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
Saint Chrysostom saith Omnia clara sunt plana ex scriptur is divinis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt yet no man ever hath yet defined what are necessary and what not What points are fundamentall and what are not fundamentall Necessary to Salvation is one thing and necessary for knowledge as an improvement of our faith is another thing for the first if a man keeps the Commandments and believes all the Articles of the Creed he may be saved though he never read a word of Scripture but much more assuredly if he meditates upon Gods word with the Psalmist day and night But if he meanes to walk by the rule of Gods word and to search the Scriptures he must lay hold upon the meanes that God hath ordained whereby he may attaine unto the true understanding of them for as Saint Paul saith God hath placed in the Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors to the end we should be no more little children blown about with every wind of Doctrine therefore it is not for babes in understanding to take upon them to understand those things wherein so great a Prophet as the Prophet David confessed the darknesse of his owne ignorance And though it be true the Scripture is a river through which a lambe may wade and an Elephant may swim yet it is to be supposed and understood that the lambe must wade but onely through where the river is foordable It doth not suppose the river to be all alike in depth for such a river was never heard of but there may be places in the river where the lambe may swim as well as the Elephant otherwise it is impossible that an Elephant should swim in the same depth where a lambe may wade though in the same river he may neither is it the meaning of that place that the child of God may wade through the Scripture without directions help or Judges but that the meannest capacitie qualified with a harmelesse innocence and desirous to wade through that river of living waters to eternall life may find so much of Comfort and heavenly knowledge there easily to be obtained that he may easily wade through to his eternall Salvation and that there are also places in the same river wherein the highest speculations may plunge themselves in the deep mysteries of God Wherefore with pardon crav'd for my presumption in holding Your Majestie in so tedious a discourse as also for my boldnesse in obtruding my opinion which is except as incomparable Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall pollicy hath well observed the Churches Authority be required herein as necessary hereunto we shall be so far from agreeing upon the true meaning of the Scripture that the outward letter sealed with the inward witnesse of the Spirit being all hereticks have quoted Scripture and pretended Spirit will not be a warrant sufficient enough for any private man to judge so much as the Scripture to be Scripture or the Gospell it selfe to be the Gospell of Christ This Church being found out and her Authority allowed of all controversies would be soone decided and although we allow the Scripture to be the lock upon the door which is Christ yet we must allow the Church to be the Key that must open it as Saint Ambrose in his 38. Sermons calls the agreement of the Apostles in the Articles of our beliefe Clavis Scripturae one of whose Articles is I believe the holy Catholick Church As the Lion wants neither strength nor courage nor power nor weapons to seize upon his prey yet he wants a nose to find it out wherefore by naturall instinct he takes to his assistance the little Jack-call a quick sented beast who runs before the Lion and having found out the prey in his language gives the Lion notice of it who soberly untill such time as he fixes his eyes upon the bootie makes his advance but once comming within view of it with a more speed then the swiftest running can make he jumps upon it and seizes it Now to apply this to our purpose Christ crucified is the main substance of the Gospell according to the Apostles saying I desire to know nothing but Iesus and him crucified This crucified Christ is the nourishment of our soules according to our Saviours own words Ubi Cadaver ibi aquilae Thereby drawing his Disciples from the curious speculation of his body glorified to the profitable meditation of his body crucified It is the prey of the Elect the dead Carkasse feedeth the Eagles Christ crucified nourisheth his Saints according to Saint Iohns saying except we eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud we have no life in us him we must mastigate and chew by faith traject and convey him into our hearts as nutriment by meditation and digest him by Coalition whereby we grow one with Christ and Christ becomes one with us according to that saying of Tertullian Auditu devorandus est intellectu ruminandus fide digerendus Now for the true understanding of the Scriptures which is no other thing then the finding out of Iesus and him crucified who is the very life of the Scriptures which body of Divinity is nourished with no other food and all its veines fil'd with no other bloud though this heavenly food the Scripture have neither force nor power to seize upon its prey but is endued with a lively spirit able to overcome the greatest ignorance yet there is a quick sented assistant called Ecclesia or Church which is derived from a verbe which signifies to call which must be the Jack-call to which this powerfull seeker after this prey must joyne it selfe or else it will never be able to find it out and when we are called we must go soberly to work untill by this means we have attained unto the true understanding and sight thereof and then let the Lion like the Eagle Maher-shalal hashbaz as the Prophet Esay cap. 8. v. 3. tells us make hast to the prey make speed to the spoile Saint Paul confirmes the use of this Etymologie writing to the Corinthians viz. To the Saints called and the Ephesians cap. 4. he tells us if ye would be in one body and in one spirit and of one mind you must be as you are called in our hope of your vocation and in his Epistle of the Colossians cap. 3. he tells us that if we will have the peace of Christ to rule in our hearts that is it by which we are called in one selfe body where we must allow a constitution or Society of men called to that purpose and whose calling it is to procure unto us this peace and unitie in the Church or we shall never find it Thus when dissention arose between Paul and Barnabas concerning Circumcision their disputations could effect nothing but heat untill the Apostles and Elders met together and determined the matter there must be a society of men that can say Bene visum fuit nobis Spiritui sancto or
Heaven for me give me health of body give me patience courage c. So that we understand it thus Save me and have mercy on me by praying for me give me this or that by thy prayers and merits But what is this but to displace Christ and to set up Saints in his roome Their Pope Leo cited by their Cassander concerning this same point hath taught a better lesson saying The Saints have received not given crownes and by the fortitude of Believers we have examples of patience not gifts of righteousnesse This Cassander cites shewing how ill it suites with the Romish practice which hee although a Romanist complaines of as too exorbitant Bellarmine takes it very ill that Calvine sayes they pray unto the Virgin Mary to command her Sonne with great indignation hee cries out Who of us doth say this Why doth hee not prove it by some example But the forementioned Cassander plainly shewes that Calvin did not charge them in that manner without cause For saith hee it is come to that passe that Christ now reigning in Heaven is made subject to his Mother as they sing in some Churches Pray the Father and command the Son O happy child bearing woman who doest expiate wickednesse by the authority of a Mother command the Redeemer Hee tells us also that as Ahasuerus told Esther he would give her half of his Kingdome if she would aske it so some famous men among them say that Gods Kingdome consisting of Judgement and Mercy God hath indeed given halfe of his Kingdome to the Virgin Mary viz. that part which consisteth in mercy reserving the other part unto himselfe viz. that which consisteth of judgement Whereby they intimate that who so desires mercy must seeke to the Virgin Mary for it otherwise hee can expect nothing but judgement And as Cassander also complaines all Davids Psalmes they as they call it instead of Lord putting in Lady and attributing that unto the Virgin Mary which David attributeth unto God As for example Lady in thee have I put my trust In the Lady do I trust Save me O Lady for I have trusted in thee To thee O Lady have I lift up my soule In thee O Lady have I trusted let me never be confounded Iudge me O Lady and discerne my cause O Lady thou art our refuge in all our necessity Have mercy on me O Lady which art called the Mother of mercy and according to the bowels of thy mercies cleanse me from all mine iniquities Powre out thy grace upon me and withold not thy wonted clemency from me And so all along throughout all the Psalmes it runs after this manner May we not now most justly apply that to the Romanists which Ambrose spake of the Heathens They thinke themselves not guilty who give the honour of Gods Name to the creature and leaving the Lord adore their fellow-servants as if there were any thing more that might be reserved for God Now for the Marquesses proofes I marvell hee should stand so much upon that in Luke 16. 24. For 1. Chemnitius sayes well Wee will not learne how to pray of the damned whom God hath cast off and who are in eternall despaire And againe Let them pray as that rich man did who would be heard and helped as he was 2. Whereas the Marquesse bringeth in a jury of ten Fathers to prove that this Scripture is no Parable but a History why should wee be any more moved in this case with their verdict then Iansenius a Romanist was who as I have shewed before thought it more probable that it is no History but a Parable or at least a History related after a parabolicall manner Theophlylact also saith expressely that it is a Parable and censures them as voide of understanding who take it for a History His reason I grant is not good viz. that as yet neither the just nor the unjust doe receive their reward And yet that assertion of his also is advantagious unto us in this point For our Adversaries hold as hath beene noted before that therefore in the time of the old Testament there was no praying to the Saints departed because the Saints then as they say were not in blisse and so could not heare the prayers that should be made unto them Now Theophylact held that the Saints in the time of the new Testament are not in blisse untill the last judgement and the same was the opinion of many other Fathers I know Bellarmine doth indeavour to free both Theophylact and the rest interpreting them as if they meant onely in respect of full and perfect blisse both in soule and body But others of the Roman Church doe confesse that it was their opinion that the soules of the righteous doe not enjoy the beatificall vision untill the day of judgement Sixtus Senensis doth cite Irenaeus Iustine Martyr Tertullian Origen Chrysostome Lactantius Ambrose Austine Theodoret Theophylact Bernard and others as being of this opinion and therefore by our adversaries owne principles they could not rightly hold the Invocation of Saints deceased But to returne to that Scripture Luke 16. Iustine Martyr as hee is cited by Bellarmine denies that it is a true History Chrysostome also saith plainly that it is a Parable Hom. 1. de Lazaro And yet hee is one of the Fathers whom the Marquesse alledgeth to the contrary I know not what that meaneth which the Marquesse saith every parable is either true in the persons named or else may be true in some others For we do not finde persons named in any parable besides this which is the maine if not onely argument which is used to prove it a History rather then a Parable though Iansenius did not thinke this to be a convincing argument and he shews two reasons why the poore man was named and not the rich viz. 1. To teach us that God regardes the poore that are righteous more then the rich that are wicked 2. Because when one is commended it is meete to name him but not so when one is condemned And both these reasons hee saith stand good whether this narration be onely a Parable or a History It is certaine the holy Ghost tells no lies nor fables c. Parables are not false nor fabulous yet Theophylact saith well We must not take all things that are spokken in Parables as Lawes and Canons So Maldonate thought meete often to admonish this as a thing most safe that Parables are not to be handled too strictly that they are often broken by handling and that here that doth happen which is said in the proverbe the too much wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood The other place viz. Iob 5. 1. is very inconveniently alledged by the Marquesse for invocation of Saints deceased Bellarmine was more wary in citing it onely to prove that Angels whom hee there understands by Saints may be invocated These words saith he shew that it
Body that Christs Body may be understood to be given for the salvation of our body and his Blood for the salvation of our soule which is in the Blood And so also to signifie that Christ tooke both Body and Soule that he might redeeme both And therefore hee saith It is not without good cause that very many good men even of the Catholike profession being conversant in the reading both of Divine and Ecelesiasicall Writers doe most earnestly desire to partake of the Lords cup and by all meanes strive that this saving Sacrament of Christs Blood together with the Sacrament of his Body may againe use to be received according to the ancient custome of the universall Church which was continued for many Ages For the Scriptures which the Marquesse alledgeth the first of them viz. Ioh. 6. 51. doth not concerne the Sacrament which is not treated of in that Chapter as I have noted before and that according to the judgement of Iansenius a Romanist to whom may be added diverse others of the Church of Rome who as Bellarmine confesseth were of that opinion viz. Biel Cusanus Cajetan Tapper and Hesselius And even Bellarmine himselfe and others who hold that the Sacrament is spoken of in Ioh. 6. yet hold it not to be spoken of till after those words which the Marquesse citeth in those words which follow immediately after vers 51. And the bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the World in those words I say and the rest that follow almost to the end of the Chapter they say that our Saviour speakes of the Sacrament but not in any of the former words of the Chapter And if the Sacrament were spoken of in that Chapter those words v. 51. If any man eate of this bread he shall live for ever would not so much evince a sufficiency of communicating in one kinde as the words a little after viz. v. 53. Verely verely I say unto you Except you eate the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his Blood you have no life in you would evince a necessity of communicating in both kindes For if those words be understood of a Sacramentall eating and drinking it cannot be avoided but that by those very words as it is necessary to eate of the bread in the Sacrament so is it to drinke of the cup also For though by the forementioned concomitancy of the blood with the Body they say that when one kinde onely viz. bread is received the Blood of Christ is drunk as well as his Body is eaten yet as Iansenius well observes that outward act of taking the bread in the Sacrament cannot be called drinking It is rightly called eating saith hee because something is taken by way of meate but how is it called drinking when as nothing is received by way of drinke Neither is it certaine that in the other two places viz. Acts 2. 42. and Luke 24. 30. by breaking of bread is meant the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Cajetan expounds the former place of ordinary bread and the other place is expounded by Iansenius after the same manner Neither is it true that Bellarmine saith that Iansenius teacheth that Christ by that example would shew the fruit and benefit of the Sacrament received in one kinde Jansenius doth not speake of receiving the Sacrament in one kinde though I know hee did approve of it but onely saith that by the effect that followed the Lord would commend unto us the vertue of the Sacrament worthily received to wit that thereby our eyes are enlightned to know Iesus And whereas Austine and Theophylact are said to understand that in Luke 24. of the Sacrament Iansenius tells us that so many thinke but that indeed they did rather make mention of the Sacrament because it was not here spoken of in Luke but mystically commended and insinuated by our Saviour But suppose that the Sacrament were spoken of in those places as probably it is in Acts 2. because breaking of Bread is there joyned with Doctrine and Prayer yet there is no sufficient ground for communicating in one kinde For the figure Synecdoche wherby the part is put for the whole is not unusuall in the Scripture Thus Soule which is but a part of man is put for man All the Soules that came with Jacob c. that is all the persons Gen. 46. 26. So likewise flesh being a part of man is used for man I will not feare what flesh can doe unto me Psal 56. 4. that is what man can doe unto me as it is expressed vers 11. So whereas David saith In thy sight shall no man be justified Psal 143. 2. Paul hath it There shall no flesh be iustified in his sight Rom. 3. 20. Thus the whole celebration of the Sacrament may be termed breaking of bread because that is one and that an eminent part of it The Marquesse goes on still concerning the same Sacrament but so as in the Church of Rome it is changed into a Sacrifice We hold saith hee that Christ offered up unto his Father in the Sacrifice of the Masse as an expiation for the sinnes of the people is a true and proper Sacrifice This you deny this we prove by Scripture viz. Mal. 1. 11. From the rising of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my Name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place Incense shall be offered to my Name and a pure offering This could not be meant of the figurative offerings of the Iewes because it was spoken of the Gentiles neither can it be understood of the reall sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse because that was done but in one place and at one time and then and there not among the Gentiles neither Which could be no other but the daily sacrifice of the Masse which is and ever was from East to West a pure and daily sacrifice Luke 22. 19. This is my body which is given for you not to you therefore a sacrifice The Fathers are of this opinion Answ That Christ is offered up in the Eucharist a Sacrifice truly and properly so called Protestants have good cause to deny For the Eucharist is a Sacrament to be received by us not a sacrifice to be offered unto God Christ instituting the Sacrament gave it to his Disciples hee did not offer up himselfe as then unto his Father The Scripture tells us that Wee are sanctified through the offering of the Body of Iesus Christ once for all Heb. 10. 10. And immediately after there it followes that whereas the Leviticall Priests did often offer the same sacrifices Christ having offered one Sacrifice for sinnes for ever sate down on the right hand of God And Heb. 9. 25 26 27 28. the Apostle proves that Christ was not to be offered often because his offering was his suffering so that if hee should have been offered often then he should also have suffered
not say nor believe that he did then not into that Hell which they call Limbus Patrum 2. Those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell as spoken by David Psal 16. and commented upon by Peter Acts 2. those words I say doe shew that Hell there mentioned could neither be the Hell of the damned nor Limbus Patrum or at least that there is no necessity to expound it of either For 1. It is spoken of as a great benefit a matter of joy and rejoycing that Christs Soule was not left in Hell Therefore my Heart is glad and my glory or Tongue rejoyced c. For thou wilt not leave c. Psal 16. 9 10. Acts 2. 26 27. But they that hold Christs descending either into the Hell of the damned or into Limbus Patrum make him to descend as a conquerour one that went either to triumph over the Devill in his owne place as it were or to deliver the soules that were in limbus Now why should it be accounted such a benefit such a matter of joy and rejoycing for one not to be left there where hee is onely as a conquerour and deliverer Bellarmine answers that it was a benefit to Christs Soule that it was quickly joyned againe unto the Body even as it was evill to the Soule to be separated from the Body And thus saith hee it was a benefit unto him to be delivered from Hell not in respect of the place but in respect of separation from the body But who seeth not that by this reason Christs Soule might as well be in Heaven as either in Limbus Patrum or the Hell of the damned For though Christs soule were in heaven yet it was a benefit unto it to be delivered out of that estate of separation which it was in 2. Those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell were meant of Christs Resurrection as S. Peter telleth us Acts 2. 31. But Christs Resurrection though it did presuppose his being in Hell either as Hell is taken for the grave or for the state of death yet not as it is taken either for Limbus Patrum or for the place of torment Christ might well enough rise againe and yet never be in any such Hell as one of these is and the other is supposed to have beene 3. S. Peter shewes that David in those words Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell spake not of himselfe but of Christ for that the words being understood of David were not true but most true as understood of Christ Men and Brethren let mee freely speake unto you concerning the Patriarch David that hee is both dead and buried and his Sepulcher remaineth with us to this day Therefore being a Prophet c. Acts 2. 29 30 31. Here by Davids Sepulcher remaning with them unto that day hee meanes that David was left in that Hell of which he speakes and so did not speake of himself but of some other viz. of Christ who was not left in it Thus also S. Paul having cited the latter part of the Verse Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption hee also to prove that this was meant of Christ and not of David addes For David after he had served his own Generation by the Will of God fell asleepe and was laid with his Fathers and saw corruption But he whom God raised up saw no corruption Acts 13. 35 36 37. David spake not of himselfe but of Christ when hee said Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption because David did see corruption which Christ did not see So David spake not of himselfe but of Christ when hee said Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell because Davids Soule was left in Hell where Christs Soule was not left This is the Apostles argument and herce it necessarily followes that by Hell cannot be meant either the place of torment or yet Limbus Patrum Not the place of torment for Davids soule was not left in that Hell it never came in it Nor yet can that Limbus be meant for even the Romanists themselves doe hold that it was quite emptied before that time that Peter spake and therefore Davids soule was not in it then whereas yet Peter signifies that then it was in that Hell of which hee spake By Hell therefore must be meant either the grave or the state of the dead Ruffinus in his Exposition of the Creed observes that in his time the Article of Christs descending into Hell was not in the Creed of the Roman Church and that the Easterne Churches had it not yet hee saith that it seemes to he implied in that which is spoken of Christs Buriall And it is observed that in all the ancient Creedes that were within 600 years after Christ except one which Ruffinus followed if the article of Christs buriall were mentioned then that of his descending into Hell was omitted and if his descending into Hell were mentioned then his buriall is omitted which argues that the antients did take these two viz. Christs buriall and his descending into Hell to import but one thing or to differ but very little and therefore thought it sufficient to mention either the one or the other It is most evident that the Hebrew word Sheol and so the Greeke Hades which Psal 16. and Acts 2. are rendred Hell are often taken for the grave Some of the Romanists deny that Sheol is ever so used but Genebrard who was sometimes Hebrew Professour at Paris doth confesse that they are in an errour and there are many places of Scripture to convince them Gen. 42. 38. If mischiefe befall him c. you shall bring down my gray haires with sorrow to Sheol i. e. the grave For to what Hell else should gray haires goe down So Gen. 44. 29. and 31. and 1 King 2. 6. And Iob. 17. 13. If I waite Sheol is mine House that is the grave as appeares v. 14. I have said to corruption thou art my Father and to the worme thou art my Mother and Sister So Psal 141. 7. Our bones lie scattered at the mouth of Sheol i. e. the grave So Genebrard upon the place expounds it juxta Sepulchrum i. e. by the grave whereas the vulgar Latine hath it secus infernum neare Hell But what Hell except the grave should dead mens bones lie scattered by So in many other places and in all these places the Greeke version hath Hades so that Bellarmine needed not to have made so strange a matter of it as hee doth that Henry Stephen in his great Thesaurus should say that Hades may be taken for the grave neither had he cause to say that Stephen could finde no Authour that did use the word in that sense I have not now Stephens Thesaurus to looke into but sure I am that a man of farre lesse reading then Stephen was of might have alledged many examples to that purpose And for the Hebrew word Sheol Genebrard
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
when mens bodies are buried their soules descend into Hell which descent the Lord to prove himselfe true man did not refuse The words also of S. Peter doe confirme this Exposition viz. that Hell in which Christs Soule was but was not left is the state of the dead or the Power of death Whom God hath raised up having loosed the paines of death because it was not possible that hee should be holden of it For David speaketh concerning him c. Acts 2. 24. c. To prove that CHRIST could not be held by death be still kept under the power of it Peter alledgeth the words of David concerning Christ Thou wilt not leave my Soule in Hell Therefore Christs not being left in Hell signifies nothing else but t is not being left under the power of death and consequently his being in Hell importeth nothing else but his being under the power of death under which hee was kept for a while viz. untill his Resurrection And this may suffice for answer to the Objection from Acts 2. 27. The next place Objected is 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. of which place I marvell that the Marquesse should say that it is yet plainer then either of the former Austine being consulted by Evodius about the meaning of that place confesseth that it did exceedingly puzzle him and that hee durst not affirme any thing about it And the Jesuite Lorinus in his Commentary upon it calles it difficillimum locum a most difficult place and rehearses ten severall Expositions of it And So Estius also upon the place saith This place in the judgement almost of all Interpreters is most difficult and is so diversly expounded that John Lorinus doth reckon up nine interpretations of it to which hee addes his own for the tenth and yet he hath not touched all neither And both he and Lorinus note that only Arias Montanus did thinke the place easie to be understood but withall that his Exposition of it is such as that others will not easily embrace it For as they relate Arias by the spirits in prison doth understand those eight persons that were shut up in the Arke which was a kinde of prison unto them Bellarmine also upon occasion of this controversie about Limbus Patrum and Christs descending into Hell treating of this place of Peter saith that it hath alwayes beene accounted a most obscure place Some have thought that by Prison in those words of Peter is meant Hell the place of torment and that Christ went and Preached there and that such as did then believe were delivered And thus Hilary seemes to have understood it who saith that the Apostle Peter doth testifie that when Christ descended into Hell exhortation was Preachde also to those that were in the Prison who had sometimes beene incredulous in the dayes of Noah For this opinion Hilary is taxed though not named by Bede as Estius observes who yet indeavours to excuse Hilary as not meaning by this Prison the Hell of the damned but Purgatory and in that sense Estius himselfe also doth understand the words of Peter viz. that by the spirits in prison are meant the soules of those that were in paine and torment for the expiating of their sinnes untill that Christ came and Preached deliverance unto them But of Purgatory I shall speake hereafter in the meane time so much is obtained that if the place be meant of Purgatory then not of Limbus Patrum for that place as they describe it did much differ from Purgatory as being a place they say in which was no paine or torment But it may seeme strange that the Marquesse should alledge Austine Epist 99. as holding that by the prison which Peter speaketh of is meant Limbus Patrum when as indeed Austine in that Epistle is much against it For besides what I have before cited out of that Epistle hee saith that Christ by the beatificall presence of his Divinity did never depart from those just persons that were in Abrahams bosome which the Marquesse saith is the same place with that called Limbus Patrum and therefore hee did not finde what Christ did for them when hee descended into Hell And having considered what hee could of the words of Peter hee rather thought that they did not speake of Hell at all And therefore by the spirits in prison hee conceived to be meant men that lived in the dayes of Noah whose soules were in their mortall bodies as in a prison to which men hee saith Christ by his Spirit in Noah did Preach though they yet neverthelesse would not believe Bellarmine and Estius and others doe acknowledge this to have beene the opinion of Austine in that Epistle concerning the words of Peter And Bellarmine also doth confesse that this of Austine doth differ but little from Bezaes Exposition of the place viz. that by the spirits in prison are meant the soules of men which were now when Peter wrote of them in prison that is in Hell to which men Christ by his Divine Spirit in Noah did Preach when they were alive upon Earth And surely any that are impartiall will judge this Exposition in that wherein it differs from Austines the more probable and yet Bellarmine to shew his partiality saith that hee would not have refuted Austines Exposition if Austine himselfe had beene altogether pleased with it Austines Exposition is embraced not onely by Bede whom Bellarmine onely mentions as herein following Austine but also by Aquinas and others as Estius observes who also addes that Hesselius a Romish Authour doth understand the place much after the same manner And as Lorinus doth relate Diegus Paiva one that wrote in defence of the Councell of Trent doth directly expound the words of Peter as Beza doth though hee would not have it thought that Paiva did receive his Exposition from Beza But against both Austines and Bezaes Exposition it is objected first that the Spirit by which Christ went and Preached to the spirits in prison 1 Pet. 3. 18 19. is opposed to the Flesh and therefore must signifie Christs Soule and not his Divine Nature I answer that Christs Divine Nature is most fitly understood there by the word Spirit even as by the word Flesh is to be understood not onely his Body but his whole humane Nature in respect of which nature Christ was put to death and was quickned by his Divine Nature Thus doth Oecumenius expound it Put to death in the nature of flesh that is the humane Nature and raised againe by the power of the Divine Nature And why should this Exposition seeme strange when as Flesh is put for Christs humane Nature Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made Flesh And so also Rom. 1. 3. and 9. 5. And therefore on the other side the word Spirit may well denote Christs Divine Nature For this Exposition Estius also cites Austine and Athanasius as alledged by Bede And he doth well observe that
this sense agrees with that which is said of Christ 2 Cor. 13. 4. For though he was crucified through weakenesse yet hee liveth by the power of God Besides if wee should reade quickened in the Spirit and by Spirit understand Christs Soule it would follow that Christs Soule was sometime dead This was Austines argument against that Exposition as is observed by Bellarmine Who saith that the argument doth not conclude for that often in the Scripture that is said to be quickned which is not put to death But his answer is not satisfactory For though it is true that in the Scripture to quicken or to make alive is sometimes no more then to preserve and keepe alive as 1 Sam. 27. 11. and 2 Sam. 8. 2. where both in the Originall and in the vulgar Latine the word used doth signifie to make alive Yet neverthelesse nothing in Scripture is said to be made that is kept alive but that which is obnoxious unto death and may die but Christs Soule and generally the Soules of men are of an immortall nature and doe not die when the body dyeth Besides what great matter was it as Estius observes if when Christs Body died his Soule did remaine alive when as even in the worst men that are the soule doth not die as being by nature immortall And therefore hee saith it is better understood thus Christ was quickned in the Spirit that is hee was made a quickning Spirit viz. when hee rose from death unto life immortall And hee cites that 1 Cor. 15. 45. The first man Adam was made a living Soule the last Adam was made a quickning spirit But that sense will not well suite the words of Peter which doe not shew what Christ is made being risen againe but in what respect and by what meanes hee did rise againe viz. by the spirit that is by his Divine Nature as in the flesh that is his humane Nature hee was put to death But againe it is objected that S. Peter saith Christ went and preached to the spirits in prisons therefore it is meant of the soule not of his Divine Nature in which respect it cannot be said but improperly that hee went I answer there is no necessity to take it properly in the words of Peter more then in the words of Paul Ephes 2. 17. when hee saith that Christ came and Preached peace unto the Ephesians which must be meant of comming and Preaching by the Apostle for otherwise Christ in his owne person did not come and preach unto them And thus Estius notes it to be expounded by Ambrose the Interlineary Glosse Aquinas Lyra and Cajetane It is objected againe that by spirits in prison cannot be understood living men except S. Peter should on purpose speake improperly and obscurely I answer according to Bezaes Exposition which in his particular doth differ from Austines and is the more probable not living men but the soules of men separated from their bodies are termed spirits in prison as being in the prison of Hell when Peter wrote of them though they were not so but were joyned to their bodies and so both soules and bodies joyned together were living men when Christ preached unto them But Bellarmine further objects that 1 Pet. 4. 6. where it is said that the Gospell was preached to the dead which hee will have so understood as that men being dead and departed out of this life the Gospell was Preached unto them But the true and genuine meaning of the words rather is this that the Gospell was Preached to them that are now dead though they were not dead but alive when the Gospell was preached unto them Even as in the verse immediately going before it is said that Christ will judge both the quick and the dead that is those that are now alive or shall be alive at Christs comming and those that are now dead or shall be dead at Christs comming who yet shall not be judged whiles they are dead but they shall be raised up and made alive and so be judged As therefore Peter calles them dead because so they are now and were when hee wrote of them though they shall not be dead but alive when they shall be judged So for the same reason hee calles them dead to whom the Gospell was preached though when the Gospell was preached unto them they were alive and not dead And in like manner hee calles them spirits in prison to whom Christ went and Preached because so they were when hee wrote though they were not so when Christ went and preached unto them But Bellarmine chargeth Beza with being so bold as to change the Text because where they reade the spirits that were in prison hee reades the spirits that are in prison But as Beslarmine himselfe could not but confesse in the Originall there is neither that were nor that are but the words are as our Translatours render them the spirits in prison so that either the words that were or that are may be understood as the sense will beare Estius confesseth that some I suppose he meanes some not Protestants understand that are but hee holds it better to understand that were as the verbe is of the Pretertense preached But this reason is of no moment For if because the word Preached hath reference to the time past therefore it must be meant of the Spirits that were in prison when Christ Preached unto them by the same reason when it is said that Christ shall judge both the quick and the dead because shall judge doth respect the time to come therefore also it must be meant of those that shall be dead when Christ shall judge them But this doth not follow and so neither doth the other And thus I hope it may appear that those words of Peter make nothing for Limbus Patrum The fourth and last place of Scripture which is alledged by the Marquesse is Zach. 9. 11. where the pit that is spoken of hee saith cannot be the place of the damned nor the Grave But what then must it therefore be Limbus Patrum It doth not follow for by the pit there may be something else meant then either the place of the damned or the Grave or Limbus Patrum viz. the Babylonish captivity as the Rabbines upon the place expound it Bellarmine citing Calvin for this Exposition saith that it hath no probability because immediatly before there is a prophecy of Christ Rejoyce greatly O Daughter of Sion behold thy King commeth unto thee c. Therefore saith he how should these things cohere if the captivity of Babylon were spoken of I answer well enough the Prophet having told them of Christs comming unto them might well presently after speak of their deliverance out of captivity as a great benefit which they had allready obtained through Christ in whom all the promises are yea and in him amen 2 Cor. 1. 20. and whereby they might be assured of far
greater benefit by him even of deliverance from the captivity of sinne and Satan Estius in his Exposition of the hard places of Scripture treating of this place saith indeed that many understand it of Christs descending into Hell and delivering thence the soules of the just but withall hee tells us that it is diversly expounded and that one Exposition is that Christ by the Merit of his Passion did free all the Elect who were held captive under the power of the Devill And thus hee saith the pit wherein is no water is the captivity of mankinde in which so long as it is held it is empty of the water of Divine Grace Diverse Romanists doe cite Hierome as interpreting this place of the Prophet Zachary of Limbus Patrum and of Christs descending thither But they that peruse Hieromes owne words will finde that hee neither speakes of Christs descending nor of Limbus Patrum and that indeed hee meant onely that which Estius expresseth Hee giveth the sense of the Prophets words thus By the blood of thy passion thou through thy clemency hast delivered those who were held bound in the prison of Hell in which there is no mercy And hee addes a little after that the rich man spoken of Luke 16. was in that pit which was so void of all water of comfort that hee desired Lazarus might but dip the tip of his finger in water to coole his Tongue Here it is evident that Hierome by the pit without water understands the Hell of the damned which is without all comfort though the Marquesse say that place cannot here be meant Now whereas Hierome saith that Christ by his Passion did deliver those that were bound in that prison I suppose hee did not meane that any being once in Hell as that rich man that he mentioneth were afterwards delivered out of it himself seemes to exclude that sence when hee saith that in that prison there is no mercy viz. to be obtained but his meaning was that such as by reason of sinne were in the state of damnation Christ did deliver by his Passion But thus neither this place of Zachary nor any other place of Scripture doth prove a Limbus Patrum or that Christ descended into Hell in that sense as they of the Church of Rome maintaine For the Fathers whom the Marquesse citeth Austine in Psal 37. 1. hath nothing about Limbus Patrum or Christs descending into Hell and I have shewed before that he gathered by the Scripture that Abrahams bosome was no such Limbus as the Romanists imagine yea that hee held the Saints that died before Christs incarnation to have alwayes enjoyed the beatificall presence of Christs Divinity which is point blanke contrary to their opinion Hierome I grant in Ephes 4. 9. seemeth to speake for them where hee saith By the lower parts of the Earth is understood Hell to which our Lord and Saviour descended that he might victoriously carry with him to Heaven the soules of the Saints which were kept there Whereupon also after his Resurrection many bodies of the just were seene in the holy City But Hieromes meaning might be onely this that Christ by the vertue and efficacy of his death did deliver the Soules of all Saints whether before or after his comming from Hell which otherwise by reason of sinne was the place that did belong unto them Thus a little before upon those words when hee ascended up on high hee led captivity captive Hierome doth expresse himselfe saying Wee who now believe in Christ were taken captive by the Devill and were delivered over to his officers Therefore our Lord Iesus Christ came bringing with him the vessels of captivity and preached remission to those that were taken and deliverance to those that were bound and delivered us from the Chaines and Fetters of our enemies And having deliver'd us and by a new captivity brought us out of our old captivity he carried us with him into Heaven Hee cannot here meane that we were actually in Hell and then from thence delivered and carried up with Christ into Heaven But his meaning must needs be this that whereas sinne had brought us under condemnation so that nothing but Hell did remaine for us Christ by his death delivered us and made a way for us into Heaven into which otherwise wee could finde no entrance After the same manner very well may the other words be understood so as to import no such place as they call Limbus Patrum However hee meant yet it appeares sufficiently by the words of Austine before cited that the opinion of Limbus Patrum was not generally received in that time wherein Hierome lived Austine and hee being contemporaries The other Father yet remaining is Gregory but there is no such place as that mentioned viz. li. 13. Mor. ca. 20. for that booke hath onely 17. Chapters in it yet I finde Bellarmine also to cite Gregory after the very same manner yea and to bid us also see Cap. 21. But the words which Bellarmine citeth as out of Cap. 20. are indeed in Cap. 15. viz. Whiles our Master and Redeemer penetrating the cloysters of Hell did bring out from thence the soules of the Elect hee suffers not us to goe thither from whence by descending hee did deliver others These words of Gregory might admit of the same Exposition with those of Hierome before spoken of but that in the next Chapter he is more plaine saying The former Saints could indure adversity but yet they could not be delivered from Hell when they died because hee was not yet come who should descend thither without sinne that hee might deliver those who were held there by reason of sinne But the reason that Gregory here giveth is too weake for though Christ were not then come in the flesh yet his death was as effectuall to those that believed in him then as after his comming as I have proved before Neither is the gound or occasion of these words of Gregory good for hee buildes or comments upon that of Iob 17. 13. If I waite Sheol Hell as Gregory understands it is mine house But I have shewed before that Sheol doth not properly signifie Hell as either wee or our adversaries usually take the word but the Grave or the state of the dead And so the Chaldie Paraphrast there for Sheol hath that which signifieth the house of the Grave This appeares to be the meaning in that place by that which followes immediately after v. 14. I have said to corruption Thou art my Father to the worme thou art my Mother and Sister If our adversaries wil yet stand upon the authority of Gregory I answer that we are not tied to the authority of any in this kinde further then they concur with the Scripture and if we were yet Austines authority were to be preferred as being 200 years more antient then Gregory but of this point enough From Limbus Patrum wee must now passe to Purgatory
take what they grant viz. that the anointing mentioned Mar. 6. was not properly sacramentall So much the Marquesse tacitely doth acknowledge and Bellarmine expresly citing for this opinion Ruardus Iansenius Dominicus à Soto and others yea confirming it by diverse arguments 1. Because that anointing which the Apostles used was referred onely or chiefly to the cure of the body as is manifest by the words of Saint Mark but Sacraments directly concern the soul and the body only by accident 2. The Apostles as then were not Priests and therefore could not administer Sacraments Though they did baptize yet he saith that is nothing because it is not so of the essence of Baptisme as it is of extreme Unction that he should be a Priest that doth administer it 3. The Apostles did promiscuously anoint all that were diseased the blinde and the lame c. but the Sacrament of Unction they hold is only for those that lie sick and are like to die 4. The Apostles did not enquire whether they whom they did anoint were baptized or no and it is altogether probable that many were anointed by them that were meer infidels But neither extreme unction nor any other Sacrament they say belongs unto those that are not baptized By these reasons Bellarmine proveth that the anoynting which we read of Mar. 6. was not the Sacrament of extreme Unction Now if this Sacrament be not meant in Mar. 6. neither is it in Iam 5. For by the testimony both of antient writers and also of modern Romanists the anointing which Saint Iames speaketh of is the same with that which Saint Mark mentioneth Beda upon the words of Saint Iames anointing him with oyle c. doth parallel that place with the other Mar. 6. saying We read in the Gospel that thus did the Apostles Thus also Theophylact upon the words of Saint Mark saith That the Apostles anointed with oyle only Mark doth relate which also Iames the Lords brother doth say Is any among you sick let him c. Iansenius confesseth that these Authours Beda and Theophylact doe testifie that the anointing spoken of Mar. 6. is such as Saint Iames doth mention in his Epistle and this he saith is evident by their words which he citeth Bellarmine doth attribute this opinion viz. that the same anointing is meant both Mar. 6. and Jam. 5. to Waldensis and Alphonsus de Castro two late writers though one of them was a good while before Luther both very zealous in defence of the Church of Rome yet I confesse that in Alphonsus where he speaks of extreme Unction I doe not find Mar. 6. mentioned Maldonate upon Mar. 6. is most vehement for this that the same anointing is spoken of there and Jam. 5. and takes it very ill that any of their Authours should hold otherwise and should say and write that the anointing which the Apostles used was not sacramentall for the healing of the soule but rather medicinall for the curing of the body and that the Sacrament of extreme Unction is not treated of in Mar. 6. Where then saith he is this Sacrament if it be not here Very good Ubi yet Bellarmine by unanswerable reasons hath proved that no such Sacrament is here viz. Mar. 6. and therefore by Maldonates own inference it is no where viz. in no place of Scripture to bee found Maldonate objecteth that the anointing Mar. 6. could not be medicinall because it was used for the healing of all diseases and because the Apostles were not to use medicines seeing it was not Physick but the Gospel which they professed But this is of no force for they whom Maldonate opposeth acknowledge that the oile which the Apostles anointed with did not naturally cure the diseased nor was used as a naturall medicine and they prove it by Maldonates own argument because naturally one medicine cannot cure all diseases But they say that by Christs institution upon this anointing with oile the sick were healed Maldonate would take away this answer saying that there was no need of any sign seeing that the cure which was wrought would work beliefe and that the using of oil would rather hinder faith for that thereby people might think that the cure was wrought by the naturall vertue of the oile and not by divine power But the reason which himselfe alledgeth would hold off people from any such conceit viz. because they might see that all manner of diseases were healed with one and the same oile and that therefore it could not be by the naturall vertue of it Besides that immediately upon the anointing with oile the sick were healed whereas naturally some time would have been spent before the cure was wrought Yet was not the anointing with oile superfluous no more then the laying on of hands which was used both for the healing of the sick Mar. 16. 18. and also for the giving of the Holy Ghost Acts 8. 17. though naturally that ceremony had as little vertue in that kinde as the other Thus then whiles some of our adversaries say that extreme Unction is not that which Saint Mark treateth of and others of them say that Saint Mark and Saint Iames doe both speake of one and the same Unction and that if extreme Unction be not spoken of Mark 6. we know not where to finde it in the Scripture betwixt them both wee may safely conclude that this Sacrament of theirs hath no firme foundation But because the Marquesse onely and others mainly build upon the words of S. Iames this is to be added that Cardinall Cajetane in his Commentary upon Iames doth not only parallel him with Marke but also doth both say and prove that he doth not speake of the Sacrament of éxtreme unction Because 1. The Text doth not say Is any sick unto death but absolutely Is any sick whereas extreme unction as they use it in the Church of Rome is onely for those of whose life there is no hope 2. The effect of S. Iames his anointing is the raising up the bodily amendment of the sick neither is any thing spoken but conditionally of the forgivenesse of sinnes Whereas extreme unction as the forme of it doth shew tends directly to the remission of sinnes 3. Iames bids send for many Elders to one sick person both to pray for him and to anoint him which is different from the manner of extreme unction Thus wee see how many of our adversaries by consequence and some of them directly grant that there is nothing in the Scripture for that extreme Unction which they use and maintaine to be a Sacrament Now for the humane testimonies which the Marquesse alledgeth the first is Origens who in the place mentioned hath nothing to the purpose He cites indeed the words of S. Iames which speake of anointing with Oile but it is not in respect of Unction but in respect of Confession of sinne that hee doth cite-them After him is cited Austine in Speculo but
there being 33. Chapters of that Booke which of them is meant wee cannot tell Neither is it much worth the inquiry for Erasmus shewes that Booke to be none of Austines in that the Authour inserts some verses out of Boetius who was long after Austine Besides other reasons which hee giveth yet Bellarmine asserting Austine to be the Authour of the Booke takes no notice of the reasons alledged against it though hee confesse that some doe doubt of it In the other place of Austine which is pointed at I finde indeed that hee doth cite the words of S. Iames but yet so as that our adversaries gaine litle by it For hee referreth those words of anointing with Oile c. unto bodily health and so inveigheth against those that by Charmes and Spels and the like superstitious and ungodly practices bring upon themselves manifold miseries Now bodily health is a thing which the Romanists have no respect unto in their Unction but use it directly for the good of the Soule even as they doe Baptisme and the Lords Supper And this also takes off the testimony of Chrysostome who shewing what benefit people have by Ministers or as hee calles them Priests saith that Parents cannot prevent so much as the bodily destruction of their children nor keepe off a Disease when it seizeth on them but these doe often preserve people alive when they are even ready to die and sometimes mitigate their paine and sometimes keepe them from being ill at all not onely by the helpe of their Doctrine and admonition but also of their prayers And then hee cites that Iam. 5. Is any sick among you Let him send for the Elders c. All this is nothing to the Romish Unction for besides that Chrysostome doth not at all speake of Priests anointing but of their teaching admonishing and praying and in this respect doth bring in the words of S. Iames besides this I say it is directly a corporall benefit which hee insisteth on as freedome from sicknesse mitigation of paine deliverance from Death and therefore that which hee saith makes nothing for extreme Unction which they of the Church of Rome say was instituted of God to this end that wee departing out of this mortall life may have a more ready way to Heaven And therefore they call it the Sacrament of such as goe out of this World What is this Sacrament then concerned in the words of Chrysostome who speakes onely of preserving life and health here in this World In the last place Venerable Bede is alledged But 1. Hee is against them in this as I have shewed before that he makes Marke and Iames to speake both of one and the same thing whereas diverse of them both say and prove that Marke doth not speake of Sacramentall Unction 2. By Elders Bede understandeth Elders in respect of age And hee saith expressely and alledgeth also Pope Innocentius for it that not onely Presbyters but also all Christians may use this Oile and anoint with it when either they or any belonging unto them have neede Which is enough to prove that he doth not make this Unction a Sacrament as they of the Church of Rome doe For saith Bellarmine it is of the essence of the Sacrament of extreme Unction that the Minister of it be a Priest and if a lay man doe anoint any it is of no force Yea the Councell of Trent sayes If any one shall say that not only a Priest is the proper Minister of extreme Vnction let him be anathema What doe they say to Bede then and to Innocentius whom Bede citeth They answer that Innocentius and Bede speak not of him that is to administer the Unction but of him that is to receive it But this is a very violent and forced interpretation and such as Bedes words will not admit For hee having said It is the custome of the Church that they that are weak should be anointed by Presbyters with consecrated Oile and by Prayer accompanying it be made whole immediately after he adds Neither only Presbyters but also as Pope Innocentius writeth all Christians may use this Oile by anointing with it either in their own or in their friends necessity It is manifest that Bede here speaketh of Christians using the Oile not so as to be anointed but so as to anoint with it and that both themselves and others as they saw cause 3. Bede also as appeares by his words even now cited makes this anointing with Oile which he saith the Church did use in his time to have reference to the body and the health of it neither doth he speak any thing of any spirituall effect that it should have upon the soule And thus also it appeares that he doth not speake of the Sacrament of extreme Vnction Cassander also confesseth that in the Church of Rome they have now departed from antiquity 1. In this that in more antient times they did not use as now they do to defer this anointing untill life were even in extreme danger and there was no hope of recovery 2. In this that antiently they used after this anointing if there were danger to receive the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood whereas now they have no such custome Yea the Carechisme of the Councell of Trent saith that before extreme Vnction the Sacrament of Penance and of the Eucharist is to be administred and that this is the perpetuall custome of the Catholike Church which is directly contrary to that which Cassander affirmeth But this I hope may be enough to shew that the Romish Sacrament of extreme Vnction hath no support either from the Scriptures or from the antient Fathers The Marquesse having waded thorough all the forementioned parts of controversie and as he supposeth proved the Scriptures to be on their side now sings as it were an Epinicion or a song of victory saying Thus most sacred Sir we have no reason to wave the Scriptures Umpirage so that you will hear it speak in the Mother language c. But how litle the Scriptures Umpirage doth favour them of the Church of Rome let the Reader judge by what hath been said on both sides the Scripture being understood in that sense which it selfe doth make out and to which also the antient Fathers and Doctors have subscribed which I suppose the Marquesse doth mean by the Scriptures Mother-language As for the Church of Rome it hath long shewed it selfe the Scriptures step-mother keeping it shut up in an unknown tongue or not permitting Christians the liberty to make use of it excepting such as can obtain a speciall dispensation for it yea in many things going directly contrary to the Scripture and even in a manner casting off the authority of it Here presently after the Marquesse brings in the saying of Austine Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae authoritas commoveret I should not beleeve the Gospel it selfe unlesse I were moved by the