tremble to say that the conquest vpon the crosse was openly an ouerthrow and did not our Sauiour himselfe say vpon the crosse It is finished what els was finished but the redemption of mankind in deliuering of mankinde from the kingdome of Satan And was his heart so prophanely caried with the spirit of derision to scoffe at Christ by that vsuall prouerbe triumph before victorie this is a more heinous offence then Ismaels was to scoffe at Isaak He may remember whome he scornefully calleth Ismaelites 2. b. p. 18. Such an Ismaels tricke shall he not finde in all their writings it were better they were all set on a light fire then that their pennes should be stained with such impietie God mollifie his hard heart that he may in time repent him of this so great iniquitie 4. As the theefe was partaker of Christs humanitie in suffering with him on the crosse◠so he was partaker with him in all his deitie 2. b. p. 199. to this ende he tooke vpon him our humane nature that we might be capable of his diuine substance p. 203. if we should not communicate with Christ in all his glorie c. we should be no better then the wicked 2. b. p. 205. What harsh stuffe is this and fit to be waighed in the ballance of blasphemie that we shall be partakers of Christs diuine nature as he was of our humane and so the Saints shall become Gods with Christ as he was made man with vs. 5. Resurrection is attributed by Peter as well to Christs soule returning out of hell as to his bodie rising out of the graue 3. b. p. 38. What a strange paradox is this In the Creede we are taught to beleeue the resurrection of the bodie but the resurrection of the soule in the next world was yet neuer heard of neither hath Peter any such meaning for that was raised of Christ which rested in hope but it was his flesh not soule that rested in hope Act. 2. 26. that is raised which before was sowne by death but the bodie onely was so sowne not Christs soule both these propositions are S. Pauls that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die 1. Cor. 15. 36. so also is the resurrection of the dead 24. it is sowne a naturall bodie and is raised a spirituall bodie v. 44. How farre now is he from bringing death vpon Christs soule which could not be quickened in the resurrection except it first died which he himselfe counteth blasphemie 6. Is there not a most plaine distinction betweene the holy Ghost who foretold and Christ who endured these afflictions and that not in person onely which is the point I stand vpon but in nature also I meane his diuiue nature c. 3. b. p. 94. Doth hee not here manifestly affirme that there is a plaine distinction betweene the holy Ghost and Christ not in person onely but in his diuine nature was this doting diuine well aduised thus to write What Macedonian heretike would haue written more in disgrace of the holy Ghost then to say he is distinguished from Christ euen in his diuine nature 7. And as hee dealeth with Christ himselfe the like measure he offereth his seruants for thus irreuerently hee writeth of Peter you thinke all men to be vncleane impure in comparison of your selues which was partly Peters error Act. 10. 2. b. p. 107. But doth hee speake as he thinketh had Peter such an opinion of himselfe as to thinke al men vncleane and impure beside Peter onely held as yet them of the vncircumcision to be vncleane not of any singularitie of opinion but because it was not yet reuealed to him 8. Thus also hee serueth the Prophet Dauid making him almost in hell for that place Psal. 94. 14. If the Lord had not holpen mee my soule had almost dwelt in silence This place of silence he ignorantly vnderstandeth of hell 2. b. p. 149. yet falsly printed 159. But Dauid else-where declareth his hope that he was sure neuer to goe to hell when I awake I shall be satisfied with thine image Psal. 17. 15. This holy Prophet now is much beholding to this pragmatical Nouelist in placing him almost in hell 9. The like censure hee giueth of that holy man Iob vnderstanding those his word◠the graue or hell saith hee shall bee mine house and I shall make my bed in the darke Iob. 17. 13. of hell for the graue is neuer called the place of darkenesse 3. b. p. 152. and herein hee maketh Iob a figure of Christs beeing in hel p. 153. What iniury doth this vnholy glossograph offer to this holy man who was most sure he should neuer goe to hell thus professing his faith I am sure my Redeemer liueth c. Iob. 19. 25. 10. And to end where I began with his hard vsage as toward the seruants so against the Lord and master himselfe these words of Peter quickened in the spirit hee applyeth to Christs soule in this sense that hee was not made aliue in soule but kept or preserued aliue 2. b. p. 85. and alleadgeth to this purpose other places where the word is so taken as Nehemiah speaking of the heauens earth saith thou preseruest them and Saint Iames saith receiue the word with meekenesse c. which is able to saue their soules Now then if Christs soule be said to bee preserued aliue in either of these senses as in the first then was it saued from death and mortalitie and corruption as the heauens and earth are and so the soule of Christ should not be immortall of it owne nature but by speciall preseruation if he take it in another sense to be saued as our soules are which is from damnation then it will follow that Christs soule was subiect to damnation as ours are without him and so had neede of saluation which way soeuer he saith his soule was saued aliue hee must needes incurre most horrible blasphemie Here I may now fitly apply Hieroms words vttered against Heluidius Illud dico praeveniens gloriae mihi fore tua maledicta cum eodem qu◠Mariae detraxistiore me laceres caninam facundiam servus domini pariter experiatur mater This I say aforehand that your railing will bee a glory vnto me when as you tare me with the same mouth whereby you backbite Marie that both the seruant of the Lord and his mother may together haue experiēce of your doggish eloquēce But I may say more that the seruant neede not thinke much to be slaundered when as the Lord himselfe is blasphemed I am sory in my heart God is my witnesse that this man was so farre carried in his vncharitable heate as not onely to breake charity toward men but to violate pietie also toward God and let him remember what the Apostle saith It is a fearefull thing to fall into the hands of the liuing
the diuell vpon the crosse but also derogate from his blessed death and passion c. 2. b. p. 189. the same contradiction is againe obiected 3. b. p. 156. 9. You affirme in an other place that the theefe made request to Christ as man and not as he was God c. now your self dare not defend your former opinion but say that Christ spake this as he was the Messias wherein as you delight in contrarietie c. 2. b. p. 195. 10. Herein you contradict your selfe for in the former â—ection you say that Christ is with vs in respect of his Godhead but we with him as he is our Messias 3. b. p. 9. 11. You contradict your selfe herein many waies for before p. 9. you acknowledge this reading of the sorrowes of hell to be the true reading c. how then can you say here that Christ onely suffered the sorrowes of the first death 3. b. p. 25. 12. The Reader may see how vnlearnedly you condemne that for an error in Bellarmine for saying that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell for others not for himselfe which your selfe defend for a truth 13. We say not saith the Replyer that Christs bodie felt sorrowes in the graue but was vnder the sorrowes or bandes of death and yet your selfe meaning the Replyer in the former section make it all one to be vnder the sorrows of hell and to suffer them 14. Your minor or assumption containeth grosse error and contradiction in that it implieth Dauids soule to haue beene sometime in hell because it was not left in hell it is your owne reason and indeede most true 15. Your contradiction is in that you say in your proposition that this prophesie of Dauid Psal. 16. was wholly performed in Christ. Againe in an other place you say that this prophesie is so applied to Christ as it must first be true in Dauid vpon which supposition you inferre thus well then first Dauids soule is in hell and then it must be in the lowest hell c. 16. You say the whole is a peculiar prophesie of Christ not partly of him partly of Dauid and presently after that this prophesie typically agreeth to Dauid 17. There is no more necessitie here by flesh to vnderstand the whole humanitie of Christ his soule and bodie then in that place of S. Paul Rom. 1. 3. Christ was made of the seede of Dauid according to the flesh c. if the soule should necessarily be comprehended vnder the name of flesh it would follow that Christ receiued his soule of the seede of Dauid and so anima should be ex traduce 3. b. p. 61. And yet in an other place the Replyer speaking of the very same place saith Here whole Christ is described vnto vs as God and man the soule then of Christ is comprehended vnder the name of flesh or els it is excluded and so the Apostle should set before vs an vnperfect Christ. 3. b. p. 62. 18. You contradict your selfe herein in iustifying that for a veritie because the Replyer saith to what purpose rather should Christ be thought to preach to the spirits in hell then for their comfort which you condemne a little before for a most grosse heresie namely that by Christs descending into hell the incredulous persons beleeued 19. You grossely contradict your selfe in an other place where you affirme that the doores opened and gaue way vnto Christ when he entred and yet you say here that they were shut in the very instance of his entrance 20. In euery place you defend that by prison in this place of Peter hell and the infernall place of darkenes is to be vnderstood and doe you now recant it and bring vs an other signification of sinnes and errors 21. The Replyer saith hauing cited that place of the Prophet Dauid Psal. 139. 15. thou hast fushioned me in the lower parts of the earth I trust they will not say he was borne in hell 3. b. p. 134. And yet in the first testimonie you that is the Replyer bring S. Ambrose to prooue that by these very words of the Prophet Dauid we ought to vnderstand Christs descending to hell 3. b. p. 140. see the same contradiction vrged 3. b. p. 183. 22. Bearing vs in hand that Bernard acknowledgeth no further descension of Christ then to death c. and yet in an other place you are driuen in the ende vtterly to forsake and reiect him as one carried away with the error of his time in thinking that Christ in his soule after death went locally downe into hell 22. In the former place you say that Bernard goeth not beyond Christs death nor findeth any further degree of descension after that and yet that he maketh here one degree to be his descending to the graue for I am sure that you wil not say he was buried before he was dead 3. b. p. 160. 23. Before in this place you will needes haue the lower parts of the earth to be meant of the crosse death and graue 3. b. p. 170. and yet here you say that the parts of the earth are not compared with it selfe but considered as parts of the world in respect whereof they may be called lower or lowest parts 3. b. p. 163. And againe to descend to the lower parts of the earth is to descend from heaâ—en to earth and yet other where you defend that by descending into the lower parts of the earth is meant Christs descension to death and the graue so that you doe here notably contradict your selfe vnlesse you make this world to be all one with death and the graue 24. You told vs before that there is none of the auncient fathers which speaketh of the descension of Christs soule to hell but addeth withall that it was to this ende to deliuer the soules of the fathers from thence 3. b. p. 193. and yet you say neither did all the fathers agree in iudgement that Christ descended into hell to redeeme the soules of the fathers p. 190. what truth can there be in your words when you thus blow hoate and cold with one breath 25. You change me before to haue misalledged Calvin for Christs descension into hell in that place of Peter whereas you alledge him here your selfe to the same purpose The iustification 1. THis Contradicter hath found out a new kinde of reasoning neuer heard of before that in a proposition where two questions are included together the second can not be denied before the former be graunted As the question beeing whether Christ descended to Limbus to deliuer the fathers one in his logike can not denie that he descended to that ende vnlesse first he graunt that he descended to Limbus by the same reason he that saith that an Idol must not be bowed vnto to worship it doth graunt that it may be bowed
inferno c. without doubt as he left not Christs soule in hell so shall hee not leaue our soules in hell c. and he which called him from hell after the third day shall also call vs in due time 15. 16. To say that this whole prophecy of Dauid was onely historically true of Christ and yet typically agreed to Dauid is no contradiction hath he so forgotten his Logike principles as that he remembreth not that euery contraritie and opposition must be secundum idem ad idem in regard of the same part or place and in one the same respect But where the Replyer inferreth first Dauids soule is in hell hee reasoneth ex concessis because the Romanists doe hold that Dauids soule with the rest of the fathers was in hell 17. It is euident by the reason here set downe concerning the originall of Christs soule which cannot bee said to be ex traduce to bee deriued by propagation as the body is without great inconuenience and in a manner impossibilitie that the Replyer reuersed his former iudgement concerning the exposition of the word flesh Rom. 1. 3. that howsoeuer in some other places it is taken for the whole nature of man consisting of soule and body yet it cannot bee so taken there for the former reason And herein the Replyer followeth Augustines iudgement who against the Apollinarists that held Christ onely to haue taken humane flesh without a soule grounding their error vpon those words Ioh. 1. The word was made flesh abiecteth that place of Scripture all flesh shall see the saluation of God and the like where flesh comprehendeth the whole nature of man yet against Felicianus the Arrian which asked the question why the habite of the sonne of God might not animate Christs flesh in stead of a soule reasoneth after this manner that if Christ tooke not also an humane soule one of those fower must followe it was either for that he thought the soule of man to bee innocent but that could not be because sinne is voluntary and so incident properly to the soule or that it belonged not vnto him which also is otherwise seeing God is the creator of soules or for that he could not heale the soule thē should he not be omnipotent or because the soule was abiect and vile but that is not so as he addeth in the same place to this effect that the flesh was not formed by the breathing in of God as the soule was but of the slime of the earth Here then is no contradiction but a reuocation or qualification rather of his former opinion concerning the interpretation of one word in one place which the Replyer taketh to be no disgrace vnto him hauing altered his minde therein before this cauiller found it out seeing hee himselfe affirmeth the like but vntruely of a Reuerend Prelate of this land that he retracted his iudgement in a waightier matter in the expounding of that difficult and obscure place of Saint Peter This is the onely place which he had any colour of reason to obiect 18. The Replyer affirmeth not out of his owne opinion that Christ preached in hell to the disobedient spirits for their comfort but hee vrgeth it as an inconuenience which followeth vpon their interpretation that say that Christ went and preached in hell and the same absurdity is pressed by Augustine epist. 99. what grosse blindnesse then is this in him not to discerne when the Replyer deliuereth his owne iudgement by way of position and when he presseth the aduersarie by way of obiection 19. The doores were shut vp in the very instant of Christs entrance that is not onely before but at that very instant when Christ began to enter and yet the doores opened and gaue way to Christ when he entred here is no contradiction for first it is said in the instant of his entrāce that is he found them shut when he began to enter then it is said when he entred that is while he was going in is it not euident that a difference of the instant time is here noted one wherein hee found the doores shut beeing to enter the other succeeding when the doores opened as he entred it is lost time that is spent with such a trifler 20. The Replyer still without altering of his iudgement vnderstandeth by prison in that place of Peter hell yet he produceth expositions of some of the fathers which by prison vnderstand the bands of sinnes and errors out of the which the prisoners were deliuered to shew that herein though not in euery point they make for the Replyer vnderstanding the deliuering of prisoners of preaching to the liuing for their cōuersion not to the dead as the Confuter doth Is there not here now great contradiction 21. The Replyer alleadgeth the testimony of Ambrose that so expoundeth the lower parts of the earth of hell not to that end but onely to shew that he vnderstandeth Christs descension to hell of the presence of his diuine power there 2. b. p. 12. Is it necessarie when a testimony is produced to one ende that whatsoeuer is contained there beside should be acknowledged Then he himselfe cannot auoide it but hee must needs goe for a maintainer of Limbus for he bringeth in Ambrose 3. b. p. 169. and Augustine and Origen p. 193. affirming the same as appeareth by their testimonies as he alleadgeth them such measure as he meateth shal be measured to him againe 22. To affirme that Bernard in one place findeth no further descension of Christ then vnto death and yet that in another beeing carried away with the error of those times he holdeth the descension of Christs soule to hell is no contradiction neither would this iangling sophister haue thought so if he had remembred the lawes of opposition and contradiction whereof I touched two before secundum idem ad idem where as he failed in the latter I affirming Dau. prophecy to be true of Christ one way i. historically of Dauid another i. typically and therefore it was without any contradiction so he faileth here in the other because Bernard is said to affirme diuers things but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same part and place 23. As though when Bernard maketh the third degree of descending to bee admortem vnto death his descending to the graue be not there implyed for otherwise he descended not from the crosse to die for he yeilded vp his spirit vpon the crosse And this Bernard sheweth by the words following nunquid amplius potuit Behold how farre he descended could he doe any more but if hee meant nothing else but his death vpon the crosse excluding the graue our Sauiour Christ both might haue done more and did more for vs not onely in dying but in being buried for vs. 24. And doth not the descending of Christ to the crosse and graue include also and imply his descending to the earth vnlesse you thinke that his crosse and graue
He chargeth the Replyer thus to say that the bodily death of Christ was not sufficient for mans saluation yea that his bodily sufferings made not properly to our redemption and because his forgerie should not appeare he confusedly shuffleth diuerse places together in the margen quoted out of Synopsis in the which no such words can be found The Replyer saith Christs blood we confesse in Gods omnipotencie to haue beene sufficient to redeeme vs though but one droppe had been shed but it so stood not with the decree and purpose of God p. 1000. By one part the rest are signified for if blood be taken strictly then Christs flesh is excluded and beside his blood there issued forth also water all these were necessarie parts of Christs passion p. 1003. We ascribe the redemption of our bodie and soule equally to the sacrifice of his bodie and soule Againe it is not affirmed that the compassion of the soule with the bodie did not properly belong to our redemption simply but to that redemption which was to be wrought by the soule Who seeth not how shamelesse this Cauiller is to charge the Replyer to affirme that the contrarie whereof he maintaineth 12. Your selfe make three descents of Christ to the crosse to hell to the graue and yet beside these you make three more in an other place whereas the Replyers words are these Bernard maketh the same degrees of Christs descension which we doe his descending to the flesh to the crosse to the graue He calleth them not three descents but three degrees of his descension Now may not his owne words with better reason be returned vpon his owne head If you know no difference betweene descension and the degrees thereof you are ill worthie of those schoole degrees which you haue taken But concerning himselfe howsoeuer he might goe out master of Art in the croud for forgerie railing vntruths falsifications and such like he may well be admitted to be a professor Beside the Replyer speaketh not in that place of descending to hell but to the crosse Neither in that other place quoted doth the Replyer make three more descents his words are these We also confesse that Christ by his death ouercame hell and shaked the powers thereof that he humbled himselfe to the ignominious death of the crosse and descended from thence to the graue and there continued in the state of the dead till the third day and whatsoeuer els may be comprehended in the article of Christs descension Here are not many descents affirmed but diuers senses and explications of one and the same descension deliuered all agreeable to the Scriptures 23. You imagine that Christs soule was depriued of his fathers presence while it was in hell but this is his owne imagination for the Replyers words are these to say that Christs soule did not enioy his fathers presence in heauen all the while it was absent from the bodie is contrarie to the Scripture thou wilt shew me the waies of life c. he speaketh not of the depriuing of his fathers presence in 〈◊〉 but of the enioying thereof in heauen 24. You hold he descended into hell yea into all the torments that hell could yeild whereas the Replyer affirmeth the contrarie in that place the whole punishment is the whole kind of punishment that is in bodie and soule which Christ ought to haue suffered though not in the same manner and circumstance neither for the place of hell locally nor for the time eternally nor for the manner sinnefully May not now this Momus iustly beshrew his vnblushing cheekes and bold face in accusing the Replyer of falsifying and corrupting his words seeing it is so ordinarie a thing with himselfe to falsifie peruert and corrupt the Replyers both sense and sentences He little remembred in this leud course the saying of our Sauiour whatsoeuer you would that men should doe vnto you euen so doe you to them He would be loath himselfe to haue his words thus clipped and curtalled chopped and changed which measure he hath meated with to the Replyer who if he had somewhere failed in his sayings the Confuter might well haue spared him beeing so vnconscionable himselfe in his doings and he might haue vsed toward him that saying of the Greeke Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you dare not praise my sayings so neither can I commend your doings If herein he would haue beene without blame he should in repeating of the Replyers words haue obserued the same rule which Seneca prescribeth in citing of authors tota inspicienda tota tractanda sunt per lineamenta sua iâ—genij opus nectitur ex quo nihil subduci sine ruina potest the whole must be looked into the whole must be handled the worke of wit is tied together by lineaments from the which nothing can be withdrawne without the ruine of the whole It was therefore an easie matter for this vnderminer to ruinate the Replyers whole building in supplanting of it by parcels and racking and dismembring one peece from an other Wherein he may complaine that he hath bin dealt with as Origene sometime was who saith Alij tractatus nostros calumniantes easentire nos criminantur quae nunquam sensisse nos novimus some doe cauill with our treatises and doe blame vs to thinke those things which we know we neuer thought And so plaieth this Catchpole ascribing vnto the Replyer such things as he holdeth not and sheweth himselfe to be of that number whome Hierome complaineth of non meritum stili sed suum stomachum sequentes not following the merite and manner of the Replyers stile but his owne humor and stomake The 11. Imputation of the forged falsification of Fathers The Accusation 1. Origene pretended to be falsified 1. Whereas the Replyer saith that one bond of faith in the diuersitie of some priuate opinions may containe and keepe vs in peace that same vnum fidei linteum quod vidit Petrus quatuor Euangelijs alligatum that sheete of faith which Peter saw tied with the foure Gospels in the corners The Confuter crieth out he applieth it not as you vntruly report him vnto the diuersitie of opinions in matters of faith c. 2. Who would translate cum ligno crucis in the tree of the crosse 3. He saith he clippeth Origenes words because the Replyer leaueth out fere 4. So in an other testimonie cited out of Origene he saith that Origenes words are clipped 5. The Reader may see what little care you haue of credit or conscience thus to abuse so auncient and learned a father 6. So an other place of Origene he saith is abused in like manner p. 188. The iustification 1. IT is well that this false Accuser confesseth Origenes sense onely not to be followed and so graunteth his words to be rightly alleadged But he applieth it not saith he vnto the diuersitie of opinions in one particular
haue shewed partly his ignorance in mistaking and misquoting them partly his vnfaithfulnes in vntrue alleadging them in 30. seuerall places as namely his ignorance in Cyril Hierome Augustine Tertullian also is strangely produced contrarie to his owne iudgement thus he dealeth also with the new writers as with Calvine Beza 8. Neither can the Scripture escape his vncleane fingers as instance is giuen in 26. places as loc 17. the Scripture saith He shall not preserue the vngodly Iob 36. 5. he readeth thou wilt not preserue loc 19. S. Iames saith which hath conuerted c. and shall saue a soule Iam. 5. 20. he readeth which conuerteth in the present and shall saue his soule adding his and he maketh as bolde with many places beside This it is for one to deale out of his element and to meddle beyond his skill for a professor of Grammer to take vpon him to teach Diuinitie He must needes stumble that walketh in darkenes and he can not be without error that is corrupt in iudgement Now is verified that saying of the wise man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is that maketh himselfe rich and hath nothing As this man maketh himselfe skilfull in the tongues in the Scriptures in the Fathers and in what not in all these proclayming his ignorance Hierome spake it modestly of himselfe Fateor frater Heracli dum tui desiderijs satisfacere cupio oblitus sum pene mandati quo praecipitur onus supra vires tuas ne levaveris I confesse brother Heraclius while I satisfie thy desire that I had almost forgotten the commandement that biddeth Take not vp a burthen beyond thy strength But it is most true of him who hath vnbidden thrust his shoulders vnder a burthen that is like to crush him As Cleon was vnfit to lead an armie and Philopoimen to guide a navie and Hannibal to play the Orator so is this Grammarian to meddle with Diuinitie Euripides saying may well be applied to such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Carpenter thou art and yet dost not deale with carpenters worke Seneca well said Necesse est vt opprimant onera quae ferente maiora sunt c. nec accedendum eo vnde non sit liber regressuo Those burthens must needes presse to the ground which are greater then the bearer And it is not safe going thither whence there is no returne And so it falleth out to such according to the saying of Hierome Qui scribunt non quod inveniunt sed quod intelligunt dum alienos errores emendare nituntur ostendunt suos They write not what they finde but what they vnderstand and while they goe about to correct the errors of others they bewray their owne Now let me craue a little further leaue to adde some what concerning the former booke which is by him impugned and this written in defense thereof The first entituled Limbomastix I acknowledge to be mine and am not ashamed of any matter therein handled though for the manner it might haue beene more exact I confesse And for the publishing thereof this is my excuse or rather defense first that I was thereunto prouoked in particular againe I saw in his pamphlet maintained that Popish opinion of Limbus patrum which suspition the author can not auoide as it is at large declared in the Preface following who if he be sound in other points of Protestants doctrine it is well but then is he much wronged both in the opinion and reports of them that know him further that booke passed vnder the censure of a graue and learned writer of our Church and yet it was printed without my priuitie As touching mine opinion of CHRISTS Descension handled in that booke I will freely deliuer what I thinke first I beleeue the Article of the Descension to be a necessarie part of our faith and say with Calvine In the descent of Christ to hell there is no small force to the effect of our Redemption c. and it auaileth so much vnto the cheife summe of our redemption that it beeing pretermitted much will be lost of the fruit of Christs death thus much for the substance of the Article Secondly concerning the manner of Christs descension I doe hold and beleeue whatsoeuer can be prooued out of Scripture and truly collected from thence Thirdly yet I affirme that out of those three places Act. 2. 27. 1. Pet. 3. 19. Eph. 4. 9. the locall descension of Christs soule to hell can not necessarily be concluded And herein I affirme no more then other graue and learned writers of our Church haue done before me D. Fulke saith that the article of Christs descension is not grounded vpon the first text Bish. Bilson resigneth the second place and D. Fulke out of Theodoret sheweth that the third maketh not for the passing of Christ from place to place and so consequently belongeth not to his locall descension Fourthly I say notwithstanding and professe in the same words which I set downe before They which hold not the locall descent of Christs soule to hell should not condemne the other as Popish and superstitious men that are so perswaded They which affirme it ought not to account them as enemies or aduersaries to the truth that dissent from them therein He that thus writeth is farre from either hauing his head plotting or his hands practising Babylonicall warres as I am slaundered as I haue shewed before Fiftly I hold the Article of Christs descension as the Church of England propoundeth it As Christ died for vs and was buried so also it is to be beleeued that he went downe to hell in which words the Article of the descension is commended in generall to be held without any the determination of the sense as he that lately hath learnedly written dedicating his booke to your Gr. vpon the Articles of Religion by publike authoritie hauing deliuered diuers senses of this Article and especially these three 1. some hold that Christ descended as God onely not as man c. powerfully and effectually not personally 2. some as man onely either in bodie onely c. to the graue or in soule onely when he went to the place of the reprobate c. 3. as God and man in one person c. that he went as it were into hell when vpon the crosse and els where he suffered the torments c. Then he inferreth thus But till we know the natiue and vndoubted sense of this Article and mysterie of religion persist we aduersaries to them which say that Christ descended not into hell at all c. This was the summe of my first booke which beeing written without gall and bitternesse as he saith Ego sine iracundia dico vt omnia tamen non sine dolore I speake it without anger though not without griefe and the party being not knowne which was the author of that Pamphlet and so no man beeing
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
vpon Iob he beeing a figure of Christs beeing in hell as he maketh him must first be there himselfe But to the hell of the damned he will not thrust him where els was he then in Limbo 19. But he doth not more apparantly discouer himselfe then in these two places following the first is 3. b. p. 170. Vnto these I will also adde a propheticall saying as it seemeth to me which I finde reported out of two of the most famous Doctors among the auncient Hebrewes the latter Iewes shall kill their Messias then shall his soule descend to hell where it shall abide three daies that it may bring from thence all the soules of the Fathers and of the Iust and lead them with him into Paradise and heauenly glorie If this be a propheticall saying then it must haue his accomplishment and so in his iudgement the soules of the Fathers and the iust men were brought out of hell by Christs descending thither 20. The other place is 3. b. p. 174. The ende of this redeeming visitation he maketh to haue beene the illumination of those which sate in darknes and in the shadow of death which words S. Damascene and Ruffinus applie to Christs descension in hell And in truth the words of visiting and redeeming doe necessarily implie a freedome to men in captiuitie which to denie to haue beene in hell as you doe in your second assumption is to derogate from the blessed death and passion of Christ. Now my second assumption as he calleth it was But Christ redeemed none in hell This assumption seeing he denieth what els can be his opinion but that Christ redeemed and deliuered some in hell by his descending thither and therein agreeth with Damascene and Ruffinus I appeale now to all iudicious men and vnderstanding Readers whether this counterfeit Confuter be not apparantly conuinced to be an euident maintainer of Limbus Patrum therefore how voide of all truth and modestie that speach is who seeth not there is no cause nor colour of cause in the world saith he why you should accuse that mine answear as any way enclining to that opinion for what one word is there thorough the whole booke which doth so much as insinuate any suspition thereof But what neede this circumloquution of words when the thing it selfe is apparant according to that saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the matter is conspicuous the prolixitie of speech is superfluous These places obiected doe giue such euidence of his opinion that he can not with modestie denie it as the Orator saith Respondebisne â—d haec aut omnino hiscere audebis can you answer any thing to this or dare you once open your mouth and so I say with Hierome si non illud scripsisses vtcunque de luto evaderes If you had not thus written c. you might haue wrastled out of the mire But in defence of this his opinion of the deliuering the Fathers out of Limbus antiquity will bee alleadged for this goeth for currant among the Fathers whereunto I answere That the auncient writers of the Church in some things might bee ouerseene and that this error might be both generall and continue long also as the Patriarkes long remained in that error of Bygamie and Polygamie and corrected it not Augustine answered Hierome well who hauing alleadged diuers places said Patere me errare cum talibus suffer me to erre with such quis est saith he qui se velit cum quolibet errare who is there that would willingly erre with any The Orator saith well quae malum est haec ratio semper optimis causis veteranorum nomen opponere c. quos quidem libertatis adiutores complecti debetis seruitutis authores sequi non debetis What reason is this alwaies in good causes to oppose the name of the auncients whom you ought to embrace as helpers of your liberty not to follow as authors of your seruitude The like may be said of the auncient Fathers that we ought to follow them when they stand for the truth not to be lead by them when they incline to error And herein the intent of the Fathers is rather to be respected then the content of their speech their meaning was that euen the Fathers of the olde Testament though beeing at rest in Abrahams bosome yet had an accession of ioy the Redemption of mankind beeing accomplished by Christ like as the Saints now shall haue the like encrease of ioy at the resurrection and consociation of their bodies with their soules though they failed in the particular apprehension and application of this mysterie And so I end this point with that worthy saying also of the Orator Non exempla â—aierum quarenda sunt sed consilium est eorum à quo exempla nata sunt explicandum The examples of the Elders are not so much to bee sought into as their intent and counsell from the which the examples are sprung is to be expounded Thus much for the matter of his booke in generall now concerning the manner First he faileth in charitie in confuting publikely that which was written first priuatly and bringing into open view to the world that which was sent in secret to a gentleman I speake of the originall occasion of his first booke wherein he beeing a Christian saw not so much as Tullie perceiued by the light of nature who thus reprooueth Antonie for the very like for making his letters publike which he sent vnto him in priuat Quis vnquam qui paulum medo bonorum consuetudinem nosset literas ad se ab amico missas offensione aliquâ interposita in medium protulit quid hoc est aliud quam tollere è vita vitae societatem quam multa ioca solent esse in Epistelis quae prolata si sint inepâ—a videntur quam multa seria neque tamen divulgenda Who euer that was but euen a little acquainted with the custome of good men brought forth letters sent to him from a friend some offence comming betweene what is this 〈◊〉 but to take out of this life the societie of the liuing how many merriments vse to bee in letters which seeme foolish if they bee vttered how many serious things that are no waies to bee published Secondly he faileth in modestie in persecuting the Replyer with rayling speech you shall finde fewe pages of his booke which are not pestred with the imputation of lying forgerie falsieâ—e heresie blaspemie atheisme Machiauellisme and such like Thus hee bestirreth him as another Shimei or Rabshekah which I may well requite with round and smart speech but will not with like railing for as he saith vehementer me agere fateor iâ—acunde nego I confesse I deale earnestly but not angerly and I consider that it is much better according to that saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to heare euill then to speake euill Thirdly he forgetteth common honestie in loading the Replyer with
him p. 125. whereas the Replyer doth protest that he neuer yet read or so much as sawe Carliles booke but what will not euill will imagine 9. Vntruth That Bellarmine agreeth with all antiquitie in taking the Hebrew and Greeke words sheol and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they signified onely soule and hell 2. b. p. 119. Here are three notable vntruths for neither antiquitie nor yet Bellarmine nor any learned interpreter euer tooke these two words sheol and hades to signifie the soule and hell for neither of them was euer taken by any to signifie the soule Secondly not all the auncient interpreters tooke sheol translated infernus onely to signifie hell for Cyprian vpon the Creed which is also ascribed to Ruffinus doeth take it for the graue in these words Sciendum est quod in Ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non habetur additum descendit ad infernos c. We must knowe that in the Romane Church it is not found added in the Creed he descended to hell c. Vis tamen verbi eadem videtur esse in eo quod sepultus dicitur but the same force of the word seemeth to be in that he is said to be buried And Chrysostome also concurreth Descendit ad infernum vt ibi à miraculo non vacaret c. He descēded to hell that he should not there be without miracle for many of the bodies of the Saints rose with Christ and died againe hom 2. in Symbol Here by infernus hell hee seemeth to vnderstand that place from whence Christ raised the bodies of the dead that came out of their graues which is none other but the place of buriall and the graue And Augustine expoundeth that place Psalm 88. 3. My life draweth neere to hell by these words of Christ My soule is heauy vnto death Thirdly neither doth Bellarmine take the wordes sheol and nephesh onely to signifie hell for the first hee saith Ordinariè accipitur c. it is taken ordinarily for the place of soules vnder the earth vel raro vel nunquā pro sepulchro or seldome or neuer for the graue He simply denieth not but that it sometime signifieth the graue though not ordinarily For the other word thus he saith Nephesh est generalissim◠vox c. Nephesh is a generall word and signifieth without any trope as well the soule as the liuing creature yea the body Hee may be ashamed therefore thus to belie his ring-leader and grand captaine with whom he saith he is beholding to the Replyer for ioyning him being a learned Papist p. 119. 10. Vntruth That hee doeth fasten all the torments of hell vpon the blessed soule of our Sauiour 2. b. p. 154. wheras the Replyer simply denieth against the false charge of Feuardentius That Christ suffered in his soule the whole paines of the damned in hell 11. Vntruth That you expound in the former testimonie soule that is body hell that is graue and here spirits that is men dead that is liuing 3. b. p. 71. Here are foure vntruths fardelled vp together 1. Neither doth the Replier by soule vnderstand body but either the person or life 2. Neither by hell the graue but only sheweth that the hebrew word sheol which signifieth hell is sometime taken for the graue 3. Nor yet doth he expound spirits that is men but that they are called now spirits with S. Peter which sometime were men 4. And they which are now dead were sometime liuing 12. Vntruth Onely Beza may seeme to fauour you that is in taking soule for life 2. b. p. 118. What boldnesse is this to set downe such peremptorie negatiues as though he had himselfe runne ouer all writers both new olde What a great vntruth is it to say onely Beza when as Caluine directly affirmeth the same Neque enim anima tam spiritum immortalis essentiae significat quam vitam ipsam for the soule doth not so much signifie the immortall essence of the spirit as the life it selfe Is Caluin in his base opinion no bodie 13. It turneth Christs euerliuing soule into a dead bodie it siteth hell in the superficies of the earth maketh hell a place of corruption and there burieth the blessed soule of our Sauiour 2. b. p. 164. All these impieties and absurdities he chargeth the Replyer with for so vnderstanding that place Act. 2. 27. that Christs life seemed to be raked vp in the graue for here he hath vttered three vntruths 1. the soule beeing taken for the life turneth not the soule of Christ into the bodie but maketh the life onely to be as laid vp in the graue 2. they which take sheol here for the graue which also signifieth hell denie not but that beside this sheol in the graue there is an other also in hell sheol taken for the graue is a place of corruption not sheol when it signifieth hell 4. he is the man that burieth and shutteth vp Christs soule in hell holding and affirming that it was there three daies 14. That Durand held an opinion contrarie to all the rest of the Romanists that Christs soule descended not to hell in substance but by certaine effects p. 190. whereas Thomas Aquinas held the same in effect that Christ onely descended per realem praesentiam by his reall presence to Limbus patrum to all the other places of hell per effectum by effects and thus Bellarmine himselfe citeth him take away that conceit of Limbus patrum which to all Protestants is but a dreame and in the rest these two agree 15. Neither Protestant nor yet Papist of any account will take your part for the Papists they are fitter mates for him but diuers Protestants of great account are in this question of the Replyers iudgement as instance is giuen in twelue of them before 13. slaund therefore it is great vnshamefastnes in this brabler to vtter so vnreasonable and improbable a speech 16. He calleth A. Humes his first instructer p. 195. whereas he shall finde that the partie giuen in instance in his Reioynder hath reference vnto some of the Replyers works euen in this argument 17. Vntr. In this sense the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed euery where throughout the Bible that is is meant for the soule 3. b. p. 57. A most audacious speech and full of vntruth for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spirit is as often taken for the diuine spirit of God as for the soule of man as is euident in these places Ioh. 4. 24. God is a spirit Rom. 1. 4. declared mightily to be the sonne of God touching the spirit of sanctification 1. Tim. 3. 16. iustified in the spirit 1. Tim. 4. 1. the spirit speaketh euidently and many other such places might be produced he sheweth how shamelesse a man he is therefore that dare vent forth such a great vntruth that this word spirit euery where
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
vnto but not to that ende and he which holdeth that the Scriptures must not be abused to enchantment confesseth they may be abused but no to that ende or it is not lawfull to sweare falsly by the creatures as the heauen the earth therefore it is lawfull to sweare by them but not falsly which indeede was the doctrine of the Pharisies Math. 5. 33. but our Sauiour reacheth the contrarie that it is not lawful to sweare at all by any creature And what thinketh he of this proposition It is not lawfull to sweare to the Pope to assist him inuading the land before the King doth it follow therefore that it is lawfull to sweare to the Pope so that it be not to that ende And may not this argument be returned vpon himselfe Christ descended not to Limbus to deliuer the Patriarks I thinke he will denie this proposition then he must grant by his owne consequent that Christ descended to Limbus Indeed in an affirmatiue proposition it holdeth as it can not be confessed that Christ descended to Limbus to deliuer the Patriarkes but first it must be graunted that he descended to Limbus but in the negatiue it is not so 2. The Replyer in that place groundeth his argument vpon the Latine text that Christ loosed the sorrows of hell shewing that seeing he loosed the sorrowes of hell for himselfe they could not be the sorrowes of the locall hell for he felt not the sorrowes of hell after death and here he saith he was neuer in the sorrowes of hell after death here is no contradiction at all If he can finde any place where the Replyer affirmeth that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell for himselfe after death he will graunt a contradiction but to say that Christ loosed not the sorrowes of hell for himselfe after death and yet that he loosed the sorrowes of hell for himselfe are not contradictorie but doe implie that he speaketh of other sorrowes of hell which Christ loosed then those after death seeing then he speaketh not of the same sorrowes of hell there is no contradiction and that this Cauiller knew right well 3. As though the same Hebrew word may not properly signifie two distinct things contained in one generall sense as gez signifieth any thing that is cut and therefore some translate a fleece Psal. 72. 5. as the Latine and Montanus some the mowne grasse as Vatab. Iun. because they both vse to be cut And concerning this word nephesh his great Master confesseth significat sine vllo tropo tam animam quam animal immo etiam corpus it fignifieth without any trope as well the soule as the liuing creature yea the bodie these I hope are all distinct things yea this palterer confesseth that it is one of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that it signifieth all those three things giuen in instance by Bellarmine lib. 2. p. 159. 160. But that the Replyer saith these words are taken for the soule and hell onely is a manifest vntruth for in the place quoted he confesseth in direct words that in some places the soule is taken for life but contendeth that Isa. 53. 10. it is properly taken for the soule 4. The Replyer when he saith these words doe properly signifie life and the graue speaketh of the Hebrew words nephesh and sheol when he saith that the soule is here taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the life he meaneth this word Englished soule like as anima in Latine indifferently signifieth the soule or life therefore this is no contradiction to say that the Hebrew nephesh sometime signifieth life without a figure as Levit. 17. 14. the nephesh the life of all flesh is his blood it were improper to say the soule of all flesh and that the Englished and translated word soule is not taken for life without a figure for this trifler confesseth that the Hebrew word nephesh is more generall in signification then either the Latine word anima or the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his Ringleader confesseth of whom he borrowed it and yet either of these are more large and generall then the English word soule 5. The Replyer in that place doth not so much as vse that tearme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he both there and in other places alleadgeth that as a reasonable and fit exposition to take soule for the person but he rather preferreth the other sense to take soule for life Limbom p. 9. to bring two probable interpretations of a place as indifferent to be receiued and of the two to preferre the more likely is no contradiction 6. To denie that not and neither doe not alwaies shew two distinct clauses and that sometime they argue no great difference or diuersitie he that saith they are speeches contrarie sheweth himselfe to be contrarie to reason vnlesse he thinketh there is no difference betweene a plaine distinction and a small diuersitie hath he so much forgotten his Logike that he knoweth not diversa to be defined which dissent onely in some reason and respect and opposita to be such as differ re ratione both in respect and in deede and effect And whereas the Replyer saith be it admitted that these particles doe inferre a distinction in the sentence c. doth he reuoke any thing is he so blind that he can not discerne betweene a simple assertion and that which proceedeth vpon a supposall and conditionall graunt But what new wine had intoxicated his braine when he let these wordes fall from his penne You presently reuoke it and conuince your selfe of falshood in condescending to a truth I thought it had bin simplicitie rather and integritie to condescend to a truth and not falshood if this be falshood to condescend to a truth then it is simplicitie and plainenes to contradict the truth This may be the reason that he is so aduerse to the truth it is one of his vertues but such falshood to yeild to the truth God send me and let him take his plaine dealing to him-himselfe whosoeuer hath the blow I am sure he hath the wound and feeleth the smart too as the Orator saith Luculentam ipse plagam accepit vt declarat cicatrix he hath receiued a sufficient venie as the scarre declareth 7. The Replyer in that place saith out of Augustines iudgement that Abrahams bosome is no part of hell he nameth not Limbus it seemeth he himselfe hath a conceit that waies in making Abrahams bosome and Limbus all one But for his owne opinion the Replyer thinketh that Limbus patrum is neither part of hell nor of any place els no more then Purgatorie is yet he is not ignorant but that his great Master maketh it a member of hell So then the question beeing propounded in the Romanists sense to say sometime Christ descended not to hell and otherwhile that he descended not to Limbus to deliuer the fathers is no contradiction 8. The Replyers words are these
was not in the earth thus much also the Replyer noted foreseeing and preuenting this obiection the other two expositions that is of Christs descending to the earth then to the crosse and graue may well agree and stand together and he that affirmeth the one denieth not the other Limbo p. 52. These two then were two degrees of Christs humiliation and descension his taking vpon him the forme of a seruant and beeing obedient to the death of the crosse as S. Paul obserueth Philip. 2. 7 8. 25. The Replyer saith againe that there are none of the fathers which speake of Christs descension to hell but held it was to that ende to deliuer the fathers and yet some of the fathers differ in iudgement for they hold that place where the fathers were not to haue beene any part of hell but Paradise as Origen Chrysostome Augustine is here now any contradiction for they which hold the Patriarchs to haue beene in Paradise and not in hell speake not of Christs descension to hell but to Paradise to illuminate the fathers 26. What a strange fellow is this to say that I alleadge Calvin my selfe for the same purpose for which he alleadged him namely to prooue the local descension into hell whereas I alleadge Caluin Beza and Iunius to the contrary 3. b. p. 191. Limbom p. 59. Thus hath this busie body troubled himselfe to spie faults where he could find none Such Seneca compareth to the restles Ants quae in summuÌ„ cacumen deinde in imum aguntur which creep vp downe vpon trees from the top to the bottome and finde no resting place And Aristo in Plutarke to the windes which do vncouer our garments which of all other are most troublesome Such are they which hunt vp and downe to seeke others disgrace and to vncouer their nakednesse not being able to hide their owne vncomelinesse Augustine doeth fitly resemble the enuious man to the worme which did breed in Ionas gourd so still hee gnaweth vpon others credit and fretteth at their well-doing and where he cannot ouercome with wrestling seeketh to supplant by fraud and as Augustine saith Aliorum gloriam facit suam poenam Maketh anothers fame his owne â—ane as shall nowe appeare in the returning of this accusation The Recrimination 1. This Contradicter findeth fault with the Replyer as though he should say that eternall continnance in them is not of the essence and nature of hell torments Synops. p. 1014. 3. b. p. 77. whereas he onely saith the inseperable adiuncts and necessary members of hell are these 1. the place which is infernall 2. the time which is perpetuall 3. the darkenesse vnspeakable And hee himselfe confesseth as much whose that is of hell inseperable adiuncts are vtter darkenesse and endlesse paines 2. Hee saith it is Iudaisme to apply the prophecy of Dauid Psalme 16. to any but to our Sauiour Christ. 3. b. p. 41. And yet hee himselfe graunteth that the prophecy of the ascending of Christ and leading captiuity captiue which is as peculiar to the ascension of Christ as the other concerneth his resurrection is literally spoken of King Dauid himselfe c. but prophetically meant of Christ our Sauiour 1. b. p. 57. 3. Hee saith that the Creede was made and composed by the Apostles themselues 2. b. p. 182. but else where he saith it was made either by the Apostles themselues as the auncient fathers doe thinke or by Apostolike men as all diuines confesse 1. b. p. 5. If it were made by Apostolike men then not by the Apostles which he certainely affirmed before 4. Hauing recited that place Psal. 6. 4 5. O Lord deliuer my soule for 〈◊〉 death there is no remembrance of thee who shall giue thee thankes in the pit which word hee whome he confuteth translateth hell he thus inferreth by the which last word all our late interpreters both latine and English doe with one accord vnderstand the graue as beeing the ordinary sequell of temporall death 1. b. p. 12. Here he vnderstandeth in this place temporall death whereof the graue is an ordinarie sequell and yet in the next page following he affirmeth the contrary wherefore death in that place cannot signifie the seperation and dissolution of the soule from the body which is onely temporall but the diuorcement and sequestration both of body soule from God 1. b. p. 13. 5. Neither can this word graue signifie any other place then the place of corruption and mortality 1. b. p. 12. And yet the word avad Psal. 88. 10. which the Septuag translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latine in sepulchro in the graue hee saith is meant of hell 3. b. p. 28. 6. Who shall giue thee thankes in the pit Psal. 6. 5. by which last word all our late interpreters doe with one consent vnderstand the graue c. which can signifie no other place then the place of corruption and mortalitie 1. b. p. 12. And againe no English translators turne sheol graue in this place but pit which most fitly and truely agreeth to hell 3. b. p. 26. thus in the same place the same word shall signifie both the graue and hell 7. He fondly reprooueth the Replyer for running from the new Testament to the Old and from the Greeke to the Hebrew 2. b. p. 120. you well perceiued the Greeke was vtterly against you and therefore cunningly but cowardly you forsake it and flie to the Hebrew ibid. p. 121. yet he himselfe doth the same which to be so in this place if you will graunt the Hebrewes to haue had any skill in their owne naturall language you must needes confesse 1. b. p. 16. Is it lawfull for him to haue recourse vnto the Hebrew writers and a fault in the other to runne vnto the Hebrew Scriptures 8. Now if you take exception saith this Contradicter against this reading as mistranslated in all our Bibles which I see not by what right you can doe beeing publikely authorised 1. b. p. 26. and 2. b. p. 130. he calleth it an authorised translation yet he himselfe most scornefully reiecteth the great English Bible authorised publikely to be read as hath beene shewed before Imputat 8. recriminat 6. 9. He findeth fault with the Replyer for translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell him his fault as the Geneva translation and great Bible readeth 2. b. p. 67. yet he himselfe translateth the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell thy neighbour roundly of his fault ibid. p. 71. 10. He saith that faithfull perseuerance in pietie is the finall possession of the land of promise 2. b. p. 113. and yet els where he denieth that the true ioyes of heauen may be in this world 2. b. p. 207. for if a man by faithfull perseuerance hath in this life a sure hope and by hope possession of heauen how hath he not some true
died in bodie yet his soule perished not vt vita perderet vitam that our life should loosâ— life c. 4. in init by occasion of which question he falleth also into that other point concerning the death of Christs soule 2. He saith that Augustine taketh this for graunted that the promise made to the theefe was the voice of Christs Godhead whereas Augustine onely propoundeth it by way of obiection sed dicet aliquis c. but some one will say we beleeue this was the voice of the deitie not of the soule of Christ c. and afterward he rather reasoneth against that obiection then yeildeth to it quid in eo cui promittebat accipimus c. and what doe we take in him to whome the promise was made and so he frameth his argument from the soule of the theefe to the soule of Christ reasoning from the lesse to the greater 3. He denieth that any such collection can be made out of Augustine that if the soule of the theefe went to Paradise Christ much more but that this is Augustines meaning rather that because the theefes soule was presently made blessed c. in Paradise and so freed from the feare of death and hell much more was the soule of Christ exempted Contra. Augustines words are these If the soule of the theefe was straightway the bodieâ—beeing dead called to Paradise shall we thinke any to be so impious to thinke that the soule of our Sauiour was three daies kept in hell c. here is no mention of the feare of death or hell but of calling the soule to Paradise his wordes are plaine that Christs soule could not be in hell all those three daies that his bodie was in the graue nay it can not be prooued out of this treatise of Augustine that Christs soule was in hell for it is euident that he taketh inferi for the place of the dead As c. 14. he saith erat vno eodemque tempore totus in inferno totus in coelo illic patiens iniuriam carnis c. he was at one and the same time whole in hell or below whole in heauen there suffering the iniurie of his flesh here not leauing the glorie of his deitie Againe c. 17. iacebat quantum ad corpus c. he lay touching his bodie dead in the graue raising the dead in hel or in the low parts but Christs flesh was in the graue not in hell and from the graue not from hell he raised the dead 6. An other place of Augustine is corruptly alleadged epist. 57. ad Dardan lib. 3. p. 14. first he inuerteth the order of the wordes for that sentence beginning as it might rightly be said and ending because he is alwaies euery where c. is at least 40. lines after that sentence if this to day thou shalt c. which he confusedly placeth immediatly after as though it were all one sentence Againe in the next sentence beginning if this to day thou shalt c. and ending humane soule he clippeth off at the least 20. lines and leapeth them all ouer to those words but the sense is much more readie c. which he ioyneth as immediatly following beeing 20. lines after thirdly he fraudulently omitteth many sentences which come betweene making directly against his opinion of Christs descent to hell 1. Augustine saith Vnde quaeri solet c. whence it vseth to be questioned if the infernall places are vnderstood onely to be penall how can we beleeue godly that the soule of Christ was in hell but it is well answeared that therefore he descended to succour whome he could Here Augustine maketh no other ende of Christs descending into the penall place of hell but to giue succour and releefe 2. If both the region of those which were in griefe and those which were at rest c. is to be beleeued to haue beene in hell who dare say that Christ went onely to the penall places of hell and not to haue beene with them which were at rest in Abrahams bosome where if he were that was the Paradise which he vouchsafed to promise the thiefe here he resolueth that the soule of Christ went to the Paradise promised to the thiefe 7. So Augustine is erroneously cited for twice he quoteth tract 91. in Ioh. 17. 3. b. p. 8. and 16. whereas the place is taken out of the 111. tract in Ioh. 17. Beside he would make the Reader beleeue that Augustine expoundeth this glorie which Christ speaketh of Ioh. 17. onely of the glorie of his Godhead and that other speach where I am c. to be vnderstood of the presence of his Godhead Cont. In the very same tractat 111. Augustine thus expoundeth those words I will that where I am they may be with me Quantum attinet ad creaturam c. Concerning that creature wherein he was made of the seede of David after the flesh he was not yet himselfe where he was to be but in that sense he might say where I am as we might vnderstand that he should quickly ascend into heauen that he said he was there alreadie where he was presently to be In the same tractate he also thus expoundeth the glorie etiamsi eam dici hoc loco intelligamus c. Though we vnderstand that glorie to be here spoken of not which the father gaue vnto his sonne beeing equall in begetting him but which he gaue vnto him beeing made the sonne of man after the death of the crosse he vnderstandeth it as well of the glorie giuen vnto him as man as that due vnto him as God But more euidently Augustine sheweth his minde touching these points in the former tractates vpon this chapter As tract 104. Haec est glorificatio c. This is the glorifying of our Lord Iesus Christ which tooke beginning from his resurrection Tract 105. That the sonne was glorified of the father according to the forme of a seruant whome the father raised vp beeing dead and placed at his right hand the thing it selfe sheweth and no Christian doubteth And if the Confuter doubt hereof in Augustins opinion he is no Christian. And vpon those words Glorifie me with the glory c. which I had c. he writeth thus sicut tunc praedestinatione c. as then in predestination so now in perfection doe in the world what was with thee before the world doe in time that which thou appointedst before all time Thus Augustine apparantly vnderstandeth the glory which was giuen vnto Christ as man And how Christ our blessed Sauiour prayed vnto his Father he thus also sheweth tract 104. Poterat Dominus noster c. Our Lord the onely begotten and coeternall to the father might in the forme and by the forme of a seruant if it had beene needfull haue praied in silence but hee would so exhibite himselfe to his father a praier for vs as that hee remembreth himselfe to be our teacher And againe in another place Orauit
18. the figure 2. might easily be mistaken for 3. 17. Christ by Noah preached the one as the author the other as the Minister so both may wel stand together S. Peters text that speaketh of Christ and the interpretation that applieth it to Noah If any make the Apostle a lyar it is himselfe that corrupteth his sense by a false interpretation and maketh him to speake that which he neuer intended 18. Though the preaching of the word vnto vnbeleeuers is thorough the hardnes of their heart the sauour of death vnto death yet the principall and onely ende in respect of God is the comfort and conuersion of men the hardening of the heart is effected accidentally by the word and is not the proper ende thereof This is euident by that prophesie of Isai of Christ The spirit of God is vpon me c. he hath sent me to preach good tidings to the poore And this is Augustines reason that if there be preaching in hell some may be conuerted and beleeue in hell to say therefore to what purpose should Christ be thought to preach to the spirits in hell c. then for their comfort and deliuerance is no contradicting of the Scriptures but a manifesting of his ignorance that knoweth it not 19. And is it not sufficient if one Euangelist haue those words and is it not lawfull what is wanting in one to supplie out of an other But it can haue no excuse to clippe the Euangelists words as he doth whatsoeuer is giuen vnto you at the same time that speake saith Saint Marke but he citeth the place thus that which shall be giuen you that speake 20. And is he so captious that he could not or would not see that the omission of this word were was a meere ouersight in the setter and therefore the Replyer hath amended it among the Errata before Limbomastix And this poore-blinde pryer might haue obserued the like scape in his owne blotted lines where he thus writeth where the soules of sinners wont to be tortured for were wont c. 21. This is a small exception to the Geneva translation to take the present tence for the preterperfect especially seeing the Apostle so readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ascending Eph. 4. 8. and the same tence with the Hebrewes serueth both for the present and time past as Psal. 68. 19. from whence S. Paul borroweth that testimony 22. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are englished in the translation but the words in Greeke it was not pertinent to repeate because all the force lieth in the other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 23. 1. The Replyer citing those words of the Apostle to prooue the inward afflictions had no cause to repeat the rest which speake of his glorying and reioycing in Christ but onely so much as was to the purpose 2. Hee refuseth not Chrysostoms exposition though by him much mis-alleadged neither doth it make against him for that inward resolution and preparation of the minde daily beeing in expectation of death was it not an inward affliction and temptation to suffer death I hope hee will not deny to be an affliction then the daiely expectation of death being inward must be an inward affliction 3. Neither are those words cited to prooue that Saint Paul died the death of the soule but for the similitude of the phrase Hee might else-where haue further seene the Replyers meaning expressed in this manner As the body is not said onely to die when the soule departeth from it but when it is pressed with deepe and dangerous afflictions which threaten death as Paul saith I die daily so the soule may be said after a sort to die not only when it is finally separated frō God but perplexed with the horror and feeling of Gods wrath 4. It followeth not because Paul had inward ioy and consolation therefore he had not inward afflictions for speaking of terrors within he addeth God which comforted the abiect comforted vs c. His inward afflictions and terrors were tempered with inward ioy and comfort also here is neither dishonour done to Paul nor contumely to the spirit vnlesse it bee by his contumelious and slaunderous mouth Such are this Cauillers exceptions to the Replyers allegations of Scripture as we haue seene wherein I doubt not but that hee hath rather shewed himselfe a wrangler then the other a corrupter for although in the citing of other forraine testimonies greater liberty may bee vsed as Hierom saith hee did in interpreting of Greeke Authors Non verbū de verbo sed sensum exprimere de sensu not to expresse euery word but the sense by the sense yet in alleadging Scripture we must hold vs to the very words where as he againe saith Verberum or do mysterium est there both order and mysterie is in the words But had hee beene sincere himselfe in alleadging of Scripture hee would not haue beene so suspicious of another according to that saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A wit free from euill is slowest to suspect euill Now then it followeth to shew what a pregnant wit and ready facility he himselfe hath in corrupting of Scripture The Recrimination 1. That place 2. Timoth. 2. 5. he citeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no man is crowned vnlesse he striue lawfully whereas these are the Apostles words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If any man striue hee is not crowned except he striue lawfully where for any man he putteth no man 2. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perrils among false brethren he readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 false brotherhood beside he quoteth 2. Cor. 12. 26. for 11. 26. 3. Hee thus vnreuerently speaketh of the Scripture which shewes your state wholly dependeth vpon shifting first from the newe Testament to the olde from the olde to the newe and from the new to the olde againe thus he profanely calleth the comparing of the newe Testament with the old shifting 4. He corrupteth the sense of the Apostle vnderstanding his words of beeing partakers of the diuine nature of participating with his godhead which is onely meant of a similitude and likenesse vnto God not in substance but in qualitie in flying the corruption of the world as the words following shew which thing was well expressed by Iustinus Philosophus that the end which a Philosopher propoundeth to himselfe is to be like vnto God as neere as may be 5. Christ saith Where I am there shall also my seruant be Iohn 12. 26. he thus addeth vnto it where I am now there shall my seruant be hereafter 6. I goe to prepare a place for you and though I goe to prepare a place for you I will come againe Iohn 14. 2. 3. all this inclosed he leaueth out and here he ioyneth himselfe two verses together which he before called patching Accusat 8. 7. Ye shall lie downe in sorrow Isay 50. 11. hee readeth ye shall sleepe
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
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