the person of faithfull Communicants And because in the Sacrament of the Blood they believed that a peculiar vertue and grace is signified So also for mysticall reasons of this institution which are diversly assigned by the ancient Writers As to represent the memory of Christs Passion in the offering of his Body and the shedding of his Blood according to that of Paul As oft as yee eate this Bread and Drinke the cup of the Lord yee shew forth the Lords death till hee come Also to signifie full refreshing and nourishing which consists in Meate and Drinke as Christ saith My flesh is meate indeed and my Blood is Drinke indeed Likewise to shew the redemption and preservation of Soule and
and who hath been his Counsellour Rom. 11. 34. The last place of Scripture which the Marquesse objecteth is Ezech. 33. 11. As I live saith the Lord I delight not in the death of a sinner Now to this also we have Alvarez to answer for us viz. first that it is meant of spirituall death which is by sinne Which God doth only permit but doth not delight in it And this Explication hee saith is confirmed by the words following but rather that he be converted and live And if it be expounded of the second death which is eternall damnation the meaning hee saith is that God will not inflict this upon any but for sinne But though God will not inflict damnation upon the Reprobate but for sinne yet this same Alvarez as I have shewed abundantly before and so other Writers of the Church of Rome doe tell us that God by his eternall Decree of Reprobation of his meere Will and Pleasure doth determine to suffer the Reprobate to sinne and so to damne them for it And thus now I have made it appeare I hope sufficiently that by the consent of the Romanists themselves the Scriptures alledged are not repugnant to the Doctrine of Protestants concerning Reprobation neither I thinke will the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth be against it The first of them is Austine who as hath before been shewed is as much for us as we neede desire He is here produced against us but so as that I know not easily how to finde what he saith For onely li. 1. de Civit. Dei. is cited but no Chapter whereas there are no lesse then 36. in that booke this is a strange kinde of citing Authors but the fault may be in the Printer or in some other and not in the Marquesse As for Cyprian who is next cited I see not any thing in the place pointed at which is to this purpose except this Seeing it is written God made not death nor doth he rejoyce in the destruction of the living surely he that would not have any to perish desires that sinners may come to Repentance and that by Repentance they may returne unto life againe Now that which Cyprian here alledgeth viz. God made not death c. I have shewed before by the testimony of Hierome to be no Canonicall Scripture nor of sufficient force to decide any point of controversie as also that if it were yet by the acknowledgement of Alvarez it makes not against Gods Decree of Reprobation which wee maintaine It hath also beene shewed before in what sense God would have none to perish viz. by his Antecedent Will with which yet will stand the Decree of Reprobation as we hold it which likewise hath been shewed and that from both Bellarmine and from Alvarez also And that God desires sinners may come to Repentance and so to life Protestants that I know doe not deny though they hold that God doth give and so from all eternity did purpose to give Repentance unto some and not to others as hee pleaseth which I have also shewed to be acknowledged by Bellarmine Alvarez Estius and others of the Church of Rome And it is most cleare by that of the Apostle If God peradventure will give them Repentance 2 Tim. 2. 25. and that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardneth Rom. 9. 18. The third and last Father who is here alledged is Ambrose de Cain Abel lib. 2. but what Chapter whereas there are ten in that Booke is not mentioned Now I finde that Chap. 3. hath something which probably was aimed at by the Marquesse viz. this Christ therefore offered the helpe of healing unto all that whosoever perisheth may ascribe the cause of his death to himselfe who when he had a remedy whereby he might escape would not be cured And that Christs mercy towards all might be made manifest in that they that perish doe perish by their own negligence but they that are saved are freed according to Christs sentence who will have all men to be saved and to come to the acknowledgement of the truth Now I know no Protestant but hee will assent unto this that whosoever perish must ascribe the cause to themselves and that they perish through their own default I have before cited Calvin asserting thus much That none doe perish without their desert But this assertion of his is very well consistent with his Doctrine about Reprobation as I have shewed by the testimonies of diverse famous Writers of the Church of Rome And whereas Ambrose saith that such as perish had a remedy whereby they might escape and that they therefore perish because they would not be cured No Protestants I suppose will deny but that such as perish through unbeliefe if they did believe should be saved but yet neverthelesse not Protestants onely but Papists also as I have shewed doe hold that God from all eternity did decree and purpose to give faith unto some and not unto others and that meerely of his own will and pleasure And that therefore according to Austine whose words are cited before the prime and supreme cause why some are not saved is not because they will not but because God will not For that which Ambrose hath in the last place who will have all men to be saved c. enough hath beene said before to shew that in the judgement of Austine and diverse Romanists it is nothing against the absolute decree of Reprobation and so I have done with this point In the next place the Marquesse speakes of a mans assurance of his salvation saying that Protestants hold that a man ought to assure himselfe of it and to prove the contrary which they of the Roman Church doe hold he alledgeth 1 Cor. 9. 27. saying S. Paul was not assured but that whilest he Preached to others he himselfe might become a cast-away And Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest in the Faith be not high minded but feare c. lest thou also mayest be cut off And Phil. 2. 12. Worke out your own salvation with fear and termbling Answ Concerning this point Protestants hold 1. That a Christian may be assured of his salvation 2. That a Christian ought to labour for this assurance For the former of these positions wee have diverse places of Scriptures As first that Famous place Rom. 8. 35 36 37 38 39. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ shall Tribulation or Distresse or Persecution c. Nay in all these things we are more then conquerours through Him that loved us For I am perswaded that neither Death nor Life nor Angels nor principalities nor powers nor things present nor things to come nor height nor depth nor any other Creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. So also that 2 Cor. 5. 1. We know then if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a building
often But saith he as it is appointed unto men to die once c. So Christ was once offered c. Bellarmine also averres that unto a true sacrifice it is required that the thing which is offered unto God for a sacrifice be plainly destroyed that is that it cease to be what it was before So that if Christ bee offered up in the Eucharist a true and proper Sacrifice then hee must be destroyed hee must cease to be what he was before Whether or no it be blasphemy to affirme this of Christ let all judge Bellarmine indeed afterward indeavours to answer this argument Let us see what he saith The argument hee propounds thus The sacrifice that is offered must be slaine Therefore if Christ be sacrificed in every Masse he must every moment in a thousand places be cruelly slaine To this hee answers thus The sacrifice of the Masse is a most true sacrifice and yet doth not require the killing of that which is offered For killing is only required in the offering of a thing that hath life and which is offered in the forme of a thing that hath life as when Lambes Calves Birds and the like are offered whose destruction consists in death But when the forme of the sacrifice is of a thing without life as of Bread Wine Frankincense and the like killing cannot be required but only such a consuming of the thing as is agreeable to it In the Masse therefore Christ is indeed offered who is a thing having life and he is offered in the forme of a thing having life in respect of representation where onely a death representative is required but not death indeed But as he is a reall and properly so called sacrifice he is offered in the forme of Bread and Wine according to the order of Melchisedech and therefore in the forme of a thing without life Wherefore the consuming of this sacrifice ought not to be Killing but Eating I have rehearsed his words at large that so his answer may be seene at full But though there be many wordes which hee useth yet it is somewhat hard to know what hee meaneth Certainly this is a very strange kinde of sacrifice that he speaketh of Christ is offered up a sacrifice both in the forme of a thing that hath life and also in the forme of a thing that is without life And as hee is offered in the forme of a thing that hath life hee is onely offered in respect of representation but as he is offered in the forme of a thing that is without life hee is really and indeed offered So that Christ being offered in the forme of a thing that hath life his death is represented but he being offered in the forme of a thing that is without life his death is not represented and much lesse is it really executed and yet Christ is so really and properly sacrificed These things do but very unhandsomely hang together But whereas hee saith that the consuming of this sacrifice is the eating of it I demand is Christs Body so eaten as that it ceaseth to be what it was before If it be not as certainly it is not Christs Body being now glorified and so free from all mutation then is it not truly and properly sacrificed Bellarmine himselfe telling us as I have shewed before that whatsoever is truly and properly sacrificed is so destroyed as that it ceaseth to be what it was before To talke here of consuming the species or forme of bread so that it ceaseth to be what it was before is nothing to the purpose for they maintaine that the Body and Blood of the Lord are that sacrifice which is properly offered and sacrificed in the Masse And whereas Bellarmine also speaketh of Christs being offered in the forme of Bread and Wine according to the Order of Melchisedech I desire to know by whom CHRIST is so offered For either by himselfe or by the Priest that saith Masse Not by himselfe for here we speak of Christs being offered in the Eucharist which is not administred by Christ hee being now in Heaven Nor by the Priest on Earth there being no Priest after the order of Melchisedech but Christ only Psal 110. 4. Heb. 7. 15 c. And thus indeed there is no Priest upon Earth that is properly so called and consequently there is no true and proper sacrifice to be offered For every sacrifice presupposeth a Priest to offer it and such as the sacrifice is such also must the Priest be hee must be a Priest properly so called if it be a sacrifice properly so called But there is no such Priest upon Earth there being none as I have shewed after the order of Melchisedech nor yet any after the order of Aaron for that order is abolished as all the Leviticall sacrifices are And of any other order besides these we read not in the Scripture Againe in a sacrifice properly so called it must be some sensible thing as our Adversaries themselves acknowledge that is offered But Christ is not sensible in the Eucharist for by what sense is hee there discerned And therefore neither is hee there truly and properly sacrificed Neither was this Doctrine viz. that Christ is properly sacrificed in the Eucharist received in the Church of Rome for more then 1100 years after Christ as appeares by the Master of the Sentences Peter Lombard who propounds the question whether that which the Priest doth be properly a sacrifice and whether Christ be sacrificed daily or were only once sacrificed And to this hee answers that that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice and an offering because it it a memoriall and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation that was made in the Altar of the Crosse And Christ died once on the crosse and was there sacrificed in himselfe but he is daily sacrificed in the Sacrament because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was done once Here we plainly see that he determines that Christ is not properly sacrificed in the Sacrament but improperly in that his sacrificing of himselfe upon the crosse is remembred and represented in the Sacrament which is no more then the Apostle saith viz. that Christs death is shewed forth in the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. 26. And thus Ambrose as Lombard doth cite him Although we offer daily it is for the remembrance of his death We also offer now but that which we doe is a remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ offered To this purpose also he cites Austine Now for the places alledged by the Marquesse the first viz. Mal. 1. 11. doth not particularly concerne the Eucharist but generally the spirituall worship and service which the Prophet foreshewed should be performed unto God in the time of the New Testament and which should not be confined and limited to one certaine place and as the solemne worship and service of God in the time of the old
not say nor believe that he did then not into that Hell which they call Limbus Patrum 2. Those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell as spoken by David Psal 16. and commented upon by Peter Acts 2. those words I say doe shew that Hell there mentioned could neither be the Hell of the damned nor Limbus Patrum or at least that there is no necessity to expound it of either For 1. It is spoken of as a great benefit a matter of joy and rejoycing that Christs Soule was not left in Hell Therefore my Heart is glad and my glory or Tongue rejoyced c. For thou wilt not leave c. Psal 16. 9 10. Acts 2. 26 27. But they that hold Christs descending either into the Hell of the damned or into Limbus Patrum make him to descend as a conquerour one that went either to triumph over the Devill in his owne place as it were or to deliver the soules that were in limbus Now why should it be accounted such a benefit such a matter of joy and rejoycing for one not to be left there where hee is onely as a conquerour and deliverer Bellarmine answers that it was a benefit to Christs Soule that it was quickly joyned againe unto the Body even as it was evill to the Soule to be separated from the Body And thus saith hee it was a benefit unto him to be delivered from Hell not in respect of the place but in respect of separation from the body But who seeth not that by this reason Christs Soule might as well be in Heaven as either in Limbus Patrum or the Hell of the damned For though Christs soule were in heaven yet it was a benefit unto it to be delivered out of that estate of separation which it was in 2. Those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell were meant of Christs Resurrection as S. Peter telleth us Acts 2. 31. But Christs Resurrection though it did presuppose his being in Hell either as Hell is taken for the grave or for the state of death yet not as it is taken either for Limbus Patrum or for the place of torment Christ might well enough rise againe and yet never be in any such Hell as one of these is and the other is supposed to have beene 3. S. Peter shewes that David in those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell spake not of himselfe but of Christ for that the words being understood of David were not true but most true as understood of Christ Men and Brethren let mee freely speake unto you concerning the Patriarch David that hee is both dead and buried and his Sepulcher remaineth with us to this day Therefore being a Prophet c. Acts 2. 29 30 31. Here by Davids Sepulcher remaning with them unto that day hee meanes that David was left in that Hell of which he speakes and so did not speake of himself but of some other viz. of Christ who was not left in it Thus also S. Paul having cited the latter part of the Verse Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption hee also to prove that this was meant of Christ and not of David addes For David after he had served his own Generation by the Will of God fell asleepe and was laid with his Fathers and saw corruption But he whom God raised up saw no corruption Acts 13. 35 36 37. David spake not of himselfe but of Christ when hee said Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption because David did see corruption which Christ did not see So David spake not of himselfe but of Christ when hee said Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell because Davids Soule was left in Hell where Christs Soule was not left This is the Apostles argument and herce it necessarily followes that by Hell cannot be meant either the place of torment or yet Limbus Patrum Not the place of torment for Davids soule was not left in that Hell it never came in it Nor yet can that Limbus be meant for even the Romanists themselves doe hold that it was quite emptied before that time that Peter spake and therefore Davids soule was not in it then whereas yet Peter signifies that then it was in that Hell of which hee spake By Hell therefore must be meant either the grave or the state of the dead Ruffinus in his Exposition of the Creed observes that in his time the Article of Christs descending into Hell was not in the Creed of the Roman Church and that the Easterne Churches had it not yet hee saith that it seemes to he implied in that which is spoken of Christs Buriall And it is observed that in all the ancient Creedes that were within 600 years after Christ except one which Ruffinus followed if the article of Christs buriall were mentioned then that of his descending into Hell was omitted and if his descending into Hell were mentioned then his buriall is omitted which argues that the antients did take these two viz. Christs buriall and his descending into Hell to import but one thing or to differ but very little and therefore thought it sufficient to mention either the one or the other It is most evident that the Hebrew word Sheol and so the Greeke Hades which Psal 16. and Acts 2. are rendred Hell are often taken for the grave Some of the Romanists deny that Sheol is ever so used but Genebrard who was sometimes Hebrew Professour at Paris doth confesse that they are in an errour and there are many places of Scripture to convince them Gen. 42. 38. If mischiefe befall him c. you shall bring down my gray haires with sorrow to Sheol i. e. the grave For to what Hell else should gray haires goe down So Gen. 44. 29. and 31. and 1 King 2. 6. And Iob. 17. 13. If I waite Sheol is mine House that is the grave as appeares v. 14. I have said to corruption thou art my Father and to the worme thou art my Mother and Sister So Psal 141. 7. Our bones lie scattered at the mouth of Sheol i. e. the grave So Genebrard upon the place expounds it juxta Sepulchrum i. e. by the grave whereas the vulgar Latine hath it secus infernum neare Hell But what Hell except the grave should dead mens bones lie scattered by So in many other places and in all these places the Greeke version hath Hades so that Bellarmine needed not to have made so strange a matter of it as hee doth that Henry Stephen in his great Thesaurus should say that Hades may be taken for the grave neither had he cause to say that Stephen could finde no Authour that did use the word in that sense I have not now Stephens Thesaurus to looke into but sure I am that a man of farre lesse reading then Stephen was of might have alledged many examples to that purpose And for the Hebrew word Sheol Genebrard
this sense agrees with that which is said of Christ 2 Cor. 13. 4. For though he was crucified through weakenesse yet hee liveth by the power of God Besides if wee should reade quickened in the Spirit and by Spirit understand Christs Soule it would follow that Christs Soule was sometime dead This was Austines argument against that Exposition as is observed by Bellarmine Who saith that the argument doth not conclude for that often in the Scripture that is said to be quickned which is not put to death But his answer is not satisfactory For though it is true that in the Scripture to quicken or to make alive is sometimes no more then to preserve and keepe alive as 1 Sam. 27. 11. and 2 Sam. 8. 2. where both in the Originall and in the vulgar Latine the word used doth signifie to make alive Yet neverthelesse nothing in Scripture is said to be made that is kept alive but that which is obnoxious unto death and may die but Christs Soule and generally the Soules of men are of an immortall nature and doe not die when the body dyeth Besides what great matter was it as Estius observes if when Christs Body died his Soule did remaine alive when as even in the worst men that are the soule doth not die as being by nature immortall And therefore hee saith it is better understood thus Christ was quickned in the Spirit that is hee was made a quickning Spirit viz. when hee rose from death unto life immortall And hee cites that 1 Cor. 15. 45. The first man Adam was made a living Soule the last Adam was made a quickning spirit But that sense will not well suite the words of Peter which doe not shew what Christ is made being risen againe but in what respect and by what meanes hee did rise againe viz. by the spirit that is by his Divine Nature as in the flesh that is his humane Nature hee was put to death But againe it is objected that S. Peter saith Christ went and preached to the spirits in prisons therefore it is meant of the soule not of his Divine Nature in which respect it cannot be said but improperly that hee went I answer there is no necessity to take it properly in the words of Peter more then in the words of Paul Ephes 2. 17. when hee saith that Christ came and Preached peace unto the Ephesians which must be meant of comming and Preaching by the Apostle for otherwise Christ in his owne person did not come and preach unto them And thus Estius notes it to be expounded by Ambrose the Interlineary Glosse Aquinas Lyra and Cajetane It is objected againe that by spirits in prison cannot be understood living men except S. Peter should on purpose speake improperly and obscurely I answer according to Bezaes Exposition which in his particular doth differ from Austines and is the more probable not living men but the soules of men separated from their bodies are termed spirits in prison as being in the prison of Hell when Peter wrote of them though they were not so but were joyned to their bodies and so both soules and bodies joyned together were living men when Christ preached unto them But Bellarmine further objects that 1 Pet. 4. 6. where it is said that the Gospell was preached to the dead which hee will have so understood as that men being dead and departed out of this life the Gospell was Preached unto them But the true and genuine meaning of the words rather is this that the Gospell was Preached to them that are now dead though they were not dead but alive when the Gospell was preached unto them Even as in the verse immediately going before it is said that Christ will judge both the quick and the dead that is those that are now alive or shall be alive at Christs comming and those that are now dead or shall be dead at Christs comming who yet shall not be judged whiles they are dead but they shall be raised up and made alive and so be judged As therefore Peter calles them dead because so they are now and were when hee wrote of them though they shall not be dead but alive when they shall be judged So for the same reason hee calles them dead to whom the Gospell was preached though when the Gospell was preached unto them they were alive and not dead And in like manner hee calles them spirits in prison to whom Christ went and Preached because so they were when hee wrote though they were not so when Christ went and preached unto them But Bellarmine chargeth Beza with being so bold as to change the Text because where they reade the spirits that were in prison hee reades the spirits that are in prison But as Beslarmine himselfe could not but confesse in the Originall there is neither that were nor that are but the words are as our Translatours render them the spirits in prison so that either the words that were or that are may be understood as the sense will beare Estius confesseth that some I suppose he meanes some not Protestants understand that are but hee holds it better to understand that were as the verbe is of the Pretertense preached But this reason is of no moment For if because the word Preached hath reference to the time past therefore it must be meant of the Spirits that were in prison when Christ Preached unto them by the same reason when it is said that Christ shall judge both the quick and the dead because shall judge doth respect the time to come therefore also it must be meant of those that shall be dead when Christ shall judge them But this doth not follow and so neither doth the other And thus I hope it may appear that those words of Peter make nothing for Limbus Patrum The fourth and last place of Scripture which is alledged by the Marquesse is Zach. 9. 11. where the pit that is spoken of hee saith cannot be the place of the damned nor the Grave But what then must it therefore be Limbus Patrum It doth not follow for by the pit there may be something else meant then either the place of the damned or the Grave or Limbus Patrum viz. the Babylonish captivity as the Rabbines upon the place expound it Bellarmine citing Calvin for this Exposition saith that it hath no probability because immediatly before there is a prophecy of Christ Rejoyce greatly O Daughter of Sion behold thy King commeth unto thee c. Therefore saith he how should these things cohere if the captivity of Babylon were spoken of I answer well enough the Prophet having told them of Christs comming unto them might well presently after speak of their deliverance out of captivity as a great benefit which they had allready obtained through Christ in whom all the promises are yea and in him amen 2 Cor. 1. 20. and whereby they might be assured of far
God so nigh at hand how doe things heavenly and eternall succeede things earthly and fading if after this life the soules of Christians may continue many hundred years perhaps in the flames of Purgatory before they can get to Heaven Might not this well make every one to feare death and to tremble at the approach of it Might not a Christian at his Death well cry out with the Heathen Emperour O poore Soule whither art thou now going But Cyprian goes on and citing that of Simeon Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace for mine eyes have seene thy salvation he addes that then the servants of God have peace then they have free and calme quietnesse when being taken out of the tempests of this world we arrive at the haven of eternall rest and security when as this death being past we come to immortality And so againe God doth promise immortality and eternity unto thee when thou goest out of the world and doest thou doubt This is not at all to know God this is to offend Christ the Lord and Master of believers with the sinne of unbeliefe this is to be in the Church the house of Faith and yet to have no Faith How profitable it is to goe out of the World Christ himselfe the Master of our salvation and welfare doth shew who when his Disciples were sorrowfull because he said he was to leave them said If you had loved me you would rejoyce because I goe to the Father Joh. 14. 28. teaching us that we should rather rejoyce then be sorry when they depart out of the world whom we love who are dear unto us Thus also Hierome writing to Paula to comfort her concerning the Death of her Daughter Blaesilla saith Let the dead be lamented but such an one whom the place of torment doth receive whom Hell doth devoure for whose punishment the everlasting fire doth burne We whose departure a troupe of Angels doth accompany whom Christ doth come to meet are more grieved or as some reade gravemur let us be more grieved if we abide longer in this Tabernacle of death because so long as we abide here we are as pilgrimes absent from the Lord. Let that desire possesse us woe is me that my pilgrimage is prolonged c. Austine plainly saith that the Catholike faith by Divine authority doth believe the first place to be the Kingdome of Heaven the second to be Hell where every apostate or such us are aliens from the faith of Christ doe suffer everlasting punishments a third place we are altogether ignorant of yea we finde in the holy Scriptures that there is no such place Bellarmine answers that Austine there speakes of those places which are everlasting Which indeed is true for he speakes of Heaven and of Hell the place of torment which are everlasting places for those to abide in that are in them But withall hee saith that there is no third place viz. for those that depart out of this life Besides how can the Romanists yeeld that there is no everlasting place besides Heaven and Hell viz. Gehenna which is the word that Austine useth the Hell of the damned when as they hold a Limbus infantium an everlasting place for Infants to abide in that die without Baptisme which place they make to be distinct both from Heaven and from the place of torment For there they say such children as die unbaptized suffer the punishment of losse whereby the place differs from Heaven but not the punishment of sense whereby it differs from the Hell of the damned But Bellarmine proves that Austine or whosoever was the Authour of the booke called Hypognosticon did not deny that there is a third place to abide in for a time after this life because the Catholike faith doth teach that besides Heaven and Hell there was before Christs death Abrahams bosome where the soules of the holy Fathers did abide I answer that Abrahams bosome was any such Limbus Patrum as the Romanists imagine was no part of Austines Creede as I have shewed before out of Austines undoubted writings And therefore Erasmus though Bellarmine unjustly carpe at him for it might well write Purgatory in the margent over against those words a third place we are altogether ignorant of signifying that Purgatory is a third place of which the Catholike faith is ignorant But what neede is there to alledge particular Fathers when as the Bishop of Rochester who was beheaded in the reigne of Henry the Eighth for maintaining the Popes supremacy in his booke against Luther as hee is cited by Polydore Vergill who was an agent here in England for the Pope in the time of Henry 8. when as I say that Authour confesseth that Purgatory is never or very seldome mentioned by the antient writers and that the Grecians to this day doe not believe that there is any such thing as Purgatory Now for the place of Scripture which the Marquesse saith they have for Purgatory viz. 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. First it is to be observed that whereas Bellarmine doth alledge diverse other places besides this for proofe of Purgatory the Marquesse waves all the other and mentiones onely this conceiving it as it seemes more plaine and pregnant then the rest Yet 2. Bellarmine tells us and bids us marke it that this is one of the most obscure places of all the Scripture though withall hee saith it is one of the most usefull places because from thence they have as hee supposeth a foundation both for Purgatory and for veniall sinnes But as hath beene observed before out of Austine the Scripture is cleare in those things which concerne faith and therefore we must not build pointes of faith upon obscure places Now so obscure is this place viz. 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. that Bellarmine spendes a long Chapter meerely in the explication of it And yet when all is done nothing can be made of it for Purgatory For Bellarmine confutes those that thinke Purgatory to be meant by the fire mentioned v. 13. The fire shall try every mans worke of what sort it is and he proves that the fire there mentioned is the fire of Gods severe and just judgement which is not a purging and afflicting but a proving and examining fire So that Bellarmine doth take away one halfe of the Marquesses quotation and indeed the whole quotation For though Bellarmine would have those words v. 15. he himselfe shall be saved yet so as by fire to be understood of Purgatory yet who seeth not that it is absurd to take the word fire otherwise there then v. 13. And therefore Estius upon the place saith that it is evident that one and the same fire is meant in both Verses Which fire hee will have to be that which shall burne up the World at the last day So also Bellarmine notes some to understand it as some of the tribulations of this life and some
Luthers Works as having it so as Campian alleadged And this is the more apparent in that Dureus professedly taking upon him the defence of Campian against Dr. Whitaker never so much as takes notice of that which the Doctor saith against Campian for falsifying the words of Luther so far was he from knowing of that pretended Edition anno 1551. which should have it forsooth just so as Campian quoted it 9. Luther as the Marquesse telleth us affirmed that Christ was from all eternity even according to his humane nature For proof hereof onely Zuinglius is cited But as I noted before Zuinglius his testimony is not sufficient to make good a charge against Luther Let Luthers words be produced and then it will appeare that he is justly charged 10. He affirms saith the Marquesse that as Christ died with great pain so he seems to have sustained paines in hell after death Indeed I finde such words in Luther on Plal. 16. and I acknowledge it to be a grosse errour so far am I from defending him in it But withall this I finde that Luther was nothing confident in that particular For he addes immediately that he would so understand the words of Peter Act. 2. 24. until he were better informed 11. That the Divinity of Christ suffered or else he were none of his Christ This also Bellarmine doth object against Luther and I confesse that if the word Divinity be strictly and properly taken the assertion is most erronious But Bellarmine probably was not ignorant that Aquinas observeth that because of the identity that is betwixt the divine Nature and the divine Person sometimes the Nature is put for the Person And that thus Austine saith that the divine Nature was conceived and born because the Person of the Son was conceived and born in respect of the humane nature So in like manner Luther might say that the Divinity or divine Nature did suffer because the Person of the Son did suffer according to the humane nature That Luther meant no otherwise then thus is clearly his words which I finde in Gerhard viz. these If I shall suffer my self to be perswaded that onely the humane nature did suffer for me truly Christ shall be a Saviour of small worth unto me for he himself at length will need a Saviour If perhaps that bewitching lady Reason will reclaim saying The Divinity cannot suffer nor dye thou shalt answer That indeed is true yet neverthelesse because the Divinity and the Humanity in Christ make one person therefore the Scripture because of the hypostatical union doth attribute to the Divinity all those things which happen to the Humanity and so to the Humanity those things which belong to the Divinity And truly thus it is indeed for we must needs confesse This Person Christ being pointed at doth suffer and dye But this Person is true God Therefore it is rightly said The Son of God doth suffer For though one part of him as I may so speak viz. the Deity doth not suffer yet that person which is God doth suffer in his other part viz. the Humanity For indeed the Son of God was crucified for us That same I say that same Person was crucified according to the Humanity And again If our sinnes and Gods weath due to our sinnes be weighed in one scale and in the other scale be put onely the death of humane nature or onely a man having sufered for us then the other scale will weigh us down to hel But if in the opposite scale be put the passion of God the death of God the blood of God or God having suffered for us then that scale will be more heavy and ponderous then all our sinnes and all Gods anger This doth abundantly shew that Luther was most orthodox in this point touching Christs Person and Natures And thus that also is answered which immediately followeth being indeed but the same with that which went before viz. That if the humane nature should onely suffer for him Christ were but a Saviour of vile account and had need himself of another Saviour In what sense Luther spake this and how sound and true it is in that sense wherein he spake it is evident by his own words before cited 12. The Marquesse cites Hospinian saying that Luther held the body and blood of Christ both is and may be found according to the substance not only in the bread and wine of the Eucharist or in the hearts of the faithfull but also in all creatures in fire water or in the rope and halter wherewith desperate persons hang themselves Whether Hospinian writ thus of Luther not having his book which is cited I cannot say Hospinian being though a Protestant yet against Luther in point of the Sacrament might peradventure wrest Luthers words beyond his meaning However if Luther did hold so I leave him to answer for himself or some other to answer for him I hold both him to have erred in his Consubstantiation and the Romanists in their Transubstantiation 13. Luther as is objected averreth that the ten Commandements belong not unto us for God did not lead us but the Jews forth of Egypt That Luther speaketh to this effect I grant yet was he far from teaching that Christians are free from the observation of the ten Commandements For immediately after that which the Marquesse citeth he saith thus Falsely therefore do fanaticall persons burthen us with the Law of Moses who spake nothing unto us Indeed we receive and acknowledge Moses as a teacher from whom we learn much wholesome doctrine as shall be shewed a little after But we do not acknowledge him our Lawgiver or Governour seeing he restraineâ— his Ministery to that people viz. the Jews Not to have other gods to fear God to trust in him and to obey him not to abuse his name to honor parents c. these things are to be observed by all and belong to all yet not because they were commanded by Moses but because these Laws which are rehearsed in the Deâ—alogue are imprinted in mans nature Wherefore also the heathens that knew not Moses and to whom God did not speak as he did to the Israelites knew that God is to be obeyed and worshipped that parents are to be honoured c. This doctrine of Luther is no other then they of the Roman Church do teach Estius a great Doctor of that Church writing upon those words Gal. 2. 19. I through the Law am dead to the Law saith Although the sense may seem more easie if it be understood of the Law as it is ceremonial yet may the whole Law given by Moses be understood so far forth as it was given by Moses For the whole legislative office of Moses doth cease by Christ neither is a Christian bound by the Law of the Decalogue but as it doth agree with the Law of nature and is renewed by Christ So the
those other passages immediately before mentioned though there seems indeed some more colour for this allegation then for the other yet is there no just ground for this neither 11. The next charge against Calvin is that he saith That Christ manifested his own effeminatenesse by his shunning of death This also is of like nature with the former Calvin writing upon those words Joh. 12. 27. Now is my soul troubled c. saith that this doth seem to differ much from that which is next before For that there Christ shewed great courage exhorting his Disciples not only to suffer death but to suffer it willingly and defirously if the case so require but now by shunning death he confesseth his weaknesse or softnesse of spirit Then he addes by way of answer that yet here is nothing which doth not very well agree That it was expedient and necessary for our salvation that the Son of God should be so affected And that hence we are to know that Christs death was no sport or play unto him c. So then the word mollities which the Marquesse rendreth effeminatenesse and not unfitly I confesse for it properly signifieth softnesse and is used for softnesse of spirit that word I say is here applied to Christ in a way of objection though Calvin doth positively aver that Christ was deeply affected with the horror of his approaching death and that he was so indeed is most evident both by this and other places of the Evangelical history 12. The Marquesse addes He saith that Theeves and Malefactors hasten to death with obstinate resolution despising it with haughty courage others mildly suffer it But what constancie courage or stoutnesse was there in the Son of God who was astonished and in a manner stricken dead with fear of death How shameful a tendernesse was it to be so far tormented with fear of common death as to melt in bloody sweat and not be able to be comforted but by the sight of Angels Calvin disputes against those who would have it only a meer bodily death not having any curse and wrath of God annexed to it which Christ did fear But saith he let the godly Readers consider how honourable this is for Christ to have been more effemiuate and faint-hearted then most ordinary men Then follow the words objected Theeves and other Malefactors do hasten unto death with obstinate resolution c. The series of the Discourse doth plainly shew that Calvin speakes not positively but upon supposition that if it were so as some hold then all this would follow which he is so farre from asserting that by the absurdity of it he proves the erroniousnesse of their opinion whom he doth confute 13. The Marquesse proceeds in his charge against Calvin saying He saith that the same vehemencie took Christ from the present memory of the heavenly decree so that he forgot at that instant that he was sent hither to be our Redeemer This allegation I grant is true Calvin on Mat. 26. 39. hath these words indeed neither will I undertake the defence of all Calvins expressions or opinions I think it not so safe to ascribe forgetfulnesse unto Christ though as Calvin meant it I do not see that there is any impiety in it And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 14. 33. importing horrour and astonishment may seem to make for it However Calvin was carefull to inculcate this that he would have none to think that there was any turbulencie and disorder in Christs affections as there is in ours but onely that Christ was stricken with fear and anxiety so far forth as the sound and intire nature of man can bear 14. Calvin is taxed for saying That Christs prayer was not premeditate but the force and extremity of grief wringed from him this hasty speech to which a correction was presently added and he chastiseth and recalleth that vow of his which he had let suddenly slip I acknowledge that Calvin hath these words in the same place viz. on Mat. 26. 39. neither do I much approve of them yet by what hath been said already it may appeare that Calvins meaning was good only so to set forth the anxiety of Christs soul as yet to exempt him from whatsoever is evil and sinful Bellarmine himself though he rake up and rack Calvins sayings to make them odious yet confesseth that he saith that Christs nature was perfect and that there was no inordinacie of affections in him But I will make use of the words of learned Dr. Field who hath answered these objections against Calvin long ago The Papists saith he impute I know not what blasphemy to Calvin for that he saith Christ corrected the desire and wish that suddenly came from him But they might easily understand if they pleased that he is far from thinking that any desire or expressing of desire was sudden in Christ as rising in him without consent of reason or that he was inconsiderate in any thing he did or spake but his meaning is that some desires which he expressed proceeded from inferior reason that considereth not all circumstances and that he corrected and revoked the same not as evil but as not proceeding from the full and perfect consideration of all things fit to be thought upon before a full resolution be passed Another learned man also saith that Calvin calls those words Neverthelesse not as I will but as thou wilt a correction in that sense as Rhetoricians are wont to use the figure so called not as if he did amend that which was ill spoken but seasonably to adde that which yet was not spoken And he cites Origen saying that Christ did in those words recall his desire and as it were recogitate So likewise he cites Hierome and the Interlineary Glosse saying that Christ did return into himself Hierome doth yet further paraphrase thus He saith Let not that be which I speak with a humane affection but that for which by thy will I descended to the earth The Jesuite Maldonate saith that Christ left the humane nature to act its part as it would have done if it had not been joyned with the divine nature nor had known any thing of Gods decree So he writes upon those words Father if it be possible c. And upon those Neverthelesse not as I will c. he saith A moderation is fitly added For he so shewes the infirmity of nature that yet he does not exceed the bounds of Gods will That which Maldonate here cals a moderation and Hierome cals a returning into himself and Origen and the Glosse call a recalling of the desire and a recogitating is as much as that which Calvin cals a correction 15. But the Marquesse proceeds and charges Calvin with these words Thus we see Christ to be on all sides so vexed as being over whelmed with desperation he ceased to call upon God which was as