â—â—s heere â—â—g 16. e that no more but the shedding of his bloud onely and meerely is the iust and full satisfaction of all our sinnes even in the righteous and sincere iudgment of God Then we absolutly deny your Assertion as before we haue don the like As for your a 1 Pet. 1 Rev. 5. â— alleaged Scriptures we answer them as we did generally b Treat pag. 8.9 before that they meane not the meere bloud of Christ nor only the body singly and simply considered but that togeather with the proper sufferings of his Soule also they were the iust and full satisfaction and redemption Against which you have nothing any where And likewise our advised and resolut answere is to c pag. 58 60 61 7â— c. all the rest of your scriptures which most tediously and vainly you heape vp scatter every wherein your former treatise to this effect as if they contayned somwhat for your purpose when as indeed there is not one text any where that hath any meaning of your strange conceit So that wee shall have no need to trouble our selves any more heereafter about any of them Yet d pag. 24â— heere you vrge a reason against vs Jf our Soules be not redeemed by the bloud of Christ our bodyes have no benefit of redemption you meane from death But we e 1. Pet. 1 Rev. 5.9 are redeemed not we shal be Ergo it is our Soules which are redeemed our bodyes are not redeemed as yet in this life Wherein we have to note 3. things 1. Your Proposition is vaine and illogicall having no consequence in it at all Which maketh mee to thinke that I hit your meaning right and mistooke you not in my former booke Howbeit to try this your sentence heere what if our Soules were not at all redeemed by Christes bloud but some other way or not by his bloud meerely and onely which indeede is our quaestion will it follow that therefore our bodyes are still mortall and therefore not redeemed from death Or what if our Soules be redeemed by his bloud as indeed they are though not wholly nor only thereby What followeth then from this Nay what if our Soules and Bodyes were redeemed wholly and only by Christs bloud Is these any consequence that therefore our bodyes should now be redeemed from death and never dy Truly I cannot discerne but that your proposition meaneth some such consequence as this which is to me a vey strang reason Yet that which you ad f Pag. 2â— afterward is more strang Jf our Soules be not redeemed wholly by the meere bloud of Christ For thus still I say you must make your wordes or ells you aske the very Quaestion then our bodyes have vtterly no good even no good at all by the death of Christ. In which sequele verily I can see neither head nor taile Chose you now whether you will that you speake this sophistically or absurdly For I cannot discerne it I leave it therefore to your self to determine But perhaps you will yet againe go backe to that you excused your selfe withall before You will meane that our bodies in this life have no benefit of redemption from death even no more then the bodies of Infidels And this plainly you avouch for truth Is this true Are not our bodies now already freed from the curse the sting of death from all the hurt harme that properly and naturally is in death Is it not made vnto vs a quiet sleepe and a peaceable rest an entrance for our Soules into Heaven a putting off of sin to our bodies in such wise that Christ taketh from it the a name of Death and calleth it but b a passage â—oh 8.51 Or have the Jnfidels also thus much benefit in death â—oh 5 2â— as wee have in it by our redemption in Christe I know not therefore how to terme this your assertion I forbeare to name it as it deserveth it is more then strange that Infidels bodies should have as much benefit of nedemption from death as our bodies have by Christ Dy I grant or cease to breath we must and do still even as they do And this death by the naturall property of it is a part of Gods Curse but to the faithful there are great benefits ioyned even in death by the gracious dealing of God peculiarly towardes his children which also their bodies are partakers of thorough the death of Christ The naturall sting is taken out of it for the godly yet it remayneth to the Infidells and hurteth them by retayning even their bodies though dead in vnder Gods dreadfull Curse Wherefore it makes many to thinke that indeed you vttered this matter somewhat otherwise in your Sermons then heere you doe now publish it and it perswadeth mee still that c I mistooke you not â—â—eat 1. â—â—g 11. seeing this your turning setting of it is so vnhansom For every one may see by this your handling of it that then you said more then heere you expresse and heere you would faine fashion it to somwhat but you cannot Yea your own words bewray som alteration froÌ„ that which so confidently you preached where you say Whatsoever the wordes were that you might vse which you do not acknowledge to be these that I bring â—ag 240. Lastly d you grant that you vsed this reason in handling the power of Christes death that is when you preached it For now in this Treatise you have cleane left it out for ought that e I can see which bewrayeth that it was such 〈◊〉 88.113 as your selfe saw was not to be maintayned howsoever heere you strive to set some colour vpon it though yet still in vaine Before we depart from this point That not the bloud of Christ nor his flesh meerely and only without respect to the merit of his whole Soule was the full price of Redemption heere is fit place to shew how sundry of the Ancient Fathers do agree with vs sufficiently in this matter although afterward in your booke you seeme to bring them against vs. But indeed so they seeme onely for in truth they are with vs as by these following we may see First a Ireâ— 5. Irenaeus The Lord bought vs with his owne bloud and gave his soule for our soules his flesh for our flesh b Cyr. de 〈◊〉 fid ad Tâ—â— Cyrill He bestowed his flesh as a ransome for our flesh and made his Soule likewise a price of redemption for our Soules although he lived againe being by nature life it selfe c Naz. in trâ—â— 49. ad Clâ—â— Nazianzen maketh every part of man to be sanctified by the like in Christ our condemned flesh by his flesh our soule by his soule our vnderstanding by his vnderstanding d Ambr. 〈◊〉 Luc. 22. 〈◊〉 trist doloâ—â— c. Ambrose saith Maerorem animae nostrae suae animae maerore abolevit He abolished the sorrow of our Soule by the sorrow of
was not against Christes owne person but against the sinnes which by his office in his own person he sustayned the sorrow and paines whereof touched his very person 2. Their punishments are partly in this life and partly eternall in the life to come but Christes were temporary and only in this life 3. Their sinne being inherent not forgiuen and iustly punished they haue all the properties and Concomitants of sinne inherent never forgiuen but in wrapped in eternall punishments as these Desperation the stinge of Conscience Induration Reiection Malediction Dereliction c. But in Christ where no sinne was inhaerent nor eternally punished there could vtterly be none of these 4. They are pumished heere chiefly in Hell the proper place of the damned heereafter but Christ suffered onely heere in this life Lastly their tormeÌ„ts though euerlasting deserue nothing at Gods hands but Christ though suffering but for a while deserued infinitly favour and grace for them for whom he suffered Howbeit as I said the sufferings of the damned are all one with Christes How the suâ—â—â—rings of Châ—â—â—â— and of thâ—â—â— Damned 〈◊〉 the same as touching the Nature of the punishments and as touching the chiefest causes thereof First God himselfe was the proper and principall Ordayner Author and Executor of his punishment Gods owne hand did it to Christ no lesse then to the damned Sec Christ having most horrible sinnes imputed to him as the damned haue also therefore he suffered for them from Gods hand euen as the damned do namely in these points which are both possible and reasonable that is paines inflicted immediatly and properly in the Soule and not only by outward meanes in the Body For it is most reasonable and possible that the Soule of Christ should haue our sinne imputed to it yea principally to it and not to the Body only even as wee commit sinne in our wholl manhood but yet principally in by our Soule Which being true that Christes reasonable Soule had sinne imputed principally to it according to that of the Prophet He made his Soule sinne Isa 53.10 therefore his Soule principally peculiarly did suffer for it Also his Soule by nature being capable of suffering from Gods very hand an occasion now serving therevnto because of all our sinnes wholly imputed to him lastly God himselfe standing now disposed to punish and revenge sinne in him so far as he was capable thereof therefore his punishment for that sinne was a true proper full punishment as theirs is namely as touching meere paines and was the effect of Gods proper Wrath iustice and vengeance as well on his Soule as on his Body thus for the time it was even like as the sufferings of the damned are â—a 53.134 For * continuance of time in paines is not of the nature of Hel paines or of Gods Wrath Pag. 341. nor yet to be in Hell locally as you wrongly imagin but meere circuÌ„stances ther of only Thus the very nature of punishment for sinne being but the feeling of extreamest paines from Gods hand whether for a time or for ever whether locally in Hell or ells where that neither altereth nor lesseneth the present paines which Gods owne infinit wrathfull power iustice can inflict for satisfaction where and how it pleaseth him These paines then to this end and in this very manner inflicted Christ felt Indeed not being in the locall Hell yet those being as wee see the self same paines for their nature which are in Hell â—ag 247. yea which are * sharpest in Hell And he discerned and receaved them properly yea only in his very Soule as then was manefest when his body was so brused with sorrowes and sufferings yet none at all then touching him without that there strayned out from him much sweat of clotted blood c. These things being thus now let vs see wherein you agree with vs 〈◊〉 248. and wherein you disagree We all agree in termes That Christ suffered in soule Gods Wrath howbeit touching the sense we disagree in 2. maine pointes The iâ—â—â— the qâ—â—â— I affirme that Christ suffered Gods Proper Wrath and vengeance you meane hee suffered only such afflictions as other godly men do suffer at the handes of the wicked and cruell world For “ Pa. 1â— you thinke all Afflictions whatsoever small or great towards whomsoever are the effects of Gods Wrath. But that is not so except in a most vnproper speach To the godly their Afflictions both small and great are Gods Fatherly and gracious Chastisements and no effects of his proper Wrath as shall appeare further heereafter Howbeit you must observe heere my 3. limitations which I set down in the * Beforâ— Quaestion 1. I meane he suffered only that proper Wrath of God which was meerely Punishment for sinne and no sinne 2. This also hee suffered as touching the Substance and Nature of the Paines not as touching the Circumstances either of of Place or Continuance c. 3. I meane hee suffered not every particular Punishment of sinne nor that which every particular sinner meeteth with all but the Generall Curse and Punishment of God for sinne namely that which belongeth in Gods Iustice to All men in Common and Generally who abide in sinne Now after these necessary limitations the maine point wherein we further disagree is this I affirme that Christ Suffered All Gods proper Wrath and vengeance for sinne namely so described and limited as is above said I say All that which the very Damned doe suffer Christ thus did suffer for vs and therefore even a Proper and immediat sense in his Soule of Gods Proper most painfull Wrath his infinit and vntolerable burning Wrath. Which what toung is it that can expresse or hearte conceaue Yet Christs Humane Soule was apt and able to feele it though not to sustaine it A iust occasion in him was offered therevnto for then he stood foorth as the only and absolute Ransompayer of all our debt And Gods vnpartiall Iustice dispenseth not without necessitie Yea where he cometh to Punish he layeth it on finding sinne vnsatisfied as he doth inhaerent in the wicked and as he did imputed in Christ our surety till he had by †Heb â—â— Sufferings accomplished finished perfitly his RedemptioÌ„ for vs. Your Aâ—â— on wâ—â—â—â—gain saâ—â— Christ â—â—red iâ—â—â— only 〈◊〉 froÌ„ hiâ— But this is far greater then as you hold that He suffered no more but meere Bodily paines that is in his Soule by froÌ„ his Body This is your drift every where but I note these expresse places â—â—g 16. * Sin which should have wrought in vs an eternall destruction both of Body and Soule could not farther prevaile in him but to the wounding of his flesh and sheding of his bloud for the iust full satisfactioÌ„ of all our sinnes even in the righteous and syncere iudgment of God Likewise your generall Title is The Full redemtion of mankind
them the Locall Hell eternall punishment Diminution of faith Holines c. with Desperation â—reat 1. â—â— 40 Reiection vtter darknes c As for my wordes which you wrest that way they are cleared by my Opening this Question both before and after Wherefore wee plainly tell you that we defie and detest in our heartes as well as you all these blasphemous wicked thoughtes of the Sonne of God our most glorious and gratious Redeemer And yet if you had vnderstoode those Phrases the whole Câ—rse of God His whole Wrath All the sorrowes of Hell onely toâ—ching the sense of Meere paines that Christ feeling the proper wrath and Iustice of God punishing him for our sinnes felt as extreeme sharpnes of paines which had no mixture of sinne as may in any possibilitie be endured yea though in Hell it selfe and so a kinde also of “ As in 〈◊〉 place I 〈◊〉 â—hew forsaking in them a kinde of * Such as 〈◊〉 self explaiâ—â—â— pag. 245 And as 〈◊〉 Curse is nâ— words bâ— deeds pa. Cursing and hatred and condemnation and a sense of burning wrath which he being our high Priest and Sacrifice was appointed vnto and which payment of ours was by God layed vpon him being our Redeemer and Ransompayer Surety and that all this he sustayned and suffered for a time in this life so deeply wofully as was possible for a man any where to suffer which was also wery God I say if this had ben your meaning we would not then hold it blasphemous nor erronious as “ Epiâ—p you obiect it vnto vs but the very truth indeed to say Hee suffered the true paines of Hell and the wholl wrath of God Which verily your own words also in some places do imply yea at least so much and that manifestly enough it seemeth as before I haue observed But to wade further then this and to particularize or to specifie the parts of Gods wrath which Christ felt as * Pa. â—47 you will vs to do or to shew the manner how or the certaine measure how deepely he suffered it what madnes were it in men to attempt and what folly is it in any to requier This sufficeth that we know God is able aswell out of the locall Hell as in it to reveale and inflict spiritually this wrath where he findeth sinne vnsatisfied and in Christ the vnion of his Godhead might admit it in his Manhood his Soule was capeable apt to discerne and feele immediatly the impression thereof in it selfe Now because also God was heere bent to punish all our most horrible sinnes in Christ and he was ordained to receave the same vpon himselfe and God was never to punish them truly any more nor any where ells and because of the proportion of Gods exact Iustice which dispenseth not where there is no necessitie for dispensation because also of Christes taking our wholl nature for no needfull purpose at all without this and lastly by reason of many pregnant texts of Scripture proving by infallible arguments that thus surely it was in this mystery of Christs purchasing our redemption which you in all your writing have no whit defeated therefore we are vndoubtedly perswaded that this is the very truth of God Namely as “ Treat 80.81.7 before I taught as touching the sense of paine and vehemency of sorrow that Christ suffered for vs All and wholly the wrath of God and his bitter Curse That is as I said so far as * Pa. 37. possibillity would admit so far as he being also very God and a man not possible to sinne could suffer Neither is there any peece of reason on your parte for the contrary And this is much more I trust then to suffer in Soule by Sympathy only from and by and with the Body Pag. 13.14 which as before I shewed you plainly do make the only wholl suffering of Christ for our Redemption which kindâ— of suffering all Godly men doe suffer also when the wicked in the world do afflict and persecute them But touching suffering of Martiâ—s and godly men Pag. 8.11 it is not intruth as †before is shewed of that kinde as Christes suffering was and therefore this suffering of the Soule onely by Sympathy commeth nothing neere to the sorrowes of the suffering of Christ which hee suffered from the hand of Gods offended Iustice and pure Holines and Wrathfull power infinitly satisfying it selfe on him for our sinnes which by his office he receaved vpon himselfe to acquite vs from the same This no Martir nor godly man doth who suffer only as from the malice and rage of men â—â—â—d therefore â—â—â—ey are so â—â—â—eerefull at â—â—â—eir Death â—â—â—hen Christe is extremeâ—â—â— sorrowfull from God there proceedeth nothing but fatherly chastenings to them his very wrath indeed for their sinnes appeareth not at all against them which they know Christ hath once borne and for ever dissolved You haue wordes in some places as if you hâ—ld this difference with vs of Christes sufferinges compared with the suffering of Martirs Namely where you say Pag. 248 Christ suffered the wrath of God punishing sinne â—ag 257 not * in his Body only but in his Soule also by some proper punishments of the Soule as by sorrow and feare in his Agony c. Howbeit though these wordes seeme plaine yet I perceave ambiguity and fallacy in them yea also I thinke a great errour First your fallacy is in that you meane sorrow and feare indeed properly in his Soule but not any proper Punishment of sinne nor comming for any paine or smart that he felt inflicted for sinne but it was meere Devotion to God 2 1â—4.23.9 144 290 Love pity compassion towards men Which say you could not be without some feare and zeale and griefe That is true but this is a notable fallacy For many thinke that you meane Christ suffered such sorrow and paine as was both proper to the Soule and was the proper punishment of sinne also But then had you heerein fully agreed with vs. Nowe that Religious Devotion godly and â—â—â—tâ—ous Aâ—â—tions and Pity are properly partes of Christes Holines and righteousnes not of his Sufferings for sinne For these 2. parts of Christes Mediation I trust you will distinguish And surely Christs Agonie was properly a part of his most bitter Passion not of his Obedience and Righteousnes albeit even in suffering also he was perfitly obedient Thus then you are never the neerer to the truth in this point for all your seeming Againe considering what you write of the wrath “ Pa. 130 132.246 of God which the Godly generally do suffer you seeme to me to thinke that every Martiâ—s death and all the crosses and griefes both of body and minde in the godly are very * For yoâ— make Gâ—â— Wrath â—â—â—ferent to men who afflicted punishments of sinne and right effects of Gods Iustice and wrath taking properly vengeance on them
will disprove d Treat â—â— pag. 19. my Proposition which is whereby Adam first sinned by the same Christ satisfied for sinne You deny this because the Scripture acknowledgeth no satisfaction but by death where still we must note that you meane only by the Bodily death Now how proove you that Because the iudge in prohibiting Adam to transgresse threatned death e Ocn. 2. Jn the day that thou catest thereof thou shalt dye the death Which it seemeth f Pa. 100. 64. you avouch againe and againe And are you sure that Death heere is but the bodily death only no more Then surely the wicked should satisfie easilie for their sinnes Far be it from me to vtter such a sentence Neverthelesse you must give me leave to shew you also your contradiction in this point First in that where you acknowledge g Pag. 42. the Iudges revenge for sinne is Death both of body and soule Againe where you h Pag. 18. agree with Athanasius shewing expresly that this text intendeth even both these Anima dixit Morte morieris He saide to the Soule Thou shalt dy the death But you would prove your matter againe by this Hebr. 9.15 a Through death which was for our redemption we receaue the promise Yet he saith not Through his bodily death meerely and alone and by nothing els togeather therewith which is your intent He excludeth not the Soules proper sufferings as b I have often said Treat 1. the contrarie heereof you never come neere to proove And it must not be forgotten Pag. 8 9. that c heere â—ou renounce all satisfaction for sinne in respect of merit as from Christes soule vtterly Pag. 253. Therefore that absurd speech and worse which you d vniustly cast on me Pa. 250. c. proveth in very deed to be your owne that Christes suffering in Soule by Sympathy makes not to our redemption Your own place in Barnard maketh Christes whole Soule that is the Minde and the part depending on the Body also to have place and part in the meritorious sacrifice Pag. 84. as well as the Body e Vt totum hominem salvum fecit sic de Toto se hostiam fecit salutarem Which suteth not with your wordes The Soule of Christ which could not dye could not pay the satisfaction and nothing might satisfie for sinne but death Pag. 85 86 8. c. Yea all your f other places of Contradiction herevnto must be taken in good part As for your reason That nothing may satisfie for sinne but death it is not sound The Scriptures doe shew in deed that Christ should not satisfie without Death but they deny not that there are other partes of Christes Satisfaction which differ from Death As his bloudshed and besides that Christs Povertie his hunger his wearines his shame his reproches his apprehension his buffeting c. These doubtles yea all other suffringes of Christ whatsoever small or great are satisfactorie meritorious You will say you vnderstand all these and such like in the Death of Christ You may vnderstand what you list but who will grant in proper speech that these are his Death or that his death is any or all these And if you take Christes death by the Figure Synecdoche a part of Christes sufferings for the whole Pag. 41. c. then why doe g you so much abhorre that Figure heere and why may not the Soules proper sufferings be admitted also into the worke of Christes Satisfaction although it can not properly dye Where you nippe me also for saying that the Soule of Christ in some kinde of sense dyed I hope in due place you shall have a reasonable answer to that matter Till then have patience I pray And thus h you come to skan my Assumption also Pag. 253. that Adam committed sinne most properly in his Soule Which you graunt in one sense is true but directly repugnant to my Conclusion How I pray b Pag. 25 If I meane that Adams Soule transgressed the CoÌ„mandement with her body and by her body that is the Soule as agent the Body as the Instrument theÌ„ the conclusion will follow in spite of my heart Ergo in satisfiing for sinne Christs Soule must be punished with her body and by her body which is the thing I labour to overthrow with all the wits I have Nay then the Conclusion will follow that the immortall part the Minde was punished peculiarly and not by and from the Body onely seeing in all even outward sinnes the Soule sinneth both principally and also in a proper and peculiar maner by it selfe yea before the body sinneth Albeit the Body sinneth also secoÌ„darily and in a maner proper to it selfe even as the Instrument as you say Yea further I meane that some sinnes the Soule acteth in and by it selfe meerely and therefore it suffereth likewise some punishments meerely in it selfe which touch not the Body at all vnlesse by Sympathy only and that only when they grow vehement But all this you heere deny Very stranâ— doctrine teaching that the Soule properly committeth no sinne but by and with the body that is the Soule in it self by it selfe alone sinneth not And so consequently that God temporally and eternally punnisheth the Soule only by the Body This is the true effect of your discourse heere For proofe of the first you say c Pag. 25 God did not say to Adam thou shalt not like d The soâ—â—den fruiâ—â— it or desire it which the Soule of Adam did but thou shalt not eat thereof which could not be performed but by the hand and mouth of Adam And therefore Adam transgressed the Commandment not by his Soule but by his Body even as in murder theft and adultery these factes men commit by their Bodies and not by their Soules And after All provocations and pleasures of sinnes the Soule taketh from her ' Body all actes of sinne she committeth by her body Both which speeches are exceeding vntrue and hurtfull For even in these sinnes the Soule as I said sinneth principally and peculiarly before that the Body sinneth at all Yea the Desiring and Liking of evell is sinne before the outward Act is coÌ„summat and finished This Paul e Rom. 〈◊〉 vnderstood at length when he became a Christian though a long while being a Pharisee he knew it not And it seemeth this was in Christs time the Haeresie of the Pharisees against whom he sheweth that not only the outward fact of Bodily sinne was sinne but also a â—at 5.22.28 even the very thoughts and liking towards sinne Wherefore Adam was as well forbidden to desire or like that fruit as to eat it which you deny The Commandement was naturally ingraven in Adams hearte in his Creation Which since Moses maketh distinct and diverse from all the rest which concerne the outward acte Therefore distinctly he saith Thou shalt not desire or covet So that to desire the forbidden
experience of them This same also sundry of the Fathers avouch with vs most fully and even those which your selfe brings for a your selfe Pag. 25. Cyrills wordes before touched are most large Cyrill Theâ—â—ur 10.3 Omnia Christus perpessus est vt nos ab omnibus liberaret Christ throughly suffered all such passions which men doe suffer that he might deliver vs from all Humane â—ature All the passions of †fleshe were stirred in Christ yet without sinne and so that vnles he had dyed we had not bene delivered from death vnles he had feared and sorrowed we had not ben quitt from feare and sorrowe Heere he saith all our passions were stirred in Christes humane nature even so farre as we are cured and so farre as might bee without sinne in him Then I hope by Cyrills iudgement the sense of the true curse and proper wrath of God for sinne was in Christes Soule so faire as it might be painfull and not sinfull seeing Men are subiect to this suffering as the most sharpest among others Lastly by Cyrill here we see that vnles Christ had felt the same suffrings which we feele and are cured of we had not bene delivered of them This also I am sure fitteth not your opinion That one drop of Christes bloud was sufficient for our whole redemption Which was one of your principles in your preaching but in your book you skip it cleane I know not how â—ag 25. 26. Next we may see that c your place of d Ambrosâ— is also fully to the same effect Luc. de â—â—tic dol â—â— A litle after his e former words he saith The ioy of the eternall Godhead being parted away from him Christ was affected with the redioâ—snes of my infirmity â—â—fore pa. 48 He tooke vpon him my sorrow that he might give mee his ioy and he abased himselfe to the sorrow of death in our manner that by the same meanes in him he might bring vs to life He ought therfore to take sorrow that he might overcome sorrow and not exempt himselfe from it that we might learne in Christ to ouercom the sorrow of death approching Wherefore Christ exempted himselfe from nothing in his Passion that we haue experience of as touching Paines and sorrowes And by the same sufferings in him selfe for vs he healeth vs wherevnto we are subiect by reason of sinne So that thus in his agonie hee wrought with a deepe effect that because in his flesh hee killed our sinnes he might also with the sorrow of his Soul extinguish the sorrow of our Soules To this very purpose also a Pag. 47 4â— Naâ—â—anz Fulgent Barnard Tertull. Ierom. many others before rehearsed do affirme most fully Neither is this taking of their sentences any whit to abuse the Fathers which you b Pag. 86. are afraid of You greatly abuse them which take them otherwise namely as if they meant that by the flesh and bloudshed of Christ meerely alone without the merit of his Soules and Mindes proper suffering our whole Ransom were paid As for our comparing the paines of Christs suffering with the paines even of the Reprobats in this life I see not that you nor any man living can finde fault therewith onely set aside their sinfull suffering which alwayes I testifie that Christ was most free from Yea I doubt not but we may compare Christes sufferings in his Agonies touching vehemency of paines even with those of the Damned in hell What the oâ— is betweenâ— Christes Suâ—fering 〈◊〉 Damned Only I conceave betweene Christs and theirs this odds 1 They suffer sinfully 2 Perpetually 3 Locally in Hell All which being excepted otherwise Christ suffered altogither as bitterly as sharpely yea I may say in nature the very same as the Damned doe which therefore may well be called the paines of Hell although yet Hell indeed doeth differ in some great and waighty circumstances as is aforesaid If you say the extreamest paines of punishment caÌ„not be where sinne is not That is true neither in deed can the least paines be where there is no sinne and that no more in the Body then in the Soule though this please not you Marke what I say The extreamest paines of al may as possibly be inflicted where no sinne is as the very least that as well in the Spirit as in the Body But in trueth neither the one nor the other is possible Neither the greatest nor the least paines of Gods proper vengeance for sinne can be inflicted or suffered at all in Soule or in Body but only where sinne is That is to say either imputed or inhaerent Ordinarily the Reprobat are thus punished where sinne is inhaerent Extraordinarily and singularly by Gods owne speciall ordinance Christ was even thus punished yet where sin was but imputed And thus therefore Christes Soule for meere paine might suffer the extreamest spiritual punishments altogeather as well as his body might suffer any at all without inhaerent sinne But you graunt his body suffered truely punishments for sinne Therefore his soule might suffer also even those of the extreamest degree Your “ See beâ—â—â— pag. 14. selfe also granteth that Christ both might and did suffer the extreamest paines that might bee without his owne sinne But it was possible for him to conceave and feele in his a minde farre greater sorrowes and paines for our sinne from Gods wrath â—at ◠〈◊〉 26. then hee could feele meerely in his body outwardly And the greatest was no more sinne then the least though both were properly for sin Therefore by your own grant Christ might and did feele and indure the greatest sorrowes of the minde and soule as well as the lesser in the body being all the very effectes of the wrath of God against sinne â—ag 102. b You bring a reason against this that God spiritually punisheth no man but for his own vncleannes which is a thing meerely vntrue For though no other man was ever punished without his owne vncleannes neither spiritually nor corporally yet Christ our Saviour was who in this case was not in the ordinarie state of men But I pray shewe me this mysterie how it is that God caÌ„not punish Spiritually where there is no inhaerent sinne but can and may Corporally where there is none All the rest of your assertions c heere are altogeather of this sute â—a 101 102 â—03 105. â—66 94. By this one reason I weakened all yours but you could passe that by To this efâ—â—ct Treat 1 â—ag 41 43. answering vnto it not a word Viz d If Christes body hanging on the Crosse and held by Death in the grave was punished by God where yet he found no sinne and which he still intierly loved and was never separated froÌ„ then so hee might did punish properly his Soule also yet never divide his Godhead nor his love from it But thus he did to his body therefore even so hee might doe and did to his
turne them to ioy gladnes though not properly to be glad of them Nay we ought most instantly to pray against them No affliction at all is good in it owne nature and the greatest of all is good to Gods children by his grace So that touching this vse of them therein wee are to reioyce even when we are most bruized and pearced in our soules with the terrours of God Lastlie 〈◊〉 134. l you frame an obiection against your selfe which you neither doe nor can answer Christs soule might feele the tormentes of Hell for the time without any distrust or doubting of his salvation or our redemption You pretend thïs answer The essentiall tormentes of Hell are the absolute losse of Gods kingdom everlastingly and that m Eternall continuance is of the nature and substance of Hell But we shew you â— 53 although the damned are in Hell torments everlastingly and of necessitie so must bee yet eternall continuance in them and to feele them but for a time are indeed but Circumstances not of the essence or nature of Hell tormentes Gods proper and extreame wrath only and his sharpest vengeance for sinne is the essence or nature of Hell paines Which against the Damned indeed is eternall and vnsatisfyable but lighting on Christ it was not eternall because it was satisfyable Wherefore it is plaine that you have answered in effect nothing to your owne obiectioÌ„ Thus far we have gone shewing that we a Pag. 2 neither extende the cause of Christes Agonie to far in affirming it to have com of most bitter extreame Paines which he suffred properly for our sinns neither that we coÌ„tinue it to long in affirming that he felt the same most extreamely on the Crosse Contrariwise that you curtaile it to short when you say it was no more but b Pag. 1 290. Devotion to God and Compassion to men also that Christes Agonie touched him c Pa. 11â— not at all on the Crosse So that d Before 90.91.116 our Maine argument which you would haue frustrated standeth firme and good still that seeing his Agonies Paines and Feares were such so great as the Scripture by the effects signes sheweth that they were both before his death and at his death therefore they were more then meere bodily paines and more then meere bodily death much lesse were his Holy and Religious affections the proper and speciall Cause thereof But of necessity they were the Paines proceeding from the infinit and sharpe Iustice of God which Christ truly suffered in his Spirit and Soule and Body After this a Pag 3â— Touchiâ—â— Death oâ—â—â— Soule you set vehemently against my last argument That Christ suffered in some sorte the death of the Soule First if wee should speake strictly after the maner of Death in the Body then no man is so mad or foolish as to say that any mans Soul can dye at all that is want life and sense as a dead body doth Thus the very damned soules in Hell suffer not death But such a death as immortall soules are subiect subiect vnto is Gods separation froÌ„ them And this is 2. folde The 1. death and the 2. death as the Scripture speaketh The 1. is the separation of them from Gods grace which is in this life by sinne raigning in them The 2. death is Gods leaving them in the feeling of the most sharpe and most vehemeÌ„t paines inflicted by Gods iustice for sinne This last kind of death is so called and named in many places of b Ezek. Gen. 2â— Rom. 6â— 2. Cor. 3.7.5.20 aâ— 1. Ioh. 17. Scripture It hath also a double consideration First ordinarily and commonly it belongeth only to the Damned for their owne inherent sinne where withall are the ordinary Accidents and coÌ„comitants togeather Desperation induration blaspheming vtter darkenes c. with Perpetuitie of punishment and that locally in Hell In this sense the Fathers generally do take it where they deny that Christ suffered the death of the Soule and so likewise do we Secondly The death of the soule or the 2. death may be extraordinarily and singularly considered namely to imply no more but simply the very nature and essense of it 〈◊〉 Death the Soule â—â—rist tasted That is the feeling of most deadly infinit paines inflicted by God himselfe in his proper iustice for sinne all sense also of his comfortable presense being taken away This is a Death to the Soul â—â—g 113. â—ag 135. 6. â—ag 112. 3. as * before we have shewed according to this sense the Scriptures †Fathers before noted may rightly be vnderstood not to deny it in Christ so that this kind of Death in the soule but none other we may safely say Christ did suffer for our sinne imputed to him Moreover let it be observed that if wee had no proofes at all in Scripture for this point yet our Question is fully proved coÌ„firmed notwithstanding by those other sufficient pregnant proofes alleaged iustified before For it is be to noted that no man setteth the questioÌ„ in these termes That Christ dyed in his soule neither doe we at all vse them very much in speaking of this matter We do only when some speciall occasion draweth it from vs neither then do we vtter it in those termes but with vsing some further declaration of our minde The reason of this warynes is because we are not ignorant how ambiguous the phrase is and how apt to be mistaken specially where men list to cavill Also people vntaught and vnsetled in construing the scriptures sense do quickly take offense at thinges which they ought better to digest So that you doe very iniuriously to grate still one this phrase of speach and to straine it to the worst as you do as if by no meanes it could beare any good sense and as if we built our maine Assertion onely heerevpon Which in truth is nothing so The same also doe we affirme touching our vsing in this matter the phrase of Christs suffering Hell paines Both these phrases are but seldome and respectively vsed by vs. Howbeit we deny not but that both these phrases may be well and rightly applyed vnto Christ on occasion â—â—g 16. 52. â—â— 113. as * before is observed may both serve truly and most emphatically to expresse the infinitnes of the paines and sorrowes of his suffering for vs. Yea this very phrase of death extended in Christ further then to his meere bodily dying hath I doubt not expresse ground in the Scripture and therefore may the better be vsed soberly admitted charitably You will aske where is there any scripture Proofes that Christe suffered any other death then that meerely of his body I answer First consider well that to the c Hebr. â—ebr 5.7 Hee offered vp prayers and supplications with strong crying teares to him that was able to save him from death It is not possible that this Death heere should be
same Hee was crucified touching his infirmitie but liveth by the power of God His infirmitie the text heere nameth Metonimically vnderstanding in Christ that in which his infirmities were Now his Soule had infirmities of suffering in it as well as his body Therefore his Soule also is vnderstood heere that it was Crucifyed and dyed that is according to the condicion thereof as likewise his body according to the condicion thereof And thus that which Paul calleth infirmitie Peter calleth Flesh and that which Paul calleth the power of God Peter calleth the Spirit That is his Deitie is set oppositly in both these places to his whole Humanitie even to body and soule Aug. de 4.13 To which purpose that place also to the “ Rom. Romanes doth serve where the like opposition is found as I have shewed betwene the Flesh and the Spirit in Christ that is his Manhood and Godhead Other reasons also * Treat 137 1â— I haue noted serving well heerevnto as the 4 5 and 6. but I omit to rehearse them againe For it seemeth your selfe agreeth with vs in them â—â—g 324. holding a expresly that the Spirit heere in Peter is the Deitie of Christ according to Austins iudgement Now this being granted and acknowledged that the Spirit heere signifieth Christes Godhead how can it be likely but that the other opposit part the Flesh must needes import his whole and intire Manhood Verily thus it seemeth most plaine that Peter heere distributeth the whole and absolute person both God and Man into these Natures the Flesh and the Spirit Wherfore I can not thinke but that the Apostle heere vnderstandeth by Flesh the whole and intire Manhood of Christ even his Soule and his body Now this being so then it followeth by the text that Christ in his Passion was don to death both in Soule Pag. 320. body Heere you obiect that thus I make all the attributes of the body common to the Soule Nay forsooth that I doe not Nor yet this attribute of Dying vnderstood in such sort and maner as the Body properly dyeth that is to become without life and sense I ascribe Death to both but yet according to the divers condicion and state of both â—reat 1. Pâ—g 78. And thus you might vnderstand my b meaning to be where I say it is absurd false that Christ was made aliue in his Humane Soule that is it neither lost nor recovered life and sense so as his body did â—â—â—e before 〈◊〉 135 136 Howbeit as Death is oftentymes attributed to mens soules in the c Scripture that is the feeling of the extreame wrath of God and the punishment for sinne so d I make Death commoÌ„ both to Christes Soule and body â—â—eat 1. â—â—g 79. even to his whole and intire humane Nature Which if you do not acknowledge the shame of ab surditirie and coÌ„trarietie which in your fancy e you accuse me of that Christes Soule dyed and dyed not â—â—g 322. â—â—3 will sit neerer to you theÌ„ to me Also in such a sense I deny not but Christ may be said that he was quickened in the Spirit that is refreshed and comforted againe in his Soule and restored from that bottomles gulfe of sorrowes to the lively feeling of heavenly ioyes and glory which for a season he had no sense of at all Howbeit though this sense bee a true quickening in his Soule yet I deny that heere in this place of Peter it can be translated quickened in the Spirit meaning the Soule because Spirit heere in this opposition is set indeed for the Deitie of Christ â—â—â—d you with â—â—â—stin doe â—â—sent * as before I have shewed Thus the matter I hope is cleere to reasonable men that Christes Soule even according to the Scripture phrase may be said in some sorte to have tasted and suffered Death that is the extreamest feelings of Gods wrath for sinne and the most vehement paines of the damned though not as the damned doe in respect of the Accidents and concomitants of their ordinary damnation but in a singular maner and extraordinarie way as became the sonne of God and a sinles man yet a very maÌ„ being our Redeemer Now besides the matter you “ Pag. 3 gird at me in divers places as where I say The Death of the Soule is such Paines and sufferings of Gods wrath as allwayes accompanie them that are separated from the grace and love of God Forfooth it is true they are alwayes wicked whom these Paines doe accompanie ordinarily They came vpon Christ extraordinarilie as in a Treat â— pag. 77. this place I expresly noted That was therfore my meaning here if you would haue seene it In another place also b Pag. 33. you know that I say Hell as I take it that is such paines of Gods wrath is * Treat 1 pag. 80. sometime found in this life Thus then you might haue vnderstood my former wordes and not that the tormentes of Hell doe alwayes accompanie the wicked in this life I pray conceave not my meaning against my expresse wordes Againe c Pag 31â— you pretende to haue much against me where I say The feeling of the sorrowes of Gods wrath due to sinne in a broken and contrite heart is indeed the only true and perfitly accepted sacrifice to God True so I said and againe I say it What see you amisse in it Then vnhappy men are the godly which are at any time free from the paines of the damned To what purpose is this I speake of Christs Sacrifice I pray is any other Sacrifice perfitly accepted or a Sacrifice at all but Secondarily that is in and by Christes Sacrifice They are not His Sacrifice then is the onely true Sacrifice and perfitly accepted to God All others are imperfit and accepted not in them selues but only in and by Christ Thus your triumphes before the victorie come to nothing but blastes of vanitie But Augustin †Pag. 32 doth flatly deny that this text can be thus vnderstood or that Christes Soule might dy Austin d Epist 9â— denyeth that Christ suffied any paines of damnation locally in Hell after his death as it seemeth some helde about his time whoÌ„ here he laboureth to confute So that he meaneth to reprove onely the e See besâ—â—â— pag 139 1st sense of the Death of the Soule in him viz. that he suffred it not Ordinarily after the maner of other men nor any way locally Hâ— hath no nâ—cessarie cause to speak of the 2. sense thereof how the Soule may be said to suffer death Extraordinarily for sinne imputed only neither doeth he speake against that in Christ Nay according to Austins owne Definition of the Soules Dying it will easily appeare that Christes Soule may be said to have suffered some kinde of Death de verh 〈◊〉 Ser â—0 〈◊〉 Trin. 4. Saith he a Moritur anima si recedit Deus and b Mors est spiritûs deseri Ã
the Apostle mentioneth the i Ephe. 2.2 Ayre and that k cap. 6.12 on high as being the place of Divels Notwithstanding far be it from me to affirme that hell certainly is not beneath Yet your pretended scripturs are meerely forced to prove it As in the chief I have shewed already In the rest it will appeare likewise anon Howbeit wheresoever Hel indeed is though we do grant in it to be locally in the earth beneath vs yet every Opposition betwene Shammajim the Heavens or Skyes and Sheol doth not signifie the opposition betweene Heaven and Hel. This you shall never be able to prove Shammajim thus placed signifieth the Skyes not the very place of Heavenly glory in the presense of God which in English we call Heaven And Sheol thus placed signifieth not Hell the place of torments but it is taken thus 2. wayes Somtime for †a vast and deepe Gulfe only or pit in the earth Abyssus the bottom wherof we know not Amos. 9.2 Iob. 11.8 Psa 139.8 So doe a many of your places meane which you draw and wrest to signifie Hell Somtime for Ruine and Destruction or Abolishing of any visible Creatures from hence which seemeth to be the largest most proper sense of Sheol â—heols proper sense So doth it in Jsay signifie where Sheol is threatned to the King of Babel b Though thou be lifted vp to the Skyes Isa 14.15 yet shalt thou bee brought downe to Sheol that is in this place to an inglorious Destruction and No being in this word and thy carcase vnto the sides of the pit that is the Grave This the contrariety heere sheweth Thougâ— thou be lifted vp to the Skyes He meaneth not heere into the glory of the Saints of God in Heaven but lifted vp in great pomp and worldly glory as the Latin phrase meaneth also when they say ad sydera tolli Now saith the Prophet to this King of Babell Though at this time it be thus with thee yet surely thou shalt be brought down to the contrary point to an inglorious Destruction and a wiping out from the Earth Which sense of Isay is also very well confirmed by the like matter in Ieremy c Though Babel should mount vp to the Heavens â—er 51.53.4 and though she should defend her strength on high yet from me shall her Destroyers come saith the Lord. A sound of a cry cometh from Babel and of great Destruction from the Chaldeans c. Where that which Isay called Sheol Ieremy speaking of the very same matter nameth Destruction vtter laying wast and overthrowing of that City and State And so to come to our purpose A very Heâ—raisme d this is the very same phrase heere in Mathew touching Capernaum Thou Capernaum which art lift vp to the Heaven shalt be brought down to Hades that is to Destruction to an inglorious Not being any more in the world as before time it had ben â—â—des DestructioÌ„ Razing â—aking away Which also is confirmed by that which he addeth presently of Sodom that if they had had the meanes of repentance as Capernaum had Sodom might have remayned a City to this day Inferring by this that Capernaum for their greater contempt of God and his word deserved more then Sodom to be destroyed to becom no City Hitherto this is the first iudgment threatned to the state of the City Hades Destruction or an vtter razing out from the earth The 2. iudgment heere threatned followeth in the next verse Moveover I say vnto you that it shal be easier for them of the land of Sodom in the day of iudgment then for these Heere indeed is Hell threatned to them of Capernaum yet as touching that before there was nothing els but the overthrow and destruction of their Citie signifyed by that worde Hades applyed to the Citie as is before declared And contrary to this you haue not any piece of reason in al that “ Pa. 147 1â— 409. you say here about The world of Souls which †Pag. 403.409 you play withall Hades may and doeth signifie but yet then only when it is referred to deceased Soules not otherwise Next let vs view the Corinthes a Pag 408. 1. Cor. 1â— 55 O Death where is thy victorie O Hades O Destruction or O Power of Death where is thy sting Heere it is referred to the destruction of the whole and intire Persons of men taken away by death out of this worlde who in the end by this conquest and triumph over Death the power therof at the last day shal be restored to life againe in a true and perfit Resurrection and restitution This is the whole scope and drift of the Apostle heere and you graunt it But you inferre that therfore it is meant of Hel. Of Hell which way Because since by sinne Hell gat possession of both partes of man aswell of his body as of his Soule the full deliverance and conquest ouer Hell is not but in the Resurrection This is very vntrue Our full deliverance from Hell and from Satan is obtayned in this life as it is written b Luke 1.7 We being delivered from our enemies and from the handes of all that hate vs must serve him without feare all the dayes of our life in bolines and righteousnes before him That is we being heere truly iustified by his grace are fully freed and delivered from all the power of our enemies Satan is c Luke 11. 〈◊〉 Rom 8.33 Ioh. 8.51 5 5.24 conquered spoyled bound and cast out from vs. So that your speach is very bad and scandalous where you say d Pag. 216. The bodyes of the Saintes lying in their graves are in the Divells walke For then the Graves where bodyes ly senseles are a part of Hell properly taken At least the Deaths of the Reprobat and of the Children of God e Answerab to your doâ—trine pa. 24 touching the state of their bodyes till the resurrection are all one And men truly iustified are iustified but in their Soules Sinne remayning stil charged on their Bodies and therefore in their bodyes they remaine subiect to the power of Hell and to the curse of the Law and to the claime of Satan till the day of our Resurrection at the last iudgement You call it 〈◊〉 part of the â—ages of sin And thus the godly must pay a part of their own redemption and satisfaction for sinne And then Christ was not our only and absolut Redeemor If this be good doctrine let the godly iudge Your selfe overthroweth this enough Pag. 156. saying f He changed the curse of death and made it now a rest from all labours So that I hope the Bodyes of the dead Saintes are not in the * Divells walke Nor subiecâ—ed to the Râ—â—ge of Saâ—an much lesse are they g in the possession of Hell Pag 216. in the handfast of Hell Further you say vpon the text Pag. 178
h Through death Christ destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Divell Pag. 179. Whereby i it is evident that Hell is spoyled of all right and claime to the members of Christ hee brake c. I hope in this life the godly are the members of Christ then in this life they are fully freed from Hell for euer Wherfore it is very vntrue that Hell properly taken hath any possession of the iust and handfast or power on them or that Hell is not fully subdued for them vntill the Resurrection I graunt that the common death heere is called an enemy Cor. 15.26 but he meaneth not such an Enemy as Hell is especially as this is spoken touchinge the godly Yet it is an Enemie even to them not as any Curse at all but as a Memoriall consequent of the old Curse like as a scarie is where was a deadly wound also as a peaceable and quiet stopp or stay vnto them â—â—ea because 〈◊〉 is painâ—ull â—o the flesh in 〈◊〉 his life that their whole persons cannot yet enioy their appointed felicitie Howbeit for all this toward them it hath not the least affinitie with Hell at all Therfore Hades heere in no sort signifyeth Hell but only Death or the power of Death or the world and kingdom of Death or something to that effect onely Yea the very text seemeth thus to expound it selfe saying Where is thy sting O Hades The sting of Death is sinne Where the later seemeth a very direct answer and exposition of the former words Thus The sting of Death or Hades is sinne noting these 2. wordes Hades and Death as Synonimaes for one thing beeing applyed to men Or if “ Pag. 408. you will haue them to differ He may take Hades for the * As it vtterly â—aketh away 〈◊〉 witholdeth â—rom a visible â—â—ate Power strength of Death which the brain-sick Idolators made a God or the Dominion and Kingdome of Death These respectes Hades might well haue with the Apostle which differ from Thanatos Death the meere separation of the Soule from the Body which yet in effect are all one and haue no difference touching our purpose Like as we saw a Pa. 1â— c. 1 before howe all Authours have vsed them Further The Grave of the Wicked is not to be nâ—med nor reckoned Hell properly nor any part thereof In Hell there wanteth not sense of paine If you say it is an entrance to hell and that which holdeth and reserveth the wicked vnto hell Yet then it is not Hell for even thus the Grave and Hell doe greatly differ Finally Hades is b See 〈◊〉 pag. 1â— adversarie to the Resurrection But Hell would not bee adversarie to the Resurrection Therefore Hades heere is not hell no not to the wicked Death in deed and the Dominion of Death is an adversarie to the Resurrection and at that day it shal be vanquished and vtterly abolished when all flesh shall liue againe As for Hell that shall increase theÌ„ and bee advanced when all the wicked both bodyes and Soules shal be subdued vnder it for ever Therfore Hades heere is not hell but the power of Death as hath bene saide or the Dominion of Death or meerely to that effect Also we are to note that the Apostle heere plainly alludeth to that of Hoseah c Hose O Sheol ò kingdom of death or power of ' Death I wil be thy destruction Not o Hell For the Prophet speaketh this to comfort Israel in their captivitie against their continuall Destructions and razings out from this world shewing that now the Lord would stay his iudgement that way Death which had consumed them should now destroy them no more but they should liue and flourish againe This the Apostle might notably allude vnto speaking of the ResurrectioÌ„ As for Hell if the Prophet had meant it as he doeth not the Apostle could make no allusion to it nor haue any thing to deale wch it in this matter of the ResurrectioÌ„ simply So that where you say what reason is there to exclude out of these words Christs victorie over Hell it is very weake What reason is there to include it where the Apostle speaketh only of our resurrection from bodily Death and of nothing els Next we come to the RevelatioÌ„ First a Rev. I have the Keyes of Hades that is of Destruction or of the * The â—â—ble wâ—â—â— the Dâ—â—â— kingdome of death and of Death Or we may take them as 2. words for one and the same thing that is both of them for Death For heere Christ sheweth only that as He was dead so nowe he hath overcome Death hath power to dy no more as I hauâ— b Treaâ— pa 11â— heeretofore noted What shew of reason haue c Pa 17 you then to bringe in heere Christes power over the Damned Soules in Hell Because there is mention â—lswhere of the Key of hell Therefore the Key of hâ—des heer is the same What color of reasoÌ„ is there in this Again a One sitteth on a pale horse whose name was Death Rev. 6.8 Hades Desâ—â—â—on the world of the Dead or the Kingdom of Death followed aâ—ter â—â—m Thâ—â— in no wise can be Hel because the text addeth Power 〈…〉 them to slay with the sword and with samine and death and with wilde beasts Hell slayeth none in that sorte these are not the weapons of Hell but of the Dominion and Power of Death thâ—se and such other mo â—ag 406. are the proper weapons b You take it to bâ— the power of the Divell because the Divell slayeth somâ—times the bodyes of men Which you proue by the bodily slaying and siniting of Iob and his children This indeed is the thing which we holde This is not the Torments of Hell in the place of Damned these be onely bodily harmes and death So that heereby you confirme our purpose for we denie not but God somtime vseth Satan to punish and to slay the bodies of men But seeing this is nothing but Death not Hell which then is inflicted therefore it is bâ—st to take Hades heere most generally as the nature of it is for the Power of Death or the world of the Dead Hell by no meanes it can be â—â—g 398. You tell me in c one place that my best skill is in varying phrases It is better to vary phrases then to vary opinions as you very often doe I vary phrases to expresse Hades which in Authours is not alwayes the same thing or at least not after the same maner Whose generall largenes which it properly hath can not in one word be expressed in English Wherefore my varying of phâ—ases to this purpose I hope is pardonable sith indeed it is necessarie That coÌ„iecture of mine of the 4th part of the worlde 's not going to Hell at once I never esteemed it worth the standing on I he last place is †Death and Hades
the now L. Bishop of Winchester to begin among vs a new matter of faith neuer heard of before in England but only in the dayes of Popery touching the All sufficiency of the meere Bodily Sufferings of Christ and to maintaine an other which was neere worne out of his going downe to Hell in Soule In both which because my conscience assured mee that hee was much mistaken and laboured that others should mistake also I thought it not besides my duty the Lord offering me opportunity to maintaine the truth and that in all plainenes and evidence of the Scripture as God inabled me with This now a while since being published wherein my trust is I caryed my selfe no otherwise then J ought the Author and maintayner of the contrary hath so of late intertayned it as seemeth to mee and to many others wonderfull Wonderfull not for strength of reasons nor for exquisit matter such as neuer before was delivered though his learning J acknowledge and will not but reverence his gifts but wonderfull his answer is and altogeather extraordinary considering that such incomparable bitternes disdaine skoffing reproch and furious rage doth so abundantly com from him therein against my poore selfe being yet by the mercy of God a true Christian a Minister of the Gospel and one I praise the Lorde which euer haue bin carefull to bee free from the scandalls of the World Though heerein J boast not but rather with the Apostle will boast of mine infirmities Verily this now J haue learned by his writing better then euer I conceaued before namely what great oddes he maketh and desireth to be made betweene himselfe a Lord Bishop and an other being but a Preacher of Gods most holy word Well this is the Rhetorike and the ornaments of his Conclusion against my treatise But all this is besides his Matter which nevertheles may haue peradventure som weight in it It may peradventure Wherefore J see a double necessity vrging me to reply therevnto First to the end that his exceptions and reasons that is to say his wholl matter may appeare yet better to be so weake and vnsufficient as indeed they are See that those vncivill reproches I will not say vnchristian revilings being the bewty and forme of his booke may appeare to be but the froth of a distempered stomacke the colour of reason and iust cause which he casteth on it being taken away As touching the matter therefore thus I purpose to deale I will begin with his later writing which he calleth a Conclusion because he mainly directeth it against mee taking in by the way also all such places points in the former Treatise as do rightly concerne our matter in hand Finally as touching his reproches and cruell words I intend wholy to passe ouer them seeing for them neither is he any whit the better nor my selfe the worse The Defence of the Treatise of Christes sufferings against Maister Bilsons Conclusion HIs Conclusion for so he thinketh good to call it beginneth against me in his page 225. Wherein first he doeth change me in generall termes that I flee from the state of the Chiefe question and overskip his Authorities The like saith in Eâ— pag. 9. in his reasons I forget and dissemble what pleaseth my self in the defence of my holy cause as it pleaseth him to mocke I roue as I list neither keeping any order nor bringing any matter of moment coÌ„fusedly powring out the hasty resolutions of mine own braines spiced euery where with ignorant absurd positions proudly despising all authority antiquitie c. Al which words are but wind as I shal make it evident God willing wheÌ„ we com to view his particulars heerafter insuing Among which he * Pag. â— beginneh to iustifie that he mistooke not his Text when hee preached this doctrine But I wil speak thereof anon so that first I satisfie him in the most principal point of his challeÌ„ge against me Which is this “ Episâ— that I haue changed the first questioÌ„ that I set not down the state therof fully nor truly so I offer to prove that which he never denied I coÌ„fute that which he never affirmed Let vs ther fore coÌ„sider advisedly this questioÌ„ which I wil set downe again as exactly as plainly as I can that we may see how far I erred froÌ„ it before We affirme That Christ in his Soul suffered all Gods proper Wrath and vengeance being paines and punishment for sinne no sinne also as touching the essence or nature thereof The suâ— whole out 1. â— and so farre as was due Generally for all mankinde to suffer His contrary opinion we conceaue thus That Christ suffered for our sinnes nothing ells but simply and “ or 〈◊〉 his Hoâ— fectioÌ„s â—â—tio and meerely a Bodily death altogither like as the godlie and holy men do often suffer at the handes of persecutors saving only that God accepted this death of his Sonne as a ransom for sinne but the death of his servants be doth not The Opening of the whole staâ—e of this Question For the better vnderstanding whereof we must note these principall things taine spe I things to â—oted First that All suffering of Paines in man is froÌ„ God either properly from his Iustice or from his Holy Love either froÌ„ him alone or also from his Instruments and inferior meanes Againe Al suffering of Paines is for Sinne either inherent or imputed either as Correction or as Punishment either immediatly or mediatly as anon we shall further see Sec By the Lawe of our Creation as we are men having a Soule besides our Body so our Soule hath in it a 3. fold faculty of Suffering Paines First that which is Proper and immediat iustly so called â—ee kindes 〈◊〉 Soâ—â—es â—â—â—ing of 〈◊〉 Proper because it is proper only to reasonable and immortall Spirites although in men if it grow vehement it affecteth coÌ„sequently the Body also Immediat 2. wayes 1. because it can doth receave an impression of sorrow and Paines made from God only by and in it selfe without any outward bodily meanes therevnto 2. It is also an Immediat Punishment or els Correction of sinne it cometh not for any other cause at all So that thus we meane when we speake of the Soules Proper and Immediat Suffering The Soules second faculty of Suffering paines is not Proper but Common to vs with Beasts namely that which is by Sympathy Communion with and from the Body For which cause also it is not Immediat sith it commeth not to the Soule but by externall bodily meanes A third kind of painful Suffering the Soule hath namely her vehemeÌ„t strong AffectioÌ„s are Painful whether they be good or evill As Zeale Love CoÌ„passion Pity Care c. Neither are these immediatly for Sinne whether Punishmentes or Corrections but they com for and by other immediat causes â—â—tions no â—â—at â—or 〈◊〉 Punish 〈◊〉 5. neither are they Punishments or Corrections at all
Properly in them selves Accidentally they may be when they growe so strong that they paine and grieve the Soule These 2. later kinds of the Soules Suffering you acknowledg to have ben in Christ the 1. kinde you vtterly deny â—â—g 5. 6. 16 〈◊〉 253. â— 255. 335 Now I affirme that Christ tasted also the 1st kinde For how could the Proper and principall Humane Suffering be not in him â—â—â—br 2.10 a Man made of God to * Suffer for all our Sinnes So this in a maner is the point of our CoÌ„troversie And verily how you can deny the same by the Scripture yet acknowledging withall a true and perfit Humaine Soule in Christ I cannot see Namely seeing iust occasion heereof was giuen him from God as afterward shall further appeare You * pa. 248. seeme to sticke at those termes which I vse The Soules proper and immediat suffering you call them “ pa. 257. 336. vnsalted and vnsetled But any may see how easy they are to bee vnderstood and also that wee must in this quaestion necessarily thus distinguish the same from that which is by sympathy is comon to vs with other creatures Thirdly wee must also note that God himselfe is alwayes and evermore the principall and proper punisher then when the Soule suffereth paines after the first maner that is in her proper and immediat faculty of suffering And that is alwayes immediatly for sinne also not for any other cause at all Gods owne almighty power armed with iustice in burning wrath thus punisheth sinne somtime more somtime lesse when and how it pleaseth him Fourthly God himself therfore was thus the principall and only proper Punisher of Christ as hee sustayned the punishment of our sinnes The Divells and wicked men his Persecutours did their parts also indeed for other ends but yet they were all as Instruments only vsed by God vnto his owne end namely that Christ might pay heereby a iust price and full satisfaction for our sinnes It was then the Almighty and most iust God himselfe in his severe wrath against our sin that principally properly inflicted on Christ the paines and punishments which he as our Surety suffered for the paying of our Ransom As it is written “ Isa 53. â— The Lord laid vpon him the punishment of vs all Whatsoever you have against this afterward we shall consider it in due place Fiftly we meane not that in God was is or can be any †As youâ— serve wâ— pag. 24â— perturbatioÌ„ at all and therefore consequently no Wrath nor Hatred as is in vs. But because Wee painfully afflict others with whom commonly wee are Angry and we discerne somtime and see paines inflicted on men by God therefore we say he sheweth his anger and wrath vpon them whom hee punisheth Nevertheles wee must note especially that to suffer as the Godly doe Chastisements and corrections is not to suffer or feele Gods Wrath nor indeed the pumishment of sinne except it bee in a very vnproper speach To suffer the true punishment satisfaction proper payment wages of sinne only that is to suffer properly and truly the Wrath and Curse of God Now then seeing the paines which Christ for vs did feele were indeed properly the Punishment and Paiment and vengeance for sinn such as the Godly do in no wise suffer Christ only having wholly suffered that for vs all Therefore indeed his sufferings proceeded from Gods proper wrath and were the true effects of Gods meere Iustice bent to take recompence on him for out offences the Godly never suffering any thing at all in such respect Sixt These paines which Christ suffered as the proper Punishment and Price of sinne and inflicted on him even by Gods own hand did not make smart and anguish only in his flesh or onely in the sensitive part of the Soule by mutuall coniuction sympathy with the body but of necessity must also be deepely conceaved felt in the vnderstanding and Mind of Christ Now how deepe this was as we neither do nor can precisely affirme so we are well assured that the sense of paine was not lessened nor abated in Christ needlesly Hee suffered doubtles according as sinne deserved in every point except only in such respects as were flatly impossible For the better vnderstanding whereof wee are heere to note another principalll distinction â—â—â—fering of â—aines for sin 〈◊〉 fold â—or sinne inâ—â—eâ—ent and â—â—puted that there are 3. divers and severall sortes of suffering paines directly for sinne 1. As the wicked and damned do that is by suffering the proper wrath of God truly punishing in them that is properly in their Soules aswell as in their Bodies their sinnes in whom togeather with their paines there is also inherent sinne abiding and imputed the cause of all their punishments with the the adiuncts and consequents thereof desperation induration blaspheming reiection malediction hatred and finall dereliction with such like These are certain proper and right conditions of the reprobat heere of the damned in Hell â—â—r sinne inâ—â—â—ent but 〈◊〉 imputed which Christ never tasted 2. The godly in this world do suffer paines for their sinnes But these whatsoever they be yea though death it selfe are improperly called Punishments as was before noted â—â—ch 12.5 â— 7 8 9 10 â— they are * Chastisements of sinne Yea they are partly remembrances to cause repentance of sinne past presently inherent partly Chastisements to humble vs and to mortifie sinne in vs more and more hereafter And thus they are in no sort inflicted on vs as very Curses by Gods Wrath and Iustice properly so called but properly by Gods Holynes and Love as after wee shall further see These are the ordinary wayes of suffering for sinne but nothing appertayning to Christ neither 3. 3 Suffering sinne not haerent yet impuâ—â—â— There is another peculiar and extraordinary way belonging onely to Christ according to which Christ suffered for sinne distinct and greatly differing from both the former and yet in some speciall points agreeing with both 1. Christ suffered for sinne being sinles indeed How Châ—st sufferings those of thâ— Godly dâ—gree Hoâ— they diffeâ—â— as the Godly also are sinles “ Rom. 4. by imputation Againe their sufferings are temporary and in this life only such also were his But Christes sufferings were exceeding much differing from ours 1 in that his sufferings were for our sinnes now made his by Gods accoumpt and ours are for our owne Also his were the true and proper Punishment or iust vengeance of God for sinne ours onely Chastisements and remembrances which belonged nothing at all to him His the true effects of Gods severe and iust Wrath properly taken ours are from his iustice wrath improperly so called Touching the Reprobats and damned How the sufâ—â—rings of Châ—â—â—â— and of thâ—â— Damned 〈◊〉 differ 1. their sufferings are for sinnes inhaerent Christes were for sinnes only imputed So that Gods Anger
by the death and bloud of Christ. So you commend the force and frute of his bodily death as most sufficient â—ag 84. â—â—g 88. And * the bodily death of Christ payeth the price of our Redemption â—ag 335. it removeth all the impediments of our salvation The ioynt sufferings of Christ the Soule feeling what the Body suffered were most avaylable for our salvation â—â—g 336. †The violence was offered to the Body the sense whereof reached vnto the Soule and these are the sufferings of the Crosse and of death which the Scriptures attribute to the Sonne of God for our salvation â—â—g 60. 58. There is no other sacrifice of Christs Soule which can be neither bodily nor bloudy * The iustice of God both temporally and eternally punisheth the Soule only by the Body 〈◊〉 254. 255 Nevertheles contrariwise you seeme some where to yeeld wholly so much as we affirme â—â—g 17. As where you say The same part might indeed suffer in Christ which sinned in man J meane the Soule If you meane as you seeme and as you ought that as every part and faculty of the Soule is in vs sinfull so in Christ it suffered for our sinne then in his Soule he suffered for sinne properly and immediatly that is in his very Mind from the immediat hand of God not only from and by his Body 〈◊〉 87. 4. Againe you allow in Christ * All those afflictions and passions of the Soule which naturally and necessarily follow paine This All reacheth vnto mo and more grievous paines then the meere bodily are it includeth the Soules porper immediat paines also 〈◊〉 138. And yet playner Smart paine and grief of body or mind bee it never so great will commend his obedience and patience 〈◊〉 286. And * the punishment of sinne which proceedeth from the iustice of God and is no sinne that Christ might and did beare Yea he suffered death with all painfull 〈◊〉 87. but no sinfull concomitants and consequents 〈◊〉 76. And * nothing might befall the humane nature of Christ which was vnfitting for his Diuine Whence we gather vnderstanding you in the best sence that whatsoeuer was fitting for his Divine nature to admit of in his Humanity that his humane nature did feele Consequently then he felt all the paines of the damned which were no sinnes neither indeed perpetuall seeing his Divine nature could admitt this in his Manhood aswell as any suffering at all for sinne You will say If hee felt not also desperation as the damned do then hee felt not all the paines which the damned do feele For desperation augmenteth their very paines I answere we say not that Christ suffered simply All the paines of the damned that is He felt not such as are by their very nature sinnes aswell as paines as indeed desperation is But I say Christ suffered none of those paines All other which are by their nature meere paines and onely painfull Christ did suffer them as sharply for the time we doubt not as the very damned do So that if your L. will stand to that which before we obserued in you and not clip it not renounce it we professe this is all that ever we did or do craue wee neede no longer to striue it is the wholl question which you grant vs viz That Christ did beare punishment of sinne as great as any is proceeding from the Justice of God yet being no sinne Whence it must needes follow that the paines of Christes suffering were the same in nature and altogeather as sharpe and as painfull as they are in Hell it self And this is the whol summe of the matter about Christes Hellish sorrowes and paines thus standeth our quaestion with these differences according to which we hold and professe that Christ suffered the Wrath of God or Hell paines If you set the question otherwise you go back from that which you found fault withall in your Sermons you fully ioyne with the Preachers and Catechismes of England yea withall other Protestants in the world and namely with all them whom at first you reproued and traduced openly for this cause There is none of them I assure you that euer spake or meant any more then this issue delivereth If you agree to this I beseech you what wisedom shewed you in your whot confutations exclamations so vehemently to condemne you knewe not what and to reprove you knew not whom Further if any do teach that Christ suffered the paines of Hell in a grosse and locall maner though you most iniuriously do invey at vs for such a matter yet verily it is neerer your owne assertion then ours if you be well observed For seeing you determine simply that Christ might did suffer such punishment of sinne which proceeds from the iustice of God and is no sinne it seemeth by your speech that Christ did suffer Torments even locally in Hell it selfe for that had ben a punishment that is no sinne â—â—â—â—â—icus â—â—â—â—â—st Latiâ—â—â—er Act. â—â—â—â—on that in deed some learned and godly men did hold but erroneouslie As for vs somway we avouch your sentence also that Christ suffered whatsoeuer punishment of sinne which proceeded from the iustice of God is no sinne but yet with expresse limitation froÌ„ Scripture namely in CircuÌ„stances as I shewed viz. in this world only not after his crosse at all nor locally among the damned So that thus we say it is not true that Christ suffered the paines of Hell 〈◊〉 hold not 〈◊〉 at Christ â—â—â—fered simâ—â—y the parâ—â—s of Hell which yet those your fore-noted indefinit wordes doe import Nay speaking exactly wee vse not this terme of Hell neither delight we to vse it ofteÌ„ in any regard about our maine Quaestion because we finde not this word literally and expreslie applied to Christes sufferinges in the Scripture Howbeit sometimes we speake so I graunt and I thinke that wee may well doe so As also 〈◊〉 â—ny other â—â—â—nts of Reâ—â—â—on are â—â—â—yme afâ—â—â—ned vtâ—â—â—ed when we vnderstand it by plaine Consequence froÌ„ Scripture for the extreame paines of Gods proper wrath vengeance for sinne from which euen Hell it selfe is not separated yea Gods very wrath is a parte and the greatest parte of Hell paines Or els Metaphorically when we haue to set out with an emphasis the most dolefull and incomparable paines of Christes sufferinges as they appeared onely to the sense of men not otherwise Which it seemeth your selfe also liketh well enough 〈◊〉 8. â—34 â—â—9 But howe badly then doe you vrge vpon vs and perswade men that we doe must say in maintenance of this our Question â—â—imious â—â—â—tation 〈◊〉 1.8.244 â—â—7 264 â—â—0 34â— * that Christ suffered All the sorrowes of Hell the whole Curse of God his whole wrath and All the very Torments of the damned and that in such sense as you make of those wordes that is including in
Goates a slaine a Scapegoat * Pag. 23. You obiect heere against 1. that I abuse the Text. That were a great fault but let vs view the text Thus are the very expresse wordes which you also recite * ver 5 Aaron shall take of the people 2. Goats for a Sinne-offering Surely you must bring very good reason to frustrat so plaine a speach That is you say to make a Sinne-offering of one of them Nay the very words are take 2. Goats for a Sinne-offering it saith not take 2. Goats that one of them may be a Sinne-offering But this sheweth so much you thinke where the text saith Lottes were cast over the 2 Goates one lot for the Lorde the other for the Scapegoat And Aaron shall offer the Goat on which the Lordes lot shall fall and make him a Sinne-offering These wordes prove not that the Scapegoat was no Sinne-offering at all Vnlesse this were true that no Sinne offering can possibly bee but by killing and slaying and sheadding of bloud Although the “ Heb. 9. Scripture say Without sheadding of bloud is no remission yet it meaneth that Allmost all things are in the Law purged with bloud That is many Offerings and sacrifices are bloudy but not all I take now sacrifice and offering in the largest sense as signifying any consecrated thing given to God to appease him for sinne And such vnbloudy Sinne-offerings very many we shall finde in * Lev. 2.11 13 8 13. Nomb. 1â— 18 11 28 12 14. Moses Law Wherefore the Scapegoat may we yet a Sinne-offering though it were not slaine nor bloudy And his vtter sending away into the vnknown Deserts may answer to the consuming of som other Sacrifices by fire Thus then these wordes of the text which you bring doe not proue the Scapegoate to be no Sinne-offering at all they proue it to be no bloudy Offering and therefore not such but of another kind then the slaine Goat was It might be consecrated and offered to the Lord and vtterly sequestred from men and beare and take away sinne no lesse then the slaine Goat wherein verily consisteth the nature and being of a Sacrifice or true Sinne-offering And in very deede all this the text following expresly avoucheth of the Scape goate ver 10. The Scapegoat shal be presented alive before the Lord to make reconciliation by him to let him go for a Scape-goat Heere is his Consecrating vnto the Lord yea reconciliation also is made by him though he dyed not as the other did Againe more plainly ver 21 22. * And Aaron shall put both his handes vpoÌ„ the head of the live Goat and confesse vpon him all the iniquities of the Children of Israell all their trespasses and all their sinnes putting them vpon the head of the Goat and shall send him away alive into the Wildernes So the Goat shall beare vpon him all their iniquities into the Wildernes being let go thither Can there be any thing in the world more full and strong to prove that the Scapegoat also was a true Sinne-offering or rather a true parte of this wholl and intire Sinne-offering consisting and being compleat in both these Goats the slaine and the Scapegoat togeather For as the slaine Goate so this Scapegoat wee see was aswell Consecrated to the Lord and * heere Offered though not by killing and separated from men ver 10. ver 21 22. have vpon him all the sinnes of the people and caryed them cleane away So wee may reade of other Sacrifices consisting and being compleat wholly of Sacrifices of sundry divers kindes Nomb. 28.3 c. The bloudy Sacrifice had conioyned togeather with it the vnbloudy Sacrifice of the Meat offering and another of the Drinke offering c. Which may very likely represent vnto vs the sundry and divers kindes of Christes meritorious Sufferings in his life time at his Death som bloudy some vnbloudy but all concurring togeather making the full and persit propitiation for al our sinnes And even such a Sacrifice or Sinne-offering it seemeth surely these 2. Goats were Heere then your advisednes may bee noted by all men which doe reprove me for this assertion and that with such violent and vncomly termes Now if it be a Figurative Sinne-offering what signified this Figure Certainly it signified Christ and his taking away of our sinnes by his death Have you any colour of reason to maintaine those wide coniectures of the * Ancients â—yrill Amâ—â—ose Beda that the Scapegoat signified the Reprobat and castaway people or ells cursed Barrabas that scaped death when Iesus was slaine Who but you would defend these palpable mistakinges of those men And why Because they are Ancient Yet see you not the expresse text against theÌ„ Do damned men or did Barrabas reconcile vs to God take away our sinnes as the Scapegoat did typically Nay surely It must needs be then that it signified Christ yea doubtles Christ man For the Godhead could bee no Sinne-offering neither did it make reconciliation for sinne neither did the Deity beare our sinnes vpon himselfe properly all which the Scapegoat * Tipically did Further if it were Christ man it could not be his Body for his body was slaine bloudily the Scapegoat was not slaine For the other Goat a Sacrifice to being slaine this survived and went away into the land of separation It must then be of necessity I thinke the Humane mortall Soule of Christ which the Scapegoate signified which was a true Sinne-offering and made propitiation for vs aswell as the slaine Goat and bare vpon him our sinnes though his Soule dyed not bloudily nor by loosing life and sense as his body and the typicall slaine Goat did You say “ Pap. 235. If this Scapegoat do signifie Christs Soule then it cannot be that Christes Soule Suffered much lesse dyed any death This obiection truly you might haue spared seeing my self * Treat 1 1â— before brought it fully answered it where against you have said never a word The effect whereof is this The escaping of the Goat may lively shew vnto vs that Christs Soule dyed not as the Body dyed by loosing life and sense but surviving went hence into Hades the land of separation the invisible world of the Dead But in that the Scapegoat did beare and sustaine our sinnes and was indeede a Sinne-offering to aswell as the slaine Goat so it may well signifie that Christes Soule properly suffered and sustayned the burden of our sinnes in satisfying for them no lesse then his body which was bloudily slaine therefore As for the Dying of Christs Soule we shall answer you for that in due place heereafter So that Now where you say “ Pag. 234. I am more bold then wise in affirming the Scapegoat to signifie the Soule of Christ Surely then I were like you who affirme as boldly that among the Iewes no Sacrifice at all foreshewed any Suffering of
the Soule of Christ which you can never prove Howbeit this I acknowledge indeed that the Iewish Figures though they be applyable vnto Christ the substance of those shaddowes yet wee ought to apply them in the particulars soberly and warily and not without some plaine proportion of the Figure with the thing Figured Wherefore my meaning is none other in these Iewish figures which the Scripture doth not any where expresly interpret but to shew what I thinke to be indeed most probable and likely knowing that yet som such matter as we aime at they do signifie without question And this is sufficient to deny your Assertion which against our saying that the sufferings of Christes Soule may be signified by the Scapegoat is but meerely coniecturall and presumed The very like are * your 3. reasons brought to shew that the Holocaust cannot signifie the sufferingâ—s of whole Christe Pag. 236. and therefore not of his Soule any way Lev. 1. 6. Your former reason is because the Holocaust was 1. slaine and after burnt for then if the burning signifieth Christs paines and sufferings Christ must seeme to suffer after his death But this is a weake inference Is there any Figure or similitude concurring in all points and circumstances with the thing signified Sure there is no man of knowledge so vnexpert or so vnreasonable as to require it Many times where they agree only but in one principall respect that sufficeth to make the similitude Againe many similitudes and Figures there are in the olde Law having as great disparagemeÌ„t to the things signified by them as this in the Holocaust which you talke of The Bodies of beasts first slaine Lev. 4.11 2. 16 27 Heb 13.11.12 ver 13. Lev. 1.9 were after caryed out of the Host Now these signified Christs going out of Jerusalem * to be slaine but being yet alive Againe the beasts carying out by others after they were slaine is likened to our voluntary and free leaving of the world in this life Lastly the * burning of the beastes after they were dead was a sacrifice of a sweet favour vnto God Which in truth is Christs very death Fphe 5.2 and nothing don by him afterward whereby Gods anger is fully pacified towarde vs. Wherefore your first exception is very vaine The 2. is like to it The Holocaust was consumed in one the same sire But Christ was tormented wholly not with one kind of suffering as we maintaine but with 2. kindes that is with bodyly spirituall sorrowes First I say this also if it were true is as weake an exception as the former and altogeather like it See Though Christ indeed suffered divers and sundry kindes of sorrowes yea even of those which were meerely outward and bodily Even that meerely in the Soule viz. when it grew vehement as also of those that were meerely Spirituall and inward yet we plainely affirme that one the same torment afflicted his whole manhood by sympathy For his Soule also was sore grieved I doubt not even with his proper Bodily torments likewise his Body when his trickling sweat was clots of bloud was crushed and broken vnspekeably with his inward and spirituall sorrowes though his flesh then felt outwardly no paine So your 2. exception is also nothing The 3. is no better where you argue from a Treaâ— pag. 1â— my words that the Bodyes of beastes could not prefigure the immortall reasonable Soule of Christ. And it is like to that which b pag. â— afterward you cite from my words about the Sacraments Earthly Elements cannot set out spirituall and invisible effectes in Christ. Hence you thinke that I cannot defend that the firy consuming of the Holocaust may signifie the sorrows both of the Soule and Body of Christ You shall see that I can full easily and without any trisling It is evident that I meane in those former places that bodily thinges generally and for the most part doe-represent the meere bodily externall parts of Christes sufferings but not alwayes and altogeather Which you might haue easily seene by my answere to the c Treaâ— pag. â— Assumption and by the instances which there I give to this purpose Againe the very instances which I give viz the Scapegoat the Holocaust afterward the bread broken in the communion these I say doe not in that respect as they are Bodily things represent the Soule of Christ or any matter pertayning to it But the peculiar vsage and maner of action about them doth lively represent the suffering of his soule and not of his body only As not the Goat representeth Christes soule vnles only in respect of the escaping of it wheÌ„ the other Goat dyed also in respect of the sustayning and bearing vpon himself of our sinnes And not the body of the Holocaust but the vtter consuming by fire of the whole signifieth the sufferings of whole Christ Lastly the bread may signifie the whole Christ who is the intire and perfit bread of life but the Breaking thereof into pieces representeth more lively the breaking crushing in pieces as it were of the soul rather theÌ„ of the body Which was pierced through but was not in case of being broken in pieces so likely as the Soul was Yet you will say the Hol may signifie that whole Christe suffered but some bodily afflictions the Soul feeling the griefs paines of the Body For how wil it follow that the proper and immediat sufferings of Christs Soule might be signified by the Holocaust Surely according to the proportion of the Holocaust so whole Christ then his very Soule chiefly was as it were chopt or broken into pieces and as it were quite consumed and swallowed vp in his firy sorrowes onely the assistance of his Godhead sustained his Soule and withall his body or els he could not have borne it â—reat 1. â—ag â—8 as a I noted M. Whitakers to have truly taught This can not bee but the Soules peculiar suffering of Gods very wrath far beyond all bodily sufferings and yet not those paines of Hell â—ag 8. c. as b you grosly vtter it Your other senses that you give heereof the 1. hindreth not mine â—ag 237. that is c the Acceptation of Christes death The 2. that is Christs fleshes incorruption after death is very hard and far fetcht And Sacrifices had their respect to Christes death not to any thing further or afterwards As for another sense out of Austin that it should signifie our perfection and burning charity it cannot be true for the Holocaust-sacrifice out of question primarily signified the person of Christ not ours See it is vntrue that any man besides Christ alone is or can bee perfect in this life that he should bee wholly consumed with Heavenly love according to the proportion of the consuming of the Holocaust Also you both heere do seeme double vnderstanding by the Holocaust both incorruption after death a perfect
his Soule And e De incaâ—â— Sacr. cap. 〈◊〉 Hoc in se obtulit Christus quod induit c. Christ offered in sacrifice all that which he assumed that is all every whit that was in him besides his Godhead f Fulgent 〈◊〉 Thrasym 〈◊〉 lib. 3. Fulgentius He shewed in himselfe the sufferinges of a whole man in verity truth quicquid fuit infirmitatis animae sine peccato suscepit pertulit Hee tooke vpon him and suffered whatsoever infirmity may be in the soule without sinne It is not possible that wee our selues should speake a more effectuall sentence for our purpose then this is Say as Fulgentius heere saith and we aske no more All that g Pag. 86. you except that by these Fathers Christe dyed only the death of the flesh is lesse then heere they affirme And we shall answer to that in due place Now marke well how these Fathers do not say that Christ gave his life for a ransom onely as h Pag. 70. â—â— you would construe it but even his very Soule to for our Soules They strive to expresse an exact proportion so far as was possible betwene Christ and vs. First in the parts of Christ who suffered of vs who were saved So that as we are saved not in our bodies only nor only in the externall sensitiue parte of our soules wherein standeth that suffering with and by our bodies but wee are saved redeemed and sanctified in our whole Spirite and Vnderstanding also even so by their verdict Christ suffered for vs not the bodily and outward sufferinges by Sympathy onely but hee suffered for vs even in his Minde also Now this is directly against your present a Assertion which we have in hand 〈◊〉 132.240 â—eere p. 14 Also heere they observe an exact proportion in the Obiects so far as was possible viz in that which he suffered for vs that which we are saved froÌ„ thereby Thus that sorrow of the immortall parte of the Soule not of body only which we are saved from the same he suffered Yea I say all and every whit of those passions sorrowes wherevnto mans nature is b subiect and capable of 〈◊〉 nature we â—â—e subject to â—â—fer in the â—â—nde proâ—erly for sin â—nd not only â—y Sympathy â—rom the Body Cyrill Thesâ—â—ur 10 3 Barnard de â—ass Dom. â—ap 41. Pag. 7. Terâ—ul cout Prax. Amb in Luc. 2. De trist â—olor c. and from which we are saved all the same he tasted and suffered for vs. Thus it is also that Cyrill elswhere saith c Omnia perpessus est vt nos ab omnibus liberaret He suffered all things throughly that hee might acquit vs from all which els we should have suffered And thus I take Barnards meaning to be d He spared not him selfe who knoweth how to spare his Wherevpon you collect well if you meane so e He suffered and indured All to the vttermost with exact obedience and patience To which end Tertullian also f Sic reliquit dum non parcit This was Gods forsaking of him in his passion that in nothing he spared him And thus Ambrose g Minus contulerat mihi nisi meum suscepisset affectum He had don lesse for me if he had not ben altogeather affected as I should haue ben And thus Ierom h â—erom in â—sa 53. h Quod nos pro nostris debebamus sceleribus sustinere ille pro nobis passus est pacificans c That wich we should have borne for our sinnes the same hee suffered for vs. Wherefore by the Fathers Christ suffered exactly i All whatsoever sorrowes paines which we should have suffered All kindes 〈◊〉 both in â—â—irit Body â—ot all partiâ—â—lars in theÌ„ as well Spirituall as Corporall as well in all the powers of the Soule subiect to suffering as in that which suffered allwayes with and from the body Only they except 2. pointes which of simple necessity indeed must be excepted in the Sonne of God Pag. 10. 12. â—3 which before k I have also acknowledged 1. Sinne Pag. 87. and all sinfull concomitantes and consequentes as l you speake And that is it which Cyprian exactly noteth That in him there was m Similitudo paenae non Culpae Cypr. de pass the very like punishmeÌ„t as should have ben in vs only there was no sinne nor fault in him as is in vs. The 2. point excepted is that he suffered not eternally but for a while for he that was life it selfe could not but live againe saith n Cyrill In the place above cited Where he seemeth to acknowledge a kind of death even of the soule from which Christ revived againe But of that in due place heereafter Nowe heere it is manifest that even the Fathers of whom you doe so exceedingly boast are cleane against you and for vs in the 1. and chiefest point of this question shewing that Christ suffered not only bodly or in the soule by Symphaty only but in the Minde also distinctly even as we may suffer in minde distinctly froÌ„ our bodily suffering that is when we suffer somwhat a As I 〈◊〉 Treat 〈◊〉 pag. 4. imediatly from God Yea he suffered say these Fathers all the paines which els we should haue suffered no materiall thing excepted but only sinne otherwise he was spared by dispensation in nothing Against this cleere and plaine sense of the Fathers b Pa. 35â— you take no exception neither can you Thus having hitherto manefestly defended my selfe that I have not abused any way the Fathers nor yet your selfe as you vniustly charge me in c Pa. 22â— your entrance Now I am to doe the like against d Pag. 2â—â— your vnsufficient refusing of my Reasons Where by I hope it shall appeare that you have not weakened any one of them And First you begin with rehearsing my wordes wherein I briefly noted the very Question betweene vs e Treat 〈◊〉 pag. 4. That Christ suffered for vs the Wrath of God Which you f Pag. 24 exclame at without measure as being not the point which you preached against Howbeit I suppose these wordes do rightly and fitly set out the matter both which then you preached which now you write I have g Pag. 8 heere before truly fully declared the whole state of this controversy I trust Yet because we can never opeÌ„ this point to much for many good vses that it hath I will not thinke it tedious nor labour lost ne to rip vp this question a litle againe in this place that so we may proceede with more ease Your generall cariage in your booke declareth that you abuse the Reader exceedingly by the ambiguous and equivocall taking of this terme Gods Wrath as before in the entrance I have shewed It is not I that abuse them as you h Namâ— 243 24â— every where very bitterly and vnreasonably do charge me For according to the most vsuall and
you meane not thus 〈◊〉 The. 5.23 then you againe vse sophistry deceaving vs with the worde Soule For wee meane thereby in this Question onely the Spirit or Minde as it is also called in exact and distinct speach Howbeit speaking vulgarly and ordinarily we calle it the Soule Which yet sometime is vnderstood onely for the Sensitive parts quickning the body and depending thereon But this indeede is not it which we haue heere in quaestion If you meane in Soule to be properly and immediatly in his immortall Spirit as the ordinary phrase intendeth and that so he suffered directly punishment for sin in his Soule not Devotion Piety zealous Care only as I doubt e you meane then you differ not frō vs 〈◊〉 observe 〈◊〉 18. but we al agree And thus my wordes shal be true Christ suffered a sense of Gods wrath f equall to Hell it selfe and all the torments thereof For as touching Gods wrath punishing his Spirite Which you 〈◊〉 s o blame 〈◊〉 244.247 who can say but that this was as hoat and skorching as Hell fire it selfe Who can limit or measure the fury of Gods severe Iustice when he cometh in iudgment against sinne as now he did vnto Christ This therefore being well pondered we may preceave that Christs sorrow anguish which he indured for sinne might very well be and was no doubt infinit yea even in those bodily stripes woundes and bloudshed whose paines otherwise were finite His soule not only discerning sensitively the bodily paine smart but chiefly in the vnderstanding he conceaved and in his faculty of immediat suffering he felt the fury of that hand which principally strooke those blowes vpon his Humane nature not Pilats nor the Iewes who were but instruments but the originall and chiefe imploying them which was Gods Justice armed with vengeance for his sinne His I may call it for he paid for it Now this could not but make an vnspeakeable impression of paine sorrowes which stacke in the depth of his soule Who then can say how litle or how small this was Nay who can declare or comprehend the infinit greatnes of it Finally your self doth grant expresly that a Pag. 2. the Wrath of God is Hell indeed only it b Isa 30 causeth Hell to be cruell Yea you grant it to be sharper then Hell So that we see heereby how vainly you say c Pag. 2◠Out of this proposition Christ suffered for vs the wrath of God for sinne I shall never conclude Ergo he suffered the true paines of Hell I have heere shewed you I trust that this followeth well seeing the wrath of God which Christ felt in his Spirit was his right and proper wrath albeit he suffered not all nor the wholl wrath of God nor Hell locally nor every part thereof iust as the Damned do Which you without all colour of reason or likelyhood would make men imagine to be the question betweene vs. You d Pag. 24 would make a Contradition in my wordes for saying e Treat 1. Christ suffered in his wholl manhood and afterward f Treat 1. Christ suffered Gods wrath properly and immediatly in his Soule Where I say not as you vntruly charge me that He suffered all that he suffered in his whole manhood Wherefore this is a niew contrariety Againe granting him to suffer all that he suffered in his wholl manhood yet he must suffer Gods wrath as God wrath properly and immediatly in his Soule in his Body mediatly and by coniunction only with his Soule And thus my reason g Treat 1. there framed is yet still wholly good and sound Then I am charged with absurdityes I know not how many nor how great 1. h Pag. 34◠Because I say i Treat ◠pag. 17. Christ assumed not our nature nor any part of it but only to suffer in it properly and immediatly As if I had meant heere that he became man not to reveale to vs by his owne mouth his Fathers will not to worke righteousnes for vs not to quicken and sanctify vs but only to suffer for vs and nothing els Wherein who would have shewed himselfe so vniust an Adversary so vnreasonable Were it not reason and iust dealing to consider whereof we dispute and so weighing the whole matter of our talke not to stretch and racke my words further then that All men may see it to be manefest that k Treat ◠pag. 16. heere I speake only of Christs suffering for our redemptiō having not one word about his other benefits which he wrought for vs. Pag. 17. a And after speaking of Christs Soules suffering I shew that although there were 2 sortes thereof one immediat and proper an other by Sympathy from and with the flesh yet Christ tooke our Humane Soule only to suffer in it properly immediatly that is his maine end was not that he should suffer in it by Sympathy from and with the body and onely so which you very strangely affirme So that my meaning is no more but to exclude that which you affirme That Christ tooke his Humane Soule to suffer in it only from and by his Body This heere I denyed and nothing els For I grant that Christ intended that his Humane Soule should suffer by Sympathy but yet also this he intended not directly nor primarily in taking the 2 distinct partes of our Humane nature our Soule and our Body He intended it by consequence because Natures right state was such in vs therefore determining to be in nature like vs he would also that his Soule should feele the Bodyes outward harmes as it doth with vs. Howbeit in comparison of the Soules most principall disposition of that which is proper to Reasonable Creatures he did not respect the inferiour part that which is common to vs with Beastes even this sensitive suffering by Sympathy with and from the Body I say in comparison of the other Christ respected not this yet he did respect this also as I said secondarily consequently that is because he intended to have our nature in whole and full perfection as we have it only except sinne Now I beseech you would any vpright adversary obiect against me that in this speach I exclude Christes doing righteousnes in his Soule for vs c. I appeale to all indifferent Readers Rather hence we are to gather to conclude that each part in Christ ought to have the proper and immediat vse as is incident to the nature thereof aswell in suffering as it is cleere that it hath in working righteousnes In Christes working of righteousnes and obedience to God his Soule had a proper and immediat part to do which it executed without the Body as to conceave meditate on the will of God revealed to him to love and wholly to imbrace it and to purpose the full performing of it c. His Body also had a proper and externall vse not onely to follow
the holy thoughts and purposes of his minde but also to minister many outward occasions to derive them to the minde whereby Christ wrought righteousnes compleatly and in his whole man That which was by cooperation and mutuall cohaerence only of one part with the other as it was a distinct kinde of working in the Soule and in the body also so it was respected secondarily and only because the true constitution of our nature requireth so which Christ meant wholly and perfitly to take vpon him Whence now we may well argue As it was with him touching his faculty of doing righteousnes and Obedience so it was and ought to bee touching his suffering Gods punishments for vs. There is no reason in the world nor likelyhood that the natural faculty in Christs Soule of proper and immediat suffering for our sinnes should have no vse and a Suffering of paines onely by and from the body should be sufficient when in his doing of righteousnes for vs his Soules ioint Obedience and mutually knit togeather in with his Body was not alone sufficient But there was further obedience found in the Soule of Christ even that which was proper and immediat in it as before I said Seeing then such a kind of Obedience was necessary for vs in Christs Soule therefore such a Suffering also even in the same kinde was necessary likewise This must needs be a perfit reason for vs against you except you could by expresse Scripture disprove this proportion of like necessity betweene the operation of the proper faculties of Christes Humane Soule that is betweene his Doing Suffering for vs which you shall never be able to do And thus it appeareth I hope that you had no cause so cruelly to rage at me for this as you do Nor yet for the next where your charge me that a Pag. 250. I conclude Christs flesh to be needles for our redemption A horrible Haeresie But how do I say so much Because I say His Soules suffering by Sympathy did not make properly to our redemption Ergo his Flesh was needles I deny this sequele how can that follow Touching the sense of my speach you may remember how I have largly declared b Pag. 8. before that the Soules proper suffering is greatly and iustly distinguished from the CoÌ„mon suffering that is by sympathy And that the Soules suffering by Sympathy in Christ was intended by God by reason that our naturall constitution doth require it so to be in every true and perfit man which Christ also was And thus it did make to our redemption even as likewise his Infirmities and Affections as his Wearines Hunger Sleepe Feare Love Ioy c. These doe make to our redemption not as intended in Christs incarnation principally and primarily but secondarily and by consequent because that Humane nature which God ordayned vnto him and intended to be perfit in him could not otherwise be throughly perfit as it is in vs but with these common Affections infirmities which other mortall Creatures have to not Man only Also in Christ these Infirmities and Affections wrought not immediatly for sinne but vsually for other particular causes and occasions immediatly Nevertheles they were all even for sin in him consequently that is because the perfection of Humane nature which he assumed for sinne and was in every point in him as before I noted required so Even thus likewise in Christ I say his Soules suffering by sympathy wrought in him immediatly properly for some other particular cause stirring that faculty that is by reason of the Bodily paine smart which this sensitive power of the Soule apprehended felt and caused the flesh also to feele This suffering then of his Soule only by sympathy was immediatly and properly not for our redemption from sin but for the sensitive apprehending of the smart woundes and blowes which the Iewes gave his body yet as before I said consequently even this was for our sinne also namely because these woundes were given him for our sinne And thus though it made for our redemption in such maner as it wrought in Christ because of our sinne and as it was intended by Christ in taking both partes of our Nature the Soule the Body yet this was not in a direct or immediat respect and so not properly but by consequent as I have shewed After a you charge me sorely Pag. 252. that I falsifie your Argument about receaving pollution from Adam For where b I frame your reason as grounded on that opinion that onely our flesh is derived from Adam and not our soule Treat 1. pag. 19. Pag. 252. c you renounce it vtterly and say you grounded no reason vpon that difficulty so you made no such argument as heere I pretend Which whether it be true or no I report me to them that heard you But then what is your reason now is it any otherwise grounded No certainly if you make any reason at all Who trifleth then and why doe you vpbraid me so much with trifling Let vs see what is your reason now Christes flesh is as able to redeeme vs as Adams to condemne vs. But we inherit pollution from Adams flesh Ergo. Doe we inherit pollution from Adams flesh and is it not by Generation How ells do we inherit pollution coÌ„demnatioÌ„ from him If there be no otherway why doe you then seeme to refuse the difficult question of our Generation and yet vrge the sequele thoreof For if our soules arise in Generation from Adam as well as our flesh how can your reason be good by any possiblity It is best therefore vtterly to omit this reason which you grant hath no ground but a great difficulty doubtfull question I a Treatisâ— pag. 21. have shewed herefore at large that your argument which heere is your Minor is nothing true For pollution that is sin reall iniquity is not in our flesh without a Soule But Ambrose saith We are defiled before we haue life I pray omit mens Authorities in this case prove by sound reason that which you would Neither is it cleere as you say it is that we â—â—heriâ—â— pollution froÌ„ Adams flesh only This word only you must add or els you say nothing against vs. Our parents Soules are in cause as wel as their flesh that sin is derived vnto vs. But you draw me to talke of these intricat things which I would in no wise meddle with I pray kepe b pag. 10. your promise better not to medle with this difficultie neither to make it any grouÌ„d of your reason which yet you do here notwithstanding Again you with one breath overthrow your self For you say we have pollution before the Soule commeth whence soever it coÌ„meth Yea whence soever What if the Soule doe come in by generation You see how you crosse your self who do so taunt me for this fault I hope altogither vniustly Then c Pag. 25 you
fruit was sinne even without and before the acte of eating Moreover other foule sinnes Haeresies Turcisme and Atheisme are committed and determined simply in the minde without any necessary imployment of any partes of the Body As touching Haeresies to hold Two first causes of thinges a Good and a Bad God and the Divell with Manichee also that Christ the Redeemer was not God with Arrius that the Holy Ghost is not God with Eunomius c that Christ had no Soul with Apollinaris that Christes Manhood was confounded and changed into his Godhead with Eutyches or divided from his Godhead with Nestorius or the opinion of Vbiquity or of Transubstantiation Finally that there never was nor shal be any Christ a Redeemer as the Turkes hold that there is no God as the Atheists Nowe are there not many provocations to hatch and to conclude these opinions meerely in the minde soule of man Are there not many pleasures even in these impieties meerely in the minde Yea it is evident to all that the meere Thoughts the Vnderstanding determination of the only Soule of man doth act them resolveth on them in it self without any concurrence or cooperation of the body therein Happily you will say The Soule takes occasion so to thinke by some outward bodily thinges before seene or heard I deny not but the Soule taketh occasion to thinke many things by the bodily senses How be it not all thinges simply And so are the Fathers b â—prian and 〈◊〉 10. in your â—â—g 255. heere to be vnderstood If any will stumble on that of Aristotle Nihil est in intellectû quod non fuit prius in sensu it is not absolutly nor vniversally true My reason is because Philosophers thought the minde to be as it were Tabula abrasa when we come into the world first They knew not the naturall Pride the impietie and perversity of mans soule which may yeeld many and sundry Thoughts and Determinations to sinne yea provocations and pleasures in sin which the Body ministreth not neither could the Heathen vnderstand them And to say that this pride impiety and perversitie was taken by contagion from the meere flesh originally in Generation is not to be proved Bud yet were that so notwithstanding the Soule afterward can acte many sinnes meerely in it selfe and without the cooperation of the body Further as the Angells sinned in the beginning by their meere spirituall conceit against God so nothing letteth but that man in his Angell-like nature the reasonable Soule may sinne likewise without any Bodily meanes therevnto Also as we can thinke well without vsing our body God so inspiring vs so may we thinke ill which is sinne our owne inborne corrupt vnderstanding and reason and will moving vs only Moreover if I grant you this point of HeatheÌ„ Philosophy that the Soule taketh occasion to thinke all thinges which she thinketh vniversally from the body bodily obiectes yet it followeth not that she taketh occasion to misthinke from thence alwayes The proper provocations and pleasures of sinne are oftentimes not outward at all but the meere perversitie and malignity of our evill minde is vsually the very cause of ill thoughts ill determinations I grant also that the occasion is often taken froÌ„ the outward senses But it is meerely taken not given taken by the corrupt and perverse minde not given by the senses Which though they be also otherwise corrupt yet simply in seeing naturall things they sinne not nor yet in hearing nor in tasting save as the minde which is properly and principally and first sinfull abuseth their operation And as touching those wretched a Haeretâ— Turkes theists men opinions before rehearsed doubtles their presumptuous and perverse wit only so reasoning and concluding falsly without any other proper inducementes froÌ„ without was the very cause of those spirituall impieties in many impes of Sathan Wherefore for you to affirme that the Soule committeth all acts of sinne by the body that God did not forbid Adam to like or desire that fruit is more then strange doctrine Somewhere most iniuriously b Pag. 3â— you reproch purity I dare say heere you have no colour of purity in this point Notwithstanding c Pag. 2â— you resolutly set your self to prove your opinion not by Scripture but by Fathers who are answered before saving Tertullian who d Pag. 2â— you say pointeth to a place of Scripture for it e Mat. 〈◊〉 out of the heart come evill thoughts But this place being considered will rather prove the contrary For Christ heere meaneth not by Heart any parte of the Body but meerely the Minde or Soule of man and that with opposition to the body in this case of sinning For thus in effect hee saith Not the Body sinneth by taking in but the Soule by sending out That is to say The Soule only sinneth properly not the body at all no not in grosse facts except as the body is the Instrument the Soule being the Agent as your selfe doe speake Otherwise the body sinneth not at all much lesse in such thoughts as are meere spirituall vnles wee meane by society for coniunctions sake in one person with the Soule which indeed is it that sinneth And thus some have thought those places of Tertullian which a â—ag 255. you cite may be vnderstood But indeed Tertullian you vse not well and bring these his wordes against his own meaning as anon we shall further see That which you ad of Bodily infirmities letting the operation of the Soule for so I thinke you meane as in Lethargies 〈◊〉 256. Apoplexies Sleepe Phrensy c. Peradventure then it thinketh and coÌ„sidereth more freely in it selfe and by it selfe then when the body setteth it on worke otherwise at other times Howsoever it can never be proved that the Soule then vtterly ceaseth operation and can do nothing for it seemeth that only our memory and sensitive faculties are stopped whereby it commeth to passe that we know nothing afterwards what the minde contemplateth and thinketh in such cases It is very rare when we remember something and by some extraordinary loosing of those obstructions it is which commonly doe possesse our senses wholy in such occasions Yet even those small remnants of such operations of our Soule beeing in such state doe evidently convince that the Soules operations hang not necessarily on the body neither is it idle when the body is hindred though commonly and for the most part we remember litle thereof Lastly if the Soules operations were so necessarily tyed to the faculties and instrumentes of the body as you doe avouch I greatly doubt howe the Soules immortalitie will bee defended against the effect of your assertion â—â—â—oul hath â—â—â—â—ion nor meereâ—â—â—â—mply in 〈◊〉 without â—â—â—dy 54.255 Surely it bringeth in with it the Haeresie of Pope Iohn the 22. and of certaine Anabaptistes that the Soule hath no being till when it shall resume hir body at the
last day And hence also it is that you say Gods iustice punisheth the soule only by the body that is not till the Resurrection This only the effect of you speach contayneth plainly and fully Yea in truth thus you must needs affirme and hold you can not avoid it if you will hold vour maine Question Only except you deny that Christe had a Humane Soule perfit in all the powers and facultyes thereof like ours or els that God did not properly punish Christ for our sinnes Of necessitie you must fall into one of these dangerous evills for ought that I yet see Wherefore this point is not a Pag â— so easie nor so evident to the simple as you pretend and I thinke you had neede of better reasons then hitherto I see any you have before the Godly and Learned will beleeve you The rather for that in deed heere you committ further 2. grievous faultes 1. Tertullian your owne authour the principall ground which you have for your opinion heere is wonderfully ill vsed 2. You are strangely contrary to your selfe in your very winding vp of the matter As for Tertullian he resolveth directly contrary to the wordes which b De Râ—â—â— carn câ—â—â— Animas 〈◊〉 torquers 〈◊〉 rique peâ—â—â—â—â—ros c you cite from him Saith he The example of Lazarus in the Gospell proveth that Mens Soules though alone and without their bodyes are punished and comforted in the world of the dead The Soule shall lacke the revniting of the flesh with it not for that it can not feele any thing without the flesh but for that it must needes heereafter feele also with the flesh For as much as it sufficeth by it selfe to doe somewhat so much or so farre also it sufficeth to suffer It sufficeth indeed to doe lesse by it selfe For it is able of it selfe only to Thinke to Will to Desire to Dispose but to accomplish it looketh for the vse of the body So therefore it also looketh for the societie of the body that by it the Soule may aswell suffer absolutely as without it she could not doe things compleatly And therefore for what actions it sufficed by it selfe the iudgement of the same it receaveth now that is Of the Desire of the Thoughtes of the Will that it had Thus Tertullian directly answereth to that c Pag. â— Conclusion and d Pag. 2â—â— reasons which you gather out of him proving contrarie to the same that the Soule now without the flesh receaveth iudgement for such actions as of it selfe it was sufficient to doe and it is sufficient to doe certaine actions of it selfe as To thinke to Will to Desire to Order and dispose things but to accomplish it is not able namely outward actions the iudgment of which actions indeed the Soule shall tary for till the revniting againe of the flesh therewith It seemeth that Tertullian cited before the reasons of the e Such a fore not 〈◊〉 Pope Lâ—â— Heretâ—kes holding that the Soules slept till the last iudgement and receaved no reward at all in the meane time for want of the societie of their flesh which till then lieth rotten in the Grave but heere Tertullian answereth and renounceth all this same â—â—s afterâ—ard the â—nhapilies 〈◊〉 now 〈◊〉 And so those were the Heretikes wordes against Tertullian which you alleage out of him in steed of Catholike Which dealing what it is I leave to be considered Next your owne contradictorie dealing in this place is also not to be forgotten For your selfe shutteth vp with an excellent reason against your self almost the same that I observed presently before in Tertullian against your collection Thus you say a Pag. 257. Doe I denie then that the Soule hath any sufferings in this life and the next which come not by the body By no meanes The Soule hath some proper punishments in this life as sorrowe and feare when the body hath no hurt from which Christ was not free as appeareth by his Agonie and so in the next the Soules of the wicked have griefe remorse besides the paine of fire c. Yes surely I suppose you denied before the Soules punishment without the Body But now you seeme to graunt it And seeing you graunt also that b Pag. 25â— nothing is more proportionable to Gods iustice theÌ„ to retayne the same order in punishing which they kept in offending Therefore it foloweth by your owne words that the wicked somtimes sinned meerely in and by their Soules and not onely togeather with and by their Bodies seeing they are punished simply in and by their soules and not onely with and by their bodyes Also how sound this is I wot not c Pag. 257. where you yeeld some punishment now to the Damned how beit none other reall and positive punishment but remorse and remembrance of sinne onely as it seemeth Againe in saying that Christ was not free from some proper punishments to the soule as Sorrow and Feare in his agonie if you meane as you speak that these were proper punishmentes inflicted on him by Gods very Wrath and not to be onely his holy affections Devotion to God and compassion to men which yet d â—esâ—oâ—e â—â—g 18. I feare is your meaning then it foloweth evidently from your own words that Christ suffered proper punishment in his Soule from the verie wrath of God more then the Bodily sufferings only on by Sympathy in the Soule which in a word is the grauÌ„ting of our whol question All the rest that you adde out of the Fathers touching Hell and Hell paines is to no purpose If e 〈◊〉 258.259 you cite them to proove that Christ had no naturall feare of Death and Hell you f â—â—g 22â— gainsay that your selfe further then we doe or then the trueth is Then a Pag. you come to my other Reasons which I called Speciall not for more excellency in them then in the other except onely that I take these to bee not so Generall as the former but more neerely to touch our Quaestion Which you might perceave well enough to have ben my meaning by the expresse Opposition that b Treat pag. 3. I make of Generall and Speciall But it appeareth you had rather take my wordes so as that you may make them to serve your vnseemely iesting and better inveying humour which yet in the end will helpe your cause but little Against b my 1. Reason out of I say that Christ suffered those paines and sorrowes for sinne which els we should have borne you except that I expresse not whether I meane All or Some I answer All and every whit I meane so far as possibllity will admit and namely as touching the very sorrowes and paine Nothing was abated in the nature and vehemency of the paine which hee suffered any more then is abated in the paine and sorrows of the Damned This the very text heere expresseth with great c Which faint intâ—tations 〈◊〉 261.
doâ—â— fully 〈◊〉 vnto emphasis d Isa 53 Hee susteyned our very sorrows or our sorrowes themselves And this we conclude the rather because the sense of paines and sorrows e Heb. 2â— only was the Ransom ordayned and consecrated by God in Christ that by them his sufferings should be accomplished our sinnes satisfied Whatsoever therefore in this life might be painfull was due to mankind generally for sin in it owne nature was no sin that Christ suffered wholly and alltogeather for vs even the same which els we should Which is your own f pa. 28â— plaine confession also I grant indeed it vtterly impossible that he who was vncapable of sinne yea God himselfe should be really separated from God or Hated or weakened in faith or punished externally Yet it was possible that even he on whom our sinne was laid should feele both properly in Soule and also in Body all the whole vehemency of our due paine and the sharpenes of our smart Paine affliction sorrow is not sinne be it small or great it is indeed properly and originally the Punishment of sinne either in vs or in others Christe suffered Punishment for sinne not in himselfe as others do but by Gods ordinance he suffered punishment extraordinarily for sinne in vs. When God smot him it was possible for him to feele it yea vnpossible it was that he should not feele it and of necessitie his Soule peculiarly properly infinitly did feele the stroke of Gods wrathful iustice The vehemency whereof may wound and pierce no lesse even in this life where God will then in the locall Hell it selfe All these our due sorrowes therefore and all this our sharpest deserved paine even Gods owne immediat hand smiting the Soule for sinne which far exceedeth and comprehendeth as it were all other paine Christ without any dispensation or qualification whatsoever indured for vs. This is that which we say and thus Ierom also expoundeth this very text â—trom in 〈◊〉 53. Saith hee a Quod nos pro nostris debebamus sceleribus sustinere ille pro nobis ' passus est Turne nowe your vaine and frivolous insultation against Ierom for his indefinit speech to whom it pertayneth in this case aswell as to me Pag. 26â— if you be not a respecter of persons Say to him b You may do well St Ierom to go to the Vniversitie againe whence you came afore you were wise and there learne to put quantity to your propositions that we may know when you speak of any thing whether you meane All or Some But Jerom would be wise enough to answer you if he were alive that whersoever he studied he knew so much that in learning and reason an indefinit proposition is to be taken as Vniversall in a necessary matter 〈◊〉 specialâ—â— Satisfying Gods vnâ—â—all Iustice 〈◊〉 * as the vndertaking of a Surety is in his stead whom he is surety for and yet namely but so far as knowen possibility admitteth and indeed no further Now this is apparant in this case of Christes suretyship and suffering in our steed Hee suffered all the whole punishent of sinne due to mankinde whatsoever was possible for him being a sinles man also very God to suffer And further then this none will imagin or thinke that any vnles mad men do affirme You charge meâ— c heereafter that I falsify this place of Ierom 〈◊〉 350. â—â—reat 1. 〈◊〉 85. Curse 〈◊〉 I put it â—â—â—hus Maâ—â—ctum 〈◊〉 a paâ—â—â—nthesis â—â—nod enim â—â—al 3.13 because d I did put in e maledictum with his wordes Which is a silly devise to turne of Jerom without answer For by it I expresse Ieroms meaning f his words have plaine reference to Maledictum in the g Apostle whoÌ„ he cited immediatly before This is theÌ„ none other but an honest falsifying of mine Authour Now that this place of Isay and the whole doctrine which I avovch touching these sufferinges of Christ for vs may the better be receaved let vs note that the publike doctrine appointed by h Authority to be taught through our England expresseth the very same Which Auâ—â—â—tie I have â—â—â—ged exâ—â—sed Treat 〈◊〉 88.89 â—he answereth to iâ— a word Namely Nowells Catechisme where it is thus taught He paid and suffered the paine due to vs and by this meanes delivered vs from the same Neither is it vnvsed among meÌ„ â—ne to promise and to be surety yea sometime to suffer for an other But with Christe as our Surety so suffering for vs God dealt as it were with extremity of law but to vs whose sinnes deserved punishments due paines he laid on Christ he vsed singular lenity gentlenes clemency and mercy Christ therefore suffered and in suffering overcame death the paine appointed by the everliving God for mens offense Againe His will was to suffer All extremitie for vs who had deserved all extremitie All these things being taken vpon himselfe he destroyed them all Where marke also what doctrine the Law of this Realme consonantly publisheth and commandeth in the Homilies of Christs Passion See whether it misliketh yours or no. The b Hom. â— Hom maketh Christs putting himselfe betweene Gods deserved Wrath and our sinne the extreamest part of his Passion If this were the extreamest part of his Passion then it was a further feeling then the sense of Bodily paine only it cannot be any other then his feeling of Gods proper Wrath spiritually which our sinne deserved Therefore by the Homily hee felt Gods proper Wrath spiritually which our sinne deserved Againe he bare All our sinnes sores and infirmities vpon his owne backe No paine did he refuse to suffer in his owne body But as he felt All this in his Body so hee must feele the greatest part primarily and much more deeply in his Soule Ergo hee refused not to suffer All the paines of the Wrath of God both in Body and Soule c Hom. â—â— Hee tooke vpon him the reward of our sinnes the iust reward of sinne But this same Homily saith The reward of our sin was the iust wrath and indignation of God the death both of Body and Soule Therefore by the Homily Christ tooke on him for vs the iust wrath indignation of God the death both of body soule And thus also * 1. Treat pag. 34. my text of Scripture is iustified That d 2. Tim. â—â— Christ gave himselfe the price of redemption for vs which we els should have paid Where e Pa. 261. you except against this text in Timoth that I say The Scripture speaketh heere after the common vse custom of redeeming captives taken in warre wheÌ„ a captive being not able som other friend payeth Antilytron the same price for the captive which els he should You aske who told me that the Scripture speaketh after the common vse of enemies I answer The nature of the word Antilytron a Ransom importeth so much which is properly vsed in such cases
But neither shame nor Death to the holy Martyrs are d accounted by God nor by his servauntes as proper and true Curses Before pag. 9. 50. but the holy men are in trueth most glorious and blessed in them Againe the Saints and Martyrs can not bee properly Cursed and properly Blessed too in any measure Neither their Soules blessed vnles their bodyes be blessed also free from the true Curse although you seeme to denie this point Which strange and vncouth assertioÌ„ both heere and in many places mo you doe at least insinuat that is that the godly in their Soules are blessed but in their bodyes they still retaine Gods true proper Curse till the resurrection Which I leave to the consideration of the godly You say We must call things by those Names which God first allotted them That I deny If God since evidently have altered them and disposed of them otherwise But he hath so don in this case The afflictions and death which originally and naturally were punishments for sinne and are so still to the wicked the same to the godly as I have often said are since changed now are properly Chastisements of sinne and not Punishmentes nor Curses Only Christ hath suffered the whole proper punishment and true Curse or Vengeance of our sinnes and therefore on vs it is not it can not be laid againe in any part thereof You a Pag. 96. avouch some that denie Christ to have bene made a Curse or sinne But you must remember b Pag. 92. your owne place of Austin Maledictum est omne peccatum sive ipsum quod fit sive ipsum supplicium The Curse is all sinne which is twofold either that which we commit against Gods law or els the very Punishment of that sinne Nowe c Pag. 96. your testimonies do meane Christ was not made a Curse or sin the first way that is he was not in him selfe sinfull nor hated they deny not the second that he was made the proper punishment or Sacrifice for our sinne And thus though you lust not to see it yet my d Treâ—â— pag. 45. speach was sound and true If Christ dyed simply but as the Godly dye it might in no sort e Gal. 3. heere be called a Curse The reason is evident because the text heere doeth speak treat of the Curse of the Law against sinne such therefore was Christes Curse which he suâ—layned To conclude then his afflictions and death was neither Wages nor Chastisement nor Curse nor Consequent of any sinne in him Yet as God made him sinne for vs so he truely properly and in very deed laid the paine of his Curse vpon his body and Soule Which Curse of God vpon Christ as you f Pag 26 say truly was not in words but in deedes Wherefore my wordes g Pag. 2â— you openly pervert affirming that I say Death heere that is Christes death noted Galat. 3.13 â—ay in no sorte be called a Curse when I expresly even there and every where doe say the contrary Pag. 263. But a your greatest exception is that this Curse laid on Christ cannot be vnderstood of the whole Curse of God or of the Law Pag. 264. and therefore b you spare me not for c saying that Paul heere in his application out of Moses nameth a part of the iust Curse of the Law for sinne Treat 1. pag. 40. thereby meaning and inferring to his purpose the whole Where you must be so good as to vnderstand me by mine own words in other places Pag 290. For thus d you know e I limited my speach els where As touching the vehemency of paine Christ was as sharply touched as the very reprobats Treat 1. pag 81. And Christes sufferings were equall to the very Hellish torments in vehemency of paine and sharpnes Againe f This price equally in Justice must be kept so far as it is possible Pag. 26. And g Pag. 37. Because there was no impossibility no necessitie no reason but he might feele the full smart of our sinnes as there was that he should not feele the full continuance thereof and seeing Gods strict iustice requireth it to be so therefore it was so he suffered all the smart but not all the continuance of our punishment â— Also Pa. 23. Heeâ—e Pa. 13 Thus then plainly h I signified i those 3 Limitations which now are expressed that Christ suffered our whole Curse only so far as the possibilitie of thinges could admit wherein nothing was dispensed nor pardoned to him for there was no cause as I have often said Which doctrine how vnworthy it is of your strang contempt and outcryes against me I leave it to the godly Wise to consider Nowell Catechis Only marke if our k publike doctrine be not the same Vltima omnia pati voluir pro nobis qui vltima omnia commeriti sumus Diram execrationeÌ„ suscepit coÌ„tumelias etiaÌ„ omnes omnia probra atque supplicia c. But you will say thus we make it not the whole Curse of the Law Yes we cal it rightly the whole Curse for as much as Christ suffered it in his whole manhood See before pag 8. 1. The. 5.28 â— pa. 48. 52 even in l All the powers of his m Spirit Soule Body where that Curse in Deutero being a part was suffered only in the Body quickned by the Soul Also in other respectes this suffering of Christ may bee well called the whole Curse or PunishmeÌ„t of sin Pag. 11 12. â—nâ— 16.17 Pa. 27â— 280 as n before is declared After this o you thinke it strange that I say Christ suffered dyed iustly and was hanged on the tree by the iust sentence of the Law that so hee was by imputation of our state and condition vnto him sinfull 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 51.11 defiled hatefull and accursed All the which I avouch because he vndertooke by Gods ordinance as our Surety to receave our whole condemnation vpon himselfe so far as his owne nature and condicion could possibly admit Christ suffeâ— iustly to the ende that hee might wholly acquit vs. In regard whereof I aske Is it wrong for the Law to lay the penalty on the surety when the debtour can not discharge it Against this my assertion you say a Pag. 27â— By no sentence of the Law he hanged on a tree And a reason you give b Pag. 273 because to be hanged on a tree was no necessary part of the generall Curse of God vpon all sinners I answer to Dy for sinne was a necessary part of the generall Curse vpon all sinners What say you then to his Death Did he dy iustly Sure if Christ dyed by the rule of Gods iustice then he dyed iustly If he dyed not by Gods iustice then Wo and thrice Wo to vs. For it cannot be but Gods Iustice * Luc. 16.1 Deut. 10.1 Rom. 8.32 See before pag. 66. must
be executed it cannot be made voyd So that if Christ in Gods proper iustice dyed not for vs then in his Iustice without mercy we must and shall dy Which God forbid But Christ therefore indeed suffered dyed most iustly according to the rule of Gods strict Iustice in all points possible Yet you say His hanging on a tree was no necessary part of the generall Curse of God vpon all sinners What if that were no necessary part of the generall Curse It was nevertheles iust from God vpon him aswell as his Death No particular Punishments are necessary but accidentall in their own nature The generall Curse c Gen. 2 1â— Thou shalt dy the Death comprehending them all not as necessary but as accidentall parts Yet wheresoever by Gods providence they happen they are iust Punishmentes no lesse then the Generall Curse And thus Christ answering for sinne not only Dyed generally but also was hanged on the tree particularly by the iust sentence of the Law Still I meane iustly in respect of God alone for men vsed meere violence wrong and no Law towards him For they persecuted him as a malefactour as they said yet indeed hee being in himselfe altogeather faultles and without blame You seeme to mislike that Christ should suffer iustly because he suffered willingly for vs. Which hindereth not at all for the voluntary surety beareth his penaltie iustly when he sustayneth that which the debtour by Law should sustaine You say d Pag. 27â— No Lawe you are sure not Gods Law alloweth that when a murderer or such like offendour transgresseth he should be spared and an other that is willing hanged in his steed And therefore you mislike the similitude of a Surety in the worke of Christes Redemption I answere in Gods Law that is not true which you say Vnderstanding heere by Gods revealed Will and his most holy and gracious Ordinance for vs. Though indeed this is not his Law properly but his Gospel the most blessed glad tydings of peace and health to our Soules Now by this Law of God I am sure that Murderers Adulterers Theeves and worse then these are spared in Gods presense and an other that is their most willing surety executed by the iustice of God in their steed Pag. 280. But a no similitude can prove Christ in taking ouâ— person on him to be sinfull defiled hatefull and accursed I deny this saying vtterly b How could he be by God properly and truly punished and Cursed for sinne Fâ—ee 18.20 Gen. 18.25 but that he was sinfull and hatefull And it is written c God sent his Sonne in the likenes and forme of sinfull flesh for sinne Rom 8.3 Synac bebâ—sich and condemned sinne in d his flesh In which likenes he stood before God indeed before the world he was reputed so 2. Cor. 5.21 but falsly And e God made him sinne for vs that we might be made the righteousnes of God in him As also he was made f a Curse for vs. Gal 3.13 Though you â—y nay p 280 Calv in Gal. â— 13 Heb. 9. vlt. Pag. 11 12. â—â—d 50.51 Wherevpon Mr Calvin g warily enough saith h Vt personam nostram suscepit peccator erat maledictionis reus And the i Apostle saith Ek deutérou The second time he shall appeare without sinne meaning that the first time he appeared with sin Yet this is k not inhaerently but by imputation the Lorde translating by his ordinance the sinne of men vpon him reckoning them vnto him Even as by Gods true and reall imputation not by any inhaesion we now in this life are iust holy and blameles before God so was he sinnefull and defiled by imputation not inhraenetly Thus by this reckoning he suffered at Gods hands iustly yet in his own nature in respect meerely thereof he suffered both at the Iewes handes and before God the iust for the vniust Pag. 280. l You say where the Apostle saith m he was made sin for vs 2. Cor. 5.21 the Fathers have 2 good and approved senses differing froÌ„ ours 1 That God made him a sacrifice for sinne 2 that he vsed him as he doth sinners What is there in both these that wee acknowledge not Yea what is this later but the very same point which we vrge It is nothing els in all this quaestion that we hold but that God vsed Christ our Redeemer and Surety as he doth sinners so far as possibilitie admitteth that he could and might be so vsed And for this the Fathers are not silent if I were so ambitious as you in producing multitudes of men Cypr. de Pasâ— Only Cyprian and Athanasius and Austin shall content me in this The first n He sustayned suffered himself to be called Sinne and a Curse by Moses and the Apostle because he had the like punishment as we should have had but not the like fault a Pag. Your slight answere that it was like in part not in all salveth not the matter For Cyprian meaneth Christs punishment for vs was so like ours as was possible and that sufficeth vs. Also by this your weake answer you are contrary to your selfe heere in that you acknowledge that God in punishing Christ making him sinne for vs hee vsed him as he doth sinners Athanasius saith * Pag. â—â— De â—nea Ipse per se sententiam solvit sub specie condemnati Hee himselfe satis fied and abrogated the sentence of the Law vnder the appearance of a Damned man Did not God then vse him as he doth sinners in all extremity of punishment so far as was possible And that it was altogeather possible to inflict the sense of his wrath immediatly and properly in his Soul aswel as in his Body no reasonable man caÌ„deny Aust we saw a little b Before 71.73 before Thus also your former good sense of this that Christ was made sinne that is a sacrifice or punishment for sinne how differeth it from your second as you seeme to make them to differ Or how differ they both from our maine Assertion that Christ in himselfe sinlesse was by God reputed sinfull in our steed Nay this directly and necessarily proveth thesame For as I said how could he be truly punished for sinne by God but that he must be indeede sinfull by imputation The Iewes Sacrifices the expresse figures of Christe doe also most lively set out this thing When they were c Lev. â—â— brought vnto God the people must lay on their hands vpon the heads of the Beastes shewing thereby that their d Lev. â—â— sinnes were put vpon the sacrifice that God so accounted them indeed to be Wherefore what cause have you so to exclame as you do against this comparison of Christ our Redeemer with a Surety Christe truely Surety who among men by the ordinance of Lawe and iustice must and doth pay the debt when the debtour cannot It is neither a simple similitude as e
now in Hell seeing you seeme to belieue no torments for Damned soules save only at the Resurrection For thus you reason b Pag. 25 As the Body hath ben the instrument of the Soules pleasure in sinne so it shal be of hir paine c Pag. 20â— But all provocations and pleasures of sinne the soule taketh from her body all acts of sinne she committeth by her body Therefore the iustice of God both temporally and eternally punisheth the Soule only by the Body Or Therefore all the Soules paine for sinne both temporally eternally is by the Body This is your owne reason which being true why should you care for corporall fire in Hell before the last iudgment Your striving to a Pag. 34â— confute my allegations of Fathers I hope I have refuted sufficiently before And then b Pag. 35 Sir Refuter endeth as be began with egregious lyes What lyes began he with and with what doth he end In the begining our lyes have proved tales of truth and in the end your wordes will prove iniurious at least I said that not som or the most or best but even all every one both Churches Writers in the world who are Protestants teach as we do except only your selfe or happily som after you since the year 1597. What ly is there in al this Why name you not in al the world one man of those whom we call Protestants of your minde that it may appeare who deserveth such rebukes Nay in this being the very point of the matter you are silent in revilings outcryes and accusations you exceed Where I avouch that c Treat â— pag 8â— only the hoatest and cunningest Papists Iesuits Priests Fryars have alwayes vntill this day had this controversie with all Protestants and all Protestants against them namely Bellarmin Campian English Rhemists c. To al this scanalous suspicious argument you reply not a syllable What shall we thinke of such doctrine which in this learned age hath none but such defenders And yet among the Papists I noted 2 Cusanus and Ferus as liking of the Protestants doctrine heerein which also they do in some other matters Now these 2. and only these though more there are c you cite at large 〈◊〉 140.141 whose wordes indeede especially the Fryars seeme excessive But our owne most worthy and learned Teachers d M. Fulke â—rea 1. p. 88 M. Deering M. Whitakers which against you I alleaged you vouchsafe not a looke towards them Nor to M. Nowels Catechisme nor to the Synod authorising it â—efore pag. 42. nor to the Archb great * approbation thereof Not to our Common Bibles note authorised publikly to be read thorough out England Only against my alleaging of our Homilyes e you take exception Pag 355. but I trust I have before fully and cleerely defended them to bee for vs and against you Neither doeth any such matter appeare in them as f you avouch Pag. 136. Thus then I end our 1. Question being sorry that I have ben so long But I trust the friendly Reader will pardon me considering how I have ben occasioned therevnto A brief Collection containing the whole effect of our Doctrine before delivered brought into 4. Assertions God himselfe in his Iustice properly punished Christ for our sinnes See pag. 8. 9. 75. 82. Christ even as other men consisted of a perfit Humane immortall Spirit and a mortall living Body and so was by nature capable of suffering sorrows for sinne from Gods hand aswell in his Spirit peculiarly and properly as also in his Soule and Body togeather sith other men do thus suffer for sinne pag. 8. 48 52. 61. 74. Gods exact and immutable Iustice spared his Sonne in nothing but did punish him in all severity as he punisheth sinners I meane Hee punished him in All his partes of nature apt to suffer that is in his Spirit peculiarly and properly and in his Soule and Body togeather also Againe God punished him with all the Whole Generall Curse not with all the particular Curses and punishments with the Generall Curse in all the whole Nature and substance of it not with all the Circumstances with all the meere Paine and Sorrow thereof not with the sinfull Adherents and concomitants in it pag. 8 13 74 86. Gods exact immutable Iustice spared not Christe in these Circumstances of Punishment with he suffered not For either in exact Iustice he could not or necessarily hee needed not to punish him so In exact Iustice he could not punish Christ in such respects as were simply and absolutly impossible It was simply impossible that any touch of Sinne should once come neere his person or Eternall suffering or all the Particular punishments in the world All which come not to any one man though Damned neither can come Finally that Christ should necessarily have suffered after this life or locally in Hell there was no cause seeing these are but meerâ— Circumstances of Gods Iust PunishmeÌ„t of sinne whether now or then whether heere or there These alter not the nature of Gods wrath which is the strength of Hell The whole substance nature of that Punishment he might feele in this life aswell as any parte God is able to inflict it aswel heere as heereafter The rather seeing Christ came and was sent of God Extraordinarily of purpose to suffer for sin all that he might suffer Thus then only in this life Christ might and did suffer all For so was Gods ordinance and will as it is plainly expressed vnto vs in his word Therefore so we professe and so we believe by the certaine rule of Gods word and the proportion of faith Christ shunned for our sake nothing which the Damned suffer except only Circumstances and Accidents impossible or vnnecessary not any Substantiall point of Gods Punishment decreed against sinue pag 13. 14. 16. 43. 66. 75. 87. 134. 135. That Christ after his death on the Crosse went not downe into Hell in his Soule THe 2. part of our Controversie is this That Christ after his death on the Crosse went not downe into Hell in his Soule Where note first Notes that we vnderstand Hell properly and locally as our common speach in English doth vsually take it for the very place of the Damned after this life Now against them that belieue Christes Soule did go down locally into Hell thus I reason Reasons gainst Châ—â— Descendiâ—â— locally is Hell First If there be a good and sound generall reason in Christian faith that Christes Soule leaving his Body ascended vp to Heaven and there remained till his Resurrection and if there be no speciall reason of authority to the contrary that his Soul now descended downward then surely every good Christian ought to believe that his Soule ascended to Heaven and descended not locally into Hell Two maâ—â— points to noted But both those former pointes are most true First There is a good sound generall reason in Christian
burning Love in vs now in this life Which things are farre distant asonder and cannot stand togeather But all thâ—se are so vnlikely that I will leave them to the consideration of the godly wise Then d you come to your next reason about the Sacramentes â—â—g 238. wherein you thinke to touch me First you reprove mee for saying â—â—at 1. 〈◊〉 14. e Sacraments are Earthly elementes they cannot set out the spirituall and invisible effects in Christ. This say you is against the definitioÌ„ of a Sacrament which is Avisible signe of invisible grace I answer first you rather overthrow your self in vrging this against me for your owne main assertion is that neither the Iewish Sacrifices nor Christian Sacraments do signifie any more then the bodily and bloudy death of Christ Then it is your selfe Sir indeed that denyeth the very definition of Sacraments that they are visible signes of invisible graces For I hope the Bodily and bloudy death of Christ and the renting of his flesh with whips nayles and speares were visible and not invisible things As for me I can easily defend my self although you fayle in this For I holde that Sacraments are indeede visible signes of invisible graces wrought in vs by Christ and yet vsually they represent not spirituall and invisible Effects or Acts in Christ himselfe but a Albeiâ—â— conseqâ—â— impâ—â— I denyâ— but alâ— Passion be vnâ—â—stood it only the externall and visible partes of his Passion Can you not reconcile these two Any bâ—ginner in Christianitie will easily do it Next b Pag. 2â— you make me to crosse the Justitution of the Lords Table because c Treat â— pag. 14 I said the Ceremony of breaking the bread cannot properly belong to Christes body But even heere doe not I say expresly that it sheweth foorth how Christes body was broken for vs Which you say is the Institution and this I plainly acknowledge where then is mine errour and what is it Indeed I meane that the breaking of the bread into many pieces doth not set out primarily the breaking of his body but of his soule first and immediatly and then of his Body iointly and consequentlie Againe that it doth not set out properly the pearcing or boring through of Christs body with the spear or nayles nor his lashing with the whip because d 1 Cor. 1â— Klòmenon is broken to pieces properly and e Isa 53â— Meducca in the Prophet is also Broken to pieces properlie or crushed and broken to powder As these f Nom. â— Isa 19. Deut. 2â— Likewise ther worâ— very same â—â—ture 2 Câ—â— 34.7 2 〈◊〉 23.6 15.16.12 Isa 21 and 2 and 41.1 Mic 4. â— Scripture do vse this word likewise and also all Lexicons do confirme Your g Psal 14 Ior. 44. â— Except Ioâ—â— 2. wher the portioÌ„ maâ— kept of that per sense 〈◊〉 breake mâ—â— pieces with words Aâ—â— Psal 34 51.17 allegatioÌ„s therfore about the vse of Dacha otherwise shew not the proper but the vse thereof altered Thus then still I say our former places are not to be meant principallie of Christs Body for it was not properly broken which also my other place sheweth suffficientlie where it is said h Ioh 1â— Not a bone of him was broken Seeing it is manefest that none of his flesh was separated from his bones But of necessitie it must have ben so if his flesh had ben properlie broken into pieces and yet his bones not broken i Pag. 23 You say From a part the whole may and doth properly take denomination First you must shew that some parte of him was properly broken into pieces which hitherto is proved to the contrary That fable which k Pag. 6â— you bring of the Nayles being so great that Constantine of them made him a Bridle and a Helmet will not helpe to prove that his Body was properly broken Neither is cutting or tearing or pearching through which onely indeed the Scripture warranteth that Breaking properly which l Dachâ— that word in the Prophet bâ—fore noted doth properly signifie And I pray is that true that from a part the whole may and doth properly take denomination Doth it properly From a part to the whole is a Figure of speach Is a Figurative speach a proper speach w th you Vainly you charge me I know not how often against my expresse words that I call Hell Heaven and Descending Ascending But heere it is no wrong to charge you with such an absurdity indeed who expresly do make that whiche you say is Figurative to bee a proper denomination I am sure your Grammar was better before you were as you are But to proceede if you aske mee Cor. 11.24 〈◊〉 53 10. whether doe I thinke that a those places of the Apostle and the Prophet doe signifie at all the pearcing of his body I aunswere they may by a generall and vnproper speach as piercing may be an vnproper kind of breaking For seeing the H. Ghost by those wordes intendeth to shew the whole outward violence and destruction of his flesh also and not onely the breaking bruizing of his Soule therefore I deny not but heerein so much may be signified yet in no wise not that alone nor by a proper signification as I have said Nowe where you catch at an advantage in me as you thinke Treat 1. â—â—g 14. in that I said b The Caeremony of breaking the bread or that breaking to pieces in I say cannot belong properly to Christes body but to his soule I grant taking my wordes at the worst and thinking me to be a senseles foole as indeed you do in your whole writing so you may construe them as if I had said The Soule might be properly broken to pieces But other men not inferior to your L. in learning none dispraysed who have read this Treatise have coÌ„ceaved me thus This breaking to pieces cannot be properly said of Christs body nor in any sense proportionable to the property of the c words But his Soule may rather more truly be said to have ben broken and bruized to pieces in such wise as souls may be broken with sorrows extraordinary anguish â—omenon â—educca and so was his Body likewise by sympathy with his Soule Where I deny not but Broken applyed to the Soule is Figurative yet keeping a iust and full proportion with the proper sense of Breaking to pieces which we cannot keepe referring it to his Body So that thus it is neerer and better applyed to the Soule then to the Body of Christ which was only pierced or bored through Then you rehearse another of your reasons tending to the very same effect as that last before â—â—g 240. You will prove d you say that the bloud of our Saviour is the true price of our redemption and that aswel of our Soules as of our Bodyes Still you deale fraudulently for who denyeth this as your wordes runne But wee know you meane