your Text but proposing them for your theme tooke occasion froÌ„ them to lay down first the Contents then the Effects of Christs Crosse Indeede such handling of Texts is to vsuall in these dayes but no good nor commendable vse that is to take occasion from any text to speake of any thing Which practise in you so great a man as you are and seeme among vs to be is so much the worse as there are many younger Divines who are led by example more then reason that will thinke it a point of learning and wisedome even to do like you But I for my part do suppose that they are the faithfullest and wisest handlers of Scripture which make their Text the ground of all they speake and doe conclude even from their text firmly and first of all whatsoever they teach afterwardes further therevpon Els wherevnto serveth the taking of Texts in Sermons If choice Texts may be vsed only to take occasion by them to speak of things evidently of an other sute and to another purpose then in the Text is meant sure it may then bee iustly charged against vs that we do much wrong to the Scriptures and do make of them such an instrument as they ought not to be Lastly it is a strong presumption that you have never a good place in al the Scripture for your opinion seeing even your choice Text affordeth not any the least reason to helpe it with all which your selfe heere confesseth or els why drew you not this reason such as it is from your text to your purpose But to gratifie you a little suppose if you will that your Text is not mistaken by you but that the Apostle intended heere to note the CoÌ„tents of Christs Crosse We are to remember then how you “ Pag. 4. expresly grant that also the proper Sufferings of the minde may rightly be in the Contents of his Crosse But thus can * Pa. 5. 16 60. 253. â—bove paâ— your maine opinion bee good that Christs Bodily Sufferings alone were the full price of our Redemtion Which also †Pag. 33 you would ground generally on all the Fathers though very vntruly as afterward God willing we shall see And to shew the absolut fulnes of this only you say “ Pag. 6â— More wee can not aske or expect and what more can be required I verily cannot coniecture Howbeit your selfe admitteth more even the sufferings of the minde simply as I noted and thus your own selfe by your very Text overthroweth your selfe in the first entrance as all men may see And heere mee thinkes also you should not so reprove with contempt as * Pa. 335. you do that which †In my Treat paâ— I noted that Christs Soule in a large sense might be said to be Crucified not his Body only namely if we suppose this your text to signify the Contents of Christs Crosse For you know that the “ Pa. 4 â— 257. 248 wholl Contents must bee then signified not any part of them excluded Finally where you say * Pag 22 the Apostle heere maketh it a detestable thing to reioyce in any things els but in the Contents of Christes Crosse in saying God forbid that I should reioyce but in the Crosse of Christ either this your speach is to lavish or els you quite overthrow your 2. Question That Christ after this went down into Hell For either in Hell Christ hath got vs no purchase nor wrought vs any further riddance from Sathan then hee had don before which thing you with great and mighty words * Pa. 35â— do proclaime that he did but altogeather without shew of reason or likelyhood For if he did were it a detestable thing for vs thinke you to reioyce therein Or els of necessity you must extend the Contents of Christes Crosse that is his bitter sufferings beyond his death even vnto his being in Hell also among the Divells and Damned spirits whither hee went as you say But this sequele I thinke you will not defend These iarres in your selfe therefore you must reconcile in the meane time men will thinke that you have not handled your Text indeede very rightly Then proceeding foreward you still shew a bad minde in you towards me seeking foorthwith even in the entrance to draw me without cause into hatred for disdayning the Fathers Pag. 229. as you suppose The direct and expresse occasion to speake of this matter commeth not in place till * long after Pa. 349. but you cannot forbeare to procure me ill will so long as it seemeth What then is my contempt and disdaine of the Fathers which you often report in sundry places and as odiously as is possible What is my insolent dealing against them Surely I beleeve you can not tell Happily it is because I follow not their Authorities in som opinions of Religion nor in divers expositions of Scripture Pag. 225.48 â—pist 12.6 9. Indeed so you call the Fathers iudgements many times namely Authorities that the world might conceave their words to be warrants vnto vs good Authorities to rest on in matters of Religion If you had not this drift in your minde why give you them such a title which to mee seemeth somwhat insolent indeed And why do you so harâ—fully blame me for leaving their opinions somtimes which so far as I know is never but when strong reason out of the very Scipture doth lead me from them And that which I say of the old I vnderstand also of the new Writers Whom indeed I do equally esteeme and do iudge them I meane * many of them except only in Antiquitie Calvin â—cer Marâ—â— Beza â—emellius â—â—chius c otherwise no way inferiour to the best of the Ancients yea happily in true learning soundnes of Religion cleere interpretations on the text many times before them Which I hope is no singularity in me so to thinke but I know it to be that wherein very many learned and godly Christians do concurre Of all therefore that are learned men whether new or old thus I esteeme thus I professe only true of reading â—â—ed men â—ases of reâ—â—on that they are to bee reade and reverenced as very good helpes to shew vs som light and to sharpen our iudgments in the vnderstanding of Scripture but no further Their opinions either in opening of Texts or in conclusions of Religion wee ought not to receave without examining And wherewith must wee examine them but only with the written word Gods most holy word is Allsufficient in it selfe for all true Religion or for any part thereof for ever Thus it was before the writings of men were published and thus it is now since they are published and so shal be for ever Even for matter Abundant and for giving light to the right conceaving vnderstanding thereof Allsufficient So that mens writings do nothing els but helpe to give a greater measure of easines to their vnderstanding which yet
nevertheles being vsed as God hath appointed them to be are sufficiently easy and lightsom in them selues I thinke the H. Ghost much commendeth those “ Act. 17 12. men of Beraea who hearing the Apostle Paul teach though they were not ill affected towards him yet they would not believe that he spake touching Religion till they had examined by the Scriptures seene whether the truth were so as he vttered I trust then no advised Christian will chalenge more authority to the Fathers then was heere given to the Apostle nor deny indeede to any privat men much lesse to a minister to * Phil. 1. psal 119 1 Cor 2 1 Cor. 1â— iudge and discerne in themselves not only of the words of men but euen of the sense meaning of the Scripture by the Scripture it selfe which thing heere the Beraeans did and are commended by the H. Ghosh for it How vniustly then do you charge me that “ Pag. 34 I refuse the Fathers to testify in any cause against my liking I hope you will not deny me to iudge of theÌ„ by the Scripture according to that measure of knowledge and diligence which the Lord inableth me with It is every Christians duety as we haue seene and you take it vnto your selfe as we shall see afterwards Wherefore let others partake with you I pray in this common right and Christian liberty Vnles you thinke so well of your selfe as to imagine that other men will not be so modest and humble minded in vsing this their freedom or not so wise and circumspect as your selfe are Which conceit if you haue you ought to correct it Neither yet are the Fathers refused as you complaine to testifie in any cause of Religion whatsoever By vttering their opinions they may witnesse what was held and esteemed as true or probable by som godly and wise men in those times but not by all Mr Bilson himselfe “ In his booke aâ— the Iesuâ— part 2. elswhere saith well heereof If all the ancient Bishops such were the Fathers or most of them which we haue extant should hold an opinion yet it followeth not that all Preachers then were of that minde nor if the Preachers generally thought so that all the Christians were so perswaded Thus it is true they can witnesse what was held by som good men then as I said yea perhaps what was commonly thought in the Churches of those places where they lived But in no wise what was the iudgment of all no not among themselues much lesse every where and in all ages Now if you should meane yet further that they may testifie in causes of Religion as witnesses do with vs in Civill matters that what they affirme and testifie must obtaine a verdict and so haue sentence and iudgment with it which in effect you seeme to insinuat by calling their Opinions Authorities so vsually as you do then indeede for my part I can not agree that they or any men should be such Witnesses nor their words nor shew of reasons in any matters of Religion to be taken as Authorities If you or any think otherwise wee may lawfully deny it Gods worde only with vs hath indeede Authoritie The Fathers all or som haue none any further then that their Conclusions expositions and reasons if after examination made by the liuely word they be found currant with the Text then they are the more ioyfully to be embraced If otherwise in our conscience they seeme to vary from the text or from some certaine evident Circumstance thereof then is it not indifferent for vs but our Christian duty in the presence of God to leaue them and not to follow them therein yet still with reverence and loving regard towards their names for the manifold graces of God otherwise in them More then this whosoever ascribeth vnto them they verily abuse the Fathers and not we For as the Papists do abuse the Saints deceased by Worshipping and praying vnto them not we who loue them and thinke reverently of them as the blessed Servants of God So in this case we who vse the writings of godly Men as good helpes to our knowledge do not despise them but you who make them Authorities in Religion by your to much imbracing them do indeede notably abuse them Nevertheles I well perceave that all this great shew of cleaving to the Fathers iudgments is but coloured in you you vrge them in som cases so whotly but for advantage For in other points againe we see when they speak not to your liking the case is altered It is worth the paines to looke a little further in to this your practise because you pursue me with such cruelty for leaving the Fathers in som things First your generall speeches somwhere of the Scripture and of the expositions of men are very good Touching the Scriptures Ep. pa. 9. â—ag 41. Booke 1.2 aâ—â—inst the Ieâ—â—s part 4. â—â—g 360. â—ag 301. Jn Gods causes let Gods booke teach vs what to beleeve and what to professe * What J read in the word of God that I believe what I read not that I do not believe Touching men If you want the foundation of true faith and religion the Scripture in vaine do you seeke to make a shew of Catholicisme c. * One man with truth is a warrant against all the world Againe “ In this 3 book Full â—edâ—tion c 122. By their patience their expositions must not looke to bee Canonicall in the church of God If they say any thing well we take it with their praise if otherwise as men they misse their marke we refuse it with their leaves * Gal. 5. God hath called us vnto liberty “ 1. Cor. not to be servants of men and to serve erroneous constructions is worse then to beare tyrannous exactions These are very worthy speaches but haue a care and conscience Sir I pray you in this that you leave this freedom vnto vs which you take to your selfe Binde no heavyer burdens on the Church of God then your selfe professeth to like of And because I would haue this sound profession of yours to be wel noted of all men in as much as I know how wauering and slippery you are for the most part heerein therefore it is good also that we observe how your owne practise concurreth heerewith and ratifieth your profession when and where you list though when you will you check and taunt vs for the like Christian liberty I see in this booke where you forsake the ancient and learned Fathers that is as you speake in my case where you contemne and despise them First * Pag. 21 you reiect Austens opinion that those who rose to life at Christs Resurrection dyed againe Sec You reiect his exposition of those words of Christ to the Theefe This day shalt thou bee with mee in Paradise Austen vnderstandeth Christ as speaking of the Theeves soule and his owne “ Also Eâ—â— He is reâ—â— in
to this purpose so palpably as before we haue seene I must in earnest say I marvaile that any will beleeve it as an article of faith that Christes Soule descended Specially considering our next reason which followeth Our 2. and most principall Reason is this â—ason 2 If there bee not one place of Scripture to prove that Christes Soule was in Hell then you ought to deny that opinion But you have not indeed any one place that proveth it Therefore it ought to be denyed Against this Argument you say you have one place Pag. 167. Act 2 27. Euen onely one where you thinke it is plaine that Christ saith He reioyceth because God would not leaue his soule in Hell â—r one only â—e neede â—â—e passing â—re and beâ—â—â— all exâ—â—â—ion as this â—â—t For so you must haue it heere translated in Hell even because you will But if men with reason resist your will and proue vnto you that it ought not to bee taken heere for Hell then I pray take it patiently and vse not such raging despitefull termes as against me you do as if I were not worthy to speake of those matters that you speake of vnlesse I would be bound to say your words How be it I beseech you giue vs leave This sentence taken out of Davids a Psal â—â— Psalmes alleadged in the Actes signifieth the very b Pag. â—â— same thing in both places The Hebrew word controversed is Sheol the Greeke Hades Now must the word Sheol and Hades needes signifie Hell being applied to soules departed hence So indeede you c Pa. 1 â—02 avouch more confidently then truly and heerevpon it seemeth you d Pa. 1â— pawne the triall of this Question saying Till we bring you some one good proofe out of the Scriptures that the Soules of the righteous before Christes comming were in Sheol or Hades you will rest in your opinion that by this only plaine place Christes Soule was in Hell We hope then when this proofe which you asko for against your opinion is shewed you will correct your opinion in this point Let it therefore bee considered I pray which the Psalmist also hath elswhere of this matter Sheol attributâ—â— the Soulâ— iust after Let vs interpret the Psalmes by the Psalmes First this we observe in them howe it is written “ Psa â—â— What man liveth and shall not see death Shall he deliver his soule from the hande of Sheol Heere now the Soule attributed to every man living must be properly taken as well as in the former place where you take it for Christs very Soul For e Pag. 1â— This rule must be helde †Much in one aâ—â— same Wâ— in one aâ—â— same maâ— and maâ— speach thoughout the Scriptures that we divert not froÌ„ the native and proper significations of the wordes but when the letter impugneth the grounds of Christian faith and charitie Otherwise we shall leave nothing sound sure in Gods word if we may avoid all things by figures that please not our humours So long then as the proper sense of the Scriptures may stand with the Analogie of faith and direction of charitie we offer violence to the word of God if we wrest it to a figurative vnderstanding Now then it is apparant that heere the soules of all meÌ„ living both good bad after death are appointed to Sheol For there is none whosoever that can possibly escape it saith the text Yet many good men there are then were who could did escape Hell Therefore in the Script Sheol and hades applied to departed soules is not always Hell but the CoÌ„dition or place aswell where the iust mens soules are after death as that where the daÌ„ned are Wherefore we hope that you wil keepe your word that is to acknowledge Sheol and Hades may be applyed to the Soules of iust and blessed men deceased And withall that Christs Soule after his death having Sheol applyed to it by the Psalmist who applyeth the very same also to all iust mens Soules in the worlde when they dy ought not therefore in any wise to be thought to have ben in Hell even because he was the iustest and holyest man that ever was Vnles some other scripture more plaine then this doe affirme it Which because there is vtterly none I say not one that doeth leane any thing towards such a sense therefore you ought not stifly to maintayne that Christes Soule was locally in Hell as hitherto you haue done But Austin a collecteth this opinion from this place in the Actes â—â—g 253. Oh then this point of faith is grouÌ„ded on Austin it is his collection not the text it self without him that serves your turne Certainly so it is But this theÌ„ agreeth not to your worthy protestations noted b before â—ag 28. 29. â—â—r pag 91 â— this becometh not such good wordes I beseech you be not you of them qui virtuteÌ„ verba putaÌ„t Then touching Austins authoritie â—â—fore pag â— c you know how you leave him when you think good regard not his d scant probable proofes coniecturall inclinations Finally â—â—r pa. 169 â— that heere Austin hath no better then scant probable proofes and meere coniectures we shall plainly declare God willing after we have shewed a generall consent and correspondence of all Authors for our sense of Sheol Hades which I hope presently you shall see But first you must note that we goe not about to prove Sheol Hades to be Heaven We never thought it neither need we so to thinke The more is your iniurie when you haue nothing to reprove yet with skoffes and floutes bitter reproches to disgrace me as you doe and that even for this your owne meere conceit Neither yet can your e witty reason prove â—â—g 146. that Limbus heereby can not be avoided Consider a word of like vse in Latin Defuncti signifying the Dead may be applyed generally to the Soules of men deceased Yet notwithstanding this I hope Limbus may be easily avoyded Also I pray are Defuncti none other but the Damned onely in Hell The blessed in Heaven may be likewise called Defuncti I suppose Howbeit not in respect of their being in Heaven Note but only in respect that they haue done with this life and are gone hence The word is properly generall signifying by it selfe neither the Blessed nor the Damned neither to be in Hell nor in Heaven Yet restrained by CircuÌ„stances such as they may be it signifyeth either Certainly so doth hades also Sheol All these the Latin the Greeke The propeâ—â—â— sense of Shâ—â— and Hades and the Hebrew wordes are indifferent and common in them selves signifying in deed no positive thing properly but a meere privation of this life and of a former visible being heere sometime And so it is that the Psalme saith Even the iust mens Soules and all must come to Hades Sheol Moreover thus in
do nor vnderstand in them any of their fancyes and errors which by their doctrine otherwise they refute nevertheles they may and do vnderstand the generall truth signified in them whatsoever the Heathens vsed by them to signifie and imply And thus is our worde in controversy Hades cleered But to cleere the rest also of those which b Pag. 36â— you obiect Sec we are to observe that the Apostles transfer the Heathens Civill words many times to their Ecclesiasticall vse namely keeping yet still the proportion of their former sense As in these Apostle Bishop Deacon Gospell Law Sinne Repenâ—ance Hope Conscience Concupisence c. Which change is small and easy sith the words have a iust proportion still togeather both in Civill and Ecclesiasticall vse Onely if any difference or oddes be it is expresly vttered in some part of the Apostles doctrine besides There is no such cause nor matter of difference to be found in Hades Third The Apostles do vse some wordes kat ' éxochen by an excellencie yet in no point altering the native vse or property of them â—â—â—a all the 〈◊〉 before â—â—â—med or â—â—â—t oâ— them 〈◊〉 â—e conâ—â—â—ed also â—â—â—er this â—â—â—e â—ag 403. a Thus Scripture is vsed commonly for the Word of God only Diábolos for the Divell although sometimes other writings are called also Scripture and other Accusers and slanderers Diaboloi But neither hath this consideration any place in Hades that in Scripture it should signifie chiefly Hell much lesse only Which thing b you avouch Lastly Som think the Apostles altered the worde Faith from the Passive sense of it importing Faithfulnes and honestie as the Heathens commonly vsed it to the Active sense which is True beliefe or Trust vsed in the Scriptures which you also obiect But I suppose the Apostles tooke this Active sense of the word Faith froÌ„ the Old Testament meerely translating the Hebrue into Greeke For I see not what difference at all there is betweene c Pistis â—â—â—om 1.17 â—â—â—bac 2.4 and d Emunah whereby the Iewes signified Faith to salvation Which is reason enough for this vse thereof in Greeke by the Apostles namely if it bee a Hebraisme though it bee not very suteable to the Heathens vse thereof The like I iudge of Elder Law Sinne c. But Hadès for Hell hath no like reason Further I think even the Heathens have vsed this word Faith sometime Actively as the Gospell vsually hath it likewise the Gospel abhorreth not altogeather the Passive vse of it for Faithfulnes Lastly if it were so that the Apostles did follow no other reason but meerely transferred that word from the Civill passive to the Ecclesiasticall active vse we say on necessity they might do it For having some Spirituall doctrine to deliver and the ordinary speach wanting some fit word for the same then they might yea of necessity they were forced to take some word neerest in nature and sense to their purpose so they might give to that word a peculiar Ecclesiasticall vse further then anciently it had But Hades for Hell hath no help by this reason they tooke the word Gehenna from the Hebrewes and vsed it properly for Hell Therefore they need not alter hades for that purpose for which they had another proper word It is manefest then that the Apostles stil kept the proportion of the sense in all their words translated from the common and vsuall speach of the Heathen so far as any reason of truth might be alike in both so they spake indeed still the tounge and language of the Nations and therefore Hades with the Apostles can not be properly Hell as even with Heathens also properly it was never I suppose yet you will say The Fathers take Hades for Hell I answered a Pa. 1 before how they sometime take it determinatly and strictly so they signifie Hell by it Somtime they take it largely generally according to the Ancient Heathens vse and so they signifie by it nothing but the generall state of Death pertayning alike both to good and bad deceased as I have declared Thus you get nothing by them albeit sometime theâ— restraine the worde Hades more then they ought to restraine it Heere also were place to have added somwhat for iustifying that I said The Fathers do alter the ancient true vse of som words both Greeke and Latin from whom in controversies we ought to appeale to their authentike vse in Scripture and Classicall authors But because b Pag. 3â— you send me about ChirotonÃa to another place I am content to examine what you have there to the contrary Which seeing it draweth me into further matter therevnto appertaining I will differre for this time Hitherto we have tryed the nature and vse of Hades and have found it to be not properly Hell as c Pag. 1â— 171. 40 you avouch No not when it is applyed to soules of men deceased And therefore also that it can not be so vnderstood in Act. 2.27 where it is applyed to Christs Soule after he was dead Which yet is the only place that you have to pretend How thâ—â— in Act. â— may siâ—â—â— and trâ—â—â— vndersâ—â—â— Now something more you bring for your purpose from the Circumstances of this Text which we must consider But first let vs simply and plainly vnderstaÌ„d the same according to our former true declaration of the nature and vse of Hades Where the text is Thou wilt not leaue my Soule in Hades or to Hades we may simply take Hades for the invisible state or place of the deceased And so supplying the defect of a word which must be vnderstood thus we may say eis ton topon or chôran hadou in the place or region of the invisible state or b Aithér dou Or before pâ—â—â— 173.17 World of the Deceased Otherwise we may take it simply for Deaths force strength and power supplying also the same words eis ton topon or ten chôran hadou in that place where the power and strength of Death prevaileth and holdeth the deceased Soules from their Bodyes This is the World of the Dead implying nothing ells but ap estate opposit to our Visible estate in this world Thus may hades be fuly taken sith I have largely proved before how Hades Thanatoâ— Death are in effect all one and may both be applyed even to iust mens Soules deceased but hades more easily naturally Last of all we may take hades heere by a Prosopopoea conceaving it to be as it were som Person of vnresistable power taking away withholding from hence al mens Souls departed Howbeit this power was controlled and loosed by God in Christes Resurrection And then we may construe it thus eis ten chóran topon or oikian Hadou in the place region or habitation of this mighty power Or eis to kratos exousian dynamin or epikratian tou Hadou to the strength power or dominion of this Destroyer of life Thus howsoever we take it though
this last way is not the vnlikelyest Hades heere signifieth in effect nothing els but Death that Christs Soul departed this life was held therein but could not be holden fast â—â—g 166. You obiect c We must not make a Figurative sense but where manefest need is Heere is no need of a figurative sense Therefore heere ought to be no Figure supposed I answer First wee grant your Conclusion whether of the 2. former wayes soever that we take hades so there is simply no Figure at all therein Sec Then your own sense of Hell in this place is cleane overthrown by your selfe For whensoever hades and sheol do signifie Hell it is indeed by a Figure namely Synékdoche where the Whole is set for a part Which I have proved at large before â—â—re pag. particularly by d Tremellius a sufficient man for his Hebrue skill Wherefore by this reason Hell cannot possibly be meant heere if no Figure be admitted Third it seemeth convenient and also likely to take hades heere by a Prosopopoea after our 3. sense before noted Which kind of Figure supposeth as it were a Person of that thing which otherwise a word properly signifieth So that by this figure nothing of the wordes native signification is diminished Thus our word hades is vsed in the Corinthians O Hades where is thy victory Also as it may seeme in the Revelation Death Hades were cast into Hell â—â—ther as pa. 17â— Thus then it is nothing but emphatically signifying the power of Death Fourth Admit that hades and sheol did properly signifie Hell as we see they do not Likewise that sometime they signifie only the Grave which also you acknowledg it is true when it is applyed to a dead Body Againe admit that nephesh by a Figure may signifie the whole Person yea e the dead Body somtimes 〈◊〉 doth 〈◊〉 21.1 〈◊〉 2â— 4 Then I affirme that heere in this place of necessity there ought to be vnderstood a Figurative sense Heere is plainly most necessary cause For take them thus literally as you doe and they impugne the groundes of faith and charitie Which f Pag 1â— you grant that rightly is sufficient to cause a Figurative sense in Scripture But how do they impugne faith or charity being taken as you take them Verily thus Your sense implyeth by the way and consequently Points in Assertion â—â—â—trary to â—â—â—coÌ„mon â—â—oâ— Faith 〈◊〉 charity that a good and sinles man yea the best that ever was worthy of Paradise and the highest Heavens yet after death did go to Hell And further that being in Heaven yet he stayed not there as you say but immediatly came out againe to go into Hell Againe that a Humane soule being in the depth of Hell yet should feele no paines and that being locally in hell it should com out thence also What can be more against the generall rules of the Scripture then these things Yea how doth this impugne our generall charity towards all the iust when they dy Besides many other disproportions and vnreasonable inconveniences following withall as anon we shall further see Wherefore if by any meames possibly a Figure may be heere admitted certainly it must be so for these most necessary causes last rehearsed The rather seeing no other text any where insinuateth any such peculiar matter in Christ that he should differ in these points from all good men els as you do vrge But you say The Cirâ—â—stances 〈◊〉 against yâ—â— the circumstances heere doe prove that the word must be Hell properly taken That I would faine see What are these circumstances First this place sheweth * Pag. 1â— a special prerogative verified in none but in Christ I deny it heere is no such prerogative mentioned Except this that whereas some other men after death have returned to life againe it was not by their owne power as Christs ResurrectioÌ„ was Againe God in his revealed wil having signified by his Prophet long before that he should be restored speedily to life againe thus it was simply impossible that Christ should be holden fast by the power of Death although it had got hold of him And so indeed he had a prerogative before all men ells which also is heere shewed vs but no other prerogative in the world neither heere nor any where els caÌ„ be gathered touching his returne from Hell You adde No flesh dead was ever free from corruption but only Christes What then Ergo his Soule was in Hell Or ells why bring you such needles and impertinent matter Besides I iudge that not to be true Were not a Pag. 1â— some being dead raised to life againe before their flesh putrified But nonâ— you say in the sepulchre And what then How will this inferre or prove that so none but Christs Soul was ever supported in Hel or that it was ever there These are simple reasons for so great a conclusion Then you say Jf by Hell we vnderstand Paradise it was no privilege to be there not forsaken but rather a childish absurdity to thinke any Soule might be there forsaken It is a strange absurdity still to abuse your reader calling this word Hel â—â—tio prinâ—◠〈◊〉 which indeed is nothing but Death in effect the Power of death or the condition and state of death Againe to presume that wee take it for Paradise or Heaven or Hell at any time when we referre it allwayes to the generall state of the Dead and no further immediatly Now in this Christ had cause to reioyce that neither his Soule nor Body was left but so soone raysed vp to perfit life againe and so sitted to a full receaving of glory which within few dayes after he had Also besides this cause his deliverance from the condition of death he had an other inestimable cause to reioyce that he was raised to life againe namely that he might fulfill his whole work for our Salvation which before his Resurrection Ascension c he could not accomplish â—â—g 170. Further b you obiect that Peter maketh mention that the sorrows of death were broken that they should not hold Christ nor hinder him from rising againe But there were none such in the Grave none in Paradise Therfore in Hel Christs Soule was whence he was delivered when he rose againe I denie vtterly this sequele Because the text saith not that there were any present sorrowes in Hades where Christ was Heere is not a word to any such purpose 〈◊〉 2.24 What saith the text God raised him vp loosing the sorrowes of Death because it was impossible for him to bee holden fast of it Wil you coÌ„clude froÌ„ hence Ergo there were present sorrows in that place where Christ was There is no strength in this reason The Apostle signifieth heere 2. or 3. things 1. That God loosed Death froÌ„ him wherein hee was held but could not be holden fast 2. That this Death had bene a most sorrowfull painfull Death
For it is sure that no man can prove by good testimony that there was any or indeed any other then such as these ancient Fathers thus variably and differingly rehearsed Seeing also it is proved that this set forme which we now have specially our article in question was not †As a 〈◊〉 the Câ—â— receaved for many hundred yeares after Christ some supposing that these words were not put in till neer 1000. years after him I say All this being considered it is evident that your Argument only froÌ„ the precise and exact forme of words in the Creed from the order placing of He descended to Hades namely after Dead Buryed is not worth any thing to induce thereby an Article of faith That Christs Soule went to Hell After this it shall not be amisse to consider some other reasons of good moment Our 3d. Reason is REASâ—â— If there be no certaine benefit to the godly by Christes going to Hell then doubtles he went not thither But there is no certaine benefit to the Godly by Christes going to hell Therefore doubtles he went not thither This Reason you a Pag â— call our strongest fort It is not our strongest but yet strong indeed for you have made no where any good answer to it neither can you I know a number of wordes you have throughout your whole treatise denying the Assumption but they are nothing in the world but meere presumptions You say b Pag â— Is the subduing of hell powers and the treading on all their force and the restraining of all their fury so small a matter with you that it doth no good to the Godly And elswhere most tediously and vainly you augment repeate the marvelous thinges that Christe did by his Humane presence in Hell I would willingly beleeve it but alas who saith so besides your self or only such as can tell no better then you Where is that become now c Pag â— what I read in the worde of God that I beleeve what J do not reade that I do not beleeve c. It is easy to say that you will onely hold what the Scripture assureth but in practise you will slip from this precise order when you list I know well that you boldly say that the d Pag â— Purpose of Christs descent is plainly professed in Scriptures to be the spoyling of Sathan and delivering of men from the power of Hell Is it plainly professed I beseech you where I wott well what you will faine devise of the Fathers when you impute so palpable vntruths to the word of God it self Shew vs one title one iot of any benefit which by the Scriptures Christ wrought for vs by his locall presense in Hell and then I will cease to gainsay it forever Otherwise tell vs never so much of the wonderfull and singular fruite of Christs being there the more you amplify the more you hazard your credit the more we shall wonder at your bold avouching matters which are not in the word of God The benefits all and every one which you every where rehearse I most vnfainedly and religiously beleeve namely that he deserved all good things for vs and obtayned theÌ„ for vs in his ResurrectioÌ„ c. Ascention and that finally and fully he shall in his last iudgment tread downe Satan vnder our feet But what is this to his locall being in Hell Shew therefore I say by the expresse word that Christ in Hel did these or any parte of these good things for vs. If you do not for as yet I see no title to prove that surely all your talke is but blasts of vanitie The which I rather beleeve that you never can nor wil do because you confesse asmuch somewhere as overturneth all your shew of Christes doing good to vs in Hell â—â—g 160. For a This conquest you say Christ purchased by his passion but he did not execute it till his resurrection If he executed nothing till his Resurrection and purchased all in his Passion then he did nothing in Hell For his Resurrection was distinctly after his supposed being in Hell whither he never afterwards returned to execute there any thing at all Nay Austin your only stay thinketh * he descended in vaine vnles he did good to som who were even there in Hell in torments â—â—e before â—â—g 168. But this you vtterly renounce So that every way stil it remayneth good that seeing there is no certaine benefit that Christ did in Hell neither to vs nor to any therefore we are not to beleeue that he was in Hell Our 4d. Reason There is altogeather as great reason and as vrgent cause that Christ whole man both Soule â—SON 4. and Body should be present in Hell to free vs thence wholly that is our Souls Bodies as there is that his Soule must be there present to free thence our Soules But simply it is confessed that his Body was never there neither had any cause to be for the freeing of our Bodies Therefore it followeth that neither his Soule was ever there nor had any cause so to be for the freeing of our Soules Heere I wish you would answer my proposition without Skoffes taunts and haughty disdaine as your manner is But bring some evident and cleere difference that his Soul must go more necessarily thither alone then that his Body also should and let it be truly grounded on the proportion of faith and Christian Religion if not on expresse Scripture I wot well what you bring from some Fathers a Pag. 17â— Fulgentius b Pag. 17â— 181 Athanasius others That his Soule by being present in Limbo that they meane by Hades and Infernum saved vs from Hell by his flesh temporally dying he gave vs life eternall and by lying in the grave vncorrupted he gave vs incorruptioÌ„ Heere we allow them so far as they meane that what one parte of him did that our whole man and every parte received good by But if they think his Soul by Divine ordinaÌ„ce had need to be actually present elswhere then only with the godly deceased to execute his victory gotten before on the Crosse against Satan to th end that we might be free froÌ„ Hell theÌ„ let theÌ„ shew vs the Scripture for this Divine ordinaÌ„ce so by Gods grace we shal forthwith imbrace it Otherwise at least let them shew vs a reason or do you so much for them why both parts ioyntly should not rather have gon thither by like necessity to execute that togither which both ioyntly had got and deserved for togeather the benefit also whereof is to come not to one parte alone but ioyntly to both in vs. Againe why this going to Hell by our Saviour Christ was not rather after his Resurrection when he had begun his actuall Triumph in deed by ioyning togeather againe both partes of his manhood in both which togeather before he had bene humbled Neither is it likely