The Sufferings and Victory of Christ in the Work of Redemption

That Christ suffered for us the wrath of God: which we may well term the pains of Hell, or Hellish sorrows.

T O declare faithfully the sufferings of Christ our Savior which for us he endured, & how he conquered the power of Hell & Satan to free us thereof • ō, is a matter for all Christians (if any other) most worthy of handling, and necessary to be known: Especially now seeing of late great injury hath been done by no mean Prelate, to this point of christ • ā verity, in such wise as no Protestant hath ever done the like heretofore, neither hath brought more offense to the godly, or disquietness to the Churches in England. Therefore I could not forbear, though all other, who are meeter then myself, keep silence, but employ my poor talent in this profitable service for the church of Christ, committing the whole success unto God, whose holy cause I labor to clear from all the corrupt fancies & vain imaginations of men in this behalf.

The whole controversy hath in it 2. points 1. That Christ suffered for us the wrath of God. 2. That after his death on the cross, he went n • t into Hell in his soul.

The former of these is proved most soundly & evidently diverse ways. First by a general reason takē from the sufferings of the soul of Christ, then by other sp •••• l and more immediate arguments, as afterward by God's grace shall well appear.

Now then for the former thus we say & constantly auowe: Christ Jesus did suffer in his whole manhood for the red • mption and a •• faction of our sins: yea he suffered proper •• e and immediate •• e in his soul, and not in his fl •• he only.

Therefore he suffered for us the wrath of • OD. This consequent here is manifest and cannot be denied. For what could tou • he the soul of Christ immediately and prope • lie as he suffered and satisfied for our sins, but the displeasure and • ust anger of God alone? What else can Christ's soul be subject unto properly and immediately in regard of sorrow and affliction, and that ••• r sin? But this sequel is not doubted of, or if it be, we shall have occasiō afterward to declare it further, The antecedent, or first part of the former general rea • on is denied & confidently rejected: yet •• ve falsely by God's help, by that which followeth, shall easily appear.

Wherein it behooveth, that first we consider, how we mean and hold this assertion, which is namely thus: That Christ suffered in his soul not only by Sympathy or joint feeling with his body and arising from his body. It is true in deed that so he suffered in his soul, as also mutually in his body by Sympathy from his soul, for his body else had been sensele. & dull, and without all feeling. But here we mean that his soul had further some sufferings that were proper and immediately risinge in and from the soul: Such as the flesh of Christ no ways caused, neither could fully apprehend. As fear, sorrow, temptatiō, anguish of mind, a bitter sense of God's • ust and severe wrath, & all these directly for sin which he undertook on himself for us.

[ 1] And this first God willing, shall be proved. Then after, the contrary reasons refuted. This then is proved in Mat. 26.28. My soul is every way sorrowful perilypos unto death, or compassed with so ••• wes unto death. None will deny but my Soul here is properly the very human soul of Christ. Also it is plain, this grievous passion was in his soul immediately and properly, not growing by any hurt of his flesh, seeing then his body was not touched with any smart. And lastly that this was for the bitter punishment of our sins which he now directly sustained in his soul, and yet was further to sustain, we ought not by any reason to doubt. For let us mark: the whole text here, and in all the Evangelists doth show that the only matter he was now going about, and especially troubled withal, was the very sufferings of him self as man for us, the full sacrifice & sin offering of our redemption. Nothing else now appeareth in the text to have disquieted him. Wherefore also he saith, Father, save me from this hour. Lett this cup pass from me: if it be possible lett this cup pass from me. What if he also had care and compassion for his countrymen the Jews? What, if he forgot not his Apostles and poor Church, now to be left behind as sheep amongst Wolves? Doeth that hinder or diminishe this his passion for sin? Or do not these words and other circumstances of the text declare, that now chiefly, yea only, he was troubled about his suffering for our sin. His care of his Apostles and Church he unburdened him self of, John 17 a little before he entered into this conflict of his passion John 18.1. That for Jerusalem and the Jews he was particularly touched withal not longe before, Mat. 23 37. & cap. 24. So that those affections do seme there to have their proper place. And the time after appeareth, namely in the garden & on the cross to be lest chiefly, yea only, for his sorrows & sufferings for the redemptiō of sins. Thus then let no man think it presumption to say expressly what did now in this sort grieve the Lord, and cause in him this heaviness. Him self we see telleth us expressly, therefore we may expressly say it: This his hour of suffering for sin, This cup of affliction and sorrow which now he felt and was to feel yet further, caused him so to mourn and fear. [Objection.] If you say, It was a passion in deed of the soul, it was sorrow, it was fear, and much heaviness, & that for our sins, but yet it was directly because of his bodily death & torments which were now near at hand. Or else he feared in deed God's wrath towards him for sins, but he felt it not. I answer, 1. That former is not so: It is no less then impious to affirm that only his bodily death and outward pains should so terrify and dismay him: as in the next more special arguments we shall further declare.2. Again, he both feared and felt God's anger for the sin of the world: as also in the said special arguments we shall see further. But his observe now: yet this first general reason is granted. If this in deed were fear of God's wrath, then Christ suffered for our sins properly and immediately in his soul, not in his flesh only. He feared, he had sorrow, astonishment, misery, and much anguish of mind, & that for our sins. Now whether this were only Fear or what so ever more, this is clear and certain, Christ had these sufferings in his soul properly, and from his soul immediately, as being the sufferings for our sins.

But for all this there is doubt hereof in some, because it is written, He bare our sins in his body on the tree. He reconciled us by the bl •• d of his cross. He reconciled us in the body of his flesh through death. We are dead to the law by the body of Christ. He redeemed us to God by his blood. The blood of Christ cleans • th us from all our sins. This is a constant phrase throughout the scriptures, attributing our whole remission of sins to the bodily sufferings of Christ only and to his bloodshed, and not to any thing of the soul. If all these pla • es of scripture should be figurative, noting but the parte for the while, Christ's body, when therein meant his soul too, they are strange figures that run always so, God's word never yielding any one such proper speech throughout the scripture, that Christ suffered for us in his soul. [Answer.] I answer: First, the meaning of those places is to ascribe our whole remission of sin, only to Christ & his sufferings: and to exclude all other means without or besides Christ, but not to exclude any parte of Christ, though only some parte be mentioned. 2. Therefore we say further: These places of scripture are not proper and literal, but figurative in deed: they do note but the parte for the whole, sometimes Christ's body, sometimes his flesh, sometimes his blood, when the whole man Christ is plainly understood consisting both of a body having flesh and blood, and also of a soul. Otherwise we must say, These very scriptures before mentioned, are at open jar in thenselves, if we take them literally. Some say his body, some his blood cleanseth us from all sin. Again, his body on the tree only did bear our sins, and his sufferings of all his life before were not meritorious nor helpful at all for us, not his poverty, not his shame, not his being railed upon, nor any his persecutions before his very death on the tree. For so these places found being literally & strictly understood: which how false it is. I need not, I hope to de • lare. In like sort it is said, The figure that saveth us is Baptism. What? Therefore doth baptism save v • only? Doth not the •• rd ••• per▪ Doth not the word prea • hed also▪ Th ••• • d was made flesh: was it only made flesh and not a human soul to? In the days of his fl • sh 〈◊〉 • ffr •• • p prayers and supplicationes with st •• nge cries. Was it not in the days when he had both flesh & soul also? He too • e not the ••• le of Angels b • t he took the s ••• of Abiah▪ He took human flesh & soul to, 〈◊〉 he n •• ▪ I 〈◊〉 sin ra • gne in your mor • all b •• yes. I hope he me • neth ••• there in our soul • nor bodies 〈◊〉 o • fering thou woul • est not h • ue▪ but a b • d, thou •• dayned me: yea both a bo •• and a soul too. The s • rn •• ator •••• ed 〈…〉 our body, & no less su • ely against his soul also. It were infinite to • hew you the phrases of scripture, which in speaking of the outward parte only, yet always they signify the ••• re & whole m • ̄. The reasō whereof, especially in Christ's suff •• ng, doth seem to be this▪ because the wounds of his b • dy & sheading forth of his blood, are most aparant & evident to sense: and therefore are they so commonly named instead of the whole sufferings, the rest whereof were not open to our senses. Again, because his bodily death on the cross, and his sheading of blood there, was the final accomplishment of all his sufferings whatsoever. Therefore this instead of all the rest is usually named, and yet the rest never excluded. Howbeit for all this, note further, that we read the very phrase literallie further, that we read the very phrase literallie and expressly Isa • 53.10. He made his soul sin, or a sacrifice for sin: The full meaning whereof shall be more declared by & by in the next proof of this general reason. Also where it is said, He was broken for our sins: it cannot be properly meant of Christ's body, his flesh and bones. For it is written, not a bone of his was broken: Wherefore the meaning is, The sorrows & torments of his soul did bruise and break him to pieces, as the truth showeth he was, and became for us in deed. If any reply, The nails and spears did break him: Nay, they pierced him. But in no sort can that be called breaking or brusing to pieces, as the former word doth plainly signify.

Further it is objected, [Objection.] The old sacrifices of the Jews were figures of our whole & absolute redemption by Christ. But they signified no more but his bodily sufferings only. Therefore Christ's sufferings for our redemption were only bodily.

I answer, First the proposition is false, taking it generally. The carnal sacrifices of the Jews signified that which they were apt to teach and signify: but not any further. Therefore they signified that the redemption of men should have a true bodily sacrifice with the sheading of blood: yea whatsoever was carnal & sensible in it might be signified by them. But not the inward and invisible things that did necessarily concur in and with this bodily sacrifice: for the which those carnal types were altogether unfit, neither had they any resemblance together. As first the meritorious sacrifice must have of necessity the Deity comoyned in person with it. This sacrifice must be the body & blood of God: or else it could never satisfy, nor deserve the favor of God for the world. But the sacrifices of beasts could not prefigure this personal union of God and man in the true sacrifice together. Therefore they signified not all the necessary pointes in the meritorious sacrifice. Again those beasts sacrifices could not prefigure the immortal & reasonable soul of Christ: which it was necessary he should have to be our redeemer. Thirdly it was necessary that this sacrifice of our full redemption, should not only die, but also revive again: even the victorious resurrection of his flesh from death was necessary. As it is written, He died for our sins, and rose again for our justification. But the sacrificed beasts neither could nor did signify any such thing. Therefore the propositiō before is false, The old sacrifices of the Jews were not resemblances & figures of our whole and absolute redemption by Christ. They served only to represent such partes thereof as they were apt and fit to teach and signify. Secondly, I deny the assumption before going also. The Jews sacrifices, that is certain of them, did signify more then the bodily sufferings only, they set forth the sufferings of the soul of Christ also. In the 16. chapt. •• 〈◊〉 uit. verse 5. we have a sin offering consisting of Two Goats, the one slain, the other the scape goat: yet both of them a 〈◊〉 for sin, as the text speaketh. What doeth the slain Goat figure but the body of Christ slain, the scape goat the soul which also bare our sins, and was a sin offering, but yet suruiued and died not as the body of Christ did. The scape-Goat here surly must of necessiue signify the Soul or the Deity of Christ. The Deity it cannot signify, because that cannot be a sin offering. Therefore it signifieth that the immortal Soul of Christ was a sin offersage: and being a sin offering, or a sacrifice for sin, it did properly bear our sins, and suffer for our sins.

If any say, This scape-goat suffered not as the slain goat did, but was sent away free and untouched. Thus then the Soul of Christ must scape and not suffer when his body suffered.

I answer. The scaping of this Goat may signify the Souls immortality, which died not when the body died. But that it suffered in that kind which the soul can suffer, it is manifest by this, that it was an offering or sacrifice for sin, and bare our sins as well as the body, which is like the slain Goat, which sensibly and apparauntlie died. Again, the sacrifice in Levite. chap. 6 called the Holocaust, or whole burnt offering, doeth lively prefigure the sufferinge of the whole Manhood of Christ for our sins, that is both in his soul and body. For in other sacrifices certain partes of the sacrifices were reserved and not burnt. But in this the whole, and every whit being chopped and cut into pieces, it was altogether put into the fire, and burnt: and so it was by a special name called The whole burnt offering. Even so, not the body only, but also the Soul of Christ, even every whitt, of his humanity, was burnt and consumed in the fire of affliction, as a perfect Holocaust and a whole burnt offering for our sins.

By this we may easily see the answer to a like objection of the Sacraments of the new Testament: [Objection.] When they say, In them, like as in the Jews sacrifices, nothing else is represented and signified, but the bodily sufferings of Christ: We are to answer as we did before. These are given of God to the Church to teach and represent that which they are apt and fit by their nature for, They are bodily and earthly elements: and therefore fit to set forth bodily and aparant effects in Christ: they cannot set out the spiritual and invisible effects in him. And yet the ceremony of breaking the bread. which is to show forth how Christ's body was bro • sor us, it cannot belong properly to the body, but to the soul, and to the body by sympathy with the soul, as is before declared.

[ 2] I proceed further to the second proof of this general reason: Isaiah 53.10. The Lord will break him and make him subject to infirmities, when he shall make his soul sin, that is to say, a sacrifice for sin. Here first we may note a plain express phrase, the very letter sounding that his soul was made sin, or a sacrifice for sin: Neither is there any urgent reason why soul here should be so figured or disfigured rather, that the human soul should be wholly excluded. I deny not but his soul here doeth signify him self, that is his human nature intierlie and wholly. And that may be notably shown by comparinge the phrase in the Apostle to the very same purpose, 2. Cor. 5.21. He hath made him sin for us which knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Here that which the Prophet meaneth saying, He made his soul sin, the same the Apostle meaneth saying, God made Him sin for us. That is to say, him self wholly as man, not any one parte of him only. And this is literal. If any yet doubt, howe Christ was made sin for us in his soul, you may plainly see here in Paul. For he compareth Christ's being sin for us who knew no sin, and our being the righteousness of God in him, who have * no righteousness in our selves. As if he should say In like manner, He hath borne our sins, as we have received his righteousness. But we attain the righteousness of GOD by him both in our souls and bodies: So likewise then, He was made sin for us, both in his soul & body. Otherwise this similitude or comparison were uneven, and namely short on his parte, which ought not to be. Therefore surely, he was made sin for us (here in Paul) and his soul was made sin (in Isaiah,) signifieth He himself was, that is intirelie in both partes he was a sacrifice for sin, even his soul and body. [ 3] As also the other phrase here in Isaiah, He was broken, doeth likewise prove, as I have enough declared thereof before.

Thirdly, I prove this general reason from Heb. 2. where the ende & reason why Christ took on him the nature of man, i • plainly opened. He is said verse 16. not 〈◊〉 have taken the Angels nature, but man's: even for this very cause & purpose, that he might suffer in that nature which he assumed. & by suffering in it he might save it. Now he assumed (all men know) our human soul as well as our flesh, and he saved our soul as well as our flesh, ergo he suffered both in soul and in flesh: and the Angels nature he would not assume nor suffer in it, because he would not save it. This reason is better concluded thus: If he assumed our whole human nature to this very end & purpose that he might suffer in it, and by suffering in it, save it: then he also suffered both in body and in soul. But this is true, He assumed our whole human nature to this very end and purpose, that he might suffer in it, and by suffering in it, save it. Ergo this is true also, that he suffered both in soul and flesh. Here only the assumption can be doubted. It containeth in it three points.

• 1. He assumed our whole human nature.
• 2. That which he assumed he did assume to this very end & purpose▪ that he might suffer in it.
• 3. That by suffering in it, he might save it.

These three pointes being proved, the whole Assumption before is evident and firm. But they are all proved in these verses of Heb. 2. as the First, verse, 14, 16; 17. Neither doeth this let, that he speaketh, namely but of flesh and blood, verse. 14. and of the seed of Abraham verse 16. It cannot be doubted but these phrases are set down synecdochicos, the part for the whole: and so the Author meaneth here, he affirmed the whole human nature. The seconde is proved verse 14, 15, 17, 18. The third is proved verse 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

[Objection.] If any reply here, it is true no man ever doubted, but Christ suffered in his soul: that is by sympathy or joint feeling frō his body, according to the course of nature in him: but not as properly making to man's redemption, & so this to the Hebrews here is to be understood.

Nay: that hath no reason in it. [Answer.] Christ assumed not our nature, nor any parte of it, but only to suffer in it properly and immediately, even for the very purchasing of our redemption thereby. Otherwise he had no need to assume both, but either the one parte or the other. I say as the proper and immediate suffering in one part of our nature only, had been sufficient to save us wholly, then there was no simple necessity that Christ should assume both parts. For if God so would, and nothing but natures perfection and sufficiency had been respected, then the assuming of one parte only and the suffering in it, by this pretended reason, might have been able to have saved us wholly thorough the infinite excellency of that person having the Divine nature conjoined with it to supply the insufficiency of the Human single parte, either in doing or suffering. Thus Apollinaris heresy will enter at this gap. He held that Christ assumed human flesh in deed, but not any human soul. For it needed not, said he: His Deity being sufficient to be in steed of a soul in supplyinge unto it all efficacy for natural operations, and consequently so far to give assistance to the Flesh that it might be able to do all things for our redemptiō without the soul, only through the help of the Godly power joined therewith: As namely it could quicken it, and make it move, and live, and have knowledge, and feeling, &c. Therefore his flesh only thorough the quickening and moving of his Godhead might do the works of righteousness, & suffer feelinglie the pains sufficient for our justifying and saving: and all this without a human soul. So that the soul should be superfluous & needles, which should properly do nothing in the work of our redemption. And if it were superfluous and needles in Christ, how shall we hold that he had any at all. Which blasphemy God forbid. Therefore it is vain to reply, and very false, that here * is meant, that Christ suffered in soul by sympathy only, or a natural suffering, when as this suffering properly did not make to our redemptiō, nor was absolutely necessary to make Christ's Flesh to have life and sense: the Souls immediate and proper suffering was necessary to make it a ransom for sin, and therefore we conclude that here this is specially signified.

Moreover they object: [Object.] That whereby Adam propagated sin into us, by the same hath Christ procured satisfaction for us. But Adam propagated sin into us not by our souls but only by our flesh which only we derive frō him: Therefore Christ only by his flesh and not by his soul hath procured satisfaction for us. [Ans.] To this we answer simply by denying the proposition. By the same instrument Adam did not propagate sin into us by which Christ satisfied for us. For Adam propagated and derived sin into us, only by the flesh (supposing now that our souls are immediately infused by God, & come not from our parents.) But Christ satisfied for us both in his soul & flesh. Wherefore in this sense we deny the {pro}positiō as being utterly false. And in steed of this false argument I return against it this reason better grounded and of certain truth. That whereby Adam first and we ever since do most properly commit sin, by the same hath Christ our second Adam made satisfaction for our sin. But Adam first & we ever since m • st properly commit sin in our souls, our bodies being but the instruments of our Souls, and following the souls direction and will.

Therefore Christ in his soul chiefly and most properly made satisfaction for us. Against this conclusion there cannot by any reason, be any denial All which as in itself it is most certain, so also it may well be gathered and grounded on the Apostle: Like as by one man • disobedience many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one shall many also be made righteous. Where though chiefly the Apostle compareth Adams disodedience with Christ's obedience as both do reach unto us: yet it is plain he doeth jointlie signify the Subject also of their disobeying and obeying, that is their soul, wherein they properly wrought these things which did reach even unto us. So that hence wereason thus: Wherein Adam disobeyed and Christ obeyed, by the same he satisfied for us and made us righteous. But Adam disobeyed God and Christ obeyed principally in the soul. Therefore principally and chiefly in his soul Christ satisfied for us, & made us righteous. The proposition only is in question, which here is plainly gathered from the Apostle: and so both our Assertion is proved, and their proposition before confuted. Now all this we answer graūting that men's souls are not derived by propagation from their parents. Which yet if any affirmed, there could follow no impiety nor absurdity: neither reason nor religion can well overthrow it. And thus also their assumption before is flatlie denied. Howbeit for my parte I will not fall into this questiō here, being very difficult and not simply necessary, Whether our souls come by generation, as the body d • eth, or no. Because I content myself with the opiniō of the most at this present, who being excellent learned and godly men deny this point, and yet notwithstanding for all that the former assumption may be denied also. For who knoweth not that the soul is the proper and perperual Subject of sin? So that where there is no living soul, there never was nor cā be any sin or disobedience at all. The flesh therefore being not capable of sin and disobedience, but by the soul and frō the soul (in the which always it is properly inhaeren • , if it be at all:) And sin being properly a spiritual quality always, and no corporal pollution: it will follow that Adam propagated sin into us † by our souls and not by our flesh only, whether our souls come by propagation, or infusion, or howe so ever. Yet if any stick at this, howe sin can be derived in propagatiō by and in the soul, if the soul be not derived also. Lett us not be curious in this hard point, which needeth more Philosophy then Divinity to declare it: holdinge fast this most evident truth, that sin is a proper and inseperable quality of the soul, and cannot be found being in anything where a reasonable soul is wanting. And therefore it is not derived from our parents in Flesh only but in a Soul also, the Soul being ever united to the flesh when so ever it is sinful. As for the fleshes sin, we deny that it sinneth properly: but only it partaketh of sin frō the soul by joining with it and depending on it.

Further it is said, [Object.] If Christ's bodily death satisfy not for the sin of our souls, then we have no good by Christ's bodily death. For our bodies, say some, have no good at all by Christ's death, no more then the bodies of Infidels: seeing we die still as well as they. But we have much good no doubt by Christ's bloodshed and mere bodily death. Therefore the sin of our Souls is purged thereby. And if so, then that his soul should also suffer for us, is superfluous.

The answer is: [Answer.] First that is presumed which is most false, That we precisely say that Christ's body satisfied for our bodies and his soul for our souls, yea each of thē in a several and distinct kind of satisfying: so that the sufferings of the one profited not at all for the other, but his body for our bodies and his soul for our souls. Which thing we never meant: but acknowledge the sufferings of the whole man Christ do satisfy for us wholly, without any such precise partition. Neuertheles we know by God's word, and do affirm, that God in his justice regarded this proportion, that as we have sinned both in our Bodies & Souls, so he that was made our propitiation did purposely and aunswerably suffer both in his Body and Soul. I say answerablie to the proportion of our sinning. Now if any with respect to this proportion do say, Christ's Body suffered for our bodies, his Soul for our souls, then is it a godly and wholesome saying, neither giveth it any evil sequel at all. But further then so, we mean not, we allow not. Secondly the proof of the first proposition what Paradox is it, yea what impiety? Have our Bodies no good at all by Christ's death, no more then the bodies of Infidels, because we Dye still as well as they? Lett us consider this point: our Bodies have manifold benefits by Christ's death. 1. Sin is not imputed against us at all, yea we are clothed with Christ's righteousness both in our bodies and souls, when we are once justified by faith in his death. 2. Sin is abated and mortified in us day lie, and righteousness is begun and increased even in our bodies, by the virtue of his Death and resurrection apprehended & applied by faith. 3 Our bodies now have assurance of a glorious resurrection through his death and resurrection. 4. Our bodies are made the true owners of our bodily food, clothing, riches, and other comforts, whereof the Wicked are but usurpers. Yet you will say, We die still, as well as the Infidels. The scripture saith Nay: if you mean Death the curse of the law and the punishment of sin. He was made sin for us, that is, He took the punishment of sin for us. And Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us. 5. Therefore death, yea bodily death, as it is the stipend of sin, as the punishment of sin. So He hath taken it from us, and us from it, and we are freed by his death: yea unto us it is now clean changed, & not the same in it own nature as it was. It is to us the passinge to heaven, and a thing to be prayed for. which the punishment of sin can not be. I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, saith the Apostle. And therefore the scripture taketh the name of death from this departure of the godly: He that believeth in me shall not see death: and he hath now passed from death to life. Thus then, have not our bodies any good at all, anymore thē the bodies of infidels? God forbid: This is a moste unchristian speech. [ 3] Lastly to answer to the former reason directly. It is said, If Christ's bodily death satisfy not for the sin of our souls, then have we no good by it. First let us know distinctly what is meant here by Christ's bodily death. We mean his mere bodily death, and that say we, being but a parte of his moste meritorious passion satisfied not for our sins. The whole aboūdantlie satisfied, no one parte or piece thereof doeth satisfy: because what GOD hath joined together, let no man so wickedly separate.

But you will reply, his only bloodshed, his bodily death merely was sufficient, yea one drop of his blood, being the blood of the son of God, was sufficient to redeem a thousand worlds.

That we deny: howbeit we reason not what it might have been, if GOD had so appointed: we speak not thereof. We say only what it was, and is. That only is sufficient in deed, which God hath appointed to suffice for the satisfaction of our sins. God hath appointed both the sufferings of his soul and also of his body. Likewise all those sufferings in his life, as well as at his death. Therefore all these ioinetlie are sufficient, but no parte of them severally. So that to say one drop only of Christ's blood was simply sufficient for all our sins: I hold it a presumptuous & ungodly speech, which so mainlie crosseth the appointment of God, and his revealed will. As is partly before declared, and shall be hereafter more fully. Further it doeth flatlie cross the moste perfect justice and the love of God: both which together, that is, justice with love, and love with justice must needs stand entire & sound, and not a whitt impaired in the mystery of our redemption. 1. Justice requireth that the same nature should satisfy for sin. which properly committed the sin. But our soul properly, chiefly and immediately sinned. Therefore Christ's Soul should properly, chiefly, and immediately pay the price thereof.2. [note.] It is not proportionable with Justice, that an easier punishment should satisfy for a greater sin, where it is possible that it may be had. But the Soul of Christ possibly might have suffered properly and immediately. Therefore in justice it must and did suffer, and not his body only.

If any say, [Object.] Christ's very bod • lie sufferings were so grievous and vehement, as that they were comparable to the Souls sufferings, if it had properly endured any. [Answer.] Nay, that hath no reason: the flesh is not capable, neither of like righteousness nor sin, neither of such joys nor punishments according to the capacity of the soul: there is no equal measure between these. Now this prize equally in iu • tice must be kept so far as it is possible in all satisfactions. Therefore here in this it was kept: and how in this it was kept in deed, we shall more clearly perceive in the other more special arguments hereafter following. Therefore it behooved Christ's soul to suffer for us properly, as well as his body. If any say, [Object.] It was God's singular love to his most dear sonne to quit him of those extremest torments the sufferings of his soul, and to admit a Dispēsation in steed of Cōpensation, that is to be satisfied with less then God might have exacted of Christ, & less then he could have yielded. [Answer.] 1. This belongs properly to the sifting of our more special arguments hereafter, where we shall see into it further.2. God's love must not impair his justice, but both must stand entire and perfect together in our redemption, as is above said, or else we destroy the nature of God. But by this devise gods justice which might be executed by Christ's suffering in his soul, shrinketh, and is shortened not a little, by reason of his love to Christ which inflicteth not all the punishment (say they) which being due to our sins, Christ also as man might feel, & his Father might lay upon him. Nay this, in this case is no love but partiality. But this is the love of God in this mystery, evē that which he showeth unto us, his justice being laid upon Christ. I say his love is to us: in that he hath translated our guiltiness frō us upon Christ his own sons person, & beaten our fault vpō his back. This is the most gracious & heavenly love of God to be blessed & magnified for ever: & not that he spared his son in paying our ransom more thē the possibility of justice would that he should. For so a less and a far lighter humiliatiō of Christ then his bodily death also, might as well have satisfied God for us. I say, what needed those moste pitiefull and woeful bodily wounds, & smarting stripes, so much bloodshed being so precious, yea that undeserved sundring of body & soul by cruel death? Nay more then this, what needed all those penuries, ignominies, persecutions and other miseries in his life time, which he plenteously sustained? When as someone or few such as Christ suffered, yea hi • incarnation only might have been enough & enough meritorious in that divine person to appease his fathers wrath, if in his fatherly love he meant to dispense and lay less then the full weight & burden of our sins on him. All those superfluities of sufferings which Christ did most painfullie endure, howe stand they with this infinite love of God towards his moste dear and tenderly beloved son, if they needed not at all, if this his love might dispense with his justice? We can never avoid this absurd and irreligious consequent.

Now then will you reply and say. [Objection.] Thus we do make the mere bodily death and bloodshead of Christ not profitable, nor meritorious, if we will not yield them to satisfy for sin. [Answer.] That is untrue: We know and profess they are most profitable and meritorious, yea lesser sufferings then those, as his poverty, his hatred, his shame, and ignominy, &c. these were all most profitable and meritorious and satisfactory also to our saluatiō. But as an Army of soldiers do all together get the victory and not any one of them asunder, and yet for all that each one singly is profitable in fight for the attainment of victory: even so these Suffrings of Christ both of his body and of his soul all together do sufficiently merit, but • ach one in several is profitable and helpeth thereunto.

[ 4] To these proofs before handled, let us add one or two more briefly in this wise. If Christ were emptied & abased to the uttermost that might be, then he was afflicted in his soul properly and immediately as well as in h •• body. But he was in deed emptied and abased, ex ••• anited, to the utmost that might be. Therefore he was affl • cted properly and immediately, yea most bitterly in his soul. Where this word in the Apostle, he empt • ed him self, doth testify, he was so far cast down in his humiliation, that he was clean void of all comfort and dignity, before his exaltation to joy & glory: Which by no means can be possibly true in plains of speech, (that he was emptied ) if the soul were untouched, and felt not such humiliatiō at God's hand whereof it was properly capable. And as for an hyperb • de or phrase larger thē the meaning is in this place, there is no cause for any to dream thereof.

[ 5] Again thus I reason: He Offered him self thorough the Eternali Spirit. What signifieth Him self here but his whole Humanity, even his body and soul, to be the Sacrifice of redemption which he offered to GOD through the virtue of his De • tie? Therefore seeing his soul also was the sacrifi • e, his soul suffered also as w • ll as his body.

[ 6] Lastly, If both the body & soul of Christ were the Tabernacle of his Deity wherein he performed his sacrifice for sin, Then he suffered properly as well in his soul as in his body.

But the Tabernacle of Christ's Deity wherein he performed his sacrifice, was both his soul and body. Therefore he suffered properly both in soul and in body.

Where we have to consider these points: 1. Touchinge the Jewish Tabernacle, Moses showeth that the typical Priests offered up therein their sacrifices for recō •• l • ation to God. 2. Christ's manhood is called by the holy ghost the Tabernacle of his godhead: that is, he maketh it answerable in Christ in truth to the typical Tabernacle, wherein the Jewish priesthood sacrificed. 3. His manhood here is meant his whole & entire manhood, not any one part thereof, but both his soul and body jointly, & the same to be this Tabernacle of his Deity, wherein the Godhead dwelt bodily. 4. That Christ offered up his sacrifice of redemptiō in this Tabernacle, y ^t is, in his whole & entire manhood

So that hence our reason is good: If all these points be true, & if Christ thus offered his sacrifice for sin both in his soul and body, then he suffered properly both in his soul & body, & not in one part only. But all these points are true, as our assumption importeth, and are manifestly proved by Cōparing Moses institution of that Jewish Tabernacle with this spiritual application thereof, not to the flesh only but to the whole humanity of Christ.

Therefore the Conclusion is firm: Neither can anything be stood at unless some will say, Christ's flesh only and not his Soul also is the true Tabernacle of the Godhead. Which amongst all wise Christians is to absurd.

Yet that of the Apostle is alleged & objected earnestly: [Objection.] God forbid that I should rejoice but in the Cross of Christ Jesus. Here evē all and the whole Sufferings of Christ are signified, for in nothing else would Paul rejoice, but evē herein. Howbeit the Cross containeth not any sufferings of Christ's Soul, his Soul was not crucified but his body only. Therefore his Body only suffered, and not his Soul. I answer, [Answer.] It is true, this is not only an objection, but even a foundation and principal ground of this error: but so mistaken & forced, as nothing may be more. So that by overthrowing this, the whole Conclusion will fail. 1. If Paul had here meant the very personal sufferings of Christ, why might not the Cross contain his Souls sufferings, yea all the Suffrings of Christ's whole life? What letteth but his Soul might be said to be Crucified, & not the Flesh only? Any bitter anguish & sharp affliction is commonly called, a Cross. And though Christ's Cross properly & strictly taken was sensible & outward in deed, yet who seeth not but it is most familiarly & often used in a larger meaning, to contain all Christ's grievous Sufferinges what so ever, when so ever, & how so ever: even like as is observed before against the first objection against us in the beginning.2. Neuertheles I take it to be clear, that this Text is further mistaken. The Apostle here speaketh not of the personal sufferings of Christ, but of the godly, Christ's members which they suffer for Christ's truth sake, which are also called the afflictions of Christ. For having a little before noted the Falie teachers, which mingled and corrupted God's truth, because so they might better scape persecution, which they were loath to suffer for the Cross of Christ, that is, for the sincere doctrine which commonly bringeth the Cross with it: Now here he presently Opposeth his own upright and faithful affection, saying, Nay, God forbid, that we who are the true Ministers of God, should joy in anything but in this that these men do abhor, that is, even • n afflictions for Christ and for his sincere truth, when God calleth us thereunto: Which in deed is a singular note of the true Ministers of God. Also that which followeth doeth show it further: for here by nothing but the old man is Crucified in him, & dieth more & more, and he groweth and increaseth forward in being a new creature, which verily is all in all. Here then is no occasion to speak precisely of the personal sufferings of Christ. but he speaketh of Christ's sufferings in his Members. Wherefore this is clean mistaken.

Thus we see hitherto nothing letteth, but our General Reason is evident by the Scripture, That Christ suffered properly & immediately in his soul: and consequently the Wrath of God for sin. Now it remayneh that we proceed to the rest of our Arguments for this point.

The more Special Reasons proving that Christ suffered for us the Wrath of God, and even so the pains of Hell or Hellish sorrows, are now here to be next considered.

But first it is good to mark these names Hell & Hellish sorrows. Because all the advantage is picked against this most Christian & comfortable doctrine by them that love contention, only through the ambiguity & doubtfulness of this word Hell. We mean not that Christ suffered Hell properly, that is hell torments in the very place & condition of the damned. God fordid. This gross cogitation never came into our minds, but only he suffered for our-sins God's severe Wrath and ••• st vengeance, or rather the very Effects of his just wrath & vengeance: which we affirm is equal to Hell it self and all the torments thereof in sharpness and vehemen • ic of pain. And thus we say Christ suffered Hell or Hellish sorrows for us, and no otherwise. Which we prove by many reasons.

[ 1] First thu • : We should have suffered such pain • are the effects of the intolerable wrath of God 〈◊〉 our sin. But Christ suffered the sorrows & pay • for sin which we should. Therefore Christ suffer • for us such sorrows & pains, as are the effect • the intolerable wrath of God for sin. The assumption only can be doubted. But the prophet Isaiah affirmeth it in plain words: He ba • e 〈◊〉 iniquities, and sustained our sorrows. He saith not only, He sustained sorrows, but he sustained Our sorrows: yea the text hath it more significantlie. He sustained f • ur very sorrows, or our soroowes theselues, that i • , those which else we should have borne. This conclusion can no ways be avoided.

The like to this is proved He gave himself a price of redemption for us, which we else should have paid. For note that antilytron is the price which whē a Captiue cannot himself pay, then his Prince o • some other friend pays it for him, to redeem him withal. Now the custom and use is, we know, that the enemy taketh the same price for his Captiue of another, which he would take else of the Captiue himself, if he were able to pay it. Even so the scripture here speaking after the commō use and custom of re seeming Captives takē in war, doeth mean that Christ's price of redemptiō which he paid for us, was the same which else we should have paid.

[ 2] Secondly I prove it thus: Christ redeemed us frō the curse of the Law, when he was made a Curse for us. What curse was he made for us? It is opened ver. 10. That curse which is cōprised in Moses: Cursed is every man that continueth not in all things written in the Law to do them. And more particularly in this very verse it is called the Curse of the Law. What is that? Surely the feeling of God's wrath for the transgression of the Law. This curse therefore saith Paul Christ was made for us: y ^t is, he sustained for us even the feeling of God's wrath for our trāsgressions imputed to him. [Objection.] If any think, this curse here which Christ was made, is not the same curse which is here called the curse of the law, and is described in the words of Deut: Cursed is everyone, &c: But this to be another curse, a lesser & lighter, which Christ is here affirmed to be made for us. [Answer.] It is vain and senseless to think the Apostle here speaks of two several kinds of curses: the cohaerēce showeth that he speaketh & treateth all of one manner of curse. And if Christ sustained any curse for us, what curse could it be? Not the curse of the law? or what was it? Not the curse of God? If it were, then that is it which we speak of, and which else we should have borne.

[Objection.] If it be said, It cannot be that Christ bare our curse, or paid the price y ^t we else should have paid, or sustained the very sorrows that we should have sustained: for thē he must have suffered perpetually as the damned do, & as we should to, had we not been redeemed by Christ.

I answer. [Answer.] 1. The scripture it self affirmeth, He did all that for us: Therefore who dareth den • e it? Who either man or Angel shall presume to say, Nay?2. This followeth not (if we no • e well) this maketh not at all, that therefore Christ suffered perpetually. if he suffered our punishment and had the just sentence of our cōdamnation (I mean the full sha • p • e • and vehemency of it ) translated & executed upon him. That which he suffered might be for y ^e time incomparably sharp and terrible, though enduring but a while and not perpetual. Wherefore this must be noted, we cō • are not the sufferings of Christ for us with the pains of the Damned in regard of continuance: therein we never doubted n • r any Christian, but that Christ suffered lesser, that is shorter time then we should, & the damned do. [Objection.] If any ask howe may this be, if God's justice must stand? We answer. Yes: it may be, because his perpetual sufferings needed not. [Answer.] The infinite excellency of his person that suffered, being the Son of God, countervayleth in merit and worthiness the infinite continuance of punishment, which else he should, but now needed not to in lure. 2 Because this abridgment & shortening of the time needs must be. I say it must needs have been so: because simply it was impossible to be otherwise. Which is most certain for [ 1] two causes: 1. No flesh else could possibly have been saved, unless the Savior and redeemer had ended his payment for us. But God had decreed to save some, whom he gave his son to suffer for. Therefore it was impossible absolutely, but our Saviors payment must end.2. He was very God himself that suffered: therefore it was simply impossible, but he must overcome, and finish, and obtain his purchase. Thus then in this one point of continuance in punishment our Savior satisfied God's justice, not by suffering strictlie and exactlie that which we should, but by suffering y ^t which in his person was fully worth 〈◊〉 answerable to y ^e perpetual continuance thereof, which in us else should have ben done. And all because of the simple necessity for which it must be so. If any ask, [Object.] why were not Christ's pains also lessened as well as y ^e perpetuity abridged, by the infinite merit of his person. [Answer.] I answer, Because there was no impossibility, no necessity, no need, but he might feel the full smart of our sins, as there was, for him not to feel the full continuance thereof. Seeing therefore it was possible for him to feel all our smart, and seeing God's strict justice requireth it so, therefore it was so, and it must be so. He suffered for us the full smart of our sins, which else we should have suffered both in soul and body.

I urge then, Let it be here noted. Christ is said to be made a curse for us: then he felt 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 this curse. And before I shown this curse was God's curse: and what is that, but God's wrath for sin. So then Christ is here proved to have felt God's wrath for sin.

If you reply: [Objection.] This curse is not God's curse, nor his wrath for sin: but only a shame and ignominy amongst men for his bodily hanging on the tree: it was an ignominious death, and that was all which is here meant, because every one else is not cursed by God, that is openlie executed: as here the Apostle expressly hath it. [Answer.] I answer, 1. It is more then absurd to say, The curse here which Christ bare for us, was only & merely but the opinion of the people, holding it a sham to be executed to death openly. Will any man of common reason say, that this is all the curse that Christ bare for us, or that here is meant? Nothing but y ^e shame of the world? and no other thing between God & him? To name this opinion is cōfutatiō enough. [Objection.] Further where your reason is, Because everyone is said to be cursed which hangeth on the tree. [Answer.] Knowe you that the meaning is, Everyone that so hangeth by the just sentence of the Law: wherefore it is here called the curse of the law. Now then not everyone that is hanged is cursed: for many innocents & martyrs are hanged, who are most blessed. But every▪ one that is justly hanged, is cursed. And so was Christ here. You will ask: What, was Christ justly hanged on the tree? Yea verily, by the just sentence of the Law was he put to death: neither let this be strange to any Christian. Is not the Surety by the just sentence of the Law condemned to pay his debt, for whom he hath willingly & advisedly undertaken? Is it wrong, is it violence for the Law to lay the penalty on the Surety, when the debtor cannot discharge it? But if it be mere and true Justice, and no wrong, then was Christ by the just sentence of the Law hanged on the tree, & so he bare in deed the true Curse of the Law. Not in respect that he was an innocent man, nor as the Jews Magistrates had to do with him, for so they did him most foul wrong that Crucified him: but as he took on him our person as he was made sin for us, and as he stood forth in our name to answer God's justice, So was the just sentence of our condemnation according to the justice of the Law inflicted on him, albeit the Jews saw it not.

Some will say, [Objection.] This Curse here was only bodily: For so it is proved by those words of the Law, that speak only of a bodily executiō. So it may as well be concluded, [Answer.] That the Psal. proveth not Christ's taking of a perfect body, but only of a Mans ears, because there is mention of no more; Ears thou hast prepared me. Yet the * holy Ghost showeth thereby that he had a perfect body, A body thou hast or dayned me: yea in deed both a body and a soul. Therefore both here and there & in many other such like places the Scripture noteth a part for the whole: and so here in out text a parte of the just curse of the Law, thereby meaning the whole: that is, hanging on the tree for the whole executiō of the Laws sentence against sin. For this bodily Hanging was a part of the Laws Curse: & the Souls suff • ing is also by the Curse of the Law as well as this of the body, and containeth the feeling of God's wrath too, as well as the simple Dying, the dissolution of the soul from the body: and is it self the wages of sin no less, yea more in deed, then the bodily death, though the bodily death be also. The which meaning is here easy & necessary to be gathered, seeing such a term is given to this haging on the tree which cōpriseth the whole effect of all that I say, which also the holy Ghost saith, He was Cursed by it, yea made a curse. What doeth this else but signify the wrath of God, the curse of God felt by him that was so hanged, as is above shown: yea felt in his soul, seeing this always lighteth more properly on the Soul then on the Body. Therefore this hanging is here set as a part for the whole execution of God's just Curse. & argueth the whole to be on him that was executed, that is on Christ.

If it be objected, It is not possible that Christ the most holy and obedient son, the most perfectly beloved of God, yea personally one with God him self, that he in his Soul could feel God's wrath. It is not possible, but God must hate him on whom his wrath lighted▪ and in him must be found a conscience of sin, but Christ knew no sin, neither in his mouth was found any guile. And specially he, whō God is wroth withal, cannot be one person with God himself. Seeing then a twofold separation followeth, 1 of the Deity from the Humanity, 2 of God's love and protection from Christ, and nothing remaineth but hatred, horror of conscience, and utter darkness upon him, if he felt God's wrath & hellish torments: Therefore it is absurd, impious, heretical and blasphemous so to hold and maintain.

God defend: This curse causeless shall not come. [Answer.] But rather the contrary saying will prove such: For they dignity a pit for others and fall into it them selves. But I answer, howe could Death possess the body of Christ three days yea howe could his body here be accursed and made a Curse, which is a thing confessed? And yet I hope all this while his body was not separated from his Godhead personally: even so neither was his soul, neither need it to be disjoined from the Godhead, when it was accursed for us, and sustained God's wrath. And as the very body of Christ was then not hated of God neither out of his protection for all that extreme humiliation: Even so neithe • was his soul. Therefore God always love • Christ, he always embraced him, he always was knit to him in regard of his ow • innocent person: and yet we may say 〈◊〉 another regard, that is of our person which he sustained being all sinful and rebellious, God cursed him, God hated him God punished him justly, or rather ou • sin upon him, til by his sacrifice accomplished, he took it all away. So then 〈◊〉 must well note, in Christ were two person • or conditions. 1. his own, wherein he w •• most holy, most innocent, most beloved most blessed.2. He took our person on him, and presented himself therein before his Father, and so he became by ou • sins, sinful, defiled, hateful, and accursed. The Surety though he be utterly clear and obnoxious to none, yet by his suretyship he is a debtor and obnoxious to the Creditor & the Law. If a tender ladye • only child should by some casualty be all tombled in blood, or mire, & most stine-king filth: The child so berayed and loath-some would breed great abhorring and loathing in the delicate eyes of the dainty lady: yet the child's own person should be never the less beloved of the mother, but rather the more if it may be. So such two persons or conditions are found in Christ: according to one he was always beloved, according to the other which he took upon him (whilst he had not finished that office) he was justly accursed. And if we see not how this may be in his soul, consider howe it was in his body, (which neither is nor can be denied) and then it will appear howe his soul also might sustain for us the curse of God, and yet no separation to follow.

But some will say: [Object.] this curse here is nothing else but simply to die, the dissolution of the body and soul: which the scripture saith is a curse in deed: [In the day that thow shall cate of the forbidden fruit thou shalt die the death.] Now this death be falleth to the decrest children of God still: that is, to die. Therefore they also bear this curse though they be clear from the vengeance and wrath of God. Even so and no otherwise is Christ here said to be accursed, only because he died.

Here we deny that the death of the righteous is properly a curse or a punishment for sin. [Answer.] For so the Godly are forgiven the fault but not the punishment of sin. [Note.] Which is one of the Popish heresies. Therefore death in the Godly is not properly a punishment of sin, nor properly a curse of the Law. Indeed in it self and of it own nature it is so, as it was first inflicted by the revenger of sin for sin: but in the godly & faithful child of God it is not • o: the na • u •• and property of it is clean changed 〈◊〉 plainly a good thing and to be desired, 2. Paul saith, Death is to me a gain •• de • reto • dissolved & to be with Christ. Which he ought not to say if death were properly a cu •• to him. And Christ saith such men sha • not die but pass from death to life. Where he • denieth flat he the name of Death unto i • even because the nature of it is change • to the godly. Neither cā it be strange th • the self same thing may be clean changed & of a diverse nature in diverse persō • . To kill a man's self, in Achitophel, was a foul: and monstrous sin: but in Sampson 〈◊〉 was a most glorious virtue, when he pulled the house upon his own and the Philistines heads. Here the self same act To kill ones self is of a diverse nature in diverse men, good in Sampson, but most wicked in Ahithophel. And even as some Physic in a • sound man's stomach is poison, which in a sick man is medicinal: and riches to the wicked are unjust possessions increasing their judgment, but to the godly they are true blessings. So the self same thing in diverse persons may be clean of diverse and contrary natures. And even so death is to the wicked a curse for sin: yet to the godly it is not death, but a passage to l • fe: no Curse properly, nor punishment of sin, but a benefit and advantage. Therefore Christ's dying simply as the godly die, may in no sort here be called a curse, or cursed. But seeing the text saith, He was made a Curse for us, or accursed in his death: Therefore he died not simply as the godly die, He endured the Curse and wrath of God truly.

[ 3] I proceed now to another proof Col. 2. • . Christ on the cross spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them. These principalities are the Devils and powers of darkness: the instruments of God's justice & wrath, the tempters which assault & * wrestle with all good men. Even so here they assault and conflict with Christ whom they did chiefly desire to overthrow, being the head of all the rest: but here is shown his glorious victory and conquest upon them. Therefore it is certain they on the Cross moste furiously attempted him, & he felt them. that is to say, the very instruments that wrought the very effects of God's severity and wrath upon him: but he at the last most gloriously conquered them & trode them under feet in that place. If any doubt that these words are not to be referred to the cross of Christ, it shall be made most manifest that they are, and undeniable (God willing) in the next question.

[ 4] Further this reason will prove the same, taken from the less to the more. The members of Christ do wrestle with the powers of darkness, and endure the fiery darts of i • Devil. And Job crieth out The arrows • the Almighty are in me, the venom whereof d •• drink up my spirit, and the terrors of God sig • against me. The like terrors doeth Ion. seme to feel in the fishes b • lly. Wh • he cried to the Lord out of the bottom of he • And David wanted not the like in h •• manifold and fearful agonies man • times. Thus do the member • of Chri •• suffer. Therefore of necessity Christ o •• Heade suffered the like: yea much rather, and fa • re greater terrors of GOD and assaults of the Devil. For therer have we conformity with him, even in a • kinds of sufferings. Therefore in sufferings Christ Jesus hath matched us 〈◊〉 least, yea surly hath gonne beyond us This is the Cup and the Baptism which: Christ affirmed should be common with his Disciples and him self, though he drunk this Cup deeper then any cls. And it is said, He was like us in all pointes, the • he was like us in sufferings, and specially in the mainest sufferings, which are the terrors and the wrath of God, which as is proved, the godly are not exempted from in this life, and yet never are, not can be touched deeper, then was Christ. Yea further, in thes • places to the Hebrews he showeth a reason which can never be refuted by the wit of man. He succoured us not, but wherein he hath had experience of our temptations and infirmities. But he succoreth us even in these our temptations of feeling the terrors of God and the sorrows of Hell. Therefore he him self had experience of the same. This here the very Scripture saith. Wherefore in all things it behooved him, or he ought to be made like unto his Brethren, that he might be merciful and a faithful high priest in things concerning God. Loe, he was made like us, that he might be merciful and faithful towards us.

Again hothen ôphile. Wherefore he ought, it behooved him so to be. Therefore he could not have been merciful and faithful to us, unless he had been like us. Which also more fully appeareth in the words most significant following, En ho gar pepon hen autos petrast he • s, dynatas te •• peiraz omenois boethesai: For in that which him self suffered and was tempted in, he is able to succor them that are tempted: Or that are (so) tempted. Here he giveth the reason why he succoreth us being tempted, because him self also hath likewise suffered. Also he saith, thereby Christ is able to succor us: as if else he had not been able to be rightly merciful. And here me thinks • n ho hath a singular force more then is commonly observed: Even to note the particular matter wherein Christ is able to succor, namely in that which him self hath suffered before.

So that if Christ have not suffered it, o • the like, then he is not able to succor •• in such suffering • s and temptations. Fo • surely otherwise he cannot say here if he doth, that Christ was made like his brethren in temptations and sufferings. An • all this he showeth further Cha 4 14, 15, 〈◊〉 Let us hold fast our profession, for we have not 〈◊〉 high priest that cannot be touched with our infirmities, but was in all things tempted in like sort yet without sin. He closely meeteth here with an objection. Some might think Chri •• being so high & heavenly could not hau • sufficient compassion towards our mis • ries. Nay saith he We have not an high pry • t which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but he was in all things tempted in li • e sort, Therefore let us hold fast our profession: and therefore let us go boldly to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace in due time, or in time of need. Which is as much as to say, If he were not like us in all temptations and sufferings, he could not minister help to us in time of need: but now he is one that hath felt all our feelings, or the like in every point. Therefore he can help us in all need, and we are not to doubt. And thus by all these Scriptures it is proved that Christ suffered the wrath of God and the sorrows of Hell, which the godly in this life sometimes do taste also. Add hereunto, that of all Absurdities, this is the greatest, y ^t mere Men should suffer more deeply & more bitterly then Christ did. And yet they do so, if Christ suffered not at all any sense of God's wrath nor y ^e sor • owes of hell: which many mere men have & do suffer many times, as is above declared, and shall further appear hereafter.

[ 5] Now another reason, from Heb. 5.7. where thus it is written of Christ: In the days of his flesh he offered up prayer, and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that which he feared, or, being delivered from his fear. Here first it may be asked, What prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears for fear of death, were these which he poured forth to God in the days of his flesh? And where may we learn them? We may learn what these were in the story of Christ's life and death expressed in the Evangelists in three places. First, where he lifteth up his voice, saying: Now is my soul troubled: And what shall I say? Father, save me frō this hour. But therefore came I into this hour. The seconde place: where after he had mourned in the garden, saying, My soul is every way compassed with sorrows to death. He goeth a little further & falling on his face, he prayeth saying: O my Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. which he prayeth three several times, with such fear & terror of mind that his body, as yet without all harm trickled down with clots of blood in steed o • sweat: and an Angel appeared to him comforting him. His sorrow also and troub •• of mind most terrible being expressed where he is said to be affrighted, as it were, and miserably distressed because of this bitter cup. The third place, where now ha • ging on the cross before he died the cr • es with a loud voice, My God, my God, why hast th •• forsaken me. To these places doubtless th • s text in Heb. 5.7. hath relation, saying. That in the days of his flesh he did offer up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, & was heard in that which he feared. Now these things being thus considered, I make this argument: In all these places it is mo • t certain Christ suffered in his soul the wrath of God due •• our sins. Therefore he suffered the wrath of God, and not his bodily stripes only. The Antecedent I prove by 3. reasons, gathered from these Scriptures. First because he now suffered in his soul properly and immediately: My soul is every way compassed with sorrows. Therefore this was the wrath of GOD for our sins which he now suffered: as I have plainly shown in the † beginning of this treatise. 2. Because he so feared & shunned this conflict, which yet he knew he deserved not, and was also according to the will of God for him to suffer. It is not possible but he suffered more then the bodily death only, it must needs be the unspeakable & intolerable wrath of God in that he so feareth it & desireth to shun it. His Disciples he had taught carefully of that point before, saying: Fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the the soul: but fear him that can kill both soul & body in Hell Which generally also he commandeth all the Godly evermore. How can this be that himself should do contrary to that, that he commādeath others? Such folly in the Son of God, far be it frō us once to imagine, as that he should stagger, & shrink, & fail in that w ^c he so earnestly warned others of, and so straightlie commanded: viz. not to fear the bodily, giltles, undeserved death, & allotted thē of God: but therefore rather to be glad & rejoice. And accordingly have infinite many Martyrs, as their express stories do witness: yea wicked and ungodly men, endured with boldness and great joy far more exquisite and barbarous torments & sharper tortures, as touching the body, then Christ could endure? or then can with reason be affirmed and attributed to that which Christ endured, if we view his passion? Have infinite many mere men don this? And shall this I yō of the tribe of Judah, & Lābe of God, that is the prince of patience and of all fortitude be so heavy, so fearful, so miserably afflicted & dismayed afore hand, as the story declareth, only for fear of his bodily death? Which also he foreknewe a •• could not be ignorant of, that he was o • dained of God to suffer it, and that by 〈◊〉 hands of most malicious and furious en • mies? Cā it be thought that Christ wou •• through fear pray against this mere •• dily death, and his soul be so troubled, •• frighted, distracted therewith, that the •• rie anguish and torment of mind shou •• wring out of his body sweat of cl • tted blou • which never was heard of in any oth •• man beside, & that he should desire so earnestly and so often to avoid it clean, and being in it, to cry out with much weeping that he was forsaken of God? It cannot be, I sa • it cannot be, but Christ should sin in so praying against the known will of God, & against his own most willing purp • s • except we say it was a greater horro •• of punishment that lighted on his ve • se soul, which partly by the feeling & partly by the fear thereof did express su • h tokens, and did so stonish and amaze and overwhelm his human weakness ( 〈◊〉 in very nature such cases do & will bring to pass) especially now the Divine assistance of purpose withdrawing it self. For a man in such amazednes, doeth easily on a sudden become forgetful of himself. And being forgetful and astonished (which an infinite pain present, and fear of more cominge, will quickly drive us into) no marvel if Christ, as a very man, let fall in this case words now and then, which in his good remembrance he knew well enough were as contrary to God's will, as they were suitable with natures instinst in him. Now then, it was surly the horror of God's wrath that oppressed him, seeing it is vain and senseless to think his mere bodily torments, yea the stare of them did it, or that mere bodily he suffered more sharp and vehement things then any man ever did. All the devices and amplifications of some men are but shifts and trifles to prove that. [Note.] And here a fine fable is offered us withal: that we should believe Christ's bodilye pains though so violent, yet hastened they no whit his death at all, neither was he the nearer it at the last, then at the first for all his pain. Which is a paradox in nature, and contrary to Scripture, which saith, He was like us in all things, sin only excepted. But some will say, He desired this thing three times in the Garden, [Objection.] and once before. If this were to the ende that he might escape the feeling of God's wrath assigned unto him as the special parte of his passion, howe could he be so forgetful so oft of that which he knew full well, and regarded diligently. How could he? [Answer.] Nay how could he not, but be affrighted, astonished, forgetful, & all confounded in his wholl humanity, both in all y ^t powers of his soul, and senses of his body, not three times only, but three score times three times, yea cōtinuallie and without interchāgeable respiration, if God's wrath for sin had bit still, and continually revealed upon him For as it pleased God to open to his manhood the touche and sense of his wrath sometimes more, sometimes less, and sometimes staying it, So he was again • and again sometimes more, sometimes less confounded therewith, and sometimes a while refreshed. And if this had returned 300. times upon him, verelie he could not but have sunk under the same 300. times also. Alas, we little think what the bitterness of God's wrath is, and what the weight of his indignation is to the feeling of man's soul & body. The want of due knowledge and consideration whereof, I fear, is one chief cause of broaching this moste shameful question. Rather we may beeholde and see here as in a glass, the unsupportable heaviness and intolerable smart of God's anger for our sins, which Christ put upon him self for our deliverance: And again, that Christ became in deed a man for us, when as again and again he could not but shrink and be confounded under that burden. If the weight of Paul's Church were laid on the back of any Giant in the world many and sundry times, were it any marvel if every time it crushed him still to pieces? Much less is it, if the burden of God's wrath, far heavier thē the whole earth oftentimes touching a man, he be confounded with it continually. Thus then it cannot be strange if often times Christ fell amazed, confounded, and forgetful of him self for fear and grief, when the agony was on him, it being even the sense of God's wrath, & of the curse of the Law for us.

If any say, [Objection] Christ as man being a finite creature could not feel infinite wrath.

I answer, [Answer.] The wrath of God due to sin, as it cometh from God, is infinite, as his justice, and as he him self is infinite. And though Christ as a Creature, could not comprehend the infiniteness of it, yet he could, being not capable of it, nor able to sustain it, be overwhelmed and confounded, and astonished withit.

If you say, [Object.] this were to make Christ to sin if he were so disturbed and so distracted, and so confounded with fear & horror. Where was his faith, where was his patience, where was his obedience to God, where was his love to his church, if now he desired not to drink this Cup for them? I answer: [Answer.] All this might be in Christ, and in deed so it was, without any touch of sin or defect of grace at all. Nay, unless this had been in him, he had sinned in deed, which blasphemy God forbid.

Touching the first, Notwithstanding all this amazednes and fear in Christ, he sinned not. I grant we could not but have sinned in the like, but he did not. Because, even as if you set two glasses filled, the one with muddy water, and the other with clear Crystal water, and first lett them stand till all the muddines in the one be settled at the bottom, then shake both these glasses, in the one the mud ariseth straightway, and defileth all the water there: in the other, although you shake it never so much, yet the clear water, though troubled likewise, remaineth still all clear as christal: Even so if any of us be shaken and disquieted with any trouble, our Muddy affections arisinge do presently defile us all over: but Christ (in whom was Mans true Nature, but not any the least defilement of Nature) being likewise shaken, he remained still clear from any the least spot of sin at all. For to shun grief is natural in what we may: and being amazed & forgetful, Then to shun that which else we should and would suffer, is no sin neither, but Natures instinct. And on occasion to be forgetful, (even as some ignorance, is not sin) it is Natures infirmity, but no sin. If a man indistresse fall a sleep, and then lift not up his heart to God, he sinneth not, nor be that being amazed with some violent blow on the head, calleth not upon God: because nature is oppressed, and cannot do that which he would and should do. Also in this man so astonished, or in him a sleep, we cannot say, there is any less grace: There is no decay of faith, nor of obedience, nor of patience, nor of love. Even so in Christ now in this case, there was no defect of grace, but an infirmity of nature, which even by creatiō cannot endure the displeasure of God, but by it owns confusion withal.

Now touching the next point, That unless Christ were so, that is, so a • tonished, and forgetful by reason of the intolerable sorrow and horror which confounded his human Nature, he had sinned by these requests: which blasphemy God forbid. That is most true: and first I prove it: and then will answer the exceptions against it. It is proved manifestly, because if Christ had prayed aduisedlie, and with good memory against the known will of God, he had sinned. As to pray against the tasting of his bitter passion, was against God's will known unto him. Howe appeareth that, even his knowing thereof? First him self expressly saith it: Therefore I came into this hour. Secondly, he could not else have corrected and reproved (as he did) his own words presently going before.

What shall I say? Father save me from this howe but therefore I came into this hour. And, O •• Father if it be possible let this Cup pass from 〈◊〉 nevertheless not as I will, but as thow wilt. A •• O my Father if this Cup cannot pass away 〈◊〉 me, but that I must drink it: thy will be d •• Mark hath it thus: Father, all thing •• possible unto thee: take away this Cup from me Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt Therefore Christ prayed and desired, a • plainly corrected his will by God's w •• And in correcting it, it was contrary, y •• and he knew it so to be. This place ha •• been chiefly used of the Ancients, & it is 〈◊〉 singular, against the heresy of the Mo •• thelits, who held that Christ had in hi • but one will. This now hurteth not the •• heretics, if it serve not us also in this question. This place therefore showeth he had a natural human will at this time contrary to his divine will, desiring to shunt: pain which he knew he was to suffer while through astonishment he be though, not himself. Through astonishment I say for else this contrarines of his human w •• to his divine, could not have wanted sin because remembering himself sudden •• he knew and acknowledged God's will to be that he should suffer, which immediately before he had spoken against. Thirdly, this proveth that he knew it was God's determinate will, in that he termeth it an hour, that is a time set of God for this his suffering, which he desired to escape. Fourthly, because he so mightily feared it, therefore doubtless he knew that he was appointed to suffer it. Thus it is manifest in plain words he prayed contrary to God's known will: which unless it were in astomishment, and nature being opressed with the horror of his pain and fear, he could not have wanted sin, which God forbid.

[Objection.] As for the exceptiones against this 1. They say all these prayers and requests of his may be that his bodily death might not have dominion over him. And so he might pray and not against the known will of God. [Answer.] This is absurd to say that he prayed in such fear and horror and terror of mind against that which he perfectly knew should never come to him: namely, that the dominion of death should hold him. Therefore this could not trouble him. [Objection.] Secondly some say, this in John, concerns not his passion, but his appearance in God's presence only to receive sentence against Satan the Prince of this world: as it seemeth ver. 31. I answer, [Answer.] Who ever doubted but Christ received sentence against Satan by his passion accomplished, the hour whereof now near approached, & whereof now presently he had, it seemeth, a strong foretaste: he here cleared his people from the power of the Devil, & Satan himself he utterly overthrew; which was done so absolutely at hi • death that not only him self cried out it is finished, but also the Apostle saith, even then he triumphed over Satan: which 〈◊〉 the next question we shall show f •• the • It is true then, Christ now received 〈◊〉 against Satan: but therefore had he now no feeling of his passion? Would he 〈◊〉 out, that his soul was so troubled, that he w •• not what to say? And yet said then, • ath 〈◊〉 save me from this hour? Would he be th •• grieved, afflicted, and distracted to recei ••• sentence against his enemy? What sense is then in this? Do men use to be terrified or to rejoice and triumph when before a •• judge they have sentence given with the • against their enemy. If you say, only the presence of God's Majesty terrified and astonished Christ's human infirm •• though he received a benefit. If it we •• so with him in receiving an honor and dignity from God, would it not be so with him much rather in bearing hi • curse for our sins? interpret this 〈◊〉 how you will. When he bare it as from GOD, would not God's presence then much more terrefie and affright him? But the truth is, the presence of God's Majesty never did so grieve, amaze, and astonish Christ's manhood in such cases: who not only was his decrest Son but also personally knit and joined with God himself, whereby it could not be that the Majesty so amazed him, which was so united to him, and always sustained him. As also examples most frequent in the Gospel do declare. How often did Christ pray unto his Father: he always then presented himself before God's Majesty. And do we read that ever he was vexed, terrefied, and amazed in so doing? namely in John: 17. appeareth there any such passion in all that longe, most earnest, and effectual prayer? Nothingh less verily, nor anywhere else, where he appeareth before God's majesty for this end to receive Love and Honor from GOD. Only in case of his passion, when he appeared to receive justice and severity at his hand, then in deed his Majesty and the sense of his severe justice proceeding from him might well astonish & confound any creature, specially a guilty creature, as Christ man was, namely in the person and contenance wherein now he appeared. Therefore he spake these words, in respect of his passion now drawing near: which also the ver. 33. plainly declareth: Now this he said, signifi • ng what death he should die. For it hangeth with the ver. 32. next before, And I, if I were lift up frō the earth would draw all men unto me. And this most plainly hath reference to this verse 27. whereof it is in parte an opening or exposition. Thirdly, [Objection.] Some except further against this threefold prayer, If it be possible lett this Cup pass from me: that this was for fear indeed of feeling the wrath of God, but he felt it not. For a • the Apostle showeth, He prayed vehemently against it, and was heard and so deuered from it. [Answer.] I answer, indeed this were a point of high wisdom and singular wit to show that Christ in this sort as the Scripture telleth feared God's wrath, & ye • felt it never a whit. Firste it is well yow grant that Christ came so near it that he feared it, yea he so feared it that with strong cries and tears he prayed against it, yea and with the agony thereof he swea • blood which must proceed of such grief of the mind, (seeing the body was not touched) as was never heard of in any man else: & was thus affrighted and distressed therewith out of measure. If he were thus near it, then I hope it is neither impious, heretical, nor blasphemous, for a man to say he felt it. For in good sooth, if to fear it be not to feel it any whit at all, specially such a fear as this is described in the Scripture to be, I know not what feeling is. Besides Luke saith, † He was now in the agony: then he felt, yea most bitterly, that which he so strove withal. What is that but the Cup there mentioned, even of God's wrath, that he prayed might pass from him. Again howe could he so deeply fear it, but knowing it was ordained for him? Show me this how he could possibly so fear it but that, he knew God's will was that he should drink of it. And indeed that it was so, I have proved before already. If then he was ordained to it, most certainly he tasted it, he felt it, he endured it. [Objection.] Some will say how could he fear it if he felt it? For fear is an expectation of evil to come: and it is written, He was heard in that which he feared and was delivered from it. I answer, [Answer.] indeed he both felt and feared it. He felt it intollerably: but yet feared it more: in the distresfull agony and the very confusion of the powers of his nature he considered not how long it might hold him, and how infinitely more it might yet increase upon him, seeing he was not come to the greatest of his passion. This he might fear, and yet presently feel sorrow unspeakable to. Herevpon after the instinct of nature abhorring frō pain, he desired to be released, yet suddenly reproveth his nature herein: Not as I will Father, but thy will be done. Howbeit his Father heard him and delivered him out of that which he feared. Not from feeling it, but from being forsaken in it. For the very word seemeth to say▪ He was in it: eisakoustheis, He was heard being in it. [Objection.] You will reply, Christ feared not to be forsaken in God's wrath: he could not fear that. Therefore it was not 〈◊〉 which in this place God delivered him from. [Answer.] I answer two things: Though Christ feared not to be forsaken finally in the feeling of God's wrath, though he could not fear that, neither directly prayed against y ^t point yet God's wrath may be it which here he • felt & feared, and was delivered from. Fo • he may be truly said to be heard in h •• prayer when the Lord letteth him tal •• of the Cup for all that, & susteyneth hi • in tasting it, and in due season deliuere • him out of it. As Paul was heard in th •• he prayed for, when he besought the Lord Christ to take away from him the messenger of Sa • than buffitting him. He was heard, I say herein, not that this prick in the flesh was taken away clean from him. But in that h • received grace sufficient to bear it, and in due season to be eased of it. But further I affirm Christ's nature in y ^t most dreadful agony and distemper of all the powers of his soul and body might fear a kind of forsaking, that is, least his human nature should for a time be left alone and naked from all comfortable feeling of assistance of the Godhead. This kind of forsaking he might and did fear, yea he felt it afterward to most certainly, when he cried, My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me. I say a kind of forsaking this is: for there is another kind of forsaking, which in deed it were blasphemy to sav that Christ either felt or feared it. Namely, to be cast away and forsaken utterly with hatred of his Father. This were in deed desperation in Christ, if he had but feared it, which God forbid we should once dream of. His express words even then confute that, in calling him Father, and in crying earnestly to him my God, my God. This he could not do but that he was far from desperation, or fear of a final forsaking. Yet this letteth nothing at all but he might fear the other forsaking, that is touching the pain and sorrow to be left all comfortless and alone some while, the Godhead as it were withdrawing and hyding it self frō him for the season of his passion, he being in the sense & feeling thereof: which thing he perceived his mere manhood was not possibly able to endure. And therefore a little before he felt the extremity of it, he prayed that it might pass from him, yet presently submitted him self to it: and after in this very extremity, when he did not fear it, but felt it, he cried under the burden pitiouslie, & complained to his Father of it, why hast thou forsakē me. Thus he might fear it, and feel it, and crying to be comforted he might be heard in it, & delivered out from it, according to the scripture. I know our Contraries do fancy other senses of this text, My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [Object.] Sometime they speak as if Christ did then but singe the Psalm 22. which beginneth with those words, My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Did he singe? Wherefore? [Answer.] To show his patience, his joy, and triumph there on the cross, over all the malice of his enemies? Nay these words are contrai • to such joy, and triumph: why hast 〈◊〉 forsaken me. It is a token of great dejection of mind & of rare misery to complay •• to be forsaken of God: Therefore he sung n • then to triumph over his enemies. Wherefore then? Did he singe a mournful and dolorous lamētation to be so abandon • and left to the despite and rage of the Jews all helpless? God forbid we shou •• think he did so pitiouslie complain 〈◊〉 that, whereunto he knew well he was ordained of God, & of his own most willing purpose he offered him self: yea that he should be so dejected in mind only for his bodily stripes inflicted by the Jews, God forbid we should think him so faint hearted, as before I have proved. Neither did he amplify or paint out his sufferings poetically: this were vanity in him, & madness in us to think. Therefore it is certē, he nether sung nor said these words to any such me • ning at all. [Objection.] Sometime they think, he here meant to answer the Jews most disdainful mocks & scorns, in telling thē that all this their indignity towards him, was prophesied of before, namely in y ^e psal. 22. whose beginning he repeated to them, as it were to send them thither, where they should see thē selves & their doings painted out long before. [Answer.] Which sense is most absurd. As if when they had mocked and reviled him at noon, or before, he would then 3. whole hours after tell them of such an answer in y ^e prophet. This is to fond to be spoken. But it appeareth to be evē so; three whole hours, if not more, after their mocks it was, that he cried my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. [Objection.] Sometime again they think he spake not this of his own person, but of his mystical body the Church, complaing that now his Apostles and the rest should be forsaken, as it were, being bereft of him. This is no less absurd then the former. [Answer.] There is no necessity, nay no cause, nor likelihood in the world, that [me] here should be taken figuratiuelie for his Church. Therefore it must be literal Again, he cannot complain so dolefullie that his church should be now forsaken, viz. for his bodily want, seeing he had armed them for that before, & told them that it should be better for them that he went, then to tarry. Whereby they should receive a greater comfort then his bodily presence could yield them. And lastly, he had thoroughlie commended them to the protection of his Father, that it may seem altogether unseasonable now, in another more weighty business to be thus disquieted with this care. There is no reason or likelihood for it. [Objection.] Sometyme they think, it may signify compassion for his Country-men the Jews: who did now to him, they knew not what, and were shortly after to be all utterly rooted out and destroy for slaying the Lord of glory. [Answer.] This is no l •• but rather more fond & absurd, then 〈◊〉 other. For though he had no doubt; ways a moste tender compassion even •• wards his enemies, and specially towa •• his whole natiō, yet that [me] here thou • signify my whole nation there is no sense reason in it. Neither had he forgotten that care particularly in another place as it were wholly appointed for it, when he most tenderly wept about it: but neither there, nor anywhere complained •• God why he would now cast of his pe • ple, seeing he knew perfectly God's w •• in this point, that it should be so.

Lastly they think those words are 〈◊〉 express Christ's sorrow for our sinning Let us see: [Objection.] how could Christ conceive due sorrow for our sinning but by measuring it by the wrath of God against sin? [Answer.] If he thus measured his sorrow, then he mu •• know exactly God's wrath due to sin, 〈◊〉 due to sin, then due to himself, for h •• was made sin for us. And so he could no • conceive due sorrow for our sins, but he must know, and feel it, proceeding from the wrath of God for sin upon him. And such a sorrow indeed of a broken and contrary heart is the only true and perfectly accepted sacrifice to God: and in effect it is nothing but what we affirm. If they mean nothing else but a religious and voluntary grief in Christ arising at the cogitation of our secure and wanton sinning, without any feeling in himself of God's just wrath due to the same, which might be as it were a zeal in Christ and nothing else, then certainly this pertaineth nothing to the sacrifice of Christ's passion, which he hath here in hand, but only to the other parte his moral obedience and fulfilling the righteousness of the law in affection of mind, as well as in action of body. So that this ought not to have any place here: seeing questionless these words my God my God, why hast thou forsaken me, do directly and immediately express some notable parte of his passion and not of his righteousness and holy mind. Again how could these words hange together, when he meaneth to tell his Father howe zealous he is for his glory to say my God my God, why hast thou forsaken me. Surely there is no fashion in them, thus signifying.

Therefore it resteth they must needs signify simply and plainly (as they do) that now Christ felt him self forsaken in the bearing of his intolerable sorrows for sin: that is not succored at this instant by the comfortable assistance of his Godhead, which of purpose withheld it self for a season in his passion, that he might: thoroughly accomplish this perfect sacrifice answerable to the severe justice of God, which thereby he turned away from us.

[Objection.] Neither let any say, This forsaking 〈◊〉 not be without God's hatred, and separa •• from God. [Answer.] It may very easily: As a te • der and most loving Father will sometimes sharpelie punish his child, and sh •• nothing but a bitter countenance to h •• and so hide his love that there shall appear to the child no token of favor, n •• good will, and yet in deed he never me • neth to cast away his child, but in d •• time will cherish him again. Even so w •• it between Christ and his Father. Which his Manhood was not able to endure, 〈◊〉 therefore even by a mere natural desi •• prayed that it might cease; and p • tious • : complained when it ceased not. I say 〈◊〉 a mere natural desire, not sinful: Because when his mind was astonished at the fu •• ous violence of this unspeakable ho • rour, then in the instant he leaned to natures instinst, desiring (without sin) rest, and being to it self, and not destruction. The like also was his fear before in the Garden, and in the foretaste of his passion. This was, I say, a natural fear, not a religious fear, nor a mistrustful fear, no • damned fear, but properly a very natural fear, which well may be without sin, as is aforesaid. [Objection.] Nay the scripture denieth this fear in Christ, as some think. I beheld the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I should not stagger, or be shaken. Here it is expressie said, Christ did not so much as shake or stagger, no not at any time. Therefore he had no such doubtful fear, or fearful doubting when his passion appo • hed: neither in deed could it be without some diminution of faith, patience, and obedience in Christ, which God forbid. In deed God forbid that: Far be it from us to think any the least diminution in Christ of his faith, patience or obedience to God. [Answer.] But I say again, there are two kinds of shakinge and wavering: either in trust and confidence of God's love and protection towards him: Herein we affirm Christ was not touched. Another shaking there is mere natural, a confounding of the powers of the mind and the senses of the body: with a natural effect following thereon, that is, abhorring of pain, specially being furious and extreme. This was in Christ in as much as he had true nature, & was passable like us. I say, thus the powers of nature in him might be confounded, when an infinite burden of sorrow lay upon him, and his memory might be disturbed, and then nature desiring and wishing suddenlie ease and rest, he might suddenlie utter somewhat, which else reason in him would have controlled: which quickly it did again, we see in saying: Yet not my will, but thine be done, as it were, suddenlie coming to him self again. If yet any stand upon this, [Objection.] That he behold the Lord always, not sometime only or for the most parte, but always before him, and therefore could never be so astonished. It is ridiculous to stretch that always so far: [Answer.] it being meant, that Christ never lost his confidence in God. Whi •• they do not, who by some violence are stricken into astonishement, or naturally fall on sleep. Their faith, patience, love obedience, decreaseth not in them for a • that. Even so, neither in Christ, his assurance in God, could never decay: albeit his sinless nature might and did fear the pain, & being astonished with excessive pain might and did suddēlie desire case. [Objection.] But this is great curiosity, yea presumption to affirm what Christ now feared, and what he felt: as if one should take upon him to tell what Moses and Elias said to Christ in his transsiguration. [Answer.] Surely, yea, it is curiosity alike in deed. For when Luke telleth us, we may presume to tell it again, and affirm what it was. * They spake of his departure which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. Even so when all the Evangelists tell us by Christ's own words what he feared, and what he felt, we may well presume to assirme it. Matthew and Luke tell us, that it was to drink of his Fathers Cup, which he feared, & in fearing felt: yea further it is expressed that God forsook him. Mark and John do call it an hour. What is that hour, but this his appointed suffering for sin? This was it then, without all question, that drave him into these his most wonderful and pitious agonies, fears, sorrows, miseries, outcries, tears, astonishment, forgetfulness, and confusion of the powers of nature, as before is declared out of the very Scripture. Therefore this Cup, and this hour, this forsaking of God, cannot be only a bodily death, but a more intolerable suffering that so afflicted him, even the very sense of the wrath of GOD due to our sins which he sustained. And this we need not fear to say. And so much for the second argument, out of these words, des, touching his fearing and shunning his passion in such sort, as we see he did.

An other Argument is taken hence also: Because he was heard in his suffering, which [ 3] he feared, and was delivered from it. But he was not delivered from his bodilye death, but he felt it indeed: Neither was it the dominion of death which he feared: for he knew perfectly that he should rise again. Therefore it was none of all these that here is meant which he fearing and feeling was delivered from. But needs it was the sense of God's curse for sin and his wrath when he forsook him, wherein he was heard, and delivered out, as before is declared.

I know the contrary is urged even from this place thus. [Objection.] That wherein he was heard and delivered from by prayer, he seared, but felt not. But Christ was heard and delivered by prayer from the wrath which he feared. [Answer.] Therefore he felt it not. Nay even therefore he felt it. We deny therefore the first proposition. For he was in some sen •• of it, when he prayed against it and wa • heard: he had thē some foretastes, but th • extremity came after, which he before feared. And finally he being in all this, wa • heard (as the very word seemeth to import) and delivered from it, that is at least not before he had felt it. Again the very fearing of God's wrath is a true feeling, I say not a full feeling, but a true feeling. But it is granted that now in this Agome he • feared the wrath of God: Therefore he • truly felt it. Therefore the question 〈◊〉 granted.

[Objection.] Here the Papists do deny our translation, not yielding that we should read from [his] feara. [Answer.] But let them also consider that this very word not only in other Authors, but in the Scripture, is used for a perplexed fear. Also the Greek Praeposition apo signified naturally from o • Out of, as we turn it. Finallie the circumstances of this text are most suitable to this meaning, viz. to set out Christ's sorrows and fears in his passion. Therefore our translation is true and sound. But as I said, this is not now called in question among our selves.

Other Objections are lett fall, as this: [Objection.] The sufferinge of Hell torments, is not meritorious: † neither is GOD pleased with any man's death. [Answer.] Therefore Christ suffered no such torments. This is as good against his bodily pains. Bodily pains simply merit not, neither doeth God simply delight in his creatures bodily death. But God is delighted with the execution of justice both on our bodies and souls. And further, Christ's sufferings are not as the sufferings of other creatures. All that he suffered was truly and properly meritorious, yea his sufferinge of Hellish torments proceeding from the wrath of his just Father. No other creatures such suffering can be, but his was infinitely meritorious, because of the infinite excellency of his Godhead, being one person with his manhood. Thus far hereof.

[ 6] Now to go on: I prove these sufferings of Christ further in these words: Thorough death he abolished him that had the power of death, that is the Devil. I say, If this death here spoken of be specially the death of the soul, then Christ suffered the death of his soul, whereby he destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil. But death here is specially taken for the death of the soul: Therefore Christ suffered the death of his soul, that is the wrath of God. This reason will seem altogether unreasonable, and harshe in the ears of some, to say the least of it. But let then soberly consider it, and it is most true a •• evident. First we mean not that his so •• was mortal and perished, or came to nothing, as the souls of beasts do, such▪ death is not meant, when we spe • ke 〈◊〉 the souls death: But the death which so • les immortal can suffer. Note therefo •• the bodily death is taken two ways, 〈◊〉 accordingly the souls death is take 〈◊〉 ways also. First, death strictlie, and properly taken, is the very separation of the soul from the body: and so the souls death is the separation of God's favor 〈◊〉 grace from it. Thus Christ's soul 〈◊〉 not: it were impious in deed, and 〈◊〉 phemous so to say, yea it was imp • stice so to be. But besides this sense, death is often used otherwise, as when we say, lie • suffered a bitter death, a painful death, we mean not now the very separation wh • che is death in deed. For death in deed • s sensselesse, quiet, and without pain: the body being dead in deed hath no more grief: What then is this bitter death painful death? Surelie it is the feelinge of the pains and pangs of death, which do procure and bring on, and foreshewe death ensuing. Yea men living being surprised with grievous sorrows and pains, will faye they die, they perish, &c. And further, that is called death sometimes which is such a suffering of hurt and pain, as maketh a body seem quite dead, and yet is not. So likewise the death of the soul sometimes may be understood, and that most fitly for the pains and sufferings of God's wrath which always accompany them that are separated from the grace and love of God. Now this death of the soul we affirm Christ suffered, that is, the wrath of God, and the horror of his severe justice, like them who be separated in deed from the grace and love of God, yet him self never separated, but always most intirelie beloved, as is before declared.

[Objection.] Some will say, death here in this text may signify Christ's bodily death, whereby he abolished the Devil & all his power over us. [Answer.] That cannot be here seeing death being twice here named, the latter with a referēce to the former, surly this word death hath the same meaning in both places: very fond it were to take it here otherwise. Now it is questionless in this latter place death signifieth the death of the soul, the torments and sorrows of the damned, which are separated from the life of God: of which death the Devil is said to have the power and execution, and we (in the next verse) to be in the fear of this death before our deliverance. Therefore in the former place death signifieth so too, even the death of the soul, that is, the torments and sorrows due to the damned proceeding from the justice are wrath of God: by which death Christ 〈◊〉 deed abolished him that had the powe • of the same death, that is the Devil.

[ 7] Lastely in 1. Pet. 3.18. That Christ his suffering for us was done to death vain flesh, but made alive by the Spirit. In this pla •• the Spirit signifieth the almighty Spirit God whereby, he that was done to death w •• made alive again, according to these Scrpturs: He was crucified concerning his infirmity but liveth through the power of God, and When God raised up loosing the sorrows of death, and According to the sleshe he was made of the seed • David, but according to the Spirit by the re •• rection from the dead he was mightily made •• nifest to be the Son of God. And thus the Spirit here in Peter also signifieth the Godhead, whereby Christ putt to death, was raised to life again. Yet for all this some take Spirit here to be Christ's human Soul, which certainly cannot be: seeing then Peter must say, He was made a live either 〈◊〉 his soul, or else by his soul. But both these are absurd, and most false, that Christ was made alive either in his human Soul, or by the same. Therefore the Spirit here is his Deity, by the which after his death he was made a live indeed. Again, whensoever in Scripture the Fleshe and the Spirit are opposed together, the Spirit is never for a Human Soul: and in Christ it is always his Deity. And then the Flesh also is always Christ's whole Humanity: I say not his Body only, but his Soul also, even his entire and whole humanity. As also that word Infirmitie before noted, doth likewise signify. From hence now it followeth, that Christ's Soul also died and was crucified according to the death and crucifying. Which souls are subject unto and capable of, that is the feeling of God's wrath, as I shown a little before. I say the reason is, because not one parte of Christ's manhood but both parts even his whole and entire manhood is here manifestly meant, where it is said, He was done to death, or made to dy in the Flesh. If yet there be any doubt against this sense, we shall have fitter place afterward, in our next question to confirm it better. [Objection.] Some other frivolous objections are made as Hell is not in this life, Therefore Christ suffered not Hell. Hell is the burning of Material sire, Christ suffered no material fire. Therefore Christ suffered not the pains of Hell. If Christ were in Hell, then holiness, faith, patience, and all goodness may be in Hell: But only the contrary is there. Therefore Christ suffered not the pains of Hell.

[Answer.] I answer first as in the entrance I noted. If we speak of Hell in the usual and proper sense as it is the very set place for the tormenting of the damned, or the very estate and condition of the damned: So none of us ever meant that Christ was there, or felt anything therein. But vn • derstanding thereby the severe wrath of G •• due to sin, which may well be call • Hell by comparison, seeing the sorrow • and horrors of God's fiery wrath are equ •• to Hell: So we affirm, Christ was in He •• even in this life, he suffered Hell for us, 〈◊〉 rather Hellish sorrows. Otherwise then 〈◊〉 we never thought. Therefore it is grea •• iniquity, yea plain sophistry to amplify a • gainst us, & to make this most holy true •• odious with the people, only by the an • biguitie of the word Hell. Know therefore • Hell as we take it, (that is the sense of God • wrath) is even in this life, found sometime. As Heaven is likewise, that is, some unspeakable foretaste of the insin •• 〈◊〉 prepared for the Godly hereafter: as ap • peareth: The things which eye hath not seen, not ear hath heard, neither came into man's har • , which God hath prepared for them that love him, the same hath God revealed unto us by his Spirit • , for the Spirit teacheth all things, yea the deept things of God. Thus you see, as there is Heaven even in this life in some measure: even so there may be Hell. Yea we have shown it before in Job and Jonah & David, &c. And as for the wicked, they many times find it far more intolerable, as only Cain for the rest, will serve to testify. Oh saith he, my sins, that is my horror for my sins, is heavier then I can bear.

Now, Christ I doubt not, as touching the vehemency of pain, was as sharply touched even as the reprobates themselves, yea if it may be more extraordinarily, seeing hereunto he was ordained of God, and the Godhead as it were laid it upon him, even to the satisfactiō of his severe justice. Further as touching material sire in Hell what a toyish fable is that: then say as well there is a material worm in the conscience that dieth not, material b •• mslone and much wood which the fire burneth upon: All which the Scripture affirmeth like as it doeth the sire. But who seeth not that the scriptures, as their use is, do here under material and known things, teach us invisible and spiritual matters, which 〈◊〉 their effects are like to them, even as horrible and intolerable as they, and so most fitly resembled by them. And • ls I pray how may the Souls of the damned suffer by material sire seeing they are Spirits, and therefore with them and sire material there can be no communion. But let it b • as it may be. The local Hell of the damned we speak not of, neither I trust shall we ever know it. And therefore consequently here is no preiuctice to the heavenly virtues of Christ.

And thus there is nothing worth naming against the sufferings of Christ to be equal to the very Hellish torments in vehemency of pain and sharpness. The excellency of which most Christian doctrine may be further noted by these consequences.

[ 1] First it were a mighty terrifying of and a strong pulbacke from suffering martyrdom for Christ's truth. See • by the story of his passion in the Gosp ••• there appeareth no such barbarous a • exquisite torments ins • icted on Chri •• body when he suffered for me, as no • my furious and beastly adversities, a • like to invent and inslict on me for h •• Also if he, feeling nothing but body smart, yet was so dismayed and so 〈◊〉 full, yea so confounded as it were • ing howe shall I, most weak wretch, hope • sustain and suffer victoriouslie the •• dreadful torments invented for me, yea • know not whether Satan peraduentu •• withal will conflict with my cos • ien •• the midst of mine intolerable pain • which if Christ tasted not of, how shall wretch, be so venturous, as to put my 〈◊〉 into them, and hope to out stand them And so by this means what courageous Christian, entering into these thoughts, would not utterly shrink, & cease to suffer for Christ. [ 2] Further, we could not so well have known howe extreamelie the Lord hateth and punisheth sin, as now he showeth us. Seeing his own Son could not scape, but in that he would derive our sins from us to himself, even therefore he should smart for it in the highest degree: and the Fathers justice should be as severe on him, as on any reprobate. But if it were not so, then it might come into our minds, the Lord can and will qualify his justice where he loves: & then he may pity me, and so many infinite thousands mo, who all of us even of nature commit sins, yet are his own creatures.

[ 3] Again, hereby his victory & triumph over sin & death, is infinitely the more glorious, in having suffered first, such extreme humiliation, rather then if he • ad had but a light & easy combat. [ 4] Also the exceeding love of God towards us is the notablier set out. For the more he debased & punished his own most dear Sōne for us, the more wonderfully & unspeakably he loved us. [ 5] Lastly, herein a far greater comfort and assurance remaineth for us, considering what great things he hath done and suffered for our sakes, rather then if he had endured none such. For thus we need not fear that any • o • t can now remavne vnpayd by Christ, but we are assured that all is finished, and that no whit shall henceforth be laid to our charge, being by his grace acquired from such extremities.

Now whereas some say, [Objection.] The littlenes of Christ's suffering doeth more set out the power and virtue thereof, when as only by his body, both our Souls and Bodies are fully ransomed: that is so much with so little. I answer, it is nothing so: for then th • might more have appeared, if only he • had shed a drop or two of his blood, a •• not so much, and had felt a stripe or tw • and not so many wounds, and but so •• one cross and that for a short while, bu • not a lise of miseries, & a death of inco •• parable sorrows, as the wisdom of Go • appointed that he should and he did su •• fer. Therefore this reason is but vanity, and all such like against our assertion.

And hitherto it sufficeth to have taught from the Scriptures That Christ suffered s • us both in his soul and hody the wrath of God a Hellish torments, to ransom us from the same.

[Objection.] Now because it is stoutly said that the contrary hath always been believed in the Church, and our opinion never known this 1400. years, It shall not be amiss to confute this notorious untruth by the testimony of Godly men in sundry ages since. [Answer.] First taking this by the way, that if they they somewhere seem variable herein, [Note.] they do but show what they are, that is indeed no • fit to be brought as the vmpieres of causes in controversy, no • judges of the Scriptures sense, howsoever yet they are profitable to help us in the way, if we lean not to them wholly, no • yet despise them wholly. [Note.] Noting this withal, that it is no marvel if this doctrine were not so plainly uttered nor so fully set down in former times, as now of late it hath been, because we never find it to have been directly in questiō, as lately we have seen it to be. And therefore in these later times doubtless it hath been better sifted, and more persitlie taught, then ever heretofore since the Apostles age.

Howe so ever it be, thus saith Jerome: Quod (maledictum) nos pro nostris debebamus sceleribus sustinere, ill pro nobis passus est, pacificans, &c. The same (Curse) he suffered for us, which we should have borne for our own sins.

Cyprian: Dicendo. Quare derelictus sum indieat anxietates illius quarimonie verba esse delictorum suorum, quorum personam & causam assumpsit. Per Mosen & Apostolum sustinuit vocari Peccatum & Maledictum, pro similitudine poenae, non culpae: quod pro eis voluit intelligi, qui deseri à Deo propter peccata meruerant. In saying, Why hast thou forsaken me, he showeth the sorrows of that his complaing to be the words of his sins, whose person and cate he took upon him. He was content to be called by Moses and the Apostle, Sin and a Curse, because of the likeness of the punishment, not of the fault. And this he would have us to know that it was for them, or in their steed, who by reason of their sins, deferued to be forsaken of God.

Ambrose: Ego autem non solum excusandum non puto, sed etiam nusquam magis p • etatem e • tis maiestatem{que} demiror. Minus enim cotulerat mihi, nisimeum susceyisset assectum. Ergo pro me dolui • qui pro se nihil habuit quod doleret: Et sequestrata • delectation Diusnitatis aternae, taedio meae infimitatis afficitur. Moerorem animae nostrae, suae animae maeroie aboleuit. I do esteem Christ (in this his suffering) not only not to be excused, but also in deed I do nowhere more admire his gracious love and his Majesty. For he had done less for me, if he had not b • affected as I should have been. Therefore he sorrowed me, as having nothing to be grieved at for him self. A the love of his eternal Godhead being set a side, he • o •• bled with the tediousness of my infirmity. He 〈◊〉 shed the sorrow of our soul by the sorrow of his so ••

And again, Deus, Deus meus quare 〈◊〉 liquisti me? Clamanuit hoxio Diuinitatis sep • ration moriturus. O God, my God, why hast 〈◊〉 forsaken me? The Man Christ did cry, his Go • thea 〈◊〉 departed away, & he about to die. He meaneth • Godhead was departed frō him, not vuerly indeed, 〈◊〉 touching any comfort or strength that he selt of it the, when he was left in his most gricuous sorroves.

Again he saith, Hoc in se obtulit Chr •• stus, quodinduit: Et induit quod ante non habu • Christ offered that in sacrifice which he assumed & he 〈◊〉 med all that, which before he had not. That is to sa • his Soul was offered as a sacrifice, and not his body only.

Tertullian likewise saith, Quid de esto quaris? Habes ipsum exclamantem in passion, De •• meus, Deus m • us, vt quid me dereliquisti? Em Filius pat • ebatur à Patre derelistus: haec vox ca • nis & animae, id est Hominis, non Sermons n • Spiritûs est. What inquire you of him? You hearch •• crying out in his passion, My God, my God, why hast th •• forsaken me? The Son therefore suffered, being forsake • of his Father: but this is meant of the Flesh and of the Soul, that is, of the Manhood, not of the Godhead. If any boiect, that which followeth, Relinqui à Patre, morisail Filio. This forsaking of the Father, is but that the Sonr • died. He meaneth here that death which was awarded for sin: that is, both of the Soul and Flesh.

Cyril also, Carnem quidem suam in redemptionis precium pro carne omnium impendens, & animam suam similiter {pro} omnium animâ redemptionis precium constituens. He bestowed his Flesh as a ransom for our flesh: likewise he made his Soul a price of redemption for our Souls.

Thus much have we of the ancient Writers, and much more no doubt, as they know who are better conversant in them • hen myself. Howbeit this sufficeth to • hewe that they held, Christ to have suffered properly in his Soul for our sins, and that his Soul was made an Offering and price of redemption, & not his flesh only. Yea that his Soul • elt the separatio of the Godhead in his person, and that he withdrew at that time all comfort from the same, and so sustained the same Curse, the like punishment, which we should have done. Wherefore surly the ancient times since the Apostles have also known and taught and believed even that which we teache, and believe in this behalf. There are also some of the modestest Papists that here do join with us likewise. But to come to the Protestant Writers, lett this be chieflic noted: [Note.] I do not say some of them, or the most, or the best, but all & everyone both Churches and Waters in the world, who are Protestants, teache as we do. Never was there any voice heard any where openly to the contrary, before now in London of late. Except only the whotest and cunningest Papists, Iesuists, Priests, and Friars, who in deed always until this day, have had this controversy with all Protestants, & all Protestants against them. As Bellarmine, & Campian, principal Jesuits, do testify, Feuardentu •• the Friar, and our Rhemish Seminary Priests In whom, and specially in Bellarmine and Feu ardentius we find the very argument and reasons, or rather the silly sophisms which it hath pleased some among us to gather together, & to paint thē with fair colors, and to scatter them in England as precious stuff. Now lastly if we look: to our selves in England, all our worthy Preachers & Writers hitherto have been clear contrary always Mr Fulk in his answer to y ^e Rhemists: Mr Deering, whose name is still reverend in London: Mr Whitaker's, a noble light in our Churches of late, saith thus: Erat Deus nobis propter peccatū • ratisumus, Christus se interposuit, cius{que}irae vim omnem in se vnum effusam sustinuit. Qui ergo Christam nihil huiusmodi) sensisse putat, & peccati magnitudinem & Dei iustitiam, & Christi meritum •• lli • . Quod non fuerit absorptus. Deitati tribuendum est God was most wrathful with us for sin: Christ put him •••••• -tweene, and sustained all alone the whole vehemēcie of his wrath poured upon him. He therefore that thinketh Christ felt not (any such thine) doeth take away the grievousness of sin, the justice of God, & the merit of Christ. It was because of his Godheads assistance, that he was not overwhelmed and swallowed up quite.

And besides these, many other most excellent men, and namely Mr Nowell in his Catechism is so pregnant in this point, as no mā living is more. This Catechism is authorised in a whole Synod, and commanded to be taught to all our youth in England. Also our great Bible appointed by Authority to be read in public Churches expressly saith as much. Is not this now our English Churches express & constant doctrine, it being never repealed since? Yes verily. Cōsidering also that the now Archishop of Canterbury with 3. other great Bb. have expressly given it this allowance. Howsoever of late he hath by his letters allowed Mr Bilsons contrary doctrine that it might be printed, albeit yet it proceeded not. To conclude, I will add now finally the consent not of one or two, nor of our Churches in England simply, but of our public Laws of the Realm, that it may thoroughly appear our doctrine to be the public authorized doctrine of England. The book of Homilies, established by Act of Parliament hath thus: In the beginning of the Homil, of the Passion, or presently after, setting down certain partes & degrees of Christ's passion, first how he delivered himself of his heavenly glory, and debased himself to the condition of a man, yea of such a man as was subject to many infirmities & disgraces, by & by he cometh to his death on the Cross, as the last and greatest part of his suffering The which he expresseth thus, He put himself between God's deserved wrath & our sin. Where this putting himself between God's deserved wrath & our sin being expressly made a part and degree of Christ's suffering for us, it followeth that the Homelie expressly teacheth Christ suffered the wrath of God for us as a parte of his Passion & price of redemption. Again it saith, He took upon him the just reward of sin. Then reward is that which God's law appo ••• against sin: which is the death of • Soul (as it is called) in deed the fee of the fierce wrath of God, & not the • dily death only. Thus seeing also by Hom, sentence, Christ took upon him th •• reward of sin: Surely the doctrine of 〈◊〉 Churches publicly allowed by Law • England, doth plainly avouch that Ch ••• suffered the wrath of God for us. And 〈◊〉 soever saith nay, he resisteth, yea h ••• praueth the doctrine of Christ authou •• in England.

And here is it likely (Christian broth •• that all the late holy men of God sho •• hitherto universally err, and only these pistes, their Jesuits, their. Friars, & tra • terous Priests, have the truth herein: gainst us? In this so great a light of the Gospel, as lately hath shined out of da •• nes, and in this so weighty, & religious • cause? I say, is this likely by any mean. Neither hath this point ben covered in • lence, but namely and particularly siste • and tried to the quick, and always noubly approved & determined every when against the Papists. What injury then this to God's Church, for one that profeseth himself a friend, to agree with non: in such a case, but with the enemies there of? But let it be possible that all Protestant • hitherto have herein erred, & now some one or two of them begin to spy the truth out of Bellarmine: I will not simply deny, but this is possible to be, although nothing more vnlikelie. Yet is this likely that only the author of this conceit with us, a man of wealth, plenty, and wordly honor, should have this singular truth revealed unto him, before all the rest of our most worthy laborers in God's church this many years, who were certainly, in all men's reason, far likelier for diverse respects to discern of the feelings of conscience, & of the wrath of God for sin: & so consequently might he or they see better, how needful it was that the Son of God should taste thereof, or not, to free us therfrom? Surely I must needs say, to think him the likeliest of all other which have gone before, and yet are, most singular lights, to find out this doctrine for us, that point verily I can never admit, albeit I judge him not, nor any man. Only I hope, I have sufficiently cleared this our first question, and proved it by the Scriptures, that Christ hath suffered for us the wrath of God to redeem us from it. The which I wholly submit to the judgment of the Godly, desiring them only to consider, what I have before written: which also most gladly I do in all other things, whatsoever hereafter I do, or shall write.

THAT CHRIST AFTER HIS DEATH ON the Cross, went not into Hell in his Soul.

THis we ought also in Christian fa •• to believe, that Christ after his dea • on the cross, went not into Hell in his sou •• And here because that article 〈◊〉 our common Creed will be objected straigh • against us, He descended into Hell, we will be God's help first make plain this article according to Christian verity & the Sc •• pturs sense: Secondly we will prove our assertion by the Word, that Christ we •• not into Hell after his death on the cross. And first to say somewhat in general of our common Creed usually called the Apostles Creed: we acknowledge it to be an excellent short sum of Christian faith: wherein are all the necessary and chief heads of salvation comprised, and nothing but is consonant to the Apostles doctrine, being taken aright. Also we acknowledge it so ancient, as if the Godly Christiaus gathered it not in the Apostles times, yet certainly, it was very soon after them. For Ignatius runneth upon the very articles of this Creed: Irenaus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, do show likewise that such a rule of faith was ancientlie known before their times. So that we know it could not be mane very longe after the Apostles times: I mean if not this whole Creed as now it is, yet surely a great parte of it, and namely this article, He descended to Hades, whereof Ignatius in the foresaid place doth speak, & others most • uncient likewise. For we must know as the truth is, This Creed was made not all at once, but sundry articles were made and added, some after other as occasion required, til it came to this whole sum and fulnsse, which now it is at. For when by occasion of Heretics arising and calling in question any main point of faith, open error began to assail the Church, then the Godly & careful Christians resisted and armed the people as they could against the danger, then they contrived some short article of faith to be learned and held generally and of the simplest, whereby as it were by one familiar word they might be prepared against the infection then spreading, & so might be sufficiently grounded in the truth. This appeareth to be so, not only by the practice of the ancient Councils, who added to their Creeds words and article: directly against the Heretics who then troubled thē, but even in this also, called the Apostles Creed it must needs be so: Seeing in the moste ancient records thereof, all the articles are not found full and whole, which after were added, but those only whereof the Churches had need in thou former times. And this is one sure proof • that this common Creed was not made indeed by the Apostles thē selves, because it appeareth (as I said) to have ben gathered & made parte by part as the after occasions in y ^e Church required. And though it were called the Apostles Creed, yet tha • verily was only because it agreeth with the Apostles doctrine. Neither could a • the Apostles communicate together in making it: Some being presently dead after Christ's ascension, and many scattere • far and wide in the world. And if some of them only made it, their names would have been recorded. Finally if it had but made by the Apostles in deed, then i • had been Canonical Scripture, as well as the new Testament. But the Creed was never so judged nor believed to be Canonical scripture. Therefore it was neu ••• believed of old, neither ought it now, to be the Apostles very making. And yet as I said, we know it to be most ancient, and very near to the Apostles times: yea this very article of Christ's descending to Hades. Because Ignatius speaketh of it, & others, as I have above rehearsed.

Here then, let all men know, we deny not this Article of our Creed, but we embrace it unfeignedly, and do hold it to have been profitably added, when it was first put into the Creed, when and by whom soever it was, so that the reason and meaning thereof be wisely and rightly regarded.

And further we affirm, it hath no dark nor figurative meaning nor far removed from the usual phrase of the Greek language wherein it was written, but it hath a plain easy & vulgare sense familiar to the understanding of all, that spake Greek after the true language. [note.] Wherefore it is great injury now to count us Heretics, as if we denied an Article of our faith, for teaching thus much: as some more hastily then wisely have pronounced.

But you will say, What phrase, what meaning, and what use of speech is this that I speak of? Surely it is the proper & usual meaning of Hades in Greek that I speak of: that I specially require to be well known and regarded: that which in deed openeth the whole present controversy of Christ's descending. For this I affirm, it is only the Fathers abusive spea king, and altering the usual and ancient sense of Hades, that hath bred this error of Christ's descending into Hell: their unapt & perilous translating it into Latin Insers, & our naughty and corrupt translation in English Hell, hath confirmed the same. [note.] And note here this first: It is a thing too rife with the Fathers, yea with some of th • ancientest of them to alter and chaung • the authentic use of words, whereby consequently it is easy for errors and gros • mistakings to creep in. As Chirotonia 〈◊〉 signify Ordination of Ministers, when 〈◊〉 signifieth authenticallie the Peoples g • uing of voices in Election: Kleros to signify only the Clergy, whē it signifieth 〈◊〉 the Flock: Ecclesia to signify a Diocese o • Province of Christians, whē it is always i • Scripture a particular Church, or else in dee • the Universal Church. So the Latins use Miritum to signify good works, which authentically signifieth merit or desert: Claues the Keys, to signify only Church-government, when in Scripture it signifieth always the whole Ministerial power and function, the word, sacraments, and prayer, as well a discipline. Even so truly the Greek Fathers use Hades and the Latin Inferi, to signify Hell properly & patticularly, that is, the place of the Damned: or else another particular place under the earth a part of Hell, and not far from Hell it self, when Souls remained if not in pains yet in prison, and far frō the place of eternal blessedness and joy: which the later Writers have since fondlie named Limbus Patrum. Thus I say have the Fathers written and spoken, applying Hades and Inferos so particularly to the place for Souls under the earth, far frō eternal blessedness. But this is a mere and a plain abusiō of these words, and specially of our word most in question, that is Hades. They have much altered and changed the authentic and true use thereof. The Classical Writers the Masters of the Greek tongue do use Hades in proper sense only in general for the state of the dead, the world of the dead, the world of souls departed, indifferently and indefinitelie meaning as well those in eternal joys as those in pains. So that they signify herein a general opposition between the Living & the Dead, not a particular opposition between the Damned and the Blessed. Examples hereof in the authentic Greek Authors are frequent. Plato the wise Master saith thus, speaking in the person of Socrates, a little before his death: He psyche arà, to aides, to eis toroūton topon heteron otchómeaon, gennaion, kai katharon, kai aide, eis Hadou, hos alethós, parà ton agathō kaì phronimon Theon: h • t, an Theos ethele, antika kaì te heme psyche iteón. The soul being an invisible thing goeth (hence) to another place like (to it self, that is to) a noble place, & pure, and invisible, even unto the Would of the dead, that is in truth, to the good and wise God: whither if God will my soul must presently go. This moste singular place showeth that Hades with them is not properly for Hell, but for the World of the dead, & sometime, as namely here, even for Heaven: and that so it is named Hades because it is a • les invisible, or hidden frō our eye & sense in this world. We must note then, Socrates hopeth not here to go to Hell, but to Heaven presently after his death: and that is it that he calleth Hades. As again he affirmeth 〈◊〉 onti esontai en hadou hai psychas hemón Our 〈◊〉 after this life shall be in Hades truly or in very 〈◊〉 Again he saith of Heauē, that it is aides 〈◊〉 hades, hósper legetas: an unseen Estate, even Hade as it is (commonly) called. Lastly he speaketh 〈◊〉 ta en Hadou agatha, of the good things in Hade • there is little good in Hell. Wherefore it 〈◊〉 plain by Plato, Hades sometime may be understood of Heaven: yea and with the Grecians it was a common phrase. Likewise Plutarch showeth of Leonidas the Spartan King that most noble defendor of h • s Country, when with a handful of men he would resist the huge hosts of Persi • though he knew well that himself and his were all like to be slain, as they were in deed, yet he cheered up his m • n not to fear such a blessed death, saying, we shall so break our fast, that we shall sup i • Hades not in Hell, that were a cold comfort, but amongst the blessed departed. So H • mer saith, many noble souls were sent aidi to Hades, not to Hell, but to the society of the happy deceased. And Stephan citeth Plutarch peri tón eusebeón en Hadou. Concerning the Godly departed, and being in Hades, that is in Heaven he meant, I think, not in Hell. Therefore the authentic Authors of the Greek tongue did use Hades for the place of the blessed souls also, not properly for Hell, the place of the damned, although no man denieth but sometime it serveth even for Hell it self in deed.

This were enough to learned and reasonable men for the clearing of the true and proper sense of Hades in Greek. But because I fear this question will not so quickelie ende, it shall serve very well for the better opening of the sense of this Greek word, if we compare the Latin word Inferi therewith, which with them was used to signify the same thing as Hades in Greek did, albeit indeed Inferi was not so fit to express generally both the blessed and damned dead indifferently, as anon God willing we shall further see.

Now first therefore lett us compare and consider likewise the authentic and proper use of Inferi the Latin as we have done of Hades the Greek word. Inferi with the Latins is used authentically as we have seen Hades is in Greek, not for the damned only, but also for the blessed departed this life: indeed generally for the world of the dead, which by death are not clean extinct but do live somwhere else in another life. So; did Cicero mean, where he showeth in latin that incouragment of Leonidas before touched to his associates, that they should not fear to die for their Country, Forti animo estu • , nam coenabimus forte apud inscros, Be of goo • cheer (said he) for it is likely we shall sup, where? in Hell? Nay verily: Neither Leonidas nor Tully thought so, but • there in a place of eternal blessedness, where they believed the most worthy defendours of their Country were received, as Socrates before said of him self about to die, parà ton agathon kai phronima Theon, with the good and wise God. Yet this place he nameth here Inferos. Hence also it is that Cicero saith, It is an Orators part, sometime Locupletassimos tefles ab in Inferis excitare, to raise up witnesses from the dead, not from H • . For he meaneth that which him self he did for Miloes defense, bringing the examples of the worthy and blessed old defendors of the common wealth, Hala Seruilius, Nasica, Opimius, C. Marius, and Olde Africanus, Maximus, Paulus, Scipto, and the two Dec • which would grieve at the Common Wealthes calamity, whē any going unto them in illam aeternam domum, should tell them of it. This eternal habitation of these most noble dead men called thus to witness, was not Hell in his judgment, yet generailie he reckoned them to be apud Inferos. For so thought and so spake these Heathens: as also Virgil doeth, Deuenere locos laetos, &c. Where he describeth Elysios campos their Heaven, the goodly Elysian fields, the eternal habitation of the blessed to be apud Inferos, but not in Hell, which in our English tongue is properly the place of the damned only. Who surely though being a Poet, and feigned many things, yet spake he familiarlie and after the vulgar use, also for the substance of his matter, he uttered touching Heaven and Hell the opinion of the world then. Which also Hortentius commenting on the same place doeth show, saying: Veteres Elysium putarunt in medio inferorum situm in quo piorum animae quiescerēt. Philosophi in Insulis Fortunatis, &c. The ancient Heathen believed their Heaven to be beneath in the world of the dead, where the souls of the godly had rest. The Philosophers thought it to be in the Fortunat Ilandes, &c. Heerevnto let us add, that the latter learned Writers, even Christians, have also espied and granted this property of the Latin word Infernum or inferi, as also of the Greek Hades. Jerome saith, Infernus is a place where the souls are included either in rest or pains. The old Latin Trāslator useth infernū not only for Hades but also for Thanatos death, also Mors for Hades: So he esteemeth Hades and Infernum (both these words) for very Death. Bucer, Nō all • ter vspiam Scriptura de inferno loquitur quā vt sit communis omnibus tam sanctis quam impijs. Gehenna autem solis impijs tribuitur. The scripture nowhere speaketh of Hades or Infernum but as being common as well to the blessed as to the damned. But Gehenna is proper only for the damned. Lauater saith, Hades apud Greces generale vocabulū est. Hades in Greek is a general word for the condition of the dead both i • torments and in peace. Bullinger, To go ad inferos, is To go into Abraham's bosom: that is into He • uen, not into Hell. Zwinglius, Port a inferorum es • periphrasis mortendi. The gates of Death is nothing else but a phrase signifying Death. Moller touching Sheol, Hades, and Infernum, saith, they do but signify that Christ died. As if he should say, Ideo latatus sum quia futurums • n, vt quanquam mortēdum mibi sit, tamen in vuan redeam. Therefore I rejoice because I know, that although I die, yet I shall rise to life agayue. Pe. Mart. Christum descendere ad inferos nibil aliud indicat, nisi quod cundem subijt statum quem reliqua animae à corpore sejunctae experjuntur. That Christ desc • ded to the dead signifieth nothing else, but that de did udergoe the same state as other souls do y ^t depart this life. Thus comparing the Latin Inferos, & the Greek Hades together, we see that the ancient and late Authors do signify by them both the general state of the dead, the world of the dead, containing Heaven for the blessed, as well as Hell for the wicked indifferently. [Objection.] Now if any marvel at this, and think it strange that Hades signifying a dark place, and Inferi a place beneath the earth or in the earth, that these words I say should any way signify Heaven, and the blessed souls there. Seeinge all wise men would rather think that this is rather Hell, where is utter darkness: as for Heaven it is certainly a place of glorious brightness, & that on high, not downwards. I answer: [Answer.] Here in deed is the very occasion of all this error and of all the controversy at this day about Christ's going down into Hell. I say the very mitaking of these words is, and hath been the cause of all this. As touching Hades all men grant, it cometh of à the Greek privative, and eido to see. But here is the error: some men take it so as betokeninge impossibility for vt to see being there, by reason of darkness and ugly blackness in that place: and thē this is likely to be nothing but Hell. Nay, they are deceived that give this reason of the Etymology of Hades, if they give it for the full, perfect, and general Etymology, & as being even with the natural use of the word. Plato in the place above cited, who knew it better thē any of our Contraries, doth give another and a better meaning of this Deriuation: Where alluding to hades he saith it is topos aides a place invisible, a place which here in this world none can see, an invisible world. And so the Worlde of the dead generally and not only Hell, is thereby properly and naturally noted. Which Tertullian expresseth thus, à notitia orbis communis segregatum, removed from the worlds knowledge. This is certainly the true Deriuation of Hades: and so it may rightly, truly, and by a natural emphasis signify Heaven sometime, if other Circumstances there do so require, and not Hell, as in the former authentic Greek Testimonies by the very circumstances of the places I have proved, and even so also out of question it is taken in the ground of our controversy, and in the A. postles Creed, where it is said that Christ be ••• dead went to Hades, he went to the World of the dead, that is namely to the blessed souls in Heaven: I say in Heaven, not that Hades 〈◊〉 self doth so import, but because he that died was a Blessed man. But some will say, [Objection.] The reason of the derivation of Hades from á privative and eido, to see hath been judged otherwise, that is for a place where in we cannot see, and then it will follow that it should signify a dark place. [Answer.] I deny not but sometime Hades may admit that reason of the Etymology, and so the Poet alludeth to it sine luce domus, a place without light. And thē it signifieth, first the Grave where is no light: and by a Metaphor frō hence it may be used for Hell, where in reason we judge also that there is ugly darkness, & no light. Thus I say no man doubteth but Hades sometime signifieth: but this is never unless, by a figure synecdoche the whole for the parte, the full and just sense thereof by some manifest circumstance be restrained. The full and just sense is the general state of the dead, the world of the dead, as before I have shown: so that it rightly and properly noteth a difference between the dead and the living, not between the damned & the blessed. And yet it is true this is sometime restrained as I have said, by the circumstances in the place where we find it: and then it is sometime for the place of the body being dead, sometime of the soul departed being in Hell: and sometime also for the place of souls in Heaven, as I have declared before also. [Note.] So that above all things this is to be noted and to be taken heed of, that we restrain not this general word Hades, where it need not to be restrained: and moste of all that we take it not for Hell, where it may, nay where it must signify Heaven, as in the places of this our main controversy aforesaid.

Howbeit notwithstanding all this, compare the Latin Inferi with the Greek Hades, and then I grant Inferi is proner to bring us into error then Hades. For it is true Inferi cometh of Infra which is beneath: and therefore it seemeth there is no other way but to take it for a place beneath the earth, or in the earth, and not on high, where it is to be thought that Heaven is & the blessed souls do dwell. [Note.] All this is true in deed: yet let us heedfullie note notwithstanding, that this word Inferi in Latin use doeth comprehend all that Hades in Greek doeth: even the whole state or World of the dead generally, making opposition properly between Superstites and Defunctos, the Living and the Dead (as before was said of Hades ) without difference of the bless •• and damned, unless also some other re • son and circumstance do restrain the words ancient & proper generality. The plain reason of this, we may learn from Cicero himself, Saith he That Inferi sh ••• signify the state of all the dead both good and bad generally, it grew of an error of the Auncients, in terram cadentibus corpu • bus his{que} humo tectis, sub terra consebant reliqu •• vitam agi mortuorum. The old simple ignorant Latins thought when the bodies of m •• were laid in the earth, their souls also lived the rest of their life under the earth. This they thought of all the dead, both the Blessed and the Damned. And this, saith he they thought because they knew not 〈◊〉 deed of the souls of the dead qua in seed manerent, in what place they were after death: Cu ••• ignoratio saith he further, sinx • t Inseros, ease{que} formidines, &c. The ignorance of truth herein, begin this opinion that the state and Worlde of the Dead was v • der the earth; vid particularly the terrors of Hell also. And so in deed not the opinion only, but the phrase also whereby they signified this general state and World of the Dead, was justly & most fitly, as they thought, from Infra beneath, viz. inferi and infernus And so they spake also excitare ab inferis, to raise up, not from Hell, but generally and indifferently from the Dead: migrare ad inferos to go to the dead, common as well to those whom they believed to be Blessed, as to the Damned. Also thus they believed Elysios campos esse apud inferos, the Elysian fields 〈◊〉 namely the Gentiles Heaven) to be be •• eath amongst the dead: as already I have • hewed out of Virgil, Cicero, &c. Now Tully • urther saith of this opinion, Quam corum • pinionem magni errores consecuts sunt: This opini • n gave occasion of many and great errors. In all which words of Cicero I note 3. things. 1. That he utterly misliked this opiniō of y ^e • old Latins or whom soever, that thought 〈◊〉 World of the dead was under the earth, and therefore gave this term Inferi to signify the same. This he openly misliketh, yea that the damned Souls were beneath in the earth, or at least such kind of torments for thē as consequently the former error did cause many to imagine. Howe much more did he condemn them that thought all y ^e deceased souls were beneath, under, or in y ^e earth? The blessed he thought rather, as Plato did, to ascēd up to the heavens. Here we must note that the Heathē held diversely of their Heaven, the place for the blessed souls. Some thought it in the Heavens above, some in the air, some in the Sphere of the moon, and others as before we heard in the fortunate Ilandes, and many, specially the common sort, & most specially in the old times long before, that it was another Region under the earth, as Hell it self also was one, but this clean distinct & removed frō that which they called Elysium, as before I observed out of Virgil. This last opinion that the souls deceased were under the earth Ci •• here flatly rejecteth.2. I note in hi • that although he rejected this old fab • lous opinion of the Latins, yet he • erayned the Latin phrase as being now cōmo • and familiar everywhere, ad inferos, 〈◊〉 inferos generally for the world of the de •• . Which phrase arose of old from that opinion, as namely, thinking all the dead after this life to be infra beneath. He had learned to think wiselyer, but yet he spake so as the vulgar phrase had prevailed. According to Aristotle's rule, Loquend •• vt vulgut, sapiendum vt sapientes, we must speak as 〈◊〉 custom is, but believe as the wise do. So then yet this phrase of speech remained common, though the ground of it even then was held fabulous of diverse.3. Tully saith, of this opinion followed many errors. Now as he saith from this opinion amongst the Heathen, [Note.] So I say, from this phrase of speech Inferi received amongst Christians, but first grounded on the heathenish opinion, there hath followed many errors in the Church. For this word Inferi being used amongst the Christians vulgarly and familiarly, but taken from the Heathen, and the reason thereof not duly considered whence it first arose, namely that it was an error to think the souls of the dead were under the earth: likewise also the Greek word Hades, when men mistook the Etymology of it as meaning a • ark • place, whē rather it betokeneth a place • nuisible to us here, as before I have shown: 〈◊〉 say both these mistakeings amongst the Fathers prevailing, have given occasion both to them and us since of great and grievous errors, & of all this contention • n the Church here bout at this day. To remedy the which, doubtless the best way is well and thoroughly to consider the authentic use of these words Hades & Inferi, in such sort as before I have declared. And then this will appear that our English word Hell which we commonly use for the former Greek and Latin, it fitteth not, it differeth greatly, it is much amiss. And specially it serveth not for Hades, as before I have shown. For Hades signifieth an invisible place, and is used authentically for the Worlde of the dead in general, the invisible World unknown to us here, So that it makes difference not between the damned and blessed, as some suppose, but between the dead and the living: but Hell in English is properly and only the place of eternal torments for the wicked.

Thus hitherto by comparing also the Latin Inferi and the Greek Hades together, we see now clearly what the authentic use of Hades is. And seeing we see it. I infer & affirm boldly, Even so doubtless do the Scripture, speak, so write the Apostles, yea the Septuagint Translators, & all good Grecians: they vary • not their language frō the usual, know • , currant speech which was spoken in ar • before their times. And if so they do, then it remaineth concluded and firml • proved that the Scriptures by Hades mea •• not Hell properly: but the World of the De •• indifferently, or the general state of dea •• , or the Power of death, unless sometime where special circumstances do restrain • proper & native generality of that word. [Objection.] But yet this is doubted still by some, that deny flatlie the new Testament to have used Hades any other way then only for Hell. [Answer.] These men, what should I say to them? You have heard that the natural property of the word Hades, according to the use of the authentic Authors, (by whom even the Apostles words must be Grammaticallie construed, I suppose • plainly refuteth them. Wherefore I constantly affirm as before, the Scripture useth Hades never properly for Hell. And this I affirm not only because of the former authentic consent with me about the word, but also because all the several places, eight in number, where Hades is used in Scripture, being well considered, they show the same manifestly: also for that the Seauentie Interpretours do use it so too, and finally because Sheol in Hebrew, which all men know to be the same that the Greek Hades is, signifieth likewise so too.

[ 1] And first that we may view the several places of Scripture, and so not be deceived: Thus we read The gates of Hades • hall not prevail against the Church. He speaketh here of persecution and suffering death for the faith of Christ. But saith • he, This shall not prevail against you: What? Death and Destrustion shall not. So that the gates of Hades here are nothing • else but the gates of Death, the power of Death, shall never prevail, though they assayle you. And this phrase seems to be taken from the use of the Jews, who executed their severe judgments of life and death in the gates of their Cities. Hence the phrase seemeth to come, The gates of Death, for the power of those Rulers which should condemn to death the godly for their faith and a good conscience, and yet not prevail. That we should translate here, the gates of Hell, meaning directly vices, and sins, and errors, as some of the ancient Writers do, the circumstances of the Text do seem not to bear it. For by occasion, as seemeth of the former incouragmēt to his faithful and godly ones, he falleth to tell them of his own suffering at Jerusalem soon after, where though he should be betrayed and slain, yet should he rise again the third day, as it were giving them an example and that first of all in himself of that combat and victor •• which before he promiseth them, & encourageth them unto. So then he doth not here directly and specially arm them, nor promiseth conquest against the temptations of sin, though by proportion that also followeth from this plac •• but he encorageth his to stand to the •• faith manfully against all persecutors, seeing all their rage should not prevail, nor death it self which should be ad • iged unto them in the gates, albeit it afflict them. Again the gates of Hades shall not preuaill, these words do manifestly pretend force and violence against them, which yet should not get the victory over them. But errors and sins though by them Satan set upon us, yet they always pretend contentment and quiet case toward us, not force and violence, as the rage of persecutors doth, & as here in this text is plainly signified. Wherefore here surely the gates of Hades meaneth the power of death and destruction & nothing else properly. Neither also that the power of these Tyrantes should be called the gates of Hell do I see any reason: their Power is from God, and not from Hell. Their malice moveth not God's children, but only as it threateneth Death. Therefore to call it here the gates of death it is good reason, & not the gates of Hell, as is above said. Howbeit if any will urge the common translation, and say the gates of Hell, let him know this interpretation is received among the learned not for the propriety of the word Hades, but for a circumstance of the text here requiring, it to be so translated, as they conceive. And I confess that so here it may be, and do show that thus this Hades is sometime used: and namely in the last example following out of Luke Chap. 16.23. Yet properly Hades is nothing else but the Vnseene Worlde of the Dead, not Hell. 2. Our present place cheiflie in question is to be noted. Thou wilt not leave my soul (in Hades) with the dead, or in the unseen world of the dead: nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption. Our common translation hath it, Thou wilt not leave my soul in the grave, &c which is not much amiss, considering the scope of the Apostle and the manner of phrase both in Hebrew and in Greek sometime, that is by a figure Synecdoche, the whole for the parte: as before I noted sometime it may be. But seeing a figure here needs not, the most plain, & moste natural, and familiar translation should be thus, as I have no • ed: Thou wilt not leave my soul amongst the dead, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption. 1. That this is the natural and proper sense of Hades, we have seen enough already by the authentic Greek writers.2. That the Seauentie use it so to, after whose translation & phrase Peeter here speaketh: and; that the Hebrew word Sheol which is 〈◊〉 original of this phrase hath the same sense likewise anon hereafter we shall make manifest, God willing. But to translate this Hell as some now will have it, that is openly wrong and injurious to the text. And thus I prove it: First David speaketh it 〈◊〉 some sort as true of him self, being a type and figure of Christ, whom in deed in more special wise it concerned. Again Peter in this point for the which he citeth this verse of the Psalm, doeth plainly grant all this of David as well as of Chr •• , saving that David was left therein even t •• l this day, which Christ was not. But this is only the state of death, and the grave which David is yet left in, not Hell in any wise, yea he was never in Hell. Therefore Hades and Sheol here can not be for Hell. Secondly, if it be altogether here from the purpose of Peter to speak to the Jews of Christ's soul being in Hell, then there is no reason to take these words Hades and Sheol here for Hell. But by the whole text it is evident, Peter had no reason nor purpose to speak to these Jews of Christ's Soul being in Hell. His whole direct purpose was to show them of his Soul being amongst the dead, and his body in the grave, like as other men are when they dy, and was from thence mightily raised up again, more then other men were or could be. Therefore Hades and Sheol here do signify the state of death, and not Hell. The first proposition standeth on plain and manifest reason, specially seeing these are the very words that he presseth and standeth on, to show them howe Christ being truly dead, was yet risen again. And as touching the assumption, that is most apparaunt, Peter had no reason in the world, and therefore no purpose to speak to these Jews of Christ's Soul being in Hell. 1. They being incredulous and unbelieving.2. The thing being invisible and strange, and uncouth, not subject to the sense, and without all example of the like.3. He intending nothing else in all this speech to them, but to teache that this JESUS whom they had slain, was not now dead, but risen again, why should he now speak of Hell: What reason had he? If Christ had been in Hell, it made not necessarily neither for his death, nor resurrection, which was the only scope of his speech (verse 31.) but being an uncouth and invisible thing, it might rather hinder their faith, then further it. Therefore verily the state of death is all that Hades and Sheol do here signify: and it is the whole and only purpose of Peter here so to testify.

[ 3] 3. One sitteth on a pale horse whose name 〈◊〉 death, and Hades followed after him. That is, the world of the dead, Regnum mortucrum. If you refer it only to our bodies, then it may be the grave. But rather I take it generally for the state of the dead after this life. It cannot be Hell certainly: because the text addeth Power was given them to slay with its sword, and with famine, and death, and with wild beasts. Hell slayeth none in that sort. Again it is said, they had power, on the fourth parte of the world. But to say precisely that the fourth parte of the world at any time should go to Hell, I take it to be a strange phrase in the Scripture. In a word this place is nothing else but a prophesy of great mortality that at a certain time should come upon the world for the contempt of the Gospel, & that they should die by such means as are there specified. Wherein Hell dealeth not, neither showeth any power. Therefore Hades here cannot be Hell.

[ 4] 4. Death and Hades, (that is the place or world of the dead, or the kingdom and power of death ) were cast into Hell. It were absurd to say, Death and Hell were cast into Hell: and therefore so we say also in the verse before, Death and the World of the Dead, rendered up their dead to judgment. [ 5] 5. O Death, where is thy victory? O Hades, where is thy stinge? Neither can this be meant of Helli because all his speech here is of the resurrection from • he dead, and this very speech is an insulting & triumph, as it were, over Death & the power of Death: seeing they shall not be able to hold them, whom they shall get into their power. As for Hell. that would not be adversary to the resurrection, but would desire it rather, as being greedy of the bodies also of the damned which th • ̄ it should have together with their souls, and not before. He speaketh not then of the damnation of the wicked, but of the Resurrection of the dead. Note also, he doeth plainly allude to that of the Prophet Ose Sheol, O grave, or O world of the dead, I will be thy destruction. Not o Hell: for the Prophet speaketh to comfort Israel in their captivity, where though they were for their rebellion against God destroyed grievously a longe time, yet at length he promiseth to stay his judgments, & Death should not devour them anymore, it should not have her former power upon God's people, but they should live and florishe again, if they repented. And this the Apostle might very fitly allude unto, when he spake of the resurrestion, which might be notably compared to Israel's return out of the pit of misery in Babylon's Captivity. But of hell there could be no direct nor proper moaning, neither in the one nor the other. [ 6] 6. I have the Keys of Hades and of Death: That is nothing else but Christ, who was dead, hath 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 now overcome death, and hath power to die no more. He hath overcome death & holdeth the power thereof for him self and others. For him self, in that he can and will die no more. For others, in that he can give to death whom he will, & whom he will he saveth. This therefore is a plain opposition to his former state when he was in death, but now shall be so no men: and nothing else, as the beginning of the verse hanging together with this, doeth express. I live, but was dead, and (now) behold I live forever, and I have the Keys of Hades and of Death. As if he should say: I am henceforth no more subject, but superior thereunto. Here is nothing of Hell.

[ 7] 7. And thou Capernaum which art lift up to the Heaven, shalt be brought down to destruction, to Hades. He speaketh here of the destruction of the City and people thereof, which he calleth Hades. And this is manifest: 1. By the notable Oppositiō of their lifting lifting up to the heaven, and their bringing down to Hades. In the 1. he meaneth not that they were lift up to eternal blessedness, but only that they were lift up in renown, in pomp, & in flourishing state, according as y ^e Latins speak also ad sydera tolls, To be exalted to the skye. Wherefore in the later he meaneth they shall be brought down to destruction, to have no being ingloriouslie: that is Hades here in this place, but not Hell. 2. This is also manifest in y ^t he saith presently of Sodom, whereunto here he compareth Capernaū, if they had had the means of reap̄tāce in such manner as Capernaū had, Sodom had remained to this day. This showeth he spake but of Capernaums destruction, & of her not being on the earth: and not of their damnation in hell by the word Hades.

[ 8] 8. This remaineth only, The rich man in the state of Death, or in the world of the Dead, lifted up his eyes being in torments: Thus I say we may translate it, in the world of the dead, or being amongst the dead, he lift up his eyes, &c. And thē there is no text in all y ^e Bible where Hades signifieth Hel necessarily. But if we grant to say Hell in this place for Hades, yet we affirm, this sense is givē it for other circumstances, not for y ^e nature of the word. Because he was such a man, and because it is straight expressed he was in torments being dead. Therefore to be in Hades, to be in th • the World of the Dead, that was to him in deed to be in Hell As for Hell in the Scripture it hath another word Gehenna which properly signifieth it. As Just. Martyr observeth, he de Gehenna est i topos entha kolazesthai mellou si hoi adikos biosantes, Gehenna Hell is a place where the wicked shall be • ormented. Whereby is insinuated that Hades is not properly Hell, which Gehenna is properly for. And thus M ^r Bucer excellently observeth not only in that before cited, but also on Luk, Dives nō simpliciter scribitur esse en hade, sed & in Gehēnâ, quia in tormentis & slamma. The riche man is not said to be simply in Hades, but also in Hell: because he is said to be in syry torments. Therefore Hades and Gehenna are not properly all one: and wheresoerver Hades is for Hell, there it is taken by a figure synecdoche the whole for the parte, the invisible state of the dead for that where the damned are in torments. Thus then Hades in scripture is nowhere properly for Hell.

Which also is further to be declared by the 70. Translatours. Whose words and phrases the Apostles themselves used and chiefly followed in all their allegationes from the old Testament. So that their using of Greek words and phrases must needs be of great authority. These put Hades generally after the authentic use for Death, the state of the dead: as His soul draweth near to the grave, and he zôe autou en hade. hs life is among the dead, or in the world of the dead. And parokese to Hade he psyke mou. My soul had dwelt in the world of the dead. In Hebrew it is Dumah i • scilence, that is in the estate of death. Again ouk hoi nekros amesous • se, oude hoi pantes katabainontes eis Hadou. The dead praise thee not, o Lord, nor any that go down to the state of the dead. Here also in Hebrew it is dumah to the place of silence. Further what man liveth, and shall not see death, rusetai ten psychen autou ek chiros Hadou? shall he deliver his Soul from the power of the Vnseene world, that is from death? And My soul was filled with sorrows, kai he zôe mou tô Hade engise, And my life drew near unto the Dead, or to the world of the Dead. And Job saith, Hades mou ho oskes: The World of the Dead shall be my habitation. In all these places and in many other such like of the 70. Hades cannot be hell: but the state or world of the dead. Finallie consider the Hebrew word Sheol: Al men will grant that Sheol in Hebrew and Hades in Greek, as here they are used for the same thing, so in deed everywhere else they are all one. That is out of question. But it is manifest in the Scripture that Sheol is generally used for the state of the death, the world of the dead, and specially sometime for the soul, sometime for the body, sometime for the good, sometime for the bad, according as the circumstances do imply: but always for their state in death, and no further properly. And because it cometh of Shaal, to crave or ask, it signifieth that this Worlde or state of the dead, though it takes infinite, yet it still taketh, and is never satisfied. Neither ought any man to doubt that Sheol hath this familiar, ordinary, and natural signification, to note as I said generally the state of death. There are innumerable places of Scripture that do evince it, and chiefly that it is not properly Hell. Firste that where Jacob saith of Joseph whom he thought to be dead, Ered el beni abel Sheolah, I will go down mourning unto my son to the place of the dead. Questionles he meant not into Hell, but into the place of the dead that were dead in the Lord. Also Ezechia thought he should have gone beshagnare Sheol, to the gates of death. He thought not that he should have gone to Hell, but to the state of Death. And Lo sheol todhecha, The w ••• of the Dead doeth not confess thee, Death cannot pray • thee, They that go down to the pit cannot hope for up truth. All this is meant not of the damned in Hell, but of them in the state of death. So Bisheol is in the World of the dead, or in the state of Death: which the coherēce doth prove, which is between bammet him the dead, and this here. Again, O that thou wouldest h •• me in the World of the dead, hisheol: Job would not desire to be in Hell: and he saith, the like shall come to him self Sheol beths My house shall be the place of the, dead: and all my hopes of recovery in this world, shall go down with me bad sheol to the strong place of the world of the Dead. Howbeit Job was not so faithless as to think he should go to Hell. Again I will redeem them m •• d Sheol, from the power of Death: Sheol o Death, or o kingdom of Death I will be thy destruction. This hath been shown before to be spokē directly & {pro}perly of the state of Death, or y ^e power of Death, not of Hell. Which the old Latin trāslator doth also well observe, who turneth it à Morte frō Death: again both inserne & o Mors, that is, o Death. Further let it be noted y ^t in David, whose phrasewe are now a skāning of, there is no word almost more common then Sheol in this sense: and specially there it is seen, where he expressly referreth it to the Soul. The same also Job meaneth, where he speaketh of Beth mogned lecol chai, the House appointed for all the living. Thus therefore it is manifest that Sheol in Hebrew is not properly Hell, but it is the Worl of the Dead, or the state of Death simply and indifferently. Which sense the Sea • uentie do plainly confirm also: who sometime translate Sheol, Death: Mishcol • k thanatou from Death, not from Hell, and sometime where they turn Sheol Hades, yet it is moste evident and undeniable that very Death, or the estate of Death, or the power of Death is there meant: as in all those places wherein we spake of Sheol immediarly before. Therefore the 70. understand sheol and hades also for the state of death simply & generally, not for Hell properly. Even altogether after y ^e natural property of the word with the authē take Grecians, as reason is that they should. [Note.] Thus there is no question then, but hades & sheol being all one, & namely with the 70. who do almost always use y ^e one for the other, that therefore Hades & Sheol both do not fignifie Hell properly, but the state of Death, the World or place of the dead, such as are g • n out of this visible World into another. Also where hades and sheol are more specially taken for y ^e Grave or the state of dead Bodies, even here in effect it is all one as before, they signify the state of Death: it is not possible y ^t they should be for Hell properly & primarily in any of these and infinite more such like places. Which besides all the former, M. Bucer showeth excellently: Sheol Hades & Insernum in Scripture do always signify the Grave, & so the state of y ^e Dead whatsoever it be either happy or cursed. And Tremell. This Hebrew word Sheol doth signify any station or state of the dead in general: and Hell it may sometime signify but by a figure synecdoche.

Now then seeing the authentic Gracians do use Hades for the invisible World after this life, that is for the World of the dead, yea Infer • in Latin is taken so to as we have seen, and seeing the New Testament hath Hades sundry times in like sense, and the 70. interpreters before them, & seeing the Hebrew Sheol which they make to be and is indeed all one with Hades, may and doth signify also the unseen world, that it the World of the dead generally. Therefore it followeth that in our Creed also Hades is liable to this sense, and for the force of the word there is no cause to translate it Hell, and the Fathers by mere mistaking the proper & true use of this word have fancied such diverse and vain things, which foolish childien have since amplified, of Christ's going down to Hell in his Scul • after death, as neither themselves knew, neither can they declare to others.

[Objection.] But now it will be objected, how then should we translate the Hebrew and the Greek Sheol & Hades, to fit those words in our language. [Answer.] It is true indeed, through the scarcity of our tongue it is most hard to fit a translation in English to those words of Scripture. But this is evident, that which is commonly used & namely in our vulgare Creedes, Hell, is a word to partial, to vnfitt, yea corrupt, and stark naught. It is suitable to the largeness of the Hebrew and Greek meaning, though not so just with the Nature of our word, to say in English, the Dead. As in the Creed, He went unto the Dead: or, He descended among the Dead. Also Thou wilt not leave my soul with the Dead, nor thy holy one to see corruption. Which as I have shown before, is the true, plain, easy, familiar, and common sense of Hades among the authentic Greeks: as also of Sheol in Hebrew.

[Objection.] But to translate thus, is to depart from the Fathers sense of Hades: they use it always or most commonly for Hell. [Answer.] They use it indeed commonly, either for Hell it self, or for a place of darkness, a parte of Hell, far from the place of Blessedness. And yet they grant also, that it may be (yea and Insert to) used for Abraham's bosom, where Lazarus had joy, and where was a great distance & contrariety between Hell and it. What may this be, but the place of blessedness, I think, even in their judgments? How soever it be, we stand not upon the Fathers language to translate the Scriptures, or this Article of our Creed. The Apostles and Apostolic men as also the Septuagint to, did write and speak as the authentic Grecians did, as they learned to speak of the Masters of that tongue, and as the people then might. best understand, not making phrases, nor fitting their words to the latter writers that spake and wrote long since them. Therefore according to the authentic vseof Hades, so ought we indeed to translate this both in English and Latin: Descendit ad mortuos, He descended among the Dead.

[Objection.] Why, in effect this is nothing else but to Dye: and that was expressed of Christ before, he was Dead, Buryed, &c. But in this short sum of Religion to repeat one point twice were needles, and against the nature of a short sum. And to uses dark and hard phrase after a plain and easy, is unreasonable & absurd. [Answer.] It is true, I hold it unreasonable altogether in the short and vulgar Creed appointed even for the common Christians, to use words dark and difficulte. And when the same thing is by diverse words expressed, the later ought to be the lighter and clearer, for to open the meaning the better which in the former is not so evident. Therefore I fully grant in the Creed specially, the phrase must be familiar, trivial, easy, and plain. Which here in this taking of Hades is so: it is moste easy (I say) and plain to every Grecian, and moste natural and proper in it self, as I have sufficiently shown before. For we must remember our Creed was not written in English, and therefore our abusive word Hell ought not to trouble us. But look we to the Greek Hades wherein it was written, and to the Hebrew, Sheol whereunto also the Greek fitteth: and them it is as clear as the Son at noon day, that katabena • c • s Haden and redeth Sheolah are the common and familiar phrases to go to the Worlde of the Dead, or among the Dead. As for the repeating of the same thing, it is not idle nor vnsignificant, but moste Emphaticall. For even presently after the Apostles there arose Haeretikes denying that Christ was a true Man but only in show, and therefore also suffered and died but in show and appearance only. Such also continued a long time, and such are at this day. Now to establish all Christians against such devilish opinions, the Primitive Church added here diverse effectual words, it seemeth. Whereas else it had been enough to have said, He suffered under Pontius Pilate: But to express and the signify this pointe of Christian faith even for the simple more fully, there is added further, first He was Crucified: and yet further, He was Dead; yea more, He was Buryed; and finally to speak to the full, He went to the Worlde of the Dead, or among the Dead. And this last verelie is meant of the Soul of Christ, to show what it did, being now parted from the body: as the other words before are touching the visible parte his Bodye, Crucified, Dead, and Buryed. Which Bucer saw very well, Ex eo quod consitemur Dominum discendisse ad inferna intelligendum est, Dominum Spiritis suo • ta se iunxisse spiritibus mortuorum sanctorum, vtt corpore iunctus suit illorum corporibus per sepulturam. In that we believe that the Lord were unto the Dead, we understand that in his Soul he joined to the society of the Souls of the dead Saints, evē as in his body he was joined to their bodies by Burial. So that all these words in the Creed have a very profitable use and strong Emphasis for to show that Christ truly Dyed in deed, and had every way the very same condition as other mē had as touching Human nature, that so all Christians might be the better established against those Haeresies denying the same, as is aforesaid. If any say, but in this short sum there should be no repetitions at all. I have shown, that this his going among the Dead, or unto the dead, or into the Vnseene World, is most fithe to be referred to the Soul of Christ parting from his body, showing whither it went, even whither all other Good men's Souls went, to the place appointed for the Saints: thither went Christ's soul too, like other men's, being parted from his body: • is Hadou. Whereof if any do ask particularly, Whither is this? I answer, namely into heavē: For whither should the Saints go else? And thus it is no repetition of anything that particularly went before. Howbeit in the Creed there are in deed repetitions, as short a sum as it is, and yet not unprofitable. As thus, having said, He suffered, it is added, Crucified▪ and after that Dead, yea Buryed is but an addition also to signify that he was truly dead. Therefore it is possible that there might be repetitions profitable in the Creed, and namely when they be specially emphatical. [Objection.] But further you will say, this word He descended to the Dead, doeth show, it seemeth, that the place was downward, whither he went, and not upward to Heaven. [Answer.] I answer, That is nothing: So Jacob spake Eredel beni abel Sheolah: I shall go down mourning to my Son among the Dead. Yet Jacob thought not to go to Hell to his Son, but among the souls of the godly dead, that is to say into Heaven, where he knew he should be after death, & his Son he doubted not (being dead as he thought) was there already. So then this word Descending or Going down, is nothing else in this matter, but a decaying, a falling down, or a coming to an ende in this life: because they 〈…〉 and flourish here, are said to a •• 〈…〉 •• ande up, and spring up. Only this further emphasis seemeth to be in it: kateben may import that He came under the power and dominiō, as it were, of Death, although but for a while: for he could not be held thereof. Which is it, I think, that Oleuian understandeth in this place. Wherefore this phrase in the Creed, agreeth with y ^e Hebrew very fitly, whence it seemeth also to be takē. And thus mē may see, it is every way a most easy, a familiar, and usual phrase, not with the Greek only, but in proportō with the Hebrews also, I say even that in the Creed batch •• cis Hadou to signify He went unto the Dead, which we in English too corruptly use to say, He went into Hell: when as indeed here concerning Christ, it was into Heaven.

[Objection.] Lastly it may be you will say, if Christ's Soul after his death went immediately into Heaven, then he Ascended twice into Heaven: once before his resurrection, and again 40. days after it. In the Creed also then there are two articles touching this one matter of h • s Ascension. But this seemeth very untrue: specially seeing himself saith after his rising from death, I have not yet ascended. Therefore immediately after death he went not into Heaven: and if not to Heaven, then to Hell. [Answer.] I answer, notwithstanding all this, his soul might and did immediately go to Heaven. And what if in this wise he Ascended twice? what reason is against it? That is, once in his Soul alone, in the time of his death, as the souls of all the Godly besides do: and once again afterward when both Soul & Body together ascended, even as we also shall hereafter. Of this his later perfect intyre and apparent Ascension, he saith, I have not yet Ascended. Whereby he denieth not his other manner of ascending, that is in his soul only. Even as Peter denieth that David is yet ascended. He meaneth as touching his body and all: for his soul was then, and long before that (no doubt) ascended into Heaven. And thus in our Creed there may well be 2. articles, for 2. so diverse and distinct kinds of Christ's going to Heaven.

Hitherto we have waded in our first point, about the opening of the word of this Article of the Creed, he descended to Hades. Wherein it is as clear as the light at noon, that the natural, simple, proper, and true meaning thereof may be, He went unto the Dead. Now followeth our second general point, to prove that this is the very meaning thereof, and nothing else indeed. Which thus I conclude.

If this Article mean not that Christ went to Limbus, nor went into the Grave, nor his Hellish sufferings on the Cross, nor afterward locally in Hell, nor any going down locally into Hell at all: the • here is certainly meant that his soul separate frō his body did go, as other men's do, into the World of the Dead, or among the dead and nothing else.

But all those former opinions are untrue here, and not meant in the Creed.

Therefore this our last relearsed is true & is there in the Creed truly & plainly intended, & meant.

Christ went not to any Limbus s • ing y ^e faithful before Christ's time, had the same benefit of grace in effect which we since have had. Because Christ was the same yesterday, & the same today, & the same forever: and Faith, w ^e they had as well as we, was the evidence of things not seen, and the ground of things hoped for: and Abraham saw the day of Christ, and rejoiced: and the Fathers before did eat the same spiritual meat, & drank the same spiritual drink which we do: and Christ was the Sacrifice of redemption slain before the beginning of the world. Therefore by the virtue and efficacy of Christ's death, Heaven was opened to them before his Incarnation, as well as unto us since. And therefore there was no Limbus, neither could Christ go to any such place. This Article cannot be meant of the Grave, because that was most plainly and familiarlie noted before in these words, He was buried: which to repeat again in a darker & more doubtful word as Hades is, without difference added, cannot be likely. For Hades, as I said, is referred generally to the state of the Dead: that is, to the Souls as well as to the Bodies of the dead. Here are not meant Christ's Hellish sorrows and sufferings, which in deed he on the Cross endured, as we have shown in the former quaestiō. Although Master Calvin thus thought, yet surely this Article seemeth to mean another thing: (quod pace tanti viri dixerim) because 1. the word Hades signifieth not Hel peculiarly, as I have shown, but whē y ^e place doth necessarily require it. 2. If it were so, it must be here by a Figure not altogether so familiar, namely a Metaphoricall speech, which hardly may be admitted into this vulgar • nd familiar Creed. And generally it was meant and comprised in those former words, He suffered under Pontius Pilate. Last • ie, it ought not then to follow after so many Articles put in between, as Crucified, Dead, Buryed. This Article meaneth not any sufferings of Christ locally in Hell after his death on the Cross, as Illiricus thought: because y ^e Scripture saith, by the blood of his Cross he reconciled all things in heaven and in earth, and through death he destroyed him that had the power of death, and on his Cross he razed out all things that were against us, and spoiled Principalities and powers, and triumphed openly over them, and on the Cross he cried, It is finished. All this showeth that on the Cross was the last act and final accomplishment of all his sufferings. Therefore he suffered nothing after his death.

The last error that here I am to confute, is this, (which now chiefly I bend against) that which chiefly troubleth the Churches in England at this day, by reason that some men, I know not whom, have thought so. It is this, That Christ after his death went down into Hell, not to suffer, but he went to triumph, or to insult over the damned reprobate, or what to do, it is not well known, nor yet determined. Now we affirm, this also is a mere fiction, and as false as the rest. And that by diverse reasons.

First, If no Scripture prove it, then God forbid we should put this opinion among the Articles of our faith. But no Scripture proveth it: Therefore i • ought in no wise to be believed of Vs.

They allege for the Denyall of the Assumption chiefly sour texts of Scripture. But none to any purpose at all, as easily we may see. [ 1] First, Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell, (say they) but falsely and iniuriouslie to the text, as before we have declared. Our common translation hath, Thou wilt not leave my Soul in the Grave: which is not much amiss, considering the scope of the Apostle there, and the manner of Scripture-phrase sometime. But the most plain, the most natural, and familiar translation should be this (as also I have plainly noted before) Thou wilt not leave my Soul among the Dead, nor thy Holy one to see corruption▪ This is certain, it cannot be meant of Hell, as also I have proved before sufficiently. Thus therefore their first and chiefest place doeth say nothing at all for them.

[ 2] Their second is: Christ suffering for us was thanatotheis men sarks zoopotetheis do Pneumati, en ho kas 'twas en phylake pneuman poreutheis ekeryxen Apeithesais pote, hot hapax exedecheto he tou Theou makrothumta en hemerais Noah: Don to Death in the Flesh, but made alive by the Spirit, wherein he went (or, had gone) and preached to the spirits in prison Having been (or, which were disobedient in time, past when once the longe suffering of God did wait in the days of Noah. This place is as plain as may be clean to another purpose: that is Christ in his Passion died as touching his Manhood but was raised to life again by his Divine Spirit, in which in the days of Noah he went and preached to th • se who were now (in Peters time) damned souls in Hell, and had been in time past (in Noes time) disobedient, when as the long suffering of GOD waited for their repentance but all in vain. Thus here is no one word of his Souls going after death to the souls in Hell, and of his then preaching to them: as some would frō hence willingly gather. First I will prove our former translatiō & sense to be true: then, I will confute such of their chiefest reasons as they use to make frō this place for them selves. And first, If to Pneumati by y ^e Spirit be here the Divine Spirit the Godhead of Christ and not his Human Soul, thē our translation & sense is true, & theirs false. But here to Pneumati signifieth by the Divine Spirit, that is by the Godhead of Christ, and not by his Human Soul. Therefore our translation & sense is true, & theirs is false. The assumptiō only is here doubted of. But it hath many most certain proofs. First, it is most familiar & common in Scripture by Flesh to understand y ^e whole Human nature, & by Spirit the Divine nature. But where both are mentioned together oppositely, there they always & evermore signify so in Christ, and in other men Flesh always signifieth the corrupt nature wholly, the Spirit, all the regenerate parte in them. I say, these words Flesh and Spirit mentioned thus together oppositely, do never in Scripture signify the Body and Soul of a man. Therefore in this place also agreeably to the perpetual use of the Scripture besides, these words Flesh and Spirit ought to signify the Human and the Divine natures of Christ, not the 2. partes of his Humanity, his Soul and his Bodye: specially seeing no Circumstance here overthroweth this sense, as both before, and likewise presently after we shall further see. Again, the very same thing is spoken by Paul, but more expressly: He was crueified touching his infirmity, but liveth by the power of God. A place most excellent to be compared with this here in Peter. That which Peter calleth Flesh, Paul calleth infirmity, and that which Peter called Spirit, Paul calleth the power of God. That is, the one signifieth his whole Humanity, both body and Soul, the other his very Deity. And so by comparing these two most like texts, our sense is clearly justified. Thirdly, if Spirit here signify his human Soul, then of necessity you must say, He was made alive in his Soul, or by his Soul: zôopoietheis tô pneumati. But both these are wicked and false to say: First, not in his Soul, for then his soul was once dead or • all at least, because the word is zôopoietheis, He was made alive in his Soul, being don to death in his body.2. Neither can it be by his Soul, for then he lived again by the power of his Soul, and not of God, which is absurd and contrary to many Scriptures before noted. Therefore Spirit here must needs be the Godhead & Divine power of Christ, by the which he was in deed made alive after his death in his Manhood. 4. If these words Flesh and Spirit do signify here in Christ his Body and Soul, then they cannot bear any sense but such as agreeth with all other men when they die: to be dead in their bodies, but to live in their souls. But this text in these words showeth surely some singular thing happening to Christ, wherein he differed from other men: as who so veweth the place, may easily see. Therefore these words here do not signify in Christ his body and soul, but his Manhoode and Godhead. 5. All preaching is to amende the hearers, or to take away from them all excuse. This is the very nature and perpetual use of Preaching. But thus he could not preach to the Spirites in Hell. On the earth he could by his eternal Spirit in the mouth of Noah to those living then in those days, though careless and disobedient. Therefore this preaching is here meant to have been on earth in those former times, and not then in Hel. And so consequently in his Divine Spirit, & not in his Human Soul. 6. 〈◊〉 it be absurd to say, He preached to the damned in Hell who lived in Noes time, more then to the other damned: and i • there be good reason to say this of his preaching on earth in Noah's time, th •• this is meant of his Divine Spirit preaching then in the mouth of Noah, and no • of his human soul preaching after his death in Hell. But it is absurd to say, He preached in Hell to those of Noes time, more thē to the other damned there. And if you ask what reason there is to mention his preaching on earth to them of Noes time more then to all other disobedient before & since. I answer, it meaneth not but y ^t Christ preached by his divine spirit to all the rest likewise, evē frō Adam to John the Baptist: but this special instance is firly named, as being one of the most singular times of convicting the profane rebellious world. Now this reason cannot be yielded for his preaching to thē in Hell which were of Noes time, more thē to the rest: as all men of any reason do see. Therefore this place is meant of Christ's Divine Spirit, not of his Human Soul.

Now contrary wise for their reasons that this is meant of Christ's Soul preaching in Hel, the most & the best that I find are in Mr Hill, noted & confuted by Mr Humes very effectually. I will now touch but 2. of thē: because if I should deal further, I might seem to do y ^t which he hath don already.

[Objection.] First thus they say, No Passive can agree to the Deity. But made to live is here a Passive. Therefore it cannot be that the Deity is here the Spirit, in which he is said to be made alive. [Answer.] We say not, He was made alive in y ^e spirit, but by the spirit, & so ought it to be translated. Therefore this Passive is attributed to the Deity, but is the effect not of Christ's Deity in his Manhood.

[Objection.] An other objection is, that pote in time past doth distinguish apeithesasi to the disobedient with which it goeth, frō poreutheis ekeryxen he had gone and preached. [Answer.] Which is most untrue: for though pote follow apeithesasi, yet it is to evident and undeniable that this Adverb pote may have reference (and by all reason it must) to this whole clause poreutheis ekeryxen apeithesasi pote, and so distinguisheth all this from all y ^t clause next before 'twas en phylake pneunisi (where understand ousi ) and that is, to the Spirits that are in prison. And so pote plainly distinguisheth apeithesasi frō 'twas en phylake (ousi) but not frō ekeryxen. As Mr. Beza heereon doth well declare.

The other reasons, though 9. or 10. in number, are not worth the naming: yet whatsoever force is in them, Mr. Humes hath so defeated it, that I will sursease to speak anymore thereof. But thus it remaineth that this place of Peter is nothing at all for them, who moste erroneously think that Christ in his Soul went down after death, and preached in Hell.

Now the third Scripture is, Christ in that he ascended, what is it but that he • descended first into the lowest partes of the earth? Here first note the true meaning, and then the mistaking of this place. I say then these words are a reason takē frō Christ's Ascending into Heaven to prove his Descending from Heaven first. As if he should say, in as much as we see Christ our Lord's Ascending up into Heauē, it followeth that he the very same Lord Descended thence first: that we may learn by him howe humiliation goeth before glory, and submission before exaltation. Now this being all, as indeed it is in this place, there is no need to take this Descending of any local going down into Hell. But you will say, whether do the words close following cista katôtera mere tês gês, to the lower partes of the earth, add any thing in the sense further, or no? And if they do add more in the sense, how far do they signify? I answer, I see not but they may be taken most fitly to add something in the sense of that sentence before of his Descending, and yet nothing for his going to Hell. Even this (as I take it) to show more particularly howe base a Descending and coming into the world Christ had, in humbling himself even to the Grave. And so it may be very like that other place of this Apostle: He made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant and was made like unto men, and was found in shape as a man. He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, &c. Thus I say in both these places this degree of the baseness of Christ's humiliation is notably expressed: here in the Philip▪ in that he humbled himself unto death, and before in the Ephes. in that be descended even to the Grave, that is to say also unto Death.

[Objection.] But some will say, the Grave is not in the lower partes of the Earth, but always a little under the earth, that is in y ^t higher part of it. Rather Hell may be thought to be in the midst of y ^t earth. [Answer.] I answer: Takatoter a mere tes ges the lower partes of the earth, seems to me a very plain Hebraism, expressing Tachtijoth erets: which words are nowhere found for Hell, for the Grave they are found: also where in a similitude w ^t the Grave (not with Hell ) a woman's womb is called tachtijoth • rets. Like to this also is erets tachtith the Earth beneath. Now albeit Master Hill avoucheth eagerlie that these places are for Hell, yet the very several circumstances in them do plainly teach that the Grave only is there meant, and the condition of Death: as Mr. Humes doeth plainly declare against him. If a man ask, how the Grave may be called the lower part of the earth I answer, it may very well, and is in comparision of this Earth where we live, which is the higher parts of the earth: the oppositiō thus standing between y ^e Living & the Dead & between their proper habitations, not between the Living & Hell. The same sēse manifestly hath another Hebru phrase very like to this: Sheel tachtijah or tachah, where though many think Hel is signified, yet surely y ^e circumstances do convince that the Grave only is there meant, the Grave beneath: as Mr. Fulke against Gr. Martin doth cleerlie prove. Which also we shall further declare & make manifest by y ^t phrase in the heart of the earth, as we shall see presently in the answer to the next Scripture objected afterward. But if any yet say touching this, y ^t here is opposed Christ's lowest debasing to his high • l ascending. Now Hell is the lowest debasing of Christ, not y ^e Grave. Therefore Hell is here understood, & not the Grave. Surely thus by this reason it must follow y ^t Christ not only was in Hell, but y ^t he suffered also in Hell. For indeed it was a far greater humiliatiō of Christ to suffer the pains of Hel (which we have proved before that he might & did suffer indeed) thē to be locally in Hell with triumph without suffering. But it is most false & injurious to Christ's death to say, he suffered in the lower parts of the Earth, taking the same for Hell. Therefore his debasemēt here we take in the estimatiō of the world, y ^t is so far as they might sensibly conceive of his miserable & base condition. Now that could be no lower thē the Grave. As for Hel, both his going thither, & his suffering of it, whether in y ^• very place, or out of the place, all this was insensible to the world, & not coming within their estimation: & so not here spoken of nor intended, where only the apparent baseness of Christ is compared with the apparent going up of Christ above the sensible Heavens. Thus do I judge that the descēding of Christ to the lower parts of the earth may be taken truly, plainly, and as is agreeable to the Hebrew phrase whence surely this Greek phrase ariseth, namely for Christ's humiliation even unto the Grave, that is to become under the power of Death Howbeit some do think, it may be takē as directly alluding to that metaphorical Hebrew phrase tachtijotherets, the lower partes of the earth, where David meaneth his mothers womb, where he took flesh & so came into this world of men. And then likewise Paul here meaneth only Christ's taking our flesh, & his coming into this our world, in that he saith he descended to the lower partes of the earth. So also y ^t sense of these scrip may be fitly compared withit. No man ascendeth up to Heaven but he that descended from Heaven, the Son of man which is in Heaven. And I came out from the Father and came into the world: again I leave the world, and go to the Father. Even so these words, He descended to the lower partes of the Earth with opposition to his Ascending into Heauē, in this sense may signify generally his abasement, in taking flesh in his mothers womb, and so his coming into this our world, before he was exalted in his Ascension. Lastly others do think, that this Greek 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 phrase eis katotera mere tes ges, to the lower part •• of the earth, is no Hebraism, but only a figure of speech in the Greek, a kind of Hypallage: the lower partes of the earth, for the Earth which is the lower partes of the world. And so both these later senses do add nothing in signification touching Christ's Descending or his coming from Heaven into this world: but they mean only and generally, He first descended before he ascended. And this last sense amplifyeth it (as it were) by a kind of description, showing what this world, or this earth is where we live, and whither Christ descended; even the lower partes of the world in comparison of the Heavens whence he descended, and whither afterward from the earth he went up again.

Either of these two later senses might here very well serve: but I judge rather the first to be likeliest. Howsoever it be, to dream here of Hel there is no reason. And this we shall make further to appear by confuting the next and last objection of Mat. 12.40.

In this place therefore Christ is said to have been three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth. What is that, but in the midst of the earth? And how was Christ there, unless he were there in Hell? I answer, this also is a manifest Hebraism, like to that: Tyrus was very glorious in the heart of the Seas: beleb iammim. Tyrus was not in the deep of the sea, nor in the midst of the sea, for it stood close by the continent land, as Geography teacheth us: but the Prophets meaning by that phrase is, that Tyrus was compassed about with the Sea, though standing near to the Sea shore. Even so Christ in his Grave may well be said to be in the heart of the earth after that phrase: that is compassed about with the earth though far from the midst of the earth, even a little beneath the vpmost parte of the same, as Graues are wont to be made. Further this cannot possibly be meant of Christ's Soul going into Hell, because the Jews here asked Christ for a visible sign, & he said he would give them a sign: that is to say a visible miracle. Now this miracle was, how Christ should be 3. days & 3. nights buried in the earth, and then rise again to life: like Jonah's coming again into the world after he had been 3. days and 3. nights in the Fishes belly. In this only he would condescend unto them, and give them only this visible sign, like as they craved, but not anymore. Therefore this cannot be any going to Hell and coming thence again: for that had ben utterly no visible sign, neither had he answered any whit to their desire at all, as the text saith he did, namely to give them this one sign only so as they desired, and as might be cōparable in their sense to that of Jonah. Again if here the heart of the earth be Hell, then was Christ all the time of his death in Hell even till the moment of his resurrection, which thing the chief defendors of this dream dare not avouch: and that of Luke refuteth it, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise: as anon God willing, we shall further see. Therefore the heart of the earth here must not in any wise be takē for Hell. Which also that speech of Christ now a dying, Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit, doth evidently prove. Where Christ showeth (according to the usual phrase of men in such a case) that he hoped presently to go to Heaven. No man thinketh to go to Hell, whē he saith, Lord into thy hands I commend my Soul: no more therefore now did Christ, as is further shown afterward. Lastly, both against this and that last before, thus I reason: If these Texts speak of Hell, then certainly Hell is in the lowest partes of the earth, in the midst of the earth. But it could never be affirmed directly and precisely that Hell is in the midst or deepest of the earth. Nay it is most false: For the Devils are holden in Hell. But the Devils are locallie on the earth, and in the air. [Objection.] Therefore Hell is not precisely in the middost of the Earth. Some will say, Hell is beneath, as the Scripture teacheth. [Answer.] I answer, if you translate that so, yet it saith not Hell beneath us, but Hell beneath. That is in comparison of Heaven, which is on Highe: so Hell may be downewarde from Heaven, but he saith not in respect of us here on earth. Secondly, They who take this for the Grave, and the Bodilie destruction (as the word in deed very often, and familiarlie doeth also signify) do easily avoid this Objection. Thirdly, it is not the vnlikeliest to hold, that She • l here signifying the state of death or destruction in this world, Mattah, declining or downward: Considering also and comparing the former parte of this verse with this later, & the next following likewise: It seemeth the wise man saith: The way of life to the wise tendeth after things on high, whereby he escapeth destruction, the way whereof is groveling on the earth, and seeketh not the things that are above, which bring life, but the things that are beneath, which are snares of death. And thus here may be some affinity with the Exhortation to seek the things above, and not the things that be earthly beneath. But here is no local assignation for Hell. [Objection.] You will say, Where then is Hell, is there no certain local place of torments to the reprobates now? [Answer.] We doubt not but the wicked and the Devils are now locally tormented in some certain place, & shall be after this world ended: but where this is the Scripture teacheth not, neither ought we to inquire after it, but to learn howe by all means to avoid it.

Thus far the Scriptures have been examined, and nothing in them is found to prove Christ's Souls going to Hell. Wich above all things ought to be; I say somewhat ought to be in Scripture for it, if we will have such an Article of our faith. And I demand, are not they Haretikes that will needs hold an Article of Faith merely without Scripture, as well as they that will not receive something expressed in Scripture? Well: to believe therefore any article of our faith, it is requisite that we have the Scriptures warrant. Yea further, It ought not only to be in the Scripture, but it ought to be very plain, express, and most easy to be proved out of Scripture: or else in no wise to make it a main Article of our common Faith. But all men know, and our Adversaries herein confess y ^t it is a hard, a doubtful, and a very intricat point, and with much difficulty to be proved in scripture, that Christ's Soul went down into Hell. Therefore them selves grant in effect that this doctrine ought not to be any part of our common Creed.

Nay further I urge, if we consider the Scriptures vnpartiallie, we do find diverse singular places in them against this doctrine, proving y ^t his soul after his death was not in Hell. First, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. This is spoken of the Humanity of Christ. But not of his Body which lay in the Grave: Therefore of his Soul, that it went the same day presently into Paradise and then not into Hell. If you deny that this is meant of his Humanity, I prove it most plainly. 1. This Participle Meta, is more pregnant then Sun, to signify a mutual participation of somewhat. So that if we note the emphasis of this phrase well, met' emou ese is as much as to say This day I shall have parte with thee, and thou with me of a blessed change, that is, from this miserable Cross which now we both suffer, to Paradise, whither we shall both go hence presently. But this is true of his Human Soul, not of his Deity, to participate with the Thief, and the Thief with him both in sorrow & joy. Therefore he meaneth here his Soul shall be presently today in Paradise. Again, this speech is directly and purposely a Consolation to the Holy Thief, certifying him that he should see quickly an alteration in the things that now he sorrowed for. But he sorrowed grievously both for his own misery and for Christ's most unworthy torments, as may be seen presently before y ^t he received this consolation. Therefore this Consolation showeth him, that Christ should be translated also as well as him self very quickly from the Cross into glory. Lastly, the good Theef saith to Christ as Man being yet in misery, but believing he should shortly be in glory, Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. As if he should say, Lord, I se • well thy woeful misery now, but I know thou shalt hence go into thy glorious kingdom: remember me therefore when thou comest thither. This is now alltogeather of Christ's Manhood. Must not Christ's answer be just to his sense, Speciallie seeing he answereth to Comfort him in his forenoted grief? Yes verelie. He answereth therefore to this effect. Be of good cheer, this day I shall in deed come into my kingdom, and thyself with me. That is Me, whom now thou grieuest to see thus afflicted, & whō thou belieuest to go hence to a kingdom, even me, though now in deed an afflicted man, yet today thou shalt see in my kingdom in Paradise. And therefore this word semeron today seemeth also to have a contrary reference to this his state now, and this now, contrary to that today ensuing quickly afterward. As if he should say, Now afflicted, but presently anon in glory. All this must needs be of his Human Soul verily without all question: There is none can consider herein his Deity. If any think his Soul might go to Hell first, and yet presently go thence to Heauē yer night also. That is ridiculous and toyish: it needeth marvelous plain scripture to describe that, or else we ought to hold it as a singular fable. It was now within 2. or 3. hours of the days ende, when Christ spake this: so that he had need to go quick, & come quick, and tarie but a little there. Well this place thē I doubt not, is very plain against Christ's Souls descending into Hell.

[ 2] Likewise Father into thy hands I commend my Soul. What if God's hand sometime doth signify his general protection only and government? But consider the present circumstance here: Christ was now on the Cross so pitifully oppressed with sorrows, as that he seemed a forlorn man, & forsakē not of men only, but of God to: yet he even now being about to yield up his life to death, lifting up his heart to God in peace and great assurance, saith, Father into thy hands I commend my soul. Tell me, do men use thus to say when they think to go to Hell, or do they not hope presently to inioye Heaven? And what else did Stephan, saying, Lord, receive my Spirit. Men in such case when they speak thus, declare a certain hope in thē that they shall speedily be released from their sorrows, and received into joys with God in Heaven. Thus is God's hand taken here agreeablie to this common phrase of men. As also the Scripture hath it In thy presence is fullness of joy, and at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore. Wherefore Christ now hanging here on the Cross, and ready to die, understandeth God's hand surly in this manner.

There is no man of sense considering these circumstances that can judge otherwise. God's hands thetfore we say in this case signifieth the means whereby he taketh his servants to him self, and holdeth them with him self as his own possessions, coming out of tribulation, wherein while they were, they seemed far of from God, and as it were out of his hand and possession, & subject to their enemies power: but now commending their Souls into God's hand, they declare their desire and hope to be rid from these separations, and to be there where they desire, that is received by God's hand into his joyful presence and heavenly possession.

[Objection.] But they will say, David from whom these words are taken, did not presently after he spake thus, go to Heaven. No more then may we think that Christ did. [Answer.] If David thē presently went not to Heaven, What then? I hope he went not to Hell, neither thought he of Hell when he spake so. Howsoever it was, this I say, if David were now a giving up the ghost, as Christ was when he thus spake, doubtless then he meant thereby that presently he hoped for Heaven. I grant men sometime though not a dying, but being in grievous anguish and dangerous troubles which often times bring even death with them, then also they will commend their Soul into the hands of God. And so might David in this place whence Christ taketh this sentence: and yet nevertheless he desired and hoped for present release, and instead of his sorrow, present enjoining of the Lord's comfort and joyful favor. Which in a measure and proportion is answereable to the attaining of Heauē, which they have who depart hence. If any say, the Greek word in the text parathesomas is I will commend: noting that he looked not for present and immediate entering into Heaven, but in time hereafter. That is a most vain and ignorant cavillation, proceeding from not considering the Hebraism there in. For David in like manner hath aphkid, a word Future in form, but of the prasent time in sense, as is most frequent with the Hebrews, and as the very circumstances here do require it to be.

[ 3] Third: In Luke we see a general and eternal Law set estersktai between Hell and Heaven, that none in Hell can come to Heaven, nor out of Heaven into Hell. This Law I say is confirmed more surely then that of the Medes & Persians which also might not be broken. Therefore Christ brake it not, neither went he down into Hell at all. [Objection.] If any say, true it is, this a general and eternal Law for all other Creatures, that they can never pass to and fro being once in Hell. But Christ being the Son of God herein was priuileged above all other men, this was a thing peculiar to him. [Answer.] Is that a privilege for Christ to go into Hell, and to come thence again? A worthy privilege surely, and very honorable. All men would think it a greater honor never to have come in Hell at all. But seeing it is so flatly contrary to so general a Law, it behooveth you to have most clear evidence and plain proof in the word to affirm it, or else we have great cause to abhor it and to hold it no prerogative, but a thing very injurious and derogatory to the Man which was also the Son of God. Now what evidence and proof you have for it which defend it, we have seen and tried to be more then vain, if we note them with any indifferency. Seeing therefore he which was like us in all things (sin only excepted) hath left him self no witness of this most strange and wondrous difference in him, why should we dream of such an extraordinary case so presumptuously? [ 1] Further I reason thus: If he triumphed not in Hell, he went not into Hell. But he triumphed not in Hell. Therefore he went not into Hell at all. The Assumption is proved: first, Seeing Triumph is a word taken from the custom of men of war, who having in battle conquered their enemies do use to triumph over them. And this their Triumph men use to make in the presence of such, as to whom the glory thereof doeth in parte appertain. But in Hell there were none with Christ in whose presence he should triumph, and to whom some parte of his glory might belong. There were none besides, but the Devils and damned souls. [ 2] Therefore it is absurd to say Christ triumphed in Hell. A again, where Christ actually & meerlie triumphed there began his glorification. But is it not absurd, vea of all absurdities the greatest to say Hell was the beginning of Christ's glorification. Therefore certainly Christ did not triumph in Hell. [Objection.] Some will say he might as well triumph in Hell, as on the Cross. Howe could Christ triumph on the Cross, as we interpret that he did: He triumphed on the same Cross. He was there in sore torments, and in most pitious plight. Call ye that a triumph? [Answer.] I answer, we never said, nor the Apostle meant that Christ triumphed actually on the Cross, but virtually as I may say. That is the virtue and efficacy of that death did not bring destruction to the sufferer but to the Doer and to the executioner, that is to the Devil: with whom he spiritually combated there even until death, and by death was not vanquished, but did vanquish him that had the power of death, that is the Devil: and him self triumphed. Which effect is contrary in all other battaills and conflicts. For with us they who are slain in fright, are conquered, and the suruiuer triumpheth.

But the Holy Ghost giveth us to know • the contrary touching Christ and his sufferings. For his suffering was his victory, & his dying his triumph. But he meaneth not actually: for while he suffered, and while he died, this was a miserable triumph: and still he suffered, even till he gave up the Ghost. Therefore the meaning here is not of any actual triumph: but only by virtue of that which there he suffered, he triumphed indeed, and the Cross whereon he was lifted up was like a triumphing Chariot. All this is thus named because the effect of those sufferings simply was the moste perfect treading under feet of Satan and of all infernal powers. But now his triumphing in Hell can be nothing so. Either in Hell it was actual, which is monstrous absurd: for then Hell was the entrance of his Glor • fying, which all the world knoweth is the moste inglorious and vilest debasinge. Or at least his very presence was meritorious, and virtually triumphant: and this is flatly blasphemous against the all sufficient merit of the Cross of Christ.

Here some will ask, howe doth this derogate from the Cross of Christ, if he triumphed in Hell? Because he triumphed on his Cross, yea perfitlie: therefore he did not in Hell. [Objection.] But it is doubted, yea denied that Christ triūphed at all on the Cross. [Answer.] Let the Scripture then speak: • o en hypenantion hemin whatsoever was any way against us he took it out of the way, and fastened it to the Cross, having spoiled Principalities and powers, made a show of them openly, and hath triumphed over them in the same Cross. They except here against this translation, namely of the last words, as if the true reading were not en auto in the same with reference to Cross, but en hauto in himself. We answer: First, Howsoever the reading be, this doctrine cannot be impeached notwithstanding, that Christ o • the Cross did all those meritorious and triumphant actions over sin and Satan which are here in the Colossians specified. I say this doctrine is manifest still, even by the express words which are there found: If you translate he triumphed in himself, the meaning is by himself there on the Cross. For all those words & phrases they have apparent & undeniable cohaerence and certain reference to that time and place: He put out the hand writing of ordinances that was any way against us, he even took it out of the way fastening it to the Cross having (then also) spoiled Principalityes and powers, he made a show of thē openly having triumphed over them by himself. By himself? where? even there on the Cross most apparently. For where he took away all things that made any way against us, there he spoiled the Devils & triumphed over thē: all the words here being jointly of one and the same time, and that also not the future but the time now past. But he took away all things any 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 way against us on the Cross, and fastened the hand writing of our inditement is the Cross, the text saith. Therefore all the rest was there don also. Wherevnto other Scriptures also beeinge compared do give further light. Through death he destroyed, not simply conquered, but destroyed and abolished him that had the power of death, that is the Devil. And this is the true sense also of that final speech of his, being about to strike the last blow at his adversary, It is finished. What is finished? surely all that he had to do with any adversary, or any contrary thing to our freedom, even there and then he finished it. And hereof is that vehemente speech of Christ though spoken before he was apprehended: Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince of this world be cast out. He saith cast out, as if he never appeared anymore in his sight after that most absolute victory on the Cross: for thereof he speaketh in this place, as before we have seen. Thus then appeareth plainly this doctrine, that Christ on the Cross did all and everyone of his victorious actions against Sathā, & wrought meritoriously our full deliverance frō him, so that no • ot of his right nor power against us remained after that, but there he spoiled him, there he confidently triumphed, and made a show openly of him, and trode him under foot forever: he so beat him & so destroyed his power that there was no fear y ^t anything should once stir against him or us afterward. This is meant by Christ's triumphing on the Cross. For else indeed a pitions triumph it was, where himself remained in such woeful torments, where appeared no show of conquest, but rather of being conquered. Therefore this is spoken in regard of the effect which came of this action, not of the simple action (or rather passion ) itself. What effect? An effect rare and strange, nothing like, yea contrary to that which happeneth in like case amongst men. When they in fight are beaten, & wounded, and slain, they are conquered: but Christ even in being beaten, and wounded, and slain, therein he conquered, and triumphed, and led openly his enemies in captivity. Now he saith openly, not that Christ did this openly and evidently to our senses, but alluding to the manner of conquerors in their triumphs, who lead in open show those enemies which henceforth cannot once strirre against them anymore: so he signifieth that the effect of Christ's very death was such and so forcible indeed, and fully to be compared with these doings of perfect conquerors: and therefore most emphatically he setteth it out in these terms.

Thus far this doctrine is justified of Christ's triumphing on the Cross, howsoever the reading be in those last words of that text. Howbeit the truth is, this reading en auto in the same Cross, which we in our common translations use after Beza, is no forgery of Beza. But that noble instrument of God doeth show, as many other things most worthy and profitable to the Church of God, so this to be no new, but a most ancient, and in all likelihood, the common reading in old time, or at least to that very effect. Oecumenius the Greek Scholiast doeth both read and interpret this place plainly thus: who commonly showeth what the Greek Churches use was Origen who was far elder, if he read not en auto in the same Cross, yet he read e • xylo in ligno on the tree, which in effect is all one. And thus not only Origen, but also Cyprian, Jerome, with many others. So that if a Romish Priest had traduced M ^r Beza for leaving here their vulgar Latin translation, it had been shameful wrong to that faithful servant of God: Howe much more when brethrē, as they seem, do so disgrace him, or rather the truth of God in him? Thus then it is manifest that Christ triumphed over Satan on the Cross. And then to do it again in Hell, were superfluous and vain: nay it were injurious to the Cross of Christ, as if it were not sufficiently nor perfitely there done.

[Objection.] If any say, That parable in the Gospel signifieth as much, that Christ bound the Devil in Hell. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, the things that he possesseth are in peace. But when a stronger then he cometh upon him, and overcometh him, he taketh from him, all his armor, and divideth his spoils. This strong man's Palace is Hell, where Christ, which is the stronger man coming upon Satan, spoileth him, &c. [Answer.] A fine toy, or rather a shameful gloze, by unsavory Allegorizing so to corrupt the text. Is this a good way to prove articles of Faith, viz. by allegories? A better sense hereof may be given, and more to Christ's purpose. That is, Christ really dispossessed Satā out of some in those times that were once really possessed, but afterward by him, a stronger then Satan, clearly freed. Also consequently it may be meant of the Spiritual casting out of Sathā out of God's elect, who by Nature through sin hath possession of all men: but by God's grace and the Ministry of his word, he is cast out when Christ calleth us and sanctifieth us unto himself. Wherefore in a word there is no hold for you in the Scriptures, but they are utterly against all going down of Christ into Hell.

[ 3] Which we may gather likewise by the History of the Evangelists, who write the doeings of Christ exactlie, all that we ought to believe: and of all other, his Death and Resurrection most specially. But in all of them there is not a word of any going down to Hell. Therefore there is no such thing to be believed.

[ 4] Which also may further appear by that singular recapitulatiō in the Apostle of certain precise Articles of our faith, and namely of these wherein Christ's full victory for our perfect deliverance is orderlie and sufficiently set down, as the Church it seemeth generally held in those times. I have chiefly delivered unto you, that which I have received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture, and that he was buried, and that he arose the third day according to the Scriptures. This was the full foundation of Faith in those days, by which if a man believed he might be saved, and which if he believed not, he believed in vain. Whence it ariseth that Paul had here great and just occasion to have specified this several and weighty Article, that Christ went also into Hell, if any such thing were then believed. He nameth the Articles both before and after this. His Dying, Burial, and Resurrection: he ought not to have skipped his Going into Hell, to save us from Hell, if those words in our common Creed had any such meaning, if it had any diverse meaning from all those mentioned articles, and so weighty a sense as some suppose. It will not be excused to say. The Apostle meant here to prove our Resurrection only: and therefore would speak of purpose, but only of Christ's Death and Resurrection, from whence he might argue ours likewise. I grant that this is his main purpose in deed: but when he saith, Except you have believed in vain, he meaneth that we bleeeue in vain, not only if we hold not the Resurrection, but also if we hold not those special Articles of Faith touching Christ's sufferings and victory for us, which there presently he nameth: and consequently if we hold them, then that we believe not in vain, but even those to be sufficient. Whence it followeth, and it is most certain, that their fancy of Christ's going down into Hell, is superfluous, and excluded out of this undoubted Apostles Creed, and out of the Holy Scriptures.

Thus far we have seen the Scriptures against this device: Now it were good to see if there be any use at all or Ende, that his Descendinge into Hell may have. [ 5] If there can be no ende nor use at all, no benefit to the Godly thereby, then it is idle, and vain, and a very dream, and nothing else. But there can be no certain use at all, and especially no commodity nor benefit to the Godly by it. Therefore it is a dream. For what good is there so much as pretended? The general Redemption of all God's elect & chosen people was wrought and fully finished on the Cross, even to the Cancelling of the very writings, and taking away of whatsoever was any way against us: as hath been shown before. What could his going down into Hell add more? Neither was it any peculiar good to the godly then deceased before: for they were all in Heaven immediately even then, as well as we that die since: as we have proved already. If then it be no way profitable to any of God's children, what if it were so that the Devils and reprobate in Hel might be more confounded by such his local descending? yet see I not, neither can I believe howe it may be among the Articles of our Creed, all which in truth avail singularly to God's own children's special good. It cannot be I say in the Articles of our faith, if it directly profit not the Godly. Yea and touching the further daunting and confounding of the damned; that is a silly shift God knoweth, & y ^e vaynest reason of all, that Christ should go to triumph and insule vpō the thrice miserable and woeful wretches in their present unspeakable Damnation infinitlie confounded already. Sure a very sorry triumph this were for the Son of GOD, which even among mē were nothing but dishonorable. Yea a beast, the Lyon, they say, having but the instinct of Nature, yet he refuseth to insult and pray upon the pitiefull & helpless creatures. And would the Lion of the Tribe of Judah take pleasure to go thither only to insult farther upon the miserable damned? I deny not but the wicked in torments might conceive further horror, and the blessed in heavē further joys by the actual death of Christ: but that might full easily be by the virtue and efficacy of the power of the Godhead deriving some fence thereof to all, howe and when it pleaseth him. There needed no local Descending into Hell, nor Ascending to Heaven for that matter. [ 5] Neither in deed did he Descende, because it is certain he did not Ascende for any such purpose, for ought that we anywhere read. [ 6] Neither surely should the Damned have been visited first, and the Blessed last, yea so long after, that is 40. days after his death was past. But contrariwise the Godly in all reason should first have had his presence to certify them, and then the wicked afterward, if any such local coming and going for giving notice had been required. Wherefore this remaineth that there was no use, no good at all by Christ's Souls descending into Hell. And M ^r Hill in saying He thereby personally redeemed us frō Hell, and If Christ's Soul had not, David's Soul must, and his, & ours have gone to Hell, doth no less then derogate frō the Cross of Christ, and blaspheme his all sufficient death. [ 7] Also if his Soul must go thither of necessity to save our souls thence, why went not his Body too, for to save our bodies thence? But of these presumptuous & gross vanities we have said enough, & to much already, but that necessity hath enforced us.

Howbeit yet let us go a little further. The Creed it self being viewed and marked, will plainly yield another meaning of these words, through a right distributing of the Articles thereof: viz. those that concern Christ's Office in being our Savior and Redeemer. [ 9] These are all of 2. sortes: some touching his Humiliation, and some his Glorificatiō. The Articles of Christ's Humiliation I suppose every sensible man will confess to be these, He suffered, was Crucifyed, Dead, Buryed, Descended to the Dead, or to Hell: and those of his Glorification to be only these: The third day he rose again, he Ascended into Heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of God, and thence he shall come to judgment. Which if it be the very natural and necessary Division of these Articles of the Creed, as it is in deed, thē this overthroweth wholly their opiniō, and stablisheth ours, that Christ went not down into Hell: namely not to triumph, for then this was not the lowest point of his Humiliatiō, but the first of his Glorification. Which can stand with no sense in this place: & therefore he descended not by our very Creeds into Hell at all.

[ 10] Moreover we find almost all the Creeds and Rules of Christian faith, certainly the most & the ancientest & the best (beside this called the Apostoli • e Creed ) to want these words of Christ's descending altogether. These Creedes or sums of our faith we find i • Ignatius, Irenaeus, Just. Mart. Tertull. Origen, Athanas Augustine Symbol: Nic. Constantinop: 1. Toletan. 1. and Ephesin: 1. &c. Which whosoever did hold, they were ever acknowledged true and sound Christians. And God forbid that such precise and exact Summaries of Christianity should be thought defectine in any needful point. Therefore all these never thought that Christ's going down into Hell as some now urge it) was any distinct and certain Article of Christiā faith. But how then is it possible that these perfect and famous Creed should want that which our common Creed hath? Surely Ruffinus showeth, Vis verbi eadem videtur esse, in co quod sepultus dicitur. The effect of this Article He descended to Infernum seemeth (saith he) to be the same with this, He was baryed Whereby even the Ancients do appear to consent with us here in effect, that these words of Christ's going to Hades or Insernum in our Creed do signify no more in deed, then the former words there signified, and that this was added but for Emphasis sake to show more plainly that he was truly dead in deed, as we before observed. And certainly unless this were so, all those moste excellent Creedes before mentioned, ought not in any wise so utterly to want it, as they do. Also howe generally this was wantinge, Ruffinus showeth heerewithall, Sciēdum sane est quod in Ecclesiae Romana Symbolo non habetur additum, Descendit ad inserna, sed nec in Orientis Lcelesus habetur hic Sermo: We must know verily, that the Church of Rome's Creed hath not this added, He went unto the Dead, neither is this clause in the East Churches. But so generally, and so far and wide in the Cristian world, a necessary Article, distinct from the rest, neither was, nor could be wanting: specially seeing they all found it in the Apostolic Creed expressly put in. Therefore it must needs be, I think, they all took it but to signify in effect the same as Dead and Buryed: yea even in the common Creed called Apostolic. And therefore they sometime used those express words, & sometime they used them not: and yet they never differed, they neither aboūded nor wanted in their main sense. And so it could not mean with them, that Christ went to Hell.

[Objection.] Now it remaineth vt res ad Triarios redeat, that this matter may be holpen with the last, the best, & the only succor: that is some of the particular Fathers. What say they? Do they teach that Christ after death, went down into Hell. [Answer.] I deny that also: the Fathers teach not so. Taking Hell as in English properly we always mean, for the very place of the damned. I grant many of them thought that he went to Limbus patrum: though this name be not found in them, but was framed by the Schoolmen since. Howbeit such a place they dreamed of, as was out of Hoauen, they thought in y ^t deep of the earth, whence he fetched the souls of y ^t Patriarchs out, & carried thē up with him to Heaven. Which opinion the Papists have laid fast hold on since evē till this day, having also increased it with other fables. And thus in deed some of y ^t Auncients imagined & guessed by reason of their mistaking of the Greek Hades in the common Creed, and in the Scriptures, and somewhat also by mistaking the old use of the Latin Insert, wherewith they commonly used to translate Hades, as before I have largely declared. When they once mistook these words, and specially Hades, to signify Hell properly, then they could not but devise some likely matter of it, & some purpose for it, which else had been ridiculous. And yet even herein they spake waueringlie & ambiguouslie: a token indeed that they spake they knew not what, as in Augustine we may see. But I hope with us everywhere esthaec tampridem explosa sententia est, This old rotten error is abhorred: which I also have refuted briefly before. How be it in a word, the Fathers knew not this our present opinion in Controuersie now, that he went locallie into the Hell of the damned, and not to any Limbus. Herein they that hold against us have no help at the Fathers hands, whatsoever they pretend. It begā not I suppose till about Ma • Luhers time, when they saw somewhat of the Popish errors herein, but could not presently be purged from all their filth. Now since that time diverse of our Protestants, though they l • s in deed the old Popish Lambo, yet not discerning but that surly Christ went into Hell after death (because I think sundry of the Fathers in words make show of some such uncouth thing) therefore they devised a fresh howe this might be, and wherefore. Some thought to suffer torments there, some not to suffer in any wise, but to triumph forsooth in Hell, and some knew not why he went to Hell, but thither he went they thought. And some, that he went and came again from thence presently, not staying two hours in Hell: others that he stayed there all the while till his Resurrection. In the ende of Master Humes against. D. Hill, we may see how diuerslie they thought herein who were the defendours, yea the beginners of this opinion. Scarce any of them agree with another, it seemeth: & with those of us in England that lean this way, not one of thē all that are strangers, do seem fully to consent. But whether they do or no, whether any of the old or new Writers say of or on, it maketh no great matter. We have learned Christ Jesus otherwise, thē to stay our holy faith on the credit of any man, or men. Our treatise I hope before grounded wholly on God's word, hath sufficiently cleared this point to be but a devise of mē, a mere forgery, & no truth in Religion at all: yea & so much the more hateful, as that it is urged to be taken as one of the Articles of faith. In which our denial neither want we the consent of mē. The Ancients we have noted before: the late Godly Christians are many & most famous that give their joint consent with us herein. The best reformed Churches, the French, Dutch, Heluetian, and Scottish, with all their most worthy and learned Pastors in them are with us. And to speak of our selves in England: first all our most famous & learned Teachers in her Maiest▪ time have so taught, Mr Fulk, Mr. Whitaker's, Mr Rainolds, Mr Deering, &c. Mr Nowel some think holdeth contrary. The good old Father liveth, and therefore himself can show his own mind therein best. As for his words that be extant, they prove it not: Christ's soul being separate frō his body descendit ad inferos: which we may well interpret thus, it went unto the Dead. or among the Dead, as we have shown before that Inferi or Infernum may signify. And specially we may think his meaning in those words was not against the manifest meaning of our whole Synod: whose doctrine was well known to him, and is our public doctrine, and established by Law in England.

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉

This Synod apparātly renounceth this doctrine of Christ's going down to the Hell of the damned. But howe appeareth it? Even thus: The Synod before holden in K. Edward's time affirmed this doctrine directly and expressly. This Synod coming after doth correct and amend this very article of the former. It repeateth and ratifieth parte thereof in express words: but parte of it, even all and every whit that containeth this doctrine expressly of Christ's going down to the Hell of the damned, all this I say, our Synod cutteth of, it putteth out, it casteth away. Therefore our Synod renounceth apparently this sense of the Creed, that Christ defended to the Hell of the damned. The words are these of the former Synod: Quemadmodum Christus pro nobis mortuus est & sepultus, ita est etiam credendus ad inferos descendisse. Nam Corpus vsque ad resuriectionem in sepulchro iacuit, spiritus ab illo emissus cum spiritibus qui in carcere sieve in inferno detine hantur suit, illis{que} praedicauit, quemadmodum testator Petri locus. In which last words they in deed expressly determine that Christ went in his soul after death into the Hell of the damned: and no marvel in them, who did but newlie peep out of Popery. But our Synod since correcteth it herein, and saith but thus only, Quemadmodum Christus pro nobis mortuus est & sepultus, ita est etiam credendus ad inferos descēdisse: As Christ died for us and was buried, so we are to believe also that he went unto the Dead. That he went into the Hell of the damned, which followed expressly in all the next words, this they wholly corrected, suppressed, and refused. This therefore in them is seen manifestly (as I said) to renounce and abrogate this particular sense of Christ's descending, that he went after death into Hell. If any say, [Objection.] Our Synod leaveth it free to any convenient sense, it denieth none. [Answer.] First, then it is granted, as in deed it is true, they would have none punished for holding any probable sense herein, though he think not that Christ went into Hell. Secondly, I say this is true also and manifest by the praemisses, that they leave in deed this Article of our Creed to any convenient sense, they deny none, saving only this which before in K. Edward's time was expressly commanded, and is here with us specially put out. By putting it out, they deny this apparantlie. Therefore I conclude, if we note this well, it cannot be denied but the public sentence of our Churches, yea the Law of our Land confirming the same, as well as the Holy Scripture which is the Law of God, is against this opinion of Christ's descending into Hell.

All which being duly considered, I marvel that a man of learning and wisdom as he is thought, who hath openly impugned this doctrine of late, would so 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 rashlie run into these errors, and so vainly defend them afterwards, that he would rather God's Church should be pitiously disturbed about them, as now it is, then that his ill conceits should be kept to himself. And for my parte, my trust is, that in resisting these sansies and notable errors of Christ's suffering for us only in Flesh, and of his Soul descending into Hell, savoring so strongly of Popery, and vanity, I have done according to my power without respect of persons, but what in conscience I owe both to God, and to his Church, & to our whole state. And thus the Lord in mercy will yet (I doubt not) beat down error, and advance his truth still, yea even by making things that are not to bring to naught things that are, that his own Name may have all the glory. Amen.

Pagin.	Lin.	Faultes:	Corections.
9	19.	the seed of Angels	the Angels,
9.	16	against his ou • body	against his own body,
37.	y e last	for him us.	him for us.
63.	31.	put out two things
68.	30.	contrary ha • te	contrite heart
73.		See pag 49.	See pag. 50.
74.	25.	signified	signifieth
86.	29.	object	object
97.	23.	heme	eme
111.	15.	executed	exercised
111.	28.	"former	former
111.	29.	falleth	"falleth
121.	9.	the death,	the dead,
127.	20.	the signify	to signify
139.	9.	attributed	not attributed
139.	10.	not of	of
31.	32.	after outward indeed,	read yea only his very Death, yet &c.
50.	33.	after not possible	read therefore
52.	18.	after willing purpose:	read yea against his moste holy patience, & heavenly fortitude: