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
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.
away have made shipwrack of their faith This is frequently affirmed amongst the Fathers see S. Aug de gratia lib. arbit de correp gratia ad articulos We hold that God did never inevitably damn any man before he was born or as you say from all eternity you say he did we have Scripture for what we say Wis 1. 13. God made not death neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living 1 Tim. 2. 34. God our Saviour who will have all men to be saved 2 Pet. 3. 9. The Lord is not willing that any should die but that all should come to repentance and if you will not believe when he saies so believe him when he swears it As I live saith the Lord I doe not delight in the death of a sinner The Fathers are of our opinion S. Aug. lib. 1. Civit. Dei Tertul. Orat. cap. 8. Saint Cypr. lib. 4. Epist 2. and Saint Amb. lib. 2. de Cani Abel We hold that no man ought infallibly to assure himselfe of his salvation you say he ought the Scripture saith we ought not 1 Cor. 9. 27. S. Paul was not assured but that whilst he preached unto others he himselfe might become a cast-away Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest in the faith be not high-minded but fear c. least thou also maist be cut off Phil. 2. 12. Worke out your salvation with fear and trembling The Fathers are of our opinion Amb Ser. 5. in Psal 118. S. Basil in Constil Monast chap. 2. S. Hier lib. 2. Advers Pelagian S. Crysost Hom. 87. in Joan. S. Aug in Psal 40. S. Bernard Ser. 3. de Advent and Ser. 1. de Sept. saith Who can say I am of the Elect We say that every man hath an Angel guardian you say he hath not we have Scripture for it viz. Mat. 18. 10. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones for I say unto you that in heaven their Angels doe alwaies behold the face of my Father Acts 12. 13. S. Peter knocking at the door they say it is his Angel they believed this in the Apostles time the Fathers believed it along S. Greg. Dial. lib. 4. cap. 58. S. Athanas de Communi Essentia S. Chrys Hom. 2. in ep ad Colos lib. 6. de Sacer. Greg. Turonens lib. de gloria Martyr S. Aug. ep ad Probam cap. 19. and S. Jer. upon these words Their Angels Mat 17. 10. calls it a great dignity which every one hath from his Nativity We say the Angels pray for us knowing our thoughts and deeds you deny it we have Scripture for it Zach. 1. 9 10 11 12. Then the Angel of the Lord answered and said O Lord of Hosts how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the Cities of Judah against whom thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years Apoc. 8. 4. And the smoake of the incense of the prayers of the Saints ascended from the hand of the Angel before the Lord. This place was so understood by Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. and S. Hillary in Psal 129. tells us This intercession of Angels Gods nature needeth not but our infirmities doe So S. Amb. lib. de viduis Victor utic lib. 3. de persecutione Vandalorum We hold it lawfull to pray unto them you not we have Scripture for it Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evill blesse these lads c. Hosea 12. 4. He had power over the Angel and prevailed he wept and made supplications unto them Saint Augustine expounding these words of Job 19. 21. Have pitty upon me O ye my friends for the hand of the Lord is upon me saith that holy Job addressed himselfe to the Angels We hold that the Saints deceased know what passeth here on earth you say they know not we have Scripture for it Luke 16. 29. where Abraham knew that there were Moses and the Prophets Books here on earth which he himselfe had never seen when he was alive The Fathers say as much Euseb Ser. de Ann. S. Hier. in Epit. Paulae S. Maxim Ser. de S. Agnete We say they pray for us you not we have Scripture for it Apoc. 5. 8. The twenty four Elders fell downe before the Lambe having every one of them Harpes and golden Viols full of odours which are the prayers of the Saints Baruch 3. 4. O Lord Almighty thou God of Israel hear now the prayers of the dead Israelites The Fathers were of this opinion S. Aug. Ser. 15. de verbis Apost S. Hilar. in Psal 129. S. Damas lib. 4. de fide cap. 16. We hold that we may pray to them you not we have Scripture for it Luke 16. 24. Father Abraham have mercy on me and send Lazarus c. You bid us shew one proof for the lawfulnesse hereof when here are two Saints pray'd unto in one verse and though Dives were in Hell yet Abraham in Heaven would not have expostulated with him so much without a non nobis Domine if it had been in it selfe a thing not lawfull You will say it is a parable yet a jury of ten Fathers of the grand inquest as Theophil Tertul. Clem. Alex. S. Chrys S. Jer. S. Amb. S. Aug. S. Greg. Euthem and Ven. Beda give their verdict that it was a true History but suppose it were a parable yet every parable is either true in the persons named or else may be true in some others The Holy Ghost tells no lies nor fables nor speaks not to us in parables consisting either of impossibilities or things improbable Job 5. 1. Call now if there be any that will answer thee and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne It had been a frivolous thing in Eliphaz to have asked Job the question if invocation of Saints had not been the practise of that time The Fathers affirme the same S. Diony c. 7. S. Athan. Ser. de Anunt S. Basil Orat. 44. in Mat. S. Chrys Hom. 66. ad Popul S. Hier. pray'd to S. Paula in Epitaph S. Paulae S. Maximus to S. Agnes Ser. de S. Agnete S. Bern. to our blessed Lady We hold Confirmation necessary you not we have Scripture for it Acts 8. 14. Peter and John prayed for them that they might receive the holy Ghost for as yet he was fallen upon none of them onely they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Then laid they their hands on them and they received the holy Ghost Where we see the holy Ghost was given in Confirmation which was not given in Baptisme also Heb. 6. 1. Therefore leaving the principles of the Doctrine of Christ let us go on unto perfection not laying againe the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God of Baptisme and of Laying on of hands The Fathers affirme the same Tert. lib. de Resurrect Carn S. Pacian lib. de Bapt. S. Amb. lib. de Sac. S. Hier. Cont. Lucif S. Cypr. lib. 2. Ep. 1. speaking both of
Holy Ghost could Erre For then there were no room for that inference That Truth is no where to be found but in Holy Scripture 2. His Majesty spake not of any private Spirit but of the Spirit of God leading us into all Truth alledging that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 2. 12. We have received not the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God It 's true if any under pretence of the Spirit goe contrary to the Word as too many doe whether they be particular Persons or generall Councells that doe so it is a private Spirit viz. their owne Spirit that they are guided by Therefore Saint Iohn bids Believe not every spirit but trie the spirits whether they be of God because many false Prophets many that falsly pretend the Spirit are gone out into the world 1 Iohn 4. 1. But whoever they be that goe according to the Word though they be particular and private persons yet it is not their own particular and private Spirit but the Spirit of God that doth guide them The Scripture was given by inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3. 16. Therefore it is Gods Spirit and not Mans that doth speak in and by the Scriptures Lastly as to your Majesties quotation of so many Fathers for the Scriptures easinesse and plainnesse to be understand If the Scriptures themselves doe tell us that they are hard to be understood c. 1. His Majesty did not quote many Fathers nor any at all to prove that the Scriptures are every where plain and easie to be understood but to shew that the Scriptures are their own interpreters which are His Majesties words pag. 50. To prove this which is a most certain truth His Majesty quoted indeed many Fathers as Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Crysostome Basil Austine Gregory and Optatus The Scriptures quoted by the Marquesse make nothing against this viz. 2 Pet. 3. 16. Act. 8. 31. not as it is mis-printed 13. Luke 24. 25. rather 45. Apoc. 5. 4. where not the Angel as the Marquesse saith but Iohn wept because none was found worthy to open and to read the Book Neither doth it appear that by the Book there mentioned is meant the Scripture as the Marquesse seemeth to suppose And so indeed many have thought as the Jesuit Ribera telleth us who yet neverthelesse professeth that he did not see how historically this could be For this Book was shut and sealed as he observes untill that time that Iohn had this Revelation when as all the other Apostles were deceived so that the Scripture if it were the Book there spoken of was alwayes shut to Peter and Paul and the other Apostles The other places I grant do shew that in the Scriptures there are some things obscure and difficult at least to some but this is nothing against the Scriptures being their own interpreters What is obscure in one place must be cleared by some other place or else without extraordinary revelation I see not how we should attain to the understanding of it No need therefore to put those sayings of the Fathers cited by His Majesty among the Errata's that are behind their Books as the Marquesse speaketh pag. 57. where he addes Or else we must look out some other meaning of their words than what your Maj hath inferred from thence as thus they were easie in aliquibus locis but not in omnibus locis or thus they were easie as to the attainment of particular salvation but not as to the generall cognizance of all the Divine Mystery therein contained c. But this is nothing contrary to his Majesties inference which was only this That the Scriptures are their own Interpreters i. e. that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture not that the Scriptures are clear in all points and in all places it sufficeth that which the Marquesse himselfe doth seeme to yeild they are clear in those things which concern Salvation And this was Austines determination In those things saith he which are plainly set down in the Scriptures are found all those things which concern faith and good life Yea so much the Scripture doth testimony of it self The testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple Psal 19. 7. The entrance of thy words giveth light it giveth understanding to the simple Psal 119. 130. From a child thou hast known the Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation c. 2 Tim. 3. 15. First we hold the reall presence you deny it we say his Body is there you say there is nothing but bare Bread we have Scripture for it Mat. 20. for 26. 26. Take eat this is my Body So Luke 22. 19. This is my Body which is given for you Here the Marquesse comes to performe that which before he promised pag. 53 54. viz. to shew that in those points wherein they and we differ the Scriptures are on their side and not on ours And he begins with the controversie about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper alledging those words This is my Body as a clear proof of their opinion viz. that after Consecration there is no longer the substance of Bread but that the Bread is transubstantiated and turned into the substance of Christs Body But doth it appear that those words This is my Body are to be understood properly any more than those Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every man-child among you shall be circumcised There Circumcision is called Gods Covenant whereas properly it was not the Covenant it self but the token of the Covenant as it is called immediately after ver 11. So Exod. 12. 13. and in other places the Lamb is called the Lords Passeover whereas properly it was not the Passeover but a Token of the Passeover being slain and eaten in remembrance of the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites when he saw the First-born of the Aegyptians Exod. 12. 13. And thus also it 's said 1 Cor. 10. 4. that the Rock was Christ How could that be Not in respect of Substance but in respect of Signification the Rock signified Christ was a Type and a Figure of Christ Bellarmine I know doth indeavour to elude all these instances as if the speeches were not Figurative but Proper To that place concerning Circumcision he answereth that both Speeches are proper viz. Circumcision is the Covenant and Circumcision is the Token of the Covenant Circumcision he saith was the Token of the Covenant as the Covenant is taken for Gods Promise and it was also the Covenant it self as the Covenant is taken for the Instrument whereby the Promise is applyed But here Bellarmine is contrary both to himself and to Reason He is contrary to himselfe for a little before he saith that these words Circumcision is the Token
he did declare who he was For if none can forgive sinnes but onely God and the Lord Christ did forgive them then it is manifest that he was the Word of God made the Son of Man c. and that as God he hath mercy on us and doth forgive us our debts which we owe unto God our Maker Accordingly also Ambrose another of those Fathers whom the Marquesse maketh to be of their opinion Whereas saith he Iewes say that onely God can forgive sinnes they doe indeed confesse Christ to be God and by their judgement bewray their perfidiousnesse c. They have a testimony for Christs Divinity they have no Faith for their owne Salvation Therefore great is the madnesse of the unbelieving people that when as they confesse that it belongs onely unto God to forgive sinnes yet they doe not beleeve God when he forgiveth sins So by this Argument the same Father proves the Holy Ghost to be God because he forgiveth Sins For that none can forgive sinnes but onely God as it is written Who can forgive sinnes but only God Thus Ambrose cites that saying of the Scribes as a most undoubted truth How then have Ministers power to forgive Sins In that the word of reconciliation is committed unto them 2 Cor. 5. 19. in that they are to preach remission of sinnes in Christs name Luk. 24. 47. Be it known unto you that through this man viz. Christ is preached unto you forgivenesse of sinnes said Paul Act. 13. 38. Ambrose observes that Christ first said to his Apostles Receive ye the holy Ghost and then Whose sins ye remit they are remitted Whence he gathers that it is the holy Ghost that doth indeed forgive Sins Men saith he doe onely afford their Ministery for the forgivenesse of sinnes they doe not exercise the authority of any power Neither doe they forgive sins in their Name but in the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Lombard called the Master of the Sentences and of School-divinity disputing this Question and shewing diverse Opinions about it determines thus That God only doth remit and retain sins and that yet God hath given power to the Church to bind and loose But that God himself doth bind and loose one way and the Church another way That God by himself alone doth forgive sinne so as to clense the soul from staine and to free it from the guilt of eternall death That he hath not given this power to Priests to whom yet he hath given power to loose and bind that is to declare men to be loosed or bound Whence our Lord first by himselfe made the Leper sound and then sent him to the Priests that they might declare him to be clean And hence he inferres that a Minister of the Gospell hath such power in remitting or retaining sins as the Priest in the Law had in clensing a Leper The Priest was said to make the Leper clean or unclean so the words are in the Originall Levit. 13. when he did pronounce and declare him to be clean or unclean So Ministers remit or retain sinnes when they pronounce and declare that sins are remitted or retained of God And in this Lombard followed Hierome who as his words cited by Lombard doe shew by this very similitude of the Leviticall Priest dealing with a Leper illustrates and sets forth the manner how a Minister doth now remit or retain sins Thus then I hope it may sufficiently appear that in this point both Scriptures and Fathers are for us and not against us as the Marquesse would have it We hold that we ought to confesse our sins unto our ghostly Father this ye deny saying that ye ought not to confesse your sins but unto God alone This we prove by Scripture Mat. 3. 5 6. Then went out Jerusalem and all Judea and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sinnes This confession was no generall confession but in particular as appeares Acts 19. 18 19. And many that beleeved came and confessed and shewed their deeds The Fathers affirme the same c. For Confession of Sinnes Protestants doe not say that they ought not to confesse to any but God onely though they hold that ordinarily it sufficeth to confesse onely unto God and that there is no necessity of confessing to any other whereas they of the Church of Rome will have it necessary for every one man to confesse unto a Priest all his deadly sinnes and such indeed are all sinnes whatsoever without the mercy of God in Christ Rom. 6. 23. Gal. 3. 10. which by diligent examination he can find out together with all the severall circumstances whereby they are aggravated Thus hath the Councell of Trent decreed it And nothing will suffice to procure one that is Baptized remission of Sins without this Confession either in Re actually performed or in Voto in desire as Bellarmine doth expound it Who also stickes not to say that in all the Scripture there seems not to be any promise of for givenesse of sinnes made to those that confesse their sins unto God Which is a most impudent Assertion For David having said I acknowledged my sinne unto thee and mine iniquity have I not hid I said I will confesse my transgressions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sinne he addes immediately for this shall every one that is godly make his prayer unto thee c. Psal 32. 5 6. Besides Aquinas and Bonaventure two prime Schoolemen hold that under the Law it was not ordinarily required of people to confesse in particular unto a Priest Bonaventure also cites Austine saying Oblatio sacrificiorum fuit confessio peccatorum The offering of sacrifices was the confession of sinnes whence hee inferreth that therefore it seemes there was no other confessing of sinnes but the offering of Sacrifices For those two places of Scripture cited by the Marquesse neither they nor any other doe speake of such a confession as they of the Church of Rome doe contend for Bellarmine holds that their Sacramentall confession as they call it viz. that confession which they make a part of the Sacrament of penance was not instituted till after Christs Resurrection and therefore he sayes it is no marvell if as Ambrose observes we reade of Peters teares but not of his confession That the Jewes therefore when they were baptized of Iohn confessed their sinnes Mat. 3. 5 6. is not enough to prove that confession which we now dispute of although it did appeare that the confession there spoken of was a particular confession which yet appeares not Cardinall Cajetane saith it was but a generall confession Neither indeed in probability could it be any more for how should Iohn have been able to heare such multitudes as came unto him to be baptized Ierusalem and all Iudea and all the region round about Iordan Mat. 3. 5. confesse all their sinnes in
one booke there are 24. and 16. in the other For the third place it 's true that Austine doth oftentimes in answer to the Articles imposed upon him deny that Gods predestination is the cause of mans non-perseverance as some did charge him to hold why any fall away hee shewes the cause to be in themselves not in God that it is not from Gods worke but from their owne will that they are not thrust that they may fall nor cast out that they may depart But that true justifying Faith once had may be lost hee sayes not any thing that way but much against it in other places as before is shewed In the next place Wee hold saith the Marquesse that God did never inevitably damne any man before hee was borne or as you say from all eternity You say hee did wee have Scripture for what wee say Wisd 1. 13. God made not death neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living 1 Tim. 2. 3 4. God our Saviour who will have all men to be saved 2 Pet. 3. 9. The Lord is not willing that any should die but that all should come to repentance And if you will not believe when hee saith so believe him when hee sweares it As I live saith the Lord I doe not delight in the death of a sinner Ans I doe not know any Protestant who saith that God did damne any man before hee was borne or from all eternity For how should that be damning being taken as usually it is for inflicting eternall punishment For how can a man before hee hath any being have eternall punishment inflicted upon him yet Bernard speaketh of his being damnatus antequam natus damned before hee was borne I suppose hee meant that before he came out of the wombe hee was in the estate of damnation by reason of the guilt of Adams sinne imputed to him and the corruption of nature inherent in him How ever this is certaine that as Bernard also saith predestination is before all times even from all eternity And Bellarmine observes that though the use of the Schooles hath so prevailed that they onely are said to be predestinate who are elected unto glory and so in the Scriptures predestination is not used but in that sense yet Austine doth call reprobation predestination to destruction Neither is there any question betwixt us and them of the Church of Rome but that reprobation as well as election is from all eternity And therefore as wee doe not say any more then they that God doth damne any man from eternity so they as well as wee doe say that God doth reprobate many from eternity even as many as hee doth not elect now the elect are but few in comparison as our Saviour tells us saying Many are called but few are chosen Mat. 22. 14. But some may and indeed doe say Gods reprobation is not the cause of any mans damnation but mans own sinne is the proper cause both of reprobation and damnation But though this be asserted by some of our adversaries yet others of that party will not approve of it For Reprobation saith Bellarmine doth comprehend two acts c. For first God hath not a will of saving them viz. the Reprobate And then he hath a will of damning them And in respect of the former act there is no cause of Reprobation on mans part Therefore mans sinne in Bellarmines judgementi is not the cause of Reprobation in respect of that act Now if God have not a will to save a man it is not possible that hee should be saved and if hee bee not saved hee must bee being damned And therefore from that act of Gods Reprobation which Bellarmine confesseth to have no cause on mans part there inevitable followes mans damnation though damnation be neither inflicted on man nor intended to be inflicted on him but for sinne Yet Bellarmine in that which hee saith is not so accurate as hee might be For non habere voluntatem salvandi not to have a will to save a man or not to will a mans salvation is properly no act but rather a negation of an act and therefore indeed Bellarmine calles it actum negativum a negative act but that as I said is indeed no act at all but a meere negation of it And therefore Alvarez maketh the first act of Reprobation to be a positive act whereby Gods Will is not to admit some unto life eternall It 's one thing not to have a will to save and another thing to have a will not to save the former is meerly negative but the latter is positive And hee proves that Reprobation doth include a positive act because the meere negative of not ordaining unto life eternall is even in respect of men and angells that onely may be but never shall be Those God doth not will to save and to glorifie yet properly they are not the objects of Gods Reprobation The same Alvarez saith that this positive act of Reprobation whereby Gods Will and Pleasure from eternity was not to admit some into his Kingdome was not conditionall but absolute and in order of nature before the fore-knowledge of the ill use of free-will And this hee proves from hence that the Apostle Rom. 9. having inferred from what hee had said of Predestination and Reprobation Therefore hee hath mercy on whom hee will have mercy and whom hee will hee hardeneth presently brings in the complaint of those who thinke it hard that God should predestinate and reprobate without having respect to merits Why then doth hee yet complaine for who hath resisted his Will And hee answers O man who art thou that repliest against God Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it Why hast thou made mee thus Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lumpe to make one vessell unto honour and another unto dishonour Now this answer and reproofe saith hee should have no place if God did not before the fore-knowledge of the ill use of Free-will reprobate some by an absolute and efficacious will For the Apostle might easily answer that it depends upon the good or ill use of mans free-will which God did fore-know that some are reprobated and not others And hee cites Austine saying Many are not saved not because they will not but because God will not which most clearly appeares in young infants This same Author also againe layes down this conclusion Reprobation whereby God determines not to give eternall life to some and to suffer them to sinne is not conditionall but absolute neither doth it presuppose in God the fore-knowledge or fore-sight of the ill deserts of the Reprobate or of his perseverance in sinne unto the end of his life And againe Neither actuall sinne nor originall nor both together fore-seene of God were the meritorious cause or motive of any ones Reprobation in respect of all the effects of it 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
of God an house not made with hands eternall in the Heavens And v. 6 7 8. Therefore we are alwayes confident knowing that whiles we are here in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walke by faith and not by sight We are confident I say and willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. And that Phil. 1. 21. To me to live is Christ and to die is gaine And that 2 Tim. 4. 18. The Lord shall deliver me from every evill work and will preserve me to his Heavenly Kingdom And in the same Chapter v. 6 7 8. I am now ready to be offered and my departure is at hand I have fought a good fight I have finished my course I have kept the faith henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousnesse c. So also S. Peter Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us againe unto a lively hope through the Resurrection of Iesus Christ from the dead unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away reserved in Heaven for us 1 Pet. 1. 3 4. This hope which believers have or may have of salvation is a lively hope it is a hope that maketh not ashamed Rom. 5. 5. because they are sure to obtaine that which they hope for and shall not be disappointed of it Hence it is also that believers rejoyce with joy unspeakable and full of glory 1 Pet. 1. 8. because they know they shall receive the end of their faith even the salvation of their soules v. 9. Wee have also Fathers to testifie this truth There flourisheth with us saith Cyprian the strength of hope and the firmness of faith and amongst the very ruines of the decaying world the minde is raised up and virtue is unmoveable and patience is ever joyfull and the soule is alwayes secure and confident of her God And immediatly hee confirmes this by that of the Prophet Habakkuk Although the fig-three shall not blossome c. yet I will rejoyce in the Lord I will joy in the God of my salvation Hab. 3. 17 18. So againe the same Father what place is there here for anxiety and carefulnesse who in the midst of these things can be fearfull and sad except he want hope and faith It is for him to fear death that would not go unto Christ it is for him to be unwilling to go to Christ that doth not believe that he doth begin to reigne with Christ For it is written The just shall live by faith If thou beest just and doest live by faith if thou doest truly believe in God seeing thou shalt be with Christ and art sure of Gods promise why doest thou not embrace this that thou art called unto Christ and art glad that thou art freed from the Devill God doth promise immortality and eternity to those that depart out of this life and thou doubtest 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 Here we see how earnest Cyprian is to prove that Christians may yea ought to be confident against the feare of death and that because they may and ought to be assured of the life to come Thus also Austine I believe saith hee him that promiseth The Saviour speaketh the truth promiseth he hath said unto me He that heareth my words and believeth him that sent me hath eternall life and is passed from death to life and shall not come into condemnation I have heard the words of my Lord I have believed Now whereas I was an unbeliever I am made a Believer as he hath said I am passed from death to life I come not into condemnation not by my presumption but by his promise To this purposes also Bernard The Sun of Righteousnesse arising saith hee the mystery concerning the predestinate and those that shall be made blessed which was so long hid beginnes after a sort to come up out of the depth of eternity whiles every one being called by feare and justified by love that is by Faith working through love as hee said a little before doth assure himselfe that he is of the number of the blessed Knowing that whom he hath justified them he hath also glorified For why Hee heares that he is called when he is moved with feare he perceives that he is justified when he is filled with love and shall he doubt of his being glorified And againe Thou hast O man saith hee the justifying spirit a revealer of this secret and so testifying unto thy spirit that thou also art the Son of God Acknowledge the counsell of God in thy justification For thy present justification is both a revelation of Gods Counsell and also a certaine preparation unto future glory Or truly predestination it selfe is rather a preparation and justification is rather an appropinquation unto it And againe Who is righteous but he that doth requite Gods love with love againe which is not done but when the spirit by Faith doth reveale unto a man Gods eternall purpose concerning his future salvation Which revelation surely is no other thing but the infusion of spirituall grace by which the deeds of the flesh are mortified and so a man is prepared for that Kingdome which flesh and blood do not possesse receiving together by one spirit both this that he is assured that he is loved and also this that hee doth love againe that so he may not be ungratefull to him of whom he is loved Thus both Scriptures and Fathers testifie that Christians may be assured of their salvation And that this assurance may be had may be proved also by all that hath beene said before concerning the stability of Faith once had and the certainty of persevering in the estate of grace if a man be once in it For hence it followeth that if a man can be assured that hee is in the estate of Grace hee may also be assured of his salvation Now that he may be assured of his being in the state of grace some of the Romish Church and that since Luthers time have maintained as namely Catharinus and the Author of the Booke called Enchiridium Coloniense both which are mentioned in this respect by Bellarmine And because the Councell of Trent Sess 6. c. 9. doth seeme to determine the contrary therefore Eisingrenius hath written a whole booke to shew that the determination of the Councell is not indeed against this that a man may be assured that he hath true grace in him The booke I have seene and read many yeeres agoe though now I have it not And I remember he holds that a man may be as sure that hee hath true grace and that his sinnes are forgiven as hee is sure that twice two make
Testament was but should be performed in every place as well in one place as another This is that which our Saviour said to the Woman of Samaria Woman believe me the houre commeth when ye shall neither in this Mountaine nor yet at Ierusalem worship the Father The houre commeth and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth c. Joh. 4. 21 23. S. Paul also to the same purpose I will therefore that men pray every where lifting up holy hands c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. This is that incense and pure offering which the Prophet Malachy said should be offered unto God in every place This incense and pure Offering are the prayers of the Saints Revel 5. 8. And all spirituall sacrifices which Christians offer acceptable unto God thorough Iesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 5. What is this to prove that Christ is truly and properly sacrificed in the Eucharist It is true the Fathers sometimes apply that place of Malachy to the Sacrament of the Eucharist but not as if Christ were there in that Sacrament truly and properly sacrificed nor as if that place concerned this Sacrament more then any other spirituall worship now to be performed under the new Testament Irenaeus in one Chapter applies it to the Sacrament and in the very next immediately after hee applies it to Prayer Having cited the words of Malachy In every place incense is offered to my Name and a pure offering immediately hee addes Now Iohn in the Revelation saith that incense are the Prayers of the Saints So also Hierome in his commentary upon the words of Malachy Now the Lord directs his speech to the Iewish Priests who offer the Blind and the Lame and the sick for sacrifice that they may know that spirituall sacrifices are to succeed carnall sacrifices And that not the blood of Buls and Goates but incense that is the Prayers of the Saints are to be offered unto the Lord and that not in one province of the world Iudea nor in one City of Iudea Hierusalem but in every place is offered an offering not impure as was offered by the people of Israel but pure as is offered in the ceremonies or services of Christians Here it is very observable that Hierome writing professedly upon the place of the Prophet to shew the meaning of it was so far from thinking it to be peculiarly meant of the Eucharist that hee doth not so much as mention that Sacrament otherwise then it is comprehended in those spirituall sacrifices which hee saith are here spoken of but as hee saith that spirituall sacrifices in generall are here signified so particularly hee applieth the words of the Prophet unto prayer saying that it is the incense which the Prophet speaketh of The other place of Scripture viz. Luke 22. 19. is as little to the purpose though Bellarmine also doth alledge and urge it in the same manner saying that Christ did not say Vobis datur frangitur effunditur sed pro vobis is given broken shed to you but for you But what of this Wee know and believe that Christs Body was given and his Blood shed for us on the crosse in remembrance whereof according to Christs institution wee receive the Sacrament but doth it therefore follow that Christ is properly offered and sacrificed in the Sacrament The ground of this conceit is that the word is in the present tense datur is given not in the future dabitur shall be given But this is too weake a foundation to build upon For Bellarmine cannot deny but that in the Scripture the present or the preter tense is often put for the future And well might it be so here Christ being now ready to be offered he instituting the Sacrament the same night that he was betrayed 1 Cor. 11. 23. the night before hee suffered And therefore Cardinall Cajetan was much more ingenuous then Cardinall Bellarmine For upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. he notes that both the Evangelists and also Paul relating the words of the institution of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper use the present tense is given or broken and is shed because when Christ did institute the Sacrament though his Body was not yet crucified nor his Blood shed yet the crucifying of his Body and the shedding of his Blood was at hand and in a manner present Yea the time of Christs suffering hee saith was then present as being then begun And therefore as when the day is begun wee may signifie in the present tense whatsoever is done that day so the day of Christs Passion being begun the Jewes beginning the day at the Evening all his Passion might be signified by a word of the present tense The present being taken Gramatically not for an instant but for a certaine time confusedly present The ancient Writers also have expounded the present tense used in the words of the institution by the future Heare Christ himselfe saith Origen saying unto thee This is my Blood which shall be shed c. So also Tertullian rehearseth Christs words thus This is my Body which shall be given for you And even the vulgar Latine Translation Mat. 26. 28. Mar. 14. 24. hath it in the future tense effundetur and so Luke 22. 20. fundetur shall be shed and 1 Cor. 11. 24. tradetur shall be given Now for the Fathers whom the Marquesse alledgeth as being of their opinion I answer the Fathers indeed doe frequently use the word sacrifice and offering when they speake of the Eucharist but it doth not therefore follow that according to their opinion there is a true and proper sacrifice offered in the Eucharist For it is certaine that they doe also frequently use the same words when they speake of those things which the Romanists themselves acknowledge to be no sacrifices properly so called even as the Scripture speaketh of the sacrifice of Prayer Psal 141. 2. of praise Heb. 13. 15. of Almes Heb. 13. 16. of our own selves Rom. 12. 1. And where the Fathers as the Marquesse observeth call the Eucharist an unbloodly sacrifice they sufficiently shew that properly Christ is not sacrificed in it For as Bellarmine himselfe doth tell us All sacrifices properly so called that the Scriptures speake of were to be destroyed and that by staying if they were things having life and if they were solid things without life as fine Floure Salt and Frankincense they were to be destroyed by burning Besides I have shewed before by the testimony of Lombard that the Fathers sometimes expressely speake of Christs being sacrificed in the Eucharist in that there is a commemoration and remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ upon the crosse did offer for us Bellarmine objects that Baptisme doth represent the death of Christ and yet none of the ancients doe ever call Baptisme a sacrifice and therefore the representation of Christs death alone could not be the cause why they call the Lords Supper a
and Bellarmine pretend that the Chaldie Paraphrast and the Rabbines doe expound it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gehinnom which signifies the place where the damned are in torment But 1. If it were so this were nothing to that Limbus which they contend for 2. Neither is it true that those authors doe usually so expound the word For the Chaldie Paraphrast for the most part keepeth the Hebrew word Sheol it selfe onely sometimes it is a little changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shiol and many times doth hee use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kebura or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Keburta that is the Grave to expresse the Hebrew Sheol by or which is the same in effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be Keburta or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the house of the Grave As Iob. 7. 9. and 14. 13. and 17. 13. and 16. Psal 89. 48. and 141. 7. and Eccles 9. 10. In all these places doth the Chaldie Pharaphrast render the Hebrew word Sheol the grave or the house of the grave let any Romanist shew that hee renders it so often by that word which signifies the place of torment though as I said before that were nothing to their Limbus Patrum And thus also doe the Rabbines interpret the word Sheol R. Levi saith that Sheol doth signifie the Grave and that therefore it is put for Death 2 Sam. 22. 6. So also R. Nathan Mordecai in his Hebrew Concordance saith that the interpretation of Sheol is the Grave Aben Ezra also saith the same in his commentary on Gen. 37. 35. And moreover he taxeth the vulgar Latine Translatour for interpreting Sheol there Hell supposing him to have meant the Hell of the damned Kimchi likewise saith that those words Psal 16. 10. thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption are but a repetition of that which went before Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell Which shewes that hee tooke Sheol there rendred Hell for the Grave It is true sometimes the Rabbines expound Sheol by Gehinnam i. e. Hell the place of torment but they doe not hold that to be the simple and genuine signification of the word as appeares by R. Solomon on Gen. 37. 35. who saith that Sheol there according to the literall Exposition is the Grave and that Iacobs meaning was that hee would goe mourning to the Grave and would not be comforted but that according to the mysticall Exposition by Sheol there is meant Gehinnam the Hell of the damned So Kimchi upon those words Psal 9. 17. The wicked shall be turned into Hell where the Hebrew is Sheol interprets it Let the wicked be turned into the Grave and afterwards addes that mystically there by Sheol is understood Gehinnam the place of torment Obj. But they say that in these words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell the Grave cannot be meant by Hell because the Grave is not a place for the soule but for the body Answ The word Soule is sometimes put for the body or which is all one for man considered in respect of the body As Gen. 46. 26. All the soules that came with Iacob into Egypt which came out of his loines c. There by soules are meant bodies or persons in respect of their bodies for so generally both Protestants and Romanists doe hold that not the Soules properly but the Bodies of children doe proceede from the loines of their Parents Yea and sometimes by Soule is meant the Body when the Soule is departed out of it As Num. 19. 13. Whosoever toucheth the dead Body of any man c. There the word rendred dead Body is that which Psal 16. 10. and so usually elsewhere is rendred Soule Bellarmine to take away this answer saith that there is great difference betwixt the Hebrew word Nephesh and the Greeke Psyche both which are rendred soule For Nephesh hee saith is a most generall word and without any trope doth signifie both Soule and living creature yea and the Body also But the Greeke Psyche he saith and so the Latine Anima is not so generall as without a trope to signifie the whole living creature And therefore in Leviticus he saith one part is not put for another viz. the Soule for the Body but there is the word that usually signifies the Body it selfe or the whole is put for the part that is the living creature for the Body But in Acts 2. is used the word Psyche which doth signifie the Soule onely Thus Bellarmine but a pitty it is to see how a learned man rather then hee will submit to truth doth plunge himselfe into absurdity yea more absurdities then one But to passe by the rest this is most grosse that Bellarmine doth so distinguish betwixt Nephesh and Psyche as if the former sometimes did signifie the whole living creature or the Body onely but not so the latter when as in these very places of Leviticus which Bellarmine doth speake of viz. Levit. 21. 1. and 11. as in the Hebrew the word Nephesh so in the Greeke the word Psyche is used and therefore it is apparently false that the Greeke word Psyche doth signifie the Soule onely Yea but saith Bellarmine when even Nephesh is opposed to flesh it cannot be taken for flesh Now here soule is opposed to flesh his soule was not left in Hell neither his flesh did see corruption Acts 2. 31. And therefore here by no meanes can signifie a dead body I answer that in those words Acts 2. 31. there is no opposition betwixt Soule and Flesh no more then there is an opposition betwixt Leave and Forsake in those words Heb. 13. 6. I will not leave thee nor forsake thee So then notwithstanding any thing that is objected in those words Thou wilt not leave my Soule in Hell by Hell may be meant the Grave and by Soule the Body But if the word Soule be taken properly then by Hell is to be understood the power of death or the state of the dead And thus doe Romish Writers sometimes expound the word Hell As Iansenius upon those words Prov. 15. 11. Hell and destruction are before the Lord notes that by Hell and destruction is signified the state of the dead not onely of the damned as wee usually conceive when we heare those words but the state of all in generall that are departed out of this life So Genebrard expounds that Psalme 30. 3. Thou hast brought up my Soule from Sheol from Hell as the vulgar Latine reades it he expounds it I say thus Thou hast delivered me from the state of the dead So likewise the same author upon Psal 88. or 89. 48. saith Hell doth signifie the whole state of the dead Thus generally all that die whether they be godly or wicked are said as in respect of the Body to goe to the Grave so in respect of the Soule to descend into Hell This is the Law of humane necessity saith Hilary that
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