the soule of Christ were in heauen vntill his resurrection then could not these words of Christ bee true Iohn 20. 17. Touch me not for I haue not yet ascended vnto my father for it is the preter-perfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore as this is vntrue to say that Abraham is not in heauen because his body was not in heauen so this is false to say Christ was not in heauen because his body was not in heauen Our body is gouerned by the soule and man taketh his appellation of a reasonable creature not of the body but of the soule and therefore if Christs soule went vp to heauen as you say this cannot be true I haue not yet ascended to my father Besides if Christs soule went first to heauen and afterward his soule and body togither then were there 2. ascensions proue this and I will geue you the goale You dally also with my argument in this manner The whole race of mankind is not in England ergo there is no men in England Do you think there is no more union betwixt Christ and his soule then betwene all the men of the world then by this reason the body and the soule of Christ were neuer vnited together Your next resemblance is this Edmund Campions whole body is not ouer Newgate Ergo no part of him Heere is a foule error to thinke Christs soule to be an integral or diuisible part which is ane essential or indiuisible for by your reason Christs soule is mortal may perish as the integral parts of CampioÌ„ doth You vtter also an other error in these words the whol man Christ for the whol man doth not make Christ but God and man as you may see in Athanasius Creede As the reasonable soule and flesh is one man So god and man is one Christ I will ende therefore with this saying of Irynaeus who liued vnder Marcus Antonius in the yeare of our Lord god 125 which thus proueth the descending of Christ into hell For the writing against Heretiques that said hel was in this world as many doo now a dayes thus reproueth them in his fift book and last chapter As Ionas taried in the whales belly three dayes and three nights so shall the Sonne of man bee in the hart of the earth And the Apostle saith what is it that he ascended but that he first descended into the lowest partes of the earth and Dauid prophecying of this sayd Thou hast deliuered my soule from the nethermost hel and rising again the third day he sayd to Mary which he sawe first and worshipped him Touch me not for I haue not yet asscended to my Father but go to my Disciples and tel them I will go to my Father and to your Father If then the Lord keep the law of the dead that he might be the first begotten of the dead how are they ashamed that say hell is in this world Thus you see it is no strange thing to see this scripture alleadged to proue that Christs soule was not in heauen vntil his visible and glorious ascention Irenaeus a man of more learning and iudgement then I am of alleaged it to the same end aboue 1300. years ago and then it was accompted a currant argument among the learned HVME his reioynder to the 11. sect HEere before you will buckle with this section you thrust for-ward your invincible Goliah as you suppose and will haue him make an end of this battell You say that neither I nor anie of my freends dare meet him You thought so because amongst all his fellowes I mist him onelie But you are deceaued of his valour He hid himself amongst the slaine heapes of his fellowes If I had seene his creast I had seauen stones in a scrip the least wherof was big inâ—â—gh to beat his braine through his helmet The place is in the 17. of Eccles I neede not repeat the wordes First I could haue tolde you that the booke is not Canonicall Secondlie that it was not written in the tongue on the property whereof you build your argument Thirdly that these words the lowermost parts of the earth be not in the originall wherein this book was first written and therfore haue gotten Tom Drummes intertainment by the Geneua translatours lunius Vatablus and divers others Fourthlie that though it had pleased Iesus the sonne of Syrach to cal Hell by that name it will not follow that all other men did vse the worde so Fiftly that you could finde those words in that sense in some place of the Canonicall Scriptures which indeede you cannot it will not follow that whersoeuer wee meete with them they must haue the same signification except the necessarie circumstances doe approue or inforce it Sixtlie that seeing that place is spoken of the mercifull them whose good deedes the Lord doth keep as the aple of his eie it were a bad reward for men whose good deedes are so precious in the Lordes eies to bee casten into the dungeon of Hell Seventhlie and lastlie that seeing the common translator who foisteth in those words doth make it the reward of euery man to be cast into the lowermost parts of the earth it wil passe your skill to proue that euerie man shall be cast into hel The note in the margent of the 25. 35. of Math. helpeth not you but prooueth the contrarie that this place pertaineth to them that giue meat to the hungrie drinke to the thirstie and clothes to the naked c. Thus you may see that this champion is not so strong as you take him and that the note in the margent whosoeuer made it helpeth you like ale in your shoes You tell mee that nowe I am come to my schoole-points which in you I called Sophistrie The true maximes and rules of art sucked out of the marrowes of nature I neuer called Sophistrie in you nor no man else Your shrimpish reasons set out in the painted coates of blased words and confidentlie commended to the beholders without al bounds of modestie I haue called them what I haue called them and not so ill as they deserue My rule which you say were sophistrie if you vsed it as I doe you confesse it to be true in integrall parts Nowe say I the soule and the bodie be integrall parts of a man Ergo by your owne confession my rule is true of the soule and the bodie But if you had taken my maxime right you should haue found it hold in all parts whatsoeuer For I meant that a particular negatiue of the whole is not good to bring in a negatiue of anie particular part All Campion hangeth not ouer New-gate importeth that some part of him haÌ„geth there And all men bee not in England importeth that there be some men there which bee particular negatiues expressed in generall tearmes as non omris and nonnullns
that we hold that Christs onlie soule did judge the theef on the crosse and lastly that his only soule was in heaueÌ„ with the theef 163 Nor this place hath it not 164 And of the sonne of maÌ„ Mar. 2. 10. 165 I deny the argument 166 He saith not that with me doth signifie the Deity 167 Damascen commeth neerest you and yet he saith not that with me doth signifie the deitie his soule was not separated from his Deitie 168 They be Epithets not names saving the first neither be they 13. 169 A fallacie ab accidente 170 If so that proueth not that vvith me signifieth the god-head 171 I ask you how it caÌ„ go to heauen in the future time 172 Not so He is said to come downe when he sheweth his presence amoÌ„gst men by effectes he can not be said so to ascend 173 This is contrarie to your reason at Chippenham and in the 11. fol pag. b. of your printed sermon Ther you reason that the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can not belong to the godhead because it signifieth motion And heere you giue God contrary motions both vp and down 174 August speaketh of the ascending of the humanity 175 This glosse on the theues prayer is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 177 I neuer meant such a gloss 178 That was not his praier see the text 179 This reason would wel confute the thefes prayer if it were coÌ„futable Remember mee when thou commest in thy kingdome 180 And had he not the presence of that as well as of the soule and bodie 181 This is a grosse reason In the presence of the Deitie is fulnesse of joy Ergo the theef praieth for the presence fellowship of the Deitie 182 This is another new conclusion 183 How proueth this that with mee in this text doth signifie onlie the God-head 184 This allegation is also impertinent Servants obey your maisters Thou shalt be this day with me is asmuch as thou shalt be with mee for euer Psal 90. 4. The greatest Hebricians of name in our time both Protestants Papists Mercerus Cevalerius Bertramus Vatablus Pagninus Arius Montanus Andradius with I know not how many more The paralogismes of this sect 185 No vntruth in my wordes 186 My wordes are contra doctissimos huius aetatis therfore turn this lie to your own secretary 187 Al these be not on your side 188 Luther holdeth that Christ suffered in Hell so do not you 189 Felinus is against you 190 So is Pomeranus 191 Molerus is your aduersarie 192 Peter Martyr holdeth that his soule presented it self to both the blessed and the damned 193 Hee maketh nothing for you 194 Nor Lambert 195 Nor Robert Sammell 196 Latimer holdeth with Luther not with you 197 Fox hath nothing for you but the Printers picture in the beginning of his booke 198 Nowell holdeth not with you 199 Manie of these vnderstood not the Hebrew therfore stood not for you vpon the word SHEOL a M. Allet I think you would say He wrot the poore mans Librarie for the poore not for Doctors 200 That convocation allowed Nowels Catechisme not your opinion 201 If he thinke so his thought is too true But yet a man may haue read more then you that neuer saw these bookes 202 I disabled none of them except you will beleeue your Secretary better then my selfe 203 This was my conclusion Men vse not to call the conclusion a lie before they answere the antecedent 204 You labour in vaine this is not denied 205 A sensles translation liketh you best 206 You wold haue said how can yee finde to point where aske where I can finde it is like him that said I payd 18. d. for my shoes read what they cost me 207 He reioiced because he should not be left in torments will that answere serue your turne 208 Who said so You fight with your owne shadow 209 Who would make conclusions father theÌ„ on his aduersarie but hee that wanteth both science to answere or conscience to acknowledg the truth 210 Al these lies doth blister on the lips of the blab that bred them 211 If that be not true why confute ye it not 212 You alledge my wordes to play vpon the vantage 213 I gain say him not 214 Nor say not that 215 The question is what the manner thereof should be This is petitio principij 216 And falshood in you to charge me with that I neuer spake 217 That is but your conceit I see no reason for it 218 Why not if they teache the truth 219 The byasle of this bowll did run on Tremelius and Iunius with the jutte of an ilfavored rub did break vpon others It is well that you feare to say that they disagree from Dauid Pet. Your heart faine woulde if your penne durst venture 220 You call my question curious by your answere proue it to want curiositie Such in consequencie follow your pen as close as your shadow your body 221 And did it return thence also as the words of the Psal doth proport before his burial 222 Know not you that it hath 3. significations as well as I. 223 Who but you did euer say that a soule could descend into Hel and not being left there return again before the buriall of the bodie 224 Heere you holde that Christs soule did descend before his buriall and in the order of the articles of the creede you make it an argument for you that it commeth after Thus you can turne your nose to euerie winde 225 Lo you will proue a thing that no man denieth 226 This therefore follows not on the premisses 227 228 Two vnfit allegations The question is whether Heâ— going before his burial is to be taken for the paines or place of Hel which thing Augustine heere toucheth not The paralogismes of this sect 228 I charged you not with immodestie read againe 229 These two vntruths wil proue not one 230 Is it an vntruth to tel your own tale in your owne wordes 231 Yet and you be remeÌ„bred translaâ—ing Lauater in the next sect you cal it a pit 232 You doe impudeÌ„tly or arrogantly take which you will misvse my words read againe 233. Heere ye settle your self to your olde trade to proue a thing not denied Your worke could not rise otherwise 234 This witnesse needed not 235 Helâ— may heere 〈…〉 the graâ—e 236 This witnes is superfluous 237 He saith not the thing he is brought to say that the lowermost parts of the earth is Hell and hel may also bee heere taken for the graue 238 This witnes might haue ben spared 239 He saith not that the lowermost parts of the earth are hell 240 This testimonie needed not 241 Nor â—his needed not 242 Hel heer may be taken for the graue so it is liklie seing it may be doubted of the place of the damned whether it be vnder the earth or no 243 Nor this witnesse needed
verie likelie Secondlie that you ment not to defend M. Chalfonts opinion will hardlie be beleeued except you can perswade the audieÌ„ce that you ment one thing and did an other Thirdlie that you gaue vp your sermon to M. Wisedome in wriring M. Wisedome can tel that it is not true Hee had nothing of you but a few scribled disordered notes The last is cunninger that I answered not the whole but some part of your sermon That which escaped without answere was so small a part that the rest might well haue bene called the whole if you had not bene disposed to abuse the simplicitie of your reader That the matter then in controversie was staied before in Sarum by the Bishop was true but in such sort that if you had not bene more busie then your commission it might haue stand more with your credite to haue let Chippenham alone For you were there injoined by the Bish two Iustices of the peace to confesse that M. Connam his opinion who was then your adversary was pia vera senteÌ„tia Whether you came to make peace amongst your brethren and not to warre against M. Wisedome I referre it to the audience peace-makers vse not to take parts Your peace did so little please M. Wisdome for as much as you honor him that beeing denied the pulpit at Chippenham by Chalfont contrarie to the order he was driuen to take Cosham church not far distant to defend the truth against you and your mate which thing he performed with great meekenesse and humilitie after his maner to the comforte of all that heard him the aedifying of them that were desirous to know the trueth These things if I were disposed to go to Tennis with you would sound more lie like then all the lies you haue flung at me But you are a Doctor and that were vn-manerlie Yet saving your worship you keepe not so good a watche through this worke as it becums such a lie-catcher Wherefore to conclude where you say that I accuse you of wit eloquence onelie denie the action and I will let fall my suâ—e But as for your promise I will neuer let goe my holde because I hope you will proue a man of your word HVME his 2. Sect. Nowe to come to the matter I see no cause why you should thinke better of Augnstine and Ierome then of Caluin and Beza for they were all but men and they which now are olde were sometimes new They had no better warrant of Gods spirit then these and errors in those dayes were so thicke sowen that there grewe darnell in the best fieldes euen of them whome now we most admire I speake not this to descredit the Fathers but to proue that they were no Gods They were no dout his good instruments to maintaine his truth against his enemies but they wer but meÌ„ you can not denie but the best of them had his steynes This no doubt was the forepurposed worke of gods infinite wisdom that seeing these infirmities our fond age might not set their writings in the place of his eternall word wherof one iote shal not passe though heauen and earth perish HILL his reply TWo argumentes you make against Augustine and Ierome The one is they had errors and therfore their interpretation not to be admitted The other is the time wherein they liued was corrupt and for that cause they are not to be alledged in a controuersy of Diuinitie The same argument I make against all new writers All new writers haue errors and they liue in a most corrupt time wherein as Christ saith shall bee many fals prophets many fals Christs to deceiue the very elect if it were posible Math. 24. 24. Therfore because men are vaine the time corrupt wee must beleue no man You argue ab accidente ad subiectuÌ„ For Augustine Ierome to erre it is an accident but the substance of all Fathers is to beget men in the word of truth 1. Cor. 4. 15. And for this cause Augustine himselfe willeth vs not to beleeue him vnlesse hee bring the word of God Truly sayth Augustine I do desire not onlie a godlie reader but a free corrector in all my writings especially in those things where there is great doubt but as I will not haue him to be giuen vnto mee so I will not haue him to be giuen to himself let him not loue mee more then the Catholike faith As I say to him beleue not my sayings as Canonical scriptures but beleue stedfastly wheÌ„ thou hast found that which thou beleuedst not but beleue not firmly that which thou hast not seene out of Gods worde So I say to him do not correct my writings by thine owne opinion or of contention but by the word of God by the reason therof vncontrouleable And against Cresconius the Grammarian hee thus writeth lib. 2. cap. 32. I am not moued with the authority of this Epistle but I consider theÌ„ out of the Canonical books and if they agree with the worde of God I receiue them with prayse if they disagre I refuse them with peace The like he hath Epist 3. Epist 112. And Ierome ad Theoph. is of the same iudgment I know that I esteeme otherwise the Apostles and otherwise other interpreters these men speak truth alwayes these men in some things do erre somtime These Fathers themselues confes themselues to be but meÌ„ wil vs to beleeue theÌ„ no farther theÌ„ they agree with Gods word Therfore they building vpoÌ„ Christ aswell as your newe ought to be beleeued rather in this point then they For what they wrote in this controuersy the same did all other godly Interpreters both Greek and Latin hauing a good warrant from Gods word But those of your side write contrary to Gods word to the auncient Fathers yea and contrarie to the new Fathers namly Luther Selueccer Chytraeus Pomeran Aepinus Lucas Lossius Alesius Aretius Peter Martyr M. Fox and M. Nowel Therefore because Augustine and Ierome agree both with the old and new writers especially with the worde of God I like better of them teaching the affirmatiue then of any other labouring to proue the negatiue To end therefore you must note this that all sayings of the Fathers either they are demonstratiue out of the scriptures then they are the voyce of God or else probable and these are the voyce of man or else false and then they are the voice of the Serpent HVME his reioynder to the 2. sect YOu make my argâ—ments as pleaseth you If wee had no better then you would affoorde vs wee were vnworthie of credite and worthie of your reproches First you alter the conclusion I neuer thoght said or wrote that their interpretations are not to bee admitted nor their sayings alledged in a controversie of Divinity Neither write I against theÌ„ except
preach beeing destitute of a tongue mouth and other organes of necessitie required in that action Eightlie to what end shuld Christ preach to those damned soules who were past the frute of his preaching that which you say that he went to reproue them is not liklie For meÌ„ are reproued either for amendement or to take away excuses which to these was needlesse beeing past all remedie and excuse Ninthlie this preaching was then when their dis-obedience was reform-able which was in the dayes of Noah and neuer since Add to these if it please you that moste infallible reason of Bezaes taken from the drift and scope of the text to whose notes I referre you being not able to handle it so well as hee hath done it himself HIL his Reply HEere you play the Captaine and will beate down bulwarks and therefore you should haue these 4. properties in you vertue knowledge authority and felicity for the first two they are in you God grant you vse theÌ„ to his glory but what authority you haue to interpret the word I know not therefore in this case I hope you shall haue no felicitie Where you say that this word spirit doth signifie the deity and this word flesh the humanity of Christ and that there is an antithesis betwene the diuine humane nature I confesse y â— spirit some time doeth signifie the Godhead and fleshe the humanity of Christ But they doo not so signifie in this place as I proue by the circumstances of the text and the woords them selues For where you say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 killed or put to death doth signifie the whole passion of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the resurrection of Christ that can note be for of the passion of Christ is mention made before in the same 18. verse Christ suffered for vs the just for the vnjust to bring vs to God Now after his sufferings ended as Peter saith he was both killed and made aliue Now of his resurrection is mention made in the 21. verse as of his ascention in the 22. verse Therfore seeing the sufferings of Christ are mentioned before and his resurrection is namelye set downe after whereof can these words he vnderstood but of the seperation of the body and the soule and of the state of them during their seperation for an antithesis as you know is of contrary or diuers things as in this place you see in killed and quickned now how both these were true at on time S. Peter doth shew for at the same time he was dead as concerning his body he was aliue in spirit that is in soule for the soule seperate from the body is aptly called a spirite Eccle. 12. 7. And dust returne to earth as it was and the spirite returne to God that gaue it So is it taken Heb. 12. 23. Act. 7. 49. and so doth this woord signifie in this place for Christ was not killed both in body and soule but only in body and in flesh for if the soule of Christ had bene killed then had it bene mortall Therefore Athanasius Epiphanius and all the Fathers which did confute the Heretiques called Damoerite and Appolinaris which denyed Christ to haue a soule do coÌ„fute them by this place prouing that his spirite was among the spirits that his soule seperate from his body was among the soules seperate from their bodies This interpretation you see is gathered out of Gods woord is made more manifest by the wordes following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate In which sprite he went and preached to the spirits in prison First you translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the which But in the 1. pet 16 you do not so translate it nor in the 2. Chap. and 12. ver the same woorde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Eph. 1. 13. 2. 22. 5. 18. and so could I cite at the least an hundreth texts in the new Testament where if you translat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the which or by whome you shall ouerthrow the meaning of the holy ghost The next word construing is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wâ—ich as I haue saide before so I auouche still is spoken noâ— of the deity neuer in all the Scriptures and therefore must needes be spoken of the soul of Christ To conâ—ute this you alleadg Gen. 18. 21. Exod. 3. 8. First I must tell you these bookes were written in the Hebrewe tong and not in the Ereâ—ke I craued an instant out of the new Testament Secondly in those places that you haue named y â— interpreters do traÌ„slate Iarad by y â— greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this I proue Iohn 16. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if I shall not depart the comforter wil not come vnto you but if I shal depart I will send him vnto you Heere you see when he speketh of the descending of the deity he vseth y â— word 368 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when he speaketh of the humanitie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the same chapter verse the 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I came out from the Father and cam into the world againe I leaue the world and goe to my father And this proprietie of speach which the holy ghost vseth ought to be obserued I confesse the scriptures vseth the figure Anthropopatheia but when God is said to come downe there is vsed the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some one of the forenamed and when mention is made of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is alwaies spoken of the humanitie as it is to be seen Luk. 4. 30. 9. 51. 52. 56. 57. Luk. 13. 22. Ioh. 8. 1. And in this place of Peter the last verse is vsed the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He went vp into heauen Therfore if you can quote but one text in the new Testament that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is figuratiuely applied to the deitie your interpretation may seeme tolerable but if yon can not as I knowe it is impossible then can you neuer proue your interpretation to be agreaeble to faith because it is not agreable to y â— word Out of the next word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this I note he that was killed and quickned did preach but Christ was killed and quickned ergo Christ not the deitie preched He preched not vocally for he was killed ergo he preached really in soule for here is noted First who preached Christ To whom to the spirits Where in hell When after his death and before his resurrection This is the order of Peter and of our Creede which cannot bee by man ouerthrowen The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
to bee quickned is to bee deliuered from miseries Ingenuitie woulde haue confessed a fault You conclude with a confutatioÌ„ of the Antithesis between the divinity humanity but my reason is froÌ„ an Antithesis between mortified quickned flesh spirit which you by a corrupted glose taking quickned for a deliuerie froÌ„ miries did ouerthrow Yet because I said that Paul maketh that antithesis Rom. 1. It shal not be impertineÌ„t to view your reasons An Antithesis must be say you of things opposite and contrarie I add the Diuinitie and humanitie bee thinges opposite Ergo there may be an Antithesis of the Diuinity and the humanitie But they are vnited say you What then So be the flesh and the spirit and yet Christ saieth the Spirit is readie but the fleshe is weake A common Logician much more a Doctor should know that no vniting of thinges betweene which a difference may be obserued can let an Antithesis if occasion serue Notwithstanding the vniting a man may wel say Christ as hee was man was passible as hee was God he was impassible To these reasons I added more in my latine which I sent you The spirit heere doth signifie that which his enemies hell death could not touch according to the text he was quickened in the spirit But his humane soule escaped not the violence of his enemies Ergo the word spirit heere doth not signifie his humane soule To this you make no answere The seaventh was This spirit of which he speaketh heere did preach But the humane soule cannot preach Ergo the spirit heere is not the humane soule To this you answere that he preached not vocallie but reallie that is not in words but in deeds A dumb man may preach so as well as D. Hill If you stand 7. dayes in the pulpit of the great Church at Sarum and say nothing there bee not 7. men within 700. myles that wil commend your sermon The eight was Whosoeuer doth preach he doth it either to amend the enormities of the hearers or to instruct them in the waye of saluation But this was not to be hoped for in damned spirits Ergo hee preached not in Hell to damned spirits Heere you answere that he preached to reproue them of their infidelitie but you fall still in one ditch He that reproueth infidelitie doeth it either to mend it or to take away excuses But there was no such hope in these that were past all remedie and excuse The ninth was This preaching was when the disobedience of the hearers was reforme-able But this was onelie reforme-able in the dayes of Noah Ergo this preaching was not but in the daies of Noah This hath no answere The tenth was from the circumstances of the text and necessarie Analysis thereof Which I remitted to Beza who hath done that better then I can and whose notes it is not likelie that you want hauing such a Librarie as you speake of sect 7. You in the margent will mee to read Aretius and Alesius The one I haue read and the other cannot moue mee though hee be my countrie-man I haue learned to preferre truth before men what euer they be These were my reasons which I joined to the lawfull vse of the words proved by Iohn Paul and Peter In them so ouer-smoked is your sense you smell no reason at all But tell your reader that we cannot proue ouâ— interpretations by the Scriptures as you do yours and yet you bring nothing for your owne but that the words may bee so taken and a fewe sillie conjectures answered before by mee Nowe having set downe mine let mee see howe stoutlie you haue defended yours THe first was Poreutheis that is went doth signifie motion from one place to another But the Deitie cannot moue from anie place being at al times in all places Ergo poreutheis is not attributed to the Deitie To the minor of this argument I aunswered out of the 18. of Genesis and 3. of Exodus That the God-head is saide to mooue from place to place by a figure called Anthropopatheia You reply that the bookes that I cite are written in Hebrewe And that the interpreters doe translate that hebrew word by katabainein or erchesthai and not porâ—uesthaâ— As if the Hebrewe tongue which is called lingua sancta were fitter to speak improperly of God then the Greeke or that poreuesthai had gotten some speciall licence more then anie other verbs of motion to be free from that figure Yet if it will please you to read Exod. 13. 2. Nomb. 14. 14. Deut. 1. 33. Exod. 33. 3. Psal 132. 8. Deut. 31. 3. Psal 71. 12. Psal 88. 7. and infinite such places more you shall find that plakket deere of a naked q. without a cap. But suppose that I could not finde it attributed to the Deitie in all these Scriptures yet you were not the nearer your marke For if you bee remembred your reason was in Chippenham that poreuesthai cannot bee giuen to the Deitie because it is a verb of motion Now the maior of your syllogism must be that no verb of motion can bee attributed to the Deitie Which maior being crased by my first answere and the examples there alledged There is no reason left you why poreuesthai cannot be attributed to the Deitie as wel as erchesthai or katabainein and no reason you knowe is too weake against ten such stout reasons as I haue sent you forcing this sense vpon this place Your next argument was from the participle quickned thus No passiue can agree with the Deitie Quickned is a passiue Ergo it cannot agree with the Deitie This syllogism I granted to be good and told you withall that wee doe not attribute this Participle to the Deitie but to the whole Christ by participation of proprieties following the text which saith not that the flesh was mortified and the spirit quickned but that Christ was mortified in the flesh and quickened in the spirite This answere you stroke off your skore Your third argument was from the tense or time 〈…〉 bee attributed to Christ at one time they note that hee was deade and aliue at one time But the first is true Ergo the last is true To this I answere denying the maior That participles or verbs of one time attributed to one thing muste needes pertaine to one time In the beleef wee say that Christ was crucified dead and buried where crucified dead buried be all of one tense or time yet agree not all to Christ at one instance of time To this you reply that they muste pertaine to one time and proue your maior thus Christ was after his passion dead or aliue at on time or else neuer If he were neuer dead and aliue at one time S. Peter speaketh not trulie If hee were dead and aliue at one time then I speake falselie In this Syllogisme is neither mood nor
It was the improbabilitie of your opinion that droue a man of so much judgement as Erasmus was to make that doubt But Carlill and Servetus you say do denie it In your printed sermon as you call it you lay your malice more open There you alledge for this antiquitie joined with veritie so there you call your owne opinion all the learned of all ages old and new all the Prophetes and Apostles and sybilles of the heathen all the creatures in heauen earth liuing and dead and lastlie all the Divels thēselues Onelie some possessed you say with Divels as the Iewes Seruetus and Carlill denie it Heere you vtter your choller more plainelie challenging to your owne side all the learned of all ages olde and newe and leauing nothing to your aduersaries but block-isme dol-tisme and diuelish giddinesse But God bee thanked you haue not the disposing of gifts and spirits There be men that denyes your opinion to haue anie ground in the word as farre excelling you in all kindes of learning as you count your self before Sir Thomas your Curat at Goosage and of such zeale and constancy in Gods cause with out regard of wordlie preferments as I pray God a man that can holde two benefices and would haue seauen if he could get them might mend that fault and shew himself as farre from Diuelish giddinesse as they As for Servetus I neuer saw his book which Calvine in his Epistles doth say was printed at Vienna But this I know that he held many grosse errors concerning the Trinitie Humanitie and Deitie of Christ as it is apparent in an Epistle written by the Ministers of Basil to the Syndicks and senate of Geneva As for this question I know not what he held but it is not likelie that euer he touched it And this I am sure of that he was burned by the greatest favorites of our opinion I meane the Genevites Carlill excepting his fault was a man for judgement and learning manie degrees before your self He made a slip indeede as who hath not Though you throwe the first stone at him you are not cleare your self Besides the mani-slips made in this book and other pulpits also you taught on S. Iames his day in Trubridge Anno 1591. If I do wel remember the yeare that weomen did beare children without pain in time of innocencie And because you would be sure not to be mistaken you did repeate it in the after noone in the same tearmes that you spake it in the fore-noone a fault of lesse judgement and learning then Carlils was The Iewes bee enemies to our faith and therefore doe not meete with vs nor acknowledge the truth that we do holde in this article As for the place that they take from you in the Hebrew Psalme and wherupon your choller doth rise I see no cause why they are not to bee beleeued in their owne tougue before all others that haue learned that tongue of them Their opinion of those words if they be taken right doth impeach Christs passion not so much as your own what euer it pleaseth you and Aepinus to dreame and suspect without cause and matter But vpon the Iewes the enemies of our faith Servetus an Hereticke with Carlill whome for his fault not so foule as your owne you boldlie and peremptorlie tearme possessed with a Diuell in this place you would faine lay the firste broaching of our opinion to deceaue the simple I hope you will leaue this craft one day Howsoeuer you may purchesse a plause amongest the ignorant the wise and learned will hisse you out of the schooles if you runne this course as you haue begunne HVME his 17. Sect. THey say that you preached the same at Leycock condemning all men that dissent from you of furie and madnesse as men fighting against the holie Ghost and spurning at a doctrine so profitable so godlie so wholesome and so full of all comfort and solace Heere M. Hill I appeale to your owne conscience what profite what commoditie what health safetie or solace is in your opinion that ours compriseth not Seeing our whole solace and safetie comfort and commoditie consisteth in this that we vnderstand that Christ God and man hath takē vpon him our curse and paying a full ransome for our sinnes vpon the Crosse hath reconciled vs to the loue of his Farher which we had loste by our Father Adam that nowe wee assure our selues of heauen without all feare of Hell What either comfort or commoditie can the sending of Christ into a place where ther was left no comfort nor commoditye adde to this so perfite and full a joy All good men are sorie that you carrying the commendation of zeale and learning haue joined your selfe with M. Chalfont who enterprised this matter so vnaduisedly to say no worse and hath almost shaken the foundation of the Church which God forbid with a dangerous division Your side I confesse hath manie great defendants which doe rather speake for you then confirme your opinion either with scripture or reason I was my self of your opinion till the sway of truth which I haue alwaies rather followed then mine owne fantasies did carie mee to the contrarie I am perswaded that manie of your authors if they had heard the reasons that you heare would neuer haue said as you doe But because the ignorant may not think that you haue all the world on your side Whether you regarde the nomber or the excellencie of the men our cause is nothing inferiour to yours As for M. Wisedome if he had erred it had beene more Christian-like to haue confuted him by priuate conference But seeing his doctrine hath the consent of most of the learned of our times and is so fortressed with Scripture and reason as heere you see it wanteth all excuse of modestie to handle him in open audience before such a multitude in such sort as M. Chalfont did and you confirmed in action though not in words For my part I am and will be on his side till I heere better reason from you Which when it commeth it shal carie me to anie truth that you can proue Further I wil not wagge the bredth of a naile If you can plainelie without cloak and colour confute my reasons and confirm your owne I promise you to turne my song If otherwaies I hope you will bee as good as that word which you past in the pulpite before so manie witnesses If you will satisfie mee you must answere me by writing For spoken words passe faster away then my dull senses can digest the reasons I wrote this in Latine because I wold not haue it vnderstood of the common sort I translated it into Englishe at the sute of a Gentleman that lay heer the last spring That copie by some negligence went farther abroad then I was willing I left it with a freend or two to deliuer it to you when I went in Scotland They conferring together delayed it till my returne least I
it be a discredite to them that other men bee thought off aswell as they My conclusion was that their names broght no more credite to your cause then Calvine Beza did bring ours My arguments were twise so manie as you make them 1. That they were all but men 2. That they who now are old were sometimes new 3. That they had no better warrant of Gods Spirit 4. That errors grew as thicke in their times as in ours Seeing then all men are fraile and old errours are as bad as newe and newe truthes as good as olde seeing the spirit of truth was then no stronger nor the spirit of error weaker all things in this comparison you see are aequall and my argumeÌ„t holdes for anie thing that you haue said You take the bit in your teeth and runne out of the way with an argument ab accidente Therefore fare-you-well that is not my way You cite Augustine and Ierome onelie to make vp nomber Their confession of their owne frailtie is against you If my arguments had not beene so true before that no witnesses can make them truer this would haue helpt mee well Men may see that you haue either a meruelous ill cause or great stoare of small judgement that can take so much paines to bring witnes into the courte to condemne your selfe And heere nowe seeing your owne men do counsell mee to trust no man without the worde I conjure you to trouble mee no more with your great musters of Luther Selneccer Chytreus Pomeranus c. If I would run that course we should set al the learned of the world together by the eares You will beare mee down I confesse with nomber For all the Monkes Friars Iesuites Abbotts Bishops Cardinals and Popes woulde swaie to your side If I were not sure of God and his truth I would neuer draw sword nor giue stroake in the cause HVME sect 3. THeir weaknes is no where more apparant then in this mater that we haue now in hand for â—erom ioineth his opinioÌ„ herein with a palpable error that Christ descended to deliuer the Fathers which to that day had bin in prison Augustine is not far behinde him who though hee confesseth that the Fathers were in ioy with Abraham Lazarus yet after some long disputation whether he did deliver all or some why these more then those at length he concludeth that hee did deliuer whome hee him selfe thought good For after that they had once conceaved that his soule descended into a locall hell There followed which could not choose many inconueniences There was non of them dreamed that which you avouch that hee descended into hell there to triumph or bind the divels or to augment their sorrows by shewing them from what grace they had fallen HILL his reply You write that Ierome and Augustine did hold a palpable error that is that Christ descended to deliuer the Fathers I hope you will not deny but the fathers haue their deliuerance by Christ from hell Therfore by the merits and works of Christ who I am sure conquered both deth and hell Therefore where you proue that Augustine and Ierome do erre I will leaue them as I saide before but where in they spake the truth I will prayse God for them But let vs see howe many wayes the scripture may be corrupted that is by adding altering diminishing Eue in the third Chap. of Genesis taught all her children so to doe for in the 3. verse thus shee saith But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God hath said ye shal not eat of it neither shall ye touch it least ye dye First she changeth the word of God for God fayth Gen. 2. 17. of the tre of knowledge of good and euill thou shalt not eate Those words of the tree of knowledge of good and euill she changeth putteth in for them in the miust of the garden Farther God said they shuld not eat of it shee added that they might not touch it God said they should surely dye Eue said least wee dye heere she diminished the scriptures If then the Fathers haue added to the scriptures that the Fathers were fet out of hell there I leaue them and if you change hell in to graue as you do in the 16. psal and Act. 2. I wil leaue you also for I stand not vpon mens sayings but vpon the word of God But where you boldly affirme that not one of the Fathers haue deemed that which I say you shewe your self either to bee malicious in hiding the truth or else so ignorant that you haue not read the Fathers for diuers both old new are of my iudgement Ambrose on the fourth Chapter of the Ephesians thus writeth Christ therefore comming downe from heauen into the earth was borne a man afterward he died and descended into Hell from whence rising the third day he shewed death vanquished to every creature Augustine de tempore In his 137. sermon and in his thrid sermon of the resurrection thus sayeth Hell did restore him as a conquerour and the heauens did receaue him as a triumpher And in his second sermon hee saieth thus Behold you haue hard what our defender the God of vengeance is saide to haue done freely For after he was exalted that is was hanged of the Iewes on the crosse that I may touche these thinges brieflie assoone as hee had giuen vp the ghost the soule vnited to the Diuinitie descended into the bottom of hel and when he had touched the band of darkenesse as a fearefull glorious spoyler the wicked hellish Legions were affrayde trembling began to enquire saying Who is this dreadful glorious man Eusebius writing of the resurrection of our sauiour hath the like We must know that in the selfe same houre wherein our Sauiour bowing his head gaue vp the ghost his body being left in the graue his foul with the Diuinitie went downe to triumph ouer Hell Fulgentius writing to King Thtasymund in his third booke and eight Chapter not dreaming but wel aduised thus writeth The true humanitie of the sonne of God neyther was wholye in the graue nor wholie in hell but in the Sepulcher hee lay dead according to his true fleshe but in his Soule descended into Hell In his soule hee returned to the flesh which lay in the Sepulcher but in respect of the Diuinitie which neither is holden in place nor limited by bond he was wholy in the graue with his flesh and wholy with his Soule in Hel and by this meanes was fully enery where Christ because God was not seperated from the humanitie which he had assumpted which was both with his Soule in Hell that from Hel his Soule might returne a Conqueresse and was with his fleshe that by reason of his speedie resurrection it might not be corrupted I haue heere alleaged the
old which disproue your assertion for all these accord with mee Now to these will I adde also the iudgements of some new Writers Mollerus a very learned Minister of Germany on the 16. Psalme thus teacheth Christ would shew his victorie in a certain sort ouer the Diuells to strike perpetuall terrors in to them and to take away from vs the feare of their tyrānie To this agreeth Musculus on the sixtie and eight Psalme This GOD which was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe first descended into the lowest partes of the earth then heeled captiuitie captiue and not onely wee are deliuered from the captiuitie of Satan sinne and damnation but al so triumphing ouer them as Tyrants he hath ascended aboue all heauens to fulfill all things The same learned Fathers interpreting the second Chapter of the Colossians thus hath There are some that bee perswaded it is an absurditie if it be sayd that Christ did triumph ouer the principalities and powers but if all chese things be attributed to God the Father that he did them with Christ and in Christ wee may truly reade heere triumphing ouer them in his owne person In like sort doth Hemingius expound this place in the second Chapter of the Colossians As by his death he conflicted with the Diuell on the Crosse so by his glorious descending into Hell Resurrection and Ascension he triumphed as it is Eph. 4. leauing his Crosse lift vp as a monument of his victorie So doth M. Fox vnderstād this place in a booke which he hath written entituled Christus triumphans Therefore in this behalfe you haue tolde a manifest vntruth wherfore I shall thinke you will scarce haue care to set forth the truth of God when you wil presumptuously vtter such an vntruth which may be reproued by so many honorable witnesses Farther here you leaue out at your pleasure two other endes of Christ descēding into Hel which I taught in my Sermon the one is the manifestation of his death the other is our deliuerance from Hell Playne dealing ought to be in this case and therefore I exspect it at your hands HVME his reyoinder If I will let you alone you will neuer afforde mee a good argument I see I must needes frame them my self Augustine and Ierome erring are not to bee praeferred to Calvine and Beza teaching a trueth But Augustine and Ierome doe erre in this controversie Ergo in this controuersie they are not to be praeferred to Calvine and Beza That Calvine and Beza doth teach in this point the truth you can not denie You will say perhapps that it is not the true meaning of the article That is the question But I hope you will not deny but the thing it self is true Now Augustine and Ierome do erre in the very thing it selfe Heere you fumble about an excuse and would faine say something But you had better say nothing then so little to the purpose You thinke that no man will denie but that the fathers had their deliuerie from Hell by Christ so thinke I too But what helps that these mens errour The one held that Christ went to Hell to delyuer the Fathers the other to deliuer whome he himself thought good Will your rotten Vernish hyde this blemish You tell me in the next sect that it doeth little or nothing pertaine to this question The question is about the descending of Christ into hell and this they make the finall end of that action Nowe if you can proue that the finall end hath no pertināce to the thing destinated to it though it bee but a question of arte I will acknowledge you to bee a better D. then you proued your self in Oxon. and a better artist then euer I suspected you to bee though I was reasonablie well perswaded of your skill before you shamed your selfe And yet I would haue you to marke if you can spare so much time as to marke anie thing against your selfe that this is a very materiall point in this question For this final end doth separate these mens opinion and yours They send Christ to hell to deliuer the Fathers and you send him to the hell of the damned where the Fathers neuer were They are so farre from you that Ierome saieth it is impium dicere Christum descendisse ad inferos locum damnatorum You spend the moste of this section to proue mee a liar If you could you might discredite mee but not the cause But I will crack this nut on yonr owne crowne Frst I said not that none of the Fathers denied that which you say I onlie saide that neither Augustine nor Ierome did send Christ to hell to triumph Secondly if I had said so I had said trulie For you send Christ to the hell of the damned and that none of them euer deemed Therfore in this behalf to vse your owne words you haue tolde a manifest vntruth of mee You father that on mee which I neuer saide and accuse mee for saying that which I might well avouche And heere I must put you in minde that if you will joyne with all or the most of them that you call forth to take your parte in this quarrell you must hyre workemen to repaire the ruinous walles of Limbus patrum that you haue shaken so sore and shiuered your self heer-to-fore with the mightie shot of Gods aeternall word HVME sect 4. VVHo so will see howe vncertaine Augustine was in this point let him reade his 99. Epistle to Evodius There shal he finde manie doubtes and almost nothing affirmed for certaintie but onlie that hee doubted not that Christ went to hell building on the words of Dauid cited by Peter Act. 2. Thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell c. Where I cannot chuse but muse what should moue so worthie a wit and such followers of him seeing it is apparant in the scripture that the original word doth signify as well the panges as the place of hell to passe by that signification which the whole church of Christ confesseth to be true and fall vpon that which hauing so weake proof had so great straites as Augustines deepe wit could not vnfolde Who so will see the name of hell vsed in the Scriptures for the sorrowes of Hell let him reade that of 1. Samuel 2. 6. The Lord killeth and maketh aliue he casteth downe to hell and bringeth vp againe or that of Dauid Psal 30. 3. Thou hast brought my soule out of Hell Or that of Ionas 2. 2. I haue called to thee out of the bottom of Hell And manie such like places where that word cannot signifie the pit of Hell whence there is no redemption but the hellish sorrowes which those Saints of God did suffer in this life Now seing this is so I wold fain knowe of you good M. Hill why wee may not more safelie take the name of Hel in that sense which you cannot denie then you in that which the better
on this place saith that by the branches are vnderstoode the carcasses of his hoast which the veasts of the field did deuour Lauaterus the Minister of Tigurin agreeth with him All the beasts of the field shall dwell vpon his ruine the kings carkas shall not be laide vp into the sepulcher of his elders but shall be a pray to crowes griphins and other carniâ—orous birdes So doth Pellican a learned Linguist interpret this place at the laste there is ane auersion or Apostrophe to Pharao himselfe or to the Assyrian King To whom art thou liâ—ened O thou noble and high among the trees of pleasure thou hast passed all other in power and yet with other kings that were in thy company they were brought to the lowest parts of the earth that is to hell among the abhominable heathen shalt thou sleepe and lye as a wretched and miserable man Now because you tak holde of the word sleepe you must remember that these words ar spoken ironically as it is noted in the contents of Esay 14. The derision of the king of Babilon Moreouer Lauaterus on this place of Ezech. saith These things may be better vnderstood out of the 14. of Es which prophecying of the destructioÌ„ of y â— king of Babilon Baltassar describeth with what bitter scoffs he is entertained in hell To end Lauaterus on this place proueth these four things first that there is ane hell secondly that hel in this chapter is called by three names that is 1. SHEOL 2. ERETS TACHTITH 3. BOR Hell the lowest parts of the earth and a pit thirdlie that this Hel is beneath vs and lastlie that the tyrants and wicked of the world do discend into it and this he proueth out of Numb 16. 33. Psal 55. 15. And addeth also that Tertullian and Ierome doo proue hel to be beneath in the earth The conclusion then is thus for as much then as the Assyrians dyed with the sword and were deuoured of the beasts and birds of the fielâ— I pray tell mee how that can bee true that you affirme that the lowest partes of the earth doth signifye the graue for howe were they in the graue y â— were neuer buried therfore they were in hel as both Esay and Ezechiel doo affirme and as Pellican Munster Lauater three notable lerned men in the holy tong doe interpret it I thinke your owne friends when they reade this will confesse you either to bee ignorant of the word of God or els to wrest it contrary to the meaning of the holy ghost Moreouer where you mislike with me because I said that ERETS TACHTITH that is the lowermost partes of the earth doth signifye hell generally in the Hebrew toong and you bring an instance out of the 139. Psal and 14. verse where you proue that the lower parts of the earth doth signifie the mothers womb therefore it doth not signifie hell alwaies this is a childish reason In a metaphorical signification it signifieth the mothers womb therefore in his proper signification it can not signifie hell Argumentum a metaphora ductum non valet an argument drawen from a metaphore is of no force And that heere is a metaphor M. Caluin shall be the iudge He compareth saith Caluin the mothers wombe to the lowest and inward dens of the earth and a little after for no doubt Dauid would expres metaphoricaly that inestimable cunning which appereth in the figure of mans body The mothers womb is compared to hel for the darknes of it for as Caluin saith that artificer which maketh a cunning peece of worke in a darke place is more to be commended then hee which doth the like in the light Dauid also is heere saide to bee made in the nethermost parts of the earth 336 because he was by nature the child of wrath and of hell if he had not bin deliuered therehence by Iesus Christ Breefely where you say that he descended in to the Virgins wombe and that it is the true meaning of the place Eph. 4. 9. both you and your M. Beza are deceaued For Paul reproueth you Ep 4. 10. He that descended is even the same that ascended Now the body and soul of Christ ascended into heauen therefore the body and soule of Christ descended into the virgins wombe if the body did descend into the virgins womb then Christ took not flesh of the virgin Thus that you may contradiâ—t me you are not affraid ignorantly or wittinglye to deny the incarnation of our Sauiour Theophilact saith well of these words when you read that the Sonne of man came down from heauen you may not think that his flesh came down froÌ„ heauen for this is y â— opinion of Heretiques which did teach that Christ brought his body from heauen and did passe through the virgin I hope you holde not this opinion but if you hold this interpretation you must needs fall into it For he that descended is euen the same that ascended Eph. 4. 10. Violence in this section done to the text by the Doctor First that the whole 24. chap. of Eccles speaketh of the Sonne of God and of his wonderfull workes in saving mankinde of the which this was one that he was not onelie aliue amongst the living but after death his bodie was amongest the dead bodies and his soule amongst the soules in Hell c. That Esay in 14. 9. and Ezech. in the 15. verse of his 31. cap. calleth that Hel plainelie which Ezech. in the 18. verse of the same chapter calleth the lowermost partes of the earth That in the 31. 18. vers of Ezech. Thou shalt bee cast downe in the lowermost parts of the earth and sleepe in the middest of the vncircumcised the word sleepe is taken ironicallie That in Eph. 4. it is ment that Christ descended in soule and body as he ascended in soule and body A new rule in Logick that argumentum a Metaphora sumptum non valet HVME his reioynder to the 9. sect FIrst marke that by a general axiome whatsoeuer a man alledgeth to proue a thing either doutfull or vnknowne the same must be better knowne and inforce such a necessitie of consequence as cannot be denied The thing that you haue heere in hand to proue is that the lowermost parts of the earth is as proper and peculiar a name for the place of the damned as Hell is in English To proue this your testimonies should be without controulment But are in deede so farre short of that marke that they are if not harder altogether as hard and obscure as the place that they are alleadged to illustrate The first of them I haue dispatched in the former section The next is out of the 24. of Eccles a booke not Canonicall nor written in the tongue whereon wee stand In which respect I might haue rejected it But becaus one answere serued it and your
was the end of his descending But his ascending was from this earth whereon we converse Ergo the end of this descending was onelie to this earth whereon we conuerse and not into hell as you gather out of this place My maior is proued by the second rule because the mouer is one Christ the motions contrarie ascending and descending The minor is proued Mark 16. 19. Luke 26. 51. Act. 1 9. by al the Symbols or summes of our faith by the cōmon consent of all Divines and the vsuall speach of all Christians that euer was or is To this you answere that the maior is vtterlie false because Christ saith Mat 12. 40. At Ionas was three dayes and three nights in the whales bellie so the sonne of man must be three dayes and three nights in the heart of the earth Indeede if the rule of nature were contrarie to this saying of Christ I shoulde sooner yeelde that nature might erre then the Lord of nature lie But Christ came neither to destroy the lawe giuen to his church nor to the rest of his creatures called the law of nature Wherefore this answere was not Doctor-like If you had looked well about you you might haue seene that his beeing three daies and three nights in the heart of the earth pertaineth to his buriall and not to his descending more then his rysing again out of the hart of the earth pertaineth to his ascension For these are foure distinct things His descending from heauen into his humane state his burial and laying vp in the heart of the earth after his death his resurrection and returning againe from the heart of the earth into the state he was separated from by death his ascending from the earth vp into heauen I drew also another reason from the first principle to prevēt an answere that his descending might haue beene first from heauen into his humane state and then out of his humane state into hell It was this if Christs descending from heauen did end in Hell then it culd not bee one motion being so manie yeares intermitted But it was but one motion Ergo it ended not in Hell To this you answere that I who charge you with cloudes of Sophistrie do raise such mistes of Sophistications that you cannot see in them what I mean by this one motion But there is not the cause That the Owle cānot see in the light the fault is not in the light but in the eie of the owle There is not a gnerall in Oxenford that had spent a moneth in reading Aristotles 5. and 6. bookes de natura that would not haue knowne this argument One descending is but one motion Paule speaketh heere but of one descension Ergo but of one motion Your degrees of humiliation are heere impertinent Howe properlie they are distinguished I referre it to the margent You tell mee in the beginning that my first reason was from the place of Iohn I came from my Father into the worlde c. Now sillie man I pitie your simplicitie That is no reason at all But seeing I was to apply naturall reason to this text I brought that place to proue that I made no private sens of these words Which course if you would follow your wrangling would soone weare to an end But you say that that place doeth little or nothing pertaine to this place that heere wee haue in hand A fig is not liker a fig then that is like this That hee descended and that he came from the Father that he ascended and that hee went to his Father are so like that though you put on your spectacles you will not finde a haire betweene them The argument that you frame heere for mee and the two absurd similies framed on the same block let them bee buried in the brain that bred them That is the fittest coffen I know for such rotten stuffe Wherefore to conclude this disputation about these wordes seeing neither your examples in the former section wil fit your hand nor this place tolerate your absurde sense I muste put you in minde of Chippenhames pulpite There be manie godlie soules that would be glad to see you so honest as to performe the worde that you passed there before them HVME his 11. Sect. YOur next argument is taken from the wordes of our Sauiour to Marie Magdalene forbidding her to touche him because he had not yet bene with his Father Whervpon you gather seing the whole man is said to be wher the soule is that Christs soule had not beene in heaven because he himself had not beene there It is a wonder if a man of your learning seeth not so manifest a fallacie For though by a figure a man may well say that the whole is where there is but a part yet it followeth not where the whole is not that there is no parte An argument you knowe a tot◠divise ad negationem omnium partium was neuer current amongst the learned For example The whole race of mankind is not in England Ergo there is no men there O◠Edmond Campion hangeth not ouer New-gate Ergo no parte of him hangeth there Like to this is your reason The whole man Christ was not in heauen Ergo his soule was not there That these wordes of Christ were meant of the whole it is apparant by the text For that which had not yet been with his Father was the same that Marie was forbid to touch That I beleeue you will not say was his soule which is not subject to feeling but the whole man consisting of soule bodie Wherefore it was the whole man that Christ tolde Marie was not with his Father HIL his Reply MY next place was not this but a text out of Syrac 17. 21. At the last shall he arise and reward them and shall repay their reward upon their heads and shall turne them into the lower partes of the earth If the margin is noted Math. 25. 35. So that this place sheweth that after iudgement the wicked shal be turned into the lower parts of the earth that is hell This place because you nor your Sinod can answere you haue passed it ouer and saide nothing to it but are now com to your scholepoints the which when I vse you call sophistry and so it were indeed if I did vse them as you doe You say an argument drawen negatiuely from the whole to the parts doth not hold True it is if by parts you meane integral parts but not essentiall parts My instance was thus Math. 8 11. Many shal come from the East and the West and shal rest with Abraham Isaac Iacob in the kingdom of heauen Out of this place I proue that where the soule of man is after death there is the mā said to be as we vsually say that these Patriarks and all the saints are in heauen though their bodies be in the earth and are dust and ashes If then
figure and besides that it standeth on a begging of the question That Peter saieth hee was at one time deade and aliue is the question and you take that as if it were granted Your fourth reason was If Peter saith that the flesh was dead and the Spirit quickened then doeth hee shew that he was both dead and aliue at one time But the first is true Ergo the last is not false The minor of this Syllogisme I did denie shewing that it is flat against the text which saieth not that the fleshe was dead and the spirit quickened But that Christ was dead in the flesh and quickned in the spirit This reason it pleaseth you of your courtesie to send away in secrete without a God be with you Your fifth reason was The Scripture doth join this going preaching cloase to his passion as if it wold say As soone as hee had suffered hee went and preached I answered you that as and if did carie too weake a consequence in so waightie a matter This asse sadled with an if 〈…〉 Your sixt reason was out of the 6. of Genes That the preaching of Noah is there attributed to the third person of the Deitie and not to the second The words of that text bee The Lord said My spirit shall not alwaies striue with man because hee is but fleshe Which wordes I answered you in the Latine that I sent you that I neuer sawe anie interpreters that doe consent with you in this exposition and interprete these words of the third person of the Deitie Tremelius and Iunius their judgement I set down as that I liked best who take these words to be a Hebraisme sounding as if he had said I wil not alwaies stand disputing with my selfe what to do with these men which yeeld no frutes but of flesh blood for nowe I am determined except they repent to destroy them at the day appointed Notwithstanding granting you that it were as you would haue it I tolde you seeing the actions of euery person of the Deitie are common to all three hee erreth not that giueth them to anie of the three This you confesse to be true But you ask me if I can proue that Christ preached in Noah after his passion affirming confidentlie that this was attributed to him of Peter after the passion It were requisite that you had good proof according to the waight of this case and your confidence in speaking it But I will ease you of that burden Proue it out of the text with anie reasonable shew of truth and you shall haue my hart and hand The order of the wordes which you stand so stoutlie vpon is not so strict as you would haue it For the purpose and drift of the Apostle heere is to perswade vs to patience by the example of our Saviour and not to set out his death descending and resurrection in order as they were done but obiter as they fall in hand and followe the matter that heere he driveth to perswade Your seauenth reason was if Christ was raised from the dead by the first person of the Deitie and not by the second then the word spirit heere cānot be construed of the Deitie but Christ was raised by the first person and not by the second Ergo c. I might well haue tolde you that this minor is absurde and flat against the plaine text Ioh. 5. 21. Whatsoeuer thing the Father doth the same the sonne doeth also with him And Ioh. 10. 18. which wordes I did quote not farre before in the defence of my second reason I haue power to lay downe my life and I haue power to take it vp again But then sparing you and refraining all hard speeches how euer they were due I onelie tolde you that I sawe not howe that could stand with the trueth of the Scriptures which telleth mee that the second person did put on man and did not forsake him in all his distresses You reply in the margent of your written copy see contrarie to this Act 4. 40 Act. 13. 30. 1. Cor. 15. 15. Which places I haue marked obserued to make nothing against my assertion In them the raising vp of christ is attributed to the God-head which worketh not as I haue noted alreadie one person without another Which thing if it bee an errour it was Iohn that seduced mee cap. 5. 7. The Father worketh and I work As the Father doth raise vp the deade so the sonne likewise doth raise vp whome he will And in the 17. verse quoted a little aboue The same is agreable to other infinite places of Scripture and the somme of our Faith called the beleef which saieth the third day hee rose againe and not that hee was raised againe Your eight reason was If the time that they were preached to and of their disobedience was not one then this preaching is not to bee vnderstood of Noah his preaching in the time of their disobedience But the adverbe pote doth distinguish those times Ergo c. To this I answere that the Adverb pote doth not determine the participle apeithesasi but the principall verbe ekeryxen You replie that I speak neither like a Divine nor like a Grammarian To proue me no divine which indeede I am not and no Grammarian which I am but little you alledge no Diuinitie and little grammer It will not followe that because it may stand with a Participle therefore it is so heere or that because it is distinguished from the verb with a comma therefore it cannot determine it at all You are not ouer-loden with Grammar if you knowe not that diuerse and manie reasons may part wordes depending one on the other by a comma And as for this place pote if it did depend as you would haue it vpon apeithesasi it cannot bee distinguished from ekeryxen with a comma seing apeithesasi it self is gouerned of ekeryxen without commixture of anie interjected member to parte them What euer your book hath take heed that it be not a stain to your skill in grammar to credite a book in such a case Your ninth argument was Noah preched to men These were spirits not men Ergo Noah preached not to these I answered that whosoeuer preacheth to men preacheth to spirites because no men want spirits that is reasonable soules And now I ad that they are heer called Spirits in respect of their imprisonment not in respect of his preaching If hee had called them men then the name of prison wherein they are now datained had beene improper The Apostle wiselie choosed that worde which might best agree with both those times Bezaes opinion also whereto Andradius the Papist agreeth is most probable that pote doth determine the same Participle apeithesasi and doeth distinguish it from tois en phylake pneumasi which must needs be vnderstood in the present time by vertue of the