A DEFENCE OF A TREATISE TOUCHING THE SUFFERINGS AND VICTORY OF CHRIST IN THE WORK OF OUR REDEMPTION.  
Wherein is confirmed, 

1 That Christ suffered for us, not only Bodily grief, but also in his Soul an impression of the proper wrath of God, which may be called the pains of Hell.  
2 That after his death on the Cross he went not down into Hell.    
For Answer to the late writings of Mr Bilson, L. Bishop of Winchester, which he entitleth, The effect of certain sermons, etc. Wherein he striveth mightily against the doctrine aforesaid.  
By HENRY JACOB Minister of the word of God.  john 7. ver. 24. 
judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement.  
1600.   

To all the godly and religious Magistrates, faithful Pastors, and other Christian brethren in England, Grace and peace be multiplied in the true sufferings and victory of JESUS CHRIST, our only and most glorious Redeemer.  
GIVE me leave I beseech you (Fathers and Brethren right honourable & beloved in Christ) in so great and necessary a case to reply and Defend myself in such wise as becometh me against the unseemly writings of a man, who indeed, I aknowledg, in the world is far greater than I am. Yet forasmuch as the Cause which here I maintain is right and just, as to any man I hope it shall soon appear that will simply and soberly try it by the Scriptures: Again in regard of mine own person and poor credit, although mean in the world, yet by God's mercy such as in conscience I am bound by all honest and Christian means to preserve, seeing he so strangely traduceth & accuseth me in his book as is almost incredible, I am therefore of necessity (as I take it) to open my mouth at this time, and specially in the behalf of that doctrine, which I am undoubtly persuaded, for the substance of it, that hither unto I with infinite more in England have truly & faithfully taught. And albeit I find myself very unequal to try any question with him, who is so high in authority, so prompt of wit, so exquisite in learning, myself in all things so despised and rejected as I am by him and some others: insomuch that I might justly be altogether terrified and wholly turned away (were my cause never so good) from maintaining the same against him: yet surely, God is my witness, it seemeth to me so easy and so plain to defend, together with the necessity of duty binding me (as likewise indeed all men else I think) to stand thereunto, that I could not choose but speak again in this matter, and clear it again so well as I can from his further weak exceptions, and unsufficient objections against it. Neither let any man think that in thus doing I greatly please myself, or seem unwilling to let others to utter their judgements hereupon. Nay surely it is the thing that herein chief I desire, even that others, yea many others (if so it may seem good unto them) would declare their minds touching this new doctrine sprung up from Winchester, and likely to bring a common calamity with other errors more upon our Churches in England, because I fear that not a few among us, are, & willbe troubled therewith. And so I doubt not but it will most amply appear how Holy & true a doctrine this is, which he so disdainfully skoffeth at and reproacheth, being well assured that even the most learned and godly Teachers in this land, defenders of the truth against Popery, as well before time as now at this day under our gracious Queen, do concur & agree with my opinion herein. This if it shall please God that I may see, it will far more exceedingly please me to behold, than whatsoever mine own unskilfulness hath or can utter. In the mean while, I beseech thee, Christian Reader, consider duly with thyself, not who speaketh, but what is spoken by either of us. As for me, I am not ashamed to testify with all duty, though after my simplicity, in the behalf of the Gospel of Christ against men's improbable conjectures: which my trust is that the godly and sober minded will take in good worth uprightly, even as my heart meaneth it (the Lord knoweth) sincerely. The grace of our Lord jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.  
H. I.   

A preface to the Christian Readers touching our 2. Questions and their Defense following.  
IT is a just thing with God (dear brethren) to punish in his dissolute people sin with sin: and where one iniquity is not repent, to bind others thereunto. Which thing surely we may to well see is come to pass and befallen us in England deservedly at this day. Who after so long, plentiful, and comfortable enjoying of the Gospel (the most precious blessing of God in this life) are now almost generally come to this, that we have lost the love thereof. What remaineth then for us, when we set so light by this Heavenly grace forgetting our first love which once we seemed to bear towards it, and wherein now we ought to have abounded, but that God should punish this our heinous and general sin with others, and among others send us delusions even strong delusions to broach & believe lies, seeing we show so small affection and so little pleasure in his truth. The Lord in justice then (no doubt) doth punish us with such delusions of error as are now so rife in our land at this time, more than in times past when as the Gospel hath been soundlier preached and better beloved among us, than now it seemeth to be. Now so much the more dangerous this mischief is, as also it must needs prove yet still, because it is offered unto us forsooth by the friends of the Gospel, and fathers of the Church as they desire to be called, yet being indeed sole Commanders in Religion, very Lords over men's consciences, compulsively overruling their brethren and Gods dear flock; contrary to the 
“ Mat and 2 2 Cor. 1. Cor. 1. Pet.  express Scripture, and all well ordered Ancient and present times. How needful then is it that the Lords faithful Remembrancers forget not themselves in these deceitful days, nor that great charge which the great Pastor of the Flock hath laid upon them, but to be watchful and diligent and for no respect of persons to suffer any part of the gracious truth of God to be disgraced by men: chief that part and point (if we can discern what it is) which by the corruption thereof raiseth and maintaineth most of our other vain corrupt and contentious questions which now swarm among us, yet which easily would be cut clean down if the word of God alone might bear sway, as we see it to be brought to pass this day by the blessing of God in other Reformed Churches of foreign Countries. For my part, being occasioned at this time more specially to speak of 2. of these foresaid corrupt doctrines, I am not unwilling (though unequally yoked) to defend the truth in them. It hath pleaseth Mr Bilson the now L. Bishop of Winchester to begin among us a new matter of faith never heard of before in England (but only in the days of Popery) touching the All sufficiency of the mere Bodily Sufferings of Christ, and to maintain an other which was near worn out, of his going down to Hell in Soul. In both which because my conscience assured me that he was much mistaken, and laboured that others should mistake also, I thought it not besides my duty (the Lord offering me opportunity) to maintain the truth, and that in all plainness and evidence of the Scripture as God enabled me with. This now a while since being published (wherein my trust is I carried myself no otherwise then I ought) the Author and maintainer of the contrary hath so of late entertained it, as seemeth to me and to many others wonderful. Wonderful, not for strength of reasons nor for exquisite matter such as never before was delivered, though his learning I acknowledge and will not but reverence his gifts: but wonderful his answer is and altogether extraordinary, considering that such incomparable bitterness, disdain, skoffing, reproach, and furious rage doth so abundantly come from him therein against my poor self, being yet by the mercy of God a true Christian, a Minister of the Gospel, and one (I praise the Lord) which ever have been careful to be free from the scandals of the World. Though herein I boast not, but rather (with the Apostle) will boast of mine infirmities. Verily this now I have learned by his writing better than ever I conceived before; namely what great odds he maketh and desireth to be made between himself a Lord Bishop, and an other being but a Preacher of Gods most holy word. Well: this is the Rhetoric and the ornaments of his Conclusion against my treatise. But all this is beside his Matter, which nevertheless may have peradventure some weight in it. It may peradventure. Wherefore I see a double necessity urging me to reply thereunto. First to the end that his exceptions and reasons, (that is to say, his whole matter) may appear yet better to be so weak and unsufficient as indeed they are. See: that those uncivil reproaches (I will not say unchristian revile) being the beauty and form of his book, may appear to be but the froth of a distempered stomach, the colour of reason and just cause which he casteth on it, being taken away. As touching the matter therefore thus I purpose to deal. I will begin with his later writing, which he calleth a Conclusion, because he mainly directeth it against me, taking in by the way also all such places & points in the former Treatise as do rightly concern our matter in hand. Finally, as touching his reproaches and cruel words I intent wholly to pass over them, seeing for them neither is he any whit the better, nor myself the worse.   

The Defence of the Treatise of Christ's sufferings against Master Bilsons' Conclusion.  
HIs Conclusion (for so he thinketh good to call it) beginneth against me in his page 225. Wherein first he doth change me in general terms that I flee from the state of the Chief question, and overskip his Authorities, 
The like saith in E● pag. 9  in his reasons I forget and dissemble what pleaseth myself, in the defence of my holy cause (as it pleaseth him to mock) I rove as I list neither keeping any order, nor bringing any matter of moment, confusedly pouring out the hasty resolutions of mine own brains spiced every where with ignorant & absurd positions, proudly despising all authority & antiquity, etc. All which words are but wind, as I shall make it evident (God willing) when we come to view his particulars hereafter ensuing. Among which he 
* Pag. ●  beginneh to justify that he mistook not his Text when he preached this doctrine. But I will speak thereof anon, so that first I satisfy him in the most principal point of his challenge against me. Which is this, 
“ Epis●.  that I have changed the first question, that I set not down the state thereof fully nor truly: & so, I offer to prove that which he never denied, I confute that which he never affirmed. Let us therefore consider advisedly this question: which I will set down again as exactly & as plainly as I can, that we may see how far I erred from it before. We affirm That Christ in his Soul suffered all Gods proper Wrath and vengeance being pains and punishment for sin & no sin, also as touching the essence or nature thereof, 
The su● whole out 1. ●.  and so far as was due Generally for all mankind to suffer. His contrary opinion we conceive thus, That Christ suffered for our sins nothing else but simply and 
“ or 〈◊〉 his Ho● fections ●●tio and  merely a Bodily death: altogether like as the godly and holy men do often suffer at the hands of persecutors, saving only that God accepted this death of his Son as a ransom for sin, but the death of his servants be doth not.  
The Opening of the whole sta●e of this Question.  
For the better understanding whereof, we must note these principal things. 
ta'en spe. I things to ●oted.  First that All suffering of Pains in man is from God: either properly from his justice, or from his Holy Love: either from him alone, or also from his Instruments and inferior means. Again, All suffering of pains is for Sin either inherent, or imputed: either as Correction, or as Punishment: either immediately, or mediately: as anon we shall further see. Sec: By the Law of our Creation as we are men having a Soul besides our Body, so our Soul hath in it a 3. fold faculty of Suffering Pains. First, that which is Proper and immediate justly so called: 
●ee kinds 〈◊〉 So●●es ●●●ing of 〈◊〉.  Proper, because it is proper only to reasonable and immortal Spirits: although in men (if it grow vehement) it affecteth consequently the Body also. Immediate 2. ways: 1. because it can & doth receive an impression of sorrow and Pains made from God only by and in itself, without any outward bodily means thereunto. 2. It is also an Immediate Punishment, or else Correction of sin: it cometh not for any other cause at all. So that thus we mean, when we speak of the Souls Proper and Immediate Suffering. The Souls second faculty of Suffering pains is not Proper, but Common to us with Beasts: namely that which is by Sympathy & Communion with and from the Body. For which cause also it is not Immediate: sith it cometh not to the Soul but by external bodily means. A third kind of painful Suffering the Soul hath: namely, her vehement & strong Affections are Painful, whether they be good or evil. As Zeal, Love, Compassion, Pity, Care, etc. Neither are these immediately for Sin, whether Punishments or Corrections: but they come for and by other immediate causes, 
●●tions no ●●at ●or 〈◊〉 Punish 〈◊〉 5.  neither are they Punishments or Corrections at all Properly in themselves: Accidentally they may be, when they grow so strong that they pain and grieve the Soul. These 2. later kinds of the Souls Suffering you acknowledge to have been in Christ: the 1. kind" you utterly deny. 
●●g. 5. 6. 16 〈◊〉. 253. ● 255. 335  Now I affirm that Christ tasted also the 1st kind. For how could the Proper and principal human Suffering be not in him, 
●●●br. 2.10.  a Man made of God to * Suffer for all our Sins? So this (in a manner) is the point of our Controversy. And verily how you can deny the same by the Scripture, yet acknowledging withal a true and perfect Human Soul in Christ, I cannot see. Namely seeing just occasion hereof was given him from God, as afterward shall further appear. You 
* pa. 248.  seem to stick at those terms which I use The Souls proper and immediate suffering, & you call them 
“ pa. 257. 336.  unsalted and unsettled. But any may see how easy they are to be understood, and also that we must in this question necessarily thus distinguish the same from that which is by sympathy, & is common to us with other creatures. Thirdly we must also note that God himself is always and evermore the principal and proper punisher then when the Soul suffereth pains after the first manner, that is in her proper and immediate faculty of suffering. And that is always immediately for sin also, not for any other cause at all. God's own almighty power armed with justice in burning wrath thus punisheth sin sometime more sometime less, when and how it pleaseth him. Fourthly, God himself therefore was thus the principal and only proper Punisher of Christ as he sustained the punishment of our sins. The Devils and wicked men his Persecutors did their parts also indeed for other ends, but yet they were all as Instruments only, & used by God unto his own end: namely that Christ might pay hereby a just price and full satisfaction for our sins. It was then the Almighty and most just God himself in his severe wrath against our sin that principally & properly inflicted on Christ the pains and punishments which he as our Surety suffered for the paying of our Ransom. As it is written, 
“ Isa 53. ●  The Lord laid upon him the punishment of us all. Whatsoever you have against this afterward, we shall consider it in due place. Fiftly we mean not that in God was, is, or can be any 
† As you● serve w● pag. 24●  perturbation at all, and therefore consequently no Wrath nor Hatred as is in us. But because We painfully afflict others with whom commonly we are Angry, and we discern sometime and see pains inflicted on men by God, therefore we say he showeth his anger and wrath upon them whom he punisheth. Nevertheless we must note especially that to suffer (as the Godly do) Chastisements and corrections, is not to suffer or feel God's Wrath nor indeed the pumishment of sin: except it be in a very unproper speech. To suffer the true punishment, satisfaction, proper payment, & wages of sin, only that is to suffer properly and truly the Wrath and Curse of God. Now then seeing the pains which Christ for us did feel, were indeed properly the Punishment and Payment and vengeance for sin, such as the Godly do in no wise suffer, Christ only having wholly suffered that for us all: Therefore indeed his sufferings proceeded from God's proper wrath, and were the true effects of Gods mere justice bend to take recompense on him for out offences: the Godly never suffering any thing at all in such respect. sixth: These pains which Christ suffered as the proper Punishment and Price of sin, and inflicted on him even by Gods own hand, did not make smart and anguish only in his flesh, or only in the sensitive part of the Soul by mutual conjunction & sympathy with the body, but of necessity must also be deeply conceived & felt in the understanding and Mind of Christ. Now how deep this was, as we neither do nor can precisely affirm, so we are well assured that the sense of pain was not lessened nor abated in Christ needlessly: He suffered doubtless according as sin deserved in every point, except only in such respects as were flatly impossible. For the better understanding whereof we are here to note another principalll distinction: 
●●●fering of ●aines for sin 〈◊〉 fold. ●or sin in●●e●ent and ●●puted.  that there are 3. diverse and several sorts of suffering pains directly for sin. 

1. As the wicked and damned do: that is by suffering the proper wrath of God truly punishing in them (that is properly in their Souls aswell as in their Bodies) their sins, in whom together with their pains there is also inherent sin abiding and imputed, (the cause of all their punishments) with the the adjuncts and consequents thereof, desperation, induration, blaspheming, rejection, malediction, hatred, and final dereliction, with such like. These are certain proper and right conditions of the reprobat here, & of the damned in Hell, 
●●r sin in●●●ent but 〈◊〉 imputed.  which Christ never tasted.  
2. The godly in this world do suffer pains for their sins. But these whatsoever they be (yea though death itself) are improperly called Punishments, as was before noted, 
●●ch. 12.5, ● 7, 8, 9, 10, ●  they are * Chastisements of sin. Yea they are partly remembrances to cause repentance of sin past & presently inherent, partly Chastisements to humble us, and to mortify sin in us more and more hereafter. And thus they are in no sort inflicted on us as very Curses by God's Wrath and justice (properly so called) but properly by God's Holiness and Love: as after we shall further see. These are the ordinary ways of suffering for sin, but nothing appertaining to Christ neither.  
3. 
3 Suffering sin not haerent, yet impu●●●  There is another peculiar and extraordinary way belonging only to Christ, according to which Christ suffered for sin: distinct and greatly differing from both the former, and yet in some special points agreeing with both. 1. Christ suffered for sin being sinless indeed, 
How Ch●st sufferings those of th● Godly degree. Ho● they differed  as the Godly also are sinless 
“ Rom. 4.  by imputation. Again their sufferings are temporary, and in this life only: such also were his. But Christ's sufferings were exceeding much differing from ours, 1 in that his sufferings were for our sins now made his by God's account, and ours are for our own. Also, his were the true and proper Punishment or just vengeance of God for sin, ours only Chastisements and remembrances, which belonged nothing at all to him. His, the true effects of Gods severe and just Wrath properly taken, ours are from his justice & wrath improperly so called.   Touching the reprobates and damned, 
How the sufferings of Ch●●●● and of th●● Damned 〈◊〉 differ.  

1. their sufferings are for sins inhaerent, Christ's were for sins only imputed: So that God's Anger was not against Christ's own person, but against the sins which by his office in his own person he sustained, the sorrow and pains whereof touched his very person.  
2. Their punishments are partly in this life, and partly eternal in the life to come: but Christ's were temporary and only in this life.  
3. Their sin being inherent not forgiven and justly punished, they have all the properties and Concomitants of sin inherent, never forgiven, but in wrapped in eternal punishments: as these, Desperation, the sting of Conscience, Induration, Rejection, Malediction, Dereliction, etc. But in Christ, where no sin was inhaerent nor eternally punished, there could utterly be none of these.  
4. They are pumished here, & chief in Hell the proper place of the damned hereafter:: but Christ suffered only here in this life.   Lastly their torments though everlasting deserve nothing at God's hands. but Christ though suffering but for a while, deserved infinitely favour and grace for them for whom he suffered. Howbeit as I said the sufferings of the damned are all one with Christ's, 
How the sufferings of Ch●●●● and of th●●● Damned 〈◊〉 the same  as touching the Nature of the punishments and as touching the chiefest causes thereof. First God himself was the proper and principal maintainer, Author and Executor of his punishment, Gods own hand did it to Christ: no less then to the damned. Sec: Christ having most horrible sins imputed to him as the damned have also, therefore he suffered for them from God's hand even as the damned do: namely in these points, which are both possible and reasonable, that is, pains inflicted immediately and properly in the Soul, and not only by outward means in the Body. For it is most reasonable and possible that the Soul of Christ should have our sin imputed to it, yea principally to it, and not to the Body only, even as we commit sin in our whole manhood, but yet principally in & by our Soul. Which being true that Christ's reasonable Soul had sin imputed principally to it according to that of the Prophet" He made his Soul sin, 
Isa. 53.10.  therefore his Soul principally & peculiarly did suffer for it. Also his Soul by nature being capable of suffering from God's very hand, & an occasion now serving thereunto, because of all our sins wholly imputed to him, lastly God himself standing now disposed to punish and revenge sin in him so far as he was capable thereof, therefore his punishment for that sin was a true, proper, & full punishment as theirs is, namely as touching mere pains, and was the effect of God's proper Wrath, justice, and vengeance as well on his Soul, as on his Body: & thus for the time, it was even like as the sufferings of the damned are. 
●a. 53.134.  For * continuance of time in pains is not of the nature of Hell pains or of God's Wrath, 
Pag. 341.  nor yet to be in Hell" locally, as you wrongly imagine, but mere circumstances there of only. Thus the very nature of punishment for sin being but the feeling of extremest pains from God's hand, whether for a time or for ever, whether locally in Hell or else where, that neither altereth nor lesseneth the present pains, which Gods own infinite wrathful power & justice can inflict for satisfaction where and how it pleaseth him. These pains then to this end, and in this very manner inflicted Christ felt: Indeed not being in the local Hell, yet those being as we see the self same pains for their nature which are in Hell, 
●ag. 247.  yea which are * sharpest in Hell. And he discerned and received them properly, yea only in his very Soul; as then was manifest when his body was so bruised with sorrows and sufferings (yet none at all then touching him without) that there strained out from him much sweat of clotted blood, etc.  
These things being thus, now let us see wherein you agree with us, 
〈◊〉. 248.  and wherein you disagree. We all agree (in terms) That Christ suffered in soul God's Wrath: howbeit touching the sense we disagree in 2. main points. 
The i●●● the q●●●  I affirm that Christ suffered God's Proper Wrath and vengeance: you mean he suffered only such afflictions as other godly men do suffer at the hands of the wicked and cruel world. For 
“ Pa. 1●  you think all Afflictions whatsoever, small or great, & towards whomsoever are the effects of Gods Wrath. But that is not so: except in a most unproper speech. To the godly their Afflictions both small and great are Gods Fatherly and gracious Chastisements and no effects of his proper Wrath, as shall appear further hereafter.  
Howbeit you must observe here my 3. limitations which I set down in the 
* Befor●  question. 

1. I mean he suffered only that proper Wrath of God which was merely Punishment for sin, and no sin.  
2. This also he suffered as touching the Substance and Nature of the Pains, not as touching the Circumstances, either of of Place, or Continuance, etc.  
3. I mean he suffered not every particular Punishment of sin, nor that which every particular sinner meeteth with all: but the General Curse and Punishment of God for sin, namely that which belongeth in God's justice to All men in Common and Generally, who abide in sin.    
Now after these necessary limitations, the main point wherein we further disagree is this; I affirm that Christ Suffered All Gods proper Wrath and vengeance for sin, namely so described and limited as is above said. I say All that which the very Damned do suffer, Christ thus did suffer for us: and therefore even a Proper and immediate sense in his Soul of God's Proper & most painful Wrath, his infinite, and untolerable burning Wrath. Which what tongue is it that can express, or heart conceive. Yet Christ's human Soul was apt and able to feel it, though not to sustain it. A just occasion in him was offered thereunto: for than he stood forth as the only and absolute Ransompayer of all our debt.  
And God's unpartial justice dispenseth not without necessity: Yea where he cometh to Punish, he layeth it on finding sin unsatisfied, as he doth inhaerent in the wicked, and as he did imputed in Christ our surety, till he had by 
† Heb ●●  Sufferings accomplished & finished perfectly his Redemption for us. 
Your A●● on w●●●●gain sa●● Christ ●●red i●●● only 〈◊〉 from hi●  But this is far greater than as you hold, that He suffered no more but mere Bodily pains, that is, in his Soul by & from his Body. This is your drift every where, but I note these express places: 
●●g. 16.  * Sin which should have wrought in us an eternal destruction both of Body and Soul could not farther prevail in him but to the wounding of his flesh and shedding of his blood for the just & full satisfaction of all our sins, even in the righteous and sincere judgement of God. Likewise your general Title is, The Full redemption of mankind by the death and blood of Christ. So you commend" the force and fruit of his bodily death as most sufficient. 
●ag. 84. ●●g. 88  And * the bodily death of Christ payeth the price of our Redemption, 
●ag 335.  it removeth all the impediments of our salvation" The joint sufferings of Christ (the Soul feeling what the Body suffered) were most available for our salvation. 
●●g. 336.  † The violence was offered to the Body, the sense whereof reached unto the Soul, and these are the sufferings of the Cross and of death which the Scriptures attribute to the Son of God for our salvation. 
●●g. 60. 58. " There is no other sacrifice of Christ's Soul, which can be neither bodily nor bloody. * The justice of God both temporally and eternally punisheth the Soul only by the Body. 
〈◊〉 254. 255   
Nevertheless contrariwise you seem some where to yield wholly so much as we affirm. 
●●g. 17.  As where you say" The same part might indeed suffer in Christ which sinned in man, I mean the Soul. If you mean as you seem and as you ought, that as every part and faculty of the Soul is in us sinful, so in Christ it suffered for our sin, then in his Soul he suffered for sin properly and immediately, that is, in his very Mind from the immediate hand of God, & not only from and by his Body. 
〈◊〉 87. 4.  Again you allow in Christ * All those afflictions and passions of the Soul which naturally and necessarily follow pain. This All reacheth unto more, and more grievous pains then the mere bodily are: it includeth the Souls porper & immediate pains also. 
〈◊〉 138.  And yet plainer:" Smart, pain and grief of body or mind (be it never so great) will commend his obedience and patience. 
〈◊〉 286.  And * the punishment of sin which proceedeth from the justice of God, and is no sin, that Christ might and did bear: Yea he suffered death" with all painful, 
〈◊〉 87.  but no sinful concomitants and consequents. 
〈◊〉 76.  And * nothing might befall the human nature of Christ which was unfitting for his Divine. Whence we gather (understanding you in the best sense) that whatsoever was fitting for his Divine nature to admit of in his Humanity, that his human nature did feel. Consequently then he felt all the pains of the damned which were no sins, neither indeed perpetual: seeing his Divine nature could admit this in his Manhood aswell as any suffering at all for sin. You will say, If he felt not also desperation as the damned do, than he felt not all the pains which the damned do feel: For desperation augmenteth their very pains. I answer, we say not that Christ suffered simply All the pains of the damned; that is, He felt not such as are by their very nature sins aswell as pains: as indeed desperation is. But I say Christ suffered none of those pains. All other which are by their nature mere pains and only painful Christ did suffer them as sharply for the time, we doubt not, as the very damned do. So that if your L. will stand to that which before we observed in you, and not clip it, not renounce it, we profess this is all that ever we did or do crave, we need no longer to strive, it is the whole question which you grant us: viz: That Christ did bear punishment of sin as great as any is proceeding from the Justice of God, yet being no sin. Whence it must needs follow that the pains of Christ's suffering were the same in nature and altogether as sharp and as painful as they are in Hell itself. And this is the whole sum of the matter about Christ's Hellish sorrows and pains, & thus standeth our question with these differences, according to which we hold and profess that Christ suffered the Wrath of God, or Hell pains.  
If you set the question otherwise, you go back from that which you found fault withal in your Sermons, & you fully join with the Preachers and Catechisms of England, yea withal other Protestants in the world; and namely with all them, whom at first you reproved and traduced openly for this cause. There is none of them I assure you that ever spoke or meant any more than this issue delivereth. If you agree to this, I beseech you what wisdom showed you in your hot confutations & exclamations, so vehemently to condemn you knew not what and to reprove you knew not whom. Further, if any do teach that Christ suffered the pains of Hell in a gross and local manner, though you most injuriously do inveigh at us for such a matter, yet verily it is nearer your own assertion than ours, if you be well observed. For seeing you determine simply, that Christ might & did suffer such punishment of sin which proceeds from the justice of God and is no sin, it seemeth by your speech that Christ did suffer Torments even locally in Hell itself: for that had been a punishment, & that is no sin, 
●●●●●icus: ●●●●●st. Latinizer. Act. ●●●●on.  & that in deed some learned and godly men did hold, but erroneously. As for us somway we avouch your sentence also, that Christ suffered whatsoever punishment of sin which proceeded from the justice of God, & is no sin, but yet with express limitation from Scripture namely in Circunstances, as I showed, viz. in this world only & not after his cross at all, nor locally among the damned. So that thus we say, it is not true that Christ suffered the pains of Hell, 
〈◊〉 hold not 〈◊〉 at Christ ●●●fered sim●●y the par●●s of Hell.  which yet those your forenoted indefinite words do import. Nay, speaking exactly, we use not this term of Hell, neither delight we to use it often in any regard about our main question: because we find not this word literally and expressly applied to Christ's sufferings in the Scripture. Howbeit sometimes we speak so, I grant, and I think that we may well do so, 
As also 〈◊〉 ●ny other ●●●nts of Re●●●on are ●●●yme af●●●ned & uttered.  when we understand it (by" plain Consequence from Scripture) for the extreme pains of Gods proper wrath & vengeance for sin, from which even Hell itself is not separated; yea Gods very wrath is a part, and the greatest part of Hell pains. Or else Metaphorically, when we have to set out with an emphasis, the most doleful and incomparable pains of Christ's sufferings, as they appeared only to the sense of men, & not otherwise: Which it seemeth" yourself also liketh well enough. 
〈◊〉 8. ●34. ●●9.  But how badly then do you urge upon us and persuade men that we do & must say in maintenance of this our Question, 
eximious ●●●tation. 〈◊〉 1.8.244. ●●7. 264. 100LS. 34●.  * that Christ suffered All the sorrows of Hell, the whole Curse of God, his whole wrath, and All the very Torments of the damned, and that in such sense as you make of those words, that is including in them, the Local Hell, eternal punishment, Diminution of faith, Holiness, etc. with Desperation, 
●reat. 1. ●●. 40.  Rejection, utter darkness, & c? As for" my words which you wrist that way, they are cleared by my Opening this Question both before and after. Wherefore we plainly tell you, that we defy and detest in our hearts (as well as you) all these blasphemous & wicked thoughts of the Son of God, our most glorious and gracious Redeemer. And yet if you had understood those Phrases, the whole C●rse of God, His whole Wrath, All the sorrows of Hell only touching the sense of Mere pains, that Christ feeling the proper wrath and justice of God punishing him for our sins, felt as extreme sharpness of pains which had no mixture of sin, as may in any possibility be endured yea though in Hell itself; and so a kind also of 
“ As in 〈◊〉 place I 〈◊〉 ●hew.  forsaking in them, a kind of 
* Such as 〈◊〉 self explai●●● pag. 245 And as 〈◊〉 Curse is n● words, b● deeds. pa.  Cursing, and hatred, and condemnation, and a sense of burning wrath, which he being our high Priest and Sacrifice was appointed unto, and which payment of ours was by God laid upon him being our Redeemer, and Ransompayer, & Surety; and that all this he sustained and suffered for a time in this life so deeply & woefully as was possible for a man any where to suffer which was also weary God. I say if this had been your meaning, we would not then hold it blasphemous nor erroneous, as 
“ Epi●p:  you object it unto us, but the very truth indeed, to say He suffered the true pains of Hell, and the whole wrath of God. Which verily your own words also in some places do imply, yea at least so much, and that manifestly enough, it seemeth, as before I have observed. But to wade further than this, and to particularise, or to specify the parts of God's wrath which Christ felt, as 
* Pa. ●47.  you will us to do; or to show the manner how, or the certain measure how deeply he suffered it, what madness were it in men to attempt, and what folly is it in any to require. This sufficeth, that we know God is able (aswell out of the local Hell as in it) to reveal and inflict spiritually this wrath where he findeth sin unsatisfied, and in Christ the union of his Godhead might admit it in his Manhood, & his Soul was capable & apt to discern and feel immediately the impression thereof in itself. Now because also God was here bend to punish all our most horrible sins in Christ, and he was ordained to receive the same upon himself, and God was never to punish them truly any more, nor any where else, and because of the proportion of God's exact justice which dispenseth not where there is no necessity for dispensation, because also of Christ's taking our whole nature for no needful purpose at all without this, and lastly by reason of many pregnant texts of Scripture proving by infallible arguments that thus surely it was in this mystery of Christ's purchasing our redemption (which you in all your writing have no whit defeated) therefore we are undoubtedly persuaded that this is the very truth of God: Namely as 
“ Treat. 80.81.7  before I taught, as touching the sense of pain and vehemency of sorrow that Christ suffered for us All and wholly the wrath of God and his bitter Curse: That is, as I said so far as 
* Pa. 37.  possibility would admit, so far as he being also very God and a man not possible to sin, could suffer. Neither is there any piece of reason on your part for the contrary. And this is much more I trust then to suffer in Soul by Sympathy only from and by and with the Body, 
Pag. 13.14  which as" before I showed, you plainly do make the only & whole suffering of Christ for our Redemption: which kind● of suffering all Godly men do suffer also when the wicked in the world do afflict and persecute them. But touching suffering of Marti●s and godly men, 
Pag. 8.11  it is not in truth, (as † before is showed) of that kind as Christ's suffering was, and therefore this suffering of the Soul only by Sympathy cometh nothing near to the sorrows of the suffering of Christ: which he suffered from the hand of Gods offended justice, and pure Holiness, and Wrathful power, infinitely satisfying itself on him for our sins which by his office he received upon himself, to acquit us from the same. This no Martyr nor godly man doth, who suffer only as from the malice and rage of men, 
●●●d therefore ●●●ey are so ●●●eerefull at ●●●eir Death, ●●●hen Christ is extremely sorrowful.  from God there proceedeth nothing but fatherly chastenings to them, his very wrath indeed for their sins appeareth not at all against them, which they know Christ hath once borne and for ever dissolved. You have words in some places, as if you h●ld this difference with us of Christ's sufferings compared with the suffering of Martyrs: Namely where you say, 
Pag. 248 " Christ suffered the wrath of God punishing sin, 
●ag. 257  not * in his Body only, but in his Soul also by some proper punishments of the Soul, as by sorrow, and fear in his Agony, etc. Howbeit, though these words seem plain, yet I perceive ambiguity and fallacy in them, yea also I think a great error. First your fallacy is in that you mean sorrow and fear indeed properly in his Soul, but not any proper Punishment of sin nor coming for any pain or smart that he felt inflicted for sin, but it was mere" Devotion to God, 
2. 1●4.23.9 144 290  & Love, pity, & compassion towards men: Which say you, could not be without some fear, and zeal, and grief. That is true: but this is a notable fallacy. For many think that you mean, Christ suffered such sorrow and pain as was both proper to the Soul, and was the proper punishment of sin also. But than had you herein fully agreed with us. Now that Religious Devotion, 
godly and ●●●t●ous Additions.  and Pity are properly parts of Christ's Holiness and righteousness, not of his Sufferings for sin. For these 2. parts of Christ's Mediation I trust, you will distinguish. And surely Christ's Agony, was properly a part of his most bitter Passion, not of his Obedience and Righteousness: albeit even in suffering also he was perfectly obedient. Thus than you are never the nearer to the truth in this point for all your seeming. Again considering what you writ of the wrath 
“ Pa. 130 132.246.  of God which the Godly generally do suffer, you seem to me to think that every Marti●s death and all the crosses and griefs both of body and mind in the godly are very 
* For yo● make G●● Wrath ●●●ferent to men who afflicted.  punishments of sin, and right effects of God's justice and wrath taking properly vengeance on them for sin in such manner as he doth on the Reprobat, though not in such measure: and that such likewise were Christ's sufferings. But then I deny that therein you have the truth, or have rightly expressed the sufferings of Christ, or of his Saints. Because the sufferings of the Saints are properly not punishments for sins, nor effects of God's wrath properly, but are indeed fatherly & profitable chastisements purposely inflicted by God for their good, as before is said. But Christ's were altogether of another nature and condition, they were the only true and proper punishment, price, Satisfaction, and Ransom for sins, as hath been also noted before, & after shallbe further showed. If you understand Christ's suffering God's Wrath to be such as the godly feel, viz: improperly and largely (as the Scriptures 
† In your 13●.  there do mean) and not as the very price and punishment for sin, but only as Chastisements, then that is likewise manefestly untrue. Also then again for your words you are ambiguous and deceitful in this issue: which kind of vanity you commonly use in all other your handling of controversies since you left writing against the Papists, as who so looketh shall see. For we affirming that Christ felt the wrath of God do mean it properly, as it inflicteth properly the punishment and Wages of sin; 
Your Equ●cation in term G●● Wrath.  and you tell us that he suffered God's wrath as the Saints and Godly men do suffer it: That is, altogether unproperly, being sometime so called for a certain seeming that it hath to be so (as you acknowledge) in the sense of flesh and blood. Then what is this to our purpose? What else do you work herein but deceit & mistaking to the Reader through the ambiguity of this word the Wrath of God. Which palpable fallacy of yours is so plain, that I need not stand to open it any further: and yet I assure myself that this is the very ground and refuge of the error in this Question. Which if a man mark well & distinguish as he ought and may easily do, he shall quickly drive you either to shift into this" corner, 
Your Equiocation.  or else to deny much of that which you affirm in your book elsewhere, Therefore let the wise consider it. Nevertheless if happily you mean otherwise, that is, 
Pas you seem 〈◊〉 me●●● pa●●●01. 105  that Christ's very * outward sufferings and bodily death were in a peculiar sort the effects of Gods proper wrath thus truly punishing our sins on him, then in effect you come to us again, of you will stick but to this. For there is no reason in the world to make Christ's flesh subject to Gods Curse for sin, and not his Mind and soul likewise. Also we must note that such outward bodily sufferings being indeed punishments and not chastisements for sin, that is proper effects of Gods very wrath and justice coming to take vengeance for sin, they cannot be mere bodily sufferings, nor merely felt by sympathy in the Soul, which is the proper effect of the outward sensitive faculty only, but they must of necessity be conceived, discerned, & applied in the inward feeling of the Mind of Christ, 
●●d 〈◊〉 deny at ●●●nce. that men's ●●●ules have ●●●ny sense in ye●●he ●inde, be●●●des the Com●●●● sense de●●nding on ●●●e Body.  and will make a singular and secret impression of sorrow in the Soul far above all mere bodily griefs, beyond all measure and proportion of things in ordinary experience, & so exceedingly differing from all other sufferings in this life. Which therefore may justly be termed the proper and immediate sufferings of his Soul. And this sense the Lord doubtless revealeth upon men sometime more sometime less in this life, even as it pleaseth him. Which also befell unto Christ. Again, 
Pag. 257.  if the Agony and sorrow which" you grant Christ suffered simply in his mind, be meant by you to have been as it were a" foretaste of such sufferings and a fear or dread of them (as very justly it may be) considering the weak disability of a Creature to stand up against the Creator, 
Propathia.  namely now shooting or preparing to shoot presently the sharp arrows of his wrath upon him for our sins, in which case and condition Christ now stood for that while: then I say also I see in effect no difference between us, than again this Question is (as it were) at an end. For doubtless he suffered at one time or other the same thing which he so feared. Yea such a kind of fearing cannot be but a mighty suffering thereof. Neither do we contend to express what just measure of God's wrath, nor precisely in what manner it was revealed and executed on Christ. Only we know that whatsoever it were, God's very wrath and proper vengeance for sins though outwardly executed on the Body, yet it could not but sink in deeper, even into the depth of the Soul, and be discerned by Christ and conceived to be such, and so sustained as proceeding from God, and so wound the Soul properly, yea chief, though the anguish thereof bruised his body jointly also. Again whatsoever you will call it; All or 
* Such 〈◊〉 as wa● nothing whole. 〈◊〉 sinful 〈◊〉 rends o●●  part of God's proper Wrath and vengeance (as it proceeded from him) was incomprehensible, unspeakable, infinite, and untolerable to any creature, & therefore so it was unto the very Manhood of Christ, namely when the Godhead for a season concealed itself of purpose and with held his wont supportation and comfort from him, to the end that his bitter Passion ordained of God and most voluntarily undertaken by himself, might be in suffering the 
“ The 〈◊〉 pains rows 〈◊〉 sin wer●●● Christ fo●● time no qualifye● 〈◊〉 lessened  sorrows and pains which were due to us, nothing qualified, but in all severity accomplished. As indeed when his Hour was come and gone it was. As touching that term The death of his Soul, which you stumble at, we shall speak thereof hereafter in due place.  
Thus far I have proceeded in opening the true state of this question: which whether you (who have begun to avouch the contrary) will now acknowledge and approve, or not, I know not. Overthrow it, I trust you shall never with all the cunning and strength you have. For undoubtedly it is, and so will appear by the word to be a manifest truth, and therefore 
“ Act. 5●  will prevail: besides that it is expressly the doctrine taught and established by authority in England as hereafter God willing I shall plainly show, notwithstanding all your strange contradicting & traducing thereof. Lastly whether I did set down this very state of the question in full effect in my former Treatise, or whether I changed it (though indeed I grant I was there much shorter than I am here) I pray you look & consider again in that my 
† Pag. 5 33. and  first book. This being well considered and marked, will yield us an easier passage through the rest behind.  
To come then to that which he first 
* Pag. 2●  beginneth with: where he laboureth very much to show that he mistook not his Text whereupon first he grounded his doctrine. This I say, that 
“ Gal. ● pag. 1.  this Text, whereon he 
* Pag. 3  groundeth and setteth down the doctrine of the whole meritorious contents of Christ's Cross, as likewise of 
† Pag. 42  those effects thereof which he in his Treatise handleth, I am persuaded is mistaken, and that this place of Scripture intendeth not these things. 
Gal. 6.12.  It is manifest that the Apostle * here reproveth the false teachers for mingling the pure doctrine of the Gospel because they were loath to ta●t persecution, which then followed the true and sincere professors thereof: And so encourageth the godly to bear all Afflictions for this persecuted truth and for Christ's sake. Thus the Cross of Christ here signifieth I grant Christ crucified, Christ afflicted, Christ persecuted: not in his own person only, but also in his members. He doth here jointly together understand by Christ's Cross, the afflictions of the whole mystical Body of Christ both Head and members, which they commonly have in the world. Which many shunned even with Shipwreck of sincere Religion, but Paul rejoiced therein so much, as in no worldly joy like to it. For so he meaneth when he saith, God forbidden that I should rejoice but in the Cross of Christ: not that he makes it a thing detestable to rejoice in any thing else, 
Pag 227  as" you imagine him to do. It is lawful to rejoice in other things besides the Cross of Christ: but it is not lawful to rejoice in any worldly joy so much, or we are not to rejoice in comparison of our joy which we ought to have in this our shame and afflictions sustained for Christ, for his Servants, and for the purity of the Gospel. Paul had very great cause thus exceedingly to rejoice herein. For 

1. this was a token to men that he walked in the perfect way, and a means also to himself so to do.  
2. Because this his doing rebuked the corrupters and minglers of the Religion who would sustain in the world no disgrace which followed the sincere course: & he thus encouraged also the weak professors to suffer willingly for the same.  
3. This indeed Crucified the world unto him and him unto the world, as still it doth us also.   These causes are both evident in the text and sufficient for Paul so exceedingly to rejoice in suffering for the pure Gospel. Now he cannot here respect the meritorious and propitiatory Contents of Christ's Cross, and so make it detestable to rejoice in any thing else as propitiatory besides this suffering here expressed (which is the sense that you give unto it) I say, this Paul cannot respect in this Word, if he include his own & the Godlies' afflictions. But it appeareth by that before, that indeed he doth include them: & all the circumstances immediately following do also declare it. 1. That which I touched before, By suffering in the world for Christ, for his simple truth, & Church sake, the 
* Which your p●● Text v: ●  world was C●ucified to him, and he indeed unto the world. Also an other reason showeth it: 
† v: 15.  For in Christ jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avail any thing but a new Creature. That is a sincere & upright conversation being the fruit of a sincere and pure faith and profession: which matter he nameth a little before 
“ Gal. 5.  Faith working by love. So by this Fruit he encourageth men (as I said) though there come shame and trouble therewith. Also in the next place thus, 
* v: 16.  And as many as walk according to this rule (both of pure profession and conversation) peace shallbe upon them etc. howsoever in the world they have shame and trouble. Lastly 
† v: 17.  he willeth that no good Christian hereafter should put him to business by seeking resolution of him, whether (for the pretended peace of the Church) unprofitable Caeremonies should be retained with the Gospel: for lo saith he my example showeth you all my mind, I bear about me the marks of the L. Jesus, that is Afflictions for the sincere truth's sake, which I could by policy and wisdom avoid aswell as those corrupters of Religion, if I had no more care of the sincerity of the Gospel than they have. This being thus, it cannot be possibly that the Apostle should here mind to name the particular kinds and all the meritorious parts or Contents of Christ's suffering in this place: but only he encourageth men (as I said) to endure all afflictions for Christ and his truth sake. Thus you are answered also in that 
* Pag. 22  you deny the Cross of Christ in Scriptures to be taken for the Afflictions of the godly. You see the Apostle 
“ ver. 17  here calleth the Afflictions of the godly the marks of the Lord jesus: also the afflictions of Christ in 
* Coll. 1. ●  another place. And in another 
“ 2 Cor. ●.  the dying of the Lord jesus. What are these in truth but the Cross of Christ, unless you imagine some mystery in the diverse words, when apparently the matter is all one. Also the very word Cross 
* Gal. 5.1  a little before signifieth the Shame and hatred of Christ slain on the Cross together with the shame of his Servants. And thus also 
“ Pag. 22  your main objection is answered, where you argue that Paul cannot be understood 
* ver. 12.  to say that those false teachers would not suffer persecution for the Afflictions of the godly. He may be understood to say, that he would not suffer persecution for commending the Afflictions and shame of good Christians for Christ's sake, which they ought to have done. Then what sense or reason wanteth this exposition? I know the root and original of their Hatred and disdain was against Christ himself, & namely for his ignominious death on the Cross. But this excludeth not, indeed it includeth in the Cross of Christ Christ's members the faithful which are his own Body, and so consequently all their Afflictions for Christ's sake. Which the wicked and corrupt professors, I say, will not commend (as Paul did) by suffering persecution in their own persons, they will not by Suffering win credit and reverence to that way in the world. 
Pa. 229  The Fathers which" you bring hereabout overthrew not this sense but justify it rather. Wherefore you cannot avoid it yet, but that it is still an oversight in you to understand here, by the Cross of Christ, the Contents of his sufferings and to note his whole and entire Passion in every part thereof as he merited thereby for us, which evidently the Apostle intendeth not, neither is he about that in this place. You say, 
* Pa. 226  you drew no reason from these words of your Text, but proposing them for your theme took occasion from them to lay down, first the Contents, than the Effects of Christ's Cross. Indeed such handling of Texts is to usual in these days, but no good nor commendable use: that is, to take occasion from any text to speak of any thing. Which practice in you so great a man as you are, and seem among us to be, is so much the worse, as there are many younger Divines who are led by example more than reason, that will think it a point of learning and wisdom even to do like you. But I for my part do suppose that they are the faithfullest and wisest handlers of Scripture, which make their Text the ground of all they speak, and do conclude even from their text firmly and first of all, whatsoever they teach afterwards further thereupon. Else whereunto serveth the taking of Texts in Sermons? If choice Texts may be used only to take occasion by them to speak of things evidently of an other suit, and to another purpose then in the Text is meant, sure it may then be justly charged against us that we do much wrong to the Scriptures, and do make of them such an instrument as they ought not to be. Lastly it is a strong presumption that you have never a good place in all the Scripture for your opinion, seeing even your choice Text affordeth not any the least reason to help it with all; which yourself here confesseth, or else why drew you not this reason (such as it is) from your text to your purpose. But to gratify you a little, suppose if you will that your Text is not mistaken by you, but that the Apostle intended here to note the Contents of Christ's Cross. We are to remember then how you 
“ Pag. 4.  expressly grant, that also the proper Sufferings of the mind may rightly be in the Contents of his Cross. But thus can 
* Pa. 5. 16 60. 253. ●bove pa●  your main opinion be good, that Christ's Bodily Sufferings alone were the full price of our redemption▪ Which also 
† Pag. 33  you would ground generally on all the Fathers: though very untruly as afterward God willing we shall see. And to show the absolute fullness of this only, you say 
“ Pag. 6●  More we can not ask or expect; and what more can be required, I verily cannot conjecture. Howbeit yourself admitteth more, even the sufferings of the mind simply as I noted: and thus your own self by your very Text overthroweth yourself in the first entrance, as all men may see. And here me thinks also you should not so reprove with contempt as 
* Pa. 335.  you do, that which 
† In my Treat. pa●  I noted, that Christ's Soul in a large sense might be said to be Crucified, & not his Body only; namely if we suppose this your text to signify the Contents of Christ's Cross. For you know that the 
“ Pa. 4 ● 257. 248  whole Contents must be then signified, not any part of them excluded. Finally where you say, 
* Pag 22  the Apostle here maketh it a detestable thing to rejoice in any things else but in the Contents of Christ's Cross, in saying God forbidden that I should rejoice but in the Cross of Christ, either this your speech is to lavish, or else you quite overthrow your 2. Question, That Christ after this went down into Hell. For either in Hell Christ hath got us no purchase, nor wrought us any further riddance from Satan than he had done before, which thing you with great and mighty words 
* Pa. 35●  do proclaim that he did, but altogether without show of reason or likelihood. For if he did, were it a detestable thing for us (think you) to rejoice therein? Or else of necessity you must extend the Contents of Christ's Cross that is his bitter sufferings beyond his death, even unto his being in Hell also among the Devils and Damned spirits, whither he went as you say. But this sequel I think you will not defend. These jars in yourself therefore you must reconcile: in the mean time men will think that you have not handled your Text indeed very rightly.  
Then proceeding forward you still show a bad mind in you towards me, seeking forthwith even in the entrance to draw me without cause into hatred for" disdaining the Fathers, 
Pag. 229.  as you suppose. The direct and express occasion to speak of this matter cometh not in place till * long after: 
Pa. 349.  but you cannot forbear to procure me ill will so long, as it seemeth. What then is my contempt and disdain of the Fathers, which you often report in sundry places, and as odiously as is possible? What is my insolent dealing against them? Surely I believe you can not tell. Happily it is, because I follow not their Authorities in some opinions of Religion, nor in diverse expositions of Scripture. 
Pag. 225.48 ●pist. 12.6 9  Indeed so" you call the Father's judgements many times namely Authorities; that the world might conceive their words to be warrants unto us, & good Authorities to rest on in matters of Religion. If you had not this drift in your mind, why give you them such a title, which to me seemeth somewhat insolent indeed? And why do you so harmfully blame me for leaving their opinions sometimes: which so far as I know is never, but when strong reason out of the very Scripture doth lead me from them. And that which I say of the old, I understand also of the new Writers. Whom indeed I do equally esteem, and do judge them (I mean * many of them) except only in Antiquity, 
Calvin, ●cer, Mar●● Beza, ●emellius, ●●chius, etc.  otherwise no way inferior to the best of the Ancients, yea happily in true learning, soundness of Religion, clear interpretations on the text, many times before them. Which I hope is no singularity in me so to think; but I know it to be that, wherein very many learned and godly Christians do concur. Of all therefore that are learned men whether new or old thus I esteem, thus I profess, 
only true of reading ●●ed men ●ases of re●●on.  that they are to be read and reverenced as very good helps to show us some light, and to sharpen our judgements in the understanding of Scripture, but no further. Their opinions either in opening of Texts or in conclusions of Religion we ought not to receive without examining. And wherewith must we examine them, but only with the written word. God's most holy word is All-sufficient in itself for all true Religion, or for any part thereof for ever. Thus it was before the writings of men were published, and thus it is now since they are published, and so shallbe for ever. Even for matter, Abundant, and for giving light to the right conceiving & understanding thereof, All-sufficient. So that men's writings do nothing else but help to give a greater measure of easiness to their understanding, which yet nevertheless being used as God hath appointed them to be, are sufficiently easy and lightsome in themselves. I think the H. Ghost much commendeth those 
“ Act. 17 12.  men of Beraea, who hearing the Apostle Paul teach, though they were not ill affected towards him, yet they would not believe that he spoke touching Religion, till they had examined by the Scriptures & seen, whether the truth were so as he uttered. I trust then no advised Christian will challenge more authority to the Fathers than was here given to the Apostle, nor deny indeed to any private men, much less to a minister, to 
* Phil. 1. psal. 119 1 Cor 2 1 Cor. 1●  judge and discern in themselves not only of the words of men, but even of the sense & meaning of the Scripture by the Scripture itself, which thing here the Beraeans did, and are commended by the H. Ghosh for it. How unjustly then do you charge me that 
“ Pag. 34  I refuse the Fathers to testify in any cause against my liking. I hope you will not deny me to judge of them by the Scripture according to that measure of knowledge and diligence which the Lord enableth me with. It is every Christians duty as we have seen, and you take it unto yourself, as we shall see afterwards. Wherefore let others partake with you, I pray, in this common right and Christian liberty. Unless you think so well of yourself, as to imagine that other men will not be so modest and humble minded in using this their freedom, or not so wise, and circumspect as yourself are. Which conceit if you have you ought to correct it. Neither yet are the Fathers refused, as you complain, to testify in any cause of Religion whatsoever. By uttering their opinions they may witness what was held and esteemed as true or probable by some godly and wise men in those times, but not by all. Mr Bilson himself 
“ In his book a● the Iesu● part 2.  elsewhere saith well hereof; If all the ancient Bishops (such were the Fathers, or most of them which we have extant) should hold an opinion, yet it followeth not that all Preachers than were of that mind, nor if the Preachers generally thought so, that all the Christians were so persuaded. Thus it is true, they can witness what was held by some good men then, as I said, yea perhaps what was commonly thought in the Churches of those places where they lived. But in no wise what was the judgement of all no not among themselves, much less every where and in all ages. Now if you should mean yet further, that they may testify in causes of Religion, as witnesses do with us in Civil matters, that what they affirm and testify must obtain a verdict, and so have sentence and judgement with it, which in effect you seem to insinuat by calling their Opinions Authorities, so usually as you do; then indeed for my part I can not agree that they or any men should be such Witnesses, nor their words (nor show of reasons) in any matters of Religion to be taken as Authorities. If you or any think otherwise, we may lawfully deny it. God's word only with us hath indeed Authority. The Fathers, all, or some have none any further, then that their Conclusions, expositions, and reasons, if after examination made by the lively word they be found currant with the Text, than they are the more joyfully to be embraced. If otherwise in our conscience they seem to vary from the text, or from some certain evident Circumstance thereof, then is it not indifferent for us, but our Christian duty in the presence of God, to leave them and not to follow them therein: yet still with reverence and loving regard towards their names for the manifold graces of God otherwise in them. More than this whosoever ascribeth unto them, they verily abuse the Fathers, and not we. For as the Papists do abuse the Saints deceased by Worshipping and praying unto them, not we who love them and think reverently of them as the blessed Servants of God: So in this case, we who use the writings of godly Men as good helps to our knowledge do not despise them, but you who make them Authorities in Religion, by your to much embracing them do indeed notably abuse them.  
Nevertheless I well perceive that all this great show of cleaving to the Father's judgements is but coloured in you; you urge them in some cases so hotly but for advantage. For in other points again we see when they speak not to your liking, the case is altered. It is worth the pains to look a little further in to this your practice, because you pursue me with such cruelty for leaving the Fathers in some things. First your general speeches somewhere of the Scripture and of the expositions of men, are very good. Touching the Scriptures, 
Ep. pa. 9 ●ag 41. Book 1.2 against the Ie●●s part. 4. ●●g. 360. ●ag. 301. " In God's causes let God's book teach us what to believe and what to profess. * What I read in the word of God that I believe, what I read not that I do not believe. Touching men," If you want the foundation of true faith and religion (the Scripture) in vain do you seek to make a show of Catholicisme etc. * One man with truth is a warrant against all the world. Again, 
“ In this 3 book Full ●ed●tion etc. 122.  By their patience their expositions must not look to be Canonical in the church of God. If they say any thing well, we take it with their praise, if otherwise as men they miss their mark, we refuse it with their leaves. 
* Gal. 5.  God hath called us unto liberty, 
“ 1. Cor.  not to be servants of men: and to serve erroneous constructions is worse than to bear tyrannous exactions. These are very worthy speeches; but have a care and conscience (Sir) I pray you in this, that you leave this freedom unto us, which you take to yourself. Bind no heavier burdens on the Church of God, than yourself professeth to like of. And because I would have this sound profession of yours to be well noted of all men, in as much as I know how wavering and slippery you are for the most part herein, therefore it is good also that we observe how your own practice concurreth herewith, and ratifieth your profession when and where you list, though when you will, you check and taunt us for the like Christian liberty. I see in this book where you forsake the ancient and learned Fathers, that is as you speak in my case, where you contemn and despise them.  
First 
* Pag. 21  you reject Austin's opinion, that those who rose to life at Christ's Resurrection, died again. Sec: You reject his exposition of those words of Christ to the Thief This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Austen understandeth Christ as speaking of the thieves soul, and his own 
“ Also E●● He is re●● in it, N●●nim ips●● in celo ●●rus crat ●●mo Chr●● jesus.  Divine presence in Paradise. But you refuse that, because 
* Pag. 21  we have no warrant in the word of God to fasten Christ's Soul unto Hell for the time of his Death, that it might not be in Paradise before he descended to Hell. Third: You 
“ Pa. 196  renounce Austen and (as he saith) almost all the Church thinking that Christ loosed Adam and some others whom he thought good out of the pains of Hell, wherein till his going thither they were held.  
Fourth: Against all the Fathers 
* Pa. 188 200.  you affirm it to be more then manifest that Christ did not fetch the patriarchs out of Limbo Patrum, a certain region of rest under the earth, as they generally thought. Fift: 
“ Pa. 18●  You renounce diverse Father's opinion that 
* None e●● Martyrs. tull.  none do go into Heaven till after the last Judgement.  
Thus we observe your liberty in leaving the Fathers when you see cause. Why deny you unto us the like? If we bring not as good reason to dissent as you do, whensoever we vary from them, let us hear of it, and bear the blame justly. This only we desire that in any case of Religion the bare custom of times, the opinion of men, and authority merely human should never bar us from receiving the simplicity and evidence of the truth concerning us which appeareth in the Scripture. But now, that we may proceed, let us see your special examples, 
pag. 229.  wherein you will make it manifest that" I have despised the Father's  
First, 
pag. 229.  * where you say out of certain Fathers, That Christ in his dying gave up his Spirit" miraculously, 
pag. 7.  * no violence of Death wresting it from him as it doth ours, 
pag. 229.  but when he saw his time he even at an instant laid it down of himself, no pains hastening his death. 
Heb. 4.15.  Contrary to this I alleged the Scripture," He was like us in all things sin only excepted. To answer this * you reply, Was he like us in his birth? 
Pag. 230.  Can we lie in the Grave without corruption, as" he lay? 
Neither yet his flesh lie he Grave hot possibly to cot●●t, otherwise ●n as his ●●es possibly ●●d not be ●●en.  Or raise ourselves from death as he did? Which poor answer I wonder to see coming from you. Aswell you might show further, He was not like us in that he walked upon the water, nor in that he fasted 40. days, nor in that he knew the secrets of men's hearts, nor in that he turned water into wine, and with a word healed all diseases etc. These things done by his Manhood yet were they the proper effects of his Godhead: they were no natural but supernatural things. But this text to the Hebrues saith only of natural human properties and infirmities, that Christ in them was altogether like us, sin excepted. Also this manner of Dying whereof we speak, that is, by sore wounds and blows, by sharp outrages, and deadly pains to draw nearer and nearer to Death, is a mere natural infirmity, and incident to all men. Therefore surely in this very manner did Christ die also, like as all men use to do in such case. Again those Divine effects which you mention are justly believed to have been in Christ. Why? Because of the express Scripture that * witnesseth the same. 
〈◊〉 1.23, 25.1.2.27. ●●●n. 1.3, 4. ●. 1.10.18.  Let me see express words in the text that he Died as you say, not naturally, but Miraculously, and then will I believe it also. You cite certain places, by which you would prove it, 
●●h. 10.18.  As" No man taketh my soul from me, but I lay it down of myself, etc. He meaneth here that his Death was mere voluntary, freely undertaken, and willingly of his own accord performed with such natural and ordinary infirmities as belong to a man. As you confess somewhere, * So that to die even in Christ, 
●●g. 161.  was infirmity, though voluntary. Hear then Christ denieth that he suffered any thing as forced on him by constraint & violence, but he showeth that himself was altogether willing even to Die for his people: which also 
“ pag. 11●  you plainly see. How will you hence conclude, Ergo He died miraculously, & not by any failing of the strength of nature in him notwithstanding all his most intolerable sorrows and pains? This is truly a miraculous argument. As for Chrisostom whom 
* pag. ●3●  you cite hereupon, he hath nothing for this point. Though it were new & not ordinary that Christ a man should have power to lay down his life and power to take it again, yet why may not his manhood die naturally notwithstanding. But you will conclude this better. If I deny (you say) this that Chrisostom saith, I must remember what God himself saith, 
“ Luc. 12.  O fool this night shall they fetch away thy soul from thee. I remember it well. What then? Ergo Christ saying, None taketh my life from me, etc. meant that he would die miraculously, and not by the failing of nature in him. If this be the reason, as I take it to be, verily I grant it is marveylous subtle and past my reach. Further 
* pag. 7.  you cite, that 
“ jon. 19  When Jesus had tasted the vinegar, he said, All is finished, and bowed the head, and gave up the Ghost. What proveth this? Surely that at last after long and sore anguish of mind and bodily torments his natural strength failed him, & therefore he bowed his head and gave up the Ghost. What miracle is there in this? But Barnard saith, this proveth plainly an infinite power. Which doth? His tasting the vinegar, or his saying, it is finished, or his bowing the head, or his giving up the Ghost. For my part I can not yet see any infinite power in any of these. Wherefore I can not rest on Barnard here, except you for him do find out some other point in the text to prove plainly an infinite power showed openly in the manner of the Death of Christ, which yet I see not. Give me leave to refuse the Fathers in such a case, which yourself doth, as we saw before. Then you allege that 
* Luke 23.  jesus cried with a loud voice, a little while before he died: to show himself 
“ pag 7.  say you, to be free from any touch of death. How are you sure of that? What Scripture saith so? Or is there absolute necessity in reason that it must be so? Questionless none at all. Is it a thing not possible that Christ should cry aloud, saying Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit, and even anon after die; and yet nature to have been weaker in him, and so himself nearer to death now at last, than he was before in the beginning of his Passion. Let all wise men judge. If this be not possible I will acknowledge mine error. Add hereunto that experience showeth (as Physicians say) how some diseases in the Body bring Death presently after most strong and violent crying: namely in some excessive torments, as of the Stone, etc. Where in through extreme pains and torments the vital Spirits being dissipated will be utterly extinct sometimes, before they can recover and gather again together. Thus a man having good strength and force in his Body, when such a disease resteth not near the principal parts of nature originally, it seemeth he may notwithstanding by violence of pain only give up the Ghost at a sudden, yet not miraculously, but by the course of nature only. 
Pag 7. Ad Hedib. quaest. 8.  But * Ierom saith," this was a great wonder, and that thereupon the Centurion confessed, truly this man was the Son of God. I deny not but Christ might show some strange & unusual thing apparently to the beholders in uttering his last voice, when he cried Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit. Which might also very much move the beholders and hearers. And yet it shall not follow that Death seized upon him not naturally, or not by the failing of nature's strength in him. I say, this may be acknowledged: and yet verily there is no necessity at all to yield even this, for any thing that the text noteth. Yet jerom sayeth the Centurion was moved with this great wonder. It is strange that you should persist to urge Jerom herein against the plain text in another place: 
Mat. 27.54.  which saith" When the Centurion saw the Earth quake and the things that were done, he said, Truly this was the Son of God. 
●er. 51.  Hear it is expressly noted, that the * Earthquake chief with other apparent miracles there mentioned, or else the Earthquake with the the injuries of the Persecutors and the innocency and partience of Christ persecuted, compared together, did move the Centurion to confess and say, Truly this was the Son of God. Hear it is plain then that not Christ's crying in those torments was such a wonder, or that the Centurion was by reason thereof moved to acknowledge Christ to be the Son of God, as jerom collecteth I know not from what ground, but those other sights before said. Last of all Austin is" brought to prove this matter, 
Pag 8.  but with no more strength of reason by the Scripture than the former. Neither can his words indeed being granted, necessarily conclude any thing for your purpose; which as seems do show nothing but Christ's voluntary dying, and that at his death he ●hew●d great power and not infirmity only. Who denieth th●se things.  
Th●n he proceedeth to show my disdain to the Father's further: namely for such 
“ pag 2●  insolent rejecting all their opinions touching the causes of Christ's Agony in the Garden, and of his complaint on the Cross. These supposed causes are alleged and amplified in the 
† pag 1●  former part. For answer, first I d●si●e to know whether you allow of all these causes, or not, you s●●me to ●●fuse them 
* pag 13●  here: for herein you showed not your own opinion, but ●he judgements of the Fathers. Elsewhere, 
“ pag 29  yourself are resolute for some of these causes, and against other some. And yet before, 
* pag 37  All these interpretations (you say) are sound, and stand well with the rules of Christian piety. Thus variable you are, in that wherein you seem most resolute. Howbeit in my mind, where you deny these to be your opinions, there you are in the best opinion. Neither indeed to tell you plain can I be of opinion that those their judgements are true. 
" pag ●●  The reasons of my dissenting were touched in † my former Treatise, and are maintained further hereafter, as very sufficient and just. How then I pray you do I insolently reject the Fathers if herein I descent from them justly, which even yourself also doth in sundry of them? But my manner of speech is insolent perhaps, because I say such collections are absurd and unlikely. I answer, these my words are purposely meant of those in these days that delight to vaunt of the Fathers, and chief in their errors. For seeing these opinions themselves are untrue, though some of the Fathers inclined after them, yet such in our time as urge them cannot but be absurd and strange teachers. Who having so many helps and means to discern where the Fathers mistook, which they utterly wanted and we abound with all, yet do so littl● profit by them, that even great Doctors as they desire to be thought, see not so much in the truth of the Gospel as many younger men now perceive: and in the Fathers they make themselves so cunning that commonly their sound doctrine they little regard, their faults only they admire. Such I meant and took for absurd gatherers from this Scripture. Whom here I noted by the nam● of our Contraries: The Fathers I call not so. Now that this ind●ed may be also seen even in your expounding here. Consider first, how you wavered and spoke contrarily in these" supposed Causes, 
Christ's submission ●●e Jews reaction. ●●e Churches ●●spersion 〈◊〉 pa 17 & ●. ●2. 37. Treat 1. ●ag 68  as I noted a little before. Again, these agree not with any Circumstances of the Passion, and so are merely of human conjecture without all Scripture: also they agree not together among themselves. One of them crosseth another; one overthroweth another. Will you then avouch them, as you do, to be * all sound and to stand well with the rules of Christian piety? Howbeit absolutely" I deny not, but that th●se or some of these reasons were in Christ at his Passion, as namely his Care for his Church; his love of his enemies, etc. For these holy affections he never wanted all his life long. But this rather confuteth than proveth these to be the very cause or causes that † in the hour of his dreadful Passion wrought in him such Agonies and consternation of mind. 
●ag. 6.  But these things here I omit, being hereafter more fully discussed. Lastly you cast a needles rebuke upon me for" confounding the Causes of the Agony and of the Complaint together. 
〈◊〉 230.231.  Forsooth that was done not without reason, I think: Every reasonable man, I believe, will say, that the same cause was of them both in Christ. His Agony and his Complaint are not so contrary nor so diverse, but that they might, yea verily did proceed from the same cause and ground. Yea Ambrose, 
〈◊〉 20.  one of your Authors doth * plainly join them both together. 
〈◊〉 231.  Yea yourself doth also, as by comparing † your cause of the Agony, 
〈◊〉 34.  with your 1. or 2. of the ‡ Complaint, will appear. You have much cause then, have you not, to make such out●●yes upon me, that I am strangely amazed, confounded, and forgetful in my writing? Good words I pray you. I did but join them together whom yourself & others do make all one. But I have stood too long on these trifles.  
Now you will show some examples of my mistaking or perverting your own reasons. 
〈◊〉 31.  For these hitherto were not his, but the Father's opinions, as before I noted. I marveyle then why he troubleth himself and us with them, if they be not his; specially if he propound them not to be received? Why laboureth he so to distract us with such varieties? And then to tell us they are not his, but other men's. Yet such men's he telleth us they are, as that it must not be for our Credit to refuse them. Thus the poor people are strangely taught: thus the world shallbe filled full of ambiguities, doubtfulness, variety of opinion in matters of Religion: and withal forbidden to rest upon any certain and particular reason, as also he dealeth in other cases. But I omit to prosecute this any further. For we shall now see some of his own matters, which I have ignorantly or purposely perverted.  
First 
“ pag. 2●  he telleth us, that In the Effects of Christ's Cross he noted out of the Apostle to the Hebrues, three properties of the true propitiatory Sacrifice which took away the sin of the world. It was a Bodily, a Bloody, and a Deadly Sacrifice, for so you speak. This is one of your reasons, yea almost the greatest, to prove the question against us: because Christ's Bodily Sufferings & bloodshed were the true propitiation of our sins. But what a reason is this? How differeth it from our Assertion? That the true Sacrifice for sin, must be indeed bodily, bloody, & dead we doubt not: we unfeignedly & hearty do embrace it The patriarchs believed it, the jews sacrifices of beasts figured it, the new Testament confirmeth it. But how will it follow then, Ergo Christ's Bodily death only & merely was the whole ransom and price of sin. For we must note that this is the very Question in deed; this is the point of our Controversy, as 
* Pag. 8.  I have showed, if you will deal plainly. If you speak not to this point, your words are Ambiguous and deceitful: and that notable fault is in yourself most true, which 
“ Pag. 2.301.  you wrongully charge me with: you dally with general and doubtful terms, which according as they are expounded, may either make with you or against you. And most rightly of your whole book being indeed a huge volume for so little matter, I may say that which you object most unaptly against my small pamphlet 
* Pa. 24●  Three lines directly to the purpose had been more worth than so many leves thus wastefully spent. Wherefore, if you mean these words directly to the purpose in deed, and do intend to conclude that which we plainly deny, and as now at this time we will understand your meaning to be, that the mere Bodily Sufferings of Christ, without any proper sufferings of his Soul, are the entire and whole ransom for sin: then I affirm expressly there is no piece of reason, nor likeness of any argument in th●se words. This will not follow by any means from your 
† Hear 〈◊〉 the Heb●● Your me●● is and m●●● in this Q●●● That Ch●●●● mere bo●● & blood ●●●ferings a●● whole 〈◊〉  text. Again, if the Sacrifice, as it is only Bodily, Bloody, and Deadly, doth wholly purge sin, then although Christ's Bodily death and bloodshed wanted not the sympathy of the Soul, yet it followeth that no action or passion of his Soul, neither this by sympathy nor any other, I say none at all as being in the Soul, was regarded as propitiatory and meritorious. Which if you once affirm plainly, than we will seek no further for your drift, we may know your meaning well enough. Christ's Soul shall have no place, no merit, no respect at all in the matter of Propitiation. Howbeit elsewhere I see in you manifest Contrariety hereunto. For sundry times you teach that Christ did suffer peculiarly and severally some * proper punishments (which I hope were propitiatory & meritorious) in his Soul, 
●●g 4. 257. ●●8 2●3. ●●8. 245.  besides his Bodily suffering: Yea that this was a part of his Cross & the effect of God's wrath on his Soul as well as the suffering in his Body. Now how can this be true, if our whole Ransom & propitiation be only Bodily, bloody, and deadly: which is the point that here * you stand on. 
so pa. 253  But you have reasons" you say to confirm your main matter, 
●ag. 232. 3.  among many these 2: The Jewish Sacrifices, and the Sacraments of Christians. The 1st. shadowing and foreshowing, the 2. testifying and confirming that the true sacrifice for sin was Bodily and bloody. Still what trifling is this? Doth any in the World deny it, that the true Sacrifice for sin was the Body, blood, and death of the Redeemer? Wherefore the * Proposition must be as I" did set it in your behalf: 
* ●ereof 〈◊〉 speak 〈◊〉: 233. ●●at. 1.10. ●31. ●●. 8. etc. 44. etc.  The jewish Sacrifices were shadows or Figures, and our * Sacraments were signs of our whole and absolute redemption by Christ. I say of the whole and entire propitiatory Sacrifice, or else you shrink and leave the Question. As for your pains of Hell in such sense as" you understand them, that is including the local punishment among the Damned, Desperation, final retection, and such like, so there was never any that thought Christ Suffered Hell pains, as before is declared. 
〈◊〉 6  Where you say, that I expound these Figures of our whole and absolute redemption to be of all the fruits and causes of our redemption, why do you untruly charge me with that which I have not. I have no such word nor meaning as fruits. Indeed I named them Figures of * Effects in Christ, 
〈◊〉 14.  I mean Acts done by Christ: but I never thought them any where fruits of our redemption, but either causes or means or other necessary adjoints. This therefore which indeed is the true Proposition, & being set as it ought to be I grant not, as you also untruly charge me; I do still deny it in such manner, as I did before: 
“ Pag. 1  Generally All the jews Sacrifices did not 
* I mean the propo●● of their ●●ward appearance, the● not expre●● the whole  Figure and shadow our whole redemption in Christ. The inward and invisible things they all did not signify. And yet I grant indeed, that they signified what they were apt to teach and signify: namely the outward and Bodily sufferings only. This I say, many of the jews Sacrifices did represent and signify, yea most of them, but not All. Therefore the 
“ Pag. 23  Assumption also I may well deny, as 
* Treat. 1 pag. 12.  I did before: affirming that certain Jewish Sacrifices set forth the sufferings even of the Soul of Christ, and not of his Body only. As 1. that 
“ Lev. 1●  Sacrifice consisting of 2. Goats, a slain & a Scapegoat. 
* Pag. 23.  You object here against: 1. that I abuse the Text. That were a great fault: but let us view the text. Thus are the very express words which you also recite: 
* ver. 5:  Aaron shall take of the people 2. Goats for a sin-offering. Surely you must bring very good reason to frustrate so plain a speech: That is, you say, to make a sin-offering of one of them. Nay, the very words are, take 2. Goats for a sin-offering: it saith not, take 2. Goats that one of them may be a sin-offering. But this showeth so much, you think, where the text saith, Lots were cast over the 2: Goats one lot for the Lord, the other for the Scapegoat. And Aaron shall offer the Goat on which the lords lot shall fall, and make him a sin-offering. These words prove not that the Scapegoat was no sin-offering at all: Unless this were true, that no Sin offering can possibly be but by killing and slaying and sheadding of blood. Although the 
“ Heb. 9  Scripture say, Without sheadding of blood is no remission, yet it meaneth that Almost all things are in the Law purged with blood. That is, many Offerings and sacrifices are bloody, but not all. I take now sacrifice and offering in the largest sense, as signifying any consecrated thing given to God to appease him for sin. And such unbloody Sinne-offerings very many we shall find in 
* Lev. 2.11, 13, 8 13. Nomb. 1● & 18, 11 & 28, 12 14.  Moses Law. Wherefore the Scapegoat may we yet a sin-offering, though it were not slain nor bloody. And his utter sending away into the unknown Deserts, may answer to the consuming of some other Sacrifices by fire. Thus than these words of the text which you bring do not prove the Scapegoate to be no sin-offering at all: they prove it to be no bloody Offering, and therefore not such, but of another kind than the slain Goat was. It might be consecrated and offered to the Lord, and utterly sequestered from men, and bear and take away sin no less than the slain Goat: wherein verily consisteth the nature and being of a Sacrifice or true sin-offering. And in very deed all this the text following expressly avoucheth of the Escape goat. 
ver. 10. " The Scapegoat shallbe presented alive before the Lord to make reconciliation by him, & to let him go for a scapegoat. Hear is his Consecrating unto the Lord, yea reconciliation also is made by him, though he died not as the other did. Again more plainly, 
ver. 21, 22.  * And Aaron shall put both his hands upon the head of the live Goat and confess upon him all the iniquities of the Children of Israel & all their trespasses and all their sins putting them upon the head of the Goat, and shall send him away (alive) into the Wilderness. So the Goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into the Wilderness, being let go thither. Can there be any thing in the world more full and strong to prove that the Scapegoat also was a true sin-offering, or rather a true part of this whole and entire sin-offering consisting and being complete in both these Goats the slain and the Scapegoat together. For as the slain Goat so this Scapegoat, we see, was aswell" Consecrated to the Lord, and * here Offered (though not by killing) and separated from men, 
ver. 10. ver. 21, 22.  & have upon him all the sins of the people and carried them clean away. So we may read of other Sacrifices consisting and being complete wholly" of Sacrifices of sundry diverse kinds. 
Nomb. 28.3, etc.  The bloody Sacrifice had conjoined together with it, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Meat offering, and another of the Drink offering etc. Which may very likely represent unto us the sundry and diverse kinds of Christ's meritorious Sufferings in his life time & at his Death, some bloody, some unbloody: but all concurring together & making the full and perfect propitiation for all our sins. And even such a Sacrifice or sin-offering it seemeth surely these 2. Goats were. Hear then your advisedness may be noted by all men, which do reprove me for this assertion, and that with such violent and uncomely terms. Now if it be a Figurative sin-offering, what signified this Figure? Certainly it signified Christ, and his taking away of our sins by his death. Have you any colour of reason to maintain those wide conjectures of the * Ancients, 
●yrill, Am●●ose, Beda.  that the Scapegoat signified the Reprobat and castaway people: or else cursed Barrabas that scaped death when jesus was slain. Who but you would defend these palpable mistakinges of those men? And why? Because they are Ancient. Yet see you not the express text against them? Do damned men, or did Barrabas reconcile us to God, & take away our sins, as the Scapegoat did typically? Nay surely: It must needs be then, that it signified Christ, yea doubtless Christ man. For the Godhead could be no sin-offering neither did it make reconciliation for sin, neither did the Deity bear our sins upon himself properly: all which the Scapegoat 
* Tipically.  did. Further, if it were Christ man, it could not be his Body: for his body was slain bloodily, the Scapegoat was not slain. For the other Goat (a Sacrifice to) being slain, this survived and went away into the land of separation. It must then be of necessity (I think) the human mortal Soul of Christ which the Scapegoate signified: which was a true sin-offering and made propitiation for us, aswell as the slain Goat, and bare upon him our sins: though his Soul died not bloodily nor by losing life and sense, as his body and the typical slain Goat did. You say, 
“ Pap. 235.  If this Scapegoat do signify Christ's Soul, than it cannot be that Christ's Soul Suffered, much less died any death. This objection truly you might have spared: seeing myself 
* Treat. 1. 1●  before brought it & fully answered it: where against you have said never a word. The effect whereof is this: The escaping of the Goat may lively show unto us that Christ's Soul died not as the Body died by losing life and sense, but surviving went hence into Hades, the land of separation, the invisible world of the Dead. But in that the Scapegoat did bear and sustain our sins, and was indeed a sin-offering to aswell as the slain Goat, so it may well signify that Christ's Soul properly suffered and sustained the burden of our sins in satisfying for them, no less than his body which was bloodily slain therefore. As for the Dying of Christ's Soul we shall answer you for that in due place hereafter. So that, Now where you say, 
“ Pag. 234.  I am more bold than wise in affirming the Scapegoat to signify the Soul of Christ. Surely then I were like you, who affirm as boldly, that among the jews no Sacrifice at all foreshowed any Suffering of the Soul of Christ: which you can never prove. Howbeit this I acknowledge indeed that the jewish Figures, though they be appliable unto Christ the substance of those shadows, yet we ought to apply them in the particulars soberly and warily, and not without some plain proportion of the Figure with the thing Figured. Wherefore my meaning is none other in these jewish figures, which the Scripture doth not any where expressly interpret, but to show what I think to be indeed most probable and likely, knowing that yet some such matter, as we aim at, they do signify without question. And this is sufficient to deny your Assertion, which against our saying that the sufferings of Christ's Soul may be signified by the Scapegoat, is but merely conjectural and presumed.  
The very like are * your 3. reasons brought to show that the" Holocaust cannot signify the sufferings of whole Christ, 
Pag. 236.  and therefore not of his Soul any way. 
Lev. 1. & 6.  Your former reason is, because the Holocaust was 1. slain and after burnt: for than if the burning signifieth Christ's pains and sufferings, Christ must seem to suffer after his death. But this is a weak inference. Is there any Figure or similitude concurring in all points and circumstances with the thing signified? Sure there is no man of knowledge so unexpert or so unreasonable as to require it. Many times where they agree only but in one principal respect, that sufficeth to make the similitude. Again many similitudes and Figures there are in the old Law having as great disparagement to the things signified by them as this in the Holocaust which you talk of. The Bodies of beasts first" slain, 
Lev. 4.11, 2. & 16, 27 Heb 13.11.12. ver. 13. Lev. 1.9.  were after carried out of the Host. Now these signified Christ's going out of Jerusalem * to be slain, but being yet alive. Again the beasts carrying out by others after they were slain" is likened to our voluntary and free leaving of the world in this life. Lastly the * burning of the beasts after they were dead, was a sacrifice of a sweet favour unto God. Which in truth is Christ's very" death, 
Fphe. 5.2.  and nothing done by him afterward, whereby God's anger is fully pacified toward us. Wherefore your first exception is very vain. The 2. is like to it. The Holocaust was consumed in one & the same sire. But Christ was tormented wholly not with one kind of suffering (as we maintain) but with 2. kinds, that is with bodily & spiritual sorrows. First I say, this also, if it were true, is as weak an exception as the former, and altogether like it. See: Though Christ indeed suffered diverse and sundry kinds of sorrows yea even of those which were merely outward and bodily, 
Even that merely in the Soul viz. when it grew vehement.  as also of those that were merely Spiritual and inward, yet we plainly affirm that one &" the same torment afflicted his whole manhood by sympathy. For his Soul also was sore grieved I doubt not even with his proper Bodily torments: likewise his Body, when his trickling sweat was clots of blood, was crushed and broken unspekeably with his inward and spiritual sorrows, though his flesh then felt outwardly no pain. So your 2. exception is also nothing. The 3. is no better: where you argue from 
a Trea● pag. 1●  my words, that the Bodies of beasts could not prefigure the immortal & reasonable Soul of Christ. And it is like to that which 
b pag. ●  afterward you cite from my words about the Sacraments, Earthly Elements cannot set out spiritual and invisible effects in Christ. Hence you think that I cannot defend that the fiery consuming of the Holocaust may signify the sorrows both of the Soul and Body of Christ. You shall see that I can full easily, and without any trifling. It is evident that I mean in those former places, that bodily things generally and for the most part doe-represent the mere bodily & external parts of Christ's sufferings: but not always and altogether. Which you might have easily seen by my answer to the 
c Trea● pag. ●  Assumption and by the instances which there I give to this purpose. Again the very instances which I give, viz: the Scapegoat, the Holocaust, & afterward the bread broken in the communion, these I say do not in that respect as they are Bodily things represent the Soul of Christ or any matter pertaining to it. But the peculiar usage and manner of action about them doth lively represent the suffering of his soul and not of his body only. As, not the Goat representeth Christ's soul, unless only in respect of the escaping of it when the other Goat died, & also in respect of the sustaining and bearing upon himself of our sins. And not the body of the Holocaust, but the utter consuming by fire of the whole, signifieth the sufferings of whole Christ. Lastly the bread may signify the whole Christ who is the entire and perfect bread of life: but the Breaking thereof into pieces representeth more lively the breaking & crushing in pieces (as it were) of the soul rather than of the body. Which was pierced through, but was not in case of being broken in pieces, so likely as the Soul was. Yet you will say) the Haul: may signify that whole Christ suffered but some bodily afflictions, the Soul feeling the griefs & pains of the Body. For how will it follow that the proper and immediate sufferings of Christ's Soul might be signified by the Holocaust? Surely according to the proportion of the Holocaust so whole Christ, & then his very Soul chief, was as it were chopped or broken into pieces, and as it were quite consumed and swallowed up in his fiery sorrows: only the assistance of his Godhead sustained his Soul and withal his body, or else he could not have borne it, 
●reat 1. ●ag. ●8.  as a I noted M. whitaker's to have truly taught. This can not be but the Souls peculiar suffering of God's very wrath, far beyond all bodily sufferings: and yet not those pains of Hell, 
●ag 8. etc.  as b you grossly utter it. Your other senses that you give hereof, the 1. hindereth not mine, 
●ag. 237.  that is c the Acceptation of Christ's death. The 2. that is Christ's flesh's incorruption after death is very hard and far fetched. And Sacrifices had their respect to Christ's death, not to any thing further or afterwards. As for another sense out of Austin that it should signify our perfection and burning charity, it cannot be true: for the Holocaust-sacrifice out of question primarily signified the person of Christ, not ours. See: it is untrue that any man besides Christ alone is or can be perfect in this life, that he should be wholly consumed with Heavenly love, according to the proportion of the consuming of the Holocaust. Also you both here do seem double, understanding by the Holocaust both incorruption after death, & a perfect burning Love in us now in this life. Which things are far distant asunder and cannot stand together. But all th●se are so unlikely, that I will leave them to the consideration of the godly wise.  
Then d you come to your next reason about the Sacraments, 
●●g. 238.  wherein you think to touch me. First you reprove me for saying, 
●●at. 1. 〈◊〉. 14.  e Sacraments are Earthly elements, they cannot set out the spiritual and invisible effects in Christ. This say you is against the definition of a Sacrament, which is, Avisible sign of invisible grace. I answer, first you rather overthrow yourself in urging this against me: for your own main assertion is that neither the jewish Sacrifices nor Christian Sacraments do signify any more than the bodily and bloody death of Christ. Then it is yourself Sir indeed that denieth the very definition of Sacraments, that they are visible signs of invisible graces. For I hope the Bodily and bloody death of Christ, and the renting of his flesh with whips, nails, and spears were visible and not invisible things. As for me I can easily defend myself although you fail in this. For I hold that Sacraments are indeed visible signs of invisible graces wrought in us by Christ: and yet usually they represent not spiritual and invisible Effects or Acts in Christ himself, but 
a Albei●● conseq●● & imp●● I deny● but al● Passion be understood it  only the external and visible parts of his Passion. Can you not reconcile these two? Any beginner in Christianity will easily do it. Next 
b Pag. 2●  you make me to cross the Justitution of the Lords Table, because 
c Treat. ● pag. 14  I said the Ceremony of breaking the bread cannot properly belong to Christ's body. But even here do not I say expressly, that it showeth forth how Christ's body was broken for us? Which you say is the Institution and this I plainly acknowledge: where then is mine error, and what is it? Indeed I mean that the breaking of the bread into many pieces doth not set out primarily the breaking of his body, but of his soul first and immediately, and then of his Body jointly and consequently. Again, that it doth not set out properly the piercing or boring through of Christ's body with the spear or nails nor his lashing with the whip: because 
d 1 Cor. 1●  Klòmenon is broken to pieces properly, and 
e Isa. 53●  Meducca in the Prophet is also Broken to pieces properly, or crushed and broken to powder. As these 
f Nom. ● Isa 19 Deut. 2● Likewise there wor● very same ●●ture. 2 C●● 34.7 2 〈◊〉 23.6, 15.16.12. Isa 21, and 2 and 41.1 Mic 4. ●  Scripture do use this word likewise, and also all Lexicons do confirm. Your 
g Psal. 14 jor. 44. ● Except Io●● 2. where the portion ma● kept of that per sense 〈◊〉 break m●● pieces with words A●● Psal. 34 51.17.  allegations therefore about the use of Dacha otherwise, show not the proper, but the use thereof altered. Thus then still I say our former places are not to be meant principally of Christ's Body, for it was not properly broken: which also my other place showeth suffficientlie where it is said, 
h Ioh 1●  Not a bone of him was broken. Seeing it is manifest that none of his flesh was separated from his bones. But of necessity it must have been so, if his flesh had been properly broken into pieces, and yet his bones not broken. 
i Pag. 23  You say, From a part the whole may and doth properly take denomination. First you must show that some part of him was properly broken into pieces: which hitherto is proved to the contrary. That fable which 
k Pag. 6●  you bring of the Nails being so great that Constantine of them made him a Bridle and a Helmet, will not help to prove that his Body was properly broken. Neither is cutting or tearing, or perching through which only indeed the Scripture warranteth, that Breaking properly which 
l Dach●.  that word in the Prophet b●fore noted doth properly signify. And I pray is that true, that from a part the whole may and doth properly take denomination. Doth it properly? From a part to the whole is a Figure of speech. Is a Figurative speech a proper speech with you? Vainly you charge me I know not how often against my express words, that I call Hell Heaven, and Descending Ascending. But here it is no wrong to charge you with such an absurdity indeed, who expressly do make that which you say is Figurative to be a proper denomination. I am sure your Grammar was better, before you were as you are. But to proceed if you ask me, 
Cor. 11.24 〈◊〉 53 10.  whether do I think that a those places, of the Apostle and the Prophet do signify at all the piercing of his body. I answer they may by a general and unproper speech, as piercing may be an unproper kind of breaking. For seeing the H. Ghost by those words intendeth to show the whole outward violence and destruction of his flesh also, and not only the breaking & bruising of his Soul, therefore I deny not but herein so much may be signified, yet in no wise not that alone, nor by a proper signification, as I have said. Now where you catch at an advantage in me as you think, 
Treat 1. ●●g. 14.  in that I said, b The Caeremony of breaking the bread (or that breaking to pieces in I say) cannot belong properly to Christ's body, but to his soul. I grant taking my words at the worst, and thinking me to be a senseless fool (as indeed you do in your whole writing) so you may construe them as if I had said, The Soul might be properly broken to pieces. But other men (not inferior to your L. in learning, none dispraised) who have read this Treatise, have conceived me thus. This breaking to pieces cannot be properly said of Christ's body, nor in any sense proportionable to the property of the c words. But his Soul may rather & more truly be said to have been broken and bruised to pieces in such wise as souls may be broken with sorrows & extraordinary anguish, 
●omenon ●educca.  and so was his Body likewise by sympathy with his Soul. Where I deny not but Broken applied to the Soul is Figurative: yet keeping a just and full proportion with the proper sense of Breaking to pieces, which we cannot keep referring it to his Body. So that thus it is nearer and better applied to the Soul then to the Body of Christ, which was only pierced or bored through.  
Then you rehearse another of your reasons tending to the very same effect as that last before. 
●●g. 240.  You will prove (d you say) that the blood of our Saviour is the true price of our redemption, and that aswell of our Souls as of our Bodies. Still you deal fraudulently: for who denieth this as your words run. But we know you mean, 
●●s here ●●g. 16.  e that no more but the shedding of his blood only and merely is the just and full satisfaction of all our sins even in the righteous and sincere judgement of God. Then we absolutely deny your Assertion, as before we have done the like. As for your 
a 1 Pet. 1 Rev. 5. ●  alleged Scriptures we answer them as we did generally 
b Treat. pag. 8.9  before: that they mean not the mere blood of Christ nor only the body singly and simply considered but, that together with the proper sufferings of his Soul also they were the just and full satisfaction, and redemption. Against which you have nothing any where. And likewise our advised and resolute answer is to 
c pag. 58, 60, 61, 7●. etc.  all the rest of your scriptures which most tediously and vainly you heap up & scatter every wherein your former treatise to this effect, as if they contained somewhat for your purpose, when as indeed there is not one text any where that hath any meaning of your strange conceit. So that we shall have no need to trouble ourselves any more hereafter about any of them. Yet 
d pag. 24●  here you urge a reason against us: If our Souls be not redeemed by the blood of Christ our bodies have no benefit of redemption (you mean) from death. But we 
e 1. Pet. 1 Rev. 5.9.  are redeemed, not we shallbe. Ergo it is our Souls which are redeemed, our bodies are not redeemed as yet in this life. Wherein we have to note 3. things. 1. Your Proposition is vain and illogicall having no consequence in it at all. Which maketh me to think that I hit your meaning right and mistook you not in my former book. Howbeit to try this your sentence here, what if our Souls were not at all redeemed by Christ's blood but some other way, or not by his blood merely and only (which indeed is our question) will it follow that therefore our bodies are still mortal, and therefore not redeemed from death? Or what if our Souls be redeemed by his blood, as indeed they are, though not wholly nor only thereby. What followeth then from this? Nay what if our Souls and Bodies were redeemed wholly and only by Christ's blood? Is these any consequence that therefore our bodies should now be redeemed from death, and never die. Truly I cannot discern, but that your proposition meaneth some such consequence as this, which is to me a vey strange reason. Yet that which you add 
f Pag. 2●  afterward is more strange: If our Souls be not redeemed (wholly) by the (mere) blood of Christ, (For thus still I say you must make your words, or else you ask the very question) than our bodies have utterly no good, even no good at all by the death of Christ. In which sequel verily I can see neither head nor tail. Chose you now, whether you will that you speak this sophistically, or absurdly. For I cannot discern it: I leave it therefore to yourself to determine. But perhaps you will yet again go back to that you excused yourself withal before. You will mean that our bodies in this life have no benefit of redemption from death, even no more than the bodies of Infidels. And this plainly you avouch for truth. Is this true, Are not our bodies now already freed from the curse & the sting of death, from all the hurt & harm that properly and naturally is in death? Is it not made unto us a quiet sleep and a peaceable rest, an entrance for our Souls into Heaven, a putting off of sin to our bodies, in such wise that Christ taketh from it the a name of Death and calleth it but b a passage? 
●oh. 8.51.  Or have the Jnfidels also thus much benefit in death, 
●oh. 5. 2●.  as we have in it by our redemption in Christ? I know not therefore how to term this your assertion, I forbear to name it as it deserveth: it is more than strange that Infidel's bodies should have as much benefit of nedemption from death, as our bodies have by Christ. Die I grant, or cease to breath we must and do still even as they do. And this death by the natural property of it is a part of God's Curse: but to the faithful there are great benefits joined even in death by the gracious dealing of God peculiarly towards his children, which also their bodies are partakers of through the death of Christ. The natural sting is taken out of it for the godly, yet it remaineth to the Infidels and hurteth them by retaining even their bodies (though dead) in & under God's dreadful Curse. Wherefore it makes many to think that indeed you uttered this matter somewhat otherwise in your Sermons, than here you do now publish it: and it persuadeth me still that c I mistook you not, 
●●eat. 1. ●●g. 11.  seeing this your turning & setting of it is so unhansom. For every one may see by this your handling of it, that then you said more than here you express: and here you would feign fashion it to somewhat, but you cannot. Yea your own words bewray some alteration from that which so confidently you preached, where you say, Whatsoever the words were that you might use, which you do not acknowledge to be these that I bring. 
●ag. 240.  Lastly, d you grant that you used this reason in handling the power of Christ's death: that is, when you preached it. For now in this Treatise you have clean left it out, for aught that e I can see. which bewrayeth that it was such, 
〈◊〉. 88.113  as yourself saw was not to be maintained, howsoever here you strive to set some colour upon it, though yet still in vain.  
Before we depart from this point, That not the blood of Christ nor his flesh merely and only without respect to the merit of his whole Soul was the full price of Redemption, here is fit place to show how sundry of the Ancient Fathers do agree with us sufficiently in this matter: although afterward in your book you seem to bring them against us. But indeed so they seem only: for in truth they are with us as by these following we may see. First 
a Ire●. 5.  Irenaeus, The Lord bought us with his own blood, and gave his soul for our souls, & his flesh for our flesh. 
b Cyr. de 〈◊〉 fid. ad T●●  Cyrill, He bestowed his flesh as a ransom for our flesh, and made his Soul likewise a price of redemption for our Souls, although he lived again, being by nature life itself. 
c Naz. in tr●● 49. add Cl●●  Nazianzen maketh every part of man to be sanctified by the like in Christ, our condemned flesh by his flesh, our soul by his soul, our understanding by his understanding. 
d Ambr. 〈◊〉 Luc. 22. 〈◊〉 trist. dolo●● etc.  Ambrose saith Maerorem animae nostrae suae animae maerore abolevit: He abolished the sorrow of our Soul by the sorrow of his Soul. And 
e De inca●● Sacr. cap. 〈◊〉  Hoc in se obtulit Christus quod induit etc. Christ offered in sacrifice all that which he assumed: that is all & every whit that was in him besides his Godhead. 
f Fulgent. 〈◊〉 Thrasym 〈◊〉 lib. 3.  Fulgentius, He showed in himself the sufferings of a whole man in verity & truth, quicquid fuit infirmitatis animae sine peccato suscepit & pertulit: He took upon him and suffered whatsoever infirmity may be in the soul without sin. It is not possible that we ourselves should speak a more effectual sentence for our purpose then this is. Say as Fulgentius here saith, and we ask no more. All that 
g Pag. 86.  you except, that by these Fathers Christ died only the death of the flesh, is less than here they affirm. And we shall answer to that in due place. Now mark well, how these Fathers do not say that Christ gave his life for a ransom only, (as 
h Pag. 70. ●●  you would construe it) but even his very Soul to for our Souls. They strive to express an exact proportion so far as was possible between Christ and us. First in the parts of Christ who suffered, & of us who were saved. So that as we are saved not in our bodies only, nor only in the external sensitive part of our souls (wherein standeth that suffering with and by our bodies) but we are saved redeemed and sanctified in our whole Spirit and Understanding also: even so (by their verdict) Christ suffered for us not the bodily and outward sufferings by Sympathy only, but he suffered for us even in his Mind also. Now this is directly against your present a Assertion which we have in hand. 
〈◊〉 132.240 ●eere p. 14  Also here they observe an exact proportion in the Objects so far as was possible, viz: in that which he suffered for us, & that which we are saved from thereby. Thus that sorrow of the immortal part of the Soul & not of body only, which we are saved from, the same he suffered. Yea I say all and every whit of those passions & sorrows whereunto man's nature is b subject and capable of, 
〈◊〉 nature we ●●e subject to ●●fer in the ●●nde properly for sin: ●nd not only ●y Sympathy from the Body Cyrill. Thes●●ur. 10 3 Barnard. de ●ass. Dom. ●ap. 41. Pag. 7. Ter●ul. cout. Prax. Ambiguity in Luc. 2. De trist. ●olor. etc.  and from which we are saved, all the same he tasted and suffered for us. Thus it is also that Cyrill elsewhere saith, c Omnia perpessus est ut nos ab omnibus liberaret: He suffered all things thoroughly, that he might acquit us from all, which else we should have suffered. And thus I take Barnard's meaning to be, d He spared not himself who knoweth how to spare his. Whereupon you collect well, if you mean so e He suffered and endured All to the uttermost with exact obedience and patience. To which end Tertullian also, f Sic reliquit, dum non parcit. This was Gods forsaking of him in his passion, that in nothing he spared him. And thus Ambrose g Minus contulerat mihi nisi meum suscepisset affectum. He had done less for me▪ if he had not been (altogether) affected as I should have been. And thus jerom, 
h ●erom. in ●sa. 53.  h Quod nos pro nostris debebamus sceleribus sustinere, ille pro nobis passus est, pacificans etc., That which we should have borne for our sins, the same he suffered for us. Wherefore by the Father's Christ suffered exactly i All & whatsoever sorrows & pains which we should have suffered, 
All kinds: 〈◊〉: both in spirit & Body. ●ot all particulars in them.  as well Spiritual as Corporal as well in all the powers of the Soul subject to suffering, as in that which suffered always with and from the body. Only they except 2. points which of simple necessity indeed must be excepted in the Son of God, 
Pag. 10. 12. ●3.  which before k I have also acknowledged: 1. Sin, 
Pag. 87.  and all sinful concomitantes and consequentes as l you speak. And that is it which Cyprian exactly noteth, That in him there was m Similitudo paenae non Culpae, 
Cypr. de pass.  the very like punishment as should have been in us: only there was no sin nor fault in him as is in us. The 2. point excepted is, that he suffered not eternally, but for a while: for he that was life itself could not but live again, saith n Cyrill. 
In the place above cited.  Where he seemeth to acknowledge a kind of death even of the soul, from which Christ revived again. But of that in due place hereafter. Now here it is manifest that even the Fathers, of whom you do so exceedingly boast, are clean against you and for us in the 1. and chiefest point of this question: showing that Christ suffered not only bodily, or in the soul by Symphaty only, but in the Mind also distinctly, even as we may suffer in mind distinctly from our bodily suffering, that is when we suffer somewhat 
a As I 〈◊〉 Treat. 〈◊〉 pag. 4.  immediately from God. Yea he suffered (say these Fathers) all the pains which else we should have suffered: no material thing excepted but only sin, otherwise he was spared by dispensation in nothing. Against this clear and plain sense of the Fathers 
b Pa. 35●.  you take no exception, neither can you.  
Thus having hitherto manefestly defended myself, that I have not abused any way the Fathers nor yet yourself, as you unjustly charge me in 
c Pa. 22●  your entrance: Now I am to do the like against 
d Pag. 2●●  your unsufficient refusing of my Reasons. Where by, I hope, it shall appear that you have not weakened any one of them. And First you begin with rehearsing my words, wherein I briefly noted the very Question between us, 
e Treat. 〈◊〉 pag. 4.  That Christ suffered for us the Wrath of God. Which you 
f Pag. 24  exclaim at without measure, as being not the point which you preached against. Howbeit I suppose these words do rightly and fitly set out the matter, both which then you preached, & which now you writ. I have 
g Pag. 8  here before truly & fully declared the whole state of this controversy, I trust. Yet because we can never open this point to much for many good uses that it hath, I will not think it tedious nor labour lost ne to rip up this question a little again in this place, that so we may proceed with more ease.  
Your general carriage in your book declareth, that you abuse the Reader exceedingly by the ambiguous and equivocal taking of this term God's Wrath, as before in the entrance I have showed. It is not I that abuse them, as you 
h Nam● 243. 24●  every where very bitterly and unreasonably do charge me. For according to the most usual and common sense of God's wrath, so in my whole Treatise I take it for God's perfect Holiness, justice, & Power 
i joh. 3● Psal. 2● 2. Cor▪ 9  properly executing vengeance & punishment (whether little or great) due to them on whom sin lieth. But you generally do so carry this phrase, as signifying any punishment of sin whatsoever: and namely the Afflictions which the very Godly do suffer, which is altogether an unproper speech. This I observe most specially in one place of your book above others. Where you say, 
l Pag. 1●  All kinds of troubles, pains, and griefs in our states, bodies, and minds, which shorten or sour this present life are degrees of God's wrath, and chastisements of out transgression & corruption. Which presently you prove by many needless Scriptures. And from this sense of his Father's wrath you do not exempt the Lord Christ. You mean that this he suffered indeed, and that this is all in your opinion. It is true All troubles pains & griefs in their first Ordinance a were the effects of Gods proper wrath. 
●●ou do 〈◊〉 right●●● 275. &  But in their state and condition now, they are b not: namely, as the Godly do suffer them. Which we must here note and consider well. 
●●at. 1.14. ●. 132.  You say right also: This, † because it seemeth grievous for the present and not joyous is called (sometimes) in the Scriptures the rod and wrath of God. True; it seemeth. But indeed it is not so, or it ought not so to be. For c it seemeth otherwise to the judgement of faith and knowledge. 
〈◊〉 1.2. ●. 2.28, 〈◊〉 & 2 Cor. ●0. ●efore pa. ●●. 19  Then God's wrath in this sense is very unproperly taken: as I have often said. Wherefore speaking properly & exactly as in this Controversy we ought according to the revealed mind of the Holy Ghost, it is Chastisement & correction: it is not in any wise Wrath, or punishment properly meant. Neither may it be said properly that his justice leadeth him to inflict it on us (as e you affirm) but it is his Holiness and Love towards his children which chasteneth them. 
〈◊〉. 132.  According to the Scripture which saith, 
〈◊〉 12.10.  f God chasteneth us for our profit, that we might be partakers of his Holiness. And g whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth: 
〈◊〉 6.7. 〈◊〉 11.32  he scourgeth every Son that he receiveth. If we endure chastening, God offereth himself unto us as unto sons: for what son is it whom the Father chasteneth not. Therefore to speak properly not Gods justice, but his Holiness and Fatherly Love doth move him to lay whatsoever Crosses and troubles upon his children. He is not unto them a judge or Revenger, but a Father: Neither is it Wrath that cometh from him or Vengeance for sin properly, 
●●r. 11.  but h amendment in Love towards the godly. Now the case with Christ was clean otherwise. He needed no Amendment, but that which he suffered was right Punishment. He was neither in case as the wicked, nor yet simply as the godly. He differed from them both, and yet in some points did partake of both their conditions. He was like the godly, in that he was highly beloved of God, and had no manner of sin of his own laid to his charge. He was like the wicked and differed from the case of the godly greatly, because he was laden & charged with sins, yea with all manner of sins, & sustained their due punishment, there being also none other at all to endure the vengeance of God for them but himself. As we have largely showed before in opening the state of our Question. Thus than whatsoever Christ suffered (and specially at his death) was very wrath and vengeance from God properly taken, true punishment and justice executed against sin & for sin, to the which he was in some sort condemned and appointed, also this was the true Curse of the Law which thus he sustained for us. Nevertheless in all this his Case was extraordinary, his condition in the like punishments utterly unlike to the wicked. For his own nature was still for all this most holy, faithful, steadfast, loving the Lord, and beloved of him, albeit in his office of Redeeming us and suretyship for us he did sustain truly, and not unproperly, (as the Godly do) the Lords very wrath against sin which he took upon him. Hear is now the Power of God to be deeply considered, together with his unspeakable justice, and Love and Holiness. Even one of the greatest mysteries of Christian Religion: which to unfold what tongue is able, yea what heart can conceive it? And yet most necessary & most comfortable to be understood of all men. Namely how the Lord hath assigned to his son in the work of Redemption 2. persons as it were, or countenances, or conditions. His own naturally, which God ever dearly loved: & our countenance, or person, or condition which he sustained by his office, which condition the Lord truly 
a As yo●● God's C●● pag. 26● in deeds in word●  accursed and punished. Only the sense of the pain of God's Vengeance came indeed unto his most holy nature: the Curse the Hatred, the wrath, and judgement of God being quenched therewith. His own nature felt the sorrow and pain of the Curse and Hatred. But the Hatred & Curse was bend against the load of our sin wherein he stood forth as guilty before God, and appeared as it were clothed therewith. This was Love and mercy to us, this was justice upon Christ having undertaken for us, this was infinite power and wisdom both ways in God to bring it to pass, which no creature can comprehend: his Holiness and Love still chastening his Redeemed ones, but laying no part of true Punishment or proper Vengeance for sin upon them, which Christ only did for them wholly sustain. Thus also seeing Christ indeed had no sin in him (as the godly have) to be corrected: neither could be correctted & chastised for nothing: therefore properly he was not chastised nor corrected at all, but his Afflictions every one both small and great were true and proper punishments, and the effects of Gods very wrath for our sin lying upon him. 
〈◊〉. 245.  Some where a you say, Christ might suffer the wrath of God in his body, yea in his soul he might suffer it, and yet not the pains of the Damned, or of Hell. We grant you say true, Christ suffered not the pains of the damned nor of Hell understanding this for the very same condition & state alltogeather b as the Damned are in. 
〈◊〉 you de●●●e it pag. ●0. 49.50.  We abhor such blasphemy as much as you that Christ so suffered Hell pains. Yea albeit I know you are far from thinking so, yet I say your words do come nearer unto it then ours do, 
●●g. 15.16.  as is c before noted. But I ask, do you grant that Christ suffered God's wrath in Spirit, as the Apostle d somewhere distinguisheth the Spirit & Soul? If you mean not thus, 
〈◊〉. The. 5.23  than you again use sophistry deceiving us with the word Soul. For we mean thereby in this Question only the Spirit or Mind, as it is also called in exact and distinct speech. Howbeit speaking vulgarly and ordinarily we call it the Soul: Which yet sometime is understood only for the Sensitive parts quickening the body and depending thereon. But this indeed is not it which we have here in question. If you mean in Soul, to be properly and immediately in his immortal Spirit, as the ordinary phrase intendeth: and that so he suffered directly punishment for sin in his Soul, & not Devotion & Piety & zealous Care only (as I doubt e you mean) than you differ not from us, 
〈◊〉 observe 〈◊〉. 18.  but we all agree. And thus my words shallbe true, Christ suffered a sense of God's wrath f equal to Hell itself, and all the torments thereof. For as touching God's wrath punishing his Spirit, 
Which you 〈◊〉 s; o blame: 〈◊〉. 244.247.  who can say but that this was as hot and skorching as Hell fire itself? Who can limit or measure the fury of God's severe justice when he cometh in judgement against sin, as now he did unto Christ? This therefore being well pondered, we may preceave that Christ's sorrow & anguish which he endured for sin, might very well be and was no doubt infinite: yea even in those bodily stripes, wounds, and bloodshed, whose pains otherwise were finite. His soul not only discerning sensitively the bodily pain & smart, but chief in the understanding he conceived, and in his faculty of immediate suffering he felt the fury of that hand which principally struck those blows upon his human nature: not Pilat's, nor the jews, who were but instruments, but the original and chief employing them, which was God's Justice armed with vengeance for his sin (His I may call it, for he paid for it.) Now this could not but make an unspeakable impression of pain & sorrows, which stack in the depth of his soul. Who then can say how little or how small this was? Nay, who can declare or comprehend the infinite greatness of it? Finally yourself doth grant expressly that 
a Pag. 2.  the Wrath of God is Hell: indeed only it 
b Isa. 30  causeth Hell to be cruel. Yea you grant it to be sharper than Hell. So that we see hereby how vainly you say, 
c Pag. 2●.  Out of this proposition, Christ suffered for us the wrath of God for sin, I shall never conclude: Ergo he suffered the true pains of Hell. I have here showed you I trust that this followeth well, seeing the wrath of God which Christ felt in his Spirit was his right and proper wrath, albeit he suffered not all nor the whole wrath of God, nor Hell locally, nor every part thereof just as the Damned do. Which you without all colour of reason or likelihood, would make men imagine to be the question between us.  
You 
d Pag. 24  would make a Contradition in my words for saying 
e Treat. 1.  Christ suffered in his whole manhood, and afterward 
f Treat. 1.  Christ suffered God's wrath properly and immediately in his Soul. Where I say not as you untruly charge me, that, He suffered all that he suffered in his whole manhood. Wherefore this is a niew contrariety. Again, granting him to suffer all that he suffered in his whole manhood, yet he must suffer God's wrath (as God wrath) properly and immediately in his Soul, in his Body mediately and by conjunction only with his Soul. And thus my reason 
g Treat. 1.  there framed is yet still wholly good and sound.  
Then I am charged with absurdities, I know not how many, nor how great. 1. 
h Pag. 34●  Because I say, 
i Treat. ●. pag. 17.  Christ assumed not our nature, nor any part of it but only to suffer in it properly and immediately. As if I had meant here, that he became man not to reveal to us by his own mouth his Father's will, not to work righteousness for us, not to quicken and sanctify us, but only to suffer for us, and nothing else. Wherein who would have showed himself so unjust an Adversary, & so unreasonable? Were it not reason and just dealing to consider whereof we dispute, and so weighing the whole matter of our talk not to stretch and rack my words further than that. All men may see it to be manifest, that 
k Treat. ● pag. 16.  here I speak only of Christ's suffering for our redemption, having not one word about his other benefits which he wrought for us. 
Pag. 17.  a And after speaking of Christ's Souls suffering, I show that although there were 2 sorts thereof, one immediate and proper, an other by Sympathy from and with the flesh, yet Christ took our human Soul only to suffer in it properly & immediately: that is, his main end was not that he should suffer in it by Sympathy from and with the body, and only so, which you very strangely affirm. So that my meaning is no more but to exclude that which you affirm, That Christ took his human Soul to suffer in it only from and by his Body. This here I denied, and nothing else. For I grant that Christ intended that his human Soul should suffer by Sympathy: but yet also this he intended not directly nor primarily in taking the 2 distinct parts of our human nature our Soul and our Body. He intended it by consequence, because Nature's right state was such in us: therefore determining to be in nature like us, he would also that his Soul should feel the Bodies outward harms, as it doth with us. Howbeit in comparison of the Souls most principal disposition, & of that which is proper to Reasonable Creatures, he did not respect the inferior part, that which is common to us with Beasts, even this sensitive suffering by Sympathy with and from the Body. I say in comparison of the other Christ respected not this, yet he did respect this also, as I said, secondarily & consequently: that is because he intended to have our nature in whole and full perfection, as we have it, only except sin. Now I beseech you would any upright adversary object against me, that in this speech I exclude Christ's doing righteousness in his Soul for us etc. I appeal to all indifferent Readers. Rather hence we are to gather & to conclude, that each part in Christ ought to have the proper and immediate use as is incident to the nature thereof, aswell in suffering, as it is clear that it hath in working righteousness. In Christ's working of righteousness and obedience to God, his Soul had a proper and immediate part to do which it executed without the Body: as to conceive & meditate on the will of God revealed to him, to love and wholly to embrace it, and to purpose the full performing of it, etc. His Body also had a proper and external use, not only to follow the holy thoughts and purposes of his mind, but also to minister many outward occasions, & to derive them to the mind, whereby Christ wrought righteousness completely, and in his whole man. That which was by cooperation and mutual coherence only of one part with the other, as it was a distinct kind of working in the Soul and in the body also, so it was respected secondarily, and only because the true constitution of our nature requireth so: which Christ meant wholly and perfectly to take upon him. Whence now we may well argue, As it was with him touching his faculty of doing righteousness and Obedience, so it was and ought to be touching his suffering Gods punishments for us. There is no reason in the world, nor likelihood, that the natural faculty in Christ's Soul of proper and immediate suffering for our sins should have no use, and a Suffering of pains only by and from the body should be sufficient, when in his doing of righteousness for us his Souls joint Obedience and mutually knit together in & with his Body was not alone sufficient. But there was further obedience found in the Soul of Christ, even that which was proper and immediate in it, as before I said. Seeing then such a kind of Obedience was necessary for us in Christ's Soul, therefore such a Suffering also even in the same kind was necessary likewise. This must needs be a perfect reason for us against you, except you could by express Scripture disprove this proportion of like necessity between the operation of the proper faculties of Christ's human Soul, that is between his Doing & Suffering for us: which you shall never be able to do. And thus it appeareth I hope, that you had no cause so cruelly to rage's at me for this as you do.  
Nor yet for the next: where your charge me that 
a Pag. 250.  I conclude Christ's flesh to be needles for our redemption. A horrible Heresy. But how do I say so much? Because I say, His Souls suffering by Sympathy did not make properly to our redemption. Ergo his Flesh was needles. I deny this sequel: how can that follow? Touching the sense of my speech, you may remember how I have largely declared 
b Pag. 8.  before that the Souls proper suffering is greatly and justly distinguished from the Common suffering that is by sympathy: And that the Souls suffering by Sympathy in Christ was intended by God, by reason that our natural constitution doth require it so to be in every true and perfect man, which Christ also was. And thus it did make to our redemption, even as likewise his Infirmities, and Affections: as his Weariness, Hunger, Sleep, Fear, Love, joy, etc. These do make to our redemption, not as intended in Christ's incarnation principally and primarily, but secondarily and by consequent; because that human nature which God ordained unto him, and intended to be perfect in him, could not otherwise be thoroughly perfect as it is in us; but with these common Affections & infirmities which other mortal Creatures have to, & not Man only. Also in Christ these Infirmities and Affections wrought not immediately for sin: but usually for other particular causes and occasions immediately. Nevertheless they were all even for sin in him consequently, that is because the perfection of human nature, which he assumed for sin, and was in every point in him, as before I noted, required so. Even thus likewise in Christ: I say his Souls suffering by sympathy wrought in him immediately & properly for some other particular cause stirring that faculty, that is by reason of the Bodily pain & smart, which this sensitive power of the Soul apprehended & felt and caused the flesh also to feel. This suffering then of his Soul only by sympathy was immediately and properly not for our redemption from sin, but for the sensitive apprehending of the smart, wounds, and blows, which the jews gave his body: & yet as before I said consequently even this was for our sin also, namely because these wounds were given him for our sin. And thus, though it made for our redemption in such manner as it wrought in Christ because of our sin, and as it was intended by Christ in taking both parts of our Nature, the Soul & the Body, yet this was not in a direct or immediate respect, and so not properly but by consequent as I have showed.  
After a you charge me sorely, 
Pag. 252.  that I falsify your Argument about receiving pollution from Adam. For where b I frame your reason as grounded on that opinion that only our flesh is derived from Adam and not our soul, 
Treat. 1. pag. 19  
Pag. 252.  c you renounce it utterly and say, you grounded no reason upon that difficulty: & so you made no such argument as here I pretend. Which whether it be true or no, I report me to them that heard you. But then, what is your reason now? is it any otherwise grounded? No certainly, if you make any reason at all. Who trifleth then? and why do you upbraid me so much with trifling? Let us see what is your reason now: Christ's flesh is as able to redeem us, as adam's to condemn us. But we inherit pollution from Adam's flesh. Ergo. Do we inherit pollution from Adam's flesh, and is it not by Generation? How else do we inherit pollution & condemnation from him. If there be no otherway, why do you then seem to refuse the difficult question of our Generation, and yet urge the sequel thoreof? For if our souls arise in Generation from Adam as well as our flesh, how can your reason be good by any possibility? It is best therefore utterly to omit this reason, which you grant hath no ground but a great difficulty & doubtful question. I 
a Treatise pag. 21.  have showed herefore at large that your argument (which here is your Minor) is nothing true: For pollution, that is, sin & real iniquity is not in our flesh without a Soul. But Ambrose saith, We are defiled before we have life, I pray, omit men's Authorities in this case, & prove by sound reason that which you would. Neither is it clear, as you say it is, that we ●●heri●● pollution from Adam's flesh only. (This word only you must add, or else you say nothing against us.) Our parents Souls are in cause as well as their flesh, that sin is derived unto us. But you draw me to talk of these intricat things, which I would in no wise meddle with. I pray, keep 
b pag. 10.  your promise better, not to meddle with this difficulty, neither to make it any ground of your reason: which yet you do here notwithstanding. Again you with one breath overthrow yourself. For you say, we have pollution before the Soul cometh whence soever it cometh. Yea, whence soever? What if the Soul do come in & by generation? You see how you cross yourself, who do so taunt me for this fault, I hope, altogether unjustly. Then 
c Pag. 25  you will disprove 
d Treat. ●● pag. 19  my Proposition: which is, whereby Adam first sinned by the same Christ satisfied for sin. You deny this, because the Scripture acknowledgeth no satisfaction but by death: where still we must note that you mean only by the Bodily death. Now how prove you that? Because the judge in prohibiting Adam to transgress, threatened death: 
e Ocn. 2.  In the day that thou catest thereof, thou shalt die the death. Which it seemeth 
f Pa. 100 64.  you avouch again and again. And are you sure that Death here is but the bodily death only, & no more? Then surely the wicked should satisfy easily for their sins. Far be it from me to utter such a sentence. Nevertheless, you must give me leave to show you also your contradiction in this point. First in that where you acknowledge, 
g Pag. 42.  the judges revenge for sin is Death both of body and soul. Again where you 
h Pag. 18.  agree with Athanasius showing expressly that this text intendeth even both these: Anima dixit, Morte morieris, He said to the Soul, Thou shalt die the death. But you would prove your matter again by this; 
Hebr. 9.15.  a Through death, which was for our redemption, we receive the promise: Yet he saith not, Through his bodily death merely and alone, and by nothing else together therewith, which is your intent. He excludeth not the Souls proper sufferings, as b I have often said: 
Treat. 1.  the contrary hereof you never come near to prove. And it must not be forgotten, 
Pag. 8, 9  that c here ●ou renounce all satisfaction for sin in respect of merit as from Christ's soul utterly. 
Pag. 253.  Therefore that absurd speech and worse which you d unjustly cast on me, 
Pa. 250. etc.  proveth in very deed to be your own: that Christ's suffering in Soul by Sympathy makes not to our redemption. Your own place in Barnard maketh Christ's whole Soul that is the Mind, and the part depending on the Body also, to have place and part in the meritorious sacrifice, 
Pag. 84.  as well as the Body. e  totum hominem salvum fecit, sic de Toto se hostiam fecit salutarem. Which suiteth not with your words, The Soul of Christ which could not die, could not pay the satisfaction: and nothing might satisfy for sin, but death. 
Pag. 85, 86, 8. etc.  Yea all your f other places of Contradiction hereunto must be taken in good part. As for your reason, That nothing may satisfy for sin but death, it is not sound. The Scriptures do show in deed that Christ should not satisfy without Death: but they deny not that there are other parts of Christ's Satisfaction, which differ from Death: As his bloodshed, and besides that Christ's Poverty, his hunger, his weariness, his shame, his reproaches, his apprehension, his buffeting, etc. These doubtless, yea all other sufferings of Christ whatsoever, small or great, are satisfactory & meritorious. You will say, you understand all these and such like in the Death of Christ. You may understand what you list: but who will grant in proper speech that these are his Death, or that his death is any or all these. And if you take Christ's death by the Figure Synecdoche, a part of Christ's sufferings for the whole, 
Pag. 41. etc.  then why do g you so much abhor that Figure here, and why may not the Souls proper sufferings be admitted also into the work of Christ's Satisfaction, although it can not properly die? Where you nip me also for saying that the Soul of Christ in some kind of sense died: I hope in due place you shall have a reasonable answer to that matter. Till then have patience, I pray. And thus h you come to skan my Assumption also, 
Pag. 253.  that Adam committed sin most properly in his Soul. Which you grant in one sense is true, but directly repugnant to my Conclusion. How I pray? 
b Pag. 25  If I mean that Adam's Soul transgressed the Commandment with her body and by her body, that is, the Soul as agent, the Body as the Instrument, them the conclusion will follow in spite of my heart, Ergo in satisfying for sin Christ's Soul must be punished with her body and by her body: which is the thing I labour to overthrow with all the wits I have. Nay, than the Conclusion will follow that the immortal part the Mind was punished peculiarly, and not by and from the Body only: seeing in all even outward sins the Soul sinneth, both principally, and also in a proper and peculiar manner by itself, yea before the body sinneth. Albeit the Body sinneth also secondarily, and in a manner proper to itself: even as the Instrument, as you say. Yea further I mean that some sins the Soul acteth in and by itself merely: and therefore it suffereth likewise some punishments merely in itself, which touch not the Body at all, unless by Sympathy only, and that only when they grow vehement. But all this you here deny: 
Very stran● doctrine.  teaching that the Soul properly committeth no sin but by and with the body: that is, the Soul in itself & by itself alone sinneth not. And so consequently that God temporally and eternally punisheth the Soul only by the Body. This is the true effect of your discourse here. For proof of the first you say, 
c Pag. 25  God did not say to Adam, thou shalt not like 
d The soudden frui●●  it, or desire it which the Soul of Adam did, but thou shalt not eat thereof, which could not be performed but by the hand and mouth of Adam. And therefore Adam transgressed the Commandment not by his Soul, but by his Body, even as in murder, theft, and adultery: these facts men commit by their Bodies and not by their Souls. And after, All provocations and pleasures of sins the Soul taketh from her ' Body: all acts of sin she committeth by her body. Both which speeches are exceeding untrue and hurtful. For even in these sins the Soul as I said sinneth principally and peculiarly before that the Body sinneth at all. Yea the Desiring and Liking of evil is sin, before the outward Act is consummate and finished. This Paul 
e Rom. 〈◊〉  understood at length when he became a Christian, though a long while being a Pharisee, he knew it not. And it seemeth, this was in Christ's time the Heresy of the Pharisees: against whom he showeth, that not only the outward fact of Bodily sin was sin, but also 
a ●at. 5.22.28  even the very thoughts and liking towards sin. Wherefore Adam was as well forbidden to desire or like that fruit, as to eat it, which you deny. The Commandment was naturally engraven in Adam's heart in his Creation. Which since, Moses maketh distinct and divers from all the rest, which concern the outward act. Therefore distinctly he saith, Thou shalt not desire or covet. So that to desire the forbidden fruit was sin, even without and before the act of eating. Moreover other foul sins, Heresies, turcism, and Atheism are committed and determined simply in the mind, without any necessary employment of any parts of the Body. As touching Heresies, to hold Two first causes of things a Good and a Bad, God and the Devil with Manichee: also that Christ the Redeemer was not God with Arrius: that the Holy Ghost is not God with Eunomius &c: that Christ had no Soul with Apollinaris: that Christ's Manhood was confounded and changed into his Godhead with Eutyches, or divided from his Godhead with Nestorius: or the opinion of ubiquity or of Transubstantiation. Finally that there never was nor shallbe any Christ a Redeemer as the Turks hold, that there is no God as the Atheists. Now are there not many provocations to hatch and to conclude these opinions merely in the mind & soul of man? Are there not many pleasures even in these impieties merely in the mind? Yea it is evident to all that the mere Thoughts, the Understanding & determination of the only Soul of man doth act them & resolveth on them in itself, without any concurrence or cooperation of the body therein. Happily you will say, The Soul takes occasion so to think by some outward bodily things before seen or heard. I deny not but the Soul taketh occasion to think many things by the bodily senses. How be it not all things simply. And so are the Fathers 
b ●prian and 〈◊〉 10. in your ●●g. 255.  here to be understood. If any will stumble on that of Aristotle, Nihil est in intellectû quod non fuit prius in sensu, it is not absolutely nor universally true. My reason is, because Philosophers thought the mind to be as it were Tabula abrasa when we come into the world first. They knew not the natural Pride, the impiety, and perversity of man's soul, which may yield many and sundry Thoughts and Determinations to sin, yea provocations and pleasures in sin which the Body ministereth not, neither could the Heathen understand them. And to say that this pride, impiety, and perversity was taken by contagion from the mere flesh originally in Generation, is not to be proved. Bud yet were that so, notwithstanding the Soul afterward can act many sins merely in itself and without the cooperation of the body. Further, as the Angels sinned in the beginning by their mere spiritual conceit against God, so nothing letteth but that man in his Angel-like nature (the reasonable Soul) may sin likewise without any Bodily means thereunto. Also, as we can think well without using our body, God so inspiring us: so may we think ill (which is sin) our own inborn corrupt understanding and reason and will moving us only. Moreover if I grant you this point of Heathen Philosophy, that the Soul taketh occasion to think all things which she thinketh universally from the body & bodily objects: yet it followeth not that she taketh occasion to misthinke from thence always. The proper provocations and pleasures of sin are oftentimes not outward at all: but the mere perversity and malignity of our evil mind is usually the very cause of ill thoughts & ill determinations. I grant also that the occasion is often taken from the outward senses. But it is merely taken, not given: taken by the corrupt and perverse mind, not given by the senses. Which though they be also otherwise corrupt, yet simply in seeing natural things they sin not, nor yet in hearing, nor in tasting, save as the mind which is properly, and principally, and first sinful, abuseth their operation. And as touching those wretched 
a Haeret● Turk's theists.  men & opinions before rehearsed, doubtless their presumptuous and perverse wit only so reasoning and concluding falsely without any other proper inducementes from without, was the very cause of those spiritual impieties in many imps of Satan. Wherefore for you to affirm that the Soul committeth all acts of sin by the body, & that God did not forbid Adam to like or desire that fruit, is more than strange doctrine. somewhere most injuriously 
b Pag. 3●  you reproach purity: I dare say here you have no colour of purity in this point. Notwithstanding 
c Pag. 2●  you resolutely set yourself to prove your opinion, not by Scripture, but by Fathers: who are answered before, saving Tertullian, who 
d Pag. 2●  you say pointeth to a place of Scripture for it: 
e Mat. 〈◊〉  out of the heart come evil thoughts. But this place being considered will rather prove the contrary. For Christ here meaneth not by Heart any part of the Body, but merely the Mind or Soul of man, and that with opposition to the body in this case of sinning. For thus in effect he saith, Not the Body sinneth by taking in, but the Soul by sending out. That is to say, The Soul only sinneth properly, & not the body at all no not in gross facts, except as the body is the Instrument, the Soul being the Agent, as yourself do speak. Otherwise the body sinneth not at all, much less in such thoughts as are mere spiritual, unless we mean by society, & for conjunctions sake in one person with the Soul, which indeed is it that sinneth. And thus some have thought, those places of Tertullian which 
a ●ag. 255.  you cite may be understood. But indeed Tertullian you use not well, and bring these his words against his own meaning, as anon we shall further see. That which you add of Bodily infirmities letting the operation of the Soul (for so I think you mean) as in Lethargies, 
〈◊〉 256.  Apoplexies, Sleep, Frenzy, etc. Peradventure, than it thinketh and considereth more freely in itself and by itself, then when the body setteth it on work otherwise at other times. Howsoever, it can never be proved that the Soul then utterly ceaseth operation, and can do nothing: for it seemeth that only our memory and sensitive faculties are stopped, whereby it cometh to pass that we know nothing afterwards what the mind contemplateth and thinketh in such cases. It is very rare when we remember something, and by some extraordinary losing of those obstructions it is, which commonly do possess our senses wholly in such occasions. Yet even those small remnants of such operations of our Soul being in such state, do evidently convince that the Souls operations hang not necessarily on the body, neither is it idle when the body is hindered, though commonly and for the most part we remember little thereof. Lastly, if the Souls operations were so necessarily tied to the faculties and instruments of the body as you do avouch, I greatly doubt how the Souls immortality will be defended against the effect of your assertion. 
●●●oul hath ●●●●ion nor meere●●●●mply in 〈◊〉 without ●●●dy. 54.255  Surely it bringeth in with it the Heresy of Pope john the 22. and of certain anabaptists, that the Soul hath no being till when it shall resume her body at the last day. And hence also it is that you say, God's justice punisheth the soul (only) by the body, that is, not till the Resurrection. This (only) the effect of you speech containeth plainly and fully. Yea in truth thus you must needs affirm and hold: you can not avoid it, if you will hold your main Question. Only except you deny that Christ had a human Soul perfect in all the powers and faculties thereof, like ours: or else that God did not properly punish Christ for our sins. Of necessity you must fall into one of these dangerous evils, for aught that I yet see. Wherefore this point is not 
a Pag ●  so easy nor so evident to the simple as you pretend: and I think you had need of better reasons then hitherto I see any you have, before the Godly and Learned will believe you. The rather for that in deed here you commit further 2. grievous faults. 1. Tertullian your own author, & the principal ground which you have for your opinion here, is wonderfully ill used. 2. You are strangely contrary to yourself in your very winding up of the matter. As for Tertullian, he resolveth directly contrary to the words which 
b De R●●● carn. c●●● Animas 〈◊〉 torquers 〈◊〉 rique pe●●●●●ros etc.  you cite from him. Saith he, The example of Lazarus in the Gospel proveth that men's Souls though alone and without their bodies, are punished, and comforted, in the world of the dead. The Soul shall lack the reuniting of the flesh with it, not for that it can not feel any thing without the flesh, but for that it must needs hereafter feel also with the flesh. For as much as it sufficeth by itself to do somewhat, so much, or so far also it sufficeth to suffer. It sufficeth indeed to do less by itself. For it is able of itself only, to Think, to Will, to Desire, to Dispose: but to accomplish, it looketh for the use of the body. So therefore it also looketh for the society of the body, that by it the Soul may aswell suffer absolutely, as without it she could not do things completely. And therefore for what actions it sufficed by itself, the judgement of the same it receiveth (now) that is, Of the Desire, of the Thoughts, of the Will, that it had. Thus Tertullian directly answereth to that 
c Pag. ●  Conclusion and 
d Pag. 2●●  reasons which you gather out of him, proving contrary to the same that the Soul now without the flesh receiveth judgement for such actions as of itself it was sufficient to do: and it is sufficient to do certain actions of itself, as To think, to Will, to Desire, to Order, and dispose things; but to accomplish, it is not able (namely outward actions) the judgement of which actions indeed the Soul shall tarry for till the reuniting again of the flesh therewith. It seemeth that Tertullian cited before the reasons of the 
e Such afore not 〈◊〉 Pope L●●  Heret●kes, holding that the Souls slept till the last judgement, and received no reward at all in the mean time, for want of the society of their flesh, which till then lieth rotten in the Grave: but here Tertullian answereth and renounceth all this same. 
●●s afterwards. & the ●nhapilies, 〈◊〉 now 〈◊〉.  And so those were the Heretics words against Tertullian, which you allege out of him in steed of Catholic. Which dealing what it is, I leave to be considered. Next your own contradictory dealing in this place, is also not to be forgotten. For yourself shutteth up with an excellent reason against yourself, almost the same that I observed presently before in Tertullian against your collection. Thus you say, 
a Pag. 257.  Do I deny then that the Soul hath any sufferings in this life and the next, which come not by the body? By no means. The Soul hath some proper punishments in this life, as sorrow and fear when the body hath no hurt, from which Christ was not free, as appeareth by his Agony: and so in the next the Souls of the wicked have grief & remorse, besides the pain of fire, etc. Yes surely: I suppose you denied before the Souls punishment without the Body. But now you seem to grant it. And seeing you grant also, that 
b Pag. 25●.  nothing is more proportionable to God's justice, than to retain the same order in punishing which they kept in offending. Therefore it followeth by your own words, that the wicked sometimes sinned merely in and by their Souls, and not only together with and by their Bodies: seeing they are punished simply in and by their souls, and not only with and by their bodies. Also, how sound this is, I wots not 
c Pag. 257.  where you yield some punishment now to the Damned: how beit none other real and positive punishment but remorse and remembrance of sin only, as it seemeth, Again in saying that Christ was not free from some proper punishments to the soul, as Sorrow and Fear in his agony: if you mean as you speak, that these were proper punishments inflicted on him by God's very Wrath, (and not to be only his holy affections Devotion to God, and compassion to men, which yet 
d ●es●o●e ●●g. 18.  I fear is your meaning) than it followeth evidently from your own words, that Christ suffered proper punishment in his Soul from the very wrath of God, more than the Bodily sufferings only on by Sympathy in the Soul which in a word is the granting of our whole question. All the rest that you add out of the Fathers, touching Hell and Hell pains, is to no purpose. If 
e 〈◊〉. 258.259  you cite them to prove that Christ had no natural fear of Death and Hell, you 
f ●●g. 22●  gainsay that yourself further than we do, or then the truth is.  
Then 
a Pag.  you come to my other Reasons which I called Special, not for more excellency in them then in the other, except only that I take these to be not so General as the former, but more nearly to touch our question. Which you might perceive well enough to have been my meaning, by the express Opposition that 
b Treat pag. 3.  I make of General and Special. But it appeareth you had rather take my words so as that you may make them to serve your unseemly jesting and better inveighing humour: which yet in the end will help your cause but little.  
Against b my 1. Reason out of I say, that Christ suffered those pains and sorrows for sin which else we should have borne: you except that I express not whether I mean All or Some. I answer, All and every whit I mean so far as possibllity will admit: and namely as touching the very sorrows and pain. Nothing was abated in the nature and vehemency of the pain which he suffered, any more than is abated in the pain and sorrows of the Damned. This the very text here expresseth with great 
c Which faint int●tations 〈◊〉 261. do●● fully 〈◊〉 unto.  emphasis, 
d Isa. 53  He sustained our very sorrows, or our sorrows themselves. And this we conclude the rather, because the sense of pains and sorrows 
e Heb. 2●  only was the Ransom ordained and consecrated by God in Christ, that by them his sufferings should be accomplished, & our sins satisfied. Whatsoever therefore in this life might be painful & was due to mankind generally for sin, & in it own nature was no sin, that Christ suffered wholly and alltogeather for us, even the same which else we should. Which is your own 
f pa. 28  plain confession also. I grant indeed it utterly impossible that he who was uncapable of sin, yea God himself, should be really separated from God, or Hated, or weakened in faith, or punished externally. Yet it was possible that even he on whom our sin was laid should feel both properly in Soul, and also in Body all the whole vehemency of our due pain, and the sharpness of our smart. Pain, affliction, & sorrow is not sin be it small or great: it is indeed properly and originally the Punishment of sin either in us or in others. Christ suffered Punishment for sin not in himself, as others do, but by God's ordinance he suffered punishment extraordinarily for sin in us. When God smote him, it was possible for him to feel it, yea unpossible it was that he should not feel it, and of necessity his Soul peculiarly, properly, & infinitely did feel the stroke of God's wrathful justice. The vehemency whereof may wound and pierce no less even in this life where God will, then in the local Hell itself. All these our due sorrows therefore, and all this our sharpest deserved pain, even Gods own immediate hand smiting the Soul for sin, (which far exceedeth and comprehendeth as it were all other pain) Christ without any dispensation or qualification whatsoever, endured for us. This is that which we say: and thus jerom also expoundeth this very text: 
storm. in 〈◊〉 53.  Saith he a Quod nos pro nostris debebamus sceleribus sustinere ille pro nobis ' passus est. Turn now your vain and frivolous insultation against jerom for his indefinite speech, to whom it pertaineth in this case aswell as to me, 
Pag. 26●.  if you be not a respecter of persons. Say to him, b You may do well (St jerom) to go to the University again, whence you came afore you were wise, and there learn to put quantity to your propositions, that we may know when you speak of any thing whether you mean All or Some. But Jerom would be wise enough to answer you (if he were alive) that (wheresoever he studied) he knew so much, that in learning and reason an indefinite proposition is to be taken as Universal in a necessary matter, 
〈◊〉 special●● Satisfying Gods vn●●all justice 〈◊〉.  * as the undertaking of a Surety is in his stead whom he is surety for: and yet namely but so far as known possibility admitteth, and indeed no further. Now this is apparent in this case of Christ's suretyship and suffering in our steed: He suffered all the whole punishment of sin due to mankind, whatsoever was possible for him being a sinless man, & also very God, to suffer. And further than this none will imagine or think that any (unless mad men) do affirm. You charge me● c hereafter that I falsify this place of jerom, 
〈◊〉. 350. ●●reat. 1. 〈◊〉. 85. Curse. 〈◊〉 I put it ●●●hus (Ma●●ctum) 〈◊〉 a parenthesis. ●●nod enim. ●●al. 3.13.  because d I did put in e maledictum with his words. Which is a silly devise to turn of Jerom without answer. For by it I express jeroms meaning: f his words have plain reference to Maledictum in the g Apostle, whom he cited immediately before. This is then none other but an honest falsifying of mine Author. Now that this place of Isay, and the whole doctrine which I avouch touching these sufferings of Christ for us, may the better be received, let us note that the public doctrine appointed by h Authority to be taught through our England expresseth the very same. 
Which Au●●●tie I have ●●●ged & ex●●sed Treat. 〈◊〉 88.89. ●he answereth to i● a word.  Namely Nowells Catechism, where it is thus taught. He paid and suffered the pain due to us, and by this means delivered us from the same. Neither is it unused among men, ●ne to promise, and to be surety, yea sometime to suffer for an other. But with Christ as our Surety so suffering for us, God dealt as it were with extremity of law: but to us whose sins, deserved punishments, & due pains he laid on Christ, he used singular lenity, gentleness, clemency, and mercy. Christ therefore suffered, and in suffering overcame death, the pain appointed by the everliving God for men's offence. Again, His will was to suffer All extremity for us, who had deserved all extremity. All these things being taken upon himself he destroyed them all. Where mark also what doctrine the Law of this Realm consonantly publisheth and commandeth in the Homilies of Christ's Passion. See whether it misliketh yours, or no. The 
b Hom. ●.  Hom: maketh Christ's putting himself between Gods deserved Wrath and our sin the extremest part of his Passion. If this were the extremest part of his Passion, than it was a further feeling than the sense of Bodily pain only, it cannot be any other than his feeling of God's proper Wrath spiritually, which our sin deserved. Therefore by the Homily he felt God's proper Wrath spiritually which our sin deserved. Again, he bore All our sins, sores and infirmities upon his own back. No pain did he refuse to suffer in his own body. But as he felt All this in his Body, so he must feel the greatest part primarily and much more deeply in his Soul. Ergo he refused not to suffer All the pains of the Wrath of God both in Body and Soul. 
c Hom. ●●  He took upon him the reward of our sins, the just reward of sin. But this same Homily saith, The reward of our sin was the just wrath and indignation of God, the death both of Body and Soul. Therefore by the Homily, Christ took on him for us the just wrath & indignation of God, the death both of body & soul. And thus also 
* 1. Treat. pag. 34.  my text of Scripture is justified, That 
d 2. Tim. ●●  Christ gave himself the price of redemption for us, which we else should have paid. Where 
e Pa. 261.  you except against this text in Timoth: that I say, The Scripture speaketh here after the common use & custom of redeeming captives taken in war: when a captive being not able, some other friend payeth Antilytron the same price for the captive which else he should. You ask, who told me that the Scripture speaketh after the common use of enemies? I answer, The nature of the word Antilytron a Ransom importeth so much, which is properly used in such cases. Where also you 
f Pa. 261. ●●  seem to infer, that I forsooth do hold with your opinion that a Christ paid the price of our Redemption (properly) to the Devil, 
Pag. 261, ●62.  and not to God. For this is it that here you mean: & this, though now in print you deliver it nothing so largely and emphatically as you preached it, yet this still in effect you maintain in certain b words out of Ambrose, which is passing strange to hear: But how do I join to your opinion herein? 
Pag. 68 69.  because I urge that the enemy must have a price for his Captive. I pray, who is that enemy which must be satisfied? The Devil? GOD forbidden. Though I see that c you over earnestly do thus profess: 
Pag. 68 Treat. 1. ●ag. 45. ●●●at. 5.25.  yet God knoweth it is far from d my heart so to think. God's justice only is that e offended enemy, to whom our Ransom was paid: it was not paid to the Devil who was but God's slave & executioner. Against which what reason have you? Surely not the shadow of any. As for the names of Ambrose or Austin they are of no weight to warrant such a doctrine as those words pretend. And I am out of doubt that the Fathers in following an Allegory, do but play with the Figure, as there use is oftentimes: they speak not exactly here as meaning indeed to teach such a doctrine. Or if they did, than we are to learn by their good leaves how to speak and think more wholesomly (than they do) out of the Scripture. If they or an Angel from Heaven should teach so in earnest as they pretend, we ought to forsake them. As for the point whether it draw any thing near to Manichisme or no, let other judge. Then f you would show that this similitude of a Captives paying his Ransom by his friend, 
●ag. 262.  is not like to Christ's Redeeming us: because Captives themselves are appointed to perpetual imprisonment or servitude unless a sufficient Ransom be paid for them, and then the Ransomer is not bound to be prisoner himself for them, but satisfieth the enemy in money or otherwise. Wherein verily you fit this similitude to my desire further than myself at first did express. For thus we may now plainly see how it is possible that Christ our Ransomer might pay that whole price for us which we else should have paid but could never discharge: and yet that he need not in such Redeeming of us enter into our whole condition absolutely & to become a perpetual prisonner in our steed, seeing we see that this is not exacted by enemies for their Captives at the Ransomers hand. 
Wherein on●y this similitude may, & ●oth stand.  Only that * price of money which the Captive should but cannot pay, the very same is paid by the Ransomer: and it obtaineth.  
Then you let drive at my a Reason out of the Apostle: 
a Gal. 3.  Christ redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us. Because I say, What Curse can this be meant but the Curse of the Law, that is even Gods Curse against sin, whereof the Apostle hath altogether spoken here before. Yea therefore indeed I demand again, what reason or likelyhoood is there by the text to take this Curse to be in nature an other from the former, both being so closely and jointly mentioned together? 
b Pag. 26●. 263.  You make a very main difference between them, by comparing this Curse laid on Christ with those Curses wherewith God sometimes is said to Curse his senseless Creatures for wicked men's sake. But this is verily far fetched, it is altogether another thing, very incomparable to the Curse which Christ suffered. This is a most improper curse, not felt at all by the things accursed: yet called a Curse by similitude only, as the image of a man is called a man. There is no colour to make the Curse which Christ suffered for our sins like to the Curse which senseless creatures do sometimes bear for man's cause. But you make a reason 
c Pag. 27.  to prove Moses particular Curse in 
d Deut. 2.  Deuteron: Cursed is he that is hanged, (which Paul also applieth to his purpose saying, Christ was made a Curse for us to redeem us from the Curse of the Law,) to be not all one with this Curse of the Law in Paul. Neither yet did I, neither do I say, that it was all one. This I said and say still, that they are both of one & the same nature: that is true and proper Curses of God, not any improper Curse, nor only esteemed a Curse by men. One was the whole, the other a part: but both of them the true & proper Curses of God. To understand this more plainly, Paul saith not as you affirm, that Christ was made that Curse, only, that judicial Curse whereof only Moses speaketh: Paul doth not understand it in the same measure that Moses mentioneth and no further. But this he doth; handling before generally Gods Curse and the punishment of the Law against sin, and showing that we are redeemed from it by Christ's being made the same for us, he confirmeth it by applying Moses judicial punishment against certain transgressors (
e As o●● who v●● execu●●● other ●●ments 〈◊〉 Law, 〈◊〉 not.  being it seemeth a Figure of Christ herein,) That all they were accursed, which were hanged: that is they which were hanged by the just sentence of the law, they were herein Accursed, that is they herein sustained the Laws true and deserved punishment. Now by applying this text of Moses in this sense, & in this respect, to Christ's being made the Curse of God for us, it is well confirmed to be in nature and verity the true and proper Curse of the Law which Christ was made for us: for such also indeed was the nature of that judicial Curse of Moses, though but a part of the whole. And so as before I said the Apostle applying that which was but a part, he may sound and well show what was the nature of that Curse in Christ, though in him it were the whole. For a part and the whole of any thing differ not in nature, but in quantity. Now understand a Chrysostome thus, 
●a. 94. 274. ●ag. 11. etc.  as b before we have distinguished the punishment of Christ and of the Damned, and then we differ not. Where he saith they were diverse Curses in Christ & in the Damned, take him to signify diverse manners of one and the same Curse in Nature, or Christ's Death and Moses judicial hanging on the tree, to be only diverse degrees, or measures of one & the same Curse in nature, & so he saith the same altogether that we do. For these in their proper nature be all one, that is proper Punishments from God for sin, yet either in the measure & degree, or in the manner & condition of their suffering, they are very diverse & exceeding far a sunder. 
●●g. 268.  Austin on whom d you triumph, is stretched beyond his meaning. He dealeth against a Manichee who denied that Christ had true human flesh: 
〈◊〉 likewise ●●l the rest ●●ur Fathers ●●ken for ●ost part. 〈◊〉 sayings ●●ther a●● the Ma●●es, or the ●●s, etc. 〈◊〉 strove ●bout our ●●●ion.  which yet notwithstanding is manifest, because Christ truly died. Now he proveth that Christ truly died, because the Apostle saith, He was made a Curse for us in that he hanged on the tree. And where it is said Cursed is every one that hangeth on the tree, this was saith he to show that Christ was not exempted, but was like other men truly accursed and truly dead. So that his meaning is not to show that Christ's whole Curse and his bodily death were just all one without any difference, which you urge him for: nay he hath no such meaning. Only he proveth by this that he being made truly a Curse, did also truly Die, which the Manichee denied. For in saying, Christ was dead, & accursed for us, is the same, he meaneth it is the same for his purpose, the one very well proveth the other: but not that they were simply all one. The rest of e your Fathers are alltogeather idly cited: 
〈◊〉. 95.  no man denieth that which they say.  
Where f you mislike me for saying, 
〈◊〉. 26●. ●●●at. 1. 〈◊〉. 38.  g The Curse laid upon Christ was not only the ignominy of his death, & the shame of the world: you have nothing against it, but much for it. Austin whom you boast of is against you in this, saying: 
a Pag. ●●  Christ here took on him our punishment without sin. But our punishment, which is without sin, doubtless was a great deal more then only the dishonour and shame of the world. Austin therefore is manifestly against you in this: yea also 
b Pag. 2  your own self is in saying likewise. Austin and Chrysostome, and 
c Pag. 9  other do say that Christ suffered this ignominy: but that this was all or the whole Curse which he suffered, I see none that affirmeth. Your many Scriptures in 
d Pag. 2  this place, what do they? Forsooth they prove that it is light at Midday. For who ever made question, but that shame and reproach in their simple Nature, were a part of the true Curse of God? Yet all this showeth not that Shame was the whole Curse which Christ endured. 
e Pag. 2●  You mislike that 
f Treat. pag. 45.  I said Christ's dying simply, 
g That is Christ ha●ed simply which in 〈◊〉 he did no●  as the godly dy, may in no sort be called a Curse or Accursed: Because as I affirm also, 
h Pag. 44.  Death to the godly is no Curse properly nor punishment of sin, but a benefit and advantage. Nay, therefore Christ's Death was properly a Curse, because his Death was 
i As befo●● Pag. 11. 49, 59, 5  not like theirs. You say, I am too young a Doctor to control St Austin herein. And I say, you are a Doctor not old enough to prove Austin 
k Yourself teeth him 〈◊〉 me herein 49. Corp mors b●● bona, m●● mala.  contrary to me in this point. Death in it own nature and in the original property of it, is a part of the Curse, and so Christ suffered it: but in the Godly it is not properly a Curse, nor the proper punishment or revenge of sin, which Christ once & alone hath wholly sustained and clean freed us of for ever. This 
l Pag. 90.  yourself (as well as 
m Pag. 43  I) can tell, saying: The vengeance of the Law once executed on our Surety, can no more in God's justice be executed on us. And this our 
n Nowell techiss. H●● suffered ●●der, etc.  public doctrine in England set forth by Master Nowell confirmeth: By Christ's death it is come to pass that to the faith full Death is now not a Destruction, but as it were a removing and changing of life, and a very short and sure passage to heaven. Who also in 
o His she Catechis●● An. 157  another place expresseth it thus, Death of the body, which without Christ was the gate to Hell, is now by Christ made to all that believe in him the gate and passage to Heaven: So that death which before was a Punishment, is now by Christ become a vantage. Wherein you are notably contradicted, who do call 
p Pag. 15● 216.  Death in the godly, the gate of Hell: a strange and most untrue translation. Again, you are 
q Pag. 268 269.  gainsaid in this place, where you reprove me for affirming, that Death to the godly and faithful is a benefit and advantage. Then you say, If I will reason what death is in itself, I must resolve it to be a part of God's Curse. Which is no answer. For our question is not, what death is in itself. Who ever denied it to be in itself, as you say, a part of God's Curse for sin: but my express words are, Death to the godly is no Curse properly, but a vantage. 
Pag. 270.  Where a you add, If Death were a gain to the godly, as I would have it, by what means, I pray you, came it so to be? If you know not, why did you not mark better the public Catechism before rehearsed, where all England is taught that it came by means of the death and resurrection of Christ. You say, If by the resurrection of Christ conquering Death and changing the nature of it, then till Christ was rison, Death was a punishment to the faithful themselves. I wonder what meaning there is in this argument. As well you may say, There were none saved till Christ was risen. For salvation also and forgiveness of sins to all men, came only by the death and resurrection of jesus Christ. So that thus, till Christ came in the flesh, none of the holy patriarchs, Abraham, David, and the rest, obtained eternal life. And what became of them then? But I am persuaded, that Abraham, David, and all the Prophets dying before Christ was exhibited in the flesh, yet by their faith in Gods sure ordinance and promise, they had and enjoyed Christ truly incarnate, slain, and risen again: and this to them was as effectual then, as it is now to us since the actual performance of these things. Whereby even as we by faith, so they by the same faith (differing only in the circumstance of time) were truly and thoroughly saved. Likewise to the faithful then, by the efficacy of their holy faith, Death was properly no punishment but a gain, even as to us now it is. Further, b you except against me touching innocentes and Martyrs executions, 
Pag. 175.  who c I say, are most blessed. 
Treat. 1. Pag. 38.  You reply, Their Martyrdoms are shameful deaths, and that is a kind of Corporal Curse. A kind of Curse? Who denieth that? We know all shame & affliction to all men is a kind of Curse. But neither shame nor Death to the holy Martyrs are d accounted by God nor by his servants as proper and true Curses, 
Before pag. 9 50.  but the holy men are in truth most glorious and blessed in them. Again, the Saints and Martyrs can not be properly Cursed and properly Blessed too, in any measure. Neither their Souls blessed, unless their bodies be blessed also, & free from the true Curse: although you seem to deny this point. Which strange and uncouth assertion, both here and in many places more, you do at lest insinuat: that is, that the godly in their Souls are blessed, but in their bodies they still retain Gods true & proper Curse, till the resurrection. Which I leave to the consideration of the godly. You say, We must call things by those Names which God first allotted them. That I deny, If God since evidently have altered them, and disposed of them otherwise. But he hath so done in this case. The afflictions and death which originally and naturally were punishments for sin, and are so still to the wicked, the same to the godly (as I have often said) are since changed, & now are properly Chastisements of sin, and not Punishments nor Curses. Only Christ hath suffered the whole proper punishment, and true Curse or Vengeance of our sins: and therefore on us it is not, it can not be laid again in any part thereof. You 
a Pag. 96.  avouch some that deny Christ to have been made a Curse or sin. But you must remember 
b Pag. 92.  your own place of Austin Maledictum est omne peccatum, sive ipsum quod fit, sive ipsum supplicium: The Curse is all sin, which is twofold, either that which we commit against God's law, or else the very Punishment of that sin. Now 
c Pag. 96.  your testimonies do mean, Christ was not made a Curse, or sin the first way, that is, he was not in himself sinful nor hated: they deny not the second, that he was made the proper punishment or Sacrifice for our sin.  
And thus though you lust not to see it, yet my 
d Tre●●. pag. 45.  speech was sound and true, If Christ died simply but as the Godly die, it might in no sort 
e Gal. 3.  here be called a Curse. The reason is evident; because the text here doth speak & treat of the Curse of the Law against sin: such therefore was Christ's Curse which he su●layned. To conclude then, his afflictions and death was neither Wages nor Chastisement, nor Curse nor Consequent of any sin in him. Yet as God made him sin for us, so he truly, properly, and in very deed, laid the pain of his Curse upon his body and Soul. Which Curse of God upon Christ (as you 
f Pag 26  say truly) was not in words but in deeds. Wherefore my words 
g Pag. 2●  you openly pervert, affirming that I say, Death here (that is Christ's death, noted Galat. 3.13.) ●ay in no sort be called a Curse, when I expressly even there, and every where do say the contrary. 
Pag. 263.  But a your greatest exception is, that this Curse laid on Christ cannot be understood of the whole Curse of God or of the Law: 
Pag. 264.  and therefore b you spare me not for c saying that Paul here in his application out of Moses nameth a part of the just Curse of the Law for sin, 
Treat. 1. pag. 40.  thereby meaning (and inferring to his purpose) the whole. Where you must be so good as to understand me by mine own words in other places. 
Pag 290.  For thus d you know e I limited my speech else where, As touching the vehemency of pain Christ was as sharply touched as the very reprobates. 
Treat. 1. pag 81.  And, Christ's sufferings were equal to the very Hellish torments in vehemency of pain and sharpness. Again, f This price equally in Justice must be kept so far as it is possible. 
Pag. 26.  And, 
g Pag. 37.  Because there was no impossibility, no necessity, no reason, but he might feel the full smart of our sins, (as there was that he should not feel the full continuance thereof) and seeing Gods strict justice requireth it to be so, therefore it was so, he suffered all the smart, but not all the continuance of our punishment. 
● Also Pa. 23. Hee●e Pa. 13  Thus then plainly h I signified i those 3 Limitations which now are expressed, that Christ suffered our whole Curse only so far as the possibility of things could admit, wherein nothing was dispensed nor pardoned to him (for there was no cause) as I have often said. Which doctrine how unworthy it is of your strange contempt and outcries against me, I leave it to the godly Wise to consider. 
Nowell. Catechis.  Only mark if our k public doctrine be not the same. Vltima omnia pati voluir pro nobis, qui ultima omnia commeriti sumus. Diram execrationem suscepit: contumelias etiam omnes, omnia probra, atque supplicia: etc. But you will say, thus we make it not the whole Curse of the Law. Yes: we call it rightly the whole Curse, for as much as Christ suffered it in his whole manhood, 
See before pag 8. 1. The. 5.28. ● pa. 48. 52  even in l All the powers of his m Spirit, & Soul, & Body. where that Curse in Deutero. being a part, was suffered only in the Body quickened by the Soul. Also in other respects this suffering of Christ may be well called the whole Curse or Punishment of sin, 
Pag. 11, 12. ●n● 16.17. Pa. 27●. 280  as n before is declared. After this o you think it strange that I say, Christ suffered & died justly, and was hanged on the tree by the just sentence of the Law: & that so he was by imputation of our state and condition unto him, sinful, 
〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉. 51.11.  defiled, hateful, and accursed. All the which I avouch, because he undertook by God's ordinance as our Surety to receive our whole condemnation upon himself so far as his own nature and condition could possibly admit, 
Christ suffe● justly.  to the end that he might wholly acquit us. In regard whereof I ask, Is it wrong for the Law to lay the penalty on the surety, when the debtor can not discharge it? Against this my assertion you say, 
a Pag. 27●  By no sentence of the Law he hanged on a tree. And a reason you give, 
b Pag. 273  because to be hanged on a tree was no necessary part of the general Curse of God upon all sinners. I answer, to Die for sin was a necessary part of the general Curse upon all sinners. What say you then to his Death? Did he die justly? Sure if Christ died by the rule of God's justice, than he died justly. If he died not by God's justice, than Woe, and thrice woe to us. For it cannot be but God's justice 
* Luc. 16.1 Deut. 10.1 Rom. 8.32 See before pag. 66.  must be executed: it cannot be made void. So that if Christ in God's proper justice died not for us, then in his justice without mercy we must, and shall die. Which God forbidden. But Christ therefore indeed suffered & died most justly, according to the rule of God's strict justice in all points possible. Yet you say, His hanging on a tree was no necessary part of the general Curse of God upon all sinners. What if that were no necessary part of the general Curse? It was nevertheless just from God upon him, aswell as his Death. No particular Punishments are necessary, but accidental in their own nature. The general Curse 
c Gen. 2. 1●  Thou shalt die the Death, comprehending them all not as necessary, but as accidental parts. Yet wheresoever by God's providence they happen, they are just Punishments, no less than the General Curse. And thus Christ answering for sin not only Dyed generally, but also was hanged on the tree particularly by the just sentence of the Law. Still I mean justly in respect of God alone: for men used mere violence, wrong, and no Law towards him. For they persecuted him as a malefactor (as they said) yet indeed he being in himself altogether faultless and without blame. You seem to mislike that Christ should suffer justly, because he suffered willingly for us. Which hindereth not at all: for the voluntary surety beareth his penalty justly, when he sustaineth that which the debtor by Law should sustain. You say 
d Pag. 27●.  No Law, you are sure not Gods Law, alloweth that when a murderer or such like offender transgresseth he should be spared, and an other that is willing hanged in his steed. And therefore you mislike the similitude of a Surety in the work of Christ's Redemption. I answer in God's Law that is not true, which you say. Understanding here by Gods revealed Will and his most holy and gracious Ordinance for us. Though indeed this is not his Law properly, but his Gospel, & the most blessed glad tidings of peace and health to our Souls. Now by this Law of God I am sure, that Murderers, Adulterers, thieves (and worse than these) are spared in God's presence, and an other that is their most willing surety executed by the justice of God in their steed. 
Pag. 280.  But a no similitude can prove Christ in taking ou● person on him to be sinful, defiled, hateful, and accursed. I deny this saying utterly. b How could he be by God properly and truly punished and Cursed for sin, 
F●ee 18.20 Gen. 18.25.  but that he was sinful and hateful. And it is written, c God sent his Son in the likeness and form of sinful flesh for sin, 
Rom 8.3. Synac. beb●sich.  and condemned sin in d (his) flesh. In which likeness he stood before God indeed: before the world he was reputed so, 
2. Cor. 5.21.  but falsely. And e God made him sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. As also he was made f a Curse for us. 
Gal 3.13. Though you ●y nay: p 280 Calv in Gal. ●. 13. Heb. 9 vlt. Pag. 11, 12. ●●d 50.51.  Whereupon Mr Calvin g warily enough saith, h  personam nostram suscepit, peccator erat & maledictionis reus. And the i Apostle saith, Eke deutérou The second time he shall appear without sin: meaning that the first time he appeared with sin. Yet this is k not inhaerently, but by imputation: the Lord translating by his ordinance the sin of men upon him, & reckoning them unto him. Even as by God's true and real imputation, not by any inhesion we now in this life are just holy and blameless before God: so was he sinful and defiled by imputation, not inhraenetly. Thus by this reckoning he suffered at God's hands justly: yet in his own nature, & in respect merely thereof, he suffered both at the jews hands and before God the just for the unjust. 
Pag. 280.  l You say, where the Apostle saith m he was made sin for us, 
2. Cor. 5.21  the Fathers have 2 good and approved senses differing from ours. 

1 That God made him a sacrifice for sin:  
2 that he used him as he doth sinners.   What is there in both these that we acknowledge not? Yea what is this later but the very same point which we urge? It is nothing else in all this question that we hold, but that God used Christ our Redeemer and Surety as he doth sinners, so far as possibility admitteth that he could and might be so used. And for this the Fathers are not silent, if I were so ambitious as you in producing multitudes of men. 
Cypr. de Pas●.  Only Cyprian, and Athanasius, and Austin shall content me in this. The first, n He sustained & suffered himself to be called Sin and a Curse by Moses and the Apostle, because he had the like punishment as we should have had, but not the like fault. 
a Pag.  Your slight answer that it was like in part, not in all, salveth not the matter. For Cyprian meaneth Christ's punishment for us was so like ours, as was possible: and that sufficeth us. Also by this your weak answer you are contrary to yourself here, in that you acknowledge that God in punishing Christ making him sin for us, he used him as he doth sinners. Athanasius saith, 
* Pag. ●● De ●nea  Ipse per se sententiam solvit sub specie condemnati: He himself satis fied and abrogated the sentence of the Law under the appearance of a Damned man. Did not God then use him as he doth sinners in all extremity of punishment so far as was possible? And that it was altogether possible to inflict the sense of his wrath immediately and properly in his Soul, aswell as in his Body, no reasonable man candeny. Aust. we saw a little 
b Before 71.73.  before. Thus also your former good sense of this that Christ was made sin, that is a sacrifice or punishment for sin: how differeth it from your second, as you seem to make them to differ? Or how differ they both from our main Assertion, that Christ in himself sinless, was by God reputed sinful in our steed. Nay this directly and necessarily proveth the same. For as I said, how could he be truly punished for sin by God, but that he must be indeed sinful by imputation? The jews Sacrifices the express figures of Christ do also most lively set out this thing. When they were 
c Lev. ●●  brought unto God, the people must lay on their hands upon the heads of the Beasts: showing thereby that their 
d Lev. ●●  sins were put upon the sacrifice, & that God so accounted them indeed to be. Wherefore what cause have you so to exclaim as you do, against this comparison of Christ our Redeemer with a Surety: 
Christ truly Surety  who among men by the ordinance of Law and justice must and doth pay the debt when the debtor cannot. It is neither a simple similitude as 
e Pag. 2●  you simply call it: neither is it 
f Pag. 2●  unclean, nor irreverent, nor irreligious, but a holy & most fit representation of Christ's paying our debt for us, and of our acquitting from the justice of God by him. The very word is used in Scripture itself, 
g Heb. ●●  He was made a Surety of a better covenant. Which also expressly you grant: 
h Pag. ●●  That Christ is made a Surety we find it once mentioned in the Scripture. Is not that sufficient then to warrant the goodness and aptness of the similitude against your undutyfull reproofs of it? But you say he was not as a Surety bound to the Law, but of a better Covenant, even of grace. Verily a Surety to us, of both. Yea this latter implieth necessarily the former, unless you imagine God's justice needed not exact satisfaction so far as was possible: or that there might be 2 Sureties to bring us into grace and favour with God. For he could not assure us of remission of sins, but by assuring us that he had exactly paid all our debts. Yea none could pay them for us thoroughly & acquit himself also, but only he. Therefore by being a Surety to us of grace, it must needs be also that he, and none other, was our Surety to the Law and to the justice of God. 
〈◊〉. 4.4.  Thus also it is written that a He was made hyponomon subject to the Law, 
〈◊〉. 277.  or under the Law. Which b you mightily deny against express Scripture. But by what reason? Because he was a Mediator to God for us. 
●●ns hone●vtia ●st. con●●. 14.6.  Now Sureties that stand bound & must pay the debt, may not look to be Mediators. Yes forsooth, such a Surety as he was might worthily be a gracious Mediator also. Though he were a Surety, and stood bound, yet he was no ordinary Surety. Though the debt were infinite, yet he was more infinite in grace and power both to pay it, and to overcome it: and by his obedience and righteousness to merit for us, yea even in his suffering. What letteth then that such a person as he, might be a Mediator to purchase also grace and favour, even in and beside his satisfaction for us. c You say, he could not be bound to the Law, because he was above the Law. 
〈◊〉 276.  He was above the Law in his Godhead, but in his Manhood he became for us d under the Law. Again, 
〈◊〉 4 4.  he was not of himself in his Manhood bound to the Law for us, but freely and voluntarily undertaking, and by God's gracious eternal Decree appointing him, so he became bound to the Law. Wherefore, though e he, who ordinarily redeemeth a prisoner from the enemy, 
〈◊〉 ●77.  be not bound, but content so to do: yet a Surety being content, 
〈◊〉 became the Law, ●unde to ●●w for us ●●ds De●●d Ordi●● and by ●ne free will.  becometh bound. And so Christ our Redeemer became bound as a Surety to pay our debt for us by the most steadfast and immutable Decree of God, and yet also by his own most free good will. Yea Gods Decree, and his own good will was, that he should satisfy and pay none otherwise for us, than so as he did: Therefore those Sentences of f your Authors Gregory, Augustin and Ambrose, if they be spoken simply, 
〈◊〉 277.  seem very harsh, where they say, That Christ could have saved us otherways, then by suffering and dying for us. For herein they oppose Gods absolute Omnipotency against his express and revealed will. Which how it may be liked in Divinity, I know not. Wherefore still all these similitudes of Mediator, Redeemer, and Surety, may stand very well together in the Office of Christ, though 
a Pag.  you would persuade us the contrary, yea rather they confirm each other. Certainly, these Similitudes of a Surety and a Mediator, are very approved & excellent to set out most heavenly his great Grace and justice, by earthly things. Our public Church's doctrine also avoncheth that he was 
b Now● techiss. fore pa●  our Surety. With Christ, as our Surety, so suffering, God dealt as it were in extremity of Law, etc. Also Cyprian, 
c Cypri● passion  In saying, why hast thou for saken me, he showeth the sorrows of that his complaining to be the words, Delictorum suorum, or Dilectorum suorum, of his sins: or if you so think rather, of his beloved ones, whose person & case he took upon him. And this he would have us to know that it was for them, or in their steed, who by reason of their sins deserved to be for saken of God. You 
d Pag. 3●  answer that these words of Cyprian I neither understand nor like. I pray why so? Because Augustin saith, Illa vox membrorumerat non capitis, That Cry was of his Members, not of the Head. Whatsoever Augustine's meaning is herein, yet Cyprians words are plain and can not bear any other sense then as I make of them, that Christ was a very Surety for his people, and suffered such a forsaking of God touching sense of pain and want of present feeling of comfort in the pains, as the damned do. And touching Austin also, I suppose you mis-understand him: but of his mind touching this speech of Christ on the Cross, we shall see further hereafter. I add unto all this last of all your own grant, where you fully yield and acknowledge that Christ was our very Surety to the Law, and that he did suffer justly, or in God's justice. The vengeance of the Law (say 
e Pag. 9TH  you) once executed on our Surety, can no more in God's justice be exacted on us. 
* Pag. 13●  Elsewhere also you allow of this Similitude: which yet 
f Pag. 27● 276. 279.  many times you reject most disdainfully. Yea in that your sentence you overthrow 
g Pag. 27●  your own chief exception which you make against it, that he was not our Surety to the Law to pay our debts. If the vengeance of the Law lighted on him as on a Surety, than he was our Surety to the Law: and if this vengeance of the Law can not now in God's justice be exacted on us, than he as our Surety to the Law by suffering it hath cleared us from it. And to conclude, that which he suffered as being our Surety, the same before God he suffered in justice, as is before proved. And in vain you exclaim, that this is a against the Scriptures, 
Pag. 272.  against the faith, against the Fathers, against the Consciences of God's people: seeing it appeareth not to be against, 
Pag. 182.  but with all these. b Your Similitude of a King's son entreating for his Father's Rebels, is very weak, and overthroweth (if it were good) a confessed point of Christ's Redemption. For by this similitude Christ should not have suffered bodily death for us: seeing no King hath lawful power by any means to lay bodily death on any such Surety, much l●sse to make his Son, or his Son to make himself any such Surety or Redeemer of Rebels: as Christ was made and might be made of God for us. So that also where you would have it to serve, that we might perceive by this how Christ was not defiled, nor hateful, nor guilty by imputation of our treason, it is evidently to weak. For you have not showed, neither can show, that this King's Son was or ought to have been such a Surety & Redeemer as Christ was, that is unto bodily death. Therefore this Similitude cannot be good. We have other manner of warrant that Christ was by imputation made Sin for us, and the Curse for us: and that this ordinance was holy and right, and above all reproof. Which you can not bring for your King's Sons Suretyship, nor for the King's fact: who kept not the order of justice when he spared abominable Rebels without their bloodshed; or when he slew his guiltless Son for them, that they might be spared.  
After this c he impugneth another reason of mine with marveylous scorn and detestation. 
Pa. 183.284.  That seeing Christ d on the Cross spoiled principalities and powers, 
Col. 2.15.  and made a show of them openly triumphing over them. Therefore I collected, that Christ there discerned and felt the Powers of darkness (Satan and his Complices) as very instruments working the effects of God's wrath upon himself. Which as I conceive, is no such foolish nor impious reason as he vainly pretendeth. For doth not the very phrase and manner of speech import some such mighty contention and violent opposition, where yet at length an absolute & glorious triumphant victory was obtained? Surely it doth. This than must be conceived and felt by Christ: neither could these be other effects but only of God's proper wrath, severity, and indignation against the sin of the world, which was matter of 
a Of some pain a torment  opposition against Christ at that season; it could not be the revealing of any glory or comfort, which such instruments procured unto him & wrought upon him. Against this you bring not a word. Nevertheless your high disdain towards me, breaketh out touching the manner how this might be. But what is that to the purpose? What if no tongue can express the manner, as neither have I once endeavoured to express it: shall not therefore the testimony of the H. Ghost be true, that on the Cross Christ obtained such a victory against the Devils, which implieth also such a Conflict first, as I have observed?  
Yet because you will needs examine the manner how possibly this might be, let us see what you make of it. The Devils (say you) have nothing to do with the Souls of men, but either to tempt them or torment them. First, before I answer you directly, this we may consider: Christ might and no doubt he did in his Soul discern, conceive, and apply to himself all the rage, malice, 
How Ch●●● might be faulted by than on Cross.  and violence of the jews tormenting him to death, as set on fire by Satan himself, and by all the powers of Hell: and these also as set on work by the justice and severe Wrath of God now purposely laying punishment on his Son, thereby to take satisfaction and recompense for all our sins. Now this feeling and suffering in the Soul of Christ, made an other kind of impression in him, and was infinitely more grievous and doleful as touching the present sense then otherwise the mere outward stripes and wounds of men were or could be. These conflicts of Christ on the cross with Satan's rage & malice, labouring if he could possibly by these means to have quenched the light of our Salvatio, may well be understood by the Apostle in this place: & yet none of your exceptions do touch this argument. Elsewhere in your book you speak directly against the main ground of it: affirming that God himself did nothing to Christ, that is, he did not pperly punish him. Thus you say, 
b Pag. 3●  God did not any thing unto him. And, 
c Pag. 32.  who did Crucify him, I pray you, God, or the Jews? And, 
d Pag. 7●  He was indeed condemned by man that gave wrongful sentence of death against him: but he was acquitted of God. And 
e Pag.  Christ was no more a Curse than he was Sin: who indeed and with God was neither: 
●roper●●●hed ●●st. ●●or 5 21  but with men he was reputed both wicked and accursed. Notwithstanding the very truth and God's word itself is flat contrary to you. For it is written: a Hes made him Sin for us which knew no sin, that we should be made the righteousness of God in him. Yea, b he made his Soul sin. Which is nothing else but that c the Lord laid upon him or inflicted upon him the iniquity of us all. 
〈◊〉 53 10. 〈◊〉. 6.5.10. ●rem. in 〈◊〉. 8. 〈◊〉. 4 28. ●●m. 8.3.  Yea, d the Lord delighted to bruise him, and afflicted him or slew him. And the Apostles do acknowledge that e both the counsel and the Hand of God was in Christ's punishment. Finally, f God sending his Son in the similitude of sinful flesh and for sin, 
●●iac.  condemned sin in (* his) flesh. His Condemning of sin in Christ was in deeds, and not in words. God's own hand than did smite Christ, and inflicted on him whatsoever he suffered as the condemnation of sin. Where yet we imagine not that God was moved with any affection or perturbation, 
●●g. 245.  but (as f you acknowledge) the punishment or dayned for sin by the justice of God, and inflicted by the hand of God (whatsoever mean it pleased him to use) is called the wrath of God. And then how may we think Gods infinite justice & power punished Christ? Surely in all such respects as he was capable of pains and punishments as from God. Wherefore in his spirit certainly he suffered spiritual and incomprehensible punishments being no sins, such as men's souls are subject unto as from God. In his Body also he felt bodily afflictions, which our bodies can apprehend. Some God himself immediately inflicted, some he inflicted by means and instruments: but still it was his Hand principally which did what soever was done unto him. Neither can you say that Christ's punishment was Gods mere and bare permission only. Nay his punishment was his revealed and written will, his express and public ordinance, and most holy appointment from the beginning of the world: and now at last effected by his own hand, and by other means, when the fullness of time was come. Wherefore the whole suffering of Christ was God's own and most proper action: The wicked jews and Devils were only his instruments to do that which he set them on work to do, though they thought not so. Now we come to answer you more directly touching the text in hand. Where you would intimate that Christ on the Cross was not tempted by the powers of Hell, because Christ could not b●● tempted by Satan's inward suggestion, but only by the care receiving an outward voice: This I suppose also is a singular conceit of your own without any title of Scripture to prove it by. Yea what reason can you give that where the mind conceaveth any temptation, there of necessity must be Concupiscence, Original sin, 
a Pag. 1  Corruption of the flesh, etc. In us men it is so, you say. I grant in us it is so. But that of necessity in nature it must be so, or that Adam was tempted by voice of necessity, and not accidentally; I see no reason in the world: or that Christ might not be sometime inwardly assaulted & tempted also without heaving any voice. Nay I suppose you have no reason to affirm (as 
b Pag▪ 1  you do) that Christ in the Wilderness was tempted by Satan by outward voice only. It seemeth rather to be manifest that his temptation was merely in cogitation and in the thoughts of his heart so moved by the 
* Or else b● such out● objects t●ther, with 〈◊〉 work tha●rituall c●●tion in C●● As Satan 〈◊〉 well kno● how.  spiritual suggestion of the Devil. First, because the text saith, that Satan 
c Mat. ●.  set him upon a pinnacle of the temple in jerusalem, and moved him to cast himself down. Which was within the time of his fasting, and he fasted but forty days and forty nights: and so long continually he was 
d Marc.  in the wilderness. Seeing then Christ was in the Wilderness all the while that he was thus tempted, How could that be really and actually done? This was therefore in a spiritual Cogitation. But chiefly, when the 
e Mat. 4.  Devil showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, and 
f Luc. 4.  that in the twinkling of an eye, how could that 
† Yea, sibly it 〈◊〉 be done ●●●ally etc. ficell● a● you. But unless it 〈◊〉 be. Ergo●  possibly be done really, actually, and externally? Wherefore I must needs think that as Satan was a subtle Spirit, so he could & did sometime spiritually suggest temptations into Christ's heart, and Christ could in Soul conceive them, and yet utterly without all sin: which we at no hand now can do, because we are all naturally apt and inclining to evil, as Christ was not. Yea the text to the Hebr. seemeth to prove it also, Christ was tempted in all things like us, without sin. Then he was tempted both outwardly and also merely within: (for so are we) and this was merely by conceiving and considering of Satan's wicked spiritual motion in his Spirit, which it was possible that he might do without any yielding to it, though we by reason of our inborn corruption can not possibly do it. Thus than it was possible, and most likely it is also that Christ was assaulted, and wrestled withal by the devils spiritual suggestions now when in most bitter Agonic he hanged on the Cross. Howbeit to go further, such grievous and bitter assaults of the Devil he might receive outwardly also by his senses other ways: though not by Satan's own voice, yet by Satan's members means. And so 
a ●ag. 283.  you say he was tempted of Satan all the time of his abode on earth. Then so you deny not, but now even on the Cross Christ might be and was tempted and assaulted by Satan, that is by Satan's instruments, moved and enraged by him. And this is none other indeed, but that which in the entrance of 
† Pag. 77.  this question here I observed: which as I have before showed sufficeth to prove Christ's Combating, as it were, and wrestling with the powers of Hell on the Cross. But 
b Pag. 284.  you object against this, that Outward temptation by the mouths and hands of the wicked, is no effect of God's wrath. No is? Here you are clean contrary to yourself and the truth. Elsewhere 
c Pag. 243. ●63. 275.  you truly acknowdge that all outward crosses and afflictions small or great are in their nature punishments of sin and effects of God's wrath. Now those doubtless are temptations. Then sure these outward temptations by the mouths and hands of the wicked such as Christ endured, are effects of God's wrath, viz. his revile, his shame, his poverty, his stripes, his wounds, and death itself, etc. You say outward temptation is rather a try all of God's gifts and graces bestowed upon us. And is not inward temptation in the Godly so to? I pray what odds is this, that you make between the inward and outward temptations? It is true, this is one good use of both these forts in the godly, in whom Christ hath sanctified all afflictions, & death itself. Yet in their very nature they all are none other but parts of Gods Curse for sin, very punishments of sin, and true effects of God's wrath: as in Christ they were all. Further Satan might spiritually and extraordinarily work together with these his instruments outwardly afflicting his body, I say, by these bodily occasions thus the rather working an impression of his malice and spiritual fury mixed with subtlety against Christ: and Christ likewise extraordinarily might apprehend the same, that is the rather by the concurrence and cooperation of those outward occasions with these spiritual incursions. And thus might Christ suffer most strange temptations, and incomprehensible sorrows, as very punishments of sin from the furious rage of Satan and malice of wicked men, whatsoever other uses they might have beside in him. Hear now we may seed row unjustly you conclude that Satan could no other way assault Christ as an instrument of God's wrath, but 
a The ve●● wrestlings assaults of ●●tan may b● ritual ●orn●● though 〈◊〉 such as ar●● ecuted in local He  only by executing torments on his Soul even in such wise as he tormenth damned souls in Hell: and that can be, say you, no other way then by Satan's very possessing of those souls. Which gross and infernal speculations of yours (for truths you can not make them) I utterly leave to your own discussing. For my part I have spoken no word of them in all my treatise. Notwithstanding this here I avouch, that howsoever the means or manner was of Satan's and his furious bands assaulting of Christ on the Cross, it made certainly an impression of most doleful sorrow and torment in his Soul, as feeling & discerning by that means the very stroke of Gods own hand upon him, and receiving the sting of his wrath and indignation therein, which then wrought, and was revealed chiefly then upon him for all our sins. Neither say you any thing whereby you do or can overthrow this assertion. Our authorized doctrine in England agreeth with me, saying, 
b Nowe● Catech.  He fought and wrestled as it were hand to hand with the whole army of Hell. Finally here where you skornfully reject and detest this my sense of the Apostle in this place, yet you give no inkling of any other sense at all which these words might seem rather to admit. Wherefore this is more than half a conclusion against you, that my interpretation and application of it is unjustly by you reproved.  
Then 
a Pag. 2●  you come to confute my fourth Reason: but the mainest points thereof you have not so much as touched. 1 I 
b Treat● pa. 45.  showed that the Godly sometimes in this life do feel a taste of God's infinite Wrath, and even of Hellish sorrows. 2. That Christ our Redeemer suffered for us as deeply, yea deeper than ever any of us here do suffer or can suffer. But all this you can here cleanly pass over without any word to it. Whereupon it followeth sound, that Christ indeed suffered in Spirit the true effects of God's wrath, and even the sense of Hellish sorrows. Howbeit in an other reason of mine not unlike to that, you think you can pick more advantage against some words. I showed out of the Hebrues that Christ succoureth us not but wherein he had experience of our temptations and infirmities. Now he succoureth us even in the feeling of the terrors of God and sorrows of Hell in our Souls. Therefore he himself had experience of the same: 
pa 66. &  I meave c always so far as was possible: that is in the extremity of the sorrow & pain thereof, no further: Where note that the words of this Proposition are not any whit more general, neither include they any thing less tolerable than the text itself doth, 
●eb. 2.17.  thus: d Wherefore in all things it behoved him (or he ought) to be made like unto his brethren, 
●ebr. 4.15. ●om. 8.19. ●●ch. 20. 2●  e like in temptations, infirmities, and f afflictions, only except sin: that he might be a merciful and faithful Highpriest in things concerning God. For in that which himself suffered and was tempted (in) he is able to secure them which are tempted. First, en hó in that which himself suffered, signifieth either the matter wherein Christ is able to secure us, or the means whereby he becometh able, that is to say, ready and sit to secure us, or else the occasion and reason why he is the readier to secure us: even in that himself suffered and was tempted, he is able to secure them who are tempted. As if he should say, were it not that himself by his own feeling knew the misery of our sufferings and temptations, he had not been so ready to secure us in all ours, not with such compassion, as now he is. Which way soever of these 3 we take these words, yet they plainly infer that Christ himself felt all the misery and smart of our sufferings and temptations which we at any time do feel, & wherein we are succoured. Thus as I have showed (neither do you gainsay) The godly sometimes feeling an infinite pain of Gods * wrath and of Hellish sorrows in this life: 
●o their ●●e it see●●h ●●well. ●●ch.  Christ therefore felt the same indeed to secure us thereby. Whereunto serveth our public doctrine, g Diram execrationem quâ scelera nos nostra de vinxerat in se suscepit, ut eâ nos hoc pacto exolveret. Albeit here the first way seemeth to me not the unlikelyest, that the Apostle should signify All the matter namely that kind of pain wherein he succoureth us, even that which himself also had experience of. And this also those words kata panta in all things do fully import. But indeed all; are but one & the same in effect as I said. Sec: we must note that in these words Christ was like us in All temptations and afflictions, we are to understand h All that are incident to Mankind generally: 
〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉. 48. etc.  not which happen to any man particularly. All the particular Crosses in the world, neither could nor can possibly come to any man. Also, that he suffered not only in one or in some parts of our nature, but in All and every part, even in Spirit, and Soul and Body, like as we are apt & able to suffer. Again, all the particulars which by God's providence he suffered not, were far less in pain & terror then the general pains were, which he did suffer. And thus right well is Christ said to be like us in all our temptations and sufferings: that is, at least like us, indeed beyond us in all the extremity and violence of them, and exceeding much more deeply plunged therein. As well therefore you might have given a good sense of my words (if you had had any mind thereto) as of these general and large words of the Scripture whereupon I ground myself. But very chariritably you can infer upon my reason, Then Christ had his eyes put out for so had Samson he was swallowed up by a Whall, for so was jonas: he was cast into a burning furnace, for so were Sidrac, Mishac, & Abednego he was stoned to death, for so were Naboth and Steven. In deed I had been as foolish and as doltish as you do make me, if I had treamed so. Care us therefore I pray that indifferency which all reason and use of speech permitteth: namely that general terms be understood according to the possibility and propabilitie of the matter. That is, that the Apostle and I both do speak of All the sufferings of Mankind in general, and of each part of human Nature apt to suffer but not of every particular in each of them, or which each man meeteth with all. Then where 
* Pag 287  you examine me, what I m●ane whether Christ be not able or not willing to secure us in other things than he himself did suffer. Mine answer is; Ask the Apostle what he meaneth in saying kata panta, in all things it behoved him to be like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faith full Highpriest: and dynam as he is (thus) able to secure us, as if he should say; He was not any otherway able, then in that himself hath also suffered being tempted in all things kata, homotótet a like unto us. How be it I understand him not to speak here of Christ's absolu: Omnipotency; what he could have done (as God) if he would: But of his ability by dispensation received in his Manhood by the Ordinance and appointment of God. As if he should say, Thus hath God appointed him & enabled him to secure us, and not otherwise. Where we will not stick to grant you your sense, that he might be the better able to have compassion on us. In effect these expositions differ not much. And thus this Scriptured trust is cleared, and my Reason justified, Christ succoureth us not in any extremer kind of pain them himself had experience of. 
Which also ●ough All generally feel ●t, yet generally it is due 〈◊〉 All in re●●ect of sin.  But he succoureth us in the ● feeling of the terrors of God, he releaseth us of the pains and sorrows unmeasurable that rise thereof. Therefore himself had experience of them. This same also sundry of the Fathers avouch with us most fully: and even those which yourself brings for a yourself. 
Pag. 25.  Cyrills' words before touched are most large, 
Cyrill. The●●ur. 10.3.  Omnia Christus perpessus est, ut nos ab omnibus liberaret: Christ thoroughly suffered all such passions (which men do suffer) that he might deliver us from all. 
human ●ature.  All the passions of † flesh were stirred in Christ yet without sin, and so that unless he had died we had not been delivered from death, unless he had feared and sorrowed we had not been quit from fear and sorrow. Hear he saith, all our passions were stirred in Christ's human nature, even so far as we are cured, and so far as might be without sin in him. Then I hope by Cyrills' judgement the sense of the true curse and proper wrath of God for sin was in Christ's Soul; so fair as it might be painful and not sinful: seeing Men are subject to this suffering as the most sharpest among others. Lastly by Cyrill here we see that unless Christ had felt the same sufferings which we feel and are cured of, we had not been delivered of them. This also I am sure fitteth not your opinion, That one drop of Christ's blood was sufficient for our whole redemption. Which was one of your principles in your preaching, but in your book you skip it clean, I know not how. 
●ag. 25. 26.  Next we may see that c your place of d Ambros● is also fully to the same effect. 
Luc. de ●●tic. dol. ●●.  A little after his e former words he saith The joy of the eternal Godhead being parted away from him, Christ was affected with the redio●snes of my infirmity. 
●●fore pa. 48  He took upon him my sorrow, that he might give me his joy, and he abased himself to the sorrow of death in our manner, that by the same means in him he might bring us to life. He ought therefore to take sorrow that he might overcome sorrow, and not exempt himself from it, & that we might learn in Christ to overcome the sorrow of death approaching. Wherefore Christ exempted himself from nothing in his Passion that we have experience of as touching Pains and sorrows. And by the same sufferings in himself for us, he healeth us, whereunto we are subject by reason of sin. So that thus (in his agony) he wrought with a deep effect, that because in his flesh he killed our sins, he might also with the sorrow of his Soul extinguish the sorrow of our Souls. To this very purpose also 
a Pag. 47. 4● Na●●anz. Fulgent. Barnard. Tertull. jerom.  many others before rehearsed do affirm most fully. Neither is this taking of their sentences any whit to abuse the Fathers, which you 
b Pag. 86.  are afraid of. You greatly abuse them which take them otherwise: namely as if they meant that by the flesh and bloodshed of Christ merely & alone without the merit of his Souls and Minds proper suffering, our whole Ransom were paid. As for our comparing the pains of Christ's suffering with the pains even of the reprobates in this life, I see not that you nor any man living can find fault therewith: only set aside their sinful suffering, which always I testify that Christ was most free from. Yea I doubt not but we may compare Christ's sufferings in his Agonies touching vehemency of pains even with those of the Damned in hell. 
What the o● is between Christ's Suffering & 〈◊〉 Damned.  Only I conceive between Christ's, and theirs this odds: 1 They suffer sinfully, 2 Perpetually, 3 Locally in Hell. All which being excepted▪ otherwise Christ suffered altogether as bitterly & as sharply (yea I may say in nature the very same) as the Damned do: which therefore may well be called the pains of Hell, although yet Hell indeed doth differ in some great and weighty circumstances, as is aforesaid. If you say, the extremest pains of punishment cannot be where sin is not. That is true: neither in deed can the least pains be where there is no sin: and that no more in the Body then in the Soul, though this please not you. Mark what I say, The extremest pains of all may as possibly be inflicted where no sin is, as the very lest, & that as well in the Spirit as in the Body. But in truth neither the one nor the other is possible. Neither the greatest nor the least pains of Gods proper vengeance for sin can be inflicted or suffered at all in Soul or in Body, but only where sin is. That is to say, either imputed or inhaerent. Ordinarily the Reprobat are thus punished, where sin is inhaerent. Extraordinarily and singularly by Gods own special ordinance Christ was even thus punished, yet where sin was but imputed. And thus therefore Christ's Soul for mere pain might suffer the extremest spiritual punishments (altogether as well as his body might suffer any at all) without inhaerent sin. But you grant his body suffered truly punishments for sin. Therefore his soul might suffer also, even those of the extremest degree. Your 
“ See be●●● pag. 14.  self also granteth that Christ both might and did suffer the extremest pains that might be, without his own sin. But it was possible for him to conceive and feel in his a mind far greater sorrows and pains for our sin from God's wrath, 
●at. ●. 〈◊〉 26.  than he could feel merely in his body outwardly. And the greatest was no more sin than the least, though both were properly for sin. Therefore by your own grant, Christ might and did feel and endure the greatest sorrows of the mind and soul as well as the lesser in the body, being all the very effects of the wrath of God against sin. 
●ag. 102.  b You bring a reason against this, that God spiritually punisheth no man but for his own uncleanness: which is a thing merely untrue. For though no other man was ever punished without his own uncleanness, neither spiritually nor corporally, yet Christ our Saviour was: who in this case was not in the ordinary state of men. But I pray show me this mystery how it is that God cannot punish Spiritually where there is no inhaerent sin, but can and may Corporally where there is none: All the rest of your assertions c here are altogether of this suit. 
●a 101, 102 ●03, 105. ●66. 94.  By this one reason I weakened all yours, but you could pass that by, 
To this effect. Treat. 1 ●ag. 41, 43.  answering unto it not a word. Viz: d If Christ's body hanging on the Cross, and held by Death in the grave, was punished by God where yet he found no sin, and which he still entirely loved and was never separated from, then so he might & did punish properly his Soul also, & yet never divide his Godhead nor his love from it. But thus he did to his body: therefore even so he might do, and did to his soul properly also. For the one standeth with God's justice, and with the Nature of man in Christ, aswell as the other. So far for this.  
Then e you address yourself against another, 
●ag. 289.  even one of the chiefest reasons of mine: which I make from the strange and incomparable Agonies of Christ in the time of his Passion. These invaded him, as we read, principally at 3. times: 

1. in the foretaste of his Passion, showed us in the 12. of john.  
2. In the Garden a little before his apprehension.  
3. In his very extreme Passion itself on the Cross.   The Scriptures f heretofore I rehearsed at full, 
Treat. ●. ●ag. 49. 50. ●oh. 12.27. Mat. 26.39. and 44. Mark. 14.33 ●uk. 22.44. and 43. Mat. 27.46. ●eb●● 5.7.  & whence these piteous and unspeakable Agonies of his are notified unto us. Whereby to all (that duly consider) it appeareth so clear as the Sun at noon day, that The pains of his Passion● which plainly now he felt, and feared, (because he knew he was to feel them further unto death) were the proper and direct cause of those Agonies. But we assume, that such strange and lamentable things and behaviour in Christ were not the effects only and merely of his bodily pains and death, or of the fear of them. Therefore Christ felt and endured more than his mere bodily pain and death, by the testimony of the Scriptures, which thing 
a Before 14.25.5  you deny. In your whole discourse you gainsay 
* Pag. 17 22. 23. 2● 34. etc.  the Proposition, that the pains of Christ's Passion, or the natural fear of them, was the proper and direct cause of those Agonies: or that these Scriptures do imply so much. The Assumption you grant and acknowledge, that the mere bodily pains and death of Christ or the fear thereof, were not the only, nor the proper and direct Cause of these Agonies in him. For 
b Pag. 29●  you are resolved that the cause of Christ's Agony could not proceed but from his Submission to God or Compassion to men, or from both. These you name elsewhere a 
c Pag. 23. ●  religious Fear, 
d Pag. 124. 20, 21.  Devotion and Piety to God, pity to men, etc. And thus you resolutely deny my Proposition. For you mean it seemeth that Christ suffered pains in his Soul by reason of the strength and zeal of these his Holy Affections: and that these were the proper and main Causes of that his most woeful and miraculous Agony & Complaint. Therefore not any extraordinary Pains inflicted upon him by way of proper punishment, as my Proposition intendeth. But this your Assertion I simply deny, that Christ's Holy Affections, his Piety and his Pity were the proper and main Causes of that his most woeful and miraculous Agony & Complaint. And then my Proposition standeth firm, that his Pains inflicted on him by way of proper Punishment and Vengeance for sin were the proper and main Cause thereof. Wherefore let us try your proofs for it, and then mine against it. But before we come to them, you must know that this your Resolution, as you call it, is first most vain, also directly contrary to yourself, and then altogether untrue and presumed by wide conjecture; as God willing presently I shall show. For the first; I heartily entreat the Christian Reader to mark well & to consider, how your L. doth contrive 3. notable Equivocations in these few words, Christ suffered in his Soul the wrath of God: 
Notable S●● phistrie.  which you 
e Pa 243, 24● 245. 248.  seem to grant, but in truth you do not: and if we add also the pains of Hell, than he opposeth a fourth fallacy against us. And these 3. or 4. are the only Pillars of his Doctrine. For the 3. former, your first Equivocation is in this word Christ Suffered: and about it we deal in this place now. The common and ordinary phrase of men understandeth herein, His feeling of pains inflicted on him by way of proper punishment and satisfaction for sin, 
●t Christ's ●fering or ●●lion is pro●●ly.  which he undertook for us. Only this in the ordinary and usual manner of speech is signified by Christ's suffering or his Passion: and so do we always understand by it. But you cunningly take another rare sense of this word, as it signifieth the Affections of the Mind in Christ wholly bend to Holiness, Righteousness, & Obedience of God, that so he might exactly & perfectly keep his just Law. Which 2. parts of Christ's Mediation, are greatly differing, 
●●e before pa. 18. 52. 64.  and ought not both in truth to be called His Passion or Satisfaction for sin. Therefore speak plainly I beseech you, and deceive us not? call not this His Souls suffering, but his Souls Holiness & Righteousness. And seeing you mean, This was the proper & main cause of Christ's Passion & Suffering when he wrought his satisfaction for sin now at the last end of his life chief, I simply deny it: 
〈◊〉 Treat. 1. pag. 68 69.  all Reason reclaimeth against it: and to that which" I alleged for further reproof thereof, you answer nothing. Your next Equivocation is in this, 
See before pag 52.  He suffered † in Soul: your next in" Gods wrath. Both which I have plainly showed before. As also your 4. 
Before pa. 49. 19  * Fallacy, which may be called Fallacia Accidentis. But Sat I hope you will not think to bear down all afore you with nothing but with cunning, 
Before pag. 16. 53.  yet vain deceit, countenanced out with cruel and hateful words. Further, you are in this your Resolution directly contrary to your own self: 
Before pa. 36. 64.  as" before I have briefly, yet sufficiently showed. Again, where you censure yourself very sharply for your resolutnes in this cause, 
Pag. 17.  * It is curiosity to examine, presumption to determine, impossibility to conclude certainly what was the true cause thereof. Thirdly, 
“ Pag. 290.  where you make but 2. causes submission to God, Compassion to men: elsewhere but one 
* Pag. 23.  Religious fear. But 
† Pa. 17. etc.  before you very precisely made 6. If you agree no better with yourself, I have small hope that you will agree with us. Last of all, this your resolution, making Christ's Piety & Pity to be the only proper & main Cause of all his woeful Passion, is utterly false and untrue, having no ground but mere conjectures. But before I vn●● my reasons against your Assertion, 
Your. 6. Causes of Chr. Agony untrue.  let us view all your particular Causes, & see if any one of the can be good, 
† Pag. 18.  Your 1. 'Cause is S●●mission to the Majesty of God sitting in judgement. Against whom 〈◊〉 in what cause sat he now in judgement, when Christ was thus astonished & Agonized therewith? Of necessity it must be one of these three ways. 1. God's Majesty & great justice now at this time might sit in judgement against us, & so consequently yea chief against Christ himself as our Ransompayer and Surety in our steed. If you mean, that thus Christ with Submission beholding his Father in judgement at this time was cast into this Agony, it is the very truth, and the same that we maintain. For this denieth not, but that he had real pains inflicted from the Father as from a just judge against us in him, who were thus acquitted by him. And thus if Aust. and others 
a Pag. 3●  sentences be understood, that the Compaint on the Cross was not Christ's in respect of himself but in respect of his Church for whom then & there he answered before God coming now to execute judgement for their sin, so they are well & rightly understood: otherwise there is no truth in them, namely as you seem to use them. Second: God might be considered now as judging Satan the prince of this world, and overcoming him for us by the victory of Christ's sufferings which he was now about to undergo: that thus the Devil (as 
b Pag.  you note out of 
c Aug.  Austin) might be vanquished in our Cause not by God's absolute and mere power, but also by doing justice, & so we delivered. Thus where 
d Pag.  you apply, 
e joh. 32.  Now (even at hand) is the judgement of this world: Now (even shortly) shall the prince of this world be cast out. and I, if I were lift up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. If you mean it in this sense (as you seem to do) it serveth well. But that in this respect, as God proceeded against Satan, and for this cause Christ should be cast into these dreadful scates, sorrows, and bloody Agonies, what man of judgement would imagine? What colour of likelihood is there in it? Rather this were properly cause of great joy and triumph indeed: as sufficiently I have showed in my 
f Ph. 5.  former treatise, whereunto you answer not. Your testimonies touching 
g joel Heb. Psal.  men sinful, whereunto may be adjoined 
h Luc●  an other of the like, somewhat opening those places, make nothing to the purpose at al. For these could not by reason of their Sins induce the very presence of God's Majesty, being in any measure revealed unto them: but Christ in himself being free from all sin, could be in no such case. No better also is 
i Isa. ●  that of the Angels (mere Creatures) vailing their faces at the glorious presence of God the Creator of all: but Christ the Mediator was not a mere Creature, but always personally united with a greater power than the Angels were, and always sustained by it: unless only in case of his judgement and Passion proceeding upon him from God, as is before noted, when purposely the Godhead hide himself as it were, and withdrew his wont Comfort, that the manhood might be subject ●o full Punishment for us, as was appointed by God. Although even now also the Godhead did sustain his manhood thus being overloaden with pains: otherwise it could not 
a ●efore ●. 42.  but have been quite overwhelmed. Third: God's Majesty and justice may be considered sitting in judgement merely against sinful men. If you mean here against the sins of the Elect, Christ knew the eternal and sure decree of God which had turned the Cup of vengeance already from them upon himself, as being their Surety: so that this cometh to our Assertion, as is aforesaid. Or touching the Reprobates do you think that Christ here so vehemently wished them better, whom he knew God hated: or that for pity of them he fell into this Agony and sorrowful prayers? First Christ saith a little 
b 〈◊〉 17. ●.  before, He would not so much as pray for them. Yea it is certain Christ rather would have greatly rejoiced to see the due execution of Gods most holy and deserved justice, which is a special part of his high glory. According to that which is written: 
c 〈◊〉 58.10,  The righteous shall rejoice when he seethe the vengeance, he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked: And men shall say, verily there is fruit for the righteous, doubtless there is a God that judgeth the earth. Again if Christ's mournful prayers were to wish better to the Reprobat, how can that stand where he saith, Let this Cup pass from me: he should have said from them. Neither this also might he say, from them: as knowing perfectly his Fathers and his own will directly to the contrary.  
Your next supposed Cause 
d 290.  Compassion towards men containeth 3. several causes 
e 18.19  here: 

1. for the Rejection of the jews:  
2. for the Dispersion of his Church:  
3. His zealous grief generally for the sins of the world.   All these I grant were always in Christ, and caused no doubt always heaviness in him: yet no more than a godly and heavenly mind could and would cheerfully digest and bear. Wherefore you strangely deceive yourself if you think that these, any, or all of them, did so far exceed in him as to procure his most dreadful and bloody Agony. For the Rejection of the jews what reasons bring you. 
a Luke 〈◊〉  Christ wept over their City: Ergo Now at his Passion he was driven into his dreadful Agony for this cause: and that rather now, then when he so wept expressly for them. I deny this argument: how will you do to prove it? I 
b Treat. 〈◊〉 pa. 6. ●7.  have showed from hence the contrary: whereunto nothing is answered: that seeing when a little before he thoroughly intended & expressed his affection about that matter, yet thereby he fell into no such Agony, but only wept and mourned for them, therefore now in his Passion where he speaketh not a word of them, it is strange to say, that his Pity of his Country men the jews should drive him to sweat blood, and thrice to pray with tears and strong cries, that this Cup of grief might pass from him, and thrice to yield himself again to Gods will, saying: Not my will, but thy will be done. This verily cannot stand with any reason. Again, that his express Compassion towards the jews a little 
c Luk. 19 Mat. 24.  before he prepared him to his Passion, plainly showeth, that now in the Garden and so still forward, he gave himself wholly to other thoughts & matters, Namely such as concerned his great work in hand: that is, to be are the Pains which now chief he was to suffer for man's redemption at God's hands. Wherefore this work of Christ at this time performed and wrought by him, 
Note.  is by a proper and peculiar Name justly called his Passion, not not his Compassion. Again you say, For their sakes Moses desired to be wiped out of God's book, and Paul could have wished himself to be separated from Christ for his brethren the Israelites. Ergo Christ at his Passion was cast into that strange Agony for the grief of their rejection. This also hath no shape of any reason in it. It proveth that Christ surely had very great pity and commiseration of them, but nothing else in the world. Besides Christ might have far greater pity of them, than Moses or Paul had, and yet he was able to carry his affection far more patiently and quietly than they were able: which would rather keep him from such an outward distemper as was even in them. Also Christ knew exactly God's Counsel and purpose for their rejection, which those holy men were not so particularly sure of. Wherefore Christ might better stay the vehemency & breaking out of this affection, which in such a case must needs tend against the known will of God. In those holy men it might better break forth very strongly, as it did, seeing they knew not particularly Gods decree herein, so as Christ knew. Lastly those holy men (it seemeth) having their thoughts wholly defixed on their vehement pity towards the jews earnestly and" constantly wished, that the Cup of God's eternal wrath might come upon themselves that the jews who deserved it, 
specially ●ul; who abusedly ●proveth ye●●th. Rom. 1.  might scape. But Christ in his Passion contrariwise desired that the Cup which he tasted to be too bitter and too violent for him, might pass away from himself. Thus here is no semblance of reason in this for your purpose. But against you here are 4. worthy things to be noted. If we consider this first, that these most servant desires of these rare men, were holy and not sinful. Because their thoughts being wholly & altogether for the time defixed on their love to their Brethren in the flesh that they might be saved, and that God's glory might be infinitely more ample, if he saved so many hundred thousands (which now almost seemed to them as lost) than it would be in their own particular salvation only: and thus for the time not thinking (it seemeth) upon their own immutable Election and Salvation not any thing else, saving only that they could desire their brethren's salvation yea though it were with their own damnation for their sakes, if so it might stand with God's will, which no doubt always they implied, though expressed nor: thus I take it plain enough that these sinned not in this their desire, and I suppose you take it so too, in that you allege them & ground your reason of Comparison upon them. Now from hence I observe these 4. notable points. 
●●●e.  1. That, if God Omuipotent and only Sovereign Lord will, he may inflict Damnation and the pains of Hell upon mere men, not for themselves but for others, not for their own sins but for the imputed Sins of other men: much rather than may he do thus to Christ, whom God sent indeed and ordained for that purpose. 
●●g. ●76.  Flatly contrary to" your Assertion. That which there you mention is the ordinary & common rule, The Soul that sinneth it shall Dy. But in Christ this was eatraordinary and singular that The just died for the unjust. 2. We see here that there may be possibly a Death of the Soul, a Curse and Separation from God which is in itself neither Sin, nor conjoined with sin necessarily: but merely a Suffering of Punishment from God for the sins of others imputed. 
〈◊〉 73.310.  Contrary to you also: yea generally every where. Third: That extraordinarily there is greater love even among mere men, then only to die bodily one for another, though usually and ordinarily a greater can not be found among men: which is it, that 
a joh. 13. 1●  Christ meaneth. But how much more the may the love of Christ towards his Elect be far greater. Contrary to 
b Pa. 107. 1●  your assertion. Fourth: We see here that these holy men without feeling any pains inflicted by God's wrath, but only through an earnest and mighty Compassion of love 
c Pag. 293.  have their minds drawn so wholly to think on this special thing above their reach, that during the time they turn not themselves to any other cogitation. Even as the eye, being bend intentively to behold any thing, for that present discerneth nothing else. Whereby it cometh to pass that these wishes of these holy men ravished with Pity and Zeal, are not reckoned sinful in them, though they were directly against their own Salvation, which otherwise they knew was immutable with God and certainly reserved for them in Heaven. This you 
d Pag. 293.  acknowledge may be in men, & yet you will not scoff at them as 
e Pag. 144.  cast into a trance by it, nor reproach them with 
f Pag. 299.  infernal confusion. How much less ought you so to deal with Christ: but specially to acknowledge that his marveylous perplexity may well be a means that his suddainwishes against his own constant purpose & Gods will, were yet no sins. And that much rather even for this, because Christ had infinitely more cause by his Pains (then felt and feared to be in his mind both more amused and also amazed, than those men had by their affections. Thus far of this. As for the 
g Ambro●●● le●om A● & B●de.  Fathers which 
h Pag. 19  you cite, if they mean as they seem to do that now at his Passion among other causes of sorrow there wanted not this, even his great Pity towards his forlorn Countrymen, them we join with them. If they mean (as you would have them) that this was the main and chief cause of his extreme sorrows and amazedness, therein I utterly leave them. Howbeit this here note in them, that these Fathers avouch Christ feared not his (bodily) Death and Passion: for thereof only they speak here questionless. You contrariwise say that Christ feared (bodily) death, for thereof also 
i Pag. 26, 〈◊〉  you discourse, and had more cause (as you think) so to do, than any of his members have.  
Third: touching 
k Pag. 19, 〈◊〉  his regard of his Church, generally the same answer serveth, as is given to the last point before. If you urge that these Fathers are so resolute for these Causes as their words here pretend, than yourself abuseth them more than ever I did or mean to do, 
●ag. 17.  where you say, a it is curiosity to examine, presumption to determine, impossibility to conclude (as these do) what was the true cause of Christ's Agony.  
Fourth: 
Pag. 20.  b you allege his inward sorrow and zealous grief for the sins of the world, to be the main and chief cause of his Agony. Surely even to rehearse these your arguments is refutation of them enough. All these are proper parts of his Holiness & Righteousness, as I have said, but no proper parts or causes of his bloody & most dreadful Agony, that is of his Sacrifice satisfying for sin. Only his 
* Heb. 2.10.  Pains were, which then he felt and feared. Neither in respect of these your supposed causes could he say, Save me from this hour, nor Let this Cup pass from me: as in respect of his infinite pains he might. 
Mar. 14.35.  c This hour can not be referred to his Holy and Righteous affections, which were at all hours and seasons in him without measure Holy, yet now at his death did not so expressly break out & show themselves, 
Nor as his ●aines did appear. " as they did at diverse times before. Therefore this Hour can not be these his Holy affections: his Pains & afflictions they d may be and must be. 
●oh. 12.27. ●●mpar. with 〈◊〉 33.  Neither thus standeth it with his piety to wish that his strong and vehement affections of Holiness should pass from him, or be weakened in him. For my part I can see no sense nor sap in these assertions. Even so likewise in that, 
●ag. 21.  where you ascribe to this his c deep sorrow of zeal for men's sins his sweeting blood in his agony above nature after a strange and marvelous manner. I dare say, you deliver strange mervayles in Divinity.  
The Fift Cause f you say, 
●ag. 21.  might be the Cup of God's wrath tempered & made ready for the sins of men: which you interpret to be g Eternal Malediction. 
Pag. 22.  Touching which you say, Christ knowing what our sins deserved might intentively pray to have that Cup pass from him, which was prepared for us. For us, whom mean you? The Elect, or the Reprobat? What malediction? The whole & absolute Pains thereof only, or the Eternity of the continuance thereof also? For so the reprobates do suffer it. If you mean the Elect, 
As you aflame most evangely, pa. ●●2. 133. 144 ●93. 294.  Christ knew, that he must not only h see & contemplate, but feel & suffer all the whole Pains of that Punishment which our sins deserved: and this was prepared for himself our Ransompayer and not for us. Wherefore the truth is he could not by any means pray against that nor decline that, only unless he were for the time in some astonishment & perturbation of his senses, which by the infiniteness of that Pain he might well be in, yea he could not but be (in his human weak nature) and yet still remaining utterly sinless, as is afore showed to have happened in Moses and Paul in a far less perturbation than this was in Christ. Now this is the very point of our Defense: affirm this, and you affirm with us all that we hold & profess. Otherwise if you mean that Christ prayed intentively to have the whole and entire Cup of eternal Malediction and death pass from him, which both the Elect deserve, and the reprobates sustain, that, as it is passing strange doctrine, so it is also simply impossible. For he could not intentively pray against that, not fear that, which he most perfectly knew concerned him not at all, and by no means could ever possibly come near him. But indeed all this is nothing else in effect then your 1 Cause, His submission to God's majesty sitting in judgement. Wherefore you might have lessened your number, and so your answer to this might have been the same which is made to your foremost. But here furthermore you knit in with this 
a As you● kon the● gather 27.  4 other several causes of Christ's Agony. 

1. His taking of our infirmities in his flesh to cure them:  
2. His breaking the knot betwixt (bodily) death and Hell, which none but he was able to do:  
3. God's anger which might be executed on his body, but was mitigated by him:  
4. The desire he had to continue the ceiling & enjoying of God's presence with his body.   The of these maketh in my mind much for us. For understanding that Christ took all the infirmities and passions whereunto men's nature is subject to the end that he might cure all and every kind of them in us; than it followeth that he wanted not the proper & immediate sufferings of pains inflicted by Gods own hand in his Soul. For these are our Souls subject unto and capable of, yea and tormented with, & finally we are by this apt and proportionable medicine of Christ thoroughly cured of them. And this is the very same matter which our 4 Argument 
* Pag 8● 87.  before concluded: that Christ had experience of the same infirmities & passions generally whatsoever, whereof he hath cured us. And this your own Authors here do fully affirm, Cyrill Ambrose, and others, as 
a Pag. 88  before we have observed. It is then most unreasonable which here c you do (if you do as you seem) to understand them of mere Bodily death, 
●a. 25, 26, 27  & of the infirmities merely of his Flesh. 
Before pag ●1.  Wherein then you deny our d Assumption also, & are again Contrary to yourself and to f your own Authors. Cyrill nameth flesh here, 
Pag. 10. 〈◊〉 Ie●om. Pde.  meaning not Christ's Deity, but his whole human nature, as the Scripture doth in a multitude of places: and so not his Body only. Thus than it is that he saith, as you observe, 
Pag. 25.  that g Christ as a man abhorred and feared death: not the bodily death only, but as it was conjoined with the sorrows of the 2. death. He would not, he could not so fear and be affrighted, yea and piteously astonished with such sorrow oppressing him, as to sweat drops of blood only for fear of his bodily death: neither would he pray at all, much less so vehemently and so oftenty mes as he did against that which he perfectly knew was God's will and his own most willing purpose to undergo. Or else Cyrill meaneth no more but that he naturally misliked & shunned (even as all flesh doth) all bodily pain & death. This we always yield, and it maketh nothing against us. For nevertheless he constantly embraced & suffered with joy whatsoever bodily grief he knew did come unto him by his own most free will, and by the holy ordinance of God: yea he could & would bear it with joy far beyond all the joy and constancy of h men in their sufferings. 
Who yet ●rink not at 〈◊〉 neither for ●●dily pains ●●r for Reli●●ous fear of ●●ll.  Only he might fail of the outward appearance and use of this constancy and joyful patience (as now he did) without taint of sin, if his human nature were overwhelmed with other infinite pains, and his mind and senses disturbed with more horror then naturally it could bear. Therefore I conclude he thus feared not his mere bodily death, but it was the Pains of the 2. death which he felt and so feared. But you say i The sorrow and fear of death which it pleased our Saviour to feel in our nature, 
●ag. 26.  came not for want of strength, but of purpose to quench and abolish those affections in us. I say it came from both: as yourself also do avouch clean contrarily in an other place: k To die even in Christ was infirmity, 
●ag. 161.  though voluntary. And generally in another place; 
●ag. 289.  l Natural infirmity was common to Christ with all the godly in like cases. Wherefore Augustine's sentence will not help you here, 
Pag. 25.  m that Christ was troubled not by infirmity, but by (his own) power. For he meaneth, not only by infirmity, but also by his own will and power: or else you confute him yourself. Neither there is this any reproach to Christ, as 
n Pag. ●  you most injustly insinuat. But as it was glorious to him so to debase his Majesty for our sakes to take our true and perfect Nature, yea to be humbled therein to the most shameful death of the Cross, so was it also glorious to him to take all the true weaknesses of our nature together: and so it was his singular goodwill towards us to become thoroughly like us, and feelingly subject to all our Calamities, pains and miseries, to heal us of them. Only in him the guilt and corruption of sin itself was excepted. Feign you would 
o Pag. 2●  wipe away that Argument of ours which sticketh nearer to you the you will seem. In Malefactors there is a quiet and contented suffering of most exquisite and extraordinary torments oftentimes, 
The cou●● and st●●● of Ma●●ctours ●●●ments.  which they endure only by a natural strength and courage of mind. How much more likely is it then that Christ the very rock of all strength and fountain of patience, would not thus seem affrighted and astonished and so woefully behaving himself for his mere bodily death, and that before it came unto him. All your answer is, that this is no fit comparison for the Son of God: for they are desperate, not having any fear or care of God till they feel the force of his wrath in Hell fire. What an answer is this? They have no fear nor care of God. What then? Yet naturally they have fear and care of most bitter pains, and namely then when they feel them. If you say, before they feel them they are so desperate and so hardened by Satan, that they care not for any torments: that in deed is commonly true. But what will you or can you allege to hinder their full and most dreadful sense of them, when they are in them? Satan wisheth them not so much good as to benumb them now in their senses, so that the cruel pains of death should not trouble them in the time of their death, which he would rather make more fearful and intolerable unto them. Let them be then in their life time as desperate as they will, yet in death and in the midst of most horrible tortures which oftentimes very quietly they endure, surely they cannot choose but feel as lively and as perfitly as other men do. Only it is a natural boldness and strength of mind (in itself no discommendable property) that sustaineth them in such extreme pains: One instance for all may serve in this kind, even that wretched Murderer of the Prince of Orange in netherlands. What strange quietness did he show in suffering most wonderful and rare torments until death. Now to make our Saviour Christ less able or willing to suffer quietly outward torments no greater than that wretch and many other such have suffered, I suppose is a bad endeavour. And it is no unfit matter for you to think more upon, before you skip it over with silence. We compare not the Son of God with them, but are sure that his human nature had beyond all comparison more commendable courage, boldness, strength of mind, patience, and contentment even in the midst of his extremest pains (were they but mere bodily) then such caitiffs had, or possibly could seem to have. This that I say, pertaineth alike to the thieves that were Crucified with Christ. Of whom the H. Ghost saith, a They were together in one and the same Condemnation with Christ. 
〈◊〉. 23.40.  That is they suffered from men all one and the like torments of death adjudged them by the Magistrate: except happily Christ suffered less than they, because they endured them longer than he did. Yet we find in none of them any such piteous and strange Complaints and Cries and Tears, as we find in Christ. But to leave these, and to come to the patience of Martyrs in their sufferings. That also is admirable, what joy, what peace, what triumph they show, yea how they sing in the midst of frying flames, in their roasting on gridirons, in their flaying off their skins, and tearing of their flesh by piece-meales, with a thousand other of most strange and butcherly torments, no less, if no greater in outward show, than the sufferings of our Saviour Christ. To this you answer: If death be not fearful to the Servants of Christ, they are the more bound to their Lord and Master. Who knoweth not that? But what answer is this to our argument? And you will also give a reason of your saying: Because he was the first that by death disarmed death, and severed Death and Hell. He was surely both the first and the last: both α and ω. For he ●●ly, and none with him, nor before nor since him conquered Death and Hell. Yet what is this to our Reason? The effect that Christ wrought is not our question, 
●he matter 〈◊〉 or Ob●●●, and the ●●iect of his ●●ffering are 〈◊〉 question.  but" the manner and kind of suffering whereby he wrought it. You tell us of the effect which he performed which we gladly acknowledge: viz. that Christ did this in deed by his death, he made our death since to be no Cursed death, but a blessed death. But how did he this, by suffering nothing but his mere bodily death only, or also a Religious fear of Hell? All which other godly men do also suffer and feel, which they take passing joyfully and quietly. But thus Christ did not seem to do, neither indeed did he in his Agony. Or did Christ suffer some greater sorrow? You say, The death which Christ suffered when it approached came fast clasped with Hell. What mean you by that? mean you, that Death and Hell both alike came jointly upon Christ, and that both jointly were ordained of God to seize upon him? Then it is the same that we affirm. Otherwise how came they clasped together against him? By breaking the knot betwixt Death and Hell, he could not be so woefully affected and afflicted above measure as he was, if he did not suffer by them somewhat extraordinarily. Unto this you have nothing to answer. Only you say, he severed them, and none else but only the Son of God could dissolve them. Which we deny not. Neither can we see how Death by God's ordinance might seize upon Christ, and not the pains of Hell: seeing neither of them is in themselves sin, but both alike are the due vengeance of sin which he was ordained to suffer so far as was possible. Why then did he suffer the one, and not touch the other. Neither yet do you show that which you take in hand here, how bodily death is contemptible to the Godly which was not contemptible to God himself by your assertion. It was not therefore that only, but some other death far more dreadful and intolerable, which made Christ man (being also God) in such wise to tremble and quake. In deed Christ had far greater cause (as you say) to fear even his bodily death, than any of his Members have. For it was therefore because death approached unto him clasped fast with Hell, so that he could not by the ordinance of God meddle with one but he must feel the other. And thus he did not contemplate and look on them a far of, nor had to do with one more than the other, but by suffering one, he felt both: and by enduring one, he endured both. And thus in deed Christ was left by God to the full natural sense of his bodily torments. But the Godly and the Martyrs deal only with bodily Death; the pains of Hell, or of God's wrath they fear not, because they know by Christ's suffering the same they are abolished, & removed far from them. Sin standeth not threatening them in the presence of God, as it stood now at this time against Christ our Surety and Ransompayer. Nay, they deal not with Bodily death wholly and naturally: for they have God's comfort with them to mitigate it, which Christ now felt not. Yea they mind not their pains very much for their great hope and joy presently following: but this was all overclowded in Christ at this instant. Therefore he had exceeding great cause to be affrighted and terrified & to cry out with bitter tears, though the godly have cause to triumph & sing in Death. Thus also you forget * my argument: 
〈◊〉. 1.51.  that Christ always charged his Disciples not to take their bodily Death heavily for righteousness sake: Ergo, He himself would never be so dismayed with the fear of it. Hear you have a notable saying in the margin, which must not be forgotten: we must prefer Christ's suffering before all Martyrs * not for his pains, 
〈◊〉. 26.  but for his patience. Not for his pains, but for his patience? A rare distinction: If you could make us believe that the greatest patience is tried and discerned where the smallest pains are, than you said somewhat. I know Christ's patience was perfect in all his pains both small & great: and so is not the patience of his servants in their pains neither small nor great. But what is this to our purpose? We speak not of his inward habit of patience which our faith believeth to be in him: but of the outward trial and discerning thereof by natural means & signs whereunto it pleased him now to submit his patience after the very course and operation of Nature. Wherefore as Christ had in him indeed far more patience than we have, so it is out of doubt when he came to the chiefest trial thereof in his Passion he would not in any wise (as he did) show less in use then many men do, unless the trial & encountering thereof in him were infinitely greater.  
By this also we may see how vain your next conjecture is, that he feared in his Agony" Corporal castigation above his strength. 
〈◊〉. 22.24.  For why may not Martyrs and others fear as much cruelty & extraordinary torments at the hands of men, as Christ had cause to do? Again, why should the fear of any whatsoever mere bodily pains so overcome his patience, as outwardly it seemed at this time? Why should he not be able to bear it quietly? And principally seeing he knew well enough before what his death should be, and that God had unchangeably appointed it for him. Wherefore in no wise aught he so to shun and shrink from his mere bodily pains, if they were no greater, which he suffered. If 
a Pag. 2  you mean that he felt greater concurring in and with his bodily punishment inflicted by the wrathful hand of God, 
b Pag. 2  armed with infinite vengeance, than you say well, and we acknowledge it.  
Your other 
c Pag. 2. 27.  Cause is, for that by death his body should want a while the feeling of God's presence. But did not Christ perfectly know that this was God's decree and certain appointment; yea his own most free will & purpose? And shall we imagine that Christ would expressly pray against that known will of his Father, yea against his own? Call you this 
d Pag. 2●  greater perfection in him then was in other men? Again, could this thing in any reason be such a horrible grief unto him, to have his flesh lie dead without pain for a day and a few hours, yet his Soul continually living and enjoying the comfort of God: and that for such an occasion as to procure thereby the Salvation of mankind, would the thought of this make him sweat blood for grief, and to need an Angel from, heaven to comfort him, and to pray 3. times vehemently that this Cup might pass from him? verily it is unreasonable to think so. Which Cause also, if it were true, is flatly contrary to your 
e Pag. 29●  own resolution. But of all these I wonder where you have found any inkling, that any of these may be believed to be the true and effectual cause of Christ's most dreadful Agony. You say excellent 
f As be 〈◊〉 have n●● pag. 28.  well, but by your practice in all matters so far as I see, you never mean to observe it: 
g Epist pa●  in God's cause let God's book teach us what to believe and what to profess: 
h Pag. 91  I love to follow and not to lead the holy Ghost. In matters of so great depth I dare not wade without or before my guide. Again 
i Pag. 41.  what I read in God's word, that I believe: what I read not, that I do not believe. Show me then where you read in God's word any or all these to be effectual Causes of this strange Agony, or some sure ground whence evidently we may gather so much: or else for my part I shall never beaver believe you.  
Your sixth and 
k Pag. 27. etc.  last main Cause is, that Christ by this his bloody sweat and vehement prayers did nothing but voluntarily perform that true bloody Offering and Priesthood prefigured in the Law. This we simply grant: it hindereth not our Assertion. Except you mean voluntarily in such sense that he was not also urged thereunto by any violence of pains or fear procuring it in him naturally. Wherein you seem to labour by bringing some Fathers, and misapplying some Scriptures, 
●ag 29.  and do say that a you are content to admit also (this) exposition, and of this, with all the rest you pronounce that b they are sound and well agreeing with Christian piety. 
●ag 37.  Yet is it contrary to c your resolution also: yea it is contrary to the Scripture, 
●ag 290.  expressing his d fear and vehement sorrows and e discomfort to have caused his Agony. 
●●●h 14. 〈◊〉. ●4. ●●b● 5.7.  Again if you mean that all this was voluntary in him and not felt indeed according to the outward semblance and as men beholding him would iudg●, 
Luc. 22.43  than belike you make him to have counterfeited. Which thought God for bid should ever come into any Christians heart. For no cause you say f I jest and iybe with the Apostles words: 
Pag. 302.  but I fear this is to jest and iybe in deed with the most dreadful and bitter sorrows of our Saviour in working for us our Salvation. And here why say you not aswell that his Death and bloodshed on the Cross showed in him no pains nor infirmity, but only that voluntarily he made himself there the true Priest, and performed the prefigured bloody and deadly Sacrifice for the sins of the world. As good reason altogether you have to say so, as to affirm it of his Agony. 
●ag. 29.  As for the Scriptures which g you cite, they prove in deed that Christ now executed his office of Priesthood: but will you" divide & exempt his Death on the Cross from his Priesthood? 
Or his ●ines and fit mity from there?  The sanctifying of himself doth it not as well intend and comprehend that Sacrifice on the Cross, as that of his Prayers in the Garden? To think otherwife is without all show of truth or reason, yet I see not why you should cite these texts, unless you meant so: neither can I see what else you mean, where you conclude, saying, Christ's Agony being alleged by the Apostle to demonstrat Christ's Priesthood, must not rise from the terror of his own death. 
●ag. 27.  And yet h a little before you openly do confess and grant, that his Agony did rise from the fear of his death, and that Christ had far greater cause than any of his members to fear it. Also it is contrary to your citing of Cyrill pag. 25. And here why should i Hilary deny that Christ's bloody sweat came of infirmity? 
●ag. 28.  Or k Austin, that his fear and perturbation was of infirmity? 
●ag. 25.  Surely there is no cause. For though it be against the common course of our Nature, for any pains or fear to sweat blood: yet the Divine power with and through pains and fears might wring out of his body that trickling bloody sweat. As it is plain that it did by the words next before in the text, 
a Luk. 2 44.  An Angel came to give him some comfort, that is, lest he should have been overwhelmed quite in his sorrow and discomfort: but still he was in his Agony, and sweat like drops of blood trickling to the ground: and presently saith, My Soul is full of sorrows even to death, and thrice he prayed that this Cup, and this Hour might pass from him. It cannot be therefore but that by Sorrows and Pains this sweat came: though also God's power caused it by laying upon his Soul and body invisible, supernatural, & unspeakable sorrows and horrors, and by making his flesh visibly to express in some sort this spiritual and extraordinary torment of pain and fear which he suffered. And in deed where they say, 
1 Not Infirmity but Po●●● did this.  Nec infirmitas, quod potestas gessit, that proveth the clean contrary: For Jdeo & infirmitas, quia potestas gessit. 
2 Therefore there wa● firmity, ●●cause th●●● was Pow●●  For the working of his Power in him argueth the suffering of his Infirmity: The power of God is pe●fited in infirmítie. And because it was above the course of nature, therefore nature was herein oppressed, not exempted from pains. Thus these speak fully for us and against you, that here appeared, not Christ's infirmity only in suffering, but his Divine power also in punishing. And this I judge in deed to be their very meaning. But those other mystical and figurative sayings of Austin, 
Pag 28. ●  Bede, & Bernard, how shall we admit them without better warrant? That Christ's bloodshed was to signify that Martyrs should shed their blood, what reason have we so to think? Or that his blood head should signify the purging of his Disciples hearts from sin, yea or of all his Church in the whole world? It did not signify this, but it did it in deed. Lastly, if it had th●se significations in it, yet withal his Agony might rise from his very Pains & Fear coming from the present sense of God's justice and wrath now revealed and working upon him.  
Hitherto we have made it manifest that in truth you have nothing in all these words against our doctrine, that Pains and sorrows were the true and proper cause of Christ's dreadful Agony: nor to prove that his mere bodily pains or death was the whole Cause. Now we are to show the like in his most we full Complaint on the Cross: where he saith My God, my God, 
Math 27.  why hast thou forsaken me? You will ask me here, what kind of Forsaking may this be? I showed you plainly 
* Treat 1. ● 6●, 65, 6●  before, if you had regarded it. Namely, that Christ being also now (yea specially) in the feeling of infinite Pains inflicted on him sundry ways, 
●●w Christ on 〈◊〉 Cross was forsaken of ●●●d. See also ●●●g. 112.113  and that directly from God's proper Wrath for our sins, he felt his whole human nature for the time left all comfortless and alone without any joyous assistance of his Deity. I say not, that he wanted now all assistanc of his Deity: for it surely would then have quite overwhelmed him with this intolerable burden. But his Godhead, as it were withdrawing and hiding itself from him for that season of his Passion, gave him no sense nor feeling of ease, comfort, or joy, but all the sense of sorrows and pains as well in spirit, as in soul and body, that might be: all the sense of his joy and comfort for the while being clean gone and wholly swallowed up in that huge & bottomless gulf of sorrows and pains issuing upon him out from the fierce Wrath of God. Howbeit yet even now he wanted not sufficient assistance of the Deity to sustain him in life herein, as I said. 
Phil. 2.7. Rom. 8.32. ●eut. 10 17. ●●c. 16.17.  This was that extreme humiliation and" exinanition of nature, wherein † God spared not his Son, and wherein also Christ spared not himself. For he undertook all this most willingly: and yet being in it naturally grieved and sorrowed for it, & at some moments being astonished with it, suddenly and naturally desired ease and release from it. This forsaking or dereliction beseemeth the time, place, person, and case of Christ our Ransompayer, and Purchaser of salvation with the price of his own most direful pains. 
Pag. 24. etc. ●●●r 6. Expositions of christs Cō●●aint, are all ●●●isse.  Not any other far fet, or hardly applied, or strangely devised by the brains of men. As in truth all those other senses hereof are, which" you rather embrace. They are 6. in number. The 1. is, that when Christ on the Cross cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, by this word me, he should mean His Church. For the which you have no reason in the world, but the bare names of Austin, Leo, Athanasius. Show me their reasons, 
See before ●ag. 28.29.  press not their authorities. Which" yourself also rejecteth, when you list: though when you list again they must be your best, yea your only reason. But even these Fathers if they be understood, 
Pag 79.  as * before I have showed Cyprians meaning to be: that Christ spoke these words, as doing now the part of the Surety of his Church, and as standing in the case of his Children whom now by his suffering pains he saved: then they agree just with our mind herein. For then doubtless it was for the infinite pains which now he felt in our steed, that he so cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Otherwise if you think they meant that Christ spoke this by some strange metonymy, naming himself but meaning his Church: that can have no good sense. For how can it be that we were forsaken of God when Christ was on the Cross. Nay, even there and then were we 
“ Act. 20  purchased unto God, not forsaken by God. Again your own rule is, which I like well, that no Figure is to be admitted in Scripture where there is no ill nor hurtful sense following literally. But I have showed a little before a plain, easy, and Christian sense hereof, taking it literally: that me signifieth Christ's own person namely his Manhood bearing now, as our Surety, intolerable pains inflicted by God's wrath upon him: and so he may mourn & sorrow that he was forsaken, that is left in unmeasurable pains with out feeling of any comfort or secure for the tyme. Wherefore neither you nor any of the Fathers ought to conceive that me here should signify not Christ properly, but the Church figuratively. What other construction you can make hereof, I can not discern. Finally, this 1. sense is contrary to your 2. and 3. following: also to your 5. and 6. senses. If either of these be taken as the true meaning of this place, it cannot possibly stand with the rest: although you allow them all, as by and by we shall manifestly see. Now than your sense, what is it? Even this, that Christ's human nature was left helpless to the rage of the jews; which is a kind of forsaking. This seemeth to come nearest indeed to your liking, by that which I observe in 
a Pag. 13  you. But as I said, this is directly contrary to your 1. sense, & to the rest following. Also 
b Hear 11.50.  before we saw how greatly Christ's sufferings specially on the Cross differed from such, as the godly do also suffer. Yea there is surely no reason nor show of reason, that Christ here should so mournfully and so uncomfortably complain that God had forsaken him, if it were only but for such distresses as the godly also do equally suffer at the hands of evil men. Seeing most of them at the hour of their martyrdoms do never utter any such show (as Christ here did) of a mind uncomforted. Where also note this well, that no godly man not Martyr did ever ascribe this forsaking of themselves to God in the time of their martyrdoms. For though then they are oppressed with greater violence of bodily enemies, yet they are assisted with far greater abundance of heavenly comfort, even in the midst of the pains of death. So that they never mourn nor complain at such extreme dealing, as Christ now did, when he said my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. Wherefore it is a great shame to imagine that Christ was less able to endure such a dereliction, or that he would thus complain and mourn for it only. 
Pag. 35.  The bare names again of c Austin, Ambrose, Hierom do here likewise no good. This is but a weak kind of reasoning for so learned a Divine as you are. Although also these very sentences of the Fathers I can easily admit, if they import no more than they seem: namely that these outward afflictions on the Cross were some cause (and that not small) of his complaint, always remembering that some greater cause also did concur & was conjoined with them. Your 3. sense if I conceive it a right is, that his being l●ft to bodily death caused him thus to mourn which is but as the last before. And yet you seem to mean not only that, but also because his d flesh now should want all feeling of his heavenly comfort for that while, 
●n that you 〈◊〉, His Godhead depar●● now from 〈◊〉 body, etc.  that it should remain dead. A marvelous exquisite & far fet cause. Yet me thinks, as this crosseth your other expositions here, so it is flat contrary to the Scripture also: which giveth after a sort to Christ's dead Flesh this lively affection, 
〈◊〉. 2.26.27  e my flesh shall rest in hope, because thou wilt not leave my soul to remain as all other flesh dying doth, in the unseen world of the dead, neither wilt suffer thy holy one to see corruption. Is it likely is it possible that he should so dolefully mourn that either he should bodily die, or that his body should want the sense of his divine presence so little a while, when as in his mind he speaketh so triumphantly of his constant and continual joy in God: yea not excluding even his body though dead from participating in some sort therein: as we read in the former place at large. I beheld the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I should not be shaken. Therefore did my heart rejoice & my tongue was glad, & moreover my Flesh shallrest in hope, etc. Now can a man in this exceeding general and constant joy so uncomfortably mourn, in that sense as you urge, My God my God, why forsakest thou my flesh? It cannot be. Many things more may be strongly alleged against this opinion. As first: seeing he perfectly knew thath as his flesh now should quietly rest, and have a present end of all his most bitter sorrows, so even all that while & continually after, his soul (which was his best part) should enjoy perfect glory and comfort more then before it did: Also seeing this senseless rest of his flesh was to be but for a very little while, & then presently to receive a most glorious and eternal felicity jointly with his Soul and with his Deity, who can imagine that Christ would (now ready to die) so extremely mourn and complain only for this cause, as your fancy importeth? Further he knew perfectly that this was the very appointment of God, and for the fulfilling of Prophecies, for the obtaining of his most desired purchase of our health, for the more advancing of God's glory, yea and for the more advancing of his very manhood also after so low humiliation. Finally it was his own most free and fore determined will. Would he then so mournfully grieve and complain thereat? It hath no reason, nor likelihood in it. 
john 1ST  Lazarus when he was returned from the joys of heaven to take again his rotten carcase ofter it stank having lain 4. days dead in the grave, yet he grieved not at it, neither ought he so to have done. Much less ought Christ so to grieve and mourn, for a lesser want and for a shorter season (as we may think) then that was to Lazarus. But this matter is not worth the speaking of 
“ See b● to this pu● pag. 10●  any further. Neither do your Fathers prove any such improbable, yea unlawful mourning & complaining in Christ. If they prove any thing towards your meaning, it is this, that he complained because of his bodily dying. Howbeit they say not that he thus complained only and merely for that: neither I think will you plainly hold this, neither do we deny the other. The truth is they mean he suffered in his whole human nature: 
How the ●●thers are 〈◊〉 taken.  & namely that he suffered not as God. They strove here with Haeretikes, whose controversies were far from this our question 
f Hilar. 〈◊〉 Trin▪ li. 〈◊〉  Hilary and 
g Epiph. 〈◊〉 Arioma 〈◊〉  Epiphanius wrote against Arius, to prove that Christ in this complaint showed rightly a human infirmity, and that this was not the voice of a Deity inferior to the Father, as Arius blasphemed. These Fathers than had no purpose here to exclude the sufferings of Christ's Soul, but only to deny that his Godhead suffered & complained as being left to punishment by his Father, when the sorrows of death began to prevail against him. The very same doth 
† In Ma●● can. 33. 〈◊〉  Hilary also where he saith that this in Christ was Corporis vox, the outcry of his body. He plainly meaneth it of his whole manhood, the opposition being between it and his Godhead: 
●reat. 1. ●●g 9  as the Scripture † often doth. And where he saith, he was morte peragendus, to be consummated by death: he meaneth that death ended all his suffering, not that he suffered nothing else but merely death. And if their words do any where come near to our question, 
●ertul. count ●●ax. ●●ila in Mat. ●●au. 33.  as it is very likely that h Tertulian and the one place of i Hilary doth, then surely they are plainly for us and against you. Tertullian pointeth in this place at certain Heresies maintained in his time wherwth it seemeth Praxeas was infected. 

1 That the Father suffered aswell as the Son when Christ suffered:  
2 That the Deity suffered:  
3 That Christ was no true nor perfect man.   All these points Tertullian overthroweth here, Quid de isto quaeris, etc. What inquire you of Christ? You here him crying out in his Passion, My God my God why hast thou forsaken me? The Son therefore suffered, being forsaken of his Father: but this is meant of the Flesh and of the Soul, that is of the Man, not of the Word nor of the Spirit. Hear it is plain that Tertullian showeth beside the rest, this point exactly, that Christ was a very man, in that he had a proper Body and a Soul, and that this his suffering on the Cross was in both these parts, and so in his whole & entire manhood. Also that he suffered in both these parts even from his Father. 
●eere pag. 63. ●at 1. pa 4  But he could not suffer in his Soul from † God, if he felt only and merely but a bodily death, as you hold. And to suffer the stroke of God's hand in his Soul as the proper vengeance of sin, is far more than to feel in Soul by sympathy only the body's smart. Neither had Tertull. overthrown but confirmed that Heresy of Christ's being no true natural man, if he had said, that in this case he suffered in Soul only by symphathy with and from the Body. But this is absurd to think in Tertullian. Therefore in this place he is flatly against you. And this Dereliction of his Father which he speaketh of, is Death indeed to the Son. But what death? Forsooth more than the separation of the Soul and Body. 
●at Death ●●e Soul in ●ist we ●●ne.  Even the separation of the Deity from the whole manhood: which is the death of the Soul. I speak here nothing but the Father's words, yea the Scriptures. Your own place of Epiphanius saith that now his Deity departed from his manhood. So saith your own Hilary also, Corporis vox contestata recedentis a se Dei dissidium. So saith Ambrose, Clamavit Homo Divinitatis separatione moriturus: The man Christ did cry being about to die by the separation of his Godhead. Again Sequestrata delectatione Divinitatis aternae taedio meae infirmitatis afficitur. The joy of his eternal Godhead being parted away, he was afflicted with the tediousnis of my infirmity. Hear the Fathers do show in deed that Christ died, but more than a mere bodily death: even the death of the Soul also. For what is the Separation of the Deity from his Soul else, but the death of the Soul. Howbeit note, I pray, that neither the Fathers, nor I do mean any Separating 1 of the union of 
a The D●● & Hum●●  both natures in Christ, nor the Separating 2 of any Holiness or habitual grace of God from his Soul, 3 nor the Separating of God's love from him, 
See befo●● pag. 10●  but the Separation of all comfortable feeling & assistance of the Godhead, in that he felt not any supporting of his Soul and Body now pierced thorough with the Pains which he felt inflicted by God. This Separation is meant, and it 
b Though haps th● thers d● this ph●● rarely.  may be called the Death of the Soul. For as it is 
c Psal ●●  life to the Soul to feel and to enjoy the glory of God: So it is death to feel the want and absence thereof utterly, and the rather being also then overwhelmed with incomparable pains. That heavenly life Christ tasted a little while in his Transfiguration: this Hellish Death he felt beside his bodily death upon the Cross. And thus Tertull. meaneth here that not Christ's bodily death only made him now thus to cry out, but that death also which was the Separation of his Godhead from both his body & Soul; which is the death of the Soul. And so he saith true: the Dereliction of the Father, is Death to the Son. Your 
d Pag. ●●●  4. Exposition for any thing I see may be granted: for it seemeth to be the same in effect that we hold. Your place of Cyrill seemeth also to concur: that Christ's words of complaint were the removing of the dereliction which had fallen on us. Was it removed from us? then surely it was laid upon some body else. Now that must needs be upon himself. Where you object Athanasius, 
Cont. A● Serm.  that He could not be forsaken of his Father, who was always in his Father. It is merely wrested: Athanasius speaketh against Arius also, that Christ's Deity could not be forsaken of his Father, seeing it is always in his Father: and so was not inferior to the Father, which was Arius heresy. Touching his humanity he denieth not but God might forsake it: For the Scripture saith so. And in deed he forsook it by causing in it the feeling of all Pains for sin, and by leaving it therein for a while all comfortless. Your 5. Exposition is Leos conceit without warrant, far fetched, hardly applied: tha● here Christ putteth us in mind why God doth often not hear our prayers, but provideth better for us then if our wills were satisfied: & that this is a mystical sense. 
●●g. 37.  a Origen also is here as weak: that Christ meaneth nothing else but that he was abased lower than his divine majesty. Also these senses be contrary to all the rest here observed. Your 6. and last also is likewise as contrary to the rest, and as improbable in itself (or more) then the former. That Christ here should cite the beginning of that b Psalm, 
●●al. 22.  only to show the jews that their wrongs towards him were Prophesied of before. This 
c Treat. 1. ●●g 66.  already I fully answered, which you refute not. Likewise where you say, 
●●g. 65. 66.  He sung the whole Psalm: it is d answered. Wherein moreover this is to be noted, that surely he now uttered no more of this Psalm but the 1. verse, Eli, Eli, Lamma sabachtham, For hereby the standers by imagined that he called for Elias. Therefore he sung not the Psalm. Your authorities are bare arguments. jerom bringeth no reason but his own word. Chrysostom, I see not what he saith to your purpose at all. Finally those kinds of Dereliction which you mention c besides, 
●●g 32. 33. etc.  are nothing fit than the former. Thus far I have waded in examing your sundry and variable expositions of one poor little plain sentence of Scripture. At least 6. or 7. diverse, yea contrary senses you have brought of a few words: 
〈◊〉 14.  & of them all you say, They are f all godly expositions, and † All these interpretations are sound, 
●●g 37.  and stand well with the rules of Christian piety. How sound and fit they are, it hath been seen. But verily you have a good head if you can reconcile all these: and make them stand together: and a very bad opinion of the holy Scriptures you seem to have, if you think they may be handled by interpretations and expositions thus, that a man may take them in 6. or 7. diverse senses and all justifiable. Your saying therefore, 
●●g. 113.  that g you have spoken before as much (to this matter) as may content any man that is not fastened to his fancies more than to to the truth, I omit as vain and frivolous.  
Now it resteth that I gather some reasons from the express Scripture, 
●●s for us  to show you that indeed very pains and the vehemency of sorrows, namely which he now sustained by way of yielding. Satisfaction and Sacrifice for sin, were the principal and only proper Cause of his most dreadful Agonies & Complaint. Which truly though it need no reason for proof of it, (the matter being so clear in itself) yet your unreasonableness is such that it draweth somewhat from me about it. First, No Christian doubteth (I suppose) much less denieth that Christ's most woeful Agonies & Complaining belonged properly and directly to his Passion and Sacrifice: and that they expressed a part thereof, yea as I think not the least part. But his whole Sacrifice consisted in Afflictions, The Prince of our Salvation was consecrated through Afflictions. Therefore Afflictions Sorrows and Pains were the Cause of his Agonies and Complaint: not his religious fear, not his Piety or Pity. If you say, These were Afflictions unto him. I answer, they properly belonged to his Holiness as parts thereof, and were not 
a Before p●● See also 〈◊〉 91. 9●.  immediately directly nor properly in him as the Wages & Price of sin: as his whole Passion was, and every part thereof. Again that these should, or could afflict Christ so much above his strength and patience, it is more than strange. Yea also it were no virtue but sin in any, to give way to our Affections (though about good things) immoderately beyond our patience & strength of nature. Lastly though they somewhat molest the mind, yet in truth they are most pleasing and delightful to good men, not tedious, much less painful unto death. Therefore you do very ill to make these parts of Christ's Holiness to be proper parts of his satisfaction, and the main Causes of his Agony and Complaint. And worse you do if you ascribe them 
b Pag. 27● & 115.  not to any Pains in him at all. Secondly, The sum of these 
c Pag 90.  forenoted Texts must be considered: namely that Christ expressly wished sundry times in his dreadful astonishment suddenly even against Gods known will in one respect, though always after his known will in another respect, as afterward we shall see. And here are expressed (with his strange Astonishment) his mighty Sorrows, and Fear of them, partly felt and partly further to come. You 
d Pag. 9. ●  skip this Fear when you reckon but 4. kinds: For this was neither a religious care, nor doubtful fear, nor desperate nor damned fear, but a right Natural fear in Christ. Which was as I said for the infiniteness of his sorrows partly now revealed, and partly further to be laid upon him afterward. Whence also his sweeting drops of blood trickling down from him, and his intolerable Agony, and his comfort received by an Angel from heaven that now in this his woeful discomfort ministered unto him: and his complaining on the Cross that his Father had forsaken him: finally all his prayers and supplications with tears and strong cries against that death which he feared. Now all these things we see in Christ, came because of his sorrows and Pains in his Passion, not for his zealous Holiness and Sanctification. 
●●●l 51.11.2.8.  David wanted sometime the present feeling of God's comfortable spirit, and mourned dolefully for the want of it, albeit yet he were not destitute of his spirit indeed: which also himself knew well enough. And thus did Christ even in his greatest plunge of woe: for than he called God his God resolutely. Nevertheless, he being infinitely more punished than David, nature could not but suddenly cast out that affection (which yet was merely natural in him) to wish ease, and release of his unmeasurable and intolerable pains. Third: Add here unto, Christ's own express words, 
joh. 12.27. ●ark 14.35  when in this season he prayeth, that a this Hour and This Cup may pass from him. That which This Hour and This Cup do signify, the same is the proper & principal cause of his Agony. But what can be meant by This Hour, unless the Pains of his suffering set and appointed by God for him to bear at this determined time from God's justice for sin? What is this Cup, but the bitter taste of the same Pains aforesaid? This I hope was not his Holiness and sanctification which so troubled and molested him: not his Piety nor his Pity. Nay, finally he himself expresseth the true Cause, even his excessive Pains, his overabounding Sorrows and anguish: saying, My Soul is full of pains or full of sorrows even unto death. Hear he nameth the Cause. For which Cause also, even of intolerable and unsupportable sorrows and pains it must needs be that he cried at his end, My God, my God, why hast thou for saken me? This then manefestly was the only proper and principal cause of Christ's most dreadful Agonies and perplexity in his Passion, even excessive Pains, and the entire want of feeling of God's comfort, 
Pag. 17.  and nothing else. How hard soever b you make it (I c know not why) to show the proper & principal cause thereof. 
Treat. 1. Pag. 72.  And here we will remember again what is taught by Authority in England. The rather for that you take on as a man impatient, because I do affirm that our doctrine, (not yours) hath the public Authority for it. 
Pag. 334.  You d call it an egregiously, an insolent and impudent speech, well becoming an alehouse. etc. And yet in the very next 
b Pag. ●●  page in plain terms you grant the same to be taught in our Homily of Christ's Passion: for you say thus the Hom: teacheth, The Justice of God pursued Christ with most painful smart and anguish even unto death: and forced the weakness of his human flesh to cry, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. Hear I am sure you think not that our Homely maketh Christ's Piety or Pity, nor yet his mere Bodily pain to force him thus far. Nor in those words next following there, 
c Hom ● Pass. 2.  O that Mankind should put the everlasting Son of God in such pains for the grievousness of our sins. And in truth that the Homily is far from both these your meanings, I have plainly showed 
d Pag. 6  before. Add hereunto the full and large declaration hereof in the authorized Catechism: 
e Now techis●●  Christ suffered not only a common death in sight of men, but àlso was thoroughly touched with the horror of eternal death: he fought and wrestled as it were hand to hand with the whole army of Hell: before God's judgement seat he put himself under the heavy and grievous severity of God's punishment: he was driven to most hard straits: he suffered for us and went through horrible fears, and moct bitter sorrows of the mind that he might in all things satisfy the just judgement of God & appease his wrath. For to sinners whose person Christ did here bear, not only the sorrows and torments of present death are due, but also of death to come and everlasting: So when he did take upon him and bear both the guiltiness and just pain of Mankind damned and lost, he was affected with so grievous fear, trouble and sorrow of the mind or soul, that he cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. Finally the Annotation of our great 
f Bibl. 1591. & ●  Bible authorized and appointed to be read in our Churches, justifieth all this saying, 
g Anno● Luk. 2●  Christ here felt the horror of God's wrath and judgement against sin. I pray, who is that Egregious liar now? I hope for my part I have spoken the truth in avouching my doctrine & that forenoted Proposition & Assumption also, by you denied, to be our public doctrine and fully authorized in England. Wherefore you may mean some other to be 
h Pag. ●●  a giddy Spirit lately buzzing in the people's ears the contrary: I hope I am clear from it. And thus it remaineth that we conclude even our whole Reason to be firm & true, which is 
i Pag. 9●  before delivered. The pains of Christ's Passion which now he felt and feared, were the principal and proper cause of those his Agonies. But his mere Bodily Pains and death, or the fear of them, caused no such things and lamentable effects in Christ: much less did his Piety and Pity. Therefore Christ felt and feared Pains more, and infinitely greater, then mere Bodily pain and death: which were the principal and proper Cause of this strange plight in him. Which consequently can be none other by necessary reason, than the Pains and sense of God's wrath in his spirit properly. Therefore Christ suffered that also: and not only in Body, as you hold.  
Howbeit you have yet here and there some exceptions against this our doctrine which are not to be clean neglected. First, you say, 
●ag. 290.  a I extend Ch●istes Agony too far: because I will have it proceed from b the intolerable sorrows and horrors of Gods fiery wrath equal to Hell. 
Treat. 1. ●●g 80.  I show not there the Cause of Christ's Agony and Fear: I showed it of purpose in the c beginning. Why did you not refuse that? 
Treat. 1. ●ag 6 7  You ought to have dealt directly against that which I expressly mention to have been the cause. Thus I said, His Sorrows and sufferings for the redemption of sins, The Cup of Affliction and sorrow which now he felt and was to feel yet further, Caused him to mourn and fear. Say then plainly, that this Cause is mistaken, and too far extended: or else you say nothing to us, but by indirect and preposterous collection. Now if this Cause which we gave and do give, be true and right, (as I hope it is before proved more than sufficiently) than I doubt not it is as true also by invincible reason, that Christ suffered the intolerable sorrows & horrors of Gods fiery wrath equal to Hell. Which I hope also is as fully proved: 
●●g. 91. 117  being the effect of our d Assumption before. Seeing it could not be his mere Bodily pains (much less his Holy Affections, as you hold) that brought him to this miraculous misery and distress, wherein we see by the Text he was. Therefore they were the intolerable and incomprehensible dolours of his Spirit (questionless) which wrought the same. There is no other sorrow in the world to be found which can be imagined to be the Cause possibly. 
●ag. 290.  And then my other words also which e here you cruelly condemn, shall stand well enough, * That Christ as touching the vehemency of pain was as sharply touched as the reprobates themselves, 
●reat. 1. ●●g. 81.  yea if it may be more extraordinarily. Though you labour with might and main to make them amount to Heresy & open blasphemy. But why do you not bend your odious outcries and accusations against that Authority before truly cited, which maintaineth the same so fully and amply as I deliver it? You do wisely to dissemble your enmity to all them, and yet nevertheless by me to smite and wound them. Howbeit what reason have you against our Assertion? Verily only this you oppose, because 
a Pag. 29 292.  all the sorrows of the Reprobat are but sinful guiltiness of conscience or fears of judgement for seen, which is executed 
b Pag. 14  only in the next life: you mean only in the definite and local Hell. Which yet is no refutation of my assertion, that Christ was as sharply touched with pain as the very reprobates. For though the wicked in this world did never suffer any real effect of God burning wrath working actual vengeance on their Souls for sin, but only some guilty remorse or fear and nothing else, yet this letteth not but that Christ whom God ordained extraordinarily, & alone, to be in this life a whole and absolute  Sacrifice for all sin, did feel and suffer the same truly, properly, and perfectly. Sec: How I have always expressly excluded from 
c As being Extraoro●●●●ry sufferer●●●  Christ 
† Likewise 〈◊〉 those your 〈◊〉 things 〈◊〉 Hell pag. 49. The Rept●●● bats do sometime here 〈◊〉 a real taste 〈◊〉 Hell pains  all sinful adherents or consequents in pains and fears, which are in the wicked: and do resemble his to theirs only and merely in sharpness and vehemency of pain, I have often declared before. Thirdly, the case is clear enough that the Reprobat many times in this life do not only fear the judgement to come, but also do feel some real and actual impression of God's burning wrath, and even of Hell torments, though not being yet in the local Hell. For proof whereof, that which before 
d Treat 1. pag 46.  I alleged out of 
e job 6.4.  job, and 
f Eph. e. 6. ●● 16. jon. 2.  others, that even the godly here want not experience of the sorrows of Hell sometimes, you pass over answering nothing thereunto. Which yet being so in the godly, it must needs be in Cain, judas, and the reprobates, far more direful & intolerable sometimes. As also their own confession, and behaviour do sundry times testify in this life: Again the Devils are many times 
g Mat. 8 2● 32. Eph. 2. & 6.12.  out of the local Hell, as when they are in this world. But the Devils are 
h 2 Pet. 2. 4●  never released of Hell sorrows. Therefore the true sorrows of Hell are even in this world: and then possibly may be inflicted on wicked men as they are on the Devils which are sometime out of the local Hell. Lastly the true joys of Heaven may be out of the local Heaven: as when the glorious Angels have been and tarried some while here on earth with men. Yet did they never for a moment want the joys and glory of Heaven. And if Angels may enjoy Heaven really being in this world, 
●●●e Godly ●ay have a ●●t here some ●●nes of Heavenly joys.  then is it possible by God's goodness to communicate some real foretaste thereof even unto some blessed men also. Further that God doth thus indeed i reveal some real taste of his Heavenly joys to his chirdrens even in this life, I have k showed already, but am not answered. 
Cor. 2.9.10. Treat. 1. pag. 80  Yea the Transfiguration of Christ on the Mount declareth that some real part of Heavenly glory may be here on earth, 
Pag. 115.  which yourself l somewhere confesseth clean m against yourself. 
Pag. 337. 338.  Only this n you have to object touching men, that we here do but hope and joyfully believe. 
Pag 338.  Now faith and hope is the o evidence of things not seen: 
Hebr. 11.1.  neither are our greatest joys the same nor equal to them which we shall possess in the next world. I answer, our Reasons before do prove more than only Hope in the faithful sometimes. Sec: It is true the Apostle saith that here we walk by faith and live by hope. 
Cor. 5.7.  This is the general state of the godly in this life: also it is spoken in Comparison of the life to come, which in truth infinitely exceedeth, & lasteth. Yet some rare exceptions do not overthrow the general course: and here may be notwithstanding some particular instant times when some real sense may be revealed to the godly. 
sesame in ●ature, not in ●easure, wt●albe heere●ter.  As there was unto Christ in the mount, which was to him not only a joyful hope, but a real taste of his very Heavenly joys. Likewise the godly sometime may taste of it in their measure, & yet they may generally in the course of their whole life walk by faith, without that actual sense which I speak of, saving still a most joyful remembrance of it. Again, though we are not to doubt but that the real sense of Heavenly joys here and hereafter are the very same in nature (as in the examples before we have seen) yet I say hereafter we● shall receive unspeakable increase farther and above this that we taste here. 

1. When we shall have all darkness & corruption taken from us, wherewith now we are compassed and clogged all this life long.  
2 When the fullness of Gods appointed time shall come for it, then will he of purpose reveal himself and his glory unto us as it were with open face, which here is done but under a veil: and specally then when our bodies also in the Resurrection shallbe conjoined with our souls in glory.  
3 When we shall eternally enjoy and possess the same, which here in this life is but now and then revealed unto us, in such persons, times, manner, and measure as the Lord shall think good.   Thus we grant the joys of Heaven here, are nothing equal to those hereafter: only we say the very same in nature may be and are by the effectual working of God's gracious spirit in his elect revealed in some measure, & sometime, even in this world. Neither is this (as your charity speaketh) any lewd or wicked error. Now than if more than Hope only, even Heavenly joys may be on earth, surely it followeth; that like wise more than Fear, even Hellish pains themselves may be in men on earth also, and not in the local Hell only. And if Hell pains in this world may be in any, much rather may they have been in Christ: whom God purposely sent 
a Hebr. 2.  through pains and afflictions (the extremest that might be) to be consecrated the Prince of our salvation. If you say, yet thus it will follow that the extremest pains of Hell are not to be found in this world, as the highest joys of Heaven are not likewise, by my confession. Wherefore Christ could not be so extremely punished (any thing near) as the damned be in Hell, no not for any moment: which yet my, conceit (as you call it) doth reach unto. I answer, I know not, neither mean I to determine the measure and depth of sorrows which Christ in his Passion suffered: as also it is not possible to define that glory which he tasted of (for the time) in the mount. Only grant this plainly, that Christ suffered in his soul the true effects of Gods proper justice or wrath: and we seek no more. Grant this I say, and then we will see further (if you will make it a question) whether the sense of pain in Christ was lesser for the time, then that which is eternal in the damned: and whether the true and proper wrath of God taking full vengeance of sin here in this world, might not be as sharp and violent as the sharpest torment in Hell, yea the very shame which is in Hell the sharpest. Truly, though Christ suffered all (which he did suffer) here in this world, yet for any thing I can see, there is cause why Christ should be an Extraordinary person in the case of Suffering for sin in this life: and that therefore, as touching sorrow and pain, he might feel more than ever any else hath or could feel for the time. You seem to grant unto Christ 
b Pag. 2  all natural sorrow and fear. Neither do we seek any more. But you trust the pain of the Damned is more than a natural oppressing and afflicting of the heart with human fear & sorrow. Forsooth it is not. It is no more than a very natural human sorrow & fear. It proceedeth immediately and principally from God himself: who is the Nature of natures. Also human nature is apt to receive such sorrow & fear from him. Thus the very pains of the Damnedare merely natural. Yet supernatural I grant they are, if we mean this, that they are above our nature's state to bear or to comprehend them. This therefore hitherto is a very slight exception against our doctrine before delivered.  
The next is as vain, 
Pag. 296.  where a you think it not tolerable that I say, 
Treat 1. ●ag 59  Christ b in plain words prayed contrary to Gods known will. I pray have patience: I say no harm, nor mean no ill. Did not Christ in plain words pray, 
●●aek. 14.35  c That, if it were possible this Hour might pass from him: 
joh. 1●. 27.  and before, d Father; save me from this hour. By this Hour he meaneth this his pain & punishment appointed him by God for to suffer at that time. And this Christ knew well, seeing he saith presently, But therefore I came into this hour. Doth he not then pray in plain words contrary to Gods known will? Therefore never scoff at it, nor reproach it, nor wrest it. We ought not to be ashamed to acknowledge that weakness of human nature in Christ, which Christ was not ashamed of for our sakes to undergo. If this could not be possibly in Christ's Manhood without sin, than I were a wretch to affirm so much of him; especially still to affirm it. But if it be possible by any means, thorough the mere instinct of man's Nature, (as it is God's creature and free from all sin) thus to speak and to wish suddenly, and suddenly to control it again, as Christ did: then what mind bear you, and how may we judge of this your striving, which is not to clear Christ from all sin in his Agony. For that we do all, and Nature itself witnesseth with us that in such a case as he now was in, this was nothing strange to be thus perplexed, & moved. But your striving seemeth to be altogether to exempt Christ-man from our mere natural affections and infirmities: and to give him human flesh indeed, but not such as ours is in all and every point, except only sin. You will say, If he knew it to be Gods will and prayed against it, how could he want sin? I answer, He knew it; but at this instant he considered it not, he thought not on it: and so his sudden desire may be clear from sin. But why thought he not on it? or how could he choose but think on that which he well knew, and did so greatly concern him? I answer, His Pains and sorrows being so great and so infinite as they were, not in his Body only but chief in his very Spirit and Mind, and these more extremely revealed upon him now at these instant times, than they were otherwise or continually, as by the effects of them in him we may perceive. I say, these things acknowledged & well weighed as they ought to be, than it is easy to show why, & how Christ came thus affected, & yet without sin. First, he was now 
a Ekthamb istha●, is to astonished v●●eare. Ma●. 1●. 33.  astonished as the text saith: and you 
b Pag 124.  acknowledge that he might be. Sec: these incomprehensible sorrows & incomparable pains astonished him: yea impossible it was but his mere human nature must be astonished with them. And it is utterly untrue which you say, 
c Pag. 196.  Many things might astonish our Saviour for the time besides such pains. In these instant times of his Passion, nothing could astonish him but Pains and Sorrows. which before 
d Pa. 115. 1●  I have proved, or at least that Pains & Sorrows now did chief: & that nothing could possibly without such Sorrows and Pains as these, which I speak of: even spiritual, and infinite, and incomprehensible pains, proceeding from God's justice upon him for our sins. Thirdly, Add hereunto that which you rightly grant, 
c Pag. 12●.  It is true that a mighty fear may so affect a man for the time, that it shall hinder the senses from recovering themselves, and stop the faculties from informing one the other. But this must be some sudden object astonishing the heart, and so terrible, that it suffereth us not presently to gather our wits together, and to consider of it. Likewise very fully afterward, 
f Pag. 29●.  Astonishment draweth the mind so wholly to think on some special thing above our reach, that during the time we turn not ourselves to any other cogitation. Even as the eye, if it be bend intentively to behold any thing, for that present it discerneth nothing else: So fareth it with the Soul, if she wholly addict herself to think on any matter, she is amused; if it be more them she conceaveth, or more fearful than she well endureth, she is amazed or astonished: but not of necessity so, that she looseth either sense or memory: only for that time she converteth neither to any other object. Now thus Christ being astonished with sorrows and fear lost not either sense, memory, or understanding, much less his virtues and graces, being cast into an infernal confusion, as you untruly 
g Pag. 289.  charge me that I say. But I say, as you say, He now on the sudden might turn neither sense nor memory to any other object, and so not think on any thing else, but only on this terrible and mighty sorrow & fear, which now smote him & bruised him to pieces. And thus for the very sudden he might not think at all upon God's will, and his own certain purpose to suffer this very same, or that he was to suffer it longer: but only on the intolerablenes of the pains and woe, which instantly he felt. Now Nature's very instinct is, in such dolours to wish and desire ease, and the more vehemently it is pinched, the more earnestly it desireth: and this is God's own gift and workmanship in nature, and simply thus to desire, is in this respect truly to be reckoned Gods own express will. And thus for the sudden not remembering, nor thinking on God's particular will otherwise, but feeling the instinct of nature in such a case only wishing ease to itself, he prayeth rightly That this Hour & This Cup might pass from him. Wherein yet I say he prayeth in one respect against Gods known will, but in an other respect even according to his will. According to his will which now he had sense of, even to wish release & ease from such deadly sorrows and fear: contrary to his particular will being this that he must yet further suffer them. Which (as I said) suddenly being astonished he remembered not, he thought not upon it. Lastly it was contrary in the outward words, & in the particular affection of his mind now wanting this remembrance: but it was fully and wholly according to Gods will in the general disposition of his mind and whole man. As appeared by his present applying himself with all readiness even to this most dolorous obedience of God's will, forthwith so soon as he recollected himself: saying Not my will, but thy will be done. Where even this also showeth, that before Gods will and his in some respect were contrary, but absolutely now they agree. If you abhor this in me, yet see what Chrisostom taught, a These words (Not as I will, but as thou wilt) do signify 2. Wills, (saith he) one of the Father another of the Son, 
joan Constantinop in Theodoret. Dial. 3.  contrary the one to the other. Igraunt M. Beza useth some terms differing from ours, yet his sense is the self-same with ours. 
Bez. Annot. 〈◊〉 mat. 26.  He said b Christ corrected not his speech as if he had before spoken amiss. I say, He did correct his speech: not mending it as being any whit amiss, but making it being good to be better. That is by showing his general conformity to Gods will now more particularly, and distinctly. Which sentenses in effect and indeed do not differ: and this latter, I think, may well be called a correcting, no less than the former. Also he saith, The human and Divine will are not Contrary, but Divers. I understand even Differing from Gods will, to be Contrary. Namely in that particular respect wherein the difference is. For otherwise now there may be a general perfect conformity to Gods will, as is before said. Neither is this particular contrariety to Gods will any sin, namely when by Gods own ordinance we know not what Gods special will is, so that we always remain apt & ready thereunto when we know it. So did David 
* 2 Sam. 1 16.  desire the life of his Child. It was contrary to Gods will one way: as the event showed, for the Child died. Yet he prayed well and rightly according to God will in nature's affection, seeing he knew not God's secret will to the contrary, neither was to have known it before the event. And thus likewise stood the case with Christ at this season. His sudden Not remembering Gods particular will (by reason of his fearful astonishment) was all one as if he had not known it at all (yea thus also he ought not to have known it) for that instant. Namely, seeing this Not remembering and not thinking thereon came not of any negligence or default in him, but only and merely by Nature's infirmity (Gods own ordinance) which could not possibly but fail under such infinite violence of pains. This M. Beza calleth Divers rather then Contrary to Gods will: but in effect it is the same, and he plainly meaneth even there all one with us. You say 
“ Pag. ●●  I am captious against Christ in not supplying one Evangelist with another. For so Christ's desire will appear to be but Conditional, therefore not Contrary to Gods will. Yes, nevertheless; as touching the desire itself and his particular present inclination compared to God's particular determination herein. And so was also david's forenoted desire for his child's life: yea Balaams' 
* Numb●● 19  bad desire was such in this point. These were all Conditional, yet contrary to God's particular will. Herein stood the difference: Balaam then knew God's will was otherwise, at that time when he inclined after his own mind. David simply knew not, Christ also knew not (that is, he remembered not) at that instant the contrary. Therefore Balaams' desire though Conditional and with reservation (as it seemed) of God will, was nevertheless wicked and against God: his conditional words excused not the opposition of his Will against Gods Wil Yea, in this case when we perfectly know and remember Gods certain will, every light affection and sudden wishing to the contrary, (howsoever conditionally) is no less than manifest sin against God. But in David and Christ here the case is not so, as before I noted. Their desires indeed were, & aught to have been conditional: for who knoweth not, that all good prayers and desires for temporal things must be conditional, that is with reservation of Gods will always implied, though not always expressed? And albeit they were conditional yet they might be and were contrary, as also I have showed. Yea the very nature of all Conditional desires is such, that it includeth evermore a possibility (at least) of being contrary to his will, whom we desire. And therefore we use sometime expressly to qualify our desire, saying, If thou wilt, and If it please thee, etc. Now thus was david's and Christ's: yea not only possible to be contrary, but contrary indeed, as the sequel showed. Howbeit both their desires were nevertheless holy, 
●ag. 298.  † made in faith, assured to receive, (as condicional desires may be) directed aright, prepared sufficiently: yet only for this cause, seeing David simply knew not God's contrary will: Christ knew it not at that instant. Howbeit the truth is, Christ could not but now know and remember it very well, if he were not at this instant grievously astonished. Neither could he be so astonished and woefully distressed in his Soul, without that intolerable and infinite weight of sorrows before spoken of. Therefore briefly, so it was doubtless with him at that season. All in vain than you charge me that I" streth the Scriptures beyond their words and the truth, 
●●g. 289.  when in my discourse I show that Christ in the garden was astonished & grievously perplexed: the text having only, He began to be astonished and grievously perplexed. I grant the text is so. But think you, that phrase in Scripture signifieth a begging only, & no further proceeding at all? It is written, 
●●rk. 6.34.  a He began to teach them many things. Also, b And jesus answered them and began to say, 
〈◊〉. 13.5.  Take heed lest any man deceive you, 
〈◊〉. 10.45.  etc. And c He began to cast out them that sold in the Temple, 
〈◊〉 1.1.  etc. And d All that which jesus began to do and teach. 
〈◊〉. 24.2  And, e Tertullus began to accuse Paul, saying, etc. It were very simple to say that the Scripture meaneth these things were only begun, and no more. Nay verily, they were here done to the full. Again, as Christ was indeed astonished & grievously perplexed, so he did at the first but begin to be thus, and then afterwards grew to the full. Now these degrees and proceed of Christ in his sorrorwes, & that they were not at the highest at once, this word here he began may very well signify. For the text following doth invincibly show that he did fully come to the extremity of astonishment, & began not only. For did he but begin when he sweat clotted blood trickling from his body to the ground? Also when an Angel was sent from Heaven to refresh and comfort him: did he then but begin to be heavy? Again when most moornfully he complained that his Soul abounded with sorrows even unto death: Finally when he 3. several times prayed to his Father with strong crying, tears, and fear, that the Cup of God's punishments now given him to drink, might pass from him if it were possible, which at other times he most perfectly knew that it neither could nor should escape him: whereunto may be added that at last when he so dolefully complained that his God had forsaken him; was he now all this while but beginning to be troubled and sad? You would have mademe ashamed of it, if I had had any such thought in my mind. Wherefore the text is no way abused as you pretend in that after he began, I show from these places that he grew to be mightily astonished & grievously perplexed. As for jerom, if he deny this, I must crave leave to dissent from him. I bring (you say) 
“ Pag. 29●  a farthel of phrases to express his Agony, he was amazed, astonished, forgetful, distempered, overwhelmed, and all confounded in the powers of his soul, and senses of his body? Yea, and I think all to little sufficiently to express our Lords sufferings for us. All those words which I used and many more cannot show all that unspeakable vehemency of Sorrow, which now cast him into such a plight. So far of it is, that 
* Pag. 28  I do the Lord of glory wrong: when I labour but to show how he loved us, and to what baseness of our nature he submitted himself for our sake. For all these are but mere effects of nature's infirmity, if it be oppressed with any infinite sorrow & fear. Seeing then Christ might be and was now thus infinitely afflicted (as we have showed) why should we fear to acknowledge extreme Effects in him, where we have extreme Causes. Nay, God forbidden that we should rejoice in any thing so much, neither can we praise & magnify him for any thing so highly, as we may & aught for this extreme" abasing of Christ for us. 
〈◊〉 Pilip. 2. ●.  Remember your own words out of Austin: that there is in some men Insipiens honorisicentia, a fond intent of honouring Christ. If there be any such, surely this is one point thereof which you maintain. Mr Calvin, a worthy Minister of Christ, 
●alvin ●ath. ●6.  and a pillar of the Church, is bold and saith: Fatemur certe hanc esse crucis stultitiam quae scandaloest superbis hominibus. We confess indeed such is the baseness and folly of Christ's Cross, that proud men cannot away with it. In another place where I showed from the more to the less, 
●eat. ●. pa. 57  how Christ might have (for the sudden) the powers of his mind astonished, and yet no decay in him of faith, nor of obedience, nor of patience, nor of love; like as there is not in a man benumbed & bound in his senses more than Christ was; namely in a man a sleep or amazed with a violent blow on the head. For thus any reasonable man would have conceived me: seeing who would imagine that I thought Christ now to be altogether so without sense as one that sleepeth or that lieth in a swoon? Hereupon you ask me skoffingly, 
Pag. 299.  a was Christ a sleep, or in a swoon? b cast into a trance, 
Pag. 120.  or c in a fit of a Lethargy. But what I do think of Christ's Agony I have said before. 
Pag. 121.  Indeed, as d you grant that amazedness and Astonishment cometh naturally from sorrows and fears: and that, 
Pag. 293.  both in these causes and effects there be diverse degrees: so I think in Christ both the one and the other was in the extremest and most violent degree that might be. And therefore no marvel though his Astonishment were far greater, than is to be seen in any man else that ever was or shallbe. The Lord made Solomon to excel all others in e wisdom, 
1. Chro. 1.12.  and riches, and treasures, and honour, so, that there hath not been the like among the Kings which were before him, neither after him shall there be the like. Of Christ (I judge) we may altogether as truly and as fully say, that the Lord made him so subject to infirmities & to suffering of sorrows that there hath not been the like among men which were before him, neither after him shall there be the like. And yet none of those your former imputations are true. 
Pag. 300.  But f for my life I cannot answer this that followeth, All that Christ suffered was and must be meritorious with God. The suffering of Hell pains which astonish and confound all the powers of the Soul and senses of the Body, neither was, nor could be meritorious with God. Therefore Christ suffered not such pains as did astonish and confound his bodily senses, and powers of his Soul. I deny your Assumption. Not only all Christ's pains were meritorious, but even all his very infirmities also: his weariness, his hunger, his sleep, and so his astonishment & amazedness (being in him but a mere natural weakness and infirmity) was exceeding meritorious in him and highly accepted with God. Man hath his mere infirmities all agreeable to Gods will: but Christ directly and properly glorified God in and by them more than can be uttered, I say, in every point whatsoever of his human infirmity and baseness, whereunto he humbled himself. If it seem a hard phrase which in my former Treatise I used, saying Christ at this instant became forgetful of that which before he knew: my meaning is (and so still I speak now) he remembered not, he considered not. Which many times we use to name forgetting: but indeed strictly and properly it is rather not remembering. Where you would 
h Pag. 296.  wring out a contrariety in my words, as if I had said: That Christ being in the depth of his astonishment did then perfectly know that the dominion of death should not hold him: you do me wrong, I say not so. In that place I argue from your supposition, that if Christ were now not astonished, but in his perfect memory and full considering of such things (as you seem to affirm, but I deny) which otherwise he knew well, than it could not be the Dominion of death that he thus feared, sith in his firm estate he knew perfectly that it should not prevail over him. To conclude this matter: thus we may see how without colour of reason 
i Pag. 297.  you wrest a plain text, which otherwise taken (as it lieth) maketh strongly against you. They are our Saviour's Christ's own words, 
k joh. 12.  Now is my soul troubled: & what shall I say? Father save me from this hour: but therefore came I unto this hour. You say these words do import a Deliberation of 2. parts. But you speak against all reason, considering the nature and frame of the very words. A Deliberation must needs be set interrogatively in both clauses, thus: What shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? Now the text is not so: it pretendeth a plain resolution, or at least a great inclining toward resolution, thus: Father, save me from this hour. It can not be a Deliberation. Chrysostom and Epiphanius do descant about it, trying how the text may bear such a meaning: but it cannot stand being so evidently against the course of the text. 
Chrysost. ●●b; Lacet turbatio d●●e●e 〈◊〉 serva●●●● contrari●●● tamen ●●●o.  You say, S. john beer speaketh of another time and place. What then? Yet he may speak of the same matter, namely of his Passion, or of a Foretaste thereof. Which indeed the text itself m showeth that he did speak of. Wherefore neither can we deny, 
●oh. 12.31. ●. 33. & all titers heer●pon.  but this place of Scripture (even as the other about his Praying in the Garden) doth surely confirm that his Passion was more than mere bodily, which did so miraculously terrify him. It could be no less than the pains of the infinite wrath of God upon his Soul. Hence also I reasoned effectually n before, 
Treat. 1. pa. 1. 63.  but no where you answer it; If Christ's such sufferings in his Soul were ordained of God for him, then most certainly indeed he did suffer the same. Now we see such sufferings were ordained for him: seeing he saith, but therefore came I unto this hour. Therefore most certainly indeed he did suffer them, at one time or other.  
Yet further you except, 
Pa. 22 23. ●oo, etc.  where you avouch that this was a Fear of Eternal death and Everlasting damnation which caused in Christ this Agony: and from his fear he was delivered. Ergo, he suffered not that which he feared. First I grant indeed this was the 2. Death, the death of the soul, or Hell torments which Christ here b feared: neither can this by any means be denied, as anon we shall see. Howbeit to say (as you do) that it was Eternal death and Everlasting malediction which here Christ thus woefully & distresfully feared, is the strangest speech in Divinity that ever I heard. See: you can not help you self in making Christ's fear of this Death to be only a c religious fear, 
Pag. 23.  & d a fear for others. These imaginations I have removed e before. 
Pag 304.  Every Reader will easily see in his own judgement that these affections so vehement were not likely at this season, 
Pag 93 94. etc.  nor likely in him at all, much less likely to be Causes of such Effects. Again these are not Fear properly: they ought rather to be called (as they are) a religious Care, Commiseraetion and pity. Which differ greatly from the nature of Fear properly taken, such as we ought to conceive in this place. 
Pag. 305.  You think the f nature of eulabia will not admit any proper Fear, & namely no perplexed Fear, as I take it here to signify: but a careful & diligent regard to beware and decline that which we mislike or doubt. What say you? Did Christ doubt Eternal Damnation, and therefore Feared it? you speak so darkly, that I know not how to take you. But it may be you mean he himself misliked it only, and was sorry for others who ran headlong into it. But all this still is nothing else save Piety in him properly: yea and so you say this cometh nearest to the signification of the Greek word. I grant it doth touching Eulabia: but in Mark the 
a l●ktham● ber●tha●.  word doth import properly Fear, and that in extremity. Again touching Eulabia; my reason that here it signifieth Fear properly, yea a perplexed fear, and not not only a religious devotion as you say, is grounded not so much on the nature of the word, as on the Circumstances and the other words of this Text: 
* Heb. 5.7  Christ in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from Death, and was heard in that which he feared. Hear these other words do show that this Fear was more than a careful regard to beware that which he misliked: it was no less in deed then a perplexed and troubled fear woefully dreading that which he was to suffer. Which also the strange and wonderful signs thereof in the Garden do more than confirm: as I have showed 
b Pag. 11● 116. 127  often. Thus my meaning is that the nature of eulabia admitting the sense some time of Fear properly, admitteth here this sense, yea of necessity it must admit it for the reason noted above. Howbeit I grant the Apostle may intend this also by the nature of this word, that Christ notwithstanding all this dreadful fear, yet (being merely natural in him) it declined not a jot from Piety nor from a most reverend regard of obedience to God, which still in all this his perplexity he kept firm and safe. This he may withal (I grant) insinuat: yet the other proper fear & grievous dread must needs be admitted. To like effect this word signifieth in that place of the 
c Act. 23.  Acts: as the Circunstances there also will confirm. Now than this being in Christ a proper and most vehement fear: where you argue Christ was delivered from his fear of Hell torments or the Death of the Soul. Ergo he suffered them not. I deny your sequel. This proveth directly the contrary. He feared the Death of the Soul; specially he thus feared it. Ergo he did suffer it. For Fear being of that which is to come, as 
d Pag. 30●  you well observe. Ergo seeing Christ feared (yea in such manner) the Death of the Soul, it surely came unto him: namely either now, or before he died in the flesh, or both now & then also. For he might well suffer it even now, and yet fear it more ensuing. Yea such a manner & measure of Fear, as this manifestly was, could not be but a very Suffering of these spiritual sorrows. Which also that showeth where he saith, My Soul is full of (actual) sorrows even unto death, etc. Neither is there in this any a doubt full word, 
Pag. 304.  which is your manner of writing: 
Pag. 296.  nor b device unfit for Divinity, but your Comparisons of c fearing Captivity, 
Pag. 301.  losing a purse, etc. are very unfit to be matched with this fear in Christ. 
Pag. 302.  You think this was but a d jest, if God be said to have heard Christ and delivered him from that he feared, and yet to let him suffer it. Forsooth no jest: for he doubtless suffered it as before we have seen. Now nevertheless GOD might well hear him 2. ways: 1. by sufficient sustaining him in it: 2. by delivering him out of it in due time: In one place you seem to observe a point both strange, and very contrary to yourself, 
Pa. 118. 119  in saying, e Fear is more intolerable in Christ than doubting. Is fear so intolerable a thing for him, when as you have so often and so earnestly affirmed that he feared, 
Pa. 22. 124.  and for f fear became thus astonished? 
Pag. 303.  Where * you seek a weak advantage in that I said eisakoustheiss may seem to show that Christ was heard being in that which he was saved from: you see I challenge no certain but a seeming reason from that word. But yourself maketh a stranger conclusion. Ergo the Active referred to God importeth that God being in the same Pains did hear him. Lastly you say, g Indeed but in the Garden Christ never prayed with strong cries & tears to be saved from Death, 
Pag. 22:  that we read in the Scriptures. I hope neither do you read expressly in the Scriptures at all, that thus he prayed in the Garden. You may sound gather it from the Scriptures, I grant, 
joh. 12.27.  and so you may, that his praying h before was of the self same nature and manner, also after in that most doleful complaint on the Cross, when he cried My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. Where the very like request is plainly implied, as he made in the Garden when he said; Let this Cup pass from. 
jeb. 5.7.  So that the i Apostle in all reason may be understood to have respect to all these times and woeful cries of our Saviour Christ. 
Pag. 30.  And thus it is without all reason that you say k his Agony ended in the Garden: 
Pa. 115. 116  and that on the Cross he had l always persistence in joy without obscuration or intermission. Likewise also that otherwise his astonishment must 
a Pag. ●●  continue 18. hours from his entering into the Garden after supper to the ending of his life the next day at 3. of the clock after noon. How vain is this consequence? how false are these sayings, and contrary to Scripture in all the circumstances. But you say, 
b Pa. 30.  the cause continuing, the effect could not cease. The Cause was, Gods leaving his weak nature in these sorrows at sometimes more, at sometimes less: also he is to be thought to reveal and inflict the very sorrows not always in one tenor, but sometime more sometime less: finally his Manhood apprehended these arrows of God's wrath sometime more suddenly, then at other times. These were the true causes of his Astonishment: but these continued not 18. hours together, therefore the effect was not to continued still in that manner on him. Then you 
c Pag. 29  say, in the uttering of these words the Cup did pass from him, by my own confession. I confess it not. But I confess his extreme astonishment did even quickly pass from him: yet the sense and taste of that Cup might continue longer, in such a manner and measure, as he was better enabled by his Deity to sustain it. Now what ill is there in these conceits, I pray you. What folly is there in them? Against us herein you do nothing else almost in your large Treatise, 
Injurious s●eache●  but heap up many and most false imputarions: That we think Christ was in 
d Pag. ●●● 116. 1ST  doubt and fear of God's favour, 
e Pag. 1ST  destitute of faith, hope, love, joy, forsaken of God's favour, grace, Spirit: that 
f Pag. ●●●  he continued 18. hours together amazed as it were in a trance: that he 
g Pag. ●●●  vehemently and often struggled and strove in his prayers against the known will of God, & sought by all means to decline the work for which he came into the world: His flesh feared death, though his Spirit submitted itself to the will of his heavenly Father: 
h Pag. ●●  We put Christ besides himself when it pleaseth us, that he knew not what he prayed, nor prayed in faith. Your L. if you had reasons but any thing probable, wanteth not outward means enough to commend your cause: you need not to devise against us such gross and base untruths. But it bewrayeth how desperate your matter is, which can not come forth nor make any show to the world, without such props to lean on. Besides that which here in several places we have declared to the contrary, in our 
i Pag. 5● 70. 71.  former Treatise we showed our mind though briefly, yet sufficiently against these injurious speeches. How you seem to avouch that Christ was by God forsaken in a Body, 
〈◊〉 114.116. ●●2. 103. ●●ore 〈◊〉.  but not in b Soul, let them declare that can. For my part I know not your secret therein. I am sure no man can in truth maintain it. As for c Ambros●, 
114. ●●●e pag. 113. 128. 1●0 〈◊〉. 1. of ye●●●ion See ●●●re pag.  you wrist him as you did Hilary, etc. d before. After this you are bold, and ask if e any dare doubt of your doctrine? Yea surely, I dare not but doubt of it. Also we have seen that the public f authorised doctrine in England dareth to doubt of it. Which maketh Christ's putting himself between God's Wrath and our sins a part diverse from his bodily death on the Cross, 
●●●ore pag. ●.  yet the extremest part of his Passion. See also other g authorized testimonies hereof. But why may not any dare doubt of your doctrine? 
Pet. 2.  Because the Scripture saith, h Christ suffered for us. leaving us an example that we should follow his steps, etc. And this is very true also: the godly do follow his steps herein (many times) as I i showed you before. 
●at. 1. pa. & here 120.129.  Some are conformable in some measure with Christ even in these his sufferings. Then k you say, we ought to be glad and rejoice thereof. I answer, we ought to turn them to joy & gladness, though not properly to be glad of them. Nay we ought most instantly to pray against them. No affliction at all is good in it own nature: and the greatest of all is good to God's children by his grace. So that touching this use of them, therein we are to rejoice: even when we are most bruised and pierced in our souls with the terrors of God. lastly, 
〈◊〉 134.  l you frame an objection against yourself, which you neither do nor can answer: Christ's soul might feel the torments of Hell for the time without any distrust or doubting of his salvation, or our redemption. You pretend thïs answer: The essential torments of Hell are the absolute loss of God's kingdom everlastingly, and that m Eternal continuance is of the nature and substance of Hell. But we show you, 
●. 53.  although the damned are in Hell torments everlastingly, and of necessity so must be: yet eternal continuance in them, and to feel them but for a time, are indeed but Circumstances, not of the essence or nature of Hell torments. God's proper and extreme wrath only and his sharpest vengeance for sin is the essence or nature of Hell pains. Which (against the Damned indeed is eternal, and unsatisfiable: but lighting on Christ it was not eternal, because it was satisfyable. Wherefore it is plain that you have answered in effect nothing to your own objection.  
Thus far we have gone, showing that we 
a Pag. 2  neither extend the cause of Christ's Agony to far in affirming it to have come of most bitter & extreme Pains which he suffered properly for our sins: neither that we continued it to long in affirming that he felt the same most extremely on the Cross. Contrariwise that you curtail it to short, when you say it was no more but 
b Pag. 1 290.  Devotion to God and Compassion to men: also that Christ's Agony touched him 
c Pa. 11●  not at all on the Cross. So that 
d Before 90.91.116.  our Main argument which you would have frustrated, standeth firm and good still: that seeing his Agonies, Pains, and Fears were such & so great (as the Scripture by the effects & signs showeth that they were) both before his death and at his death, therefore they were more than mere bodily pains and more than mere bodily death: much less were his Holy and Religious affections the proper and special Cause thereof. But (of necessity) they were the Pains proceeding from the infinite and sharp justice of God which Christ truly suffered in his Spirit, and Soul and Body.  
After this 
a Pag 3● Touchi●● Death o●●● Soul.  you set vehemently against my last argument, That Christ suffered in some sort the death of the Soul. First if we should speak strictly after the manner of Death in the Body, than no man is so mad or foolish as to say that any man's Soul can die at all: that is, want life and sense, as a dead body doth. Thus the very damned souls in Hell suffer not death. But such a death as immortal souls are subject subject unto, is God's separation from them. And this is 2. fold. The 1. death and the 2. death, as the Scripture speaketh. The 1. is the separation of them from God's grace, which is in this life by sin reigning in them. The 2. death is Gods leaving them in the feeling of the most sharp and most vehement pains inflicted by God's justice for sin. This last kind of death is so called and named in many places of 
b Ezek. Gen. 2● Rom. 6● 2. Cor. & 3.7.5.20. a● 1. joh. 17.  Scripture. It hath also a double consideration. First, ordinarily and commonly it belongeth only to the Damned for their own inherent sin, where withal are the ordinary Accidents and concomitants together, Desperation, induration, blaspheming, utter darkness, etc. with Perpetuity of punishment, and that locally in Hell. In this sense the Fathers generally do take it, where they deny that Christ suffered the death of the Soul: and so likewise do we. Secondly, The death of the soul, or the 2. death may be extraordinarily and singularly considered, namely to imply no more but simply the very nature and essense of it. 
〈◊〉 Death the Soul ●●rist tasted  That is, the feeling of most deadly infinite pains inflicted by God himself in his proper justice for sin, all sense also of his comfortable presence being taken away. This is a Death to the Soul, 
●●g. 113. ●ag. 135. 6. ●ag. 112. 3.  as * before we have showed: according to this sense the" Scriptures & † Father's before noted may rightly be understood not to deny it in Christ: so that this kind of Death in the soul (but none other) we may safely say, Christ did suffer for our sin imputed to him. Moreover, let it be observed: that if we had no proofs at all in Scripture for this point, yet our Question is fully proved & confirmed notwithstanding by those other sufficient & pregnant proofs alleged & justified before. For it is be to noted, that no man setteth the question in these terms, That Christ died in his soul, neither do we at all use them very much in speaking of this matter. We do, only when some special occasion draweth it from us: neither than do we utter it in those terms but with using some further declaration of our mind. The reason of this wariness is, because we are not ignorant how ambiguous the phrase is, and how apt to be mistaken, specially where men list to cavil. Also people untaught and unsettled in construing the scriptures sense do quickly take offence at things, which they ought better to digest. So that you do very injuriously to grate still one this phrase of speech and to strain it to the worst, as you do: as if by no means it could bear any good sense, and as if we built our main Assertion only hereupon. Which in truth is nothing so. The same also do we affirm touching our using (in this matter) the phrase of Christ's suffering Hell pains. Both these phrases are but seldom and respectively used by us. Howbeit we deny not, but that both these phrases may be well and rightly applied unto Christ on occasion, 
●●g 16. 52. ●●. & 113.  as * before is observed: & may both serve truly and most emphatically to express the infiniteness of the pains and sorrows of his suffering for us. Yea this very phrase of death extended in Christ further then to his mere bodily dying, hath (I doubt not) express ground in the Scripture: and therefore may the better be used soberly, & admitted charitably. You will ask where is there any scripture, 
Proofs.  that Christ suffered any other death then that merely of his body? I answer, First, consider well that to the c Hebr. 
●ebr. 5.7.  He offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying & tears to him that was able to save him from death. It is not possible that this Death here should be his mere bodily Death, which he so woefully and impotently feared: as I have before sufficiently confirmed. Therefore it was the death of the soul, the 2. Death which here is understood to have thus mightily afflicted Christ. Which also your own self do 
d Pag. ●●  fully grant and affirm with me. Yea you affirm further than we do, or then the truth is, or possibly can be. You say Christ here thus feared Eternal death and Everlasting damnation. What a speech is this? Christ could not possibly fear in such woeful manner that, which he perfectly knew should never come near him. But he perfectly knew that eternal Death, and the Cup of God's everlasting malediction should never touch him. He knew and saw that this by God's almighty and unchangeable Decree was set further from him then the East is from the West, yea then Hell is from Heaven. Therefore he could not by any means possibly fear eternal death, nor pray in such sort against it. Again, that which he feared, and so pitifully prayed against was that, which he knew was by God 
e john 12  ordained for him. Yea Fear always is of that which is to come. But Eternal death was not by God ordained for him: that was 
“ Which Christ 〈◊〉 right w●  not to come unto him. Therefore it was not Eternal death which he so feared. Finally when in the Garden he prayed against that Cup which he feared, that it might pass from him, there he yieldeth and submitteth himself presently to the undergoing of it. But it were, I know not what, to say, that Christ did ever yield and submit himself to undergo Eternal death, or to taste the Cup of God's everlasting malediction. Therefore it was not this, that he feared & here prayed against. And yet it was I grant the Death of the Soul, or the 2. Death: that is simply the essense thereof, Gods withdrawing himself from him in the Pains and torments thereof. This only it was, 
He suffer that deat● which he feared.  not the eternity thereof nor sinful concomitants, which he thus feared. And this (for the infiniteness of it) naturally he could not but fear, yea and that so extremely: also he feared 
f ●ôzein  for himself, as knowing it to be ordained for him. So that hence it followeth invincibly, that Christ in deed suffered (sith he thus feared) more than the mere bodily Death, even the Death of the soul. For he could not (I say) thus 
* Much yield to i● he did: s●●ing, Thy ●●●don.  fear, but he must needs know that it was to come or might come unto him: 
●wed fur●● before 131.132  if he but knew that it might come, than it * certainly did come unto him, at one time or other in his Passion before he● left the world. See: to the Hebr. g Christ abolished through death him that had the power of death that is the Devil, and so delivered all them which for fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage. 
●●b. 2.14.  Hear I see no reason in the world but that the Apostle by ●his often repeating of death, and by mutual referring of it in one place (as it were) to the other, doth understand & signify one and the same death altogether. But it is the death of the Soul which the Devil hath the power and execution of, also the death of the soul chief sinful men were held in fear of all their life long. It followeth then (I suppose) that even through this death of the Soul Christ abolished the Devil, and deliveted his children. Specially seeing there is no enormity nor impossibility herein. Against this you have no reason at all but words and wrest, and vain ostentation of Fathers; none of them all denying our sense. Third: it seemeth also, that Peter teacheth this same, 
Pet. 3.18.  saying, k Christ in his suffering was done to death in the Flesh, but made alive by the Spirit. Where Death may be very well referred both to the Soul and Body of Christ. Because the text here speaketh (as I judge) of the whole and entire sufferings of Christ. And it is manifest by that before, that Christ did suffer not in his body only but properly and immediately also in his Soul: we have seen also that the * phrase of Death, 
〈◊〉 135.136  or Dying, may in a good sense be applied even to Christ's Soul. Again, this word Flesh (it seemeth) can not here in this place be understood to signify only the Body of Christ, but even both parts of his human nature, that is the reasonable Soul and the body. My reason is, because wheresoever in scripture the Flesh and the Spirit are noted oppositly together in Christ, 
●●m. 1.3, 4. ●im. 3.16 ●oh 4.2. 〈◊〉 1.14. ●or. 5.7. & ●4 & 1.4.1. ●●g. 320.  there the i Flesh signifieth always his whole Humanity, even both parts thereof, the Soul also & not the Body only: the Spirit signifieth his Deity, or Divine power. Now what have you against this? Nothing of weight but flouts and mocks, that k this observation is made out of the hinder part● of my head, etc. But what pretend you against it? Some Scripture palpably abused. First" Matthew, where Christ speaketh of his Disciples that their Spirit (their inward regenerate man) was ready to watch, 
●ath. 26.  but their Flesh (their corrupt nature) was weak & sluggish. What is this to Christ's Flesh and Spirit. Think you that Christ's Soul was willing to suffer as God had appointed, but that his Flesh resisted? Verily so you seem here to understand: 
An vntr●● conceit  and it is as likely, as your applying of Flesh and Spirit to Christ in your pag. 104. Then 
a Luk. 2.  Luke; where both Spirit and Flesh are not intended of Christ (as our observation before requireth) but only the Flesh. Then the Romans: where I affirm that 
b Rom.  Flesh signifieth the whole Manhood of Christ according to the which he came from David even as well as Solomon or Nathan did, who were David's sons in their entire and perfect nature. So likewise Christ was kin to the jews according to his 
c Rom. 9  whole Humanity, aswell as 
d ver. 3.  Paul was. And here Paul meaneth himself to be kin to them according to Nature wholly, & that only by Regeneration in the Gospel he was differing from them. Now Nature opposed to Grace and regeneration, hath reference both to Soul and Body in a man. Howsoever the Soul cometh in Generation, that is not here considered; neither is it necessarily to the purpose. Which difficulty also yourself have utterly 
* Pag. 2●  renounced before, to make it any argument for you in this matter. Thus yet the Flesh and the Spirit thus opposed here in Christ, shall signify the whole Manhood and Godhead in him. Further, that which 
e Pa. 32  you bring out of the 
f 2. Cor●  Corinthians compared with this in Peter, doth most fitly and clearly open and confirm the same: He was crucified touching his infirmity, but liveth by the power of God. His infirmity the text here nameth Metonimically understanding in Christ that, in which his infirmities were. Now his Soul had infirmities of suffering in it, as well as his body. Therefore his Soul also is understood here that it was crucified and died, that is according to the condition thereof, as likewise his body according to the condition thereof. And thus that which Paul calleth infirmity, Peter calleth Flesh; and that which Paul calleth the power of God, Peter calleth the Spirit. That is, his Deity is set oppositly in both these places to his whole Humanity, even to body and soul. 
Aug. de 4.13.  To which purpose that place also to the 
“ Rom.  Romans doth serve, where the like opposition is found (as I have showed) between the Flesh and the Spirit in Christ, that is his Manhood and Godhead. Other reasons also 
* Treat 137. 1●  I have noted serving well hereunto (as the 4, 5, and 6.) but I omit to rehearse them again. For it seemeth yourself agreeth with us in them: 
●●g. 324.  holding a expressly that the Spirit here in Peter is the Deity of Christ according to Augustine's judgement. Now this being granted and acknowledged, that the Spirit here signifieth Christ's Godhead, how can it be likely but that the other opposite part the Flesh, must needs import his whole and entire Manhood. Verily thus it seemeth most plain that Peter here distributeth the whole and absolute person (both God and Man) into these Natures, the Flesh and the Spirit. Wherefore I can not think, but that the Apostle here understandeth by Flesh the whole and entire Manhood of Christ, even his Soul and his body. Now this being so, than it followeth by the text that Christ in his Passion was done to death both in Soul, 
Pag. 320.  & body. Here" you object, that thus I make all the attributes of the body common to the Soul. Nay forsooth, that I do not. Nor yet this attribute of Dying understood in such sort and manner, as the Body properly dieth: that is to become without life and sense. I ascribe Death to both, but yet according to the diverse condition and state of both. 
●reat. 1. P●g. 78.  And thus you might understand my b meaning to be, where I say it is absurd & false that Christ was made alive in his human Soul: that is, it neither lost nor recovered life and sense, so as his body did. 
●●●e before 〈◊〉 135, 136  Howbeit as Death is oftentimes attributed to men's souls in the c Scripture, that is the feeling of the extreme wrath of God and the punishment for sin, so d I make Death common both to Christ's Soul and body, 
●●eat. 1. ●●g. 79.  even to his whole and entire human Nature. Which if you do not acknowledge, the shame of ab surditirie and contrariety which in your fancy e you accuse me of, that Christ's Soul died and died not, 
●●g. 322. ●●3.  will sit nearer to you than to me. Also in such a sense I deny not but Christ may be said, that he was quickened in the Spirit, that is refreshed and comforted again in his Soul, and restored from that bottomless gulf of sorrows to the lively feeling of heavenly joys and glory, which for a season he had no sense of at all. Howbeit though this sense be a true quickening in his Soul, yet I deny that here in this place of Peter it can be translated quickened in the Spirit meaning the Soul, because Spirit here in this opposition is set indeed for the Deity of Christ, 
●●●d you with ●●●stin do ●●sent.  * as before I have showed. Thus the matter I hope is clear to reasonable men, that Christ's Soul even according to the Scripture phrase may be said in some sort to have tasted and suffered Death, that is the extremest feelings of God's wrath for sin, and the most vehement pains of the damned, though not as the damned do in respect of the Accidents and concomitants of their ordinary damnation, but in a singular manner and extraordinary way as became the son of God and a sinless man (yet a very man being our Redeemer. Now besides the matter you 
“ Pag. 3  gird at me in diverse places: as where I say, The Death of the Soul is such Pains and sufferings of God's wrath, as always accompany them that are separated from the grace and love of God. Forsooth it is true, they are always wicked whom these Pains do accompany ordinarily. They came upon Christ extraordinarily: as in 
a Treat. ● pag. 77.  this place I expressly noted. That was therefore my meaning here, if you would have seen it. In another place also 
b Pag. 33.  you know that I say, Hell as I take it (that is such pains of God's wrath) is 
* Treat. 1 pag. 80.  sometime found in this life. Thus than you might have understood my former words: and not that the torments of Hell do always accompany the wicked in this life. I pray conceive not my meaning, against my express words. Again 
c Pag 31●  you pretend to have much against me where I say, The feeling of the sorrows of God's wrath due to sin in a broken and contrite heart, is indeed the only true and perfectly accepted sacrifice to God. True, so I said, and again I say it. What see you amiss in it? Then unhappy men are the godly which are at any time free from the pains of the damned. To what purpose is this? I speak of Christ's Sacrifice. I pray, is any other Sacrifice perfectly accepted? or a Sacrifice at all, but Secondarily, that is in and by Christ's Sacrifice? They are not. His Sacrifice then is the only true Sacrifice, and perfectly accepted to God. All others are imperfect, and accepted not in themselves but only in and by Christ. Thus your triumphs before the victory, come to nothing but blasts of vanity. But Augustin 
† Pag. 32  doth flatly deny that this text can be thus understood, or that Christ's Soul might die. Austin 
d Epist. 9●  denieth that Christ suffered any pains of damnation locally in Hell after his death, as it seemeth some held about his time whom here he laboureth to confute. So that he meaneth to reprove only the 
e See bes●●● pag 139  1st sense of the Death of the Soul in him, viz. that he suffered it not Ordinarily after the manner of other men, nor any way locally. H● hath no necessary cause to speak of the 2. sense thereof how the Soul may be said to suffer death Extraordinarily for sin imputed only, neither doth he speak against that in Christ. Nay according to Augustine's own Definition of the Souls Dying it will easily appear that Christ's Soul may be said to have suffered some kind of Death. 
de verh 〈◊〉. Sir ●0. 〈◊〉 Trin. 4.  Saith he a Moritur anima si recedit Deus: and b Mors est spiritûs deseri à Deo. The Death of the Soul is Gods Forsaking of it. 
●●fore pag. ●. 113. ●. 108. 113 ●. 134.  But the Scripture saith God did leave him, or forsake him for a season: yea the Fathers also c agree fully thereunto: the manner how d I have showed before. Therefore by Augustine's definition largely and rightly taken, Christ may be said in some sense to have died in Soul. Howbeit though the Fathers do grant the thing in effect (as I have showed) yet I acknowledge they do deny this phrase generally, and so doth Austin in this place. But thereabout we never made question: this is no part of our matter. It may be even for the same cause they shunned it, for which we also do use it very rarely and warily, as" before I observed. 
Pag 136.  And let this be the Answer touching all your Fathers and councils, which you bring abundantly (here and there) about this point of the Souls death. Though peradventure some of them may seem to insinuat even this very phrase touching Christ sometime, as in some I touched before.  
Where you say, 
●●g. 317.  † Ask the simplest child that is Catechised in my charge if I have any, what death Christ died for us, and he will answer me out of his Creed, Christ was Crucified, Dead, & Buried. It is true: But our authorized Catechism published by M. Nowell, and the Homily i showeth the meaning hereof to be, 
〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉. 67. 117.●  that Christ suffered far more sharply than mere bodily Death, even the infinite pains of God's wrath in his soul. which I pointed you unto k before, but you fairly leap it over, 
●●eat. 1. pa. ●.  as also the Archb. special allowance (with others) of M. Now. Catechism as being fully grounded on the word of God & containing the very doctrine of the Church of England. Now to this effect the youths in my charge being asked would have answered surely. For indeed such a charge in London I had I thank God, wherein I hope I was faithful according to my power, & might have continued, had not your ill seasoned teaching so contrary to the established doctrine in England burst forth.  
a You say, 
●ag. 325. ●●a. 53.12. ●r he pow●●● 〈◊〉.  I should have done well to have laid that down for a show, which is written in Esay, b He c laid down his Soul unto death; verily if I had, it would have made some show. Considering that 
d Pa. ●6  you earnestly affirm that this word signifieth Soul (or Spirit) in a proper sense. Also how resolute you are forbidding to 
e Pag. 1●  divert from the native & proper significations of words, but when the letter impugneth the grounds of Christian faith and charity. This considered, surely that in Esay maketh some show indeed, that Christ submitted, and humbled, and afflicted, even his Soul to Death. The rather if we note that which followeth: He was counted with the sinners, and bore the sin of many. That is, he was punished by God as the sinners are 
f See bes●● pag. 76.  punished, and was not by the jews only counted among thieves. But chief considering withal that also before, 
g Isa. 53. ●  He made his soul a sin offering. Hear you must remember, 
† Your pa. ●  we shall leave nothing sound & sure in God's word, if we may avoid all things by figures, that please not our humours. Therefore you must needs grant that God's word here maketh Christ's Soul to be † sacrificed for our sin. And we desire no other death of the Soul. We deny not but this phrase Animan p●nere is to lay down the life, and in diverse places signifieth no more then simply to Die, both concerning Christ and other men: as you observe pag. 70. Yet this is no necessary reason, that here in I say the Soul should be taken figuratively, for the Life only: the rather seeing here the text precisely setteth down the great & perfect work of our Redemption. And to take it as we do literally, impugneth no ground at all of faith or Charity. The like peradventure may be affirmed also of that in Matthew, 
h Mar 2●●  The son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his soul a ransom for many: although the translators commonly turn it, his life. But I will not strive about these phrases. Aust. hath not a word against us in that great place which 
i Pag. 32●  you cite: his whole argument there being to another purpose. The jews slew only the flesh of Christ: and yet it is true that they slew Christ. Who doubteth this? Also, where you think those words to be so 
k Pag. 327●  plain and express as may be spoken, so effectual as Paul's heart could invent or his tongue utter, that Christ reconciled us to God in the body of his flesh through death, we have answered you 
† Pag. 45. ●  before. As for all your other discourse here against me, it is as every where almost nothing but revile, and reproaches, and bitter scoffs. Yet you say, 
l Pag 108. ●  you have not learned, nor used to give reviling speeches. Have you not learned it? Is it then natural unto you? Nay you mean 
m Pag. 264●  these are Fatherly Warnings and admonitions. If your Fatherly admonitions are such, what are your Lordly rebukes? If these be your Bishoply blessings, what are your Curse? But I am to blame, herein standeth not the trial of our question. As for all th●se hogepots (as n 
〈◊〉 3●8.  you call them) which you make of my words, they are nothing but your own either wilful writhings, or uncharitable surmises: as by every particular in than places may be seen. Finally that is not true where you say, 
o 〈◊〉. 330.  Flesh doth often signify the soul in us. It signifieth often the whole Manhood together in us, and so it may and doth in Christ aswell. Also it signifieth in us many times our whole and entire corrupt nature both in body and soul: so it never signifieth in Christ. And here I desire the reader to change a word or two in my former Treatise: 
Note. ●reat. 1. pa. ●6 lin. 2. ●●d. lin 7. ● Cor. 7.1.  for p always to set usually, and for q a man to set Christ. Because since I find that Flesh and Spirit together applied unto men do r once signify merely the Body and Soul: which than I thought every where did signify in us our corrupt and regenerate man. Which oversight the Bishop spyeth not, but in this place confirmeth indeed.  
Finally to make an end with your Fathers and Counsels: it is strange that you thus vainly boast of them, 
〈◊〉. 135.327  saying they are a all wholly for you for this 1400. years space. I have showed before that your large claim proveth a very short gain. For in substance and full effect they are evidently and generally against you, and for us. As for their denying that Christ Died in his Soul, I b have answered to that before. 
●ag. 135. ●6. 142.  Further where you bring them in many places saying, by his blood only he redeemed us, and he suffered only in his Body: 
Father's 〈◊〉 handled.  they are abused by you wonderfully. Not in their words, but in their meaning. For they striving against Arians and such other Haeretikes who would have Christ's Deity to take part in his sufferings for our redemption, 
●ee before 〈◊〉. 111.113 ●4 etc.  & so consequently would prove it inferior to the Father," the godly Ancient Writers do hereupon say, he suffered & satisfied for us only in his body, in his flesh, &c: not excluding the proper & immediate sufferings of his Spirit, nor any passable part of his Manhood, but only his Godhead against those Haeretikes: showing thus also, that no other Creature besides him or with him satisfied any way for us: altogether after the Apostles like phrase in many places. Let the Authors themselves be viewed, if you think I affirm of them falsely. Tertullian and Cyrill will give a taste hereof for all the rest. Tertullians' 
c Pag. 3 ●  words 
d Contr. ●  id est carnem, that is to say Christ's flesh, are expressly opposed to his Deity, not to his Soul: so that evidently he meaneth thereby his whole and entire passable Manhood. If he had meant to exclude any part or faculty of his Soul from suffering, as he doth his Godhead, he had confirmed that heresy against which he striveth, as f before I noted. 
e Pag. 1●  Also it seems he yieldeth the name of Death to this suffering of Christ's whole Manhood, in saying Quod unctum est mortuum ostendit: that Died which received the Anointing. For I hope his spirit was Anointed with the Holy Ghost, aswell as his Flesh. And he saith thus, as indefinitely, so also by way of opposition to his Deity, as I said: therefore he meaneth the whole Manhood died. Howbeit in what sort this might be, I showed 
* pag. 113● 135. 136●  before. My false translating of him which you note, is not worth the noting. But you do worse in false placing those his last rehearsed words for advantage: in Tertull. they are used more generally in their own place coming long before those words, after which you set them. As for that Denique posuit spiritum, etc. it showeth that Christ's bodily death also (but not only) came by reason of Gods forsaking and separating from him. For before we saw how Tertull. expressly attributeth God's Derelection both to his 
* Haec v●●● animae & poris.  soul & body on the Cross: though you grudge thereat. Thus (I say) he excepteth only his Godhead from Dereliction and Suffering etc. Cyrill also even in that book which you cite for you, showeth that he excludeth but Christ's Deity, though he mention only his suffering in Flesh: 
† Ad Reg lib. 1.  Carne passum dicit, docens patiendi ineffabilem naturam a passionibus alienam. Deus igitur Christus Divinè quidem impassibilis, passibilis secundum carnem. He excludeth only the Deity from suffering, when he saith, he suffered in his Flesh. In a word, so do all the rest, as 
h Pag. 1●  before is partly noted. Against Nestorius 
i Pag. 33●  they affirm the union of Christ's Natures, with preserving the properties of each. They therefore hold not his only bodily sufferings. Is this then your great boast of all the Fathers and councils? Nay, are they well used at your hands, to be thus drawn clean from their purpose to an opinion which they never thought of? Is this good dealing towards God's people, to tell them that the Fathers generally teach the only bodily sufferings of Christ, and deny our Assertion of his Souls peculiar suffering, 
●●efore 47.48.66.71.88.112.  which * they justify & confirm indeed? Yea, this 〈◊〉 the profit that comes by ordinary slanting with Fathers, which use many do frequent in these days. Think they, if the scriptures alone suffice not for all things in Religion, that the Fathers will suffice? Or if the Fathers make a sense upon some text, that therefore this must be the right meaning always? Or if the Scriptures may be wrested by subtle heads, that yet the Fathers cannot? Or that God's people may sooner see and find when the Fathers are abused, then when the Scriptures are? It is great pity that men are, yea willbe so deceived with vain shows. Let us in God's name content ourselves (in handling matters of Religion) only with Gods all sufficient word: unless where the importunity of an Adversary forceth us. Otherwise let us spare the Authority of men in God's matters, to them that make an Idol of it. Finally if in this case we were to look after any man, surely we have more cause to regard our later faithful Teachers, rather than those of old. Who being equal with the best of them in any of the excellent graces of God's spirit which he useth to bestow on his servants for the edifying of the Church, yet herein these have advantage of the former, that they were directly provoked & occasioned to study and sift out this question against the Papists, which the Ancients were not occasioned to do.  
After, 
●ag 341.  a you set yourself to prove that in Hell there is material fire. But it seemeth you are now almost afraid so to call it: yet b you call it true fire. 
●ag. 343.  Which also we utterly deny. All your proofs (such as they are) run to prove corporal and material fire: yet eternal. Except your Scriptures, which utterly prove nothing at all: for they show no more any corporal, or material, or true fire to be now in Hell, than a corporal worm, material brimstone, and much wood, & true chains. Which you say is a sleeveles objection, but neither yourself, nor Austin whom you cite against it, doth any where answer it. Yea Austin thinketh that incorporal spirits shallbe fastened to corporal fire. But he saith not that now they are: which only is our question or, else nothing. For my part I see no reason to believe that now there is corporal fire in Hell, whatsoever there shallbe hereafter when Bodies also shallbe there united and tormented with the Souls. Again Austin here doth not prove that there shallbe such fire: he only showeth the manner how it may be so hereafter, if God will. Now if all your reason be the power of God only, then aswell you may prove that the sky is fallen. For as touching Gods will herein, you name it indeed, but you show it no where, nor seem to show it. All the rest say nothing further, nor indeed so far as Austin. Yet you think it may be called 
a Pag. ●●  a true created fire. That no Christian ever doubted of, if you mean that it is a true creature. If you mean simply, that it is true fire, that still we deny. And me thinks you should not care for corporal fire now in Hell, seeing you seem to believe no torments for Damned souls save only at the Resurrection. For thus you reason, 
b Pag. 25  As the Body hath been the instrument of the Souls pleasure (in sin) so it shallbe of her pain. 
c Pag. 20●  But all provocations and pleasures of sin the soul taketh from her body, all acts of sin she committeth by her body. Therefore the justice of God both temporally and eternally punisheth the Soul (only) by the Body. Or Therefore all the Souls pain for sin both temporally & eternally is by the Body. This is your own reason: which being true, why should you care for corporal fire in Hell, before the last judgement?  
Your striving to 
a Pag. 34●  confute my allegations of Fathers, I hope I have refuted sufficiently before. And then 
b Pag. 35  Sir Refuter endeth as be began with egregious lies. What lies began he with, and with what doth he end? In the beginning our lies have proved tales of truth, and in the end your words will prove injurious at least. I said, that not some, or the most, or best, but even all & every one both Churches & Writers in the world who are Protestants, teach as we do: except only yourself, or happily some after you, since the year 1597. What  is there in all this? Why name you not in all the world one man (of those whom we call Protestants) of your mind? that it may appear who deserveth such rebukes. Nay in this, being the very point of the matter you are silent: in revile, outcries, and accusations you exceed.  
Where I avouch that 
c Treat. ●. pag 8●.  only the hottest and cunningest Papists, jesuits, Priests, & Friars have always until this day had this controversy with all Protestants, and all Protestants against them: & namely Bellarmin, Campian, English Rhemists, etc. To all this scanalous & suspicious argument you reply not a syllable. What shall we think of such doctrine, which in this learned age hath none but such defenders. And yet among the Papists I noted 2, Cusanus and Ferus as liking of the Protestants doctrine herein, which also they do in some other matters. Now these 2. and only these (though more there are) c you cite at large: 
〈◊〉. 140.141  whose words indeed (especially the Friars) seem excessive. But our own most worthy and learned Teachers d M. Fulke, 
●rea. 1. p. 88  M. Deering, M. whitaker's which against you I alleged, you vouchsafe not a look towards them. Nor to M. Nowel's Catechism, nor to the Synod authorizing it, 
●efore pag. 42.  nor to the Archb: great * approbation thereof: Not to our Common Bible's note authorised publicly to be read through out England. Only against my alleging of our Homilies e you take exception: 
Pag 355.  but I trust I have before fully and clearly defended them to be for us, and against you. Neither doth any such matter appear in them as f you avouch. 
Pag. 136.  Thus than I end our 1. Question: being sorry that I have been so long. But I trust the friendly Reader will pardon me, considering how I have been occasioned thereunto.  

A brief Collection containing the whole effect of our Doctrine before delivered: brought into 4. Assertions.  
God himself in his justice properly punished Christ for our sins. See pag. 8. 9 75. 82.  
Christ (even as other men) consisted of a perfect human immortal Spirit, and a mortal living Body: and so was by nature capable of suffering sorrows for sin from God's hand aswell in his Spirit peculiarly and properly, as also in his Soul and Body together: sith other men do thus suffer for sin. pag. 8. 48 52. 61. 74.  
God's exact and immutable justice spared his Son in nothing: but did punish him in all severity as he punisheth sinners. I mean, He punished him in All his parts of nature apt to suffer: that is, in his Spirit peculiarly and properly, and in his Soul and Body together also. Again God punished him with all the Whole General Curse not with all the particular Curses and punishments: with the General Curse in all the whole Nature and substance of it, not with all the Circumstances: with all the mere Pain and Sorrow thereof, not with the sinful Adherents and concomitants in it. pag. 8 13 74 86.  
God's exact & immutable justice spared not Christ in these Circumstances of Punishment with he suffered not. For either in exact justice he could not, or necessarily he needed not to punish him so. In exact justice he could not punish Christ in such respects as were simply and absolutely impossible. It was simply impossible that any touch of Sin should once come near his person, or Eternal suffering, or all the Particular punishments in the world: All which come not to any one man (though Damned,) neither can come. Finally that Christ should necessarily have suffered after this life, or locally in Hell, there was no cause: seeing these are but meers Circumstances of Gods Just Punishment of sin, whether now, or then, whether here or there. These altar not the nature of God's wrath, which is the strength of Hell. The whole substance & nature of that Punishment he might feel in this life aswell as any part: God is able to inflict it aswell here, as hereafter. The rather seeing Christ came and was sent of God Extraordinarily of purpose to suffer for sin all that he might suffer. Thus then only in this life Christ might, and did suffer all. For so was God's ordinance and will, as it is plainly expressed unto us in his word. Therefore so we profess, and so we believe by the certain rule of God's word and the proportion of faith: Christ shunned for our sake nothing (which the Damned suffer) except only Circumstances and Accidents, impossible or unnecessary, not any Substantial point of God's Punishment decreed against sinew. pag 13. 14. 16. 43. 66. 75. 87. 134. 135.    

That Christ after his death on the Cross went not down into Hell in his Soul.  
THe 2. part of our Controversy is this, That Christ after his death on the Cross went not down into Hell in his Soul. Where note first, 
Notes  that we understand Hell properly and locally (as our common speech in English doth usually take it) for the very place of the Damned after this life. Now against them that believe Christ's Soul did go down locally into Hell, thus I reason. 
Reasons 'gainst Ch●● Descending locally is Hell.  First, If there be a good and sound general reason in Christian faith that Christ's Soul leaving his Body ascended up to Heaven and there remained till his Resurrection, and if there be no special reason of authority to the contrary that his Soul now descended downward: then surely every good Christian ought to believe that his Soul ascended to Heaven, and descended not locally into Hell. 
Two ma●● points to noted.  But both those former points are most true: First, There is a good sound general reason in Christian faith that Christ's Soul after death Ascended to Heaven, & remained there till his Resurrection. Namely the Analogy of faith requireth that the Head should be there where the members were: and where they remain till their Resurrection, that there he tarry till his Resurrection. It seemeth also these texts will prove it 
a joh. 1●  Where I am, there also shall my servant be. 
b cap. 17  I will that where I am, there they also shall be with me. I see not but that he promiseth here his servants even a local accompanying of him after this life, & that also generally whither soever he went. Moreover this the Fathers 
c Only A● wavereth where affirming, fo● where d●●ting.  all with one voice (I may truly affirm) do teach and believe: even that Christ after death went no whither, but where his faithful and holy servants were: yea and there remained till his Resurrection. To which consent of men somewhere you ascribe exceeding much, so that 
d Perpe●●vern epis●● 10.  you plainly avouch the contrary always to be a notorious, if not a pernicious novelty. To which purpose also other Scriptures do make very much: as where Christ, being in the pains of death and presently about to end his life, saith Father into thy hands I commend my Soul. This being spoken at such a time, in the depth of such woeful sorrows, and by such a person, in all good reason God's hands whereinto he commendeth his Soul (according to our common use of speech) must be God's joyful peace, and Heavenly glory. which is also suitable to the scripture phrase, as" already I have showed: 
●reat. 1. ●●g. 151. ●●g. 361.  neither show * you any thing against this. For what if God's hands on other occasions do signify his Power, and general protection only. Doth it follow that therefore Holy men (oppressed with pains, and now about to Die) when they say, Father into thy hands I commend my Soul, they mean not the joys of Heaven? You ask was David dying when he spoke those words? He might be in deadly sorrows or dangers, for any thing you know to the contrary. But suppose he were not then in danger to die. Yet the Prophet's general sentence may fitly be applied to this more special case of Christ: as all men know. Howsoever than David were when he spoke thus, yet Christ (now dying, & ready to come out of most woeful pains) doth surely mean when he said so, (as other holy men do in like case) namely, to go to Heav●n. To like purpose serveth that comfort, given to the Thief and common to himself: This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. As touching † Austius diverse opinion and yours, 
●our p. 360 ●ag 29.  see" before. Be you reconciled unto him, and then let him speak for you. lastly, where the eternal and general Ordinance of God is showed to be such, 
●●●k. 16.26.  that * none can go out of Heaven down to Hell, nor come from Hell up to Heaven. The text excepteth here not one. This therefore I doubt not is in truth a clear point (against which we shall find not a word in scripture) that Christ's Soul after death was there where the holy patriarchs deceased were, & there remained till his Resurrection. So that how you will do to maintain that Christ c went indeed unto them, 
〈◊〉. 220.361.  but presently left them that he might go to Hell, I know not. In this I doubt you walk f without your guide. 
●●g. 91.  But to proceed, I add that which is a clear and certain: 
〈◊〉. 189.193 〈◊〉. 219.  yea that which g yourself rightly believeth and professeth with us, though against the opinion of the Fathers, That the Souls of the holy patriarchs dead before Christ were not beneath, but above; not in Limbo, but with God in peace, joy, & blissee even in Paradise, 
〈◊〉. 192.203.  that is h Heaven. The which to be a doctrine most true (against the Popish error herein) I have briefly i heretofore, 
●●eat. 1. ●●g. 131.  yet (I hope) sufficiently proved. Therefore hence I conclude, that Christ's Soul after his death Ascended indeed, and descended not downward beneath us here. 2. Only except there be some special reason of good authority to the contrary: which is the second point of importance here to be considered. Touching which this I say, without express and evident Scripture there is in the world no sound nor meet authority to disprove our former Reason, and Conclusion. This also Austin himself avoucheth well and faithfully: that is, supposing there is no express nor plain Scripture for Christ's Descending, then (saith he) 
a Epist. ● Miror si quam ad ros cum d● diss● asser● auderet.  it were marvelous boldness that any should dare say he went down to Hel. And again 
b Serm. stemp. 14  Nemo de Christo credat nisi quod de se credi voluit Christus. No man ought to believe any thing concerning Christ, but what himself (in his word) would have us to believe. Now I assume this, and by God's help shall make it manifest, 
No Scrip●● at all that Ch●●● Soul as●● death d● soended.  That there is in all the Scripture no one place whereby it may be proved by any show of reason that Christ's Soul after this life went locally downward from hence, or diversely from the Souls of all good men deceased beside. Yea whatsoever is pretended from the Scripture expressly to prove that he did Descend, is but very little, and exceeding weak. 
Script. prided.  Only there are 2. or 3. places sensibly wrested and drawn to this purpose. 1. 
c Your pa●● 212.  That, where Christ is said to have 
d ●ph. 4.  come down into the lowest parts of the earth. 
* Treat. ●●● pag. 14●  But I have largely and plainly showed that this place speaketh not a whit neither of Hell, nor of Christ's Soul descending locally; neither before his death, nor after. It noteth only Christ's sensible and apparent Humiliation to the last and lowest point, that is to the Grave. According to the Hebrew phrase, which the Apostles frequented in their Greek writings very much. So that no reason appeareth why or how this place may show that his Soul after death went downward. The rather seeing you, will have Christ's going down 
d Pag 41  to Hell the first, and that a notable part of his exaltation and triumph. But this was manefestly (as I said) his lowest abasement. Therefore this toucheth not his going down to Hell. Where 
e Pag. 2●  you expound the text, & say, He descended to the lowest and ascended to the highest that he might fill all places with the presence of his Manhood: you speak both 
f In respe●● ubiquitary  inconveniently, and far from the Apostles meaning. Who signifieth only Christ's filling 
g Ephe. 1. & ●. 19.  all his Church with the gifts of his Spirit, which by his Ascending he 
h joh. 16. 7● Luck. 24. 4●  promised to do, and 
i Act. 2.33.  so did indeed. Hear is nothing about his filling all (places) with the presence of his manhood. Much less is there expressly in the text that which k you add to it (with his presence) very deceitfully in a differing letter like the text and together with the text. 
●●g. 212.  What censure this deserveth the godly do know. Wherefore yet we must be so scrupulous still, as to stick at the phrase of Christ's Descending in Soul: for as yet we see no word in all the whole Scripture any thing near, much less equivalent thereunto. If you will urge that, where Christ is said to have a been 3. days & 3. nights in the heart of the earth, 
●at. 12.40.  there is nothing else then as before, 
●ag. 21●.  even his Burial. Your exception that b Christ's sepulchre was in the higher parts of the earth frustrateth not the manner of the Hebrew phrase, after which the Scripture speaketh both here, and in the last before: as I c have declared plainly in my 1. Treatise. It seemeth, 
〈◊〉. 144.146  your not considering (or not caring for) the use and manner of the Hebrew tongue causeth your mistaking as in these places, so likewise in all, or most of the rest: yea indeed it causeth your error in this main question, as after it will more appear . Third. you d make much of that, 
●ag. 213.  which doth you not a pings worth of good: where it is asked e who shall descend into the deep? 
●om. 10.7.  that is, to bring Christ again from the dead. If the deep here did signify Hell, (which yet certainly it doth not) but suppose it doth: How will that follow (which you presume) that Christ dying descended into the deep. The text saith no such thing. It saith he was with the dead, and that from thence he came: and therefore by this I rather conclude, it was thither only that he descended. Which also is signified elsewhere in the same words, 
●ph. 1.20.  f from the dead. Thus I say the dead here importeth the general condition and state of all the Dead, as it is opposed to the state of the Living, and so it showeth Christ's lowest and last Humiliation, as the other places did before: saving that before his Grave particularly is intended, here the state of death may be applied to his whole human Person, and to both parts thereof dissolved. Yea it is not unlikely that the former word g the deep is used also here by the Apostle to signify (not Hell, 
Abyssus.  but) even this condition and state of death which is as a Gulf bottomless, never satisfied, & unrecoverable. Like as Sheol in Hebrew doth likewise properly signify: as after we shall further declare. This meaning the Syriac Translator (an ancient writer, of no small credit) seemeth to have, sith he turneth it Abyssum Sepulchri, the deep of the Grave. And then the deep signifying here the state and condition of Death, the Apostle seemeth to express his meaning to that effect more clearly in these next words, this is to bring Christ again from the dead: that is, to frustrate Christ's Death, whereunto he descended for our sakes. We may consider also that this word here the deep many times is referred to the vast Gulfs & deep pits of the earth, and likewise to the unknown, deep, and furthest parts of the sea. Now the Apostle may seem to use this large signifying word of purpose to express the infinite searching about of an incredulous and comfortless mind which seeketh justice before God by the keeping of the Law. Who indeed thereby getteth nothing, but maketh void unto itself the Gospel and all Christ's benefits therein; His Death and Resurrection, his Ascension, etc. The Apostle then may insinuat in this word all these senses and significations thereof: namely I say, (with other) even such a seeking to the deepest and farthest parts of the Sea, to learn somewhere (if it might be) among all the Creatures of God how to fulfil and keep the Law. For so Moses (whom here he doth cite) 
* Deu. 30 13.  expressly signifieth: then so the Apostle also signifieth the very same. For these 3. things the Apostle delivereth here togeathet: 

1. That the Law and the Gospel do greatly differ, & namely in that the Law doth not save us, but the Gospel doth.  
2. He showeth the cause hereof, for that no flesh can keep the Law, nor ever could: as he confirmeth by this out of Moses, where men thinking to live by the Law, are noted to seek and search every where far and near, by all ways & means, that they might satisfy their own hearts, and find how to keep it: which proveth that their own hearts bear witness that they keep it not, neither can keep it.  
3. He showeth that thus by seeking to live by the Law, they lose the life of God coming by Christ's Death and Resurrection in the Gospel.   Thus the Apostle rightly keepeth himself to the whole matter and meaning of Moses, whose words (though shortened) he citeth and discourseth upon. But than it is not possible that the deep here should have any reference at all to Hell. For what colour is there to make a man pensive about keeping the Law to ask, who shall go down for him among the Devils and damned spirtis to bring it thence unto him? or to imagine that the keeping of the Law might be rather there, then in his own heart? or that any means might be got from thence to help men, that they might keep it? There is no likelilyhood for this out of doubt. Therefore also the deep here signifieth not Hell any way: seeing the Apostle doubtless retaineth Moses sense, as is aforesaid. Lastly I may not omit to show how you deal here again with the text. You allege it a He descended into the deep, 
●ag. 220.  all with special letters differing from the rest of purpose, to show that Christ's descent into Hell (for so you take the deep) is found written in the very Scripture. But He is cunningly added to the text: neither are these words meant of Him, but of a Pharisaical Meritmonger, searching everywhere for righteousness by works, 
●ag. 153.  b as is before declared. The like practice c you use again in the Psalm: 
●ag. 147. ●sa. 139.8.  where the d text hath only veatsignah Sheol, If I lodge, or, if I spread my couch in Sheol, thou art there. There is no word to express beneath, which you put into the text of your own head. The same also I noted in e you before. 
●ag. 152. ●●fore pa. 66  somewhere you charge me (but f vainly) with falsifying of jerom. If I had by oversight done so, yet that were not like this falsifying: which is not of men, but of Gods own word; not by oversight, but of purpose for advantage.  
These are all the Scriptures that can be brought, to make any show of Christ's Soul descending locally after his death. Which being abused to this purpose so palpably, as before we have seen, I must in earnest say, I marvel that any will believe it as an article of faith, that Christ's Soul descended: Specially considering our next reason which followeth.  
Our 2. and most principal Reason is this: 
●ason. 2  If there be not one place of Scripture to prove that Christ's Soul was in Hell, than you ought to deny that opinion. But you have not indeed any one place that proveth it. Therefore it ought to be denied.  
Against this Argument you" say you have one place, 
Pag. 167.  Act 2: 27. Even only one, where you think it is plain that Christ saith, He rejoiceth because God would not leave his soul in Hell. 
●r one only ●e need ●●e passing ●re, and be●●● all ex●●●ion: as this ●●t.  For so you must have it here translated (in Hell) even because you will. But if men with reason resist your will, and prove unto you that it ought not to be taken here for Hell, than I pray take it patiently, and use not such raging & despiteful terms as against me you do: as if I were not worthy to speak of those matters that you speak of, unless I would be bound to say your words. How be it I beseech you give us leave. This sentence taken out of David's 
a Psal ●●  Psalms & alleged in the Acts, signifieth the very 
b Pag. ●●  same thing in both places. The Hebrew word controversed is Sheol, the Greek Hades. Now must the word Sheol and Hades needs signify Hell, being applied to souls departed hence? So indeed you 
c Pa. 1 ●02.  avouch more confidently then truly: and hereupon it seemeth you 
d Pa. 1●  pawn the trial of this Question, saying; Till we bring you some one good proof out of the Scriptures that the Souls of the righteous before Christ's coming were in Sheol or Hades, you will rest in your opinion, that by this only plain place Christ's Soul was in Hell. We hope then, when this proof (which you asko for against your opinion) is showed, you will correct your opinion in this point. Let it therefore be considered, I pray, which the Psalmist also hath elsewhere of this matter. 
Sheol & attributed the Soul● just after  Let us interpret the Psalms by the Psalms. First this we observe in them, how it is written 
“ Psa. ●●  What man liveth and shall not see death? Shall he deliver his soul from the hand of Sheol? Hear now the Soul attributed to every man living, must be properly taken as well as in the former place, where you take it for Christ's very Soul. For, 
e Pag. 1●  This rule must be held 
† Much in one a●● same W● in one a●● same ma● and ma● speech.  throughout the Scriptures, that we divert not from the native and proper significations of the words, but when the letter impugneth the grounds of Christian faith and charity. Otherwise we shall leave nothing sound & sure in God's word, if we may avoid all things by figures that please not our humours. So long then as the proper sense of the Scriptures may stand with the Analogy of faith and direction of charity, we offer violence to the word of God if we wrist it to a figurative understanding. Now than it is apparent that here the souls of all men living, both good & bad (after death) are appointed to Sheol. For there is none whosoever that can possibly escape it, saith the text. Yet many good men there are & then were, who could & did escape Hell. Therefore in the Script. Sheol and hades applied to departed souls, is not always Hell, but the Condition or place, aswell where the just men's souls are after death, as that where the damned are. Wherefore we hope that you will keep your word, that is, to acknowledge Sheol and Hades may be applied to the Souls of just and blessed men deceased. And withal that Christ's Soul after his death (having Sheol applied to it by the Psalmist, who applieth the very same also to all just men's Souls in the world when they die) ought not therefore in any wise to be thought to have been in Hell: even because he was the justest and holiest man that ever was. Unless some other scripture (more plain than this) do affirm it. Which because there is utterly none, I say not one, that doth lean any thing towards such a sense; therefore you ought not stiffly to maintain that Christ's Soul was locally in Hell, as hitherto you have done. But Austin a collecteth this opinion from this place in the Acts. 
●●g. 253.  Oh, than this point of faith is grounded on Austin: it is his collection (not the text itself without him) that serves your turn. Certainly so it is. But this then agreeth not to your worthy protestations noted b before: 
●ag 28. 29. ●●r pag 91 ●  this becometh not such good words. I beseech you, be not you of them qui virtuten verba putant. Then touching Augustine's authority, 
●●fore pag ●  c you know how you leave him, when you think good: & regard not his d scant probable proofs, & conjectural inclinations. Finally, 
●●r pa. 169 ●  that here Austin hath no better than scant probable proofs and mere conjectures, we shall plainly declare (God willing) after we have showed a general consent and correspondence of all Authors for our sense of Sheol & Hades: which I hope presently you shall see.  
But first you must note that we go not about to prove Sheol & Hades to be Heaven. We never thought it, neither need we so to think. The more is your injury, when you have nothing to reprove, yet with scoffs, and flouts, & bitter reproaches to disgrace me as you do, and that even for this your own mere conceit. Neither yet can your e witty reason prove, 
●●g. 146.  that Limbus hereby can not be avoided. Consider a word of like use in Latin: Defuncti signifying the Dead, may be applied generally to the Souls of men deceased. Yet notwithstanding this, I hope Limbus may be easily avoided. Also I pray, are Defuncti none other but the Damned only in Hell? The blessed in Heaven may be likewise called Defuncti, I suppose. Howbeit not in respect of their being in Heaven: 
Note.  but only in respect that they have done with this life, and are gone hence. The word is properly general: signifying by itself neither the Blessed nor the Damned, neither to be in Hell nor in Heaven. Yet restrained by Circunstances (such as they may be) it signifieth either. Certainly so doth hades, & also Sheol▪ All these (the Latin, the Greek, 
The prope●●● sense of Sh●● and Hades  and the Hebrew) words are indifferent and common in themselves; signifying in deed no positive thing properly, but a mere privation of this life, and of a former visible being here sometime. And so it is, that the Psalm saith, Even the just men's Souls, and all, must come to Hades & Sheol. Moreover, thus in effect they are all one with Thanatos, Death: but that Thanatos belongeth properly to Bodies. Hades & Sheol sometimes to Bodies, sometime to Souls of Men indifferently. Yea sometime these 2. are applied (though more rarely) to other things also which are in this visible world, namely when they come to Destruction, and No being any more: as anon we shall better understand.  
Now let us proceed, and show further even by the Scriptures first, that Sheol and Hades are (as I say) more than once used for the general condition of death wherein even just men's souls are held, or the mansion of souls departed aswell good as bad. Then afterward the common consent of others will avail the more.  
That 
a Psalm. 4●  Psalm which entreateth wholly of Death, of the impossibility to escape it, of the power which it hath over the wicked whose joy and pomp is only in this world, in that it cutteth of all their hopes, it endeth their pleasure, and marreth all their beauty. I say in this Psalm, where all express circumstances do show that the Prophet speaketh of this death, not of Hell, yet David here saith: 
* verse. 1●  notwithstanding God shall deliver my soul from the power of Sheol (that is death, or the state of death) when he shall reoeave me most mightily. So Tremelius turneth it, noting here David's hope of the Resurrection, which I think he hath well understood in this place. Otherwise David might here comfort himself in this, that he knew God would save him alive from this common death, not always as you frivolously object, but oftentimes: yea always till he should enjoy the Kingdom, which indeed God did for him when he was near death not seldom, and when his enemies & the wicked were caught therewith. Again, that 
b Psal. 8●  Psalm showeth it also where it is thus written, My Soul is filled with sorrows, and my life draweth near to Sheol. By his life he meaneth his soul the proper cause and fountain of life in him, which also in the first part of the sentence he expressly named. As the manner of phrase in the Psalms is; in the 2. part of the sentence commonly to speak of the same things that are uttered in the former, but varying the terms. That life here should signify the body distinctly from the soul, there is no such likelihood nor reason. Indeed I deny not but life may signify here the whole person of man, 
As in these ●esaide Psal. ●, 48. & 49, ● & 10, 16. all ●116, 8. & in ●●y many ●aces of scrip●●e beside.  and so may c nephesh the soul also very well: and then Sheol and Hades signify not peculiarly and distinctly the Grave which only is for the carcase, but the condition of the Whole man after he hath no being in this world. In which regard, chose what sense you will, either that nephesh and chai shall in all these places of the Psalms before handled signify strictly the soul, as very fitly it may, or the whole person of man consisting both of a soul and of a living body, contrary to which estate Sheol and Hades is very often taken, 
g That is, if it ●re not strictly ●●d peculiarly ●●e habitation ●s●y Souls, yet ●●s the condi●ur of the whole ●son, that is, ●●●h of Soul & ●●dy separate by Death. ●ob. 30.23.  and d peradventure so it is understood here in these places. In which sense Sheol & Hades are far from signifying hell, yea or heaven either, yea or only and merely the Grave: but it signifieth destruction from out of this world, & no-being here any more as afore time to the whole person, that is, both to the Soul and to the Body. And thus Sheol and Hades job resembleth to a house or Habitation, where he nameth it † Beth m●gned lecol chai: the habitation (after this world) appointed for every person, or (if you will) for all living things. The same also job wisheth and desireth of God to himself, that God would hide him" Bisheol in this world of the deceased, 
●ob. 14.13.  & would give him term till his wrath was overpast. In another place he comforteth himself thinking quickly to enjoy it, saying, † If I have any hope, Sheol or Hades, 
●ob. 17.13.  the world of the deceased shallbe my habitation. He joineth thereunto also particularly the grave: but as touching Sheol seeing job speaketh of it as his continual habitation till the worlds end, it cannot be meant only of the Grave for his body, which endured but a very short time; neither had his flesh any being at all after it was turned to very earth and worms. He speaketh here therefore also of his souls continuing habitation, or mansion in another world. 
Gen. 37.35 because they ●●ch die, their ●●ons do fall ●●vne, according to the Latin ●●tase, cadere, ●●idere, occū●●, to Dy.  And in greatest reason this is that which jaacob meaneth, when he saith," He will go down mourning to his son i● Sheol. That is, He will mourn till he die: for this he meaneth by * going down here speaking of death. And then he hopeth to enjoy the society of his dear son in soul. For his body he thought was devoured and digested in the bellies of wild beasts, therefore he would go to the soul of his son in Sheol. Or else understanding here the dissolution & passage of his Whole person, he may mean partly his going down to the grave as touching his body, and yet also the enjoying of the society of his dear son in Sheol, which surely (as I said) could not be in body but in soul. Thus Sheol here hath respect to the changed estate of jacobs' whole person dissolved, and not to one part thereof only, his body, but to his soul also: and it hath respect likewise to the estate of his dead sons soul, where this loving Father hoped again to have society with him (not any where else) without which he could not be comforted. Albeit in another place it seems he limiteth Sheol to the grave only: but that we do so understand by reason of the Circumstances, 
a Gen. 42.  you will bring my Grey Head with sorrow to the Grave. But again to follow our purpose: Good Hezekiah also looked for Sheol to be his habitation likewise after this life. I said (saith 
“ Isay. 38. ●● 11, 12.  he) I shall go to the gates of Sheol (the Land of the dead:) I shall not see the Lord in the Land of the living; I shall see Man no more among the inhabitants of the world: My habitation, or Mansion is translated and removed from me as a shepherds tent, etc. This here cannot be the Grave, nor Hell which he describeth. For he thought he should then have died: and thus his habitation he thought should have been removed and translated from him: that is, I take it, his body should be removed from his soul, which was the mansion or habitation of his soul while he lived, but now he should have another age, 
“ D●r● 〈◊〉 age, my co●●nuance, or during, o● my mansion,  or enduring, or Mansion, and be removed to another place. This can not be understood of his Carcase, rotting and wasting away to nothing in the grave, and therefore endureth not as the word signifieth: therefore he meaneth it of his Souls removing and abiding elsewhere. Also he expressly opposeth the land of the living to Sheol: therefore Sheol is the land of the dead, not the grave only, nor Hell only, 
* Which al● to be collect of that in Prophet to●●ing Christ, scinditur● râ viventi● Isai. 53.8.  but as large and as general to the dead, and as fit to receive both the parts of men, yea both good and bad men, (but separated, and dissolved) as the land of the living is to receive both those parts united and knit together. Again Hezekiah was a godly man, therefore hell was not for him: also though he should not see the Lord in the land of the living, which was the thing he desired, yet thereby he seemeth to insinuate that in the land of the dead he might see him, whither he was about to go: and that must needs be the place of blessed Souls, even that which here is noted by the word Sheol. 
●●g. 150.  It is a most vain reason that you give, that" sheol here is to be taken for Hell and so to be translated because death to the wicked is the passage to Hell, which death Hezekiah was now near unto. It is untrue that Hezekiah was near unto that death which the wicked die, or that he feared that kind of death, or that there is no sound difference between the death of the godly & the death of the wicked, or that by any means according to sound divinity the death of the godly may be named or taken for Hell. This is so vain that I will not stand any longer to answer it. Another objection of yours a is as weak, 
Pag. 400.  where you say Sheol here must be the Grave, because it is said b afterward, 
ver. 18.  Sheol doth not confess the, death cannot praise thee etc. Though I grant that the Grave is not here excluded especially in the words next after, They that go down to the pit cannot hope for thy truth: yet I affirm that Sheol namely in the former place vers. 10. cannot exclude the mansion of good men's souls departed hence, & that for the reasons above noted. Neither here doth this circumstance limit it to the Grave only, because it is said Sheol confesseth not thee. For it is evident that He Zekiah meaneth not absolutely that there is no praising of God in Sheol, but only he understandeth that which c he so greatly desired, 
●hich was yt●●inary great ●re of the ●lly gene●y: psal. 42. & 84.1.  the outward frequenting of the Temple, the holy Ceremonies and Sacrifices, & joining to the visible congregation, and publishing of God's goodness to others. Which he expresseth immediately to be that praising of God that he meaneth & cannot be in Sheol, by knitting close to the former these words, d The living, 
●sa. 38.19.  the living, he shall confess thee, as I do this day: the Father to the Children shall declare the truth. This is that which he denieth of sheol: that none there do praise God to the example and edifying of others. He denieth not simply nor absolutely that there is none in sheol at all, in any respect, that praise God. The very same David expresseth also very plainly, 
Psal. 116.9.  saying, e I shall walk before the Lord in the land of the living, 
Psal. 118.17  and f I shall not die but live and declare the works of the Lord. Where unless they meant only this visible praising of God to others edifying, otherwise these holy men had no cause so greatly to desire to praise God here, for they knew very well, how that (for their own parts) they should praise him much better, and more perfectly in the next world.  

The Se●●●●gint use 〈◊〉 in the fan●●●●●.  To the very same purpose the Septuagint use hades in other places also, beside in their translating of these aforesaid. For it is truly and well acknowledged by you, 
g Pag 4●  that both these words Sheol and Hades are just all one. Now the Septuagint I say in other places do show thus much also. 
h Psal. 9 〈◊〉 after the septuagint.  If the Lord had not helped me, my soul had almost dwelled in Hadoes: in Hebrew it is in silence. Which is not meant of hell for there is weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth: but of the state of death. Nor yet of the Grave, only, because here it is named to be the Habitation of the Prophet's soul, whither it was almost come when he was like to have died. Again, 
i Psal. 7●  My soul was filled with sorrows, and my life drew near to hades. How my soul and my lift here, are taken for the self same, I have showed before. As also in that of job, 
k job. 3●  his life (or soul) is in hades, in the world of the Dead.  
Again, it sufficeth for our purpose, that Hades and Sheol are often used even indifferently for 
“ Sheoll 〈◊〉 Hades a●●●sed often 〈◊〉 only Dea●● effect. Thana●●●mors.  Death and as being in effect the same, or for the state and Condition of Death, or the Power of Death. Which also sometime we may likewise conceive of the Latin Inferi: which is by the translators and other writers used for Sheol and Hades, though (I deny not) very dangerously and corruptly in deed. First, for 
a Pro. 2●  misheol, the Greek hath ek thanátou from death, reckoning Death and Sheol to be all one. So in Ecclesiastes 
b Eccle.  Sheol and 
c ve●s  Hammethim the dead are in effect all one. And the very same doth Esai call 
d Isa. 3●  Shagnare Sheol, the gates of sheol, which the 
e Psa. 9 ●. 107.18.  Psalms and 
f job. 3●  job do call Shagnare maveth, the gates of Death. In the 
* P●o. 3● and 27●  Proverbes he meaneth Death, not Hell nor the Grave strictly taken; where, by an excellency the greediness of it is noted for being Never satisfied. For Death generally craveth more than either Hell or the Grave strictly taken, do. So likewise Abakuk coupleth them together as being in effect alone, 
“ Aba●  Like sheoll and Death it will not be satisfied. Thus also it will appear that that which 
g Psal. ●  David rejoiceth for, the very same in effect 
h Psal. ●  Christ here rejoiceth for. Only with this difference, David rejoiceth that God had delivered his soul from death them, when he was likely to have died: Christ rejoiceth because God would deliver his soul from the Condition of Death (sheol) after he was in it, & speedily even before his flesh should corrupt. This might be evidently showed in infinite places more, but that it is utterly needles. In this sense it is that the Reprobates and the Elect after death are said to be together. 
●●n. 28.19  a To morrow thou & thy sons shallbe with us, saith the supposed Samuel to Saul. Not that there is any positive thing common to the Elect and Reprobates after death (which b you observe well: 
●●g. 396. 〈◊〉 Simp●●li. ●●qaest. 3. ●●g. 209. ) but only that they be alike dead, and alike remain in death. Yet I say, they are not like any further. This c Aust. very well showeth whom you d bring: saith he, mortuus mortem vivo proenuntiabat: 
Father's 〈◊〉 it me our 〈◊〉 of Hadea  that is, being dead he foreshowed death to him that yet lived. So that it was the same condition of death both to Saul and Samuel, but not the same fruition of happiness. Thus the old Latin Translator useth Infernum, as commonly for Hades, so sometimes for e Thanatos death, 
●ct. 2.24. ● Cor. 15.55 ● Act. 2.24. ●piph. in ●●nacephal: 〈◊〉 Anchor. ●ustin. In glyph.  and sometimes f Mors death for Hades. Epiphanius readeth the g Text indifferently h Thanátou or i Hadou, as reckoning them in effect all one. Justin Martyr long before, saith, k Christ a little before his death noted the folly of those men tôn nomizónton me êinai auton Christon all hegonménon thanatôsein auton, kai hós koinon ánthropon en hadou menein: that thought him not to be Christ, but that he should die and remain in Hades as a common man. He meaneth not here as a wicked man in Hell, but as any common man (whether good or bad) dying abideth in Death, or in the Dominion of Death, or in the world of the Dead. Irenaeus saith, l Herein Christ (legem mortuorum servavit) did but as others do that Die, 
●nae. lib. 5. 〈◊〉. vlt.  & conversed 3. days ubi erant Mortui (sancti) where the dead (saints) were. And this he calleth Locum invisibilem the unseen World. What meaneth this but Hades, 
●es an invi●● place of ye●ed Souls.  as we take it? Yea a little before he expressly calleth it Paradise. Nevertheless I grant that he thought this unseen world was indeed beneath in the earth: wherein his proofs do unterly fail him, as yourself do fully grant, and profess in that point aswell as we. Again m he further showeth: that in the n Scripture he taketh Hades to be all one with Death, 
●ib. 5.13.3.38. ● Cor. 15.55  or the Dominion of Death, where he readeth the Text thus, Absorpta est mors in victoriâ, ubi est mors aculeus tuus? ubi est o mors victoria tua? 
● Greek. ●●des.  Death is swallowed up in victory, Death where is thy sting? Death where is thy victory? And he addeth, Haec autem justè dicentur tunc, etc. These things shall truly be spoken then, when this mortal and corruptible flesh, (about which Death is, and which is holden down by a certain Dominion of Death) arising up into life shall put on incorruption and immortality. Then verily shall death be overcome, when the flesh which is holden by it, shall come forth out of the Dominion thereof. Thus he taketh here Thanatos and Hades for one and the same thing in effect, that is for Death, and the power of death, and nothing else. Tertulian doth likewise: for 
a Terrul● Anima. 〈◊〉  speaking of Inferi, which he taketh for the same that Hades is, he noteth it as the place Quò universa Humanitas trahitur, whither all mankind must go. And therefore of Christ's going thither he saith, 
b Cap. 5●  Quia & homo, mortuus secundum Scripturas & sepultus secundum easdem, hic quoque legi satisfecit formâ humanae mortis apud inferos functus: Because also he was a man (therefore) he died according to the Scriptures & was buried according to the same, also here he satisfied the common law (of nature) by following the form of men's Dying (and going) to the world of the Dead, Tertullian is for us yet further. He taketh Hades in the 
c 1 Cor. ●  New Testament merely for Death, or the Dominion of Death, even as Irenaeus before did. Thus he readeth the Text & that often times, 
d De R●carn c. 4● 54.  Vbi est mors aculeus tuus? Vbi est 
“ Hade●  mors contentio tua? Aculeus autem mortis delinquentia: virtus autem delinquentiae Lex. O Death where is thy sting? O Death where is thy force? The sting of Death is sin: the force of sin is the Law. And again, 
e Adver●cion. 5.  Scriptum est apud 
f Hose.  Creatorem, Vbi est 
g Sheol 〈◊〉 Hades.  mors victoria, vel contentio tua? Vbi est mors aculeus tuus? Verbum autem hoc Creatoris est apud Prophetam. It is written by the Creator, Death where is thy victory, or thy force, or strife? Death where is thy sting? This is the word of the Lord God by the Prophet Ozee. Still he maketh Hades & Sheol nothing else but Death in these places. And saith he, Deo gratias dicit (
h 1 Cor. ●  Apostolus) quod nobis victoriam utique de morte prestitit. The Apostle in the New Testament applying words of the Prophet to the Resurrection, giveth thanks to God because he causeth us to get a victory indeed of Death. So still he maketh Hades to be Death and not Hell. Which yet is further most clearly to be seen: 
i De Idol cap. 13 〈◊〉 See also 〈◊〉 before p●●  Lazarus apud inferos in sinû Abrahae refrigerium consecutus, etc. Lazarus in the world of the Dead enjoyeth comfort in Abraham's bosom, contrariwise the Rich man is in the torments of fire, both of them (there) receiving their diverse rewards. How clear is this, that he maketh Hades and Inferos even in a Luke also, 
●●●e 16.23  to be nothing but the common state and world of the Dead. Whereupon the learned Junius noteth thus, Observandum autem quod ait Apud Jnferos etiam de Lazaro. Nam inferos Latini Patres (ut Graeci Haden) pro omni loco aut statû mortuorum dixerunt promiscuè. Atque in hunc sensum Lazarus & Dives apud inferos collocantur. 
〈◊〉 before ●●●g 162. ●●●m de ●it. 〈◊〉 anima, 〈◊〉. 55.  Quomodo b Irenaeus, & c Chrysostomus ex verbis Luc. 16.23. locuti sunt, & Tertullíanus locis quamplurimis. This therefore it is that Tertullian saith in another place, d Constituimus omnem animam apud inferos sequestrari in diem judicij: We determine that every man's Soul is kept apart in the world of the dead till the day of judgement. And, Are all souls then in the power of the kingdom of Death, penes inferos? Will you nill you, there you shall find punishments and comforts, as in Lazarus and the Rich man. For why should you not think that the Soul may be both punished and comforted in inferis, in the World of the dead? Neither doth he c Montanize in this (as f you object) but consenteth with Irenaeus before and with others after him as shall appear, 
〈◊〉 Innius 〈◊〉 on this chap. 188.  who were no Montanists. Notwithstanding it is true, that somewhere he taketh inferos, pro locali determinatione (as he speaketh) for the peculiar and determinat place of the wicked deceased, that is, Hell strictly and properly. 
〈◊〉. 4.  Thus he doth in that g against Martion, with you cite pag. 201. Also in that h objection of certain Haeretikes whom he confuteth, 
〈◊〉 anima 55.  not the true Christians, as i: you k misconceive. They argued thus (as you do) in hoc Christus Jnfiros adiit, ne nos adiremus. 
188. 〈◊〉 title of ●ooke in ●●●elius & ●●●s edition.  Christ therefore went to Hell, to the end that we might never come there. He answereth them that it is false that Christ went to Jnferos in that sense, that is to Hell: for than what difference is there between the wicked Heathens and the godly Christians, if one & the same prison after death were for them both. Taking it for a thing generally granted in the church, that Christ being dead went only thither where the godly Dead were, and therefore that it were a wicked and heretical thing to think he went where the Damned were, that is into Hell. And so he quite overthroweth your opinion together with the reason thereof, as an opinion, which if any held, they were ill thought of in those days. 
〈◊〉 99 De ●●●es. ad lit. 〈◊〉. 33.  Thus also is Augustin well l understood, where he denieth that the patriarchs were apud inferos, in Hell, namely the place of the Damned, because they were in Abraha●s bosom. Which yet 
b Epist. 5● De civi. ● 20.15.  elsewhere he granteth unto, that they might be apud inferos in the world of the Dead, & namely where the Godly dead should be. So that thus if you had but distinguished these and other Fathers like words as you ought to have done, there needed no such folly of Contradiction to be imputed unto them, as 
c Pag. 18● 200. 204  you do lay to their charge in this point, altogether undeservedly. Which being well observed you shall see that all the Fathers (as Mr junius saith) both Greek & Latin, do take Hades and inferos 
d Promis●●  indifferently for the state of the Dead, as well pertaining to that Souls of the Godly, as to the Damned likewise. Athanasius also saying 
e Athanas. incar. Ch●●●  ubi tenebatur anima humana in morte, ibi exhibuit humanam suam animam: Where human Souls were held by Death, there he brought his human Soul, Meaneth nothing else but that his human Soul came under the same condition of death, as other men's Souls did: not that he went to the place of the Damned. Neiter must he be understood after 
f Pag. 179 186. 214.  your partial translation, but after his own language the Greek. When you say ex Orco, out of Hell, himself saith exhadou, out of the power of Death. So that 
g De salu●● vent. Ch●●●  he saith not a word that Christ was in Hell, but only that his Soul was in Hades, in the Dominion of Death, as 
h Ad no●●● similitude  other good men's Souls were also: whence he by his victorious return conquering Death 
i De salut advent. C●●●st●.  brought us immortality, and wrought resurrection for us. Hear Hades being enemy and opposite to the Immortality and Resurrection of men's persons, cannot by any means be Hell: For Hell agreeth with Immortality and Resurrection, & in Hell shallbe immortality and resurrection as well as in Heaven. But it is the common Death and dissolution of our persons, which is contrary to the immortality and resurrection of them. For as Resurrection is nothing else but a restoring and reuniting of the Soul to the Body, so the contrary is nothing else but merely the dissolution and separation of the Soul from the Body: which is Death, and not Hell. Now in this death (saith Athanasius) Christ was held till he spoiled and conquered it; thereby giving us resurrection and immortality. This can not be Hell out of question. Hilarius verily hath this meaning also, saying; 
k Hilar. ● Psal. 13●  This is the Law of human necessity, that their bodies go down to the Grave, their Souls to the world of the Dead, ad inferos. Which descent the Lord did not refuse, that he might prove himself in every point to be a true man. His going to Hell proveth him not to be a true man: but his Soul to come under the power of Death, as well as his body to come to the Grave, 
〈◊〉 koino●●●●ôpos, ●●●em mor●●● serva●●  that right well proveth him in deed to have been a true man, and wholly in nature like all other men. Also this was indeed the Law of human necessity, (after the like phrase as a justin, 
●●●gi satisfa●●● forma hu●●● mortis ●●●us. ●ag 157. ●efore. 〈◊〉 Death & ●●es a●e v●●●or the same.  b Irenaeus, and c Tertullian also speak:) but not to go to Hell. Now this Death properly belongeth to the Body of Men; d as it is left without life. Also no less properly it belongeth to the whole Person of men, as it is dissolved and destroyed thereby. Thirdly, by consequence it belongeth to both the dissolved parts: yea even to the immortal Soul (though blessed; not as it is in blessedness, but) as it remaineth held from the Body by the force of Death. And so all these last named are very excellent places to prove (which afterward I shall further show) that all those articles of the Creed He Died, was Buried, and descended to Hades do indeed signify but one thing in effect, that he was a true man: seeing thus it befell him as it doth all other men by the Law of our Nature: that is, to Die. And therefore that it was clean left out in all ancient Creeds, (where both those other clauses are specified) as being no diverse point in effect from Dead and Buried. Which Creeds nevertheless are worthily deemed to be absolute and perfect touching Christ's works of Redemption which he hath wrought for us. Since perhaps, when it came into the Common Creed, they signified hereby Christ's going to Limbus. Which opinion indeed men generally inclined unto (though erroneously) for many years: yet that the Ancients put this Descending to hades, (meaning Limbus, or howsoever) into the vulgar Creed distinctly from both the other foresaid clauses, I believe not. The contrary is proved afterwards: as anon we shall see. But to proceed here: 
●●rys. Hom. civet & de 〈◊〉 bol Tom. in 1. Cor. Hom. 40. ●●●asil. in 〈◊〉 48. ●●●mbr. de 〈◊〉 mort. 〈◊〉 10. ●●●rom. in 〈◊〉 1●. 14. mcguffin. in ●●●bol. 〈◊〉. 413.414  c Chrysostom and d Basill likewise (with the rest of the Greeks) may be noted, how they yield Hades to the Souls of the godly and just men deceased remaining in joys. Also Ambrose is to be considered, who right according to all the rest, saith, e Souls departed from their Bodies did go to Hades, that is, to an invisible place, which in Latin we call Infernum. And Jerome, f Infernus is a place where the Souls are included, either in rest or pains. And Ruffinus upon g Descendit ad inferna giveth this sense Descendit in Mortem, He submitted unto Death. All the rest which h you cite (or can cite) have nothing contrary, but rather consenting herewith. So that it is certain by all the Fathers generally, 

1. That Hades and Sheol are taken for Death, 
No●●.  the Common state of Death, or the invisible world of the dead common to the Souls both of good and bad, though their particular places were far separat and distinct.  
2. That Christ went not into Hell the place of the Damned, as you hold: but to the Habitation of the blessed deceased (called also by them Abraham's bosom:) which we know (and you also) was indeed Heaven: according to that word of Christ, 
“ joh. 16 16.  I leave the World, and go to the Father.   Which I have proved further before, pag. 149. 150. I doubt not but they erred generally (as 
“ Pag. 21  yourself also holdeth) in thinking that this Habitation of the blessed Souls was beneath in the earth, or that it was not heaven: nevertheless this is the point wherein we agree, and wherein they erred not, and which I cite them for, and which is directly against you, that hades (which also is sheol) belonged to the Blessed souls deceased, aswell as to the Damned: and namely that Christ's going to Hades was to go to be Blessed deceased. Which in Latin also they called Jnfernun, but so unproperly and so unaptly in respect of the truth, that even this ill term surely both sprang from error, and began in them their error, or confirmed and spread farther this error.  
Now thus your vain boasting of 
a Pag. 41  all the Fathers is but a bubble: and that All the Fathers without exception do touch and teach Christ's local Descent to hell. So that if you be content (as 
“ Pag. 41  you say) to be tried by all the Father's Greek and Latin, they quite overthrow you, notwithstanding your great words. For the truth is, they are all against you: and with us, in such sort as I said. Only Austin doubtingly and waveringly differeth from all the rest: who somewhere seemeth to think that Inferi cannot be attributed to just men's Souls departed. For thus doubtingly he speaketh, 
c Aug de 〈◊〉 ad litter. ca  Illud me nondum invenisse confiteor etc. I confess I have not yet found that Inferi are named where the just men's Souls are at peace. Yes surely the Ancients named the places for all the deceased both good & bad Inferos, like as they named (where both wicked and good do live in the world) 
d Arnob. Psal 137.  Superos. And Austin (if he had marked it well) might have found even this (which he saith he found not) in the Latin translation of the Scripture: 
“ Psa. 88 Lat. edit.  Quis est homo, qui vivet, etc. What man is there that (ever) shall live and shall not see death? Shall he deliver his Soul from the hand of Inferi, that is Death. For he can not here understand Inferi to be the Grave, because then the Soul must signify the dead body: which a you say is more than absurd. 
●●g 168.  Wherefore the Soul here being taken properly for the Soul, than Inferi is found applied to just men's Souls deceased, as well as to the wicked: which Augustin might have observed. 
●pist 57 〈◊〉 civet Dei, ●. 15.  Yea he himself b elsewhere granteth also that the just in peace might be in inferis after death. And here he denieth it but coldly & waveringly, Proinde ut dixi nondum inveni, & adhuc quaero, nec mihi occurrit inferos alicubi in bono posuisse Scripturam. Now this is Augustine's difference herein: let the Reader judge, 
Pag. 363. Before pa. 56. Pag. 175.  if you say truly that c Austin judicially and resolutely affirmeth it. Or is it not rather (as I call it) his † Conjectural inclination: yea his only. For d Fulgentius denieth not inferos to the godly deceased, nor that Christ was locally with them only in inferis. So that in saying, He was where the wicked are tormented, he meaneth that in respect of the Common place; which in whole he calleth infernum. Thus than we may see that Augustine's differing herein is to little purpose. 

1. Because it is contrary to all the ancient Fathers before him, with him, and since him.  
2. Because we must not esteem his saying by the Latin Inferi, but by the original Sheol and Hades, which are more against him: as before I have showed.  
3. Because it is waveringly delivered, & with doubt in himself; yea contrary to himself, as I have showed.  
4. Because he seeketh to maintain it erroneously.   For he giveth this reason and end of Christ's going to Hell (the place of the Damned) that he might deliver some of the damned sinners out of Hell torments, quos esse solvendos occultâ suá iusticiâ iudicabat. Which most strange conceit of his yourself e do confute rightly. 
Pag. 199.  But either grant this end and reason to be true, or else say his main opinion is false also, that Christ went thither: seeing he maketh that the reason of this. And why may not Austin err as well in saying that he went to Hell after death, as in saying that he went thither to lose out of pains such and such? It seemeth Austin was carried into this conceit, 
 neque frutrà ill●c decendisse existimetur nulli ●orum prosu●urus qui ibi erant. Epist. 99  because he could not imagine what f else Christ should do in Hell: and that he was there in deed he thought, because he guessed (contrary to all antiquity beside) that the meaning of inferi and hades could not be applied to the estate of blessed souls after this life. Which mistaking of his (as also yours with him) is plentifully convinced (I hope) before. Wherein I desire the learned to judge. As for Augustine's opposing against this our sense of Hades, saying: In graecà linguâ origo nominis quo appellantur inferi, ex eo quòd nihil suave habeant, resonare perhibetur. It showeth his mistaking more: yea the very ground of all his mistaking, as I think. First it appeareth by this, that Austin had very little knowledge in the Greek: seeing he thinketh that Hades should originally signify nihil suave, nothing sweet. I conjecture that he thinketh Hades is made of hedys' sweet, and α the Privative. Wherein then he misseth much: for hades in Greek hath always iôta written under, 
The nature Hades.  which showeth that in the true original whence hades cometh, there is the letter iôta expressed. But in hedys' sweet there is none. The truth is, it cometh from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to see, and α the privative: as all Grecians (Plato, Plutarch, etc.) yea the Fathers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ambrose, etc.) do show: and that it signifieth, An invisible state after a visible being in this world, and sometime Darkness, or a place of darkness. Not that the state of all the Dead generally was thought to be in darkness, but because Death took them out of this cheerful world's light, and covered them (as it were) with darkness and oblivion from the world's sight and knowledge here. This etymology of hades was most familiar and frequent with all Grecians, with whom it seems Austin was not much acquainted: as by this his wide conjecture we may think. Neither impute this (I pray) as arrogancy to me, for so judging of such a man. I think all men will so judge of him likewise, and yet deerogate nothing from his great desert in God's Church. Himself doth soberly acknowledge it of himself, saying, 
“ Contr●● Peril. 2●  Ego quidem Graecae linguae perparùm assecutus sum, & propè nihil. Truly I have but little Greck: yea almost none. Neither would he here have said perhibetur, thus it is reported, touching the Etymology of Hades: if he had pretended any skill in that tongue. Yea Possidonius in his Life testifieth, that he had no love to the Greek language. Besides many other arguments hereof, if it were likely that I wronged him in judging thus of him. Wherefore seeing it was thus, no marvel if Austin easily mistook the proper & right meaning of hades: etc. than much sooner of Inferi, for the reason 
* Pag. ● Treat. 105.  before noted. Thus also he might readily imagine heerupon, that Hades and Inferi (in Scripture specially) were no where applied to blessed Souls. Which oversight in him is much more pardonable, than it can be in you: who I doubt not in the languages want no skill, if you would but sincerely judge according to that you do understand. Yea and in comparison of myself, I unfeignedly confess, that I suppose I have not seen many books in the learned tongues, which you are likely to have read and studied. Nevertheless I am well assured that in the sense of these words Hades and Sheol; you are greatly over hot: and most of all in this unsavoury opinion coming therefrom, that Christ's soul after death went to Hell. As I hope it hath hitherto well appeared. Yet you will say, Austin speaketh marvelous resolutely, 
pist. 99  that a None but an infidel will deny that Christ's Soul was in inferis. So he may well, understanding here Jnferos to express Hades in Greek: for that is the Scripture in deed. Which to deny were infidelity. But he is no infidel that denieth inferos to be a fit Latin word for Hades in Greck: 
〈◊〉 some have 〈◊〉 ●t simply 〈◊〉 the state 〈◊〉 cath. pa. ●3. etc. 〈◊〉 Graeca ●●●ua origo ●●●nis, etc.  or * admitting the translation, yet denieth in English that Christ was in Hell. After all, yet I may not forget how Aust. here" would have in this controversy the very nature & proper Etymology of Hades to be regarded and precisely followed: notwithstanding that himself mistook it much. How then is it, that you skornfully call this endeavour (touching the H●brue Sheol) b rabbinical Grammar observations, 
●●g. 153.  and (touching Hades in Greek) the Poets fantastical imaginations? In this therefore Austin also is not a little against you. Other exceptions of his touching the matter, we shall afterwards consider together with yours.  
Now I come from the Ancients to the later learned Writers: that we may not neglect their judgement in this question. 
〈◊〉 late De●ors of the ●●●ll con●●● o●● ex●●ion.  Who as they were generally freer from error then those of old for the most part, so they testify this point with me more clearly & more constantly than they. Who were observed * before. Yet because you let them go without (as it were) saluting them, and as if they were not worthy (belike) that you should cast a look on them: 
〈◊〉 cat. 1.  therefore they shallbe noted once more, that I may press you with them, and that others at least wise, may consider them better. Bucer saith, The" Scripture no where speaketh of Hades or Infernum, but as being common aswell to the blessed as to the damned. 
〈◊〉 in Mat. 〈◊〉 50.  But Gehenna is proper only for the damned. Again, In that we acknowledge that the Lord went down to Infernum, we understand that in his Soul he joined to the society of the souls of the dead Saints, even as in his body he was joined to their bodies by Burial. P. Martyr, 
a P Mart Symbo.  That Christ descended to Inferos (or Hades) signifieth nothing else, but that he did undergo the same state as other souls do that departed this life. Mollerus, (touching Sheol, Hades, and Infernum ascribed to Christ 
b Moller. Psalm 1●  saith, they do signify but that Christ died: and to be no more, then as if he should say in the Psalm, Therefore I rejoice because I know that although I die yet I shall rise to life again. Bulinger (speaking of Christ & indifferently of the godly) showeth 
c Bullin D 1.7. & 8.  that To go to Inferos, is to go to Abraham's bosom, that is into Heaven, not into Hell: and that Inferi and Hades do make difference only between the Living and the Dead, & nothing else. Lavater saith, 
d Lavat. E●ech ca●● 31.18.  Hades in Greek is a general word for the condition of the dead both in torments and in peace. Tremellius saith, 
e Anno●a● Psal. 49.  This Hebrew word Sheol doth signify any station or state of the ' Dead in general in very many places of Scripture: and Hell it may sometime signify, but by a figure synecdoche. Lastly junius in his note upon Tertullian 
f Pag. 16  before rehearsed, doth confirm all this most fully. These men I think every wise and faithful Christian will highly esteem and prefer, for their learning and namely for their skill in the toung●s, for their sincerity and soundness in Religion, for their unity and conse●●●n this point, for their diligence, faithfulness, and modesty in all things.  

The lear● Heathen thout● conour sense Hades.  The rather this sense of Hades we are to acknowledge, because it hath been the ancient phrase and common use of speech before Christianity: that this word should signify the general state of D●ath applied even to the Souls both of the Blessed & Damned Which sufficiently I showed 
“ Treat. 〈◊〉 97 98.  before out of Plato, Homer, and others. Yea no less I showed also touching the Latin word Inferi out of 
* Pa. 100 108.  Cicero: though this word naturally implieth an error, which Hades doth not, as before also I have declared. What is your answer to this? Forsooth (I think because you have been a master of Grammar) you go about to teach Cicero Latin, & for his general phrase implying that all the Deceased both good & bad were apud inferos, vou do so whip him & handle him 
g Your p●● 387. 3●  here, that it seemeth you forget by whom yourself hath profited, and that even he in time past hath been your Teacher. I will not now enter into any defence of Cicero: his speech and language will defend itself. Also that were to leave our main purpose. But it is the lesso strange that you use Cicero thus: for others also have had the like correction at your hands with him. 
●●g. 310.  a Before Torence scaped not. And b here Plato and Socrates and other Greeks' have also their parts, 
〈◊〉. 374.378  for their using and taking of the Greek word Hades so largely as the natural Etymology thereof doth bear. But let them defend themselves whether they speak usual and right Greek and Latin, or no: I will leave them in that. They are eloquent enough, they can speak in this case for themselves. Only I will take their words at their hands evens as c I find them, and so I refer the judgement of all to the learned and wise Reader. 
〈◊〉 also all 〈◊〉 forenoted ●●●ned W●●● have loud 〈◊〉 & used 〈◊〉 likewise. ●●g 385.  Also for that charge against me of d lewd lying, and open falsifying of Plato, I remit all to the indifferent Reader. Yet I can not but smile truly (for offended I will not be) that Mai. Bilson is so strongly persuaded, that c I am of Plato's and Cicero's religion touching Hell, 
●●g 370. 〈◊〉. 389.  Heaven, the Gods, and wicked Spirits: and that I seek indeed to bring in their fantastical Hell into our Christian Creed. This fantastical conceit of his, let him feed himself with it: and let him persuade it to whom he can. Thus much the sober and indifferent Reader will consider and acknowledge, that the Holy Apostles do teach the Heavenly truth with the very words and Grammar of the Heathen men: whereunto that serveth which is written of them, f We every man hear them speak in our own tongues and languages wherein we were borne. 
〈◊〉. 2.8, 11.  Then the Apostles surely spoke according to the currant speech before their times and in their times, and yet thereby never g Canonised the fables and fancies which the nations implied in their words. 
●●g. 368.  Whosoever he be that will say otherwise, knoweth not what he saith: neither shall any credit or greatness which he hath, get him credit in so saying. Yet in a certain place you most strangely and confidently avouch, h That neither with the ancient Masters of the Greek tongue which were Poets, 
●●g. 410. 〈◊〉 1. Treat. 〈◊〉. 97.98. ●●to in ●●done. ●m. iliad. 1 ●●lutarch. ●rallel. & ●●nsol. ad 〈◊〉  nor with the 70. nor with the Writers of the New Testament, nor with the people of that time Hades did ever signify the world of Souls without any limitation of state or place. I thought that those few allegations which" I brought of * Plato, † Homer, and" Plutarch for the Greek, and of Latins for the Latin would have sufficed to cause you not to deny so clear and manifest a truth, which here you deny even against your own knowledge, as after shall appear. Wherefore to demonstrat this point a little further to you, and to all men, if any yet do believe this your assertion, (which is most untrue) I will not think it to much to note some more places out of the Heathen authentic Greeks', (for that is the principal controversy) that Hades with them did signify the World of Souls, with out any limitation (in the very word itself) either of state or place. But as all men know that by reason of Circumstances it often signifieth with them Hell determinately, 
Note.  so by reason of circumstances also it signifieth with them many times determinately the Habitation of the Souls of good men in joys and pleasures, which was to them as their Heaven. And for this I will only put you in mind of some places, which you know well enough already. First note that common epithet or title of Hades: 
Hades t●● world Souls 〈◊〉 the Author Greeks.  
a Lycop●●  Hades pandokeus or pandocheus. The unseen world or state of Death that receiveth all, both good and bad. 
b Hom. 〈◊〉 15. He● in The●●  Others imagine Hades a God or mighty power power of Death, & do call him, eneroisin kataphthimenoisin anassôn, Ruler (not of Hell only, but) of all that ' Dy. And therefore to this place come not the wicked and damned only, but the noblest and best also, (as Achilles saith being dead and being in Hades) 
c Hom. 〈◊〉 λ.  Aidós de katélthemen éntha te nékroi: Hither into hades all we that are dead do come. This 
d Plato Gorgia● Plutarc● Consol● Apollo●  Plato and Plutarch do acknowledge in that place which 
e Pa. 37●  you cite at large: together with a number more both of the Poets & Philosophers. And this also it is that Homer showing how jupiter cast down his rebellious Angels into Hell (Tártaron, with them the proper place of the Damned) he describeth it to be so much beneath Hades the place of the other Dead, 
f Hom.  hoson ouranos esti apo gays: as heaven is from the earth. So in regard of this it is that 
g Sopho● Aiant.  another maketh it to be much better to be in hades, as it is the common place and condition of the dead (not Hell) then to be sick unrecoverably: kreissôn aida keuthôn e nosôn mátan. And so Plutarch maketh Hades (not Hell, but) the place of the Dead or the stare of the dead in general to be a sovereign comfort to the afflicted & miserable in this world, 
h Plutarc● swearing Aeschy●  O Thanate paian iatros molois, Limen gar ontôs aidas an aian: Aiden d'echôn boethon, ou tremo skias. Lastly that which 
i Pag. 37●  you bring of Orpheus describing the true God, that he is King both of the Unseen world aithéros ed'aïdou, and also of this present visible world ponton gaiéste tyrannos, confirmeth all that is before said. For aither aids here is to be construed together, not separately; and so he signifieth thereby that the true God indeed is Lord and King not only over this whole Visible world (which he understandeth by the Sea and Land) but also over the whole Invisible world or air, that is over all the Dead both good and bad. I marvel therefore very much what you mean to speak so plainly contrary to the truth and to your own knowledge, that Hades did never signify the world of Souls without any limitation of state or place, no not with the ancient Masters of the Greek tongue which were the Poets. The rather this your speech is directly against your knowledge because you expressly collect and confess the contrary, that is the same which I do: 
●ag 403.  thus you say. a Hades before (the Apostles time) extended to good and bad. 
pag. 371.  And" within Pluto's kingdom under the earth which they call Hades, as well the places and pleasures for the Good, 
●ag 379. ●●●d, in Ho●●r, Virgil, ●istophanes ●●pides and ●●ers you shall the World ●he Dead, ●he world of ●●es be they 〈◊〉 or bad to ●●in Pluto's ●●gdo which Greek●●●ts call ●●les.  as the prisons and punishments for the bad are in their conceit prepared and settled. Again, b Hades with them was the Ruler or place of Souls, were they in rest or pain. Where you make a strange answer, that Christian Religion will assure, that this place must needs be Hell. What? That place where some good men's souls deceased are in rest? Is this Hell? Yea is it Hell in Christian Religion? Who then henceforth will care for Hell, if some souls have rest and pleasures in Hell? But you say also that those Heathen Greeks' did think that this place of Souls was c under the Earth. It is true, they thought so indeed: and it was their" error, as also the very same was the Christian Father's error likewise. Which they drew certainly from their acquaintance with those Heathens, 
〈◊〉 379.381 〈◊〉 Hades it ●●●fe importing no such ●●●ng.  but no where at all from the Scriptures. Yet none of these thought this place to be very Hell, where souls were in rest. There is small rest, and few pleasures in Hell. But these Heathens d understood Hades chief for Pluto the Ruler of this place under the earth. 
〈◊〉 371.374  So that though the place were also called Hades, yet this was but secondarily. I answer: This is questionless utterly untrue. For rather the Place or the Estate of the Dead was first & originally called Hades. The God thereof (whom afterward they idolatrously imagined) they did conceive secondarily in respect of the place or thing. Which beside the evidence of the matter, I am persuaded that Plato & Plutarch do show also plain enough, even here where you cite them. Howsoever: this is not maternal, nor to any purpose, whether the place and state were with them first and chiefly called Hades, or whether the feigned Power of death, and Ruler of the Dead (as they imagined) were first and principally so called. This is certain, that this Power or Ruler which they conceived to be over the Dead, as they like idolaters made it a God, so their meaning was to esteem him as the God of the Dead in General, and his state and kingdom to be the 
c Which ●●ing a principal pom●●● our qua●●● is fully g●●●ted by y●●● before.  Habitation of the Dead in general, not of the wicked only in Hell, but of the good also in their Elysian happiness: which was to them in their estimation and reckoning, that which Heaven indeed is to us. But 
“ Pag. 39  you say, there is no one place in truth common to all souls departed this life, but some are in Hell, and some in Heaven. I doubt not but the blessed in Heaven & the Damned in Hell are both in condition & situation separated a funder exceeding far. Yet nevertheless as they are somewhere with in the compass of the created world so they are in a common place; opposite indeed to this visible earth & world of the living, but common to all the Dead, namely in this only respect as they are Dead & departed hence, & are unseen, & utterly exempted from all mutual meddling together with us that do live. Moreover we stand not so much on this, that by Hades must be understood any one place common to all the Dead, but the State and condition of death among the Dead, or the Power and Dominion of Death which very aptly also it serveth for, and fitteth our purpose aswell as to understand there by a common place. But indeed all this I doubt not Hades very well may signify, when it is referred to men, according to the circumstances of the author where it is read. But this Hades you say in those Heathen authors 
“ Pag. 3●● 378. 41●  is the very Devil himself. Therefore his Kingdom must be needs nothing but Hell. I answer, The Heathen in their conceit thought him not to be a Devil but a 
* V●z that 〈◊〉 or of d●●● which by 〈◊〉 is som● signifie●  God, even the God and Ruler over all the Dead: and so they worshipped this foul Idol. Therefore his whole kingdom & region they reckoned to be the World of the Dead or Dominion of Death, which also they called Hades: It may be 
f Pag. 37●  Porphyry meaneth that they held him to be Lord and Ruler over Hell and all the wicked Spirits and Devils therein: yet he saith not but that Hades or Pluto was thought by them to have power over all the Dead: his rage against men, and the fear that men had of him, signified the unmercifulness of Death sparing none, and how it is to the nature of all men a thing most terrible. So that they esteemed a part indeed of his Dominion to be Hell peculiarly: but a part also to be the Region of the Happy, which was their Heaven. But you say, this was the Devil. Yea even as the rest of their Gods were also very Devils indeed, & nothing else. So was their Highest Jupiter, and so was Apollo, and so was Mercury, and all the rest of the Gods and Goddesses which their impiety adored. They were indeed none other, then very Devils illuding the vanity of men. And thus I grant was their Hades or Pluto likewise. Howbeit in their estimation he was not properly the Devil, but a Power or Ruler over the Dead both good and bad: and his Kingdom the Dominion and world of the Dead both good and bad. 
Pag. 171.  But a you remit Poets and Pagans using this word to the alleagers. Yet Poets & Pagans are the authentic masters for Grammar both Greek & Latin. Yea they were yours I doubt not in time past. 
Before pag. ●70.  Austin (as we" saw) alloweth the Etymology and natural property of hades to be regarded. Yea all learned men in all ages condemn this your rejecting of Pagans and Poets for the Grammatical use of words: whom still they do regard and follow in this respect.  
But here let us observe, how the holy Apostles do teach the truths of the Gospel with the very words and language of the Heathens. 
observations.  There are in this point 3. or 4. things that must be well observed and remembered. 1. The Apostles do speak of the mysteries of true Religion with the Heathens words (as I said) yet so, as that when the Heathens words do imply some error with truth, then in other express places they plentifully refute all their errors implied in their words. Whereby it comes to pass that all the proportion of truth which the Heathen signified by them, is yet fully and rightly signified still in the Apostles use of them: but nothing further, that is, none of the other fancies & fictions of the Heathen. As for example, Zeus jupiter, was among the Heathens their great God, & he only was their highest: of whom beside they held a 1000 fables, and indeed he was none other but a Devil, as is before noted. Nevertheless the Apostle useth the same for the only true God the author and governor of Heaven and Earth (passing by all their Fables) when he applieth the Poet's verse, 
a Act. 2●  His generation also we are. Tartarus which 
b Pag. 3●  you object, though rarely & sometime perhaps a Philosopher will note thereby the Air, yet indeed usually and in a manner always they meant Hell by it, with a thousand of dreams thereto belonging. Yet Peter not canonizing nor commending their dreams and fictions of Hell, notwithstanding signifieth Hell indeed by that word of theirs according to their common use thereof, and according to the proportion of truth which therein they held. So Daimonion, which also 
c Pag. ib●●  you object they used to signify by it both good and bad Spirits following and conversing with them: and the good they honoured as Gods. But indeed and in truth seeing these same were all Devils, therefore the Scripture holdeth not the Heathens erroneous meaning in this word: yet it doth retain that which they understood by it truly, that is to signify Devils and bad spirits. Again, Theos the Heathen used for to express the Nature of God: but so as that they thought it common to many several Gods. The Apostles use the word also for the true God, yet not understanding therein a nature common to many: which error they otherwise clearly and often refute. And thus we might speak of infinite more the like words: as Fear, the power and strength whereof they also feigned to be a God, and of Hope and of Revenge Goddesses, etc. Like whereunto is Hades, even that which presently we have in hand. 
The dive●● applicat●● of Hade●  With the Heathen it commonly and most usually signified the state of Dead men: sometime rarely, the Destruction of other things which perish out of this visible world & have no more being here. Whereof anon we shall see further. Howbeit now to consider it as it respecteth men only, thus the Heathens chief and commonly by Hades understood the state I say and Condition of men both good and bad deceased and gone out of this world. And they meant it commonly for the Destruction of their persons from out of this world generally and indifferently. Again, oftentimes particularly touching their Bodies burial: also particularly many things touching their Souls state being parted from the Body. Some of which they believed were in Blessedness, some in Torments: although they signified neither of these in the word Hades, but only (as I said) their state after their departure hence. Also they thought some of the Blessed Souls to be in the a chiefest Blessedness, 
which you ●●iect pag. ●●4. 376.  that was in presence with the Gods. Yet they were in Hades also, that is in an other world after they were wiped out from hence. Hither they admitted only Philosophers, 
Treat. 1 pa. ●.  Heroês, & such like. Thus hither it is that b Plato assigneth Socrates, and thus Socrates himself hopeth to go to Hades, to the wise and good God. Other Souls of good men they gave Blessedness unto in the Elysian fields under the earth: as they fancied, or where else I know not. And these were also in Hades. So that both these estates and conditions of blessed Souls deceased which was their Heaven (though differing very much in places) they yielded to be in Hades. Whence I think some of the Fathers, and after them some Papists, have feigned diverse places of rest and joy to the Dead. Heaven presently to the Martyrs, but to other good Christians an other place of rest & joy (which they called Abraham's bosom) either in the earth, or where they also knew not. Howbeit into the glory of Heaven and the presence of God and of Christ they admit none, save only the Martyrs before the last day. But this error and all other errors about Hades, the Apostles sufficiently confute in their writings: so that we are not now to respect the same in the use of Hades. Only we are therefore to note how much and what (besides all errors) may be truly retained and meant by the Apostles in applying this word Hades, as the Heathen did, to both sorts of Souls of Dead men. They might truly understand that both have one common condition and state as touching their being in another world, as they were dissolved, departed from and wiped out of this visible world, & a● they were now in the world of the Dead an opposite estate & condition to the living. This also the very Natural Etymology of the word according to Grammar, doth properly yield in that it signifieth c Unseen, 
Hades. The ●●ke may be ●●●id of Sheol.  or Not seen any more in this world, or an estate not seen here with us: topos aîdes, an Unseen place, as Plato calleth it. Where note, it cannot be referred to the estate of Angels, because Hades is the unseen state of them that once had a visible and ordinary being and conversation here in this world. So that in very deed it hath properly but a Privative sense, & not any thing positive in it: though this d you can not brook. All this then the Apostles might well understand & allow in the word Hades, 
Pag. 396.  without any taint of Heathenism. And therefore also doubtless so they did. But the heathens further made Hades a Divine power (whom also they called Pluto, as it were the God of Death, or of the Dead) because (as before is showed) they dreamt that he held all that were Dead, under his power, both blessed & damned souls. And because no man that dieth whether good or bad, doth ever live here again: and because all whosoever without exception must die, therefore they call him Hades améilichos kai adámastos, implacable and unmastered: and Nélees êtor echôn having a mercilesso bear't. In which sense in Latin also they used Parca, Destiny: the end of all, because it spareth none. Certainly this Deifying of such a Power or to make a God of it, the Apostles abhorred: and every where in their writings they show what Idolatry and extreme impiety it is. But yet they may and do acknowledge such a power of Death, which worketh this Destruction of all men from the world, & detaineth them in Death afterward. Wherefore they have in sundry places Prosopopoeas thereof as in the Revelation the Keys of Death and Hades: Death riding on a pale horse, and Hades following after him: Death and Hades yielded up their dead, and both were cast into Hell. Likewise that, O Death where is thy sting, O Power of death where is thy victory. But of these more anon. Hitherto the 1. observation is manifest that the Apostles using the Heathens words, yet need not, nor do nor understand in them any of their fancies and errors, which by their doctrine otherwise they refute; nevertheless they may and do understand the general truth signified in them, whatsoever the Heathens used by them to signify and imply. And thus is our word in controversy Hades cleared. But to clear the rest also of those which 
b Pag. 36●  you object: Sec: we are to observe that the Apostles transfer the Heathens Civil words many times to their Ecclesiastical use: namely keeping yet still the proportion of their former sense. As in these, Apostle, Bishop, Deacon, Gospel, Law, Sin, Repentance, Hope, Conscience, Concupiscence, etc. Which change is small and easy, sith the words have a just proportion still together both in Civil and Ecclesiastical use. Only if any difference or odds be, it is expressly uttered in some part of the Apostles doctrine beside. There is no such cause, nor matter of difference to be found in Hades. Third. The Apostles do use some words kat' éxochen by an excellency, & yet in no point altering the native use or property of them. 
●●●a all the 〈◊〉 before ●●●med, or ●●●t o● them 〈◊〉 ●e con●●●ed also ●●●er this ●●●e. ●ag 403.  a Thus Scripture is used commonly for the Word of God only, Diábolos for the Devil, although sometimes other writings are called also Scripture, and other Accusers and slanderers Diabolois. But neither hath this consideration any place in Hades, that in Scripture it should signify chief Hell: much less only. Which thing b you avouch. Lastly, Some think the Apostles altered the word Faith from the Passive sense of it importing Faithfulness and honesty, as the Heathens commonly used it, to the Active sense which is True belief or Trust used in the Scriptures: which you also object. But I suppose the Apostles took this Active sense of the word Faith from the Old Testament, merely translating the Hebrew into Greek. For I see not what difference at all there is between c Pistis, 
●●●om. 1.17. ●●●bac 2.4.  and d Emunah whereby the jews signified Faith to salvation. Which is reason enough for this use thereof in Greek by the Apostles, namely if it be a hebraism, though it be not very suitable to the Heathens use thereof. The like I judge of Elder, Law, Sin, etc. But Hadès for Hell hath no like reason. Further I think even the Heathens have used this word Faith, sometime Actively as the Gospel usually hath it: likewise the Gospel abhorreth not altogether the Passive use of it for Faithfulness. Lastly, if it were so that the Apostles did follow no other reason, but merely transferred that word from the Civil passive to the Ecclesiastical active use, we say on necessity they might do it. For having some Spiritual doctrine to deliver and the ordinary speech wanting some fit word for the same, than they might, yea of necessity they were forced to take some word nearest in nature and sense to their purpose, & so they might give to that word a peculiar Ecclesiastical use further then anciently it had. But Hades for Hell hath no help by this reason: they took the word Gehenna from the Hebrews, and used it properly for Hell. Therefore they need not alter hades for that purpose, for which they had another proper word. It is manifest then that the Apostles still kept the proportion of the sense in all their words translated from the common and usual speech of the Heathen so far as any reason of truth might be alike in both, & so they spoke indeed still the tongue and language of the Nations: and therefore Hades with the Apostles can not be properly Hell, as even with Heathens also properly it was never.  
I suppose yet you will say, The Fathers take Hades for Hell. I answered 
a Pa. 1  before how they sometime take it determinately and strictly; so they signify Hell by it. Sometime they take it largely & generally according to the Ancient Heathens use: and so they signify by it nothing but the general state of Death pertaining alike both to good and bad deceased, as I have declared. Thus you get nothing by them: albeit sometime the● restrain the word Hades more than they ought to restrain it.  
Hear also were place to have added somewhat for justifying that I said, The Fathers do alter the ancient true use of some words both Greek and Latin, from whom (in controversies) we ought to appeal to their authentic use in Scripture and Classical authors. But because 
b Pag. 3●  you send me about Chirotonía to another place, I am content to examine what you have there to the contrary. Which, seeing it draweth me into further matter thereunto appertaining, I will differre for this time.  
Hitherto we have tried the nature and use of Hades, and have found it to be not properly Hell, as 
c Pag. 1●. 171. 40  you avouch. No, not when it is applied to souls of men deceased. And therefore also that it can not be so understood in Act. 2.27. where it is applied to Christ's Soul after he was dead. Which yet is the only place that you have to pretend. 
How th●● in Act. ● may si●●● and tr●●● vnders●●●  Now something more you bring for your purpose from the Circumstances of this Text: which we must consider. But first let us simply and plainly understand the same, according to our former true declaration of the nature and use of Hades. Where the text is, Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hades, or to Hades: we may simply take Hades for the invisible state or place of the deceased. And so supplying the defect of a word which must be understood, thus we may say eye ton topon, or chôran hadou: in the place or region of the invisible state or 
b Aithér dou. Or before p●●● 173.17.  World of the Deceased Otherwise we may take it simply for Death's force & strength and power: supplying also the same words eye tun topon, or ten chôran hadou, in that place where the power and strength of Death prevaileth and holdeth the deceased Souls from their Bodies. This is the World of the Dead, implying nothing else but ap estate opposite to our Visible estate in this world. Thus may hades be fuly taken, sith I have largely proved before how Hades & Thanato● Death are in effect all one: and may both be applied even to just men's Souls deceased, but hades more easily & naturally. Last of all we may take hades here by a Prosopopoea conceiving it to be (as it were) some Person of unresistible power taking away & withholding from hence all men's Souls departed. Howbeit this power was controlled and loosed by God in Christ's Resurrection. And then we may construe it thus: eye ten chóran, topon, or oikian Hadou, in the place, region, or habitation of this mighty power. Or eye to kratos, exousian, dynamin, or epikratian tou Hadou, to the strength, power, or dominion of this Destroyer of life. Thus howsoever we take it, (though this last way is not the unlikelyest) Hades here signifieth in effect nothing else but Death, & that Christ's Soul (departed this life) was held therein, but could not be holden fast. 
●●g. 166.  You object, c We must not make a Figurative sense but where manifest need is. Hear is no need of a figurative sense. Therefore here ought to be no Figure supposed. I answer, First we grant your Conclusion: whether of the 2. former ways soever that we take hades, so there is simply no Figure at all therein. Sec: Then your own sense of Hell in this place is clean overthrown by yourself. For whensoever hades and sheol do signify Hell, it is indeed by a Figure: namely Synékdoche, where the Whole is set for a part, Which I have proved at large before: 
●●re pag.  & particularly by d Tremellius a sufficient man for his Hebrew skill. Wherefore by this reason Hell cannot possibly be meant here, if no Figure be admitted. Third: it seemeth convenient and also likely to take hades here by a Prosopopoea, after our 3. sense before noted. Which kind of Figure supposeth (as it were) a Person of that thing which otherwise a word properly signifieth. So that by this figure nothing of the words native signification is diminished. Thus our word hades is used in the Corinthians, O Hades where is thy victory? Also as it may seem in the" Revelation Death & Hades were cast into Hell. 
●●ther as pa. 17●  Thus than it is nothing but emphatically signifying the power of Death. Fourth: Admit that hades and sheol did properly signify Hell, as (we see) they do not. Likewise that sometime they signify only the Grave, which also you acknowledge: & it is true, when it is applied to a dead Body. Again admit that nephesh by a Figure may signify the whole Person, yea e the dead Body sometimes. 
〈◊〉 doth 〈◊〉 21.1. & 〈◊〉 & 2●. 4.  Then I affirm, that here in this place of necessity there ought to be understood a Figurative sense. Hear is plainly most necessary cause. For take them thus literally (as you do) and they impugn the grounds of faith and charity. Which 
f Pag 1●  you grant (& that rightly) is sufficient to cause a Figurative sense in Scripture. But how do they impugn faith or charity, being taken as you take them? Verily thus; Your sense implieth by the way and consequently, 
Points in Assertion ●●●trary to discommon ●●o● Faith 〈◊〉 charity.  that a good and sinless man (yea the best that ever was) worthy of Paradise and the highest Heavens, yet after death did go to Hell. And further, that being in Heaven, yet he stayed not there (as you say) but immediately came out again to go into Hell. Again, that a human soul being in the depth of Hell, yet should feel no pains: and that being locally in hell it should come out thence also. What can be more against the general rules of the Scripture than these things? Yea how doth this impugn our general charity towards all the just when they die? Besides many other disproportions and unreasonable inconveniences following withal, as anon we shall further see. Wherefore if by any meames possibly a Figure may be here admitted, certainly it must be so: for these most necessary causes last rehearsed. The rather seeing no other text any where insinuateth any such peculiar matter in Christ, that he should differ in these points from all good men else, as you do urge.  
But you say, 
The Cir●●stances 〈◊〉 against y●●  the circumstances here do prove that the word must be Hell properly taken. That I would feign see. What are these circumstances. First, this place showeth 
* Pag. 1●  a special prerogative verified in none but in Christ. I deny it: here is no such prerogative mentioned. Except this, that whereas some other men after death have returned to life again, it was not by their own power, as Christ's Resurrection was. Again God in his revealed will having signified by his Prophet long before that he should be restored speedily to life again: thus it was simply impossible that Christ should be holden fast by the power of Death, although it had got hold of him. And so indeed he had a prerogative before all men else, which also is here showed us: but no other prerogative in the world neither here, nor any where else can be gathered touching his return from Hell. You add, No flesh (dead) was ever free from corruption but only Christ's. What then? Ergo his Soul was in Hell? Or else, why bring you such needles and impertinent matter. Besides, I judge that not to be true. Were not 
a Pag. 1●  some being dead raised to life again before their flesh putrefied? But non● (you say) in the sepulchre. And what then? How will this infer or prove, that so none but Christ's Soul was ever supported in Hell, or that it was ever there. These are simple reasons for so great a conclusion. Then you say, If by Hell we understand Paradise it was no privilege to be there not forsaken, but rather a childish absurdity to think any Soul might be there forsaken. It is a strange absurdity still to abuse your reader calling this word Hell, 
●●tio prin●● 〈◊〉.  which indeed is nothing but Death in effect, the Power of death, or the condition and state of death. Again to presume that we take it for Paradise or Heaven, or Hell at any time: when we refer it always to the general state of the Dead, and no further immediately. Now in this Christ had cause to rejoice that neither his Soul nor Body was left: but so soon raised up to perfect life again, and so fitted to a full receiving of glory, which within few days after he had. Also besides this cause (his deliverance from the condition of death) he had an other inestimable cause to rejoice that he was raised to life again, namely that he might fulfil his whole work for our Salvation, which before his Resurrection, Ascension, &c: he could not accomplish. 
●●g. 170.  Further b you object, that Peter maketh mention that the sorrows of death were broken, that they should not hold Christ nor hinder him from rising again. But there were none such in the Grave, none in Paradise. Therefore in Hell Christ's Soul was, whence he was delivered when he rose again. I deny utterly this sequel. Because the text saith not that there were any present sorrows in Hades where Christ was. Hear is not a word to any such purpose. 
〈◊〉. 2.24.  What saith the text," God raised him up, losing the sorrows of Death, because it was impossible for him to be, holden fast of it. Will you conclude from hence: Ergo there were present sorrows in that place where Christ was? There is no strength in this reason. The Apostle signifieth here 2. or 3. things. 

1. That God loosed Death from him; wherein he was held, but could not be holden fast.  
2. That this Death had been a most sorrowful & painful Death: which indeed he tasted to the full upon the Cross. As this hebraism, the sorrows of Death (for a sorrowful Death) may emphatically signify.   Also he may set these 2. the sorrows of Death thus together, as the Cause and the Effect: signifying that by the violence of sorrows and bitter pains which he suffered Death came unto him & took hold of him: but it could not hold him fast, because God himself loosed and dissolved it. Thus than it can not follow by the text, that there were sorrows now in hades where Christ was. Further the very text implieth that Christ was holden in this which was loosed from him: I say, he was holden but not 
a Kra●● to b●● fast, ●●en●●●●ctori●● hold●●  holden fast. Now he was not holden in sorrows, for than he could not but have felt them after death: which you will not affirm. It was therefore Death (which came by sorrows) whereof he was held, but not held fast. Again it appeareth that Christ was in that which was loosed and rid from him: Thou wilt not 
b en●a●sai.  leave my soul in hades. I say, he was now in the same wherein he was not left nor forsaken. But he was in no sorrows at all now, for than I think he should have 
† By 〈◊〉 Sorrow●● felt of 〈◊〉 who a●● them.  felt them: he was in death and in the power thereof. Therefore it was Death and the power thereof, which was loosed at Christ's resurrection: not any present sorrows and pains. Neither is it the nature of Sorrows to hold and hinder from Resurrection: but it is the strength of Death which doth that. Thus 
c Pag. 1●  your collection out of Austin is against the true and plain meaning of the text, where you say that the sorrows of death (or hell) were broken before Christ, & so he was never in them, but as the snares of hunters are broken ne teneant non quia tenuerunt before 
“ You 〈◊〉 the ve●● pa. 17●●●ting ●h●● it.  they took hold, not after they had taken hold. This is merely imagined: the text plainly meaneth an other losing and dissolving, namely of the power of Death (as I said) under the which Christ's manhood (even the Body also, aswell as the Soul) was now for a while held, but not victoriously holden fast, when Gods will was that he should rise again. Yet you mightily urge, how that it is 
d Pag. 1ST 196.  Augustine's collection from this text. I perceive your argument is from Austin, and not from Peter, as 
e Pag. 13● 170.  you pretend. When you cite Scripture it is enough belike, if any learned man do collect and frame an opinion from the text, whether right or wrong. You may easily see by that before, that this collection of Austin hath no ground nor reason in the text, but is indeed disproved by it. Which may the sooner be conceived, if we note how he miss in his Translation of these words. Thus he readeth- solutis doloribus inferni, 
August. 〈◊〉 99  quia impossible erat teneri eum in illis: whom God raised up losing the sorrows of hell, because it was impossible that he should be held in them. But the text hath, Losing the sorrows of 
f Thanát●● not Had●● which he 〈◊〉 staketh fo● Hell.  death, seeing it was impossible that he should be g holden fast or strongly holden h of it. 
●●teisthai: 〈◊〉 is more 〈◊〉 Augustine's ●●ri to be ●●ply holdē●●●p ' a●tou: 〈◊〉 illis, in 〈◊〉 sorrows, 〈◊〉 hath it.  Thus it seemeth Austin looked not to the original, which he ought to have done: specially now enquiring into and sifting out an obscure point of Christian faith, as it appeareth that here Austin doth. In no wise aught he to have leaned to a faulty Translation, as this is which he followeth. Seeing therefore he failed in expressing the text, no marvel if his Collection from it were wide. Wherein also he is no where resolute nor persuaded indeed: therefore a weak stay is he alone, for our faith to rest on in this article. Nay in the winding up of that Epistle his godly modesty is registered for example to you and all Christian Ministers. He gives us good leave to refuse his collection and opinion here, so that we bring better reason. Thus he saith, Hec expositio verborum Petri cui displicet, etc. Now whether we bring reason to dissent from Austin herein or no, I refer it (not to you to judge, who are to partial, but) to every indifferent learned reader. The rather for that more Circumstances of this text do make also affirmatively for us. 
〈◊〉. 2.29.  First, a Peter plainly granteth all this matter of David aswell as of Christ: except this, that David was left therein even till this day, as Christ was not. But David was never in Hel. Therefore neither Christ was ever there, whose figure David was. Sec: If it be altogether here from the purpose of Peter to speak to the ignorant and unbelieving jews of Christ's Souls being in hell, then there is no reason to take these words hades and sheol here for hell. But by the whole b 
〈◊〉 ●2.  Text it is evident, Peter had no reason nor purpose to speak to the jews of Christ's Souls being in hell. Therefore I see not how hades & sheol (if they but might signify otherwise) can here signify hell. His whole and direct purpose was to show them of Christ's Souls departure out of this world, and of his Body lying dead in the grave, as is the manner of other men when they die, and that he was from thence mightily c raised up again to life, 
〈◊〉. 31.  more than other men were, or can be. Hear to speak to them of his Souls being in hell, what were there in it? 

1. They being (as I said) ignorant, unbelieving, and stubborn.  
2. The thing being invisible strange and uncouth, not subject to sense, and without all example of the like in the whole Law, & namely no Figure foreshaddowing any such matter to be fulfilled in him.  
3. He intending only in all this speech to show them that this jesus whom they had slain was not now dead but risen again, why should he speak here of hell? Christ's being there made nothing the more to show his Resurrection, which was the 
* ver. ●●  only scope of his speech.   But being so disproportioned with then former faith and understanding, it would rather hinder then further them to the Christian faith. Both these Circumstances I noted before, but I see no answer to them. Wherefore I hope, they with the rest of my assertions herein are firm and good.  
Thus it appeareth that hades doth not every where signify 
a Pa. 17● 403.  Hell in the New Testament. We have seen that it hath no such meaning in the Acts, which yet is the only Scripture whereon you build. Alas, how little a show serveth your turn, when affection leadeth you. This were sufficient to end this Argument: but yet it shallbe good also to try whether any where else Hades properly signifieth Hell. Verily it doth so signify no where at all in the Scripture. Yet I grant it is & aught to be translated Hell in 
b Mat. 1● Luc. 16.  2. places. Not that the word itself doth necessarily signify Hell, but because the circumstances here do require that meaning, as the fittest & best for these particular purposes. In the 1. Christ promiseth that the Gates of Hades shall not prevail against his Church. He meaneth no destruction nor desolation shall root it out, nor take it away from the world utterly. Now seeing of the Church's Destroyer's Hell is the chiefest, and the malice and tag of Satan is the most violent adversary: that the Church (being assured against the worst enemy) may be confirmed and comforted against all other whatsoever, therefore kat' exochèn Hades here signifieth Hell, & for special emphasis we are to name it Hell. Which particular is here intended thus indeed, being always contained otherwise in the compass of this general word Hades. So that albeit the gates of Hades in their own simple nature & common use are the same as the gates of Sheol or maveth, (which are no more but the gates of Death) as 
“ Pag ●●  before I have showed, and as 
* Zuingl●● Esay 38● Moller. 〈◊〉 Psal. 16●  others call it, periphrasis moriendi, a phrase or speech signifying Death: yet I say the circumstances here in Matthew do require a greater emphasis in it. Even that Hell should be chief and particularly noted as to weak against God's Church; that so we should much less fear all other evils. Likewise in 
† Luk. 1ST  Luke, I grant Hades is to be translated Hell: yet only because of the circumstances there. Seeing the wicked miser being now in the state of Death, was in torments: now where could this be indeed but in Hell? So that here also for better emphasis sake it is best to name it Hell, but not for the nature of the word Hades. which the worthy M. Bucer noteth well, saying, Dives non simpliciter scribitur esse in Hade, sed & in Gehenna: quia in tormentis & stammis. The Rich man is not said to be simply in Hades, but also in Hell: because he is said to be in fiery torments. Thus I grant in 2. places Hell is intended by Hades in the Scripture. But what then? Will you conclude from this, as you do about Abyssus? 
●●g 213,  In the Revelation, and Luke d Abyssus is used to signify Hell. Therefore it signifieth hell in the * Romans: or therefore every where properly it signifieth hell. 
●●n 10 7. " Death sometime is the 2. Death. 
●●g 170.  Ergo it is so, Act. 2.24. If you will argue so about hades also from those 2. places before named, I can easily deny your argument in all. The untruth whereof hath appeared before in that principal place of the Acts: and likewise shall appear in all the rest following by God's help. 
●●g. 403.  Next let us a consider, b And thou Capernaum, 
〈◊〉 11.23  which art lift up to the Heaven, shalt be brought down to Hades, to Destruction. I say Hades here is not hell, but the Destruction of Capernaum the City. Christ threateneth 1. this proud and lofty City itself: also the inhabitants thereof for despising his Gospel. The City itself with destruction and razing out from the face of the earth, which is it that he meaneth by Hades. The inhabitants the wicked people thereof he threateneth with c Damnation in hell. 
〈◊〉 ●4.  For the 1st. I understand that so Hades sometime may be referred to the Destruction even of unreasonable things, aswell as of reasonable men. For it seemeth the generality of the word Hades is such that it signifieth No visible being here any more, 
〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 gene.  or Destruction from this world (as the proper Etymology thereof admitteth) to any visible Creature perishing from hence. Though it be certain, it is not so often applied to other things: but it belongeth most commonly & usually indeed to Men only. Notwithstanding to other things we may find it applied: as where Plato (which d you stumble at) saith in Hades were Birds, 
〈◊〉 ●4.  Beasts, Trees, Flowers, Fruits, etc. I deny not but they had fabulous and toyish conceits about these things being in Hades: but wise men may see how their meaning was, these visible creatures being once brought to Destruction & to have no being any more here, that then they yielded hades unto them also, like as they did unto men departed hence. 
potarch de ●●●ult. viv.  This may be the meaning also of Plut. where d he maketh Hades to have the whole contrary part to the Sun (whom they called also Apollo, & Delius, and Pythius) because all Creatures under the Sun (as we use to speak) when they perish hence and have no more being in this world, come to Hades. And thus it seemeth Moses also useth Sheol, when he saith, 
b Numb. 1 30 33.  men, women, children, and cattle alive, yea houses and riches went to Sheol. Therefore here Moses certainly meaneth not Hell, as 
“ Pag. 1●●●  you think: but he signifieth 2. things. 

1. That all these things were taken utterly away out of this world by an unrecoverable Destruction: which is the most general and large sense of Sheol.  
2. That they descended down into a 
b As also Ps●●● 86.13. an● 88.7. Deut. 32.  vast and deep Gulf in the earth: which also Sheol doth very often signify in the Scripture, like to Abyssus in Greek. After which manner also those 
c Psal. 49.  Sheep in Sheol (which 
d Pag. 399.  you turn to the worst) may be understood.   Thus I say Sheol may show the utter taking away (not of men only, but) of other things also when they have no being in this world any more. Which Abacuk also meaneth in saying, 
e Abac. 2. 2●  neither Sheol nor Death can be satisfied, if he make any difference in these. Also in the very like place of the 
f Pro. 30. 1ST  Proverbs, Sheol seemeth to be most rightly understood in the most large signification. To which sense likewise, I take it that phrase in Daniel, en lo, may be compared, though here it be used of Messiah: ●tikkare Messiah, ve ên lo, 
Dan 9.26  Messiah shallbe cut of and shall have No being. He meaneth, Not any more as he was before in this world: which in effect is nothing else then that which Sheol signifieth. Yet we must come nearer. You allege 2. frivolous proofs of Sheols signifying Hell: viz: when it hath 
g Pag. 147.  Opposition to Heaven, and Situation as the lowest. For the Situation of Hell, it is a secret which God's word hath not revealed at all. Neither ought we to determine, as you very rasly do, 
h Pag. 112.  If Hell be any where, there can be no doubt but it must be in the lower parts of the earth. You know the Apostle mentioneth the 
i Ephe. 2.2.  Air, and that 
k cap. 6.12.  on high, as being the place of Devils. Notwithstanding far be it from me to affirm that hell certainly is not beneath. Yet your pretended scriptures are merely forced to prove it. As in the chief I have showed already. In the rest it will appear likewise anon. Howbeit, wheresoever Hell indeed is, though we do grant in it to be locally in the earth beneath us; yet every Opposition between Shammajim the Heavens or Skies, and Sheol doth not signify the opposition between Heaven and Hel. This you shall never be able to prove: Shammajim thus placed signifieth the Skies, not the very place of Heavenly glory in the presence of God, which in English we call Heaven. And Sheol thus placed signifieth not Hell, the place of torments: but it is taken thus 2. ways. Sometime for † a vast and deep Gulf only or pit in the earth, 
Abyssus.  the bottom whereof we know not. 
Amos. 9.2. job. 11.8. Psa. 139.8.  So do a many of your places mean, which you draw and wrest to signify Hell. Sometime for Ruin and Destruction or Abolishing of any visible Creatures from hence: which seemeth to be the largest & most proper sense of Sheol. 
●heols proper sense.  So doth it in Jsay signify, where Sheol is threatened to the King of Babel, b Though thou be lifted up to the Skies, 
Isa. 14.15.  yet shalt thou be brought down to Sheol, that is (in this place) to an inglorious Destruction and No being in this word: and (thy carcase) unto the sides of the pit, that is the Grave. This the contrariety here showeth, Though thou be lifted up to the Skies. He meaneth not here, into the glory of the Saints of God in Heaven: but lifted up in great pomp and worldly glory, as the Latin phrase meaneth also when they say ad sydera tolli. Now saith the Prophet to this King of Babel: Though at this time it be thus with thee, yet surely thou shalt be brought down to the contrary point, to an inglorious Destruction, and a wiping out from the Earth. Which sense of Isay is also very well confirmed by the like matter in jeremy. c Though Babel should mount up to the Heavens, 
●er. 51.53.4.  and though she should defend her strength on high: yet from me shall her Destroyer's come, saith the Lord. A sound of a cry cometh from Babel, and of great Destruction from the Chaldeans, etc. Where that which Isay called Sheol, jeremy speaking of the very same matter nameth Destruction, utter laying waist, and overthrowing of that City and State. And so to come to our purpose, 
A very He●raisme.  d this is the very same phrase here in Matthew touching Capernaum: Thou Capernaum which art lift up to the Heaven shalt be brought down to Hades: that is, to Destruction, & to an inglorious Not being any more in the world as before time it had been. 
●●des Destruction, Razing, ●aking away  Which also is confirmed by that which he addeth presently of Sodom, that if they had had the means of repentance as Capernaum had, Sodom might have remained a City to this day. Inferring by this that Capernaum for their greater contempt of God and his word, deserved more than Sodom to be destroyed & to become no City. Hitherto this is the first judgement threatened to the state of the City; Hades Destruction, or an utter razing out from the earth. The 2. judgement here threatened followeth in the next verse, Moveover I say unto you that it shallbe easier for them of the land of Sodom in the day of judgement then for these. Hear indeed is Hell threatened to them of Capernaum: yet as touching that before, there was nothing else but the overthrow and destruction of their City signified by that word Hades, applied to the City, as is before declared. And contrary to this you have not any piece of reason in all that 
“ Pa. 147. 1● 409.  you say here about. The world of Souls (which 
† Pag. 403.409.  you play withal) Hades may and doth signify: but yet then only when it is referred to deceased Souls, & not otherwise. Next, let us view the Corinth's 
a Pag 408. 1. Cor. 1●. 55  O Death where is thy victory? O Hades, O Destruction, or, O Power of Death where is thy sting? Hear it is referred to the destruction of the whole and entire Persons of men taken away by death out of this world: who in the end by this conquest and triumph over Death & the power thereof (at the last day) shallbe restored to life again in a true and perfect Resurrection and restitution. This is the whole scope and drift of the Apostle here: and you grant it. But you infer, that therefore it is meant of Hel. Of Hell, which way? Because since by sin Hell got possession of both parts of man aswell of his body as of his Soul, the full deliverance and conquest over Hell, is not but in the Resurrection. This is very untrue. Our full deliverance from Hell and from Satan is obtained in this life: as it is written, 
b Luke 1.7.  We being delivered from our enemies and from the hands of all that hate us, must serve him without fear all the days of our life in bolines and righteousness before him. That is, we being here truly justified by his grace, are fully freed and delivered from all the power of our enemies. Satan is 
c Luke. 11. 〈◊〉 Rom 8.33. joh. 8.51, 5 & 5.24.  conquered, spoiled, bound, and cast out from us. So that your speech is very bad and scandalous, where you say, 
d Pag. 216.  The bodies of the Saints lying in their graves are in the devils walk. For then the Graves where bodies lie senseless, are a part of Hell, properly taken. At least the Deaths of the Reprobat and of the Children of God, (
e Answerab to your doctrine pa. 24  touching the state of their bodies) till the resurrection, are all one: And men truly justified are justified but in their Souls, Sin remaining still charged on their Bodies, and therefore in their bodies they remain subject to the power of Hell, and to the curse of the Law, and to the claim of Satan, till the day of our Resurrection at the last judgement. 
You call it 〈◊〉 part of the ●ages of sin.  And thus the godly must pay" a part of their own redemption and satisfaction for sin. And then Christ was not our only and absolute Redeemor. If this be good doctrine, let the godly judge. Yourself overthroweth this enough, 
Pag. 156.  saying, f He changed the curse of death and made it now a rest from all labours. So that I hope the Bodies of the dead Saints are not in the * devils walk: 
Nor subjected to the R●●ge of Sa●an  much less are they g in the possession of Hell, 
Pag 216.  in the handfast of Hell. Further you say upon the text: 
Pag. 178  h Through death Christ destroyed him that had the power of death, that is the Devil. 
Pag. 179.  Whereby i it is evident, that Hell is spoiled of all right and claim to the members of Christ, he broke, etc. I hope in this life the godly are the members of Christ: then in this life they are fully freed from Hell for ever. Wherefore it is very untrue that Hell properly taken, hath any possession of the just, and handfast or power on them, or that Hell is not fully subdued for them until the Resurrection. I grant that the common death here is called an enemy: 
Cor. 15.26.  but he meaneth not such an Enemy as Hell is, especially as this is spoken touching the godly. Yet it is an Enemy even to them, not as any Curse at all, but as a Memorial & consequent of the old Curse (like as a scarie is where was a deadly wound) also as a peaceable and quiet stop or stay unto them, 
●●ea & because 〈◊〉 is painful ●o the flesh in 〈◊〉 his life.  that their whole persons cannot yet enjoy their appointed felicity. Howbeit for all this toward them it hath not the least affinity with Hell at all. Therefore Hades here in no sort signifieth Hell, but only Death, or the power of Death, or the world and kingdom of Death, or something to that effect only. Yea the very text seemeth thus to expound itself, saying, Where is thy sting, O Hades? The sting of Death is sin. Where the later seemeth a very direct answer and exposition of the former words. Thus, The sting of Death (or Hades) is sin: noting these 2. words (Hades and Death) as Synonimaes for one thing, being applied to men. Or if 
“ Pag. 408.  you will have them to differ, He may take Hades for the 
* As it utterly takes away, 〈◊〉 witholdeth from a visible ●●ate.  Power & strength of Death (which the brainsick idolaters made a God) or the Dominion and Kingdom of Death. These respects Hades might well have with the Apostle, which differ from Thanatos Death, the mere separation of the Soul from the Body: which yet in effect are all one, and have no difference touching our purpose. Like as we saw 
a Pa. 1● etc. 1  before how all Authors have used them. Further, The Grave of the Wicked is not to be named nor reckoned Hell properly, nor any part thereof. In Hell there wanteth not sense of pain. If you say, it is an entrance to hell, and that which holdeth and reserveth the wicked unto hell. Yet than it is not Hell: for even thus the Grave and Hell do greatly differ. Finally, Hades is 
b See 〈◊〉 pag. 1●  adversary to the Resurrection. But Hell would not be adversary to the Resurrection. Therefore Hades here is not hell, no not to the wicked. Death in deed and the Dominion of Death is an adversary to the Resurrection, and at that day it shallbe vanquished and utterly abolished, when all flesh shall live again. As for Hell that shall increase them and be advanced, when all the wicked both bodies and Souls shallbe subdued under it for ever. Therefore Hades here is not hell, but the power of Death, as hath been said, or the Dominion of Death or merely to that effect. Also we are to note, that the Apostle here plainly alludeth to that of Hoseah: 
c Hose.  O Sheol, ò kingdom of death, or power of ' Death, I willbe thy destruction. Not, o Hell. For the Prophet speaketh this to comfort Israel in their captivity against their continual Destructions and razings out from this world, showing that now the Lord would stay his judgement that way, & Death (which had consumed them) should now destroy them no more, but they should live and flourish again. This the Apostle might notably allude unto, speaking of the Resurrection. As for Hell if the Prophet had meant it (as he doth not) the Apostle could make no allusion to it, nor have any thing to deal which it in this matter of the Resurrection simply. So that where you say, what reason is there to exclude out of these words Christ's victory over Hell, it is very weak. What reason is there to include it, where the Apostle speaketh only of our resurrection from bodily Death, and of nothing else. Next we come to the Revelation: First, 
a Rev.  I have the Keys of Hades (that is of Destruction, or of the 
* The ●●ble w●●● the D●●●  kingdom of death and of Death. Or, we may take them as 2. words for one and the same thing: that is, both of them for Death. For here Christ showeth only, that as He was dead, so now he hath overcome Death. & hath power to die no more: as I hau● 
b Trea● pa 11●  heretofore noted. What show of reason have 
c Pa 17  you then, to bring in here Christ's power over the Damned Souls in Hell? Because there is mention elsewhere of the Key of hell: Therefore the Key of h●des here is the same. What colour of reason is there in this? Again a One sitteth on a pale horse whose name was Death, 
Rev. 6.8.  & Hades Des●●●on the world of the Dead, or the Kingdom of Death followed a●ter ●●m. Th●● in no wise can be Hell: because the text addeth, Power 〈…〉 them to slay with the sword and with 'samine, and death, and with wild beasts. Hell slayeth none in that sort, these are not the weapons of Hell: but of the Dominion and Power of Death th●se and such other more, 
●ag 406.  are the proper weapons. b You take it to b● the power of the Devil, because the Devil slayeth sometimes the bodies of men. Which you prove by the bodily slaying and siniting of job and his children. This indeed is the thing which we hold. This is not the Torments of Hell in the place of Damned: these be only bodily harms and death. So that hereby you confirm our purpose: for we deny not but God sometime useth Satan to punish and to slay the bodies of men. But seeing this is nothing but Death, not Hell which then is inflicted: therefore it is b●st to take Hades here most generally as the nature of it is, for the Power of Death, or the world of the Dead. Hell by no means it can be. 
●●g. 398.  You tell me in c one place, that my best skill is in varying phrases. It is better to vary phrases then to vary opinions, as you very often do. I vary phrases to express Hades, which in Authors is not always the same thing: or at least not after the same manner. Whose general largeness which it properly hath, can not in one word be expressed in English. Wherefore my varying of phrases to this purpose (I hope) is pardonable, sith indeed it is necessary. That conjecture of mine of the 4th part of the world's not going to Hell at once, I never esteemed it worth the standing on. I he last place is, † Death and Hades (that is the Dominion, or power of Death) were cast into Hell. 
●●v. 20.14.  I said, it was absurd to say Hell was cast into Hell: You answer, it is more absurd to say the world of Souls was cast into Hell. Where you do but dally and play with words. 
●t ● ᵉ wo●●●e ●e Dea● Axially.  For I use not that term * the world of souls, though it may be named sometime, in a good sense. Which you will by no means conceive: only you delight much to sport your s●lfe with it. Our answer them is this; There is no absurdity to say, that at the last (day when the * last enemy shallbe destroyed) than Death, 
●●●ore pag. 2.  and the power of Death, or the Kingdom and Dominion of Death shallbe cast into Hell: that is eternally destroyed & abolished, & shall return to the Devil wh●●● they came. To say many so●t that then Hell phalbe cast into Hell, soundeth senseless in my ●at●s. Although you mean the Containing to b● put for the Contained, H●ll for the Devils of Hell: and that the devils shalb● them cast into h●l fire. Yea although one Andreas & ●eda understand it so likewise. For neither you nor they (it ●●●meth) do cosid●r, that this place assigneth them to Hell then at the last day, who yet are not in Hell, but shallbe then cast into Hell ●nd destroyed. But the Devils are 
a 2 Pet. 2. I●d. 6.  in Hell already, & reserved in e●●rlasting chimes of darkness. Therefore the Devils cannot be understood here by Had●s, that they shallbe then cast into Hell, seeing ●hey are already cast in to Hell for ever. Death, and the Power thereof being the last enemy that shallbe destroyed, is not yet, but shallbe indeed at the last day abolished & swallowed up of Hell. Lastly ●eere is showed the most general & universal rendering up of all the ●ead whatsoever to judgement. But Hell plainly hath not all the Dead▪ Death, & the world of the Dead, or th● Dominion of Death have all. Therefore D●ath & Hades here do not signify properly the Div●ll & Hell: but this only, that Death, and the universal Dominion or power of Death yielded up to judgement all the Dead, both great & small both good and bad to be judged according to their works.  
Thus it is evident and clear that Hades no where in the ●ew Testament doth signify properly Hell, as you say it doth. Thus also that is concluded fully and perfectly which my 2. Reason 
† Pag. 15  before affirmed: that you have not one place at all in the Scripture to prove that Christ's Soul was in Hell. 
b Act. ●. 2  One place only you have stood upon, that Christ's Soul was in Hades: but that helpeth you nothing at all, as we have seen. You must prove indeed that Chri●ts Soul was in Gehenna, if you would persuade any man of knowledge, which you shall never do. Gehenna in the New Testament is properly Hell: but Hades is never properly so taken, as I hope it is sufficiently before proved. Therefore the Conclu●ion is good, To think that Christ's Soul was ever in Hell, is a thing that ought to be utterly denied.  
Yet, here we must consider a main objection of yours: ●ven those words of our common Creed, 
Touching C●●●●. 〈◊〉  which usually in English w● utter thus; He descended into Hell: originally 〈◊〉 is, He descended into Hades. And in truth this is all that you have to allege for your opinion. 
●swere.  But I answer 2. ways. First, Admitting, then Denying the authority of th●se words in our Common Creed. 1. Admitting the authority of these words, (& yet, Not as sufficient, not as Apos●●h●all, but such, as may be from godly and sound Christians) w● affirm that we can well understand them according to the Scriptures use of Hades rightly: viz: that Christ's whole human Person came under the power and Dominion of Death, or that he decaying in this world & * falling down from that state of life wherein a while he flourished, went absolutely from hence into the world of the Dead, 
〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉. 153.  according to the law of nature which all other men follow likewise when they d●. How this sense doth fully agree also with the minds of the ancient Fathers generally, we have at large declared c before. 
Pag. 166. Pag. 1●4.  But this serveth not your turn: & therefore you will needs enjoin us d 3. Rules to be exactly and precisely kept in the expounding of these words: namely 1. Distinction of matter. 2. Consequence of order. 3. Propriety of words. You must know that we can be no more strict, 
Note.  nor more religious in observing the Ci●cūstances of matter & order even in the holy Scriptures themselves, than you enjoin here to be observed in these words of men. Might not these godly men (think you) miss in some such Circumstance or light point, although the Scripture can not? Or if they might, why impose you such strictness on our consciences about men's words, as if here were no possibility of any the least missing, or imperfection. How beit we admit your 3. Rules also, 
3. Rules.  and will observe them sufficiently. First these words He descended to Hades may very well express a Distinction of matter differing from all the words here beside. They naturally and properly signify (as before we showed) that Christ came to utter decay in this world, and being taken hence was gathered in both parts (of his Manhood dissolved) wholly & entirely to those who were departed before him into another world. Or else thus, that he came under the full power & 
e before Pag. 192.  Dominion of Death. Now either of these differeth verily from mere and simple Death. 
●vian. ●●●●●●ce ●ea●h.  For to Die properly is nothing else but the going a sunder of the Soul from the Body. That other is to be wholly razed out from the presence and sight of this world, also a remaining under the possession and strength of Death, and a going to the society of them in another world. 
g. 192.  These indeed are f differing points and degrees in Death: albeit in effect generally they be all one with Death, that is they be necessarily consequent, & always conjoined unto Death. Again if those words in the Creed were only but a more emphatical phrase of through and perfect Dying and Departing hence, if there were in them no further Distinction of matter then so, yet this were enough to distinguish them from the other words, Dead and Buried. This is cause enough (especially in the Ancient times, when men suppose this Creed was framed, & when Christ's Humanity and natural Death was by all means subtly and violently oppugned after a short word signifying his Death and Burial, yet for more emphasis sake, and for further Viging the same, to add● this other short familiar phrase importing (no other main matter than was before noted, but only) a more effectual and more absolute signification thereof. Which in truth these our words in question do well perform, He came under the Dominion of Death, or Went to the society of the Dead, following presently after these words Dead & Buried. And thus your 2. Rule also, Consequence of order is rightly kept. For even in respect of time it is certain, that Christ's whole person perishing from hence was wholly joined to the Dead, after the precise separation of his Soul and body, which was his Death. And his Burial being the visible part thereof, in good reason may be set before that which signifieth the whole containing also his Souls invisible going unto the Dead. Lastly, if there be no more in this but a stronger emphasis merely, & a more full-signifying phrase, it might well come after terms of less emphasis. Your 3. and last Rule, Propriety of Words is plainly for us, and against yourself. For that which we strive for, is the 
a Pa. 157 169 17●  native and proper sense of Hades, even according to the etymology of it, and according to common use. You, if you urge it to signify Hell, do indeed make a 
† Pa. 171.  Figure in it, viz. Synecdoche, a part for the whole, as before we have showed. As for the other word here in the Creed katébe or katélthe, He descended, or came under, it is not necessary to take it always to signify a local going down, specially thus joined with Hades. For thus it may aptly & lively show the fall or whole casting down of a man's person from the state of life, to death and utter destruction out of this world: as also men are said to stand up and spring up when they live. Or it may serve to express the Force and Dominion of Death which Christ came under when he died. Or the abasement and humiliation of Christ yielding & submitting himself so far, that is not only to Die, but also to come under the strength and force of death by lying held, & subdued (as it were) for so long time in it. All this the very property of the word katebe admitteth very easily: and Ruffinus liketh it where he interpreteth this phrase 
●uffin. in ●●mb. " Descendit in mortem, He descended unto Death. If any think this to be somewhat figurative, yet it is verily so familiar and easy to all people as that other word in this Creed is, He sitteth at the right hand of God: yea it is fairy easier indeed. And herein all the later famous, learned and godly Restorers of Religion in a manner do join with us, as Mat. Bucer, P. Martyr, Bulinger, 
●●slitut.  Olevia, etc. Yea M. Calvin" liked this also well enough: though yet he seemeth to lean more to another sense (viz. Christ's Hellish sufferings) which indeed is a true doctrine, as before is declared, though to this place of the Creed (I think) not so fit. Now these men your L. ought not to scorn nor reproach, though you have leave to deal so with me. Their piety, learning, and authority is such with all that love the Gospel, as will overwaigh your big words and high looks, and whatsoever else you are lifted up withal above our mediocrity. Hitherto we have answered, admitting the authority of these words He descended to Hades.  
But we are in truth to know, 
●ere.  that (as you cite them and vige them) they have no such authority & credit, as hitherto we have yielded unto them. And that for 3. causes. First, for that your Translating and terming them, He descended into Hell, is corrupt, partial, and untrue. Which I trust is manifest by that which I have showed before touching the true property & natural use of Hades. If you say among us all men do so speak here and translate hades Hel. I pray you consider that this article (as also I think this whole Creed) was at first written in Greek, and not in English. Wherefore the English term (how common so ever) must not prejudice us, nor the truth in this matter, as very unreasonably a you endeavour to make it to do. 
●●g. 420.  Convince us evidently and sound by Greek authority, that Hades is always Hell, or that Hades is never applied to the condition and state of the godly deceased and then I will yield: or else my sufficient proofs before to the contrary will convince the untrue and partial translation. Another reason to deny utterly the authority and credit of these words (He descended to hades,) & so to hold them unable to make any argument as from our Creed, is because this special clause of Christ's descending to Hades or to Infernum is new, and lately put into our vulgar Creed called the Apostles Creed. 
b Ruffian Symb.  Ruffinus witnesseth (who lived about 500 years after Christ) that it was not at all in the Creed in his time. I say not at all● neither in the Roman Creed, nor yet in the Creed of the Eastern Churches. His words are these, Sciendum sanè est quod in Ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non habetur additum, Deseendit ad inferna: sed nee in Orientis Ecclesiis habetur hic sermo. Will you say, Ruffinus lieth? Or can you bring to the contrary any proof? I think not: yea I am sure you can not. Then if there were no such Article as this, nor any such words any where in the Creed for the space of 500 years after Christ, I marvel what authority they have now to be taken necessarily for a distinct article in our Creed, and as differing materially from Dead and Buried. Sure, it is 
a Namely Des●●●le. Hades.  to new to be received for doctrine, which 
b Pag. 13●  sprang up so late. Yea, thus 
c Erasm. 〈◊〉 Symb. Ca●● 4.  Erasmus may seem to have some colour for his conjecture, that about Thomas Aquinas time they might (peradventure) be put into this Creed. Third: we can not see, but that whensoever whosoever put it first into this place, they signified hereby it seemeth, that Christ went to Limbus, a place under the earth, where they imagined the blessed patriarchs rested. For this was indeed the opinion generally of the ancient Christians even for 
“ Limbus inter tay● before Ch●● descending bades wa● our set ●c● o● the Cr●●  a long time, and still is retained among the Papists, though now grown much worse than it was of old. But this you justly condemn as an error as well as we, how general and how ancient soever it be. Now also though this were the 1st meaning of this Article, whensoever it fi●fte took place in the common Creed, yet this was not Hell: this giveth no furtherance to your assertion, that Christ went into the place of the Damned in torments. But Thaddaeus, Jgnatius, Athanasius, have these very words. Yet they say not any where that they were in that set form of the Apostles Creed 
* Which ●●deed they 〈◊〉 had not.  which we now have. Also they are clean against your opinion here, as presently we shall see. You will say, yet even Ruffinus in his exposition of the Creed allegeth this article, and he alloweth the doctrine thereof. I answer, He allegeth truly these words Descendit ad inferna, but not out of any example of the Apostles Creed: yea he expressly denieth it to be therein any where at that time, as before we showed. Only it being his own and the common opinion then, he groundeth it upon other reasons (namely certain mistaken scriptures) yet such as he was content to like of, and so holdeth indeed that Christ went down to Infernum, that is to Limbus Patrum, as an opinion then common among men, and worthy (as he thought) to be believed, and to be applied to this place of the Creed touching the Death of Christ, 
●asin. in ●mb. Ca●h. 4.  although as yet no such matter was contained in the common Creed. Erasmus sayeth, The Fathers would not be so rash as to put it into the articles of their Creed, seeing their opinions hereabout were so varying and doubtful. Now this you know was all mistaken, wrongfully gathered from the Scriptures, as badly applied to the Creed, & nothing else indeed but the common error of those times. Yet then hitherto all this is far from justifying your opinion, ner●●er may you allege the Creed for your warrant. Where note also that Ruffinus here understandeth the very matter itself (precisely signified by these words Descendit ad inferna) to be immediately but this, that He died like other good men, and was buried. For he saith, Vis verb●●adem videtur esse in eo quod Sepultus dicitur: The effect of this phrase He descended to Infernum, seemeth to be all one and the same with this, He was Buried. And afterward going about to prove by the Scripture that Christ descended to Jnfernun, he showeth that he meaneth his death hereby and his burial: Quod in infernum descendit evidenter praenuntiatur in Psalmis, ubi dicit: Et in pulverem mortis deduxisti me. Et iterum, Quae vt●litas in sanguine meo dum descendo in Corruptionem. And before upon those words: He was Crucified under Pon. Pilate, and descended to infernum h● giveth this sense among other words, Divina natura in mortem per carnem descendit. The Divine nature humbled itself even unto Death in respect of the flesh. Howsoever than he thinketh consequently that Christ descending to infernum did after Death go to a place beneath unto the godly Souls departed before, & then set them free from thence and carried them with him, yet it appeareth that immediately by this phrase and properly he meant no more, but that he Died and was Bu●ied: all the rest was consequent as an effect after this, according as he and most others of the Ancients did think. Lastly here we see that Ruffinus extendeth this his Descending to the Divine nature: but he meaneth it improperly and in a certain sort, according to that also in the Philippains, 
a Phil. 〈◊〉  He being in the form of God, 
b Verse  humbled himself & became obedient unto death. So that properly he meaneth it of the very death of his Manhood, and nothing else. Which is our very mind and judgement, agreeing also generally with the Fathers herein 
c Pa. 162  before rehearsed. But Ignatius 
“ Pag. 1  you think, † is clearly yours: likewise one 
d Pag 17  Thaddaeus, by Eusebius report one of the 70. Disciples which the Evangelist Luke speaks of: also 
e Pag 41  Athanasius Creed. Ignatius saying, Christ descended to Hades alone, but rose again with many, 
Igna●●us.  meaneth evidently his Burial and going down into his Grave: as you acknowledge that 
f Pag. 14.  Hades many times may well signify. Which is the plainer to be his meaning, for as much as he noteth his Burial here in no other words beside. And sure he alludeth to that in Matthew, 
g Math 27 53.  The Graves did open, and many bodies of the Saints which slept, arose▪ And came out of the Graves after his Resurrection, and went into the holy City and appeared to many. This is touching the Resurrection of their bodies out of their Graves, not of their Souls ansing up from Hell. Neither in Ignatius is there any show of reason that he meant Hades for Hell. He may mean, I grant, (that which is in effect all one) the restoring of their whole Persons taken away hence by Death, or their coming from under the Dominion and power of Death: which indeed is according to the proper largeness of this word. Also that Christ (katélthe) came under the same. Not that he went locally downward, except in his Burial; but touching his whole manhood that he was humbled and abased even under the Dominion and strength of Death. And thus it is true, that 
h As Ruffi●● also vnd●● stood ●t. 〈◊〉 200.  Christ by his Death (including also together his Burial) came down or Descended. But only this you urge and stand upon for your claim to Ignatius, because it is said. He broke down the wall or stop, which was never broken before. Where you may know that the meaning is this: The power of the Grave, or the strength and force of Death was now by Christ's Death & Resurrection utterly overcome and dissolved, which remained in deed from the beginning of the world (till Christ's death) as a mighty Wall not broken down. But now the virtue of his death and resurrection broke it clean down for ever. So that hereby Christ is taught to be (as the Apostle also to like effect speaketh) the first fruits of the Dead. 
Pag. 179.  But you say, a Many rose from the dead before Christ, and therefore that partition was often broken by others before him. I answer, Though some being dead did rise to life again before Christ's Resurrection (as touching the time) yet the virtue and power of Christ's resurrection was before them, by which only and merely they rose again. Neither yet was Resurrection to all the Dead forth with performed by the Resurrection of Christ: nevertheless thoroughly purchased it was even then, and by the only power and virtue thereof is & shallbe performed to all in due time. So that thus Christ alone broke that wall and stop, and absolutely he hath broken it down, which no man before him nor besides him ever broke. The like unto this is your Thaddaeus sentence: 
●●●ddaeus. ●●●●nasius.  also Athanasius in his Creed. Whom the rather thus I understand, (as it seemeth, most reasonably and necessarily) because they express neither his Death, nor his Burial at all in any other words save these, He descended to Hades. Therefore surely this is it, which here they mean by his descending to Hades; and this is all that they mean therein, that he was brought under the dominion of death and was Buried. 
●●escending ●●plied to ●●●●ts Soul 〈◊〉 Death) ●ever found escripture, in any ●●cient ●●ed.  Consdering also that * no Ancient Creed in the world hath all these 3. diverse and distinct Clauses, He ' Dyed, was Buried, Descended to Hades: not the very Apostles Creed (as we call it) in Ruffinus time had them, as we have seen. But this last clause which is in question was put in" since that time (to signify Christ's going to Limbus, it seemeth) by whomsoever it was put in, 
●●t well obeyed: Treat ●ag. 93. ●●g. ●15.  as is before said. b Your seeking to prevent this reason, because the Ancient Creeds want sundry other Articles which now are in our vulgar Creed, is to no purpose. For as much as they all do evermore intend to set down persitly the sum of Christ's accomplished Redemption & Mediation at the least. Not any of those his main works are in them omitted. Now always in the Creeds where they express his Dying and Burying, there is omitted his going to Hades. Where they express his Going to Hades, 
Note.  there they omit his Dying, or his Burial, or both. Therefore I may well conclude, I think, that no Ancient Creed in the world ever meant to teach that Christ went to Hades, except in such a sense only as was (in their judgement) in effect all one as to Die, or to go among the Dead, and to be Buried and no more. 
Thaddae●● co●n●e●  Thus far of Thaddaeus and Athanasiaes' Creeds. Howbeit to speak plainly, your Thaddaeus whom 
a Pag 1 179.  you so highly esteem, is a mere counterfeit. You say, This report of him in 
b Pag. 1●  Eusebius, by some men is counted fabulous. Nay, who ever since Euseb. (I think) held it for better? Many other like matters are to much allowed by Euseb. in other cases also: notwithstanding his story of the church affairs then (I grant) is justly received as the best that we have extant. But it is strange that this fable & forgery of Thaddaeus should so please you. It is all forged, or else foully corrupted; for these reasons: 

1. This writing touching Thaddaeus brought by Eusebius from Edessa, saith, that Judas the Apostle (who sent this Thaddaeus being one of the 70. Disciples) was the same who is called also Thomas the Apostle. But the Scripture itself showeth that judas and Thomas were 2. diverse and several Apostles. Therefore this writing is false.  
2. Hear also we may probably conceive an other error; that this Thaddaeus (one of the 70.) seemeth to be mistaken in this Syrian writing for Thaddaeus one of the 12. Apostles.  
3. Further this counterfeit Thaddaeus was content to receive (and did receive) even from a King himself, and also (as it seemeth) from one of his Nobles, Adoration and worship. Whereas the true servants of Christ Peter & the Angel refused utterly the same in such very manner offered unto them by meaner persons in respect of state. Therefore this Thaddaeus, if he were any, was some false Apostle, and came not by Christ's sending, but led by the spirit of error and seduction: as some were, who went abroad in the name of Disciples and Apostles, in those days.  
4. Neither do I see how it can possibly be true which this Thaddeus saith, that Christ ascended up to his Father with a great multitude: seeing the Scripture showeth how after 40. days (the time that he conversed with his Apostles) he ascended in all their sights, alone up into Heaven.   You get nothing therefore by citing these ungainful 
* None which 〈◊〉 prove 〈◊〉 very Ph●● to be in postles 〈◊〉 then: th● prove 〈◊〉 Matter 〈◊〉  witnesses for you. Nor yet by citing the Apostolic Creed: seeing you stand only upon the precise order of the words He Died, was Buried, descended into Hades. Which how weakly they make for you, 
c Pag. 1● 199.  before we have showed. Whereunto this may be added, that verily it seemeth there was no certain prescript number of Articles in the Creed of old, much less any precise or exact form of words, such as now we have, and which is all your hold. This partly by Ruffinus writing upon it, 
We may ink that the postles Creed 〈◊〉 no exact ●rm of words the primitive ●es.  may be understood: who among the words of the Creed then, rehearseth not diverse material words, which our usual form now hath expressly. The Ancients Ignatius, Irenaeus, justin, Tertullian, Origen, etc. in their Creeds do differ more both for words, and matter also. Yet they all pretend to rehearse the Apostolic Creed, as by Tradition they received it, & as they severally conceived it: at least so far always as concerned Christ's main & distinct works of Redemption wrought for us. Neither overthrow you this, in saying, that b some of them want a good many of the Articles which are in the Apostles Creed. For (as I said) they want none (neither ought they) concerning Christ's mediation wrought for us. His going to Hell was a main & a distinct part thereof, if he went thither indeed. Wherefore they might not in any wise be defective therein. Again though they want Articles which are now in our form of the Apostles Creed, yet how prove you that they want any of that, which with them was vulgar and common? Last of all, though some of the Ancients do not perhaps rehearse all the Articles of the Apostolic Creed, (as it was then currant by Tradition in the Churches) yet you have no colour in the world to think that none of them all should rehearse it wholly and entirely. But in none of them all is this form of the Creed found which we now have, and do observe. Yea by the variety & difference of them all, who still profess that they utter the Apostolic Creed taught them by Tradition, we may see that the Apostles Creed had not any exact nor precise form of words at the beginning (as now we have it used among us) but it contained only (as we may think) certain Heads of Doctrine fundamental, 
●●om the A●●tles (●t see●●th) there 〈◊〉 received ●●rief sum ●●tter, no ●●cise form words for 〈◊〉 common ●●ed.  That there is one God, 3. Persons, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, That the Son jesus Christ is both God and Man, That as man he was extremely humbled for us even unto Death, and after that exalted unto glory in Heaven, whence in due time he shall come to judgement, etc. This in effect all Creeds do express, but in words they differ greatly, & sometimes some have more articles then these: yet such they seem to be as were on some special occasion more particularly and expressly noted, being otherwise either some part or else some proper effect & consequent from these. And so it might come to pass that some of the Ancient Creeds differed somewhere in some particular articles from other Creeds, yea all of them in words from each other: and yet in substance and effect they were all one. Seeing then that the Apostles Creed for the precise form of words was not the same in the primitive Churches which we now have: yea that at first it had no exact form of words at al. For it is sure that no man can prove by good testimony that there was any, or indeed any other than such as these ancient Fathers thus variably and differingly rehearsed. Seeing also it is proved, that this set form which we now have, specially our article in question was not 
† As a 〈◊〉 the C●●  received for many hundred years after Christ; some supposing that these words were not put in till near 1000 years after him. I say, All this being considered, it is evident that your Argument only from the precise and exact form of words in the Creed, & from the order & placing of He descended to Hades, namely after Dead & Buried, is not worth any thing, to induce thereby an Article of faith, That Christ's Soul went to Hell.  
After this it shall not be amiss to consider some other reasons of good moment. Our 3d. Reason is: 
REAS●●  If there be no certain benefit to the godly by Christ's going to Hell, then doubtless he went not thither. But there is no certain benefit to the Godly by Christ's going to hell. Therefore doubtless he went not thither. This Reason you 
a Pag ●  call our strongest fort. It is not our strongest, but yet strong indeed: for you have made no where any good answer to it, neither can you. I know a number of words you have throughout your whole treatise denying the Assumption, but they are nothing in the world but mere presumptions. You say, 
b Pag ●  Is the subduing of hell powers, and the treading on all their force, and the restraining of all their fury so small a matter with you, that it doth no good to the Godly? And elsewhere most tediously and vainly you augment & repeat the marvelous things that Christ did by his human presence in Hell. I would willingly believe it, but alas who saith so besides yourself, or only such as can tell no better than you. Where is that become now, 
c Pag ●  what I read in the word of God that I believe, what I do not read, that I do not believe, etc. It is easy to say, that you will only hold what the Scripture assureth: but in practise you will slip from this precise order, when you list. I know well that you boldly say that the 
d Pag ●  Purpose of Christ's descent is plainly professed in Scriptures, to be the spoiling of Satan, and delivering of men from the power of Hell. Is it plainly professed? I beseech you, where? I wot well what you will feign & devise of the Fathers, when you impute so palpable untruths to the word of God itself. Show us one title, one jot of any benefit which (by the Scriptures) Christ wrought for us by his local presence in Hell, and then I will cease to gainsay it forever. Otherwise tell us never so much of the wonderful and singular fruit of Christ's being there, the more you amplify, the more you hazard your credit, & the more we shall wonder at your bold avouching matters which are not in the word of God. The benefits all and every one (which you every where rehearse) I most unfeignedly and religiously believe: namely that he deserved all good things for us, and obtained them for us in his Resurrection, etc. ascension: and that finally and fully he shall in his last judgement tread down Satan under our feet. But what is this to his local being in Hell? Show therefore I say by the express word that Christ in Hell did these, or any part of these good things for us. If you do not (for as yet I see no title to prove that) surely all your talk is but blasts of vanity. The which I rather believe that you never can nor will do, because you confess as much somewhere as overturneth all your show of Christ's doing good to us in Hell. 
●●g. 160.  For, a This conquest (you say) Christ purchased by his passion, but he did not execute it till his resurrection. If he executed nothing till his Resurrection, and purchased all in his Passion, than he did nothing in Hell. For his Resurrection was distinctly after his supposed being in Hell, whither he never afterwards returned to execute there any thing at all. Nay, Austin your only stay thinketh * he descended in vain, unless he did good to some who were even there in Hell in torments. 
●●e before ●●g. 168.  But this you utterly renounce. So that every way still it remaineth good, that seeing there is no certain benefit that Christ did in Hell, neither to us, nor to any, therefore we are not to believe that he was in Hell.  
Our 4d. Reason: There is altogether as great reason and as urgent cause that Christ whole man (both Soul, 
●SON 4.  and Body) should be present in Hell to free us thence wholly, (that is our Souls, & Bodies) as there is that his Soul must be there present to free thence our Souls. But simply it is confessed that his Body was never there, neither had any cause to be, for the freeing of our Bodies. Therefore it followeth, that neither his Soul was ever there, nor had any cause so to be, for the freeing of our Souls. Hear I wish, you would answer my proposition without Skoffe's & taunts and haughty disdain, as your manner is. But bring some evident and clear difference that his Soul must go more necessarily thither alone then that his Body also should, and let it be truly grounded on the proportion of faith and Christian Religion, if not on express Scripture. I wots well what you bring from some Fathers, 
a Pag. 17●  Fulgentius, 
b Pag. 17●. 181.  Athanasius, & others, That his Soul by being present in Limbo, (that they mean by Hades and Infernum) saved us from Hell, & by his flesh temporally dying he gave us life eternal, and by lying in the grave uncorrupted he gave us incorruption. Hear we allow them so far as they mean, that what one part of him did, that our whole man and every part received good by. But if they think, his Soul by Divine ordinance had need to be actually present elsewhere, then only with the godly deceased, to execute his victory gotten before on the Cross against Satan, to th'end that we might be free from Hell, them let them show us the Scripture for this Divine ordinance: & so (by God's grace) we shall forthwith embrace it. Otherwise at least let them show us a reason (or do you so much for them) why both parts jointly should not rather have gone thither by like necessity to execute that together, which both jointly had got and deserved for together: the benefit also whereof is to come (not to one part alone, but) jointly to both in us. Again, why this going to Hell by our Saviour Christ was not rather after his Resurrection, when he had begun his actual Triumph in deed by joining together again both parts of his manhood, in both which together before he had been humbled. Neither is it likely that he began it before his Resurrection, seeing the Scripture 
b Math. Luke 2● Act 2 2. & 3.15 40 & 1 17.3. & Rom. 4.6.4. & 〈◊〉 Cor. 15 ● 1.20 1 14. 2 T●● 11.  every where noteth this as the first part of his exaltation after death, and it being strange in Christian reason & against proportion of faith to think, that one part of Christ (his Soul) should gloriously triumph, the other (his Body) all this while lying in Humiliation, possessed with death in the Grave, which you say is the Devils range, a part of his power, and of the Kingdom of darkness. Yea also seeing it is most likely that he would clear himself first wholly and entirely in both parts, before he would begin to strip and spoil Satan for us. Lastly seeing it is a greater degree of triumph & victory to spoil the enemy, to tread him under foot, to break his houses and strong Holds, to set free the captives, to make him and his to bow the knee to the conqueror, then to get perfect life & freedom to himself. So that always that, is after this. Wherefore it seemeth that Christ did thus also. If he did actually such things in Hell, it was not till after his Resurrection; before which time he had not perfect life and deliverance himself. Let us I pray have some clear and Christian reason against these strong likelihoods: and then let us ask a point or two more, which we think will follow likewise, if your assertion be true. First, if one part of Christ, viz: his Soul only were in Hell to execute his victory which before he had merited on the Cross, then why in his sufferings, righteousness, and obedience might not one part of Christ's manhood have aswell sufficed. I say why might not one part alone have in this world merited enough (which Appollinaris an Haeretick affirmed) aswell as that one part might serve to triumph for us in Hell. Again seeing his Body in the Grave by overcoming corruption which is a part of the Kingdom of Satan as † you say, 
●●g. 216.  did thereby save our bodies from that part of Satan's walk as you call it, by what reason is it that thereby he destroyed not consequently the whole kingdom of Satan, saving thereby our Souls also, in so much that Christ's Soul might not have needed to have come into Hell for that purpose. Or if they mean that his flesh being in the Grave, and his Soul being in Hell did severally and distinctly save our flesh and our souls, then how will you be reconciled with them, 
●●ur self ●eth it, 〈◊〉 all men ●●g  a who do deny that point. Further for the actual stripping of Satan of his spoils, why was it needful that an actual presence of any part of his manhood should be in Hell, seeing indeed it is certain that the whole actual triumph of Christ over Satan proceedeth not of the proper virtue of the manhood, but only from the virtue and power of the Godhead of Christ. Therefore that might possibly be as effectual and as fully accomplished in the absence of the manhood as in the prsence: all the while that the Godhead and manhood were still united and continually together in one Person.  
Last of all, if it were the very human presence of his soul that so delivered our souls from thence that they shall never come thither why did not the presence of his flesh in the Grave keep ours that it should never come there, or at least that it should never putrefy nor rot, as his flesh did not. All these sequels and consequences are as good and as likely as your assertion, that Christ's Soul (and not his flesh) ought to be locally in Hell for this end, that ours might never come there.  
Further, I made this Argument in my 
“ Pa● 160  former Treatise, that Christ's Descending into Hell (if ever he did so) could not be judged any part of his Exaltation or Glorification. To which your reply is, I know not whether more strange, or skornful. But you 
† Pa. 416.  resolve that these words He descended to Hell, importeth his Exaltation and Triumph. Yet you scoff at me for the like: as if I had said, 
“ Pa●●●  His Descending was Ascending: & Hell was Heaven. But herein you affirm untruly. 1. I say, Though his Soul leaving his body Ascended: yet this is not meant by that phrase, He descended to Hades. 2. I never said that Hades signified Heaven, although some in 
a In a●●●ble s●●●  Hades are in Heaven. 3. Much less did I ever say, that Hell is Heaven. Why then cry you out of 
* Pag ●●  impudency, facing, ridiculous, and audacious, presumption. etc. Who presumeth let the advised reader judge, when you thus confidently avouch as an article of faith that Christ's Soul locally descended; and yet bring not one proof of it from God's word, nor from any man's opinion, whom you will cleave unto fully. That 
b Pa. ●●  you avouch 
“ ve●●●  Phil. 2. for it, is more strange: where we have not one word of his local being in Hel. And that the 
* ver●●  Colossians 2. should prove it, passeth all the rest. Where (though we grant you your reading) yet the express text referreth that triumph to Christ's Cross: which you openly deny. That of the councils, how Christ rose again, 
† Th● prove for yo●  having spoiled Hell, I easily yield; seeing that proveth not his local being there. The same I affirm of that Allegory in Luke; which showeth Christ's 
c Luk●●●  Overcoming, Binding, and Spoiling of Satan in deed: but not by his local being in Hel. What if Christ do set out many points of doctrine by Parables? Yet such are those points, as are proved otherwise and elsewhere. The Parables do but illustrate them. Howbeit this Parable in question, Christ expressly applieth to his Dispossessing of Devils out of men's bodies. Wherefore you ought not to wrest it to another thing, whereof there he hath not a word, nor any where else: that is, to show how Christ bond the Devil in Hell locally. Rather remember, I pray, how God showed his displeasure against your wresting of his word, by that strange terror that happened even then, when you were descended into the depth of this uncouth doctrine at Paul's Cross. Which for the time so affrighted many 1000 of people, that it will never be forgotten in England while your opinions be remembered: albeit this grew but of a small occasion, as after it seemed.  
Where you charge me in the end, arrogantly and absurdly to falsify the Synod of our Realm, 
〈◊〉 17.  it is but what yourself doth in effect. I said, Our Synod corrected K. Edward's Synod. You acknowledge and profess that" in the later words of that former Synod now left out, 
〈◊〉. 419.  are 3. things that cannot be justified by the Scriptures. 

1. That the Spirits of the just were in Hell.  
2. That Christ there preached unto them.  
3. That he stayed there till his Resurrection.   Which our Synod since very profitably hath overskipped and suppressed. First then yourself granteth, that our later Synod corrected the former about this matter: which in my words you cannot endure to hear. 2. You charge these words of K. Edw. Synod. with 2. points, which are not in them. 1. That it saith, how the Spirits of the just were in Hell: and that Christ descending thither, stayed there till his resurrection. In me you would make this a great matter, so to misreport the words of a Synod, which in deed saith nothing hereof. 3. It is well that you * renounce that of" Peter, 
〈◊〉 22. ●●. 3.19  (by Augustine's direction) as making not at all for any local being of Christ in Hell. But yet herein yourself openly refuseth the mind of all your predecessors, yea of our later Synod, if they believed as you urge that they did. For if they liked Christ's local being in Hell, they misliked not the applying of that in Peter thereunto: as by Mai. Nowells Catechism may appear. Neither misliked they his tarrying there till his resurrection: which Austin also holdeth as firmly, as that he was there. All which you utterly disclaim, as well as I. Why then do you aggravat my differing from them, and see not your own. 4. That our English Clergy generally did or do believe Christ's local descent into Hell (although they read and rehearse those words so translated) certainly no man will, nor aught to acknowledge. Every man is assured of the contrary. You can argue nothing then herein by our usual naming of this word Hell, in this place of the Creed. Which yet is all that you 
* Pag. ●●  have here. So that your conclusion is vain. If Hell in English be Hell, and going down be descending, etc. Likewise is that, You are content to be tried by all the Fathers both Greek and Latin. Who all (as hath been showed) do make against your opinion. Also as touching the Scripture you are utterly destitute thereof: which yet alone must take place with us in this matter. All that you bring for your purpose, are merely mistaken & mistranslated words of Scriptures, Creeds, and Fathers: as (I hope) hath plainly been proved. This therefore may suffice for us to refuse your doctrine in these points. Wisdom shallbe justified of all her children. To God only wise be praise through JESUS CHRIST for ever. Rom. 16.17.  
FINIS.   

Pagin. Lin. Faults. Correction. 13. in mark pag. 8. pag. 7. 23. 37. he they 24. 2. their the 27. 29. will well 36. 22. in mark your you 49. 24. ne  57 7. herefore heretofore 65. 28. externally eternally. 65. 8. better buter 77. in mark: b pag. 51.55. b pag 71.73. 103. 33. torments. torments: yet no only to it.   

The divers Significations of the Greek word Hades; Which is ha●● according to the Circunstances of the places where it is used. See pag. 177. Whereunto also the Hebrew Sheol may be rightly compared.  
Hades a mere Privation of this visible World; No visible being here any more: pa. 157. etc. 169. 178. applied  

Natively 

Seldom, yet sometime to All visible transitory things when they are Destroyed from out of this World, & are seen here no more. pag. 188. etc.  
Often, & chief to Dead Men: yea to all dead men, both Good and Bad, Blessed and Damned. pag. 155 etc. Yet only in respect that they are Dead, and seen no more in this world pag. 156 162. 166. 169 177. 178. Thus sometime it signifieth concerning them, 

that which took them away hence, and holdeth them still: pa. 169. 179. 181. 192. either. 

Death itself. pa. 161. 1ST  
The Power, Strength, 〈◊〉 Force of death. pag 194.    
their 

State and condition: pa. 171. 175. 178 viz: of their 

Whole Person dissolved, and taken away hence. pa. 158. 177.  
Parts; both 

Soul. pa. 155. &  
Body. pa. 201.      
Place; pa. 173. 181. in respect of 

the dissolved Pa●tes, so 〈◊〉 as they have a Being somewhere in a place after Death.  
no Positive thing in any place, but mere. Privation (as is said) from thi● Visible World.          
Figuratively: by a 

Poetical fiction; making it sometime (as it were) a Place of things, which in truth have no Being nor Place after they cease to be here. pag. 188.  
Prosopopoeia, 

lawfully setting out the Power of death, or of destruction from hence, as if it were a Person having this power. pa. 182. 179. 192.  
Idolatrously making such an imagined Person, a false God. 173. 179.    
Synécdoche, & so it is sometime 

Hell: pag. 187. 171.  
Heaven in Plato. pag. 178.  
the Grave. pag. 159.