that Christ offered himselfe Hebr. 7. 17. and thorough the eternall spirit he offered himselfe chap. 9. 14. which Ambrose vnderstandeth of the holy Ghost Say also that the Apostles ignorantly confound the diuine nature of Christ and the holy Ghost But that it may fully appeare who is both the ignorant and errant too to vse his owne words what a dangerous and suspitious speach is this taking the word spirit for soule I might haue diuided Christ and his spirit without all suspition of ignorance and his imputation of error 3. b. p. 97. yea and dare any presumptuous spirit diuide that which God hath inseperably vnited the deitie and humanitie to the which belongeth the soule 〈◊〉 spirit in one person in Christ. Our Sauiour said vpon an other occasion Let none put asunder that which God hath coupled together Math. 19. 6. which rule holdeth in generall that it is no lesse presumption to diuide the humane soule from the person of Christ which is hypostatically vnited for euer I may here say with Hierome Nescio quid veneni in syllabis latet I can not tell what poison lieth hid vnder these syllables But to returne his owne words it may be that these things haue slipt from you thorough heate of contention rather then perswasion of heart 2. b. p. 207. yet I say againe with Hierome Non bonae suspicionis est cum in eodem sensu verba dissentiunt it is no good suspition when in the saâ—e sense the words doe dissent If he hold the hypostaticall vnion of Christs soule and bodie with his Godhead why doth he in words diuide them 4. Concerning the fourth position which he calleth straunge the words of the Replyer are these the ioyes of heauen may be truly though not fully felt in this life whosoeuer counteth this position strange sheweth himselfe indeede a straunge fellow and a straunger from such true feeling of heauenly ioyes What thinketh he of those three Peter Stephen and Paul whome Ambrose giueth in instance Petrus in monte Domini aspiciens gloriam Christi noluit descendere Stephanus cum Iesum vidit lapidari non formidabat Paulus raptus in Paradisum vsum proprij non sentiebat corporis Peter in the mount of the Lord beholding the glorie of Christ would not descend Stephen when he sawe Iesus feared not to be stoned Paul being rapt into Paradise did not perceiue the vse of his owne body Thinketh hee that they euen in earth felt not the true ioyes of heauen though not so fully as they enioy it now Yea this wrangler himselfe confesseth vpon these words of Peter with our eies we saw his maiestie that they enioyed the sight of his glorious maiestie in this life Could he then be so forgetfull as to call it a straunge position that the true ioy 〈◊〉 heauen may be felt in this life is it not a true heauenly ioy to see the Maiestie of God how say you Sir Medler speake out is it not your owne mouth doth condemne you What if the Replyer had said with Augustine that heauen may be in this life in the soule of the righteous or with Ambrose that the spirit of grace maketh the regenerate heauenly and celestiall he would also haue thought in his vnheauenly blindnes that he had spoken straungely also for where heauen is and men are become heauenly what should let them but to haue a feeling also of heauenly ioyes The Recrimination Now let vs turne aside a little to take a view of his blinde errors 1. He holdeth that the originall text of the Scriptures is corrupt in these words And say we must goe to the originals I will runne with you to those fountaines whose pure waters if the foule feete and vncleane hands of some had not corrupted c. there could neuer be so many grosse and filthie errors drawne and deriued thence 1. b. p. 26. 2. The Syriake together with the Greeke he holdeth to be the originall tongues of the new Testament ibid. whereas there can be but one originall tongue to the rest if hee graunt the Greeke be the true originall then the Syriake is not which was translated out of the Greeke So in an other place he reprooueth the Replyer for reiecting the Syriake as contrarie to the originall 3. He preferreth the Latine text before the originall Greeke Act. 2. 24. reading the sorrowes of hell for the sorrowes of death as the originall Greeke hath saying I see no cause why I should not approoue the old Latine text 3. b. p. 30. so also 2. b. p. 154. shewing hereby of what house he commeth and whose disciple he is iustifying the Latine translation against the originall of the which further he thus vnreuerently writeth As for that vulgar Greeke now extant whether it be the true Authentike originall or no is a question because it is neither the most auncient nor that which was most vsed in the Auncient Church and beside that it is not free from corruption in diuers places 3. b. p. 14. What could be spoken more to the derogation of the authoritie of the Scriptures then thus to abase that originall wherein the Apostles themselues did write And in this prophane and little better then Popish assertion he hath vttered three great vntruths that the Greeke originall which we now haue is not the most auncient that it was not most vsed in former times that it is in some places corrupt none of these slaunders of the text shall he euer be able to iustifie 4. He calleth the booke of Ecclesiasticus which the Church of England counteth among the Apocryphall bookes the word of God 2. b. p. 70. and in the next page before he calleth it Scripture I thinke it fit to ioyne Scripture with Scripture making mention of Ecclesiasticus And that we may see he is no chaungeling in an other place hauing alleadged a place out of Ecclesiasticus he addeth by which Scriptures it is plaine 2. b. p. 136. Such a diuine as he is such is his Scripture how audacious is this fellow that contrarie to the iudgement and determination of this Church dare make Ecclesiasticus a booke of Canonicall Scripture 5. The question beeing demanded why the soule may not be taken for his that is Christs whole person as well as holy is vnderstood to be his flesh answere is made because cause it that is the soule is no part at all of the whole person while it remaineth seperated from the body for of these two the whole person consisteth when they are ioyned together liuing c. 2. b. p. 162. Where seeing the demaund is made concerning Christs soule the answere containeth two manifest errors or rather heresies the one that the soule seperated from the body was no part of Christs person which sauoureth strongly of the heresie of the Apollinarists that made the man Christ without a soule the other that the soule
in affliction and sorrow 8. Saint Peter saith thus searching when or what time the spirit which testified before of Christ which was in them should declare the sufferings which should come vnto Christ c. 1. Pet. 1. 11. he clippeth the text saying the spirit prophecied before of the afflictions of Christ. 9. For wisdome calleth or preacheth in the high waies Prou. 1. 21. he readeth wisdome is preached c. see before Imput 5. Ac. 3. 10. This Iesus hath God raised vp whereof we are all witnesses Act. 2. 32. he corruptly addeth to the text this is that Iesus whom God hath raised vp from death and hell whereof we are all witnesses 11. He quoteth for that place before recited Act. 1. 9. where there is no such thing 12. Lest I sleepe in death Psal. 13. 4. lest at any time I sleepe in death saith he where he addeth at any time 13. Thou art Lord alone thou hast made heauen and the heauen of heauens Nehem. 9. 6. but he readeth Thou Lord hast made heauen and the heauen of heauens 14. Againe in the same place thou preseruest them all and the host of heauen worshippeth thee but he addeth thou preseruest them all in their beeing and hee leaueth out that which followeth 15. Hee profanely scoffeth at Scripture whereas that place of Peter is alleadged Noe the preacher of iustice hee scoffingly inferreth Noe is no sooner formed a Carpenter but he is presently a reformed preacher 16. Whereas Saint Peter saith Noe the eight a preacher of righteousnesse 2. Pet. 2. 5. hee clippeth the words Noe the preacher of iustice ibid. 17. He shall not preserue the vngodly Iob. 36. 5. but hee readeth thus thou wilt not preserue changing the tence 3. b. p. 86. 18. Saint Iames thus writeth to receiue with meekenes the word that is graffed in you which is able to saue your soules Iam. 1. 21. he audaciously changeth the person reading thus to receiue with meekenesse the word engraffed in them which is able to saue their soules 19. Againe the same Apostle Let him knowe that hee which hath conuerted a sinner from the error of his way shall saue a soule c. Iam. 5. 20. but he thus mangleth this place He that conuerteth a sinner from the way wherein he erreth shall saue his soule c. In this one place he clippeth off the first clause Let him know hee changeth the tence conuerteth for hath conuerted and addeth these wordes wherein and his 20. Our Sauiours words are when they lead you and deliuer you vp take ye no thought afore neither premeditate what ye shall say but whatsoeuer shall be giuen vnto you c. Mark 13. 11. he thus boldly corrupteth the text when yee shall be lead deliuered vp into their haÌ„ds take no thought what to speake but that which shall be giuen c. 3. b. p. 104. where he both changeth the actiue for the passiue for they shall lead and deliuer he readeth shall be lead and deliuered he addeth into their hands and clippeth away neither premeditate 21. Reproouing the Obiecter for leauing out the word mourning in citing that place Gen. 35. 37. he himselfe committeth the very same fault the text truly alleadged saith he is this I will goe downe c. to my sonne mourning where he leaueth out into the graue 22. Exod. 1. 22. the text is Pharaoh charged all his people he readeth all the people leauing out his 1. b. p. 30. 23. Esech 13. 19. the text is will yee pellute me among my people for handfuls of barlie and peâ—ces of bread c. where he leaueth out all the last enclosed clause 24. Esech 18. 27. the text is when the wicked turneth away from his wickednesse which he hath 〈◊〉 and doth that which is lawfull and right hee in alleadging this Scripture leaueth out which he hath committed ibid. 25. Numb 22. 33. the Angel saith thus And the Asse saw me and turned from me now three times or else if shee had not turned from me surely I had 〈…〉 c. he clippeth the text thus There 〈…〉 turned from mee now the third time and if shee had not I had surely slaine thee c. where these words enclosed turned from me in the second place are omitted and he putteth the third time for three times ibid. 26. Beside all these places are falsly quoted as Esech 13. 18. for 19. Esech 18. 72. for 27. Psal 41. 12. for 41. 2. Numb 22. 32. for 33. Now concerning this vnfaithfull and fraudulent handling of Scripture I will not giue such an harsh sentence as Ambrose doth vpon some Qui Scriptur 〈◊〉 fidem destrâ—â—t destruitur ipse hee that destroyeth the faith of Scripture shall be destroyed himselfe as it is said hee that remâ—â—ueth an hedge a serpent shall 〈◊〉 him or as hee â—â—â—â—ureth them that had rased out certaine words of Scripture Illa litura de libro vitae nomina vestra delet that blot doth blot your names out of the booke of life But yet that saying of Epiphanius may be applyed vnto him non it a interpretantur vt scripta sunt sed id volunt significare quod ipsi sentiunt they do not so interprete Scripture as it is written but they will haue it to signifie as they imagine Of this number is the Confuter who by this time may perceiue his owne fault which he hath not healed by supposing another to bee like faultie with himselfe for it is a good saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that no man healeth one euill by another neither is one mans fault redressed by anothers But it is nowe high time to leaue weeding anothers ground time is better spent in setting of good plants then in weeding of thistles I passed saith the wise man by the field of the slouthfull and by the vineyard of the man destitute of vnderstanding and lâ—e it was all growen ouer with thornes c. I looked vpon it and receiued instruction And this instruction may we receiue by viewing this thornie field wherein this simple workeman hath solaced himselfe that such badde tillage sheweth the husbandman not to be very good It is odious and a thanklesse office still to be scoring out mens faults therefore I say with Tullie against Sallust finem dicendi faciaÌ„ saepius enim vidi grauius eos offendere animos aeuditorum qui aliena vitia apertè dixerunt quaÌ„ eos qui crimen coÌ„miserunt mihi ratio habeÌ„da est non quid Sallustius merito debeat audire sed vt ea dicam si qua ego honeste effari possum I wil make an ende of speaking for I haue often seene those more grieuously to offend the hearers minds which openly told of others faults then they which committed them therefore I must haue regard not what hee is worthy to heare but what I may with credit speake Diogenes beeing reprooued
his glorie victorie and triumph onely remained so that he fraudulently putteth in vnaccomplished of his owne The Replyer saith that Christ triumphed ouer death hell and the deuill vpon the Crosse that is the victorie and triumph was then obtained and yet his glorie victorie and triumph remained that is it was not yet manifested and published for this word triumph though it properly signifie the publike solemnitie that followeth after the victorie as the Romane Captaines had their honourable triumphs publikely solemnized in the Citie after their victorious returne in which sense he that so triumphed was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a triumphant man yet in Scripture they are saide to triumph that doe ouercome as Paul saith Thankes be to God which alwaies makes vs to triumph in Christ where the same word is vsed and yet the glorious and proper triumph of the Saints is in the kingdome of heauen As Christ now triumpheth in his members in preuailing and ouercomming so he triumphed vpon the Crosse in obtaining the victorie And if any derogate and detract from the blessed death and passion of Christ it is this Contradicter and detracter who a little before said that Christs conquest vpon the Crosse was openly an ouerthrow and therefore no triumph And againe If he triumphed on the Crosse it was a triumph before the victorie 2. b. p. 188. 9. And are these speeches to make request to Christ as man and as the Messiah contrarie is there in them any contrarietie at all are the manhoode of Christ and the person of the Messiah contrarie or when it is said as man is he so absurd to thinke that Christ is considered as man without his Godhead and not as vnited with it in the person of the Messiah or when himselfe saith that the theefe made request to him as God doth he meane his Godhead without his humanitie And is S. Paul contrarie to himselfe when not in diuers but in one and the same place he ioyneth both together there is one God and Mediatour betweene God and man the man Iesus Christ that is the Messiah Doth not the Replyer in direct wordes expound himselfe that these wordes must not be vnderstood of the presence of Christ in heauen in respect of his Godhead onely but of his whole person as the Mediatour But it may be he tooke this exception because he enclineth to his cousin germanes opinion that Christ exercised his mediatourship as man onely not as both God and man and therfore noteth this as a contradiction and contrarietie 10. It is not the former sect which is the 16. but the 15. sect where the Replyer saith wee are said to be with him as the Messiah and doth hee not say the selfe same thing here for hauing rehearsed those words of our Sauiour Ioh. 17. I will that they which thou hast giuen mee be with me where I am and then follow the other words that they may behold my glory which thou hast giuen me he addeth in very direct words Doth hee not here speake also of that glorie which was giuen him as the Messiah How could then this humorous Contradicter so much as dream of any contradiction here but it seemeth his wits went a woole-gathering when he noted this for in the next sentence before in stead of confuting the Replyers reasons he repeateth and confirmeth them for whereas the Replyer brought this as one if Christ saying where I am speake of his Godhead his request was euen then fulfilled for his Apostles were with him then present as God 3. b. p. 5. This cōfused Confuter steppeth forth and saith secondly if they were with him as God then was Christs prayer vnto his father in vaine to graunt them that which they presently enioyed 3. b. p. 9. Is not this the very same reason vrged before by the Replyer to proue that Christ speaketh not of his Apostles being with him as God for could he not see how vpon his words it may be assumed but Christs prayer vnto his father was not in vaine therefore hee prayeth not they should be with him as God And thus hee hampereth himselfe and woundeth his owne cause 11. It is vntrue that either in that place Limbom p. 9. or in any other the Replyer acknowledgeth sorrowes of hell Act. 2. 24. to be the true reading he only thus saith the hell that Christ went vnto he loosed the sorrowes of Act. 2. 24. which place hee citeth not for the name of hell but for loosing of the sorrowes because euen in the Confuters opinion that which is called hell v. 27. is named death v. 24. And the Replyer is so farre in that place from iustifying that reading of hell in the 24. verse that he would convince by this reason that hell is not meant no not in the 27. verse because it would then follow that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell there which had seized vpon him As vntrue it is that the Replyer in that place goeth about to prooue that Christ suffered the sorrowes of hell in his sense but rather declineth it as an absurdity But in another place he inferreth that conclusion grounding his argument vpon the latine text which the Romanists make their onely authentike translation and therefore it is a good text against them 12. To say that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell the place of the damned for himselfe the Replyer counteth it absurd and yet to say that the sorrowes of death which Saint Peter speaketh of and Bellarmine readeth hell were not loosed for Christ is contrary to the text as there he sheweth by diuers reasons hereupon no contradiction can be inferred but this followeth that the death which Saint Peter speaketh of the sorrowes whereof were loosed for Christ cannot be vnderstood of hell 13. That it is all one to say that the soule is vnder the sorrowes of hell and doth suffer them beeing full of sense and feeling and yet that it is not all one for the body in the graue to be vnder the sorrowes and bands of death and to feele or suffer them because it is senslesse implyeth no contradiction 14. Not to be left in a place the word beeing taken properly for to be forsaken implyeth a being first in the place and in that sense the Replyer thus reasoned Christ was not left or forsaken in hell ergo he was in hell but in this other place by not leauing he vnderstandeth not beeing but the not beeing or leauing of the soule in hell c. And so is the word sometime vsed as Ioh. 14. 17. I will not leaue you comfortlesse that is you shall not bee comfortlesse for otherwise in the other sense of this word it might be inferred Ergo they were comfortlesse but were not so left or remained And so in a certaine place Origen taketh the not leauing in hell for the not beeing in hell sine dubio neque nostras animas derelinquet in
sense of the ioyes thereof 11. That sheol was alwaies taken to signifie hell onely 2. b. p. 119. and yet els where he confesseth that the same word Psal. 6. 5. translated the pit is taken for the graue the sequele of temporall death 1. b. p. 12. 12. He readeth thus Exod. 21. 23. He shall pay life for life not soule for soule 2. b. p. 14. the Hebrew word is nephesh which in an other place he saith was alwaies taken onely to signifie soule 2. b. p. 119. 13. In that the Replyer saith that the glorie victorie and triumph remained that is the manifestation and accomplishment of it after Christ had said Consummatum est it is finished this Contradicter saith you doe greatly derogate from his blessed death and passion for if he obtained not victorie ouer those enemies vpon the crosse then are they yet vnconquered and consequently mans redemption vnperformed 2. b. p. 189. And yet a little before he denieth that Christ triumphed vpon the crosse for that conquest saith he vpon the crosse was openly an ouerthrow and againe so that if Christ triumphed vpon the crosse as you say he did it was according to the prouerb a triumph before victorie ibid. p. 188. who could imagine that he should haue such a sihttle and crazie braine as in the compasse of tenne lines to affirme and denie the same thing 14. It is the Obiecter not I that so taketh it that is the soule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the whole person and yet a little after forgetting himselfe he saith I graunt that the word soule beeing ioyned with the bodie may be taken for the whole person 15. Whereas the Replyer vnderstandeth those words of S. Peter that Christ shall be the Iudge of the quicke and the dead 1. Pet. 4. 5. of those which are now dead but shall be aliue at the comming of Christ he thus friuolously obiecteth that then we must correct an article of the Creede and say that Christ shall come to iudge the quicke and not the dead 3. b. p. 71. And yet afterward within two lines he saith as the dead shall be liuing then so the liuing now shall be then dead where beside his absurditie and contradiction to Scripture that the liuing now shall be dead at Christs comming whereas the Apostle saith that the liuing shall not preuent them that sleepe c. and the dead in Christ shall rise first he crosseth himselfe in altering and chaunging the article after his owne fancie that Christ shall be Iudge of the dead and quicke 16. He saith that these words of Origene doe they not read what is written of their hope that perished in the flood 1. Pet. 3. can not conuince him of that most grosse heresie recorded by Augustine that some thought by Christs descending to hell the incredulous persons beleeued and all were deliuered thence 2. b. p. 76. And yet he himselfe chargeth Origene in the next page following with a more grosse heresie that he thought the very damned in the ende should be saued themselues ibid. p. 77. 17. He would confute the Replyer for defending that the true ioyes of heauen may be perceiued in this life 2. b. p. 207. and yet he saith that Paul beeing rapt into the third heauen beheld the very essence of God 2. b. p. 205. I hope then he saw the true ioyes of heauen and S. Paul at that time had not resigned this life 18. The Saints shall not see God so perfectly as he is visible in himselfe 2. b. p. 204. And yet afterward he saith they shall see him in plaine manner and in perfect measure ibid. p. 205. thus they shall see him perfectly and yet not perfectly 19. None of his elect are with him during their aboad in this life otherwise what meant S. Paul to say I desire to be dissolued and to be with Christ if he were with him without dissolution c. 3. b. p. 4. yet in an other place he misliketh that saying of the Replyer that Christ is saide to be with vs in respect of his Godhead c. but we are said to be with him as our Messiah as S. Paul saith I desire to be dissolued and be with Christ he calleth this assertion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. b. p. 198. and yet in the other place approoueth the same himselfe 20. What shall the simple and vnlearned doe when they heare those Bibles which haue beene allowed by publike authoritie of this Realme and openly read in our Churches these 46. yeares to be condemned by some Ministers and Preachers among vs for false erroneous and iniurious to the word of God c. 3. b. p. 46. And yet he himselfe chargeth the same Bibles with errors in the text and with blasphemie in some of the annotations 3. b. p. 49. 21. He saith that Noe was no preacher at all in any other sense then all other godly men are namely in doing the works of righteousnes 3. b. p. 109. and yet a little after it followeth with this construction the Latine word praeco vsed by all translatours in that place doth most fitly agree which doth properly signifie him that maketh open proclamation of a thing as an Herauld or trumpetter as Alexander called Homer the trumpetter or sounder out of Achilles prowes ibid. p. 110. If Noe were in this sense a proclaymer of righteousnes as Homer was of Achilles valure it was not a mute and dumbe but a vocall proclayming and preaching thereof which he denied before 22. You will neuer prooue that there was any other descension but this he meaneth the descension into hell whereof he spake immediatly before 3. b. p. 155. And yet afterward he confesseth two descensions descensions of Christ in the new Testament are none mentioned sauing these two onely ibid. p. 157. he meaneth the descension from heauen to earth and from thence to hell 23. Those wordes of the Prophet in thy presence is fulnes of ioy Psal. 16. 11. are not meant of the Godhead of Christ but of the glorie which his manhood was to receiue at his resurrection 3. b. p. 165. here he confesseth there was glorie due vnto Christ as God and glorie which he receiued as man but els where he denieth that there was one kingdome that is glorie due vnto Christ as God an other as he was the Messiah 2. b. p. 201. 24. He saith that there is a plaine distinction between the holy Ghost c. and Christ not in person onely c. but in nature also I meane his diuine nature 3. b. p. 95. but afterward he better remembring himselfe saith I distinguish onely the person of Christ from the holy Ghost ibid. p. 96. 25. He saith mans perfect redemption was purchased by his precious death vpon the crosse 3. b. p. 155. And yet in an other place he thus writeth our whole and
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
that scratcheth his face with his owne nailes hee neede to feare no other talents but his owne to vse the Orators words Num expectas dum te stimulis fodiam haec te si vllam partem habes sensus lacerat haec cruentat oratio Doe you looke while I should gore you with pricks if you haue any part of sense this your owne speach doth teare and wound you 12. The very words of the Refuter are these His ascending beeing but one exaltation prooueth inuincibly that this descending was but one humiliation 1. b. p. 58. whence the Replyer inferreth that hee maketh but one degree of Christs exaltation The first is his owne assertion without any mis-reporting the other is a collection vpon his words without any wresting for in saying his ascending was but one exaltation he saith in effect that his exaltation was but one namely his ascending and so consequently there should be but one degree of his exaltation And as by descending he vnderstandeth generally the comming downe of Christ from heauen vnto the lowest point of his humiliation and not for the locall descension onely to hell as appeareth by that opinion which he confuteth of them which vnderstand Christs descending into the lower parts of the earth of his descending from heauen to earth so by ascending in this opposition hee must vnderstand the whole returne of Christ from the lowest point of his humiliation vnto heauen againe for that there were not many debasements in Christs descension is prooued saith hee by the contrary motion of ascending which was but one exaltation c. who seeth not by this inference that as hee denieth many debasements i. degrees of Christs humiliation so hee denieth many degrees in his exaltation 13. The Refuters words at large are these The article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 added here to the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not alwaies expressed in the Greeke but commonly when it is put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to particularize some singular or speciall thing seemeth here plainely to distinguish the parts of the earth in generall from those notorious infernall parts 1. b. p. 58. Now the Replyer abridgeth the obiection thus the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 added here doth particularize and distinguish c. Is here any vntruth seeing these are his owne words seemeth here plainely to distinguish what great difference is there betweene distinguishing and seeming plainly to distinguish that tearme of affirming precisely is his owne and not the Replyers 14. The Refuters words are these his ascending being but one exaltation prooueth inuincibly that this descending in like manner was but one humiliation 1. b. p. 58. The Replyer reporteth them thus his ascension being but one exaltation prooueth that his descending likewise was but one humiliation for ascending hee hath ascension for in like manner likewise and leaueth out inuincibly the omitting whereof if it make any thing at all is against the Replyer Is he not ashamed now to crie out that his words are misreported Now this false accuser of falsification what hath hee gained but the reproach of a false witnesse the Scripture saith that a faithfull witnesse will not lie if hee had dealt faithfully he would not haue forged such an vntrue vniust accusation Hierom well saith Testimonium pro se nec Catoni creditum that no not Cato was credited in his owne testimonie And this Refuters accusation hath no other ground but his owne surmise and bare word He said well that beeing asked what aduantage came by a lie to him that made it that they shall not bee beleeued when they speake the truth And I doubt not but this fabler shall finde the lesse credit with euery iudicious Reader hauing so often failed in his accusations There was an a uncient lawe among the Romanes that hee which tolde a false testimonie should bee cast in bonds with him against whome hee spake it And this rewarde shall this false witnesse haue that hee himselfe as bounde and intangled with his owne false accufation and slaunder shall bee deliuered vp to the partie innocent and accused as shall now appeare in the returning vpon his head his owne suggestion The Recrimination 1. This falsifier himselfe thus mis-reporteth the Replyers words and peruerteth his meaning that wheras he thus writeth Some would haue all purged not the superfluous humors onely but some profitable parts c. And then a little after it followeth But the better sort desire neither with Herodicus nothing to be purged nor with Heraclitus all things to be euacuated and purged but rather approoue Hippocrates methode that what is euill may be purged the rest to be comforted and strengthened And afterward alleadging that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 5. 7. concerning the old leauen and new lumpe he addeth we would not the leauen lump of dough and all to be cast out but the lumpe to be renewed the old sower leauen to be reiected Now see how this peruerse mis-construer plaieth his part But the better sort he meaneth himselfe and such other thinke that there be superfluous humors which haue neede to bee purged that the new sweete lumpe of their laicall prosbyterie hath need to be renewed and the olde sower leauen of our Ecclesiasticall policie to be reiected 2. b. p. 20. where beside the addition of all those words inclosed in the parenthesis he chargeth the Replyer against his owne conscience and contrary to the words of the Replyer as beeing an enemie to the Ecclesiasticall policie who a little before in the same place maketh the calling of reuerend pastors and Bishops in it self one of the profitable parts of the church 2. Whereas the Replyer thus writeth Wee reioyce to heare of your honours Christian consultation for the propagating of the gospel in planting euery where of good pastors that the people may be brought from darkenesse of their ignorance to the light of knowledge that they bee no longer children in vnderstanding and as babes and sucklings in religion Epist. dedicat to Limbom He thus corrupteth his words Our people of England saith hee for want of good Pastors such as himselfe liue in darkenes and ignorance are children in vnderstanding c. 2. b. p. 21. making the Replyer to speake of the people of England in generall whereas he meaneth onely such places where good Pastors are wanting and the word not preached where the people cannot choose but bee ignorant and as children in vnderstanding as God he knoweth But it seemeth that this enemie to Gods glory the peoples saluation could be contented they should liue in ignorance still 3. The Replyer readeth But we doe all hope that this your honourable Session shall rather deserue to be so called the Falsifier addeth But we the wel-willers of Sion doe all hope c. 2. b. p. 24. 4. Thus also he maketh the Replyer to write that all Ministers that cannot preach may bee remooued and
Church c. but that all people and nations whatsoeuer without difference of place or distinction of persons should be gathered vnto his Church He would be asked whence he hath this application for Origene onely alleadgeth the prophesie of Isai and the vision of Peter without any speciall application in that place And if nations that were at enmitie and of diuers religions shall be conteined in this sheete of faith much more they which are of one faith differing onely in some priuate opinions But he is the man that clippeth and corrupteth Origene for beside that he translateth ill as turning the passiue into the actiue quae alia nobis figura servanda est what other figure should we obserue for what other figure is to be obserued of vs which I would not note but that he is so captious in other places to finde fault with the Replyer in the like to shew his grammer learning he also englisheth simul ire ad pascua to feede together which signifieth to goe together to the pastures He leaueth out also a whole clause eorumque foetus simul paleis vesci and their young shall eate straw together 2. Had malice so blinded him that the Replyer translating in the tree of the crosse he could not consider that it might be the Printers fault to set cum ligno for in ligno especially seeing in the printed copies of Origene it is in ligno as in an other place he saith principatus traducti triumphati in ligno the principalities were traduced and triumphed vpon in the tree tract 3. in Matth. 2. Origenes words are these inveniemus quia nunquaÌ„ fere in sanctum quis locum descendisse legitur we shall find that neuer almost any is said to descend into an holy place hereupon he taketh this exception because this word fere almost is omitted by the Replyer A doubtie exception sure But is Origenes sense any thing chaunged by the omission of that word nay is not his sense made more full to the Replyers purpose by the supplying of that word for is he so ignorant in his owne grammar learning that he knoweth not that fere is sometime a word of vniuersalitie if he had consulted with Calepine he could haue told him that fere is otherwhile taken for semper for alwaies as he sheweth out of Cicero And that it is so taken here it may be gathered by the sentence going before observandâ—m est c. quomodo in singulis quibusque locis ascendere dicatur descendere it must be obserued how in euery place it is said to ascend and descend so then in the next sentence fere almost is taken in the same sense that quibusque euerie is in the former 4. The place cited out of Origene is this si quiâ— mente cogitatione descendit in abyssum c. if any man in thought and minde descend to the deepe thinking Christ there onely to be contained as though it were all one and alike to call him from the dead c. Origene he saith is here abused because he speaketh not of Christs humanitie but of his diuinitie his words also are clipped First the Replyer onely alleadgeth Origene in this place for the meaning of this phrase to descend to the deepe which he sheweth out of his owne words quasi simile sit revocare Christum à mortuis ita subiungit hoc est Christum reducere à mortuis as though it were alike to call Christ from the dead he adioyneth thus that is to bring Christ againe from the dead He euidently sheweth that to descend into the deepe and to bring Christ from the dead is in a manner all one whether he speake of the diuinitie or humanitie of Christ concerneth not the vse of the phrase Secondly the Replier leaueth out the latter clause ita subiungit c. partly because the same in effect was saide in the former wordes partly supplying it by an c. for breuitie sake which clause beeing added maketh the Replyers collection more strong and full and therefore it was not omitted of any fraud Thirdly he himselfe is the man that corrupteth Origene for whereas Origene thus rehearseth the Apostle therefore the iustine which is of faith saith thus say not in thine heart who shall ascend into heauen he turneth it say not in thine heart who shall descend into the deepe thus corrupteth both the Apostle Orig. that citeth him 5. Origene is alleadged by the Replyer to vnderstand Christs descension sometime of his comming downe from heauen to the lower parts in these words Paul us quoniam descensionis Christi mysterium praedicat c. Paul because he preacheth the mysterie of Christs descension into hell he named the deepe as of one comming from the higher to the lower parts c. Could any thing be spoken more plainly what vnshamefast dealing then is this or what meaneth this bold fac'd fellow to say that Origene speaketh not a word of any of the former fictions he meaneth belike the mysterie of Christs descension whereof the Replyer entreateth but onely of the length breadth and height of Noahs Arke And that by the higher parts he vnderstandeth the heauenly by the lower the earthly which is an other thing that he cauilleth at it is euident by the words following in the next sentence de terrenis humilibus ad coelestia excelsa conscenditur froÌ„ terrene and low things it is ascended to heauenly and high He himselfe also clippeth Origen here for whereas Origen thus reciteth the Apostle vt sciat is quae sit longitudo latitudo c. that yee may know what is the length breadth height and depth he leaueth out breadth 6. In the sixt place cited out of Origen the Replyer abridging his testimony in those places for the which hee is not alleadged leaueth out in diuers clauses in coelum de coelo in coelo into heauen from heauen in heauen and not onely these words but a whole sentence is omitted qui noÌ„ rapinam arbitratus c. which thought it no robbery to bee equall to God but made himselfe of no reputation taking the shape of a seruant that he might hasten to that part of the sentence which is vrged our Lord descended not onely to take care of vs but to beare our insirmities If hee can shew any word of moment for that purpose wherefore Origen is produced to be omitted let him crie out that Origen is abused And doth not Origen himselfe abridge his owne words when in the next sentence hee saith cum descendit when he descendit omitting de eoelo from heauen And how chanceth it that he could not see his owne fault cutting off this whole clause astiterunt inquit tres viri super eum three men saith he stood by him which followe immediatly after those words as we haue declared before It is a fond part of him to spie a mote in another mans eie when
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
Dominus non secundum formam Dei c. Our Lord prayed not according to the forme of God but according to the forme of a seruant according to the which he suffered For if he will stil stand vnto it that Christ as God prayed vnto his father and not as man hee will make Christ a Priest as he is God and so inferiour vnto his father as God and so fall apparantly into Arrianisme from the which hee cannot shift himselfe with all the â—â—eights that a subtile head and froward wit can affoard him 8. He would wrest a sentence of Augustine to shewe that he thought Abrahams bosome to be in hell producing this place if the holy Scripture had said that Christ after his death came into that bosome of Abraham not mentioning hell and the sorrowes thereof I maruell if any durst haue said that he descended to hell c. It is a strange thing that a man should so cast off all modestie as so apparantly to fasten vpon Augustine an opinion contrary to his owne words for a little before he said ne ipsâ—s quidem inferos c. I cannot finde hell in any place of the Scripture to be called for good and immediately after he inferreth that the bosome of Abraham that is the habitation of quiet rest is not to be beleeued to be a part of hell yea and in these words which he ignorantly presseth as much may be gathered for in saying that vnlesse mention were made in Scripture of hell and the sorrowes thereof but onely of Christs going to Abrahams bosom no man durst haue said that Christ descended to hell hee insinuateth that Abrahams bosome was not hell for then any durst haue so said without any further mention of hell Thus he confoundeth himselfe with his owne testimony 9. He citeth a place out of Augustine to prooue that vnity is a note of the Church quoting lib. 2. cont liter Petilian c. 54. Dissentio diuisio facit haereticos c. Dissention and diuision maketh heretiks but peace and vnitie maketh Catholiks But in that place no such sentence at all is to be found which sheweth what vaine oftentation hee maketh of his reading in the Fathers beeing vtterly ignorant in them The place which he aimeth at is the 96. not the 54. chapter of that booke which he corruptly alleadgeth for Augustine saith Dissentio quippe vos diuisio facit haereticos c. Dissention and diuision maketh you heretiks peace and vnity maketh Catholikes But hee leaueth out you wherein the force of Augustines speech lieth His meaning is that not the diuersity of faith or dissenting in religion but diuision onely and seperation from the Catholike Church made them namely the Donatists heretikes for the Donatists confessed of themselues and Augustine denied it not nobis vobisque vna est religio c. You and we haue the same religion the same sacraments nothing diuers in Christian obseruation Other heretiks were discerned then by their hereticall opinions the Donatists by their schismaticall seperation Againe Augustine meaneth not that vnity simply is a note of the Church but vnity with the Church of God for the Pagans had vnity among themselues As Augustine in another place saith Non proferant nobis quasi concordiam suam hostem quippe quem nos patimur illi non patiuntur Let them not obiect vnto vs as it were their concord for they suffer not that enemie whom we suffer Therefore he two waies abuseth Augustines sentence both in clipping his words peruerting his sense in making vnity and dissention in the Church the cognizances and causes distinctiue c. wheras Augustine speaketh not of vnitie and dissention in the Church and among themselues but of vnitie with the Church and of dissention seperation from the Church Wherefore this sentence was impertinently alleadged against the Replyer who thus saith That one bond of faith in the diuersitie of some priuate opinions may containe and keepe vs in peace There may be some diuersitie in opinion in the Church and yet neither faith peruerted nor peace violated 10. Augustine is brought in thus writing tract 12. in 3. Ioann Behold Christ was here and he was in heauen for so he came thence that he departed not thence and so returned thither that he left vs not here and what maruaile you this God doth for man according to the body both is in a place and goeth out of a place but God filleth all places and is whole euery where yet Christ was at that time according to his visible flesh in earth But Augustines words in that place are these writing vpon this text No man hath ascended into heauen but he that descended c. Ecce hic erat in coelo erat c. Behold he was here and hee was in heauen he was here in his flesh and in heauen in his diuinitie yea euery where in his diuinitie borne of his mother and not departing from his father c. And â—ome fewe lines after he saith mirariâ— c. Do you maruell that he was in heauen also he made his disciples such heare the Apostle saying our conuersation is in heauen if Paul the Apostle beeing man did walke in his flesh in the earth yet was conuersant in heauen could not the God of heauen and earth be both in heauen and earth The iudicious Reader may see what small affinitie and agreement there is betweene these two sentences and although Augustines testimonie had beene truely alleadged yet had it not beene to the purpose for the question is not of the meaning of these words of our Sauiour Iohn 3. 13. The sonne of man which is in heauen but of those Iohn 17. 24. I will that they c. be with me where I am Other places cited out of Augustine and other Fathers are handled with the like vncleane fists but these giuen in instance doe sufficiently bewray his cunning counterfetting of antiquity and the like fidelitie he sheweth in producing the new writers as now shall be seene 8. Caluinee falsified 1. In alleadging Caluin lib. 2. Institut c. 16. ser. 8. these corruptions are committed 1. Hee clippeth off diuers sentences for after these words There is no small force to the effect of our redemption this sentence followeth Quanquam enim ex veterum scriptis c. For although it appear out of the writings of the auncient that this particle was not of olde so much vsed in the Church yet in handling the summe of doctrine place of necessitie must be giuen vnto it theÌ„ follow the words next obtruded by him It coÌ„taineth a profitable mysterie c. then in the last part of the senteÌ„ce There is none of the auncient Fathers which doth not in his writings make mention of Christs descension into hell Hee quite cutteth off the words following tametsi interpretatione diuersa although in a diuers sense and interpretation the which words doe euidently shewe that