An answer to a challenge madeAn ansvver to a challenge made
An answer to a challenge made by a Jesuit in Ireland Wherein the judgement of antiquity in the points questioned is truly delivered, and the novelty of the now romish doctrine plainly discovered. By James Usher Bishop of Meath.An ansvver to a challenge made by a Iesuite in Ireland Wherein the iudgement of antiquity in the points questioned is truely delivered, and the noveltie of the now romish doctrine plainly discovered. By Iames Vssher Bishop of Meath.
James Ussher 1581–1656Dublin: printed by the Society of Stationers and Eliot's Court Press, 1624Dublin: printed by the Societie of Stationers and Eliot's Court Press, 1624
[24], 527, [9] p. · 153k words · STC 24542 · ESTC S118933
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
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 ⟨p. 243⟩things are clearly finished, after that we are once departed from hence.
For the Garners are sealed up, and the time is fulfilled, and the combat is finished, and the lists are voyded, 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 beene overthrowne in the lists are cast out, and all ⟨p. 243⟩things are clearely 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 judgement) 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 Saviour 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
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.
We are to consider then, that the prayers and oblations, for reiecting 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 doe 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 beleefe of Purgatorie: if those of the ancient Church did so too; how commeth it to passe that Epiphanius doth not directly answer Aërius, as a Papist would doe now, that they brought singular profite to the dead, by delivering their tormented soules out of the flames of Purgatorie? but forgetting as much as once to make mention of Purgatorie (the sole foundation of these suffrages for the dead, in our Adversaries iudgement) doth trouble himselfe and his cause, with bringing in such farr fett reasons as these: that they who performed this dutie, did intend to signifie 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 Saviour Christ, and the generall frailtie of the best of all his servants. Take away Popish Purgatorie on the other side, (which in the dayes 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 ⟨p. 244⟩with them resolved; that fif 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 thinke that Epiphanius was of the same minde; who lived in a time wherein prayers were usually made for them that never were dreamed to have beene in Purgatorie, and yeeldeth those reasons of that usage, which overthrow the former consequence of Thomas everie whit as much, as the supposition of Aërius.
fAd hoc etiā est univ•rsalis •cclesiae consue•udo, quae p•o defunctis o•at: quae quidem oratio inu•ilis esset, si Purgatorium post mortem non ponatur. Thom. contr. Gentiles, lib. 4. cap. 91.Ad hoc etiā est univ•rsalis •cclesiae consue•udo, quae p•o defunctis o•at: quae quidem oratio inu•ilis esset, si Purgatorium post mortem non ponatur. Thom. contr. Gentiles, lib. 4. cap. 91.
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 honour 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 Memorials 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 allegeth (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.
They who reject that kind of praying and offering for the dead, which was practised by the ⟨p. 245⟩Church in the days of Aërius, are in that point flat Aërians.
But the Romanists do reject that kind of praying and offering for the dead, which was practised by the Church in the days of Aërius.
Therefore the Romanists are in this point flat Aërians.
The assumption or second part of this argument (for the first we think no body will deny) is thus proved.
They who are of the judgement, that prayers and oblations should not be made for such as are believed to be in bliss; do reject that kind of praying and offering for the dead, which was practised by the ancient Church.
But the Romanists are of this judgement.
Therefore they reject that kind of praying and offering for the dead, which was practised by the ancient Church.
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 gCatholic verities;
For Aërius and Thomas both agree in this: that prayer for the dead would be altogether unprofitable, if the dead themselves received no speciall benefite thereby. This doth Epiphanius (defending the ancient use of these prayers in the Church) shew to be untrue; by producing other profites that redounded from thence unto the living: partly by the publick signification of their faith, hope, & charitie toward the deceased; partly by the honour that they did unto the Lord Iesus, in exempting him from the common condition of the rest of mankinde. And to make it appeare, that these things were mainly intended by the Church in her Memorialls for the dead, and not the cutting off of the sinnes which they carried with them out of this life, or the releasing of them out of anie torment: he alledgeth (as wee have heard) that not onely 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 wil make bold to frame this syllogisme.
They who reject that kind of praying and offering for the dead, which was practised by the ⟨p. 245⟩Church in the daies of Aërius, are in that point flatt Aërians.
But the Romanists doe reject that kinde of praying and offering for the dead, which was practised by the Church in the dayes of Aërius.
Therefore the Romanists are in this point flatt Aërians.
The assumption or second part of this argument (for the first we thinke no body will denie) is thus proved.
They who are of the judgement, that prayers and oblations should not be made for such as are beleeved to be in blisse; doe reiect that kinde of praying and offering for the dead, which was practised by the ancient Church.
But the Romanists are of this iudgement.
Therefore they reiect that kinde of praying and offering for the dead, which was practised by the ancient Church.
The truth of the first of these propositions doth appear by the testimonie of Epiphanius, compared with those manie other evidences whereby we have formerly proved, that it was the custome of the ancient Church to make prayers and oblations for them, of whose resting in peace and blisse there was no doubt at all conceived. The veritie of the second is manifested by the confession of the Romanists themselves: who reckon this for one of their gCatholicke verities;
gFr. Suaerez, tom 4. in 3. part. Thom. disp. •8. sect. 4. •um. 10.
that suffrages should not be offered for the dead that reign with Christ. and therefore that ancient hform of praying for the Apostles, Martyrs, and the rest of the Saints, is by disuse deservedly abolished; saith Alphonsus Mendoza. Nay ito offer sacrifices and prayers to God for those that are in bliss, is plainly absurd and impious, in the judgement ⟨p. 246⟩of the Jesuit Azorius: who was not aware, that thereby he did outstrip Aërius in condemning the practise of the ancient Church, as far, as the censuring it only to be unprofitable (for [Greek or Hebrew]; 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 blot of Aërianisme which sticketh so fast unto them, before they be so ready to cast the aspersion thereof upon others.
that suffrages should not be offered for the dead that raigne with Christ. and therefore that ancient hforme of praying for the Apostles, Martyrs, and the rest of the Saincts, is by disuse deservedly abolished; saith Alphonsus Mendoza. Nay ito offer sacrifices and prayers to God for those that are in blisse, is plainly absurd and impious, in the iudgement ⟨p. 246⟩of the Iesuite Azorius: who was not aware, that thereby hee did outstrippe Aërius in condemning the practise of the ancient Church, as farre, as the censuring it only to be unprofitable (for 〈non-Latin alphabet〉; what shall the dead be profited thereby? was the furthest that Aërius durst to goe) commeth short of reiecting it as absurd and impious. And therefore our Adversaries may doe well, to purge themselves first from the blott of Aërianisme which sticketh so fast unto them, before they be so readie to cast the aspersion thereof upon others.
hIlla formula precandi pro Apostolis, Martyribus & caet. meritò per des•etudinem exolevit. Alphons. Mendez. Controvers Theologic. quaest. 6. s•holast. sect. 7.Illa formula precandi pro Apostolis, Martyribus & caet. meritò per des•etudinem exolevit. Alphons. Mend•z. Controvers Theologic. quaest. 6. s•holast. s•ct. 7.
iGraeci sacrificia & preces offerunt Deo pro mortuis; non beatis certé, neque damnatis ad inferos, quod plané esset absurdum & impium. Jo. Azor. Institut. moral. tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 20.Graeci sacrificia & preces offerunt Deo pro mortuis; non beatis certé, neque damnatis ad inferos, quod plané esset absurdum & impium. Io. Azor. Institut. moral. tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 20.
In the mean time, the Reader who desireth to be rightly informed in the judgement 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 khowsoever 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 practise 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 ⟨p. 247⟩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. lThe 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. mThen (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 nafter death the punishment of sin is remediless: saith Theodoret. and therefore S. Hierome doth conclude: othat 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 judgement seat of Christ, neither Job, nor Daniel, nor Noah can entreat for any one, but every one must bear his own burden.
In the meane time, the Reader who desireth to be rightly informed in the iudgement of Antiquitie 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 profite thereby? In the latter of these, he shall finde great difference among the Doctors: in the former, verie little, or none at all. For khowsoever all did not agree about the state of the soules (saith Cassander, an indifferent Papist) vvhich might receive profite by these things: yet all did judge this dutie, as a testimonie of their love toward the dead, and a profession of their faith touching the soules immortalitie and the future resurrection, to be acceptable unto God and profitable to the Church. Therefore for condemning the generall practise of the Church herein, which aymed at those good ends before expressed, Aë•ius was condemned: but for denying that the dead received profite thereby, eyther for the pardon of the sinnes which before were unremitted, or for the cutting off or mitigation of anie torments that they did endure in the other world, the Church ⟨p. 247⟩did never condemne him. For that was no new thing invented by him: diverse worthy men before and after him declared themselves to be of the same minde, and were never for all that charged with the least suspition of heresie. lThe narration of Lazarus and the rich man (saith the author of the Questions and Answers in the workes of Iustin Martyr) presenteth this doctrine unto us: that after the departure of the soule out of the body, men cannot by any providence or care obtaine any profite. mThen (saith Gregory Nazianzen) in vaine shall anie one goe about to relieve those that lament. Here men may have a remedie, but afterwards there is nothing but bonds, or, all things are fast bound. For nafter death the punishment of sinne is remedilesse: saith Theodoret. and therefore S. Hierome doth conclude: othat while we are in this present world, we may be able to helpe one another, eyther by our prayers or by our counsailes; but when vvee shall come before the judgement seat of Christ, neyther Iob, nor Daniel, nor Noah can intreate for any one, but every one must beare his owne burden.
kQuamvis de statu illo animarum, quibus haec prodessent, non satis constaret, nee inter omnes conveniret: omnes tamen hoc officium, ut testimonium charitatis erga defunctos, & ut professionē fidei de immortalitate animarum & futurâ resurrectione, Deo gratum & Ecclesiae utile esse judicârunt. Cassand. Consultat. ad Fe•dinand. l. & Maximilian. II. artic. 24.Quamvis de statu illo animarum, quibus haec prodessent, non satis constaret, nee inter omnes conveniret: omnes tamen hoc officium, ut testimonium charitatis erga defunctos, & ut professionē fidei de immortalitate animarum & futurâ resurrectione, Deo gratum & Ecclesiae utile esse judicârunt. Cassand. Consultat. ad Fe•dinand. l. & Maximilian. II. artic. 24.
l[Greek or Hebrew]. Justin. r•sp. ad Orthod. quaest. 60.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Iustin. r•sp. ad Orthod. quaest. 60.
m[Greek or Hebrew]. Greg. Nazianz in Ca•m. de rebus suis.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Greg. Nazianz in Ca•m. de rebus suis.
nPost mortē poena peccati est immedicabilis. Theodoret. quaest. in lib. 2. Reg. cap 18.19.Post mortē poena peccati est immedicabilis. Theodoret. quaest. in lib. 2. Reg. cap 18.19.
oObscuré licèt docemur, per hanc sententiolam, novum dogma quod la•tat: dum in praesenti saeculo sumus, sive orationibus sive consilijs invicē posse nos coadjuvari; cùm autem ante tribunal Christi venerimus, non Job, non Daniel, nec Noe rogare posse pro quoquam, sed unumquemque portare onus suum. Hieronym. lib. 3. Comm•ntar in Galat. cap. 6.Obscuré licèt docemur, per hanc sententiolam, novum dogma quod la•tat: dum in praesenti saeculo sumus, sive orationibus sive consilijs invicē posse nos coadjuvari; cùm autem ante tribunal Christi venerimus, non Iob, non Daniel, nec Noe rogare posse pro quoquam, sed unumquemque portare onus suum. Hieronym. lib. 3. Commntar in
Other Doctors were of another judgement: 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 offences only, or such as lived and died in great sins might be made partakers of the same benefit, and whether these mens 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 ⟨p. 248⟩collection of the different sentences of the Fathers: pwhereof 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: qthat 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 mens 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, rdoth 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 ⟨p. 249⟩to be admitted unto the place of rest, but must first be reckoned withal;
Other Doctors were of another iudgement: that the dead received speciall profite by the prayers and oblations of the living; eyther for the remission of their sinnes, or the easing of their punishment. but whether this were restrained to smaller offences only, or such as lived and died in great sinnes might be made partakers of the same benefite, and whether these mens torments might be lessened only thereby, or in tract of time quite extinguished; they did not agree upon. That Stephanus Gobarus, whom before I alledged, made a ⟨p. 248⟩collection of the different sentences of the Fathers: pwhereof some contayned the received doctrine of the Church, others the unallowable opinions of certaine of the ancient that varied therefrom. Of this latter kinde he maketh this sentence to be one: qthat such sinners as be delivered unto punishment, are purged therein from their sinnes, and after their purging are freed from their punishment; albeit not all who are delivered unto punishment, be thus purged and freed, but some onely. 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 mens soules out of any such punishments, must be referred to the erroneous apprehension of some particular men, and not to the generall intention of the ancient Church; from which in this point, as in manie others beside, the latter Church of Rome hath swarved and quite gone astray. The ancient writer of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie, handling this matter of praying for the dead professedly, rdoth by way of objection move this doubt: to vvhat purpose should the Bishop intreat the divine goodnesse to grant remission of sinnes 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 ledd. If our Romish divinitie had bene then acknowledged by the Church; there had beene no place left to such questions and doubts as these. The matter might easily have beene answered, that though a man did die in the state of grace, yet was he not presently ⟨p. 249⟩to be admitted unto the place of rest, but must first be reckoned withall;
both for the committal of those smaller faults, unto which through humane 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.
both for the committall of those smaller faults, unto which through humane frailtie he was daily subject, and for the not performance of full penance and satisfaction for the greater sinnes into which in this life he had fallen: and Purgatorie being the place wherein he must be cleansed from the one, and make up the iust payment for the other; these prayers were directed unto God for the deliverie of the poore soule, which was not now in case to helpe it selfe, out of that place of torment.
But this author, taking upon him the person of S. Pauls scholar, and professing to deliver herein sthat 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 judgements: 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 judgement worthily awarded to them that have lived holily; his divine goodness and kindness passing over those blots which by humane 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 Gods servants must dearly smart in Purgatory for ⟨p. 250⟩the sins wherewith they were overtaken through humane infirmity: he believed that God of his merciful goodness would pass by those slips, 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. tTherefore 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: thereby aswell 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 Gods judgements: according to that commission of Christ; Whose sins ye remit, 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 uSchoolmen following S Hierom do account the minister to be the interpreter only of Gods judgement, by declaring what is done by him in the binding or loosing of mens sins:
But this author, taking upon him the person of S. Pauls scholler, and professing to deliver herein sthat 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 witnesse, is the interpreter of the divine judgements: for hee is the Angell of the Lord God almightie. He hath learned therefore out of the oracles delivered by God, that a most glorious and divine life is by his just judgement worthily adwarded to them that have lived holily; his divine goodnesse and kindenesse passing over those blots which by humane frailtie he had contracted: forasmuch as no man, as the Scriptures speake, is free from pollution. The Bishop therefore knowing these things to be promised by the true oracles; prayeth that they may accordingly come to passe, 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 doe now; that Gods servants must dearely smart in Purgatorie for ⟨p. 250⟩the sinnes wherewith they were overtaken through humane infirmitie: he beleeved that God of his mercifull goodnesse would passe 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. tTher•fore the divine Bishop (saith our author) asketh those things which vvere promised by God and are gratefull to him and without doubt will be granted: the•eby aswell 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. Hee further also addeth, that the Bishops have a separating power, as the interpreters of Gods judgements: according to that commission of Christ; Whose sinnes ye remitt, they are remitted unto them, and whose you shall retaine, they are retained. and, Whatsoever thou shalt binde 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 keyes, the uSchoolemen following S Hierom do account the minister to be the interpreter onely of Gods judgement, by declaring what is done by him in the binding or loosing of mens sinnes:
s[Greek or Hebrew]. Id ibid.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Id ibid.
t[Greek or Hebrew], etc. Id ibid.〈non-Latin alphabet〉, etc. Id ibid.
so doth this author he•e give them power only to xseparate those that are already judged of God, and by way of ydeclaration, 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 Christ saith, Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth. zHe saith upon earth: for he that dyeth bound, ⟨p. 251⟩is no where said to be loosed. and, athat which a man remaining in his body hath not received, being unclothed of his flesh he cannot obtain: saith Leo.
so doth this author he•e give them power onely to xseparate those that are al•eady judged of God, and by way of ydeclaration, 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 doe extend it selfe to any further reall operation upon the living: Pope Gelasius will denie that it may be stretched in like maner unto the dead; because that Ch•ist saith, Whatsoever thou shalt binde upon earth. zHe saith upon earth: for he that dyeth bound, ⟨p. 251⟩is no where said to be loosed. and, athat which a man remayning in his body hath not received, being uncloathed of his flesh he cannot obtaine: saith Leo.
x[Greek or Hebrew]. Dionysius. suprà.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Dionys•u•. suprà.
y[Greek or Hebrew]. •d ibid.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. •d ibid.
zSuper ter•ā inquit nam in hâc ligatione defunctum nusquam dixit absolvi. Gelas in Commonitorio ad […].Super ter•ā inquit nam in hâc ligatione defunctum nusquam dixit absolvi. Gelas in Commonitorio ad 〈…〉.
aQuod manens in corpore non receperit, consequi exutus carne non poterit. Leo, epist 89. v•l 91. ad Th•od•rimo.
Whether the dead received profit by the prayers of the living, was still a question in the Church. Maximus in his Greek scholia upon the writer of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, wisheth us to bmark, that even before his time that doubt was questioned. Among the questions wherein Dulcitius desired to be resolved by S. Augustin, we find this to be one; cWhether the offering that is made for the dead, did avail their souls any thing? and that dMANY 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 eknew 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:) fSome 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 Bruise in France: gThat 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: ⟨p. 252⟩as partly may be collected by Boniface archbishop of Mentz his consulting with Pope Gregory, about 730. years after the birth of our Saviour; hWhether 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. iI 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.
Whether the dead received profite by the prayers of the living, was still a question in the Church. Maximus in his Greeke scholies upon the writer of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy, wisheth us to bmarke, that even before his time that doubt was questioned. Among the questions wherein Dulcitius desired to be resolved by S. Augustin, we finde this to be one; cWhether the offering that is made for the dead, did avayle their soules any thing? and that dMANY did say to this, that if herein any good were to be done after death; how much rather should the soule it selfe obtaine ease for it selfe, by it owne confessing of her sinnes there, than that for the ease thereof an oblation should be procured by other men. The like also is noted by Cyrill or rather Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem; that he eknew MANY who said thus. What profite doth the soule get that goeth out of this world (eyther with sinnes, or not with sinnes) if you make mention of it in prayer? and by Anastasius Sinaita (or Nicaenus:) fSome doe 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: gThat the good deeds of the living may profit the dead, both these hereticks doe deny, and some Catholicks also do seeme to doubt. Nay in the West, not the profite onely, but the lawfulnesse also of these doings for the dead was called in question: ⟨p. 252⟩as partly may be collected by Boniface archbishop of Mentz his consulting with Pope Gregory, about 730. yeares after the birth of our Saviour; hWhether it were lawfull to offer oblations for the dead (which hee should have no reason to doe, if no question had beene made thereof among the Germans) and is plainly delivered by Hugo Etherianus, about 1170. yeares after Christ, in these words. iI know that many are deformed with vaine 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 pertaine neverthelesse to the worship of God, and obtaine great strength.
b[Greek or Hebrew]. Maxim. schol. in Eccles. Hierarch cap. 7.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Maxim. schol. in Eccles. Hierarch cap. 7.
cVirum oblatio, quae sit pro quiescentibus, aliquid eorum conserat animabus? Augustin ad Dul•it. qu•est. 2.
dÁd quod multi dicunt, quòd si al. quis beneficij in hoc locus possit esse post mortem; quanto magis sibi anima ferret isa refr•geria, sua per s• illic confitendo peccata, quàm in eorum refrigeriū ab alijs oblatio procuratur. Ibid.Ád quod multi dicunt, quòd si al. quis beneficij in hoc locus possit esse post mortem; quanto magis sibi anima ferret i•sa refr•geria, sua per s• illic confitendo peccata, quàm in eorum refrigeriū ab alijs oblatio procuratur. Ibid.
Whereby it may appear, that this practise wanted not opposition even then, when in the Papacy it was advanced unto his greatest height. And now is it high time, that I should pass from this article, unto the next following
Whereby it may appeare, that this practise 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 passe from this article, unto the next following
Here doth our Challenger undertake to prove against us; not only that there is Limbus Patrum, but that our Saviour also descended into Hell, to deliver the ancient Fathers of the Old Testament; because before ⟨p. 253⟩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. aWhether 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 any thing to be rashly pronounced of so doubtful a matter: saith Maldonat the Jesuit. The Dominican Friars, that wrote against the Grecians at Constantinople in the year 1252 resolve, that binto 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 judgement, 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 cnow remaineth void, and so dshall remain, that it may bear witness aswell 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 Saviour descended into Hell purposely •o deliver from hence the ancient Fathers of the Old Testament. But eHell is one thing, I ween, saith Tertullian, and Abraham's b•some (where the Fathers of the old Testament rested) another: fneither 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. Augustin. To say then, ⟨p. 254⟩that our Saviour 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.
HEre doth our Challenger undertake to prove against us; not only that there is Limbus Patrum, but that our Saviour also descended into Hell, to deliver the ancient Fathers of the Old Testament; because before ⟨p. 253⟩his Passion none ever entred into Heaven. That there was such a thing as Limbus Patrum, I have heard it said: but what it is now, the Doctors varie, yet agree all in this; that Limbus it may well be, but Limbus Patrum sure it is not. aWhether it were distinct from that place, in which the infants that depart out of this life without baptisme are now beleeved to be received, the Divines doe doubt; neyther is there any thing to be rashly pronounced of so doubtfull a matter: saith Maldonat the Iesuite. The Dominican Friars, that wrote against the Grecians at Constantinople in the yeare 1252 resolve, that binto this Limbus the holy Fathers before the comming of Christ did descend; but now the children that depart vvithout baptisme, are detained there: so that in their iudgement, 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 cnow remayneth voide, and so dshall remaine, that it may beare witnesse aswell of the justice as of the mercie of God. If you demand, how it came to be thus voyd, & emptied of the old inhabitants: the answer is here given; that our Saviour descended into Hell purposely •o deliver from hence the ancient Fathers of the Old Testament. But eHell is one thing, I ween, saith Tertullian, and Abrahams b•some (where the Fathers of the old Testament rested) another: fneyther is it to be beleeved, that the bosome of Abraham, being the habitation of a secret kinde of rest, was any part of Hell; saith S. Augustin. To say then, ⟨p. 254⟩that our Saviour 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 beene reported, that Caesar made a voyage into Brittaine, to set his friends at libertie in Greece.
aAn ab eo loco distinctus fue•it, in quo nunc in•a•tes sine baptismo de vitâ decedent•s recipi creduntu•, Theologi dubitan•; nec est qui•quam de re dubiâ temerè pronuntiandum •o. Maldon. •omment. in Luc. •6.22.
bIn quem (limbum) aute adventū Christi sancti Patres descendebant: nunc vero pueri, qu• absque baptismo decedunt, sine poenâ sensibili, detinentur. •act. contr. Graec. in tomo auctorum á P. Situartio edit. pag. 565.In quem (limbum) aute adventū Christi sancti Patres descendebant: nunc vero pueri, qu• absque baptismo decedunt, sine poenâ sensibili, detinentur. •act. contr. Graec. in tomo auctorum á P. Situartio edit. pag. 565.
cNunc vacuus remanet. Bell•r. de Purgator. lib. 2 cap. 6.
dManet autem, manebitque, licèt vacuus, hic infernus; ut testimonium perhibeat tùm justitiae, tùm misericordiae Dei. Henric. Vicus, de •es•ensu Christi ad inf•ros, sect. 41. Vi•. Abu••us. Paradox 5 cap. 183.
eAliud enim Inferi; ut puto, aliud quoque Abrahae sinus. Tertull. advers. Mar•ion lib. 4. ca•. 34
fNon utique sinus ille Abrahae, id est, secret•• cujusdā quietis habitatio, aliqua pars Inserorum esse credenda est. Augustin epist. 99. ad Evodium.
Yea, but before Christs 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: gthat the souls of the godly were not in Heaven before the Ascension 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 hthat day he should be with him in Paradise: that is to say, in the kingdom of heaven; as the iCardinal himself doth prove, both by the authority of S. kPaul, 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 lothers of that side had done) and to maintain that Paradise, in stead 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 Christs ascension (least that of the Thief should cross him) but before his passion none ever entered into Heaven. But if none before our Saviours Passion did ever enter into Heaven: whither shall we say that Elijah 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-bed; that mElijah being zealous and fervent for ⟨p. 255⟩the law, was taken up into heaven. Elijah and Moses both, before the passion of Christ are described to be nin glory: oLazarus is carried by the Angels into a place of comfort, and not of imprisonment: in a word, all the Fathers paccounted themselves to be strangers and pilgrims in this earth, seeking for a better country, that is, an heavenly, as well as qwe do; and therefore having ended their pilgrimage, they arrived at the country they sought for, as well as we. They rbelieved to be saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as we; they slived by that faith, as well as we; they tdyed in Christ, as well as we; they received uremission of sins, imputation of righteousness, and the blessedness arising therefrom, as well as we:
Yea, but before Christs Passion none ever entred into Heaven: saith our Challenger. The proposition that Cardinall Bellarmine taketh upon him to prove, where he handleth this controversie, is: gthat the soules of the godly were not in Heaven before the As•ension of Christ. Our Iesuite, it seemeth, considered here with himselfe, that Christ had promised unto the penitent theefe upon the crosse; that not before his ascension only, but also before his resurrection, even hthat day he should be with him in Paradise: that is to say, in the kingdome of heaven; as the iCardina•l himselfe doth prove, both by the authoritie of S. kPaul, making Paradise and the third heaven to be the selfe same thing, and by the testimony of the ancient expositors of the place. This, belike, stuck somewhat in our Iesuites stomack: who being loath to interpret this of his Limbus Patrum (as lothers of that side had done) and to maintaine that Paradise, in stead of the third Heaven, should signifie the third or the fourth Hell; thought it best to shift the matter handsomely away, by taking upon him to defend, that, not before Christs ascension (least that of the Thiefe should crosse him) but before his passion none ever entred into Heaven. But if none before our Saviours 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 sonnes in mind upon his death-bedd; that mElias being zealous and fervent for ⟨p. 255⟩the law, was taken up into heaven. Elias and Moses both, before the passion of Christ are described to be nin glory: o
gQuòd animae piorum non fuerint in coelo ante Christi ascensionem. Be•larmin. de Ch•ist. lib. 4. cap. 11.Quòd animae piorum nō fuerint in coelo ante Christi ascensionem. Be•larmin. de Ch•ist. lib. 4. cap. 11.
iVera ergo expositio est Theophylacti, Ambrosij, Bedae, & aliorum, qui per paradisum intelligunt regnum coelorum. Bellarm. de Sanct Beatit. lib. 1. cap. 3.
k2. Cori•. 12.2.4.
lHenr. Vic. de des•ens. ad infer. sect 41 pag. 129. Vide Thom. in 3. part. Sum quaest. 52. art. 4.. ad •. & Lyranu•s in Luc. 23.43.
and the mediation of our Saviour 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 xpresence is fullness of joy, as to deliver them from the yplace of torment where zthere is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
and the mediation of our Saviour being of that present efficacie, that it tooke away sinne and brought in righteousnesse from the very beginning of the world, it had vertue sufficient to free men from the penaltie of losse as well as from the penalty of sense, and to bring them unto him in whose xpresence is fulnesse of joy, as to deliver them from the yplace of torment where zthere 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: awho 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 gainsaid 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 ⟨p. 256⟩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. bMARCUS. He saith that Abraham is in hell, and not in the kingdom of heaven. ADAMANTIUS. Read whether he saith 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 cTertullian also retort the same place of Scripture against Marcion, and prove that it ⟨p. 257⟩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:
The first that ever assigned a resting place in Hell to the Fathers of the old Testament, was (as farre as wee can finde) Marcion the heretick: awho determined that both kinde 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 Abrahams bosome was any part of Hell. This appeareth plainly by the disputation, set out among the workes of Origen, betwixt Marcus the ⟨p. 256⟩Marcionite, & Adamantius the defender of the Catholicke cause: who touching the *parabolicall historie of the rich man & Lazarus in the sixteenth of S. Luke, are brought in reasoning after this maner. bMARCUS. He saith that A•raham is in hell, and not in the kingdome of heaven. ADAMANTIUS. Reade 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 gulfe spoken of, that thou hearest not. For the middle space betwixt heaven and earth he calleth a gulfe. 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 vally only was set betwixt them. ADAMANT. Bodily eyes use to see those things only that are neere: but spirituall eyes reach farre. and it is manifest, that they who have here put off their body, doe see one another with the eyes of their soule. For marke how the Gospell doth say, that he lifted up his eyes. toward heaven one useth to lift them up, and not toward the earth. In like maner doth cTertullian also retort the same place of Scripture against Marcion, and prove that it ⟨p. 257⟩maketh a plaine difference betweene Hell and the bosome of Abraham. For it affirmeth (saith he) both that a great deepe is interposed betwixt those regions, and that it suffereth no passage from eyther side. Neyther could the rich man have lifted up his eyes, and that afarre off, unlesse it had beene unto places above him, and very farre above him, by reason of the mightie distance betwixt that height and that depth. Thus farre Tertullian:
aSed Marcion aliorsum cogit, scilicet utramque mercedem Creatoris, sive tormenti sive refrigerij, apud inferos determinet eis positam qui Legi & Prophetis obedierint; Christi veró & Dei sui coel•stem desiniat sinum & portum. Tertullian. lib. 4. contra Marcion. cap. 34. Vid. etiā lib. 3. cap. 24.Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit, scilicet utramque mercedem Creatoris, sive tormēti sive refrigerij, apud inferos determinet eis positam qui Legi & Prophetis obedierint; Christi veró & Dei sui coel•stem desiniat sinum & portum. Tertullian. lib. 4. contra Marcion. cap. 34. Vid. etiā lib. 3. cap. 24.
*In D. Bez•• Grae•olitino Evangeliorum ve•e•and•e vit• statis e•emplari, quod in pu•licâ Cant•brigie•sis academic Bibliothecâ asservatur; historiae h•ic praet••i•t• tur i••a pr•es•tio. [Greek or Hebrew]. […] •imilis e•iam in Missali R•m•no •feriâ 5 post Dominicam 2. Quadragesimae) legebatur: Dixit Jesus discipulis suis parabolam hanc. Verùm in Missali reformato duae posteriors voces sublatae nuper sunt.In D. Bez•• Grae•olitino Euangeliorum ve•e•and•e vit statis eemplari, quod in pulicâ Cantbrigiesis academie Bibliothecâ asservatur; historiae hic praetit tur ia prestio. . imilis eiam in Missali Rmno feriâ 5 post Dominicam 2. Quadragesimae) legebatur: Dixit Iesus discipulis suis parabolam hanc. Verùm in Missali reformato duae poteriores voces sublatae nuper sunt.
Pro obeuntibus quoque consul•isse dignosceris, si lice at oblationes offerre. Gregor. II. vel III. epist. ad Bonifac. in tomis Conciliorū.
iScio plerosque vanis opinionibus defor•ari, putantes non esse orandum pro mortuis; eo quòd neque Christus, neque Apostoli ejus successores haec scriptis intimaverint. Nesciunt quidem illi plura esse, ac persummé necessaria, quae sancta Ecclesia frequentat, quorum traditio ex scripturis non habetur: nihilo tamen minus ad cultum Dei pertinent, & vigorem maximum obtinent. Hug. Etherian. de Animar. regr•ss. ab infer. cap. 13Scio plerosque vanis opinionibus defor•ari, putantes non esse orandum pro mortuis; eo quòd neque Christus, neque Apostoli ejus successores haec scriptis intimaverint. Nesciūt quidem illi plura esse, ac persummé necessaria, quae sancta Ecclesia frequentat, quorum traditio ex scripturis non habetur: nihilo tamen minus ad cultum Dei pertinent, & vigorem maximum obtinent. Hug. Etherian. de Animar. regr•ss. ab infer. cap. 13
Non utique sinus ille Abrahae, id est, secret•• cujusdā quietis habitatio, aliqua pars Inserorum esse credenda est. Augustin epist. 99. ad Euodium.
Lazarus is carried by the Angells into a place of comfort, and not of imprisonment: in a word, all the Fathers
b[Greek or Hebrew]. Ori•en. Dialog. 2. contra Marcion.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Ori•en. Dialog. 2. contra Marcion.
cRespondebimus, & hâc ipsâ scripturâ revincente oculos ejus, quae ab infernis discernit Abrahae sinum pauperi. Aliud enim Inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque Abrahae sinus. Nam & magnum ait intercedere regiones istas prosundum, & transitum utrinque prohibere Sed nec allevâsset dives oculos, & quidem de longinquo, nisi in superiora, & de altitudinis longinquo per im•ensam illā distantiam sublimitatis & profunditatis. Tertull. advers. Marcion, lib. 4 cap 34.Respondebimus, & hâc ipsâ scripturâ revincente oculos ejus, quae ab infernis discernit Abrahae sinum pauperi. Aliud enim Inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque Abrahae sinus. Nam & magnum ait intercedere regiones istas prosundum, & transitum utrinque prohibere Sed nec allevâsset dives oculos, & quidem de longinquo, nisi in superiora, & de altitudinis longinquo per im•ensam illā distantiam sublimitatis & profunditatis. Tertull. advers. Marcion, lib. 4 cap 34.
