you once denie it For where you affirme that certaine Sacrifices of the Iewes set foorth those sufferings of Christs soule which you meane and I vtterly denied that any sacrifices of the Iewes did shew the suffering of hell paines in Christs soule or any other kind of death besides the death of the body only you take not the paines to make any proofe of that you aâ—…rme but stand in your state and say you deny my assumption As if the negatiue being mine and the affirmatiue yours you were not by all rules of Râ—…ason to prooue your aâ—…atiue and it sufficed me to stand on the negatiue till you made iust proofe of the contrary Here you will say you doe bring proofe for your assertion Here indeed you spend three leaues in talking of it as your manner is howbeit your word is here as throughout your writings the best warrant you offer vs for this cause But let vs heare your examples and proofes First that sacrifice consisting of two goats a slaine and a scape-goat You obiect heere against first that I abuse the Text. That were a great fault but let vs view the Text. Against your instance of the Scape-goat figuring as you would haue it the suffeâ—…ings of Christs soule I made three exceptions First that the Scripture did not call the Scape-goat a Sacrifice for sinne Secondly that no proofe was or could be made that the Scapegoat signified the soule of Christ Thirdly that if both those were granted which were no way proued the Scape-goat suffering nothing but being let loose into the wildernesse did rather inferre that Christes soule was freed from all such sufferings as you would force vpon it To the last which is the chiefest you take the paines to say little and so giue the Reader to vnderstand that your bolde assertion is the best foundation of your proofe for if you can not shew as you neither doe nor can that the Scape-goat by the Scriptures suffered any thing how will you bring it about that the Scape-goat figured the sufferings of Christes soule shall no suffering be a figure of suffering such may your figures be but the wisdome of God maketh figures for similitude and resemblance to the trueth and not for contrarietie to it as you do The chiefest point then you cleane slide from and take holde on some words in Moses text about which you thinke you may wrangle with some more likelihood The verie expresse wâ—…rds of the text you say are these Aaron shall take of the people two goats for a sinne offering And verie good reason must I bring to frustrate so plâ—… a speech I am farre from bringing any thing to frustrate the Scriptures but if the Scripture expresse it selfe I preferre that before your misapplying the words to your will Aaron shal take of the congregation of the children of Israel two goats for sinne So stand the words if you will needs appeale precisely to the text Here is a taking of two goats and an intent for sinne declared in generall but the particular maner of vsing and ordering either of them according to Gods appointment followeth in distinct and direct wâ—…ds Aaron shall take the two goats and make them stand before the Lord at the doore of the Tabernacle And Aaron shall giue lots vpon both goats one lot for the Lord and another for the Scape-goat And Aaron shall make the goat on which the lâ—… fell for the Lord to draw neere and shall make him reddie or sacrifice him for sinne For here is AASA'HV added which in the Scriptures vsually signifieth to make readie a Sacrifice And he shall kill the goat that is for sinne for the people and bring his bloud within the vaiâ—…e In as plaine words as the former be or any can be that goat on which the lot fell for the Lord must be made readie that is sacrificed for sinne of which he spake at first and that which was the peoples sinne-offering must be slaine and his blood brought within the vaile But neither of these agree to the Scape-goat therefore the Scape-goat was not the sinne offering for the people which the Scripture in that place mentioneth These words you say proue not that the Scape-goat was no sinne-offering at all These particular circumstances doe plainly proue which of the two goats was made the peoples sinne-offering and so conuince that you inlargc the words of Moses without any iust ground to serue your owne conceit Two sinne-offerings were not taken from the people but two goats were taken for sinne and one of them sacrificed for the people as was after prescribed and performed and Aaron commanded for him and his house to offer a bullocke for his sinne-offering So that where the Scripture mentioneth no moe sinne-offerings for the people but one neither vseth the word AASA but to one of them that one was prepared and slaine by Gods commandement as a sinne-offering for the people where the Scape-goat was preserued aliue and sent away into the wildernesse to shew the force of the former sacrifice by carying with it the sinnes of the people I take a sacrifice and offering in the largest sense as signifying any consecrated thing giuen to God to appease him for sinne And such vnbloudie sinne-offerings very manie we shall finde in Moses Law Wherefore the Scape-goat may be a sinne-offering though it were not slaine or bloudie That the word Sacrifice may be diuersly taken and applied to things vnbloudie and ghostly I haue no doubt but that one and the same word in one and the same place should import both a bloudie and vnbloudie sacrifice for sinne is a shift of yours without all sense it hath no shew in the sacred Scriptures Againe the sacrifices for sinne were they bloudie or vnbloudie which are mentioned in Moses law and namely in all those places which you quote in your margin they were all without exception OFFERED to God by FIRE the things liuing suffered first death by effusion of bloud the things without life as flowre oyle wine and such like were cast into the fire where the bloudie sacrifices were burned and so without bloud or fire no sacrifice for sinne is appointed in Moses law Since then the Scape-goat was neither slaine nor touched with fire but sent forth aliue into the wildernesse what do those examples of things vnbloudie yet offered by fire helpe you to proue that the Scape-goat liuing was such a sinne offering as many are found in Moses law Can there be any thing in the world more full and strong to prooue that the Scape-goat also was a true sinne-offering or rather a true part of this whole and entire sinne-offering consisting and being compleat in both these goats the slaine and the Scape-goat For as the slaine so the Scape-goat we see was CONSECRATED to the Lord and here OFFERED to make reconciliation by him and separated from men and barâ—… vpon him all the sinnes of the
of the liuing sacrifices what needed the burning of the same after it was dead and senselesse obscurely to intimate if not falsely that the fire of affliction as you would haue it should consume the Messias God had therefore another meaning as I take it in commanding ech sacrifice after it was slaine to be offered to him by fire Forwhere of all creatures subiect to mans sight and sense fire was the fittest for the light heate force and motion thereof to designe vnto the people the brightnesse of Gods glorie the zeale of his holinesse the grace of his Spirit and seate of his habitation in the heauens God gaue the Iewes fire from heauen to burne perpetually on his Altar which did teach them with what cleannesse of hands and feruentnesse of heart the things which hee required should bee offered vnto him and did separate the sacrifices dedicated vnto God from all prophane abuse and humane vse and made them ascend towardes the place of his glorious presence that he might accept them with fauour and be pleased with them All which significations of heauenly fire were most perfectly accomplished in the sacrifice of Christ Iesus For neuer man nor Angel offered vnto God any seruice with like puritie and charitie as the Lord Iesus offered himselfe to his Fathers will and that his oblation did not onely clense his body from all corruption of mortalitie and infirmitie as appeared by his resurrection but pearced the heauens with admirable celeritie and efficacie and preuailed in the presence of God to bee a sweete smelling sauour for all the sonnes of God Some of these things you seeme to acknowledge As fire to signifie the Acceptation of Christs death in that it was a sacrifice of a sweete sauour ascending vp to God What reason then haue you that fire should note the wrath of God powred out on Christes soule and body before he died Shall one and the same fire in one and the same sacrifice import both gracious acceptance with God and terrible vengeance from God These be contraries in mine eyes whatsoeuer they be in yours That fire in sacrifices did shew Gods fauour and not his anger the sacrifices of Gedeon Salomon and Elias doe plainly prooue which God with fire from heauen consumed not in token of any displeasure against them or dislike of their offerings but in signe of very fauorable acceptations both of their persons and sacrifices Euen so at the first offerings of Aaron the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people and there came a fire from the Lord and consumed the burnt offering vpon the Altar which when all the people saw they gaue a shout for ioy and fell on their faces This fire descending from God and consuming that sacrifice God commaunded to keepe burning for euer on his Altar and none might approch to him with any other fire in incense or offering in so much that when Nadab and Abihu the sonnes of Aaron tooke strange â—…ire to offer before the Lord and not of that which alwaies burned on the Altar God destroyed them with fire The fire then which consumed the sacrifices of the Iewes was miraculously deliuered them by God and ioyfully receaued of all the people and therefore did not argue to them any wrath or vengeance on their sacrifices but rather the fauour and good liking of God which the Scripture noteth by the sweete odour of the sacrifice As when Noah made his burnt offerings to ascend by fire the Scripture saith the Lord smelled a sauour of rest that is he shewed himselfe to be appeased and his anger to rest So when Aaron and his sonnes were to be consecrated Priests God said to Moses Thou shalt make to smell by fier that is thou shalt burne the whole Ram as a burnt offering it shall be to the Lord a sauour of rest that is a pleasing sacrifice And for that cause God willed the Iewes in their peace offerings whereby they gaue thanks for their safetie and prosperitie to vse fire and saith of it ISSHE this burning by fire or this sacrifice made by fire is a sauour of rest vnto the Lord. And so in incense which Saint Iohn resembleth to the prayers of the Saints fire was likewise required to teach them that their prayers went vp before God as the smoke of sweete odours and were accepted of him Then not affliction or indignation on the Sacrifice was declared by the fire which God commaunded to be vsed in all kinds of sacrifices but rather an ascending vp to the presence of God and an accepting thereof in the sight of God which is farre from your suffering of hell paines in the soule of Christ for which you bable so much in both your bookes But the Apostle sayth as the bodies of beasts were burnt without the campe so Christ suffered without the gate Were it granted that fire in Sacrifices did signifie probation or affliction which is no way proued you are no whit the neerer to your suffering of hell paines in the soule of Christ. For the bodies of beasts sayth the Apostle were burnt which can by no pretense of these wordes be stretched farder than the afflictions of Christes bodie when he was carried to be crucified without the gate And the chopping of the holocaust in pieces that it might the more conueniently be layed on the wood to burne maketh as slender proofe that Christes soule suffered the paines of hell notwithstanding your graue deuice that Christes soule was chopt in pieces and not his bodie which conceits of yours declare your follie but helpe not your cause Those Sacrifices whereof part was burnt by fire and the rest reserued for the Priest and sometimes for the owner that brought them to feast before the Lord had their bloud shed at the doore of the Tabernacle as well as the other and so resembled the death of Christ no lesse than the other though God would haue no part of the one to be eaten by the Priests or people as the other were but to be wholly consumed by fire because they were wholly reserued or dedicated vnto him And this the Apostle respecteth in that comparison which he maketh of the bodies of beasts burnt without the campe whereof the Priests that serued in the Tabernacle could not be partakers They were consumed by fire because the Priests should not eat thereof to foreshew as the Apostle noteth that such as were addicted to the seruice and ceremonies of the Law and the outward Temple could not be partakers of the trueth which is in Christ except they did leaue those elements of the Law which seemed so glorious in their eyes and followed Christ out of the gate bearing his reproch whose bloud was most holy and most sufficient to sanctifie the people though hee were cast out of the citie to suffer as a malefactour and wicked person Neither were the dead bodies of those beasts consumed by fire out
day shall award heauen and hell with the warrant of this speech I was hungrie and yee gaue me meate I thirsted and yee gaue me drinke I was a stranger and ye lodged me I was naked and yee clothed me I was sicke yee visited me I was in prison and yee came vnto me and so foorth where in one Chapter Christ calleth his members by the name of himselfe 27. times All which are most false of Christs person for he then raigned in glory at the right hand of his Father endured none of those miseries but yet they are most true in his members whom he calleth by the name of himselfe because he loued them as himselfe more then himselfe since for their sakes he humbled and emptied himselfe And this reason of his words himselfe will giue before men and Angels â—… In as much as you did it vnto one of the least of my brethren you did it vnto mee The same is verie vsuall in the Scriptures Hee that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me He that receaueth you receaueth mee They haue not reiected thee said God to Samuel they haue reiected mee He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eie Where a most louing acceptation is shewed of the sufferings and seruices of men for Christes sake but no proper attributton verified of Christ. This Damascene expresseth by making two kinds of appropriation vnto Christ in the Scriptures one naturall and substantiall the other personall and habituall Naturall as when the Lord in Nature and trueth being made a man had experience of things incident to our Nature Personall and habituall as when one putteth on the person of another for pittie or loue and vseth speech in his name and for him NOTHING APPERTAINING TO the speaker HIMSELFE According to which Christ appropriated the curse and dereliction due to vs not himselfe being made those things but assuming our person and reckoning himselfe with vs. For neither as God nor as man was he euer forsaken of his Father neither was he made sinne nor a curse Assuming therefore our person and reckoning himselfe with vs as the head for the members he spake these things For weâ—… were guiltie of sinne and malediction as incredulous and disobedient and for that cause were forsaken Which are Cyprians plaine words also Quòd pro eis voluisti intelligi qui deseri à Deo propter peccata meruerant Thy complaint of forsaking thou wouldst haue vnderstood as spoken for them who had deserued to be forsaken of God in regard of their sinnes Then by Cyprians iudgement Christ spake those wordes neither for himselfe nor of himselfe but for those and of those that deserued to be forsaken of God whom he calleth by the name of himselfe as he doth oftentimes elsewhere in the Scriptures because they were members of his bodie and as deare to him as himselfe If this be all that Cyprians words imply how come you to make that false and prophane collection out of Cyprian that Christ suffered such a forsaking of God touching sense of paine and want of present seeling of comfort in his paines AS THE DAMNED DOE You would faine set your infernall imaginations to sale vnder the names of some of the auncient Fathers to inure your Reader with the name of the DAMNED lest he should detest your irreligious presumption if you should proferre these pedegrees in your owne name But a man may know the fowle by the feather and your deuices shew themselues by the verie vtterance of them For expressing two points in Christes sufferings the one is sensiblie absurd the other apparantly false and wicked The paine of Christes soule you euery where defend was inflicted by the immediate hand of God and was the selfe same which the damned doe suffer Then how could this be called a forsaking in Christ when it was rather a plaine persuing of him by Gods owne hand Doth a man depart from an other when he persueth him or forsake him whom he followeth with the stroke of his hand If therefore Christes suffering in soule came from the immediate hand of God as you dreame Christ should haue said my God my God why persuest thou me or why doth thine hand oppresse me and not why doest thou forsake me and leaue me in the hands of mine enemies without any shew that thou regardest or respectest me The second point is farre woorse For if Christ had no more comfort in his paine theâ—… the damned haue then Christ for the time of his suffering had neither faith hope grace nor loue of God nor any fauour with God nor â—…xpectation that hee himselfe should be saued much lesse that he should saue others from all which the damned are cleane cut off Indeed this was the conceit that the diuel by the mouths of the wicked did vrge against Christ to vpbraid him with his case as desperate and to persue him as forsaken of God and therefore this resolution that Christ was thus indeed forsaken or felt no more present comfort then the damned doe is plainly the diuels Diuinitie and maketh as flat a contradiction to all the Scriptures as any the damned themselues could deuise For Dauid ledde by the spirit of God sayth exactly of Christes sufferings in the person of Christ I set the Lord alwaies before me he is at my right hand that I shall noâ—… slide Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue reioiceth my flesh also doth rest in hope And the Apostle saith that Iesus for the ioy that was set before him endured the crosse and despised the shame And he that against these expresse Scriptures auoucheth that Christ had no more feeling of any comfort in his paines then the damned haue in theirs I see no cause why the whole Church of Christ should not hold him madde or woorse But you meane no present comfort As if faith hope and grace the assured fauour and promise of God yea personall coniunction with God and his owne certaine knowledge that he should rise againe the third day Lord of the quicke and dead and Sauiour of the whole world did not yeeld him present comfort in the middest of his greatest paine insomuch that the Apostle saith Christ endured the crosse hee meaneth with patience and desâ—…ised the shame thereof So great was the ioy proposed and comfort conceaued euen in the sharpest of his sufferings By present comfort you meane present deliuerance Meane what you will your meaning is lewd and wicked to broche the doctrine of diuels vnder parables and paraphrases of abused wordes and slâ—…e comparisons with the damned For if Christ hâ—…d hope then had he comfort because hope confoundeth not If he had no hope then did he despaire and so must you admit in Christ either consolation which you denâ—…e or desperation for the time which must be ioyned with infidelitie fâ—…r that he could not want hope but by lacke of faith
person onely but also in his members Then first you be slipt from your former resolutio deliuered in your Treatise which is no strange thing in your writings There your words were I take it to be cleare the Apostle HERE SPEAKETH NOT of the personall sufferings of Christ but of the godly You there denie that Paul speaketh of Christs personall sufferings but of the godly Here you affirme hee speaketh of both and least you should seeme to diuide them you adde Paul doth here ioyntly together vnderstand by Christs crosse the afflictions of the whole mysticall bodie both head and members A large and long Crosse of Christ that conteineth not onely his owne death and passion and whatsoeuer persecution he suffered in his life time but ioyntly together all the asflictions of the godly from the beginning of the world to the end I will not aske you where you find or how you proue Christs crosse to be so vsed in the Scriptures you that take vpon you to frame new Redemptions new hels and new heauens to your fansie will not sticke to frame a new Crosse of Christ without any Scripture howbeit know this all wise will beware of such expositions as haue neither example nor ground in the word of God For though our Sauiour sometimes said If any will come after me let him denie himselfe and take vp his Crosse and follow me yet he neuer said let him take vp my Crosse and follow mee and Paul who often vseth the word Crosse without addition many times the Crosse of Christ neuer taketh it in all his Epistles for the afflictions of the godly but onely for the spitefull and shamefull death which Christ in his owne person suffered on the Crosse. So that howsoeuer euery Christian may be said to take or beare his Crosse the Scriptures no where apply the Crosse of Christ but only to the force and fruit of Christes death suffered on the Crosse for vs and our saluation which is the sense that I affirme Saint Paul here intended But the markes afflictions and DYING OF THE LORD IESVS are vsed in this and other places of the Scripture to signifie the afflictions of the godly Those places haue speciall wordes adioyned which can not bee referred to the person of Christ but must of force belong to the speaker or sufferer As I beare IN MY BODY the markes of the Lord Iesus saith Paul and againe I fulfill the rest of the afflictions of Christ IN MY FLESH And so we beare about IN OUR BODIE the dying of the Lord Iesus Where these words in my bodie and in my flesh are proper to the speaker and no way deriueable to the person of Christ. Wherefore the markes afflictions and dying of the Lord must either import a resemblance to the personall sufferings of Christ or demonstrate the cause for which the Apostle suffered which was for Christs sake and in this is no difficultie to suffer affliction in like manner as Christ did or to suffer it for Christs cause But the Crosse of Christ whereof the Apostle speaketh in my Text was that at which the Iewes were so greatly offended for which the true preachers were so sharpely persecuted to which the false teachers ioyned circumcision for the better attayning of saluation in which the godly most reioyced and by which the faithfull were crucified to the world and the world to them and all these are proper to the personall death and crosse of Christ as he was the Sauiour of the world and not common to the afflictions of the Saints It was a question of doctrine not of manners for which the Apostle so much striued and the highest point of mans redemption not of mans perfection in which he so much gloried For touching other mens miseries how should Paul reioyce in them or how should he by them be crucified to the world and the world to him He had good cause to reioyce in the death of Christ though it were neuer so much maligned and pursued by the Iewes because it was the wisedome and power of God to saue all that beleeued and in his owne troubles for Christes quarrell hee might reioyce as hauing thereby fellowship with Christs afflictions and made conformable to his death but to reioyce at other mens troubles that hath no warrant in the word of God Reioyce saith Paul with them that reioyce and weepe with them that weepe Wee may take comfort and giue God thankes that the faithfull haue grace to endure persecution with patience and courage but that affliction befalleth them we may not be glad For that is to reioyce at other mens harmes which is repugnant to the rule of charitie Neither could Paul be crucified to the world by other mens troubles long before dead or then vnborne examples might encourage the weake but Paul was strong and proposed himselfe as a paterne of patience suffering persecution And therefore this haling into the Crosse of Christ the afflictions of all the godly that euer were or shall be as if the Apostle so highly reioyced in them and were crucified to the world by them is wholy against the haire and hath neither dependence nor coherence with the Apostles words Besides you doe not or will not vnderstand the maine point here in question betwixt the Apostle and those false teachers of the Iewes whom he reprooueth and refuteth in this Epistle You say indeede It is manifest the Apostle here Gala. 6. v. 12. reprooueth the false teachers for mingling the pure doctrine because they were loth to taste persecution but you neither tell vs what the Gospell was which they thus mingled with circumcision nor why they feared persecution nor from whom which things if you would haue specified as the Scriptures deliuer them you should soone haue perceiued how properly the Apostle addeth for the Crosse of Christ and how rightly I referred these words to the force and fruite of Christs death which is the summe and substance of the Gospell What the Gospel was which Paul preached appeareth plainly by his owne words We preach saith he Christ crucified vnto the Iewes a scandall or offence and vnto the Grecians foolishnesse but vnto them which are called both of the Iewes and Greekes Christ the power of God and wisedome of God to saue all that beleeue For Christ is made of God to vs righteousnesse redemption and sanctification to the end That he which reioyceth might reioyce in the Lord. In so much that I esteemed not to know any thing among you sayth Paul saue Iesus Christ and him crucified So that Christ crucified the Crosse of Christ the preaching of the Crosse and the Gospell of Iesu Christ are phrases of like force vsed by Paul for one and the selfe same word of trueth which is the doctrine of our saluation by the death and blood of Christ. Christ sent me saith he to preach THE GOSPEL not with wisedome of words least
gloriae ducunt à me vero procul sit caeterarum rerum iactantia Licet in vna Christi cruce morte admodum gloriars They sayth Paul count circumcision a glorie farre be it from me to boast in other things It is lawfull for me thorowly to reioyce only in the crosse and dâ—…ath of Christ Iesus Some will aske How or why doest thou reioyce in the Lords crosse For that he was crucified for my sake which aâ—… no bodie and loued me so deerely that he offered himselfe to death for me Oecumenius What is this reioycing in Christs crosse which Paul speaketh of That for vs who were vnworthy Christ would be crucified for that is the cause we haue to glorie Haymo vpon the same place in the person of Paul sayth I will not reioyce in the riches and dignities of this world but in the crosse of Christ that is I will reioyce in his passion which was celebrated on the crosse whence is my redemption and saluation Moe I might easily bring but these for antiquitie may suffice The grauest and exactest of the new writers agree with the Fathers Bullinger Whereas Paul might haue vsed a simple kinde of affirmation ONLY THE DEATH OF CHRIST is sufficient for me to saluation he chose rather to expresse it by the way of detestation and to say Farre be it from me to reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ. Where againe the second time by the crosse he meaneth the death sacrifice and expiation of the Lord Christ and the whole worke of our redemption Gualter in his 59. homilie vpon that Epistle sayth Now Paul opposeth himselfe to those false teachers declaring how he himselfe is affected and vpon that occasion repeateth the Summe of his doctrine touching the redemption and saluation of mankind in these words Be it farre from me to reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ. He might haue sayd simply I reioyce only in Christ crucified in whose crosse I know there is reposed for me life and saluation But he vseth such a kind of speech as teacheth vs their insolencie was an abominable and capitall offence Caluin a man for his great paines in the Church of God worthy of great praise where he steppeth not too much aside from the ancient Fathers expounding these words of Paul sayth To reioyce in Christs crosse is as much as in Christ crucified but that it expresseth more for it signifieth that death of Christs which was full of reproch and shame and was accursed of God That death then which men abhorre and whereof they are ashamed in that death Paul sayth he reioyceth because he hath perfect blessednesse therein Piscator in his Scholies vpon Pauls Epistle to the Galathians noting what crosse of Christ it was for which the false teachers would not suffer persecution sayth Ob crucem Christs id est ob doctrinam Euangelij de salute part a per solam Christi crucem they would not suffer persecution for the crosse of Christ that is for the doctrine of the Gospell teaching saluation to be purchased by the crosse of Christ only There is not a new writer of any iudgement or diligence which ioyneth not with these and howsoeuer some of them withall auouch that Paul meant to shew by this opposing himselfe to these false teachers that hee shunned not persecution for the crosse of Christ as they did but reioyced in the doctrine of the crosse by which the elect are saued what affliction soeuer befell him therefore yet they deriue that part of Pauls meaning not from the confused signification of Christs crosse as you doe but either from the EFFICACIE thereof by which Paul was crucified to the world and the world to him in neglecting the flattery and enduring the fury of such as opposed themselues against Christ or from the CONFORMITIE to it that as he desired to reigne so he was willing to suffer with Christ and therefore reioyced as well in the fellowship as in the force and effects of Christes sufferings on the crosse or lastly from the CONTRARIETIE to the false teachers that though they adulterated the true doctrine of Christes crosse because they would decline persecution it was Paulâ—… ioy to teach sincerely the power of Christ crucified whosoeuer pursued him for so doing This sinceritie and duetie of the Apostle I am farre from denying but the crosse of Christ I constantly referre to the doctrine of mans redemption and saluation by the crosse of Christ that is by his personall sufferings on the crosse as all those old and new writers do and not to the troubles and afflictions of the godly to which if this Discourser dare ascribe the meane or merit of mans redemption or saluation he falleth from puritie to poperie and from the Christian faith to open heresie Thou seest then gentle Reader how sure ground and iust reason I had to propose that sense of my text which I did as also how vntruely vnwisely and headily this fellow ranne first to the challenging of my text and still vpholdeth his humour with his priuate dreame of Christs crosse conteining ioyntly together all the afflictions of Christ and his members from the beginning of the world to the ending thereof and maketh the false teachers as fearing persecution for the commending of his conceit to ioyne circumcision to the doctrine of the Gospell and so by altering and interlacing Pauls words after his owne fansie hee hath hatched at last an exposition without head or heele which no man vnderstandeth besides himselfe and the Diuines of all ages both new and olde do contradict But I committed another great ouersight in handling my text which was to take occasion from the text to speake of any thing for you count them the faithfullest and wisest handlers of Scripture which conclude euen from their text firmly and first of all what soeuer they afterwards teach thereupon Indeed I thinke your maner be to conclude all that you afterward say euen from your text without the helpe of any other places of Scripture You be so fast in your conceits and so loose in your conclusions that you can inferre any thing of euery thing Euery word you speake you tie to your text as firmly as flax to fire but if you would take the paines once to proue that you say and not only to say that which you should prooue you would finde great difference betwixt the firmnesse of a fansie in which you be so resolute and of an argument which for ought I yet see in your writings you scant make not vnderstand And where you quarrell with such handling of texts as is vsuall in these dayes but no good nor commendable vse your reading must be greater and iudgement better before you take vpon you to controle the Preachers of England for mishandling their texts Many hundreds there are of whom you may learne both how to diuide and how to pursue your theme your skill is not such
with the soule Wherein you first denie the Similitude betwixt the bread and the body of Christ to be true in deedes but onely in words because you doe not acknowledge the violence offered to Christs body by his persecutors to bee any kind of breaking properly and truely For howsoeuer with bigge words you talke of the anguish of Christes soule bruising his body ioyntly also yet when you come to expresse your selse plainely you say This grieuous passion was in his soule immediatly and properly seeing then his body was not touched with any smart And since all sense of paine is in the soule if by breaking you vnderstand not the violence offered to Christes body in vaine come you in with your Sympathie which may shew itselfe in the body but not bee felt of the body by reason the powers of sense are in the soule and so you controle the Apostles words as voide of all trueth whiles you referre them truely and properly to the soule and not to the body but onely by Sympathie The grounds whereon you denie this Analogie betwixt the bread and the body of Christ are as absurd and false as the Conclusion which you build on them and are in number foure 1. That Klômenon in Greeke is BROKEN TO PEECES properly 2. That MEDVCCA in the Prophet Esay is also broken to peeces properly or crushed and beaten to POVVDER 3. That Christes body was not properly broken 4. That the breaking of the bread into many peeces doeth first and immediatly set out the breaking of his soule In all which you violently follow your owne fansies as your maner is against all diuine and humane testimonie For first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not by his proper signification import that only which is broken in peeces as you meane peeces wholly parted the one from the other Looke backe to your Lexicons to which you appeale and namely to that of Budaeus Tusanus and Constantinus which Crispine Printed Anno Domini 1562. or to that which was a fresh Corrected and enlarged by Gâ—…snerus Iunius Xylander Cellarius Honygerus and others and Printed at Basill 1584. and see whether Klân whence Klômenon commeth bee not there expressed by frango flecto and luxo and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are to breake bow vnioynt bruise or cut And though Robert Steuen in his Thesaurus set downe none other signification to the verbe Klân but frango to breake yet hee doth not thereby meane onely breaking of bones or making of peeces as you ful wisely intend but to breake generally whatsoeuer or howsoeuer And so Klân is to breake the straitnesse of any thing by wrying or bowing it and the coherence of any thing by straining tearing or cutting it and the roundnesse or fulnesse of any thing by bruising it Aristotle in his Problemes sayth that as we clime vp the hill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the knees are bent or strained backward as we goe downe the hill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thighes are bent or strained forward as also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Hippocrates is the straining of a ioynt where he saith that in holding the hand forth right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bowing of the ioynt at elbowe is strained For so doth Galen expound him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The offer to stretch out the arme directly straineth the ioynt at elbow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the out side And Lucian describing the iesture of a Tragicall person sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bowing and straining himselfe In all which Klà n doeth not import any breaking of bones nor making of any peâ—…ces but the straining of the ioynts by which the body or the parts thereof may be bowed He â—…ychius saith klân is likewise to cut expressing it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cut vines which Theophrastus calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the cutting of vines with whom Suidas Phauorinus the Greek Scholiast vpon Aristophanes agree deriuing the metaphoricall signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from cutting the tender branches of vines and other trees which are properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they wil turne and bowe euery way and the hooke that serueth to cut them is named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea the very breaking of bread in Christes institution to which the Apostle resembleth the violence offered to Christes bodie the Greeke church neuer so vnderstood that it was not or might not be done with kniues For besides that the ancient leiturgie vnder the name of Chrysostome mentioneth a sacred knife in forme of a lance wherewith the bread was cut which is there expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Germanus Bishop of Constantinople reporting the vse of the Greeke Church in his time continued fro former ages saith the Lords body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is cut with a knife which they call a launce out of the bread and though that be diuided yet Christ remaineth whole and vnparted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in euery piece of the bread so cut That klân is also vsed to signifie the tearing or bruising of fleshie parts where no bones at all are broken Hippocrates the father of all learned Physicke speaking in his owne Art most skilfully and truly doth cleerely witnesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lesse dangerous are any of the bones broken than where the bones are not broken but the vaines and sinewes adioyning are on euerie side bruized If the vaines and sinewes of mans bodie are properly sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they are bruized or torne with any violence the flesh of man which is full of vaines and sinewâ—…s to bring bloud and sense to euery part of the bodie can not be bruized with staues or torne with whippes and thornes as Christes was but those vaines and sinewes spreading themselues thorowout the flesh must likewise be bruized and broken which Hippocrates calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the danger be the lesse because the veines and sinewes seruing to that vse the more outward they come the smaller they are And lest you should still dreame as you doe that there is no breaking of any thing in mans bodie but of bones and that when the pieces be wholly seuered one from the other Galen a man past exception in his facultie telleth you that in violent hurts of the hands or feet by leaping falling or straming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the knitting of the bones rather breaketh than the bones themselues Where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put to signifie the losing and tearing of the ioynts when the bones are not broken which Galene auoucheth is the properest word that the Greeke tongue hath for breaking of bones and vsed almost of euerie man that is acquainted with the Greeke tongue Of breaking he likewise saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a part may be broken the rest
being yet coherent Euen as Hippocrates sayd before him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the lower iaw is broken if it be not cleane forced a sunder but that the bone is in some part coherent By which it is euident that as well ioynts as bones may be BROKEN and that either in part or in whole Klan then whence klômenon is deriued importeth not necessarily the breaking of bones in mans body as by your new Diuinitie you haue lately deuised to make way for your hell paines in the soule of Christ but it signifieth generally to breake as our English word doth and frango with the Latines likewise whether it be by bowing or straining that which is straight by losing that which is fast by bruizing that which is sound or by cutting and seuering in part or in whole that which is coherent And so much our English word BROKEN expresseth We say the necke or backe is broken when neither bone nor skinne is broken but the fastning of the ioynts is losed Likewise the head the face the shinnes are broken when the skin or flesh of these parts is by some violence razed or torne Yea the veynes are broken with a rupture and children are broken out when their flesh doth exulcerate And since the diuiding of that which was coherent which the Phisitians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the solution of vnitie or continuitie whether it be strayning cutting razing tearing or bruizing the bones or flesh of mans body in part or in whole is contained in the English word breaking and in the Greeke word Klômenon the Apostle spake properly enough when he said that Christs body was broken for so much as all the ioynts of it were losed in sunder the vaines and sinewes tornc with piercing and grating of Iron spikes the flesh and the skinne cut and rent with thornes whips and speare and bruized with staues though the bones were not broken which is your ignorant exception against the Apostles words But MEDVCCA in the Prophet is broken in peeces properly or crushed and broken to powder as these Scriptures doe vse the word likewise and all Lexicons doe confirme Your resolutions are so rash that no man will trust your report for the proper signification of words DACHA indeede is properly to bruize whether it be with hand or foote but not to peeces nor to powder without some other word added to expresse so much For your Lexicons to which you so confidently appeale consult that of Pagnine perused and augmented by Mercere Ceuattere and Bertrame and Printed at Lyons in Fraunce Anno 1575. or Forsters Printed at Basile Anno 1564. and see whether they do not plainly reproue your folly Forstere expresseth the theme whence MEDVCCA commeth by oppressione seu depressione contusus est to be bruized by oppression or depression neither doth he so much as mention the signification of frangere to breake in all the examples of that theme Pagnine declareth the force of that theme by conterere frangere contundere to beate breake or bruize but Mercere addeth as Forstere did oppressione vel depressione by oppressing and depressing And against your beating to powder Pagnine taketh speciall exception out of the Rabbins in the very same place of Numbers whence you would inferre it For vpon the words Numbers 11. verse 8. the people gathered Manna and BEATE IT in morters and made cakes of it He saith differt a SHACHAK secundum Hebreorum Doctores quod SHACHAK est minutatim contundere terere The word here vsed differreth from SHACHAK according to the opinion of the Hebrew Doctors because SHACHAK signifieth to beat a thing small or to powder which cosequently this doth not And though they had dissembled so much yet the Scripture it selfe doth conuince that your obseruation out of that place as out of all the rest which you quote for that word is starke false For Manna by the description of Moses was a small round thing small as the hore frost on the earth and fell in the night with the dew and melted away when the heate of the sonne came Now Manna being so moist that it would melt with the heate of the Sunne was not beaten in morters to bring it to powder as you boldly suppose since it would rather cleaue together then come to powder but by bruizing it betweene two stones which was their kind of Mill in the Wildernes or in a morter with some water they did worke it to batter or dough thereof to make wafers or cakes But were it so that Manna would come to powder which yet the text doth not infeâ—…re will you conclude because beating in a morter bringeth dry things to powder that therefore beating doth generally and necessarily signifie beating to powder And as that place is mistaken by you which only seemed to make for you so not one of the rest which you quote in your maâ—…gin doth conuince either beating to powder or breaking in peeces properly to which you so violently wrest the words of â—…say For where the Prophet saith the Nettes of Egypt shall be torne that is farre from beating to powder except you haue lately deuised the powder of Nettes to make a plaister of And if we should say they were torne to pieces what necessitie is there that either this tearing should be properly breaking which you admit not but in things that be stiffe and hard as bones and such like or that those pieces should be diuided from the whole and not rather be ruptures in the whole as we see in torne nettes which are not alwaies rent cleane a sunder The next and last place which you quote for the proper vse of this word it as wide from your purpose as West from East None wounded sayth Moses with any contusion â—…r abscission of his secret parts shall enter into the congregation of the Lord. Can thosâ—… parts of man be properly broken in pieces or beaten to powder They may be bruized or wounded as other fleshy parts may be but breaking to pieces properly or beating to powder were very strange in that case That bruizing was vsed as well as cutting to make men Eunuches appeareth by Paulus Aegineta where he sayth Huâ—…us reâ—… modus duplex est vnus collisione alter excisione absoluitur The way to do this is double one by bruising the other by cutting And since Moses compriseth both these wayes in his words it is euident that DACCA is a bruize and consequently the word may be properly applied to Christes bodie which was sorely bruized as well with the beating of sâ—…aues and whips as with piercing and grating of iron spikes These are the grounds on which you gather the Prophet could not by that word meane the wounding and bruizing of Christes bodie but because powder and pieces as you dreame are properly comprised in that theme therefore it must be referred to the soule of Christ. As if pieces and powder came
neerer in soules to the right signification of bruizing than the mangling tearing and contusing of Christs body which he suffered from the violent rage of the Iewes Your other word of the very same nature keepe to your selfe When your proofs faile you in this you may not be suffered to roue at your pleasure and to reach after other words out of your own vnlearned skill to vouch they are of the very same nature Wherefore there is no cause why the coherence of Esaies wordes should be cut in sunder by your vnhandsome deuice of the peeces and powder of soules but as the first words in that sentence he was wounded for our transgressions and the last with his stripes we are healed are plainly referred to the punishments of Christes bodie so the middest he was bruized for our iniquities should haue the same relation and intention especially the Prophet foretelling the people what they should see in their Messias and how they should misiudge of him We sayth Esay did iudge him as plagued and smittâ—…n of God but he was wounded for our transgressions and bruized for our iniquities and with his stripes are we healed Neither is it any strange thing in the Scriptures to ioyne this very word which you talke so much of with wounding as with a word of the same nature and force For besides that Moses sayth None wounded with any bruizing or â—…utting of his secret parts shall enter into the Lords congregation Dauid saith to God Thou hast bruized Rahab as one that is wounded Where wounding bruizing are more properly lincked together as words of like force and effect than your breaking of soules into pieces or beating them to powder The verie same word is also vsed in the Scriptures to note the bruizing of mans bodie by sicknesse or of his estate by wrong and oppression Dauid in a grieuous sicknesse complaining that he felt nothing sound in his flesh nor any rest in his bones addeth I am weakned and bruized very much Bruize not the poore in the gate sayth Salomon that is oppresse not the poore in iudgement The children of the foolish shall be bruized that is oppressed in the gate and none shall deliuer them And when it is applied to the soule it may note that to be either wounded with sorrow oppressed with wrong or humbled with obedience but as for powder and pieces from which you would pull a iust proportion which nothing can answere but the paines of hell it is a sicke conceit of your owne braine it hath no deriuation either from the Prophets or Apostles words You did not meane that the soule might be properly broken in pieces but that thus it is neerer and better applied to the soule than to the bodie which was only pierced and boared thorow Then was your former opposition out of the Scripture very licentious and your conclusion as friuolous In that a bone of Christes was not broken you inferred that Esaies words He was broken for our sinnes could not be properly meant of Christes bodie flesh and bones as if there were no breaking of ioynts veines sinewes flesh or skinne but only of bones And yet as if the soule of Christ which is by nature altogether indiuisible might properly be broken in pieces you conclude the breaking of the bread can not properly belong to the bodie of Christ BVT TO THE SOVLE Had you denied the breaking of the bread properly to belong to either your words must haue beene It can belong properly neither to the bodie nor to the soule but you denie the one and auouch the other It can not belong properly to the body but to the soule Whether those words of yours doe not expresly import that the breaking of bread doth properly belong to the soule of Christ as to the trueth wherein they must be verified I leaue it to the iudgement of the discreet Reader Howbeit you denie not but broken applied to the soule of Christ is figuratiue And so you grant there was no cause you should take such exceptions as you did to the Apostles wordes This is my bodie which is broken for you For since it can not be verified of the soule but figuratiuely as you now confesse it may so be most iustly verified of Christes bodie without any sense of hell paines suffered in the soule of Christ. And if the consent of the English Latine and Greeke tongues may be trusted for the vse of a word breaking may properly be affirmed of Christes bodie which can not be of his soule for so much as his ioynts veines sinewes flesh and skinne were broken and torne in sunder though his bones were not And but that your fashion is to follow no man farder than your fansie leadeth you you might haue seene with what reuerence and conscience Master Beza that otherwise vpholdeth the sufferings of Christes soule referreth this word KLOMENON to the tearings and torments of Christes bodie being hereto led by the Apostles assertion By the word broken in Pauls wordes is designed the kindâ—… of Christes death because besides that the Lords bodie was torne bruized and euen broken with most bitter torments though his legges were not broken as the theeues were Christ breathing out his soule with a most violent death was as it were rent in two parts according to his humane Nature This word then hath a MARVELLOVS EXPRESSE SIGNIFICATION that the figure should fullie agree with the thing it selfe to wit that the breaking of the bread should represent to our minds the verie death of Christ. Peter Martyr hauing made your obiection that a bone of Christ was not broken resolueth But heereof I will not greatly contend for somuch as this breaking is by many Fathers referred to the body of Christ. With whom the wordes following doe make broken for you which indeed leadeth me to consent vnto them and to acknowledge a double breaking one in the bread another in the bodie of Christ. Bullinger sayth The bread is properlie sayd to be broken the bodie of man to be slaine howbeit in the Hebrue tongue to breake is to waste to kill and destroy And so the visible bread which in our sight is broken with our hands doth certeinly set before our eyes that bodie of Christ which was broken or done to death by vs or for vs. So Haymo q Christ himselfe brake the bread which he deliuered to his Disciples to shew that the breaking and suffering of his bodie came not but of his owne accord Which wordes he tooke out of Beda vpon the Gospels of Marke and Luke Before whom Prosper When the host is broken and the bloud is powred out into the mouthes of the faithfull what other thing is designed than the doing to death of the Lords bodie on the crosse and the shedding of the bloud out of his side And likewise Austen The table of thy spouse sayth he to the Church hath bread
sheepeheard and lay downe my soule for my sheepe that is by my death men are deliuered from eternall death I aske now the Christian Reader whether he thinke it a shift of mine when Christ gaue his soule for vs or our soules for me to say that he gaue it by the losse of his life in such sort as the Euangelists describe or whether the Scriptures and Fathers together with the later writers doe not consent with me in the same exposition of Christs words This conclusion then that Christ gaue his soule for our soules doth not inferre that he had distinct times places or manners of suffering or dying for our soules and then for our bodies that is erroneous iniurious to the death of Christ and openly disclaimed euen by the Discourser himselfe but that in suffering death on the crosse by which his soule was separated from his body after long and sharpe torments first endured in his body his soule was the chiefe or rather the onely patient that discerned and sustained the bitternesse of the paines and perceiued the cause for which and the counsell of God from whence all that affliction was ordained and decreed For as we sinned in body and soule but chiefly in soule so Christs death for our Redemption must grieue both body and soule but chiefly the soule which was ioyned with the body in suffering death that both soule and body might be redeemed and the paine thereof proportioned to the soule as the pleasure of sinne chiefly delighted the soule More then this no Father euer ment and this is no way denied by me You would faine wring in a conceite of your owne into their words which is mainly directly against their words and resolutions in all other places and therefore which of vs two deserueth best the name of a shifter let the Reader iudge The Fathers striue to expresse an exact proportion so farre as was possible betweene Christ and vs first in the parts that suffered in Christ and are saued in vs Next in that which Christ suffered for vs and which we are saued from thereby They iustly conclude that no parts of our nature are saued in vs but such as Christ assumed into the vnitie of his person and therefore in Christs sufferings there must be body and soule before they could be humane sufferings or auailable for vs. As by man came death so by man came the resurrection of the dead But that they doe or would affirme that we are saued from no more then Christ suffered for vs or that we are wholy freed from all those kinds of paines which he suffered for our sakes this is a false and fantasticall proportion of your owne inuenting it is no part of their meaning Sundry things should we haue suffered for sinne as the death of the soule and the death of the damned besides reiection from all grace and blisse confusion malediction and many other terrors and torments of conscience which by no meanes these Fathers apply to Christ but in euident and vehement words auouch the contrarie Christ likewise suffered wrong reproch shame paine and death of the body from which we are not freed yea rather we must haue fellowship with his afflictions and be conformed vnto his death before we shall be partakers of the comforts that are in him or of his resurrection So that your running to proportions of your owne compounding when you should bring sound probations for that you defend is mad Musicke though best becomming the discords of your doctrine As we are saued not in our bodies onely nor onely in the externall sensitiue part of our soules wherein standeth that suffering with and by our bodies but we are saued redeemed and sanctified in our whole spirit and vnderstanding also euen so by their verdict Christ suffered for vs not the bodily and outward sufferings by Sympathie onely but he suffered for vs euen in his minde also Now this is directly against your present assertion A man can not readily tell whether your assertion in this place be more false absurd or idle The Scripture teacheth vs that a man hath but two substances of which he consisteth a mortall and visible which is his bodie an immortall and inuisible which is his soule Our Sauiour who best knew what man had saith as much Feare not them which kill the bodie but can not kill the soule feare him rather that can destroy soule and bodie in hell The names of these parts are sometimes varied and sometimes diuided into sundrie powers and faculties but the partes themselues cannot be increased Salomon speaking of mans death sayth Dust goeth to the earth as it was meaning the bodie and the Spirit returneth to God that gaue it meaning the Soule Of a Virgin Paul sayth she careth for the things of the Lord that she may be holy both in bodie and spirit that is in bodie and soule And writing to the Thessalonians the same Apostle saith that their whole Spirit and Soule and Bodie may be kept blamelesse vnto the comming of the Lord Iesus Christ. Of this place diuerse haue diuersly thought Chrysostome Theodoret Ambrose Ierome Oecumenius and Theophylact commenting on these words take the spirit for the grace of Gods spirit wherewith our mindes are lightned and renewed and indeede sometimes Paul vseth the word spirit for the gifts of the spirit as where he saith Quench not the spirit and calleth them our spirits as the Spirits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophets Howbeit Athanasius Tertullian Epiphanius Gregorie Nyssene Augustine Bede and others take here the spirit for the vnderstanding and minde of man as also Caluine Zanchius and Beza doe who referre the soule here spoken of to the will and affections of man not that any of them maketh two soules in man which were most absurd but that by those names they note two different faculties or functions in one and the same substance of mans soule Come now to your words and see how handsomely you proportion them either to your Authors or to the trueth or to your purpose Not one of the Fathers which you cite nameth the minde of Christ but onely his soule and his bodie saue Nazianzene who speaketh not of Christs suffering in the minde but of his sanctifying the same by assuming it in his incarnation Let himselfe explane his owne wordes in the very same place Our mind some say is condemned And what our flesh is not that also condemned then either cast away mans flesh from Christ for sinne or admit mans mind that it may be saued For if Christ take the worse part of man to sanctific it by his incarnation shall he not take the better part that it may be sanctified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his assuming of mans nature I speake not this as if it might not safely be granted that Christs soule suffered as well by
his Resurrection as antecedent since he possessed not that immortall and heauenly life which now he hath but vpon his arising from the dead And so the Apostle placeth them Christ died and rose againe and reuiued into such power and glory that he was made Lord ouer dead and quicke And Cyrill who often times vseth this word he reuiued of Christ meaneth the third day after Christs death when the Scriptures affirme he rose from the graue So Cyrill and the Synode of Alexandria that ioyned with him in writing vnto Nestorius say of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he reuiued the third day hauing spoyled hell and so in his second confession of the true faith to the religious Queenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ spoyling death reuiued the third day And in his Epistle to those of Egypt Christ is said in the Scriptures first to haue died as a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and after that to haue returned to life by that which he was by Nature If then he died not in the flesh according to the Scriptures he was not quickned by the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he reuiued not againe So that Cyrill hath not any seeming words for the death of Christs Soule but saith as Christ said in effect before that the Sonne of man gaue his soule or life to be a ransome for the life of all and not for the Soule of all which in the singular number is neither good English nor good Diuinitie though to smooth it you put the plurall and say for our soules which is not in Cyrill The words of Ambrose will prooue that Christ offered his Soule for vs hoc in se obtulit Christus quod induit Christ offered in Sacrifice all that which he assumed Besides that you falsifie Ambrose by adding ALL to his words which haue no such thing in them you â—…est Ambroses words against Ambroses meaning For though it may well be graunted that Christ offered body and soule as a Sacrifice of holinesse and obedience vnto God and that Christs Soule likewise was laid downe vnto the death of his body to feele the smart thereof and to be seuered by the force thereof in which respect Esay saith that Christ powred forth his Soule vnto death Yet Ambrose speaking of Christs sacrifice for the sinnes of the people meaneth as the rest of the Fathers doe that part of the Sacrifice which was slaine which was by his and their confession Christs body and not Christs Soule Heare Ambrose him selfe In quo nisi in corpore expiauit populi peceata In quo passus est nisi in corpore Wherein did Christ sacrifice for the sinnes of the people but in his body wherein did he suffer death but in his body And so Theodoret Christ was called a Priest in his humane nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and offered none other Sacrifice but his owne body Athanasius nameth what Christ put on and what he offered The word of God that made all things was afterward made an hie Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Putting on a body that was borne and made which he might offer for vs. Nazianzene saith to Christ. Thou art a sheepe because thouwast a Sacrifice thou art an hie Priest because thou offeredst thy body Augustine also Sacerdos propter victimam quam pro nobis offerret a nobis acceptam Christ 〈◊〉 a Priest for the Sacrifice he tooke of vs that he might offer it for vs. What that Sacrifice was he sheweth saying Assumpsit a nobis quod offerret Domino ipsas diximus sanctas primitias carnis ex vtero virginis Christ tooke of vs that he might offer to the Lord we meane the holy first fruits of his flesh taken from the wombe of the Virgine Theophylact A Priest may by no meanes be without a Sacrifice It was then necessarie that Christ should haue somewhat to offer Quod autem offerretur praeter eius corpus nil quidpiam erat necessariò ergo mortuus est Now there was vtterly nothing that he might offer besides his body it was needfull then he should die This that Christ tooke a body to offer is most agreeable to Ambroses mind as well in the booke which you cite as in other parts of his writings Ex segenerauit Maria Marie conceiued of her selfe to wit of her owne body that what was conceiued of her might be the true nature of a body And alleadging Saint Pauls words that Christ was made of the seede of Dauid according to the flesh Rom. 1. and made of a woman Galat. 4. He concludeth Ergo ex nobis accepit quod proprium offerret pro nobis vt nos redimeret ex nostro Then Christ tooke of vs that which hee might offer as his owne for vs to the ende he might redeeme vs by that which was ours And declaring what he meant euen by the words which you bring Christ offered that in himselfe which hee put on Ambrose addeth Non igitur diuinitatem induit sed carnem assumpsit vt spolium carnis exueret Christ put not on the nature of his Diuinitie but he tooke flesh that he might put off the spoyle of his flesh when he should die Now if the flesh of Christ were subiect to all iniuries how say you that Christs flesh is of the same substance with his Godhead What else doe you in so saying but compare Adams slime and our earth to the Diuine substance Here Ambrose plainely confesseth what hee meant Christ tooke vnto him and offered for vs euen Adams slime and our earth whereof his body was made Which elsewhere hee precisely auoucheth saying Corpus suscepit nostrae mortalitatis vt pro nobis haberet quid offerret Christ assumed our mortall body that he might haue what to offer for vs. And least you should after your trifling maner aske whether we exclude an humane soule from the body which Christ tooke of the substance of his mother and which hee offered for vs to death on the Crosse I answere with Ambrose Cum susceperit carnem hominis consequens est vt perfectionem incarnationis plenitudinemque susceperit Nihil enim in Christo imperfectum Where as Christ tooke vnto him the flesh of a man it is consequent that hee tooke vnto him the perfection and fulnesse of incarnation for there is nothing imperfect in Christ. And what neede was there hee should take flesh without a Soule when as an insensible flesh and an vnreasonable soule was neither subiect to sinne nor capable of reward An humane soule was a necessarie sequell to Christs body which he tooke of the seede of Dauid and substance of his mother as it is to all ours before we can be men but the soule is not comprised in the name of the body much lesse doeth it receiue the same conditions and properties which the body doth Though then I make no doubt but Christ at his birth and
the Crosse for remission of our sinnes and receiued violent wrong from the diuell in putting him to death In reuenge and recompence whereof as all these fathers confesse God tooke iust cause to make not the Diuine nature which had that right before and could not loose it but mans nature which Satan had by sinne conquered and subiected to himselfe to be in the person of Christ conquerer and Lord ouer Satan and all his power to take whom hee would to make them vessels of mercie and to reserue the rest as vessels of wrath vnto the terrible iudgement of Christ. Wherein these Fathers doe not swarue from the Pophets and Apostles meaning howsoeuer they vse different words that Christ should diuide the spoyle of the mightie because hee powred out his Soule vnto death And that therefore God highly exalted and gaue him a name at which euery knee boweth in heauen earth and hell for that hee was obedient vnto the death of the Crosse. Neither doth Ambrose when he speakerh of a Price required by the diuell or yeelded to the diuell meane any more then a CAVSE SVFFICIENT why the spoyling of Satans kingdome was giuen vnto the manhood of Christ and al the power of darknesse sinne death and hell put vnder his feete For a Price doeth not alway import an honourable condition or a pleasing satisfaction as it signifieth when it is referred to God but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke which is properly a Price noteth either Reward or Reuenge so doth pretium in Latine comprise both and generally whatsoeuer is balanced one against the other to be exchanged one with the other is the price of ech other So that it is no dishonour to the bloud of Christ to be so precious that not onely the voluntarie offering therof did fully satisfie the iustice of God displeased with our sinnes but that also the wrongfull shedding thereof which was necessarily to be committed to Satan and his members as the onely fit instruments for such an impietie was a iust occasion why God in requitall of that wrong made the manhood of Christ the subduer and destroyer of Satans kingdome Not that the diuell had any right or command ouer vs against or without the will of God but that hee was so blinded by the wonderfull wisedome of God in reuenge of his subuerting the first man that he was made by shewing his malice against the manhood of Christ an Actor in our Redemption and the Author of his owne subuersion whiles without his knowledge and against his meaning hee was Gods instrument for our saluation and his owne destruction This you can not quietly brooke because you make the chiefest point of our Redemption to bee the killing of Christs Soule with Gods immediate hand and so farre are you from confessing Christ to be vniustly slaine as an innocent that you defend him to be sinfull hatefull defiled with our sinnes and hanged by the iust sentence of the Law and the diuel to be onely a minister and executioner of Gods iudgement against Christ. Yea your similitude if you stand to it of prisoners taken in warre and your ransome yeelded to God as to an enemie for his captiues setteth iarres if not warres betweene the first and second person in Trinitie by making God the Father an enemie both to the Redeemer and Prisoner For among men whose vse and custome you presse in this place the detainer is alwayes a professed enemie to the redeemer since confederates doe not vse to take or detaine ech others subiectes or seruants but open enemies The Ransomer then and the prisoner haue one and the same enemy and consequently by your resemblance God is an enemie as well to Christ as to vs. The proofe which you bring to shew God to be an enemie to his elect out of the fift of S. Matthew is impertinent to the cause and diâ—…erent from the trueth For besides that the new writers as Erasmus in his paraphrase Bucer Bullinger Musculus Caluine Gualterus in their commentaries vpon this chapter and the old as Tertullian Ierom Chrysostome Hilarie Theophylact Euthymius and others with one consent referre this admonition of Christ to men that are Aduersaries Iudges and Iaylours here in this life which is wide from your purpose your making of God to be an Aduersarie in that place acknowledgeth a superiour Iudge to God to whom the Aduersarie must by complaint not by command deliuer vs and your comparing the deuill to an obedient minister of the Law excuseth him from being a rebell to God and an accuser of men But if you would speake or thinke as the Scriptures leade which you pretend but not perfourme you should finde in them though not in this precept that the deuill is by a speciall kind of notation called our ENEMIE as indeede he is the ancient eger and continuall supplanter and impugner of man and that God to his elect is and euer was a gracious and louing father when he was most displeased with their sinnes and euen then so carefull and mindfull of their saluation that he gaue them his owne Sonne when they were his Enemies to dâ—…e for them and by that death to make satisfaction and purgation of all their sinnes which was not the part or worke of an Enemie how much soeuer his holines then did and still doth dislike their vnrighteousnesse And since the punishment of our sinnes was layd vpon Christ and we healed by his stripes if therein God professed Enmitie to his elect and executed it all on Christ the deuill being but the Iaylor and Executioner or as else where you say an Instrument onely and by that parable not to be blamed for doing no more then he is commaunded by the Iudge your wholesome doctrine commendeth the deuill as an obedient seruant and maketh God an Inferiour and yet an Enemy to the manhood of Christ. Which if you did not meane you must temper your words and proofes better and learne not so egerly to reiect euery phrase in an ancient Father that pleaseth not your palate when your selfe spake and wrote so licentiously and dangerously But I fit your similitude you say to your desire farther then your selfe did expresse because I say the Ransomer is not bound to be Prisoner for his Redeemed but may satisfie the enemie by money or otherwise You are a happie man that euery thing fitteth your desire You positiuely teach that Christ our Redeemer must suffer the selfe same paines of hell which we should haue suffered The reason you yeeld for it is a poore similitude drawen from the common vse and custome of men in redeeming their captiues taken in warres I replyed that your similitude prooueth no such thing because amongst men the Ransomers neede not nor doe not sustaine the same seruitude and imprisonment which the captiues doe and must if they be not redeemed Yet the whole price you say must be payd by
hanged as also he may bee iustly hanged and yet not truely or properly accursed of God The penitent thiefe on the Crosse came deseruedly to his death as himselfe confessed and yet was not thereby truly accursed since he was that day receiued into Paradise His death was an accursed kind of death as also Christes was though the one did blesse and the other was blessed euen vnder that punishment which Christ did willingly and the thiefe patiently suffer Paul saith not as you affirme that Christ was made that curse only that iudiciall curse whereof onely Moses speaketh Much lesse doth Paul say as you teach that Christ suffered the whole proper curse of the law I measure Pauls meaning by his proofe you extend it to your fansie So that as I say Paul prooueth that he meaneth as you say Paul meaneth that hee prooueth not Which of our constructions commeth neerest the Apostles mind the Reader will soone perceiue Paul handling before generally Gods curse and the punishment of the Law against sinne and shewing we are redeemed from it by Christs being made the same for vs he confirmeth it by applying Moses iudiciall punishment against certaine transgressours being it seemeth a figure of Christ herein If you may adde what fansies and falsities you list to the Apostles words you will make at length some shew of proofe if not from Pauls text yet out of your owne trifles There is not one true word in all this Preface of yours to Pauls proofe for neither doth the Apostle in that place handle generally the punishment of the Law against sinne nor shew that Christ was made the same for vs neither did Moses appoint hanging by any iudiciall Law against transgressours neither were oâ—…enders so punished a figure of Christ herein Paul in that place handleth the righteousnesse of faith in Christ as bringing the blessing of Abraham and freeing from sinne which the law conuinced and accursed The law threatneth a curse vpon euery breach thereof but it inflicteth not actuall punishment vpon euery sinner And therefore the curse of the law in Pauls first words is either the DETESTATION which God hath of sinne and sinners whom in time appointed he meaneth euerlastingly to destroy or the OBLIGATION to temporall and eternall euill which sinne hath in it Neither of which Christ was made for vs since hee tasted not the same but another kind of curse which was the temporall punishment of sinne by the hands of men and by that obedience to the will and counsell of God hee freed vs from the guilt and wages of sinne which the law denounced To note the differences of those two curses the Apostle putteth the Article to the first for the more vehemencie and not to the second saying Christ redeemed vs from that curse of the law being made a curse for vs. The curse then or punishment of sinne in the person of Christ was hanging on a tree to which Moses by his iudiciall law adiudged no man Worshippers of other Gods blasphemers breakers of the Sabbath disobeiers of parents and Adulterers were to bee stoned to death by the law of Moses Murderers were to loose bloud for bloud and false witnesses to suffer that they meant to others whether it were eye for eye hand for hand or life for life But by no iudiciall law that I reade did Moses appoint any transgressours to be hanged By the expresse commandement of God who is aboue the law Moses tooke the chiefe of the people that coupled themselues with Baal Peor and hanged them vp before the Lord against the Sunne And Ioshua vsed the same kind of death in some that were strangers and not Israelites otherwise Moses neuer commanded but onely permitted the Magistrate to hange transgressours yet so that the body should not remaine all night vpon the tree but be buried the same day because the curse of God was executed on him that was hanged So that God not appointing any man by his law to bee hanged but leauing that libertie to the Magistrate so to reuenge malefactours where the law did not specifie their punishment they could bee no figures of Christ as well in respect they were wicked that must be so vsed who were not fit to be figures of that innocent vndefiled Lambe as also that men had no power to erect figures of Christs death passion but must leaue that to God to represent the sufferings of his Sonne as he saw cause They that were hanged by the iust sentence of the Law they were herein accursed that is they herein sustained the lawes true and deserued punishment But if they were INNOCENTS oppressed by vnrighteous iudgement which is no newes among men as we see by the death of our Sauiour or if they were PENITENTS though their punishment were neuer so deserued neither of these could be truly accursed before God yet might be hanged and so subiected to the corporall curse of the Law For though Moses had no meaning to haue men vniustly hanged yet had he lesse purpose to pronounce them damned that died for their sinnes if they repented and therefore he commmandeth the bodies to be buried the same day because the Curse that is the Rigour and Reuenge of the Law was executed on them and consequently Moses extendeth not this curse farther then this life which maketh nothing to the paines or perpetuall curse of the damned And here the Reader may plainly perceiue you to sincke in the sands of your owne subtilties for here you confesse that deserued hanging is a TRVE CVRSE and PVNISHMENT notwithstanding if the guiltie repent as the Theefe did on the Crosse I hope you will leaue him the child of Gods mercie whom Christ receiued into Paradise And consequently by your owne confession the paines and afflictions of this life when they are deserued are curses and true punishments of sinne to Gods children though their soules be blessed by their submission and conuersion vnto God Which ouerthroweth all that you formerly haue said touching the troubles and vexations of this life and that you presently meane to conclude of Moses curse applied to Christ. By applying this text of Moses in this sense and in this respect to Christ it is well confirmed to be in nature and veritie the true and proper curse of the Law which Christ was made for vs for such also in deede was the nature of that iudiciall curse of Moses Moses we see had no meaning to make their soules accursed whose bodies were hanged on the tree by the iust iudgement of the Magistrate if the malefactours truely repented their wicked offences How much lesse then ment he to subiect the Sonne of God to the internall or eternall curse of the Law for that he was vniustly and wrongfully hanged on a tree by the malice and spight of his Enemies And yet in both as well poenitent as innocent hanging is called a curse that is
guided to be done Heere apparantly is the hand of God named and confessed but mediate that is ordering and disposing the Iewes rage and violence according to Gods foresetled counsell Wherein the goodnesse of your iudgement and cause appeareth that when you should prooue any thing you produce places that euidently impugne your purpose With like discretion you cite that which followeth For what if God condemned that is abolished sinne in the flesh of which words I haue spoken enough before doth that imply that God punished Christes Soule or bodie with his immediate hand Small store of proofes you haue for your vpstart doctrine of God tormenting Christes soule with his immediate hand when you turne aside to texts that no way mention any such matter and prate in your pride that the word of God is flat contrarie to me p Defenc. pa. 82. li. 12. Gods owne hand then did smite Christ and inflicted on him whatsoeuer he suffered as the condemnation of sinne Well leapt From Gods hand vsing the Iewes and Gentils as his meanes to doe to Christ whatsoeuer his counsell had determined you step to Gods owne hand excluding all meanes directly against the profession of the Apostles and the whole Church with them and against the tenor of the new Testament which sharpely rebuketh the rage and wickednesse of the Iewes that put Christ to death Were you not caried with the spirit of slumber and giddinesse could you thus loosely conclude so weightie causes not onely without but against the Scriptures q Ibid. li. 16. The punishment ordained for sinne by the iustice of God and inflicted by the hand of God whatsoeuer meane it pleaseth him to vse is called the wrath of God as you acknowledge My words make as much for you as the Apostles did euen now when they expresly contradicted you but such as your cause is such is your conscience you duck and diue you care not where nor whether so you may haue a generall Phrase to beare you aboue water when you are out of breath You set your selfe to prooue that God with his immediate hand afflicted the Soule of Christ and when your proofes faile you you catch vp my words auouching r Conclus pa. 245. li. 31. the punishment ordained for sinne by Gods Iustice or inflicted on vs by Gods hand WHATSOEVER MEANE HE VSâ—… is called the wrath of God Would you hence inferre that because God vseth meanes therefore he vseth no meanes but inflicteth all punishment of sinne with his immediate hand Or because all punishments great and small on vs or on whomsoeuer come from the Souera gne power hand of God therefore God vseth no meanes Or what other absurd conceite would you collect out of my words I speake not here of the Reprobate I speake of all mankinde though you leaue out my words inflicted ON VS of purpose to serue your owne sense Neither do I say it is Gods eternall or spirituall wrath but all afflictions imposed on vs for sinne by what means soeuer are in the Scriptures called the wrath of God as I haue else where shewed albeit they tend not to damnation nor destruction What is this to Gods immediate hand punishing the Soule of Christ Or which way recall you this to the Conquest that Christ had ouer Satan and all his power wherewith you began s Defenc. pag. 82. li â—…8 Then how may we thinke Gods infinite iustice and power punished Christ You must goe by thoughts indeed and neither by warrant nor word of holy Scripture How Christ bare our sinnes in his body on the tree and gaue the same to be t Matth. 26. broken for vs and t 1. Pet. 2. his bloud to be shedde for many for the remission of sinnes we shall need no thoughts nor concerts of yours the description of his sufferings is so particularly and precisely set downe in the Scriptures that no man doubteth thereof besides you that respect moreyour secret sansies then the publike histories of the Euangelists x Defenc. pag. 82. li. 21. In his spirit certainâ—…â—…e suffered spirituall and incomprehensible punishments being no sinnes such as mens soules are subiect vnto as from God Though by no learning you can truely deriue any such thing from the Scriptures touching the tormenting of Christs soule by the immediate hand of God yet your conceit is so strong that you CERTAINLY auouch any thing For in these few words you presume more then you will prooue whiles you liue to make God with his immediate hand to afflict the soule of Christ with the same paines that the damned are tormented and other reason for it you haue none but because all power in heauen earth and hell is from God and called the hand of God By which the Scriptures doe not imply the immediate hand of God but his power working by meanes appointed and established by him In the Scriptures God is euery where proclaimed to be THE LORD OF HOSTES and therefore as there is no power in Angels Diuels Men or other creatures that cometh not from him so they are not idle armies nor lookers on but are indued with power from God as well to protect as to punish where when how and whom they shal be appointed Which the wisdome and power of God hath ordained and setled not to shorten his arme nor to weaken his strength as needing assistants but by constituting Seruants and Ministers vnder him to let men and Angels good and badde continually behold how mightie and wise righteous and glorious he is that wanteth no meanes to execute his will and yet directeth all things by his wisdome Is not God able to preferre and keepe his Saints by his word or his will without aide of others who doubteth it And yet y Psal. 91. He giueth his Angels charge ouer thee to keepe thee in all thy waies And z Psal. 34. the Angell of the Lord pitcheth round about them that feare him and deliuereth them Is he not able also to punish with his own hand to reuenge his enemies without helpe of his creatures Who denieth it that knoweth what belongeth to a God And yet Dauid praied thus against his enimies a Psal. 35. Let them be as chaffe besore thâ—…â—…nd the Angel of the Lord scatter them Let their way be darke slippery the angel of the Lord persecute them And the Psalmist describing the plagues powred out on b Psal. 78. Egypt saith God rest vpon thâ—… the fiercenesse of his anger indignation wrath vexation 〈◊〉 the senâ—…ing in of euill angels amongst them God then in this life vseth men angels to perâ—…orme his iudgements chiefly the diuel is vsed againstsinners as we may see by the Apostles â—…peech and course who deliuered hainous offenders vnto Satan as vnto the publike tormentor appointed by God to execute vengeance wherein though he were to haue power leaue from God yet execution was allotted to him The auncient
they be neuer freed from that horrible confusion in which they lie And therefore they scare the place prouided for them and besought Christ neither k Luc. 8. to send them into the deepe and bottomlesse pit nor to l Matth. 8. torment them besore their time Neither was there onely transgression reprobation and confusion in the place of heauen where the Angels sinned and whence they were cast but of the blessed Angels S. Iohn saith that one of them m Reuel 20. came downe from heauen hauing the key of the bottomlesse pit and a great chaine in his hand who tooke the Dragon which is the diuell and bound him and cast him into the bottomlesse pit and shut him vp and sealed vpon him And were it doubtfull of Angels how they could retaine the measure of their brightnesse and blessednesse in the place of hell yet heare we Dauid confesse of God himselfe and of his spirit If I ascend to heauen thou art there if I get downe to hell thou art there So that the very fountaine of all holinesse and happinesse is in heauen earth and hell and yet the states of these three places are not confounded because the perfection of all goodnesse is present in euery of them The goodnesse and glory of God is not so fastned vnto places that either Paradise or heauen did priuilege men or Angels from sinne as heauen did not the diuels nor hell it selfe can hinder the happinesse of the blessed Angels when they are sent with power from God to execute his pleasure And yet this doth not confound the distinction of places or states in heauen or hell but that heauen is now the place where the brightnesse of Gods glory is reuealed to his Saints besides their internall and continuall vision of God which maketh them most happie and neuer leaueth them whethersoeuer they goe And therefore the Angels that sinned were cast thence that they should not defile the place of Gods presence with their wickednesse and hell is likewise the prepared mansion for the diuels where vengeance from God is powred on them and greater shall be when after iudgement they shall be closed in perpetuall prison though till that day some of them be suffered to beare rule in the aire and to worke in the children of disobedience for the triall of the saints and farder setting forth os Gods most glorious wisedome power and rightcousnesse n Defenc. pag. 119. li. â—…7 Lastly the true ioyes of heauen may be out of the locall heauen as when the glorious Angels haue bene and tarried some while here on earth with men Yet did they neuer for a moment want the toyes and glory of heauen From Angels endued with inward and heauenly light power holinesse and happinesse and by grace euerlastingly confirmed therein no argument can be drawen to our weake sinfull and variable condition neither doe we dispute of Gods power what he can doe but of his will and ordinance whereby he hath appointed heauen to be his seat that is the place where his glory is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and eternall and perfect blessednesse bestowed on all the inhabitants thereof be they men or Angels And though the Angels whethersoeuer they goe or whatsoeuer they doe retaine the cleere sight of God and the perfection of their 〈◊〉 all happinesse yet that is no proofe that we liuing here in mortall and miserable flesh can haue that on earth which they haue For example take some parts or consequents of that heauenly ioy and blisse which the Angels being heere on earth keep immutable and you shall soone see how grossely you erre in communicating their glory to men yet dwelling in houses of clay The Angels of God 〈◊〉 here on earth can neither erre sinne nor die they can feele no necessity infirmity nor miserie they need not eat sleepe nor rest they are indued with light that cannot be obscured with holinesse that cannot be defiled with ioy that cannot be diminished with power that cannot be resisted by men or Diuels Can these things be attributed to mortall men here on earth without open and palpable heresie Wherefore it is an erroneous and presumptuous inference that o Defenc pa. 120. 〈◊〉 2. If Angels may enioy heauen really being in the world that men heere liuing may doe the like p Defenc. pag. 120. 3. It is possible for Gods goodnesse to communicate some reall foretasie thereof vnto some blessed men also A taste of glory which neither continueth nor satisfieth can not be called heauen which is the perfect and perpetuall fulnesse of all kinde of blisse and want of all kinde of miserie S. Peter teacheth vs that God q 1. Pet. 1. begetieth vs into a liuely hope to an inheritance incorruptible vndefiled and vnchangeable reserued in the heauens for vs who are by the power of God kept by faith vnto saluation readie to le shewed in the last time If the taste of glory which you talke of be not immortall immutable vndefiled with any defect or miserie it may not be called heauen nor be sayd to be the inheritance reserued for vs in heauen And therefore though some blessed men haue had a sight of some glory which you call a taste thereof as Moses Esay Steuen and others yet that doth not proue them to haue beene really in the ioyes of heauen How osten is it written of the Israelites that they saw the glory of the Lord and yet they were ouerthrowen in the wildernesse r Exodus 24. ver 16. 〈◊〉 17. The glory of the Lord saith Moses abode vpon mount Sinai and the sight of the glory of the Lord was like a consuming fire on the top of the mountaine in the eies of the children of Israel So when Aaron offered his first offering for his Priesthood and blessed the people t Leu t. 9. v. 23 The glorie of the Lord appeared to all the people of whom God saith u Numb 14. vers 22. All these men which haue seene my glory my miracles which I did in Egypt and in the wildernesse and haue tempted me these ten times certainly they shall not see the land whereof I sware to their Fathers When Salomon had builded and consecrated the temple with praier and sacrifice x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The glory of the Lord 〈◊〉 house so that the Priests could not enter into the house of the Lord because the glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord had filled the Lords house And when all the children of Israel saw the fire and the glory of the Lord come downe vpon the house they bowed themselues with their faces to the earth vpon the pauement and worshipped and praised the Lord. I trust the King the Priests and the People were not all in the ioies of heauen and yet they all with their eies saw the glory of God there presented before them and such as were religious and obedient saw it to their exceeding ioy y Defenc. pag. 120. li. 5. That God doth
thing so to thinke Ambrose confesseth the same Expers peccati Christus cum ad Tartari ima descenderet vinctas peccato animas mortis dominatione destructa é fâ—…ucibus Diaboli reuocauit ad vitam Christ free from sinne when he descended to the lowest pit of hell recalled to life out of the diuels iawes the soules that were bound with sinne destroying the Dominion of death And so doth Ierom. Infernus locus suppliciorum atque cruciatuum est in quo videtur diues purpuratus ad quem descendit dominus vt vinctos de Carcere din itteret Infernus is the place of punishments and torments in which the rich man clothed with purple was seene and to which the Lord descended to dimisse such as were bound out of prison These I trust were no Heretikes but if need were and I would vse that aduantage against you which you insisting on Tertullians error seeke against me they would doe little lesse then prooue you to be a refuser and peruerter of the faith receiued in the Church of Christ and professed not by them onely but by all those Fathers whom I formerly cited as concurring in this cause with them But I smile at your follie and remit your reproches to the Readers impartiall Censure Athanasius also saying where humane soules were held by death there Christ brought his humane soule meaneth nothing else but that his soule came vnder the same condition of death as other humane soules did not that he went to the place of the damned Neither must he be vnderstood after your partiall translation when you say ex orco out of hell himselfe saith ex Hadou out of the power of death You set your selfe to outface all the places which I brought out of the Fathers for Christs descent to hell and as you played your part in wrenching wrying the words of Tertullian Austin from their rightsense so you continue in all the rest with like successe thinking it enough for you to say the word though it be neuer so false and farre from the Fathers meaning As first in Athanasius wordes what double punishment was that I pray which God threatned to Adam for sinne in saying to the earthly part earth thou art to earth shalt thou returne and to the soule thou shalt die the death for those are Athanasius words and what be the two places to which man after his dissolution was condemned Did God threaten nothing to Adam but the dissolution of bodie and soule or did he threaten the death of the soule also after this life which properly noteth hell besides the death of the bodie I trust you be not so senselesse as to say that God for sinne threatened no more to Adam and his posteritie but onely a bodily death for so could none of Adams off-spring by that sentence be adiudged to hell which yet we find daily performed by Gods iustice Then the death of mans soule threatened by God for sinne and meant by Athanasius in those words which you would elude was the place of perpetuall torments where the soule of man was truly held in death and not the condition of the soule seuered from the bodie without respect of any consequent miserie Therefore your maine foundation is euidently false that Athanasius by the death of mans soule meaneth nothing els but the soules being apart from the bodie without regard of punishment following but in expresse words he noteth the place Vbi tencbatur anima humana in morte where the soule of man was held captiue in death which spite of your heart must needes be hell Againe according to the double death threatned for sinne Athanasius saith â—… Homo in duas partes discerpitur vt ad duo loca discedat condemnatur Man dying is distracted in two parts and CONDEMNED TO TWO PLACES Now in your diuinitie is any man condemned to heauen or to Paradise you must find vs then two places of condemnation whither either part of man dissolued was adiudged as his bodie to the graue his soule to hades So saith Athanasius in expresse words If you can shew me another place of condemnation well you may say that a man is diuided 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into three places and that being reuoked out of two places he remaineth bound in the third but if you can shew none other place of condemnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides the graue and Hades from which man is perfectly freed Christ deliuering vs how say you then that God is not reconciled vnto mankind If then Hades bee a place of condemnation â—…or sinne where the soule of man was bound till it was freed by Christ 〈◊〉 certainely Hades with Athanasius is neither Paradise nor heauen but onely hell Againe if by death raigning in the soule of man Athanasius intended nothing but the condition of death common to good and bad and euen to Christ himselfe how could hâ—… say of Christ that he was then and there inuiolus a morte not subâ—…ect to death or that he brake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bands of the soules detained in hades Hath heauen or Paradise any bands that must be broken And as for you last conceit that Hades being enemie and opposite to the immortalitie and resurrection of mens persons cannot by any means be hell for in hell shal be immortality resurrection as well as in heauen it is so like to the rest of your diuinitic that I doc not ouer much maruaile at it If hades be enemie and opposite to immortalitie as you confesse out of Athanasius then Hades is neither heauen nor Paradise for they are both places of immortalitie there is no death but life in either of them And though you cunningly shift handes and change mens persons for mens soulâ—…s of which Athanasius speaketh when he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where mans soule was held in death there Christ presented his humane soule to breake the chaines of death euen in hades yet that immortality is as well in hell as in heauen is a phrase of your owne framing to put all trueth and faith out of ioint The Scriptures teach most truely that God alone hath immortality It then you haue found vs a new immortalitie in hell you haue found vs a new God also And what is immortalitie but without all death since then in hâ—…ll there is nothing but death that eternall as well of soule as of body your deuices are very delâ—…cate in euerlasting death to finde no death But dally not thus with the grounds of Religion least God doe not dally with you if by your assertion the deliuerance from death and immortalitie which Christ brought to his elect be none other then such as men in hell shall haue pray God your braines be not as much crazed as your faith is And as for your interpreting Athanasius words and gessing at his meaning when we vse madde men to
it It is a plaine true rule in mine opinion that the Euangelists and Apostles euery where by Hades intended hell and none of your wandring or stragling fansies Besides the Greeke Fathers with one consent vse Hades after the direction of the Canonicall writers for a place of darknesse vnder the earth prouided to receaue and detaine the Soules of men And in this sense neither the Scriptures nor the Fathers departed much from the auncient and true vse of the word amongst heathen and prophane Authors sauing that the Pagans made it common to the Soules of iust and vniust which the Scriptures neuer doe and the Fathers vtterly refuse after Christs Resurrection whatsoeuer they doe before Since then Hades by the manifest exposition of Saint Luke in his Gospell is the place of torment where the wicked after death are punished and the same Euangelist expresseth Dauids meaning to be this that Christs Soule after death was not left or forsaken in Hades what cause or reason hath any man to denie that Christ dying descended to hell there to spoyle powers and principalities and thence to leade Captiuitie Captiue that as he ascended to the highest heauens there to sit superiour to all the Elect Angels so he first descended to the bottomlesse deepe there to subiect the Reprobate Angels vnto his humane nature and to dissolue the power and sorrowes of hell of which it was impossible he should be held Here we must consider a maine obiection of yours euen those words of our common Creed he descended into hell originally it is he descended into Hades and in truth this is all you haue to alleadge for your opinion but I answere two waies first admitting then denying the Authoritie of these words in our common Creede You haue seene by this time what I haue to alleadge for that which I defend may besafely conceiued of the Creed The words themselues he descended to Hades haue euident warrant in the holy Scriptures and Peter exactly concludeth out of Dauids words that Christs Soule was not left in Hades What Hades is with S. Luke the writer of the Acts we likewise haue seene It is euen the place where the wicked are tormented after death Put these together and tell me what they want of Christes descending into hell before he rose from the dead The words in English he descended into hell are confirmed by the publike authoritie of this Realme as well in the Booke of common praier as in the Articles of Religion agreed on by the Conuocation and ratified by Act of Parliament So that all your euasions elusions of the priuation condition and dominion of death to be ment thereby are vtterly reiected and condemned by generall and full consent of Prince Pastours people within this Realme and Christs descent to hell after death hath beene constantly and continually professed and beleeued in the Church of England euer since the Gospell was here established What you haue said against it I leaue to the Readers wise and indifferent iudgement who wil easily tell you you must bring better sluffe then either phrases or fansies before the common Creede may be thus reiected and despised You enioyne vs three Rules to be exactly and precisely kept in the expounding of these words Namely 1. distinction of Matter 2. consequence of order 3. proprietie of words Might not those godly men thinke you misse in some such circumstances although the Scripture cannot The first compilers of the Creede meaning shortly orderly and plainly to deliuer the summe of the Christian faith as touching the three persons in Trinitie and the chiefest blessings which God bestoweth on his Church in this life and the next by Iesus Christ our Lord might not with any discretion in so briefe and compendious assume of Christian Religon proposed to the simple and vulgar sort of all ages and sexes vse either any needlesse repetition disordered confusion or obscure inuolution of things requisite to our Saluation To these Rules agree all that haue expounded the Creede in the Church of Christ to this very day saue your selfe and such as haue opened you the gap to these innouations And these Rules allowed do cleane cast your exposition out of doores For where it is most plainly said that Christ died and was buried which words no plow-man woman nor child of reasonable yeeres can mistake you after Christs buriall come in with a darke and figuratiue phrase of descending to Hades which in effect you confesse is no more but what was said before in knowen and open speech that Christ died And this obscure and strange circumlocution of death you will haue to be an Article of your faith as if euery Christian creature were bound vpon danger of his saluation to vnderstand what Sheol or Hades doth signifie in the Greeke and Hebrew Tongues which is a position meete for such a Diuine as you are Your exposition therefore is repugnant to all three Rules For it is a superfluous vnorderly enigmaticall iteration of that which was before expressed in due place with as plaine and easie wordes as any might be spoken by the tongue of man Now with what Arguments you or any man liuing Hu. Bro. not excepted can prooue that Hebrew or Greeke phrases are Articles of Religion and must be conceaued and beleeued of all men before they can be saued as yet I doe not vnderstand And this is the miserie of your cause that not onely you haue no word in Latine English nor in any tongue else answerable to your Sheol or Hades but when you come to lay open your owne phrases the exposition is more ridiculous then the Translation For by Christs descending to Hades which you call the power dominion and kingdome of death you meane no more but that Christs Soule seuered from his Body went to heauen to the rest of the blessed Soules there And here I report me to him that will vouchsafe to read your 196. 197. pages whether you haue any thing there but store of phrases extending intending enlarging amplifying the name power and dominion of death which when all is done and said amounteth to this much that Christes soule seuered by death from his body submitted it selfe to the base and low condition of the dead by taking the paines to goe to heauen to the rest of the Saints there This is all in effect that your Periphrasis and Emphasis moriendi doe containe and the great fall or whole casting downe of Christes person which you so Rhetorically set out with termes of the broadest and longest size hath nothing in it but only this that his soule after death which dissolued his person ascended to the societie of the blessed soules in heauen The rest is your emphaticall and paraphrasticall vanitie swelling with wordes and shrinking in sense which needeth none other refutation but sober obseruation that when two sides are spent nothing is said but you are where you began For would you not varie so many phrases