so our English also 7. Further in the very same place that his hebrew profunditie may sufficiently be testified to all men he noteth another word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perdition in the same verse can any man tell what this word is the Hebrew word there vsed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abaddon where he leaueth out the letter vaf with the vowell cholem What a shame is it for a man so vtterly ignorant in the languages to take vpon him to controll others beeing more blameable himselfe By this viewe of his grosse slips in Greeke and Hebrewe I am induced to thinke that report to be true which hath beene giuen out by some that knewe him in Oxford that what ostentation soeuer hee maketh now hee was thought to haue no great skill either in Hebrew or Greeke then Now it falleth out vpon him according to that saying of a Greeke Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing maketh a man so vnshamefast he would haue translated impudent as a bad conscience So this talkatiue tasker of others hauing a bad conscience not caring what he said or obiected to others though neuer so vntrue is without measure bold and bragging I may say of him as Hierom of his aduersarie that professed generall skill in whatsoeuer tu fella publice posita Hermagoram nobis Gorgiam exhibes Leontinum you your chaire beeing set aloft doe offer your selfe as another Hermagoras and Gorgias which tooke vpon them to dispute of any matter propounded vnto them So this Crazy Craker would make himselfe a professed linguist in all the learned tongues beeing nothing else then a wrangling verbalist The 6. imputaton of errors The accusation 1. That Christ hath two kingdoms belonging vnto him one as God an other as God and man and that his kingdome as hee is God is incommunicable to any 2. b. p. 201. 2. That the Godhead is inuisible incomprehensible ibid. He counteth these paradoxes contrary to the holy scriptures and wondreth how they could fall from the Replyers pen. 3. Augustine taketh the spirit 1. Pet. 3. 19. not for the diuine nature of Christ but for the operation of the holy Ghost which two you most erroneously confound saith this error finder 3. b. p. 127. 4. He calleth it a strange position that the true ioyes of heauen are in this world 2. b. p. 207. The iustification 1. THis Erring Censor at the first erreth in misreporting the Replyers words which are these that kingdome whereof Christ promiseth to make the theefe partaker is not that kingdome which belonged to him as God for that is not communicable to any creature but which is due to him as Messiah Limbomast p. 18. It is not affirmed here that Christ hath two kingdomes but that it beeing one and the same kingdome yet hath a diuers respect one as it belongeth to Christ as God an other as he is the Messiah both God and man And that this diuers relation and respect of the kingdome of Christ is not contrarie to the Scripture as this ignorant scripturian saith but most consonant and agreeable to the same it appeareth euidently by that diuine testimonie of S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. 24. Then shall the ende be when he hath deliuered vp the kingdome to God euen the father when he hath put downe all rule and all authoritie and power v. 25. for he must raigne till he hath put all his enemies vnder his feete v. 28. and when all things shall be subdued vnto him then shall the Sonne also himselfe be subiect vnto him that did subdue all things vnder him that God may be all in all But because the deciding of this question consisteth in the right vnderstanding of this Scripture I will deliuer diuers expositions thereof and approoue the best I finde eight seuerall interpretations of these words then shall the Sonne himselfe also be subiect 1. The Sabellians which denied the distinction of the three persons of the glorious Trinitie and the Marcionites ioyning with them did thus vnderstand it Ista filij subiectio futura est cum in patrē filius refundetur this subiection of the sonne shal then be when the sonne shal be resolued into the father meaning that the person of the sonne shall runne into the person of the father But Ambrose confuteth this wicked opinion by this reason Tum omnia quae filio subiecta erunt in filium patrem resolventur Then all those things which were subiect to the sonne shall also be resolued into the sonne and the father as they say the sonne shall be resolued into the father which were absurd to say which was one of those grosse errors imputed to Origene that vpon those words of S. Paul that God may be all in all groundeth this erronious fancie vniuersa creatura redigetur in eam substantiam quae omnibus melior est divinam scilicet that euery creature shall be brought to that substance which is the best of all that is the diuine 2. An other exposition as bad as this was that the humane nature of Christ should be conuerted into his diuine penitus absorbendā à divinitate and should be wholly swallowed vp of his deitie so Augustine reporteth But this hereticall sense is ouerthrowne by the Apostles direct words for in that the sonne is said to be subiect it sheweth that there remaineth somewhat to be subiect otherwise there could be no subiection 3. Some referre it to the bodie of Christ the Church and vnderstand it of his faithfull members in whom there yet remaineth some sinnes and imperfections which till they be subdued vnto God Christ in his members is not subdued so Origene donec ego non sum subditus patri nec ipse dicitur patri esse subiectus while I am not subdued to the father neither is he said to be subiect to the father 4. Others take it to be vnderstood of vnbeleeuers not yet conuerted to the faith which are not yet subiect so that pars membrorum eius non est subiecta fidei part of his members is not subiect to the faith but in the ende when as they also acknowledge the kingdome of Christ then Christ with his whole bodie shall be subiect vnto God so Hierome But both these expositions are taken away by the Apostles words for he is made subiect vnto the father to whome he subdued all things but to the sonne are all things subdued therefore he speaketh of the subiection of the person of the sonne 5. Some take this subiection to be spoken of the person of Christ that thereby is meant nothing els but that the sonne had his beginning and was begotten of the father so Theophylact and Oecumenius vpon this place and Ambrose to the same effect saith Deus caput Christi dicitur quia ab eo genitus that God is said to be Christs head because he was begotten of him But there can be no subiection in the
emendare quam perseuerare in prauitate sententiae There are many years wherein since my youth vnto this age I haue written diuers works I do prouoke mine aduersaries to examine all my writings afresh and if they finde any fault in my small wit and vnderstanding let them bring it forth I will confesse mine error willing rathr to amende it then to perseuere in a wrong sentence And concerning such slaunderous libels and immodest inuectiues as his are I say vnto your Gr. as Bernard wrote sometimes to Eugenius Miror quomodo religiosae aures tuae audire sustinent huiusmodi pugnas verborum que magis ad subversionem quam inventionem proficiunt veritatis corrige pravum morem praâ—ide linguas vaniloquas c. flagellum tenes timeaâ—t nuâ—â—â—ularij ne fidant nuÌ„mis I maruel how your religious eares can endure to heare such strife of wordes which auaile more for the subuersion then finding out of the truth correct this euill vse and stay such vaine tongues c. you hold the whip let the money chaungers feare to trust to their counterfeit coyne And so I ende with that salutation of the same Father Plenum vos dierum suscipiat dies vna illu melior in atrijs Domini super millia Venerabilis patâ—r Epist. 61. Your Gr. readie to be commanded in the Lord Iesus ANDREVV WILLETT THE PREFACE TO THE Christian-Reader WHen Rezin King of Aram and Pekah King of Israel had conspited against Iudah and fought against Ierusalem the Prophet was sent with this comfortable messages Feare not neither be faint hearted for the two tayles of those smoaking firebrands c. two such suming rather then fiering brands haue raised of late a smoake against me some foure yeares since a Popish Aramite and now of late an English Israelite But as the flames of the first were soone quenched so I doubt not but the irefull heate and vaine smoake of the other will quickly be laide It were somewhat too hard to say of these two aduersaries as Tulke did of his two enemies Dâ—labella and Antonie Duo haec capita nata sunt post homines natos tetâ—rrima 〈…〉 quorum alter effecit quod â—pt abat de altero pâ—tefactum est quod cogitaret these two heads are sprung vp the worst and most dishonest of all men aliue the one whereof hath effected what he desired the other hath discouered what he thought for neither will I thinke so vncharitably of them though they thinke and speake most basely and vilely of me neither hath either of them had his pleasure of me but in seeking to disgrace me haue defamed themselues and haue rather bewraied what they thought then effected what they intended Dyâ—nisius when he heard of two young men that railed vpon him and perceiued that the one spake in drinke but the other seemed to be sober and yet reuiled he dismissed the one as a drunken and foolish person but punished the other 〈…〉 Antagonists The one beeing 〈…〉 Babylons cuppe and hauing wrung out the very dregges of Romish superstition writ his pleasure of me in his madd and drunken fittes the other professing himselfe a sober Protestant but let him take heede if all be true I heare least that one cuppe of nimis more make him not as drunke as the other hath in his pretended 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—ded the raging fittes of the other lightbraine But I passe very little neither doe I regard their rayling speech comforting my selfe with that saying of the Apostle If ye be rayled vpon for the name of Christ blessed 〈◊〉 ye aâ— all they are which are maligned for the defense of the 〈◊〉 and here I may fitly vse those words of Augustine â—go volo te esse sanum quare tu furis in me sicut insanus I would haue thee to be found and whole and you rage against me as one vnsound or madde If they are become mine enemies for the Gospel and the truths sake I will therein glorie The one of them shooteth his darts at me because I strike at the very bodie of Poperie the other â—arpeth because I prune off one of the branches thereof that superstitious opinion of Limbus patrum as euen now shall be sâ—ewed But I say here with Hierome Breâ—iter responâ—eo nunquam me haereticis peperoâ—â—sse omni egâ—sse studio vt hostes Ecclesiae mei quoque hostes fieroâ—â— I answer briefely that I neuer spared heretikes and haue endeauoured with all my studie that the enemies of the Church should also be enemies vnto me Let them diuide this sentence betweene them let the first take the first part and the other that which remaineth for this I speake bordly and confidently that I know no enemies of mine in matter of religion some difference in opinion there may be among friends and wel â—illers whome yet I count no enemies but they are also enemies I dare say to the Church of God and religion that I may here truly vâ—e the Orators words Quonam meo fatâ— fieri dicam vt nemo his annis viginti Reipuâ—â—hostis fuerat quinon bellum eonam tempore mihi quoque indixerit I can not tell by what fatall destinie it happeneth that there hath not beene these twentie yeares an enemie to the Commonwealth and so to the Church also which hath not the same time bid battell vnto me Now I come to shew that this mungrell Protestant directly holdeth that Christ descended in soule to hell to deliuer some from thence that were there and so consequently maintaineth the Popish opinion of Limbus patrum where they imagined the soules of the Patriarks to be till the comming of Christ thither 1. Place These are his owne words S. Peter mentioneth sorrowes which Christ loosed at his resurrection which could not be in the sepulchre where his bodie lay dead and senselesse and in an other place he affirmeth they were the sorrowes of hell which Christ loosed out of which words this argument is pressed The sorrowes of hell which Christ loosed he loosed for himselfe or for others ther. deteined but not for himselfe Ergo for others To this he answeareth 1. in graunting all this to be true and yet it will not follow that the Fathers were deliuered out of Lambus vnlesse by bell you vnderstand Limbus patrum and the persons there deteined the Patriarks then you will fall into the same ditch your selfe c. Contra. 1. It followeth well if the conclusion be graunted that Christ loosed the sorrowes of bell for others for either they must be the Fathers which were deliuered out of Limbus which the Papists make a member of hell or els he falleth into a worse heresie that some of the damned deteined in hell were thence deliuered 2. Is he so blind and absurd that he seeth not how this conclusion is enforced against him and not out of the Replyers iudgement doth the opponents conclusion force the disputer I pray you or
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
making the liuely sense and feeling of religion onely to appertaine to a Novice which is the very perfection of true knowledge and religion for a liuely sense presupposeth knowledge one may haue the knowledge and shew of religion and yet feele not the power thereof as the Apostle saith hauing a forme of religion but haue denied the power thereof in which number I feare me this enuious aduersarie is one But there can not be a liuely sense of religion without knowledge preceding as S. Paul againe saith I pray that your loue may abound yet more and more in all knowledge and sense 11. Slaund That the Replyer defendeth many things in that booke that is contrarie to the Gospel 2. b. p. 50. you conuince your selfe to be no Protestant in calling me an adversarie to Protestants p. 52. they haue neither friend nor faith left them p. 53. that some of his friends denie the Pater noster p. 76. if we must receiue no article of the Creede vnlesse it be expounded according to your sense of the Scriptures and your conceit of the Analogie of faith we may in time haue neither Creede nor Christianitie left vs. 2. b. p. 180. that he followeth prophane errour in hatred of the truth 3. b. p. 203. Vnlesse this shamelesse man were possessed with the spirit of lying and slaunder he would neuer haue laid vnto the Replyers charge to defend things contrarie to the Gospel to be no Protestant to haue no faith no Christianitie to hate the truth whose bookes if they had not more true diuinitie in one leafe then his rayling bundle in the whole packe and the author more faith and Christianitie in his serious meditations then the other in his deepest studies he would neuer set penne to paper againe nor looke any man in the face hereafter But I must here excuse my selfe with Tullie Iniuriae dolor facit me praeter morem gloriosum the sense of my wrong maketh me boast beside my wont 12. Slaund Your seldome excursions abroad against the common aduersarie can not excuse your often incursions at home against your brethren 2. b. p. 58. what will not a slaunderous tongue forge The Replyer calleth God and men to witnesse for the clearing of him in this point that he hath neither vsed often nor seldome incursions against his brethren making any challenge by name to any of them This whole Church can testifie with him that the most if not all of his writings certaine explanations of Scripture onely excepted haue beene directed against the common aduersarie of like truth is the marginal glaunce in the same place that two petitions were exhibited to the King the one with a 1000. hands the other with 1500. whereas I haue beene certenly informed and I doe verily beleeue that neither of them were subscribed with any hands at all Of the same credit is the next obiection p. 60. that the Replyer with others doe think themselues persecuted for the profession of the Gospel whereas leauing other mens complaints he most heartily thanketh God for that sweete peace which he hath enioyed in his ministerie which by Gods gracious assistance hath brought forth such fruits in the vse of his penne as he needeth not be ashamed of 13. Slaund Your words doe necessarily implie all the auncient fathers and all sound writers since together with all good Christians throughout the whole world to be popish and superstitious men c. for all these doe firmely hold the locall discent of Christs soule into hell 2. b. p. 82. Contra. 1. The Replyers wordes doe implie no such thing but the contrarie for these they are They which hold not the locall discent of Christs soule to hell should not condemne the other as prophane superstitious that are so perswaded Limbom p. 5. is not then he ashamed to inferre the contrarie that the Replyers words implie they are popish 2. The fathers opinion touching the local discent of Christs soule is farre different from his and in these fowre substantiall and materiall points 1. in respect of the place they hold he went not downe to the hell of the damned but to that part of hell where the fathers were 2. in respect of their persons that he descended not to the damned but to preach deliuerance to the fathers there detained 3. the ende is also diuerse they hold he went to deliuer 4. in the effect they differ for their opinion is that hell was emptied at Christs going downe thither and that returning from thence he brought an innumerable companie of captiues with him to this purpose Bellarmine alleadgeth aboue twentie Greeke and Latine fathers beside Councells 3. And are all sound writers and good Christians of his opinion then Calvine Bucer Beza Erasmus Sarcerius Marlorate Gasper Megander Oleviane D. Fulke D. Reynolds Sadeel Scultetus Vrsinus Bucanus with diuers others were in his blind opinion neither sound writers nor good Christians all which held the contrarie 14. Slaund That the Replyer was one of those that contradicted what reuerend B. Bilson taught concerning our redemption by the death of Christ p. 95. that he holdeth that the article of Christs descention is to be reiected out of the Creede as a new addition lately foisted into the Creede 2. b. p. 96. Contra. What will not now this malitious Accuser dare to say obiecting things as contrarie to truth as darknes is to light he might as well say that the Replyer holdeth there is no Christ nor God as accuse him to denie the redemption of mankind by the death of Christ and the article of the discension his prophane heart knew that his dissembling lippes wandring hand and erring penne consented here to make a lie 15. Slaund The fourth fault is horrible impietie in that you hereby condemne the soule of the Prophet Dauid to the very place of the damned Whereas 1. the Replyer saith in very direct words his that is Dauids soule was not at all in hell Limbom p. 24. how then is not the slaunderer ashamed thus to obiect 2. because the Replyer saith the not beeing or leauing of the soule in hell was as well performed in Dauid as in Christ Limbom p. 24. hence he doth inferre thus Dauids soule was not left in hell Ergo it was in hell whereas it is cleare that the Replyer by not leauing vnderstandeth the not beeing so our Sauiour saith to his Apostles Ioh. 14. 18. I will not leaue you comfortlesse will he hereupon conclude that they were comfortlesse but not so left 3. It is the accuser himselfe that is guiltie of this impietie that Dauids soule was if not in hell yet neare vnto hell for in these words of Dauid if the Lord had not holpen me my soule had well-nie dwelt in silence Psal. 94. 17. by silence he vnderstandeth hell in his sentence then Dauids soule was almost in
hell and by the like collection it was there though it dwelt not or continued there 16. Slaund The Replyer is charged with Iudaisme for that none but Iewes did euer applie this prophesie to any but to our Sauiour Christ. Contra. 1. It is not Iudaisme to applie the propheticall saying of Dauid concerning Christ in some sense vnto Dauid but to vnderstand them onely of Dauid and not at all of Christ as if his memorie had serued him he might haue turned backe to 2. b. p. 136 where he himselfe citeth Hierome vpon the 71. Psalm v. 20. Thou wilt take me from the depth of the earth Iudaei hunc psalmum in solum Davidem convenire volunt c. the Iewes will haue this psalme to agree vnto Dauid onely and 3. b. p. 47. he alleadgeth out of Mollerus that D. Kimchi interpreteth the 16. Psal. of the Prophet Dauid and wil not haue these words meant of the resurrection of Christ. 2. If they sauour of Iudaisme which applie the propheticall sayings concerning Messiah in the Psalmes to Dauid then is Basil guiltie that way who vpon these words in the 48. Psal. The Lord shall deliuer my soule from the hand of hell thus writeth Manifeste vaticinatur Domini ad inferos descensum qui cum alijs etiam ipsius animam redimat ne remaneat ibi he manifestly prophesieth of the Lords descension to hell which with others should also redeeme his soule that it remaine not there he applieth this text both concerning Christs descension to hell and Dauids deliuerance from thence So Augustine indifferently expoundeth those words Psal. 86. v. 13. Thou hast deliuered my soule from the lowest hell either of Christ or of some of his members Ergo aut ipsius vox est hic eruisti c. wherefore it is either his voice that is Christs or our voice by Christ our Lord which to that ende came thither 3. Then doth he himselfe Iudaize who thus confesseth of that place Psal. 68. 18. He ascended vp on high and led captiuitie captiue which is as properly by S. Paul fitted to the ascension of Christ Eph. 4. 8. as the other place Psal. 16. is by S. Peter to our Sauiours resurrection alluding saith this obiecter to the place of the Psalme where it is literally spoken of King Dauid himselfe to whome God gaue victorie and triumph ouer all his enemies but prophetically meant of Christ our Sauiour of whome Dauid was a type and figure Thus it falleth out according to the saying of the wise man he that diggeth a pit shall fall therein and he that rolleth a stone it shall returne vnto him this accusation of Iudaisme which as a stone he cast at the Replyer recoyling againe hath broken his owne pate 17. Slaunder According to your sense all that will follow Christ must suffer the death of the soule 3. b. p. 63. You deliuer for sound doctrine that Christ suffered that death which was threatened to Adam 3. b. p. 66. Your blasphemous paradox of the death of Christs soule 3. b. p. 83. Whereas the Replier doth directly affirme that Christ died not the death of the soule either by sinne or damnation Synops. p. 977. which are the two kinds onely of the proper dying of the soule And though a kinde of death may after some sort be affirmed of Christs soule in respect of the great anguish and torment which hee endured in his soule yet he wisheth that kinde of phrase as beeing not vsed in Scripture to be forborne and discontinued Synops. p. 978. The Replier here then is as farre from blasphemie as the Accuser is from honestie in charging him with such an apparant vntruth 18. Slaunder That he doth call againe out of hel Arrius Eunomius Apollinaris Lucianus to ioyne hands with you against Athanasius Epiphanius Fulgentius that he doth iustifie so pestilent and blasphemous heretiks against so reuerend so learned and holy fathers 3. b. p. 74. You reiected Athanasius before for a misconstruer of Scripture an establisher of error yea little better then a blasphemer euen because he proued against the Arrians that the word Spirit in this place of Peter signifieth the humane soule of Christ. 3. b. 125. 1. Contra. 1. What an absurd collection is this Athanasius Epiphanius did censure the Apollinarists out of this place of Peter proouing thence that Christ had an humane soule you therefore refusing their interpretation and collection out of this place condemne them and iustifie those hereticks 2. Augustine and Ambrose doe prooue the eternitie of Christ and coexistence with his father against the Arrians out of that place Ioh. 8. 2. which they read thus according to the vulgar latine the beginning who spake vnto you which reading indeed by the authoritie of these Fathers the Rhemists follow in their translation whereas the true reading according to the originall is Euen the same thing which I said vnto you from the beginning Doth it follow that they which refuse this their interpretation and application of this text against the Arrians doe therefore iustifie the Arrians against these godly Fathers 3. The Replier no where ascribeth blasphemie vnto Athanasius the slaunderer blasphemeth rather in so saying error he is not free from seeing he is cited by Bellarmine to prooue Christs descent to Limbus patrum which all Protestants hold to be an error howsoeuer this Antagonist staggereth at it 19. Slaunder That the flames and torments of hell fire are temporall and that eternall continuance in them is not of the essence and nature of hell torments 3. b. p. 77. If this false fellow had not hardened his face as the Adamant hee would not for shame haue thus obiected for the Replier in the first place quoted in the margen speaketh onely of the hell sorrows and torments which Christ suffered in his soule which were not eternall because of the dignitie of his person for these are the words concerning hell flames First in that they are not eternall in Christ the dignitiâ— of his person obtained for his temporall enduring of hell sorrow was as effectuall and meritorious as if they had beene perpetuall Here is no one word of the torments of hell in generall Againe in the other place these are the words The inseperable adiuncts and necessarie members of hell are these 1. the Place which is infernall 2. the Time which is perpetual 3. darkenes vnspeakable What fault can this quarrel-picker finde with these words what meane Logician knoweth not that the continuance of time is not of the essence of a thing but a necessarie adiacent or adiunct Yea these are his very owne words in an other place whose inseperable adiuncts speaking of hell are vtter darkenesse and endlesse paines 1. b. p. 3. Is he not now a wise man that reprooueth another for speaking in his owne words 20. Slaunder By which wicked and intolerable speech you send to hell not onely those which were
is to be expected from this man which carieth about a lie not onely in his heart but in his head And if this Chian coyner doe so forge with his hand and penne who can iudge his heart to be cleare But I will now open this pedlars packe and bring to view his sophisticate wares 1. Vntr. I doe maruell to see an Article of our Creede in so ill credit with Christians epist. dedicat p. 9. he laboureth in what he may to discreede my Christian and necessarie defence of this article of our Creede pref p. 5. Here are three vntruths couched together for what Christian denieth any article of the Creede his defence is neither Christian beeing full of vncharitable rayling and slaunders nor yet necessarie as though both other learned men had not written better of that argument and as if there were not many that could handle their penne with more wit and learning if he had held his peace 2. Vntr. In the propheticall testimonie of Dauid you will needes haue the word soule to signifie the humanitie of Christ and here that is in this place of Peter you will needes haue it to signifie the diuinitie 1. b. p. 24. Whereas in that place of Peter there is no mention made of the soule of Christ but of the spirit 3. Vntr. Bellarmine most truly defendeth with me against you c. that Christ after his death descended in soule to those places of hell where dolours and torments were and where the soules of sinners wont to be tortured 1. b. p. 35. where fowre vntruths are wrapped vp together 1. Bellarmine saith onely probabile est c. it was probable that Christ descended to all the places of hell whereas this fellow defendeth it to be an article of the Creede so to beleeue and consequently of necessitie therefore his Ringleader and ghostly father therein agreeth not with him 2. Those first are not Bellarmines but Augustines words dicit Augustinus Christum descendisse c. Augustine saith that Christ descended to those places of hell c. where dolours and torments were 3. These torments Bellarmine vnderstandeth to haue beene spoken of the purgatorie paines and not of the torments of hell restat vt loquatur de animabus quae adhuc luebant poenas purgatorias it remaineth that he Augustine speaketh of the soules which suffered purgatorie paines in fin capitis 4. The other words vbi solebant peccatorum animae torqueri where the soules of sinners were wont to be tortured are not Bellarmines but Fulgentius his words see the place 4. Vntr. Howsoeuer you bestirre your selues first to kill and crucifie the blessed soule of our Sauiour vpon the crosse 2. b. p. 35. A great slaunder with vntruth the Replyer is farre from that blasphemie to say that the soule of Christ can be killed 5. Vntr. Whose arguments are euery where seconded vrged and intruded by you 2. b. p. 44. whome with a scurrilous tearme he calleth one of his chiefest captaines and greatest masters p. 51. and euery where he calleth him the Replyers Patriarke 3. b. p. 3. and in diuers other places whereas the Replyer professeth ex animo that he knoweth not what arguments are vrged by him whome this forger noteth as hauing not read his defence and beside the Replyer did first els where write somewhat of this matter and therefore he was rather seconded by the other then did second him And how absurd and inconsequent a speech it is who seeth not to nickname him a Patriarke whome his cauilling spirit euery where inueigheth against as an impugner of the reuerend calling of Bishops 6. Vntr. That he verily beleeueth the Replyer to be one of those which writ the vnchristian letter to M. Hooker p. 49. whereas the Replyer knoweth not to this day who were the writers of that letter which he that calleth vnchristian beeing for the manner modest and for the points of doctrine there maintained sound seemeth rather himselfe to haue small Christianitie If his beleefe of Christs soule discent into hell be of no more certentie with him then this his beleefe as it may be thought verily it is not with him howsoeuer it is with others his faith and beleefe is very weake 7. Vntr. The auncient fathers doe interpret it of a mortall sinne not secretly but openly committed against others 2. b. p. 67. he meaneth that place Matth. 18. 15. If thy brother trespasse against thee c. In this indefinite speech he seemeth to meane all the auncient fathers whereas he alleadgeth not one to prooue this his assertion to be true But in deede in this his bold speech he bewraieth his ignorance mixed with vntruth for the first he is to be borne withall for his schoolemasters skill can not be supposed to be able to attaine vnto any great reading in the fathers But his other fault is not to be excused his ignorance in the fathers should haue made him doubtfull and scrupulous not bold and presumptuous but in him the prouerb is verified who so bold as blind bayard for here he hath with one breath vttered two vntruths first that the auncient fathers doe interpret this place of mortall sinne Origene I hope in his calender is one of the auncient fathers yet he expoundeth the place of light and small offences Qui in peccato levi correptus ter c. non se emendat nos quidem sic eum debemus habere tanquam publicanum c. He that in a light sinne beeing thrice reprooued c. doth not amend himselfe we must so hold him as a publicane Secondly that the fathers doe expound it of sinnes openly committed and therefore to be openly and publikly censured is an other vntruth For the author of the Homilies vpon Mathew fathered vpon Chrysostom writeth thus vpon this place Inter duos solummodo redargutionem fieri iubet c. He biddeth that the reprehension should be made betweene two alone lest by the testimony of the multitude c. he should shew himselfe more hard to bee corrected Likewise I suppose that Augustine will bee allowed for one of the Fathers but he giueth this interpretation Quid est in te peccauit tu scis quia peccauit quia enim secretum fuit quando in te peccauit secretum quaere cum corrigis quod in te peccauit What is this hath sinned against thee thou knowest that he hath sinned because therefore it was secret when he sinned against thee seeke him in secret when thou doest correct that which he hath sinned against thee Now then his owne words may bee returned vpon his owne head it was either great ignorance or grosse ouersight in you to say the ancient Fathers doe interpret it of mortall sinne openly committed 8. Vntruth That the Replyer presseth Carliles very reasons c. and acknowledgeth him for a sound interpreter p. 92. that he borroweth diuers things of
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
alleadge that impertinent addition much lesse in heauen where there is fulnes of ioy for the question is for whome those sorrowes were loosed I thinke he will not say for any that were in heauen there is then no iniurie done vnto the Confuter in the omitting of those words the Replyer should haue had more aduantage in setting them downe 2. The Obiector indeede first saith that the soule by a synecdoche is taken for me but the Confuter also hath these very words the state of the questiō is not whether the soule ioyned with the bodie may be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the whole man liuing in which sense it can not be denied but it is taken in diuers places of Scripture 1. b. p. 7. The Replyer then corrupteth not his wordes but the Refuter denieth his owne wordes and that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is onely vsed in that place by himselfe not by the Obiector 3. The whole sentence is this it is a generall axiome in Theologie among diuines that the words of holy writ are alwaies to be taken and vnderstood according to their natiue and proper signification but onely when there followeth some manifest and apparant absurdity what fraud now or legerdemain is there in omitting of the first clause which is but a flourish to the sentence no substantial part therof The Replyer was not bound to rehearse all his idle words but such as were materiall to the purpose But the legerdemaine that here is is found onely in the Confuter who falsely chargeth the Replyer for reiecting of this axiome whereas he admitteth it and vpon that ground prooueth these two points that the words sheol and nephesh doe sometime properly signifie the life and graue and if they did not yet by reason of the absurdities and inconueniences ensuing a figuratiue sense of those words should be acknowledged 4. To what purpose should the Replyer haue added that clause and thus auncient learned c. seeing the Refuter onely nameth certaine fathers in the margin vpon this point as Augustine Euthimius Damascen but produceth not their testimony for the hunts-man looseth but his labour in tracing the hare vnlesse he finde her sitting in her forme or can finde her out by her sent and as wearisome a thing it is to follow the fathers in the large field of their writings the particular places beeing not noted 5. True it is that the Confuter maketh a double Antithesis betweene Christ and Dauid a generall betweene their persons in these words thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell as he readeth and a particular in his incorruption resurrection and a scension which last the Refuter calleth the true antithesis The Replyer then had no reason to make mention of that generall antithesis 1. because hee speaketh of the true antithesis which the Refuter himselfe saith doth consist in those three points before mentioned and this he affirmeth not onely in his simple text but in his friuolous marginall notes that herein the true antithesis consisteth betweene Christ and Dauid in his incorruption resurrection ascension 2. Neither will his generall antithesis helpe him which hee saith is not betweene the soule of Christ and the soule of Dauid but betweene their persons 1. b. p. 19. But the Replyer giueth an instance in the soule of Dauid that it neither was at all in hell nor yet left there as likewise Christs was not and therefore therein the antithesis was not 6. The whole place is this if by flesh you vnderstand the humanitie and by spirit the diuinity you must read the text thus Christ was mortified in his humanity c. What needed here the needlesse repetition of this friuolous antecedent seeing the very summe and substance of the obiection is expressed the Replyer laboured for breuitie to comprehend much in few words not to speake much and say little as the Refuter doth who by loathsome prolixitie wearieth the Reader that hee should not see his vanity 7. The Refuter chargeth the obiector directly with two things together ignorantly to contradict himselfe and erroneously to confound the distinct persons of the Trinity and both these he shufleth vp together and doe not those words you turne the soule of Christ first into his diuinity c. in his collection as well shew a confounding of the persons as contradiction Therefore the Replyer summing the obiection together missed not an haires breadth of the Refuters meaning if hee vnderstood himselfe 8. And where doth the Replyer charge him so to say directly his words are these It is euident that the answerer more boldly then truely saith that by these words the lowest parts of the earth hell is alwaies signified for vnlesse he be able to prooue that he doth but trifle Is it not euident by these words that the Replyer chargeth the Refuter by a disiunctiue speech that either he must say so or he doth but trifle 9. Neither doth the Replyer affirme that hee saith so but whereas the Confuter setteth forth the greatnesse of the loue of the Prince in not disdaining in his owne person to go down into the prison where the captiues were the Replyer denieth as a consequent of this assertion that the descension to hell should more haue commended Christ loue then his death and passion for if the comparison be not betweene Christ death and descension it is impertinent 10. To what ende should the Replyer trouble himselfe and his Reader with setting downe all his friuolous words if there were any siluer or gold in them or matter of worth they might be deliuered by number weight but beeing as they are full of droffe I thought it best to refine them and not to take refuse and all I appeale vnto the indifferent Reader if the very sense of his long periods be not exactly kept though all his words are not giuen by tale And he himselfe is the man that mis-reporteth his owne words for whereas in the first booke hee said here is a plaine opposition of the personall motions of ascending and descending now he saith to mende the matter here is a plaine exposition c. 11. These are the Refuters owne words The conquest was not obtained and effected by his comming downe from heauen nor yet by his incarnation c. but by his passion on the crosse and his descension to hell wherein now are his words depraued doth not likewise the Replyer in propounding his obiection ioyne both his crosse and passion and his descending to hell together But seeing he ascribeth Christs victorie ioyntly to both these is hee not ashamed to say he doth not attribute this victory to Christs descension to hell but to his blessed death and passion And doth he not elsewhere say that our whole and entire freedome was wrought and effected by our Sauiour Christs descension into hell and not onely by his death and passion vpon the crosse 3. b. p. 143. There is then no other Harpy here but himselfe
such Ministers prouided in their roomes as heretofore for their zeale and diligence haue been excluded which haue store of milke in their breasts which seeke in peace and in a good conscience to nourish the people of God being like babes ready to starâ—e for want of such Nurses All these words inclosed as the Reader seeth are added by the Falsifier 5. The Falsifier thus forgeth that hee i. the King acknowledgeth the Romane Church to be our mother Church it is saith Limbomastix a foolish conceit and imagination 2. b. p. 28. The Replyer thus writeth a foolish conceit imagination it is that Rome should bee the mother Church and Nurserie of all the world where there is no reference at all to the Kings Maiestie neither are the words as hee repeateth them for it is one thing to say the Romane Church is our mother Church in respect of the antiquitie of the place because the Romane faith and religion before it yet declined did spread into these westerne parts another that it should be our mother Church as it now standeth corrupted in religioÌ„ it is one thing to say it is our mother Church another that is the mother Church and nurserie of all the world 6. The Confuter thus forgeth doth it follow because I say it ought to be translated to the spirits which were not which are in prison that therefore they were in hell and are not I deny your argument 2. b. p. 39. whereas hee leaueth out this other part of the Replyers argument or else hee striueth about words 7. He imagineth the Replyer to say that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell for others detained in hell and that to thinke otherwise is very absurd 2. b. p. 42. whereas the Replyer so affirmeth not out of his owne iudgement but vrgeth the Confuter with that inconuenience and concerning the inference of absurditie these are his words and not as he repeateth them I thinke he is not so absurd as to thinke he loosed them for himselfe who was neuer in the sorrowes of hell after his death 2. b. p. 36. 8. You affirme some Popish bookes to haue beene written by Protestants whereas these are the Replyers words There are bookes abroad maintaining offensiue doctrine too much declining to Poperie 9. The Replyer saith Durand maintaineth contrary to the opinion of the rest but he thus falsifieth the place Durand maintaineth an opinion contrary to all the rest where all is added the order of the words inuerted 10. You graunt that these two particles not and neither doe shew a difference of the clauses and a diuersitie of matter whereas these are the words of the Replyer here these two negatiues lo lo are vsed yet there is no great difference in these two clauses c. nor they shew no great diuersity of matter he setteth it downe negatiuely the other repeateth his words affirmatiuely 11. His glory victory and triumph remained vnaccoÌ„plished this word vnaccomplished is added of his owne 12. That Christ hath 2. kingdoms belonging vnto him one as he is God and another as he is God man but these are the Replyers words that kingdome whereof Christ promiseth to make the thiefe partaker is not that kingdome which belongeth to him as God 13. The sorrowes of hell or death had fastned on Christ but the Replyer hath the sorrows of death and the graue 14. You most grossely ouerreach your selfe so prophanly and vnchristianly to censure theâ— i. the fathers to prepare the way to a most grosse heresieâ— whereas these are the Replyers words rather this sense of the place to interpret it of the descending of Christ to hell where the disobedient persons and vnbeleeuers were giueth way and openeth a most wide gap to a most grosse heresie He doth not simply charge the fathers or any other but speaketh onely by way of comparison 15. Your bookes saith the falsifier should be in so base esteeme of all hands that many would not vouchsafe the reading of them c. nay that the labours of your sacred wit were onely vsed to beautifie walls whereas the Replyer onely hath bookes were growne into such small request c. and the labours of sacred witts â—he speaketh not of his owne bookes for he thanked be God had no cause to complaine of his owne which he doubteth not but will liue in the memorie of the world more yeares then his shall moneths or daies 16. The Replyers words are these this phrase is neither straunge nor vnusuall to say that Christ went in spirit or the spirit of Christ went seeing Noah went in the spirit of Christ which the Confuter corrupteth thus Christ went in spirit that is saith he Noah went in the spirit of Christ and yet he denieth that he corrupteth the words whereas he leaueth out this clause altogether or the spirit of Christ went which the Replyer insisteâ—â— vpon making these in a manner all one that Christs spirit preached in Noe and Noe preached in the spirit of Christ. 17. It followeth not say you Christ died not the death of the soule by sinne or damnation Ergo he can not be said to haue died in soule But the Replyer hath can not be said any waies to haue died in soule which words any waies he clippeth off 18. He chargeth the Replyer to say that many of the auncient fathers affirme that Christ was crucified in his soule where he clippeth off the Replyers words which immediatly follow that he gaue his soule a price of redemption for our soule So he saith not that many of the fathers affirme the first wherein Ambrose onely is produced but both must be put together 19. The Replyer saith this article of the present tense beeing here to be supplied and the sense not enforcing a change of time doth rather giue to be translated are then were The falsifier clippeth off all that clause and the sense not enforcing a chaunge of time and repeateth the words thus because you make a difference betweene the sense of a word expressed and a word supplied not making any mention of the enforcing of the sense and therefore all these 14. examples produced by him wherein the necessitie of the sense enforceth a participle of the time past as Matth. 1. 36. 2. 25. 5. 40. They that were with him and so in the rest are impertinent for the sense doth necessarily giue that it must be vnderstood of the time past 20. The Replyers words stand thus doth he thinke that these disobedient spirits were in hell and are not if he doe not he trifleth for the word were will helpe him nothing Now commeth this deceitfull forger and thus turneth the sentence whosoeuer thinketh that those disobedient spirits were in hell but are not is a trifler whereas the Replyer saith the contrarie if he doe not thinke so he is a trifler 21.