and their Successors the true Ministers of the Gospell who by their preaching declare who have their sinnes pardoned and who not So as your colouring over your usuall evasion of the Papists about their merits which they say are not absolutely meritorious of themselves but as being dipped and dyed in Christs blood whence they receive the tincture of merit But as the merit of Christ is altogether immanent in himselfe and not transient to us but onely by Imputation through faith and not by any infusion or inherencie as Papists teach So the power of Priestly Absolution is so proper and peculiar to the Person of Christ that it is not communicative or derivative to any Creature No not I say to the Leviticall Priests who otherwise were Types of Christ. They onely offered sacrifices for sinnes but as Types and which could never take away Sinnes as the Apostle speakes And their Office was to discerne and judge of the Leprosie and to pronounce a man cleane or uncleane according to those signes and markes which God himselfe gave Now Leprosie was an Embleme of Sinne. And as those Ministers of the Old Testament did with the Leprosie namely pronounce or declare it onely to be or not to be So the Ministers of the Gospell are to declare unto beleevers the pardon of sinnes by those signes and markes which God hath set in his Word and to impenitent persons condemnation except they beleeve and repent But for power of Absolving men from Sinnes as to Say Thy Sins are forgiven thee that 's Christs voyce alone Never any of the Apostles used this voyce to any Thy Sins are forgiven thee but as Peter said to those that were pricked in their hearts and asked Men and Bretheren what shall we doe Repent saith he and be baptised every one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for the Remission of Sins But to Say I absolve thee from thy Sins or Thy Sins are forgiven thee is onely his who can give Repentance and Faith These two Prerogatives are inseperable in Christ as Peter sheweth Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour for to give Repentance to Israel and forgivenesse of Sinnes and we are witnesses of these things Saith he Now if you can prove that Christ hath made you Such Princes and Saviours as to give you a power which Symon Magus would have bought with his money to give Repentance to any man then I will without any more adoe confesse that you have also a power to forgive Sins Otherwise not till then by your assumed and usurped Priesthood and presumptuous yea blasphemous forgiving of Sins I Absolve thee you deny Iesus to be the Christ the onely Christ to wit the onely Priest who onely hath merit and power as to give Repentance so remission of Sins to whom he will And thus as you take upon you to be a Priest both by your profession and practise you are an Antichrist For who is a lyer but he that denyeth Iesus to be the Christ He is Antichrist Saith the Apostle Iohn Secondly neither were it any great difficulty to prove that you Prelates and that according to your owne Doctrine in many places of your Book do deny Iesus to be the Christ to wit the onely Prophet of his Church For you allow no beliefe that the Scripture is the voyce of Christ the Prophet except the voyce and Tradition of the present Church doe first usher it in And this Church must alwayes be meant of a Prelaticall Church No question of that And for Exposition and Sense of Scripture you deny that the Scripture it selfe and of it selfe hath sufficient light as at after we shall see at large and therefore you referre us either to the Exposition of the Primitive Church or the Decisions of Generall Councels for the right Sense of the Scripture Thus you doe akurōsa as Christ saith or make voyd and of no authority the voyce of Christ by your Tradition Nay you Say also That if a Generall Councel should Conclude and Decree an Errour yet all men ought to yeeld obedience at least externall thereunto till another Generall Councel equall to that shall reverse and correct it And by the way what if it shall make it worse or adde more Errours to it But thus doe you not deny Christ to be the onely Prophet of his Church of whom God Saith Heare Him Him onely His Word onely His Voyce onely when you do not take his Word to be light enough and to be sufficient to interpret it selfe but that you must have recourse to Generall Councels consisting of Prelates as your Oracles to decide all doubts and controversies of Faith Doe you not thus attribute a greater light to men then to the voyce of Christ GOD Saith of Christ that Prophet Heare him in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you but you say In all doubts and controversies of faith heare what a Generall Councel Saith yea though it determine Errours yet all men are bound to yeeld obedience thereunto Thus the expresse voyce and cleare word of Christ that Prophet must depend upon Men and those an Assembly of Prelates or Priests which Christ never ordained in his Church and not men upon It. And so in this respect also denying Christ to be the onely All sufficient Prophet to instruct and establish his Church in all Truth while you deny his word to be Autópistos and Autà rkes of selfe-Credit of it selfe to be beleeved and selfe-sufficient to shew and interpret it selfe you prove your selfe an Antichrist For who is a lyer but he that denyeth that Iesus is the Christ He is Antichrist Your Grace therefore is an Antichrist But I come to the third Instance to which I confesse I thought to have confined my selfe and not to have touched the other two in this place though they be no lesse proper then this which is That you Prelates both by Profession and Practise as you are Prelates doe deny Iesus to be the Christ in that you deny him to be the onely Lord and King of his Church For what is for Christ to be the King of and over and in his Church but as to exercise his Almighty power and Fatherly care and Spouse-like love in protecting and preserving his Church from all evills in comforting her in the midst of afflictions in supplying her with all necessary Graces and Blessings and in vindicating the cause of his People against all their Persecuters and Oppressors So also in bearing a Speciall Kingly Rule in and over their Soules and Consciences in all things concerning Faith in the Worship and Service of God So as the people of God doe and ought to acknowledge Christ herein their onely King and not to suffer their consciences to be captivated and insnared by any ordinance of Man whatsoever in point of faith and ceremonies in Gods service injoyning a necessary conformity thereunto 'T is Christs Prerogative alone in
Antichrist both as he pretends to be Christs Vicar for Christ or Vice Christ as he practiseth against Christ. And for this reason he is noted to be ho Antikristos That Antichrist by a note of singularity as 1 Iohn 2.22 to distinguish him from other Antichrists of whom there are many as 1 Iohn 2.18 Of which many your Lordship and all Prelates are and especially Arch-Prelates or Patriarchs as the Pope call'd you For you tell us at after that you Prelates are Vice-roys whereby Christ governes his Church So as you being Christs vice-roy over the Church of England you are as vice Christus vice-Christ or in the Greek Antikristos as Anthúpatos Vice-roy under the King Christ. This you confesse and professe And under this Title you practise Antichrist you are an Antikeimenos an Adversary as all your practises proclame you and as we have in part noted and shall yet more set you forth And this is that Mystery of Iniquity For it were not els a Mistery if it were not veiled with a pretence and profession to be for Christ and under that to be against Christ. So as the difinition of Antichrist pertaineth no lesse properly to you then it doth to the Pope onely he is Antichrist with an Ho That Antichrist And you are An Antichrist and no little one neither as being Papa alterius Orbis The Pope or Patriarch of the other world to wit of England as the Pope said of you Now this being so cleare as is without all contradiction and you being Metropolitan of all England and the Church of England under you and the Government thereof being Prelaticall or Hierarchicall and this Hierarchy being that Mystery of Iniquity of such Antiquity for it pretends and professes to be for Christ as the Government of a vice-roy but in practise is against Christ and so is altogether Antichristian can you blame your Seperatist for condemning your Church of England of Antichristianisme and that for that very Church-Governments sake which you Say hath been used both in and ever since the Apostles in all Ages and Places where the Church hath taken any rooting But you will with the Jesuite alledge that place of Iohn to defend you from being an Antichrist as they doe to defend the Pope from being that Antichrist Iohn saith Who is a lyer but he that denyeth that Iesus is the Christ He is Antichrist But you Say you doe not deny Iesus to be Christ therefore you are neither a lyer nor Antichrist 'T is true indeed none is a more devout adorer of the Name JESUS then your selfe but yet I must tell you that for all this you deny the Person Iesus to be the Christ. But you confesse him to be the Christ. In words you doe But what saith the Apostle They professe that they know God but in works they deny him being abominable and disobedient and to every good worke Reprobate So that in words a man may confesse and professe Christ and yet in works deny him And so doe you for all your faire pretences and professed love to Iesus And who was fitter to betray Christ then he that with a Hale Master Saluted him with a Kisse But let us now see what it is to deny Iesus to be the Christ. Iesus in that place is spoken of his Person and Christ is spoken of his Offices So as there is meant not a denyall of Iesus to be the Sonne of God or God-man not a denyall of his Person and two Natures these you doe not deny but a denyall of Iesu◠to be the Christ the Anointed of the Father And this you deny How For Christ is that Anointed King Priest and Prophet which three Offices of his are comprehended and signified in the Title ho Kristòs The Christ as Iohn there sets it down and our English doth well expresse it The Christ That Anointed Anointed above his fellowes namely King Priest and Prophet so as none of his fellowes those foregoing Types or Figures of him were anointed Melchisedech was King and Priest Samuel was Priest and Prophet David was King and Prophet but never any was this ho Kristòs The Christ The Anointed King Priest and Prophet And Christ was anointed solemnly and in a conspicuous and visible manner King Priest and Prophet by the Holy Ghost lighting upon him at his Baptisme whereupon that voyce of the Father from heaven proclamed him King Priest and Prophet This is my Beloved Son there he is King in whom I am well pleased there he is Priest heare him there he is Prophet Now he that denyeth or destroyeth any one of these three Offices of Christ which are inseperably inherent in him and incommunicable to any Creature denyeth Iesus to be the Christ as either denying him to be the onely King or the onely Priest or the onely Prophet of his Church Now 't is no hard matter to prove that you Prelates as Prelates deny and destroy all these three Offices of Christ. And first you deny Iesus to be the Onely Priest and that not onely in taking upon you the Title of Priests but also the Office The Title of Priest you professe and take a pride in And the Office of Priest you Priests of the Church of England doe in part at least usurpe For the Office of Christ as Priest is in two things First to Sacrifice Secondly to forgive Sins Now though you doe not yet openly professe your selves to be sacrificing Priests as the Romish Priests doe yet you take upon you to doe that which never any Priests under the Law did or might by their Office doe namely to forgive Sinnes This I say never any of the Leviticall Priests did This was and is Christs onely Prerogative as he is God and Priest For who can forgive Sins but onely God This the proud Pharisees confessed But this power you Say you have derivatively from Christ by his Authority committed unto you as Priests But first we have before proved that you are no Priests of Christ. Secondly where hath Christ given any such power even to his Apostles and true Ministers of the Gospell to forgive Sins Indeed he saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye remit they are remitted and whose Sins ye retaine they are retained Was this by a Priestly Absolution But the Apostles were no such Priests as you professe to be Therefore it was not by any such Priestly Absolution as you practise How then How then Say you You are here at a Non-plus if it was not by a Priestly Absolution It must needs remaine then that it was by the Ministry of the Gospell and by the preaching of Faith and Repentance and pardon of Sinnes to the Penitent Beleevers As He that beleeveth and is baptised into Christ professing his true Faith and Repentance hath his Sinnes remitted but he that beleeveth not hath his Sins still retained And this is that remitting of Sins Declarative the power whereof Christ committed to his Apostles
kind of Light potentially in the Scripture as fire in the flint which must be struck out with the steele Nay you compare it but to the light of a Candle and yet not all that neither for the Candle must first be lighted The Scripture then of it selfe is but as a Candle in the box of 12 in the pound as you Say ibid. which hath no Light till it be lighted And Tradition of your present Church must light the Candle And surely then may not the Tradition of your present Church put out the light of this Candle again after you have lighted it As the Pope crowned the Emperour with his feet and then struck the Crown off again with his foot to teach the Emperour that his Crown was at his Holinesse Devotion to dispose of as he pleased So may you do with the Scripture light the Candle and put it out again As you have don with the Doctrines of Grace with the Sabbath or Lords day with preaching and the like And Thy word is a light So David But not So you For David Said Thy word is a lampe unto my feet and a light unto my pathes So say not you You like not it seems such a lampe and light to your wayes For wayes you leave out as the Devil did when he recited that Scripture Psal. 91.11 He shall keep thee but he left out In all thy wayes as Luk. 4.10 And you could never have the hap hitherto to cite Scripture right And no marvaile if you be out of your way when you come to the Scripture seeing you can find no light in it to give you sufficient direction But you Adde A Light Therefore it is as much a manifestation to it selfe as to other things Even just as much as if you had Said A blind man seeth as much in the darke as in the day So 't is here with the Scripture for the light you allow it And what 's that But none still no light till the Candle be lighted 'T is just so then as I say I guest your meaning right But you adde Not till there hath been a preparing Instruction what light it is till the Tradition of the Church and Gods grace put to it hath cleared his understanding How I am here at a losse except you helpe me out and cleare the understanding of your words For before you must have the Candle first lighted and here you seem to grant some light when 't is once discovered to be a preparing instruction what light it is I pray you my Lord deale plainly with us Speake out Hath the Scripture a light in it or no before the preparing instruction hath shewed what light it is For to shew what light it is doth necessarily presuppose that there is a Light And if there be a Light how is it true that you Say Not till it be lighted by Tradition of the Church Must Tradition doe all both light the Candle and also shew what light it is Or doth Tradition with the same act of lighting the Candle shew also what light it is If so then I begin through this darke lanterne of yours to discerne what light the Scripture hath namely a borrowed light lent it by Tradition For you say The Candle is not lighted till Tradition light it Or if I be out 't is for want of Cleare Light from your darke Lanthorne But here followes a worse perplexity For from the lighting the Candle of Scripture by Tradition you come to the lighting of another Candle namely the Clearing of the naturall mans understanding by the Tradition of the Church and Gods grace put to it 'T was well you put Gods grace to it For if the Tradition of your present Church have but Gods grace put to it it may worke wonders But stay Cannot your Churches Tradition or Authority doe the deed without Gods grace at least doe its office of the fore-horse as the necessary prime leader Or is your Churches Tradition some jade that puts all the brunt upon the next horse that follows Then you should rather give Gods Grace the Precedencie But now I remember this Grace of God is but an ordinary Grace as you told us before which at the most worketh but an ordinary morall and probable beliefe that Scripture is the word of God but not certaine and evident So as the naturall mans undestanding being but thus farre cleared to have a probable opinion of Scripture to be Gods word except you can bring him to beleeve in Christ and forsake his sins his opinion will but aggravate his condemnation so much the more But what evidence can you shew us that your Church Tradition is certainly seconded with so much ordinary Grace For if your Tradition be derogatory from the Credit of the Scripture you cannot hope for the least degree of ordinary Grace to give it either assistance or attendance It behoves you therefore to prove that this your Authority in this point is from God is Gods ordinance and if so you may then easily perswade us that Gods grace will accompany his owne Ordinance But this you will hardly prove But will Say Traditions are Traditions and therefore not to be proved from Scripture and this Church-Tradition is that which the Scripture must be proved and tryed by And so here upon belike it is that you conclude So Tradition of the present Church is the first morall motive to beleeve The Conclusion might serve the turne well enough if you had but good logicall or rationall Premises to bring it in better then yet you bring for the inducing of beliefe That Scripture is the word of God L. ibid. So after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soule the voyce of God is plainly heard in the Scripture it selfe And then here 's double Authority and both Divine that confirmes Scripture to be the word of God Tradition of the Apostles delivering it and the internall worth and argument in the Scripture obvious to a Soule prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods Grace P. The more you speake the more we come to Sound the depth of your meaning You told us before of the present Churches Tradition and Gods Grace put to it by which the naturall mans understanding is first cleared And here Tradition of the present Church alone doth the deed for you say After Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soule then the voyce of God is plainly heard in the Scripture it selfe Surely my mind gave me all this while that although for fashion sake and for a colour you named the grace of God in the second place after your Tradition yet your principall ayme was to advance the Credit of your Church-Authority as that alone which does the deed This this is it that cleares the naturall mans understanding this it that teacheth and informeth the Soule Tradition I say of the present Church before the voyce of God is plainly heard in the
one of these either expresse word of God or evident consequence â—ut of it And a little before Every wrangling Disputer may neither deny nor doubtfully dispute much lesse obstinately oppose the Determinations of the Church no not when they are Dogmata deposita Deposed Principles P. Now all these Passages weighed together do clearely and distinctly resolve themselves into these Conclusions 1. That the Church may decide and determine some things without any evidence or so much as a probable Testimony of holy Writ and herein you consent and jumpe fully with that notorious Papist and adversary of the once Church of England Stapleton whom the learned Dr. Whitakers publickly confuted in the Divinity Schooles in Cambridge as his Works can yet testifie And yet behold now the Church of England hath got a Champion in the Chaire of Canterbury who pleads for and applauds that in Stapleton which Dr. Whitakers and many other learned Divines in England formerly have refuted And for further Confirmation hereof you tax Bellarmine as of untruth where he confesses that nothing may be certaine by certâ—inty of Faith unlesse it be contained immediately in the word of God or be deduced thence by evident consequence Whereupon you inferre that if nothing can be certaine then certainly no Determination of the Church it selfe wanting expresse word or evident Consequence out of it Thus you condemne Bellarmines true Saying if by the Word of God he understand the Scriptum alone and not his word unwritten and approve and preferre Stapletons false and hereticall sentence before it Secondly That things so decided and determined by the Church without either evident or so much as probable Testimony of holy writ yet are so de fide so firmely to be beleeved as every wrangling Disputer may neither deny nor doubtfully dispute much lesse obstinately oppose Consonant hereunto you â—ay at after pag. 224. The Determination of a Generall Councel â—â—ring is to stand in force and to have externall obedience at least yeelded to it till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration to the Contrary make the errour appeare and untill thereupon another Councel of equall Authority do reverse it And so also pag. 226. c. Where here I mention for clearer proofe of what you say here but not to anticipate or prevent our fuller Answere when we come to those places where we shall supply our brevity here L. p. 40. I hope A. C. will not tells us there 's any Tradition extant unwritten by which particular men may have assurance of their Severall Salvations P. But what think you of it Will you tell us there is no such thing written in the Scripture That true Beleevers may have assurance of their owne Salvation But if there be why doe you forbid Preachers to meddle with it considering the true and solid comfort which it bringeth to him that hath it As the 17 th Article confesseth might it be suffered to speake out and had you not put a gagge in the mouth of it L. p. 43. Mine is That the beliefe of Scripture to be the word of God and infallible is an equall or rather a preceding prime Principle of Faith wâ—th or rather to the whole body of the Creed P. How The Belief of Scripture to be Gods word and infallible no more but an equall or rather a preceding prime Principle of Faith with or rather to the whole body of the Creed This is yours you say your Saying And I beleeve it to be yours For it is as like to one of your Sayings as may be For here you attribute no more credit to the Scriptures then to the Creed both equall onely differing perhaps in point of some precedencie of time or So with an or rather equall or rather preceding the difference not great if any Thus doe you not equall a Church Tradition with the Divine Scripture For we have it by Tradition that the Apostles compiled the Creed and each his Severall Article And is this or any other Tradition of equall Credit with Scripture And is not the Scripture the Rule whereby the Articles of the Creed are to be interpreted which are no otherwise to be beleeved but as they are agreeable to the Scripture So as for the Purpose if you goe no further for the Sense of the Article of Christs Descent into hell then the very Letter of the Article you can make no Sense of it nor give any reason for it And how then can you give a reason of your Faith in this particular Except you do beleeve it because you do beleeve it and because the words are He Descended into Hell But of this more by and by L. p. 44. Some Traditions I deny not c. to be Apostolicall but yet not fundamentall in the Faith P. You might do well to point out unto us which be those your Apostolicall Traditions that we may distinguish them from those Traditions which Rome calls Apostolicall Or rather perhaps you admit of all those as Apostolicall indeed but yet not Fundamentall Surely if you can prove them to be truely Apostolicall namely that the Apostles delivered them immediately to the Church by word of mouth why are they not fundamentall in the faith Why are not all bound to beleeve them or give as much Credit to them as to the Articles of your Creed which you Say are fundamentall in the faith L. p. 45. The Church of England taketh the words He descended into hell as they are in the Creed and beleeves them without further Dispute and in that Sense which the ancient Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in P. Here a Question may be moved 1. In generall Whether a man taking up a matter upon such trust as he gives equall beliefe unto it as to the Scriptures themselves doe not therein Sinne damnably As making that a fundamentall ground of his Faith which is not found to be in the Scripture Secondly in particular Whether a man resting in the very Letter of the Article He descended into Hell beleeving thâ—reupon as surely as he beleeves that God is in Heaven that Christs Soule did locally descend into Hell among the damned there having no regard at all to what the Scripture Saith of it whether the Scripture Say any such thing or no doe not hereby make way for his owne Descent into Hell Or thirdly Whteher you do as verily and firmly beleeve Christs Descent into Hell as you doe his Ascent into Heaven Seeing the Scriptures Speakes clearely and expresly of this but not so of that and whether you are aâ— much bound to beleeve his Descent into Hell because you find such words in the Creed as his Ascent into Heaven because you find it in the Scripture Now for Answere to all these together I conceive that to make any thing of the necessity of Faith to Salvation besides what is found in the Scripture is Sinne and in particular to beleeve that because it is Said in the Creed He Descended into Hell therefore Christ
did locally in Soule descend into Hell the place of the damned without any proofe from Scripture is Sin My reasons are these 1. Because this opens a gappe to men to beleeve humane Traditions to be of Faith to Salvation as of equall credit and authority to the Scriptures Now it cannot be proved that the Creed it selfe with its forme and words and Articles and Title called The Apostles Creed is other then a humane Tradition or that the Apostles composed the Creed Secondly This argues as a too high estimation of a thing humane as if it were autópistos of selfe-Credit so a too base estimation and undervaluing of the holy Scripture as if they alone were not the Rule of Faith or not to be relieâ— and rested on alone for all matters concerning Christian Faith So as to give Credit to any thing else besides the Scripture as of equall Authority with the Scripture as you make your Creed to be and not examining it by the Scripture is a detracting from the Authority of Scripture and consequently a denying of the Scripture to be the Sole Rule of Faith For the Creed it is either a part of the Scripture or not a part if it be not a part of Scripture as indeed it is not then all the Articles of Faith in it being but a small abridgement of Christian Faith and so of necessity and in comparison of Scripture it selfe very obscure and Scanty are to be proved and illustrated from Scripture the Sole Rule of Faith and Tryall of all Truths Thirdly in Particular to beleeve Christs descent in Soule into hell locally must stand with some reason and analogy or proportion of Faith layd downe in the Scripture For Christ did or suffered nothing but the Scripture shews the Reason Cause and End of it For instance Isaiah Saith To us a Child is borne to us a Son is given So the Angel to the Shepheards To you is borne this day a Saviour which is Christ the Lord. This then shews the End of Christs Incarnation namely for our Salvation Then for his Death He was delivered up for our Sins And Forasmuch as the Children were partakers of flesh and blood he also himselfe likewise took part of the Same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of dâ—ath that is the Devil And deliver them who through feare of death were all their life time subject to bondage So for his Resurrection He rose againe for our Iustification So for his Ascention It was that he might send the Holy Ghost and goe to prepare a place in heaven for all his So for his Sitting at Gods right hand There he makes Intercession for his people rules as King his Church in preserving protecting governing his people and makeing his and their foes his Footstoole But for any such thing as Descent into hell neither is it found in the Scripture nor much lesse any reasons given there of it Indeed Peter Speaking of Christs Resurrection alledgeth Psal. 16. Thou wilt not leave my Soule in Hell So in the English In the Hebrew it is commonly taken for the Grave not for the place of the damned But will you take Peters exposition of it Speaking by Christs owne Spirit This saith he David Seeing before Spake of the Resurrection of Christ that his Soule was not left in Hell neither his flesh did see Corruption So then this place Psal. 16. was by the Holy Ghosts owne Interpretation a Prophecie of Christs Resurrection from the Grave and not of any Descent into Hell the place of the damned For he is not said to rise out of hell as you say he went downe into Hell nor to ascend out of Hell as you beleeve he descended into Hell Will you have a particular Article of Christs descent into Hell and shall you not need another Article for his Ascent out of Hell againe And the Apostle saith Christ descended Eis tà katótera mère tes ges to the lowest parts of the Earth which is spoken of his humiliation to the Death and the Grave but here is no word of his Descent into any such place as Hell the place of the damned But admit your Faith to be true that Christs Soule descended locally into Hell I aske to what end or purpose Can you shew any Reason from Scripture for this Will you say his Soule went thither to suffer Surely that had its Consummatum est upon the Crosse there it was finished Will you say he went to triumph over the Devil in his owne Dâ—nne That was also done on his Crosse as on his Triumphall Chariot And can you give any reason why Christ should descend into hell in regard of us What that so he might deliver our Soules out of Hell Surely this also was done in his Death And againe if it were necessary that Christs soule should goe locally into hell to deliver our soules then also it was necessary for his body to descend into hell to deliver our bodies from thence For he came to redeem our bodies as well as our soules Or what els can you Say Certainly what ever you can invent the Scripture will presently discover the vanity of it But for my part I dare beleeve nothing concerning Christ and my Salvation but what the Scripture hath revealed But the Scripture hath revealed no such thing as the Descent of Christs Soule into Hell locally But you will then object unto me Do I not beleeve my Creed and every Article in it I answere I doe Why then say you Doe I not beleeve the Article of Christs Descent into Hell I say I doe being understood or expounded according to the Scripture and the Analogy of Faith therein How is that Christ dyed and in his Passion he suffered the Torments of Hell in his Soule on the Crosse and in the Garden But his Descent into Hell is set after his buriall And doe you not know that the ancient Heathen used to put Hádes for the state of the dead So as katelthein eis hadou is to goe or to abide in the state of the dead which Christ did for 3. dayes and then arose againe and revived So as the Article shewes the continuance of Christs being dead and buried till his Resurrection Againe you know the Nicene Creed mentions onely Christs buriall and no Descent into Hell and Athanasius his Creed katelthen eis hadou He Descended into Hell without speaking a word of his buriall All which doe confirme what I say that christ in being buried remained so long in the State of the dâ—ad his soule seperated from his body and being said to Dâ—scend into Hell hades signifying also the Grave thereby is meant his being buried for so long a time till his rising againe As it is said in the next Article The third day â—e rose againe from the dead that is from the Grave where he abode in the state of the dead Now I have given