him as he is 1. Ioh. 3. 2. of Fathers as of Augustine that the blessed Trinitie can no waies bee seene with humane eies but with those eies c. of Ambrose that wee shall then see with vncouered face the glorie of God 2. b. p. 203. He telleth vs of certaine heretiks that helde that they which awake at the last day shall not see God at all in his diuine essence and nature Of which opinion was one Abailardus against whom Bernard writeth p. 207. And thus hee fighteth with his shaddow leauing the point in controuersie whether the Godhead may be comprehended Briefly therefore to open this point I finde that there haue beene two principall opinions concerning the vision of God and the one contrary to the other It is noted as one of Origens errors by Hierom that hee should thinke the Godhead of the father to bee so invisible as that it could not be comprehended of the sonne As this opinion maketh the Godhead altogether inuisible in one extreame so some were so grosse and carnall as that they held Verbi Dei naturam non solum mutabilem sed etiam visibilem that the nature of the word of God was not onely mutable but visible as Augustine reporteth their opinion vnto these the heretiks Anomoei came neere of the which sort Eunomius was a principall who helde se naturam Dei comprehendisse that hee comprehended the nature of God as Theophylact testifieth Now out of this question of the Comprehending of the Deitie Christ euen as touching his humane nature is to be excepted of whom the diuine nature because of that hypostaticall vnion was fully seene and comprehended Yea Gennadius in his catalogue maketh mention of one Servus which writ against those who denied Christ when he liued here in the flesh Deum carneis oculis vidisse to haue haue seene God with the eies of his flesh Concerning then this point a distinction is here to be receiued touching the knowledge of the Godhead there is cognitio simplex comprehensiua a simple that is absolute and comprehensiue knowledge cognitio pro modulo apprehensiua and a knowledge in a certaine measure and apprehensiue onely This latter way God may bee seene and knowne But vpon these two conditions as Augustine well obserueth Humano visu nullo modo potest c. That first God can not be seene by any humane sight but with that whereby they that see are no men but beyond men Secondly nemo vidit per seipsum c. No man hath seene by himselfe that is by his flesh and blood but by the reuealing of the father and enarration of the sonne As the Euangelist saith No man hath seene God at any time the onely begotten sonne hath declared him Thus God may and hath beene seene and knowne of the Saints in this life as of Moses and Paul but more fully in the next whē we shall see the sight of God as he is But as Augustine in another place quantum eum capere creatura rationalis ctualis potest as much as a reasonable and intellectuall creature is capable of But touching the other kinde of knowledge though God be cognoscibilis ex gratia to bee knowne by grace comprehensibilis tamen a nemine quam seipso yet hee is comprehended of none but himselfe The reason is because the deitle is infinite the creature finite so that which is of a finite nature cannot comprehend that which is infinite Augustine saith si sanctis Angelis iam equales essemus non vtique ita nota esset nobis diuina essentia sicut ipsa sibi if we were equall to the Angels the diuine substance should not bee so knowne to vs as it is to himselfe But here commeth in this quaint distinguisher with this glosse God is not called incomprehensible as if there were any thing of his which his Saints shall not see but because they see him not so perfectly as hee is visible of himselfe 2. b. p. 204. Wherein he speaketh contradictions for if God cannot be seene of vs as he is of himself then there is somewhat in the Godhead which we cannot see which himselfe seeth Then by grace apprehend him wee may but comprehend him we cannot Plenitudinem diuinitatis nemo de coelestibus etiam virtutibus conspexit The fulnesse of the diuinitie none of the celestiall powers hath seene but if there be nothing of his which the Saints shall not see then they should see his fulnesse Now then it is euident which of the twaine holdeth a paradox the Replyer that saith the deitie of Christ is incomprehensible or the erroneous Reprehender which enclineth to the contrarie He saith further that the Replyers peremptorie words seeme to encline to those Errors or rather heresies of certaine Armenians which denied that the Saints in the next world should see God at all in his diuine essence p. 207. But as the Replyer detesteth from his heart that erroneous opinion so let this newfangled Dogmatist take heede least in his comprehensiue fancie he apprehend not and lay hold of the heresie of the Anomaeans before spoken of that affirmed they comprehended the essence of God 3. As good successe hath this trifler in the third pretended error for first he misconceiueth himselfe would here haue said after his vnmannerly phrase belieth Augustine that he taketh not the word spirit for the diuine nature of Christ but for the operation of the holy ghost for Augustines words are these saepe antea veniebat in spiritu ad quos volebat he came often before that is his incarnation in the spirit to whome he would doth he speake I pray you of the operation of the spirit here and not of the spirit himselfe to confound the spirit and the operation of the spirit is both great error and ignorance Againe an other vntruth is that Augustine by the word spirit taketh not the diuine nature of Christ. If Augustine may be credited he himselfe saith otherwise Et ipse quidem filius in substantia deitatis spiritus est quid facit silius sine spiritu sancto vel sine patre cum inseperabilia sunt opera trinitatis Both the Sonne himselfe is a spirit in the substance of the deitie and what doth the Sonne without the holy Ghost or without the Father seeing the workes of the Trinitie are inseperable Doth it not now appeare that Augustine indifferently taketh the spirit here either for the diuine nature of Christ or for the holy Ghost say also then that Augustine doth ignorantly confound them Further doth not the Scripture indifferently sometime ascribe the same worke to Christ sometime to the holy Ghost as our Sauiour saith The spirit of my father speaketh in you Math. 10. 20. which Marke nameth the holy Ghost Mark 13. 11. and S. Paul saith Seeing ye seeke experiment of Christ that speaketh in me 2. Cor. 13. 3. So the Apostle saith
most true and sound positions 2. b. p. 20. and yet afterward he confesseth that the very first thereof which is this that Christ is not originally God is the most damnable heresie of Arrius ibid. p. 21. Thus he ignorantly maketh himselfe an Arrian for thus may his owne speeches be retorted against him whosoeuer saith that Christ is not originally God is an Arrian this proposition is his owne but so holdeth this confused confuter in calling it a true and sound position this also is his owne for he calleth all those true and sound positions there excepted against whereof this is the first Ergo by his owne confession he draweth himself into suspiciō of Arrianisme Indeede this heresie-mouther that hath often in his mouth heresie heretike obiecteth Arrianisme but very simply to the Replyer because alleadging the words of S. Paul of our Sauiour iustified in the spirit he by the spirit vnderstandeth his diuine spirit and nature as quickned saith he in your sense signifieth to be made aliue so must iustified to be made iust which is ranke Arrianisme 3. b. p. 60. poore silly fellow and doth he know what Arrianisme meaneth for though the Replyer medleth not here with the signification of the word iustified but alleadgeth this sentence for the vse of the word spirit neither doth he take the word iustified in the actiue signification as we are said to be iustified but passiuely as when wisdome is saide to be iustified of her children Math. 11. 19. that is approoued and declared to be iust yet if it be referred to Christs humanitie it is no Arrianisme to say that he as man was iustified not from sinne which he had not but preserued by the inhabitation of the spirit from all sinne If this be Arrianisme then is Chrysostome an Arrian who deliuereth these two expositions of this place Sive hoc intelligi potest c. whether this may be vnderstood because wisdome is iustified of her children or because he did none deceit as the Prophet testifieth saying Who did no sinne neither was any guile found in his mouth he vnderstandeth this iustification of his preseruing from sinne And what is it more to say that Christ as man was iustified or that he was sanctified but our Sauiour saith of himselfe whome the father sanctified Ioh. 10. 36. if for Christ to be made iust be Arrianisme then also to be made holy Then he seeth who is charged with Arrianisme in his sense which once to thinke were horrible blasphemie I therefore say vnto him concerning this imputation of Arrianisme Vides ne quomodo ista non sententia sed vescia non solum mani sonitu sed in capite vestro crepuerit See you not how this not sentence but bladder not onely with a vaine cracke but is broken vpon your owne head 11. He affirmeth that the baptisme of Infants is not to be found in Scripture by any expresse literall mention 2. b. p. 170. for though he leaue out that word expresse yet he of whome he borroweth this opinion vseth that terme and he may put literall in his purse his meaning is that it is not expressely deliuered in Scripture for there he impugneth that conclusion that nothing is to be admitted that is not expressely deliuered in Scripture Now then that baptisme is expressely grounded vpon Scripture and not vpon tradition which must follow vpon the other it is diuersly euident As because Christ commandeth little children not to be forbidden to come vnto him the Church is cleansed by the washing of water through the word of which Church infants are members Christ commandeth to baptize all nations among the which children are counted And seeing infants were circumcised in stead whereof baptisme succeedeth which the Apostle likeneth to circumcision it is euident that the baptisme of infants is founded vpon Scripture it is also the doctrine of our Church that the baptisme of infants is most agreeable with the institution of Christ but where is the institution of Christ to be found but in expresse Scripture what shamelesse dealing then is this to say that they which hold the contrarie namely that the baptisme of infants is not expressely found in Scripture doe maintaine the doctrine of the Church when they directly impugne it And this vncertaine and wandring opinion giueth occasion to the wicked heresie of the Anabaptists that affirme the baptisme of Infants to take beginning from the Bishops of Rome and not from the Apostles 12. He further among those things which are not expressely deliuered in Scripture giueth in instance our beleefe in the blessed Trinitie 2. b. p. 170. whereas the auncient Fathers of the Church haue principally out of the Scripture prooued this Article concerning the Trinitie as Origene vrged that place in the 51. Psal. where mention is made of three spirits principalis spiritus pater c. the principall spirit is the father the right spirit the sonne and the free spirit the holy Ghost But more pregnant is that place which Ambrose selecteth the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ the loue of God and the communion of the holy Ghost be with you all Trinitatis hic complexio est vnitas potestatis here is a coniunction of the Trinitie and the vnitie of power Augustine doth conclude the Trinitie from that heauenly vision in the baptisme of our Sauiour Apparuit manifestissime Trinitas c. The Trinitie appeared manifestly the Father in the voice the Sonne in man the holy Ghost in the doue But of all other those places are most full for the Trinitie Math. 28. 20. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost and that other 1. Ioh. 5. 7. There are three which beare record in heauen the Father the Word and the holy Ghost who of any iudgement reading these places can denie for shame but that the blessed Trinitie is expressely deliuered in Scripture 13. The coeternitie of the Sonne with the Father is an other point obiected not expressely deliuered in Scripture which is euident by the words of the Euangelist that the word was in the beginning with God Augustine out of those words of our Sauiour I and my father are one concludeth his equalitie with God so consequently his coeternitie Bernard inferreth it out of those words of the Prophet Who shall declare his generation And further he thus saith Commendant nobis sacrae literae Christum ex patre in patre cū patre c. quod dicitur ex patre ineffabilis est nativitas quod in patre consubstantialis vnitas quod cum patre equalitas maiestatis The sacred letters doe cōmend vnto vs Christ of his father in his father with his father that which is said of his father is his ineffable natiuitie in his father his consubstantiall vnitie that with his father the equalitie of his maiestie These fathers held that
these mysteries were not to be learned els where then in the Scriptures as most plainely therein expressed 14. The proceeding of the holy Ghost he thinketh also not to be expressely deliuered in Scripture 2. b. p. 170. whereas notwithstanding our Sauiour saith directly Whome I will send vnto you from the father and whome the father will send in my name Augustine would prooue it out of those wordes in the Gospel vertue went out of him for it is cleare that the holy spirit is called vertue but that other place is more euident which Augustine vrgeth also He shall not speake of himselfe and he shall receiue of mine Audire illi scire est scire ess◠à quo ergo illi essentia ab eo scientia to heare is to him to know to know is to be from whome his essence is from him his science seeing then he heareth and receiueth from the sonne he also hath his essence and proceeding from the sonne These holy mysteries of the Trinitie the coeternitie of the Sonne with the Father the proceeding of the holy Ghost the fathers take to be expressely set downe in Scripture as Bernard speaking of the mysterie of the Trinitie Non potuit expressius commendari c. It could not be more expressely commended then it is necessarie to beleeue To say therefore that these points of doctrine are not expressely deliuered is to giue way vnto those wicked heretikes the Sabellians that denied the first the Arrians the second the Macedonians the third Beside these errors adde as many more which he calleth true and sound positions beeing indeede vnsound and corrupt doctrines as is partly touched before slaund 10. and more at large els where which I will not now repeate because I am onely to deale here with this froward spirit leauing to prouoke those of more modest cariage though in some things otherwise minded Now what hath this blind obiecter of error gained to himselfe but his owne shame who reckoneth that for errour and falsitie in others which agreeth with truth and veritie and seeth not his owne grosse and erring ignorance He with a curious eye obserueth others slippes and tripping nor that neither while himselfe stumbleth and falleth downe flat the Prophet saith Woe vnto them that speake good of euill and euill of good which put darknesse for light and light for darkenesse I pray God he be not of that number Ambrose saith well talis consiliarius sit qui nihil nebulosum habeat He that aduiseth others must not bee darkened or ouercast with clouds himselfe And Hierom wel admonisheth Non confundant opera sermonem tuum Let not thy workes confound thy words And this blinde guide while he noteth other mens wandrings should not haue gone himselfe out of the way he telleth the Replyer most disdainefully and withall vntruely that hee hath neuer a good thought of his owne 2. b. p. 106. while his own heart is pestered with erroneous and malitious cogitations and no maruell for as Iosephus well saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a temperate heart is the hauen of good meditations while the heart therefore boyleth with intemperate enuie the spring head being troubled the waters issuing from thence cannot be cleane I wish hee may haue grace to see his errors and to confesse his ignorance Tully hath a good saying Cuiusuis est hominis errare nullius nisi insipientis perseuerare in errore Any man may erre but none but vnwise men continue in error Let him not thinke it folly to reuerse with iudgement what hee hath written with error It is a wise mans part rather to amend what is amisse and to straighten that which is crooked to rectifie by the line of truth that which hath beene set downe against the rule of truth and so againe I commend vnto him that worthy sentence of Cicero Optimus est portus poenitenti mutati consilij the best hauen to repentāce is to change the heart and purpose The 7. imputation of Blasphemies The accusation 1. The heauinesse which Christ felt in his soule was not through the horrour of eternall death as you and others doe blaspheme c. 2. b. p. 193. 2. Why doe you not exempt it that is the soule of Christ from all kinde of death whatsoeuer but then your blasphemous hell torments which you make a third kinde of death of the soule cannot stand 2. b. p. 91. 3. Let the godly iudge whether those your inward afflictions reach not to the height of sinne and damnation and so consequently proue your doctrine in this point to be blasphemous euen by your owne confession 3. b. p. 67. 4. By this time I trust euery well disposed Reader doth see how this your exposition of this prophesie of Dauid hardeneth the Iewes encourageth Atheists iustifieth old damned Heretiks confirmeth Saduces and Epicures which deny the immortalitie of the soule c. and finally openeth the way vnto blasphemie paganisme and all impietie 3. b. p. 51. The iustification 1. HOw iniuriously this belcher out of blasphemie dealeth with the Replyer his owne conscience if it be not seared with an hot yron knoweth there neede no other iudge for the Replyer in as plaine tearmes as hee could vtter it denieth that there was in Christ any feare of eternall death in these words Wee willingly graunt that Christ feared not hell fire nor euerlasting destruction these authorities presse not vs but rather helpe our cause for Christ neither feared temporall nor euerlasting death as these fathers witnesse and the Apostle saith he feared Heb. 5. 7. what then remaineth but that he feared the cup of Gods wrath mixed with death and as Cyprian saith before cited difficultatem extremi exitus The difficultie or hardnesse of his last passage that is in respect of Gods wrath tempered with it And in the other place quoted these are the words Though Christ neither felt nor feared euerlasting death yet he both felt and feared his fathers displeasure that causeth it What impudencie is this to vse his owne tearme for I may call a spade a spade to charge the Replyer to affirme that which he instantly denieth let the charitable reader iudge of him in the rest as he findeth his faithfull dealing here when hee quoteth any place out of the Replyers bookes not rehearsing the words suspect the like fraud This false charge then of blasphemie returneth vpon his owne head and by the lawe of retalian and equalitie he should be censured as a blasphemer for beeing a false witnesse therein against another 2. The Replyer freeth Christs soule from all kinde of death of the soule which is either by sinne or damnation though beside these a kinde of death may be affirmed to haue beene suffered by Christ in his soule in respect of the inward afflictions and perplexitie which he indured wrestling euen with the wrath of
hell and by the like collection it was there though it dwelt not or continued there 16. Slaund The Replyer is charged with Iudaisme for that none but Iewes did euer applie this prophesie to any but to our Sauiour Christ. Contra. 1. It is not Iudaisme to applie the propheticall saying of Dauid concerning Christ in some sense vnto Dauid but to vnderstand them onely of Dauid and not at all of Christ as if his memorie had serued him he might haue turned backe to 2. b. p. 136 where he himselfe citeth Hierome vpon the 71. Psalm v. 20. Thou wilt take me from the depth of the earth Iudaei hunc psalmum in solum Davidem convenire volunt c. the Iewes will haue this psalme to agree vnto Dauid onely and 3. b. p. 47. he alleadgeth out of Mollerus that D. Kimchi interpreteth the 16. Psal. of the Prophet Dauid and wil not haue these words meant of the resurrection of Christ. 2. If they sauour of Iudaisme which applie the propheticall sayings concerning Messiah in the Psalmes to Dauid then is Basil guiltie that way who vpon these words in the 48. Psal. The Lord shall deliuer my soule from the hand of hell thus writeth Manifeste vaticinatur Domini ad inferos descensum qui cum alijs etiam ipsius animam redimat ne remaneat ibi he manifestly prophesieth of the Lords descension to hell which with others should also redeeme his soule that it remaine not there he applieth this text both concerning Christs descension to hell and Dauids deliuerance from thence So Augustine indifferently expoundeth those words Psal. 86. v. 13. Thou hast deliuered my soule from the lowest hell either of Christ or of some of his members Ergo aut ipsius vox est hic eruisti c. wherefore it is either his voice that is Christs or our voice by Christ our Lord which to that ende came thither 3. Then doth he himselfe Iudaize who thus confesseth of that place Psal. 68. 18. He ascended vp on high and led captiuitie captiue which is as properly by S. Paul fitted to the ascension of Christ Eph. 4. 8. as the other place Psal. 16. is by S. Peter to our Sauiours resurrection alluding saith this obiecter to the place of the Psalme where it is literally spoken of King Dauid himselfe to whome God gaue victorie and triumph ouer all his enemies but prophetically meant of Christ our Sauiour of whome Dauid was a type and figure Thus it falleth out according to the saying of the wise man he that diggeth a pit shall fall therein and he that rolleth a stone it shall returne vnto him this accusation of Iudaisme which as a stone he cast at the Replyer recoyling againe hath broken his owne pate 17. Slaunder According to your sense all that will follow Christ must suffer the death of the soule 3. b. p. 63. You deliuer for sound doctrine that Christ suffered that death which was threatened to Adam 3. b. p. 66. Your blasphemous paradox of the death of Christs soule 3. b. p. 83. Whereas the Replier doth directly affirme that Christ died not the death of the soule either by sinne or damnation Synops. p. 977. which are the two kinds onely of the proper dying of the soule And though a kinde of death may after some sort be affirmed of Christs soule in respect of the great anguish and torment which hee endured in his soule yet he wisheth that kinde of phrase as beeing not vsed in Scripture to be forborne and discontinued Synops. p. 978. The Replier here then is as farre from blasphemie as the Accuser is from honestie in charging him with such an apparant vntruth 18. Slaunder That he doth call againe out of hel Arrius Eunomius Apollinaris Lucianus to ioyne hands with you against Athanasius Epiphanius Fulgentius that he doth iustifie so pestilent and blasphemous heretiks against so reuerend so learned and holy fathers 3. b. p. 74. You reiected Athanasius before for a misconstruer of Scripture an establisher of error yea little better then a blasphemer euen because he proued against the Arrians that the word Spirit in this place of Peter signifieth the humane soule of Christ. 3. b. 125. 1. Contra. 1. What an absurd collection is this Athanasius Epiphanius did censure the Apollinarists out of this place of Peter proouing thence that Christ had an humane soule you therefore refusing their interpretation and collection out of this place condemne them and iustifie those hereticks 2. Augustine and Ambrose doe prooue the eternitie of Christ and coexistence with his father against the Arrians out of that place Ioh. 8. 2. which they read thus according to the vulgar latine the beginning who spake vnto you which reading indeed by the authoritie of these Fathers the Rhemists follow in their translation whereas the true reading according to the originall is Euen the same thing which I said vnto you from the beginning Doth it follow that they which refuse this their interpretation and application of this text against the Arrians doe therefore iustifie the Arrians against these godly Fathers 3. The Replier no where ascribeth blasphemie vnto Athanasius the slaunderer blasphemeth rather in so saying error he is not free from seeing he is cited by Bellarmine to prooue Christs descent to Limbus patrum which all Protestants hold to be an error howsoeuer this Antagonist staggereth at it 19. Slaunder That the flames and torments of hell fire are temporall and that eternall continuance in them is not of the essence and nature of hell torments 3. b. p. 77. If this false fellow had not hardened his face as the Adamant hee would not for shame haue thus obiected for the Replier in the first place quoted in the margen speaketh onely of the hell sorrows and torments which Christ suffered in his soule which were not eternall because of the dignitie of his person for these are the words concerning hell flames First in that they are not eternall in Christ the dignitiâ— of his person obtained for his temporall enduring of hell sorrow was as effectuall and meritorious as if they had beene perpetuall Here is no one word of the torments of hell in generall Againe in the other place these are the words The inseperable adiuncts and necessarie members of hell are these 1. the Place which is infernall 2. the Time which is perpetual 3. darkenes vnspeakable What fault can this quarrel-picker finde with these words what meane Logician knoweth not that the continuance of time is not of the essence of a thing but a necessarie adiacent or adiunct Yea these are his very owne words in an other place whose inseperable adiuncts speaking of hell are vtter darkenesse and endlesse paines 1. b. p. 3. Is he not now a wise man that reprooueth another for speaking in his owne words 20. Slaunder By which wicked and intolerable speech you send to hell not onely those which were
Loidoromastix THAT IS A SCOVRGE FOR A RAYLER CONTAINING A FVLL AND SVFFICIENT ANSWER VNTO the Vnchristian raylings slaunders vntruths and other iniurious Imputations vented of late by one RICHARD PARKES master of Arts against the author of LIMBOMASTIX Wherein three hundred raylings errors contradictions falsifications of Fathers corruptions of Scripture with other grosse ouersights are obserued out of the said vncharitable discourse by ANDREVV WILLET Professor of Diuinitie Iob 31. 35 36. Though mine aduersarie should write a booke against me would I not take it vpon my shoulder and binde it as a crowne vnto me August cont Petilian lit lib. 3. c. 8. Nec malam conscientiam sanat praeconium laudantis nec bonam vulnerat convitiantis opprobrium Neither doth the commendation of the praiser heale an euill conscience nor the reproach of a Reviler wound a good Printed by CANTRELL LEGGE Printer to the Vniversitie of CAMBRIDGE 1607. And are to be sold in Pauls Churchyard by RICHARD BANKEVVORTH at the signe of the Sunne TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD RICHARD by the Diuine prouidence Archbish. of CANTERBVRIE Primate and Metropolitan of all England and of his Maiesties most Honourable priuie Counsell AVgustine Right Reuerend Father when a certaine young man of no good fame had accused one Bonifacius a Minister or Presbyter of a great crime they both beeing of his owne Colledge and societie though he gaue more credit vnto the Presbyter yet the matter hanging in suspense and doubt he sent them both for the more full manifestation of the truth vnto the tombe of Felix the Martyr for they had a great opinion of such places in those daies My case at this time in some things is not much vnlike who hauing beene a Minister and Presbyter of this Church and a poore Preacher and writer of the same now these twentie yeares am at the last by one of obscure fame and name accused before your Grace of heresie blasphemie and charged with the deniall of an Article of the faith In which accusation as I doubt not but that your Gr. opinion is as indifferent toward me whose Parents education studies and trauailes you haue knowne these many yeares as Augustines was toward Bonifacius yet herein my case is better that I doe referre my selfe to the iudgement of a Reuerend Prelate liuing and am not sent to the triall of the dead Archidamus not much vnlike to the former examplâ—â— beeing chosen an arbitrator betweene two that were at variance brought them into the Temple of Minerva and hauing first bound them with an oath to stand to his sentence decreed that they should not depart thence before they had compounded the controuersie Crates Thebanus is said to haue vsed to resort vnto faâ—â—â—lies that disagreed and with perswasions of peace to haue adiudged their strifes So your Honour not so much by choice an arbitrator as by office and place a Iudge in these causes will bring vs both I trust into the Temple of GOD there to be tried by the Scriptures And as Crates endeauour was to pacifie families so I hope your Gr. care is to settle this Church in peace approouing that godly saying of Basilius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that nothing is so proper to a Bishop as to be a peacemaker Mine aduersarie hath had the prioritie of complaint and first filled your eares though not possessed them with his vntrue surmises for I doubt not but as Alexander when one of his familiar friends was traduced before him stopped one of his eares as reseruing it for him that was absent so your Gr. hath one eare left for me according to that rule of Seneca Vtrique parti actiones dares dares tempus non semel audires magis enim veritas elucet quo saepius ad manum venit to giue vnto both parties their action and to graunt them time to heare more then once for the oftner the truth cometh to hand to be scanned the more the light thereof appeareth Cicero against Antonie said quid mihi plenius quid vberius quam mihi pro me contra Antonium dicere But I may adde the third that it contenteth me that I may speake not onely for my selfe and against such an one but before your Gr. As for his accusations I feare them not mine owne conscience testifying with me I will as Iob saith take them vpon my shoulder and bind them as a crowne vnto me For as Cyprian well saith but vpon an other occasion nequaquaÌ„ sub hoc onere lassitudinem sed quietem inventuri vnder this burthen I shall not finde wearines but rest As Augustine also saith qui volens detrahit famae meae nolens addit mercedi he that willingly detracteth from my fame doth against his will adde to my reward But two things I doe not a little wonder at that he durst abuse your Gr. eares with such vntrue and vncharitable invectures in his Epistle and the Reader with such grosse and absurd ouersights in his booke In the first he chargeth me with a prophane and irreligious fact in denying an Article of the Christian faith with errors or heresies rather in â—ppugning the doctrine of the Church striking at some maine points of faith shaking the foundation it selfe and calling in question heauen and hell the diuinitie and humanitie yea the very soule and saluation of Christ our Sauiour himselfe so bardâ—ed in error that they neither she contrition of heart to repentance nor confession of mouth to obedience that neither Rhemist nor Romanist could lightly haue more disgraced the discipline and doctrine of the Church in diuers points To these iniurious slaunders my particular answer afterward followeth which were needlesse to be inserted here Thus much concerning my selfe I say in generall in Hieromes words Egone haereticus quare ergo me haeretics non amant am I an heretike wherefore then doe not heretikes loue me which in their rayling pamphlets and libells haue made me a marke to shoote at But that saying of Cyprian doth giue 〈…〉 Scias hoc semper opus esse diaboli vt servos dei 〈…〉 laceret vt qui conscientiae suae luce clarescunt alienis rumoribus sordidentur Know this to be alwaies the worke of the deuill to vexe the seruants of God with lies that they which are cleare in the light of their conscience should be blemished with other mens reports Now though he tooke vnto himselfe this libertie in this vnfriendly manner to disgrace me yet he might haue shewed more modestie then to outface me with such vntruths in your Gr. presence It is said that the actors of those wanton playes called Floralia Catone praesente agere recusaruÌ„t refused to play in Catoes presence and he might haue forborne to haue vttered his forged calumniations before so graue a personage But I trust it will fall out here as sometime
personally touched as Hierome saith Nullum laesi nullius nomen mea scriptura designatum est I hurt no man no mans name is in my writing decyphered He might in silence haue corrected this error as Ambrose saith Et si nostra voce non proditur vel suâ— tamen crubescat affectu though he bee not by my voice bewraied yet hee might in his owne opinion haue beene ashamed Yet could he not containe himselfe but must set pen to paper and publish his owne shame by his vnchristian and intemperate rayling according to that saying of Hierome to Helvidius Arbitror te veritate superatum ad maledicta conuerti I thinke you beeing ouercome with the truth did turne to rayling I haue felt before this the whip of popish tongues and haue tasted of their virulent pennes but the badge of heresie impiety profanenes blasphemy atheisme was neuer set vpon my sleeue before himselfe that there pinâ—ed it beeing more worthy to weare it in his forehead hee hath nothing almost in his mouth but lying falshood hypocrisie corruption of Scriptures contradictions falsification of Fathers which things if he could fasten vpon me as he neuer shall yet it would nothing helpe his cause as Hierome saith Quid vulneribus tuis prodest si ego fuero vulneratus what doth it helpe your wounds if I likewiâ—e be wounded and againe Quid refert si causa cadis crimine superes what doth it auaile if you faile in the cause and bee superiour in obiecting of crimes I feare not what he can lay to my charge for I haue read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that neither a weake mans blowes nor an vnwise mans threats are to be feared Now in this other booke I haue framed a briefe answere vnto his calumnious accusations not medling at all with the argument and matter it selfe both because it remaineth by him vnanswered and for that I will not crosse the iudgement of some Reuerend learned men of our Church but content my selfe with that which I haue formerly written thereof I haue onely answered his vncharitable slaunders and returned them with aduantage vpon his owne head I haue obserued of raylings slaunders vntruths contradictions falsification of Fathers corruption of Scriptures with such other ouersights not fewer then 300. his errors beeing more then the leaues and almost equall to the pages of his booke if hee had had the like aduantage against me he would not haue doubted to vse that sentence of Hierom against me Proponam aduersarij sententias de tenebrosis libris eius quasi de foueis serpentes protraham neque sinam venenosum caput spiris maculosi corporis protegi I will propound the aduersaries sentence and out of his darke bookes I will drawe the serpents as out of their holes neither will I suffer his venemous head to lie lurking within the windes of his speckled body But I will forbeare him yet I must confesse that in returning this answer I wanted the patience of Ioseph of whom Ambrose saith Malâ—it falsum â—â—rimen subire quam verum referreâ— that he had rather vndergoe a false crime then report a true or as Hierom writeth of Blesilla Blesilla nostra ridâ—â—it â—es dignabitur loquacium ranarum audire convitia that shee would smile nor vouchsafing to heare the raylings of the clamorous frogges For my ease is diuers who beeing charged with her esie blasphemy atheisme must either by silence confesse the crime or by a iust Apologie wipe it away So indeed I was driuen to a great straite as Hierome againe saith Hoc mihi praestiterunt vt si tacuero reâ—s si respondero inimicus iudicer dâ—ra vtraque conditio fed è duobus eligam quod leuius est simultas redintegrari patest blasphemia veniam non meretur They haue brought mee to this that if I hold my peace I shall be held to be guiltie if I answer I shall be iudged an enemie an hard condition of each side but of the two I will choose the easier a priuie grudge may well bee renewed but blasphemy cannot be pardoned which as it seemeth was imputed vnto Hierome as now vnto mee Now then he may thanke himselfe that began the quarrell if he be well beaten for his labour that might haue slept in a whole skin and if he cannot fence off that blow which is comming toward him let him afterward learne to play with his matches For as Origen well saith writing vpoÌ„ those words in the Gospel Omnes belli concitatores in eo bello perâ—bunt quod concitant all that take the sword shall perish with the sword all the raisers of warre shall perish in that warre which they haue raised Now vnto your Gr. wise and graue censure I present this my iustification of whome I might craue iustice against this defamer and slaunderer who hath obiected capitall crimes of blasphemie and heresie against a Minister of the Church contrary to the lawe which by imperiall constitution deserueth capitall punishment if he cannot prooue the thingsâ— obiected to bee true by the Canons it was censured by whipping or by beeing excommunicate and anathematized But I craue no such reuenge of him but onely pray touching himselfe that hee may become an honest man hereafter and that your Gr. would be pleased that as I haue beene publikely defamed and traduced by him so it may be lawful for me publikely to defend my selfe that according to the lawe huâ—usâ—odi libellus alterius opinionem non ledat such an infamous libell doe not hurt the opâ—â—on of another which cannot be preuented vnlesse some publike satisfaction should be made for as Augustine saith well nobis necessaria est vita nostra alijs fama nostra as our life is necessarie to our selues so our fame is 〈…〉 Now lastly 〈◊〉 prayeth that my bookes as abortiue brats be not suffered to see the sunne whose light they seeke to obscure I am content to stand herein to your iudgment also whether of buâ— wriâ—â—ngs are more worthy to come into the sunne light as for mine whereof some are extant in your Gr. name which may deliuerme from his iniurious accusation as beeing as enemie vnto that eminent place and calling if they were no more meete then his to be admitted vnto the publike view of men I could wish them not onely out of the sunne light but in the fire light also But which be the abortiue brats I referre me to the midwiues that brought them out I meane the Stationers that printed them I thinke some of them may wish that his beggerly brats had beene yet vnborne Conâ—â—ning 〈…〉 I am not ashamed to say with Hierom Multi anni sunt quibus ab adolescentia vsque ad hanc aetatem diuer sa scripsiopuscula c. prouoco aduersaries vt 〈…〉 â—â—artulas exintegro discutiant si quid in meo ingeniolo vitij repererint proferant in medium confitebor errorem malens
absurditie herein appeareth that he alleadgeth this Cauillous Accusers testimonie more then twentie seuerall times against me as p. 5 6. most of all p. 35. that I condemne all the ancient Fathers for dreamers that I condemne all learned godly Divines that I falsly corrupt translate iniuriously handle abuse the Fathers that I straungely pervert belie depraue abuse the Scriptures and all this he taketh for truth vpon an aduersarie and euill willers report All which slaunderous accusations are I trust sufficiently answered in this defense vnto the which the Table annexed in the ende of the booke may direct the Reader that desireth further to be satisfied He might haue thought of the common saying Euill will neuer said true and if that vsual by-word sound to harsh in his eares aske my fellow if I be a theefe yet I may vse Hieromes words possem credere si vnus assereret nunc aut duo mentiuntur aut omnes if one honest man said it I could beleeue it but now either both lie or all as wel he that receiueth a false report and carieth it as he that first coined it is counted a gloser His falsitie he bewraieth in misreporting and peruerting diuers places by him produced as that I call the rules and principles of Religion which his Maiestie approoueth a foolish conceit and imagination p. 6. quoting Eccles. triumph p. 40. and again p. 31. he harpeth vpon the same harsh string that I call the Kings sentence that the Romane Church is our mother Church a foolish conceit and imagination whereas I affirme no such thing see mine answer p. 17. of this booke p. 10. he saith I speak of his Maiesties mother applying that saying of one to Augustines mother the child of such prayers and teares can not possibly fall away pref to Antilog whereas I speake onely of his Maiesties prayers and teares making no mention at all of his mother So p. 21. he chargeth me to say that all scriptures haue beene doubted of by one Church or other Synops p. 2. in which place no such thing is affirmed but onely diuers heretiks are rehearsed by whom one or other most of the Scriptures haue beene doubted of p. 27. that I should say that Vigilantius was condemned of heresie for denying Reliques to bee reuerenced Antilog p. 13. whereas my words in that place are these Some of these as they are imputed to Protestants wee denie to be heresies at all as that of Vigilantius that Reliques are not to bee adored Here no such thing is affirmed that Vigilantius was herein condemned of heresie P. 30. that I account the Councel of Florence a generall Councell Synops. cont 1. qu. 7. whereas I there vrge it onely against the Romanists as in their opinion generall for otherwise else-where I haue prooued that indeed it could not be a generall Councell the great Synode at Basil beeing at the same time assembled Antilog p. 61. P. 31. that I call the primitiue Councel of Neocaesarea Toletane the first and the sixt generall Councels the papal Church poperie c. Antil p. 88. 89. whereas I onely shew in that place that diuers errors decreed in all these Councels the first onely excepted whereof I make no mention at all there are allowed in the popish church see the place Such deprauing and wresting of sentences sheweth a badde cause and a worse mind in those that vse such beggerly shifts the truth neede not to be so defended and such false and deceitfull dealing will fall of it selfe without any confutation as Hierome saith non necesse habet convinci quod sua statim professione falsum est That need not to be conuinced which at the first is discouered of falshood Thirdly his impertinent allegations are these p. 10. to prooue by our owne testimonies that they which liue and die in the Romane Church may bee saued he vrgeth these words of mine that many renowned Kings and Queenes which professed the Romane faith are Saints in heauen Antilog p. 144. as if he should reason thus many ignorantly misled in those daies of darkenesse yet holding the foundation might through Gods mercy be saued therefore they which now wilfully resist the truth in the Romane Church in these daies of knowledge and erring in some fundamentall points may be also saued P. 24. to prooue by our confession that there is no true lawfull and iudiciall exposition of Scripture among the Protestants hee presseth these words that the reformation of religion belongeth to the iudgement and redresse of the Prince and yet he is not priuiledged from error Antilog p. 120. The argument followeth not for we neither referre the exposition of Scripture vnto the Prince nor hang religion absolutely vpon his iudgement but according to the word and wee interpret Scripture by Scripture which is the most lawfull sure and certaine way of expounding P. 30. propounding to himselfe to prooue by Protestants writings that the testimonie of the auncient Fathers is for the doctrine of the Church of Rome he alleadgeth this sentenee of mine quite contrary Antilog p. 263. the same faith and religion which I defend is taught and confirmed in the more substantiall points by the Historians Gouncels Fathers that liued within fiue or sixe hundred years after Christ. Who but this lawlesse disputer would inferre hereupon that euen by the Protestants own testimonie the Fathers and Councels make for the Romish religion Thus absurdly falsely impertinently this Popes penne-man wresteth and depraueth my writings and the like measure he offereth to the rest whose chiefe strength lieth in the weapons of a false brother at home And such is the fruite that commeth of these domesticall contentions that thereby we put a sword into the aduersaries hand whereas I could haue wished rather that al these vnnecessarie brabbles at home had beene staied according to that saying of Dauid Tell it not in Gath nor publish it in the streets of Askelon lest the daughters of the Philistims reioyce for by these vnbrotherly dissentions we giue occasions to the enemies of God to reioyce mispend our time which might more profitably be imployed And as for mine owne part I say with Hierome Opto sifieri potest si aduersarij siverint commentarios potius scripturarum quam Demosthenis Tullij sâ—ribere I wish if it may bee and if mine enemies would permit to write rather commentaries of Scripture which course I am now entred into then Demosthenes or Tullies Philippices And as for any thing which mine aduersaries at home or abroad can obiect I passe not much but comfort my selfe in that saying of the Prophet Reioyce not against me O mine enemie though I fall I shall arise when I shall sit in darkenesse the Lord shall bee a light vnto me ERRATA In the Preface p. 13. l. 17. read divulganda for divulgenda p. 21. l. 4. r. Erasmus Sarcerius for Erasmus Sarcerius p. 26. l. 13. r. denieth not f. deemeth not p. 27. l.
so our English also 7. Further in the very same place that his hebrew profunditie may sufficiently be testified to all men he noteth another word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perdition in the same verse can any man tell what this word is the Hebrew word there vsed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abaddon where he leaueth out the letter vaf with the vowell cholem What a shame is it for a man so vtterly ignorant in the languages to take vpon him to controll others beeing more blameable himselfe By this viewe of his grosse slips in Greeke and Hebrewe I am induced to thinke that report to be true which hath beene giuen out by some that knewe him in Oxford that what ostentation soeuer hee maketh now hee was thought to haue no great skill either in Hebrew or Greeke then Now it falleth out vpon him according to that saying of a Greeke Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing maketh a man so vnshamefast he would haue translated impudent as a bad conscience So this talkatiue tasker of others hauing a bad conscience not caring what he said or obiected to others though neuer so vntrue is without measure bold and bragging I may say of him as Hierom of his aduersarie that professed generall skill in whatsoeuer tu fella publice posita Hermagoram nobis Gorgiam exhibes Leontinum you your chaire beeing set aloft doe offer your selfe as another Hermagoras and Gorgias which tooke vpon them to dispute of any matter propounded vnto them So this Crazy Craker would make himselfe a professed linguist in all the learned tongues beeing nothing else then a wrangling verbalist The 6. imputaton of errors The accusation 1. That Christ hath two kingdoms belonging vnto him one as God an other as God and man and that his kingdome as hee is God is incommunicable to any 2. b. p. 201. 2. That the Godhead is inuisible incomprehensible ibid. He counteth these paradoxes contrary to the holy scriptures and wondreth how they could fall from the Replyers pen. 3. Augustine taketh the spirit 1. Pet. 3. 19. not for the diuine nature of Christ but for the operation of the holy Ghost which two you most erroneously confound saith this error finder 3. b. p. 127. 4. He calleth it a strange position that the true ioyes of heauen are in this world 2. b. p. 207. The iustification 1. THis Erring Censor at the first erreth in misreporting the Replyers words which are these that kingdome whereof Christ promiseth to make the theefe partaker is not that kingdome which belonged to him as God for that is not communicable to any creature but which is due to him as Messiah Limbomast p. 18. It is not affirmed here that Christ hath two kingdomes but that it beeing one and the same kingdome yet hath a diuers respect one as it belongeth to Christ as God an other as he is the Messiah both God and man And that this diuers relation and respect of the kingdome of Christ is not contrarie to the Scripture as this ignorant scripturian saith but most consonant and agreeable to the same it appeareth euidently by that diuine testimonie of S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. 24. Then shall the ende be when he hath deliuered vp the kingdome to God euen the father when he hath put downe all rule and all authoritie and power v. 25. for he must raigne till he hath put all his enemies vnder his feete v. 28. and when all things shall be subdued vnto him then shall the Sonne also himselfe be subiect vnto him that did subdue all things vnder him that God may be all in all But because the deciding of this question consisteth in the right vnderstanding of this Scripture I will deliuer diuers expositions thereof and approoue the best I finde eight seuerall interpretations of these words then shall the Sonne himselfe also be subiect 1. The Sabellians which denied the distinction of the three persons of the glorious Trinitie and the Marcionites ioyning with them did thus vnderstand it Ista filij subiectio futura est cum in patrē filius refundetur this subiection of the sonne shal then be when the sonne shal be resolued into the father meaning that the person of the sonne shall runne into the person of the father But Ambrose confuteth this wicked opinion by this reason Tum omnia quae filio subiecta erunt in filium patrem resolventur Then all those things which were subiect to the sonne shall also be resolued into the sonne and the father as they say the sonne shall be resolued into the father which were absurd to say which was one of those grosse errors imputed to Origene that vpon those words of S. Paul that God may be all in all groundeth this erronious fancie vniuersa creatura redigetur in eam substantiam quae omnibus melior est divinam scilicet that euery creature shall be brought to that substance which is the best of all that is the diuine 2. An other exposition as bad as this was that the humane nature of Christ should be conuerted into his diuine penitus absorbendā à divinitate and should be wholly swallowed vp of his deitie so Augustine reporteth But this hereticall sense is ouerthrowne by the Apostles direct words for in that the sonne is said to be subiect it sheweth that there remaineth somewhat to be subiect otherwise there could be no subiection 3. Some referre it to the bodie of Christ the Church and vnderstand it of his faithfull members in whom there yet remaineth some sinnes and imperfections which till they be subdued vnto God Christ in his members is not subdued so Origene donec ego non sum subditus patri nec ipse dicitur patri esse subiectus while I am not subdued to the father neither is he said to be subiect to the father 4. Others take it to be vnderstood of vnbeleeuers not yet conuerted to the faith which are not yet subiect so that pars membrorum eius non est subiecta fidei part of his members is not subiect to the faith but in the ende when as they also acknowledge the kingdome of Christ then Christ with his whole bodie shall be subiect vnto God so Hierome But both these expositions are taken away by the Apostles words for he is made subiect vnto the father to whome he subdued all things but to the sonne are all things subdued therefore he speaketh of the subiection of the person of the sonne 5. Some take this subiection to be spoken of the person of Christ that thereby is meant nothing els but that the sonne had his beginning and was begotten of the father so Theophylact and Oecumenius vpon this place and Ambrose to the same effect saith Deus caput Christi dicitur quia ab eo genitus that God is said to be Christs head because he was begotten of him But there can be no subiection in the
entire freedome was wrought and effected by our Sauiour Christs descention into hell and not onely by his death and passion 3. b. p. 143. how could therebe a perfect redemption vpon the crosse without a perfect freedome 26. You dissemble the Apostles words immediately following in the same place let vs proceede by one rule c. And yet within a fewe lines after he confesseth thus you speake I graunt of this proceeding by one rule c. 2. b. p. 12. If the Replyer speaketh of it how then doth he dissemble it 27. He denieth that Christ had a kingdome that is power authoritie glorie belonging to him as God and an other as he is God and man 2. b. p. 201. And yet these words he hath in an other place those words of the Prophet repeated by the Apostle thou wilt shew me the waies of life c. are not meant as you mistake them of the Godhead of Christ c. but of that glorie which his manhoode was to receiue at his resurrection and ascesiaâ— He here manifestly affirmeth that there was glorie due to Christ as God and an other glorie due to his manhoode But by the way he himselfe grossely mistaketh the Replyer for those words he referreth not to the Godhead but to the soule of Christ for these are his words to say that Christs soule did not enioy his fathers presence in heauen all the while it was absent from the bodie is contrarie to the Scriptures thou wilt shew me the waies of life c. 3. b. p. 162. Thus this impure imputation of contradictions is returned also vpon the Contradicters owne head The Scribes and Pharisies shewed themselues more wise who were ashamed to cast one stone at the adulterous woman beeing guiltie themselues And this contentious brabler should haue beene better aduised then to obiect difference and contradiction vnto others seeing he agreeth no better with himselfe That was a wise saying of Theophrâ—â—stus to a young man that blushed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be of good cheare saith he for vertue hath such a colour If this bold outfacer of others had first blushed at his own faults and ouersights it had beene more commendation to him Ambrose saith well An eum putabo idoneum qui mihi det consilium qui non dat sibi mihi eum vacare credam qui non vacat sibi shall I thinke him meete to giue me counsell that can not giue himselfe or that he can finde leisure for me that hath no leisure for himselfe that is to finde his owne faults It had beene good if first he had viewed the ruines and droppings thorough of his owne house before he had surueied an others The contradictions which he hath dispersedly in his contentious plea obtruded doe rather shew the humour of contention in the wrester then the spirit of contradiction in the writer Greater aduantage a man can not lightly haue against his aduersarie then the Replyer in this vaine accusation against his Contradicter to whome in that behalfe that saying of the Orator against Antonie most fitly agreeth as if it had beene first spoken of him Tam eras excors vt tota in oratione tecum ipse pugnares vt non modo non cohaerentia inter se diceres sed maxime disiuncta contrariae vt non tanta mecum quanta tibi tecum esset contâ—â—tiâ— were you so witlesse that thorough your whole discourse you were at oddes with your selfe so that you did not onely vtter things not hanging together but most different and contrarie that you were at greater strife with your selfe then with me Imputat 10. of the pretended falsification of his wordes The accusation 1. He cutteth off those my words much lesse in heauen where there is fulnes of ioy which follow immediatley and containe part of my reason c. 2. b. p. 37. and 3. b. p. 36. 2. You conceale my meaning and corrupt my words for it is the obiecter not I that so taketh it namely the soule for the whole person 2. b. p. 143. 3. You cut off all the first part of my sentence here enclosed it is a generall axiome of Theologie among all diuines c. thereby to couer your legerdemaine least the Reader should see to your shame your contemptuous reiection of one common receiued axiome in diuinitie c. 2. b. p. 120. 4. You clippe my words in the latter and thus auncient godly and learned fathers haue expounded it 3. b. p. 6. 5. What dishonest dealing is this in you first to corrupt my words and then to affirme that I make no opposition betweene Christ and Dauid saue onely in incorruption resurrection and ascension 3. b. p. 41. 6. You clippe my words in leauing out the Antecedent whereof this reading is a consequent c. 3. b. p. 58. 7. After your wonted manner you misreport my words c. for these my last words turning the humane soule of Christ first into his diuinitie c. are not as I make them any part of that period where I blame the obiector for confounding the persons of the Trinitie but are referred to his contradicting of himselfe 3. b. p. 96. 8. Where doe I affirme that by the lowest parts of the earth hell is alwaies signified but that it is your custome alwaies to charge me falsely 3. b. p. 140. 9. It is denied say you that Christs descension in soule to hell doth more set forth his loue and fauour then his crosse and passion you are still forging one falshood or an other against me for where doe I affirme any such thing 3. b. p. 148. 10. My words are not in that place as you report them 3. b. p. 150. 11. You still detort and depraue my words as if you had beene hatched in the nest of the Harpies c. the indifferent Reader may see that I doe not attribute the victorie to Christs descension into hell but to his blessed passion on the crosse 3. b. p. 154. 155. 12. Thirdly it is vntrue when you say that I make but one degree of Christs exaltation for I speake onely of his ascending into heauen 3. b. p. 161. 13. Lastly touching the Greeke article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I doe not precisely affirme as you vntruly make me that it doth particularize distinquish the parts of the earth c. 3. b. p. 171. 14. You still misreport my words and peruert my meaning I speake in that place of the diuers glosses which those of your opinion make of this descending of Christ c. 3. b. p. 175. The iustification 1. VVHereas the Replyer vrgeth these words of the Confuter S. Peter mentioneth sorrowes which were loosed at Christs resurrection c. thereby inferring that the Confuter in these words implieth Limbus patrum because those sorrowes of hell were not loosed for Christ but for others to what purpose should he
He chargeth the Replyer thus to say that the bodily death of Christ was not sufficient for mans saluation yea that his bodily sufferings made not properly to our redemption and because his forgerie should not appeare he confusedly shuffleth diuerse places together in the margen quoted out of Synopsis in the which no such words can be found The Replyer saith Christs blood we confesse in Gods omnipotencie to haue beene sufficient to redeeme vs though but one droppe had been shed but it so stood not with the decree and purpose of God p. 1000. By one part the rest are signified for if blood be taken strictly then Christs flesh is excluded and beside his blood there issued forth also water all these were necessarie parts of Christs passion p. 1003. We ascribe the redemption of our bodie and soule equally to the sacrifice of his bodie and soule Againe it is not affirmed that the compassion of the soule with the bodie did not properly belong to our redemption simply but to that redemption which was to be wrought by the soule Who seeth not how shamelesse this Cauiller is to charge the Replyer to affirme that the contrarie whereof he maintaineth 12. Your selfe make three descents of Christ to the crosse to hell to the graue and yet beside these you make three more in an other place whereas the Replyers words are these Bernard maketh the same degrees of Christs descension which we doe his descending to the flesh to the crosse to the graue He calleth them not three descents but three degrees of his descension Now may not his owne words with better reason be returned vpon his owne head If you know no difference betweene descension and the degrees thereof you are ill worthie of those schoole degrees which you haue taken But concerning himselfe howsoeuer he might goe out master of Art in the croud for forgerie railing vntruths falsifications and such like he may well be admitted to be a professor Beside the Replyer speaketh not in that place of descending to hell but to the crosse Neither in that other place quoted doth the Replyer make three more descents his words are these We also confesse that Christ by his death ouercame hell and shaked the powers thereof that he humbled himselfe to the ignominious death of the crosse and descended from thence to the graue and there continued in the state of the dead till the third day and whatsoeuer els may be comprehended in the article of Christs descension Here are not many descents affirmed but diuers senses and explications of one and the same descension deliuered all agreeable to the Scriptures 23. You imagine that Christs soule was depriued of his fathers presence while it was in hell but this is his owne imagination for the Replyers words are these to say that Christs soule did not enioy his fathers presence in heauen all the while it was absent from the bodie is contrarie to the Scripture thou wilt shew me the waies of life c. he speaketh not of the depriuing of his fathers presence in 〈◊〉 but of the enioying thereof in heauen 24. You hold he descended into hell yea into all the torments that hell could yeild whereas the Replyer affirmeth the contrarie in that place the whole punishment is the whole kind of punishment that is in bodie and soule which Christ ought to haue suffered though not in the same manner and circumstance neither for the place of hell locally nor for the time eternally nor for the manner sinnefully May not now this Momus iustly beshrew his vnblushing cheekes and bold face in accusing the Replyer of falsifying and corrupting his words seeing it is so ordinarie a thing with himselfe to falsifie peruert and corrupt the Replyers both sense and sentences He little remembred in this leud course the saying of our Sauiour whatsoeuer you would that men should doe vnto you euen so doe you to them He would be loath himselfe to haue his words thus clipped and curtalled chopped and changed which measure he hath meated with to the Replyer who if he had somewhere failed in his sayings the Confuter might well haue spared him beeing so vnconscionable himselfe in his doings and he might haue vsed toward him that saying of the Greeke Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you dare not praise my sayings so neither can I commend your doings If herein he would haue beene without blame he should in repeating of the Replyers words haue obserued the same rule which Seneca prescribeth in citing of authors tota inspicienda tota tractanda sunt per lineamenta sua iâ—genij opus nectitur ex quo nihil subduci sine ruina potest the whole must be looked into the whole must be handled the worke of wit is tied together by lineaments from the which nothing can be withdrawne without the ruine of the whole It was therefore an easie matter for this vnderminer to ruinate the Replyers whole building in supplanting of it by parcels and racking and dismembring one peece from an other Wherein he may complaine that he hath bin dealt with as Origene sometime was who saith Alij tractatus nostros calumniantes easentire nos criminantur quae nunquam sensisse nos novimus some doe cauill with our treatises and doe blame vs to thinke those things which we know we neuer thought And so plaieth this Catchpole ascribing vnto the Replyer such things as he holdeth not and sheweth himselfe to be of that number whome Hierome complaineth of non meritum stili sed suum stomachum sequentes not following the merite and manner of the Replyers stile but his owne humor and stomake The 11. Imputation of the forged falsification of Fathers The Accusation 1. Origene pretended to be falsified 1. Whereas the Replyer saith that one bond of faith in the diuersitie of some priuate opinions may containe and keepe vs in peace that same vnum fidei linteum quod vidit Petrus quatuor Euangelijs alligatum that sheete of faith which Peter saw tied with the foure Gospels in the corners The Confuter crieth out he applieth it not as you vntruly report him vnto the diuersitie of opinions in matters of faith c. 2. Who would translate cum ligno crucis in the tree of the crosse 3. He saith he clippeth Origenes words because the Replyer leaueth out fere 4. So in an other testimonie cited out of Origene he saith that Origenes words are clipped 5. The Reader may see what little care you haue of credit or conscience thus to abuse so auncient and learned a father 6. So an other place of Origene he saith is abused in like manner p. 188. The iustification 1. IT is well that this false Accuser confesseth Origenes sense onely not to be followed and so graunteth his words to be rightly alleadged But he applieth it not saith he vnto the diuersitie of opinions in one particular
godhead seeing the father and sonne are of the same nature in the Godhead so one can not be said to be subiect to an other 6. Others doe vnderstand this subiection in respect of Christs humane nature as Ambrose fecundum humanae naturae assumptionem erit illa subiectio according to the assumption of the humane nature shall be that subiection But then why should Christ be saide to be subiect now more then in the daies of his flesh if it be answeared that it may appeare that the man Christ euen beeing glorified is subiect vnto God yet this doth not satisfie for euen now Christ is entred into his glorie and yet this time of the subiection of the sonne is not come 7. There remaine then two expositions of Augustines the first is that Christ is saide to deliuer vp the kingdome to his father non quod tunc incipiet sed cognosci incipiet not that then it beginneth to be but beginneth to be acknowledged now also the father raigneth but then the kingdome of the father shall be made manifest But neither doth this explanation fully satisfie for neither now is the kingdome of Christ made manifest to all the world but then shall appeare vnto all at his comming if then the manifestation of the kingdome of the father be the deliuering of it vp vnto him then also the manifestation of the kingdome of the sonne in that day should also be the deliuering of it vnto him and so in effect he should be said to deliuer it vp when it is in that sense deliuered to him 8. The last therefore and best exposition is that the Apostle speaketh of surrendring vp and resigning that kingdome of Christ vnto his father which was giuen him as he was manifested in the flesh vntill all his enemies be subdued as Calvine very well saith Pater eum hac conditione ad dextram suam collocavit c. The father placed him vpon this condition at his right hand that he should not leaue the gouernment which he had receiued before his enemies were brought vnder Likewise learned Iunius Illud puta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod filio imposuit pater nam illud divmum c. He shall deliuer vp his Oeconomicall kingdome which the father hath laide vpon his sonne not that diuine and eternall kingdome common to the father the sonne and the holy Ghost which was neuer laide downe by any person of the Trinitie no not for a moment This diuers respect of the kingdome of Christ Chrysostome long since touched in these wordes Regna Dei Scriptura duo novit alteruÌ„ adoptionis familiaritatis alterum creationis c. The Scripture acknowledgeth two kingdomes of Christ the one of adoption and familiar care the other of creation he is therefore by the law of workemanship and creation the King of Iewes Ethnikes Deuills and aduersaries but of the faithfull and such as willingly commit and subiect themselues by familiar care This kingdome also is said to haue a beginning for of this it is spoken in the second Psalme Aske of me and I will giue thee the nations for thine inheritance And he himselfe said to his Disciples all power is giuen vnto me of my father referring all as receiued of his father not because he was not sufficient but shewing that he was the sonne and not vnbegotten this kingdome therefore he will deliuer that is restore Here this learned father maketh two kingdomes of Christ which are rather diuers respects or relations of one and the same kingdome Christ is king ouer all creatures as God and creator and hee is king of his Church as redeemer This respectiue kingdome hee shall render vnto God Augustine treadeth in the same steps that as Christ ruleth the creatures he shall raigne for euer vt autem militat c. but as he warreth against the diuell there shall be an ende of his kingdome And this is agreeable to the Apostle Hee must raigne till hee hath put all his enemies vnder his feete This is that kingdome which was giuen vnto Christ as the Messiah But it will be obiected that the kingdome of the Messiah shall be euerlasting as the angel said to Marie Of his kingdome shall be no ende Luk. 1. 33. The answere is that the kingdome of the Messiah in respect of the glorie and power thereof is euerlasting the humanitie of Christ beeing by an euerlasting inseperable vnion ioyned to his godhead in one person but in regard of the manner and execution it shall determine as Caluin excellently toucheth this point Deum quidem agnoscimus rectorem sed in facie hominis Christi c. Now we acknowledge God to be the ruler but in the face of the man Christ but then Christ shall restore the kingdome which he receiued that we may perfectly adhere vnto God neither by this meanes shall hee abdicate his kingdome but shall drawe it after a manner from his humanitie to his diuinitie And againe then the vaile beeing remooued wee shall manifestly see God raigning in his Maiestie Neque amplius media erit Christi humanitas neither shall Christs humanitie neede to come betweene or to be a meane c. His meaning is that in the kingdome of God when Christ hath brought vs to his glory there shal not then be such vse of the mediation and intercession of Christ for remission of sinnes for the subduing of our enemies and such like because then as Augustine saith fides cessabit pleno aspectu Deum intuebimur faith shal cease and we shall behold God with full sight Now then if this place of the Apostle be well waighed where he speaketh of Christs kingdome which shall bee deliuered vp vnto God a kingdome wherein he that gaue it shall put down all things vnder him a kingdome that is but vntill all his enemies be put vnder his feete a kingdome the gouernor whereof shall himselfe be subiect to his father no man can without blasphemy vnderstand this of the euerlasting kingdome of God which hee neither receiued of any neither shall it haue end neither is hee himself subiect to any It is therefore grosse error and foppish ignorance in this new fangled nouice to denie that the kingdome of Christ is to bee respected one way as it belongeth vnto him as God and another as it is giuen him as the Messiah 2. As grosly ignorant doth hee shew himselfe in deciphering of the next error in that the Replyer holdeth the deitie of God to be inuisible and incomprehensible which this deepe diuine in his newe Theologie counteth paradoxes And hereupon insulting hee goeth on flying from the point in question whether the deitie shall bee or can be of the creature comprehended He busieth himselfe to prooue that though not in this mortall and sâ—nnefull life yet in the next we shall behold the glory of God To this purpose he alleadgeth scriptures that we shall see