godhead seeing the father and sonne are of the same nature in the Godhead so one can not be said to be subiect to an other 6. Others doe vnderstand this subiection in respect of Christs humane nature as Ambrose fecundum humanae naturae assumptionem erit illa subiectio according to the assumption of the humane nature shall be that subiection But then why should Christ be saide to be subiect now more then in the daies of his flesh if it be answeared that it may appeare that the man Christ euen beeing glorified is subiect vnto God yet this doth not satisfie for euen now Christ is entred into his glorie and yet this time of the subiection of the sonne is not come 7. There remaine then two expositions of Augustines the first is that Christ is saide to deliuer vp the kingdome to his father non quod tunc incipiet sed cognosci incipiet not that then it beginneth to be but beginneth to be acknowledged now also the father raigneth but then the kingdome of the father shall be made manifest But neither doth this explanation fully satisfie for neither now is the kingdome of Christ made manifest to all the world but then shall appeare vnto all at his comming if then the manifestation of the kingdome of the father be the deliuering of it vp vnto him then also the manifestation of the kingdome of the sonne in that day should also be the deliuering of it vnto him and so in effect he should be said to deliuer it vp when it is in that sense deliuered to him 8. The last therefore and best exposition is that the Apostle speaketh of surrendring vp and resigning that kingdome of Christ vnto his father which was giuen him as he was manifested in the flesh vntill all his enemies be subdued as Calvine very well saith Pater eum hac conditione ad dextram suam collocavit c. The father placed him vpon this condition at his right hand that he should not leaue the gouernment which he had receiued before his enemies were brought vnder Likewise learned Iunius Illud puta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod filio imposuit pater nam illud divmum c. He shall deliuer vp his Oeconomicall kingdome which the father hath laide vpon his sonne not that diuine and eternall kingdome common to the father the sonne and the holy Ghost which was neuer laide downe by any person of the Trinitie no not for a moment This diuers respect of the kingdome of Christ Chrysostome long since touched in these wordes Regna Dei Scriptura duo novit alteruÌ„ adoptionis familiaritatis alterum creationis c. The Scripture acknowledgeth two kingdomes of Christ the one of adoption and familiar care the other of creation he is therefore by the law of workemanship and creation the King of Iewes Ethnikes Deuills and aduersaries but of the faithfull and such as willingly commit and subiect themselues by familiar care This kingdome also is said to haue a beginning for of this it is spoken in the second Psalme Aske of me and I will giue thee the nations for thine inheritance And he himselfe said to his Disciples all power is giuen vnto me of my father referring all as receiued of his father not because he was not sufficient but shewing that he was the sonne and not vnbegotten this kingdome therefore he will deliuer that is restore Here this learned father maketh two kingdomes of Christ which are rather diuers respects or relations of one and the same kingdome Christ is king ouer all creatures as God and creator and hee is king of his Church as redeemer This respectiue kingdome hee shall render vnto God Augustine treadeth in the same steps that as Christ ruleth the creatures he shall raigne for euer vt autem militat c. but as he warreth against the diuell there shall be an ende of his kingdome And this is agreeable to the Apostle Hee must raigne till hee hath put all his enemies vnder his feete This is that kingdome which was giuen vnto Christ as the Messiah But it will be obiected that the kingdome of the Messiah shall be euerlasting as the angel said to Marie Of his kingdome shall be no ende Luk. 1. 33. The answere is that the kingdome of the Messiah in respect of the glorie and power thereof is euerlasting the humanitie of Christ beeing by an euerlasting inseperable vnion ioyned to his godhead in one person but in regard of the manner and execution it shall determine as Caluin excellently toucheth this point Deum quidem agnoscimus rectorem sed in facie hominis Christi c. Now we acknowledge God to be the ruler but in the face of the man Christ but then Christ shall restore the kingdome which he receiued that we may perfectly adhere vnto God neither by this meanes shall hee abdicate his kingdome but shall drawe it after a manner from his humanitie to his diuinitie And againe then the vaile beeing remooued wee shall manifestly see God raigning in his Maiestie Neque amplius media erit Christi humanitas neither shall Christs humanitie neede to come betweene or to be a meane c. His meaning is that in the kingdome of God when Christ hath brought vs to his glory there shal not then be such vse of the mediation and intercession of Christ for remission of sinnes for the subduing of our enemies and such like because then as Augustine saith fides cessabit pleno aspectu Deum intuebimur faith shal cease and we shall behold God with full sight Now then if this place of the Apostle be well waighed where he speaketh of Christs kingdome which shall bee deliuered vp vnto God a kingdome wherein he that gaue it shall put down all things vnder him a kingdome that is but vntill all his enemies be put vnder his feete a kingdome the gouernor whereof shall himselfe be subiect to his father no man can without blasphemy vnderstand this of the euerlasting kingdome of God which hee neither receiued of any neither shall it haue end neither is hee himself subiect to any It is therefore grosse error and foppish ignorance in this new fangled nouice to denie that the kingdome of Christ is to bee respected one way as it belongeth vnto him as God and another as it is giuen him as the Messiah 2. As grosly ignorant doth hee shew himselfe in deciphering of the next error in that the Replyer holdeth the deitie of God to be inuisible and incomprehensible which this deepe diuine in his newe Theologie counteth paradoxes And hereupon insulting hee goeth on flying from the point in question whether the deitie shall bee or can be of the creature comprehended He busieth himselfe to prooue that though not in this mortall and sâ—nnefull life yet in the next we shall behold the glory of God To this purpose he alleadgeth scriptures that we shall see
these mysteries were not to be learned els where then in the Scriptures as most plainely therein expressed 14. The proceeding of the holy Ghost he thinketh also not to be expressely deliuered in Scripture 2. b. p. 170. whereas notwithstanding our Sauiour saith directly Whome I will send vnto you from the father and whome the father will send in my name Augustine would prooue it out of those wordes in the Gospel vertue went out of him for it is cleare that the holy spirit is called vertue but that other place is more euident which Augustine vrgeth also He shall not speake of himselfe and he shall receiue of mine Audire illi scire est scire ess◠à quo ergo illi essentia ab eo scientia to heare is to him to know to know is to be from whome his essence is from him his science seeing then he heareth and receiueth from the sonne he also hath his essence and proceeding from the sonne These holy mysteries of the Trinitie the coeternitie of the Sonne with the Father the proceeding of the holy Ghost the fathers take to be expressely set downe in Scripture as Bernard speaking of the mysterie of the Trinitie Non potuit expressius commendari c. It could not be more expressely commended then it is necessarie to beleeue To say therefore that these points of doctrine are not expressely deliuered is to giue way vnto those wicked heretikes the Sabellians that denied the first the Arrians the second the Macedonians the third Beside these errors adde as many more which he calleth true and sound positions beeing indeede vnsound and corrupt doctrines as is partly touched before slaund 10. and more at large els where which I will not now repeate because I am onely to deale here with this froward spirit leauing to prouoke those of more modest cariage though in some things otherwise minded Now what hath this blind obiecter of error gained to himselfe but his owne shame who reckoneth that for errour and falsitie in others which agreeth with truth and veritie and seeth not his owne grosse and erring ignorance He with a curious eye obserueth others slippes and tripping nor that neither while himselfe stumbleth and falleth downe flat the Prophet saith Woe vnto them that speake good of euill and euill of good which put darknesse for light and light for darkenesse I pray God he be not of that number Ambrose saith well talis consiliarius sit qui nihil nebulosum habeat He that aduiseth others must not bee darkened or ouercast with clouds himselfe And Hierom wel admonisheth Non confundant opera sermonem tuum Let not thy workes confound thy words And this blinde guide while he noteth other mens wandrings should not haue gone himselfe out of the way he telleth the Replyer most disdainefully and withall vntruely that hee hath neuer a good thought of his owne 2. b. p. 106. while his own heart is pestered with erroneous and malitious cogitations and no maruell for as Iosephus well saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a temperate heart is the hauen of good meditations while the heart therefore boyleth with intemperate enuie the spring head being troubled the waters issuing from thence cannot be cleane I wish hee may haue grace to see his errors and to confesse his ignorance Tully hath a good saying Cuiusuis est hominis errare nullius nisi insipientis perseuerare in errore Any man may erre but none but vnwise men continue in error Let him not thinke it folly to reuerse with iudgement what hee hath written with error It is a wise mans part rather to amend what is amisse and to straighten that which is crooked to rectifie by the line of truth that which hath beene set downe against the rule of truth and so againe I commend vnto him that worthy sentence of Cicero Optimus est portus poenitenti mutati consilij the best hauen to repentāce is to change the heart and purpose The 7. imputation of Blasphemies The accusation 1. The heauinesse which Christ felt in his soule was not through the horrour of eternall death as you and others doe blaspheme c. 2. b. p. 193. 2. Why doe you not exempt it that is the soule of Christ from all kinde of death whatsoeuer but then your blasphemous hell torments which you make a third kinde of death of the soule cannot stand 2. b. p. 91. 3. Let the godly iudge whether those your inward afflictions reach not to the height of sinne and damnation and so consequently proue your doctrine in this point to be blasphemous euen by your owne confession 3. b. p. 67. 4. By this time I trust euery well disposed Reader doth see how this your exposition of this prophesie of Dauid hardeneth the Iewes encourageth Atheists iustifieth old damned Heretiks confirmeth Saduces and Epicures which deny the immortalitie of the soule c. and finally openeth the way vnto blasphemie paganisme and all impietie 3. b. p. 51. The iustification 1. HOw iniuriously this belcher out of blasphemie dealeth with the Replyer his owne conscience if it be not seared with an hot yron knoweth there neede no other iudge for the Replyer in as plaine tearmes as hee could vtter it denieth that there was in Christ any feare of eternall death in these words Wee willingly graunt that Christ feared not hell fire nor euerlasting destruction these authorities presse not vs but rather helpe our cause for Christ neither feared temporall nor euerlasting death as these fathers witnesse and the Apostle saith he feared Heb. 5. 7. what then remaineth but that he feared the cup of Gods wrath mixed with death and as Cyprian saith before cited difficultatem extremi exitus The difficultie or hardnesse of his last passage that is in respect of Gods wrath tempered with it And in the other place quoted these are the words Though Christ neither felt nor feared euerlasting death yet he both felt and feared his fathers displeasure that causeth it What impudencie is this to vse his owne tearme for I may call a spade a spade to charge the Replyer to affirme that which he instantly denieth let the charitable reader iudge of him in the rest as he findeth his faithfull dealing here when hee quoteth any place out of the Replyers bookes not rehearsing the words suspect the like fraud This false charge then of blasphemie returneth vpon his owne head and by the lawe of retalian and equalitie he should be censured as a blasphemer for beeing a false witnesse therein against another 2. The Replyer freeth Christs soule from all kinde of death of the soule which is either by sinne or damnation though beside these a kinde of death may be affirmed to haue beene suffered by Christ in his soule in respect of the inward afflictions and perplexitie which he indured wrestling euen with the wrath of
him as he is 1. Ioh. 3. 2. of Fathers as of Augustine that the blessed Trinitie can no waies bee seene with humane eies but with those eies c. of Ambrose that wee shall then see with vncouered face the glorie of God 2. b. p. 203. He telleth vs of certaine heretiks that helde that they which awake at the last day shall not see God at all in his diuine essence and nature Of which opinion was one Abailardus against whom Bernard writeth p. 207. And thus hee fighteth with his shaddow leauing the point in controuersie whether the Godhead may be comprehended Briefly therefore to open this point I finde that there haue beene two principall opinions concerning the vision of God and the one contrary to the other It is noted as one of Origens errors by Hierom that hee should thinke the Godhead of the father to bee so invisible as that it could not be comprehended of the sonne As this opinion maketh the Godhead altogether inuisible in one extreame so some were so grosse and carnall as that they held Verbi Dei naturam non solum mutabilem sed etiam visibilem that the nature of the word of God was not onely mutable but visible as Augustine reporteth their opinion vnto these the heretiks Anomoei came neere of the which sort Eunomius was a principall who helde se naturam Dei comprehendisse that hee comprehended the nature of God as Theophylact testifieth Now out of this question of the Comprehending of the Deitie Christ euen as touching his humane nature is to be excepted of whom the diuine nature because of that hypostaticall vnion was fully seene and comprehended Yea Gennadius in his catalogue maketh mention of one Servus which writ against those who denied Christ when he liued here in the flesh Deum carneis oculis vidisse to haue haue seene God with the eies of his flesh Concerning then this point a distinction is here to be receiued touching the knowledge of the Godhead there is cognitio simplex comprehensiua a simple that is absolute and comprehensiue knowledge cognitio pro modulo apprehensiua and a knowledge in a certaine measure and apprehensiue onely This latter way God may bee seene and knowne But vpon these two conditions as Augustine well obserueth Humano visu nullo modo potest c. That first God can not be seene by any humane sight but with that whereby they that see are no men but beyond men Secondly nemo vidit per seipsum c. No man hath seene by himselfe that is by his flesh and blood but by the reuealing of the father and enarration of the sonne As the Euangelist saith No man hath seene God at any time the onely begotten sonne hath declared him Thus God may and hath beene seene and knowne of the Saints in this life as of Moses and Paul but more fully in the next whē we shall see the sight of God as he is But as Augustine in another place quantum eum capere creatura rationalis ctualis potest as much as a reasonable and intellectuall creature is capable of But touching the other kinde of knowledge though God be cognoscibilis ex gratia to bee knowne by grace comprehensibilis tamen a nemine quam seipso yet hee is comprehended of none but himselfe The reason is because the deitle is infinite the creature finite so that which is of a finite nature cannot comprehend that which is infinite Augustine saith si sanctis Angelis iam equales essemus non vtique ita nota esset nobis diuina essentia sicut ipsa sibi if we were equall to the Angels the diuine substance should not bee so knowne to vs as it is to himselfe But here commeth in this quaint distinguisher with this glosse God is not called incomprehensible as if there were any thing of his which his Saints shall not see but because they see him not so perfectly as hee is visible of himselfe 2. b. p. 204. Wherein he speaketh contradictions for if God cannot be seene of vs as he is of himself then there is somewhat in the Godhead which we cannot see which himselfe seeth Then by grace apprehend him wee may but comprehend him we cannot Plenitudinem diuinitatis nemo de coelestibus etiam virtutibus conspexit The fulnesse of the diuinitie none of the celestiall powers hath seene but if there be nothing of his which the Saints shall not see then they should see his fulnesse Now then it is euident which of the twaine holdeth a paradox the Replyer that saith the deitie of Christ is incomprehensible or the erroneous Reprehender which enclineth to the contrarie He saith further that the Replyers peremptorie words seeme to encline to those Errors or rather heresies of certaine Armenians which denied that the Saints in the next world should see God at all in his diuine essence p. 207. But as the Replyer detesteth from his heart that erroneous opinion so let this newfangled Dogmatist take heede least in his comprehensiue fancie he apprehend not and lay hold of the heresie of the Anomaeans before spoken of that affirmed they comprehended the essence of God 3. As good successe hath this trifler in the third pretended error for first he misconceiueth himselfe would here haue said after his vnmannerly phrase belieth Augustine that he taketh not the word spirit for the diuine nature of Christ but for the operation of the holy ghost for Augustines words are these saepe antea veniebat in spiritu ad quos volebat he came often before that is his incarnation in the spirit to whome he would doth he speake I pray you of the operation of the spirit here and not of the spirit himselfe to confound the spirit and the operation of the spirit is both great error and ignorance Againe an other vntruth is that Augustine by the word spirit taketh not the diuine nature of Christ. If Augustine may be credited he himselfe saith otherwise Et ipse quidem filius in substantia deitatis spiritus est quid facit silius sine spiritu sancto vel sine patre cum inseperabilia sunt opera trinitatis Both the Sonne himselfe is a spirit in the substance of the deitie and what doth the Sonne without the holy Ghost or without the Father seeing the workes of the Trinitie are inseperable Doth it not now appeare that Augustine indifferently taketh the spirit here either for the diuine nature of Christ or for the holy Ghost say also then that Augustine doth ignorantly confound them Further doth not the Scripture indifferently sometime ascribe the same worke to Christ sometime to the holy Ghost as our Sauiour saith The spirit of my father speaketh in you Math. 10. 20. which Marke nameth the holy Ghost Mark 13. 11. and S. Paul saith Seeing ye seeke experiment of Christ that speaketh in me 2. Cor. 13. 3. So the Apostle saith
most true and sound positions 2. b. p. 20. and yet afterward he confesseth that the very first thereof which is this that Christ is not originally God is the most damnable heresie of Arrius ibid. p. 21. Thus he ignorantly maketh himselfe an Arrian for thus may his owne speeches be retorted against him whosoeuer saith that Christ is not originally God is an Arrian this proposition is his owne but so holdeth this confused confuter in calling it a true and sound position this also is his owne for he calleth all those true and sound positions there excepted against whereof this is the first Ergo by his owne confession he draweth himself into suspiciō of Arrianisme Indeede this heresie-mouther that hath often in his mouth heresie heretike obiecteth Arrianisme but very simply to the Replyer because alleadging the words of S. Paul of our Sauiour iustified in the spirit he by the spirit vnderstandeth his diuine spirit and nature as quickned saith he in your sense signifieth to be made aliue so must iustified to be made iust which is ranke Arrianisme 3. b. p. 60. poore silly fellow and doth he know what Arrianisme meaneth for though the Replyer medleth not here with the signification of the word iustified but alleadgeth this sentence for the vse of the word spirit neither doth he take the word iustified in the actiue signification as we are said to be iustified but passiuely as when wisdome is saide to be iustified of her children Math. 11. 19. that is approoued and declared to be iust yet if it be referred to Christs humanitie it is no Arrianisme to say that he as man was iustified not from sinne which he had not but preserued by the inhabitation of the spirit from all sinne If this be Arrianisme then is Chrysostome an Arrian who deliuereth these two expositions of this place Sive hoc intelligi potest c. whether this may be vnderstood because wisdome is iustified of her children or because he did none deceit as the Prophet testifieth saying Who did no sinne neither was any guile found in his mouth he vnderstandeth this iustification of his preseruing from sinne And what is it more to say that Christ as man was iustified or that he was sanctified but our Sauiour saith of himselfe whome the father sanctified Ioh. 10. 36. if for Christ to be made iust be Arrianisme then also to be made holy Then he seeth who is charged with Arrianisme in his sense which once to thinke were horrible blasphemie I therefore say vnto him concerning this imputation of Arrianisme Vides ne quomodo ista non sententia sed vescia non solum mani sonitu sed in capite vestro crepuerit See you not how this not sentence but bladder not onely with a vaine cracke but is broken vpon your owne head 11. He affirmeth that the baptisme of Infants is not to be found in Scripture by any expresse literall mention 2. b. p. 170. for though he leaue out that word expresse yet he of whome he borroweth this opinion vseth that terme and he may put literall in his purse his meaning is that it is not expressely deliuered in Scripture for there he impugneth that conclusion that nothing is to be admitted that is not expressely deliuered in Scripture Now then that baptisme is expressely grounded vpon Scripture and not vpon tradition which must follow vpon the other it is diuersly euident As because Christ commandeth little children not to be forbidden to come vnto him the Church is cleansed by the washing of water through the word of which Church infants are members Christ commandeth to baptize all nations among the which children are counted And seeing infants were circumcised in stead whereof baptisme succeedeth which the Apostle likeneth to circumcision it is euident that the baptisme of infants is founded vpon Scripture it is also the doctrine of our Church that the baptisme of infants is most agreeable with the institution of Christ but where is the institution of Christ to be found but in expresse Scripture what shamelesse dealing then is this to say that they which hold the contrarie namely that the baptisme of infants is not expressely found in Scripture doe maintaine the doctrine of the Church when they directly impugne it And this vncertaine and wandring opinion giueth occasion to the wicked heresie of the Anabaptists that affirme the baptisme of Infants to take beginning from the Bishops of Rome and not from the Apostles 12. He further among those things which are not expressely deliuered in Scripture giueth in instance our beleefe in the blessed Trinitie 2. b. p. 170. whereas the auncient Fathers of the Church haue principally out of the Scripture prooued this Article concerning the Trinitie as Origene vrged that place in the 51. Psal. where mention is made of three spirits principalis spiritus pater c. the principall spirit is the father the right spirit the sonne and the free spirit the holy Ghost But more pregnant is that place which Ambrose selecteth the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ the loue of God and the communion of the holy Ghost be with you all Trinitatis hic complexio est vnitas potestatis here is a coniunction of the Trinitie and the vnitie of power Augustine doth conclude the Trinitie from that heauenly vision in the baptisme of our Sauiour Apparuit manifestissime Trinitas c. The Trinitie appeared manifestly the Father in the voice the Sonne in man the holy Ghost in the doue But of all other those places are most full for the Trinitie Math. 28. 20. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost and that other 1. Ioh. 5. 7. There are three which beare record in heauen the Father the Word and the holy Ghost who of any iudgement reading these places can denie for shame but that the blessed Trinitie is expressely deliuered in Scripture 13. The coeternitie of the Sonne with the Father is an other point obiected not expressely deliuered in Scripture which is euident by the words of the Euangelist that the word was in the beginning with God Augustine out of those words of our Sauiour I and my father are one concludeth his equalitie with God so consequently his coeternitie Bernard inferreth it out of those words of the Prophet Who shall declare his generation And further he thus saith Commendant nobis sacrae literae Christum ex patre in patre cū patre c. quod dicitur ex patre ineffabilis est nativitas quod in patre consubstantialis vnitas quod cum patre equalitas maiestatis The sacred letters doe cōmend vnto vs Christ of his father in his father with his father that which is said of his father is his ineffable natiuitie in his father his consubstantiall vnitie that with his father the equalitie of his maiestie These fathers held that
the answearer the conclusion is Ergo be deliuered the Fathers out of Limbas doth he inferre this to confirme his owne opinion or to confute yours The Replyer therefore will keepe himselfe well enough out of the ditch while he himselfe sticketh fast in the mire Ans. 2. He denieth the assumption affirming with Augustine that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell for himselfe Contra. 1. In deede one of Augustines expositions in that place is that Christ may be said to haue loosed the sorrowes of hell for himselfe quemadmodum solvi possunt laquei venantium c. as the snares of hunters may be loosed least they should hold not because they did hold but this exposition can not serue his turne for he saith these sorrowes were loosed at Christs resurrection they were not then loosed before till then so it followeth that Christ was in them which Augustine there denieth neque coperat in eis esse tanquam in vinoulis he beganne not at all to be in those sorrowes as in bandes 2. Againe he saith these sorrowes were not in the graue because the bodie was senslesse and so felt them not therefore by the same reason those sorrowes were in hell because Christ soule was full of sense and consequently felt them Thus will hee 〈◊〉 hee either hee must confesse that some other were deliuered out of the sorrowes of hell by Christs descending thither or that he himselfe felt the sorrowes of hell 2. The second place that encreaseth this suspition is because he striueth mightily that we must read 1. Pet. 3. 19. the spirits which were in prison not which are whereupon it followeth that he thinketh some were in the prison of hell but are not or els he striueth about words Ans. It followeth not because I say it should be translaeted which were c. not which are that they therefore were in hell but are not no more then it followeth the Angels were in heauen at Christs asâ—ension but are not Contr. 1. Hee omitteth the other part of the disiunâ—tion that either that must follow or els he striueth about words 2. The instance of the Angels therefore is impertinent for the Replyer doth not reason thus they were in hell Ergo they are not but thus either they were in hell and are not or else he striueth for words 3. Yet this coÌ„tending about the reading of were for are giueth strong suspicion that hee so thinketh that some were in hell and are not because his great Master vpon the aduantage of that word inferreth the same conclusion thus writing All the Latines Greekes whom we haue cited expound were not are because they will haue them deliuered out of hell by Christ but it could not bee said truely of those spirits in the time of Peter that they were then in the prison 3. The third place is this In that Christ personally descended into hell it doth more amplifie and set forth his goodnesse toward mankâ—â—de c. for so much as the more vile and loath some the dungeon is the greater is the loue of the Prince who to enfranchise and set at libertie the captiues there enthralled disâ—â—ineth not to enter into it in his owne person Hence it is inferred that these captiues in hell which were enfranchised by Christ descending thither could be no other then the fathers in Limbo patrum for out of the nethermost hell of the damned none can be deliuered Ans. 1. The argument is denied Christ went to set at libertie captiues in hell Ergo the fathers in Limbo Cont. The argument standeth thus the captiues in hel set at liberty were either in Limbo or in the nethermost hell But they were not in the nethermost hell for thence none can be deliuered Ergo the captiues in hell set at liberty were those in Limbo The reason cannot be denied beeing a true syllogisme the Replyer is not then a 〈◊〉 in making such reasons but the Confuter a brables in denying them Ans. 2. You must first prooue that the Fathers were in Limbo patrum and that hell the place of eternall captiuity was all one with it which yet your selfe affirme is no part of hell and therefore I inferre it is no place of thraldome Cont. 1. Now this ignorant Confuter sheweth himselfe a trifler indeed and a silly Logician to denie the conclusion that the Fathers were not in Limbe which is the conclusion of the former argument 2. How absurd is this fellow that seeing a manifest disiunction in the proposition betweene Limbus patrum and the nethermost hell yet saith it must be prooued that they are all one 3. The Replyer in his owne opinion taketh Limbus to be neither a part of hell nor any where else but disputeth ex concessis according to their conceit that so imagine But this trifling Confuter is caught in his owne wordes for in confessing that Limbus is no place of thraldome he granteth that such a Limbus there is but not a place of that qualitie for according to his owne rule the formeâ— must first be granted namely that there is a Limbus before you can dispute of the latter whether it be a place of thraldome or not and thus to giue him his owne words againe you whip your selfe with your owne scourge whose lashes if you feelâ— not I say you are very senslesse and to vse Tullies words haec te si vllam partem habes sensus laceret haec crueÌ„tat oratio this saying if you haue any part of sense tareth and woundeth you Answ. 3. But the Confuter not insisting vpon any of these answers which are very simple findeth our another that these captiues enfranchised by Christ was all mankind which by Adâ—â—s sinne were made guilty of eternall death and so made his captiues that had power ouer death that is the diuell vnder whom wee were held in most slauish thraldome c. vntill such time as it pleased our most gratious king to enfranchise vs. 2. b. p. 143. Cont. 1. This answer is not to the purpose for the question out of his former words obiected is not of captiues to hell and the diuell but of captiues in hell 2. b. p. 40. and there detained p. 37. and enthralled there to enfranchise whom our prince descended thither p. 40. We were indeede all captiues by sinne to the diuell subiect to death hell damnation but not captiues and enthralled in hell this is but a simple euasion 2. Our deliuerance and enfranchising was procured purchased by the death of Christ as the Apostle saith that he might destroy through death him that had power ouer death that is the diuell and that he might deliuer c. for that ende therefore Christ needed not to descend to hell 3. See how inconstant this new doginatist is one while he saith that Christ descended to hell that the Redemption of mankind now performed might bee manifested euen vnto the dead 2. b. p. 72. sometime to denounce
retention in sinne to the obstinate and so consequently in euerlasting death and damnation for so hee expoundeth that preaching to the spirits in Peter 2. b. p. 77. And now it was as hee saith to enfranchise and set at libertie And thus hee is one of those of whome the Apostle speaketh They would be Doctors of the Law and yet vnder staÌ„d not what they speake nor whereof they affirme I may apply against him the Orators words quam miserum est id negare non posse quod 〈◊〉 est confâ—erâ— how miserable a thing is it not to be able to deny that which it is aâ—â—rame to confesse He is ashamed to confesse he holdeth Limbus patrum and yet beeing pressed with his owne words he can not denie it 4. Pla. What honour is greater then his who entreth by force into his enemies pallace 〈◊〉 him of his power disfurnisheth him of his treasure and returneth victorious c. and what he meaneth by his treasure hee referreth vs to a place of Origen where he saith thus hic alligato forti c. the strong man beeing here bound vpon the crosse hee went forward into his house into the house of death into hell and tooke thence his goods that is the soules which he held 5. Pla. Ambrose is cited in these words beeing free among the dead loosing the power of death he gaue release to those which were in 〈◊〉 and what he meaneth hereby the words following shew omitted by him hee shed the light of life vpon those which were placed in hell c. 6. Pla. He saith that Christ euangelized or deliuered the glad tidings of the gospel to the dead but to whom else could the preaching of the Gospel be glad tidings but to those which had comfort and deliuerance by it And so he must be driuen to say with his great friend Pradicationem Christi c. that the preaching of Christ in hell was only for the annuntiation of that great ioy of their deliuerance to the godly soules 7. Pl. You must first prooue that they erred in holding that opinion of the deliuery of the Fathers but if he himselfe hold that to bee an error what needed any further proofe thereof 8. Pl. Hierom is cited who should say that Christ descended to hell vt vinctos de carcere dimitteret that hee might dismisse them which were bound out of prison 9. Pl. Likewise Cyril is brought in speaking to the same purpose that Christ appeared to the spirits in hell and said to those which were in bonds come forth To what purpose should he alleadge these testimonies if he consented not with them herein for men doe not vse to produce witnesses against themselues 10. Pl. He confesseth Limbus patrum but denieth it to be any part of hell to let passe saith hee your falshood beeing the falsarie himselfe and absurditie in confounding Limbus patrum with locus damnatorum the one being no part of hell as your selfe euery where preach But this is his owne preaching or rather prating for the Replyer in those places speaketh onely of Abrahams bosome not a word of Limbus If then in his opinion there was a Limbus patrum then either the fathers were deliuered thence or else they are in Limbe still for heauen or paradise I hope he will not take to be Limbus which the masters of that tearme the Romanists take for a prison and dungeon of darknes 11. Pl. Cassiodorus is brought in thus witnessing for the deliuerie of the Fathers out of hell Christ hauing bound the devill brought out those prisoners which he held in captiuitie 12. Hierome againe is thus alleadged Christ descended not into the whale but into hell to the ende that those which were in hell might be loosed from perpetuall bonds 13. Augustine also is brought to the same purpose I see no reason why we should beleeue that our Sauiour came thither but to saue some from the sorrowes and paines thereof 14. So also Origene is produced the onely begotten sonne of God descended into hell for the saluation of the world and thence brought backe againe the first man Adam 15. For the enfranchising and setting at libertie the captiues in hell he alleadgeth Ruffinus referring vs onely in generall to his exposition of the Creede in the which he directly affirmeth in these words Redijt victor à mortuis inferni spolia c. he returned a conquerour from the dead and carying with him the spoile of hell brought out those which were held of death So it seemeth that therein he concurreth with Ruffinus for the bringing out of some out of hell 16. Whereas the Article of the descension was thus set downe in K. Edwards time in the Synode held ann 1552. As Christ died for vs and was buried so it is to be beleeued that he descended into hell for his bodie lay in the graue till the Resurrection his spirit beeing sent forth from him was with the spirits which were detained in prison or in hell and preached vnto them as testifieth Peter the last clause whereof was left out by the Reuerend Fathers of this Church in their Synode ann 1562. and so remaineth still Now this man commeth and would expound the meaning of that clause omitted saying that their application of those words of Peter vnto Christs descension into hell is no other then all the auncient Fathers haue made on that place as may appeare by holy Athanasius c. But Athanasius saith he preached the Gospel or glad tidings to those which were in hell so he vnderstandeth S. Peters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So likewise Iustinus and Ireneus say descendit ad eos evangelizare salutem he descended vnto them to evangelize or bring the glad tidings of saluation as they cite the Prophet Isai wherefore if he vnderstand it according to their exposition he must hold that saluation and deliuerance was preached by Christ to some in hell 17. Place The harrowing of hell c. if you will beleeue an old ploughman in your haruest is no such matter as you take it for but such as ought to be beleeued of all Christians as containing a deepe mysterie he would father his conceit vpon an other that fauoureth it not but indeede he cunningly hereby conueieth his owne opinion as fit to be beleeued of all Christians 18. His opinion is that Iob was in hell for that place Iob 17. 13. he readeth thus hell shall be my house and I shall make my bed in the darke And further he addeth for so much as Iob was a perfect figure of Christ in many things the word bed taken in the better part doth very truely agree vnto him because though hell be a place of restlesse disquiet to the wicked yet was it to him a place of quiet rest In which words beside that in right construction the whole sentence runneth
as Christs soule was not left But the soules of the faithfull come not into hell at all 3. Beside that which he rehearseth out of Origene is very corruptly translated he that called Christ from hell after the third day recalled vs also in due time and he that gaue to him that his flesh should not see 〈…〉 hath also giuen to vs whereas Origenes words are nos revocabit shall recall vs in due time nobis donaâ—is and shall all giue to vs what greater forgerie could be 〈◊〉 what shamelesse dealing is this 2. Againe whereas Origene is produced by the Replyer to shew his different iudgement from other of the fathers concerning Limbus patrum making Abrahams bosome to be where were Angelorum châ—râ— c. the company of Angels the kingdome of Christ he to confront this testimony of Origen alleadgeth another place in this maner the only begotten sonne of God descended into hell for the saluation of the world and thence brought backe againe the first man Adam for that which hee said to the thiefe to day thou shall be with me in Paradise you must vnderstaÌ„d to be spoken not to him only but to all the Saints for whom he descended to hell Here diuers faults are committed 1. The words inclosed in the parenthesis hee addeth of his owne 2. Protoplostum he translateth the first man which signifieth the first made man intellige which is vnderstand thou hee englisheth you must vnderstand 3. Beside this testimony maketh flatly against the Confuter who holdeth Christs soule to haue beene three daies in hell whereas Origen thinketh that not onely the thiefe but all the other Saints went into heauen the same day of his passion but they returned not without Christ Christs soule then could not be so long in hell in Origenes opinion 4. Further out of this very homil 15. in Genest it more fully appeareth that Origene differed in opinion from the rest concerning Limbus patrum for vpon those words of the Lord to Iakob revocabo te inde in finem c. I will bring thee backe againe in the ende he writeth thus velut si diceret c. As if he should say because thou hast fought a good fight kept the faith finished thy course I will call thee now out of the world vnto future happines vnto the perfection of life eternall vnto the crowne of righteousnes which the Lord shall render in the ende of the world to all that loue him The place whether Iakob was called out of the world was a place of happines the perfection of life eternall c. therefore not a prison dungeon place of darkenes or hell as Limbus patrum was of some of the fathers imagined to be 3. Origene is cited by this confused Confuter where he committeth diuers foule ouersights 1. he nameth the 18. homilie vpon Iosuah but in that homilie the sentence which he alleadgeth is not to be found nor yet in the homilie vpon the 18. chap. for he might mistake the number of the homilie for the chapter 2. Beside to mende the matter with in the margen he setteth the 28. homilie vpon Iosuah wheras there are but 26. in all vpon that booke 3. The place is altogether impertinent to his purpose for the question beeing of the meaning of those words of our Sauiour Ioh. 17. Father I will that where I am these also may be with me whether Christ speake of himselfe as the Messiah or in respect of his Godhead onely he bringeth in these words of Origene Blessed is he who sheweth himselfe such an one c. that of our Sauiour he may receiue the portion of the heauenly mansion in the world to come of which our Lord Iesus himselfe speaketh father I will c. In which wordes it is euident that Origene speaketh of Christ as the Sauiour and Messiah 4. And to shew his great skill in reading of this fathers workes he citeth the 12. homilie vpon Matthew 3. b. p. 35. and the 35. homilie vpon Matth. p. 57. whereas they are the tractates or commentaries vpon Matthew not homilies which were his sermons to the people or multitude whereof they haue their name 5. An other place of Origene he diuersly abuseth 1. by clipping of many words as where Origene alleadgeth the text to sacrifice vnto the Lord our God he saith to doe sacrifice vnto God Againe those words of Origene Pharaoh would not permit theÌ„ to come vnto the place of signes that is mysteries he omitteth altogether 2. He translateth corruptly for those wordes resuscitabit nos Deus c. God shall raise vs after two daies he englisheth God shall visit vs after two daies 3. He saith very boldly that these words of Origene the first day to vs is the passion of our Sauiour the second day is that wherein he descended to hell and the third day is the day of the resurrection he doth not appropriate them to Christ and his abode in hell because he applieth them to vs. A very senslesse and vnlearned answer for whereas the Prophet saith vnto vs a childe is horne he might as well inferre that he doth not appropriate it to Christs natiuitie because it is applied to vs. As though all Christs actions his birth passion resurrection and the rest were not for vs. 4. Whereas he holdeth Origenes opinion to be that Christs soule was three daies in hell and citeth him to that ende p. 169. the contrarie is shewed before loc 2. that Origene held that all the fathers together with the theife entred into heauen the same day of Christs passion whence it will follow that Christs soule also entred together with theirs And in this place it is euident that in his opinion the soule of Christ descended not till the second day 6. Whereas the Replyer citeth a place of Origene wherein comparing Christ to a victorious captaine that diuideth the principall spoiles among his souldiers of best desert he saith that he likewise vnto those which haue laboured most sibi similes decernit honores doth giue honours like to his owne such as he conferred vpon his disciples when he said Father I will that where I am they may be with me And proueth hereby that these honours like vnto Christs are not those which are due to his godhead which are not communicable vnto any but such as he receiued as Messiah This vaine and trifling Confuter first quarrelling because the Replyer abridged this sentence keeping the sense then denieth that he hath any such meaning but that these words make directly against the Replyer whereas Christ beeing compared to a victorious and triumphaÌ„t captaine diuiding spoiles must be vnderstood as the Messiah as he ascended into heauen and led captiuitie captiue which he did not as God onely but as the Messiah and captaine of the Church These honours were due vnto him in deede as God for who denieth that vpon which false supposall he groundeth all the force of his
errorem hee translateth and so either correct your error which should bee thus englished let vs amend our error 4. After those words that is a childish boasting he leaueth out this whole sentence quod olim adolescentuli facere consueuerant which young men in time past were accustomed to doe 5. Ambrose corrupted 1. This Grammarian instructer that professeth to teach boyes to conster himselfe maketh a pittifull construction of Ambrose 2. b. p. 59. these words Angelo non placuit ancillae insolentia The insolencie of the hand-maid pleased not the Angel hee translateteth The Angel was not pleased to see the insolency and pride of the handmaide reuertere ad Dominam tuam Returne to thy Lady he englisheth turne againe to thy Lady and Mistresse Verberantis savitiam the cruelty of the beater hee englisheth the crueltie of Sara beating her Fugientis discessionem the departure of the flier or runner away he rendreth Hagars departure in running away adding Sara and Hagar of his owne Humiliare be thou humbled he englisheth humble thy selfe 2. In another sentence taken from Ambrose hee leaueth out these words In inferno positis vitae lumen fundebat eternae To those which were in hell he powred the light of eternall life Which clause if he had added he saw that Ambrose would make little for him vnlesse hee held the locall descent of Christs soule to hell for the enlightening and deliuerance of the Fathers thence 6. Ruffinus falsified 1. Ruffinus also is pitifully mangled for his sentence taking the whole is this But that he descended into hell also is euidently pronounced in the Psalmes where he saith Thou broughtest me to the dust of death and againe what profit is in my blood while I descend into corruption and againe I descended into the mire of the deepe where no substance is that is ground or bottome yea and Iohn saith art thou he which art to come without doubt into hell or looke me for another All this is fraudulently left out and then follow the next wordes which he culleth out Our Lord also himselfe speaketh c. But this deceitfull Iugler that playeth fast and loose with the Fathers well perceiued that seeing Ruffinus expoundeth descending to hell to be brought to the dust of death and to the place of corruption and blood that his meaning can be no otherwise then to vnderstand death and the graue as to the same purpose he said before that vis eadem verbi videtur esse c. the same force of the word seemeth to be in that he is said to be buried as he is said before to descend to hell I maruell also how his mastership could take no knowledge of another place in Ruffinus not farre from that which he thus hacketh and pareth where hee saith that Crux Christi trumphus est c. that Christs crosse was a triumph and a famous trophaeum monument and further he sheweth how he triumphed ouer all things vpon the crosse both celestiall terrestriall and infernall vnto the first applying the vppermost part of the crosse to the next that part where his hands were stretched out and for the third he saith ea vero parte quae sub terram submergitur inferna sibiregna subiecit but by that part which was hid vnder the earth he brought vnder to himselfe the infernall kingdoms This cleare testimony of Christs triumph vpon the crosse and his victory ouer hell crosseth that impious and profane opinion of this drowsie and dreaming diuine that the conquest vpon the crosse was openly an ouerthrowe and therefore no triumph and againe if Christ triumphed in the crosse as you say he did it was according to the prouerbe triumphus ante victoriam triumph before the victory 1. b. p. 188. 7. Augustine falsified 1. Thus Augustine is alleadged This custome of baptizing infants I beleeue as comming from the tradition of the Apostles c. whereas the question with the Donatists was not concerning the baptizing of infants but the rebaptizing of those which were baptized by heretiks as it may appeare by the wordes going before Nolite obijcere nobis authoritatem Cypriani ad baptismi repetitionem c. Doe not obiect to vs the authoritie of Cyprian for the repeating of baptisme c. That question of Baptisme was not yet throughly handled but yet the Chruch kept this wholesome custome in the schismatiks and heretiks corrigere quod pravum est non iterare quod datum est to correct what was amisse not to iterate what was giuen then follow those words which saide custome c. as many things are not found in their writings nor in the latter Councels c. all this enclosed is omitted 2. Augustine is thus brought in that custome of the Church which was opposed against Cyprian c. whereas the name of Cyprian is not to be found in the 18. 19. 20. chapters of that booke 3. Againe the same place is quoted where Augustine should write thus Cum hoc nusquam legatur c. when as this is read no where we must beleeue the testimonie of the Church which Christ hath testified to be true these words are not extant in that place in that forme but after this manner Nunc vero cum in Scripturis non inveniamus c. now seeing we finde not in the Scripture that any haue come to the Church from heretikes c. and afterward perhibet Christus testimonium Ecclesiae suae c. Christ doth giue testimonie to his Church 4. Augustine is cited serm he should haue said hom 2. in vigil pasch tom 10. in these words si sepultus fuisset in terra c. If Christ had beene buried in the earth they might haue said they had digged vp the earth and stollen him away to prooue a difference betweene Christs tombe and the earth yet in that homilie no such sentence is to be found but rather the contrarie quid illi tumulus in terris cuius sedes manebat in coelis why should he haue a tombe in the earth whose seate remained in heauen here he affirmeth Christs tombe to haue been in the earth This grosse ouersight sheweth how well this pettifogger in diuinitie is seene in the reading of Augustine 5. That place of August c. 15. cont Felician lib. 3. p. 2. he diuers waies corrupteth 1. he addeth generall resurrection nullus ignorat he translateth euery man knoweth which signifieth no man is ignorant cuius corpus c. saith Augustine whose bodie common death had enclosed for the future resurrection he readeth whose bodie death had shut vp in the graue vntill the future resurrection of all flesh Beside he bewraieth his ignorance in mistaking the sense and scope of Augustine in that place 1. he saith that Augustines whole discourse is to prooue that Christ deserued not hell fire whereas the very point of the question is that though Christ