as Iansenius not to name other of the Marquesses own party hath unanswerably proved Christ in Iohn 6. did not treat of the Sacrament but onely of the spirituall eating of his Flesh and the spirituall drinking of his Blood by faith 2. The words of our Saviour Iohn 6. if they must prove any transubstantiation at all will sooner prove the transubstantiation of Christs body into Bread then the transubstantiation of Bread into Christs body I am the Bread of life saith he Iohn 6. 35. 48. I am the living Bread c. ver 51. My flesh is meat indeed c. ver 55. If these sayings bee taken properly and without a figure they will prove a conversion not of Bread into the body of Christ but of the Body of Christ into Bread And the argument that Bradwardine useth against the Idols of the Pagans is by full proportion of as much force against our adversaries transubstantiation Perhaps saith he it is answered that a materiall Idoll after consecration rightly performed is transubstantiated and turned into God This conversion viz. of the Idoll into God is refelled because it appears to every sense all experience bearing witnesse that there is the same materiall Idoll that was before Therefore if there be any conversion made it seemes rather that God is converted into the Idoll then that the Idoll is converted into God This argument I say doth as strongly militate against the opinion of the Romanists concerning the reall presence For it no lesse appears to every sense all experience bearing witnesse that there 's the same materiall Bread that was before Therefore if there be any conversion made it seemes rather that Christs Body is converted into the Bread then that the Bread is converted into Christs Body The Marquesse saith that we with the Iewes and Infidells say How can this man give us his flesh to eate Ioh. 6. 52. But we say no such thing How should wee if wee believe Christ saying except yee eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his Blood you have no life in you vers 53. We know and acknowledge that we must eate the flesh of Christ but yet spiritually not as those unbelieving Iewes imagined being therein more like unto our Adversaries carnally For so our Adversaries hold that the wicked may eate the flesh of Christ and yet be never the better but receive it to their condemnation whereas the eating of Christs Flesh spoken of Ioh. 6. is a thing that doth accompany salvation Who so eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternall life c. v. 54. But saith the Marquesse Had this been but a figure certainly Christ would have removed the doubt when he saw them so offended at the reality Joh. 6. 61. He would not have confirmed his saying in terminis with promise of a greater wonder Joh. 6. 62. You may as well deny his Incarnation his Ascension and aske How could the man come down from Heaven and goe up againe I answer 1. A figure viz. in speech is not properly opposed to reality but to propriety The spirituall eating of Christs Flesh is a reall yet not a proper but a figurative a metaphoricall eating of it when Christ saith I am the true Vine Joh. 15. 1. there is a reality implied as well as when he saith My flesh is meate indeed Joh. 6. 55. yet no Romanist I presume but will grant that Christ is a Vine not properly but figuratively so called True Vine that is excellent incorruptible and spirituall Vine as Iansenius out of Euthymius doth expound it So meate indeed that is excellent incomparable and spirituall meate 2. For those words of our Saviour Iohn 6. 62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before they make nothing for our Adversaries but rather against them For our Saviour in those words most probably intended to let the Jewes see that he did not speak of a Carnall eating of his Flesh as they supposed but of a Spirituall eating of it So Austine understood those words as Iansenius notes and judgeth that exposition most probable And so the Jesuite Maldonate who cites Beda and Rupertus as following the same exposition confesseth that exposition more probable than any other that he met with Yea that he had no Author of that Interpretation which he embraced viz. What will ye doe when ye shall see me ascend into Heaven How much more then will ye be offended How much lesse will ye then believe Yet he saith that he did approve this rather then that of Austine though of all the rest most probable because this did more oppose the sense of the Calvinists which to him he saith was a great argument of the probability of it Here see and observe the disposition of a Jesuit what little reckoning he made of Fathers so he might but oppose Calvinists Bellarmine also thinks this a very literall exposition that Christs meaning was to shew that they should have greater cause to doubt after his Ascension then they had before And this exposition he saith seems to be Chrysostomes yet Iansenius attributeth another exposition unto Chrysostome and Maldonate confesseth that he found none to expound it in that manner Neither is this exposition agreeable to the letter For it is equally inconceiveable that Christ being on Earth should give his Flesh to many thousands to eat if it be meant of Carnall eating as that he should doe it being in Heaven But Bellarmine first hath another exposition of those words of our Saviour which here the Marquesse seemeth to follow viz. that our Saviour would confirme one wonderfull thing by another no lesse wonderfull if not more he means the wonderfull eating of his Flesh in their sense by his wonderfull Ascension into Heaven And this exposition he saith doth confirm their opinion for that if Christ had not promised to give his true Flesh in the Sacrament he needed not to prove his power by his Ascension I answer it doth argue an extraordinary power in Christ to give his Flesh to eat though there be no turning of the substance of the Bread in the Sacrament into the substance of his Flesh Bellarmine indeed saith it is no miracle such as the Jewes required of Christ Ioh 6. 30 31. that common Bread should signifie Christs Body or that Christs Body should be eaten by Faith But is this so ordinary and easie a matter that common Bread common for substance though not for use should so signifie the Body of Christ that by the due receiving of it the very Body of Christ should be received and so Christ and the Receiver be united together Spiritually even as Bread and he that eateth it are united together Corporally Is all this nothing except the Bread be substantially changed and turned into Christs Body Why then doth Bellarmine elswhere tell us that the Fathers refer the wonderfull effects of Baptisme for of
Saint Chrysostom saith Omnia clara sunt plana ex scriptur is divinis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt yet no man ever hath yet defined what are necessary and what not What points are fundamentall and what are not fundamentall Necessary to Salvation is one thing and necessary for knowledge as an improvement of our faith is another thing for the first if a man keeps the Commandments and believes all the Articles of the Creed he may be saved though he never read a word of Scripture but much more assuredly if he meditates upon Gods word with the Psalmist day and night But if he meanes to walk by the rule of Gods word and to search the Scriptures he must lay hold upon the meanes that God hath ordained whereby he may attaine unto the true understanding of them for as Saint Paul saith God hath placed in the Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors to the end we should be no more little children blown about with every wind of Doctrine therefore it is not for babes in understanding to take upon them to understand those things wherein so great a Prophet as the Prophet David confessed the darknesse of his owne ignorance And though it be true the Scripture is a river through which a lambe may wade and an Elephant may swim yet it is to be supposed and understood that the lambe must wade but onely through where the river is foordable It doth not suppose the river to be all alike in depth for such a river was never heard of but there may be places in the river where the lambe may swim as well as the Elephant otherwise it is impossible that an Elephant should swim in the same depth where a lambe may wade though in the same river he may neither is it the meaning of that place that the child of God may wade through the Scripture without directions help or Judges but that the meannest capacitie qualified with a harmelesse innocence and desirous to wade through that river of living waters to eternall life may find so much of Comfort and heavenly knowledge there easily to be obtained that he may easily wade through to his eternall Salvation and that there are also places in the same river wherein the highest speculations may plunge themselves in the deep mysteries of God Wherefore with pardon crav'd for my presumption in holding Your Majestie in so tedious a discourse as also for my boldnesse in obtruding my opinion which is except as incomparable Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall pollicy hath well observed the Churches Authority be required herein as necessary hereunto we shall be so far from agreeing upon the true meaning of the Scripture that the outward letter sealed with the inward witnesse of the Spirit being all hereticks have quoted Scripture and pretended Spirit will not be a warrant sufficient enough for any private man to judge so much as the Scripture to be Scripture or the Gospell it selfe to be the Gospell of Christ This Church being found out and her Authority allowed of all controversies would be soone decided and although we allow the Scripture to be the lock upon the door which is Christ yet we must allow the Church to be the Key that must open it as Saint Ambrose in his 38. Sermons calls the agreement of the Apostles in the Articles of our beliefe Clavis Scripturae one of whose Articles is I believe the holy Catholick Church As the Lion wants neither strength nor courage nor power nor weapons to seize upon his prey yet he wants a nose to find it out wherefore by naturall instinct he takes to his assistance the little Jack-call a quick sented beast who runs before the Lion and having found out the prey in his language gives the Lion notice of it who soberly untill such time as he fixes his eyes upon the bootie makes his advance but once comming within view of it with a more speed then the swiftest running can make he jumps upon it and seizes it Now to apply this to our purpose Christ crucified is the main substance of the Gospell according to the Apostles saying I desire to know nothing but Iesus and him crucified This crucified Christ is the nourishment of our soules according to our Saviours own words Ubi Cadaver ibi aquilae Thereby drawing his Disciples from the curious speculation of his body glorified to the profitable meditation of his body crucified It is the prey of the Elect the dead Carkasse feedeth the Eagles Christ crucified nourisheth his Saints according to Saint Iohns saying except we eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud we have no life in us him we must mastigate and chew by faith traject and convey him into our hearts as nutriment by meditation and digest him by Coalition whereby we grow one with Christ and Christ becomes one with us according to that saying of Tertullian Auditu devorandus est intellectu ruminandus fide digerendus Now for the true understanding of the Scriptures which is no other thing then the finding out of Iesus and him crucified who is the very life of the Scriptures which body of Divinity is nourished with no other food and all its veines fil'd with no other bloud though this heavenly food the Scripture have neither force nor power to seize upon its prey but is endued with a lively spirit able to overcome the greatest ignorance yet there is a quick sented assistant called Ecclesia or Church which is derived from a verbe which signifies to call which must be the Jack-call to which this powerfull seeker after this prey must joyne it selfe or else it will never be able to find it out and when we are called we must go soberly to work untill by this means we have attained unto the true understanding and sight thereof and then let the Lion like the Eagle Maher-shalal hashbaz as the Prophet Esay cap. 8. v. 3. tells us make hast to the prey make speed to the spoile Saint Paul confirmes the use of this Etymologie writing to the Corinthians viz. To the Saints called and the Ephesians cap. 4. he tells us if ye would be in one body and in one spirit and of one mind you must be as you are called in our hope of your vocation and in his Epistle of the Colossians cap. 3. he tells us that if we will have the peace of Christ to rule in our hearts that is it by which we are called in one selfe body where we must allow a constitution or Society of men called to that purpose and whose calling it is to procure unto us this peace and unitie in the Church or we shall never find it Thus when dissention arose between Paul and Barnabas concerning Circumcision their disputations could effect nothing but heat untill the Apostles and Elders met together and determined the matter there must be a society of men that can say Bene visum fuit nobis Spiritui sancto or
sayes a little after But though it had not been one halfe quarter of that time before the Israelites wanted water againe yet that is no argument why the Apostle speaking of the Rock that followed them should not meane a materiall and visible Rock for the materiall and visible Rock that is the water that flowed from it might follow the Israelites though but for while even so long as they encamped in Rephidim neither doth the Apostle say that it followed them either perpetually or for any long time but onely that it followed them But howsoever it be understood that the Rock followed them which I confesse is somewhat obscure how by the Rock there should be meant Christ as the efficient cause giving them water to drinke For to drinke of the Rock is there expressed in the same phrase as to drinke of the Cup 1 Cor. 11. 28. Neither I thinke can one in any congruity be said to drinke of a man that giveth him either water or any thing else to drinke but onely to drinke either of the liquour or metonymically of that wherein the liquour is contained Finally Bellarmine himselfe doth acknowledge that the materiall Rock which afforded the Israelites water to drinke was a figure of Christ and that the water proceeding from that Rock was a figure of Christs Blood onely he denies that so much is meant by the Apostle in those words they dranke of the spirituall Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ But I demand then from what place of Scripture if not from those words of the Apostle can so much bee gathered Iansenius a learned Romanist is more candid and free then Bellarmine for expounding the Parable of the sower he saith that the word is as when it is said The seed is the word of God c. Luke 8. 11. is put for signifieth as also there where it is said And the Rock was Christ And so also say we when 't is said This is my Body the meaning is This doth signifie my Body or This is a Signe a Token a Seal a Pledge of my Body The Lord saith Austine doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave the Signe of his Body And again speaking of those words Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his Bloud ye have no life in you Ioh. 6. 53. he saith That Christ seemeth to command some hainous act or some grosse wickednesse And that therefore it is a figurative speech requiring us to communicate with the Lords sufferings and sweetly and profitably to keep in memory that his flesh was Crucified and wounded for us And yet again He that is at enmity with Christ saith he doth neither eat his Flesh nor drink his Bloud although to the condemnation of his presumption he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing as well as others These saying of Austin doe sufficiently shew how he understood those words This is my Body and how far he was from being of the now-Romane Faith concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament Indeed these very words This is my Body which our Adversaries pretend to make so much for them are most strong against them and enough to throw down Transubstantiation For Christ saying This is my Body what is meant by the word This They of the Church of Rome cannot agree about it but some say one thing some another only by no means they will have Bread to be meant by it For they very well know that so their Transubstantiation were quite overthrown But look into the Scripture and mind it well and see if any thing else but Bread can be meant by the word This. It 's said Mat. 26. 26. Iesus took Bread and blessed it brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat This is my Body What is here meant by the word This What is it that Christ calls his Body That which he bade the Disciples take and eate And what was that That which he gave unto them And what was that That which he brake And what was that That which he blessed And what was that That which he took And what was that Bread For so expresly the Evangelist tells us that Iesus took Bread So then it was Bread that Christ took and Bread that he blessed and Bread that he brake and Bread that he gave to the Disciples and Bread that he bade them take and eat and Bread of which he spake saying This is my Body As if he should say This Bread which I have taken and blessed and broken and given unto you to eat even this Bread is my Body Now the word This relating unto Bread the speech must needs be Figurative and cannot be Proper For properly Bread cannot be Christs Body Bread and Christs Body being things of diverse and different natures and so it being impossible that properly one should be the other As when Christ called Herod a Fox and the Pharisees Serpents and Vipers the speeches are not Proper but Figurative so is it when he called Bread his Body it being no more possible that Bread should be the Body of Christ in propriety of speech then that a man should properly be a Fox a Serpent a Viper Besides doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. speaking of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper continually call it Bread even after Consecration Indeed to distinguish it from ordinary and common Bread he calls it This Bread but yet still Bread the same in substance though not the same in use as before And which is worthy to be observed thus the Apostle calls it viz. Bread when he sharply reproves the Corinthians for their unworthy receiving of the Sacrament setting before them the grievousnesse of the sin and the greatnesse of the danger that they did incur by it Now what had been more forcible and effectuall to this end than for the Apostle if he had been of the Romish Faith to have told them that now it was not Bread though it seemed unto them to be so but that the substance of the Bread was gone and instead thereof was come the very substance of Christs Body He saith indeed That whoso eat that Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily are guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord But that is because that Bread and that Cup i. e. the Wine in the Cup are by the Lords own institution Signes and Seales of the Lords Body and Bloud so that the unworthy receiving of them is an indignity done to the things signified by them But to return to the Marquesse he citeth sundry passages in Iohn 6. where our Saviour speakes of eating his flesh and drinking his blood calling himselfe Bread living Bread and affirming that his Flesh is meat indeed and his Blood drinke indeed But all this is farre from proving that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament which the Marquesse doth contend for For 1.
Body that Christs Body may be understood to be given for the salvation of our body and his Blood for the salvation of our soule which is in the Blood And so also to signifie that Christ tooke both Body and Soule that he might redeeme both And therefore hee saith It is not without good cause that very many good men even of the Catholike profession being conversant in the reading both of Divine and Ecelesiasicall Writers doe most earnestly desire to partake of the Lords cup and by all meanes strive that this saving Sacrament of Christs Blood together with the Sacrament of his Body may againe use to be received according to the ancient custome of the universall Church which was continued for many Ages For the Scriptures which the Marquesse alledgeth the first of them viz. Ioh. 6. 51. doth not concerne the Sacrament which is not treated of in that Chapter as I have noted before and that according to the judgement of Iansenius a Romanist to whom may be added diverse others of the Church of Rome who as Bellarmine confesseth were of that opinion viz. Biel Cusanus Cajetan Tapper and Hesselius And even Bellarmine himselfe and others who hold that the Sacrament is spoken of in Ioh. 6. yet hold it not to be spoken of till after those words which the Marquesse citeth in those words which follow immediately after vers 51. And the bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the World in those words I say and the rest that follow almost to the end of the Chapter they say that our Saviour speakes of the Sacrament but not in any of the former words of the Chapter And if the Sacrament were spoken of in that Chapter those words v. 51. If any man eate of this bread he shall live for ever would not so much evince a sufficiency of communicating in one kinde as the words a little after viz. v. 53. Verely verely I say unto you Except you eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his Blood you have no life in you would evince a necessity of communicating in both kindes For if those words be understood of a Sacramentall eating and drinking it cannot be avoided but that by those very words as it is necessary to eate of the bread in the Sacrament so is it to drinke of the cup also For though by the forementioned concomitancy of the blood with the Body they say that when one kinde onely viz. bread is received the Blood of Christ is drunk as well as his Body is eaten yet as Iansenius well observes that outward act of taking the bread in the Sacrament cannot be called drinking It is rightly called eating saith hee because something is taken by way of meate but how is it called drinking when as nothing is received by way of drinke Neither is it certaine that in the other two places viz. Acts 2. 42. and Luke 24. 30. by breaking of bread is meant the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Cajetan expounds the former place of ordinary bread and the other place is expounded by Iansenius after the same manner Neither is it true that Bellarmine saith that Iansenius teacheth that Christ by that example would shew the fruit and benefit of the Sacrament received in one kinde Jansenius doth not speake of receiving the Sacrament in one kinde though I know hee did approve of it but onely saith that by the effect that followed the Lord would commend unto us the vertue of the Sacrament worthily received to wit that thereby our eyes are enlightned to know Iesus And whereas Austine and Theophylact are said to understand that in Luke 24. of the Sacrament Iansenius tells us that so many thinke but that indeed they did rather make mention of the Sacrament because it was not here spoken of in Luke but mystically commended and insinuated by our Saviour But suppose that the Sacrament were spoken of in those places as probably it is in Acts 2. because breaking of Bread is there joyned with Doctrine and Prayer yet there is no sufficient ground for communicating in one kinde For the figure Synecdoche wherby the part is put for the whole is not unusuall in the Scripture Thus Soule which is but a part of man is put for man All the Soules that came with Jacob c. that is all the persons Gen. 46. 26. So likewise flesh being a part of man is used for man I will not feare what flesh can doe unto me Psal 56. 4. that is what man can doe unto me as it is expressed vers 11. So whereas David saith In thy sight shall no man be justified Psal 143. 2. Paul hath it There shall no flesh be iustified in his sight Rom. 3. 20. Thus the whole celebration of the Sacrament may be termed breaking of bread because that is one and that an eminent part of it The Marquesse goes on still concerning the same Sacrament but so as in the Church of Rome it is changed into a Sacrifice We hold saith hee that Christ offered up unto his Father in the Sacrifice of the Masse as an expiation for the sinnes of the people is a true and proper Sacrifice This you deny this we prove by Scripture viz. Mal. 1. 11. From the rising of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my Name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place Incense shall be offered to my Name and a pure offering This could not be meant of the figurative offerings of the Iewes because it was spoken of the Gentiles neither can it be understood of the reall sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse because that was done but in one place and at one time and then and there not among the Gentiles neither Which could be no other but the daily sacrifice of the Masse which is and ever was from East to West a pure and daily sacrifice Luke 22. 19. This is my body which is given for you not to you therefore a sacrifice The Fathers are of this opinion Answ That Christ is offered up in the Eucharist a Sacrifice truly and properly so called Protestants have good cause to deny For the Eucharist is a Sacrament to be received by us not a sacrifice to be offered unto God Christ instituting the Sacrament gave it to his Disciples hee did not offer up himselfe as then unto his Father The Scripture tells us that Wee are sanctified through the offering of the Body of Iesus Christ once for all Heb. 10. 10. And immediately after there it followes that whereas the Leviticall Priests did often offer the same sacrifices Christ having offered one Sacrifice for sinnes for ever sate down on the right hand of God And Heb. 9. 25 26 27 28. the Apostle proves that Christ was not to be offered often because his offering was his suffering so that if hee should have been offered often then he should also have suffered
to which the Marquesse doth next leade us We hold saith hee Purgatory fire where satisfaction shall be made for sinnes after death you deny it We have Scripture for it 1 Cor. 3. 13 15. The fire shall try every mans worke of what sort it is if any mans worke shall be burnt hee shall suffer losse but hee himselfe shall be saved yet so as by fire S. Aug. so interprets this place upon Psal 37. also S. Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 3. and ser 20. in Psal 118. S. Hier. l. 2. c. 13. advers Ioan. S. Greg. l. 4. dial c. 39. Origen Hom. 6. in cap. 15. Exod. If there be any such place as Purgatory it doth much more concerne us then Limbus Patrum which they hold to have been made void and of no use long agoe but this they pretend to continue still and to be of as much force as ever it was But we finde nothing in Scripture to prove any such place or any such fire as that of Purgatory wherein they that have not fully satisfied for their sinnes in this life must lie and frie untill they have made full satisfaction and then be taken out and conveyed to Heaven For thereore they call the place Purgatory and the fire Purgatory fire because they say in that place by that fire the Soules are purged which were not fully purged in this life that being so purged they may have entrance into Heaven But how doth this agree with the Scripture That tells us that the Blood of Iesus Christ cleanseth us from all sinne 1 Ioh. 1. 7. And that if any man sinne wee have an advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous And he is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Ioh. 2. 1 2. It is onely Christ who by his blood doth satisfie for our sinnes and so purge us from them we cannot doe it by any thing which we either doe or suffer in this life much lesse is it to be done by us hereafter when we are dead God doth indeed afflict his children here in this World thereby to purge them By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged and this is all the fruit to take away his sinne Isai 27. 9. But this affliction is onely castigatory not satisfactory When we are judged we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the World 1 Cor. 11. 32. After this life is ended there remaines no more affliction for the godly for any thing that we can finde in Scripture Wee know that if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God a house not made with hands eternall in the Heavens Therefore we are alwayes confident knowing that whiles wee are at home in the body wee are absent from the Lord. For we walke by Faith and not by sight We are confident I say willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 2 Cor. 5. 1 6 7 8. The Apostle speakes there not peculiarly of himselfe or such eminent ones as he was but generally of all Believers as appeares by those words For we walke by faith and not by sight which is as true of every believer as it was of Paul Now if the faithfull when they depart out of this Tabernacle the body goe to their house prepared for them in Heaven and are present with the Lord and enjoy the sight of him then surely there is no such thing as Purgatory to keepe them I know not how long absent from God in paine and torment And so the Scripture tells us that they that die in the Lord are blessed and rest from their labours Revel 14. 13. But how are they blessed and how doe they rest from their labours if yet after they are dead they must endure Purgatory the paines whereof they say are most grievous and such as that no paines here in this life are to be compared with them Yea some hold that the least paine in Purgatory is greater then the greatest paine that is in this life And whereas Dominicus à Soto thought that none did continue in Purgatory above ten years Bellarmine confutes this by the custome of their Church praying for those that were known to be dead a hundred or two hundred yeares before Which argues that as they suppose soules may continue so long in Purgatory Yea he cites Bede who lived about 900 years agoe telling of one to whom was shewed the paines of Purgatory and it was told him that all the Soules in Purgatory should be delivered and saved in the day of judgement c. whence he infers that according to Bede some now dead yea that were dead many hundred years agoe must abide in Purgatory untill the day of judgement And will any call such blessed will any say that such rest from their labours In a word the Scripture tels us but of two places appointed for such as depart out of this life the one a place of comfort and the other a place of torment and withall it tells us that betwixt these two places there is such a great gulfe fixed that they that are in the one cannot passe unto the other Luke 16. 25 26. Neither doe wee want the testimonies of the antient Fathers for the asserting of this truth which we maintaine Cyprian saith that though the godly and the wicked fare alike here yet when this life is ended then their estates doe much differ We are contained saith hee for a while both good and bad in one house whatsoever doth happen within the house we suffer alike untill this temporall life being ended we are divided to the habitations either of eternall death or of immortality Hee makes no third place distinct from those of immortality and of everlasting death neither doth hee make any stay after the end of this life but that such as escape the habitation of endlesse death doe immediately passe to the habitation of immortality So the same Father againe The Kingdome now is very neare at hand c. now after earthly things follow heavenly after small things great after fading things eternall What place is there here for anxiety and carefulnesse who can now be fearfull and sad but he that hath neither hope nor faith For it is for him to feare death who is not willing to goe to Christ and it is for him to be unwilling to goe to Christ who doth not believe that he beginnes to reigne with Christ For it is written that the just doth live by faith If thou beest just if thou doest live by faith if thou doest indeed believe in God why being to be with Christ and being sure of the Lords promise doest thou not embrace this that thou art called unto Christ and reioyce that thou art freed from the Devill Thus in a time of mortality did Cyprian comfort and encourage Christians against the feare of death But how will all this consist with Purgatory How is the Kingdome of