A REIOYNDER TO DOCTOR HIL CONCERNING THE DESCENSE OF CHRIST INTO HELL. WHEREIN THE ANSWERE TO HIS SER­mon is justlie defended, and the roust of his reply scraped from those arguments as cleanlie, as if they had neuer bene touched with that canker. By Alexander Hume, Maister of Artes.

¶HEERE, BESIDES THE REIOYNDER, thou hast his Paralogismes: that is, his fallacies and deceits in reason pointed out, and numbered in the margin: amounting to the nomber of 600. and a­boue; and yet not half reckoned.

TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE, ROBERT ERLE OF ESSEX AND EWE, VICOVNT Hereford and Bourchier, Lord Ferreis of Chartlie, Lord Bourchier and Lo­vane, Maister of her Majesties horses, and Knight of the most noble order of the Garter: LONG LIFE WITH INCREASE OF Honour, and after this lyfe lyfe euerlasting.

BEing drawne (Right honorable) into this controversie by the accidents ex­pressed in the Epistle to the Reader: I levelled all my labours, to rake vp the coales, and stiflle the flames of con­tention. Being priuate, I endevoured to keepe my selfe within the boundes of my condition. I wrote in secrete, acquainting fewe with my counsell. I tempered my stile with the modestest words that I could devise I submitted my self to be led by better reasons. I abstained from offences, & occasions of choller. I wrote in latine, that it might not come into the handes of the [Page] multitude: hoping that if anie blowes fell harder, then I meant them, they might be the better taken, the fewer saw them. But all this seed bred no corne: for M. Doct. hunting after praeferment (if I mistake not his plot) and setting the foundation of his praise on this conquest, hath now published in print, that I wrote in a corner, & cried at the crosse, that I sent vnder seale. If the worste were my disgrace, it might be borne with: or if all rea­ders had learning, this reply might be contemned. But seeing this cause is Christs, and slips amongest the simple may goe for six pence: I will not betray him, that hath done so much for mee, nor see them deceaued, whome he hath bought so dearlie. The question is of an article of our faith, and pertaineth to all, that care what they be­leeue. The doubt is not, whether the article be true, but in what sense it is true. For, seing these articles are not scripture, but grounded on the Scripture: the question is, in what sense Christ is said according to the Scrip­tures, to descend into Hell. And now seeing hee is no more a Christian, that is ignorant of his faith, then he a Carpenter, that cānot handle his axe: this must needs be a question as necessarie, as it is needfull for a Christi­an to vnderstand, what he beleeueth. For that, which manie saie, it sufficeth to knowe that Christ descended into Hell, though they knowe not, in what sort he was there; is as if a farmer shoulde content himself, that hee hath a lease of his fa [...]me, and neuer enquire how long it lasteth, nor on what condition hee holdeth. By the same reason, it is sufficiēt to know that Christ was born, and that he suffered: and needlesse to seeke how he was [Page] borne, and what hee suffered. Wherefore, I haue resol­ued to stand at my defense, and to beare the brunt of these blowes. For, my weapons are sound Syllogismes, my armour Scripture, and truth my shield. I doubt not of the proofe, and feare not the muscate. I was brief be­fore as the mediocritie of a private letter requyred. My breuitie bred obscuritie, and gaue more probabilitie to his inversions▪ and euasions: to his insinuations and col­lections, to his making and marring my argumentes in wrong mouldes. But now I haue made them my self, & shaped them on such blockes, as will not (I hope) be easi­lie wrung out of fashion. I haue turned his ordinance some against himself, and all from vs, so farre, as I hope he will dispair himself, to hit this marke with that shot. Yet because manie mindes are swayed with affection of the man, or with conceit of the matter: and my name came neuer neere so manie eares, as this booke is like to come in mouths: I haue resolued to commend it to your honor. Hoping, that if your name win minds to read▪ the waight of my reasons, shall turne the scales, and winne heartes to beleeue. I haue manie reasons of my choise. Your Zeale of Gods house. Your loue of Gods glorie, Your knowledge in Gods worde. And your aestimation, in Gods Church, amongest such, as loue his name sincearly and her Maiestie (for his sake) vnfainedlie. Adde, that M. D. Reynoldes, (the load starre of Oxenford) whome your honour hath maintained there, to confute the Fryar Bellarmine, hauing laid open all the plaites, and ript the seames of this controuersie: I presume the more to vse your name in this cause, which hath beene [Page] maintained vnder your countenance. If there were any hope, that that worke would come out shortlie, I would burie my papers in the duste. But seeing that time is like to be long▪ and manie in the meane time are decea­ved with these bold bragges. I haue thought expedient (to amaze the adversaries of this doctrine with the light of that sunne, when it shall please God to giue it to his Church) to set out my little candle, wherein (I hope) there is light inough, to disperse the mistes, and pearce the cloudes of these Sophismes. Thus, beseeching God (the authour of all honour) to augment your honour, to your comfort, & his glorie, I commit you to him, whose cause I commend to you.

Your Honours humble Oratour, ALEXANDER HVME.

TO THE READER.

I Am forced (gentle Reader) though I hate contention, to contend with a contentious man: or else, having the better end of the staffe, to for­sake a good cause. It is not possible that the Lordes fielde should want tares, his net bad fishe, or his Church offences: but wo to them, by whome they rise. This wo in contro­versies pertaines to the one side. It is hard, (and al­most impossible, that both bee guiltie. Wherefore, as I am cleare before the Lord, so, to purge my selfe before thee, I will set down how this dissension first beganne. The Bishop of Salisburie that last was, be­fore his remooving to Yorke, tooke order, that cer­taine preachers should keepe lecture on the market daies, in the cheefe market townes of his Diocese. There is a great market euerie Satterday at a towne called Chippenhame, in North Wilshire. Within 4. myles of which, dwelleth one M. Wisedome, a man for integritie of lyfe, and exceeding paines in his calling loued of all the godlie, hated of the wicked and admired of both. This man was one of the prechers appointed to that place, and preached there once in a fourtnight, or a month, I know not which. Wher­fore on Satterday the 14. day of Februarie or there­about Anno 1589. expounding in that place the ar­ticles of the beleef, he deliuered this opinion, which I defend, concerning the descense of Christ into hel. Whē he had done, one Chalfont Vicar of that towne [Page] stood vp, and protested to the people, that hee had taught false doctrine: and promised, that if they would come that day seuen night, they should heare him confuted by a learned man.. That day seuen­night commes. The people flockes to the Church in great multituds, exspecting some famous man, with some new matter. At length, in came this. M. Chal­font himself. Hee climbes into the pulpit, and pyles vp a heap of books, as high as his head. Then after a psalme, and a formall prayer, hee beginnes like an Oratour at his own person and his adversaries, that he was M. Wisedomes senior, that he was a Bachelor when M. Wisedome was a Scholler: and a Maister of Arte. before he was a Bachelour. That hee had read more, and knew more, then he. That he had learned arithmetick, and could reckon the articles of the creed, better then hee. That there was 12. of them, made by the 12. Apostles. That his memorie serued him to remember, which Apostle made which arti­cle. That M. Wisedome did reckon them wrong, and made but 11. of them. That al learned Fathers were on his conspiracie. That M. Wisedome did falsefie Calvine, and other learned writers: That Christ might bee the day when he su [...]ered, as well both in Paradice and Hell: as M. Wisedome was that mor­ning at Gritleton (that is the place where he dwel­leth) & then there vnder the pulpit. That he did con­tradict the convocation, and therefore had depriued himselfe of the Ministrie, ipso facto. And so was no more Parson of G [...]tleton, then hee was Bishop of London. He lookes downe manie times on M. Wis­dome, where he sat vnder the pulpite, amazed at his impudencie, like a meeke sheep, (as hee is indeede) and calles him by his name. This saieth Augustine, this saieth Ierome, this saieth Cyprian, and you say that. Where was your learning? Where was your [Page] reading? Where was your simplicitie and plain dea­ling, which you make show of? And turning to the people he warned them to be ware of false Prophets that going in sheepes clothing, were inwardlie raue­ning wolues, meaning M. Wisedome because of his plainnesse, and simplicitie. This exclamation, (for sermon I cannot call it) being ended, the people de­parted some saying this, and some saying that: and all, (sauing such as loue, or malice did carrie more then truth or matter) condemning Chalfonts impudencie. That day seuen-night, the people meets a­gaine, hoping to heare M. Wisdome reply, for that was his day by the Bishops order. But M. Hil beeing then at a towne called Leycocke, within 2. myles of this Chippenhame by accident, or of set purpose, I know not, came thither that morning, and tooke the place. The same man not manie yeares before, had dipped in the same controuersy almost after the same manner at Sarum, against one M. Connam, a man both learned, and Chaplane to my L. of Pem­broke. But to let that passe, at this sermon 28. Feb. Anno 1589. I was my selfe, vpon the occasions ex­pressed in the beginning of my letter to M. Hill, (for as yet he was not Doctor) which he hath printed. In it with painted words, and great names of Doctors he so varnished the matter, that at the first hearing it seemed not improbable. Towards his aduersaries hee behaued himselfe modestlie, geuing them the praise both of learning and godlinesse, namely Cal­vine and Beza. To blaze their error in this point, he rubbed the Hebrew words Sheol and nepheshe, and the greeke hades, psyche & pneuma, as white, as a whet­stone. Then after a solempne challenge to all the learned men in the world, that did dissent from him, he offered his notes to anie that would haue them: he promised faire play, if anie man would answere [Page] him: he protested loue to him, that coulde confute him: and vowed a recantation in the same place, if his forces could not bide the battle. I hearing this braue challenge, and mistrusting his cardes for all his facing: wrought a freend that had acquaintance with him, to help mee to his notes. After two mo­neths or there-abouts, hee sent them to mee vnder his owne hand. Perusing them, I found them out of their coullours, nothing answerable to the shewe that they made in the pulpite. Wherefore, hearing of no man, that did reply: saving M. Wisdome in a sermon that M. Hill was not at: and hoping that his protestations had beene as farre in his heart, as they were faire in his mouth: I resolued to answere him for the truthes sake, though my leasure was not much, promising my self as much thank for my la­bour, as his great offers led mee to beleeue. To keep it secrete, I wrote in latine. I seasoned my wordes, with all moderation, that might bee in a contrarie style. I offered to confesse, if it could be shewed, that my answeres turned not the edge of his argumentes. To be short, I promised to yeelde to anie truth, that he could proue. I was in hope that this conference should haue beene priuate, amongest vs, and such freends onelie, as hee or I, might haue acquainted with it. Indeed, he offered mee to haue talked of the matter at a freends house. But I considering, that in such disputations, stormes of wordes rysing out of hearts, heated with contradiction, doth hinder rea­son, and stop judgement, refused any conference, but with the pen.The second consideration is better than the first. This reply I finished within few daies: But mistrusting mine own infirmities, and knowing that [...], I kept it in my hand till the next May following. Then going home to visite my naturall freendes, I left it with a freend or two to be deliuered him. They beeing doubtfull of [Page] my returne, though it not best to sturre a coale, that they knew no man in my absence to put out. At my returne vnderstanding that they had not deliuered it: I tooke it into my handes againe, I added and al­tered diuerse things. I wrote it new: and sent it him inclosed in a letter. In time of my absence, (which was half a yeare and more) he had receaued by some secret meanes, an englishe copie of the first draught, which I my selfe had translated at the request of a freend, not aboue fiue daies before my journey. It I deliuered him with condition to bring it mee againe He brought it not, and I forgot it. In time of my ab­sence, he lent it to another, & the other gaue a cop­pie of it to one, that put it in M. Hills hands. To that before my returne, he had fumbled vp this answere, that now he hath printed. I not knowing it, sent him (as I haue said) the latine. Vpon receit whereof hee sent the other amongst his freends. It went amongst them from one to another, from November (for in Nouember I sent mine,) till the September follow­ing and then he sent it mee. In this meane time spea­ches were giuen out, that I had answered his sermō, that he had replied, and I recanted. These speeches grew dailie, and lifted his heart as high as his name. Whereon hee resolued to dispute in Oxenford for a scarlet hood. He promised his freends to make that one of his questions. He gaue out, that al Oxford was on his side. But when it came to proof, hee was faine to promise to his friends, and they to others, that he would conferre with learned men: that hee woulde yeeld to anie truth,The admit­ting of a man to a degree of schoole in Oxford is called a grace. that could be proued out of the word: that he would not deall in that question, but as he should be led by such conference, or els he had gone as graceles out of Oxford, as he came thither. Notwithstanding, when he was sure of his grace, to maintain his credit amongst his friends in the cun­trie: [Page] he took that question to maintaine in Oxfoord on the Viper day of the Act. howe manfully hee de­fended it, I report me to them that heard him. A fi­lius terrae at the lower end of the schoole (a thing ne­uer seene before in that place at that time) got a placet of the Doctor of the chyre, to brush his skarlet gowne: who trimmed it so neatly, that if his cheeks wold haue taken the staines of shame, he had worne as much skarlet in his face, as he did on his back. In this story (thou maiest see good Reader) that my ad­versary did thrust his hooke in an other mans har­uest at Chippinhame: that he took not my reply so wel as he promised in the pulpit. That he made that publick which I wrote in private. That he went far­ther abroad, & hunted for contention in Oxfoord. That hee plaied at the same bale before, in Sarum. That he bare the simple in hand, that all the learned of the Vniversitie were of his mind. That hee fed an vntrue rumour, that I had recanted. That he printed my privat letter without my consent or knowledg. And that to trouble the simple with it, he published that in english, which I wrote in latine. For my part I hope I did nothing but that which the dutie of a Christian required. hearing the trueth impugned I did defend it: fearing that he had bene deceiued on simplicitie, I laboured to reforme him. I wrote in faire tearmes to avoide offences. I wrote in a strange tongue to keepe it secret. And I hunted not for this contention: but was drawen into it with faire pro­mises of great thanks: wherfore I hope if thou haue but one dramme of indifferencie, that thou wiltest wipe this bleamish from my face. If I fall nowe into rougher tearmes impute the fault to him, that kept not himselfe within the same bounds as I beganne. Moreover, it is impossible to answere this booke, wherein are so many errours in al kinds of learning [Page] without tearms of offence. The humour also of this adversary is such, and his estimation amongest the simple, that if I spare him, I shall feede it, and hinder the trueth. Add that it is impossible for me to passe over such vnmanerly disgraces of lies, impudēt lies, shameles lies in matters politicall, damnable lies in maters theological: disagreing with Mathew, Mark, Luke, Iohn, Paul, Peter, Christ himself, & al the scrip­tures, and never turne the bale comming so faire to the other end of the tennise. In some places hee gi­ueth my words a meaning, that I neuer meant: In some places he giues my arguments a shape, that I neuer made. In some places hee bends his proofes to things not denied: In many places hee slipps the point in controversie, and passes by arguments, as if he neuer sawe them. And in no place answeres one argument like a scholler, much lesse a Doctor. If I rippe vp these things in their places freely: I hope good Reader, that thou wiltest rather lay the fault on him, that made them such; than me, that cal them as they are. Thus beseeching thee to weigh the cause throughly▪ and to giue every colour his own name: I leaue thee to the Lord.

Thine and all theirs that loue the Lord Iesus. Alexander Hume.

THE COPPY OF MASTER DOCTORS LETTER SENT to me with his booke.

GRace and peace. There was brought to me in August last an answere made to my ser­mon preached at Chippenhame the 28. of February by your selfe, which for that I was then riding to London, I laid vp in my studie till my returne. At which time examining it: I found that you had indeauored to answere some part of my sermon: and some things you left vnanswered. Hereupon I had thought to make no replie. But [...]he: I vnderstoode, that speeches were blazed abroad that neither I could, nor durst answere it: I entered into a resolution either to defend my self or els to recant, to stay the sp [...]eches of the multitude. And therefore to satisfie your request haue made a replie, wherein I haue proued my former reasons to be firme & v [...] controleable, and your answer to be weak & vnsufficient: for that you disagree with Dauid, Esay, Ezechiel▪ Mathew, Peter, Paul, yea Christ himself, as it shal appeare in the confe­rence. It is an easie matter to set your selfe against M. Hil. But it is not so easie [...] mater to set your self against the Pro­phets, and Apostles, and Christ himselfe. Hee vvill say to you as he said to Paul, [...]. Wherefore I pray you, if you vvill proceed in this conference to lay downe the vvhole as I do: and consider vvhat, vvhe [...], and vvhere you vvrite. You write of an article of our faith, vvhich must be confirmed by Gods word. If therefore it shal [Page] appeare, that you haue gainsaid the Apostles vvordes and meanings: vvho vvill beleeue you for an orthodoxall tea­cher? you write in the most perrillous times. When therefore, the Papists shall see your deceiptfull handling of Gods word, they vvill reioice at it. Lastly, you vvrite against an opini­on imbraced in the Church of England alwaies, and confir­med by our learned synod, and convocation in the Parlia­ment. Therefore you must assure your selfe, that you cannot cary this cause away without weightie, & irrefragable rea­sons. I receiued also the last of November, an answere in Latine. I vvill at successiue houres frame by Gods grace, an answer to that. In the meane season, you may peruse this, and see by this replie, vvhat good successe you may promise your selfe, and your friends in the other. Thus desiring God to direct this conference, and al other our labours to his glorie, I end.

West burie at my house, the last of Decem­ber. 1590.
Yours in the Lord, Adam Hill.

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIP-FVL, ADAM HIL DOCTOR OF DIVINITIE, Vicar of Westburie, person of Goosage, Prebend and subchanter of the Cathedrall Church of our Ladie, in the Citie of nevve Sarum.

IN May before the Moneth of August, you speake of going home to visite my naturall friends, I left my reply to your sermon to be delivered you. But it was kept backe vppon the considerations, which I haue saide in my Epistle to the Reader. What other Coppy you receiued in August, I cannot tel: But wel I am assured I sent you none. Howsoeuer you came by that coppy, plaine dealing wold haue answered that which I sent you my selfe▪ you tell me, that going vp to London, you rece­ued an answere to your Sermon, & pervsing it at your returne, you found it an endeavoure to answere some peece of it: and within few lines you will me to set downe al as you do. Your simile is vnfit, for you set not downe all, that you had of me. Neither could I set down all your Sermon: for I had but the notes of it: and them also written with your owne hand so confusedly, that it woulde haue troubled your selfe, to tell which was the beginning▪ middle, or end. There­fore this quarrell, that I did not set downe all, seeing I had not all, is very vnreasonable. As for your notes I answered them all, sauing two arguments, which being forced to seek hee [...]e one, and there an other, I missed in that confused Chaos of non bene i [...]ctarum dis­cordia semina verum. If you had bene disposed to speake properly, they were too small a qui [...]let, to make all the rest be called, but a peece of your Sermon. Bu [...] your warinesse heere is notable. Least some might think too well of my reply: you will not vouchsafe it the name of an answere: but an indeavoure to answere some peece of your Sermon. Such it [...]eavours as this, may well blind the simple: but amongst the wise wil never purchase much credit to your cause. But you would haue let all alone you say, if the speeches of the peo­ple disgracing your abilitie had not set you a worke: my desire was either to winne you to vs, or reasons from you to drawe me to you. But nowe it appeareth that your owne estimation was more preci­ous in your eies, than the defence of the trueth, or winning men [Page] from errours. This will be a foull blot in the face of a Doctor: ex­cept you wash it with a bale of truth and plaine dealing, confessing that I was in no errour at all. But then you say you resolved to de­fend your selfe, or else to recant. I thought you had bene resolute in Chippinhames pulpit six moneths before, if you were not as re­solute then as now, I will not take your word for shoe-buckles: for I had then more witnesses to your word, than I haue now to your hand. But me thinks it is strange, that I oppugning David, Esay, E­zechiell, Peter, Paul, and Christ himself, could haue escaped the check of your pen, if it had not bene to maintaine your owne cre­dite amongst the people. It is without doubt, that you loued that most, that moved you most. If you were not as jelous of their main­tenance as your owne estimation you were not so sure a friend, as many supposed. But it is hard for me you say, to kicke against the prick. It were so if I did so. but looke you M. Doctor to your owne heeles: for my part I haue the testimony of a good conscience. No other cause, than the simple loue of the trueth set me on worke. I le­velled not at preferment. I commended not my work to great per­sones. I published not my book till you opened the gate: & I could do no lesse than followe. As for Christ and his Apostles I hope to make it clear in al indifferent eares, that I haue not opposed one syllable against them: And that you pull my wordes, as Cacus did Hercules his Kein into what stinking dennes, it pleseth your wrang­ling braine to devise. I know both what, when, and where I write. I write of an Article of our faith, in which I am so much more ear­nest, as the Children of God shuld be more diligent to vnderstand their faith aright. As for these dangerous times it is you that neg­lect them. It is you, that devide the coat of Christ: it is you that han­dle the Scriptures guilefully: it is you, that publish private things to make the Papists sport, and trouble the Church. That which divers learned Papists affirme the Scriptures, never saide you put them to the rack to make them confesse. Scotus saith, that the discense of Christ into hell cannot be prooued by Scriptures. And radius one of the learnest that was in the counsel of Trent, saith it, and proues it. Hesselius another of the same counsell construeth the place of Peter against you. To him accordeth Th [...]mas Aquinas. and Dio­nysius Carthusianus agreeth with Andradius. It were easie to quote many: If the seeking of them were not more laborious, than their testimonies will be effectuall in this cause. I bring onely these to set their ingenuitie against your partialitie. As for the Church of Eng­land, it hath not alwaies fostered your opinion, as you vntruely a­vouch. The times of popery, we yeeld you: because you agree in the name, and the places be but severall roomes of one dungeon. Nei­ther [Page] can we denie you the times of King Edward, which creeping but out of the shelles of Popery, had not shaken of the buddes of your errour, about that time the greatest part of your favorities li­ued: and in that time your opinion (for want of better) was confir­med by convocation. But anno 1564. in the beginning of her Ma­jesties raigne, in a convocation assembled to reestablish the Acts of King Edward, which Queene Mary had taken away, that article on­ly was reformed, and your opinion defaced, no more being left, but the naked article of the beleefe in wordes equivalent. wherevpon I build this reason. No counsell nor convocation censuring a for­mer taketh that away,Synod. Ed. which it selfe alloweth. But this convocation censuring the convocation of King Ed­ward,Quemadmodum Christus pro nobis mortuus est, & sepultus: ita est etiam cre­dendus ad inferos descen­disse. Nam corpus vs (que) ad resurrectionē in sepulchro iacuit: spiritus ab illo e­missus cum spiritibus, qui in carcere, siue in inferno detinebantur fuit, illis (que) predicauit queadmodum testatur Petri locus. hath taken your opinion away. Ergo, this convo­cation allowed not your opinion. But contrariwise, the same Church of England hath made our opinion her owne, by publishing by her authoritie, Thomas Rogers exposition of these Articles, wherein he agrees with vs: and countenansing it with her owne name, in titeling it the English Creede. She hath also printed and allow­ed by her authoritie many books against you. The Ge­neva Bible, I know not how many times: The newe Te­stament with Beza and Villerius his notes: Fulkes an­swere to the Remishe Testament: Baro his Lectures vp­on Ionas:Synod. Eliz. principium tantum retinuit. Quem­admodum Christus pro nobis mortuus est, & sepul­tus: ita est etiam creden­dus ad inferos descendisse. Calvins Institutions at large, and abridged: Northbrooks Confession: Fulk against Gregory Mar­tine, and the Rhemists: Whitaker against Campion and Duraeus: Vrsinus his Catechisme: Bastingius his Cate­chisme: Andrewe Willets vewe of Popery, with many o­thers: Some dedicated to the Queene her selfe, Some to my Lord Treasurer, some to my lord of Huntington, some to my lord of Leister, some to my lord of Bedford, some to my lord of Warwick, some to one, some to another, all allowed, and all against you, Lastly our opinion hath bene taught in the Pulpits, de­fended in Schooles, allowed in the Vniversities, so that one Doctor Husse, his grace was denied in Cambridge aboue 20. yeares agoe for your opinion: and y [...]r owne had bene denied you within this three yeares in Oxford, if you had not promised more than you meant to performe. Whatsoeuer other men hath done, or spoken for their owne: you are the first that ever I heard of, that oppugned ours in the Church of England: saving D. Husse in Leister. Against whome the Bishop of that Diocesse did oppose himselfe, procuring from Cambridge their Reader, countenanced with the authoritie of their convocation, to confute that opinion, which the english [Page] name of hel did make more popular, and probable to the ignorant, by the countenance of that famous, and worthie Vniversitie. Thus men may see how truely you challenge the Church of England, to haue allowed your opinion alwaies▪ your alwaies commeth short of all that time, which you desired most to take your part: for men of your livery, if you may get autoritie on your side, count your self otherwaies sufficiently armed. As for me, If I handle the scriptures deceitfully: let not onely the Papists laugh at me: but let al Chri­stians spit at me. if I reforme it not, when I am convicted. Howe strong my reasons are, to cary this cause cleare through the midst of the aduersaries of it: I hope the sequell will proue: and I referre it to the advised judgment of the indifferent Reader: I cannot tell how to frame irrefragable reasons to you. There was a Prophecie (as Curtius recordeth) that hee who could vndoe the knottes of Gordius his chariot, should be Emperour of Asia. Alexander inten­ding that conquest, came to the temple where those knottes were kept, to see, if hee could open them. But they beeing insoluble by mans reason, hee tore all assunder with his sword. So you serue my arguments, be they never so irrefragable: when you cannot open them with reason: you teare them all assunder with violence. As for my latine answere, which I indeed did send you, and you in trueth should haue answered me, and not this wandring vagabound: you haue had it these three yeares and more, wherein were successiue houres ynough to answere two sheets of Paper: if you haue not bin more busie about greater matters, than you would haue the world to knowe. In the meane time I haue pervsed this, and put my friends in hope of good successe in the other: when your long leasure will serue you to answere it. Thus beseeching God to giue vs all one heart and one minde, I end.

Yours in the Lord, Alexander Hume.

THE STATE OF THIS QVESTION brieflie set down, for the capacitie of such as are not able to carie the drift of all this discourse before them.

THe hebrevve vvord SHEOL, vvhich the Greekes call hades, the latines infernus, and vvee hell, hath three significations in the scriptures.

First and properlie it signifieth the graue, or common condition of all the dead, expressed in the greek hades by the priuation of light or lyfe.

Secondlie, the place of tormentes, appointed for the punishment of the vvicked: for this the hebrevve vvord is least, and our inglish vvorde most vsuall, or rather as it is commonlie taken, hardlie signifieth any thing els.

Thirdlie, the torments of hel, vvhich by a Metonymicall hyperbole for amplifications sake, is manie times attributed to the sorrovves of this life. These things are knovvn to al the learned. And this D. confesseth them sect. 4. See also sect. 8. sect. 9. and sect. 14.

Novve, vvhere our beleefe hath that Christ descended into hell: the question is vvhich of these three significations doth best fit that article of our faith: We say, that seing euery article of our faith must haue an vn­douted sense confirmed by the Scriptures, it must needs signifie the hellish torments that he suffered for our redemption, or the darknesse of death, vvhich svvallovved him the three daies that he vvas in the graue. That these thingt are true, and may be the true sense of that article, our aduer­saries cannot denie. Yet not contented heerevvith, they vvil sinke deeper, and send Christs soule to the damned pit of hell, neither to suffer himself, nor to helpe [...] that suffered there. Novve, because this is a thing that no man can avouch vpon his ovvne knovvledge, but God himself: We re­fuse to take their vvords vvithout his vvarrant. Wherefore to mend this crooke, they lay three te [...] [...]s of Scripture in the presse. The first is out of the 16. Psalme: the second is out of the 3. chap. of the 1. Pet. the last & vvea­kest, out of the 4. to the Ephes. But these proofes being doubtfull, that is, implying other plainer senses We denie them to be sufficient to make this doubtfull assertion, an vndoubted article of our faith. Our reason is, no doubtfull proofes can make a doubtfull assertion an vndoubted article of our faith: But these proofes be doubtfull. Ergo, these proofes cannot make this doubtfull assertion, an vndoubted article of our faith. That these pro­fes be doubtfull, the vvords, drifts, and circumstances, offering other sen­ses [Page] both plainer, and better fitting the places, and agreeable to the rest of the Scriptures, vvill driue anie reasonable head to confesse. Neither doeth diverse learned Papists denie it. But this aduersarie more impudent then they, blusheth not like a vvyer dravver, to pull these Scriptures through narrovve holes, to make them smal inough, to tie our faith to his fantasie. Moreouer, vvith like violence, hee is forced to break dovvn tvvo other vvalls that stands in his vvay. The one is in the 23 of Luke, ver. 46. Fa­ther into thy hands I commend my spirit▪ and the other in the 43. ver of the same cap. spoken to the theef, This day shalt thou be with mee in Paradice. By vvhich tvvo places it is cleare, that Christs soule vvas then in heauen, and not in Hell. Vpon the true sense of these places riseth this disputation, to vvhich I referre the discreet and indifferent Reader, be­seeching them to read vvith a single eie, and iudge vvith an vpright hart. Onelie I vvill lance an impostume of absurdities, vvhich breeding in the bovvels of this opinion, like the vvorme that breeds in the nut, hath putri­fied all the probabilitie of it, and made all men of indifferent iudgement in this age to caste it vnder the boord amongest the shreddes.

First, that Christ went down to Hell to triumph, contrarie to the nature of Hell, which yeeldeth nothing but horrour and torments. And contrarie to the nature of a triumph, which was vsuallie solem­nized amongst them, to whom the joy of the victorie did appertaine

Secondlie, that Christs soule did preach in Hell, contrarie to the nature of a soule, that cannot preache: and the condition of those hearers, who could reap no profite of his sermon having their juge­ment alreadie.

Thirdlie, that he did preach neither to convert the hearers, nor to condempne them for the contempt of his word: but to aggrauate their sorrowes. Contrarie to the office of Christ, which was to offer mercie to all his hearers.

Fourthlie, that Christs soul did preach in Hel reallie, not vocal­lie: that is, did preach in Hel and say nothing: contrary to the nature of the word preach, which neuer man did, without voice & words.

Fiftlie, that Christ meaning to go to Hell, (as they say) did not­withstanding commend his soule into the hands of God. Contrarie to the true and common vse of these words vsed by Stephan, Act. 7. and all other godlie men, that craue to be i [...] heauen.

Sixtlie, that his soule was in Hell with [...]t torments, contrarie to the name and nature of Hell, which presenteth to the care and hart, nothing but hainous and hideous torments.

Seventhlie, that in these words (Thou shalt be with mee in Para­dice) Christ spake onelie of his God-head. Contrarie to the nature of the pronoune (me) which doeth alwaies note the whole person that speaketh.

[Page] Eightlie, that having conquered Hell vpon the crosse: It was needfull for him notwithstanding to goe to hell. Contrarie to the sufficiencie of Christs sacrifice, who had paid a full ransome for our sinnes before, and left nothing behinde to be done in Hell. These 8. cankers are festered in the marrowe of this absurde opinion, for all which, all the Scriptures hath not one sillable, and therefore it must be a monster, that hath bred so manie monsters.

I Had answered Maister Doctors Sermon (as he calls it) but to a­void prolixitie, and because this is but a repetition of his rea­sons there, I haue left it out, and haue sent him a breefe summe thereof, to shewe him that there is nothing there, better then here: only in the end of it, he calles al his adversaries Boyes, schismaticks, phantasticall spirits, rashe without studie, and presumptuous with­out feare of God. If Caluin be a boy, if Beza be a boy, if Marlarot be a boy, if Vrsinus be a boy, if Bastingius be a boy, if Ramus be a boy, if Olevian be a boy, if Iunius be a boy, if Tremelius be a boy, if Baro be a boy, if Brensius be a boy, if Heresbathius be a boy, if Sohnius be a boy, if Bullinger be a boy, if Bucer be a boy, if Danaeus be a boy, if Sa­del be a boy, if Viret be a boy, if Sarcerius be a boy, if Suinglius be a boy, if Dering be a boy, if Perkins be a boy, if Rogers be a boy, if Fulk be a boy, if Willet be a boy, if Reynolds be a boy, if Whitaker be a boy if Hoper bishop of Glocester be a boy, if Reynald Peacock, Bishop of Chester in the time of Henrie the sixt be a boy: I wil stand to it, that this D. is not worthie to wait on many boyes, and bear their books to the Schoole, of their diligence, of their learning, of their discre­tion, of their integritie, of their constācie, of their humilitie, though his mouth runne over in generall, I hope he will blush to touch any of them in particular. This I haue set downe to shewe thee gentle Reader, that his cause wants not more & greater adversaries, then he supposeth it to haue f [...]vourers.

THE FIRST SECTION OF HVME his Letter.

IT fell out vpon some occasions, that I was with a freend not farre frō Chippenham, the day before you preached there. As I was preparing to depart, word came to my friend that you had certified M. Chalfont of your intent the day following, to defende that which hee had spoken against M. Wisedome, that day sennight before, concerning the descension of Christ into hell: where fore my friend wrought me to stay, to heare what could be sayd for a matter, that both hee and I did thinke to haue no great probabilitie. I did so, and it repenteth me not, for there I heard something, which otherwise per­haps would neuer haue entered in my barren brain. & I was strengthned in the truth, prouing that which is cōmonly said, that with & eloquence is not able to shake it. Wherfore, I haue thoght it not amis to write these few lines vnto you, either to win you to vs, or to win some better reason frō you, to bring me to you. I am not maryed to mine owne opinion, but if any man can bring mee better proofe [...], I am content to yeeld. I hope the same of you, for you told mee so in the pulpit, where the tong should wait vpon the hart, and speake his affections: & it is the dutye of all men, especially of ministers, to imploy their laboures to knowe the truth, and not contentiously to defend their owne conceits, which many tymes deceiues e­uen [Page 2] the wisest. As yet your reasous haue confirmed rather then converted me.

HILL his reply.

IN the entrance of your answer, you haue told two vntruths vpon vntrue reports. The on, that I cer­tified M. Chalfont of mine intent, which is not so: for neither by messenger nor letter, did I euer send to M. Chalfont. The other is, where you auouch that I would make an apology of. M. Chalfonlts sayings against M. Wisdome, which God knoweth was ne­uer my meaning: for first, I neuer knew what he had fayd in that controuersy, til the morning I preached. Secondly, I did alwaies loue and honour M. Wise­dome, but M. Chalfont, til that morning I was not acquainted with al. Thirdly, hearing a strife reuiued of that matter, which was not long before quieted in Sarum by the last Bishop, now Archbishop of Yorke, and being requested to deliuer my iudgment in the matter, not by M. Chalfont, but by one Richarde Woodlands, to set vnity betwixt my bretheren, and not to warre against M. Wisedome: In the feare of God, and not to please you or your friend, or any o­ther man, I layd downe my iudgement, and gaue vp my Sermon in writing to M. Wisedome, crauing an answere to the whole, & not to some part of it. Now, you haue made an answer to some, how truly it shall appeare: and other things you haue left vnanswered, for what cause, let the reader iudge. In the end, you charge me with wit, which is small, with eloquence, which is none, and with my promise, which I will keepe most willinglie, hoping that you will keepe youres.

[Page 3] THese hainous accusations of vntruthes might haue beene left; saving that you would haue the worlde to thinke that I am a common lyar. To this end you crie out almost in euerie sect. impudent and monstrous lyes. It is in deed, a point of Rhethorike, but you neuer learned it in Christs schoole, to build the credite of your cause (if it be euill) on the discre­dite of your aduersarie. But they which are acquain­ted with my life, I hope wil justifie me of this crime: and they that know mee not, neede no better argu­ment of my innocencie, then your accusations, and the small occasions, that you take against mee. For, if the report that came to my friend, was not true; I hope it was no great fault of mine: nor greater fault in you, to haue certified M. Chalfont of your purpose, then to haue performed it. If I woulde sit downe to audite, and take counters in hand to lay your slippes, but halfe so diligentlie; as you are busie vpon euery corner of occasions, to pul my wordes into suspition of vntruthes: I coulde note in this praeface foure scapes, not mistaken vpon vntrue reportes (as you charge mee) but misreported by your self, that wold scarse abide a just tryall of honest dealing. First, that hearing ouer night of that controversie so much in mens mouthes; you knewe not M. Chalfonts part till the morning, you preached there; may be true, but is not verie likelie. Secondlie, that you ment not to de­fend M. Chalfonts opinion, will hardlie be beleeued, except you can perswade the audiēce, that you ment one thing, and did an other. Thirdlie, that you gaue vp your sermon to M. Wisedome in wriring. M. Wise­dome can tel that it is not true. Hee had nothing of you, but a few scribled & disordered notes. The last is cunninger, that I answered not the whole, but some part of your sermon. That which escaped without answere, was so small a part, that the rest might well [Page 4] haue bene called the whole, if you had not bene dis­posed to abuse the simplicitie of your reader. That the matter then in controversie was staied before in Sarum by the Bishop, was true: but in such sort, that if you had not bene more busie, then your commissi­on: it might haue stand more with your credite, to haue let Chippenham alone. For you were there injoi­ned by the Bish. & two Iustices of the peace, to con­fesse that M. Connam his opinion (who was then your adversary) was pia & vera sentētia. Whether you came to make peace amongst your brethren,A true and godly opini­on. and not to warre against M. Wisedome, I referre it to the audi­ence: peace-makers vse not to take parts. Your peace did so little please M. Wisdome (for as much as you honor him) that beeing denied the pulpit at Chippen­ham, by Chalfont, contrarie to the order, he was dri­uen to take Cosham church, not far distant, to defend the truth against you, and your mate; which thing he performed with great meekenesse and humilitie af­ter his maner, to the comforte of all that heard him, & the aedifying of them, that were desirous to know the trueth. These things, if I were disposed to go to Tennis with you, would sound more lie like, then all the lies, you haue flung at me. But you are a Doctor, and that were vn-manerlie. Yet (saving your wor­ship) you keepe not so good a watche through this worke, as it becums such a lie-catcher. Wherefore to conclude: where you say, that I accuse you of wit, & eloquence: onelie denie the action, and I will let fall my su [...]e. But as for your promise, I will neuer let goe my holde, because I hope you will proue a man of your word.

HVME his 2. Sect.

Nowe to come to the matter, I see no cause why you should thinke better of Augnstine and Ie­rome, [Page 5] then of Caluin and Beza, for they were all but men, and they which now are olde, were sometimes new. They had no better warrant of Gods spirit then these: and errors in those dayes were so thicke sowen, that there grewe darnell in the best fieldes, euen of them whome now we most admire. I speake not this to descredit the Fathers, but to proue that they were no Gods. They were no dout, his good instruments, to maintaine his truth against his enemies, but they wer but mē: you can not denie, but the best of them had his steynes. This no doubt, was the forepurpo­sed worke of gods infinite wisdom, that seeing these infirmities, our fond age might not set their writings in the place of his eternall word, wherof one iote shal not passe, though heauen and earth perish.

HILL his reply.The Paralo­gismes in the D. reply.

My argu­mēts betwise two, if you re­kon right. TWo argumentes you makeBut not one against Aug. nor Ierome. against Augustine and Ierome. The one is, they had errors,These cō ­clusions you neuer founde in my papers. and therfore their interpretation not to be admitted. The other is, the time wherein they li­ued was corrupt, and forThese cō ­clusions you neuer founde in my papers. that cause they are not to be alledged in a controuersy of Diuinitie. The same make what you will, my argument is not against new nor olde. argument, I make against all new writers.This argu­ment is not lyke mine. All new writers haue errors, and they liue in a most cor­rupt time, wherein (as Christ saith) shall bee many fals prophets, & many fals Christs, to deceiue the ve­ry elect if it were posible, Math. 24. 24.This conclusion wil no [...] foll [...]w in my forme. Therfore, because men are vaine, & the time corrupt, wee must beleue no man.The fallacie of your argument is not ab accidente, but à non causa pro causa. You argue ab accidente ad subiectū This is wrong collected the reason is not from error to Augustine & Ierome. For Augustine & Ierome to erre, it is an accident, To be a Father, is an accident it [...]self, and hath no substance but the substance of all Fathers is,This is not the substance, but the proper fact of Fathers to beget men in the word of truth, 1. Cor. 4. 15. And for [Page 6] this cause, Augustine himselfe willeth vs not to be­leeue him, vnlesse hee bring the word of God. Truly (sayth Augustine)That is it that I woulde haue. I do desire not onlie a godlie reader, but a free corrector in all my writings, especi­ally, in those things where there is great doubt:thes places would help mee well if need re­quyred. If my cause had wā ­ted proofe, I would haue bestowed a see on you. but as I will not haue him to be giuen vnto mee, so, I will not haue him to be giuen to himself: let him not loue mee more then the Catholike faith. As I say to him, beleue not my sayings as Canonical scriptures, but beleue stedfastly, whē thou hast found that which thou beleuedst not, but beleue not firmly, that which thou hast not seene out of Gods worde. So I say to him, do not correct my writings by thine owne opi­nion, or of contention, but by the word of God, & by the reason therof vncontrouleable.thes places would help mee well if need re­quyred. If my cause had wā ­ted proofe, I would haue bestowed a see on you. And against Cresconius the Grammarian hee thus writeth, lib. 2. cap. 32. I am not moued with the authority of this E­pistle. but I consider thē out of the Canonical books, and if they agree with the worde of God, I receiue them with prayse, if they disagre, I refuse them with peace. The like he hath Epist. 3. & Epist. 112.thes places would help mee well if need re­quyred. If my cause had wā ­ted proofe, I would haue bestowed a see on you. And Ierome ad Theoph. is of the same iudgment. I know that I esteeme otherwise the Apostles, and otherwise other interpreters: these men speak truth alwayes, these men in some things do erre somtime.Then this makes for me, that they wer▪ but men. These Fathers themselues, confes themselues to be but mē, & wil vs to beleeue thē no farther thē they agree with Gods word.I see no re­son in that. Therfore, they building vpō Christ, aswell as your newe, ought to be beleeued rather in this point then they:In these three places you beg the que­stion. For what they wrote in this controuersy, the same did all other godly Interpre­ters both Greek and Latin, hauing a good warrant from Gods word.In these three places you beg the que­stion. But those of your side, write contrary to Gods word, to the auncient Fathers, yea and contrarie to the new Fathers, namly, Luther, Sel­ueccer, Chytraeus, Pomeran, Aepinus, Lucas, Lossius, [Page 7] Alesius, Aretius, Peter Martyr, M. Fox, and M. Nowel. In these three places you beg the que­stion. Therefore, because Augustine and Ierome agree both with the old and new writers, & especially, with the worde of God, I like better of them; teaching the affirmatiue, then of any otherWe holde the affirma­tiue, that hee descended in to hell, as well as you. labouring to proue the negatiue. To endThis ende is impertinét to this bodie. If it were not to shew the reader, how finely you can distinguish the voice of the Fathers. But se­ing in their voice, is so much drosse: bring me I pray you, no voice but Gods, wherin is nothing but pure mettall. therefore, you must note this, that all sayings of the Fathers, either they are demonstratiue out of the scriptures, & then they are the voyce of God: or else probable, and these are the voyce of man, or else false, and then they are the voice of the Serpent.

HVME his reioynder to the 2. sect.

YOu make my arg [...]ments as pleaseth you. If wee had no better then you would affoorde vs, wee were vnworthie of credite, and worthie of your re­proches. First, you alter the conclusion. I neuer thoght, said, or wrote, that their interpretations are not to bee admitted, nor their sayings alledged in a controversie of Divinity. Neither write I against thē, except it be a discredite to them, that other men bee thought off, aswell as they. My conclusion was, that their names broght no more credite to your cause, then Calvine & Beza did bring ours. My arguments were twise so manie, as you make them. 1. That they were all but men. 2. That they who now are old, were sometimes new. 3. That they had no better warrant of Gods Spirit. 4. That errors grew as thicke in their times as in ours. Seeing then all men are fraile, and old errours are as bad as newe, and newe truthes as good as olde: seeing the spirit of truth was then no stronger, nor the spirit of error weaker: all things in this comparison you see are aequall, and my argumēt [Page 8] holdes for anie thing that you haue said. You take the bit in your teeth, and runne out of the way with an argument ab accidente. Therefore, fare-you-well; that is not my way. You cite Augustine and Ierome onelie, to make vp nomber. Their confession of their owne frailtie, is against you. If my arguments had not beene so true before, that no witnesses can make them truer, this would haue helpt mee well. Men may see, that you haue either a meruelous ill cause, or great stoare of small judgement, that can take so much paines to bring witnes into the courte, to condemne your selfe. And heere nowe, seeing your owne men do counsell mee to trust no man without the worde: I conjure you to trouble mee no more with your great musters, of Luther, Selneccer, Chytreus, Pomeranus, &c. If I would run that course, we should set al the learned of the world together by the eares, You will beare mee down (I confesse) with nomber. For all the Monkes, Friars, Iesuites, Abbotts, Bi­shops, Cardinals and Popes, woulde swaie to your side. If I were not sure of God and his truth, I would neuer draw sword, nor giue stroake in the cause.

HVME sect. 3.

THeir weaknes is no where more apparant, then in this mater that we haue now in hand:Ier. 4. Ephes. for [...]e­rom ioineth his opiniō herein, with a palpable error, that Christ descended to deliuer the Fathers, which to that day had bin in prison. Augustine is not far be­hinde him,August ad Clodium. who though hee confesseth that the Fa­thers were in ioy with Abraham & Lazarus, yet after some long disputation, whether he did deliver all or some, & why these more then those; at length he con­cludeth, that hee did deliuer whome hee him selfe thought good. For, after that they had once concea­ved [Page 9] that his soule descended into a locall hell. There followed (which could not choose) many inconue­niences. There was non of them dreamed that which you avouch, that hee descended into hell, there to triumph or bind the divels, or to augment their sor­rows; by shewing them from what grace they had fal­len.

HILL his reply.

You write,The paralogis­mes of this sect that Ierome and Augustine did hold a palpable error, that is, that Christ descended to deli­uer the Fathers. I hope you will not deny,But I will denie, and so will you, that he wēt to hell to deliuer thē but the fathers haue their deliuerance by Christ from hell This is nor the question. Therfore by the merits and works of Christ, who I am sure conquered both deth and hell. There­fore where you proue that Augustine and Ierome do erre, I will leaue them as I saide before, but where in they spake the truth, I will prayse God for them. [...]. This is shufled on heere, as Tailers vsed haire in olde time to stuffe hoses. But let vs see howe many wayes the scripture may be corrupted, that is, by adding, altering, & di­minishing. Eue in the third Chap. of Genesis taught all her children so to doe: for in the 3. verse thus shee saith, But of the fruit of the tree, which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ye shal not eat of it, nei­ther shall ye touch it, least ye dye. First she changeth the word of God, for God fayth. Gen. 2. 17. of the tre of knowledge of good and euill, thou shalt not eate. Those words (of the tree of knowledge of good and euill) she changeth, & putteth in for them (in the miust of the garden.) Farther God said, they shuld not eat of it, shee added (that they might not touch it.) God said they should surely dye, Eue said (least wee dye) heere she diminished the scriptures. If then the Fa­thers haue added to the scriptures, that the Fathers were fet out of hell, there I leaue them,We may as wel say, that you change graue into hel Do not you confesse in the next sect. that the origi­nall doth sig­nifie the one, as well as the other? is this changing? Fie D. deale ho­nestlie. and if you change hell in to graue, as you do in the 16. psal, [Page 10] and Act. 2. I wil leaue you also:hold there M. D. remēber that hereafter I shall finde time to put you in minde of this againe for I stand not vpon mens sayings, but vpon the word of God.You mis­take mee blindlie, read againe. But where you boldly affirme, that notI spake on­lie of Aug. & Ier. read again one of the Fa­thers haue deemed thatThough I might stand to this, becaus they send Christ to hell, wherein the Fathers were detained, and you to the place of the damned, yet this is not the thing that I said. I onelie said neither August. nor Ierome, did send Christ to hell on your erand, to triumph ther and cut-face those misera­ble wretches. which I say, you shewe your self, either to beeThis ma­lice and your heare grew both in one groūd. malicious in hiding the truth, or else so ignorant, that you haue not read the Fathers: for diuers, both old & new are of my iudge­ment. Heer Ambrose faith not that which I deny. Ambrose on the fourth Chapter of the Ephesians, thus writeth. Christ therefore comming downe from heauen into the earth, was borne a man, afterward he died, and descended intoLet hel be heer taken for the condition of death, and this place may haue a favorable construction. Hell, from whence rising the third day, he shewed death vanqui­shed to every creature.This place of Augustine saieth it not. Augustine de tempore, In his 137. sermon, and in his thrid sermon of the re­surrection thus sayeth: Hell did restore him as a con­querour, and the heauens did receaue him as a tri­umpher. And in his second sermon, hee saieth thus: Behold, you haue hard what our defender, the God of vengeance is saide to haue done freely. For after he was exalted, that is, was hanged of the Iewes on the crosse, that I may touche these thinges brieflie, assoone as hee had giuen vp the ghost, the soule vni­ted to the Diuinitie, descended into the bottom of hel: and when he had touched the band of darkenesse, as a fearefull & glorious spoyler, the wicked & hellish Le­gions were affrayde, & trembling, began to enquire, saying, Who is this dreadful & glorious man? Euse­bius writing of the resurrection of our sauiour, hath the like: We must know, that in the selfe same houre wherein our Sauiour bowing his head gaue vp the ghost, his body being left in the graue, his foul with the Diuinitie went downe to triumph ouer Hell.This place of Fulgentius saith it not. Fulgentius writing to King Thtasymund, in his third [Page 11] booke and eight Chapter, not dreaming, but wel ad­uised, thus writeth: The true humanitie of the sonne of God, neyther was wholye in the graue, nor wholie in hell, but in the Sepulcher, hee lay dead, according to his true fleshe, but in his Soule descended into Hell. In his soule hee returned to the flesh which lay in the Sepulcher, but in respect of the Diuinitie, which neither is holden in place, nor limited by bond, he was wholy in the graue with his flesh, and wholy with his Soule in Hel, and by this meanes was fully enery where Christ, because God was not seperated from the humanitie which he had assumpted, which was both with his Soule in Hell; that from Hel, his Soule might returne a Conqueresse, and was with his fleshe, that by reason of his speedie resurrection, it might not be corrupted. I haue heere alleaged the old, which disproue your assertion, for all these accord with mee. Now, to these will I adde also the iudge­ments of some new Writers.If you haue no more in Mollerus for you then this he is neither for your hell, nor your tri­umph. Mollerus a very learned Minister of Germany on the 16. Psalme thus teacheth: Christ would shew his victorie in a certain sort ouer the Diuells, to strike perpetuall terrors in to them, and to take away from vs the feare of their tyrānie. To this agreeth Musculus on the sixtie and eight Psalme. This GOD, which was in Christ, re­conciling the world to himselfe, first descended into theBefore you hewe this block to fit your hand, you must first perswade vs, that the low­ermost partes of the earth, can be no­thing els but hell. lowest partes of the earth, then heeled cap­tiuitie captiue; and not onely wee are deliuered from the captiuitie of Satan, sinne, and damnation, but al so triumphing ouer them as Tyrants, he hath ascen­ded aboue all heauens, to fulfill all things. The same learned Fathers, interpreting the second Chapter of the Colossians, thus hath: There are some that bee perswaded it is an absurditie, if it be sayd, that Christ did triumph ouer the principalities and powers, but if all chese things be attributed to God the Father, [Page 12] that he did them with Christ, and in Christ, wee may truly reade heere, triumphing ouer themWhat will you gaine, & that begrāted in his owne person. In like sort, doth Hemingius expound this place in the second Chapter of the Colossians: As by his death he conflicted with the Diuell on the Crosse, so by his glorious descending into Hell, Re­surrection, and Ascension, he triumphed, as it is Eph. 4. leauing his Crosse lift vp as a monument of his victorie. So doth M. Fox M. Foxe hath nothing in all that worke to help you: but onlie the same picture in the begin­ning of his book, which your printer hath set be­fore yours: Therefore you shoulde quote the printer, you do M. Foxe wrong. vnderstād this place, in a booke which he hath written, entituled, Christus tri­umphans. Therefore in this behalfe, you haue tolde a manifestYou charg me vntruelie with vntruths therefore take ye the pig that bred the pig. vntruth; wherfore, I shall thinke you will scarce haue care to set forth the truth of God, when you wil presumptuously vtter such an vntruth, which may be reproued, by so many & honorable witnesses. Farther, here you leaue out at your pleasure, two other endes of Christ descēding into Hel, which I taught in my Sermon: the one is, [...] the descending into Hell, can­not manifest his death. Obscurius non illustrat obscurum. the manife­station of his death, the other is, ourThat he did by his death, not by his descending into hell. deliuerance from Hell. Playne dealing ought to be in this case, and therefore, I exspect it at your hands.

HVME his reyoinder.

If I will let you alone, you will neuer afforde mee a good argument, I see, I must needes frame them my self. Augustine and Ierome erring, are not to bee praeferred to Calvine and Beza teaching a trueth. But Augustine and Ierome doe erre in this controversie: Ergo, in this controuersie, they are not to be praefer­red to Calvine and Beza. That Calvine and Beza doth teach in this point the truth, you can not denie. You [Page 13] will say (perhapps) that it is not the true meaning of the article. That is the question. But I hope you will not deny, but the thing it self is true. Now Au­gustine and Ierome, do erre in the very thing it selfe. Heere you fumble about an excuse, and would faine say something. But you had better say nothing, then so little to the purpose. You thinke that no man will denie, but that the fathers had their deliuerie from Hell by Christ, so thinke I too. But what helps that, these mens errour? The one held, that Christ went to Hell to delyuer the Fathers: the other, to deliuer whome he himself thought good. Will your rotten Vernish, hyde this blemish? You tell me in the next sect. that it doeth little or nothing pertaine to this question. The question is about the descending of Christ into hell: and this they make the finall end of that action. Nowe, if you can proue, that the finall end hath no pertināce to the thing destinated to it, though it bee but a question of arte, I will acknow­ledge you to bee a better D. then you proued your self in Oxon. and a better artist, then euer I suspe­cted you to bee: though I was reasonablie well per­swaded of your skill, before you shamed your selfe. And yet I would haue you to marke (if you can spare so much time, as to marke anie thing against your selfe) that this is a very materiall point in this que­stion. For this final end, doth separate these mens o­pinion, and yours. They send Christ to hell to deli­uer the Fathers,Epist. ad A­glasiam quest. 1. tom. 3. Epist. It is a wicked thing to say, that Christ descended in­to hell, or place of the damned. and you send him to the hell of the damned, where the Fathers neuer were. They are so farre from you, that Ierome saieth, it is impium dicere Christum descendisse ad inferos, & locum damnatorum. You spend the moste of this section, to proue mee a liar: If you could, you might discredite mee, but not the cause. But I will crack this nut on yonr owne [Page 14] crowne. Frst, I said not, that none of the Fathers de­nied that which you say. I onlie saide, that neither Augustine nor Ierome, did send Christ to hell to tri­umph. Secondly, if I had said so, I had said trulie. For you send Christ to the hell of the damned, and that, none of them euer deemed. Therfore in this behalf, (to vse your owne words) you haue tolde a manifest vntruth of mee. You father that on mee, which I ne­uer saide: and accuse mee for saying that, which I might well avouche. And heere I must put you in minde, that if you will joyne with all, or the most of them that you call forth, to take your parte in this quarrell: you must hyre workemen to repaire the ru­inous walles of Limbus patrum, that you haue shaken so sore, and shiuered your self heer-to-fore; with the mightie shot of Gods aeternall word.

HVME sect. 4.

VVHo so will see howe vncertaine Augustine was in this point, let him reade his 99. E­pistle to Evodius. There shal he finde manie doubtes, and almost nothing affirmed for certaintie: but on­lie, that hee doubted not that Christ went to hell: building on the words of Dauid, cited by Peter. Act. 2. Thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell, &c. Where I can­not chuse, but muse, what should moue so worthie a wit, and such followers of him: seeing it is apparant in the scripture, that the original word doth signify as well the panges, as the place of hell: to passe by that signification, which the whole church of Christ confesseth to be true: and fall vpon that, which ha­uing so weake proof, had so great straites, as Augu­stines deepe wit could not vnfolde. Who so will see the name of hell vsed in the Scriptures, for the sor­rowes of Hell, let him reade that of 1. Samuel, 2. 6. [Page 15] The Lord killeth and maketh aliue, he casteth downe to hell and bringeth vp againe: or that of Dauid, Psal. 30. 3. Thou hast brought my soule out of Hell. Or that of Ionas, 2. 2. I haue called to thee out of the bottom of Hell. And manie such like places, where that word cannot sig­nifie the pit of Hell, whence there is no redemption: but the hellish sorrowes, which those Saints of God did suffer in this life. Now seing this is so, I wold fain knowe of you good M. Hill, why wee may not more safelie, take the name of Hel in that sense, which you cannot denie, then you in that, which the better part of Christians take to bee false. For that Christ descended into the pit of the damned, the best proof it hath is builded on a word of double signification, which standeth at the courtesie of the reader, to take it, as to him shall seeme most probable.

HILL his reply.

Heere you confesse that Augustine doubteth,The Paralo­gismes in the D. reply. and yetI say that your tale and his ar not one He meaneth a place where the Fathers wer detained till Christes comming. You meane the place of the damned, where the fa­thers neuer were. you say, that in the mater in controuersie between you and mee, he doubteth not: but proueth it by the Apostolicall and Propheticall testimonies: His owne not yours. For he willeth vs to hold it firmissima fide, with a most firme faith, & saith that none but an Infidel wil deny it. He doubteth whether the fathers were in Hell, or whether they were conuerted in hell by Christs preaching, as some did affirme vntrulie, and manie such like things, little orDoth the final end per­taine nothing, to that which worketh for it? this is new logick. nothing apper­taining to the question wee haue in hand.Doubteth he not, but that the Fathers were in hel. but ad Dardanum he doubteth not. Fol. 3. col. 272. Fol. 10. col. 14. 10. Fol. 3. col. 213. & 702. Fol. 788. Fol. 10. 899. 989. In all these places and in manie other, he telleth without doubting,No more doth he in the place cited by me. that he descended in­to [Page 16] Hell, and the end why. To strilie a terror into the Diuels, and to triumph ouer them.You dream of mirth: whē saw ye me laugh at that sport. It pleases you, to make your self merry with S. Augustines in­firmity, I pray God you will with Sainte Augustine acknowledge your owne,When you haue laid that before mee: You shall see how honestly I wil demaine my self. which by and by shall be laide before you. You wonder at S. Augustine, but we wonder at yourIn your written copy, it is M. Caluin and mee: why you haue tur­ned it, I remit to the reader. teachers and you: for you confesse S. Augustiue toAs he that builded a wal of sand, on a sure rocke. build vpon Dauid and Peter, & yet you labour to ouerthrow this building, how deceatfullie, it shall now appeare. You say, that Hel signifieth the sorrowes of Hel, sometime I grant it doth. Heerevpon you make this argument:This was not my argu­ment. Sometime it signifieth the sorrowes of Hell, there­fore it doth so in the 16. Psalme.I cannot blame you. I denie your argument, and that you haue spoken an vntruth, the holie Ghost by Peters mouth, shalbe a witnes against you.Peter and I speak not of one thing, se the answere. For you say, it is spoken of the sorrowes which Christ suffered vpon the Crosse, Peter saith, Petersaith not, that the hel wherein he was is spoken of the resur­rection. it is spoken of the resurrection: and in the resur­rection, I am sure Christ suffered no torments or sor­rowes. Peters interpretation is thus. Act. 2. 32. Hee knowing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soule That his soule was not left in hell (sayeth Peter) is spoken of his resurrection. should not be left in Hell, neither his flesh to see corruption. Foolishe D. howe oft must I tell you: that his being in hell, is not spoken of his resurrection. Nowe then, heere is an answer to your demaund: these wordes are spoken of the resurrection, a matter of ioy and not of torments, for Dauid saith in the persone of Christ, Therefore did my hart reioyce, and my tong was glad: & moreouer also, my flesh shal rest in hope. It ChristHe was glad of his resurrection, not of his discending into hell. at this time did reioyce, how was he sorrowfull? if we were glad, how was he tormēted? if he did rest in hope, how was it true also that he was afflicted with torments? & heere you vtter another [Page 17] vntruth, that Christ did suffer hisRead a­gaine, I saide not so. I saide that he suffe­red the whole torments of hell on the crosse. Of all his tormentes I spake not. whole tor­ments on the Crosse, which isIt is inded as you tak the name of the crosse, and you made it. most vntrue: for he sufferedYou fight with your owne shadow. some in the Garden, when he sayde, Math. 26. 38. My soule is heauye vnto death. And some in Caiphas house, and some vnder Pilat: but all his torments and sorrowes were ended on the Crosse I said what I said, and not what you thought. which I think, you would haue said. Last of al, the words of the text that commeth after, aswell as the woords going before do proue, that it cannot be spoken of Christs sorrowes, for they are these. Thou shalt shew mee the path of life, in thy presence is the fulnes of ioy, and at thy right hand are pleasures for euermore. Sith then Dauid both before & after ma­keth mention of ioy and pleasures for euermore, and as Peter saith, these words proue the resurrection of Christ:Now lay on lode▪ you haue got the victorie. I maruaile how you dare to contradict the meaning of the holy ghoste. You speake not now contrary to Augustine, or Ambrose, or Hill, but con­trary to Dauid and Peter themselues: youOr els you do faine, look on my latine D. and blush for shame. boast your selues to be the best Christians, but I can hard­ly beeleue you are better Christians thenwas dauid a Christian? Dauid and Peter. In the conclusion you vtterCan you say no worse. blasphe­my, for SHEOL being taken somtime for the sorrows of hell, and sometime for the place of hell; you say it standeth at the curtesie of the reader, to take it as to him shall seeme probable. Are Gods woords to bee interpreted after ourSaid I so? Is it all one to take a text, as it seemeth most proba­ble, and to tak it after our pleasure. when will you deale plainelie. pleasure?This place might haue bene spared, for anie thing that I haue saide. Hillary was of a better minde: he saide, as God was the author of the Scriptures, so God must be theI am of the same minde. Heerein Hillaries minde is no better then mine. interpreter: he opened the wits of the Desciples going to Emaus, so let vs pray, that he may open our wittes that wee may perfectlye vnderstand the Scriptures.

HVME his reioynder to the 4. sect.

I said and say againe, that Augustines saying in some sort, that which you say, did runne into so ma­nie doubtes, that he could not tell what to say. But that he doubted not in the matter between you and me, you take it before it is granted. For if I take him right (and it will passe your skill to proue that I take him wrong) he and you, are two. For Augustine hol­deth that hee went to a Hell, whence hee was to re­deeme some: and you hold that he went to the Hell of the damned, whence he was to redeeme none. If this his opinion, be to be hold firmissima fide: or that none but infidels will doubt of it: Adame Hill, will either proue another man, then men do thinke him, or as very an in [...]ell, as they that denie it. Whether the things that he doubteth of, doth pertain to this question, I haue shewed in the former section. You wonder, seing Augustine doeth builde on Dauid and Peter: that my Maisters (that is Calvine and Beza in your written copie) and I doe labour to ouerthrow that building: The Papistes do build their reall pre­sence vpon Christs words, This is my bodie: And must all men wonder, that hath heard the Vicar of West­burie, confute it? Men may set straw and stubble on a good foundation, which by fire may be consumed, and the rock not the worse, that it stood vpon. After these velitations, you come to the matter, and grant mee that which I craue, and you cannot denie: that the name of Hell is vsed in the scriptures for the paines and pangs of Hell. Whereupon you forme my argument, without forme, and denie it when you haue done. I will neuer blame your wit, for denying your owne arguments. But denie this argument, & I will say, that no wall of reason is able to stand a­gainst [Page 19] the violence of your negatiues. If the name of SHEOL, (that is Hel) doth signifie in the scriptures, as well the pangs, as the place of Hell: the words of the 16. Psalme yeeldeth you no better warrant, for ap­plying the one to Christ, then vs for applying the o­ther. But you grant that SHEOL doth signifie in the Scripture, as wel the pangs, as the place of hell. Ergo that place is as pregnant & strong for vs as for you. Hold fast, set to your shoulder M. Doctor. Your cart will walter, if that spoake breake. Now heere behol­ding the maior, and the minor, two brasen & vnbreak­able walles: you set all your teeth on the poore con­clusion to pull it from them. To take this place of this Psalme quite from vs, you alledge the holie Ghost, and Peter: two sufficient witnesses: because they referre this place to the resurrection, and we to the passion. Allace (good Doctor) vbiacumen tuum? Doe not you see man that though the negatiue, Thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell, pertaineth to the resur­rection? yet the affirmatiue, that his soule was in hell, may pertaine to his passion? Peter alledgeth the negatiue in the Psal. to proue his resurrection: and our question is not whether hee rose againe, or not? but whether the thing wherein he was, is to bee ta­ken for the place, or the panges of hell. And heere I muste needes confesse, that this consideration hath driuen mee quite from Calvine, whome in this place I first followed. As for the place of the beleefe, I am perswaded, that his sense is moste agreable: beeing godlie, consonant to the Scriptures, necessarie for the perfection of the creede, not repugnant to the circumstances thereof, and moste comfortable to a Christian conscience. But in this place of this Psal▪ now I see that Olevians opinion is truer, more conso­nant to the rest of the text, and more plaine, against your drousie dreame. Wherfore, now I am perswa­ded, [Page 20] that SHEOL is heer set for the state of the dead, and my soule for mee, as it is Psal. 3. 2. Manie say to my soule, that is, to mee. And Psal. 7. 2. Least hee devoure my sonle lyke a Lyon, that is mee. And Psal. 6. 3. My soule is sore troubled, that is, I am sore troubled. So the sense must bee, Thou wilt not leaue my soule in Hell: that is, mee amongest the deade. That this must needes bee the true sense heereof, I haue two reasons. First, that this was the SHEOL wherein Christes soule was not left, whence hee rose againe, as may appeare by this allegation of Peter. But hee rose again from the graue and con­dition of the deade, not from hell, and condition of the damned. Ergo the SHEOL wherein Christs soule was not left, is the condition of the dead, and not the place of the damned. The answere here, that he rose in soule, and body: the one from hell, and the other from the graue, will not holde: for the name of resurrection, belongeth onelie to the bodie: be­cause nothing ryseth againe, but that which death laide downe. So hath our beleefe the resurrection of the bodie, not the resurrection of the soule. This was M. Fieldes argument, which did choake you in the act at Oxonford: and hang so fast in your teeth, that hee coulde not get it out of your mouth, much lesse an answere to it. The other, is builded v­pon the wordes of Peter. Act. 2. 19. Men and brethren, I may boldlie speake to you of the patriarch Dauid, that hee is dead and buried, and his sepulchre is amongest vs to this day. In which wordes, expounding this place of the Psalme: Thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell, nor suffer thy holie one to see corruption: hee laboureth to proue that Dauid spake not this of himselfe, but of the Messias that was to come of his loines. His reason is, because Dauid is deade and buried, and his sepulchre remai­ned amongest them: as if he had said, because Dauids [Page 21] soule was left in Hell, and saw corruption. For where the negatiue is not true, there the affirmatiue muste bee true, by the rule of contradiction. Wherevpon thus I reason. Dauids soule (that is Dauid himself as I haue said before) was left in the SHEOL wherin Christs soule should not be left. But Dauids soule was left in the state and condition of death: Ergo, it was the state and condition of death, wherein Christes soule was not left, by this place. The same argument may bee formed negatiuelie: to take away your exposition of this place. Dauids soule was left in the SHEOL wherof it is said in the Psalme, Thou wilt not leaue my soule in Hell, nor suffer thy holie one to see corruption. But Dauids soule was not left in the place of the damned: Ergo, it is not the place of the damned, whereof it is said in the Psalme, Thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell, nor suf­fer thy holie one to see corruption. Wheras some alledge against this interpretation, that it doeth violate the text: taking the soule first for the whole man, & the whole againe for the bodie. Let them consider, that the condition of the dead, expressed heere in the name of SHEOL, pertaineth not to the body only, but to the whole man. Neither were it injurie to the text, if it be so taken. For the cup is set for wine, and wine for the blood of Christ by Paull himself, who v­seth not to violate wordes. These reasons therefore haue led mee from Calvine, whome though I reue­rence (as he is well worthie) as much as anie man: yet I am not so maried to him, (howsoeuer M. Doct. is perswaded otherwise) to follo [...]e him the bredth of a haire, beyond truth and reason. Hee may bee deceaued, aswell as others, though he hath plunged through manie deepes, that haue devoured manie. Nowe to returne againe, and to followe vpon your walke: you charge mee heere (as euerie where) with an vntruth. To fasten it vpon mee, you turne my [Page 22] wordes out of their figured coate, into their bare skinne. For whereas I say, that Christ suffered the whole tormentes of hell vpon the crosse, taking the drosse by a Synecdoche for the whole passion, as he did before mee, which said, God forbid, that I delight in any thing, 1. Cor. 1. 18. Heb. 12. 2. Ephes. 2. 16. but in the crosse of Christ. The preaching of the crosse, is to manie foolishnes. Christ reconciled vs to God by his Crosse. You tell mee, that it is most vntrue: because he did not suffer his whole torments on the wodden Crosse, which Symon the Cyrenian did beare on his backe. And to make my wordes more odious, you do them more injurie. For whereas I say, hee suffe­red the whole tormentes of Hell on the Crosse, a thing defend-able: you charge mee, as saying he suf­fered all his torments vpon the Crosse, (meaning the Crosse of wood) a thing without shewe of truth. In the ende, to fasten another little faulte on me, (it is but blasphemie,) you wring my last wordes in the fame presse. For, whereas I say, that a word of dou­ble signification, standeth at the courtesie of the rea­der, to be taken as shall seeme most probable: mea­ning that there is nothing in the word it self, to lead the mynde to one signification more then another: but depends vpon the probable circumstances, and drift of the text: you charge mee, as making the Scriptures like a nose of waxe, to bee set which way mens fantasie will bend it: a thing as farre out of my penne, as out of my heart: and as far out of my heart as it is out of your heart, to take my words as I speak them.

HVM [...] his 5. Sect.

BVt that hee neuer was there, hee is too curious that will not stand content with Christes owne testimonies. Father, into thy handes I commend my spirit. And in another place, This day shalt thou bee with mee [Page 23] in Paradice. And heere it is a world to see, how men on your side labour to put out this candel. First, you say, that this place, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit, is borrowed of Dauid, and must bee taken in the same sense, as Dauid vsed it before. But you must consider, when we vse other mens wordes, either we cite them as testimonies, or vsurpe them by imita­tion. If we bring them in as witnesses, wee may not alter their testimonie; but if wee imitate them, wee may without impeachmēt, apply them to what sense best may beseeme our purpose. In this place Christ citeth not Dauids wordes, to testifie of his passion: but imitateth Dauid, in commending his soule into the handes of God. Where you see, that no necessity inforceth the same sense. But, be it so, and I thinke it is so, and that it maketh much against you. For se­ing Dauids soule commēded into the hands of God was neuer in Hell: it will follow, that Christes soule commended to the same protector, was lykewise neuer there: except you will ascribe lesse vertue to Christs prayers, then to Dauids. But Dauids soule, say you, went not streight way into heaven; because he lived manie yeares after. That he liued anie long time after, if it were denied, you will hardlie proue it. But that maketh not to the question, when Da­vids soule, came into heauen. But whether hee that commendeth his soule into the hands of God, doth purpose that it shall descend into hell: prooue that, and you shall haue the goall. As for Dauid, he hauing deuoured heauen in hope, doubted not (if he liued anie long time after) to speake that in the praesent time, which he was well assured would come to pas. And seeing Dauid was a figure of Christ, and spake manie things in his owne person, which aggree bet­ter with the person figured, then with the figure: these wordes may bee vnderstood,Psal. 22. 16. 18 as the casting of [Page 24] lottes on his garment, and the digging of his hands and feet. Wherefore, if you will answere this place, to the satisfaction of them that dissent from you: you must bring proof, that hee that meaneth to goe to Hell, doth commend his soule into the handes of God: or els you shall neuer bee able to darken the light of this Sunne, with anie cloude of Sophistrie.

HILL his reply.

INdeed if these woords were spoken in the present time,The Paral [...] ­gismes in the D. reply. someNo more but som shew I warrāt you. shew of truth were in your words, but in the Greeke they are inthat future time, is in voice, not in sense. the future-tence, [...]: Father into thy hands I wil cōmit my spirit. That is not my argu­ment. Now your argument is this: Christ commended his soule vnto his Father, ergo, We say, he went not to hell at all. immediatly he went not downe to hell.When you make the ar­gument, you may put what you wil in the conclusion. Heere is more in your conclusion then is in your premises. You may co [...]clud, his soule went to heauen: But not immediatly:You beg the question. for it went to hell as I haue proued before, for hell in the 16 Psalme, doth not signifie the sorrowes of hell, but the place, as I haue confirmed already.Wherfore M. Doctor? Bring this therfore into mood and fi­gure. Therefore, it is better to translate, I wil commend, then I do commend, as Stephanus o [...] this place noteth. Paule sayth, Eph. 4. and 10. verse,This text is handled in the 8 section of purpose: and is therefore heere an vntimelie frute. Now, in that he ascended, what is it, but that he first descended into the lowest parts of the earth. He that descended, is euen the same that ascended farte aboue all heauens, to fulfill all things. He is the same per [...]. Now, if the same Christ did first descēd which did ascend, thenThis is new di­vinitie that Christ descended from heauen in soule and bodie▪ he descended in soule and body, as he ascended in soule and body.A fallacie ab ac­cidente. These must be effected after a wonderfull manner. Ergo in soule and bodie. For both these [Page 25] must be effected in a wonderfull maner, for they are reckoned by Salomon amongst the most stupendious works of theSalomon speaketh not there of the sonne of god, see the text. Sonne of God. Pro [...]. 30. 4. Who hath ascended vp to heauen, and descended; who hath gathered the winde together in his fyst? who hath established all the ends of the world? By this scrip­ture A wrong inference. I iuferre, that to ascend and descend, areA fond cō ­parison, with­out warrant of the text. as miraculous works, as to create and gouerne the world. But if the [...] For this is vn­derstood of his descēding into his hu­maine state, being the son of God: a thing as won­derfull, as his descending into hell. soule of Christ did got to hea­uē immediatly, as you affirms contrary to this text, then the descending of Christ had not bene so marue­lous as his ascending▪ Besides▪ This thing is true, but wher alledge I it. as you after al­leage, there is but one ascending, but if ChristsIt followes not, see the answere. soule first went to heauen, & then his body, then were there two ascensions. ButWhat makes this to the expoun­ding of this place, Father into thy hāds &c. or answe­ring anything that I haue said heere? euen as Christ was but once borne, and once dyed, and once buried, and once rose from the dead, and but once commeth into iudgment: so (as Cyprian saith in his Sermon of the ascending of Christ) Christ did once descend into hell, they shall see God no more on the crosse, nor they that are damned in hel.What makes this to the expoun­ding of this place, Father into thy hāds &c. or answe­ring anything that I haue said heere? Wherefore may it please you to accept the iudgement of Athanasius a Greke Fa­ther, & a man persecuted for the truthes sake by the Arrians, he in his Creede saith thus, who suffred for our saluation, and descendedHee saieth not the hell of the damned. He speaketh of his buriall. into hell. And inter­preting the 1. Cor. 3. writeth, Satan was enuious a­gainst our sauior, for he killed him, not knowing that it wold make against himself, for Christ after his cros going downhe mean [...]h the conditiō of death. He vanquished not death in hell. into hel, hath vāquished death. And becaus he knew no sin be could not be holde of deth. Thus you see, that not only Hill, Augustine and Ie­rome doe say, that Christ after hee had vttered these words (into thy hands I will commend my spirit) but [Page 25] This con­clusion followeth not on the cited place. Athanasius a Greek father, who better then you vnderstood the meaning of these words.You con­clude as stout lie, as if all things were without dout. There­fore, it is a wōder to see how those of your side labour to extinguish this everlasting light of Gods truth, & set vp a cousuming candle of your owne making. Where you teach, that Christs Soule did no more de­scend into hell then Dauids did, therin you are decea­ued, Not by descending to the hell of the damned. He performed that on the Crosse. For Christ was to deliuer vs from hell & Dauid also: wherefore if Christs soule had not gone to hell▪ Dauids must, and mine and yours.I know not whereof you speak [...] if you meane these wordes wher­on we stand, Father into thy, &c. If they be not true in the fi­gure: thē erre you that giue them the same sense in Christes mouth And for this cause as you say, they are true in Christ figu­red, but not in, Dauid the figure, and herevpon Peter thus reasoneth, that they could not be true in Dauid. For Christ soule was in hel▪ Who doth now peece the text? quo [...] the wordes if you cā. and yet not tormen­ted, & his body in the graue, but not corrupted; wher­as Dauids body saw corruption, and if his soule had gone to hell it had found no redemption. Therefore, to be in graue, and returne without corruption, and to be in hell and returne withHe cōquered the Diuels on the crosse, not in H [...]ll. conquest of the di­uell, were two peculiar things to the Sonne of God, & not to any other of the sons of men. And heere you vtter an otherNo les then blas­phemie. blasphemy, that Christs soule had no otherwhere say I so. prerogatiue then Dauids soule, for by the same reasone you may argue, that Christswhat if I did? excepting innocencie it had no other preroga­tiue, that I knowe. body had no greater prerogatiue then Dauids body, for as this is false, so is the other. For as Athanasius saith in his booke of the incarnation of the word, Death Could not prevaile on the huma [...]e soule of Christ to tye him there, neither corruption in [...]ading his body, by [...]iranny could shewe her force on him to putrefaction, as things not well seene vnto, for to thinke so of him, were a wicked thing: for even as Adam had a double punishement inflicted on him for his disobedience, the on was on his body, earth thou [Page 26] art, and to earth thou shalt returne, and so by this decree, the body of the Lord departed vnto the earth: but to the soule hee said, Thou shalt dye the death. Hereof it commeth to passe, that man is deuided into 2. parts, and is condemned to depart to 2. places, and therefore it was necessary, that the selfe same Iudge, which had made this decree, that hee by himselfe be­ing vnder the colour of a condemned man, shuld free from that sentence all beleuers.To the lo­call hell I see not: but I see that you quote him to proue that Christes bodie hath greater prae­rogatiue then Dauids, which thing he saith not. Here you see by this learned Father, that Christs soule went to Hell So did he on the crosse. to deliuer our soules from hell, and his body to the graue, to deliuer vs from death, & by this means both body and soule personally, and not potentially Where M. Doctor? sclaunder? fye for shame. (as you teach) working our deliuerance from death and hell, haue those prerogatiues, whichThis is contrarie to the scriptures Heb. 2. 17▪ & 4 14. Dauids soule and body had not. And for this co [...]side­ration, thoughwhy then did he not likewise com­mend his bo­die into the hands of God the one was in the graue, and the other in hell, yet both were in the handes of the Lord. Heere then wee must learne what the hands of the Lord do signifie. Sometime the hand of god doth signifie the Sonne of God,It is not in that place set for the sonne of God, see the place. Psal. 144. 7. Send thy hand from aboue. Sometime it signifieth the po­wer of God, Psalm. 136. 12. With a mighty hand, and outstretched arme. Thirdly, the bountifulnes of God, Psal. 145. Thou openest thy hand, and fillest e­uery liuiug thing with thy blessing. Fo [...]rthly, it sig­nifieth consolation, Ezec. 3. 22. The hand of the Lord was with me comforting me. Fiftly grace, Psal. 118. 16. The right hand of the Lord [...]ath done valiantly Sixtly, it signifieth the gift of prophecie, Ezec. 8. The hand of the Lord fel there vpon me. Seuenthly, mer­cy. Psal. 37. 24. Though he fall he shall not be cast off, for the Lord putteth vnder his hand. Eightly the protection Heere is a heap of nota­ble ignorance. Hath the hand as manie significations, as it can be applyed to vses? If not, heere is od stuffe: if yea, he ere is not half a handfull of hands. [Page 28] of the Lord, Psal. 31. 15. My times are in thy hand. Ninthly, the aide of the Lord, Psal. 74. 11. Why withdrawest thou thy hand. Tenthly, the punishment of the Lord, Iob. 19. 21. Haue pitie on me (ô yee my frinds) for the hande of the Lord hath touched me. If this be last, at which of all these hands sits Christ? but that is a right hand, & perhappes these be left handes. Lastly, it signifieth the Gouernment of the Lord, Psal. 95. 4. In his hand at al the corners of the earth. This place therefore,If so, then tell mee why he kept that praier, to his last gasp, which might haue had mor vse in the tro­blesome daies of his life. must needes haue this construction: into thy consolation, mercie, protection and gouernment, I will commend my soule. I hope That I do & my body to but the case is not like. you your selfe commende your soule into the handes of God euery day, but yet you minde not to goe to heauen immediatly. So saide Dauid. Psal. 30. 5. Into thy handes I commend my spirit, but hee wentAre you sure of that: then let vs heare your proofes. not to heauen in manye yeares after, nei­ther did Christ ascende into heauen in many dayes after,Petitio principij, plus quam crambe odiosa. but went downe to hell, where it was in the protection and gouerement of the Godhead,Wher mā I haue said that the deity presented the triumph of Christs victo­rie to heauen earth & hell at once. That the Deitie descended into Hell▪ to my knowledge, I neuer saide. which as you confesse descended into hell. For as we being in the damned world, are in the protection and hand of the highest, soPetitio princi­pij againe. Christ being in the place of the damned, after a wonderfull manner, was also in the Lords aide and protection, by meanes where­of, he hath wrought our deliverance from hell. Ther­fore, proue you that Chirst went straitway to heauen, and you shal effect that which many of your side haue attempted, butWhat say you to Christ then? He said, that he would bee that day as he suffered, in Paradice: is he no bodie with you? neuer yet any coulde bring to passe.If euer Procustes had a pren­tise, you serued your yeares in his occupation, who made Peter say, that Christ was in Hel, & not tormēted, &c. It is written of Procustes, that if any were too short for his b [...], he would not stretch thē out, and make them fit for his lodging:I neuer sowed that patch to the text, see the answer. so you, this place being too short to fit your wast, will enlarge it with a word (immediatly) which is not the place primitiue [Page 29] or derivatiue, expressely, or by way of implication. Moreouer, where you say, if I will answer this place I must proue that he that mindeth to go to hell, doth vse these words. I wonder that you dar vse suchBlasphe­mous speches and yet no­thing but mis­begotten insi­nuations. This geare hangs well to­gether. blasphemons speeches, for hereby you insinuate, that Christ wasFor all your cunning my words are cleare. but a meere man, & that other men haue a part in the work of our redemption aswell as Christ. For as he is our only Sauior, so as Luth. saith on Gen 21. Chapter. This was singular in Christ, (Thou shalt not leaue my soule in Hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption) for thisPe­titio principij [...]is hic, millies a libi repetita. soule could not be deteined in hell, nor his body in graue. For as this was singular in Christ, that hee did giue vp his ghost,Pe­titio principij [...]is hic, millies a libi repetita. so was it singular in him, to go to hell and returne again.Two imperpent al­legations. Ambrose saith, Tradidit spiritum suum quia non inuitus amisit, quod enim emittitur vo­lunt arium est, quod amittitur necessarium. He gaue vp the ghost because hee lost not his soule against his will: for that which is emited is voluntarie, but that which is amitted is necessary.Two imperpent al­legations. Theophilact sayth, hee cryed out with a loude voice and gaue vp the ghost, for he had power to lay downe his life, and take it vp again. Now when you can proue that you or any of your sideThē there goes a bargan If you wil not proue the one I promise you I will neuer proue the o­ther. But til then, let this Syllogisme stand for good. You cā not proue that he that commēds hi [...] soule into the hands of god meaneth to go to hell: but Christ com­mended his soule into the hands of God Ergo, you cannot proue that Christ ment to go to Hell. haue this power in you to dye when hee will, and liue againe when hee will, then will I prooue that hee that speaketh these words (Into thy hands I commende my spirit) hath an intent to goe to Hell. But as Christ his birth was a singularYet againe: Deus bone quoties. thing in him, so was his death, buriall, descending in to hel, resurrection, and assension into heauen. Eccle. 8. 8. Man is not Lord ouer the spirite, to retaine the spirit. Two impertinent allegations. And Iohn 10. 18. Christ saith, No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it downe of my selfe: I haue power to lay it downe, and power to take it vp [Page 30] againe. By theseWhat makes that to the question heere in hand two places it is euident, that no man can lay downe his owne spirite, but the only sonne of God had that prerogatiue, and therefore as the laying downe of his spirit, and the taking vp of his spirit againe was wonderfull: so wasSpeak to the purpose, man. the state of the soule and body, during the time of the se­peration of the parts of the humanity, singular and wonderfull.

Absurdities admitted in this sect. by the D.

First, that Christ did descend in soule and bodie, take it how he will, is absurde. If he meane into Hell, taking Hel as he would haue it, that is in soule onlie. If into the graue, it was in bodie onelie. If into the wombe of the Virgine. It was in Diuinitie onelie [...].

Second. If Christes soule had not gone to the lo­call Hell, Dauids must, and his and mine: contrarie to the suffiencie of Christs sacrifice.

Third. That Christes soule and bodie, besides in­nocencie, had other prerogatiues then Dauids had. Contrarie to the Scriptures, that he was like vs in all things, sinne onelie excepted.

HVME his reioynder.

INdeede say you, if these wordes were spoken in the present time, some shew of trueth were in our assertion. Then, if I can proue these words to be spo­ken in the praese [...] time: you will grant vs some shew of trueth, which is more then commonly, you vse to yeelde. First, you know, that by a Hebraisme, the future time, may bee set for the present, especiallye when continuance is signified. Now, that it must be so heere, I hope this Syllogisme will perswade you. That verb which signifieth an action presentlie done when it is spoken, is of the present time. But this [Page 31] verbe [...] doeth signifie an action then pre­sentlie done, when Christ vsed these wordes: Ergo, this verbe is of the present time. The maior is a rule of Grammer, from the definition of the present time of a verbe. The minor is cleer of it self▪ because Christ did then commend his soule into the hands of God, when he vsed these wordes. But if this will not satis­fie you, take this to proue, that it cannot be the fu­ture time. That action which can bee referred to no time to come, cannot be the future time: But this a­ction cannot be referred to anie time to come: be­cause he presentlie gaue vp the ghost, and men after death commend not their soules into the handes of God. Ergo, this action cannot be of the future time. And now, hauing taken all this paines, to gaine no­thing in your eies, but a shewe of trueth: I must put you in minde, that though this verbe did pertaine to the future time: yet your knot is in the wrong rushe. For it is not the time when hee did commend, but when his soule came into the handes of his Father, that must helpe you, if you could bee holpen. And therefore, you may whissel presentlie for anie future help, that the future time of this verb can yeeld you; to shew my judgement of this place, all things both in heauen, earth, and hell; be in the hands of God, that is, in his power: to dispose of them as it seemeth meetest to his owne glorie. But that cannot bee the sense heere: because his soule was in that sense in the hands of God, euen then, when he did commend it. The hand is the instrument of receauing, in which we rake those things that we bring into our own pe­culiaritie, and proper possession. In that sort Anthro­popathetcially, those soules and spirits which stande in the presence of God, are said to be in his hand. Of which it is said in the Psalme, In thy presence is the ful­nesse of ioy: and at thy right hand, pleasures for euermore. [Page 32] And so Christ being in the agonies of death, and hel; doth commend his soule into the handes of God to possesse a fulnesse of joy, and aeternitie of pleasures. Like to this is Stephans prayer, Act. 7. Lord Iesus receiue my spirit. Heere, after your wonted guise, you forme my argument as pleaseth you, and then you tell mee it is false. If it be false, you made it such. If the fault had not beene more in your skill, or your will, or both; then in the matter: you might haue made it in­feri [...]. No man that commendeth his soule into the hands of God, meaneth to go to hell: But Christ, as man, did commend his soule into the hands of God: Ergo, he ment not to go to Hel. And if he meant not, I am perswaded, hee went not. If you had framed it thus, there had beene no neede of Procustes with his racke, nor of anie patche to make it fit our waste. To the maior of this argument, for lack of better ma­ter, you crie out, blasphemie. And then finding no blasphemy in the words themselues: you tel me that they insinuate, that Christ is but a meere man, and that others haue part in the worke of our redempti­on. Your insinuations are verie deepe. But heere M. Doctor, I will offer you a good bargaine. Hooke me this insinuation on my propositiō in mood & figure, and I will neuer write more against you on this que­stion. And now I must needes note an especiall grace in your writing. When the argument pincheth you, you wring it with a crooked wrest, and straining out some filthie licour, that you your self had powred v­pon it, you call witnesses to shewe the worlde, what filthie geare it is. And so with manie testimonies, in thinges that no man that hath one dramme of sense will denie, you make vp a shamfull, and importable booke. Heere, to proue that Christ is our onelie Sa­viour, (a thing not denied) you bring in Luther, Am­brose and Theophilact. Neither apply you them to the [Page 25] purpose, though the purpose be easier to proue; then the things you apply them to. But your wandering hand, cannot beate on one Anvil. And wheras I ta­king the vantage of your constructiō of these words whereon we stand, Father into thy handes I commend my spirite: thus proue, that Christs soule went no more to Hell, then Dauids. If these wordes haue the same sense in Christs mouth, as they had in Dauids, Christ soule went no more to Hel, then Dauids did. But you say, they haue the same sense, Ergo. you let goe the maior and the minor: and take vp your vsuall hubub against the conclusion, exclayming and crying out, blasphemie. Then running about, and seeking A­thanasius in euerie corner, to chide mee: because I giue Christs soule and body no greater prerogatiue then Dauids, you bring him in, not saying one word to the purpose. For he (good-man) knew right well that Christ was like to Dauid, and vs all; in all things sinne onlie excepted: and therefore would not speak against his conscience. As for the praerogatiue that you woulde haue him to haue, to goe to hell, it is so base a one (if it was anie) that if Bishoppricks were no better, Doctors woulde not shoulder for them, like beggers at a doall. Whereas you argue, that if Christs soule had not gone to Hel, Dauids must, and yours and mine: if you meane the hel of the damned (as you must if you speak to the purpose) it is absurd. For Christ redeemed vs on the Crosse, where hee did beare the hellishe burden of our s [...]nes: and not in hell, where hee paied not one dram of our debt. To set a wrong sense on this place, you bring foorth a heap of handes, inough almoste to remoue Cheviot hill to Charing Crosse. Whereupon you conclude, that the sense must needes be: Into thy consolation, mercie, protection and gouernement, I will com­mend my soule▪ If that was his meaning, why did he [Page 38] not commend his bodie also in the hands of his Fa­ther? And why delaied he this praier till the storme of his miseries was blowne ouer. If this conclusion, did follow vpon the premisses, it were a fault to con­fute it. But nowe I hope vpon a pardon, though I wipe it away with a Syllogisme. Consolation pertay­neth to the distressed, mercie to the guiltie, protecti­on to the weake, and gouernment to them, that ei­ther cannot, or will not keepe order. But Christes soule, after this praier, was neither distressed, guiltie, weake, nor disorderlie: Ergo, he commended not his soule into Gods consolation, mercie, protection, and gouernement. This is all, that in all this section, you haue spoken to the purpose. You haue (I must needs confesse) a great deale of other stuffe, as much as all this. In one place you ignorantly charge vs, that we giue Christ not a personall, but a potentiall discen­ding into Hel. For we say, that Christ descended per­sonallie into Hell,That is called potentiall which being is not impossi­ble, neuer was indeed both bodie and soule, and suffered actuallie all the torments thereof, for our redempti­on. Otherwise, were he but a potentiall Saviour, and all wee actuallie condemned. You quote also heere out of place, and to small purpose, the 10. and 11. verses of the 4. to the Ephes. which might haue bene deferred more convenientlie, to the 8. 9. and 10. section, where it is handled of purpose. Out of it you gather first an absurditie. That, if the same Christ did ascend, and descended: hee descended in soule and bodie, or else he could not haue beene the same. Did you neuer heare, that the same Christ was from all aeternitie: that the same Christ was slaine from the beginning of the worlde: that the same Christ lay three dayes in the graue, as Ionas was three dayes and three nights, in the whales bellie. And yet I trust, you will not say, that his soule and bodie was from all aeternitie: that his soule and body was slain [Page 39] from the beginning: & sure I am, that you that stand so much, that the soule can not bee buried, will not say, that hee lay three dayes soule and bodie in the graue. Your wonderfull manner, in which you say these things were effected, is a wonderfull Sophisme. You seeme to thinke, that there were no wonder in Christes descending, except this place be vnderstood of his descending into hell: as if it were not as great a wonder, that the sonne of God descended into the wombe of a Virgine, and there did cloath himself in mans nature. But all this wonderfull discourse of wōders, is beside the text. After all these by-blowes, you gather vpon this text a reason, against the main conclusion. That Christs soule was not in heauen, while his bodie laie in the graue: because then hee should haue ascended, before he descended, contra­rie to the place of the Eph. There be two errours in the levelling of this peece, that beares it quite beside the marke. First, you giue the name of ascending to the soule, without the bodie, contrarie to the Scrip­tures Act. 2. 34. Dauid is not yet ascended. And this ta­keth away your next reason, of two ascensions. Se­condlie, you giue the name of descending, to the de­scending of his humanitie into hell, which is spoken by the Apostle of the Descending of his Deitie in his humane state. Thus a man may see your wit, howe cleanelie and closelie, you can lap two fallacies into one proposition.

HVME sect. 6.

FOr the other place, you bring a reddier sense out of Augustine of that which is God, & not of that which is man, his sense, (how readie soeuer it plea­seth him to tea [...]me it) can no wise stande with these wordes of our Saviour: For this day shalt thou be with me [Page 28] in Paradice, doth sound in all latine eares (I mean to all that vnderstand the latine tongue) as if hee had said. This day thou and I shall be in Paradice: which no man that hath one drop of braine in his head, dare aduisedlie attribute to the Deitie, which being there from all aeternitie, could not go thither in the future time. But, mee thinkes, I heare you say, that the fu­ture verbe is giuen to the theefe onlie: and (with me) which agreeth to the speaker, is limited with no bounds of tyme. Against this, I haue the consent of the best Grammarians, and the theefe also: For, Re­member mee (said he) when thou commest in thy kingdome. By whose verdict, it is cleare, that he was not yet in his kingdome, to whome he made this supplication. Neither do I thinke, that Christ himselfe did mislike with his judgement. For if hee had erred of igno­rance, no doubt, hee would haue set him right. But he was so far from correcting him, he rather confir­med him, answering in the same tense or time, Thou shalt be with me, &c. Moreouer, the Pronoun me, is re­ferred to the person that spake, which I hope you wil not say, was Christ God alone, but Christ both God and man. Thus, you see, that these two places are too strong for your ordinance. If you haue no better shot then these,Great is the truth and in­vincible. we will spred our banners with mag­na est, & iuvicta veritas.

HILL his reply.

HEre you condemne S. Augustins answer. Well, because S.The Paralo­gismes in the D. reply. Augustine is dead; and in your mar­gine you say; that it is M. Hills answere, by Gods grace and his worde, M. Hill will defend it,You sclā ­der, I falsefie not the text. First I note a falsification of the text, by you allead­ged: for where as itNot the originall. is in the text: Luke 23. 42. Remember mee Lord when thou commest into thy [Page 29] kingdome. You forNot so: but I trāslate a word Mai­ster, that sig­nisieth master rather then Lord. (Lord) say (Maister) I tolde you in the begining, Eue did change the words of the Scripture, to her ouerthrowe.If a man may leaue a thing, that he neuer began, I will graunt your fute. Therefore, I pray you leaue it, for otherwise I must tell you of it: if a boy in the Grammer schoole construe [...] Maister,He is him self worthie to be beaten, that can beat a boy for that fault. hee is worthie to be beaten: and if a schoolemaister teach so,Such a controuller were scarse worthie to beare office in a hen-hous he is worthy to be con­trolled: for this worde [...] writen by Stephanus A dough­ty argument▪ then was I be holden to your printer that wrote the word which I vsed for it with a capitall M. with a capital letter, wil cashire your banner of It is a weake boaste, that will bee so beate with a capitall K. boasting, & bring your glorie to shame. I prea­ched in my sermon at Chippenham, that to day, did signifie for euer, and (with me) did signifie the God­head. I will not only affirme it, butHow well you confirm it, see the answere. confirme it, that to day doth signifie for euer in this place: first I proue it by this philosophicall reason out of Aristotle, which saith: In aeternis non est tempus, In eternall things there is no time.You promise to proue your pur­pose by Aristotle, and leaue your purpose to proue that you bring out of Aristotle For time, is the measure of motion: therfore, if there be time, then is there moti­on. Now, as in Hell all men do suffer torments, and in earth all labour: So in Heauen all doe rest. Apoc. 14. 13. Blessed are the dead that dye in the Lord, so saith the spirit, This proueth not that they moue not. They rest from their labors: that is, their mouing is not laborious. It will be hard for you to proue, that the Angels and bles­sed soules moue no more, then the meruelous stones vpon the plaine of Salisburie. for they rest from their labours. This therefore dependeth not vpon the premisles. Therfore, where there is no mutation from day to night, nor from summer to winter, there is no day naturall or artificiall,If I did so suppose, I wer as farre from sense, as you from honestie, in charging mee with a senslesse assertion, which you neuer heard from my mouth, nor read after my pen. as you suppose. And this is proued Apoc. 10: 6. And the Angell sware by him that liueth for euermore, which created heauen and the things that are therein, This allegation is impertinent: time was not ended, when Christ said to the theefe, This day, &c. that time shall be [Page 34] no more. And this word [...] to day, is vsed for (euer)All these manie scrip­tures, are but the repetitiōs of one prophecy out of the 2. Psalme. in many Scriptures. Psal. 2. 7. Thou art my Son, this Heer, this day, doth not signifie aeter­nity, see the answere. day haue I begotten thee. Act. 13. 33. & we declare vnto you touching the promises made vnto the Fathers, god hath fulfilled it vnto you their Children, in that he hath raised vp Iesus, even as it is written in the second Psalme: Thou art my Sonne Heer, this day, doth not signifie aeter­nity, see the answere. to day haue I begotten thee. Heer, this day, doth not signifie aeter­nity, see the answere. And in the epistle to the Hebr. 1. 5. And, to which of the Angels said he, Thou art my Sonne, to day haue I begotten thee. And againe, Hebr. 5. 6. He prouing Christ to be a priest for euer, thus saith. Christ tooke not to him­selfe this honor, to be made an high priest: but he that said to him, Thou art my Sonne, Heer, this day, doth not signifie aeter­nity, see the answere. to day haue I begottē thee, as he also in another place spea­keth. Thou art a priest for euer, after the order of Mel­chisedech. Vntruth they take it not so. Heere Dauid & the Apost. do take this word (to day) to signifie (for euer). And so dothThe place would be quoted. S. Augustine and M. Hil against all the gainsaiers of it in the world: For the circumstances of the place, do Not very strongly. strongly conuince it. For what doth the theefe aske?implicite, not explicite. forgiuenes of his sinnes: whoThis cir­cumstance is farfet. can forgiue sinnes? God only. He askethimplicite, not explicite. for grace, who is the giuer of all Grace?This cir­cumstance is far fet. God only? hee desirethimplicite. glory, who giueth glory and life euer­lasting? GodThis cir­cumstance is far fet. onely. That God onelyThis is not denied. for­giueth sinnes, it is proued Mar. 2. 7. That he is the This nee­ded no proof. giuer of al grace, it is manifest 1. Pet, 5. 10. That GodThis proof is super fluous. only giueth glorye and life euerlasting, it is euident 2. Tim. 48. Rom. 6. & last verse.This cir­cumstanceis far fet. Se­condly, wher shal he receiue this glory? in Paradice. For as muchFrame one good syllogisme out of al these circumstances, to proue, that (to day) doth heer signifie aeternity, & take the bucklers. then, as the thing that is giuen is eternall, the person that giueth it is perpetuall, the place where it is giuen is everlasting:But not that the day when it was giuen, doth signifie aeternity. it must [Page 35] of necessitie follow, that the time also, be world with­out end. And that (with me) signifieth as I do teach, the Godhead: it is constantlye auouchedHaue al the Fathers written vpon this place? you range wide. by all the Fathers.This place hath not that (with me,) doth sig­nifie the deity Ierome on this place noteth. Christ brought the theef from the crosse to Paradice, least any man should think conuersion to be too late at any time: hee made the punishment of homicide Martirdome: the truth being counted among the wicked, he left the one on the left hand, and tooke the other on the right hand, as hee will doo in the day of iudgement. ItWil not Ierome speak plainelie? this collectiō hath in it three pa­ralogismes. 1. Ieromes si­mile of the fact, you refer to the per­son. Second­lie you seeme to think that we hold that Christs onlie soule did judge the theef on the crosse: and lastly, that his only soule was in heauē with the theef. were an absurd thing to say, the soule of Christ only shall giue iudgement in the last day.Nor this place hath it not. Augustine hath the like on this place, The crosse, if you marke it is the iudgement seate, the Iudge was set in the middle, the one theefe which be­leeued was deliuered, the other which blasphemed was condemned. To saue and condemne is the office of theAnd of the sonne of mā. Mar. 2. 10. Deity: and therforeI deny the argument. (with mee) sig­nifieth the Godhead, as the other theef no doubt was with the Diuill.He saith not, that (with me) doth signifie the Deity. Ambrose in his Sermon of the holy theefe writeth thus: He saw him hanging on the crosse, and praieth to him as though he were fitting in heauen: he seeth them condemned, and yet he praieth vnto him as to a king. To this accordeth Damascene handling this place. In respect of his bo­dy he was in graue, in respect of his soule in Hell: and as.Dama­scen commeth neerest you, and yet he saith not, that (with me,) doth signifie the de­itie: his soule was not separated from his Deitie. God, he was both in Paradice with the theef and in the throne with the Father & the holy Ghoste. Therefore Ferus a writer not to be contemned, inter­preteth these woords thus. Mecum eris qui sum vbi (que) omnia in omnibus. Thou shalt bee with mee which am euery where all in all. In Exodus 34, 6. 7. verses, bee [Page 32] set downe the 13.They be Epithets, not names, saving the first, nei­ther be they 13. names of God, and Lord is one of the first of them. Therefore, when the theefe calleth Christ Lord, heA fallacie ab accidente. acknowledgeth him to be God, and desireth to dwell with theIf so, that proueth not that vvith me signifieth the god-head. Godhead, in whose presence is the fulnes of ioy: where you aske me how theI ask you how it cā go to heauen in the future time. Godhead can goe to heauen, the worde is [...]: Euen asNot so: He is said to come downe: when he sheweth his pre­sence amōgst men by effe­ctes. he can not be said so to as­cend. God came downe fromThis is contrarie to your reason at Chippenham, and in the 11. fol, pag. b. of your printed sermon. Ther you reason that the worde [...] can not belong to the godhead, because it signifieth motion. And heere you giue God contrary motions both vp and down. heauen, so is he said to goe vp to heauen. August speaketh of the ascending of the humanity If you will read Augustine in this booke of the essence of the Diuinitie, he will teach you. Psa. 68. 24. They haue seene ô God, the goings of my God and king, which art in thy sanctuary, from heuen he came into the virgins wombe, after his birth hee was laid in the cratch after that he had fulfiled al for the which he was sent of his father, he was fastned to the crosse he was take [...] downe from the Crosse, he was buried in respect of his flesh, but in soule hee descended into hell: the third day by the power of the Divinitie, hee raysed his flesh out of the graue, and after the dayes of his resurrection, the fortieth day, his Apostles see­ing it, he ascended into heauen, & sitteth at the right hand of the Father, that is, in his glorie. TheThis glosse on the theues prayer, is [...]. theefe then praieth to Christ, that as hee should sit at the right hand of the Father in glory, so he might be partaker of that glory, and that hee might haue his perfect consummation and blisse in heauen as Christ should haue after his ascension: & that his vile body which was partaker of the suffrings of Christ, might also bee partaker of his glory, and made like to the glorious body of Christ Iesus. Twise you haue told me that (thou shalt be with me) is as much as (I and you) 176 but you bring neither scripture nor father [Page 41] to confirme it in that sense that you meane it. But if you mean thus, I and thou shall be together, that is, thou shalt beI neuer meant such a gloss pertaker of the glory of the Deity as thou hast ben partaker of the suffrings with the humanitie, it is true. For, what neede had the theef to pray for theThat was not his praier see the text. presence of Christs soule, when he This rea­son would wel confute the thefes prayer, (if it were cō ­futable,) Re­member mee when thou commest in thy kingdome had the presence both of body and soule. But it is the presence and fellowship of theAnd had he not the presence of that, as well as of the soule and bodie? deuine na­ture that he prayeth for,This is a grosse reason, In the pre­sence of the Deitie, is ful­nesse of joy, Ergo, the theef praieth for the presence & fellowship of the Deitie wherin as Dauid sai­eth, is the fulnes of ioy & pleasure for euermore. Psa. 16. 11. In Luke. 13. 26. The Iewes say, we haue eaten and drunken in thy presence, and thou taught in our streetes. Christ thus answereth in the 27. and 28. verses. I tell you I know you not, depart from me all yee workers of iniquite, there shall be weping and gnash­ing of teeth: when you shall see Abraham Isaac and Iacob in the kingdom of God, and your selues cast out of dores. Therefore it is cleere, they are not all blessedThis is another new conclusion. which were present with Christs huma­nitie, but they of whom Saint Peter saith, 2. Pet. 1. 4. Whereby most great and precious promises are gi­uen vnto vs, that by them we should be partakers of the nature of God. For therefore did Christ take vp­on him our nature,How proueth this that (with mee) in this text, doth signifie onlie the God-head. that wee might bee perta­kers of the nature of God, and be on with Christ, as he is on with his Father. Christ prayer is to this end, This allegation is also impertinent. Iohn. 17. 21. I pray not for these alone, but for them also which shall beleeue in mee through their word, that they all bee one, as thou O Father art in me, and I in thee, euen that they also may be on in vs.

Two absurdities by implication, in the D. reply.

That to saue and condemne, is the office of the God-head onlie, and not of the humanity, contrary to Mark. 2. 10. Act. 10. 42. and Ioh. 5. 27. Or else the collection out of Augustine will not holde, that (with mee) doth signifie the God-head onelie.

That the theef prayed not for the presence of the bodie and soule which hee had: but for the presence of the diuine nature: as if the deuine nature had euer bene absent from the soule and bodie, contra­rie to the Hypostasis, and vniting of the persons.

HVME his reioynder to the 4. sect.

OVr reason is, if Christ went that same day as hee suffered to Paradice, he wēt not to Hell amōgst the damned. But he went that same day to Paradice. Ergo, he wēt not to hel, amōgst the dāned. For the mi­nor we haue Christ himself witnes. Luk. 23. 43. You replied at Chippenhā out of Aug. that this promis to the theef (Thou shalt be with me) is ment onlie of the God­head of Christ, and not of his soule. To that answere I rejoyned (saving Augustines reverence) whome I honour as farre, as it is meet to honour a man, what euer you beare your reader in hand to the contrary: that this being spoken in the future time, and im­plying an absence, at that present, from his king­dome, could not pertaine to the Godhead, being at all times in all places. That heere is implyed an ab­sence, it is cleare by the theefes sute, Remember mee when thou commest into thy kingdome. And that this is spoken in the future time, it is manifest by Christes answere, Then shalt be with mee in Paradice: which by a rule of Grammer is, as if he had said, I and thou shall be in Paradice, which is a plaine future tense. Nowe, [Page 43] heere in this your reply, you passe by this testimony of this holie theefe, and him in whome was neuer found theft nor guile, as if you looked for better witnesses. If these be not sufficient, I haue no better: but I hope the reader will esteeme better of their wordes, and count mumme, but a meane answere. Yet if you were half so worthie your scarlet hood, as manie do hope, and you do think: there was left you more shewe of a probable reply. That these thinges be spoken of the Deitie per [...]. Wher­fore to preuent your hope, if you chance to finde it heereafter, I will now teare the bosse from that buk­ler. This figure is neuer applyed to anie text, but when some inconuenience in the letter, will take no salue, but such a corrasiue. But this text (if it be well handled) needeth no such hard plaister. Ergo, this fi­gure is not to bee applyed to this text. Heere, ne­glecting the answere that had anie shew of probabi­litie, and replying nothing to my argument, to make shew of some thing, you pick two quarrels to mee in your written copie, of which you scrape out one (for shame) in your print, for falsefiing the text. The first is, that I translate [...] Maister, and not Lord. The second, that I translate [...] not to day, but this day. Where I pray thee marke gentle Reader, that though I were guiltie of both these faultes: yet my argument drawn from the future time, standeth be­tweene both these blowes, without tip or tap. But because it is a hainous matter to peruert the Scrip­tures, I will not confesse a crime so odious, being in­nocent. And now M. Doctor, if you were a School­maister, as you were some time, and would seem yet; and did beat your Scholler for construing [...] Mai­ster: men might say, that you were more worthie of the rod, then he. [...] & [...] be relatiues in greke as seruus and Dominus in latine: and Maister and ser­vant [Page 44] in English:Servants o­bey your mai­sters. so are they vsed Eph. 5. 6. Col. 3. 22. and 4. 1. [...] Nowe then, if the english of [...] be a servant, the English of [...]; must be a Maister. Neither is it denied, but that in some case, it may be Englished, Lord. Some servants haue Lords: and all Lords exercise a magisteriall po­wer ouer their vassals. As for this place, it seemeth to expresse the Hebrew RABBI, which was to them a cōmon stile of dignitie, as Maister is in English. And therfore in my simple vnderstanding, so far is it from heresie, that this seemeth the fittest English, to meete that greeke in this place. But you beat mee with two sore arguments: the one that Stephanus doeth write [...] with a capitall letter: the other, that in the 34 of Exod. bee set downe the 13. names of God, and [...] is the first of them. You were much beholden to Stephanus. If he had chanced to write [...] with a sorting letter, you had lost the best argument that e­uer was bred with your mothers milke, and a wea­pon to cashire our banners. But they be not Babiloni­an, as you imagine: they are as I said, and you see the banners of truth that will not be cashired with a ca­pitall K. As for the 13. names of God, I neuer obser­ved onlie so manie: neither can I finde just that nomber in that place, whither you send mee. The first name in that place, and the onlie name for any thing that I can see, is IEHOVAH, the very essential name of God. The rest be Epithets, not names. But tell in good sadnesse M. Doctor, is [...] the same in greek, that IEHOVAH is in Hebrew? I euer took IEHO­VAH, to come from HAIAH: a verbe of beeing, to declare, that God the cause of all beeings, hath no cause of his owne beeing. And [...] I tooke to ex­presse the rule and commandement which hee doth exercise ouer his creatures. But say you, the theefe when hee called him [...] did cal him God. If that [Page 45] bee of necessitie: then servants obey your maisters, will soūd servāts obey your Gods. You will not (I hope) stand to this Divinitie. As for the translating of [...] (this day,) if I was deceaued, the greek and latine deceaued mee. For seeing [...] is as [...] that is, [...]: and hodie compounded of hoc die, did meete the same: I thought I wanted not rea­son to translat it (this day.) But if this be haeresie, how will you couer the same wart on your own nose, fol. 20. pag. 1 of your printed sermon, & here in this same sect. also. Your reason why it may not be translated (this day,) is; that to day is an indefinite, & this day, a particular. But this was so subtile, in your prin­ted copie, that you are ashamed of it: & good cause had you. For [...] is so particular of it self, that it is no more capable of more particularitie, if it bee translated (this day;) then Adame Hill Vicar of West­burie, and Parson of Goosage, can be made more parti­cular by saying, this Adame Hill Vicar, &c. This Lo­gick reacheth far beyond the praecepts that you lear­ned in the Vniversitie: and yet I see, that it commeth much short of that which is in you. For, you will not onelie affirme it, but confirme it also, that hodie eris mecum, Thou shalt be this day with me, is asmuch as thou shalt be with mee for euer. Psal. 90. 4. is asmuch, as eris mecum in aeternum. If you wil make that good, you may goe whether you will; no hedge can holde you. The Scripture hath by way of comparison, that 1000. yeares are as one day in the sight of the Lord. If all aeternitie bee in your sight, but as one day: you must be some magnus Apollo, so much greater then God, as aeternitie is more then 1000. yeares. But, what can you make of 1000. yea­res, that can make so much of one day. One day I am sure, is not the proper name of aeternitie. And therefore I would faine know of a man of your skill, seeing when one word vsurpeth the place of another (except it be like the Popes statuimus for abrogamus) it [Page 46] must be either effectum pro causa, subiectum pro adiunct [...] simile pro simile pars pro toto, aut contra: to which of these heades you will referre hodie pro aeterno. If you thinke it pars pro toto, then in your conceit, the partes of a thing infinite, must be finite, contrarie to an axiome esteemed for truth amongst other men: that an infi­nite thing, is not deuide-able. Heereof commeth the maxime, that you after alledge out of Aristotle, that in things aeternall, there is no time. You by it, (enti­teling it the Philosophicall reason of Aristotle) vnder­take to proue, that one day, doth signifie aeternitie: but streight way, by nimble convoiance of legerde­maine, you slip the thing you promise, & turne your hand to proue Aristotles philosophicall reason. For, if there be time (say you) in aeternitie, then is there mo­tion. Thus, like a merchaunt that fraughting his ships with corne to go to Deep, when shee is lanched forth into the sea, turneth his saill, and pointeth to Spaine: You pretending to proue, that one day, must needes heere signifie aeternitie: fall to proue that in aeternitie there is no time, a thing neuer denied. But reason woulde haue hewed an other peece of worke, out of Aristotles block; In aeternitie there is no time: In one day, there is time: Ergo, one day is not aeterni­tie. But to proue this, you alledge four texts of scrip­ture, which are all but the repetitions of one, out of the 2. Psalme, wherein you are deceiued your self, & labour to deceaue others. For (to day) in that place doth not signifie [...]eternity, as Iunius proueth finelie in his Parallels. The words be, Thou art my sonne, this day haue I begotten thee. Wherein (saith hee) is noted, first the aeternall begetting of his Deitie, in these wordes, Thou art my sonne: and the temporall begetting of his humanitie in these wordes, to day haue I begotten thee. His reason is drawne from the place of Paule, which heere you quote, Act. 13. For, he alledging this place [Page 47] to the Iewes in their Synagogue, as a plaine argumēt of Christs Divinitie, could neuer haue hoped to ef­fect that amongst such a froward companie, if he had put such a violent face on the text, as to take one day for all aeternitie. To this most excellent reason, I add another out of the same text. This place of the psalm doth proue, that God raised vp Iesus to fulfill that promise to the Children, which he before had made to their Fathers. But that promise was then perfor­med, when Iesus was given to them in the flesh. Ergo, this place of the Psalme, must haue relation to that day, when the sonne of God, which was before all ae­ternitie, was giuen to the Iewes in the flesh. Notwith­standing these reasons, if it were granted you, (which you can neuer proue) that (to day) in this place of the Psalme doth signifie aeternitie, yet it will not fol­low, that it must needes haue the same signification in these words of Christ likewise. Wherefore to fill this ditch, you fal to worke vpon the text. In it you make along haruest of little corne, telling in manie wordes, that grace, glorie, & aeternall life, the things giuen, are aeternall. But, what makes the aeternitie of the gift, or of the giuer, to proue that the time wher­in it was giuen, is aeternall? Of things aeternall, onlie God (who is aeternitie it selfe) is without beginning, and ending. Grace, glorie, and aeternall life, impar­ted to his creatures of the fulnesse of his aeternitie, haue a beginning then when they are giuen, though their continuance be aeternall. Now▪ in these words, This day thou shalt bee with mee, (this day) noteth the time, when this aeternall gift should begin, and not the continuance and durance thereof. This may suf­fise to crush all the small bones of your shrimpish ar­guments. As for your Fathers & Doctors, whom you alledge not directlie, but by such consequentes, as you pinne to the tailes of their gownes, I will passe [Page 48] them ouer, for breuities sake: and because you haue promised in the 3. sect. not to relie on men in this question.

HVME Sect. 7.

BVt now to come to your reasons. First, you muster all your forces, about the Hebrew and Greeke, a­gainst the most learned of this age.The greatest Hebricians of name in our time both Protestants & Papists, Mer­cerus, Cevale­rius, Bertra­mus Vatablus Pagninus, A­rius Monta­nus, Andra­dius, with I know not how many more. It will coast you a great deale of eloquence, to perswade the worlde, that Tremelius and Iunius, Calvine and Beza, and the translaters of the Geneva Bible, with manie more ex­cellent men, that spent their age in that studie, did not know these words as well as you, & had as great care to sift out the truth. For my part, neither is my skill so great, neither am I now minded to stand with you vpon that point. I see no inconvenience to hurt vs, nor vantage giuen you: if I grant that SHEOL must be englished, Hell, in the place of the Psalme, which you cite. Onelie this I stand vpon, which I haue said, that this word is manie times vsed in the Scriptures for the torments of hell, and must needes be so taken heere. The verie order of the wordes, will ouerthrow your conceit. Thou wilt not leaue my soule in Hell, nor suffer thy holie one to see corruption. For, seing the Hell, that his soule should not bee left in, com­meth before the graue, wherein his bodie should not see corruption: what hell went before his burial, but onelie that of hi [...] passion: wherin he paied the whole ransom of our redemption, and nailed the handwrite that was against vs, to his Crosse.

HIL his reply.

The paralogis­mes of this sect Two No vn­truth in my wordes. vntruthes are in these fewe wordes. First, you make much adoe about SHEOL [Page 49] againstMy wor­des are contra doctissimos hu­ius aetatis, therfore turn this lie to your own secretary almost all the learned men of this age Al these be not on your side. There ar on my sideLuther holdeth that Christ suffe­red in Hell, so do not you. Luther; Aepinus, Felinus is against you Felinus, So is Po­meranus. Pomeranus, Lucas Lossius, Selueccer, Vrbanus Rhegius, The authors of the Centuries, Erasmus, Chytreus Molerus is your aduer­sarie. Molerus, Peter Martyr, hol­deth that his soule pre­sented it self to both the blessed and the dam­ned. Peter Mar­tyr Hee ma­keth nothing for you. Lauaterus, Prouerb. 27. In England Nor Lambert. Lambert, Nor Robert Sammell. Robert Samuel, Latimer holdeth with Luther, not with you. Latimer, Becon Hutchinson, Fox hath nothing for you, but the Printers picture in the beginning of his booke. Fox, andNowell holdeth not with you. Nowell. Heere Manie of these vnderstood not the Hebrew, & therfore stood not for you vpon the word SHEOL. are 20. most learned men of these latter times, as I can shew you in my poore Library besides that most learned and reuerend Father M. M. Allet I think you would say. He wrot the poore mans Librarie, for the poore, not for Doctors. Allen, and be­sides the aduised iudgement of the learned Conuo­cations of England, not only in King Edwards raigne, Anno Domini. 1552. but also since the raigne of her That convocation allowed Nowels Catechisme, not your opinion. Maiestie. 1571. In the which Canuocations I am perswaded, were as learned men, as any were, ei­ther in England or Europe. Therfore, the learned rea­der must either thinke you a manIf he thinke so, his thought is too true. But yet a man may haue read more then you, that neuer saw these bookes. of little rea­ding, and that you neuer sawe these learned mens workes, or else of greate malice,I disabled none of them: except you will beleeue your Secretary better then my selfe. that you will disable al these for learning, who left a better testimo­nie behinde them then euer you wil, vnlesse you haue mor then you haue shewed in this answer. The other This was my conclusion. Men vse not to call the conclusion a lie, before they an­swere the antecedent. vntruth is, that SHEOL in the 16. Psalme, doth signyfie the torments of hell, which Christ suffered in his passiō on y• crosse. That this is vntrue it is mani­fest [Page 50] not by conceit, but by Pet. Sermon, Act. 2. 31. Hee knowing this before spake of the resurrection, that his soule was not left in hell, nor his flesh saw corrup­tion: You say it is spoken of the passion, Peter saith it is spoken of the resurrection:You la­bour in vaine, this is not de­nied. and good cause hath he so to say, for the words going before, and cō ­ming after do prooue it. The words going before are these, Psalm. 16, 9. Wherefore my hart was glad, my A sensles translation li­keth you best. glory reioyseth, my fleshe also shall rest in hope. The words following in the 11. verse are these: Thou shalt shewe me the path of life, in thy presence is the fulnes of ioy, and at thy right are pleasures for euer more. You wold haue said, how can yee finde, to point where, & aske where I can finde it, is like him that said, I payd 18. d. for my shoes, read what they, cost me. Where can you finde your torments, in the wordHe reioi­ced, because he should not be left in tor­ments, will that answere serue your turne? (glad) or in the word (reioiseth) or in the word (rest) or in these words (fulnesse of ioy) or in these (pleasures for evermore.)Who said so? You fight with your owne shadow Was Christ glad of his torments? Did he reioise or wepe in them?Who would make conclusions & father thē on his aduer­sarie, but hee that wanteth both science to answere, or conscience to acknowledg the truth. Who would deliuer this doctrine but hee that wan­teth either science or conscience, or both.Al these lies doth blister on the lips of the blab that bred them. To lye once is a fault, but affirme it twice is a greater fault. To speake a lye is hurtful, but to write a lye ad­uisedly is more hurtfull. To lye in a matter politicall is dangerous, but to lye in deuine matters without speedie repentance is damnable.If that be not true, why confute ye it not? You say noe vantage is giuen to me nor inconuenience to you, if you grant SHEOL to be Hel: Let your frinds iudge You alledge my wordes to play vpon the vantage what vantage you haue geuen to the truth, and shame to your selfI gain say him not. by gainsaying Saint Peter, and byNor say not that. affi [...]ming, that in the resurrection are torments, where Dauid and Peter say, are fulnes of ioy and pleasures for enermore. Therefore, it is the saying of Peter, The que­stion is, what the manner thereof should be. This is petitio principij. that Christs soule was not left in [Page 51] hell, and not my conceit, and it is deceit in you toAnd fals­hood in you to charge me with that I neuer spake. affirm the contrary. Further, where you say that Tre­melius and Iunius, are better learned in the Hebrew language then my selfe, I confesse it,That is but your con­ceit. I see no reason for it. so are the Iewes them selues then Tremelius and Iunius. Why not? if they teache the truth. shall I therefore beleue the Iewes? no more will I be­leue the Translation ofThe by­asle of this bowll did run on Tremelius and Iunius, & with the jutte of an ilfavored rub: did break vpon others It is well that you feare to say that they disagree from Dauid & Pet. Your heart faine woulde, if your penne durst venture. any other learned man. if he disagree with Dauid and Sauite Peter. Finially, to answerYou call my question curious, & by your answere proue it to want curiosi­tie. Such in consequencie follow your pen as close, as your shadow your body. your curious question, you aske me in what hell was Christ soule before his buriall? To this I answer, in that hell whither allAnd did it return thence also, as the words of the Psal. doth proport, before his burial. Infidels goe for their vnbelefe. I reade but of one Hell, if you Know not you that it hath 3. significations as well as I. knowe any more let mee see your proofe, and thē wil I tel you into what hel▪ Christ descēded.Who but you did euer say, that a soule could descend into Hel, and not being left there, return again before the buriall of the bodie. But who but you doth thinke it an vnpossible thing forHeere you holde that Christs soule did descend before his buriall: and in the order of the articles of the creede, you make it an ar­gument for you that it commeth after. Thus you can turne your nose to euerie winde. a soule to descēd into hel, before the body be buried? The soule in an instāt passeth to heauē or hel, but the body I am sure must haue time to be buried: for bodiesLo, you will proue a thing that no man denieth. are in places circumscriptiuely: An­gels and soules definitiuely, and God is in all places vniuersally. And the soule came out of hell into the body, before the body could come out of the graue: This (therefore) follows not on the premisses. therfore most aptly it is said, Acts 12. 31. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell, nor suffer my flesh to see corruption. Two vnfit allegations. The question is whe­ther He [...] going before his burial is to be taken for the paines or place of Hel, which thing Augustine heere toucheth not. For as August. saith in his 57. epistile ad Dardanum, That was spoken of his soul, which cam from hel so quickly, this of his body [Page 52] which could not corrupt by reason of his speedy re­surrection: and writing on the 85. Psalme, he saith, wherfore this is his voice in the psalme, not by any mans coniecturs, but by the exposition of the Apost. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption.

HVME his Reioynder.

IN this section, I followed Calvine: from whose judgement I am nowe departed on this place of the Psalme, as said is before sect. 4. Yet that the rea­der may see how neare the trueth Calvine creepes: I will defend him from all this wyde shot, and cleare my self of these hainous accusations. First, you begin with vntruthes: there is nothing so much in your mouth. It should seeme that the moulde is not vnfit for such matter, that casteth so much shot of that sise. But if you had not beleeued your secretarie, better then my owne copie: the first of these vntruthes had neuer founde the waye from your owne lippes. My wordes are, Tu multa de nominibus inferni contra doctissi­mos huius atatis disputas. As for your favorits in the end of my Epistle, I graunted, that you wanted not the countenance of sundrie great writers: who rather said as you say, then confirme their saying by Scrip­ture, or reason. My wordes were, multos habet, fateor, & magn [...]s patronos causa vestra, qui ita potius censuerunt, quam ratione sententiam suam confirmarunt. Notwithstā ­ding all this, you runne such a treble on mee with vntruthes: that if I would runne the counter-tenor, you would blushe to heare the discorde of your owne descant. As for your 20. authours, first they were not all Hebricians, nor vnderstood the word wherin you say, they tooke your parte. Secondlie, though some of them drewe neere your opinion: yet they neuer [Page 53] wrote of SHEOL to bee taken, as you will haue it. Thridlie, Peter Martyr held that the soule of Christ did present it self to all the dead, aswel the blessed, as the damned. Fourthlie, Luther and Latimer holde, that Christ suffered in Hell. Fiftlie, Lossius and Hemin­gsus holde, that the whole Christ, as he was borne of the Virgine Marie, descended into Hel. Sixtlie, Mol­lerus affirmeth that your opinion cannot be proved by this place of this Psalme. Seuinthly, M. Nowell hol­deth that Christ by the vertue of his death did pearse to the dead, and the damned Hell. Eightlie, Lambert saith nothing for you, but onelie quoteth a place out of Augustine, to another purpose, wherein August. seemeth to say, as you say. But Lambert neither ly­keth nor dislyketh it. Nynthlie, Robert Samuell, saith no more for you, then the verie wordes of the beleef. Tenthlie, in M. Foxes book of Christ triumphing, ther is not anie thing for you, but the Printers picture, which you haue also set before your owne booke. Lastlie, Felinus and Pomeranus are with vs, and against you. Such is your skill to bleare the blinde, & make him thinke, that your foes are your friends. Thus if a man could intend to trace you, he might finde you quatt in manie bushes, where you want couer to hide your bunne. If anie writer name but Hell, it is y­nough to make you bragge, that he is youres. As for the other vntruth wherewith you charge me, it is an­swered sect. 4. Yet because you think heere to winn the spurres, and haue bragged amongst your frends, that in this place you haue driuen mee so neere the hedge, that I can neuer escape you, without the foile; it may be, that that conceit may contem my answer. Prejudice is a strong baye, and will beare a maine strength before it breake. Wherefore heere I will onelie turn the cock, and make it spout the same wa­ter in your owne face▪ to make you faine to flee to my [Page 54] cloake, to keepe your shoulders from the shoure. You holde that SHEOL in the 16. Psalme doth signify the locall Hell, wherein the damned are tormented. That this is vntrue, it is manifest, not by conceit, but by Peters sermon. Act. 2. 31. Hee knowing this before, spake of the resurrection, that his soule was not left in Hell, nor his flesh saw corruption. You say, it is spoken of the locall Hell, wherein the damned are punished, Peter saieth it is spoken of the resurrection: and good caus hath hee, so to say. For the wordes going before, and comming after, do proue it. The words going before are these. Psa. 16. 9. Wherefore my hart was glad, my glorie (to vse your own translatiō, lest you say, I alter your words) rejoiceth, my flesh also, shal rest in hope. The words following in the 11. verse, are these. Thou shalt shew mee the path of life, in thy presence is the fulnesse of joy, and at thy right hand, are pleasures for euermore. Where can you finde your locall Hell, wherin is weeping and gnashing of teeth, in the word (glad,) or in the worde (rejoiceth,) or in the woorde (rest,) or in the wordes (fulnesse of joy,) or in these wordes (pleasure for euermore.) Was Christ glad of that doole-full and dread-ful place? Who would de­liuer this doctrine, but hee, that wanteth either sci­ence, or conscience, or both. To lie once is a fault, but to affirme twise, is a greater fault: To speak a lie is hurtfull, but to write a lie advisedlie, is more hurt­full. To lie in a matter Politicall, is dangerous: but to lie in divine matters, without speedie repentance, is damnable. Thus far you. This is your owne ma­nerlie tale, filed on your owne vice, and taken out of your printed booke. Wherein you giue your selfe roundly and handsomly the single-lie, the double-lie the hurtfull-lie, the advised-lie, the dangerous-lie, & the damnable-lie. If I had blowne this wind in your face, you would haue said, that I had beene bred in [Page 55] an Oxe-stall. As for your opinion on this place of the Psalme, I haue two sore shot against it. That SHE­OL heere can no waies bee the locall hell. First it is in the Hebrew SHEOL, and in the 70. [...]: Thou wilt not leaue my soule to hell: and this place of the Actes, [...] is not true greeke, except you vnderstand [...] or [...] as you note your self out of Clenard. sect. 14. Now, thou wilt not leaue my soule to Hell, cannot be vnderstood of a praesentiall beeing in the place of hell: Ergo, this place cannot be vnderstood of Christ that he was in the locall Hell. If you bee so good a Graecian, as you would be taken, you should not bee ignorant, that to make your sense, it should be [...] as it is in Math. 12. 40. [...] and [...]. The other is this. No man reioiceth that hee is deliuered from a place wherein hee suffered no ill; but Christ heere rejoyceth vers. 26. and 27. that hee should not bee left in SHEOL: Ergo, SHEOL is not heer the place of the damned, wherein you say, he trium­phed, and joyed, and suffered no kinde of ill. As for my science and conscience, which heere you strike at, you praise them your selfe (such is your constancie) in the beginning of your 12. section. I knowe mine owne infirmities, and dare not accept your praises. As for my knowledge, I am content that men count of it, as they finde it. As for my life, I dare not bragg neither will I speake anie thing absolute: but compa­rate, this much I will say, (seeing you put mee to it) that where wee are both knowne, I can finde more mouthes to speake my purgation, (if I holde but vp my finger) then your self can procure by freendes & meanes. You confesse, (which manie men wold think though you confessed it not) that Tremelius and Iuni­us, are better Hebricians, then your self: and affirme that the Iewes are better then they. For my parte, it is beyond my skill to make comparisons: and my [Page 56] blinde eies can see no reason for that oddes. But as you will not beleeue the Iewes, (you say) no more will you Tremelius and Iunius, against Dauid & Peter. You haue reason for you. Yet til you proue it, other men will suspect, that Tremelius and Iunius had both as much care, and as great judgement, to keepe in with Dauid and Peter, as you. And for anie thing we see, it is credible inough, that Dauid, Peter, and they doe drawe all one way. If you will beleeue the Iewes in nothing, you doe them wrong. If all men had been as hard laced as you, no man had euer got­ten Hebrew of them. You answere the antecedent of my argument, which you call a curious question, without curious meditation. It shoulde seeme that the question was more curious in your tongue, then your eies, that you can answere so readilie. You tri­fle and tell mee, that you read but of one Hell. And I answere you, that he who in serious matters of faith can finde a cavill a rebus ad voces, will hardlie find cre­dite of sincere dealing. Did not you see, that I spake of the three things signified in that name, and not of the damneds Hell onelie, which hath almost gotten the English name to it self, from the other two. For my part I neuer thought it a thing vnpossible, for a soule to discend into Hell, before the buriall of the body: but that Christs soule should descend into hel and returne againe, (for so the wordes of the Psalme doth sound, (Thou wilt not leaue my soule in Hel) before the buriall of the bodie, as the words do lie in order, I euer held it, and holde it yet a thing, that you ne­uer saw, and impossible for you to prooue with wit­nesses. But in one thing you seeme farre heere to o­uer-shoot your selfe. Your mates reason against vs, that the pangs of Hell, which went before the buri­all, cannot bee ment by these wordes following it. You open your owne side to that blowe, and put the [Page 57] discending into the locall Hell, before his buriall al­so, and make that argument stronger against your self, then you finde it against vs. Thus you see, al this great winde is ouerblowne, and shakes no corne.

HVME his 8. Sect.

HEere to let this passe, your next reason is from that place of Paul: But that he ascended: what is it els, but that he first descended into the lowermost parts of the earth. Where you holde, that the lowermost partes of the earth, muste needes signifie the pit of Hell. Which thing if it were so sure, as you beare in hand; I wonder that no Diuines, (I speake of the mode­ster sorte) did yet gather heereupon, that the place of Hell, were the verie center of the earth. But wher­as you avouche so confidentlie, that ERETS TACH­TITH, doth signifie Hel as properlie in Hebrew, as hel doth in English, (though I meane not to stand with you for the tongue) yet pardon mee to dissent from you in this. For in the places which you quote, it can not in my simple vnderstanding carie that sense. Your first place is, They which seek my soule, shall go down into the lowermost partes of the earth, which cannot bee meant of Hell: except these reasons deceaue mee. First, it might seeme a presumption to enter so farre into Gods secrets, as to judge his owne priuate ene­mies. Next, it should seeme not to stand with the af­fections of a godlie heart, to ascribe that place to his enemies, out of the horrour wherof, there is no re­demption. For the children of God, do rather pray for their enemies, & desire their amendement. This place may be wel construed of the graue. For it is an argument vsed by the Prophete, to lay the pride of them that sought his soule, and to solace himself: recording that their hatred should haue an end, whē the graue should swallow them. The wordes [...]ollow­ing confirme this sense: That they shall fal vpon the edge [Page 58] of the sword, which cannot be vnderstood, but of tem­porall death.

HIL his reply.

INdeed,The paralogis­mes of this sect I brought this place Eph. 4. 9. to proue that Christ descended into Hell.I char­ged you not with immo­destie, read a­gaine. And whereas you charge me with immodesty, for so alleadging of it: I must needs charge you withThese two vntruths wil proue not one. two vntruths in answering this allegatiō. The one is, y• I called it Is it an vntruth to tel your own tale in your owne wordes. the pit of Hel,Yet and you be remē ­bred transla­ [...]ing Lauater in the next sect. you cal it a pit. which phraise I neuer vsed. The other is,You doe impudētly or arrogantly take which you will, mis­vse my words: read againe. you haue impudently a [...]ouched, that none of the modester sorte of diuines, haue euer alleadged this place to proue the descending of Christ into [...]el.233. Heere ye settle your self to your olde trade, to proue a thing, not denied. Your worke could not rise otherwise. 223 For many, and those both learned and modest haue alledged this place to this purpose.This witnesse needed not. Athanasius interpreting this Epistle and texte, thus writeth. Into what place did he descēd?Hel [...] may heere [...] the gra [...]e. Into hel truly, which he calleth according to the cōmon opiniō of men, the lowest parts of the earth.This witnes is superflu­ous. Ambrose on this place saith thus▪ This Christ therefore, com­ming downe from heauen into the earth, was borne a man, afterward he dyed andHe saith not the thing he is brought to say, that the lowermost parts of the earth is Hell▪ and hel may also bee heere taken for the graue. descended into hell, from whence rising the third day, he went vp to heauen before all mortall men, that hee might shewe deth to be vanquished to every creature.This witnes might haue ben spared. Chri­sostome on this place saith. Hee went toHe saith not, that the lowermost parts of the earth are hell. those partes of the earth, then the which nothing is lower, and from thence lies ascended into heauen, then the which nothing is higher. The like hathThis testimonie needed not. Augu­stine li. de Trin. chap. 19.Nor [...]his needed not. Ierom [...] on this text [Page 59] thus noteth. ThatHel heer may be taken for the graue: & so it is liklie seing it may be doubted of the place of the damned whether it be vnder the earth, or no: Hell is vnder the earth noe man doubteth, for he that descended in soule into hell ascēded both body & soule into heauē.Nor this witnesse nee­ded no [...]. Mollerus a learned Minister of Germany, on the sixtene Psalme saith: that the descending into hel, is plainly proued out of the Ephesians the fourth chapter.nor this. Muscu­lus on the 68. Psalm. thus writeth. This God which was in Christ reconciling the world vnto himself; first descended into the lowestBut saith not that the lowermoste partes of the earth ar Hel. partes of the earth, then he lead captuitie captiue, and not only we ar de­liuered from the captuity of Satan, sinne, death and damnation: but also Christ triumphing ouer them a [...] tirants, hath ascended aboue all heauens, to fulfill all things:This te­stimonie nee­ded not, but on this same place 4. Eph. he denieth that it pro­ueth the de­scending into the place of the damned. Hemingius on the 2. Chapter to the Colossians thus also teacheth. As by his deathe he conflicted with the enemye one the crosse, so by his gloriousIn all this he speaketh not the thing he is alledged for. descending into hell, res [...]ection and Ascention, he triumphed as it is Ephe 4. Leauing his cros lift vp as a monumēt of his victory, To conclud This nee­ded not. Alesius a very learned preacher of Scotland, on the 19. chapter of Iohn, affirmeth, that the 1. Pet. 3. & Eph. 4. do manifestly proue the descending of Christ into hell, if Athanasius, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Augu­stine and Ierome of the old fathers, and Mollerus, Musculus, Hemingius and Alesius of the new writers be allThis is astrange (if) I neuer said so. immodest diuines, then haue you truelye saide: but if in the iudgement of the learned, all these were most reuerend men, then mostThen what are you if I accuse them not, as indeede I do not. shameles are you to accuse them of the want of modesty. More ouer, where you say no diuine dare to dispute where hell is:If it be true in anie sort, how dare you say aboue, that Hell no doubt is vnder the earth. it is true in some sort, for no diuine can [Page 60] 242. An incō ­sequence. It followeth not because men cannot circū ­scribe [...]el, Ergo, they cannot know where it is. Navigators cannot circum­scribe the lād of P [...]piniayes and yet [...] they know that it is betwen the straites & the South pole. 252 circumscribe the place of hel which isIf hel bee infinite, then is it no wher, and all that you haue said confuted. infinitum nus­qua [...] est, mul [...] to minus incentro terrae. in­finite, nor yet ofIf heauē: and hell bee both infinite: then be there three infinites heauen, hel, and God. heauen: only the word of God affirmeth, that heauen is aboue Gal. 4. 26. And hell is beneath, Prouerbs 15. 24.I deny the argument. Therefore, the lo­west parts of the earthThat is not the que­stion. may well be taken for hel: Then you goe further & say, that ERETS TAGH­TITH doth not signifie hell, Psal. 63. and for this you bring two reasons: the one is, y• it were a presumption in the Prophet to iudge, his enemies: 2. that it stan­deth not with the affections of a godly minde to as­sign hell to his enemies, but to pray for them to your first reason this I answer▪ In the Psalm. 9. 18. Dauid useth theNot the like. There he speaketh of the wicked, heere of his enemies. like speeche: The wicked shall be tur­ned into hell, and all the people that forget God: which text▪ Caluin thusCalvine is alled▪ ged to proue a thing not denied. expoundeth, the He­brewe word SHEOL [...] which was doubtfull. I haue not doubted to translate hell▪ for though it doth not displease me, that others [...] it (Sepulcher) yet it is sure, heer is som thing noted besides common death▪ otherwise he should speak nothing of the reprobate▪ but that which did generally▪ happen to al beleuers. In the hundred and [...]inth Psalme also, Dauid thus praieth;This is spoken of the Messias, and his ene­mies▪ Let Satan stand at his right hand, let, his prayer be turned into sinne▪ let the wickednes of his Father, be had in remembrance in the sight of the Lord, and let not the sinne of his mother be done a­way▪**** Do you think this to bee spokenWhen and where said I so? pres [...] ­tuously? Many such texts could [...] alleadge, to proue that Dauid inspired with the spirit of prophecye, did foretel▪ not only of the tragicall destruction of the bo­dies of hisNot of his owne enemies I beleeue. enemies, but also of the extreme dā ­natiō of their soules. This thē is my reply [...]o your se­cond [Page 61] reason: these enemies were notThis would be pro­ued. And if it cā be proued, I will forgo this argumēt: and yet I will hold still my conclusion: The conclusi­on may stand trew, though my argumēt proue a jade. priuate enemies, but publick, and did hate▪ Dauid for his reli­gion sake: Dauid therefore by the gift of prophecie doth foretell, that their soules should go to hell to be tormented, and their bodies should be the portion of soxes, that is, shold never come to the graue, for what need 163 Dauid tell vs they should by,263. This was answered, if you wil be an­swered which we know is commō to al, or how can that be true, which you say, that they should beeBy a Metonymia. in graue, when Dauid himself saith, they were not in any graue, but were the protion of Foxes. And so M. Caluin (whom I hope you will beleeue) teacheth you, writing vpon this psalme and verse. To be the portion of Foxes, is as much as to be devoured and torn of wicked beasts for God (saith Cal.) doth threaten his punishement to the reprobate, that they shall bee a pray to Wolues & dogges, because hee would depriue them of the honor of their graue. Heer you seeBut hee [...] Calvine saith not that they came into the Sheol. M. Caluin saith, they cam not into their graue, you say they did. How M. Caluin and you may be reconciledTh [...] you knowe not Metonymia I knowe not: for Caluin addeth this reason. It hapneth some time that we know the same temporall punishments to be common to the good and the bad, but this is the difference, the bones of the godlie are gathered toge­ther and kept in safty, that none of them shall perish; but the scattering of the bones of the reprobate, is a signe of eternall destruction.Caluin is not of this minde, read his commen [...] Therefore howe can the lower parts of the earth signifie the graue, as you say, since (as M. Calvine tru [...]ie saith) they were in no graue. Answere mee this (good M. Hume) plainelie: Psal. 63. 9.

The lower partes of the earthI denie the maior. signifie, (not the graue) but hell, Christ descended into the lower parts of the earth, Eph. 4. 9. [...]rgo, Christ descended into hell.

Two impossibilities in the D. reply:

That Hell is infinite, and that Hell is in the center of the earth: Finitum, non est capax inffniti.

That Hell and Heauen, be both infinite. Non sunt duo infinita.

HVME his Reioynder.

Whereas I charge you with immodesty, you say, you will charge me with vntruethes: you are marueilous chollericke. Good sir bee content, you mistake my wordes. I haue misvsed neither you nor your frends: I onely saide, speaking of the modester sorte, that no divines alledge these words, to proue, that Hell is in the center of the earth, which they might wel doe, if ERETS TACHTITH did signifie Hell properly. You haue not done well to trouble your friends to proue a thing not denied. Here you call forth nine writers, and crye shame on me for misvsing them. If I were as chollericke as you, I might take Pepper in the Nose, and call you bra [...]lesse, for mistaking my words? The meanest Carter in the plaine, would neuer so haue o­uerlasht himself: by such shifts as this, you haue made your booke importable. If a man woulde peake out all such ware as this, he woulde leaue you small store of stuffe to shew amongst your customers. If you will runne this course, you can neuer want wordes, how­soeuer you shift for matter: but if you mend not, im­pertinent traish wil make men dispaire, that euer you will be able to yarne a Bishopprick with your penne. After all these out-cries, you confesse that whiche I said, and ad a reason because Hell is infinite. Though your reason be not good, yet your confession will purge me, and staine your owne face with your own boxe. That the lower-most partes of the earth, must [Page 63] needs signifie Hell, thus you argue. Heauen is aboue and Hell is belowe: Ergo, the lower-most parts of the earth may be Hell. This reason was taynted before it came at Whately-bridge, and neuer came into Oxen­forde amongst so many Noses able to smel such ware, as farre as Bullington-greene, without a peall of S. Cle­ments Belles: First, you conclude not the question. This question is not, whether the lower-most partes of the earth may be Hell: but whether ERETS TACH­TITH be the proper name of Hell. Secondly, the place that you alledge out of the Proverbs, all inter­preters agree not vpon that sence of the wordes. Lastly,This is a mi­raculous hole on the edge of Mendipp. if a man shoulde reason, Heauen is aboue, and and Hell is be low: Ergo, Owkie hole is Hell: you will laugh your selfe, though partiallitie will not let you see the same stupiditie in your owne reason. The first place that you alledge, to Proue that ERETS TACH­TITH, must needes signifie Hell, is out of the 63. psal. They that seeke my soule, shall goe downe into the lowermost parts of the earth. Which place is so farr from prouing your conclusion necessarily: that wher one interpretour that euer I saw, doth interpret it of Hell, three doth construe it of the graue: which sence being agreeable to the rest of the Scriptures: I view­ing the whole bodie of the psalme, and finding Da­uid to speake onely of his owne private enemies, and no inducementes to lead me to thinke, that he spea­keth here, eyther in the person of Messias, or of his bodie the Churche: I gathered three reasons to dis­prooue your sence. First, that it were a presumption: Secondly, contrary to the mind of the godly, to judg their own priuat enemies: And lastly, that the words following, they shall fall vpon the edge of the sword, can reach no further then to temporal death. To the last of these you say nothing, which of it self is strong ynough to cary this conclusion from you. To the o­ther [Page 64] two, you oppose the 9. Psalme, 18. where the Prophet speaketh of the wicked: and the 109. psalm which containeth a prophecie of Christe, vttered in the person of David, Act. 1. 20. whiche places point besides the marke, and proue not, that Dauid doth Iudge his owne priuate enemies, but the wicked and enemies of the Messias. Wherfore, though I scars [...] trust these two last reasons: yet till I here them taken away by reason, I stand at my first marke stil, that Da­uid speaking heere of his owne privat enemies, is of Iobs minde, not reioycing at the destruction of them that hate him. Iob. 31. 29. 30. And here M. D. I would haue you marke, that though I had not on argumēt, yet my sense beeing agreable to the wordes of the Psal. and consonant to the scriptures, is inough of it self, to prove that youres is not the proper mea­ning of these words. But say you, this cannot be the graue, because it followeth they shall be the porcion of Foxes; that is, they shall want the honour of the grave, and there you set Calvine against mee, saying, that you see not how we may be reconciled togither. For my part, I care no more for Caluines fauour, then Augustines and other godly mens, that haue labou­red fruitefully in the Lordes haruest, whatsoeuer it pleaseth you to beare your reader in hand otherwais of me. But if you had ben half so lerned as you think your self: or half so indifferent as men do wish, that wish you well, you might haue seen that the graue is vsed by a Metonymi [...] for all the dead, whether layd vp in the bowels of the earth, or floting in the sea, or de­voured of rauenous beasts. For the Hebrue SHEOL doth not so much signifie the graue (which for want an other word we are forced to set for it by a Metony­mia) as that which the greeke [...], doeth better ex­presse by the privation of light or life, separating all the dead, which in Latine be called inferi, and manes, [Page 65] from the living, which they call superstites. And not comprysing onelie them which are buried in a graue as you do ignorantly suppose heere, nor the damned as you do as wiselie hold in another place. Thus the very heathens did vse this word, [...] saith Homer: that is, hee sent manie worthie soules (not to the hell of tormentes, that had beene a bad rewarde for their worthinesse) but to the dead, or to the graue. So is the same word vsed by Nonnus, a Christian Poet of great antiquitie, in his Paraphrase vpon Iohn, cap 11. speaking of La­zarus, who you will not saye, (I hope) was in Hell. [...]: that is, and hearing amongst them that were dead & rotten, the fugitiue corps returned again out of hel. The same authour in the same place vseth [...] in the same signification, whence the Latines haue bor­rowed their Barathrum. [...]. That is, who raised vp the dead Lazarus, skipping out of the smo­kie gulfe, and returning from the dead. So the La­tines vsed their Orcus and Tartarus, not deuiding the damned and the saued: but the dead and the living, by the privation and habit of light and seeing. Wher you aske mee why Dauid should speake of their tem­porall death, which is common to all, I tolde you (if you will be tolde it) to solace himself by the remem­berance of their malice, that it was not euerlasting, but should cease with their short liues. You conclude this section with a new syllogisme, with protestation to good M. Hum [...] (so you call him) to answere it plainelie. The lower partes of the earth, signifie not the graue, but hell. Christ descended into the lower parts of the earth. Ergo, Christ discended into Hell. Now, M. Hume to deserue your good name, first, de­nies the maior: secondlie, he replyes to the minor, that [Page 66] in his judgement, the lowermost partes of the earth that Christ descended into, may wel be taken for the base and meane estate that the sonne of God discen­ded into vpon the earth. The sonne of a Carpentar, borne in a stable, cradled in a cratch, and living in a base estate, without a hole to hide his head in, was e­ven the lowest and basest partes of the earth. Hee could not well goe lower. Thus Hume bids you goe your way, and take this for an answere.

HVME Sect. 9.

YOur other places be, I wil pearce through all the low­ermost partes of the earth, and looke on them that bee a sleepe. Eccles. 24. And they shall be cast downe into the low­ermost parts of the earth, and sleep in the middest of the vn­circumcised. Ezech. 31. 18. which two places, by your leaue, cannot be well meant of Hel. Except that you can perswade vs, that there is sleepe, that is, rest and quietnes in Hell, but of the graue and state of the dead, whereof wee haue as commonlie almoste, as stones in the streete, he did sleepe with his Fathers. The same wordes ERETS TACHTITH, which you say, doth signifie properlie Hell, be so vsed by the Prophet Da­vid, Psal. 139. 14. That they can no wise bee taken in that signification, except it can be proued, that Da­uid was fashioned and made in Hell. His wordes bee these: My bones are not hid from thee, though I was made in a secrete place, and fashioned beneath in the earth. Here Beza doeth well obserue, that the place of the Apo­stle which you alledge, may fitlie bee applied to the sense of this place: and note vnto vs the discense of Christ, into the wombe of the Virgine.

HIL his Reply.

FIrst you say,The Paral [...] ­gismes in the D. reply. the place quoted by me Syrac. 24. 37 maketh not for the proofe of my assertion.If you had red Chy­treus, a man (as you alledg on your owne side) you culd neuer haue hoped that a­nie thing in this cap▪ wold haue chāged my minde If you had considered whatIt wil not follow becaus he speaketh of the bottom of the depth in the 8. verse: therefore the lowermost parts of the earth must needes be hel in the 24. vers. went before, and what followeth, you wold haue bin of another mind. For before in the 8. verse is saide, I alone haue This may be vnderstood of wisdome, which discoursing by reson of all the works of nature, doth after a sort walke about the heauens, and vnder the bottomes of the sea. gon round about al the compas of heauen, and haue walked in the bottome of the depth. Which depth When alis done, Pellic▪ must hew this chip for this chi [...]ke. Pellicanus alearned writer doth interpret abyssum mortis & inferorum, theWhē Pelican hath done with it, M.D. must turn inferi to his byasse, or els this labor is lost inferi may be taken for the dead, as said is in the former sect. depth of death and hel. Yea, theThat is doubted. whole Chapter speaketh of the Sonne of God, and of hisThat is not true. wondrous workes in sauing mankinde: of the which this is on,That is fals. that he was not only aliue among the liuing, but after deathThat wanteth probabilitie. his bodye was among the dead bodyes,And that all shew of truth: There is not one word in all this cap. of anie of these things. and his soule among the soules in hell.This is petitio principij. which hee calleth the lower parts. The like scripture to this is in Iob. 38. 16, 17.In this place, God openeth to Iob the imperfection of mans knowledge. How can you make that liable to your question, to pr [...]oue that in the 21. of Eccl. the lowermost parts of the earth is hell. Hast thou entered into the bottom of the sea? or hast thou walked to seeke out the depth; haue the gates of death bin opened vnto thee? or hast thou seene the gates of the shadowe of death. Some bodie must helpe you. These words are thus opened by Mar­tin Borrhauius in his learned Commentaries vpon Iob. How helps that you. I haue dwelled in the highest places, and my throne is in the pillar of the cloudes: I haue gone rounde about the compasse of heauen aboue, and [Page 68] haue wallted in the flouds of y• sea. I pearce through all the lower parts of the earth. Haue those in hell or the dead bin searched out of thee? & dost thou knowe their estate and condicion, and what shall happen to their bodyes hereafter? and what doth happen to their soules now? The force of death and of hell hee maketh maniefest by the names of gates, as it is ma­nifest in that scripture: and the gates of hell shall not prevaile against thee.How so: he speaketh not heere of that place. By these words it is eui­dent, that the nethermoste partes of the earth, Syrac. 24, 37. and Zalmaueth the Hebrue word, Iob. 38, 17. doo signifie hell, and that noneNeither of these pla­ces signifieth the sonne of God. but the Sonne of God aboue, hath personaly shewed himself in all these places. For the place in Ezechiel, that it maketh most significantly for my purpose,Indeede Esay & Ezech were learned in a strange kind of know­ledge. I wil proue it by Esay, Ezech, and diuers other, both learned & modest writers. Esay 14, 9. handling the same mat­ter, saithThe word in Esay, is SHEOL. not hell. Hel beneth is moued for thee to meet thee at thy comming. And in Ezech▪ also: & therefore this is a plaine And Ezechiel in the 15. and 16. verses calleth it hell plainly.Sith the word in both the prophets is Sheol: & it is confessed that Sheol doth signifie the graue as well as hell, I wonder that you blush not to finde this fault with me. Sith then both the prophets call it hell, how dare you to inter­pret the graue: that the nethermost parts of the earth do signifie hell,You pro­mise proof by Ezech, and flee to Mūster. I prooue it out of the 12. ver. of Ezechiel. And the strangers haue destroyed him euen the terrible nations, and they haue left him vp on the montaines, and in all the vallies his branches are broken. You pro­mise it by Munster, and sle to your own glose on him: & so you fl [...]e from bush to bush. Munster on this place saith, that by the branches are vnderstoode the carcasses of his hoast, which the veasts of the field did deuour. Laua­terus the Minister of Tigurin agreeth with him.But he wil not help you with [...]ut a glose. All the beasts of the field shall dwell vpon his ruine: the kings carkas shall not be laide vp into the sepul­cher of his elders, but shall be a pray to crowes, gri­phins, and other carni [...]orous birdes. So doth Pel­lican a learned Linguist interpret this place, at the [Page 69] laste, there is ane auersion or Apostrophe, to Pharao himselfe, or to the Assyrian King. To whom art thou li [...]ened, O thou noble and high among the trees of pleasure, thou hast passed all other in power, and yet with other kings that were in thy companyIt should seeme to be (thou wast brought) by the words be­fore & after, they were brought to the lowest parts of the earth, I can not finde Pelican, but if I coulde I beleeue I should finde this parēthesis of your owne making: and if it be his, if you take hell for the state of the dead, he hath not cut his cloake for your shoulders (that is) to hell, among the abhominable hea­then shalt thou sleepe, and lye as a wretched and mi­serable man. Now because you tak holde of the word sleepe,I must know before I can remēber it: & you must proue it if you can you must remember that these words ar spoken ironically,There is noted a Sar­casmus, & not ironia as it is noted in the contents of Esay 14. The derision of the king of Babilon. More­ouer, Lauaterus on this place of Ezech. saith: These things may be better vnderstood out of the 14. of Es. which prophecying of the destructiō of y• king of Ba­bilon Baltassar, describeth with what bitter scoffs he is entertainedHe mea­nes amongest the dead, in hell. To end. Lauaterus on this place, proueth these four things: first, that there is ane hell: secondly, that hel in this chapter is called by three names, that is, 1. SHEOL 2. ERETS TACH­TITH, 3. BOR. Hell, the lowest parts of the earth, Heer trā ­slating Laua­ter, you make him giu [...] Hell a name, which in the former sect▪ you scor­ned as not be seeming your owne learned lips, and a pit: thirdlie, that this Hel is beneath vs: and lastlie, that the tyrants and wicked of the world do discend into it, and this he proueth out of Numb. 16. 33. Psal. 55. 15. And addeth also, that Tertullian and Ierome doo proue hel to be beneath in the earth. The conclusion then is thus, for as much then as the Assyrians dyed with the sword, and were deuoured of the beasts and birds of the fiel [...],By a metonymia, is that so strange to you, I pray tell mee, how that can bee true that you affirme, that the lowest partes of the earth doth signifye the graue: A tautologie. for howe were they in the graue y• were neuer buried?An other tautologie, yet not proued, therfore, they were in hel, as both Esay and Ezechiel doo affirme, and as Pellican, Munster, [Page 70] & Lauater, three notable lerned men in the holy tong doe interpret it.My friēds I hope will be better aduised I thinke your owne friends when they reade this, will confesse you, either to bee ignorant of the word of God, or els to wrest it contra­ry to the meaning of the holy ghost. Moreouer, where you mislike with me because I said, that ERETS TACH­TITH, that is, the lowermost partes of the earth, doth signifye hell generally in the Hebrew toong, and you bring an instance out of the 139. Psal. and 14. verse, where you proue, that the lower parts of the earth doth signifie the mothers womb, & therefore it doth not signifie hell alwaies: this is a childish reason. In a metaphorical signification it signifieth the mothers womb:You alter the question, therefore in his proper signification, it can not signifie hell.Some ar­guments a metaphora may be better then anie you haue made in all this booke, Argumentum a metaphora ductum non valet, an argument drawen from a meta­phore is of no force. And that heere is a metaphor, M. Caluin shall be the iudge. He compareth (saith Cal­uin) the mothers wombe to theThen not to hell, lowest and in­ward dens of the earth: and a little after, for no doubt Dauid would expres metaphoricaly, that inestimable cunning which appereth in the figure of mans body. This is patched in a­mongst Cal. words, to de­ceaue the simple The mothers womb is compared to hel for the darknes of it: for as Caluin saith, that artificer which maketh a cunning peece of worke in a darke place, is more to be commended then hee which doth the like in the light. Dauid also is heere saide to bee made in the nethermost parts of the earth,306, This wod if it were brought to the Logicians frame will warp, and will neuer come within the mould of mood & figur 336 because he was by nature the child of wrath and of hell, if he had not bin deliuered therehence by Iesus Christ. Breefe­ly, where you say, that he descended in to the Virgins wombe, and that it is the true meaning of the place Eph. 4. 9. both you and your M. Beza are deceaued. For Paul reproueth you Ep, 4. 10. He that descended is even the same A para­logisme in the word the same that ascended. Now the body and soul of Christ ascended into heauen, therefore the [Page 71] It follow­eth not se the answere. body and soule of Christ descended into the vir­gins wombe, if the body did descend into the virgins womb, then Christ took not flesh of the virgin.Vntruth, Thus that you may contradi [...]t me, you are not af­fraid ignorantly or wittinglye, to deny the incarna­tion of our Sauiour:A super­ [...]ous allega­tion to proue a thing not denied: that is our old skil. Theophilact saith well of these words, when you read, that the Sonne of man came down from heauen, you may not think that his flesh came down frō heauen, for this is y• opinion of Heretiques, which did teach that Christ brought his body from heauen, and did passe through the virgin, I hope you holde not this opinion,They of whome I lear, ned this in­terpretation, looked as wel about them to misse such myres as euer you did or cā. but if you hold this interpretation you must needs fall into it, For he that descended is euen the same that ascen­ded. Eph. 4. 10.

Violence in this section done to the text, by the Doctor.

First, that the whole 24. chap. of Eccles. speaketh of the Sonne of God, and of his wonderfull workes in saving mankinde: of the which this was one, that he was not onelie aliue amongst the living: but after death his bodie was amongest the dead bodies, and his soule amongst the soules in Hell, &c.

That Esay in 14. 9. and Ezech. in the 15. verse of his 31. cap. calleth that Hel plainelie, which Ezech. in the 18. verse of the same chapter, calleth the lower­most partes of the earth.

That in the 31. 18. vers. of Ezech. Thou shalt bee cast downe in the lowermost parts of the earth, and sleepe in the middest of the vncircumcised: the word (sleepe) is taken ironicallie.

That in Eph. 4. it is ment, that Christ descended in soule and body, as he ascended in soule and body.

A new rule in Logick, that argumentum a Metapho­ra sumptum, non valet.

HVME his reioynder to the 9. sect.

FIrst marke, that by a general axiome, whatsoeuer a man alledgeth to proue a thing, either doutfull or vnknowne: the same must be better knowne, and inforce such a necessitie of consequence, as cannot be denied. The thing that you haue heere in hand to proue, is, that (the lowermost parts of the earth) is as proper and peculiar a name for the place of the damned, as Hell is in English. To proue this, your testi­monies should be without controulment. But are in deede so farre short of that marke, that they are, (if not harder) altogether as hard and obscure, as the place, that they are alleadged to illustrate. The first of them I haue dispatched in the former section. The next is out of the 24. of Eccles. a booke not Canoni­call, nor written in the tongue, whereon wee stand. In which respect, I might haue rejected it. But becaus one answere serued it, and your third place out of 31. 18. of Ezech. I joined them together. The firste was, I will pearce through the lowermost parts of the earth, and looke on them that hee a sleepe. The second, Thou shalt be cast downe into the lowermost parts of the earth, and sleep in the middest of the vncircumcised. To them thus I aun­swered. There is sleep, that is rest and quietnesse, in the place called heere the lower-moste partes of the earth: But there is no rest nor quietnesse in Hell, the place of the damned: Ergo, the place called heer the lowermost parts of the earth, is not Hell, the place of the damned. For the first of your places, you say no­thing to this argument. For the second, you say, that the word (sleepe) is vsed Ironicallie, that is, in a scornfull and mocking manner, and a contrarie sense For proof, (for want of text) you take vp the contēts of the 14. of Esay: and Lauater, who saith, that Balta­sar [Page 77] was receaued amongest the deade: (for so is the true sense) with bitter scoffes. First, consider that the figure in the 14. of Esay, is a sarcasmus, not an I­ronia, consisting of bitter words vsed in their vsual sig­nifications. Secondlie, that your authors are but mē. Thirdlie, that they say nothing of the word (sleepe) which Ezech.Gen. 47. 30. vseth. Lastlie, that you haue (sleep) ma­nie hundreth times,Math. 9. 24. attributed in the Scriptures to the dead:Mark. 5. 39. but neuer to the state of the damned, nei­ther in jeast nor earnest.1. King. 11. 43. Whereupon thus I rea­son. We must not wring words out of jointe by an I­ronia, 1. King. 2. 10. except some necessarie inducement in the text,Luk. 8. 52. or absurditie in the letter lead vs thereto.1. King. 15. 8. But heere is neither inducement in the text,1. King. 14. 20. nor absurditie in the letter:1. Cor. 7. 39. Ergo, heere we must not wring this worde out of jointe in this text,1. King. 21. 51. and take it from the vsuall significations, in other places of the Scripture. This argument is so strong, and prevailed so much with o­ther writers, that you cannot finde one to take your part in this mocke. If you could, we should haue his name, with the highest stiles of antiquitie, learning, and aestimation, that anie shewe coulde yeelde him. Whereas you can with no colour hyde this blot, in the 24. of Eccles. there you run another course, per­swading mee, that if I had read that that goeth be­fore, and commeth after, I would haue beene of an­other minde. And affirming, that the whole chapter speaketh of the Sonne of God, and his wonderfull workes in saving, &c. You are somewhat deceaued of mee. For I haue read the whole chapter, and more then that, haue considered the matter in it. The whole Chapter seemeth to mee a Prosopopoia of the Wisdome, which God in his worde, and the light of nature hath left vnto man: praising her selfe in the co [...]gregation. That the authour speaketh onelie of that Wisdome, (except you will make him leaue his [Page 74] ground, and wander from his subject) it is plaine, by the 11. and 12. verses: where she saith of her self, that he that made and created her, appointed her an ha­bitation in Sion. Which cannot bee vnderstood of the aeternall Wisdome of God, which was neither made, nor created, but begotten. Whereas shee saith in the sixt verse, that she causeth the light that faileth not to rise in the heauens, and covered the earth as a cloude. If you take light, for the knowledge of god the heauens for his church, and the earth for the re­probate, as they are in diuerse places of the Scrip­tures, there is nothing in al this chapter, dis-agreing with this subject. That shee proceedeth from the mouth of the most highest: that she is the first [...] borne of all creatures: that she was created from the begin­ning, and made before the worlde: and that she shall neuer faile, may be well vnderstood of the worde of God, which came from his own mouth, and shall not perish one jot of it, though heauen and earth doeth passe. As for the 8. verse, which you say woulde haue changed my minde, that she alone hath gone about the compasse of the heavens, and walked in the bot­tome of the depth: I should sooner take it for natu­rall wisedome, proceeding also from God; which ta­king viewe of all his creatures from the highest hea­uens, to the lowest center of the earth, doeth after a sort walke about them, and vnder them: then for the aeternall wisedom of God, with whom diuerse things in this chapter, will in no wise agree. Thus I see, that there is no thing in this chap. to perswade mee, that the wisdome heere spoken of, is the Sonne of God. But suppose there were, yet heere is nothing to help your cause. You know that the generall question be­tweene you and mee, is not of the sonne of God: but of the sonne of man, that is, of Christes humanitie, whether it did descend into the locall Hel. Of him, I [Page 75] will stand to it to your face, that there is not one sil­lable in all this chapter, neither of his bodie, nor of his soule, neither amongst the living, nor amongest the dead, in the graue, nor in Hell. Wherfore, (how­soeuer I haue read this chap.) you haue read it more then well, that haue found matter in it, that no man (but you) euer saw in it. The particular question in this part of the section, is whether the lower-moste parts of the earth, in the 37. verse of this Chap. doth signifie the Hel of the damned: to which this allega­tion, and the other out of Iob is so impertinent, that I wonder you could hope, that they woulde holde way. For, what maketh it to this question, that the wisdome of God doth compasse the heauens, and walke in the bottome of the depth: that it entreth into the bottome of the sea, or hath seene the gates of death. You are neere be-stead, that are driven so farre for reasons. Thus much (though it be Apocry­phall) for the place of Ecclesiastes. As for the other place of Ezechiell, before you came to the answere, which I haue set downe before for orders sake: you endevoured to proue by Esay and Ezech▪ that it ma­keth for you, after your owne manner, which is, ra­ther to trouble your aduersarie with newe reasons, then to answere them that are in hand. For your proof, you quote the 14. 9. of Esay, and the 15. and 16. verses of the same chapter of Ezechiell. Where you say, both the Prophetes call the place, into the which these Kings are caste, most plainelie, Hel. And wondering at me, that I dare interprete it graue, you note in your margent, Hume disagreeth with Esay. Ezech, Munster, Lavater, and Pelilcan. But heere M. D. I pray you let mee aske a question. In what lan­guage wrote those Prophetes? Was the verie word they vsed, hell? If not that, (as I think you will grāt) but the hebrew word SHEOL, which doth signifie the [Page 80] graue, rather then Hell, why may I not take the one signification, as well as you the other. Thus with your bolde daring, you dare the simple, as men doe larkes. But heere, now knowe, (if you knowe it not) that I haue such reasons, not to take your significa­tion of SHEOL heere, as shoulde carie you as well as mee, if your wit were not maried to your wil. First, though the Assyrians and Babilonians, of whome the Prophetes speak in these places, were heathens, and damnable miscreants: yet it was not their purpose to speake heere of their aeternall damnation: but of the dishonorable destruction of their temporal king­domes. Secondlie, that which Esay in the 9. vers. cal­leth Hell: he calleth four times the graue, and twise the pit, in the same chap. Thirdlie, in the same ver. which you quote, hee saieth, that hell raising vp the dead, even all the Princes of the earth, did meete the king of Babell. But all the dead, euen the Princes of the earth, were not in the Hell of the dāned. Fourth­lie, in the 11. ver. he calleth the place into the which the King of Babell was brought, the graue: with wormes vnder, and ouer him. But that cannot be the place of the damned: Ergo, the place, of which he spe­keth heere, cannot be the place of the damned. Fift­lie, in the 15. and 16. verses hee saieth, When hee was brought downe to the graue, to the sides of the pit, they that sawe him shoulde say, is this hee that made the earth to tremble? But men coulde not see and looke into his falling into the place of the damned: Ergo, the place whereof he there speaketh, is not the place of the damned. Thus much for Esay. For E­zechiel. First, in the 14. verse, he joyneth the lower­moste parts of the earth, with them that goe downe into the pit: and in the 16. verse, hee joineth the go­ing to hell, with the same. But to descend into the pit is to goe downe into the graue, not into hell: Ergo, [Page 73] both the lower-most partes of the earth, and SHE­OL, heere is taken for the graue. Secondlie, in the same 14. verse, the nether partes of the earth, is the pit and place of death, common to all the children of men: But the pit and place of death, common to all men, is not the place of the damned: Ergo, the low er-most partes of the earth, is not heere the place of the damned. Thirdlie, in the 16. verse, The Lord did make the nations of the earth to shake, at the sound of his fall, when he did cast him downe into Hell. But the nations of the earth, heard not, nor felt not his fall into the Hell of the damned: Ergo, this is not vn­derstood of the Hell of the damned. All these rea­sons had I, and they made mee dare to translate SHEOL, (not the place of the damned) but graue. And therfore (M. Doctor) you may cease to wonder at mee, if you will. And nowe I must wonder also at your manner of reasoning. That the lower-moste partes of the earth, doeth signifie Hell, (saye you) I will prooue it by the 12. verse of the same Chap. of Ezech. And the strangers haue destroyed him, euen the terrible nations, &c. Then, not finding your pur­pose there, you runne to Munster, Lavater and Pelli­cane, that the King of Asshur was the prey of carni­vorous byrds: and yet not finding to satisfie you, you wring out a consequence, that if he was deuoured of beasts, then he was not buried: if he was not buried, then hee was not in the graue: If he was not in the graue, then the lowermost parts of the earth wherin he was, must needs be Hell. Where I tell you, I must needs wonder, how you could leape so many ditches without a staffe, to finde Hell in this verse. For all the load you lay vpon me here of ignorance, & misvsing the text: I did not take one such leape in all my Let­ter. As for my instance out of the 139. psalme, that SHEOL, doth not alwayes signifie Hell, but may sig­nifie [Page 78] the mothers wombe, you say it is childish rea­son, & prooue it with a Catholik rule, that Argumen­tum ductum à Metaphora non valet. I knowe not what you mean by an argumēt, à metaphora. This is the first time that euer I hard metaphora suspected to be a to­pick place: yet I haue heard good argumēts in meta­phorical words. Christ himself, the best logician that euer I knew, had wont to make many such. As for ex­ample. The seruant that putteth not his Lords talent to the vantage, shal be cast into vtter darknes, where shalbe weping & gnashing of teeth. But al ministers, that labour not faithfully in their charges are such: Ergo, all ministers that labor not faithfully in their charge, shal be cast into vtter darknes, &c. I beleeue at the latter day, when arguments wil be as well sifted, as euer they were in the school-streats at Oxen. this will be found a good argument, for all the metaphora that is in it. As for my argument, I see not how it is a metaphora. Though the signification of the word be metaphorical (as Caluin wel noteth:) yet it serueth my turne to prooue, that it is not alwayes Hell. And now you put me in minde of it, I will picke another argument out of the same place, that perhapps will trouble you worse: That is, the naturall signification of euery worde, whence the metaphoricall is taken. But this signification of these wordes (the lowermost parts of the earth) is taken from the dennes and ca­uernes of the earth, as you note me out of Caluine. Ergo, the proper [...] signification of this worde, is the dennes and cauernes of the earth and not Hell of the damned. Of this judgement is Mercerus, Cevalerus, and Cornelius Bertramus, in their additions to Pag­nines Lexicon. You confute Beza and me, for apply­ing these wordes to the place of the Ephes. thus, He that descended, is euen the same that ascended: But he ascended in soule and bodie. Ergo, he descended in [Page 79] soule and bodie, which is not true of his descending into the virgins womb. And here you charge vs with ignoraunce, or wilfull denying the Incarnation of Christ. Good M. D. vse me as you wil, but be good to Beza: he hath bene well thought of as yet. I wonder, that seeing so much against him and me, you coulde not see the same against your self. You hold that this is ment of his descending into the local Hell: against which, thus I vse your owne reason: He that descen­ded, is euen the same that ascended: But he ascended bodie & soule: Ergo, he descended into Hell bodie & soule: a thing that you haue not yet granted. Howe you will answere for your selfe, I leaue it to yourself. I haue answered sect. 5. for Beza and me: see there. We denie not the incarnation of Christ, you purge vs your self within fiue lines. Wherfore you might haue let Theoph. alone, if you had no more skill to proue thinges not denyed, then the things in question and controuerted.

HVME Sect. 10.

BVt to let you alone with your Hebrewe, these wordes of the Apostle, can no wayes be taken for Hell, as you beare vs in hand: But doth purport the same that Iohn tolde vs in other wordes.Iohn. 16. 28. I came from my Father into the world, and again. I leaue the world, and go to my Father. For, seeing the Apostle in this place bringeth his ascension, as an argument of his descending, which Iohn also did before him:Iohn 3. 13. No man can as­scend vp into heauen, but he that hath descended from hea­ven, the sonne of man which is in heauen. It must follow by necessarie consequence, that he descended thither whence he ascended. Now I trust you will say, that he ascended into heauen, not from Hell, but from Bethanie in the sight of his Disciples. Secondlie, if the place where he descended, was heauen, Hel can­not [Page 76] be the place, whither hee descended. For if euer he was there, he went not thither in 30. yeares, after his descension and aboue. If you will say, that he first descended into the earth, and then into Hell: then that descending could not be one motion, beeing so manie yeares intermitted: but must needes bee two; first from heauen into the earth, and then from the earth into Hell.

HIL his Reply.

VVHere you say,The Paralo­gismes in the D. reply. you will let mee alone with my Hebrue words, & yet deny they signifie hel, I hopeYou might rather haue dispared if the igno­rance, or wil­fulnes against conscience which you speak of, had not nestled in your own hat. because I haue proued, that they sig­nifie not the graue (as you haue ignorātly or against your conscience affirmed) at your next answering; You must hedge mee in harder, before you make me take that mire you will say they signifie hell, and confesse your disagreement with Dauid, Esay, and Ezechiel. Now you conclude with certaine pregnant reasons as And you might finde if you know a good reason frō an ill, whē you meete it in the way. you imagine:It is nei­ther first, last, nor anie rea­son at all, see the answere. your first is this: These words do purporte vnto vs, that which Iohn told vs in other words, I cam from my father into the world, and againe, I leaue the world and goe to my Father. Ioh. 16. 18.A fig is not more lyke a fig, then this place is Iyke the place, wee haue in hand. This is nothing pertaning to the matter we haue in handMy argument? that fooles bolt came neuer out of my quiuer. vnles this be your ar­gument. Christ came into the world, ergo, he went not into Hell. Heerof I thus argue.It is no wonder to see as ill shapen reasons as these, come off your blockes. Christ descen­ded into the virgins wombe (as your selfe say) ergo he came not into the world. Or thus. Christ descended into the world, ergo he descended not into the graue. Christ was borne of the virgin, & came into the world to reconcile vs to his Father by his death, taking a­way our sinnes, and triumphing in his owne person ouer death and hell.319 Therefore not only Christ [Page 81] came downe into the world, but as our body for sinne lyeth in the graue, so his body went into the graue: and because our soule was mancipate vnto hell, his soule went into hel, that by his discending our soules How is this geare proued. might bee freed from hell. In your next reason you say, that Christ descended thither, whence he a­scended: now that is meerely false, as appeerethThe fi­gure of Iona [...] maketh no­thing against mee, see the answere. Math. 12. 40. For as Ionas was in the whales belly 3 dayes and 3. nights, so shall the Sonne of man be 3. daies and 3. nightes in the hart of the earth. Now Christ ascended from the superficies of the earth, but he descended into the hart of the earth. Therefore as this is no good argument, Christ ascended from the mount,I did ne­uer spit such arguments: they dropped from your owne lips. ergo he ascended not from the graue, so this is also a weake argument. Christ ascended from the world, ergo he went not into hell:A sharpe srump: if you knew anie ill by Hume, I se you woulde barke with o­pen mouth, M. Hume lyeth in his bed, and early ariseth, afterward many seeing him he rideth towards Bromham, ergo M. Hume came from Bath and not from his bed. Then you adde this reason, if Christ descended into hell, then it was 30. yeeres after his birth, and so it was not one motion: you charge me with cloudes of sophistry,It is a weak eie, that cannot see the sunne through this mist: you are like him that could not see the wood for trees. but heer is a thick mist of sophistica­tions: what you meane by this motion, I know not [...] but all the actions of our Sauiour are aptly de­uided into humility and glory: of his humility there are 4. degrees. First he came into the virgins womb, By this distinction, he was not in the world, when he was in the Virgin [...] wombe, nor when he was in the graue, nor when he was in hell. secondly into the world: thirdly to the graue: fourthly, to hel. Of his glory and exaltation likewise there are foure degrees. First he came outThat must bee one, whosoeuer be the o­ther. of hell and the graue: secondly heA degree is an ascense from one step to another. His conversing on the earth was no ascense and therfore no degree at all. conuersed in the earth:This degree in the aire was not a step of his glorie, for he neither fastned his seete, nor made any abode there thirdly hee was carried in the aire in a [Page 82] cloud, and then entred the heauens with glory. Also where you say, that if hell were the place whyther he descended, it must needs be the place from whence he ascended.You say much, and prooue little. This as I haue saide before is vtterly false, if you meaneOne a­scension hath but one be­ginning cal­aed terminus a quo. the immediate place from whence he ascended, for it is known to all bele­uers, that Christ didThat pertaineth to his burial, not the descending that Paule speaketh of in this place. descend into the graue, but he did not ascend immediatlye from the graue,Not, but such eies as yours. therefore your reason is against the Scripture. wher you make a distinction betwene the resurrection and the ascention: you may vnderstande if it please you, that Eph. 4. 9. ThePatitio principij. that is the place we stand vpon. It maketh nothing for you, except we will grant you your will without reason. word (ascend) containeth in it al y• degrees of Christs exaltation, & therfore the re­surrection also: as the word descend doth comprehēd all the degrees of Christs humilitie.

HVME his Reioynder.

IT is as easie to holde an Eele by the taile, as you to the question. The place whereon wee stand, is in the 4. 9. to the Ephes. But that hee ascended, what is it, but that hee first descended into the lower-moste partes of the earth. Which wordes, most of the learned, and many of your owne favorites, takes to be, as if he had said, that the Sonne of God cloathed in mans nature is a­scended vp to heauen, what is it, but that the same Sonne of God, first came downe into the lower-most partes of the earth, and tooke on him mans nature: so that hee which descended, is euen the selfe same that is ascended to fulfill all things, and giueth nowe these gifts to men, to bee some Apostles, some Pro­phetes, some Evangelistes, &c. And so they take the lower-most parts of the earth not to be the center of the earth, in respect of his highest and extreame su­perficies: [Page 83] but the whole earth in respect of the heuens. Or, if you like not that (which notwithstanding is most receaued amongst the learned) the base estate that hee descended into, in respect of the high estate that he descended from. To ouerthrowe this inter­pretation, you alledge that the Hebrew wordes E­RETSTACHTITH, is in that language the proper name of Hell. To proue it, you alledge the places which I haue confuted in the former 2. sectiōs. After which labour,One motion hath but one beginning & one ending. Of contrarie motions (if the mouer be one) the be­ginning of the one, is the end of the o­ther: and con­trariwise the end of the one, is the be­ginning of the other. I gathered some reasons from the infallible rules of nature, to proue, that this place cannot ca­rie your sense. My grounds were, Ʋnius motus vnum est principium, vnus finis. And contrariorum motuum, v­nius res moventis, principium vnius est finis alterius, & con­tra. For example, East and West: South, and North: vp and downe, are contraries. If anie thing runne west-warde, and return east-ward: the furthest point that it runneth towards the west, is the beginning of the motion towards the east: or, if a man come down a high hill, and returne vp againe: The lowest steppe that he came downe, is the first step of his going vp. Whervpon thus I resoned. The beginning of Christs ascending, was the end of his descending. But his a­scending was from this earth, whereon we converse, Ergo, the end of this descending was onelie to this earth, whereon we conuerse, and not into hell, as you gather out of this place. My maior is proued by the second rule, because the mouer is one, Christ, & the motions contrarie, ascending and descending: The minor is proued Mark. 16. 19. Luke. 26. 51. Act. 1, 9. & by al the Symbols, or summes of our faith by the cō ­mon consent of all Divines, and the vsuall speach of all Christians, that euer was, or is. To this you an­swere, that the maior is vtterlie false, because Christ saith, Mat, 12. 40. At Ionas was three dayes and three nights in the whales bellie: so the sonne of man must be three [Page 84] dayes and three nights in the heart of the earth. Indeede, if the rule of nature were contrarie to this saying of Christ, I shoulde sooner yeelde, that nature might erre, then the Lord of nature lie. But Christ came neither to destroy the lawe giuen to his church, nor to the rest of his creatures, called the law of nature. Wherefore, this answere was not Doctor-like. If you had looked well about you, you might haue seene, that his beeing three daies, and three nights in the heart of the earth, pertaineth to his buriall, and not to his descending, more then his rysing again out of the hart of the earth, pertaineth to his ascension. For these are foure distinct things. His descending from heauen into his humane state: his burial, and laying vp in the heart of the earth after his death: his resur­rection, and returning againe from the heart of the earth into the state he was separated from by death. his ascending from the earth vp into heauen. I drew also another reason from the first principle, to prevēt an answere, that his descending might haue beene first from heauen into his humane state, and then out of his humane state into hell. It was this: if Christs descending from heauen did end in Hell, then it culd not bee one motion, being so manie yeares intermit­ted. But it was but one motion: Ergo, it ended not in Hell. To this you answere, that I, who charge you with cloudes of Sophistrie, do raise such mistes of So­phistications, that you cannot see in them, what I mean by this one motion. But there is not the cause. That the Owle cānot see in the light, the fault is not in the light, but in the eie of the owle. There is not a gnerall in Oxenford, that had spent a moneth in rea­ding Aristotles 5. and 6. bookes de natura, that would not haue knowne this argument. One descending, is but one motion. Paule speaketh heere but of one de­scension: Ergo, but of one motion. Your degrees of [Page 85] humiliation, are heere impertinent. Howe properlie they are distinguished, I referre it to the margent. You tell mee in the beginning, that my first reason was from the place of Iohn, I came from my Father in­to the worlde, &c. Now sillie man, I pitie your simplici­tie. That is no reason at all. But seeing I was to ap­ply naturall reason to this text: I brought that place to proue, that I made no private sens of these words, Which course, if you would follow, your wrangling would soone weare to an end. But you say, that that place doeth little or nothing pertaine to this place, that heere wee haue in hand. A fig is not liker a fig then that is like this. That hee descended, and that he came from the Father: that he ascended, and that hee went to his Father are so like, that though you put on your spectacles, you will not finde a haire be­tweene them. The argument that you frame heere for mee, and the two absurd similies framed on the same block, let them bee buried in the brain, that bred them. That is the fittest coffen, I know, for such rotten stuffe. Wherefore, to conclude this disputa­tion about these wordes, seeing neither your exam­ples in the former section, wil fit your hand, nor this place tolerate your absurde sense: I muste put you in minde, of Chippenhames pulpite. There be manie god­lie soules, that would be glad to see you so honest, as to performe the worde, that you passed there before them.

HVME his 11. Sect.

YOur next argument is taken from the wordes of our Sauiour to Marie Magdalene, forbidding her to touche him, because he had not yet bene with his Father. Whervpon you gather, seing the whole man is said to be wher the soule is, that Christs soule [Page 86] had not beene in heaven, because he himself had not beene there. It is a wonder, if a man of your learning seeth not so manifest a fallacie. For, though by a fi­gure a man may well say, that the whole is, where there is but a part: yet it followeth not where the whole is not, that there is no parte. An argu­ment you knowe, a tot [...] divise ad negationem omnium partium, was neuer current amongst the learned. For example. The whole race of mankind is not in Eng­land: Ergo, there is no men there: O [...] Edmond Cam­pion hangeth not ouer New-gate: Ergo, no parte of him hangeth there. Like to this is your reason. The whole man Christ was not in heauen, Ergo, his soule was not there. That these wordes of Christ were meant of the whole, it is apparant by the text. For, that which had not yet been with his Father, was the same that Marie was forbid to touch. That I beleeue you will not say, was his soule, which is not subject to feeling, but the whole man consisting of soule & bodie. Wherefore it was the whole man that Christ tolde Marie was not with his Father.

HIL his Reply.

MY next place was not this,The paralogis­ [...]nes of this sect but a text out of Sy­rac. 17. 21. At the last shall he arise and reward them, and shall repay their reward upon their heads, and shall turne them into the lower partes of the earth. That note is against your self, read and see. If the margin is noted Math. 25. 35. That note sheweth this place to be spoken of them that gi­ueth bread to the hungrie, drinke to the thirstie, &c. So that this place sheweth that after iudge­ment, The verse you referre vs to in Math. spea­keth of the mercifull, not of the wicked. the wicked shal be turned into the lower parts of the earth, that is hell.You are much deceaued. This place, be­cause you nor yourWhat synode is that: I was neuer of anie synode, nor worthie to rule a synode. Sinod can answere, you [Page 87] haue passed it ouer and saide nothing to it, but are now com to your scholepoints, the which when I vse Vntruth see the aun­swere. you call sophistry: and so it were indeed if I did vse them▪ Wordes. as you doe. You say an argument drawen negatiuely from the whole to the parts doth not hold. True it is if by (parts) you meane integral parts,It is trew of all parts y• can consiste after separatiō but not essentiall parts. My instance was thus, Math. 8, 11. Many shal come from the East and the West, and shal rest with Abraham, Isaac, & Iacob in the kingdom of heauen. Out of this place I proue that where the soule of man is after death,But if you will proue the thing you vn­dertake to proue; you must proue, that wher the soule is not, the mā is not. there is the mā said to be, as we vsually say that these Pa­triarks and all the saints are in heauen, though their bodies be in the earth and are dust and ashes. If then the soule of Christ were in heauen vntill his resurre­ction, That fol­lowes not. then could not these words of Christ bee true, Iohn. 20. 17. Touch me not, for Heer M. D. will cor­rect magnificat It is in the En­glish Bibles, I am not yet a­scended, and that he thinks not to be of the praeter-perfect tense, and therefore he mends it, I haue not, &c. This had ben well found of a boy in his accidents: but a D. shuld haue knowne that amatus sum is the preter-perfect time as well as amatus fui. I haue not yet ascended vnto my father, for it is the preter-perfect tense [...]. Therefore as this is vntrue, to say that Abraham is not in heauen,I know no man saith so. because his body was not in heauen: so this is false to say, Nor that, and (therfore) these two are [...]. Christ was not in heauen, because his body was not in heauen. [...]. Our body is gouerned by the soule, and man taketh his appellation of a reasonable creature not of the body but of the soule:You had need of a cable to binde this therefore to the premis [...]es. and therefore if Christs soule went vp to heauen as you say, this cannot be true (I haue not yet ascended to my father) Besides if Christs soule went first to hea­uen, and afterward his soule and body togither,It will not follow, see the answere. then were there 2. ascensions: proue this, and I will geue you the goale.I brought examples of my own general maximes: I dallied not with your argumēt. You dally also with my argument in this manner, The whole race of mankind [Page 88] is not in England: ergo, there is no men in England. I neuer thought, it see the answere. Do you think there is no more union betwixt Christ and his soule, then betwene all the men of the world? It will neuer follow by this reason, then by this reason the body and the soule of Christ were neuer vnited together. Your next resem­blance is this. Edmund Campions whole body is not ouer Newgate, Ergo, no part of him.That is a foule name. Heere is a foule error to thinke Christs soule to beAs good Logicians as D. Hill, Ramus and al his fol­lowers thinke the soule to be an integrall parte. Partes integrisunt partes integra­les, anima & corpus sunt par­tes integri scili cet hominis: Er go anima & corpus sunt par [...]es integrales hominis. an integralI know nor what you mean by a di­visible part. If a part, that may consist being deui­ded from the whole, I hope you will con­fesse the soule to be such. or diuisible part, which is ane essential orThis is a new terme of arte. indiuisible: for by your reason,Not so, see the answere. Christs soule is mortal, & may perish, as the integral parts of Campiō doth.No errour at all, see the aun­swere. You vtter also an other error in these words (the whol man Christ)The man alone, you would say. for the whol man doth not make Christ, but God, and man as you may see in Athanasius Creede:This proof needed not. As the reason­able soule, and flesh is one man, So god and man is one Christ. I will ende therefore, with this saying of Irynaeus who liued vnder Marcus Antonius in the yeare of our Lord god 125, whichIf you could follow the question, all the proofes in this section should bend to make your assertion good, that this saying of Christ to Marie, Ioh. 20. doth proue that his soule had not beene in heauen, when he was risen againe. thus proueth the descending of Christ into hell. For the writing a­gainst Heretiques, that said, hel, was in this world (as many doo now a dayes) thus reproueth them in his fift book and last chapter,Parergon. As Ionas taried in the whales belly three dayes and three nights, so shall the Sonne of man bee in the hart of the earth. And the Apostle saith, what is it that he ascended, but that he first descended into the lowest partes of the earth; and Dauid prophecying of this, sayd: Thou hast deliuered my soule from the nethermost hel: and rising again the third day, he sayd to Mary, which he sawe first, and worshipped him: Touch me not, for [Page 89] I haue not yet asscended to my Father, but go to my Disciples and tel them, I will go to my Father and to your Father. If then the Lord keep the lawBy this it appeareth that Irenaeus speakerh not of the hell of the damned, but of the state of the dead. of the dead, that he might be the first begotten of the dead, how are they ashamed that say, hell is in this world. Thus you see it is no strange thing to see this scripture alleadged to proue that Christs soule was not in heauen, vntil his visible and glorious ascenti­on. Irenaeus a man of more learning and iudgement then I am of, alleaged it to the same end aboue 1300. years ago, and then it was accompted a currant ar­gument among the learned.

HVME his reioynder to the 11. sect

HEere before you will buckle with this section, you thrust for-ward your invincible Goliah, (as you suppose) and will haue him make an end of this battell. You say, that neither I, nor anie of my freends dare meet him. You thought so, because a­mongst all his fellowes, I mist him onelie. But you are deceaued of his valour. He hid himself amongst the slaine heapes of his fellowes. If I had seene his creast, I had seauen stones in a scrip, the least wherof was big in [...]gh, to beat his braine through his hel­met. The place is in the 17. of Eccles. I neede not re­peat the wordes. First, I could haue tolde you, that the booke is not Canonicall. Secondlie, that it was not written in the tongue, on the property whereof you build your argument. Thirdly, that these words (the lowermost parts of the earth) be not in the ori­ginall, wherein this book was first written: and ther­fore haue gotten Tom Drummes intertainment by the Geneua translatours, lunius, Vatablus and divers others. Fourthlie, that though it had pleased Iesus the sonne of Syrach, to cal Hell by that name: it will [Page 90] not follow, that all other men did vse the worde so. Fiftly, that you could finde those words in that sense in some place of the Canonicall Scriptures (which indeede you cannot) it will not follow, that wherso­euer wee meete with them, they must haue the same signification: except the necessarie circumstances doe approue, or inforce it. Sixtlie, that seeing that place is spoken of the mercifull, & them whose good deedes the Lord doth keep, as the aple of his eie: it were a bad reward for men, whose good deedes are so precious in the Lordes eies, to bee casten into the dungeon of Hell. Seventhlie and lastlie, that seeing the common translator, who foisteth in those words doth make it the reward of euery man, to be cast in­to the lowermost parts of the earth: it wil passe your skill to proue, that euerie man shall be cast into hel. The note in the margent of the 25. 35. of Math. hel­peth not you: but prooueth the contrarie, that this place pertaineth to them, that giue meat to the hun­grie, drinke to the thirstie, and clothes to the naked &c. Thus you may see, that this champion, is not so strong as you take him, and that the note in the margent, whosoeuer made it, helpeth you like ale in your shoes. You tell mee, that nowe I am come to my schoole-points, which in you I called Sophistrie. The true maximes and rules of art, sucked out of the marrowes of nature, I neuer called Sophistrie in you nor no man else. Your shrimpish reasons, set out in the painted coates of blased words, and confidentlie commended to the beholders, without al bounds of modestie: I haue called them, what I haue called them, and not so ill, as they deserue. My rule which you say were sophistrie, if you vsed it, as I doe, you confesse it to be true in integrall parts. Nowe say I, the soule and the bodie be integrall parts of a man:Heer I follow Ramus. Ergo, by your owne confession, my rule is true of the [Page 91] soule and the bodie. But if you had taken my max­ime right, you should haue found it hold in all parts whatsoeuer. For I meant that a particular negatiue of the whole, is not good to bring in a negatiue of a­nie particular part. All Campion hangeth, not ouer New-gate, importeth that some part of him, hāgeth there. And all men bee not in England, importeth that there be some men there: which bee particular negatiues, expressed in generall tearmes, as non omris and nonnullns bee in Latine. Thus much for the aun­swere, that you deale with. You left another answere which I will heere set against your argument in his best liuery. If the man is said to be (say you) wher the soule is, then where the man is not, the soule is not: But the man is saide to bee, where the soule is: Ergo, where the man is not, the soule is not. First, (say I) the maior is not true. For though the man may bee said to bee where the soule is, by a Synecdoche: yet it will not follow, that where the man is not, the soule is not. Because this speach is simple, and that is figu­ratiue. In a good argument, the wordes must carie one face, not heere one, and there another. To ex­amplifie this with your owne examples out of Math 8. Manie shall rest with Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, in the kingdome of heauen. Abraham, Isaac, and Ia­cob are said to be in heauen by a figure, becaus their soules are there. But if you will take the words sim­plie, and conclude; because Abraham (that is the whole man) is not in heauen: therefore his soule is not there: euerie carter will finde the absurditie of your fallacie. This for my first reply. Now I add that you flee from the wordes of the text. For Christ said not to Marie, I haue not beene with my Father, but I am not yet ascended to my Father: which wordes will admit no forme to carie your conclusion, turne them, and winde them as you list. For the Scripture [Page 92] denieth in plaine words, that the name of ascension can be giuen to the soule. I hope you will grant that Dauids soule is in heauen: and yet of him it is saide, Act. 2. 34. David is not ascended. This wypeth also away, your other objection of two ascensions. For, that name was neuer yet giuen to a man, in respect of the soule. And therefore, I will haue the goale, though you stand in it. You wring out of my exam­ples of the whole race of mankind, & Campions bodie, two absurdities. The one, that I hold no greater vni­on betweene Christs soule, and his bodie, then al the men in the world. The other, that I holde the soule of Christ, to bee mortall: because I compare it to an integral part of Campions body. Why M. Doctor, haue you (now you are Doctored) forgot the olde speach of the Schooles, when you were a generall? Quae com­parantur in vno, non comparantur in omnibus? Things cō ­pared in one thing, are not like in all things. You may bee like your Father, and yet perhappes your Father coulde not wrangle in this matter, like your selfe. And the Cuckow singeth onelie in the spring, like the Nightingall, though in melodie and variety of notes, there bee no likelie-hood at all. An argu­ment taken indefinitly from the manhood of Christ to his soule and his bodie, parts thereof: is no better then from the race of mankinde, to euerie particular man, or from the bodie of the traitour Campion, to the parts thereof. And yet if you regarde the vnion of the soule & body, or the immortality of the soule: there is no more comparison, then betweene your spirit and your Fathers, if it was righter, or the Cuc­kowes song and the Nightingals beeing far sweeter. Lastlie, you tel mee, that I vtter a great error in these wordes: the whole man Christ. Indeede, if I had said man the whole Christ, I had perchance opened my head to this venew. But now I am faster locked, then [Page 93] that you can fasten anie blowes vpon mee, with the best weapons in your armorie. For seeing the worde of truth, doeth call Christ a man so manie times: I am perswaded, it wil not proue so foule an errour to cal the whole man Christ, except you can proue that some part of him was Christ, and not the whole. The testimonie of Athanasius to confute this errour, toucheth not mee. The conclusion out of Irenaeus (though it might haue a favourable construction) I leaue it amongst the judgements of men, which you haue promised not to trust, sect. 3.

HVME Sect. 12.

NOwe let vs come to the great bulwark of your defense, which you made choise of to raze the whole worke vpon, I meane to bee the text of your sermon. It is written in the first of Pet, 3. That Christ was put to death in the flesh, and was quickened in the spirit, By the which spirit, he went and preached to the spirites that are in prison, and were disobedients in the dayes of Noah, &c Heere Beza whome we follow (because he commeth nearest to the true sense of the Apostle) by this word Spirit, doth giue vs to vnderstand the Deity of Christ following Iohn who called God a Spirit: and by this word (flesh) his māhood: containing both his body and soule, as hee findeth it vsed of Paule: God was made manifest in the fleshe. Which Antithesis of the divine and humane nature, Paule doeth also expresse in the same wordes, which was made of the seede of Dauid according to the fleshe: and declared mighte­lie to bee the sonne of God, according to the Spirit. Where you see, that he vseth the words no otherwise then he findeth them vsed in the Scriptures. Now, that this cānot be the sense of them you reason thus First, say you this Participle [...], doeth signifie [Page 94] some motion from some place, & can by no meanes agree with the diuine essence, which beeing at one time in all places, cānot at anie time leaue any place To this I answere: that it is spoken of the same spirit in the 18. of Gen. I will go downe and see, whether the Sodomites haue done according to the crie that is come vnto mee. And in Exod. 3. I am come to de­liuer them out of the hands of the Aegyptians. You can not bee ignorant M. Hill: that the spirit of God speketh so manie times of the Deity by a figure, cal­led Anthropopatheia, when God doth declare his pre­sence in one place more thē in another, by some no­table effect. Which in this place was most necessary, to note vnto vs the cōtinual presence of Christ in his church, departing (as it were) from all other places (which indeede hee cannot) and sitting in it, as it were a continual ruler and moderator therof. Next, you alledge the other participle, [...] (that is, quickened) that because it is a passiue, it can not stand with the Deitie, which cannot suffer at al. This we denie not. For we attribute not this participle to the Deitie, but to the whole Christ, God and man. Neither doth the text say, that the spirit was quick­ned, but that Christ was quickened in the Spirit. Thirdlie, you tel mee that mortified and quickened are contraries, & both attributed to Christ at once, to note vnto vs, that he was both dead and aliue at one instant. Heere we confesse, that they be attribu­ted to one Christ: but why they shold be referred to one time, wee see no reason to induce vs to think it. To this end you ad, that the Apostle doth shewe vs how he was dead, and how he was aliue, by adding dead flesh, and quickened spirit. The verie text (as I take it) will denie you this: for it hath not, that the spirit was quickened, and the fleshe killed: but that Christ was killed in the fleshe, and quickened in the [Page 95] spirit: which is all one, as if he had said, that the suf­fered death as he was man, and ouercame death as he was God. And this Paull doeth speake in other wordes, that he was crucified in his infirmities: yet liveth he through the power of God. Fourthlie, you say that the Scripture doeth joine this his going and preaching, close to his passion: As if it had said: As soon as he had suffered, he went and preached. This (as if) includeth no necessarie matter. We expect de­monstration, and wil not be caried with (as) and (if) Fiftlie, you argue out of the 6. of Genesis, that the preaching of Noah, is attributed to the third person of the Deitie, and not to the second. The wordes be these, My Spirit shall not alwaies striue with man, be­cause he is but flesh. Which wordes fewe (or rather) no interpreters, that euer I saw, expound as you doe of the third person of the Deitie. Tremelius and Iuni­ns, whose great panies, learning, and judgement, all sinceare hearts do reuerence, expound them thus. I will not long dispute with my self (saieth the Lorde) what to doe with these men: for my sentence shall stand, that except they spedelie repent, I wil destroy them. Neither maketh it much against vs, though it were as you would haue it. For, seeing the actions of the Deitie are cōmon to all the three persons, he er­reth not that giueth thē to any of the three. So doth the scripturs in many places attribute the resurrectiō of Christ, sometimes to the Father, somtimes to the sonne, and sometimes to the Spirit of sanctification. And Christ himselfe telleth vs, that whatsoeuer the Father doth, the same he doeth also. After this you object that [...] & [...], that is, disobedient, & some-time, doth separate the time of their disobe­dience, and his preaching. But heere I must put you in minde, that [...] and [...], that is, went disobedient & preached, be all of one tense [Page 96] in the Greeke, and must needes be referred to one time, so that hee went, and preached to them euen then, when they were disobedient. And this the word (disobedient) doth confirme. For, to whome I pray you, were they disobedient? but to the spirit that preached to them. As for the adverbe (sometime) it is not set heere to separate words of one time: but to distinguish the time of their inprisonment, which was present, from the daies of their rebellion, which was past in the dayes of Noah, when the long patiēce of the Lord, exspected their amendement. Whereas you argue, that this cannot bee spoken of Noah his preaching, because he preached to men, and not to Spirits: I am perswaded that no man can preache to men, and not to their Spirites: because hee that tea­cheth a man, instructeth his Spirit, which is his rea­sonable soule. And yet heere you may marke (if it please you) that there be two things heere spoken of, preching & prison: the on pertayning to these spirits when they were men with spirits: the other now, that they are onelie spirits: and that therfore the Apostle did discreetlie choose the name spirit, which is com­mon to both these tymes. Lastlie, you charge this construction with violēce: for that we take the word (spirit) in one place, for the Deitie of Christ, and streight way againe, for the spirits of men in prison. I hope you will not denie, but that the word is vsuall in both significations, & that it is no wrong, to giue words their own significations, when the drifts and circumstances of the place doth requyre them. Hi­therto, I haue dealt with your objections against Be­za. Nowe I will proue with vnfallible reasons, that your sense, cannot stand with this text. You take the word (flesh) onlie for the bodie of Christ, which died and was buried: and the word (spirit) for his humane soule, which you beare vs in hand, did descend into [Page 97] hell, and did preach there to the soules that had ben disobedient, and rebellious in the dayes of Noab. If this your conceit shall go for current: that which the Apostle speaketh heere of Christ, may be verified as well of anie other man. For when we die, our soules die no more then his did. But let vs look a little nea­rer the matter. The spirit heere, (as it appeareth by the text) doeth signifie that which gaue life to that that was dead. That (I trust) was not his humane soule, but his deuine and heauenlie spirit. Thirdlie, in this Participle (mortified) is comprised death, which giuen to Christ, is neuer taken in al the Scrip­tures, for the temporal death of his bodie onlie: but whatsoeuer Christ suffered, either in soule or bodie, for the redemption of our soules and our bodies, & doth compryse his whole passion. Which, (if it bee true) then the word (flesh) must be the whole subject of all this passion: that is, both his soule and body, or the whole man Christ. For hee suffered as well in soule for our soules, as in bodie for our bodies, or else he had beene but half a Redeemer. Fourthlie, seeing his bodie was quickned, that is, restored from the graue, as well as his soule from hell: If you take (spirit) heer for his humane soule: then shal you con­found those things, that the Apostle doth distinguish attributing that to the soule alone, which is commō both to the soule and the bodie. Fiftlie, seing (quik­ned) is to receaue life, either which it neuer had, or els had lost: the soule cannot be said to be quickned because, it neuer lost life, after that it once liued with the bodie. Heere you tell vs, that quickened is to be deliuered from miseries and sorrowes. Howe the English word may be taken, I leaue it to the dis­cretion of the discreete and indifferent reader: But sure I am, it will proue a hard thing to finde that sig­nification, either in the Latine word viuificari, or the [Page 98] greeke word Zoopoteisthas, which bee so mixed with life, that if they signifie deliuerie from miseries, then life it self must signifie miseries and sorrowes, which, (though they follow on it) are neuer signified by it. If this deuise may stand, you wil ouerthrow the An­tithesis betweene dead and quickened. For, if quick­ned doth not signifie a restitution to life, what con­trariety hath it with mortefied or dead, which signi­fieth the extinguishing of life. Sixtlie, (spirit) doeth heere signifie that, which was free from death, and the violence of his enemies: This (I hope) you will not say, was his humane soule, wherein hee suffered the death of the soule: that is, the torments of Hell, as well as in bodie, the death of the bodie. Seuinth­lie, the soule of Christ could not preach, beeing de­stitute of a tongue, mouth, and other organes of ne­cessitie required in that action. Eightlie, to what end shuld Christ preach to those damned soules, who were past the frute of his preaching? that which you say, that he went to reproue them, is not liklie. For mē are reproued, either for amendement, or to take away excuses, which to these was needlesse, beeing past all remedie, and excuse. Ninthlie, this prea­ching was then, when their dis-obedience was re­form-able, which was in the dayes of Noah, and ne­uer since. Add to these (if it please you,) that moste infallible reason of Bezaes, taken from the drift and scope of the text: to whose notes I referre you, being not able to handle it so well, as hee hath done it himself.

HIL his Reply.

HEere you play the Captaine, and will beate down bulwarks, and therefore you should haue these 4. properties in you: vertue, knowledge, autho­rity and felicity, for the first two they are in you (God [Page 99] Such a word out of your mouth, might haue lifted vp my hart: if you had not said section the 7. that I wanted either science or conscience or both: How­soeuer your wordes agree I hope I was the same, whē you wrot that & when you wrote this. grant you vse thē to his glory) but what autho­rity you haue to interpret the word I knowThen I will tell you. the same, that all Christians haue to know God, & de­fend his truth not,The Paralo­gismes in the D. reply. therefore in this case (IIf my cō ­mission be warrantable this hope may hoppe. hope) you shall haue no felicitie. Where you say, that this word (spirit) doth signifie the deity: and this word (flesh) the humanity of Christ, and that there is an antithesis betwene the diuine & humane nature. I confesse y• (spirit) some time doeth signifie the Godhead, and (fleshe) the hu­manity of Christ. But they doo not so signifie in this place:Heere you promise to proue. as I proue by the circumstances of the text and the woords them selues.And heere you fall to confute: so soone you haue forgot your self. For where you say [...]; killed or put to death,You alter the conclusion: I said that the Scriptures neuer giueth death to Christ, but for his whole passion: which thing you should confute, if you could answere mee. doth sig­nifie the whole passion of Christ,Still you change the question: though quickned went necessarilie before his resurrection, I neuer said, that it signifieth it. [...] signifieth the resurrection ofI brought reason for the things I said: and you answere al, with that cannot be. Christ, that can note be:See the answere in the rejoynder. for of the passion of Christ is mention made before in the same 18. verse, Christ suffered for vs, the just for the vnjust, to bring vs to God. Now af­ter his sufferings ended,If you can proue that Peter said so, I will proue that he was like an Irish man, that comming out of a battell, boasted that hee had killed fiue men in the feet, that wanted the heads before he came at them. as Peter saith, he was both killed and made aliue.What then Now of his resur­rection is mention made in the 21. verse, as of his as­cention in the 22. verse. Therfore, seeing the suffe­rings of Christ are mentioned before: and his resur­rection is namelye set downe after:Is there no thing els to apply these things to? or is no repetition tollerable? whereof can these words he vnderstood, but of the seperation of the body and the soule, and of the state of them du­ring their seperation,How doth this (for) proue anie of these things that you haue said. for an antithesis as you [Page 100] know is of contrary,378 Betwene these two * markes ther is a most dis [...]r­de [...]ed hyper­balon, of ma­nie wordes, & not two lines together di­rected to one purpose. or diuers things, as in this place you see, in (killed and quickned.) now how both these were true at on time,Peter sheweth not. S. Peter doth shew, for at theThis is foisted in the text. same time, he was dead as concerning his body, he was aliue in spirit, that is in soule:That pro [...] ­veth not that spirit is the soule heere. for the soule seperate from the body, is aptly called a spirite. Eccle. 12. 7. And dust returne to earth as it was, and the spirite returne to God that gaue it. So is it taken, Heb. 12. 23. Act. 7. 49. andYou beg the question. so doth this woord signifie in this place:He suffe­red the death of both. You leaue the word of the text (morti­fied) and cho­ses a word, that taketh a­way the duble death which he suffered this is pelting with the text. for Christ was not killed both in body and soule, but only in body and in flesh:True, but who saith so. for if the soule of Christ had bene killed, then had it bene mortall. Therefore Athanasius, Epi­phanius, and all the Fathers, which did confute the Heretiques called Damoerite and Appolinaris, which denyed Christ to haue a soule, do cōfute them by this place, prouing that his spirite was among the spirits, that his soule seperate from his body,And wer all the soules separated from their bodies in the hell of the damned: that he could not bee a­mongst such soules but in hell. was a­mong the soules seperate from their bodies. This in­terpretation, you,Truelie, I see it not. see is gathered out of Gods woord, & is made more manifest byI see not that, neither. the wordes following: [...], which we translate. In which sprite he went and prea­ched to the [...] implyerh the Participle [...], & cannot stand without it. Wherfore if you had cast an eie that way, you would haue translated it, that nowe are in prison. spirits in prison, You dream, we translat it not (by the which) First you translate [...] by the which. But in the 1. pet. 16 you do not so translate it, nor in the 2. Chap. and 12. ver. the same woorde [...] are Eph. 1. 13. 2. 22. 5. 18.And you did, you wold lose your labour. and so could I cite at the least, an hundreth texts in the new Testament, where if you translat [...] by the which, or by whome, you shall ouerthrow the mea­ning of the holy ghost. The next word construing, is [Page 101] [...] w [...]ich as I haue saide beforeYou said th [...]t no verb of motion could be givē to the Deitie, fol. 11 pag. 2. That I hope you are gone from. Now you haue no reason, why this word cā ­not pertaine to the Deitie, but because it cannot per­taine to the Deitie, which is as if a man would fay, D. H. could not get a Bishop­rick, because D. H. coulde not get a Bi­shopricke. so I a­uouche still, is spoken no [...] of the deity neuer in all the Scriptures,That is not of neces­sitie neither. and therefore must needes be spo­ken of the soul of Christ. To con [...]ute this, you alleadg Gen. 18. 21. Exod. 3. 8. First, I must tell you these bookes were writtenAre they the fitter for that, to speak improperlie of God. in the Hebrewe tong and not in the Ere [...]ke, I craued an instant out of theWhy mā, is the old te­stament Apo­crypha with you: you are a nice man. new Testament. Secondly, in those places that you haue named y• interpreters do trāslate Iarad by y• greek wordKatabaino and erchoma [...] be verbs of mo [...]iō, as well as poreuomai. [...], norEltho I neuer red nor you neither in the present tense. [...], & not by [...]. And this I proue, Iohn, 16. 7. [...]. How can this place proue that? Iohn translateth not IARAD heere. For if I shall not depart the comforter wil not come vnto you, but if I shal de­part, I will send him vnto you. Heere you see when he speketh of the descending of the deity, he vseth y• word 368 [...],398. Eleutho is out of vse. You shame your self. but when he speaketh of the humanitie [...].This place proueth your translating of IARAD, as the other doth. And heere you may mark that erches [...]ai is spoken of the manhood­as well as poreuesthai. and so by your reason, erchesthai cannot pertaine to the Dei tie, more then poreuesthai. And in the same chapter verse the 28. [...]. I came out from the Father and cam into the world: againe, I leaue the world▪ and goe to my father. Proprietie of speach: allace sillie man, see the answer And this proprietie of speach which the holy ghost vseth, ought to be obserued. I confesse the scriptures vseth the figure Anthropopatheia A vaine dreame. but when God is said to come downe, there is vsed the verb [...], or some one of the forenamed, and when mention is made of [...], it is alwaies spoken of the humanitieDoth anie of these places affirme your assertion? [Page 102] as it is to be seen Luk. 4. 30. 9. 51. 52. 56. 57. Luk. 13. 22. Ioh. 8. 1. And in this place of Peter, the last verse, is vsed the same word [...] He went vp in­to heauen. I haue quoted 8. and could h [...]ue quoted 20. see the answere. But with what face can you challenge a place of me, that is so v­sed, when you cā bring nei­ther reason nor place to the contrarie. Therfore, if you can quote but one text in the new Testament, that [...] is figura­tiuely applied to the deitie, your interpretation may wil it but seem tollera­ble, when I haue done? then it is bet­ter alreadie, for now it is a known truth. seeme tolerable: but if yon can not (as I knowe Your knowledge was but a ges, and I haue be guiled you. it is impossible) then can you neuer proue your interpretation toI haue proued it both agreable and necessary which I nee­ded not. I stand at de­fence. It was your part to proue, which you cannot do, if you had 7. wits as good as your owne. be agreaeble to faith, because it is not agreable to y• word. Out of the next word [...] this I note: he that was killedWare sheep, that is against the text: that wherein he was mortified preached not. and quick­ned, did preach: but Christ was killed and quickned, ergo, Christ, &Christ, and not this Deitie? If I had saide so, you woulde haue exclaimed vpon igno­rance. not the deitie preched. He preched not vocally, for he wasI hope the soule wherin you say he preached, was not killed. killed, ergo, he preached I neuer heard a reall sermon, without words. really in soule: for here is noted. First, who prea­ched? Christ, To whom? to the spirits. Where?That is out of the text. in hell. When?So is that also petitio principij twise together. after his death, and before his resurrection.You beg the question againe. This is the order of Peter, and of our Creede, which cannot bee by man ouerthrowen. The word [...], that is spirits also, is not as you take it,Where, when, and to whome said I so. for you say it signifieth the men in No­ahs time, but you can not bring one scripture to proue it.It followes not. Therfore, I say as I said before, it signifieth soules seperated from the body. That my exposition is true, I haue prooued by three Scriptures. Ecles- 12. 7.These scriptures proues it not. Heb. 12. 23, Act. 7, 59. Now, as mine is true, so willYou dreame, that is not mine. I proue yours to be false & impos­sible by Christs owne words. Luke. 24, 59. where our Sauiour, to proue himselfe to bee noe ghoste, but to [Page 103] haue a true body after his resurrection, thus reaso­neth: Behold my hands & my feet, that I am the same handle me, for a spirit hath no flesh and bones as yee see me haue. This was Christs argument, I haue a body, therefore I am not a spirit,You fight with your own shadow. and so I rea­son against you and your teachers. The men in No­ahs timeThat [...]ol­lowes not A man may say as well D. Hill is a wrang­ling spirit, as he calleth his aduersaries phantasticall spirits fol. 24. of his sermon and yet both he and they haue bodies. had bodies, ergo, they could not be cal­led spirits,you shuld hane left this to the boyes in Oxford: it is heere a de­formed patch Euery boy can tel you in Oxford, that substantia is deuided into corpus and spiritum, and that one of these opposite species can not be affirmed of an­other. And therfore, to be short, when you can proue out ofYou do well to holde you in that corner, but I hope you will refuse not the Canonical scripture, for al this. the new Testament, that [...] that is, iournying, is spoken figuratiuely of the deity, or Pneuma that is spirit, signifieth a man y• hath a body. Then I see it bootles to hope for your promise. I will giue you the goale, but if you will runne on this course, vntill you haue prouedA narrow shift. these 2. points (which you must doo, if you will haue me to recant) then take heede least you run your selfe out of breath. Lastly, the word Phylake, that is, prison, doth signify hel, as it is to be seneThe thing is true: your proof is naught like al the rest. Apoc. 20. 7. When a thousand yeeres shall be fulfilled, Satan shall be lo­sed out of his prison. Thus thou seest (good reader) howHand-somlie: in good sadnesse D. you cannot tell howe to settle your self to proue anie thing. I haue proued my interpretatiō out of the word of God for euery word, whichBlush for shame, se the answere our aduer­saries can not doo for their interpretation: therfore, thou maistVpon your vnsure gesse? he were mad then. safely assure thy self, ours to be good and theirs to be false. And that this word prison doth signify hell, you may see Epiphanius, Athanasius, Fulgen­tins centuria 1. lib. 2. cap. 14. Peter Martyr on the Crede Nowell in his Catechisme, Beacon in the sick mans salue, Crowlev in his answer to the reasons of Pound the Papist: All theseFirst you say that they take prison f [...]r hell: & you con­clude, that they al alle [...]dge this place as you do: your pen runnes at random old and new writers, haue [Page 104] alleadged this Scripture as I haue done, with good Their consc [...]ence I hope, was bet­t [...]r then their warrant warrant and conscience. Now that I haue pro­ued this my owne interpretation, I will (by Gods grace) proue your answereYou haue promi­sed that once alreadie. to be friuolous. First youIt was ne­uer denied: what needs a confession in a known case confesse, that killed and quickned are Par­ticiples of one tense, and yet you say, they are not referred to Christ at one time, this is meerlye false, as I thus proue: Christ was after his passion dead & aliue, or neuer; if he were neuer dead and aliue at one time, thenNow for your credites sake, tell me wher Pet. saith that hee was dead & aliue at one time. Peter saith not truly, if he were dead and aliue at on time then you speak falsely. Now you For sham M. D. speake truth. your selfe confessed that he was dead and aliue at on time alittle before, and proued it out of the 2. Cor. 13. 4. He was crucified concerning his infirmity, yet liueth hee by the power of God. A tauta­logie. Heere by your own woords, Christ was aliue when he was But not when he was dead. crucified: so mayYou will say that with Peter, which Peter neuer said. I say wt Pet. he was aliue when he was dead, & at one time, Then you say, the (flesh) signifieth the manhode, and (spirite) the deitye: this also is vntrue, for the body may beThis word expres­seth not the Greeke thana totheis. killed, but theAnd yet the whole mā may be morti­fied. soule can not. Again, shew me any Scripture whereSee the answere. on and the sam word in on sentence and period, is taken for diuers things: for in this sen­tence, In which spirite, hee went and preached to the spirits that ar in prison, Heer the word (spirit) in the beginning of the sentence signifieth the deity, in the latter end, the same woord signifieth theNot so, but the spirits that now are in prison, men that liued in Noahs time by your interpretation: but by my interpretation, it signifieth the soule seperate from the body in both places. For as Cirill saith, as Christ was with the liuing in body and soule, so to shew himselfe a true man, his body was among the dead bodies, and his soule amongAnd so it was but not in hell the soules, Then you auouch the preching of Noah, is attributed [Page 105] to the whole Trinity, be it so, but can you proue that Christ after he was killed did prech in Noah, for this How proue you that? preaching was after Chri [...]s death,The death and re­surrection of Christ, & his preaching in the dayes of Noah, ar heer mentioned obiter, and as occasions led them in, & expresseth not the order, when they were done. If this reasoning be good, the passion in the beginning of the 4 cap. fol­lowing the ascension, ex­pressed in the last verse of the third. which is mentioned in the 18. verse, and before his resur­rection, which is spoken of in the 21. verse. You goe forward and tell mee, that pote, doth not determine the Participle apeithesasi that is, disobedient: but ekeryxen that is, preached. I must tell you plaine you speak neither like a Deuine, nor a Gramarian. For But most commonlie with a verbe. an Aduerb is some time put to a Participle, as Math. 2. 7. Tote erodes lathra kalesas tous magous. Then Herod calling priuilye the wise men. Sometime to a NouneThis is like salue Do­mine, I am glade to see you wel. M. D. begins w [...]th greek out of the new Testament and ends in latine out of the English accidents. as homo egregie impudens. Somtime to an Aduerb as parum honeste se gerit. Therfore the Aduerb pote, commingEuerie aduerb affecteth not the word it standeth by. after apeithesasi, next & immedi­atly, and being distinguished from ekeryxen byPut out that comma, it is an vsur­per a Comma, cannot by any example in diuinitye, or by any rule of Grammer beNor separated from it. coupled with the verb ekeryxen That promise is twise made now. Now to answer your infallible reasons. First your reason against me, that if my construction bee true,I said that nothing is spoken of Christ in these words, (mortified in the flesh, & quickned in the spirit) which may not, &c. then nothing did happen to Christ which might not be verified of any man.Did you not blushe to rack my wordes to the wh [...]le discourse, which are spoken but of one member. And did you not blush whē you wrote these things?No forsooth. Can any mans soule goe to hell, and returne againe? For his going downe to hellthose be without my bounds. I proue in the 19. verse, and his returning fromthose be without my bounds. hell in the 21. verse: Secondly, you say the word spirit doth signifie that which gaue life, what then? as God giueth life to the body effectually,That is, the forme giueth the forme to the [...] so the soule giueth life to the body formally.Why mine more then yours. Your Geueua translation [Page 106] which you follow, saith hee, was quicknedSo say we in the spirite, not of the spirit. And this I note against your side, en En is not in that verse at all expres­sed. in the 18. verse you translate (In) But in the next verse, as though you had not done well in the former, you translate itYou dreame. (by) Now you know the preposition dia, signifieth (by) and not en, as it appereth in the 21. verse and in many places mo.You pro­mise to proue that en signi­fieth not by, & proue that dia signifieth by: this is cōmon with you, & a cunning point. dia anastaseos, that is, by the resurrection. Moreouer, if you had said quicknedYou say it cannot bee so taken: and would that answere seme probable? of the spi­rite, then had you made a probable answer: but no di­uine is able to proue this exposition, that Christ was quickned in the spirit: that is, in the deity, for the dei­ty is life it selfe. Your third pregnant reason is, that thanatotheis, signifieth not only the death of the body, but also the whole passion of Christ.A flat ne­gatiue, for an instance. This can not be, for theA tauto­logie. suffrings of Christ are set downe before in the same verse: then in this word, thanatotheis is shewed the maner of the death, that Christ suffered, that is, hee wasI haue said that this worde fitteth not the greek killed, and suffered a violent death. For thanatotheis being deriued ofA Passiue participle frō a verb actiue. thanateo, mustWhy so? needs signifie put to death. Now I hope you wil not say, Christ was put to deth inBut I will say he suffered death in soule and bodie. soul & body, but in body only. And wher you say, that Christ suffered in soule aswell as in body, that is true, & that is gatheredBut why not? not of thanatotheis y• is killed, but out of these words antecedent (for Christ suffered the iust for the vniust,)What reason should moue a reasonable man, to denie that Christ suffered the death of the soule. No reasonable man but hee will say, that the sufferings of Christ, are comprised rather in the word (suffered) then in y• word (killed.) To yourThis will not answere my reason. fourth reason I reply, that Christ was raysed from the dead, but it is specially signifi­ed in the word resurrection, ver 21. &A confused negatiue of confusion. Put your antecedents to this (therfore) if your skill can do so much. therfore I do not confound those things that are distinguished, [Page 107] but your selfe:where M. D.? thē were I worthie to we are a bable A rogue bur­ned in the ear suffereth, but is not killed. for you make suffered and killed all one,where M. D.? thē were I worthie to we are a bable A rogue bur­ned in the ear suffereth, but is not killed. and quickned and the resurrection all one, and so mak not only a confusion, but a tautology and needelesse repetition which neuerVntruth D. the scrip­ture vseth manie tautolo­gies to help our memo­ries and vn­derstanding: though this in mens writing [...] be a fault, in scriptures it is most neces­sarie, that one place may help another. was read in the word of God. To your fift argument, where you say, zoopoi [...]isthai is to receaue life, I confes [...]e it is to be made aliue. Then you vrge, it can not be spoken of y• soule which neuer lost life: Then by y• same reason more strongly, it can not be spoken of theThis an­swere were somewhat if you could make it good that we giue this participle to the Deity. God­head, which hath, doth, & shal liue for euer: for God cā not receaue life, but y• soule is said to liue,The que­stion is, whether the soule is quickened, or made to liue, when it is out of the bodie. when he is out of the body, not because he liued not before, butNon causa pro causa. because y• body doth hinder y• actions of the soule, Iohn. 11. 25.These places proue not the question He that beleeueth in mee. though he were dead yet shall he liue. Sap. 9, 15.These places proue not the question The corruptible body is heavie vnto the soule, & the earthie mansion keepeth downe the minde that is full of cares. 2. Cor. 4, 16.These places proue not the question Therfore, we faint not, but though our outward man perish, yet our in­ward man is dayly renewed. HeerePaull saith not so heere. Paul sayth, the weaker the body is, y• stronger is his soule,It followeth not. therefore the death of the body is the life of the soule. To drawe to ane ende, your Antithesis of theThe Antithesis there ex­pressed is between mortified and quickned. Deuinitie & humanitie is answered before. For your Antithesis must be of things contrary, or at the least diuersBut diuerse, but not alwaies sepa­rate. and seperate, but as you affirme truly, the Godhead was never seperated from the humani­tie: This therefore is builded on the wrong side of the way. therefore this antithesis is of the body and soule, which at this time were deuided, and not be­tweene the deity and humanitie which were alwaies vnited:You call it in your margent fortissimum argumentum, but it is a starued shrimpe. It cannot stand though it be not touched. wherfore, this bulwarke I can assure [Page 108] you will stand, and you haue ouershot both it, & your self in attempting to ouerthrow it. For the very scope of the Apostle is this, all Christians must suffer affli­ctions for well doing, for Christ did not only suffer both in body and soule, but also was put to a shame­full death in his body,Be sure that that be one. and in his soule went downe to the soules inThat is out of the way: Christs going downe to hel is no persuasion for vs to suffer af­flictions. hell, which were vnbe­leeuers in the dayes of Noah: but Christ did arise a­gaine from hel, and the graue, and ascended both in body & soule to heauen: therfore, shal you, that suffer for wel doing, be deliuered from death and hel by his merits, and goe vp into heauen, and be partakers of his glory, as you haue ben partakers of his affliction Moreouer, as you referre mee to reade Bezas greate notes one this text, so I pray you to reade Aretius handling this place, whose words ar these. Generally (sayth Aretius) Pet. repeateth three effectes of Christs death, if you marke it wel. The first pertaineth to the damned, The second to the elect. The third the per­son of Christ. The first was declared in his descen­ding in to hell. The second in his resurrection. The third in his ascention into heauen. This is the true and naturall meaning of this place which wee will follow, leauing the intrications of other interpretati­ons. I willinglye confesse this place is very hard, for Augustine doubteth of it, & Luther douteth of it how it is to bee vnderstoode; but this obscurity aryseth not of the place, but of the varietie of interpretations, If thou marke the plainnesse of the place, the matter will be easye, but that pleaseth not all men: therefore that euery on may establish his owne sence, they ap­ply the words of the Apostle Peter to their owne con­ceit. But leauing these, let vs imbrace that which the words do teach vs: in the which, if we attaine to the truth, it is well: if not, yet they shall bee probable, be­cause they haue warrant out of the scriptures, and [Page 109] leane to the very letter to reto, otherwise it is cer­tain, the knowledge of man to be vnperfect in many questions of holie scripture, of the which the Apostle doth warne vs, 1. Corin. 15. For now wee knowe vn­perfectlie. I haue sayd here is declared three effects of Christs death which differ in time, & are set in or­der in the Creede. The first effect is, that Christ being dead, denounced eternal paines to the wicked in hell. The words of the Apostle are these. In which spirite he went and preached to the spirits detained in pri­son. I take the place simply of the descence into hell, for so the words do plainly sound, and I see al the Fa­thers so to interpret them: Augustine Epist. 99. and Ciprian doth manifestly interpret this place of the de­scending into Hel. Neither doth the word prison hin­der this Interpretation: which in the Apocal. 20. 5. is taken for hel. When a thousand yeers shal be fulfilled, Satan shall be losed out of his prison. Therefore, the prison that Peter heere speaketh of, is the place depu­ted to the damned. Hyther came Christ, as we confes in the Creede, He went downe into Hell.But you make no dout but that hel is vnder the earth, in your sermon fol. A [...] pag. 2. in print where Hell is, it is a foolish & curious question to enquire, sith no man cōming to that place euer returned but only Christ. Furthermore, what Christ did there, Pe­ter expresseth, he preached to the spirits, that is, he declared that he shewd himselfe manifestly to the world and made that dire and mornefull sermon; namely, to y• wicked, that the mirit of his death did nothing per­taine vnto them, but by his presence, were confirmed those punishments of the which Noah and other pro­phets had forwarned them. And the tyme of this Preaching, I referre not to the tymes of Noah, but to the tyme of hys descending into Hell. Wherevnto agreeth the worde pneumasi, that is, spirits, for hee preached to the spirits, that is, to dead, and not to li­uing men. Thus sarre Aretius. You should waste winde, and break your promise. I could heere [Page 110] alleage many other newe Writers, whiche are of my iudgement, but because you yeelde them no credite, therefore of purpose I will omit them.

HVME his Reioynder to the 12. sect.

THis berrie is so confused, that I can not finde where to enter my firret. First, I prooued that Beza, whome we follow in this place, doth no vio­lence to the wordes: but vseth them as hee findeth them vsed by Iohn, Paull, and Peter. Which foun­dation beeing laide, I answere your 10. reasons, and put other 10. to the other scale, to counter-weigh them. You neither defend your owne, nor answere mine, in order as they ly: But like a mad Dog, snatch heere one, and there another, and let them goe, that you cannot bite. I cannot follow your steppes, they be so crooked. Wherefore, I will walke on my first steppes, and seeke your answeres, where I can finde them. That which I say of the vse of the words, you confesse, and diuers of my reasons, you slip without an answere.

The first of my reasons was from these wordes,1. Reason. (mortified in the flesh, and quickened in the Spirit) Thus, If (flesh) heere doth signifie the body, and (spi­rit) the humane soule: then nothing in these words is spokē of Christ, that may not be verified of other men. But in these words some singular matter is at­tributed to Christ, that other men are not capable of: For, we cannot say, that Augustine, Ierome or Cy­prian, are mortified in the flesh, and quickened in the spirit in that sense, as it is heere spoken of Christ. Er­go, (flesh) is not the bodie, and (spirit) the humane soule of Christ.Answere. Reply. That which you answere of his descē ­ding into Hell, and returning thence, is not compri­sed in these words, wheron my argument is builded, [Page 111] though you gaue them your owne liverie, and cloa­thed them in your owne cullours.

The second was this. The Spirit heer doth signifie that,2. Reaso [...]. which gaue life to that which was dead. But the humane soul gaue not life to that that was dead, Ergo, the spirit doth not signifie the humane soule. Heere you denie the maior, and alleadge against the [...] which you call ours,Answers. Reply. and should bee yours as well as ours, if you and others of [...] highlie [...] in the (flesh, and [...] mortified as hee was man, and quickened as hee was God by himselfe.Iohn 10. 18. According to that of Iohn. I haue power to lay downe my life, and I haue power to take it vp againe. Take your note of (in) and (by) and make a wheele-barrow of it. But you moue me heere another question of some importance: and craue an instance (if I can) in all the Scripture. Howe one word in one period can carie two significations You are not (I hope) so verie an novice in Gods booke,Math. 8. 12. Ioh. 6. 27. Mar. 8. 33 Ioh. 8. 55. Ioh. 4. 24. as you make your selfe. Haue you not read, Let the dead, burie their dead: Or, labour not for the meat that perisheth, but the meate that lasteth, &c. Or, Who so will saue his life, shall lose it. Or A­braham rejoiced to see my day, and saw it. Or, God is a spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit, wher you haue the same word in both significations. O howe you would be-slouen mee, if you could finde such a hole in my hose! Now, I feare nothing, but that you craued an instance out of the olde Testament.

The third was, If death, whensoeuer it is attribu­ted to Christ in the Scriptures,3. Reason. compriseth the whole passion, the fleshe in this text, must be the subject of the whole passion: that is, the whole manhoode of [Page 112] Christ. But deth is neuer attributed to christ, but for the whol passiō. Ergo, flesh must be the subject of the passion, that is, the whole manhood of Christ. Heer you denie the minor, and like a skilfull Logician, giue instance in the questiō. If you haue not forgot your olde logicke, the argument, and the thing argued should not be one. You supplie the imperfection of this answere, with two arguments [...], that death in this place cannot signifie the passion. [...]. Your first reson is, that the passion is mentioned before in the word suffred, Be it so: Yet it may bee repeated in more speciall tearmes. By your reason, in the beleef, where a repe­tition is lesse tollerable, crucified and died, belong not to the passion; because they are expressed before in the word suffered. Suffering, which may be in tor­turing, whipping, and imprisonment, is too slacke a tearme, to expresse the hellish tormentes of Christs passion. The other is, if (mortified) pertaine to the soule, and bodie, it will followe, that the soule is also mortall. You tell mee out of Athanasius in the reply to my fift section, that by the double punishment in­flicted on Adam, the soule should die the death. And I heard you preach in our Ladie Church at Sarum. That when it was saide to Adam, thou shalt die the death, the meaning was, he should die the death of soule and bodie. Now, if you wil apply these two sig­nifications of death to Christ: the one to the bodie, and the other to the soule: I hope this objection wil neither scratch nor byte.

My fourth reason was this. In this: Antithesis mor­tified in the flesh, and quickened in the spirite: mor­fied [Page 113] belongeth not to the spirit, nor quickened to the fleshe: but mortified belongs to the soule, for it died the death of the soule, and quickened to the [...] for it receaued life againe. Ergo, flesh is not the bodie onlie, and spirit the humane soule. To this you answere, that Christ was raised from the dead, and that was signified in the word resurrection, vers. 21. and therefore you do not confound these distingui­shed things, antitheticallie opposed. But wee, that make mort [...]ed, & suffered; quickned & resurrection all one. How this may answere mee, I leaue it to the [...]ead that bred it to explane. But you do vs wrōg, we make not mortified, & suffered one, &c. Suffered and quickned ar tearms more general, mortified & raised againe more speciall: expressing things more plain­lie and particularie, which were touched before more covert [...] and generallie.

My fift reason was. To be quickened is to receaue life,5. Reason. which the thing that is quickened either neuer had, or els had loste. But the soule had life in the bo­die, and neuer [...] after: Ergo, the soule cannot bee quickened. To this you answere nothing: but tell vs by the same reason,Answere. it can much lesse pertaine to the Deitie. Thus, thinking to wound vs with our owne weapon, you strike short, and with the back, drawe blood at your owne brow. I told you in my answere to your second objection, that quickened is not heer attributed to the Deitie, but to the whole Christ, by the participatiō of proprieties. How can you excuse your self heere of wilfull falsification? But you mend the matter, with a more sufficiēt answere out of Ioh. That the soule of the beleeuer liueth, though hee were dead. What then? Iohn telleth not your tale, that the soule of the beleeuer, is quickened when hee is dead: That it liueth, is not the question. The bur­den of the bodie, which you alledge out of the book [Page 118] of Wisd. loadeth the soule, but killeth it not. And therfore, when it is deliuered of that load, it is not quickened, but releeued. And the renewing of the inward man, which you alleadge from Paule, quick­neth not the soule, being dead: but addeth courage and comfort, to the living and languishing soule by Gods promises. Heere I see you are quite thrust frō your hold at Chippenham, that to bee quickned is, to bee deliuered from miseries. Ingenuitie woulde haue confessed a fault. You conclude with a confu­tatiō of the Antithesis, between the divinity & huma­nity: but my reason is frō an Antithesis between mor­tified & quickned, flesh & spirit: which you (by a cor­rupted glose) taking quickned for a deliuerie frō mi­ries, did ouerthrow. Yet because I said that Paul ma­keth that antithesis, Rom. 1. It shal not be impertinēt to view your reasons. An Antithesis must be (say you) of things opposite and contrarie. I add, the Diuini­tie and humanitie bee thinges opposite: Ergo, there may be an Antithesis of the Diuinity, and the huma­nitie. But they are vnited, say you. What then? So be the flesh, and the spirit; and yet Christ saieth, the Spirit is readie, but the fleshe is weake. A common Logician,Mat. 26. 41. (much more a Doctor) should know, that no vniting of thinges, betweene which a difference may be obserued, can let an Antithesis, if occasion serue. Notwithstanding the vniting, a man may wel say, Christ as hee was man, was passible, as hee was God, he was impassible.

To these reasons, I added more in my latine which I sent you. The spirit heere doth signifie that, which his enemies,6. Reason. (hell & death,) could not touch: accor­ding to the text, he was quickened in the spirit. But his humane soule escaped not the violence of his e­nemies: Ergo, the word (spirit) heere doth not signi­fie his humane soule. To this you make no answere.

[Page 119] The seaventh was.7. Reason. This spirit of which he speaketh heere, did preach: But the humane soule cannot preach: Ergo, the spirit heere, is not the humane soule. To this you answere, that he preached not vo­callie, but reallie,Answere. Reply. that is, not in words but in deeds. A dumb man may preach so, as well as D. Hill. If you stand 7. dayes in the pulpit of the great Church at Sarum, and say nothing: there bee not 7. men within 700. myles, that wil commend your sermon.

The eight was.8. Reason. Whosoeuer doth preach, he doth it either to amend the enormities of the hearers: or to instruct them in the waye of saluation. But this was not to be hoped for in damned spirits: Ergo, hee preached not in Hell,Answere Reply. to damned spirits. Heere you answere, that he preached to reproue them of their infidelitie: but you fall still in one ditch. He that re­proueth infidelitie, doeth it either to mend it, or to take away excuses: But there was no such hope in these, that were past all remedie and excuse.

The ninth was. This preaching was, when the dis­obedience of the hearers,9. Reason was reforme-able. But this was onelie reforme-able in the dayes of Noah: Ergo, this preaching was not, but in the daies of No­ah. This hath no answere.

The tenth was from the circumstances of the text and necessarie Analysis thereof:10. Reason Which I remitted to Beza, who hath done that better, then I can, and whose notes, it is not likelie that you want, hauing such a Librarie, as you speake of sect 7. You in the margent will mee to read Aretius and Alesius. The one I haue read, and the other cannot moue mee, though hee be my countrie-man. I haue learned to preferre truth before men, what euer they be. These were my reasons, which I joined to the lawfull vse of the words, proved by Iohn, Paul, and Peter. In them (so ouer-smoked is your sense) you smell no reason [Page 116] at all: But tell your reader that we cannot proue ou [...] interpretations by the Scriptures, as you do yours: and yet you bring nothing for your owne, but that the words may bee so taken: and a fewe sillie conje­ctures answered before by mee. Nowe, having set downe mine, let mee see howe stoutlie you haue de­fended yours.

THe first was. Poreutheis, (that is, went) doth sig­nifie motion, from one place to another. But the Deitie cannot moue from anie place,M. D. reasons confuted, and his answere displayed. being at al times, in all places: Ergo, poreutheis, is not attributed to the Deitie. To the minor of this argument, I aun­swered out of the 18. of Genesis, and 3. of Exodus. That the God-head is saide to mooue from place to place,Answere. by a figure called Anthropopatheia. Reply. You reply, that the bookes that I cite, are written in Hebrewe, And that the interpreters doe translate that hebrew word by katabainein or erchesthai, and not por [...]uestha [...]. As if the Hebrewe tongue,Rejoynder which is called lingua san­cta, were fitter to speak improperly of God, then the Greeke, or that poreuesthai, had gotten some speciall licence, more then anie other verbs of motion, to be free from that figure. Yet if it will please you to read Exod. 13. 2. Nomb. 14. 14. Deut. 1. 33. Exod. 33. 3. Psal. 132. 8. Deut. 31. 3. Psal. 71. 12. Psal. 88. 7. and infinite such places more, you shall find that plakket deere of a naked q. without a cap. But suppose that I could not finde it attributed to the Deitie in all these Scriptures, yet you were not the nearer your marke. For, if you bee remembred, your reason was in Chippenham, that poreuesthai cannot bee giuen to the Deitie, because it is a verb of motion. Now, the maior of your syllogism must be, that no verb of mo­tion can bee attributed to the Deitie. Which maior being crased by my first answere, and the examples there alledged. There is no reason left you, why po­reuesthai [Page 117] cannot be attributed to the Deitie, as wel as erchesthai, or katabainein: and no reason you knowe, is too weake against ten such stout reasons, as I haue sent you, forcing this sense vpon this place.

Your next argument,2. Objection. was from the participle (quickned) thus. No passiue can agree with the De­itie: Quickned is a passiue: Ergo, it cannot agree with the Deitie. This syllogism I granted to be good and told you withall,Answere. that wee doe not attribute this Participle to the Deitie, but to the whole Christ, by participation of proprieties, following the text which saith not, that the flesh was mortified, and the spirit quickned:No reply, no rejoinder. but that Christ was mortified in the flesh, and quickened in the spirite. This answere, you stroke off your skore.

Your third argument was from the tense or time [...] bee attributed to Christ at one time,3. Object. they note, that hee was deade and aliue at one time. But the first is true: Ergo, the last is true. To this I answere, denying the maior, Answere. That participles or verbs of one time at­tributed to one thing, muste needes pertaine to one time. In the beleef, wee say, that Christ was crucified, dead, and buried: where crucified, dead, & buried, be all of one tense or time, & yet agree not all to Christ at one instance of time. To this you reply, that they muste pertaine to one time, and proue your maior thus. Christ was after his passion dead or aliue at on time, or else neuer. If he were neuer dead and aliue at one time, S. Peter speaketh not trulie. If hee were dead and aliue at one time, then I speake falselie. In this Syllogisme is neither mood nor figure: and be­sides that, it standeth on a begging of the question, That Peter saieth hee was at one time deade and a­liue, is the question, and you take that, as if it were granted.

[Page 114] Your fourth reason was.4. Objection. If Peter saith, that the flesh was dead, and the Spirit quickened, then doeth hee shew, that he was both dead and aliue at one time. But the first is true: Ergo, the last is not false. The mi­nor of this Syllogisme,Answere. I did denie: shewing, that it is flat against the text, which saieth not, that the fleshe was dead, and the spirit quickened. But that Christ was dead in the flesh,No reply, no Rejoynder. and quickned in the spirit. This reason it pleaseth you of your courtesie to send away in secrete, without a God be with you.

Your fifth reason was.5. Objection. The Scripture doth join this going & preaching cloase to his passion, as if it wold say: As soone as hee had suffered, hee went and prea­ched. I answered you, that (as) and (if) did carie too weake a consequence,Answere. in so waightie a matter.No reply, no Rejoynder. This asse sadled with an if ( [...].

Your sixt reason was,6. Objection. out of the 6. of Genes. That the preaching of Noah, is there attributed to the third person of the Deitie, and not to the second. The words of that text bee. The Lord said, My spirit shall not alwaies striue with man, because hee is but fleshe.Answere Which wordes I answered you in the Latine that I sent you, that I neuer sawe anie interpreters. that doe consent with you in this exposition, and in­terprete these words of the third person of the Dei­tie. Tremelius and Iunius their judgement I set down, as that I liked best: who take these words to be a He­braisme, sounding as if he had said, I wil not alwaies stand disputing with my selfe, what to do with these men which yeeld no frutes, but of flesh & blood: for, nowe I am determined (except they repent) to de­stroy them at the day appointed. Notwithstanding, granting you that it were as you would haue it, I tolde you, seeing the actions of euery person of the Deitie, are common to all three, hee erreth not that [Page 115] giueth them to anie of the three.Reply. This you confesse to be true. But you ask me, if I can proue that Christ preached in Noah after his passion: affirming con­fidentlie, that this was attributed to him of Peter, af­ter the passion.Rejoynder. It were requisite that you had good proof according to the waight of this case, and your confidence in speaking it. But I will ease you of that burden. Proue it out of the text, with anie reaso­nable shew of truth, and you shall haue my hart and hand. The order of the wordes which you stand so stoutlie vpon, is not so strict, as you would haue it. For the purpose and drift of the Apostle heere, is to perswade vs to patience by the example of our Savi­our, and not to set out his death, descending and re­surrection, in order as they were done: but obiter as they fall in hand, and followe the matter that heere he driveth to perswade.

Your seauenth reason was,7. Objection. if Christ was raised from the dead, by the first person of the Deitie, and not by the second: then the word spirit heere, cānot be construed of the Deitie: but Christ was raised by the first person,Answere and not by the second. Ergo, &c. I might well haue tolde you, that this minor is absurde and flat against the plaine text, Ioh. 5. 21. Whatsoe­uer thing the Father doth, the same the sonne doeth also with him. And Ioh. 10. 18. which wordes I did quote not farre before, in the defence of my second reason. I haue power to lay downe my life, and I haue power to take it vp again. But then sparing you and refraining all hard speeches, how euer they were due, I onelie tolde you; that I sawe not howe that could stand with the trueth of the Scriptures, which telleth mee,Reply Rejoynder. that the second person did put on man, and did not forsake him in all his distresses. You re­ply in the margent of your written copy, see contra­rie to this Act, 4. 40: Act. 13. 30. 1. Cor. 15. 15. Which [Page 120] places I haue marked & obserued, to make nothing against my assertion. In them the raising vp of christ, is attributed to the God-head, which worketh not (as I haue noted alreadie) one person without an­other. Which thing, if it bee an errour, it was Iohn that seduced mee. cap. 5. 7. The Father worketh, and I work. As the Father doth raise vp the deade, so the sonne likewise, doth raise vp whome he will. And in the 17. verse, quoted a little aboue. The same is agre­able to other infinite places of Scripture, and the somme of our Faith, called the beleef, which saieth; the third day hee rose againe, and not that hee was raised againe.

Your eight reason was.8. Objection. If the time that they were preached to, and of their disobedience, was not one: then this preaching is not to bee vnderstood of No­ah his preaching, in the time of their disobedience. But the adverbe pote doth distinguish those times.Answere Er­go, &c. To this I answere, that the Adverb pote, doth not determine the participle apeithesasi, but the prin­cipall verbe ekeryxen, You replie, that I speak neither like a Divine,Reply. nor like a Grammarian. To proue me no divine, which indeede I am not: and no Gram­marian, which I am but little: you alledge no Diuini­tie, and little grammer. It will not followe, that be­cause it may stand with a Participle, therefore it is so heere: or, that because it is distinguished from the verb, with a comma, therefore it cannot determine it at all. You are not ouer-loden with Grammar, if you knowe not,Rejoynder that diuerse and manie reasons, may part wordes depending one on the other, by a com­ma. And as for this place, pote, if it did depend (as you would haue it) vpon apeithesasi, it cannot bee di­stinguished from ekeryxen with a comma, seing apeithe­sasi it self, is gouerned of ekeryxen, without commix­ture of anie interjected member to parte them. What [Page 121] euer your book hath, take heed, that it be not a stain to your skill in grammar, to credite a book in such a case.

Your ninth argument was. Noah preched to men These were spirits & not men: Ergo, Noah preached not to these. I answered, that whosoeuer preacheth to men, preacheth to spirites, because no men want spirits, that is, reasonable soules. And now I ad, that they are heer called Spirits, in respect of their impri­sonment, not in respect of his preaching. If hee had called them men, then the name of prison wherein they are now datained, had beene improper. The A­postle wiselie choosed that worde, which might best agree with both those times. Bezaes opinion also, whereto Andradius the Papist agreeth, is most pro­bable, that pote doth determine the same Participle apeithesasi, and doeth distinguish it from tois en phylake pneumasi, which must needs be vnderstood in the pre­sent time, by vertue of the participle ousi, in that kind of phrase in Greek, most necessarily alwaies implyed. You reply not one worde to the purpose: but char­ging vs with that we neuer spake, nor thought (that we take these spirits for the men in Noahs time) you alleadge Christs words against vs, Luk. 24. 39. But if you were a man, that coulde marke the wordes of them that dispute against you, & take them as they are spoken: you should finde, that wee say not that hee preached to the spirites in the dayes of Noah: But to the spirites that nowe are in prison, and were disobedient in the dayes of Noah. If you can anie waies turne Christs wordes in Luke, to confute this, you neede not to care, what thinges you take vpon you to proue. If you can proue, that Noah prea­ching to the men of his time, did not preach to their Spirites: or that these spirits in prison, which Peter speaketh heer of, were not the same that rebel­led [Page 122] in the dayes of Noah, you may driue vs from this holde: otherwise you may throw your cap at vs.

Last of all, you charge our construction with vio­lence. I answered,10. Objection. that you do vs wrong, charging vs with things, that none of vs do speak. Which answer you passe by with silence,Answere and so allow it for currant.

To these you haue added two new ones, which (to take away all scruple, I will answere also.

First,11. Objection. say you, if the word phylake doth signifie hel, then Christ did descend into hell: But phylake doeth signifie Hell. Ergo, &c. I denie the maior, it will not follow, though phylake doeth signifie hell (as heere it doth indeed Metaphoricallie) that therefore Christ descended into Hell:Answere. neither doth the place that you quote of Math. proue that you would haue: except you can proue also, that phylake hath no other signifi­cation, then the prison of vtter darknesse, &c.

Your other reason is.12. Objection. He that was killed, dead, and quickened, did preach. But it was Christ that was killed, dead, and quickned: Ergo, it was Christ that preached, and not his Deitie. Christ, and not his De­itie, M. Doctor? Can Christ preach, and not his De­itie? You may say what you will. If I had let fall such a word, you would haue cried, Crucifige. But to an­swere you,Answere. I denie the maior. It is against the text. He was mortified, that is, killed and dead in the fleshe, and that preached not. Hee was quickned in the spi­rite, and in that hee went and preached. That which preached, was neither killed nor dead: neither was it self quickened: but Christ was quickened in it.

These are all your objections. In my answere to your sermon, I answered 10. of them. You haue re­plyed to 6. of them, and to the other 4. you haue gi­uen a pardon at large, neuer to be troubled by you. Your six replyes I haue heere rejoyned too, and haue met your newe supplies at the encounter, and haue [Page 123] sent them home to you for new help. All your forces thus defeated, and so mightie and resolute an armie against you, (if there bee anie conformitie in you, if your neck be not so stiffe, that no bridle can turn it) I hope you will get you to Chippenhames pulpit, and performe your promise.

HVME Sect. 13.

THese things being thus, I pray you (good M. D.) seeing you woulde haue vs vndoubtedly to be­leeue, that Christ descended into Hell. Tel vs vndou­tedly to what ende he should descend thither. I trust you will not teach vs, neither Augustine, neither Ie­romes lesson, that he went thither to deliuer priso­ners. As for that new lesson, that he went thither to triumph: it standeth not with the maner of conque­rours, to shew the glorie of their conquest amongst the conquered: but amongst them to whom the ioy of the victorie doth appertaine: and for mine owne part, I haue oftentimes read the name of Hell, ioy­ned with shame and ignomie: but to this day, I ne­uer hard it ioyned with triumph and glorie. Nei­ther seemeth it probable, that if Christ had purpo­sed to shewe the pompe of his conquest, he woulde haue done it before his resurrection, lest being yet in the handes of his enemie, he had me [...]t him with the proverbe, Ante victoriam, &c. To these reasons, may be added, that seeing his triumph was celebrated at one instance, in Heauen, Earth, and Hell: if the pre­sence of his soule was required, as you beare in hand it will followe, that his soule was at one instant in these three places, which is contrary to the nature of a soule. You adde two other causes, to binde the de­uill, and deliuer vs from hel. You bring vs many pla­ces of Scripture, to confirme this geare. Gen. 3. 15. The seed of the woman shal break the Serpents head. Ose. 13 [Page 124] 15. O death, I will be thy death, O hell I wil be thy destructiō 1. Cor. 15. 55. O death, where is thy sting, O hell where i [...] thy victorie. In all which places, there is not a sillable sounding, that Christ descended into hell. As for his triumphing ouer Hell, we neuer denied it, and do a­vouch that he performed, that moste gloriouslie, by the power of his God-head, which did present his vi­ctorie ouer his enemies, hell and death: both to he­ven earth and Hel, without the presence of his soule.

HIL his Reply.

YOu aske me why Christ descended into hell,The Paralogis. of this section. and yet you cōfes I notedThose 3 ends in your opinion, are not ends in­deede. three ends of Christs descending into hell, the one toHe triumphed ouer hell & death in heuē, earth and hell: not in hell onelie triumph ouer the Diuels: the other toIf it was all one actiō to binde the Diuel, & to take away his power, that he did, by his death, Heb. 2. 14. binde the Diuels, and to take away their power ouer mankind:That he did by his death also. the 3. to deliuer vs from hell. There was also set downe a fourth end, that is,Dic sodes: Had the Di­uels neuer known his death, except he had gone downe to the damned. to manifest his death vnto those in hel, and to reproue them of their incredulity: and heer labouring to catch me in a snare, you are fallen into it your selfe: for firste you say, Christ conque­red hell on the Crosse, then as hauing forgotten your selfe you aske this question with admiration. Howe could heYou forge: my words were, how could he triumph ouer death, being in the bands of death. conquer being in the graue? Is it lik­ly that hee would triumph before his victory? First you stoutly affirme that he had conquered, then you boldlyNot it that I said. deny it.Ast ego mihi satis con­sentio. Cōneniet nnlli qui secū dissidet ipse. Next you say, you haue not read theSo saith August. I neuer read the name of Hell in bonam partem. ad Evod. epist. 99. name of hell, but ioyned with shame and infamie: why do you write then, that theIn these places the name of hel, is separate frō triūph & glory Godhead did tri­umph ouer hel; Did you not read your owne writing I am sure in this place? 1. Cor. 15. 55. O death where is thy sting, In these places the name of hel, is separate frō triūph & glory O hell where is thy victory, In these places the name of hel, is separate frō triūph & glory [Page 125] The nam of hel is ioined with triumph. But you an­swere these places with a flat negatiue.That is not his dese [...] ding into hel Frame this argument in mood & figur, and you shall be collector the next lent. heere is not a sillable to proue the descending of Christ into hell. I am sure Paule proueth heer, theThat is not his descēding into hel Frame this argument in mood & figur, and you shall be collector the next lent. resurrection of Christ and of our soules, and how can he proue the resurrection, vnlesse hee proue the knitting together of the body and soule? for as death is the parting of body & soule, so resurrection is the reuniting of them togither againe, and heer Paule sheweth that the bo­dy comming out of the graue,Wherein doth Paule shew that? & the soule from hell, Christ did conquere both. And therefore it is not the deityWhere said I so: what will you blush to charge me with? as you say, but the humane nature of Christ, y• did vanquish death & Hell.You haue a special grace to proue things not denied. Heb. 2. 14. For as much then, as the children were partakers of flesh and bloud, he also him selfe likewise took parte with them, that hee might destroy through death, him that had power of death, that is the Diuil. There fore Hemingius on the Col. 2. saith. As on the Crosse he conflicted with the diuill, so by the glorious descending into hell, resurrection and ascention hee did tri­umph. It follow­eth not. Therfore these places proue his descen­ding into hell as well as the buriall, for the reason of y• apostle is this. Christ cam out of the graue, ergo, he conquered death,Where said the Apost so? Where is now Procustes his rack. and Christ came out of hell. ergo he ouer came hell. Therefore thus I reasonNot mee, but your own shadow. against you, that did conquere which did fight, but the human nature of Christ, did fight, ergo it did also conquere,If this were doutfull you conclude more, then you include in the premis­ses. & is gone vp into heauen, to whom the Angels: powers and mightes be subiect.These quotations are impettinent, 1. Pet. 3. 22. Col. 2. 25. phil. 2. 9. 10. Eph. 1. 20. 21. 22. Therefore, sith all these Scriptures do witnes, that Christ as man did triumph, and is exalted, and hath al power, I doubt not but in your next answere you will reforme yourMy judgement was neuer deformed with this scare▪ and therefore needeth heerein no reformation. iudgement.

HVME his Reioynder to the 13. sect.

I Beseech thee, (good Reader) take a little paines heer, to mark the honest dealing of this D. Whet I say, Christ could not triumph beeing in the bonds of death: hee for (triumph) sets (conquer) to make them contrarie to my former words, that Christ did conquere Hell vpon the crosse. It is one thing to cō ­quere, another thing, to triumph. Pompey conque­red the mightie Mithridates in Syria, but hee trium­phed at Rome amongst his freends,Aug. ad Evod. [...]9. that were perta­kers of the joy. Againe, where I say with Augustine, that the name of Hell is joined with shame, not with honour: meaning the name of hell is shamefull, not glorious: he takes mee to say, that the name of hell cannot stand in a sentence, with a word of honour, & quotes against mee. 1. Cor. 15, 55. Hell, where is thy victorie? in which place; hell and victorie, are separa­ted, as if hee had saide, Hell thou hast no victorie. Thirdlie, whereas I say, that Christ triumphed by the power of his Deitie: presenting his victorie to heauen, earth and Hell; he giues out that I say, that the Godhead triumphed, and not the humanitie, & notes in the margent, Hume contrarie to Paule and Peter: and wils mee to reforme this fault in my next reply. This is M. D. arte: If his cause were so good, as he would haue it seeme: he needed not this cunning: or, if he caried as honest a minde, as he did protest in Chippenham pulpit: hee would rather performe his promise, then seeke such vn-christian-like shiftes to maintaine a bad cause.

Now to answere his cavils. I ask you M. Doct. why you send Christ to hell, notwithstanding the three ends that you had noted, because those endes, were no endes thereof: and because the Scripture doeth [Page 127] teach, that hee had performed all those ends by the conquest of Hel, vpon this crosse. You brought texts of Scripture to prooue them, and I answered truely, that not one of them soundeth anie sillable that way. For, in all those places there is not a letter, neither of his descending into hell, nor of his triumphing o­uer hell. You replie, that those texts do proue the re­surrection (which is not true of all neither) and that the resurrection is a knitting of the soule and bodie together: and that the knitting of them together, was by bringing his soule from Hell (this is your principle) and his bodie from the graue. Now, add the conclusion, that hee that proueth Christs resur­rection, proueth his descending into hell. If this rea­son bee good, I will yeelde. For, now (if it will holde) you haue found a way to proue your opinion, by all the Scriptures. When Christ cured the blinde mans eies with spittle, it is plaine, that he was a man: If he was a man, he was mortall, and died: If hee died, his soule went to hel, (this is your vndoubted principle) and his bodie to the graue. Ergo, he that writes that Christ cured the blinde mans eies with spittle, doeth write that hee went to Hell. By this hooke, you may pull all the Scriptures out at the window, and make them proue what pleaseth you.

HVME his 14. Sect.

YOu alledge for confirmation of the second. How can a man enter into a strong mans house and spoyle his goodes, except first hee binde the strong man. Here is not that which you vndertooke, to prooue that he descended into hell, to binde the de­uilles. This house whereof here is spoken, is to any man of judgments eye, by circumstance of the place, not Hell: but this worlde, whereof the deuill had ta­ken [Page 128] possession, and polluted many hearts: out of the which, he was cast by Christ, who thereby prooueth himselfe to be stronger then he: and not to woorke myracles in the name of Beel-zebub, as the Pharises did beare the simple people in hand.

HIL his Reply.

YOur interpretation is true:The Paralo­gismes in the D. Reply. That cā ­not be, see the answere. and the other true also, forHow oft haue you told this tale, and neuer pro­ued it. Christ did not onlie ouercome the Diuell in y• world, but also in Hell. For, as Cyrill noteth on this place: there was before the comming of Christ much violence, taking away the flock of God, and carrying them to his owne house: where­fore before the comming of Christ, the heathen and people of the worlde went into eternall death: But Christ hath deliuered both their bodies frō the graue and their soules from Hell, by his death andQuote the place: these wordes are suspitious, and sound more like Hill then Cyril personall descending into Hell. This place is allead­ged by one Georgius Princeps Anhaltinus, in his learned commentaries on the 16. Psalm, which you may read, if you please.This (for) is as doutfull, as the thing it is brought for For as Dauid tram­pled on the face of Goliah, Crambe, twise at one seruice: you might haue spared it till the next course. so did the soule of Christ trample on Satan in hell,Euen as you haue painted it in your book. and trode on his face: and this is noted by the Prophetesse Sibilla, as also by the [...]eathen Poets, whose wordes I haue set down in my sermon at large. And therefore Cle­nard in his grammer giueth this obseruation, katel­thonta eis adou, id est, eis otkian tou adou, he went down into hell, that is, intoA Grecian wol [...] haue translated it, into the house of Pluto, Lord of Hell: or more Christian like, in­to the house of death. the house of Hell.

HVME his Reioynder to the 14. Sect.

YOu graunt my interpretation to bee true: but I will not graunt yours, except you bring better [Page 129] warrant then your self, and a man that I neuer sawe. You will mee to buy him. I am not so well purst as to buy him onlie, to see this that you quote him for, my interpretation is defend-able without him. It standeth so sure vpon the text, that you confesse it your selfe. You would faine shoulder in yours too, and make the Scriptures double tongued: but I haue learned, that one text, hath but one true mea­ning. Though mans opinions may differ, there is but one that hits the naile on the head. I neede no better proofe therfore, to confute your interpreta­tion, then your own confession. Onelie this I add, that seeing your interpretation is doubtfull, it can bring no vndoubtfull proof, to your doubtfull and false opinion. As for the Sybiles, and Heathen Poets you did well to spare them. The quoting of them would haue beene more laborious, then their testi­monies would haue beene effectual in this case. Whē you haue to doe with a heathen (as some of the Fa­thers had) they may stand you in stead, [...]. As for the greeke eis tou adou, you construe it wrong, into the hous of hel. Hel hath not a house. They that speak so, meant the hous of Pluto, called ades in greek: the Lord of death, as the heathen did imagine. So is that word vsed by Nonnus speaking of Lazarus raised from the death by Christ.

[...]
[...].

HVME his 15. Sect.

NOw one thing remaineth, wherein you seemed to runne beyond your selfe, and most men did wonder, what you ment thereby. Whereas our Sa­viour vpon the Crosse, did vtter to the hearers then, & all posterities after, that he had finished the work of our Redemption: You took vpon you to prooue, [Page 130] that he meant not so: bearing the worlde as it were in hand, that wee can speake nothing so trulie, but that you cā confute it. To this purpose you alleaged these places.Ioh 15. [...] I haue finished the worke which thou gauest me.Act 13. 19. As they had finished all things that were written of him.Ioh. 19. 28. And seeing all thinges now finished that the Scriptures might bee fulfilled. Out of all which places (say you) it is apparent, that there re­mained some things to be done after. What needeth all these proofes in a matter that no man denieth. It is confessed of all men (I hope) that when hee spake this, he had not yet giuen vp the ghost. But I trust, you will not denie, that his meaning was, that his worke was finished, when hee had breathed the laste breath. Which thing (if you grant) you haue proued nothing against our assertion. It is a common thing (you knowe) to speak that in the time past, which is meant that it shall come to passe shortlie after. Such were these words of Christ, it is finished. And like to [...] wordes in another place. Beholde, the houre commeth, and it is [...] shalbee scattered. Where he saieth, that the houre is alreadie come, which was to come shortlie after. This must needs be the meaning of Christs wordes. Neither could he otherwise (as man) shewe to those malitious persecuters that stood about him, and vs that read it now to our comforts, that he had made an end of his worke, and was past the malice of all his enemies, except he should haue tolde it them, af­ter that hee had giuen vp the ghost. Which thing could not haue beene done, without the miraculous assistance of his God-head, which did in all his pas­sion (as it were) hide it self, and suffer the innocent man, as man, to pay the ransom of mans redemptiō Heere you gaue vs a distinction of consummatum re, & consummatum spe. Deliuer it againe, to the dunces [Page 131] whence you had it. There is no haire so small, which those subtile wits, wil not finde a wedge to cleaue, rather then confes it to be a haire, if it make against their conceit, be it neuer so grosse, and erroneous. And tell those Harpya quae tactu suo optimas dapes foeda­runt: that a thing may bee consummatum spe, which a man meaneth not to begin 20. yeares hence, & per­happes neuer finishe. Heere wee all wondered what you meant, and were affraied, least you would haue sent Christ downe to Hell to suffer. Which if you did you must needes argue him of an vntrueth, who is trueth it selfe. For his worke had then beene so farre from an end, that hee had not beene flea-bitten in respect of that, which was to come. This trulie M. Hill, was not ware worthie of your wit.

HIL his Reply.

What I haue spoken is either pro­ued, or needs no proof. HEer you haue spoken much and proued nothing,The Paralogismes in this sect I knowe but one reasō in all the ser­mon vnanswered, and that was not worth an answere. for of those reasons which I haue laide downe in my Sermon concerning this point, not one is answered. Onely as you tolde mee beforeBoth vntrue He is not well in his wits that could pike such a mad sense out of so tame words. I was immodest, so now you tell mee Both vntrue He is not well in his wits that could pike such a mad sense out of so tame words. I am a mad man, and the wonder of the world. I objected nothing to you. I pray God you vse these words as Dauid did. I wish you no more ill. I must answere you with Dauid, I am become as a monster vnto many, but my trust is in thy lawe. Your malice is sharper then your accusation. But what will men Iudge of you, that in one and the same matter affirme and deny.There remained somewhat whē he spake these words, and nothing after his death on the crosse, are not contraries, if both your eies could looke one way. You confesse in the begining, that there remaine some­what to doo, and in the ende you wonder at mee be­cause I sayd, al things wer not finished on the crosse. [Page 132] Your next words are these, whē our Sauiour cryed it is finished, he had not giuen vp the ghoste which was the end of his work.It could not be other­wise: for it had beene strange if hee had cried that, af­ter that he had giuen vp the ghost. It is true, that after the speking of Consummatum est, it is finished, he gaue up y• ghost,Then wer christs vntrue but that was not y• finishing of his worke,That hee shed before for he must also shed his bloud. Heb. 9. 2 [...]. Without sheading of blood their is no forgiue­nes of sins. 1. Pet. 1. 19. Iohn, 1. 7. Apoc. 1. 5.You can doe well to proue things not denied, we haue pro­ued your strēgth alrea­die. In all which scriptures it is set down, that we are rede­med with the pricious blood of Christ. The blood of Christ doth purge vs from all sinne: he hath loued vs and washt away our sins in his blood.I denie the sequele. There­fore the giuing vp of the ghost, was not the ende of his worke.Or else by you. Heere is a fault committed by you, I thank you, you favour me much. but I will not wonder at you, nor say you are runn besides your selfe,I thank you, you favour me much. but you runn against your selfe,Proue that, & I haue done. and resist also the holy ghost. Then you scornefully reiect my destincion of Consummatum re, and Consummatum spe, that is, finished in hope, and finished in deede. I will defend it, for it commeth not out of the Du [...]ces,It neuer grew in that soile. but out of Gods sacred word. Rom. 8. 24. it is said,What makes all this or any thing heer to proue that Christ hath consum­mat our salua­tion spe nō re. We are saued by hope. What makes all this or any thing heer to proue that Christ hath consum­mat our salua­tion spe nō re. Gal. 5. 5. for we through the spirit, wait for the hope of righteousnes throgh faith. What makes all this or any thing heer to proue that Christ hath consum­mat our salua­tion spe nō re. Luc. 21. 24. Lift vp your head (saith Christ to his Disiples) for your redemtion draweth nigh. What makes all this or any thing heer to proue that Christ hath consum­mat our salua­tion spe nō re. Rom. 8. 23. And not onely the creature, but we also which haue the first frutes of the spirite doo fight, even we doo fight in our selues waiting for adoption, even the re­demption of our body. This is not to the purpose. Musculus on the fourth Chapter of the Ephesians thus writeth, the places ar these, That we are called in hope, not in deede, & that the hope of future blessings, is ye store of our faith, as long as we are in this flesh, for we are saued, nondum in re sed in spe, not yet in deede but in hope. By all these [Page 133] scriptures it is manifest, thatThe que­stion is not of our consum­mation: but bow Christ hath consum­mat the work of out redem­tion. our cosummation is in hope, and not in deed (as Musculus noteth) nei­ther shall be actually perfited, vntil the day of iudge­ment. Therfore, I did with this distinctionYou wold say answere. re­fute the argument which is made of those that ar on your side,We con­clude not so, see the answer who thus conclude. Christ sayde on the crosse (It is finished) Ergo, hee went not downe to to hell. By the same reason I thus argue. Christ said on y• crosse (It is finished)This is a wonderful argumēt. Christ saying, it is fi­nished, died by shedding his blood: ergo he shed no blood. Ergo, he did not shed his bloud,These wer adjuncts, but not works of our redemption. nor was buried,These wer adjuncts, but not works of our redemption. nor rose a­gaine, These wer adjuncts, but not works of our redemption. nor ascended into heauen to fulfill all things. Ephes. 4. 10. for if all things were then fulfil­led on the crosse, what neede he to ascende, to fulfill all things.You can neuer proue it. Therfore, I did proue that this ar­gumēt of yours, did mak no more against the descen­ding into hell, then against the sheading of his bloud, burial, resurrection, ascention or iudgement, al which are necessary to ourThat is not the quest. weale, and perfit consum­mation. To no purpose. Farther, to proue my distinction to be true, I did then quote, that as Christ is said to be the Lamb, slaine from the beginning of the world, so the death of Christ did reach to the first beleeuers, and shall do to the last. Which consummation by hope, is so enioyed, as if wee possessed it already: for all the promises of Christ, are yea, and Amen, 2. Cor. 1. 20. But our argument wil not take that staine. Therfore, I told you this argument, (It is fini­shed) ergo, Christ went not down to hel was a fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter. And I noted how these words were to be vnderstod.All these be answered, fol. 16. & 17. of your sermon. First, that al the scripture and prophecies were fulfilled, for so the text noteth.All these be answered, fol. 16. & 17. of your sermon. Secondly, it is finished, doth signi­fye, there is no other sacrifice for sinne: for by one sa­c [...]ifice once offred, he hath made perfite all that shall be sanctified, Hebr. 10, 14. And therefore the Papists ioyning y• merits of Saints with the mirits of Christ, doo erre moste shamefully.All these be answered, fol. 16. & 17. of your sermon. Thirdly, it was [Page 134] finished as concerning all his labours and sorrowes. All these be answered, fol. 16. & 17. of your sermon. Fourthly al his suffrings both of body & soule were ended, which he finished on y• crosse.All these be answered, fol. 16. & 17. of your sermon. Brief­ly, his obedience to his Father was ended, for he yel­ded a pure, perfit, and perpettuall obedience to his Father, and therfore had al power giuen him in hea­uen, earth, and hel. Moreouer, I did proue this inter­pretation by this text,That text proues it not. 1. Cor. 15. 54. Then shall be brought to pas the saying that is written, ô death where is thy sting, O hell where is thy victory, These men deny not that he fini­shed our re­demption on the crosse and did alleage Beda, Peter Martyr, and Musculus vp on this place, all which were of my iudgement, and therefore you had noe more cause to wonder at mee, then at these learned men, whomeThese be perrilous words. Be there anie Churches in England vn­reformed? all the refor­med Churches of England doe reuerence. Last of al, you seeme to charge me, as though I had sayd that Christ went downe to suffer, which thing I ne­uer mentioned, but that hee wente downe toThat was an obscurema nifestation. manifest his death, to triumph inWho sayes he tri­umphed in an other person then his own? his owne person ouer the Diuell,Did he redeem vs on the crosse by a deputie? and personally to redeme vs from hell. Then you call them dunces whence I had that destinction.You had it not from him, nor he from the word of God. I had it from Musculus, and Musculus from the word of God,I denie the sequele. & there­fore you must embrace these distinctions, or else you will speake erroneouslie. Omnia prohate, quod bonum est tenete. Try all things, holde that which is best.Baseware it is, howsoe­uer your wit and it doth a­gree. This work is worthy my wit or any other Inter­preters. Neither will I leaue the ware that is in my poore pack for all the treasures of Egypt.

An absurditie in the D. Reply.

That Christ beeing nailed handes and feete to the Crosse, died without shedding of blood.

HVME his Reioynder to the 15. sect.

OVr opinion is, that Christ vpon the Crosse, did offer a perfect sacrifice for our sinnes, and finish [Page 135] the whole worke of our redemption. This we proue by his owne last words, It is finished. For, after the manner of men, who hauing brought their worke to the last stroake, say (they haue done) & withall make an end: Hee hauing borne all the malice that death and Hell could inflict, told the standers by, that hee had done. And this hee did immediatlie before hee gaue vp the ghost: because hee could not as hee was man, tell them the same after that he was dead. Nei­ther wanted this speach great reason. It was to make full our hope, and to confirme our faith, which o­therwise might haue stood in suspense. For, seeing our sinnes had deserued, not onelie the temporall death, which the beholders did see him die: but al­so all the deathes of Hell, which they, nor no mortal eie, could see him suffer: He tolde them himself, that hee had finished and done all, that there might re­maine no scruple for vs to doubt of. Thus therefore wee reason against these men. If Christ finished the whole worke of our Redemption vpon the crosse, there remained nothing for him to do in hel. But he did finishe the whole worke of our redemption vpon the Crosse: Ergo, there remained nothing for him to do in hell. This Syllogisme is so strong, that you dare not denie one syllable of it. Wherfore, when I hard you in the pulpit violate the text wheron it stādeth, I could not choose but tell you, that you ranne be­yond your selfe, and made your audience feare, least you would haue sent Christ to Hell to suffer, an error indeede, but such, as some better divines then your self, that sealed the truth with their blood, to avoid the absurdities of your opiniō, did fall into in King Edwards time, when your opinion was most gene­rallie embraced, and confirmed by convocation. Whereas you say, that I say much and proue little: I proue as much as I intend. It was not my purpose [Page 136] to confute anie thing that you had spoken trulie. For these words (it is finished) are not to be referred to the instant, when they were spoken, but to the end of his passion, which immediatly followed. This you confesse, and why should I confute you? Or which is stranger, howe could you finde a contrarietie in my wordes, and see none in your owne speaking the same, that I doe. But this is amongest much more worse then this, the frute of your malice. And heer in your sermon at Chippenham, there was no more between vs, but onlie that you made a countenance to confute that which we avouch, & you confes: con­vaying your batterie in such sorte, that you made the beholders thinke, that you plaied vpon our sconce, but in very deede, did [...]euell all your ordinance an­other way. But now you are growne somewhat fur­ther from mee: for, though you confesse that Christ went not to hell to suffer: and that he died immedi­atlie after he said, (It is finished:) yet you denie, that this was the end of his worke. Your reason is, that hee had not shed his blood, and that without shed­ding of blood, there is no remission of sinnes. And may wee beleeue you M. Doctor? That Christ was nailed hands and feet to the crosse, without shedding of his blood? If you will haue vs so credulous as to thinke this may be true, first resolue vs of what grief Christ died, in not much more, then three of our cō ­mon houres: being onelie wounded in the hands & feete, if not of the effusion of his heart blood. Your distinction of consummatumre, and consummatum spe, you will needes haue vs beleeue, that it was bred in Gods booke. You must bring better proofe then I see, or else it neuer receaued bark nor branch in that soile. The thing that you should proue, is, that the sa­crifice of Christ was finished in hope, not in deede. That we are saued in hope, Rom. 8. 24. That we wait [Page 139] for the hope of our righteousnesse. Gal. 5. 5. That we lift vp our heades, because our redemption draweth neere. Luke. 21. 8. That we sigh, waiting for the hope, euen the redemption of our bodies. Rom. 8. 23. What makes all this, to proue that Christ did fi­nishe our redemption onelie in hope? The question is heere, how Christ hath finished our redemption? not, how we possesse it. Seeing our hope is not vn­certaine and vnstable, but setled on a sure ground: doth not these places rather proue, that Christ hath done al fullie and absolutely? For if he did but hope how could wee be sure? Your vnshapely argument that you would fain fasten on vs, and your other ar­guments cast in the same moulde, to shew the absur­ditie of it, with your long impertinent tale of the rest of your sermon, I will let passe, as helping you as little, as hurting vs. Your counsel concerning the Dunces, I am not yet readie for: when I haue read all better bookes, then I will read them. For as wor­thie men as they are in your eies, I cannot hope that they will confirme my judgement, to make mee goe sure: seeing your self beeing so well acquainted with them, cannot keep your owne feet from stumbling.

HVME Sect. 16.

IN the end of your sermon, you produce two in­conueniences that you say, must needs followe, if this article bee not beleeued. The question is not a­bout the trueth, but about the meaning of this arti­cle. Heere, you do vs open wrong, and accuse your self of an vntruth. You tolde vs in the beginning of your sermon, that neither M. Chaulfont, nor M. Wisedome did doubt of his descending into Hell, and why now labour you to load your aduersaries with [...]nuie: as if they tooke away hell, and the benefite of [Page 138] Christs passion. What Rhethorick soeuer this bee, it is bad Diuinitie. Wee neuer denied that hee went downe into Hell, but that euer hee descended into the pit of the damned. From whence, if you will in good logick, gather your conclusion: your wit rea­cheth manie myles beyond our capacities. For, wee are perswaded, that there can be no surer argument, neither of Hel, nor of the certaintie of our redemp­tion; then that he suffered all the tormentes of Hell vpon the crosse, and made a full satisfaction for all our offences. Which thing, he could not haue done, if there were no hell: and which thing, if hee hath done (as we are surelie perswaded) there is nothing more sure then our redemption. For, seeing hee suf­fered vpon the tree, the paine of al our sinnes, as Pe­ter witnesseth, and hell was due to our iniquities: it is as sure, (as what is most sure) that vpon the tree, that is, vpon the crosse, hee descended into the low­ermost Hell: that is, into the heauiest torments that Hell could yeeld: and this, except you will confesse, you must grant that the Symboll (as wee call it) of the Apostles, and doe so reuerentlie embrace, is vn­perfect. For seeing the greatest part of our redemp­tion, consisteth in Christs suffering in soule, for our soules: it was more needfull in that Symbol to make mention of them, thē of the deth of his body, both because they were more horrible vnto him, and fur­ther remooued from our senses. Which thing, if it be true, (as it is most certaine) in what other words (I pray you) of that Symboll, is that contained? but in these, he descended into hell? For, that which goeth before, hee was crucified, dead and buried, may be as well affirmed of the the theeues, that suf­fered with him.

HIL his Reply.

I Brought two inconueniences,This ground was vncertaine: you are ready to guesse, whē you are wil­ling to speak. if this arti­cle were denyed.To moue mē not to do that, that you cannot name one man that doth. to moue the people, not to leaue out any.The Paralogi [...]s of this section. It is not vnknowne to you, thatSer­uetus I neuer saw. Carlill doth not deny it: blush for shame. Seruetus andSer­uetus I neuer saw. Carlill doth not deny it: blush for shame. Carlill deny it, andName one. diuers others now liuing among vs (by reason of theVntruth. negatiue doctrine which is preached of your side) wil not repete this branch of the creed (he descended into hel.)Twentie to one, they were men of your owne side. And some haue sayd to my face, that Tho­mas Aquinas did insert it into the Creede.Anie is too manie: but I beleeue, your manie is not anie Of these men I know too many, against whome I did direct my speach,Except I am de­ceaued. your feare wanted a subject. for feare least some might bee in that populous assembly.Who be they M. Doctor? Bad do they, that deny y• personal descēding, but worse do they, which deny both personal and potentiall.And worse do you, if you know none such. Therefore I was not contrary to my self, but contrary to those which haue giuenBut you were, except you can coine a better ex­cuse then this. occasion, that so comfortable an article of our Christian faith, should beThey that hold not heere a negatiue, did not giue such an occa­sion with a negatiue. put out of the Creede. You say, it was my parte to deale plainely,A priuate mans fault cannot wel be called the putting out of an article. for I preached the truth. Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit. Flatterye getteth freends, truth getteth hatred. I knowe the eares of thatSo you say. Auditory did itche for otherNot at your hand: and yet the common sort were well pleased. Obsecutus multis, paucos irritassi. matter, but I am Gods Minister, & I haue preached Gods truth, which I will (by the help of my God) defend,So there be manie that dissent frō you. against all gainsayers what so euer.

Hard and scarse.

HVME his Reioynder to the 16. Section.

BEtter a bad excuse, (saith the proverb) but bet­ter to confesse a fault. You alledged these incō ­ueniences, (you say) to moue the people not to leaue out anie of the articles of their faith. Men vse to ap­ply salues to sores, but I beleeue you knowe not one sore for this salue. Yet you say, you know manie that will not repeat this article, by meanes of the nega­tiue on our side. I thinke it is like true, that you know anie such, and that we holde this article nega­tiuelie. Wee holde that Christ descended into Hell, and suffered all his torments for our redemption, which I haue beene taught to be an affirmatiue, by better Logicians, then Doctor Hill. But one tolde you, that Thomas Aquinas did insert this article: A discreet Pastor, would haue admonished one man ra­ther priuatlie: then haue troubled such an assemblie with such a doubt in publick. Whosoeuer hee was that tolde you that, hee learned it not by anie ne­gatiue that wee holde, but of one of your Doctors. Erasmus is the first that euer I heard bring that in question, a man on your side, and one of your cheef ankers. Calvine in his booke of the Institution of Christian Religion saieth, that some are of that judgement, moste likelie noting him, and men that followed his opinion. But how-so-euer it came, there hee proves it to bee an article, both conso­nant and agreeable to the Scriptures, and necessa­rie to the perfection of the Symboll of our Faith. Therefore, Maister Doctor, you doe not well, to lay the faultes of your owne favorites and freendes, to our charges.

[Page 141] It was the improbabilitie of your opinion, that droue a man of so much judgement as Erasmus was, to make that doubt. But Carlill and Servetus you say do denie it. In your printed sermon, as you call it, you lay your malice more open. There you alledge for this antiquitie joined with veritie, (so there you call your owne opinion) all the learned of all ages, old and new: all the Prophetes and Apostles, and sy­billes of the heathen: all the creatures in heauen & earth, liuing and dead: and lastlie, all the Divels thē ­selues. Onelie some possessed (you say) with Divels, as the Iewes, Seruetus and Carlill denie it. Heere you vtter your choller more plainelie, challenging to your owne side, all the learned of all ages, olde and newe, and leauing nothing to your aduersaries, but block-isme, dol-tisme, and diuelish giddinesse. But, (God bee thanked) you haue not the disposing of gifts and spirits. There be men that denyes your o­pinion to haue anie ground in the word, as farre ex­celling you in all kindes of learning, as you count your self before Sir Thomas your Curat at Goosage: and of such zeale and constancy in Gods cause, with out regard of wordlie preferments, as I pray God a man that can holde two benefices, and would haue seauen if he could get them, might mend that fault, and shew himself as farre from Diuelish giddinesse, as they. As for Servetus, I neuer saw his book, which Calvine in his Epistles doth say, was printed at Vien­na. But this I know, that he held many grosse errors, concerning the Trinitie, Humanitie, and Deitie of Christ: as it is apparent in an Epistle written by the Ministers of Basil, to the Syndicks and senate of Ge­neva. As for this question, I know not what he held but it is not likelie, that euer he touched it. And this I am sure of, that he was burned, by the greatest fa­vorites of our opinion, I meane the Genevites.

[Page 142] Carlill, (excepting his fault) was a man for judge­ment and learning, manie degrees before your self: He made a slip, indeede, as who hath not? Though you throwe the first stone at him, you are not cleare your self. Besides the mani-slips made in this book, and other pulpits also: you taught on S. Iames his day in Trubridge Anno 1591. If I do wel remember the yeare, that weomen did beare children without pain, in time of innocencie. And because you would be sure not to be mistaken, you did repeate it in the after noone, in the same tearmes that you spake it in the fore-noone: a fault of lesse judgement and lear­ning then Carlils was. The Iewes bee enemies to our faith, and therefore doe not meete with vs, nor ac­knowledge the truth that we do holde in this article As for the place that they take from you in the He­brew Psalme, and wherupon your choller doth rise, I see no cause why they are not to bee beleeued in their owne tougue, before all others that haue lear­ned that tongue of them. Their opinion of those words (if they be taken right) doth impeach Christs passion, not so much as your own: what euer it plea­seth you and Aepinus, to dreame and suspect, with­out cause and matter. But vpon the Iewes, the ene­mies of our faith, & Servetus an Hereticke, with Car­lill, whome for his fault, (not so foule as your owne) you boldlie and peremptorlie tearme possessed with a Diuell, in this place, you would faine lay the firste broaching of our opinion, to deceaue the simple. I hope you will leaue this craft one day. Howsoeuer you may purchesse a plause amongest the ignorant, the wise and learned will hisse you out of the schoo­les, if you runne this course, as you haue begunne.

HVME his 17. Sect.

THey say that you preached the same at Leycock, condemning all men that dissent from you, of furie and madnesse, as men fighting against the ho­lie Ghost, and spurning at a doctrine so profitable, so godlie, so wholesome, and so full of all comfort, and solace. Heere M. Hill, I appeale to your owne conscience, what profite, what commoditie, what health, safetie or solace, is in your opinion, that ours compriseth not? Seeing our whole solace and safe­tie, comfort and commoditie, consisteth in this, that we vnderstand that Christ, God and man, hath takē vpon him our curse, and paying a full ransome for our sinnes vpon the Crosse, hath reconciled vs to the loue of his Farher, which we had loste by our Father Adam, that nowe wee assure our selues of heauen, without all feare of Hell. What either comfort or commoditie, can the sending of Christ into a place, where ther was left no comfort nor commoditye, adde to this so perfite, and full a joy? All good men are sorie, that you, carrying the commendation of zeale and learning, haue joined your selfe with M. Chalfont, who enterprised this matter so vnaduisedly (to say no worse) and hath almost shaken the foun­dation of the Church, (which God forbid) with a dangerous division. Your side (I confesse) hath ma­nie great defendants, which doe rather speake for you, then confirme your opinion, either with scrip­ture, or reason. I was my self of your opinion, till the sway of truth, (which I haue alwaies rather follow­ed, then mine owne fantasies) did carie mee to the contrarie. I am perswaded, that manie of your au­thors, if they had heard the reasons that you heare, would neuer haue said, as you doe. But because the [Page 144] ignorant may not think, that you haue all the world on your side. Whether you regarde the nomber or the excellencie of the men: our cause is nothing in­feriour to yours. As for M. Wisedome, if he had er­red, it had beene more Christian-like, to haue con­futed him by priuate conference. But seeing his do­ctrine hath the consent of most of the learned of our times, and is so fortressed with Scripture and reason as heere you see: it wanteth all excuse of modestie to handle him in open audience, before such a multi­tude in such sort, as M. Chalfont did, and you confir­med in action, though not in words. For my part, I am, and will be on his side, till I heere better reason from you. Which when it commeth, it shal carie me to anie truth, that you can proue. Further, I wil not wagge the bredth of a naile. If you can plainelie without cloak and colour, confute my reasons and confirm your owne: I promise you to turne my song If otherwaies, I hope you will bee as good as that word which you past in the pulpite, before so manie witnesses. If you will satisfie mee, you must answere me by writing. For spoken words passe faster away, then my dull senses can digest the reasons. I wrote this in Latine, because I wold not haue it vnderstood of the common sort. I translated it into Englishe, at the sute of a Gentleman, that lay heer the last spring. That copie (by some negligence,) went farther a­broad, then I was willing. I left it with a freend or two, to deliuer it to you, when I went in Scotland. They conferring together, delayed it till my returne least I might seeme to haue fled the brunt of your an­swere. I am sorie that it fell out so. For (God is my witnesse) I sought not mine own praise, but did seek the truth. Ex [...]use my rashe enterprise in writing to you without anie acquaintance. Let my loue of the truth, which pricked mee for-warde, and your chal­lenge [Page 145] which set mee a worke, excuse that fault, if it was anie. Far-well in the Lorde. God giue vs al vn­derstanding hearts.

Your freend though vnacquainted, ALEXANDER HVME.

HIL his Reply.

Then you denie not but that you cōdemned all your aduersa­ries of fury & madnes. Truth it is,The Paralogis. of this section. I did preach since a Leicock, & because I hard that M. Wisdome had set that opinion of yours abroche againe at Cosham, I did heere also confirme mine, Not becauseYou hardlie winde frō that suspition I am desirous to be cont [...]tious, but because I would haue noDid M. Wisdom per­swade men to d [...]ubt? Christian man to doubt of the articles of his Faith▪ you aske me what comfor [...]able or necessarye matter you denye, that wee doe preach. I answere Arrigea [...] res Pamphil [...]. and I pray you consider o [...] it.That we teach also. wee are borne in sinne: how are we deliuered from sinne but by Christ, which was conceiued by the holy Ghoste. And that if not so elo­quentlie, yet as trulie. wee haue the magnitude of sinnes with Peter, And that the multitude of sins with Mary Magdalen the turpitude of sins with the woman taken in adultery, the infamy of sinnes with the Publican: the diuturnity of sinnes with the theefe on the gallowes: the cru­elty of sinnes with paule, and the recidiuation into sinnes with diuers of the Saints: yet if wee repent wee are pardoned for Chris [...]es sake, who purely, perfectly, & perpetualy obeyed the law of God.And tha [...] By reason of our sins we ar subiect to al punishmēts▪ both corporal, and spiritual, and to the wrath of God: All the punishments due to vs did Christ suffer vpon the crosse, both in body and soul, and therfore it is cal­led his Passion. He suffered in the Garden, in Annas and Caiphas house, in Pilats hal, but vpon the crosse (as you say truly) he suffered the agonies of death & tormenets of hell.And tha [...] Further by reason of sin this [Page 146] was laide vpon the first Parentes, Thou shalt die the death: so by reason of this sentence, not only the body was condemned to death, but the soul to damnation. There is the differēce that we teach not: but wee teach an­other thing far more cō ­fortable, that Christ descē ­ded into all the torments of hell, to quite vs of them: by that he deliuered vs from Hell. To deliuer vs from these two punishments, the soule of Christ went to hell and returned, and the bo­dy of Christ that lay dead in the graue, rose again mi­ghtily, naturallye, speedily and happely.All that we teach as wel as you Bee­sides, Christ rose in deede,All that we teach as wel as you he gaue himselfe to be felte and handled, herevpon wee are assured that he conquered death and hell.All that we teach as wel as you He ascended into Heauen, and therfore our praiers are hard, when we pray vnto him,All that we teach as wel as you and he giueth vs gifts for our ministry,All that we teach as wel as you and so he shall come to iudgement at the last day, to giue vs perfect blessednes. You confess that Christ was borne in deede, liued and fulfiled the law, in the likenes of our flesh (sinne excepted) he dy­ed in deede, he was buried in deede,And that he descēded into hell indeede: why past you by that? aha D. aha D he rose and ascended in deede,Wee ne­uer denied that: speak truth for shame. and yet you will not confesse that he personalye descended. How can al these arti­cles going before, and comming after be vnderstode of the person of Christ, and of his humanity,Fie man: who sayes so? & not this. Therefore you denying thisYou s [...]ā ­der. person­all descending of Christ into hell,We take not away that comfort. take away the greate comfort of our deliuerance from hell. You say we are deliuered from hell by ChristsAnd by his discēding into hell. death: so are we too by his birth.So you may say, that we are deliuered by Adam: if he had neuer sinned, we had neuer needed Christ. For if Christ had not bene borne he had not dyed? so if there had not beene a seperation of the body and soule of Christ,He conquered when he conflicted, and he conflicted be­fore the separation. he could neuer haue conquered death or hell: for by de­scending intoThis Diuinitie is scarse currant, see the answere. the graue, and that personally, he conquered death, & hath deliuered vs from death, This Diuinitie is scarse currant, see the answere. & by going downe into hell personallye, he hath conquered hel. And for this cause, the scripture appli­eth [Page 147] it to the death of Christ,Not so: but because in death he conflicted with these e­nemies. because death was (as Paul saith, Phil. 3. A dissoluiton of body and soule And these 2. parts being dissolued, Christ came from the graue and from hel,This i [...] like the 606. and Christ did conquer both, and triumph ouer them in him self, as it is Col. 2. 15. These Jewes do aske asigne from heauen,This is superfluous. Math. 22, 38. Luk. 11. 29. to whom Christ said, A wic­ked and addulterous Generation doeth aske a signe, but no signe shal be giuen them, but the signe of Ionas the prophet, for as Ionas was in the whales belly three dayes and three nights: so shall the sonne of man bee in the hart of the earth, three daies and three nights. Which words Basilius Magnus interpreteth very wel. These words (a signe) is a matter made manifest cō ­teyning y• declaration of some thing that was hidden as y• signe of Ionas, representeth y• take inferi for the dead, & these men turne not this text to your byas descending of Christ into hell, and the resurrection of Christ, and as Bede saith,take inferi for the dead, & these men turne not this text to your byas & Rhab. also, he gaue thē a sign, but not from heauen, because they were vnworthy to see it, but from the depth of hel: Therefore (M. Hume) this is a most comfortable doctrine, thatThat is not the thing you promised We teach that as wel as you. Christ doth deliuer vs from hell: which albeit you agnise as well as wee,We deny it not, see the answere. yet because you deny the meanes where by it was purchased, you deny a most comfor­table doctrine: for not only the body of Christ was in the heart of the earth,Simplie say you? with­out a figure, if you do, I deny it. but the son of man, which signifieth the whole humanitye, that is, the soule and the body. Ionas was in the whales belly aliue and yet came forth, Christ was in the graue dead in flesh,Petitio principij. and aliue in hel, and yet came forth▪ I denie the argumē [...]. Therefore to take away this maner of descending, taketh away from the Church a singular comfort,It fol­lowes not. and ope­neth a gap to many errors confuted already by the Fathers. For, if Christ did conquer hel, by the power of theThat is your dreame Godhead only, and not as he is a man, what neede had he to take vpon him our nature? but [Page 148] because as man he might be Lord not a heauen, and the Angels, but of the earth and of the inhabitants therof, and of hell and the diuels.I saide Pi [...] do [...]t. You say the world is sory for me. In the world saith Christ you shal haue affliction. And he telleth me the world wil hate me. I way not these things:If you be. I would you were not. for I am noe man­pleaser, nor lover of the world. But if in my Sermon I had disagreed with Dauid; Ezechiel, Esay, Peter▪ Paule, 623. Wordes, see the an­swere. & Christ himselfe 923 as you haue done in your an were, I hope I should be both soryBut you cannot b [...]u [...]h. and ashamed. Touching M. Chalfont whome you terme a man without iudgement, and that he spake impu­dently and enuiously, I neuer sawe him before that time and but once sence▪ but by that speech and con­ference which I had with him I ford him to be lear­ned His lear­ning I will not meddle with, But if you had enquired, how he vsed tha [...] g [...]od soul M. W. sedome: you might haue seen his gale runne ouer and v [...]id of gail. Such of his neighbours as I haue talked with, did giue him y• deserued praise of a learned and honest man.626 That is the question. And for asmuch as hee hath preached 926 sound doctrine in preaching the affirmatiue, and that doct [...]in which is allowed by the learned conuocation of this land, it doth not become you toCan a private letter be a [...]bel [...]? lible against him. for in speaking against himFancie. They take neither your part nor his. you traduce al those reuerend and learned men, which made an Iuiunction for keeping of vnitie that no other Catechisme should bee taught of any Schoolmaister then M. Nowels. Therefore becaus you areI am no stranger in the church of Christ a strāger you ought not to beLet thē that know me better then you be asked if this be trve. pertergos & speak euil of those Ministers which vphold the doc­trine Your opinion is not established. established: and because you are a Schole­maister, you ought to teache and not to gainsaye it. Qui pergit dicere ea, quae vult, audiet ea, quae non vuls. as you reuile at M. Chalfont, so dooIs truth a reueiling? you and your frends priuilye against me, calling me a Bishop pling and a time-seruer.Tell when, where, and before whome I said so, [...] you can. Indeed I was brought [Page 149] vp vnderYou did well [...] put that in [...] but [...] in, Vertute d [...]cer non sangui [...]e niti. Bishop Iewell, who catechisedI searse thi [...]ke it me in this saith, & therefore I will not easily or rashly depart from it. I confesse my selfe also to be a timeser [...]er, There was neuer worse time you h [...]ue laid mē so fast a sleep, with this lu [...]labie, that now they dreame, tha [...] there is nei­ther heauen nor hell: God nor Deuill: That Moses was a Politican, and Christ a deceauer. Are these your dayes of salvation? Th [...]se are the times that Paull did pr [...]phecie of 2. Tim. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 and Peter 2. Epist. 3 3. and [...]f which Christ saith the elect should be deceaued if it were possible. Math 24. 24. Praise them as much as you will▪ for it is the day and time of saluation ac­cepted. [...]et them murmur with Martin that liste: I pray God my dayes may end with this time, and my time ma continue no longer then these dayes of the stated our Church, that now is do continue. I haue seene the begining,You haue seene the beginning, but smal propagation. Men w [...]re glader of the Gospell in the beginning, then now: the fault must needes be in the teachers. I leaue that to your selues. God giue you hartes to mend in wrod and work [...]. I have seene the propagation of the Gospell, I haue seene God hath de [...]ended our Church merciful & miraculously from heauen. God grant that I and all my Auditors may walk worthy of our calling, Godly, ius [...]ly, & soberly. Therefore I end with this saying of S. Paule 1. Cor. 4. 3. As touching me I [...]asse very little to be iudged of you, or of mans iudgement▪ and in the 5. verse, Therefore iudge no­thing before the time vntill the Lord come, who shall lighten things that are hidden in darknes, and make the counsels of the hart maniefest, and then shall eue­ry man haue praise of God.

HVME his Reioynder to the 17. Section.

TRuth it is that you did preach since at Leycocke, not for contentions sake, but to haue the laste word. For, hearing that M. Wisedom had broached his opinion at Cosham, and had perswaded Christian men to doubt of the articles of their fatih, (so your [Page 150] words do sound) you could not holde your fingers. For my parte, I am much in your favour. For you were content to see mee misuse all the Prophetes & Apostles, and Christ himselfe, and would not haue said to mee so much as black is my eie, if some vn­ruelie tongues blemishing your credite, had not set you a worke. But blab it is, and out it must. You ex­cused M. Wisedom of this fault, in the beginning of your sermon at Chippenhame, and accused him againe (vnawares) in the end of it. In the last section, you say, that you spake that of Carlill, Servetus, and some that tolde you, that Thomas Aquinas did insert this article: and now againe (vnaduisedlie) you say heer, that you preached againe at Leycocke, after that you had heard of M. Wisedomes preaching at Cosham, because you would haue no Christian man, to doubt of the articles of his faith. If this sermon to this end was need-full in your eies: Then in your conceit M. Wisedome had taught men at Cosham, to doubt of the articles of their Faith: contrarie to your first ser­mon at Cippenhame, and your laste section heere. Carlil and Servetus did help to couer this slip before. Now, what cloak will you finde, to hide this contra­diction againe? My simple head cannot sound into the depth of your excuses: and therfore, I leaue it to your self to prooue, that this slip did leape ouer the hatch, against your will. Now, you say, that I do ask you what comfortable or necessary matter you teach that we denie. To this (with protestation praemised) that I marke it consideratlie, as though you woulde not let one sillable fall in waste: you begin a long discours of the magnitude, multitude, turpitude, &c of our sinnes, and of Christs paines for our pardon, of his resurrection, ascension, and many other things which wee acknowledge, as well as you: all which, while my eares prepared by your protestation, did [Page 151] hearken for the promised comfort we teach not: at length commeth out, that we beeing subject to two great curses, death and damnation, Christ descen­ded into the graue to deliuer vs from the one, and into Hell to deliuer vs from the other. This is right Parturiunt montes. That Christ went downe into Hell, is not our comfort. Our comfort is, that he hath de­liuered vs from the bands of hell, which we teach & acknowledge as wel as you. But if this your doctrine be true, then is it false that Peter teacheth 2. 24. that Christ bare our sinnes in his bodie on the tree, and his sacrifice vnperfect. Wherefore to conclude, mag­nus nugator, magno conatu, magnas nobis nugas parit. But (say you) though we agnise this (that is your tearm) as well as you. Yet because wee denie the meane thereof, wee denie a moste comfortable doctrine. The meane of our salvation was not his going down into the Hell of the damned, which wee denye: nor the laying of him vp three daies in Iosephs tombe which we confesse. But his suffering in his innocent soule and bodie, al the torments and miseries of hel and death; which wee must haue suffered, if hee had not stept in betweene vs and them. I will not onelie say▪ this (after your manner) but I will proue it so sufficientlie, that you your self, shall not gainesay it.

The meane of our salvation, was the conquest of Hell and death: But his going downe into the Hell of the damned and Iosephs tomb, was not that con­quest: Ergo, his going downe into the hell of the dā ­ned, or Iosephs tombe, was not the meane of our salvation. Another.

The meane of our salvation, was that immaculate sacrifice that Christ did offer for our sinnes: But his descending into the hell of the damned, and Iosephs tombe, was not that sacrifice: Ergo, his going down into the hell of the damned, and Iosephs tomb, was [Page 152] not the meane of our salvation.

Another.

There Christ redeemed vs where hee paide the ransome of our redemption: But hee paide not the ransome of our redemption in the hell of the dam­ned, and Iosephs tombe. Ergo, hee redeemed vs not by descending into the hell of the damned, nor Io­sephs tombe.

Heer be three reasons in mood and figure, against your comfortable doctrine, which when you haue answered, I will bring a whole armie of such mighty souldiers, (for the scriptures haue enough such) to turne your comfort into murning, and your joy in­to teares, if it stand on no better ground then this. But say you, if all the articles going before the com­ming after, bee vnderstood of Christs person: then this article of his descending muste ca [...]e the same sense: But the first is true: Ergo, the last is also true. This is a good argument, but the conclusion is not for your hand. If you had but one such for your maine-shot of descending, a whole reame of paper royall, would bee too little for your amplifications. But heer your malice driving you to imagine much absurditie in our opinion, doeth deceaue you. For wee holde and will die for it, that Christ in his owne person bodie and soule, did descend into all the tor­ments, that hel could yeelde. And this indeede is a true descending into Hell. For the nature and name of Hell, doth yeeld nothing but horrour, terror, trē ­bling and torments. But in your opinion, we must i­magine all things contrarie. Not torments, but tri­umph: nor sorrowes, but solace: not shame and ig­nominie, but honour and glory. Hell doeth yeelde no such frutes, nor the descending into hell, can bee to no such ende. Take therefore your potentiall de­cending into Hell, and the conquest thereof by the [Page 153] onlie power of the Deitie, and buy a benefice with it. Whereas you say that our opinion doeth open a gap to manie errors: you pretend a feare without groūd, to make the Reader affraied of the moone-shade. It is the manner of politick men, that would faine hin­der a thing, that reason doeth further, to set feare of sequels against the force of known reason. Heer you flee to that shift, though you know, that amongest al the writers, that haue embraced this opinion (which be manie, & of great name) not one yet can be tain­ted with one error growing in this fountaine. In this section you hamper about another argument, but cannot hit the marke. Wherefore to saue your la­bour, I will heere make it vp, and breake the point of it, when I haue done, that you may see it cannot [...]urt vs. It is this. There is greater reason that Christ should haue beene held three daies of Hell without paine: then three daies of the graue without cor­ruption. But hee was three dayes in the graue without corruption. Ergo, he was farre rather thre daies in Hell without paine. Because it is not likelie, that the weaker did fasten faster on him, then the stron­ger: beeing as far inferiour in malice, as it is lesse in power. To this I answere, that there is not the like reason, much lesse greater reason. For, hee lay three dayes in the graue to confirme our knowledge, and to extinguishe all doubt of his death. Secondlie, to lay a grounded beleef in our hearts of the resurrecti­on: For, he was the first frutes of the dead. Thirdlie, to make his resurrection more glorious. For the lō ­ger he was held in the bandes of death, the greater glorie it was to breake them, gathering strength by continuance. Lastlie, to take all blockes out of the path of faith, that wee might walke in it more surelie, without stumbling. I knowe no such reasons why he should haue descended into the very place of [Page 154] hell being so farre remooued from our senses, as we could receiue neither knowledge nor comfort ther­by. Now, whereas you take mee vp, for saying that the world is sorrie for you: my wordes might haue had a tollerable construction, if you had cast an eie to Christs words in Iohn. God so loued the worlde that hee gaue his onelie begotten Sonne for it: or if you had lookt in my latine: you should haue found my wordes lesse subject to violence. Pij omnes dolent, that is, al the godlie are sorie, sounding much to the same sense. But you loue not the world (you say) nor the world loues not you: I think you speake truelie. iiij. or v. benefices to them that you haue, wold serue the turne, to maintaine your skarlet hood, and half a dosen of tall fellowes in tawnie coates, to defend that with the sword, which you cannot with the pen & that is but a peece of the world. But you loue not the world because it is not so liberall: nor the world loues not you so, becaus you haue more charges al­ready, thē you haue tongues to teach. You cōclude that I beeing a stranger muste not bee periergos, and that Si pergam dicere, quae volo: audiam, quae nolo. These arguments were better in Queen Maries fierie daies for D. Storie, then they are now in the calmes of E­lizabeth, for D. Hill. You slander the learned con­vocation of the land, and wrong good M. Nowell, who, (as I heare) disclaimeth your opinion. As for mee, I am a Christian, and therefore no stranger in the Church of Christ. I will not speake against my conscience, for all the counsels and convocations in the world, and all the Doctors in both the Vniuersi­sities, if they were my aduersaries. But (God bee thanked) it is not so. I began with you in secrete, & you haue made it common. Wherefore you are peri­erg [...]s and not I.

HIL his conclusion to M. Hume.

MAister Hume, in the latter end of your answere you request mee to recant: if your answere did please mee, as it doth you: I would be as willing to recant, as you and your freends would be glade to heare it. But I will plainelie set downe my reasons why I doe not recant: The first is, I alledged Act. 2 and proued out of Peters sermon my assertion, and to the reasons I drew out of that place, you haue an­swered nothing. Secondlie, I alledged Syra, 17. 21. To proue, that this phrase, (the nethermost parts of the earth) doth signifie hell, to this you haue in like manner saide nothing. Thirdlie, in all your an­sweres to my allegations, you haue disagreed with the word of God. In answering of the 16. Psal. you say my allegation is to be vnderstood of the pas­sion of Christ: And Peter Act. 2. saith, it is spoken of the resurrection, whether is to bee beleeued of Peter or you, I referre it to the indifferent Reader. Then I proued that ERETS TACHTITH, that is, (the ne­thermost partes of the earth) did signifie hell, out of the 63. Psalm and 9. verse. In answering of this you dissent from David, and M. Calvine. Now, whether it be more safe to sollowe Dauid or you, let mine e­nemies iudge. I alleadged Ezechiel to proue that point also 31. chapter. 5. 16. 17. 18. 19. In answering to that place, you haue gain-saide [...]zechiel, Esay in his 14. chapter Lavaterus, Munster, and Pellicane. Now, whether it be more fit for mee to beleeue you or Esay, or Ezechiel, let your owne favorites iudge. Then I alleadged the known place of Peter, you tra­vailed much about this place, yet in your interpreta­tion of this word pneumasi, that is (spirits) which you interprete the soules of the men that liued in Noahs [Page 156] time, you contradict the words of our Saviour, Luk 24 39. For Christ saieth, a Spirit hath not fleshe and bones, as you see me haue. And yet you, and your Maisters [...]ay, that this word spirit may signifie a mā living. Now, whether it bee more expedient for mee to beleeue you, or Christ, I referre it to your owne iudgement. You [...]aid my Sermon at Chippenhame did confirme you, and your frends: but I hope your owne answeres will not confute mee, but your selfe, and cause your self, and them both to recan [...]: you say you seeke to know he truth: so do I, (as knoweth the knower of all hearts): wherefore, whether you or I haue taught the trueth, let not Hume nor Hill iudge, but the learned of the [...]niversi [...]ies. For, as Paule saith. 1. Cor. 14. 32. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophetes. That is, the labors of the learned men, are to be iudged of the learned. The God of patience and consolation, giue vs grace, that we may be like minded one towards another accor­ding to Christ Iesus, that we may with one minde, & one mouth, glorifie God the Father of our Lord Ie­sus Christ. Rom. 14. 5. 6. To whome bee all honour & glorie, world without end. Amen.

An answere to the conclusion.

IF you had been the man that you protested in the pulpite, and I promised my selfe, when I wrote: there was good hope, that my answere might haue pleased you, as wel as mee. But now I see it impossi­ble to please you, except I could sing your song. And truelie M. D. I could sing your song as soone as anie mans, if it did tune as wel with the concent of scrip­tures, as other mens doe. But now you must pardon me: I am too old to learn your discords. The things in my answere, which I hoped might haue wrought [Page 157] it favour with you, was truth and reason. But nowe I see, the one is a stranger with you, and the other a guest at will. If they had beene of that account in your studie, and so familiar with you, as I hoped: my poore answere had not found such hard handling, nor vnreasonable railing there, as it did. You sent it home so ragged, rent, and torne: that it coste mee a moneths work in the cold winter, to mend his coat. Now, I haue quilted it better, & sent it to you once againe, to challenge your promise, and to tell you that your plaine reasons heere set downe, why you could not recant are nullified and made of none ef­fect: like an obligation, that is paied at the day ap­pointed. Wherefore, seeing your argument drawne from the Act. 2. is answered sect. 4. and sect. 7. And seeing your place out of Syrach is 7. waies defaced sect. 11. And seeing I haue proued my consent with the Scriptures in euerie place, where I met with that accusation. And seeing our sense of the 16. Psalm, a­greeth with Peter as wel as yours, sect. 7. And seeing in my answere to Psal. 63. I dissent neither from Da­vid nor Calvine, sect 8. And seeing in my answere to the place of Ezechiel, I dissent neither from him nor Esay, sect. 9. And seeing I haue proued by the worde (spirit) that men living in the fleshe are not signified sect. 12. And seeing now I haue set down your words according to your owne request: and seeing your sermon at Chippenhame, and this anwsere also, hath confirmed mee: and seeing mine own answere doth no [...] offer me, nor anie of my freends sufficient cause to recant. I hope now you are satisfied, and that you will satisfie me, and the populous congregation, to whome you made your solemne promise of recanta­tion in the pulpite at Chippenhame. It was not a place to dissemble in, and therefore let vs see that [Page] you meant as you spake. The Lord giue you a hart pliable to his truth.

ANd heere to end, as if M. D. had set the bent of his wit to shewe the vanitie of his worke, he maketh the vainest bragge, that euer grewe in a vaine heade. There was (good Reader) if thou knowe it not) one Ovid, of all vaine poets the vai­nest. Amongest manie filthie, and vaine workes, he wrote a book entituled Metamorphosis. In it he sets the edge of all his wits (which he had as sharp as euer had anie Poet) to the painting of lies in all coloures wherein he shot so neare the marke, that in compa­rison of it, the lying legend commes not neere the whetstone, by as manie myles as there be wordes in them both. The conclusion of this worthie worke, M. D. hath pasted to his hel, as most agreable to that argument.

Iamque opus exegi, quod nec Iouis ira, nec ignis,
Nec pot [...]rit ferrum, nec edax abolere vetustas.

In which Ovid looking back into the worke of his owne wit, grew into such loue with the finenesse of his owne conceits, that he doubted not to de [...]ie his owne imagined God Iuppiter. Now, that thou mightest see (gentle reader) that M. Doctor did thinke of his owne worke, as well as Ovid coulde of his: hee brusteth out in the same brag. In which, if he meane Ovids Idole by this Iuppiter, it is heathnishe, if the true God, it is Hellishe. That they that vnderstand not the latine, may vnderstand it, I haue thought [Page] not amisse to englishe it as neere the words as I can keeping the english meeter.

I haue at length made vp this work,
Which Iuppiter in raging fume:
With me, with fire, with edged sworde,
And cankering age cannot consume.

To it I may well answere out of another Poet.

Quid dignum tanto fert hic promissor hiatis,
Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

That is,

What hath this vaunting bragger done
Worth gaping mouth and lips so wide:
The groning Hill is brought a bed
And out a sillie mous doth slide.
Huic latino carmine sic respondero.
Nondum est exactum: ludit tua gloria ventos,
Ad sat a licta redi▪ I am renovatur opus.
In cineres▪ fumosque tui rediere labores,
Quod louis ignis agit, quod Iovis irae facit.
Aliud.
Dicere sibellum mireris tartara coelo:
Foedera Dis stygius cum Ioue nulla colit.
Aliud.
Christum post stygios in tristi morte dolores,
Contendit stygias Hillus adisse domos.
Complexus vano nugas, tricasque libello
Provocat insanus tela, manumque Iovis.
Errat: fi tutum Iovis ira acheronta putarit,
Non coquit aeternis iguibus ille stygem?
FINIS.

CERTAINE PLACES QVO­ted out of Master Doctors owne Authours, vpon the three principal places, where-upon he buildeth this his opinion, wherein thou maist see gentle Reader, how small cause hee hath to bragge of so many old and new writers. I leaning alto­gether on the word of trueth, haue not q [...]ted them in the treatise it selfe, counting them vnsufficient witnesses in such a cause, wherein they haue neither reveil [...]d, nor experimen­ted knowledg, yet because I would not defraud the [...] of their judgments, I haue thought good to set them downe heere.

The first place is, thou vvouldest not leaue my soule in [...] nor suf­fer thy holy one to see corruption, vvhere M. D [...]ct [...]r takes [...] to be hell, vve the generall condition of them vvhich are departed this life.

MOLERVS,In Psal. 16. caeterum movent hic questionem [...] descensu Christi ad inferos, quā prudens omitto: cum ex hoc l [...]co id satis certo evinci non possit.

Felinu, non deseres ammam me [...] ̄sepu [...]hro, id est, non destitues me, vt anima mea morti concedat. Per she [...]l enim quod sepulchrum significat (vt in Psal 6. vers 6. d. x [...]) statum & con [...]tio­nem mortuorum,In eundem hoc est inferos, script [...]ra transnominare solet.

Muse Ius, non derelinques animam meam in sepulchro, nec da­bi [...] sa [...]ctum tuum videre corruptionem,In eundem. quasi dicat, tam certus sum ma [...]surum me perpetuo, vt vbi etiam mortuus fuero, in m [...]rteta. men detineri nequeam: ideo quod, &c.

Hemingius: on thi psalme saith, Vis verborum hunc sensum vt à Petro docemur, suppeditat, non derelinques▪ id est, non sines, ani­mam meam,In eundem. id est, me: in inferno, id est, sepulchro permanere.

Pomeranus, Quoniam non derelinques animam meam, id est, vitam meam, [...] [...]ndem. in inferno, id est in morte: Christus non solum pro no­bis mortuus est▪ sed etiam voluit pro nobis al [...] quantisper▪ id est, vs (que) in tertium diē descendere ad tenebras tartareas, vbi est imago mor­tis, & sicut Iob dicit sempiternus horror absque vll [...]ordine, ho [...] est voluit tam diu in morte teneri, ad quam nos eramus in Adam [Page] damnati. sic & Ioseph de morte sua loquitur, Gen. 37. descendam ad filium meum lugens in sheol.

These be fiue of M. Doctors principall Authors, all agreeing vvith vs, and contrary to himselfe, these that follovve indeed dissent from vs▪ and agree not vvith him on the meaning of this place.

Aepinus the great superintendent of Hamborough (as he calleth him) on this place saith. Veteres ex scripturis respondent diversa [...] ap [...]d inferos mansiones fuisse, beatasque animas à corpore separa­tas ante Christi ascensio [...]em, neque in terris mansisse, neque hinc ad superos in coelum migrasse, sed descendisse ad infernum▪ & huic sententiae suffragetur Ecclesiae Ca [...]h [...]licae consensus, & accedat scripturae sacrae autoritas: retineb [...] hanc sententiam donec certi­or scripturae interpretatio adferatur, & haec manifestis scripturae testimonijs confuretur.

Peter Mar [...]yr in his common places holdeth the same in a man­ner. Et vero vna atque altera tum piorum, spirituum, tum eorum qui damnati esse [...]t, societas Christi praesentiam persensit. Etenim fidelium spirituum▪ q [...]i in loc [...] tranquillo quies [...]bant, qui sinus A­brahae apposite dicitur, vt cum sancto illo Patriarcha eadem fide praediti ex [...]ectarent salutem per Christum, qua ab Abrahamo de­nominabantur, spiritus inq [...]am [...] magna consolatione exhilarati sunt, Egeruntque Deo optimo maximo gratias, &c.

Lossius on this place saith. Christus ad inferos vere post mor­tem descendit, ne nos ad eos descendamus. 2. vt inde Patriarchas vt vetus credidit ecclesiae secum abduceret, cum quibus postea cum triumph [...] in co [...]lum ascendit.

These three holdeth that the Fathers vvere in hell, though Marty [...] dare not giue it that name, but calles it a place of rest and the bo­some of Abraham, all vvhich M. Doctor denieth.

Luther on this place tomo 3. of his workes. Sicut Christus cum summo dolore mortuus est [...]ta videtur dolores in inferno post mor­tem sustinuisse, vt nobis omnia superaret. Ita ego interea verbis Pe­tri inhaerebo donec meliora doctus fuero.

To him agreeth Latimer in his Sermons. And these two holde that he suffered in hell, which Master Doctor denieth.

The second place is in the 4. Ephes. verse 9. but that he ascended, vvhat is it but that he first descēded into the lovvermost parts of the earth.

[Page] Hemingius on this place saith. Porro, qui ex hoc loco descensum Christi ad inferos, & locum damnatorum cōcludant parum firmo nituntur fundamento. Non enim comparationem in lituit Apost. vnius partis terrae ad totam terram: sed totam te [...]ram cum coelo confert.

Musculus on this place bringeth two senses indifferently, the last accordeth with this. Potest exp [...] deterra simpliciter cu [...]us partes sunt respectu coeli inferiores. This much agreeth with vs against our Doctor.

Musculus his other sense is this. Descendit ad nos in hunc mun­dum, ad sepulchrum, & ad inferos▪ descendit ad eos propter quos redimendos venit: & quousque illi in partibus terrae cum vivendo, tum moriendo ad inferiora demissi sunt: covsque ipse sese demisit, quo nos ex inferioribus secum ad superiora, vnde descendit, sub­veheret. Where hee diss [...]nteth also from this Doctor ho [...]ding that he never descended farther than the Sancts of God doth, whome he came to redeeme, which was not I trowe so farre as the dam­neds hell.

Pelicanus on this place saith, Ascendit redivivus in sublime se­cum ducens victoriae suae trophaeum captivoram gregem à peccati Diabolique tyrannide liberatum. Here he holdeth that he did cary the fathers vp to heauen, which our Doctor demeth.

Petrus Martyr de vtraque in Christo natura contra vbiquitari­os. fol. 59. in typis Chistoph [...] Froschoveri apud Tygurinos. saith▪ Descendit ergo ad infer [...]ora terrae, & ascendit super omnes coe [...]os, filius Dei, vt non solum legem Pr [...]phetasque compleret: sed & ali­as quasdam occultas dispensationes, quas solus ipse novit cum Pa­tre. Neque enimscire p [...]ssumus quomodo Angelis, & his, qui in in­ferno erant, sanguis Christi pr [...]fuerit & tamen quin profuerit, ne­scire non possumus. Here this most excellent man avoucheth▪ that Christs blood was profitable to them in hel, which our Doctor date not [...]ay of the damned, howsoever Peter Martyr meant it.

The third place is out of the 1. Pet. 3. 18. 19. 20. mortified in the flesh, & quickened in the spirit, in vvhich spirit, hee vvent and preached to the spirits sometime disobedient in the daies of Noah, &c.

Hemingius on this place saith. Patet quod carnis voca [...]ulo tota humana natura Christi intelligatur: sicut & spiritus appellatione ejusdem divina natura.

And a little after he saith, Perpe [...]am quidam spiritus nomen ad animam tantum referunt contra apertum Paul [...] testimonium.

Aepinus vpon the 68. Psalme saith Petrus non meminit animae [Page] separatae à corpore sed illius spiritus, quo tempore Nohae incredu­li [...] praedicavit, nondum [...]ss [...]m ta hum [...]na carne, & q [...] vivi [...] catus [...] à morte, qui spiritus Deus est. non rationalis anima. De­us enimisculcitav [...]t cum s [...] lutis d [...]lo [...]bus mortis. Act 2. 13. nō anima.

Aretios on this place saith. Ideo car [...]em accipio libenter pro to­ta humana natura Christi, quā assumpsit in v [...]tatem personae. Con­tra▪ viu [...]catus est Spiritu, hoc est secundum divinam naturam. Pneum [...] igitur est divina natura vt constet fibi antithesis.

These three agree here vvith vs against this Doctor, that bosteth so much of their names.

Vitus Theodorus in the contents of the chapters of the first E­pistle of Peter trans [...]ated into Latine by Selneccer one of Maister Doctors auth [...]rs saith Singul [...]ris haec est doctrina, & quae alib [...] in sc [...]pturis nusq [...]ā legitur. & quid Apostolus per eam intelligit, non­dum perfecte scire licet. hoc certitudo est eum aliquot spiritibus praedicasse sed quot, & quibus videbimus in aeterna vita. Here this man, demeth that which he supposeth to be spoken heere, to haue any other warrant in the word. & that it is not knowne to what spi­rits he preached contrary to our Doctor.

Pelicanus on this place. Per spiritum intelligo spiritum sanctum datum Apostolis die Pentecostes: & per carcerem errores, & Id [...]lo­latrias Gentium, & Iudaeorum. Our Doctor by s [...]irit vnderstandeth the huma [...]e soule of Christ, by the prison hell. This man (one of his owne authors) vnderstandeth by spirit the holy Ghost, and by the prison the errours wherein the soules of the Iewes and Gentiles were capt [...]ued.

Thus thou maist see (gentle Reader) that these three places, on vvhich M. Doctor buildeth his opinion, his ovvne authors do interpret them some as vve do, and some othervvaies than he himselfe can allovve. vvherefore thou maiest vvell think, that this is a vveake foundation to build thy faith vpon. Novve I vvill note to thee hovve his ovvne authors (that he calles his ovvne I meane) do dissent from him, and one from another on the very article it selfe. First all his old vvriters send Christ to hel to deliuer the fathers, and he to the hell of the dam­ned vvhere the fathers never vvere, and there fore no more of them.

Erasmus in Catechesi saith, Ipsa inconcinnitas sermonis a [...]guit ab also quop [...]am intertextum Emblema▪ & paulo post. An Thomas Aquinas addiderit subdubito. Heere hee doubteth of the Arti [...]le it selfe, and supposeth Thomas Aquinas to haue inserted it.

Et postea vetustissimi patres magna religione cavebant, ne quid [Page] asseverarent duntaxatin symbolo, quod non esset evidenter sacris literis vtriusque testamenti expressum. Tales sunt omnes articuli hoc vno excepto. Heere he denies it (meaning the common sense of it) to haue any sufficient warrant in the word.

Afterward gathering all the places of scripture that are allead­ged by writers to confirme it he concludes. Nihil istorum est, quod tergiversatorem cogat credere Christi animam per se descendisse ad tartarum. And againe, in his multa sunt, quae nihil habent pon­deris: sed nullum est quod non vel allegoriae nebulo sit obscuru [...], vel variam accipiat interpretationem. Heere he denies the suffici­encie of all th [...] scriptures, that this man and all that went before him alledgeth, and yet this is one of his owne auth [...]urs.

Petrus Martyr in symbolo, saith, Quantum ad animam ipsam at­tinet, statim atque ex corpore excessit, non mansit oti [...]sa, sed de­scendit ad inseros, quod nihil aliud indicat, nisi quod eundem su­bijt statum, quem reliquae animae à corpore sejunctae experiuntur. Heere this man saith that to descend into hell is nothing else, but to enter into that same state, that other souls do, when they are de­parted from the body, which our Doctor denies, and yet this is one of his Authors.

Felmus on the 16. Psalme saith, Non est in Davide adimpletum quod hic canitur. Anima enim ejus tandem ad inferos descendit, & vidit caro ejus foveam. Heere this man taketh the name of hell for the common condition of al the dead, which our Doctor denies: & yet this is one of his Authours.

Pomeranus on the 16. Psalme, having expounded the name she­ol of the state of the dead as I haue quoted before concludes. At (que) hic habes articulum illum fidei, with many more wordes prooving that Christ hath wrought our deliverance by his death and not by descending into the hell of the damned. And yet this is one of Ma­ster Doctors best Authours.

Westmerus in tropis in voce, infernus, pag. 832. saith, Ad infer­num descendere, nihil aliud est quam pessum ire, &c. And after in the same page. and page 833. ad infernum descendere est corpus sub terra recondi▪ vnde cum Christus descendisse ad inferos adse­ritur in symbolo vere mortuus, & sepultus esse intelligitur Heere this man saith, that Christs descending into hell is m [...]ant but of hic death, and burial. And yet this is one of M Doctors authours.

Luther and Latimer hold [...], that Christ suffered in hell the tor­ments of hel, as I haue quoted alreadie. This our Doctor denies, and yet these be two of his Authours.

Hipperius in his Catechisme, gathering the summe of this part of our faith thus saith. Primo dignatus est Christus se nostri causa [Page] humiliare nostram assumens naturam per omnia (si excipiamus peccatum) par nobis factus, secundo pro nostris peccatis expiandis maximos cruciatus pertulit, & mortem ignominiosissimam Tertio quo donaremur iustitia à morte resurrexit quibus peractis pristi­nam accepit gloriam, & ascendit ad coelos. Here this man shoulde­reth it quite out of his creed, and yet this is one of Maister Doctor [...] Authours.

Lossius on the 16. Psalme saith, Descendit ad inferos totus Chri­stus sive filius Dei, sicut idem conceptus est de spiritu sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, crucifixus, m [...]rtuus, & sepultus.

Hemingius in his Catechisme hath the like. Christus descendit ad inferos vtrum anima an corpore scriptura non dicit: sed Sym­bolum videtur innuere totum Christum descendisse. Heere these two men say that Christ descended into hell body and soull: our Doctor denies it: and yet these be two of his Authours.

Vrbanus Rhegius in Catechismo, saith, Secundum animam de­scendit ad inferna ad pias animas Adami, Noahi, Lothi, &c. Heere this man saith, that hee went into hell to the holy soules of Adam Noah, and Loth. our Doctor saith they were not there, and yet this is one of his Authours.

Aepinus on the 16. Psalme saith. Quod autem Christus latron [...] dixit hodie eris mecum in Paradiso non abrogat fidem huic dog­mati de descensu Christi ad inferos: quia paradisus illa de qua lo­quitur Christus eo tempore apud inferos fuit, nunc autem apud su­pero [...] coel [...] est. Heere this man saith that Paradise was in hell be­fore the comming of Christ: our doctor saith no, and yet this is one of his best Authours.

Lavaterus on Ezech 31. 18. saith, hades apud Graecos generale vocabulum est tormentorum & quietis. This man saith, and saith it trulie, that the greeke name of hell, is a common name both to the place of the torments of the wicked, and the joyes of the faithfull. our Doctor denies that, and yet this is one of his cheefe Authours.

Alesius on the 19. of Iohn vpon these wordes, Exiuit in locum qui Caluaria dicitur, orationem repetit luciani presbiteri Antiocheni vbi haec habet. Adhibebo vobis loci ipsius testimonium adstipula­tur his ipse in Hyerosolimis locus, & Golgothana rupes sub patibuli onere dis [...]pta. Antrum quoque illud quod avulsis inferni Ianuis corpus demum reddidit animatum, quo purius inde ferretur ad coelum. Here this man maketh the place where Christ was buried the mouth of hell, meaning thereby the place of death, our Doctor denies that, and yet this is one of his Authors.

Aretius in the ninth of his common places, fol. 31. Sed de ill [...] non satis constat, quamdiu apud inferos sit commoratus: non diu vt [Page] apparet, vt eadem die secundum animam ab inferis reversus glorio­se Paradisum ingressus sit cum latrone. Heere this man saith that Christ was not one day in hell, M. Doctor saith that hee was there al the three daies, that he lay in the graue, and yet this is his chefest Authour.

Maister Nowell in his greater Catechisme saith, Christum, vt co [...]pore in terrae viscera, Ita anima à corpore sep [...]rata ad inferos descendisse, simulque etiam virtutis suae virtutem atque efficacita­tem ad mo [...]tuos, atque inferos adeo ipsos ita penetrasse, vt & incre­dulorum animae acerbissim [...]m justissimamque infidelitatis suae dā ­nationem, [...]pseque Satanas i [...]ferorum princeps tyrannidis suae, & tenebrarum potestatem omnem deb [...]itatam, fractam, a [...]que ruina collaps [...]m [...]ss [...] persentiret: Contra vero mortui Christo dum vixe­runt fidentes, redemptionis suae [...]pus jam peractum esse, ejusq vim, atque virtutem cum suavissima, cer [...]ssimaque consolatione intelli­ge [...]ent atque perciperent. Heere (gentle Reader) because Maister Doctor wrongeth this good man, then whome the earth beareth not many, and (as I am perswaded) [...] any better, I pray thee mark this place well, for these are the onely wordes that M. Doctor chal­lengeth in all his workes. First th [...]u ma [...]est obserue, that he vseth the name (inferi) not for the damned onely but for al the dead: because he saith that by Christs descending ad inferos, both the wicked felt the justnes of their damnation, and the godly the sweetnes of their salvation, and so Christus descendit ad inferos is but Christ descen­ded to the dead. Secondly that he saith not that Christs soule de­scended into the hell of the damned, as our Doctor doth: but that his soul being severed from his body, that is, beeing departed this life, he discended ad inferos, that is, was laid vp amongst them whose life was blotted out of the memory of the living. Thirdly, hee saith not that those, to whome he descended saw him there personally▪ but they felt and vnderstood the one their j [...]st damnation, the o­ther their sweet salvation together with his descending to the dead that is presently vpon the dissolution of his soule and body. Where­fore great wrong hath our D. done this man, to w [...]ing hi [...] words be­ing somewhat obscure to a sense that he never meant, and to brag of him as being the father of an opinion that I dare hope (for he is yet aliue) he doth disallow. His opinion is amongst all the godly al­lowed to be true th [...]ugh not so wel fitting the article of the Creed: but our D. opinion no man accepteth yet for trueth, except it be himself and his favorities. Thus I haue set down, what jarring there is betweene this man, and his authors. Now I will shewe thee, how he hath pulled some into this braul, that never dealt in the matter to make his muster booke long ynough, & to feare m [...]n with naked names.

[Page] Robert Samuell in the bo [...]ke of Martyrs, making a confession of his faith when he comes to this point, saith no more thā the words of the beleefe, which be meant as wel with vs, as with him, and him he quotes for one.

Lambe [...]t in the same book handling the question of the real pre­sence, quotes a place out of Aug. ad Dardanum to proue that Christ being corporally in heaven, is not corporally in the Sacrament: in which place being long, Aug. amongst those things, that Lambert quotes him for, saith that Christ according to his soule was in the bottome of hel (which if it be wel taken may be) was devoured and swallowed vp of death▪ but Lambert himselfe neither alloweth nor dissalloweth it, as being a thing beside his question: and yet hee is alleadged for one.

M. Fox writeth a litle Pamphlet intituled Christ triumphing, be cause in it is displaied the greatnes of the battell, the worthines of the victory, & the joye of the conquest. The Printer (for I think M. Fox neuer cared greatly, what signe they hanged at his shop dore) or if it was M. Fox himselfe, all is one, devised a picture to expresse the matter within the book. A man with foure wound, in his hands & fect, invested in a bright cloud, with a glistering flame, as it were of fame, & glory glimmering about his face, standing with the one foot on the head of a Dragon: and the other on the heart of death. This picture M. Doctor tooke to be so sure an argument of Christs descending into hell, that he not onely causeth to set it before his owne b [...]k likewise: but also repeateth the name of M. Fox 4. times if not oftner, as favouring his opinion, hauing to my knowledge not one word in al his works, and I am sure not one syllable in the book, which he quotes of Christ triumphing, saving that picture. Thus gentle Reader, I haue giu [...]n thee a vewe of 23. of M. Doctors Au­thors, of whome some speake against him, some differ from him, & some say nothing for him▪ wherefore thou maiest conclude, that it is but a painted cause that alleadgeth pictures for arguments▪ there is not one of al the Authours, that he masters so often: that agre­eth with him in all things concerning this opinion. Cajetane a Cardinall of Rome writing vpon the place of Peter (I [...] he had not scar­red at his popish name) commeth nee [...]er him than any of these, Vt ipse Christus mortificatus carne (nam vere mortuus est secundum car­nem) viuificatus autem spiritu (nam tunc cum mortuus erat viuificatus erat spiritu) vt pote beatus secundum spiritum, & triumphans de daemo­nibus. Here he hath his descending into hell, his triumphing over the Deuils, his being aliue when he was dead, and his flesh for the body, & spirit for the humane soule. Therefore good Reader, let him follow Cajetan and follow thou the trueth.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.