the now L. Bishop of Winchester to begin among vs a new matter of faith neuer heard of before in England but only in the dayes of Popery touching the All sufficiency of the meere Bodily Sufferings of Christ and to maintaine an other which was neere worne out of his going downe to Hell in Soule In both which because my conscience assured mee that hee was much mistaken and laboured that others should mistake also I thought it not besides my duty the Lord offering me opportunity to maintaine the truth and that in all plainenes and evidence of the Scripture as God inabled me with This now a while since being published wherein my trust is I caryed my selfe no otherwise then J ought the Author and maintayner of the contrary hath so of late intertayned it as seemeth to mee and to many others wonderfull Wonderfull not for strength of reasons nor for exquisit matter such as neuer before was delivered though his learning J acknowledge and will not but reverence his gifts but wonderfull his answer is and altogeather extraordinary considering that such incomparable bitternes disdaine skoffing reproch and furious rage doth so abundantly com from him therein against my poore selfe being yet by the mercy of God a true Christian a Minister of the Gospel and one I praise the Lorde which euer haue bin carefull to bee free from the scandalls of the World Though heerein J boast not but rather with the Apostle will boast of mine infirmities Verily this now J haue learned by his writing better then euer I conceaued before namely what great oddes he maketh and desireth to be made betweene himselfe a Lord Bishop and an other being but a Preacher of Gods most holy word Well this is the Rhetorike and the ornaments of his Conclusion against my treatise But all this is besides his Matter which nevertheles may haue peradventure som weight in it It may peradventure Wherefore J see a double necessity vrging me to reply therevnto First to the end that his exceptions and reasons that is to say his wholl matter may appeare yet better to be so weake and vnsufficient as indeed they are See that those vncivill reproches I will not say vnchristian revilings being the bewty and forme of his booke may appeare to be but the froth of a distempered stomacke the colour of reason and iust cause which he casteth on it being taken away As touching the matter therefore thus I purpose to deale I will begin with his later writing which he calleth a Conclusion because he mainly directeth it against mee taking in by the way also all such places points in the former Treatise as do rightly concerne our matter in hand Finally as touching his reproches and cruell words I intend wholy to passe ouer them seeing for them neither is he any whit the better nor my selfe the worse The Defence of the Treatise of Christes sufferings against Maister Bilsons Conclusion HIs Conclusion for so he thinketh good to call it beginneth against me in his page 225. Wherein first he doeth change me in generall termes that I flee from the state of the Chiefe question and overskip his Authorities The like saith in Eâ— pag. 9. in his reasons I forget and dissemble what pleaseth my self in the defence of my holy cause as it pleaseth him to mocke I roue as I list neither keeping any order nor bringing any matter of moment coÌ„fusedly powring out the hasty resolutions of mine own braines spiced euery where with ignorant absurd positions proudly despising all authority antiquitie c. Al which words are but wind as I shal make it evident God willing wheÌ„ we com to view his particulars heerafter insuing Among which he * Pag. â— beginneh to iustifie that he mistooke not his Text when hee preached this doctrine But I wil speak thereof anon so that first I satisfie him in the most principal point of his challeÌ„ge against me Which is this “ Episâ— that I haue changed the first questioÌ„ that I set not down the state therof fully nor truly so I offer to prove that which he never denied I coÌ„fute that which he never affirmed Let vs ther fore coÌ„sider advisedly this questioÌ„ which I wil set downe again as exactly as plainly as I can that we may see how far I erred froÌ„ it before We affirme That Christ in his Soul suffered all Gods proper Wrath and vengeance being paines and punishment for sinne no sinne also as touching the essence or nature thereof The suâ— whole out 1. â— and so farre as was due Generally for all mankinde to suffer His contrary opinion we conceaue thus That Christ suffered for our sinnes nothing ells but simply and “ or 〈◊〉 his Hoâ— fectioÌ„s â—â—tio and meerely a Bodily death altogither like as the godlie and holy men do often suffer at the handes of persecutors saving only that God accepted this death of his Sonne as a ransom for sinne but the death of his servants be doth not The Opening of the whole staâ—e of this Question For the better vnderstanding whereof we must note these principall things taine spe I things to â—oted First that All suffering of Paines in man is froÌ„ God either properly from his Iustice or from his Holy Love either froÌ„ him alone or also from his Instruments and inferior meanes Againe Al suffering of Paines is for Sinne either inherent or imputed either as Correction or as Punishment either immediatly or mediatly as anon we shall further see Sec By the Lawe of our Creation as we are men having a Soule besides our Body so our Soule hath in it a 3. fold faculty of Suffering Paines First that which is Proper and immediat iustly so called â—ee kindes 〈◊〉 Soâ—â—es â—â—â—ing of 〈◊〉 Proper because it is proper only to reasonable and immortall Spirites although in men if it grow vehement it affecteth coÌ„sequently the Body also Immediat 2. wayes 1. because it can doth receave an impression of sorrow and Paines made from God only by and in it selfe without any outward bodily meanes therevnto 2. It is also an Immediat Punishment or els Correction of sinne it cometh not for any other cause at all So that thus we meane when we speake of the Soules Proper and Immediat Suffering The Soules second faculty of Suffering paines is not Proper but Common to vs with Beasts namely that which is by Sympathy Communion with and from the Body For which cause also it is not Immediat sith it commeth not to the Soule but by externall bodily meanes A third kind of painful Suffering the Soule hath namely her vehemeÌ„t strong AffectioÌ„s are Painful whether they be good or evill As Zeale Love CoÌ„passion Pity Care c. Neither are these immediatly for Sinne whether Punishmentes or Corrections but they com for and by other immediat causes â—â—tions no â—â—at â—or 〈◊〉 Punish 〈◊〉 5. neither are they Punishments or Corrections at all
Goates a slaine a Scapegoat * Pag. 23. You obiect heere against 1. that I abuse the Text. That were a great fault but let vs view the text Thus are the very expresse wordes which you also recite * ver 5 Aaron shall take of the people 2. Goats for a Sinne-offering Surely you must bring very good reason to frustrat so plaine a speach That is you say to make a Sinne-offering of one of them Nay the very words are take 2. Goats for a Sinne-offering it saith not take 2. Goats that one of them may be a Sinne-offering But this sheweth so much you thinke where the text saith Lottes were cast over the 2 Goates one lot for the Lorde the other for the Scapegoat And Aaron shall offer the Goat on which the Lordes lot shall fall and make him a Sinne-offering These wordes prove not that the Scapegoat was no Sinne-offering at all Vnlesse this were true that no Sinne offering can possibly bee but by killing and slaying and sheadding of bloud Although the “ Heb. 9. Scripture say Without sheadding of bloud is no remission yet it meaneth that Allmost all things are in the Law purged with bloud That is many Offerings and sacrifices are bloudy but not all I take now sacrifice and offering in the largest sense as signifying any consecrated thing given to God to appease him for sinne And such vnbloudy Sinne-offerings very many we shall finde in * Lev. 2.11 13 8 13. Nomb. 1â— 18 11 28 12 14. Moses Law Wherefore the Scapegoat may we yet a Sinne-offering though it were not slaine nor bloudy And his vtter sending away into the vnknown Deserts may answer to the consuming of som other Sacrifices by fire Thus then these wordes of the text which you bring doe not proue the Scapegoate to be no Sinne-offering at all they proue it to be no bloudy Offering and therefore not such but of another kind then the slaine Goat was It might be consecrated and offered to the Lord and vtterly sequestred from men and beare and take away sinne no lesse then the slaine Goat wherein verily consisteth the nature and being of a Sacrifice or true Sinne-offering And in very deede all this the text following expresly avoucheth of the Scape goate ver 10. The Scapegoat shal be presented alive before the Lord to make reconciliation by him to let him go for a Scape-goat Heere is his Consecrating vnto the Lord yea reconciliation also is made by him though he dyed not as the other did Againe more plainly ver 21 22. * And Aaron shall put both his handes vpoÌ„ the head of the live Goat and confesse vpon him all the iniquities of the Children of Israell all their trespasses and all their sinnes putting them vpon the head of the Goat and shall send him away alive into the Wildernes So the Goat shall beare vpon him all their iniquities into the Wildernes being let go thither Can there be any thing in the world more full and strong to prove that the Scapegoat also was a true Sinne-offering or rather a true parte of this wholl and intire Sinne-offering consisting and being compleat in both these Goats the slaine and the Scapegoat togeather For as the slaine Goate so this Scapegoat wee see was aswell Consecrated to the Lord and * heere Offered though not by killing and separated from men ver 10. ver 21 22. have vpon him all the sinnes of the people and caryed them cleane away So wee may reade of other Sacrifices consisting and being compleat wholly of Sacrifices of sundry divers kindes Nomb. 28.3 c. The bloudy Sacrifice had conioyned togeather with it the vnbloudy Sacrifice of the Meat offering and another of the Drinke offering c. Which may very likely represent vnto vs the sundry and divers kindes of Christes meritorious Sufferings in his life time at his Death som bloudy some vnbloudy but all concurring togeather making the full and persit propitiation for al our sinnes And even such a Sacrifice or Sinne-offering it seemeth surely these 2. Goats were Heere then your advisednes may bee noted by all men which doe reprove me for this assertion and that with such violent and vncomly termes Now if it be a Figurative Sinne-offering what signified this Figure Certainly it signified Christ and his taking away of our sinnes by his death Have you any colour of reason to maintaine those wide coniectures of the * Ancients â—yrill Amâ—â—ose Beda that the Scapegoat signified the Reprobat and castaway people or ells cursed Barrabas that scaped death when Iesus was slaine Who but you would defend these palpable mistakinges of those men And why Because they are Ancient Yet see you not the expresse text against theÌ„ Do damned men or did Barrabas reconcile vs to God take away our sinnes as the Scapegoat did typically Nay surely It must needs be then that it signified Christ yea doubtles Christ man For the Godhead could bee no Sinne-offering neither did it make reconciliation for sinne neither did the Deity beare our sinnes vpon himselfe properly all which the Scapegoat * Tipically did Further if it were Christ man it could not be his Body for his body was slaine bloudily the Scapegoat was not slaine For the other Goat a Sacrifice to being slaine this survived and went away into the land of separation It must then be of necessity I thinke the Humane mortall Soule of Christ which the Scapegoate signified which was a true Sinne-offering and made propitiation for vs aswell as the slaine Goat and bare vpon him our sinnes though his Soule dyed not bloudily nor by loosing life and sense as his body and the typicall slaine Goat did You say “ Pap. 235. If this Scapegoat do signifie Christs Soule then it cannot be that Christes Soule Suffered much lesse dyed any death This obiection truly you might haue spared seeing my self * Treat 1 1â— before brought it fully answered it where against you have said never a word The effect whereof is this The escaping of the Goat may lively shew vnto vs that Christs Soule dyed not as the Body dyed by loosing life and sense but surviving went hence into Hades the land of separation the invisible world of the Dead But in that the Scapegoat did beare and sustaine our sinnes and was indeede a Sinne-offering to aswell as the slaine Goat so it may well signifie that Christes Soule properly suffered and sustayned the burden of our sinnes in satisfying for them no lesse then his body which was bloudily slaine therefore As for the Dying of Christs Soule we shall answer you for that in due place heereafter So that Now where you say “ Pag. 234. I am more bold then wise in affirming the Scapegoat to signifie the Soule of Christ Surely then I were like you who affirme as boldly that among the Iewes no Sacrifice at all foreshewed any Suffering of
his Soule And e De incaâ—â— Sacr. cap. 〈◊〉 Hoc in se obtulit Christus quod induit c. Christ offered in sacrifice all that which he assumed that is all every whit that was in him besides his Godhead f Fulgent 〈◊〉 Thrasym 〈◊〉 lib. 3. Fulgentius He shewed in himselfe the sufferinges of a whole man in verity truth quicquid fuit infirmitatis animae sine peccato suscepit pertulit Hee tooke vpon him and suffered whatsoever infirmity may be in the soule without sinne It is not possible that wee our selues should speake a more effectuall sentence for our purpose then this is Say as Fulgentius heere saith and we aske no more All that g Pag. 86. you except that by these Fathers Christe dyed only the death of the flesh is lesse then heere they affirme And we shall answer to that in due place Now marke well how these Fathers do not say that Christ gave his life for a ransom onely as h Pag. 70. â—â— you would construe it but even his very Soule to for our Soules They strive to expresse an exact proportion so far as was possible betwene Christ and vs. First in the parts of Christ who suffered of vs who were saved So that as we are saved not in our bodies only nor only in the externall sensitiue parte of our soules wherein standeth that suffering with and by our bodies but wee are saved redeemed and sanctified in our whole Spirite and Vnderstanding also even so by their verdict Christ suffered for vs not the bodily and outward sufferinges by Sympathy onely but hee suffered for vs even in his Minde also Now this is directly against your present a Assertion which we have in hand 〈◊〉 132.240 â—eere p. 14 Also heere they observe an exact proportion in the Obiects so far as was possible viz in that which he suffered for vs that which we are saved froÌ„ thereby Thus that sorrow of the immortall parte of the Soule not of body only which we are saved from the same he suffered Yea I say all and every whit of those passions sorrowes wherevnto mans nature is b subiect and capable of 〈◊〉 nature we â—â—e subject to â—â—fer in the â—â—nde proâ—erly for sin â—nd not only â—y Sympathy â—rom the Body Cyrill Thesâ—â—ur 10 3 Barnard de â—ass Dom. â—ap 41. Pag. 7. Terâ—ul cout Prax. Amb in Luc. 2. De trist â—olor c. and from which we are saved all the same he tasted and suffered for vs. Thus it is also that Cyrill elswhere saith c Omnia perpessus est vt nos ab omnibus liberaret He suffered all things throughly that hee might acquit vs from all which els we should have suffered And thus I take Barnards meaning to be d He spared not him selfe who knoweth how to spare his Wherevpon you collect well if you meane so e He suffered and indured All to the vttermost with exact obedience and patience To which end Tertullian also f Sic reliquit dum non parcit This was Gods forsaking of him in his passion that in nothing he spared him And thus Ambrose g Minus contulerat mihi nisi meum suscepisset affectum He had don lesse for me if he had not ben altogeather affected as I should haue ben And thus Ierom h â—erom in â—sa 53. h Quod nos pro nostris debebamus sceleribus sustinere ille pro nobis passus est pacificans c That wich we should have borne for our sinnes the same hee suffered for vs. Wherefore by the Fathers Christ suffered exactly i All whatsoever sorrowes paines which we should have suffered All kindes 〈◊〉 both in â—â—irit Body â—ot all partiâ—â—lars in theÌ„ as well Spirituall as Corporall as well in all the powers of the Soule subiect to suffering as in that which suffered allwayes with and from the body Only they except 2. pointes which of simple necessity indeed must be excepted in the Sonne of God Pag. 10. 12. â—3 which before k I have also acknowledged 1. Sinne Pag. 87. and all sinfull concomitantes and consequentes as l you speake And that is it which Cyprian exactly noteth That in him there was m Similitudo paenae non Culpae Cypr. de pass the very like punishmeÌ„t as should have ben in vs only there was no sinne nor fault in him as is in vs. The 2. point excepted is that he suffered not eternally but for a while for he that was life it selfe could not but live againe saith n Cyrill In the place above cited Where he seemeth to acknowledge a kind of death even of the soule from which Christ revived againe But of that in due place heereafter Nowe heere it is manifest that even the Fathers of whom you doe so exceedingly boast are cleane against you and for vs in the 1. and chiefest point of this question shewing that Christ suffered not only bodly or in the soule by Symphaty only but in the Minde also distinctly even as we may suffer in minde distinctly froÌ„ our bodily suffering that is when we suffer somwhat a As I 〈◊〉 Treat 〈◊〉 pag. 4. imediatly from God Yea he suffered say these Fathers all the paines which els we should haue suffered no materiall thing excepted but only sinne otherwise he was spared by dispensation in nothing Against this cleere and plaine sense of the Fathers b Pa. 35â— you take no exception neither can you Thus having hitherto manefestly defended my selfe that I have not abused any way the Fathers nor yet your selfe as you vniustly charge me in c Pa. 22â— your entrance Now I am to doe the like against d Pag. 2â—â— your vnsufficient refusing of my Reasons Where by I hope it shall appeare that you have not weakened any one of them And First you begin with rehearsing my wordes wherein I briefly noted the very Question betweene vs e Treat 〈◊〉 pag. 4. That Christ suffered for vs the Wrath of God Which you f Pag. 24 exclame at without measure as being not the point which you preached against Howbeit I suppose these wordes do rightly and fitly set out the matter both which then you preached which now you write I have g Pag. 8 heere before truly fully declared the whole state of this controversy I trust Yet because we can never opeÌ„ this point to much for many good vses that it hath I will not thinke it tedious nor labour lost ne to rip vp this question a litle againe in this place that so we may proceede with more ease Your generall cariage in your booke declareth that you abuse the Reader exceedingly by the ambiguous and equivocall taking of this terme Gods Wrath as before in the entrance I have shewed It is not I that abuse them as you h Namâ— 243 24â— every where very bitterly and vnreasonably do charge me For according to the most vsuall and
you meane not thus 〈◊〉 The. 5.23 then you againe vse sophistry deceaving vs with the worde Soule For wee meane thereby in this Question onely the Spirit or Minde as it is also called in exact and distinct speach Howbeit speaking vulgarly and ordinarily we calle it the Soule Which yet sometime is vnderstood onely for the Sensitive parts quickning the body and depending thereon But this indeede is not it which we haue heere in quaestion If you meane in Soule to be properly and immediatly in his immortall Spirit as the ordinary phrase intendeth and that so he suffered directly punishment for sin in his Soule not Devotion Piety zealous Care only as I doubt e you meane then you differ not frō vs 〈◊〉 observe 〈◊〉 18. but we al agree And thus my wordes shal be true Christ suffered a sense of Gods wrath f equall to Hell it selfe and all the torments thereof For as touching Gods wrath punishing his Spirite Which you 〈◊〉 s o blame 〈◊〉 244.247 who can say but that this was as hoat and skorching as Hell fire it selfe Who can limit or measure the fury of Gods severe Iustice when he cometh in iudgment against sinne as now he did vnto Christ This therefore being well pondered we may preceave that Christs sorrow anguish which he indured for sinne might very well be and was no doubt infinit yea even in those bodily stripes woundes and bloudshed whose paines otherwise were finite His soule not only discerning sensitively the bodily paine smart but chiefly in the vnderstanding he conceaved and in his faculty of immediat suffering he felt the fury of that hand which principally strooke those blowes vpon his Humane nature not Pilats nor the Iewes who were but instruments but the originall and chiefe imploying them which was Gods Justice armed with vengeance for his sinne His I may call it for he paid for it Now this could not but make an vnspeakeable impression of paine sorrowes which stacke in the depth of his soule Who then can say how litle or how small this was Nay who can declare or comprehend the infinit greatnes of it Finally your self doth grant expresly that a Pag. 2. the Wrath of God is Hell indeed only it b Isa 30 causeth Hell to be cruell Yea you grant it to be sharper then Hell So that we see heereby how vainly you say c Pag. 2◠Out of this proposition Christ suffered for vs the wrath of God for sinne I shall never conclude Ergo he suffered the true paines of Hell I have heere shewed you I trust that this followeth well seeing the wrath of God which Christ felt in his Spirit was his right and proper wrath albeit he suffered not all nor the wholl wrath of God nor Hell locally nor every part thereof iust as the Damned do Which you without all colour of reason or likelyhood would make men imagine to be the question betweene vs. You d Pag. 24 would make a Contradition in my wordes for saying e Treat 1. Christ suffered in his wholl manhood and afterward f Treat 1. Christ suffered Gods wrath properly and immediatly in his Soule Where I say not as you vntruly charge me that He suffered all that he suffered in his whole manhood Wherefore this is a niew contrariety Againe granting him to suffer all that he suffered in his wholl manhood yet he must suffer Gods wrath as God wrath properly and immediatly in his Soule in his Body mediatly and by coniunction only with his Soule And thus my reason g Treat 1. there framed is yet still wholly good and sound Then I am charged with absurdityes I know not how many nor how great 1. h Pag. 34◠Because I say i Treat ◠pag. 17. Christ assumed not our nature nor any part of it but only to suffer in it properly and immediatly As if I had meant heere that he became man not to reveale to vs by his owne mouth his Fathers will not to worke righteousnes for vs not to quicken and sanctify vs but only to suffer for vs and nothing els Wherein who would have shewed himselfe so vniust an Adversary so vnreasonable Were it not reason and iust dealing to consider whereof we dispute and so weighing the whole matter of our talke not to stretch and racke my words further then that All men may see it to be manefest that k Treat ◠pag. 16. heere I speake only of Christs suffering for our redemptiō having not one word about his other benefits which he wrought for vs. Pag. 17. a And after speaking of Christs Soules suffering I shew that although there were 2 sortes thereof one immediat and proper an other by Sympathy from and with the flesh yet Christ tooke our Humane Soule only to suffer in it properly immediatly that is his maine end was not that he should suffer in it by Sympathy from and with the body and onely so which you very strangely affirme So that my meaning is no more but to exclude that which you affirme That Christ tooke his Humane Soule to suffer in it only from and by his Body This heere I denyed and nothing els For I grant that Christ intended that his Humane Soule should suffer by Sympathy but yet also this he intended not directly nor primarily in taking the 2 distinct partes of our Humane nature our Soule and our Body He intended it by consequence because Natures right state was such in vs therefore determining to be in nature like vs he would also that his Soule should feele the Bodyes outward harmes as it doth with vs. Howbeit in comparison of the Soules most principall disposition of that which is proper to Reasonable Creatures he did not respect the inferiour part that which is common to vs with Beastes even this sensitive suffering by Sympathy with and from the Body I say in comparison of the other Christ respected not this yet he did respect this also as I said secondarily consequently that is because he intended to have our nature in whole and full perfection as we have it only except sinne Now I beseech you would any vpright adversary obiect against me that in this speach I exclude Christes doing righteousnes in his Soule for vs c. I appeale to all indifferent Readers Rather hence we are to gather to conclude that each part in Christ ought to have the proper and immediat vse as is incident to the nature thereof aswell in suffering as it is cleere that it hath in working righteousnes In Christes working of righteousnes and obedience to God his Soule had a proper and immediat part to do which it executed without the Body as to conceave meditate on the will of God revealed to him to love and wholly to imbrace it and to purpose the full performing of it c. His Body also had a proper and externall vse not onely to follow
experience of them This same also sundry of the Fathers avouch with vs most fully and even those which your selfe brings for a your selfe Pag. 25. Cyrills wordes before touched are most large Cyrill Theâ—â—ur 10.3 Omnia Christus perpessus est vt nos ab omnibus liberaret Christ throughly suffered all such passions which men doe suffer that he might deliver vs from all Humane â—ature All the passions of †fleshe were stirred in Christ yet without sinne and so that vnles he had dyed we had not bene delivered from death vnles he had feared and sorrowed we had not ben quitt from feare and sorrowe Heere he saith all our passions were stirred in Christes humane nature even so farre as we are cured and so farre as might bee without sinne in him Then I hope by Cyrills iudgement the sense of the true curse and proper wrath of God for sinne was in Christes Soule so faire as it might be painfull and not sinfull seeing Men are subiect to this suffering as the most sharpest among others Lastly by Cyrill here we see that vnles Christ had felt the same suffrings which we feele and are cured of we had not bene delivered of them This also I am sure fitteth not your opinion That one drop of Christes bloud was sufficient for our whole redemption Which was one of your principles in your preaching but in your book you skip it cleane I know not how â—ag 25. 26. Next we may see that c your place of d Ambrosâ— is also fully to the same effect Luc. de â—â—tic dol â—â— A litle after his e former words he saith The ioy of the eternall Godhead being parted away from him Christ was affected with the redioâ—snes of my infirmity â—â—fore pa. 48 He tooke vpon him my sorrow that he might give mee his ioy and he abased himselfe to the sorrow of death in our manner that by the same meanes in him he might bring vs to life He ought therfore to take sorrow that he might overcome sorrow and not exempt himselfe from it that we might learne in Christ to ouercom the sorrow of death approching Wherefore Christ exempted himselfe from nothing in his Passion that we haue experience of as touching Paines and sorrowes And by the same sufferings in him selfe for vs he healeth vs wherevnto we are subiect by reason of sinne So that thus in his agonie hee wrought with a deepe effect that because in his flesh hee killed our sinnes he might also with the sorrow of his Soul extinguish the sorrow of our Soules To this very purpose also a Pag. 47 4â— Naâ—â—anz Fulgent Barnard Tertull. Ierom. many others before rehearsed do affirme most fully Neither is this taking of their sentences any whit to abuse the Fathers which you b Pag. 86. are afraid of You greatly abuse them which take them otherwise namely as if they meant that by the flesh and bloudshed of Christ meerely alone without the merit of his Soules and Mindes proper suffering our whole Ransom were paid As for our comparing the paines of Christs suffering with the paines even of the Reprobats in this life I see not that you nor any man living can finde fault therewith onely set aside their sinfull suffering which alwayes I testifie that Christ was most free from Yea I doubt not but we may compare Christes sufferings in his Agonies touching vehemency of paines even with those of the Damned in hell What the oâ— is betweenâ— Christes Suâ—fering 〈◊〉 Damned Only I conceave betweene Christs and theirs this odds 1 They suffer sinfully 2 Perpetually 3 Locally in Hell All which being excepted otherwise Christ suffered altogither as bitterly as sharpely yea I may say in nature the very same as the Damned doe which therefore may well be called the paines of Hell although yet Hell indeed doeth differ in some great and waighty circumstances as is aforesaid If you say the extreamest paines of punishment caÌ„not be where sinne is not That is true neither in deed can the least paines be where there is no sinne and that no more in the Body then in the Soule though this please not you Marke what I say The extreamest paines of al may as possibly be inflicted where no sinne is as the very least that as well in the Spirit as in the Body But in trueth neither the one nor the other is possible Neither the greatest nor the least paines of Gods proper vengeance for sinne can be inflicted or suffered at all in Soule or in Body but only where sinne is That is to say either imputed or inhaerent Ordinarily the Reprobat are thus punished where sinne is inhaerent Extraordinarily and singularly by Gods owne speciall ordinance Christ was even thus punished yet where sin was but imputed And thus therefore Christes Soule for meere paine might suffer the extreamest spiritual punishments altogeather as well as his body might suffer any at all without inhaerent sinne But you graunt his body suffered truely punishments for sinne Therefore his soule might suffer also even those of the extreamest degree Your “ See beâ—â—â— pag. 14. selfe also granteth that Christ both might and did suffer the extreamest paines that might bee without his owne sinne But it was possible for him to conceave and feele in his a minde farre greater sorrowes and paines for our sinne from Gods wrath â—at ◠〈◊〉 26. then hee could feele meerely in his body outwardly And the greatest was no more sinne then the least though both were properly for sin Therefore by your own grant Christ might and did feele and indure the greatest sorrowes of the minde and soule as well as the lesser in the body being all the very effectes of the wrath of God against sinne â—ag 102. b You bring a reason against this that God spiritually punisheth no man but for his own vncleannes which is a thing meerely vntrue For though no other man was ever punished without his owne vncleannes neither spiritually nor corporally yet Christ our Saviour was who in this case was not in the ordinarie state of men But I pray shewe me this mysterie how it is that God caÌ„not punish Spiritually where there is no inhaerent sinne but can and may Corporally where there is none All the rest of your assertions c heere are altogeather of this sute â—a 101 102 â—03 105. â—66 94. By this one reason I weakened all yours but you could passe that by To this efâ—â—ct Treat 1 â—ag 41 43. answering vnto it not a word Viz d If Christes body hanging on the Crosse and held by Death in the grave was punished by God where yet he found no sinne and which he still intierly loved and was never separated froÌ„ then so hee might did punish properly his Soule also yet never divide his Godhead nor his love from it But thus he did to his body therefore even so hee might doe and did to his
They are 6. in number The 1. is that when Christ on the Crosse cryed out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me by this word me he should meane His Church For the which you have no reason in the world but the bare names of Austin Leo Athanasius Shew me their reasons See before â—ag 28.29 presse not their authorities Which your selfe also reiecteth when you list though when you list againe they must be your best yea your only reason But even these Fathers if they be vnderstood Pag 79. as * before I have shewed Cyprians meaning to be that Christ spake these wordes as doing now the part of the Suretie of his Church and as standing in the case of his Children whom now by his suffering paines he saved then they agree iust with our minde herein For then doubtles it was for the infinite paines which now he felt in our steed that he so cryed out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Otherwise if you thinke they meant that Christ spake this by some strange Metonimy naming him selfe but meaning his Church that can have no good sense For how can it be that we were forsaken of God when Christ was on the Crosse Nay even there and then were we “ Act. 20 purchased vnto God not forsaken by God Againe your owne rule is which I like well that no Figure is to bee admitted in Scripture where there is no ill nor hurtfull sense following literally But I have shewed a little before a plaine easie and Christian sense heereof taking it literally that me signifieth Christes owne person namely his Manhood bearing nowe as our Suretie intollerable paines inflicted by Gods wrath vpon him and so he may mourne sorrowe that he was forsaken that is left in vnmeasurable paines with out feeling of any comfort or succour for the tyme. Wherefore neither you nor any of the Fathers ought to conceave that me heere should signifie not Christ properly but the Church Figurativelie What other construction you can make heereof I can not discerne Finally this 1. sense is contrary to your 2. and 3. following also to your 5. and 6. senses If eyther of these be taken as the true meaning of this place it cannot possibly stande with the rest although you allow them all as by and by we shall manifestly see Now then your sense what is it Even this that Christs humane nature was left helples to the rage of the Iewes which is a kinde of forsaking This seemeth to come neerest indeed to your liking by that which I observe in a Pag. 13 you But as I said this is directly contrary to your 1. sense to the rest following Also b Heere 11.50 before we saw how greatly Christes sufferinges specially on the Crosse differed from such as the godly doe also suffer Yea there is surely no reason nor shew of reason that Christ heere should so mournfully and so vncomfortably complaine that God had forsaken him if it were only but for such distresses as the godly also doe equally suffer at the hands of evill men Seeing most of theÌ„ at the hower of their martyrdoms doe never vtter any such shew as Christ heere did of a minde vncomforted Where also note this well that no godly man not Martyr did ever ascribe this forsaking of themselves to God in the time of their martyrdomes For though then they are oppressed with greater violence of bodily enemies yet they are assisted with far greater abundance of heavenly comfort even in the middest of the paines of death So that they never mourne nor complaine at such extreme dealing as Christ now did when hee said my God my God why hast thou forsaken me Wherefore it is a great shame to imagine that Christ was lesse able to indure such a dereliction or that he would thus complaine and mourne for it only Pag. 35. The bare names againe of c Austin Ambrose Hierom doe heere likewise no good This is but a weake kind of reasoning for so learned a Divine as you are Although also these very sentences of the Fathers I can easily admit if they import no more then they seeme namely that these outward afflictions on the Crosse were some cause and that not small of his complaint alwayes remembring that some greater cause also did concurre was conioyned with them Your 3. sense if I conceave it a right is that his being lâ—ft to bodily death caused him thus to mourne which is but as the last before And yet you seeme to meane not onely that but also because his d flesh now should want all feeling of his heavenly comfort for that while â—n that you 〈◊〉 His Godâ—â—ad deparâ—â— nowe froÌ„ 〈◊〉 body c. that it should remaine dead A marvelous exquisit far fet cause Yet me thinks as this crosseth your other expositions heere so it is flat contrary to the Scripture also which giveth after a sort to Christs dead Flesh this lively affection 〈◊〉 2.26.27 e my flesh shall rest in hope because thou wilt not leave my soule to remaine as all other flesh dying doth in the vnseene worlde of the dead neither wilt suffer thy holy one to see corruptioÌ„ Is it likely is it possible that he should so dolefully mourne that either he should bodily dy or that his body should want the sense of his divine presence so little a while when as in his mind hee speaketh so triumphantly of his constant and continuall ioy in God yea not excluding even his body though dead from participating in some sort therein as we read in the former place at large I beheld the Lord always before me for he is at my right hand that I should not be shaken Therefore did my heart reioyce my toung was glad moreover my Flesh shallrest in hope c. Now can a man in this exceeding generall and constant ioy so vncomfortably mourne in that sense as you vrge My God my God why forsakest thou my flesh It cannot be Many thinges more may be strongly alleaged against this opinioÌ„ As first seeing he perfitly knew thath as his flesh now should quietly rest and have a present ende of all his most bitter sorrowes so even all that while continually after his soul which was his best part should inioy perfit glory and comfort more then before it did Also seeing this senseles rest of his flesh was to be but for a very little while then presently to receave a most glorious and eternall felicity iointly with his Soul and with his Deity who can imagine that Christ would now ready to dy so extreamely mourne and complaine only for this cause as your fancy importeth Further he knew perfitly that this was the very appointment of God and for the fulfilling of Prophesies for the obtayning of his most desired purchase of our health for the more advancing of Gods glory yea and for the more advancing of his very
turne them to ioy gladnes though not properly to be glad of them Nay we ought most instantly to pray against them No affliction at all is good in it owne nature and the greatest of all is good to Gods children by his grace So that touching this vse of them therein wee are to reioyce even when we are most bruized and pearced in our soules with the terrours of God Lastlie 〈◊〉 134. l you frame an obiection against your selfe which you neither doe nor can answer Christs soule might feele the tormentes of Hell for the time without any distrust or doubting of his salvation or our redemption You pretend thïs answer The essentiall tormentes of Hell are the absolute losse of Gods kingdom everlastingly and that m Eternall continuance is of the nature and substance of Hell But we shew you â— 53 although the damned are in Hell torments everlastingly and of necessitie so must bee yet eternall continuance in them and to feele them but for a time are indeed but Circumstances not of the essence or nature of Hell tormentes Gods proper and extreame wrath only and his sharpest vengeance for sinne is the essence or nature of Hell paines Which against the Damned indeed is eternall and vnsatisfyable but lighting on Christ it was not eternall because it was satisfyable Wherefore it is plaine that you have answered in effect nothing to your owne obiectioÌ„ Thus far we have gone shewing that we a Pag. 2 neither extende the cause of Christes Agonie to far in affirming it to have com of most bitter extreame Paines which he suffred properly for our sinns neither that we coÌ„tinue it to long in affirming that he felt the same most extreamely on the Crosse Contrariwise that you curtaile it to short when you say it was no more but b Pag. 1 290. Devotion to God and Compassion to men also that Christes Agonie touched him c Pa. 11â— not at all on the Crosse So that d Before 90.91.116 our Maine argument which you would haue frustrated standeth firme and good still that seeing his Agonies Paines and Feares were such so great as the Scripture by the effects signes sheweth that they were both before his death and at his death therefore they were more then meere bodily paines and more then meere bodily death much lesse were his Holy and Religious affections the proper and speciall Cause thereof But of necessity they were the Paines proceeding from the infinit and sharpe Iustice of God which Christ truly suffered in his Spirit and Soule and Body After this a Pag 3â— Touchiâ—â— Death oâ—â—â— Soule you set vehemently against my last argument That Christ suffered in some sorte the death of the Soule First if wee should speake strictly after the maner of Death in the Body then no man is so mad or foolish as to say that any mans Soul can dye at all that is want life and sense as a dead body doth Thus the very damned soules in Hell suffer not death But such a death as immortall soules are subiect subiect vnto is Gods separation froÌ„ them And this is 2. folde The 1. death and the 2. death as the Scripture speaketh The 1. is the separation of them from Gods grace which is in this life by sinne raigning in them The 2. death is Gods leaving them in the feeling of the most sharpe and most vehemeÌ„t paines inflicted by Gods iustice for sinne This last kind of death is so called and named in many places of b Ezek. Gen. 2â— Rom. 6â— 2. Cor. 3.7.5.20 aâ— 1. Ioh. 17. Scripture It hath also a double consideration First ordinarily and commonly it belongeth only to the Damned for their owne inherent sinne where withall are the ordinary Accidents and coÌ„comitants togeather Desperation induration blaspheming vtter darkenes c. with Perpetuitie of punishment and that locally in Hell In this sense the Fathers generally do take it where they deny that Christ suffered the death of the Soule and so likewise do we Secondly The death of the soule or the 2. death may be extraordinarily and singularly considered namely to imply no more but simply the very nature and essense of it 〈◊〉 Death the Soule â—â—rist tasted That is the feeling of most deadly infinit paines inflicted by God himselfe in his proper iustice for sinne all sense also of his comfortable presense being taken away This is a Death to the Soul â—â—g 113. â—ag 135. 6. â—ag 112. 3. as * before we have shewed according to this sense the Scriptures †Fathers before noted may rightly be vnderstood not to deny it in Christ so that this kind of Death in the soule but none other we may safely say Christ did suffer for our sinne imputed to him Moreover let it be observed that if wee had no proofes at all in Scripture for this point yet our Question is fully proved coÌ„firmed notwithstanding by those other sufficient pregnant proofes alleaged iustified before For it is be to noted that no man setteth the questioÌ„ in these termes That Christ dyed in his soule neither doe we at all vse them very much in speaking of this matter We do only when some speciall occasion draweth it from vs neither then do we vtter it in those termes but with vsing some further declaration of our minde The reason of this warynes is because we are not ignorant how ambiguous the phrase is and how apt to be mistaken specially where men list to cavill Also people vntaught and vnsetled in construing the scriptures sense do quickly take offense at thinges which they ought better to digest So that you doe very iniuriously to grate still one this phrase of speach and to straine it to the worst as you do as if by no meanes it could beare any good sense and as if we built our maine Assertion onely heerevpon Which in truth is nothing so The same also doe we affirme touching our vsing in this matter the phrase of Christs suffering Hell paines Both these phrases are but seldome and respectively vsed by vs. Howbeit we deny not but that both these phrases may be well and rightly applyed vnto Christ on occasion â—â—g 16. 52. â—â— 113. as * before is observed may both serve truly and most emphatically to expresse the infinitnes of the paines and sorrowes of his suffering for vs. Yea this very phrase of death extended in Christ further then to his meere bodily dying hath I doubt not expresse ground in the Scripture and therefore may the better be vsed soberly admitted charitably You will aske where is there any scripture Proofes that Christe suffered any other death then that meerely of his body I answer First consider well that to the c Hebr. â—ebr 5.7 Hee offered vp prayers and supplications with strong crying teares to him that was able to save him from death It is not possible that this Death heere should be
his meere bodily Death which he so wofully and impotently feared as I haue before sufficiently coÌ„firmed Therefore it was the death of the soule the 2. Death which heere is vnderstood to have thus mightily afflicted Christ Which also your own selfe do d Pag. â—â— fully grant and affirme with me Yea you affirme further then we doe or then the truth is or possibly can be You say Christ heere thus feared Eternall death and Everlasting damnation What a speach is this Christ could not possibly feare in such wofull maner that which he perfitly knew should never come neere him But he perfitly knew that eternall Death and the Cup of Gods everlasting malediction should never touch him He knew and saw that this by Gods almighty and vnchangeable Decree was set further from him then the East is from the West yea then Hell is from HeaveÌ„ Therefore he could not by any meanes possibly feare eternall death nor pray in such sort against it Againe that which he feared and so pitifully prayed against was that which he knew was by God e Iohn 12 ordayned for him Yea Feare alwayes is of that which is to come But Eternall death was not by God ordayned for him that was “ Which Christ 〈◊〉 right wâ— not to come vnto him Therfore it was not Eternall death which he so feared Finally when in the Garden he prayed against that Cup which he feared that it might passe from him there he yeeldeth and submitteth himselfe presently to the vndergoing of it But it were I know not what to say that Christ did ever yeeld and submit himselfe to vndergo Eternall death or to tast the Cup of Gods everlasting malediction Therefore it was not this that he feared heere prayed against And yet it was I grant the Death of the Soule or the 2. Death that is simply the essense thereof Gods withdrawing himselfe from him in the Paines and torments thereof This onely it was He suffer that deatâ— which he feared not the eternity thereof nor sinfull concomitants which he thus feared And this for the infinitnes of it naturally he could not but feare yea and that so extreamely also he feared f â—ôzein for him selfe as knowing it to be ordayned for him So that hence it followeth invincibly that Christ in deed suffered sith he thus feared more then the meere bodily Death even the Death of the soule For he could not I say thus * Much yeeld to iâ— he did sâ—â—ing Thy â—â—â—don feare but he must needs know that it was to come or might com vnto him â—wed furâ—â— before 131.132 if he but knew that it might come then it * certainly did come vnto him at one time or other in his Passion before heâ— left the world See to the Hebr. g Christ abolished through death him that had the power of death that is the Divell and so delivered all them which for feare of death were all their life time subiect to bondage â—â—b 2.14 Heere I see no reason in the world but that the Apostle by â—his often repeating of death and by mutuall referring of it in one place as it were to the other doth vnderstand signifie one and the same death altogeather But it is the death of the Soule which the Divell hath the power and execution of also the death of the soule chiefly sinful men were held in feare of all their life long It followeth then I suppose that even through this death of the Soule Christ abolished the Divell and deliveted his children Specially seeing there is no enormity nor impossibilitie heerein Against this you haue no reason at all but wordes and wrestings and vaine ostentation of Fathers none of them all denying our sense Third it seemeth also that Peter teacheth this same Pet. 3.18 saying k Christ in his suffering was don to death in the Flesh but made alive by the Spirit Where Death may be very well referred both to the Soule and Body of Christ Because the text heere speaketh as I iudge of the whole and entire sufferings of Christ And it is manifest by that before that Christ did suffer not in his body only but properly and immediatly also in his Soule we haue seene also that the * phrase of Death 〈◊〉 135.136 or Dying may in a good sense be applyed even to Christes Soule Againe this word Flesh it seemeth can not heere in this place be vnderstood to signifie onely the Body of Christ but even both partes of his Humane nature thar is the reasonable Soule and the body My reason is because wheresoever in scripture the Flesh and the Spirit are noted oppositly togeather in Christ â—â—m 1.3 4. â—im 3.16 â—oh 4.2 〈◊〉 1.14 â—or 5.7 â—4 1.4.1 â—â—g 320. there the i Flesh signifieth alwayes his whole Humanity even both partes thereof the Soule also not the Body only the Spirit signifieth his Deity or Divine power Now what have you against this Nothing of waight but floutes and mockes that k this observation is made out of the hinder partâ— of my head c. But what pretend you against it Some Scripture palpably abused First Mathew where Christ speaketh of his Disciples that their Spirit their inward regenerat man was ready to watch â—ath 26. but their Flesh their corrupt nature was weak sluggish What is this to Christes Flesh and Spirit Thinke you that Christs Soule was willing to suffer as God had appointed but that his Flesh resisted Verily so you seeme heere to vnderstand An vntrâ—â— conceit and it is as likely as your applying of Flesh and Spirit to Christ in your pag. 104. Then a Luk. 2. Luke where both Spirit and Flesh are not intended of Christ as our observation before requireth but only the Flesh Then the Romanes where I affirme that b Rom. Flesh signifieth the whole Manhood of Christ according to the which he came from David even as well as SalomoÌ„ or Nathan did who were Davids sonnes in their entire and perfit nature So likewise Christe was kinne to the Iewes according to his c Rom. 9 whole Humanitie aswel as d ver 3. Paul was And heere Paul meaneth him selfe to be kinne to them according to Nature wholly that only by Regeneration in the Gospell he was differing from them Now Nature opposed to Grace and regeneration hath reference both to Soule and Body in a man Howsoever the Soule cometh in Generation that is not heere considered neither is it necessarily to the purpose Which difficulty also your selfe haue vtterly * Pag. 2â— renouÌ„ced before to make it any argument for you in this matter Thus yet the Flesh and the Spirit thus opposed heere in Christ shall signifie the whole Manhood and Godhead in him Further that which e Pa. 32 you bring out of the f 2. Corâ— Corinthians compared with this in Peter doeth most fitlie and clearely open and confirme the
same Hee was crucified touching his infirmitie but liveth by the power of God His infirmitie the text heere nameth Metonimically vnderstanding in Christ that in which his infirmities were Now his Soule had infirmities of suffering in it as well as his body Therefore his Soule also is vnderstood heere that it was Crucifyed and dyed that is according to the condicion thereof as likewise his body according to the condicion thereof And thus that which Paul calleth infirmitie Peter calleth Flesh and that which Paul calleth the power of God Peter calleth the Spirit That is his Deitie is set oppositly in both these places to his whole Humanitie even to body and soule Aug. de 4.13 To which purpose that place also to the “ Rom. Romanes doth serve where the like opposition is found as I have shewed betwene the Flesh and the Spirit in Christ that is his Manhood and Godhead Other reasons also * Treat 137 1â— I haue noted serving well heerevnto as the 4 5 and 6. but I omit to rehearse them againe For it seemeth your selfe agreeth with vs in them â—â—g 324. holding a expresly that the Spirit heere in Peter is the Deitie of Christ according to Austins iudgement Now this being granted and acknowledged that the Spirit heere signifieth Christes Godhead how can it be likely but that the other opposit part the Flesh must needes import his whole and intire Manhood Verily thus it seemeth most plaine that Peter heere distributeth the whole and absolute person both God and Man into these Natures the Flesh and the Spirit Wherfore I can not thinke but that the Apostle heere vnderstandeth by Flesh the whole and intire Manhood of Christ even his Soule and his body Now this being so then it followeth by the text that Christ in his Passion was don to death both in Soule Pag. 320. body Heere you obiect that thus I make all the attributes of the body common to the Soule Nay forsooth that I doe not Nor yet this attribute of Dying vnderstood in such sort and maner as the Body properly dyeth that is to become without life and sense I ascribe Death to both but yet according to the divers condicion and state of both â—reat 1. Pâ—g 78. And thus you might vnderstand my b meaning to be where I say it is absurd false that Christ was made aliue in his Humane Soule that is it neither lost nor recovered life and sense so as his body did â—â—â—e before 〈◊〉 135 136 Howbeit as Death is oftentymes attributed to mens soules in the c Scripture that is the feeling of the extreame wrath of God and the punishment for sinne so d I make Death commoÌ„ both to Christes Soule and body â—â—eat 1. â—â—g 79. even to his whole and intire humane Nature Which if you do not acknowledge the shame of ab surditirie and coÌ„trarietie which in your fancy e you accuse me of that Christes Soule dyed and dyed not â—â—g 322. â—â—3 will sit neerer to you theÌ„ to me Also in such a sense I deny not but Christ may be said that he was quickened in the Spirit that is refreshed and comforted againe in his Soule and restored from that bottomles gulfe of sorrowes to the lively feeling of heavenly ioyes and glory which for a season he had no sense of at all Howbeit though this sense bee a true quickening in his Soule yet I deny that heere in this place of Peter it can be translated quickened in the Spirit meaning the Soule because Spirit heere in this opposition is set indeed for the Deitie of Christ â—â—â—d you with â—â—â—stin doe â—â—sent * as before I have shewed Thus the matter I hope is cleere to reasonable men that Christes Soule even according to the Scripture phrase may be said in some sorte to have tasted and suffered Death that is the extreamest feelings of Gods wrath for sinne and the most vehement paines of the damned though not as the damned doe in respect of the Accidents and concomitants of their ordinary damnation but in a singular maner and extraordinarie way as became the sonne of God and a sinles man yet a very maÌ„ being our Redeemer Now besides the matter you “ Pag. 3 gird at me in divers places as where I say The Death of the Soule is such Paines and sufferings of Gods wrath as allwayes accompanie them that are separated from the grace and love of God Forfooth it is true they are alwayes wicked whom these Paines doe accompanie ordinarily They came vpon Christ extraordinarilie as in a Treat â— pag. 77. this place I expresly noted That was therfore my meaning here if you would haue seene it In another place also b Pag. 33. you know that I say Hell as I take it that is such paines of Gods wrath is * Treat 1 pag. 80. sometime found in this life Thus then you might haue vnderstood my former wordes and not that the tormentes of Hell doe alwayes accompanie the wicked in this life I pray conceave not my meaning against my expresse wordes Againe c Pag 31â— you pretende to haue much against me where I say The feeling of the sorrowes of Gods wrath due to sinne in a broken and contrite heart is indeed the only true and perfitly accepted sacrifice to God True so I said and againe I say it What see you amisse in it Then vnhappy men are the godly which are at any time free from the paines of the damned To what purpose is this I speake of Christs Sacrifice I pray is any other Sacrifice perfitly accepted or a Sacrifice at all but Secondarily that is in and by Christes Sacrifice They are not His Sacrifice then is the onely true Sacrifice and perfitly accepted to God All others are imperfit and accepted not in them selues but only in and by Christ Thus your triumphes before the victorie come to nothing but blastes of vanitie But Augustin †Pag. 32 doth flatly deny that this text can be thus vnderstood or that Christes Soule might dy Austin d Epist 9â— denyeth that Christ suffied any paines of damnation locally in Hell after his death as it seemeth some helde about his time whoÌ„ here he laboureth to confute So that he meaneth to reprove onely the e See besâ—â—â— pag 139 1st sense of the Death of the Soule in him viz. that he suffred it not Ordinarily after the maner of other men nor any way locally Hâ— hath no nâ—cessarie cause to speak of the 2. sense thereof how the Soule may be said to suffer death Extraordinarily for sinne imputed only neither doeth he speake against that in Christ Nay according to Austins owne Definition of the Soules Dying it will easily appeare that Christes Soule may be said to have suffered some kinde of Death de verh 〈◊〉 Ser â—0 〈◊〉 Trin. 4. Saith he a Moritur anima si recedit Deus and b Mors est spiritûs deseri Ã
now in Hell seeing you seeme to belieue no torments for Damned soules save only at the Resurrection For thus you reason b Pag. 25 As the Body hath ben the instrument of the Soules pleasure in sinne so it shal be of hir paine c Pag. 20â— But all provocations and pleasures of sinne the soule taketh from her body all acts of sinne she committeth by her body Therefore the iustice of God both temporally and eternally punisheth the Soule only by the Body Or Therefore all the Soules paine for sinne both temporally eternally is by the Body This is your owne reason which being true why should you care for corporall fire in Hell before the last iudgment Your striving to a Pag. 34â— confute my allegations of Fathers I hope I have refuted sufficiently before And then b Pag. 35 Sir Refuter endeth as be began with egregious lyes What lyes began he with and with what doth he end In the begining our lyes have proved tales of truth and in the end your wordes will prove iniurious at least I said that not som or the most or best but even all every one both Churches Writers in the world who are Protestants teach as we do except only your selfe or happily som after you since the year 1597. What ly is there in al this Why name you not in al the world one man of those whom we call Protestants of your minde that it may appeare who deserveth such rebukes Nay in this being the very point of the matter you are silent in revilings outcryes and accusations you exceed Where I avouch that c Treat â— pag 8â— only the hoatest and cunningest Papists Iesuits Priests Fryars have alwayes vntill this day had this controversie with all Protestants and all Protestants against them namely Bellarmin Campian English Rhemists c. To al this scanalous suspicious argument you reply not a syllable What shall we thinke of such doctrine which in this learned age hath none but such defenders And yet among the Papists I noted 2 Cusanus and Ferus as liking of the Protestants doctrine heerein which also they do in some other matters Now these 2. and only these though more there are c you cite at large 〈◊〉 140.141 whose wordes indeede especially the Fryars seeme excessive But our owne most worthy and learned Teachers d M. Fulke â—rea 1. p. 88 M. Deering M. Whitakers which against you I alleaged you vouchsafe not a looke towards them Nor to M. Nowels Catechisme nor to the Synod authorising it â—efore pag. 42. nor to the Archb great * approbation thereof Not to our Common Bibles note authorised publikly to be read thorough out England Only against my alleaging of our Homilyes e you take exception Pag 355. but I trust I have before fully and cleerely defended them to bee for vs and against you Neither doeth any such matter appeare in them as f you avouch Pag. 136. Thus then I end our 1. Question being sorry that I have ben so long But I trust the friendly Reader will pardon me considering how I have ben occasioned therevnto A brief Collection containing the whole effect of our Doctrine before delivered brought into 4. Assertions God himselfe in his Iustice properly punished Christ for our sinnes See pag. 8. 9. 75. 82. Christ even as other men consisted of a perfit Humane immortall Spirit and a mortall living Body and so was by nature capable of suffering sorrows for sinne from Gods hand aswell in his Spirit peculiarly and properly as also in his Soule and Body togeather sith other men do thus suffer for sinne pag. 8. 48 52. 61. 74. Gods exact and immutable Iustice spared his Sonne in nothing but did punish him in all severity as he punisheth sinners I meane Hee punished him in All his partes of nature apt to suffer that is in his Spirit peculiarly and properly and in his Soule and Body togeather also Againe God punished him with all the Whole Generall Curse not with all the particular Curses and punishments with the Generall Curse in all the whole Nature and substance of it not with all the Circumstances with all the meere Paine and Sorrow thereof not with the sinfull Adherents and concomitants in it pag. 8 13 74 86. Gods exact immutable Iustice spared not Christe in these Circumstances of Punishment with he suffered not For either in exact Iustice he could not or necessarily hee needed not to punish him so In exact Iustice he could not punish Christ in such respects as were simply and absolutly impossible It was simply impossible that any touch of Sinne should once come neere his person or Eternall suffering or all the Particular punishments in the world All which come not to any one man though Damned neither can come Finally that Christ should necessarily have suffered after this life or locally in Hell there was no cause seeing these are but meerâ— Circumstances of Gods Iust PunishmeÌ„t of sinne whether now or then whether heere or there These alter not the nature of Gods wrath which is the strength of Hell The whole substance nature of that Punishment he might feele in this life aswell as any parte God is able to inflict it aswel heere as heereafter The rather seeing Christ came and was sent of God Extraordinarily of purpose to suffer for sin all that he might suffer Thus then only in this life Christ might and did suffer all For so was Gods ordinance and will as it is plainly expressed vnto vs in his word Therefore so we professe and so we believe by the certaine rule of Gods word and the proportion of faith Christ shunned for our sake nothing which the Damned suffer except only Circumstances and Accidents impossible or vnnecessary not any Substantiall point of Gods Punishment decreed against sinue pag 13. 14. 16. 43. 66. 75. 87. 134. 135. That Christ after his death on the Crosse went not downe into Hell in his Soule THe 2. part of our Controversie is this That Christ after his death on the Crosse went not downe into Hell in his Soule Where note first Notes that we vnderstand Hell properly and locally as our common speach in English doth vsually take it for the very place of the Damned after this life Now against them that belieue Christes Soule did go down locally into Hell thus I reason Reasons gainst Châ—â— Descendiâ—â— locally is Hell First If there be a good and sound generall reason in Christian faith that Christes Soule leaving his Body ascended vp to Heaven and there remained till his Resurrection and if there be no speciall reason of authority to the contrary that his Soul now descended downward then surely every good Christian ought to believe that his Soule ascended to Heaven and descended not locally into Hell Two maâ—â— points to noted But both those former pointes are most true First There is a good sound generall reason in Christian
f you obiect but consenteth with Irenaeus before and with others after him as shall appeare 〈◊〉 Innius 〈◊〉 on this chap. 188. who were no Montanists Notwithstanding it is true that somewhere he taketh inferos pro locali determinatione as he speaketh for the peculiar and determinat place of the wicked deceased that is Hell strictly and properly 〈◊〉 4. Thus he doth in that g against Marcion wth you cite pag. 201. Also in that h obiection of certaine Haeretikes whom hee confuteth 〈◊〉 anima 55. not the true Christians as i you k misconceave They argued thus as you do in hoc Christus Jnfiros adiit ne nos adiremus 188. 〈◊〉 title of â—ooke in â—â—â—elius â—â—â—s editioÌ„ Christ therefore went to Hell to the ende that wee might never come there He aunswereth them that it is false that Christe went to Jnferos in that sense that is to Hell for then what difference is there betweene the wicked Heathens and the godly Christians if one the same prison after death were for them both Taking it for a thing generally granted in the church that Christ being dead went onely thither where the godly Dead were and therefore that it were a wicked and Haereticall thing to thinke he went where the Damned were that is into Hell And so he quite overthroweth your opinion togeather with the reason thereof as an opinion whiche if any helde they were ill thought of in those dayes 〈◊〉 99. De â—â—â—es ad lit 〈◊〉 33. Thus also is Augustin well l vnderstood where he denyeth that the Patriarkes were apud inferos in Hell namely the place of the Damned because they were in Abrahaâ—s bosom Which yet b Epist 5â— De civi â— 20.15 elswhere he graunteth vnto that they might be apud inferos in the world of the Dead namely where the Godly dead should be So that thus if you had but distinguished these and other Fathers like words as you ought to haue done there needed no such folly of Contradiction to be imputed vnto them as c Pag. 18â— 200. 204 you doe lay to their charge in this point altogeather vndeservedly Which being well observed you shall see that all the Fathers as Mr Iunius saith both Greeke Latin do take Hades and inferos d Promisâ—â— indiffereÌ„tly for the state of the Dead as wel pertayning to that Soules of the Godly as to the Damned likewise Athanasius also saying e Athanas incar Châ—â—â— vbi tenebatur anima humana in morte ibi exhibuit humanam suam animam Where Humane Soules were held by Death there he brought his humane Soule Meaneth nothing els but that his humane Soule came vnder the same condicion of death as other mens Soules did not that he went to the place of the DaÌ„ned Neiter must he be vnderstood after f Pag. 179 186. 214. your partiall translatioÌ„ but after his owne language the Greek When you say ex Orco out of Hell him selfe saith exhadou out of the power of Death So that g De saluâ—â— vent Châ—â—â— hee saith not a word that Christ was in Hell but onely that his Soule was in Hades in the Dominion of Death as h Ad noâ—â—â— similitudâ— other good mens Soules were also whence he by his victorious returne conquering Death i De salut advent Câ—â—â—stâ— brought vs immortalitie and wrought resurrection for vs. Heere Hades being ennemy and opposit to the Immortalitie and Resurrection of mens persons cannot by any meanes be Hell For Hell agreeth with Immortalitie and Resurrection in Hell shal be immortalitie and resurrection as well as in HeaveÌ„ But it is the common Death and dissolution of our persons which is contrarie to the immortalitie and resurrection of them For as Resurrection is nothing els but a restoring and revniting of the Soule to the Body so the contrarie is nothing els but meerely the dissolution and separation of the Soule from the Body which is Death and not Hell Now in this death saieth Athanasius Christ was held till he spoyled and conquered it thereby giving vs resurrection and immortalitie This can not be Hell out of questioÌ„ Hilarius verily hath this meaning also saying k Hilar. â— Psal 13â— This is the Law of humane necessitie that their bodyes goe down to the Grave their Soules to the world of the Dead ad inferos Which descent the Lorde did not refuse that he might prove him selfe in every point to bee a true man His going to Hell proveth him not to be a true man but his Soul to com vnder the power of Death as well as his body to com to the Grave 〈◊〉 koinoâ—â—â—â—ôpos â—â—â—em morâ—â—â— servaâ—â— that right well proveth him in deed to have bene a true man and wholy in nature like all other men Also this was indeed the Lawe of humane necessitie after the like phrase as a Iustin â—â—â—gi satisfaâ—â—â— forma huâ—â—â— mortis â—â—â—us â—ag 157. â—efore 〈◊〉 Death â—â—es aâ—e vâ—â—â—or the same b Irenaeus and c Tertullian also speake but not to goe to Hell Now this Death properly beloÌ„geth to the Body of Men d as it is left without life Also no lesse properly it beloÌ„geth to the whole Person of men as it is dissolved and destroyed thereby Thirdly by consequence it beloÌ„geth to both the dissolved partes yea even to the immortall Soule though blessed not as it is in blessednes but as it remayneth held from the Body by the force of Death And so all these last named are very excellent places to prove which afterward I shall further shew that all those articles of the Creed He Dyed was Buryed and descended to Hades do indeed signifie but one thing in effect that he was a true man seeing thus it befell him as it doeth all other men by the Law of our Nature that is to Dye And therefore that it was cleane left out in all ancient Creedes where both those other clauses are specified as being no divers point in effect from Dead and Buryed Which Creedes nevertheles are worthily deemed to be absolute and perfit touching Christes workes of Redemption which hee hath wrought for vs. Since perhaps when it came into the Common Creed they signified heereby Christes going to Limbus Which opinion indeed men generally inclined vnto though erroneously for many yeares yet that the Ancients put this Descending to hades meaning Limbus or howsoever into the vulgar Creed distinctly from both the other foresaid clauses I beleue not The contrary is proved afterwardes as anon we shall see But to proceed heere â—â—rys Hom. â—ivit de 〈◊〉 bol Tom. in 1. Cor. Hom. 40. â—â—â—asil in 〈◊〉 48. â—â—â—mbr de 〈◊〉 mort 〈◊〉 10. â—â—â—rom in 〈◊〉 1â— 14 â—â—â—uffin in â—â—â—bol 〈◊〉 413.414 c Chrysostom and d Basill likewise with the rest of the Greeks may be noted how they yeeld Hades to the Soules of the godly and iust men deceased remayning in ioyes Also Ambrose
is to be considered who right according to all the rest saith e Soules departed from their Bodyes did go to Hades that is to an invisible place which in Latin we call Infernum And Ierome f Infernus is a place where the Soules are included either in rest or paines And Ruffinus vpoÌ„ g Descendit ad inferna giveth this sense Descendit in Mortem He submitted vnto Death All the rest which h you cite or can cite haue nothing contrary but rather consenting heerewith So that it is certaine by all the Fathers generally 1. That Hades and Sheol are taken for Death Noâ—â— the CoÌ„mon state of Death or the invisible world of the dead common to the Souls both of good and bad though their particular places were far separat and distinct 2. That Christ went not into Hell the place of the Damned as you holde but to the Habitation of the blessed deceased called also by them Abrahams bosome which we knowe and you also was indeed Heaven according to that worde of Christ “ Ioh. 16 16. I leave the Worlde and goe to the Father Which I have prooued further before pag. 149. 150. I doubt not but they erred generally as “ Pag. 21 your selfe also holdeth in thinking that this Habitation of the blessed Souls was beneath in the earth or that it was not heaven nevertheles this is the point wherein we agree and wherein they erred not and which I cite them for and which is directly against you that hades which also is sheol belonged to the Blessed soules deceased aswell as to the Damned and namely that Christes going to Hades was to go to be Blessed deceased Which in Latin also they called JnfernuÌ„ but so vnproperly and so vnaptly in respect of the truth that even this ill terme surely both sprang from error and began in them their error or confirmed and spread farther this error Now thus your vaine boasting of a Pag. 41 all the Fathers is but a bubble and that All the Fathers without exception do touch and teach Christes locall Descent to hell So that if you bee content as “ Pag. 41 you say to be tryed by all the Fathers Greeke and Latin they quite overthrow you notwithstanding your great words For the truth is they are all against you and with vs in such sort as I said Only Austin doubtingly and waveringly differeth from all the rest who somwhere seemeth to think that Inferi cannot be attributed to iust mens Soules departed For thus doubtingly he speaketh c Aug de 〈◊〉 ad liter ca. Illud me nondum invenisse confiteor c. I confesse I haue not yet found that Inferi are named where the iust mens Souls are at peace Yes surely the Ancientes named the places for all the deceased both good bad Inferos like as they named where both wicked and good do live in the world d Arnob. Psal 137. Superos And Austin if hee had marked it well might have founde even this which he saith hee found not in the Latin translation of the Scripture “ Psa 88. Lat. edit Quis est homo qui vivet c. What man is there that ever shall live and shall not see death Shall he deliver his Soule from the hande of Inferi that is Death For he can not heere vnderstand Inferi to bee the Grave because then the Soule must signifie the dead body which a you say is more then absurd â—â—g 168. Wherefore the Soule heere being taken properly for the Soule then Inferi is found applyed to iust mens Soules deceased as well as to the wicked which Augustin might have observed â—pist 57. 〈◊〉 civit Dei â— 15 Yea he him selfe b elswhere graunteth also that the iust in peace might be in inferis after death And heere he denyeth it but coldly waveringly Proinde vt dixi nondum inveni adhuc quaero nec mihi occurrit inferos alicubi in bono posuisse Scripturam Now this is Austins difference heerein let the Reader iudge Pag. 363. Before pa. 56. Pag. 175. if you say truely that c Austin iudicially and resolutely affirmeth it Or is it not rather as I call it his †CoÌ„iecturall inclination yea his only For d Fulgentius denyeth not inferos to the godly deceased nor that Christ was locally with them onely in inferis So that in saying He was where the wicked are tormented he meaneth that in respect of the CoÌ„mon place which in whole hee calleth infernum Thus then we may see that Austins differing heerein is to little purpose 1. Because it is contrary to all the auncient Fathers before him with him and since him 2. Because we must not esteeme his saying by the Latin Inferi but by the originall Sheol and Hades which are more against him as before I have shewed 3. Because it is waveringly delivered with doubt in him selfe yea contrary to him selfe as I have shewed 4. Because he secketh to maintaine it erroneously For he giveth this reason and end of Christes going to Hell the place of the Damned that he might deliver some of the damned sinners out of Hell torments quos esse solvendos occultâ suá iusticiâ iudicabat Which most strange conceit of his your selfe e doe confute rightly Pag. 199. But either graunt this end and reason to be true or els say his maine opinion is false also that Christ went thither feeing he maketh that the reason of this And why may not Austin erre as well in saying that he went to Hell after death as in saying that he went thither to loose out of paines such and such It seemeth Austin was carried into this conceit Vt neque frutrà illâ—c decendisse existimetur nulli â—orum prosuâ—urus qui ibi erant Epist 99. because hee could not imagine what f els Christ should doe in Hell and that he was there in deed he thought because he ghessed contrary to all antiquity besides that the meaning of inferi and hades could not be applyed to the estate of blessed soules after this life Which mistaking of his as also yours with him is plentifully convinced I hope before Wherein I desire the learned to iudge As for Austins opposing against this our sense of Hades saying In graecà linguâ origo nominis quo appellaÌ„tur inferi ex eo quòd nihil suave habeant resonare perhibetur It sheweth his mistaking more yea the very grounde of all his mistaking as I thinke First it appeareth by this that Austin had very litle knowledge in the Greek seeing hee thinketh that Hades should originally signify nihil suave nothing sweet I coniecture that he thinketh Hades is made of hedys sweet and α the Privative Wherein then he misseth much for hades in Greeke hath alwayes iôta written vnder The natur Hades which sheweth that in the true originall whence hades cometh there is the letter iôta expressed But in hedys sweet there is none The trueth is it cometh
from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to see and α the privative as all Graecians Plato Plutarch c. yea the Fathers Irenaeus Tertullian Ambrose c. do shewe and that it signifieth An invisible state after a visible being in this world and somtime Darknes or a place of darknes Not that the state of all the Dead generally was thought to be in darknes but because Death tooke them out of this cheerefull worlds light and covered them as it were with darknes and oblivion from the worlds sight and knowledge heere This etymologie of hades was most familiar and frequent with all Grecians with whom it seemes Austin was not much acquainted as by this his wide coniecture we may thinke Neither impute this I pray as arrogancie to me for so iudging of such a man I think all men will so iudge of him likewise and yet derogat nothing from his great desert in Gods Church Him self doth soberly acknowledge it of him selfe saying “ Contrâ—â— Peâ—il 2â— Ego quidem Graecae linguae perparùm assecutus sum propè nihil Truly J have but litle Greck yea almost none Neither would he heere have said perhibetur thus it is reported touching the Etymologie of Hades if he had preteÌ„ded any skill in that toung Yea Possidonius in his Life testifieth that he had no love to the Greeke language Besides many other argumentes heereof if it were likely that I wronged him in iudging thus of him Wherefore seeing it was thus no marvaile if Austin easily mistooke the proper right meaning of hades c then much sooner of Inferi for the reason * Pag. â— Treat 105. before noted Thus also he might readily imagin heervpon that Hades and Inferi in Scripture specially were no where applyed to blessed Soules Which oversight in him is much more pardonable then it can be in you who I doubt not in the languages want no skill if you would but sincerely iudge according to that you do vnderstand Yea and in comparison of my selfe I vnfainedly confesse that I suppose I haue not seene many bookes in the learned tounges which you are likely to have read and studied Nevertheles I am well assured that in the sense of these words Hades and Sheol you are greatly over hot and most of all in this vnsavoury opinioÌ„ coming therefrom that Christes soule after death went to Hell As I hope it hath hitherto well appeared Yet you will say Austin speaketh marveilous resolutely pist 99. that a None but an infidell will denie that Christes Soule was in inferis So he may well vnderstanding heere Jnferos to expresse Hades in Greeke for that is the Scripture in deed Which to denie were infidelitie But hee is no insidell that denieth inferos to be a fit Latin worde for Hades in Greck 〈◊〉 some have 〈◊〉 â—t simply 〈◊〉 the state 〈◊〉 cath pa. â—3 c. 〈◊〉 Graeca â—â—â—ua origo â—â—â—nis c. or * admitting the translation yet denyeth in English that Christ was in Hell After all yet I may not forget how Aust. heere would have in this coÌ„troversie the very nature proper Etymologie of Hades to be regarded and precisely followed notwithstanding that him self mistooke it much How then is it that you skornfully cal this indeavour touching the Hâ—brue Sheol b Rabbinicall Grammar observations â—â—g 153. and touching Hades in Greeke the Poets fantasticall imaginations In this therefore Austin also is not a litle against you Other exceptions of his touching the matter we shall afterwards consider togeather with yours Now I come from the Ancients to the later learned Writers that we may not neglect their iudgment in this question 〈◊〉 late Deâ—ors of the â—â—â—ll conâ—â—â— oâ—â— exâ—â—ion Who as they were generally freer from errour then those of olde for the most part so they testifie this point with me more cleeâ—ly more constantly then they Who were observed * before Yet because you let them go without as it were saluting them and as if they were not worthie belike that you should cast a looke on them 〈◊〉 cat 1. therefore they shal be noted once more that I may presse you with theÌ„ and that others at least wise may consider them better Bucer saith The Scripture no where speaketh of Hades or Infernum but as being common aswell to the blessed as to the damned 〈◊〉 in Mat. 〈◊〉 50. But Gehenna is proper only for the damned Againe In that we acknowledge that the Lord went down to Infernum we vnderstand that in his Soule he ioyned to the society of the soules of the dead Saints even as in his body hee was ioyned to their bodyes by Buriall P. Maâ—tyr a P Mart Symbo That Christ descended to Inferos or Hades signifieth nothing els but that he did vndergoe the same state as other souls do that depart this life Mollerus touching Sheol Hades and Infernum ascribed to Christ b Moller Psalm 1â— saith they do signifie but that Christ dyed and to be no more then as if he should say in the Psalme Therefore I reioyce because I know that although I dy yet I shall rise to life againe Bulinger speaking of Christ indiffereÌ„tly of the godly sheweth c Bullin D 1.7 8. that To go to Inferos is to go to Abrahams bosom that is into Heaven not into Hell and that Inferi and Hades do make difference only betweene the Living and the Dead nothing els Lavater saith d Lavat Eâ—ech caâ—â— 31.18 Hades in Greeke is a generall worde for the condition of the dead both in torments and in peace Tremellius saith e Annoâ—aâ— Psal 49. This Hebrew word Sheol doth signifie any station or state of the ' Dead in generall in very many places of Scripture and Hell it may sometime signifie but by a figure synecdoche Lastly Iunius in his note vpon Tertullian f Pag. 16 before rehearsed doth confirme all this most fully These men I thinke every wise and faithfull Christian will highly esteeme and prefer for their learning and namely for their skill in the toungâ—s for their syncerity and soundnes in Religion for their vnity and conseâ—â—â—n this point for their diligence faithfulnes and mâ—dâ—sty in all thinges The learâ— Heathen thoutâ— coÌ„our sense Hades The rather this sense of Hades we are to acknowledge because it hath ben the ancient phrase and common vse of speach before Christianity that this worde should signifie the generall state of Dâ—ath applyed even to the Soules both of the Blessed Damned Which sufficiently I shewed “ Treat 〈◊〉 97 98. before out of Plato Homer and others Yea no lesse I shewed also touching the Latin worde Inferi out of * Pa. 100 108. Cicero though this word naturally implyeth an error wch Hades doth not as before also I have declared What is your answer to this Forsooth I thinke because you have ben a master of Grammar you go about to teach Cicero Latin
this last way is not the vnlikelyest Hades heere signifieth in effect nothing els but Death that Christs Soul departed this life was held therein but could not be holden fast â—â—g 166. You obiect c We must not make a Figurative sense but where manefest need is Heere is no need of a figurative sense Therefore heere ought to be no Figure supposed I answer First wee grant your Conclusion whether of the 2. former wayes soever that we take hades so there is simply no Figure at all therein Sec Then your own sense of Hell in this place is cleane overthrown by your selfe For whensoever hades and sheol do signifie Hell it is indeed by a Figure namely Synékdoche where the Whole is set for a part Which I have proved at large before â—â—re pag. particularly by d Tremellius a sufficient man for his Hebrue skill Wherefore by this reason Hell cannot possibly be meant heere if no Figure be admitted Third it seemeth convenient and also likely to take hades heere by a Prosopopoea after our 3. sense before noted Which kind of Figure supposeth as it were a Person of that thing which otherwise a word properly signifieth So that by this figure nothing of the wordes native signification is diminished Thus our word hades is vsed in the Corinthians O Hades where is thy victory Also as it may seeme in the Revelation Death Hades were cast into Hell â—â—ther as pa. 17â— Thus then it is nothing but emphatically signifying the power of Death Fourth Admit that hades and sheol did properly signifie Hell as we see they do not Likewise that sometime they signifie only the Grave which also you acknowledg it is true when it is applyed to a dead Body Againe admit that nephesh by a Figure may signifie the whole Person yea e the dead Body somtimes 〈◊〉 doth 〈◊〉 21.1 〈◊〉 2â— 4 Then I affirme that heere in this place of necessity there ought to be vnderstood a Figurative sense Heere is plainly most necessary cause For take them thus literally as you doe and they impugne the groundes of faith and charitie Which f Pag 1â— you grant that rightly is sufficient to cause a Figurative sense in Scripture But how do they impugne faith or charity being taken as you take them Verily thus Your sense implyeth by the way and consequently Points in Assertion â—â—â—trary to â—â—â—coÌ„mon â—â—oâ— Faith 〈◊〉 charity that a good and sinles man yea the best that ever was worthy of Paradise and the highest Heavens yet after death did go to Hell And further that being in Heaven yet he stayed not there as you say but immediatly came out againe to go into Hell Againe that a Humane soule being in the depth of Hell yet should feele no paines and that being locally in hell it should com out thence also What can be more against the generall rules of the Scripture then these things Yea how doth this impugne our generall charity towards all the iust when they dy Besides many other disproportions and vnreasonable inconveniences following withall as anon we shall further see Wherefore if by any meames possibly a Figure may be heere admitted certainly it must be so for these most necessary causes last rehearsed The rather seeing no other text any where insinuateth any such peculiar matter in Christ that he should differ in these points from all good men els as you do vrge But you say The Cirâ—â—stances 〈◊〉 against yâ—â— the circumstances heere doe prove that the word must be Hell properly taken That I would faine see What are these circumstances First this place sheweth * Pag. 1â— a special prerogative verified in none but in Christ I deny it heere is no such prerogative mentioned Except this that whereas some other men after death have returned to life againe it was not by their owne power as Christs ResurrectioÌ„ was Againe God in his revealed wil having signified by his Prophet long before that he should be restored speedily to life againe thus it was simply impossible that Christ should be holden fast by the power of Death although it had got hold of him And so indeed he had a prerogative before all men ells which also is heere shewed vs but no other prerogative in the world neither heere nor any where els caÌ„ be gathered touching his returne from Hell You adde No flesh dead was ever free from corruption but only Christes What then Ergo his Soule was in Hell Or ells why bring you such needles and impertinent matter Besides I iudge that not to be true Were not a Pag. 1â— some being dead raised to life againe before their flesh putrified But nonâ— you say in the sepulchre And what then How will this inferre or prove that so none but Christs Soul was ever supported in Hel or that it was ever there These are simple reasons for so great a conclusion Then you say Jf by Hell we vnderstand Paradise it was no privilege to be there not forsaken but rather a childish absurdity to thinke any Soule might be there forsaken It is a strange absurdity still to abuse your reader calling this word Hel â—â—tio prinâ—◠〈◊〉 which indeed is nothing but Death in effect the Power of death or the condition and state of death Againe to presume that wee take it for Paradise or Heaven or Hell at any time when we referre it allwayes to the generall state of the Dead and no further immediatly Now in this Christ had cause to reioyce that neither his Soule nor Body was left but so soone raysed vp to perfit life againe and so sitted to a full receaving of glory which within few dayes after he had Also besides this cause his deliverance from the condition of death he had an other inestimable cause to reioyce that he was raised to life againe namely that he might fulfill his whole work for our Salvation which before his Resurrection Ascension c he could not accomplish â—â—g 170. Further b you obiect that Peter maketh mention that the sorrows of death were broken that they should not hold Christ nor hinder him from rising againe But there were none such in the Grave none in Paradise Therfore in Hel Christs Soule was whence he was delivered when he rose againe I denie vtterly this sequele Because the text saith not that there were any present sorrowes in Hades where Christ was Heere is not a word to any such purpose 〈◊〉 2.24 What saith the text God raised him vp loosing the sorrowes of Death because it was impossible for him to bee holden fast of it Wil you coÌ„clude froÌ„ hence Ergo there were present sorrows in that place where Christ was There is no strength in this reason The Apostle signifieth heere 2. or 3. things 1. That God loosed Death froÌ„ him wherein hee was held but could not be holden fast 2. That this Death had bene a most sorrowfull painfull Death
thereof Which in trueth these our wordes in question doe well performe He came vnder the Dominion of Death or Went to the societie of the Dead following presently after these wordes Dead Buried And thus your 2. Rule alse Consequence of order is rightly kept For euen in respect of time it is certaine that Christs whole person perishing froÌ„ hence was wholy ioyned to the Dead after the precise separation of his Soule and body which was his Death And his Buriall being the visible part thereof in good reason may be set before that which signifieth the whole contayning also his Soules invisible going vnto the Dead Lastly if there be no more in this but a stronger emphasis meerely a more full-signifying phrase it might well come after termes of lesse emphasis Your 3. and last Rule Proprietie of Wordes is plainly for vs and against your selfe For that which we strive for is the a Pa. 157 169 17â— native and proper sense of Hades even according to the etymologie of it and according to common vse You if you vrge it to signifie Hel do indeed make a †Pa. 171. Figure in it viz. Synecdoche a part for the whole as before we haue shewed As for the other word heere in the Creed katébe or katélthe Hee descended or came vnder it is not necessarie to take it alwayes to signifie a locall going downe specially thus ioyned with Hades For thus it may aptly lively shew the fall or whole casting down of a mans person from the state of life to death and vtter destruction out of this world as also men are said to stand vp and spring vp when they live Or it may serue to expresse the Force and Dominion of Death which Christ came vnder when he dyed Or the abasement and humiliation of Christ yeelding submitting him selfe so farre that is not onely to Dy but also to come vnder the strength and force of death by lying held subdued as it were for so long time in it All this the very property of the word katebe admitteth very easilie and Ruffinus liketh it where he interpreteth this phrase â—uffin in â—â—mb Descendit in mortem He descended vnto Death If any thinke this to be somewhat figurative yet it is verily so familiar and easie to all people as that other word in this Creed is He sitteth at the right hand of God yea it is farie easier indeed And heerein all the later famous learned and godly Restorers of Religion in a maner doe ioyne with vs as Mat. Bucer P. Martyr Bulinger â—â—slitut Olevia c. Yea M. Calvin liked this also wel enough though yet he seemeth to leane more to another sense viz. Christes Hellish sufferings which indeed is a true doctrine as before is declared though to this place of the Creed I thinke not so fit Now these men your L. ought not to skorne nor reproch though you have leave to deale so with me Their pietie learning and authoritie is such with all that love the Gospell as will overwaigh your big wordes and high lookes and whatsoever els you are lifted vp withal aboue our mediocritie Hitherto we haue answered admitting the authoritie of these wordes He descended to Hades But wee are in truth to know â—ere that as you cite them and vige them they have no such authoritie credit as hitherto we have yeelded vnto them And that for 3. causes First for that your TraÌ„slating and terming them He descended into Hel is corrupt partiall and vntrue Which I trust is manifest by that which I have shewed before touching the true property natural vse of Hades If you say among vs all men do so speak heere and translate hades Hel. I pray you coÌ„sider that this article as also I think this whole Creed was at first written in Greek and not in English Wherefore the English terme how comon so ever must not preiudice vs nor the truth in this matter as very vnreasonably a you indeavour to make it to do â—â—g 420. Convince vs evidently and soundly by Greek authoritie that Hades is alwayes Hell or that Hades is never applyed to the condicion and state of the godly deceased and then I will yeeld or els my sufficient proofes before to the contrary will convince the vntrue and partiall translation Another reason to deny vtterly the authority and credit of these wordes He descended to hades so to hold them vnable to make any argument as from our Creed is because this speciall clause of Christs descending to Hades or to Infernum is new and lately put into our vulgar Creed called the Apostles Creed b Ruffin Symb. Ruffinus witnesseth who lived about 500. yeeres after Christ that it was not at all in the Creed in his time I say not at allâ— neither in the Romane Creed nor yet in the Creed of the Easterne Churches His words are these Sciendum sanè est quod in Ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non habetur additum Deseendit ad inferna sed nee in Orientis Ecclesiis habetur hic sermo Will you say Ruffinus lyeth Or can you bring to the contrarie any proofe I think not yea I am sure you can not Then if there were no such Article as this nor anie such wordes any where in the Creed for the space of 500. yeres after Christ I mervaile what authoritie they haue now to be taken necessarily for a distinct article in our Creed and as differing materially from Dead and Buried Sure it is a Namely Desâ—â—â—le Hades to new to be receaved for doctrine which b Pag. 13â— sprang vp so late Yea thus c Erasm 〈◊〉 Symb. Caâ—â— 4. Erasmus may seeme to haue some colour for his coniecture that about Thomas Aquinas time they might peradventure be put into this Creed Third we can not see but that whensoever whosoever put it first into this place they signified heereby it seemeth that Christ went to Limbus a place vnder the earth where they imagined the blessed Patriarkes rested For this was indeed the opinion generally of the ancient Christians even for “ Limbus inter tayâ— before Châ—â— descendinâ— bades waâ— our set â—câ— oâ— the Crâ—â— a long time and stil is retayned among the Papistes though now growen much worse theÌ„ it was of old But this you iustly coÌ„demne as an error as wel as we how generall and how ancient soever it be Now also though this were the 1st meaning of this Article whensoever it fiâ—fte tooke place in the common Creed yet this was not Hell this giveth no furtherance to your assertion that Christ went into the place of the Damned in tormentes But Thaddaeus Jgnatius Athanasius haue these very words Yet they say not any where that they were in that set forme of the Apostles Creed * Which â—â—deed they 〈◊〉 had not which we now have Also they are cleane against your opinion heere as presently wee shall see You will say yet
acknowledge mine errour Adde heerevnto that experience sheweth as Physitians say how som diseases in the Body bring Death presently after most strong and violent crying namely in som excessiue torments as of the Stone c. Where in through extreeme paines and torments the vitall Spirits being dissipated will bee vtterly extinct somtimes before they can recover and gather againe togeather Thus a man having good strength and force in his Body when such a disease resteth not neere the principall partes of nature originally it seemeth hee may notwithstanding by violence of paine onely giue vp the Ghost at a suddaine yet not miraculously but by the course of nature only Pag 7. Ad Hedib quaest 8. But * Ierom saith this was a great wonder and that therevpon the Centurion confessed truly this man was the Sonne of God I deny not but Christ might shew som strang vnusuall thing apparantlie to the beholders in vttering his last voice when he cryed Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit Which might also very much move the beholders and hearers And yet it shall not follow that Death seazed vpon him not naturally or not by the fayling of natures strength in him I say this may be acknowledged and yet verily there is no necessitie at all to yeeld even this for any thing that the text noteth Yet Ierom sayeth the Centurion was moved with this great wonder It is strange that you should persist to vrge Jerom heerein against the plaine text in another place Mat. 27.54 which saith When the Centurion saw the Earth quake and the thinges that were don he said Truly this was the Sonne of God â—er 51. Heere it is expresly noted that the * Earthquake chiefly with other apparant miracles there mentioned or els the Earthquake with the the iniuries of the Persecutours and the innocency and partience of Christ persecuted compared togeather did move the Centurion to confesse and say Truly this was the Sonne of God Heere it is plaine then that not Christes crying in those tormentes was such a wonder or that the Centurion was by reason thereof moved to acknowledge Christ to be the Sonne of God as Ierom collecteth I know not from what ground but those other sights before said Last of all Austin is brought to prove this matter Pag 8. but with no more strength of reason by the Scripture then the former Neither can his words indeed being granted necessarily conclude any thing for your purpose which as sâ—emeth do shew nothing but Christes voluntary dying and that at his death he â—hewâ—d great power and not infirmity only Who denyeth thâ—se things Thâ—n he proceedeth to shew my disdaine to the Fathers further namâ—ly for such “ pag 2â— insolent reiecting all their opinions touching the causes of Christs Agonie in the Garden and of his complaint on the Crosse These supposed causes are alleaged and amplifiâ—d in the †pag 1â— former parte For answere first I dâ—siâ—e to know whether you allow of all these causes or not you sâ—â—me to â—â—fuse them * pag 13â— heere for heerein you shewed not your owne opinion but â—he iudgments of the Fathers Elswhere “ pag 29 yourselfe are resolute for som of these causes and against other som And yet before * pag 37 All these interpretations you say are sound and stand well with the rules of Christian piety Thus variable you are in that wherein you seeme most resolut Howbâ—it in my minde where you deny these to bee your opinions there you are in the best opinion Neither indeede to tell you plaine can I be of opinion that those their iudgements are true pag â—â— The reasons of my dissenting were touched in †my former Treatise and are maintayned further heereafter as very sufficient and iust How then I pray you do I insolently reiect the Fathers if heerein I dissent from them iustly which even your selfe also doth in sundry of them But my maner of speach is insolent perhaps because I say such collections are absurd and vnlikely I answer these my words are purposely meant of those in these dayes that delight to vaunt of the Fathers and chiefly in their errours For seeing these opinions themselues are vntrue though some of the Fathers inclined after them yet such in our time as vrge them cannot but bee absurd and strang teachers Who having so many helpes and meanes to discerne where the Fathers mistookâ— which they vtterly wanted and we abound with all yet do so littlâ— profit by them that even great Doctours as they desire to bee thought see not so much in the truth of the Gospel as many younger men now peâ—câ—ave and in the Fathers they make themselves so cunning that commonly their sound doctrine they little regard their faults only they admire Such I meant and tooke for absurd gatherers from this Scripture Whom heere I noted by the namâ— of our Contraryes The Fathers I call not so Now that this indâ—ed may be also seene even in your expounding heere Consider first how you wavered and spake coÌ„trarily in these supposed Causes Christs subâ—â—ssion â—â—e lewes reâ—ction â—â—e Churches â—â—spersion 〈◊〉 pa 17 â— â—2 37. Treat 1. â—ag 68. as I noted a litle before Again these agree not with any Ciâ—cumstances of the Passion and so are meerely of Humane coniecture without all Scripture also they agree not togeather among themselves One of them crosseth another one overthroweth another Will you then avouch them as you do to be * all sound and to stand well with the rules of Christian piety Howbeit absolutely I dâ—ny not but that thâ—se or some of these reasons were in Christ at his Passion as namely his Care for his Church his love of his enemies c. For these holy affections hee never wanted all his life long But this rather confuteth then proveth these to bee the very cause or causes that †in the hower of his dreadfull Passion wrought in him such Agonies and consternation of minde â—ag 6. But these things heere I omit beeing heereafter more fully discussed Lastly you cast a needles rebuke vpon me for confounding the Causes of the Agonie and of the Complaint togeather 〈◊〉 230.231 Forsooth that was done not without reason I thinke Every reasonable man I beleeve will say that the same cause was of them both in Christ His Agonie and his Complaint are not so contrary nor so divers but that they might yea verily did proceed from the same cause and ground Yea Ambrose 〈◊〉 20. one of your Authours doeth * plainly ioine theÌ„ both togeather 〈◊〉 231. Yea your selfe doth also as by comparing †your cause of the Agonie 〈◊〉 34. with your 1. or 2. of the ‡ Complaint will appeare You have much cause then have you not to make such outâ—â—yes vpon me that I am strangely amazed confounded and forgetfull in my writing Good wordes I pray you I did but ioyne them togeather whom your selfe
determine the measure and depth of sorrowes which Christ in his Passion suffered as also it is not possible to define that glorie which hee tasted of for the time in the mount Only graunt this plainly that Christ suffered in his soule the true effects of Gods proper Iustice or wrath and we seeke no more Graunt this I say and then we will see further if you will make it a question whether the sense of payne in Christ was lesser for the time then that which is eternall in the damned and whether the true and proper wrath of God taking full vengeance of sinne heere in this world might not be as sharpe and violent as the sharpest torment in Hell yea the very shame which is in Hell the sharpest Truely though Christ suffered all which hee did suffer heere in this world yet for any thing I can see there is cause why Christ should be an Extraordinarie person in the case of Suffering for sinne in this life and that therfore as touching sorrow and paine he might feele more then ever any els hath or could feele for the time You seeme to graunt vnto Christ b Pag. 2 all naturall sorrowe and feare Neither doe wee seeke any more But you trust the payne of the Damned is more then a naturall oppressing and afflicting of the heart with humane feare sorrow Forsooth it is not It is no more then a very natural humane sorrow feare It proceedeth immediatly and principally from God him selfe who is the Nature of natures Also Humane nature is apt to receyue such sorrow fear from him Thus the very paynes of the Damnedare meerely naturall Yet supernaturall I graunt they are if we meane this that they are aboue our natures state to beare or to coÌ„prehend them This therefore hitherto is a very slight exception against our doctrine before delivered The next is as vaine Pag. 296. where a you thinke it not tolerable that I say Treat 1. â—ag 59. Christ b in playne words prayed contrary to Gods knowen will I pray haue patience I saye no harme nor meane no ill Did not Christ in plaine wordes pray â—â—aek 14.35 c That if it were possible this Hower might passe from him Ioh. 1â— 27 and before d Father save me froÌ„ this hower By this Hower he meaneth this his paine punishment appointed him by God for to suffer at that time And this Christe knew well seeing he saith presently But therfore I came into this hower Doeth he not then pray in plaine words coÌ„trary to Gods knowne will Therefore never skoffe at it nor reproch it nor wrest it We ought not to bee ashamed to acknowledge that weaknes of Humane nature in Christ which Christ was not ashamed of for our sakes to vndergo If this could not be possibly in Christes Manhood without sin then I were a wretch to affirme so much of him especially stil to affirm it But if it be possible by any means thorow the meere instinct of mans Nature as it is Gods creature and free from all sinne thus to speake and to wish suddainly and suddainly to controll it againe as Christ did then what minde beare you and how may we iudge of this your striving which is not to cleare Christ from all sinne in his Agonie For that we doe all and Nature it selfe witnesseth with vs that in such a case as he now was in this was nothing strang to be thus perplexed moved But your striving seemeth to be altogither to exempt Christ-man from our meere naturall affections and infirmities and to give him Humane flesh indeed but not such as ours is in all and every point except onely sinne You will say If hee knew it to be Gods will and prayed against it how could he want sinne I answer He knew it but at this instaÌ„t he coÌ„sidered it not he thought not on it and so his suddaine desire may bee cleere from sinne But why thought hee not on it or how could hee choose but think on that which he well knew and did so greatly concerne him I answer His Paines and sorrowes being so great and so infinit as they were not in his Body onely but chiefly in his very Spirit and Minde and these more extreamely revealed vpon him now at these instant times then they were otherwise or continually as by the effects of them in him we may perceave I say these things acknowledged wel wayghed as they ought to be then it is easy to shew why how Christ came thus affected yet without sin First he was now a Ekthamb isthaâ— is to astonished vâ—â—eare Maâ— 1â— 33 astonished as the text saith and you b Pag 124. acknowledge that he might be Sec these incoÌ„prehensible sorrowes incomparable paines astonished him yea impossible it was but his meere humane nature must be astonished with them And it is vtterly vntrue which you say c Pag. 196. Many things might astonish our Saviour for the time besides such paines In these instant times of his Passion nothing could astonish him but Paines and Sorrowes which before d Pa. 115 1â— I have proved or at least that Paines Sorrowes now did chiefly that nothing could possibly without such Sorrowes and Paines as these which I speake of even spirituall and infinit and incomprehensible paines proceeding from Gods Iustice vpon him for our sinnes Thirdly Adde heerevnto that which you rightly grant c Pag. 12â— It is true that a mighty feare may so affect a man for the time that it shall hinder the senses from recovering themselves and stop the faculties from informing one the other But this must be some suddain obiect astonishing the heart and so terrible that it suffereth vs not presently to gather our wits togither and to consider of it Likewise very fully afterward f Pag. 29â— Astonishment draweth the minde so wholy to think on some speciall thing above our reach that during the time we turne not our selves to any other cogitation Even as the eye if it be bent intentively to behold any thing for that present it discerneth nothing els So fareth it with the Soule if she wholy addict her selfe to think on any matter she is amused if it be more them she conceaveth or more fearfull then she well indureth she is amazed or astonished but not of necessity so that she looseth either sense or memorie only for that time she converteth neither to any other obiect Now thus Christ being astonished with sorrows and feare lost not either sense memory or vnderstanding much lesse his vertues and graces being cast into an infernall confusion as you vntruly g Pag. 289. charg me that I say But I say as you say He now on the suddaine might turne neither sense nor memory to any other obiect and so not think on any thing ells but only on this terrible and mighty sorrow feare which now smote him bruized him to pieces And thus
b have answered to that before â—ag 135. â—6 142. Further where you bring them in many places saying by his bloud only he redeemed vs and he suffered only in his Body Fathers 〈◊〉 handled they are abused by you wonderfully Not in their words but in their meaning For they striving against Arians and such other Haeretikes who would have Christs Deity to take part in his sufferings for our redemption â—ee before 〈◊〉 111.113 â—4 c. so consequently would prove it inferior to the Father the godly Ancient Writers do heerevpon say he suffered satisfyed for vs only in his body in his flesh c not excluding the proper immediat sufferinges of his Spirit nor any passible part of his Manhood but onely his Godhead against those Haeretikes shewing thus also that no other Creatuâ—e besides him or with him satisfyed any way for vs altogeather after the Apostles like phrase in many places Let the Authors themselves be viewed if you thinke I affirme of them falsly Tertullian and Cyrill will give a tast heereof for all the rest Tertullians c Pag. 3 â— wordes d Contr. â— id est carnem thas is to say Christs flesh are expresly opposed to his Deity not to his Soul so that evidently he meaneth thereby his whole and intire passible Manhood If hee had meant to exclude any parte or faculty of his Soule from suffering as he doth his Godhead he had confirmed that Haeresy against which he striveth as f before I noted e Pag. 1â— Also it seemes he yeeldeth the name of Death to this suffering of Christes whole Manhood in saying Quod vnctum est mortuum ostendit that Dyed which receaved the Annoynting For I hope his spirit was Annointed with the Holy Ghost aswell as his Flesh And he saith thus as indefinitly so also by way of oppositioÌ„ to his Deity as I said therefore he meaneth the whole Manhood dyed Howbeit in what sort this might be I shewed * pag. 113â— 135. 136â— before My false traÌ„slating of him which you note is not worth the noting But you doe worse in false placing those his last rehearsed words for advantage in Tertull. they are vsed more generally in their owne place coming long before those words after which you set them As for that Denique posuit spirituÌ„ c. it sheweth that Christs bodily death also but not only came by reason of Gods forsaking and separating from him For before we saw how Tertull. expresly attributeth Gods DerelectioÌ„ both to his * Haec vâ—â—â— animae poris soule body on the Crosse though you grudg thereat Thus I say he excepteth only his Godhead from Dereliction and Suffering c. Cyrill also even in that book which you cite for you sheweth that he excludeth but Christs Deity though he mention only his suffering in Flesh †Ad Reg lib. 1. Carne passum dicit docens patiendi ineffabilem naturam a passionibus alienam Deus igitur Christus Divinè quidem impassibilis passibilis secundum carnem He excludeth only the Deity from suffering when he saith hee suffered in his Flesh In a word so do all the rest as h Pag. 1â— before is partly noted Against Nestorius i Pag. 33â— they affirme the vnion of Christes Natures with preserving the properties of each They therefore hold not his only bodily sufferings Is this then your great boast of all the Fathers and Councells Nay are they well vsed at your hands to be thus drawn cleane from their purpose to an opinion which they never thought of Is this good dealing towards Gods people to tell them that the Fathers generally teach the only bodily sufferings of Christ and deny our Assertion of his Soules peculiar suffering â—â—efore 47.48.66.71.88.112 which * they iustifie confirme indeed Yea this 〈◊〉 the profit that comes by ordinary slanting with Fathers which vse many do frequent in these dayes Think they if the scriptures alone suffice not for all thinges in Religion that the Fathers will suffice Or if the Fathers make a sense vpon some text that therefore this must be the right meaning alwayes Or if the Scriptures may be wrested by subtile heades that yet the Fathers cannot Or that Gods people may sooner see and finde when the Fathers are abused then when the Scriptures are It is great pity that men are yea wil be so deceaved with vaine shews Let vs in Gods name content our selves in handling matters of Religion onely with Gods al sufficient worde vnles where the importunity of an Adversary forceth vs. Otherwise let vs spare the Authority of men in Gods matters to them that make an Idoll of it Finally if in this case we were to looke after any man surely we have more cause to regard our later faithfull Teachers rather then those of old Who being equall with the best of them in any of the excellent graces of Gods spirit which hee vseth to bestow on his servants for the edifying of the Church yet heerein these have advantage of the former that they were directly provoked occasioned to study and sift out this question against the Papists which the Ancients were not occasioned to do After â—ag 341. a you set your self to prove that in Hell there is materiall fire But it seemeth you are now almost afraid so to call it yet b you call it true fire â—ag 343. Which also we vtterly deny All your proofes such as they are runne to prove corporall and materiall fire yet eternall Except your Scriptures which vtterly prove nothing at all for they shew no more any corporall or materiall or true fire to be now in Hell then a corporall worme materiall brimston and much wood true chaines Which you say is a sleeveles obiection but neither your selfe nor Austin whom you cite against it doth any where answer it Yea Austin thinketh that incorporall spirits shal be fastened to corporall fire But he saith not that now they are which only is our question or els nothing For my parte I see no reason to believe that now there is corporall fire in Hell whatsoever there shal be heereafter when Bodies also shal be there vnited and tormented with the Soules Againe Austin heere doth not prove that there shal be such fire hee only sheweth the maner how it may be so heereafter if God will Now if all your reason be the power of God only then aswel you may prove that the sky is fallen For as touching Gods will heerein you name it indeed but you shew it no where nor seeme to shew it All the rest say nothing further nor indeed so far as Austin Yet you thinke it may be called a Pag. â—â— a true created fire That no Christian ever doubted of if you meane that it is a true creature If you meane simply that it is true fire that still we deny And me thinks you should not care for corporall fire