manhood also after so low humiliation Finally it was his own most free and fore determined will Would hee then so mournfully grieve and complaine thereat It hath no reason nor likelyhood in it Iohn 1â—â— Lazarus when he was returned from the ioyes of heaven to take againe his rotten carcase ofter it stanke having lyen 4. dayes dead in the grave yet he grieved not at it neither ought he so to have don Much lesse ought Christ so to grieve and mourne for a lesser want and for a shorter season as we may thinke then that was to Lazarus But this matter is not worth the speaking of “ See bâ— to this puâ— pag. 10â— any further Neither doe your Fathers prove any such improbable yea vnlawfull mourning complayning in Christ If they prove any thing towardes your meaning it is this that he complayned because of his bodily dying Howbeit they say not that he thus complayned only and meerely for that neither I thinke will you plainly hold this neither doe wee deny the other The truth is they meane he suffered in his whole Humane nature How the â—â—thers are 〈◊〉 taken namely that he suffered not as God They strove heere with Haeretikes whose controversies were far from this our question f Hilar. 〈◊〉 Trin li. 〈◊〉 Hilary and g Epiph. 〈◊〉 Arioma 〈◊〉 Epiphanius wrot against Arius to prove that Christ in this complaint shewed rightly a humane infirmity and that this was not the voice of a Deity inferiour to the Father as Arius blasphemed These Fathers then had no purpose heere to exclude the sufferings of Christes Soule but only to deny that his Godhead suffered complayned as being left to punishment by his Father when the sorrowes of death began to prevayle against him The very same doth †In Maâ—â— can 33. 〈◊〉 Hilary also where he saith that this in Christ was Corporis vox the outcry of his body He plainly meaneth it of his whole manhood the opposition being betweene it and his Godhead â—reat 1. â—â—g 9. as the Scripture †often doth And where he saith he was morte peragendus to be coÌ„summated by death he meaneth that death ended all his suffering not that hee suffered nothing els but meerely death And if their words do any where come neere to our question â—ertul cont â—â—ax â—â—ila in Mat. â—â—au 33. as it is very likely that h Tertulian and the one place of i Hilary doth then surely they are plainly for vs and against you Tertullian pointeth in this place at certaine Haeresies maintained in his time wherwth it seemeth Praxeas was infected 1 That the Father suffered aswell as the Sonne when Christ suffered 2 That the Deity suffered 3 That Christ was no true nor perfit man All these pointes Tertullian overthroweth heere Quid de isto quaeris c. What inquire you of Christ You heere him crying out in his Passion My God my God why hast thou forsaken me The Sonne therefore suffered being forsaken of his Father but this is meant of the Flesh and of the Soule that is of the Man not of the Word nor of the Spirit Heere it is plaine that Tertullian sheweth besides the rest this point exactly that Christ was a very man in that he had a proper Body and a Soule and that this his suffering on the Crosse was in both these partes and so in his whole intire manhood Also that he suffered in both these parts even froÌ„ his Father â—eere pag. 63. â—at 1. pa 4 But he could not suffer in his Soule froÌ„ †God if he felt only and meerely but a bodily death as you hold And to suffer the stroke of Gods hand in his Soule as the proper vengeance of sin is farre more then to feele in Soule by sympathy only the bodies smart Neither had Tertull. overthroweÌ„ but confirmed that Haeresie of Christs being no true natural man if he had said that in this case he suffered in Soule only by symphathy with and from the Body But this is absurd to thinke in Tertullian Therefore in this place he is flatly against you And this DerelictioÌ„ of his Father which he speaketh of is Death indeed to the Sonne But what death Forsooth more then the separation of the Soule and Body â—at Death â—â—e Soule in â—ist wee â—â—ne Even the seperation of the Deity from the whole manhood which is the death of the Soule I speake heere nothing but the Fathers words yea the Scriptures Your owne place of Epiphanius saith that nowe his Deity departed from his manhood So saith your owne Hilary also Corporis vox contestata recedentis a se Dei dissidium So saith Ambrose Clamavit Homo Divinitatis separatione moriturus The man Christ did cry being about to dy by the separation of his Godhead Againe Sequestrata delectatione Divinitatis aternae taedio meae infirmitatis afficitur The ioy of his eternall Godhead being parted away hee was afflicted with the tediousnis of my infirmitie Heere the Fathers doe shewe in deed that Christ dyed but more then a meere bodily death even the death of the Soule also For what is the Separation of the Deitie from his Soule els but the death of the Soule Howbeit note I pray that neither the Fathers nor I do meane any Separating 1 of the vnion of a The Dâ—â— Humâ—â— both natures in Christ nor the Separating 2 of any Holynes or habituall grace of God from his Soule 3 nor the Separating of Gods love from him See befoâ—â— pag. 10â— but the SeparatioÌ„ of all comfortable feeling assistance of the Godhead in that he felt not any supporting of his Soule and Body now pierced thorow with the Paines which he felt inflicted by God This SeparatioÌ„ is meant and it b Thougâ— haps thâ— ther 's dâ— this phâ—â— rarely may be called the Death of the Soule For as it is c Psal â—â— life to the Soule to feele and to enioy the glorie of God So it is death to feele the want and absence thereof vtterly and the rather being also then overwhelmed with incomparable paines That heavenly life Christ tasted a litle while in his TransfiguratioÌ„ this Hellish Death he felt besides his bodily death vpon the Crosse And thus Tertull. meaneth heere that not Christs bodily death only made him now thus to cry out but that death also which was the Separation of his Godhead from both his body Soule which is the death of the Soule And so he saith true the Dereliction of the Father is Death to the Sonne Your d Pag. â—â—â— 4. Exposition for any thing I see may be granted for it seemeth to bee the same in effect that wee holde Your place of Cyrill seemeth also to concurre that Christes words of complaint were the removing of the dereliction which had fallen on vs. Was it removed from vs then surely it was laid vpon some body els Now that must needes be vpon
his Soule And e De incaâ—â— Sacr. cap. 〈◊〉 Hoc in se obtulit Christus quod induit c. Christ offered in sacrifice all that which he assumed that is all every whit that was in him besides his Godhead f Fulgent 〈◊〉 Thrasym 〈◊〉 lib. 3. Fulgentius He shewed in himselfe the sufferinges of a whole man in verity truth quicquid fuit infirmitatis animae sine peccato suscepit pertulit Hee tooke vpon him and suffered whatsoever infirmity may be in the soule without sinne It is not possible that wee our selues should speake a more effectuall sentence for our purpose then this is Say as Fulgentius heere saith and we aske no more All that g Pag. 86. you except that by these Fathers Christe dyed only the death of the flesh is lesse then heere they affirme And we shall answer to that in due place Now marke well how these Fathers do not say that Christ gave his life for a ransom onely as h Pag. 70. â—â— you would construe it but even his very Soule to for our Soules They strive to expresse an exact proportion so far as was possible betwene Christ and vs. First in the parts of Christ who suffered of vs who were saved So that as we are saved not in our bodies only nor only in the externall sensitiue parte of our soules wherein standeth that suffering with and by our bodies but wee are saved redeemed and sanctified in our whole Spirite and Vnderstanding also even so by their verdict Christ suffered for vs not the bodily and outward sufferinges by Sympathy onely but hee suffered for vs even in his Minde also Now this is directly against your present a Assertion which we have in hand 〈◊〉 132.240 â—eere p. 14 Also heere they observe an exact proportion in the Obiects so far as was possible viz in that which he suffered for vs that which we are saved froÌ„ thereby Thus that sorrow of the immortall parte of the Soule not of body only which we are saved from the same he suffered Yea I say all and every whit of those passions sorrowes wherevnto mans nature is b subiect and capable of 〈◊〉 nature we â—â—e subject to â—â—fer in the â—â—nde proâ—erly for sin â—nd not only â—y Sympathy â—rom the Body Cyrill Thesâ—â—ur 10 3 Barnard de â—ass Dom. â—ap 41. Pag. 7. Terâ—ul cout Prax. Amb in Luc. 2. De trist â—olor c. and from which we are saved all the same he tasted and suffered for vs. Thus it is also that Cyrill elswhere saith c Omnia perpessus est vt nos ab omnibus liberaret He suffered all things throughly that hee might acquit vs from all which els we should have suffered And thus I take Barnards meaning to be d He spared not him selfe who knoweth how to spare his Wherevpon you collect well if you meane so e He suffered and indured All to the vttermost with exact obedience and patience To which end Tertullian also f Sic reliquit dum non parcit This was Gods forsaking of him in his passion that in nothing he spared him And thus Ambrose g Minus contulerat mihi nisi meum suscepisset affectum He had don lesse for me if he had not ben altogeather affected as I should haue ben And thus Ierom h â—erom in â—sa 53. h Quod nos pro nostris debebamus sceleribus sustinere ille pro nobis passus est pacificans c That wich we should have borne for our sinnes the same hee suffered for vs. Wherefore by the Fathers Christ suffered exactly i All whatsoever sorrowes paines which we should have suffered All kindes 〈◊〉 both in â—â—irit Body â—ot all partiâ—â—lars in theÌ„ as well Spirituall as Corporall as well in all the powers of the Soule subiect to suffering as in that which suffered allwayes with and from the body Only they except 2. pointes which of simple necessity indeed must be excepted in the Sonne of God Pag. 10. 12. â—3 which before k I have also acknowledged 1. Sinne Pag. 87. and all sinfull concomitantes and consequentes as l you speake And that is it which Cyprian exactly noteth That in him there was m Similitudo paenae non Culpae Cypr. de pass the very like punishmeÌ„t as should have ben in vs only there was no sinne nor fault in him as is in vs. The 2. point excepted is that he suffered not eternally but for a while for he that was life it selfe could not but live againe saith n Cyrill In the place above cited Where he seemeth to acknowledge a kind of death even of the soule from which Christ revived againe But of that in due place heereafter Nowe heere it is manifest that even the Fathers of whom you doe so exceedingly boast are cleane against you and for vs in the 1. and chiefest point of this question shewing that Christ suffered not only bodly or in the soule by Symphaty only but in the Minde also distinctly even as we may suffer in minde distinctly froÌ„ our bodily suffering that is when we suffer somwhat a As I 〈◊〉 Treat 〈◊〉 pag. 4. imediatly from God Yea he suffered say these Fathers all the paines which els we should haue suffered no materiall thing excepted but only sinne otherwise he was spared by dispensation in nothing Against this cleere and plaine sense of the Fathers b Pa. 35â— you take no exception neither can you Thus having hitherto manefestly defended my selfe that I have not abused any way the Fathers nor yet your selfe as you vniustly charge me in c Pa. 22â— your entrance Now I am to doe the like against d Pag. 2â—â— your vnsufficient refusing of my Reasons Where by I hope it shall appeare that you have not weakened any one of them And First you begin with rehearsing my wordes wherein I briefly noted the very Question betweene vs e Treat 〈◊〉 pag. 4. That Christ suffered for vs the Wrath of God Which you f Pag. 24 exclame at without measure as being not the point which you preached against Howbeit I suppose these wordes do rightly and fitly set out the matter both which then you preached which now you write I have g Pag. 8 heere before truly fully declared the whole state of this controversy I trust Yet because we can never opeÌ„ this point to much for many good vses that it hath I will not thinke it tedious nor labour lost ne to rip vp this question a litle againe in this place that so we may proceede with more ease Your generall cariage in your booke declareth that you abuse the Reader exceedingly by the ambiguous and equivocall taking of this terme Gods Wrath as before in the entrance I have shewed It is not I that abuse them as you h Namâ— 243 24â— every where very bitterly and vnreasonably do charge me For according to the most vsuall and
his meere bodily Death which he so wofully and impotently feared as I haue before sufficiently coÌ„firmed Therefore it was the death of the soule the 2. Death which heere is vnderstood to have thus mightily afflicted Christ Which also your own selfe do d Pag. â—â— fully grant and affirme with me Yea you affirme further then we doe or then the truth is or possibly can be You say Christ heere thus feared Eternall death and Everlasting damnation What a speach is this Christ could not possibly feare in such wofull maner that which he perfitly knew should never come neere him But he perfitly knew that eternall Death and the Cup of Gods everlasting malediction should never touch him He knew and saw that this by Gods almighty and vnchangeable Decree was set further from him then the East is from the West yea then Hell is from HeaveÌ„ Therefore he could not by any meanes possibly feare eternall death nor pray in such sort against it Againe that which he feared and so pitifully prayed against was that which he knew was by God e Iohn 12 ordayned for him Yea Feare alwayes is of that which is to come But Eternall death was not by God ordayned for him that was “ Which Christ 〈◊〉 right wâ— not to come vnto him Therfore it was not Eternall death which he so feared Finally when in the Garden he prayed against that Cup which he feared that it might passe from him there he yeeldeth and submitteth himselfe presently to the vndergoing of it But it were I know not what to say that Christ did ever yeeld and submit himselfe to vndergo Eternall death or to tast the Cup of Gods everlasting malediction Therefore it was not this that he feared heere prayed against And yet it was I grant the Death of the Soule or the 2. Death that is simply the essense thereof Gods withdrawing himselfe from him in the Paines and torments thereof This onely it was He suffer that deatâ— which he feared not the eternity thereof nor sinfull concomitants which he thus feared And this for the infinitnes of it naturally he could not but feare yea and that so extreamely also he feared f â—ôzein for him selfe as knowing it to be ordayned for him So that hence it followeth invincibly that Christ in deed suffered sith he thus feared more then the meere bodily Death even the Death of the soule For he could not I say thus * Much yeeld to iâ— he did sâ—â—ing Thy â—â—â—don feare but he must needs know that it was to come or might com vnto him â—wed furâ—â— before 131.132 if he but knew that it might come then it * certainly did come vnto him at one time or other in his Passion before heâ— left the world See to the Hebr. g Christ abolished through death him that had the power of death that is the Divell and so delivered all them which for feare of death were all their life time subiect to bondage â—â—b 2.14 Heere I see no reason in the world but that the Apostle by â—his often repeating of death and by mutuall referring of it in one place as it were to the other doth vnderstand signifie one and the same death altogeather But it is the death of the Soule which the Divell hath the power and execution of also the death of the soule chiefly sinful men were held in feare of all their life long It followeth then I suppose that even through this death of the Soule Christ abolished the Divell and deliveted his children Specially seeing there is no enormity nor impossibilitie heerein Against this you haue no reason at all but wordes and wrestings and vaine ostentation of Fathers none of them all denying our sense Third it seemeth also that Peter teacheth this same Pet. 3.18 saying k Christ in his suffering was don to death in the Flesh but made alive by the Spirit Where Death may be very well referred both to the Soule and Body of Christ Because the text heere speaketh as I iudge of the whole and entire sufferings of Christ And it is manifest by that before that Christ did suffer not in his body only but properly and immediatly also in his Soule we haue seene also that the * phrase of Death 〈◊〉 135.136 or Dying may in a good sense be applyed even to Christes Soule Againe this word Flesh it seemeth can not heere in this place be vnderstood to signifie onely the Body of Christ but even both partes of his Humane nature thar is the reasonable Soule and the body My reason is because wheresoever in scripture the Flesh and the Spirit are noted oppositly togeather in Christ â—â—m 1.3 4. â—im 3.16 â—oh 4.2 〈◊〉 1.14 â—or 5.7 â—4 1.4.1 â—â—g 320. there the i Flesh signifieth alwayes his whole Humanity even both partes thereof the Soule also not the Body only the Spirit signifieth his Deity or Divine power Now what have you against this Nothing of waight but floutes and mockes that k this observation is made out of the hinder partâ— of my head c. But what pretend you against it Some Scripture palpably abused First Mathew where Christ speaketh of his Disciples that their Spirit their inward regenerat man was ready to watch â—ath 26. but their Flesh their corrupt nature was weak sluggish What is this to Christes Flesh and Spirit Thinke you that Christs Soule was willing to suffer as God had appointed but that his Flesh resisted Verily so you seeme heere to vnderstand An vntrâ—â— conceit and it is as likely as your applying of Flesh and Spirit to Christ in your pag. 104. Then a Luk. 2. Luke where both Spirit and Flesh are not intended of Christ as our observation before requireth but only the Flesh Then the Romanes where I affirme that b Rom. Flesh signifieth the whole Manhood of Christ according to the which he came from David even as well as SalomoÌ„ or Nathan did who were Davids sonnes in their entire and perfit nature So likewise Christe was kinne to the Iewes according to his c Rom. 9 whole Humanitie aswel as d ver 3. Paul was And heere Paul meaneth him selfe to be kinne to them according to Nature wholly that only by Regeneration in the Gospell he was differing from them Now Nature opposed to Grace and regeneration hath reference both to Soule and Body in a man Howsoever the Soule cometh in Generation that is not heere considered neither is it necessarily to the purpose Which difficulty also your selfe haue vtterly * Pag. 2â— renouÌ„ced before to make it any argument for you in this matter Thus yet the Flesh and the Spirit thus opposed heere in Christ shall signifie the whole Manhood and Godhead in him Further that which e Pa. 32 you bring out of the f 2. Corâ— Corinthians compared with this in Peter doeth most fitlie and clearely open and confirme the
b have answered to that before â—ag 135. â—6 142. Further where you bring them in many places saying by his bloud only he redeemed vs and he suffered only in his Body Fathers 〈◊〉 handled they are abused by you wonderfully Not in their words but in their meaning For they striving against Arians and such other Haeretikes who would have Christs Deity to take part in his sufferings for our redemption â—ee before 〈◊〉 111.113 â—4 c. so consequently would prove it inferior to the Father the godly Ancient Writers do heerevpon say he suffered satisfyed for vs only in his body in his flesh c not excluding the proper immediat sufferinges of his Spirit nor any passible part of his Manhood but onely his Godhead against those Haeretikes shewing thus also that no other Creatuâ—e besides him or with him satisfyed any way for vs altogeather after the Apostles like phrase in many places Let the Authors themselves be viewed if you thinke I affirme of them falsly Tertullian and Cyrill will give a tast heereof for all the rest Tertullians c Pag. 3 â— wordes d Contr. â— id est carnem thas is to say Christs flesh are expresly opposed to his Deity not to his Soul so that evidently he meaneth thereby his whole and intire passible Manhood If hee had meant to exclude any parte or faculty of his Soule from suffering as he doth his Godhead he had confirmed that Haeresy against which he striveth as f before I noted e Pag. 1â— Also it seemes he yeeldeth the name of Death to this suffering of Christes whole Manhood in saying Quod vnctum est mortuum ostendit that Dyed which receaved the Annoynting For I hope his spirit was Annointed with the Holy Ghost aswell as his Flesh And he saith thus as indefinitly so also by way of oppositioÌ„ to his Deity as I said therefore he meaneth the whole Manhood dyed Howbeit in what sort this might be I shewed * pag. 113â— 135. 136â— before My false traÌ„slating of him which you note is not worth the noting But you doe worse in false placing those his last rehearsed words for advantage in Tertull. they are vsed more generally in their owne place coming long before those words after which you set them As for that Denique posuit spirituÌ„ c. it sheweth that Christs bodily death also but not only came by reason of Gods forsaking and separating from him For before we saw how Tertull. expresly attributeth Gods DerelectioÌ„ both to his * Haec vâ—â—â— animae poris soule body on the Crosse though you grudg thereat Thus I say he excepteth only his Godhead from Dereliction and Suffering c. Cyrill also even in that book which you cite for you sheweth that he excludeth but Christs Deity though he mention only his suffering in Flesh †Ad Reg lib. 1. Carne passum dicit docens patiendi ineffabilem naturam a passionibus alienam Deus igitur Christus Divinè quidem impassibilis passibilis secundum carnem He excludeth only the Deity from suffering when he saith hee suffered in his Flesh In a word so do all the rest as h Pag. 1â— before is partly noted Against Nestorius i Pag. 33â— they affirme the vnion of Christes Natures with preserving the properties of each They therefore hold not his only bodily sufferings Is this then your great boast of all the Fathers and Councells Nay are they well vsed at your hands to be thus drawn cleane from their purpose to an opinion which they never thought of Is this good dealing towards Gods people to tell them that the Fathers generally teach the only bodily sufferings of Christ and deny our Assertion of his Soules peculiar suffering â—â—efore 47.48.66.71.88.112 which * they iustifie confirme indeed Yea this 〈◊〉 the profit that comes by ordinary slanting with Fathers which vse many do frequent in these dayes Think they if the scriptures alone suffice not for all thinges in Religion that the Fathers will suffice Or if the Fathers make a sense vpon some text that therefore this must be the right meaning alwayes Or if the Scriptures may be wrested by subtile heades that yet the Fathers cannot Or that Gods people may sooner see and finde when the Fathers are abused then when the Scriptures are It is great pity that men are yea wil be so deceaved with vaine shews Let vs in Gods name content our selves in handling matters of Religion onely with Gods al sufficient worde vnles where the importunity of an Adversary forceth vs. Otherwise let vs spare the Authority of men in Gods matters to them that make an Idoll of it Finally if in this case we were to looke after any man surely we have more cause to regard our later faithfull Teachers rather then those of old Who being equall with the best of them in any of the excellent graces of Gods spirit which hee vseth to bestow on his servants for the edifying of the Church yet heerein these have advantage of the former that they were directly provoked occasioned to study and sift out this question against the Papists which the Ancients were not occasioned to do After â—ag 341. a you set your self to prove that in Hell there is materiall fire But it seemeth you are now almost afraid so to call it yet b you call it true fire â—ag 343. Which also we vtterly deny All your proofes such as they are runne to prove corporall and materiall fire yet eternall Except your Scriptures which vtterly prove nothing at all for they shew no more any corporall or materiall or true fire to be now in Hell then a corporall worme materiall brimston and much wood true chaines Which you say is a sleeveles obiection but neither your selfe nor Austin whom you cite against it doth any where answer it Yea Austin thinketh that incorporall spirits shal be fastened to corporall fire But he saith not that now they are which only is our question or els nothing For my parte I see no reason to believe that now there is corporall fire in Hell whatsoever there shal be heereafter when Bodies also shal be there vnited and tormented with the Soules Againe Austin heere doth not prove that there shal be such fire hee only sheweth the maner how it may be so heereafter if God will Now if all your reason be the power of God only then aswel you may prove that the sky is fallen For as touching Gods will heerein you name it indeed but you shew it no where nor seeme to shew it All the rest say nothing further nor indeed so far as Austin Yet you thinke it may be called a Pag. â—â— a true created fire That no Christian ever doubted of if you meane that it is a true creature If you meane simply that it is true fire that still we deny And me thinks you should not care for corporall fire
it Nâ—â—nim ipsâ—â— in celo â—â—rus crat â—â—mo Chrâ—â— Iesus Divine presense in Paradice But you refuse that because * Pag. 21 wee have no warrant in the word of God to fasten Christs Soule vnto Hell for the time of his Death that it might not be in Paradise before he descended to Hell Third You “ Pa. 196 renounce Austen and as he saith almost all the Church thinking that Christ loosed Adam and som others whom he thought good out of the paines of Hell wherein till his going thither they were held Fourth Against all the Fathers * Pa. 188 200. you affirme it to bee more then manefest that Christ did not fetch the Patriarches out of Limbo Patrum a certaine region of rest vnder the earth as they generally thought Fift “ Pa. 18â— You renounce divers Fathers opinion that * None eâ—â— Martyrs tull none do go into Heaven till after the last Judgment Thus we observe your liberty in leaving the Fathers when you see cause Why deny you vnto vs the like If we bring not as good reason to dissent as you do whensoever we vary from them let vs heare of it and beare the blame iustly This only we desire that in any case of Religion the bare custom of times the opinioÌ„ of men and authority meerely Humane should never barre vs from receaving the simplicity and evidence of the truth concerning vs which appeareth in the Scripture But now that we may proceede let vs see your speciall examples pag. 229. wherein you will make it manefest that J have despised the Fathers First pag. 229. * where you say out of certaine Fathers That Christ in his dying gaue vp his Spirite miraculously pag. 7. * no violence of Death wresting it from him as it doth ours pag. 229. but when hee saw his time hee even at an instant laid it downe of himselfe no paines hastening his death Heb. 4.15 Contrary to this I alleaged the Scripture He was like vs in all things sinne only excepted To answer this * you reply Was he like vs in his birth Pag. 230. Can we lye in the Grave without corruption as he lay Neither yet his flesh ly he Grave hoat possiâ—â—y to cotâ—â—t otherwise â—n as his â—â—es possibly â—â—d not be â—â—en Or raise our selves from death as he did Which poore answere I wonder to see comming from you Aswell you might shew further He was not like vs in that he walked vpon the water nor in that he fasted 40. dayes nor in that he knew the secrets of mens hearts nor in that he turned water into wine and with a word healed all diseases c. These things don by his Manhood yet were they the proper effects of his Godhead they were no naturall but supernaturall thinges But this text to the Hebrues saith onely of naturall Humane properties and infirmities that Christ in them was altogeather like vs sinne excepted Also this maner of Dying whereof we speake that is by sore wounds and blowes by sharpe outrages and deadly paines to draw neerer and neerer to Death is a meere natural infirmity and incident to all men Therefore surely in this very maner did Christ dy also like as all men vse to do in such case Againe those Divine effectes which you mention are iustly beleeved to haue bene in Christ Why Because of the expresse Scripture that * witnesseth the same 〈◊〉 1.23 25.1.2.27 â—â—â—n 1.3 4. â— 1.10.18 Let mee see expresse words in the text that he Dyed as you say not naturally but Miraculously and then will I beleeue it also You cite certain places by which you would prove it â—â—h 10.18 As No man taketh my soule from me but J lay it down of my selfe c. Hee meaneth heere that his Death was meere voluntary freely vndertaken and willingly of his owne accord perfourmed with such naturall and ordinary infirmities as belong to a man As you confesse somwhere * So that to dy even in Christ â—â—g 161. was infirmity though voluntary Heere then Christ denyeth that hee suffered any thing as forced on him by constraint violence but he sheweth that himselfe was altogeather willing even to Dy for his people which also “ pag. 11â— you plainly see How will you hence conclude Ergo He dyed miraculously not by any fayling of the strength of nature in him notwithstanding all his most intolerable sorrowes and paines This is truly a miraculous argument As for Chrisostom whom * pag. â—3â— you cite heerevpon he hath nothing for this point Though it were new not ordinary that Christ a man should haue power to lay down his life and power to take it againe yet why may not his manhood dy naturally notwithstanding But you will conclude this better If I deny you say this that Chrisostom saith I must remember what God himself saith “ Luc. 12. O foole this night shall they fetch away thy soule from thee I remeÌ„ber it well What then Ergo Christ saying None taketh my life from me c. meant that he would dy miraculously and not by the fayling of nature in him If this be the reason as I take it to bee verily I grant it is marveylous subtile and past my reach Further * pag. 7. you cite that “ Ion. 19. When Jesus had tasted the vineger he said All is finished and bowed the head and gave vp the Ghost What proveth this Surely that at last after long and sore anguish of minde and bodily torments his naturall strength fayled him therefore he bowed his head and gaue vp the Ghost What miracle is there in this But Barnard saith this proveth plainly an infinit power Which doth His tasting the vineger or his saying it is finished or his bowing the head or his giving vp the Ghost For my part I can not yet see any infinit power in any of these Wherefore I can not rest on Barnard heere except you for him do finde out som other point in the text to prove plainly an infinit power shewed openly in the maner of the Death of Christ which yet I see not Giue me leaue to refuse the Fathers in such a case which your selfe doth as we saw before Then you alleage that * Luke 23. Iesus cryed with a lowd voyce a little while before he dyed to shew himself “ pag 7. say you to be free from any touch of death How are you sure of that What Scripture saith so Or is there absolut necessitie in reason that it must be so Questionles none at all Is it a thing not possible that Christ should cry alowd saying Father into thy hands J commend my Spirit and even anon after dy and yet nature to haue ben weaker in him and so himself neerer to death now at last then he was before in the beginning of his Passion Let all wise men iudge If this be not possible I will
acknowledge mine errour Adde heerevnto that experience sheweth as Physitians say how som diseases in the Body bring Death presently after most strong and violent crying namely in som excessiue torments as of the Stone c. Where in through extreeme paines and torments the vitall Spirits being dissipated will bee vtterly extinct somtimes before they can recover and gather againe togeather Thus a man having good strength and force in his Body when such a disease resteth not neere the principall partes of nature originally it seemeth hee may notwithstanding by violence of paine onely giue vp the Ghost at a suddaine yet not miraculously but by the course of nature only Pag 7. Ad Hedib quaest 8. But * Ierom saith this was a great wonder and that therevpon the Centurion confessed truly this man was the Sonne of God I deny not but Christ might shew som strang vnusuall thing apparantlie to the beholders in vttering his last voice when he cryed Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit Which might also very much move the beholders and hearers And yet it shall not follow that Death seazed vpon him not naturally or not by the fayling of natures strength in him I say this may be acknowledged and yet verily there is no necessitie at all to yeeld even this for any thing that the text noteth Yet Ierom sayeth the Centurion was moved with this great wonder It is strange that you should persist to vrge Jerom heerein against the plaine text in another place Mat. 27.54 which saith When the Centurion saw the Earth quake and the thinges that were don he said Truly this was the Sonne of God â—er 51. Heere it is expresly noted that the * Earthquake chiefly with other apparant miracles there mentioned or els the Earthquake with the the iniuries of the Persecutours and the innocency and partience of Christ persecuted compared togeather did move the Centurion to confesse and say Truly this was the Sonne of God Heere it is plaine then that not Christes crying in those tormentes was such a wonder or that the Centurion was by reason thereof moved to acknowledge Christ to be the Sonne of God as Ierom collecteth I know not from what ground but those other sights before said Last of all Austin is brought to prove this matter Pag 8. but with no more strength of reason by the Scripture then the former Neither can his words indeed being granted necessarily conclude any thing for your purpose which as sâ—emeth do shew nothing but Christes voluntary dying and that at his death he â—hewâ—d great power and not infirmity only Who denyeth thâ—se things Thâ—n he proceedeth to shew my disdaine to the Fathers further namâ—ly for such “ pag 2â— insolent reiecting all their opinions touching the causes of Christs Agonie in the Garden and of his complaint on the Crosse These supposed causes are alleaged and amplifiâ—d in the †pag 1â— former parte For answere first I dâ—siâ—e to know whether you allow of all these causes or not you sâ—â—me to â—â—fuse them * pag 13â— heere for heerein you shewed not your owne opinion but â—he iudgments of the Fathers Elswhere “ pag 29 yourselfe are resolute for som of these causes and against other som And yet before * pag 37 All these interpretations you say are sound and stand well with the rules of Christian piety Thus variable you are in that wherein you seeme most resolut Howbâ—it in my minde where you deny these to bee your opinions there you are in the best opinion Neither indeede to tell you plaine can I be of opinion that those their iudgements are true pag â—â— The reasons of my dissenting were touched in †my former Treatise and are maintayned further heereafter as very sufficient and iust How then I pray you do I insolently reiect the Fathers if heerein I dissent from them iustly which even your selfe also doth in sundry of them But my maner of speach is insolent perhaps because I say such collections are absurd and vnlikely I answer these my words are purposely meant of those in these dayes that delight to vaunt of the Fathers and chiefly in their errours For seeing these opinions themselues are vntrue though some of the Fathers inclined after them yet such in our time as vrge them cannot but bee absurd and strang teachers Who having so many helpes and meanes to discerne where the Fathers mistookâ— which they vtterly wanted and we abound with all yet do so littlâ— profit by them that even great Doctours as they desire to bee thought see not so much in the truth of the Gospel as many younger men now peâ—câ—ave and in the Fathers they make themselves so cunning that commonly their sound doctrine they little regard their faults only they admire Such I meant and tooke for absurd gatherers from this Scripture Whom heere I noted by the namâ— of our Contraryes The Fathers I call not so Now that this indâ—ed may be also seene even in your expounding heere Consider first how you wavered and spake coÌ„trarily in these supposed Causes Christs subâ—â—ssion â—â—e lewes reâ—ction â—â—e Churches â—â—spersion 〈◊〉 pa 17 â— â—2 37. Treat 1. â—ag 68. as I noted a litle before Again these agree not with any Ciâ—cumstances of the Passion and so are meerely of Humane coniecture without all Scripture also they agree not togeather among themselves One of them crosseth another one overthroweth another Will you then avouch them as you do to be * all sound and to stand well with the rules of Christian piety Howbeit absolutely I dâ—ny not but that thâ—se or some of these reasons were in Christ at his Passion as namely his Care for his Church his love of his enemies c. For these holy affections hee never wanted all his life long But this rather confuteth then proveth these to bee the very cause or causes that †in the hower of his dreadfull Passion wrought in him such Agonies and consternation of minde â—ag 6. But these things heere I omit beeing heereafter more fully discussed Lastly you cast a needles rebuke vpon me for confounding the Causes of the Agonie and of the Complaint togeather 〈◊〉 230.231 Forsooth that was done not without reason I thinke Every reasonable man I beleeve will say that the same cause was of them both in Christ His Agonie and his Complaint are not so contrary nor so divers but that they might yea verily did proceed from the same cause and ground Yea Ambrose 〈◊〉 20. one of your Authours doeth * plainly ioine theÌ„ both togeather 〈◊〉 231. Yea your selfe doth also as by comparing †your cause of the Agonie 〈◊〉 34. with your 1. or 2. of the ‡ Complaint will appeare You have much cause then have you not to make such outâ—â—yes vpon me that I am strangely amazed confounded and forgetfull in my writing Good wordes I pray you I did but ioyne them togeather whom your selfe
now in Hell seeing you seeme to belieue no torments for Damned soules save only at the Resurrection For thus you reason b Pag. 25 As the Body hath ben the instrument of the Soules pleasure in sinne so it shal be of hir paine c Pag. 20â— But all provocations and pleasures of sinne the soule taketh from her body all acts of sinne she committeth by her body Therefore the iustice of God both temporally and eternally punisheth the Soule only by the Body Or Therefore all the Soules paine for sinne both temporally eternally is by the Body This is your owne reason which being true why should you care for corporall fire in Hell before the last iudgment Your striving to a Pag. 34â— confute my allegations of Fathers I hope I have refuted sufficiently before And then b Pag. 35 Sir Refuter endeth as be began with egregious lyes What lyes began he with and with what doth he end In the begining our lyes have proved tales of truth and in the end your wordes will prove iniurious at least I said that not som or the most or best but even all every one both Churches Writers in the world who are Protestants teach as we do except only your selfe or happily som after you since the year 1597. What ly is there in al this Why name you not in al the world one man of those whom we call Protestants of your minde that it may appeare who deserveth such rebukes Nay in this being the very point of the matter you are silent in revilings outcryes and accusations you exceed Where I avouch that c Treat â— pag 8â— only the hoatest and cunningest Papists Iesuits Priests Fryars have alwayes vntill this day had this controversie with all Protestants and all Protestants against them namely Bellarmin Campian English Rhemists c. To al this scanalous suspicious argument you reply not a syllable What shall we thinke of such doctrine which in this learned age hath none but such defenders And yet among the Papists I noted 2 Cusanus and Ferus as liking of the Protestants doctrine heerein which also they do in some other matters Now these 2. and only these though more there are c you cite at large 〈◊〉 140.141 whose wordes indeede especially the Fryars seeme excessive But our owne most worthy and learned Teachers d M. Fulke â—rea 1. p. 88 M. Deering M. Whitakers which against you I alleaged you vouchsafe not a looke towards them Nor to M. Nowels Catechisme nor to the Synod authorising it â—efore pag. 42. nor to the Archb great * approbation thereof Not to our Common Bibles note authorised publikly to be read thorough out England Only against my alleaging of our Homilyes e you take exception Pag 355. but I trust I have before fully and cleerely defended them to bee for vs and against you Neither doeth any such matter appeare in them as f you avouch Pag. 136. Thus then I end our 1. Question being sorry that I have ben so long But I trust the friendly Reader will pardon me considering how I have ben occasioned therevnto A brief Collection containing the whole effect of our Doctrine before delivered brought into 4. Assertions God himselfe in his Iustice properly punished Christ for our sinnes See pag. 8. 9. 75. 82. Christ even as other men consisted of a perfit Humane immortall Spirit and a mortall living Body and so was by nature capable of suffering sorrows for sinne from Gods hand aswell in his Spirit peculiarly and properly as also in his Soule and Body togeather sith other men do thus suffer for sinne pag. 8. 48 52. 61. 74. Gods exact and immutable Iustice spared his Sonne in nothing but did punish him in all severity as he punisheth sinners I meane Hee punished him in All his partes of nature apt to suffer that is in his Spirit peculiarly and properly and in his Soule and Body togeather also Againe God punished him with all the Whole Generall Curse not with all the particular Curses and punishments with the Generall Curse in all the whole Nature and substance of it not with all the Circumstances with all the meere Paine and Sorrow thereof not with the sinfull Adherents and concomitants in it pag. 8 13 74 86. Gods exact immutable Iustice spared not Christe in these Circumstances of Punishment with he suffered not For either in exact Iustice he could not or necessarily hee needed not to punish him so In exact Iustice he could not punish Christ in such respects as were simply and absolutly impossible It was simply impossible that any touch of Sinne should once come neere his person or Eternall suffering or all the Particular punishments in the world All which come not to any one man though Damned neither can come Finally that Christ should necessarily have suffered after this life or locally in Hell there was no cause seeing these are but meerâ— Circumstances of Gods Iust PunishmeÌ„t of sinne whether now or then whether heere or there These alter not the nature of Gods wrath which is the strength of Hell The whole substance nature of that Punishment he might feele in this life aswell as any parte God is able to inflict it aswel heere as heereafter The rather seeing Christ came and was sent of God Extraordinarily of purpose to suffer for sin all that he might suffer Thus then only in this life Christ might and did suffer all For so was Gods ordinance and will as it is plainly expressed vnto vs in his word Therefore so we professe and so we believe by the certaine rule of Gods word and the proportion of faith Christ shunned for our sake nothing which the Damned suffer except only Circumstances and Accidents impossible or vnnecessary not any Substantiall point of Gods Punishment decreed against sinue pag 13. 14. 16. 43. 66. 75. 87. 134. 135. That Christ after his death on the Crosse went not downe into Hell in his Soule THe 2. part of our Controversie is this That Christ after his death on the Crosse went not downe into Hell in his Soule Where note first Notes that we vnderstand Hell properly and locally as our common speach in English doth vsually take it for the very place of the Damned after this life Now against them that belieue Christes Soule did go down locally into Hell thus I reason Reasons gainst Châ—â— Descendiâ—â— locally is Hell First If there be a good and sound generall reason in Christian faith that Christes Soule leaving his Body ascended vp to Heaven and there remained till his Resurrection and if there be no speciall reason of authority to the contrary that his Soul now descended downward then surely every good Christian ought to believe that his Soule ascended to Heaven and descended not locally into Hell Two maâ—â— points to noted But both those former pointes are most true First There is a good sound generall reason in Christian