nothing is said in scripture to be quickened which is not apt to die containes both falshood and impietie 3. b. p. 90. But when this railing companion shall be able to produce any instance in scripture to the contrary he shall be discharged of falshood impiety for this matter which till he can perform they doe cleaue as a proper badge and cognisance to his sleeue that it may be known what master he serueth for he bringeth no place to any purpose but that Ezech. 13. 18. where the prophet speaketh as well of killing soules as preseruing soules aliue 10. It is false when you say that if I hold those disobedient spirits to haue beene in hell at the time of that preaching vnto them but now are not I agree with the Papists that Christ descended to emptie Limbus patrum for they hold onely the holy Patriarks and Prophets c. to haue beene in that place to whom that sinne of disobedience cannot be imputed Who would denie this consequent but he for if any were deliuered out of hell either they were the righteous there holden captiue or the damned but of those there is no deliuerance He therefore so holding must also with the Papists hold Limbus patrum or maintaine a more grosse error or heresie rather that the damned in hell may be deliuered thence As for the reason taken from the sin of disobedience his ring-leader and grand master might haue satisfied him therein that the Apostle speaketh of such incredulous persons qui in fine vitae poenitentiam egerint which repented in the ende of their life 11. He denieth that Beda is any whit more pregnant for him then the rest 3. b. p. 126. Concerning the exposition of that place 1. Pet. 3. 19. whereas Beda in these three maine points approoueth that exposition 1. by the spirit he vnderstandeth not the soule of Christ but his diuine spirit 2. by the preaching in the spirit his beeing by his holy spirit in Noe and other holy men and by the incredulous those which in the daies of Noe liued carnally 12. And in these three very points Augustine also concurreth with him and yet hee is not ashamed to say that hee is clearly against you 3. b. p. 127. The exceptions which hee taketh to auoide these cleare expositions of these two fathers are friuolous and impertinent 1. That Beda speaketh of preaching by conuersation Saint Peter of a ministeriall action of the word but this is not the question what manner of preaching it was but by whom performed whether by Christ as man in his soule or as God by his diuine spirit 2. Beda speaketh of preaching before the flood So also doth Saint Peter or else he beggeth the thing in question which is when this preaching was 3. Augustine vnderstandeth not by prison hell p. 127. This is none of the three points wherein we lay claime to Augustine 4. He taketh flesh for the body onely So doth the Replyer here howsoeuer hee thinketh it may in other places be more largely taken 5. Augustine readeth which were in prison not which are This beeing graunted yet hee in those three maine points before alleadged confirmeth the Replyers exposition 6. Both Augustine and Beda by the spirit here vnderstand the holy Ghost Ans. As though Christ also in his deitie by nature is not a spirit or as though the workes of the Trinitie are inseperable but that which one doth the other doe also All this cannot excuse him of vnshamefast boldnesse that dare denie the exposition of these two fathers to make for the Replyer Thus the vntruths which hee obiected to the Replyer are repaied home vpon himselfe and in his owne net are his feet caught the fraud and craft whereby he subtilly fought to vndermine an other hath supplanted himselfe it had beene good for him if he had remembred that saying of Menander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that no lier can any long time be hid Did he thinke that his vntrue surmises and fraudulent accusations would neuer come to be examined He obiecteth often to the Replyer that falshood is growen into an habite with him But whosoeuer will take the paines to lay together all his sophisticate stuffe and immodest leasings can thinke no other but that he hath made a couenant with deceit and fraud the saying is vse bringeth perfectnes and he hath vsed so much to speake vntruly that he is growne to such a facultie and dexteritie therein as that he can doe little els and while he maketh no conscience in deuising tales he sinneth still and staieth not because he seeth it not according to that excellent saying of Cyprian Dum peccatum existimatur leve modicum non timetur dum non timetur contemnitur dum contemnitur non facile vitatur fit coeca occulta pernicies while sinne is thought but a light and slender thing it is not feared while it is not feared it is contemned while it is contemned it is not shunned and so the mischiefe is secret and hidde The fourth imputation of grosse ouersights The accusation 1. That it be lawfull for none to maintaine or defend those doctrines wherein the Protestants of England consent with other reformed Churches Here he crieth out when he set downe this petition sure it is either he was much distracted or not soberly minded 2. b. p. 25. 2. Because the Replyer hath as it is printed Augustine saith well to Hierome whereas it was Hierome that so writ to Augustin in his 13. epist. he exclaimeth you vnlearnedly mistake 2. b. p. 101. 3. Because his Linx eye findeth applicate printed for explicate 3. b. p. 6. 4. Because Limbom hath if the Apostle had treated of Christs descensiō before his resurrection is this such a foule error whereas he should haue said if the Apostle had treated of Christs resurrection before his ascension he proclaimeth grosse ouersight p. 54. 5. Because Limbom readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. Limbom saith The Lord vpheld Noe in all his preaching and profession against all the professors of the old world condemning them and sauing him whereupon he crieth out a wicked and intolerable speech 3. b. p. 104. 7. Amiddes the vncircumcised not circumcised as you falsely call them p. 137. 8. Limbom But there came an other descention betweene which immediately went before his descending to death and the graue whereupon this peeuish prier would inferre that the Replyer bringeth in a third descension which should immediately goe before his descending to death and the graue 3. b. p. 158. The iustificatim or satisfaction 1. THis curious ouerseer of others might haue considered that this one monosyllable but should haue beene inserted and so the wordes to be read thus but those doctrines wherein the Protestants c. And thinketh he that so small a word might not easily escape the compositor in the
so our English also 7. Further in the very same place that his hebrew profunditie may sufficiently be testified to all men he noteth another word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perdition in the same verse can any man tell what this word is the Hebrew word there vsed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abaddon where he leaueth out the letter vaf with the vowell cholem What a shame is it for a man so vtterly ignorant in the languages to take vpon him to controll others beeing more blameable himselfe By this viewe of his grosse slips in Greeke and Hebrewe I am induced to thinke that report to be true which hath beene giuen out by some that knewe him in Oxford that what ostentation soeuer hee maketh now hee was thought to haue no great skill either in Hebrew or Greeke then Now it falleth out vpon him according to that saying of a Greeke Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing maketh a man so vnshamefast he would haue translated impudent as a bad conscience So this talkatiue tasker of others hauing a bad conscience not caring what he said or obiected to others though neuer so vntrue is without measure bold and bragging I may say of him as Hierom of his aduersarie that professed generall skill in whatsoeuer tu fella publice posita Hermagoram nobis Gorgiam exhibes Leontinum you your chaire beeing set aloft doe offer your selfe as another Hermagoras and Gorgias which tooke vpon them to dispute of any matter propounded vnto them So this Crazy Craker would make himselfe a professed linguist in all the learned tongues beeing nothing else then a wrangling verbalist The 6. imputaton of errors The accusation 1. That Christ hath two kingdoms belonging vnto him one as God an other as God and man and that his kingdome as hee is God is incommunicable to any 2. b. p. 201. 2. That the Godhead is inuisible incomprehensible ibid. He counteth these paradoxes contrary to the holy scriptures and wondreth how they could fall from the Replyers pen. 3. Augustine taketh the spirit 1. Pet. 3. 19. not for the diuine nature of Christ but for the operation of the holy Ghost which two you most erroneously confound saith this error finder 3. b. p. 127. 4. He calleth it a strange position that the true ioyes of heauen are in this world 2. b. p. 207. The iustification 1. THis Erring Censor at the first erreth in misreporting the Replyers words which are these that kingdome whereof Christ promiseth to make the theefe partaker is not that kingdome which belonged to him as God for that is not communicable to any creature but which is due to him as Messiah Limbomast p. 18. It is not affirmed here that Christ hath two kingdomes but that it beeing one and the same kingdome yet hath a diuers respect one as it belongeth to Christ as God an other as he is the Messiah both God and man And that this diuers relation and respect of the kingdome of Christ is not contrarie to the Scripture as this ignorant scripturian saith but most consonant and agreeable to the same it appeareth euidently by that diuine testimonie of S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. 24. Then shall the ende be when he hath deliuered vp the kingdome to God euen the father when he hath put downe all rule and all authoritie and power v. 25. for he must raigne till he hath put all his enemies vnder his feete v. 28. and when all things shall be subdued vnto him then shall the Sonne also himselfe be subiect vnto him that did subdue all things vnder him that God may be all in all But because the deciding of this question consisteth in the right vnderstanding of this Scripture I will deliuer diuers expositions thereof and approoue the best I finde eight seuerall interpretations of these words then shall the Sonne himselfe also be subiect 1. The Sabellians which denied the distinction of the three persons of the glorious Trinitie and the Marcionites ioyning with them did thus vnderstand it Ista filij subiectio futura est cum in patrē filius refundetur this subiection of the sonne shal then be when the sonne shal be resolued into the father meaning that the person of the sonne shall runne into the person of the father But Ambrose confuteth this wicked opinion by this reason Tum omnia quae filio subiecta erunt in filium patrem resolventur Then all those things which were subiect to the sonne shall also be resolued into the sonne and the father as they say the sonne shall be resolued into the father which were absurd to say which was one of those grosse errors imputed to Origene that vpon those words of S. Paul that God may be all in all groundeth this erronious fancie vniuersa creatura redigetur in eam substantiam quae omnibus melior est divinam scilicet that euery creature shall be brought to that substance which is the best of all that is the diuine 2. An other exposition as bad as this was that the humane nature of Christ should be conuerted into his diuine penitus absorbendā à divinitate and should be wholly swallowed vp of his deitie so Augustine reporteth But this hereticall sense is ouerthrowne by the Apostles direct words for in that the sonne is said to be subiect it sheweth that there remaineth somewhat to be subiect otherwise there could be no subiection 3. Some referre it to the bodie of Christ the Church and vnderstand it of his faithfull members in whom there yet remaineth some sinnes and imperfections which till they be subdued vnto God Christ in his members is not subdued so Origene donec ego non sum subditus patri nec ipse dicitur patri esse subiectus while I am not subdued to the father neither is he said to be subiect to the father 4. Others take it to be vnderstood of vnbeleeuers not yet conuerted to the faith which are not yet subiect so that pars membrorum eius non est subiecta fidei part of his members is not subiect to the faith but in the ende when as they also acknowledge the kingdome of Christ then Christ with his whole bodie shall be subiect vnto God so Hierome But both these expositions are taken away by the Apostles words for he is made subiect vnto the father to whome he subdued all things but to the sonne are all things subdued therefore he speaketh of the subiection of the person of the sonne 5. Some take this subiection to be spoken of the person of Christ that thereby is meant nothing els but that the sonne had his beginning and was begotten of the father so Theophylact and Oecumenius vpon this place and Ambrose to the same effect saith Deus caput Christi dicitur quia ab eo genitus that God is said to be Christs head because he was begotten of him But there can be no subiection in the
him as he is 1. Ioh. 3. 2. of Fathers as of Augustine that the blessed Trinitie can no waies bee seene with humane eies but with those eies c. of Ambrose that wee shall then see with vncouered face the glorie of God 2. b. p. 203. He telleth vs of certaine heretiks that helde that they which awake at the last day shall not see God at all in his diuine essence and nature Of which opinion was one Abailardus against whom Bernard writeth p. 207. And thus hee fighteth with his shaddow leauing the point in controuersie whether the Godhead may be comprehended Briefly therefore to open this point I finde that there haue beene two principall opinions concerning the vision of God and the one contrary to the other It is noted as one of Origens errors by Hierom that hee should thinke the Godhead of the father to bee so invisible as that it could not be comprehended of the sonne As this opinion maketh the Godhead altogether inuisible in one extreame so some were so grosse and carnall as that they held Verbi Dei naturam non solum mutabilem sed etiam visibilem that the nature of the word of God was not onely mutable but visible as Augustine reporteth their opinion vnto these the heretiks Anomoei came neere of the which sort Eunomius was a principall who helde se naturam Dei comprehendisse that hee comprehended the nature of God as Theophylact testifieth Now out of this question of the Comprehending of the Deitie Christ euen as touching his humane nature is to be excepted of whom the diuine nature because of that hypostaticall vnion was fully seene and comprehended Yea Gennadius in his catalogue maketh mention of one Servus which writ against those who denied Christ when he liued here in the flesh Deum carneis oculis vidisse to haue haue seene God with the eies of his flesh Concerning then this point a distinction is here to be receiued touching the knowledge of the Godhead there is cognitio simplex comprehensiua a simple that is absolute and comprehensiue knowledge cognitio pro modulo apprehensiua and a knowledge in a certaine measure and apprehensiue onely This latter way God may bee seene and knowne But vpon these two conditions as Augustine well obserueth Humano visu nullo modo potest c. That first God can not be seene by any humane sight but with that whereby they that see are no men but beyond men Secondly nemo vidit per seipsum c. No man hath seene by himselfe that is by his flesh and blood but by the reuealing of the father and enarration of the sonne As the Euangelist saith No man hath seene God at any time the onely begotten sonne hath declared him Thus God may and hath beene seene and knowne of the Saints in this life as of Moses and Paul but more fully in the next whē we shall see the sight of God as he is But as Augustine in another place quantum eum capere creatura rationalis ctualis potest as much as a reasonable and intellectuall creature is capable of But touching the other kinde of knowledge though God be cognoscibilis ex gratia to bee knowne by grace comprehensibilis tamen a nemine quam seipso yet hee is comprehended of none but himselfe The reason is because the deitle is infinite the creature finite so that which is of a finite nature cannot comprehend that which is infinite Augustine saith si sanctis Angelis iam equales essemus non vtique ita nota esset nobis diuina essentia sicut ipsa sibi if we were equall to the Angels the diuine substance should not bee so knowne to vs as it is to himselfe But here commeth in this quaint distinguisher with this glosse God is not called incomprehensible as if there were any thing of his which his Saints shall not see but because they see him not so perfectly as hee is visible of himselfe 2. b. p. 204. Wherein he speaketh contradictions for if God cannot be seene of vs as he is of himself then there is somewhat in the Godhead which we cannot see which himselfe seeth Then by grace apprehend him wee may but comprehend him we cannot Plenitudinem diuinitatis nemo de coelestibus etiam virtutibus conspexit The fulnesse of the diuinitie none of the celestiall powers hath seene but if there be nothing of his which the Saints shall not see then they should see his fulnesse Now then it is euident which of the twaine holdeth a paradox the Replyer that saith the deitie of Christ is incomprehensible or the erroneous Reprehender which enclineth to the contrarie He saith further that the Replyers peremptorie words seeme to encline to those Errors or rather heresies of certaine Armenians which denied that the Saints in the next world should see God at all in his diuine essence p. 207. But as the Replyer detesteth from his heart that erroneous opinion so let this newfangled Dogmatist take heede least in his comprehensiue fancie he apprehend not and lay hold of the heresie of the Anomaeans before spoken of that affirmed they comprehended the essence of God 3. As good successe hath this trifler in the third pretended error for first he misconceiueth himselfe would here haue said after his vnmannerly phrase belieth Augustine that he taketh not the word spirit for the diuine nature of Christ but for the operation of the holy ghost for Augustines words are these saepe antea veniebat in spiritu ad quos volebat he came often before that is his incarnation in the spirit to whome he would doth he speake I pray you of the operation of the spirit here and not of the spirit himselfe to confound the spirit and the operation of the spirit is both great error and ignorance Againe an other vntruth is that Augustine by the word spirit taketh not the diuine nature of Christ. If Augustine may be credited he himselfe saith otherwise Et ipse quidem filius in substantia deitatis spiritus est quid facit silius sine spiritu sancto vel sine patre cum inseperabilia sunt opera trinitatis Both the Sonne himselfe is a spirit in the substance of the deitie and what doth the Sonne without the holy Ghost or without the Father seeing the workes of the Trinitie are inseperable Doth it not now appeare that Augustine indifferently taketh the spirit here either for the diuine nature of Christ or for the holy Ghost say also then that Augustine doth ignorantly confound them Further doth not the Scripture indifferently sometime ascribe the same worke to Christ sometime to the holy Ghost as our Sauiour saith The spirit of my father speaketh in you Math. 10. 20. which Marke nameth the holy Ghost Mark 13. 11. and S. Paul saith Seeing ye seeke experiment of Christ that speaketh in me 2. Cor. 13. 3. So the Apostle saith
that Christ offered himselfe Hebr. 7. 17. and thorough the eternall spirit he offered himselfe chap. 9. 14. which Ambrose vnderstandeth of the holy Ghost Say also that the Apostles ignorantly confound the diuine nature of Christ and the holy Ghost But that it may fully appeare who is both the ignorant and errant too to vse his owne words what a dangerous and suspitious speach is this taking the word spirit for soule I might haue diuided Christ and his spirit without all suspition of ignorance and his imputation of error 3. b. p. 97. yea and dare any presumptuous spirit diuide that which God hath inseperably vnited the deitie and humanitie to the which belongeth the soule 〈◊〉 spirit in one person in Christ. Our Sauiour said vpon an other occasion Let none put asunder that which God hath coupled together Math. 19. 6. which rule holdeth in generall that it is no lesse presumption to diuide the humane soule from the person of Christ which is hypostatically vnited for euer I may here say with Hierome Nescio quid veneni in syllabis latet I can not tell what poison lieth hid vnder these syllables But to returne his owne words it may be that these things haue slipt from you thorough heate of contention rather then perswasion of heart 2. b. p. 207. yet I say againe with Hierome Non bonae suspicionis est cum in eodem sensu verba dissentiunt it is no good suspition when in the saâ—e sense the words doe dissent If he hold the hypostaticall vnion of Christs soule and bodie with his Godhead why doth he in words diuide them 4. Concerning the fourth position which he calleth straunge the words of the Replyer are these the ioyes of heauen may be truly though not fully felt in this life whosoeuer counteth this position strange sheweth himselfe indeede a straunge fellow and a straunger from such true feeling of heauenly ioyes What thinketh he of those three Peter Stephen and Paul whome Ambrose giueth in instance Petrus in monte Domini aspiciens gloriam Christi noluit descendere Stephanus cum Iesum vidit lapidari non formidabat Paulus raptus in Paradisum vsum proprij non sentiebat corporis Peter in the mount of the Lord beholding the glorie of Christ would not descend Stephen when he sawe Iesus feared not to be stoned Paul being rapt into Paradise did not perceiue the vse of his owne body Thinketh hee that they euen in earth felt not the true ioyes of heauen though not so fully as they enioy it now Yea this wrangler himselfe confesseth vpon these words of Peter with our eies we saw his maiestie that they enioyed the sight of his glorious maiestie in this life Could he then be so forgetfull as to call it a straunge position that the true ioy 〈◊〉 heauen may be felt in this life is it not a true heauenly ioy to see the Maiestie of God how say you Sir Medler speake out is it not your owne mouth doth condemne you What if the Replyer had said with Augustine that heauen may be in this life in the soule of the righteous or with Ambrose that the spirit of grace maketh the regenerate heauenly and celestiall he would also haue thought in his vnheauenly blindnes that he had spoken straungely also for where heauen is and men are become heauenly what should let them but to haue a feeling also of heauenly ioyes The Recrimination Now let vs turne aside a little to take a view of his blinde errors 1. He holdeth that the originall text of the Scriptures is corrupt in these words And say we must goe to the originals I will runne with you to those fountaines whose pure waters if the foule feete and vncleane hands of some had not corrupted c. there could neuer be so many grosse and filthie errors drawne and deriued thence 1. b. p. 26. 2. The Syriake together with the Greeke he holdeth to be the originall tongues of the new Testament ibid. whereas there can be but one originall tongue to the rest if hee graunt the Greeke be the true originall then the Syriake is not which was translated out of the Greeke So in an other place he reprooueth the Replyer for reiecting the Syriake as contrarie to the originall 3. He preferreth the Latine text before the originall Greeke Act. 2. 24. reading the sorrowes of hell for the sorrowes of death as the originall Greeke hath saying I see no cause why I should not approoue the old Latine text 3. b. p. 30. so also 2. b. p. 154. shewing hereby of what house he commeth and whose disciple he is iustifying the Latine translation against the originall of the which further he thus vnreuerently writeth As for that vulgar Greeke now extant whether it be the true Authentike originall or no is a question because it is neither the most auncient nor that which was most vsed in the Auncient Church and beside that it is not free from corruption in diuers places 3. b. p. 14. What could be spoken more to the derogation of the authoritie of the Scriptures then thus to abase that originall wherein the Apostles themselues did write And in this prophane and little better then Popish assertion he hath vttered three great vntruths that the Greeke originall which we now haue is not the most auncient that it was not most vsed in former times that it is in some places corrupt none of these slaunders of the text shall he euer be able to iustifie 4. He calleth the booke of Ecclesiasticus which the Church of England counteth among the Apocryphall bookes the word of God 2. b. p. 70. and in the next page before he calleth it Scripture I thinke it fit to ioyne Scripture with Scripture making mention of Ecclesiasticus And that we may see he is no chaungeling in an other place hauing alleadged a place out of Ecclesiasticus he addeth by which Scriptures it is plaine 2. b. p. 136. Such a diuine as he is such is his Scripture how audacious is this fellow that contrarie to the iudgement and determination of this Church dare make Ecclesiasticus a booke of Canonicall Scripture 5. The question beeing demanded why the soule may not be taken for his that is Christs whole person as well as holy is vnderstood to be his flesh answere is made because cause it that is the soule is no part at all of the whole person while it remaineth seperated from the body for of these two the whole person consisteth when they are ioyned together liuing c. 2. b. p. 162. Where seeing the demaund is made concerning Christs soule the answere containeth two manifest errors or rather heresies the one that the soule seperated from the body was no part of Christs person which sauoureth strongly of the heresie of the Apollinarists that made the man Christ without a soule the other that the soule
most true and sound positions 2. b. p. 20. and yet afterward he confesseth that the very first thereof which is this that Christ is not originally God is the most damnable heresie of Arrius ibid. p. 21. Thus he ignorantly maketh himselfe an Arrian for thus may his owne speeches be retorted against him whosoeuer saith that Christ is not originally God is an Arrian this proposition is his owne but so holdeth this confused confuter in calling it a true and sound position this also is his owne for he calleth all those true and sound positions there excepted against whereof this is the first Ergo by his owne confession he draweth himself into suspiciō of Arrianisme Indeede this heresie-mouther that hath often in his mouth heresie heretike obiecteth Arrianisme but very simply to the Replyer because alleadging the words of S. Paul of our Sauiour iustified in the spirit he by the spirit vnderstandeth his diuine spirit and nature as quickned saith he in your sense signifieth to be made aliue so must iustified to be made iust which is ranke Arrianisme 3. b. p. 60. poore silly fellow and doth he know what Arrianisme meaneth for though the Replyer medleth not here with the signification of the word iustified but alleadgeth this sentence for the vse of the word spirit neither doth he take the word iustified in the actiue signification as we are said to be iustified but passiuely as when wisdome is saide to be iustified of her children Math. 11. 19. that is approoued and declared to be iust yet if it be referred to Christs humanitie it is no Arrianisme to say that he as man was iustified not from sinne which he had not but preserued by the inhabitation of the spirit from all sinne If this be Arrianisme then is Chrysostome an Arrian who deliuereth these two expositions of this place Sive hoc intelligi potest c. whether this may be vnderstood because wisdome is iustified of her children or because he did none deceit as the Prophet testifieth saying Who did no sinne neither was any guile found in his mouth he vnderstandeth this iustification of his preseruing from sinne And what is it more to say that Christ as man was iustified or that he was sanctified but our Sauiour saith of himselfe whome the father sanctified Ioh. 10. 36. if for Christ to be made iust be Arrianisme then also to be made holy Then he seeth who is charged with Arrianisme in his sense which once to thinke were horrible blasphemie I therefore say vnto him concerning this imputation of Arrianisme Vides ne quomodo ista non sententia sed vescia non solum mani sonitu sed in capite vestro crepuerit See you not how this not sentence but bladder not onely with a vaine cracke but is broken vpon your owne head 11. He affirmeth that the baptisme of Infants is not to be found in Scripture by any expresse literall mention 2. b. p. 170. for though he leaue out that word expresse yet he of whome he borroweth this opinion vseth that terme and he may put literall in his purse his meaning is that it is not expressely deliuered in Scripture for there he impugneth that conclusion that nothing is to be admitted that is not expressely deliuered in Scripture Now then that baptisme is expressely grounded vpon Scripture and not vpon tradition which must follow vpon the other it is diuersly euident As because Christ commandeth little children not to be forbidden to come vnto him the Church is cleansed by the washing of water through the word of which Church infants are members Christ commandeth to baptize all nations among the which children are counted And seeing infants were circumcised in stead whereof baptisme succeedeth which the Apostle likeneth to circumcision it is euident that the baptisme of infants is founded vpon Scripture it is also the doctrine of our Church that the baptisme of infants is most agreeable with the institution of Christ but where is the institution of Christ to be found but in expresse Scripture what shamelesse dealing then is this to say that they which hold the contrarie namely that the baptisme of infants is not expressely found in Scripture doe maintaine the doctrine of the Church when they directly impugne it And this vncertaine and wandring opinion giueth occasion to the wicked heresie of the Anabaptists that affirme the baptisme of Infants to take beginning from the Bishops of Rome and not from the Apostles 12. He further among those things which are not expressely deliuered in Scripture giueth in instance our beleefe in the blessed Trinitie 2. b. p. 170. whereas the auncient Fathers of the Church haue principally out of the Scripture prooued this Article concerning the Trinitie as Origene vrged that place in the 51. Psal. where mention is made of three spirits principalis spiritus pater c. the principall spirit is the father the right spirit the sonne and the free spirit the holy Ghost But more pregnant is that place which Ambrose selecteth the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ the loue of God and the communion of the holy Ghost be with you all Trinitatis hic complexio est vnitas potestatis here is a coniunction of the Trinitie and the vnitie of power Augustine doth conclude the Trinitie from that heauenly vision in the baptisme of our Sauiour Apparuit manifestissime Trinitas c. The Trinitie appeared manifestly the Father in the voice the Sonne in man the holy Ghost in the doue But of all other those places are most full for the Trinitie Math. 28. 20. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost and that other 1. Ioh. 5. 7. There are three which beare record in heauen the Father the Word and the holy Ghost who of any iudgement reading these places can denie for shame but that the blessed Trinitie is expressely deliuered in Scripture 13. The coeternitie of the Sonne with the Father is an other point obiected not expressely deliuered in Scripture which is euident by the words of the Euangelist that the word was in the beginning with God Augustine out of those words of our Sauiour I and my father are one concludeth his equalitie with God so consequently his coeternitie Bernard inferreth it out of those words of the Prophet Who shall declare his generation And further he thus saith Commendant nobis sacrae literae Christum ex patre in patre cū patre c. quod dicitur ex patre ineffabilis est nativitas quod in patre consubstantialis vnitas quod cum patre equalitas maiestatis The sacred letters doe cōmend vnto vs Christ of his father in his father with his father that which is said of his father is his ineffable natiuitie in his father his consubstantiall vnitie that with his father the equalitie of his maiestie These fathers held that
such Ministers prouided in their roomes as heretofore for their zeale and diligence haue been excluded which haue store of milke in their breasts which seeke in peace and in a good conscience to nourish the people of God being like babes ready to starâ—e for want of such Nurses All these words inclosed as the Reader seeth are added by the Falsifier 5. The Falsifier thus forgeth that hee i. the King acknowledgeth the Romane Church to be our mother Church it is saith Limbomastix a foolish conceit and imagination 2. b. p. 28. The Replyer thus writeth a foolish conceit imagination it is that Rome should bee the mother Church and Nurserie of all the world where there is no reference at all to the Kings Maiestie neither are the words as hee repeateth them for it is one thing to say the Romane Church is our mother Church in respect of the antiquitie of the place because the Romane faith and religion before it yet declined did spread into these westerne parts another that it should be our mother Church as it now standeth corrupted in religioÌ„ it is one thing to say it is our mother Church another that is the mother Church and nurserie of all the world 6. The Confuter thus forgeth doth it follow because I say it ought to be translated to the spirits which were not which are in prison that therefore they were in hell and are not I deny your argument 2. b. p. 39. whereas hee leaueth out this other part of the Replyers argument or else hee striueth about words 7. He imagineth the Replyer to say that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell for others detained in hell and that to thinke otherwise is very absurd 2. b. p. 42. whereas the Replyer so affirmeth not out of his owne iudgement but vrgeth the Confuter with that inconuenience and concerning the inference of absurditie these are his words and not as he repeateth them I thinke he is not so absurd as to thinke he loosed them for himselfe who was neuer in the sorrowes of hell after his death 2. b. p. 36. 8. You affirme some Popish bookes to haue beene written by Protestants whereas these are the Replyers words There are bookes abroad maintaining offensiue doctrine too much declining to Poperie 9. The Replyer saith Durand maintaineth contrary to the opinion of the rest but he thus falsifieth the place Durand maintaineth an opinion contrary to all the rest where all is added the order of the words inuerted 10. You graunt that these two particles not and neither doe shew a difference of the clauses and a diuersitie of matter whereas these are the words of the Replyer here these two negatiues lo lo are vsed yet there is no great difference in these two clauses c. nor they shew no great diuersity of matter he setteth it downe negatiuely the other repeateth his words affirmatiuely 11. His glory victory and triumph remained vnaccoÌ„plished this word vnaccomplished is added of his owne 12. That Christ hath 2. kingdoms belonging vnto him one as he is God and another as he is God man but these are the Replyers words that kingdome whereof Christ promiseth to make the thiefe partaker is not that kingdome which belongeth to him as God 13. The sorrowes of hell or death had fastned on Christ but the Replyer hath the sorrows of death and the graue 14. You most grossely ouerreach your selfe so prophanly and vnchristianly to censure theâ— i. the fathers to prepare the way to a most grosse heresieâ— whereas these are the Replyers words rather this sense of the place to interpret it of the descending of Christ to hell where the disobedient persons and vnbeleeuers were giueth way and openeth a most wide gap to a most grosse heresie He doth not simply charge the fathers or any other but speaketh onely by way of comparison 15. Your bookes saith the falsifier should be in so base esteeme of all hands that many would not vouchsafe the reading of them c. nay that the labours of your sacred wit were onely vsed to beautifie walls whereas the Replyer onely hath bookes were growne into such small request c. and the labours of sacred witts â—he speaketh not of his owne bookes for he thanked be God had no cause to complaine of his owne which he doubteth not but will liue in the memorie of the world more yeares then his shall moneths or daies 16. The Replyers words are these this phrase is neither straunge nor vnusuall to say that Christ went in spirit or the spirit of Christ went seeing Noah went in the spirit of Christ which the Confuter corrupteth thus Christ went in spirit that is saith he Noah went in the spirit of Christ and yet he denieth that he corrupteth the words whereas he leaueth out this clause altogether or the spirit of Christ went which the Replyer insisteâ—â— vpon making these in a manner all one that Christs spirit preached in Noe and Noe preached in the spirit of Christ. 17. It followeth not say you Christ died not the death of the soule by sinne or damnation Ergo he can not be said to haue died in soule But the Replyer hath can not be said any waies to haue died in soule which words any waies he clippeth off 18. He chargeth the Replyer to say that many of the auncient fathers affirme that Christ was crucified in his soule where he clippeth off the Replyers words which immediatly follow that he gaue his soule a price of redemption for our soule So he saith not that many of the fathers affirme the first wherein Ambrose onely is produced but both must be put together 19. The Replyer saith this article of the present tense beeing here to be supplied and the sense not enforcing a change of time doth rather giue to be translated are then were The falsifier clippeth off all that clause and the sense not enforcing a chaunge of time and repeateth the words thus because you make a difference betweene the sense of a word expressed and a word supplied not making any mention of the enforcing of the sense and therefore all these 14. examples produced by him wherein the necessitie of the sense enforceth a participle of the time past as Matth. 1. 36. 2. 25. 5. 40. They that were with him and so in the rest are impertinent for the sense doth necessarily giue that it must be vnderstood of the time past 20. The Replyers words stand thus doth he thinke that these disobedient spirits were in hell and are not if he doe not he trifleth for the word were will helpe him nothing Now commeth this deceitfull forger and thus turneth the sentence whosoeuer thinketh that those disobedient spirits were in hell but are not is a trifler whereas the Replyer saith the contrarie if he doe not thinke so he is a trifler 21.
words Heb. 11. 39. They receiued not the promise they had no such cleare light say they of Christ as we haue Or els their meaning is that by the sacrifices and rites of the Tabernacle that way was not opened but by the blood of Christ so that the times are not compared together but the things as they thus note Hebr. 10. 19. By the blood of Iesus wee may be bold to enter into the holy place we by Christ say they haue that liberty which the auncient Fathers could not haue by the lawe Thus this Surmisers supposed falsifications are returned vpon his owne head and hee himselfe is found to bee the clipper and deprauer and corrupter of the Fathers testimonies fewe whereof are recited by him which hee doth not mangle and wrest at his pleasure These places out of the old and newe writers about thirty in all giuen before in instance are an euident proofe hereof the like might haue beene shewed in the rest but that it is not worth the labour to spend time to hunt after so meane a game and to haue such a silly bird in chace which hath according to the saying defiled the owne neast When he first entred into this challenge and aduentured to lay load vpoÌ„ the Replyer with this cauillous charge of falsifications he should first haue himselfe considered whether one might not rubbe vpon his owne galled backe And he herein playeth an euill fensers part that lyeth open himselfe where he thought to giue an other a venie That wise sentence should haue come into his head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein thou purposest to smite an other therein expect a greater blow thy selfe It is an euident argument either of a bad cause or weake defense that is bolstered out with such indirect meanes The truth as the prouerbe is will not seeke corners nor yet will the veritie be defended with a lie nor simplicitie by falsifications and forgerie In the sixt Synode of Constantinop Act. 6. when as Macarius and Petrus with other Monothelites had mangled the testimonies of the Fathers as well in sense as words the Catholikes said Non congruit orthodoxis ita circumtruncatas patrum sententias deflorare c. It is not agreeable to the orthodoxall men so to deflowre and deface the gelded sentences of the fathers this is more proper for heretikes If he would therefore haue beene taken for an orthodoxall and Euangelicall writer as I wish with my heart he may hereafter prooue and that the amendment of his heart may reforme the error of his penne then should he not haue trode in the pathway of Heretikes and followed their guise in corrupting of his witnesses Therefore concerning his omissions alterations additions and other corruptions in the allegations of the fathers I say as Augustin did to Iulian concerning Chrysostome whome he corruptly alleadged Si totum legisses invenire potuisti aut si legisti miror quemadmodum te potuit praeterire aut si praeterire non potuit miror quomodo te non correxerit If you had read the whole you might haue found it or if you read it I maruaile how it could escape you or if it did not escape you I wonder how it did not correct you The 12. Imputation of the pretended corruption of Scriptures The accusation 1. Because Ecclesiastic 19. 10. the Replyer leaueth out these words confidens esto and be sure 2. In the place Gen. 37. 31. these words are omitted Ruben moreouer said vnto them 3. In that place Act. 2. v. 31. you falsifie the Syrian Translators words in mistranslating them the Latine Translator you abuse in like manner 4. These words which had seased vpon him are not in that place Act. 2. 24. as you pretend them 5. You falsifie the word of God it selfe for in that place of Exodus c. 22. 23. the word nephesh is and ought to be translated life not soule 6. For the soules that went downe with Iaakob into Egypt you make the Scripture to say their soules went downe into Egypt 7. The place to the Coloss. 2. 15. triumphing ouer them in the same is falsly translated our authorised translatour readeth in himselfe 8. So Psal. 88. 10 11. is mangled and corrupted patching two distinct verses in one see afterward recriminat 6. 9. You falsifie the Scripture it selfe in translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hold fast Mark 7. 8. whereas our Church Bibles read yee obserue the traditions 3. b. p. 31. 10. Limbom inverteth the text Act. 2. 31. to serue his turne 3. b. p. 37. 11. You coÌ„mit a double fault in your translation of S. Peters words the one in confounding hell with the graue which is heathenish the other in burying the soule of Christ in it which is impious 12. You falsifie the prophesie in leauing out the words in hell wherein the maine of the controuersie consisteth Act. 2. 31. 13. This is your dalying with the word of God in this place where hauing translated it thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell you interpret it cleane contrarie thou wilt not leaue my life in graue 3. b. p. 44. 14. You cut off the wordes of sanctification which are annexed to the word spirit c. 15. The word by is violently intruded by you 1. Pet. 3. 19. by which spirit 16. The words are not as you cite them 1. Pet. 2. 18. he hath suffered for our sinnes but Christ hath also suffered for vs. 17. Where Peter saith it was Christ that preached you say it was Noe and so make him a lyar 18. When you say you know no ende of Christs preaching to the disobedient in hell but for their comfort and deliuerance you contradict the Scriptures which teach that the ministerie of the word consisteth as well in denouncing retention in sinne to the obstinate as in pronouncing remission of sinnes to the penitent 19. Those words that speaketh in you though they be added in S. Matthew are not here expressed by S. Marke 3. b. p. 104. 20. The wordes of the Euangelist are not as you report them when the doores shut vp but when the doores were shut 21. Neither is the text no man ascendeth but no man hath ascended 22. Psal. 139. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ignorantly left out by you 23. Because the Replyer alleadgeth those words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. 31. I die daily vnderstanding them of inward afflictions the Confuter taketh a double exception both that some of the words are omitted As by our reioycing which I haue in Christ Iesus our Lord and that the Scripture is misinterpreted which Chrysostome expoundeth of the readines and prompâ—â— of minde that he was euery day more and more readie to suffer death c. 3. b. p. 64. And therefore he crieth out that dishonour is offered to the Apostle and contumelie to the spirit of God to
say that Paul died the death of the soule whereas contrariwise that which you call inward afflictions was thorough inward ioy and consolation in the holy Ghost c. p. 65. The iustification 1. THe whole sentence is this if thou hast heard a word let it die with thee and be sure it will not burst thee the Replyer abridging this sentence keeping the sense did not take himselfe tied to repeate euery word seeing he bringeth it not in as a testimonie specially out of Scripture but hath reference vnto it by way of allusion quoting no place But it is a greater fault in him to adde vnto the text if thou hast a word against thy neighbour which words enclosed though retained in the English translation yet are not in the originall Beside he himselfe clippeth off many words citing the beginning onely of the 13. and 17. v. reprooue thy friend reprooue thy neighbour leauing out all the rest 2. b. p. 71. in marg 2. Those words moreouer Ruben said were not materiall or pertinent to the Replyers purpose and therefore he omitted them 3. The Syrian Translator I meane he which translated the Syrian text readeth thus quod non sit derelictus in sepulchro that he was not left in graue is here any mistranslation And the Latine translator is not alleadged for the word infernus but because in stead of his soule as it is in the originall he readeth neque derelictus est he was not left the Replyer then is here no Corrupter but the Confuter is a Trifler 4. These words which had seazed of him the Replyer alleadgeth not as the words of the text but onely these he loosed the sorrowes Act. 2. 24. Here then he is charged with a plaine vntruth 5. Then the Latine interpreter Montanus Pagnine Vatablus all these falsifie the word of God which translate there not vitam life but animam soule and the Septuag also which read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall giue soule for soule 6. The Replyers words are these as in like sense it is said Gen. 46. 26. the soules that went with Iakob into Egypt is he not ashamed therefore so notoriously to charge him with an vntruth But he himselfe corrupteth the text in that place reading the soules that went downe c. whereas the word is habiah which signifieth onely comming or going 7. Beza so readeth following Origenes reading hom 4. in Exod. hom 17. in Numer and hom 9. in Iosua 8. Call you this patching to put two verses of Scripture together what thinke you of S. Paul which doth the same Rom. 3. 10 11. ioyning together a part of the 1. and a part of the 2. v. Psal. 14. as the Reader may see by comparing the places together you had best count him a patcher of Scripture 9. Say also that the Latine translator and Beza which in that place readeth tenetis you hold and the Syrian interpreter retinetis you hold fast Montanus that readeth prehenditis you lay hold c. that all these doe falsifie Scripture and is he indeed so ignorant as he maketh himselfe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie to hold fast how else will he interpret that place Heb. 4. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let vs hold fast the profession as both our English translations read 10. The Replyer inuerteth not the text but the Confuter peruerteth his wordes for he alleadgeth the text right Act. 2. 31. He spake of the resurrection of Christ that his soule should not be left in hell or the graue whereupon the Replyer reasoneth thus the Prophet speaketh here of Christs resurrection but the descending of Christs soule to hell belongeth not to his resurrection but the not leauing of his soule in graue implieth the resurrection Ergo vnto this the pitifull Confuter maketh this answer your reason should haue beene this Dauid spake of the resurrection of Christ c. but not leauing of Christs soule in hell doth no way belong to his resurrection c. therefore c. here the minor is apparantly false c. Contra. This poore Logician is much to be pitied 1. doth he not see that the conclusion of his argument must be this therefore Dauid speaketh not of the not leauing c. which is cleane contrarie to the text 2. If he in deede might make the Replyers argument for him he would make him as sensles and absurd as himselfe 3. He grossely mistaketh the Replyers argument which was this the descending of Christs soule to hell belongeth not to his resurrection but the not leauing of his soule belongeth ergo the not leauing c. prooueth not the descension This argument though he inuert and peruert at his pleasure he is not able to euert with all the skill he hath 11. The Replyer confoundeth not hell and the graue which is more heathenish in him so to imagine then in the other so to write but ioyneth together two vsuall acceptions of the word sheol neither doth he burie his soule but his life thereby signified in the graue And yet to take infernum for the temporall death and graue is neither heathenish nor absurd vnlesse you will count Augustine heathenish who expoundeth that place Psalm 88. 3. My life draweth neare to hell by those words of our Sauiour My soule is heauie vnto death Quod enim aijt tristis est anima c. For that he saith my soule is heauie vnto death this is the same that is said my soule is filled with euill and that which followeth vnto death the same is said my life draweth neare to hell c. 12. These words in hell are not expressed because the Replyer groundeth no argument vpon them but onely by setting downe the first words hath reference to the whole prophesie there contained for in other places where there was cause he omitteth them not as Limbom p. 74. 13. Though the Hebrew word sheol is indifferently taken sometime for hell sometime for the graue yet in this place Act. 2. 27. the Replyer contendeth thoroughout that whole discourse that it signifieth the graue and therefore to say he translateth it hell is according to his vsuall manner to fitten and forge of him 14. The Replyer citeth not the words of the text Rom. 1. 3. but onely sheweth that there is an opposition betweene the flesh and the spirit and therefore there was no cause to adde those words of sanctification no more then other words of the text 15. As though it be not an vsuall phrase in Scripture to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in spiritu when it must be vnderstood by or through the spirit as Eph. 2. 22. In whome ye also are built together to be the habitation of God by the spirit so road not Beza onely but Vatablus the Syrian interpreter the Geneva and the authorized English translation let him accuse these also of violent intrusion 16. But the Apostle also saith in an other place that Christ once suffered for sinnes 1. Pet. 3.