tremble to say that the conquest vpon the crosse was openly an ouerthrow and did not our Sauiour himselfe say vpon the crosse It is finished what els was finished but the redemption of mankind in deliuering of mankinde from the kingdome of Satan And was his heart so prophanely caried with the spirit of derision to scoffe at Christ by that vsuall prouerbe triumph before victorie this is a more heinous offence then Ismaels was to scoffe at Isaak He may remember whome he scornefully calleth Ismaelites 2. b. p. 18. Such an Ismaels tricke shall he not finde in all their writings it were better they were all set on a light fire then that their pennes should be stained with such impietie God mollifie his hard heart that he may in time repent him of this so great iniquitie 4. As the theefe was partaker of Christs humanitie in suffering with him on the crosse◠so he was partaker with him in all his deitie 2. b. p. 199. to this ende he tooke vpon him our humane nature that we might be capable of his diuine substance p. 203. if we should not communicate with Christ in all his glorie c. we should be no better then the wicked 2. b. p. 205. What harsh stuffe is this and fit to be waighed in the ballance of blasphemie that we shall be partakers of Christs diuine nature as he was of our humane and so the Saints shall become Gods with Christ as he was made man with vs. 5. Resurrection is attributed by Peter as well to Christs soule returning out of hell as to his bodie rising out of the graue 3. b. p. 38. What a strange paradox is this In the Creede we are taught to beleeue the resurrection of the bodie but the resurrection of the soule in the next world was yet neuer heard of neither hath Peter any such meaning for that was raised of Christ which rested in hope but it was his flesh not soule that rested in hope Act. 2. 26. that is raised which before was sowne by death but the bodie onely was so sowne not Christs soule both these propositions are S. Pauls that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die 1. Cor. 15. 36. so also is the resurrection of the dead 24. it is sowne a naturall bodie and is raised a spirituall bodie v. 44. How farre now is he from bringing death vpon Christs soule which could not be quickened in the resurrection except it first died which he himselfe counteth blasphemie 6. Is there not a most plaine distinction betweene the holy Ghost who foretold and Christ who endured these afflictions and that not in person onely which is the point I stand vpon but in nature also I meane his diuiue nature c. 3. b. p. 94. Doth hee not here manifestly affirme that there is a plaine distinction betweene the holy Ghost and Christ not in person onely but in his diuine nature was this doting diuine well aduised thus to write What Macedonian heretike would haue written more in disgrace of the holy Ghost then to say he is distinguished from Christ euen in his diuine nature 7. And as hee dealeth with Christ himselfe the like measure he offereth his seruants for thus irreuerently hee writeth of Peter you thinke all men to be vncleane impure in comparison of your selues which was partly Peters error Act. 10. 2. b. p. 107. But doth hee speake as he thinketh had Peter such an opinion of himselfe as to thinke al men vncleane and impure beside Peter onely held as yet them of the vncircumcision to be vncleane not of any singularitie of opinion but because it was not yet reuealed to him 8. Thus also hee serueth the Prophet Dauid making him almost in hell for that place Psal. 94. 14. If the Lord had not holpen mee my soule had almost dwelt in silence This place of silence he ignorantly vnderstandeth of hell 2. b. p. 149. yet falsly printed 159. But Dauid else-where declareth his hope that he was sure neuer to goe to hell when I awake I shall be satisfied with thine image Psal. 17. 15. This holy Prophet now is much beholding to this pragmatical Nouelist in placing him almost in hell 9. The like censure hee giueth of that holy man Iob vnderstanding those his word◠the graue or hell saith hee shall bee mine house and I shall make my bed in the darke Iob. 17. 13. of hell for the graue is neuer called the place of darkenesse 3. b. p. 152. and herein hee maketh Iob a figure of Christs beeing in hel p. 153. What iniury doth this vnholy glossograph offer to this holy man who was most sure he should neuer goe to hell thus professing his faith I am sure my Redeemer liueth c. Iob. 19. 25. 10. And to end where I began with his hard vsage as toward the seruants so against the Lord and master himselfe these words of Peter quickened in the spirit hee applyeth to Christs soule in this sense that hee was not made aliue in soule but kept or preserued aliue 2. b. p. 85. and alleadgeth to this purpose other places where the word is so taken as Nehemiah speaking of the heauens earth saith thou preseruest them and Saint Iames saith receiue the word with meekenesse c. which is able to saue their soules Now then if Christs soule be said to bee preserued aliue in either of these senses as in the first then was it saued from death and mortalitie and corruption as the heauens and earth are and so the soule of Christ should not be immortall of it owne nature but by speciall preseruation if he take it in another sense to be saued as our soules are which is from damnation then it will follow that Christs soule was subiect to damnation as ours are without him and so had neede of saluation which way soeuer he saith his soule was saued aliue hee must needes incurre most horrible blasphemie Here I may now fitly apply Hieroms words vttered against Heluidius Illud dico praeveniens gloriae mihi fore tua maledicta cum eodem qu◠Mariae detraxistiore me laceres caninam facundiam servus domini pariter experiatur mater This I say aforehand that your railing will bee a glory vnto me when as you tare me with the same mouth whereby you backbite Marie that both the seruant of the Lord and his mother may together haue experiēce of your doggish eloquēce But I may say more that the seruant neede not thinke much to be slaundered when as the Lord himselfe is blasphemed I am sory in my heart God is my witnesse that this man was so farre carried in his vncharitable heate as not onely to breake charity toward men but to violate pietie also toward God and let him remember what the Apostle saith It is a fearefull thing to fall into the hands of the liuing
at that time thorough the world but euen Noahs owne familie also which were together with him in the Arke 3. b. p. 104. But more wicked and intolerable is this shamelesse creature that dare thus open his mouth to reuile for whereas the words which he quarrelleth at stand thus in the booke In so much that the Lord vpheld him in all his preaching and profession against all the professors of the old world condemning them and sauing him but that his malice blinded him he might haue turned to the Errata in the beginning of the booke where he should haue found that professors by the Printer was here taken for prophane persons If hee knew this escape to bee so corrected and yet would traduce the Replier it bewraieth malice if hee knew it not it argueth his ignorance and rashnesse that would make no further search 21. Slaunder You place hell in the aire 3. b. p. 153. 1. What shamefull dealing is this thus without any conscience to detort and depraue the Repliers words He in that place speaketh onely of the place whither the deuiâ—s are now cast downe which is into hell as S. Peter saith where God hath deliuered them to chaines of darkenesse whom yet S. Paul saith to rule in the aire Eph. 2. 2. To reconcile these two Apostles it must be confessed that the aire is the diuels present hell and so Augustine taketh it Poenaliter hunc infernum id est caligino sum aerem tanquaâ— carcerem acceperunt They haue receiued this infernall and darke aire for their prison That therefore which is spoken secundum quid in part and after such a sort he wresteth as beeing spoken simpliciter simply and absolutely inferring thus The diuels present hell is in the aire ergo there shall be no hell but in the aire 2 And concerning the site of hell the Replier else-where deemeth not but that it may be in the earth or where else it pleaseth God and consisteth specially vpon this position That the place of hell causeth not the torment but the wrath and curse of God which this caueller shall neuer be able to disprooue 22. Slaunder That he vtterly condemneth allegories 3. b. p. 166. Here this endlesse wrangler committeth the same fault which hee fell into before to presse that as generally spoken against all allegories which is intended only against such allegories as are of mens deuising and haue no warrant in Scripture as the words thus stand in the first place there noted I hold it not safe wading without a bottome and therefore I omit these allegorical applications as mens fansies Is this vtterly to condemne allegories he that so doeth alloweth none and so euen the allegories vsed by S. Paul Gal. 4. and in other places of Scripture should also be excluded Euery man may see what paltrie dealing this is and such is his lewd vaine throughout this whole Satyricall discourse Many other slaunderous accusations are foisted in euery where which it were lost labour to examine If I should altogether busie my selfe in raking in this filthy dunghill I might be thought as vaine and beastly as this Coprologus himselfe yet I will adde one slaunder more 23. Slaunder That the Replier calleth the blessed roots of the Christian faith cursed rootes 2. b. p. 84. A vile slaunder for the Replier only repeateth the Confutors words which are these That he chargeth his brethren irreligiously and vnchristianly to call the maine grounds and principles of our faith into question Saying further To plant by writing or water by speaking the cursed rootes thereof These are his owne wordes in many syllables now this word thereof which he meaneth of Atheisme hee with a cavillous spirit retorteth vpon the Replier as spoken of faith in the precedent sentence which is apparantly seperated and suspended from the next clause by these words interlaced in other caracters and saying which this slie iugler concealeth that his fraud appeare not I would he had grace to consider how grieuously hee hath offended in persecuting his brother with such vncharitable slaunders and had remembred that sentence of the Apostle that he which hateth his brother is a man-slaier yea as Cyprian saith Multo malum leuius periculum minus est cum membra gladio vulnerantur facilior cura vbi plaga perspicua c. zeli vulnera abstrusa sunt occulta Serm. de Liuore It is a lighter euill and lesse danger when the members are wounded with a sword the cure is easier where the wound is in sight the wounds of enuie are close and secret Theocritus being demanded which were the most cruell beasts made this answer Truely in the hilles the Beares and Lyons but in Cities sycophants and slaunderers The wise man hath expressed it better That a Beare might rather meete with a man then a foole in his folly But because a word once spoken cannot bee called in the next way to make amends for this grosse ouer-sight is to take heed of the like slip afterward and to follow the wise mans counsell If thou hast beene foolish in lifting thy selfe vp and if thou hast thought wickedly lay thy hand vpon thy mouth Let him heare Cyprian againe Venena fellis euome purgetur mens quam serpentinus livor infecerat amaritudo omnis quae intus insiderat Christi dulcedine leniatur Vomite vp thy poisoned gall let the minde be purged which serpentine enuie hath infected let all bitternes which festred within be allaied by the sweetnes of Christ. The 3. imputation of vntruths The accusation Next after his vncharitable slaunders followeth the imputation of vntruths In the front of Limbomastix he findeth no fewer then sixe vntruths 1. He taketh exception to the title Limbomastix which he would haue to signifie a scourge of the hem or border of a garment and so he chargeth the Replyer in his rude discourse as he more rude himselfe calleth it to cut a sunder the hem of the precious garment of Christ the doctrine and discipline of the Church he saith also that it is a new found name and it should haue beene entituled Limbopatrum mastix the word patrum should haue beene added to limit the generall signification 2. b. p. 2. 2. Vntrâ—th That he forgeth a new matter neuer questioned in this Church whether Christ descended into hell to deliuer the Patriarkes ibid. p. 3. 3. Vntruth That the Replyer acâ—useth his answer as enclining to that opinion of Limbus patrum for what one word saith he thorough the whole booke doth insinuate so much as any suspition thereof p. 5. 4. Vntruth The abuse and misapplication of Saint Pauls words Phil. 3. 15. Let vs as many as be perfect be thus minded p. 8. for the Apostle speaketh not this of doctrine but of perfection of life if you will credit S. Chrysostome p. 10. 5. Vntruth You abuse that auncient and godly father S. Augustine
his father yet hee wisheth this phrase of speech to bee forborne and discontinued therefore hee freeth the soule of Christ in effect from all kinde of death of the soule properly so called Further if it be blasphemous to say that Christ suffered some of the sorrowes and torments euen of hell in his soule what thinketh he of that propheticall saying of Dauid Psal. 18. 3. The sorrowes of hell haue compassed me and Act. 2. 24. he loosed the sorrowes of hell as the Latine interpreter readeth doth he also say that these are blasphemous speeches nay doth it not come neerer blasphemie to denie Christ to haue suffered in his soule for our soules and so to rob him of the most glorious part of his passion 3. And doth he count it also blasphemous to say that Christ suffered the inward afflictions of his soule then he most blasphemously must charge the Prophet Dauid with blaspemie who saith in the person of Christ Thy terrors haue I suffered from my youth or as the Latine interpreter whom Augustine followeth terrores tui conturbauerunt me thy terrors haue troubled mee For that diuers sayings in this Psalme are propheticall as that vers 5. free among the dead Augustine confesseth who saith also of this whole Psalme Christi vocem c. Let vs heare the voice of Christ singing in the prophesie Further when the Prophet saith he shall see of the trauaile of his soule or as the Latine interpreter because his soule laboured what other trauailes and labours of the soule were these then the spirituall and internall And is he not ashamed to say that these inward afflictions are blasphemous euen by the Replyers owne confession as reaching to sinne and damnation when as in direct words he freeth Christs soule from all sinne and damnation but not from inward afflictions Further if all inward afflictions include sinne and damnation then he wil fasten vpon S. Pauls soule sinne and damnation who confesseth he had fightings without and terrors within and so was not voide of inward and spirituall afflictions This then is the issue vpon his owne words either to denie that Christ suffered the inward afflictions and terrors of the soule which to him is inglorious in denying the most honourable part of his sufferings or if he did that he incurred either sinne and damnation which to thinke were blasphemous 4. If to vnderstand by nephesh the soule that is the life in that prophesie of Dauid Psal. 16. doe breede all those supposed inconueniences then belike the Prophet Dauid in saying My life draweth neere to hell gaue way and occasion to Atheisme impietie blasphemie for he there calleth it life not soule if those absurdities follow vpon the construction of the one place it can not be auoided in the other Againe what an absurd consequent is it that the immortalitie of the soule should fall to ground and so the Sadduces and Epicures be confirmed if it be not prooued from this place As though there be not many more places pregnant in Scripture to prooue the immortalitie of the soule And as for iustifying of olde damned heretikes let him take heede least by casting Christs soule into hell the place of the damned he make not a way for them himself for two heresies there were one that Christs soule descended into hell there to suffer the paines and torments which the damned spirits abide an other that Christ by descending into hell deliuered all which were there in torment to these heresies they come nearer which affirme Christs locall deâ—cent in soule to hell then they which denie it Then to returne his owne words by this time I trust euery well disposed Reader doth see how this your obiection of blasphemie reboundeth vpon your owne head with shame enough while he would set fire on an others tower his owne braines are pasht out with Abimelech and his serpentine obiections are deuoured of a contrarie serpent His vncharitable charge is discharged vpon himselfe it no more hurteth the Replyer then the viper that leaped vpon Pauls hand and as Diogenes wittily said of one whome he heard to raile vpon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him also beate me beeing absent so false calumniations shall no more fasten vpon the innocent then blowes vpon him that is absent And as for these so improbable and vnreasonable accusations of blasphemie I may say with the Orator Opinor eum non tam fuisse sceleratum qui fingeret nec tam furio sum qui crederet I did thinke he had not beene so leud to imagine them nor so without wit to beleeue them The Recrimination I am loath to set vpon this chafing Challenger and to charge him in the same kinde It is no small matter to lay vpon any the imputation of blasphemie seeing the greatest sinne in the world is called by this name But seeing he which prouoketh is the beginner of the battell and the defender doth but take the chalenge I hope the fault is the lesse if I shall answer him in his owne kinde and beate him with the weapon which he hath chosen It was a good excuse which Tullie vseth in answearing Salusts inuectiue Si mihi forte offendimini iustius huic quam mihi succensere debetis qui initium introduxit If ye perhaps be offended with me ye ought to be more iustly incensed against him then me because he began the quarrell 1. His presumptuous speeches and some of them tending to blasphemie in part are these 2. b. p. 8. I will comfort my selfe with that saying of our Sauiour de bono opere lapidor I am stoned for my good worke what presumption is this to compare himselfe a sinnefull man with the holy person of Christ and his intemperate slaunderous railing and vncharitable writings with Christs most heauenly sermons and miracles 2. He confesseth that Christ looâ—ed the sorrows of hell for himselfe 2. b. p. 37. then it must follow that he was in the sorrows of hell before he loosed them whether he saith in soule he descended for the knot must first be tied before it be loosed but this he himselfe in many places counteth a blasphemie to affirme before blasph 2. 3. 3. The word openly prooueth that it was no triumph at all vpon the crosse for that conquest vpon the Crosse was openly an ouerthrow and therefore no triumph And againe a little after If Christ triumphed on the Crosse as you say he did it was according to the proverbe triumphus ante victoriam a triumph before victorie 2. b. p. 188. What a derogation is this to the triumphant and victorious crosse of Christ thus contrarie to the Scriptures to say that it was an ouerthrow rather then a triumph seeing the Apostle thus witnesseth that he might destroy thorough death him that had power ouer death that is the Deuill If the Deuill were destroied by the death of Christ then was he conquered and ouerthrowne how then did he not
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.
the answearer the conclusion is Ergo be deliuered the Fathers out of Limbas doth he inferre this to confirme his owne opinion or to confute yours The Replyer therefore will keepe himselfe well enough out of the ditch while he himselfe sticketh fast in the mire Ans. 2. He denieth the assumption affirming with Augustine that Christ loosed the sorrowes of hell for himselfe Contra. 1. In deede one of Augustines expositions in that place is that Christ may be said to haue loosed the sorrowes of hell for himselfe quemadmodum solvi possunt laquei venantium c. as the snares of hunters may be loosed least they should hold not because they did hold but this exposition can not serue his turne for he saith these sorrowes were loosed at Christs resurrection they were not then loosed before till then so it followeth that Christ was in them which Augustine there denieth neque coperat in eis esse tanquam in vinoulis he beganne not at all to be in those sorrowes as in bandes 2. Againe he saith these sorrowes were not in the graue because the bodie was senslesse and so felt them not therefore by the same reason those sorrowes were in hell because Christ soule was full of sense and consequently felt them Thus will hee 〈◊〉 hee either hee must confesse that some other were deliuered out of the sorrowes of hell by Christs descending thither or that he himselfe felt the sorrowes of hell 2. The second place that encreaseth this suspition is because he striueth mightily that we must read 1. Pet. 3. 19. the spirits which were in prison not which are whereupon it followeth that he thinketh some were in the prison of hell but are not or els he striueth about words Ans. It followeth not because I say it should be translaeted which were c. not which are that they therefore were in hell but are not no more then it followeth the Angels were in heauen at Christs asâ—ension but are not Contr. 1. Hee omitteth the other part of the disiunâ—tion that either that must follow or els he striueth about words 2. The instance of the Angels therefore is impertinent for the Replyer doth not reason thus they were in hell Ergo they are not but thus either they were in hell and are not or else he striueth for words 3. Yet this coÌ„tending about the reading of were for are giueth strong suspicion that hee so thinketh that some were in hell and are not because his great Master vpon the aduantage of that word inferreth the same conclusion thus writing All the Latines Greekes whom we haue cited expound were not are because they will haue them deliuered out of hell by Christ but it could not bee said truely of those spirits in the time of Peter that they were then in the prison 3. The third place is this In that Christ personally descended into hell it doth more amplifie and set forth his goodnesse toward mankâ—â—de c. for so much as the more vile and loath some the dungeon is the greater is the loue of the Prince who to enfranchise and set at libertie the captiues there enthralled disâ—â—ineth not to enter into it in his owne person Hence it is inferred that these captiues in hell which were enfranchised by Christ descending thither could be no other then the fathers in Limbo patrum for out of the nethermost hell of the damned none can be deliuered Ans. 1. The argument is denied Christ went to set at libertie captiues in hell Ergo the fathers in Limbo Cont. The argument standeth thus the captiues in hel set at liberty were either in Limbo or in the nethermost hell But they were not in the nethermost hell for thence none can be deliuered Ergo the captiues in hell set at liberty were those in Limbo The reason cannot be denied beeing a true syllogisme the Replyer is not then a 〈◊〉 in making such reasons but the Confuter a brables in denying them Ans. 2. You must first prooue that the Fathers were in Limbo patrum and that hell the place of eternall captiuity was all one with it which yet your selfe affirme is no part of hell and therefore I inferre it is no place of thraldome Cont. 1. Now this ignorant Confuter sheweth himselfe a trifler indeed and a silly Logician to denie the conclusion that the Fathers were not in Limbe which is the conclusion of the former argument 2. How absurd is this fellow that seeing a manifest disiunction in the proposition betweene Limbus patrum and the nethermost hell yet saith it must be prooued that they are all one 3. The Replyer in his owne opinion taketh Limbus to be neither a part of hell nor any where else but disputeth ex concessis according to their conceit that so imagine But this trifling Confuter is caught in his owne wordes for in confessing that Limbus is no place of thraldome he granteth that such a Limbus there is but not a place of that qualitie for according to his owne rule the formeâ— must first be granted namely that there is a Limbus before you can dispute of the latter whether it be a place of thraldome or not and thus to giue him his owne words againe you whip your selfe with your owne scourge whose lashes if you feelâ— not I say you are very senslesse and to vse Tullies words haec te si vllam partem habes sensus laceret haec crueÌ„tat oratio this saying if you haue any part of sense tareth and woundeth you Answ. 3. But the Confuter not insisting vpon any of these answers which are very simple findeth our another that these captiues enfranchised by Christ was all mankind which by Adâ—â—s sinne were made guilty of eternall death and so made his captiues that had power ouer death that is the diuell vnder whom wee were held in most slauish thraldome c. vntill such time as it pleased our most gratious king to enfranchise vs. 2. b. p. 143. Cont. 1. This answer is not to the purpose for the question out of his former words obiected is not of captiues to hell and the diuell but of captiues in hell 2. b. p. 40. and there detained p. 37. and enthralled there to enfranchise whom our prince descended thither p. 40. We were indeede all captiues by sinne to the diuell subiect to death hell damnation but not captiues and enthralled in hell this is but a simple euasion 2. Our deliuerance and enfranchising was procured purchased by the death of Christ as the Apostle saith that he might destroy through death him that had power ouer death that is the diuell and that he might deliuer c. for that ende therefore Christ needed not to descend to hell 3. See how inconstant this new doginatist is one while he saith that Christ descended to hell that the Redemption of mankind now performed might bee manifested euen vnto the dead 2. b. p. 72. sometime to denounce
making the liuely sense and feeling of religion onely to appertaine to a Novice which is the very perfection of true knowledge and religion for a liuely sense presupposeth knowledge one may haue the knowledge and shew of religion and yet feele not the power thereof as the Apostle saith hauing a forme of religion but haue denied the power thereof in which number I feare me this enuious aduersarie is one But there can not be a liuely sense of religion without knowledge preceding as S. Paul againe saith I pray that your loue may abound yet more and more in all knowledge and sense 11. Slaund That the Replyer defendeth many things in that booke that is contrarie to the Gospel 2. b. p. 50. you conuince your selfe to be no Protestant in calling me an adversarie to Protestants p. 52. they haue neither friend nor faith left them p. 53. that some of his friends denie the Pater noster p. 76. if we must receiue no article of the Creede vnlesse it be expounded according to your sense of the Scriptures and your conceit of the Analogie of faith we may in time haue neither Creede nor Christianitie left vs. 2. b. p. 180. that he followeth prophane errour in hatred of the truth 3. b. p. 203. Vnlesse this shamelesse man were possessed with the spirit of lying and slaunder he would neuer haue laid vnto the Replyers charge to defend things contrarie to the Gospel to be no Protestant to haue no faith no Christianitie to hate the truth whose bookes if they had not more true diuinitie in one leafe then his rayling bundle in the whole packe and the author more faith and Christianitie in his serious meditations then the other in his deepest studies he would neuer set penne to paper againe nor looke any man in the face hereafter But I must here excuse my selfe with Tullie Iniuriae dolor facit me praeter morem gloriosum the sense of my wrong maketh me boast beside my wont 12. Slaund Your seldome excursions abroad against the common aduersarie can not excuse your often incursions at home against your brethren 2. b. p. 58. what will not a slaunderous tongue forge The Replyer calleth God and men to witnesse for the clearing of him in this point that he hath neither vsed often nor seldome incursions against his brethren making any challenge by name to any of them This whole Church can testifie with him that the most if not all of his writings certaine explanations of Scripture onely excepted haue beene directed against the common aduersarie of like truth is the marginal glaunce in the same place that two petitions were exhibited to the King the one with a 1000. hands the other with 1500. whereas I haue beene certenly informed and I doe verily beleeue that neither of them were subscribed with any hands at all Of the same credit is the next obiection p. 60. that the Replyer with others doe think themselues persecuted for the profession of the Gospel whereas leauing other mens complaints he most heartily thanketh God for that sweete peace which he hath enioyed in his ministerie which by Gods gracious assistance hath brought forth such fruits in the vse of his penne as he needeth not be ashamed of 13. Slaund Your words doe necessarily implie all the auncient fathers and all sound writers since together with all good Christians throughout the whole world to be popish and superstitious men c. for all these doe firmely hold the locall discent of Christs soule into hell 2. b. p. 82. Contra. 1. The Replyers wordes doe implie no such thing but the contrarie for these they are They which hold not the locall discent of Christs soule to hell should not condemne the other as prophane superstitious that are so perswaded Limbom p. 5. is not then he ashamed to inferre the contrarie that the Replyers words implie they are popish 2. The fathers opinion touching the local discent of Christs soule is farre different from his and in these fowre substantiall and materiall points 1. in respect of the place they hold he went not downe to the hell of the damned but to that part of hell where the fathers were 2. in respect of their persons that he descended not to the damned but to preach deliuerance to the fathers there detained 3. the ende is also diuerse they hold he went to deliuer 4. in the effect they differ for their opinion is that hell was emptied at Christs going downe thither and that returning from thence he brought an innumerable companie of captiues with him to this purpose Bellarmine alleadgeth aboue twentie Greeke and Latine fathers beside Councells 3. And are all sound writers and good Christians of his opinion then Calvine Bucer Beza Erasmus Sarcerius Marlorate Gasper Megander Oleviane D. Fulke D. Reynolds Sadeel Scultetus Vrsinus Bucanus with diuers others were in his blind opinion neither sound writers nor good Christians all which held the contrarie 14. Slaund That the Replyer was one of those that contradicted what reuerend B. Bilson taught concerning our redemption by the death of Christ p. 95. that he holdeth that the article of Christs descention is to be reiected out of the Creede as a new addition lately foisted into the Creede 2. b. p. 96. Contra. What will not now this malitious Accuser dare to say obiecting things as contrarie to truth as darknes is to light he might as well say that the Replyer holdeth there is no Christ nor God as accuse him to denie the redemption of mankind by the death of Christ and the article of the discension his prophane heart knew that his dissembling lippes wandring hand and erring penne consented here to make a lie 15. Slaund The fourth fault is horrible impietie in that you hereby condemne the soule of the Prophet Dauid to the very place of the damned Whereas 1. the Replyer saith in very direct words his that is Dauids soule was not at all in hell Limbom p. 24. how then is not the slaunderer ashamed thus to obiect 2. because the Replyer saith the not beeing or leauing of the soule in hell was as well performed in Dauid as in Christ Limbom p. 24. hence he doth inferre thus Dauids soule was not left in hell Ergo it was in hell whereas it is cleare that the Replyer by not leauing vnderstandeth the not beeing so our Sauiour saith to his Apostles Ioh. 14. 18. I will not leaue you comfortlesse will he hereupon conclude that they were comfortlesse but not so left 3. It is the accuser himselfe that is guiltie of this impietie that Dauids soule was if not in hell yet neare vnto hell for in these words of Dauid if the Lord had not holpen me my soule had well-nie dwelt in silence Psal. 94. 17. by silence he vnderstandeth hell in his sentence then Dauids soule was almost in
him p. 125. whereas the Replyer doth protest that he neuer yet read or so much as sawe Carliles booke but what will not euill will imagine 9. Vntruth That Bellarmine agreeth with all antiquitie in taking the Hebrew and Greeke words sheol and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they signified onely soule and hell 2. b. p. 119. Here are three notable vntruths for neither antiquitie nor yet Bellarmine nor any learned interpreter euer tooke these two words sheol and hades to signifie the soule and hell for neither of them was euer taken by any to signifie the soule Secondly not all the auncient interpreters tooke sheol translated infernus onely to signifie hell for Cyprian vpon the Creed which is also ascribed to Ruffinus doeth take it for the graue in these words Sciendum est quod in Ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non habetur additum descendit ad infernos c. We must knowe that in the Romane Church it is not found added in the Creed he descended to hell c. Vis tamen verbi eadem videtur esse in eo quod sepultus dicitur but the same force of the word seemeth to be in that he is said to be buried And Chrysostome also concurreth Descendit ad infernum vt ibi à miraculo non vacaret c. He descēded to hell that he should not there be without miracle for many of the bodies of the Saints rose with Christ and died againe hom 2. in Symbol Here by infernus hell hee seemeth to vnderstand that place from whence Christ raised the bodies of the dead that came out of their graues which is none other but the place of buriall and the graue And Augustine expoundeth that place Psalm 88. 3. My life draweth neere to hell by these words of Christ My soule is heauy vnto death Thirdly neither doth Bellarmine take the wordes sheol and nephesh onely to signifie hell for the first hee saith Ordinariè accipitur c. it is taken ordinarily for the place of soules vnder the earth vel raro vel nunquā pro sepulchro or seldome or neuer for the graue He simply denieth not but that it sometime signifieth the graue though not ordinarily For the other word thus he saith Nephesh est generalissim◠vox c. Nephesh is a generall word and signifieth without any trope as well the soule as the liuing creature yea the body Hee may be ashamed therefore thus to belie his ring-leader and grand captaine with whom he saith he is beholding to the Replyer for ioyning him being a learned Papist p. 119. 10. Vntruth That hee doeth fasten all the torments of hell vpon the blessed soule of our Sauiour 2. b. p. 154. wheras the Replyer simply denieth against the false charge of Feuardentius That Christ suffered in his soule the whole paines of the damned in hell 11. Vntruth That you expound in the former testimonie soule that is body hell that is graue and here spirits that is men dead that is liuing 3. b. p. 71. Here are foure vntruths fardelled vp together 1. Neither doth the Replier by soule vnderstand body but either the person or life 2. Neither by hell the graue but only sheweth that the hebrew word sheol which signifieth hell is sometime taken for the graue 3. Nor yet doth he expound spirits that is men but that they are called now spirits with S. Peter which sometime were men 4. And they which are now dead were sometime liuing 12. Vntruth Onely Beza may seeme to fauour you that is in taking soule for life 2. b. p. 118. What boldnesse is this to set downe such peremptorie negatiues as though he had himselfe runne ouer all writers both new olde What a great vntruth is it to say onely Beza when as Caluine directly affirmeth the same Neque enim anima tam spiritum immortalis essentiae significat quam vitam ipsam for the soule doth not so much signifie the immortall essence of the spirit as the life it selfe Is Caluin in his base opinion no bodie 13. It turneth Christs euerliuing soule into a dead bodie it siteth hell in the superficies of the earth maketh hell a place of corruption and there burieth the blessed soule of our Sauiour 2. b. p. 164. All these impieties and absurdities he chargeth the Replyer with for so vnderstanding that place Act. 2. 27. that Christs life seemed to be raked vp in the graue for here he hath vttered three vntruths 1. the soule beeing taken for the life turneth not the soule of Christ into the bodie but maketh the life onely to be as laid vp in the graue 2. they which take sheol here for the graue which also signifieth hell denie not but that beside this sheol in the graue there is an other also in hell sheol taken for the graue is a place of corruption not sheol when it signifieth hell 4. he is the man that burieth and shutteth vp Christs soule in hell holding and affirming that it was there three daies 14. That Durand held an opinion contrarie to all the rest of the Romanists that Christs soule descended not to hell in substance but by certaine effects p. 190. whereas Thomas Aquinas held the same in effect that Christ onely descended per realem praesentiam by his reall presence to Limbus patrum to all the other places of hell per effectum by effects and thus Bellarmine himselfe citeth him take away that conceit of Limbus patrum which to all Protestants is but a dreame and in the rest these two agree 15. Neither Protestant nor yet Papist of any account will take your part for the Papists they are fitter mates for him but diuers Protestants of great account are in this question of the Replyers iudgement as instance is giuen in twelue of them before 13. slaund therefore it is great vnshamefastnes in this brabler to vtter so vnreasonable and improbable a speech 16. He calleth A. Humes his first instructer p. 195. whereas he shall finde that the partie giuen in instance in his Reioynder hath reference vnto some of the Replyers works euen in this argument 17. Vntr. In this sense the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed euery where throughout the Bible that is is meant for the soule 3. b. p. 57. A most audacious speech and full of vntruth for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spirit is as often taken for the diuine spirit of God as for the soule of man as is euident in these places Ioh. 4. 24. God is a spirit Rom. 1. 4. declared mightily to be the sonne of God touching the spirit of sanctification 1. Tim. 3. 16. iustified in the spirit 1. Tim. 4. 1. the spirit speaketh euidently and many other such places might be produced he sheweth how shamelesse a man he is therefore that dare vent forth such a great vntruth that this word spirit euery where
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
other mens humours he speaketh not out of his owne heart 4. As is the building such are the props thereof the accusation is here salse and the grounds thereof are vntrue for neither hath the Replyer dedicated all his books to the Prince nor yet the third part of them nor yet doth he in that place which he misreciteth complaine of his small reward for his bookes but laieth open the generall complaint of students and the common vilipending of bookes And doth not he the same complaining that bookes are in so small request with many that they esteeme them no otherwise then gentlewomen doe their fancie flowers which in the day time they carrie in their heads and in the night cast at their heeles doth he thinke himselfe also worthie to weare a goose feather for thus writing But as for the Replyers geese for so he disdainfully calleth some of his bookes they shall be able to compare with his supposed swannes which by the hissing may seeme at the first to be swannes birds yet by the gagling shew they were but hatched in a goose nest for he is like vnto him whom Hierom taxeth Pisoniano vitio laborat cum loqui nesciret tacere non potuit he hath Piso his fault he knoweth not how to speake and yet he can not hold his peace As the goose can not sing and yet shee will alway be gagling Erasmus spake it modestly of himselfe but it may be truly said of this intempestiue writer Multi hoc morbo laborant mei similes qui cum scribere nesciant tamen à scribendo temperare non possunt many haue my fault who not knowing how to write yet can not refraine from writing When he hath cast all his cards and taken his accounts and seeth how little he hath gained by thus writing he will beshrew himselfe that he followed not Hieromes counsell Ne ad scribendum cito prosilias neque levi ducaris insania Doe not hastily fall to writing and be not caried away with cockbraine fittes The Recrimination But seeing he putteth the Replyer to it to finde out the arrogant spirit indeede who can not better cleare himselfe of this iniurious imputation then in returning it thither where it shall finde best entertainment he shall be set forth in his owne colours and by his owne words I wil sound the depth of his high and haughtie spirit 1. I will ascend by degrees and giue in the first place the least tast of his owne proud humour how disdainfully he carieth himselfe toward the Replyer he obiecteth vnto him want of learning and iudgement 2. b. p. 46. you vnlearnedly mistake 2. b. p. 101. you impertinently and vnlearnedly bring the example of Lazarus c. 2. b. p. 141. how vnlearned and erroneous is it to distinguish the person of Christ and the Messias 3. b. p. 7. And I pray you who doth so he is more vnlearned that so imagineth Your examples are impertinently and ignorantly alleadged 3. b. p. 67. vnlearnedly translated by you preacheth 3. b. p. 107. but himselfe wanteth learning herein as is shewed before He taketh exception also to the Replyers person and degree If you know no difference c. you are ill worthie of those schoole degrees which you haue taken 3. b. p. 161. And to his bookes one he calleth a base pamphlet 2. b. p. 19. I had for a good space cast it aside into a corner beeing in truth the fittest place for it pref p. 4. Such ignorance and want of learning it had beene enough for this Paidomastix to haue obiected to his schooleboyes The Replyer as he confesseth his knowledge not to be great so he is sure the others is lesse it is a pitifull thing as one saide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when one that is not wise seemeth to be wise and so it is when one that is vnlearned doth arrogate to himselfe the name of learning Tullie spake sharply to Antonie and yet but the truth Implicata inscitia impudentia est si nescit quod augurem nec facit quod pudentem decet his encumbred inscience will prooue but impudencie if he neither know what becommeth a diuine nor doe what beseemeth a shamefast man The Replyers Antonie may take this if he will as spoken of himselfe Concerning his person and degree as the Replyer doth modestly acknowledge himselfe vnmeete for the same so he seeth no cause why he may not be thought as worthie thereof as this brauing Pedantius of his mastership and he may say vnto him in Tullies words without any great boasting Non video nec in vita nec in gratia nec in rebus gestis nec in hac mediocritate ingenij quid despicere posset Antonius I see not neither in life nor in grace nor in exploits nor in this mediocritie of wit what Antonie hath reason to despise As for the Replyers bookes euen the most vile and base of them hee doubteth not but may compare with his most vaine-glorious writings it had beene good indeede for him if Limbomastix had beene laid aside for then this Paidomastix had not shamed himselfe and if a corner had beene the fittest place for that I thinke his will prooue as a bundle of rotten stickes fit for the fire there are some books which though they availe not to vertue yet otherwise doe bring some profit with them for knowledge as Seneca saith ad alia multum conferunt ad virtutem nihil Some there are which though they yielde no profit yet shew arte and cunning in the framing of them which may be likened to the Spiders webbes which are very artificiall but nothing profitable But this scholemasters scribling in truth is of neither sort the Reader shall finde it neither to edifie for the matter and much to offend in the manner vt onerent legentem magis quam instruant they will cumber the Reader rather then any wise further him But I wil proceed and shew how by higher degrees his owne arrogancy riseth still till it come to the height 2. He chargeth Tremellius that in his translation concerning the word sheol he dealt neither so ingenuously nor so religiously as he ought 2. b. p. 130. His translation of graue for hell Psal. 6. he calleth false and foolish 3. b. p. 25. Tremellius and Iunius reading Psal. 139. 8. is called false and immodest 3. b. p. 151. 3. Pagnine Arias and Tremellius translation hee calleth false adding that whose late error herein must not ouerrule the auncient truth 2. b. p. 148. 4. Beza beside that euery where reiecting his interpretation he calleth him in scorne your interpreter 2. b. p. 171. and 3. b. p. 111. he further chargeth him by his interpretation to confirme the heresie of the Arrians 3. b. p. 15. 5. It is no maruell that hee thus hardly censureth the priuate translations of some particular men when he spareth not to condemne the publike
inferno c. without doubt as he left not Christs soule in hell so shall hee not leaue our soules in hell c. and he which called him from hell after the third day shall also call vs in due time 15. 16. To say that this whole prophecy of Dauid was onely historically true of Christ and yet typically agreed to Dauid is no contradiction hath he so forgotten his Logike principles as that he remembreth not that euery contraritie and opposition must be secundum idem ad idem in regard of the same part or place and in one the same respect But where the Replyer inferreth first Dauids soule is in hell hee reasoneth ex concessis because the Romanists doe hold that Dauids soule with the rest of the fathers was in hell 17. It is euident by the reason here set downe concerning the originall of Christs soule which cannot bee said to be ex traduce to bee deriued by propagation as the body is without great inconuenience and in a manner impossibilitie that the Replyer reuersed his former iudgement concerning the exposition of the word flesh Rom. 1. 3. that howsoeuer in some other places it is taken for the whole nature of man consisting of soule and body yet it cannot bee so taken there for the former reason And herein the Replyer followeth Augustines iudgement who against the Apollinarists that held Christ onely to haue taken humane flesh without a soule grounding their error vpon those words Ioh. 1. The word was made flesh abiecteth that place of Scripture all flesh shall see the saluation of God and the like where flesh comprehendeth the whole nature of man yet against Felicianus the Arrian which asked the question why the habite of the sonne of God might not animate Christs flesh in stead of a soule reasoneth after this manner that if Christ tooke not also an humane soule one of those fower must followe it was either for that he thought the soule of man to bee innocent but that could not be because sinne is voluntary and so incident properly to the soule or that it belonged not vnto him which also is otherwise seeing God is the creator of soules or for that he could not heale the soule thē should he not be omnipotent or because the soule was abiect and vile but that is not so as he addeth in the same place to this effect that the flesh was not formed by the breathing in of God as the soule was but of the slime of the earth Here then is no contradiction but a reuocation or qualification rather of his former opinion concerning the interpretation of one word in one place which the Replyer taketh to be no disgrace vnto him hauing altered his minde therein before this cauiller found it out seeing hee himselfe affirmeth the like but vntruely of a Reuerend Prelate of this land that he retracted his iudgement in a waightier matter in the expounding of that difficult and obscure place of Saint Peter This is the onely place which he had any colour of reason to obiect 18. The Replyer affirmeth not out of his owne opinion that Christ preached in hell to the disobedient spirits for their comfort but hee vrgeth it as an inconuenience which followeth vpon their interpretation that say that Christ went and preached in hell and the same absurdity is pressed by Augustine epist. 99. what grosse blindnesse then is this in him not to discerne when the Replyer deliuereth his owne iudgement by way of position and when he presseth the aduersarie by way of obiection 19. The doores were shut vp in the very instant of Christs entrance that is not onely before but at that very instant when Christ began to enter and yet the doores opened and gaue way to Christ when he entred here is no contradiction for first it is said in the instant of his entrāce that is he found them shut when he began to enter then it is said when he entred that is while he was going in is it not euident that a difference of the instant time is here noted one wherein hee found the doores shut beeing to enter the other succeeding when the doores opened as he entred it is lost time that is spent with such a trifler 20. The Replyer still without altering of his iudgement vnderstandeth by prison in that place of Peter hell yet he produceth expositions of some of the fathers which by prison vnderstand the bands of sinnes and errors out of the which the prisoners were deliuered to shew that herein though not in euery point they make for the Replyer vnderstanding the deliuering of prisoners of preaching to the liuing for their cōuersion not to the dead as the Confuter doth Is there not here now great contradiction 21. The Replyer alleadgeth the testimony of Ambrose that so expoundeth the lower parts of the earth of hell not to that end but onely to shew that he vnderstandeth Christs descension to hell of the presence of his diuine power there 2. b. p. 12. Is it necessarie when a testimony is produced to one ende that whatsoeuer is contained there beside should be acknowledged Then he himselfe cannot auoide it but hee must needs goe for a maintainer of Limbus for he bringeth in Ambrose 3. b. p. 169. and Augustine and Origen p. 193. affirming the same as appeareth by their testimonies as he alleadgeth them such measure as he meateth shal be measured to him againe 22. To affirme that Bernard in one place findeth no further descension of Christ then vnto death and yet that in another beeing carried away with the error of those times he holdeth the descension of Christs soule to hell is no contradiction neither would this iangling sophister haue thought so if he had remembred the lawes of opposition and contradiction whereof I touched two before secundum idem ad idem where as he failed in the latter I affirming Dau. prophecy to be true of Christ one way i. historically of Dauid another i. typically and therefore it was without any contradiction so he faileth here in the other because Bernard is said to affirme diuers things but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same part and place 23. As though when Bernard maketh the third degree of descending to bee admortem vnto death his descending to the graue be not there implyed for otherwise he descended not from the crosse to die for he yeilded vp his spirit vpon the crosse And this Bernard sheweth by the words following nunquid amplius potuit Behold how farre he descended could he doe any more but if hee meant nothing else but his death vpon the crosse excluding the graue our Sauiour Christ both might haue done more and did more for vs not onely in dying but in being buried for vs. 24. And doth not the descending of Christ to the crosse and graue include also and imply his descending to the earth vnlesse you thinke that his crosse and graue
alleadge that impertinent addition much lesse in heauen where there is fulnes of ioy for the question is for whome those sorrowes were loosed I thinke he will not say for any that were in heauen there is then no iniurie done vnto the Confuter in the omitting of those words the Replyer should haue had more aduantage in setting them downe 2. The Obiector indeede first saith that the soule by a synecdoche is taken for me but the Confuter also hath these very words the state of the questiō is not whether the soule ioyned with the bodie may be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the whole man liuing in which sense it can not be denied but it is taken in diuers places of Scripture 1. b. p. 7. The Replyer then corrupteth not his wordes but the Refuter denieth his owne wordes and that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is onely vsed in that place by himselfe not by the Obiector 3. The whole sentence is this it is a generall axiome in Theologie among diuines that the words of holy writ are alwaies to be taken and vnderstood according to their natiue and proper signification but onely when there followeth some manifest and apparant absurdity what fraud now or legerdemain is there in omitting of the first clause which is but a flourish to the sentence no substantial part therof The Replyer was not bound to rehearse all his idle words but such as were materiall to the purpose But the legerdemaine that here is is found onely in the Confuter who falsely chargeth the Replyer for reiecting of this axiome whereas he admitteth it and vpon that ground prooueth these two points that the words sheol and nephesh doe sometime properly signifie the life and graue and if they did not yet by reason of the absurdities and inconueniences ensuing a figuratiue sense of those words should be acknowledged 4. To what purpose should the Replyer haue added that clause and thus auncient learned c. seeing the Refuter onely nameth certaine fathers in the margin vpon this point as Augustine Euthimius Damascen but produceth not their testimony for the hunts-man looseth but his labour in tracing the hare vnlesse he finde her sitting in her forme or can finde her out by her sent and as wearisome a thing it is to follow the fathers in the large field of their writings the particular places beeing not noted 5. True it is that the Confuter maketh a double Antithesis betweene Christ and Dauid a generall betweene their persons in these words thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell as he readeth and a particular in his incorruption resurrection and a scension which last the Refuter calleth the true antithesis The Replyer then had no reason to make mention of that generall antithesis 1. because hee speaketh of the true antithesis which the Refuter himselfe saith doth consist in those three points before mentioned and this he affirmeth not onely in his simple text but in his friuolous marginall notes that herein the true antithesis consisteth betweene Christ and Dauid in his incorruption resurrection ascension 2. Neither will his generall antithesis helpe him which hee saith is not betweene the soule of Christ and the soule of Dauid but betweene their persons 1. b. p. 19. But the Replyer giueth an instance in the soule of Dauid that it neither was at all in hell nor yet left there as likewise Christs was not and therefore therein the antithesis was not 6. The whole place is this if by flesh you vnderstand the humanitie and by spirit the diuinity you must read the text thus Christ was mortified in his humanity c. What needed here the needlesse repetition of this friuolous antecedent seeing the very summe and substance of the obiection is expressed the Replyer laboured for breuitie to comprehend much in few words not to speake much and say little as the Refuter doth who by loathsome prolixitie wearieth the Reader that hee should not see his vanity 7. The Refuter chargeth the obiector directly with two things together ignorantly to contradict himselfe and erroneously to confound the distinct persons of the Trinity and both these he shufleth vp together and doe not those words you turne the soule of Christ first into his diuinity c. in his collection as well shew a confounding of the persons as contradiction Therefore the Replyer summing the obiection together missed not an haires breadth of the Refuters meaning if hee vnderstood himselfe 8. And where doth the Replyer charge him so to say directly his words are these It is euident that the answerer more boldly then truely saith that by these words the lowest parts of the earth hell is alwaies signified for vnlesse he be able to prooue that he doth but trifle Is it not euident by these words that the Replyer chargeth the Refuter by a disiunctiue speech that either he must say so or he doth but trifle 9. Neither doth the Replyer affirme that hee saith so but whereas the Confuter setteth forth the greatnesse of the loue of the Prince in not disdaining in his owne person to go down into the prison where the captiues were the Replyer denieth as a consequent of this assertion that the descension to hell should more haue commended Christ loue then his death and passion for if the comparison be not betweene Christ death and descension it is impertinent 10. To what ende should the Replyer trouble himselfe and his Reader with setting downe all his friuolous words if there were any siluer or gold in them or matter of worth they might be deliuered by number weight but beeing as they are full of droffe I thought it best to refine them and not to take refuse and all I appeale vnto the indifferent Reader if the very sense of his long periods be not exactly kept though all his words are not giuen by tale And he himselfe is the man that mis-reporteth his owne words for whereas in the first booke hee said here is a plaine opposition of the personall motions of ascending and descending now he saith to mende the matter here is a plaine exposition c. 11. These are the Refuters owne words The conquest was not obtained and effected by his comming downe from heauen nor yet by his incarnation c. but by his passion on the crosse and his descension to hell wherein now are his words depraued doth not likewise the Replyer in propounding his obiection ioyne both his crosse and passion and his descending to hell together But seeing he ascribeth Christs victorie ioyntly to both these is hee not ashamed to say he doth not attribute this victory to Christs descension to hell but to his blessed death and passion And doth he not elsewhere say that our whole and entire freedome was wrought and effected by our Sauiour Christs descension into hell and not onely by his death and passion vpon the crosse 3. b. p. 143. There is then no other Harpy here but himselfe
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
18. the figure 2. might easily be mistaken for 3. 17. Christ by Noah preached the one as the author the other as the Minister so both may wel stand together S. Peters text that speaketh of Christ and the interpretation that applieth it to Noah If any make the Apostle a lyar it is himselfe that corrupteth his sense by a false interpretation and maketh him to speake that which he neuer intended 18. Though the preaching of the word vnto vnbeleeuers is thorough the hardnes of their heart the sauour of death vnto death yet the principall and onely ende in respect of God is the comfort and conuersion of men the hardening of the heart is effected accidentally by the word and is not the proper ende thereof This is euident by that prophesie of Isai of Christ The spirit of God is vpon me c. he hath sent me to preach good tidings to the poore And this is Augustines reason that if there be preaching in hell some may be conuerted and beleeue in hell to say therefore to what purpose should Christ be thought to preach to the spirits in hell c. then for their comfort and deliuerance is no contradicting of the Scriptures but a manifesting of his ignorance that knoweth it not 19. And is it not sufficient if one Euangelist haue those words and is it not lawfull what is wanting in one to supplie out of an other But it can haue no excuse to clippe the Euangelists words as he doth whatsoeuer is giuen vnto you at the same time that speake saith Saint Marke but he citeth the place thus that which shall be giuen you that speake 20. And is he so captious that he could not or would not see that the omission of this word were was a meere ouersight in the setter and therefore the Replyer hath amended it among the Errata before Limbomastix And this poore-blinde pryer might haue obserued the like scape in his owne blotted lines where he thus writeth where the soules of sinners wont to be tortured for were wont c. 21. This is a small exception to the Geneva translation to take the present tence for the preterperfect especially seeing the Apostle so readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ascending Eph. 4. 8. and the same tence with the Hebrewes serueth both for the present and time past as Psal. 68. 19. from whence S. Paul borroweth that testimony 22. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are englished in the translation but the words in Greeke it was not pertinent to repeate because all the force lieth in the other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 23. 1. The Replyer citing those words of the Apostle to prooue the inward afflictions had no cause to repeat the rest which speake of his glorying and reioycing in Christ but onely so much as was to the purpose 2. Hee refuseth not Chrysostoms exposition though by him much mis-alleadged neither doth it make against him for that inward resolution and preparation of the minde daily beeing in expectation of death was it not an inward affliction and temptation to suffer death I hope hee will not deny to be an affliction then the daiely expectation of death being inward must be an inward affliction 3. Neither are those words cited to prooue that Saint Paul died the death of the soule but for the similitude of the phrase Hee might else-where haue further seene the Replyers meaning expressed in this manner As the body is not said onely to die when the soule departeth from it but when it is pressed with deepe and dangerous afflictions which threaten death as Paul saith I die daily so the soule may be said after a sort to die not only when it is finally separated frō God but perplexed with the horror and feeling of Gods wrath 4. It followeth not because Paul had inward ioy and consolation therefore he had not inward afflictions for speaking of terrors within he addeth God which comforted the abiect comforted vs c. His inward afflictions and terrors were tempered with inward ioy and comfort also here is neither dishonour done to Paul nor contumely to the spirit vnlesse it bee by his contumelious and slaunderous mouth Such are this Cauillers exceptions to the Replyers allegations of Scripture as we haue seene wherein I doubt not but that hee hath rather shewed himselfe a wrangler then the other a corrupter for although in the citing of other forraine testimonies greater liberty may bee vsed as Hierom saith hee did in interpreting of Greeke Authors Non verbū de verbo sed sensum exprimere de sensu not to expresse euery word but the sense by the sense yet in alleadging Scripture we must hold vs to the very words where as he againe saith Verberum or do mysterium est there both order and mysterie is in the words But had hee beene sincere himselfe in alleadging of Scripture hee would not haue beene so suspicious of another according to that saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A wit free from euill is slowest to suspect euill Now then it followeth to shew what a pregnant wit and ready facility he himselfe hath in corrupting of Scripture The Recrimination 1. That place 2. Timoth. 2. 5. he citeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no man is crowned vnlesse he striue lawfully whereas these are the Apostles words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If any man striue hee is not crowned except he striue lawfully where for any man he putteth no man 2. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perrils among false brethren he readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 false brotherhood beside he quoteth 2. Cor. 12. 26. for 11. 26. 3. Hee thus vnreuerently speaketh of the Scripture which shewes your state wholly dependeth vpon shifting first from the newe Testament to the olde from the olde to the newe and from the new to the olde againe thus he profanely calleth the comparing of the newe Testament with the old shifting 4. He corrupteth the sense of the Apostle vnderstanding his words of beeing partakers of the diuine nature of participating with his godhead which is onely meant of a similitude and likenesse vnto God not in substance but in qualitie in flying the corruption of the world as the words following shew which thing was well expressed by Iustinus Philosophus that the end which a Philosopher propoundeth to himselfe is to be like vnto God as neere as may be 5. Christ saith Where I am there shall also my seruant be Iohn 12. 26. he thus addeth vnto it where I am now there shall my seruant be hereafter 6. I goe to prepare a place for you and though I goe to prepare a place for you I will come againe Iohn 14. 2. 3. all this inclosed he leaueth out and here he ioyneth himselfe two verses together which he before called patching Accusat 8. 7. Ye shall lie downe in sorrow Isay 50. 11. hee readeth ye shall sleepe
is taken for the soule of man 18. He saith that sixteene of the fathers cited by Bellarmine make no mention of the deliuerie of the fathers by Christs descending to hell 3. b. p. 79. whereas there are fiue of that number wanting for Bellarmine citeth in all 36. Councills and fathers of the which 25. doe either directly or by necessarie consequent affirme that Christ descended to hell to deliuer the soules of the fathers so that to make vp the full number there remaine onely an eleuen which make mention onely of Christs descending to hell and speake not of the deliuerie of the fathers and these they are Lateranens Concil Irenaeus Clemens Gregor Nyssen Chrysostome Theodoret Augustine Leo Fulgentius Vigilius Arator subdiaconus all which notwithstanding or most of them if not in those places produced by Bellarmine yet els where in their workes doe giue testimonie with the rest for Limbus patrum 19. Vntr. You flatly denie this distinction of the soules death by sinne or damnation as insufficient 3. b. p. 84. whereas the Replyer directly saith we approoue that sentence of Augustine which maketh mention onely of those two kinds of the death of the soule speaking properly though in a more generall sense the deepe perplexitie and terrour of the soule may be said to be a kind of death of the soule where the Replyer further addeth in direct tearmes I will forbeare to vse this phrase of Christs dying in soule ibid. 20. Vntr. He calleth the Replyers exposition of that place of S. Peter new fancies hauing the approbation of Augustine for the most part and of Bede more fully whereupon the Replyer inferreth that this exposition is not newly deuised Limbom p. 45. 21. Vntr. The word descending is neuer spoken of the graue 3. b. p. 139. whereas Dauid saith thus to Salomon concerning Ioab thou shalt not suffer his hoare head to descend into the graue in peace where the word iaradh is vsed which signifieth to descend and the other word sheol beside the consent of the interpreters Pag. Mont. Tremell Vatab. and the Chalde translatour and both our English translations which all read or vnderstand the graue the circumstance of the place giueth it so to be taken because he speaketh of his gray haires which goe not downe to hell but to the graue 22. He saith that all Latine interpreters turne sheol infernum hell Psal. 139. 8. p. 151. 3. b. when as Iunius readeth stratum ponerem in sepulchro if I should make my bed in the graue and so Vatablus though he reteine the word infernum in the text â—yet in his annotations he vnderstandeth it of sepulchrum the graue An other vntruth it is that all translatours and interpreters are condemned of falshood by Limbomastix when as the Replyer saith onely thus neither doe some of the best interpreters read hell but the graue ibid. 3. b. p. 151. in marg Manifest truths denied Vnto these vntruths vnshamfastly affirmed shall bee added also diuers truths as immodestly denied 1. That there is not one word through his whole booke which doth insinuate so much as any suspition of Limbus patrum 2. b. p. 5. How vntrue this is the Preface doth evidently shewe wherein the imputation of this opinion is iustified by twenty seuerall places out of this hell-harrowers bookes 2. He saith he censureth no man at all 2. b. p. 87. How false this is see before his bitter railings against Doct. Reynolds and others 3. That Bellarmine findeth not fault with Beza for traÌ„slating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cadauer in that place of Gen. 37. but in this place of the Acts p. 123. Yet Bellarmine directly affirmeth animam nunquam accipi pro cadauere that the soule is neuer taken for the carkasse and therefore consequently he findeth fault whosoeuer shall any where take anima for the carkasse or flesh and yet himselfe so taketh it Gen. 37. 21. and therefore he is contrary to himselfe 4. To say I confesse the word sheol Psal. 6. 4 5. doth properly signifie the graue when I plainly confute it is properly to belie me 2. b. p. 127. Who euer heard such a forgetfull and wilfull man for whereas he whome he confuteth readeth that place thus In hell who shall praise thee This cavillous and friuolous obiecter sheweth it should bee read rather thus who shall giue thee thanks in the pit where the word in the hebrew is sheol And hâ— further addeth by which last word all our late interpreters both Latine and English doe with one consent vnderstand the graue as beeing the ordinarie sequel of temporall death both of the good and bad but yet can extend no further then to their dead bodies onely 1. b. p. 12. Doth he not manifestly affirme that sheol is here taken for the graue and therefore findeth fault with his aduersarie for there reading hell If any then be here a lier to returne his owne vnmannerly tearme he hath made a lie of himselfe 5. He denieth that more goe to the graue then to hell 2. b. p. 128. And yet all both good and bad goe vnto the graue the place of corruption where he obiecteth that many wicked men want the honour of buriall so doe many of the godly also yet they all haue a place of rest in the earth where there bodie corrupteth Therefore it is a maruell with what face hee could denie a thing so apparant that more goe to the graue then to hell seeing it is called in Iob the house appointed for all the liuing cap. 30. v. 23. 6. He denieth that he censureth any interpreter at all or that he calleth them wranglers which take sheol for the graue in the olde testament but saith that the Replyer is rather an immodest wrangler in so saying 2. b. p. 151. And yet these are his owne words Howsoeuer some curious linguists may wrangle with the hebrew word sheol in the olde testament c. 1. b. p. 14. What now will this vaine man be ashamed to denie 7. Because it that is hades is all one with Abyssus which I confirme not by the wordes of S. Luke as you vntruely affirme but by the words of Beza himselfe vpon this place 2. b. p. 155. Now let vs see his owne words in his former booke which are these The truth whereof doth more euidently appeare in that the same Greeke word is by the same Euangelist rendred in another place by another Greeke word as Beza himselfe doth interpret it c. 1. b. p. 14. Is it not now apparant that hee first confirmeth that point by the words of Saint Luke which he indeede further explaneth by the wordes of Beza but first he citeth the Euangelist 8. No English translators turne sheol graue in this place but pit Psal. 6. 5. 3. b. p. 26. whereas the Geneua translators read thus in the graue who shall praise thee 9. To say that