The heretike affirmeth saith Athanasius that he that requesteth is inferiour to him that giueth What wilt thou answer then saith hee if God request q Deut. 10.12 And now O Israel saith Moses what doth the Lord thy God * The Hebrew word is the same as Psal 2.8 aske or request of thee but that thou feare him He leaueth it to be vnderstood that God notwithstanding doth not thereby become inferior to vs. Sundry other like examples might be alleaged but in briefe I answer as before that the things which in this behalfe we affirme concerning Christ doe no more bereaue him of equality with God then a King by vouchsafying of his Princely grace to doe some act of speciall office to a subiect doth thereby diuest himselfe of the maiestie of a king And this the ancient Fathers saw well who though they make the manhood of Christ the subiect and matter wherein and whereby this mediation is performed and in that respect doe sometimes referre it onely to the manhood yet doe otherwise acknowledge that the acting and effecting thereof belongeth to the whole person both God and man Therefore Ambrose saith that r Ambros in 1. Tim. ca. 2. vt ex vtroque esset mediator on both parts he is a mediatour that ſ Idem in Heb. 7. In aeternum diuinitate humanitate mediator inter deum homines semper viuens est c. both by his Godhead and by his manhood he is the mediatour betwixt God and man So saieth Austin that t Aug. Orat. cont Iudaeos Pagan Arian c. 8. Nobis mediator sactus est homo totus deus verbum amma cara vnus Christus whole Christ both God and man the word the soule and the flesh being one Christ is made our mediatour Yea and out of the very nature of a Mediatour it followeth that he must be so vnderstood not onely as man but as God also For u Chrysost in 1. Tim. hom 7. Id mediatoris est proprium vtrorumque participem fieri quorum suerit mediator c. Quia duarum naturarum medius suit Christus ambarum oportuit esse participem it belongeth to a Mediatour saith Chrysostome to be partaker of them both betwixt whom hee is a mediatour therefore because Christ was a mediatour betwixt two natures he was to be partaker of them both x Theophylact in 1. Tim. c. 2. Nequaquam purus est deus neque enim homines hunc excepissent qui esset intercessor futurus nec simplex homo quippe qui deum esset allocuturus He is not onely God saith Theophylact for then men could not haue admitted him to be intercessour for them neither is he onely man because hee was to deale with God Hence therefore doth he take an argument to prooue that Christ is God y Ibid. Quòd deus sit filius liquet ex eo quia conciliator fit mediator effectus because hee is made an intercessour or mediatour And in the same sort Theodoret reasoneth against Arius the heretike z Theodoret. in 1. Tim. cap. 2. si vt vult Arius filius patris substantiae non est particeps quomodo est intercessor If Christ be not partaker of the substance of his Father how is he then a mediatour Now if a mediatour as a mediatour must bee God why doth M. Bishop with his fellowes beare vs in hand that Christ as he is God is not a mediatour Why are they so fond to make our assertion an inducement of Arianisme when they see the Fathers to haue made it a ground to dispute against Arius for the auouching of the Godhead of Christ in this person of a mediatour did Melancthon vse those other words if at least he did vse them for I find them not which M. Bishop taxeth There must needs be in him somewhat of the diuine nature Where because he saith somewhat M. Bishop inferreth some other thing then belike was wanting Full wisely I warrant you But I pray let vs aske him when Thomas Aquinas said that a Tho. Aquin. in 1 Tim. cap. 2. lect 2. Christus mediator est similis vtrique extremo scilicet deo homini inquantum deus homo quia medium debet habere aliquid de vtroque extremorum haec sunt homo deus Christ the Mediatour was like to God and man in respect that he was both God and man because the Mediatour must haue somewhat of both the extreames which are God and man did he meane thereby that Christ had a part of the Godhead and wanted a nother part or a part of the nature of man and not the whole If not how little doth M. Bishops head serue him to conceiue there a partition meant of the essence of God where there is only intended a distinction of two natures in one Christ Melancthons meaning is plaine that as Christ had somewhat whereby he was truly man so he had somwhat also wherby he was truly God euen the perfect nature and substance both of God and man As for his last cauill that we expound the texts of Scripture vsed by the Fathers against the Arians in the same sort as the Arians did because it nameth no man it deserueth no answer His maister Bellarmine from whose dunghill it is that he gathereth al his mucke accuseth Erasmus in that respect but I hope M. Bishop will not say that Erasmus was a Protestant Whatsoeuer he was or howsoeuer he faulted therein so little is he approoued or followed by the Protestants as that Beza in b See Beza Annotat. in Coloss 1.15 Philip. 2.6 1. Tim. 3.16 Tit. 2.13 sundry places professedly disputeth against him and rechargeth against the Arians those places from which he seemeth to discharge them 8. W. BISHOP But this shall appeare yet much more perspiciously if we doe well weigh what they teach touching the very nature of the God-head it selfe Whosoeuer denies God to be almighty or presumes to limite the infinite power of God within the compasse of mans weake vnderstanding he in effect makes him no God at all but some meane creature of a limitted strength and power such be all Protestants who affirme that God cannot set a body in the world without a circumscribed place Oecolamp de verbis Domini Beza in Neoph. simil cont And pag. 15. nor any one body in many places at once with such like the which because they cannot out of the dulnesse of their witte or will not of frowardnesse conceiue to be in nature possible they flatly denie God to be able to doe yea some of them were so blind * In a conference at Paris and bold as to auouch God not to be able to conceiue or vnderstand how that is possible which notwithstanding very naturall Philosophie teacheth to haue no repugnance in it selfe as in his place I haue prooued R. ABBOT How some things are affirmed vnpossible to God To say that there are
articles of the Creed to beleeue the remission of his owne sinnes vnto euerlasting life The first as he alleageth is thus p August de bono perseuer cap. 22. De vita aeterna quam filijs promissionu promi sit non mendax deus ante tempora a terna nemo potest esse secuâ—usmisicum â—oÌ„summata fuerit ista vita quae tentatio est super terram sed faciet nos perseuerare in se vsque in huius vitae â—nem cui quotidie dicin us Ne nos inferas in tentationem Of life euerlasting which God that cannot lie hath from euerlasting promised to the children of promise no man can be secure before his life be ended which is a temptation vpon earth But what M. Bishop did your breath faile you that you could goe no further did you not thinke the end of the sentence as woorthy to be repeated as the beginning Goe on man tell out your tale for Saint Austin addeth further But he wil make vs to perseuere in him vnto the end of this life to whom we daily say Lead vs not into temptation What could Saint Austin deuise to speake more agreable to our assertion than this is We say that respecting our selues we haue no security wee are continually beset with danger and feare many occasions we haue of distrust and despaire and with these temptations we haue to wrastle the whole course of this life but amidst all our distractions and feares this is stil the support of our faith that he wil make vs to perseuere in him to the end of our life to whom we daily say Lead vs not into temptation q 1. Thess 5.24 Faithfull is he saith the Apostle who hath called you who will also doe it In the other place Saint Austin saith that r â—e corrept gratia cap 13. CredenauÌ„ est quâ—sdam de filijs perditionis non accepto do no perseuerantiae vsque in finem in fide quae per dilectionem operatur incipe re viuere aliquandiu fideliter aciustè viuere postea cadere c. we are to beleeue that some of the children of perdition not hauing receiued the gift of perseuering to the end doe begin to liue in faith that worketh by loue and for a while doe liue faithfully and iustly and afterwards doefall away But this Saint Austin speaketh according to men and as seemeth to the eies of men and of that profession of faith which by outward fruits carieth for the time the semblance of true faith For to the eies of God I haue Å¿ Of the certainty of saluation sect 10. before shewed out of Austin that reprobates are neuer effectually called neuer iustified neuer partakers of that healthfull and spirituall repentance whereby man in Christ is reconciled vnto God Therefore Gregory Bishop of Rome faith that t Gregor Moral l. 25. c. 8. Specie tenus credunt quotquot certum est electorum numerum summamque transire Ad fidem specie tenus regni veniunt qui a numero regnicaelestis excluduntur they who are not of the number of the elect doe beleeue but only in shew do in shew onely come to the faith of the kingdome u Ibid. lib. 34. cap. 13. Aurum quod prauis eius persuasionibus quasi lutum sternipotuerit aurum ante dei oculos nunquam fuâ—t Qui enim seduci quandoque non reuersuri possunt quasi habitam sanctitatem ante oculos hominum videntor amittere sed eam ante oculos dei nunquam habuerunt that the gold which by Satans wicked suggestions commeth to be troden vnder feete like dirt was neuer gold in Gods sight that they who can be seduced neuer to returne againe seeme to lose the holinesse which they had after a sort before the eies of men but indeed they neuer had it in the sight of God Behold heere M. Bishop one of your owne Bishops of Rome either a correctour if you will so haue it or as we will rather say an expounder of Saint Austins words but wholly aduerse and contrary to you denying vnto reprobates that faith and holinesse which you so confidently attribute vnto them So that in fine we see that M. PERK not by forced exposition or vaine illations but directly and according to truth hath charged you with impious violation of the first principles of the faith 8. W. BISHOP Hence he proceedeth to the tenne Commandements But before I follow him thither I may not omit heere to declare how the Protestant Doctors doe foully mangle and in manner ouerturne the greatest part of the Creed Obserue first that according to their common doctrine it is not necessary to beleeue this Creed at all because it is no part of the written word secondly that Caluin doubteth whether it were made by the Apostles or no being then no part of the written word Cal. lib. 2. Instit cap. 16. sess 18. not made by the Apostles it must by their doctrine be wholly reiected Now to the particulars 1. Concerning the first article I beleeue in God the Father almighty maker of heauen and earth they doe erre many waies First they doe destroy the most simple vnity of the God-head Confess fidei gener by teaching the diuine essence to be really distinguished into three persons If the diuine nature be really distinguished into three there must needes be three diuine essences or natures ergo three Gods Caluin also saith In actis Serueti pag. 872. that the Sonne of God hath a distinct substance from his Father Melancthon that there be aswell three diuine natures as three persons in locis de Christo Secondly they ouerthrow the Father in the God-head by denying the Sonne of God to haue receiued the diuine nature from his Father as Caluin Beza and Whitakers doe See the Preface Thirdly how is God almighty if he cannot do all things that haue no manifest repugnance in them But he cannot after the opinion of diuers of them make a body to be without locall circumscription or to bee in two places at once which notwithstanding some others of them hold to be possible In colloq Marpurg art 29. Li. 1. cont Scargum cap. 14. Dialog de corpore Christi pag. 94. De consil part 2.276 as Zwinglius Oecolampadius Andreas Volanus c. Fourthly though we beleeue God to be maker of heauen and earth yet neuer none but blasphemous Heretikes held him to be true authour and proper worker of all euill done vpon earth by men Such neuerthelesse bee Bucer Zwinglius Caluin and others of greatest estimation among the Protestants See the Preface 2. And in IESVS Christ his onely Sonne our Lord. They must needes hold Christ not to be Gods true naturall Son which denie him to haue receiued the diuine nature from the Father againe thy make him according to his God-head inferiour to his Father See the Preface 3. Borne of the Virgin MARY Many of them teach that Christ was borne as
doth cease But yet hee saith that Gelasius in that place signifieth so much in that he affirmeth that by the operation of the holy Ghost the bread and wine doe passe into a diuine substance And it is true indeed that Gelasius so saith But M. Bishop did your eies serue you to looke no further n Gelas vt supra Indiuiuam transennt sancto spiritu perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae They passe saith he into a diuine substance but yet they remaine in the propriety of their owne nature euen as to the same purpose Theodoret saith o Theodoret. dial 1. Symbola signa quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens Christ honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and bloud not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature Now if they still continue in their owne nature as before then they doe not so passe into a diuine substance but that there is still the substance of bread and wine The thing whereto Gelasius driueth that speech is to shew against Eutyches that as in the Sacrament the bread and wine become vnto vs the body and bloud of Christ and yet retaine the same nature and substance as before so the manhood of Christ being ioined into one person with the Godhead is not thereby drowned or swallowed vp but continueth in substance the same that it was from the beginning This he imagined to be very direct against the heresy of Eutyches but by M. Bishps transubstantiation it proueth wholly to the aduantage thereof for that it may bee said that as in the Sacrament the substance of bread and wine are extinguished though there remaine the shew and likenes and taste therof so in the vnion of the man-hood with the god-head there coÌ„tinued the semblance and likenes and outward appearance of a man but the substance thereof was swallowed vp and continued not And this M. Bishop helpeth to strengthen by expounding nature to be vnderstood of naturall qualities whereas Gelasius as he speaketh of the bread and wine there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine so saith of Christ p Gelas ibid. Dicimus proprietatem vniuscuiusque substantiae vel naturae in Christo manere perpetuam We say that the propriety of ech substance or nature abideth continually in Christ vnderstanding still by nature the same that he doth by substance as hee hath said before q Ibi. Substantia nulla est quae non natura dicatur There is no substance but it is called nature euen as Austin saith r August cont Iulian. li. 1. ca. 3. Natura est ipsa substantia cont serm Arianor c. 36. Vnius eiusdemque substantiae vel vt expressiùs dicamus essentiae quod plantùs dicitur vnius eiusdemque naturae The nature is the very substance and Of one and the same substance or essence is more plainly said of one and the same nature which made the Euty chians that they could not endure to name Å¿ Gelas ibid. Quis ferat eos dedignari vocabula promere naturarum two natures in Christ because thereby should be imported two entire and perfect substances And albeit it be true that sometimes the name of nature is vsed to signifie some intrinsecall properties issuing immediately from the essence of the thing yet he that shall say that the nature of bread and wine is the forme and taste and sauor thereof may be thought to speake like a naturall rather than like a learned man His exception that this Gelasius was not Bishop of Rome is vaine It hath beene still and is printed by themselues vnder his name The conclusion doth giue token that it was his t Ibid. in fine Hanc regulam Catholicae fidei c. cùm sedem Apostolicam vestram dilectio vnanimitèr teneat coÌ„staÌ„tèr praedicet sapieÌ„ tèrque defendat seeing you beloued doe with one minde hold fast the Apostolike sea therefore constantly preach and wisely defend this rule of the Catholike faith yea and that very fragment which wee now haue is cited by u Bibliot sanct Patr. edit 2. Iom 4. pa. 557. Iohn the first his successour soone after to the same very purpose whereto he wrot it which alone is sufficient for approbation thereof Againe I cited x Pag. 35.35 Theodoret making mention that the Councell of Laodicea did forbid to pray to Angels or to worship them and I alleaged Austin noting them for heretikes that did so To S. Austin M. Bishop answereth nothing at all with whom as I cited they are recorded for heretikes and termed y August ad Quod vultd haer 39 Angeliciin Angelorum cultu inclinati Angelici who were bowed downe in the worship of Angels How trimly he answereth to Theodoret and the Councell of Laodicea shall be the better discerned if I first set downe the words of Theodoret himselfe Who handling the words of the Apostle z Col 2.18 Let no man at his pleasure be are rule ouer you by humblenes of minde and worshipping of Angels saith thus r Theodoret. in Col. 2. Qui leâ— gâ—m defendebant eos etiam ad angelos â—olendos inducebant dicentes fuisse legem per eos datam MaÌ„sit autem diu hoc vitium in Phrygia Pisidia Quocircae Synodus quoque quae conuenit Laodiceae quae est Phrygiae metropolis lege prohibuit ne precaerentur Angelos Et in hodiernuÌ„ vsque diem licet videre apud illos eorum finitimos oratoria sancti Michaelis Illi ergò hos consulebant humilitate vtentes diceÌ„tes vniuersorum deum nec cerni nec comprehendâ— nec perueniri ad eum posse oportere per Angelos diuinam sibi heneuolentiam conciliare Hoc antem dixit Apostolus In humilitate cultu Angelorum They who defended the law did induce them the Colossians to worship Angels saying that the Law was giuen by them And this corruption continued long in Phrygia and Pisidia Wherefore the Councell of Laodicea the chiefe City of Phrygia did by decree forbid to pray to Angels And euen to this day we may see amongst them and others neere to them Chapels of S. Michael And this they perswaded pretending humility saying that the Lord of all might not be seene nor comprehended nor come vnto and that by the Angels we must procure or obtaine the good will or fauour of God And this saith he the Apostle meant by humility and worship of Angels And what doth M. Bishop now say to this The Councell forsooth meant it Å¿ Reproofe pag. 238. of leauing our Sauiour Iesus Christ to commit idolatry to the Angels preferring the Angels before him But Theoderet knew well the meaning of the Councell Theodoret knew the occasion of that decree namely a superstition brought in by the false Apostles to worship Angels and to pray to them
the Prophet complaineth c Esa 29.13 Their feare towards me is taught by the precepts of men His excuse of these carnall rites and ceremonies is false for contrary to that that he saith they are infinite in number and a great number of them apish and rediculous in vse not fit to stirre vp and cherish deuotion but rather to busie and intangle the senses of the body and thereby to sequester and extinguish the deuotion of the mind S. Austine complained in his time that d Aug. ep 119. Tam multis praesumptionib sic plena sunt omnia c. Quamuis nequâ— hoc inueniri possit quomodo contra fidem veniant ipsam tamen religionem quam paucissimis manifestissimis celebrationum sacramentis miserecordia dei liberam esse voluit seruilibus oneribus premunt vt tolerabilior sit conditio Iudaeorum qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnouerint tamen legalibus sarcinis non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur all was so full of humane presumptions and that albeit it could not be found how they were against the faith yet the religion which the mercy of God would haue free with a very few and those most manifest mysteries and Sacraments was thereby clogged with seruile burdens so that the condition of the Iewes was more tolerable who though they knew not the time of liberty yet were subiect not to the presumptions of men but to the burdens of Gods law What would he say if he were now aliue to see Durands Rationale diuinorum and those infinite presumptions wherewith Popish superstition hath clogged and oppressed the Church Of which some are preposterous imitations of the Leuiticall and Iewish ceremonies other taken from the abhominations of heathenish Idoll-seruice a thing so plaine as that M. Bishop denieth not but that they vsed some such like indeed the same onely he setteth vpon them a false colour of being deuised by the inspiration of the holy Ghost not knowing Chrysostomes rule that e Chrysost de sanct orando spiritu Ex quo non legit haec scripta sed ex se ipso loquitur manifestum est quòd non habet sp sanct because they read not these things written but speake of themselues it is manifest that they haue not the holy Ghost We be no spirits he saith but yet he should know that the true worshippers leauing f Gal. 4.9 beggerly rudiments g Heb 9.10 carnall rites should h Ioh. 4.24 worship the Father inspirit and truth Whereas he alleageth that the life and vertue of bodily ceremonies proceedeth from the spirit he saith nothing but what was true and necessarily required in the Iewish seruice and therefore may as well be pleaded for the continuance of their ceremonies as for the excusing of others deuised in steed of them To that that M. Perkins saith that they giue the same worship to Saints that they doe to God he answereth that that is a stale iest which long since hath lost all his grace but he should haue told vs that they themselues haue long since lost all grace by mainteining such filtherie and abhomination in the Church Bodin telleth vs that i Bodin method h. c. 5. A plerisque in Italia Gallia Narbonensi ardentiore voto certe maiore metu colitur D. Antonius quà m deus immortâ—lis in Italy and a part of France that which is called Narbonensis S. Antony is commonly worshipped with greater deuotion and feare then almighty God Lud. Viâ—es saith that k Lud. Viues in Aug. de ciu dei l. 8. ca. 27. Multi Christiani diuos diuasque non alitèr venerantur quà m deum nec video in multis quod sit disâ—iâ—men inter eorâ—â—opinionem de sanctis id qâ—od gentiles putabant de suis dijs many Christians he was loth to say how many doe no otherwise worship the Saints then as God himselfe and in many saith he I see not what difference there is betweene their opinion of the Saints and that which the heathens deemed of their Gods Yea Bellarmine confesseth that l Bellarm. de sanct beatitud lib. 1. cap. 12. Omnes ferè actus exteriores communes sunt omni adorationi in a maner all their outward worshippes he might haue said their inward also are common both to the one and to the other And so we see they pray to the one they pray to the other they kneele to the one they kneele to the other they offer they vow they fast they build Churches and Altars they keepe holy daies they professe trust and confidence both to the one and to the other only forsooth we must thinke that they retaine m Ibid. Latria inclinatio voluntatis cum apprehensione dei c. Dulia inclinatio voluntatis cum apprehensione excellentiae plus quam humanae minùs quà m diuinae an apprehensiue and intellectuall difference betwixt the one and the other As if aman giuing the crowne and roiall honour of the king to a subiect should thinke to discharge himselfe by saying that in his mind for al that he retained a farre higher opinion of the king then of the subiect Which if it acquit not with men surely we should know that the infinite excellency of God aboue all his creatures should be a reason to withhold vs from daring to ioine any creature in any part of communion or felowship with him Your idolatry M. Bishop in this behalfe is so stale as that it is growen extreamely sower and the time will come when you shall see it will be taken for no iest As for your confutations and your answers you should haue made them good before you had boasted of them A wise man would not haue written a latter booke before he had made it appeare that he could defend the former 6. W. BISHOP And for that this crime of Atheisme is the most heynous that can be as contrariwise the true opinion of the God-head and the sincere worship thereof is the most sweete and beautifull flower of religion let vs therefore heere to hold due correspondence with Master PERKINS examine the Protestants dostrine concerning the nature of God and their worship of him that the indifferent Reader comparing iudiciously our two opinions thereof together may embrace that for most pure and true that carrieth the most reuerent and holy conceit thereof For out of all doubt there can be no greater motiue to any deuout soule to like of a religion then to see that it doth deliuer a most sacred doctrine of the Soueraigne Lord of heauen and earth and doth withall most religiously adore and serue him Whereas on the other side there is not a more forcible perswasion to forsake a religion before professed then to be giueÌ„ to vnderstand that the Masters of that religion teach many absurde things concerning the Godhead it selfe and do as coldly and as slightly worship God almightie as may be Marke therfore I beseech thee gentle Reader for thy owne soules
sake what euidence I shall deliuer in against the Protestants touching this point of Atheisme and following the same method that M. PER. obserueth I will first touch their errors against the most blessed Trinitie and Deitie secondly such as are against our Lord Iesus God and man lastly I will speake one word or two about their seruice and worshipping of God All which shall be performed in a much more temperate maner then the grauity of such a matter requireth that it may be lesse offensiue Concerning the sacred Trinitie it is by the doctrine of certaine principall pillars of their new Gospell brought into great question Lib. 1. In stit ca. 13. ss 23.25 Con. rationes Camp p. 152. For Iohn Caluin in diuers places teacheth that the second and third persons of the Trinitie doe not receiue the God-head from the first but haue it of themselues euen as the first person hath And in this he is defended by M. Whitaker and preferred before all the learned Fathers of the first Counsell of Nice Out of which position it followeth that there is neither Father nor Sonne in the Godhead for according vnto common sense and the vniforme consent of all the learned he onely is a true naturall Sonne that by generation doth receiue his nature and substance from his Father We are called the Sonnes of God but that is by adoption and grace but he onely is the true naturall Sonne of God that by eternall generation receiued his substance that is the Godhead from him If therfore the second person did not receiue the Godhead from the first but had it of himselfe as they do affirm then certainly he is no true Son of the first consequently the first person is no true Father For as al men coÌ„fesse Father Son be correlatiues so that the one caÌ„not be without the other Thus their doctrine is found to be faultie in the highest degree of Atheisme For it ouerthroweth both Father and Sonne in the Trinitie And further if it were true then doth the holy Ghost proceed neither from the Father nor from the Son for it receiueth not the Godhead from them at all as they hold but hath it of himselfe and so proceedeth no more from them then they doe from him and consequently is not the third person Wherefore finally they doe euerthrow the whole Trinitie the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost R. ABBOT We are now come to the beginning of M. Bishops libell for introduction whereof he telleth his Reader a goodly smooth tale of the important weight of the true opinion of the Godhead and the true worship thereof Caluin truely teacheth the Godhead of Christ and what a motiue it is to like of that religion that deliuereth sacred and sound doctrine concerning the same faring as if he had bloody enditements in this behalfe against vs calling the Iurie putting in his euidence and in the end all commeth to nothing Parturit Oceanus prodit de gurgite squilla In the very first accusation he sheweth abundance of malice but great want of wit for that he is found a liar euen in the very place which he himselfe citeth He chargeth Caluin to haue taught that the second and third persons of the Trinity doe not receiue the Godhead from the first but haue it of themselues as the first person hath He citeth Caluin Instit l. 1. c. 13. ss 23.25 which no man would thinke that he would so precisely set downe but that hee read the place Now in the latter of those two sections Caluin saith thus a Caluin Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. sect 25. Deitatem ergò absolute ex seipsa esse dicimus Vndc filium quatenus deus est fatemur ex seipso esse sublato personae respectu quatenus verò filius est dicimus esse ex patre ita essentia eius principio caret personae verò principium est ipse deus we say then that the Godhead absolutely is of it selfe and therefore that the Sonne as he is God setting a side the respect of the person is of himselfe but as he is the Sonne we say that he is of the Father So then the essence of the Sonne is without beginning but the beginning of his person is God the Father which he sheweth in the other section alleaged to be b Ibid. sect 23. Cum filio essentiam communicauit Râ—sâ—at vt tota in soâ—idum patris filij sit coÌ„munis by the Fathers communicating his whole essence to the Sonne What can be more plainely or more truly spoken He affirmeth that the Godhead whereby Christ is God is of it selfe that is to say not of any other but yet that Christ as he is the second person in Trinity is not God of himselfe but of the Father In the former meaning he termeth Christ to be God of himselfe vnderstanding the name of God absolutely that is that he is that one God who is God of himselfe and not of any other but that the second person in Trinity receiueth not the Godhead from the first Caluin neuer wrot it neuer thought it and most lewdly doth M. Bishop deale so falsely to charge him with it Yea Bellarmine himselfe though he will seeme to condemne Caluin for the maner of his speech in stiling Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe yet indeed fully and wholly doth acquit him for he telleth vs that c Bell de Christo l. 2. c. 19. Causa fuit quia Valentinus Gentilis perpetuo iaes abat soium patrem esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per hoc nomen intelligebat solum patrem habere essentiam verè diuinam increatam silium autem sp sanctum habere aliam essentiam productam à patre ideo quoad essentiam eos non esse autotheos Calu. igitur occurrere volens Valentino contrarium asseruit nempe filium esse autotheon quoad essentiam id est in eo sensu quo id à Valentino negabatur the cause which mooued Caluin so to write was because Valentinus Gentilis a new Arian heretike was still prating that the Father only was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and meant thereby that the Father only had the essence truly diuine and vncreated and that the Sonne and the holy Ghost had another essence produced of the Father and therefore that as touching essence neither of them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caluin therefore willing saith he to meete with Valentine auoucheth the contrary namely that the Sonne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe as touching the essence that is in that sense wherein Valentine denied the same Accordingly of his arguments he saith d Idem Respondeo hoc argumeÌ„tum benè concludere contrà Gentilem c. This argument concludeth well against Gentilis this argument also concludeth well against Gentilis How grossly then are these men blinded with malice who acknowledging Caluins words to be spoken only in a certain
meaning against his aduersary that in that meaning they are true and that his arguments doe conclude rightly and strongly to that purpose doe notwithstanding cauill against him by wresting his words to another meaning then by their owne confession he intended in speaking of them He tooke occasion of so speaking by his aduersarie And is there any man who hauing to deal against an aduersarie will not vse his aduersaries owne words to dispute against him And is there any fault herein when in the very place he expoundeth himselfe and taketh away al occasion of miscoÌ„struction saying e Caluin opusc Explicat perfidiae Valent. Gent. ex Actis Quead essentiam sermo est deus absque principio in persona autem filij habet principium à patre As touching the essence the word is God without beginning but in the person of the Sonne he hath his beginning from the Father for what will they say is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name wholly vnlawfull to be attributed vnto Christ the Sonne of God Why more then by Elias Cretensis he is called f Elias Cret in Gregor Nazian Orat. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Origen g Origen in Ioan. tom 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being of the same coÌ„position must then be subiect to the same blame Nay Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that Christ may in some sense be called h Bellarm. vt supra ex Epiphan haer 69. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Epiphanius is so called as to signifie that he is God himselfe most verily and truly God And could not his wisedome see that Caluin in effect meant no other but only so for because Christ could not be verily and truely God vnlesse he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that meaning wherein Valentinus spake therefore Caluin to auouch the true Godhead of Christ affirmed him to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very true God God of himselfe that is by that one only essence which is of it selfe and whereby God speaking absolutely is of himselfe and is truely God and not as Valentinus wickedly taught by another inferiour essence made and produced of the Father as a superiour God whereby it should come to passe that he were not God at all And when he saw that by Caluins owne words he that is called God of himselfe is also affirmed to be God of God the Sonne of God why could he not excuse that maner of speaking in him as well as in S. Austin who in the like sort saith that Christ is i August Orat. contra Iud. Pagan Arian cap. 6. Fiâ—â—us de se 〈◊〉 patre splendens the Sonne of God shining both of himselfe and of the Father To shine of himselfe what is it but to be God of himselfe As he shineth of himselfe so he is God of himselfe that is according to his essence as he is absolutely God according to his person he shineth of the father and so he is God of God the Sonne of God In this therefore iustly doth M. Whitakers defend Caluin not praeferring him before all the learned Fathers of the first Councell of Nice as M. Bishop fondly cauilleth but ioining with him to maintaine the same true Godhead of Christ against new Arians which the Fathers of that Councell professed and taught against Arius of old This matter then being cleered and it being apparant that neither Caluin nor any of vs saieth any thing to the contrary nay we stedfastly beleeue and teach that the second person of the Trinity receiueth his Godhead from the first and that the holy Ghost proceedeth both from the Father and the sonne there is nothing heere more to be spoken of and therefore as touching Atheisme we will leaue M. Bishop in his chaire to consider more wisely of his taleagainst the next time 7. W. BISHOP Secondly they may be truely stiled Atheists who thinke any one to be God that hath not in him all singular perfections in the most perfect sort that can be but either wanteth some of them or else hath them in a meaner degree then any other they therefore that teach our Sauiour Christ in his Godhead to be inferiour vnto his Father stand iustly charged with Atheisme Such a one is * Epist ad Polo p. 940. seq In cap. 26. Matt. 24. con Stancar in locis cap. de Con. Harding art 17. in confuta of the Papists slanders Caluin who informall tearmes doth auouch and say that Christ according to his Godhead is lesse then his Father And else where he affirmeth the Father to hold the first ranke of honour and power and the Sonne to obteine the second which hee might haue learned of his great master Melancthon who taught that the Sonne according to his diuinitie is his Fathers subiect and minister Further that in Christ there was something of the nature of God some other thing then belike was wanting Againe that the Godhead of Christ was obedient vnto his Father with whom our countrey-men Iewel and Fulke doe iumpe who affirme that the diuine nature of Christ offered sacrifice vnto his Father Briefly all Protestants who hold Christ according to his diuine nature to haue beene a mediatour make his Godhead inferiour to God his Father For to be as a mediatour must needs be a suppliant vnto another to pray and offer sacrifice to him is to acknowledge him to be his better and that something lieth in his power to doe which the other of himselfe cannot doe but by sute must obtaine of him Ioyne heereunto that they doe expound most of the textes of holy Scripture vsed by the ancient Fathers to prooue the blessed and sacred Trinity euen as the old Arrians did reprouing the ancient Fathers exposition which cannot but argue that they in their hearts though they be yet ashamed to confesse it decline apace from those holy Fathers steps to fauour Arrianisme This little therefore may suffice to demonstrate how the chiefe pillers of the Protestants religion doe shake the verie foundations of the Christian faith by their strange glosses and speeches about the sacred Trinity and by their diuers derogations to Christs diuinitie R. ABBOT How vaine this second imputation is it plainly appeareth by that that hath been said of the former For seeing both Caluin and all our writers acknowledge the eternall generation of the Sonne of God to be as before was said the Fathers communicating of the whole essence of the godhead to the Sonne they must consequently of necessity be vnderstood to acknowledge the whole perfection and maiesty of the Godhead in the Sonne of God because in the whole essence of God there can be nothing vnequall or inferior vnto God This is argument enough neither needeth there any more to approoue in this behalfe the integrity of our faith because to attribute to the Sonne the whole essence of the Godhead and yet to make him
vnequall to the Father are things incompatible Christ as God how equall and how inforior to the Father and can by no meanes stand together Well yet M. Bishop telleth vs that Caluin in an Epistle to the Polonians in formall termes auoucheth that Christ according to his Godhead is lesse than his father But how vntrue this is may easily be esteemed for that the Polonians to signifie their agreement in faith with Caluin and with other Protestant Churches thereby to cleere themselues of some iealousie that was had of them did in their Synod by Faelix Cruciger write thus to him and others a Foelix Crucig inter epist Caluin 311. Credimus patrem omnipotentem filium ei per omnia aequalem quoad naturam essentiam vel deitatem minorem eo tantum quòd cum in forma Dei esset seipsum exinaniuit seu vt vno verbo complectamur ratione officij mediationis We beleeue the Father to be almighty the Sonne also as touching his nature essence or godhead to be in all respects equall to the Father but inferior only in that when he was in the forme of God he humbled himselfe or in a word to speake it in respect of his office of mediation Now if this were Caluins beleefe and in his Epistle to the Polonians he professe no other but this as indeed b Caluin epist ad Polonos interopuscula Inscitè ex Mediatoru titulo infertur Christum patre esse minorem quando haec optime inter se cohaerent vnigenitum dei filium eundem vnius cum patre essentiae fuisse deum tamen fuisse quasi inter deum creaturas c. he doth not shall we not thinke M. Bishop a man very formall in telling an vntruth who maketh Caluin simply thus to say that Christ according to his Godhead is lesse than his Father But yet by his Master Bellarmine we guesse what the bone is whereupon he gnaweth who mentioneth one c Bellar. in prefat ad controv 2. general de Christo c. Stanislaus Sanricius for a patrone of Arianisme for that he said that in respect of the office of mediation Christ euen in his diuine nature is inferior to the Father From which assertion how the Iesuit should gather Arianisme it is very hard to say inasmuch as Arianisme importeth the Sonne to be intrinsecally and essentially inferior to the Father whereas his wisedom and learning if he would haue vsed it might discerne that there is no meaning here of any intrinsecall and reall minority but only of an extrinsecall a dispensatiue and voluntary demeaning of himselfe whereby he is in some sort inferior to himselfe also reconciling vs in the person of a Mediator to himselfe as he is absolutely God And could he not conceiue this to be as tollerable and true a speech in vs as in Maldonatus his fellow Iesuit who in the same termes affirmeth d Maldonat in Ioan. c. 14. Minor non quoad diuinitatis inequalitatem sed quoad munus voluntatem redemptionis the Sonne to be inferior to the Father not as touching any inequality of Godhead but as touching the office and will of our redemption The same Maldonatus telleth vs also another respect wherin Christ is said as touching his Godhead to be inferior to the Father e Ibid. Non quoad naturam substantiae sed quoad relationem originis not as touching nature of substance but relation of originall and beginning Wherein he is not alone but the Greek Fathers who most vehemently impugned Arius the Heretike yet take part with him as f Sixt. Senens biblioth sanct lib. 6. annot 1705. Obseruandum est Graecos patres non reformidare hanc locutionem qua filius patre minor asseritur non substantia quidem sed origine iuxta quam rationem frequentissimè apud Grecos Theologos pater dicitur principij dignitate authoritate maiestate antecellere filium Sixtus Senensis testifieth and citeth to that purpose Origen Cyrill Chrysostom and Basil and of the Latine Fathers Hilary some of these and beside them g Athanas con Arian orat 2. pater maior non magnitudine aut aetate sed quia filius ex illo ortum habebat Athanasius and h Tertul. adu prax pater filio maior dumalius quigenerat alius qui generatur c. Tertullian in that sense expounding of the diuine nature the words of Christ i Iohn 14.28 The Father is greater than I. Now if in this meaning Caluin should haue said as is secondly alleged that the Father holdeth the first ranke of honour and power and the Sonne the second in which sort Tertullian also saith that k Tertul. vt suprae vt tertium gradum ostenderet in Paracleto sicut nos secundum in filio propter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obseruationem the Sonne hath the second degree and the holy Ghost the third not meaning it of any disparity of essence but of the order of the persons would M. Bishop be no wiser but through Caluins side to wound so learned a Iesuit as Maldonatus yea and so many Fathers both Greek and Latine and at once to bring them all within the compasse of Atheisme But thou must vnderstand gentle Reader that M. Bishop very perfidiously abuseth thee in this citation the words of Caluin being spoken of the manhood of Christ being aduanced to sit at the right hand of God l Caluin in Mat. cap. 26. ver 64. Dicitur Christus ad dexteram patris sedere quia rex summus constitutus qui eius nomine mundum gubernet quasi secundam ab eo honoris imperijs sedem obtinet Christ saith he is said to sit at the right hand of the Father because being constituted the highest king in his name to gouerne the world he obtaineth a seat of honour and power as it were second or next to God M. Bishop I trow vnderstandeth the Articles of the Creed and thereby knoweth who it is that is said to sit at the right hand of God There followeth next Melancton who disputing against Stancarus for that he held Christ according to his manhood only to bee our Mediator though hee vse not expressy the words which M. Christ our â—â—diator as he is both God man Bishop hath set down yet acknowledgeth and defendeth that Christ according to his diuine nature was sent of the Father and submitted himselfe in obedience to the Father to performe the office of Mediation betwixt God and man but yet so as that he excepteth out of Cyril that m Melanct. Responâ— aâ—l contro stanc M ssio obedientia non tollunt equalitatem potentiae â—â—ut expresse Cyrilius inquit this sending and obeying doe not take away from the Son equality of power with the Father because they are not matters concerning state of nature but only arbitrary designement of will Surely amongst men in society and equality a man may be sent and may
other children are with breach of his Mothers virginity as Bucer and Molineus in Vnione Euangelij part 3. and Caluin signifieth no lesse in harmo sup 2. Math. vers 13. 4. Suffered vnder Pontius Pilate crucified dead and buried Friar Luther with a great band of his followers doth toughly defend that the God-head it selfe suffered which to be blasphemy Musculus doth prooue in his booke of the errours of Luthers Schollers yet Beza with all them that hold Christ to haue beene our Mediatour according to his diuine nature can hardly saue themselues from the same blasphemy For the chiefest ast of Christs mediation consisteth in his death if then the God-head did not suffer that death it had no part in the principal point of Christs mediation Hither also appertaine all these their blasphemies to wit that Christ was so frighted with the apprehension of death that he forgot himselfe to be our Mediatour yea refused as much as in him lay to be our redeemer Item that he thought himselfe forsaken of God and finally despaired Se the Preface Caluin denieth not the Creed to be Apostolike R. ABBOT Whether M. Bishop deale honestly with Caluin as touching his opinion of the Creed let it appeare by the very words of Caluin in the very place alleaged Where hauing named it the Apostles Creed he taketh occasion therupon thus to say a Caluin Institut lib. 2. cap. 16. sect 18. Apostolicum autem nuncupo de authore interim minime solicitus Apostolis certè magno veterum Scriptorum consensu ascribitur siue quod ab illis in commune conscriptum editum existimabant siue quòd compendium istud ex doctrina per corum manus tradita bona fide collectum tali elogiâ— confirmandum censuerunt Neque verò mihi dubium est quina prima flatim ecclesiae origine ad ecque ab ipso Apostolorum seculo instar publicae omnium calculis receptae confessionis obtinuerit vndecunque undem initio fuerit profectum Nec ab vno aliquo priuatim fuisse conscriptum verisimile est â—â—m ab vltima vsque memoria sacrosanctae inter pios omnes authoritatu fuâ—sse constet Quod vnicè curandum est id extra omnem controuersiâ—m positum habemus totam in eo fidei nostrae historier saccinctè distinctâ—quâ— ordine recenseri nihil autent contineri quod solidis Scripturae testimocijs mâ— sit consignatum Quo intelâ—ecto de anthâ—re vel anxiè laborare vel cum alique digladiari nihil attinet I call it Apostolike not making any great scruple who was the authour of it Surely by the generall consent of the ancient writers it is ascribed to the Apostles either for that they thought it in common written and set foorth by them or for that they thought good by such a title to confirme this Briefe which is faithfully gathered out of the doctrine deliuered by their hands Neither doe I doubt whencesoeuer it first began but that from the first originall of the Christian Church and from the very time of the Apostles it tooke place as a publicke and generally approoued confession Neither is it likely to haue beene written in priuate by any one because it is certaine that from the very beginning it hath beene of sacred authority amongst all godly men That which we are entirely to regard is without all controuersie or doubt that the whole story of our faith is therein briefely and distinctly set downe and nothing contained in it but what is confirmed by sound testimonies of the Scripture Which vnderstood and knowen it is bootlesse for a man either much to trouble himselfe or to contend with any other concerning the authour of it Which words of Caluin conteining both his owne iudgement and ours concerning the authority of the Creed doe sufficiently refell the malicious cauils of this vaine and absurd wrangler By our doctrine he saith it is not necessary to beleeue the Creed yea it is wholly to be reiected because it is no part of the written word Indeed formally it is no part of the written word because it is not a part of the very text of Scripture there set downe in that frame of words wherein we vse it but doe we any where say that whatsoeuer is not so a part of the written word is wholly to be reiected or not necessary to be beleeued Nay we are so farre from saying or thinking so as that we hold many things in M. Bishops bookes necessary to be beleeued which notwithstanding are so farre from being a part of the written word as that for the manifold vaine cauillations and impudent falsehoods therein contained they deserue rather to goe for wall paper than to be read for learned bookes As touching the matter and doctrine of the Creed Caluin affirmeth that it is taken out of the doctrine of the Apostles set downe in the written word and therefore it is no more to be reiected than the word it selfe from whence it is taken He denieth not but that the Apostles might be and were the authours of it though he cannot certainly affirme that they were so Hee acknowledgeth the consent of ancient writers that it was composed by the Apostles He confesseth the antiquity thereof euen from their very time He holdeth it vnlikely to haue beene published by any priuate man and therefore leaueth it most likely to be done by them By whomsoeuer it was done because it is consonant to the Apostolike spirit and doctrine he acknowledgeth all sacreed authoritie and opinion as heeretofore so now to be attributed vnto it What is there heere that malice it selfe could blame but that Popish malice aboue other is blinde and cannot see it owne shame Let vs now goe along with him to the particulars and see what wise worke he maketh to prooue that which he saith the Protestant Doctours doe foully mangle and in manner ouerturne the greatest part of the Creed Concerning the first article he saith we erre many waies But how I pray you first saith he they doe destroy the most simple vnity of the Godhead by teaching the diuine essence to be really distinguished into three persons But how doth that follow One essence of God distinguished really into three persons for if vnity of essence in this distinction bee terminus a quo and triality of persons be terminus ad quem and the reality of distinction be vnderstood not in the essence for it selfe but onely in the persons how shall it destroy the simple vnity of the God head to say that one diuine essence is really distinguished into three persons What will M. Bishop say that the distinction of the persons is intellectuall only and not reall Let him then set vp a schoole for Sabellius and Praxeas the heretickes and teach as they did that b August de haeres ad Quod vultd c. 41. Dicunt eundem ipsum esse patrem filium sp sanctum the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost are but one
words diuers of the ancient fathers i Tertull. de carne Christi propè finem Origen in Luc. hom 14. Ambros in Luc. 2. lib. 2. Hierom. cont Pelag. l. 2. Tertullian Origen Ambrose Hierome hold to be most properly verified in the birth of Christ who opened the wombe that was not opened before whereas for all other the wombe is first opened by carnall copulation Heereupon Tertullian saith that k Tertul. vt supra Virgo non virgo virgo quantum à viro non virgo quantum à partu the virgin Mary was both a virgin and not a virgin a virgin as touching man not a virgin as touching child-bearing that is a virgin as free from hauing the wombe opened by man not a virgin as free from hauing the wombe opened by birth of childe So Saint Austin saith that l August de fide cont Manich. cap. 22. Maria non incongruè propter partum dicitur mulier virgo verò quòd virilem nescierit conuentionem neque pariendo virginitas eius corruptasit Christ as God our Mâ—diator yet the God head it selfe suffereth not shee may not vnfitly be called a woman in respect of her child-birth and a virgin for that she know not the company of man neither was her virginity corrupted by bearing child What will M. Bishop now say that all these were heretikes and did deny that the mother of Christ continued a virgin Let him say what he will but we will hold him for a sorry fellow that concludeth breach of virginity of that opening of the wombe As touching the fourth article that Luther affirmed the Godhead it selfe to suffer it is a lie These are but deuices of Gifford and Knogler and such other base hungry staruelings who to gaine fauour make collections and conclusions of their owne and then affirme them of our men That Christ according to his diuine nature also is our Mediatour euen whole Christ both God and man hath beene before iustified in answer to the seuenth section of his preface to the Reader But to inferre that therefore the Godhead it selfe suffereth is as good a reason as to say that because the man dieth therefore the soule is mortall But saith M. Bishop the chiefest act of Christs mediation consisteth in his death True and what then If then saith hee the Godhead of Christ doe not suffer that death it hath no part in the principall act of Christs mediation As if he should say the chiefest act of a faithfull and good subiect is to die for his Prince and country if then the soule it selfe doe not suffer that death it hath no part in the chiefest act of a faithfull and good subiect Would he take it patiently to heare another man to reason in this sort If he would not why doth he himselfe thus play the wiseman and mocke simple men that are not able to perceiue his fraude It is the man that dieth though he die not in the soule but in the body and it is Christ God and man that suffereth though he suffer not in the God head but in the manhood m Vigil cont Eutych lib. 2. Passus est deus in vnione personae non est passus in proprietate naturae siquidem possionis iniurias etiam diuinitas pertulit sed passionem sola etus caro persensit God suffered by vnion of person saith Vigilius but in propriety of nature he suffered not the Godhead did beare the iniuries of the passion but the flesh onely did feele the same Though the soule it selfe die not yet it is the soule that exposeth the body vnto death and though the Godhead suffered not yet it was the Godhead that yeelded the manhood to suffering and death n Heb. 9.14 offering himselfe without spot vnto God by his eternall spirit as the Apostle speaketh The rest of his quarrels being most impudent and shamelesse fictions are already handled in the thirteenth and fourteenth sections of the answer to the preface 9. W. BISHOP 5. Descended into hell the third day hee arose againe from the dead It is worth a mans labour to behold their goodly variety of expositions about Christs descending into hell Beza followed of Corliel our Country-man 2. Apolog. ad Sanct. thinkes this to haue crept into the Creed by negligence and so the French Hugonots and Flemish Gues haue cast it cleane out of their Creed but they are misliked of many others who had rather admit the words because they be found in Athanasius Creed and also in the old Roman Creed expounded by Ruffinus but they doe most peruersly expound them Caluin saith that Christs suffering of the paines of hell on the Crosse is signified by these words but he pleaseth not some others of them because Christs suffering and death also goeth before his descending into hell and the words must be taken orderly as they lie Thirdly diuers of them will haue it to signifie the laying of Christs body in the graue but that is signified plainely by the word buried Wherefore some others of them expound it to signifie the lying of his body in the graue three daies which M. PER. approueth as the best but it is as wide from the proper and literall signification of the words as can be For what likenesse is there betweene lying in the graue and descending into hell Besides Caluin their great Rabbin misliketh this exposition as much as any of the rest Lib. 2. Instit cap. 16. sess 8. and calleth it an Idle fancy Fourthly Luther Smideline and others cited by Beza art 2. doe say that Christs soule after his death went to hell where the Diuels are there to be punished for our sinnes thereby to purchase vs a fuller redemption which is so blasphemous that it needes not any refutation As ridiculous is another receiued of most Protestants that Christs soule went into Paradise which well vnderstood is true For his soule in hell had the ioyes of Paradise but to make that an exposition of Christs descending into hell is to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it All these and some other expositions also the Protestants haue deuised to leads their followers from the ancient and only true interpretation of it to wit that Christ in soule descended vnto those lower parts of the earth where all the soules departed from the beginning of the world were detained by the iust iudgement of God till Christ had paied their ransome and were not admitted into the kingdome of heauen before Christ had opened them the way thither R. ABBOT We hold Of Christs descending into hell that all the articles of our Creed are so to be vnderstood as that our faith may make vse thereof concerning our selues and not onely concerning others It is a very barren and cold construction which M. Bishop maketh of the descending of Christ into hell that his soule descended into the lowest parts of the earth to bring from thence the soules that were detained there by the