questions wherein we dissent from our aduersaries both as touching all the offices of Christ his propheticall office kingdome and priesthood as likewise concerning the benefites purchased by the death of Christ the benefites of our redemption and saluation Now in the last place we are to prosecute such matters in question betweene vs as doe concerne the natures of Christ. And this treatise containeth three controuersies First of the humane nature of Christ. Secondly of his diuine nature Thirdly of them both considered together THE EIGHTEENTH GENERAL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE HVMANE NATVRE OF CHRIST THis Controuersie is diuided into these questions First of the vbiquitie of the humanitie of Christ. Secondly whether he encreased in wisedome Thirdly whether he suffered in soule Fourthly whether he descended into Hell Fiftly concerning the place of Hell THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE VBIQVITIE OF the bodie of Christ whether his humanitie be euery where The Papists THey doe seeme in words mightily to impugne this opinion of the Vbiquitaries error 97 as they are called which doe erroniously hold that the humanitie of Christ is euery where as his deitie is and that the properties of one nature are really imparted vnto the other whereupon it followeth that the humanitie of Christ is euery where because it is verely vnited and made one person with the Godhead in Christ. This opinion the Papists would be thought to detest and abhorre and the Iesuite bestoweth great paines by sundrie arguments to confute it as by diuers places of scripture Math. 28. He is risen he is not here vers 6. Iesus sayd Lazarus is dead and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there Ioh. 11.4 Ergo Christ as he is man is not euery where Againe the opinion of the Vbiquitaries doth ouerthrow the article of Christs ascension for if Christs bodie be euery where as they hold he can neither ascend nor descend Bellarm. de Incarnation verbi lib. 3. cap. 11.12 The Protestants IT is true Catholique and sound doctrine that the humane and diuine nature are truely vnited in Christ and doe make but one person or hypostasis neither by confusion of the natures nor conuersion of one into the other but by vnitie of person for as the bodie and soule make one man so God and man is one Christ. And the better to vnderstand this mysterie we must set downe these three positions 1. Though the two natures in Christ be so vnited that they make but one person yet neither the natures are confounded nor yet the properties but as Christ is both God and man so there is in him a double power will and vnderstanding one humane and created the other diuine and vncreated 2. By reason of this vnion all the excellent graces of the spirit in the highest degree and aboue measure are giuen and bestowed vpon the humanitie of Christ Ioh. 3.34 but such notwithstanding as destroy not his humane nature but are qualities created as his humanitie also was created 3. There is also a mutuall communication of the proprieties of both natures each to other though not really in respect of the natures So we say in Concreto in the concrete that is taking the whole person of Christ that Christus homo that is the man Christ is omnipotent is euery where and Christus Deus that is Christ being God died for vs was buried rose againe but in the abstract it is great blasphemie to say that the Godhead of Christ died was buried or rose againe or that the humanitie of Christ is omnipotent or in euery place The Vbiquitaries now hold that there is a reall communication of the proprieties of both natures therfore doubt not to say that the flesh and bodie of Christ is euery where in all places at once The Papists in outward shew are enemies to that opinion but indeed and in truth as it shall now appeare they are not farre off from being in the same error First the same arguments which they vrge against the Vbiquitaries doe returne vpon themselues for although they will not say that Christs bodie is euerie where yet they hold that it may bee in a thousand places at once yea and more to if the Sacrament be at once in so many places celebrated for Christs bodie is reallie and verely in the Sacrament But those places alleadged He is risen he is not heere and the rest doe proue that Christ can be but in one place at once This their opinion also is against the article of Christs ascension and abiding in heauen till the day of iudgement for if the same bodie wherein Christ sitteth in heauen be in the Sacrament either when he is present in earth he is absent in heauen contrary to the scripture Act. 3.21 which sayth The heauens must containe him till that all things be restored or els if he be in both places at once they must needes make his bodie infinite and so destroy the nature of his humanitie which can be but in one place If they say it is another bodie and flesh which Christ by his diuine power maketh to bee present in the Sacrament that were much more absurd for then Christ should haue many bodies and other flesh then that which was borne of the Virgine Mary We see then they are not farre off from the opinion of the Vbiquitaries 2. The Rhemists doe approue that argument whereby Hierome proueth that the Saints may euery where be present at their bodies monuments They follow the Lambe whither soeuer he goeth but the Lambe is in euery place therefore they that be with the Lambe Christ be present euery where Whereupon it followeth that the Lambe Christ in humanitie must be euery where for how can he be present els in innumerable places at once where any reliques or monuments of Saints are Neither can they excuse this vbiquitarie presence of the humanitie of Christ and the soules of Saints by their agilitie and celeritie because they can quickly passe from one place to another for if they must bee present at their monuments whensoeuer they are called vpon they must of necessitie be often in many places at once for in one and the same instant men may resort to their monuments which are in diuers places farre asunder Thus they are driuen not onely to graunt an vbiquitie or omnipresence of the humanitie of Christ but euen of Saints also which those whom they call Vbiquitaries would neuer graunt 3. The bodie of Christ is visible and palpable now in heauen and hath a place according to the quantitie of his bodie Bellarmine confesseth as much cap. 12. But that bodie which is in the Sacrament hath none of these properties it is neither seene nor felt neither hath a place according to the quantitie of a bodie for they close it vp in small round cakes Wherfore destroying these properties of the humanitie of Christ they may as well and do in effect take away the other namely the being of Christs bodie in
one place for it is as proper to the bodie of Christ to be seene and felt as to be in one place at once 4. Bellarmine granteth being vrged with that argument that Christs soule was in Paradise after his passion and therefore not in hell he confesseth that it was not impossible that Christs soule should be in two places at once Lib. 4. de Christi anima cap. 15. Yea he sayth that Christ may if he will turne al the world into bread and the bread so made conuert into his flesh and so his bodie may be as well in euery place of the world as now it is in the Eucharist Lib. 3. de incarnat cap. 11. What great oddes now I pray you is there between the opinion of the Vbiquitaries and of the Papists but that they say that the bodie of Christ is euery where ordinarily by the power of the Godhead the other say his flesh is in many places at once by a miracle The one sayth Christs bodie actually is in euery place the other that it may be if Christ will THE SECOND PART WHETHER OVR SAVIOVR Christ did verily encrease in knowledge and wisedome as he was man The Papists CHrist they say in the very first creation of his soule and from his conception error 98 was endued with the fulnes of al wisedome grace and knowledge neither can he be sayd properly to haue encreased in any of these gifts 1. Christ was anoynted from his mothers womb and then the spirit of God was vpon him for the Angels that appeared to the shepheards call him Christ Luk. 2.11 And Iohn sayth The word was made flesh full of grace and truth 1. vers 11. Therefore euen then he had receiued all abundance of grace and knowledge Bellarm. de Christi anima lib. 4.2 Ans. 1. We grant that our Sauiour was the Iesus the Christ euen from his natiuitie not that thē he actually straightwaies entred into those offices or receiued plenarie power of all the graces of the spirit but because he was euen from his mothers wombe consecrated and appoynted thereunto for it no more followeth because he is called Christ that he then had his actuall anoynting then that because he was called Iesus from his natiuitie that he had actually performed our redemption The full anoynting of the spirit was fulfilled in his baptisme when the holy Ghost came downe in the likenes of a Doue and then beginning to preach in his first sermon at Nazareth he sheweth the accomplishment of the prophecie of Esay The spirite of the Lord is vpon me c. Luk. 4.18 2. Neither doe the words of Iohn import so much as they gather The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst vs full of grace and truth which is not to be vnderstood of the very first assuming of the flesh but of the dwelling of the word in the flesh amongst vs and so appeared to be full of grace and truth Argum. 2. Christ was the Sonne of God in his very incarnation and euen then was the humanitie perfectly vnited to the Godhead therefore immediatly vpon this vnion and coniunction of both natures in one person must needes follow the fulnes of grace in the humane nature Againe Adam was created in perfect wisedome therefore much more the second Adam Bellar. cap. 4. Ans. 1. If presently vpon the vniting of the two natures together it had been necessarie that the humane nature of Christ should haue receiued whatsoeuer by the presence of the diuine nature was to be conferred vpon it then Christ straight waies must also both in bodie and soule haue been glorified for it can not be denied but that as the bodie of Christ after the resurrection receiued more glorie then before so also his soule being the other part of his humanitie was more glorified By this it is euident that the humanitie receiued not at once the fulnes of all grace and glorie in the first vniting of the Godhead 2. Adam was created perfect in bodie and soule and if Christ therefore ought to haue the fulnes of the gifts of the soule in his creation as Adam had why ought he not also to haue had a perfect bodie as Adam was created withall Wherefore as it was no dishonour to Christ to grow vp in stature of bodie so neither was it to encrease in the gifts of the mind The Protestants THat Christ was euen from his birth and first conception perfect God and perfect man we doe assuredly beleeue and that in the very incarnation the diuine and humane nature were vnited together Also we graunt that the Lord Christ might haue created to himselfe a soule full of all wisedome and knowledge as he might haue made himselfe a perfect bodie but seeing it pleased him to bee borne of a woman and first to dwell in the bodie of an infant wee doubt not to say as the scripture teacheth vs that he also Encreased in wisedome 1. He was in all things like to his brethren onely sinne excepted Heb. 2.17.4.15 Ergo he grew vp and encreased in knowledge according to the manner of men which may be done without sinne 2. The scripture sayth plainly which cannot lye that Iesus grew vp and encreased in wisedome and stature Luk. 2.52 And lest they should answere that this encreasing was onely in the opinion of men it followeth And in fauour with God and men he increased in wisedome stature and fauour not onely in shew before men but in truth before God and as verily and indeed he grew vp in stature so also in wisedome 3. Christ testifieth of himselfe That neither the Angels nor the Sonne of man as he is man knoweth of the day or houre of his comming to iudgement but the father onely Mark 13.31 Ergo Christ as hee was man had not at once all fulnes of knowledge Bellarmine thus expoundeth this place Filius dicitur nescire quia non sciebat ad dicendum alijs The Sonne is sayd not to knowe because he knewe it not to reueale it to others but to keepe it secret to himselfe Ans. First then by the same reason the Angels doe knowe it also but that they are charged not to declare it to men for the text sayth that neither the Angels nor the Sonne of man knoweth the time Secondly in this sense also the father might be sayd not to knowe it for neither hath he reuealed it to any Lastly although we doe affirme according to the scripture that the child Iesus did increase in the gifts of the mind as he did in the stature of his bodie yet we do put great difference between him and all other children that euer came into the world for as his conception birth were not after the cōmon manner for he was cōceiued by the holy Ghost brought forth without trauel and labour as August sayth Nec concipiendo libidinē nec pariendo perpessa est dolorē In conceauing she felt no carnal desire in bearing she suffered no payne So likewise
and of the father and not the father of the sonne Ergo the sonne is God with and of his father Rhemist ibid. Ans. This place proueth that the sonne of God as he is the sonne is of God for to be the sonne of God the word the wisedome of God 1. Cor. 1.30 His image Heb. 1.3 doe belong vnto his person So then as he is the sonne the wisedome of God or the word so he is of God namely in respect of his person but as the sonne is God he is of himselfe neither taketh he his essence but person onely of his Father The Protestants THat we may fully know the state of this question we must first set downe certain propositions First we do worship one eternal omnipotent onely wise God one and the same in power essence eternitie but three in person the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost there is the same nature essence and deitie of them all though they be distinguished in person As there is one nature of the light the heate thereof and the shining brightnes Lucis splendoris caloris as Augustine putteth the example which three differ amongst themselues in propertie and quality yet haue one and the selfe same nature and substance God the father is as the light Iam. 1.17 God the Sonne is as the brightnes of his glory Heb. 1.3 God the holy Ghost is as the heate or fire Heb. 12.29 Thus these three are one in nature and essence but three in person 2. There is somewhat communicable to them all as the Godhead and diuine power and nature Somewhat incommunicable as the seueral proprieties of the persons for it is proper onely to the father to beget proper to the Sonne onely to be begotten proper onely to the holy Ghost to proceede from them both There is no essentiall difference in the Trinitie for there is one essence and diuine nature common to them all But there is both a real and rational difference The persons differ one from another really though not essentially But the persons differ onely rationally or in respect from the essence of the Godhead as the father and the sonne amongst men differ not essentially for they are both men But they are really verily and indeede distinguished for it is one thing to be the father another to be the sonne yet from their owne essence their persons onely differ in respect and relation not verily non re sed ratione for the father is a man the sonne also is a man but in one respect he is a father in an other he is man so likewise of the sonne yet one and the same is both father and man one and the same is both sonne and man so is it in the Trinitie Now to the poynt of the question which wee haue in hand The Sonne therefore in the blessed Trinitie is begotten of his fathers essence and hath the whole essence of his father not by propagation partition profluence but onely by communication The sonne is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sonne of himselfe because he is sonne of the father But he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is very God of himself The essence or Godhead of the Sonne is of himselfe not of the father for it is one and the selfesame essence which the father hath He is indeede Deus de Deo lumen de lumine God of God light of light But not as he is God is he of God but as he is the Sonne It is one thing for the person of the Sonne to be begotten of the essence of the Father which we graunt another thing for the essence of the Sonne to be begotten which we must not yeeld to So we conclude that Christ as he is the Sonne is of God the Father as he is God he is of himselfe Argum. 1. The essence of the Father is of himselfe not begotten of any but the essence and Deitie of the Sonne is the same and all one with his Fathers Ergo it is not begotten of any other Agayne he is not God whose essence is not of himselfe therefore if Christs essence be not of himselfe he should not be God Argum. 2. Our Sauiour himselfe sayth As the Father hath life in himselfe so hee hath giuen to the Sonne also to haue life in himselfe Iohn 5.26 The Sonne then hath life in himselfe Ergo hee is GOD of himselfe Augustine vpon these wordes writeth Non quasi mutuatur vitam nec quasi particeps vitae sed ipse vitam in se habet vt ipsa vita sibi sit ipse He did not as it were borrow life of his father neither is made partaker of life but he hath life in himself he is life vnto himselfe But lest any man should thus mistake the wordes of the text that because the Father gaue to the Sonne to haue life in himself therefore hee gaue him to be God for to haue life in himselfe is to bee God Augustine thus expoundeth them Dedit filio vitam habere in se breuiter dixerim genuit filium He gaue to his Sonne to haue life in himselfe in fewe wordes He begat his Sonne As if we should say the Father which hath life in himselfe that is is God gaue to his Sonne to haue life in himselfe that is begat God the Sonne he begat him not as he was God but as he was his Sonne yet because of the neere vniting and coniunction of the person with the Godhead and diuine power to haue life in himselfe which really cannot be distinguished but onely in respect as we haue shewed the Father is said also to giue vnto the Sonne to be God and to haue life in himselfe not directly or properly but obliquely and by a consequent because his Sonne whom he begat from all eternitie must also necessarily be God And that it cannot be the proper meaning that God the Father gaue to the Sonne power to haue life in himselfe it appeareth by the words themselues for as the Father hath life in himselfe euen so hath hee giuen to the Sonne but the Father hath life in himselfe without beginning from any other Ergo so hath the Sonne There should els be a contrarietie and repugnancie in the speech for if Christ receiued life from his father he could not haue it in himselfe It must therfore of necessity be vnderstood of the person in the Trinity not of the diuine essence And so we determine that it is true in the concrete in concreto if wee say Deus Pater genuit Deum Filium God the Father begat God the Sonne but not in abstracto Deitas Patris genuit Deitatem Filium that the Godhead of the Father begat the Godhead of the Sonne But in respect of his person onely as he is the Sonne the second person in Trinitie so is hee begotten and hath his beginning of God But in respect of his diuine nature as he is God hee is begotten of none but of himselfe as God the Father
was the duetie of Angels to worship him Ergo hee merited not his glorification by his death which was due vnto him euen at his first incarnation Argum. 3. If Christ merited his owne glorification then hee also merited the hypostaticall vnion that his manhood should bee ioyned to his Godhead in vnitie of person for his glory maiestie and power giuen to his manhood doth issue and arise from the vniting of his Godhead therewith in one person but his humanity deserued not to be vnited to the Godhead Nemo tam caecus est sayth Augustine No man is so blind that he dare say that Christ by his well liuing merited to be called the Sonne of God And hee prooueth it out of the first of Luk. vers 35. Therefore shall that holy thing bee called the Sonne of God not for any workes going before but because the holy Ghost came vpon her Wherefore the diuine glorie which Christ hath was not merited but his owne it was from the beginning which glory the humane nature in Christ is made partaker of not for any merite but because it is vnited to the Godhead in the same person through the abundant and vnspeakable grace and loue of God vnto mankinde which of his free grace rather tooke vnto himselfe the nature of men then of Angels Wherefore Christ by his perfect obedience and blessed sacrifice hath merited abundantly for vs remission of sinnes and eternall life but by his merites he hath gayned nothing for himselfe neither had he any respect to the bettering of his own estate in his sufferings but onely to pay a raunsome for vs. THE TWENTIETH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE COMMING OF CHRIST TO iudgement which appertaineth to his whole person as he is both God and man THis controuersie hath two partes First concerning the signes which must come to passe before his appearing Secondly of the time and maner of his appearing The first part contayneth three questions Frst whether the Gospell bee already preached to the whole world Secondly whether Henoch and Elias shall come in the flesh before the day of iudgement Thirdly of the great persecutions toward the end of the world THE FIRST QVESTION WHETHER the Gospel be already preached thorough the worlde The Papists error 106 THey denie that the Gospell hath beene already published to all nations of the worlde for there are many great countries which neuer heard of the Gospell as they affirme But before the comming of Christ to iudgement they say it shal be preached to the whole world Bellar. de Roman pâ—ntif lib. 3. cap. 4. Argum. 1. Math. 24.14 Christ sayth This Gospell of the kingdome shall be preached thorough the whole worlde for a witnes vnto all nations then shall the end come The end of the world shall immediately follow the generall preaching of the Gospell which if it hath been performed it is most like to haue been done in the Apostles time then the world should haue ended long agoe Bellarm. ibid. Ans. This word Then doth not alwaies in the scripture signifie a certaine and definite time presently to follow as Math. 9.1 Then he entred into a ship and so forth Luke also setteth foorth the same storie cap. 5.18 Then brought they a man lying in a bed But in saying Then they haue not relation to the same time for they keepe not the same order in rehearsing the storie Matthew setteth downe one thing that was immediatly done by our Sauiour Christ before and Luke another And so is the word Then vsed in other places not to describe a consequence of time with relation to that which went before but absolutely without any such respect to name the time present only wherein any thing is done So tunc then signifieth as much as in illo tempore in that time not which shall immediately follow vpon the generall publishing of the Gospel but which God hath appoynted We must also consider who it is that sayth Then namely God himselfe with whom a thousand yeares is as one day and one day as a thousand yeares Christ Then may come many hundred yeares after and yet it shall be true that then shall the end be But we rather take the first sense that Then is here taken indefinitely as it is thorough the whole chapter as vers 21. Then shall be great tribulation which cannot haue relation to that which he spake of before for then it must be vnderstoode of the destruction of Ierusalem but our Sauiour meaneth by Then the time towards the ende of the world as vers 29. Immediately after the tribulation of those dayes the Sunne shal be darkened Then shall the signe of the Sonne of man appeare Argum. 2. We see the Gospel hath been preached in great countreyes of late which neuer heard the Gospel afore as it is thought Rhemist Math. 24. sect 4. Ans. 1. They speake doubtfully they cannot tell as it is thought say they 2. They meane the preaching of their Friers in those newe found countreyes which was not the preaching of the Gospel but of vile superstition not to conuert the people to God but to robbe and spoyle them and make a pray of them killing slaying them without al mercy reade Benzo in historia noui orbis 3. We deny not but that the Gospell may be reuiued and renued in many countreyes where notwithstanding it was planted many yeares afore As this countrie of ours in ancient time called Britanie was first instructed in the faith by the preaching of Ioseph of Arimathea as Gildas saith or as Nicephorus saith by SimoÌ„ Zelotes yet after that the foundation of the faith thus begun it was confirmed afterward in king Lucius daies by the preaching of Fagane Damiane which at Lucius request were sent into the land from Eleutherius B. of Rome and so may it come to passe in other countreyes a second preaching therefore taketh not away the former but confirmeth and reuiueth it The Protestants THat the Gospell was by the Apostles preached to all the knowen and inhabited nations of the worlde we cannot but affirme being so taught by the scriptures Argum. 1. Our Sauiour saith to his Apostles Ye shal be my witnesses to the vttermost partes of the earth Act. 1.8 which is spoken to the persons of the Apostles not in them to all Pastors and preachers as some expound it for in the same vers there is mention made of the comming of the holy Ghost and howe first they should begin to witnesse at Ierusalem which things were indeede so accomplished in the Apostles Saint Paul also Rom. 10.18 expoundeth that place of the Psalme Their sound is gone forth into all the worlde of the Apostles Agayne seeing the Apostolicall calling and gift is now ceased neither are we to looke that men should be immediatly called from heauen and the preaching of the Gospell to all nations is an Apostolicall worke for the which the Apostles also receiued the gifts of tongues seeing now we haue neither Apostolike
but the witnesse of the spirite doth certifie and assure vs of the truth and authoritie of scripture 7 I will adde one saying out of Augustine Mihi certum est nusquam a Christi authoritate discedere non enim reperio valentiorem Contra Academic lib. 3. cap. 20 I am resolued for no cause to leaue the authoritie of Christ speaking in the scriptures for I finde none more forcible Ergo the authoritie of scripture is aboue the Church which is denied by the Rhemistes annot 2. Gal. sect 2. THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the perspicuitie and playnnes of the Scripture The Papistes OVr aduersaries do hold that the scriptures are most hard difficult and obscure error 6 Bellarmine saith necessario fatendum est Scripturas esse obscurissimas it must needes be graunted that the scriptures are most obscure de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 1. They do not onely affirme that some things are obscure in the scriptures but that they are all hard and doubtfull and vncertaine and compare thē therfore to a leaden rule which may be turned euery way Petrus a Soto And to a nose of wax Lindanus a Papist ex Tilmanno de verbo Dei error 5. Our Rhemistes say it is all one to affirme some things to be hard in a writer and the writer to be hard so they conclude that the scriptures are both in respect of the matter and manner very hard and therfore daungerous for the ignoraunt to read them Rhemens annot in 2. Pet. 3. ver 16. 1 They obiect that place 2. Pet. 3.16 where the Apostle saith speaking of S. Paules Epistles that many things are hard Ergo the Epistles of S. Paule are hard and so the scriptures this is Bellarmine and the Iesuites argument We answere First he saith not that Paules Epistles are hard but many things which he entreateth of Secondly they are hard not to all but the vnstable and vnlearned do peruert them Thirdly We denie not but that some places in the scripture are obscure and haue neede of interpretation but it foloweth not that therefore the whole scripture is obscure and because of some hard places that the people should be forbidden the reading of all 2 The scriptures are obscure both in the respect of the matter and manner first the matter is high and mysticall as of the Trinitie of the incarnatiō of the word of the nature of Angels such like We aunswere these mysteries may be said to be obscure three diuerse wayes First in their owne nature so are they hard indeed for by humane reason we can not attaine to the depth of thē Secondly in respect of their handling in the scripture so are they not obscure for all these things are plainly declared in the word as the nature of such deepe mysteries will afoord Thirdly in respect of vs so must they needs be obscure if men be not cōtented with the knowledge in the word but curiously search further Luther therefore doth aptly distinguish of these things he saith that res Dei the things of God are obscure the very depth of his mysteries can not be comprehended of vs but res Scripturae these things as they are opened in scripture are plaine if we will content our selues with that knowledge Secondly saith Bellarmine the maner of handling is hard and obscure there are many tropes metaphores allegories Hebraismes which can not easily be vnderstood We aunswere First many of these are rather ornamentes of the scripture as tropes metaphores then impediments to the reader Secondly though the phrase of scripture seeme hard at the first yet by further trauell in the scriptures it may become easie and plaine for all things are not vnderstood at the first Thirdly we denie not but that some places are obscure and had neede to be opened 3 If the scriptures be not hard what need so many Commētaries and expositions Rhemist 2. Pet. 16. We aunswere First so many Commentaries are not requisite some may be spared Secondly expositions are needfull for the vnderstanding of darke places but many things are plaine inough without expositions and may be vnderstood of the simple The Protestantes WE do not hold that the scripture is euery where so plaine and euident that it need no interpretation as our aduersaries do slaunder vs and therefore here they do fight with their owne shadow Bellarm. lib. 3. de verbo cap. 1. We confesse that the Lord in the Scriptures hath tempered hard things and easie together that we might be exercised in the Scriptures and might knocke labour by prayer and studie for the opening of the sense and that there might be order kept in the Church some to be hearers some teachers expounders by whose diligent search and trauell the harder places may be opened to the people But this we affirme against our aduersaries first that all points of faith necessarie to saluation are plainely set forth in the Scriptures secondly that the Scriptures may with great profit be read of the simple and vnlearned notwithstanding the hardnesse of some places which in time also vsing the meanes they come to the vnderstanding of Ex Fulk annot 2. Pet. 3.16 Whitacher quaest 4. cap. 1. 1 First that which we maintaine is euident out of the scripture Deut. 30.11 the commaundement which I commaund thee is not hid from thee nor farre of And as it foloweth thou needest not ascend to the heauens or go beyond the sea the word is neare vnto thee euen in thy mouth and hart to do it argum Brentij Ergo the scriptures are plaine First the Iesuite aunswereth that it is meant onely of the decalogue and the ten commandements that they are easie not of the whole Scripture As though if the commandements be easie the rest of the scriptures be not likewise as the Prophets and historicall books being but commētaries and expositions of the decalogues S. Paule Rom. 10.6 vnderstandeth this place of the whole doctrine of faith who better knew the meaning of Moses then the Iesuite 2 2. Cor. 4.3 If our Gospell be hid it is to them onely that are lost Ergo the Scriptures are plaine to the faithfull The Iesuite aunswereth S. Paule speaketh of the knowledge of Christ not of the Scriptures First it is manifest out of the 2. verse that S. Paule speaketh of that Gospell which he preached to the Corinthians which is the same he wrote vnto them wherefore if the Gospell preached were easie and plaine why is not the Gospell written by him I meane the doctrine of faith being the same which he preached Secondly if they graunt that the knowledge of Christ is easie we aske no more for this is that we say that the doctrine of faith and saluation is plainly expressed in Scripture 3 This is the difference betweene the new Testament and the old the old is compared to a clasped booke Isay. 29.11 the new to a booke opened Apoca. 5. the knowledge of Christians farre exceedeth the knowledge of the Iewes it
with the like blasphemie challenge to be worshipped because the women in the Gospel caught Christ by the feete and worshipped him Mat. 28.9 We may see by this of what spirit hee is and whether he be not that Antichrist that shal make him selfe as God 2. Thess. 2.4 The Protestants THe kissing of the feete was an humble and lowly gesture which was worthily vsed toward our Sauiour Christ who was God in the flesh and in his body and humanity annexed to his Godhead as God to be worshipped but it is too diuine and too lowly an homage to be offered to any mortall man and holy men in times past refused it when any carried away with immoderat zeal and admiration of their person were ready to giue it vnto them Argum. 1. When Cornelius fell downe at Peters feete the holy Apostle would not suffer him to do it The pope is of a cleane contrary spirite to S. Peter for he refused it beeing offered the Pope holdeth out his toe and offereth it to be kissed and vrgeth men thereunto Argum. 2 If such kissing of feete be commendable how commeth it to passe that the pope only hath holy feete to kisse and not other Bishoppes and Clergy men as well as he Augustine thus wryteth vpon those wordes of the Psalme Worship his foote-stoole reading according to the Septuagint saith he the earth is his foote stoole but wee must not worship the earth Conuerâ—o me ad ChristuÌ„ inuenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra suscepit enim de terra terram quia caro terra est in Psal. 98. I turne me saith hee vnto Christ and I finde howe the earth may without any impiety be worshipped for hee tooke earth of earth flesh of the flesh of the Virgin the flesh is earth Out of these wordes I conclude that the flesh the body the humanity ought not in any to be worshipped but onely in Christ for the neare coniunction of the Godhead and humane nature together and therefore consequently no kissing of feete which is an externall act of diuine worship is seemely for any mortall man THE THIRD QVESTION CONcerning the inuocation of Saints THis question hath three partes 1. Whether prayers are to bee made vnto Saintes 2. Whether they do pray for vs. 3. Whether they vnderstand our prayers THE FIRST PART WHETHER prayers are to be made to Saints The Papists error 28 THeir assertion is this Sanctos defunctos piè vtiliter à viuentib inuocari that Saintes departed are with great profite and piety called vpon and prayed vnto and that it is not onely lawfull but godly so to do Rhemist 1. Tim. 2. sect 4. Bellarmine cap. 19. lib. 1. De sanctor beatitud Argum. 1. They say they do not pray vnto saints as authors of any benefite or grace but as intercessors onely Neither do they make them immediat intercessors but onely through Christ concluding al their prayers per ChristuÌ„ Dominum nostrum Bellarm. Ans. 1. It is false that you pray vnto theÌ„ as intercessors onely for you desire them not onely to pray for you but to haue mercy on you for thus they pray O blessed Lady haue mercy vpon vs preserue thy seruants let the merits of S. Marie bring vs to the kingdome of heauen Fulk 1. Timoth. 2. sect 4. 2. It is also false that they make them not immediat intercessors but conclude their prayers per Christum Dominum nostrum For in that blasphemous prayer Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro nobis impendit fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas asceÌ„dit Here they aske life eternal of Christ by the blood of Thomas of Canterbury How then is it true which the Rhemists affirme in word that Christ alone by his merites procureth all grace and mercy towarde mankind ibid when they hope to obtaine their requestes by the merites of Saintes See Fulk annot Iohn 16. sect 3. where diuerse praiers to saints as to S. Marie S. Osmond S. Anne S. Katherine are rekoned vp and none of them concludeth per Christum Dominum nostrum Argum. 2. Exod. 32.13 Moyses thus prayeth Remember Abraham Isaac and Iacob thy seruants Moyses here hopeth to haue his prayers heard by the merits of these holy men Bellarm. Ans. Moyses rehearseth only the couenant which the Lord made with these holy men and their seede as the wordes following do shew To whome thou swarest by thine owne selfe and swarest vnto them I will multiplye your seede Moyses therefore pleadeth not the merits of Abraham Isaac Iacob but vrgeth and presseth the promise of God and couenant made with them Argum. 3. The saints do pray one for another here vpon earth and do one desire an anothers prayers as S. Paul Rom. 15. Ephes. 6. Coloss. 4. and in other places desireth to be assisted by their prayers Ergo much more may we desire the prayers of Saints departed Bellarm. Rhemist Ans. 1. To pray one for another while we liue is a duety of Charitie and commaunded in scripture but to request the prayers of saints departed hath no warrant in the worde 2. Wee do not desire the godly liuing to pray for vs as our Mediators or as though by their worthines we are brought into the fauour of God as you say the saints do and therefore your argument followeth not from the prayer of the liuing to the prayer of the dead 3. We may one pray for another and one request the prayers of another while wee liue because we know our mutuall necessities But the saintes departed knowe not what things are done vpon earth neither are euerie where present to heare our prayers The Protestants THat prayer is onely to be made vnto God and to no other creature beside as being an especiall part of the worshippe of God which we ought not to giue to any other thus it is proued out of the word of God Argum. 1. Rom. 10.14 Howe shall they call vpon him in whome they haue not beleeued But wee must beleeue onely in God and therefore onely pray to God Rhemist answer It is true no more can we pray vnto our lady nor any saint in heauen vnlesse we beleeue they can help vs. Ans. The scripture euery where teacheth that we must beleeue in God and that they are cursed that put any confidence in man Ierem. 17.5 Againe they can haue no assurance to settle their conscience but out of the scriptures They haue a vaine perswasion of the ability of Saintes to helpe them but they haue no ground of any such beliefe out of scripture Argum. 2. Heb. 4.16 Let vs come with boldnes to the throne of grace Ergo we haue no neede of the inuocation of saintes seeing wee haue free and bolde accesse through Christ. Rhemist By this reason we should not pray one for an other while we are aliue Ans. we do not put our confidence in the merite and worthines of other mens prayers as you do in the intercession of saints Againe this mutuall duetie of prayer
and religious deuotion to the dead bodies of Saints Rhemist Math. 14. sect 2. Their bodies are the temples of the holy Ghost and shall be raised againe to life Ergo they must be adored and worshipped Trident. Concil sess 25. Ans. One answere may serue for all these arguments We denie not but that the dead bodies of the faithfull are to be layd vp with reuerence in hope of the resurrection but it therefore followeth not that they must be abused to idolatrie Iohns disciples buried his bodie but shrined it not to be worshipped Iosias made difference betweene the bones of the idolatrous priests and of the true Prophet the one he burned and thought them vnworthie of honest sepulture the other he suffered to rest and enioy the honour of buriall But of any adoration or worshipping of his bones we reade not The Protestants THe bodies of Martyrs are reuerently to be brought to the ground in testimonie of our hope of their resurrection and their memorie is to be honored as in praising God for their constant martyrdome so the Psalmist sayth Right precious in the sight of God is the death of his Saints Psalm 116. As also in following their steps and propounding vnto vs their good example but to adore and worship their bones to kisse and kneele downe at their sepulchres is to too grosse idolatrie and not to be vsed amongst Christians 1 The Lord did of purpose himselfe burie the bodie of Moses in a secret place which was neuer knowne to the Israelites and this reason is generally rendered by most writers lest the people of Israel should worship his body and so commit idolatrie Ergo the adoration of the bodies of Saints displeaseth God Argum. Caluin Bellarmine answereth that though the people of Israel might by that meanes haue fallen into idolatrie yet the people of God may now more safely honour reliques because they are not so prone to idolatrie Ans. Experience of popish idolatrie proueth the cleane contrarie for the like superstition and worshipping of images was neuer so common and vsuall no not in the most corrupt times of that Church as now it is in poperie 2 Our Sauiour Christ reproueth the Scribes and Pharisees calling them hypocrites because they did garnish the sepulchres of the Prophets whom their forefathers put to death Math. 23.29 But their doctrine they neglected and regarded not Such hypocrites are the Papists at this day who commit a double fault for they contemne the doctrine of the Apostles whose memories they would seeme to honour and againe in the superstitious honour and worship which they yeeld vnto them they exceed the bonds of Christian pietie 3 Their bodies were not to be worshipped when they were aliue much lesse now they are dead What are they now but earth dust and ashes according as the Lord sayd to Adam Thou art dust and to dust shalt thou returne Genes 3.19 What is this els but to worship the earth euen dust and ashes So Augustine saith Timeo adorare terram ne damnet me qui fecit coelum terram I am afraid to worship the earth lest he condemne me that made both heauen and earth Onely in Christ sayth he I finde quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra how the earth that is his body may be worshipped without any impietie namely because of the neere coniunction and vnion of his humane nature with the Godhead in one person for otherwise of it selfe the bodie of Christ is Gods creature and workmanship and not capable of diuine worship This then is the priuiledge that Christ hath more then all Saints and Martyrs beside that in him onely the humanitie is adored THE SECOND PART OF THE TRANSLAtion of the bodies of Saints The Papists IT is an vsuall thing amongst them to translate and carrie from one place to error 32 another the bones and reliques of Saints as they say Iohn Baptists head was translated from Samaria to Alexandria and is now at Amiens in France Rhemist Math. 14. sect 1. So the body of S. Luke was remoued they say from Achaia to Constantinople and from thence to Padua in Italy where now it remaineth Argument in Luk. Rhemist The stone also that hit S. Stephen is now at Ancona in Italy Act. 7. sect 6. Argum. 1. Ioseph gaue charge concerning his bones when he died and they were remoued from Egypt to the land of Canaan at the departure of the Israelites Exod. 13. Heb. 11.22 Ergo the remouing and translation of Saints bodies or reliques lawfull Rhemist Bellarm. cap. 3. Ans. Ioseph gaue commandement concerning his bones to testifie his faith and hope in the promise of God for the inheritance of the land of Canaan they were not remoued to be adored or worshipped Ergo no such translation of reliques is hereby proued Secondly you can shew no such charge that S. Paul Peter or any of the rest gaue concerning the translation of their bodies as Ioseph gaue vnto his posteritie The Protestants WE denie not but that the bodies of the dead before they be interred may bee conueyed vnto the place of their buriall as Iosias was carried being dead by his seruants from Megiddo to Ierusalem where a sepulchre was prepared for him 2. King 23.30 But either for the dead to be remoued to be buried in some one place more then another for the holinesse thereof or the bones of Saints to be raked out of their graues and translated with intent to shrine them and set them vp to be adored they are superstitious customes and not vsed of ancient time among the people of God Argum. 1. That the place profiteth not the dead but vnto them it is all alike wheresoeuer they are buried we haue shewed afore 1. part controuer 9 quaest 2. part 4. The example of Augustines mother is notable and worthie the memorie She had with great care prouided her a sepulchre neere vnto her husband who dyed at Thagasta in Africa and was there buried and was purposed her selfe to lye by him but the Lord so disposed that she left her life at Hostia in Italie and being readie to depart she sayd thus to her sonnes Ponite hoc corpus vbicunque nihil vos eius cura conturbet Burie my bodie where you thinke good take no great care for it And being asked if it grieued her not to leaue her body so farre off from her owne citie she gaue this godly answere Nihil longe est à Deo neque timendum est ne ille non agnoscat in fine seculi vnde me resuscitet August lib. confess 9. cap. 11. No place is neerer to God then other neither am I to feare lest the Lord should not as well raise me vp in this place as in mine owne citie Ergo in respect of the dead it skilleth not where they are buried Argum. 2. The other custome of translating of reliques to be worshipped is farre more impious and superstitious for hereupon it commeth that the people haue been deceiued with false
in heauen and not vpon the earth 3. What a strange saying is this that Christ giueth his flesh to be eatē in the Sacrament yet hideth it vnder the formes of bread and wine lest men should abhorre to eate it for is it to be thought that Christ would command any vnseemely thing or contrary to humanitie How could the Apostles command the Gentiles to abstaine frō strangled blood Act. 15. whē as by your doctrine they did eate dayly in their assemblies the raw flesh and blood of Christ And how is it that Christ now forgetteth his owne rule He that doth the truth sayth he commeth to the light that his deedes may be made manifest Iohn 3.21 But Christ now flieth the light shrowdeth himselfe vnder the shape of bread and wine and wil not shew his flesh These therefore are but sillie causes which you haue rendered why Christ would haue the substance of bread onely changed and not the accidents The Protestants AS the name of transubstantiation is straunge and newly deuised so is the meaning thereof most vnreasonable that in the Sacrament the substance of bread should be conuerted into the bodie of Christ the formes onely remaining An opinion contrary to scripture reason and common sense Argum. 1. As Christ said Math. 26. pointing to the bread This is my body so he sayth Iohn 6.35 I am the bread but in this place he was not changed into bread why then in the other place should the bread be turned into his body for the speech is all one Argum. 2. The bread in the Eucharist after the consecration is subiect to diuers changes and alterations and so likewise the wine for they may be boyled and made hot they may be infected with poyson for it is certaine that Victor the 3. Pope and Henry the 7. Emperour were poysoned with the Sacrament the wine may waxe sower and turne to vineger the bread may putrifie and breed wormes Ergo the substance of bread and wine remaine still for the accidents cannot be subiect to such alterations and to say that Christs bodie may be thus handled it were great impietie Argum. Pet. Martyris Bellarmine answereth Materia substituitur à Deo in ipso instanti in quo desinunt esse illae species God supplieth some other matter in the very instant when the formes begin to be changed Cap. 24. argum 6. Ans. Is not here good geare thinke you that if a man should come to poyson the Sacrament that is the bread and wine which are alreadie consecrate and made the bodie of Christ God should supplie by a miracle some other matter for him to worke vpon and so God himselfe should be accessarie vnto that wicked act Or if a sillie mouse should be so bold as gnaw vpon a consecrate Host that then likewise some other matter and substance should for that instant be appoynted and so God shall make miracles for mice And why I pray you may not the substance of bread still remaine as well as another substance to be put in the stead thereof Arg. 3. When Christ spake these words Hoc est corpus meum the bread was transubstantiate before or after or while the words were spoken Before they will not say for the elements were not then consecrate nor after for thē Christs words This is my bodie had not been true in that instant when they were spoken Neither was the transubstantiation wrought in the while of speaking for then should it not haue been done all at once but successiuely and one part after another as the words were spoken one after another But this is also contrarie to the opinion of the Papists that would haue it done all together Argum. 4. It is against the nature and propertie of accidents and externall formes to be without a subiect or substance wherein they should rest such are the whitenes and roundnes of the bread the rednes and sweetnes of wine if bread be gone what is become of the roundnes and whitenes and so of the wine If a man aske what round or white thing is this or what red and sweete thing is this shewing the cup what shall be answered we cannot say it is bread or wine for there is none left And I am sure they will not say that the bodie of Christ is either round or white or such like and yet somewhat there must needes be that must take denomination of these accidents Argum. 5. You say the very flesh of Christ that did hang vpon the Crosse is in the Sacrament but that cannot be for that flesh Christ tooke of the Virgine Mary this sacramentall flesh is made of bread Ergo it is not the same flesh which was crucified vpon the Crosse. Bellarm. The bodie of Christ is made of bread but not as any matter or materiall cause thereof but as the wine was made of water by our Sauiour Christ. Ans. And I pray you how was the wine made of the water was not the water the very matter which was turned into wine for one of these three changes and mutations it must needes haue first either the water was annihilate and turned to nothing and so the wine was created of nothing which I am sure you will not graunt secondly or els there was a mixture of wine and water the one being mingled with the other which is likewise false for it was very good and perfect wine neither I thinke will you easily admit that the bodie of Christ and the bread are mingled together in the Sacrament Thirdly there remaineth but the third kind of change that is the conuersion of one substance into another as the water was changed into wine and so is the substance of bread conuerted into the substance of Christs bodie if you will haue any chaunge at all and thus Christ hath gotten by your helpe a breaden bodie another from that which he tooke of the flesh of the Virgine Lastly the diuersitie of opinions which this grosse conceit of the carnall presence of Christ hath hatched doe easily shew and demonstrate vnto vs what we are to thinke of this popish doctrine Some doe hold that the elements doe still remaine in their owne nature in the Sacrament and that together with them the bodie of Christ is carnally present Others doe teach that there remaineth no more bread and wine but onely the verie naturall bodie of Christ of each opinion there are three sorts First of them that hold the elements not to be chaunged 1. Some are of opinion that the bodie of Christ and the elements are locally ioyned together either for that instant onely or els because of the vbiquitie and omnipresence of Christs humanitie of which opinion are the Lutherans 2. Some there were that thought onely so much of the bread to be changed into the bodie of Christ as was receiued of the faithfull and that part which the wicked receiued to be bread still 3. Others taught that the bread was assumed in the Sacrament to the
Rachel 1. Laban 2. Rebecca 3. Iacob 4. For in collateral degrees we count not the distance from the roote or stocke but the mutuall distance from themselues And by this reason if Cosin germanes be but in the second degree there should be no degree beyond the second forbidden Leuit. 18. for there is no degree forbidden beyond this neither is this by name and directly forbidden The Papists 3. THeir third rule is this In collaterall degrees vnequall Thare Abraham Aram. Sara error 34 that is when both are not alike distant from the stocke they shall differ in that degree in the which the further of them is remoued from the stocke as in this example Sara is distant two degrees from the stocke and as many from Abraham Bellarm. ibid. The Protestants Ans. NEither is this rule perfect for by this reason he that is indeed a degree further off shall be in the same degree for if the vncle and the nephew be remoued but the second degree and Cosin germanes are but distant in the second degree as they say the vncles sonne shall be in the same degree with his cosin as his father is which is not to be admitted Wherefore in collaterals we preferre the Ciuill account of degrees that is so many persons the stocke of the kinred excepted so many degrees These then are the rules of marriage 1. In the right line ascending and descending all degrees are forbidden 2. In collateral consanguinitie the prohibition reacheth to the third degree as it is not lawfull to marrie the vncle or the Aunt who are in the third degree from their nephew 3. In collateral affinitie the prohibition is extended to the fourth degree for affinitie is alwaies a degree beyond that consanguinitie by the which it commeth in as it is vnlawfull to marrie the vncles wife Leuit. 18.14 which is in the fourth degree from her nephew being one degree beyond her husband who is the vncle in the third degree And this is to be obserued that there is no affinitie in the first or second degree but the neerest is in the third as the wiues or husbands father brother or daughter which are all in the third degree the husband is in the first the wife the second and they in the third THE SECOND PART WHETHER ANY OF THE degrees prohibited in the law may be dispensed withall The Papists THey say not that the Pope may dispense with all but with some of them Concil Trid. sess 24. can 3. As they tooke vpon them to dispense with King error 35 Henry the 8. marriage with his brothers wife their reason is because some of those prohibitions were only iudicial and positiue constitutions not grounded vpon the law of nature Argum. 1. If it be the lawe of nature not to marrie within those degrees it should haue been in force before the law was made but so was it not for Abraham married his brothers daughter and Iacob two sisters Bellarm. cap. 27. Ans. 1. As Augustine sayth of the marriage and copulation of Adams children brothers and sisters together Factum est compellente necessitate It was for necessitie sake because there were then no more women so also may it be in some sort true of those Patriarkes that hauing a necessitie to marrie amongst their owne kinred and not with the Gentiles there was no choise to be had of women of their owne kinred further off in degree 2. Although this example of theirs both in marrying many wiues and so neere of kinne cannot be altogether excused or iustified in them yet because the law of nature was not yet so cleerely knowne as afterward by the giuing of the law which is nothing els but an exposition of the law of nature the offence was not so great in them but might better be tolerated because as Augustine sayth it was neither Contra morem illorum temporum nec contra praeceptum Neither against the custome of those times nor against any flat precept And to conclude although those holy men had their imperfections yet we must not iudge them in these things according to the euil and corrupt disposition of men in these daies which might vse this great libertie in marriage better then many vse lawfull marriage now as Augustine sayth Castiùs habebant plures quà m nūc multi vnam They vsed many wiues more chastely then many now liue with one De bon coniug cap. 10. The Protestants WE affirme that it is vtterly vnlawfull for any Christian to marrie within the degrees prohibited neither can any humane power dispense with such marriages but the equitie of that lawe being grounded vpon nature is in force for euer Wherefore the Pope of Rome sheweth himselfe plainly to be Antichrist in dispensing against the law of God Argum. 1. Leuit. 18.24 The reason of that law is giuen concerning the forbidden degrees They should not defile themselues in any one of those things because the Gentiles defiled themselues thereby and were cast out before them for it Wherefore it is a naturall and perpetuall law otherwise the Gentiles had not been bound vnto it Argum. 2. Mark 6.18 Iohn sayth to Herode It is not lawfull for thee to haue thy brothers wife Ergo the law was not abrogate being in force in our Sauiour Christs time Neither are they to alleadge that Herodes brother was yet liuing or that he had a child by Herodias and therefore it was not lawfull for him to marrie her for all this being graunted which cannot be proued yet it is plaine out of the text that Iohn reproueth him in no other name but because he married his brothers wife Augustine is against them who speaking of the marriage of Consobrines or Cosin germanes which had been sometime in vse Quia id nec diuina prohibuit nondum prohibuerat lex humana It was as yet thought lawfull because neither the diuine law forbad it neither was it yet prohibited by mans law If that then be thought lawfull which Gods law manifestly forbiddeth not that sure is vnlawful which it plainly forbiddeth Wherfore to marrie within any of the degrees directly forbidden Leuit. 18. is vtterly vnlawfull THE THIRD PART WHETHER ANY OTHER DEgrees may be by humane law prohibited beside those directly forbidden in the law The Papists 1. THey affirme that by the law of Moses those degrees onely are vnlawfull to marrie in which are directly and by name set downe therefore it is error 36 not vnlawfull by Moses law for the vncle or Aunts husband to marrie his niece because it is not by name prohibited as Abraham married his brother Arams daughter for Sara was his niece The marriage also of Cosin germanes was lawfull by Moses law and practized Numb 36. The daughters of Zelophehad married their vncles sonnes Therefore by Moses law no degrees are forbidden which are not directly named Bellarm. cap. 27. The Protestants 1. COncerning Abrahams marriage what is to be thought we haue shewed before but it is a
my God which wordes must needs declare an inward confideÌ„ce and assured trust in God The Protestants WE holde it was necessary for our redemption that Christ should not onely suffer bodily paines but also feele the very anguish and horror of soule that as by his death we are redeemed both body and soule so he should pay the ransome for both in his body and soule 1. That our Sauiour suffered great anguish in soule the scripture testifieth for before his suffring in his body vpon the crosse being in the garden he saith of himselfe My soule is heauy vnto death at the same time being grieuously troubled he sweat water and blood and last of all hanging vpon the crosse he cryed out By those effectes it is euidently proued that there was a greater feare in him then of the death of the body for many holy Martyrs haue without any shew of such griefe endured horrible torments in the flesh and therefore consequently it followeth that those things proceeded from the griefe of his soule as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 5.7 He offered vp praiers with strong crying and teares to him that was able to saue him from death and was heard in that which he feared If it had beene onely feare of bodily death what need such strong cries with teares And the text is plaine that he was heard that is saued froÌ„ the death which he feared but he was not saued from the bodily death for he died and gaue vp the ghost wherefore it was the great horror of soule that caused him to feare Bellarm. answereth for all this that it was the bodily death which he feared but not of necessitie because he could not otherwise choose but willingly he would abide this brunt also of the feare and sorrow of death Voluit poenam maeroris timoris subire vt redemptio esset copiosae And heerein he exceedeth all other men that haue suffered for they are ridde from feare because God giueth them greater comfort and they regarde not the present torment but Christ willingly and of his owne accord drew himselfe into this agonie of feare Ans. 1. That Christ as he was God had determined and set it downe to dye for the world it is not to be doubted of but that as he was man he had not a desire to escape death as being ignorant of Gods determination it is contrary to the Scriptures which make mention of his earnest praier that he made thrice that the cup might passe Math. 26. Therefore Christ willingly entred not into that agony of feare in his humane desire but as submitting himselfe and his will in obedience to his fathers will 2. He is contrary to him selfe in saying that Christs bodily sufferings were sufficient for our redemption and yet graunteth that Christ vt redemptio esset copiosa That our redemption might be more full would abide also the smart of the feare of death If he feared but the bodily death as he saith yet was he troubled in soule and therefore besides bodily paine he suffered anguish in his soule Argum. 2. Act. 2.24 Whom God hath raised vp saith S. Peter and loosed the sorrowes of death for it was impossible that he should be holden of it Ergo Christ suffered the sorrowes of death and felt the wrath of God which caused those sorrowes The vulgare Latine hath the sorrowe of hell solutis dolorib infernâ— which pincheth the Papists very sore for how could Christ be loosed from the sorrowes of hell if first he had not beene helde of them That which Bellarmine answereth that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell for others which were to be deliuered is but a poore shift for the text is plaine It was impossible that he that is Christ himselfe should be stil holden of it it is spoken of the holding of Christ and not of any other Argu. 3. The prophet Esay saith He was wounded for our sins and broken for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was vpon him and with his stripes are we healed Esay 53.5 But we could haue no peace with God vnlesse all the punishment due vnto vs for our sinne had beene vndertaken by Christ wherefore seeing we by our sinne had deserued to be punished both in body soule it was necessary that our redeemer should be wounded and broken wholly for vs for how els by his stripes should we wholly be healed Augustine thus reasoneth against Felicianus the Arrian and proueth that Christ tooke not onely humane flesh but an humane soule Si totus homo periâ—â— c. If man wholly were lost saith he he had wholly need of a Sauiour and if he wholly needed a Sauiour Christ by his comming wholly redeemed him therefore Christ tooke vpon him the whole nature of man both body soule for if since the whole man hath sinned Christ onely had taken our flesh the soule of man should still remaine guiltie of punishment haec Augustine cont Felician cap. 13. By the same reason we proue it was necessary that Christ should suffer both in body and soule by the which Augustine inferreth that Christ tooke both body and soule he did assume them both to redeeme both But he redeemed vs not in being borne for vs or walking or preaching heere vpon earth although these were preparations to his sacrifice but by dying and suffering for vs Ergo he suffered both in body soule the punishmeÌ„t due vnto sinners They grauÌ„t that Christ suffered anguish in soule yet not properly in the soule but onely for the bodily death which was no part of the punishmeÌ„t of the soule which consisted in the very sense and feeling of Gods wrath and the torments of hell due vnto mankinde for their sinnes This punishment of the soule ought also necessarily to haue beene vndertaken by Christ being the redeemer both of body and soule THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER CHRIST descended in soule into hell to deliuer the Patriarkes The Papists THey doe beleeue that Christ according to his soule went downe to hell to error 101 deliuer the Patriarkes and all iust men there holden in bondage til his death Rhemist Act. 2. sect 12. Argum. 2. He that ascended is he that descended first into the lowest parts of the earth Ephes. 4.9 that is into hell the which is the lowest place in the earth Bellarm. cap. 12. Ans. 1. The earth it selfe is in respect of the world the lowest part so that here one parte of the earth is not to be compared with another but the whole earth in respect of the high heauens hath the name of the lower partes so is it taken Psal. 139. ver 15. Thou hast fashioned me beneath or in the lower partes of the earth But Dauid I trust they will not say was borne in hell because he speaketh of the lower partes of the earth consul Bez. in hunc locum So that by the descending of Christ into the lowest partes of the earth is meant nothing els but the lowest and extreamest degree