Answer to a Jesuit in Ireland

OF TRADITIONS.

TO begin therefore with Traditions, which is your forlorn Hope that in the first place we are to set upon: this must I needs tell you before we begin, that you much mistake the matter, if you think that Traditions of all sorts promiscuously are struck at by our Religion. We willingly acknowledge, that the word of God which by some of the Apostles was set down in writing, was both by themselves, and others of their fellow-laborers, delivered by word of mouth: and that the Church in succeeding ages was bound not only to preserve those sacred writings committed to her trust, but also to deliver unto her children vivâ voice the form of wholesome words contained therein. Traditions therefore of this nature, come not within the compass of our controversy: the question being betwixt us de ipsâ doctrinâ traditâ, not de tradendi modo ; touching the substance of the doctrine delivered, not of the manner of delivering it. Again, it must be remembered that here we speak of doctrine delivered as the word of God, that is, of points of religion revealed unto the Prophets and Apostles, for the perpetual information of God's people: not of rites and ceremonies, and other ordinances which are left to the disposition of the Church, and consequently be not of divine but of positive and human right. Traditions therefore of this kind likewise are not properly brought within the circuit of this question.

But that Traditions of men should be obtruded unto us for articles of Religion, and admitted for parts of God's worship; or that any Traditions should be accepted for parcels of God's word, beside the holy Scriptures, and such doctrines as are either expressly therein contained, or by sound inference may be deduced from thence: I think we have reason to gainsay. As long as for the first we have this direct sentence from God himself; Matth. 15. In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines, the Commandments of men. And for the second, the express warrant of the Apostle, 2. Tim. 3. testifying of the holy Scriptures, not only that they are able to make us wise unto salvation (which they should not be able to do, if they did not contain all things necessary to salvation) but also that by them the man of God (that is, the minister of God's word, unto whom it appertaineth to declare all the counsel of God ) may be perfectly instructed to every good work: which could not be, if the Scriptures did not contain all the counsel of God which was fit for him to learn, or if there were any other word of God which he were bound to teach, that should not be contained within the limits of the Book of God.

Now whether herein we disagree from the doctrine generally received by the Fathers: we refer ourselves to their own sayings. For Ritual Traditions unwritten, and for doctrinal Traditions written indeed, but preserved also by the continual preaching of the Pastors of the Church successively; we find no man a more earnest advocate then Tertullian. Yet he, having to deal with Hermogenes the heretic in a question concerning the faith, (whether all things at the beginning were made of nothing?) presseth him in this manner, with the argument ab authoritate negative ; for avoiding whereof, the Papists are driven to fly for succor to their unwritten verities. Whether all things were made of any subject matter, I have as yet read nowhere. Let those of Hermogenes his shop show that it is written. If it be not written, let them fear that Woe which is allotted to such as add or take away.

In the two Testaments, saith Origen, every word that appertaineth to God may be required and discussed; and all knowledge of things out of them may be understood. But if anything do remain, which the holy Scripture doth not determine; no other third Scripture ought to be received for to authorize any knowledge: but that which remaineth we must commit to the fire, that is, we must reserve it to God. For in this present world God would not have us to know all things.

Hippolytus the Martyr, in his Homily against the Heresy of Noëtus. There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge (brethren) but out of the holy Scriptures. For as he that would profess the wisdom of this world, cannot otherwise attain hereunto, unless he read the doctrine of the Philosophers: so whosoever of us will exercise piety toward God, cannot learn this elsewhere, but out of the holy Scriptures. Whatsoever therefore the holy Scriptures do preach, that let us know; and whatsoever they teach, that let us understand.

Athanasius, in his Oration against the Gentiles, toward the beginning: The holy Scriptures given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient to the discovery of truth.

S. Ambrose: The things which we find not in the Scriptures, how can we use them? And again: I read that he is the first, I read that he is not the second; they who say he is the second, let them show it by reading.

It is well, saith S. Hilary, that thou art content with those things which be written. And in another place, he commendeth Constantius the Emperor, for desiring the faith to be ordered only according to those things that be written.

S. Basil: Believe those things which are written; the things which are not written seek not. It is a manifest falling from the faith, and an argument of arrogancy, either to reject any point of those things that are written, or to bring in any of those things that are not written. He teacheth further, that every word and action ought to be confirmed by the testimony of the holy Scripture, for confirmation of the faith of the good, and the confusion of the evil ▪ and that it is the property of a faithful man, to be fully persuaded of the truth of those things that are delivered in the holy Scripture, and not to dare either to reject or to add anything thereunto. For if whatsoever is not of faith be sin, as the Apostle saith, and faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God: then whatsoever is without the holy Scripture, being not of faith, must needs be sin. Thus far S. Basil.

In like manner Gregory Nyssene, S. Basils brother, layeth this for a ground, which no man should contradict ; that in that only the truth must be acknowledged, wherein the seal of the Scripture testimony is to be seen. And accordingly in another book (attributed also unto him) we find this conclusion made: Forasmuch as this is upholden with no testimony of the Scripture, as false we will reject it.

Thus also S. Jerome disputeth against Helvidius · As we deny not those things that are written; so we refuse those things that are not written. That God was borne of a Virgin we believe, because we read it: that Mary did marry after she was delivered, we believe not, because we read it not.

In those things, saith S. Augustine, which are laid down plainly in the Scriptures, all those things are found which appertain to faith and direction of life. And again: Whatsoever ye hear from the holy Scriptures, let that savor well unto you; whatsoever is without them, refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. And in another place: All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind, and have delivered unto us; all those things also which we see, and do deliver unto our posterity, so far as they appertain to the seeking and maintaining of true Religion, the holy Scripture hath not passed in silence.

The holy Scripture, saith S. Cyril of Alexandria, is sufficient to make them which are brought up in it wise, and most approved, and furnished with most sufficient understanding. And again: That which the holy Scripture hath not said, by what means should we receive, and account it among those things that be true?

Lastly, in the writings of Theodoret we meet with these kind of speeches. By the holy Scripture alone am I persuaded. I am not so bold, as to affirm anything which the sacred Scripture passeth in silence. It is an idle and a senseless thing, to seek those things that are passed in silence. We ought not to seek those things which are passed in silence; but rest in the things that are written.

By the verdict of these twelve men, you may judge, what opinion was held in those ancient times of such Traditions as did cross, either the verity or the perfection of the sacred Scripture: which are the Traditions we set ourselves against. If now it be demanded, in what Popes days the contrary doctrine was brought in among Christians: I answer, that if S. Peter were ever Pope, in his days it was, that some seducers first labored to bring in Will-worship into the Church; against whom S. Paul opposing himself, Coloss. 2. counteth it a sufficient argument to condemn all such inventions, that they were the commandments and doctrines of men. Shortly after them, started up other Heretics, who taught, that the truth could not be found out of the Scriptures by those to whom Tradition was unknowen. forasmuch as it was not delivered by writing, but by word of mouth: for which cause S. Paul also should say; We speak wisdom among them that be perfect.

The very same Text do the Jesuits allege, to prove the dignity of many mysteries to be such, that they require silence; and that it is unmeet they should be opened in the Scriptures, which are read to the whole world, and therefore can only be learned by unwritten Traditions. Wherein they consider not, how they make so near an approach unto the confines of some of the ancientest Heretics, that they may well shake hands together. For howsoever some of them were so mad as to say, that they were wiser then the Apostles themselves; and therefore made light account of the doctrine which they delivered unto the Church, either by writing or by word of mouth: yet all of them broke not forth into that open impiety; the same mystery of iniquity wrought in some of Antichrists fore-runners then, which is discovered in his ministers now. They confessed indeed (as witnesseth Tertullian) that the Apostles were ignorant of nothing, and differed not among themselves in their preaching: but they say, they revealed not all things unto all men; some things they delivered openly and to all, some things secretly and to a few. because that Paul useth this speech unto Timothy: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust. And again; That good thing which was committed unto thee, keep. Which very Texts the Jesuits likewise bring in, to prove, that there are some Traditions, which are not contained in the Scripture.

In the days of S. Jerome also, this was wont to be the saying of Heretics: We are the sons of the wise men, which from the beginning have delivered the doctrine of the Apostles unto us. But those things (saith that Father) which they of themselves find out and fain to have received as it were by Tradition from the Apostles, without the authority and testimonies of the Scriptures, the sword of God doth smite. S. Chrysostom in like manner giveth this for a mark of Antichrist, and of all spiritual thieves: that they come not in by the door of the Scriptures. For the Scripture (saith he) like unto a sure door, doth bar an entrance unto Heretics, safeguarding us in all things that we will, and not suffering us to be deceived. Whereupon he concludeth, that who so useth not the Scriptures, but cometh in otherwise, that is, betaketh himself to another and an unlawful way, he is a thief.

How this mystery of iniquity wrought when Antichrist came unto his full growth, and what experiments his followers gave of their thievish entry in this kind, was well observed by the author of the book De unitate Ecclesiae (thought by some to be Waltram Bishop of Naumburg:) who speaking of the Monks that for the upholding of Pope Hildebrands faction, brought in schisms and heresies into the Church, noteth this specially of them; that despising the tradition of God, they desired other doctrines, and brought in maisteries of human institution. Against whom he alledgeth the authority of their own S. Benedict, the father of the Monks in the West; writing thus: The Abbot ought to teach, or ordain, or command nothing, which is without the precept of the Lord: but his commandment or instruction should be spread as the leaven of divine righteousness in the minds of his Disciples. Whereunto also he might have added the testimony of the two famous Fathers of Monastical discipline in the East: S. Antony I mean, who taught his Scholars that the Scriptures were sufficient for doctrine ; and S. Basil, who unto the question, Whether it were expedient that novices should presently learn those things that are in the Scripture? returneth this answer: It is fit and necessary, that everyone should learn out of the holy Scripture that which is for his use; both for his full settlement in godliness, and that he may not be accustomed unto human traditions.

Mark here the difference betwixt the Monks of Saint Basil, and Pope Hildebrands breeding. The Novices of the former were trained in the Scriptures, to the end they might not be accustomed unto human traditions: those of the latter, to the clean contrary intent, were kept back from the study of the Scriptures, that they might be accustomed unto human traditions. For this, by the foresaid author, is expressly noted of those Hildebrandine Monks, that they permitted not young men in their Monasteries to study this saving knowledge: to the end that their rude wit might be nourished with the husks of devils, which are the customs of human traditions; that being accustomed to such filth, they might not taste how sweet the Lord was. And even thus in the times following, from Monks to Friars, and from them to secular Priests and Prelates, as it were by tradition from hand to hand, the like ungodly policy was continued, of keeping the common people from the knowledge of the Scriptures; as for other reasons, so likewise that by this means they might be drawn to human traditions. Which was not only observed by Erasmus, before ever Luther stirred against the Pope: but openly in a manner confessed afterwards by a bitter adversary of his, Petrus Sutor, a Carthusian Monk; who, among other inconveniences for which he would have the people debarred from reading the Scripture, alledgeth this also for one. Whereas many things are openly taught to be observed, which are not to be expressly had in the holy Scriptures: will not the simple people, observing these things, quickly murmur, and complain that so great burdens should be imposed upon them, whereby the liberty of the Gospel is so greatly impaired? Will not they also easily be drawn away from the observation of the ordinances of the Church, when they shall observe that they are not contained in the Law of Christ?

Having thus therefore discovered unto these Deuterotae (for so S. Jerome useth to style such Tradition-mongers) both their grandfathers, and their more immediate progenitors: I pass now forward unto the second point.

OF THE REAL PRESENCE.

HOw far the real presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament, is allowed or disallowed by us, I have at large declared in an other place. The sum is this: That in the receiving of the blessed Sacrament, we are to distinguish between the outward and the inward action of the Communicant. In the outward, with our bodily mouth we receive really the visible elements of Bread and Wine: in the inward, we do by faith really receive the body and blood of our Lord, that is to say, we are truly and indeed made partakers of Christ crucified, to the spiritual strengthening of our inward man. They of the adverse part have made such a confusion of these things, that for the first, they do utterly deny, that after the words of consecration there remaineth any Bread or Wine at all to be received: and for the second, do affirm, that the body and blood of Christ is in such a manner present, under the outward shows of bread and wine, that whosoever receiveth the one (be he good or bad, believer or unbeliever) doth therewith really receive the other. We are therefore here put to prove, that Bread is bread, and Wine is wine: a matter (one would think) that easily might be determined by common sense. That which you see (saith S. Augustine) is the Bread and the Cup: which your very eyes do declare unto you. But because we have to deal with men, that will needs herein be senseless; we will for this time refer them to Tertullian's discourse of the five senses, (wishing they may be restored to the use of their five wits again:) and ponder the testimonies of our Savior Christ, in the sixth of John, and in the words of the Institution, which they oppose against all sense, but in the end shall find to be as opposit to this fantastical conceit of theirs, as anything can be.

Touching our Savior's speech, of the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood, in the sixth of John ; these five things specially may be observed. First, that the question betwixt our Adversaries & us, being not, Whether Christ's body be turned into bread, but whether bread be turned into Christ's body; the words in S. John, if they be pressed literally, serve more strongly to prove the former, then the latter. Secondly, that this Sermon was uttered by our Savior, above a year before the celebration of his last Supper, wherein the Sacrament of his body and blood was instituted: at which time none of his hearers could possibly have understood him to have spoken of the external eating of him in the Sacrament. Thirdly, that by the eating of the flesh of Christ, and the drinking of his blood, there, is not here meant an external eating or drinking with the mouth and throat of the body, (as the Jews then, and the Romanists far more grossly then they, have since imagined:) but an internal and a spiritual, effected by a lively faith and the quickening spirit of Christ in the soul of the believer. For there is a spiritual mouth of the inner man, (as S. Basil noteth) wherewith he is nourished that is made partaker of the Word of life, which is the bread that cometh down from heaven. Fourthly, that this spiritual feeding upon the body and blood of Christ, is not to be found in the Sacrament only, but also out of the Sacrament. Fifthly, that the eating of the flesh, and the drinking of the b • ood here mentioned, is of such excellent virtue, that the receiver is thereby made to remain in Christ, and Christ in him, and by that means certainly freed from d • ath, and assured of everlasting life. Which seeing it cannot be verified of the eating of the Sacrament (whereof both the godly & the wicked are partakers:) it proveth, not only that our Savior did not here speak of the Sacramental eating; but further also, that the thing which is delivered in the external part of the Sacrament, cannot be conceived to be really, but sacramentally only, the flesh and blood of Christ.

The first of these may be plainly seen in the Text: where our Savior doth not only say, I am the bread of life, verse. 48. and, I am the living bread that came down from heaven, verse. 51. but addeth also in the 55. verse. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Which words being the most forcible of all the rest, & those wherewith the simpler sort are commonly most deluded, might carry some show of proof, that Christ's flesh & blood should be turned into bread & wine; but have no manner of color to prove, that bread and wine are turned into the flesh and blood of Christ. The truth of the second, appeareth by the four • h verse: in which we find, that this fell out not long before the Passover ; and consequently, a year at least before that last Passover, wherein our Savior instituted the Sacrament of his Supper. We willingly indeed do acknowledge, that that which is inwardly presented in the Lord's Supper, and spiritually received by the soul of the faithful, is that very thing which is treated of in the sixth of John: but we deny that it was our Savior's intention in this place, to speak of that which is externally delivered in the Sacrament, and orally received by the Communicant. And for our warrant herein, we need look no further then to that earnest asseveration of our Savior in the 53. verse: Verily, verily I say unto you; Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Wherein there is not only an obligation laid upon them for doing of this, (which in no likelihood could be intended of the external eating of the Sacrament, that was not as yet in being:) but also an absolute necessity imposed, non praecepti solùm ration, sed etiā medij. Now to hold, that all they are excluded from life, which have not had the means to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper: is as untrue, as it is uncharitable. And therefore many of the Papists themselves, as Biel, Cusanus, Cajelan, Tapper, Hessels, Jansen, and others, confess, that our Savior in the sixth of John did not properly treat of the Sacrament.

The third of the points proposed, may be collected out of the first part of Christ's speech, in the 35. and 36. verses. I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me, shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me, shall never thirst. But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me, and believe not. But especially, out of the last, from the 61. verse forward. When Jesus knew in himself that his Disciples murmured at it, he said unto them; Doeth this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. Which words Athanasius (or whosoever was the author of the Tractate upon that place; Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium homi • is ) noteth our Savior to have used; that his hearers might learn, that those things which he spake, were not carnal but spiritual. For how many could his body have sufficed for meat, that it should be made the food of the whole world? But therefore it was that he made mention of the Son of man's ascension into heaven, that he might draw them from this corporal conceit; and that hereafter they might learn, that the flesh which he spake of, was celestial meat from above, and spiritual nourishment to be given by him. For the words which I have spoken unto you (saith he) are spirit and life. So likewise Tertullian: Although he saith that the flesh profiteth nothing, the meaning of the speech must be directed according to the intent of the matter in hand. For, because they thought it to be a hard and an intolerable speech, as if he had determined that his flesh should be truly eaten by them: that he might dispose the state of salvation by the spirit, he premised; It is the spirit that quíckneth. and so subjoined; The flesh profiteth nothing, namely to quicken. &c. And because the Word was made flesh, it therefore was to be desired for causing of life, and to be devoured by hearing, and to be chewed by understanding, and to be digested by faith. For a little before he had also affirmed that his flesh was heavenly bread: urging still by the Allegory of necessary food, the remembrance of the fathers, who preferred the bread and the flesh of the Egyptians before God's calling. Add hereunto the sentence of Origen: There is in the New Testament also a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually conceive the things that be spoken. For if according to the letter you do follow this same which is said; Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood: this letter killeth. And those sayings which everywhere occur in S. Augustine's Tractates upon John: How shall I send up my hand unto heaven, to take hold on Christ sitting there? Send thy faith, and thou hast hold of him! Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly? Bele • ve, and thou hast eaten. For this is to eat the living bread, to believe in him. He that believeth in him, eateth. He is invisibly fedd, because he is invisibly regenerated. He is inwardly a b • be, inwardly renewed: where he is renewed, there is he nourished.

The fourth proposition doth necessarily follow upon the third. For if the eating and drinking here spoken of, be not an external eating and drinking, but an inward participation of Christ, by the communion of his quickening spirit: it is evident, that this blessing is to be found in the soul, not only in the use of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but at other times also. It is no ways to be doubted by any one (saith S. Augustine) that everyone of the faithful is made partaker of the body and blood of our Lord, when he is made a member of Christ in Baptism: and that he is not estranged from the communion of that bread and cup, although before he eat that bread, and drink that cup, he depart out of this world, being settled in the unity of the body of Christ. For he is not deprived of the participation and the benefit of that Sacrament, when he hath found that which this Sacrament doth signify. And hereupon we see, that diverse of the Fathers do apply the sixth of John, to the hearing of the Word also: as, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius Caesareensis, and others. We are said to drink the blood of Christ (saith Origen) not only by way of the Sacraments, but also when we receive his word, wherein consisteth life. even as he himself saith· The words which I have spoken, are spirit and life. Upon which words of Christ, Eusebius paraphraseth after this manner: Do not think that I speak of that flesh wherewith I am compassed, as if you must eat of that; neither imagine that I command you to drink my sensible and bodily blood: but understand well, that the words which I have spoken unto you, are spirit and life. So that those very words and speeches of his, are his flesh and blood; whereof who is partaker, being always therewith nourished as it were with heavenly bread, shall likewise be made partaker of heavenly life. Therefore let not that offend you, saith he, which I have spoken of the eating of my flesh and of the drinking of my blood; neither let the superficial hearing of those things which were said by me of flesh and blood, trouble you. For these things sensibly heard, profit nothing: but the spirit is it, which quickeneth them that are able to hear spiritually. Thus far Eusebius: whose words I have laid down the more largely, because they are not vulgar.

There remaineth the fifth and last point: which is oftentimes repeated by our Savior in this Sermon. as in the 50. verse: This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die, and in the 51: If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. and in the 54: Who so eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. and in the 56: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. and in the 58: This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat Manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread, shall live forever. Whereupon Origen rightly observeth the difference that is betwixt the eating of the typical or symbolical (for so he calleth the Sacrament) and the true body of Christ. Of the former, thus he writeth: That which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, doth not of it own • nature, sanctify him that useth it. For if that were so, it would sanctify him also which doth eat unworthy of the Lord: neither should any one for this eating be weak, or sick, or dead. For such a thing doth Paul show, when he saith: For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. Of the latter, thus: Many things may be spoken of the Word it self, which was made flesh, and true meat; which whosoever eateth, shall certainly live forever: which no evil person can eat. For if it could be, that he who continueth evil, might eat the Word made flesh (seeing he is the word and the bread of life) it should not have been written: Whosoever eateth this bread, shall live forever. The like difference doth S. Augustine, also upon the same ground, make betwixt the eating of Christ's body sacramentally and really. For having affirmed, that wicked men may not be said to eat the body of Christ, because they are not to be counted among the members of Christ: he afterward addeth. Christ himself saying, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, remaineth in me, and I in him, showeth what it is, not sacramentally but indeed, to eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood: for this is, to remain in Christ, that Christ likewise may remain in him. For he said this, as if he should have said: He that remaineth not in me, and in whom I do not remain; let not him say or think, that he eateth my flesh or drinketh my blood. And in another place, expounding those words of Christ here alleged; he thereupon inferreth thus: This is therefore to eat that meat, and drink that drink; to remain in Christ, and to have Christ remaining in him. And by this, he that remaineth not in Christ, and in whom Christ abideth not, without doubt doth neither spiritually eat his flesh, nor drink his blood: although he do carnally and visibly press with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; and so rather eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing for judgment to himself, because that being unclean he did presume to come unto the Sacraments of Christ.

Hence it is that we find so often in him, and in other of the Fathers, that the body and blood of Christ is communicated only unto those that shall live, and not unto those that shall die forever. He is the bread of life. He therefore that eateth life, cannot die. For how should he die, whose meat is life? how should he fail, who hath a vital substance? saith S. Ambrose. And it is a good note of Macarius: that, as men use to give one kind of meat to their servants, and another to their children; so Christ who created all things, nourisheth indeed evil and ungrateful persons: but the sons which he begat of his own seed, and whom he made partakers of his grace, in whom the Lord is formed, he nourisheth with a peculiar refection and food, and meat and drink, beyond other men; giving himself unto them, that have their conversation with his Father. as the Lord himself saith: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, remaineth in me, and I in him, and shall not see death. Among the sentences collected by Prosper out of S. Augustine, this also is one. He receiveth the meat of life, and drinketh the cup of eternity, who remaineth in Christ, and whose inhabiter is Christ. For he that is at discord with Christ, doth neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood: although, to the judgment of his presumption, he indifferently doth receive every day the sacrament of so great a thing. Which distinction between the Sacrament and the thing whereof it is a sacrament, (and consequently between the sacramental and the real eating of the body of Christ,) is thus briefly and most excellently expressed by S. Augustine himself, in his exposition upon the sixth of John. The sacrament of this thing, is taken from the Lord's Table; by some unto life, by some unto destruction: but the thing it self whereof it is a sacrament, is received by every man unto life, and by none unto destruction, that is made partaker thereof. Our conclusion therefore is this:

The first proposition is plainly proved by the Texts which have been alleged out of the sixth of John. The second is manifest, both by common experience, and by the testimony of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11. verse. 17, 27, 29. We may therefore well conclude, that the sixth of John is so far from giving any furtherance to the doctrine of the Romanists in this point, that it utterly overthroweth their fond opinion, who imagine the body and blood of Christ to be in such a sort present under the visible forms of bread and wine, that whosoever receiveth the one, must of force also really be made partaker of the other.

The like are we now to show in the words of the Institution. For the better clearing whereof, the Reader may be pleased to consider, first, that the words are not; This shall be my body: nor, This is made, or, shall be changed into my body: but, This Is my body. Secondly, that the word THIS, can have relation to no other substance, but that which was then present, when our Savior spake that word; which (as we shall make it plainly appear) was Bread. Thirdly, that it being proved that the word This, doth demonstrate the Bread; it must of necessity follow, that Christ affirming that to be his BODY, cannot be conceived to have meant it so to be properly, but relatively and sacramentally.

The first of these, is by both sides yielded unto: so likewise is the third. For this is impossible, saith the Gloss upon Gratian, that bread should be the body of Christ. And it cannot be, saith Cardinal Bellarmine, that that proposition should be true, the former part whereof designeth Bread, the latter the Body of Christ: for as much as Bread and the Lord's Body be things most adverse. And therefore he confidently affirmeth, that if the words, This is my body, did make this sense, This bread is my body: this sentence must either be taken tropically, that bread may be the body of Christ significatively; or else it is plainly absurd & impossible for it cannot be, saith he, that bread should be the body of Christ. Doctor Kellison also in like manner doeth freely acknowledge, that If Christ had said, This bread is my body; we must have understood him figuratively and metaphorically. So that the whole matter of difference resteth now upon the second point: whether our Savior, when he said This is my body, meant anything to be his Body, but that Bread which was before him. A matter which easily might be determined, in any indifferent man's judgment, by the words immedia • lie going before. He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave it unto them, saying: This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. (Luk. 22.19.) For what did he demonstrate here, and said was his Body, but that which he gave unto his Disciples? What did he give unto them, but what he brake? What brake he, but what he took? and doth not the Text expressly say, that he took bread? Was it not therefore of the Bread, he said; This is my Body? And could Bread possibly be otherwise understood to have been his Body, but as a Sacrament, and (as he himself with the same breath declared his own meaning) a memorial thereof?

If these words be not of themselves clear enough, but have need of further exposition: can we look for a better, then that which S. Paul giveth of them, 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Did not S. Paul therefore so understand Christ, as if he had said; This bread is my body? And if Christ had said so; doth not Kellison confess, and right reason evince, that he must have been understood figuratively? considering that it is simply impossible, that Bread should really be the Body of Christ. If it be said, that S. Paul by Bread, doth not here understand that which is properly Bread, but that which lately was bread (but now is become the body of Christ:) we must remember, that S. Paul doth not only say The bread, but The bread which we break. which breaking, being an accident properly belonging to the bread it self, and not to the body of Christ (which being in glory, cannot be subject to anymore breaking) doth evidently show, that the Apostle by Bread understandeth Bread indeed. Neither can the Romanists well deny this, unless they will deny themselves, and confess that they did but dream all this while they have imagined that the change of the bread into the body of Christ, is made by virtue of the sacramental words alone, which have not their effect until they have all been fully uttered. For the Pronoun THIS, which is the first of these words, doth point to something w ^ch was then present. But no substance was then present but bread: seeing by their own grounds, the body of Christ cometh not in, until the last word of that sentence, yea and the last syllable of that word, be completely pronounced. What other substance therefore can they make this to signify, but this bread only?

In the institution of the other part of the Sacrament, the words are yet more plain, Matth. 26. verse. 27.28. He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the New Testament: or, (as S. Paul and S. Luke relate it) This cup is the New Testament in my blood. That which he bidd them all drink of, is that which he said was his blood. But our Savior could mean nothing but the Wine, when he said, Drink ye all of it: because this sentence was uttered by him before the words of consecration, at which time our Adversaries themselves do confess, that there was nothing in the cup but wine, or wine and water at the most. It was wine therefore which he said was his blood: even the fruit of the Vine, as he himself termeth it. For as in the delivery of the other cup before the institution of the Sacrament, S. Luke (who alone maketh mention of that part of the history) telleth us, that he said unto his Disciples; I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine, until the kingdom of God shall come: so doth S Matthew and S. Mark likewise testify, that at the delivery of the Sacramental cup, when he had said, This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins ; he also added: But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, until that day that I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom. Now seeing it is contrary both to sense and saith, that Wine or the fruit of the Vine, should really be the blood of Christ; there being that formal difference in the nature of the things, that there is an utter impossibility that in true propriety of speech the one should be the other: nothing in this world is more plain, than when our Savior said it was his blood, he could not mean it to be so substantially, but sacramentally.

And what other interpretation can the Romanists themselves give of those words of the institution in S. Paul? This cup is the New Testament in my blood. How is the cup, or the thing contained in the cup, the New Testament, otherwise then as a Sacrament of it? Mark how in the like case the Lord himself, at the institution of the first Sacrament of the Old Testament, useth the same manner of speech, Genes. 17.10. This is my Covenant, or Testament (for the Greek word in both places is the same:) and in the words presently following, thus expoundeth his own meaning. It shall be a SIGNE of the Covenant betwixt me and you. And generally for all Sacraments, the rule is thus laid down by S. Augustine, in his Epistle to Boniface: If Sacraments did not some manner of way resemble the things whereof they are Sacraments, they should not be Sacraments at all. And for this resemblance they do of oftentimes also bear the names of the things themselves. As therefore the Sacrament of the body of Christ, is after a certain manner the body of Christ, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is the blood of Christ; so likewise the sacrament of faith, is faith. By the sacrament of faith he understandeth Baptism; of which he afterward alledgeth that saying of the Apostle, Rom. 6.4. We are buried with Christ by baptism into death: and then addeth. He saith not, We signify his burial; but he plainly saith, We are buried. Therefore the sacrament of so great a thing he would not otherwise call but by the name of the thing it self. And in his Questions upon Leviticus: The thing that signifieth (saith he) useth to be called by the name of that thing which it signifieth. as it is written: The seven ears of corn, are seven years; (for he said not; they signify seven years:) and the seven Kine are seven years: and many such like. Hence was that saying: The Rock was Christ. For he said not, The Rock did signify Christ; but as if it had been that very thing, which doubtless by substance it was not, but by signification. So also the blood, because for a certain vital corpulencie which it hath, it signifieth the soul; after the manner of Sacraments it is called the soul. Our argument therefore out of the words of the institution, standeth thus:

The first proposition hath been proved by the undoubted principles of right reason, and the clear confession of the adverse part: the second, by the circumstances of the Text of the Evangelists, by the exposition of S. Paul, and by the received grounds of the Romanists themselves. The conclusion therefore resteth firm: and so we have made it clear, that the words of the Institution do not only not uphold, but directly also overthow the whole frame of that which the Church of Rome teacheth, touching the corporal presence of Christ under the forms of Bread and Wine.

If I should now lay down here all the sentences of the Fathers, which teach that that which Christ called his Body, is Bread in substance, and the Body of the Lord in signification and sacramental relation: I should never make an end. Justin Martyr, in his second Apology to Antoninus the Emperor, telleth us, that the bread and the wine, even that sanctified food wherewith our blood and flesh by conversion are nourished, is that w ^ch we are taught to be the flesh and blood of Jesus incarnate. Irenaeus in his 4 ^th book against heresies, saith, that our Lord taking bread of that condition which is usual among us, confessed it to be his body: & the cup likewise containing that creature which is usual among us, his blood. And in his fifth book he addeth: That cup which is a creature, he confirmed to be his blood which was shed, whereby he increaseth our blood; and that bread which is of the creature, to be his body, whereby he increaseth our bodies. Therefore when the mixed cup and the broken bread doth receive the word of God, it is made the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ, whereby the substance of our flesh is increased and doth consist. Our Lord, saith Clemens Alexandrinus, did bless wine, when he said; Take, drink, This is my blood, the blood of the Vine. Tertullian: Christ taking bread and distributing it to his Disciples, made it his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. Origen: That meat which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, as touching the material part thereof goeth into the belly, and is voided into the draught: but as touching the prayer which is added, according to the portion of faith it is made profitable; enlightening the mind, and making it to behold that which is profitable. Neither is it the matter of bread, but the word spoken over it, which profiteth him that doth not unworthily eat thereof. And these things I speak of the typical and symbolical body ; saith Origen. In the Dialogues against the Marcionites, collected for the most part out of the writings of Maximus (who lived in the time of the Emperors Commodus and Severus) Origen, who is made the chief speaker therein, is brought in thus disputing against the Heretics: If Christ, as these men say, were without body and blood: of what kind of flesh, or of what body, or of what kind of blood did he give the bread and the cup to be Images of, when he commanded his Disciples by them to make a commemoration of him? S. Cyprian also noteth, that it was Wine, even the fruit of the Vine, which the Lord said was his blood: and that flour alone, or water alone, cannot be the body of our Lord, unless both be united and coupled together, and kneaded into the lump of one bread. And again; that the Lord calleth bread his body, which is made up by the uniting of many corns: and wine his blood, which is pressed out of many clusters of grapes, and gathered into one liquor. Which I find also word for word in a manner, transcribed in the Commentaries upon the Gospels, attributed unto Theophilus Bishop of Antioch. Whereby it appeareth, that in those elder times the words of the institution were no otherwise conceived, then as if Christ had plainly said; This bread is my body, and, This wine is my blood: which is the main thing that we strive for with our Adversaries; and for which the words themselves are plain enough. the substance whereof we find thus laid down in the Harmonie of the Gospels, gathered, as some say, by Tatianus, as others, by Ammonius, within the second or the third age after Christ. Having taken the bread, then afterward the cup of wine, and testified it to be his body and blood, he commanded them to eat and drink thereof; forasmuch as it was the memorial of his future passion and death.

To the Fathers of the first three hundred years, we will now adjoin the testimonies of those that flourished in the ages following. The first whereof shall be Eusebius: who saith that our Savior delivered to his Disciples the symbols of his divine dispensation, commanding them to make the Image of his own body ; and appointing them to use Bread for the symbol of his Body. and that we still celebrate upon the Lord's table, the memory of his sacrifice, by the symbols of his body and blood, according to the ordinances of the New Testament. Acacius, who succeeded him in his Bishopric, saith that the bread and wine sanctifieth them that feed upon that matter: acknowledging thereby, that the material part of those outward elements do still remain. In the Church, saith Macarius, is offered bread wine, the type of his flesh and blood: and they which are partakers of the visible bread, do spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord. Christ, saith S. Jerome, did not offer water, but wine, for the type of his blood. S. Augustine bringeth in our Savior thus speaking of this matter. You shall not eat this body which you see, nor drink that blood which they shall shed that will crucify me. I have commended a certain Sacrament unto you: that being spiritually understood will quicken you. The same Father in another place writeth, that Christ admitted Judas to that banquet, wherein he commended and delivered unto his Disciples the figure of his body and blood: but (as he elsewhere addeth) they did eat that bread which was the Lord himself; he the bread of the Lord against the Lord. Lastly: the Lord (saith he) did not doubt to say, This is my body; when he gave the sign of his body.

So the Author of the Homily upon the 22. Psalm, (among the works of Chrysostom:) This table he hath prepared for his servants and hand-maids in their sight: that he might every day, for a similitude of the body and blood of Christ, show unto us in a sacrament bread and wine after the order of Melchizedek. And S. Chrysostom himself, in his Epistle written to Caesarius, against the heresy of Apolinarius: As before the bread be sanctified, we call it bread; but when God's grace hath sanctified it by the means of the Priest, it is delivered from the name of bread, and is reputed worthy the name of the Lord's body, although the nature of the bread remain still in it; and it is not called two bodies, but one body of God's son: so likewise here, the divine nature residing in the body of Christ, these two make one son, and one person. In the self same manner also do Theodoret, Gelasius, and Ephraemius proceed against the Eutychian heretics. Theodoret for his part, layeth down these grounds. That our Savior in the delivery of the mysteries called bread his body, and that which was mixed (in the cup) his blood. That he changed the names; and gave to the body the name of the symbol or sign, and to the symbol the name of the body. That he honored the visible symbols with the name of his body and blood; not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature. And that this most holy food, is a symbol & type of those things whose names it beareth, to wit, of the body and blood of Christ. Gelasius writeth thus: The sacraments which we receive, of the body and blood of Christ, are a divine thing, by means whereof we are made partakers of the divine nature: and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine doth not cease to be. And indeed the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. It appeareth therefore evidently enough unto us, that we are to hold the same opinion of the Lord Christ himself, which we profess, celebrate, and are, in his Image. that as (those Sacraments) by the operation of the holy Spirit, pass into this, that is, into the divine substance, and yet remain in the propriety of their own nature: so that principal mystery it self, whose force and virtue they truly represent, should be conceived to be. namely, to consist of two natures, divine and human; the one not abolishing the truth of the other. Lastly, Ephraemius the Patriarch of Antioch, having spoken of the distinction of these two natures in Christ, and said, that no man having understanding, could say, that there was the same nature of that which could be handled, and of that which could not be handled, of that which was visible, and of that which was invisible ; addeth. And even thus, the body of Christ which is received by the faithful, (the Sacrament he meaneth) doth neither depart from his sensible substance, and yet remaineth undivided from intelligible grace. and Baptism, being wholly made spiritual, and remaining one, doth both retain the property of his sensible substance, (of water, I mean) and yet looseth not that which it is made.

Thus have we produced evidences of all sorts, for confirmation of the doctrine by us professed touching the blessed Sacrament: which cannot but give sufficient satisfaction to all that with any indifferency will take the matter into their consideration. But the men with whom we have to deal, are so far fallen out with the truth; that neither sense nor reason, neither authority of Scriptures or of Fathers, can persuade them to be friends again with it: unless we show unto them, in what Popes days the contrary falsehood was first devised. If nothing else will give them content: we must put them in mind, that about the time wherein Soter was Bishop of Rome, there lived a cozening companion, called Marcus ; whose qualities are thus set out by an ancient Christian, who was famous in those days, though now his name be unknown unto us.

Where first he chargeth him to have been an Idolmake • ; then he objecteth unto him his skill in Astrology and Magicke, by means whereof, and by the assistance of Satan, he labored with a show of miracles, to win credit unto his false doctrines, amongst his seduced disciples: and lastly he concludeth that his father the Devil had employed him as a forerunner of his antithean craft, or his antichristian deceiveableness of unrighteousness, if you will have it in the Apostles language. For he was indeed the Devils forerunner, both for the idolatries and sorceries which afterward were brought into the East, and for those Romish fornications and enchantments wherewith the whole West was corrupted, by that man of sin, whose coming was foretold to be after the working of Satan, with all power and signs, and lying wonders. And that we may keep ourselves within the compass of that particular, which now we have in hand: we find in Irenaeus, that this Arch-heretic made special use of his juggling feats, to breed a persuasion in the minds of those whom he had perverted; that in the cup of his pretended Eucharist, he really delivered them blood to drink. For feigning himself to consecrate the cups filled with wine, and extending the words of Invocation to a great length, he made them to appear of a purple and redd color: to the end it might be thought, that the Grace which is above all things, did distill the blood thereof into that cup by his Invo • ation. And even according to this precedent we find it fell our afterwards, that the principal and most powerful means whereby the like gross conceit (of the gutturall • ating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ) was at the first fastened upon the multitude, and in process of time more deeply rooted in them, were such delusions and feigned apparitions as these: which yet that great Schoolman himself, Alexander of Hales, confesseth to happen sometimes, either by • he procurement of man, or by the operation of the devil. Paschasius Radbertus, who was one of the first letters forward of this doctrine in the West, spendeth a large chapter upon this point: wherein he telleth us, that Christ in the sacrament did show himself oftentimes in a visible shape, either in the form of a Lamb, or in the color of flesh and blood, so that while the host was a breaking or an offering, a Lamb in the Priests hands, and blood in the Chalice should be seen as it were flowing from the sacrifice, that what lay hid in a mystery, might to them that yet doubted be made manifest in a miracle. And specially in that place he insisteth upon a narration, which he found in gestis Anglorum, (but deserved well to have been put into gesta Romanorum for the goodness of it) of one Ple • gils or Plegilus a Priest; how an Angel shown Christ unto him in the form of a child upon the Altar, whom first he took into his arms and kissed, but eat him up afterwards, when he was returned to his former shape again. Whereof arose that jest which Berengarius was wont to use: This was a proper peace of the knave indeed, that whom he had kissed with his mouth, he would devour with his teeth.

But there are three other tales of singular note; which though they may justly strive for winning of the Whetstone with any other, yet for their antiquity have gained credit above the rest: being devised, as it seemeth, much about the same time with that other of Plegilus, but having relation unto higher times. The first was had out of the English Legends too, as Johannes Diaconus reporteth it in the life of Gregory the first: of a Roman Matron, who found a piece of the sacramental bread turned into the fashion of a finger, all bloody, which afterwards, upon the prayers of S. Gregory, was converted to his former shape again. The other two were first coined by the Grecian liars, and from them conveyed unto the Latins, and registered in the book which they called Vitas patrum: which being commonly believed to have been collected by S. Jerome, and accustomed to be read ordinarily in every Monastery; gave occasion of further spread, and made much way for the progress of this mystery of iniquity. The former of these is not only related there, but also in the Legend of Simeon Metaphrastes, (which is such another author among the Grecians, as Jacobus de Voragine was among the Latins) in the life of Arsenius: how that a little child was seen upon the Altar, and an Angel cutting him into small piec • s with a knife, and receiving his blood into the Chalice, as long as the Priest was breaking the bread into little parts. The latter, is of a certain Jew, receiving the Sacrament at S. Basils hands, converted visibly into true flesh and blood: which is expressed by Cyrus Theodorus Prodromus, in this Tetrastich.

But the chief author of the fable was a cheating fellow, who, that he might lie with authority, took upon him the name of Amphilochius, S. Basils companion, and set out a book of his life fraught with leasings: as Cardinal Baronius himself acknowledgeth. S. Augustine's conclusion therefore may here well take place. Let these things be taken away, which are either fictions of lying men, or wonders wrought by evil spirits. For either there is no truth in these reports, or if there be any strange things done by heretics, we ought the more to beware of them: because, when the Lord had said, that certain deceivers should come, who by doing of some wonders should seduce (if it were possible) the very elect, he very earnestly commended this unto our consideration, and said; Behold, I have told you before. yea and added a further charge also, that if these impostors should say unto us of him, Behold he is in secret closets, we should not believe it: which whether it be appliable to them who tell us, that Christ is to be found in a Pixe, and think that they have him in safe custody under Locke and Key; I leave to the consideration of others.

The thing which now I would have further observed, is only this; that, as that wretched heretic who first went about to persuade m • n by his lying wonders, that he really delivered wine unto them in the cup of the Eucharist, was censured for being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an Idol-maker · so in after ages, from the Idol-makers and Image-worshippers of the East it was, that this gross opinion of the oral eating and drinking of Christ in the Sacrament, drew it first breath; God having for their idolatry, justly given them up unto a reprobate mind, that they might receive that recompense of their error which was meet. The Popes name in whose days this fell out, was Gregory the second: the man's name who was the principal setter of it abroach, was John Damascene ; one that laid the foundation of School-divinity among the Greeks, as Peter Lombard afterwards did among the Latins. On the contrary side, they who opposed the Idolatry of those times, and more especially the CCCXXXVIII. Bishops assembled together at the Council of Constantinople, in the year 754. maintained, that Christ chose no other shape or type under heaven to represent his incarnation by, but the Sacrament; which he delivered to his ministers for a type and a most effectual commemoration thereof; commanding the substance of bread to be offered, which did not any way resemble the form of a man, that so no occasion might be given of bringing in Idolatry. which bread they affirmed to be the body of Christ, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, (as they themselves expound it) a holy and a true image of his natural flesh.

These assertions of theirs are to be found in the third Tome of the sixth Action of the second Council of Nice, assembled not long after for the reestablishing of Images in the Church. where a pratchant deacon, called Epiphanius, to cross that which those former Bishops had delivered, confidently avoucheth that none of the Apostles, nor of the Fathers, did ever call the Sacrament an image of the body of Christ. He confesseth indeed that some of the Fathers (as Eustathius expounding the Proverbs of Solomon, and S. Basil in his Liturgy) do call the bread and wine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , correspondent types or figures, before they were consecrated: but after the consecration (saith he) they are called, and are, and believed to be the body and blood of Christ properly. where the Popes own followers, who of late published the Acts of the general Councils at Rome, were so far ashamed of the ignorance of this blind Bayard; that they correct his boldness with this marginal note. The holy gifts are oftentimes found to be called antitypes, or figures correspondent, after they be consecrated: as by Gregory Nazianz. in the funeral Oration upon his sister, and in his Apology; by Cyril of Jerusalem in his fifth Cateches. Mystagogic. and by others. And we have already heard, how the author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites, and after him Eusebius and Gelasius, expressly call the Sacrament an image of Christ's body: howsoever this peremptory Clerke denieth, that ever any did so. By all which it may easily appear, that, not the oppugners, but the defenders of Images, were the men who first went about herein to alter the language used by their forefathers.

Now as in the days of Gregory the third this matter was set afoot by Damascene in the East: so about a hundred years after, in the Papacie of Gregory the fourth, the same began to be propounded in the West, by means of one Amalarius, who was Bishop, not (as he is commonly taken to be) of Triers, but of Mets first, and afterwards of Lions. This man writing doubtfully of this point; otherwhiles followeth the doctrine of S. Augustine, that Sacraments were oftentimes called by the names of the things themselves, and so the Sacrament of Christ's body was secundùm quendam modum, after a certain manner the body of Christ: otherwhiles maketh it a part of his belief, that the simple nature of the bread and wine mixed, is turned into a reasonable nature, to wit, of the body and blood of Christ. But what should become of this body, after the eating thereof, was a matter that went beyond his little wit: and therefore, said he, when the body of Christ is taken with a good intention, it is not for me to dispute, whether it be invisibly taken up into heaven, or kept in our body until the day of our burial, or exhaled into the air, or whether it go out of the body with the blood, (at the opening of a vein) or be sent out by the mouth; our Lord saying, that everything which entereth into the mouth goeth into the belly, and is sent forth into the draught. For this, and another like foolerie de triformi & tripartito corpore Christi, of the three parts or kinds of Christ's body (which seem to be those ineptiae de tripartito Christi corpore, that Paschasius in the end of his Epistle entreateth Frudegardus not to follow:) he was censured in a Synod held at Carisiacum: wherein it was declared by the Bishops of France, that the bread and wine are spiritually made the body of Christ; which being a meat of the mind, and not of the belly, is not corrupted, but remaineth unto everlasting life.

These dotages of Amalarius, did not only give occasion to that question propounded by Heribaldus to Rabanus, whereof we have spoken heretofore; but also to that other of far greater consequence: Whether that which was externally delivered & received in the sacrament, were the very same body which was borne of the Virgin Mary, & suffered upon the Cr • sse, & rose again from the Grave. Paschasius Radbertus (a Deacon of those times, but somewhat of a better and more modest temper then the Greek Deacon shown himself to be of) held that it was the ve • ie same; and to that purpose wrote his book to Placidus, of the Body & Blood of our Lord: wherein (saith a Jesuit) he was the first that did so explicate the true sense of the Càtholick Church, (his own Roman he meaneth) that he opened the way to those many others, who wrote afterwards of the same argument. Rabanus on the other side, in a writing directed to Abbot Egilo, maintained the contrary doctrine: as hath before been noted. Then one Frudegardus, reading the third book of S. Augustine de doctrinâ Christianâ, and finding there, that the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ was a figurative manner of speech, began somewhat to doubt of the truth of that which formerly he had read in that foresaid Treatise of Paschasius: which moved Paschasius to write again of the same argument, as of a question wherein he confesseth many were then doubtful. But neither by his first nor by his second writing was he able to take these doubts out of men's minds: and therefore Carolus Calvus the Emperor, being desirous to compose these differences, and to have unity settled among his subjects, required Ratrannus (a learned man of that time, who lived in the Monastery of Corbey, whereof Paschasius was Abbot) to deliver his judgment touching these points. Whether the body and blood of Christ which in the Church is received by the mouth of the faithful, be celebrated in a mystery or in the truth; and whether it be the same body, which was born of Mary, which did suffer, was dead and buried, & which rising again and ascending into heaven sitteth at the right hand of the Father? Whereunto he returneth this answer: that the bread and the wine are the body and blood of Christ figuratively ; that for the substance of the creatures, that which they were before consecration, the same are they also afterward ; that they are called the Lord's body and the Lord's blood, because they take the name of that thing, of which they are a sacrament ; & that there is a great difference betwixt the mystery of the blood and body of Christ, which is taken now by the faithful in the Church, and that which was borne of the Virgin Mary, which suffered, which was buried, which rose again, which sitteth at the right hand of the Father. All which he proveth at large, both by testimonies of the holy Scriptures, and by the sayings of the ancient Fathers. Wherupon Turrian the Jesuit is driven for pure need, to shift off the matter with this silly interrogation. To cite Bertram (so Ratrannus is more usually named) what is it else, but to say, that the heresy of Calvin is not new? As if these things were alleged by us for any other end, then to show, that this way which they call heresy is not new, but hath been trodden in long since, by such as in their times were accounted good and Catholic teachers in the Church. That since they have been esteemed otherwise, is an argument of the alteration of the times, and of the conversion of the state of things: which is the matter that now we are inquiring of, and which our Adversaries (in an evil hour to them) do so earnestly press us to discover.

The Emperor Charles, unto whom this answer of Ratrannus was directed, had then in his Court a famous country-man of ours, called Johannes Scotus: who wrote a book of the same argument, and to the same effect that the other had done. This man for his extraordinary learning, was in England (where he lived in great account with King Alfred ) surnamed John the wise: and had very lately a room in the Martyrologe of the Church of Rome, though now he be ejected thence. We find him indeed censured by the Church of Lions and others in that time, for certain opinions which he delivered touching God's foreknowledge and predestination before the beginning of the world, Mans freewill and the concurrence thereof with Grace in this present world, and the manner of the punishment of reprobate Men & Angels in the world to come: but we find not anywhere, that his book of the Sacrament was condemned, before the days of ^x Lanfranc ; who was the first that leavened that Church of England afterward with this corrupt doctrine of the carnal presence. Till then, this question of the real presence continued still in debate: and it was as free for any man to follow the doctrine of Ratrannus or Johannes Scotus therein, as that of Paschasius Radbertus, which since the time of Satan's loosing, obtained the upper hand. Men have often searched, and do yet often search, how bread that is gathered of corn; and through fires heat baked, may be turned to Christ's body; or how wine that is pressed out of many grapes is turned, through one blessing, to the Lord's blood: saith Aelfrick Abbot of Malmesburie, in his Saxon Homily, written about 650. years ago. His resolution is not only the same with that of Ratrannus, but also in many places directly translated out of him: as may appear by these passages following, compared with his Latin laid down in the margent.

The bread and the wine which by the Priests ministry is hallowed, show one thing without to men's senses, and another thing they call within to believing minds. Without they be seen bread & wine both in figure and in taste: and they be truly after their hallowing Christ's body and his blood by spiritual mystery. So the holy font water that is called the well-spring of life, is like in shape to other waters, and is subject to corruption: but the holy Ghosts might cometh to the corruptible water through the Priests blessing; and it may after wash the body and soul from all sin, by spiritual virtue. Behold now we see two things in this one creature: in true nature that water is corruptible moisture, and in spiritual mystery hath healing virtue. So also if we behold that holy housel after bodily sense, then see we that it is a creature corruptible and mutable. If we acknowledge therein spiritual virtue, then understand we that life is therein, and that it giveth immortality to them that eat it with belief. Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in, and the body that is hallowed to housel. The body truly that Christ suffered in, was borne of the flesh of Mary, with blood and with bone, with skin and with sinews, in human limbs, with a reasonable soul living: and his spiritual body, which we call the housel, is gathered of many corns, without blood and bone, without lim, without soul; and therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily, but spiri • ually. Whatsoever is in that housel, which giveth substance of life, that is spiritual virtue, and invisible doing. Certainly Christ's body which suffered death and rose from death, shall never die henceforth, but is eternal and unpassible. That housel is temporal, not eternal, corruptible & dealed into sundry parts, chewed between teeth and sent into the belly. This mystery is a pledge and a figure: Christ's body is truth it self. This pledge we do keep mystically, until that we be come to the truth it self; and then is this pledge ended. Christ hallowed bread and wine to housel before his suffering, and said: This is my body & my blood. Yet he had not then suffered: but so notwithstanding he turned through invisible virtue, the bread to his own body, and that wine to his blood: as he before did in the wilderness, before that he was borne to men, when he turned that heavenly meat to his flesh, and the flowing water from that stone to his own blood. Moses and Aaron, and many other of that people which pleased God, did eat that heavenly bread, and they died not the everlasting death, though they died the common. They saw that the heavenly meat was visible and corruptible: and they spiritually understood by that visible thing, and spiritually received it.

This Homily was appointed publicly to be read to the people in England, on Easter day, before they did receive the communion. The like matter also was delivered to the Clergy by the Bishops at their Synods; out of two other writings of the same Aelfrick: in the one whereof, directed to Wulfsine Bishop of Shyrburne, we read thus. That housel is Christ's body, not bodily but spiritually. Not the body which he suffered in, but the body of which he spake, when he blessed bread and wine to housel the night before his suffering; and said by the blessed bread, This is my body: and again by the holy wine, This is my blood which is shed for many in forgiveness of sins. In the other, written to Wulfstane Archbishop of York, thus. The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering, and saith that the bread was his own body, and that the wine was truly his blood; halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest, bread to his body and wine to his blood in spiritual mystery, as we read in books. And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so, nor the self same body that Christ suffered in: nor that holy wine is the Savior's blood which was shed for us, in bodily thing, but in spiritual understanding. Both be truly, that bread his body, and that wine also his blood, as was the heavenly bread, which we call Manna, that fed forty years God's people; and the clear water, which did then run from the stone in the wilderness, was truly his blood: as Paul wrote in one of his Epistles.

Thus was Priest and people taught to believe, in the Church of England, toward the end of the tenth, and the beginning of the eleventh age after the Incarnation of our Savior Christ. And therefore it is not to be wondered, that when Berengarius shortly after stood to maintain this doctrine, many both by word and writing disputed for him: and not only the English, but also all the French almost & the Italians (as Matthew of Westminster reporteth) were so ready to entertain that which he delivered. Who though they were so borne down by the power of the Pope (who now was grown to his height) that they durst not make open profession of that which they believed: yet many continued, even there where Satan had his throne, who privately employed both their tongues and their penns in defense of the truth; as out of Zacharias Chrysopolitanus, Rupertus Tuitiensis, and others I have elsewhere shown. Until at length, in the year 1215. Pope Innocent the third, in the Council of Lateran, published it to the Church for an oracle: that the body and blood of Jesus Christ are truly contained under the forms • f bread and wine; the bread being transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood, by the power of God. And so are we now come to the end of this controversy: the original and progress whereof I have prosecuted the more at large, because it is of greatest importance, the very life of the Mass and all massing Priests depending thereupon. But this prolixity shall be some ways recompensed by the briefer handling of the points following: the next whereof is that

OF CONFESSION.

Our Challenger here telleth us, that the Doctors, Pastors and Fathers of the primitive Church, exhorted the people to confess their sins unto their ghostly fathers. And we tell him again, that by the public order prescribed in our Church, before the administration of the holy Communion, the Minister likewise doth exhort the people, that if there be any of them, which cannot quiet his own conscience, but requireth further comfort or counsel ; he should come to him, or some other discreet and learned Minister of God's word, and open his grief: that he may receive such ghostly counsel, advice and comfort, as his conscience may be relieved; and that by the ministry of God's word he may receive comfort, and the benefit of absolution, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness. Whereby it appeareth, that the exhorting of the people to confess their sins unto their ghostly fathers, maketh no such wall of separation betwixt the ancient Doctors and us, but we may well for all this be of the same religion that they were of: and consequently, that this doughtie Champion hath more will then skill to manage controversies, who could make no wiser choice of pointes of differences to be insisted upon.

Be it therefore known unto him, that no kind of Confession, either public or private, is disallowed by us, that is any way requisite for the due execution of that ancient power of the Keys which Christ bestowed upon his Church: the thing which we reject, is that new pick-lock of Sacramental Confession, obtruded upon men's consciences, as a matter necessary to salvation, by the Canons of the late Conventicle of Trent. where those good Fathers put their curse upon everyone, that either shall deny, that Sacramental confession was ordained by divine right, and is by the same right necessary to salvation: or shall affirm, that in the Sacrament of Penance it is not by the ordinance of God necessary for the obtaining of the remission of sins, to confess all and everyone of those mortal sins, the memory whereof by due and diligent premeditation may be had; even such as are hidden and be against the two last Commandments of the Decalogue, together with the circumstances which change the kind of the sin; but that this confession is only profitable to instruct and comfort the penitent, and was anciently observed only for the imposing of Canonical satisfaction. This doctrine, I say, we cannot but reject: as being repugnant to that which we have learned both from the Scriptures and from the Fathers.

For in the Scriptures we find, that the confession which the penitent sinner maketh to God alone, hath the promise of forgiveness annexed unto it: which no Priest upon earth hath power to make void, upon pretence that himself or some of his fellows were not first particularly acquainted with the business. I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid: I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. And lest we should think that this was some peculiar privilege vouchsafed to the man who was raised upon high, the Anointed of the God of Jacob: the same sweet Psalmist of Israel doth presently enlarge his note, and inferreth this general conclusion thereupon. For this shall everyone that is godly pray unto thee, in a time when thou mayest be found. King Solomon, in his prayer for the people at the dedication of the Temple, treadeth just in his Fathers steps. If they turn (saith he) and pray unto thee in the land of their captivity, saying; We have sinned, we have done amiss, and have dealt wickedly: if they return to thee with all their heart, and with all their soul ; &c. forgive thy people, which have sinned against thee, all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee. And the poor Publican putting up his supplication in the Temple accordingly [ God be merciful to me a sinner, ] went back to his house justified; without making confession to any other ghostly Father, but only the Father of Spirits. of whom S. John giveth us this assurance: that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Which promise, that it appertained to such as did confess their sins unto God, the ancient Fathers were so well assured of: that they cast in a manner all upon this Confession, and left little or nothing to that which was made unto man. Nay, they do not only leave it free for men, to confess or not confess their sins unto others (which is the most that we would have:) but some of them also seem, in words at least, to advise men not to do it at all; which is more then we seek for.

S. Chrysostom of all others is most copious in this argument: some of whose passages to this purpose, I will here lay down. It is not necessary (saith he) that thou shouldest confess in the presence of witnesses: let the inquiry of thy offenses be made in thy thought, let this judgment be without a witness; let God only see thee confessing. Therefore I entreat and beseech and pray you, that you would continually make your confession to God. For I do not bring thee into the theater of thy fellow servants, neither do I contstrain thee to discover thy sins unto men: unclaspe thy conscience before God, and show thy wounds unto him, and of him ask a medicine. Shew them to him that will not reproach, but heal thee. For although thou hold thy peace, he knoweth all. Let us not call ourselves sinners only, but let us recount our sins, and repeat everyone of them in special. I do not say unto thee, Bring thyself upon the stage, nor, Accuse thyself unto others: but I counsel thee to obey the Prophet, saying, Reveale thy way unto the Lord. Confess them before God, confess thy sins before the Judge; praying, if not with thy tongue, yet at least with thy memory: and so look to obtain mercy. But thou art ashamed to say, that thou hast sinned. Confess thy faults then daily in thy prayer. For do I say; Confess them to thy fellow-servant, who may reproach thee therewith? Confess them to God, who healeth them. For, although thou confess them not at all, God is not ignorant of them. Wherefore then, tell me, art thou ashamed & blushest to confess thy sins? For doest thou discover them to a man, that he may reproach thee? Doest thou confess them to thy fellow servant, that he may bring thee upon the stage? To him who is thy Lord, who hath care of thee, who is kind, who is thy phycisian, thou showest thy wound. I contstrain thee not, saith he, to go into the midst of the theater, and to make many witnesses of the matter. Confess thy sin to me alone in private, that I may heal thy sore, and free thee from grief. And this is not only wonderful, that he forgiveth us our sins, but that he neither discovereth them, nor maketh them open and manifest, nor constraineth us to come forth in public and disclose our misdemeanors; but commandeth us to give an account thereof unto him alone, and unto him to make confession of them.

Neither doth S. Chrysostom here walk alone. That saying of S. Augustine is to the same effect: What have I to do with men, that they should hear my confessions, as though they should heal all my diseases? and that • ollection of S. Hilary upon the two last verses of the 52 Psalm, that David there teacheth us to confess to no other but unto the Lord, who hath made the Olive fruitful with the mercy of hope (or, the hope of mercy) forever and ever. and that advise of Pinuphius the Egyptian Abbot (which I find also inserted amongst the Canons collected for the use of the Church of England, in the time of the Saxons; under the title, De poenitentiâ soli Deo cōfitendâ: ) Who is it that cannot humbly say? I made my sin known unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. that by this confession he may confidently adjoin that which followeth: And thou forgavest the impiety of my heart. But if shamefastness do so draw thee back, that thou blushest to reveal them before men: cease not by continual supplication to confess them unto him from whom they cannot be hid, and to say [I know mine iniquity, and my sin is against me always; To thee only have I sinned, and done evil before thee] whose custom is, both to cure without the publishing of any shame, and to forgive sins without upbraiding. S. Augustine, Cassiodor, and Gregory make a further observation upon that place of the 32 Psalm: I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. that God upon the only promise and purpose of making this confession, did forgive the sin. Mark (saith Gregory) how great the swiftness is of this vital Indulgence, how great the commendation is of God's mercy; that pardon should accompany the very desire of him that is about to confess, before that repentance do come to afflict him; and remission should come to the heart, before that confession did break forth by the voice. So S. Basil, upon those other words of the Psalmist, I have roared by reason of the disquietness of my heart ; (Psalm. 38.8.) maketh this paraphrase. I do not confess with my lips, that I may manifest myself unto many. but inwardly in my very heart, shutting mine eyes, to thee alone who seest the things that are in secret, do I show my groans, roaring within myself. For the groans of my heart sufficed for a confession, and the lamentations sent to thee my God from the depth of my soul.

And as S. Basil maketh the groans of the heart to be a sufficient confession so doth S. Ambrose the tears of the penitent. Tears (saith he) do wash the sin, which the voice is ashamed to confess. Weeping doth provide both for pardon and for shamefastness: tears do speak our fault without horror, tears do confess our crime without offense of our shamefastness from whence, he that glosseth upon Gratian (who hath inserted these words of S. Ambrose into his collection of the Decrees) doth infer; that if for shame a man will not confess, tears alone do blot out his sin. Maximus Taurinensis followeth S. Ambrose herein almost verbatim. The tear (saith he) washeth the sin, which the voice is ashamed to confess. Tears therefore do equally provide both for our shamefastness and for our health: they neither blush in asking, and they obtain in requesting. Lastly Prosper, speaking of sins committed by such as are in the ministry, writeth thus They shall more easily appease God, who being not convicted by human judgment, do of their own accord acknowledge their offense: who either do discover it by their own confessions, or others not knowing what they are in secret, do themselves give sentence of voluntary excommunication upon themselves, and being separated (not in mind, but in office). from the Altar to which they did minister, do lament their life as dead; assuring themselves, that God being reconciled unto them by the fruits of effectual repentance, they shall not only receive what they have lost, but also being made citizens of that city which is above, they shall come to everlasting joys. By this it appeareth, that the ancient Fathers did not think, that the remission of sins was so tied unto external confession, that a man might not look for salvation from God, if he concealed his faults from Man: but that inward contrition, and confession made to God alone, was sufficient in this case. Otherwise, neither they nor we do debar men from opening their grievances unto the Physicians of their souls: either for their better information in the true state of their disease, or for the quieting of their troubled consciences, or for receiving further direction from them out of God's word, both for the recovery of their present sickness and for the prevention of the like danger in time to come.

If I shall sin, although it be in any small offense, and my thought do consume me, and accuse me, saying; Why hast thou sinned? what shall I do? said a brother once to Abbot Arsenius. The old man answered: Whatsoever hour a man shall fall into a fault, and shall say from his heart, Lord God I have sinned, grant me pardon; that consumption of thought or heaviness shall cease forthwith. And it was as good a remedy as could be prescribed for a green wound: to take it in hand presently, to present it to the view of our heavenly Physician, to prevent Satan by taking his office (as it were) out of his hand, and accusing ourselves first, that we may be justified. But when it is not taken in time, but suffered to fester and ranckle; the cure will not now prove to be so easy: it being found true by often experience, that the wounded conscience will still pinch grievously, notwithstanding the confession made unto God in secret. At such a time as this then, where the sinner can find no ease at home, what should he do but use the best means he can to find it abroad? Is there no balm in Gilead? is there no physician there? No doubt but God hath provided both the one and the other, for recovering of the health of the daughter of his people: and S. James hath herein given us this direction. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. According to which prescription, Gregory Nyssen, toward the end of his Sermon of Repentance, useth this exhortation to the sinner. Be sensible of the disease, wherewith thou art taken, afflict thyself as much as thou canst. Seek also the mourning of thy entirely affected brethren, to help thee unto liberty. Shew me thy bitter and abundant tears, that I may also mingle mine therewith. Take likewise the Priest for a partner of thine affliction, as thy Father. For who is it that so falsely obtayneth the name of a father, or hath so adamantine a soul, that he will not condole with his sons lamenting? Shew unto him without blushing the things that were kept close: discover the secrets of thy soul, as showing thy hidden disease unto thy physician. He will have care both of thy credit and of thy cure.

It was no part of his meaning to advise us, that we should open ourselves in this manner unto every hedge-priest; as if there were a virtue generally annexed to the order, that upon confession made and absolution received from any of that rank, all should be straight made up: but he would have us communicate our case both to such Christian brethren, and to such a ghostly father, as had skill in physic of this kind, and out of a fellow-feeling of our grief, would apply themselves to our recovery. Therefore, saith Origen, look about thee diligently, unto whom thou oughtest to confess thy sin. Try first the physician, unto whom thou oughtest to declare the cause of thy malady, who knoweth to be weak with him that is weak, to weep with him that weepeth, who understandeth the discipline of condoling and compassionating: that so at length, if he shall say anything, who hath first shown himself to be both a skillful physician and a merciful, or if he shall give any counsel, thou mayest do and follow it. For, as S. Basil well noteth, the very same course is to be held in the confession of sins, which is in the opening of the diseases of the body. As men therefore do not discover the diseases of their body to all, nor to every sort of people, but to those that are skillful in the cure thereof: even so ought the confession of our sins be made, unto such as are able to cure them; according to that which is written. Ye that are strong, bear the infirmities of the weak, that is, take them away by your diligence. He requireth care and diligence in performance of the cure: being ignorant (good man) of that new compendious method of healing, invented by our Roman Paracelsians, whereby a man in confession of attrite is made contrite by virtue of the keys ; that the sinner need put his ghostly father to no further trouble then this. Speak the word only, and I shall be healed. And this is that Sacramental confession, devised of late by the Priests of Rome: which they notwithstanding would fain father upon S. Peter, from whom the Church of Rome (as they would have us believe) received this instruction. that if envy, or infidelity, or any other evil did secretly creep into any man's heart, he who had care of his own soul should not be ashamed to confess those things unto him who had the oversight over him; that by God's word and wholesome counsel, he might be cured by him. And so indeed we read in the apocryphal epistle of Clement, pretended to be written unto S. James the brother of our Lord: where in the several editions of Crab, Sichardus, Venradius, Surius, Nicolinus, and Binius, we find this note also laid down in the margent; Nota de confession sacramentali, Mark this of sacramental confession. But their own Maldonado would have taught them, that this note was not worth the marking: forasmuch as the proper end of sacramental confession, is the obtaining of remission of sins, by virtue of the keys of the Church; whereas the end of the confession here said to be commended by S. Peter, was the obtaining of counsel out of God's word for the remedy of sins. which kind of medicinal confession we well approve of, and acknowledge to have been ordinarily prescribed by the ancient Fathers for the cure of secret sins.

For as for notorious offenses, which bred open scandal, private confession was not thought sufficient: but there was further required public acknowledgement of the fault, & the solemn use of the keys for the reconciliation of the penitent. If his sin do not only redound to his own evil, but also unto much scandal of others, and the Bishop thinketh it to be expedient for the profit of the Church, let him not refuse to perform his penance in the knowledge of many or of the whole people also, let him not resist, let him not by his shamefastness add swelling to his deadly and mortal wound: saith S. Augustine. and more largely in another place; where he meeteth with the objection, of the sufficiency of internal repentance, in this manner. Let no man say unto himself: I do it secretly, I do it before God; God who pardoneth me doth know, that I do it in my heart. Is it therefore said without cause; Whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven? Are the keys therefore without cause given unto the Church of God? Do we frustrate the Gospel of God? do we frustrate the words of Christ? Do we promise that to you which he denieth you? Do we not deceive you? Job saith: If I was abashed to confess my sins in the sight of the people. So just a man of God's rich threasure, who was tried in such a furnace, saith thus: and doth the child of pestilence withstand me, and is ashamed to bow his knee under th • blessing of God? That which the Emperor was not ashamed to do, is he ashamed of, who is not as much as a Senator, but only a simple Courtier? O proud neck, ó crooked mind! perhaps, nay it is not to be doubted, it was for this reason God would that Theodosius the Emperor should do public penance in the sight of the people, especially because his sin could not be concealed: and is a Senator ashamed of that, whereof the Emperor was not ashamed? is he ashamed of that who is no Senator, but a Courtier only, whereof the Emperor was not ashamed? Is one of the vulgar sort, or a trader ashamed of that, whereof the Emperor was not ashamed? What pride is this? Were not this alone sufficient to bring them to hell, although no adultery had been committed? Thus far S. Augustine, concerning the necessity of public Repentance for known offenses: which being in tract of time disused in some places, long after this, the Bishops of France, by the assistance of Charles the great, caused it to be brought in use again, according to the order of the old Canons.

Neither is it here to be omitted, that in the time of the more ancient Fathers this strict discipline was not so restrained to the censure of public crimes; but that private transgressions also were sometimes drawn within the compass of it. For whereas at first, public confession was enjoined only for public offenses: men afterwards, discerning what great benefit redounded to the penitents thereby, (as well for the subduing of the stubburnesse of their hard hearts, and the furthering of their deeper humiliation; as for their raising up again by those sensible comforts which they received by the public prayers of the Congregation, and the use of the keys) some men, I say, discerning this, and finding their own consciences burdened with the like sins, which being carried in secrecy, were not subject to the censures of the Church; to the end they might obtain the like consolation and quiet of mind, did voluntarily submit themselves to the Churches discipline herein, and undergo the burden of public Confession and Penance. This appeareth by Origen in his second Homily upon the 37 Psalm, Tertullian in his book de Poenitentiâ, chap. 9. S. Cyprian in his Treatise de Lapsis, sect. 23. (or 11. according to Pamelius his distinction) S. Ambrose in his first book de Poenitentiâ, chap. 16. and others. And to the end that this publication of secret faults might be performed in the best manner: some prudent Minister was first of all made acquainted therewith; by whose direction the delinquent might understand what sins were fit to be brought to the public notice of the Church, and in what manner the penance was to be performed for them. Therefore did Origen advise (as we heard) that one should use great care in making choice of a good and skillful physician, to whom he should disclose his grief in this kind. and if he understand (saith he) and foresee that thy disease is such as ought to be declared in the assembly of the whole Church, and cured there, whereby peradventure both others may be edified, and thou thyself more easily healed; with much deliberation, and by the very skillful counsel of that physician, must this be done.

But within a while (shortly after the persecution raised in the days of Decius the Emperor) it was no longer left free to the Penitent to make choice of his ghostly father: but by the general consent of the Bishops it was ordained, that in every Church one certain discreet Minister should be appointed to receive the confessions of such as relapsed into sin after Baptism. This is that addition, which Socrates in his Ecclesiastical history noteth to have been then made unto the Penitentiall Canon; and to have been observed by the governors of the Church for a long time: until at length in the time of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople (which was about CXL. years after the persecution of Decius) upon occasion of an infamy drawn upon the Clergy by the confession of a Gentlewoman, defiled by a Deacon in that city, it was thought fit it should be abolished, and that liberty should be given unto everyone, upon the private examination of his own conscience, to resort to the holy Communion. Which was agreeable both to the rule of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11.28. (Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup:) and to the judgment of the more ancient Fathers, as appeareth by Clemens Alexandrinus, who accounteth a man's own conscience to be his best directer in this case. howsoever our new Masters of Trent have not only determined that sacramental confession must necessarily be premised before the receyving of the Eucharist; but also have pronounced them to be excommunicate ipso facto, that shall presume to teach the contrary.

The case then (if these men's censures were ought worth) would go hard with Nectarius, and all the Bishops that followed him; but especially with S. John Chrysostom, who was his immediate successor in the See of Constantinople. for thus doth he expound that place of the Apostle: Let everyone examine himself, and then let him come. He doth not bid one man to examine another, but everyone himself; making the judgment private, and the trial without witnesses. and in the end of his second homily of Fasting (which in others is the eighth de Poenitentiâ ) frameth his exhortation accordingly. Within thy conscience, none being present but God who seeth all things, enter thou into judgment and into a search of thy sins, and recounting thy whole life, bring thy sins unto judgment in thy mind: reform thy excesses, and so with a pure conscience draw near to that sacred Table, and partake of that holy sacrifice. Yet in another place he deeply chargeth Ministers, not to admit known offenders unto the Communion. But if one (saith he) be ignorant that he is an evil person, after that he hath used much diligence there • in, he is not to be blamed. for these things are spoken by me of such as are known. And we find both in him, and in the practice of the times following, that the order of public Penance was not wholly taken away; but according to the ancient discipline established by the Apostles in the Church, open offenders were openly censured and pressed to make public confession of their faults. Whereby it is manifest, that the liberty brought in by Nectarius, of not resorting to any Penitentiarie, respected the disclosing of secret sins only; such as that foul one was, from whence the public scandal arose, which gave occasion to the repeal of the former Constitution. For to suffer open and notorious crimes, committed in the Church, to pass without control, was not a mean to prevent but to augment scandals; nay the ready way, to make the house of God become a den of thieves.

Two observations more I will add upon this part of the history. The one: that the abrogation of this Canon showeth, that the form of Confession used by the ancient, was Canonical, that is, appertaining to that external discipline of the Church which upon just occasion might be altered; and not Sacramental, and of perpetual right, which is that our Jesuits stand for. The other: that the course taken herein by Nectarius, was not only approved by S. Chrysostom, who succeeded him at Constantinople; but generally in a manner by the Catholic Bishops of other places. howsoever the Arians, and the rest of the sectaries (the Novatians only excepted, who from the beginning would not admit the discipline used in the Church for the reconciliation of Penitents) retained still the former usage. as by the relation of Socrates and Sozomen more fully may appear. And therefore when within some XXI. years after the time wherein they finished their histories, and about LXX. after that the publication of secret offenses began to be abolished by Nectarius, certain in Italy did so do their penance, that they caused a writing to be publicly read, containing a profession of their several sins: Leo, who at that time was Bishop of Rome, gave order, that by all means that course should be broken off; forasmuch as it was sufficient, that the guilt of men's consciences should be declared in secret confession to the Priests alone. For although (saith he) the fullness of faith may seem to be laudable, which for the fear of God doth not fear to blush before men: yet because all men's sins are not of that kind, that they may not fear to publish such of them as require repentance, let so inconvenient a custom be removed; lest many be driven away from the remedies of repentance, while either they are ashamed, or afraid to disclose their deeds unto their enemies, whereby they may be drawn within the peril of the laws. For that confession is sufficient, which is offered first unto God, and then unto the Priest, who cometh as an intercessor for the sins of the penitent. For then at length more may be provoked to repentance, if that the conscience of him who confesseth be not published to the ears of the people.

By this place of Leo we may easily understand, how upon the removal of public Confession of secret faults (together with the private made unto the Penitentiarie, which was adjoined as a preparative thereunto) Auricular confession began to be substituted in the room thereof: to the end, that by this means more might be drawn on to this exercise of repentance; the impediments of shame and fear, which accompanied the former practice, being taken out of the way. for indeed the shame of this public Penance was such, that in the time of Tertullian (when this discipline was thought most needful for the Church) it was strongly presumed, that many did either shun this work as a publication of themselves, or deferred it from day today, being more mindful (as he saith) of their shame than of their salvation. Nay S. Ambrose observed that some, who for fear of the punishment in the other world, being conscious to themselves of their sins, did here desire their penance, were yet for shame of their public supplication drawn back, after they had received it. Therefore the conjecture of Rhenanus is not to be contemned, that from this public confession, the private took his original: which by Stapleton, (in his Fortress, part. 2. chap. 4.) is positively delivered in this manner. Afterward this open and sharp penance was brought to the private and particular confession now used; principally for the lewdness of the common lay Christians, which in this open confession began at length to mock and insult at their brethren's simplicity and devotion. although it may seem by that which is written by Origen, that the seeds of this lewdness began to sprout long before; howsoever Tertullian imagined, that no member of the Church would be so ungracious as to commit such folly.

The public confession therefore of secret sins being thus abolished, by Nectarius first (for the scandal that came thereby unto others) and by the rest of the Catholic Bishops after him (for the reproach and danger, whereunto the penitents by this means were laid open:) private Confession was so brought in to supply the defect thereof, that it was accounted no more sacramental, nor esteemed (at least generally) to be of more necessity for the obtaining of remission of sins, then that other. So that whatsoever order afterward was taken herein, may well be judged to have had the nature of a temporal law, which, according to the definition of S. Augustine, although it be just, yet in time may be justly also changed. Nay we find that Laurence Bishop of Novaria, in his homily de Poenitentiâ, doth resolutely determine, that for obtaining remission of sins, a man needeth not to resort unto any Priest, but that his own internal repentance is sufficient for that matter: God (saith he) after Baptism hath appointed thy remedy within thyself, he hath put remission in thine own power, that thou needest not seek a Priest when thy necessity requireth; but thou thyself now, as a skillful and plain master, mayest amend thine error within thyself, & wash away thy sin by repentance. He hath given unto thee (saith another, somewhat to the same purpose) the power of binding and loosing. Thou hast bound thyself with the chayn of the love of wealth; loose thyself with the injunction of the love of poverty. Thou hast bound thyself with the furious desire of pleasures; loose thyself with temperance. Thou hast bound thyself with the misbeleefe of Eunomius; loose thyself with the religious embracing of the right faith.

And, that we may see how variable men's judgments were touching the matter of Confession in the ages following: Bede would have us confess our daily & light sins one unto another, but open the uncleanness of the greater leprosy to the Priest. Alcuinus, not long after him, would have us confess all the sins that we can remember. Others were of another mind. For some (as it appeareth by the writings of the same Alcuinus and of Haymo ) would not confess their sins to the Priest; but said, it was sufficient for them that they did confess their sins to God alone, provided always that they ceased from those sins for the time to come. Others confessed their sins unto the Priests, but not fully : as may be seen in the Council of Cauailon, held in the days of Charles the great where, though the Fathers think that this had need to be amended: yet they freely acknowledge, that it remained still a question, whether men should only confess to God, or to the Priests also; and they themselves put this difference betwixt both those confessions, that the one did properly serve for the cure, the other for direction in what sort the repentance (and so the cure) should be performed. Their words are these. Some say, that they ought to confess their sins only unto God, and some think that they are to be confessed unto the Priests: both of which, not without great fruit, is practiced within the holy Church. namely thus, that we both confess our sins unto God, who is the forgiver of sins (saying with David: I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess against myself my transgressions unto the Lord: and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.) and according to the institution of the Apostle, confess our sins one unto another, and pray one for another, that we may be healed. The Confession therefore which is made unto God, purgeth sins: but that which is made unto the Priest, teacheth in what sort those sins should be purged. For God the author and bestower of salvation and health, giveth the same sometime by the invisible administration of his power, sometime by the operation of Physicians.

This Canon is cited by Gratian out of the Penitentiall of Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury: but clogged with some unnecessary additions. as when in the beginning thereof it is made the opinion of the Grecians, that sins should be confessed only unto God; and of the rest of the Church, that they should be confessed to Priests. where those words, ut Graeci, in Gratian seem unto Cardinal Bellarmine, to have crept out of the margent into the text; and to have been a marginal annotation of some unskillful man, who gathered by the fact of Nectarius, that Sacramental Confession was wholly taken away among the Grecians. For otherwise (saith he) in the Capitular it self of Theodorus, whence that Canon was transcribed, those two words [ut Graeci] are not to be had; nor are they also to be had in the second Council of Cauaillon, c. 33. whence Theodorus seemeth to have taken that chapter: neither yet doth the Master of the Sentences, in his 4. book and 17. distinction bringing in the same sentence, add those words [ut Graeci. ] But the Cardinals conjecture of the translating of these words out of the margent into the text of Gratian, is of little worth: seeing we find them expressly laid down in the elder collections of the Decrees, made by Burchardus and Ivo ; from whence it is evident that Gratian borrowed this whole chapter, as he hath done many a one beside. For as for the Capitular it self of Theodorus, whence the Cardinal too too boldly affirmeth that Canon was transcribed ; as if he had looked into the book himself: we are to know, that no such Capitular of Theodorus is to be found: only Burchardus and Ivo, (in whom, as we said, those controverted words are extant) setteth down this whole chapter as taken out of Theodors Penitentiall, & so misguided Gratian. for indeed in Theodorus his Penitentiall (which I did lately transcribe out of a most ancient copy kept in Sir Robert Cottons Threasurie) no part of that chapter can be seen: nor yet anything else tending to the matter now in hand, this short sentence only excepted. Confessionem suam Deo soli, si necesse est, licebit agere. It is lawful, that Confession be made unto God alone, if need require. And to suppose as the Cardinal doth that Theodorus should take this chapter out of the second Council of Cauaillon: were an idle imagination▪ seeing it is well known that Theodore died Archbishop of Canterbury in the year of our Lord 690: and the Council of Cauaillon was held in the year 813. that is, 123. years after the others death. The truth is; he who made the additions to the Capitularia of Charles the great and Ludovicus Pius, (gathered by Ansegisus and Benedict ) translated this Canon out of that Council into his Collection: which Bellarmine, as it seemeth, having someway heard of, knew not to distinguish between those Capitularia, and Theodors Penitentiall. being herein as negligent, as in his allegation of the fourth book of the Sentences: where the Master doth not bring in this sentence at all, but having among other questions propounded this also for one, Whether it be sufficient that a man confess his sins to God alone, or whether he must confess to a Priest ; doth thereupon set down the diversity of men's opinions touching that matter, and saith, that unto some it seemed to suffice, if confession were made to God only without the judgment of the Priest or the confession of the Church. because David said; I said, I will confess unto the Lord: he saith not, Unto the Priest; and yet he showeth that his sin was forgiven him. For in these points, as the same author had before noted, even the learned were found to hold diversely: because the Doctors seemed to deliver diverse and almost contrary judgment • therein.

The diverse sentences of the Doctors touching this question, whether external confession were necessary or not, are at large laid down by Gratian: who in the end, leaveth the matter in suspense, and concludeth in this manner. Upon what authorities, or upon what strength of reasons both these opinions are grounded, I have briefly laid open. But to whether of them we should rather cleave to, is reserved to the judgment of the reader. For both of them have for their favorers both wise and religious men. And so the matter rested undetermined 1150. years after Christ: howsoever the Roman Correctors of Gratian do tell us, that now the case is altered, and that it is most certain, and must be held for most certain, that the sacramental confession of mortal sins is necessary, used in that manner, and at such time, as in the Council of Trent after other Councils it is appointed. But the first Council, wherein we find anything determined touching this necessity, is that of Lateran under Innocent the III. wherein we heard that Transubstantiation was established▪ for there it was ordained, that Omnis utriusque sexus sidelis, every faithful one of either sex, being come to years of discretion, should by himself alone, once in the year at least, faithfully confess his sins unto his own Priest; and endeavor according to his strength to fulfill the penance enjoined unto him, receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist: otherwise, that both being alive he should be kept from entering into the Church, and being dead should want Christian burial. Since which determination, Thomas Aquinas (in his exposition of the text of the fourth book of the Sentences, distinct. 17.) holdeth the denial of the necessity of Confession unto salvation to be heresy: which before that time (saith Bonaventure, in his disputations upon the same fourth book) was not heretical, forasmuch as many Catholic Doctors did hold contrary opinions therein, as appeareth by Gratian.

But Medina will not admit by any means, that it should be accounted strictly heresy: but would have it said, that it savors of heresy. and for this decree of Confession to be made once in the year, he saith that it doth not declare nor interpret any divine right of the thing, but rather appointeth the time of confessing. Durand thinketh that it may be said, that this statute containeth an holy and wholesome exhortation of making confession, and then adjoineth a precept of the receiving of the Eucharist backed with a penalty: or if both of them be precepts, that the penalty respecteth only the precept of communicating (of the transgression whereof knowledge may be taken) and not the precept of confession, of the transgression whereof the Church can take no certain notice, and therefore can appoint no certain penalty for it. But howsoever; this we are sure of, that the Canonists afterward held no absolute necessity of obedience to be required therein, as unto a Sacramental institution ordained by Christ for obtaining remission of sins; but a Canonical obedience only, as unto an useful constitution of the Church. And therefore where Gratian in his first distinction de Poenitentiâ, had in the 34. chapter and the three next following, propounded the allegations which made for them who held, that men might obtain pardon for their sins without any oral confession of them; and then proceeded to the authorities which might seem to make for the contrary opinion: Johannes Semeca at the beginning of that part, upon those words of Gratian, Alij e contrario tes • antur, putteth too this Gloss. From this place until the section His auctoritatib. he alledgeth for the other part, that sin is not forgiven unto such as are of years, without confession of the mouth which yet is false: saith he. But this free dealing of his did so displease Friar Manrique, who by the command of Pius Quintus, set out a censure upon the Glosses of the Canon law; that he gave direction these words, which yet is false, should be clean blotted out. which direction of his notwithstanding, the Roman Correctors under Gregory the XIII. did not follow: but letting the words still stand, give them a check only with this marginal annotation. Nay it is most true, that without confession, in desire at least, the sin is not forgiven.

In like manner, where the same Semeca holdeth it to be the better opinion, that Confession was ordained by a certain tradition of the universal Church, rather then by the authority of the new or Old Testament, and inferreth thereupon, that it is necessary among the Latins, but not among the Greeks, because that tradition did not spread to them: Friar Manrique commandeth all that passage to be blotted out, but the Roman Correctors clap this note upon the margent for an antidote. Nay confession was ordained by our Lord, and by God's Law is necessary to all that fall into mortal sin after Baptism, as well Greeks as Latins. and for this they quote only the 14. Session of the Council of Trent: where that opinion is accursed in us, which was held two or three hundred years ago by the men of their own religion. among whom, Michael of Bononia (who was Prior general of the order of the Carmelites in the days of Pope Urban the sixth) doth conclude strongly out of their own received grounds; that confession is not necessary for the obtaining of the pardon of our sin: and Panormitan the great Canonist, professeth that the opinion of Semeca doth much please him, which referreth the original of Confession to a general tradition of the Church: because (saith he) there is not any clear authority, which showeth that God or Christ did clearly ordain that Confession should be made unto a Priest. Yea, all the Canonists, following their first Interpreter, say that Confession was brought in only by the law of the Church, and not by any divine precept: if we will believe Maldonado. who addeth notwithstanding, that this opinion is either already sufficiently declared by the Church to be heresy, or that the Church should do well if it did declare it to be heresy.

And we find indeed, that in the year of our Lord 1479. (which was 34. years after the death of Panormitan) by a special commission directed from Pope Sixtus the fourth unto Alfonsus Carillus Archbishop of Toledo, one Petrus Oxomensis, professor of Divinity in the University of Salamanca, was driven to abjure this conclusion, which he had before delivered as agreeable to the common opinion of the Doctors; that confession of sins in particular was grounded upon some statute of the universal Church, and not upon divine right. and when learned men for all this would not take warning, but would needs be meddling again with that which the Popish Clergy could not endure should be touched, (as Johannes de Selva, among others, in the end of his treatise de Iurejurando; Erasmus in diverse of his works, and Beatus Rhenanus in his argument upon Tertullian's book de Poenitentiâ: ) the fathers of Trent within 72. years after that, conspired together to stop all men's mouths with an anathema, that should deny sacramental confession to be of divine institution or to be necessary unto salvation. And so we are come to an end of that point.

OF THE PRIESTS POWER TO FORGIVE SINNES.

FRom Confession we are now to proceed unto Absolution: which it were pity this man should receive, before he made confession of the open wrong he hath here done, in charging us to deny that Priests have power to forgive sins. whereas the very formal words, which our Church requireth to be used in the ordination of a Minister, are these: Whose sins thou doest forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou doest retain, they are retained. And therefore if this be all the matter, the Fathers and we shall agree well enough: howsoever this make-bate would fain put friends together by the ears, where there is no occasion at all of quarrel. For we acknowledge most willingly, that the principal part of the Priests ministry is exercised in the matter of forgiveness of sins: the question only is of the manner how this part of their function is executed by them, and of the bounds and limits thereof, which the Pope and his Clergy for their own advantage have enlarged beyond all measure of truth and reason.

That we may therefore give unto the Priest the things that are the Priests, and to God the things that are God's; & not communicate unto any creature the power that properly belongeth to the Creator, who will not give his glory unto another: we must in the first place lay this down for a sure ground, that to forgive sins properly, directly, and absolutely, is a privilege only appertaining unto the most High. I, saith he of himself, even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. (Isaiah. 43.25.) Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity? saith the Prophet, Micah 7.18. which in effect is the same with that of the Scribes: (Mark. 2.7. and Luk. 5.21.) Who can forgive sins, but God alone? And therefore when David saith unto God; Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin: (Psalm. 32.5.) Gregory surnamed the great (the first Bishop of Rome of that name) thought this to be a sound paraphrase of his words. Thou, who alone sparest, who alone forgivest sins. For who can forgive sins but God alone? He did not imagine that he had committed any great error in subscribing thus simply unto that sentence of the Scribes: and little dreamed that any petty Doctors afterwards would arise in Rome or Reims, who would tell us a fair tale; that the faithless Jews thought, as Heretics nowadays, that to forgive sins was so proper to God, that it could not be communicated unto man ; and that true believers refer this to the increase of God's honor, which miscreant Jews and Heretics do accompt blasphemy against God, and injurious to his Majesty. whereas in truth the faithlesnesse of the Jews consisted in the application of this sentence unto our Savior Christ, whom they did not acknowledge to be God; as the senselessness of these Romanists, in denying of the axiom it self.

But the world is come unto a good pass, when we must be accounted heretics nowadays, and consorted with miscreant Jews, for holding the self same thing that the Fathers of the ancient Church delivered as a most certain truth, whensoever they had any occasion to treat of this part of the history of the Gospel. Old Irenaeus telleth us, that our Savior in this place forgiving sins, did both cure the man, and manifestly discover who he was. For if none (saith he) can forgive sins but God alone, and our Lord did forgive them, and cured men; it is manifest, that he was the Word of God, made the Son of man: and that as man he is touched with compassion of us, as God he hath mercy on us, and forgiveth us our debts which we do owe unto God our maker. Tertullian saith, that when the Jews beholding only his humanity, and not being yet certain of his Deity, did deservedly reason, that a man could not forgive sins, but God alone: he by answering of them, that the Son of man had authority to forgive sins, would by this remission of sins have them call to mind that he was that only son of man, prophesied of in Daniel, who received power of judging, and thereby also of forgiving sins. (Dan. 7.13, 14.) S. Hilary commenting upon the ninth of Matthew, writeth thus. It moveth the Scribes, that sin should be forgiven by a man. For they beheld a man only in Jesus Christ; and that to be forgiven by him, which the law could not release. For it is faith only that justifieth. Afterward the Lord looketh into their murmuring, and saith that it is an easy thing for the Son of man upon earth to forgive sins. For it is true, none can forgive sins but God alone: therefore he who remitteth is God, because none remitteth but God. God remaining in man, performed this cure upon man. S. Jerome thus: We read that God saith in the Prophet; I am he that blotteth out thine iniquities. Consequently therefore the Scribes, because they thought him to be a man, and did not understand the words of God, accuse him of blasphemy. But the Lord seeing their thoughts, showeth himself to be God, who is able to know the secrets of the heart: and holding his peace after a sort speaketh; By the same majesty and power, wherewith I behold your thoughts, I am able also to forgive sins unto men. or, as Euthymius expresseth it in his commentaries upon the same place: In truth, none can forgive sins but one, who beholdeth the thoughts of men. S. Chrysostom likewise in his Sermons upon the same, showeth that Christ here declared himself to be God equal unto the Father: and that if he had not been equal unto the Father, he would have said; Why do you attribute unto me an unfitting opinion? I am far from that power. To the same effect also writeth Christianus Druthmarus, Paschasius Ratbertus, and Walafridus Strabus in the ordinary Gloss upon the same place of S. Matthew. Victor Antiochenus upon the second of Mark; Theophylact and Bede upon the second of Mark, and the fifth of Luke: S. Ambrose upon the fifth of Luke. who in another place also bringeth this sentence of the Scribes, as a ground to prove the deity of the holy Ghost withal: forasmuch as none forgiveth sins but one God; because it is written, Who can forgive sins but God alone? as S. Cyril doth to prove the deity of the Son. For this only, saith he, did the malice of the Jews say truly, that none can forgive sins, but God alone, who is the Lord of the law ▪ and thence he frameth this argument. If he alone who is the Lord of all doth free us from our sins, and this agreeth to no other, and Christ bestoweth this with a power befitting God; how should he not be God?

The same argument also is used by Novatianus and Athanasius to the self same purpose. For if, when it agreeth unto none but unto God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ doth behold the secrets of the heart; if, when it agreeth unto none but unto God to forgive sins, the same Christ doth forgive sins: then deservedly is Christ to be accounted God, saith Novatianus. So Athanasius demandeth of the Arians: if the Son were a creature, how was he able to forgive sins? it being written in the Prophets, that this is the work of God. For who is a God like unto thee, that taketh away sins and passeth over iniquities? But the son (saith he) said unto whom he would; Thy sins are forgiven thee: when the Jews murmuring also he demonstrated this forgiveness in deed, saying to the man that was sick of the palsy; Arise, take up thy bedd, and go unto thine house. And therefore Bede rightly inferreth, that the Arians do err here much more madly then the Jews: who when they dare not deny, being convicted by the words of the Gospel, that Jesus is both the Christ and hath power to forgive sins; yet fear not for all that to deny him to be God. and concludeth himself most soundly: that if he be God according to the Psalmist, who removeth our iniquities from us as far as the East is from the West, and the son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins; therefore the same is both God and the son of man, that the man Christ by the power of his divinity might forgive sins, and the same Christ God by the frailty of his humanity might die for sinners. Whereunto we will add another sweet passage of his (borrowed from some ancienter author:) No man taketh away sins (which the Law, although holy and just and good, could not take away) but he in whom there is no sin. Now he taketh them away, both by pardoning those that are done, and by assisting us that they may not be done, & by bringing us to the life where they cannot at all be done.

Peter Lombard alledgeth this as the saying of S. Augustine: the former sentence only being thus changed. None taketh away sins, but Christ alone, who is the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world. agreeable to that, which in the same place he citeth out of S. Ambrose: He alone forgiveth sins, who alone died for our sins. and to that of Clemens Alexandrinus: He alone can remit sins, who is appointed our Master by the father of all, who alone is able to discern disobedience from obedience. to which purpose also, S. Ambrose maketh this observation upon the history of the woman taken in adultery, John. 8.9. that Jesus being about to pardon sin, remained alone. For it is not the ambassador (saith he) nor the messenger, but the Lord himself that hath saved his people. He remaineth alone, because it cannot be common to any man with Christ to forgive sins. This is the office of Christ alone, who taketh away the sin of the world. Yea S. Chrysostom himself, who of all the Fathers giveth most in this point unto God's ambassadors and messengers, is yet careful withal to preserve God's privilege entire, by often interposing such sentences as these. None can forgive sins, but God alone. To forgive sins, belongeth to no other. To forgive sins, is possible to God only. God alone doth this: which also he worketh in the washing of the new birth. Wherein, that the work of cleansing the soul is wholly God's, and the minister hath no hand at all in effecting any part of it; Optatus proveth at large in his fifth book against the Donatists: showing that none can wash the filth and sports of the mind, but he who is the framer of the same mind ; and convincing the heretics, as by many other testimonies of holy Scripture • , so by that of Isaiah. 1.18. which he presseth in this manner. It belongeth unto God to cleanse, and not unto man: he hath promised by the Prophet Isaiah that he himself would wash, when he saith; If your sins were as scarlet, I will make them as white as snow. I will make them white, he said: he did not say, I will cause them to be made white. If God hath promised this, why will you give that, which is neither lawful for you to promise, nor to give, nor to have? Behold in Isaiah God hath promised that he himself will make white such as are defiled with sins; not by man.

Having thus therefore reserved unto God his prerogative royal in cleansing of the soul, we give unto his under-officers their due, when we account of them, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. not as Lord's, that have power to dispose of spiritual graces as they please: but as servants that are tied to follow their Masters prescriptions therein; & in following thereof do but bring their external ministry ( for which itself also they are beholding to God's mercy & goodness) God conferring the inward blessing of his spirit thereupon, when & where he will. Who then is Paul, (saith S. Paul himself) and who is Apollo? but Ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? Therefore, saith Optatus, in all the servants there is no dominion, but a ministry. Cui creditor, ipse dat quod creditor, non per quem creditor. It is he who is believed, that giveth the thing which is believed, not he by whom we do believe. Whereas our Savior then saith unto his Apostles, John. 20. Receive the holy Ghost, Whose sins you forgive shall be forgiven: S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Chrysostom, and S. Cyril, make this observation thereupon; that this is not their work properly, but the work of the holy Ghost, who remitteth by them, and therein performeth the work of the true God. For indeed (saith S. Cyril) it belongeth to the true God alone, to be able to loose men from their sins. for who else can free the transgressors of the law from sin, but he who is the author of law it self? The Lord (saith S. Augustine) was to give unto men the holy Ghost, and he would have it to be understood, that by the holy Ghost himself sins should be forgiven to the faithful, and not that by the merits of men sins should be forgiven. For what art thou, ô man, but a sick-man that hast need to be healed? Wilt thou be a physician to me? Seek the physician together with me. So S. Ambrose: Behold, that by the holy Ghost sins are forgiven. But men to the remission of sins bring their ministry, they exercise not the authority of any power. S. Chrysostom, though he make this to be the exercise of a great power (which also he elsewhere amplifieth, after his manner, exceeding hyperbolically) yet in the main matter accordeth fully with S. Ambrose ; that it lieth in God alone to bestow the things wherein the Priests service is employed. And what speak I of Priests? saith he. Neither Angel nor Archangel can do ought in those things which are given by God: but the Father and the Son and the holy Ghost do dispense all. The Priest lendeth his tongue, and putteth too his hand. His part only is to open his mouth: but it is God that worketh all. And the reasons whereby both he, and Theophylact after him, do prove that the Priests of the law had no power to forgive sins; are of as great force to take the same power from the ministers of the Gospel. first, because it is God's part only to forgive sins. secondly, because the Priests were servants, yea servants of sin, and therefore had no power to forgive sins unto others: but the Son is the Lord of the house; who was manifested to take away our sins, and in him is no sin, saith S. John. upon which saying of his, S. Augustine giveth this good note: It is he in whom there is no sin, that came to take away sin. For if there had been sin in him too, it must have been taken away from him, he could not take it away himself.

To forgive sins therefore being thus proper to God only and to his Christ: his ministers must not be held to have this power communicated unto them, but in an improper sense; namely because God forgiveth by them; and hath appointed them both to apply those means by which he useth to forgive sins, and to give notice unto repentant sinners of that forgiveness. For who can forgive sins but God alone? yet doth he forgive by them also, unto whom he hath given power to forgive: saith S. Ambrose, and his followers. And though it be the proper work of God to remit sins, (saith Ferus:) yet are the Apostles (and their successors) said to remit also, not simply, but because they apply those means whereby God doth remit sins. Which means are, the Word of God and the Sacraments. Whereunto also we may add, the relaxation of the Censures of the Church, and Prayer ▪ for in thes • four the whole exercise of this ministry of reconciliation (as the Apostle calleth it) doth mainly consist. of each whereof it is needful that we should speak somewhat more particularly.

That Prayer is a means ordained by God for procuring remission of sins, is plain by that of S. James. The prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed: for the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. The later of which sentences hath reference to the prayers of every good Christian, whereunto we find a gracious promise annexed, according to that of S. John. If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. But the former, as the verse immediately going before doth manifestly prove, pertaineth to the prayers made by the ministers of the Church; who have a special charge to be the Lord's remembrancers for the good of his people. And therefore, as S. Augustine out the later proveth, that one brother by this means may cleanse another from the contagion of sin: so doth S. Chrysostom out of the former, that Priests do perform this, not by teaching only and admonishing, but by assisting us also with their prayers. and the faithful prayers, both of the one and of the other, are by S. Augustine made the especial means whereby the power of the keys is exercised in the remitting of sins: who thereupon exhorteth offenders to show their repentance publicly in the Church, that the Church might pray for them, and impart the benefit of absolution unto them.

In the life of S Basil, fathered upon Amphilochius, (of the credit whereof we have before spoken) a certain gentlewoman is brought in, coming unto S. Basil for obtaining remission of her sins: who is said there to have demanded this question of her. Hast thou heard, ô woman, that none can forgive sins but God alone? and she to have returned him this answer. I have heard it, Father: and therefore have I moved thee to make intercession unto our most merciful God for me. Which agreeth well with that which Alexander of Hales and Bonaventure do maintain: that the power of the keys extend to the remission of faults, by way of intercession only and deprecation, not by imparting any immediate absolution. And as in our private forgiving and praying one for another, S. Augustine well noteth, that it is our part, God giving us the grace, to use the ministry of charity and humility; but it is his, to hear us, and to cleanse us from all pollution of sins for Christ, and in Christ; that what we forgive unto others, that is to say, what we loose upon earth, may be loosed also in heaven: so doth S. Ambrose show that the case also standeth with the ministers of the Gospel, in the execution of that commission given unto them for the remitting of sins, John. 20.23. They make request, (saith he) the Godhead bestoweth the gift: for the service is done by man, but the bounty is from the power above. The reason which he rendereth thereof, is, because in their ministry it is the holy Ghost that forgiveth the sin; and it is God only that can give the holy Ghost. For this is not an human work (saith he in another place) neither is the holy Ghost given by man, but being called upon by the Priest, is bestowed by God: wherein the gift is God's, the ministry is the Priests. For if the Apostle Paul did judge, that he could not confer the h • lie Ghost by his authority; but believed himself to be so far unable for this office, that he wished we might be filled with the spirit from God: who is so great as dare arrogate unto himself the bestowing of this gift? Therefore the Apostle did intimate his desire by prayer, he challenged no right by any authority: he wished to obtain it, he presumed not to command it. Thus far S. Ambrose of whom Paulinus writeth, that whensoever any penitents came unto him, the crimes which they confessed unto him he spake of to none, but to God alone unto whom he made intercession; leaving a good example to the Priests of succeeding ages, that they be rather intercessors for them unto God, than accusers unto men. The same also, and in the self same words, doth Jonah write of Eustachius, the scholar of Columbanus our famous country-man.

Hitherto appertaineth that sentence cited by Thomas Waldensis out of S. Jerome's exposition upon the Psalms: that voice of God cutteth off daily in everyone of us the flame of lust by confession and the grace of the holy Ghost, that is to say, by the prayer of the Priest maketh it to cease in us and that which before hath been alleged out of Leo ; of the confession offered first to God, and then to the Priest, who cometh as an intreater for the sins of the penitent. which he more fully expresseth in another epistle, affirming it to be very profitable and necessary, that the guilt of sins (or sinners) be loosed by the supplication of the Priest before the last day. See S. Gregory, in his moral exposition upon 1. Sam. 2.25. Anastasius Sinaita or Nicaenus, in his answer to the 141. question (of Gretsers edition:) and Nicolaus Cabasilas, in the 29. chapter of his exposition of the Liturgy: where he directly affirmeth, that remission of sins is given to the penitents by the prayer of the Priests. And therefore by the Order used of old in the Church of Rome, the Priest before he began his work, was required to use this prayer. O Lord God almighty, be merciful unto me a sinner, that I may worthily give thanks unto thee, who hast made me an unworthy one, for thy mercies sake, a minister of the Priestly office; and hast appointed me a poor and humble mediator, to pray and make intercession unto our Lord Jesus Christ, for sinners that return unto repentance. And therefore, O Lord the ruler, who wouldest have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, who doest not desire the death of a sinner, but that he may be reconciled and live: receive my prayer, which I pour forth before the face of thy mercy, for thy servants and handmaydes, who have fledd to repentance and to thy mercy.

Yea, in the days of Thomas Aquinas there arose a learned man among the Papists themselves, who found fault with that indicative form of absolution then used by the Priest, I absolve thee from all thy sins, and would have it delivered by way of deprecation. alleging, that this was not only the opinion of Gulielmus Altisiodorensis, Gulielmus Parisiensis, and Hugo Cardinalis ; but also that thirty years were scarce passed, since all did use this form only, Absolutionem & remissionem tribuat tibi omnipotence Deus, Almighty God give unto thee absolution and forgiveness. What Thomas doth answer hereunto, may be seen in his little treatise of the form of absolution, which upon this occasion he wrote unto the General of his order. This only will I add, that as well in the ancient Ritualls and in the new Pontifical of the Church of Rome, as in the present practice of the Greek Church, I find the absolution expressed in the third person, as attributed wholly to God, and not in the first, as if it came from the Priest himself. One ancient form of Absolution used among the Latins, was this. Almighty God be merciful unto thee, and forgive thee all thy sins, past, present, and to come, visible and invisible, which thou hast committed before him and his Saints, which thou hast confessed or by some negligence or forgetfulness or evil will hast concealed: God deliver thee from all evil, here and hereafter, preserve and confirm thee always in every good work; and Christ the son of the living God bring thee unto the life which remaineth without end: And so among the Grecians: whatsoever sins the penitent for forgetfulness or shamefastness doth leave unconfessed, we pray the merciful and most pitiful God that those also may be pardoned unto him, and we are persuaded that he shall receive pardon of them from God ; saith Jeremiah the late Patriarch of Constantinople. Where by the way you may observe, no such necessity to be here held of confessing every known sin unto a Priest, that if either for shame or for some other respect the penitent do not make an entire confession, but conceal somewhat from the notice of his ghostly father; his confession should thereby be made void, and he excluded from all hope of forgiveness. which is that engine, whereby the Priests of Rome have lift up themselves into that height of domineering and tyrannizing over men's conscience, wherewith we see they now hold the poor people in most miserable awe.

Alexander of Hales and Bonaventure in the form of absolution used in their time, observe that prayer was premised in the optative, and absolution adjoined afterward in the indicative mood. whence they gather, that the Priests prayer obtayneth grace, his absolution presupposeth it: that by the former he ascendeth unto God and procureth pardon for the fault, by the later he descendeth to the sinner and reconcileth him to the Church. for although a man be loosed before God, (saith the Master of the Sentences) yet is he not held loosed in the face of the Church but by the judgment of the Priest. And this loosing of men by the judgment of the Priest, is by the Fathers generally accounted nothing else but a restoring of them to the peace of the Church, and an admitting of them to the Lord's table again: which therefore they usually express by the terms of bringing them to the communion, reconciling them to or with the communion, restoring the communion to them, admitting them to fellowship, granting them peace, &c. Neither do we find that they did ever use any such formal absolution as this, I absolve thee from all thy sins: wherein our Popish Priests notwithstanding do place the very form of their late devised sacrament of Penance, nay hold it to be so absolute a form, that (according to Thomas Aquinas his new divinity) it would not be sufficient to say, Almighty God have mercy upon thee, or, God grant unto thee absolution and forgiveness. because, forsooth, the Priest by these words doth not signify that the absolution is done, but entreateth that it may be done. which how it will accord with the Roman Pontifical, where the form of Absolution is laid down prayer-wise, the Jesuits who follow Thomas may do well to consider.

I pass this over, that in the days not only of S. Cyprian but of Alcuinus also (who lived 800. years after Christ) the reconciliation of Penitents was not held to be such a proper office of the Priest; but that a Deacon, in his absence, was allowed to perform the same. The ordinary course that was held herein, according to the form of the ancient Canons, is thus laid down by the fathers of the third Council of Toledo. that the Priest should first suspend him that repented of his fault from the communion, and make him to have often recourse unto imposition of hands among the rest of the penitents: then, when he had fulfilled the time of his satisfaction, as the consideration of the Priest did approve of it, he should restore him to the communion. And this was a Constitution of old fathered upon the Apostles: that Bishops should separate those who said they repented of their sins, for a time determined according to the proportion of their sin; and afterward receive them being penitent, as fathers would do their children. To this Penitential excommunication and absolution, belongeth that saying either of S. Ambrose or S. Augustine (for the same discourse is attributed to them both:) He who hath truly performed his repentance, and is loosed from that bond wherewith he was tied, and separated from the body of Christ, and doth live well after his repentance: whensoever after his reconciliation he shall depart this life, he goeth to the Lord, he goeth to rest, he shall not be deprived of the kingdom of God, and from the people of the Devil he shall be separated. and that which we read in Anastasius Sinaita: Bind him, and till thou hast appeased God, do not let him loose; that he be not more bound with the wrath of God. for if thou bindest him not; there remain bonds for him that cannot be broken. Neither do we inquire, whither the wound were often bound; but whither the binding hath profited. If it have profited, although in a short time, use it no longer. Let the measure of the loosing, be the profit of him that is bound. and that exhortation which another maketh unto the Pastors of the Church: Bind with separation such as have sinned after baptism; and loose them again when they have repented, receiving them as brethren. for the saying is true: Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven.

That this authority of loosing remaineth still in the Church, we constantly maintain against the heresy of the Montanists and Novatians, who (upon this pretence among others, that God only had power to remit sins) took away the ministerial power of reconciling such penitents as had committed heinous sins; denying that the Church had any warrant to receive them to her communion again, and to the participation of the holy mysteries, notwithstanding their repentance were ever so sound. Which is directly contrary to the doctrine delivered by S. Paul, both in the general; that if a man be overtaken in a fault, they who are spiritual should restore such a one in the spirit of meekness: and in the particular of the incestuous Corinthian, who though he had been excommunicated for such a crime as was not so much as named amongst the Gentiles ; yet upon his repentance the Apostle telleth the Church, that they ought to forgive him and comfort him, lest he should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Where that speech of his is specially noted and pressed against the heretics by S. Ambrose: To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes I forgave it, in the person of Christ. For as in the name, and by the power of our Lord Jesus, such a one was delivered to Satan; so God having given unto him repentance, to recover himself out of the snare of the Devil, in the same name and in the same power was he to be restored again: the ministers of reconciliation standing in Christ's stead, and Christ himself being in the mids of them that are thus gathered together in his name, to bind or loose in heaven, whatsoever they according to his commission shall bind or loose on earth. And here it is to be noted, that Anastasius (by some called Nicaenus, by others Sinaita and Antiochenus) who is so eager against them which say that Confession made unto men profiteth nothing at all; confesseth yet, that the minister in hearing the confession and instructing and correcting the sinner, doth but give furtherance only thereby unto his repentance, but that the pardoning of the sin is the proper work of God. For man (saith he) cooperateth with man unto repentance, and ministereth, and buildeth, and instructeth, and reproveth, in things belonging unto salvation, (according to the Apostle, and the Prophet:) but God blotteth out the sins of those that have confessed, saying; I am he that blotteth out thine iniquities for mine own sake, and thy sins, and will not remember them.

There followeth now another part of the ministry of reconciliation, consisting in the due administration of the Sacraments: which being the proper seals of the promises of the Gospel (as the Censures are of the threats) must therefore necessarily also have reference to the remission of sins. And so we see, the ancient Fathers do hold, that the commission, John. 20.23. Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, &c. is executed by the ministers of Christ, as well in the conferring of Baptism, as in the reconciling of Penitents: yet so in both these, and in all the sacraments likewise of both the Testaments, that the ministry only is to be accounted man's, but the power God's. For, as S. Augustine well observeth, it is one thing to baptize by way of ministry, another thing to baptize by way of power: the power of baptizing the Lord retayneth to himself, the ministry he hath given to his servants: the power of the Lord's Baptism was to pass from the Lord to no man, but the ministry was; the power was to be transferred from the Lord unto none of his ministers, the ministry was both unto the good and unto the bad. And the reason which he assigneth hereof is very good: that the hope of the baptized might be in him, by whom they did acknowledge themselves to have been baptized. The Lord therefore would not have a servant to put his hope in a servant. And therefore those Schoolmen argued not much amiss, that gathered this conclusion thence. It is a matter of equal power to baptize inwardly, and to absolve from mortal sin. But it was not fit, that God should communicate the power of baptizing inwardly unto any; lest our hope should be reposed in man. Therefore by the same reason it was not fit, that he should communicate the power of absolving from actual sin unto any. So Bernard, or whosoever was the author of the book entitled Scala Paradisi: The office of baptizing the Lord granted unto many, but the power and authority of remitting sins in baptism he retained unto himself alone. whence John by way of singularity and differencing said of him; He it is which baptizeth with the holy Ghost. And the Baptist indeed doth make a singular difference betwixt the conferrer of the external and the internal baptism, in saying: I baptize with water, but it is he which baptizeth with the holy Ghost. While John did his service, God did give, who faileth not in giving: and now when all others do their service, the service is man's, but the gift is God's ; saith Optatus. and Arnaldus Bonaevallensis (the author of the twelve treatises de Cardinalibus operibus Christi, falsely ascribed to S. Cyprian: ) touching the Sacraments in general: Forgiveness of sins, whether it be given by Baptism or by other sacraments, is properly of the holy Ghost; and the privilege of effecting this remaineth to him alone.

But the word of reconciliation is it, wherein the Apostle doth especially place that ministry of reconciliation, which the Lord hath committed to his Ambassadors here upon earth. This is that key of knowledge: which doth both open the conscience to the confession of sin, and include therein the grace of the healthful mystery unto eternity ; as Maximus Taurinensis speaketh of it. This is that powerful means, which God hath sanctified for the washing away of the pollution of our souls. Now ye are clean (saith our Savior to his Apostles) through the word which I have spoken unto you. And whereas every transgressor is holden with the cords of his own sins: the Apostles, according to the commission given unto them by their Master, that whatsoever they should loose on earth should be loosed in heaven, did loose those cords by the word of God, and the testimonies of the Scriptures, and exhortation unto virtues. as saith S. Jerome: Thus likewise doth S. Ambrose note, that sins are remitted by the word of God, whereof the Levite was an interpreter and a kind of an executer: & in that respect concludeth, that the Levite was a minister of this remission. As the Jewish Scribes therefore, by taking away the key of knowledge, did shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: so every Scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, by opening unto his hearers the door of faith, doth as it were unlock that kingdom unto them; being the instrument of God herein to open men's eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith in Christ. And here are we to understand, that the ministers of Christ, by applying the word of God unto the consciences of men both in public and in private, do discharge that part of their function which concerneth forgiveness of sins, partly operatively, partly declaratively. Operatively: inasmuch as God is pleased to use their preaching of the Gospel as a means of conferring his spirit upon the sons of men, of begetting them in Christ, and of working faith and repentance in them; whereby the remission of sins is obtained. Thus John preaching the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and teaching the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus ; is said to turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, by giving knowledge of salvation to God's people, unto the remission of their sins. Not because he had properly any power given him to turn men's hearts, and to work faith and repentance for forgiveness of sins when and where he thought good: but because he was trusted with the ministry of the word of God's grace, which is able to convert and quicken men's souls, and to give them an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. by the powerful application of which word, he who converteth the sinner from the error of his way, is said to save a soul from death, and to hide a multitude of sins. For howsoever in true propriety, the covering of sins, the saving from death, and turning of men from their iniquities, is a privilege peculiar to the Lord our God; unto whom alone it appertaineth to reconcile the world to himself▪ by not imputing their sins unto them: yet inasmuch as he hath committed unto his ambassadors the word of reconciliation, they in performing that work of their ministry, may be as rightly said to be employed in reconciling men unto God, and procuring remission of their sins; as they are said to deliver a man from going down into the pit, when they declare unto him his righteousness, and to save their hearers, when they preach unto them the Gospel, by which they are saved.

For as the word it self which they speak, is said to be their word, which yet is in truth the word of God: so the work which is effectually wrought by that word in them that believe, is said to be their work, though in truth it be the proper work of God. And as they that believe by their word, are said to be their Epistle, 2. Cor. 3.2. that is to say, the Epistle of Christ ministered by them (as it is expounded in the verse following:) in like manner, forgiveness of sins and those other great graces that appertain to the believers, may be said to be their work, that is to say, the work of Christ ministered by them. For in very deed (as Optatus speaketh in the matter of Baptism) not the minister, but the faith of the believer and the Trinity do bring these things unto every man. And where the preaching of the Gospel doth prove the power of God unto salvation ; only the weakness of the external ministry must be ascribed to men, but the excellency of the power must ever be acknowledged to be of God, and not of them: neither he that planteth, being here anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase. For howsoever in respect of the former, such as take pains in the Lord's husbandry may be accounted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Apostle termeth them, laborers together with God (though that little piece of service it self also be not performed by their own strength, but according to the grace of God which is given unto them:) yet that which followeth, of giving the increase, God effecteth not by them, but by himself. This (saith S. Augustine) exceedeth the lowliness of man, this exceedeth the sublimity of Angels, neither appertaineth unto any but unto the husbandman the Trinity.

Now as the Spirit of God doth not only woe • ke diversities of graces in us, distributing to every man severally as he will ; but also maketh us to know the things that are freely given to us of God: so the ministers of the New Testament, being made able ministers of the same spirit, are not only ordained to be God's instruments to work faith and repentance in men, for the obtaining of remission of sins, but also to declare God's pleasure unto such as believe and repent, and in his name to certify them and give assurance to their consciences that their sins are forgiven. they having received this ministry of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of God ; and so by their function being appointed to be witnesses rather then conferrers of that grace. For it is here with them in the loosing part, as it is in the binding part of their ministry; where they are brought in, like unto those seven Angels in the book of the Revelation, which pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth ; having vengeance ready against all disobedience, and a charge from God, to cast men out of his sig • t: not because they are properly the avengers (for that title God challengeth unto himself) or that vengeance did any way appertain unto them (for it is written: Vengeance is mine, I will repay; saith the Lord ) but because they were the denouncers, not the inflicters of this vengeance. So though it be the Lord that speaketh concerning a nation, to pluck up and to pull down and to destroy, or on the other side, to build and to plant it; yet he in whose mouth God put those words of his, is said to be set by him over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build and to plant: as if he himself were a doer of those great matters, who was only ordained to be a Prophet unto the nations, to speak the things unto them which God had commanded him. Thus likewise in the thirteenth of Leviticus, where the Laws are set down that concern the leprosy, which was a type of the pollution of sin, we meet often with these speeches, The Priest shall cleanse him, and, The Priest shall pollute him, and in the 44. verse, The Priest with pollution shall pollute him: not (saith S. Jerome) that he is the author of the pollution, but that he declareth him to be polluted, who before did seem unto many to have been clean. Whereupon the Master of the Sentences (following herein S. Jerome, and being afterwards therein followed himself by many others) observeth, that in remitting or retaining sins the Priests of the Gospel have that right and office, which the legal Priests had of old under the Law in curing of the lepers. These therefore (saith he) forgive sins or retain them, whiles they show and declare that they are forgiven or retained by God. For the Priests put the name of the Lord upon the children of Israel, but it was he himself that blessed them, as it is read in Numbers. The place that he hath referrence unto, is in the sixth chapter of that book, where the Priests are commanded to bless the people, by saying unto them, The Lord bless thee, &c. and then it followeth (in the last verse of that chapter:) So they shall put my Name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them.

Neither do we grant hereupon, (as the Adversarie falsely chargeth us) that a lay-man, yea or a woman, or a child, or any infidel, or the Devil (the Father of all calumniators and liars) or a Parrot likewise, if he be taught the words, may as well absolve as the Priest as if the speech were all the thing that here were to be considered, and not the power: where we are taught, that the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. Indeed if the Priests by their office brought nothing with them but the ministry of the bare letter, a Parrot peradventure might be taught to sound that letter as well as they: but we believe, that God hath made them able ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit. and that the Gospel ministered by them cometh unto us not in word only, but also in power, and in the holy Ghost, and in much assurance. For God hath added a special beauty to the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, that howsoever others may bring glad tidings of good things to the penitent sinner as truly as they do; yet neither can they do it with the same authority, neither is it to be expected that they should do it with such power, such assurance, and such full satisfaction to the afflicted conscience. The speech of every Christian (we know) should be employed to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers ; and a private brother in his place may deliver found doctrine, reprehend vice, exhort to righteousness, very commendably: yet hath the Lord notwithstanding all this, for the necessary use of his Church, appointed public officers to do the same things, and hath given unto them a peculiar power for edification, wherein they may boast above others; and in the due execution whereof God is pleased to make them instruments of ministering a more plentiful measure of grace unto their hearers, then may be ordinarily looked for from others. These men are appointed to be of God's high commission, and therefore they may speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority · they are God's Angels and Ambassadors for Christ, and therefore in delivering their message are to be received as an Angel of God, yea as Christ Jesus. that look how the Prophet Isaiah was comforted, when the Angel said unto him, Thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged ; and the poor woman in the Gospel, when Jesus said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven: the like consolation doth the distressed sinner receive from the mouth of the Minister, when he hath compared the truth of God's word faithfully delivered by him, with the work of God's grace in his own heart. according to that of Elihu: If there be an Angel or a messenger with him, an Interpreter, one of a thousand, to declare unto man his righteousness; then will God have mercy upon him and say, Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have received a reconciliation. For as it is the office of this messenger and interpreter, to pray us in Christ's stead, that we would be reconciled to God: so when we have listened unto this motion, and submitted ourselves to the Gospel of peace, it is a part of his office likewise to declare unto us in Christ's stead, that we are reconciled to God: and in him Christ himself must be acknowledged to speak, who to us ward by this means is not weak, but is mighty in us.

But our new Masters will not content themselves with such a ministerial power of forgiving sins as hath been spoken of; unless we yield that they have authority so to do properly, directly, and absolutely: that is, unless we acknowledge that their high Priest sitteth in the Temple of God as God, and all his creatures as so many demi-gods under him. For we must say (if we will be drunk with the drunken) that in this high Priest there is the fullness of all graces; because he alone giveth a full indulgence of all sins: that this may agree unto him, which we say of the chief prince our Lord, that of his fullness all we have received. Nay we must acknowledge, that the meanest in the whole army of Priests that followeth this king of pride, hath such fullness of power derived unto him for the opening and shutting of heaven before men: that forgiveness is denied to them, whom the Priest will not forgive ; and his Absolution on the other side is a sacramental act, which conferreth grace by the work wrought, that is, (as they expound it) actively, and immediately, and instrumentally effecteth the grace of justification in such as receive it. that as the wind doth extinguish the fire, and dispel the clouds; so doth the Priests absolution scatter sins, and make them to vanish away: the sinner being thereby immediately acquitted before God, howsoever that sound conversion of heart be wanting in him, which otherwise would be requisite. for a conditional Absolution, upon such terms as these, If thou doest believe and repent as thou oughtest to do, is (in these men's judgment) to no purpose, and can give no security to the penitent; seeing it dependeth upon an uncertain condition. Have we not then just cause to say unto them, as Optatus did unto the Donatists: Nolite vobis Majestatis dominium vendicare? Intrude not upon the royal prerogative of our Lord and Master. No man may challenge this absolute power of the keys, but he that hath the key of David, that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth ; he to whom the Father hath given power over all flesh, yea all power in heaven and in earth ; even the eternal Son of God, who hath in his hands the keys of death, and is able to quicken whom he will.

The Ministers of the Gospel may not meddle with the matter of soveraignetie, and think that they have power to proclaim war or conclude peace betwixt God and man, according to their own discretion: they must remember, that they are Ambassadors for Christ, and therefore in this treaty are to proceed according to the instructions which they have received from their sovereign; which if they do transgress, they go beyond their commission, therein they do not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and their authority for so much is plainly void. The Bishop (saith S. Gregory, and the Fathers in the Council of Aquisgran following him) in loosing and binding those that are under his charge, doth follow oftentimes the motions of his own will, and not the merit of the causes. Whence it cometh to pass, that he depriveth himself of this power of binding and loosing, who doth exercise the same according to his own will, and not according to the manners of them which be subject unto him. that is to say, he maketh himself worthy to be deprived of that power, which he hath thus abused; (as the Master of the Sentences and Semeca in his Gloss upon Gratian, would have S. Gregory's meaning to be expounded) and pro tanto (as hath been said) actually voideth himself of this power, this unrighteous judgment of his given upon earth, being no ways ratified, but absolutely disanulled in the court of heaven. For he who by his office is appointed to be a minister of the word of truth, hath no power given him to do anything against the truth, but for the truth: neither is it to be imagined, that the sentence of man, who is subject to deceive and be deceived, should any ways prejudice the sentence of God, whose judgment we know to be always according to the truth. Therefore doth Pacianus, in the end of his first epistle to Sympronianus the Novatian, show that at that time, absolution was not so easily given unto penitents, as now a days it is: but with great pondering of the matter and with great deliberation, after many sighs and shedding of tears, after the prayers of the whole Church, pardon was so not denied unto tr • e repentance, that Christ being to judge, no man should prejudge him. and a little before, speaking of the Bishop by whose ministry this was done: He shall give an account (saith he) if he have done anything amiss, or if he have judged corruptly and wickedly. Neither is there any prejudice done unto God, whereby he might not undo the works of this evil builder: but in the mean time, if that administration of his be godly, he continueth a helper of the works of God. Wherein he doth but tread in the steps of S. Cyprian, who at the first rising of the Novatian heresy, wrote in the same manner unto Antonianus. We do not prejudice the Lord that is to judge, but that he, if he find the repentance of the sinner to be full and just, he may then ratify that which shall be here ordained by us: but if any one do deceive us with the semblance of repentance, God (who is not mocked, and who beholdeth the heart of man) may judge of those things which we did not well discern, and the Lord may amend the sentence of the servants.

Hereupon S. Jerome, expounding those words, Daniel 4.24. It may be God will pardon thy sins ; reproveth those men of great rashness, that are so peremptory and absolute in their absolutions. When blessed Daniel (saith he) who knew things to come, doth doubt of the sentence of God: they do a rash deed, that boldly promise pardon unto sinners. S. Basil also resolveth us, that the power of forgiving is not given absolutely; but upon the obedience of the penitent, and his consent with him that hath the care of his soul. For it is in loosing, as it is in binding. Thou hast begun to esteem thy brother as a publican, (saith S. Augustine:) thou bindest him upon earth. But look that thou bindest him justly. For unjust bonds justice doth break. So when the Priest saith, I absolve thee: Maldonado confesseth, that he meaneth no more thereby but, As much as in me lieth, I absolve thee: and Suarez acknowledgeth, that it implicity includeth this condition, Unless the receiver put some impediment ; for which he alledgeth the authority of Hugo de S. Victore, lib. 2. de Sacramentis, pa. 14. s. 8. affirming, that this form doth rather signify the power and virtue, then the event of the absolution. And therefore doth the Master of the Sentences rightly observe, that God doth not evermore follow the judgment of the Church: which sometimes judgeth by surreption and ignorance; whereas God doth always judge according to the truth. So the Priests sometime declare men to be loosed or bound, who are not so before God: with the penalty of satisfaction or excommunication they sometime bind such as are unworthy, or loose them; they admit them that be unworthy to the Sacraments, and put back them that be worthy to be admitted. That saying therefore of Christ must be understood to be verified in them (saith he) whose merits do require that they should be loosed or bound. For then is the sentence of the Priest approved and confirmed by the judgment of God and the whole court of heaven, when it doth proceed with that discretion, that the merits of them who be dealt withal do not contradict the same. Whomsoever therefore they do loose or bind, using the key of discretion according to the parties merits, they are loosed or bound in heaven, that is to say, with God: because the sentence of the Priest proceeding in this manner, is approved and confirmed by divine judgment. Thus far the Master of the Sentences: who is followed herein by the rest of the Schoolmen; who generally agree, that the power of binding and loosing committed to the Ministers of the Church, is not absolute, but must be limited with Clave non errante, as being then only of force when matters are carried with right judgment, and no error is committed in the use of the keys.

Our Savior therefore must still have the privilege reserved unto him, of being the absolute Lord over his own house: it is sufficient for his officers, that they be esteemed as Moses was, faithful in all his house as servants. The place wherein they serve, is a Stewards place: and the Apostle telleth them, that it is required in Stewards, that the man be found faithful. They may not therefore carry themselves in their office, as the unjust steward did, and presume to strike out their Masters debt without his direction, and contrary to his liking. Now we know that our Lord hath given no authority unto his stewards, to grant an acquittance unto any of his debtors, that bring not unfayned faith and repentance with them. Neither Angel nor Archangel can, neither yet the Lord himself, (who alone can say; I am with you) when we have sinned, doth release us, unless we bring repentance with us: saith S. Ambrose. and Eligius Bishop of Noyon, in his Sermon unto the Penitents: Before all things it is necessary you should know, that howsoever you desire to receive the imposition of our hands; yet you cannot obtain the absolution of your sins, before the divine piety shall vouchsafe to absolve you by the grace of compunction. To think therefore that it lieth in the power of any Priest truly to absolve a man from his sins, without implying the condition of his believing and repenting as he ought to do ; is both presumption and madness in the highest degree. Neither dareth Cardinal Bellarmine, who censureth this conditional absolution in us for idle and superfluous, when he hath considered better of the matter, assume unto himself, or communicate unto his brethren, the power of giving an absolute one. For he is driven to confess with other of his fellows, that when the Priest saith, I absolve thee, he doth not affirm that he doth absolve absolutely; as not being ignorant, that it may many ways come to pass that he doth not absolve, although he pronounce those words: namely if he who seemeth to receive this Sacrament (for so they call it) peradventure hath no intention to receive it, or is not rightly disposed, or putteth some block in the way. Therefore the Minister (saith he) signifieth nothing else by those words, but that he, as much as in him lieth, conferreth the sacrament of reconciliation or absolution, which in a man rightly disposed hath virtue to forgive all his sins.

Now that Contrition is at all times necessarily required for obtaining remission of sins and justification, is a matter determined by the Fathers of Trent. But mark yet the mystery. They equivocate with us in the term of Contrition: and make a distinction thereof into perfect and imperfect. The former of these is Contrition properly: the latter they call Attrition. which howsoever in it self it be not true Contrition, yet when the Priest with his power of forgiving sins interposeth himself in the business, they tell us that attrition by virtue of the keys is made contrition: that is to say, that a sorrow arising from a servile fear of punishment, and such a fruitless repentance as the reprobate may carry with them to hell, by virtue of the Priests absolution is made so fruitful, that it shall serve the turn for obtaining forgiveness of sins; as if it had been that godly sorrow which worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of. By which spiritual coosenage, many poor souls are most miserably deluded, while they persuade themselves that upon the receipt of the Priests acquittance upon this carnal sorrow of theirs, all skores are cleared until that day: and then beginning upon a new reckoning, they sin and confess, confess and sin afresh, and tread this round so long till they put off all thought of saving repentance; and so the blind following the blind, both at last fall into the pit.

Evil and wicked, carnal, natural, and devilish men (saith S. Augustine) imagine those things to be given unto them by their seducers, which are only the gifts of God, whether sacraments, or any other spiritual works, concerning their present salvation. But such as are thus seduced, may do well to listen a little to this grave admonition of S. Cyprian. Let no man deceive, let no man beguile himself: it is the Lord alone that can show mercy. He alone can grant pardon to the sins committed against him, who did himself bear our sins, who suffered grief for us, whom God did deliver for our sins. Man cannot be greater then God; neither can the servant by his indulgence remit or pardon that which by heinous trespass is committed against the Lord: lest to him that is fallen this yet be added as a further crime, if he be ignorant of that which is said; Cursed is the man that putteth his trust in man. Whereupon S. Augustine sticketh not to say, that good ministers do consider that they are but ministers, they would not be held for Judges, they abhor that any trust should be put in them: and that the power of remitting and retaining sins is committed unto the Church, to be dispensed therein, not according to the arbitrement of man, but according to the arbitrement of God. Whereas our adversaries lay the foundation of their Babel upon another ground: that Christ hath appointed Priests to be Judges upon earth with such power, that none falling into sin after Baptism may be reconciled without their sentence ; and hath put the authority of binding and loosing, of forgiving and retaining the sins of men, in their arbitrement.

Whether the Ministers of the Gospel may be accounted Judges in some sort, we will not much contend: for we dislike neither that saying of S. Jerome, that having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, they judge after a sort before the day of judgment ; nor that other of S. Gregory, that the Apostles, & such as succeed them in the government of the Church, obtain a principality of judgment from above, that they may in God's stead retain the sins of some, and release the sins of others. All the question is, in what sort they do judge, and whether the validity of their judgment do depend upon the truth of the conversion of the penitent: wherein if our Romanists would stand to the judgment of S. Jerome or S. Gregory (one of whom they make a Cardinal, and the other a Pope of their own Church) the controversy betwixt us would quickly be at an end. For S. Jerome, expounding that speech of our Savior, touching the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the sixteenth of S. Matthew; The Bishops and Priests, saith he, not understanding this place, assume to themselves somewhat of the Pharisees arrogancy: as imagining, that they may either condemn the innocent, or absolve the guilty; whereas it is not the sentence of the Priests, but the life of the parties that is inquired of with God. In the book of Leviticus we read of the Lepers, where they are commanded to show themselves to the Priests, and if they shall have the leprosy, that then they shall be made unclean by the Priest. not that the Priests should make them leprous and unclean, but that they should take notice who was a leper and who was not, and should discern who was clean and who unclean. Therefore as there the Priest doth make the leper clean or unclean; so here the Bishop or Priest doth bind or loose: not bind the innocent, or loose the guilty; but when according to his office he heareth the variety of sins, he knoweth who is to be bound and who to be loosed. Thus far S. Jerome.

S. Gregory likewise in the very same place from whence the Romanists fetch that former sentence, doth thus declare in what manner that principality of judgment, which he spake of, should be exercised: being therein also followed step by step, by the Fathers of the Council of Aquisgran. The causes ought to be weighed, and then the power of binding and loosing exercised. It is to be seen, what the fault is, and what the repentance is that hath followed after the fault: that such as almighty God doth visit with the grace of compunction, those the sentence of the Pastor may absolve. For the absolution of the Prelate is then true, when it followeth the arbitrement of the eternal Judge. And this do they illustrate by that which we read in the Gospel of the raising of Lazarus, John. 11.44. that Christ did first of all give life to him that was dead by himself, and then commanded others to loose him, and let him go. Behold (say they) the disciples do loose him being now alive; whom their Master had raised up being dead. For if the disciples had loosed Lazarus being dead: they should have discovered a stinche more then a virtue. By which consideration we may see: that by our Pastoral authority we ought to loose those, whom we know that our Author and Lord hath revived with his quickening grace. The same application also do we find made, not only by Peter Lombard, and other of the Schoolmen, but also by Iudocus Clichtoveus, not long before the time of the Council of Trent. Lazarus (saith Clichtoveus) first of all came forth alive out of the sepulcher, and then was commandment given by our Lord that he should be loosed by the disciples and suffered to go his way: because the Lord doth first inwardly by himself quicken the sinner, and afterwards absolveth him by the Priests ministry. For no sinner is to be absolved, before it appeareth that he be amended by due repentance, and be quickened inwardly. But inwardly to quicken the sinner, is the office of God alone, who saith by the Prophet: I am he that blotteth out your iniquities.

The truth therefore of the Priests absolution, dependeth upon the truth and sincerity of God's quickening grace in the heart of the Penitent: which if it be wanting, all the absolutions in the world will stand him in no stead. For example, our Savior saith: If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but, if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. and in this respect (as is observed by Sedulius) in other men's persons we are either absolved or bound:

Suppose now, that a man who cannot find in his heart to forgive the wrong done unto him by another, is absolved here by the Priest from all his sins (according to the usual form of Absolution:) are we to think that what is thus loosed upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven? and that Christ, to make the Priests word true, will make his own false? And what we say of charity toward man, must much more be understood of the love of God and the love of righteousness: the defect whereof is not to be supplied by the absolution of any Priest. It hath been always observed for a special difference betwixt good and bad men, that the one hated sin for the love of virtue, the other only for the fear of punishment. The like difference do our Adve • saries make betwixt Contrition and Attrition: that the hatred of sin, in the one proceedeth from the love of God and of righteousness; in the other, from the fear of punishment. and yet teach for all this, that Attrition (which they confess would not otherwise suffice to justify a man) being joined with the Priests Absolution, is sufficient for that purpose: he that was attrite being by virtue of this Absolution made contrite, and justified, that is to say, he that was led only by a servile fear, and consequently was to be rancked among disordered and evil persons, being by this means put in as good case for the matter of the forgiveness of his sins, as he that loveth God sincerely. For they themselves do grant, that such as have this servile fear, from whence Attrition issueth, are to be accounted evil and disordered men, by reason of their want of charity: to which purpose also they allege that saying of Gregory, Recti diligunt te, non recti adhuc timent te. Such as be righteous love thee, such as be not right • ous as yet fear thee.

But they have taken an order notwithstanding, that non recti shall stand recti in curiâ with them: by assuming a strange authority unto themselves of justifying the wicked (a thing, we know, that hath the curse of God and man threatened unto it) & making men friends with God, that have not the love of God dwelling in them. For although we be taught by the word of God, that perfect love casteth out fear ; that we have not received the spirit of bondage to fear again, but the spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba, father ; that mount Sinai (which maketh those that come unto it to fear and quake ) engendereth to bondage, and is to be cast out with her children, from inheriting the promise; & that without love, both we ourselves are nothing, and all that we have doth profit us nothing: yet these wonderful men would have us believe, that by their word alone they are able to make something of this nothing; that fear without love shall make men capable of the benefit of their pardon, as well as love without fear; that whether men come by the way of mount Sinai or mount Zion, whether they have Legal or Evangelical repentance, they have authority to absolve them from all their sins. as if it did lie in their power, to confound God's Testaments at their pleasure, and to give unto a servile fear not the benefit of manumission only, but the privilege of adoption also; by making the children of the bondwoman children of the promise, and giving them a portion in that blessed inheritance together with the children of her that is free.

Repentance from dead works, is one of the foundations and principles of the doctrine of Christ. Nothing maketh repentance certain, but the hatred of sin, and the love of God. and without true repentance all the Priests under heaven are not able to give us a discharge from our sins, and deliver us from the wrath to come. Except ye be converted, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Except ye repent, ye shall all perish: is the Lord's saying in the New Testament. and in the old: Repent, and turn from all your transgressions: so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed, and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Now put case one cometh to his ghostly father, with such sorrow of mind as the terrors of a guilty conscience usually do produce, and with such a resolution to cast away his sins, as a man hath in a storm to cast away his goods, not because he doth not love them, but because he feareth to loose his life if he part not with them: doth not he betray this man's soul, who putteth into his head, that such an extorted repentance as this, which hath not one grain of love to season it withal, will qualify him sufficiently for the receiving of an absolution, by I know not what sacramental faculty that the Priest is furnished withal to that purpose? For all do confess with S. Augustine, that this fear which loveth not justice, but dreadeth punishment, is servile, because it is carnal, and therefore doth not crucify the flesh. For the willingness to sin liveth, which then appeareth in the work, when impunity is hoped for: but when it is believed that punishment will follow, it liveth closely, yet it liveth. For it would wish rather, that it were lawful to do that which the Law forbiddeth, and is sorry that it is not lawful: because it is not spiritually delighted with the good thereof, but carnally feareth the evil which it doth threaten. What man then, do we think, will take the pains to get him a new heart and a new spirit, and undertake the toilsome work of crucifying the flesh with the lusts thereof; if without all this ado, the Priests absolution can make that other imperfect or rather equivocal contrition, arising from a carnal and servile fear, to be sufficient for the blotting out of all his sins? Or are we not rather to think that this sacramental penance of the Papists is a device invented by the enemy to hoodwinke poor souls, and to divert them from seeking that true repentance which is only able to stand them instead? and that such as take upon them to help lame dogs over the style after this manner, by substituting quid pro quo, attrition instead of contrition, servile fear instead of filial love, carnal sorrow instead of godly repentance; are physicians of no value, nay such as minister poison unto men under color of providing a sovereign medicine for them? He therefore that will have care of his souls health, must consider, that much resteth here in the good choice of a skillful physician; but much more, in the pains that must be taken by the patient himself. For that everyone who beareth the name of a Priest, is not fit to be trusted with a matter of this moment; their own Decrees may give them fair warning, where this admonition is twice laid down, out of the author that wrote of true and false repentance. He who will confess his sins, that he may find grace, let him seek for a Priest that knoweth how to bind and loose: least, while he is negligent concerning himself, he be neglected by him who mercifully admonisheth and desireth him, that both fall not into the pit, which the fool would not avoid. And when the skillfullest Priest that is, hath done his best: S. Cyprian will tell them, that to him that repenteth, to him that worketh, to him that prayeth, the Lord of his mercy can grant a pardon; he can make good that which for such men either the Martyrs shall request or the Priest shall do.

If we inquire, who they were that first assumed unto themselves this exorbitant power of forgiving sins: we are like to find them in the Tents of the ancient heretics and schismatics; who promised unto others liberty, when they themselves were the servants of corruption. How many (saith S. Jerome) which have neither bread nor apparel, when they themselves are hungry and naked, and neither have spiritual meats, nor preserve the coat of Christ entire; yet promise unto others food and raiment, and being full of wounds themselves brag that they be physicians: and do not observe that of Moses, (Exod. 4.13.) Provide another whom thou mayest send; & that other commandment (Ecclesiastic. 7.6.) Do not seek to be made a Judge, lest peradventure thou be not able to take away iniquity. It is Jesus alone, who healeth all sicknesses and infirmities: of whom it is written, (Psalm. 147.4.) He healeth the contrite in heart, and bindeth up their soars. Thus far S. Jerome.

The Rhemists in their marginal note upon Luke 7.49. tell us, that as the Pharisees did always carp Christ for remission of sins in earth, so the Heretics reprehend his Church that remitteth sins by his authority. But S. Augustine treating upon the self same place, might have taught them, that hereby the bewrayed themselves to be the off spring of Heretics, rather then children of the Church. For whereas our Savior there had said unto the penitent woman, Thy sins are forgiven ; and they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? S. Augustine first compareth their knowledge and the knowledge of the woman thus together. She knew that he could forgive sins; but they knew that a man could not forgive sins. And we are to believe that all, that is, both they which sat at table, and the woman which came to our Lord's feet, they all knew that a man could not forgive sins. Seeing all therefore knew this, she who believed that he could forgive sins, understood him to be more then a man. and a little after: That do you know well, that do you hold well ; saith that learned Father. Hold, that a man cannot forgive sins. She who believed that her sins were forgiven her by Christ, believed that Christ was not only man, but God also. Then doth he proceed to compare the knowledge of the Jews then with the opinion of the Heretics in his days. Herein (saith he) the Pharisee was better then these men: for when he did think that Christ was a man, he did not believe that sins could be forgiven by a man. It appeared therefore that the Jews had better understanding then the Heretics. The Jews said; Who is this that forgiveth sins also? Dare a man challenge this to himself? What saith the Heretic on the other side? I do forgive, I do cleanse, I do sanctify. Let Christ answer him, not I: O man, when I was thought by the Jews to be a man, I ascribed the forgiveness of sins to faith. Not I, but Christ doth answer thee. O Heretic, Thou when thou art but a man sayest; Come woman, I do make the safe. I when I was thought to be but a man said; Go woman, thy faith hath made thee safe.

The Heretics at whom S. Augustine here aimeth, were the Donatists: whom Optatus also before him did thus roundly take up for the same presumption. Understand at length, that you are servants, and not Lord's. And if the Church be a vineyard, and men be appointed to be dressers of it: why do you rush into the dominion of the householder? Why do you challenge unto yourselves, that which is God's? Give leave unto God to perform the things that belong unto himself. For that gift cannot be given by man, which is divine. If you think so, you labor to frustrate the words of the Prophets, & the promises of God, by which it is proved that God washeth (away sin,) and not man. It is noted likewise by Theodoret, of the Audian heretics: that they bragged they did forgive sins. The manner of Confession which he saith was used among them, was not much unlike that which Alvarus Pelagius acknowledgeth to have been the usual practice of them that made greatest profession of religion and learning in his time. For scarce at all (saith he) or very seldom doth any of them confess otherwise then in general terms: scarce do they ever specify any grievous sin. What they say one day, that they say another, as if every day they did offend alike. The manner of Absolution was the same with that, which Theodoricus de Niem noteth to have been practiced by the pardoners sent abroad by Pope Boniface the ninth: who released all sins to them that confessed, without any penance (or repentance;) affirming that they had for their warrant in so doing, all that power which Christ gave unto Peter of binding and loosing upon earth. just as Theodoret reporteth the Audians were wont to do: who presently after confession granted remission; not prescribing a time for repentance, as the laws of the Church did require, but giving pardon by authority.

The laws of the Church prescribed a certain time unto Penitents, wherein they should give proof of the soundness of their repentance: and gave order that afterwards they should be forgiven and comforted, lest they should be swallowed up with overmuch heaviness. So that first their penance was enjoined unto them, and thereby they were held to be bound: after performance whereof they received their absolution, by which they were loosed again. But the Audian heretics, without any such trial taken of their repentance, did of their own heads give them absolution presently upon their confession: as the Popish Priests use to do now a days. Only the Audians had one ridiculous ceremony more then the Papists; that having placed the Canonical books of Scripture upon one side, and certain Apocryphal writings on the other, they caused their followers to pass betwixt them, and in their passing to make confession of their sins: as the Papists, another idle practice more then they; that after they have given absolution, they enjoin penance to the party absolved, that is to say, (as they of old would have interpreted it) they first loose him and presently after bind him. which howsoever they hold to be done in respect of the temporal punishment remaining due after the remission of the fault: yet it appeareth plainly, that the penitential works required in the ancient Church, had reference to the fault it self; and that no absolution was to be expected from the Minister for the one, before all reckonings were ended for the other. Only where the danger of death was imminent, the case admitted some exception: reconci • iation being not denied indeed unto them that desired it at such a time, yet so granted, that it was left very doubtful, whether it would stand the parties in any great stead or no. If any one being in the last extremity of his sickness, saith S. Augustine, is willing to receive penance, and • oth receive it, and is presently reconciled, and departeth hence: I confess unto you, we do not deny him that which he asketh, but we do not presume that he goeth well from hence. I do not presume, I deceive you not, I do not presume. He who putteth off his penance to the last, and is reconciled; whether he goeth secure from hence, I am not secure. Penance I can give him, security I cannot give him. Do I say, he shall be damned? I say not so. But do I say also, he shall be freed? No. What doest thou then say unto me? I know not: I presume not, I promise not, I know not. Wilt thou free thyself of the doubt? wilt thou escape that which is uncertain? Do thy penance while thou art in health. The penance which is asked for by the infirm man, is infirm. The penance which is asked for only by him that is a dying, I fear lest it also die.

But with the matter of penance we have not here to deal: those formal absolutions and pardons of course, immediately granted upon the hearing of men's confessions, is that which we charge the Romish Priests to have learned from the Audian heretics. Some require penance to this end, that they might presently have the communion restored unto them: these men desire, not so much to loose themselves, as to bind the Priest ; saith S. Ambrose. If this be true, that the Priest doth bind himself, by his hasty and unadvised loosing of others: the case is like to go hard with our Popish Priests, who ordinarily in bestowing their absolutions, use to make more hast then good speed. Wherein, with how little judgment they proceed, who thus take upon them the place of Judges in men's consciences, may sufficiently appear by this: that whereas the main ground, whereupon they would build the necessity of Auricular confession, and the particular enumeration of all known sins, is pretended to be this, that the ghostly Father having taken notice of the cause may judge righteous judgment, and discern who should be bound and who should be loosed, the matter yet is so carried in this court of theirs, that every man commonly goeth away with his absolution, and all sorts of people usually receive one and the self same judgment. If thou separate the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: saith the Lord. Whose mouth then may we hold them to be, who seldom put any difference between these, and make it their ordinary practice to pronounce the same sentence of absolution as well upon the one as upon the other?

If we would know, how late it was before this trade of pardoning men's sins after this manner was established in the Church of Rome: we cannot discover this better, then by tracing out the doctrine publicly taught in that Church touching this matter, from the time of Satan's loosing until his binding again by the restoring of the purity of the Gospel in our days. And here Radulphus Ardens doth in the first place offer himself: who toward the beginning of that time preached this for sound divinity. The power of releasing sins, belongeth to God alone. But the ministry (which improperly also is called a power) he hath granted unto his substitutes; who after their manner do bind and absolve, that is to say, do declare that men are bound or absolved. For God doth first inwardly absolve the sinner by compunction: and then the Priest outwardly by giving the sentence doth declare that he is absolved. Which is well signified by that of Lazarus: who first in the grave was raised up by the Lord, and afterward by the ministry of the disciples was loosed from the bands wherewith he was tied. Then follow both the Anselm's, ours of Canterbury and the other of Laon in France: who in their expositions upon the ninth of S. Matthew, clearly teach, that none but God alone can forgive sins. Ivo Bishop of Chartres writeth, that by inward contrition the inward judge is satisfied, and therefore without delay forgiveness of the sin is granted by him, unto whom the inward conversion is manifest: but the Church, because it knoweth not the hidden things of the heart, doth not loose him that is bound, although he be raised up, until he be brought out of the tomb, that is to say, purged by public satisfaction. and if presently upon the inward conversion God be pleased to forgive the sin: the absolution of the Priest which followeth, cannot in any sort properly be accounted a remission of that sin, but a further manifestation only of the remission formerly granted by God himself.

The Master of the Sentences after him, having propounded the diverse opinions of the Doctors touching this point, demandeth at last, In this so great variety what is to be held? and returneth for answer. Surely this we may say and think: that God alone doth forgive and retain sins, and yet hath given power of binding and loosing unto the Church; but He bindeth and looseth one way, and the Church another. For he only by himself forgiveth sin, who both cleanseth the soul from inward blot, and looseth it from the debt of everlasting death. But this hath he not granted unto Priests: to whom notwithstanding he hath given the power of binding and loosing, that is to say, of declaring men to be bound or loosed. Wherupon the Lord did first by himself restore health unto the leper, and then sent him unto the Priests, by whose judgment he might be declared to be cleansed: so also he offered Lazarus to his disciples to be loosed, having first quickened him. In like manner Hugo Cardinalis showeth, that it is only God that forgiveth sins: and that the Priest cannot bind or loose the sinner, with or from the bond of the fault and the punishment due thereunto; but only declare him to be bound or loosed. as the Levitical Priest did not make nor cleanse the leper, but only declared him to be infected or clean. And a great number of the Schoolmen afterward shown themselves to be of the same judgment: that to pardon the fault and the eternal punishment due unto the same, was the proper work of God; that the Priests absolution hath no real operation that way, but presupposeth the party to be first justified and absolved by God. Of this mind were, Guilielmus Altissiodorensis, Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, Ockam, Thomas de Argentinâ, Michael de Bononiâ, Gabriel Biel, Henricus de Huecta, Johannes Major, and others.

To lay down all their words at large would be too tedious. In general, Hadrian the sixth (one of their own Popes) acknowledgeth, that the most appr • ved Divines were of this mind, that the keys of the Priesthood do not extend themselves to the remission of the fault: and Major affirmeth, that this is the common Tenet of the Doctors. So likewise is it avouched by Gabriel Biel, that the old Doctors commonly follow the opinion of the Master of the Sentences; that Priests do forgive or retain sins, while they judge and declare that they are forgiven by God or retained. But all this notwithstanding, Suarez is bold to tell us, that this opinion of the Master is false, and now at this time erroneous. It was not held so the other day, when Ferus preached at Mainz, that man did not properly remit sin, but did declare and certify that it was remitted by God. so that the Absolution received from man, is nothing else then if he should say: Behold my son, I certify thee that thy sins are forgiven thee, I pronounce unto thee that thou hast God favorable unto thee; and whatsoever Christ in Baptism and in his Gospel hath promised unto us, he doth now declare and promise unto thee by me. Of this shalt thou have me to be a witness: go in peace, and in quiet of conscience. But jam hoc tempore the case is altered: these things must be purged out of Ferus as erroneous ; the opinion of the old Doctors must give place to the sentence of the new Fathers of Trent. And so we are come at length to the end of this long question: in the handling whereof I have spent more time, th • 〈◊〉 ani • of th • r • st, by reason our Priests do make this faculty of pardoning men's sins to be one of the most principal parts of their occupation, and the particular discovery thereof is not ordinarily by the writers of our side so much insisted upon. The performance therefore of my promise of brevity, is to be expected in the briefer treating upon those articles that remain: the fifth whereof we are now to take into our consideration, which is

OF PVRGATORIE.

FOr extinguishing the imaginary flames of Popish Purgatory, we need not go far to fetch water: seeing the whole current of God's word runneth mainly upon this; that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin ; that all God's children die in Christ, and that such as die in him, do rest from their labors ; that, as they be absent from the Lord while they are in the body, so when they be absent from the body they are present with the Lord ; and in a word, that they come not into judgment, but pass from death unto life. And if we need the assistance of the ancient Fathers in this business: behold they be here ready, with full buckets in their hands.

Tertullian, to begin withal, counteth it injurious unto Christ, to hold that such as be called from hence by him are in a state that should be pitied. whereas they have obtained their desire of being with Christ: according to that of the Apostle, Philip. 1.23. I desire to depart, and to be with Chrest. What pity was it, that the poor souls in Purgatory should find no 〈◊〉 in those days to inform men better of their ruefull condition; nor no Secretary to draw up such another supplication for them as this, which of late years Sir Thomas Moore presented in their name, To all good Christian people. In most piteous wise continually calleth and crieth upon your devoute charity and most tender pity, for help, comfort and relief, your late acquaintance, kindred, spouses, companions, playfellowes, and friends, and now your humble and unacquainted and half forgotten suppliants, poor prisoners of God, the seely souls in Purgatory, here abiding and enduring the grievous pains and hot cleansing fire, &c. If S. Cyprian had understood but half thus much: doubtless he would have stricken out the best part of that famous treatise which he wrote of Mortality (to comfort men against death, in the time of a great plague) especially such passages as these are, which by no means can be reconciled with Purgatory.

It is for him to fear death, that is not willing to go unto Christ: it is for him to be unwilling to go unto Christ, who doth not believe that he beginneth to reign with Christ. For it is written, that the just doth live by faith. If thou be just and livest by faith, if thou dost truly believe in God; why, being to be with Christ, and being secure of the Lord's promise, doest not thou embrace the message whereby thou art called unto Christ, and rejoicest that thou shalt be rid of the Devil? Simeon said; Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation. proving thereby, and witnessing that the servants of God then have peace, then enjoy free and quiet rest; when being drawn from these storms of the world, we arrive at the haven of our everlasting habitation and security, when this death being ended we enter into immortality. The righteous are called to a refreshing, the unrighteous are hailed to torment: safety is quickly granted to the faithful, and punishment to the unfaithful. We are not to put on black mourning garments here, when our friends there have put on white. This is not a going out, but a passage, and, this temporal journey being finished, a going over to eternity. Let us therefore embrace the day that bringeth everyone to his own house; which having taken us away from hence, and loosed us from the snares of this world, returneth us to Paradise and to the kingdom of heaven.

The same holy Father in his Apology which he wrote for Christians unto Demetrian the proconsul of Africa, affirmeth in like manner; that the end of this temporal life being accomplished, we are divided into the habitations of everlasting either death or immortality. When we are once departed from hence, there is now no farther place for repentance, neither any effect of satisfaction. here life is either lost or obtained. But if thou (saith he) even at the very end and setting of thy temporal life, dost pray for thy sins, and call upon the only true God with confession and faith: pardon is given to thee confessing, and saving forgiveness is granted by the divine piety to thee believing; and at thy very death thou hast a passage unto immortality. This grace doth Christ impart, this gift of his mercy doth he bestow; by subduing death with the triumph of his cross, by redeeming the believer with the price of his blood, by reconciling man unto God the Father, by quickening him that is mortal with heavenly regeneration.

Where Solomon saith, Ecclesiast. 12.5. that man goeth to his everlasting house, and the mourners go about in the street: S. Gregory of Neocaesarea maketh this paraphrase upon those words; The good man shall go rejoicing unto his everlasting house, but the wicked shall fill all with lamentations. Therefore did the Fathers teach, that men should rejoice at their death: and the ancient Christians framed their practice accordingly; not celebrating the day of their nativity, which they accounted to be the entry of sorrows and temptations, but celebrating the day of death, as being the putting away of all sorrows, and the escaping of all temptations. And so being filled with a divine rejoicing they came to the extremity of death as unto the end of their holy combats: where they did more clearly behold the way that led unto their immortality, as being now made nearer; and did therefore praise the gifts of God, and were replenished with divine joy, as now not fearing any change to worse, but knowing well that the good things which they possessed shall be firmly and everlastingly enjoyed by them.

The author of the Questions and Answeres attributed to Justin Martyr, writeth thus of this matter. After the departure of the soul out of the body, there is presently made a distinction betwixt the just and the unjust. For they are brought by the Angels to places fit for them: the souls of the righteous to Paradise, where they have the commerce and sight of Angels and Archangels, &c. the souls of the unjust to the places in hell. That is not death (saith Athanasius ) that befalleth the righteous, but a translation: for they are translated out of this world into everlasting rest: and as a man would go out of a prison, so do the Saints go out of this troublesome life unto those good things that are prepared for them. S. Hilary out of that which is related in the Gospel of the rich man and Lazarus observeth; that as soon as this life is ended, everyone without delay is sent over either to Abraham's bosom, or to the place of torment, and in that state reserved until the day of judgment. S. Ambrose in his book of the good of Death, teacheth us, that death is a certain haven to them, who being tossed in the great Sea of this life, desire a rode of safe quietness: that it maketh not a man's state worse, but such as in findeth in everyone, such it reserveth unto the future judgment, and refresheth with rest. that thereby a passage is made from corruption to incorruption, from mortality to immortality, from trouble to tranquility. Therefore he saith, that where fools do fear death as the chief of evils, wise men do desire it, as a rest after labors and an end of their evils. and upon these grounds exhorteth us, that when that day cometh, we should go without fear to Jesus our redeemer, without fear to the Council of the Patriarchs, without fear to Abraham our father; that without fear we should address ourselves unto that assembly of Saints, and congregation of the righteous. forasmuch as we shall go to our fathers, we shall go to those schoolemasters of our faith; that albeit our works fail us, yet faith may succor us, and our title of inheritance defend us.

Macarius, writing of the double state of those that depart out of this life, affirmeth that when the soul goeth out of the body; if it be guilty of sin, the Devil carrieth it away with him unto his place: but when the holy servants of God remove out of their body, the quyers of Angels receive their souls unto their own side, unto the pure world, and so bring them unto the Lord. and in another place, moving the question concerning such as depart out of this world sustaining two persons in their soul, to wit, of sin and of grace; whither they shall go that are thus held by two parts? he maketh answer, that thither they shall go, where they have their mind and affection settled. For the Lord (saith he) beholding thy mind, that thou fightest, and lovest him with thy whole soul, separateth death from thy soul in one hour, (for this is not hard for him to do) and taketh thee into his own bosom, and unto light. For he plucketh thee away in the minute of an hour from the mouth of darkness, and presently translateth thee into his own kingdom. For God can easily do all these things in the minute of an hour; this provided only, that thou bearest love unto him. then which, what can be more direct against the dream of Popish Purgatory? This present world is the time of repentance, the other of retribution: this of working, that of rewarding: this of patient suffering, that of receiving comfort: saith S. Basil.

Gregory Nazianzen, in his funeral orations, hath many sayings to the same purpose: being so far from thinking of any Purgatory pains prepared for men in the other world, that he plainly denieth, that after the night of this present life there is any purging to be expected. and therefore he telleth us, that it is better to be corrected and purged now, than to be sent unto the torment there, where the time of punishing is, and not of purging. S. Jerome, comforteth Paula for the death of her daughter Blaesilla, in this mater. Let the dead be lamented; but such a one, whom Gehenna doth receive, whom Hell doth devour, for whose pain the everlasting fire doth burn. Let us, whose departure a troupe of Angels doth accompany, whom Christ cometh forth to meet, be more grieved, if we do longer dwell in this tabernacle of death. Because, as long as we remain here, we are pilgrims from God.

By all that hath been said, the indifferent Reader may easily discern, what may be thought of the craking Cardinal, who would face us down, that all the ancients, both Greek and Latin, from the very time of the Apostles, did constantly teach that there was a Purgatory. whereas his own partners could tell him in his ear, that in the ancient writers there is almost no mention of Purgatory, especially in the Greek writers; and therefore that by the Grecians it is not believed until this day. He alledgeth indeed a number of authorities to blear m • ns eyes withal: which being narrowly looked into, will be found either to be counterfeit stuff, or to make nothing at all to the purpose; as belonging either to the point of praying for the dead only, (which in those ancient times had no relation to Purgatory ; as in the handling of the next article we shall see) or unto the fire of affliction in this life, or to the fire that shall burn the world at the last day, or to the fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels, or to some other fire then that which he intended to kindle thereby. This benefit only have we here gotten by his labors: that he hath saved us the pains of seeking far for the forge, from whence the first sparkles of that purging fire of his brake forth. For the ancientest memorial that he bringeth thereof, (the places which he hath abused out of the Canonical and Apocryphal scriptures only excepted) is out of Plato in his Gorgias and Phaedo, Cicero in the end of his fiction of the dream of Scipio, and Virgil in the sixth book of his Aeneids: and next after the Apostles times, out of Tertullian in the seventeenth chapter of his book de Animâ, and Origen in diverse places. Only he must give us leave to put him in mind, with what spirit Tertullian was led, when he wrote that book de Animâ: and with what authority he strengtheneth that conceit of men's paying in hell for their small faults before the resurrection, namely of the Paraclete ; by whom if he mean Montanus the arch- heretic (as there is small cause to doubt that he doth) we need not much envy the Cardinal, for raising up so worshipful a patron of his Purgatory.

But if Montanus come short in his testimony, Origen I am sure pays it home with full measure, not pressed down only and shaken together, but also running over. For he was one of those (as the Cardinal knoweth full well) who approved of Purgatory so much, that he acknowledged no other pains after this life but purgatory penalties only: and therefore in his judgment Hell and Purgatory being the self same thing, such as blindly follow the Cardinal may do well to look, that they stumble not upon Hell, while they seek for Purgatory. The Grecians profess, that they are afraid to tell their people of any temporary fire after this life; lest it should breed in them a spice of Origen's disease, and put out of their memory the thought of eternal punishment, and by this means occasioning them to be more careless of their conversation, make them indeed fit fuel for those everlasting flames. Which fear of theirs, we may perceive not to have been altogether causeless; when the Purgatory of Origen resembleth the Purgatory of the Pope so nearly, that the wisest of his Cardinals is so ready to mistake the one for the other. And, to speak the truth, the one is but an unhappy sprigge cut off from the rotten trunck of the other: which sundry men long since endeavored to graff upon other stocks, but could not bring unto any great perfection; until the Popes followers tried their skill upon it, with that success which now we behold. Some of the ancient that put their hand to this work, extended the benefit of this fiery purge unto all men in general: others thought fit to restrain it unto such as some way or other bare the name of Christians, others to such Christians only as had one time or other made profession of the Catholic faith, and others to such alone as did continue in that profession until their dying day.

Against all these S. Augustine doth learnedly dispute; proving that wicked men, of what profession soever, shall be punished with everlasting perdition. And whereas the defenders of the last opinion did ground themselves upon that place in the third chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, which the Pope also doth make the principal foundation of his Purgatory (although it be a probatory, and not a purgatory fire that the Apostle there treateth of) S. Augustine maketh answer, that this sentence of the Apostle is very obscure, & to be reckoned among those things which S. Peter saith are hard to be understood in his writings, which men ought not to pervert unto their own destruction: and freely confesseth that in this matter he would rather hear more intelligent and more learned men then himself. Yet this he delivereth for his opinion: that by wood, hay, and stubble is understood that over-great love which the faithful bear to the things of this life; and by fire, that temporal tribulation which causeth grief unto them by the loss of those things upon which they had too much placed their affections. But whether in this life only (saith he) men suffer such things, or whether some such judgments also do follow after this life; the meaning which I have given of this sentence, as I suppose, abhorreth not from the truth. And again. Whether they find the fire of transitory tribulation (burning those secular affections, which are pardoned from damnation) in the other world only, or whether here and there, or whether therefore here that they may not find them there; I gainsay it not, because peradventure it is true. And in another place. That some such thing should be after this life, it is not incredible, and whether it be so it may be inquired, and either be found or remain hidden; that some of the faithful by a certain purgatory fire, by how much more or less they have loved these perishing goods, are so much the more slowly or sooner saved. Wherein the learned Father dealeth no otherwise, then when in disputing against the same men, he is content, if they would acknowledge that the wrath of God did remain everlastingly upon the damned, to give them leave to think that their pains might some way or other be lightened or mitigated. Which yet notwithstanding (saith he) I do not therefore affirm, because I oppose it not.

What the Doctors of the next succeeding ages taught herein, may appear by the writings of S. Cyril, Gennadius, Olympiodorus, and o • hers. S. Cyril from those last words of our Savior upon the Cross, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit, delivereth this as the certain ground and foundation of our hope. We ought to believe that the souls of the Saints, when they are departed out of their bodies, are commended unto God's goodness, as unto the hands of a most dear Father; and do not remain in the earth (as some of the unbelievers have imagined) until they have had the honor of burial; neither are carried, as the souls of the wicked be, unto a place of unmeasurable torment, that is, unto Hell: but rather fly to the hands of the Father, this way being first prepared for us by Christ. For he delivered up his soul into the hands of his Father, that from it, and by it a beginning being made, we might have certain hope of this thing: firmly believing, that after death we shall be in the hands of God, and shall live a far better life forever with Christ. for therefore Paul desired to be dissolved, and to be with Christ. Gennadius, in a book wherein he purposely taketh upon him to reckon up the particular points of doctrine received by the Church in his time, when he cometh to treat of the state of souls separated from the body, maketh no mention at all of Purgatory; but layeth down this for one of his positions. After the ascension of our Lord into heaven, the souls of all the Saints are with Christ, and departing out of the body go unto Christ, expecting the resurrection of their body, that together with it they may be changed unto perfect and perpetual blessedness: as the souls of the sinners also being placed in Hell under fear, expect the resurrection of their body, that with it they may be thrust unto everlasting pain. In like manner Olympiodorus, expounding that place of Ecclesiastes, If the tree fall toward the South or toward the North, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be ; maketh this inference thereupon. In whatsoever place therefore, either lightsome or dark, that is, either in the foul station of sins or in the honest of virtues, a man is taken when he dieth, in that degree and order he remaineth forever. For either he resteth in the light of eternal felicity with the just and with Christ our Lord, or is tormented in darkness with the wicked and with the Devil the prince of this world.

The first whom we find directly to have held, that for certain light faults there is a purgatory fire provided before the day of judgment; was Gregory the first, about the end of the sixth age after the birth of our Savior Christ. It was his imagination, that the end of the world was then at hand, and that as when the night beginneth to be ended and the day to spring, before the rising of the Sun the darkness is in some sort mingled together with the light, until the remains of the departing night be turned into the light of the following day; so the end of this world was then intermingled with the beginning of the world to come, and the very darkness of the remains thereof made transparent by a certain mixture of spiritual things. And this he assigneth for the reason, why in those last times so many things were made clear touching the souls, which before lay hid; so that by open revelations and apparitions the world to come might seem to bring in and open it self unto them. But as we see that he was plainly deceived in the one of his conceits; so have we just cause to call into question the verity of the other. the Scripture especially having informed us, that a people for enquiry of matters should not have recourse to the dead, but to their God, to the Law and to the Testimony: it being not God's manner, to send men from the dead to instruct the living, but to remit them unto Moses and the Prophets, that they may hear them. And the reason is well worth the observation which the author of the Questions to Antiochus rendereth, why God would not permit the soul of any of those that departed from hence to return back unto us again, and to declare the state of things in Hell unto us: least much error might arise from thence unto us in this life. For many of the Devils (saith he) might transform themselves into the shapes of those men that were deceased, and say that they were risen from the dead; and so might spread many false matters & doctrines of the things there, unto our seduction and destruction.

Neither is it to be passed over, that in those apparitions and revelations, related by Gregory, there is no mention made of any common lodge in Hell appointed for purging of the dead (which is that which the Church of Rome now striveth for) but of certain souls only that for their punishment were confined to bathes and other such places here upon earth; which our Romanists may believe if they list, but must seek for the Purgatory they look for somewhere else. And yet may they save themselves that labor, if they will be advised by the Bishops assembled in the Council of Aquisgran (240. years after these visions were published by Gregory) who will resolve them out of the word of God, how sins are punished in the world to come. The sins of men (say they) are punished three manner of ways: two in this life, and the third in the life to come. Of those two the Apostle saith: If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord. This is the punishment, wherewith (by the inspiration of God) every sinner, by repenting for his offenses, taketh revenge upon himself. But where the Apostle consequently adjoineth; When we are judged we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with this world: this is the punishment, which almighty God doth mercifully inflict upon a sinner, according to that saying; Whom God loveth, he chasteneth, and he scourgeth every son that he receiveth. But the third is very fearful and terrible, which by the most just judgment of God shall be executed, not in this world but in that which is to come, when the just Judge shall say: Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire, which is prepared for the Devil and his angels. Add hereunto the saying of the author of the book De vanitate saeculi (wrongly ascribed to S. Augustine: ) Know, that when the soul is separated from the body, presently it is either placed in Paradise for his good merits, or cast headlong into the bottom of hell for his sins. and, that in the days of Otto Frisingensis himself (who wrote in the year of our Lord MCXLVI.) the doctrine of Purgatory was esteemed only a private assertion held by some, and not an article of faith generally received by the whole Church. (for why should he else write of it in this manner? That there is in Hell a place of Purgatory, wherein such as are to be saved are either only troubled with darkness, or decocted with the fire of expiation, SOM • do affirm.) and lastly, that the Purgatory wherewith the Romish clergy doth now delude the world, is a new devise, never heard of in the Church of God, for the space of a thousand years after the birth of our Savior Christ.

For the Gregorian Purgatory, which reached no further then to the expiation of small and very light faults, would not serve these men's turn; who very providently considered, that little use could be made of that fire, if it had no other fuel but this to maintain it. For such peccadilloes as these (they say) may be taken away in this life by knocking the breast, by receiving the Bishops blessing, by being sprinkled with holy water, and by such other easy remedies; that if this were all the matter to be cared for, men needed not greatly to stand in fear of Purgatory. Yea admit they should be so extremely negligent in their life time, that they forgot to use any of these helps: they might for all this at the time of their death be more afraid then hurt; yea this fear alone (if there were nothing else) might prove a means to purge their souls, at the very parting, from th • se faults of the lightest kind ; if Gregory may be credited Nay, which is more, diverse of their own elder Divines (to whom we may adjoin Cardinal Cajetan also in these later days) have taught; that all the remains of sin in God's children are quite abolished by final grace, at the very instant of their dissolution; so that the stain of the least sin is not left behind to be carried unto the other world.

Now Purgatory (as Bellarmine describeth it) is a certain place, in which as in a prison those souls are • urged after this life, which were not fully purged in this life; that being so purged they may be able to enter in to heaven, wherein to no unclean thing can enter. And of this, saith he, is all the controversy. If that be so: their own Doctors, you see, will quickly bring this controversy unto an end. For if the souls be fully purged here from all spot of sin: what need have they to be sent unto any other Purgatory after this life? Yes, say they, although the fault be quite remitted, and the soul clearly freed from the pollution thereof: yet may there remain a temporal punishment due for the very mortal sins that have been committed; which (if relief do not otherwise come, by the help of such as are alive) must be soundly laid on in Purgatory. But why in Purgatory, say we; seeing here there is no more purging work left? for the fault and the blot being taken away already; what remaineth yet to be purged? The punishment only they say is left behind: and punishment, I hope, they will not hold to be the thing that is purged away by punishment. Again we desire them to tell us, what Father or ancient Doctor did ever teach this strange divinity? that a man being clearly purged from the blott of his sin, and fully acquitted here from the fault thereof; should yet in the other world be punished for it with such grievous torments as the tongue of man is not able to express. And yet, as new and as absurd a doctrine as it is, the Pope and his adherents have built thereupon both their guileful Purgatory (with which it suiteth as evil-favouredly as may be) and their gainful Indulgences ; which, by their own doctrine, free not a man from the guilt of any fault, either mortal or venial, but only from the guilt of the temporal punishment, which remaineth after the fault hath been forgiven.

When Thomas Aquinas & other Friars had brought the frame of this new building unto some perfection, and fashioned all things therein unto their own best advantage: the Doctors of the Greek Church did publicly oppose themselves against it. Matthaeus Quaestor by name wrote against Thomas herein: whose book is still preserved in the Emperors Librarie at Vienna. So Athanasius his disputation against Purgatory is (or lately was) to be seen in the French Kings Librarie: and the like of Germanus (Patriarch of Constantinople ) and others, elsewhere. The Apology of the Grecians touching the same subject, is commonly to be had: which was penned by Marcus Eugenicus archbishop of Ephesus, and presented to Cardinal Cusanus and the deputies of the Council of Basil, in the year MCCCCXXXVIII. the 14 of June; the very same day, wherein Bessarion Archbishop of Nice disputed with the Latins of the same matter in the Council assembled at Ferraria. In that Apology, the Grecians begin their disputation with this proposition. A purgatory fire, and a punishment by fire which is temporal and shall at last have an end; neither have we received from our Doctors, neither do we know that the Church of the East doth maintain. They add further. Neither have we received it from any of our Doctors, and moreover no small fear doth trouble us, least by admitting a temporary fire both penal and purgatory, we should destroy the full consent of the Church. And thereupon they conclude very peremptorily. For these reasons therefore, neither have we ever hitherto affirmed any such thing, neither will we at all affirm it.

Yet within a year after, the Pope and his ministers prevailed so far with them in the Council at Florence, that they were content for peace sake to yield, that the middle sort of souls were in a place of punishment; but whether that were fire, or darkness and tempest, or something else, they would not contend. And accordingly was the pretended Union betwixt them and the Latins drawn up: that, if such as be truly penitent die in God's favor, before they have satisfied for their sins of commission and omission by worthy fruits of penance, their souls are purged after death with purgatory punishments ; neither fire, nor any other kind of punishment being specified in particular. But neither would Marcus the Bishop of Ephesus (who was one of the Legates of the Patriarchs of Antioch and of Jerusalem ) consent to this union: neither could the Greek Church afterwards by any means be drawn to yield unto it. And so unto this day, the Romish Purgatory is rejected as well by the Grecians, as by the Muscovites and Russians, the Cophtites and Abbyssinians, the Georgians and Armenians, together with the Syrians and Chaldeans that are subject to the Patriarchs of Antioch and Babylon, from Cyprus and Palaestina unto the East Indies. And this may suffice for the discovery of this new-found creeke of Purgatory.

OF PRAYER FOR THE DEAD.

PRayer for the dead, as it is used in the Church of Rome, doth necessarily suppose Purgatory: and therefore whatsoever hath been alleged out of the Scriptures and Fathers against the one, doth stand in full force against the other. so that here we need not actum agere, and make a new work of overthrowing that, which hath been sufficiently beaten down already. But on the other side, the admittall of Purgatory doth not necessarily infer Prayer for the dead: nay, if we shall suppose (with our Adversaries) that Purgatory is the prison, from whence none shall come out, until they have paid the utmost farthing ; their own paying, and not other men's praying, must be the thing they are to trust unto, if ever they look to be delivered out of that jayle. Our Romanists indeed do commonly take it for granted, that Purgatory and prayer for the dead be so closely linked together, that the one doth necessarily follow the other: but in so doing, they reckon without their host, and greatly mistake the matter. For howsoever they may deal with their own devises as they please, and lincke their Prayers with their Purgatory as closely as they list: yet shall they never be able to show, that the commemoration and prayers for the dead, used by the ancient Church, had any relation unto their Purgatory; and therefore whatsoever they were, Popish prayers we are sure they were not. I easily foresee, that the full opening of the judgment of the Fathers in this point, will hardly stand with that brevity which I intended to use in treating of these latter questions: the particulars be so many, that necessarily do incur into the handling of this argument. But I suppose the Reader will be content rather to dispense with that promise, whereby I did abridge myself of the liberty which otherwise I might freely have taken: than be sent away unsatisfied in a matter, wherein the Adversarie beareth himself confident beyond measure, that the whole stream of antiquity runneth clearly upon his side.

That the truth then of things may the better appear: we are here prudently to distinguish the original institution of the Church, from the private opinions of particular Doctors which waded further herein then the general intendment of the Church did give them warrant; and diligently to consider, that the memorials, oblations and prayers made for the dead at the beginning, had reference to such as rested from their labors, and not unto any souls which were thought to be tormented in that Vtopian Purgatory, whereof there was no news stirring in those days. This may be gathered, first, by the practice of the ancient Christians, laid down by the author of the Commentaries upon Job, (which are wrongly ascribed unto Origen) in this manner. We observe the memorials of the Saints, and devoutly keep the remembrance of our parents or friends which die in the faith; as well rejoicing for their refreshing, as requesting also for ourselves a godly consummation in the faith. Thus therefore do we celebrate the death, not the day of the birth: because they which die, shall live forever. and we celebrate it, calling together religious persons with the Priests, the faithful with the Clergy; inviting moreover the needy and the poor, feeding the orphans and widows: that our festivity may be for a memorial of rest to the souls departed whose remembrance we celebrate, and to us may become a sweet savor in the sight of the eternal God. Secondly, by that which S. Cyprian writeth of Laurentinus and Ignatius: whom he acknowledgeth to have received of the Lord palms and crowns for their famous martyrdom, and yet presently addeth. We offer sacrifices always for them, when we celebrate the passions and days of the martyrs with an anniversary commemoration. Thirdly, by that which we read in the author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, set out under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite. For where the party deceased is described by him to have departed out of this life replenished with divine joy, as now not fearing any change to worse, being come unto the end of all his labors; and to have been both privately acknowledged by his friends, and publicly pronounced by the ministers of the Church to be a happy man, and to be verily admitted into the society of the Saints that have been from the beginning of the world : yet doth he declare, that the Bishop made prayer for him, (upon what ground we shall afterward hear) that God would forgive him all the sins that he had committed through human infirmity, and bring him into the light and the land of the living, into the bosoms of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, into the place from whence pain and sorrow and sighing flieth. Fourthly, by the funeral ordinances of the Church, related by S. Chrysostom: which were appointed to admonish the living, that the parties deceased were in a state of joy and not of grief. For tell me (saith he) what do the bright lamps mean? do we not accompany them therewith as champions? What mean the Hymns? Consider what thou dost sing at that time. Return my soul unto thy rest; for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee. and again: I will fear no evil, because thou art with me. and again: Thou art my refuge from the affliction that compasseth me. Consider what these Psalms mean.

Fifthly, by the forms of the prayers that are found in the ancient Liturgies. as in that of the Churches of Syria, attributed unto S. Basil: Be mindful, O Lord, of them which are dead, and are departed out of this life, and of the orthodox Bishops which from Peter and James the Apostles until this day have clearly professed the right word of Faith; and namely, of Ignatius, Dionysius, Julius, and the rest of the Saints of worthy memory. Be mindful, O Lord, of them also which have stood unto blood for Religion, and by righteousness and holiness have fedd thy holy Flock. and in the Liturgy fathered upon the Apostles: We offer unto thee for all the Saints which have pleased thee from the beginning of the world, Patriarchs, Prophets, Just men, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, &c. and in the Liturgies of the Churches of Egypt, which carry the title of S. Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Cyril of Alexandria. Be mindful, O Lord, of thy Saints: vouchsafe to remember all thy Saints, which have pleased thee from the beginning, our holy Fathers, the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Preachers, Evangelists, and all the souls of the just, which have died in the faith: and especially, the holy, glorious, the evermore Virgin, Mary the mother of God; and S. John the forerunner, the Baptist and Martyr; S. Stephen the first Deacon and Martyr; S. Mark the Apostle, Evangelist and Martyr ; &c. and in the Liturgy of the Church of Constantinople, ascribed to S. Chrysostom : We offer unto thee this reasonable service, for those who are at rest in the faith, our Forefathers, Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, religious persons, and every spirit perfected in the faith. but especially for our most holy, immaculate, most blessed Lady, the mother of God and aye-virgin Mary. which kind of oblation for the Saints sounding somewhat harshly in the ears of the Latins, Leo Thuscus in his translation thought best to express it to their better liking after this manner. We offer unto thee this reasonable service for the faithfully deceased, for our fathers and forefathers; the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, and all the Saints interceding for them. As if the phrase of offering for the Martyrs, were not to be found in S. Chrysostom's own works: and more universally for the just, both the Fathers, and the Patriarchs, the Prophets and Apostles, and Evangelists and Martyrs and Confessors, the Bishops and such as led a solitary life, and the whole order ; in the suffrages of the Church, rehearsed by Epiphanius. yea and in the Western Church it self: for the spirits of those that are at rest, Hilary, Athanasius, Martin, Ambrose, Augustine, Fulgentius, Leander, Isidorus, &c. as may be seen in the Muzarabicall Office used in Spain.

Sixthly, this may be confirmed out of the funeral orations of S. Ambrose: in one whereof, touching the Emperor Valentinian and his brother Gratian, thus he speaketh. Let us believe that Valentinian is ascended from the desert, that is to say, from this dry and unmanured place unto those flowery delights; where being conjoined with his brother, he enjoyeth the pleasure of everlasting life. Blessed are you both: if my orizons shall prevail anything; no day shall overslip you in silence. no oration of mine shall pass you over unhonoured. no night shall run by, wherein I will not bestow upon you some portion of my prayers. With all oblations will I frequent you. In another, he prayeth thus unto God: Give rest unto thy perfect servant Theodosius, that rest which thou hast prepared for thy Saints. and yet he had said before of him: Theodosius of honorable memory being freed from doubtful fight, doth now enjoy everlasting light and continual tranquility; and for the things which he did in this body, he rejoiceth in the fruits of God's reward: because he loved the Lord his God, he hath obtained the society of the Saints. and afterward also. Theodosius remaineth in light, and glorieth in the company of the Saints. In a third, he prayeth thus for his brother Satyrus: Almighty God, I now commend unto thee his harmless soul, to thee do I make my oblation; accept mercifully and graciously the office of a brother, the sacrifice of a Priest. although he had directly pronounced of him before, that he had entered into the kingdom of heaven, because he believed the word of God, and excelled in many notable virtues. Lastly, in one of his Epistles he comforteth Faustinus for the death of his sister, after this manner. Do not the carcases of so many half-ruined cities, and the funerals of so much land exposed under one view, admonish thee; that the departure of one woman, although a holy and an admirable one, should be born with greater consolation? especially seeing they are cast down and overthrowen forever; but she, being taken from us but for a time, doth pass a better life there. I therefore think, that she is not so much to be lamented, as to be followed with prayers: and am of the mind, that she is not to be made sad with thy tears, but rather that her soul should be commended with oblations unto the Lord. Thus far S. Ambrose. Unto whom we may adjoin Gregory Nazianzen also: who in his funeral oration that he made upon his brother Caesarius, having acknowledged that he had received those honors that did befit a new created soul, which the Spirit had reformed by water (for he had been but lately baptized before his departure out of this life) doth notwithstanding pray, that the Lord would be pleased to receive him.

Diverse instances of the like practice in the ages following, I have produced in another place: to which I will add some few more, to the end that the Reader may from thence observe, how long the primitive institution of the Church did hold up head among the tares that grew up with it, and in the end did quite choke and extinguish it. Our English Saxons had learned of Gregory to pray for relief of those souls that were supposed to suffer pain in Purgatory: and yet the introducing of that novelty was not able to justle out the ancient usage of making prayers and oblations for them which were not doubted to have been at rest in God's kingdom. And therefore the brethren of the Church of Hexham, in the anniversary commemoration of the obite of Oswald King of Northumberland, used to keep their Vigiles for the health of his soul, and having spent the night in praising of God with psalms, to offer for him in the morning the sacrifice of the sacred oblation, as Beda writeth: who telleth us yet withal, that he reigned with God in heaven, and by his pray • s procured many miracles to be wrought on earth. So likewise doth the same Bede report, that when it was discovered by two several visions, that Hilda the Abbess of Streansheale (or Whitby in Yorkshire ) was carried up by the Angels into heaven; they which heard thereof presently caused prayers to be said for her soul. And Osberne relateth the like of Dunstan: that being at Bathe, and beholding in such another vision the soul of one that had been his scholar at Glastenbury, to be carried up into the palace of heaven ; he straightway commended the same into the hands of the divine pie • ie, and entreated the lords of the place where he was to do so likewise.

Other narrations of the same kind may be found among them that have written of Saints lives: & particularly in the Tome published by Mosander, pag. 69. touching the decease of Bathildis Queen of France; & pa. 25. concerning the departure of Godfry Earl of Cappenberg. who is said there to have appeared unto a certain Abbess, called Gerbergis, & to have acquainted her, that he was now without all delay, & without all danger of anymore severe trial, gone unto the palace of the highest King, and as the son of the immortal King was clothed with blessed immortality. & the Monk that writ the Legend addeth, that she presently thereupon caused the sacrifice of the Mass to be offered for him. which how fabulous soever it may be for the matter of the vision, yet doth it strongly prove, that within these 500. years (for no longer since it is, that this is accounted to have been done) the use of offering for the souls of those that were believed to be in heaven was still retained in the Church. The letters of Charles the great unto Offa King of Mercia are yet extant; wherein he wisheth that intercessions should be made for Pope Adrian then lately deceased: not having any doubt at all (saith he) but that his blessed soul is at rest; but that we may show our faithfulness and love unto our most dear friend. Lastly, Pope Innocent the third (or the second rather) being inquired of by the Bishop of Cremona, concerning the state of a certain Priest that died without Baptism: resolveth him out of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose, that because he continued in the faith of the holy mother the Church and the confession of the name of Christ; he was assoiled from original sin, and had attained the joy of the heavenly country. Upon which ground at last he maketh this conclusion: Ceasing therefore all questions, hold the sentences of the learned Fathers; and command continual prayers and sacrifices to be offered unto God in thy Church for the foresaid Priest.

Now having thus declared, unto what kind of persons the Commemorations ordained by the ancient Church did extend: the next thing that cometh to consideration is, what we are to conceive of the primary intention of those prayers that were appointed to be made therein. And here we are to understand, that first prayers of Praise and Thankesgiving were presented unto God for the blessed estate that the party deceased was now entered upon: whereunto were afterwards added prayers of Deprecation and Petition, that God would be pleased to forgive him his sins, to keep him from Hell, and to place him in the kingdom of Heaven. which kind of intercessions, howsoever at first they were well meant (as we shall hear) yet in process of time they proved an occasion of confirming men in diverse errors; especially when they began once to be applied not only to the good but to evil livers also, unto whom by the first institution they never were intended.

The term of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a thanksgiving prayer, I borrow from the writer of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: who in the description of the funeral observances used of old in the Church, informeth us, first, that the friends of the dead accounted him to be (as he was) blessed, because that according to his wish he had obtained a victorious end: and thereupon sent forth Hymns of thanksgiving to the author of that victory; desiring withal, that they themselves might come unto the like end. and then that the Bishop likewise offered up a prayer of thanksgiving unto God; when the dead was afterward brought unto him, to receive as it were at his hands a sacred coronation. Thus at the funeral of Fabiola, the praising of God by singing of Psalms, and resounding of Alleluia, is specially mentioned by S. Jerome: and the general practice and intention of the Church therein is expressed and earnestly urged by S. Chrysostom in this manner. Do not we praise God, and give thanks unto him for that he hath now crowned him that is departed, for that he hath freed him from his labors, for that quitting him from fear he keepeth him with himself? Are not the Hymns for this end? Is not the singing of Psalms for this purpose? All these be tokens of rejoicing. Whereupon he thus presseth them that used immoderate mourning for their dead. Thou sayest; Return, O my soul, unto thy rest, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee: and dost thou weep? Is not this a stage-play, is it not mere simulation? For if thou dost indeed believe the things that thou sayest, thou lamentest idly: but if thou playest, and dissemblest, and thinkest these things to be fables; why doest thou then sing? why doest thou suffer those things that are done? Wherefore doest thou not drive away them that sing? and in the end he concludeth somewhat prophetically; that he very much feared, lest by this means some grievous disease should creep in upon the Church.

Whether the doctrine now maintained in the Church of Rome, that the children of God presently after their departure out of this life, are cast into a lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, be not a spice of this disease, and whether their practice in chanting of Psalms (appointed for the expression of joy & thankfulness) over them whom they esteem to be torme • ted in so lamentable a fashion, be not a part of that scene and pageant at which S. Chrysostom doth so take on: I leave it unto others to judge. That his fear was not altogether vain, the event it self doth show. For howsoever in his days, the fire of the Romish Purgatory was not as yet kindled: yet were there certain sticks then a gathering, which ministered fuel afterwards unto that flame. Good S. Augustine, (who lived three and twenty years after S. Chrysostom's death) declared himself to be of this mind: that the oblations and alms usually offered in the Church for all the dead that received baptism, were thankesgivings for such as were very good, propitiations for such as were not very bad; but as for such as were very evil, although they were no helps of the dead, yet were they some kind of consolations of the living. And although this were but a private exposition of the Churches meaning in her prayers and oblations for the dead; and the opinion of a Doctor too, that did not hold Purgatory to be any article of his Creed: yet did the Romanists in times following greedily take hold of this, and make it the main foundation upon which they laid the hay and stubble of their devised Purgatory.

A private exposition I call this: not only because it is not to be found in the writings of the former Fathers, but also because it suiteth not well with the general practice of the Church which it intendeth to interpret. It may indeed fit in some sort that part of the Church-service, wherein there was made a several commemoration, first of the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and Martyrs, after one manner; and then of the other dead, after another: which, together with the conceit that an injury was offered to a Martyr, by praying for him, was it that first occasioned S. Augustine to think of the former distinction. But in the supplications for the spirits of the dead, which the Church under a general commemoration was accustomed to make for all that we • e deceased in the Christian and Catholic communion: to imagine, that one and the same act of praying should be a petition for some, and for others a thanksgiving only, is somewhat too harsh an interpretation. especially where we find it propounded by way of petition, and the intention thereof directly expressed. as in the Greek Liturgy, attributed to S. James, the brother of our Lord: Be mindful (O Lord God of the spirits and of all flesh) of such as we have remembered and such as we have not remembered, being of right belief, from Abel the just until this present day. Do thou cause them to rest in the land of the living, in thy kingdom, in the delight of Paradise, in the bosoms of Abrahā and Isaac & Jacob, our holy fathers: whence grief & sorrow & sighing are fledd, where the light of thy countenance doth visit them and shine forever. and in the Offices compiled by Alcuinus: O Lord, holy Father, almighty and everlasting God, we humbly make request unto thee for the spirits of thy servants and handmaydes, which from the beginning of this world thou hast called unto thee: that thou wouldest vouchsafe, O Lord, to give unto them a lightsome place, a place of refreshing and ease; and that they may pass by the gates of hell, and the ways of darkness, and may abide in the mansions of the Saints, and in the holy light which thou didst promise of old unto Abraham and his seed.

So the Commemoration of the faithful departed, retained as yet in the Roman Missal, is begun with this orizon: Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord: and let everlasting light shine unto them. Whereunto we may add these two prayers (to omit a great number more of the like kind) used of old in the same Church. Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation, which we offer unto thee for all that are departed in the confession of thy name: that thou reaching unto them the right hand of thy help, they may have the rest of everlasting life; and being separated from the punishments of the wicked, they may always persevere in the joy of thy praise. and, This oblation, which we humbly offer unto thee for the commemoration of the souls that sleep in peace, we beseech thee, O Lord, receive graciously; and of thy goodness grant, that both the affection of this piety may profit us, and obtain for them everlasting bliss. Where you may observe, that the souls unto which everlasting bliss was wished for, were yet acknowledged to rest in peace, & consequently not to be disquieted with any Purgatory torment. even as in the Canon of the Mass it self, the Priest in the Commemoration for the dead prayeth thus: Remember, O Lord, thy servants and handmaydes, which have gone before us with the ensign of faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace. To them, O Lord, and to all that are at rest in Christ, we beseech thee that thou wouldest grant a place of refreshing, light, and peace.

Nay the Armenians in their Liturgy, entreat God to give eternal peace, not only in general unto all that have gone before us in the faith of Christ ; but also in particular to the Patriarchs, Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs. which maketh directly for the opinion of those (against whom Nicolaus Cabasilas doth dispute) who held, that these Commemorations contained a supplication for the Saints unto God, and not a thanksgiving only. as also do those forms of prayer which were used in the Roman Liturgy in the days of Pope Innocent the third: Let such an oblation profit such or such a Saint unto glory. and especially that for S. Leo, which is found in the elder copies of the Gregorian Sacramentarie. Grant unto us, O Lord, that this oblation may profit the soul of thy servant Leo. for which the later books have chopped in this prayer: Grant unto us, O Lord, that by the intercession of thy servant Leo this oblation may profit us. Concerning which alteration, when the archbishop of Lions propounded such another question unto Pope Innocent, as our Challenger at the beginning did unto us; who it was that did change it, or when it was changed, or why? the Pope returneth him for answer: that who did change it, or when it was changed, he was ignorant of; yet he knew, upon what occasion it was changed. because that, where the authority of the Holy Scripture doth say, that he doth injury unto a Martyr who prayeth for a Martyr, which is a new text of holy Scripture, of the Popes own canonization) the same by the like reason is to be held of other Saints. The Gloss upon this Decretal layeth down the reason of this mutation a little more roundly: Of old they prayed for him, now at this day he prayeth for us; and so was the change made. And Alphonsus Mendoza telleth us, that the old prayer was deservedly disused, and this other substituted in the room thereof: Grant unto us, we beseech thee O Lord, that by the intercession of thy servant Leo this oblation may profit us. which prayer indeed was to be found heretofore in modernioribus Sacramentarijs (as Pope Innocent speaketh) and in the Roman Missalls that were published before the Council of Trent (as namely in that which was printed at Paris, an. 1529.) but in the new reformed Missal (wherewith, it seemeth, Mendoza was not so well acquainted as with his Scholastical controversies) it is put out again, and another prayer for Leo put in; that by the celebration of those offices of atonement, a blessed retribution might accompany him. Neither is there anymore wrong done unto S. Leo, in praying for him after this manner, then unto all the rest of his fellows in that other prayer of the Roman Liturgy: We have received, O Lord, the divine mysteries; which as they do profit thy Saints unto glory, so we do beseech thee that they may profit us for our healing, and nothing so much as is done unto all the faithful deceased, when in their Masses for the dead they say daily: Lord Jesus Christ, king of glory, deliver the souls of all the faithful that are departed, from the pains of Hell, and from the deep lake; deliver them from the mouth of the Lion, that Hell do not swallow them up, that they fall not into darkness. So that whatsoever commodious expositions our Adversaries can bring for the justifying of the Roman service: the same may we make use of, to show, that the ancient Church might pray for the dead, and yet in so doing have no relation at all unto Purgatory; yea and pray for the Martyrs and other Saints that were in the state of bliss, without offering unto them any injury thereby.

For the clearing of the meaning of those prayers which are made for Leo, and the other Saints, to the two expositions brought in by Pope Innocent, Cardinal Bellarmine addeth this for a third; that peradventure therein the glory of the body is petitioned for, which they shall have in the day of the Resurrectiō. For although (saith he) they shall certainly obtain that glory, & it be due unto their merits; yet it is not absurd to desire & ask this for them, that by more means it may be due unto them. Where, laying aside those unsavourie terms of debt and merits (whereof we shall have occasion to treat in their proper place) the answer is otherwise true in part, but not full enough to give satisfaction unto that which was objected. For the primary intention of the Church indeed, in her prayers for the dead, had reference unto the day of the Resurrection: which also in diverse places we find to have been expressly prayed for. as in the Egyptian Liturgy, attributed unto S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria. Raise up their bodies, in the day which thou hast appointed, according to thy promises which are true and cannot lie: grant unto them, according to thy promises, that which eye hath not seen, and ear hath not heard, and which hath not ascended into the heart of man; which thou hast prepared, O Lord, for them that love thy holy name: that thy servants may not remain in death, but may get out from thence; although slouthfulnesse and negligence have followed them. and in that which is used by the Christians of S. Thomas (as they are commonly called) in the East Indies: Let the holy Gh • st give resurrection to your dead at the last day; and make them worthy of the incorruptible kingdom. Such is the prayer of S. Ambrose for Gratian and Valentinian the Emperors: I do beseech thee, most high God, that thou wouldest raise up again those dear young men with a speedy resurrection; that thou mayest recompense this untimely course of this present life with a timely resurrection. and that in Alcuinus: Let their souls sustain no hurt; but when that great day of the resurrection and remuneration shall come, vouchsafe to raise them up, O Lord, together with thy Saints and thine elect. and that in Grimoldus his Sacramentarie: Almighty and everlasting God, vouchsafe to place the body and the soul and the spirit of thy servant N. in the bosoms of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; that when the day of thy acknowledgement shall come, thou mayest command them to be raised up among thy Saints and thine elect.

But yet the Cardinals answer, that the glory of the body may be prayed for, which the Saints shall have at the day of the Resurrection, cometh somewhat short of that which the Church used to request in the behalf of S. Leo. For in that prayer express mention is made of his soul: and to it is wished that profit may redound by the present oblation. And therefore this defect must be supplied out of his answer unto that other prayer which is m • de for the souls of the faithful depa • ted, that they may be delivered out of the mouth of the Lion, and that Hell may not swallow them up. To this he saith; that the Church doth pray for these souls, that they may not be condemned unto the everlasting pains of Hell: not as if it were not certain, that they should not be condemned unto those pains, but because it is God's pleasure that we should pray, even for those things which we are certainly to receive. The same answer did Alphonsus de Castro give before him: that very often those things are prayed for, which are certainly known shall come to pass as they are prayed for; and that of this there be very many testimonies. and Johannes Medina: that God d • lighteth to be prayed unto, even for those things, which otherwise he purposed to do. For God had decreed (saith he) after the sin of Adam to take our flesh, and he decreed the time, wherein he meant to come: and yet the prayers of the Saints, that prayed for his Incarnation and for his coming, were acceptable unto him. God hath also decreed to grant pardon unto every repentant sinner: and yet the prayer is grateful unto him, wherein either the penitent doth pray for himself, or another for him, that God would be pleased to accept his repentance. God hath decreed also and promised, not to forsake his Church, and to be present with Councils lawfully assembled: yet the prayer notwithstanding is grateful unto God, and the hymns, whereby his presence, and favor, and grace, is implored both for the Council & the Church. And whereas it might be objected, that howsoever the Church may sometimes pray for those things which she shall certainly receive, yet she doth not pray for those things which she hath already received; and this she hath received, that those souls shall not be damned, seeing they have received their sentence, and are most secure from damnation: the Cardinal replieth, that this objection may easily be avoided. For although those souls (saith he) have received already their first sentence in the particular judgment, and by that sentence are freed from Hell: yet doth there yet remain the general judgment, in which they are to receive the second sentence. Wherefore the Church praying, that those souls in the last judgment may not fall into darkness, nor be swallowed up of Hel, doth not pray for the thing which the soul hath, but which it shall receive. Thus these men, laboring to show how the prayers for the dead used in their Church may stand with their conceits of Purgatory, do thereby inform us how the prayers for the dead, used by the ancient Church, may stand well enough without the supposal of any Purgatory at all. For if we may pray for those things which we are most sure shall come to pass; and the Church, by the Adversaries own confession, did pray accordingly, that the souls of the faithful might escape the pains of Hell at the general Judgment, notwithstanding they had certainly been freed from them already by the sentence of the particular Judgment: by the same reason, when the Church in times past besought God to remember all those that slept in the hope of the resurrection of everlasting life (which is the form of prayer used in the Greek Liturgies) and to give unto them rest, and to bring them unto the place where the light of his countenance should shine upon them for evermore; why should not we think, that it desired these things should be granted unto them by the last sentence at the day of the Resurrection, notwithstanding they were formerly adjudged unto them by the particular sentence at the time of their dissolution?

For as that which shall befall unto all at the day of judgment, is accomplished in everyone at the day of his death: so on the other side, whatsoever befalleth the soul of everyone at the day of his death, the same is fully accomplished upon the whole man at the day of the general judgment. Whereupon we find, that the Scriptures everywhere do point out that great day unto us, as the time wherein mercy and forgiveness, rest and refreshing, joy and gladness, redemption and salvation, rewards and crowns shall be bestowed upon all God's children, as in 2. Timoth. 1.16, 18. The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus: the Lord grant unto him, that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day. 1. Cor. 1.8. Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. Act. 3.19. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. 2. Thessal. 1.6, 7. It is a righteous thing with God, to recompense unto you which are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty Angels. Philip. 2.16. That I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither labou • ed in vain. 1. Thessal. 2.19. For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? 1. Pet. 1. • . Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time. 1. Corinth. 5.5. That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord I • sus. Ephes. 4.30. Grieve not the holy spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Luk. 21.28. When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh. 2. Timoth. 4.8. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righ • eousnesse, which the Lord the righteous judge shall give me at that day. and Luk. 14.14. Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

And that the Church in her Offices for the dead had special respect unto this time of the Resurrection: appeareth plainly, both by the portions of Scripture appointed to be read therein, and by diverse particulars in the prayers themselves that manifestly discover this intention. For there the ministers (as the writer of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy reporteth) read those undoubted promises which are recorded in the divine Scriptures of our holy Resurrectiō: and then devoutly sang such of the sacred Psalms as were of the same subject and argument. And so accordingly in the Roman Missal, the lessons ordained to be read for that time, are taken from 1. Corinth. 15. Behold I tell you a mystery. We shall all rise again, &c. John. 5. The hour cometh wherein all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and they that have done good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life, &c. 1. Thessal. 4. Brethren, we would not have you ignorant concerning them that sleep, that ye sorrow not, as others which have no hope. John. 11. I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he were dead, shall live. 2. Maccab. 12. Judas caused a sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, justly and religiously thinking of the Resurrection. John. 6. This is the will of my Father that sent me; that everyone that seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting: and I will raise him up at the last day. and, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting: and I will raise him up at the last day. and lastly, Apocal. 14. I heard a voice from heaven, saying unto me: Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; for their works follow them. Wherewith the Sequence also doth agree, beginning

and ending;

Tertullian in his book de Monogamiâ (which he wrote after he had been infected with the heresy of the Montanists) speaking of the prayer of a widow for the soul of her deceased husband, saith that she requesteth refreshing for him, and a portion in the first resurrection. Which seemeth to have some tang of the error of the Millenaries (whereunto not Tertullian only with his Prophet Montanus, but Nepos also, and Lactantius, and diverse other Doctors of the Church did fall) who misunderstanding the prophecy in the 20. of the Revelation, imagined that there should be a first resurrection of the just that should reign here a thousand years upon earth, and after that a second resurrection of the wicked, at the day of the general judgment. Yet in a certain Gotthicke Missal I meet with two several exhortations made unto the people, to pray after the self same form. the one, that God would vouchsafe to place in the bosom of Abraham the souls of those that be at rest, and admit them unto the part of the first resurrectiō: the other (which I find elsewhere also repeated in particular) that he would place in rest, the spirits of their friends which were gone before them in the Lord's peace, and raise them up in the part of the first resurrection. Which how it may be excused otherwise then by saying, that at the general resurrection the dead in Christ shall rise fi • st, and then the wicked shall be raised after them; and by referring the first resurrection unto the resurrection of the just which shall be at that day: I cannot well resolve. For certain it is, that the first r • surrection spoken of in the 20. chapter of the Revelation of S. John, is the resu • rection of the soul from the death of sin and error in this world; as the second is the resurrection of the body, out of the dust of the earth, in the world to come. both whi • h be distinctly laid down by our Savior in the fifth chapter of the Gospel of S. John: the first in the 25. verse; The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. the second in the 28. and 29. Marveile not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation :

And to this general resurrection and to the judgment of the last day, had the Church relation in her prayers: some patterns whereof it will not be amiss to exhibit here, in these examples following▪ Although the condition of death brought in upon mankind doth make our hearts and minds heavy: yet by the gift of thy clemency we are raised up with the hope of future immortality; and being mindful of eternal salvation, are not afraid to sustain the loss of this light. For by the benefit of thy grace life is not taken away to the faithful, but changed: and the souls being freed from the prison of the body, abhor things mortal, when they attain unto things eternal. Wherefore we beseech thee, that thy servant N. being placed in the tabernacles of the blessed, may rejoice that he hath escaped the straytes of the flesh, and in the desire of glorification expect with confidence the day of Judgment. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. whose holy passion we celebrate without doubt for immortal and well resting souls: for them especially, upon whom thou hast bestowed the grace of the second birth; who by the example of the same Jesus Christ our Lord have begun to be secure of the resurrection. For thou who hast made the things that were not, art able to repair the things that were: and hast given unto us evidences of the resurrection to come, not only by the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, but also by the resurrection of the same thy only begotten Son our Redeemer. O God, who art the Creator and maker of all things, and who art the bliss of thy Saints; grant unto us who make request unto thee, that the spirit of our brother, who is loosed from the knott of his body, may be presented in the blessed resurrection of thy Saints. O almighty and merciful God, we do entreat thy clemency, forasmuch as by thy judgment we are borne and make an end; that thou wilt receive into everlasting rest the soul of our brother, whom thou of thy piety hast commanded to pass from the dwelling of this world, and permit him to be associated with the company of thine elect, that together with them he may remain in everlasting bliss without end. Eternal God, who in Christ thine only begotten son our Lord hast given unto us the hope of a blessed Resurrection; grant, we beseech thee, that the souls, for which we offer this sacrifice of our redemption unto thy Majesty, may of thy mercy attain unto the rest of a blessed resurrection with thy Saints. Let this communion, we beseech thee O Lord, purge us from sin; and give unto the soul of thy servant N. a portion in the heavenly joy, that being set apart before the throne of the glory of thy Christ with those that are upon the right hand, it may have nothing common with those that are upon the left. Through Christ our Lord. At whose coming, when thou shalt command both the people's to appear, command thy servant also to be severed from the number of the evil. and grant unto him, that he may both escape the flames of everlasting punishment, and obtain the rewards of a righteous life. &c.

In these, and other prayers of the like kind, we may descry evident footsteps of the primary intention of the Church in her supplications for the dead: which was, that the whole man (not the soul separated only) might receive public remission of sins, & a solemn acquitall in the judgment of that great day; and so obtain both a full escape from all the consequences of sin ( the last enemy being now destroyed, and death swallowed up in victory ) and a perfect consummation of bliss and happiness. all which are comprised in that short prayer of S. Paul for Onesiphorus (though made for him while he was alive:) The Lord grant unto him, that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day. Yea diverse prayers for the dead of this kind are still retained in the Roman Offices: of which the great Spanish Doctor Johannes Medina thus writeth. Although I have read many prayers for the faithful deceased, which are contained in the Roman Missal; yet have I read in none of them, that the Church doth petition, that they may more quickly be freed from pains: but I have read that in some of them petition is made, that they may be freed from everlasting pains. For beside the common prayer that is used in the Mass for the Commemoration of all the faithful deceased, that Christ would free them from the mouth of the Lion, that Hell may not swallow them up, and that they may not fall into the place of darkness: this prayer is prescribed for the day wherein the dead did depart out of this life. O God, whose property is always to have mercy and to spare; we most humbly beseech thee for the soul of thy servant N. which this day thou hast commanded to depart out of this world: that thou mayst not deliver it into the hands of the enemy, nor forget it finally; but command it to be received by the holy Angels, and brought unto the country of Paradise: that because he hath trusted and believed in thee, he may not sustain the pains of Hell, but possess joys everlasting. which is a direct prayer, that the soul of him which was then departed might immediately be received into Heaven, and escape not the temporary pains of Purgatory, but the everlasting pains of Hell. for howsoever the new reformers of the Roman Missal have put in here poenas inferni (under the generality peradventure of the term of the pains of hell intending to shroud their Purgatory, which they would have men believe to be one of the lodges of Hell) yet in the old Missal, which Medina had respect unto, we read expressly poenas aeternas, everlasting pains ; which by no construction can be referred unto the pains of Purgatory. and to the same purpose, in the book of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, at the exequies of a Cardinal, a prayer is appointed to be read; that by the assistance of God's grace he might escape the judgment of everlasting revenge, who while he lived was marked with the seal of the holy Trinity.

Again, there be other prayers (saith Medina) wherein petition is made, that God would raise the souls of the dead in their bodies unto bliss at the day of judgment. Such, for example, is that which is found in the Roman Missal. Absolve, we beseech thee O Lord, the soul of thy servant from all the bond of his sins: that in the glory of the resurrection, being raised among thy saints and elect, he may breath again, or be refreshed. and that other in the Roman Pontifical. O God, unto whom all things do live, and unto whom our bodies in dying do not perish, but are changed for the better; we humbly pray thee, that thou wouldest command the soul of thy servant N. to be received by the hands of thy holy Angels, to be carried into the bosom of thy friend the Patriarch Abraham, and to be raised up at the last day of the great judgment: & whatsoever faults by the deceit of the Devil he hath incurred, do thou of thy pity and mercy wash away by forgiving them. Now forasmuch as it is most certain, that all such as depart in grace (as the Adversaries acknowledge that all in Purgatory do) are sure to escape Hell, and to be raised up unto glory at the last day: Medina perplexeth himself exceedingly in according these kind of prayers with the received grounds of Purgatory; and after much agitation of the business too and fro, at last resolveth upon one of these two desperate conclusions. that touching these prayers which are made in the Church for the dead, it may first of all be said, that it is not necessary to excuse them all from all unfitness. For many things are permitted to be read in the Church, which although they be not altogether true, nor altogether fit, yet serve for the stirring up and increasing the devotion of the faithful. Many such things (saith he) we believe are contained in the histories that be not sacred, and in the Legends of the Saints, and in the opinions and writings of the Doctors: all which are tolerated by the Church in the mean time, while there is no question moved of them, and no scandal ariseth from them. And therefore it is no marvel, that somewhat not so fit should be contained in the foresaid prayers, and be tolerated in the Church: seeing such prayers were made by private persons, not by Councils, neither were approved at all by Councils.

And we easily do believe indeed, that their Offices and Legends are fraught not only with untrue and unfit, but also with far worse stuff: neither is this any news unto us. Agobardus Bishop of Lions complained about 800. years ago, that the Antiphonary used in his Church had many ridiculous and fantastical things in it: and that he was fain to cut off from thence such things as seemed to be either superfluous, or light, or lying, or blasphemous. The like complaint was made not long since by Lindanus, of the Roman Antiphonaries and Missals: wherein not only apocryphal tales (saith he) out of the Gospel of Nicodemus and other toys are thrust in; but the very secret prayers themselves are defiled with most foul faults. But now that we have the Roman Missal restored according to the decree of the Council of Trent, set out by the command of Pius V. and revised again by the authority of Clemens VIII. I doubt much whether our Romanists will allow the Censure which their Medina hath given of the prayers contained therein. And therefore if this will not please them, he hath another answer in store: of which though his country man Mendoza hath given sentence, that it is indigna viro Theologo, unworthy of any man that beareth the name of a Divine; yet such as it is, you shall have it. Supposing then, that the Church hath no intention to pray for any other of the dead, but those that are detained in Purgatory: this he delivereth for his second resolution. The Church knowing that God hath power to punish everlastingly those souls, by which, when they lived, he was mortally offended; and that God hath not tied his power unto the Scriptures, and unto the promises that are contained in the Scripture (forasmuch as he is above all things, and a • omnipotent after his promises, as if he had promised nothing at all:) therefore the Church doth humbly pray God, that he would not use this his absolute omnipotency against the souls of the faithful, which are departed in grace; therefore she doth pray that he would vouchsafe to free them from everlasting pains, and from revenge and the judgment of condemnation, and that he would be pleased to raise them up again with his Elect. But leaving our Popish Doctors with their profound speculations of the not limiting of God's power by the Scriptures, and the promises which he hath made unto us therein: let us return to the ancient Fathers, and consider the differences that are to be found among them touching the place and condition of souls separated from their bodies. for according to the several apprehensions which they had thereof, they made different applications and interpretations of the use of praying for the dead: whose particular intentions and devotions in that kind, must of necessity therefore be distinguished from the general intention of the whole Church.

S. Augustine (that I may begin with him who was, as the most ingenious, so likewise the most ingenuous of all others in acknowledging his ignorance where he saw cause) being to treat of these matters, maketh this Preface before hand unto his hearers. Of Hell neither have I had any experience as yet, nor you: and peradventure it may be, that our passage may lie some other way, and not prove to be by Hell. For these things be uncertain. and having occasion to speak of the departure of Nebridius his dear friend: Now he liveth, saith he, in the bosom of Abraham, whatsoever the thing be that is signified by that bosom; there doth my Nebridius live. But elsewhere he directly distinguisheth this bosom from the place of bliss into which the. Saints shall be received after the last judgment. After this short life (saith he) thou shalt not as yet be where the Saints shall be unto whom it shall be said; Come ye blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom which was prepared for you from the beginning of the world. Thou shalt not as yet be there: who knoweth it not? But now thou mayest be there, where that proud and barren rich man in the midst of his torments saw a far off the poor man, sometime full of ulcers, resting. Being placed in that rest, thou dost securely expect the day of judgment; when thou mayest receive thy body, when thou mayest be changed to be equal unto an Angel. and for the state of souls, betwixt the time of the particular and general judgment, this is his conclusion in general. The time that is interposed betwixt the death of man and the last resurrection, containeth the souls in hidden receptacles; as everyone is worthy either of rest or of trouble, according unto that which it did purchase in the flesh when it lived. Into these hidden receptacles he thought the souls of God's children might carry some of their lighter faults with them: which being not removed, would hinder them from coming into the kingdom of heaven (whereinto no polluted thing can enter) and from which by the prayers and alms-deeds of the living he held they might be released. But of two things he professed himself here to be ignorant. First, What those sins were, which did so hinder the coming unto the kingdom of God, that yet by the care of good friends they might obtain pardon. Secondly, Whether those souls did endure any temporary pains in the Interim betwixt the time of Death and the Resurrection. For howsoever in his one and twentieth book of the City of God, and the thirteenth and sixteenth chapters (for the new patch which they have added to the four and twentieth chapter is not worthy of regard) he affirm, that some of them do suffer certain purgatory punishments before the last and dreadful judgment: yet by comparing these places with the five and twentieth chapter of the twentieth book, it will appear, that by those purgatory punishments he understandeth here the furnace of the fire of Conflagration, that shall immediately go before this last judgment, and (as he otherwhere describeth the effects thereof) separate some unto the left hand, and melt out others unto the right.

Neither was this opinion of the reservation of souls in secret places, and the purging of them in the fire of Conflagration at the day of judgment, entertained by this famous Doctor alone: diverse others there were that had touched upon the same string before him. Origen in his fourth book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as we have him translated by Ruffinus (for in the Extracts selected out of him by S. Basil and S. Gregory we find the place somewhat otherwise expressed) saith that such as depart out of this world after the common course of death, are disposed of according to their deeds and merits, as they shall be judged to be worthy; some into the place which is called Hell, others into Abraham's bosom, and through diverse either places or mansions. and in his Commentaries upon Leviticus, he addeth further. Neither have the Apostles themselves as yet received their joy; but even they do expect, that I also may be made partaker of their joy. For the Saints departing from hence do not presently obtain the full rewards of their labors; but they expect us likewise, howsoever staying, howsoever slacking. Then touching the purging of men after the Resurrection, he thus delivereth his mind in his Commentaries upon Luke. I think, that even after our resurrection from the dead we shall have need of a sacrament to wash and purge us: for none can rise without pollutions. and upon Jeremiah: If any one be saved in the second resurrection, he is that sinner which needeth the baptism of fire, which is purged with burning; that whatsoever he hath of wood, hay, and stubble, the fire may consume it. Neither doth Lactantius show himself to vary much from him, in either of those points; for thus he writeth. When God shall judge the righteous, he will examine them by fire. Then they whose sins shall prevail either in weight or number, shall be touched with the fire and burned: but they whom perfect righteousness and the ripeness of virtue hath thoroughly seasoned, shall not feel that fire. for from thence have they something in them, that will repel & put back the force of the flame: so great is the force of innocence, that that fire shall fly back from it without doing any harm, which hath received this power from God, that it may burn the wicked and do service to the righteous. Yet notwithstanding let no man think, that the souls are presently judged after death. All of them are detained in one common custody, until the time come, wherein the great Judge doth make trial of their doings. In like manner doth S. Hilary write of the one part. All the faithful, when they are gone out of the body, shall be reserved by the Lord's custody for that entry into the heavenly kingdom, being in the mean time placed in the bosom of Abraham; whither the wicked are hindered from coming, by the gulf interposed betwixt them, until the time of entering into the kingdom of heaven do come. and thus of the other. Being to render an account of every idle word, shall we desire the day of judgment, wherein that unwearied fire must be passed by us, in which those grievous punishments for expiating the soul from sins must be endured? for to such as have been baptized with the holy Ghost, it remaineth that they should be consummated with the fire of judgment.

In S. Ambrose also there are some passages to be found which seem to make directly for either of these points: as these for the former. The soul is loosed from the body, and yet after the end of this life it is held as yet in suspense with the uncertainty of the future judgment: so that there is no end, where there is thought to be an end. We read in the books of Esdras; that when the day of judgment shall come, the earth shall restore the bodies of the deceased, and the dust shall restore the relics of the dead which do rest in the graves: and the habitacles shall restore the souls which were committed to them; and the most high shall be revealed upon the seat of judgment. Also that scripture nameth those habitacles of the souls, Promptuaries (or secret receptacles:) and meeting with the complaint of man, that the just which have gone before may seem to be defrauded (until the day of judgment, which is a very long time) of the reward due unto them; saith wonderfully, that the day of judgment is like unto a crown, wherein as there is no slackenesse of the last, so is there no swiftness of the first. For the day of crowning is expected by all; that within that day both they who are overcome may be ashamed, and they who do overcome may obtain the palm of victory. Therefore while the fullness of time is expected, the souls expect their due reward. Paine is provided for some of them, for some glory: and yet in the mean time neither are those without trouble, nor these without fruit. and these for the latter. With fire shall the sons of Levi be purged, with fire Ezekiel, with fire Daniel. But these, although they shall be tried with fire, yet shall say: We have passed through fire and water. Others shall remain in the fire. And if the Lord shall save his servants, we shall be saved by faith, yet saved as it were by fire. Although we shall not be burned up, yet shall we be burned. After the end of the world, when the Angels shall be sent to separate the good and the bad, this baptism shall be; when iniquity shall be burnt up by the furnace of fire, that in the kingdom of God the righteous may shine as the Sun in the kingdom of their Father. And if any one be as Peter, or as John, he is baptized with this fire. Seeing therefore he that is purged here, hath need to be purged again there: let him purge us there also, when the Lord may say; Enter into my rest. that every one of us being burned with that flaming sword, not burned up, when he is entered into that pleasure of Paradise may give thanks unto his Lord, saying: Thou hast brought us into a place of refreshment.

Hereunto we may adjoine that observation of Suarez the Jesuit. They who think, that the souls of men are not judged at their death, nor do receive reward or punishment, but are reserved in hidden receptacles until the general judgment; do consequently say, that as men do not receive their last reward or punishment, so neither are they also purged, until the general Resurrection and Judgment do come: from whence they might say with reasonable good consequence, that men are to be purged with the fire of Conflagration. and with as good consequence also (may we further add) that prayers were not to be made for the delivery of the souls of the dead from any purgatory pains, supposed to be suffered by them betwixt the time of their death and their resurrection; which be the only prayers which are now in question. In the Resurrection, when our works, like unto clusters of grapes, shall be cast into the probatory fire as it were into the wine-press; every man's husbandry shall be made manifest: saith Gregorius Cerameus, sometime archbishop of Tauromenium in Sicilia. and, No man as yet is entered either into the torments of Hell or into the kingdom of Heaven, until the time of the resurrection of the bodies: saith Anastasius Sinaita upon whom Gretser bestoweth this marginal annotation: that this is the Error of certain of the ancient, & of latter Greece. And we find it to be held indeed both by some of the ancient (as namely in Gaius, who lived at Rome when Zephyrinus was Bishop there, and is accounted to be the author of the treatise falsely fathered upon Josephus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a large fragment whereof hath been lately published by Hoeschelius in his notes upon Photios his Bibliotheke: ) and by the latter Grecians ; in whose name, Marcus Eugenicus archbishop of Ephesus, doth make this protestation against such of his countrymen as yielded to the definition of the Florentine Council. We say, that neither the Saints do receive the kingdom prepared for them and those secret good things, neither the sinners do as yet fall into Hell: but that either of them do remain in expectation of their proper lott; and that this appertaineth unto the time that is to come after the Resurrection and the Judgment. But these men, with the Latins, would have these to receive presently after death the things they have deserved: but unto those of the middle sort, that is, to such as die in penance, they assign a purgatory fire (which they fain to be distinct from that of Hell) that thereby, say they, being purged in their souls after death, they likewise may be received into the kingdom of heaven together with the righteous.

That barbarous impostor (as Molanus rightly styleth him) who counterfeited a letter, as written by S. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem unto S. Augustine, touching the miracles of S. Jerome, taketh upon him to lay down the precise time of the first arising of this sect among the Grecians in this manner. After the death of most glorious Jerome, a certain heresy or sect arose amongst the Grecians, and came to the Latins also, which went about with their wicked reasons to prove: that the souls of the blessed until the day of the general Judgment, wherein they were to be joined again unto their bodies, are deprived of the sight and knowledge of God, in which the whole blessedness of the Saints doth consist; and that the souls of the damned in like manner until that day are tormented with no pains. Whose reason was this: that as the soul did merit or sin with the body; so with the body was it to receive rewards or pains. Those wicked sectaries also did maintain, that there was no place of Purgatory wherein the souls, which had not done full penance for their sins in this world, might be purged. Which pestilent sect getting head, so great sorrow fell upon us, that we were even weary of our life. Then he telleth a wise tale, how S. Jerome, being at that time with God, for the confutation of this new-sprong heresy, raised up three men from the dead (after that he had first led their souls into Paradise, Purgatory, and Hell; to the end they might make known unto all men the things that were done there: ) but had not the wit to consider, that S. Cyril himself had need to be raised up, to make the fourth man among them. for how otherwise should he, who died thirty years before S. Jerome (as is known to everyone that knoweth the history of those times) have heard and written the news which those three good fellows, that were raised by S. Jerome after his death, did relate concerning Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory? Yet is it nothing so strange to me (I confess) that such idle dreams as these should be devised in the times of darkness, to delude the world withal: as that now in the broad day light, Binsfeldius and Suarez, and other Romish merchants should adventure to bring forth such rotten stuff as this, with hope to gain any credit of antiquity thereby unto the new erected staple of Popish Purgatory.

The Dominican Friars, in a certain treatise written by them at Constantinople in the year 1252. assign somewhat a lower beginning unto this error of the Grecians: affirming that they followed therein a certain inventer of this heresy named Andrew, Archbishop sometime of Cesarea in Cappadocia; who said, that the souls did wait for their bodies, that together with them, with which they had committed good or evil, they might likewise receive the recompense of their deeds. But that which Andrew saith herein, he saith not out of his own head; (and therefore is wrongfully charged to be the first inventer of it:) but out of the judgment of many godly fathers that went before him. It hath been said (saith he) by many of the Saints, that all virtuous men (after this life) do receive places fit for them; whence they may certainly make conjecture of the glory that shall befall unto them. Where Peltanus bestoweth such another marginal note upon him, as Gretser his fellow-Jesuit did upon Anastasius. This opinion is now expressly condemned, and rejected by the Church. And yet doth Alphonsus de Castro acknowledge, that the Patrons thereof were famous men, renowned as well for holiness as for knowledge: but telleth us withal, that no man ought to marvel, that such great men should fall into so pestilent an error; because (as the Apostle S. James saith) he that offendeth not in word, is a perfect man.

Another particular opinion, which we must sever from the general intention of the Church in her oblations and prayers for the dead, is that which is noted by Theophylact upon the speech of our Savior, Luk. 12.5. in which he wisheth us to observe, that he did not say, Fear him who after he hath killed casteth into hell ; but, hath power to cast into hell. For the sinners which die (saith he) are not always cast into hell: but it remaineth in the power of God, to pardon them also. And this I say for the oblations and doales which are made for the dead, which do not a little avayle even them that die in grievous sins. He doth not therefore generally, after he hath killed, cast into hell; but hath power to cast. Wherefore let us not cease by alms and intercession to appease him, who hath power to cast, but doth not always use this power, but is able to pardon also. Thus far Theophylact: whom our Adversaries do blindly bring in for the countenancing of their use of praying and offering for the dead; not considering, that the prayers and oblations which he would uphold, do reach even unto such as die in grievous sins (which the Romanists acknowledge to receive no relief at all by anything that they can do) and are intended for the keeping of souls from being cast into Hell, and not for fetching them out when they have been cast into Purgatory; a place that never came within the compass of Theophylacts belief. His testimony will fit a great deal better the prayer of S. Dunstan ; who (as the tale goeth) having understood that the soul of King Edwin was to be carried into Hell, never gave over praying until he had gotten him rid of that danger, and transferred unto the coast of penitent souls: where he well deserved, doubtless, to undergo that penance which Hugh Bishop of Coventry and Chester on his death-bed imposed upon himself; even to lie in the dungeon of Purgatory, without bail or mainprise, until the general jail • -delivery of the last day.

Another private conceit, entertained by diverse (as well of the elder as of middle times) in their devotions for the dead, was; that an augmentation of glory might thereby be procured for the Saints, and either a total deliverance, or a diminution of torment at least wise, obtained for the wicked. If the Barbarians (saith S. Chrysostom) do bury with their dead the things that belong unto them: it is much more reason, that thou shouldest send with the deceased the things that are his; not that they may be made ashes, as they were, but that they may add greater glory unto him. and, if he be departed hence a sinner, that they may loose his sins; but if righteous, that an addition may be made to his reward and retribution. Yea in the very latter days, Iuo Carnotensis writing unto Mawd Queen of England, concerning the prayers that were to be made for the King her brother his soul; saith, that it doth not seem idle, if we make intercessions for those who already enjoy rest, that their rest may be increased. Whereupon Pope Innocent the third doth bring this for one of the answers, wherewith he laboreth to salve the prayers which were used in the Church of Rome, that such or such an oblation might profit such or such a Saint unto glory: that many repute it no indignity, that the glory of the Saints should be augmented until the day of judgment; and therefore that in the mean time the Church may wish the increase of their glorification. So likewise for the mitigation of the pains of them, whose souls were doubted to be in torment; this form of prayer was of old used in the same Church (as in Grimoldus his Sacramentary may be seen) and retained in the Roman Missal it self, until in the late reformation thereof it was removed. O almighty and merciful God, incline (we beseech thee) thy holy ears unto our poor prayers, which we do humbly pour forth before the sight of thy Majesty for the soul of thy servant N. that forasmuch as we are distrustful of the quality of his life, by the abundance of thy pity we may be comforted; and if his soul cannot obtain full pardon, yet at least in the midst of the torments themselves, which peradventure it suffereth, out of the abundance of thy compassion it may feel refreshment. which prayer whither it tended, may appear partly by that which Prudentius writeth of the play-days, which he supposeth the souls in Hell sometime do obtain;

partly by the doubtful conceits of God's merciful dealing with the wicked in the world to come, which are found in others: but especially by these passages that we meet withal in the Sermons of S. Chrysostom.

This man hath spent his whole life in vain, neither hath lived one day to himself, but to voluptuousness, to luxury, to covetousness, to sin, to the Devil. Tell me therefore; shall we not mourn for him? shall we not endeavor to pull him out of these dangers? For there be means, if we will, whereby his punishment may be made light unto him. If then we do make continual prayers for him, if we besto • alms; although he be unworthy, God will respect us. For many have received benefit by the alms that have been given by others for them: and found thereby, although not a perfect, yet some consolation. This therefore is done, that although we ourselves be not virtuous, we may be careful to get virtuous companions and friends, and wife and son; as looking to reap some fruit even by them also: reaping indeed but little, yet reaping some fruit notwithstanding. Let us not therefore simply • eepe for the dead, but for such as are dead in their sins: these be worthy of lamentations and bewaylings and tears. For what hope is there (tell me) for men to depart with their sins, where they cannot put off their sins? for as long as they were here, there was peradventure great expectation, that they would be altered, that they would be bettered. but being gone unto Hell, where there is no gaining of anything by repentance (for in hell, saith he, who shall confess unto thee?) how are they not worthy of lamentations? Let us therefore weep for such, let us succor them to our power, let us find out some help for them, little indeed, but yet such as may relieve them. How and after what manner? both praying ourselves, and entreating others to make prayers for them, and giving continually unto the poor for them. for this thing bringeth some consolation.

The like doctrine is delivered by Andrew archbishop of Crete, in his Sermon of the life of man, and of the dead ; and by John Damascene, or whosoever else was author of the book ascribed unto him, concerning them that are departed in the faith: where three notable tales are told, of the benefit that even Infidels and Idolaters themselves should receive by such prayers as these. One touching the soul of the Emperor Trajan, delivered from Hell by the prayers of Pope Gregory: of the truth whereof least any man should make question, he affirmeth very roundly, that no less then the whole East and West will witness that this is true and uncontrollable. And indeed in the East this fable seemeth first to have risen: where it obtained such credit, that the Grecians to this day do still use this form of prayer; As thou didst loose Trajan from punishment by the earnest intercession of thy servant Gregory the Dialogue-writer, hear us likewise who pray unto thee. And therefore to them doth Hugo Etherianus thus appeal, for justifying the truth of this narration: Do not, I pray you, say in your hearts, that this is false or feigned. Inquire, if you please, of the Grecians: the whole Greek Church surely doth testify these things. He might, if he had pleased, being an Italian himself, have inquired nearer home of the Romans, among whom this seat was reported to have been acted; rather then among the Grecians, who were strangers to the business. But the Romans, as we understand by Johannes Diaconus in the life of S. Gregory, found no such matter among their records; and when they had notice given them thereof out of the Legends of the Church of England (for from thence received they the news of this and some other such strange acts reported to have been done by S. Gregory among themselves) they were not very hasty to believe it: because they could hardly be persuaded, that S. Gregory who had taught them, that Infidels and wicked men departed out of this life, were no more to be prayed for then the Devil and his angels which were appointed unto everlasting punishment ; should in his practice be found to be so much different from his judgment. The second tale toucheth upon the very times of the Apostles: wherein the Apostolesse Thecla is said to have prayed for Falconilla (the daughter of Tryphaena, whom S. Paul saluteth, Rom. 16.12.) a gentile and an Idolatresse, altogether profane and a servitour of another God, to this effect. O God, Son of the true God, grant unto Tryphaena according to thy will, that her daughter may live with thee time without end. or as Basil Bishop of Seleucia doth express it. Grant unto thy servant Tryphaena, that her desire may be fulfilled concerning her daughter: her desire therein being this, that her soul may be numbered among the souls of those that have already believed in thee, and may enjoy the life and pleasure that is in Paradise.

The third tale he produceth out of Palladius his historical book written unto Lausus (although neither in the Greek set out by Meursius, nor in the three several Latin editions of that history published before, the • e be any such thing to be found): touching a dead man's skull, that should have uttered this speech unto Macarius the great Egyptian anchorer. When thou dost offer up thy prayers for the dead, then do we feel some little cons • lation. A brainlesse answer you may well conceive it to be, that must be thought to have proceeded from a dry skull lying by the highway side: but as brainl • sse as it is, it hath not a little troubled the quick heads of our Romish Divines, and put m • ny an odd cratchet into their nimble brains. Renatus Laurentius telleth us, that without all doubt it was an Angel that did speak in this skull. And I say (quoth Alphonsus Mendoza) that this head which lay in the way, was not the head of one that was damned, but of a just man remaining in Purgatory: for Damascene doth not say in that sermon, that i • was the head of a Gentile, as it may there be seen. And true it is indeed, he neither saith that it was so, neither yet that it was not so: but the Grecians generally relate the matter thus; that Macarius did hear this, from the skull of one that had been a Priest of Idols, which he found lying in the wilderness; that by his prayers such as were with him in punishment received a little ease of their torment, whensoever it fell out that he made the same for them. and among the Latins, Thomas Aquinas, and other of the Schoolmen take this for granted: because they found in the Lives of the Fathers, that the speech which the dead skull used was this. I was a Priest of the Gentiles (so John the Roman subdeaco • translateth it) or, as Rufinus is supposed to have rendered it, I was the chief of the Priests of the Idols, which dwelt in this place: and thou art abbot Macarius, that art filled with the spirit of God. At whatsoever hour therefore thou takest pity of them that are in torments, and prayest for them; they then feel some consolation. Well, saith Mendoza then, if S. Thomas relating this history out of the Lives of the Fathers, doth say that this was the head of a Gentile; he himself is bound to untie this knot. And so he doth: resolving the matter thus; that the damned get no true ease by the prayers made for them, but such a fantastical kind of joy only, as the Devils are said to have, when they have seduced and deceived any man. But peradventure, saith Cardinal Bellarmine for the upshott, the things which are brought touching that skull, might better be rejected as false and apocryphal. and Stephen Durant, more peremptorily: The things which are told of Trajan and Falconilla, delivered out of hell by the prayers of S Gregory and Thecla, and of the dry skull spoken too by Macarius, be feigned and commentitious.

Which last answer, though it be the truest of all the rest; yet is it not to be doubted for all that, but that the general credit which these fables obtained, together with the countenance which the opinion of the Origenists did receive from Didymus, Euagrius, Gregory Nyssen, (if he be not corrupted) and other Doctors, inclined the minds of men very much, to apply the common use of praying for the dead unto this wrong end of hoping to relieve the damned thereby. S. Augustine doth show, that in his time not only some, but exceeding many also, did out of an human affection take compassion of the eternal pains of the damned, and would not believe that they should never have an end. And notwithstanding this error was publicly condemned afterwards in the Origenists, by the fifth general Council held at Constantinople: yet by idle and voluptuous persons was it still greedily embraced (as Climacus complaineth) and even now also, saith S. Gregory, there be some, who therefore neglect to put an end unto their sins, because they imagine that the judgments which are to come upon them shall sometimes have an end. Yea of late days this opinion was maintained by the Porretanians (as Thomas calleth them) and some of the Canonists (the one following therein Gilbert Porreta Bishop of Poitiers, in his book of Theological Questions; the other John Semeca, in his Gloss upon Gratian ) that by the prayers and suffrages of the living the pains of some of the damned were continually diminished; in such manner as infinite proportionable parts may be taken from a line, without ever coming unto an end of the division: which was in effect to take from them at the last all pain of sense or sense of pain. For (as Thomas observeth it rightly, and Durand after him) in the division of a Line, at last we must come unto that which is not sensible: considering that a sensible body cannot be divided infinitely. and so it would follo • , that after many suffrages that pain remaining should not be sensible; and consequently should be no pain at all.

Neither is it to be forgotten that the invention of All Souls day (of which you may read, if you please, Polydore Vergil in his sixth book of the Inventers of things, and the ninth chapter) that solemn day, I say, wherein our Romanists most devoutly perform all their superstitious observances for the dead; was occasioned at the first by the apprehension of this same erroneous conceit, that the souls of the damned might not only be eased, but fully also delivered by the alms & prayers of the living. The whole narration of the business is thus laid down by Sigebertus Gemblacensis in his Chronic • e, at the year of our Lord 998. This time, saith he, a certain religious man returning from Jerusalem, being entertained for a while in Sicily by the courtesy of a certain anchoret, learned from him among other matters, that there were places near unto them that used to cast up burning flames, which by the inhabitants were called the Potts of Vulcan, wherein the souls of the reprobate according to the quality of their deserts did suffer diverse punishments; the Devils being there deputed for the execution thereof whose voices, angers and terrors, and sometimes howlings also he said he often heard, as lamenting that the souls of the damned were taken out of their hands by the alms and prayers of the faithful; and more at this time by the prayers of the monks of Cluny, who prayed without ceasing for the rest of those that were deceased. The abbot Odilo having understood this by him, appointed throughout all the monasteries under his subjection, that as upon the first day of November the solemnity of all the Saints is observed, so upon the day following, the memorial of all that rested in Christ should be celebrated. Which rite passing into many other Churches, made the memory of the faithful deceased to be solemnized.

For the elect, this form of prayer was wont to be used in the Roman Church. O God, unto whom alone is known the number of the elect that are to be placed in the supernal bliss: grant, we beseech thee, that the book of blessed predestination may retain the names of all those whom we have undertaken to recommend in our prayer, or of all the faithful, that are written therein. And to pray, that the names of all those that are written in the book of God's election, should still be retained therein, may be somewhat tolerable: considering (as the Divines of that side have informed us) that those things may be prayed for, which we know most certainly wilcome to pass. But hardly, I think, shall you find in any Ritual a form of prayer answerable to this of the monks of Cluny for the reprobate: unless it be that, whereby S. Francis is said to have obtained, that friat Elias should be made ex praescito praedestinatus, an elect of a reprobare. Yet it seemeth, that some were not very well pleased, that what was done so seldom by S. Francis the Angel of the Friars, (& that for a reprobate yet living) should be so usually practiced by the followers of S. Odilo the Archangel of the Monks for reprobates that were dead: & therefore in the common editions of Sigeberts Chronicle they have clean struck out the word damnatorū, & instead of reproborū chopped in defunctorū. which depravatiō may be detected, as well by the sincere edition of Sigebert published by Aubertus Miraeus out of the Manuscript of Gemblac abbay (w ^ch is thought to be the original copy of Sigebert himself) as by the comparing of him with Petrus Damiani in the life of Odilo, whence this whole narration was by him borrowed. For there also do we read, that in those flaming places the souls of the reprobate according to the quality of their deserts did suffer diverse torments: and that the Devils did complain, that by the alms and prayers of Odilo and others, the souls of the damned were taken out of their hands.

By these things we may see, what we are to judge of that which our Adversaries press so much against us out of Epiphanius: that he nameth an obscure fellow one Aërius to be the first author of this heresy; that prayers and sacrifice profiteth not the departed in Christ. For neither doth Epiphanius name this to be an heresy: neither doth it appear that himself did hold, that prayers and oblations bring such profit to the dead as these men dream they do. He is much deceived, who thinketh everything that Epiphanius findeth fault withal in heretics, is esteemed by him to be an heresy: seeing heresy cannot be but in matters of faith, and the course which Epiphanius taketh in that work is not only to declare, in what special points of faith heretics did dissent from the Catholic doctrine, but in what particular observances also they refused to follow the received customs and ordinances of the Church. Therefore at the end of the whole work he setteth down a Brief, first of the faith, and then of the ordinances and observances of the Church: and among the particulars of the latter kind, he rehearseth this: For the dead, they make commemorations by name, performing (or, when they do perform) their prayers and divine service and dispensation of the mysteries, and disputing against Aërius touching the point it self, he doth not at all charge him with forsaking the doctrine of the Scriptures, or the faith of the Catholic Church concerning the state of those that are departed out of this life: but with rejecting the order observed by the Church in her Commemorations of the dead; which being an ancient institution, brought in upon wonderful good considerations, should not by this humorous heretic have been thus condemned. The Church, saith he, doth necessarily perform this, having received it by tradition from the Fathers: and who may dissolve the ordinance of his mother, or the law of his Father? and again. Our mother the Church hath ordinances settled in her, which are inviolable and may not be broken. Seeing then there are ordinances established in the Church, and they are well and all things are admirably done: this seducer is again refuted.

For the further opening hereof, it will not be amiss to consider both of the objection of Aërius, and of the answer of Epiphanius. Thus did Aërius argue against the practice of the Church. For what reason do you commemorate after death the names of those that are departed? He that is alive prayeth, or maketh dispensation (of the mysteries:) what shall the dead be profited hereby? And if the prayer of those here do altogether profit them that be there: then let nobody be godly, let no man do good, but let him procure some friends by what means it pleaseth him, either persuading them by money, or entreating friends at his death; and let them pray for him, that he may suffer nothing there, and that those inexpiable sins which he hath committed may not be required at his hands. This was Aërius his argumentation: which would have been of force indeed, if the whole Church had held, as many did; that the judgment after death was suspended until the general Resurrection, and that in the mean time the sins of the dead might be taken away by the suffrages of the living. But he should have considered, as Stephanus Gobarus (who was as great an heretic as himself) did, that the Doctors were not agreed upon the point; some of them maintaining, the soul of everyone that departed out of this life received very great profit by the prayers and oblations and alms that were performed for him, and others on the contrary side, that it was not so: and that it was a foolish part of him, to confound the private opinion of some, with the common faith of the universal Church. That he reproved this particular error, (which seemeth to have gotten head in his time, as being most plausible to the multitude, and very pleasing unto the looser sort of Christians) therein he did well: but that thereupon he condemned the general practice of the Church, which had no dependence upon that erroneous conceit, therein he did like unto himself, headily and perversely. For the Church in her Commemorations and prayers for the dead had no relation at all unto those that had led their lives lewdly and dissolutely (as appeareth plainly, both by the author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and by diverse other evidences before alleged) but unto those that did end their lives in such a godly manner, as gave pregnant hope unto the living, that their souls were at rest with God: and to such as these alone did it wish the accomplishment of that which remained of their redemption; to wit, their public justification and solemn acquitall at the last day, and their perfect consummation of bliss, both in body and soul, in the kingdom of heaven forever after. not that the event of these things was conceived to be any ways doubtful (for we have been told, that things may be prayed for, the event whereof is known to be most certain) but because the commemoration thereof was thought to serve for special use, not only in regard of the manifestation of the affection of the living toward the dead (he that prayed, as Dionysius noteth, desiring other men's gifts as if they were his own graces ) but also in respect of the consolation and instruction which the living might receive thereby; as Epiphanius in his answer to Aërius doth more particularly declare.

The objection of Aërius was this. The Commemorations and prayers used in the Church bring no profit to the dead: therefore as an unprofitable thing they are to be rejected. To this doth Epiphanius thus frame his answer. As for the reciting of the names of those that are deceased; what can be better then this? what more commodious, and more admirable? that such as are present do believe, that they who are departed do live, and are not extinguished, but are still being and living with the Lord: and that this most pious preaching might be declared; that they who pray for their brethren have hope of them as being in a peregrination. Which is as much in effect, as if he had denied Aërius his consequence: and answered him, that although the dead were not profited by this action, yet it did not therefore follow that it should be condemned as altogether unprofitable. because it had a singular use otherwise: namely to testify the faith and the hope of the living, concerning the dead. the faith: in declaring them to be alive, (for so doth Dionysius also expound the Churches intention in her public nomination of the dead) and as Divinity teacheth, not mortified but translated from death unto a most divine life. the hope: in that they signified hereby, that they accounted their brethren to have departed from them no otherwise than as if they had been in a journey, with expectation to meet them afterward; and by this means made a difference betwixt themselves, and others which had no hope. Then doth Epiphanius proceed further in answering the same objection, after this manner. The prayer also which is made for them doth profit, although it do not cut off all their sins: yet forasmuch as whilst we are in the world, we oftentimes slip both unwillingly and with our will; it serveth to signify that which is more perfect. For we make a memorial, both for the just and for sinners: for sinners, entreating the mercy of God; for the just, (both the Fathers and Patriarchs, the Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists, and Martyrs and Confessors, Bish • ps also and Anchorites, and the whole order) that we may sever our Lord Jesus Christ from the rank of all other men by the honor that we do unto him, and that we may yield worship unto him. Which, as far as I apprehend him, is no more then if he had thus replied unto Aërius. Although the prayer that is made for the dead do not cut off all their sins (which is the only thing that thou goest about to prove) yet doth it profit notwithstanding for another purpose: namely to signify the supereminent perfection of our Savior Christ above the rest of the sons of men, who are subject to manifold slipps and falls as long as they live in this world.

For as well the righteous, with their involuntarie slipps, as sinners, with their voluntary falls, do come within the compass of these Commemorations: wherein prayers are made, both for sinners that repent, and for righteous persons that have no such need of repentance. For sinners ; that being by their repentance recovered out of the snare of the Devil, they may find mercy of the Lord at the last day, and be freed from the fire prepared for the Devil and his angels: For the righteous ; that they may be recompensed in the resurrection of the just, and received into the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world. Which kind of prayer being made for the best men that ever lived (even the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and Martyrs themselves) Christ only excepted; showeth that the profit which the Church intended should be reaped therefrom, was not the taking away of the sins of the parties that were prayed for, but the honoring of their Lord above them: it being hereby declared, that our Lord is not to be compared unto any man; though a man live in righteousness a thousand times and more. for how should that be possible? considering that the one is God, the other man, (as the praying to the one, and for the other, doth discover) and the one is in heaven, the other in earth by reason of the remains of the body yet resting in the earth, until the day of the Resurrection, unto which all these prayers had special reference. This do I conceive to be the right meaning of Epiphanius his answer: as suiting best both with the general intention of the Church, which he taketh upon him to vindicate from the misconstruction of Aërius, & with the application thereof unto his objection, & with the known doctrine of Epiphanius, delivered by him elsewhere in these terms. After death there is no help to be gotten, either by godliness, or by repentance. For Lazarus doth not go there unto the rich man, nor the rich man unto Lazarus: neither doth Abraham send any of his spoils, that the poor may be afterward made rich thereby; neither doth the rich man obtain that which he asketh, although he entreat merciful Abraham • ith instant supplication. For the Garners are sealed up, and the time is fulfilled, and the combat is finished, and the lists are voided, and the Garlands are given, and such as have fought are at rest, and such as have not obtained are gone forth, and such as have not fought cannot now be present in time, and such as have been overthrown in the lists are cast out, and all things are clearly finished, after that we are once departed from hence.

We are to consider then, that the prayers and oblations, for rejecting whereof Aërius was reproved, were not such as are used in the Church of Rome at this day, but such as were used by the ancient Church at that time: and therefore as we in condemning of the one, have nothing to do with Aërius or his cause; so the Romanists, who dislike the other as much as ever Aërius did, must be content to let us alone, and take the charge of Aërianisme home unto themselves. Popish prayers and oblations for the dead, we know, do wholly depend upon the belief of Purgatory: if those of the ancient Church did so too; how cometh it to pass that Epiphanius doth not directly answer Aërius, as a Papist would do now, that they brought singular profit to the dead, by delivering their tormented souls out of the flames of Purgatory? but forgetting as much as once to make mention of Purgatory (the sole foundation of these suffrages for the dead, in our Adversaries judgment) doth trouble himself and his cause, with bringing in such far fett reasons as these: that they who performed this duty, did intend to signify thereby that their brethren departed were not perished, but remained still alive with the Lord; and to put a difference betwixt the high perfection of our Savior Christ, and the general frailty of the best of all his servants. Take away Popish Purgatory on the other side, (which in the days of Aërius and Epiphanius needed not to be taken away, because it was not as yet hatched) and all the reasons produced by Epiphanius will not withhold our Romanists from absolutely subscribing to the opinion of Aërius: this being a case with them resolved; that if Purgatory be not admitted after death, prayer for the dead must be unprofitable. But though Thomas Aquinas and his abettors determine so, we must not therefore think that Epiphanius was of the same mind; who lived in a time wherein prayers were usually made for them that never were dreamed to have been in Purgatory, and yieldeth those reasons of that usage, which overthrow the former consequence of Thomas every whit as much, as the supposition of Aërius.

For Aërius and Thomas both agree in this: that prayer for the dead would be altogether unprofitable, if the dead themselves received no special benefit thereby. This doth Epiphanius (defending the ancient use of these prayers in the Church) show to be untrue; by producing other profits that redounded from thence unto the living: partly by the public signification of their faith, hope, & charity toward the deceased; partly by the honor that they did unto the Lord Jesus, in exempting him from the common condition of the rest of mankind. And to make it appear, that these things were mainly intended by the Church in her Memorialls for the dead, and not the cutting off of the sins which they carried with them out of this life, or the releasing of them out of any torment: he alledgeth (as we have heard) that not only the meaner sort of Christians, but also the best of them without exception, even the Prophets and Apostles & Martyrs themselves, were comprehended therein. from whence, by our Adversaries good leave, we will make bold to frame this syllogism.

The assumption or second part of this argument (for the first we think nobody will deny) is thus proved. The truth of the first of these propositions doth appear by the testimony of Epiphanius, compared with those many other evidences whereby we have formerly proved, that it was the custom of the ancient Church to make prayers and oblations for them, of whose resting in peace and bliss there was no doubt at all conceived. The verity of the second is manifested by the confession of the Romanists themselves: who reckon this for one of their Catholic verities ; that suffrages should not be offered for the dead that reign with Christ. and therefore that ancient form of praying for the Apostles, Martyrs, and the rest of the Saints, is by disuse deservedly abolished ; saith Alphonsus Mendoza. Nay to offer sacrifices and prayers to God for those that are in bliss, is plainly absurd and impious, in the judgment of the Jesuit Azorius: who was not aware, that thereby he did outstrippe Aërius in condemning the practice of the ancient Church, as far, as the censuring it only to be unprofitable (for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; what shall the dead be profited thereby? was the furthest that Aërius durst to go) cometh short of rejecting it as absurd and impious. And therefore our Adversaries may do well, to purge themselves first from the blott of Aërianisme which sticketh so fast unto them, before they be so ready to cast the aspersion thereof upon others.

In the mean time, the Reader who desireth to be rightly informed in the judgment of Antiquity touching this point, is to remember; that these two questions must necessarily be distinguished in this inquiry. Whether prayers and oblations were to be made for the dead? and, Whether the dead did receive any peculiar profit thereby? In the latter of these, he shall find great difference among the Doctors: in the former, very little, or none at all. For howsoever all did not agree about the state of the souls (saith Cassander, an indifferent Papist) which might receive profit by these things: yet all did judge this duty, as a testimony of their love toward the dead, and a profession of their faith touching the souls immortality and the future resurrection, to be acceptable unto God and profitable to the Church. Therefore for condemning the general practice of the Church herein, which aimed at those good ends before expressed, Aë • ius was condemned: but for denying that the dead received profit thereby, either for the pardon of the sins which before were unremitted, or for the cutting off or mitigation of any torments that they did endure in the other world, the Church did never condemn him. For that was no new thing invented by him: diverse worthy men before and after him declared themselves to be of the same mind, and were never for all that charged with the least suspicion of heresy. The narration of Lazarus and the rich man (saith the author of the Questions and Answers in the works of Justin Martyr) presenteth this doctrine unto us: that after the departure of the soul out of the body, men cannot by any providence or care obtain any profit. Then (saith Gregory Nazianzen) in vain shall any one go about to relieve those that lament. Here men may have a remedy, but afterwards there is nothing but bonds, or, all things are fast bound. For after death the punishment of sin is remediless: saith Theodoret. and therefore S. Jerome doth conclude: that while we are in this present world, we may be able to help one another, either by our prayers or by our counsels; but when we shall come before the judgment seat of Christ, neither Job, nor Daniel, nor Noah can entreat for any one, but everyone must bear his own burden.

Other Doctors were of another judgment: that the dead received special profit by the prayers and oblations of the living; either for the remission of their sins, or the easing of their punishment. but whether this were restrained to smaller offenses only, or such as lived and died in great sins might be made partakers of the same benefit, and whether these men's torments might be lessened only thereby, or in tract of time quite extinguished; they did not agree upon. That Stephanus Gobarus, whom before I alleged, made a collection of the different sentences of the Fathers: whereof some contained the received doctrine of the Church, others the unallowable opinions of certain of the ancient that varied therefrom. Of this latter kind he maketh this sentence to be one: that such sinners as be delivered unto punishment, are purged therein from their sins, and after their purging are freed from their punishment; albeit not all who are delivered unto punishment, be thus purged and freed, but some only. whereas the true sentence of the Church was; that none at all was freed from punishment. If that were the true sentence of the Church, that none of those who suffered punishment in the other world were ever freed from the same: then the applying of prayers to the helping of men's souls out of any such punishments, must be referred to the erroneous apprehension of some particular men, and not to the general intention of the ancient Church; from which in this point, as in many others beside, the latter Church of Rome hath swerved and quite gone astray. The ancient writer of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, handling this matter of praying for the dead professedly, doth by way of objection move this doubt: to what purpose should the Bishop entreat the divine goodness to grant remission of sins unto the dead, and a like glorious inheritance with those that have followed God? seeing by such prayers he can be brought to no other rest, but that which is fitting for him and answerable unto the life which he hath here led. If our Romish divinity had been then acknowledged by the Church; there had been no place left to such questions and doubts as these. The matter might easily have been answered, that though a man did die in the state of grace, yet was he not presently to be admitted unto the place of rest, but must first be reckoned withal; both for the committall of those smaller faults, unto which through human frailty he was daily subject, and for the not performance of full penance and satisfaction for the greater sins into which in this life he had fallen: and Purgatory being the place wherein he must be cleansed from the one, and make up the just payment for the other; these prayers were directed unto God for the delivery of the poor soul, which was not now in case to help it self, out of that place of torment.

But this author, taking upon him the person of S. Paul's scholar, and professing to deliver herein that tradition which he had received from his divine Masters ; saith no such thing, but giveth in this for his answer. The divine Bishop, as the Scriptures witness, is the interpreter of the divine judgments: for he is the Angel of the Lord God almighty. He hath learned therefore out of the oracles delivered by God, that a most glorious and divine life is by his just judgment worthily adwarded to them that have lived holily; his divine goodness and kindness passing over those blots which by human frailty he had contracted: forasmuch as no man, as the Scriptures speak, is free from pollution. The Bishop therefore knowing these things to be promised by the true oracles; prayeth that they may accordingly come to pass, and those sacred rewards may be bestowed upon them that have lived holily. The Bishop at that time belike did not know so much as our Popish Bishops do now; that God's servants must dearly smart in Purgatory for the sins wherewith they were overtaken through human infirmity: he believed that God of his merciful goodness would pass by those slipps, and that such after-reckonings as these should give no stoppage to the present bestowing of those holy rewards upon the children of the promise. Ther • fore the divine Bishop (saith our author) asketh those things which were promised by God and are grateful to him and without doubt will be granted: the • eby as well manifesting his own good disposition, unto God who is a lover of the good; as declaring like an interpreter unto them that be present, the gifts that shall befall to such as are holy. He further also addeth, that the Bishops have a separating power, as the interpreters of God's judgments: according to that commission of Christ; Whose sins ye remitt, they are remitted unto them, and whose you shall retain, they are retained. and, Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven. And as in the use of the keys, the Schoolmen following S Jerome do account the minister to be the interpreter only of God's judgment, by declaring what is done by him in the binding or loosing of men's sins: so doth this author he • e give them power only to separate those that are all • eady judged of God, and by way of declaration, and convoy, to bring in those that are beloved of God, and to exclude such as are ungodly. And if the power which the Ministers have received by the foresaid commission do extend it self to any further real operation upon the living: Pope Gelasius will deny that it may be stretched in like manner unto the dead; because that Ch • ist saith, Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth. He saith upon earth: for he that dieth bound, is nowhere said to be loosed. and, that which a man remaining in his body hath not received, being unclothed of his flesh he cannot obtain: saith Leo.

Whether the dead received profit by the prayers of the living, was still a question in the Church. Maximus in his Greek scholies upon the writer of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, wisheth us to mark, that even before his time that doubt was questioned. Among the questions wherein Dulcitius desired to be resolved by S. Augustine, we find this to be one; Whether the offering that is made for the dead, did avayle their souls anything? and that MANY did say to this, that if herein any good were to be done after death; how much rather should the soul it self obtain ease for it self, by it own confessing of her sins there, than that for the ease thereof an oblation should be procured by other men. The like also is noted by Cyril or rather John Bishop of Jerusalem ; that he knew MANY who said thus. What profit doth the soul get that goeth out of this world (either with sins, or not with sins) if you make mention of it in prayer? and by Anastasius Sinaita (or Nicaenus: ) Some do doubt; saying that the dead are not profited by the oblations that are made for them. and (long after them) by Petrus Cluniacensis in his treatise against the followers of Peter Bruse in France : That the good deeds of the living may profit the dead, both these heretics do deny, and some Catholics also do seem to doubt. Nay in the West, not the profit only, but the lawfulness also of these doings for the dead was called in question: as partly may be collected by Boniface archbishop of Mainz his consulting with Pope Gregory, about 730. years after the birth of our Savior; Whether it were lawful to offer oblations for the dead (which he should have no reason to do, if no question had been made thereof among the Germans ) and is plainly delivered by Hugo Etherianus, about 1170. years after Christ, in these words. I know that many are deformed with vain opinions, thinking that the dead are not to be prayed for: because that neither Christ, nor the Apostles that succeeded him have intimated these things in the Scriptures. But they are ignorant that there be many things, and those exceeding necessary, frequented by the holy Church, the tradition whereof is not had in the Scriptures: and yet they pertain nevertheless to the worship of God, and obtain great strength. Whereby it may appear, that this practice wanted not opposition even then, when in the Papacie it was advanced unto his greatest height. And now is it high time, that I should pass from this article, unto the next following

OF LIMBVS PATRVM ; And CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL.

HEre doth our Challenger undertake to prove against us; not only that there is Limbus Patrum, but that our Savior also descended into Hell, to deliver the ancient Fathers of the Old Testament; because before his Passion none ever entered into Heaven. That there was such a thing as Limbus Patrum, I have heard it said: but what it is now, the Doctors vary, yet agree all in this; that Limbus it may well be, but Limbus Patrum sure it is not. Whether it were distinct from that place, in which the infants that depart out of this life without baptism are now believed to be received, the Divines do doubt; neither is there anything to be rashly pronounced of so doubtful a matter: saith Maldonado the Jesuit. The Dominican Friars, that wrote against the Grecians at Constantinople in the year 1252 resolve, that into this Limbus the holy Fathers before the coming of Christ did descend; but now the children that depart without baptism, are detained there: so that in their judgment, that which was the Limbus of Fathers, is now become the Limbus of Children. The more common opinion is, that these be two distinct places: and that the one is appointed for unbaptized infants, but the other now remaineth void, and so shall remain, that it may bear witness as well of the justice as of the mercy of God. If you demand, how it came to be thus void, & emptied of the old inhabitants: the answer is here given; that our Savior descended into Hell purposely • o deliver from hence the ancient Fathers of the Old Testament. But Hell is one thing, I ween, saith Tertullian, and Abraham's b • some (where the Fathers of the Old Testament rested) another: neither is it to be believed, that the bosom of Abraham, being the habitation of a secret kind of rest, was any part of Hell ; saith S. Augustine. To say then, that our Savior descended into Hell, to deliver the ancient Fathers of the Old Testament out of Limbus Patrum: would by this construction prove as strange a tale, as if it had been reported, that Caesar made a voyage into Britain, to set his friends at liberty in Greece.

Yea, but before Christ's Passion none ever entered into Heaven: saith our Challenger. The proposition that Cardinal Bellarmine taketh upon him to prove, where he handleth this controversy, is: that the souls of the godly were not in Heaven before the As • ension of Christ. Our Jesuit, it seemeth, considered here with himself, that Christ had promised unto the penitent thief upon the cross; that not before his ascension only, but also before his resurrection, even that day he should be with him in Paradise: that is to say, in the kingdom of heaven ; as the Cardina • l himself doth prove, both by the authority of S. Paul, making Paradise and the third heaven to be the self same thing, and by the testimony of the ancient expositors of the place. This, belike, stuck somewhat in our Jesuits stomach: who being loath to interpret this of his Limbus Patrum (as others of that side had done) and to maintain that Paradise, instead of the third Heaven, should signify the third or the fourth Hell; thought it best to shift the matter handsomely away, by taking upon him to defend, that, not before Christ's ascension (least that of the Thief should cross him) but before his passion none ever entered into Heaven. But if none before our Savior's Passion did ever enter into Heaven: whither shall we say that Elias did enter? The Scripture assureth us, that he went up into heaven: (2. Kings, 2.11▪) & of this Mattathias put his sons in mind upon his death-bedd; that Elias being zealous and fervent for the law, was taken up into heaven. Elias and Moses both, before the passion of Christ are described to be in glory: Lazarus is carried by the Angels into a place of comfort, and not of imprisonment: in a word, all the Fathers accounted themselves to be strangers and pilgrims in this earth, seeking for a better country, that is, an heavenly, as well as we do; and therefore having ended their pilgrimage, they arrived at the country they sought for, as well as we. They believed to be saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as we; they lived by that faith, as well as we; they died in Christ, as well as we; they received remission of sins, imputation of righteousness, and the blessedness arising therefrom, as well as we: and the mediation of our Savior being of that present efficacy, that it took away sin and brought in righteousness from the very beginning of the world, it had virtue sufficient to free men from the penalty of loss as well as from the penalty of sense, and to bring them unto him in whose presence is fullness of joy, as to deliver them from the place of torment where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The first that ever assigned a resting place in Hell to the Fathers of the Old Testament, was (as far as we can find) Marcion the heretic: who determined that both kind of rewards, whether of torment or of refreshing, was appointed in Hell for them that did obey the Law and the Prophets. Wherein he was gainsayd by such as wrote against him, not only for making that the place of their eternal rest; but also for lodging them there at all, and imagining that Abraham's bosom was any part of Hell. This appeareth plainly by the disputation, set out among the works of Origen, betwixt Marcus the Marcionite, & Adamantius the defender of the Catholic cause: who touching the parabolical history of the rich man & Lazarus in the sixteenth of S. Luke, are brought in reasoning after this manner. MARCUS. He saith that A • raham is in hell, and not in the kingdom of heaven. ADAMANTIUS. Read whether he sayt • that Abraham was in Hell. MARC. In that the rich man and he talked one to the other, it appeareth that they were together. ADAMANT. That they talked one with another, thou hearest; but the great gulf spoken of, that thou hearest not. For the middle space betwixt heaven and earth he calleth a gulf. MARC. Can a man therefore see from earth unto heaven? it is impossible. Can any man lifting up his eyes behold from the earth, or from hell rather see into heaven? If not; it is plain, that a valley only was set betwixt them. ADAMANT. Bodily eyes use to see those things only that are near: but spiritual eyes reach far. and it is manifest, that they who have here put off their body, do see one another with the eyes of their soul. For mark how the Gospel doth say, that he lifted up his eyes. toward heaven one useth to lift them up, and not toward the earth. In like manner doth Tertullian also retort the same place of Scripture against Marcion, and prove that it maketh a plain difference between Hell and the bosom of Abraham. For it affirmeth (saith he) both that a great deep is interposed betwixt those regions, and that it suffereth no passage from either side. Neither could the rich man have lifted up his eyes, and that afar off, unless it had been unto places above him, and very far above him, by reason of the mighty distance betwixt that height and that depth. Thus far Tertullian: who though he come short of Adamantius, in making Abraham's bosom not to be any part of Heaven, although no member at all of Hell ; yet doth he concur with him in this, that it is a place of bliss, and a common receptacle wherein the souls of all the faithful as well of the new as of the Old Testament do still remain, in expectation of the general resurrection▪ which quite marteth the Limbus Patrum of our Romanists, and the journey which they fancy our Savior to have taken for the fetching of the Fathers from thence.

With these two doth S. Augustine also join, in his 99. epistle to Euodius: concerning whose judgment herein, I will not say the deceitful, but the exceeding partial dealing of Cardinal Bellarmine can very hardly be excused. Although Augustine (saith he) in his 99. epistle do seem to doubt, whether the bosom of Abraham, where the souls of the Fathers were in times past, should be in Hell or somewhere else: yet in the 20. book of the City of God, the 15. chapter, he affirmeth that it was in Hell; as all the rest of the Fathers have always taught. If S. Augustine in that epistle were of the mind (as he was indeed) that Abraham's bosom was no part of Hell: he was not the first inventer of that doctrine; others taught it before him, and opposed Marcion for teaching otherwise. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : alone he went not, two there were at least (as we have seen) that walked along with him in the same way. But for that which he is said to have doubted off in one place, and to have affirmed in another: if the indifferent Reader will be pleased but to view both the places, he shall easily discern that the Cardinal looked not into these things with a single eye. In his 99. epistle, from that speech of Abraham; Between you and us there is a great gulf fixed: he maketh this inference. In these words it appeareth sufficiently, as I think, that the bosom of so great happiness is not any part and member of Hell. These seem unto the Cardinal to be the words of a doubtful man: with what words then, when he is better resolved, doth he affirm the matter ? With these forsooth. If it do seem no absurdity to believe, that the old Saints which held the faith of Christ to come, were in places most remote from the torments of the wicked, but yet in Hell; until the blood of Christ, and his descent into those places, did deliver them: truly from henceforth the good and faithful, who are redeemed with that price already shed, know not Hell at all. If, satis ut opinor apparet, [it appeareth sufficiently, as I think, ] must import doubting; and, si non absurd credi videtur, [if it do seem no absurdity to believe, ] affirming: I know not, I must confess, what to make of men's speeches.

The truth is: S. Augustine in handling this question discovereth himself to be neither of the Jesuits temper nor belief. He esteemed not this to be such an article of faith, that they who agreed not therein must needs be held to be of different religions: as he doth modestly propound the reasons which induced him to think that Abraham's bosom was no member of Hell; so doth he not lightly reject the opinion of those that thought otherwise, but leaveth it still as a disputable point. Whether that bosom of Abraham where the wicked rich man, when he was in the torments of Hell, did behold the poor man resting, were either to be accounted by the name of Paradise, or esteemed to appertain unto Hell, I cannot readily affirm: saith he in one place. and in another: Whether Abraham were then at any certain place in Hell, we cannot certainly define. and in his 12. book de Genesi ad literam: I have not hitherto found, and I do yet inquire, neither do I remember that the canonical Scripture doth anywhere put Hell in the good part. Now that the bosom of Abraham and that rest, unto which the godly poor man was carried by the Angel, should not be taken in the good part, I know not whether any good man can endure to hear: and therefore how we may believe that it is in Hell I do not see. Where it may further also be observed, that S. Augustine doth here assign no other place to this godly poor man, then he doth unto the souls of all the faithful that have departed since the coming of our Savior Christ: the question with him being alike of them both, whether the place of their rest be designed by the name of Hell or Paradise. Therefore he saith: I confess, I have not yet found, that it is called Hell, where the souls of just men do rest. and again: How much more after this life may that bosom of Abraham be called Paradise; where now there is no temptation, where there is so great rest after all the griefs of this life? For neither is there wanting there a proper kind of light and of it own kind, a • d doubtless great; which that rich man out of the torments and darkness of Hell, (even from so remote a place, where a great gulf was placed in the midst) did so behold, that he might there take notice of the poor man whom sometime he had despised. and elsewhere, expounding that place in the 16. of S. Luke: The bosom of Abraham, saith he, is the rest of the blessed poor, whose is the kingdom of heaven, in which after this life they are received.

Bede in his Commentaries upon the same place, and Strabus in the ordinary Gloss do directly follow S. Augustine in this exposition: and the Greek interpreter of S Luke (who wrongly beareth the name of Titus Bostrensis, and Chrysos • om) for proof thereof produceth the testimony of Di • nysius Areopagita, affirming that by the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, those most divine and blessed seats are designed, w • ich do receive within them all just men after their most happy consummation. The words that he hath relation unto, be these, in the 7. chapter of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. The bosoms of the blessed Pa • riarches and of all the rest of the Saints are, as I think, the most divine and blessed resting places, which do recei • e all such as are like unto God, into that never-fading and most blessed perfection that is therein. Hitherto appertain those passages in S. Ambrose. Come into the bosom of Jacob: that as poor Lazarus did in the bosom of Abraham, so thou also mayst rest in the tranquility of the patriarch Jacob. For the bosom of the Patriarchs is a certain retiring place of everlasting rest. We shall go where holy Abraham openeth his bosom, to receive the poor, as he did receive Lazarus: in which bosom they do rest, who in this world have endured grievous and sharp things. Into Paradise is a ascent, into Hell a descent. Let them descend, saith he, quick into Hell. And therefore poor Lazarus was by the Angels lifted up into Abraham's bosom. Behold that poor man abounding with all good things, whom the blessed rest of the holy Patriarch did compass about. Lazarus lying in Abraham's bosom, enjoyed everlasting life.

S. Chrysostom, or whosoever else was the author of that homily touching the Rich man and Lazarus, upon those words of the text, that the rich man lifting up his eyes beheld Lazarus in Abraham's bosom, moveth this question: Why Lazarus did not see the rich man, as well as the rich man is said to see Lazarus? and giveth this answer thereunto: because he that is in the light doth not see him that standeth in the dark, but he that is in the dark beholdeth him that is in the light ; taking it for granted, that Abraham's bosom was a place of light and not of darkness. He that wrote the Homily upon that sentence of the Psalm, What man is he that would have life and desireth to see good days? who is commonly also, though not rightly, accounted to be Chrysostom ; goeth further and saith, that the rich man lifted up his eyes unto Heaven out of the place of torments, and cried unto father Abraham: yea he expressly affirmeth there, that the blessed poor man did go unto Heaven, and the rich man covered with purple did remain in Hell. which agreeth well with that undoubted saying of S. Chrysostom himself: Lazarus, who was worthy of Heaven and the kingdom that is there, being full of sores was exposed to the tongues of dogs, and strove with perpetual hunger. and with that which he writeth elsewhere: that after famine, and soars, and lying in the porch, he enjoyed that refreshing which is impossible to be expressed by speech, even unspeakable good things. Whereunto may be added that collection of his out of the words of our Savior: Many shall come from the East and West, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, Matth. 8.11. that this kingdom is designed here by a new term of the bosom of Abraham ; and the consummation of all good called by the name of the bosoms of the Patriarchs.

S. Basil in his sermon of Fasting, placeth Lazarus in Paradise. Dost not thou see Lazarus (saith he) how he entered by fasting into Paradise? and the ancient compiler of the Latin sermon translated from thence, frameth his exhortation accordingly, Let us therefore use this way, whereby we may return unto Paradise. Thither is Lazarus gone before us. Asterius Bishop of Amasea placeth him in a sweet and joyous state: Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, in unexpected delights: Salvianus, in bliss and everlasting wealth. The poor man (saith he) bought bliss with beggary; the rich man punishment with wealth. The poor man, when he had just nothing, bought everlasting riches with penury. Gregory Nazianzen saith, he was enriched with refreshment in the bosoms of Abraham, that are so much to be desired. Prudentius, in his poetical vain, describeth him to be there hedged about with flowers, as being in the garden of Paradise, even in the same paradise wherein pure souls do now rest since the ascension of Christ. for thus he writeth:

So where Job saith; Naked came I out of my mothers womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Greek scholies expound it thus: Thither: namely unto God, unto that blessed end and rest. which the author of the Commentaries upon Job ascribed to Origen, expresseth thus at large. Thither will I go, saith he, where are the tabernacles of the righteous, where the glories of the Saints are, where is the rest of the faithful, where is the consolation of the godly, where is the inheritance of the merciful, where is the bliss of the undefiled, where is the joy and consolation of such as love the truth. Thither will I go, where is light and life, where is glory & jocundnesse, where is joy and exultation: whence grief and heaviness and groaning fly away, where they forgett the former tribulations that they sustained in their body upon the earth. Thither will I go, where there is a laying aside of tribulations, where there this a recompense of labors, where is the bosom of Abraham, where the propriety of Isaac, where the familiarity of Israel; where be the souls of the Saints, where the quire of Angels, where the voices of Archangels, where the illumination of the holy Ghost, where the kingdom of Christ, where the endless glory and blessed sight of the eternal God the father. What difference I pray you now, is there betwixt this Limbus Patrum and Heaven it self?

Of Abraham's bosom Gregory Nyssen writeth after this manner. As by a certain abuse of speech we call a baye of the sea an arm or bosom: so it seemeth to me that the word doth signify the exhibitiō of those unmeasurable good things by the name of a bosom; into which good bosom, or baye, all men that sail by a virtuous course through this present life, when they loose from hence, put in their souls as it were into a haven free from danger of waves and tempests. and in another place. If one hearing of a bosom, as it were a certain large baye of the sea; should conceive the fullness of good things to be meant thereby where the Patriarch is named, and that Lazarus is therein: he should not think amiss. True it is indeed, that diverse of the Doctors who make Abraham's bosom to be a place of glory, do yet distinguish it from Heaven : but it is to be considered withal that they hold the same opinion indifferently, of the place whereunto the souls of all godly men are received, as well under the state of the New as of the Old Testament. For they did not hold (as our Romanists do now) that Christ by his descension emptied Limbus, & removed the bosom of Abraham from Hell into Heaven: their Limbus is now as full of Fathers as ever it was, and is the common receptacle wherein they suppose all good souls to remain until the general resurrection; before which time they admit neither the Fathers nor us unto the possession of the kingdom of Heaven. For Abraham (saith Gregory Nyssen) and the other Patriarchs, although they had a desire to see those good things, and never left seeking that heavenly country, as the Apostle saith: yet are they notwithstanding that, even yet in expectancie of this favor; God having provided some better thing for us, according to the saying of S. Paul, that they without us should not be made perfect. So Tertullian: It appeareth to every wise man, that hath ever heard of the Elysian fields, that there is some local determination, which is called Ab • ahams bosom, to receive the souls of his sons, even of the Gentiles; he being the Father of many nations that were to be accounted of Abraham's family, and of the same faith wherewith Abraham believed God, under no yoke of the law, nor in t • e sign of Circumcision. That region t • erefore do I call the bosom of Abraham, although not heavenly yet higher than hell, which shall give rest in the mean season to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of thin • s do finish the resurrection of all, with the fullness of reward. And we have heard S. Hilary say before, that all the faithful, when they are gone out of the body, shall be reserved by the Lord's custody for that entry into the heavenly kingdom; being in the mean time placed in the bosom of Abraham, whither the wicked are hindered from coming by the gulf interposed betwixt them, until the time of entering into the kingdom of heaven do come. and again. The rich and the poor man in the Gospel do serve us for witnesses: one of whom the Angels did place in the seats of the Blessed and in Abraham's bosom; the other the region of punishment did presently receive. For the day of judgment is the everlasting retribution either of bliss or pain: but the time of death hath everyone under his laws, while either Abraham or punishment reserveth everyone unto judgment.

The difference betwixt the Doctors in their judgment concerning the bosom of Abraham, and the resting of the ancient Fathers therein, we find noted in part in those expositions upon the Gospel, which go under the name of Theophilus Bishop of Antioch and Eucherius Bishop of Lions. In that the rich man (say they) did in Hell behold Abraham, this by some is thought to be the reason: because all the Saints before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, are said to have descended into Hell, although into a place of refreshment. Others think, that the place wherein Abraham was, did lie apart from those places of Hell, situated in places above: for which the Lord should say of that rich man, that lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham a far off. The former of these opinions is delivered by some of the Doctors doubtfully, by others more resolutely. Primasius setteth it down with S. Augustine's qualification: It s • em • th that without absurdity it may be believed. The author of the imperfect work upon Matthew saith, that peradventure the just did ascend into heave • before the coming of Christ: yet that he doth think, • hat no soul before Christ did ascend into heaven, since Adam sinned and the heavens were shut against him; but all were detained in Hell. and, as I do think, saith the Greek expositor of Zacharias' Hymn likewise, even our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the whole queere of the holy Prophets and just men, did enjoy the coming of Christ. Of which coming to visit the Fathers in Hell, S. Jerome, Ruffinus, Venantius Fortunatus, Gregory, Julianus Toletanus, and Eusebius Emissenus (as he is commonly called) interpret that question propounded by the Baptist unto our Savior. Art thou he that should come, or look we for another? which exposition is by S. Chrysostom justly rejected, as utterly impertinent and ridiculous. Anastasius Sinaita affirmeth very boldly, that all the souls as well of the just as the unjust were under the hand of the Devil, until Christ descending into Hell said unto those that were in bonds, Come forth, and to those that were indurance, Be at liberty. For he did not only (saith he in another place) dissolve the corruption of the bodies in the grave: but also delivered the captive souls out of Hell, wherein they were by tyranny detained, and peradventure not by tyranny neither, but for many debts. which being paid, he that descended for their delivery, brought back with him a great company of captives. and thus was Hell spoiled, and Adam delivered from his griefs. Which is agreeable to that which we read in the works of Athanasius: that the soul of Adam was detained in the condemnation of death, and cried continually unto the Lord; such as had pleased God, and were justified in the law of nature, being detained together with Adam, and lamenting and crying out with him. and that the Devil, beholding himself spoiled, did bemoan himself; and beholding those that sometime were weeping under him, now singing in the Lord, did rent himself.

Others are more favorable to the souls of the Fathers, though they place them in Hell: for they hold them to have been there in a state of bliss, and not of misery. Thus the author of the Latin homily concerning the Rich man and Lazarus, which is commonly fathered upon Chrysostom, notwithstanding he affirmeth that Abraham was in Hell, and that before the coming of Christ, none ever entered into Paradise: yet doth he acknowledge in the mean time that Lazarus did remain there in a kind of Paradise. For the bosom of Abraham, saith he, was the poor man's Paradise. and again. Some man may say unto me: Is there a Paradise in Hell? I say this, that the bosom of Abraham is the truth of Paradise: Yea and I confess it to be a most holy Paradise. So Tertullian in the fourth book of his Verses against Marcion, placeth Abraham's bosom under the earth, but in an open and lightsome seat, far removed from the fire and from the darkness of Hell:

Yea he maketh it to be one house with that which is eternal in the heaven, distinguished only from it, as the outer and the inner Temple (or the Sanctum and the Sanctum Sanctorum) were in the time of the Law, by the Vayle that hung between: which veil being rent at the passion of Christ, he saith these two were made one everlasting house. Yet elsewhere he maketh up the partition again: maintaining very stiffly, that the gates of Heaven remain still shut against all men, until the end of the world come and the day of the last judgment. Only Paradise he leaveth open for Martyrs (as that other author of the latin Homily seemeth also to do:) but the souls of the rest of the faithful he sequest • eth into Hell, there to remain in Abraham's bosom until the time of the general resurrection. And to this part of Hell doth he imagine Christ to have descended, not with purpose to fetch the souls of the Fathers from thence (which is the only errand that our Romanists conceive he had thither) but, ut illic Patriarchas & Prophetas compotes sui faceret, that he might there make the Patriarchs and Prophets partakers of his presence.

S. Jerome saith, that our Lord Jesus Christ descended into the furnace of Hell, wherein the souls both of sinners and of just men were held shut; that without any burning or hurt unto himself, he might free from the bonds of death those that were held shut up in that place: and that he called upon the name of the Lord out of the lowermost lake, when by the power of his divinity he descended into Hell, and having destroyed the bars of Tartarus, (or the dungeon of Hell) bringing from thence such of his as he found there, ascended conqueror up again. He saith further, that Hell is the place of punishments and tortures, in which the rich man that was clothed in pu • ple is see • e: unto which also the Lord did descend, that he might let forth those that were bound out of prison. Lastly, t • e Son of God (saith he, following Origen, as it seemeth, too unaduisedly here) descended into the lowermost parts of the earth, and ascended above all heavens: that he might not only fulfill the law and the prophets, but certain other hidden dispensations also, which he alone doth know with the Father. For we cannot understand, how the blood of Christ did profit both the Angels and those that were in Hell; and yet that it did profit them, we cannot be ignorant. Thus far S. Jerome ; touching Christ's descent into the lowermost Hell: which Thomas and the other Schoolmen will not admit that he ever came unto. Yet this must they of force grant, if they will stand to the authority of the Fathers. It remained, saith Fulgentius, for the full effecting of our redemption, that man assumed by God without sin, should thither descend, whither man separated from God should have fallen by the desert of sin; that is, unto Hell, where the soul of the sinner was wont to be tormented, and to the Grave, where the flesh of the sinner was accustomed to be corrupted: yet so, that neither the flesh of Christ should be corrupted in the Grave nor his soul be tormented with the pains of Hell. Because the soul free from sin, was not to be subjected to such punishment: neither ought corruption to tainte the flesh without sin. And this he saith was done for this end: that by the flesh of the just dying temporally, everlasting life might be given to our flesh; and by the soul of the just descending into Hell, the pains of hell might be loosed.

It is the saying of S. Ambrose, that Christ being void of sin, when he did descend into the lowermost parts of Tartarus, breaking the bars & gates of Hell, called back unto life out of the jaws of the Devil the souls that were bound with sin, having destroyed the dominion of death : and of Eusebius Emissenus or Gallicanus (or whoever was the author of the sixth Paschal homily attributed to him) that the son of man laying aside his body, pierced the lowest & hidden seats of Tartarus: but where he was thought to have been detained among the dead, there binding death; did he loose the bonds of the dead. Presently therefore, saith Caesarius (in his third Paschal homily; w ^ch is the same with the first of those that go under the name of the former Eusebius) the everlasting night of Hell at Christ's descending shined bright: the gnashing of the mourners ceased, the burdens of the chains were loosed, the bursted bands of the damned fell from them. The tormentors astonished in mind were amazed: the whole jmpious shoppe trembled together, when they beheld Christ suddenly in their dwellings: So Arnoldus Bonaevallensis in his book de Cardinalibus operibus Christi (commonly attributed to S. Cyprian) noteth, that at that time there was a cessation from infernal torments: which by Arator is thus more amply expressed in verse.

S. Augustine doth thus deliver his opinion touching this matter. That Christ's soul came unto those places wherein sinners are punished, that he might loose them from torments, whom by his hidden justice he judged fit to be loosed; is not without cause believed. Neither did our Savior being dead for us, scorn to visit those parts: that he might loose from thence such as he could not be ignorant, according to his divine and secret justice, were not to be loosed. But whether he loosed all that he found in those pains, or some whom he thought worthy of that benefit, I yet inquire. For that he was in hell, and bestowed this benefit upon some that did lie in the pains thereof, I do not doubt. Thus did S. Augustine write unto Euodias, who inquired of him; whether our Savior loosed all from thence, and emptied Hell? which was in those days a great question: and gave occasion to that speech of Gregory Nazianzen. If he descend into Hell, go thou down with him (namely in contemplation and meditation) learn the mysteries of Christ's doings there, what the dispensation and what the reason was of his double descent (to wit, from heaven unto earth, & from earth unto hell:) whether at his appearing he simply saved all, or there also such only as did believe. What Clemēs Alexandrinus his opinion was herein, everyone knoweth, that our Lord descended for no other cause into Hell, but to preach the Gospel ; and that such as lived a good life before the time of the Gospel, whether Jews or Grecians, although they were in hell and in durance, yet hearing the voice of our Lord (either from himself immediately or by the working of his Apostles) were presently converted and did believe: in a word, that in Hell things were so ordered, that evē there all the souls, having heard this preaching might either show their repentance, or acknowledge their punishment to be just, because they did not believe. Hereupon, when Celsus the Philosopher made this objection concerning our Savior: Surely you will not say of him, that when he could not persuade those that were here, he went unto Hell to persuade those that were there. Origen, the scholar of Clemens, sticketh not to return unto him this answer. Whether he will or no, we say this, that both being in the body he did persuade, not a few, but so many that for the multitude of those that were persuaded by him he was laid in wait for: and after his soul was separated from his body, he had conference with souls separated from their bodies; converting of them unto himself such as would, or such as he discerned to be more fit for reasons best known unto himself.

The like effect of Christ's preaching in Hell, is delivered by Anastasius Sinaita, Iobius or Iovius, Damascene, Oecumenius, Michael Glycas, and his transcriber Theodorus Metochites. Procopius saith; that he preached to the spirits that were in Hell, restrained in the prison house, releasing them all from the bonds of necessity. wherein he followeth S. Cyril of Alexandria, writing upon the same place, that Christ went to preach to the spirits in Hell, and appeared to them that were detained in the prison house; and freed them all f • om bonds and necessity, and pain, and punishment. The same S. Cyril in his Paschal homilies affirmeth more directly, that our Savior entering into the lowermost dens of Hell, and preaching to the spirits that were there ; emptied that insatiable den of death, spoiled Hell of spirits, and having thus spoiled all Hell, left the Devil there solitary and alone. For when Christ descended into Hell, saith Andronicus, not only the souls of the Saints were delivered from thence; but all those that before did serve in the error of the Devil and the worship of idols, being enriched with the knowledge of God, obtained salvation: for which also they gave thanks, praising God. Whereupon the author of one of the sermons upon the Ascension, fathered upon S. Chrysostom, bringeth in the Devil complaing, that the son of Mary, having taken away from him all those that were with him from the very beginning, had left him desolate. whereas the true Chrysostom doth at large confute this fond opinion: censuring the maintayners thereof, as the bringers in of old wives conceytes and Jewish fables. Yea Philastrius, & S. Augustine out of him, doth brand such for heretics: whose testimony also is urged by S. Gregory against George and Theodore, two of the clergy of Constantinople ; who held in his time (as many others did before and after them) that our omnipotent Lord and Savior Jesus Christ descending into Hell, did save all those who there confessed him to be God, and did deliver them from the pains that were due unto them. and when Clement our countryman, about 150. years after, did renew that old error in Germany, that the son of God descending into Hell delivered from thence all such as that infernal prison did detayne, believers and unbelievers, praysers of God and worshippers of idols: the Roman Synod held by Pope Zechariah condemned him and his followers for it.

But to leave Clemens Scotus, and to return unto Clemens Alexandrinus, at whom Philastrius may seem to have aimed specially: it is confessed by our Adversaries, that he fell into this error, partly being deceived with the superficial consideration of the words of S. Pet • r, touching Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison, 1. Pet. 3.19. partly being deluded with the authority of Hermes, the supposed scholar of S. Paul ; by whose dreams he was persuaded to believe, that not only Christ himself, but his Apostles also did descend into Hell, to preach there unto the dead & to baptize them. But touching the words of S. Peter is the main doubt: whether they are to be referred unto Christ's preaching by the ministry of Noë unto the world of the ungodly; or unto his own immediate preaching to the spirits in Hell after his death upon the Cross. For seeing it was the spirit of Christ which spake in the Prophets, (as S. Peter showeth in this same Epistle) and among them was Noë a preacher of righteousness (as he declareth in the next:) even as in S. Paul, Christ is said to have come and preached to the Ephesians, namely by his spirit in the mouth of his Apostles; so likewise in S. Peter may he be said to have gone and preached to the old world, by his spirit in the mouth of his Prophets (and of Noë in particular) when God having said that his Spirit should not always strive with man, because he was flesh, did in his long suffering wait the expiration of the time which he then did set for his amendment, even an hundred and twenty years. For which exposition the Ethiopian Translation maketh something: where the Spirit, by which Christ is said to have been quickened and to have preached, is by the Interpreter termed Manphes Kades, that is, the Holy Spirit. the addition of which epithet we may observe also to be used by S. Paul in the mention of the resurrection, and by S. Luke in the matter of the preaching of our Savior Christ. for of the one we read, Rom. 1.4. that he was declared to be the Son of God, with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness, (or, the most holy Spirit) by the Resurrection from the dead. and of the other, Act. 1.2. that he gave commandments to the Apostles by the holy Spirit.

Thus doth S. Jerome relate, that a most prudent man (for so he termeth him) did understand this place: He preached to the spirits put in prison; when the patience of God did wait in the days of Noë, bringing in the flood upon the wicked. as if this preaching were then performed, when the patience of God did expect the conversion of those wicked men in the days of Noë. S. Augustine more directly, wisheth us to consider, least happily all that which the Apostle Peter speaketh of the spirits shut up in prison, which believed not in the days of Noë, pertain nothing at all unto Hell, but rather to those times which he compareth as a pattern with our times. For Christ (saith he) before ever he came in the flesh to die for us, which once he did, came often before in the spirit to such as he pleased, admonishing them by visions in the spirit as he pleased: by which spirit he was also quickened, when in his passion he was mortified in the flesh. Venerable Bede, and Walafridus Strabus in the Ordinary Gloss after him, set down their minds herein yet more resolutely. He who in our times coming in the flesh, preached the way of life unto the world, even he himself also before the flood, coming in the spirit preached unto them, which then were unbelievers and lived carnally. For by his holy spirit he was in Noë, and the rest of the holy men which were at that time; and by their good conve • sation, preached to the wicked men of that age, that they might be converted to a better course of life. The same exposition is followed by Anselmus Laudunensis in the Interlineary Gloss, Thomas Aquinas in his Sum, and diverse others in their Commentaries upon this place. Yea since the Council of Trent, and in a book written in defense of the faith of Trent, Doctor Andradius professeth that he thinketh this to be the plain meaning of the place. In which spirit he himself long since coming (that we may not imagine, that he now first undertook the care of his Church) did preach unto those spirits, which now in prison do suffer the d • served pains of their infidelity; forasmuch as they would not believe Noë giving them good counsel, and building the Ark by God's appointment, notwi • hstanding the patience of God did wait for them very long, to wit, a hundred years or more. which accordeth fully with that interpretation of S. Peters words, which is delivered by the learned of our side. In which spirit he had gone and preached • o them that now are spirits in prison: because they disobeyed when the time was: when the patience of God once waited in the days of Noë, while the Ark was a preparing. (1. Pet. 3.19, 20.)

But there were diverse apocryphal scriptures and traditions afoot in the ancient Church, which did so possess men's minds with the conceit of Christ's preaching in Hell, that they never sought for any further meaning in S. Peters words. as that sentence especially, which was fathered upon the Prophet Isaiah or Jeremiah ; and from whence, if Cardinal Bellarmine's wisdom may be heard, it is credible that S. Peter took his words. namely: The Lord the holy one of Israel remembered his dead, which slept in the earth of their graves; and descended to them, to preach unto them his salvation. and that blind tradition, which Anastasius Sindita doth thus lay down, immediately after his citation of S. Peters text. It is now related among the old traditions, that a certain Scholar using many opprobrious speeches against Plato the philosopher; Plato appeared unto him in his sleep, and said. Man, forbear to use opprobrious speeches against me: for thereby thou hurtest thyself. That I was a sinful man I do not deny: but when Christ descended into Hell, in very deed none did believe in him before myself. Nicetas Serronius reciteth this out of the histories of the Fathers: which whether it be to be believed or no, I leave (saith he) to be judged by the hearers. as if any great matter of judgment should be requisite, for the discerning of this to be ( as Bellarmine doth censure it) a fable, or (as Dionysius Carthusianus before him) an apocryphal dream. The like stuff is that also which was vented heretofore unto the world in the apocryphal gospel of Nicodemus. to say nothing of that sentence which is read in the old Latin edition of the book of Ecclesiasticus ; I will pierce all the lower-most parts of the earth, and behold all that are asleep, and enlighten all them that hope in the Lord. which although it be not now to be found in the Greek original, and hath perhaps another meaning then that to which it is applied; yet is it made by the author of the imperfect work upon Matthew one of the chief inducements, which led him to think that our Savior descended into Hell, to visit there the souls of the righteous.

The tradition that of all others deserveth greatest consideration, is the article of the Creed touching Christ's descent into Hell: which Genebrard affirmeth to have been so hateful to the Arians, that, as Ambrose reporteth upon the fifth Chapter of the epistle to the Romans, they struck it quite out of the very Creed. But neither is there the least footstep of any such matter to be seen in S. Ambrose: and it sufficiently appeareth otherwise, that the Arians did not only add this article unto their Creedes, but also set it forth and amplified it with many words; so far off were they, from being guilty of suppressing it. For as the Fathers of the first general Council, held in the year of our Lord CCCXXV. at Nice in Bithynia, did publish a Creed against the Arians: so the Arians on the other side, in the year CCCLIX. set out a Creed of their own making, in a Synod purposely kept by them at Nice in Thracia, that by the ambiguity of the Councils name, the simpler sort might be more easily induced, to mistake this Nicene for that other Catholic Nicene Creed. And whereas the true Nicene fathers had in their Creed omitted the article of the descent into Hell (which, as we shall afterwards hear out of Ruffinus, was not to be had in the Symbols of the Eastern Churches:) these bastard fatherlings in their Nicene Creed, did not only insert this clause, He descended to the places under the earth ; but added also for further amplification, Whom Hell it self trembled at. The like did they (with the words a little altered) in another Creed set out in a Conventicle gathered at Constantinople : and in a third Creed likewise (framed by them at Sirmium and confirmed the same year in their great Council at Ariminum ) they put it in with a more large augmentation, after this manner. He descended to the places under the earth, and disposed things there; whom the keepers of Hell gates seeing, shook for fear. If therefore any fault were committed in the omission of this article; it should touch the Orthodox Fathers of Nice and Constantinople rather: whom the Latins, disputing with the Grecians in the Council of Ferrara, do directly charge with subtracting this article from the Apostles Creed; although they free them from blame in so doing, because they that took it away (say they) did not deny it, nor fight against the truth.

But first they should have shown, that the Fathers of Nice and Constantinople did find this article of Christ's descent into Hell in the Apostles Creed: before they excused them from taking it away from thence. For the Creed of the Council of Constantinople (which commonly goeth under the name of the Nicene Creed) being nothing else but an explanation & a more ample enlargement of the Creed Apostolical; yea and so fully expressing the same, that it self hath been heretofore accounted and named the Apostles Creed: it is not to be thought that it would leave out any article either unexplained or altogether unnamed, which was then commonly believed to have been any parcel of the Creed received from the Apostles. Add hereunto the ingenuous confession of Busaeus the Jesuit, in his positions touching Christ's descent into Hell. S. Cyprian, or Ruffinus rather, in his exposition of the Creed denieth that this article is read in the Creed of the Church of Rome, or the Churches of the East: and some of the most ancient Fathers, while either they gather up the sum of the Christian faith, or expound the Creed of the Apostles, have omitted this point of doctrine. But at what time it was inserted in the Creed, it cannot certainly be determined. The first particular Church that is known to have inserted this article into her Creeed, is that of Aquileia: which added also the attributes of invisible and impassible, unto God the Father almighty in the beginning of the Creed; as appeareth by Ruffinus, who framed his exposition of the Creed according to the order used in that Church. But whether any other Church in the world for 500. years after Christ, did follow the Aquileians in putting the one of these additions to the Apostolical Creed, more then the other; can hardly, I suppose, be shown by any approved testimony of antiquity. Cardinal Bellarmine noteth, that S. Augustine in his book de Fide & Symbolo, and in his four books de Symbolo ad Catechumenos, maketh no mention of this part, when he doth expound the whole Creed five several times. Nay Petrus Chrysologus, who was archbishop of Ravenna 450. years after Christ, doth six several times go over the exposition of the Creed: and yet never meddleth with this article. The like also may be observed in Maximus Taurinensis his exposition of the Creed. For as for the two Latin expositions thereof that go under the name of S. Chrysostom (the latter whereof hath it, the former hath it not) and the o • hers that are found in the tenth Tome of S Augustine's works among the Sermons de Tempore ( four of which do repeat it, & two do omit it:) because the authors of them, together with the time wherein they were written, be altogether unknown; they can bring us little light in this inquiry.

Neither is there hereby any whit more derogated from the credit of this article, then there is from others, whose authority is acknowledged to be undoubted and • eyond all exception: as namely that of our Savior's death, and the Communion of Saints. the one whereof as sufficiently implied in the article of the Crucifixion as a consequent, or the burial as a necessary antecedent thereof, the other as virtually contained in the article of the Church ; we find omitted not in the Constantinopolitan Symbol alone, and in the ancient Apostolical Creeds expounded by Ruffinus, Maximus, and Chrysologus, but also in those that are extant in Venantius Fortunatus 580. and in Etherius and Beatus, 785. years after Christ. In all which likewise may be noted, that the title of Maker of heaven and earth is not given to the Father in the beginning of the Creed: which out of the Creed of Constantinople we see is now everywhere added thereunto. Of which additions as there is now no question anywhere made: so by the consent of both sides, this of the descent into Hell also, is now numbered among the articles of the Apostles Creed. For the Scripture having expressly testified, that the prophecy of the Psalmist, Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell, was verified in Christ ; S. Augustine's conclusion must necessarily be inferred thereupon. Who therefore but an Infidel will deny that Christ was in Hell? Thus all agree, that Christ did some manner of way descend into Hell: saith Cardinal Bellarmine. But the whole question is touching the exposition of this article. The common exposition which the Romish Divines give thereof, is this: that by Hell is here understood, not that place wherein the wicked are tormented, but the bosom of Abraham, wherein the godly Fathers of the Old Testament rested; for whose delivery from thence they say our Savior took his journey thither. But S. Augustine in that same place, wherein he counteth it a point of infidelity to deny the going of Christ into Hell, gain saith this exposition thereof: professing that he could find the name of Hell nowhere given unto that place wherein the souls of the righteous did rest. Wherefore (saith he) if the holy Scripture had said, that Christ being dead did come unto the bosom of Abraham, not having named Hell and the pains thereof: I marvayle whether any would have been so bold, as to have avouched that Christ descended into Hell. But because evident testimonies do make mention both of Hell and pains: I see no cause, why our Savior should be believed to have come thither, but that he should deliver men from the pains thereof. And therefore, what benefit he brought unto those just men that were in the bosom of Abraham, when he did descend into Hell, I have not yet found. Thus far S. Augustine.

For the better understanding of this, we are to call unto mind that saying of the Philosophers: that they who do not learn rightly to understand words, use to be deceived in the things themselves. It will not be amiss therefore, to consider somewhat of the name of Hell: that the nature of the word being rightly understood, we may the better conceive the truth of the thing that is signified thereby. We are to know then first of our English word Hell, that the original thereof is by diverse men delivered diversely. Some derive it from the Hebrew word Sheol: either subtracting the first letter, or including it in the aspiration. For this letter S (saith Priscian) hath such an affinity with the aspiration; that the Boeotians in some words were wont to write H for S, saying Muha for Musa. Others bring it from the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth a lake : others from the English hole, as signifying a pit-hole ; others from hale, as noting the place that haleth or draweth men unto it. Some say, that in the old Saxon or German, Hel signifieth deep ; whether it be high or low. But the derivation given by Verstegan is the most probable; from being helled over, that is to say, hidden or covered. For in the old German tongue (from whence our English was extracted) Hill signifieth to hide : and Hiluh in Otfridus Wissenburgensis ; is hidden. And in this country, with them that retain the ancient language which their forefathers brought with them out of England, to hell the head, is as much as to cover the head: and he that covereth the house with tile or slate, is from thence commonly called a hellier. So that in the original propriety of the word, our Hell doth exactly answer the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which denoteth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the place which is unseen or removed from the sight of man.

We are in the second place therefore to observe, that the term of Hell, beside the vulgar acception, wherein it signifieth that which Luke 16.28. is called the place of torment ; is, in the Ecclesiastical use of the word, extended more largely to express the Greek word Hades and the Latin Inferi, & whatsoever is contained under them. Concerning which S. Augustine giveth this note: The name of Hell is variously put in Scriptures, and in many meanings, according as the sense of the things which are entreated of doth require. and Master Casaubon (who understood the property of Greek and Latin words as well as any) this other. They who think that HADES is properly the seat of the damned, be no less deceived, then they who, when they read INFEROS in Latin writers, do interpret it of the same place. The less cause have we to wonder, that Hell in the Scripture should be made the place of all the dead in common, and not of the wicked only. as in Psalm. 89.47, 48. Remember how short my time is: wherefore hast thou made all men in vain? What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of HELL? and Isaiah. 38.18, 19. HELL cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The LIVING, the LIVING, he shall praise thee, as I do this day. Where the opposition betwixt Hell and the state of life in this world is to be observed. Now as the common condition of the dead is considerable three manner of ways, either in respect of the body separated from the soul, or of the soul separated from the body, or of the whole man indefinitely considered in this state of separation: so do we find the word Hades (which by the Latins is rendered Infernus or Inferi, and by the English, Hell ) to be applied by the ancient Greek interpreters of the Old Testament to the common state and place of the body severed from the soul, by the heathen Greeks to the common state and place of the soul severed from the body, and by both of them to the common state of the dead, and the place proportionably correspondent to that state of dissolution. And so the Doctors of the Church, speaking in the same language which they learned both from the sacred and the foreign writers, are accordingly found to take the word in these three several significations.

Touching the first we are to note, that both the Septuagint in the Old Testament, and the Apostles in the New, do use the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 HADES (and answerably thereunto the Latin Interpreters the word Infernus or Inferi, and the English the word Hell) for that which in the Hebrew text is named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 SHEÓL: on the other side, where in the New Testament the word HADES is used, there the ancient Syriac translator doth put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shejul in steed thereof. Now the Hebrew Sheol (and so the Chaldee, Syriac and Ethiopian words which draw their original from thence) doth properly denote the interior parts of the earth, that lie hidden from our sight; namely whatsoever tendeth downward from the surface of the earth unto the center thereof. In which respect we see that the Scripture describeth Sheol to be a deep place; and opposeth the depth thereof unto the heighth of Heaven. (Job. 11.8. Psalm. 139.8. Amos 9.2.) Again, because the bodies that live upon the surface of the earth, are corrupted within the bowels thereof; the dust returning to the earth as it was: therefore is this word commonly put for the state and the place wherein dead bodies do rest, and are disposed for corruption. And in this respect we find that the Scripture doth oppose Sheol not only unto Heaven, but also unto this land of the living wherein we now breathe. (Isaiah. 38.10, 11. Ezech. 32.27.) the surface of the earth being the place appointed for the habitation of the living; the other parts ordained to be the chambers of death. Thus they that are in the graves (John. 5.28.) are said to sleep in the dust of the earth (Dan. 12.2.) The Psalmist, in his prophesy of our Savior's humiliation, termeth it the dust of death: (Psal. 22.15.) which the Chaldee Paraphrast expoundeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the house of the grave ; interpreting Sheol after the self same manner, in Psa. 31.18. & 89.49. R. Mordecai Nathan in his Hebrew Concordance, giveth no other interpretation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sheol, but only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or, the grave. R. Abraham Ibn-Ezra in his commentary upon those words, Genes. 37.35. I will go down into Sheól unto my son mourning ; writeth thus. Here the Translator of the erring persons (he meaneth the Vulgar Latin translation used by the Christians) erreth, in translating Sheól Hell or Gehenna: for behold, the signification of the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the grave. for proof whereof he alledgeth divers place of Scripture. Where by the way you may note, that in the last edition of the Masoriticall and Rabbinical Bible, printed by Bombergius, both this and diverse other passages elsewhere have been cut out by the Romish Correctors: which I wish our Buxtorfius had understood, when he followed that mangled and corrupted copy in his late renewed edition of that great work. R. Salomo Rashi, writing upon the same words, Gen. 37.35. saith, that according to the literal sense, the interpretation thereof is the Grave: (In my mourning I will be buried, and I will not be comforted all my days:) but after the Midrash or Allegorical interpretation, it is Gehenna. In like manner, R. David Kimchi expounding that place, Psal. 9.17. The wicked shall turn into Hell, and all the nations that forget God ; acknowledgeth, that by the Derash or Allegorical exposition, into Hell is as much to say, as into Gehenna: but according to the literal meaning he expoundeth it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into the grave ; intimating withal, that the Prophet useth here the term of turning or returning, with reference to that sentence, Gen. 3.19. Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Out of which observation of Kimchi we may further note, that the Hebrews, when they expound Sheol to be the grave, do not mean so much thereby an artificial grave (to wit, a pit digged in the earth, or a tomb raised above ground) as a natural sepulcher: such as the Poët speaketh of in that verse;

and Seneca in his Controversies. Nature hath given a burial unto all men: such as suffer shipwreck the same wave doth bury, that cast them away; the bodies of such as are crucified dropp away from the Crosses unto their burial; to such as are burnt alive, their punishment is a funeral. For this is the difference that is made by authors, betwixt burying and interring: that he is understood to be buried who is put away in any manner, but he to be interred who is covered with the earth. Hence different kinds of burials are mentioned by them, according to the different usages of several nations: the name of a sepulture being given by them, as well to the burning of the bodies of the dead, used of old among the more civil nations; as to the devouring of them by dogs, which was the barbarous custom of the Hyrcanians. Therefore Diogenes was wont to say, that if the dogs did tear him, he should have an Hyrcanian burial: and those beasts which were kept for this use, the Bactrians did term in their language Sepulchrall dogs ; as Strabo relateth out of Onesicritus. So in the Scripture, the Prophet Jonah calleth the belly of the Whale, wherein he was devoured, the belly of Sheol, that is, of Hell or the Grave. For Jonah (saith Basil of Seleuciae) was carried in a living grave, and dwelt in a swimming prison; dwelling in the region of death, the common lodge of the dead and not of the living, while he dwelt in that b • lly which was the mother of death. and in the prophecy of Jeremiah, King Jehoiakim is said to be buried, (although with the burial of an asse, ) when his carcass was drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem. The earth which begetteth all, receiveth all: and he that wanteth a coffin, hath the welkin for his winding sheet. The earth is our great mother; the common mother, out of whose womb as naked we came, so naked shall we return thither. according to that, in Psalm. 146.4. His spirit goeth forth, he returneth to HIS earth. and Psalm. 104.29. Thou takest away their breath, they die; and return to THEIR dust. And this is the Sheol, which Job waited for, when he said: Sheol or the grave, (for that is the Hell which is meant here: as is confessed not by Lyranus only, but by the Jesuit Pineda also) is mine house; I have made my bed in the darkness. I have said to corruption, Thou art my father: to the worm, Thou art my mother, and my sister.

This is that common sepulcher, non factum sed natum, not made by the hand of man, but provided by nature it self: betwixt which natural and artificial grave these differences may be observed. The artificial may be appropriated to this man or that man. The Patriarch David is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day: saith S. Peter, Act. 2.29. and, Ye build the tombs of the Prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous: saith our Savior Matth. 23.29. But in the natural there is no such distinction. It cannot be said, that this is such or such a man's Sheol: it is considered as the common receptacle of all the dead. as we read in Job : I know that thou wilt bring me to death, and to the house appointed for all living. For to every man (as Olympiodorus writeth upon that place) the earth it self is appointed as a house for his grave. There the prisoners rest together (saith Job) they hear not the voice of the oppressor. The small and great are there; and the servant, free from his master. Again, into a made grave a man may enter in alive and come out alive again (as Peter and John did into the sepulcher of Christ :) but Sheol either findeth men dead when they come into it (which is the ordinary course) or if they come into it alive (which is a new and unwonted thing) it bringeth death upon them; as we see it fell out in Korah and his complices, who are said to have gone down alive into Sheol, when the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up. (Numb. 16.30.33.) Lastly, as many living men do go into the grave made with hands, and yet in so doing they cannot be said to go into Sheol (beacuse they come from thence alive again:) so some dead men also want the honor of such a grave (as it was the case of God's servants whose bodies were kept from burial) and yet thereby are not kept from Sheol ; which is the way that all flesh must go to. For all go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. (Ecclesiast. 3.20.) We conclude therefore, that when Sheol is said to signify the grave ; the term of grave must be taken in as large a sense, as it is in that speech of our Savior, John. 5.28. All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. and in Isaiah. 26.19. according to the Greek reading: The dead shall rise, and they that are in the graves shall be raised up. upon which place Origen writeth thus. In this place and in many others likewise, the graves of the dead are to be understood according to the more certain meaning of the Scripture, not such only as we see are built for the receiving of men's bodies, either cut out in stones or digged down in the earth: but every place wherein a man's body lieth, either entire or in any part, albeit it fell out that one body should be dispersed through many places; it being no absurdity at all, that all those places in which any part of the body lieth, should be called the sepulchers of that body. For if we do not thus understand the dead to be raised by the power of God out of their graves: they which are not committed to burial, nor laid in graves, but have ended their life either in shipwrackes or in some desert places, so as they could not be committed to burial, should not seem to be recokoned among them who are said should be raised up out of their graves. which would be a very great absurdity. Thus Origen.

Now you shall hear, if you please, what our Romish Doctors do deliver touching this point. There be two opinions, saith Pererius upon Genes. 37.35. concerning this question. The one of the Hebrews, and of many of the Christians in this our age, but especially of the Heretics, affirming that the word Sheol signifieth nothing else in the Scripture, but the pit or the grave, and from thence reasoning falsely, that our Lord did not descend into Hell. The other opinion is of undoubted and certain truth: that the Hebrew word Sheol, and the Latin Infernus answering to it, both in this place of Scripture and elsewhere oftentimes doth signify, not the pit or the grave, but the place of Hell, and the places under the earth wherein the souls are after death. Wheresoever Hi • rome (saith Augustinus Steuchus upon the same place) and the S • ptuagint have translated Hell, it is in the Hebrew, Sheol, that is, the pit or the grave. For it doth not signify that place, wherein Antiquity hath thought that the souls of the wicked are received. The Hebrew word properly signifieth the grave: saith Jansen upon Proverb. 15.12. the Grave properly, and Hell only metaphorically ▪ saith Arias Montanus, in his answer unto Leo á Castro. and, in the Old Testament, the name of Hell doth always almost import the Grave: saith Alphonsus Mendoza. The Jesuit Pineda commendeth one Cyprian a Cistercian monk, as a man famous for learning and piety: yet holdeth him worthy to be censured, for affirming that Sheol or Hell is in all the Old Testament taken for the Grave. Another croaking monk ( Crocquet they call him) crieth out on the other side, that we shall never be able to prove by the producing of as much as one place of Scripture, that Sheol doth signify the Grave. Cardinal Bellarmine is a little (and but a very little) more modest herein. The Hebrew Sheol, he saith, is ordinarily taken for the place of souls under the earth; and either rarely or never, for the grave: but the Greek word Hades always signifieth Hell, never the grave. But Stapleton will stand to it stoutly, that neither Hades nor Sheol is in the Scriptures ever taken for the grave, but always for Hell. The word Infernus, Hades, Sheol, saith he, is never taken for the grave. The grave is called in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Wherefore all the Paraphrastes of the Hebrews also do expound that word Sheol by the word Gehenna; as Genebrard doth show at large in his third Book of the Trinity. Where yet he might have learned some more moderation from Genebrard himself, unto whom he referreth us: who thus layeth down his judgment of the matter in the place by him alleged. As they be in an error who contend that Sheol doth never design the grave: so have they a shameless forehead, who deny that it doth anywhere signify the region of the damned or Gehenna.

It is an error therefore in Stapleton (by his own authors confession) to maintain that Sheol is never taken for the grave ; and in so doing, he doth but bewray his old wrangling disposition. But least any other should take the shameless forehead from him, he faceth it down, that all the paraphrastes of the Hebrews, do interpret Sheol by the word Gehenna. Whereas it is well known, that the two Paraphrastes that are of greatest antiquity and credit with the Hebrews, Onkelos the interpreter of Moses, and Jonathan ben Vzziel of the Prophets, never translate it so. Beside that of Onkelos, we have two other Chaldee Paraphrases which expound the harder places of Moses ; the one called the Targum of Jerusalem, the other attributed, unto Jonathan: in neither of of these can we find, that Sheol is expounded by Gehenna ; but in the latter of them we see it twice expounded by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the house of the grave. In the Arabic interpretations of Moses, where the translator out of the Greek hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all-gehim, Hell; there the translator out of the Hebrew putteth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all-tharai, which signifieth earth or clay. Jacobus Tawosius in his Persian translation of the Pentateuch, for Sheol doth always put Gor, that is, the grave. The Chaldee Paraphrase upon the Proverbs keepeth still the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 deflected a little from the Hebrew: the Paraphrast upon Job useth that word thrice, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which signify the grave ) in steed thereof five several times. In Ecclesiastes the word cometh but once: & there the Chaldee Paraphrast rendereth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the house of the grave. R. Joseph Coecus doth the like in his paraphrase upon Psalm. 31.17. and 89.48. In Psalm. 141.7. he rendereth it by the simple 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the grave: but in the 15. and 16. verses of the 49. Psalm, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Gehenna. And only there, and in Cantic 8.6. is Sheol in the Chaldee paraphrases expounded by Gehenna: whereby if we shall understand the place not of dead bodies (as in that place of the Psalm the Paraphrast maketh express mention of the bodies waxing old or consuming in Gehenna ) but of tormented souls (as the Rabbin's more commonly do take it) yet do our Romanists get little advantage thereby, who would fain have the Sheól into which our Savior went, be conceived to have been a place of rest and not of torment, the bosom of Abraham and not Gehenna the seat of the damned.

As for the Greek word Hades: it is used by Hippocrates to express the first matter of things, from which they have their beginning, and into which afterwards being dissolved they make their ending. For having said, that in nature nothing properly may be held to be newly made, or to perish: he addeth this. But men do think, that what doth grow from Hades into light, is newly made; and what is diminished from the light into Hades, is perished. by light understanding nothing else but the visible structure and existence of things: and by Hades, that invisible and insensible thing which other Philosophers commonly call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Chalcidius the Platonic translateth Sylvam, the Aristotelians more fitly Materiam primam. whence also it is supposed by Master Casaubon, that those passages were borrowed, which we meet withal in the books that bear the name of Hermes Trismegistus. In the dissolution of a material body, the body it self is brought to alteration, and the form which it had is made invisible: and so there is a privation of the sense made, not a destruction of the bodies. I say then that the world is changed, in as much as every day a part thereof is made invisible, but never utterly dissolved. wherewith we may compare likewise that place of Plutarch in his book of living privately. Generation doth not make any of the things that be, but manifesteth them: neither is corruption a translation of a thing from being to not being, but rather a bringing of the thing that is dissolved unto that which is unseen. Whereupon men, according to the ancient traditions of their fathers, thinking the sun to be Apollo, called him Delius and Pythius: (namely from manifesting of things:) and the ruler of the contrary destiny (whether he be a God, or an Angel) they named Hades; by reason that we, when we are dissolved, do go unto an unseen and invisible place. By the Latins this Hades is termed Dispiter or Diespiter: which name they gave unto this lower air that is joined to the earth, where all things have their beginning and ending; quorum quod finis ortus, Orcus dictus, saith Varro. All this earthly power and nature, saith Julius Firmicus, they named Ditem patrem; because this is the nature of the earth, that all things do both fall into it, and taking their original from thence do again proceed out of it. Whence the Earth is brought in, using this speech unto God, in Hermes. I do receive the nature of all things. For I, according as thou hast commanded, do both bear all things, and receive such as are deprived of life. The use which we make of the testimony of Hippocrates, & those other authorities of the heathen, is to show, that the Greek Interpreters of the old Testament did most aptly assume the word Hades, to express that common state & place of corruption which was signified by the Hebrew Sheol. & therefore in the last verse of the 17. of Job, where the Greek maketh mention of descending into Hades ; Comitolus the Jesuit noteth that S. Ambrose rendereth it, in sepulchrum, into the grave. which agreeth well with the paraphrase that the Greek Scholiasts make upon that place. Is it not a thing common unto all mortal men, to die? is not Hell (or Hades) the house of all? do not all find there an end of their labors? Yea some do think, that Homer himself doth take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 either for the earth or the grave, in those verses of the eighth of his Iliads.

For Tartarus being commonly acknowledged to be a part of Hades, and to be the very Hell where the wicked spirits are tormented: they think the Hell, from whence Homer maketh it to be as far distant as the heaven is from the earth, can be referred to nothing so fitly as to the Earth or the Grave. It is taken also for a tomb in that place of Pindarus: Other sacred Kings have gotten a tomb apart by themselves before the houses, or before the gates of the City. And therefore we see that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is by Soudas in his Lexicon expressly interpreted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and by Hesychius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a tomb, or a grave, and in the Greek Dictionary set out by the Romanists themselves, for the better understanding of the Bible, it is noted, that Hades doth not only signify that which we commonly call Hell, but the sepulcher or grave also. Of which, because Stapleton and Bellarmine do deny that any proof can be brought: these instances following may be considered.

In the book of Tobi, chap. 3.10. I shall bring my fathers old age with sorrow 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unto Hell : what can it import else, but that which is in other words expressed, chap. 6.14. I shall bring my fathers life with sorrow 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unto the grave? In the 93. and 113. Psalm. according to the Greek division, or the 94. and 115. according to the Hebrew; where the Hebrew hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the place of silence (meaning the grave, as our adversaries themselves do grant) there the Greek hath Hades or Hell. In Isaiah. 14.19. where the vulgar • atin translateth out of the Hebrew; Descenderunt ad fundamenta laci, quasi cadaver putridum, They descended unto the foundations of the lake or pit, as a rotten carkeis: in steed of the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifieth the lake or pit, the Greek both there and in Isaiah. 38.18. putteth in Hades or Hell. and on the other side Ezech. 32.21. where the Hebrew saith, The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of Sheol or Hell ; there the Greek readeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the depth of the lake or pit : by Hell, lake and pit nothing but the grave being understood; as appeareth by comparing this verse with the five that come after it. So in these places following, where in the Hebrew is Sheol, in the Greek Hades, in the Latin Infernus or Inferi, in the English Hell: the place of dead bodies, & not of souls is to be understood. Gen. 44.31. We shall bring down the gray hairs of our father with sorrow unto Hell. where no lower Hell can be conceited, into which gray hairs may be brought, then the Grave. So 1. King. 2.6. David giveth this charge unto Solomon concerning Joab: Let not his hoary head go down to Hell in peace. and in the ninth verse concerning Shimei: His hoary head bring thou down to Hell with blood. Psalm. 141.7. Our bones are scattered at the mouth of Hell. Isaiah. 14.11. Thy pomp is brought down to Hell: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. Psal. 6.5. In death there is no remembrance of thee: in Hell who shall give thee thanks? of which there can be no better paraphrase, then that which is given in Psalm. 88.11, 12. Shall thy loving kindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction? Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?

Andradius in his defense of the faith of the Council of Trent, speaking of the difference of reading which is found in the sermon of S. Peter, Act. 2.24. (where God is said to have raised up our Savior, loosing the sorrows of death, as the Greek books commonly read, or the sorrows of Hell, as the Latin) saith for reconciliation thereof, that there will be no disagreement betwixt the Latin and Greek copies, if we do mark that Hell in this place is used for Death and the Grave, according to the Hebrews manner of speaking: as in the 15 ^th Psalm, which Peter presently after citeth; Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell. and Isaiah. 38. For Hell cannot confess unto thee. For when he disputeth (saith he) of the resurrection of Christ; he confirmeth by many and most evident testimonies of David, that Christ did suffer death for mankind in such sort, that he could not be overwhelmed with death nor long lie hidden among the dead. And it seemeth to me, that by the sorrows of Hell or Death, a death full of sorrow and miseries is signified, according to the Hebrews manner of speaking: as in Matthew. 24. the abomination of desolation is taken for an abominable desolation. Thus far Andradius: clearly forsaking herein his fellow-defenders of the Tridentine faith, who by the one text of loosing the sorrows of death, would fain prove Christ's descending to free the souls that were tormented in Purgatory; and by the other of not leaving his soul in Hell, his descending into Limbus to deliver the souls of the fathers that were at rest in Abraham's bosom.

The former of these texts, Act. 2.24. is thus expounded by Ribera the Jesuit. God raised him up loosing and making void the sorrows of death, that is to say, that which death by so many sorrows had effected; namely that the soul should be separated from the body. His fellow Sà interpreteth the loosing of the sorrows of death to be the delivering of him from the troubles of death: although sorrow (saith he) may be the epithet of death. because it useth to be joined with death. The Apostles speech hath manifest reference to the words of David, 2. Sam. 22.5, 6. and Psalm. 18. (all. 17.) 4, 5. where in the former verse mention is made of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the sorrows of death, in the latter of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which by the Septuagint is in the place of the Psalms translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the sorrows of Hell, in 2. Sam 22.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the sorrows of Death ; according to the explication following in the end of the self same verse. The sorrows of Hell compassed me about; the snares of Death prevented me. and in Psalm. 116.3. The sorrows of Death compassed me, & the pains of Hell found me, or, gate hold upon me. where Lyranus hath this note. In the Hebrew for Hell is put Sheol: which doth not signify only Hell, but signifieth also the pit, or the grave; and so it is taken here, by reason it followeth upon Death. The like explicatorie repetition is noted also by the interpreters to have been used by the Prophet, in that other text alleged out of Psalm. 16.10. as in Psalm. 30. (all. 29.) 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Thou hast brought up my soul from Hell; thou hast kept me safe (or alive) from those that go down to the pit. and Job. 33.22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . His soul drew near unto death, and his life unto Hell. whence that in the prayer of Jesus the son of Sirach is taken, Ecclesiastic 51. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . My soul drew near unto death, & my life was near to Hell beneath. And therefore for Hell doth Pagnin in his translation of the sixteenth Psalm put the Grave (being therein also followed in the Interlineary Bible approved by the Censure of the University of Lovaine ) & in the notes upon the same, that go under the name of Vatablus, the word Soul is (by comparing of this with Levitic. 21.1.) expounded to be the Body. So doth Arias Montanus directly interpret this text of the Psalm: Thou shalt not leave my soul in the grave, that is to say, my body. and Isidorus Clarius in his annotations upon the second of the Acts, saith that, [ My soul in hell, ] in that place is according to the manner of speech used by the Hebrews, put for [ My body in the grave or tomb. ] least any man should think that Master Beza was the first deviser or principal author of this interpretation.

Yet him alone doth Cardinal Bellarmine single out here, to try his manhood upon: but doth so miserably acquit himself in the encounter, that it may well be doubted whether he labored therein more to cross Beza, then to strive with himself in the willful suppressing of the light of his own knowledge. For whereas Beza in his notes upon Act. 2.27. had shown out of the 1. and 11. verses of the 21. Chapter of Leviticus, and other places of Scripture, that the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we translate Soul, is put for a dead body: the Cardinal, to rid himself handsomely of this which pinched him very shrewdly, telleth us in sober sadness, that there is a very great difference betwixt the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) is a most general word, and signifieth without any trope as well the soul as the living creature it self, yea and the body it self also; as by very many places of Scripture it doth appear. And therefore in Leviticus, where that name is given unto dead bodies, one part is not put for another, to wit, the soul for the body; but a word, which doth usually signify the body it self: or the whole at leastwise is put for the part, namely the living creature for the body thereof. But in the second of the Acts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put, which signifieth the soul alone. Now did not the Cardinal know (think you) in his own conscience, that as in the second of the Acts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put, where the original text of the Psalm there alleged hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so on the other side, in those places of Leviticus (which he would fain make to be so different from this) where the original text readeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , there the Greek also putteth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? Do we not there read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Levite. 21.1. and in the 11. verse: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He shall not go in to any dead soul, that is, to any dead body? The Cardinal himself bringeth in Num. 23.10. & 31.35. & Gen. 37.21. and Num. 19.13. to prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signify either the whole man, or his very body: and must not the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the Greek Bible useth in all those places, of necessity also be expounded after the same manner? Take, for example, that last place, (which is most pertinent to the purpose) Numb. 19.13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the vulgar Latin rendereth, Omnis qui tetigerit humanae animae morticinum: and compare it with the 11. verse; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He that toucheth any soul of a dead man (that is, as the vulgar Latin rightly expoundeth the meaning of it, Qui tetigerit cadaver hominis, He that toucheth the dead body of any man) shall be unclean seven days. and we shall need no other proof, that the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being put for the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may signify the dead body of a man: even as the Latin Anima also doth, in that place of the heathen Poët,— animamque sepulchro Condimus. We buried his soul in the grave. The argument therefore drawn from the nature of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doth no way hinder, that in Act 2.27. Thou wilt not leave my soul, should be interpreted, either Thou wilt not leave me (as in the 31. verse following, where the Greek text saith that his soul was not left, the old Latin hath, He was not left ) or, Thou wilt not leave my body. as the Interpreters, writing upon that place, Genes. 46.26. All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt which came out of his loins, do generally expound it, either by a Synecdoche, whereby the one part of the man is put for the whole person (as we may see in the commentaries upon Genesis attributed to Eucherius, lib. 3. cap. 31. Alcuinus in Genes. interrog. 269. Anselmus Laudunensis in the interlineary Gloss, Lyranus and others) or by a Metonymy, whereby that which is contained is put for that which doth contain it; for illustration whereof, S. Augustine very aptly bringeth in this example. As we give the name of a Church unto the material building, wherein the people are contained, unto whom the name of the Church doth properly appertain; by the name of the Church, that is, of of the people which are contained, signifying the place which doth contain them: so because the souls are contained in the bodies, by the souls here named the bodies of the sons (of Jacob) may be understood. For so may that also be taken, where the Law saith that he is defiled, who shall go in to a dead soul (Levite. 21.11.) that is, to the carcass of a dead man; that by the name of a dead soul, the dead body may be understood which did contain the soul: even as when the people are absent, which be the Church, yet the place nevertheless is still termed the Church.

Yea but the word Hades (saith Bellarmine) as we have shown, doth always signify Hell, and never the Grave. But the bo • y of Christ was not in Hell: therefore his soul was there. If he had said, that the word Hades did either rarely or never signify the Grave, although he had not therein spoken truly, yet it might have argued a little more modesty in him, and that he had taken some care also, that his latter conceits should hold some better correspondency with his former. For he m • ght have remembered, how in the place unto which he doth refer us, he had said, that the LXXII. Seniors did everywhere in their translation put Hades instead of Sheol: which (as he the • e hath told us) is ordinarily taken for the place of souls under the earth, and either rarely or never for the grave. But we have shown not only out of those Dictionaries, unto which the Cardinal doth refer us (having forgotten first to look into them himself) but by allegation of diverse particular instances likewise (unto none of which he hath made any answer) that Hades in the translation of t • e LXXII. Seniors is not rarely, but very usu • lly taken for the place of dead bodies. So for the use of the word Infernus in the Latin translation; Lyranus noteth, that it is taken in the Scripture, not for the place of the damned only, but also for the pit wherein dead • ens carcases were laid. And among the Jesuits, Gaspar Sanctius yieldeth for the general, that Infernus or Hell is frequently in the Scripture taken for burial: and in particular, Emmanuel Sà confesseth it to be so taken, in Gen. 42.38. 1. Sam. 2.6. Job. 7.9. and 21.13. Psalm. 29.4. and 87.4. and 93.17. and 113.17. and 114.3. and 140.7. (according to the Greek division) Prov. 1.12. and 23.14. Ecclesiast. 9.10. Cantic. 8.6. Ecclesiastic. 51.7. Isaiah. 28.15. and 38.10. Baruch. 2.17. Dan. 3.88. (in the Hymn of the three children) and 2. Maccab. 6.23. in all which places, Hades being used in the Greek, and Inferi or Infernus in the Latin, it is acknowledged by the Jesuit, that the Grave is meant: which by Bede also is termed Infernus exterior, the exterior Hell. So Alcuinus, moving the question, how that speech of Jacob should be understood, Genes. 37.35. I will go down to my son mourning into Hell. maketh answer: that these be the words of a troubled and grieving man, amplifying his evils even from hence. Or else (saith he) by the name of Hell he signified the Grave: as if he should have said. I remain in sorrow, until the earth do receive me, as the grave hath done him.

So Primasius, expounding the place, Hebr. 13.20. God the father (saith he) brought his son from the dead, that is to say, from Hell; or from the Grave: according to that which the Psalmiste had foretold; Thou wilt not suffer thine holy one to see corruption. And Maximus Taurinensis saith, that Mary Magdalene received a reproof, because after the resurrection she sought our Lord in the grave, and not remembering his words, whereby he had said that the third day he would return from hell, she thought him still to be detained by the laws of hell. And therefore (saith he) while she did seek the Lord in the grave among the rest of the dead, she is reprehended, and it is said umto her: Why seekest thou him that liveth, among the dead? that is to say, Why seekest thou him among them that are in the infernal parts, who is now known to have returned unto the supernal? For he that seeketh for him either in the infernal places, or in the graves, to him it is said; Why seekest thou him that liveth among the dead? and to the same purpose he applieth those other words of our Savior unto Mary; Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended unto my Father as if he had said. Why dost thou desire to touch me, who while thou seekest me among the graves, dost not as yet believe that I am ascended to my Father: who while thou searchest for me among the infernalls, dost distrust that I am returned to the celestials; while thou seekest me among the dead, dost not hope that I do live with my father? Where his Inferi and Inferna, do plainly import no more but tumulos and sepulchra.

Hereupon Ruffinus in his exposition of the Creed, having given notice, that in the Symbol of the Church of Rome there is not added, He descended into hell, nor in the Churches of the East neither ; adjoineth presently: Yet the force or meaning of the word seemeth to be the same, in that he is said to have been buried. For the terms of burial and descending into hell in the Scripture phrase tend much to the expressing of the self same thing: but that the bare naming of the one doth lead us only to the consideration of the honor of burial, the addition of the other intimateth unto us that which is more dishonorable in it. Thus under the burial of our Savior may be comprehended his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , his funeration and his interring: which are both of them set down in the end of the 19. chapter of the Gospel according to S. John. the latter in the two last verses, where Joseph and Nicodemus are said to have laid him in a new Sepulcher, wherein was never man yet laid: the former in the two verses going before, where it is recorded that they wound his body in linen clothes, with spices, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it is the manner of the Jews to bury. for to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or funeratiō belongeth the imbalming of the dead body, & all other offices that are performed unto it while it remains above ground. So Gen. 50.2. where the Physiciās are said to have imbalmed Israel ; the Greek translators render it: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . and when Mary poured the precious ointment upon our Savior; himself interpreteth this to have been done for his funeration or burial. For it was a custom in times past (saith Eusebius, commonly called Emissenus) that the bodies of noble men being to be buried, should first be anointed with precious ointments, and buried with spices. And who knoweth not (saith Stapleton) that a sepulcher is an honor to the dead, and not a disgrace? But the mention of Sheol (which hath special relation, as hath been shown, to the disposing of the dead body unto corruption ) and so of Hades, Infernus, or Hell, answering thereunto, carrieth us further to the consideration of that which the Apostle calleth the sowing of the body in corruption and dishonor. (1. Corinth. 15.42, 43.) For which, that place in S. Augustine is worth the consideration. Did not the Hells (or, the Grave) give testimony unto Christ, when loosing their power, they reserved Lazarus (whom they had received to dissolve) for four days together; that they might restore him safe again, when they did hear the voice of their Lord commanding it? where you may observe an H • ll appointed for the dissolution of dead men's bodies: the descending into which (according to Ruffinus his note) differeth little or nothing from the descending into the Grave.

In the thirteenth of the Acts S. Paul preacheth unto the Jews, that God raised up his Son from the dead, not to return now anymore unto corruption: and yet presently addeth, that therein was verified that prophecy in the Psalm; Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy one to see corruption. implying thereby, that he descended in some sort for a time into corruption, although in that time he did not suffer corruption. And do not wonder (saith S. Ambrose) how he should descend into corruption, whose flesh did not see corruption. He did descend indeed into the place of corruption, who pierced the Hells; but being uncorrupted he shut out corruption. For as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the Prophet useth in the Psalm, doth signify as well the pit or place of corruption, as the corruption it self: so also the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whereby S. Luke doth express the same, is used by the Greek Interpreters of the Old Testament to signify not the corruption it self alone, but the very place of it likewise. as where we read in Psalm. 7.15. He is fallen into the pit which he made. and, Psalm. 9.16. The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made. and, Proverb. 26.27. Who so diggeth a pit, shall fall therein. Aquila in the first place, the Septuagint in the second, Aquila and Symmachus in the third, retain the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , So that our Savior, descending into Sheol, Hades or Hell, may thus be understood to have descended into corruption, that is to say, into the pit or place of corruption, (as S. Ambrose interpreteth it) although he were free in the mean time from the passion of corruption. And because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Hell and Corruption, have reference to the self same thing: therefore doth the Arabic interpreter, translated by Junius, in Act. 2.31. (or, as the Arabian divideth the book, Act. 4.10.) confound them together, and retain the same word in both the parts of the sentence, after this manner. He was not left in perdition, neither did his flesh see perdition. even as in the 29. Psalm (or the 30. according to the division of the Hebrews) the Arabic readeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all-gehim, or Hell, where the Greek hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & the Chaldee paraphrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, the house of the grave.

Athanasius in his book of the Incarnation of the Word, written against the Gentiles, observeth that when God threatened our first parents, that whatsoever day they did eat of the forbidden fruit they should die the death ; by dying the death he signified, that they should not only die, but also remain in the corruption of death : & that our Savior coming to free us from this corruption, kept his own body uncorrupted, as a pledge and an evidence of the future resurrection of us all. which hath wrought such a contempt of death in his disciples, that (as he addeth afterwards) we may see men which are by nature weak, leaping or dancing unto death, being not agaste at the corruption thereof, nor fearing the descents into Hell. So the Grecians sing in their Liturgy at this day: The corruption-working palace of Hell was dissolved, when thou didst arise out of the Grave, O Lord ▪ and again. The stone is rolled away, the grave is emptied. Behold corruption is troaden under by life. That which was mortal is saved by the flesh of God. Hell mourneth. For God (saith Origen) will neither leave our souls in hell, nor suffer us to remain forever in corruption: but he that recalled him after the third day from hell, will recall us also in fit time; and he who granted unto him, that his flesh should not see corruption, will grant also unto us, that our flesh shall not see corruption, but that in fit time it shall be freed from corruption. Neither is it any whit strange unto them that are conversant in the writings of the ancient Doctors, to hear that our Savior by his burial descended into Hell, spoiled Hell, and brought away both his own body and the bodies of the Saints from Hell. We find the question moved by Gregory Nyssen, in his sermon upon the Resurrection of Christ ; how our Lord did dispose himself at the same time three manner of ways? both in the heart of the earth, (Matth. 12.40.) and in Paradise with the thief, (Luk. 23.43.) and in the hands of his Father. (Luk. 23.46.) For neither will any man say, (quoth he) that Paradise is in the places under the earth, or the places under the earth in Paradise, that at the same time he might be in both; or that those (infernal) places are called the hand of the Father. Now for the last of these, he saith the case is plain, that being in Paradise he must needs be in his Fathers hands also: but the greatest doubt he maketh to be, how he should at the same time be both in Hades and in Paradise. for with him, the heart of the earth, the places under the earth, and Hades or Hell, are in this question one and the same thing. And his final resolution is, that in this Hell Christ remained with his dead body, when with his soul he brought the thief into the possession of Paradise. For by his body (saith he) wherein he sustained not the corruption that followeth upon death, he destroyed him that had the power of death: but by his soul he led the thief into the entrance of Paradise. And these two did work at the self same time, the Godhead accomplishing the good by them both: namely, by the incorruption of the body, the dissolution of death, and by the placing of the soul in his proper seat, the bringing back of men unto Paradise again.

The like sentence do we meet withal in the same Fathers epistle unto Eustathia, Ambrosia, and Basilissa. His body he caused by dispensation to be separated from his soul: but the indivisible deity being once knit with that subject, was neither dis-joined from the body, nor the soul. but was with the soul in Paradise, making way by the thief for an entrance unto mankind thither; and with the body in the heart of the earth, destroying him that had the power of death. Wherewith we may compare that place, which we meet withal in the works of S. Gregory Bishop of Neocaesarea: wherein our Savior is brought in speaking after this manner. I must descend into the very bottom of Hell, for the dead that are detay-there. I must by the three days death of my flesh overthrow the power of long continuing death. I must light the lamp of my BODY unto them which sit in darkness and in the shadow of death. and that of S. Chrysostom (who is accounted also to be the author of that other sermon attributed unto S. Gregory:) How were the brazen gates broken, and the iron bars burst? By his BODY. For then appeared first a body immortal, and dissolving the tyranny of death it self: whereby was shown, that the force of death was taken away, not that the sins of those who died before his coming were dissolved. and that which we read in another place of his works: He spoiled Hell, descending into Hell: he made it bitter, when it tasted of his flesh. Which Isaiah understanding before hand, cried out, saying: Hell was made bitter, meeting thee below. (so the Septuagint render the words, Isaiah. 14.19.) It was made bitter: for it was destroyed. It was made bitter: for it was mocked. It received a BODY, and light upon God: it received Earth, and met with Heaven: it received that which it saw, and fell from that which it did not see. Thus Caesarius expounding the parable, Luk. 13.21. wherein the kingdom of God is likened unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three pecks of flour, till all was leavened: saith that the three pecks of flour are first the whole nature of mankind, then death, and lastly Hell; wherein the divine BODY being hidden by BURIALL, did leaven all unto resurrection and life. Whereupon he bringeth in our Savior in another place speaking thus. I will therefore be buried, for their sakes that be in Hell: I will therefore as it were a stone strike the gates thereof, bringing forth the prisoners in strength, as my servant David hath said. So S. Basil asketh, How we do accomplish the descent into Hell? and answereth, that we do it in imitating the BURIALL of Christ, in Baptism. For the bodies of those that be baptized, are as it were buried in the water: saith he. S. Hilary maketh mention of Christ's flesh quickened out of Hell by himself. and Arator in like manner:

When the Lord went to Hell to destroy it, He brought from THENCE his own flesh, sp • yling the grave.

Philo Carpathius addeth, that in his grave he spoiled Hell. Whereupon the Emperor Leo in his oration upon the burial of our Savior, wisheth us to honor it, by adorning ourselves with virtues, and not by putting him in the grave again. For it behooved (saith he) that this should be once done, to the end that Hell might be spoiled: and it was done. And the Grecians retain the commemoration hereof in their Liturgies unto this day: as their Octoëchon Anastasimon and Pentecostarion do testify; wherein such hymns and prayers as these are frequent. Thou didst receive death in thy flesh, working thereby immortality for us, O Savior: and didst dwell in the grave, that thou mightest free us from Hell, raising us up together with thyself. When thou wast put in the tomb as a mortal man, the keepers of Hell gates shook for fear: for, having overthrown the strength of Death, thou diddest exhibit incorruption to all the dead by thy Resurrection. Although thou didst descend into the grave as a mortal man, ô giver of life, yet didst thou dissolve the strength of hell, ô Christ, raising up the dead together with thyself, whom it had also swallowed; and didst exhibit the resurrection, as God, unto all that in faith and desire do magnify thee. Thou who by thy three-days burial didst spoil Death, and by thy life-bringing resurrectiō didst raise up corrupted man (ô Christ our God) as a lover of mankind: to thee be glory. Thou who by thy three-days burial didst spoil Hell, and by thy resurrection didst save man; have mercy upon me. By thy three-days burial the enemy was spoiled, the dead loosed from the bands of Hell, death deadened, the palaces of hell voided. Therefore in hymns do we honor and magnify thee, ô giver of life. Thou wast put in the tomb, being voluntarily made dead; and didst empty all the palaces of hell (ô immortal King) raising up the dead with thy Resurrectiō. Thou who spoyledst hell by thy burial, be mindful of me.

Hitherto also belongeth that of Prudentius, in his Apotheosis:

where, in saying that our Savior by his grave did break up the infernal kingdoms, and commanded those that were buried to rise up with him ; he hath reference unto that part of the history of the Gospel, wherein it is recorded, that The graves were opened, and many bodies of the Saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. (Matth. 27.52, 53.) upon which place S. Hilary writeth thus. Inlightning the darkness of death, and shining in the obscure places of Hell; by the resurrection of the Saints that were seen at the present, he took away the spoils of death it self. To the same effect writeth S. Ambrose also. Neither did his sepulcher want a miracle. For when he was anointed by Joseph, and buried in his tomb; by a new kind of work, he that was dead himself did open the sepulchers of the dead. His body indeed did lie in the grave; but he himself being free among the dead, did give liberty unto them that were placed in Hell, dissolving the law of death. For his flesh was in the tomb, but his power did work from heaven. which may be a sufficient commentary upon that sentence, which we read in the Exposition of the Creed attributed unto S. Chrysostom. He descended into Hell, that there also he might not want a miracle. For many bodies of the Saints arose with Christ. namely, HELL rendering up the BODIES of the Saints alive again: as either the same, or another author that goeth under the like name of Chrysostom, doth elsewhere directly affirm. which is a further confirmation of that which we have heard delivered by Ruffinus, touching the exposition of the article of the Descent into Hell ; that the substance thereof seemeth to be the same with that of the Burial. for what other Hell can we imagine it to be but the Grave, that thus receiveth and giveth up the bodies of men departed this life?

And hitherto also may be refer • ed that famous saying, of Christ's descending alone & ascending with a multitude: which we meet withal in four several places of antiquity. First, in the h • ads of the sermon of Thaddaeus, as they are reported by Eusebius out of the Syriac records of the city of Edessa. He was crucified, and descended into Hades or Hell, and brake the rampiere never broken before since the beginning; and rose again, and raised up with him those dead, that had slept from the beginning: and descended alone, but ascended to his Father with a great multitude. Secondly, in the epistle of Ignatius unto the Trallians. He was truly, and not in opinion, crucified, and died; those that were in heaven, and in earth, and under the earth, beholding him. those in heaven, as the incorporeal natures. those in earth, to wit the Jews and the Romans, and such men as were present at that time, when the Lord was crucified. those under the earth, as the multitude that rose up together with the Lord: for many bodies (saith he) of the Saints which slept arose, the graves being opened. And he descended into Hades or Hell alone, but returned with a multitude, and brake the rampiere that had stood from the beginning, and overthrew the partition thereof. Thirdly, in the disputation of Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem, in the first general Council of Nice. After death we were carried into Hades or Hell. Christ took upon him this also, and descended voluntarily into it; he was not detained as we, but descended only. For he was not subjected unto death, but was the Lord of death. And descending alone, he returned with a multitude. For he was that spiritual grain of wheat, falling for us into the earth, and dying in the flesh; who by the power of his godhead raised up the temple of his body, according to the Scriptures, which brought forth for fruit the Resurrection of all mankind. Fourthly, in the Catechises of Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem : whose words are these. I believe that Christ was raised from the dead. For of this I have many witnesses, both out of the divine scriptures, & from the witness and operation even unto this day of him that rose again: of him (I say) that descended into Hades or Hell alone, but ascended with many. For he did descend unto death; & many bodies of the Saints that slept were raised by him. which resurrection he seemeth afterward to make common unto all the Saints that died before our Savior. All the righteous men (saith he) were delivered, whom death had devoured. For it became the proclaimed King, to be the deliverer of those good proclaymers of him. Then did everyone of the righteous say: O death where is thy victory? ô Hell, where is thy sting? for the conqueror hath delivered us. wherewith we may compare that saying of S. Chrysostom. If it were a great matter, that Lazarus being four days dead should come forth: much more, that all they who were dead of old should appear together alive. which was a sign of the future resurrection. For many bodies of the Saints which slept arose; saith the text. and these articles of the Confession of the Armenians. According to his body, which was dead, he descended into the grave: but according to his divinity, which did live, he over came Hell in the mean time. The third day he rose again: but withal rays • d up the souls (or persons) of the faithful together with him; and gave hope thereby, that our bodies also should rise again like unto him at his second coming.

Of those who arose with our Savior from the Grave, or (as anciently they used to speak) from Hell ; two there be whom the Fathers nominate in particular: Adam and Job. Of Job, S. Ambrose writeth in this manner. Having heard what God had spoken in him, and having understood by the holy Ghost, that the Son of God was not only to come into the earth, but that he was also to descend into Hell to that he might raise up the dead, (which was then done, for a testimony of the present, and an example of the future:) he turned himself unto the Lord and said: O that thou wouldest keep me in Hell, that thou wouldest hide me until thy wrath be past, and that thou wouldest appoint me a time in which thou wouldest remember me. (Job. 14.13.) in which words he affirmeth that Job did prophecy, that he should be raised up at the passion of our Lord; as in the end of this book, saith he, he doth testify. meaning the apocryphal Appendix, which is annexed to the end of the Greek edition of Job : wherein we read thus. It is written, that he should rise again, with those whom the Lord was to raise. which although it be accounted to have proceeded from the Septuagint ; yet the thing it self showeth, that it was added by some that lived after the coming of our Savior Christ. Touching Adam, S. Augustine affirmeth that the whole Church almost did consent, that Christ loosed him in Hell. which we are to believe (saith he) that she did not vainly believe, whencesoever this tradition came; although no express authority of the Canonical Scriptures be produced for it. The only place which he could think off that seemed to look this way, was that in the beginning of the tenth Chapter of the book of Wisdom: She kept him who was the first formed father of the world, when he was created alone, and brought him out of his sin. which would be much more pertinent to the purpose, if that were added, which presently followeth in the Latin text (I mean in the old edition: for the new corrected ones have left it out) Et eduxit illum de limo terrae, and brought him out of the claye of the earth. which being placed after the bringing of him out of his sin, may seem to have reference unto some deliverance (like that of David's, Psalm. 40 2. He brought me up out of the horrible pit, out of the mirye claye ) rather then unto his first creation out of the dust of the earth. So limus terrae may here answer well unto the Arabians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all-tharai: which properly signifying moist earth or slime or claye, is by the Arabic interpreter of Moses used to express the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which we translate Hell or Grave. And as this place in the book of Wisdom may be thus applied unto the raising of Adams body out of the ear • h wh • rein he lay buried: so may that other tradition also, which was so currant in the Church, be referred unto the self same thing; even to the bringing of Adam out of the Hell of the Grave.

The very Liturgies of the Church do lead us unto this interpretation of the tradition of the Church: beside the testimony of the Fathers, which discover unto us the first ground and foundation of this tradition. In the Liturgy of the Church of Alexandria, ascribed to S. Mark, our Savior Christ is thus called upon. O most great King, and coëternall to the Father, who by thy might didst spoil Hell, and tread down death, and bind the strong one, and raise Adam out of the grave by thy divine power and the bright splendor of thine unspeakable Godhead. In the Liturgy of the Church of Constantinople translated into Latin by Leo Thus • us, the like speech is used of him. He did voluntarily undergo the Cross for us, by which he raised up the first formed man, and saved our souls from death. And in the Octoëchon Anastasimon and Pentecostarion of the Grecians at this day, such sayings as these are very usual. Thou didst undergo burial, and rise in glory, and raise up Adam together with thee, by thy almighty hand. Rising out of thy tomb, thou didst raise up the dead, and break the po • er of death, and raise up Adam. Having slept in the flesh as a mortal man, ô King and Lord, the third day thou didst arise again; raising Adam from corruption, and abolishing death. Jesus the deliverer, who raised up Adam of his compassion, &c. Therefore doth Theodorus Prodromus begin his Tetrastich upon our Saviors Resurrection with

Rise up, thou first formed old man, rise up from thy grave.

S. Ambrose pointeth to the ground of the tradition, when he intimateth that Christ suffered in Golgotha, where Adams sepulcher was, that by his Cross he might raise him that was dead; that where in Adam the death of all men lay, therein Christ might be the resurrection of all. Which he received (as he did many other things besides) from Origen : who writeth thus of the matter. There came unto me some such tradition as this, that the body of Adam the first man mas buried there, where Christ was crucified: that as in Adam all do die, so in Christ all might be made alive; that in the place which is called the place of Calvarie, that is, the place of the head, the head of mankind might find resurrection with all the rest of the people, by the resurrection of our Lord and Savior, who suffered there and rose again. For it was unfit, that when many which were borne of him did receive forgiveness of their sins and obtain the benefit of Resurrection, he who was the father of all men should not much more obtain the like grace. Athanasius, (or whoever else was author of the Discourse upon the Passion of our Lord, which beareth his name) referreth this tradition of Adams burial place unto the report of the Doctors of the Hebrews (from whom belike he thought that Origen had received it) and addeth withal, that it was very fit, that where it was said to Adam, Earth thou art and to earth thou shalt return ; our Savior finding him there, should say unto him again. Arise thou that sleepest, and stand up from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. Epiphanius goeth a little furthet, and findeth out a mystery in the water and blood that fell from the Cross upon the relics of our first father lying buried under it: applying thereunto both that in the Gospel, of the arising of many of the Saints, Matth. 27.52. and that other place in S. Paul, Arise thou that sleepest, &c. Ephes. 5.14. which strange speculation, with what great applause it was received by the multitude at the first delivery of it, and for how little reason: he that list may read in the fourth book of S. Jerome's commentaries, upon the 27. of S. Matthew, & in his third upon the fifth to the Ephesians, for upon this first point, of Christ's descent into the Hell of the grave, and the bringing of Adam and his children with him from thence, we have dwelt too long already.

In the second place therefore we are now to consider, that as Hades and Inferi, (which we call Hell ) are applied by rhe Interpreters of the holy Scripture, to denote the place of bodies separated from their souls: so with foreign authors (in whose language, as being that wherewith the common people was acquainted, the Church also did use to speak) the same terms do signify ordinarily the common lodge of souls separated from their bodies, whether the particular place assigned unto each of them be conceived to be an habitation of bliss or of misery. For as when the Grave is said to be the common receptacle of dead bodies, it is not meant thereby that all dead carcasses are heaped together promiscuously in one certain pit: so when the Heathen write that all the souls of the dead go to Hades, their meaning is not, that they are all shut up together in one and the self same room: but in general only they understand thereby the translation of them into the other world, the extreme parts whereof the Poëts place as far asunder as we do Heaven and Hell. And this opinion of theirs S. Ambrose doth well like off ( wishing that they had not mingled other superfluous and unprofitable conceits therewith) that souls departed from their bodies did go to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, to a place which is not seen: which place (saith he) we in Latin call Infernus. So likewise saith S. Chrysostom. The Grecians, and Barbarians, and Poëts, and Philosophers, and all mankind do herein consent with us, although not all alike; and say that there be certain seats of judgment in Hades: so manifest and so confessed a thing is this. and again. The Grecians were foolish in many things; yet did they not resist the truth of this doctrine. If therefore thou wilt follow them, they have granted that there is a certain life after this, & accounts, and seats of judgment in Hades, and punishments, and honors, and sentences, judgments. And if thou shalt ask the Jews, or heretics, or any man; he will reverence the truth of this doctrine: & although they differ in other things, yet in this do they all agree and say, that there are accounts to be made there of the things that be done here. Only among the Iwes, the Sadducees, w ^ch say that there is no resurrection, neither Angel, nor Spirit; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , take away the punishments, and honors that are in Hades: as is noted by Josephus. For which wicked doctrine they were condemned by the other sects of the Jews: who generally acknowledged, that there was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Olam hanneshamoth (for so do they in their language until this day call that, which Josephus in Greek termeth Hades ) that is to say, the world of spirits ; into which they held that the souls were translated presently after death, and there received their several judgments.

The same thing doth Theodoret suppose to be signified by that phrase of being gathered to ones people, which is so usual in the word of God. For it being said of Jacob, before he was buried, that he gave up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people, Genes. 49.33. Theodoret observeth, that Moses by these words did closely intimate the hope of the resurrection. For if men (saith he) had been wholly extinguished, and did not pass unto another life; he would not have said, He was gathered to his people. So likewise where it is distinctly noted of Abraham, Genes. 25.8, 9. first, that he gave up the ghost and died, then, that he was gathered to his people, and lastly, that his sons buried him: Cardinal Cajetan and the Jesuit Lorinus interpret the first de compositi totius dissolutione, of the dissolution of the parts of the whole-man, consisting of body and soul; the second of the state of the soul separated from the body, and the third of the disposing of the body parted from the soul. Thus the Scriptures speech of being gathered to our people should be answerable in meaning to the phrase used by the heathen of descending into Hell or going to Hades: which, as Synesius noteth out of Homer, was by them opposed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to a most absolute extinguishment as well of the soul as of the body. And forasmuch as by that term, the immortality of the soul was commonly signified: therefore doth Plato in his Phaedo disputing of that argument, make this the state of his question; Whether the souls of men deceased be in Hades or no? and our Ecc • esiasticall writers also do from thence sometimes fetch a difference betwixt Death and Hades. You shall find, saith Theophylact, that there is some difference betwixt Hades and Death: namely that Hades containeth the souls, but Death the bodies. For the souls are immo • tall. The same we read in Nicetas Serronius his exposition of Gregory Nazianzens second Paschal oration. Andreas Caesareensis doth thus express the difference. Death is the separation of the soul and the body. But Hades. is a place to us invisible or unseen and unknown, which receiveth our souls when they depart from hence. The ordinary Gloss, following S. Jerome upon the thirteenth of Hosea, thus. Death is that, whereby the soul is separated from the body. Hell is that place, wherein the souls are included, either for comfort or for pain.

The soul goeth to Hades, saith Nicetas Choniates in the Prooeme of his History: but the body returneth again into those things, of which it was composed. Gaius, (or who ever else was the author of that ancient fragment, which we formerly signified to have been falsely fathered upon Josephus ) holdeth that in Hades, the souls both of the righteous and unrighteous are contained: but that the righteous are led to the right hand by the Angels that awayte them there, and brought unto a lightsome region, wherein the righteous men that have been from the beginning do dwell (and this we call Abraham's b • some: saith he) whereas the wicked are drawn toward the left hand by the punishing Angels, not going willingly, but drawn as prisoners by violence. Where you may observe how he frameth his description of Hades, according to that model wherewith the Poets had before possessed men's minds.

For as We do allot unto good men a resting place in Paradise; so the Greeks do assign unto their Heroës the Fortunate Ilandes, and the Elysian fields: saith Tzetzes. And as the Scripture borroweth the term of Tartarus from the Heathen: so is it thought by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen that the Heathen took the ground of their Elysian fields from the Scriptures Paradise.

To heap up many testimonies out of the Heathen authors, to prove that in their understanding all souls went to Hades, and received there either punishment or reward according to the life that they led in this world; would be but a needless work: seeing none that hath read anything in their writings can be ignorant thereof. If any man desire to inform himself herein, he may repair to Plutarches consolatory discourse written to Apollonius: where he shall find the testimonies of Pindarus and many others alleged, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , touching the state of the godly in Hades. Their common opinion is sufficiently expressed in that sentence of Diphilus, the old Comicall Poet. In Hades we resolve there are two paths: the one whereof is the way of the righteous, the other of the wicked. But as in this general they agreed together both among themselves and with the truth: so touching the particular situation of this Hades, and the special places whereunto these two sorts of souls were disposed, and the state of things there, a number of ridiculous fictions and fond conceits are to be found among them; wherein they dissented as much from one another, as they did from the truth it self. So we see, for example, that the best souls are placed by some of them in the company of their God's in heaven, by others in the Galaxias or milky circle, by others beyond the Ocean, and by others under the earth:

yet one Hades notwithstanding was commonly thought to have received them all.

Plato relateth this, as a sentence delivered by them who were the first ordayners of the Grecian Mysteries: Whosoever goeth to Hades not initiated and not cleansed, shall lie in the mire; but he that cometh thither, purged and initiated, shall dwell with the God's. So Zoroaster the great father of the Magi in the East, is said to have used this entrance into his discourse touching the things of the other world. These things wrote Zoroaster, the son of Armenius, by race a Pamphylian, having been dead in the war, which I learned of the God's, being in Hades. as Clemens Alexandrinus relateth in the fifth book of his Stromata : where he also noteth, that this Zoroaster is that Er the son of Armenius, a Pamphylian, of whom Plato writeth in the tenth book of his Common-wealth ; that being slain in the war he revived the twelfth day after, and was sent back as a messenger to report unto men here the things which he had heard and seen in the other world one part of whose relation was this: that he saw certain gulfs beneath in the earth, and above in the heaven, opposite one to the other; and that the just were commanded by the Judges that sat betwixt those gulfs, to go to the right hand up toward Heaven, but the wicked to the left hand and downward. which testimony Eusebius bringeth in, among many others, to show the consent that is betwixt Plato and the Hebrews in matters that concern the state of the world to come. Next to Zoroaster cometh Pythagoras : whose golden verses are concluded with this distich.

When thou shalt leave the body, and come unto a free heaven; thou shalt be an immortal God, incorruptible, and not subject to mortality anymore. So Epicharmus the scholar of Pythagoras: If thou be godly in mind, thou shalt suffer no evil when thou art dead; thy spirit shall remain above in heaven. and Pindarus: The souls of the ungodly fly under the heaven (or under the earth) in cruel torments, under the unavoidable yokes of evils. but the souls of the godly, dwelling in heaven, do praise that great blessed one with songs and hymns.

Ci • ero in his Tusculan questions alledgeth the testimony of Ennius, approving the common fame, that Romulus did lead his life in heaven with the God's. and in the sixth book of his Common-wealth, he bringeth in Scipio teaching that unto all them which preserve, assist, and enlarge their country, there is a certain place appointed in heav • n, where they shall live blessed world without end. Such a life (saith he) is the way to heaven, and into the company of these, who having lived and are now loosed from their body, do inhabit that place which thou seest, p • inting to the Galaxiaes or milky circle. whereof we read thus also in Manilius:

With Damascius the philosopher of Damascus, this circle is the way of the souls that go to the Hades in heaven. Against whom Johannes Philoponus doth reason thus, from the etymology of the word. If they pass through the Galaxias or milky circle; then this should be that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Hades that is in heaven: and how can that be Hades, which is so lightsome? To which, they that maintained the other opinion, would peradventure oppose that other common derivation of the word from the Dorick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth to please or to delight ; or that which Plato doth deliver in the name of Socrates, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from seeing or knowing all good things. For, there did Socrates look to find such things: as appeareth by that speech which Plato in his Dialogue of the Soul maketh him to use the same day that he was to depart out of this life. The soul, being an invisible thing, goeth hence into such another noble and pure and invisible place; to Hades, in truth, unto the good and wise God: whither, if God will, my soul must presently go. which place is alleged by Eusebius, to prove that in the things which concern the immortality of the soul, Plato doth differ in opinion nothing from Moses. The tale also which Socrates there telleth of the pure land seated above in the pure heaven, though it have a number of toys added to it (as tales use to have) yet the foundation thereof both Eusebius and Origen do judge to have been taken from the speeches of the Prophets touching the land of promise and the heavenly Canaan : and for the rest, Origen referreth us to Plato's interpreters, affirming that they who handle his writings more gravely, do expound this tale of his by way of allegory.

Such another tale doth the same philosoper relate in the Dialogue which he intituleth Gorgias: showing, that among men he that leadeth his life righteously and holily, shall when he is dead go unto the Fortunate Islands, and dwell in all happiness, free from evils. but he that leadeth it unrighteously and impiously, shall go unto the prison of punishment and just revenge, which they call Tartarus. which Theodoret bringeth in, to prove that Plato did exactly believe that there were judgments to pass upon men in Hades. For being conversant with the Hebrews (saith he) in Egypt, he heard without doubt the oracles of the Prophets: and taking some things from thence, and mingling other things therewith out of the fables of the Greeks, made up his discourses of these things. Among which mixtures, that which he hath of the Fortunate Islands, is reckoned by Theodoret for one: whereof you may read in Hesiod, Pindarus, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, and Josephus also; who treating of the diverse sects that were among the Jews, showeth that the Essenes borrowed this opinion (of the placing of good men's souls in a certain pleasant habitation beyond the Ocean) from the Grecians. But the Pharisees (as he noteth elsewhere) held that the place, wherein both rewards were given to the good and punishments to the wicked, was under the earth : which as Origen doth declare to have been the common opinion of the Jews, so doth Lucian show that it was the more vulgar opinion among the Grecians. For among them the common multitude, whom wise men (saith he) call simple people, being persuaded of these things by Homer and Hesiod and such other fabulous authors, and receiving their Poëms for a law; took HADES to be a certain deep place under the earth. The first original of which conceit is by Cicero derived from hence. The bodies falling into the ground, and being covered with earth, (whence they are said to be interred) men thought that the rest of the life of the dead was led under the earth, upon which opinion of theirs (saith he) great errors did ensue: which were increased by the Poës. Others do imagine, that the Poets herein had some relation to the sphericall situation of the world: for the better understanding whereof, these particulars following would be considered by them that have some knowledge in this kind of learning.

First, the material Spheres in ancient time were not made moveable in their sockets, as they are now, that they might be set to any elevation of the Pole: but were fixed to the elevation of XXXVI. degrees; which was the height of the Rhodian climat. Secondly, the Horizon which divided this Sphere through the middle, and separated the visible part of the world from the invisible, was commonly esteemed the utmost bound of the earth: so that whatsoever was under that horizon, was accounted to be under the earth. for neither the common people, nor yet some of the learned Doctros uf the Church (as Lactantius, S. Augustine, Procopius, and others) could be induced to believe that which our daily navigations find now to be most certain; that there should be another southern hemisphere of the earth, inhabited by any Antipodes, that did walk with their feet just opposite unto ours. Thirdly, the great Ocean was supposed to be the thing in nature which was answerable to this horizon in the Sphere. Therefore it is observed by Strabo that Homer, and by Theon, Achilles Statius, and others that Aratus and the rest of the Poets do put the Ocean for the Horizon: and thereupon where the astronomers say that the Sun or the stars at their setting, go under the horizon the common phrase of the Poets is, that they do tingere se Oceano, dive themselves into the Ocean. for as they took the Earth to be but half a globe, and not a whole one: so they imagined that demye globe to be as it were a great mountain or Island seated in, and environed round about with the Ocean. Thus the author of the book de Mundo, affirmeth that the whole world is one Island, compassed about with the Atlanticke sea: and Dionysius Alexandrinus, in the beginning of his Geography,

wherein he followed Eratosthenes, as his expositor Eustathius there noteth: who compareth also with this, that place of Orpheus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whereunto answereth that of Euphorion, or (as Achilles Statius citeth it) of Neoptolemus Parianus in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

And this opinion of theirs the Fathers of the Church did the more readily entertain: because they thought it had ground from Psalm. 24.2. and 136.6. and such other testimonies of holy Scripture. That the whole earth (saith Procopius Gazaeus) doth subsist in the waters, and that there is no part of it which is situated under us void and cleared of waters; I suppose it be known unto all. For so doth the Scripture teach: Who stretcheth out the earth upon the waters. and again: He hath founded it upon the seas, and prepared it upon the floods. Neither is it fit we should believe, that any earth under us is inhabited, opposite unto our part of the world. The same collection is made by S. Hilary, Chrysostom, Caesarius, and others. Fourthly, it was thought by the ancient heathen, that the Ocean (supplying the place of the Horizon ) did separate the visible world from the kingdom of Hades: and therefore that such as went to Hades (or the world invisible to us) must first pass the Ocean. and that the pole Antarctick was seen by them there, as the Arctick or North pole is by us here: according to that of Virgil in his Georgicks,

Fifthly, as they held that Hades was for situation placed from the center of the earth downward; so betwixt the beginning and the lowest part thereof they imagined as great a space to be interjected, as there is betwixt Heaven and Earth. So saith Apollodorus of Tartarus, the dungeon of torment. This is a dark place in Hades, having as great a distance from the earth, as the earth from the heaven. and Hesiod in his Theogonia (agreeably to that which before we heard from Homer ) It is as far beneath the earth, as heaven is from the earth: for thus equal is the distance from the earth unto dark Tartarus. whereunto that of Virgil may be added, in the • ixt of the Aeneids: that, see how hye the heaven is over us, when we look upward to it; the downright distance from thence to Tartarus, should be twice as deep again. for so we must conceive the Poets meaning to be: if we will make him to accord with the rest of his fellows.

These observations, I doubt not, will be censured by many to savor of a needless and fruitless curiosity: but the intelligent reader for all that will easily disc • rne, how hereby he may be led to understand, in what sense the ancient both heathen and Christian writers did hold Hades to be under the earth; and upon what ground. For they did not mean thereby (as the Schoolmen generally do, and as Tertullian sometime seemeth to imagine) that it was contained within the bowels of the earth: but that it lay under the whole bulk thereof, and occupied that whole space, which we now find to be taken up with the earth, air and firmament of the southern hemisphere. the inhabitants of which infernal region and vast depth are thereupon affirmed by S. Hilary to be non intra terram sed infra terram, not within the earth but beneath the earth. And this proceeded from no other ground, but the vulgar opinion, that the southern hemisphere of the earth was not inhabited by living men, as our north • rne is insomuch that some of the heathen atheists, finding the contrary to be true by the discourse of right reason; endeavored to persuade themselves from thence, that there was no such place as Hades at all. Lucretius for the greater part, (saith Servius) and others fully teach, tha • the kingdoms of Hell cannot as much as have a being. For what place can we say they have; when under the earth our Antipodes are said to be? and that they should be in the midst of the earth, neither will the solidity permit, nor the center of the earth. which earth if it be in the middle of the world, the profundity thereof can not be so great, that it may have those Inferos within it, in which is Tartarus: whereof we read,

But Chrstiian men, being better instructed out of the word of God, were taught to answer otherwise. If thou dost ask me (saith S. Chrysostom) of the situation and place of Gehenna: I will answer and say, that it is seated somewhere out of this world ; and that it is not to be inquired in what place it is situated, but by what means rather it may be avoided.

In the Dialogue betwixt Gregory Nyssen and that admirable woman Macrina, S. Basils sister, touching the Soul and the Resurrection, this point is stood upon at large: the question being first proposed by Gregory in this manner. Where is that name of Hades so much spoken of? which is so much treated of in our common conversation, so much in the writings both of the heathen and our own. into which all men think that the souls are translated from hence as into a certain receptacle. For you will not say that the elements ar • this Hades. whereunto Macrina thus replieth. It appeareth that thou didst not give much heed to my speech. for when I spake of the translation of the soul from that which is seen unto that which is invisible; I thought I had left nothing behind to be inquired of Had • s. Neither doth that name, wherein souls are said to be, seem to me to signify any other thing either in profane writers or in the holy scripture, save only a removing unto that which is invisible and unseen. Thereupon it being further demanded: how then do some think that a certain subterraneall place should be so called, and that the souls do lodge therein? for answer thereunto it is said, that there is no manner of difference betwixt the lower hemisphere of the earth, and that wherein we live: that as long as the principal doctrine of the immortality of the soul is yielded unto, no controversy should be moved touching the place thereof; that local position is proper to bodies, and the soul being incorporeal hath no need to be detained in certain places. then the place objected from Philip. 2.10. of those under the earth that should bow at the name of Jesus, being largely skanned: this in the end is laid down for the conclusion. These things being thus, no man can contstrain us by the name of things under the earth to understand any subterraneall place: forasmuch as the air do • h so equally compass the earth round about, that there is no part thereof found naked from the covering of the air. Both these opinions are thus propounded by Theophylact, and by Hugo Etherianus after him. What is Hades or Hell? Some say that it is a dark place under the earth. Others say, that it is the translation of the soul from that which is visible unto that which is unseen and invisible. For while the soul is in the body, it is seen by the proper operations thereof: but being translated out of the body, it is invisible; and this did they say was Hades.

So where the author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy defineth death to be a separation of the united parts, and the bringing to them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unto that which is invisible to us: his scholiast Maximus noteth thereupon, that this invisible thing some do affirm to be Hades; that is to say, an unseen and invisible departure of the soul unto places not to be seen by the sense of man. Hitherto also may be referred the place cited before out of Origen in his fourth book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : which by S. Jerome is thus delivered. They who die in this world by the separation of the flesh and the soul, according to the difference of their works obtain diverse places in Hell. Where by Hades, Inferi, or Hell he meaneth indefinitely the other world: in which how the souls of the godly were disposed, he thus declareth in another place. The soul leaveth the darkness of this world, and the blindness of this bodily nature, and is translated unto another world: which is either the bosom of Abraham, as it is shown in Lazarus, or Paradise, as in the thief that believed upon the cross; or yet if God know that there be any other places, or other mansions, by which the soul that believeth in God passing, and coming unto that river which maketh glad the city of God, may receive within it the lott of the inheritance promised unto the Fathers. For touching the determinate state of the faithful souls departed this life, the ancient Doctors (as we have shown) were not so thoroughly resolved.

Now, all the question betwixt us and the Romanists is, whether the faithful be received into their everlasting tabernacles presently upon their removal out of the body, or after they have been first purified to the point (as Allen speaketh) in the furnace of Purgatory: but in the time of the Fathers, as S. Augustine noteth, the great question was, whether the receiving of them into those everlasting tabernacles were performed presently after this life; or in the end of the world, at the resurrection of the dead, and the last retribution of judgment. And so concerning Hell the question was as great among them, whether all, good and bad, went thither or no? whereof the same S. Augustine is a witness also; who upon that speech of Jacob, Gen. 37.35. I will go down to my son mourning into Hell, writeth thus. It useth to be a great question, in what manner Hell should be understood: whether evil men only, or good men also when they are dead do use to go down thither. And if evil men only do; how doth he say that he would go down unto his son mourning? for he did not believe that he was in the pains of Hell. Or be these the words of a troubled & grieving man, amplifying his evils frō hence? and upon that other speech of his, Genes. 42.38. You shall bring down mine old age with sorrow unto Hell. Whether therefore unto Hell, because with sorrow? Or although sorrow were away, speaketh he these things as if he were t • go down into hell by dying? For of Hell there is a great question: and what the Scripture delivereth thereof, in all the places where it hath occasion to make mention of it, is to be observed. Hitherto S. Augustine: who had reference to this great question, when he said as hath been before alleged. Of Hell neither have I had any experience as yet, nor you: and peradventure there shall be another way, and by Hell it shall not be. For these things are uncertain. Neither is there greater question among the Doctors of the Church concerning the Hell of the Fathers of the Old Testament, then there is of the Hell of the faithful now in the time of the New: neither are there greater differences betwixt them touching the Hell into which our Savior went (whether it were under the earth or above, whether a darksom place or a lightsome, whether a prison or a paradise) then there are of the mansions wherein the souls of the blessed do now continue.

S. Jerome, interpreting those words of King Hezekiah, Isaiah. 38.10. I shall go to the gates of Hell : saith that this is meant, either of the common law of nature, or else of those gates, from which that he was delivered, the Psalmist singeth; Thou that liftest me up from the gates of death, that I may show forth all thy praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion. (Psalm. 9.13, 14.) Now as some of the Fathers do expound our Savior's going to Hell, of his descending into Gehenna : so others expound it of his going to Hell according to the common law of nature ; the common law of nature (I say) which extendeth it self indifferently unto all the dead, whether they belong to the state of the New Testament or of the Old. For as Christ's soul was in all points made like unto ours (sin only excepted) while it was joined with his body here in the land of the living: so when he had humbled himself unto the death, it became him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, even in that state of dissolution. And so indeed the soul of Jesus had experience of both. For it was in the place of human souls, and being out of the flesh did live and subsist. It was a reasonable soul therefore and of the same substance with the souls of men; even as his flesh is of the same substance with the flesh of men, proceeding from Mary : saith Eustathius the Patriarch of Antioch in his exposition of that text of the Psalm; Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, Where by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Hell, you see, he understandeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the place of human souls (which is the Hebrews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or world of spirits ) and by the disposing of Christ's soul there after the manner of other souls, concludeth it to be of the same nature with other men's souls. So S Hilary in his exposition of the 138. Psalm. This is the law of human necessity, saith he, that the bodies being buried, the souls should go to Hell. Which descent the Lord did not refuse for the accomplishment of a true man. and a little after he repeateth it, that de supernis ad inferos mortis lege descendit, he descended from the supernal to the infernal parts by the law of death. and upon the 53. Psalm more fully. To fulfill the nature of man he subjected himself to death, that is, to a departure as it were of the soul and body; and pierced into the infernal seats, which was a thing that seemed to be du • unto man.

So Leo, in one of his Sermons upon our Lord's passion. He did undergo the laws of Hell by dying, but did dissolve them by rising again: and so did cut off the perpetuity of death, that of eternal he might make it temporal. So Irenaeus, having said, that our Lord conversed three days where the dead were, addeth that therein he observed the law of the dead, that he might be made the first begotten from the dead; staying until the third day in the lower parts of the earth, and afterward rising in his flesh. Then he draweth from thence this general conclusion. Seeing our Lord went in the midst of the shadow of death, where the souls of the dead were, then afterward rose again corporally, and after his resurrection was assumed: it is manifest that the souls of his disciples also, for whose sake the Lord wrought these things, shall go to an invisible place appointed unto them by God, and there shall abide until the resurrection, waiting for the resurrection; and afterwards receiving their bodies, and rising again perfectly, that is to say corporally, even as our Lord did rise again, they shall so come unto the presence of God. For there is no disciple above his master: but everyone shall be perfect, if he be as his master. The like collection doth Tertullian make in his book of the Soul. If Christ being God, because he was also man, dying according to the Scriptures, and being buried according to the same, did here also satisfy the law, by performing the course of an human death in Hell; neither did ascend into the higher parts of the heavens, before he descended into the lower parts of the earth, that he might there make the Patriarchs and Prophets partakers of himself: thou hast, both to believe that there is a region of Hell under the earth, and to push them with the elbowe, who proudly enough do not think the souls of the faithful to be fit for Hell; servants above their Lord, and disciples above their Master, scorning perhaps to take the comfort of expecting the resurrection in Abraham's bosom. And in the same book, speaking of the soul: What is that, saith he, which is translated unto the infernal parts (or Hell) after the separation of the body? which is detained there, which is reserved unto the day of judgment, unto which Christ by dying did descend, to the souls of the Patriarchs, I think. Where he maketh the Hell unto which our Savior did descend, to be the common receptacle not of the souls of the Patriarchs alone, but also of the souls that are now still separated from their bodies: as being the place quo universa humanitas trahitur (as he speaketh elsewhere in that book) unto which all mankind is drawn.

So Novatianus after him, affirmeth that the very places which lie under the earth be not void of distinguished and ordered powers. For that is the place (saith he) whither the souls both of the godly and ungodly are led, receiving the fore-judgments of their future d • ome. Lactantius saith that our Savior rose again ab inferis, from Hell : but so he saith also that the dead Saints shall be raised up ab inferis at the time of the Resurrection. S. Cyril of Alexandria saith that the Jews killed Christ, and cast him into the deep and dark dungeon of death, that is, into Hades: adding afterward, that Hades may rightly be esteemed to be the house and mansion of such as are deprived of life. Nicephorus Gregoras in his funeral Oration upon Theodorus Metochites, putteth in this for one strayne of his lamentation. Who hath brought down that heavenly man unto the bottom of Hades? and Andrew archbishop of Crete, touching the descent both of Christ and all Christians after him even unto the dark and comfortless Hades writeth in this manner. If he, who was the Lord and master of all, and the light of them that are in darkness, and the life of all men, would taste death, and undergo the descent into Hell, that he might be made like unto us in all things, sin excepted; and for three days went thorough the sad, obscure and dark region of Hell: what strange thing is it, that we who are sinners, and dead in trespasses (according to the great Apostle) who are subject to generation and corruption; should meet with death, and go with our soul into the dark chambers of Hell, where we cannot see light, nor behold the life of mortal men? For are we above our Master, or better then the Saints, who underwent these things of ours after the like manner that we must do?

Iuvencus intimateth, that our Savior giving up the ghost sent his soul unto heaven, in those verses of his:

Eusebius Emesenus collecteth so much from the last words which our Lord uttered at the same time; Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . His spirit was above, and his body remained upon the cross for us. In the Greek exposition of the Canticles, collected out of Eusebius, Philo Carpathius and others, that sentence in the beginning of the sixth chapter, My beloved is gone down into his garden, is interpreted of Christ's going to the souls of the Saints in Hades. which in the Latin collections that bear the name of Philo Carpathius is thus more largely expressed. By this descending of the Bridegroom, we may understand the descending of our Lord Jesus Christ into Hell as I suppose: for that which followeth proveth this, when he saith; To the beds of spices. For those ancient holy men are not unfi • lie signified by the beds of spices; such as were, Noë, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, David, Samuel, Elisaeus, Daniel, and very many others before the Law & in the Law: who all of them, like unto beds of spices, gave a most sweet smell of the odors and fruits of holy righteousness. For then as a triumpher did he enter into PARADISE, when he pierced into Hell. God himself is present with us for a witness in this matter, when he answered most graciously to the Thief upon the Cross, commending himself unto him most religiously; To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Lastly touching this Paradise, the various opinions of the ancient are thus laid down by Olympiodorus ; to seek no farther. It is a thing worthy of inquiry, in what place under the Sun the righteous are placed which have left this life. Certain it is, that in Paradise: forasmuch as Christ said unto the Thief; This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. And it is to be known, that the literal Tradition teacheth Paradise to be in earth. But some have said that Paradise also is in Hell, that is, in a place under the earth: unto which opinion of theirs they apply that of the Gospel; where the rich man saw Lazarus, being yet himself sunk down in a lower place, when Lazarus was in a place more eminent, where Abraham was. But howsoever the matter goeth; this without doubt is manifest, as well out of Ecclesiastes as out of all the sacred Scripture, that the godly shall be in prosperity and peace, and the ungodly in punishments and torments. And others are of the mind, that Paradise is in the Heavens, &c. Hitherto Olympiodorus.

That Christ's soul went into Paradise, Doctor Bishop saith, being well understood, is true. For his soul in hell, had the joys of Paradise: but to make that an exposition of Christ's descending into hell, is to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it. Yet this ridiculous exposition, he affirmeth to be received of most Protestants. Which is even as true, as that which he avoucheth in the same place; that this article of the descent into Hell is to be found in the old Roman Creed expounded by Ruffinus: where Ruffinus (as we have heard) expounding that article, delivereth the flat contrary, that it is not found added in the Creed of the Church of Rome. It is true indeed, that more than most Protestants do interpret the words of Christ uttered unto the Thief upon the Cross, Luk. 23.43. of the going of his soul into Paradise : where our Savior meaning simply and plainly, that he would be that day in Heaven ; M. Bishop would have him so to be understood, as if he had meant that that day he would be in Hell. And must it be now held more ridiculous in Protestants, to take Hell for Paradise ; then in M. Bishop, to take Paradise for Hell? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be the words of the Apostles Creed in the Greek: and, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Symbol of Athanasius. Some learned Protestants do observe, that in these words there is no determinate mention made, either of ascending or descending, either of Heaven or Hell (taking Hell according to the vulgar acception) but of the general only, under which these contraries are indifferently comprehended: and that the words literally interpreted, import no more but this; HEE WENT UNTO THE OTHER WORLD. Which is not to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it, as M. Bishop fancieth: who may quickly make himself ridiculous, in taking upon him thus to censure the interpretations of our learned linguistes; unless his own skill in the languages were greater, then as yet he hath given proof of.

Master Broughton (with whose authority he elsewhere presseth us, as of a man esteemed to be singularly seen in the Hebrew and Greek tongue ) hath been but too forward in maintaining that exposition, which by D. Bishop is accounted so ridiculous. In one place, touching the term Hell, as it doth answer the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades, he writeth thus. He that thinketh it ever used for Tartaro or Gehenna, otherwise then the term Death may by Synecdoche import so: hath not skill in Hebrew or that Greek, which breathing and live Greece spake, if God hath lent me any judgment that way. In another place he alledgeth out of Portus his Dictionary, that the Macedonians call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heaven. And one of his acquaintance beyond the Sea, reporteth that he should deliver, that in many most ancient Manuscript copies the Lord's prayer is found with this beginning: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Our Fat • er which art in Hades. which I for my part will then believe to be true, when I shall see one of those old copies with mine own eyes. But in the mean time for Hades, it hath been sufficiently declared before out of▪ good authors, that it signifieth the place of souls departed in general; and so is of extent large enough to comprehend under it, as well 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as Damascius speaketh) that part of Hades (or the unseen world) which is in heaven, as that which by Josephus is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the darker Hades, and in the Gospel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 outer darkness. And as for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the other word; in the Acts of the Apostles it is used ten times: and in none of all those places signifieth any descending from a higher place unto a lower, but a removing simply from one place unto another. Whereupon the Vulgar Latin edition (which none of the Romanists upon any pretense may presume to reject) doth render it there by the general terms of abeo, venio, devenio, supervenio. and where it retayneth the word descendo, it intendeth nothing less, then to signify thereby the lower situation of the place unto which the removal is noted to be made. If descending therefore in the Acts of the Apostles imply no such kind of thing: what necessity is there; that thus of force it must be interpreted in the Creed of the Apostles? Menelaus declared unto us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : saith King Antiochus, in his epistle unto the Jews, 2. Maccab. 11.29. Velle vos descendere ad vestros, it is in the Latin edition: whereby what else is meant, but that they had a desire to go unto their own?

I omit the phrases of descending in praelium, in forum, in campum, in amicitiam, in caussam, &c. which are so usual in good Latin authors: yea and of descending into heaven it self; if that be not a jest which the Poet breaketh upon Claudius.

Others add unto this, that the phrase of descending ad inferos, is a popular kind of speech, which sprung from the opinion that was vulgarly conceived of the situation of the recept • cle of the souls under the earth: and that according to the rule of Aristo • le in his Top • cks, we must speak as the vulgar, but think as wise men do. Even as we use to say commonly, that the Sun is under a cloud, because it is a vulgar form of speech: and yet it is far enough from our meaning for all that, to imagine the cloud to be indeed higher then the Sun. So Cicero, they say, where ever he hath occasion to mention anything that concerneth the dead, speaketh still of Inferi according to the vulgar phrase: although he misliked the vulgar opinion, which bred that manner of speaking; and professed it to be his judgment, that the souls when they depart out of the body are carried up on high, & not downward unto any habitations under the earth. So Chrysostom and Theophylact think that the Apostle termed the Death and Hell unto which our Savior did descend, the lower parts of the earth, Ephes. 4.9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from the common opinion of men. So in the translation of the holy Scripture, S. Jerome showeth that we use the names of Arcturus and Orion, not approving thereby the ridiculous and monstrous figments of the Poets in this matter, but expressing the Hebrew names of these constellations by the words of heathenish fables ; because we cannot understand that which is said, but by those words, which we have learned by use, and drunk in by error.

And just so standeth the case with this word Hades : which with the G • eeke Poets is the name of Pluto, whom they feigned to be the God of the dead under the earth, & gave a denomination unto 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from riches; because that all things coming to their dissolution, there is nothing which is not at last brought unto him, and made his possession. Thus Homer and Hesiod, with Plato and others after them, say that Rhea brought forth three sons, to Saturn; Jupiter, Neptune,

and mighty Hades, who inhabiteth the houses under the earth, having a merciless heart: for that attribute doth Hesiod give unto him, because Death spareth no man. So Homer: which is also the description that Hesiod maketh of him in that verse: Hades was afraid, who reigneth over them that lie dead in the earth. Now that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Creed is a phrase taken from the heathen, and applied to express a Christian truth; the very Grammatica • l construction may seem to intimate: where the noun is not put in the accusative case (as otherwise it should) but after the manner of the Greeks in the genitive case, implying the defect of another word necessarily to be understood; as if it had been said, He went unto the place or house of Hades. as the Poets use to express it, sometimes defectively 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and sometimes more fully 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , into the house or chambers of Hades. Thus then, they that take Hades for the common receptacle of souls, do interpret the context of the Creed, as Cardinal Cajetan before did the narration of Moses touching Abraham's giving up the ghost, being gathered to his people, and being buried, Genes. 25.8, 9. that the article of the death is to be r • ferred to the whole manhood, and the dissolution of the parts thereof; that of the burial, to the body s • parated from the soul, and this of the descending into Hades, to the soul separated f • om the body as if he had said. He suffered death truly, by a real separation of his soul from his body: and after this dissolution, the same did befall him that useth to betide all other dead men; his lifeless body was sent unto the place which is appointed to receive dead bodies, and his immortal soul went unto the other world, as the souls of other men use to do.

Having now declared, how the Greek Hades (and so the Latin Inferi, and our English Hell) is taken for the place of the bodies and of the souls of dead men, severally: it followeth that we show, how the common state of the dead is signified thereby, and the place in general which is answerable unto the parts of the whole man thus indefinitely considered in the state of separation. Concerning which, that place of Dionysius, wherein he setteth forth the signification of our being dead and buried with Christ by Baptism, is to be considered. Forasmuch as death is in us, not an utter extinguishment of our being, as others have thought, but a separation of the united parts, bringing them unto that which is to us invisible; the soul as being by the deprivation of the body made unseen, and the body as either being covered in the earth, or by some other of the alterations that are incident unto bodies, being taken away from the sight of man: the whole covering of the man in water is fitly assumed for an image of the death and burial which is not seen. Thus Dionysius, concerning the separation of the united parts by Death, and the bringing of them unto that which is invisible: according whereunto, as his paraphrast Pachymeres noteth, it is called Hades, that is to say, an invisible separation of the soul from the body. And so indeed we find as well in foreign authors, as in the Scriptures & the writings of the Greek and Latin Fathers, that Hades and Inferi are not only taken in as large a sense as Death (and so extended unto all men indifferently, whether good or bad) but are likewise oftentimes indifferently used for it. For proof whereof, out of heathen authors these testimonies following may suffice.

saith Pindarus. The man that doeth things befitting him, forgetteth Hades: meaning, that the remembrance of death doth no whit trouble him. and again: The son of Cleonicus wisheth that with such manners he may meet and receive Hades (that is, death) and hoary old age. So another Poet, cited by Plutarch: O Death, the sovereign physician, come: for Hades is in very truth the haven of the earth. So the saying, that the best thing were, never to have been born, and the next to that, to die quickly ; is thus expressed by Theognis, in his elegies:

Sophocles in the beginning of his Trachiniae, bringeth in D • ianira affirming that, howsoever it were an old saying among men, that none could know whether a man, life were happy or unhappy before he were dead ; yet she knew her own to be heavy and unfortunate before she went to Hades.

where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before death: as both the ancient Scholiast and the matter it self doth show. So in his Ajax: He is better that is hidden in Hades (that is to say, he that is dead, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Scholiast rightly expoundeth it) then he that is sick past recovery. and in his Antigone: My father and mother being laid in Hades, it is not possible that any brother should spring forth afterward. Wherwith Clemens Alexandrinus doth fitly compare that speech of the wife of Intaphernes in Herodotus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . My father and mother being now no longer living, another brother by no manner of means can be had. So that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being in Hades, with the one, is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not now living, in the other; or as it is alleged by Clemens, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not now being : which is the Scripture phrase of them that have left this world, Genes. 5.24. and 42.36. Psal. 39.13. Ierem. 31.15. and 49.10. used also by Homer, Iliad. β.

Touching the use of the word Hell in the Scriptures, thus writeth Jansen, expounding those words, Proverb. 15.11. Hell and destruction are before the Lord: how much more then, the hearts of the children of men? It is to be known, that by Hell and destruction (which two in the Scriptures are often joined together) the state of the dead is signified; and not of the damned only, as we commonly do conceive when we hear these words, but the state of the deceased in general. So Sanctius the Jesuit, with Sà his fellow, acknowledgeth, that Hell in the Scripture is frequently taken for Death. Therefore are these two joined together, Revel. 1.18. I have the keys of Hell and of Death, or (as other Greek copies read; agreeably to the old Latin and Ethiopian translation) of Death and of Hell. and Isaiah. 28.15. We have made a covenant with Death, and with Hell we are at agreement. where the Septuagint, to show that the same thing is meant by both the words, do place the one in the room of the other, after this manner: We have made a covenant with Hell, and with Death an agreement. The same things likewise are indifferently attributed unto them both: as that they are insatiable, and never full; spoken of Hell, Proverb. 27.20. and of Death, Haback. 2.5. So the gates of Hell, Isaiah. 38:10. are the gates of Death, Psalm. 9.13. and 107.18. and therefore where we read in the book of Wisdom; Thou leadest to the gates of Hell, and bringest back again: the Vulgar Latin translateth it; Thou leadest to the gates of Death, and bringest back again. So the sorrows of Death, Psal. 18.4. are in the verse following termed, the sorrows of Hell: and therefore the LXX. (as hath been shown) translating the self same words of David, do in the Psalm render them the sorrows of Hell, and in the history 2. Sam. 22.6. (where the same Psalm is repeated) the sorrows of Death. Whence also that difference of reading came, Act. 2.24. as well in the copies of the text as in the citations of the ancient Fathers: which was the less regarded, because that variety in the words bredd little or no difference at all in the sense. Therefore Epiphanius in one place, having respect to the beginning of the verse, saith that Christ loosed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the sorrows of Death: and yet in another, citing the later end of the verse, because it was not possible he should be holden by it, addeth this explication thereunto, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is to say, by Hell. And the author of the Sermon upon Christ's passion, among the works of Athanasius, one where saith that he loosed the sorrows of Hell, and otherwhere that he loosed the sorrows of Death. unto whom we may adjoin Bede, who is in like manner indifferent for either reading.

In the Proverbs, where it is said; There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of Death: Proverb. 14.12. and 16.25. the LXX. in both places for Death put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the bottom of Hell. and on the other side, where it is said; Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from Hell: Proverb. 23.14. they read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Thou shalt deliver his soul from Death. So in Hose. 13.14. where the Hebrew and Greek both read: I will deliver them from the hand of Hell: the Vulgar Latin hath; De manu mortis liberabo eos, I will deliver them from the hand of Death. which S. Cyril of Alexandria showeth to be the same in effect. for he hath redeemed us (saith he) from the hand of Hell, that is to say, from the power of Death. So out of the text, Matth. 16.18. Eusebius noteth, that the Church doth not give place to the gates of DEATH, for that one saying which Christ did utter: Upon the rock I will build my Church, and the gates of HELL shall not prevail against it. S. Ambrose also from the same text collecteth thus, that faith is the foundation of the Church. For it was not said of the flesh of Peter, but of the faith, that the gates of DEATH should not prevail against it: but the confession (of the faith) overcame HELL. So Theodoret noteth, that the name of Hell is given unto Death, in that place, Cantic. 8.6. Love is strong as death, jealousy is hard or cruel as Hell. which in the writings of the Fathers is a thing very usual. Take the Poems of Theodorus Prodromus for an instance: where delivering an history out of the life of S. Chrysostom, of a woman that had lost four of her sons; he saith that they four were gone unto Hades,

and relating how S. Basil had freed the country of Cappadocia from famine, thus he expresseth it: and showing how Gregory Nazianzen, when he was a child, was recovered from death by being brought to the communion Table; he saith he was brought unto the Sun from Hades:

Gregory himself likewise in his Poems, setting out the dangers of a sea-faring life, saith that the greater part of them that sails the seas is in Hades. Baesil of Seleucia, speaking of the translation of Enoch and Elias, saith in one place, that Enoch remained out of Deaths net, Elias obeyed not the laws of nature ; and in another, that Elias remained superior to death, Enoch by translation declined Hades: making Death and Hades to be one and the same thing. So he maketh Elias to pray thus, at the raising of the widows son. Shew, ô Lord, that Death is made gentle towards men, let it learn the evidences of thy humanity; let the documents of thy goodness come even to Hades. And as he there noteth that Death received an overthrow from Elias: so in another place he noteth that Hades received a like overthrow, by Christ's raising of the dead. whereupon he bringeth in S. Peter, using this speech unto our Savior: Shall Death make any youthful attempt against thee, whose voice Hades could not endure? The other day thou didst call the widows son that was dead; and Death fled, not being able to accompany him unto the grave whom he had overcome: how shall Death therefore lay hold on him, whom it feareth? and our Savior himself speaking thus unto his Disciples. I will arise out of the grave, renewing the Resurrection: I will teach Hades that it must expect the Resurrection to succeed it. For in me both Death ceaseth, and immortality is planted. So saith S. Cyril of Alexandria : Christ was raised up for us. for he could not be detained by the gates of Hades, nor taken at all by the bonds of Death. And therefore Cyril of Jerusalem having said that our Savior did descend into Hades, doth presently add as an explication thereof. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . for he did descend into Death. He descended into Death as a man: saith Athanasius. The divine nature (saith Ruffinus, meaning the divine person) by his flesh descended into Death; not that according to the law of mortal men he should be detained of death, but that rising again by himself he might open the gates of death. When thou didst descend into Death, ô immortal Life, (say the Grecians in their Liturgy) thou didst then mortify Hades or Hell with the brightness of thy divinity.

And thus, if my memory do not fail me, (for at this present I have not the book lying by me) is the article expressed in the Hebrew Creed, which is printed with Potkens Ethiopian Syllabarie. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He descended into the shadow of death. where the Hebrew Interpreter doth render Hades by the shadow of death : as the Greek Interpreters, in that text (which by the Fathers is applied to our Savior's descent into Hell) Job. 38.17. do render the shadow of death by Hades. for where the Hebrew hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the gates of the shadow of death, they • eade; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the keepers of the gates of Hades seeing thee, shrank for fear. The resurrection from the dead therefore being the end of our Savior's s • ffering (as Eusebius notes) and so the beginning of his glorifying: the first degree of his exaltation would thus very aptly answer • unto the last degree of his humiliation that as his Resurrection is an arising from the dead, so his descending unto Hades or ad inferos should be no other thing but a going to the dead. For further confirmation whereof, let it be considered, that S. Jerome in the vulgar Latin translation of the Bible, hath ad inferos deducentur, Ecclesia •• is 9.3. where the Hebrew and Greek read, to the dead : and in like manner, Proverb 2.18. he hath ad inferos again, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in the Hebrew; which being a word that sometimes signifieth the dead, and sometimes Giants, the LXX. do join both together and read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in Hades • ith the Giants. So in the Sibylline verses cited by Lactantius,

that he may speak unto the dead ; is in Prosper translated, Vt inferis l • quatur: and those other ve • ses touching our Savior's Resurrection Then coming forth from the Dead, &c. are thus turned into Latin in Prosper. Tunc ab inferis regressus, ad lucem veniet primus resurrectionis principio revocatis ostenso. Then returning from Hell, he shall come unto the light first showing the beginning of the Resurrection unto those whō he shall call back from thence. for Christ returning back a conqueror from Hades unto life (as Basil of Seleucia writeth) the dead were taught the reviving again unto life. His rising from the Dead, was the loosing of us from Hades: saith Gregory Nazianzen. He was raised from Hades or from the dead; and raised me being dead with him: saith Nectarius, his successor in the See of Constantinople. Therefore is he called the first begotten of the dead, because he was the first that rose from Hades; as we also shall rise at his second coming: saith the author of the Treatise of Definitions, among the works of Athanasius.

To lay down all the places of the Fathers, wherein our Lord's rising again from the Dead, is termed his rising again from Hades, Inferi or Hell, would be a needless labor: for this we need go no further then to the Canon of the Mass it self; where in the prayer that followeth next after the Consecration, there being a Commemoration made of Christ's passion, resurrection, and ascension, the second is set out by the title ab inferis resurrectionis, of the resurrection from Hell. For as the Liturgies of the Eastern Churches do here make mention 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the resurrection from the dead: so those of the West retain that other title of the resurrection ab inferis, that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as it is in the Liturgy that goeth under the name of S. Peter) or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it is in the Gregorian Office translated into Greek by Codinus. If then the resurrection frō the dead be the same with the resurrection from Hades, Inferi or Hell: why may not the going unto Hades, Inferi or Hell, be interpreted, by the same reason, to be the going unto the dead? whereby no more is understood, than what is intimated in that phrase w ^ch the Latins use of one that hath left this world; Abijt ad plures: or in that of the Hebrews, so frequent in the word of God; He went or was gathered unto his people, he went or was gathered unto his fathers. which being applied unto a whole generation, Judge. 2.10. as well as in other places unto particular persons; must of necessity denote the common condition of men departed out of this life.

Now, although Death and Hades, dying and going to the dead, be of near affinity one with the other: yet be they not the same thing properly, but the one a consequent of the other; as it appeareth plainly by the vision, Revelat. 6.8. where Hades is directly brought in as a follower of Death. Death it self, as wise men do define it, is nothing else but the separation of the soul from the body ; which is done in an instant: but Hades is the continuation of the body and soul in this state of separation, which lasteth all that space of time which is betwixt the day of death and the day of the resurrection. For as the state of life is comprehended betwixt two extremes, to wit, the beginning thereof and the ending ; and there be two motions in nature answerable thereunto, the one whereby the soul concurreth to the body, (which we call Generation) the other whereby the body is severed from the soul (which we call Death: ) so the state of death in like manner is contained betwixt two bounds, the beginning, which is the very same with the ending of the other; and the last end, the motion whereunto is called the Resurrection, whereby the body and soul formerly separated are joined together again. Thus there be three terms here, as it were in a kind of a continued proportion, the middlemost whereof hath relation to either of the extremes: and by the motion to the first a man may be said to be natus, to the second denatus, to the third renatus. The first & the third have a like oppositiō unto the middle; and therefore are like betwixt themselves: the one being a generation, the other a regeneration. For that our Lord doth call the last Resurrection the Regeneration, Matth. 19.28. S. Augustine supposeth that no man doubteth. Neither would our Lord himself have been styled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first borne from the dead ; unless the Resurrection were accounted to be a kind of a new nativity: whereof he himself was in the first place to be made partaker, that among all or in all things he might have the preeminence ; the rest of the sons of God being to be children of the Resurrection also, but in their due time, and in the order of Post-nati.

The middle distance betwixt the first and second term, that is to say, the space of life which we lead in this world betwixt the time of our birth and the time of our death; is opposite to the distance that is betwixt the second and third term, that is to say, the state of death under which man lieth from the time of his departure out of this life unto the time of his resurrection: and see what difference there is betwixt our birth, and the life which we spend here after we are borne; the same difference is there betwixt Death and Hades, in that other state of our dissolution. That which properly we call Death (which is the parting a sunder of the soul and the body) standeth as a middle term betwixt the state of life and the state of death, being nothing else but the ending of the one, and the beginning of the other: and as it were a common mere between lands, or a communis terminus in a Geometrical magnitude, dividing part from part, but being it self a part of neither, and yet belonging equally unto either. Which gave occasion to the question moved by Taurus the philosopher: When a dying man might be said to die; when he was now dead, or while he was yet living? whereunto Gellius returneth an answer out of Plato : that his dying was to be attributed neither to the time of his life nor of his death (because repugnances would arise either of those ways) but to the time which was in the confine betwixt both; which Plato calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a moment or an instant, and denieth to be properly any part of time at all. Therefore Death doth his part in an instant (as hath been said) but Hades continueth that work of his, and holdeth the dead as it were under conquest, until the time of the resurrection; wherein shall be brought to pass the saying that is written. O Death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory? For these things shall rightly be spoken then (saith Irenaeus) when this mortal and corruptible flesh (about which Death is, and which is holden down by a certain dominion of Death) rising up unto life shall put on incorruption and immortality. for then shall death be truly overcome, when the flesh that is holden by it, shall come forth out of the Dominion thereof. Death then, as it importeth the separation of the soul from the body (which is the proper acception of it) is a thing distinguishable from Hades, as an antecedent from his consequent: but as it is taken for the whole state of death, and the domination which it hath over the dead ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Basilius Seleuciensis calleth it, in his oration upon Elias) it is the self same thing that Hades is; and in that respect (as we have seen) the words are sometimes indifferently put, the one for the other.

As therefore our Savior (that we may apply this now unto him) after he was fastened and lifted up on the Cross, if he had come down from thence (as the standers by in mocking wise did wish him to do) might be truly said to have been crucified, but not to have died: so when he gave up the ghost, and laid down his life, if he had presently taken it up again, he might truly be said to have died, but not to have gone to the dead, or to have been in Hades. His remaining under the power of Death until the third day, made this good. Whom God did raise up, loosing the sorrows of death, forasmuch as it was not possible that he should be holden of it: saith S. Peter. and Christ being raised from the dead, dieth now no more, Death hath no more dominion over him: saith S. Paul. implying thereby, that during the space of time that passed betwixt his death and his resurrection, he was holden by death, and death had some kind of domination over him. And therefore Athanasius (or whoever else was author of that writing to Liberius the Roman Bishop) having reference unto the former text; affirmeth that he raised up that buried body of his, and presented it to his Father, having freed it from Death, of which it was holden. and Maximus (or he that collected the Dialogues against the Marcionites, under the name of Origen, out of him) expounding the other text; Over whom then had Death dominion? saith he. For the saying that it hath no more dominion, showeth that before it had dominion over him. Not that Death could have any dominion over the Lord of Life, further than he himself was pleased to give way unto it: but as, when Death did at the first cease upon him, his life indeed was taken from the earth, yet none could take it from him, but he laid it down of himself ; so his continuing to be Deaths prisoner for a time, was a voluntary commitment only, unto which he freely yielded himself for our sakes, not any yoke of miserable necessity that Death was able to impose upon him. For he had power to lay down his life, and he had power to take it again: yet would he not take it again, before he had first not laid himself down only upon Deaths bed, but slept also upon it; that arising afterward from thence, he might become the first fruits of them that slept. In which respect, the Fathers apply unto him that text of the Psalm; I laid me down and slept, I awaked, for the Lord sustained me. (Psalm. 3.5.) and Lactantius that verse of Sibyll,

His dying, or his burying at the farthest, is that which here is answerable unto his lying down: but his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as Dionysius calleth it) his his three-days burial, and his continuing for that time in the state of death, is that which answereth unto his sleeping or being in Hades. And therefore the Fathers of the fourth Council of Toledo, declaring how in Baptism the death and resurrection of Christ is signified, do both affirm, that the dipping in the water is as it were a descension into Hell, and the rising out of the water again, a resurrection ; and add likewise out of Gregory (with whom many other Doctors do herein agree) that the three-fold dipping is used to signify the three-days burial. which differeth as much from the simple burial or putting into the earth, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the transportation or leading into captivity from the detayning in bondage, the committing of one to prison from the holding of him there, and the sowing of the seed from the remaining of it in ground.

And thus have I unfolded at large the general acceptions of the word Hades and Inferi, and so the Ecclesiastical use of the word Hell answering thereunto: which being severally applied to the point of our Savior's descent, make up these three propositions that by the universal consent of Christians are acknowledged to be of undoubted verity. His dead body, though free from corruption, yet did descend into the place of corruption, as other bodies do. His soul, being separated from his body, departed hence into the other world, as all other men's souls in that case use to do. He went unto the dead, and remained for a time in the state of death, as other dead men do. There remaineth now the vulgar acception of the word Hell, whereby it is taken for the place of torment prepared for the Devil and his Angels: and touching this also, all Christians do agree thus far, that Christ did descend thither at leastwise in a virtual manner; as God is said to descend, when he doth anything upon earth, which being wonderfully done beyond the usual course of nature may in some sort show his presence, or when he otherwise vouchsafeth to have care of human frailty. Thus when Christ's flesh was in the tomb, his power did work from Heaven: saith S. Ambrose. which agreeth with that which was before cited out of the Armenians Confession: According to his body which was dead, he descended into the grave; but according to his DIVINITIE, which did live, he overcame Hell in the mean time. and with that which was cited out of Philo Carpathius, upon Cantic. 5.2. I sleep, but my heart waketh: in the grave spoiling Hell. for which, in the Latin Collections that go under his name, we read thus. I sleep, to wit on the Cross, and my heart waketh: when my DIVINITIE spoiled Hell, and brought rich spoils from the triumph of everlasting death overcome, and the Devils power overthrown. The author of the imperfect work upon Matthew, attributeth this to the Divinity, not clothed with any part of the Humanity, but naked, as he speaketh. Seeing the Devils feared him, (saith he) while he was in the body, saying; What have we to do with thee, Jesus the son of the high God? art thou come to torment us before our time? how shall they be able to endure his NAKED DIVINITIE descending against them? Behold after three days of his death he shall return from Hell, as a conqueror from the war.

This conquest others do attribute to his Cross, others to his Death, others to his Burial, others to the real descent of his soul into the place of the damned, others to his Resurrection: and extend the effect thereof not only to the delivery of the Fathers of the Old Testament, but also to the freeing of our souls from Hell. from whence how men may be said to have been delivered, who never were there, S. Augustine declareth by these similitudes. Thou sayest rightly to the physician, Thou hast freed me from this sickness; not in which thou wast, but in which thou wast like to be. Some body else having a troublesome business, was to be cast into prison: there cometh another, and defendeth him. what saith he, when he giveth thanks? Thou hast delivered me from prison. A debtor was in danger to be hanged: the debt is paid for him; he is said to be freed from hanging. In all these things they were not: but because such were their deserts, that unless they had been holpen, there they would have been; they say rightly that they were freed thence, whither by those that freed them they were not suffered to be brought. That Christ destroyed the power of Hell, spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them: is acknowledged by all Christians. Neither is there any who will refuse to subscribe unto that which Proclus delivered in his Sermon before Nestorius then Bishop of Constantinople (inserted into the Acts of the Council of Ephesus. ) He was shut up in the grave, who stretched out the heavens like a skin: he was reckoned among the dead, and spoiled Hell. and that which S. Cyril and the Synod of Alexandria, wrote unto the same Nestorius, concerning the Confession of their faith: (approved not only by the third general Council held at Ephesus, but also by the fourth at Chalcedon, and the fifth at Constantinople. ) To the end that by his unspeakable power treading down death in his own as the first and principal flesh, he might become the first borne from the dead and the first fruits of those that slept; and that he might make a way to man's nature for the turning back again unto incorruption: by the grace of God he tasted death for all men; and revived the third day, spoiling Hell. All, I say, do agree, that Christ spoiled or (as they were wont to speak) harrowed Hell: whether you take Hell for that which keepeth the soul separated from the body, or that which separateth soul and body both from the blessed presence of him who is our true life; the one whereof our Savior hath conquered by bringing in the Resurrection of the body, the other he hath abolished by procuring for us Life everlasting.

Touching the manner and the means, whereby Hell was thus spoiled, is all the disagreement. The manner: whether our Lord did deliver his people from Hell by way of prevention, in saving them from coming thither; or by way of subvention, in helping those out whom at the time of his death he found there. The means: whether this were done by his Divinity or his Humanity or both, whether by the virtue of his sufferings, death, burial and resurrection, or by the real descending of his soul into the place wherein men's souls were kept imprisoned. That he descended not into the Hell of the damned by the essence of his soul or locally, but virtually only by extending the effect of his power thither: is the common doctrine of Thomas Aquinas and the rest of the School. Cardinal Bellarmine at first held it to be probable, that Christ's soul did descend thither, not only by his effects, but by his real presence also: but afterwards having considered better of the matter, he resolved that the opinion of Thomas and the other Schoolmen was to be followed. The same is the judgment of Suarez: who concerning this whole article of Christ's descent into Hell, doth thus deliver his mind. If by an Article of faith we understand a truth, which all the faithful are bound explicitly to know and believe: so I do not think it necessary to reckon this among the Articles of faith. Because it is not a matter altogether so necessary for all men: and because that for this reason peradventure it is omitted in the Nicene Creed; the knowledge of which Creed seemeth to be sufficient for fulfilling the precept of faith. Lastly for this cause peradventure Augustine and other of the Fathers expounding the Creed, do not unfold this mystery unto the people. And to speak the truth, it is a matter above the reach of the common people to enter into the discussion of the full meaning of this point of the descension into Hell: the determination whereof dependeth upon the knowledge of the learned tongues and other sciences that come not within the compass of their understanding. some experiment whereof they may find in this; that whereas in the other questions here handled, they might find themselves able in some reasonable forre to follow me; here they leave me, I doubt, and let me walk without their company.

It having here likewise been further manifested, what different opinions have been entertained by the ancient Doctors of the Church concerning the determinate place wherein our Savior's soul did remain during the time of the separation of it from his body: I leave it to be considered by the learned, whether any such controverted matter may fitly be brought in to expound the Rule of faith by, which being common both to the great and the small ones in the Church, must contayn such verities only as are generally agreed upon by the common consent of all true Christians. and if the words of the article of Christ's going to Hades or Hell, may well bear such a general meaning as this; that he went to the dead, and continued in the state of death until the time of his Resurrection: it would be thought upon, whether such a truth as this, which findeth universal acceptance among all Christians may not safely pass for an article of our Creed; and the particular limitation of the place unto which our Savior's soul went (whither to the place of bliss, or to the place of torment, or to both) be left, as a number of other Theological points are, unto further disputation. In the articles of our faith common agreement must be required: which we are sure is more likely to be found in the general, than in the particular. And this is the only reason which moved me to enlarge myself so much in the declaration of the general acceptions of the word Hades, and the application of them to our Savior's descent spoken of in the Creed. wherein if the zeal which I bear to the peace of the Church, and the settlement of unity among brethren hath carried me too far, (as it hath made me indeed quite to forget my intended brevity) I entreat the Reader to pardon me; and ceasing to be further troublesome unto him in the prosecution of this intricate argument, I pass to the next question