A REJOINDER TO DOCTOR HIL CONCERNING THE DESCENSE OF CHRIST INTO HELL. WHEREIN THE ANSWER TO HIS SERmon is justly defended, and the roost of his reply scraped from those arguments as cleanly, as if they had never been touched with that canker. By Alexander Hume, Master of Artes. ¶ HERE, BESIDES THE REJOINDER, thou hast his paralogisms: that is, his fallacies and deceits in reason pointed out, and numbered in the margin: amounting to the number of 600. and above; and yet not half reckoned. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, ROBERT earl OF ESSEX AND EWE, VICOUNT Hereford and Bourchier, Lord Ferreis of Chartlie, Lord Bourchier and Lovane, Master of her Majesty's horses, and Knight of the most noble order of the Garter: LONG LIFE WITH INCREASE OF Honour, and after this life life everlasting. BEing drawn (Right honourable) into this controversy by the accidents expressed in the Epistle to the Reader: I leveled all my labours, to rake up the coals, and stifle the flames of contention. Being private, I endeavoured to keep myself within the bounds of my condition. I wrote in secret, acquainting few with my counsel. I tempered my style with the modestest words that I could devise I submitted myself to be led by better reasons. I abstained from offences, & occasions of choler. I wrote in latin, that it might not come into the hands of the multitude: hoping that if any blows fell harder, than I meant them, they might be the better taken, the fewer saw them. But all this seed bred no corn: for M. Doct. hunting after praeferment (if I mistake not his plot) and setting the foundation of his praise on this conquest, hath now published in print, that I wrote in a corner, & cried at the cross, that I sent under seal. If the worst were my disgrace, it might be borne with: or if all readers had learning, this reply might be contemned. But seeing this cause is Christ's, and slips amongst the simple may go for six pence: I will not betray him, that hath done so much for me, nor see them deceived, whom he hath bought so dearly. The question is of an article of our faith, and pertaineth to all, that care what they believe. The doubt is not, whether the article be true, but in what sense it is true. For, seeing these articles are not scripture, but grounded on the Scripture: the question is, in what sense Christ is said according to the Scriptures, to descend into Hell. And now seeing he is no more a Christian, that is ignorant of his faith, than he a Carpenter, that cannot handle his axe: this must needs be a question as necessary, as it is needful for a Christian to understand, what he believeth. For that, which many say, it sufficeth to know that Christ descended into Hell, though they know not, in what sort he was there; is as if a farmer should content himself, that he hath a lease of his fa●me, and never inquire how long it lasteth, nor on what condition he holdeth. By the same reason, it is sufficient to know that Christ was born, and that he suffered: and needless to seek how he was borne, and what he suffered. Wherefore, I have resolved to stand at my defence, and to bear the brunt of these blows. For, my weapons are sound Syllogisms, my armour Scripture, and truth my shield. I doubt not of the proof, and fear not the muscate. I was brief before as the mediocrity of a private letter required. My brevity bred obscurity, and gave more probability to his inversions▪ and evasions: to his insinuations and collections, to his making and marring my arguments in wrong moulds. But now I have made them myself, & shaped them on such blocks, as will not (I hope) be easily wrung out of fashion. I have turned his ordinance some against himself, and all from us, so far, as I hope he will despair himself, to hit this mark with that shot. Yet because many minds are swayed with affection of the man, or with conceit of the matter: and my name came never near so many ears, as this book is like to come in mouths: I have resolved to commend it to your honour. Hoping, that if your name win minds to read▪ the weight of my reasons, shall turn the scales, and win hearts to believe. I have many reasons of my choice. Your Zeal of God's house. Your love of God's glory, Your knowledge in God's word. And your estimation, in God's Church, amongst such, as love his name sincerely and her Majesty (for his sake) unfeignedly. Add, that M. D. Reynoldes, (the load star of Oxenford) whom your honour hath maintained there, to confute the Friar Bellarmine, having laid open all the plaites, and ripped the seams of this controversy: I presume the more to use your name in this cause, which hath been maintained under your countenance. If there were any hope, that that work would come out shortly, I would bury my papers in the dust. But seeing that time is like to be long▪ and many in the mean time are deceived with these bold brags. I have thought expedient (to amaze the adversaries of this doctrine with the light of that sun, when it shall please God to give it to his Church) to set out my little candle, wherein (I hope) there is light enough, to disperse the mists, and pierce the clouds of these Sophisms. Thus, beseeching God (the author of all honour) to augment your honour, to your comfort, & his glory, I commit you to him, whose cause I commend to you. Your Honour's humble Orator, ALEXANDER HUME. TO THE READER. I Am forced (gentle Reader) though I hate contention, to contend with a contentious man: or else, having the better end of the staff, to forsake a good cause. It is not possible that the lords field should want tars, his net bad fish, or his Church offences: but woe to them, by whom they rise. This woe in controversies pertains to the one side. It is hard, (and almost impossible, that both be guilty. Wherefore, as I am clear before the Lord, so, to purge myself before thee, I will set down how this dissension first began. The Bishop of Salisbury that last was, before his removing to York, took order, that certain preachers should keep lecture on the market days, in the chief market towns of his Diocese. There is a great market every Saturday at a town called Chippenhame, in North Wiltshire. Within 4. miles of which, dwelleth one M. Wisdom, a man for integrity of life, and exceeding pains in his calling loved of all the godly, hated of the wicked and admired of both. This man was one of the preachers appointed to that place, and preached there once in a fortnight, or a month, I know not which. Wherefore on Saturday the 14. day of February or thereabout Anno 1589. expounding in that place the articles of the belief, he delivered this opinion, which I defend, concerning the descense of Christ into hell. When he had done, one Chalfont Vicar of that town stood up, and protested to the people, that he had taught false doctrine: and promised, that if they would come that day seven night, they should hear him confuted by a learned man.. That day seven-night comes. The people flocks to the Church in great multitudes, expecting some famous man, with some new matter. At length, in came this. M. Chalfont himself. He climbs into the pulpit, and piles up a heap of books, as high as his head. Then after a psalm, and a formal prayer, he begins like an Orator at his own person and his adversaries, that he was M. Wisdoms signior, that he was a Bachelor when M. Wisdom was a Scholar: and a Master of Arte. before he was a Bachelor. That he had read more, and knew more, than he. That he had learned arithmetic, and could reckon the articles of the creed, better than he. That there was 12. of them, made by the 12. Apostles. That his memory served him to remember, which Apostle made which article. That M. Wisdom did reckon them wrong, and made but 11. of them. That all learned Fathers were on his conspiracy. That M. Wisdom did falsify Calvine, and other learned writers: That Christ might be the day when he su●●ered, as well both in Paradise and Hell: as M. Wisdom was that morning at Gritleton (that is the place where he dwelleth) & then there under the pulpit. That he did contradict the convocation, and therefore had deprived himself of the Ministry, ipso facto. And so was no more Parson of G●●tleton, than he was Bishop of London. He looks down many times on M. Wisdom, where he sat under the pulpit, amazed at his impudency, like a meek sheep, (as he is indeed) and calls him by his name. This saith Augustine, this saith Jerome, this saith Cyprian, and you say that. Where was your learning? Where was your reading? Where was your simplicity and plain dealing, which you make show of? And turning to the people he warned them to be ware of false Prophets that going in sheeps clothing, were inwardly ravening wolves, meaning M. Wisdom because of his plainness, and simplicity. This exclamation, (for sermon I cannot call it) being ended, the people departed some saying this, and some saying that: and all, (saving such as love, or malice did carry more than truth or matter) condemning Chalfonts impudency. That day seven-night, the people meets again, hoping to hear M. Wisdom reply, for that was his day by the Bishop's order. But M. Hil being then at a town called Leycocke, within 2. miles of this Chippenhame by accident, or of set purpose, I know not, came thither that morning, and took the place. The same man not many years before, had dipped in the same controversy almost after the same manner at Sarum, against one M. Connam, a man both learned, and Chaplane to my L. of Pembroke. But to let that pass, at this sermon 28. Feb. Anno 1589. I was myself, upon the occasions expressed in the beginning of my letter to M. Hill, (for as yet he was not Doctor) which he hath printed. In it with painted words, and great names of Doctors he so varnished the matter, that at the first hearing it seemed not improbable. Towards his adversaries he behaved himself modestly, giving them the praise both of learning and godliness, namely Calvine and Beza. To blaze their error in this point, he rubbed the Hebrew words Sheol and nepheshe, and the greek hades, psyche & pneuma, as white, as a whetstone. Then after a solemn challenge to all the learned men in the world, that did dissent from him, he offered his notes to any that would have them: he promised fair play, if any man would answer him: he protested love to him, that could confute him: and vowed a recantation in the same place, if his forces could not bide the battle. I hearing this brave challenge, and mistrusting his cards for all his facing: wrought a friend that had acquaintance with him, to help me to his notes. After two months or thereabouts, he sent them to me under his own hand. Perusing them, I found them out of their colours, nothing answerable to the show that they made in the pulpit. Wherefore, hearing of no man, that did reply: saving M. Wisdom in a sermon that M. Hill was not at: and hoping that his protestations had been as far in his heart, as they were fair in his mouth: I resolved to answer him for the truths sake, though my leisure was not much, promising myself as much thank for my labour, as his great offers led me to believe. To keep it secret, I wrote in latin. I seasoned my words, with all moderation, that might be in a contrary style. I offered to confess, if it could be showed, that my answers turned not the edge of his arguments. To be short, I promised to yield to any truth, that he could prove. I was in hope that this conference should have been private, amongst us, and such friends only, as he or I, might have acquainted with it. Indeed, he offered me to have talked of the matter at a friends house. But I considering, that in such disputations, storms of words rising out of hearts, heated with contradiction, doth hinder reason, and stop judgement, refused any conference, but with the pen. The second consideration is better than the first. This reply I finished within few days: But mistrusting mine own infirmities, and knowing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I kept it in my hand till the next May following. Then going home to visit my natural friends, I left it with a friend or two to be delivered him. They being doubtful of my return, though it not best to stir a coal, that they knew no man in my absence to put out. At my return understanding that they had not delivered it: I took it into my hands again, I added and altered diverse things. I wrote it new: and sent it him enclosed in a letter. In time of my absence, (which was half a year and more) he had received by some secret means, an english copy of the first draft, which I myself had translated at the request of a friend, not above five days before my journey. It I delivered him with condition to bring it me again He brought it not, and I forgot it. In time of my absence, he lent it to another, & the other gave a copy of it to one, that put it in M. Hills hands. To that before my return, he had fumbled up this answer, that now he hath printed. I not knowing it, sent him (as I have said) the latin. Upon receipt whereof he sent the other amongst his friends. It went amongst them from one to another, from November (for in November I sent mine,) till the September following and then he sent it me. In this mean time speeches were given out, that I had answered his sermon, that he had replied, and I recanted. These speeches grew daily, and lifted his heart as high as his name. Whereon he resolved to dispute in Oxenford for a scarlet hood. He promised his friends to make that one of his questions. He gave out, that all Oxford was on his side. But when it came to proof, he was feign to promise to his friends, and they to others, that he would confer with learned men: that he would yield to any truth, The admitting of a man to a degree of school in Oxford is called a grace. that could be proved out of the word: that he would not deal in that question, but as he should be led by such conference, or else he had gone as graceless out of Oxford, as he came thither. Notwithstanding, when he was sure of his grace, to maintain his credit amongst his friends in the country: he took that question to maintain in Oxfoord on the Viper day of the Act. how manfully he defended it, I report me to them that heard him. A filius terrae at the lower end of the school (a thing never seen before in that place at that time) got a placet of the Doctor of the chyre, to brush his scarlet gown: who trimmed it so neatly, that if his cheeks would have taken the stains of shame, he had worn as much scarlet in his face, as he did on his back. In this story (thou mayest see good Reader) that my adversary did thrust his hook in an other man's harvest at Chippinhame: that he took not my reply so well as he promised in the pulpit. That he made that public which I wrote in private. That he went farther abroad, & hunted for contention in Oxfoord. That he played at the same bale before, in Sarum. That he bore the simple in hand, that all the learned of the University were of his mind. That he fed an untrue rumour, that I had recanted. That he printed my private letter without my consent or knowledge. And that to trouble the simple with it, he published that in english, which I wrote in latin. For my part I hope I did nothing but that which the duty of a Christian required. hearing the truth impugned I did defend it: fearing that he had been deceived on simplicity, I laboured to reform him. I wrote in fair terms to avoid offences. I wrote in a strange tongue to keep it secret. And I hunted not for this contention: but was drawn into it with fair promises of great thanks: wherefore I hope if thou have but one dram of indifferency, that thou wiltest wipe this bleamish from my face. If I fall now into rougher terms impute the fault to him, that kept not himself within the same bounds as I began. Moreover, it is impossible to answer this book, wherein are so many errors in all kinds of learning without terms of offence. The humour also of this adversary is such, and his estimation amongst the simple, that if I spare him, I shall feed it, and hinder the truth. Add that it is impossible for me to pass over such unmannerly disgraces of lies, impudent lies, shameless lies in matters political, damnable lies in matters theological: disagreeing with Matthew, Mark, Luke, john, Paul, Peter, Christ himself, & all the scriptures, and never turn the bale coming so fair to the other end of the tennis. In some places he giveth my words a meaning, that I never meant: In some places he gives my arguments a shape, that I never made. In some places he bends his proofs to things not denied: In many places he slips the point in controversy, and passes by arguments, as if he never saw them. And in no place answers one argument like a scholar, much less a Doctor. If I rip up these things in their places freely: I hope good Reader, that thou wiltest rather lay the fault on him, that made them such; than me, that call them as they are. Thus beseeching thee to weigh the cause thoroughly▪ and to give every colour his own name: I leave thee to the Lord. Thine and all theirs that love the Lord jesus. Alexander Hume. THE COPY OF MASTER DOCTOR'S LETTER SENT to me with his book. GRace and peace. There was brought to me in August last an answer made to my sermon preached at Chippenhame the 28. of February by yourself, which for that I was then riding to London, I laid up in my study till my return. At which time examining it: I found that you had endeavoured to answer some part of my sermon: and some things you left unanswered. Hereupon I had thought to make no reply. But ●he: I understood, that speeches were blazed abroad that neither I could, nor durst answer it: I entered into a resolution either to defend myself or else to recant, to stay the speech's of the multitude. And therefore to satisfy your request have made a reply, wherein I have proved my former reasons to be firm & v●controleable, and your answer to be weak & unsufficient: for that you disagree with David, Esay, Ezechiel▪ Matthew, Peter, Paul, yea Christ himself, as it shall appear in the conference. It is an easy matter to set yourself against M. Hil. But it is not so easy 〈◊〉 matter to set yourself against the Prophets, and Apostles, and Christ himself. He will say to you as he said to Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Wherefore I pray you, if you will proceed in this conference to lay down the whole as I do: and consider what, whe●, and where you write. You writ of an article of our faith, which must be confirmed by God's word. If therefore it shall appear, that you have gainsaid the Apostles words and meanings: who will believe you for an orthodoxal teacher? you write in the most perilous times. When therefore, the Papists shall see your deceitful handling of God's word, they will rejoice at it. Lastly, you write against an opinion embraced in the Church of England always, and confirmed by our learned synod, and convocation in the Parliament. Therefore you must assure yourself, that you cannot carry this cause away without weighty, & irrefragable reasons. I received also the last of November, an answer in Latin. I will at successive hours frame by God's grace, an answer to that. In the mean season, you may peruse this, and see by this reply, what good success you may promise yourself, and your friends in the other. Thus desiring God to direct this conference, and all other our labours to his glory, I end. West bury at my house, the last of December. 1590. Yours in the Lord, Adam Hill. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIP-FUL, ADAM HIL DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, Vicar of Westburie, person of Goosage, Prebend and subchanter of the Cathedral Church of our Lady, in the City of new Sarum. IN May before the month of August, you speak of going home to visit my natural friends, I left my reply to your sermon to be delivered you. But it was kept back upon the considerations, which I have said in my Epistle to the Reader. What other Copy you received in August, I cannot tell: But well I am assured I sent you none. Howsoever you came by that copy, plain dealing would have answered that which I sent you myself▪ you tell me, that going up to London, you received an answer to your Sermon, & perusing it at your return, you found it an endeavour to answer some piece of it: and within few lines you will me to set down all as you do. Your simile is unfit, for you set not down all, that you had of me. Neither could I set down all your Sermon: for I had but the notes of it: and them also written with your own hand so confusedly, that it would have troubled yourself, to tell which was the beginning▪ middle, or end. Therefore this quarrel, that I did not set down all, seeing I had not all, is very unreasonable. As for your notes I answered them all, saving two arguments, which being forced to seek heese one, and there an other, I miss in that confused Chaos of non bene i●●ctarum discordia semina verum. If you had been disposed to speak properly, they were too small a qui●let, to make all the rest be called, but a piece of your Sermon. Bu● your wariness here is notable. Lest some might think too well of my reply: you will not vouchsafe it the name of an answer: but an indeavoure to answer some piece of your Sermon. Such it fevers as this, may well blind the simple: but amongst the wise will never purchase much credit to your cause. But you would have let all alone you say, if the speeches of the people disgracing your ability had not set you a work: my desire was either to win you to us, or reasons from you to draw me to you. But now it appeareth that your own estimation was more precious in your eyes, than the defence of the truth, or winning men from errors. This will be a foul blot in the face of a Doctor: except you wash it with a bale of truth and plain dealing, confessing that I was in no error at all. But than you say you resolved to defend yourself, or else to recant. I thought you had been resolute in Chippinhames pulpit six months before, if you were not as resolute then as now, I will not take your word for shoe-buckles: for I had then more witnesses to your word, than I have now to your hand. But me thinks it is strange, that I oppugning David, Esay, Ezechiell, Peter, Paul, and Christ himself, could have escaped the check of your pen, if it had not been to maintain your own credit amongst the people. It is without doubt, that you loved that most, that moved you most. If you were not as jealous of their maintenance as your own estimation you were not so sure a friend, as many supposed. But it is hard for me you say, to kick against the prick. It were so if I did so. but look you M. Doctor to your own heels: for my part I have the testimony of a good conscience. No other cause, than the simple love of the truth set me on work. I leveled not at preferment. I commended not my work to great people. I published not my book till you opened the gate: & I could do no less than follow. As for Christ and his Apostles I hope to make it clear in all indifferent ears, that I have not opposed one syllable against them: And that you pull my words, as Cacus did Hercules his Kein into what stinking dens, it pleaseth your wrangling brain to devise. I know both what, when, and where I writ. I writ of an Article of our faith, in which I am so much more earnest, as the Children of God should be more diligent to understand their faith aright. As for these dangerous times it is you that neglect them. It is you, that divide the coat of Christ: it is you that handle the Scriptures guilefully: it is you, that publish private things to make the Papists sport, and trouble the Church. That which diverse learned Papists affirm the Scriptures, never said you put them to the rack to make them confess. Scotus saith, that the discense of Christ into hell cannot be proved by Scriptures. And radius one of the learnest that was in the counsel of Trent, saith it, and proves it. Hesselius another of the same counsel construeth the place of Peter against you. To him accordeth Th●mas Aquinas. and Dionysius Carthusianus agreeth with Andradius. It were easy to quote many: If the seeking of them were not more laborious, than their testimonies will be effectual in this cause. I bring only these to set their ingenuity against your partiality. As for the Church of England, it hath not always fostered your opinion, as you untruly avouch. The times of popery, we yield you: because you agree in the name, and the places be but several rooms of one dungeon. Neither can we deny you the times of King Edward, which creeping but out of the shells of Popery, had not shaken of the buds of your error, about that time the greatest part of your favorities lived: and in that time your opinion (for want of better) was confirmed by convocation. But anno 1564. in the beginning of her Majesty's reign, in a convocation assembled to re-establish the Acts of King Edward, which Queen Mary had taken away, that article only was reform, and your opinion defaced, no more being left, but the naked article of the belief in words equivalent. whereupon I build this reason. No counsel nor convocation censuring a former taketh that away, Synod. Ed. which itself alloweth. But this convocation censuring the convocation of King Edward, Quemadmodum Christus pro nobis mortuus est, & sepultus: ita est etiam credendus ad inferos descendisse. Nam corpus usque ad resurrectionem in sepulchro iacuit: spiritus ab illo emissus cum spiritibus, qui in carcere, sive in inferno detinebantur fuit, illisque predicavit queadmodum testatur Petri locus. hath taken your opinion away. Ergo, this convocation allowed not your opinion. But contrariwise, the same Church of England hath made our opinion her own, by publishing by her authority, Thomas Rogers exposition of these Articles, wherein he agrees with us: and countenansing it with her own name, in titeling it the English Creed. She hath also printed and allowed by her authority many books against you. The Geneva Bible, I know not how many times: The new Testament with Beza and Villerius his notes: Fulkes answer to the Remishe Testament: Baro his Lectures upon jonas: Synod. Eliz. principium tantum retinuit. Quemadmodum Christus pro nobis mortuus est, & sepultus: ita est etiam credendus ad inferos descendisse. Calvins' Institutions at large, and abridged: Northbrooks' Confession: Fulk against Gregory Martin, and the Rhemists: Whitaker against Campion and Duraeus: Vrsinus his Catechism: Bastingius his Catechism: Andrew willet's view of Popery, with many others: Some dedicated to the Queen herself, Some to my Lord Treasurer, some to my lord of Huntingdon, some to my lord of Leicester, some to my lord of Bedford, some to my lord of Warwick, some to one, some to another, all allowed, and all against you, Lastly our opinion hath been taught in the Pulpits, defended in Schools, allowed in the Universities, so that one Doctor Husse, his grace was denied in Cambridge above 20. years ago for your opinion: and y●●r own had been denied you within this three years in Oxford, if you had not promised more than you meant to perform. Whatsoever other men hath done, or spoken for their own: you are the first that ever I heard of, that oppugned ours in the Church of England: saving D. hus in Leicester. Against whom the Bishop of that Diocese did oppose himself, procuring from Cambridge their Reader, countenanced with the authority of their convocation, to confute that opinion, which the english name of hell did make more popular, and probable to the ignorant, by the countenance of that famous, and worthy University. Thus men may see how truly you challenge the Church of England, to have allowed your opinion always▪ your always cometh short of all that time, which you desired most to take your part: for men of your livery, if you may get authority on your side, count yourself otherways sufficiently armed. As for me, If I handle the scriptures deceitfully: let not only the Papists laugh at me: but let all Christians spit at me. if I reform it not, when I am convicted. How strong my reasons are, to carry this cause clear through the midst of the adversaries of it: I hope the sequel will prove: and I refer it to the advised judgement of the indifferent Reader: I cannot tell how to frame irrefragable reasons to you. There was a Prophecy (as Curtius recordeth) that he who could undo the knots of Gordius his chariot, should be Emperor of Asia. Alexander intending that conquest, came to the temple where those knots were kept, to see, if he could open them. But they being insoluble by man's reason, he tore all asunder with his sword. So you serve my arguments, be they never so irrefragable: when you cannot open them with reason: you tear them all asunder with violence. As for my latin answer, which I indeed did send you, and you in truth should have answered me, and not this wandering vagabound: you have had it these three years and more, wherein were successive hours enough to answer two sheets of Paper: if you have not been more busy about greater matters, than you would have the world to know. In the mean time I have perused this, and put my friends in hope of good success in the other: when your long leisure will serve you to answer it. Thus beseeching God to give us all one heart and one mind, I end. Yours in the Lord, Alexander Hume. THE STATE OF THIS QUESTION briefly set down, for the capacity of such as are not able to carry the drift of all this discourse before them. THe hebrew word SHEOL, which the Greeks' call hades, the latins infernus, and we hell, hath three significations in the scriptures. First and properly it signifieth the grave, or common condition of all the dead, expressed in the greek hades by the privation of light or life. secondly, the place of torments, appointed for the punishment of the wicked: for this the hebrew word is least, and our english word most usual, or rather as it is commonly taken, hardly signifieth any thing else. thirdly, the torments of hell, which by a metonymical hyperbole for amplifications sake, is many times attributed to the sorrows of this life. These things are known to all the learned. And this D. confesseth them sect. 4. See also sect. 8. sect. 9 and sect. 14. Now, where our belief hath that Christ descended into hell: the question is which of these three significations doth best fit that article of our faith: We say, that seeing every article of our faith must have an undoubted sense confirmed by the Scriptures, it must needs signify the hellish torments that he suffered for our redemption, or the darkness of death, which swallowed him the three days that he was in the grave. That these thingt are true, and may be the true sense of that article, our adversaries cannot deny. Yet not contented herewith, they will sink deeper, and send Christ's soul to the damned pit of hell, neither to suffer himself, nor to help 〈◊〉 that suffered there. Now, because this is a thing that no man can avouch upon his own knowledge, but God himself: We refuse to take their words without his warrant. Wherefore to mend this crook, they lay three te●●s of Scripture in the press. The first is out of the 16. Psalm: the second is out of the 3. chap. of the 1. Pet. the last & weakest, out of the 4. to the Ephes. But these proofs being doubtful, that is, implying other plainer senses We deny them to be sufficient to make this doubtful assertion, an undoubted article of our faith. Our reason is, no doubtful proofs can make a doubtful assertion an undoubted article of our faith: But these proofs be doubtful. Ergo, these proofs cannot make this doubtful assertion, an undoubted article of our faith. That these profess be doubtful, the words, drifts, and circumstances, offering other senses both plainer, and better fitting the places, and agreeable to the rest of the Scriptures, will drive any reasonable head to confess. Neither doth divers learned Papists deny it. But this adversary more impudent than they, blusheth not like a wire drawer, to pull these Scriptures through narrow holes, to make them small enough, to tie our faith to his fantasy. Moreover, with like violence, he is forced to break down two other walls that stands in his way. The one is in the 23 of Luke, ver. 46. Father into thy hands I commend my spirit▪ and the other in the 43. ver of the same cap. spoken to the thief, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. By which two places it is clear, that Christ's soul was then in heaven, and not in Hell. Upon the true sense of these places riseth this disputation, to which I refer the discreet and indifferent Reader, beseeching them to read with a single eye, and judge with an upright heart. Only I will launce an impostume of absurdities, which breeding in the bowels of this opinion, like the worm that breeds in the nut, hath putrefied all the probability of it, and made all men of indifferent judgement in this age to cast it under the board amongst the shreds. First, that Christ went down to Hell to triumph, contrary to the nature of Hell, which yieldeth nothing but horror and torments. And contrary to the nature of a triumph, which was usually solemnized amongst them, to whom the joy of the victory did appertain secondly, that Christ's soul did preach in Hell, contrary to the nature of a soul, that cannot preach: and the condition of those hearers, who could reap no profit of his sermon having their judgement already. thirdly, that he did preach neither to convert the hearers, nor to condemn them for the contempt of his word: but to aggravate their sorrows. Contrary to the office of Christ, which was to offer mercy to all his hearers. fourthly, that Christ's soul did preach in Hell really, not vocallie: that is, did preach in Hell and say nothing: contrary to the nature of the word preach, which never man did, without voice & words. fiftly, that Christ meaning to go to Hell, (as they say) did notwithstanding commend his soul into the hands of God. Contrary to the true and common use of these words used by Stephan, Act. 7. and all other godly men, that crave to be i● heaven. sixtly, that his soul was in Hell with●●t torments, contrary to the name and nature of Hell, which presenteth to the care and heart, nothing but heinous and hideous torments. Seventhlie, that in these words (Thou shalt be with me in Paradise) Christ spoke only of his Godhead. Contrary to the nature of the pronoun (me) which doth always note the whole person that speaketh. eightly, that having conquered Hell upon the cross: It was needful for him notwithstanding to go to hell. Contrary to the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, who had paid a full ransom for our sins before, and left nothing behind to be done in Hell. These 8. cankers are festered in the marrow of this absurd opinion, for all which, all the Scriptures hath not one syllable, and therefore it must be a monster, that hath bred so many monsters. I Had answered Master Doctors Sermon (as he calls it) but to avoid prolixity, and because this is but a repetition of his reasons there, I have left it out, and have sent him a brief sum thereof, to show him that there is nothing there, better than here: only in the end of it, he calls all his adversaries Boys, schismatics, fantastical spirits, rash without study, and presumptuous without fear of God. If Caluin be a boy, if Beza be a boy, if Marlarot be a boy, if Vrsinus be a boy, if Bastingius be a boy, if Ramus be a boy, if Olevian be a boy, if junius be a boy, if Tremelius be a boy, if Baro be a boy, if Brensius be a boy, if Heresbathius be a boy, if Sohnius be a boy, if Bullinger be a boy, if Bucer be a boy, if Danaeus be a boy, if saddle be a boy, if Viret be a boy, if Sarcerius be a boy, if Suinglius be a boy, if Dering be a boy, if Perkins be a boy, if Rogers be a boy, if Fulk be a boy, if Willet be a boy, if Reynolds be a boy, if Whitaker be a boy if Hoper bishop of Gloucester be a boy, if Reynald Peacock, Bishop of Chester in the time of Henry the sixth be a boy: I will stand to it, that this D. is not worthy to wait on many boys, and bear their books to the School, of their diligence, of their learning, of their discretion, of their integrity, of their constancy, of their humility, though his mouth run over in general, I hope he will blush to touch any of them in particular. This I have set down to show thee gentle Reader, that his cause wants not more & greater adversaries, than he supposeth it to have favourers. THE FIRST SECTION OF HUME his Letter. IT fell out upon some occasions, that I was with a friend not far from Chippenham, the day before you preached there. As I was preparing to departed, word came to my friend that you had certified M. Chalfont of your intent the day following, to defend that which he had spoken against M. Wisdom, that day seven-night before, concerning the descension of Christ into hell: where fore my friend wrought me to stay, to hear what could be said for a matter, that both he and I did think to have no great probability. I did so, and it repenteth me not, for there I heard something, which otherwise perhaps would never have entered in my barren brain. & I was strengthened in the truth, proving that which is commonly said, that with & eloquence is not able to shake it. Wherefore, I have thought it not amiss to write these few lines unto you, either to win you to us, or to win some better reason from you, to bring me to you. I am not married to mine own opinion, but if any man can bring me better proofs, I am content to yield. I hope the same of you, for you told me so in the pulpit, where the tongue should wait upon the heart, and speak his affections: & it is the duty of all men, especially of ministers, to employ their labours to know the truth, and not contentiously to defend their own conceits, which many times deceives even the wisest. As yet your reasous have confirmed rather then converted me. HILL his reply. IN the entrance of your answer, you have told two untruths upon untrue reports. The on, that I certified M. Chalfont of mine intent, which is not so: for neither by messenger nor letter, did I ever send to M. Chalfont. The other is, where you avouch that I would make an apology of. M. Chalfonlts sayings against M. Wisdom, which God knoweth was never my meaning: for first, I never knew what he had fayd in that controversy, till the morning I preached. Secondly, I did always love and honour M. Wisdom, but M. Chalfont, till that morning I was not acquainted with al. Thirdly, hearing a strife revived of that matter, which was not long before quieted in Sarum by the last Bishop, now Archbishop of York, and being requested to deliver my judgement in the matter, not by M. Chalfont, but by one Richard Woodlands, to set unity betwixt my brethren, and not to war against M. Wisdom: In the fear of God, and not to please you or your friend, or any other man, I laid down my judgement, and gave up my Sermon in writing to M. Wisdom, craving an answer to the whole, & not to some part of it. Now, you have made an answer to some, how truly it shall appear: and other things you have left unanswered, for what cause, let the reader judge. In the end, you charge me with wit, which is small, with eloquence, which is none, and with my promise, which I will keep most willingly, hoping that you will keep yours. THese heinous accusations of untruths might have been left; saving that you would have the world to think that I am a common liar. To this end you cry out almost in every sect. impudent and monstrous lies. It is in deed, a point of rhetoric, but you never learned it in Christ's school, to build the credit of your cause (if it be evil) on the discredit of your adversary. But they which are acquainted with my life, I hope will justify me of this crime: and they that know me not, need no better argument of my innocency, than your accusations, and the small occasions, that you take against me. For, if the report that came to my friend, was not true; I hope it was no great fault of mine: nor greater fault in you, to have certified M. Chalfont of your purpose, then to have performed it. If I would sit down to audite, and take counters in hand to lay your slips, but half so diligently; as you are busy upon every corner of occasions, to pull my words into suspicion of untruths: I could note in this preface four 'scapes, not mistaken upon untrue reports (as you charge me) but misreported by yourself, that would scarce abide a just trial of honest dealing. First, that hearing over night of that controversy so much in men's mouths; you knew not M. Chalfonts' part till the morning, you preached there; may be true, but is not very likely. secondly, that you meant not to defend M. Chalfonts' opinion, will hardly be believed, except you can persuade the audience, that you meant one thing, and did an other. thirdly, that you gave up your sermon to M. Wisdom in wriring. M. Wisdom can tell that it is not true. He had nothing of you, but a few scribbled & disordered notes. The last is cunninger, that I answered not the whole, but some part of your sermon. That which escaped without answer, was so small a part, that the rest might well have been called the whole, if you had not been disposed to abuse the simplicity of your reader. That the matter then in controversy was stayed before in Sarum by the Bishop, was true: but in such sort, that if you had not been more busy, than your commission: it might have stand more with your credit, to have let Chippenham alone. For you were there enjoined by the Bish. & two justices of the peace, to confess that M. Connam his opinion (who was then your adversary) was pia & vera sententia. Whether you came to make peace amongst your brethren, A true and godly opinion. and not to war against M. Wisdom, I refer it to the audience: peacemakers use not to take parts. Your peace did so little please M. Wisdom (for as much as you honour him) that being denied the pulpit at Chippenham, by Chalfont, contrary to the order, he was driven to take Cosham church, not far distant, to defend the truth against you, and your mate; which thing he performed with great meekness and humility after his manner, to the comfort of all that heard him, & the edifying of them, that were desirous to know the truth. These things, if I were disposed to go to Tennis with you, would sound more lie like, than all the lies, you have fling at me. But you are a Doctor, and that were unmanerlie. Yet (saving your worship) you keep not so good a watch through this work, as it becums such a lie-catcher. Wherefore to conclude: where you say, that I accuse you of wit, & eloquence: only deny the action, and I will let fall my su●e. But as for your promise, I will never let go my hold, because I hope you will prove a man of your word. HUME his 2. Sect. Now to come to the matter, I see no cause why you should think better of Augnstine and Jerome, then of Caluin and Beza, for they were all but men, and they which now are old, were sometimes new. They had no better warrant of God's spirit then these: and errors in those days were so thick sown, that there grew darnel in the best fields, even of them whom now we most admire. I speak not this to descredit the Fathers, but to prove that they were no Gods. They were no doubt, his good instruments, to maintain his truth against his enemies, but they were but men: you can not deny, but the best of them had his stains. This no doubt, was the forepurposed work of gods infinite wisdom, that seeing these infirmities, our fond age might not set their writings in the place of his eternal word, whereof one jot shall not pass, though heaven and earth perish. HILL his reply. The paralogisms in the D. reply. 1 My arguments betwise two, if you reckon right. TWo arguments you make 2 But not one against Aug. nor Jerome. against Augustine and Jerome. The one is, they had errors, 3 These conclusions you never found in my papers. and therefore their interpretation not to be admitted. The other is, the time wherein they lived was corrupt, and for 4 These conclusions you never found in my papers. that cause they are not to be alleged in a controversy of Divinity. The same 5 make what you will, my argument is not against new nor old. argument, I make against all new writers. 6 This argument is not like mine. All new writers have errors, and they live in a most corrupt time, wherein (as Christ saith) shall be many false prophets, & many falls Christ's, to deceive the very elect if it were possible, Math. 24. 24. 7 This conclusion will no● follow in my form. Therefore, because men are vain, & the time corrupt, we must believe no man. 8 The fallacy of your argument is not ab accident, but à non causa pro causa. You argue ab accidente ad subiectum 9 This is wrong collected the reason is not from error to Augustine & Jerome. For Augustine & Jerome to err, it is an accident, 10 To be a Father, is an accident itself, and hath no substance but the substance of all Fathers is, 11 This is not the substance, but the proper fact of Fathers to beget men in the word of truth, 1. Cor. 4. 15. And for this cause, Augustine himself willeth us not to believe him, unless he bring the word of God. Truly (saith Augustine) 12 That is it that I would have. I do desire not only a godly reader, but a free corrector in all my writings, especially, in those things where there is great doubt: 13 thes places would help me well if need required. If my cause had wanted proof, I would have bestowed a see on you. but as I will not have him to be given unto me, so, I will not have him to be given to himself: let him not love me more than the Catholic faith. As I say to him, believe not my sayings as Canonical scriptures, but believe steadfastly, when thou hast found that which thou believed'st not, but believe not firmly, that which thou hast not seen out of God's word. So I say to him, do not correct my writings by thine own opinion, or of contention, but by the word of God, & by the reason thereof uncontrollable. 14 thes places would help me well if need required. If my cause had wanted proof, I would have bestowed a see on you. And against Cresconius the Grammarian he thus writeth, lib. 2. cap. 32. I am not moved with the authority of this Epistle. but I consider them out of the Canonical books, and if they agree with the word of God, I receive them with praise, if they disagree, I refuse them with peace. The like he hath Epist. 3. & Epist. 112. 15 thes places would help me well if need required. If my cause had wanted proof, I would have bestowed a see on you. And Jerome ad Theoph. is of the same judgement. I know that I esteem otherwise the Apostles, and otherwise other interpreters: these men speak truth always, these men in some things do err sometime. 16 Then this makes for me, that they were▪ but men. These Fathers themselves, confess themselves to be but men, & will us to believe them no farther than they agree with God's word. 17 I see no reason in that. Therefore, they building upon Christ, aswell as your new, aught to be believed rather in this point than they: 18 In these three places you beg the question. For what they wrote in this controversy, the same did all other godly Interpreters both Greek and Latin, having a good warrant from God's word. 19 In these three places you beg the question. But those of your side, writ contrary to God's word, to the ancient Fathers, yea and contrary to the new Fathers, namely, Luther, Selueccer, Chytraeus, Pomeran, Aepinus, Lucas, Lossius, Alesius, Aretius, Peter Martyr, M. Fox, and M. Nowell. 20 In these three places you beg the question. Therefore, because Augustine and Jerome agree both with the old and new writers, & especially, with the word of God, I like better of them; teaching the affirmative, then of any other 21 We hold the affirmative, that he descended in to hell, as well as you. labouring to prove the negative. To end 22 This end is impertinét to this body. If it were not to show the reader, how finely you can distinguish the voice of the Fathers. But seeing in their voice, is so much dross: bring me I pray you, no voice but Gods, wherein is nothing but pure metal. therefore, you must note this, that all sayings of the Fathers, either they are demonstrative out of the scriptures, & then they are the voice of God: or else probable, and these are the voice of man, or else false, and then they are the voice of the Serpent. HUME his rejoinder to the 2. sect. YOu make my arguments as pleaseth you. If we had no better than you would afford us, we were unworthy of credit, and worthy of your reproaches. First, you altar the conclusion. I never thought, said, or wrote, that their interpretations are not to be admitted, nor their sayings alleged in a controversy of Divinity. Neither writ I against them, except it be a discredit to them, that other men be thought off, aswell as they. My conclusion was, that their names brought no more credit to your cause, than Calvine & Beza did bring ours. My arguments were twice so many, as you make them. 1. That they were all but men. 2. That they who now are old, were sometimes new. 3. That they had no better warrant of God's Spirit. 4. That errors grew as thick in their times as in ours. Seeing then all men are frail, and old errors are as bad as new, and new truths as good as old: seeing the spirit of truth was then no stronger, nor the spirit of error weaker: all things in this comparison you see are equal, and my argument holds for any thing that you have said. You take the bit in your teeth, and run out of the way with an argument ab accident. Therefore, fare-you-well; that is not my way. You cite Augustine and Jerome only, to make up number. Their confession of their own frailty, is against you. If my arguments had not been so true before, that no witnesses can make them truer, this would have helped me well. Men may see, that you have either a marvelous ill cause, or great store of small judgement, that can take so much pains to bring witness into the court, to condemn yourself. And here now, seeing your own men do counsel me to trust no man without the word: I conjure you to trouble me no more with your great musters, of Luther, Selneccer, Chytreus, Pomeranus, etc. If I would run that course, we should set all the learned of the world together by the ears, You will bear me down (I confess) with number. For all the Monks, Friars, jesuits, abbots, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes, would sway to your side. If I were not sure of God and his truth, I would never draw sword, nor give stroke in the cause. HUME sect. 3. THeir weakness is no where more apparent, then in this matter that we have now in hand: jer. 4. Ephes. for ●erom joineth his opinion herein, with a palpable error, that Christ descended to deliver the Fathers, which to that day had been in prison. Augustine is not far behind him, August ad Clodium. who though he confesseth that the Fathers were in joy with Abraham & Lazarus, yet after some long disputation, whether he did deliver all or some, & why these more than those; at length he concludeth, that he did deliver whom he himself thought good. For, after that they had once conceived that his soul descended into a local hell. There followed (which could not choose) many inconveniences. There was none of them dreamt that which you avouch, that he descended into hell, there to triumph or bind the devils, or to augment their sorrows; by showing them from what grace they had fallen. HILL his reply. You writ, The paralogisms of this sect that Jerome and Augustine did hold a palpable error, that is, that Christ descended to deliver the Fathers. I hope you will not deny, 23 But I will deny, and so will you, that he went to hell to deliver them but the fathers have their deliverance by Christ from hell 24 This is nor the question. Therefore by the merits and works of Christ, who I am sure conquered both death and hell. Therefore where you prove that Augustine and Jerome do err, I will leave them as I said before, but where in they spoke the truth, I will praise God for them. 25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is shuffled on here, as Tailors used hair in old time to stuff hoses. But let us see how many ways the scripture may be corrupted, that is, by adding, altering, & diminishing. Eve in the third Chap. of Genesis taught all her children so to do: for in the 3. verse thus she saith, But of the fruit of the tree, which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. First she changeth the word of God, for God faith. Gen. 2. 17. of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. Those words (of the tree of knowledge of good and evil) she changeth, & putteth in for them (in the miust of the garden.) Farther God said, they should not eat of it, she added (that they might not touch it.) God said they should surely die, Eve said (lest we die) here she diminished the scriptures. If then the Fathers have added to the scriptures, that the Fathers were fet out of hell, there I leave them, 26 We may as well say, that you change grave into hell Do not you confess in the next sect. that the original doth signify the one, as well as the other? is this changing? Fie D. deal honestly. and if you change hell in to grave, as you do in the 16. psal, and Act. 2. I will leave you also: b hold there M. D. remember that hereafter I shall find time to put you in mind of this again for I stand not upon men's sayings, but upon the word of God. 27 You mistake me blindly, read again. But where you boldly affirm, that not 28 I spoke only of Aug. & jer. read again one of the Fathers have deemed that 29 Though I might stand to this, because they send Christ to hell, wherein the Fathers were detained, and you to the place of the damned, yet this is not the thing that I said. I only said neither August. nor Jerome, did send Christ to hell on your errand, to triumph there and cut-face those miserable wretches. which I say, you show yourself, either to be 30 This malice and your hear grew both in one ground. malicious in hiding the truth, or else so ignorant, that you have not read the Fathers: for divers, both old & new are of my judgement. 31 Heer Ambrose faith not that which I deny. Ambrose on the fourth Chapter of the Ephesians, thus writeth. Christ therefore coming down from heaven into the earth, was borne a man, afterward he died, and descended into 32 Let hell be here taken for the condition of death, and this place may have a favourable construction. Hell, from whence rising the third day, he showed death vanquished to every creature. 33 This place of Augustine saith it not. Augustine de tempore, In his 137. sermon, and in his third sermon of the resurrection thus sayeth: Hell did restore him as a conqueror, and the heavens did receive him as a triumpher. And in his second sermon, he saith thus: Behold, you have hard what our defender, the God of vengeance is said to have done freely. For after he was exalted, that is, was hanged of the jews on the cross, that I may touch these things briefly, assoon as he had given up the ghost, the soul united to the Divinity, descended into the bottom of hell: and when he had touched the band of darkness, as a fearful & glorious spoiler, the wicked & hellish Legions were afraid, & trembling, began to inquire, saying, Who is this dreadful & glorious man? Eusebius writing of the resurrection of our saviour, hath the like: We must know, that in the self same hour wherein our Saviour bowing his head gave up the ghost, his body being left in the grave, his foul with the Divinity went down to triumph over Hell. 34 This place of Fulgentius saith it not. Fulgentius writing to King Thtasymund, in his third book and eight Chapter, not dreaming, but well advised, thus writeth: The true humanity of the son of God, neither was wholly in the grave, nor wholly in hell, but in the Sepulchre, he lay dead, according to his true flesh, but in his Soul descended into Hell. In his soul he returned to the flesh which lay in the Sepulchre, but in respect of the Divinity, which neither is holden in place, nor limited by bond, he was wholly in the grave with his flesh, and wholly with his Soul in Hell, and by this means was fully every where Christ, because God was not separated from the humanity which he had assumpted, which was both with his Soul in Hell; that from Hell, his Soul might return a Conqueress, and was with his flesh, that by reason of his speedy resurrection, it might not be corrupted. I have here alleged the old, which disprove your assertion, for all these accord with me. Now, to these will I add also the judgements of some new Writers. 35 If you have no more in Mollerus for you then this he is neither for your hell, nor your triumph. Mollerus a very learned Minister of Germany on the 16. Psalm thus teacheth: Christ would show his victory in a certain sort over the Devils, to strike perpetual terrors in to them, and to take away from us the fear of their tyranny. To this agreeth Musculus on the sixty and eight Psalm. This GOD, which was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, first descended into the 36 Before you hew this block to fit your hand, you must first persuade us, that the lowermost parts of the earth, can be nothing else but hell. lowest parts of the earth, than heeled captivity captive; and not only we are delivered from the captivity of Satan, sin, and damnation, but all so triumphing over them as Tyrants, he hath ascended above all heavens, to fulfil all things. The same learned Fathers, interpreting the second Chapter of the Colossians, thus hath: There are some that be persuaded it is an absurdity, if it be said, that Christ did triumph over the principalities and powers, but if all cheese things be attributed to God the Father, that he did them with Christ, and in Christ, we may truly read here, triumphing over them 37 What will you gain, & that begranted in his own person. In like sort, doth Hemingius expound this place in the second Chapter of the Colossians: As by his death he conflicted with the Devil on the Cross, so by his glorious descending into Hell, Resurrection, and Ascension, he triumphed, as it is Eph. 4. leaving his Cross lift up as a monument of his victory. So doth M. Fox 38 M. Fox hath nothing in all that work to help you: but only the same picture in the beginning of his book, which your printer hath set before yours: Therefore you should quote the printer, you do M. Fox wrong. understand this place, in a book which he hath written, entitled, Christus triumphans. Therefore in this behalf, you have told a manifest 39 You charge me untruely with untruths therefore take ye the pig that bred the pig. untruth; wherefore, I shall think you will scarce have care to set forth the truth of God, when you will presumptuously utter such an untruth, which may be reproved, by so many & honourable witnesses. Farther, here you leave out at your pleasure, two other ends of Christ descending into Hell, which I taught in my Sermon: the one is, 40 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the descending into Hell, cannot manifest his death. Obscurius non illustrat obscurum. the manifestation of his death, the other is, our 41 That he did by his death, not by his descending into hell. deliverance from Hell. Plain dealing aught to be in this case, and therefore, I expect it at your hands. HUME his reyoinder. If I will let you alone, you will never afford me a good argument, I see, I must needs frame them myself. Augustine and Jerome erring, are not to be praeferred to Calvine and Beza teaching a truth. But Augustine and Jerome do err in this controversy: Ergo, in this controversy, they are not to be praeferred to Calvine and Beza. That Calvine and Beza doth teach in this point the truth, you can not deny. You will say (perhaps) that it is not the true meaning of the article. That is the question. But I hope you will not deny, but the thing itself is true. Now Augustine and Jerome, do err in the very thing itself. Hear you fumble about an excuse, and would feign say something. But you had better say nothing, then so little to the purpose. You think that no man will deny, but that the fathers had their delivery from Hell by Christ, so think I too. But what helps that, these men's error? The one held, that Christ went to Hell to deliver the Fathers: the other, to deliver whom he himself thought good. Will your rotten Varnish, hide this blemish? You tell me in the next sect. that it doth little or nothing pertain to this question. The question is about the descending of Christ into hell: and this they make the final end of that action. Now, if you can prove, that the final end hath no pertinance to the thing destinated to it, though it be but a question of art, I will acknowledge you to be a better D. than you proved yourself in Oxon. and a better artist, than ever I suspected you to be: though I was reasonably well persuaded of your skill, before you shamed yourself. And yet I would have you to mark (if you can spare so much time, as to mark any thing against yourself) that this is a very material point in this question. For this final end, doth separate these men's opinion, and yours. They send Christ to hell to deliver the Fathers, Epist. ad Aglasiam quest. 1. tom. 3. Epist. It is a wicked thing to say, that Christ descended into hell, or place of the damned. and you send him to the hell of the damned, where the Fathers never were. They are so far from you, that Jerome saith, it is impium dicere Christum descendisse ad inferos, & locum damnatorum. You spend the most of this section, to prove me a liar: If you could, you might discredit me, but not the cause. But I will crack this nut on your own crown. Frst, I said not, that none of the Fathers denied that which you say. I only said, that neither Augustine nor Jerome, did send Christ to hell to triumph. Secondly, if I had said so, I had said truly. For you send Christ to the hell of the damned, and that, none of them ever deemed. Therefore in this behalf, (to use your own words) you have told a manifest untruth of me. You father that on me, which I never said: and accuse me for saying that, which I might well avouch. And here I must put you in mind, that if you will join with all, or the most of them that you call forth, to take your part in this quarrel: you must hire workmen to repair the ruinous walls of Limbus patrum, that you have shaken so sore, and shivered yourself heretofore; with the mighty shot of God's aeternal word. HUME sect. 4. WHo so will see how uncertain Augustine was in this point, let him read his 99 Epistle to Evodius. There shall he find many doubts, and almost nothing affirmed for certainty: but only, that he doubted not that Christ went to hell: building on the words of David, cited by Peter. Act. 2. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, etc. Where I cannot choose, but muse, what should move so worthy a wit, and such followers of him: seeing it is apparent in the scripture, that the original word doth signify as well the pangs, as the place of hell: to pass by that signification, which the whole church of Christ confesseth to be true: and fall upon that, which having so weak proof, had so great straits, as Augustine's deep wit could not unfold. Who so will see the name of hell used in the Scriptures, for the sorrows of Hell, let him read that of 1. Samuel, 2. 6. The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he casteth down to hell and bringeth up again: or that of David, Psal. 30. 3. Thou hast brought my soul out of Hell. Or that of jonas, 2. 2. I have called to thee out of the bottom of Hell. And many such like places, where that word cannot signify the pit of Hell, whence there is no redemption: but the hellish sorrows, which those Saints of God did suffer in this life. Now seeing this is so, I would fain know of you good M. Hill, why we may not more safely, take the name of Hell in that sense, which you cannot deny, than you in that, which the better part of Christians take to be false. For that Christ descended into the pit of the damned, the best proof it hath is builded on a word of double signification, which standeth at the courtesy of the reader, to take it, as to him shall seem most probable. HILL his reply. Hear you confess that Augustine doubteth, The paralogisms in the D. reply. and yet 42 I say that your tale and his are not one He meaneth a place where the Fathers were detained till Christ's coming. You mean the place of the damned, where the fathers never were. you say, that in the matter in controversy between you and me, he doubteth not: but proveth it by the Apostolical and Prophetical testimonies: 43 His own not yours. For he willeth us to hold it firmissima fide, with a most firm faith, & saith that none but an Infidel will deny it. He doubteth whether the fathers were in Hell, or whether they were converted in hell by Christ's preaching, as some did affirm untruely, and many such like things, little or 44 Doth the final end pertain nothing, to that which worketh for it? this is new logic. nothing appertaining to the question we have in hand. 45 Doubteth he not, but that the Fathers were in hell. but ad Dardanum he doubteth not. Fol. 3. col. 272. Fol. 10. col. 14. 10. Fol. 3. col. 213. & 702. Fol. 788. Fol. 10. 899. 989. In all these places and in many other, he telleth without doubting, 46 No more doth he in the place cited by me. that he descended into Hell, and the end why. To strilie a terror into the Devils, and to triumph over them. 47 You dream of mirth: when saw ye me laugh at that sport. It pleases you, to make yourself merry with S. Augustine's infirmity, I pray God you will with Saint Augustine acknowledge your own, 48 When you have laid that before me: You shall see how honestly I will demain myself. which by and by shall be laid before you. You wonder at S. Augustine, but we wonder at your a In your written copy, it is M. Caluin and me: why you have turned it, I remit to the reader. teachers and you: for you confess S. Augustive to 49 As he that builded a wall of sand, on a sure rock. build upon David and Peter, & yet you labour to overthrow this building, how deceatfullie, it shall now appear. You say, that Hell signifieth the sorrows of Hell, sometime I grant it doth. Hereupon you make this argument: 50 This was not my argument. Sometime it signifieth the sorrows of Hell, therefore it doth so in the 16. Psalm. 51 I cannot blame you. I deny your argument, and that you have spoken an untruth, the holy Ghost by Peter's mouth, shallbe a witness against you. 52 Peter and I speak not of one thing, see the answer. For you say, it is spoken of the sorrows which Christ suffered upon the Cross, Peter saith, 53 Petersaith not, that the hell wherein he was is spoken of the resurrection. it is spoken of the resurrection: and in the resurrection, I am sure Christ suffered no torments or sorrows. Peter's interpretation is thus. Act. 2. 32. He knowing this before, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul 54 That his soul was not left in hell (sayeth Peter) is spoken of his resurrection. should not be left in Hell, neither his flesh to see corruption. 55 Foolish D. how oft must I tell you: that his being in hell, is not spoken of his resurrection. Now then, here is an answer to your demand: these words are spoken of the resurrection, a matter of joy and not of torments, for David saith in the person of Christ, Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad: & moreover also, my flesh shall rest in hope. It Christ 56 He was glad of his resurrection, not of his descending into hell. at this time did rejoice, how was he sorrowful? if we were glad, how was he tormented? if he did rest in hope, how was it true also that he was afflicted with torments? & here you utter another untruth, that Christ did suffer his 57 Read again, I said not so. I said that he suffered the whole torments of hell on the cross. Of all his torments I spoke not. whole torments on the Cross, which is 58 It is indeed as you take the name of the cross, and you made it. most untrue: for he suffered 59 You fight with your own shadow. some in the Garden, when he said, Math. 26. 38. My soul is heavy unto death. And some in Caiphas house, and some under Pilate: but all his torments and sorrows were ended on the Cross 60 I said what I said, and not what you thought. which I think, you would have said. Last of all, the words of the text that cometh after, aswell as the words going before do prove, that it cannot be spoken of Christ's sorrows, for they are these. Thou shalt show me the path of life, in thy presence is the fullness of joy, and at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore. Sith than David both before & after maketh mention of joy and pleasures for evermore, and as Peter saith, these words prove the resurrection of Christ: 61 Now lay on load▪ you have got the victory. I marvel how you dare to contradict the meaning of the holy ghost. You speak not now contrary to Augustine, or Ambrose, or Hill, but contrary to David and Peter themselves: you 62 Or else you do feign, look on my latin D. and blush for shame. boast yourselves to be the best Christians, but I can hardly believe you are better Christians then 63 was david a Christian? David and Peter. In the conclusion you utter 64 Can you say no worse. blasphemy, for SHEOL being taken sometime for the sorrows of hell, and sometime for the place of hell; you say it standeth at the courtesy of the reader, to take it as to him shall seem probable. Are God's words to be interpreted after our 65 Said I so? Is it all one to take a text, as it seemeth most probable, and to take it after our pleasure. when will you deal plainly. pleasure? 66 This place might have been spared, for any thing that I have said. Hillary was of a better mind: he said, as God was the author of the Scriptures, so God must be the 67 I am of the same mind. Herein hilaries mind is no better than mine. interpreter: he opened the wits of the Desciples going to Emaus, so let us pray, that he may open our wits that we may perfectly understand the Scriptures. HUME his rejoinder to the 4. sect. I said and say again, that Augustine's saying in some sort, that which you say, did run into so many doubts, that he could not tell what to say. But that he doubted not in the matter between you and me, you take it before it is granted. For if I take him right (and it will pass your skill to prove that I take him wrong) he and you, are two. For Augustine holdeth that he went to a Hell, whence he was to redeem some: and you hold that he went to the Hell of the damned, whence he was to redeem none. If this his opinion, be to behold firmissima fide: or that none but infidels will doubt of it: Adame Hill, will either prove another man, than men do think him, or as very an in●●●ell, as they that deny it. Whether the things that he doubteth of, doth pertain to this question, I have showed in the former section. You wonder, seeing Augustine doth build on David and Peter: that my Masters (that is Calvine and Beza in your written copy) and I do labour to overthrow that building: The Papists do build their real presence upon Christ's words, This is my body: And must all men wonder, that hath heard the Vicar of Westburie, confute it? Men may set straw and stubble on a good foundation, which by fire may be consumed, and the rock not the worse, that it stood upon. After these velitations, you come to the matter, and grant me that which I crave, and you cannot deny: that the name of Hell is used in the scriptures for the pains and pangs of Hell. Whereupon you form my argument, without form, and deny it when you have done. I will never blame your wit, for denying your own arguments. But deny this argument, & I will say, that no wall of reason is able to stand against the violence of your negatives. If the name of SHEOL, (that is Hell) doth signify in the scriptures, as well the pangs, as the place of Hell: the words of the 16. Psalm yieldeth you no better warrant, for applying the one to Christ, then us for applying the other. But you grant that SHEOL doth signify in the Scripture, as well the pangs, as the place of hell. Ergo that place is as pregnant & strong for us as for you. Hold fast, set to your shoulder M. Doctor. Your cart will walter, if that spoke break. Now here beholding the mayor, and the minor, two brazen & unbreakable walls: you set all your teeth on the poor conclusion to pull it from them. To take this place of this Psalm quite from us, you allege the holy Ghost, and Peter: two sufficient witnesses: because they refer this place to the resurrection, and we to the passion. Alas (good Doctor) ubiacumen tuum? Do not you see man that though the negative, Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, pertaineth to the resurrection? yet the affirmative, that his soul was in hell, may pertain to his passion? Peter allegeth the negative in the Psal. to prove his resurrection: and our question is not whether he rose again, or not? but whether the thing wherein he was, is to be taken for the place, or the pangs of hell. And here I must needs confess, that this consideration hath driven me quite from Calvine, whom in this place I first followed. As for the place of the belief, I am persuaded, that his sense is most agreeable: being godly, consonant to the Scriptures, necessary for the perfection of the creed, not repugnant to the circumstances thereof, and most comfortable to a Christian conscience. But in this place of this Psal▪ now I see that Olevians opinion is truer, more consonant to the rest of the text, and more plain, against your drowsy dream. Wherefore, now I am persuaded, that SHEOL is here set for the state of the dead, and my soul for me, as it is Psal. 3. 2. Many say to my soul, that is, to me. And Psal. 7. 2. Lest he devour my sonle like a Lion, that is me. And Psal. 6. 3. My soul is sore troubled, that is, I am sore troubled. So the sense must be, Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell: that is, me amongst the dead. That this must needs be the true sense hereof, I have two reasons. First, that this was the SHEOL wherein Christ's soul was not left, whence he rose again, as may appear by this allegation of Peter. But he rose again from the grave and condition of the dead, not from hell, and condition of the damned. Ergo the SHEOL wherein Christ's soul was not left, is the condition of the dead, and not the place of the damned. The answer here, that he rose in soul, and body: the one from hell, and the other from the grave, will not hold: for the name of resurrection, belongeth only to the body: because nothing riseth again, but that which death laid down. So hath our belief the resurrection of the body, not the resurrection of the soul. This was M. Fields argument, which did choke you in the act at Oxonford: and hang so fast in your teeth, that he could not get it out of your mouth, much less an answer to it. The other, is builded upon the words of Peter. Act. 2. 19 Men and brethren, I may boldly speak to you of the patriarch David, that he is dead and buried, and his sepulchre is amongst us to this day. In which words, expounding this place of the Psalm: Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption: he laboureth to prove that David spoke not this of himself, but of the Messiah that was to come of his loins. His reason is, because David is dead and buried, and his sepulchre remained amongst them: as if he had said, because David's soul was left in Hell, and saw corruption. For where the negative is not true, there the affirmative must be true, by the rule of contradiction. Whereupon thus I reason. David's soul (that is David himself as I have said before) was left in the SHEOL wherein Christ's soul should not be left. But David's soul was left in the state and condition of death: Ergo, it was the state and condition of death, wherein Christ's soul was not left, by this place. The same argument may be form negativelie: to take away your exposition of this place. David's soul was left in the SHEOL whereof it is said in the Psalm, Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption. But David's soul was not left in the place of the damned: Ergo, it is not the place of the damned, whereof it is said in the Psalm, Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption. Whereas some allege against this interpretation, that it doth violate the text: taking the soul first for the whole man, & the whole again for the body. Let them consider, that the condition of the dead, expressed here in the name of SHEOL, pertaineth not to the body only, but to the whole man. Neither were it injury to the text, if it be so taken. For the cup is set for wine, and wine for the blood of Christ by Paul himself, who useth not to violate words. These reasons therefore have led me from Calvine, whom though I reverence (as he is well worthy) as much as any man: yet I am not so married to him, (howsoever M. Doct. is persuaded otherwise) to follow him the breadth of a hair, beyond truth and reason. He may be deceived, aswell as others, though he hath plunged through many deeps, that have devoured many. Now to return again, and to follow upon your walk: you charge me here (as every where) with an untruth. To fasten it upon me, you turn my words out of their figured coat, into their bare skin. For whereas I say, that Christ suffered the whole torments of hell upon the cross, taking the dross by a Synecdoche for the whole passion, as he did before me, which said, God forbidden, that I delight in any thing, 1. Cor. 1. 18. Heb. 12. 2. Ephes. 2. 16. but in the cross of Christ. The preaching of the cross, is to many foolishness. Christ reconciled us to God by his Cross. You tell me, that it is most untrue: because he did not suffer his whole torments on the wooden Cross, which Simon the Cyrenian did bear on his back. And to make my words more odious, you do them more injury. For whereas I say, he suffered the whole torments of Hell on the Cross, a thing defend-able: you charge me, as saying he suffered all his torments upon the Cross, (meaning the Cross of wood) a thing without show of truth. In the end, to fasten another little fault on me, (it is but blasphemy,) you wring my last words in the fame press. For, whereas I say, that a word of double signification, standeth at the courtesy of the reader, to be taken as shall seem most probable: meaning that there is nothing in the word itself, to lead the mind to one signification more than another: but depends upon the probable circumstances, and drift of the text: you charge me, as making the Scriptures like a nose of wax, to be set which way men's fantasy will bend it: a thing as far out of my pen, as out of my heart: and as far out of my heart as it is out of your heart, to take my words as I speak them. HVM● his 5. Sect. But that he never was there, he is too curious that will not stand content with Christ's own testimonies. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And in another place, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. And here it is a world to see, how men on your side labour to put out this candle. First, you say, that this place, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit, is borrowed of David, and must be taken in the same sense, as David used it before. But you must consider, when we use other men's words, either we cite them as testimonies, or usurp them by imitation. If we bring them in as witnesses, we may not alter their testimony; but if we imitate them, we may without impeachment, apply them to what sense best may beseem our purpose. In this place Christ citeth not David's words, to testify of his passion: but imitateth David, in commending his soul into the hands of God. Where you see, that no necessity enforceth the same sense. But, be it so, and I think it is so, and that it maketh much against you. For seeing David's soul commended into the hands of God was never in Hell: it will follow, that Christ's soul commended to the same protector, was likewise never there: except you will ascribe less virtue to Christ's prayers, then to David's. But David's soul, say you, went not straight way into heaven; because he lived many years after. That he lived any long time after, if it were denied, you will hardly prove it. But that maketh not to the question, when David's soul, came into heaven. But whether he that commendeth his soul into the hands of God, doth purpose that it shall descend into hell: prove that, and you shall have the goal. As for David, he having devoured heaven in hope, doubted not (if he lived any long time after) to speak that in the present time, which he was well assured would come to pass. And seeing David was a figure of Christ, and spoke many things in his own person, which aggree better with the person figured, then with the figure: these words may be understood, Psal. 22. 16. 18 as the casting of lots on his garment, and the digging of his hands and feet. Wherefore, if you will answer this place, to the satisfaction of them that descent from you: you must bring proof, that he that meaneth to go to Hell, doth commend his soul into the hands of God: or else you shall never be able to darken the light of this Sun, with any cloud of Sophistry. HILL his reply. INdeed if these words were spoken in the present time, The Paral●gismes in the D. reply. some 68 No more but some show I warrant you. show of truth were in your words, but in the Greek they are in 69 that future time, is in voice, not in sense. the future-tence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Father into thy hands I will commit my spirit. 70 That is not my argument. Now your argument is this: Christ commended his soul unto his Father, ergo, 71 We say, he went not to hell at all. immediately he went not down to hell. 72 When you make the argument, you may put what you will in the conclusion. Hear is more in your conclusion then is in your premises. You may conclude, his soul went to heaven: But not immediately: 73 You beg the question. for it went to hell as I have proved before, for hell in the 16 Psalm, doth not signify the sorrows of hell, but the place, as I have confirmed already. 74 Wherefore M. Doctor? Bring this therefore into mood and figure. Therefore, it is better to translate, I will commend, than I do commend, as Stephanus o● this place noteth. Paul saith, Eph. 4. and 10. verse, 75 This text is handled in the 8 section of purpose: and is therefore here an untimely fruit. Now, in that he ascended, what is it, but that he first descended into the lowest parts of the earth. He that descended, is even the same that ascended far above all heavens, to fulfil all things. 76 He is the same per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now, if the same Christ did first descend which did ascend, than 77 This is new divinity that Christ descended from heaven in soul and body. he descended in soul and body, as he ascended in soul and body. 78 A fallacy ab accident. These must be effected after a wonderful manner. Ergo in soul and body. For both these must be effected in a wonderful manner, for they are reckoned by Solomon amongst the most stupendious works of the 79 Solomon speaketh not there of the son of god, see the text. Son of God. Pro●. 30. 4. Who hath ascended up to heaven, and descended; who hath gathered the wind together in his fist? who hath established all the ends of the world? By this scripture 80 A wrong inference. I iuferre, that to ascend and descend, are 81 A fond comparison, without warrant of the text. as miraculous works, as to create and govern the world. But if the 82 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this is understood of his descending into his humane state, being the son of God: a thing as wonderful, as his descending into hell. soul of Christ did got to heaven immediately, as you affirms contrary to this text, than the descending of Christ had not been so marvelous as his ascending▪ Besides▪ 83 This thing is true, but where allege I it. as you after allege, there is but one ascending, but if Christ's 84 It follows not, see the answer. soul first went to heaven, & then his body, than were there two ascensions. But 85 What makes this to the expounding of this place, Father into thy hands etc. or answering anything that I have said here? even as Christ was but once borne, and once died, and once buried, and once rose from the dead, and but once cometh into judgement: so (as Cyprian saith in his Sermon of the ascending of Christ) Christ did once descend into hell, they shall see God no more on the cross, nor they that are damned in hell. 86 What makes this to the expounding of this place, Father into thy hands etc. or answering anything that I have said here? Wherefore may it please you to accept the judgement of Athanasius a Greek Father, & a man persecuted for the truths sake by the Arrians, he in his Creed saith thus, who suffered for our salvation, and descended 87 He saith not the hell of the damned. He speaketh of his burial. into hell. And interpreting the 1. Cor. 3. writeth, Satan was envious against our saviour, for he killed him, not knowing that it would make against himself, for Christ after his cross going down 88 he means the condition of death. He vanquished not death in hell. into hell, hath vanquished death. And because he knew no sin be could not be hold of death. Thus you see, that not only Hill, Augustine and Jerome do say, that Christ after he had uttered these words (into thy hands I will commend my spirit) but 89 This conclusion followeth not on the cited place. Athanasius a Greek father, who better than you understood the meaning of these words. 90 You conclude as stout lie, as if all things were without doubt. Therefore, it is a wonder to see how those of your side labour to extinguish this everlasting light of God's truth, & set up a cousuming candle of your own making. Where you teach, that Christ's Soul did no more descend into hell than David's did, therein you are deceived, 91 Not by descending to the hell of the damned. He performed that on the Cross. For Christ was to deliver us from hell & David also: wherefore if Christ's soul had not gone to hell▪ David's must, and mine and yours. 92 I know not whereof you speak● if you mean these words whereon we stand, Father into thy, etc. If they be not true in the figure: them err you that give them the same sense in Christ's mouth And for this cause as you say, they are true in Christ figured, but not in, David the figure, and hereupon Peter thus reasoneth, that they could not be true in David. For Christ soul was in hell▪ 93 Who doth now piece the text? quo● the words if you can. and yet not tormented, & his body in the grave, but not corrupted; whereas David's body saw corruption, and if his soul had gone to hell it had found no redemption. Therefore, to be in grave, and return without corruption, and to be in hell and return with 94 He conquered the Devils on the cross, not in H●ll. conquest of the devil, were two peculiar things to the Son of God, & not to any other of the sons of men. And here you utter an other 95 No les than blasphemy. blasphemy, that Christ's soul had no other 96 where say I so. prerogative than David's soul, for by the same reason you may argue, that Christ's 97 what if I did? excepting innocency it had no other prerogative, that I know. body had no greater prerogative than David's body, for as this is false, so is the other. For as Athanasius saith in his book of the incarnation of the word, Death Can not prevail on the huma●e soul of Christ to tie him there, neither corruption invading his body, by tyranny could show her force on him to putrefaction, as things not well seen unto, for to think so of him, were a wicked thing: for even as Adam had a double punishment inflicted on him for his disobedience, the on was on his body, earth thou art, and to earth thou shalt return, and so by this decree, the body of the Lord departed unto the earth: but to the soul he said, Thou shalt die the death. Hereof it cometh to pass, that man is divided into 2. parts, and is condemned to departed to 2. places, and therefore it was necessary, that the self same judge, which had made this decree, that he by himself being under the colour of a condemned man, should free from that sentence all believers. 98 To the local hell I see not: but I see that you quote him to prove that Christ's body hath greater prerogative than David's, which thing he saith not. Here you see by this learned Father, that Christ's soul went to Hell 99 So did he on the cross. to deliver our souls from hell, and his body to the grave, to deliver us from death, & by this means both body and soul personally, and not potentially 100 Where M. Doctor? slander? fie for shame. (as you teach) working our deliverance from death and hell, have those prerogatives, which 101 This is contrary to the scriptures Heb. 2. 17▪ & 4 14. David's soul and body had not. And for this consideration, though 102 why then did he not likewise commend his body into the hands of God the one was in the grave, and the other in hell, yet both were in the hands of the Lord. Hear then we must learn what the hands of the Lord do signify. Sometime the hand of god doth signify the Son of God, 103 It is not in that place set for the son of God, see the place. Psal. 144. 7. Send thy hand from above. Sometime it signifieth the power of God, Psalm. 136. 12. With a mighty hand, and outstretched arm. Thirdly, the bountifulness of God, Psal. 145. Thou openest thy hand, and fillest every liviug thing with thy blessing. Fo●rthly, it signifieth consolation, Ezec. 3. 22. The hand of the Lord was with me comforting me. Fiftly grace, Psal. 118. 16. The right hand of the Lord ●ath done valiantly Sixtly, it signifieth the gift of prophecy, Ezec. 8. The hand of the Lord fell there upon me. Seventhly, mercy. Psal. 37. 24. Though he fall he shall not be cast off, for the Lord putteth under his hand. Eightly the protection 104 Hear is a heap of notable ignorance. Hath the hand as many significations, as it can be applied to uses? If not, here is odd stuff: if yea, he ere is not half a handful of hands. of the Lord, Psal. 31. 15. My times are in thy hand. Ninthly, the aid of the Lord, Psal. 74. 11. Why withdrawest thou thy hand. Tenthly, the punishment of the Lord, job. 19 21. Have pity on me (o ye my friends) for the hand of the Lord hath touched me. 105 If this be last, at which of all these hands sits Christ? but that is a right hand, & perhaps these be left hands. Lastly, it signifieth the Government of the Lord, Psal. 95. 4. In his hand at all the corners of the earth. This place therefore, 106 If so, then tell me why he kept that prayer, to his last gasp, which might have had mor use in the troublesome days of his life. must needs have this construction: into thy consolation, mercy, protection and government, I will commend my soul. I hope 107 That I do & my body to but the case is not like. you yourself commend your soul into the hands of God every day, but yet you mind not to go to heaven immediately. So said David. Psal. 30. 5. Into thy hands I commend my spirit, but he went 108 Are you sure of that: then let us hear your proofs. not to heaven in many years after, neither did Christ ascend into heaven in many days after, 109 Petitio principij, plus quam crambe odiosa. but went down to hell, where it was in the protection and goverement of the Godhead, 110 Where man I have said that the deity presented the triumph of Christ's victory to heaven earth & hell at once. That the Deity descended into Hell▪ to my knowledge, I never said. which as you confess descended into hell. For as we being in the damned world, are in the protection and hand of the highest, so 111 Petitio principij again. Christ being in the place of the damned, after a wonderful manner, was also in the Lord's aid and protection, by means whereof, he hath wrought our deliverance from hell. Therefore, prove you that christ went straightway to heaven, and you shall effect that which many of your side have attempted, but 112 What say you to Christ then? He said, that he would be that day as he suffered, in Paradise: is he no body with you? never yet any could bring to pass. 113 If ever Procustes had a prentice, you served your years in his occupation, who made Peter say, that Christ was in Hell, & not tormented, etc. It is written of Procustes, that if any were too short for his b●●, he would not stretch them out, and make them fit for his lodging: 114 I never sowed that patch to the text, see the answer. so you, this place being too short to fit your waist, will enlarge it with a word (immediately) which is not the place primitive or derivative, expressly, or by way of implication. Moreover, where you say, if I will answer this place I must prove that he that mindeth to go to hell, doth use these words. I wonder that you dare use such 115 Blasphemous speeches and yet nothing but misbegotten insinuations. This gear hangs well together. blasphemons speeches, for hereby you insinuate, that Christ was 116 For all your cunning my words are clear. but a mere man, & that other men have a part in the work of our redemption aswell as Christ. For as he is our only Saviour, so as Luth. saith on Gen 21. Chapter. This was singular in Christ, (Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption) for this 117 Petitio principij ●is hic, millies a libi repetita. soul could not be detained in hell, nor his body in grave. For as this was singular in Christ, that he did give up his ghost, 118 Petitio principij ●is hic, millies a libi repetita. so was it singular in him, to go to hell and return again. 119 Two imperpent allegations. Ambrose saith, Tradidit spiritum suum quia non invitus amisit, quod enim emittitur volunt arium est, quod amittitur necessarium. He gave up the ghost because he lost not his soul against his will: for that which is emited is voluntary, but that which is amitted is necessary. 120 Two imperpent allegations. Theophilact saith, he cried out with a loud voice and gave up the ghost, for he had power to lay down his life, and take it up again. Now when you can prove that you or any of your side 121 Then there goes a bargan If you will not prove the one I promise you I will never prove the other. But till then, let this Syllogism stand for good. You can not prove that he that commends hi● soul into the hands of god meaneth to go to hell: but Christ commended his soul into the hands of God Ergo, you cannot prove that Christ meant to go to Hell. have this power in you to die when he will, and live again when he will, then will I prove that he that speaketh these words (Into thy hands I commend my spirit) hath an intent to go to Hell. But as Christ his birth was a singular 122 Yet again: Deus bone quoties. thing in him, so was his death, burial, descending in to hell, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. Eccle. 8. 8. Man is not Lord over the spirit, to retain the spirit. 123 Two impertinent allegations. And john 10. 18. Christ saith, No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. By these 124 What makes that to the question here in hand two places it is evident, that no man can lay down his own spirit, but the only son of God had that prerogative, and therefore as the laying down of his spirit, and the taking up of his spirit again was wonderful: so was 125 Speak to the purpose, man. the state of the soul and body, during the time of the separation of the parts of the humanity, singular and wonderful. Absurdities admitted in this sect. by the D. First, that Christ did descend in soul and body, take it how he will, is absurd. If he mean into Hell, taking Hell as he would have it, that is in soul only. If into the grave, it was in body only. If into the womb of the Virgin. It was in Divinity only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Second. If Christ's soul had not gone to the local Hell, David's must, and his and mine: contrary to the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. Third. That Christ's soul and body, besides innocency, had other prerogatives than David's had. Contrary to the Scriptures, that he was like us in all things, sin only excepted. HUME his rejoinder. Indeed say you, if these words were spoken in the present time, some show of truth were in our assertion. Then, if I can prove these words to be spoken in the praesepe time: you will grant us some show of truth, which is more than commonly, you use to yield. First, you know, that by a hebraism, the future time, may be set for the present, especially when continuance is signified. Now, that it must be so here, I hope this Syllogism will persuade you. That verb which signifieth an action presently done when it is spoken, is of the present time. But this verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify an action then presently done, when Christ used these words: Ergo, this verb is of the present time. The mayor is a rule of Grammar, from the definition of the present time of a verb. The minor is clear of itself▪ because Christ did then commend his soul into the hands of God, when he used these words. But if this will not satisfy you, take this to prove, that it cannot be the future time. That action which can be referred to no time to come, cannot be the future time: But this action cannot be referred to any time to come: because he presently gave up the ghost, and men after death commend not their souls into the hands of God. Ergo, this action cannot be of the future time. And now, having taken all this pains, to gain nothing in your eyes, but a show of truth: I must put you in mind, that though this verb did pertain to the future time: yet your knot is in the wrong rush. For it is not the time when he did commend, but when his soul came into the hands of his Father, that must help you, if you could be helped. And therefore, you may whissel presently for any future help, that the future time of this verb can yield you; to show my judgement of this place, all things both in heaven, earth, and hell; be in the hands of God, that is, in his power: to dispose of them as it seemeth meetest to his own glory. But that cannot be the sense here: because his soul was in that sense in the hands of God, even then, when he did commend it. The hand is the instrument of receiving, in which we rake those things that we bring into our own peculiarity, and proper possession. In that sort Anthropopathetcially, those souls and spirits which stand in the presence of God, are said to be in his hand. Of which it is said in the Psalm, In thy presence is the fullness of joy: and at thy right hand, pleasures for evermore. And so Christ being in the agonies of death, and hell; doth commend his soul into the hands of God to possess a fullness of joy, and eternity of pleasures. Like to this is stephan's prayer, Act. 7. Lord jesus receive my spirit. Hear, after your wont guise, you form my argument as pleaseth you, and then you tell me it is false. If it be false, you made it such. If the fault had not been more in your skill, or your will, or both; then in the matter: you might have made it inferi●. No man that commendeth his soul into the hands of God, meaneth to go to hell: But Christ, as man, did commend his soul into the hands of God: Ergo, he meant not to go to Hel. And if he meant not, I am persuaded, he went not. If you had framed it thus, there had been no need of Procustes with his rack, nor of any patch to make it fit our waste. To the mayor of this argument, for lack of better matter, you cry out, blasphemy. And then finding no blasphemy in the words themselves: you tell me that they insinuate, that Christ is but a mere man, and that others have part in the work of our redemption. Your insinuations are very deep. But here M. Doctor, I will offer you a good bargain. Hooke me this insinuation on my proposition in mood & figure, and I will never write more against you on this question. And now I must needs note an especial grace in your writing. When the argument pincheth you, you wring it with a crooked wrist, and straining out some filthy liquor, that you yourself had powered upon it, you call witnesses to show the world, what filthy gear it is. And so with many testimonies, in things that no man that hath one dram of sense will deny, you make up a shameful, and importable book. Hear, to prove that Christ is our only Saviour, (a thing not denied) you bring in Luther, Ambrose and Theophilact. Neither apply you them to the purpose, though the purpose be easier to prove; then the things you apply them to. But your wandering hand, cannot beat on one Anvil. And whereas I taking the vantage of your construction of these words whereon we stand, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit: thus prove, that Christ's soul went no more to Hell, than David's. If these words have the same sense in Christ's mouth, as they had in David's, Christ soul went no more to Hell, than David's did. But you say, they have the same sense, Ergo. you let go the mayor and the minor: and take up your usual hubub against the conclusion, exclaiming and crying out, blasphemy. Then running about, and seeking Athanasius in every corner, to chide me: because I give Christ's soul and body no greater prerogative than David's, you bring him in, not saying one word to the purpose. For he (goodman) knew right well that Christ was like to David, and us all; in all things sin only excepted: and therefore would not speak against his conscience. As for the prerogative that you would have him to have, to go to hell, it is so base a one (if it was any) that if Bishoprics were no better, Doctors would not shoulder for them, like beggars at a doall. Whereas you argue, that if Christ's soul had not gone to Hell, David's must, and yours and mine: if you mean the hell of the damned (as you must if you speak to the purpose) it is absurd. For Christ redeemed us on the Cross, where he did bear the hellish burden of our s●●nes: and not in hell, where he paid not one dram of our debt. To set a wrong sense on this place, you bring forth a heap of hands, enough almost to remove Cheviot hill to Charing Cross. Whereupon you conclude, that the sense must needs be: Into thy consolation, mercy, protection and government, I will commend my soul▪ If that was his meaning, why did he not commend his body also in the hands of his Father? And why delayed he this prayer till the storm of his miseries was blown over. If this conclusion, did follow upon the premises, it were a fault to confute it. But now I hope upon a pardon, though I wipe it away with a Syllogism. Consolation pertaineth to the distressed, mercy to the guilty, protection to the weak, and government to them, that either cannot, or will not keep order. But Christ's soul, after this prayer, was neither distressed, guilty, weak, nor disorderly: Ergo, he commended not his soul into God's consolation, mercy, protection, and government. This is all, that in all this section, you have spoken to the purpose. You have (I must needs confess) a great deal of other stuff, as much as all this. In one place you ignorantly charge us, that we give Christ not a personal, but a potential descending into Hel. For we say, that Christ descended personally into Hell, That is called potential which being is not impossible, never was indeed both body and soul, and suffered actually all the torments thereof, for our redemption. Otherwise, were he but a potential Saviour, and all we actually condemned. You quote also here out of place, and to small purpose, the 10. and 11. verses of the 4. to the Ephes. which might have been deferred more conveniently, to the 8. 9 and 10. section, where it is handled of purpose. Out of it you gather first an absurdity. That, if the same Christ did ascend, and descended: he descended in soul and body, or else he could not have been the same. Did you never hear, that the same Christ was from all eternity: that the same Christ was slain from the beginning of the world: that the same Christ lay three days in the grave, as jonas was three days and three nights, in the whales belly. And yet I trust, you will not say, that his soul and body was from all eternity: that his soul and body was slain from the beginning: & sure I am, that you that stand so much, that the soul can not be buried, will not say, that he lay three days soul and body in the grave. Your wonderful manner, in which you say these things were effected, is a wonderful Sophism. You seem to think, that there were no wonder in Christ's descending, except this place be understood of his descending into hell: as if it were not as great a wonder, that the son of God descended into the womb of a Virgin, and there did clothe himself in man's nature. But all this wonderful discourse of wonders, is beside the text. After all these by-blows, you gather upon this text a reason, against the main conclusion. That Christ's soul was not in heaven, while his body lay in the grave: because than he should have ascended, before he descended, contrary to the place of the Eph. There be two errors in the leveling of this piece, that bears it quite beside the mark. First, you give the name of ascending to the soul, without the body, contrary to the Scriptures Act. 2. 34. David is not yet ascended. And this taketh away your next reason, of two ascensions. secondly, you give the name of descending, to the descending of his humanity into hell, which is spoken by the Apostle of the Descending of his Deity in his human state. Thus a man may see your wit, how cleanly and closely, you can lap two fallacies into one proposition. HUME sect. 6. FOr the other place, you bring a reddier sense out of Augustine of that which is God, & not of that which is man, his sense, (how ready soever it pleaseth him to term it) can no wise stand with these words of our Saviour: For this day shalt thou be with me in Paradise, doth sound in all latin ears (I mean to all that understand the latin tongue) as if he had said. This day thou and I shall be in Paradise: which no man that hath one drop of brain in his head, dare advisedly attribute to the Deity, which being there from all eternity, could not go thither in the future time. But, me thinks, I hear you say, that the future verb is given to the thief only: and (with me) which agreeth to the speaker, is limited with no bounds of tyme. Against this, I have the consent of the best Grammarians, and the thief also: For, Remember me (said he) when thou comest in thy kingdom. By whose verdict, it is clear, that he was not yet in his kingdom, to whom he made this supplication. Neither do I think, that Christ himself did mislike with his judgement. For if he had erred of ignorance, no doubt, he would have set him right. But he was so far from correcting him, he rather confirmed him, answering in the same tense or time, Thou shalt be with me, etc. Moreover, the Pronoun me, is referred to the person that spoke, which I hope you will not say, was Christ God alone, but Christ both God and man. Thus, you see, that these two places are too strong for your ordinance. If you have no better shot then these, Great is the truth and invincible. we will spread our banners with magna est, & iuvicta veritas. HILL his reply. HEre you condemn S. Augustins answer. Well, because S. The paralogisms in the D. reply. Augustine is dead; and in your margin you say; that it is M. Hills answer, by God's grace and his word, M. Hill will defend it, 126 You slander, I falsify not the text. First I note a falsification of the text, by you alleged: for where as it 127 Not the original. is in the text: Luke 23. 42. Remember me Lord when thou comest into thy kingdom. You for 128 Not so: but I translate a word Master, that signisieth master rather than Lord. (Lord) say (Master) I told you in the beginning, Eve did change the words of the Scripture, to her overthrow. 129 If a man may leave a thing, that he never began, I will grant your fute. Therefore, I pray you leave it, for otherwise I must tell you of it: if a boy in the Grammar school construe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Master, 130 He is himself worthy to be beaten, that can beat a boy for that fault. he is worthy to be beaten: and if a schoolmaster teach so, 131 Such a controuler were scarce worthy to bear office in a hen-hous he is worthy to be controlled: for this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 written by Stephanus 132 A doughty argument▪ then was I be holden to your printer that wrote the word which I used for it with a capital M. with a capital letter, will cashier your banner of 133 It is a weak boast, that will be so beat with a capital K. boasting, & bring your glory to shame. I preached in my sermon at Chippenham, that to day, did signify for ever, and (with me) did signify the Godhead. I will not only affirm it, but 134 How well you confirm it, see the answer. confirm it, that to day doth signify for ever in this place: first I prove it by this philosophical reason out of Aristotle, which saith: In aeternis non est tempus, In eternal things there is no time. 135 You promise to prove your purpose by Aristotle, and leave your purpose to prove that you bring out of Aristotle For time, is the measure of motion: therefore, if there be time, then is there motion. Now, as in Hell all men do suffer torments, and in earth all labour: So in Heaven all do rest. Apoc. 14. 13. Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord, so saith the spirit, 136 This proveth not that they move not. They rest from their labours: that is, their moving is not laborious. It will be hard for you to prove, that the Angels and blessed souls move no more, than the marvelous stones upon the plain of Salisbury. for they rest from their labours. 137 This therefore dependeth not upon the premisles. Therefore, where there is no mutation from day to night, nor from summer to winter, there is no day natural or artificial, 138 If I did so suppose, I were as far from sense, as you from honesty, in charging me with a senseless assertion, which you never heard from my mouth, nor read after my pen. as you suppose. And this is proved Apoc. 10: 6. And the Angel swore by him that liveth for evermore, which created heaven and the things that are therein, 139 This allegation is impertinent: time was not ended, when Christ said to the thief, This day, etc. that time shall be no more. And this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to day, is used for (ever) 140 All these many scriptures, are but the repetitions of one prophecy out of the 2. Psalm. in many Scriptures. Psal. 2. 7. Thou art my Son, this 141 Heer, this day, doth not signify eternity, see the answer. day have I begotten thee. Act. 13. 33. & we declare unto you touching the promises made unto the Fathers, god hath fulfilled it unto you their Children, in that he hath raised up jesus, even as it is written in the second Psalm: Thou art my Son 142 Heer, this day, doth not signify eternity, see the answer. to day have I begotten thee. 142 Heer, this day, doth not signify eternity, see the answer. And in the epistle to the Hebr. 1. 5. And, to which of the Angels said he, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. And again, Hebr. 5. 6. He proving Christ to be a priest for ever, thus saith. Christ took not to himself this honour, to be made an high priest: but he that said to him, Thou art my Son, 144 Heer, this day, doth not signify eternity, see the answer. to day have I begotten thee, as he also in another place speaketh. Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedech. 145 Untruth they take it not so. Hear David & the Apost. do take this word (to day) to signify (for ever). And so doth 146 The place would be quoted. S. Augustine and M. Hil against all the gainsayers of it in the world: For the circumstances of the place, do 147 Not very strongly. strongly convince it. For what doth the thief ask? 148 implicit, not explicit. forgiveness of his sins: who 149 This circumstance is farfet. can forgive sins? God only. He asketh 150 implicit, not explicit. for grace, who is the giver of all Grace? 151 This circumstance is far fet. God only? he desireth 152 implicit. glory, who giveth glory and life everlasting? God 153 This circumstance is far fet. only. That God only 154 This is not denied. forgiveth sins, it is proved Mar. 2. 7. That he is the 155 This needed no proof. giver of all grace, it is manifest 1. Pet, 5. 10. That God 156 This proof is super fluous. only giveth glory and life everlasting, it is evident 2. Tim. 48. Rom. 6. & last verse. 157 This circumstanceis far fet. Secondly, where shall he receive this glory? in Paradise. For as much 158 Frame one good syllogism out of all these circumstances, to prove, that (to day) doth here signify eternity, & take the bucklers. then, as the thing that is given is eternal, the person that giveth it is perpetual, the place where it is given is everlasting: 159 But not that the day when it was given, doth signify eternity. it must of necessity follow, that the time also, be world without end. And that (with me) signifieth as I do teach, the Godhead: it is constantly avouched 160 Have all the Fathers written upon this place? you range wide. by all the Fathers. 161 This place hath not that (with me,) doth signify the deity Jerome on this place noteth. Christ brought the thief from the cross to Paradise, lest any man should think conversion to be too late at any time: he made the punishment of homicide Martyrdom: the truth being counted among the wicked, he left the one on the left hand, and took the other on the right hand, as he will do in the day of judgement. It 162 Will not Jerome speak plainly? this collection hath in it three paralogisms. 1. Ieromes simile of the fact, you refer to the person. secondly you seem to think that we hold that Christ's only soul did judge the thief on the cross: and lastly, that his only soul was in heaven with the thief. were an absurd thing to say, the soul of Christ only shall give judgement in the last day. 163 Nor this place hath it not. Augustine hath the like on this place, The cross, if you mark it is the judgement seat, the judge was set in the middle, the one thief which believed was delivered, the other which blasphemed was condemned. To save and condemn is the office of the 164 And of the son of man. Mar. 2. 10. Deity: and therefore 165 I deny the argument. (with me) signifieth the Godhead, as the other thief no doubt was with the Devil. 166 He saith not, that (with me) doth signify the Deity. Ambrose in his Sermon of the holy thief writeth thus: He saw him hanging on the cross, and prayeth to him as though he were fitting in heaven: he seethe them condemned, and yet he prayeth unto him as to a king. To this accordeth Damascene handling this place. In respect of his body he was in grave, in respect of his soul in Hell: and as. 167 Damascen cometh nearest you, and yet he saith not, that (with me,) doth signify the deity: his soul was not separated from his Deity. God, he was both in Paradise with the thief and in the throne with the Father & the holy Ghost. Therefore Ferus a writer not to be contemned, interpreteth these words thus. Mecum eris qui sum ubique omnia in omnibus. Thou shalt be with me which am every where all in all. In Exodus 34, 6. 7. verses, be set down the 13. 168 They be Epithets, not names, saving the first, neither be they 13. names of God, and Lord is one of the first of them. Therefore, when the thief calleth Christ Lord, he 169 A fallacy ab accident. acknowledgeth him to be God, and desireth to dwell with the 170 If so, that proveth not that with me signifieth the godhead. Godhead, in whose presence is the fullness of joy: where you ask me how the 171 I ask you how it can go to heaven in the future time. Godhead can go to heaven, the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Even as 172 Not so: He is said to come down: when he showeth his presence amongst men by effects. he can not be said so to ascend. God came down from 173 This is contrary to your reason at Chippenham, and in the 11. fol, pag. b. of your printed sermon. There you reason that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can not belong to the godhead, because it signifieth motion. And here you give God contrary motions both up and down. heaven, so is he said to go up to heaven. 174 August speaketh of the ascending of the humanity If you will read Augustine in this book of the essence of the Divinity, he will teach you. Psa. 68 24. They have seen o God, the doings of my God and king, which art in thy sanctuary, from heaven he came into the virgin's womb, after his birth he was laid in the cratch after that he had fulfilled all for the which he was sent of his father, he was fastened to the cross he was take● down from the Cross, he was buried in respect of his flesh, but in soul he descended into hell: the third day by the power of the Divinity, he raised his flesh out of the grave, and after the days of his resurrection, the fortieth day, his Apostles seeing it, he ascended into heaven, & sitteth at the right hand of the Father, that is, in his glory. The 175 This gloss on the thieves prayer, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. thief than prayeth to Christ, that as he should sit at the right hand of the Father in glory, so he might be partaker of that glory, and that he might have his perfect consummation and bliss in heaven as Christ should have after his ascension: & that his vile body which was partaker of the sufferings of Christ, might also be partaker of his glory, and made like to the glorious body of Christ jesus. Twice you have told me that (thou shalt be with me) is as much as (I and you) 176 but you bring neither scripture nor father to confirm it in that sense that you mean it. But if you mean thus, I and thou shall be together, that is, thou shalt be 177 I never meant such a gloss partaker of the glory of the Deity as thou hast been partaker of the sufferings with the humanity, it is true. For, what need had the thief to pray for the 178 That was not his prayer see the text. presence of Christ's soul, when he 179 This reason would well confute the thiefs prayer, (if it were confutable,) Remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom had the presence both of body and soul. But it is the presence and fellowship of the 180 And had he not the presence of that, as well as of the soul and body? divine nature that he prayeth for, 181 This is a gross reason, In the presence of the Deity, is fullness of joy, Ergo, the thief prayeth for the presence & fellowship of the Deity wherein as David saith, is the fullness of joy & pleasure for evermore. Psa. 16. 11. In Luke. 13. 26. The jews say, we have eaten and drunken in thy presence, and thou taught in our streets. Christ thus answereth in the 27. and 28. verses. I tell you I know you not, depart from me all ye workers of iniquity, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth: when you shall see Abraham Isaac and jacob in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast out of doors. Therefore it is clear, they are not all blessed 182 This is another new conclusion. which were present with Christ's humanity, but they of whom Saint Peter saith, 2. Pet. 1. 4. Whereby most great and precious promises are given unto us, that by them we should be partakers of the nature of God. For therefore did Christ take upon him our nature, 183 How proveth this that (with me) in this text, doth signify only the Godhead. that we might be partakers of the nature of God, and be on with Christ, as he is on with his Father. Christ prayer is to this end, 184 This allegation is also impertinent. john. 17. 21. I pray not for these alone, but for them also which shall believe in me through their word, that they all be one, as thou O Father art in me, and I in thee, even that they also may be on in us. Two absurdities by implication, in the D. reply. That to save and condemn, is the office of the Godhead only, and not of the humanity, contrary to Mark. 2. 10. Act. 10. 42. and joh. 5. 27. Or else the collection out of Augustine will not hold, that (with me) doth signify the Godhead only. That the thief prayed not for the presence of the body and soul which he had: but for the presence of the divine nature: as if the divine nature had ever been absent from the soul and body, contrary to the Hypostasis, and uniting of the persons. HUME his rejoinder to the 4. sect. Our reason is, if Christ went that same day as he suffered to Paradise, he went not to Hell amongst the damned. But he went that same day to Paradise. Ergo, he went not to hell, amongst the damned. For the minor we have Christ himself witness. Luk. 23. 43. You replied at Chippenhan out of Aug. that this promise to the thief (Thou shalt be with me) is meant only of the Godhead of Christ, and not of his soul. To that answer I rejoined (saving Augustine's reverence) whom I honour as far, as it is meet to honour a man, what ever you bear your reader in hand to the contrary: that this being spoken in the future time, and implying an absence, at that present, from his kingdom, could not pertain to the Godhead, being at all times in all places. That here is implied an absence, it is clear by the thieves suit, Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And that this is spoken in the future time, it is manifest by Christ's answer, Then shalt be with me in Paradise: which by a rule of Grammar is, as if he had said, I and thou shall be in Paradise, which is a plain future tense. Now, here in this your reply, you pass by this testimony of this holy thief, and him in whom was never found theft nor guile, as if you looked for better witnesses. If these be not sufficient, I have no better: but I hope the reader will esteem better of their words, and count mum, but a mean answer. Yet if you were half so worthy your scarlet hood, as many do hope, and you do think: there was left you more show of a probable reply. That these things be spoken of the Deity per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Wherefore to prevent your hope, if you chance to find it hereafter, I will now tear the boss from that buckler. This figure is never applied to any text, but when some inconvenience in the letter, will take no salve, but such a corrosive. But this text (if it be well handled) needeth no such hard plaster. Ergo, this figure is not to be applied to this text. Hear, neglecting the answer that had any show of probability, and replying nothing to my argument, to make show of some thing, you pick two quarrels to me in your written copy, of which you scrape out one (for shame) in your print, for falsefiing the text. The first is, that I translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Master, and not Lord. The second, that I translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to day, but this day. Where I pray thee mark gentle Reader, that though I were guilty of both these faults: yet my argument drawn from the future time, standeth between both these blows, without tip or tap. But because it is a heinous matter to pervert the Scriptures, I will not confess a crime so odious, being innocent. And now M. Doctor, if you were a Schoolmaster, as you were some time, and would seem yet; and did beat your Scholar for construing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Master: men might say, that you were more worthy of the rod, than he. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be relatives in greek as servus and Dominus in latin: and Master and servant in English: Servants obey your masters. so are they used Eph. 5. 6. Col. 3. 22. and 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now then, if the english of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be a servant, the English of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; must be a Master. Neither is it denied, but that in some case, it may be Englished, Lord. Some servants have Lords: and all Lords exercise a magisterial power over their vassals. As for this place, it seemeth to express the Hebrew RABBI, which was to them a common style of dignity, as Master is in English. And therefore in my simple understanding, so far is it from heresy, that this seemeth the fittest English, to meet that greek in this place. But you beat me with two sore arguments: the one that Stephanus doth write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a capital letter: the other, that in the 34 of Exod. be set down the 13. names of God, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the first of them. You were much beholden to Stephanus. If he had chanced to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a sorting letter, you had lost the best argument that ever was bred with your mother's milk, and a weapon to cashier our banners. But they be not Babylonian, as you imagine: they are as I said, and you see the banners of truth that will not be cashired with a capital K. As for the 13. names of God, I never observed only so many: neither can I find just that number in that place, whither you send me. The first name in that place, and the only name for any thing that I can see, is JEHOVAH, the very essential name of God. The rest be Epithets, not names. But tell in good sadness M. Doctor, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same in greek, that JEHOVAH is in Hebrew? I ever took JEHOVAH, to come from HAIAH: a verb of being, to declare, that God the cause of all beings, hath no cause of his own being. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I took to express the rule and commandment which he doth exercise over his creatures. But say you, the thief when he called him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did call him God. If that be of necessity: then servants obey your masters, will sound servants obey your Gods. You will not (I hope) stand to this Divinity. As for the translating of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (this day,) if I was deceived, the greek and latin deceived me. For seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and hody compounded of hoc die, did meet the same: I thought I wanted not reason to translat it (this day.) But if this be heresy, how will you cover the same wart on your own nose, fol. 20. pag. 1 of your printed sermon, & here in this same sect. also. Your reason why it may not be translated (this day,) is; that to day is an indefinite, & this day, a particular. But this was so subtle, in your printed copy, that you are ashamed of it: & good cause had you. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so particular of itself, that it is no more capable of more particularity, if it be translated (this day;) then Adame Hill Vicar of Westburie, and Parson of Goosage, can be made more particular by saying, this Adame Hill Vicar, etc. This Logic reacheth far beyond the precepts that you learned in the University: and yet I see, that it cometh much short of that which is in you. For, you will not only affirm it, but confirm it also, that hody eris mecum, Thou shalt be this day with me, is as much as thou shalt be with me for ever. Psal. 90. 4. is as much, as eris mecum in aeternum. If you will make that good, you may go whether you will; no hedge can hold you. The Scripture hath by way of comparison, that 1000 years are as one day in the sight of the Lord. If all eternity be in your sight, but as one day: you must be some magnus Apollo, so much greater than God, as eternity is more than 1000 years. But, what can you make of 1000 years, that can make so much of one day. One day I am sure, is not the proper name of eternity. And therefore I would feign know of a man of your skill, seeing when one word usurpeth the place of another (except it be like the Pope's statuimus for abrogamus) it must be either effectum pro causa, subiectum pro adjuncts simile pro simile pars pro toto, aut contra: to which of these heads you will refer hody pro aeterno. If you think it pars pro toto, then in your conceit, the parts of a thing infinite, must be finite, contrary to an axiom esteemed for truth amongst other men: that an infinite thing, is not devide-able. Hereof cometh the maxim, that you after allege out of Aristotle, that in things aeternal, there is no time. You by it, (entiteling it the Philosophical reason of Aristotle) undertake to prove, that one day, doth signify eternity: but straight way, by nimble convoiance of legerdemain, you slip the thing you promise, & turn your hand to prove Aristotle's philosophical reason. For, if there be time (say you) in eternity, then is there motion. Thus, like a merchant that fraughting his ships with corn to go to Deep, when she is launched forth into the sea, turneth his sail, and pointeth to Spain: You pretending to prove, that one day, must needs here signify eternity: fall to prove that in eternity there is no time, a thing never denied. But reason would have hewed an other piece of work, out of Aristotle's block; In eternity there is no time: In one day, there is time: Ergo, one day is not eternity. But to prove this, you allege four texts of scripture, which are all but the repetitions of one, out of the 2. Psalm, wherein you are deceived yourself, & labour to deceive others. For (to day) in that place doth not signify eternity, as junius proveth finely in his Parallels. The words be, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Wherein (saith he) is noted, first the aeternal begetting of his Deity, in these words, Thou art my son: and the temporal begetting of his humanity in these words, to day have I begotten thee. His reason is drawn from the place of Paul, which here you quote, Act. 13. For, he alleging this place to the jews in their Synagogue, as a plain argument of Christ's Divinity, could never have hoped to effect that amongst such a froward company, if he had put such a violent face on the text, as to take one day for all eternity. To this most excellent reason, I add another out of the same text. This place of the psalm doth prove, that God raised up jesus to fulfil that promise to the Children, which he before had made to their Fathers. But that promise was then performed, when jesus was given to them in the flesh. Ergo, this place of the Psalm, must have relation to that day, when the son of God, which was before all eternity, was given to the jews in the flesh. Notwithstanding these reasons, if it were granted you, (which you can never prove) that (to day) in this place of the Psalm doth signify eternity, yet it will not follow, that it must needs have the same signification in these words of Christ likewise. Wherefore to fill this ditch, you fall to work upon the text. In it you make along harvest of little corn, telling in many words, that grace, glory, & aeternal life, the things given, are aeternal. But, what makes the eternity of the gift, or of the giver, to prove that the time wherein it was given, is aeternal? Of things aeternal, only God (who is eternity itself) is without beginning, and ending. Grace, glory, and aeternal life, imparted to his creatures of the fullness of his eternity, have a beginning then when they are given, though their continuance be aeternal. Now▪ in these words, This day thou shalt be with me, (this day) noteth the time, when this aeternal gift should begin, and not the continuance and durance thereof. This may suffice to crush all the small bones of your shrimpish arguments. As for your Fathers & Doctors, whom you allege not directly, but by such consequentes, as you pin to the tails of their gowns, I will pass them over, for brevities sake: and because you have promised in the 3. sect. not to rely on men in this question. HUME Sect. 7. But now to come to your reasons. First, you muster all your forces, about the Hebrew and Greek, against the most learned of this age. The greatest Hebricians of name in our time both Protestants & Papists, Mercerus, Cevalerius, Bertramus Vatablus Pagninus, Arius Montanus, Andradius, with I know not how many more. It will coast you a great deal of eloquence, to persuade the world, that Tremelius and junius, Calvine and Beza, and the translator of the Geneva Bible, with many more excellent men, that spent their age in that study, did not know these words as well as you, & had as great care to sift out the truth. For my part, neither is my skill so great, neither am I now minded to stand with you upon that point. I see no inconvenience to hurt us, nor vantage given you: if I grant that SHEOL must be englished, Hell, in the place of the Psalm, which you cite. Only this I stand upon, which I have said, that this word is many times used in the Scriptures for the torments of hell, and must needs be so taken here. The very order of the words, will overthrow your conceit. Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption. For, seeing the Hell, that his soul should not be left in, cometh before the grave, wherein his body should not see corruption: what hell went before his burial, but only that of hi● passion: wherein he paid the whole ransom of our redemption, and nailed the handwrite that was against us, to his Cross. HIL his reply. The paralogisms of this sect Two 185 No untruth in my words. untruths are in these few words. First, you make much ado about SHEOL against 186 My words are contra doctissimos huius aetatis, therefore turn this lie to your own secretary almost all the learned men of this age 187 All these be not on your side. There are on my side 188 Luther holdeth that Christ suffered in Hell, so do not you. Luther; Aepinus, 189 Felinus is against you Felinus, 190 So is Pomeranus. Pomeranus, Lucas Lossius, Selueccer, Vrbanus Rhegius, The authors of the Centuries, Erasmus, Chytreus 191 Molerus is your adversary. Molerus, 192 Peter Martyr, holdeth that his soul presented itself to both the blessed and the damned. Peter Martyr 193 He maketh nothing for you. Lavaterus, Proverb. 27. In England 194 Nor Lambert. Lambert, 195 Nor Robert Sammell. Robert Samuel, 196 Latimer holdeth with Luther, not with you. Latimer, Becon Hutchinson, 197 Fox hath nothing for you, but the Printers picture in the beginning of his book. Fox, and 198 Nowell holdeth not with you. Nowell. Hear 199 Many of these understood not the Hebrew, & therefore stood not for you upon the word SHEOL. are 20. most learned men of these latter times, as I can show you in my poor Library besides that most learned and reverend Father M. a M. Allet I think you would say. He wrote the poor man's Library, for the poor, not for Doctors. Allen, and besides the advised judgement of the learned Convocations of England, not only in King Edward's reign, Anno Domini. 1552. but also since the reign of her 200 That convocation allowed Nowel's Catechism, not your opinion. Majesty. 1571. In the which Canuocations I am persuaded, were as learned men, as any were, either in England or Europe. Therefore, the learned reader must either think you a man 201 If he think so, his thought is too true. But yet a man may have read more than you, that never saw these books. of little reading, and that you never saw these learned men's works, or else of great malice, 202 I disabled none of them: except you will believe your Secretary better than myself. that you will disable all these for learning, who left a better testimony behind them then ever you will, unless you have mor than you have showed in this answer. The other 203 This was my conclusion. Men use not to call the conclusion a lie, before they answer the antecedent. untruth is, that SHEOL in the 16. Psalm, doth signify the torments of hell, which Christ suffered in his passion on the cross. That this is untrue it is manifest not by conceit, but by Pet. Sermon, Act. 2. 31. He knowing this before spoke of the resurrection, that his soul was not left in hell, nor his flesh saw corruption: You say it is spoken of the passion, Peter saith it is spoken of the resurrection: 204 You labour in vain, this is not denied. and good cause hath he so to say, for the words going before, and coming after do prove it. The words going before are these, Psalm. 16, 9 Wherefore my heart was glad, my 205 A senseless translation liketh you best. glory rejoiceth, my flesh also shall rest in hope. The words following in the 11. verse are these: Thou shalt show me the path of life, in thy presence is the fullness of joy, and at thy right are pleasures for ever more. 206 You would have said, how can ye find, to point where, & ask where I can find it, is like him that said, I paid 18. d. for my shoes, read what they, cost me. Where can you find your torments, in the word 207 He rejoiced, because he should not be left in torments, will that answer serve your turn? (glad) or in the word (rejoiceth) or in the word (rest) or in these words (fullness of joy) or in these (pleasures for evermore.) 208 Who said so? You fight with your own shadow Was Christ glad of his torments? Did he rejoice or weep in them? 209 Who would make conclusions & father then on his adversary, but he that wanteth both science to answer, or conscience to acknowledge the truth. Who would deliver this doctrine but he that wanteth either science or conscience, or both. 210 All these lies doth blister on the lips of the blab that bred them. To lie once is a fault, but affirm it twice is a greater fault. To speak a lie is hurtful, but to write a lie advisedly is more hurtful. To lie in a matter political is dangerous, but to lie in divine matters without speedy repentance is damnable. 211 If that be not true, why confute ye it not? You say no vantage is given to me nor inconvenience to you, if you grant SHEOL to be Hell: Let your friends judge 212 You allege my words to play upon the vantage what vantage you have given to the truth, and shame to yourself 213 I gain say him not. by gainsaying Saint Peter, and by 214 Nor say not that. affirming, that in the resurrection are torments, where David and Peter say, are fullness of joy and pleasures for enermore. Therefore, it is the saying of Peter, 215 The question is, what the manner thereof should be. This is petitio principij. that Christ's soul was not left in hell, and not my conceit, and it is deceit in you to 216 And falsehood in you to charge me with that I never spoke. affirm the contrary. Further, where you say that Tremelius and junius, are better learned in the Hebrew language than myself, I confess it, 217 That is but your conceit. I see no reason for it. so are the jews themselves then Tremelius and junius. 218 Why not? if they teach the truth. shall I therefore believe the jews? no more will I believe the Translation of 219 The byasle of this bowll did run on Tremelius and junius, & with the jutte of an ill-favoured rub: did break upon others It is well that you fear to say that they disagree from David & Pet. Your heart feign would, if your pen durst venture. any other learned man. if he disagree with David and Savite Peter. Finially, to answer 220 You call my question curious, & by your answer prove it to want curiosity. Such in consequency follow your pen as close, as your shadow your body. your curious question, you ask me in what hell was Christ soul before his burial? To this I answer, in that hell whither all 221 And did it return thence also, as the words of the Psal. doth proport, before his burial. Infidels go for their unbelief. I read but of one Hell, if you 222 Know not you that it hath 3. significations as well as I. know any more let me see your proof, and then will I tell you into what hell▪ Christ descended. 223 Who but you did ever say, that a soul could descend into Hell, and not being left there, return again before the burial of the body. But who but you doth think it an unpossible thing for 224 Hear you hold that Christ's soul did descend before his burial: and in the order of the articles of the creed, you make it an argument for you that it cometh after. Thus you can turn your nose to every wind. a soul to descend into hell, before the body be buried? The soul in an instant passeth to heaven or hell, but the body I am sure must have time to be buried: for bodies 225 Lo, you will prove a thing that no man denieth. are in places circumscriptively: Angels and souls definitively, and God is in all places universally. And the soul came out of hell into the body, before the body could come out of the grave: 226 This (therefore) follows not on the premises. therefore most aptly it is said, Acts 12. 31. Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer my flesh to see corruption. 227 228 Two unfit allegations. The question is whether He● going before his burial is to be taken for the pains or place of Hell, which thing Augustine here toucheth not. For as August. saith in his 57 epistile ad Dardanum, That was spoken of his soul, which came from hell so quickly, this of his body which could not corrupt by reason of his speedy resurrection: and writing on the 85. Psalm, he saith, wherefore this is his voice in the psalm, not by any man's coniecturs, but by the exposition of the Apost. Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption. HUME his Rejoinder. IN this section, I followed Calvine: from whose judgement I am now departed on this place of the Psalm, as said is before sect. 4. Yet that the reader may see how near the truth Calvine creeps: I will defend him from all this wide shot, and clear myself of these heinous accusations. First, you begin with untruths: there is nothing so much in your mouth. It should seem that the mould is not unfit for such matter, that casteth so much shot of that size. But if you had not believed your secretary, better than my own copy: the first of these untruths had never found the way from your own lips. My words are, Tu multa de nominibus inferni contra doctissimos huius atatis disputas. As for your favourites in the end of my Epistle, I granted, that you wanted not the countenance of sundry great writers: who rather said as you say, then confirm their saying by Scripture, or reason. My words were, multos habet, fateor, & magn●s patronos causa vestra, qui ita potius censuerunt, quam ratione sententiam suam confirmarunt. Notwithstanding all this, you run such a triple on me with untruths: that if I would run the counter-tenor, you would blush to hear the discord of your own descant. As for your 20. authors, first they were not all Hebricians, nor understood the word wherein you say, they took your part. secondly, though some of them drew near your opinion: yet they never wrote of SHEOL to be taken, as you will have it. Thridlie, Peter Martyr held that the soul of Christ did present itself to all the dead, aswell the blessed, as the damned. fourthly, Luther and Latimer hold, that Christ suffered in Hell. fiftly, Lossius and Hemingsus hold, that the whole Christ, as he was borne of the Virgin Marie, descended into Hel. sixtly, Mollerus affirmeth that your opinion cannot be proved by this place of this Psalm. Sevinthly, M. Nowell holdeth that Christ by the virtue of his death did pierce to the dead, and the damned Hell. eightly, Lambert saith nothing for you, but only quoteth a place out of Augustine, to another purpose, wherein August. seemeth to say, as you say. But Lambert neither liketh nor dislyketh it. Nynthlie, Robert Samuel, saith no more for you, than the very words of the belief. Tenthlie, in M. Fox's book of Christ triumphing, there is not any thing for you, but the Printers picture, which you have also set before your own book. lastly, Felinus and Pomeranus are with us, and against you. Such is your skill to blear the blind, & make him think, that your foes are your friends. Thus if a man could intend to trace you, he might find you quatt in many bushes, where you want cover to hide your bun. If any writer name but Hell, it is enough to make you brag, that he is yours. As for the other untruth wherewith you charge me, it is answered sect. 4. Yet because you think here to win the spurs, and have bragged amongst your friends, that in this place you have driven me so near the hedge, that I can never escape you, without the foil; it may be, that that conceit may contem my answer. Prejudice is a strong bay, and will bear a main strength before it break. Wherefore here I will only turn the cock, and make it spout the same water in your own face▪ to make you feign to flee to my cloak, to keep your shoulders from the shower. You hold that SHEOL in the 16. Psalm doth signify the local Hell, wherein the damned are tormented. That this is untrue, it is manifest, not by conceit, but by Peter's sermon. Act. 2. 31. He knowing this before, spoke of the resurrection, that his soul was not left in Hell, nor his flesh saw corruption. You say, it is spoken of the local Hell, wherein the damned are punished, Peter saith it is spoken of the resurrection: and good cause hath he, so to say. For the words going before, and coming after, do prove it. The words going before are these. Psa. 16. 9 Wherefore my heart was glad, my glory (to use your own translation, lest you say, I altar your words) rejoiceth, my flesh also, shall rest in hope. The words following in the 11. verse, are these. Thou shalt show me the path of life, in thy presence is the fullness of joy, and at thy right hand, are pleasures for evermore. Where can you find your local Hell, wherein is weeping and gnashing of teeth, in the word (glad,) or in the word (rejoiceth,) or in the word (rest,) or in the words (fullness of joy,) or in these words (pleasure for evermore.) Was Christ glad of that doolefull and dread-ful place? Who would deliver this doctrine, but he, that wanteth either science, or conscience, or both. To lie once is a fault, but to affirm twice, is a greater fault: To speak a lie is hurtful, but to write a lie advisely, is more hurtful. To lie in a matter Political, is dangerous: but to lie in divine matters, without speedy repentance, is damnable. Thus far you. This is your own mannerly tale, filled on your own vice, and taken out of your printed book. Wherein you give yourself roundly and handsomely the single-lie, the double-lie the hurtfull-lie, the advisedlie, the dangerously, & the damnable-lie. If I had blown this wind in your face, you would have said, that I had been bred in an Oxe-stall. As for your opinion on this place of the Psalm, I have two sore shot against it. That SHEOL here can no ways be the local hell. First it is in the Hebrew SHEOL, and in the 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Thou wilt not leave my soul to hell: and this place of the Acts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not true greek, except you understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you note yourself out of Clenard. sect. 14. Now, thou wilt not leave my soul to Hell, cannot be understood of a praesentiall being in the place of hell: Ergo, this place cannot be understood of Christ that he was in the local Hell. If you be so good a Grecian, as you would be taken, you should not be ignorant, that to make your sense, it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in Math. 12. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The other is this. No man rejoiceth that he is delivered from a place wherein he suffered no ill; but Christ here rejoiceth vers. 26. and 27. that he should not be left in SHEOL: Ergo, SHEOL is not here the place of the damned, wherein you say, he triumphed, and joyed, and suffered no kind of ill. As for my science and conscience, which here you strike at, you praise them yourself (such is your constancy) in the beginning of your 12. section. I know mine own infirmities, and dare not accept your praises. As for my knowledge, I am content that men count of it, as they find it. As for my life, I dare not brag neither will I speak any thing absolute: but comparate, this much I will say, (seeing you put me to it) that where we are both known, I can find more mouths to speak my purgation, (if I hold but up my finger) than yourself can procure by friends & means. You confess, (which many men would think though you confessed it not) that Tremelius and junius, are better Hebricians, than yourself: and affirm that the jews are better than they. For my part, it is beyond my skill to make comparisons: and my blind eyes can see no reason for that odds. But as you will not believe the jews, (you say) no more will you Tremelius and junius, against David & Peter. You have reason for you. Yet till you prove it, other men will suspect, that Tremelius and junius had both as much care, and as great judgement, to keep in with David and Peter, as you. And for any thing we see, it is credible enough, that David, Peter, and they do draw all one way. If you will believe the jews in nothing, you do them wrong. If all men had been as hard laced as you, no man had ever gotten Hebrew of them. You answer the antecedent of my argument, which you call a curious question, without curious meditation. It should seem that the question was more curious in your tongue, than your eyes, that you can answer so readily. You trifle and tell me, that you read but of one Hell. And I answer you, that he who in serious matters of faith can find a cavil a rebus ad voces, will hardly find credit of sincere dealing. Did not you see, that I spoke of the three things signified in that name, and not of the damneds Hell only, which hath almost gotten the English name to itself, from the other two. For my part I never thought it a thing unpossible, for a soul to descend into Hell, before the burial of the body: but that Christ's soul should descend into hell and return again, (for so the words of the Psalm doth sound, (Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell) before the burial of the body, as the words do lie in order, I ever held it, and hold it yet a thing, that you never saw, and impossible for you to prove with witnesses. But in one thing you seem far here to over-shoot yourself. Your mates reason against us, that the pangs of Hell, which went before the burial, cannot be meant by these words following it. You open your own side to that blow, and put the descending into the local Hell, before his burial also, and make that argument stronger against yourself, than you find it against us. Thus you see, all this great wind is overblown, and shakes no corn. HUME his 8. Sect. Here to let this pass, your next reason is from that place of Paul: But that he ascended: what is it else, but that he first descended into the lowermost parts of the earth. Where you hold, that the lowermost parts of the earth, must needs signify the pit of Hell. Which thing if it were so sure, as you bear in hand; I wonder that no Divines, (I speak of the modester sort) did yet gather hereupon, that the place of Hell, were the very centre of the earth. But whereas you avouch so confidently, that ERETS TACHTITH, doth signify Hell as properly in Hebrew, as hell doth in English, (though I mean not to stand with you for the tongue) yet pardon me to dissent from you in this. For in the places which you quote, it can not in my simple understanding carry that sense. Your first place is, They which seek my soul, shall go down into the lowermost parts of the earth, which cannot be meant of Hell: except these reasons deceive me. First, it might seem a presumption to enter so far into God's secrets, as to judge his own private enemies. Next, it should seem not to stand with the affections of a godly heart, to ascribe that place to his enemies, out of the horror whereof, there is no redemption. For the children of God, do rather pray for their enemies, & desire their amendment. This place may be well construed of the grave. For it is an argument used by the Prophet, to lay the pride of them that sought his soul, and to solace himself: recording that their hatred should have an end, when the grave should swallow them. The words ●ollowing confirm this sense: That they shall fall upon the edge of the sword, which cannot be understood, but of temporal death. HIL his reply. INdeed, The paralogisms of this sect I brought this place Eph. 4. 9 to prove that Christ descended into Hell. 228 I charged you not with immodesty, read again. And whereas you charge me with immodesty, for so alleging of it: I must needs charge you with 229 These two untruths will prove not one. two untruths in answering this allegation. The one is, that I called it 230 Is it an untruth to tell your own tale in your own words. the pit of Hell, 231 Yet and you be remembered translating Lavater in the next sect. you call it a pit. which phrase I never used. The other is, 232 You do impudently or arrogantly take which you will, misuse my words: read again. you have impudently avouched, that none of the modester sort of divines, have ever alleged this place to prove the descending of Christ into ●el. 233. Hear ye settle yourself to your old trade, to prove a thing, not denied. Your work could not rise otherwise. 223 For many, and those both learned and modest have alleged this place to this purpose. 234 This witness needed not. Athanasius interpreting this Epistle and text, thus writeth. Into what place did he descend? 235 Hel● may here 〈…〉 the gra●e. Into hell truly, which he calleth according to the common opinion of men, the lowest parts of the earth. 236 This witness is superfluous. Ambrose on this place saith thus▪ This Christ therefore, coming down from heaven into the earth, was borne a man, afterward he died and 237 He saith not the thing he is brought to say, that the lowermost parts of the earth is Hell▪ and hell may also be here taken for the grave. descended into hell, from whence rising the third day, he went up to heaven before all mortal men, that he might show death to be vanquished to every creature. 238 This witness might have been spared. Chrisostome on this place saith. He went to 239 He saith not, that the lowermost parts of the earth are hell. those parts of the earth, than the which nothing is lower, and from thence lies ascended into heaven, than the which nothing is higher. The like hath 240 This testimony needed not. Augustine li. de Trin. chap. 19 241 Nor ●his needed not. Ierom● on this text thus noteth. That 242 Hell here may be taken for the grave: & so it is likely seeing it may be doubted of the place of the damned whether it be under the earth, or no: Hell is under the earth no man doubteth, for he that descended in soul into hell ascended both body & soul into heaven. 243 Nor this witness needed no●. Mollerus a learned Minister of Germany, on the sixteen Psalm saith: that the descending into hell, is plainly proved out of the Ephesians the fourth chapter. 244 nor this. Musculus on the 68 Psalm. thus writeth. This God which was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself; first descended into the lowest 245 But saith not that the lowermost parts of the earth are Hel. parts of the earth, than he lead captuitie captive, and not only we are delivered from the captuity of Satan, sin, death and damnation: but also Christ triumphing over them a●tirants, hath ascended above all heavens, to fulfil all things: 246 This testimony needed not, but on this same place 4. Eph. he denieth that it proveth the descending into the place of the damned. Hemingius on the 2. Chapter to the Colossians thus also teacheth. As by his death he conflicted with the enemy one the cross, so by his glorious 247 In all this he speaketh not the thing he is alleged for. descending into hell, res●●●●ection and Ascension, he triumphed as it is Ephe 4. Leaving his cross lift up as a monument of his victory, To conclude 248 This needed not. Alesius a very learned preacher of Scotland, on the 19 chapter of john, affirmeth, that the 1. Pet. 3. & Eph. 4. do manifestly prove the descending of Christ into hell, if Athanasius, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome of the old fathers, and Mollerus, Musculus, Hemingius and Alesius of the new writers be all 249 This is astrange (if) I never said so. immodest divines, then have you truly said: but if in the judgement of the learned, all these were most reverend men, then most 250 Then what are you if I accuse them not, as indeed I do not. shameless are you to accuse them of the want of modesty. More over, where you say no divine dare to dispute where hell is: 251 If it be true in any sort, how dare you say above, that Hell no doubt is under the earth. it is true in some sort, for no divine can 242. An inconsequence. It followeth not because men cannot circumscribe ●el, Ergo, they cannot know where it is. Navigators cannot circumscribe the land of Popinjays and yet● they know that it is between the straits & the South pole. 252 circumscribe the place of hell which is 253 If hell be infinite, then is it no where, and all that you have said confuted. infinitum nusqua● est, mul● to minus incentro terrae. infinite, nor yet of 254 If heaven: and hell be both infinite: then be there three infinites heaven, hell, and God. heaven: only the word of God affirmeth, that heaven is above Gal. 4. 26. And hell is beneath, Proverbs 15. 24. 255 I deny the argument. Therefore, the lowest parts of the earth 256 That is not the question. may well be taken for hell: Then you go further & say, that ERETS TAGHTITH doth not signify hell, Psal. 63. and for this you bring two reasons: the one is, that it were a presumption in the Prophet to judge, his enemies: 2. that it standeth not with the affections of a godly mind to assign hell to his enemies, but to pray for them to your first reason this I answer▪ In the Psalm. 9 18. David useth the 257 Not the like. There he speaketh of the wicked, here of his enemies. like speech: The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the people that forget God: which text▪ Caluin thus 258 Calvine is alleged to prove a thing not denied. expoundeth, the Hebrew word SHEOL●● which was doubtful. I have not doubted to translate hell▪ for though it doth not displease me, that others 〈◊〉 it (Sepulchre) yet it is sure, here is some thing noted beside common death▪ otherwise he should speak nothing of the reprobate▪ but that which did generally▪ happen to all believers. In the hundred and ●inth Psalm also, David thus prayeth; 259 This is spoken of the Messiah, and his enemies. Let Satan stand at his right hand, let, his prayer be turned into sin▪ let the wickedness of his Father, be had in remembrance in the sight of the Lord, and let not the sin of his mother be done away▪ **** Do you think this to be spoken 260 When and where said I so? pres●●tuously? Many such texts could 〈◊〉 allege, to prove that David inspired with the spirit of prophecy, did foretell▪ not only of the tragical destruction of the bodies of his 261 Not of his own enemies I believe. enemies, but also of the extreme damnation of their souls. This then is my reply ●o your second reason: these enemies were not 262 This would be proved. And if it can be proved, I will forego this argument: and yet I will hold still my conclusion: The conclusion may stand true, though my argument prove a jade. private enemies, but public, and did hate▪ David for his religion sake: David therefore by the gift of prophecy doth foretell, that their souls should go to hell to be tormented, and their bodies should be the portion of soxes, that is, should never come to the grave, for what need 163 David tell us they should by, 263. This was answered, if you will be answered which we know is common to all, or how can that be true, which you say, that they should be 264 By a Metonymia. in grave, when David himself saith, they were not in any grave, but were the protion of Foxes. And so M. Caluin (whom I hope you will believe) teacheth you, writing upon this psalm and verse. To be the portion of Foxes, is as much as to be devoured and torn of wicked beasts for God (saith Cal.) doth threaten his punishment to the reprobate, that they shall be a prey to Wolves & dogs, because he would deprive them of the honour of their grave. Here you see 265 But hee● Calvine saith not that they came into the Sheol. M. Caluin saith, they came not into their grave, you say they did. How M. Caluin and you may be reconciled 266 Th● you know not Metonymia I know not: for Caluin addeth this reason. It happeneth some time that we know the same temporal punishments to be common to the good and the bad, but this is the difference, the bones of the godly are gathered together and kept in safety, that none of them shall perish; but the scattering of the bones of the reprobate, is a sign of eternal destruction. 267 Caluin is not of this mind, read his commen● Therefore how can the lower parts of the earth signify the grave, as you say, since (as M. Calvine trudie saith) they were in no grave. Answer me this (good M. Hume) plainly: Psal. 63. 9 The lower parts of the earth 268 I deny the mayor. signify, (not the grave) but hell, Christ descended into the lower parts of the earth, Eph. 4. 9 ●rgo, Christ descended into hell. Two impossibilities in the D. reply: That Hell is infinite, and that Hell is in the centre of the earth: Finitum, non est capax inffniti. That Hell and Heaven, be both infinite. Non sunt duo infinita. HUME his Rejoinder. Whereas I charge you with immodesty, you say, you will charge me with untruethes: you are marvelous choleric. Good sir be content, you mistake my words. I have misused neither you nor your friends: I only said, speaking of the modester sort, that no divines allege these words, to prove, that Hell is in the centre of the earth, which they might well do, if ERETS TACHTITH did signify Hell properly. You have not done well to trouble your friends to prove a thing not denied. Here you call forth nine writers, and cry shame on me for misusing them. If I were as choleric as you, I might take Pepper in the Nose, and call you brainless, for mistaking my words? The meanest Carter in the plain, would never so have overlasht himself: by such shifts as this, you have made your book importable. If a man would peak out all such ware as this, he would leave you small store of stuff to show amongst your customers. If you will run this course, you can never want words, howsoever you shift for matter: but if you mend not, impertinent traish will make men despair, that ever you will be able to yarn a Bishopric with your pen. After all these outcries, you confess that which I said, and add a reason because Hell is infinite. Though your reason be not good, yet your confession will purge me, and stain your own face with your own box. That the lower-most parts of the earth, must needs signify Hell, thus you argue. Heaven is above and Hell is below: Ergo, the lower-most parts of the earth may be Hell. This reason was tainted before it came at Whately-bridge, and never came into Oxenford amongst so many Noses able to smell such ware, as far as Bullington-greene, without a peall of S. Clement's Bells: First, you conclude not the question. This question is not, whether the lower-most parts of the earth may be Hell: but whether ERETS TACHTITH be the proper name of Hell. Secondly, the place that you allege out of the Proverbs, all interpreters agree not upon that sense of the words. Lastly, This is a miraculous hole on the edge of Mendipp. if a man should reason, Heaven is above, and and Hell is be low: Ergo, Owkie hole is Hell: you will laugh yourself, though partiality will not let you see the same stupidity in your own reason. The first place that you allege, to Prove that ERETS TACHTITH, must needs signify Hell, is out of the 63. psal. They that seek my soul, shall go down into the lowermost parts of the earth. Which place is so far from proving your conclusion necessarily: that where one interpreter that ever I saw, doth interpret it of Hell, three doth construe it of the grave: which sense being agreeable to the rest of the Scriptures: I viewing the whole body of the psalm, and finding David to speak only of his own private enemies, and no inducementes to lead me to think, that he speaketh here, either in the person of Messiah, or of his body the Church: I gathered three reasons to disprove your sense. First, that it were a presumption: Secondly, contrary to the mind of the godly, to judge their own private enemies: And lastly, that the words following, they shall fall upon the edge of the sword, can reach no further then to temporal death. To the last of these you say nothing, which of itself is strong enough to carry this conclusion from you. To the other two, you oppose the 9 Psalm, 18. where the Prophet speaketh of the wicked: and the 109. psalm which containeth a prophecy of Christ, uttered in the person of David, Act. 1. 20. which places point besides the mark, and prove not, that David doth judge his own private enemies, but the wicked and enemies of the Messiah. Wherefore, though I scarce trust these two last reasons: yet till I hear them taken away by reason, I stand at my first mark still, that David speaking here of his own private enemies, is of jobs mind, not rejoicing at the destruction of them that hate him. job. 31. 29. 30. And here M. D. I would have you mark, that though I had not on argument, yet my sense being agreeable to the words of the Psal. and consonant to the scriptures, is enough of itself, to prove that yours is not the proper meaning of these words. But say you, this cannot be the grave, because it followeth they shall be the portion of Foxes; that is, they shall want the honour of the grave, and there you set Calvine against me, saying, that you see not how we may be reconciled together. For my part, I care no more for Calvin's favour, than Augustine's and other godly men's, that have laboured fruitfully in the lords harvest, whatsoever it pleaseth you to bear your reader in hand otherwais of me. But if you had been half so learned as you think yourself: or half so indifferent as men do wish, that wish you well, you might have seen that the grave is used by a Metonymic for all the dead, whether laid up in the bowels of the earth, or floating in the sea, or devoured of ravenous beasts. For the Hebrew SHEOL doth not so much signify the grave (which for want an other word we are forced to set for it by a Metonymia) as that which the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth better express by the privation of light or life, separating all the dead, which in Latin be called inferi, and manes, from the living, which they call superstites. And not comprysing only them which are buried in a grave as you do ignorantly suppose here, nor the damned as you do as wisely hold in another place. Thus the very heathens did use this word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Homer: that is, he sent many worthy souls (not to the hell of torments, that had been a bad reward for their worthiness) but to the dead, or to the grave. So is the same word used by Nonnus, a Christian Poet of great antiquity, in his Paraphrase upon john, cap 11. speaking of Lazarus, who you will not say, (I hope) was in Hell. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is, and hearing amongst them that were dead & rotten, the fugitive corpse returned again out of hell. The same author in the same place useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same signification, whence the Latins have borrowed their Barathrum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, who raised up the dead Lazarus, skipping out of the smoky gulf, and returning from the dead. So the Latins used their Orcus and Tartarus, not dividing the damned and the saved: but the dead and the living, by the privation and habit of light and seeing. Where you ask me why David should speak of their temporal death, which is common to all, I told you (if you will be told it) to solace himself by the remembrance of their malice, that it was not everlasting, but should cease with their short lives. You conclude this section with a new syllogism, with protestation to good M. Hum● (so you call him) to answer it plainly. The lower parts of the earth, signify not the grave, but hell. Christ descended into the lower parts of the earth. Ergo, Christ descended into Hell. Now, M. Hume to deserve your good name, first, denies the mayor: secondly, he replies to the minor, that in his judgement, the lowermost parts of the earth that Christ descended into, may well be taken for the base and mean estate that the son of God descended into upon the earth. The son of a Carpentar, borne in a stable, cradled in a cratch, and living in a base estate, without a hole to hide his head in, was even the lowest and basest parts of the earth. He could not well go lower. Thus Hume bids you go your way, and take this for an answer. HUME Sect. 9 YOur other places be, I will pierce through all the lowermost parts of the earth, and look on them that be a sleep. Eccles. 24. And they shall be cast down into the lowermost parts of the earth, and sleep in the midst of the uncircumcised. Ezech. 31. 18. which two places, by your leave, cannot be well meant of Hel. Except that you can persuade us, that there is sleep, that is, rest and quietness in Hell, but of the grave and state of the dead, whereof we have as commonly almost, as stones in the street, he did sleep with his Fathers. The same words ERETS TACHTITH, which you say, doth signify properly Hell, be so used by the Prophet David, Psal. 139. 14. That they can no wise be taken in that signification, except it can be proved, that David was fashioned and made in Hell. His words be these: My bones are not hid from thee, though I was made in a secret place, and fashioned beneath in the earth. Here Beza doth well observe, that the place of the Apostle which you allege, may fitly be applied to the sense of this place: and note unto us the discense of Christ, into the womb of the Virgin. HIL his Reply. FIrst you say, The Paral●gismes in the D. reply. the place quoted by me Syrac. 24. 37 maketh not for the proof of my assertion. 269 If you had red Chytreus, a man (as you allege on your own side) you could never have hoped that any thing in this cap.▪ would have changed my mind If you had considered what 270 It will not follow because he speaketh of the bottom of the depth in the 8. verse: therefore the lowermost parts of the earth must needs be hell in the 24. verse. went before, and what followeth, you would have been of another mind. For before in the 8. verse is said, I alone have 271 This may be understood of wisdom, which discoursing by reason of all the works of nature, doth after a sort walk about the heavens, and under the bottoms of the sea. gone round about all the compass of heaven, and have walked in the bottom of the depth. Which depth 272 When alis done, Pellic▪ must hue this chip for this chi●ke. Pellicanus alearned writer doth interpret abyssum mortis & inferorum, the 273 When Pelican hath done with it, M.D. must turn inferi to his bias, or else this labour is lost inferi may be taken for the dead, as said is in the former sect. depth of death and hell. Yea, the 274 That is doubted. whole Chapter speaketh of the Son of God, and of his 275 That is not true. wondrous works in saving mankind: of the which this is on, 276 That is false. that he was not only alive among the living, but after death 277 That wanteth probability. his body was among the dead bodies, 278 And that all show of truth: There is not one word in all this cap. of any of these things. and his soul among the souls in hell. 279 This is petitio principij. which he calleth the lower parts. The like scripture to this is in job. 38. 16, 17. 280 In this place, God openeth to job the imperfection of man's knowledge. How can you make that liable to your question, to prove that in the 21. of Eccl. the lowermost parts of the earth is hell. Hast thou entered into the bottom of the sea? or hast thou walked to seek out the depth; have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the gates of the shadow of death. 281 Some body must help you. These words are thus opened by Martin Borrhavius in his learned Commentaries upon job. 282 How helps that you. I have dwelled in the highest places, and my throne is in the pillar of the clouds: I have gone round about the compass of heaven above, and have wallted in the floods of the sea. I pierce through all the lower parts of the earth. Have those in hell or the dead been searched out of thee? & dost thou know their estate and condition, and what shall happen to their bodies hereafter? and what doth happen to their souls now? The force of death and of hell he maketh maniefest by the names of gates, as it is manifest in that scripture: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against thee. 283 How so: he speaketh not here of that place. By these words it is evident, that the nethermost parts of the earth, Syrac. 24, 37. and Zalmaveth the Hebrew word, job. 38, 17. do signify hell, and that none 284 Neither of these places signifieth the son of God. but the Son of God above, hath personaly showed himself in all these places. For the place in Ezechiel, that it maketh most significantly for my purpose, 285 Indeed Esay & Ezech were learned in a strange kind of knowledge. I will prove it by Esay, Ezech, and divers other, both learned & modest writers. Esay 14, 9 handling the same matter, saith 286 The word in Esay, is SHEOL. not hell. Hell beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming. 287 And in Ezech▪ also: & therefore this is a plain And Ezechiel in the 15. and 16. verses calleth it hell plainly. 288 Sith the word in both the prophets is Sheol: & it is confessed that Sheol doth signify the grave as well as hell, I wonder that you blush not to find this fault with me. Sith then both the prophets call it hell, how dare you to interpret the grave: that the nethermost parts of the earth do signify hell, 289 You promise proof by Ezech, and flee to Munster. I prove it out of the 12. ver. of Ezechiel. And the strangers have destroyed him even the terrible nations, and they have left him up on the montaines, and in all the valleys his branches are broken. 290 You promise it by Munster, and slay to your own gloze on him: & so you fl●e from bush to bush. Munster on this place saith, that by the branches are understood the carcases of his host, which the veasts of the field did devour. Lavaterus the Minister of Tigurin agreeth with him. 291 But he will not help you with ●ut a gloze. All the beasts of the field shall dwell upon his ruin: the king's carcase shall not be laid up into the sepulchre of his elders, but shall be a pray to crows, griphins, and other carnivorous birds. So doth Pelican a learned Linguist interpret this place, at the last, there is one aversion or Apostrophe, to Pharaoh himself, or to the Assyrian King. To whom art thou likened, O thou noble and high among the trees of pleasure, thou hast passed all other in power, and yet with other kings that were in thy company 292 It should seem to be (thou wast brought) by the words before & after, they were brought to the lowest parts of the earth, 293 I can not find Pelican, but if I could I believe I should find this parenthesis of your own making: and if it be his, if you take hell for the state of the dead, he hath not cut his cloak for your shoulders (that is) to hell, among the abominable heathen shalt thou sleep, and lie as a wretched and miserable man. Now because you take hold of the word sleep, 294 I must know before I can remember it: & you must prove it if you can you must remember that these words are spoken ironically, 295 There is noted a Sarcasmus, & not ironia as it is noted in the contents of Esay 14. The derision of the king of Babylon. Moreover, Lavaterus on this place of Ezech. saith: These things may be better understood out of the 14. of Es. which prophesying of the destruction of the king of Babylon Baltassar, describeth with what bitter scoffs he is entertained 296 He means amongst the dead, in hell. To end. Lavaterus on this place, proveth these four things: first, that there is one hell: secondly, that hell in this chapter is called by three names, that is, 1. SHEOL 2. ERETS TACHTITH, 3. BORACHIA. Hell, the lowest parts of the earth, 297 Here translating Lavater, you make him giu● Hell a name, which in the former sect▪ you scorned as not be seeming your own learned lips, and a pit: thirdly, that this Hell is beneath us: and lastly, that the tyrants and wicked of the world do descend into it, and this he proveth out of Numb. 16. 33. Psal. 55. 15. And addeth also, that Tertullian and Jerome do prove hell to be beneath in the earth. The conclusion than is thus, for as much then as the Assyrians died with the sword, and were devoured of the beasts and birds of the fiel●, 298 By a metonymia, is that so strange to you, I pray tell me, how that can be true that you affirm, that the lowest parts of the earth doth signify the grave: 299 A tautology. for how were they in the grave that were never buried? 300 another tautology, yet not proved, therefore, they were in hell, as both Esay and Ezechiel do affirm, and as Pelican, Munster, & Lavater, three notable learned men in the holy tongue do interpret it. 301 My friends I hope will be better advised I think your own friends when they read this, will confess you, either to be ignorant of the word of God, or else to wrest it contrary to the meaning of the holy ghost. Moreover, where you mislike with me because I said, that ERETS TACHTITH, that is, the lowermost parts of the earth, doth signify hell generally in the Hebrew tongue, and you bring an instance out of the 139. Psal. and 14. verse, where you prove, that the lower parts of the earth doth signify the mother's womb, & therefore it doth not signify hell always: this is a childish reason. In a metaphorical signification it signifieth the mother's womb: 302 You altar the question, therefore in his proper signification, it can not signify hell. 303 Some arguments a metaphora may be better than any you have made in all this book, Argumentum a metaphora ductum non valet, an argument drawn from a metaphor is of no force. And that here is a metaphor, M. Caluin shall be the judge. He compareth (saith Caluin) the mother's womb to the 304 Than not to hell, lowest and inward dens of the earth: and a little after, for no doubt David would express metaphoricaly, that inestimable cunning which appeareth in the figure of man's body. 305 This is patched in amongst Cal. words, to deceive the simple The mother's womb is compared to hell for the darkness of it: for as Caluin saith, that artificer which maketh a cunning piece of work in a dark place, is more to be commended than he which doth the like in the light. David also is here said to be made in the nethermost parts of the earth, 306, This wood if it were brought to the Logicians frame will warp, and will never come within the mould of mood & figure 336 because he was by nature the child of wrath and of hell, if he had not been delivered therehence by jesus Christ. Briefly, where you say, that he descended in to the Virgin's womb, and that it is the true meaning of the place Eph. 4. 9 both you and your M. Beza are deceived. For Paul reproveth you Ep, 4. 10. He that descended is even the same 307 A paralogism in the word the same that ascended. Now the body and soul of Christ ascended into heaven, therefore the 308 It followeth not see the answer. body and soul of Christ descended into the virgin's womb, if the body did descend into the virgin's womb, than Christ took not flesh of the virgin. 309 Untruth, Thus that you may contradict me, you are not afraid ignorantly or wittingly, to deny the incarnation of our Saviour: 310 A superbious allegation to prove a thing not denied: that is our old skill. Theophilact saith well of these words, when you read, that the Son of man came down from heaven, you may not think that his flesh came down from heaven, for this is the opinion of Heretics, which did teach that Christ brought his body from heaven, and did pass through the virgin, I hope you hold not this opinion, 311 They of whom I learned this interpretation, looked as well about them to miss such mires as ever you did or can. but if you hold this interpretation you must needs fall into it, For he that descended is even the same that ascended. Eph. 4. 10. Violence in this section done to the text, by the Doctor. First, that the whole 24. chap. of Eccles. speaketh of the Son of God, and of his wonderful works in saving mankind: of the which this was one, that he was not only alive amongst the living: but after death his body was amongst the dead bodies, and his soul amongst the souls in Hell, etc. That Esay in 14. 9 and Ezech. in the 15. verse of his 31. cap. calleth that Hell plainly, which Ezech. in the 18. verse of the same chapter, calleth the lowermost parts of the earth. That in the 31. 18. vers. of Ezech. Thou shalt be cast down in the lowermost parts of the earth, and sleep in the midst of the uncircumcised: the word (sleep) is taken ironicallie. That in Eph. 4. it is meant, that Christ descended in soul and body, as he ascended in soul and body. A new rule in Logic, that argumentum a Metaphora sumptum, non valet. HUME his rejoinder to the 9 sect. FIrst mark, that by a general axiom, whatsoever a man allegeth to prove a thing, either doubtful or unknown: the same must be better known, and enforce such a necessity of consequence, as cannot be denied. The thing that you have here in hand to prove, is, that (the lowermost parts of the earth) is as proper and peculiar a name for the place of the damned, as Hell is in English. To prove this, your testimonies should be without controlment. But are in deed so far short of that mark, that they are, (if not harder) altogether as hard and obscure, as the place, that they are alleged to illustrate. The first of them I have dispatched in the former section. The next is out of the 24. of Eccles. a book not Canonical, nor written in the tongue, whereon we stand. In which respect, I might have rejected it. But because one answer served it, and your third place out of 31. 18. of Ezech. I joined them together. The first was, I will pierce through the lowermost parts of the earth, and look on them that he a sleep. The second, Thou shalt be cast down into the lowermost parts of the earth, and sleep in the midst of the uncircumcised. To them thus I answered. There is sleep, that is rest and quietness, in the place called here the lowermoste parts of the earth: But there is no rest nor quietness in Hell, the place of the damned: Ergo, the place called here the lowermost parts of the earth, is not Hell, the place of the damned. For the first of your places, you say nothing to this argument. For the second, you say, that the word (sleep) is used Ironicallie, that is, in a scornful and mocking manner, and a contrary sense For proof, (for want of text) you take up the contents of the 14. of Esay: and Lavater, who saith, that Balthasar was received amongst the dead: (for so is the true sense) with bitter scoffs. First, consider that the figure in the 14. of Esay, is a sarcasmus, not an Ironia, consisting of bitter words used in their usual significations. secondly, that your authors are but men. thirdly, that they say nothing of the word (sleep) which Ezech. Gen. 47. 30. useth. lastly, that you have (sleep) many hundredth times, Math. 9 24. attributed in the Scriptures to the dead: Mark. 5. 39 but never to the state of the damned, neither in jest nor earnest. 1. King. 11. 43. Whereupon thus I reason. We must not wring words out of joint by an Ironia, 1. King. 2. 10. except some necessary inducement in the text, Luk. 8. 52. or absurdity in the letter lead us thereto. 1. King. 15. 8. But here is neither inducement in the text, 1. King. 14. 20. nor absurdity in the letter: 1. Cor. 7. 39 Ergo, here we must not wring this word out of joint in this text, 1. King. 21. 51. and take it from the usual significations, in other places of the Scripture. This argument is so strong, and prevailed so much with other writers, that you cannot find one to take your part in this mock. If you could, we should have his name, with the highest styles of antiquity, learning, and estimation, that any show could yield him. Whereas you can with no colour hide this blot, in the 24. of Eccles. there you run another course, persuading me, that if I had read that that goeth before, and cometh after, I would have been of another mind. And affirming, that the whole chapter speaketh of the Son of God, and his wonderful works in saving, etc. You are somewhat deceived of me. For I have read the whole chapter, and more than that, have considered the matter in it. The whole Chapter seemeth to me a Prosopopoia of the Wisdom, which God in his word, and the light of nature hath left unto man: praising herself in the congregation. That the author speaketh only of that Wisdom, (except you will make him leave his ground, and wander from his subject) it is plain, by the 11. and 12. verses: where she saith of herself, that he that made and created her, appointed her an habitation in Zion. Which cannot be understood of the aeternal Wisdom of God, which was neither made, nor created, but begotten. Whereas she saith in the sixth verse, that she causeth the light that faileth not to rise in the heavens, and covered the earth as a cloud. If you take light, for the knowledge of god the heavens for his church, and the earth for the reprobate, as they are in diverse places of the Scriptures, there is nothing in all this chapter, disagreeing with this subject. That she proceedeth from the mouth of the most highest: that she is the first● borne of all creatures: that she was created from the beginning, and made before the world: and that she shall never fail, may be well understood of the word of God, which came from his own mouth, and shall not perish one jot of it, though heaven and earth doth pass. As for the 8. verse, which you say would have changed my mind, that she alone hath gone about the compass of the heavens, and walked in the bottom of the depth: I should sooner take it for natural wisdom, proceeding also from God; which taking view of all his creatures from the highest heavens, to the lowest centre of the earth, doth after a sort walk about them, and under them: then for the aeternal wisdom of God, with whom diverse things in this chapter, will in no wise agree. Thus I see, that there is no thing in this chap. to persuade me, that the wisdom here spoken of, is the Son of God. But suppose there were, yet here is nothing to help your cause. You know that the general question between you and me, is not of the son of God: but of the son of man, that is, of Christ's humanity, whether it did descend into the local Hel. Of him, I will stand to it to your face, that there is not one syllable in all this chapter, neither of his body, nor of his soul, neither amongst the living, nor amongst the dead, in the grave, nor in Hell. Wherefore, (howsoever I have read this chap.) you have read it more than well, that have found matter in it, that no man (but you) ever saw in it. The particular question in this part of the section, is whether the lowermoste parts of the earth, in the 37. verse of this Chap. doth signify the Hell of the damned: to which this allegation, and the other out of job is so impertinent, that I wonder you could hope, that they would hold way. For, what maketh it to this question, that the wisdom of God doth compass the heavens, and walk in the bottom of the depth: that it entereth into the bottom of the sea, or hath seen the gates of death. You are near be-stead, that are driven so far for reasons. Thus much (though it be Apocryphal) for the place of Ecclesiastes. As for the other place of Ezechiell, before you came to the answer, which I have set down before for order's sake: you endeavoured to prove by Esay and Ezech▪ that it maketh for you, after your own manner, which is, rather to trouble your adversary with new reasons, then to answer them that are in hand. For your proof, you quote the 14. 9 of Esay, and the 15. and 16. verses of the same chapter of Ezechiell. Where you say, both the Prophets call the place, into the which these Kings are cast, most plainly, Hel. And wondering at me, that I dare interpret it grave, you note in your margin, Hume disagreeth with Esay. Ezech, Munster, Lavater, and Pelilcan. But here M. D. I pray you let me ask a question. In what language wrote those Prophets? Was the very word they used, hell? If not that, (as I think you will grant) but the hebrew word SHEOL, which doth signify the grave, rather than Hell, why may I not take the one signification, as well as you the other. Thus with your bold daring, you dare the simple, as men do larks. But here, now know, (if you know it not) that I have such reasons, not to take your signification of SHEOL here, as should carry you as well as me, if your wit were not married to your wil First, though the Assyrians and Babylonians, of whom the Prophets speak in these places, were heathens, and damnable miscreants: yet it was not their purpose to speak here of their aeternal damnation: but of the dishonourable destruction of their temporal kingdoms. secondly, that which Esay in the 9 vers. calleth Hell: he calleth four times the grave, and twice the pit, in the same chap. thirdly, in the same ver. which you quote, he saith, that hell raising up the dead, even all the Princes of the earth, did meet the king of Babel. But all the dead, even the Princes of the earth, were not in the Hell of the damned. fourthly, in the 11. ver. he calleth the place into the which the King of Babel was brought, the grave: with worms under, and over him. But that cannot be the place of the damned: Ergo, the place, of which he speaketh here, cannot be the place of the damned. fiftly, in the 15. and 16. verses he saith, When he was brought down to the grave, to the sides of the pit, they that saw him should say, is this he that made the earth to tremble? But men could not see and look into his falling into the place of the damned: Ergo, the place whereof he there speaketh, is not the place of the damned. Thus much for Esay. For Ezechiel. First, in the 14. verse, he joineth the lowermoste parts of the earth, with them that go down into the pit: and in the 16. verse, he joineth the going to hell, with the same. But to descend into the pit is to go down into the grave, not into hell: Ergo, both the lower-most parts of the earth, and SHEOL, here is taken for the grave. secondly, in the same 14. verse, the neither parts of the earth, is the pit and place of death, common to all the children of men: But the pit and place of death, common to all men, is not the place of the damned: Ergo, the low er-most parts of the earth, is not here the place of the damned. thirdly, in the 16. verse, The Lord did make the nations of the earth to shake, at the sound of his fall, when he did cast him down into Hell. But the nations of the earth, heard not, nor felt not his fall into the Hell of the damned: Ergo, this is not understood of the Hell of the damned. All these reasons had I, and they made me dare to translate SHEOL, (not the place of the damned) but grave. And therefore (M. Doctor) you may cease to wonder at me, if you will. And now I must wonder also at your manner of reasoning. That the lowermoste parts of the earth, doth signify Hell, (say you) I will prove it by the 12. verse of the same Chap. of Ezech. And the strangers have destroyed him, even the terrible nations, etc. Then, not finding your purpose there, you run to Munster, Lavater and Pelican, that the King of Asshur was the prey of carnivorous birds: and yet not finding to satisfy you, you wring out a consequence, that if he was devoured of beasts, than he was not buried: if he was not buried, than he was not in the grave: If he was not in the grave, than the lowermost parts of the earth wherein he was, must needs be Hell. Where I tell you, I must needs wonder, how you could leap so many ditches without a staff, to find Hell in this verse. For all the load you lay upon me here of ignorance, & misusing the text: I did not take one such leap in all my Letter. As for my instance out of the 139. psalm, that SHEOL, doth not always signify Hell, but may signify the mother's womb, you say it is childish reason, & prove it with a Catholic rule, that Argumentum ductum à Metaphora non valet. I know not what you mean by an argument, à metaphora. This is the first time that ever I hard metaphora suspected to be a topic place: yet I have heard good arguments in metaphorical words. Christ himself, the best logician that ever I knew, had wont to make many such. As for example. The servant that putteth not his Lord's talon to the vantage, shall be cast into utter darkness, where shallbe weeping & gnashing of teeth. But all ministers, that labour not faithfully in their charges are such: Ergo, all ministers that labour not faithfully in their charge, shall be cast into utter darkness, etc. I believe at the latter day, when arguments will be as well sifted, as ever they were in the school-streats at Oxen. this will be found a good argument, for all the metaphora that is in it. As for my argument, I see not how it is a metaphora. Though the signification of the word be metaphorical (as Caluin well noteth:) yet it serveth my turn to prove, that it is not always Hell. And now you put me in mind of it, I will pick another argument out of the same place, that perhaps will trouble you worse: That is, the natural signification of every word, whence the metaphorical is taken. But this signification of these words (the lowermost parts of the earth) is taken from the dens and caverns of the earth, as you note me out of Caluine. Ergo, the proper● signification of this word, is the dens and caverns of the earth and not Hell of the damned. Of this judgement is Mercerus, Cevalerus, and Cornelius Bertramus, in their additions to Pagnines Lexicon. You confute Beza and me, for applying these words to the place of the Ephes. thus, He that descended, is even the same that ascended: But he ascended in soul and body. Ergo, he descended in soul and body, which is not true of his descending into the virgin's womb. And here you charge us with ignorance, or wilful denying the Incarnation of Christ. Good M. D. use me as you will, but be good to Beza: he hath been well thought of as yet. I wonder, that seeing so much against him and me, you could not see the same against yourself. You hold that this is meant of his descending into the local Hell: against which, thus I use your own reason: He that descended, is even the same that ascended: But he ascended body & soul: Ergo, he descended into Hell body & soul: a thing that you have not yet granted. How you will answer for yourself, I leave it to yourself. I have answered sect. 5. for Beza and me: see there. We deny not the incarnation of Christ, you purge us yourself within five lines. Wherefore you might have let Theoph. alone, if you had no more skill to prove things not denied, than the things in question and controverted. HUME Sect. 10. But to let you alone with your Hebrew, these words of the Apostle, can no ways be taken for Hell, as you bear us in hand: But doth purport the same that john told us in other words. john. 16. 28. I came from my Father into the world, and again. I leave the world, and go to my Father. For, seeing the Apostle in this place bringeth his ascension, as an argument of his descending, which john also did before him: john 3. 13. No man can asscend up into heaven, but he that hath descended from heaven, the son of man which is in heaven. It must follow by necessary consequence, that he descended thither whence he ascended. Now I trust you will say, that he ascended into heaven, not from Hell, but from Bethanie in the sight of his Disciples. secondly, if the place where he descended, was heaven, Hell cannot be the place, whither he descended. For if ever he was there, he went not thither in 30. years, after his descension and above. If you will say, that he first descended into the earth, and then into Hell: then that descending could not be one motion, being so many years intermitted: but must needs be two; first from heaven into the earth, and then from the earth into Hell. HIL his Reply. WHere you say, The paralogisms in the D. reply. you will let me alone with my Hebrew words, & yet deny they signify hell, I hope 312 You might rather have despaired if the ignorance, or wilfulness against conscience which you speak of, had not nestled in your own hat. because I have proved, that they signify not the grave (as you have ignorantly or against your conscience affirmed) at your next answering; 313 You must hedge me in harder, before you make me take that mire you will say they signify hell, and confess your disagreement with David, Esay, and Ezechiel. Now you conclude with certain pregnant reasons as 314 And you might find if you know a good reason from an ill, when you meet it in the way. you imagine: 315 It is neither first, last, nor any reason at all, see the answer. your first is this: These words do purport unto us, that which john told us in other words, I came from my father into the world, and again, I leave the world and go to my Father. joh. 16. 18. 316 A fig is not more like a fig, than this place is jyke the place, we have in hand. This is nothing pertaning to the matter we have in hand 317 My argument? that fools bolt came never out of my quiver. unless this be your argument. Christ came into the world, ergo, he went not into Hell. Hereof I thus argue. 318 It is no wonder to see as ill shapen reasons as these, come off your blocks. Christ descended into the virgin's womb (as yourself say) ergo he came not into the world. Or thus. Christ descended into the world, ergo he descended not into the grave. Christ was borne of the virgin, & came into the world to reconcile us to his Father by his death, taking away our sins, and triumphing in his own person over death and hell. Therefore not only Christ came down into the world, but as our body for sin lieth in the grave, so his body went into the grave: and because our soul was mancipate unto hell, his soul went into hell, that by his descending our souls 320 How is this gear proved. might be freed from hell. In your next reason you say, that Christ descended thither, whence he ascended: now that is merely false, as appeareth 321 The figure of Iona● maketh nothing against me, see the answer. Math. 12. 40. For as jonas was in the whales belly 3 days and 3. nights, so shall the Son of man be 3. days and 3. nights in the heart of the earth. Now Christ ascended from the superficies of the earth, but he descended into the heart of the earth. Therefore as this is no good argument, Christ ascended from the mount, 322 I did never spit such arguments: they dropped from your own lips. ergo he ascended not from the grave, so this is also a weak argument. Christ ascended from the world, ergo he went not into hell: 323 A sharp srump: if you knew any ill by Hume, I see you would bark with open mouth, M. Hume lieth in his bed, and early ariseth, afterward many seeing him he rideth towards Bromham, ergo M. Hume came from Bath and not from his bed. Then you add this reason, if Christ descended into hell, than it was 30. years after his birth, and so it was not one motion: you charge me with clouds of sophistry, 324 It is a weak eye, that cannot see the sun through this mist: you are like him that could not see the wood for trees. but here is a thick mist of sophistications: what you mean by this motion, I know not 325 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but all the actions of our Saviour are aptly divided into humility and glory: of his humility there are 4. degrees. First he came into the virgin's womb, 326 By this distinction, he was not in the world, when he was in the Virgin● womb, nor when he was in the grave, nor when he was in hell. secondly into the world: thirdly to the grave: four, to hell. Of his glory and exaltation likewise there are four degrees. First he came out 327 That must be one, whosoever be the other. of hell and the grave: secondly he 328 A degree is an ascense from one step to another. His conversing on the earth was no ascense and therefore no degree at all. conversed in the earth: 329 This degree in the air was not a step of his glory, for he neither fastened his feet, nor made any abode there thirdly he was carried in the air in a cloud, and then entered the heavens with glory. Also where you say, that if hell were the place whither he descended, it must needs be the place from whence he ascended. 330 You say much, and prove little. This as I have said before is utterly false, if you mean 331 One ascension hath but one beginning calaed terminus a quo. the immediate place from whence he ascended, for it is known to all believers, that Christ did 332 That pertaineth to his burial, not the descending that Paul speaketh of in this place. descend into the grave, but he did not ascend immediately from the grave, 333 Not, but such eyes as yours. therefore your reason is against the Scripture. where you make a distinction between the resurrection and the ascension: you may understand if it please you, that Eph. 4. 9 The 334 Patitio principij. that is the place we stand upon. It maketh nothing for you, except we will grant you your will without reason. word (ascend) containeth in it all the degrees of Christ's exaltation, & therefore the resurrection also: as the word descend doth comprehend all the degrees of Christ's humility. HUME his Rejoinder. IT is as easy to hold an Eel by the tail, as you to the question. The place whereon we stand, is in the 4. 9 to the Ephes. But that he ascended, what is it, but that he first descended into the lowermoste parts of the earth. Which words, most of the learned, and many of your own favourites, takes to be, as if he had said, that the Son of God clothed in man's nature is ascended up to heaven, what is it, but that the same Son of God, first came down into the lower-most parts of the earth, and took on him man's nature: so that he which descended, is even the self same that is ascended to fulfil all things, and giveth now these gifts to men, to be some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelistes, etc. And so they take the lower-most parts of the earth not to be the centre of the earth, in respect of his highest and extreme superficies: but the whole earth in respect of the heavens. Or, if you like not that (which notwithstanding is most received amongst the learned) the base estate that he descended into, in respect of the high estate that he descended from. To overthrow this interpretation, you allege that the Hebrew words ERETSTACHTITH, is in that language the proper name of Hell. To prove it, you allege the places which I have confuted in the former 2. sections. After which labour, One motion hath but one beginning & one ending. Of contrary motions (if the mover be one) the beginning of the one, is the end of the other: and contrariwise the end of the one, is the beginning of the other. I gathered some reasons from the infallible rules of nature, to prove, that this place cannot carry your sense. My grounds were, unius motus unum est principium, unus finis. And contrariorum motuum, unius res moventis, principium unius est finis alterius, & contra. For example, East and West: South, and North: up and down, are contraries. If any thing run westward, and return eastward: the furthest point that it runneth towards the west, is the beginning of the motion towards the east: or, if a man come down a high hill, and return up again: The lowest step that he came down, is the first step of his going up. Whereupon thus I reasoned. The beginning of Christ's ascending, was the end of his descending. But his ascending was from this earth, whereon we converse, Ergo, the end of this descending was only to this earth, whereon we converse, and not into hell, as you gather out of this place. My mayor is proved by the second rule, because the mover is one, Christ, & the motions contrary, ascending and descending: The minor is proved Mark. 16. 19 Luke. 26. 51. Act. 1, 9 & by all the Symbols, or sums of our faith by the common consent of all Divines, and the usual speech of all Christians, that ever was, or is. To this you answer, that the mayor is utterly false, because Christ saith, Mat, 12. 40. At jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly: so the son of man must be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Indeed, if the rule of nature were contrary to this saying of Christ, I should sooner yield, that nature might err, than the Lord of nature lie. But Christ came neither to destroy the law given to his church, nor to the rest of his creatures, called the law of nature. Wherefore, this answer was not Doctorlike. If you had looked well about you, you might have seen, that his being three days, and three nights in the heart of the earth, pertaineth to his burial, and not to his descending, more than his rising again out of the heart of the earth, pertaineth to his ascension. For these are four distinct things. His descending from heaven into his human state: his burial, and laying up in the heart of the earth after his death: his resurrection, and returning again from the heart of the earth into the state he was separated from by death. his ascending from the earth up into heaven. I drew also another reason from the first principle, to prevent an answer, that his descending might have been first from heaven into his human state, and then out of his human state into hell. It was this: if Christ's descending from heaven did end in Hell, than it could not be one motion, being so many years intermitted. But it was but one motion: Ergo, it ended not in Hell. To this you answer, that I, who charge you with clouds of Sophistry, do raise such mists of Sophistications, that you cannot see in them, what I mean by this one motion. But there is not the cause. That the Owl cannot see in the light, the fault is not in the light, but in the eye of the owl. There is not a gnerall in Oxenford, that had spent a month in reading Aristotle's 5. and 6. books de natura, that would not have known this argument. One descending, is but one motion. Paul speaketh here but of one descension: Ergo, but of one motion. Your degrees of humiliation, are here impertinent. How properly they are distinguished, I refer it to the margin. You tell me in the beginning, that my first reason was from the place of john, I came from my Father into the world, etc. Now silly man, I pity your simplicity. That is no reason at all. But seeing I was to apply natural reason to this text: I brought that place to prove, that I made no private sens of these words, Which course, if you would follow, your wrangling would soon wear to an end. But you say, that that place doth little or nothing pertain to this place, that here we have in hand. A fig is not liker a fig than that is like this. That he descended, and that he came from the Father: that he ascended, and that he went to his Father are so like, that though you put on your spectacles, you will not find a hair between them. The argument that you frame here for me, and the two absurd similes framed on the same block, let them be buried in the brain, that bred them. That is the fittest coffin, I know, for such rotten stuff. Wherefore, to conclude this disputation about these words, seeing neither your examples in the former section, will fit your hand, nor this place tolerate your absurd sense: I must put you in mind, of Chippenhames pulpit. There be many godly souls, that would be glad to see you so honest, as to perform the word, that you passed there before them. HUME his 11. Sect. YOur next argument is taken from the words of our Saviour to Marie Magdalene, forbidding her to touch him, because he had not yet been with his Father. Whereupon you gather, seeing the whole man is said to be where the soul is, that Christ's soul had not been in heaven, because he himself had not been there. It is a wonder, if a man of your learning seethe not so manifest a fallacy. For, though by a figure a man may well say, that the whole is, where there is but a part: yet it followeth not where the whole is not, that there is no part. An argument you know, a tot● divise ad negationem omnium partium, was never current amongst the learned. For example. The whole race of mankind is not in England: Ergo, there is no men there: O● Edmond Campion hangeth not over Newgate: Ergo, no part of him hangeth there. Like to this is your reason. The whole man Christ was not in heaven, Ergo, his soul was not there. That these words of Christ were meant of the whole, it is apparent by the text. For, that which had not yet been with his Father, was the same that Marie was forbid to touch. That I believe you will not say, was his soul, which is not subject to feeling, but the whole man consisting of soul & body. Wherefore it was the whole man that Christ told Marie was not with his Father. HIL his Reply. MY next place was not this, The paralogis●nes of this sect but a text out of Syrac. 17. 21. At the last shall he arise and reward them, and shall repay their reward upon their heads, and shall turn them into the lower parts of the earth. 335 That note is against yourself, read and see. If the margin is noted Math. 25. 35. 336 That note showeth this place to be spoken of them that giveth bread to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, etc. So that this place showeth that after judgement, 337 The verse you refer us to in Math. speaketh of the merciful, not of the wicked. the wicked shall be turned into the lower parts of the earth, that is hell. 338 You are much deceived. This place, because you nor your 339 What synod is that: I was never of any synod, nor worthy to rule a synod. Synod can answer, you have passed it over and said nothing to it, but are now come to your scholepoints, the which when I use 340 Untruth see the answer. you call sophistry: and so it were indeed if I did use them▪ 341 Words. as you do. You say an argument drawn negatively from the whole to the parts doth not hold. True it is if by (parts) you mean integral parts, 342 It is true of all parts that can consist after separation but not essential parts. My instance was thus, Math. 8, 11. Many shall come from the East and the West, and shall rest with Abraham, Isaac, & jacob in the kingdom of heaven. Out of this place I prove that where the soul of man is after death, 343 But if you will prove the thing you undertake to prove; you must prove, that where the soul is not, the man is not. there is the man said to be, as we usually say that these patriarchs and all the saints are in heaven, though their bodies be in the earth and are dust and ashes. If then the soul of Christ were in heaven until his resurrection, 344 That follows not. then could not these words of Christ be true, john. 20. 17. Touch me not, for 345 Heer M. D. will correct magnificat It is in the English Bibles, I am not yet ascended, and that he thinks not to be of the preterperfect tense, and therefore he mends it, I have not, etc. This had been well found of a boy in his accidents: but a D. should have known that amatus sum is the preter-perfect time as well as amatus fui. I have not yet ascended unto my father, for it is the preter-perfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Therefore as this is untrue, to say that Abraham is not in heaven, 346 I know no man saith so. because his body was not in heaven: so this is false to say, 347 Nor that, and (therefore) these two are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Christ was not in heaven, because his body was not in heaven. 348 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Our body is governed by the soul, and man taketh his appellation of a reasonable creature not of the body but of the soul: 349 You had need of a cable to bind this therefore to the premises. and therefore if Christ's soul went up to heaven as you say, this cannot be true (I have not yet ascended to my father) Besides if Christ's soul went first to heaven, and afterward his soul and body together, 350 It will not follow, see the answer. then were there 2. ascensions: prove this, and I will give you the goal. 351 I brought examples of my own general maxims: I dallied not with your argument. You dally also with my argument in this manner, The whole race of mankind is not in England: ergo, there is no men in England. 352 I never thought, it see the answer. Do you think there is no more union betwixt Christ and his soul, then between all the men of the world? 353 It will never follow by this reason, then by this reason the body and the soul of Christ were never united together. Your next resemblance is this. Edmund Campions whole body is not over Newgate, Ergo, no part of him. 354 That is a foul name. Hear is a foul error to think Christ's soul to be 355 As good Logicians as D. Hill, Ramus and all his followers think the soul to be an integral part. Parts integrisunt parts integrals, anima & corpus sunt partes integri scili cet hominis: Er go anima & corpus sunt par ●es integrales hominis. an integral 356 I know nor what you mean by a divisible part. If a part, that may consist being divided from the whole, I hope you will confess the soul to be such. or divisible part, which is one essential or 357 This is a new term of art. indivisible: for by your reason, 358 Not so, see the answer. Christ's soul is mortal, & may perish, as the integral parts of Campion doth. 359 No error at all, see the answer. You utter also an other error in these words (the whole man Christ) 360 The man alone, you would say. for the whole man doth not make Christ, but God, and man as you may see in Athanasius Creed: 361 This proof needed not. As the reasonable soul, and flesh is one man, So god and man is one Christ. I will end therefore, with this saying of Irynaeus who lived under Marcus Antonius in the year of our Lord god 125, which 362 If you could follow the question, all the proofs in this section should bend to make your assertion good, that this saying of Christ to Marie, joh. 20. doth prove that his soul had not been in heaven, when he was risen again. thus proveth the descending of Christ into hell. For the writing against Heretics, that said, hell, was in this world (as many do now a days) thus reproveth them in his fift book and last chapter, 363 Parergon. As jonas tarried in the whales belly three days and three nights, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth. And the Apostle saith, what is it that he ascended, but that he first descended into the lowest parts of the earth; and David prophesying of this, said: Thou hast delivered my soul from the nethermost hell: and rising again the third day, he said to Mary, which he saw first, and worshipped him: Touch me not, for I have not yet asscended to my Father, but go to my Disciples and tell them, I will go to my Father and to your Father. If then the Lord keep the law 364 By this it appeareth that Irenaeus speakerh not of the hell of the damned, but of the state of the dead. of the dead, that he might be the first begotten of the dead, how are they ashamed that say, hell is in this world. Thus you see it is no strange thing to see this scripture alleged to prove that Christ's soul was not in heaven, until his visible and glorious ascension. Irenaeus a man of more learning and judgement than I am of, alleged it to the same end above 1300. years ago, and then it was accounted a currant argument among the learned. HUME his rejoinder to the 11. sect Here before you will buckle with this section, you thrust forward your invincible Goliath, (as you suppose) and will have him make an end of this battle. You say, that neither I, nor any of my friends dare meet him. You thought so, because amongst all his fellows, I missed him only. But you are deceived of his valour. He hide himself amongst the slain heaps of his fellows. If I had seen his crest, I had seven stones in a scrip, the least whereof was big inhigh, to beat his brain through his helmet. The place is in the 17. of Eccles. I need not repeat the words. First, I could have told you, that the book is not Canonical. secondly, that it was not written in the tongue, on the property whereof you build your argument. Thirdly, that these words (the lowermost parts of the earth) be not in the original, wherein this book was first written: and therefore have gotten Tom Drums entertainment by the Geneva translators, lunius, Vatablus and diverse others. fourthly, that though it had pleased jesus the son of Syrach, to call Hell by that name: it will not follow, that all other men did use the word so. Fiftly, that you could find those words in that sense in some place of the Canonical Scriptures (which indeed you cannot) it will not follow, that wheresoever we meet with them, they must have the same signification: except the necessary circumstances do approve, or enforce it. sixtly, that seeing that place is spoken of the merciful, & them whose good deeds the Lord doth keep, as the apple of his eye: it were a bad reward for men, whose good deeds are so precious in the lords eyes, to be casten into the dungeon of Hell. Seventhlie and lastly, that seeing the common translator, who foisteth in those words doth make it the reward of every man, to be cast into the lowermost parts of the earth: it will pass your skill to prove, that every man shall be cast into hell. The note in the margin of the 25. 35. of Math. helpeth not you: but proveth the contrary, that this place pertaineth to them, that give meat to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, and clothes to the naked etc. Thus you may see, that this champion, is not so strong as you take him, and that the note in the margin, whosoever made it, helpeth you like ale in your shoes. You tell me, that now I am come to my school-points, which in you I called Sophistry. The true maxims and rules of art, sucked out of the marrows of nature, I never called Sophistry in you nor no man else. Your shrimpish reasons, set out in the painted coats of blazed words, and confidently commended to the beholders, without all bounds of modesty: I have called them, what I have called them, and not so ill, as they deserve. My rule which you say were sophistry, if you used it, as I do, you confess it to be true in integral parts. Now say I, the soul and the body be integral parts of a man: Here I follow Ramus. Ergo, by your own confession, my rule is true of the soul and the body. But if you had taken my maxim right, you should have found it hold in all parts whatsoever. For I meant that a particular negative of the whole, is not good to bring in a negative of any particular part. All Campion hangeth, not over Newgate, importeth that some part of him, hangeth there. And all men be not in England, importeth that there be some men there: which be particular negatives, expressed in general terms, as non omris and nonnullns be in Latin. Thus much for the answer, that you deal with. You left another answer which I will here set against your argument in his best livery. If the man is said to be (say you) where the soul is, then where the man is not, the soul is not: But the man is said to be, where the soul is: Ergo, where the man is not, the soul is not. First, (say I) the mayor is not true. For though the man may be said to be where the soul is, by a Synecdoche: yet it will not follow, that where the man is not, the soul is not. Because this speech is simple, and that is figurative. In a good argument, the words must carry one face, not here one, and there another. To examplifie this with your own examples out of Math 8. Many shall rest with Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. Abraham, Isaac, and jacob are said to be in heaven by a figure, because their souls are there. But if you will take the words simply, and conclude; because Abraham (that is the whole man) is not in heaven: therefore his soul is not there: every carter will find the absurdity of your fallacy. This for my first reply. Now I add that you flee from the words of the text. For Christ said not to Marry, I have not been with my Father, but I am not yet ascended to my Father: which words will admit no form to carry your conclusion, turn them, and wind them as you list. For the Scripture denieth in plain words, that the name of ascension can be given to the soul. I hope you will grant that David's soul is in heaven: and yet of him it is said, Act. 2. 34. David is not ascended. This wipeth also away, your other objection of two ascensions. For, that name was never yet given to a man, in respect of the soul. And therefore, I will have the goal, though you stand in it. You wring out of my examples of the whole race of mankind, & Campions' body, two absurdities. The one, that I hold no greater union between Christ's soul, and his body, than all the men in the world. The other, that I hold the soul of Christ, to be mortal: because I compare it to an integral part of Campions' body. Why M. Doctor, have you (now you are Doctored) forgot the old speech of the Schools, when you were a general? Quae comparantur in uno, non comparantur in omnibus? Things compared in one thing, are not like in all things. You may be like your Father, and yet perhaps your Father could not wrangle in this matter, like yourself. And the Cuckoo singeth only in the spring, like the Nightingale, though in melody and variety of notes, there be no likelie-hood at all. An argument taken indefinitely from the manhood of Christ to his soul and his body, parts thereof: is no better than from the race of mankind, to every particular man, or from the body of the traitor Campion, to the parts thereof. And yet if you regard the union of the soul & body, or the immortality of the soul: there is no more comparison, then between your spirit and your Fathers, if it was righter, or the Cuckoo's song and the Nightingales being far sweeter. lastly, you tell me, that I utter a great error in these words: the whole man Christ. Indeed, if I had said man the whole Christ, I had perchance opened my head to this venew. But now I am faster locked, then that you can fasten any blows upon me, with the best weapons in your armory. For seeing the word of truth, doth call Christ a man so many times: I am persuaded, it will not prove so foul an error to call the whole man Christ, except you can prove that some part of him was Christ, and not the whole. The testimony of Athanasius to confute this error, toucheth not me. The conclusion out of Irenaeus (though it might have a favourable construction) I leave it amongst the judgements of men, which you have promised not to trust, sect. 3. HUME Sect. 12. Now let us come to the great bulwark of your defence, which you made choice of to raze the whole work upon, I mean to be the text of your sermon. It is written in the first of Pet, 3. That Christ was put to death in the flesh, and was quickened in the spirit, By the which spirit, he went and preached to the spirits that are in prison, and were disobedients in the days of Noah, etc. Hear Beza whom we follow (because he cometh nearest to the true sense of the Apostle) by this word Spirit, doth give us to understand the Deity of Christ following john who called God a Spirit: and by this word (flesh) his manhood: containing both his body and soul, as he findeth it used of Paul: God was made manifest in the flesh. Which Antithesis of the divine and human nature, Paul doth also express in the same words, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh: and declared mightily to be the son of God, according to the Spirit. Where you see, that he useth the words no otherwise then he findeth them used in the Scriptures. Now, that this cannot be the sense of them you reason thus First, say you this Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth signify some motion from some place, & can by no means agree with the divine essence, which being at one time in all places, cannot at any time leave any place To this I answer: that it is spoken of the same spirit in the 18. of Gen. I will go down and see, whether the Sodomites have done according to the cry that is come unto me. And in Exod. 3. I am come to deliver them out of the hands of the Egyptians. You can not be ignorant M. Hill: that the spirit of God speaketh so many times of the Deity by a figure, called Anthropopatheia, when God doth declare his presence in one place more than in another, by some notable effect. Which in this place was most necessary, to note unto us the continual presence of Christ in his church, departing (as it were) from all other places (which indeed he cannot) and sitting in it, as it were a continual ruler and moderator thereof. Next, you allege the other participle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (that is, quickened) that because it is a passive, it can not stand with the Deity, which cannot suffer at al. This we deny not. For we attribute not this participle to the Deity, but to the whole Christ, God and man. Neither doth the text say, that the spirit was quickened, but that Christ was quickened in the Spirit. thirdly, you tell me that mortified and quickened are contraries, & both attributed to Christ at once, to note unto us, that he was both dead and alive at one instant. Hear we confess, that they be attributed to one Christ: but why they should be referred to one time, we see no reason to induce us to think it. To this end you add, that the Apostle doth show us how he was dead, and how he was alive, by adding dead flesh, and quickened spirit. The very text (as I take it) will deny you this: for it hath not, that the spirit was quickened, and the flesh killed: but that Christ was killed in the flesh, and quickened in the spirit: which is all one, as if he had said, that the suffered death as he was man, and overcame death as he was God. And this Paul doth speak in other words, that he was crucified in his infirmities: yet liveth he through the power of God. fourthly, you say that the Scripture doth join this his going and preaching, close to his passion: As if it had said: As soon as he had suffered, he went and preached. This (as if) includeth no necessary matter. We expect demonstration, and will not be carried with (as) and (if) fiftly, you argue out of the 6. of Genesis, that the preaching of Noah, is attributed to the third person of the Deity, and not to the second. The words be these, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, because he is but flesh. Which words few (or rather) no interpreters, that ever I saw, expound as you do of the third person of the Deity. Tremelius and junins, whose great panies, learning, and judgement, all sincere hearts do reverence, expound them thus. I will not long dispute with myself (saith the Lord) what to do with these men: for my sentence shall stand, that except they speedily repent, I will destroy them. Neither maketh it much against us, though it were as you would have it. For, seeing the actions of the Deity are common to all the three persons, he erreth not that giveth them to any of the three. So doth the scriptures in many places attribute the resurrection of Christ, sometimes to the Father, sometimes to the son, and sometimes to the Spirit of sanctification. And Christ himself telleth us, that whatsoever the Father doth, the same he doth also. After this you object that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, disobedient, & sometime, doth separate the time of their disobedience, and his preaching. But here I must put you in mind, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, went disobedient & preached, be all of one tense in the Greek, and must needs be referred to one time, so that he went, and preached to them even then, when they were disobedient. And this the word (disobedient) doth confirm. For, to whom I pray you, were they disobedient? but to the spirit that preached to them. As for the adverbe (sometime) it is not set here to separate words of one time: but to distinguish the time of their inprisonment, which was present, from the days of their rebellion, which was passed in the days of Noah, when the long patience of the Lord, expected their amendment. Whereas you argue, that this cannot be spoken of Noah his preaching, because he preached to men, and not to Spirits: I am persuaded that no man can preach to men, and not to their Spirits: because he that teacheth a man, instructeth his Spirit, which is his reasonable soul. And yet here you may mark (if it please you) that there be two things here spoken of, preaching & prison: the on pertaining to these spirits when they were men with spirits: the other now, that they are only spirits: and that therefore the Apostle did discreetly choose the name spirit, which is common to both these times. lastly, you charge this construction with violence: for that we take the word (spirit) in one place, for the Deity of Christ, and straight way again, for the spirits of men in prison. I hope you will not deny, but that the word is usual in both significations, & that it is no wrong, to give words their own significations, when the drifts and circumstances of the place doth require them. Hitherto, I have dealt with your objections against Beza. Now I will prove with unfallible reasons, that your sense, cannot stand with this text. You take the word (flesh) only for the body of Christ, which died and was buried: and the word (spirit) for his human soul, which you bear us in hand, did descend into hell, and did preach there to the souls that had been disobedient, and rebellious in the days of Noab. If this your conceit shall go for current: that which the Apostle speaketh here of Christ, may be verified as well of any other man. For when we die, our souls die no more than his did. But let us look a little nearer the matter. The spirit here, (as it appeareth by the text) doth signify that which gave life to that that was dead. That (I trust) was not his human soul, but his divine and heavenly spirit. thirdly, in this Participle (mortified) is comprised death, which given to Christ, is never taken in all the Scriptures, for the temporal death of his body only: but whatsoever Christ suffered, either in soul or body, for the redemption of our souls and our bodies, & doth comprise his whole passion. Which, (if it be true) then the word (flesh) must be the whole subject of all this passion: that is, both his soul and body, or the whole man Christ. For he suffered as well in soul for our souls, as in body for our bodies, or else he had been but half a Redeemer. fourthly, seeing his body was quickened, that is, restored from the grave, as well as his soul from hell: If you take (spirit) here for his human soul: then shall you confound those things, that the Apostle doth distinguish attributing that to the soul alone, which is common both to the soul and the body. fiftly, seeing (quikned) is to receive life, either which it never had, or else had lost: the soul cannot be said to be quickened because, it never lost life, after that it once lived with the body. Hear you tell us, that quickened is to be delivered from miseries and sorrows. How the English word may be taken, I leave it to the discretion of the discreet and indifferent reader: But sure I am, it will prove a hard thing to find that signification, either in the Latin word vivificari, or the greek word Zoopoteisthas, which be so mixed with life, that if they signify delivery from miseries, than life itself must signify miseries and sorrows, which, (though they follow on it) are never signified by it. If this devise may stand, you will overthrow the Antithesis between dead and quickened. For, if quickened doth not signify a restitution to life, what contrariety hath it with mortified or dead, which signifieth the extinguishing of life. sixtly, (spirit) doth here signify that, which was free from death, and the violence of his enemies: This (I hope) you will not say, was his human soul, wherein he suffered the death of the soul: that is, the torments of Hell, as well as in body, the death of the body. Sevinthlie, the soul of Christ could not preach, being destitute of a tongue, mouth, and other organs of necessity required in that action. eightly, to what end should Christ preach to those damned souls, who were past the fruit of his preaching? that which you say, that he went to reprove them, is not likely. For men are reproved, either for amendment, or to take away excuses, which to these was needless, being past all remedy, and excuse. Ninthlie, this preaching was then, when their disobedience was reform-able, which was in the days of Noah, and never since. Add to these (if it please you,) that most infallible reason of Bezaes', taken from the drift and scope of the text: to whose notes I refer you, being not able to handle it so well, as he hath done it himself. HIL his Reply. Here you play the Captain, and will beat down bulwarks, and therefore you should have these 4. properties in you: virtue, knowledge, authority and felicity, for the first two they are in you (God 365 Such a word out of your mouth, might have lifted up my heart: if you had not said section the 7. that I wanted either science or conscience or both: Howsoever your words agree I hope I was the same, when you wrote that & when you wrote this. grant you use them to his glory) but what authority you have to interpret the word I know 366 Then I will tell you. the same, that all Christians have to know God, & defend his truth not, The paralogisms in the D. reply. therefore in this case (I 367 If my commission be warrantable this hope may hop. hope) you shall have no felicity. Where you say, that this word (spirit) doth signify the deity: and this word (flesh) the humanity of Christ, and that there is an antithesis between the divine & human nature. I confess the (spirit) some time doth signify the Godhead, and (flesh) the humanity of Christ. But they do not so signify in this place: 368 Hear you promise to prove. as I prove by the circumstances of the text and the words themselves. 369 And here you fall to confute: so soon you have forgot yourself. For where you say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; killed or put to death, 370 You altar the conclusion: I said that the Scriptures never giveth death to Christ, but for his whole passion: which thing you should confute, if you could answer me. doth signify the whole passion of Christ, 371 Still you change the question: though quickened went necessarily before his resurrection, I never said, that it signifieth it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the resurrection of 372 I brought reason for the things I said: and you answer all, with that cannot be. Christ, that can note be: 373 See the answer in the rejoinder. for of the passion of Christ is mention made before in the same 18. verse, Christ suffered for us, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. Now after his sufferings ended, 374 If you can prove that Peter said so, I will prove that he was like an Irish man, that coming out of a battle, boasted that he had killed five men in the feet, that wanted the heads before he came at them. as Peter saith, he was both killed and made alive. 375 What than Now of his resurrection is mention made in the 21. verse, as of his ascension in the 22. verse. Therefore, seeing the sufferings of Christ are mentioned before: and his resurrection is namely set down after: 376 Is there no thing else to apply these things to? or is no repetition tolerable? whereof can these words he understood, but of the separation of the body and the soul, and of the state of them during their separation, 377 How doth this (for) prove any of these things that you have said. for an antithesis as you know is of contrary, 378 Between these two * marks there is a most disordered hyperbalon, of many words, & not two lines together directed to one purpose. or divers things, as in this place you see, in (killed and quickened.) now how both these were true at on time, 379 Peter showeth not. S. Peter doth show, for at the 380 This is foisted in the text. same time, he was dead as concerning his body, he was alive in spirit, that is in soul: 381 That pro●veth not that spirit is the soul here. for the soul separate from the body, is aptly called a spirit. Eccle. 12. 7. And dust return to earth as it was, and the spirit return to God that gave it. So is it taken, Heb. 12. 23. Act. 7. 49. and 382 You beg the question. so doth this word signify in this place: 383 He suffered the death of both. You leave the word of the text (mortified) and choses a word, that taketh away the double death which he suffered this is pelting with the text. for Christ was not killed both in body and soul, but only in body and in flesh: 384 True, but who saith so. for if the soul of Christ had been killed, then had it been mortal. Therefore Athanasius, Epiphanius, and all the Fathers, which did confute the Heretics called Damoerite and Appolinaris, which denied Christ to have a soul, do confute them by this place, proving that his spirit was among the spirits, that his soul separate from his body, 385 And were all the souls separated from their bodies in the hell of the damned: that he could not be amongst such souls but in hell. was among the souls separate from their bodies. This interpretation, you, 386 Truly, I see it not. see is gathered out of God's word, & is made more manifest by 387 I see not that, neither. the words following: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we translate. In which spirit he went and preached to the 388 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implyerh the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & cannot stand without it. Wherefore if you had cast an eye that way, you would have translated it, that now are in prison. spirits in prison, 389 You dream, we translat it not (by the which) First you translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the which. But in the 1. pet. 16 you do not so translate it, nor in the 2. Chap. and 12. ver. the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Eph. 1. 13. 2. 22. 5. 18. 390 And you did, you would lose your labour. and so could I cite at the least, an hundredth texts in the new Testament, where if you translat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the which, or by whom, you shall overthrow the meaning of the holy ghost. The next word construing, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 w●ich as I have said before 391 You said th●t no verb of motion could be given to the Deity, fol. 11 pag. 2. That I hope you are gone from. Now you have no reason, why this word cannot pertain to the Deity, but because it cannot pertain to the Deity, which is as if a man would faith, D. H. could not get a Bishopric, because D. H. could not get a Bishopric. so I avouch still, is spoken no● of the deity never in all the Scriptures, 392 That is not of necessity neither. and therefore must needs be spoken of the soul of Christ. To con●ute this, you allege Gen. 18. 21. Exod. 3. 8. First, I must tell you these books were written 393 Are they the fit for that, to speak improperly of God. in the Hebrew tongue and not in the Ere●ke, I craved an instant out of the 394 Why man, is the old testament Apocrypha with you: you are a nice man. new Testament. Secondly, in those places that you have named the interpreters do translate jarad by the greek word 395 Katabaino and erchoma● be verbs of mo●ion, as well as porevomai. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 396 Eltho I never red nor you neither in the present tense. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this I prove, john, 16. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 397 How can this place prove that? john translateth not JARAD here. For if I shall not departed the comforter will not come unto you, but if I shall departed, I will send him unto you. Hear you see when he speaketh of the descending of the deity, he useth the word 368 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 398. Eleutho is out of use. You shame yourself. but when he speaketh of the humanity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 399 This place proveth your translating of JARAD, as the other doth. And here you may mark that erches●ai is spoken of the manhoodas well as porevesthai. and so by your reason, erchesthai cannot pertain to the Deity, more than porevesthai. And in the same chapter verse the 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I came out from the Father and came into the world: again, I leave the world▪ and go to my father. 400 Propriety of speech: alas silly man, see the answer And this propriety of speech which the holy ghost useth, aught to be observed. I confess the scriptures useth the figure Anthropopatheia 401 A vain dream. but when God is said to come down, there is used the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or some one of the forenamed, and when mention is made of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is always spoken of the humanity 402 Doth any of these places affirm your assertion? as it is to be seen Luk. 4. 30. 9 51. 52. 56. 57 Luk. 13. 22. joh. 8. 1. And in this place of Peter, the last verse, is used the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He went up into heaven. 403 I have quoted 8. and could h●ue quoted 20. see the answer. But with what face can you challenge a place of me, that is so used, when you can bring neither reason nor place to the contrary. Therefore, if you can quote but one text in the new Testament, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is figuratively applied to the deity, your interpretation may 404 will it but seem tolerable, when I have done? then it is better already, for now it is a known truth. seem tolerable: but if yond can not (as I know 405 Your knowledge was but ages, and I have beguiled you. it is impossible) then can you never prove your interpretation to 406 I have proved it both agreeable and necessary which I needed not. I stand at defence. It was your part to prove, which you cannot do, if you had 7. wits as good as your own. be agreaeble to faith, because it is not agreeable to the word. Out of the next word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this I note: he that was killed 407 Beware sheep, that is against the text: that wherein he was mortified preached not. and quickened, did preach: but Christ was killed and quickened, ergo, Christ, & 408 Christ, and not this Deity? If I had said so, you would have exclaimed upon ignorance. not the deity preached. He preached not vocally, for he was 409 I hope the soul wherein you say he preached, was not killed. killed, ergo, he preached 410 I never heard a real sermon, without words. really in soul: for here is noted. First, who preached? Christ, To whom? to the spirits. Where? 411 That is out of the text. in hell. When? 412 So is that also petitio principij twice together. after his death, and before his resurrection. 413 You beg the question again. This is the order of Peter, and of our Creed, which cannot be by man overthrown. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is spirits also, is not as you take it, 414 Where, when, and to whom said I so. for you say it signifieth the men in Noah's time, but you can not bring one scripture to prove it. 415 It follows not. Therefore, I say as I said before, it signifieth souls separated from the body. That my exposition is true, I have proved by three Scriptures. Ecles'- 12. 7. 416 These scriptures proves it not. Heb. 12. 23, Act. 7, 59 Now, as mine is true, so will 417 You dream, that is not mine. I prove yours to be false & impossible by Christ's own words. Luke. 24, 59 where our Saviour, to prove himself to be no ghost, but to have a true body after his resurrection, thus reasoneth: Behold my hands & my feet, that I am the same handle me, for a spirit hath no flesh and bones as ye see me have. This was Christ's argument, I have a body, therefore I am not a spirit, 418 You fight with your own shadow. and so I reason against you and your teachers. The men in Noah's time 419 That ●ollowes not A man may say as well D. Hill is a wrangling spirit, as he calleth his adversaries fantastical spirits fol. 24. of his sermon and yet both he and they have bodies. had bodies, ergo, they could not be called spirits, 420 you should have left this to the boys in Oxford: it is here a deformed patch Every boy can tell you in Oxford, that substantia is divided into corpus and spiritum, and that one of these opposite species can not be affirmed of another. And therefore, to be short, when you can prove out of 421 You do well to hold you in that corner, but I hope you will refuse not the Canonical scripture, for all this. the new Testament, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, journeying, is spoken figuratively of the deity, or Pneuma that is spirit, signifieth a man that hath a body. 422 Then I see it bootless to hope for your promise. I will give you the goal, but if you will run on this course, until you have proved 423 A narrow shift. these 2. points (which you must do, if you will have me to recant) then take heed lest you run yourself out of breath. Lastly, the word Phylake, that is, prison, doth signify hell, as it is to be seen 424 The thing is true: your proof is nought like all the rest. Apoc. 20. 7. When a thousand years shall be fulfilled, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison. Thus thou seest (good reader) how 425 Handsomely: in good sadness D. you cannot tell how to settle yourself to prove any thing. I have proved my interpretation out of the word of God for every word, which 426 Blush for shame, see the answer our adversaries can not do for their interpretation: therefore, thou mayst 427 Upon your unsure guess? he were mad then. safely assure thyself, ours to be good and theirs to be false. And that this word prison doth signify hell, you may see Epiphanius, Athanasius, Fulgentins centuria 1. lib. 2. cap. 14. Peter Martyr on the Crede Nowell in his Catechism, Beacon in the sick man's salve, Crowlev in his answer to the reasons of Pound the Papist: All these 428 First you say that they take prison f●r hell: & you conclude, that they all allege this place as you do: your pen runs at random old and new writers, have alleged this Scripture as I have done, with good 429 Their conscience I hope, was bett●r than their warrant warrant and conscience. Now that I have proved this my own interpretation, I will (by God's grace) prove your answer 430 You have promised that once already. to be frivolous. First you 431 It was never denied: what needs a confession in a known case confess, that killed and quickened are Participles of one tense, and yet you say, they are not referred to Christ at one time, this is meerlye false, as I thus prove: Christ was after his passion dead & alive, or never; if he were never dead and alive at one time, then 432 Now for your credits sake, tell me where Pet. saith that he was dead & alive at one time. Peter saith not truly, if he were dead and alive at on time than you speak falsely. Now you 433 For shame M. D. speak truth. yourself confessed that he was dead and alive at on time a little before, and proved it out of the 2. Cor. 13. 4. He was crucified concerning his infirmity, yet liveth he by the power of God. 434 A tautology. Hear by your own words, Christ was alive when he was 435 But not when he was dead. crucified: so may 436 You will say that with Peter, which Peter never said. I say with Pet. he was alive when he was dead, & at one time, Then you say, the (flesh) signifieth the manhood, and (spirit) the deity: this also is untrue, for the body may be 437 This word expresseth not the Greek thana totheiss. killed, but the 438 And yet the whole man may be mortified. soul can not. Again, show me any Scripture where 439 See the answer. on and the same word in on sentence and period, is taken for divers things: for in this sentence, In which spirit, he went and preached to the spirits that are in prison, Here the word (spirit) in the beginning of the sentence signifieth the deity, in the latter end, the same word signifieth the 440 Not so, but the spirits that now are in prison, men that lived in Noah's time by your interpretation: but by my interpretation, it signifieth the soul separate from the body in both places. For as Cirill saith, as Christ was with the living in body and soul, so to show himself a true man, his body was among the dead bodies, and his soul among 441 And so it was but not in hell the souls, Than you avouch the preaching of Noah, is attributed to the whole Trinity, be it so, but can you prove that Christ after he was killed did preach in Noah, for this 442 How prove you that? preaching was after Chri●●s death, 443 The death and resurrection of Christ, & his preaching in the days of Noah, are here mentioned obiter, and as occasions led them in, & expresseth not the order, when they were done. If this reasoning be good, the passion in the beginning of the 4 cap. following the ascension, expressed in the last verse of the third. which is mentioned in the 18. verse, and before his resurrection, which is spoken of in the 21. verse. You go forward and tell me, that pote, doth not determine the Participle apeithesasi that is, disobedient: but ekeryxens that is, preached. I must tell you plain you speak neither like a Divine, nor a Grammarian. For 444 But most commonly with a verb. an Adverb is some time put to a Participle, as Math. 2. 7. Tote erodes lathra kalesas tous magous'. Then Herod calling privily the wise men. Sometime to a Noun 445 This is like salve Domine, I am glad to see you well. M. D. gins w●th greek out of the new Testament and ends in latin out of the English accidents. as homo egregie impudens. Sometime to an Adverb as parum honest se gerit. Therefore the Adverb pote, coming 446 Every adverb affecteth not the word it standeth by. after apeithesasi, next & immediately, and being distinguished from ekeryxens by 447 Put out that comma, it is an usurper a Comma, cannot by any example in divinity, or by any rule of Grammar be 448 Nor separated from it. coupled with the verb ekeryxen 449 That promise is twice made now. Now to answer your infallible reasons. First your reason against me, that if my construction be true, 450 I said that nothing is spoken of Christ in these words, (mortified in the flesh, & quickened in the spirit) which may not, etc. than nothing did happen to Christ which might not be verified of any man. 451 Did you not blush to rack my words to the wh●le discourse, which are spoken but of one member. And did you not blush when you wrote these things? 452 No forsooth. Can any man's soul go to hell, and return again? For his going down to hell 453 those be without my bounds. I prove in the 19 verse, and his returning from 454 those be without my bounds. hell in the 21. verse: Secondly, you say the word spirit doth signify that which gave life, what then? as God giveth life to the body effectually, 455 That is, the form giveth the form to the 〈◊〉 so the soul giveth life to the body formally. 456 Why mine more than yours. Your Geveua translation which you follow, saith he, was quickened 457 So say we in the spirit, not of the spirit. And this I note against your side, en 458 En is not in that verse at all expressed. in the 18. verse you translate (In) But in the next verse, as though you had not done well in the former, you translate it 459 You dream. (by) Now you know the preposition dia, signifieth (by) and not en, as it appeareth in the 21. verse and in many places more. 460 You promise to prove that en signifieth not by, & prove that dia signifieth by: this is common with you, & a cunning point. dia anastaseos, that is, by the resurrection. Moreover, if you had said quickened 461 You say it cannot be so taken: and would that answer seem probable? of the spirit, than had you made a probable answer: but no divine is able to prove this exposition, that Christ was quickened in the spirit: that is, in the deity, for the deity is life itself. Your third pregnant reason is, that thanatotheiss, signifieth not only the death of the body, but also the whole passion of Christ. 462 A flat negative, for an instance. This can not be, for the 463 A tautology. sufferings of Christ are set down before in the same verse: then in this word, thanatotheiss is showed the manner of the death, that Christ suffered, that is, he was 464 I have said that this word fitteth not the greek killed, and suffered a violent death. For thanatotheiss being derived of 465 A Passive participle from a verb active. thanateo, must 466 Why so? needs signify put to death. Now I hope you will not say, Christ was put to death in 467 But I will say he suffered death in soul and body. soul & body, but in body only. And where you say, that Christ suffered in soul aswell as in body, that is true, & that is gathered 468 But why not? not of thanatotheiss that is killed, but out of these words antecedent (for Christ suffered the just for the unjust,) 469 What reason should move a reasonable man, to deny that Christ suffered the death of the soul. No reasonable man but he will say, that the sufferings of Christ, are comprised rather in the word (suffered) then in the word (killed.) To your 470 This will not answer my reason. fourth reason I reply, that Christ was raised from the dead, but it is specially signified in the word resurrection, for 21. & 471 A confused negative of confusion. Put your antecedents to this (therefore) if your skill can do so much. therefore I do not confound those things that are distinguished, but yourself: 472 where M. D.? then were I worthy to we are a babble A rogue burned in the ear suffereth, but is not killed. for you make suffered and killed all one, 473 where M. D.? then were I worthy to we are a babble A rogue burned in the ear suffereth, but is not killed. and quickened and the resurrection all one, and so make not only a confusion, but a tautology and needless repetition which never 474 Untruth D. the scripture useth many tautologies to help our memories and understanding: though this in men's writings be a fault, in scriptures it is most necessary, that one place may help another. was read in the word of God. To your fift argument, where you say, zoopoi●isthai is to receive life, I confess it is to be made alive. Then you urge, it can not be spoken of the soul which never lost life: Then by the same reason more strongly, it can not be spoken of the 475 This answer were somewhat if you could make it good that we give this participle to the Deity. Godhead, which hath, doth, & shall live for ever: for God can not receive life, but the soul is said to live, 476 The question is, whether the soul is quickened, or made to live, when it is out of the body. when he is out of the body, not because he lived not before, but 477 Non causa pro causa. because the body doth hinder the actions of the soul, john. 11. 25. 478 These places prove not the question He that believeth in me. though he were dead yet shall he live. Sap. 9, 15. 479 These places prove not the question The corruptible body is heavy unto the soul, & the earthy mansion keepeth down the mind that is full of cares. 2. Cor. 4, 16. 480 These places prove not the question Therefore, we faint not, but though our outward man perish, yet our inward man is daily renewed. Hear 481 Paul saith not so here. Paul saith, the weaker the body is, the stronger is his soul, 482 It followeth not. therefore the death of the body is the life of the soul. To draw to one end, your Antithesis of the 483 The Antithesis there expressed is between mortified and quickened. divinity & humanity is answered before. For your Antithesis must be of things contrary, or at the least divers 484 But diverse, but not always separate. and separate, but as you affirm truly, the Godhead was never separated from the humanity: 485 This therefore is builded on the wrong side of the way. therefore this antithesis is of the body and soul, which at this time were divided, and not between the deity and humanity which were always united: 486 You call it in your margin fortissimum argumentum, but it is a starved shrimp. It cannot stand though it be not touched. wherefore, this bulwark I can assure you will stand, and you have overshot both it, & yourself in attempting to overthrow it. For the very scope of the Apostle is this, all Christians must suffer afflictions for well doing, for Christ did not only suffer both in body and soul, but also was put to a shameful death in his body, 487 Be sure that that be one. and in his soul went down to the souls in 488 That is out of the way: Christ's going down to hell is no persuasion for us to suffer afflictions. hell, which were unbelievers in the days of Noah: but Christ did arise again from hell, and the grave, and ascended both in body & soul to heaven: therefore, shall you, that suffer for well doing, be delivered from death and hell by his merits, and go up into heaven, and be partakers of his glory, as you have been partakers of his affliction Moreover, as you refer me to read Bezas great notes one this text, so I pray you to read Aretius handling this place, whose words are these. Generally (saith Aretius) Pet. repeateth three effects of Christ's death, if you mark it well. The first pertaineth to the damned, The second to the elect. The third the person of Christ. The first was declared in his descending in to hell. The second in his resurrection. The third in his ascension into heaven. This is the true and natural meaning of this place which we will follow, leaving the intrications of other interpretations. I willingly confess this place is very hard, for Augustine doubteth of it, & Luther doubteth of it how it is to be understood; but this obscurity ariseth not of the place, but of the variety of interpretations, If thou mark the plainness of the place, the matter will be easy, but that pleaseth not all men: therefore that every on may establish his own sense, they apply the words of the Apostle Peter to their own conceit. But leaving these, let us embrace that which the words do teach us: in the which, if we attain to the truth, it is well: if not, yet they shall be probable, because they have warrant out of the scriptures, and lean to the very letter to reto, otherwise it is certain, the knowledge of man to be unperfect in many questions of holy scripture, of the which the Apostle doth warn us, 1. Corin. 15. For now we know unperfectly. I have said here is declared three effects of Christ's death which differ in time, & are set in order in the Creed. The first effect is, that Christ being dead, denounced eternal pains to the wicked in hell. The words of the Apostle are these. In which spirit he went and preached to the spirits detained in prison. I take the place simply of the descence into hell, for so the words do plainly sound, and I see all the Fathers so to interpret them: Augustine Epist. 99 and Cyprian doth manifestly interpret this place of the descending into Hel. Neither doth the word prison hinder this Interpretation: which in the Apocal. 20. 5. is taken for hell. When a thousand years shall be fulfilled, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison. Therefore, the prison that Peter here speaketh of, is the place deputed to the damned. Hither came Christ, as we confess in the Creed, He went down into Hell. 489 But you make no doubt but that hell is under the earth, in your sermon fol. A● pag. 2. in print where Hell is, it is a foolish & curious question to inquire, sith no man coming to that place ever returned but only Christ. Furthermore, what Christ did there, Peter expresseth, he preached to the spirits, that is, he declared that he showed himself manifestly to the world and made that dire and mournful sermon; namely, to the wicked, that the mirit of his death did nothing pertain unto them, but by his presence, were confirmed those punishments of the which Noah and other prophets had forewarned them. And the time of this Preaching, I refer not to the times of Noah, but to the time of his descending into Hell. Whereunto agreeth the word pneumasi, that is, spirits, for he preached to the spirits, that is, to dead, and not to living men. Thus far Aretius. 490 You should waste wind, and break your promise. I could here allege many other new Writers, which are of my judgement, but because you yield them no credit, therefore of purpose I will omit them. HUME his Rejoinder to the 12. sect. THis berry is so confused, that I can not find where to enter my ferret. First, I proved that Beza, whom we follow in this place, doth no violence to the words: but useth them as he findeth them used by john, Paul, and Peter. Which foundation being laid, I answer your 10. reasons, and put other 10. to the other scale, to counter-weigh them. You neither defend your own, nor answer mine, in order as they lie: But like a mad Dog, snatch here one, and there another, and let them go, that you cannot bite. I cannot follow your steps, they be so crooked. Wherefore, I will walk on my first steps, and seek your answers, where I can find them. That which I say of the use of the words, you confess, and divers of my reasons, you slip without an answer. The first of my reasons was from these words, 1. Reason. (mortified in the flesh, and quickened in the Spirit) Thus, If (flesh) here doth signify the body, and (spirit) the human soul: then nothing in these words is spoken of Christ, that may not be verified of other men. But in these words some singular matter is attributed to Christ, that other men are not capable of: For, we cannot say, that Augustine, Jerome or Cyprian, are mortified in the flesh, and quickened in the spirit in that sense, as it is here spoken of Christ. Ergo, (flesh) is not the body, and (spirit) the human soul of Christ. Answer. Reply. That which you answer of his descending into Hell, and returning thence, is not comprised in these words, whereon my argument is builded, though you gave them your own livery, and clothed them in your own colours. The second was this. The Spirit here doth signify that, 2. Reaso●. which gave life to that which was dead. But the human soul gave not life to that that was dead, Ergo, the spirit doth not signify the human soul. Hear you deny the mayor, and allege against the 〈…〉 which you call ours, Answers. Reply. and should be yours as well as ours, if you and others of 〈…〉 highly 〈…〉 in the (flesh, and 〈…〉 mortified as he was man, and quickened as he was God by himself. john 10. 18. According to that of john. I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again. Take your note of (in) and (by) and make a wheelbarrow of it. But you move me here another question of some importance: and crave an instance (if I can) in all the Scripture. How one word in one period can carry two significations You are not (I hope) so very an novice in God's book, Math. 8. 12. joh. 6. 27. Mar. 8. 33 joh. 8. 55. joh. 4. 24. as you make yourself. Have you not read, Let the dead, bury their dead: Or, labour not for the meat that perisheth, but the meat that lasteth, etc. Or, Who so will save his life, shall lose it. Or Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and saw it. Or, God is a spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit, where you have the same word in both significations. O how you would be-sloven me, if you could find such a hole in my hose! Now, I fear nothing, but that you craved an instance out of the old Testament. The third was, If death, whensoever it is attributed to Christ in the Scriptures, 3. Reason. compriseth the whole passion, the flesh in this text, must be the subject of the whole passion: that is, the whole manhood of Christ. But death is never attributed to christ, but for the whole passion. Ergo, flesh must be the subject of the passion, that is, the whole manhood of Christ. Here you deny the minor, and like a skilful Logician, give instance in the question. If you have not forgot your old logic, the argument, and the thing argued should not be one. You supply the imperfection of this answer, with two arguments 〈…〉, that death in this place cannot signify the passion. 〈…〉. Your first reason is, that the passion is mentioned before in the word suffered, Be it so: Yet it may be repeated in more special terms. By your reason, in the belief, where a repetition is less tolerable, crucified and died, belong not to the passion; because they are expressed before in the word suffered. Suffering, which may be in torturing, whipping, and imprisonment, is too slack a term, to express the hellish torments of Christ's passion. The other is, if (mortified) pertain to the soul, and body, it will follow, that the soul is also mortal. You tell me out of Athanasius in the reply to my fift section, that by the double punishment inflicted on Adam, the soul should die the death. And I heard you preach in our Lady Church at Sarum. That when it was said to Adam, thou shalt die the death, the meaning was, he should die the death of soul and body. Now, if you will apply these two significations of death to Christ: the one to the body, and the other to the soul: I hope this objection will neither scratch nor bite. My fourth reason was this. In this: Antithesis mortified in the flesh, and quickened in the spirit: morfied belongeth not to the spirit, nor quickened to the flesh: but mortified belongs to the soul, for it died the death of the soul, and quickened to the 〈◊〉 for it received life again. Ergo, flesh is not the body only, and spirit the human soul. To this you answer, that Christ was raised from the dead, and that was signified in the word resurrection, vers. 21. and therefore you do not confound these distinguished things, antitheticallie opposed. But we, that make mortised, & suffered; quickened & resurrection all one. How this may answer me, I leave it to the ●ead that bred it to explain. But you do us wrong, we make not mortified, & suffered one, etc. Suffered and quickened are terms more general, mortified & raised again more special: expressing things more plainly and particularie, which were touched before more covert●● and generally. My fift reason was. To be quickened is to receive life, 5. Reason. which the thing that is quickened either never had, or else had lost. But the soul had life in the body, and never 〈◊〉 after: Ergo, the soul cannot be quickened. To this you answer nothing: but tell us by the same reason, Answer. it can much less pertain to the Deity. Thus, thinking to wound us with our own weapon, you strike short, and with the back, draw blood at your own brow. I told you in my answer to your second objection, that quickened is not here attributed to the Deity, but to the whole Christ, by the participation of proprieties. How can you excuse yourself here of wilful falsification? But you mend the matter, with a more sufficient answer out of joh. That the soul of the believer liveth, though he were dead. What then? john telleth not your tale, that the soul of the believer, is quickened when he is dead: That it liveth, is not the question. The burden of the body, which you allege out of the book of Wisd. loadeth the soul, but killeth it not. And therefore, when it is delivered of that load, it is not quickened, but relieved. And the renewing of the inward man, which you allege from Paul, quickeneth not the soul, being dead: but addeth courage and comfort, to the living and languishing soul by God's promises. Hear I see you are quite thrust from your hold at Chippenham, that to be quickened is, to be delivered from miseries. Ingenuity would have confessed a fault. You conclude with a confutation of the Antithesis, between the divinity & humanity: but my reason is from an Antithesis between mortified & quickened, flesh & spirit: which you (by a corrupted gloze) taking quickened for a delivery from miries, did overthrow. Yet because I said that Paul maketh that antithesis, Rom. 1. It shall not be impertinent to view your reasons. An Antithesis must be (say you) of things opposite and contrary. I add, the Divinity and humanity be things opposite: Ergo, there may be an Antithesis of the Divinity, and the humanity. But they are united, say you. What then? So be the flesh, and the spirit; and yet Christ saith, the Spirit is ready, but the flesh is weak. A common Logician, Mat. 26. 41. (much more a Doctor) should know, that no uniting of things, between which a difference may be observed, can let an Antithesis, if occasion serve. Notwithstanding the uniting, a man may well say, Christ as he was man, was passable, as he was God, he was impassable. To these reasons, I added more in my latin which I sent you. The spirit here doth signify that, which his enemies, 6. Reason. (hell & death,) could not touch: according to the text, he was quickened in the spirit. But his human soul escaped not the violence of his enemies: Ergo, the word (spirit) here doth not signify his human soul. To this you make no answer. The seventh was. 7. Reason. This spirit of which he speaketh here, did preach: But the human soul cannot preach: Ergo, the spirit here, is not the human soul. To this you answer, that he preached not vocallie, but really, Answer. Reply. that is, not in words but in deeds. A dumb man may preach so, as well as D. Hill. If you stand 7. days in the pulpit of the great Church at Sarum, and say nothing: there be not 7. men within 700. miles, that will commend your sermon. The eight was. 8. Reason. Whosoever doth preach, he doth it either to amend the enormities of the hearers: or to instruct them in the way of salvation. But this was not to be hoped for in damned spirits: Ergo, he preached not in Hell, Answer Reply. to damned spirits. Hear you answer, that he preached to reprove them of their infidelity: but you fall still in one ditch. He that reproveth infidelity, doth it either to mend it, or to take away excuses: But there was no such hope in these, that were passed all remedy and excuse. The ninth was. This preaching was, when the disobedience of the hearers, 9 Reason was reforme-able. But this was only reforme-able in the days of Noah: Ergo, this preaching was not, but in the days of Noah. This hath no answer. The tenth was from the circumstances of the text and necessary Analysis thereof: 10. Reason Which I remitted to Beza, who hath done that better, than I can, and whose notes, it is not likely that you want, having such a Library, as you speak of sect 7. You in the margin will me to read Aretius and Alesius. The one I have read, and the other cannot move me, though he be my countryman. I have learned to prefer truth before men, what ever they be. These were my reasons, which I joined to the lawful use of the words, proved by john, Paul, and Peter. In them (so over-smoked is your sense) you smell no reason at all: But tell your reader that we cannot prove ou● interpretations by the Scriptures, as you do yours: and yet you bring nothing for your own, but that the words may be so taken: and a few silly conjectures answered before by me. Now, having set down mine, let me see how stoutly you have defended yours. THe first was. Poreutheis, (that is, went) doth signify motion, from one place to another. But the Deity cannot move from any place, M. D. reasons confuted, and his answer displayed. being at all times, in all places: Ergo, poreutheiss, is not attributed to the Deity. To the minor of this argument, I answered out of the 18. of Genesis, and 3. of Exodus. That the Godhead is said to move from place to place, Answer. by a figure called Anthropopatheia. Reply. You reply, that the books that I cite, are written in Hebrew, And that the interpreters do translate that hebrew word by katabainein or erchesthai, and not por●uestha●. As if the Hebrew tongue, rejoinder which is called lingua sancta, were fit to speak improperly of God, than the Greek, or that porevesthai, had gotten some special licence, more than any other verbs of motion, to be free from that figure. Yet if it will please you to read Exod. 13. 2. Nomb. 14. 14. Deut. 1. 33. Exod. 33. 3. Psal. 132. 8. Deut. 31. 3. Psal. 71. 12. Psal. 88 7. and infinite such places more, you shall find that plakket dear of a naked q. without a cap. But suppose that I could not find it attributed to the Deity in all these Scriptures, yet you were not the nearer your mark. For, if you be remembered, your reason was in Chippenham, that porevesthai cannot be given to the Deity, because it is a verb of motion. Now, the mayor of your syllogism must be, that no verb of motion can be attributed to the Deity. Which mayor being crazed by my first answer, and the examples there alleged. There is no reason left you, why porevesthai cannot be attributed to the Deity, as well as erchesthai, or katabainein: and no reason you know, is too weak against ten such stout reasons, as I have sent you, forcing this sense upon this place. Your next argument, 2. Objection. was from the participle (quickened) thus. No passive can agree with the Deity: Quickened is a passive: Ergo, it cannot agree with the Deity. This syllogism I granted to be good and told you withal, Answer. that we do not attribute this Participle to the Deity, but to the whole Christ, by participation of proprieties, following the text which saith not, that the flesh was mortified, and the spirit quickened: No reply, no rejoinder. but that Christ was mortified in the flesh, and quickened in the spirit. This answer, you struck off your score. Your third argument was from the tense or time 〈…〉 be attributed to Christ at one time, 3. Object. they note, that he was dead and alive at one time. But the first is true: Ergo, the last is true. To this I answer, denying the mayor, Answer. That participles or verbs of one time attributed to one thing, must needs pertain to one time. In the belief, we say, that Christ was crucified, dead, and buried: where crucified, dead, & buried, be all of one tense or time, & yet agree not all to Christ at one instance of time. To this you reply, that they must pertain to one time, and prove your mayor thus. Christ was after his passion dead or alive at on time, or else never. If he were never dead and alive at one time, S. Peter speaketh not truly. If he were dead and alive at one time, than I speak falsely. In this Syllogism is neither mood nor figure: and besides that, it standeth on a begging of the question, That Peter saith he was at one time dead and alive, is the question, and you take that, as if it were granted. Your fourth reason was. 4. Objection. If Peter saith, that the flesh was dead, and the Spirit quickened, then doth he show, that he was both dead and alive at one time. But the first is true: Ergo, the last is not false. The minor of this Syllogism, Answer. I did deny: showing, that it is flat against the text, which saith not, that the flesh was dead, and the spirit quickened. But that Christ was dead in the flesh, No reply, no rejoinder. and quickened in the spirit. This reason it pleaseth you of your courtesy to send away in secret, without a God be with you. Your fifth reason was. 5. Objection. The Scripture doth join this going & preaching close to his passion, as if it would say: As soon as he had suffered, he went and preached. I answered you, that (as) and (if) did carry too weak a consequence, Answer. in so weighty a matter. No reply, no rejoinder. This ass saddled with an if (〈…〉. Your sixth reason was, 6. Objection. out of the 6. of Genes. That the preaching of Noah, is there attributed to the third person of the Deity, and not to the second. The words of that text be. The Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, because he is but flesh. Answer Which words I answered you in the Latin that I sent you, that I never saw any interpreters. that do consent with you in this exposition, and interpret these words of the third person of the Deity. Tremelius and junius their judgement I set down, as that I liked best: who take these words to be a hebraism, sounding as if he had said, I will not always stand disputing with myself, what to do with these men which yield no fruits, but of flesh & blood: for, now I am determined (except they repent) to destroy them at the day appointed. Notwithstanding, granting you that it were as you would have it, I told you, seeing the actions of every person of the Deity, are common to all three, he erreth not that giveth them to any of the three. Reply. This you confess to be true. But you ask me, if I can prove that Christ preached in Noah after his passion: affirming confidently, that this was attributed to him of Peter, after the passion. rejoinder. It were requisite that you had good proof according to the weight of this case, and your confidence in speaking it. But I will ease you of that burden. Prove it out of the text, with any reasonable show of truth, and you shall have my heart and hand. The order of the words which you stand so stoutly upon, is not so strict, as you would have it. For the purpose and drift of the Apostle here, is to persuade us to patience by the example of our Saviour, and not to set out his death, descending and resurrection, in order as they were done: but obiter as they fall in hand, and follow the matter that here he driveth to persuade. Your seventh reason was, 7. Objection. if Christ was raised from the dead, by the first person of the Deity, and not by the second: then the word spirit here, cannot be construed of the Deity: but Christ was raised by the first person, Answer and not by the second. Ergo, etc. I might well have told you, that this minor is absurd and flat against the plain text, joh. 5. 21. Whatsoever thing the Father doth, the same the son doth also with him. And joh. 10. 18. which words I did quote not far before, in the defence of my second reason. I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again. But then sparing you and refraining all hard speeches, how ever they were due, I only told you; that I saw not how that could stand with the truth of the Scriptures, which telleth me, Reply rejoinder. that the second person did put on man, and did not forsake him in all his distresses. You reply in the margin of your written copy, see contrary to this Act, 4. 40: Act. 13. 30. 1. Cor. 15. 15. Which places I have marked & observed, to make nothing against my assertion. In them the raising up of christ, is attributed to the Godhead, which worketh not (as I have noted already) one person without another. Which thing, if it be an error, it was john that seduced me. cap. 5. 7. The Father worketh, and I work. As the Father doth raise up the dead, so the son likewise, doth raise up whom he will. And in the 17. verse, quoted a little above. The same is agreeable to other infinite places of Scripture, and the some of our Faith, called the belief, which saith; the third day he rose again, and not that he was raised again. Your eight reason was. 8. Objection. If the time that they were preached to, and of their disobedience, was not one: then this preaching is not to be understood of Noah his preaching, in the time of their disobedience. But the adverbe pote doth distinguish those times. Answer Ergo, etc. To this I answer, that the Adverb pote, doth not determine the participle apeithesasi, but the principal verb ekeryxens, You reply, that I speak neither like a Divine, Reply. nor like a Grammarian. To prove me no divine, which indeed I am not: and no Grammarian, which I am but little: you allege no Divinity, and little grammar. It will not follow, that because it may stand with a Participle, therefore it is so here: or, that because it is distinguished from the verb, with a comma, therefore it cannot determine it at all. You are not overloden with Grammar, if you know not, rejoinder that diverse and many reasons, may part words depending one on the other, by a comma. And as for this place, pote, if it did depend (as you would have it) upon apeithesasi, it cannot be distinguished from ekeryxens with a comma, seeing apeithesasi itself, is governed of ekeryxens, without commixture of any interjected member to part them. What ever your book hath, take heed, that it be not a stain to your skill in grammar, to credit a book in such a case. Your ninth argument was. Noah preached to men These were spirits & not men: Ergo, Noah preached not to these. I answered, that whosoever preacheth to men, preacheth to spirits, because no men want spirits, that is, reasonable souls. And now I add, that they are here called Spirits, in respect of their imprisonment, not in respect of his preaching. If he had called them men, than the name of prison wherein they are now datained, had been improper. The Apostle wisely choosed that word, which might best agree with both those times. Bezaes' opinion also, whereto Andradius the Papist agreeth, is most probable, that pote doth determine the same Participle apeithesasi, and doth distinguish it from tois en phylake pneumasi, which must needs be understood in the present time, by virtue of the participle ousi, in that kind of phrase in Greek, most necessarily always implied. You reply not one word to the purpose: but charging us with that we never spoke, nor thought (that we take these spirits for the men in Noah's time) you allege Christ's words against us, Luk. 24. 39 But if you were a man, that could mark the words of them that dispute against you, & take them as they are spoken: you should find, that we say not that he preached to the spirits in the days of Noah: But to the spirits that now are in prison, and were disobedient in the days of Noah. If you can any ways turn Christ's words in Luke, to confute this, you need not to care, what things you take upon you to prove. If you can prove, that Noah preaching to the men of his time, did not preach to their Spirits: or that these spirits in prison, which Peter speaketh here of, were not the same that rebelled in the days of Noah, you may drive us from this hold: otherwise you may throw your cap at us. Last of all, you charge our construction with violence. I answered, 10. Objection. that you do us wrong, charging us with things, that none of us do speak. Which answer you pass by with silence, Answer and so allow it for currant. To these you have added two new ones, which (to take away all scruple, I will answer also. First, 11. Objection. say you, if the word phylake doth signify hell, than Christ did descend into hell: But phylake doth signify Hell. Ergo, etc. I deny the mayor, it will not follow, though phylake doth signify hell (as here it doth indeed metaphorically) that therefore Christ descended into Hell: Answer. neither doth the place that you quote of Math. prove that you would have: except you can prove also, that phylake hath no other signification, than the prison of utter darkness, etc. Your other reason is. 12. Objection. He that was killed, dead, and quickened, did preach. But it was Christ that was killed, dead, and quickened: Ergo, it was Christ that preached, and not his Deity. Christ, and not his Deity, M. Doctor? Can Christ preach, and not his Deity? You may say what you will. If I had let fall such a word, you would have cried, Crucifige. But to answer you, Answer. I deny the mayor. It is against the text. He was mortified, that is, killed and dead in the flesh, and that preached not. He was quickened in the spirit, and in that he went and preached. That which preached, was neither killed nor dead: neither was itself quickened: but Christ was quickened in it. These are all your objections. In my answer to your sermon, I answered 10. of them. You have replied to 6. of them, and to the other 4. you have given a pardon at large, never to be troubled by you. Your six replies I have here rejoined too, and have met your new supplies at the encounter, and have sent them home to you for new help. All your forces thus defeated, and so mighty and resolute an army against you, (if there be any conformity in you, if your neck be not so stiff, that no bridle can turn it) I hope you will get you to Chippenhames pulpit, and perform your promise. HUME Sect. 13. THese things being thus, I pray you (good M. D.) seeing you would have us undoubtedly to believe, that Christ descended into Hell. Tell us undoubtedly to what end he should descend thither. I trust you will not teach us, neither Augustine, neither Ieromes lesson, that he went thither to deliver prisoners. As for that new lesson, that he went thither to triumph: it standeth not with the manner of conquerors, to show the glory of their conquest amongst the conquered: but amongst them to whom the joy of the victory doth appertain: and for mine own part, I have oftentimes read the name of Hell, joined with shame and ignomy: but to this day, I never heard it joined with triumph and glory. Neither seemeth it probable, that if Christ had purposed to show the pomp of his conquest, he would have done it before his resurrection, lest being yet in the hands of his enemy, he had me●t him with the proverb, Ante victoriam, etc. To these reasons, may be added, that seeing his triumph was celebrated at one instance, in Heaven, Earth, and Hell: if the presence of his soul was required, as you bear in hand it will follow, that his soul was at one instant in these three places, which is contrary to the nature of a soul. You add two other causes, to bind the devil, and deliver us from hell. You bring us many places of Scripture, to confirm this gear. Gen. 3. 15. The seed of the woman shall break the Serpent's head. Ose. 13 15. O death, I will be thy death, O hell I will be thy destruction 1. Cor. 15. 55. O death, where is thy sting, O hell where i● thy victory. In all which places, there is not a syllable sounding, that Christ descended into hell. As for his triumphing over Hell, we never denied it, and do avouch that he performed, that most gloriously, by the power of his Godhead, which did present his victory over his enemies, hell and death: both to heaven earth and Hell, without the presence of his soul. HIL his Reply. YOu ask me why Christ descended into hell, The Paralogis. of this section. and yet you confess I noted 491 Those 3 ends in your opinion, are not ends indeed. three ends of Christ's descending into hell, the one to 492 He triumphed over hell & death in heaven, earth and hell: not in hell only triumph over the Devils: the other to 493 If it was all one action to bind the Devil, & to take away his power, that he did, by his death, Heb. 2. 14. bind the Devils, and to take away their power over mankind: 494 That he did by his death also. the 3. to deliver us from hell. There was also set down a fourth end, that is, 495 Dic sodes: Haddit the Devils never known his death, except he had gone down to the damned. to manifest his death unto those in hell, and to reprove them of their incredulity: and here labouring to catch me in a snare, you are fallen into it yourself: for first you say, Christ conquered hell on the Cross, then as having forgotten yourself you ask this question with admiration. How could he 496 You forge: my words were, how could he triumph over death, being in the bands of death. conquer being in the grave? Is it likely that he would triumph before his victory? First you stoutly affirm that he had conquered, than you boldly 497 Not it that I said. deny it. 498 Ast ego mihi satis consentio. Conneniet nnlli qui secum dissidet ipse. Next you say, you have not read the 499 So saith August. I never read the name of Hell in bonam partem. ad Evod. epist. 99 name of hell, but joined with shame and infamy: why do you write then, that the 500 In these places the name of hell, is separate from triumph & glory Godhead did triumph over hell; Did you not read your own writing I am sure in this place? 1. Cor. 15. 55. O death where is thy sting, 501 In these places the name of hell, is separate from triumph & glory O hell where is thy victory, 502 In these places the name of hell, is separate from triumph & glory The name of hell is joined with triumph. But you answer these places with a flat negative. 503 That is not his dese 〈◊〉 ding into hell Frame this argument in mood & figure, and you shall be collector the next lent. here is not a syllable to prove the descending of Christ into hell. I am sure Paul proveth here, the 503 That is not his descending into hell Frame this argument in mood & figure, and you shall be collector the next lent. resurrection of Christ and of our souls, and how can he prove the resurrection, unless he prove the knitting together of the body and soul? for as death is the parting of body & soul, so resurrection is the reuniting of them together again, and here Paul showeth that the body coming out of the grave, 504 Wherein doth Paul show that? & the soul from hell, Christ did conquer both. And therefore it is not the deity 505 Where said I so: what will you blush to charge me with? as you say, but the human nature of Christ, that did vanquish death & Hell. 506 You have a special grace to prove things not denied. Heb. 2. 14. For as much then, as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part with them, that he might destroy through death, him that had power of death, that is the Devil. There fore Hemingius on the Col. 2. saith. As on the Cross he conflicted with the devil, so by the glorious descending into hell, resurrection and ascension he did triumph. 507 It followeth not. Therefore these places prove his descending into hell as well as the burial, for the reason of the apostle is this. Christ came out of the grave, ergo, he conquered death, 508 Where said the Apost so? Where is now Procustes his rack. and Christ came out of hell. ergo he over came hell. Therefore thus I reason 509 Not me, but your own shadow. against you, that did conquer which did fight, but the human nature of Christ, did fight, ergo it did also conquer, 510 If this were doubtful you conclude more, than you include in the premises. & is gone up into heaven, to whom the Angels: powers and mights be subject. 511 These quotations are impettinent, 1. Pet. 3. 22. Col. 2. 25. phillip 2. 9 10. Eph. 1. 20. 21. 22. Therefore, sith all these Scriptures do witness, that Christ as man did triumph, and is exalted, and hath all power, I doubt not but in your next answer you will reform your 512 My judgement was never deformed with this scare▪ and therefore needeth herein no reformation. judgement. HUME his Rejoinder to the 13. sect. I Beseech thee, (good Reader) take a little pains here, to mark the honest dealing of this D. Whetstone I say, Christ could not triumph being in the bonds of death: he for (triumph) sets (conquer) to make them contrary to my former words, that Christ did conquer Hell upon the cross. It is one thing to conquer, another thing, to triumph. Pompey conquered the mighty Mithridates in Syria, but he triumphed at Rome amongst his friends, Aug. ad Evod. ●9. that were partakers of the joy. Again, where I say with Augustine, that the name of Hell is joined with shame, not with honour: meaning the name of hell is shameful, not glorious: he takes me to say, that the name of hell cannot stand in a sentence, with a word of honour, & quotes against me. 1. Cor. 15, 55. Hell, where is thy victory? in which place; hell and victory, are separated, as if he had said, Hell thou hast no victory. thirdly, whereas I say, that Christ triumphed by the power of his Deity: presenting his victory to heaven, earth and Hell; he gives out that I say, that the Godhead triumphed, and not the humanity, & notes in the margin, Hume contrary to Paul and Peter: and wills me to reform this fault in my next reply. This is M. D. art: If his cause were so good, as he would have it seem: he needed not this cunning: or, if he carried as honest a mind, as he did protest in Chippenham pulpit: he would rather perform his promise, then seek such un-christian-like shifts to maintain a bad cause. Now to answer his cavils. I ask you M. Doct. why you send Christ to hell, notwithstanding the three ends that you had noted, because those ends, were no ends thereof: and because the Scripture doth teach, that he had performed all those ends by the conquest of Hell, upon this cross. You brought texts of Scripture to prove them, and I answered truly, that not one of them soundeth any syllable that way. For, in all those places there is not a letter, neither of his descending into hell, nor of his triumphing over hell. You reply, that those texts do prove the resurrection (which is not true of all neither) and that the resurrection is a knitting of the soul and body together: and that the knitting of them together, was by bringing his soul from Hell (this is your principle) and his body from the grave. Now, add the conclusion, that he that proveth Christ's resurrection, proveth his descending into hell. If this reason be good, I will yield. For, now (if it will hold) you have found a way to prove your opinion, by all the Scriptures. When Christ cured the blind man's eyes with spittle, it is plain, that he was a man: If he was a man, he was mortal, and died: If he died, his soul went to hell, (this is your undoubted principle) and his body to the grave. Ergo, he that writes that Christ cured the blind man's eyes with spittle, doth write that he went to Hell. By this hook, you may pull all the Scriptures out at the window, and make them prove what pleaseth you. HUME his 14. Sect. YOu allege for confirmation of the second. How can a man enter into a strong man's house and spoil his goods, except first he bind the strong man. Here is not that which you undertook, to prove that he descended into hell, to bind the devils. This house whereof here is spoken, is to any man of judgement's eye, by circumstance of the place, not Hell: but this world, whereof the devil had taken possession, and polluted many hearts: out of the which, he was cast by Christ, who thereby proveth himself to be stronger than he: and not to work miracles in the name of Beel-zebub, as the Pharisees did bear the simple people in hand. HIL his Reply. YOur interpretation is true: The paralogisms in the D. Reply. 513 That cannot be, see the answer. and the other true also, for 514 How oft have you told this tale, and never proved it. Christ did not only overcome the Devil in the world, but also in Hell. For, as Cyrill noteth on this place: there was before the coming of Christ much violence, taking away the flock of God, and carrying them to his own house: wherefore before the coming of Christ, the heathen and people of the world went into eternal death: But Christ hath delivered both their bodies from the grave and their souls from Hell, by his death and 515 Quote the place: these words are suspicious, and sound more like Hill then Cyril personal descending into Hell. This place is alleged by one Georgius Princeps Anhaltinus, in his learned commentaries on the 16. Psalms, which you may read, if you please. 516 This (for) is as doubtful, as the thing it is brought for For as David trampled on the face of Goliath, 517 Cram, twice at one service: you might have spared it till the next course. so did the soul of Christ trample on Satan in hell, 518 Even as you have painted it in your book. and trod on his face: and this is noted by the Prophetess Sibilla, as also by the heathen Poets, whose words I have set down in my sermon at large. And therefore Clenard in his grammar giveth this observation, katelthonta eye ado, id est, eye otkian tou ado, he went down into hell, that is, into 519 A Grecian wol● have translated it, into the house of Pluto, Lord of Hell: or more Christian like, into the house of death. the house of Hell. HUME his Rejoinder to the 14. Sect. YOu grant my interpretation to be true: but I will not grant yours, except you bring better warrant then yourself, and a man that I never saw. You will me to buy him. I am not so well pursed as to buy him only, to see this that you quote him for, my interpretation is defend-able without him. It standeth so sure upon the text, that you confess it yourself. You would feign shoulder in yours too, and make the Scriptures double tongued: but I have learned, that one text, hath but one true meaning. Though man's opinions may differ, there is but one that hits the nail on the head. I need no better proof therefore, to confute your interpretation, than your own confession. Only this I add, that seeing your interpretation is doubtful, it can bring no undoubtful proof, to your doubtful and false opinion. As for the Sybiles, and Heathen Poets you did well to spare them. The quoting of them would have been more laborious, than their testimonies would have been effectual in this case. When you have to do with a heathen (as some of the Fathers had) they may stand you in stead, 〈…〉. As for the greek eyes tou ado, you construe it wrong, into the house of hell. Hell hath not a house. They that speak so, meant the house of Pluto, called ades in greek: the Lord of death, as the heathen did imagine. So is that word used by Nonnus speaking of Lazarus raised from the death by Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. HUME his 15. Sect. NOw one thing remaineth, wherein you seemed to run beyond yourself, and most men did wonder, what you meant thereby. Whereas our Saviour upon the Cross, did utter to the hearers then, & all posterities after, that he had finished the work of our Redemption: You took upon you to prove, that he meant not so: bearing the world as it were in hand, that we can speak nothing so truly, but that you can confute it. To this purpose you alleged these places. Ioh 15. ● I have finished the work which thou gavest me. Act 13. 19 As they had finished all things that were written of him. joh. 19 28. And seeing all things now finished that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. Out of all which places (say you) it is apparent, that there remained some things to be done after. What needeth all these proofs in a matter that no man denieth. It is confessed of all men (I hope) that when he spoke this, he had not yet given up the ghost. But I trust, you will not deny, that his meaning was, that his work was finished, when he had breathed the last breath. Which thing (if you grant) you have proved nothing against our assertion. It is a common thing (you know) to speak that in the time past, which is meant that it shall come to pass shortly after. Such were these words of Christ, it is finished. And like to 〈…〉 words in another place. Behold, the hour cometh, and it is 〈…〉 shallbe scattered. Where he saith, that the hour is already come, which was to come shortly after. This must needs be the meaning of Christ's words. Neither could he otherwise (as man) show to those malicious persecutors that stood about him, and us that read it now to our comforts, that he had made an end of his work, and was past the malice of all his enemies, except he should have told it them, after that he had given up the ghost. Which thing could not have been done, without the miraculous assistance of his Godhead, which did in all his passion (as it were) hide itself, and suffer the innocent man, as man, to pay the ransom of man's redemption Hear you gave us a distinction of consummatum re, & consummatum spe. Deliver it again, to the dunces whence you had it. There is no hair so small, which those subtle wits, will not find a wedge to cleave, rather than confess it to be a hair, if it make against their conceit, be it never so gross, and erroneous. And tell those Harpya quae tactu suo optimas dapes foedarunt: that a thing may be consummatum spe, which a man meaneth not to begin 20. years hence, & perhaps never finish. Hear we all wondered what you meant, and were affrayed, lest you would have sent Christ down to Hell to suffer. Which if you did you must needs argue him of an untruth, who is truth itself. For his work had then been so far from an end, that he had not been fleabitten in respect of that, which was to come. This truly M. Hill, was not ware worthy of your wit. HIL his Reply. 519 What I have spoken is either proved, or needs no proof. Here you have spoken much and proved nothing, The paralogisms in this sect 520 I know but one reason in all the sermon unanswered, and that was not worth an answer. for of those reasons which I have laid down in my Sermon concerning this point, not one is answered. Only as you told me before 521 Both untrue He is not well in his wits that could pike such a mad sense out of so tame words. I was immodest, so now you tell me 522 Both untrue He is not well in his wits that could pike such a mad sense out of so tame words. I am a mad man, and the wonder of the world. 523 I objected nothing to you. I pray God you use these words as David did. I wish you no more ill. I must answer you with David, I am become as a monster unto many, but my trust is in thy law. 524 Your malice is sharper than your accusation. But what will men judge of you, that in one and the same matter affirm and deny. 525 There remained somewhat when he spoke these words, and nothing after his death on the cross, are not contraries, if both your eyes could look one way. You confess in the beginning, that there remain somewhat to do, and in the end you wonder at me because I said, all things were not finished on the cross. Your next words are these, when our Saviour cried it is finished, he had not given up the ghost which was the end of his work. 526 It could not be otherwise: for it had been strange if he had cried that, after that he had given up the ghost. It is true, that after the speaking of Consummatum est, it is finished, he gave up the ghost, 527 Then were Christ's untrue but that was not the finishing of his work, 528 That he shed before for he must also shed his blood. Heb. 9 2●. Without shedding of blood their is no forgiveness of sins. 1. Pet. 1. 19 john, 1. 7. Apoc. 1. 5. 529 You can do well to prove things not denied, we have proved your strength already. In all which scriptures it is set down, that we are redeemed with the pricious blood of Christ. The blood of Christ doth purge us from all sin: he hath loved us and washed away our sins in his blood. 530 I deny the sequel. Therefore the giving up of the ghost, was not the end of his work. 531 Or else by you. Hear is a fault committed by you, 532 I thank you, you favour me much. but I will not wonder at you, nor say you are run besides yourself, 533 I thank you, you favour me much. but you run against yourself, 534 Prove that, & I have done. and resist also the holy ghost. Then you scornfully reject my destintion of Consummatum re, and Consummatum spe, that is, finished in hope, and finished in deed. I will defend it, for it cometh not out of the Dunces, 535 It never grew in that soil. but out of God's sacred word. Rom. 8. 24. it is said, 536 What makes all this or any thing here to prove that Christ hath consummate our salvation spe non re. We are saved by hope. 537 What makes all this or any thing here to prove that Christ hath consummate our salvation spe non re. Gal. 5. 5. for we through the spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness through faith. 538 What makes all this or any thing here to prove that Christ hath consummate our salvation spe non re. Luc. 21. 24. Lift up your head (saith Christ to his Disiples) for your redemption draweth nigh. 539 What makes all this or any thing here to prove that Christ hath consummate our salvation spe non re. Rom. 8. 23. And not only the creature, but we also which have the first fruits of the spirit do fight, even we do fight in ourselves waiting for adoption, even the redemption of our body. 540 This is not to the purpose. Musculus on the fourth Chapter of the Ephesians thus writeth, the places are these, That we are called in hope, not in deed, & that the hope of future blessings, is the store of our faith, as long as we are in this flesh, for we are saved, nondum in re sed in spe, not yet in deed but in hope. By all these scriptures it is manifest, that 541 The question is not of our consummation: but bow Christ hath consummate the work of out redemption. our cosummation is in hope, and not in deed (as Musculus noteth) neither shall be actually perfected, until the day of judgement. Therefore, I did with this distinction 542 You would say answer. refute the argument which is made of those that are on your side, 543 We conclude not so, see the answer who thus conclude. Christ said on the cross (It is finished) Ergo, he went not down to to hell. By the same reason I thus argue. Christ said on the cross (It is finished) 544 This is a wonderful argument. Christ saying, it is finished, died by shedding his blood: ergo he shed no blood. Ergo, he did not shed his blood, 545 These were adjuncts, but not works of our redemption. nor was buried, 546 These were adjuncts, but not works of our redemption. nor rose again, 547 These were adjuncts, but not works of our redemption. nor ascended into heaven to fulfil all things. Ephes. 4. 10. for if all things were then fulfilled on the cross, what need he to ascend, to fulfil all things. 548 You can never prove it. Therefore, I did prove that this argument of yours, did make no more against the descending into hell, then against the shedding of his blood, burial, resurrection, ascension or judgement, all which are necessary to our 549 That is not the quest. weal, and perfect consummation. 550 To no purpose. Farther, to prove my distinction to be true, I did then quote, that as Christ is said to be the Lamb, slain from the beginning of the world, so the death of Christ did reach to the first believers, and shall do to the last. Which consummation by hope, is so enjoyed, as if we possessed it already: for all the promises of Christ, are yea, and Amen, 2. Cor. 1. 20. 551 But our argument will not take that stain. Therefore, I told you this argument, (It is finished) ergo, Christ went not down to hell was a fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter. And I noted how these words were to be understood. 552 All these be answered, fol. 16. & 17. of your sermon. First, that all the scripture and prophecies were fulfilled, for so the text noteth. 553 All these be answered, fol. 16. & 17. of your sermon. Secondly, it is finished, doth signify, there is no other sacrifice for sin: for by one sacrifice once offered, he hath made perfit all that shall be sanctified, Hebr. 10, 14. And therefore the Papists joining the merits of Saints with the merits of Christ, do err most shamefully. 554 All these be answered, fol. 16. & 17. of your sermon. Thirdly, it was finished as concerning all his labours and sorrows. 556 All these be answered, fol. 16. & 17. of your sermon. Fourthly all his sufferings both of body & soul were ended, which he finished on the cross. 556 All these be answered, fol. 16. & 17. of your sermon. Briefly, his obedience to his Father was ended, for he yielded a pure, perfect, and perpettuall obedience to his Father, and therefore had all power given him in heaven, earth, and hell. Moreover, I did prove this interpretation by this text, 557 That text proves it not. 1. Cor. 15. 54. Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, o death where is thy sting, O hell where is thy victory, 558 These men deny not that he finished our redemption on the cross and did allege Beda, Peter Martyr, and Musculus up on this place, all which were of my judgement, and therefore you had no more cause to wonder at me, then at these learned men, whom 559 These be perilous words. Be there any Churches in England unreformed? all the reformed Churches of England do reverence. Last of all, you seem to charge me, as though I had said that Christ went down to suffer, which thing I never mentioned, but that he went down to 560 That was an obscurema nifestation. manifest his death, to triumph in 561 Who says he triumphed in an other person than his own? his own person over the Devil, 562 Did he redeem us on the cross by a deputy? and personally to redeem us from hell. Then you call them dunces whence I had that distinction. 563 You had it not from him, nor he from the word of God. I had it from Musculus, and Musculus from the word of God, 564 I deny the sequel. & therefore you must embrace these distinctions, or else you will speak erroneously. Omnia prohate, quod bonum est tenete. Try all things, hold that which is best. 565 Baseware it is, howsoever your wit and it doth agree. This work is worthy my wit or any other Interpreters. Neither will I leave the ware that is in my poor pack for all the treasures of Egypt. An absurdity in the D. Reply. That Christ being nailed hands and feet to the Cross, died without shedding of blood. HUME his Rejoinder to the 15. sect. Our opinion is, that Christ upon the Cross, did offer a perfect sacrifice for our sins, and finish the whole work of our redemption. This we prove by his own last words, It is finished. For, after the manner of men, who having brought their work to the last stroke, say (they have done) & withal make an end: He having borne all the malice that death and Hell could inflict, told the standers by, that he had done. And this he did immediately before he gave up the ghost: because he could not as he was man, tell them the same after that he was dead. Neither wanted this speech great reason. It was to make full our hope, and to confirm our faith, which otherwise might have stood in suspense. For, seeing our sins had deserved, not only the temporal death, which the beholders did see him die: but also all the deaths of Hell, which they, nor no mortal eye, could see him suffer: He told them himself, that he had finished and done all, that there might remain no scruple for us to doubt of. Thus therefore we reason against these men. If Christ finished the whole work of our Redemption upon the cross, there remained nothing for him to do in hell. But he did finish the whole work of our redemption upon the Cross: Ergo, there remained nothing for him to do in hell. This Syllogism is so strong, that you dare not deny one syllable of it. Wherefore, when I hard you in the pulpit violate the text whereon it standeth, I could not choose but tell you, that you ran beyond yourself, and made your audience fear, lest you would have sent Christ to Hell to suffer, an error indeed, but such, as some better divines then yourself, that sealed the truth with their blood, to avoid the absurdities of your opinion, did fall into in King Edward's time, when your opinion was most generally embraced, and confirmed by convocation. Whereas you say, that I say much and prove little: I prove as much as I intent. It was not my purpose to confute any thing that you had spoken truly. For these words (it is finished) are not to be referred to the instant, when they were spoken, but to the end of his passion, which immediately followed. This you confess, and why should I confute you? Or which is stranger, how could you find a contrariety in my words, and see none in your own speaking the same, that I do. But this is amongst much more worse than this, the fruit of your malice. And here in your sermon at Chippenham, there was no more between us, but only that you made a countenance to confute that which we avouch, & you confess: conveying your battery in such sort, that you made the beholders think, that you played upon our sconce, but in very deed, did ●euell all your ordinance another way. But now you are grown somewhat further from me: for, though you confess that Christ went not to hell to suffer: and that he died immediately after he said, (It is finished:) yet you deny, that this was the end of his work. Your reason is, that he had not shed his blood, and that without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. And may we believe you M. Doctor? That Christ was nailed hands and feet to the cross, without shedding of his blood? If you will have us so credulous as to think this may be true, first resolve us of what grief Christ died, in not much more, than three of our common hours: being only wounded in the hands & feet, if not of the effusion of his heart blood. Your distinction of consummatumre, and consummatum spe, you will needs have us believe, that it was bred in God's book. You must bring better proof than I see, or else it never received bark nor branch in that soil. The thing that you should prove, is, that the sacrifice of Christ was finished in hope, not in deed. That we are saved in hope, Rom. 8. 24. That we wait for the hope of our righteousness. Gal. 5. 5. That we lift up our heads, because our redemption draweth near. Luke. 21. 8. That we sigh, waiting for the hope, even the redemption of our bodies. Rom. 8. 23. What makes all this, to prove that Christ did finish our redemption only in hope? The question is here, how Christ hath finished our redemption? not, how we possess it. Seeing our hope is not uncertain and unstable, but settled on a sure ground: doth not these places rather prove, that Christ hath done all fully and absolutely? For if he did but hope how could we be sure? Your unshapely argument that you would fain fasten on us, and your other arguments cast in the same mould, to show the absurdity of it, with your long impertinent tale of the rest of your sermon, I will let pass, as helping you as little, as hurting us. Your counsel concerning the Dunces, I am not yet ready for: when I have read all better books, than I will read them. For as worthy men as they are in your eyes, I cannot hope that they will confirm my judgement, to make me go sure: seeing yourself being so well acquainted with them, cannot keep your own feet from stumbling. HUME Sect. 16. IN the end of your sermon, you produce two inconveniences that you say, must needs follow, if this article be not believed. The question is not about the truth, but about the meaning of this article. Hear, you do us open wrong, and accuse yourself of an untruth. You told us in the beginning of your sermon, that neither M. Chaulfont, nor M. Wisdom did doubt of his descending into Hell, and why now labour you to load your adversaries with ●nuie: as if they took away hell, and the benefit of Christ's passion. What Rhetoric soever this Bee, it is bad Divinity. We never denied that he went down into Hell, but that ever he descended into the pit of the damned. From whence, if you will in good logic, gather your conclusion: your wit reacheth many miles beyond our capacities. For, we are persuaded, that there can be no surer argument, neither of Hell, nor of the certainty of our redemption; then that he suffered all the torments of Hell upon the cross, and made a full satisfaction for all our offences. Which thing, he could not have done, if there were no hell: and which thing, if he hath done (as we are surely persuaded) there is nothing more sure than our redemption. For, seeing he suffered upon the tree, the pain of all our sins, as Peter witnesseth, and hell was due to our iniquities: it is as sure, (as what is most sure) that upon the tree, that is, upon the cross, he descended into the lowermost Hell: that is, into the heaviest torments that Hell could yield: and this, except you will confess, you must grant that the Symbol (as we call it) of the Apostles, and do so reverently embrace, is unperfect. For seeing the greatest part of our redemption, consisteth in Christ's suffering in soul, for our souls: it was more needful in that Symbol to make mention of them, them of the death of his body, both because they were more horrible unto him, and further removed from our senses. Which thing, if it be true, (as it is most certain) in what other words (I pray you) of that Symbol, is that contained? but in these, he descended into hell? For, that which goeth before, he was crucified, dead and buried, may be as well affirmed of the the thieves, that suffered with him. HIL his Reply. I Brought two inconveniences, 566 This ground was uncertain: you are ready to guess, when you are willing to speak. if this article were denied. 567 To move men not to do that, that you cannot name one man that doth. to move the people, not to leave out any. The Paralogi●s of this section. It is not unknown to you, that 568 servetus I never saw. carlil doth not deny it: blush for shame. servetus and 569 servetus I never saw. carlil doth not deny it: blush for shame. carlil deny it, and 570 Name one. divers others now living among us (by reason of the 571 Untruth. negative doctrine which is preached of your side) will not repeat this branch of the creed (he descended into hell.) 572 Twenty to one, they were men of your own side. And some have said to my face, that Thomas Aquinas did insert it into the Creed. 573 Any is too many: but I believe, your many is not any Of these men I know too many, against whom I did direct my speech, 574 Except I am deceived. your fear wanted a subject. for fear lest some might be in that populous assembly. 575 Who be they M. Doctor? Bad do they, that deny the personal descending, but worse do they, which deny both personal and potential. 576 And worse do you, if you know none such. Therefore I was not contrary to myself, but contrary to those which have given 577 But you were, except you can coin a better excuse than this. occasion, that so comfortable an article of our Christian faith, should be 578 They that hold not here a negative, did not give such an occasion with a negative. put out of the Creed. You say, it was my part to deal plainly, 579 A private man's fault cannot well be called the putting out of an article. for I preached the truth. Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit. flattery getteth friends, truth getteth hatred. I know the ears of that 580 So you say. Auditory did itch for other 581 Not at your hand: and yet the common sort were well pleased. Obsecutus multis, paucos irritassi. matter, but I am God's Minister, & I have preached God's truth, which I will (by the help of my God) defend, 582 So there be many that dissent from you. against all gainsayers what so ever. 583 Hard and scarce. HUME his Rejoinder to the 16. Section. BEtter a bad excuse, (saith the proverb) but better to confess a fault. You alleged these inconveniences, (you say) to move the people not to leave out any of the articles of their faith. Men use to apply salves to sores, but I believe you know not one sore for this salve. Yet you say, you know many that will not repeat this article, by means of the negative on our side. I think it is like true, that you know any such, and that we hold this article negativelie. We hold that Christ descended into Hell, and suffered all his torments for our redemption, which I have been taught to be an affirmative, by better Logicians, than Doctor Hill. But one told you, that Thomas Aquinas did insert this article: A discreet Pastor, would have admonished one man rather privately: then have troubled such an assembly with such a doubt in public. Whosoever he was that told you that, he learned it not by any negative that we hold, but of one of your Doctors. Erasmus is the first that ever I heard bring that in question, a man on your side, and one of your chief anchors. Calvine in his book of the Institution of Christian Religion saith, that some are of that judgement, most likely noting him, and men that followed his opinion. But how-so-ever it came, there he proves it to be an article, both consonant and agreeable to the Scriptures, and necessary to the perfection of the Symbol of our Faith. Therefore, Master Doctor, you do not well, to lay the faults of your own favourites and friends, to our charges. It was the improbability of your opinion, that drove a man of so much judgement as Erasmus was, to make that doubt. But carlil and Servetus you say do deny it. In your printed sermon, as you call it, you lay your malice more open. There you allege for this antiquity joined with verity, (so there you call your own opinion) all the learned of all ages, old and new: all the Prophets and Apostles, and sybilles of the heathen: all the creatures in heaven & earth, living and dead: and lastly, all the Devils themselves. Only some possessed (you say) with Devils, as the jews, servetus and carlil deny it. Hear you utter your choler more plainly, challenging to your own side, all the learned of all ages, old and new, and leaving nothing to your adversaries, but block-isme, dol-tisme, and devilish giddiness. But, (God be thanked) you have not the disposing of gifts and spirits. There be men that denies your opinion to have any ground in the word, as far excelling you in all kinds of learning, as you count yourself before Sir Thomas your Curate at Goosage: and of such zeal and constancy in God's cause, with out regard of wordly preferments, as I pray God a man that can hold two benefices, and would have seven if he could get them, might mend that fault, and show himself as far from Devilish giddiness, as they. As for Servetus, I never saw his book, which Calvine in his Epistles doth say, was printed at Vienna. But this I know, that he held many gross errors, concerning the Trinity, Humanity, and Deity of Christ: as it is apparent in an Epistle written by the Ministers of Basil, to the Syndicks and senate of Geneva. As for this question, I know not what he held but it is not likely, that ever he touched it. And this I am sure of, that he was burned, by the greatest favourites of our opinion, I mean the Genevites. carlil, (excepting his fault) was a man for judgement and learning, many degrees before yourself: He made a slip, indeed, as who hath not? Though you throw the first stone at him, you are not clear yourself. Besides the mani-slips made in this book, and other pulpits also: you taught on S. james his day in Trubridge Anno 1591. If I do well remember the year, that women did bear children without pain, in time of innocency. And because you would be sure not to be mistaken, you did repeat it in the after noon, in the same terms that you spoke it in the forenoon: a fault of less judgement and learning then Carlils was. The jews be enemies to our faith, and therefore do not meet with us, nor acknowledge the truth that we do hold in this article As for the place that they take from you in the Hebrew Psalm, and whereupon your choler doth rise, I see no cause why they are not to be believed in their own tongue, before all others that have learned that tongue of them. Their opinion of those words (if they be taken right) doth impeach Christ's passion, not so much as your own: what ever it pleaseth you and Aepinus, to dream and suspect, without cause and matter. But upon the jews, the enemies of our faith, & Servetus an Heretic, with carlil, whom for his fault, (not so foul as your own) you boldly and peremptorlie term possessed with a Devil, in this place, you would feign lay the first broaching of our opinion, to deceive the simple. I hope you will leave this craft one day. Howsoever you may purchase a plause amongst the ignorant, the wise and learned will hiss you out of the schools, if you run this course, as you have begun. HUME his 17. Sect. THey say that you preached the same at Leycock, condemning all men that descent from you, of fury and madness, as men fight against the holy Ghost, and spurning at a doctrine so profitable, so godly, so wholesome, and so full of all comfort, and solace. Hear M. Hill, I appeal to your own conscience, what profit, what commodity, what health, safety or solace, is in your opinion, that ours compriseth not? Seeing our whole solace and safety, comfort and commodity, consisteth in this, that we understand that Christ, God and man, hath taken upon him our curse, and paying a full ransom for our sins upon the Cross, hath reconciled us to the love of his Farher, which we had lost by our Father Adam, that now we assure ourselves of heaven, without all fear of Hell. What either comfort or commodity, can the sending of Christ into a place, where there was left no comfort nor commodity, add to this so perfit, and full a joy? All good men are sorry, that you, carrying the commendation of zeal and learning, have joined yourself with M. Chalfont, who enterprised this matter so unadvisedly (to say no worse) and hath almost shaken the foundation of the Church, (which God forbidden) with a dangerous division. Your side (I confess) hath many great defendants, which do rather speak for you, then confirm your opinion, either with scripture, or reason. I was myself of your opinion, till the sway of truth, (which I have always rather followed, than mine own fantasies) did carry me to the contrary. I am persuaded, that many of your authors, if they had heard the reasons that you hear, would never have said, as you do. But because the ignorant may not think, that you have all the world on your side. Whether you regard the number or the excellency of the men: our cause is nothing inferior to yours. As for M. Wisdom, if he had erred, it had been more Christianlike, to have confuted him by private conference. But seeing his doctrine hath the consent of most of the learned of our times, and is so fortressed with Scripture and reason as here you see: it wanteth all excuse of modesty to handle him in open audience, before such a multitude in such sort, as M. Chalfont did, and you confirmed in action, though not in words. For my part, I am, and will be on his side, till I here better reason from you. Which when it cometh, it shall carry me to any truth, that you can prove. Further, I will not wag the breadth of a nail. If you can plainly without cloak and colour, confute my reasons and confirm your own: I promise you to turn my song If otherways, I hope you will be as good as that word which you passed in the pulpit, before so many witnesses. If you will satisfy me, you must answer me by writing. For spoken words pass faster away, than my dull senses can digest the reasons. I wrote this in Latin, because I would not have it understood of the common sort. I translated it into English, at the suit of a Gentleman, that lay here the last spring. That copy (by some negligence,) went farther abroad, than I was willing. I left it with a friend or two, to deliver it to you, when I went in Scotland. They conferring together, delayed it till my return lest I might seem to have fled the brunt of your answer. I am sorry that it fell out so. For (God is my witness) I sought not mine own praise, but did seek the truth. Excuse my rash enterprise in writing to you without any acquaintance. Let my love of the truth, which pricked me forward, and your challenge which set me a work, excuse that fault, if it was any. Farewell in the Lord. God give us all understanding hearts. Your friend though unacquainted, ALEXANDER HUME. HIL his Reply. 584 Then you deny not but that you condemned all your adversaries of fury & madness. Truth it is, The Paralogis. of this section. I did preach since a Leicock, & because I hard that M. Wisdom had set that opinion of yours abroach again at Cosham, I did here also confirm mine, Not because 585 You hardly wind from that suspicion I am desirous to be cont●tious, but because I would have no 586 Did M. Wisdom persuade men to doubt? Christian man to doubt of the articles of his Faith▪ you ask me what comfortable or necessary matter you deny, that we do preach. I answer 587 Arrigea●● res Pamphil●. and I pray you consider o● it. 588 That we teach also. we are borne in sin: how are we delivered from sin but by Christ, which was conceived by the holy Ghost. 589 And that if not so eloquently, yet as truly. we have the magnitude of sins with Peter, 590 And that the multitude of sins with Mary Magdalen the turpitude of sins with the woman taken in adultery, the infamy of sins with the Publican: the diuturnity of sins with the thief on the gallows: the cruelty of sins with paul, and the recidivation into sins with divers of the Saints: yet if we repent we are pardoned for Chris●es sake, who purely, perfectly, & perpetualy obeyed the law of God. 591 And tha● By reason of our sins we are subject to all punishments▪ both corporal, and spiritual, and to the wrath of God: All the punishments due to us did Christ suffer upon the cross, both in body and soul, and therefore it is called his Passion. He suffered in the Garden, in Annas and Caiphas house, in Pilat's hall, but upon the cross (as you say truly) he suffered the agonies of death & tormenets of hell. 592 And tha● Further by reason of sin this was laid upon the first Parents, Thou shalt die the death: so by reason of this sentence, not only the body was condemned to death, but the soul to damnation. 593 There is the difference that we teach not: but we teach another thing far more comfortable, that Christ descended into all the torments of hell, to quite us of them: by that he delivered us from Hell. To deliver us from these two punishments, the soul of Christ went to hell and returned, and the body of Christ that lay dead in the grave, rose again mightily, naturally, speedily and happily. 594 All that we teach as well as you Besides, Christ rose in deed, 595 All that we teach as well as you he gave himself to be felt and handled, hereupon we are assured that he conquered death and hell. 596 All that we teach as well as you He ascended into Heaven, and therefore our prayers are hard, when we pray unto him, 597 All that we teach as well as you and he giveth us gifts for our ministry, 598 All that we teach as well as you and so he shall come to judgement at the last day, to give us perfect blessedness. You confess that Christ was borne in deed, lived and fulfilled the law, in the likeness of our flesh (sin excepted) he died in deed, he was buried in deed, 599 And that he descended into hell indeed: why past you by that? aha D. aha D he rose and ascended in deed, 600 We never denied that: speak truth for shame. and yet you will not confess that he personalye descended. How can all these articles going before, and coming after be understood of the person of Christ, and of his humanity, 601 Fie man: who says so? & not this. Therefore you denying this 602 You s●ander. personal descending of Christ into hell, 603 We take not away that comfort. take away the great comfort of our deliverance from hell. You say we are delivered from hell by Christ's 604 And by his descending into hell. death: so are we too by his birth. 605 So you may say, that we are delivered by Adam: if he had never sinned, we had never needed Christ. For if Christ had not been borne he had not died? so if there had not been a separation of the body and soul of Christ, 606 He conquered when he conflicted, and he conflicted before the separation. he could never have conquered death or hell: for by descending into 607 This Divinity is scarce currant, see the answer. the grave, and that personally, he conquered death, & hath delivered us from death, 608 This Divinity is scarce currant, see the answer. & by going down into hell personally, he hath conquered hell. And for this cause, the scripture apply it to the death of Christ, 609 Not so: but because in death he conflicted with these enemies. because death was (as Paul saith, Phil. 3. A dissoluiton of body and soul And these 2. parts being dissolved, Christ came from the grave and from hell, 610 This i● like the 606. and Christ did conquer both, and triumph over them in himself, as it is Col. 2. 15. These Jews do ask asigne from heaven, 611 This is superfluous. Math. 22, 38. Luk. 11. 29. to whom Christ said, A wicked and addulterous Generation doth ask a sign, but no sign shall be given them, but the sign of jonas the prophet, for as jonas was in the whales belly three days and three nights: so shall the son of man be in the heart of the earth, three days and three nights. Which words Basilius Magnus interpreteth very well. These words (a sign) is a matter made manifest containing the declaration of some thing that was hidden as the sign of jonas, representeth the 612 take inferi for the dead, & these men turn not this text to your bias descending of Christ into hell, and the resurrection of Christ, and as Bede saith, 613 take inferi for the dead, & these men turn not this text to your bias & Rhab. also, he gave them a sign, but not from heaven, because they were unworthy to see it, but from the depth of hell: Therefore (M. Hume) this is a most comfortable doctrine, that 614 That is not the thing you promised We teach that as well as you. Christ doth deliver us from hell: which albeit you agnize as well as we, 615 We deny it not, see the answer. yet because you deny the means where by it was purchased, you deny a most comfortable doctrine: for not only the body of Christ was in the heart of the earth, 616 Simply say you? without a figure, if you do, I deny it. but the son of man, which signifieth the whole humanity, that is, the soul and the body. jonas was in the whales belly alive and yet came forth, Christ was in the grave dead in flesh, 617 Petitio principij. and alive in hell, and yet came forth▪ 618 I deny the argument. Therefore to take away this manner of descending, taketh away from the Church a singular comfort, 619 It follows not. and openeth a gap to many errors confuted already by the Fathers. For, if Christ did conquer hell, by the power of the 620 That is your dream Godhead only, and not as he is a man, what need had he to take upon him our nature? but because as man he might be Lord not a heaven, and the Angels, but of the earth and of the inhabitants thereof, and of hell and the devils. 621 I said Pi● do●●●t. You say the world is sorry for me. In the world saith Christ you shall have affliction. And he telleth me the world will hate me. I way not these things: 622 If you be. I would you were not. for I am no man-pleaser, nor lover of the world. But if in my Sermon I had disagreed with David; Ezechiel, Esay, Peter▪ Paul, 623. Words, see the answer. & Christ himself 923 as you have done in your an were, I hope I should be both sorry 624 But you cannot b●u●h. and ashamed. Touching M. Chalfont whom you term a man without judgement, and that he spoke impudently and enviously, I never saw him before that time and but once sense▪ but by that speech and conference which I had with him I ford him to be learned 625 His learning I will not meddle with, But if you had inquired, how he used tha● g●od soul M. W. sedome: you might have seen his gale run over and void of gail. Such of his neighbours as I have talked with, did give him the deserved praise of a learned and honest man. 626 That is the question. And for as much as he hath preached 926 sound doctrine in preaching the affirmative, and that doctrine which is allowed by the learned convocation of this land, it doth not become you to 627 Can a private letter be a ●bel●? lible against him. for in speaking against him 628 Fancy. They take neither your part nor his. you traduce all those reverend and learned men, which made an juiunction for keeping of unity that no other Catechism should be taught of any Schoolmaster then M. nowel's. Therefore because you are 629 I am no stranger in the church of Christ a stranger you ought not to be 630 Let them that know me better than you be asked if this be true. pertergoes & speak evil of those Ministers which uphold the doctrine 631 Your opinion is not established. established: and because you are a Schoolmaster, you ought to teach and not to gainsay it. Qui pergit dicere ea, quae vult, audiet ea, quae non vuls. as you revile at M. Chalfont, so do 632 Is truth a revealing? you and your friends privily against me, calling me a Bishop pling and a time-seruer. 633 Tell when, where, and before whom I said so, 〈◊〉 you can. Indeed I was brought up under 634 You did well●● put that in 〈◊〉 but 〈…〉 in, Vertute d●cer non sangui●e niti. Bishop jewel, who catechized 635 I scarce thi●ke it me in this saith, & therefore I will not easily or rashly departed from it. I confess myself also to be a timeserver, 636 There was never worse time you h●ue laid men so fast a sleep, with this lullaby, that now they dream, tha● there is neither heaven nor hell: God nor Devil: That Moses was a Politican, and Christ a deceiver. Are these your days of salvation? Th●se are the times that Paul did prophesy of 2. Tim. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 and Peter 2. Epist. 3 3. and ●f which Christ saith the elect should be deceived if it were possible. Math 24. 24. Praise them as much as you will. for it is the day and time of salvation accepted. ●et them murmur with Martin that list: I pray God my days may end with this time, and my time ma continue no longer than these days of the stated our Church, that now is do continue. I have seen the beginning, 637 You have seen the beginning, but small propagation. Men w●re glader of the Gospel in the beginning, then now: the fault must needs be in the teachers. I leave that to yourselves. God give you hearts to mend in wrod and work●. I have seen the propagation of the Gospel, I have seen God hath de●ended our Church merciful & miraculously from heaven. God grant that I and all my Auditors may walk worthy of our calling, Godly, justly, & soberly. Therefore I end with this saying of S. Paul 1. Cor. 4. 3. As touching me I ●asse very little to be judged of you, or of man's judgement▪ and in the 5. verse, Therefore judge nothing before the time until the Lord come, who shall lighten things that are hidden in darkness, and make the counsels of the heart maniefest, and then shall every man have praise of God. HUME his Rejoinder to the 17. Section. TRuth it is that you did preach since at Leycocke, not for contention's sake, but to have the last word. For, hearing that M. Wisdom had broached his opinion at Cosham, and had persuaded Christian men to doubt of the articles of their fatih, (so your words do sound) you could not hold your fingers. For my part, I am much in your favour. For you were content to see me misuse all the Prophets & Apostles, and Christ himself, and would not have said to me so much as black is my eye, if some unruelie tongues blemishing your credit, had not set you a work. But blab it is, and out it must. You excused M. Wisdom of this fault, in the beginning of your sermon at Chippenhame, and accused him again (unawares) in the end of it. In the last section, you say, that you spoke that of carlil, Servetus, and some that told you, that Thomas Aquinas did insert this article: and now again (unadvisedly) you say here, that you preached again at Leycocke, after that you had heard of M. wisdoms preaching at Cosham, because you would have no Christian man, to doubt of the articles of his faith. If this sermon to this end was needful in your eyes: Then in your conceit M. Wisdom had taught men at Cosham, to doubt of the articles of their Faith: contrary to your first sermon at Cippenhame, and your last section here. Carlil and Servetus did help to cover this slip before. Now, what cloak will you find, to hide this contradiction again? My simple head cannot sound into the depth of your excuses: and therefore, I leave it to yourself to prove, that this slip did leap over the hatch, against your will. Now, you say, that I do ask you what comfortable or necessary matter you teach that we deny. To this (with protestation praemised) that I mark it consideratlie, as though you would not let one syllable fall in waste: you begin a long discourse of the magnitude, multitude, turpitude, etc. of our sins, and of Christ's pains for our pardon, of his resurrection, ascension, and many other things which we acknowledge, as well as you: all which, while my ears prepared by your protestation, did hearken for the promised comfort we teach not: at length cometh out, that we being subject to two great curses, death and damnation, Christ descended into the grave to deliver us from the one, and into Hell to deliver us from the other. This is right Parturiunt montes. That Christ went down into Hell, is not our comfort. Our comfort is, that he hath delivered us from the bands of hell, which we teach & acknowledge as well as you. But if this your doctrine be true, then is it false that Peter teacheth 2. 24. that Christ bore our sins in his body on the tree, and his sacrifice unperfect. Wherefore to conclude, magnus nugator, magno conatu, magnas nobis nugas parit. But (say you) though we agnize this (that is your term) as well as you. Yet because we deny the mean thereof, we deny a most comfortable doctrine. The mean of our salvation was not his going down into the Hell of the damned, which we deny: nor the laying of him up three days in joseph's tomb which we confess. But his suffering in his innocent soul and body, all the torments and miseries of hell and death; which we must have suffered, if he had not stepped in between us and them. I will not only say▪ this (after your manner) but I will prove it so sufficiently, that you yourself, shall not gainsay it. The mean of our salvation, was the conquest of Hell and death: But his going down into the Hell of the damned and joseph's tomb, was not that conquest: Ergo, his going down into the hell of the damned, or joseph's tomb, was not the mean of our salvation. Another. The mean of our salvation, was that immaculate sacrifice that Christ did offer for our sins: But his descending into the hell of the damned, and joseph's tomb, was not that sacrifice: Ergo, his going down into the hell of the damned, and joseph's tomb, was not the mean of our salvation. Another. There Christ redeemed us where he paid the ransom of our redemption: But he paid not the ransom of our redemption in the hell of the damned, and joseph's tomb. Ergo, he redeemed us not by descending into the hell of the damned, nor joseph's tomb. Here be three reasons in mood and figure, against your comfortable doctrine, which when you have answered, I will bring a whole army of such mighty soldiers, (for the scriptures have enough such) to turn your comfort into murning, and your joy into tears, if it stand on no better ground than this. But say you, if all the articles going before the coming after, be understood of Christ's person: then this article of his descending must ca●e the same sense: But the first is true: Ergo, the last is also true. This is a good argument, but the conclusion is not for your hand. If you had but one such for your maine-shot of descending, a whole ream of paper royal, would be too little for your amplifications. But here your malice driving you to imagine much absurdity in our opinion, doth deceive you. For we hold and will die for it, that Christ in his own person body and soul, did descend into all the torments, that hell could yield. And this indeed is a true descending into Hell. For the nature and name of Hell, doth yield nothing but horror, terror, trembling and torments. But in your opinion, we must imagine all things contrary. Not torments, but triumph: nor sorrows, but solace: not shame and ignominy, but honour and glory. Hell doth yield no such fruits, nor the descending into hell, can be to no such end. Take therefore your potential decending into Hell, and the conquest thereof by the only power of the Deity, and buy a benefice with it. Whereas you say that our opinion doth open a gap to many errors: you pretend a fear without ground, to make the Reader affrayed of the moone-shade. It is the manner of politic men, that would feign hinder a thing, that reason doth further, to set fear of sequels against the force of known reason. Here you flee to that shift, though you know, that amongst all the writers, that have embraced this opinion (which be many, & of great name) not one yet can be tainted with one error growing in this fountain. In this section you hamper about another argument, but cannot hit the mark. Wherefore to save your labour, I will here make it up, and break the point of it, when I have done, that you may see it cannot ●urt us. It is this. There is greater reason that Christ should have been held three days of Hell without pain: then three days of the grave without corruption. But he was three days in the grave without corruption. Ergo, he was far rather three days in Hell without pain. Because it is not likely, that the weaker did fasten faster on him, than the stronger: being as far inferior in malice, as it is less in power. To this I answer, that there is not the like reason, much less greater reason. For, he lay three days in the grave to confirm our knowledge, and to extinguish all doubt of his death. secondly, to lay a grounded belief in our hearts of the resurrection: For, he was the first fruits of the dead. thirdly, to make his resurrection more glorious. For the longer he was held in the bands of death, the greater glory it was to break them, gathering strength by continuance. lastly, to take all blocks out of the path of faith, that we might walk in it more surely, without stumbling. I know no such reasons why he should have descended into the very place of hell being so far removed from our senses, as we could receive neither knowledge nor comfort thereby. Now, whereas you take me up, for saying that the world is sorry for you: my words might have had a tolerable construction, if you had cast an eye to Christ's words in john. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son for it: or if you had looked in my latin: you should have found my words less subject to violence. Pij omnes dolent, that is, all the godly are sorry, sounding much to the same sense. But you love not the world (you say) nor the world loves not you: I think you speak truly. iiij. or v. benefices to them that you have, would serve the turn, to maintain your scarlet hood, and half a dozen of tall fellows in tawny coats, to defend that with the sword, which you cannot with the pen & that is but a piece of the world. But you love not the world because it is not so liberal: nor the world loves not you so, because you have more charges already, than you have tongues to teach. You conclude that I being a stranger must not be periergoes, and that Si pergam dicere, quae volo: audiam, quae nolo. These arguments were better in Queen Mary's fiery days for D. Story, than they are now in the calms of Elizabeth, for D. Hill. You slander the learned convocation of the land, and wrong good M. Nowell, who, (as I hear) disclaimeth your opinion. As for me, I am a Christian, and therefore no stranger in the Church of Christ. I will not speak against my conscience, for all the counsels and convocations in the world, and all the Doctors in both the Vniversisities, if they were my adversaries. But (God be thanked) it is not so. I began with you in secret, & you have made it common. Wherefore you are perierg●s and not I. HIL his conclusion to M. Hume. Master Hume, in the latter end of your answer you request me to recant: if your answer did please me, as it doth you: I would be as willing to recant, as you and your friends would be glade to hear it. But I will plainly set down my reasons why I do not recant: The first is, I alleged Act. 2 and proved out of Peter's sermon my assertion, and to the reasons I drew out of that place, you have answered nothing. secondly, I alleged Syra, 17. 21. To prove, that this phrase, (the nethermost parts of the earth) doth signify hell, to this you have in like manner said nothing. thirdly, in all your answers to my allegations, you have disagreed with the word of God. In answering of the 16. Psal. you say my allegation is to be understood of the passion of Christ: And Peter Act. 2. saith, it is spoken of the resurrection, whether is to be believed of Peter or you, I refer it to the indifferent Reader. Then I proved that ERETS TACHTITH, that is, (the nethermost parts of the earth) did signify hell, out of the 63. Psalms and 9 verse. In answering of this you descent from David, and M. Calvine. Now, whether it be more safe to sollowe David or you, let mine enemies judge. I alleged Ezechiel to prove that point also 31. chapter. 5. 16. 17. 18. 19 In answering to that place, you have gainsaid ●zechiel, Esay in his 14. chapter Lavaterus, Munster, and Pelican. Now, whether it be more fit for me to believe you or Esay, or Ezechiel, let your own favourites judge. Then I alleged the known place of Peter, you travailed much about this place, yet in your interpretation of this word pneumasi, that is (spirits) which you interpret the souls of the men that lived in Noah's time, you contradict the words of our Saviour, Luk 24 39 For Christ saith, a Spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me have. And yet you, and your masters ●ay, that this word spirit may signify a man living. Now, whether it be more expedient for me to believe you, or Christ, I refer it to your own judgement. You ●aid my Sermon at Chippenhame did confirm you, and your friends: but I hope your own answers will not confute me, but yourself, and cause yourself, and them both to recant: you say you seek to know he truth: so do I, (as knoweth the knower of all hearts): wherefore, whether you or I have taught the truth, let not Hume nor Hill judge, but the learned of the ●niversi●ies. For, as Paul saith. 1. Cor. 14. 32. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. That is, the labours of the learned men, are to be judged of the learned. The God of patience and consolation, give us grace, that we may be like minded one towards another according to Christ jesus, that we may with one mind, & one mouth, glorify God the Father of our Lord jesus Christ. Rom. 14. 5. 6. To whom be all honour & glory, world without end. Amen. An answer to the conclusion. IF you had been the man that you protested in the pulpit, and I promised myself, when I wrote: there was good hope, that my answer might have pleased you, as well as me. But now I see it impossible to please you, except I could sing your song. And truly M. D. I could sing your song as soon as any man's, if it did tune as well with the consent of scriptures, as other men's do. But now you must pardon me: I am too old to learn your discords. The things in my answer, which I hoped might have wrought it favour with you, was truth and reason. But now I see, the one is a stranger with you, and the other a guest at will. If they had been of that account in your study, and so familiar with you, as I hoped: my poor answer had not found such hard handling, nor unreasonable railing there, as it did. You sent it home so ragged, rent, and torn: that it cost me a months work in the cold winter, to mend his coat. Now, I have quilted it better, & sent it to you once again, to challenge your promise, and to tell you that your plain reasons here set down, why you could not recant are nullified and made of none effect: like an obligation, that is paid at the day appointed. Wherefore, seeing your argument drawn from the Act. 2. is answered sect. 4. and sect. 7. And seeing your place out of Syrach is 7. ways defaced sect. 11. And seeing I have proved my consent with the Scriptures in every place, where I met with that accusation. And seeing our sense of the 16. Psalms, agreeth with Peter as well as yours, sect. 7. And seeing in my answer to Psal. 63. I descent neither from David nor Calvine, sect 8. And seeing in my answer to the place of Ezechiel, I descent neither from him nor Esay, sect. 9 And seeing I have proved by the word (spirit) that men living in the flesh are not signified sect. 12. And seeing now I have set down your words according to your own request: and seeing your sermon at Chippenhame, and this anwsere also, hath confirmed me: and seeing mine own answer doth no● offer me, nor any of my friends sufficient cause to recant. I hope now you are satisfied, and that you will satisfy me, and the populous congregation, to whom you made your solemn promise of recantation in the pulpit at Chippenhame. It was not a place to dissemble in, and therefore let us see that you meant as you spoke. The Lord give you a heart pliable to his truth. ANd here to end, as if M. D. had set the bent of his wit to show the vanity of his work, he maketh the vainest brag, that ever grew in a vain head. There was (good Reader) if thou know it not) one Ovid, of all vain poets the vainest. Amongst many filthy, and vain works, he wrote a book entitled Metamorphosis. In it he sets the edge of all his wits (which he had as sharp as ever had any Poet) to the painting of lies in all colours wherein he shot so near the mark, that in comparison of it, the lying legend comes not near the whetstone, by as many miles as there be words in them both. The conclusion of this worthy work, M. D. hath pasted to his hell, as most agreeable to that argument. jamque opus exegi, quod nec iovis ira, nec ignis, Nec pot●rit ferrum, nec edax abolere vetustas. In which Ovid looking back into the work of his own wit, grew into such love with the fineness of his own conceits, that he doubted not to de●ie his own imagined God jupiter. Now, that thou mightest see (gentle reader) that M. Doctor did think of his own work, as well as Ovid could of his: he bursteth out in the same brag. In which, if he mean Ovid's Idol by this jupiter, it is heathnishe, if the true God, it is Hellish. That they that understand not the latin, may understand it, I have thought not amiss to english it as near the words as I can keeping the english meeter. I have at length made up this work, Which jupiter in raging fume: With me, with fire, with edged sword, And cankering age cannot consume. To it I may well answer out of another Poet. Quid dignum tanto fert hic promissor hiatis, Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. That is, What hath this vaunting bragger done Worth gaping mouth and lips so wide: The groaning Hill is brought a bed And out a silly mous doth slide. Huic latino carmine sic respondero. Nondum est exactum: ludit tua gloria ventos, Ad sat a licta redi▪ I am renovatur opus. In cineres▪ fumosque tui rediere labores, Quod lovis ignis agit, quod jovis irae facit. Aliud. Dicere sibellum mireris tartara coelo: Foedera Dis stygius cum jove nulla colit. Aliud. Christum post stygios in tristi morte dolores, Contendit stygias Hillus adisse domos. Complexus vano nugas, tricasque libello Provocat insanus tela, manumque jovis. Errat: fi tutum jovis ira acheronta putarit, Non coquit aeternis iguibus ille stygem? FINIS. CERTAIN PLACES QVOted out of Master Doctors own Authors, upon the three principal places, whereupon he buildeth this his opinion, wherein thou mayst see gentle Reader, how small cause he hath to brag of so many old and new writers. I leaning altogether on the word of truth, have not quoted them in the treatise itself, counting them unsufficient witnesses in such a cause, wherein they have neither revealed, nor experimented knowledge, yet because I would not defraud the● of their judgements, I have thought good to set them down here. The first place is, thou wouldst not leave my soul in 〈◊〉 nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption, where M. D●ct●r takes 〈◊〉 to be hell, we the general condition of them which are departed this life. MOLERUS, In Psal. 16. caeterum movent hic questionem●● descensu Christi ad inferos, quam prudens omitto: cum ex hoc l●co id satis certo evinci non possit. Felinu, non deseres ammam me●̄sepu●●hro, id est, non destitues me, ut anima mea morti concedat. Per she●l enim quod sepulchrum significat (ut in Psal 6. verse 6. d. x●) statum & con●●tionem mortuorum, In eundem hoc est inferos, script●ra transnominare solet. Muse Ius, non derelinques animam meam in sepulchro, nec dabi● sa●ctum tuum videre corruptionem, In eundem. quasi dicat, tam certus sum ma●surum me perpetuo, ut ubi etiam mortuus fuero, in m●rteta. men detineri nequeam: ideo quod, etc. Hemingius: on thy psalm saith, Vis verborum hunc sensum ut à Petro docemur, suppeditat, non derelinques▪ id est, non sins, animam meam, In eundem. id est, me: in inferno, id est, sepulchro permanere. Pomeranus, Quoniam non derelinques animam meam, id est, vitam meam, 〈◊〉 ●●ndem. in inferno, id est in morte: Christus non solum pro nobis mortuus est▪ sed etiam voluit pro nobis al● quantisper▪ id est, usque in tertium diem descendere ad tenebras tartareas, ubi est imago mortis, & sicut Iob dicit sempiternus horror absque vll●ordine, ho● est voluit tam diu in morte teneri, ad quam nos eramus in Adam damnati. sic & joseph de morte sua loquitur, Gen. 37. descendam ad filium meum lugens in sheol. These be five of M. Doctors principal Authors, all agreeing with us, and contrary to himself, these that follow indeed dissent from us▪ and agree not with him on the meaning of this place. Aepinus the great superintendant of Hamborough (as he calleth him) on this place saith. Veteres ex scripturis respondent diversa● ap●d inferos mansiones fuisse, beatasque animas à corpore separatas ante Christi ascensio●em, neque in terris mansisse, neque hinc ad superos in coelum migrasse, sed descendisse ad infernum▪ & huic sententiae suffragetur Ecclesiae Ca●h●licae consensus, & accedat scripturae sacrae autoritas: retineb● hanc sententiam donec certior scripturae interpretatio adferatur, & haec manifestis scripturae testimonijs confuretur. Peter Martyr in his common places holdeth the same in a manner. Et vero una atque altera tum piorum, spirituum, tum eorum qui damnati esse●t, societas Christi praesentiam persensit. Etenim fidelium spirituum▪ q●i in loc● tranquillo quies●●bant, qui sinus Abrahae apposite dicitur, ut cum sancto illo Patriarcha eadem fide praediti ex●ectarent salutem per Christum, qua ab Abrahamo denominabantur, spiritus inq●am 〈◊〉 magna consolatione exhilarati sunt, Egeruntque Deo optimo maximo gratias, etc. Lossius on this place saith. Christus ad inferos vere post mortem descendit, ne nos ad eos descendamus. 2. ut inde Patriarchas ut vetus credidit ecclesiae secum abduceret, cum quibus postea cum triumphs in co●lum ascendit. These three holdeth that the Fathers were in hell, though Marty● dare not give it that name, but calls it a place of rest and the bosom of Abraham, all which M. Doctor denieth. Luther on this place tomo 3. of his works. Sicut Christus cum summo dolore mortuus est●ta videtur dolores in inferno post mortem sustinuisse, ut nobis omnia superaret. Ita ego interea verbis Petri inhaerebo donec meliora doctus fuero. To him agreeth Latimer in his Sermons. And these two hold that he suffered in hell, which Master Doctor denieth. The second place is in the 4. Ephes. verse 9 but that he ascended, what is it but that he first descended into the lowermost parts of the earth. Hemingius on this place saith. Porro, qui ex hoc loco descensum Christi ad inferos, & locum damnatorum concludant parum firmo nituntur fundamento. Non enim comparationem in lituit Apost. unius partis terrae ad totam terram: sed totam te●ram cum coelo confert. Musculus on this place bringeth two senses indifferently, the last accordeth with this. Potest exp●● deterra simpliciter cu●us partes sunt respectu coeli inferiores. This much agreeth with us against our Doctor. Musculus his other sense is this. Descendit ad nos in hunc mundum, ad sepulchrum, & ad inferos▪ descendit ad eos propter quos redimendos venit: & quousque illi in partibus terrae cum vivendo, tum moriendo ad inferiora demissi sunt: cousque ipse sese demisit, quo nos ex inferioribus secum ad superiora, unde descendit, subveheret. Where he diss●nteth also from this Doctor ho●ding that he never descended farther than the Sancts of God doth, whom he came to redeem, which was not I trow so far as the damneds hell. Pelicanus on this place saith, Ascendit redivivus in sublime secum ducens victoriae suae trophaeum captivoram gregem à peccati Diabolique tyrannide liberatum. Here he holdeth that he did carry the fathers up to heaven, which our Doctor deemeth. Petrus Martyr de utraque in Christo natura contra ubiquitarios. fol. 59 in typis Chistoph●●● Froschoveri apud Tygurinos'. saith▪ Descendit ergo ad infer●ora terrae, & ascendit super omnes coe●os, filius Dei, ut non solum legem Pr●phetasque compleret: sed & alias quasdam occultas dispensationes, quas solus ipse novit cum Patre. Neque enimscire p●ssumus quomodo Angelis, & his, qui in inferno erant, sanguis Christi pr●fuerit & tamen quin profuerit, nescire non possumus. Here this most excellent man avoucheth▪ that Christ's blood was profitable to them in hell, which our Doctor date not ●ay of the damned, howsoever Peter Martyr meant it. The third place is out of the 1. Pet. 3. 18. 19 20. mortified in the flesh, & quickened in the spirit, in which spirit, he went and preached to the spirits sometime disobedient in the days of Noah, etc. Hemingius on this place saith. Patet quod carnis voca●ulo tota humana natura Christi intelligatur: sicut & spiritus appellatione ejusdem divina natura. And a little after he saith, Perpe●am quidam spiritus nomen ad animam tantum referunt contra apertum Paul● testimonium. Aepinus upon the 68 Psalm saith Petrus non meminit animae separatae à corpore sed illius spiritus, quo tempore Nohae increduli● praedicavit, nondum ●ss●m ta hum●na carne, & q●● vivi● catus 〈◊〉 à morte, qui spiritus Deus est. non rationalis anima. Deus enimisculcitav●t cum s● lutis d●lo●●bus mortis. Act 2. 13. non anima. Aretios' on this place saith. Ideo car●em accipio libenter pro tota humana natura Christi, quam assumpsit in v●●tatem personae. Contra▪ viu●●catus est Spiritu, hoc est secundum divinam naturam. Pneum● igitur est divina natura ut constet sibi antithesis. These three agree here with us against this Doctor, that boasteth so much of their names. Vitus Theodorus in the contents of the chapters of the first Epistle of Peter translated into Latin by Selneccer one of Master Doctor's author's saith Singul●ris haec est doctrina, & quae alib● in sc●pturis nusq●●ā legitur. & quid Apostolus per eam intelligit, nondum perfect scire licet. hoc certitudo est eum aliquot spiritibus praedicasse sed quot, & quibus videbimus in aeterna vita. Here this man, deemeth that which he supposeth to be spoken here, to have any other warrant in the word. & that it is not known to what spirits he preached contrary to our Doctor. Pelicanus on this place. Per spiritum intelligo spiritum sanctum datum Apostolis die Pentecostes: & per carcerem errores, & Id●lolatrias Gentium, & judaeorum. Our Doctor by spirit understandeth the huma●e soul of Christ, by the prison hell. This man (one of his own authors) understandeth by spirit the holy Ghost, and by the prison the errors wherein the souls of the jews and Gentiles were captived. Thus thou mayst see (gentle Reader) that these three places, on which M. Doctor buildeth his opinion, his own authors do interpret them some as we do, and some otherways than he himself can allow. wherefore thou mayest well think, that this is a weak foundation to build thy faith upon. Now I will note to thee how his own authors (that he calls his own I mean) do dissent from him, and one from another on the very article itself. First all his old writers send Christ to hell to deliver the fathers, and he to the hell of the damned where the fathers never were, and there fore no more of them. Erasmus in Catechesi saith, Ipsa inconcinnitas sermonis a●guit ab also quop●am intertextum Emblema▪ & paulo post. An Thomas Aquinas addiderit subdubito. Hear he doubteth of the Article itself, and supposeth Thomas Aquinas to have inserted it. Et postea vetustissimi patres magna religione cavebant, ne quid asseverarent duntaxatin symbolo, quod non esset evidenter sacris literis utriusque testamenti expressum. Tales sunt omnes articuli hoc uno excepto. Hear he denies it (meaning the common sense of it) to have any sufficient warrant in the word. Afterward gathering all the places of scripture that are alleged by writers to confirm it he concludes. Nihil istorum est, quod tergiversatorem cogat credere Christi animam per se descendisse ad tartarum. And again, in his multa sunt, quae nihil habent ponderis: sed nullum est quod non vel allegoriae nebulo sit obscuru●, vel variam accipiat interpretationem. Hear he denies the sufficiency of all th● scriptures, that this man and all that went before him allegeth, and yet this is one of his own authors. Petrus Martyr in symbolo, saith, Quantum ad animam ipsam attinet, statim atque ex corpore excessit, non mansit oti●sa, sed descendit ad inseros, quod nihil aliud indicat, nisi quod eundem subijt statum, quem reliquae animae à corpore sejunctae experiuntur. Hear this man saith that to descend into hell is nothing else, but to enter into that same state, that other souls do, when they are departed from the body, which our Doctor denies, and yet this is one of his Authors. Felmus on the 16. Psalm saith, Non est in Davide adimpletum quod hic canitur. Anima enim ejus tandem ad inferos descendit, & vidit caro ejus foveam. Hear this man taketh the name of hell for the common condition of all the dead, which our Doctor denies: & yet this is one of his Authors. Pomeranus on the 16. Psalm, having expounded the name sheol of the state of the dead as I have quoted before concludes. Atque hic habes articulum illum fidei, with many more words proving that Christ hath wrought our deliverance by his death and not by descending into the hell of the damned. And yet this is one of Master Doctor's best Authors. Westmerus in tropis in voce, infernus, pag. 832. saith, Ad infernum descendere, nihil aliud est quam pessum ire, etc. And after in the same page. and page 833. ad infernum descendere est corpus sub terra recondi▪ unde cum Christus descendisse ad inferos adseritur in symbolo vere mortuus, & sepultus esse intelligitur Hear this man saith, that Christ's descending into hell is m●ant but of hic death, and burial. And yet this is one of M Doctors authors. Luther and Latimer hold●, that Christ suffered in hell the torments of hell, as I have quoted already. This our Doctor denies, and yet these be two of his Authors. Hipperius in his Catechism, gathering the sum of this part of our faith thus saith. Primo dignatus est Christus se nostri causa humiliare nostram assumens naturam per omnia (si excipiamus peccatum) par nobis factus, secundo pro nostris peccatis expiandis maximos cruciatus pertulit, & mortem ignominiosissimam Tertio quo donaremur justitia à morte resurrexit quibus peractis pristinam accepit gloriam, & ascendit ad coelos. Here this man shouldereth it quite out of his creed, and yet this is one of Master Doctor● Authors. Lossius on the 16. Psalm saith, Descendit ad inferos totus Christus sive filius Dei, sicut idem conceptus est de spiritu sancto, natus ex Maria Virgin, crucifixus, m●rtuus, & sepultus. Hemingius in his Catechism hath the like. Christus descendit ad inferos utrum anima an corpore scriptura non dicit: sed Symbolum videtur innuere totum Christum descendisse. Hear these two men say that Christ descended into hell body and soul: our Doctor denies it: and yet these be two of his Authors. Vrbanus Rhegius in Catechismo, saith, Secundum animam descendit ad inferna ad pias animas Adami, Noahi, Lothi, etc. Hear this man saith, that he went into hell to the holy souls of Adam Noah, and Loth. our Doctor saith they were not there, and yet this is one of his Authors. Aepinus on the 16. Psalm saith. Quod autem Christus latron● dixit hody eris mecum in Paradiso non abrogat fidem huic dogmati de descensu Christi ad inferos: quia paradisus illa de qua loquitur Christus eo tempore apud inferos fuit, nunc autem apud supero●●● coel● est. Hear this man saith that Paradise was in hell before the coming of Christ: our doctor saith no, and yet this is one of his best Authors. Lavaterus on Ezech 31. 18. saith, hades apud Graecoes generale vocabulum est tormentorum & quietis. This man saith, and saith it truly, that the greek name of hell, is a common name both to the place of the torments of the wicked, and the joys of the faithful. our Doctor denies that, and yet this is one of his chief Authors. Alesius on the 19 of john upon these words, Exivit in locum qui Caluaria dicitur, orationem repetit luciani presbiteri Antiocheni ubi haec habet. Adhibebo vobis loci ipsius testimonium adstipulatur his ipse in Hyerosolimis locus, & Golgothana rupes sub patibuli onere dis●●pta. Antrum quoque illud quod avulsis inferni januis corpus demum reddidit animatum, quo purius inde ferretur ad coelum. Here this man maketh the place where Christ was buried the mouth of hell, meaning thereby the place of death, our Doctor denies that, and yet this is one of his Authors. Aretius' in the ninth of his common places, fol. 31. Sed de ill● non satis constat, quamdiu apud inferos sit commoratus: non diu ut apparet, ut eadem die secundum animam ab inferis reversus gloriose Paradisum ingressus sit cum latrone. Hear this man saith that Christ was not one day in hell, M. Doctor saith that he was there all the three days, that he lay in the grave, and yet this is his chiefest Author. Master Nowell in his greater Catechism saith, Christum, ut co●pore in terrae viscera, Ita anima à corpore sep●rata ad inferos descendisse, simulque etiam virtutis suae virtutem atque efficacitatem ad mo●tuos, atque inferos adeo ipsos ita penetrasse, ut & incredulorum animae acerbissim●m justissimamque infidelitatis suae damnationem, ●pseque Satanas i●ferorum princeps tyrannidis suae, & tenebrarum potestatem omnem deb●●itatam, fractam, a●que ruina collaps●m ●ss● persentiret: Contra vero mortui Christo dum vixerunt fidentes, redemptionis suae ●pus jam peractum esse, ejusq vim, atque virtutem cum suavissima, cer●●ssimaque consolatione intellige●ent atque perciperent. Hear (gentle Reader) because Master Doctor wrongeth this good man, than whom the earth beareth not many, and (as I am persuaded) 〈◊〉 any better, I pray thee mark this place well, for these are the only words that M. Doctor challengeth in all his works. First th●u ma●est observe, that he useth the name (inferi) not for the damned only but for all the dead: because he saith that by Christ's descending ad inferos, both the wicked felt the justness of their damnation, and the godly the sweetness of their salvation, and so Christus descendit ad inferos is but Christ descended to the dead. Secondly that he saith not that Christ's soul descended into the hell of the damned, as our Doctor doth: but that his soul being severed from his body, that is, being departed this life, he descended ad inferos, that is, was laid up amongst them whose life was blotted out of the memory of the living. Thirdly, he saith not that those, to whom he descended saw him there personally▪ but they felt and understood the one their j●st damnation, the other their sweet salvation together with his descending to the dead that is presently upon the dissolution of his soul and body. Wherefore great wrong hath our D. done this man, to w●ing hi● words being somewhat obscure to a sense that he never meant, and to brag of him as being the father of an opinion that I dare hope (for he is yet alive) he doth disallow. His opinion is amongst all the godly allowed to be true though not so well fitting the article of the Creed: but our D. opinion no man accepteth yet for truth, except it be himself and his favorities. Thus I have set down, what jarring there is between this man, and his authors. Now I will show thee, how he hath pulled some into this brawl, that never dealt in the matter to make his muster book long enough, & to fear m●n with naked names. Robert Samuel in the bo●ke of Martyrs, making a confession of his faith when he comes to this point, saith no more than the words of the belief, which be meant as well with us, as with him, and him he quotes for one. Lambe●t in the same book handling the question of the real presence, quotes a place out of Aug. ad Dardanum to prove that Christ being corporally in heaven, is not corporally in the Sacrament: in which place being long, Aug. amongst those things, that Lambert quotes him for, saith that Christ according to his soul was in the bottom of hell (which if it be well taken may be) was devoured and swallowed up of death▪ but Lambert himself neither alloweth nor dissalloweth it, as being a thing beside his question: and yet he is alleged for one. M. Fox writeth a little Pamphlet entitled Christ triumphing, be cause in it is displayed the greatness of the battle, the worthiness of the victory, & the joy of the conquest. The Printer (for I think M. Fox never cared greatly, what sign they hanged at his shop door) or if it was M. Fox himself, all is one, devised a picture to express the matter within the book. A man with four wound, in his hands & feet, invested in a bright cloud, with a glistering flame, as it were of fame, & glory glimmering about his face, standing with the one foot on the head of a Dragon: and the other on the heart of death. This picture M. Doctor took to be so sure an argument of Christ's descending into hell, that he not only causeth to set it before his own b●●k likewise: but also repeateth the name of M. Fox 4. times if not oftener, as favouring his opinion, having to my knowledge not one word in all his works, and I am sure not one syllable in the book, which he quotes of Christ triumphing, saving that picture. Thus gentle Reader, I have giu●n thee a view of 23. of M. Doctor's Authors, of whom some speak against him, some differ from him, & some say nothing for him▪ wherefore thou mayest conclude, that it is but a painted cause that allegeth pictures for arguments▪ there is not one of all the Authors, that he masters so often: that agreeth with him in all things concerning this opinion. Cajetane a Cardinal of Rome writing upon the place of Peter (I● he had not scared at his popish name) cometh nee●er him than any of these, Vt ipse Christus mortificatus carne (nam vere mortuus est secundum carnem) vivificatus autem spiritu (nam tunc cum mortuus erat vivificatus erat spiritu) ut pote beatus secundum spiritum, & triumphans de daemonibus. Here he hath his descending into hell, his triumphing over the Devils, his being alive when he was dead, and his flesh for the body, & spirit for the human soul. Therefore good Reader, let him follow Cajetan and follow thou the truth. FINIS.