was not against Christes owne person but against the sinnes which by his office in his own person he sustayned the sorrow and paines whereof touched his very person 2. Their punishments are partly in this life and partly eternall in the life to come but Christes were temporary and only in this life 3. Their sinne being inherent not forgiuen and iustly punished they haue all the properties and Concomitants of sinne inherent never forgiuen but in wrapped in eternall punishments as these Desperation the stinge of Conscience Induration Reiection Malediction Dereliction c. But in Christ where no sinne was inhaerent nor eternally punished there could vtterly be none of these 4. They are pumished heere chiefly in Hell the proper place of the damned heereafter but Christ suffered onely heere in this life Lastly their tormeÌ„ts though euerlasting deserue nothing at Gods hands but Christ though suffering but for a while deserued infinitly favour and grace for them for whom he suffered Howbeit as I said the sufferings of the damned are all one with Christes How the suâ—â—â—rings of Châ—â—â—â— and of thâ—â—â— Damned 〈◊〉 the same as touching the Nature of the punishments and as touching the chiefest causes thereof First God himselfe was the proper and principall Ordayner Author and Executor of his punishment Gods owne hand did it to Christ no lesse then to the damned Sec Christ having most horrible sinnes imputed to him as the damned haue also therefore he suffered for them from Gods hand euen as the damned do namely in these points which are both possible and reasonable that is paines inflicted immediatly and properly in the Soule and not only by outward meanes in the Body For it is most reasonable and possible that the Soule of Christ should haue our sinne imputed to it yea principally to it and not to the Body only even as wee commit sinne in our wholl manhood but yet principally in by our Soule Which being true that Christes reasonable Soule had sinne imputed principally to it according to that of the Prophet He made his Soule sinne Isa 53.10 therefore his Soule principally peculiarly did suffer for it Also his Soule by nature being capable of suffering from Gods very hand an occasion now serving therevnto because of all our sinnes wholly imputed to him lastly God himselfe standing now disposed to punish and revenge sinne in him so far as he was capable thereof therefore his punishment for that sinne was a true proper full punishment as theirs is namely as touching meere paines and was the effect of Gods proper Wrath iustice and vengeance as well on his Soule as on his Body thus for the time it was even like as the sufferings of the damned are â—a 53.134 For * continuance of time in paines is not of the nature of Hel paines or of Gods Wrath Pag. 341. nor yet to be in Hell locally as you wrongly imagin but meere circuÌ„stances ther of only Thus the very nature of punishment for sinne being but the feeling of extreamest paines from Gods hand whether for a time or for ever whether locally in Hell or ells where that neither altereth nor lesseneth the present paines which Gods owne infinit wrathfull power iustice can inflict for satisfaction where and how it pleaseth him These paines then to this end and in this very manner inflicted Christ felt Indeed not being in the locall Hell yet those being as wee see the self same paines for their nature which are in Hell â—ag 247. yea which are * sharpest in Hell And he discerned and receaved them properly yea only in his very Soule as then was manefest when his body was so brused with sorrowes and sufferings yet none at all then touching him without that there strayned out from him much sweat of clotted blood c. These things being thus now let vs see wherein you agree with vs 〈◊〉 248. and wherein you disagree We all agree in termes That Christ suffered in soule Gods Wrath howbeit touching the sense we disagree in 2. maine pointes The iâ—â—â— the qâ—â—â— I affirme that Christ suffered Gods Proper Wrath and vengeance you meane hee suffered only such afflictions as other godly men do suffer at the handes of the wicked and cruell world For “ Pa. 1â— you thinke all Afflictions whatsoever small or great towards whomsoever are the effects of Gods Wrath. But that is not so except in a most vnproper speach To the godly their Afflictions both small and great are Gods Fatherly and gracious Chastisements and no effects of his proper Wrath as shall appeare further heereafter Howbeit you must observe heere my 3. limitations which I set down in the * Beforâ— Quaestion 1. I meane he suffered only that proper Wrath of God which was meerely Punishment for sinne and no sinne 2. This also hee suffered as touching the Substance and Nature of the Paines not as touching the Circumstances either of of Place or Continuance c. 3. I meane hee suffered not every particular Punishment of sinne nor that which every particular sinner meeteth with all but the Generall Curse and Punishment of God for sinne namely that which belongeth in Gods Iustice to All men in Common and Generally who abide in sinne Now after these necessary limitations the maine point wherein we further disagree is this I affirme that Christ Suffered All Gods proper Wrath and vengeance for sinne namely so described and limited as is above said I say All that which the very Damned doe suffer Christ thus did suffer for vs and therefore even a Proper and immediat sense in his Soule of Gods Proper most painfull Wrath his infinit and vntolerable burning Wrath. Which what toung is it that can expresse or hearte conceaue Yet Christs Humane Soule was apt and able to feele it though not to sustaine it A iust occasion in him was offered therevnto for then he stood foorth as the only and absolute Ransompayer of all our debt And Gods vnpartiall Iustice dispenseth not without necessitie Yea where he cometh to Punish he layeth it on finding sinne vnsatisfied as he doth inhaerent in the wicked and as he did imputed in Christ our surety till he had by †Heb â—â— Sufferings accomplished finished perfitly his RedemptioÌ„ for vs. Your Aâ—â— on wâ—â—â—â—gain saâ—â— Christ â—â—red iâ—â—â— only 〈◊〉 froÌ„ hiâ— But this is far greater then as you hold that He suffered no more but meere Bodily paines that is in his Soule by froÌ„ his Body This is your drift every where but I note these expresse places â—â—g 16. * Sin which should have wrought in vs an eternall destruction both of Body and Soule could not farther prevaile in him but to the wounding of his flesh and sheding of his bloud for the iust full satisfactioÌ„ of all our sinnes even in the righteous and syncere iudgment of God Likewise your generall Title is The Full redemtion of mankind
you meane not thus 〈◊〉 The. 5.23 then you againe vse sophistry deceaving vs with the worde Soule For wee meane thereby in this Question onely the Spirit or Minde as it is also called in exact and distinct speach Howbeit speaking vulgarly and ordinarily we calle it the Soule Which yet sometime is vnderstood onely for the Sensitive parts quickning the body and depending thereon But this indeede is not it which we haue heere in quaestion If you meane in Soule to be properly and immediatly in his immortall Spirit as the ordinary phrase intendeth and that so he suffered directly punishment for sin in his Soule not Devotion Piety zealous Care only as I doubt e you meane then you differ not frō vs 〈◊〉 observe 〈◊〉 18. but we al agree And thus my wordes shal be true Christ suffered a sense of Gods wrath f equall to Hell it selfe and all the torments thereof For as touching Gods wrath punishing his Spirite Which you 〈◊〉 s o blame 〈◊〉 244.247 who can say but that this was as hoat and skorching as Hell fire it selfe Who can limit or measure the fury of Gods severe Iustice when he cometh in iudgment against sinne as now he did vnto Christ This therefore being well pondered we may preceave that Christs sorrow anguish which he indured for sinne might very well be and was no doubt infinit yea even in those bodily stripes woundes and bloudshed whose paines otherwise were finite His soule not only discerning sensitively the bodily paine smart but chiefly in the vnderstanding he conceaved and in his faculty of immediat suffering he felt the fury of that hand which principally strooke those blowes vpon his Humane nature not Pilats nor the Iewes who were but instruments but the originall and chiefe imploying them which was Gods Justice armed with vengeance for his sinne His I may call it for he paid for it Now this could not but make an vnspeakeable impression of paine sorrowes which stacke in the depth of his soule Who then can say how litle or how small this was Nay who can declare or comprehend the infinit greatnes of it Finally your self doth grant expresly that a Pag. 2. the Wrath of God is Hell indeed only it b Isa 30 causeth Hell to be cruell Yea you grant it to be sharper then Hell So that we see heereby how vainly you say c Pag. 2◠Out of this proposition Christ suffered for vs the wrath of God for sinne I shall never conclude Ergo he suffered the true paines of Hell I have heere shewed you I trust that this followeth well seeing the wrath of God which Christ felt in his Spirit was his right and proper wrath albeit he suffered not all nor the wholl wrath of God nor Hell locally nor every part thereof iust as the Damned do Which you without all colour of reason or likelyhood would make men imagine to be the question betweene vs. You d Pag. 24 would make a Contradition in my wordes for saying e Treat 1. Christ suffered in his wholl manhood and afterward f Treat 1. Christ suffered Gods wrath properly and immediatly in his Soule Where I say not as you vntruly charge me that He suffered all that he suffered in his whole manhood Wherefore this is a niew contrariety Againe granting him to suffer all that he suffered in his wholl manhood yet he must suffer Gods wrath as God wrath properly and immediatly in his Soule in his Body mediatly and by coniunction only with his Soule And thus my reason g Treat 1. there framed is yet still wholly good and sound Then I am charged with absurdityes I know not how many nor how great 1. h Pag. 34◠Because I say i Treat ◠pag. 17. Christ assumed not our nature nor any part of it but only to suffer in it properly and immediatly As if I had meant heere that he became man not to reveale to vs by his owne mouth his Fathers will not to worke righteousnes for vs not to quicken and sanctify vs but only to suffer for vs and nothing els Wherein who would have shewed himselfe so vniust an Adversary so vnreasonable Were it not reason and iust dealing to consider whereof we dispute and so weighing the whole matter of our talke not to stretch and racke my words further then that All men may see it to be manefest that k Treat ◠pag. 16. heere I speake only of Christs suffering for our redemptiō having not one word about his other benefits which he wrought for vs. Pag. 17. a And after speaking of Christs Soules suffering I shew that although there were 2 sortes thereof one immediat and proper an other by Sympathy from and with the flesh yet Christ tooke our Humane Soule only to suffer in it properly immediatly that is his maine end was not that he should suffer in it by Sympathy from and with the body and onely so which you very strangely affirme So that my meaning is no more but to exclude that which you affirme That Christ tooke his Humane Soule to suffer in it only from and by his Body This heere I denyed and nothing els For I grant that Christ intended that his Humane Soule should suffer by Sympathy but yet also this he intended not directly nor primarily in taking the 2 distinct partes of our Humane nature our Soule and our Body He intended it by consequence because Natures right state was such in vs therefore determining to be in nature like vs he would also that his Soule should feele the Bodyes outward harmes as it doth with vs. Howbeit in comparison of the Soules most principall disposition of that which is proper to Reasonable Creatures he did not respect the inferiour part that which is common to vs with Beastes even this sensitive suffering by Sympathy with and from the Body I say in comparison of the other Christ respected not this yet he did respect this also as I said secondarily consequently that is because he intended to have our nature in whole and full perfection as we have it only except sinne Now I beseech you would any vpright adversary obiect against me that in this speach I exclude Christes doing righteousnes in his Soule for vs c. I appeale to all indifferent Readers Rather hence we are to gather to conclude that each part in Christ ought to have the proper and immediat vse as is incident to the nature thereof aswell in suffering as it is cleere that it hath in working righteousnes In Christes working of righteousnes and obedience to God his Soule had a proper and immediat part to do which it executed without the Body as to conceave meditate on the will of God revealed to him to love and wholly to imbrace it and to purpose the full performing of it c. His Body also had a proper and externall vse not onely to follow
the holy thoughts and purposes of his minde but also to minister many outward occasions to derive them to the minde whereby Christ wrought righteousnes compleatly and in his whole man That which was by cooperation and mutuall cohaerence only of one part with the other as it was a distinct kinde of working in the Soule and in the body also so it was respected secondarily and only because the true constitution of our nature requireth so which Christ meant wholly and perfitly to take vpon him Whence now we may well argue As it was with him touching his faculty of doing righteousnes and Obedience so it was and ought to bee touching his suffering Gods punishments for vs. There is no reason in the world nor likelyhood that the natural faculty in Christs Soule of proper and immediat suffering for our sinnes should have no vse and a Suffering of paines onely by and from the body should be sufficient when in his doing of righteousnes for vs his Soules ioint Obedience and mutually knit togeather in with his Body was not alone sufficient But there was further obedience found in the Soule of Christ even that which was proper and immediat in it as before I said Seeing then such a kind of Obedience was necessary for vs in Christs Soule therefore such a Suffering also even in the same kinde was necessary likewise This must needs be a perfit reason for vs against you except you could by expresse Scripture disprove this proportion of like necessity betweene the operation of the proper faculties of Christes Humane Soule that is betweene his Doing Suffering for vs which you shall never be able to do And thus it appeareth I hope that you had no cause so cruelly to rage at me for this as you do Nor yet for the next where your charge me that a Pag. 250. I conclude Christs flesh to be needles for our redemption A horrible Haeresie But how do I say so much Because I say His Soules suffering by Sympathy did not make properly to our redemption Ergo his Flesh was needles I deny this sequele how can that follow Touching the sense of my speach you may remember how I have largly declared b Pag. 8. before that the Soules proper suffering is greatly and iustly distinguished from the CoÌ„mon suffering that is by sympathy And that the Soules suffering by Sympathy in Christ was intended by God by reason that our naturall constitution doth require it so to be in every true and perfit man which Christ also was And thus it did make to our redemption even as likewise his Infirmities and Affections as his Wearines Hunger Sleepe Feare Love Ioy c. These doe make to our redemption not as intended in Christs incarnation principally and primarily but secondarily and by consequent because that Humane nature which God ordayned vnto him and intended to be perfit in him could not otherwise be throughly perfit as it is in vs but with these common Affections infirmities which other mortall Creatures have to not Man only Also in Christ these Infirmities and Affections wrought not immediatly for sinne but vsually for other particular causes and occasions immediatly Nevertheles they were all even for sin in him consequently that is because the perfection of Humane nature which he assumed for sinne and was in every point in him as before I noted required so Even thus likewise in Christ I say his Soules suffering by sympathy wrought in him immediatly properly for some other particular cause stirring that faculty that is by reason of the Bodily paine smart which this sensitive power of the Soule apprehended felt and caused the flesh also to feele This suffering then of his Soule only by sympathy was immediatly and properly not for our redemption from sin but for the sensitive apprehending of the smart woundes and blowes which the Iewes gave his body yet as before I said consequently even this was for our sinne also namely because these woundes were given him for our sinne And thus though it made for our redemption in such maner as it wrought in Christ because of our sinne and as it was intended by Christ in taking both partes of our Nature the Soule the Body yet this was not in a direct or immediat respect and so not properly but by consequent as I have shewed After a you charge me sorely Pag. 252. that I falsifie your Argument about receaving pollution from Adam For where b I frame your reason as grounded on that opinion that onely our flesh is derived from Adam and not our soule Treat 1. pag. 19. Pag. 252. c you renounce it vtterly and say you grounded no reason vpon that difficulty so you made no such argument as heere I pretend Which whether it be true or no I report me to them that heard you But then what is your reason now is it any otherwise grounded No certainly if you make any reason at all Who trifleth then and why doe you vpbraid me so much with trifling Let vs see what is your reason now Christes flesh is as able to redeeme vs as Adams to condemne vs. But we inherit pollution from Adams flesh Ergo. Doe we inherit pollution from Adams flesh and is it not by Generation How ells do we inherit pollution coÌ„demnatioÌ„ from him If there be no otherway why doe you then seeme to refuse the difficult question of our Generation and yet vrge the sequele thoreof For if our soules arise in Generation from Adam as well as our flesh how can your reason be good by any possiblity It is best therefore vtterly to omit this reason which you grant hath no ground but a great difficulty doubtfull question I a Treatisâ— pag. 21. have shewed herefore at large that your argument which heere is your Minor is nothing true For pollution that is sin reall iniquity is not in our flesh without a Soule But Ambrose saith We are defiled before we haue life I pray omit mens Authorities in this case prove by sound reason that which you would Neither is it cleere as you say it is that we â—â—heriâ—â— pollution froÌ„ Adams flesh only This word only you must add or els you say nothing against vs. Our parents Soules are in cause as wel as their flesh that sin is derived vnto vs. But you draw me to talke of these intricat things which I would in no wise meddle with I pray kepe b pag. 10. your promise better not to medle with this difficultie neither to make it any grouÌ„d of your reason which yet you do here notwithstanding Again you with one breath overthrow your self For you say we have pollution before the Soule commeth whence soever it coÌ„meth Yea whence soever What if the Soule doe come in by generation You see how you crosse your self who do so taunt me for this fault I hope altogither vniustly Then c Pag. 25 you
fruit was sinne even without and before the acte of eating Moreover other foule sinnes Haeresies Turcisme and Atheisme are committed and determined simply in the minde without any necessary imployment of any partes of the Body As touching Haeresies to hold Two first causes of thinges a Good and a Bad God and the Divell with Manichee also that Christ the Redeemer was not God with Arrius that the Holy Ghost is not God with Eunomius c that Christ had no Soul with Apollinaris that Christes Manhood was confounded and changed into his Godhead with Eutyches or divided from his Godhead with Nestorius or the opinion of Vbiquity or of Transubstantiation Finally that there never was nor shal be any Christ a Redeemer as the Turkes hold that there is no God as the Atheists Nowe are there not many provocations to hatch and to conclude these opinions meerely in the minde soule of man Are there not many pleasures even in these impieties meerely in the minde Yea it is evident to all that the meere Thoughts the Vnderstanding determination of the only Soule of man doth act them resolveth on them in it self without any concurrence or cooperation of the body therein Happily you will say The Soule takes occasion so to thinke by some outward bodily thinges before seene or heard I deny not but the Soule taketh occasion to thinke many things by the bodily senses How be it not all thinges simply And so are the Fathers b â—prian and 〈◊〉 10. in your â—â—g 255. heere to be vnderstood If any will stumble on that of Aristotle Nihil est in intellectû quod non fuit prius in sensu it is not absolutly nor vniversally true My reason is because Philosophers thought the minde to be as it were Tabula abrasa when we come into the world first They knew not the naturall Pride the impietie and perversity of mans soule which may yeeld many and sundry Thoughts and Determinations to sinne yea provocations and pleasures in sin which the Body ministreth not neither could the Heathen vnderstand them And to say that this pride impiety and perversitie was taken by contagion from the meere flesh originally in Generation is not to be proved Bud yet were that so notwithstanding the Soule afterward can acte many sinnes meerely in it selfe and without the cooperation of the body Further as the Angells sinned in the beginning by their meere spirituall conceit against God so nothing letteth but that man in his Angell-like nature the reasonable Soule may sinne likewise without any Bodily meanes therevnto Also as we can thinke well without vsing our body God so inspiring vs so may we thinke ill which is sinne our owne inborne corrupt vnderstanding and reason and will moving vs only Moreover if I grant you this point of HeatheÌ„ Philosophy that the Soule taketh occasion to thinke all thinges which she thinketh vniversally from the body bodily obiectes yet it followeth not that she taketh occasion to misthinke from thence alwayes The proper provocations and pleasures of sinne are oftentimes not outward at all but the meere perversitie and malignity of our evill minde is vsually the very cause of ill thoughts ill determinations I grant also that the occasion is often taken froÌ„ the outward senses But it is meerely taken not given taken by the corrupt and perverse minde not given by the senses Which though they be also otherwise corrupt yet simply in seeing naturall things they sinne not nor yet in hearing nor in tasting save as the minde which is properly and principally and first sinfull abuseth their operation And as touching those wretched a Haeretâ— Turkes theists men opinions before rehearsed doubtles their presumptuous and perverse wit only so reasoning and concluding falsly without any other proper inducementes froÌ„ without was the very cause of those spirituall impieties in many impes of Sathan Wherefore for you to affirme that the Soule committeth all acts of sinne by the body that God did not forbid Adam to like or desire that fruit is more then strange doctrine Somewhere most iniuriously b Pag. 3â— you reproch purity I dare say heere you have no colour of purity in this point Notwithstanding c Pag. 2â— you resolutly set your self to prove your opinion not by Scripture but by Fathers who are answered before saving Tertullian who d Pag. 2â— you say pointeth to a place of Scripture for it e Mat. 〈◊〉 out of the heart come evill thoughts But this place being considered will rather prove the contrary For Christ heere meaneth not by Heart any parte of the Body but meerely the Minde or Soule of man and that with opposition to the body in this case of sinning For thus in effect hee saith Not the Body sinneth by taking in but the Soule by sending out That is to say The Soule only sinneth properly not the body at all no not in grosse facts except as the body is the Instrument the Soule being the Agent as your selfe doe speake Otherwise the body sinneth not at all much lesse in such thoughts as are meere spirituall vnles wee meane by society for coniunctions sake in one person with the Soule which indeed is it that sinneth And thus some have thought those places of Tertullian which a â—ag 255. you cite may be vnderstood But indeed Tertullian you vse not well and bring these his wordes against his own meaning as anon we shall further see That which you ad of Bodily infirmities letting the operation of the Soule for so I thinke you meane as in Lethargies 〈◊〉 256. Apoplexies Sleepe Phrensy c. Peradventure then it thinketh and coÌ„sidereth more freely in it selfe and by it selfe then when the body setteth it on worke otherwise at other times Howsoever it can never be proved that the Soule then vtterly ceaseth operation and can do nothing for it seemeth that only our memory and sensitive faculties are stopped whereby it commeth to passe that we know nothing afterwards what the minde contemplateth and thinketh in such cases It is very rare when we remember something and by some extraordinary loosing of those obstructions it is which commonly doe possesse our senses wholy in such occasions Yet even those small remnants of such operations of our Soule beeing in such state doe evidently convince that the Soules operations hang not necessarily on the body neither is it idle when the body is hindred though commonly and for the most part we remember litle thereof Lastly if the Soules operations were so necessarily tyed to the faculties and instrumentes of the body as you doe avouch I greatly doubt howe the Soules immortalitie will bee defended against the effect of your assertion â—â—â—oul hath â—â—â—â—ion nor meereâ—â—â—â—mply in 〈◊〉 without â—â—â—dy 54.255 Surely it bringeth in with it the Haeresie of Pope Iohn the 22. and of certaine Anabaptistes that the Soule hath no being till when it shall resume hir body at the
other sense at all which these wordes might seeme rather to admit Wherefore this is more then halfe a conclusion against you that my interpretation and application of it is vniustly by you reproved Then a Pag. 2â— you come to confute my fourth Reason but the mainest points thereof you have not so much as touched 1 I b Treatâ— pa. 45. shewed that the Godly sometimes in this life doe feele a tast of Gods infinit Wrath and even of Hellish sorrowes 2. That Christ our Redeemer suffered for vs as deeply yea deeper then ever any of vs heere do suffer or can suffer But all this you can heere cleanly passe over without any worde to it Wherevpon it followeth soundly that Christ indeed suffered in Spirit the true effects of Gods wrath and even the sense of Hellish sorrowes Howbeit in an other reason of mine not vnlike to that you thinke you can picke more advantage against some wordes I shewed out of the Hebrues that Christ succoureth vs not but wherein he had experience of our temptations and infirmities Now he succoureth vs even in the feeling of the terrours of God and sorrowes of Hell in our Soules Therfore he himselfe had experience of the same pa 66. I meaue c alwayes so far as was possible that is in the extremitie of the sorrow paine thereof no further Where note that the wordes of this Proposition are not any whit more generall neither include they any thing lesse tolerable then the text it selfe doth â—eb 2.17 thus d Wherefore in all things it behooved him or he ought to be made like vnto his brethren â—ebr 4.15 â—om 8.19 â—â—ch 20 2â— e like in temptations infirmities and f afflictions only except sinne that he might be a mercifull and faithfull Highpriest in things concerning God For in that which himselfe suffered and was tempted in he is able to succour them which are tempted First en hó in that which himselfe suffered signifieth either the matter wherein Christ is able to succour vs or the meanes whereby he becommeth able that is to say ready and sit to succour vs or els the occasion and reason why hee is the readier to succour vs even in that himself suffered and was tempted he is able to succour them who are tempted As if hee should say were it not that himselfe by his owne feeling knew the misery of our sufferings and temptations he had not ben so ready to succour vs in all ours not with such compassion as now he is Which way soever of these 3 we take these words yet they plainly inferre that Christ himselfe felt all the misery and smart of our sufferings and temptations which we at any time do feele wherein we are succoured Thus as I have shewed neither do you gainsay The godly sometimes feeling an infinit paine of Gods * wrath and of Hellish sorrows in this life â—o their â—â—e it seeâ—â—h â—â—well â—â—ch Christ therfore felt the same indeed to succour vs thereby Wherevnto serveth our publike doctrine g Diram execrationem quâ scelera nos nostra de vinxerat in se suscepit vt eâ nos hoc pacto exolveret Albeit heere the first way seemeth to mee not the vnlikelyest that the Apostle should signifie All the matter namely that kind of paine wherin he succoureth vs even that which himselfe also had experience of And this also those wordes kata panta in all things doe fully import But indeed all are but one the same in effect as I said Sec we must note that in these words Christ was like vs in All temptations and afflictions we are to vnderstand h All that are incident to Mankind generally 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 48. c not which happen to any man particularly All the particular Crosses in the world neither could nor can possibly come to any man Also that he suffered not only in one or in some partes of our nature but in All and every parte even in Spirit and Soule and Body like as we are apt able to suffer Againe all the particulars which by Gods providence he suffered not were farre lesse in paine terrour then the generall paines were which he did suffer And thus right well is Christ said to be like vs in all our temptations and sufferinges that is at least like vs indeed beyonde vs in all the extremity and violence of them and exceeding much more deepely plunged therein As well therefore you might have given a good sense of my wordes if you had had any minde thereto as of these generall and large wordes of the Scripture wherevpon I ground my selfe But very chariritably you can inferre vpoÌ„ my reason Then Christ had his eyes put out for so had Sampson he was swallowed vp by a Whall for so was Ionas he was cast into a burning furnace for so were Sidrac Mishac Abednego he was stoned to death for so were Naboth and Steven In deed I had bene as foolish and as doltish as you doe make me if I had treamed so Care vs therfore I pray that indifferencie which all reason and vse of speach permitteth namely that general termes be vnderstood according to the possibilitie and propabilitie of the matter That is that the Apostle and I both doe speake of All the sufferinges of Mankinde in generall and of each parte of Humane Nature apt to suffer but not of every particular in each of them or which each maÌ„ meeteth with all Then where * Pag 287 you examine me what I mâ—ane whether Christ be not able or not willing to succour vs in other thinges then hee him selfe did suffer Mine answer is Aske the Apostle what hee meaneth in saying kata panta in all things it behoued him to be like his brethren that he might be a mercifull and faith full Highpriest and dynaâ— as he is thus able to succour vs as if he should say Hee was not any otherway able then in that him selfe hath also suffered being tempted in all things kata homotótet a like vnto vs. How be it I vnderstand him not to speake heere of Christs absolu Omnipotency what he could have done as God if he would But of his ability by dispensation receaved in his Manhood by the Ordinance and appointment of God As if he should saye Thus hath God appointed him inabled him to succour vs and not otherwise Where we will not sticke to grant you your sense that hee might be the better able to have compassion on vs. In effect these expositions differ not much And thus this Scriptured trust is cleered and my Reason iustified Christ succoureth vs not in any extreamer kinde of paine them him selfe had experience of Which also â—ough All geâ—â—rally feele â—t yet geneâ—â—lly it is due 〈◊〉 All in reâ—â—ect of sinne But he succoureth vs in the â— feeling of the terrours of God hee releaseth vs of the paines and sorrowes vnmeasurable that rise thereof Therefore him selfe had
manhood also after so low humiliation Finally it was his own most free and fore determined will Would hee then so mournfully grieve and complaine thereat It hath no reason nor likelyhood in it Iohn 1â—â— Lazarus when he was returned from the ioyes of heaven to take againe his rotten carcase ofter it stanke having lyen 4. dayes dead in the grave yet he grieved not at it neither ought he so to have don Much lesse ought Christ so to grieve and mourne for a lesser want and for a shorter season as we may thinke then that was to Lazarus But this matter is not worth the speaking of “ See bâ— to this puâ— pag. 10â— any further Neither doe your Fathers prove any such improbable yea vnlawfull mourning complayning in Christ If they prove any thing towardes your meaning it is this that he complayned because of his bodily dying Howbeit they say not that he thus complayned only and meerely for that neither I thinke will you plainly hold this neither doe wee deny the other The truth is they meane he suffered in his whole Humane nature How the â—â—thers are 〈◊〉 taken namely that he suffered not as God They strove heere with Haeretikes whose controversies were far from this our question f Hilar. 〈◊〉 Trin li. 〈◊〉 Hilary and g Epiph. 〈◊〉 Arioma 〈◊〉 Epiphanius wrot against Arius to prove that Christ in this complaint shewed rightly a humane infirmity and that this was not the voice of a Deity inferiour to the Father as Arius blasphemed These Fathers then had no purpose heere to exclude the sufferings of Christes Soule but only to deny that his Godhead suffered complayned as being left to punishment by his Father when the sorrowes of death began to prevayle against him The very same doth †In Maâ—â— can 33. 〈◊〉 Hilary also where he saith that this in Christ was Corporis vox the outcry of his body He plainly meaneth it of his whole manhood the opposition being betweene it and his Godhead â—reat 1. â—â—g 9. as the Scripture †often doth And where he saith he was morte peragendus to be coÌ„summated by death he meaneth that death ended all his suffering not that hee suffered nothing els but meerely death And if their words do any where come neere to our question â—ertul cont â—â—ax â—â—ila in Mat. â—â—au 33. as it is very likely that h Tertulian and the one place of i Hilary doth then surely they are plainly for vs and against you Tertullian pointeth in this place at certaine Haeresies maintained in his time wherwth it seemeth Praxeas was infected 1 That the Father suffered aswell as the Sonne when Christ suffered 2 That the Deity suffered 3 That Christ was no true nor perfit man All these pointes Tertullian overthroweth heere Quid de isto quaeris c. What inquire you of Christ You heere him crying out in his Passion My God my God why hast thou forsaken me The Sonne therefore suffered being forsaken of his Father but this is meant of the Flesh and of the Soule that is of the Man not of the Word nor of the Spirit Heere it is plaine that Tertullian sheweth besides the rest this point exactly that Christ was a very man in that he had a proper Body and a Soule and that this his suffering on the Crosse was in both these partes and so in his whole intire manhood Also that he suffered in both these parts even froÌ„ his Father â—eere pag. 63. â—at 1. pa 4 But he could not suffer in his Soule froÌ„ †God if he felt only and meerely but a bodily death as you hold And to suffer the stroke of Gods hand in his Soule as the proper vengeance of sin is farre more then to feele in Soule by sympathy only the bodies smart Neither had Tertull. overthroweÌ„ but confirmed that Haeresie of Christs being no true natural man if he had said that in this case he suffered in Soule only by symphathy with and from the Body But this is absurd to thinke in Tertullian Therefore in this place he is flatly against you And this DerelictioÌ„ of his Father which he speaketh of is Death indeed to the Sonne But what death Forsooth more then the separation of the Soule and Body â—at Death â—â—e Soule in â—ist wee â—â—ne Even the seperation of the Deity from the whole manhood which is the death of the Soule I speake heere nothing but the Fathers words yea the Scriptures Your owne place of Epiphanius saith that nowe his Deity departed from his manhood So saith your owne Hilary also Corporis vox contestata recedentis a se Dei dissidium So saith Ambrose Clamavit Homo Divinitatis separatione moriturus The man Christ did cry being about to dy by the separation of his Godhead Againe Sequestrata delectatione Divinitatis aternae taedio meae infirmitatis afficitur The ioy of his eternall Godhead being parted away hee was afflicted with the tediousnis of my infirmitie Heere the Fathers doe shewe in deed that Christ dyed but more then a meere bodily death even the death of the Soule also For what is the Separation of the Deitie from his Soule els but the death of the Soule Howbeit note I pray that neither the Fathers nor I do meane any Separating 1 of the vnion of a The Dâ—â— Humâ—â— both natures in Christ nor the Separating 2 of any Holynes or habituall grace of God from his Soule 3 nor the Separating of Gods love from him See befoâ—â— pag. 10â— but the SeparatioÌ„ of all comfortable feeling assistance of the Godhead in that he felt not any supporting of his Soule and Body now pierced thorow with the Paines which he felt inflicted by God This SeparatioÌ„ is meant and it b Thougâ— haps thâ— ther 's dâ— this phâ—â— rarely may be called the Death of the Soule For as it is c Psal â—â— life to the Soule to feele and to enioy the glorie of God So it is death to feele the want and absence thereof vtterly and the rather being also then overwhelmed with incomparable paines That heavenly life Christ tasted a litle while in his TransfiguratioÌ„ this Hellish Death he felt besides his bodily death vpon the Crosse And thus Tertull. meaneth heere that not Christs bodily death only made him now thus to cry out but that death also which was the Separation of his Godhead from both his body Soule which is the death of the Soule And so he saith true the Dereliction of the Father is Death to the Sonne Your d Pag. â—â—â— 4. Exposition for any thing I see may be granted for it seemeth to bee the same in effect that wee holde Your place of Cyrill seemeth also to concurre that Christes words of complaint were the removing of the dereliction which had fallen on vs. Was it removed from vs then surely it was laid vpon some body els Now that must needes be vpon
his meere bodily Death which he so wofully and impotently feared as I haue before sufficiently coÌ„firmed Therefore it was the death of the soule the 2. Death which heere is vnderstood to have thus mightily afflicted Christ Which also your own selfe do d Pag. â—â— fully grant and affirme with me Yea you affirme further then we doe or then the truth is or possibly can be You say Christ heere thus feared Eternall death and Everlasting damnation What a speach is this Christ could not possibly feare in such wofull maner that which he perfitly knew should never come neere him But he perfitly knew that eternall Death and the Cup of Gods everlasting malediction should never touch him He knew and saw that this by Gods almighty and vnchangeable Decree was set further from him then the East is from the West yea then Hell is from HeaveÌ„ Therefore he could not by any meanes possibly feare eternall death nor pray in such sort against it Againe that which he feared and so pitifully prayed against was that which he knew was by God e Iohn 12 ordayned for him Yea Feare alwayes is of that which is to come But Eternall death was not by God ordayned for him that was “ Which Christ 〈◊〉 right wâ— not to come vnto him Therfore it was not Eternall death which he so feared Finally when in the Garden he prayed against that Cup which he feared that it might passe from him there he yeeldeth and submitteth himselfe presently to the vndergoing of it But it were I know not what to say that Christ did ever yeeld and submit himselfe to vndergo Eternall death or to tast the Cup of Gods everlasting malediction Therefore it was not this that he feared heere prayed against And yet it was I grant the Death of the Soule or the 2. Death that is simply the essense thereof Gods withdrawing himselfe from him in the Paines and torments thereof This onely it was He suffer that deatâ— which he feared not the eternity thereof nor sinfull concomitants which he thus feared And this for the infinitnes of it naturally he could not but feare yea and that so extreamely also he feared f â—ôzein for him selfe as knowing it to be ordayned for him So that hence it followeth invincibly that Christ in deed suffered sith he thus feared more then the meere bodily Death even the Death of the soule For he could not I say thus * Much yeeld to iâ— he did sâ—â—ing Thy â—â—â—don feare but he must needs know that it was to come or might com vnto him â—wed furâ—â— before 131.132 if he but knew that it might come then it * certainly did come vnto him at one time or other in his Passion before heâ— left the world See to the Hebr. g Christ abolished through death him that had the power of death that is the Divell and so delivered all them which for feare of death were all their life time subiect to bondage â—â—b 2.14 Heere I see no reason in the world but that the Apostle by â—his often repeating of death and by mutuall referring of it in one place as it were to the other doth vnderstand signifie one and the same death altogeather But it is the death of the Soule which the Divell hath the power and execution of also the death of the soule chiefly sinful men were held in feare of all their life long It followeth then I suppose that even through this death of the Soule Christ abolished the Divell and deliveted his children Specially seeing there is no enormity nor impossibilitie heerein Against this you haue no reason at all but wordes and wrestings and vaine ostentation of Fathers none of them all denying our sense Third it seemeth also that Peter teacheth this same Pet. 3.18 saying k Christ in his suffering was don to death in the Flesh but made alive by the Spirit Where Death may be very well referred both to the Soule and Body of Christ Because the text heere speaketh as I iudge of the whole and entire sufferings of Christ And it is manifest by that before that Christ did suffer not in his body only but properly and immediatly also in his Soule we haue seene also that the * phrase of Death 〈◊〉 135.136 or Dying may in a good sense be applyed even to Christes Soule Againe this word Flesh it seemeth can not heere in this place be vnderstood to signifie onely the Body of Christ but even both partes of his Humane nature thar is the reasonable Soule and the body My reason is because wheresoever in scripture the Flesh and the Spirit are noted oppositly togeather in Christ â—â—m 1.3 4. â—im 3.16 â—oh 4.2 〈◊〉 1.14 â—or 5.7 â—4 1.4.1 â—â—g 320. there the i Flesh signifieth alwayes his whole Humanity even both partes thereof the Soule also not the Body only the Spirit signifieth his Deity or Divine power Now what have you against this Nothing of waight but floutes and mockes that k this observation is made out of the hinder partâ— of my head c. But what pretend you against it Some Scripture palpably abused First Mathew where Christ speaketh of his Disciples that their Spirit their inward regenerat man was ready to watch â—ath 26. but their Flesh their corrupt nature was weak sluggish What is this to Christes Flesh and Spirit Thinke you that Christs Soule was willing to suffer as God had appointed but that his Flesh resisted Verily so you seeme heere to vnderstand An vntrâ—â— conceit and it is as likely as your applying of Flesh and Spirit to Christ in your pag. 104. Then a Luk. 2. Luke where both Spirit and Flesh are not intended of Christ as our observation before requireth but only the Flesh Then the Romanes where I affirme that b Rom. Flesh signifieth the whole Manhood of Christ according to the which he came from David even as well as SalomoÌ„ or Nathan did who were Davids sonnes in their entire and perfit nature So likewise Christe was kinne to the Iewes according to his c Rom. 9 whole Humanitie aswel as d ver 3. Paul was And heere Paul meaneth him selfe to be kinne to them according to Nature wholly that only by Regeneration in the Gospell he was differing from them Now Nature opposed to Grace and regeneration hath reference both to Soule and Body in a man Howsoever the Soule cometh in Generation that is not heere considered neither is it necessarily to the purpose Which difficulty also your selfe haue vtterly * Pag. 2â— renouÌ„ced before to make it any argument for you in this matter Thus yet the Flesh and the Spirit thus opposed heere in Christ shall signifie the whole Manhood and Godhead in him Further that which e Pa. 32 you bring out of the f 2. Corâ— Corinthians compared with this in Peter doeth most fitlie and clearely open and confirme the
same Hee was crucified touching his infirmitie but liveth by the power of God His infirmitie the text heere nameth Metonimically vnderstanding in Christ that in which his infirmities were Now his Soule had infirmities of suffering in it as well as his body Therefore his Soule also is vnderstood heere that it was Crucifyed and dyed that is according to the condicion thereof as likewise his body according to the condicion thereof And thus that which Paul calleth infirmitie Peter calleth Flesh and that which Paul calleth the power of God Peter calleth the Spirit That is his Deitie is set oppositly in both these places to his whole Humanitie even to body and soule Aug. de 4.13 To which purpose that place also to the “ Rom. Romanes doth serve where the like opposition is found as I have shewed betwene the Flesh and the Spirit in Christ that is his Manhood and Godhead Other reasons also * Treat 137 1â— I haue noted serving well heerevnto as the 4 5 and 6. but I omit to rehearse them againe For it seemeth your selfe agreeth with vs in them â—â—g 324. holding a expresly that the Spirit heere in Peter is the Deitie of Christ according to Austins iudgement Now this being granted and acknowledged that the Spirit heere signifieth Christes Godhead how can it be likely but that the other opposit part the Flesh must needes import his whole and intire Manhood Verily thus it seemeth most plaine that Peter heere distributeth the whole and absolute person both God and Man into these Natures the Flesh and the Spirit Wherfore I can not thinke but that the Apostle heere vnderstandeth by Flesh the whole and intire Manhood of Christ even his Soule and his body Now this being so then it followeth by the text that Christ in his Passion was don to death both in Soule Pag. 320. body Heere you obiect that thus I make all the attributes of the body common to the Soule Nay forsooth that I doe not Nor yet this attribute of Dying vnderstood in such sort and maner as the Body properly dyeth that is to become without life and sense I ascribe Death to both but yet according to the divers condicion and state of both â—reat 1. Pâ—g 78. And thus you might vnderstand my b meaning to be where I say it is absurd false that Christ was made aliue in his Humane Soule that is it neither lost nor recovered life and sense so as his body did â—â—â—e before 〈◊〉 135 136 Howbeit as Death is oftentymes attributed to mens soules in the c Scripture that is the feeling of the extreame wrath of God and the punishment for sinne so d I make Death commoÌ„ both to Christes Soule and body â—â—eat 1. â—â—g 79. even to his whole and intire humane Nature Which if you do not acknowledge the shame of ab surditirie and coÌ„trarietie which in your fancy e you accuse me of that Christes Soule dyed and dyed not â—â—g 322. â—â—3 will sit neerer to you theÌ„ to me Also in such a sense I deny not but Christ may be said that he was quickened in the Spirit that is refreshed and comforted againe in his Soule and restored from that bottomles gulfe of sorrowes to the lively feeling of heavenly ioyes and glory which for a season he had no sense of at all Howbeit though this sense bee a true quickening in his Soule yet I deny that heere in this place of Peter it can be translated quickened in the Spirit meaning the Soule because Spirit heere in this opposition is set indeed for the Deitie of Christ â—â—â—d you with â—â—â—stin doe â—â—sent * as before I have shewed Thus the matter I hope is cleere to reasonable men that Christes Soule even according to the Scripture phrase may be said in some sorte to have tasted and suffered Death that is the extreamest feelings of Gods wrath for sinne and the most vehement paines of the damned though not as the damned doe in respect of the Accidents and concomitants of their ordinary damnation but in a singular maner and extraordinarie way as became the sonne of God and a sinles man yet a very maÌ„ being our Redeemer Now besides the matter you “ Pag. 3 gird at me in divers places as where I say The Death of the Soule is such Paines and sufferings of Gods wrath as allwayes accompanie them that are separated from the grace and love of God Forfooth it is true they are alwayes wicked whom these Paines doe accompanie ordinarily They came vpon Christ extraordinarilie as in a Treat â— pag. 77. this place I expresly noted That was therfore my meaning here if you would haue seene it In another place also b Pag. 33. you know that I say Hell as I take it that is such paines of Gods wrath is * Treat 1 pag. 80. sometime found in this life Thus then you might haue vnderstood my former wordes and not that the tormentes of Hell doe alwayes accompanie the wicked in this life I pray conceave not my meaning against my expresse wordes Againe c Pag 31â— you pretende to haue much against me where I say The feeling of the sorrowes of Gods wrath due to sinne in a broken and contrite heart is indeed the only true and perfitly accepted sacrifice to God True so I said and againe I say it What see you amisse in it Then vnhappy men are the godly which are at any time free from the paines of the damned To what purpose is this I speake of Christs Sacrifice I pray is any other Sacrifice perfitly accepted or a Sacrifice at all but Secondarily that is in and by Christes Sacrifice They are not His Sacrifice then is the onely true Sacrifice and perfitly accepted to God All others are imperfit and accepted not in them selues but only in and by Christ Thus your triumphes before the victorie come to nothing but blastes of vanitie But Augustin †Pag. 32 doth flatly deny that this text can be thus vnderstood or that Christes Soule might dy Austin d Epist 9â— denyeth that Christ suffied any paines of damnation locally in Hell after his death as it seemeth some helde about his time whoÌ„ here he laboureth to confute So that he meaneth to reprove onely the e See besâ—â—â— pag 139 1st sense of the Death of the Soule in him viz. that he suffred it not Ordinarily after the maner of other men nor any way locally Hâ— hath no nâ—cessarie cause to speak of the 2. sense thereof how the Soule may be said to suffer death Extraordinarily for sinne imputed only neither doeth he speake against that in Christ Nay according to Austins owne Definition of the Soules Dying it will easily appeare that Christes Soule may be said to have suffered some kinde of Death de verh 〈◊〉 Ser â—0 〈◊〉 Trin. 4. Saith he a Moritur anima si recedit Deus and b Mors est spiritûs deseri Ã
Deo The Death of the Soule is Gods Forsaking of it â—â—fore pag. â— 113. â— 108. 113 â— 134. But the Scripture saith God did leave him or forsake him for a season yea the Fathers also c agree fully therevnto the maner how d I have shewed before Therefore by Austins definition largly and rightly taken Christ may be said in some sense to haue dyed in Soule Howbeit though the Fathers doe graunt the thing in effect as I have shewed yet I acknowledge they doe deny this phrase generally and so doeth Austin in this place But thereabout we never made question this is no parte of our matter It may bee even for the same cause they shunned it for which we also doe vse it very rarely and warily as before I observed Pag 136. And let this be the Answere touching all your Fathers and Councells which you bring aboundantlie heere and there about this point of the Soules death Though peradventure some of them may seeme to insinuat even this very phrase touching Christ sometyme as in some I touched before Where you say â—â—g 317. †Aske the simplest child that is Catechized in my charge if I have any what death Christ dyed for vs and hee will answer me out of his Creed Christ was Crucified Dead Buried It is true But our authorized Catechisme published by M. Nowel and the Homily i sheweth the meaning heereof to be 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 67 117.â— that Christ suffered far more sharply theÌ„ meere bodily Death even the infinit paines of Gods wrath in his soul which I pointed you vnto k before but you fairly leape it over â—â—eat 1. pa. â— as also the Archb. speciall allowance with others of M. Now. Catechisme as being fully grounded on the word of God contayning the very doctrine of the Church of England Now to this effect the youths in my charge being asked would have answered surely For indeed such a charge in London I had I thank God wherin I hope I was faithfull according to my power might have coÌ„tinued had not your il seasoned teaching so contrary to the established doctrine in Englande burst foorth a You say â—ag 325. â—â—a 53.12 â—r hee powâ—â—◠〈◊〉 I should have don well to have laid that downe for a shew which is written in Esay b He c laid downe his Soule vnto death verily if I had it would have made som shew Considering that d Pa. â—6 you earnestly affirme that this word signifieth Soule or Spirit in a proper sense Also how resolute you are forbidding to e Pag. 1â— divert from the native proper significations of words but when the letter impugneth the groundes of Christian faith and charity This considered surely that in Esay maketh some shew indeede that Christ submitted and humbled and afflicted even his Soule to Death The rather if we note that which followeth He was counted with the sinners and bare the sinne of many That is he was punished by God as the sinners are f See besâ—â— pag. 76. punished and was not by the Iewes onely counted among Theeves But chiefly considering withall that also before g Isa 53. â— He made his soule a sinne offering Heere you must remember †Your pa. â— we shall leave nothing sound sure in Gods word if we may avoid all thinges by figures that please not our humours Therefore you must needes grant that Gods worde heere maketh Christs Soule to be †sacrificed for our sinne And we desire no other death of the Soule We deny not but this phrase AnimaÌ„ pâ—nere is to lay downe the life and in divers places signifieth no more then simply to Dy both concerning Christ and other men as you observe pag. 70. Yet this is no necessary reason that heere in J say the Soule should be taken figuratively for the Life onely the rather seeing heere the text precisely setteth down the great perfit worke of our RedemptioÌ„ And to take it as we do literally impugneth no ground at all of faith or Charity The like peradventure may bee affirmed also of that in Mathew h Mar 2â—â— The sonne of man came not to be served but to serve and to give his soule a ransom for many although the translatours commonly turne it his life But I wil not strive about these phrases Aust hath not a word against vs in that great place which i Pag. 32â— you cite his whole argumeÌ„t there being to another purpose The Iewes slew only the flesh of Christ and yet it is true that they slew Christ Who doubteth this Also where you thinke those words to be so k Pag. 327â— plaine and expresse as may be spoken so effectuall as Pauls heart could invent or his toung vtter that Christ reconciled vs to God in the body of his flesh through death we have answered you †Pag. 45. â— before As for al your other discourse heere against me it is as every where almost nothing but revilings and reproches and bitter skoffes Yet you say l Pag 108. â— you have not learned nor vsed to give reviling speaches Have you not learned it Is it then naturall vnto you Nay you meane m Pag. 264â— these are Fatherly Warnings and admonitions If your Fatherly admonitions are such what are your Lordly rebukes If these bee your Bishoply blessinges what are your Cursings But I am to blame heerein standeth not the tryall of our quaestion As for all thâ—se hogepots as n 〈◊〉 3â—8 you call them which you make of my wordes they are nothing but your owne either wilfull writhings or vncharitable surmises as by every particular in then places may be seene Finally that is not true where you say o 〈◊〉 330. Flesh doth often signifie the soule in vs. It signifieth often the whole Manhood togither in vs and so it may and doth in Christ aswell Also it signifieth in vs many times our whole and intire corrupt nature both in body and soule so it never signifieth in Christ And heere I desire the reader to change a word or two in my former Treatise Note â—reat 1. pa. â—6 lin 2. â—â—d lin 7. â— Cor. 7.1 for p allwayes to set vsually and for q a man to set Christ. Because since I find that Flesh and Spirit togeather applyed vnto men doe r once signifie meerely the Body and Soule which then I thought every where did signifie in vs our corrupt and regenerat man Which oversight the Bishop spyeth not but in this place coÌ„firmeth indeed Finally to make an ende with your Fathers and Councels it is strang that you thus vainly boast of them 〈◊〉 135.327 saying they are a all wholy for you for this 1400. yeares space I have shewed before that your large claime proveth a very short gaine For in substance and full effect they are evideÌ„tly and generally against you and for vs. As for their denying that Christ Dyed in his Soule I
b have answered to that before â—ag 135. â—6 142. Further where you bring them in many places saying by his bloud only he redeemed vs and he suffered only in his Body Fathers 〈◊〉 handled they are abused by you wonderfully Not in their words but in their meaning For they striving against Arians and such other Haeretikes who would have Christs Deity to take part in his sufferings for our redemption â—ee before 〈◊〉 111.113 â—4 c. so consequently would prove it inferior to the Father the godly Ancient Writers do heerevpon say he suffered satisfyed for vs only in his body in his flesh c not excluding the proper immediat sufferinges of his Spirit nor any passible part of his Manhood but onely his Godhead against those Haeretikes shewing thus also that no other Creatuâ—e besides him or with him satisfyed any way for vs altogeather after the Apostles like phrase in many places Let the Authors themselves be viewed if you thinke I affirme of them falsly Tertullian and Cyrill will give a tast heereof for all the rest Tertullians c Pag. 3 â— wordes d Contr. â— id est carnem thas is to say Christs flesh are expresly opposed to his Deity not to his Soul so that evidently he meaneth thereby his whole and intire passible Manhood If hee had meant to exclude any parte or faculty of his Soule from suffering as he doth his Godhead he had confirmed that Haeresy against which he striveth as f before I noted e Pag. 1â— Also it seemes he yeeldeth the name of Death to this suffering of Christes whole Manhood in saying Quod vnctum est mortuum ostendit that Dyed which receaved the Annoynting For I hope his spirit was Annointed with the Holy Ghost aswell as his Flesh And he saith thus as indefinitly so also by way of oppositioÌ„ to his Deity as I said therefore he meaneth the whole Manhood dyed Howbeit in what sort this might be I shewed * pag. 113â— 135. 136â— before My false traÌ„slating of him which you note is not worth the noting But you doe worse in false placing those his last rehearsed words for advantage in Tertull. they are vsed more generally in their owne place coming long before those words after which you set them As for that Denique posuit spirituÌ„ c. it sheweth that Christs bodily death also but not only came by reason of Gods forsaking and separating from him For before we saw how Tertull. expresly attributeth Gods DerelectioÌ„ both to his * Haec vâ—â—â— animae poris soule body on the Crosse though you grudg thereat Thus I say he excepteth only his Godhead from Dereliction and Suffering c. Cyrill also even in that book which you cite for you sheweth that he excludeth but Christs Deity though he mention only his suffering in Flesh †Ad Reg lib. 1. Carne passum dicit docens patiendi ineffabilem naturam a passionibus alienam Deus igitur Christus Divinè quidem impassibilis passibilis secundum carnem He excludeth only the Deity from suffering when he saith hee suffered in his Flesh In a word so do all the rest as h Pag. 1â— before is partly noted Against Nestorius i Pag. 33â— they affirme the vnion of Christes Natures with preserving the properties of each They therefore hold not his only bodily sufferings Is this then your great boast of all the Fathers and Councells Nay are they well vsed at your hands to be thus drawn cleane from their purpose to an opinion which they never thought of Is this good dealing towards Gods people to tell them that the Fathers generally teach the only bodily sufferings of Christ and deny our Assertion of his Soules peculiar suffering â—â—efore 47.48.66.71.88.112 which * they iustifie confirme indeed Yea this 〈◊〉 the profit that comes by ordinary slanting with Fathers which vse many do frequent in these dayes Think they if the scriptures alone suffice not for all thinges in Religion that the Fathers will suffice Or if the Fathers make a sense vpon some text that therefore this must be the right meaning alwayes Or if the Scriptures may be wrested by subtile heades that yet the Fathers cannot Or that Gods people may sooner see and finde when the Fathers are abused then when the Scriptures are It is great pity that men are yea wil be so deceaved with vaine shews Let vs in Gods name content our selves in handling matters of Religion onely with Gods al sufficient worde vnles where the importunity of an Adversary forceth vs. Otherwise let vs spare the Authority of men in Gods matters to them that make an Idoll of it Finally if in this case we were to looke after any man surely we have more cause to regard our later faithfull Teachers rather then those of old Who being equall with the best of them in any of the excellent graces of Gods spirit which hee vseth to bestow on his servants for the edifying of the Church yet heerein these have advantage of the former that they were directly provoked occasioned to study and sift out this question against the Papists which the Ancients were not occasioned to do After â—ag 341. a you set your self to prove that in Hell there is materiall fire But it seemeth you are now almost afraid so to call it yet b you call it true fire â—ag 343. Which also we vtterly deny All your proofes such as they are runne to prove corporall and materiall fire yet eternall Except your Scriptures which vtterly prove nothing at all for they shew no more any corporall or materiall or true fire to be now in Hell then a corporall worme materiall brimston and much wood true chaines Which you say is a sleeveles obiection but neither your selfe nor Austin whom you cite against it doth any where answer it Yea Austin thinketh that incorporall spirits shal be fastened to corporall fire But he saith not that now they are which only is our question or els nothing For my parte I see no reason to believe that now there is corporall fire in Hell whatsoever there shal be heereafter when Bodies also shal be there vnited and tormented with the Soules Againe Austin heere doth not prove that there shal be such fire hee only sheweth the maner how it may be so heereafter if God will Now if all your reason be the power of God only then aswel you may prove that the sky is fallen For as touching Gods will heerein you name it indeed but you shew it no where nor seeme to shew it All the rest say nothing further nor indeed so far as Austin Yet you thinke it may be called a Pag. â—â— a true created fire That no Christian ever doubted of if you meane that it is a true creature If you meane simply that it is true fire that still we deny And me thinks you should not care for corporall fire
now in Hell seeing you seeme to belieue no torments for Damned soules save only at the Resurrection For thus you reason b Pag. 25 As the Body hath ben the instrument of the Soules pleasure in sinne so it shal be of hir paine c Pag. 20â— But all provocations and pleasures of sinne the soule taketh from her body all acts of sinne she committeth by her body Therefore the iustice of God both temporally and eternally punisheth the Soule only by the Body Or Therefore all the Soules paine for sinne both temporally eternally is by the Body This is your owne reason which being true why should you care for corporall fire in Hell before the last iudgment Your striving to a Pag. 34â— confute my allegations of Fathers I hope I have refuted sufficiently before And then b Pag. 35 Sir Refuter endeth as be began with egregious lyes What lyes began he with and with what doth he end In the begining our lyes have proved tales of truth and in the end your wordes will prove iniurious at least I said that not som or the most or best but even all every one both Churches Writers in the world who are Protestants teach as we do except only your selfe or happily som after you since the year 1597. What ly is there in al this Why name you not in al the world one man of those whom we call Protestants of your minde that it may appeare who deserveth such rebukes Nay in this being the very point of the matter you are silent in revilings outcryes and accusations you exceed Where I avouch that c Treat â— pag 8â— only the hoatest and cunningest Papists Iesuits Priests Fryars have alwayes vntill this day had this controversie with all Protestants and all Protestants against them namely Bellarmin Campian English Rhemists c. To al this scanalous suspicious argument you reply not a syllable What shall we thinke of such doctrine which in this learned age hath none but such defenders And yet among the Papists I noted 2 Cusanus and Ferus as liking of the Protestants doctrine heerein which also they do in some other matters Now these 2. and only these though more there are c you cite at large 〈◊〉 140.141 whose wordes indeede especially the Fryars seeme excessive But our owne most worthy and learned Teachers d M. Fulke â—rea 1. p. 88 M. Deering M. Whitakers which against you I alleaged you vouchsafe not a looke towards them Nor to M. Nowels Catechisme nor to the Synod authorising it â—efore pag. 42. nor to the Archb great * approbation thereof Not to our Common Bibles note authorised publikly to be read thorough out England Only against my alleaging of our Homilyes e you take exception Pag 355. but I trust I have before fully and cleerely defended them to bee for vs and against you Neither doeth any such matter appeare in them as f you avouch Pag. 136. Thus then I end our 1. Question being sorry that I have ben so long But I trust the friendly Reader will pardon me considering how I have ben occasioned therevnto A brief Collection containing the whole effect of our Doctrine before delivered brought into 4. Assertions God himselfe in his Iustice properly punished Christ for our sinnes See pag. 8. 9. 75. 82. Christ even as other men consisted of a perfit Humane immortall Spirit and a mortall living Body and so was by nature capable of suffering sorrows for sinne from Gods hand aswell in his Spirit peculiarly and properly as also in his Soule and Body togeather sith other men do thus suffer for sinne pag. 8. 48 52. 61. 74. Gods exact and immutable Iustice spared his Sonne in nothing but did punish him in all severity as he punisheth sinners I meane Hee punished him in All his partes of nature apt to suffer that is in his Spirit peculiarly and properly and in his Soule and Body togeather also Againe God punished him with all the Whole Generall Curse not with all the particular Curses and punishments with the Generall Curse in all the whole Nature and substance of it not with all the Circumstances with all the meere Paine and Sorrow thereof not with the sinfull Adherents and concomitants in it pag. 8 13 74 86. Gods exact immutable Iustice spared not Christe in these Circumstances of Punishment with he suffered not For either in exact Iustice he could not or necessarily hee needed not to punish him so In exact Iustice he could not punish Christ in such respects as were simply and absolutly impossible It was simply impossible that any touch of Sinne should once come neere his person or Eternall suffering or all the Particular punishments in the world All which come not to any one man though Damned neither can come Finally that Christ should necessarily have suffered after this life or locally in Hell there was no cause seeing these are but meerâ— Circumstances of Gods Iust PunishmeÌ„t of sinne whether now or then whether heere or there These alter not the nature of Gods wrath which is the strength of Hell The whole substance nature of that Punishment he might feele in this life aswell as any parte God is able to inflict it aswel heere as heereafter The rather seeing Christ came and was sent of God Extraordinarily of purpose to suffer for sin all that he might suffer Thus then only in this life Christ might and did suffer all For so was Gods ordinance and will as it is plainly expressed vnto vs in his word Therefore so we professe and so we believe by the certaine rule of Gods word and the proportion of faith Christ shunned for our sake nothing which the Damned suffer except only Circumstances and Accidents impossible or vnnecessary not any Substantiall point of Gods Punishment decreed against sinue pag 13. 14. 16. 43. 66. 75. 87. 134. 135. That Christ after his death on the Crosse went not downe into Hell in his Soule THe 2. part of our Controversie is this That Christ after his death on the Crosse went not downe into Hell in his Soule Where note first Notes that we vnderstand Hell properly and locally as our common speach in English doth vsually take it for the very place of the Damned after this life Now against them that belieue Christes Soule did go down locally into Hell thus I reason Reasons gainst Châ—â— Descendiâ—â— locally is Hell First If there be a good and sound generall reason in Christian faith that Christes Soule leaving his Body ascended vp to Heaven and there remained till his Resurrection and if there be no speciall reason of authority to the contrary that his Soul now descended downward then surely every good Christian ought to believe that his Soule ascended to Heaven and descended not locally into Hell Two maâ—â— points to noted But both those former pointes are most true First There is a good sound generall reason in Christian
his Soule And e De incaâ—â— Sacr. cap. 〈◊〉 Hoc in se obtulit Christus quod induit c. Christ offered in sacrifice all that which he assumed that is all every whit that was in him besides his Godhead f Fulgent 〈◊〉 Thrasym 〈◊〉 lib. 3. Fulgentius He shewed in himselfe the sufferinges of a whole man in verity truth quicquid fuit infirmitatis animae sine peccato suscepit pertulit Hee tooke vpon him and suffered whatsoever infirmity may be in the soule without sinne It is not possible that wee our selues should speake a more effectuall sentence for our purpose then this is Say as Fulgentius heere saith and we aske no more All that g Pag. 86. you except that by these Fathers Christe dyed only the death of the flesh is lesse then heere they affirme And we shall answer to that in due place Now marke well how these Fathers do not say that Christ gave his life for a ransom onely as h Pag. 70. â—â— you would construe it but even his very Soule to for our Soules They strive to expresse an exact proportion so far as was possible betwene Christ and vs. First in the parts of Christ who suffered of vs who were saved So that as we are saved not in our bodies only nor only in the externall sensitiue parte of our soules wherein standeth that suffering with and by our bodies but wee are saved redeemed and sanctified in our whole Spirite and Vnderstanding also even so by their verdict Christ suffered for vs not the bodily and outward sufferinges by Sympathy onely but hee suffered for vs even in his Minde also Now this is directly against your present a Assertion which we have in hand 〈◊〉 132.240 â—eere p. 14 Also heere they observe an exact proportion in the Obiects so far as was possible viz in that which he suffered for vs that which we are saved froÌ„ thereby Thus that sorrow of the immortall parte of the Soule not of body only which we are saved from the same he suffered Yea I say all and every whit of those passions sorrowes wherevnto mans nature is b subiect and capable of 〈◊〉 nature we â—â—e subject to â—â—fer in the â—â—nde proâ—erly for sin â—nd not only â—y Sympathy â—rom the Body Cyrill Thesâ—â—ur 10 3 Barnard de â—ass Dom. â—ap 41. Pag. 7. Terâ—ul cout Prax. Amb in Luc. 2. De trist â—olor c. and from which we are saved all the same he tasted and suffered for vs. Thus it is also that Cyrill elswhere saith c Omnia perpessus est vt nos ab omnibus liberaret He suffered all things throughly that hee might acquit vs from all which els we should have suffered And thus I take Barnards meaning to be d He spared not him selfe who knoweth how to spare his Wherevpon you collect well if you meane so e He suffered and indured All to the vttermost with exact obedience and patience To which end Tertullian also f Sic reliquit dum non parcit This was Gods forsaking of him in his passion that in nothing he spared him And thus Ambrose g Minus contulerat mihi nisi meum suscepisset affectum He had don lesse for me if he had not ben altogeather affected as I should haue ben And thus Ierom h â—erom in â—sa 53. h Quod nos pro nostris debebamus sceleribus sustinere ille pro nobis passus est pacificans c That wich we should have borne for our sinnes the same hee suffered for vs. Wherefore by the Fathers Christ suffered exactly i All whatsoever sorrowes paines which we should have suffered All kindes 〈◊〉 both in â—â—irit Body â—ot all partiâ—â—lars in theÌ„ as well Spirituall as Corporall as well in all the powers of the Soule subiect to suffering as in that which suffered allwayes with and from the body Only they except 2. pointes which of simple necessity indeed must be excepted in the Sonne of God Pag. 10. 12. â—3 which before k I have also acknowledged 1. Sinne Pag. 87. and all sinfull concomitantes and consequentes as l you speake And that is it which Cyprian exactly noteth That in him there was m Similitudo paenae non Culpae Cypr. de pass the very like punishmeÌ„t as should have ben in vs only there was no sinne nor fault in him as is in vs. The 2. point excepted is that he suffered not eternally but for a while for he that was life it selfe could not but live againe saith n Cyrill In the place above cited Where he seemeth to acknowledge a kind of death even of the soule from which Christ revived againe But of that in due place heereafter Nowe heere it is manifest that even the Fathers of whom you doe so exceedingly boast are cleane against you and for vs in the 1. and chiefest point of this question shewing that Christ suffered not only bodly or in the soule by Symphaty only but in the Minde also distinctly even as we may suffer in minde distinctly froÌ„ our bodily suffering that is when we suffer somwhat a As I 〈◊〉 Treat 〈◊〉 pag. 4. imediatly from God Yea he suffered say these Fathers all the paines which els we should haue suffered no materiall thing excepted but only sinne otherwise he was spared by dispensation in nothing Against this cleere and plaine sense of the Fathers b Pa. 35â— you take no exception neither can you Thus having hitherto manefestly defended my selfe that I have not abused any way the Fathers nor yet your selfe as you vniustly charge me in c Pa. 22â— your entrance Now I am to doe the like against d Pag. 2â—â— your vnsufficient refusing of my Reasons Where by I hope it shall appeare that you have not weakened any one of them And First you begin with rehearsing my wordes wherein I briefly noted the very Question betweene vs e Treat 〈◊〉 pag. 4. That Christ suffered for vs the Wrath of God Which you f Pag. 24 exclame at without measure as being not the point which you preached against Howbeit I suppose these wordes do rightly and fitly set out the matter both which then you preached which now you write I have g Pag. 8 heere before truly fully declared the whole state of this controversy I trust Yet because we can never opeÌ„ this point to much for many good vses that it hath I will not thinke it tedious nor labour lost ne to rip vp this question a litle againe in this place that so we may proceede with more ease Your generall cariage in your booke declareth that you abuse the Reader exceedingly by the ambiguous and equivocall taking of this terme Gods Wrath as before in the entrance I have shewed It is not I that abuse them as you h Namâ— 243 24â— every where very bitterly and vnreasonably do charge me For according to the most vsuall and
Christ could not bâ—â— tempted by Satans inward suggestion but onely by the care receaving an outward voyce This I suppose also is a singular conceit of your owne without any title of Scripture to proove it by Yea what reason can you give that where the minde conceaveth any temptation there of necessitie must be Concupiscence Originall sinne a Pag. 1 Corruption of the flesh c. In vs men it is so you say I grant in vs it is so But that of necessitie in nature it must be so or that Adam was tempted by voyce of necessitie and not accidentally I see no reason in the world or that Christ might not be sometime inwardly assaulted tempted also without heaving any voyce Nay I suppose you have no reason to affirme as b Pag 1 you doe that Christ in the Wildernes was tempted by Sathan by outward voyce only It seemeth rather to be manifest that his temptation was meerely in cogitation and in the thoughts of his heart so mooved by the * Or els bâ— such outâ— obiects tâ—ther with 〈◊〉 work thaâ—rituall câ—â—tion in Câ—â— As SataÌ„ 〈◊〉 well knoâ— how spirituall suggestion of the Divell First because the text saith that Satan c Mat. â— set him vpon a pinnacle of the temple in Ierusalem and mooved him to cast him selfe downe Which was within the time of his fasting and hee fasted but fourty dayes and fourty nights and so long continually hee was d Marc. in the wildernes Seeing then Christ was in the Wildernes all the while that hee was thus tempted Howe could that bee really and actuallie done This was therefore in a spirituall Cogitation But chieflie when the e Mat. 4. Divell shewed him all the kingdomes of the worlde and the glorie of them and f Luc. 4. that in the twinkling of an eye how could that †Yea sibly it 〈◊〉 be don â—â—â—ally c ficellâ— aâ— you But onles it 〈◊〉 be Ergoâ— possibly be done really actually and externally Wherefore I must needs think that as Satan was a subtil Spirit so he could did sometime spiritually suggest temptations into Christes heart and Christ could in Soule conceave them and yet vtterly without all sin which we at no hand now can doe because we are all naturally apt and inclining to evill as Christ was not Yea the text to the Hebr. seemeth to prove it also Christ was tempted in all things like vs without sinne Then he was tempted both outwardly and also meerely within for so are we and this was meerely by conceaving and considering of Satans wicked spirituall motion in his Spirit which it was possible that he might doe without any yeelding to it though we by reason of our inborne corruptioÌ„ can not possibly doe it Thus then it was possible and most likely it is also that Christ was assaulted and wrastled withall by the Divels spirituall suggestions now when in most bitter Agonic he hanged on the Crosse Howbeit to goe further such grievous and bitter assaultes of the Divel he might receave outwardly also by his senses other wayes though not by Satans own voyce yet by Satans members meanes And so a â—ag 283. you say he was tempted of Satan all the tyme of his abode on earth Then so you denie not but now even on the Crosse Christ might be and was tempted and assaulted by Satan that is by Satans instrumentes moved and inraged by him And this is none other indeed but that which in the entraÌ„ce of †Pag. 77. this question heere I observed which as I have before shewed sufficeth to prove Christes Combating as it were and wrastling with the powers of Hell on the Crosse But b Pag. 284. you obiect against this that Outward temptation by the mouthes and handes of the wicked is no effect of Gods wrath No is Here you are cleane contrary to your self and the truth Elswhere c Pag. 243. â—63 275 you truly acknowdge that all outward crosses and afflictions small or great are in their nature punishments of sin and effects of Gods wrath Now those doubtles are temptations Then sure these outward temptations by the mouths and hands of the wicked such as Christ indured are effects of Gods wrath viz. his revilings his shame his poverty his stripes his woundes and death it selfe c. You say outward temptation is rather a try all of Gods gifts and graces bestowed vpon vs. And is not inward temptation in the Godly so to I pray what oddes is this that you make betweene the inward and outward temptations It is true this is one good vse of both these fortes in the godly in whom Christ hath sanctified all afflictions death it selfe Yet in their very nature they all are none other but partes of Gods Curse for sin very punishments of sinne and true effects of Gods wrath as in Christ they were all Further Satan might spiritually and extraordinarily worke togeather with these his instruments outwardly afflicting his body I say by these bodily occasions thus the rather working an impression of his malice and spirituall fury mixed with subtilty against Christ and Christ likewise extraordinarily might apprehend the same that is the rather by the concurrence and cooperation of those outward occasions with these spirituall incursions And thus might Christ suffer most strange temptations and incomprehensible sorrowes as very punishmentes of sinne from the furious rage of Satan and malice of wicked men whatsoever other vses they might have besides in him Heere now we may seed row vniustly you conclude that Satan could no other way assault Christ as an instrument of Gods wrath but a The veâ—â— wrastlings assaults of â—â—tan may bâ— ritual â—ornâ—â— though 〈◊〉 such as arâ—â— ecuted in locall He only by executing tormentes on his Soule even in such wise as he tormenth damned soules in Hell and that caÌ„ be say you no other way then by Satans very possessing of those soules Which grosse and infernall speculations of yours for truthes you can not make them I vtterly leave to your owne discussing For my parte I have spoken no word of them in all my treatise Notwithstanding this heere I avouch that howsoever the meanes or maner was of Satans and his furious bandes assaulting of Christ on the Crosse it made certainly an impression of most doleful sorrow and torment in his Soule as feeling discerning by that meanes the very stroke of Gods owne hand vpon him and receaving the sting of his wrath and indignation therein which then wrought and was revealed chiefty then vpoÌ„ him for all our sinnes Neither say you any thing whereby you doe or can overthrow this assertion Our authorised doctrine in England agreeth with me saying b Noweâ— Catech. He fought and wrastled as it were hand to hand with the whole army of Hell Finally heere where you skornfully reiect and detest this my sense of the Apostle in this place yet you give no inkling of any
in respect of his infinit paines he might Mar. 14.35 c This hower can not be referred to his Holy and Righteous affections which were at all howers and seasons in him without measure Holy yet now at his death did not so expresly break out shew theÌ„selves Nor as his â—aines did â—â—peare as they did at divers times before Therefore this Hower can not be these his Holy affections his Paines afflictions they d may be and must bee â—oh 12.27 â—â—mpar with 〈◊〉 33. Neither thus standeth it with his piety to wish that his strong and vehement affections of Holynes should passe from him or bee weakened in him For my part I can see no sense nor sap in these assertions Even so likewise in that â—ag 21. where you ascribe to this his c deepe sorrow of zeale for mens sinnes his sweating bloud in his agonie aboue nature after a strange and marvelous maner I dare say you deliver strange mervayles in Divinity The Fift Cause f you say â—ag 21. might be the Cup of Gods wrath tempered made ready for the sinnes of men which you interpret to be g Eternall Malediction Pag. 22. Touching which you say Christ knowing what our sinnes deserved might intentively pray to have that Cup passe froÌ„ him which was prepared for vs. For vs whom meane you The Elect or the Reprobat What malediction The whole absolut Paines thereof only or the Eternity of the continuance thereof also For so the Reprobats do suffer it If you meane the Elect As you afâ—â—me most â—â—angely pa. â—â—2 133. 144 â—93 294. Christ knew that he must not only h see contemplat but feele suffer all the whole Paines of that Punishment which our sinnes deserved and this was prepared for himselfe our Ransom-payer and not for vs. Wherefore the truth is he could not by any meanes pray against that nor decline that onely vnles he were for the time in some astonishment perturbation of his senses which by the infinitnes of that Paine he might well bee in yea he could not but be in his Humane weake nature and yet still remayning vtterly sinlesse as is afore shewed to have happened in Moses and Paul in a far lesse perturbation then this was in Christ Now this is the very point of our Defense affirme this and you affirme with vs all that we hold professe Otherwise if you meane that Christ prayed intentively to have the whole and intire Cup of eternall Malediction and death passe from him which both the Elect deserve and the Reprobats sustaine that as it is passing strange doctrine so it is also simply impossible For he could not intentively pray against that not feare that which hee most perfitly knew concerned him not at all and by no meanes could ever possibly come neere him But indeed all this is nothing els in effect then your 1 Cause His submission to Gods maiesty sitting in iudgment Wherefore you might have lessened your number and so your answer to this might have ben thesame which is made to your formost But heere furthermore you knit in with this a As youâ— kon theâ— geatheâ— 27. 4 other severall causes of Christs Agony 1. His taking of our infirmities in his flesh to cure them 2. His breaking the knot betwixt bodily death and Hell which none but hee was able to do 3. Gods anger which might be executed on his body but was mitigated by him 4. The desire he had to continue the seeling inioying of Gods presense with his body The of these maketh in my minde much for vs. For vnderstanding that Christ tooke all the infirmities and passions wherevnto mens nature is subiect to the ende that hee might cure all and every kinde of them in vs then it followeth that he wanted not the proper immediat sufferings of paines inflicted by Gods own haÌ„d in his Soule For these are our Soules subiect vnto and capeable of yea and tormeÌ„ted with finally we are by this apt and proportionable medicine of Christ throughly cured of theÌ„ And this is the very same matter which our 4 Argument * Pag 8â— 87. before concluded that Christe had experince of thesame infirmities passions generally whatsoever wherof he hath cured vs. And this your owne Authours here doe fully affirme Cyrill Ambrose and others as a Pag. 88 before we have observed It is then most vnreasonable which heere c you doe if you doe as you seeme to vnderstand them of meere Bodily death â—a 25 26 27 of the infirmities meerly of his Flesh Before pag â—1 Wherein then you deny our d Assumption also are againe Contrarie to your selfe and to f your owne Authours Cyrill nameth flesh heere Pag. 10. 〈◊〉 Ieâ—om Pde meaning not Christes Deitie but his whole Humane nature as the Scripture doeth in a multitude of places and so not his Body onely Thus then it is that he saith as you obserue Pag. 25. that g Christ as a man abhorred and feared death not the bodily death only but as it was conioyned with the sorrowes of the 2. death He would not he could not so feare and be afrighted yea and pitiously astonished with such sorrowe oppressing him as to sweat droppes of bloud only for feare of his bodily death neyther would he pray at all much lesse so vehemently and so oftenty mes as he did against that which he perfectly knew was Gods will and his own most willing purpose to vndergoe Or els Cyrill meaneth no more but that he naturally misliked shunned eveÌ„ as all flesh doth all bodily paine death This we alwayes yeeld and it maketh nothing against vs. For nevertheles he coÌ„stantly imbraced suffered with ioy whatsoever bodily grief he knew did come vnto him by his owne most free wil and by the holy ordinance of God yea he could would beare it with ioy far beyond all the ioy and constancie of h men in their sufferings Who yet â—rink not at 〈◊〉 neither for â—â—dily paines â—â—r for Reliâ—â—ous fear of â—â—ll Only he might faile of the outward appearance and vse of this coÌ„stancie and ioyfull patience as now he did without taint of sinne if his Humane nature were overwhelmed with other infinit paynes and his minde and senses disturbed with more horrour then naturally it could beare Therfore I conclude he thus feared not his meere bodily death but it was the Paines of the 2. death which he felt and so feared But you say i The sorrow and feare of death which it pleased our Saviour to feele in our nature â—ag 26. came not for want of strength but of purpose to quench and abolish those affections in vs. I say it came from both as your selfe also doe avouch cleane contrarily in an other place k To dy even in Christ was infirmitie â—ag 161. though voluntary And generally in another place â—ag 289. l Naturall infirmitie was coÌ„mon
â—â—bâ— 5.7 Againe if you meane that all this was voluntary in him and not felt indeede according to the outwarde semblance and as men beholding him would iudgâ— Luc. 22.43 then belike you make him to have counterfayted Which thought God for bid should ever come into any Christians heart For no cause you say f I iest and iybe with the Apostles wordes Pag. 302. but I feare this is to iest and iybe in deed with the most dreadfull and bitter sorrowes of our Saviour in working for vs our Salvation And heere why say you not aswell that his Death and bloudshed on the Crosse shewed in him no paines nor infirmitie but only that voluntarily he made him selfe there the true Priest and pe formed the prefigured bloudy and deadly Sacrifice for the sins of the world As good reason altogeather you have to say so as to affirme it of his Agonie â—ag 29. As for the Scriptures which g you cite they prove in deed that Christ nowe executed his office of Priesthoode but will you divide exempt his Death on the Crosse froÌ„ his Priesthood Or his â—ines and fit mity froÌ„ ther The sanctifying of him self doeth it not as well intend and comprehende that Sacrifice on the Crosse as that of his Prayers in the Garden To thinke otherwife is without all shewe of trueth or reason yet I see not why you should cite these textes vnles you meant so neither can I see what els you meane where you conclude saying Christs Agonie being alleaged by the Apostle to demonstrat Christs Priesthood must not rise froÌ„ the terror of his own death â—ag 27. And yet h a little before you openly doe confesse and grant that his Agonie did rise from the feare of his death and that Christ had farre greater cause then any of his members to feare it Also it is contrary to your citing of Cyrill pag. 25. And heere why should i Hilary deny that Christes bloudy sweat came of infirmitie â—ag 28. Or k Austin that his feare and perturbatioÌ„ was of infirmitie â—ag 25. Surely there is no cause For though it be against the coÌ„mon course of our Nature for any paines or feare to sweat bloud yet the Divine power with and through paines and feares might wring out of his body that trickling bloudy sweat As it is plaine that it did by the wordes next before in the text a Luk. 2 44. An Angell came to give him some comfort that is least hee should have bene overwhelmed quite in his sorrow and discomfort but still he was in his Agonie and swet like droppes of bloud trickling to the ground and presently saieth My Soule is full of sorrowes even to death and thrice he prayed that this Cup and this Hower might passe from him It cannot be therefore but that by Sorrowes and Paines this sweat came though also Gods power caused it by laying vpon his Soule and body invisible supernaturall vnspeakeable sorrowes and horrors and by making his fleshe visibly to expresse in some sort this spirituall and extraordinary torment of paine and feare which he suffered And in deed where they say 1 Not Infirâ—â—ty but Poâ—â—â— did this Nec infirmitas quod potestas gessit that proveth the cleane coÌ„trary For Jdeo infirmitas quia potestas gessit 2 Therforâ— there waâ— firmity â—â—cause thâ—â—â— was Powâ—â— For the working of his Power in him argueth the suffering of his Infirmitie The power of God is peâ—fited in infirmÃtie And because it was aboue the course of nature therefore nature was herein oppressed not exempted from paines Thus these speak fully for vs and against you that heere appeared not Christes infirmity only in suffering but his Divine power also in punishing And this I iudge in deed to bee their very meaning But those other mysticall and figuratiue sayings of Austin Pag 28. â— Bede Bernard howe shall we admit them without better warrant That Christes bloudshead was to signifie that Martyrs should shead their bloud what reason have we so to thinke Or that his bloud head should signifie the purging of his Disciples hearts froÌ„ sinne yea or of all his Church in the whole world It did not signifie this but it did it in deed Lastly if it had thâ—se significations in it yet withall his Agonie might rise from his very Paines Feare comming from the present sense of Gods iustice and wrath nowe revealâ—d and working vpon him Hitherto we have made it manifest that in trueth you have nothing in all these wordes against our doctrine that Paines and sorrowes were the true and proper cause of Christes dreadfull Agonie nor to prove that his meere bodily paines or death was the whole Cause Now we are to shew the like in his most we full Complaint on the Crosse where he saith My God my God Math 27. why hast thou forsaken me You will aske me heere what kinde of Forsaking may this be I shewed you plainly * Treat 1 â— 6â— 65 6â— before if you had regardâ—d it Namely that Christ being also now yea specially in the feeling of infinit Paines inflicted on him sundry wayes â—â—w Christ on 〈◊〉 Crosse was â—â—â—saken of â—â—â—d See also â—â—â—g 112.113 and that directly froÌ„ Gods proper Wrath for our sinnes he felt his whole Humane nature for the time left all comfortles and alone without any ioyous assistance of his Deitie I say not that he wanted now all assistanc of his Deitie for it surely would then have quite overwhelmed him with this intollerable burdeÌ„ But his Godhead as it were withdrawing and hiding it selfe from him for that season of his Passion gave him no sense nor feeling of ease comfort or ioy but all the sense of sorrowes and paines as well in spirit as in soule and body that might bee all the sense of his ioy and comfort for the while being cleane gone and wholy swallowed vp in that huge bottomles gulfe of sorrowes and paynes issuing vpon him out from the fierce Wrath of God Howbeit yet even nowe he wanted not sufficient assistance of the Deitie to sustayne him in life heerein as I said Phil. 2.7 Rom. 8.32 â—eut 10 17. â—â—c 16.17 This was that extreeme humiliation and exinanition of nature wherein †God spared not his Sonne and wherein also Christ spared not him selfe For hee vndertooke all this most willingly and yet being in it naturally grieved and sorrowed for it at some moments being astonished with it suddenly and naturally desired ease and release from it This forsaking or dereliction beseemeth the time place person and case of Christ our Ransom-payer and Purchaser of salvation with the price of his owne most direfull paines Pag. 24. c â—â—â—r 6. Expoâ—â—â—ions of â—hristes CoÌ„â—â—aint are all â—â—â—isse Not any other farre fet or hardly applyed or strangely devised by the braynes of men As in trueth all those other senses heereof are which you rather imbrace